Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:18:14.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Boncompagno‘s ‘Newest Rhetoric’?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Terence O. Tunberg
Terence O. Tunberg*
Affiliation:
Toronto, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The intensification of intellectual endeavour which characterises the twelfth century is manifested in the art of rhetoric no less than in the other fields of learning. Two new types of theoretical manual represent the trends of twelfth-century rhetoric: the artes dictandi, which apply rhetorical doctrine to the composition of letters and documents, and the artes poetrie, which are primarily concerned with the writing of verse. This creative momentum continued after 1200, particularly in Italy, where dictamen underwent rapid development. There the ars notarie emerged as a semi-autonomous discipline, which was exclusively devoted to the composition of legal documents. Moreover, Italian dictatores of the thirteenth century began to turn their attention to secular speeches, creating a new offshoot of dictamen which is sometimes called the ars arengandi. Boncompagno of Signa's Rhetorica novissima (finished in 1235) is by far the most ambitious of these new treatises on public speaking. Most of the early works on oratory are collections of models, consisting either of exordia or of entire speeches. The Rhetorica novissima, however, not only provides models, but attempts to lay out a completely new theoretical foundation for the art of speech-making.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 42 , 1986 , pp. 299 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © The Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 But see Patt, W. D., ‘The Early Ars dictaminis as Response to a Changing Society,’ Viator 9 (1978) 133–55, who makes a strong case for the continuity of dictamen with earlier rhetorical traditions.Google Scholar

2 For the ars notarie , see Dibben, L. B., ‘Secretaries in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,’ English Historical Review 25 (1910) 430–44, and the more recent discussions in Wieruszowski, H., Politics and Culture in Medieval Spain and Italy (1971), especially the essays entitled ‘Arezzo as a Center of Learning and Letters in the Thirteenth Century’ (pp. 387–474) and ‘Rhetoric and the Classics in Italian Education in the Thirteenth Century’ (pp. 589–627). See also Murphy, J. J., Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974) 244, 263–65.Google Scholar

3 The term arenga sometimes denotes a type of exordium. See, for example, Guidonis Fabe Summa dictaminis (ed. Gaudenzi, A.; Il propugnatore 23, n.s. 3.1 [1890] 331). More often, however, the term is used in a looser sense to denote a public speech. See Kristeller, P. O., Renaissance Thought and its Sources (ed. Mooney, M.; 1979) 320–21, n. 40. A tradition of secular oratory clearly existed in the Italian cities before the emergence of the so-called ars arengandi in the early 13th century. Otto of Freising mentions the Italian custom of long orations (Gesta Frederici 2.21: ed. Perz, G. H.; MGH SS 20.405). About a century earlier, Anselm of Besate refers to orations ‘in senatu vel in condone’ (see Gunzo Epistola ad Augienses und Anselm von Besate Rhetorimachia; ed. Manitius, K. [Weimar 1958] 109–10, 148). For a summary of the evidence for oratory before 1200, Kristeller, Renaissance Thought and its Sources 235–37, and Ward, J. O., Artificiosa Eloquentia in the Middle Ages (diss. Toronto 1972) I, especially 237–38, 310–13.Google Scholar

4 Although the Rhetorica novissima was not actually published until 1235, Boncompagno seems to have been working on it intermittently for a considerable period before that date. In the preface to the Rhetorica antiqua, or Boncompagnus, which was completed by 1215, then revised and republished by 1226, Boncompagno promises the creation of a new rhetoric, ‘artium liberalium imperatrix et utriusque iuris alumpna’; see Rockinger, L., Briefsteller und Formelbücher des elften bis vierzehnten Jahrhunderts 1 (1863; repr. New York 1961) 128–29. In the prologue to the Rhetorica novissima, he recalls this promise, which he has at last fulfilled. See Rhetorica novissima, Biblotheca Iuridiea Medii Aevi 2 (ed. Gaudenzi, A.; Bologna 1892, 251: henceforth cited as RN). For the dating of Boncompagno's works, see Gaudenzi, A., ‘Sulla cronologia delle opere dei dettatori bolognesi da Buoncompagno a Bene di Lucca,’ Bulletino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano 14 (1895) 90–118, and Pini, V., ‘Boncompagno da Signa,’ Dizionario biografico degli italiani 2 (Rome 1969) 720–25. There is a fairly lengthy discussion of the Rhetorica novissima in the dissertation by Banker, J. R., Giovanni di Bonandrea's ‘Ars dictaminis’ Treatise and the Doctrine of Invention in the Italian Rhetorical Tradition of the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (University of Rochester 1972) 33–61.Google Scholar

5 See, for example, the list of works by Guido Faba in Faulhaber, C. B., ‘The Summa dictaminis of Guido Faba,’ Medieval Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric (ed. Murphy, J. J.; Berkeley 1978) 87–90. The development of oratory in this period is also discussed by Vincenti, E., ‘Matteo dei Libri e l'oratoria pubblica e privata nel ‘200,’ Archivio glottologico italiano 54 (1969) 227–37. The anonymous Oculus pastoralis is a collection of model speeches for public officials: see Oculus pastoralis, ed. Franceschi, D., Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 4th ser. 11 (1966).Google Scholar

6 Boncompagno wrote on almost every branch of dictamen prosaicum taught by the professionals of his day. For an outline of his career and a list of his numerous writings, which extend beyond rhetoric to include moral philosophy, satire, and history, see the account by Pini, ‘Boncompagno’ (above, n. 4). The basic study of Boncompagno is still Sutter, C., Aus Leben und Schriften des Magisters Boncompagno: Ein Beitrag zur italienischen Kulturgeschichte im dreizehnten Jahrhundert (Freiburg 1894), which includes an edition of the Palma (pp. 105–27). See also the commentary, translation, and bibliography by Purkart, J., together with a facsimile of an incunabulum of the Rota Veneris (New York 1975). There is also an edition by Baethgen, F. of the Rota Veneris based on several MSS: Magister Boncompagno, Rota Veneris, ein Liebesbriefsteller des 13. Jahrhunderts (Rome 1927). One reason for the lack of a modern comprehensive study of Boncompagno is the fact that although important excerpts are printed in Sutter's study, as well as by Rockinger in Briefsteller (see n. 4) 128–74 and by Pini, V., Boncompagno da Signa: Testi riguardanti la vita degli studenti a Bologna nel sec. XIII (dal Boncompagnus, lib. 1), Bibliotheca di ‘Quadrivium,’ Testi per esercitazioni accademiche 6 (Bologna 1968), major works by Boncompagno remain unedited, including the Boncompagnus, Notule auree, Tractatus virtutum, Quinque tabule salutationum, Liber decern tabularum, Isagoge, Myrrha, and Oliva. I am informed, however, by personal communication that Professor Josef Purkart is preparing an edition of the Boncompagnus and the Rhetorica novissima, as well as some of the other works.Google Scholar

7 This orientation towards the needs of lawyers is apparent throughout the work. A few examples are the restriction of the genera causarum to civilis and criminalis (p. 256); the definition of rhetorica as ‘liberalium artium imperatrix et utriusque iuris alumna’ (p. 254), the same phrase Boncompagno used in the Rhetorica antiqua to characterise his forthcoming work (see above, n. 4); and the section on definitions, which are chiefly concerned with legal terminology (pp. 258–59). Note also his emphasis on the fact that civil law is an essential support for canon law: see the title, Quod decretiste atque decretaliste legum auxilia implorare coguntur (p. 258).Google Scholar

8 Consilia refer to the deliberations of magistrates in a city–state, or to the advice which a great magnate might seek from his own council (RN 294). Colloquia are similar, but are apparently restricted to delegations from different states, lords, or corporate bodies which meet to conclude marriage alliances, to stir up war or revolt, or to make peace treaties (p. 296). The contio is a speech delivered at the conventus populi, or convocation of the popular assembly in a city–state (pp. 296–97).Google Scholar

9 A good example is the career of Ugolino Gosia, a civil lawyer who was elected podestá of Ancona in 1201, and to whom Boncompagno dedicated his historical work, the Liber de obsidione Ancone. See the introduction to Zimolo's, G. C. edition of this work, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 6.3 (Bologna 1937) vii.Google Scholar

10 For assistance on the exordium ‘in consiliis’ (see p. 295, De suffragiis exordiorum in consiliis), he refers the reader back to the earlier book on the exordium (p. 262).Google Scholar

11 RN 297. Some of Boncompagno's contemporaries, such as the author of the anonymous Oculus Pastoralis, which devotes a great deal of space to the contio, did not place the same restrictions on themselves. One important aspect of the history of dictamen in the 13th century is the increasing tendency of the dictatores to address themselves to the needs of the rudes or illiterati, which eventually resulted in the production of dictamina in the vernacular as well as in Latin. This phenomenon has been related to the rapid development of urban society in 13th-century Italy. See Vecchi, G., Il magistero delle ‘artes’ latine a Bologna nel medioevo, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di magistero, Università di Bologna 2 (Bologna 1958) 20–23, and ‘Le arenge di Guido Faba e l'eloquenza d'arte civile e politica duecentesca,’ Quadrivium 4 (1960) 61–87.Google Scholar

12 Among the model exordia (RN 266) are four examples addressed to city officials; senator, cancellarius, podestà, and consules. Each of these, however, appears to be designed for pleading cases or requesting hearings.Google Scholar

13 On rhetoric and law in the early Middle Ages, see Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (above, n. 2) 112, and references by Ward, J. O. (above, n. 3) 329–79.Google Scholar

14 See Meyer, E., ‘Die Quaestionen der Rhetorik und die Anfänge juristischer Methodenlehre,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanische Abteilung 68 (1951) 30–73. Paetow, L. J., The Arts Course at Medieval Universities with Special Reference to Grammar and Rhetoric (Urbana, Ill. 1910) 74–77, emphasises the relationship between ars dictaminis and law.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 The Rhetorimachia of Anselm of Besate (above, n. 3) is possibly an exception, since it treats the genus iudiciale, although the author promises to discuss all three genera causarum (Rhetorimachia 109–10). The Rhetorimachia is perhaps akin to the ancient controversiae, but it does not deal specifically with court cases. Anselm is preoccupied with rhetorical terminology rather than the practical problems of pleading or speaking. See the assessments of Manitius, K. (above, n. 3) 75 and Ward (above, n. 3) 226–28.Google Scholar

16 Ward discusses the evidence for judicial oratory (ibid. 331–80). The brief poem De Thesin et Ypothesin (ca. 900) by Eugenius Vulgarius describes forensic arguments (Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini; ed. v. Winterfeld, P., MGH 4.426). The author of the anonymous Rhetorica ecclesiastica, written in the late 12th century (ed. Wahrmund, L.; Quellen zur Geschichte des romisch-kanonischen Prozesses im Mittelalter 1.4 [Innsbruck 1906]), may be following established custom when he promises to give legal and rhetorical instruction together — although he actually includes very little rhetoric. This work is essentially a tract on procedure of the type known as ordines iudiciorum. See Kantorowicz, H. and Buckland, W., Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge 1938; repr. and rev. Darmstadt 1969) 72. For academic sermons given by lawyers in the late 12th century, see Kantorowicz, H., ‘The Poetical Sermon of a Medieval Jurist,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 2 (1938–39) 26–27.Google Scholar

17 For the circulation of these two works, see Reynolds, Leighton, Texts and Transmission (Oxford 1983) 98–100.Google Scholar

18 De Inventione was known as Rhetorica vetus and Ad Herennium was called Rhetorica nova. The title Rhetorica novissima was perhaps meant to distinguish Boncompagno's ‘new’ rhetoric from the Rhetorica nova. Much of the lore ultimately derived from De Inventione and Ad Herennium, such as the teaching on the exordium and the treatment of the figures, became a part of the medieval school tradition and was passed down in commentaries or treatises on ars dictandi. For a discussion of the influence of one such commentary, see Alessio, G. C., ‘Brunetto Latini e Cicerone (e i dettatori),’ Italia medioevale e umanistica 22 (1979) 123–63.Google Scholar

19 Of the works of Guido Faba, only the Summa de vitiis et virtutibus exists in a critical edition (by Pini, V., Quadrivium 1 [1956] 41–152). See Faulhaber's list (above n. 5). The two important works by Bene, Summa dictaminis and Candelabrum, are still unedited. Alessio, G. C. has promised an edition of the Candelabrum. See Alessio, G. C., ‘La tradizione manoscritta del Candelabrum di Bene da Firenze,’ Italia medioevale e umanistica 15 (1972) 99–148, presenting a catalogue of 13 MSS and a stemma. However, substantial excerpts from the Candelabrum are printed by Vecchi, G., ‘Temi e momenti d'arte dettatoria nel Candelabrum di Bene da Firenze,’ Atti e memorie delta Deputazione di storia patria per le provincie di Romagna n.s. 10 (1958–59) 113–68. For Bene's own summary of the Candelabrum , see Vecchi, , Il magistero (above, n. 11) 18–19. Baldwin, C. S., Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (New York 1928) 216–23, summarises Books 1–5 of the Candelabrum. This article was being prepared for the printer when I learned that Alessio's, G. C. edition of the Candelabrum has appeared under the title Bene Florentini Candelabrum [Padua 1983]).Google Scholar

20 The attacks of jealous rivals are a ubiquitous theme in medieval works on grammar and rhetoric. There seems to be no general study of this phenomenon, but see Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘An Autobiography of Guido Faba,’ Selected Studies by Ernst H. Kantorowicz (Locust Valley, N.Y. 1965) 204 (originally published in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1 [1941] 253–80), and Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (above, n. 2) 212–13. The topic is a favourite with Boncompagno. The practical jokes which he claims to have devised for the discomfiture of his enemies are the subject of some of the model letters in the Rhetorica antiqua ; see Pini, , Boncompagno da Signa: Testi riguardanti la vita degli studenti (above, n. 6) 33–38. See also the discussion by Misch, G., Geschichte der Autobiographie 3.2 (Frankfurt 1962) 1099–1123.Google Scholar

21 ‘Et quod nova possint hodie inveniri, probari valet per theologicam disciplinam. Plasmator est hominis Deus qui cuncta solus ordinat et disponit, post renovationem gratie novam oculis nostre mortalitatis lucem infundit’ (RN 252). The contrast between old and new is often expressed in the literature of this period by reference to the New Testament succeding the Old; see Curtius, E. R., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages tr. Trask, W. R. (New York 1953; repr. Princeton 1973) 153–54.Google Scholar

22 ‘… Tres fuerunt principales cause pro quibus in hoc opere meum ingenium fatigavi. Prima fuit auctoritas Boetii philosophic radiis illustrati qui rhetoricam editam ab antiquis partem doctrine vacuam appellavit, firmiter asseverans quod rhetorica edita per antiquos sine communi utilitate in solis preceptionibus consistebat. Quare dico quod dividere, subdividere, diffinire, vel describere, dare precepta et semper iubere nihil aliud est quam emittere tonitrua et pluviam non largiri’ (RN 252). See Boethius, , De Differentiis topicis 4, ‘… nihil ab antiquis praeceptoribus accepimus. De unoquoque enim praecipiunt, nihil de communi laborantes. Quam partem doctrinae vacuam, ut possumus, aggrediamur' (PL 64.1207a). Boncompagno also cites Boethius’ translation of Aristotle's De Sophisticis elenchis: ‘Intendit etiam probare Boethius per Aristotelem, quod ars rhetorica non fuit tradita per antiquos. Inquit enim: “si quis doceat diversa genera calceorum fieri, ad utilitatem quidem facit, artem tamen non tradit”’ (RN 252). See Aristoteles Latinus 6.1–3, de Sophisticis elenchis, translatio Boethii 84 a 5 (ed. Dod, B. G.; Leiden 1975, p. 59). (This is actually a misquotation; Aristotle is here speaking of reasoning, not rhetoric.) Google Scholar

23 Gaudenzi's text reads, ‘Studentes in utroque iure modicum vel quasi nullum subsidium, excepta sola contione, habere poterant de liberalium artium disciplinis’ (ibid.). This is unlikely to be right, since Boncompagno declares in Book 13 that the contio ‘rarissime ad viros pertinet litteratos’ (see above, n. 11), and he adds that teaching on the contio should be left to the laici, ‘qui … a sola consuetudine sunt instructi.’ Gaudenzi's edition is based on two manuscripts, V (Marcianus lat. 4185 [or cl. XI. n. 8]) and M (Clm 23499). In V's version of this passage (fol. 2r) — followed by Gaudenzi — the abbreviation 9°ne should probably be expanded to ‘constructione’ rather than ‘contione.’ This is borne out by M (fol. 81v), which in fact reads ‘constructione’ (Gaudenzi's apparatus incorrectly prints ‘constitutione’). Clearly ‘excepta sola constructione’ would also give better sense.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. For ‘numquam ordinarie legitur,’ see Wieruszowski, H., ‘Rhetoric and the Classics’ (above, n. 2) 595–97, who argues that this phrase means that the ‘Ciceronian’ works were not part of the regular morning lectures. See Appendix I for further discussion of Boncompagno and Cicero.Google Scholar

25 RN 252. Boncompagno quotes De Inventione 1.2.2. The prologue to De Inventione describes the role of eloquence in the origin of civilised life, and is not, strictly speaking, about the origin of law. Book I of the Rhetorica novissima is entitled De origine iuris (pp. 253–54). This seems to parody the opening of the Digest (Digesta Iustiniani 1.2; ed. Mommsen, Theodor, rev. Krueger, Paul [Berlin 1922] 30–33), or at least offers an updated version, including the supposed origins of medieval legal systems, such as canon law, Lombard law, and municipal law.Google Scholar

26 ‘Ego autem ex aliqua temeritate non proposui numerum liberalium artium augmentare, quia nemo valet alicuius artis naturale permutare subjectum: sed dedi operam efficacem ut rhetorica, quam Boethius partem doctrine vacuam appellavit, tamquam pars minus vel parum utilis subalternetur, et ista remaneat in septenario numero evidentis utilitatis diademate coronata’ (RN 252).Google Scholar

27 For the moderni in 12th-century France, see Güssmann, E., ‘Antiqui und Moderni im 12. Jahrhundert,’ Zimmerman, A. (ed.), Antiqui und Moderni: Traditionsbewusstsein und Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter; Miscellanea mediaevalia 9 (1974) 40–57, and Martin, J., ‘Classicism and Style in Latin Literature,’ Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edd. Benson, R. L. and Constable, G. (Cambridge, Mass. 1982) 537–68, especially 563–66. Recent scholars — for example, Wieruszowski, , ‘Rhetoric and the Classics’ (above, n. 2) 592–94 (following Sutter [above, n. 6]) — have emphasised Boncompagno's anti-Ciceronianism in connection with his opposition to the ornate Latinity cultivated at Orléans, which was often filled with ‘pagan’ citations. But equally striking, and perhaps more significant, is the essential similarity between the modernism of many leading French theorists and Boncompagno's declarations of independence from Cicero. Whatever the differences in actual stylistic practice may have been, the desire to innovate was common to Boncompagno and the Latinists of France.Google Scholar

28 Matthew of Vendôme, Ars versificatoria 1.4, in Faral, E., Les Arts poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe siècle (Paris 1924; repr. Paris and Geneva 1982) 109. Gervase of Melkley, in the preface to his Ars poetica (ca. 1215–16), remarks: ‘Oportet etiam et venustatem quandam rethoricam … enodare … . Quippe infinita est venustatis elegantia, et nova cotidie surrepit inventio modernorum’ (von Melkley, Gervase, Ars poetica; ed. Grabener, H.-J., Forschungen zur romanischen Philologie 17 [Münster 1965] 3).Google Scholar

29 Ars versificatoria, 4.3–10 (ed. Faral, 180–82). The Doctrinale of Alexander of Villa Dei (1199), which rapidly became one of the most influential grammar texts in Europe, emphatically endorses the usages of ‘modern’ Latin with regard to accent and quantity. ‘Hos solos usu debes servare moderno’ (line 2295). ‘Accentus normas legitur posuisse vetustas; non tamen has credo servandas tempore nostro’ (lines 2329–30). See Das Doctrinale des Alexander de Villa Dei (ed. Reichling, D.; Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica 12 [Berlin 1893]) 153, 155.Google Scholar

30 For the possible rivalry between Bene and Boncompagno, see Sutter, (above, n. 6) 30.Google Scholar

31 The Candelabrum seems to have been composed in two stages. Books 1–5 were probably complete by 1222, and books 6–8 (where Bene introduces the French style, drawing on the Poetria nova) by 1226 (Vecchi [above, n. 19] 116–18). However, it may have been revised as late as 1238 (see Alessio, , ‘Brunetto Latini e Cicerone’ [above, n. 18] 129, esp. n. 2). For the possibility of Bene's knowledge of the Ars versificatoria (or perhaps a common source), see Alessio, , ibid. 127–28. It is clear, however, that the Poetria nova, itself composed between 1208 and 1213 (see Faral's analysis [above, n. 28] 28–33), was available in Bologna by the mid-1220s. There is actually some evidence that Geoffrey of Vinsauf may have taught at Bologna. Much of this depends on the authorship of a work on the ars dictaminis (Licitra, V., ‘La summa de arte dictandi di Maestro Goffredo,’ Studi medievali 3.7.2 [1966] 864–913). For more precise details on the chronology of the composition of the Candelabrum , see now Alessio's, G. C. ed. (above, n. 19) xxix–xxx.Google Scholar

32 ‘Octonarius igitur huius nostri Candelabri perfectioni quidem Novi consonat Testamenti, quoniam Vetera transierunt et ecce nova iam clarescunt; propulsis enim procul erroribus, hic possunt omnes in brevi tempore ad lucem et coronam tam nobilis scientie pervenire …’ (Vecchi, , ‘Temi e momenti’ [above, n. 19] 116).Google Scholar

33 On late-12th-century rhetorical doctrines as a technique for novel modes of expression, see the remarks of Lawler, T. in his review (Speculum 48 [1973] 752) of Gallo, E., The Poetria Nova and its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine (The Hague 1971). This is also expressed clearly by Bene in a passage from Book 7 of the Candelabrum: ‘Et quando rem veterem et usitatam narramus, pulcrum est ordinem variare ut tota iuvenescere videatur …’ (cited by Alessio, , ‘Brunetto Latini’ [above, n. 18] 165).Google Scholar

34 A good general account is still Haskins, C. H., ‘The Early Artes dictandi in Italy,’ Studies in Medieval Culture (Oxford 1929) 170–92, esp. 187–89.Google Scholar

35 See above, n. 5.Google Scholar

36 RN 262–73; 291–94.Google Scholar

37 For the letter as a type of oration, see Lanham, C. D., Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax, Style and Theory, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 22 (Munich 1975) 13–25; 102–3; 107–10, and Witt, R., ‘Medieval “Ars Dictaminis” and the Beginnings of Humanism: A New Construction of the Problem,’ Renaissance Quarterly 35 (1982) 9–10.Google Scholar

38 For examples of the Bolognese teaching on distinctiones , see Boncompagno, , Palma, ed. Sutter, (above, n. 6) 117–27, Bene, , Candelabrum, in Vecchi (above, n. 19) 142, and Faba, Guido, Summa (above, n. 3) 336–37. For a survey of the styles advocated by the dictatores , see Schaller, H. M., ‘Die Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs IL Ihr Personal und ihr Sprachstil. Zweiter Teil. Der Sprachstil der Kanzlei,’ Archiv für Diplomatik 4 (1958) 264–327.Google Scholar

39 RN 257. Similarly, Bene is clearly aware that a letter and a speech have different needs. See the excerpts from the Candelabrum in Alessio, ‘Brunetto Latini’ (above, n. 18), where Bene distinguishes between the conclusio ‘in oratione rethorica’ and in dictamen (p. 169), and speculates on why Cicero said nothing about the salutatio (p. 164). Yet Bene constantly uses the noun oratio and the verb loqui when referring to written composition (see, for example, Vecchi, , ‘Temi e momenti’ [above, n. 19] 134–35).Google Scholar

40 RN 256–60.Google Scholar

41 Ibid. 257.Google Scholar

42 Ibid. Boncompagno argues that we speak of ‘definition’ in a loose sense. In the strict sense, no one can define ‘nisi tangeret genera singulorum et singula generum. Ergo nemo potest nec potuit definire.’ Google Scholar

43 De Inv. 1.5.7. Also Ad Her. 1.2.2.Google Scholar

44 RN 256. Boncompagno's criticism seems to miss the mark here. The three genera causarum are a way of classifying kinds of speech, and have no reference to the psychology of human action, which consists of deliberatio, demonstratio, and iudicium, as Boncompagno implies.Google Scholar

45 Civilis, denoting a private case, and criminalis, meaning a public one, are terms borrowed from Roman law. See Berger, A., Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 43.2 (Philadelphia 1953) 389. Civilis causa in the Rhetorica novissima should not be confused with civilis quaestio, as used by the ancient rhetoricians, which has a different meaning altogether (note the definitions by Fortunatianus, Sulpitius Victor, and the Excerpta rhetorical Rhetores Latini minores [ed. Halm, C.; Leipzig 1863] 81, 313, 585). At least one of Boncompagno's model exordia seems to fall outside his classification of cause. See Exordium generale pro magistris qui suos discipulos sibi successores instituunt in docendo (p. 273). According to the traditional system, this exordium would seem to fall under the genus demonstrativum. Google Scholar

46 RN 256. Boncompagno concludes this section as follows. ‘Ad huiusmodi siquidem causas legitime pertractandas necessaria est industria oratorum, qui advocati hodie nominantur’ (italics my own).Google Scholar

47 RN 255. According to Boncompagno, inventio naturalis (as opposed to communis inventio, which involves drawing on the authorities of any ars) belongs to no ars at all, but is a natural faculty. Similarly, memory is also a natural property, which functions as a primary aid in any activity.Google Scholar

48 Ibid. Google Scholar

49 Ibid. Google Scholar

50 Ad Her. 1.11.18. See also De Inventione 1.8.10. Caplan, Harry, in his commentary on Ad Herennium, describes the constitutio as ‘the conjoining of two conflicting statements, thus forming the centre of the argument and determining the character of the case’ (Rhetorica ad Herennium [Cambridge, Mass. 1954; repr. 1981] 32).Google Scholar

51 See Kennedy, G., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton 1972) 117. See also De Inventione 2.1.155.Google Scholar

52 RN 255–56. Boncompagno lists three origins of persuasio: the first in celis, when Lucifer persuaded the angels to revolt; the second in paradise, when the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve; the third resulting from humana conditio. This is not the only occasion on which he provides a 'theologicar account of rhetorical or legal categories. See, for example, the origins of various legal procedures ‘in paradiso deliciarum’ (p. 254). Bene follows a similar procedure. See the excerpts from the Candelabrum on compositio, dignitas, and elegantia: Vecchi (above, n. 19) 120–22.Google Scholar

53 Pp. 255–56. Like persuasio, he adds, dissuasio is divided into vox and res (p. 256). In classical rhetoric, the genus deliberativum is concerned with persuasio and dissuasio (Ad Her. 1.2.2). But see also Alberici Casinensis Flores rhetorici (edd. Inguanez, D. M. and Willard, H. M.; Miscellanea Cassinensia 14 [Monte Cassino 1938] 51–52), a treatise of the late 11th century which includes suasio and dissuasio among the figures. (The correct title of this work is probably Dictaminum radii. See Hagendahl, H., ‘Le Manuel de rhétorique d'Albericus Casinensis,’ Classica et Medievalia 17 [1956] 63.)Google Scholar

54 On realis persuasio, Boncompagno remarks: ‘omnium equidem vocalium persuasionum genera evanescunt, ubi copiosa et grata munera persuadent’ (ibid.). The persuading power of munera or nummus is one of the most common topoi of 12th-century satire (see Yunck, J. A., The Lineage of Lady Meed [Notre Dame, Ind. 1963], esp. 172–75). Boncompagno employs a great deal of satire in some of his other works, especially in the Rota Veneris (see above, n. 6) and the Amicitia (ed. Nathan, S., ‘Amicitia di Maestro Boncompagno da Signa,’ Miscellanea di letteratura del Medio evo 3 [Rome 1909]). The chronicler Salimbene preserves part of a satiric poem by Boncompagno, which lampoons the religious fanatic John of Vicenza (Cronica; ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH SS 32.77–78; repr. Lehmann, P., Die Parodie im Mittelalter [Stuttgart 1963] 132–33). Hence it is not surprising to find satiric touches throughout the Rhetorica novissima. A full account of this is not possible here, but a few instances are worth pointing out. Regina Pecunia appears, reigning at the courts, in Boncompagno's model invectives (p. 293; on Regina Pecunia in satire, see Yunck, 30–31; 80–81). While discussing transumptio, Boncompagno implies that students desert theology to pursue lucre in law and medicine (p. 285). This latter theme (which was in fact a serious concern of the church, as reflected in numerous conciliar and papal decrees — such as the famous Super speculam of Honorius III [1219]) is especially common in moralising and satiric literature concerning venal lawyers and judges. Yet Boncompagno has probably not miscalculated by including such topoi in a treatise designed for lawyers. The clichés of ‘anti-lawyer’ literature are often quoted by the lawyers themselves — sometimes with a kind of pride and humor. For examples, see Kuttner, S., ‘Dat Galienus opes et Sanctio Justiniana,’ The History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages (London 1980) 237–46 (originally published in Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Helmut A. Hatzfeld, ed. Crisafulli, A. S. [Washington, D.C. 1964]).Google Scholar

55 Some rhetorical terms are discussed in Book 3 and Books 11–13.Google Scholar

56 Boncompagno implies that a narratio can be used in place of an exordium (p. 272). But we find nothing of the doctrine of ordo naturalis and artificialis as set forth in the arts of poetry. In fact, some Italian artes dictandi of the early 13th century apply the distinction between ordo naturalis and artificalis not to the arrangement of the discourse as a whole, but to word order and sentence structure. See, for example, Guido Faba's Summa (above, n. 3) 338. For a concise account of this development, see Quadlbauer, F., ‘Zur Theorie der Komposition in der mittelalterlichen Rhetorik und Poetik,’ Rhetoric Revalued, ed. Vickers, B. (New York 1982) 122–25.Google Scholar

57 RN 256. Boncompagno calls the oration the ‘instrumentum rethorice facultatis,’ which is the terminology of Boethius in Book 4 of De Topicis differentiis (PL 64.1208b, 1211b). This phrase is also applied to the oration in at least one 12th-century commentary on De Inventione (Fredborg, K. M., ‘The Commentary of Thierry of Chartres on Cicero's De Inventione,’ Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin 7 [1971] 236).Google Scholar

58 Palma, ed. Sutter, (above, n. 6) 109–10. There had been an alternate tradition at Bologna which advocated letter composition based on three parts. See, for example, the Praecepta dictaminum of Adalbertus Samaritanus (ca. 1111–18), ed. Schmale, F.-J., MGH, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 3 (1961) 34–35, and Hugh of Bologna, Rationes dictandi prosaice, ed. Rockinger, (above, n. 4) 56. However, the five-part division — salutatio, captatio benevolentie, narratio, petitio, and conclusio — advanced by the anonymous Rationes dictandi (ca. 1135) became the most widely accepted teaching (see Murphy, , Rhetoric [above, n. 2] 221–25, and Haskins [above, n. 34] 187), and this is advocated by both Bene (Vecchi [above, n. 19] 121–22, 158) and Thomas of Capua (Heller, E., ‘Die Ars dictandi des Thomas von Capua,’ Sb. Akad. Heidelberg 19.4 [1928–29] 16).Google Scholar

59 Faba, Guido, Summa (above, n. 3) 297. Both Guido (ibid.) and Boncompagno (Palma, p. 110) object that the five-part division of the letter includes partes secundarie, which are infinite, and both liken the composition of a letter to the construction of a house. It is not clear whether Guido is drawing on Boncompagno or whether the parallels reflect a common topos of rhetorical teaching (Geoffrey of Vinsauf also compares composition to building a house: Poetria nova, lines 43–48; ed. Faral [above, n. 28] 198).Google Scholar

60 Faba, Guido, Summa 299–330.Google Scholar

61 Boncompagno borrows from his earlier works. The simple fact that a speech lacks a salutatio would be sufficient to account for his shift to exordium as the first part of the speech. However, Guido Faba's divisions of the letter may also have influenced Boncompagno.Google Scholar

62 Palma, ed. Sutter, (above, n. 6) 112–13. Compare the similar advice to begin ‘ab humili stilo’ in the Tractatus virtutum (ca. 1197), which is applied to ‘orationes rethoricas’ along with letters. (For this passage, I have used Clm 23499, fol. 65r, and Rome, Vall. C 40, fol. 7v, both 13th-cent.). In the Notule auree, Boncompagno also declares ‘semper a facto de quo agitur debes exordium trahere’ (Clm 23499, fol. 67r–v; Vall. C 40, fol. 11v). But his attitude to the antiqui in this work contrasts with the critical views expressed in the Palma (for the rest of the passage in the Notule auree, see Appendix I).Google Scholar

63 See RN 262. Boncompagno's criticism of the antiqui in the Palma (see previous note) is somewhat misplaced. Although the exordium is certainly treated as a part of the oration distinct from the narratio, Ad Herennium (1.7.11) lists as faulty an exordium which is not closely linked with the narratio. Boncompagno's remarks on this point in the Rhetorica novissima are actually quite close to Ad Herennium (Guido Faba's Summa says much the same [above, n. 3] p. 331). The Rhetorica novissima's teaching on the exordium contains a few other echoes of ancient theory (p. 262). Boncompagno observes that some employ the captatio benevolentie, which is a basic element of letter composition as taught by the dictatores, but it is ultimately derived from the ancient concept of the exordium (see De Inv., 1.15.20; Ad Her., 1.3.4 and 1.6.9–7.11). He alludes to the use of the insinuatio in dubious cases. Compare De Inv., 1.15.20 and Ad Her., 1.3.4 and 1.4.7. Boncompagno's emphasis on brevitas is common to medieval and ancient theory alike (see Curtius, , European Literature [above, n. 21] 487–94).Google Scholar

64 Palma, pp. 113–14. Medieval rhetoricians, including the authors of artes poetrie and artes predicandi, commonly advocate the proverbium as a way of opening. But Bene (in Book 6 of the Candelabrum) separates a proverb, which is obscure and metaphoric, from a sententia or moral maxim. He adds, however, that many use the term proverbium loosely, with both meanings. For a discussion of this doctrine, see Vecchi, Giuseppe, ‘Il proverbio nella pratica letteraria dei dettatori della scuola di Bologna,’ Studi mediolatini e volgari 2 (1954) 283–302. In the Palma, Boncompagno differentiates between a magna generalis sententia, which conceals the author's intent until he adds more, and a minus generalis sententia, which pertains at once to the matter being discussed (Palma, pp. 111–12). Moreover, he equates the exordium with generalis sententia (p. 112), while describing the proverbium as a ‘generalis sententia et obscura’ (p. 114). Though his terminology is inconsistent and somewhat confusing, he seems to be making the same distinction as Bene.Google Scholar

65 For this chapter, Gaudenzi's edition prints Quomodo adverbia loco exordii ponantur (RN 271). Adverbia can hardly be correct in this context, which seems to require proverbia. Apparently Gaudenzi has followed M here (see n. 23), where we do find this heading. This manuscript preserves Book 5, concerning the exordium, in complete disarray, since the scribe seems to have copied several folios out of order (fols. 85r–89r). M includes tables of contents which were meant to precede each chapter. Although the subheading in the text of this chapter (ch. 10) reads adverbia (fol. 89r), the table of contents (which is separated from most of the chapter by material copied out of order) reads ‘quomodo proverbium exordii prenotatur’ (fol. 86v). In any case, it is surprising that Gaudenzi did not follow V, where proverbium is the word in the table of contents (fol. 20v) and proverbia in the text of the chapter itself (fol. 21r). For the proverb cited by Boncompagno, , ‘numquam fuit vulpes adeo ingeniosa, que quandoque non caderet in laqueum venatoris,’ compare RN 271 and Palma 113.Google Scholar

66 Palma 110.Google Scholar

67 RN 256.Google Scholar

68 For example, see the treatment of the salutatio in Guido Faba's Summa dictaminis (above, n. 60). Guido Faba's collections of model exordia are presented in a similar way, grouped according to theme and addressee. But, unlike Guido, Boncompagno does not divide his exordia into sententie and continuationes (the latter are designed to link the general statement with the narratio). For the exordia of Guido Faba, see Vecchi, , ‘Il proverbio’ (above, n. 64) 295, and Faulhaber, , ‘The Summa dictaminis of Guido Faba’ (above n. 5) 88.Google Scholar

69 On amphibologia, see RN 275; compare Ad Herennium's discussion (2.11.16). Boncompagno's brief treatment of argument should be contrasted with the detailed theoretical discussion in both Ad Herennium (2.18.28–2.29.46) and De Inventione (1.24.34–1.51.96) which includes analysis of the epicheireme, or rhetorical syllogism, and faulty arguments. De Inventione also treats induction (1.31.51–33.56).Google Scholar

70 See Murphy's discussion (above, n. 58) and Witt, , ‘Medieval “Ars Dictaminis”’ (above, n. 37) 9–11, 13.Google Scholar

71 This is not a feature of epistolary rhetoric alone. The treatment of dispositio in the artes poetrie is chiefly concerned with the different methods of beginning, as Faral observes (above, n. 28) 55. The great attention given by medieval rhetoricians to the opening of a work is reflected in the prologues to legal treatises, which are often composed in rhetorically extravagant Latin, usually in sharp contrast with the dry style of the materia. On this subject, see Kantorowicz, and Buckland, , Studies in the Glossators (above, n. 16) 183–84, 226–27. Boncompagno himself is often credited with writing the prologue to the Summa of Azo (see, for example, Kantorowicz and Buckland 227, and Pini, , Dizionario biografico [above, n. 4] 721). But see Rota, A., ‘L'universalità del diritto commune nel pensiero di maestro Boncompagno,’ Studi di storia e diritto in onore di C. Calisse (Milan 1940) 411, who points out that Boncompagno's remark ‘ego ipse in prologo summe Azonis dixi’ (RN 292) might merely mean that he commented on this work. There is no other evidence that he composed such a prologue.Google Scholar

72 Gaius says, ‘Facturus legum vetustarum interpretationem necessario prius ab urbis initiis repetendum existimavi … . inconveniens erit, omissis initiis atque origine non repetita atque illotis ut ita dixerim manibus, protinus materiam interpretationis tractare’ (Digesta 1.2.1; ed. Mommsen–Krueger [above, n. 25] 30).Google Scholar

73 RN 261. Boncompagno offers a few precepts regarding the speaker's appearance and delivery in general, but his examples primarily concern the opening of a speech.Google Scholar

74 The captatio benevolentie is usually the equivalent of an exordium. However, the dictatores also use captatio benevolentie to include the salutatio, which is often not clearly distinguished from the exordium. See Lanham, , Salutatio Formulas (above, n. 37) 109–18.Google Scholar

75 RN 261.Google Scholar

76 RN 260.Google Scholar

77 See above, nn. 40, 41, 42.Google Scholar

78 Ad Her., 3.11.19–15.27. It is instructive to compare the treatment of delivery in the Poetria nova and in Book 8 of the Candelabrum. Both are designed for recitation, not for oratory, and thus they emphasise pronunciation, correct accent, adaptation of voice and gesture to the sense of what is read. See Poetria nova, lines 2036–61, in Faral, , Les Arts (above, n. 28) 260. (See also Geoffrey's Documentum 2.3.170–75: ibid. 318–19.) Bene draws, at least in part, on Geoffrey for his account of delivery. In fact, he finishes his discussion by quoting the Poetria nova. For this portion of the Candelabrum, I cite MS Oxford, Bodl. Canon. misc. 103, fols. 58v–59r (13th-cent.) and Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 15082 (14th-cent.), fols. 131r–132r — I and H respectively on Alessio's stemma (‘La tradizione manoscritta’ [above, n. 19], esp. 112–14).Google Scholar

79 RN 261.Google Scholar

80 The first five books of the Candelabrum are strongly influenced by Ad Herennium. For Bene's knowledge of Ad Herennium , see Alessio, , ‘Brunetto Latini’ (above, n. 18). Guido Faba's account of the figures closely follows the list in Book 4 of Ad Herennium (Summa dictaminis [above, n. 3] 356–70).Google Scholar

81 On the three levels of style, see Ad Her. 4.8.11–4.11.16. For the medieval Nachleben of this concept, see Quadlbauer, F., Die antike Theorie der Genera dicendi im lateinischen Mittelalter, Sb. Akad. Wien 241.2 (1962). For elegantia, compositio, and dignitas, see Ad Her., 4.12.17–4.13.19.Google Scholar

82 Wattenbach, W. (ed.), ‘Magister Onulf von Speier,’ Sb. Akad. Berlin 20 (1894)361–86; Marbod, , De Ornamentis Verborum, PL 171.1687–92. For Geoffrey's Summa, see Faral (above, n. 28) 321–27.Google Scholar

83 This assessment is made with caution. Future research on unedited rhetorical manuscripts could affect our picture of Boncompagno.Google Scholar

84 The ten tropi all involve a change in the normal meaning of words: nominatio, pronominatio, denominatio, superlatio, intellectio, abusio, transgressio, circumitio, translatio, and permutatio. See Ad Her. 4.31.42–34.46 and H. Caplan's note b on p. 332 of his edition. For Geoffrey of Vinsauf's use of transumptio \ transumere, Poetria Nova, lines 780, 796–97, 852, 860, 886, 893, 952–55, see Faral (above, n. 28) 221–27. See also Documentum 2.3.15–16, Faral 287–88.Google Scholar

85 Boncompagno also discusses transumptio in the Rota Veneris (ed. Baethgen, [above, n. 6] 15–16). For some further observations about Boncompagno and transumptio, see below, Appendix II. On transumptio in the Candelabrum see Vecchi (above, n. 19) 126–29, 132–33. For a general account of transumptio in the works of the dictatores , see Forti, F., ‘La “transumptio” nei dettatori Bolognesi e in Dante,’ Dante e Bologna (Bologna 1967) 127–49. Quintilian (8.6.37–38) uses transumptio as an equivalent for metalepsis. The term also appears in the logical writings of Boethius. But neither author uses the word in the same way as Geoffrey: see Forti's discussion, pp. 130–31.Google Scholar

86 RN 285–86. Transumptio was devised, according to Boncompagno, as a mode of expression for use when ordinary language does not suffice, ‘propter inenarrabilem (sic) mentis affectum’ (RN 281). This is a standard phrase used in treatises on letter composition to explain why the main verb in the salutatio is omitted. On this topos , see Lanham, , Salutatio Formulas (above, n. 37) 101–5; Faba, Guido, Summa (above, n. 3) 327; Thomas of Capua, Summa (above, n. 58) 19.Google Scholar

87 RN 282.Google Scholar

88 Poetria nova, lines 241–63: Faral (above, n. 28) 204–5. See also Gervase of Melkley's expressa and inexpressa comparatio (Ars poetica [above, n. 28] 152–53).Google Scholar

89 In fact, this definition does not really fit Boncompagno's own examples of occulta similitudo, in which the figurative expressions do involve an unexpressed comparison, but none seems to suggest a contrary similitude. See RN 282.Google Scholar

90 Many of Boncompagno's examples of transumptio involve the use of tropes. For example, (p. 281) the Creator employed transumptio when he said to the first man, “‘De omni ligno paradisi comedes, de ligno autem scientie boni et mali ne comedas” (Gen. 2.16–17). Ecce vides quod posuit lignum pro fructu’ (synecdoche or metonymy). See also (ibid.): ‘In eodem genere fit transumptio cum propter aliquem evidentem effectum alterius nomine appellatur. Pone aliquis continuat omnes dies in planctu vel risu; quare poterit Democritus vel Diogenes appellari’ (pronominatio). Or the following (p. 283): ‘Mamille transumuntur in poma paradisi, vel globos rosarum; brachia in ramos Libani, crura et coxe in cristallinas columnas. Membrum autem pudibundum transumitur in ianuam paradisi’ (translatio).Google Scholar

91 RN 281. An extraordinary passage is the Visio Boncompagni, in which he imagines the liberal arts and professions ‘transumed’ into ‘rotas et rotulas’ (pp. 285–86). Of particular interest is the picture of rhetoric, which he represents as incomplete ‘propter defectum artificum.’ This seems to recall his desire, expressed in the prologue, to enhance the position of rhetoric among the liberal arts.Google Scholar

92 RN 284. The idea of representational art as a kind of trope is certainly not unique to Boneompagno. See, for example, Alan of Lille's De Planctu Nature 2, lines 228–29: ‘Hec picture tropo eleganter in pallio figurata …’ (ed. Häring, N.M., Studi medievali 3.19.2 [1978] 817); cf. Anticlaudianus 152 and 168–69 (ed. Bossuat, R.; Textes philosophiques du moyen age 1 [Paris 1955] 61 and 111).Google Scholar

93 See RN 284, under the titles De transumptionibus ioculatorum and De transumptionibus que fiunt per gestus et nutus. Google Scholar

94 RN 286. He defines adulatio as ‘demulcens et blanda verborum positio per quam improvidus ultra id quod est inducitur ad credendum.’ Note the heading De reali adulatione on the page where he discusses gesture and includes, perhaps humorously, the giving of munera (see above, n. 54). But there is no reason to suppose that his remarks on gesture as a type of adulatio are facetious — even though gesture is not, strictly speaking, a part of style.Google Scholar

95 As far as I have been able to determine, no extant Latin rhetorical work earlier than the Rhetorica novissima discusses adulatio as a figure. But see Quintilian 9.2.104, who includes adulari among a group of ideas wrongly called figures by a certain Celsus (such as ignoscere, fastidire, admonere, etc.).Google Scholar

96 On the captatio benevolentie, see the account by Lanham (above, n. 37). The concept incorporates precepts which classical rhetoric applies to the exordium. Google Scholar

97 On the exordium, Boneompagno observes ‘quidam <exordiuntur> adulando, ut per captationem benevolentie alliciant animos auditorum’ (RN 262). Concerning the exordium of a letter, Thomas of Capua says that the dictator should begin ‘non sine quodam adulationis applausu’ to render the recipient well-disposed (Summa [above, n. 58] 31). Compare Gervase of Melkley's Ars poetica (above, n. 28) 227.Google Scholar

98 See Boncompagno's definition of adulatio (above, n. 94).Google Scholar

99 By contrast, laus seems to be used interchangeably with adulatio in some discussions of the captatio beneuolentie. For example, Faba, Guido, Summa (above, n. 3) 332. In addition to distinguishing between the adulator and the laudator, Boncompagno separates the adulator from the derisor, detractor, or proditor (pp. 286–87). Boncompagno's satiric bent runs freely in his account of adulatio. See also Boncompagno's Amicitia (above, n. 54), p. 67, where the unsavory type called the venativus amicus is described as an adulator. And note the uses of adulatio in the Rota Veneris (ed. Baethgen, [above, n. 6] 12, 18).Google Scholar

100 RN 290.Google Scholar

101 Ibid. Immediately following the short accounts of palliatio and subductio, Boncompagno makes an even briefer mention of ironia. His definition — ‘adornatio sub cuius velamine absconditur indignatio referentis’ — is not very clear. However, his fuller account of ironia in the Boncompagnus (Pini, , Testi riguardanti la vita degli studenti [see n. 6] 11), which describes how a letter warning of the ill effects of excessive study might be sent to a lazy student, indicates that his concept of irony is the usual one.Google Scholar

102 RN 259. Ad Herennium (1.9.16) also recognises that the advocate must sometimes employ convincing deception. And see Cicero, , De Oratore 2.59.241.Google Scholar

103 RN 290–91.Google Scholar

104 Ars poetica [above, n. 28] 36–37.Google Scholar

105 Ad Her. 4.40.52. See also congeries in Quintilian (8.4.26–27).Google Scholar

106 On determinatio, see Poetria nova, lines 1761–1841 (Faral [above, n. 28] 251–53) and Documentum 2.3.48–102 (Faral 293–303). For Bene's account, see Vecchi (above, n. 19) 132–33. Like Geoffrey, Bene cites Sidonius Apollinaris as a good model for determinatio. But Bene also observes, ‘nec Tullius nec Quintilianus aliquid de his dixit’ (ibid).Google Scholar

107 It is perhaps worth noting that Boncompagno recommends aggregatio ‘ad laudem vel vituperium’; Geoffrey makes essentially the same point about determinatio (RN 290; Poetria nova, lines 1829–30 [Faral] 253).Google Scholar

108 RN ibid. Google Scholar

109 Called interpretatio in Ad Herennium (4.28.38).Google Scholar

110 RN 291: ‘Miser sum corpore, miserior sum habitu, miserorum carmen decanto, mihi miseria superadditur, miserie mee non est finis, quia miserior me non potest alicubi reperiri, unde possum dici miserrimus ex eo quod nemo est qui meam velit miseriam misericorditer intueri.’ Cf. ‘Sum miser et miseri nullus miserans miseretur,’ from the elegies of Henry of Settimello (late 12th cent.): Cremaschi, G. (ed.), Enrico da Settimello, Elegia, Orbis Christianus I (Bergamo 1949) 30; note especially the parallels from Walter of Châtillon cited by Cremaschi ad loc. Google Scholar

111 See Ad Her. 4.21.29–4.22.31.Google Scholar

112 On the importance of this figure, see Curtius, , European Literature (above, n. 21) 278–80; Martin, , ‘Classicism’ (above, n. 27) 550–51; 554–56; Faral, , Les Arts (above, n.28) 93–96. Boncompagno himself makes frequent use of annominatio throughout his works. With regard to the use of ornament at least, Boncompagno's practice sometimes closely resembles the Latinity of the Orleanese dictatores, despite his condemnations of their style. For a general assessment, see Pini, , ‘Boncompagno da Signa,’ Dizionario biografico (above, n. 4) 721.Google Scholar

113 Ad Her. 4.22.32.Google Scholar

114 RN 291.Google Scholar

115 Geoffrey advances this double definition in Documentum 2.2.18–21 (Faral [above, n. 28] 274–75).Google Scholar

116 See Faral 74–75. For the theory of digression and comparison in the arts of poetry, see Knapp, F. P., ‘Vergleich und Exempel in der lateinischen Rhetorik und Poetik von der Mitte des 12. bis zur Mitte des 13. Jh.,’ Studi medievali, 3rd Ser., 14.1 (1973) 443–511. For John of Garland's account, see Lawler, T. (ed.), The Parisiana poetria of John of Garland (Yale Studies in English 182; New Haven 1974) 72–74, 84. Gervase of Melkley also treats description as one of the types of digression (Ars Poetica [above, n. 28] 65–67).Google Scholar

117 ‘Digressio est declinatio materie inchoate in aliam que per obliquum vel directum respicit principalem’ (RN 291). Compare De Inv. 1.19.27. Ad Herennium does not use the term ‘digression’ for the second type of narratio, but it presents a similar doctrine (1.8.12). (De Inv. 1.51.97 also concerns digressio, but there Cicero rejects the view of Hermagoras that it should be treated as a part of the oration.) Quintilian (9.2.55) includes digression ‘inter schemata.’ Google Scholar

118 According to De Inventione, a digression is made ‘delectationis … causa’ (1.19.27). Quintilian (9.1.28), quoting Cicero's De Oratore (3.52.201), expresses the same idea.Google Scholar

119 ‘In digressionibus … ponuntur iocose narrationes et fabule ut retineantur auditores tedio fatigati’ (RN 291). Compare De Inv. 1.19.27 and Ad Her. 1.8.13. The use of fabule in digressions is also suggested by John of Garland (above, n. 116) 72–74. Similarly, according to Gervase of Melkley, one kind of digression is made ‘poetico figmento’ (Ars poetica [above, n. 28] 65).Google Scholar

120 RN 290.Google Scholar

121 Quintilian 5.11.6–8, 17–21. Quintilian's divisions seem to be based on the treatment of historia, fabula and argumentum as subdivisions of one type of narratio by De Inventione (1.19.27) and Ad Herennium (1.8.18). See the analysis of Quintilian's discussion of exemplum by Knapp, F., ‘Vergleich und Exempel’ (above, n. 116) 481–86.Google Scholar

122 See Fortunatianus, Iulius Victor, and Martianus Capella in Halm, Rhetores (above, n. 45) (above, n. 45) 115, 399, 489.Google Scholar

123 Prisciani Praeexercitamina , in Grammatici Latini, ed. Keil, H. (Leipzig 1859) 3.430–31.Google Scholar

124 Donati Ars grammatica , in Grammatici Latini, ed. Keil, H. (Leipzig 1864) 4.402. See also Gervase of Melkley, Ars poetica (above, n. 28) 150–52.Google Scholar

125 Poetria nova (above, n. 28), lines 1565–77, p. 245. Here exemplum is discussed as a variety of significatio. Google Scholar

126 RN 287. The Flores rhetorici (or Dictaminum radii) of Alberic of Montecassino includes laus and vituperatio as figures, but they are subdivided ex preteritis, presentibus and futuris (see above, n. 53). This does not have much in common with Boncompagno's pro and contra. Google Scholar

127 RN 287–89.Google Scholar

128 Ad Her. 4.15.21 and 4.45.58.Google Scholar

129 Ad Her. 4.18.25.Google Scholar

130 For example, ‘ista iuventutis est et non forma senilis,’ Poetria nova, line 675 (Faral [above, n. 28] 218). See, in general, Poetria nova, lines 668–89, pp. 217–18.Google Scholar

131 See Kantorowicz, H., ‘The Quaestiones disputatae of the Glossators,’ Rechtshistorische Schriften von Dr. Hermann Kantorowicz (edd. Coing, H. and Immel, G'.; Frankfurt 1970) 137–85.Google Scholar

132 Ibid. 138–40. Similar methods may have been employed in the teaching of rhetoric (see Ward, , Artificiosa Eloquentia [above, n. 3] 230–31). Many of the model speeches in the anonymous Oculus pastoralis, for example, are arranged for and against the issue in question (see above, n. 5). The 11th-century Rhetorimachia has been compared to the ancient controversiae (see above, n. 15). Indeed, Kantorowicz (ibid. 175–76) suggests that the suasoriae and controuersiae of the elder Seneca may have been used for teaching by medieval rhetoricians. However, he advances no strong evidence in support of this. In fact, the most widely circulated version of these works contained only excerpted sententiae, in which the original arrangement would not have been apparent (see Reynolds, , Texts and Transmission [above, n. 17] 356–57). For references to the suasoriae and controversiae by medieval authors, Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Munich 1911–31) 2.383, 731; 3.213.Google Scholar

133 See, for instance, the case cited in Kantorowicz and Buckland (above, n. 16) 33.Google Scholar

134 Boncompagno merely says, ‘commendare personas et cuncta que sub celi ambitu continentur, et eisdem commendationibus contraire ad humanam fragilitatem noscitur pertinere. Unde quia fere omnibus placere videtur, ideo pro et contra inter adornationes debent merito computari. Verumtamen si alterum defuerit, non erit adornatio, quia unum sine altero esse non potest’ (RN 287).Google Scholar

135 Elsewhere he recommends sparing use of colores to avoid obscurity. See the excerpt from the Tractatus virtutum quoted by Sutter (above, n. 6) 63–64. But compare the Poetria nova's similar warning, lines 1226–30 (Faral [above, n. 28] 235).Google Scholar

136 For a general survey, see Evans, G. R., ‘Two Aspects of Memoria in Eleventh and Twelfth Century Writings,’ Classica et Mediaevalia 32 (1971–80) 263–78; and Yates, F. A., The Art of Memory (London 1966), especially 53–57, 77, who argues that memoria moves from rhetoric to ethics in the high Middle Ages.Google Scholar

137 See Evans, , ‘Two Aspects of Memoria,’ 264–66, 274–75. Evans points out that most of the authors of this period who discuss memorising emphasise simple, practical techniques, or advise continence and avoiding drunkenness. See, for example, Alcuin's Disputatio de rhetorica et de virtutibus sapientissimi Regis Karli et Albini Magistri: Halm, Rhetores (above, n. 45) 545–46. It should be noted, though, that Hugh of St. Victor's De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum treats mnemonic techniques. On this work, see Green, W. M., ‘Hugo of St. Victor, De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum,’ Speculum 18 (1943) 484–93.Google Scholar

138 Ad Her. 3.16.28–24.40. For general discussions of the ancient system, Caplan, H., ‘Memoria: Treasure-House of Eloquence,’ Of Eloquence: Studies in Ancient and Medieval Rhetoric (edd. King, A. and North, H.; Ithaca, N.Y. 1970) 196–246; Yates, , Art of Memory (above, n. 136) 1–49.Google Scholar

139 Evans (above, n. 136) 271–72 points out that the idea of memory as a great hall or palace persisted in the Middle Ages. See, for example, Aelred of Rievaulx, De Anima 2.3 (edd. Hoste, A. and Talbot, C. H.; CC CM 1 [1971] 707).Google Scholar

140 Neither Evans nor Yates recognises this fact.Google Scholar

141 See Poetria nova, lines 1969–2030: Faral (above, n. 28) 257–59.Google Scholar

142 Parisiana poetria (above, n. 116) 36–38, 237–39.Google Scholar

143 See below, Appendix III, where the portion of Book 8 of the Candelabrum concerning memoria is transcribed from the two manuscripts cited above (n. 78). I have stayed within the late 12th and the first half of the 13th century for my examples of rhetoricians who discuss memoria. In the second half of the 13th century, because of the upsurge in the popularity of the ‘Ciceronian’ treatises, the influence of the chapters on memoria in Book 3 of Ad Herennium may have increased. Note, for example, that Jacques de Dinant borrows Ad Herennium's account for his Ars aregandi; see Wilmart, A., Analecta reginensia (Studi e Testi 59 [Vatican City 1933] 131–34).Google Scholar

144 See above, n. 138.Google Scholar

145 See nn. 47 and 48.Google Scholar

146 RN 275.Google Scholar

147 Ibid.; cf. 277–78. The argument that memory can be artificially enhanced is common in ancient rhetorical works: for example, Quintilian 11.2.1, and Fortunatianus in Halm, Rhetores (above, n. 45) 128.Google Scholar

148 RN 277–78, 280. On Boncompagno's references to theology and scripture, see above, n. 52.Google Scholar

149 275–76.Google Scholar

150 The glory of paradise is ‘ineffabilis … quia non patet sensui hominis nisi per credulitatem … . Non est hominis rerum ineffabilium subsidio alicuius artificii memorari, sed credere firmiter de gloria Dei …’ (p. 278). Yates maintains that the memory of paradise and hell, achieved with the aid of virtues and vices as memorial ‘notes,’ is the main object of the art of memory for Boncompagno. His treatment of memory, according to Yates, foreshadows the scholastic science of memory, which pertains to ethics rather than rhetoric (The Art of Memory [above, n. 136] 58–60, 77, 94). However, Yates' interpretation of the Rhetorica novissima seems to be based on a very selective reading of the text. In fact, Boncompagno places little emphasis on the memory of paradise. It lies beyond artificial memory, which is his chief concern. Thus he ends this chapter quickly, saying: ‘scriptum est quidem: “noli altum sapere, sed time” (Rom. 11.20). Unde Apocalypsi et sanctorum patrum testimoniis hanc memorandi materiam derelinquo’ (ibid.).Google Scholar

151 RN 279. Boncompagno cites the example of Pope Innocent at a recent general council. This must mean the Fourth Lateran Council, which is the only general council presided over by a Pope Innocent in Boncompagno's lifetime before 1235.Google Scholar

152 RN 280.Google Scholar

153 Ibid. 279: ‘Ad habendam memoriam plurium et diversorum nominum quoddam in memoriali cellula imaginarium constitui alphabetum … . Per illam siquidem imaginationem alphabeti, memorie naturalis beneficio preeunte, in XXX diebus quingentorum scholarium nomina memorie commendavi.’ He hints at knowing yet another method of memorising which he does not wish to divulge (p. 280). Apparently one must study with Boncompagno to learn the secret.Google Scholar

154 Parisiana poetria (above, n. 116) 36.Google Scholar

155 See especially Rouse, R. H. and Rouse, M. A., ‘Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,’ Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (above, n. 27) 201–25, and Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the Manipulus florum of Thomas of Ireland (Toronto 1979) 3–42.Google Scholar

156 RN 276.Google Scholar

157 For example, Matthew of Vendôme, Ars versificatoria 1.52.19–30 (Faral [above, n. 28] 124), and Silvestris, Bernardus, Cosmographia, Microcosmus 13.13 (ed. Dronke, P. [Leiden 1978] 149).Google Scholar

158 RN 276.Google Scholar

159 Ibid. 276–77. He rejects the belief that the blind and deaf have better memories, which depends on the view that loss of one sense enhances the others. According to Boncompagno, memory is not a sense but a ‘virtus anime principalis.’ Google Scholar

160 RN 279–80. Matthew of Vendôme expresses the same opinion, though in a different context. He offers precepts on positive description, passing over invectives, which need less instruction since the ‘consensus humane fragilitatis’ is more prone to vituperium (Ars vers. 1.59: Faral [above, n. 28] 132).Google Scholar

161 RN 277: ‘Permaneat aliquando in locis delectabilibus et amenis, in quibus audiat philomenas et suaves rivulorum decursus.’ The locus amenus (actually a standard topic for rhetorical description) is also associated with the powers of memory by Matthew of Vendôme. In the preface to Book 2 of the Ars versificatoria, Matthew describes a dream in which Flora appeared to him in a delightful rural setting, sweetening its charms so that students remaining there might find their labours lightened, and that ‘dulcedo saporis … odoratus vehiculo ad rationis recepta domicilium, quicquid favilla oblivionis sopitum dormitaret, memoriae fidelis amminiculo lingua pedissequa posset licentius profiteri’ (Ars vers. 2.2: Faral 151–52).Google Scholar

162 It is not impossible that the traditional ‘palace of memory’ lies at the root of this idea (see above, n. 139).Google Scholar

163 RN 279.Google Scholar

164 ‘Legat etiam Solinum qui partes orbis terrarum nominat et distinguit … . Legat philosophos et poetas, qui de huiusmodi tractaverunt, nec omittat vetus testamentum et historias Romanorum in quibus poterit magnam copiam invenire’ (p. 279). For contrast, note the description of memoria in Ad Herennium: ‘thesaurum inventorum atque … omnium partium rhetoricae custodem’ (3.16.28). Memoria embraces the technique, not of finding ‘magnam copiam,’ but of retaining what has been found.Google Scholar

165 RN 254.Google Scholar

166 For inventio in the arts of poetry, see Kelly, D., ‘The Scope and Treatment of Composition in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Arts of Poetry,’ Speculum 41 (1966) 272–73, and Bagni, P., ‘L'inventio nell' ars poetica latino medievale,’ Rhetoric Revalued (above, n. 56), 99–114. Among these works, the only detailed account appears in the Parisiana poetria of John of Garland, whose concept of inventio, including a second category which he calls ars eligendi, is perhaps even less orthodox than Boncompagno's. See Parisiana poetria (above, n. 116) 6–36, 229–36.Google Scholar

167 RN 254.Google Scholar

168 ‘Inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium, quae causam probabilem reddant’ (De Inv. 1.7.9). See also Ad Her. 1.2.3.Google Scholar

169 ‘Translatio est ignote litterature atque idiomatis interpretatio’ (RN 254).Google Scholar

170 On the extravagant claims of the dictatores regarding their science, see the discussion of Kantorowicz, E., ‘Anonymi Aurea gemma,’ Selected Studies (above, n. 20) 247–63 (originally published in Medievalia et Humanistica 1 [1943] 41–57).Google Scholar

171 For the manuscripts, see above, n. 23. By contrast, the Boncompagnus or Rhetorica antiqua exists in more than twenty manuscripts. See Pini's list in Dizionario biografico (above, n. 4). For echoes of the Rhetorica novissima in later writers, see Alessio, , ‘Brunetto Latini’ (above, n. 19) 127; Forti, F., ‘La transumptio nei dettatori’ (above, n. 85); Salvemini, G., ‘II “Liber de regimine civitatum” di Giovanni da Viterbo,’ Giornale storico della letteratura Italiana 14 (1903) 294–95; Pizzorusso, V., ‘Un trattato di ars dictaminis dedicato ad Alfonso X,’ Studi mediolatini e volgari 15–16 (1968) 40–42; and Purkart, J., ‘Spurious Love Letters in the Manuscripts of Boncompagno's Rota Veneris,’ Manuscripta 28 (1984) 47–48.Google Scholar

172 For the teaching of rhetoric in late-13th- and 14th-century Bologna, see Wertis, S. K., ‘The Commentary of Bartolinus de Benincasa de Canulo on the Rhetorica ad Herennium,’ Viator 10 (1979) 283–310, and Banker, J. R., ‘The Ars Dictaminis and Rhetorical Textbooks at the Bolognese University in the Fourteenth Century,’ Medievalia et Humanistica N.S. 5 (1974) 153–68. 2–4) tenenda … adiuvari] Martianus Capella (5.538) ‘Nunc ordo praecepta memoriae subministrat, quam quidem constat esse naturalem, sed et arte adiuvari posse non dubium est. Haec autem ars brevibus praeceptis, sed magna exercitatione formatur, cuius partis hoc munus est, ut non tantum firma, verum etiam celeri comprehensione res verbaque percipiantur. Tenenda veto sunt non ea tantum, quae a nobis inventa sunt, sed etiam quae ab adversario in agendo tractata sunt.’ 4–7) rerum species … continetur] Martianus (ibid.) ‘Is vero in locis illustribus meditandus est, in quibus species rerum sententiarumque imagines collocandae sunt … Nam sicut id, quod conscribitur, cera continetur et litteris, sic quod memoriae mandatur, in locis tamquam in cera paginaque Signatur; imaginibus vero quasi litteris rerum recordatio continetur.’ 7–8) ut nos … inherescunt] Martianus (5.539) ‘… magnam exercitationem res … conquirit, in qua illud observari compertum est solere, ut scribamus ipsi quae facile volumus retinere; deinde ut, si longiora fuerint, quae sunt ediscenda, divisa per partes facilius inhaerescant.’ 8–13) apponende … recordari] Martianus (ibid.) ‘apponere notas rebus singulis oportebit in his, quae volumus maxime retinere; nec voce magna legenda sunt, sed murmure potius me-ditanda; et nocte magis quam interdiu maturius excitari memoriam manifestum est, cum et late silentium iuvat … Est quidem memoria rerum atque verborum, sed non semper ediscenda sunt verba … .‘ 14–15) Nec … oneranda] Poetria nova (lines 1972–74, Faral 258) ’Cellula quae meminit est cellula deliciarum, \ deliciasque sitit, non taedia. Visne placere \ illi ? Non oneres illam 21–23) Delectatio … in illis] Poetria Nova (2021–26, Faral 259) ‘… quia delectatio sola \ vim memorativam validam facit: unde nec illis, \ sed neque crede notis aliis si sint tibi durae, si minus acceptae. Sed, si vis tutius ire, \ finge tibi notulas, quascumque dat optio mentis, \ dum te delectant, dum tu docearis in illis.’ Google Scholar