The fifth book, reviewing all these items in the same order, constitutes
a summary manual, a _summa dictaminis_.
“Since I know that some will find the multiplicity of the
preceding burdensome, let the multiplicity be reduced in this
book to paucity in consideration for the unlettered (_rudium_).
Thus, as for those who rejoice in abundance I have displayed
letters both various and adequate, so for the many of weaker
stomach who wish to be fed on light diet I ought to set forth
food at once moderate and proper (_honestum_).” The author then
proceeds seriatim with a digest.
This book by itself provides about the same quantity of precept as
suffices in other manuals to introduce collections of specimens; but it
is exceptionally systematic.[33]
C. _CURSUS_
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the practise of _cursus_ became
more technical, and the use of the term more special. The Chancellor
appointed by Pope Urban II was John of Gaetà (Giovanni Gaetano), who
had learned _dictamen_ from Alberic of Monte Cassino,[34] and who was
specifically commissioned to “reform the style of ancient grace and
elegance in the Apostolic See” and to “restore the Leonine rhythm with
its lucid rapidity.”[35] The dominant chancery style, thus reformed,
embodied the principle of rhythmical close in three types of prose
cadence:
(1) _cursus planus_, víncla perfrégit;
(2) _cursus tardus_, víncla perfrégerat;
(3) _cursus velox_, vínculum frègerámus.[36]
The first sentence of a mandate of Innocent III shows all three.
Inter omnes munitiónes et cástra (_planus_)
quæ Romana ténet ecclésia (_tardus_)
munitionem et castrum Montis Fiasconis non solum inténdit sed
cúpit (_planus_)
et providéntius gùbernári (_velox_)
et studiósius cùstodíri (_velox_).[37]
The indignant closing paragraph of Dante’s letter to the Florentines
begins:
O miserrima Fæsulanórum propágo (_planus_),
et iterum iam puníta barbáries (_tardus_)!
An parum timoris prælibáta incútiunt (_tardus_)?
Omnino vos tremere árbitror vìgilántes (_velox_),
Quamquam spem simuletis in facie verbóque mendáci (_planus_),
atque in somniis expergísci plerúmque (_planus_),
sive pavescentes infúsa præságia (_tardus_),
sive diurna consília rècoléntes (_velox_).[38]
The fixing of these three cadences in Roman use would of itself have
given them a vogue beyond letter-writing. Moreover they were chosen not
at random, but as typical fulfilments of rhythmical expectation. For they
appear also, though not exclusively, in the collects of the liturgy and
in the daily offices.[39] The collect for the fourth Sunday after the
Epiphany has all three.
Deus qui nos in tantis perículis cònstitútos (_vel._) pro
humana scis fragilitate non pósse subsístere (_tard._) da nóbis
salútem (_plan._) méntis et córporis (_tard._) ut ea quæ pro
peccatis nostris patimur (not conformed) te adjuvánte vincámus
(_plan._).[40]
The longer measures of the collect composed in 1264 by St. Thomas Aquinas
for Corpus Christi fall upon _velox_.
Deus, qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili passionis tuæ memóriam
rèliquísti, tribue, quæsumus, ita nos corporis et sanguinis tui
sacra mystéria vènerári ut redemptionis tuæ fructum in nobis
júgiter sèntiámus.
The English translation, following this cadence in the first measure and
the third, departs in the second.
O God, who in this wonderful sacrament hast left us a memórial
of thy pássion, grant us, we beseech thee, so to venerate
the sacred mysteries of thy body and blood [not conformed]
that we may ever perceive within ourselves the frúit of thy
redémption.[41]
Hearing these cadences over and over, preachers of course used them often
in Latin sermons. Thus the cadences that were obligatory in ceremonious
letters, and habitual in other use, confirmed the conception and
practise of Latin prose as rhythmical.
The rhythmical conception of prose, as the middle age knew well, had been
dominant in classical antiquity. But medieval Latin prose, though its
tradition came through the schools of Gaul, had had its own development.
As in verse,[42] so in prose, the shift of rhythmical control to stress
opened, not a breach, but a new artistic life. Medieval Latin ran as a
living language with the movement of living speech. This was recognized
even by the grammarians.[43] So the thirteenth-century manuals of
_dictamen_ kept the terminology of ancient metric to describe accentual
rhythms[44] because Latin to them was present as well as past, and
seemed to reach indefinitely into the future. The future, by the time
of the Renaissance, was seen to be with the vernacular for poetry. More
slowly it was seen to be there also for prose. Meantime Latin poetic and
rhetoric came to be studied by revival of antiquity. Revival translates
Renaissance exactly. Italian scholars, and after them French and
English, sought to turn Latin prose back to Cicero. Though they thus
accomplished some most worthy ends, their theory and their practise
interrupted Latin prose composition. Their contemptuous rejection of
medieval rhythms hastened the processes by which Latin became a “dead”
language. In the middle age it was living. A conspicuous evidence of its
vitality, not merely a legal technic, but the formulation of a rhythmical
habit, was the _cursus_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Thurot, 91, 114 (note 2), 483 (note 1). Thurot finds Orléans more in
touch with Italy than with its own part of France.
[2] Several of the collection by Pierre de Blois in PL 207 seem to
be form-letters; and this is the main intention in the tenth-century
_Collectio Sangallensis_, MHG, Legum Sectio V, Formulæ, pages 390-433.
See Clerval, 114, on the letters of Fulbert in Bibl. Nat. MS 14167;
311-313, on Pierre de Blois, Étienne de Tournay, and John of Salisbury.
[3] Scribit Remensis archiepiscopus pro causa nostra domino Papæ,
præcipiens litteras suas ad meum formari arbitrium. _Ep._ 286; PL, 199:
326.
[4] _Ep._ 223, page 389, in the collection of the letters of Gerbert,
John of Salisbury, and Stephen of Tournay printed by Ruette, Paris, 1611.
Both texts, omitting the _salutatio_, have the simple heading _Guillelmo
Papiensi_. PL dates the letter 1167.
[5] Rockinger, I. 405-482.
[6] See Gaudenzi, who also edits it in _Bibliotheca iuridica_, I. It is
printed in part by Rockinger, I. 121-174.
[7] Edited by Gaudenzi in _Bibliotheca iuridica_, II.
[8] Hahn, I. 279-385; composed mainly of specimens. For Guido Fava and
Bene di Lucca, see Gaudenzi.
[9] Described from MS Bibl. Nat. fonds St. Victor, 906, and several
times quoted, by Thurot, 414, 415, 483, 484, 485; mentioned by Clark.
Manacorda, II. 266, citing Gaudenzi, says it is by Bene of Florence.
The _Candelabrum_ is digested below, section B. 1.
[10] The term was more special than _dictator_, which meant more
generally a master in the art of prose; but Boncompagno, perhaps
because of his legal bent, uses the two side by side in his _Rhetorica
novissima_: “Dictator, prout hodie sumitur, est ille qui oratorum dicta
legit et repetit, et repetita variat et componit.... Dictatoris officium
est materias sibi exhibitas vel a se aliquando inventas congruo latino
et appositione ornare: tales namque interdum notarii appellantur.” Bibl.
iurid. II. 257.
[11] Under the title _Rhetorica ecclesiastica_ this is studied for
the twelfth century by Emil Ott in Sitzungsberichte der K. Akad. der
Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 125 (1891-1892),
Abhandl. 8: pages 1-118, Vienna, 1892; and in the series edited by
Dr. Ludwig Wahrmund with the sub-title Quellen zur Geschichte des
römischcanonistischen Processes im Mittelalter, Innsbruck, vol. I, 1906.
[12] E.g., the _privilegia_ of Urban III (1185) and of Gregory VIII
(1187) in PL 202.
[13] Poole provides the best English introduction to this study.
[14] E.g., Alberic in Rockinger, I. 9. Ermini finds it used in the tenth
century to mean _devoir_, or theme, “specimen eruditionis,” “lavoro
scolastico,” _Poeti epici latini del secolo x_, 70, 109.
[15] E.g., _Candelabrum_, as also Conrad in Rockinger, I. 442. For the
_poetriæ_, see above, Chapter VII. B.
[16] For _prosopopœia_ and _controversia_ see the index to ARP.
[17] See above, page 191.
[18] Made from the Plimpton MS.
[19] For the three styles, see the indexes to ARP and to this volume.
[20] Cursus is used in this general sense by the thirteenth-century
grammar edited by Fierville (119), which also applies to compositio
the phrase equabiliter perpolita (116). Rhet. ad Heren. has æqualiter
perpolita.
For cursus in its special sense, see below, section C.
[21] _Poetria nova_ 1051-1060 is quoted here with some variations from
Faral’s text. The _Candelabrum_ is therefore posterior to 1208-1213.
[22] Cf. Matthieu de Vendôme, II., section 13 seq.; Faral, 155 seq.
[23] “_Unius clausule integrum membrum._” _Clausula_ is consistently
used to mean what we now call a sentence. It is so defined below (folio
6): “De clausulis quoque sequitur ut agamus, quoniam ex distinctionibus
clausule compinguntur. Clausula igitur est plurium distinctionum
continuatio ambitum perfectum sententie comprehendens.” The author
adds that it is otherwise used _abusive_. His definition agrees with
Fierville, 119.
[24] Alberic (Rockinger, I. 25) has the same threefold division, but
calls [1] _suspensiva_, and says that it ends _acuto accentu_. Conrad
(Rockinger, I. 443) follows Alberic’s terms, and quotes (444-445)
Alexander de Villedieu’s _Doctrinale_, 2348-2358. The _Candelabrum_
grasps clearly the ancient conception of a period as a sentence
rhythmically composed and rhythmically completed.
[25] The technical significances of this section cannot safely be
suggested by translation. The available terms of modern English, if not
misleading, would be at least prejudicial to an interesting inquiry. A
considerable part of the original is printed by Thurot, 415: “De punctis
... et modo punctandi,” etc.
[26] “Quod paritatem sillabarum et similem consonantiam sine ulla
temporis consideratione observat.” The example is the hymn _Ave, Maria,
salvatoris_. There is added, by way of caveat, the different ancient
definition of _rhythmus_; but the medieval use is vindicated “ad
delectationem et quandam mollitiem; quoque ad dignitatem....” So Conrad:
“Rithmicum observat tantummodo certum numerum sillabarum, distinguendo
clausulas versiculorum in quadam finali concinnantia.” Rockinger, I. 419.
[27] Cf. Conrad’s list headed _Diversitas personarum_. Rockinger, I. 425
seq.
[28] The ancient term _auditor_ is kept, as well as the traditional three
functions. The second function being cardinal in a letter, _benevolentiæ
captatio_ in some manuals, e.g., Alberic’s (Rockinger, I. 18), is used
as the heading, instead of _exordium_. In others, as, here, it is a
subheading. The doctrine here is from _Rhet. ad Herennium_ I.
[29] Reference to the opponent is kept from ancient rhetoric, though
often inapplicable in a letter. But see the opening of John of
Salisbury’s letter at the beginning of this Chapter.
[30] The ancient counsel against pomp in the _exordium_, though repeated,
seems to have been less regarded than the others.
[31] E.g., by Geoffroi de Vinsauf, _Poetria nova_, 126-133 (Faral, 201);
Guido Fava (Rockinger, I. 185; Gaudenzi, 129).
[32] The term is said to be more inclusive. “Narrationum genera tria
sunt: oratorium, digressorium, et poeticum.” _Digressorium_ probably
refers to the _digressio_ for which a place in the speech was provided
by ancient rhetoric after the division (see ARP, 65). _Poeticum_ is of
course divided into _historia_, _fabula_, _argumentum_ (for which see the
index). The author makes no use of this, or of the whole division, which
indeed is inapplicable to a letter; but it seems to have troubled him,
as it troubled the _poetriæ_ (see above, page 193). Quintilian’s clear
distinction seems to have escaped them: “Et historiæ, quæ currere debet
ac ferri, minus convenissent insistentes clausulæ,” etc., IX. iv.
[33] At this point the author turns from Roman use to French, beginning