1 His original statement of the thesis is found in “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance,” Byzantion, 17(1944-45), 345-374; most recently published in Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. M. Mooney (New York, 1979), pp. 85-105. Reference to this article will be from the latter work. Also see in the same volume “The Humanist Movement,” pp. 21-32.

In presenting his thesis Kristeller was motivated by a desire to give precision to our understanding of humanism as a historical movement by viewing it in terms of its link with the learned tradition of Western Europe and humanism's institutional connections. For his enumeration of the basic studia humanitatis, see “The Humanist Movement,” p. 22; and “Humanism and Scholasticism,” pp. 92 and 98; and for his detailed discussion of humanist achievements in these areas, see ibid., pp. 25ff. and 92ff. Stressing that humanism arose out of a concern for grammatical as well as rhetorical studies (“Humanism and Scholasticism,” p. 91), Kristeller focuses on the relationship between the humanists and the Italian medieval grammarians and rhetoricians (ibid., p. 94). His definition of the humanists as rhetoricians and their relationship to the medieval dictatores is found in “The Humanist Movement,” pp. 23-24; and “Humanism and Scholasticism,” pp. 92-93.

2 “Humanism and Scholasticism,” p. 97. Kristeller describes France as exercising leadership in the Middle Ages in the study of ancient Roman literature, theology, and composition of Latin poetry. Until the late thirteenth century, in his view, Italy concentrated its scholarly concern on more practical subjects like law and medicine. The Italian rhetorical interests of the medieval period were likewise practical, focusing on the composition of speeches for political occasions and letters devoted to business or political affairs. Kristeller sees the origins of humanism as rising from “a fusion between the novel interest in classical studies imported from France toward the end of the thirteenth century and the much earlier traditions of medieval Italian rhetoric” (ibid., p. 97, with notes). See also Ullman, B. L., “Some Aspects of the Origin of Italian Humanism,” Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Storia e letteratura, rev. ed., 51 (Rome, 1973), 27–40 Google Scholar; Renucci, P., L'aventure de Vhumanisme européen au moyen-âge (Paris, 1953), pp. 138ffGoogle Scholar; and Simone, Franco, “Medieval French Culture and Italian Humanism,” in The French Renaissance, trans. Hall, H. Gaston (London, 1969), 279–290.Google Scholar

In his interpretation of Kristeller, Seigel, Jerrold E., Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism (Princeton, 1968), p. 200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, exaggerates Kristeller's position when he writes that humanism “evolved principally” from ars dictaminis and that the latter “carried the seeds of humanist classicism.” Moreover, whereas Kristeller uses the term dictator to apply only to a professional teacher of rhetoric or a chancery official, the tendency of Seigel, , Rhetoric and Philosophy, pp. 208ff.Google Scholar, is to identify notaries as a group and writers of literature generally as dictatores. This blurring of Kristeller's clear definition permits Seigel to consider the proto-humanists collectively as dictatores but entails the position that any Italian writing literary works in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries deserves to be counted among the professional rhetoricians.

3 Kristeller, , “Humanism and Scholasticism,” p. 93.Google Scholar

4 While most humanists in the fifteenth century are aptly described as rhetoricians, according to Cicero's sharp distinction between rhetoricians and orators, a handful of humanists came close to attaining the status of the ideal orator. See below, p. 33.

5 Carol Lanham is presently working on the continuity between the instruction of letter writing in late antiquity and the eleventh century. See her Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax, Style, and Theory, Münchener Beiträge, 22 (Munich, 1975). pp. 80-94. Kristeller, Paul O., “Philosophy and Rhetoric from Antiquity to the Renaissance. The Middle Ages,” Renaissance Thought and its Sources, pp. 230 and 233Google Scholar, points to Gunzo of Novara, who composed a letter in the tenth century clearly based on “the later rhetorical precepts on the parts of the letter” (p. 230). For a discussion of other evidence for teaching ars dictaminis in the decades prior to Alberico, see Patt, William D., “The Early ‘Ars Dictaminis’ as Response to a Changing Society,” Viator, 9 (1978), 135-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Cheney, C. R., English Bishops’ Chanceries, 1100-1250 (Manchester, 1950), pp. 28–38 Google Scholar, identifies the first bishops’ chanceries in England in the early twelfth century but the institution does not become common until the thirteenth century. By contrast they are the rule in France by the twelfth century (ibid., pp. 25-27). Cf. Tout, T. F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 6 vols. (Manchester-London, 1920-1933), I, 127.Google Scholar de Boüard, Alain, Manuel de diplomatique française et pontificate, 2 vols. (Paris, 1929-1948), I, 117–118 Google Scholar, considers the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries as the period for the development of chanceries in Germany and France. Lot, Ferdinand and Fawtier, Robert, Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen âge, I (Paris, 1957).Google Scholar see the first mention of a chancellor in Toulouse at the end of the eleventh (p. 84), in Normandy after 1066 (p. 17), and in Anjou early in the twelfth (p. 40) while Forez apparently does not have a chancery until around 1200 (p. 292). The first appointment of a chancellor in Flanders was in 1089 ( Boüard, , Manuel de diplomatique, p. 117, n. 1Google Scholar). On this chancery see also Prevenier, Walter, “La cancellerie des comtes de Flandre dans le cadre européen à la fin du xii^c siècle,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 125 (1967), 34–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The institution of the notariate develops in the pays de droit écrit beginning in the twelfth century according to Boüard, , Manuel de diplomatique, p. 157.Google Scholar The role of ars dictaminis teaching in the improvement in style of royal documents in France is uncertain. Tessier, George, Diplomatique royale française (Paris, 1962), pp. 214–215 Google Scholar; and Giry, A., Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1925), pp. 446–449 Google Scholar, comment on the mediocrity of Latin style in the chancery of the early Capetians. Giry, pp. 446-447, notes an improvement from the end of the eleventh century, but this is decades before the ars dictaminis comes into prominence in France. On the contemporaneous rise of chanceries in Germany see Bresslau, Harry, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre, 3rd. ed., 2 vols. (Berlin, 1958), I, 593ff.Google Scholar

7 On the bishop's notary see Cencetti, Giorgio, “Note di diplomatica vescovile bolognese dei secoli xi-xii,” in Scritti di paleografia e diplomatica in onore di Vincenzo Federici (Florence, 1944), pp. 216–220 Google Scholar; and Brentano, Robert, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (Princeton, 1968), pp. 295ffGoogle Scholar. Chancellors of Italian communes become common only in last half of thirteenth century. See Marzi, Demetrio, La cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina (Città di Castello, 1910), pp. 5–13.Google Scholar On the link between dictamen and the needs of contemporary Italian society, see Kennedy, George A.. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill, 1980), p. 186.Google Scholar For an overview of ars dictaminis, see, Schaller, H. M. “Ars dictaminis, ars dictandi,” in Lexicon des Mittelalters, 1 (Munich and Zurich, 1980), pp. 1034–1039.Google Scholar

8 Official letters were doubtless read aloud as a rule but the extent to which other correspondence was delivered orally cannot be determined. On oral reading of writings see Crosby, Ruth, “Oral Delivery in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, 11 (1936), 88–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Giles Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections, Typologie des sources du moyen-âge occidental, fasc. 17, A-II (Turnhout, 1976), pp. 53-54. Also see Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Giles Constable, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), II, 27, n. 115.

9 For references to this concern in ars dictaminis literature see the article by Giles Constable, “The Structure of Medieval Society according to the Dictatores of the Twelfth Century,” in Law, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner, ed. Kenneth Pennington and Robert Somerville (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 253-267, with its comprehensive bibliography.

10 For example, Adalbertus, Henry of Francigena, Albert of San Martino, and Paul of Camaldoli. See references in Constable, “The Structure of Medieval Society,” pp. 254-255 and 258-259, with notes. Also Lanham, Salutatio Formulas generally. As contrasted with the private letter, the public letter or missive is a form of institutional rhetoric. See Marti, Mario, “La prosa,” in Le origini e il Duecento, ed. Cecchi, Emilio and Sapegno, Natalino, Storia della letteratura, 1 (Milan, 1965), 526.Google Scholar See as well my Coluccio Salutati and His Public Letters (Geneva, 1976), pp. I and 8-9; and Kristeller, “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 249. The tendency of dictamen, however, was to blur the distinction between public and private letters.

11 Grube, G.M.A., A Greek Critic: Demetrius cm Style (Toronto, 1961), p. 112.Google Scholar The letter, like a conversation, should be “an image” of the writer's personality. Demetrius writes (p. 113): “The beauty of a letter lies in the expression of affection and courtesy… . ” For a discussion of the dating of the work between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D., see Klaus Thraede, Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik, Zetamata. Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 48 (Munich, 1970), pp. 19-20, and Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), pp. 285–290.Google Scholar On epistolography in the ancient world generally see Sykutris, J., “Epistolographie,” in Pauly-Wissowa, , Real-Encydopädie,, Suppl., 5 (1931), cols. 185-220Google Scholar; Schneider, J., “Brief,” in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 2 (Stuttgart, 1954), pp. 564–585 Google Scholar; and Malherbe, Abraham J., “Ancient Epistulary Theory,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies, 5, No. 2 (1977), 3–77.Google Scholar On the ancient Greek letter see Ferdinand Ziemann, De epistularum Graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae. Diss. (Halle, 1911) in Dissertationes philologicae halenses, 18 (1911), pp. 253-369; Exler, F.X.J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington, D.C., 1923)Google Scholar; and Koskenniemi, Heikki, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes his 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956).Google Scholar Threade, Grundzüge, and Hermann Peter, Der Brief in der römischen Litteratur, Abhandlungen d. philol. hist. cl. d. Kön Säch. Gesell. der Wissenschaften, vol. 20, no. 3 (Leipzig, 1901), present discussions of ancient Latin epistolography. See also Cugusi, Paolo, “Studi sull’ epistolografia latina, I: l'eta preciceroniana,” Annali delle Facoltá di lettere filosofia e magistero dell'Uniuersità di Cagliari, 33 (1970), 5–112 Google Scholar; and by the same author, “Studi sull’ epistolografia latina, II: l'età ciceroniana e augustea,” ibid, 35 (1972), 5-167. Koskenniemi, , Studien, pp. 32–33 Google Scholar, and Threade, , Grundzuge, 27ff.Google Scholar, indicate the influence of Greek letter writing practices in Cicero.

12 Ars rhetorica, ed. Halm, Karl, in Rhetores latini minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 446–448.Google Scholar

13 Cicero, Ad fam. IX, 21, 1: “Verumtamen quid tibi ego in epistulis videor? Nonne plebeio sermone agere tecum? Nee enim semper eodem modo. Quid enim simile habet epistola aut iudicio aut contioni? Quin ipsa iudicia non solemus omnia tractare uno modo. Privatas causas, et eas tenues, agimus subtilius, capitis aut famae scilicet ornatius; epistulas vero quotidianis verbis texere solemus.” I have used the Loeb edition of the letters, The Letters to His Friends, trans. W. Glynn Williams, 3 vols. (London, New York, 1927-29), II, 260 and 262.

14 Ars rhetorica, p. 447.

15 Cicero, De or., II, 12, 49. Demetrius too makes a distinction between the friendly letter and those sent to cities and kings: the latter “should be somewhat more distinguished in style” (p. 113).

16 de Ghellinck, Joseph, L'essor de la littérature latine au xii siècle, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1946), II, 67 Google Scholar, criticizes the ars dictaminis for misunderstanding the character of the letter as a means of communication: “…en transportant dans le genre epistolaire ce que l'Orator de Ciceron réservait au genre oratoire, appelé à captiver l'oreille pour mieux conquérir l'esprit, ils enlevaient à la lettre tout ce qu'elle pouvait avoir de charme personnel, d'abandon confidentiel, de sentiment et de vie… . ” While valid for letters of a personal nature as shown below, the criticism is unfounded as far as official letters are concerned.

17 Alberico of Montecassino, Flores rhetorici, ed. D. M. Inguanez and H. M. Willard, Miscellanea cassinese, 14 (Montecassino, 1938), pp. 36-38. See bibliography in Lentini, Anselmo, “Alberico,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 1 (1960), p. 646 Google Scholar; and Kristeller, “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 318, n. 22. Alberico drew his description of the parts of the oration immediately, not from Cicero, but from Isidore of Seville, Etym., II, 7. The division, salutatio, may derive from Victorinus. See Flores, p. 25, n. 1.

18 Adalbertus Samaritanus, Praecepta dictaminum, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 3 (Weimar, 1961), pp. 30 and 34.

19 Hugo of Bologna, Rationes dictandi prosake, ed. L. Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbücher des elfien bis vierzehnten Jahrhunderts, Quellen und Eröterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, 9 in 2 vols. (Munich, 1863), I, 57. On the date of Hugo's manual as about 1119-1124, see Haskins, Charles H., Studies in Medieval Culture (Oxford, 1929), p. 180.Google Scholar Also see Maximilianus Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 9 in 3 vols. (1911-1931), III, 309; and Odebrecht, Botho, “Die Briefmuster des Henricus Francigena,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung, 14 (1936), 231 ff.Google Scholar Aldo Scaglione, Arsgrammatica, Janua linguarutn, ser. min., 77 (The Hague and Paris, 1970), p. 139, dates the work after 1140.

20 Rationes dictandi, ed. Rockinger, , Briefsteller, I, 10.Google Scholar For the false attribution of this work to Alberico see Schmale's edition of Praecepta dictaminum, p. 2 and bibliography, p. 2, n. 2. Schmale dates the work about 1140. Herbert Bloch, “Monte Cassino's Teachers and Library in the High Middle Ages,” in La scuola nell'occidente latino dell’ alto medioevo, Settimana di studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo, 19 (Spoleto, 1972), p. 588-589, assigns a date after 1137. See especially Savorelli, Mirella Brini, “II ‘Dictamen’ di Bernardo Silvestre,” Rivista critica di storia della filosofia, 20 (1965), 191–192 Google Scholar, and Lanham, , Salutatio Formulas, pp. 105–107.Google Scholar For translation of part I of the work based on Rockinger's edition see Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, ed. James J. Murphy (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1971), pp. 5-25.

For a qualified defense of Alberico's authorship see, however, Lentini, Anselmo, “Note su Alberico Cassinese, maestro di retorica,” Studi medievali, NS 18 (1952). 125–127.Google Scholar I have not seen L. Secchiari, “Alberico di Montecassino e il problema dell'attribuzione delle Rationes,” Diss., University of Bologna, 1958. For conscious oratorical association with the letter see also Precepta prosaici dictaminis secundum Tullium und die Konstanzer Briefsammlung, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale, Diss. (Bonn, 1950), p. 70.

21 Flores rhetorici, p. 37.

22 Aldalbertus, , Praecepta, p. 33 Google Scholar, speaks of three accidentia in the letter written in stilus sublimus: the blandities, causa blanditiei and the petitio (the salutation is not considered part of the letter). Hugo, , Rationes, p. 56 Google Scholar, offers a three-part letter again with the salutation considered separately. If Schmale is correct about its dating, the Rationes dictandi would be the first manual to outline a five-part letter and include the salutatio (Rockinger, Briefsteller, I, 10). See discussion of Beyer, Heinz-Jürgen, “Die Frühphase der ‘ars dictandi,’” Studi medievali, 3rd. ser. 18, No. 2 (1977), 22–23.Google Scholar Murphy, James J., Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, p. 4 Google Scholar, appears to assign a date of 1135 to the treatise.

23 See, for example, the anonymous manual from the Vienna MS 246 published by Savorelli, “Il ‘Dictamen’ di Bernardo Silvestre,” p. 203, which divides prose dictamen into epistolare and non epistolare. The latter “est illud quod non est epistolare nee in se continens epistolam, ut hystorie, invective, exposiciones evangelice doctrine, rethorice oraciones et huiusmodi.” Haskins, “An Italian Master Bernard,” Essays in History Presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H. W. C. Davis (Oxford, 1927), pp. 219-220, dates the manuscript in the time of Innocent III. Compare Savorelli, pp. 192-193 and 200.

While making no specific difference between letters and speeches, Boncompagno devoted his Rhetorica novissima, ed. A. Gaudenzi, Scripta Anecdota Glossatorum, 3 vols. (Bologna, 1888-91), Il, 251-297, to composing speeches. Translation of the introduction is found in Lynn Thorndike, University Records and Life in the Middle Ages, Records of civilization, Sources and Studies, 38 (New York, 1944), pp. 41-46. See as well Galletti, Alfredo, L'eloquenza (dalle origini al XVI secolo) (Milan, 1938), pp. 451–454.Google Scholar For Faba's manuals for orations see Parlamenti e epistole, ed. Gaudenzi, A., in his I suoni, le forme e le parole dell'odierno dialetto della cittá di Bologna (Bologna, 1889), pp. 127–160 Google Scholar; and Vecchi, G., “Le arenge di Guido Faba e l'eloquenza d'arte civile e politica duecentesca,” Quadrivium, 4 (1960), 61–90.Google Scholar Faba, Summa dictaminis, ed. Gaudenzi, A., Il propugnatore, NS 3, No. 1 (1890), 331 Google Scholar, sees the arenga (exordium) as fitted both for the speech and the epistle. Also see discussion of Galetti, , L'eloquenza, pp. 462–466.Google Scholar Another author of a number of manuals on letter writing also composed an art arengandi. See Wilmart, A., “L'ars arengandi de Jacques de Dinant avec un appendice sur ses ouvrages De dictamine ,” Analecta reginensia, Studi e testi, 59 (Rome, 1933), 113–151.Google Scholar Bono da Lucca distinguishes the kind of exordium used in judicial oratory from that found in letters: Cedrus libani in Magistri Boni Lucensis Cedrus libani, ed. G. Vecchi, Testi e manuali, L'Istituto di filologia romanza dell'Università di Roma, 46 (Modena, 1963), p. 66. On the term arenga see Kristeller, , “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” pp. 320–321 Google Scholar, n. 40.

24 While all dictatores were flexible in allowing the nature of the material to dictate the number of parts, still there was controversy over the number suitable for the normal letter. von Mure, Conrad, Die Summa de arte prosandi des Konrad von Mure, ed. Kronbichler, Walter, Geist und Werk der Zeiten, 17(Zurich, 1968), p. 31 Google Scholar, refers to a debate among dictatores as to whether the letter has three or five parts. However, one early thirteenth-century dictator, a certain William by name, maintained that the letter had six parts. See Samaran, Charles, “Une summa grammatical du xiii^c siècle avec gloses provençales,” Archivum latinitatis medii aevi, 31 (1961), 215b.Google Scholar William defends the very six part organization (salutatio, captatio, proverbium, narratio, petitio and conclusio) which Boncompagno in his Palma regards as long ago abandoned. See Sutter, Carl, Aus Leben und Schriften des Magisters Boncompagno (Freiburg, 1894), p. 109.Google Scholar Boncompagno puts exordium for proverbium.

On vocabulary for introducing parts of letters see, for example, Faba, Summa, in Il pugnatore, NS 3, No. 2 (1890), 348-349; Bene da Firenze, Candelabrum, in Giuseppe Vecchi, “Temi e momenti d'arte dettatoria nel Candelabrum di Bene da Firenze,” Atti e memorie, Deputazione di storia patria per le province di Romagna, NS 10 (1958/9), 163-164; and Thomas of Capua's treatment of linking words in Emmy Heller, Die Ars dictandi des Thomas von Capua, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. hist, kl., 19, No. 4 (1928/9), pp. 40-41. Significantly, set phrases and a commonly accepted vocabulary of transition are characteristics of oral literature. See Crosby, “Oral Delivery,” pp. 106 ff.

25 Even Boncompagno, who does not regard the exordium as a principal part of the letter (see above, n. 24) devoted treatises to its composition. Although the Isagoge remains unpublished, the Breviloquium is found in Breviloquium di Boncompagno da Signa, ed. Giuseppe Vecchi (Bologna, 1954). The most complete treatment of Boncompagno's conception of the exordium is found in James R. Banker's “Giovanni di Bonandrea's Ars dictaminis Treatise and the Doctrine of Invention in the Italian Rhetorical Tradition of the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1972, pp. 145ff.

26 Carl Erdmann, “Leonitas. Zur mittelalterlichen Lehre von Kursus, Rhythmus und Reim,” Corona quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Leipzig, 1941), p. 26, indicates that while prose rhyme was common from the tenth century, the cursus in the early twelfth century was still exceptional. Different forms of cursus were utilized from the late Roman Empire: see di Capua, Francesco, Scritti minori, 2 vols. (Città di Castello, 1959), I Google Scholar, passim. On the Forma dictandi, probably the earliest statement of the rules of the cursus romanus, and its link with Albertus of Morra in the second half of the twelfth century, see Dalzell, Ann, “The Forma dictandi attributed to Albert of Morra and Related Texts,” Mediaeval Studies, 39 (1977), 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the cursus generally, see Janson, Tore, Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century, Studia latina stockholmiensia, 20 (Stockholm, 1975)Google Scholar, with bibliography.

27 The Ars dictandi aureliensis, Rockinger, , Quellen, p. 103 Google Scholar, for example, refers to dictamen as “ltteralis edicio, venustate sermonum egregia, sententiarum coloribus adornata.” Thomas of Capua, Die Ars dictandi, p. 16, speaks of letters written “elegantius et locupletius”; and Bene da Firenze, “Temi e momenti,” p. 138, aims for “lepida suavitas et lepo locutionis” in ordering the words of the letter.

While having the same general purpose in mind, a dictator could of course utilize a variety of styles depending on the material and his intention for writing. Boncompagno in contrast to the stilus supremus of Orleans insisted on a stilus humilis in his dictamen manuals. Nevertheless, both in his Amicitia (Amicitia di Maestro Boncompagno da Signa, ed. Sarina Nathan, Miscellanea di letteratura del medio evo, 3 [Rome, 1909]) and his Rota Veneris (fac. ed. and trans. Josef Purkart [Delmar, N.Y., 1975]) he relied on a highly figurative style not unlike that of his French opponents. Also see Witt, , Coluccio Salutati, p. 34 Google Scholar, n. 3. Guido Faba composed∼his own correspondence in three styles. See Murphy, James J., Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1974), p. 257.Google Scholar

28 This is essentially the thesis of Banker, “Giovanni di Bonandrea's Ars dictaminis Treatise.” Banker focuses on the dictatores’ manipulation of the established values of the society to achieve persuasion. As he writes of Faba (p. 108): “Faba's invention was not a method of discovering the contradictions and conflicts in society; rather, he sought through his salutation and exordium a means of veiling conflict within more permanent values and discovering the persuasive in the accepted values of his society.” He sees Faba (p. no) as being able “to stroke all the strings of the hierarchical instrument.” Constable, “Land, Church and Society,” p. 262, confirms this characterization implicitly when he writes of dictamen: “It reflected … a characteristically medieval concern for the importance of office and established positions in society, and a corresponding disdain for dependents or even for independent people without formal dignities.”

Just as important, however, in pursuing the goal of persuasion by stressing the community of wills were the stylistic elements: the preponderance of declarative sentence structure, the traditional formulas, and the cursus. Boncompagno can be viewed as an exception to this generalization of approach only if his Rhetorica novissima is misunderstood as applying to letters rather than to oratory. See Kristeller, , “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 237.Google Scholar In that work his primary concern is with judicial oratory. For Boncompagno (Gaudenzi ed. p. 255b) rhetoric is founded on the “contrarietas voluntatum, de qua nascitur omnis materia litigandi.” He identifies rhetoric as concerned with criminal and civil law (p. 256b). Latini will attempt to show that “contrarietas voluntatum” is the basis of letter writing as well: see below, pp. 000.

29 Brevitas is an ideal for every writer of ars dictaminis: for instance, Alberico, , Flores, p. 53 Google Scholar; Adalbertus, , Praecepta, pp. 30 and 50Google Scholar; and Paul of Camaldoli, Paris Bib. nat., MS lat. 7517, fol. 56^v. Both the De inventione, I, 20, 28, and the Ad Herennium, I. 9, insisted on brevity in the narratio. Faba, Guido, Summa dictaminis, p. 332 Google Scholar, refers specifically to the Ad Herennium in his teaching on the narratio.

On brevitas generally in the Middle Ages see Curtius, Ernst R., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Trask, W. R., Bollingen Series, 36 (Princeton, 1967), pp. 487–494.Google Scholar Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Constable, Giles, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), I, 44 Google Scholar, complains when writing a letter: “Additur dirficultati studium brevitatis, qua moderni nescio qua innata segnicie, delectantur… . “ See ibid., II, 35. When Constable writes (ibid., II, 2) that “the average writer of letters in the eleventh and twelfth centuries enjoyed considerable liberty in both content and form,” he is obviously thinking not of the letters written in ars dictaminis but rather of those by twelfth-century humanists like John of Salisbury. The model letters of the dictatores and those produced under their guidance are almost without exception short and to the point. On the perverse effect of dictamen on the twelfth-century humanists see n. 31 below.

30 See below, p. 32.

31 The increasing popularity of ars dictaminis constitutes a major cause of the drying up of the rich production of epistles characteristic of the major writers of the “Twelfth Century Renaissance.” As has been said, Ghellinck (n. 16, above) considers the ars dictaminis to have had a disastrous influence on epistolography. He faults dictamen manuals (p. 66) because they did not use the letters of the ancients as examples and were not “assez perspicaces pour distinguer du genre oratoire les exigences tout autres du genre épistolaire et de toute composition littéraire.” Constable, , Letters and Letter Collections, pp. 37–38 Google Scholar, however, traces the end of the great age of epistolography in the twelfth century to the strictures of church reform against monks writing and receiving letters and to the spread of the vernacular languages which reduced the circle of people who could correspond in Latin. On the prohibitions regarding monks, especially the Cistercians, see Paden, William D., “De monachis rithmos facientibus,” Speculum, 55 (1980), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar While both explanations have merit, my tendency is to emphasize that of Ghellinck. However the disparity is to be explained, it is important to reemphasize that the decline concerned personal letters and not official ones.

32 For basic analysis of the stilus rhetoricus tradition, see Schaller, Hans, “Die Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs II: Ihr Personal und ihr Sprachstil,” Archiv für Diplomatik; Schriftengeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde, 4 (1958), 277–289 Google Scholar; and Wieruszowski, , Culture and Politics in Medieval Spain and Italy, Storia e letteratura, 121 (Rome, 1971), pp. 374, 432-434Google Scholar, and 606. A general summary of the genesis of this style seen from the stand-point of the developments at Frederick's court is found in Paratore, Ettore, “Alcuni caratteri dello stile della cancelleria federiciana,” Atti del convegno internazionale di studi federiciani (Palermo, 1952), 283–314.Google Scholar For a comparison of imperial and papal epistolary styles in the first half of the thirteenth century, see Vehse, Otto, Die amtliche Propaganda in der Staatkunst Kaiser Friedrichs II (Munich, 1929), 165–175.Google Scholar On the influence of crusade sermons, see Schaller, pp. 280-281.

33 Ibid., p. 287.

34 There is frequently a marked difference between the style used by these dictatores in their official letters and those sent out in their own name. When Odofredus, the Bolognese jurist, cites Pietro della Vigna as an example of those “volentes obscure loqui” (quoted by Kantorowicz, E., Kaiser Friedrich II, Ergdnzungsband [Berlin, 1931], p. 126 Google Scholar) he would have been referring to Pietro's own correspondence and that of his friends. See these letters published by Huillard-Breholles, Jean L. A., Vie et correspondance de Pierre de la Vigne (Paris, 1865), 289ff.Google Scholar Written in a complex, often figurative style, the stilus obsairus, possibly reflecting French influence (see below n. 36), these letters contrast with the stilus rhetoricus of the public correspondence of the Magna Curia: Historia diplomatica Friderki-Secundi, ed. Jean L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, 6 vols. (Paris, 1852-61). See for example, III, 48-50 and 93-99; IV, 408-411; V, 1014-1017; VI, 186-187 and 705-707. Although more stylistically restrained than those of della Vigna, the letters sent out by Thomas of Capua in his own name differ from those dispatched in that of the popes he served. For Thomas’ letters see “Der kuriale Geschäftsgang in den Briefen des Thomas von Capua,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung, 13 (1935), 198-318. See as well Halm, S. F., Collectio monumentorum veterum et recentium ineditorum, 2 vols. (Brunswick, 1724-26), I, 279ff.Google Scholar Compare these with style of contemporary popes for whom he wrote letters: Historia diplomatica, II, 588-599 (Honorius III); III, 224-226 and 289; and IV, 914-923 (Gregory IX). Schaller, , “Die Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs II,” pp. 279–280 Google Scholar, contrasts the style of Innocent III with that of Honorius III, his successor. Fundamental to the life and work of Thomas of Capua is Schaller, Hans, “Studien zur Briefsammlung des Kardinals Thomas von Capua,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 21 (1965), 371–518.Google Scholar

I am presently unable to express the difference between the rhetoric of harmony and that of conflict in the normal vocabulary of rhetoric. Whereas the first approach encompassed many styles, that of conflict was identical with the stilus rhetoricus. Both approaches were used in dealing with issues which orators normally would have dealt with in deliberative, judicial, and epideictic speeches but the various styles of the rhetoric of harmony were also used to treat any possible topic which could be put into a letter.

35 Müller, Eugen, Peter von Prezza, ein Publizist der Zeit des Interregnums (Heidelberg, 1913)Google Scholar, publishes the letters of Peter of Pressa, while those of Henry of Isernia are found in Emler, Johann, Regesta diplomatica nee non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, II (Prague, 1882)Google Scholar, and in Hampe, Karl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der letzten Staufer (Leipzig, 1910).Google Scholar On Peter see also Kloos, Rudolf M., “Petrus de Prece und Konradin,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Biblioteken, 34 (1954), 88–108.Google Scholar Wieruszowski, , “Rhetoric and the Classics,” pp. 609–610 Google Scholar, discusses their interest in the Latin classics.

36 See, for example, Emler, n. 2554 and n. 2570. Hampe, , Beiträge zur Geschichte, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar translates portions of Emler, n. 2567, and discusses the elaborate treatment of nature. Although he acknowledges the lack of detailed study of the diffusion of the works of the twelfth-century Alain de Lille in Italy, he cogently argues for the influence of Alain on Henry (pp. 35-37). Apart from Dante's relationship to Alain (see Curtius, E. R., “Dante and Alanus ab Insulis, Romanische Forschungen, 62 [1948], 28–31 Google Scholar, with bibliography), the question of influences of this author on Italian dictatores remains largely unexplored. If, however, elaborate use of allegory, a recondite vocabulary, and plays on words are signs of Alain's inspiration, then the author's popularity reached its height in Italy toward the middle part of the thirteenth century. Beginning with some of Boncompagno's treatises (see above, n. 27) and della Vigna's personal correspondence, these stylistic tendencies culminated in the exaggerations of writers like Henry of Isernia, Giordano da Terracina and Giovanni da Capua. An exchange of letters by the latter two is published by Sambin, P., Un certame dettatorio tra due notai pontifici (1260). Lettere inedite di Giordano da Terracina e di Giovanni da Capua, Note e discussioni erudite, 5 (Rome, 1955).Google Scholar The commentary of ‘Alanus’ on the Ad Herennium, so heavily utilized by Bartolinus de Benincasa, does not appear to be the work of Alain de Lille. See Wertis, Sandra Karaus, “The Commentary of Bartolinus de Benincasa de Canulo on the Rhetorica ad Herennium ,” Viator, 10 (1979), 290–291 and 300-301CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 41.

37 Witt, , Coluccio Salutati, pp. 32–33 Google Scholar, for discussion of Latini's one surviving public letter. Ceva, B., Brunetto Latini: L'uomo e l'opera (Milan and Naples, 1965), pp. 221–227 Google Scholar, provides a rich bibliography for Latini. For additional bibliography see Davis, Charles T., “Brunetto Latini and Dante,” Studi medievali, 3rd. ser., 8 (1967), 421–450.Google Scholar

38 The Rettorica was published by Maggini, Francesco: La “Rettorica,” ed. Maggini, Francesco (Florence, 1915)Google Scholar; and republished in La Prosa del Duecento, ed. C. Segre e M. Marti (Milan and Naples, 1959), pp. 105-170. Segre republished the work again in La rettorica. Testo critico di Francesco Maggini (Florence, 1968). Maggini, , La “Rettorica” italiana di Brunetto Latini (Florence, 1912), pp. 17–22 Google Scholar, discusses the circumstances of its composition in detail. He sees it written in 1261 or 1262 but is unable to determine to whom it was dedicated. Carmody, Francis J., Li Livres don Tresor, University of California Publications in Modern Philology, 22 (Berkeley, 1948), p. xviii Google Scholar, suggests Davizzo della Tosa as the patron. He considers (p. xxxi) the Rettorica as written before the Tresor.

39 De. Inv., 1,5,7. Cicero refers to Arist., Rhet. 1358b7. Cited by Latini, , Rett., p. 38 Google Scholar (I use Maggini's pagination) and Tresor, pp. 319-320.

40 Rett., pp. 39 and 98. The quotation is found on p. 46. Latini states his position in the Tresor, p. 322.

41 Rett., pp. 101-102.

42 Ibid., p. 103.

43 Ibid., p. 104.

44 Tresor, p. 322.

45 Aldo Vallone, “Il latino di Dante,” Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale, 8 (1966), pp. 119-204, deals generally with Dante's Latin but see pp. 184-92, for his discussion of the letters with bibliography. On the question of the authenticity of the correspondence see Chiappelli, Fredi, Opere di Dante Alighieri, I classici italiani, 2nd ed. (Milan, 1965), p. xlii.Google Scholar

45 Contrast public letters, Opere di Dante, pp. 400-406, and 408-411, with a private letter, ibid., pp. 411-412.

47 Almost contemporaneously with Latini, the Bolognese grammarian fra Guidotto da Bologna wrote his Fiore di retlorica, essentially a free translation into Bolognese of the Ad Herennium. See La prosa del Duecento, pp. 103-104, for discussion and bibliography. Portions of the text are published there (pp. 105-130) in the surviving Tuscan version. I have not seen the complete edition by B. Gamba (Venice, 1821). Banker, James, “The Ars dictaminis and Rhetorical Textbooks at the Bolognese University in the Fourteenth Century,” Medievalia et humanistica, NS 5 (1974), 154 Google Scholar; and Ward, John, “From Antiquity to the Renaissance: Glosses and Commentaries on Cicero's Rhetorica ,” Medieval Eloquence, ed. Murphy, James J. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1978), p. 37 Google Scholar, discuss Jacques’ work. Also see the important introduction to Polak, Emil J., A Textual Study of Jacques de Dinant's Summa dictaminis (Geneva, 1975).Google Scholar Ward, p. 61, points to the popularity of the Ad Herennium in the fourteenth century. For bibliography on medieval commentaries of the De inventione and the Ad Herennium see Kristeller, , “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 317 Google Scholar, n. 15.

48 Banker, , “Giovanni di Bonandrea's Ars dictaminis Treatise,” p. 202.Google Scholar

49 Wertis, , “The Commentary of Bartolinus de Benincasa,” p. 289.Google Scholar

50 Banker, , “The Ars dictaminis ,” p. 159.Google Scholar For ars dictaminis manuals published in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries see Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 236–239, 245-247Google Scholar, and 267; and Kristeller, , “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 319, n. 26.Google Scholar

51 Hortis, Attilio, Scritti inediti di Francesco Petrarca (Trieste, 1874), pp. 311–333 and 341-358Google Scholar, published three of the four originally preserved Latin orations of Petrarch. Of these Carlo Godi reedited the Collatio laureationis in Godi, Carlo, “La Collatio laureationis del Petrarca,” Italia medievale e umanistka, 13 (1970), 13–27.Google Scholar The fourth originally preserved Latin oration was published in an incomplete form by du Rocher, A. Barbeu, “Ambassade de Pétrarque auprès du roi Jean le Bon,” Mémoires présentés par divers savants â l'Academic des Inscriptions et Beiles-Lettres … . 2nd ser. (Antiquites de la France), 3 (1854), pp. 214–225 Google Scholar. Godi published a complete edition in “L'orazione del Petrarca per Giovanni il Buono,” Italia medievale e umanistka, 8 (1965), 73-83. A fifth oration is preserved in an old Tuscan version and published by Hortis, , Scritti inediti, pp. 335–340.Google Scholar The sixth is known only in a summary account in a vernacular chronicle. See Lazzarini, V., “La seconda ambasceria di Francesco Petrarca a Venezia,” in Miscellanea di studi pubblicati in onoredi Guido Mazzoni, 2 vols. (Florence, 1907), I, 173–183.Google Scholar Godi, , “La Collatio laureationis ,” pp. 55–56 Google Scholar, characterizes the style of the orations as sermo familiaris. Apparently in these speeches Petrarch attempted to adapt the ars praedicandi to make it a vehicle for expressing the ideas of the private man. This approach to the speech had no effect on succeeding generations because it was antithetical to the public character of the oration. Professor Kristeller will deal with the texts of these orations in a forthcoming study, “Petrarchas Stellung in der Geschichte der Gelehrsamkeit,” which will appear in the Festschrift for Erich Loos.

Only two orations of Salutati are extant: Witt, Ronald G., Hercules at the Crossroads. Life, Works and Thought of Coluccio Salutati (Durham, N.C., 1983)Google Scholar, Appendix 1. The Sermo Colucii Pyerii de Stignano, Cancellarii Florentini habitus … ad Phylippum de Alenconio (B.A.V., Capp. 147, pp. 35-37) and the Oratoribus Regis Francorum. Responsio facta per dominum Colucium pro parte Colligatorum et Communis Florentie, ibid., pp. 7-8 and 400-402, are both unedited. Salutati appropriately employs elements of the ars praedicandi when speaking before Alençon, a cardinal, while for the ambassadors he resorts to the secular oratory of ars arengandi.

On secular oratory in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries see the important pages of Kristeller, “Rhetoric and Philosophy,” pp. 237-238, and notes. For the ars praedicandi, see Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 310ff.Google Scholar

52 I have benefited greatly from reading the unpublished essay of John M. Mc-Manamon, “Innovation in Early Humanist Rhetoric: The Oratory of Pier Paolo Vergerio (the Elder).”

53 The best brief survey of the accomplishments of this movement remains Weiss, Roberto, The Dawn of Humanism (London, 1947).Google Scholar See also his Il primo secolo dell’ umanesimo, Storia e letteratura, 27 (Rome, 1949).

54 On Paduan proto-humanism see Billanovich, Guido, “Il preumanesimo padovano,” in Storia della cultura veneta, I (Vicenza, 1976), pp. 19–110 Google Scholar, with its rich bibliography. On the Paduan circle and its relationship with other contemporary groups with classical interests, consult Rino Avesani, “Il preumanesimo Veronese”; Luciano Gargan, “Il preumanesimo a Vicenza, Treviso e Venezia”; and Girolamo Arnaldi-Lidia Capo, “I cronisti di Venezia e della Marca Trevigiana,” in the same volume, pp. 111, 142-146, 276-285 respectively, but see “Indici” of this rich volume for other references. Also see Siraisi, Nancy G., Arts and Sciences at Padua: The ‘Studium’ of Padua before 1350 (Toronto, 1973), pp. 43–45.Google Scholar Hyde, John, Padua in the Age of Dante (Manchester and New York, 1966)Google Scholar, provides an excellent description of the society in which the Paduan scholars lived and wrote. On the intellectual life of the city see in addition to Hyde and Siraisi the early chapters of R.G.G. Mercer, The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza with Special Reference to his Place in Paduan Humanism, MHRA Texts and Dissertations, 10 (London, 1979). For editions and secondary treatments see Billanovich, , “Il preumanesimo padovano,” pp. 155–181 Google Scholar; and Siraisi, , Arts and Sciences, pp. 45–49.Google Scholar

55 Both Lovato and Mussato were notaries and judges by profession: see definition of functions of judge, Hyde, , Padua, pp. 122–126.Google Scholar Neither was a dictator according to Prof. Kristeller's definition of a dictator as a medieval rhetorician who either served as a secretary for a prince or city or a teacher of grammar and rhetoric. On the other hand, Giovanni del Virgilio and Geri d'Arezzo were dictatores. For bibliography on Giovanni del Virgilio see Billanovich, Giusppe, “Giovanni del Virgilio, Pietro da Moglio, Francesco da Fiano,” Italia medioevale e umanistica, 6 (1963), 206 Google Scholar; and especially Kristeller, Paul O., “Un ‘Ars dictaminis’ di Giovanni del Virgilio,” Italia medioevale e umanistica, 4 (1961), 181–200.Google Scholar On Geri see below, n. 68.

56 On ancient instruction in grammar see Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), pp. 268–270 and 331Google Scholar; and his The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, 1972), pp. 63-64; Marrou, H. I., Histoire de l'éducation dans l'Antiquité, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1950), pp. 370–378 Google Scholar; Grube, G.M.A., The Greek and Roman Critics (Toronto, 1965), p. 164 Google Scholar; and Bonner, Stanley F., Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1977), pp. 189–249.Google Scholar

57 More strongly than older scholars like Marrou, , Histoire de l'education, p. 374 Google Scholar, Bonner, , Education in Ancient Rome, pp. 218–219 Google Scholar, suggests that ancient grammarians may have used prose works to provide students with initial exercises in composition, but he concedes that they did not indulge in the detailed analysis they did for poetry. Kennedy, , The Art of Persuasion, p. 269 Google Scholar, acknowledges some overlap but considers the study of poets to have belonged principally to the school of grammar and that of the prose writers to the school of rhetoric.

On the medieval grammarian's responsibility for studying prose writings and composition in prose see Ghellinck, , L'essor, II, 86–87 Google Scholar; and Delhaye, Philippe, “‘Grammatica’ et ‘Ethica’ au XII^e siècle,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 25 (1958), 67–69.Google Scholar Curtius, Ernst, European Literature, pp. 48–52 Google Scholar, provides a detailed list of the range of the curriculum. John of Salisbury demonstrates in his Metalogicon, ed. Clement C. J. Webb (Oxford, 1928) the extent to which the conception of trivium in the mind of this major twelfth-century scholar has been modified. Rhetoric has been absorbed by grammar or largely identified with dialectic (I, 20, pp. 48-49, and II, 3, pp. 64-65). On the assimilation of rhetoric to dialectic see McKeon, Richard, “Rhetoric in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, 17(1942), 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Although he does not mention the relationship of grammar to rhetoric in twelfth-century Northern Europe just referred to, McKeon points out tendencies for theology to absorb rhetoric (pp. 19-22) and— beginning in eleventh-century Italy—for ars dictaminis to become equivalent to rhetoric (pp. 26-29). See below, p. 25. Incidentally, John of Salisbury does not see dialectic as the enemy of grammar but rather for him both are allied against the Cornificians, who ignore learned tradition in the name of a shallow dialectic which renders its adherents disputatious.

58 For the ancient technique see Marrou, , Histoire de l'education, pp. 375–378 Google Scholar; and Bonner, , Education in Ancient Rome, pp. 219ff.Google Scholar John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, describes the technique for teaching grammar characteristic of the so-called School of Chartres in the twelfth century. See as well Quain, E. A., “The Medieval Accessus ad auctores ,” Traditio, 3 (1945), 215–264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, R. W., “The Introductions to the ‘Artes’ in the Twelfth Century,” in Studia mediaevalia in honorem admodum Reverendi Patris Raymundi Josephi Martin (Bruges, 1949?), pp. 85–112 Google Scholar; and Huygens, R. B. C., “Accessus ad Auctores,” Latomus, 12 (1953), 296–311 and 460-84.Google Scholar

59 Delhaye, “ ‘Grammatica’ et ‘Ethica',” pp. 59-110 and especially p. 71; and Bultot, Robert, “ Grammatica, ethica et contemptus mundi aux XII^e ct XIII^e siècles,” in Arts liberaux et philosophic an moyen âge. Actes du quatrième congrés international de philosophie médiévale, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada, 27 août-2 septembre, 1967 (Montreal-Paris, 1969), pp 815–827.Google Scholar

Paul O. Kristeller, commenting on the paper of O'Donnell, J. Reginald, “The Liberal Arts in the Twelfth Century,” in Arts libéraux et philosophie, p. 155 Google Scholar, views protohumanism as reviving the interests of French and English grammarians of the twelfth century.

60 Rhetoric from the twelfth century becomes almost synonymous with dictamen. See Curtius, , European Literature, p. 76 Google Scholar; and Kristeller, , “Renaissance Philosophy and the Medieval Tradition,” p. 114 Google Scholar; and “Philosophy and Rhetoric,” p. 241. The Brevarium de dictamine of the late eleventh-century Alberico of Montecassino (ed. Rockinger, Ludwig, Briefsteller, I Google Scholar) marks the point at which dictamen is separated from the broader spectrum of the liberal arts, which he treats in his other works. His twelfth-century successors are specialists. See Kristeller, , “Rhetoric and Philosophy,” pp. 233–234.Google Scholar The production of dictamen treatises by French writers begins in the mid-1150s ( Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, p. 227 Google Scholar) and by the end of the century rhetoric proper in France too seems to become identical with ars dictaminis. Rhetoric, as represented in the Parisian army by Henri d'Andeli in his famous poem ( Paetow, L. J.. The Battle of the Seven Arts: A French Poem by Henri d'Andeli, Trouvère of the Thirteenth Century, Memoirs of the University of California, vol. 4, No. 1 [Berkeley, 1914]Google Scholar), verses 224 and 364-365 (pp. 51 and 57), is equivalent to ars dictaminis. See Delhaye, Philippe, “La place des arts libéraux et programmes scolaires au xiii^e siècle,” in Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge, p. 165.Google Scholar In the North, however, two other tendencies are operating, one assimilating rhetoric to dialectic and the other incorporating it into theology. See McKeon, Richard, “Rhetoric in the Middle Ages,” pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

61 Wertis, “The Commentary of Bartolinus de Benincasa,” pp. 286-288, publishes the terms of Bartolinus’ employment and it can be assumed that those for his teacher and predecessor, Bonandrea, were similar.

62 An interesting example of the evolution of formulas in the twelfth century is provided by Orlandelli, Gianfranco, “Genesi dell’ ars notarie nel secolo xiii,” Studi medievali, 3rd ser., 6, no. 2 (1965), 346–347.Google Scholar Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 264–265 Google Scholar, discusses the link with dictamen. Alberico's De dictamine, Briefsteller, I, 33-40, included a discussion of a document within his treatment of dictamen generally.

63 The creation of a separate manual for the ars notariae was a product of the thirteenth century. See Orlandelli, , “Genesi AAV ars notariae ,” pp. 320–330.Google Scholar I do not agree with Murphy, , Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 263–268 Google Scholar, who stresses the rivalry between the ars notariae and ars dictaminis in the thirteenth century. For the close relationship between the two disciplines even in this century see, Wieruszowski, , “ Ars dictaminis in the Time of Dante,” Politics and Culture, p. 363, n. 1.Google Scholar Also see n. 64 below. On the culture of the notary the best work remains Novati, F., “Il notaio nella vita e nella letteratura italiana delle origini,” Freschi e Minii del Duecento (Rome, 1925), pp. 241–264.Google Scholar

64 Boncompagno taught both grammar and rhetoric at Bologna. See V. Pini, “Boncompagno da Signa, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. II (Rome, 1969), p. 720; and Siraisi, , Arts and Sciences at Padua, p. 33.Google Scholar

65 The text of Mussato's play is found Ecerinide, ed. Luigi Padrin (Bologna, 1900).

66 This exception is the correspondence of Geri d'Arezzo. If one wishes to include Dante among the proto-humanists, then the nature of his correspondence confirms that dictamen had a strong hold on the epistolary style of this group. Mussato's imitation of ancient style in his historical writings is described by Zardo, Antonio, Albertino Mussato. Studio storico e letterario (Padua, 1884), pp. 256ff.Google Scholar His treatment involves a comparison between the style of Mussato and that of Ferreto dei Ferreti. Compare Dazzi, Manlio, “Il Mussato storico,” Archivio veneto, 5th ser., 6 (1929), 386–388.Google Scholar Cf. Billanovich, G., “Il preumanesimo padovano,” pp. 83–84.Google Scholar

67 Kristeller, “Un' Ars dictaminis,” p. 194.

68 Roberto Weiss, “Geri d'Arezzo,” in Il primo secolo, pp. 53-66 and 105-32. The prose letters are found on pp. 109-115, 120-125, and 133. In contrast with the first five, the sixth letter reflects Geri's skill at composing in dictamen. However, Weiss, p. 63, seems to exaggerate when he characterizes all the six letters as closely connected with dictamen: “Lo stile. . mostra ancora l'influenza dei precetti delle scuole di dictamen, precetti che furono sequiti anche da Dante. Geri si svincola tuttavia da questa tradizione più che non facesse Dante, grazie alle sue vaste conoscenze di testi classici, che gli permettono di apoggiarsi frequentemente a modelli antichi, e anche grazie alia sua indipendenza dalla scolastica, che gli rende possibile l'esprimere concetti che appartengono all'età dell'umanesimo piuttosto che al tardo medioevo.” Wieruszowski, Helene, “Arezzo as a Center of Learning and Letters in the Thirteenth Century,” in Politics and Culture, p. 461 Google Scholar, agrees with Weiss. However, in my view the “private” character of the rhetoric of the first five letters marks them as constituting an important break with the past. Salutati realized the importance of Geri's role in the dawn of humanism when he named him as an imitator of Pliny. See Salutati, Coluccio, Epistolario, ed. Novati, Francesco, Fonti per la storia d'ltalia, vols. 15-18 (Rome, 1891-1911), III, 84.Google Scholar

69 Weiss, , “Geri d'Arezzd,” p. 57 Google Scholar. Wieruszowski, , “Arezzo as a Center of Learning,” pp. 412–418 Google Scholar, maintains that the school continued to flourish in the last part of the thirteenth century.

70 See Weiss's notes to the letters. The letter to Bernardo d'Aquino is modelled on Seneca, Epistulae ad Lucilium, 63 (ibid., p. 125).

71 Le familiari, ed. Vittorio Rossi, Edizione nazionale delle opere di Francesco Petrarca, vols. 10-13 (Rome, 1933-1942), I, 3-14. The letter is dated January 13, 1350. See Rossi, Vittorio, “La data della dedicatoria delle Familiari petrarchesche,” in Scritti di critica letteraria, 3 vols. (Florence, 1930), II, 169–174 Google Scholar; and Billanovich, Giuseppe, Petrarca letterato, I. Lo scrittoio del Petrarca, Storia e letteratura, 16 (Rome, 1947), p. 20 Google Scholar, n. 1. For other dates see Wilkins, Ernest H., Petrarch's Correspondence, Medioevo e umanesimo, 3 (Padua, 1960), p. 49.Google Scholar I use the translation of the letter by Bernardo, Aldo, Rerum familiarium libri I-VIII (Albany, 1975), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

72 Lefamiliari, I, 6: “Omissa ilia igitur oratoria dicendi vi, qua nee egeo nee abundo et quam, si exuberet, ubi exerceam non habeo, hoc mediocre domesticum et familiare dicendi genus amice leges, ut reliqua, et boni consules, his quibus in comuni sermone utimur, aptum accomadatumque sententiis.” Just before this he writes, quoting from the De officiis, I. 1.3: “Vis enim maior in illis dicendi, sed hoc quoque colendum est aequabile et temperatum orationis genus.” Clearly Petrarch, following Cicero, is rejecting the stilus sublimis, the most elaborate of the traditional three genera dicendi, as appropriate for personal letters.

73 Salutati, , Epist. I, 341 Google Scholar, observed that the “vehementia oratoria” of the ancients was no longer relevant except for preaching.

74 Le familiari, I, 9. Earlier (I. 7), however, Petrarch wrote: “Alioquin, nisi supervacuo nosmet ipsos favore decipimus, quonam modo amicum licet, nisi sit idem alter ego, lecturum hec sine fastidio arbitremur, diversa invicem et adversa, in quibus non idem stilus, non una scribentis intentio, quippe cum pro varietate rerum varie affectus animis ilia dictaverit, raro quidem letus, mestus sepe?”

75 I, 9.

76 Banker, “Ars dictaminis,” p. 156, makes the point that Giovanni di Bonandrea around 1300 adds to the traditional categories of model salutations one for men “distinguished by a quality.” By this term he meant to recognize men who had achieved distinction through their personal skills and knowledge. However, in contrast with Petrarch, who tailored his letters to the individual, Giovanni was still obviously thinking in terms of social categories. More significant for our purposes is Banker's reference to Giovanni's molding of the exordium to fit “the orator's or writer's case and the psychological state of the listeners.” This certainly constituted a first step in the direction taken by Petrarch.

77 Le familiari, I, II.

78 Sabbadini, Remigio, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci nei secoli xiv e xv, 2 vols. (Florence, 1905-1914), II, 213 Google Scholar; and Billanovich, , Petrarca letterato, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

79 For bibliography, dating, and discussion of this first letter to Cicero, see references in Wilkins’ Petrarch's Correspondence, p. 88, and the references especially in Billanovich, , Petrarca letterato, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

80 Billanovich, , ibid., pp. 3–55 Google Scholar, was the first to indicate a large number of fictitious letters in the early books of the collection. Bernardo, , Rerum familiarum, p. xxxi Google Scholar, identifies others and adds that “a good portion” of the first eight books “were fictitious letters.” Because no autographs of letters before the Cicero discovery survive, the extent to which Petrarch reworked letters actually dispatched cannot be known. The manner of directly addressing his classical friends, however, was not the product of the discovery of the Ad Atticum. Already in the Rerum memorandamm libri he had followed that practice. See, for example, Billanovich's edition in Edizione nazionale delle opere di Francesco Petrarca, 5, pt. 1 (Rome, 1943), Bks. I, 14; IV, 22-23; and 29. For dating the whole text of this work before February, 1345, see ibid., pp. lxxii-xcv. Petrarch is also striving to establish the sermo familiaris in his Collatio laureationis of 1341. See above n. 51. If his correspondence is considered as a whole, it proves, however, to be far closer to Seneca's epistles both in style and content than to Cicero's. For the letters of the two ancient authors see Thraede, , Grundzüge, pp. 27–47 Google Scholar and 65-74. The importance of the Ad Atticum, however, was that the extraordinary conversational quality of the style had a “shock” value for Petrarch.

81 A civil lawyer, Geri served as avocatus comunis Florentie in 1326 and 1327, but apart from this appointment his professional career remains unknown. See Weiss, , “ Geri d'Arezzo ”, p. 105.Google Scholar Kristeller does not count either Petrarch or Boccaccio as a dictator (see above, pp. 2-3).

82 Boccaccio's evolving letter style is described by Massèra, Aldo, Opera latine minori, Scrittori d'ltalia, III (Bari, 1928), pp. 311–313.Google Scholar Also see Billanovich, Giuseppe, “Pietro Piccolo da Monteforte tra il Petrarca e il Boccaccio,” in Medioevo e Rinascimento. Studi in onore di Bruno Nardi, 2 vols. (Florence, 1955), I, 5–6.Google Scholar For the relationship of Boncompagno to Boccaccio, see Robert L. Benson, “Protohumanism and Narrative Technique in Early Thirteenth Century Italian Ars Dictaminis, “ in Boccaccio: Secoli di vita: Atti del Congresso internazionale: Boccaccio 1975 (Los Angeles, 1975), ed. M. Cottino-Jones and E. F. Tottle (Ravenna, 1979), pp. 46-48. I cannot accept without further clarification Robert Benson's argument that Boncompagno is a proto humanist because of his concern with literature. Even if the influence of Boncompagno on Boccaccio's narrative technique could be proven, the author must first show that Boccaccio's technique itself was “humanistic.”

83 For Petrarch's public letters see, for example, Variae, vi, lix and lxiii in Epistolae de rebus familiaribus et variae, ed. G. Fracassetti, 3 vols. (Florence, 1859-1863), III, 317-319, 469-471, and477-479.

84 On Salutati's public letters, see Ronald Witt, Coluccio Salutati. His public letters, while basically reflecting the rules of dictamen, have humanistic aspects (ibid., pp. 38-40). Also see the discussion of the letters by De Rosa, Daniela, Coluccio Salutati: Il cancelliere e il pensatore politico, Biblioteca di storia, 28 (Florence, 1980), pp. 13ff.Google Scholar

85 Witt, , Coluccio Salutati, p. 41.Google Scholar Bartolomeo Scala in the late fifteenth century attempted to introduce reforms in the public letters while chancellor of Florence. See Kristeller, Paul O., “An Unknown Correspondence of Alessandro Braccesi,” in Classical Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies in Honor of Berthold Louis Ullman, Storia e letteratura, vols. 93-94 (Rome, 1964), II, 352–358 Google Scholar; Witt, , Coluccio Salutati, p. 41, n. 53Google Scholar; and Brown, Alison, Bartolomeo Scala, 1430-1497. Chancellor of Florence (Princeton, 1979), pp. 168ff.Google Scholar

86 Witt, . Coluccio Salutati, pp. 21–22 and 40-41.Google Scholar

87 Cicero, , De oratore, III, 20, 75-76Google Scholar, trans. H. Rackham, The Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1942), II, 60 and 62.

88 The contrast between the concerns and interests of the grammarian with those of the rhetorician in the Renaissance is brilliantly developed by John O'Malley in his “Grammar and Rhetoric in the Spirituality of Erasmus,” to be published in Paideia. This conflict could also be conceived in terms of the conflict between poet and orator. See Hardison, O. B., “The Orator and the Poet: the Dilemma of Humanist Literature,” The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, I (1971), 33–44.Google Scholar

89 Bruni's civic humanism has been defined and analyzed by Hans Baron in a variety of works but most notably in his Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1966). Among others, Florentine humanists like Poggio and Palmieri deserve the title of orator for their achievements.