Abstract

Reviews 219 J. O. Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion and Commentary, Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental, 58 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 373 pp. Ward's work on Ciceronian rhetoric in treatise, scholion, and com­ mentary constitutes the fifty-eighth fascicule in a typological series whose aim is "établir la nature propre de chaque genre de sources (Gattungsgeschichte) et arrêter les règles spéciales de critique valable pour chacun." Despite the "centrality," as W. daims, of the art of rhetoric in mediaeval culture, no previous work has surveyed the relevant texts as a group. Texts transmitting Ciceronian rhetoric in mediaeval and Renaissance culture, however, resist classification as a single genre on account of their broad diversity of contexts and application. Therefore, W. restricts his examination to texts designed to impart "theoretical" as opposed to "applied" knowledge—that is, texts whose purpose is to instruct the student in the classical art of general persuasion. Included within this sub-division are texts devoted to colores, etc. Artes poetriae, artes dictaminis, artes praedicandi, and artes orandi, on the other hand, are exam­ ined separately by other scholars in fascicules 59, 60, and 61. At the outset of his work, W. leaves his reader in no doubt regarding the significance of a study of these texts. These texts not only offer an insight into mediaeval and Renaissance ideas about rhetoric and literary styles, but they also help to reveal the "didactic curriculum that must have come to influence most writers and articulate thinkers in the period." W., therefore, eschews the oblique angle from which most previous scholars, in their preoccupation with theological, dialectical, and grammatical issues or concerns, have traced the Fortleben of classical texts. By contrast, W. val­ ues the commentaries of the period as "intrinsically interesting artefacts of cultural history" providing evidence with which to "assess the role played in mediaeval and Renaissance culture by a hybrid ars rhetorica." After providing an extensive bibliography, W. engages in a stimulat­ ing discussion of various general issues. He advances cogent arguments, for example, to explain why the mediaeval and Renaissance treatment of generalized preceptive rhetorical theory is so heterogeneous, suggesting inter alia that the different types of text reflect the attitudes of society to the knowledge enshrined in that text, with commentaries canonizing the past text, thereby confining its progress, and treatises bearing much more the individual stamp of the transmitter. In recognition of the problems inher­ ent in assessing such a heterogeneous genre, W. creates his own division of the extant material into four rough (and occasionally overlapping) sub­ categories: 1) independent treatises; 2) commentaries and glosses on classi­ cal texts or on texts included in 1); 3) continuous or occasional comments, etc., in the form of interlinear / marginal glosses, etc.; and 4) paraphrases, 220 RHETORICA explications, or translations presented without texts themselves. The main section of the book is devoted to a survey of the extant rele­ vant material organized (on the whole successfully) according to the four sub-divisions noted above and within three chronological periods. By far the least successful portion of W/s work is his survey of the first chrono­ logical period, namely the fourth to the eleventh centuries, for the follow­ ing reasons. Firstly, the treatment of these centuries as though they consti­ tuted a homogeneous period seems to ignore certain clearly distinct politi­ cal and cultural phases. Secondly, insufficient relevant historical informa­ tion is provided for this "period" to establish a context within which the texts can be fully appreciated. Thirdly, the organization of W.'s survey breaks down when W., justifying his inclusion of late antique writers because of their strong influence in the mediaeval and Renaissance peri­ ods, concentrates almost exclusively on this later influence rather than on the creation and consumption of the texts in their own chronological con­ text. Fourthly, W. is forced to rely rather heavily in this section on palaeographical , codicological, and stemmatological evidence, with which he is clearly less at home than with historical evidence. In describing the ninthcentury manuscript Leningrad Publich. Bibl. F vel 8 auct. class, lat. as "unrepresentative" in the extent of its glossatory activity, for example, W. ignores the clear evidence of...