Henryson and the Medieval Arts of Rhetoric by Robert L. Kindrick (review)

REVIEWS ROBERT L. KINDRICK. Henryson and the Medieval Arts ofRhetoric. Garland Studies in Medieval Literature, vol. 8. New York and London: Garland, 1993. Pp. xiii, 345. $54.00. In this much-welcome volume Robert L. Kindrick has brought the bur­ geoning work of the last few decades in the history of rhetoric to bear on the poetic oeuvre ofthe fifteenth-century Middle Scots poet Robert Henry­ son. The book is admirable in its learning, its wide coverage, its clear organization of complex materials and influences, and its ability to trans­ mit a sense of the energy, variability, and power of this still underappreci­ ated poet. The organization of the chapters is a model of clarity, considering how inextricably intertwined Kindrick's various strands of attention inevitably had to be. He risks an occasional pedestrian moment in his care to take the reader with him at all times; but for many, these repetitions will prove helpful. The first chapter offers for the uninitiated an introduction to Henryson and to medieval rhetoric. The next three chapters, by far the bulk ofthe book, treat separately three main rhetorical arts: the arspoetriae, the ars dictaminis, and the ars praedicandi. A final chapter investigates the ways in which Henryson might have been influenced by the (then) recently rediscovered work of Quintilian. Kindrick has deftly managed to keep his work continually helpful and attractive to three distinct audiences: (1) those who know Henryson but not rhetoric, (2) those who know rhetoric but not Hentyson, and (3) those who are relatively unfamiliar with both. The first and third of these audi­ ences are particularly well served; the rhetorically aware may find the pace not swift enough, but should be compensated by the opportunity to watch familiar concepts being applied to fresh literary material. Chapters 3 and 4 are the heart ofthe book. In Chapter 3, Kindrick does an especially fine job in demonstrating how the ars dictaminis extends far beyond its usual translation as the "art of letter writing"; it concerns itself with any written application to move the receiver to action or to a different understanding of the subject broached. By attending to what may seem at first an unpromising field, Kindrick manages to weave together matters of allegorical interpretation with structural, stylistic, philological, and textual concerns, a feat rarely accomplished in Henryson studies, where divide­ and-conquer has often been the scholarly rule. A better understanding of the aims ofthe ars dictaminis throws clearer light on the variety of rhetori­ cal poses, tones, and styles that Henryson employs. No longer do they 223 STIJDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER seem intended only for narrative delight or preacherly moral intensity; instead Henryson is revealed as the skillful manipulator of a knowable ancient tradition, the careful and conscious rhetorical strategist. Kindrick does an equally fine job in chapter 4 of demonstrating Henryson's knowl­ edgeable use of the ars praedicandi, the art of preaching. Kindrick encounters a central problem throughout the work that he cannot much avoid; although at times the problem undercuts the force of his conclusions and the continuity of his focus, for this reviewer it did not diminish the value of the work as a whole. That problem concerns the stated purpose of the book: The goal of this book is to apply the'knowledge gained about the nature of medieval rhetoric during the recent flowering ofrhetorical studies (led byJames J. Murphy) to the poetry of Robert Henryson. The monograph is intended primarily as a contribution to Middle Scots studies and only incidentally, if at all, as a contribution to the study of medieval rhetoric. [P. xi} In taking this position, Kindrick misconceives in part the worth and appli­ cation of his own work. In persuading his reader to adopt a Middle &ots studies perspective, he increases unnecessarily the negative effects of the burden of ignorance under which we struggle. Since we know all too little about Henryson, we are left to speculate, not conclude, about which rhe­ torical texts might have influenced him, which public issues may have moved him to fashion allegory, and, as a result, which kinds of rhetorical stances he may have been assuming. For Kindrick to reduce the force ofhis...