Documentum de Modo et Arte Dictandi et Versificandi by Geoffrey of Vinsauf (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 578 Documentum de Modo et Arte Dictandi et Versificandi (Instruction in the Method and Art of Speaking and Versifying) . By GEOFFREY OF VINSAUF. Tr. with Intro. by RoGER P. PARR. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1968. Pp. 120. $3.00. Little is known about the life of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, but there is not much doubt about the importance and influence of his writings. In 1967 Margaret F. Nims published a translation of Geoffrey's Poetria Nova; since then she has found a considerable amount of new material about him; the results of her investigations will soon appear in print. Now, Robert Parr has given us a translation of the Documentum of Geoffrey, that is, the prose version of Geoffrey's teaching on literary composition in prose and verse. To do this Parr has depended entirely on the Latin text published by E. Faral in 1924. "It seems fairly safe to assume that for all practical purposes the text of Faral contains the essential doctrine." (p. 1) Inasmuch as Parr was content to present the essential doctrine, the reader will be prepared for the kind of translation before him. Certainly Parr's text does give us the essential doctrine. To make the text readable Parr has seen fit to neglect often the fine points of Latin syntax, especially with respect to the use of conjunctions, the tenses and moods of verbs, etc. For a careful study of the Documentum there is an urgent need of a new Latin edition which would be complete and wellannotated . There are, unfortunately, some mistranslations in Parr's text. Here are a few examples. " To his sorrow he received counsel to consider craft rather than arms and the sword and thus did not end the war." (p. 39) The Latin text reads as follows: potiore potitus consilio, potius artem quam arma consuluit et dolus, non gladius bellum consummavit. The war did come to an end, but guile not the sword achieved this. The reader also will wonder about the translation of dictandi in the title as speaking. He will, perhaps, also wonder about the expression "the bodies of both she and her father." (p. 39) Again, (p. 40, n. 5) "This is what is meant by the natural beginning" is scarcely a translation of Haec dicta sint de principia naturali; the subjunctive here means, I think, let this suffice for the natural beginning. There are mistranslations of individual words. For example, commessantes as co-workers, carum as unpleasant (p. 67), pullulant as grow up, expedit as it is necessary (p. 78), praerogativa as previous selections. (p. 61) Perhaps, too, Parr should have used more traditional renderings of technical terms; for example, asyndeton is the regular expression for dissolutum and not dissolution. (p. 53) Also, the names of places could easily have been translated; for example, rather than the bishop of Cenomania, it would have been more helpful to say the bishop of le Mans. Again, we are much more familiar with the name Benedict Biscop than with Benedict Bishop. (p. 25) 574 BOOK REVIEWS The annotations are not very informative. It would not have taken a great effort to improve this defect. Here are some examples: "Cicero's earlier work de Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae." (p. 9, n. ~0) Should this be Tacitus's work on Oratory? Again, with respect to the terms via purgativa, via illuminativa, via unitiva, a reference to the Pseudo-Derris as well as to St. Bonaventure would have been in order. The term "Yponasticon" (p. 51) is unknown to me as a Latin expression. Does it refer to the anonymous treatise Hypomnesticon in PL 45, coli. 1611-ff.? The reference to the Epitaph of Adam (p. 70, n. 45) is too vague. Why not a reference to PL 196, col. 144~ C? The reference Ad Agricolae (p. 71, n. 49) shocks the reader; Agricolae would have been enough. The description of manuscripts given in the preface (p. I) is too meagre. 37~ of Saint Benoit needs further identification. Surely Galfridi Angelici (read Anglici?) and Galfridi Mnestisauf require a note. To introduce the volume Parr gives us a short history of rhetoric. It is difficult to see what purpose this serves...