Dictamen: The Medieval Rhetoric of Letter-writing by Peter Kane

In reading the article by Kane one can easily understand why, in the Medieval period, letter-writing became the vogue with respect to rhetoric. In a time when few people could read or write save those in the church, the whole process of letter-writing was transformed into an aristocratic and holy art. In lieu of the fact that usually only the very rich or monks and church officials could send or receive letters (because the common man couldn’t write), it is not unusual to see why the church determined the rules and formats of the rhetoric of letter-writing itself. In his article, Kane divides the topic up into mini subjects: the theories surrounding letter-writing, a definition of the parts of the letter, and examples of the letters themselves.

First, Kane explains some of the theories about why letter-writing became such an art form during the Medieval period. One was for communication between churches. The Roman Catholic Church to be specific. It is not unusual for one to see the need that these churches had to have some sort of means of contact with each other. Another critic hypothesized that the dictamen (letter-writing) was created to reduce forgery or tampering. Although this is a very likely assumption as to why this form of rhetoric started, it is not a solid argument to base the further development and widespread use of the dictamen.

Secondly, Kane discusses the flourishing of the ars ditaminis. These were manuals that were developed to help teach the proper form of dictamen. The ars dictaminis presented five parts of a correctly written letter. The five parts are as follows: salutatio, exordium, narratio, petitio, and conclusio. Salutatio, the word from which salutation comes from, is the introduction of the sender to the receiver of the lettrer. In this section of the letter it would be necessary for the sender to acknowledge the rank or status of the receiver (i.e. Your Majesty, Your Highness,etc.). Except for the conclusio, Kane does not ppoint out any other necessities for the parts of exordium, narratio, and petitio. The conclusio had three specified endings that could be used. In Latin they are as follows: planus, tardus, and velox. These endings correspond to differing poetic verse styles. It is important to point out that these endings supposedly had thier roots in the classical texts that were taken from Cursus Curiae Romanae, a work by John of Gaeta who eventually ascended to the seat of Pope. Needless to say, it is understandable why only the highly educated and those holding papal offices were able to follow the rules of the ars dictaminis.

Kane also points out the use of formularies during the flourishing of dictamen. The formularies were manuals, much like the ars dictaminis except they were made available to the general public (that part of it which could read) and,”contained models of letters and salutations to fit almost any conceivable situation” (p.2). The common man could purchase a formulary so he could address a letter to a church official or any other esteemed dignitary in hopes that his writing ability would influence them.

Lastly, Kane cites some exaples of actual letters tht were written in this time. They are too in depth to recreate, however he does a nice job of illustrating how immaculately these letters had to be written in order to be taken with any seriousness by the receiver. Writers went to excruciating pains to make sure that thier letters were perfect in form and meter to passs the scrutinizing eyes of the time.

In conclusion, dictamen or the rhetoric of letter-writing became the primary mode of communication between the Roman Catholic churches and eventually common peoples. It was a system based on style and form using reworkings from classical texts (i.e. cursus planus, tardus, and velox), the ars dictaminis, and formularies that helped dictamen spread out of the church and into the secular world.

Geoffrey McBride,GRM8929