Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martin Camargo The Waning of Medieval Ars Dictaminis T he five essays in this special issue grew out of papers presented at the Twelfth Biennial Conference of the Inter national Society for the History of Rhetoric (Amsterdam, July 1999), at the session entitled "What Killed the Ars Dictaminis? and When?" four of them ably chaired by Emil Polak. That session originated in a conversation I had with Malcolm Richardson inl997, at the previous ISHR conference, in Saskatoon. We had just discov ered that his research on practitioners of vernacular letter writing and mine on teachers of Latin letter writing in late-medieval Eng land independently suggested that in England the ars dictaminis had experienced something like what paleontologists call an "extinction event" around 1470. We wondered whether the suddenness of the demise was unique to England. Beyond that, we wondered why the most widely diffused and influential variety of practical rhetoric dur ing the later Middle Ages, an art that was highly teachable, adaptable to almost any institutional setting, aligned with key disciplines such as grammar and the law, should have disappeared at all. Having served the communication needs of a broad range of professionals throughout Europe since the late eleventh century, had the ars dic taminis simply worn itself out or had new needs arisen to which it could no longer respond? With good reason, more scholarship has focused on the origins of the ars dictaminis than on its demise. It is much simpler to identify the first medieval treatise that teaches how to compose letters than to decide which letter-writing treatise is the last in that tradition. Few of the surviving ancient treatises on rhetoric provide any explicit instruction on letters: in the Latin tradition, the brief chapter on letters that concludes the Ars rhetorica of Julius Victor (fourth century AD) is virtually unique.1 While some such pedagogy clearly existed in 5 Ed. Karl Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 447-48.© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, Number 2 (Spring 2001). Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223, USA 1 136 RHETORICA ancient times, as it did in the early Middle Ages, the transmission of that pedagogy in textbooks, at least in the Latin West, seems to have been an invention of the late-eleventh and early twelfth centuries. By contrast, letter-writing manuals continued to be produced in great numbers through the end of the Middle Ages, throughout the Renaissance, and up to the present day Thus, to locate the "end" of the medieval tradition is to engage with all the problems attendant on drawing a clear boundary between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Not surprisingly, scholars of medieval and Renaissance epistolography and rhetoric disagree on the sharpness with which such a boundary can be drawn. The most influential proponent of an overlap between medieval ars dictaminis and Renaissance humanism has been Paul O. Kristeller, who argued that a disproportionate number of the early humanists made their living as practitioners and even teachers of the ars dictaminis.2 Their humanistic interests were distinct from their professional duties, and they saw no conflict between writing letters that followed the rules of dictamen in their public capacity even as they imitated the familiar letters of Cicero when writing to their fellow humanists. In a series of important articles and a recent book, Ronald Witt has done more than anyone to develop and extend Kris teller's insight, documenting the gradual displacement of medieval dictamen at all levels of letter writing, a process that was not com pleted in Italy before the end of the fifteenth century.3 Most scholars agree that medieval practices coexisted with the new learning for a long time. If medieval ars dictaminis did eventually "die", it generally did not do so in the way implied by the title of the original conference session: hence I have adapted the title of Johann Huizinga's famous book in order to describe more accurately the picture that emerges from the papers published here. In attempting to trace and explain the...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it