Martin Camargo's edition and translation of the Tria sunt (a late fourteenth-century rhetorical treatise written in Latin) will be a staple for specialists in medieval rhetoric as well as for those early in their study. The Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library series as a whole is excellent, and this volume is no exception. A functional edition and translation would have sufficed, since no full edition as yet existed, but what impressed me most about the volume is its balance: the textual apparatus is rich enough for advanced work, while the approachability of the introduction, translation, and general layout make it suitable for those new to the subject. The cost ($35.00 USD at the time of this review) makes it even more accessible for libraries and those needing or wanting to purchase their own books.
Why the Tria sunt and this edition are important:
Although other texts (such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria nova or Eberhard the German's Laborintus) have received more scholarly attention, the Tria sunt merits close examination because of its value to contemporary rhetors and because of its scope and purpose. As Camargo states in the introduction, it is "the most ambitious and apparently the most widely used of the treatises composed in association with a late fourteenth-century renaissance in the study of rhetoric at Oxford" (vii). Its "principal source" and "chief model" is Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Documentum de modo et arte dictandi et versificandi (so much so, in fact, that scholars long considered it to be an expansion by Geoffrey of that work), but the unnamed author of the Tria sunt draws on a substantial range of classical and medieval rhetorical texts.
Camargo notes, however, that it should not viewed merely as a compilation: "even if all of the components turn out to have been borrowed, they have been reconstituted as a new treatise not only through the process of compilatio but also through its complement, ordinatio" (xi). One of the author's "chief intentions," Camargo argues, "was to produce a textbook more comprehensive than any other single art of poetry and prose" (xv). It met the needs of both teachers and students of the time, and its "influence was greatest in England, chiefly in the grammar schools at Oxford, during the first half of the fifteenth century" (xviii).
The translation and notes:
As mentioned above, the writer of the Tria sunt quoted heavily from other treatises, for many of which standard English translations are available. Camargo's approach was to include the translations from those modern editions, except in cases "where the text of the Tria sunt differs from the edition on which the quoted translation is based, the quoted translation does not follow the sense of the original as closely as desired, or the language of the quoted translation is needlessly obscure or archaic" (xix).
For the portions original to the writer of the Tria sunt, Camargo's translations will be satisfying for any Latinist who appreciates the effort required to render into clear prose the linguistic and stylistic complexities medieval rhetoricians often employed. And in places where the text veers into the kind of "uniformity of expression that is a characteristic feature of the textbook genre," Camargo notes that "[n]o attempt has been made to disguise this fact by introducing variety in the translation where none exists in the original Latin" (xix). Camargo's goal, therefore, seems to have been to present an English translation as faithful to the original as possible. Thus, even readers without access to Latin will be get a sense not only of the treatise's content but also its style.
The translation is followed by a "Note on the Text" (427-430), which includes a full list of sigla and explains that the edition is based primarily on the Worcester Cathedral manuscript (Worcester Cathedral, Chapter Library Q.79, fols. 81r-158v) in light of the fact that "[w]idespread contamination" in the extant witnesses makes a "reliable recension" impossible (427). This section also details the editorial practices used in the creation of the edition. The "Notes to the Text" (431-443) provide further detail.
The "Notes to the Translation" will be the most valuable part of this volume for anyone wanting to trace sources. Every quotation used by the author has its source fully identified in these notes, including chapter/section information. The notes also indicate quotations for which sources are not known (in 5.6, for example) and offer likely options where possible (in 5.8, for example). Although the bulk of these notes concern sources, some of the notes provide clarification on the text's trickier passages or places where an understanding of the Latin is necessary to get the full meaning. As a whole, these notes almost entirely avoid interpretive commentary. Readers looking for that will have to wait for the separate volume forthcoming (xx).
Glossary and Bibliography:
For readers who are relatively new to the study of medieval rhetoric, the contents of the glossary and bibliography will be immensely helpful. The bibliography includes partial editions of the Tria sunt previously published, all of the primary sources identified in the "Notes on the Text," and a concise list of the most essential secondary sources.
The glossary includes every rhetorical term used in the Tria sunt and provides concise definitions. The ordering, however, can be frustrating to navigate. Although the terms are all listed in alphabetical order, the bulk of them are not defined where the term falls in that ordering. For example, "prosopopoeia" is in the "p" section, but it directs you to see "colors of thoughts 13." You have to go to the "c" section, look for "colors of thought," and then find number 13 in the list. There are two such major headings: the "colors of thoughts" and "colors of words" (the latter further divided into "(A) Sources of 'ornamental difficulty'" of both the "weightier" and "lighter kinds" and "(B) Sources of 'ornamented facility'"). One must consult these two headings to find definitions for nearly two-thirds of all the terms included in the glossary.
Identifying how a particular rhetorical treatise categorizes its terms is certainly important; not all treatises use the same kinds of divisions or categories. However, working the system of categories into the glossary in this fashion creates a frustrating interface. A list of terms and categories in addition to or alongside a glossary would have been more ideal. As it stands, the glossary is of course useable, but it is not as user-friendly as I expected given the wonderful clarity and accessibility of the rest of the book.
Conclusion:
Overall, Camargo's edition and translation is an essential volume for students and scholars of medieval rhetoric and the literary culture of late fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century England. It will pave the way for further research and publication on the Tria sunt and its contexts.