Book I. Choice of Words, Rhythmical Composition of Sentences

_Dictamen_ is defined with the usual inclusiveness as apt and elegant writing, inseparable from subject matter, depending on native ability, teaching, and practise, using to some extent all five traditional parts of rhetoric, but mainly style (_elocutio_).

Exercising in all three styles (_humilis_, _mediocris_, _sublimis_),[19] it must beware of the corresponding vices: aridity, looseness, inflation. Its three requisites are choiceness of diction (_elegantia_), sentence skill (_compositio_), and dignity (_dignitas_, _ornatus_). Choiceness, or elegance, includes both purity (_latinitas_, the avoidance of barbarisms and solecisms, and, more widely, exactness of syntax) and lucidity (_explanatio_, including such figures as are illustrative).

All the rest of Book I is devoted to _compositio_ as rhythm.

“_Compositio_ is order polished smooth (_ordinatio verborum equabiliter perpolita_). If, therefore, we wish to give discourse this charm, we must so change the natural order that speech may have a _cursus_[20] charming and smooth and that we may not seem to talk vulgarly. _Compositio_ seems to be threefold: natural, casual (_fortuita_), and apt [i.e., adjusted, called below artistic]. The natural, proper to expositors, reduces the artistry of discourse to the natural order. Even in this the _dictator_ must give most careful attention to elegance.... If following the natural order does not give elegance, that superficial _compositio_ is inadmissible. Casual may be called that which, regarding only elegance, arranges words not artistically, but with simple freedom. It is observed in manuals and in the Scriptures, and commended by holy men; for, as says the apostle, ‘the kingdom of God consists not in word, but in work and power’ [1 Cor. 4. 20]. Further a certain sage says: ‘the simple word is the guardian of our faith’. That _compositio_ is artistic (_artificialis_) which gives the sentence charm by harmonizing its words in equable arrangement. But this is observed in one way at Orléans, in another by the fount of Latinity, Cicero, in another by the Apostolic See. For the Orléans arrangement is by imaginary dactyls and spondees; the Ciceronian tradition, by the artistry of the several feet—a style therefore absolutely dependent on the laws of metric. We, however, shall proceed according to the authority of the Roman Curia, because every one finds its style simpler.”

Considering the positions of nominatives and of oblique cases, of relative clauses, of infinitives, of locutions fixed in certain places by usage, the author quotes Geoffroi de Vinsauf: “A noble gravity comes from order itself when what is joined by syntax is separated by order.”[21] A word ending in a consonant should be followed by one beginning with a vowel, and _vice versa_. The _cursus_ should not be continuously swift or slow but varied:

E.g., neither _animo simplici colitur dominus_, nor _simplicitate cordiali dominator summus perfecte veneratur_, but _simplicitate animi perfecte dominus veneratur_.

So the _dictator_ will add, subtract, or transpose.

E.g., _Vestra amicitia presentium tenore cognoscat_ is relieved by transposing the first two words.

He will consider the rhythms of terminations:[22]

of adjectives in _-ivus_, _-aris_, _-alis_, _-osus_, _-orus_, _-ensis_, _-atus_ [stressed on the penult], against those in _-icus_ and _-eus_ [stressed on the antepenult]; of verbs, e.g., _nobilitat et coronat_, noticing that participles are available oftener than gerunds.

The rule for cadences (_de finibus distinctionum_) is that they must satisfy.

“The _cursus_ must not be held up by a crowded or stinted close. Clauses (_distinctiones_) should therefore end on polysyllables, that the whole _cursus_ may be forwarded by the sentence-closes. For style limps and is involved in delay if the end is suffocated by the crowding of contracted speech.... Neither monosyllables nor words of more than four syllables are in place at the end.” The rule is then exemplified in detail.

These considerations open the large principle, fundamental in ancient rhetoric and clearly discerned by this writer, that sentence skill consists in composing rhythmical units in a total movement, i.e., in composing by heard clauses.

“We have spoken often of _distinctiones_ since no discourse can please that is indistinct.... A _distinctio_, then, is an integral member of one sentence,[23] weaving its words in apt order and releasing its thoughts from any tangle of doubt.... There are three kinds: ... [1] _dependens_ [later styled by its ancient name _comma_, or _cæsum_], [2] _constans_ [a statement complete in itself, but carrying on, _colum_, _membrum_, also called _distinctio media_], [3] _finitiva_, that _distinctio_ in which the whole sentence is finished (_totalis clausula terminatur_), called by the Greeks _periodus_, i.e., _circuitus_, or _finalis_.”[24]

In punctuation the author prefers the simple and sparing Roman use, and deprecates applying to _dictamen_ the rules followed in pointing the religious offices.[25]

The final consideration of this section is of sentence length. Book I closes with general advice.

“Let the _dictator_ be so attentive in weaving his series of sentences as not to obstruct his auditor’s ears with burdensome words, nor to induce prolixity; but by aptness, as well of words as of thought, let all seem to proceed so easily (_expedite_) that each has its place as chosen fitly.”