{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031739314430808296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008040626322471435, 'mean_word_length': 5.3719676549865225, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Medieval Artes Praedicandi: A Synthesis of Scholastic Sermon Structure . By Siegfried Wenzel . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. xviii + 133 pp. $45 cloth.

Once again, Siegfried Wenzel has produced a comprehensive, readable, and admirably researched text—this time a chronologically based survey of the artes praedicandi along with a detailed explanation of their various parts applied illustratively to a specific sermon. Although these artes are a longrecognized component of medieval rhetoric, they have been connected only in the last century to the rise and development of the sermon as an instructional entity. Without the disciplined explications they fostered, the intricate systems created by the age’s theologians, mystics, and moralists might have remained inaccessible to most pastors and congregations. Professor Wenzel treats the different types of artes (from simple to comprehensive) clearly. The most important sections of his “synthesis” begin with a useful separation of static from progressive exposition. The former describes what a well-fashioned sermon should look like; the “tree” of preaching is a good illustration of a static formula. Progressive exposition, on the other hand, details the required steps that the preacher must follow (construction of theme, protheme, prayer, introduction of the theme, division, subdivision, and dilation) in order to achieve a sermon which is an effective pastoral tool. Also handled expertly are the thorny issues involved in distinguishing a sermo from a collatio and in establishing the target audiences for these sermons. A few issues remain unresolved. If one believes that the artes praedicandi were of university origin, calling the resultant sermons “scholastic” is defensible although Wenzel does not seem entirely comfortable with either position. On the other hand, if the artes were formulated at the sub university level, perhaps at the studia generale (see Archives d’histoire, [1989]: 117–119), then the connotations of the word “scholastic” undermine the word as a descriptor. “Thematic” contains fewer intrinsic pitfalls than “scholastic” and the theme’s controlling function was generally accepted as valid. Indeed, the strident complaint that a preacher est extra thema suum was a threat to be reckoned with. “Thematic” should remain in place as the preferred adjective.