The Project Gutenberg EBook of M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae
liber decimus, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

Author: Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

Editor: William Peterson

Release Date: June 14, 2007 [EBook #21827]

Language: Latin

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUINTILIAN ***




Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Connal and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)





  [Transcriber’s Note:

  This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8
  (Unicode) text readers, including accented Greek and some letters
  with uncommon diacritics:

    τῶν δὲ κωμῳδῶν μιμητέον
    ạḍ (under-dots, here representing expunctuation)
    āō (macrons)

  If any of these characters do not display properly-- in particular,
  if the diacritic does not appear directly above or below the letter--
  or if the quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make
  sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to
  Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.
  As a last resort, use the latin-1 version of the file instead.

  Boldface type is shown with #marks#. Italics are generally shown with
  _lines_. Where this form would be unduly distracting, as in the body
  text (showing editorial emendations) or critical notes (marking
  individual letters within a word), {braces} are used instead.
  Superscript numbers referring to editions are given in (parentheses).

  In the original text, section numbers for the Latin text were printed
  in the margin, while chapter numbers appeared as page headers. Most
  paragraphs contained several numbered sections; they have been broken
  up for this e-text.

  The Introduction, Notes and Commentary “outweigh” the Latin text by
  a factor of at least 12. The Latin text _by itself_ is therefore
  duplicated at the very beginning of the e-text, before the Preface. If
  saved as a separate file it should take up less than 100 kilobytes.]




  M. FABI QUINTILIANI

  INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

  LIBER DECIMUS


  A Revised Text

  With Introductory Essays
  Critical and Explanatory Notes
  and a Facsimile of the Harleian Ms.

  by W. Peterson


  Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung
  Hildesheim




  Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1891
  Mit Genehmigung der Clarendon Press, Oxford
  Printed in Germany
  Herstellung: fotokop, Reprografischer Betrieb GmbH, Darmstadt
  Best.-Nr. 5101664


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


M. Fabi Quintiliani

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

Liber Decimus

  [_Primary Text Only_: See Transcriber’s Note.

  Italicized words and letters are emendations, as explained in the
  Commentary and Critical Notes. They are shown here in {braces}.
  Paragraph divisions are as in the original text.]




+De copia verborum.+

I.


|1| Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt necessaria, ita
non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis firma quaedam facilitas,
quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur; accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an
legendo an dicendo conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset
diligentius nobis examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse
contenti: |2| verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si
quid ex his defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam neque solida
atque robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo stilo vires acceperit,
et citra lectionis exemplum labor ille carens rectore fluitabit; et qui
sciet quae quoque sint modo dicenda, nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque
ad omnes casus habuerit eloquentiam, velut clausis thesauris incubabit.
|3| Non autem ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad efficiendum
oratorem maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe, cum sit in eloquendo
positum oratoris officium, dicere ante omnia est, atque hinc initium
eius artis fuisse manifestum est: proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum
scribendi quoque diligentia. |4| Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex
principiis non potest, ita procedente iam opere minima incipiunt esse
quae prima sunt. Verum nos non quo modo sit instituendus orator hoc loco
dicimus, (nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est),
sed athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo
genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum qui res
invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et collocandi
rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod didicerit facere quam
optime, quam facillime possit.

|5| Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam parandae, quibus
uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae constant copia rerum ac
verborum. |6| Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes,
verba in universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent singula,
minorem curam postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis protinus rebus
offerrent. Sed cum sint aliis alia aut magis propria aut magis ornata
aut plus efficientia aut melius sonantia, debent esse non solum nota
omnia, sed in promptu atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se
iudicio dicentis ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio. |7|
Et quae idem significarent solitos {scio} ediscere, quo facilius et
occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi aliquo, si breve intra
spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae repetitionis gratia sumerent
aliud quo idem intellegi posset. Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam
infelicis operae, tum etiam utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat,
ex qua sine discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

|8| Nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non
circulatoriam volubilitatem spectantibus. Id autem consequemur optima
legendo atque audiendo; non enim solum nomina ipsa rerum cognoscemus hac
cura, sed quod quoque loco sit aptissimum. |9| Omnibus enim fere verbis
praeter pauca, quae sunt parum verecunda, in oratione locus est. Nam
scriptores quidem iamborum veterisque comoediae etiam in illis saepe
laudantur, sed nobis nostrum opus intueri sat est. Omnia verba, exceptis
de quibus dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et humilibus interim et
vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte videntur sordida, ubi
res poscit, proprie dicuntur. |10| Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non
significationem modo, sed formas etiam mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque
erunt posita conveniant, nisi multa lectione atque auditione adsequi
nullo modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem auribus primum accipiamus.
Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus iussu regum in solitudine
educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse traduntur, tamen loquendi
facultate caruerunt. |11| Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem
pluribus vocibus declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius
utaris, intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria
rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem intellectum
feruntur, ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’. |12| Nam per abusionem sicarios etiam
omnes vocamus qui caedem telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia circuitu
verborum plurium ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia lactis.’ Plurima
vero mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me fugit’ et ‘non me
praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium est’. |13| Sed etiam ex
proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et ‘sentio’ et ‘video’ saepe
idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias dabit
lectio, ut non solum quo modo occurrent, sed etiam quo modo oportet
utamur. |14| Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de
intellectu animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum
‘intellego’, nec ut ‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’ ostendit.
|15| Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum gratia
legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque docemus, hoc sunt
exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus (cum eo qui discit
perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine demonstrante et sequi iam suis
viribus possit), quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit.

|16| Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat qui
dicit spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus incendit.
Vivunt omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa velut nascentia
cum favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum
qui orant periculo adficimur. |17| Praeter haec vox, actio decora,
accommodata, ut quisque locus postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima
in dicendo) ratio et, ut semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione
certius iudicium, quod audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor aut
ille laudantium clamor extorquet. |18| Pudet enim dissentire, et velut
tacita quadam verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere, cum interim et
vitiosa pluribus placent, et a conrogatis laudantur etiam quae non
placent. |19| Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam
prava iudicia non referant. Lectio libera est nec actionis impetu
transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive dubites sive memoriae
penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et tractemus et, ut cibos mansos
ac prope liquefactos demittimus, quo facilius digerantur, ita lectio non
cruda, sed multa iteratione mollita et velut confecta memoriae
imitationique tradatur.

|20| Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi minime fallat
legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi sollicitudinem, nec
per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed perlectus liber utique ex integro
resumendus, praecipueque oratio, cuius virtutes frequenter ex industria
quoque occultantur. |21| Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur
orator, eaque in prima parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa
profutura. Itaque suo loco minus placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint
ignorantibus; ideoque erunt cognitis omnibus repetenda. |22| Illud vero
utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes in manus sumpserimus, et,
quotiens continget, utrimque habitas legere actiones: ut Demosthenis et
Aeschinis inter se contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque Messallae, quorum
alter pro Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et Cassi reo
Asprenate aliasque plurimas. |23| Quin etiam si minus pares videbuntur
aliquae, tamen ad cognoscendam litium quaestionem recte requirentur, ut
contra Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre.
Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque {egerit utile} erit scire. Nam de
domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et pro Milone orationem Brutus
exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi egisse eum Cornelius Celsus
falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla defenderunt eosdem, et nobis
pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo Domiti Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi
Laeli orationes ferebantur.

|24| Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi auctores
dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur aliquando et oneri cedunt
et indulgent ingeniorum suorum voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum;
nonnumquam fatigantur, cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes,
Horatio vero etiam Homerus ipse videatur. |25| Summi enim sunt, homines
tamen, acciditque his qui, quidquid apud illos reppererunt, dicendi
legem putant, ut deteriora imitentur (id enim est facilius) ac se abunde
similes putent si vitia magnorum consequantur. |26| Modesto tamen et
circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris pronuntiandum est, ne, quod
plerisque accidit, damnent quae non intellegunt. Ac si necesse est in
alteram errare partem, omnia eorum legentibus placere quam multa
displicere maluerim.

|27| Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem poetarum
multique eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito. Namque ab his in rebus
spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in adfectibus motus omnis et in
personis decor petitur, praecipueque velut attrita cotidiano actu
forensi ingenia optime rerum talium blanditia reparantur; ideoque in hac
lectione Cicero requiescendum putat. |28| Meminerimus tamen non per
omnia poetas esse oratori sequendos nec libertate verborum nec licentia
figurarum: {poeticam} ostentationi comparatam et praeter id quod solam
petit voluptatem, eamque etiam fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam quaedam
incredibilia sectatur, patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari, |29| quod
adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem non semper uti propriis possit,
sed depulsa recta via necessario ad eloquendi quaedam deverticula
confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba, sed extendere, conripere,
convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis
de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti. |30| Neque ego arma squalere
situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est
ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri
argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus.

|31| Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco potest;
verum et ipsa sic est legenda ut sciamus plerasque eius virtutes oratori
esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et quodam modo carmen solutum, et
scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei
pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam
componitur; ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris
narrandi taedium evitat. |32| Itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana
brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse
perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius
ineruditum captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis
docebit eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit. |33| Adde
quod M. Tullius ne Thucydiden quidem aut Xenophontem utiles oratori
putat, quamquam illum ‘bellicum canere,’ huius ‘ore Musas esse locutas’
existimet. Licet tamen nobis in digressionibus uti vel historico
nonnumquam nitore, dum in his de quibus erit quaestio meminerimus non
athletarum toris, sed militum lacertis {opus} esse, nec versicolorem
illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem
pulverem facere. |34| Est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem
maximus, sed non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum
exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne omnia
testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex vetustate diligenter
sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea sola criminibus odii et
gratiae vacant.

|35| A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda vitio
factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis parte cesserunt.
Nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus iisque quae sunt istis contraria,
et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et argumentantur acriter {Stoici}, et
altercationibus atque interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime
Socratici praeparant. |36| Sed his quoque adhibendum est simile
iudicium, ut etiam cum in rebus versemur isdem non tamen eandem esse
condicionem sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii,
praeceptorum et periculorum.

|37| Credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in legendo
iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint {legendi}, quae in
auctore quoque praecipua virtus. Sed persequi singulos infiniti fuerit
operis. |38| Quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius tot milibus versuum de
Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis suae,
[quibuscum vivebat], exceptis Caesare atque Marcello, silentium egerit,
quis erit modus si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes
{persequamur} [et philosophos]? |39| Fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima
quae est apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta, ‘legendos
Demosthenen atque Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et
Ciceroni simillimus.’ |40| Non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii
summa. Paucos enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem
pertulerunt existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus
adlaturus sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque
vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte carentibus,
plurimum fateatur adiutum. |41| Nec multo aliud de novis sentio; quotus
enim quisque inveniri tam demens potest, qui ne minima quidem alicuius
certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? Qui si quis est,
intra primos statim versus deprehendetur, et citius nos dimittet quam ut
eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet experimentum. |42| Sed non
quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet, protinus ad faciendam
φράσιν, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.

Verum antequam de singulis loquar, pauca in universum de varietate
opinionum dicenda sunt. |43| Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant
neque in ullis aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum
arbitrantur, alios recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad
voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant. |44| Ipsorum
etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi volunt, alii pressa demum et tenuia
atque quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedant, sana et vere Attica
putant; quosdam elatior ingenii vis et magis concitata et plena spiritus
capit; sunt etiam lenis et nitidi et compositi generis non pauci
amatores. De qua differentia disseram diligentius, cum de genere dicendi
quaerendum erit: interim summatim, quid et a qua lectione petere possint
qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent, attingam: paucos enim, qui
sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est. |45| Facile est autem
studiosis, qui sint his simillimi, iudicare, ne quisquam queratur
omissos forte aliquos quos ipse valde probet; fateor enim plures
legendos esse quam qui a me nominabuntur. Sed nunc genera ipsa
lectionum, quae praecipue convenire intendentibus ut oratores fiant
existimem, persequar.

|46| Igitur, ut Aratus ab Iove incipiendum putat, ita nos rite coepturi
ab HOMERO videmur. Hic enim, quem ad modum ex Oceano dicit ipse omnium
{fluminum} fontiumque cursus initium capere, omnibus eloquentiae
partibus exemplum et ortum dedit. Hunc nemo in magnis rebus sublimitate,
in parvis proprietate superaverit. Idem laetus ac pressus, iucundus et
gravis, tum copia tum brevitate mirabilis, nec poetica modo, sed
oratoria virtute eminentissimus. |47| Nam ut de laudibus,
exhortationibus, consolationibus taceam, nonne vel nonus liber, quo
missa ad Achillen legatio continetur, vel in primo inter duces illa
contentio vel dictae in secundo sententiae omnes litium ac consiliorum
explicant artes? |48| Adfectus quidem vel illos mites vel hos concitatos
nemo erit tam indoctus qui non in sua potestate hunc auctorem habuisse
fateatur. Age vero, non utriusque operis sui ingressu in paucissimis
versibus legem prooemiorum non dico servavit, sed constituit? Nam
benevolum auditorem invocatione dearum quas praesidere vatibus creditum
est, et intentum proposita rerum magnitudine, et docilem summa celeriter
comprehensa facit. |49| Narrare vero quis brevius quam qui mortem
nuntiat Patrocli, quis significantius potest quam qui Curetum
Aetolorumque proelium exponit? Iam similitudines, amplificationes,
exempla, digressus, signa rerum et argumenta ceteraque {genera} probandi
ac refutandi sunt ita multa ut etiam qui de artibus scripserunt plurima
earum rerum testimonia ab hoc poeta petant. |50| Nam epilogus quidem
quis umquam poterit illis Priami rogantis Achillen precibus aequari?
Quid? In verbis, sententiis, figuris, dispositione totius operis nonne
humani ingenii modum excedit? ut magni sit virtutes eius non
aemulatione, quod fieri non potest, sed intellectu sequi. |51| Verum hic
omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae procul a se reliquit,
epicos tamen praecipue, videlicet quia clarissima in materia simili
comparatio est. |52| Raro adsurgit HESIODUS magnaque pars eius in
nominibus est occupata, tamen utiles circa praecepta sententiae
levitasque verborum et compositionis probabilis, daturque ei palma in
illo medio genere dicendi. |53| Contra in ANTIMACHO vis et gravitas et
minime vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. Sed quamvis ei secundas
fere grammaticorum consensus deferat, et adfectibus et iucunditate et
dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat
quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud secundum. |54| PANYASIN, ex
utroque mixtum, putant in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, alterum
tamen ab eo materia, alterum disponendi ratione superari. APOLLONIUS in
ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque
Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum
redegerunt; non tamen contemnendum reddidit opus aequali quadam
mediocritate. |55| ARATI materia motu caret, ut in qua nulla varietas,
nullus adfectus, nulla persona, nulla cuiusquam sit oratio; sufficit
tamen operi cui se parem credidit. Admirabilis in suo genere THEOCRITUS,
sed musa illa rustica et pastoralis non forum modo, verum ipsam etiam
urbem reformidat. |56| Audire videor undique congerentes nomina
plurimorum poetarum. Quid? Herculis acta non bene PISANDROS? NICANDRUM
frustra secuti Macer atque Vergilius? Quid? EUPHORIONEM transibimus?
Quem nisi probasset Vergilius idem, numquam certe ‘conditorum Chalcidico
versu carminum’ fecisset in Bucolicis mentionem. Quid? Horatius frustra
TYRTAEUM Homero subiungit? |57| Nec sane quisquam est tam procul a
cognitione eorum remotus ut non indicem certe ex bibliotheca sumptum
transferre in libros suos possit. Nec ignoro igitur quos transeo nec
utique damno, ut qui dixerim esse in omnibus utilitatis aliquid. |58|
Sed ad illos iam perfectis constitutisque viribus revertemur, quod in
cenis grandibus saepe facimus, ut, cum optimis satiati sumus, varietas
tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit. Tunc et elegiam vacabit in manus
sumere, cuius princeps habetur CALLIMACHUS, secundas confessione
plurimorum PHILETAS occupavit. |59| Sed dum adsequimur illam firmam, ut
dixi, facilitatem, optimis adsuescendum est et multa magis quam multorum
lectione formanda mens et ducendus color. Itaque ex tribus receptis
Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad ἕξιν maxime pertinebit unus
ARCHILOCHUS. |60| Summa in hoc vis elocutionis, cum validae tum breves
vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum, adeo ut
videatur quibusdam, quod quoquam minor est, materiae esse, non ingenii
vitium. |61| Novem vero lyricorum longe PINDARUS princeps spiritu
magnificentia, sententiis figuris, beatissima rerum verborumque copia et
velut quodam eloquentiae flumine; propter quae Horatius eum merito
credidit nemini imitabilem. |62| STESICHORUM, quam sit ingenio validus,
materiae quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et
epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem. Reddit enim personis in agendo
simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem, ac si tenuisset modum, videtur
aemulari proximus Homerum potuisse; sed redundat atque effunditur, quod
ut est reprehendendum, ita copiae vitium est. |63| ALCAEUS in parte
operis ‘aureo plectro’ merito donatur, qua tyrannos insectatus multum
etiam moribus confert, in eloquendo quoque brevis et magnificus et
diligens et plerumque oratori similis; sed et lusit et in amores
descendit, maioribus tamen aptior. |64| SIMONIDES, tenuis alioqui,
sermone proprio et iucunditate quadam commendari potest; praecipua tamen
eius in commovenda miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac eum parte
omnibus eius operis auctoribus praeferant.

|65| Antiqua comoedia cum sinceram illam sermonis Attici gratiam prope
sola retinet, tum facundissimae libertatis est et in insectandis vitiis
praecipua; plurimum tamen virium etiam in ceteris partibus habet. Nam et
grandis et elegans et venusta, et nescio an ulla, post Homerum tamen,
quem ut Achillen semper excipi par est, aut similior sit oratoribus aut
ad oratores faciendos aptior. |66| Plures eius auctores, ARISTOPHANES
tamen et EUPOLIS CRATINUSque praecipui. Tragoedias primus in lucem
AESCHYLUS protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad
vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus; propter quod correctas
eius fabulas in certamen deferre posterioribus poetis Athenienses
permiserunt, suntque eo modo multi coronati. |67| Sed longe clarius
inlustraverunt hoc opus SOPHOCLES atque EURIPIDES, quorum in dispari
dicendi via uter sit poeta melior inter plurimos quaeritur. Idque ego
sane, quoniam ad praesentem materiam nihil pertinet, iniudicatum
relinquo. Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad
agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden. |68| Namque is et
sermone (quod ipsum reprehendunt quibus gravitas et cothurnus et sonus
Sophocli videtur esse sublimior) magis accedit oratorio generi, et
sententiis densus et in iis quae a sapientibus tradita sunt paene ipsis
par, et dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt in foro
diserti comparandus; in adfectibus vero cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis
qui in miseratione constant facile praecipuus. |69| Hunc admiratus
maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quamquam in opere diverso,
MENANDER, qui vel unus meo quidem iudicio diligenter lectus ad cuncta
quae praecipimus effingenda sufficiat: ita omnem vitae imaginem
expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi facultas, ita est
omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus. |70| Nec nihil
profecto viderunt qui orationes, quae Charisi nomini addicuntur, a
Menandro scriptas putant. Sed mihi longe magis orator probari in opere
suo videtur, nisi forte aut illa iudicia, qua Epitrepontes, Epicleros,
Locroe habent, aut meditationes in Psophodee, Nomothete, Hypobolimaeo
non omnibus oratoriis numeris sunt absolutae. |71| Ego tamen plus adhuc
quiddam collaturum eum declamatoribus puto, quoniam his necesse est
secundum condicionem controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum
filiorum, militum rusticorum, divitum pauperum, irascentium
deprecantium, mitium asperorum; in quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc
poeta decor. |72| Atque ille quidem omnibus eiusdem operis auctoribus
abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit. Tamen
habent alii quoque comici, si cum venia leguntur, quaedam quae possis
decerpere, et praecipue PHILEMON; qui ut prave sui temporis iudiciis
Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi
secundus.

|73| Historiam multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe duos
ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem
consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi THUCYDIDES, dulcis et
candidus et fusus HERODOTUS: ille concitatis hic remissis adfectibus
melior, ille contionibus hic sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate. |74|
THEOPOMPUS his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori
magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus, diu fuerit
orator. PHILISTUS quoque meretur qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos
auctorum eximatur, imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita
aliquatenus lucidior. EPHORUS, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget.
CLITARCHI probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. |75| Longo post intervallo
temporis natus TIMAGENES vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam
historias scribendi industriam nova laude reparavit. XENOPHON non
excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est.

|76| Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas
una tulerit. Quorum longe princeps DEMOSTHENES ac paene lex orandi fuit:
tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam
nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod
redundet invenias. |77| Plenior AESCHINES et magis fusus et grandiori
similis, quo minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus
lacertorum. Dulcis in primis et acutus HYPERIDES, sed minoribus causis--
ut non dixerim utilior-- magis par. |78| His aetate LYSIAS maior,
subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis sit docere,
quaeras perfectius; nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum, puro tamen
fonti quam magno flumini propior. |79| ISOCRATES in diverso genere
dicendi nitidus et comptus et palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus
omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito: auditoriis enim se,
non iudiciis compararat: in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in
compositione adeo diligens ut cura eius reprehendatur. |80| Neque ego in
his de quibus sum locutus has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto,
nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos. Quin etiam PHALEREA illum DEMETRIUM,
quamquam is primum inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii
habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus
est fere ex Atticis qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio
genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero.

|81| Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae M.
Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet PLATONEM esse praecipuum sive acumine
disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? Multum
enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut
mihi non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei
instinctus. |82| Quid ego commemorem XENOPHONTIS illam iucunditatem
inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae
sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle veteris
comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in
labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam. |83| Quid reliquorum
Socraticorum elegantiam? Quid ARISTOTELEN? Quem dubito scientia rerum an
scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an
varietate operum clariorem putem. Nam in THEOPHRASTO tam est loquendi
nitor ille divinus ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur. |84| Minus
indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres, sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in
colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen
acuti magis quam (id quod sane non adfectaverunt) oratione magnifici.

|85| Idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. Itaque ut
apud illos Homerus, sic apud nos VERGILIUS auspicatissimum dederit
exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie
proximus. |86| Utar enim verbis isdem quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis
excepi: qui mihi interroganti quem Homero crederet maxime accedere,
‘secundus,’ inquit, ‘est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio.’ Et
hercule ut illi naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae
et diligentiae vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum;
et quantum eminentibus vincimur fortasse aequalitate pensamus. |87|
Ceteri omnes longe sequentur. Nam MACER et LUCRETIUS legendi quidem, sed
non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in sua
quisque materia, sed alter humilis, alter difficilis. ATACINUS VARRO in
iis per quae nomen est adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus
quidem, verum ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples. |88| ENNIUM
sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua
robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem. Propiores alii,
atque ad hoc de quo loquimur magis utiles. Lascivus quidem in herois
quoque OVIDIUS et nimium amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in
partibus. |89| CORNELIUS autem SEVERUS, etiamsi sit versificator quam
poeta melior, si tamen, ut est dictum, ad exemplar primi libri bellum
Siculum perscripsisset, vindicaret sibi iure secundum locum. SERRANUM
consummari mors immatura non passa est, puerilia tamen eius opera et
maximam indolem ostendunt et admirabilem praecipue in aetate illa recti
generis voluntatem. |90| Multum in VALERIO FLACCO nuper amisimus.
Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEI BASSI fuit, nec ipsum senectute
maturuit. RABIRIUS ac PEDO non in digni cognitione, si vacet. LUCANUS
ardens et concitatus et sententiis clarissimus, et, ut dicam quod
sentio, magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus. |91| Hos nominavimus,
quia GERMANICUM AUGUSTUM ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum,
parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum. Quid tamen his ipsis
eius operibus, in quae donato imperio iuvenis secesserat, sublimius,
doctius, omnibus denique numeris praestantius? Quis enim caneret bella
melius quam qui sic gerit? Quem praesidentes studiis deae propius
audirent? Cui magis suas artes aperiret familiare numen Minervae? |92|
Dicent haec plenius futura saecula, nunc enim ceterarum fulgore virtutum
laus ista praestringitur. Nos tamen sacra litterarum colentes feres,
Caesar, si non tacitum hoc praeterimus et Vergiliano certe versu
testamur:

  inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.

|93| Elegea quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque elegans
maxime videtur auctor TIBULLUS: sunt qui PROPERTIUM malint. OVIDIUS
utroque lascivior, sicut durior GALLUS. Satura quidem tota nostra est,
in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus LUCILIUS quosdam ita deditos sibi
adhuc habet amatores ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed
omnibus poetis praeferre non dubitent. |94| Ego quantum ab illis, tantum
ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere lutulentum et esse aliquid
quod tollere possis, putat. Nam eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque
inde acerbitas et abunde salis. Multum est tersior ac purus magis
HORATIUS et, non labor eius amore, praecipuus. Multum et verae gloriae
quamvis uno libro PERSIUS meruit. Sunt clari hodieque et qui olim
nominabuntur. |95| Alterum illud etiam prius saturae genus, sed non sola
carminum varietate mixtum condidit TERENTIUS VARRO, vir Romanorum
eruditissimus. Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos composuit,
peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum
nostrarumque, plus tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae. |96|
Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, {sed aliis}
quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in CATULLO, BIBACULO, HORATIO,
quamquam illi epodos intervenit, reperietur. At lyricorum idem HORATIUS
fere solus legi dignus; nam et insurgit aliquando et plenus est
iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax.
Si quem adicere velis, is erit CAESIUS BASSUS, quem nuper vidimus; sed
eum longe praecedunt ingenia viventium.

|97| Tragoediae scriptores veterum ATTIUS atque PACUVIUS clarissimi
gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum.
Ceterum nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus magis videri potest
temporibus quam ipsis defuisse; virium tamen Attio plus tribuitur,
Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt. |98| Iam VARI
Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest. OVIDI Medea videtur mihi
ostendere quantum ille vir praestare potuerit si ingenio suo imperare
quam indulgere maluisset. Eorum quos viderim longe princeps POMPONIUS
SECUNDUS, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac
nitore praestare confitebantur. |99| In comoedia maxime claudicamus.
Licet Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis sententia, Plautino dicat sermone
locuturas fuisse, si Latine loqui vellent, licet CAECILIUM veteres
laudibus ferant, licet TERENTI scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur
(quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura
gratiae si intra versus trimetros stetissent), |100| vix levem
consequimur umbram: adeo ut mihi sermo ipse Romanus non recipere
videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem, cum eam ne Graeci quidem
in alio genere linguae {suae} obtinuerint. Togatis excellit AFRANIUS:
utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus mores suos
fassus.

|101| At non historia cesserit Graecis. Nec opponere Thucydidi
SALLUSTIUM verear, nec indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari TITUM LIVIUM,
cum in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris, tum in
contionibus supra quam enarrari potest eloquentem: ita quae dicuntur
omnia cum rebus, tum personis accommodata sunt: adfectus quidem
praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime dicam, nemo
historicorum commendavit magis. |102| Ideoque immortalem Sallusti
velocitatem diversis virtutibus consecutus est. Nam mihi egregie dixisse
videtur SERVILIUS NONIANUS, pares eos magis quam similes; qui et ipse a
nobis auditus est clarus vi ingenii et sententiis creber, sed minus
pressus quam historiae auctoritas postulat. |103| Quam paulum aetate
praecedens eum BASSUS AUFIDIUS egregie, utique in libris belli
Germanici, praestitit genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in
quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor. |104| Superest adhuc et exornat
aetatis nostrae gloriam vir saeculorum memoria dignus, qui olim
nominabitur, nunc intellegitur. Habet amatores nec immerito CREMUTI
libertas, quamquam circumcisis quae dixisse ei nocuerat; sed elatum
abunde spiritum et audaces sententias deprehendas etiam in his quae
manent. Sunt et alii scriptores boni, sed nos genera degustamus, non
bibliothecas excutimus.

|105| Oratores vero vel praecipue Latinam eloquentiam parem facere
Graecae possunt; nam CICERONEM cuicumque eorum fortiter opposuerim. Nec
ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum praesertim non id sit propositi
ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc tempore; neque enim attinet, cum
Demosthenen in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius putem. |106| Quorum
ego virtutes plerasque arbitror similes, consilium, ordinem, dividendi,
praeparandi, probandi rationem, [omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis.
In eloquendo est aliqua diversitas: densior ille hic copiosior, ille
concludit adstrictius hic latius, pugnat ille acumine semper hic
frequenter et pondere, illi nihil detrahi potest huic nihil adici, curae
plus in illo in hoc naturae. |107| Salibus certe et commiseratione, quae
duo plurimum in adfectibus valent, vincimus. Et fortasse epilogos illi
mos civitatis abstulerit, sed et nobis illa, quae Attici mirantur,
diversa Latini sermonis ratio minus permiserit. In epistulis quidem,
quamquam sunt utriusque, dialogisve, quibus nihil ille, nulla contentio
est. |108| Cedendum vero in hoc, quod et prior fuit et ex magna parte
Ciceronem quantus est fecit. Nam mihi videtur M. Tullius, cum se totum
ad imitationem Graecorum contulisset, effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam
Platonis, iucunditatem Isocratis. |109| Nec vero quod in quoque optimum
fuit studio consecutus est tantum, sed plurimas vel potius omnes ex se
ipso virtutes extulit immortalis ingenii beatissima ubertate. Non enim
‘pluvias,’ ut ait Pindarus, ‘aquas colligit, sed vivo gurgite exundat,’
dono quodam providentiae genitus, in quo totas vires suas eloquentia
experiretur. |110| Nam quis docere diligentius, movere vehementius
potest? Cui tanta umquam iucunditas adfuit? ut ipsa illa quae extorquet
impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat, tamen
ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi. |111| Iam in omnibus quae dicit tanta
auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat, nec advocati studium sed testis
aut iudicis adferat fidem; cum interim haec omnia, quae vix singula
quisquam intentissima cura consequi posset, fluunt inlaborata et illa,
qua nihil pulchrius auditum est, oratio prae se fert tamen felicissimam
facilitatem. |112| Quare non immerito ab hominibus aetatis suae regnare
in iudiciis dictus est, apud posteros vero id consecutus, ut Cicero iam
non hominis nomen sed eloquentiae habeatur. Hunc igitur spectemus, hoc
propositum nobis sit exemplum, ille se profecisse sciat, cui Cicero
valde placebit. |113| Multa in ASINIO POLLIONE inventio, summa
diligentia, adeo ut quibusdam etiam nimia videatur, et consilii et animi
satis: a nitore et iucunditate Ciceronis ita longe abest ut videri
possit saeculo prior. At MESSALLA nitidus et candidus et quodam modo
praeferens in dicendo nobilitatem suam, viribus minor. |114| C. vero
CAESAR si foro tantum vacasset, non alius ex nostris contra Ciceronem
nominaretur. Tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum
eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat; exornat tamen haec omnia mira
sermonis, cuius proprie studiosus fuit, elegantia. |115| Multum ingenii
in CAELIO et praecipue in accusando multa urbanitas, dignusque vir, cui
et mens melior et vita longior contigisset. Inveni qui CALVUM
praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui Ciceroni crederent eum nimia contra se
calumnia verum sanguinem perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio
et castigata et frequenter vehemens quoque. Imitator autem est
Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors iniuriam, si quid adiecturus
sibi non si quid detracturus fuit. |116| Et SERVIUS SULPICIUS insignem
non immerito famam tribus orationibus meruit. Multa, si cum iudicio
legatur, dabit imitatione digna CASSIUS SEVERUS, qui si ceteris
virtutibus colorem et gravitatem orationis adiecisset, ponendus inter
praecipuos foret. |117| Nam et ingenii plurimum est in eo et acerbitas
mira et urbanitas et fervor, sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit.
Praeterea ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicula est.
|118| Sunt alii multi diserti, quos persequi longum est. Eorum quos
viderim DOMITIUS AFER et IULIUS AFRICANUS longe praestantissimi.
Verborum arte ille et toto genere dicendi praeferendus et quem in numero
veterum habere non timeas: hic concitatior, sed in cura verborum nimius
et compositione nonnumquam longior et translationibus parum modicus.
Erant clara et nuper ingenia. |119| Nam et TRACHALUS plerumque sublimis
et satis apertus fuit et quem velle optima crederes, auditus tamen
maior; nam et vocis, quantam in nullo cognovi, felicitas et pronuntiatio
vel scaenis suffectura et decor, omnia denique ei, quae sunt extra,
superfuerunt: et VIBIUS CRISPUS compositus et iucundus et delectationi
natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior. |120| IULIO SECUNDO,
si longior contigisset aetas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud
posteros foret; adiecisset enim atque adiciebat ceteris virtutibus suis
quod desiderari potest, id est autem ut esset multo magis pugnax et
saepius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. |121| Ceterum
interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando quod velit gratia, tam candidum et lene et speciosum dicendi
genus, tanta verborum etiam quae adsumpta sunt proprietas, tanta in
quibusdam ex periculo petitis significantia. |122| Habebunt qui post nos
de oratoribus scribent magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam vere
laudandi; sunt enim summa hodie, quibus inlustratur forum, ingenia.
Namque et consummati iam patroni veteribus aemulantur et eos iuvenum ad
optima tendentium imitatur ac sequitur industria.

|123| Supersunt qui de philosophia scripserint, quo in genere
paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt. Idem igitur M.
TULLIUS, qui ubique, etiam in hoc opere Platonis aemulus extitit.
Egregius vero multoque quam in orationibus praestantior BRUTUS suffecit
ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire quae dicit. |124| Scripsit non parum
multa CORNELIUS CELSUS, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore.
PLAUTUS in Stoicis rerum cognitioni utilis. In Epicureis levis quidem,
sed non iniucundus tamen auctor est CATIUS. |125| Ex industria SENECAM
in omni genere eloquentiae distuli propter vulgatam falso de me
opinionem, qua damnare eum et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. Quod
accidit mihi dum corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo; tum autem solus hic fere in
manibus adulescentium fuit. |126| Quem non equidem omnino conabar
excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat
incessere, cum diversi sibi conscius generis placere se in dicendo posse
{iis} quibus illi placerent diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis quam
imitabantur, tantumque ab illo defluebant quantum ille ab antiquis
descenderat. |127| Foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi
viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia et ad ea se quisque
dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde cum se iactaret eodem modo
dicere, Senecam infamabat. |128| Cuius et multae alioqui et magnae
virtutes fuerunt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa
rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab his quibus inquirenda quaedam
mandabat deceptus est. |129| Tractavit etiam omnem fere studiorum
materiam; nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et dialogi
feruntur. In philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum
insectator fuit. Multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum
gratia legenda, sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque atque eo
perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis. |130| Velles eum suo
ingenio dixisse, alieno iudicio; nam si {ob}liqua contempsisset, si
parum {recta} non concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset, si rerum
pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius
eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. |131| Verum sic quoque iam
robustis et severiore genere satis firmatis legendus vel ideo quod
exercere potest utrimque iudicium. Multa enim, ut dixi, probanda in eo,
multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curae sit, quod utinam ipse
fecisset. Digna enim fuit illa natura, quae meliora vellet: quod voluit
effecit.




+De Imitatione.+

II.


|1| Ex his ceterisque lectione dignis auctoribus et verborum sumenda
copia est et varietas figurarum et componendi ratio, tum ad exemplum
virtutum omnium mens derigenda. Neque enim dubitari potest, quin artis
pars magna contineatur imitatione. Nam ut invenire primum fuit estque
praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa sunt utile sequi. |2| Atque omnis
vitae ratio sic constat, ut quae probamus in aliis facere ipsi velimus.
Sic litterarum ductus, ut scribendi fiat usus, pueri sequuntur; sic
musici vocem docentium, pictores opera priorum, rustici probatam
experimento culturam in exemplum intuentur; omnis denique disciplinae
initia ad propositum sibi praescriptum formari videmus. |3| Et hercule
necesse est aut similes aut dissimiles bonis simus. Similem raro natura
praestat, frequenter imitatio. Sed hoc ipsum quod tanto faciliorem nobis
rationem rerum omnium facit quam fuit iis qui nihil quod sequerentur
habuerunt, nisi caute et cum iudicio adprehenditur, nocet.

|4| Ante omnia igitur imitatio per se ipsa non sufficit, vel quia pigri
est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab aliis inventa. Quid enim
futurum erat temporibus illis quae sine exemplo fuerunt, si homines
nihil, nisi quod iam cognovissent, faciendum sibi aut cogitandum
putassent? Nempe nihil fuisset inventum. |5| Cur igitur nefas est
reperiri aliquid a nobis, quod ante non fuerit? An illi rudes sola
mentis natura ducti sunt in hoc, ut tam multa generarent: nos ad
quaerendum non eo ipso concitemur, quod certe scimus invenisse eos qui
quaesierunt? |6| Et cum illi, qui nullum cuiusquam rei habuerunt
magistrum, plurima in posteros tradiderunt, nobis usus aliarum rerum ad
eruendas alias non proderit, sed nihil habebimus nisi beneficii alieni?
quem ad modum quidam pictores in id solum student, ut describere tabulas
mensuris ac lineis sciant. |7| Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id
consequi quod imiteris. Nam rursus quid erat futurum, si nemo plus
effecisset eo quem sequebatur? Nihil in poetis supra Livium Andronicum,
nihil in historiis supra pontificum annales haberemus; ratibus adhuc
navigaremus; non esset pictura, nisi quae lineas modo extremas umbrae,
quam corpora in sole fecissent, circumscriberet. |8| Ac si omnia
percenseas, nulla {man}sit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium
stetit: nisi forte nostra potissimum tempora damnamus huius
infelicitatis, ut nunc demum nihil crescat: nihil autem crescit sola
imitatione. |9| Quod si prioribus adicere fas non est, quo modo sperare
possumus illum oratorem perfectum? cum in his, quos maximos adhuc
novimus, nemo sit inventus in quo nihil aut desideretur aut
reprehendatur. Sed etiam qui summa non adpetent, contendere potius quam
sequi debent. |10| Nam qui hoc agit ut prior sit, forsitan etiamsi non
transierit aequabit. Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi
utique insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui
sequitur. Adde quod plerumque facilius est plus facere quam idem; tantam
enim difficultatem habet similitudo ut ne ipsa quidem natura in hoc ita
evaluerit ut non res quae simillimae quaeque pares maxime videantur
utique discrimine aliquo discernantur. |11| Adde quod quidquid alteri
simile est, necesse est minus sit eo quod imitatur, ut umbra corpore et
imago facie et actus histrionum veris adfectibus. Quod in orationibus
quoque evenit. Namque iis quae in exemplum adsumimus subest natura et
vera vis; contra omnis imitatio facta est et ad alienum propositum
accommodatur. |12| Quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes
habeant quam orationes, quod in illis vera, in his adsimilata materia
est. Adde quod ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt,
ingenium, inventio, vis, facilitas et quidquid arte non traditur. |13|
Ideoque plerique, cum verba quaedam ex orationibus excerpserunt aut
aliquos compositionis certos pedes, mire a se quae legerunt effingi
arbitrantur, cum et verba intercidant invalescantque temporibus, (ut
quorum certissima sit regula in consuetudine,) eaque non sua natura sint
bona aut mala-- nam per se soni tantum sunt-- sed prout opportune
proprieque aut secus collocata sunt, et compositio cum rebus accommodata
sit, tum ipsa varietate gratissima.

|14| Quapropter exactissimo iudicio circa hanc partem studiorum
examinanda sunt omnia. Primum, quos imitemur: nam sunt plurimi qui
similitudinem pessimi cuiusque et corruptissimi concupierint: tum in
ipsis quos elegerimus, quid sit {ad} quod nos efficiendum comparemus.
|15| Nam in magnis quoque auctoribus incidunt aliqua vitiosa et a doctis
inter ipsos etiam mutuo reprehensa; atque utinam tam bona imitantes
dicerent melius quam mala peius dicunt. Nec vero saltem iis quibus ad
evitanda vitia iudicii satis fuit sufficiat imaginem virtutis effingere
et solam, ut sic dixerim, cutem vel potius illas Epicuri figuras, quas e
summis corporibus dicit effluere. |16| Hoc autem his accidit qui non
introspectis penitus virtutibus ad primum se velut adspectum orationis
aptarunt; et cum iis felicissime cessit imitatio, verbis atque numeris
sunt non multum differentes, vim dicendi atque inventionis non
adsequuntur, sed plerumque declinant in peius et proxima virtutibus
vitia comprehendunt fiuntque pro grandibus tumidi, pressis exiles,
fortibus temerarii, laetis corrupti, compositis exultantes, simplicibus
neglegentes. |17| Ideoque qui horride atque incomposite quidlibet illud
frigidum et inane extulerunt, antiquis se pares credunt; qui carent
cultu atque sententiis, Attici sunt scilicet; qui praecisis
conclusionibus obscuri, Sallustium atque Thucydiden superant; tristes ac
ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur; otiosi et supini, si quid modo longius
circumduxerunt, iurant ita Ciceronem locuturum fuisse. |18| Noveram
quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus illud caelestis huius in
dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in clausula posuissent ‘esse videatur.’
Ergo primum est ut quod imitaturus est quisque intellegat, et quare
bonum sit sciat.

|19| Tum in suscipiendo onere consulat suas vires. Nam quaedam sunt
imitabilia, quibus aut infirmitas naturae non sufficiat aut diversitas
repugnet. Ne, cui tenue ingenium erit, sola velit fortia et abrupta, cui
forte quidem, sed indomitum, amore subtilitatis et vim suam perdat et
elegantiam quam cupit non persequatur; nihil est enim tam indecens quam
cum mollia dure fiunt. |20| Atque ego illi praeceptori quem institueram
in libro secundo credidi non ea sola docenda esse, ad quae quemque
discipulorum natura compositum videret; nam is et adiuvare debet quae in
quoque eorum invenit bona, et, quantum fieri potest, adicere quae desunt
et emendare quaedam et mutare; rector enim est alienorum ingeniorum
atque formator. Difficilius est naturam suam fingere. |21| Sed ne ille
quidem doctor, quamquam omnia quae recta sunt velit esse in suis
auditoribus quam plenissima, in eo tamen cui naturam obstare viderit
laborabit.

Id quoque vitandum, in quo magna pars errat, ne in oratione poetas nobis
et historicos, in illis operibus oratores aut declamatores imitandos
putemus. |22| Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est: nec comoedia in
cothurnos adsurgit, nec contra tragoedia socco ingreditur. Habet tamen
omnis eloquentia aliquid commune: id imitemur quod commune est.

|23| Etiam hoc solet incommodi accidere iis qui se uni alicui generi
dediderunt, ut, si asperitas iis placuit alicuius, hanc etiam in leni ac
remisso causarum genere non exuant; si tenuitas aut iucunditas, in
asperis gravibusque causis ponderi rerum parum respondeant: cum sit
diversa non causarum modo inter ipsas condicio, sed in singulis etiam
causis partium, sintque alia leniter alia aspere, alia concitate alia
remisse, alia docendi alia movendi gratia dicenda; quorum omnium
dissimilis atque diversa inter se ratio est. |24| Itaque ne hoc quidem
suaserim, uni se alicui proprie, quem per omnia sequatur, addicere.
Longe perfectissimus Graecorum Demosthenes, aliquid tamen aliquo in loco
melius alii, plurima ille. Sed non qui maxime imitandus, et solus
imitandus est. |25| Quid ergo? non est satis omnia sic dicere quo modo
M. Tullius dixit? Mihi quidem satis esset, si omnia consequi possem:
quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris, asperitatem Caeli, diligentiam
Pollionis, iudicium Calvi quibusdam in locis adsumere? |26| Nam praeter
id quod prudentis est quod in quoque optimum est, si possit, suum
facere, tum in tanta rei difficultate unum intuentes vix aliqua pars
sequitur. Ideoque cum totum exprimere quem elegeris paene sit homini
inconcessum, plurium bona ponamus ante oculos, ut aliud ex alio haereat,
et quo quidque loco conveniat aptemus.

|27| Imitatio autem (nam saepius idem dicam) non sit tantum in verbis.
Illuc intendenda mens, quantum fuerit illis viris decoris in rebus atque
personis, quod consilium, quae dispositio, quam omnia, etiam quae
delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent; quid agatur
prooemio, quae ratio et quam varia narrandi, quae vis probandi ac
refellendi, quanta in adfectibus omnis generis movendis scientia,
quamque laus ipsa popularis utilitatis gratia adsumpta, quae tum est
pulcherrima, cum sequitur, non cum arcessitur. Haec si perviderimus, tum
vere imitabimur. |28| Qui vero etiam propria his bona adiecerit, ut
suppleat quae deerunt, circumcidat si quid redundabit, is erit, quem
quaerimus, perfectus orator; quem nunc consummari potissimum oporteat,
cum tanto plura exempla bene dicendi supersunt quam illis qui adhuc
summi sunt contigerunt. Nam erit haec quoque laus eorum, ut priores
superasse, posteros docuisse dicantur.




+Quo modo scribendum sit.+

III.


|1| Et haec quidem auxilia extrinsecus adhibentur; in iis autem quae
nobis ipsis paranda sunt, ut laboris, sic utilitatis etiam longe
plurimum adfert stilus. Nec immerito M. Tullius hunc ‘optimum effectorem
ac magistrum dicendi’ vocat, cui sententiae personam L. Crassi in
disputationibus quae sunt de oratore adsignando, iudicium suum cum
illius auctoritate coniunxit. |2| Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et
quam plurimum. Nam ut terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus
fecundior fit, sic profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus
effundit uberius et fidelius continet. Nam sine hac quidem conscientia
ipsa illa ex tempore dicendi facultas inanem modo loquacitatem dabit et
verba in labris nascentia. |3| Illic radices, illic fundamenta sunt,
illic opes velut sanctiore quodam aerario conditae, unde ad subitos
quoque casus, cum res exiget, proferantur. Vires faciamus ante omnia,
quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. |4| Nihil
enim rerum ipsa natura voluit magnum effici cito, praeposuitque
pulcherrimo cuique operi difficultatem; quae nascendi quoque hanc
fecerit legem, ut maiora animalia diutius visceribus parentis
continerentur.

Sed cum sit duplex quaestio, quo modo et quae maxime scribi oporteat,
iam hinc ordinem sequar. |5| Sit primo vel tardus dum diligens stilus,
quaeramus optima nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus, adhibeatur
iudicium inventis, dispositio probatis; dilectus enim rerum verborumque
agendus est et pondera singulorum examinanda. Post subeat ratio
collocandi versenturque omni modo numeri, non ut quodque se proferet
verbum occupet locum. |6| Quae quidem ut diligentius exsequamur,
repetenda saepius erunt scriptorum proxima. Nam praeter id quod sic
melius iunguntur prioribus sequentia, calor quoque ille cogitationis,
qui scribendi mora refrixit, recipit ex integro vires et velut repetito
spatio sumit impetum; quod in certamine saliendi fieri videmus, ut
conatum longius petant et ad illud quo contenditur spatium cursu
ferantur, utque in iaculando brachia reducimus et expulsuri tela nervos
retro tendimus. |7| Interim tamen, si feret flatus, danda sunt vela, dum
nos indulgentia illa non fallat; omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur
placent, alioqui nec scriberentur. Sed redeamus ad iudicium et
retractemus suspectam facilitatem. |8| Sic scripsisse Sallustium
accepimus, et sane manifestus est etiam ex opere ipso labor. Vergilium
quoque paucissimos die composuisse versus auctor est Varius. |9|
Oratoris quidem alia condicio est; itaque hanc moram et sollicitudinem
initiis impero. Nam primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut
quam optime scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo. Paulatim res
facilius se ostendent, verba respondebunt, compositio sequetur, cuncta
denique ut in familia bene instituta in officio erunt. |10| Summa haec
est rei: cito scribendo non fit ut bene scribatur, bene scribendo fit ut
cito. Sed tum maxime, cum facultas illa contigerit, resistamus ut
provideamus, efferentes {se} equos frenis quibusdam coerceamus; quod non
tam moram faciet quam novos impetus dabit. Neque enim rursus eos qui
robur aliquod in stilo fecerint ad infelicem calumniandi se poenam
adligandos puto. |11| Nam quo modo sufficere officiis civilibus possit
qui singulis actionum partibus insenescat? Sunt autem quibus nihil sit
satis: omnia mutare, omnia aliter dicere quam occurrit velint,--
increduli quidam et de ingenio suo pessime meriti, qui diligentiam
putant facere sibi scribendi difficultatem. |12| Nec promptum est dicere
utros peccare validius putem, quibus omnia sua placent an quibus nihil.
Accidit enim etiam ingeniosis adulescentibus frequenter, ut labore
consumantur et in silentium usque descendant nimia bene dicendi
cupiditate. Qua de re memini narrasse mihi Iulium Secundum illum,
aequalem meum atque a me, ut notum est, familiariter amatum, mirae
facundiae virum, infinitae tamen curae, quid esset sibi a patruo suo
dictum. |13| Is fuit Iulius Florus, in eloquentia Galliarum, quoniam ibi
demum exercuit eam, princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus et dignus
illa propinquitate. Is cum Secundum, scholae adhuc operatum, tristem
forte vidisset, interrogavit quae causa frontis tam adductae? |14| Nec
dissimulavit adulescens, tertium iam diem esse quod omni labore materiae
ad scribendum destinatae non inveniret exordium; quo sibi non praesens
tantum dolor, sed etiam desperatio in posterum fieret. Tum Florus
adridens, ‘numquid tu,’ inquit, ‘melius dicere vis quam potes?’ |15| Ita
se res habet: curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen pro
facultate; ad profectum enim opus est studio, non indignatione. Ut
possimus autem scribere etiam plura et celerius, non exercitatio modo
praestabit, in qua sine dubio multum est, sed etiam ratio: si non
resupini spectantesque tectum et cogitationem murmure agitantes
expectaverimus quid obveniat, {sed} quid res poscat, quid personam
deceat, quod sit tempus, qui iudicis animus intuiti, humano quodam modo
ad scribendum accesserimus. Sic nobis et initia et quae sequuntur natura
ipsa praescribit. |16| Certa sunt enim pleraque et, nisi coniveamus, in
oculos incurrunt; ideoque nec indocti nec rustici diu quaerunt, unde
incipiant; quo pudendum est magis, si difficultatem facit doctrina. Non
ergo semper putemus optimum esse quod latet: immutescamus alioqui, si
nihil dicendum videatur nisi quod non invenimus. |17| Diversum est huic
eorum vitium qui primo decurrere per materiam stilo quam velocissimo
volunt, et sequentes calorem atque impetum ex tempore scribunt; hanc
silvam vocant. Repetunt deinde et componunt quae effuderant; sed verba
emendantur et numeri, manet in rebus temere congestis quae fuit levitas.
|18| Protinus ergo adhibere curam rectius erit atque ab initio sic opus
ducere, ut caelandum, non ex integro fabricandum sit. Aliquando tamen
adfectus sequemur, in quibus fere plus calor quam diligentia valet.

|19| Satis apparet ex eo quod hanc scribentium neglegentiam damno, quid
de illis dictandi deliciis sentiam. Nam in stilo quidem quamlibet
properato dat aliquam cogitationi moram non consequens celeritatem eius
manus: ille cui dictamus urget, atque interim pudet etiam dubitare aut
resistere aut mutare quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes. |20|
Quo fit ut non rudia tantum et fortuita, sed impropria interim, dum sola
est conectendi sermonis cupiditas, effluant, quae nec scribentium curam
nec dicentium impetum consequantur. At idem ille qui excipit, si tardior
in scribendo aut incertior in {intel}legendo velut offensator fuit,
inhibetur cursus, atque omnis quae erat concepta mentis intentio mora et
interdum iracundia excutitur. |21| Tum illa, quae altiorem animi motum
sequuntur quaeque ipsa animum quodam modo concitant, quorum est iactare
manum, torquere vultum, {frontem et} latus interim obiurgare, quaeque
Persius notat, cum leviter dicendi genus significat, ‘nec pluteum,’
inquit, ‘caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues,’ etiam ridicula sunt, nisi
cum soli sumus. |22| Denique ut semel quod est potentissimum dicam,
secretum in dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris locum et quam
altissimum silentium scribentibus maxime convenire nemo dubitaverit: non
tamen protinus audiendi qui credunt aptissima in hoc nemora silvasque,
quod illa caeli libertas locorumque amoenitas sublimem animum et
beatiorem spiritum parent. |23| Mihi certe iucundus hic magis quam
studiorum hortator videtur esse secessus. Namque illa, quae ipsa
delectant, necesse est avocent ab intentione operis destinati. Neque
enim se bona fide in multa simul intendere animus totum potest, et
quocumque respexit, desinit intueri quod propositum erat. |24| Quare
silvarum amoenitas et praeterlabentia flumina et inspirantes ramis
arborum aurae volucrumque cantus et ipsa late circumspiciendi libertas
ad se trahunt, ut mihi remittere potius voluptas ista videatur
cogitationem quam intendere. |25| Demosthenes melius, qui se in locum ex
quo nulla exaudiri vox et ex quo nihil prospici posset recondebat, ne
aliud agere mentem cogerent oculi. Ideoque lucubrantes silentium noctis
et clausum cubiculum et lumen unum velut {t}ectos maxime teneat. |26|
Sed cum in omni studiorum genere, tum in hoc praecipue bona valetudo,
quaeque eam maxime praestat, frugalitas necessaria est, cum tempora ab
ipsa rerum natura ad quietem refectionemque nobis data in acerrimum
laborem convertimus. Cui tamen non plus inrogandum est quam quod somno
supererit, haud deerit; |27| obstat enim diligentiae scribendi etiam
fatigatio, et abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt; occupatos in
noctem necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam integri ac
refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.

|28| Sed silentium et secessus et undique liber animus ut sunt maxime
optanda, ita non semper possunt contingere; ideoque non statim, si quid
obstrepet, abiciendi codices erunt et deplorandus dies, verum incommodis
repugnandum et hic faciendus usus, ut omnia quae impedient vincat
intentio; quam si tota mente in opus ipsum derexeris, nihil eorum quae
oculis vel auribus incursant ad animum perveniet. |29| An vero
frequenter etiam fortuita hoc cogitatio praestat, ut obvios non videamus
et itinere deerremus: non consequemur idem, si et voluerimus? Non est
indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi refecti, non nisi hilares,
non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes studendum existimarimus, semper
erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus. |30| Quare in turba, itinere,
conviviis etiam faciat sibi cogitatio ipsa secretum. Quid alioqui fiet,
cum in medio foro, tot circumstantibus iudiciis, iurgiis, fortuitis
etiam clamoribus, erit subito continua oratione dicendum, si particulas
quas ceris mandamus nisi in solitudine reperire non possumus? Propter
quae idem ille tantus amator secreti Demosthenes in litore, in quo se
maximo cum sono fluctus inlideret, meditans consuescebat contionum
fremitus non expavescere.

|31| Illa quoque minora (sed nihil in studiis parvum est) non sunt
transeunda: scribi optime ceris, in quibus facillima est ratio delendi,
nisi forte visus infirmior membranarum potius usum exiget, quae ut
iuvant aciem, ita crebra relatione, quoad intinguntur calami, morantur
manum et cogitationis impetum frangunt. |32| Relinquendae autem in
utrolibet genere contra erunt vacuae tabellae, in quibus libera
adiciendo sit excursio. Nam interim pigritiam emendandi angustiae
faciunt, aut certe novorum interpositione priora confundant. Ne latas
quidem ultra modum esse ceras velim, expertus iuvenem studiosum alioqui
praelongos habuisse sermones, quia illos numero versuum metiebatur,
idque vitium, quod frequenti admonitione corrigi non potuerat, mutatis
codicibus esse sublatum. |33| Debet vacare etiam locus in quo notentur
quae scribentibus solent extra ordinem, id est ex aliis quam qui sunt in
manibus loci, occurrere. Inrumpunt enim optimi nonnumquam sensus, quos
neque inserere oportet neque differre tutum est, quia interim elabuntur,
interim memoriae sui intentos ab alia inventione declinant ideoque
optime sunt in deposito.




+De Emendatione.+

IV.


|1| Sequitur emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim sine
causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius autem operis
est adicere, detrahere, mutare. Sed facilius in iis simpliciusque
iudicium quae replenda vel deicienda sunt; premere vero tumentia,
humilia extollere, luxuriantia adstringere, inordinata digerere, soluta
componere, exultantia coercere duplicis operae; nam et damnanda sunt
quae placuerant et invenienda quae fugerant. |2| Nec dubium est optimum
esse emendandi genus, si scripta in aliquod tempus reponantur, ut ad ea
post intervallum velut nova atque aliena redeamus, ne nobis scripta
nostra tamquam recentes fetus blandiantur. |3| Sed neque hoc contingere
semper potest praesertim oratori, cui saepius scribere ad praesentes
usus necesse est, et ipsa emendatio finem habet. Sunt enim qui ad omnia
scripta tamquam vitiosa redeant et, quasi nihil fas sit rectum esse quod
primum est, melius existiment quidquid est aliud, idque faciant quotiens
librum in manus resumpserunt, similes medicis etiam integra secantibus.
Accidit itaque ut cicatricosa sint et exsanguia et cura peiora. |4| Sit
ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod sufficiat, ut opus poliat
lima, non exterat. Temporis quoque esse debet modus. Nam quod Cinnae
Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam, et Panegyricum Isocratis, qui
parcissime, decem annis dicunt elaboratum, ad oratorem nihil pertinet,
cuius nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium.




+Quae scribenda sint praecipue.+

V.


|1| Proximum est ut dicamus quae praecipue scribenda sint ἕξιν
parantibus. {Non est huius} quidem operis ut explicemus quae sint
materiae, quae prima aut secunda aut deinceps tractanda sint (nam id
factum est iam primo libro, quo puerorum, et secundo, quo iam robustorum
studiis ordinem dedimus), sed, de quo nunc agitur, unde copia ac
facilitas maxime veniat.

|2| Vertere Graeca in Latinum veteres nostri oratores optimum
iudicabant. Id se L. Crassus in illis Ciceronis de Oratore libris dicit
factitasse; id Cicero sua ipse persona frequentissime praecipit, quin
etiam libros Platonis atque Xenophontis edidit hoc genere translatos; id
Messallae placuit, multaeque sunt ab eo scriptae ad hunc modum
orationes, adeo ut etiam cum illa Hyperidis pro Phryne difficillima
Romanis subtilitate contenderet. Et manifesta est exercitationis huiusce
ratio. |3| Nam et rerum copia Graeci auctores abundant et plurimum artis
in eloquentiam intulerunt, et hos transferentibus verbis uti optimis
licet; omnibus enim utimur nostris. Figuras vero, quibus maxime ornatur
oratio, multas ac varias excogitandi etiam necessitas quaedam est, quia
plerumque a Graecis Romana dissentiunt.

|4| Sed et illa ex Latinis conversio multum et ipsa contulerit. Ac de
carminibus quidem neminem credo dubitare, quo solo genere exercitationis
dicitur usus esse Sulpicius. Nam et sublimis spiritus attollere
orationem potest, et verba poetica libertate audaciora non praesumunt
eadem proprie dicendi facultatem; sed et ipsis sententiis adicere licet
oratorium robur et omissa supplere et effusa substringere. |5| Neque ego
paraphrasin esse interpretationem tantum volo, sed circa eosdem sensus
certamen atque aemulationem. Ideoque ab illis dissentio qui vertere
orationes Latinas vetant, quia optimis occupatis, quidquid aliter
dixerimus, necesse sit esse deterius. Nam neque semper est desperandum
aliquid illis quae dicta sunt melius posse reperiri, neque adeo ieiunam
ac pauperem natura eloquentiam fecit ut una de re bene dici nisi semel
non possit: |6| nisi forte histrionum multa circa voces easdem variare
gestus potest, orandi minor vis, ut dicatur aliquid post quod in eadem
materia nihil dicendum sit. Sed esto neque melius quod invenimus esse
neque par, est certe proximis locus. |7| An vero ipsi non bis ac saepius
de eadem re dicimus et quidem continuas nonnumquam sententias? Nisi
forte contendere nobiscum possumus, cum aliis non possumus. Nam si uno
genere bene diceretur, fas erat existimari praeclusam nobis a prioribus
viam; nunc vero innumerabiles sunt modi plurimaeque eodem viae ducunt.
|8| Sua brevitati gratia, sua copiae, alia translatis virtus, alia
propriis, hoc oratio recta, illud figura declinata commendat. Ipsa
denique utilissima est exercitationi difficultas. Quid quod auctores
maximi sic diligentius cognoscuntur? Non enim scripta lectione secura
transcurrimus, sed tractamus singula et necessario introspicimus et,
quantum virtutis habeant, vel hoc ipso cognoscimus, quod imitari non
possumus.

|9| Nec aliena tantum transferre, sed etiam nostra pluribus modis
tractare proderit, ut ex industria sumamus sententias quasdam easque
versemus quam numerosissime, velut eadem cera aliae aliaeque formae duci
solent. |10| Plurimum autem parari facultatis existimo ex simplicissima
quaque materia. Nam illa multiplici personarum, causarum, temporum,
locorum, dictorum, factorum diversitate facile delitescet infirmitas,
tot se undique rebus, ex quibus aliquam adprehendas, offerentibus. |11|
Illud virtutis indicium est, fundere quae natura contracta sunt, augere
parva, varietatem similibus, voluptatem expositis dare et bene dicere
multa de paucis.

In hoc optime facient infinitae quaestiones, quas vocari theses diximus,
quibus Cicero iam princeps in re publica exerceri solebat. |12| His
confinis est destructio et confirmatio sententiarum. Nam cum sit
sententia decretum quoddam atque praeceptum, quod de re, idem de iudicio
rei quaeri potest. Tum loci communes, quos etiam scriptos ab oratoribus
scimus. Nam qui haec recta tantum et in nullos flexus recedentia copiose
tractaverit, utique in illis plures excursus recipientibus magis
abundabit eritque in omnes causas paratus; omnes enim generalibus
quaestionibus constant. |13| Nam quid interest ‘Cornelius tribunus
plebis, quod codicem legerit, reus sit,’ an quaeramus ‘violeturne
maiestas, si magistratus rogationem suam populo ipse recitarit’: ‘Milo
Clodium rectene occiderit’ veniat in iudicium, an ‘oporteatne
insidiatorem interfici vel perniciosum rei publicae civem, etiamsi non
insidietur’: ‘Cato Marciam honestene tradiderit Hortensio,’ an
‘conveniatne res talis bono viro’? De personis iudicatur, sed de rebus
contenditur. |14| Declamationes vero, quales in scholis rhetorum
dicuntur, si modo sunt ad veritatem accommodatae et orationibus similes,
non tantum dum adulescit profectus sunt utilissimae, quia inventionem et
dispositionem pariter exercent, sed etiam cum est consummatus ac iam in
foro clarus; alitur enim atque enitescit velut pabulo laetiore facundia
et adsidua contentionum asperitate fatigata renovatur. |15| Quapropter
historiae nonnumquam ubertas in aliqua exercendi stili parte ponenda et
dialogorum libertate gestiendum. Ne carmine quidem ludere contrarium
fuerit, sicut athletae, remissa quibusdam temporibus ciborum atque
exercitationum certa necessitate, otio et iucundioribus epulis
reficiuntur. |16| Ideoque mihi videtur M. Tullius tantum intulisse
eloquentiae lumen, quod in hos quoque studiorum secessus excurrit. Nam
si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et
durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna
retundatur.

|17| Sed quem ad modum forensibus certaminibus exercitatos et quasi
militantes reficit ac reparat haec velut sagina dicendi, sic
adulescentes non debent nimium in falsa rerum imagine detineri, et
inanibus simulacris usque adeo ut difficilis ab his digressus sit
adsuescere, ne ab illa, in qua prope consenuerunt, umbra vera discrimina
velut quendam solem reformident. |18| Quod accidisse etiam M. Porcio
Latroni, qui primus clari nominis professor fuit, traditur, ut, cum ei
summam in scholis opinionem obtinenti causa in foro esset oranda,
impense petierit uti subsellia in basilicam transferrentur. Ita illi
caelum novum fuit ut omnis eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus
videretur. |19| Quare iuvenis qui rationem inveniendi eloquendique a
praeceptoribus diligenter acceperit (quod non est infiniti operis, si
docere sciant et velint), exercitationem quoque modicam fuerit
consecutus, oratorem sibi aliquem, quod apud maiores fieri solebat,
deligat, quem sequatur, quem imitetur: iudiciis intersit quam plurimis,
et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator. |20| Tum causas,
vel easdem quas agi audierit, stilo et ipse componat, vel etiam alias,
veras modo, et utrimque tractet et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus,
decretoriis exerceatur, ut fecisse Brutum diximus pro Milone. Melius hoc
quam rescribere veteribus orationibus, ut fecit Cestius contra Ciceronis
actionem habitam pro eodem, cum alteram partem satis nosse non posset ex
sola defensione.

|21| Citius autem idoneus erit iuvenis, quem praeceptor coegerit in
declamando quam simillimum esse veritati et per totas ire materias,
quarum nunc facillima et maxime favorabilia decerpunt. Obstant huic,
quod secundo loco posui, fere turba discipulorum et consuetudo classium
certis diebus audiendarum, nonnihil etiam persuasio patrum numerantium
potius declamationes quam aestimantium. |22| Sed, quod dixi primo, ut
arbitror, libro, nec ille se bonus praeceptor maiore numero quam
sustinere possit onerabit et nimiam loquacitatem recidet, ut omnia quae
sunt in controversia, non, ut quidam volunt, quae in rerum natura,
dicantur; et vel longiore potius dierum spatio laxabit dicendi
necessitatem vel materias dividere permittet. |23| Diligenter effecta
plus proderit quam plures inchoatae et quasi degustatae. Propter quod
accidit ut nec suo loco quidque ponatur, nec illa quae prima sunt
servent suam legem, iuvenibus flosculos omnium partium in ea quae sunt
dicturi congerentibus; quo fit ut timentes ne sequentia perdant priora
confundant.




+De Cogitatione.+

VI.


|1| Proxima stilo cogitatio est, quae et ipsa vires ab hoc accipit et
est inter scribendi laborem extemporalemque fortunam media quaedam et
nescio an usus frequentissimi. Nam scribere non ubique nec semper
possumus, cogitationi temporis ac loci plurimum est. Haec paucis admodum
horis magnas etiam causas complectitur; haec, quotiens intermissus est
somnus, ipsis noctis tenebris adiuvatur; haec inter medios rerum actus
aliquid invenit vacui nec otium patitur. |2| Neque vero rerum ordinem
modo, quod ipsum satis erat, intra se ipsa disponit, sed verba etiam
copulat totamque ita contexit orationem ut ei nihil praeter manum desit;
nam memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla scribendi
securitate laxatur.

Sed ne ad hanc quidem vim cogitandi perveniri potest aut subito aut
cito. |3| Nam primum facienda multo stilo forma est, quae nos etiam
cogitantes sequatur: tum adsumendus usus paulatim, ut pauca primum
complectamur animo, quae reddi fideliter possint: mox per incrementa tam
modica ut onerari se labor ille non sentiat augenda vis et exercitatione
multa continenda est, quae quidem maxima ex parte memoria constat.
Ideoque aliqua mihi in illum locum differenda sunt. |4| Eo tandem
pervenit ut is cui non refragetur ingenium acri studio adiutus tantum
consequatur ut ei tam quae cogitarit quam quae scripserit atque
edidicerit in dicendo fidem servent. Cicero certe Graecorum Metrodorum
Scepsium et Empylum Rhodium nostrorumque Hortensium tradidit quae
cogitaverant ad verbum in agendo rettulisse.

|5| Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum offulserit extemporalis color,
non superstitiose cogitatis demum est inhaerendum. Neque enim tantum
habent curae ut non sit dandus et fortunae locus, cum saepe etiam
scriptis ea quae subito nata sunt inserantur. Ideoque totum hoc
exercitationis genus ita instituendum est ut et digredi ex eo et redire
in id facile possimus. |6| Nam ut primum est domo adferre paratam
dicendi copiam et certam, ita refutare temporis munera longe
stultissimum est. Quare cogitatio in hoc praeparetur, ut nos fortuna
decipere non possit, adiuvare possit. Id autem fiet memoriae viribus, ut
illa quae complexi animo sumus fluant secura, non sollicitos et
respicientes et una spe suspensos recordationis non sinant providere:
alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem
cogitationem. |7| Peius enim quaeritur retrorsus, quia, dum illa
desideramus, ab aliis avertimur, et ex memoria potius res petimus quam
ex materia. Plura sunt autem, si utrimque quaerendum est, quae inveniri
possunt quam quae inventa sunt.




+Quem ad modum extemporalis facilitas paretur et contineatur.+

VII.


|1| Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium quoddam
amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas; quam qui non erit
consecutus mea quidem sententia civilibus officiis renuntiabit et solam
scribendi facultatem potius ad alia opera convertet. Vix enim bonae
fidei viro convenit auxilium in publicum polliceri quod praesentissimis
quibusque periculis desit, intrare portum ad quem navis accedere nisi
lenibus ventis vecta non possit,-- |2| siquidem innumerabiles accidunt
subitae necessitates vel apud magistratus vel repraesentatis iudiciis
continuo agendi. Quarum si qua, non dico cuicumque innocentium civium,
sed amicorum ac propinquorum alicui evenerit, stabitne mutus et
salutarem petentibus vocem, statimque si non succurratur perituris,
moras et secessum et silentium quaeret, dum illa verba fabricentur et
memoriae insidant et vox ac latus praeparetur? |3| Quae vero patitur hoc
ratio, ut quisquam possit orator aliquando omittere casus? Quid, cum
adversario respondendum erit, fiet? Nam saepe ea quae opinati sumus et
contra quae scripsimus fallunt, ac tota subito causa mutatur; atque ut
gubernatori ad incursus tempestatium, sic agenti ad varietatem causarum
ratio mutanda est. |4| Quid porro multus stilus et adsidua lectio et
longa studiorum aetas facit, si manet eadem quae fuit incipientibus
difficultas? Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem, cui
semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore dicere
malit, sed ut possit. Id autem maxime hoc modo consequemur.

|5| Nota sit primum dicendi via; neque enim prius contingere cursus
potest quam scierimus quo sit et qua perveniendum. Nec satis est non
ignorare quae sint causarum iudicialium partes, aut quaestionum ordinem
recte disponere, quamquam ista sunt praecipua, sed quid quoque loco
primum sit, quid secundum ac deinceps: quae ita sunt natura copulata ut
mutari aut intervelli sine confusione non possint. |6| Quisquis autem
via dicet, ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce, propter quod
homines etiam modice exercitati facillime tenorem in narrationibus
servant. Deinde quid quoque loco quaerant scient, nec circumspectabunt
nec offerentibus se aliunde sensibus turbabuntur nec confundent ex
diversis orationem velut salientes huc illuc nec usquam insistentes. |7|
Postremo habebunt modum et finem, qui esse citra divisionem nullus
potest. Expletis pro facultate omnibus quae proposuerint, pervenisse se
ad ultimum sentient.

Et haec quidem ex arte, illa vero ex studio: ut copiam sermonis optimi,
quem ad modum praeceptum est, comparemus, multo ac fideli stilo sic
formetur oratio ut scriptorum colorem etiam quae subito effusa sint
reddant, ut cum multa scripserimus etiam multa dicamus. |8| Nam
consuetudo et exercitatio facilitatem maxime parit: quae si paulum
intermissa fuerit, non velocitas illa modo tardatur, sed ipsum {os} coit
atque concurrit. Quamquam enim opus est naturali quadam mobilitate
animi, ut, dum proxima dicimus, struere ulteriora possimus semperque
nostram vocem provisa et formata cogitatio excipiat; |9| vix tamen aut
natura aut ratio in tam multiplex officium diducere animum queat ut
inventioni, dispositioni, elocutioni, ordini rerum verborumque, tum iis
quae dicit, quae subiuncturus est, quae ultra spectanda sunt, adhibita
vocis, pronuntiationis, gestus observatione, una sufficiat. |10| Longe
enim praecedat oportet intentio ac prae se res agat, quantumque dicendo
consumitur, tantum ex ultimo prorogetur, ut, donec perveniamus ad finem,
non minus prospectu procedamus quam gradu, si non intersistentes
offensantesque brevia illa atque concisa singultantium modo eiecturi
sumus.

|11| Est igitur usus quidam inrationalis, quam Graeci ἄλογον τριβήν
vocant, qua manus in scribendo decurrit, qua oculi totos simul in
lectione versus flexusque eorum et transitus intuentur et ante sequentia
vident quam priora dixerunt. Quo constant miracula illa in scaenis
pilariorum ac ventilatorum, ut ea quae emiserint ultro venire in manus
credas et qua iubentur decurrere. |12| Sed hic usus ita proderit, si ea
de qua locuti sumus ars antecesserit, ut ipsum illud quod in se rationem
non habet in ratione versetur. Nam mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi
qui disposite, ornate, copiose dicit, sed tumultuari. |13| Nec fortuiti
sermonis contextum mirabor umquam, quem iurgantibus etiam mulierculis
superfluere video, cum eo quod, si calor ac spiritus tulit, frequenter
accidit ut successum extemporalem consequi cura non possit. |14| Deum
tunc adfuisse, cum id evenisset, veteres oratores, ut Cicero,
dictitabant. Sed ratio manifesta est. Nam bene concepti adfectus et
recentes rerum imagines continuo impetu feruntur, quae nonnumquam mora
stili refrigescunt et dilatae non revertuntur. Utique vero, cum infelix
illa verborum cavillatio accessit et cursus ad singula vestigia
restitit, non potest ferri contorta vis; sed, ut optime vocum singularum
cedat electio, non continua sed composita est.

|15| Quare capiendae sunt illae, de quibus dixi, rerum imagines, quas
vocari φαντασίας indicavimus, omniaque, de quibus dicturi erimus,
personae, quaestiones, spes, metus, habenda in oculis, in adfectus
recipienda; pectus est enim, quod disertos facit, et vis mentis. Ideoque
imperitis quoque, si modo sunt aliquo adfectu concitati, verba non
desunt. |16| Tum intendendus animus, non in aliquam rem unam, sed in
plures simul continuas, ut si per aliquam rectam viam mittamus oculos
simul omnia quae sunt in ea circaque intuemur, non ultimum tantum
videmus, sed usque ad ultimum. Addit ad dicendum etiam pudor stimulos,
mirumque videri potest quod, cum stilus secreto gaudeat atque omnes
arbitros reformidet, extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles
congestu signorum, excitatur. |17| Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem
exprimit et expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget
placendi cupido. Adeo pretium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quoque,
quamquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis, maxime tamen praesenti fructu
laudis opinionisque ducatur. |18| Nec quisquam tantum fidat ingenio ut
id sibi speret incipienti statim posse contingere, sed, sicut in
cogitatione praecepimus, ita facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis
initiis paulatim perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque
contineri nisi usu potest. |19| Ceterum pervenire eo debet ut cogitatio
non utique melior sit ea, sed tutior, cum hanc facilitatem non in prosa
modo multi sint consecuti, sed etiam in carmine, ut Antipater Sidonius
et Licinius Archias (credendum enim Ciceroni est)-- non quia nostris
quoque temporibus non et fecerint quidam hoc et faciant. Quod tamen non
ipsum tam probabile puto (neque enim habet aut usum res aut
necessitatem) quam exhortandis in hanc spem, qui foro praeparantur,
utile exemplum. |20| Neque vero tanta esse umquam {debet} fiducia
facilitatis ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea
quae dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus, quod quidem in iudiciis ac foro
datur semper; neque enim quisquam est qui causam quam non didicerit
agat. |21| Declamatores quosdam perversa ducit ambitio ut exposita
controversia protinus dicere velint, quin etiam, quod est in primis
frivolum ac scaenicum, verbum petant quo incipiant. Sed tam
contumeliosos in se ridet invicem eloquentia, et qui stultis videri
eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis videntur. |22| Si qua tamen fortuna tam
subitam fecerit agendi necessitatem, mobiliore quodam opus erit ingenio,
et vis omnis intendenda rebus et in praesentia remittendum aliquid ex
cura verborum, si consequi utrumque non dabitur. Tum et tardior
pronuntiatio moras habet et suspensa ac velut dubitans oratio, ut tamen
deliberare, non haesitare videamur. |23| Hoc, dum egredimur e portu, si
nos nondum aptatis satis armamentis aget ventus; deinde paulatim simul
euntes aptabimus vela et disponemus rudentes et impleri sinus optabimus.
Id potius quam se inani verborum torrenti dare quasi tempestatibus quo
volent auferendum.

|24| Sed non minore studio continetur haec facultas quam paratur. Ars
enim semel percepta non labitur, stilus quoque intermissione paulum
admodum de celeritate deperdit: promptum hoc et in expedito positum
exercitatione sola continetur. Hac uti sic optimum est ut cotidie
dicamus audientibus pluribus, maxime de quorum simus iudicio atque
opinione solliciti; rarum est enim ut satis se quisque vereatur. Vel
soli tamen dicamus potius quam non omnino dicamus. |25| Est alia
exercitatio cogitandi totasque materias vel silentio (dum tamen quasi
dicat intra se ipsum) persequendi, quae nullo non et tempore et loco,
quando non aliud agimus, explicari potest, et est in parte utilior quam
haec proxima; |26| diligentius enim componitur quam illa, in qua
contextum dicendi intermittere veremur. Rursus in alia plus prior
confert, vocis firmitatem, oris facilitatem, motum corporis, qui et
ipse, ut dixi, excitat oratorem et iactatione manus, pedis supplosione,
sicut cauda leones facere dicuntur, hortatur. |27| Studendum vero semper
et ubique. Neque enim fere tam est ullus dies occupatus, ut nihil
lucrativae, ut Cicero Brutum facere tradit, operae ad scribendum aut
legendum aut dicendum rapi aliquo momento temporis possit: siquidem C.
Carbo etiam in tabernaculo solebat hac uti exercitatione dicendi. |28|
Ne id quidem tacendum est, quod eidem Ciceroni placet, nullum nostrum
usquam neglegentem esse sermonem: quidquid loquemur ubicumque, sit pro
sua scilicet portione perfectum. Scribendum certe numquam est magis quam
cum multa dicemus ex tempore. Ita enim servabitur pondus et innatans
illa verborum facilitas in altum reducetur, sicut rustici proximas vitis
radices amputant, quae illam in summum solum ducunt, ut inferiores
penitus descendendo firmentur. |29| Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et
studio fecerimus, invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius,
dicendo scribamus facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit; si id non
dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen {sic d}icere ut
neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.

|30| Plerumque autem multa agentibus accidit ut maxime necessaria et
utique initia scribant, cetera, quae domo adferunt, cogitatione
complectantur, subitis ex tempore occurrant; quod fecisse M. Tullium
commentariis ipsius apparet. Sed feruntur aliorum quoque et inventi
forte, ut eos dicturus quisque composuerat, et in libros digesti, ut
causarum, quae sunt actae a Servio Sulpicio, cuius tres orationes
extant; sed hi de quibus loquor commentarii ita sunt exacti ut ab ipso
mihi in memoriam posteritatis videantur esse compositi. |31| Nam
Ciceronis ad praesens modo tempus aptatos libertus Tiro contraxit: quos
non ideo excuso quia non probem, sed ut sint magis admirabiles. In hoc
genere prorsus recipio hanc brevem adnotationem libellosque, qui vel
manu teneantur et ad quos interim respicere fas sit. |32| Illud quod
Laenas praecipit displicet mihi, {et} in his quae scripserimus velut
summas in commentarium et capita conferre. Facit enim ediscendi
neglegentiam haec ipsa fiducia et lacerat ac deformat orationem. Ego
autem ne scribendum quidem puto quod {non} simus memoria persecuturi;
nam hic quoque accidit ut revocet nos cogitatio ad illa elaborata nec
sinat praesentem fortunam experiri. |33| Sic anceps inter utrumque
animus aestuat, cum et scripta perdidit et non quaerit nova. Sed de
memoria destinatus est libro proximo locus nec huic parti subiungendus,
quia sunt alia prius nobis dicenda.


  [End of duplicated material:
  See Transcriber’s Note at beginning of text.]


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


PREFACE.


This volume has grown in my hands during the last eighteen months. If I
had contented myself with a short commentary, it might have appeared
sooner and in a slighter form. But in addition to the full and careful
illustration required for the matter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, the
criticism of the text has become so important as to call for separate
treatment. It has engaged, within recent years, a large share of the
attention of some of the foremost scholars on the Continent. Even while
this volume was passing through the press, fresh evidence of their
continued activity was received in the shape of two valuable papers-- an
article by Moriz Kiderlin in one of the current numbers of the
_Rheinisches Museum_, and Becher’s ‘Zum zehnten Buch des Quintilianus’
in the _Programm des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_ for Easter, 1891.
The latter I have found especially interesting, as confirming many of
the conclusions at which, with the help of one of the manuscripts in the
British Museum (Harl. 4995), I had arrived in regard to textual
difficulties.

The importance ascribed to another English codex (Harl. 2664) will,
I venture to think, be held to be justified by the account of it given
in the Introduction. After I had examined it for myself, a collation of
it was kindly put at my disposal by Mr. L. C. Purser, of Trinity
College, Dublin, to whom I take this opportunity of rendering my best
thanks. I am indebted also to M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au
Lycée Charlemagne, for sending me his collation of four important Paris
manuscripts (Pratensis, Puteanus, 7231 and 7696), and also of the
Spanish Salmantinus. As to the other codices which I have been at the
trouble of collating personally, it will not be imagined that any
mistaken estimate has been formed of their value. If some of them throw
little fresh light on existing difficulties, they have each a bearing on
the history of the constitution of the text; and it seemed desirable to
complete, by some account of them, the elaborate description of the
Manuscripts of Quintilian given by M. Fierville in his latest volume.

A reference to the list of authorities consulted will show the extent of
the obligations incurred to other editors and critics. Kruger’s third
edition has been especially useful. And though Professor Mayor’s
commentary extends only to the fifty-sixth section of the first chapter,
I trust I have profited by the example of scholarly thoroughness which
he set me in the part of the work which he was able to overtake. His
Analysis has also been largely followed.

For convenience of reference, a table of places has been added in which
the text of this edition differs from that of Halm and of Meister.
Special attention has been paid to the matter of punctuation, in regard
to which German methods have not been adopted.

One or two of my own conjectural emendations I have presumed to insert
in the text, and others are suggested in the Critical Notes. Perhaps the
most important is _sic dicere_ for the MS. _inicere_ at 7 §29.

If my volume should strike any student as having been prepared on too
elaborate a scale, I trust it will be remembered that Quintilian is a
neglected author, for whom nothing has been done in this country (with
the exception of Professor Mayor’s incomplete edition of the Tenth Book)
since the beginning of the present century. Perhaps its publication may
help to clear the way for a final issue of the whole text of the
_Institutio_.

  W. P.

    Dundee, 26th June, 1891.




CONTENTS

                                                Page
  INTRODUCTION--
    I. Life of Quintilian                          i
    II. The Institutio Oratoria                 xiii
    III. Quintilian’s Literary Criticism        xxii
    IV. Style and Language                     xxxix
    V. Manuscripts                            lxviii

  ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT                         1

  TEXT                                            11

  CRITICAL NOTES                                 185
  Index of Names                                 223
  Index of Matters                               225




  [Illustration: Harleian MS. 2664. 149 V.
  (See Introd. p. lxiv.)]




INTRODUCTION.




I.

LIFE OF QUINTILIAN.


It would be possible to state in a very few lines all that is certainly
known about Quintilian’s personal history; but much would remain to be
said in order to convey an adequate idea of the large place he must have
filled in the era of which he is so typical a representative. The period
of his activity at Rome is nearly co-extensive with the reign of the
Flavian emperors,-- Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. For twenty years he
was the recognised head of the teaching profession in the capital, and a
large proportion of those who came to maturity in the days of Trajan and
Hadrian must have received their intellectual training in his school. It
is in itself a sign of the tendencies of the age that Quintilian should
have enjoyed the immediate patronage of the reigning emperor in the
conduct of work which would formerly have attracted little notice. In
earlier days the profession of teaching had been held in low repute at
Rome[1]. The first attempt to open a school of rhetoric, in B.C. 94, was
looked on with the greatest suspicion and disfavour. Even Cicero adopts
a tone of apology in the rhetorical text-books which he wrote for the
instruction of others. But now all was changed, and education had come
to be, as it was in a still greater degree under Nerva, Trajan, and the
Antonines, a department of the government itself. Vespasian was the
founder of a new dynasty; and, though he had little culture to boast of
himself, he was shrewd enough to appreciate the advantages to be derived
from systematising the education of the Roman youth, and maintaining
friendly relations with those to whom it was entrusted. Quintilian, for
his part, seems to have diligently seconded, in the scholastic sphere,
his patron’s efforts to efface the memory of the time of trouble and
unrest which had followed the extinction of the Julian line in the
person of Nero. After his retirement from the active duties of his
profession, he received the consular insignia from Domitian,-- the
promotion of a teacher of rhetoric to the highest dignity in the State
being regarded as a most unexampled phenomenon by the conservative
opinion of the day, which had failed to recognise the significance of
the alliance between prince and pedagogue. The interest with which the
publication of the _Institutio Oratorio_ was looked forward to, at the
close of his laborious professional career, is sufficient evidence of
the authoritative position Quintilian had gained for himself at Rome. It
was a tribute not only to the successful teacher, but also to the man of
letters who, conscious that his was an age of literary decadence, sought
to probe the causes of the national decline and to counteract its evil
influences.

    [Footnote 1: (Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores
    auctoritatem habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.]

Like so many of the distinguished men of his time, Quintilian was a
Spaniard by birth. There must have been something in the Spanish
national character that rendered the inhabitants of that country
peculiarly susceptible to the influences of Roman culture: certainly no
province assimilated more rapidly than Spain the civilisation of its
conquerors. The expansion of Rome may be clearly traced in the history
of her literature. Just as Italy, rather than the imperial city itself,
had supplied the court of Augustus with its chiefest literary ornaments,
so now Spain sends up to the centre of attraction for all things Roman a
band of authors united, if by nothing else, at least by the ties of a
common origin. Pomponius Mela is said to have come from a place called
Cingentera, on the bay of Algesiras; Columella was a native of Gades,
Martial of Bilbilis; the two Senecas and Lucan were born in Corduba. The
emperor Trajan came from Italica, near Seville; while Hadrian belonged
to a family which had long been settled there. Quintilian’s birthplace
was the town of Calagurris (Calahorra) on the Ebro, memorable in
previous history only for the resistance which it enabled Sertorius to
offer to Metellus and Pompeius: it was the last place that submitted
after the murder of the insurgent general in B.C. 72.

In most of the older editions of Quintilian an anonymous Life appears,
the author of which (probably either Omnibonus Leonicenus or Laurentius
Valla) prefers a conjecture of his own to the ‘books of the time,’ and
makes out that Quintilian was born in Rome. His main argument is that
Martial does not include his name among those of the distinguished
authors to whom he refers as being of Spanish origin (e.g. Epigr. i. 61
and 49), though he addresses him separately in complimentary terms
(Epigr. ii. 90). Against this we may set, however, the line in which
Ausonius embodies what was evidently a well-known and accepted tradition
(Prof. i. 7):--

  _Adserat usque licet Fabium Calagurris alumnum;_

and the statement of Hieronymus in the _Eusebian Chronicle:--
Quintilianus, ex Hispania Calagurritanus, primus Romae publicam scholam_
[_aperuit_]. The latter extract carries additional weight if we accept
the conjecture of Reifferscheid[2] that Jerome here follows the
authority of Suetonius (Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and
rhetoricians.

    [Footnote 2: C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros
    reliquiae. Leipzig 1860, p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.]

The fact of Quintilian’s Spanish origin may therefore be regarded as
fully established, though we cannot cite the authority of Quintilian
himself on the subject. His removal to Rome, at a very early period of
his life, would naturally make him more of a Roman than a Spaniard; and
this is probably the reason why he nowhere refers to the accident of his
birth-place. Indeed his work does not lend itself to autobiographical
revelations. Most of his reminiscences, some of which occur in the Tenth
Book (1 §§23 and 86, 3 §12: cp. v. 7, 7: vi. 1, 14: xii. 11, 3) are
suggested by some detail connected with his subject. Apart from the
famous introduction to Book VI, where his grief for the loss of his wife
and two sons is allowed to interrupt the continuity of his argument, he
speaks of his father only once (ix. 3, 73), and then simply to quote,
not without some diffidence, a _bon mot_ of his in illustration of a
figure of speech. The father was himself a rhetorician, and seems to
have taught the subject both at Calagurris and also after the family
removed to Rome: whether he is identical with the Quintilianus mentioned
as a declaimer of moderate reputation by the elder Seneca (Controv. x.
praef. 2: cp. ib. 33, 19) cannot now be ascertained.

The date of Quintilian’s birth has been variously given as A.D. 42, A.D.
38, and A.D. 35, the last being now most commonly adopted. It cannot be
determined with certainty, though a few considerations may here be
adduced to show why it seems necessary to discard any theory that would
put it after A.D. 38. Dodwell, in his ‘Annales Quintilianei’ (see
Burmann’s edition, vol. ii. p. 1117), arrived at the year A.D. 42, after
a careful examination of all the passages on which he thought it
allowable to base an inference. But Quintilian tells us himself that he
was a young man (_nobis adulescentibus_ vi. 1, 14) at the trial of
Cossutianus Capito, which we know from Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 33) took
place in A.D. 57: a fact which is in itself enough to show that Dodwell
is at least two years too late. Another indication is derived from the
references which Quintilian makes to his teacher Domitius Afer, who is
known to have died at a ripe old age in A.D. 59: cp. xii. 11, 3 _vidi
ego ... Domitium Afrum valde senem_: v. 7, 7 _quem adulescentulus senem
colui_: x. 1, 86 _quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi_. Unfortunately we
do not know the date of the trial of Volusenus Catulus referred to in x.
1, 23: Quintilian was a boy at the time (_nobis pueris_). In the preface
to Book VI he writes like an old man: this appears especially in the
reference he makes to the wife whom he had lost and who was only
nineteen,-- _aetate tam puellari praesertim meae comparata_ §5. If we
may infer that Quintilian was nearer sixty than fifty when he wrote
these words, in A.D. 93 or 94, we may be certain that he was born not
later than A.D. 38, and probably two or three years earlier.

Quintilian received his early education at Rome, and his father’s
position as a teacher of rhetoric, as well as the whole tendency of the
education of the day, no doubt gave it a rhetorical turn from the very
first. Even boys at school practised declamation, as may be seen from
the following passage of the _Institutio_:--

‘_Non inutilem scio servatum esse a praeceptoribus meis morem, qui cum
pueros in classes distribuerant, ordinem dicendi secundum vires ingenii
dabant; et ita superiore loco quisque declamabat ut praecedere profectu
videbatur. Huius rei iudicia praebebantur: ea nobis ingens palma, ducere
vero classem multo pulcherrimum. Nec de hoc semel decretum erat:
tricesimus dies reddebat victo certaminis potestatem. Ita nec superior
successu curam remittebat, et dolor victum ad depellendam ignominiam
concitabat. Id nobis acriores ad studia dicendi faces subdidisse quam
exhortationem docentium, paedagogorum custodiam, vota parentium, quantum
animi mei coniectura colligere possum, contenderim._’ --i. 2, 23-25.

The same style of exercise was kept up at a later stage, when the boy
passed into the hands of a professed teacher of rhetoric, such as the
notorious Remmius Palaemon, who is said by the scholiast on Juvenal (vi.
451) to have been Quintilian’s master:--

‘_Solebant praeceptores mei neque inutili et nobis etiam iucundo genere
exercitationis praeparare nos coniecturalibus causis, cum quaerere atque
exsequi iuberent “cur armata apud Lacedaemonios Venus” et “quid ita
crederetur Cupido puer atque volucer et sagittis ac face armatus” et
similia, in quibus scrutabamur voluntatem._’ --ii. 4, 26.

He now came into contact with, and listened to the eloquence of, the
most celebrated orators of the day. In his relations with the greatest
of these, Domitius Afer, Quintilian seems to have acted on the maxim
which he himself lays down for the budding advocate: _oratorem sibi
aliquem, quod apud maiores fieri solebat, deligat, quem sequatur, quem
imitetur_ x. 5, 19. To Afer he attached himself (_adsectabar Domitium
Afrum_ Plin. Ep. ii. 14, 10), and was in all probability by him
initiated in the business of the law-courts and public life generally:
cp. v. 7, 7 _adulescentulus senem colui_ (_Domitium_). In this passage
Afer is said to have written two books on the examination of witnesses;
and from vi. 3, 42 it would appear that his ‘dicta’ or witticisms were
sufficiently distinguished to merit the honour of publication. He had
held high office under Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, and his
pre-eminence at the bar was undisputed: xii. 11, 3 _principem fuisse
quondam fori non erat dubium_. In his review of Latin oratory,
Quintilian gives him high praise: _arte et toto genere dicendi
praeferendus, et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas_ x. 1, 118.
The pupil was fortunate therefore in his master, and he drew upon his
reminiscences of Afer’s teaching when he himself came to instruct others
(Plin. l.c.). Among other notable orators of the day were Servilius
Nonianus (x. 1, 102), Iulius Africanus (x. 1, 118: xii. 10, 11), Iulius
Secundus (x. 1, 120: 3, 12: xii. 10, 11), Galerius Trachalus (x. 1, 119:
xii. 10, 11), and Vibius Crispus (ibid.).

When he was about twenty-five years of age some motive induced
Quintilian to return to Calagurris, his native town; and there he spent
several years in the practice of his profession as teacher and
barrister. We know that he came back to Rome with Galba in A.D. 68: the
evidence for this is again the statement made by Hieronymus in the
Eusebian Chronicle, _M. Fabius Quintilianus Romam a Galba perducitur_.
Galba had been governor of Hispania Tarraconensis under Nero (A.D.
61-68), and it is not improbable that Quintilian, when he returned to
his native country, was in some way attached to his official retinue;
the numerous _bons mots_ which he records in the third chapter of the
Sixth Book (§§62, 64, 66, 80, 90) seem to point to a certain amount of
personal intercourse between himself and the future emperor[3].

    [Footnote 3: There is however some doubt about the name, most
    editors reading L. Galba.]

At Rome Quintilian must soon have proved himself thoroughly qualified
for the work of teaching and training the young. The imperial
countenance afterwards shown him by Vespasian was in all probability
only an official expression of the esteem felt in the Roman community
for one who was serving with such distinction in a sphere of which the
importance was coming now to be more adequately recognised. Quintilian
was not only a learned man and a great teacher: he was a great moral
power in the midst of a people which had long been demoralised by the
vices of its rulers. The fundamental principle of his teaching, _non
posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum_ (i. pr. §9 and xii. 1), shows the
high ideal he cherished and the wide view he took of the opportunities
of his position. He felt himself strong enough to make a protest against
the literary influence of Seneca, then the popular favourite, and to
endeavour to recall a vitiated taste to more rigorous standards:
_corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora
iudicia contendo_ (x. 1, 125). And when, in the evening of his days, he
wrote his great treatise on the ‘technical training’ of the orator, it
was from himself and his own successful practice that he drew many of
his most cogent illustrations, e.g. vi. 2, 36, and (in regard to his
powers of memory) xi. 2, 39 and iv. 2, 86.

In the earlier years of his career at Rome, before he became absorbed in
the work of teaching, Quintilian must have had a considerable amount of
practice at the bar. He tells us himself of a speech which he published,
_ductus iuvenali cupiditate gloriae_ viii. 2, 24. It was of a common
type. A certain Naevius Arpinianus was accused of having killed his
wife, who had fallen from a window; and we may infer with certainty from
the tone of Quintilian’s reference to the circumstances of the case that
he succeeded in securing the acquittal of Naevius-- more fortunate than
the wife-killer of whom we read in Tacitus (Ann. iv. 22). A more
distinguished cause was that of Berenice, the Jewish Queen before whom
St. Paul appeared (Acts xxv. 13), and whose subsequent visit to Rome was
connected with the ascendency she had established over the heart of the
youthful Titus (Tac. Hist. ii. 2: Suet. Tit. 7). We can only speculate
on the nature of the issue involved, as Quintilian confines himself to a
bare statement of fact-- _ego pro regina Berenice apud ipsam causam
dixi_ iv. 1, 19. It was in all probability a civil suit brought or
defended by Berenice against some Jewish countryman; and the phenomenon
of the queen herself presiding over a trial in which she was an
interested party is accounted for by the hypothesis that, at least in
civil suits, Roman tolerance allowed the Jews to settle their own
disputes according to their national law. On such occasions the person
of highest rank in the community to which the disputants belonged might
naturally be designated to preside over the tribunal[4].

    [Footnote 4: So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the
    following authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of
    Asia: Joseph, xiv. 10. 17 Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον
    ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν
    ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι-- the
    words of L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp.
    id. xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11,
    24. The privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see
    inter alia Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10 _sane si qui per compromissum, ad
    similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu
    partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri
    eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur_.]

In another case, Quintilian seems to have shown some of the dexterity
attributed to him in the oft-quoted line of Juvenal (vi. 280) _Dic
aliquem, sodes, dic, Quintiliane, colorem_. He was counsel for a woman
who had been party to an arrangement by which the provisions of the
Voconian law (passed B.C. 169 to prevent the accumulation of property in
the hands of females) had been evaded by the not uncommon method of a
fraudulent disposition to a third person[5]. Quintilian’s client was
accused of having produced a forged will. This charge it was easy to
rebut, though it rendered necessary the explanation that the heirs named
in the will had really undertaken to hand the property over to the
woman; and if this explanation were openly given it would involve the
loss of the estate. There is an evident tone of satisfaction in
Quintiiian’s description of what happened: _ita ergo fuit nobis agendum
ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores non possent
adprehendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque_ (ix. 2, 74).

    [Footnote 5: Gaius ii §274 _mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris
    census est, per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen
    fideicommisso relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest_.]

Unlike his great model Cicero, who was considered most effective in the
_peroratio_ of a great case, where the work was divided among several
pleaders, Quintilian was generally relied on to state a case (_ponere
causam_) in its main lines for subsequent elaboration: _me certe,
quantacunque nostris experimentis habenda est fides, fecisse hoc in
foro, quotiens ita desiderabat utilitas, probantibus et eruditis et iis
qui iudicabant, scio: et (quod non adroganter dixerim, quia sunt plurimi
quibuscum egi qui me refellere possint si mentiar) fere a me ponendae
causae officium exigebatur_ iv. 2, 86. His methodical habit of mind
would render him specially effective for this department of work. Other
orators may have been more brilliant, more full of fire, and more able
to work upon the feelings of an audience: if Quintilian had not the
‘grand style’-- if he represents the type of an orator that is ‘made’
rather than ‘born’-- we may at least believe that he was unsurpassed for
judicious, moderate, and effective statement. His model in this as in
other matters was probably Domitius Afer, of whom Pliny says (Ep. ii.
14, 10) _apud decemviros dicebat graviter et lente, hoc enim illi
actionis genus erat_. His character and training would secure him a
place apart from the common herd. ‘Among the orators of the day, some
ignorant and coarse, having left mean occupations, without any
preliminary study, for the bar, where they made up in audacity for lack
of talent, and in noisy conceit for a defective knowledge of law--
others trained in the practice of delation to every form of trickery and
violence-- Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood by himself[6].’

    [Footnote 6: Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited
    from contemporary literature describing both types. For the first
    cp. Martial viii. 16 _Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas
    agis_, and _passim_: Petronius, Sat. 46 _destinavi illum artificii
    docere, aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum_ ...
    Philero was lately a street porter: _nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se
    extendit; litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur_:
    Juv. vii. 106 sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class
    the best representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and
    legacy-hunter, on whose account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s
    famous utterance, _vir malus dicendi imperitus_ Plin. iv. 7, 5 and
    ii. 20.]

It was after Quintilian had attained some distinction in the practice of
his profession, probably in the year 72, that his activity became
invested with an official and public character. We learn the facts from
Suetonius’s Life of Vespasian (ch. 18): _primus e fisco latinis
graecisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit_: and the Eusebian
chronicle (see Roth’s Suetonius, p. 272), _Quintilianus, ex Hispania
Calagurritanus, qui primus Romae publicam_ (‘state-supported’) _scholam_
[_aperuit_] _et salarium e fisco accepit, claruit_-- the zenith of his
fame being placed between the years 85 and 89 A.D. Vespasian, in fact,
created and endowed a professorial Chair of Rhetoric, and Quintilian was
its first occupant. He thus became the official head of the foremost
school of oratory at Rome, and the ‘supreme controller of its restless
youth’:

  _Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae,
  Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae._ --Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.

In this capacity he must have exercised the greatest possible influence
on the rising youth of Rome. The younger Pliny was his pupil, and
evidently retained a grateful memory of the instruction which he
received from him: Ep. ii. 14, 9 and vi. 6, 3. The same is true, in all
probability, of Pliny’s friend Tacitus, who has much in common with
Quintilian: possibly also of Suetonius. If Juvenal was not actually his
pupil,-- he is believed to have practised declamation till well on in
life,-- we may infer from the complimentary references which occur in
his Satires that he at least appreciated Quintilian’s work and
recognised its healthy influence[7].

    [Footnote 7: Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with
    Quint, i. 2, 8 and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with
    Quint, ii. 2, 4: _Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram
    Spirantesque crocos et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem
    sancti valuere parentis Esse loco!_ and _Sumat ante omnia parentis
    erga discipulos suos animum_ (sc. _praeceptor_) _ac succedere se in
    eorum locum a quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet_.]

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty
years[8], Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading
at the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model,
Domitius Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier
(xii. 11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still
be missed,-- _et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et in
foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum
desideraremur_, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the
practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into
retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a
treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for
which the _Institutio Oratoria_ was afterwards to provide a remedy. It
was entitled _De causis corruptae eloquentiae_, and was long confounded
with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he refers to this
work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4, 42: v. 12, 23:
vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 76[9]. This treatise is no longer
extant, and we have lost also the two books _Artis Rhetoricae_, which
were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), _neque editi a me
neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum habitum pueri
quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane diebus, quantum
notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed nimium amantes
mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant_[10]. In a recent edition of
the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani declamationes quae
supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter endeavours to show that
this is the work referred to in the passage quoted above, from the
preface to the _Institutio_: cp. Die Quintilianischen Declamationen,
Freiburg i.B., und Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.[11] Meister’s view,
however, is that, like the ‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally
admitted to have been composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’
also were written subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more
probably) by imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend
their compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy
professional days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate
publishers: he tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in
circulation under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely
his own: _nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia
excipientium in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei
habent_.

    [Footnote 8: i. pr. §1 _post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae
    per viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_. The chronology
    is rather uncertain. It is supposed that Quintilian began his
    _Institutio_ in 92 or 93 and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period
    of twenty years is to be interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that
    he is referring to his official career, as it may have been in 72
    that Vespasian took the step referred to above, p. viii. Or we may
    understand him to be dating the period of his educational activity
    as extending from A.D. 70 to A.D. 90, though he did not begin to
    write the _Institutio_ till 92. The latter is the more probable
    alternative.]

    [Footnote 9: See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae
    Eloquentiae: Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae
    1887.]

    [Footnote 10: The _Declamationes_ may also be mentioned here, as
    having long been credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer
    and 145 shorter pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of
    rhetorical exercise, and with success,-- at least in the earlier
    part of his career,-- is clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but
    it seems probable, from the nature of the contents of the existing
    collection, if not from the style, that tradition has erred in
    attributing to the master what must have been, in the main, the work
    of pupils and imitators. The popular habit of tacking on to a great
    name whatever seems not unworthy of it, may account for the fact
    that these rhetorical efforts are credited to Quintilian as early as
    the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15) _Seu libeat fictas
    ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam Quintilianus habet_.
    St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks of his _concinnas
    declamationes_: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which has disappeared
    from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a historian of
    the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of Gaulish
    origin, adds: _fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus ut
    eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae_ (Trig. tyr. 4, 2):
    cp. ib. _Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis acutissimum
    vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat_ (Hild,
    Introd. p. xxi. note).]

    [Footnote 11: See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt,
    Gryphiswaldiae 1883, _De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani
    feruntur Declamationibus_.]

While living in retirement, and engaged on the composition of his work,
Quintilian received a fresh mark of Imperial favour, this time from
Domitian. This prince had adopted two grand-nephews, whom he destined to
succeed him on the throne,-- the children of his niece Flavia Domitilla,
and of Flavius Clemens, a cousin whom he associated with himself about
this time in the duties of the consulship. They were rechristened
Vespasian and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and the care of their education
was entrusted to Quintilian (A.D. 93). He accepted it with fulsome
expressions of gratitude and appreciation[12]; but did not exercise it
for long[13], as the children, with their parents, became the victims of
the tyrant’s capriciousness shortly before his murder, and were ruined
as rapidly as they had risen. Flavius Clemens was put to death, and his
wife Domitilla, probably accompanied by her two sons, was sent into
exile. They seem to have embraced the Jewish faith; and it is
interesting to speculate on the possibility that through intercourse
with them, and with their children, Quintilian may have come into
contact with a religion which was the forerunner of that which was
destined soon afterwards to achieve so universal a triumph.

    [Footnote 12: iv. pr. 2 _Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis
    suae nepotum delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum
    caelestium intellegam, nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem
    metiar_.]

    [Footnote 13: If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he
    wrote the Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his
    domestic losses he says that he will live henceforth not to himself
    but to the youth of Rome), he would almost certainly have made some
    reference to them.]

It was while he was acting as tutor to the two princes that Quintilian
received, through the influence of their father Flavius Clemens, the
compliment of the consular insignia. This we learn from Ausonius,
himself the recipient of a similar favour from his pupil Gratian:
_Quintilianus per Clementem ornamenta consularia sortitus, honestamenta
nominis potius videtur quam insignia potestatis habuisse_. It was
probably in allusion to this promotion, unexampled at that time in the
case of a teacher of rhetoric, that Juvenal wrote (vii. 197-8)--

  _Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul;
  Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:_

while another parallel is chronicled by Pliny, Ep. iv. 11, 1 _praetorius
hic modo ... nunc eo decidit ut exsul de senatore, rhetor de oratore
fieret. Itaque ipse in praefatione dixit dolenter el graviter: ‘quos
tibi Fortuna, ludos facis?’ facis enim ex professoribus senatores, ex
senatoribus professores._

The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and
similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably
manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear
that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an
‘upright guardian of morals’ (_sanctissimus censor_ iv. pr. §3), even
when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There may
have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian, like
Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical productions are
said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and his attachment to
literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he instituted in honour of
Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which rhetorical, musical, and
artistic contests were a prominent feature (see on x. 1, 91). But this
is no justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in
the introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as
the protecting deity of literary men: _ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia
eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis
propitium numen est_; nor for his profession of belief that nothing but
the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the greatest
poet of Rome: _Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura
terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum_ x. 1, 91 sq.
Few would recognise Domitian in the following reference: _laudandum in
quibusdam quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute
sint consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum
decus fecit_ iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially explained
by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the circumstances
of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age: Quintilian
shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and Valerius Flaccus.
The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal maintained during the
horrors of this reign is a better expression of the virtue of old Rome,
which seems to have burned with steadier flame in the hearts of her
genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’ from the provinces, with
neither pride of family nor pride of nationality to save them from the
corrupting influences of their surroundings[14].

    [Footnote 14: In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar
    extravagances have not been unknown in our own literature. His
    translator, Guthrie-- an Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm
    for his author-- cries out in a note on this passage: “I will engage
    to point out from the works of some of the greatest and most learned
    men, as well as of the best poets, of England, compliments to the
    abilities not only of princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay,
    private gentlemen, who in this respect deserved them as little as
    Domitian did.”]

That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and
partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made
by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are
the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when
compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks off,--
_unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus?_ How does it come about (if
his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns so many
estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this conundrum is
that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a lucky man, and
your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good quality in
himself, and can expect everything[15].’ We must remember however, that,
while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his profession, no
charge is made against him as having placed his abilities at the
disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under Nero,
Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of Thrasea, and
received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33): if
Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal
would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as
with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were
counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the
memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the _Institutio_ would
perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a
testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless
widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl
whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he
had lost a daughter rather than a wife: _cum omni virtute quae in
feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam
puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter
vulnera orbitatis_ vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger of whom
did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year when he
died. The father now concentrated all his affection on the elder, and it
was with his education in view that he made all haste to complete his
great work, which he considered would be the best inheritance he could
leave to him,-- _hanc optimum partem relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut
si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit, fata intercepissent, praeceptore
tamen patre uteretur_ ib. §1. But the blow again descended, and his
house was desolate: _at me fortuna id agentem diebus ac noctibus
festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita subito prostravit ut laboris
mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me pertineret. Illum enim, de quo
summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam senectutis reponebam, repetito
vulnere orbitatis amisi_ ib. §2.

    [Footnote 15: The expression used in vi. pr. §4, _meo casu cui tamen
    nihil obici nisi quod vivam potest_, shows that Quintilian was quite
    conscious of his comfortable circumstances. --Halm (followed by
    Meister) reads _quam_ quod vivam: but I find _nisi_ in both the
    Bamberg (G) and the Harleian codices.]

This would be about the year 94 A.D., and the _Institutio Oratoria_ is
said to have seen the light in 95. After that we hear no more of
Quintilian. Domitian was assassinated in 96, and under the new _régime_
it is possible that the favourite of the Flavian emperors may have been
under a cloud. But his work was done; even if he lived on for a few
years longer in retirement, his career had virtually closed with the
publication of his great treatise. It used to be believed that he lived
into the reign of Hadrian, and died about 118 A.D., but this idea is
founded on a misconception[16]. Probably he did not even see the
accession of Nerva in 96: if he did, he must have died soon afterwards,
for there are two letters of Pliny’s (one written between 97 and 100,
and the other about 105) in which Pliny does not speak of his old
teacher as of one still alive.

    [Footnote 16: Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second
    marriage (sometime between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two
    children. This theory, which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel,
    and most authorities, was invented to account for the existence of a
    grown-up daughter, to whom, on the occasion of her marriage (about
    the year 105), Pliny gives a present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi.
    32. But this young lady must have been the daughter of another
    Quintilianus altogether. What we know of our Quintilian’s affluent
    circumstances is inconsistent with such liberality on Pliny’s part:
    the gift is offered as to a man who is comparatively poor. Moreover,
    the letter intimating the gift contains no such reference to the
    services of a former teacher as might have been expected on so
    interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost inconceivable that
    Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to Book vi. (about
    93 A.D.) the bereavements that left him desolate (_superstes omnium
    meorum_), should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of
    marriageable age.]




II.

THE INSTITUTIO ORATORIA.


Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition of
the _Institutio Oratorio_, his work really embodies the experience of a
lifetime. No doubt much of it lay ready to his hand, even before he
began to write, and he would willingly have kept it longer; but the
solicitations of Trypho, the publisher, were too much for him. His
letter to Trypho shows that he fully appreciated the magnitude of his
task; and there is even the suggestion that (like many a busy teacher
since his time) he only realised when called upon to publish that he had
not covered the whole ground of his subject[17]. The opening words of
the introduction (_post impetratam studiis meis quietem, quae per
viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_, &c.) show that the
_Institutio_ was the work of his retirement: and various indications
lead us to fix the date of its composition as falling between A.D. 93
and 95. The introduction to the Fourth Book was evidently written when
(probably in 93) Domitian had appointed Quintilian tutor to his
grand-nephews; the Sixth Book, where he refers to his family losses,
must have followed shortly afterwards; while the harshness of his
references to the philosophers in the concluding portions of the work
(cp. xi. 1, 30, xii. 3, 11, with 1, pr. 15, which may have been written,
or at least revised, after the rest was finished) seems to suggest that
their expulsion by Domitian (in 94) was already an accomplished
fact[18]. The book is dedicated to Victorius Marcellus, to whom Statius
also addresses the Fourth Book of his _Silvae_, evidently as to a person
of some consideration and an orator of repute (cp. Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 8,
and 41 sq.). Marcellus had a son called Geta (Inst. Or. i. pr. 6: Stat.
Silv. iv. 4, 71), and it was originally with a view to the education of
this youth (_erudiendo Getae tuo_) that Quintilian associated the
father’s name with his work. Geta is again referred to, along with
Quintilian’s elder son, and also the grand-nephews of Domitian, in the
introduction to the Fourth Book; but the opening words of the Sixth Book
show that they are all gone, and the epilogue, at the conclusion of Book
xii, is addressed to Marcellus on behoof of ‘studiosi iuvenes’ in
general.

    [Footnote 17: _Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam
    biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non
    tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et
    legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles, datum est._]

    [Footnote 18: Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x. 1,
    35 and 123, may have been written before the event mentioned above
    (the date of which is fixed by Suet. Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and
    may have been allowed to stand.]

The plan of the _Institutio Oratorio_ cannot be better given than in its
author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): _Liber primus ea quae sunt ante
officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem elementa et
quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus, quinque
deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur) quattuor
elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt, dabuntur.
Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui mores
eius, quae in suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod
eloquentiae genus, quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem
studia, quantum nostra valebit infirmitas, disseremus._ The first book
deals with what the pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician;
it gives an account of home-training and school discipline, and contains
also a statement of Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book
treats of rhetoric in general: the choice of a proper instructor, as
well as his character and function, and the nature, principles, aims,
and use of oratory. It is in these early books especially that
Quintilian reveals the high tone which has made him an authority on
educational morals, as well as rhetorical training: see especially i. 2,
8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum, _maxima debetur puero
reverentia_; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates gentle and conciliatory
methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,-- a picture of the ideal teacher in
language which might be applied to Quintilian himself[19]. The remaining
books, except the twelfth, are devoted to the five ‘parts of
rhetoric,’-- invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery (Cic.
de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we have a classification of the
different kinds of oratory. Next he treats of the ‘different divisions
of a speech, the purpose of the exordium, the proper form of a statement
of facts, what constitutes the force of proofs, either in confirming our
own assertions or refuting those of our adversary, and of the different
powers of the peroration, whether it be regarded as a summary of the
arguments previously used, or as a means of exciting the feelings of the
judge rather than of refreshing his memory.’ This brings us to the end
of the sixth book, which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and
of altercation[20]. The discussion of arrangement finishes with the
seventh book, which is extremely technical: style (_elocutio_) is the
main subject of the four books which follow. Of these the eighth and
ninth treat of the elements of a good style,-- such as perspicuity,
ornament, &c.; the tenth of the practical studies and exercises
(including a course of reading) by which the actual command of these
elements may be obtained; while the eleventh deals with appropriateness
(i.e. the different kinds of oratory which suit different audiences),
memory, and delivery. The twelfth book-- which Quintilian calls the most
grave and important part of the whole work-- treats of the high moral
qualifications requisite in the perfect orator: just as the first book,
introductory to the whole, describes the early training which should
precede the technical studies of the orator, so the last book sets forth
that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is their crown and
conclusion[21]. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice when the
public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end. Even then
his activity will not come to an end. He will write the history of his
times, will explain the law to those who consult him, will write, like
Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set forth the highest
principles of morality. The young men will throng round and consult him
as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot. What can be more
honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has a thorough
knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator ought not to
be thought happiest at that period of his life when, sequestered from
the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by envy, and remote from
strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour of safety,
experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more commonly offered
after death, and observing how his character will be regarded by
posterity[22].’”

    [Footnote 19: _Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius
    tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus
    oriatur. Plurimus ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius
    monuerit, hoc rarius castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum
    quae emendanda erunt dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens
    laboris, adsiduus potius quam immodicus_ ii. 2, 5.]

    [Footnote 20: See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26
    sqq., for a good account of Quintilian’s system.]

    [Footnote 21: xii. 1, 3 and 4 _ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum
    bonum: ... ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi
    omnibus vitiis libera potest_.]

    [Footnote 22: Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4:
    _ac nescio an eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam
    secretus et consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam
    in tuto collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari
    magis solet, venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit
    videbit_.]


The _Institutio Oratoria_ differs from all other previous rhetorical
treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It is a
complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to the
public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is the
_vir bonus dicendi peritus_, Quintilian considers it necessary to take
him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards both
goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore for
us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on education
in general, and on rhetorical education in particular. Throughout the
whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which everything is
undertaken,-- the goal to which the entire moral and intellectual
training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s high conception
of his subject is reflected in the language of the ‘Dialogue on
Oratory’: _Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel ad utilitatem
fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem amplius vel ad
urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium gentium
notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest_ (ch. 5). Though the field for the
practical display of eloquence had been greatly limited by the
extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric represented,
in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the Romans what
μουσική was to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because
of its eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must
therefore be fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture:
there is no form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted
for his purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in
education. He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over
preliminary cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming
in the schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops
all the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no
parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the
illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet,
that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of
necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is
necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle
and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of
a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing
to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient
culture in all its forms[23].”

    [Footnote 23: Dr. Reid in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.]

It is in connection with the general rather than with the technical
training of his pupils that Quintilian establishes a claim to rank with
the highest educational authorities,-- as for example in his insistence
on the necessity of good example both at home[24] and in school, and on
the respect due to the young[25], as well as his catalogue of the
qualifications required in the trainer of youth (ii. 2, 5: 4, 10), his
protest against corporal punishment (i. 3, 14), and his consistent
advocacy of the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of education.
His system was conceived as a remedy for the existing state of things at
Rome, where eloquence and the arts in general had, as Messalla puts it
in the ‘Dialogue on Oratory,’ “declined from their ancient glory, not
from the dearth of men, but from the indolence of the young, the
carelessness of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and neglect of the
old discipline[26].” Under it parents and teachers were to be united in
the effort to develop the moral and intellectual qualities of the Roman
youth: and through education the state was to recover something of her
old vigour and virtue.

    [Footnote 24: i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.]

    [Footnote 25: i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.]

    [Footnote 26: _Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes
    descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia
    iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et
    oblivione moris antiqui?_ --ch. 28.]

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its publication,
and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to Quintilian in the
literature of the period, that it long held an honoured place in Roman
schools. But it is curious that the earliest known references are not to
the _Institutio_ but to the _Declamationes_. In an interesting chapter
of the Introduction to a recent volume[27], M. Fierville has gathered
together all the references that occur in the literature of the early
centuries of our era. Trebellius Pollio and Lactantius (both of the 3rd
century) speak of the Declamations, and Ausonius (4th century) refers to
Quintilian without naming his writings: the first definite mention of
the _Institutio_ is made by Hilary of Poitiers (died 367) and afterwards
by St. Jerome (died 420). Later Cassiodorus (468-562) pronounced a
eulogy which may stand as proof of his high appreciation: _Quintilianus
tamen doctor egregius, qui post fluvios Tullianos singulariter valuit
implere quae docuit, virum bonum dicendi peritum a prima aetate
suscipiens, per cunctas artes ac disciplinas nobilium litterarum
erudiendum esse monstravit, quem merito ad defendendum totius civitatis
vota requirerent_ (de Arte Rhetor. --Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p. 498).
The Ars Rhetorica of Julius Victor (6th century) is largely borrowed
from Quintilian: see Halm, praef. p. ix. Isidore, Bishop of Seville
(570-630), studied Quintilian in conjunction with Aristotle and Cicero.
After the Dark Age, Poggio’s discovery, at St. Gall in 1416, of a
complete manuscript of Quintilian was ranked as one of the most
important literary events in what we know now as the era of the
Renaissance[28]. The great scholars of the fifteenth century worked hard
at the emendation of the text. The _editio princeps_ was given to the
world by G. A. Campani in 1470; and in the concluding words of his
preface the editor reflects something of the enthusiasm for his author
which had already been expressed by Petrarch, Poggio, and others,--
_proinde de Quintiliano sic habe, post unam beatissimam et unicam
felicitatem M. Tullii, quae fastigii loco suspicienda est omnibus et
tamquam adoranda, hunc unum esse quem praecipuum habere possis in
eloquentia ducem: quem si assequeris, quidquid tibi deerit ad cumulum
consummationis id a natura desiderabis non ab arte deposces_. This
edition was followed in rapid succession by various others, so that by
the end of the 16th century Quintilian had been edited a hundred times
over[29]. The 17th century is not so rich in editions, but Quintilian
still reigned in the schools as the great master of rhetoric: students
of English literature will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the
authority of his name when referring to the roughness of northern
nomenclature:--

  Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek
  That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.

In his ‘Tractate on Education’ too Milton strongly recommends the first
two or three books of the _Institutio_. The 18th century provided the
notable editions of Burmann (1720), Capperonier (1725), Gesner (1738),
and witnessed also the commencement of Spalding’s (1798-1816), whose
text, as revised by Zumpt and Bonnell, practically held the field till
the publication of Halm’s critical edition (1868). Towards the close of
last century it would appear that Quintilian was as much studied as he
had ever been,-- probably by many who believed in, as well as by some
who would have rejected the application of the maxim ‘_orator_ nascitur
non fit.’ William Pitt, for example, shortly after his arrival at
Cambridge (1773), and while ‘still bent on his main object of oratorical
excellence,’ attended a course of lectures on Quintilian, which caused
him on one occasion to interrupt his correspondence with his father[30].
His lasting popularity must have been due, not only to his own intrinsic
merits, but to the fact that his writings harmonised well with the
studies of those days: it was promoted also by the serviceable
abridgments of the _Institutio_, either in whole or in part, that were
from time to time published,-- notably that of Ch. Rollin in 1715. In
our own day men whose education was moulded on the old lines-- such as
J. S. Mill-- considered Quintilian an indispensable part of a scholar’s
equipment. Macaulay read him in India, along with the rest of classical
literature. Lord Beaconsfield professed that he was ‘very fond of
Quintilian[31].’ But by our classical scholars he has been almost
entirely neglected, no complete edition having appeared in this country
since a revised text was issued in London in 1822. German criticism, on
the other hand, has of late paid Quintilian special attention, with
conspicuous results for the emendation and illustration of his text: to
the great names of Spalding, Zumpt, and Bonnell, must be added those of
Halm, Meister, Becher, Wölfflin, and Kiderlin.

    [Footnote 27: M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber
    Primus: Paris, Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.]

    [Footnote 28: For the identification of this manuscript see below
    p. lxx.]

    [Footnote 29: Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at
    Leipzig the professor of eloquence was designated _Quintiliani
    professor_. Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him
    to almost every other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of
    his works, especially Books i and x of the _Institutio_.]

    [Footnote 30: Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.]

    [Footnote 31: To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of
    Quintilian, and said it was strange that in the decadence of Roman
    literature, as it was called, we had three such authors as Tacitus,
    Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s ‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii.
    p. 178.]


Besides the literary criticism for which it has always attracted
attention, and which will form the subject of the next section, the
Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ contains valuable precepts in regard to
various practical matters which are still of as great importance as they
were in Quintilian’s day. Among these are the practice of writing, the
use of an amanuensis, the art of revision, the limits of imitation, the
best exercises in style, the advantages of preparation, and the faculty
of improvisation.

The following list of LOCI MEMORIALES (mainly taken from Krüger’s third
edition, pp. 108-110) will give some idea of the various points on
which, especially in the later chapters of the Tenth Book, Quintilian
states his opinion weightily and often with epigrammatic terseness:

  1 §112 (p. 110) Ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero valde placebit.

  2 §4 (p. 124) Pigri est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab
  aliis inventa.

  2 §7 (p. 125) Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id consequi quod
  imiteris.

  2 §8 (p. 126) Nulla mansit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium
  stetit.

  2 §10 (pp. 126-7) Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi
  utique insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui
  sequitur.

  2 §10 (p. 127) Plerumque facilius est plus facere quam idem.

  2 §12 (ibid.) Ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt,
  ingenium, inventio, vis, facilitas, et quidquid arte non traditur.

  2 §18 (p. 131) Noveram quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus
  illud caelestis huius in dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in
  clausula posuissent ‘esse videatur.’

  2 §20 (p. 132) (Praeceptor) rector est alienorum ingeniorum atque
  formator. Difficilius est naturam suam fingere.

  2 §22 (ibid.) Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est.

  2 §24 (p. 134) Non qui maxime imitandus, et solus imitandus est.

  3 §2 (p. 136) Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et quam plurimum.
  Nam ut terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus fecundior
  fit, sic profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus effundit
  uberius et fidelius continet.

  3 §2 (p. 137) Verba in labris nascentia.

  3 §3 (ibid.) Vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori
  certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. Nihil enim rerum ipsa natura
  voluit magnum effici cito, praeposuitque pulcherrimo cuique operi
  difficultatem.

  3 §7 (p. 139) Omnia nostra dum nascuntur placent, alioqui nec
  scriberentur.

  3 §9 (ibid.) Primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut quam
  optime scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo.

  3 §10 (ibid.) Summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit ut bene
  scribatur, bene scribendo fit ut cito.

  3 §15 (p. 142) Curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen
  pro facultate.

  3 §22 (p. 146) Secretum in dictando perit.

  3 §26 (p. 148) Cui (acerrimo labori) non plus inrogandum est quam
  quod somno supererit, haud deerit.

  3 §27 (ibid.) Abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt: occupatos
  in noctem necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam
  integri ac refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.

  3 §29 (ibid.) Non est indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi
  refecti, non nisi hilares, non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes
  studendum existimarimus, semper erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus.

  3 §31 (p. 149) Nihil in studiis parvum est.

  4 §1 (p. 151) Emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim
  sine causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius
  autem operis est adicere, detrahere, mutare.

  4 §4 (p. 152) Sit ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod
  sufficiat, ut opus poliat lima, non exterat.

  5 §23 (p. 166) Diligenter effecta (sc. materia) plus proderit quam
  plures inchoatae et quasi degustatae.

  6 §1 (p. 167) Haec (sc. cogitatio) inter medios rerum actus aliquid
  invenit vacui nec otium patitur.

  6 §2 (p. 168) Memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla
  scribendi securitate laxatur.

  6 §5 (ibid.) Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum effulserit
  extemporalis color, non superstitiose cogitatis demum est
  inhaerendum.

  6 §6 (p. 169) Refutare temporis munera longe stultissimum est.

  6 §6 (ibid.) Extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem
  cogitationem.

  7 §1 (p. 170) Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium
  quoddam amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas.

  7 §4 (p. 171) Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem,
  cui semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore
  dicere malit, sed ut possit.

  7 §12 (p. 175) Mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi qui disposite,
  ornate, copiose dicit, sed tumultuari.

  7 §15 (p. 176) Pectus est enim, quod disertos facit, et vis mentis.

  7 §§16-17 (p. 177) Extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles
  congestu signorum, excitatur. Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem
  exprimit et expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget
  placendi cupido.

  7 §18 (ibid.) Facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis initiis
  paulatim perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque contineri
  nisi usu potest.

  7 §20 (p. 178) Neque vero tanta esse umquam fiducia facilitatis
  debet ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea
  quae dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus.

  7 §21 (p. 178) Qui stultis videri eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis
  videntur.

  7 §24 (p. 179) Rarum est ut satis se quisque vereatur.

  7 §26 (p. 180) Studendum vero semper et ubique.

  7 §27 (p. 180-1) Neque enim fere tan est ullus dies occupatus ut
  nihil lucrativae ... operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum
  rapi aliquo momento temporis possit.

  7 §28 (p. 181) Quidquid loquemur ubicumque sit pro sua scilicet
  portione perfectum.

  7 §28 (ibid.) Scribendum certe numquam est magis, quam cum multa
  dicemus ex tempore.

  7 §29 (p. 181-2) Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et studio
  fecerimus, invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius, dicendo
  scribamus facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit, si id non
  dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen sic dicere ut
  neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.




III.

QUINTILIANS’S LITARY CRITICISM.


It was the conviction that a cultured orator is better than an orator
with no culture that induced Quintilian to devote so considerable a part
of the Tenth Book to a review of Greek and Roman literature. He was
aware that in order to speak with effect it is necessary for a man to
know a good deal that lies outside the scope of the particular case
which he may undertake to plead; and while the ‘firm facility’ ἕξις at
which he taught the orator to aim could only be attained by a variety of
exercises and qualifications, a course of wide and careful reading must
always, he considered, form one of the factors in the combination.

In judging of the merits of Quintilian’s literary criticism we must not
forget the point of view from which he wrote. He is not dealing with
literature in and for itself. His was not the cast of mind in which the
faculty of literary appreciation finds artistic expression in the form
in which criticism becomes a part of literature itself. We cannot think
of the author of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ as one whom a
divinely implanted instinct for literature impelled, towards the evening
of his days, to leave a record of the personal impressions he had
derived from contact with those whom we now recognise as the
master-minds of classical antiquity. Quintilian writes, not as the
literary man for a sympathetic brotherhood, but as the professor of
rhetoric for students in his school. If, in the course of his just and
sober, but often trite and obvious criticisms, he characterises a writer
in language which has stood the test of time, it is always when that
writer touches his main interest most nearly, as one from whom the
student of style may learn much. In short, his work in the department of
literary criticism is done much in the same spirit as that which, in
these later days, has moved many sober and sensible, but on the whole
average persons, conversant with the general current of contemporary
thought, and not without the faculty of appreciative discrimination, to
draw up a list of the ‘Best Hundred Books.’ Their aim, however, has been
to guide and direct the work of that peculiar product of modern times,
the ‘general reader’: Quintilian’s victim was the professed student of
rhetoric.

But this limitation, arising partly out of the special aim which he had
imposed upon himself, partly, also, in all probability, from the
constitution of his own mind, ought not to blind us to the value of the
comprehensive review of ancient literature which Quintilian has left us
in this Tenth Book. “His literary sympathies are extraordinarily wide.
When obliged to condemn, as in the case of Seneca, he bestows generous
and even extravagant praise on such merit as he can find. He can
cordially admire even Sallust, the true fountain-head of the style which
he combats, while he will not suffer Lucilius to lie under the
aspersions of Horace.... The judgments which he passes may be in many
instances traditional, but, looking to all the circumstances of the
time, it seems remarkable that there should then have lived at Rome a
single man who could make them his own and give them expression. The
form in which these judgments are rendered is admirable. The gentle
justness of the sentiments is accompanied by a curious felicity of
phrase. Who can forget the ‘immortal swiftness of Sallust,’ or the
‘milky richness of Livy,’ or how ‘Horace soars now and then, and is full
of sweetness and grace, and in his varied forms and phrases is most
fortunately bold’? Ancient literary criticism perhaps touched its
highest points in the hands of Quintilian.”[32]

    [Footnote 32: Dr. Reid in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.]

The course of reading which Quintilian recommends is selected with
express reference to the aim which he had in view, and which is put
prominently forward in connection with nearly every individual
criticism. The young man who aspires to success in speaking must have
his taste formed: when he reads Homer, let him note that, great poet as
Homer is, and admirable in every respect, he is also _oratoria virtute
eminentissimus_ (1 §46). Alcaeus is _plerumque oratori similis_ (1 §63):
Euripides is, on that ground, to be preferred to Sophocles (1 §67):
Lucan is _magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus_ (1 §70): and the old
Greek comedy is specially recommended as a form of poetry ‘than which
probably none is better suited to form the orator’ (1 §65). With the
prose writers Quintilian is thoroughly at home, and he nowhere lets in
so much light on his own sympathies as in the estimates he gives us of
Cicero (1 §§105-112) and Seneca (1 §§125-131). His criticism of Cicero
is precisely what might have been expected from the general tone of the
references throughout the _Institutio_. Cicero is Quintilian’s model, to
whom he looks up with reverential admiration: he will not hear of his
faults. In his own day the great orator had been attacked by Atticists
of the severer type for the richness of his style and the excessive
attention which they alleged that he paid to rhythm. The ‘plainness’ of
Lysias was their ideal, and they failed to recognise the fact that, with
the more limited resources of the Latin language, such simplicity and
condensation would be perilously near to baldness (cp. note on 1 §105).
Cicero they regarded as an Asianist in disguise; in the words of his
devoted follower, they “dared to censure him as unduly turgid and
Asiatic and redundant; as too much given to repetition, and sometimes
insipid in his witticisms; and as spiritless, diffuse, and (save the
mark!) even effeminate in his arrangement” (_Inst. Or._ xii. 10, 12,
quoted on 1 §105). That this criticism had not been forgotten in
Quintilian’s own day is obvious not only from the _Institutio_ but also
from the discussion in the _Dialogus de Oratoribus_, where Aper is
represented as saying “We know that even Cicero was not without his
disparagers, who thought him inflated, turgid, not sufficiently concise,
but unduly diffuse and luxuriant, and far from Attic” (ch. 18). To such
detractors of his great model Quintilian will have nothing to say, and
in his criticism of Cicero he gives full expression to his enthusiastic
admiration for the genius of one who had brought eloquence to the
highest pinnacle of perfection (vi. 31 _Latinae eloquentiae princeps_:
cp. x. 1 §§105-112: xii. 1, 20 _stetisse ipsum in fastigio eloquentiae
fateor_: 10, 12 sqq. _in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur
eminentissimum_).

With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be
expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca.
Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return
to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary
reform which Quintilian had at heart-- _corruptum et omnibus vitiis
fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_ x. 1, 125.
It is probable that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he
assumes in dealing with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain
degree of prejudice[33]. Quintilian represents the literature of
erudition, and his standard is the best of what had been done in the
past: Seneca was, like Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed
perfectly natural that new thoughts should find utterance in new forms
of expression. Seneca’s motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’-- he gave free
rein to the play of his fancy, and rejected all method[34]: Quintilian
looked with horror (in the interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was
so near to licence, and set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds
to the ‘good old ways,’ and extolling Cicero as the synonym for
eloquence itself. In such a conflict of tastes as regards things
literary, and apart from the ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal
career, it is not surprising that Quintilian should have been
unfavourably disposed towards him. He had a grudge, moreover, against
philosophers in general, especially the Stoics. They had encroached on
what his comprehensive scheme of education impelled him to believe was
the province of the teacher of rhetoric,-- the moral training of the
future orator[35].

    [Footnote 33: See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei
    Senecae Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.]

    [Footnote 34: Ep. xvi. 5, 6 _de compositione non constat_: Ep. xix.
    5, 13 _oratio certam regulam non habet_.]

    [Footnote 35: i Prooem. §10 sqq., especially _neque enim hoc
    concesserim rationem rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt,
    ad philosophos relegandam_. Cp. x. 1, 35: and xii. 2, 9 _Utinam ...
    orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona eius
    corrumpentium invisam vindicet._ M. Rocheblave sees in these and
    other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives of
    philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as
    powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open
    denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of
    Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the
    philosophers from Rome in A.D. 94. It is certainly noticeable that
    the tone of his references to them becomes more bitter in the later
    books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12. The Prooemium to
    Book i. may have been written last of all: and apart from it there
    is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x. 1, 35 and 123) so
    acrimonious as the extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.]

He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no
extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their
proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as
representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that
Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in
many passages of the _Institutio_, where he is not specially named, it
is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references
corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth
Book[36]. In this passage Quintilian is evidently putting forward the
whole force of his authority in order to counteract Seneca’s influence.
He has kept him waiting in a marked manner, to the very end of his
literary review: and when he comes to deal with him he does not confine
his criticism to a few words or phrases, but devotes nearly as much
space to him as he did to Cicero himself. In his estimate of Seneca
nothing is more remarkable than the careful manner in which Quintilian
mingles praise and blame. But the praise is reluctant and half-hearted:
it is Seneca’s faults that his critic wishes to make prominent. He
admits his ability (_ingenium facile et copiosum_ §128), and even goes
the length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise
to his level (_foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro
fieri_ §127). But praise is no sooner given than it is immediately
recalled. It was his faults that secured imitators for Seneca (_placebat
propter sola vitia_ ib.); if he was distinguished for wide knowledge
(_plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio_ §128), he was often misled by
those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is good
in him, ‘much even to admire’ (_multa ... probanda in eo, multa etiam
admiranda sunt_ §131), still it requires picking out. In short, so
dangerous a model is he, that he should be read only by those who have
come to maturity, and then not so much, evidently, for improvement, as
for the reason that it is good to ‘see both sides,’-- _quod exercere
potest utrimque iudicium_, ib.

    [Footnote 36: See ii. 5, 10-12 _Ne id quidem inutile, etiam
    corruptas aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique
    iudiciorum pravitate mirantar, legi palam ostendique in his quam
    multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva,
    effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a plerisque sed, quod est
    peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur._ With this last
    cp. x. 1, 127 (of Seneca) _placebat propter sola vitia_. So i. 8, 9
    _quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione
    defluximus_: ii. 5, 22 (_cavendum est_) _ne recentis huius lasciviae
    flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus
    et puerilibus ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament_: with
    which compare x. 1, 129 _corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima,
    quod abundant dulcibus vitiis_: §130 _consensu potius eruditorum
    quam puerorum amore comprobaretur_. Rocheblave cites also viii. 5,
    27, 28, 30.]

It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of
Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the
philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to
time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of
philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion-- and his
position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express
his view distinctly-- that Seneca was a dangerous model for the budding
orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his peculiarities
lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished to put forward
a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day, and to recall--
in their own interests-- to severer models Seneca’s youthful
imitators,-- those of whom he writes _ad ea_ (i.e. _eius vitia_) _se
quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde quum se iactaret
eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat_ §127. Seneca was of course not
responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian would
never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any particular
model, especially if that model were characterised by such peculiar
features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he could not
forgive Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero[37].
Admirers of Seneca think that he failed to make allowance for the
influences at work on the philosopher’s style, and that he judged him
too much from the standpoint of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s
faults-- his tendency to declamation, the want of balance in his style,
his excessive subtlety, his affectation, his want of method: but they
contend that these faults are compensated by still greater virtues[38].
M. Rocheblave, who possesses the appreciation of Seneca traditional
among Frenchmen, follows Diderot in inclining to believe that the
philosopher was the victim of envy and dislike[39]. For himself he
protests in the following terms against what he considers the inadequacy
of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi quemvis Annaei librorum ignarum, et
dicito num ex istis Quintiliani laudibus non modo perspicere, sed
suspicari etiam possit quanto sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu steterit
scriptor qui in tota latina facundia optima senserit, humanissima
docuerit, maxima et multo plurima excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex
antiqua morali philosophia seu graeca seu latina depromptis, adiectis
pluribus, potuerit in unum propriumque saporem omnia illa quasi
sapientiae humanae libamenta confundere? Credisne a tali lectore
scriptorem vivo gurgite exundantem, sensibus scatentem, legentes in
perpetuas rapientem cogitationes, eum denique quem ob vim animi
ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius noster[40], protinus
agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri
meritum stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum
confessuros’ (pp. 44-5).

    [Footnote 37: It is doubtful if the allusion in §126 (_potioribus
    praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere_, &c.) is
    exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references
    to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43)
    cites Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the
    choice of words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy:
    xviii. 4, 10 where he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and
    xvi. 5, 7.]

    [Footnote 38: Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46 _De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut
    olim de Catone defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici
    videtur posse, quae deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem
    tempori esse attribuenda; quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse
    propria, et in primis oculos capere_: p. 36 _Eloquentiam non verbis,
    sed rebus valere, nec per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit,
    esse excolendam Annaeus semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra
    delectu verborum praecipue constare, et per se amandam et
    requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum adhibita ratione, docebant
    rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus_: p. 38 _Ergo quum in eloquentia
    duo sint praesertim consideranda, scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium
    est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro verbis, utrumque asperrime,
    egisse_.]

    [Footnote 39: See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is
    quoted by Diderot in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of
    Seneca being the ‘corruptor eloquentiae’ the truth is that ‘il ne
    corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il s’accommoda au goût de ses
    contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur plaire et de s’en faire
    admirer; et _l’envie lui fit un crime de ce qui passerait pour vrai
    talent dans un homme moins célèbre_.’]

    [Footnote 40: Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.]

Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt that
the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was in
his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of Seneca’s
influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature of the
next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model for
imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered on
Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that it
displayed much grace of style (_multum cultus_), as was to be expected
from one who possessed _ingenium amoenum et temporis_ eius _auribus
accommodatum_ (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how Caligula disparaged
the _lenius comtiusque scribendi genus_ which Seneca represented; and
here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a fame that had passed
away,-- _Senecam #tum# maxime placentem_, just as the elder Pliny,
writing about the time of Seneca’s death, speaks of him as _princeps
#tum# eruditorum_ (Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto
and Aulus Gellius[41] were much more unreserved and even immoderate in
their censure. And it is a remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that
the name of the great Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his
successors, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest
literary ornament of Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the
second century.

    [Footnote 41: Fronto, De Oration. p. 157 _At enim quaedam in libris
    eius scite dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum
    argentiolae cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas
    redimemus?_ For Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.]

In regard to the general body of Quintilian’s literary criticism, the
question of greatest interest for modern readers is the degree of its
originality. How far is Quintilian giving us his own independent
judgments on the writings of authors whom he had read at first hand? How
far is he merely registering current criticism, which must already have
found more or less definite expression in the writings and teaching of
previous rhetoricians and grammarians? The circumstances of the case
make it impossible for us to approach the special questions which it
involves with any great prejudice in favour of Quintilian’s originality
in general. The extent of his indebtedness to previous writers, as
regards the main body of his work, may be inferred from a glance at the
‘Index scriptorum et artificum’ in Halm’s edition. In many places he is
merely simplifying the rules of the Greek rhetoricians whom he followed.
Probably he was not equally well up in all the departments of the
subject of which he treats, and he naturally relied, to some extent, on
the works of those who had preceded him. But did he take his literary
criticism from others? Was Quintilian one of those reprehensible persons
who do not scruple to borrow, and to give forth as their own, the
estimate formed and expressed by some one else of authors whose works
they may never themselves have read?

In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be
convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart
from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he
might _a priori_ be expected to be more familiar. The notes to that part
of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (1 §§46-84)
will show too many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in
addressing himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian
scrupulously avoided incurring any obligations to others[42]. No doubt
in his long career as a teacher he had come into contact with
traditional opinion as to the merits and characteristics not only of the
Greek but also of the Latin writers; and in the two years which he tells
us he devoted to the composition of the _Institutio_[43] he may still
further have increased his debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact
impossible that Quintilian should have been unaware of the nature of the
criticism current in his own day, and of what had previously been said
and written by others. But he is not to be thought of as one who, before
indicating his opinion of a particular writer, carefully refers, not to
that writer’s works, but to the opinion of others concerning them. The
cases in which he reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of
others are not always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious
borrowing[44]. The coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract
from the originality of his work. But we do not need to believe that, in
writing his individual criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the
works of others: he no doubt had them at hand, and his career as a
teacher had probably impressed on his memory many _dicta_ which he could
hardly fail to reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather
together the results of his teaching.

    [Footnote 42: “In the case of the first list, or list of Greek
    authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating
    other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In §27 he
    mentions Theophrastus by name; in §52, speaking of Hesiod, he says
    _datur ei palma_, &c.; in §53 the second place is given to
    Antimachus by the consent of the _grammatici_; Panyasis is thought
    (_putant_) _in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes_, Callimachus
    (58) _princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum
    Philetas occupavit_. In 59 only three _iambographi_ are mentioned,
    those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The _novem lyrici_
    were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are the
    _Pindarus novemque lyrici_ (for this need not be taken to mean
    strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.” --Prof. Nettleship in
    Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.]

    [Footnote 43: _Quod tempus_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam biennium_) _non
    tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et_
    legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles _datum est_: Epist. ad
    Tryphonem.]

    [Footnote 44: Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873,
    p. 343 note: _sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia
    quae contuli opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos
    memoria tenuit, adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret_.
    This (though somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii)
    is a milder verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after
    speaking of Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (_vir
    bonus dicendi peritus_, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know
    whether he would have thought it a necessary virtue in a _bonus
    grammaticus_ to read and conscientiously study the Greek authors on
    whom he passes formal critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain
    that, whether Quintilian had or had not read them, he contents
    himself in many cases with merely repeating the traditional
    criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of the principal Greek
    authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 257.)]

Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated mainly
with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace[45]. Varro was the author of
numerous works bearing on the history and criticism of literature: such
were his _de Poetis_, _de Poematis_, περὶ χαρακτήρων, _de Actionibus
Scaenicis_, _Quaestiones Plautinae_. Our knowledge of their scope and
character is however derived only by inference from a few scattered
fragments, and in regard to these it is impossible to say definitely to
which of his treatises they severally belong. Quintilian’s references to
his literary activity as well as his great learning (_vir Romanorum
eruditissimus_ x. 1, 95), and the quotation of his estimate of Plautus
(ib. §99), are sufficient evidence that he was not unacquainted with
Varro’s writings. Cicero he knew probably better than he knew any other
author: the extent of his indebtedness to such works as the _Brutus_ may
be inferred from the parallelisms which occur in his treatment of the
Attic orators (x. 1, 76-80). He dissents expressly from Horace’s
estimate of Lucilius (ib. §94): and the frequency of his references to
other literary judgments of Horace (cp. §§24, 56, 61, 63) shows that he
must have been in the habit of illustrating his teaching by quotations
from the works of that cultured critic of literature and life.

    [Footnote 45: See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in
    Latin Antiquity’ in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.]

But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in
common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the
Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by
name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other
parts of the _Institutio_[46]. Quintilian no doubt knew his works well,
especially that which originally consisted of three books περὶ
μιμήσεως[47]. The second book of this treatise has long been known to
scholars in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many
striking resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first
chapter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as,
for instance, H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed
freely from the earlier writer: _multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat;
quibus modo nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo #putant#
sua non esse declarat_. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn
out by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly
remarks that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common
property not only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned
world of the day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to
this edition, 1 §§46-84.

    [Footnote 46: Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek
    rhetoricians; ix. 3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus
    Dionysius’). Cp. the parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of
    Isocrates, x. 4, 4: and for other instances see Claussen, op. cit.
    pp. 339-340.]

    [Footnote 47: The extant remains of this treatise have recently been
    edited by Usener (Bonn. 1889), with a valuable _Epilogus_. The scope
    of the work is indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad
    Pompeium iii. p. 776 R, Usener p. 50: τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν
    περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ
    τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους
    (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.]

The general resemblances between Quintilian and Dionysius are apparent
in their order of treatment. In his introduction to the _Iudicium de
Thucydide_, the latter sets forth the plan of his second book in terms
which present many points of analogy with the scheme of the Tenth Book
of the _Institutio_: ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι Περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως
ὑπομνηατισμοῖς ἐπεληλυθὼς οὓς ὑπελάμβανον ἐπιφανεστάτους εἶναι ποιητάς
τε καὶ συγγραφεῖς ... καὶ δεδηληκὼς ἐν ὀλίγοις τίνας ἕκαστος αὐτῶν
εἰσφέρεται πραγματικάς τε καὶ λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ πῇ μάλιστα χείρων
ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται ... ἵνα τοῖς προαιρουμένοις γράφειν τε καὶ λέγειν εὖ
καλοὶ καὶ δεδοκιμασμένοι κανόνες ὦσιν ἐφ᾽ ὧν ποιήσονται τὰς κατὰ μέρος
γυμνασίας, μὴ πάντα μιμούμενοι τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις κείμενα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν,
ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν ἀρετὰς αὐτῶν λαμβάνοντες, τὰς δ᾽ ἀποτυχίας φυλαττόμενοι‧
ἁψάμενός τε τῶν συγγραφέων ἐδήλωσα καὶ περὶ Θουκουδίδου τὰ δοκοῦντά μοι
συντόμῳ τε καὶ κεφαλαιώδει γραφῇ περιλαβών, ... ὡς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἐποίησα‧ οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀκριβῆ καὶ διεξοδικὴν δήλωσιν ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνδρῶν
ποιεῖσθαι προελόμενον εἰς ἐλάχιστον ὄγκον συναγαγεῖν τὴν πραγματείαν.
In like manner Quintilian, addressing himself throughout to young men
aspiring to success as public speakers, enumerates the various authors
who seem to be fit subjects for reading and imitation. While admitting
that some benefit may be derived from almost every writer (1 §57), he
confines himself to the most distinguished in the various departments of
literature (§44 _paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo
est_); and even with regard to these he warns his readers, as Dionysius
does, that they are not to imitate all their characteristics, but only
what is good (1 §24: 2 §§14-15).

The order of treatment is almost identical in the two writers. First
come the poets, with the writers of epic poetry at their head: these are
not only named in the same order (Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis),
but they are commended in very similar terms. But if Quintilian had been
translating directly from Dionysius, it is very probable that he would
have mentioned him by name, instead of concealing his obligations by the
use of such a phrase as _putant_ (in speaking of Panyasis-- see note on
§54). If he goes on to add some criticisms which are not in Dionysius,
viz. on Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Theocritus, and to mention also
Pisander, Nicander, and Euphorion, it is with the express intimation
that they do not rank in the canon fixed by the _grammatici_,-- the very
reason for which these writers had been omitted by Dionysius. The Greek
rhetorician says nothing of the elegiac and iambic poets mentioned by
Quintilian,-- the former in general terms (_princeps #habetur#
Callimachus_, _secundas #confessione plurimorum# Philetas occupavit_
§58), the latter with express reference to the judgment of Aristarchus
on the great Archilochus (§59)[48]. In treating of the lyric poets,
Quintilian mentions the number nine (§61), which Dionysius does not; but
as regards the substance of his criticisms, he is again almost in exact
agreement with his predecessor. Both refer to Pindar, Stesichorus,
Alcman, and Simonides, with the trifling difference that in Dionysius
Simonides comes second instead of fourth on the list. In §65 Quintilian
proceeds to deal with the Old Comedy, which finds no place in the
treatise of Dionysius, as we now have it. And there is very little that
corresponds with Dionysius in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides. But it is noticeable that in both Euripides is made to form
the transition to Menander and the New Comedy.

    [Footnote 48: The standpoint from which both critics regarded this
    class of poetry was probably much the same as that which Dio
    Chrysostom applies to lyric poetry generally: μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα
    καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια (cp. tunc
    et elegiam vacabit, &c., §58) τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις
    καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή (Or.
    xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)]

In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while Quintilian
was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is rather
incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary schools
than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was of
opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even goes
so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of Dionysius (of
which the treatise long known as the Ἀρχαίων κρίσις or the _De Veterum
Censura_ is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices of
the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian, as
well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives of
the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a
judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking
advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of
which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long
career), he is not slavishly following any single authority[49]: cp. §52
_datur palma_ (_Hesiodo_,) §53 _grammaticorum consensus_, §54 _ordinem a
grammaticis datum_, §58 _princeps habetur_ and _confessione plurimorum_,
§59 _ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum_, §64
_quidam_ (probably including Dionysius), §67 _inter plurimos quaeritur_,
§72 _consensu ... omnium_. And the tone and substance of his estimate of
Homer, of Euripides, and of Menander[50], seem to show that he was
prepared to rely, when necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp.
_meo quidem iudicio_ §69), especially in dealing with the poets who
would be of greatest service for his professed purpose.

    [Footnote 49: How diverse the tradition of the various authorities
    came to be in regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s
    note p. 137.]

    [Footnote 50: Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 _Aristophanis propria
    fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli_ p. 1085
    (C.I.Gr. 6083): _cuius iudicii Kaibelius_ p. 490 _in Quintiliano_ x.
    1, 69 _vestigia recte observavit_.]

In both Dionysius and Quintilian the poets are followed by the
historians. The order in Dionysius is Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,
Philistus, and Theopompus; in Quintilian, Thucydides, Herodotus,
Theopompus, Philistus,-- with short notices of Ephorus, Clitarchus and
Timagenes. The insertion of the three additional names, and the
precedence given to Theopompus, are not the only points in which
Quintilian differs here from Dionysius, who is known in this case to
have limited himself to the five names in question (Epist. ad Pomp.
767 R: Usener, p. 50, 10): Xenophon is by Quintilian expressly postponed
for treatment among the philosophers. In this he probably followed an
older tradition, which survived also elsewhere. Cicero speaks of
Xenophon as a philosopher (de Orat. ii. §58): in Diogenes Laertius (ii.
48) it is said of him ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν φιλοσόφων πρῶτος ἔγραψε-- a
remark which Usener (p. 113) thinks was probably derived from some
library list in which Xenophon was ranked among the writers of
philosophy; and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xviii.) omits him from his list of
the historians, and includes him in that of the Socratics.

These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s allegation
that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s _primus et praecipuus fons_.
It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the historians, he had
before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s _Orator_, to which
reference has already been made (§55 sq.). There Cicero mentions
Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the
addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at
hand the great orator’s lost treatise _Hortensius_, two fragments of
which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides,
Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus[51]: in writing it Cicero probably
followed some list similar to those which were accessible both to
Dionysius and Quintilian[52]. Again there is sufficient resemblance here
between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as also in regard to Euripides
and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.) to justify the supposition that
they followed the same tradition. Dio expressly elevates Theopompus to
the second rank (10, p. 479), τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν
δευτέρων Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων
ἔχει. With this compare Quintilian’s words: _Theopompus his proximus ut
in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis_ (§74). Ephorus,
on the other hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.

    [Footnote 51: See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii. _quid enim aut Herodoto
    dulcius aut Thucydide gravius_, fr. xviii. _aut Philisto brevius aut
    Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?_ It has been
    supposed that between these two fragments the words _aut Xenophonte
    iucundius_ may have fallen out: cp. Quint, x. 1, 82.]

    [Footnote 52: See especially fr. xi. _qua re velim dari mihi,
    Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt_: and
    cp. note on 1 §57.]

It is perhaps in dealing with the orators that Quintilian gives the
surest proofs that he is not following any individual guide. The
parallel passages cited in the notes to §§76-80 are by no means confined
to the writings of Dionysius, though here again words and phrases occur
(see esp. the note on _honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo
diligens_, &c., §79) which seem to suggest that Quintilian must have
kept a common-place book into which he ‘conveyed’ points which struck
him as just or appropriate in the literary criticism of others[53].
Unlike Dionysius, however, he refers to the canon of the ten orators
(§76) which the recent work of Brzoska, following A. Reifferscheid, has
shown to have originated not with the critics of Alexandria, but with
those of Pergamum[54]. It is noticeable that the five orators whom
Quintilian selects for notice out of this canon are identical with those
enumerated, in reverse order, by Cicero, de Orat. iii. 28.

    [Footnote 53: Cp. the note on _qui parcissime_ x. 4, 4.]

    [Footnote 54: De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones.
    Breslau, 1883.]

In their treatment of the philosophers, the chief point in common
between Dionysius and Quintilian is that both put Plato and Xenophon
before Aristotle. And, though they agree generally in the terms in which
they speak of Aristotle, there is no other noteworthy coincidence. The
section on Theophrastus and the Stoics has nothing corresponding to it
in Dionysius: here, as elsewhere in the account of philosophy, Cicero
was laid under contribution.

We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of the
Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the literary
schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own opinion much
that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He cannot be
supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather be
considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of
criticism from Theophrastus (x. 1, 27) down to his own day. He accepted
from others, with probably few modifications, the approved lists of
poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and adopted the
conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered criticisms
upon them-- “somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof. Nettleship
says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and insight, but
which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart and handing on
to future generations of pupils.” These lists of ‘classical’ writers may
probably be traced back, in the main, to the literary activity of the
critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be well known to the Greek
rhetoricians who were at work on the education of the Roman youth as
early as the beginning of the first century B.C., and may have served as
the basis of their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (κρίσις
ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ) was an essential part of the office of the
‘grammaticus[55].’

    [Footnote 55: _A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica
    initium sumpserat, fuitque ante κριτική quam γραμματική_ --Usener,
    p. 132.]

In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of _recte
loquendi scientia_ and _poetarum enarratio_, Quintilian adds (i. 4, 3):
_et mixtum his omnibus #iudicium# est; quo quidem ita severe sunt usi
veteres grammatici ut non versus modo censoria quadam virgula notare et
libros, qui falso viderentur inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere
familia permiserint sibi, sed auctores alios in ordinem redegerint,
alios omnino exemerint numero_. Beginning with a critical examination of
individual texts, the ‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their
work, on the literary side, in short characterisations of the various
writers whom they made the subject of their study, and finally drew up
lists of the best authors in each department of literature, with a
careful indication of their good points as well as of the features in
which they were not to be used as models. This process received a more
or less final form at the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his
follower Aristarchus (see on x. 1, 54), the latter of whom probably
introduced such modifications in the list of his predecessor as approved
themselves to his own judgment (cp. x. 1, 59 _tres receptos #Aristarchi
iudicio# scriptores iamborum_). The influence of this method in Roman
literature may be seen, early in the first century, in the so-called
‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius (15, 24)[56]: he
makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy of the canon of the
ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine critics was probably in
the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp. 114-126), when he wrote
his ‘Hortensius,’-- a treatise which seems to have originally contained
an introductory sketch of the great contributors to the various
departments of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of
the dialogue,-- the praise of philosophy[57]. Then there is Dio
Chrysostom, a writer who flourished not long after Quintilian himself,
and whose reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted. Such
divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by
the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In
the preliminary sketch in the _Hortensius_ the object seems to have been
not the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio draws a
careful distinction between the branches which serve for the student of
rhetoric, and those which may be expected to benefit and delight men who
have finished their studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and again
reiterated, is to lay down a course of reading suited to form the taste
of a young man aspiring to success as a speaker.

    [Footnote 56: See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.]

    [Footnote 57: Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by
    Cicero, Usener reckons his judgments on the Greek historians
    (Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus,
    Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus) in the second book of the _de
    Oratore_ (§§55-58), a work which was written ten years before the
    _Hortensius_: on Herodotus and Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad
    Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4, _ad Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo,
    in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum
    negotium, quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille
    capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides_.]

The probability that there existed such traditional lists as those
referred to (which would also be of service in the arrangement of the
great public libraries), is strikingly illustrated in Usener’s
_Epilogus_ (p. 128 sq.) by the publication of one which may here be
transcribed as of great interest to readers of Quintilian. It will be
noticed that though the philosophers are omitted, it contains many
points of analogy with that followed by Quintilian, particularly the
addition of the later elegiac poets, Philetas and Callimachus. Names
only are given, without any criticism attached[58].

    [Footnote 58: _Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex
    codice Coisliniano_ n. 387 _olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius
    edidit bibl. Coislin_. p. 597, _ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni
    recentiore Cramerus anecd._ Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener,
    p. 129.]

  [Transcriber’s Note:
  Greek numerals were printed with overlines ¯. They are shown here
  in ´ form to reduce text-display problems.]

Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.

ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.

τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων Ἀχαιός.: Aischulos
Sophoklês Euripidês Iôn Achaios.]

κωμῳδοποιοὶ ἀρχαίας ζ´‧ Ἐπίχαρμος Κρατῖνος Εὔπολις Ἀριστοφάνης
Φερεκράτης Κράτης Πλάτων.: Epicharmos Kratinos Eupolis Aristophanês
Pherekratês Kratês Platôn.]

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.: Antiphanes Alexis
Thourios.]

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.:
Menandros Philippidês Diphilos Philêmôn Apollodôros.]

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς Καλλίμαχος.: Kallinos
Mimnermos Philêtas Kallimachos.]

λυρικοι θ´‧ Ἀλκμάν Ἀλκαῖος Σαπφώ Στησίχορος Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης Ἴβυκος
Ἀνακρέων Σιμωνίδης.: Alkman Alkaios Sapphô Stêsichoros Pindaros
Bakchulidês Ibukos Anakreôn Simônidês.] ....

ῥητορες θ´‧ Δημοσθένης Λυσίας Ὑπερείδης Ἰσοκράτης Ἀισχίνης Λυκοῦργος
Ἰσαῖος Ἀντιφῶν Ἀνδοκίδης.· Dêmosthenês Lysias Hypereidês Isokratês
Aischinês Lykourgos Isaios Antiphôn Andokidês.]

ἱστορικοὶ ι´‧ Θουκυδίδης Ἡρόδοτος Ξενοφῶν Φίλιστος Θεόπομπος Ἔφορος
Ἀναξιμένης Καλλισθένης Ἑλλάνικος Πολύβιος.· Thoukydidês Hêrodotos
Xenophôn Philistos Theopompos Ephoros Anaximenês Kallisthenês Hellanikos
Polybios.]

In regard to the historians, Usener notes that this list seems to
indicate the principle on which they were selected and arranged. They
are enumerated in pairs, Herodotus and Thucydides coming first, with
their imitators Xenophon and Philistus immediately following them. Then
come Theopompus and Ephorus, as representing the second rank; and next
the historians of Alexander’s victories, Anaximenes and Callisthenes
(cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §58), in place of whom Clitarchus is mentioned by
Quintilian. Peculiar features about the list given above are that
Thucydides comes first of all (just as Demosthenes does among the
orators), and that, perhaps to make up the number ten, a fifth pair of
historians is added,-- Hellanicus from those of older date, and Polybius
to represent more recent writers.

Usener states the conclusion at which he arrives in the following words,
which may be accepted with the proviso that they are not to be taken as
meaning that Quintilian was altogether ignorant of what Dionysius wrote:
_Iudicia de poetis scriptoribusque Graecis non a Dionysio Quintilianus
mutuatus est. Igitur ne Dionysius quidem sua profert, sed diversum
uterque exemplum iudiciorum ut plerumque consonantium expressit. Fontis
utrique communis antiquitatem Hortensius Tullianus cum Dione comparatus
demonstravit. Posteriore tempore cum eruditionis copia in angustae
memoriae paupertatem sensim contraheretur, iudiciis neglectis sola
electorum auctorum nomina relicta sunt et laterculi formam induerunt._
Quintilian did not transcribe his criticisms of Greek literature from
Dionysius. He had no need to do so: the materials from which Dionysius
had drawn were available also to him. This is sufficient to account for
the resemblances in their critical judgments. But on the other hand it
is improbable that Quintilian, in the course of his reading and
teaching, had not studied the writings of Dionysius; and some at least
of the coincidences to which prominence is given in the notes in this
edition must have been the result of his acquaintance with the work of
his predecessor.

In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us the
fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again the
notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers, such
as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary criticism.
The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved that he did
not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press them, when
necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the _Analysis_ (pp. 3-5) will
show that in this part of his work Quintilian follows the method which
had been traditionally applied to the criticism of the Greek writers.
The same order is preserved (§85); the various departments of literature
are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek (§§93, 99,
101, 105, 123); and individual writers are pitted against each other,
and are sometimes characterised in similar terms. In all this Quintilian
is consistent with the scheme according to which he had evidently
determined to arrange his work: he is consistent also with the general
tradition of literary criticism among his countrymen. “As Latin
literature since Naevius had adopted Greek models and Greek metres,
every Latin writer of any pretensions took some Greek author as his
ideal of excellence in the particular style which he was adopting.
Criticism accordingly drifted into the vicious course of comparison; of
pitting every Latin writer against a Greek writer, as though borrowing
from a man would constitute you his rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer,
Afranius a Menander, Plautus an Epicharmus, before the days of Horace:
in Horace’s time there were three Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil.
Cicero and Demosthenes were compared by the Greek critics in the
Augustan age, and by the time of Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin
Thucydides, Livy the Latin Herodotus[59].” It is this idea of making
‘canons’ of Latin writers, to correspond as nearly as possible with
those which he had accepted from former critics for the classical
writers of Greece, that gives an air of artificiality to Quintilian’s
criticism of Latin literature, and interferes somewhat with the general
effect which his sane and sober appreciations would otherwise produce.
The individual estimates are in the main all that could be wished for,
notably the enthusiastic eulogy of Cicero (§§105-112), which it is
interesting to compare with a similar passage in the treatise ‘On the
Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may be discerned in
the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his Grecian rival. The
sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and abrupt: that of Cicero
is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement, rapid, vigorous, terrible;
he burns and sweeps away all before him; and hence we may liken him to a
whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a widespread conflagration,
which rolls over and feeds on all around it, whose fire is extensive and
burns long, breaking out successively in different places, and finding
its fuel now here, now there[60].” Excellent also are the shorter
characterisations of such writers as Sallust (_immortalem Sallusti
velocitatem_ 1 §102), of Livy (_Livi lactea ubertas_ 1 §32: _mirae
iucunditatis clarissimique candoris_ §101), of Ovid (_nimium amator
ingenii sui_ §88), and of Horace (_et insurgit aliquando et plenus est
iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax_
§96). But the general impression we derive is that Quintilian is
producing many of his criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he
tied down to the plan he has adopted. It is to this same method of
mechanical comparison-- born of the artificial traditions of the
literary schools-- that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has
not been without imitators in more recent times[61].

    [Footnote 59: Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.]

    [Footnote 60: Havell’s translation, p. 27.]

    [Footnote 61: See the note on x. 1, 85, with the quotation from
    Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of Philology. In the
    _Rheinisches Museum_ (xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.) Mercklin pushed the
    parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to find a
    correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer
    mentioned by Quintilian.]




IV.

STYLE AND LANGUAGE.


Quintilian’s own style is pretty much what might be expected from the
tone of his judgments on others. Cicero was his model, Seneca
represented to him everything that was to be avoided: but the interval
of a hundred years which separated him from the former was a sufficient
barrier to anything more than an approximation to his style, while on
the other hand he does not succeed in emancipating himself entirely from
the literary tendencies of his own time, which found so complete
expression in the writings of Seneca. All the writers of what is known
as the Silver Age possess certain marked characteristics, which
differentiate them from the best models of the republican period; and of
these Quintilian has his share. But he did not fall in with the
fashionable depreciation of those models. He knew that it was impossible
to bring back the Latinity of the Golden Age in all its characteristic
features; but he could at least lift up his voice against the
affectation and artificiality of his contemporaries, who looked upon
that Latinity as tame, insipid, and commonplace. The point of view from
which, as we have already seen, he regarded Seneca may be stated with a
wider application: _corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_, x. 1, 125.

The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral and
social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition from
republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion of
Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca. The literary public had lost all
appetite for the natural straightforwardness of the Ciceronian style: it
craved for something akin to the highly seasoned dishes by which the
epicures of the day sought to stimulate a jaded palate[62]. It was not
enough now to clothe the thought in pure, clear, and elegant language,
even when adorned by a wealth of expression that bordered on exuberance,
and made musical by the exquisite modulation of the period. No one could
win a hearing who did not countenance the fashionable craze for
affectation, abruptness, and extravagance. Directness, ease, and
intelligibility were no recommendations[63]. In order to strike and
stimulate, everything must be full of point. Feebleness of thought was
considered to be redeemed by epigram and formal antithesis. The
amplitude and artistic symmetry of the Ciceronian period gave place to a
broken and abrupt style, the main object of which was to arrest
attention and to challenge admiration. Showy passages were looked for,
expressed in new and striking phraseology, such as could be reproduced
and even handed on to others[64]. The charm of style and the test of its
excellence consisted in its being artificial, inflated, meretricious,
involved, obscure-- in a word, depraved[65].

    [Footnote 62: “His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is
    hardly a sentence which might not be quoted; but to read him
    straight forward is like dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”
    --Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life, i. p. 448.]

    [Footnote 63: _Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum
    eleganter atque exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit_:
    viii. 2. 21.]

    [Footnote 64: Tac. Dial. 20 _Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire
    sed etiam referre domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt,
    traduntque invicem ac saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt,
    sive sensus aliquis arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus
    exquisito et poetico cultu enituit_.]

    [Footnote 65: ii. 5, 10 _ostendi in his quam multa impropria,
    obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae
    non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc
    ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur_.]

Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to return
to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion to one
particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own
declared principles,-- _non qui maxime imitandus et solus imitandus est_
(2 §24); and accordingly, in spite of his great admiration for Cicero,
we find several well-marked features of difference between him and his
master, not only in the use of words, but also in the structure and
composition of sentences[66]. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise.
Quintilian’s mission was to restore to Latin composition the direct and
natural character of the earlier style; but he could not extirpate that
tendency to poetical expression which had taken root at Rome as far back
as the days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time
by the wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making
some concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the
‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist.
That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a
passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be
adapted to contemporary requirements: _ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates
nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, #nisi ut sensus nos quidem
dicamus plures#: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et
dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et
invicem offecerint. Sed me #hactenus cedentem# nemo insequatur ultra_,
&c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he refused to go:
clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to effect. These
qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is also sufficiently
varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must remember the
defective state in which his text has come down to us[67].

    [Footnote 66: He resembles other writers of the decadence in the
    frequent use of rare or poetical words, in neglecting the nice
    distinctions formerly made between synonyms, in the numbers of
    adjectives used substantively, &c.]

    [Footnote 67: In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must
    not be forgotten that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent
    pamphlet, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei
    Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr. Paul Hirt quotes an interesting
    remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt, ‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i.
    p. 467 note), which has lately received some corroboration: _sapit
    hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est barbariem plane quandam_. Filelfo
    did not like Quintilian: _nullam habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem,
    nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo Quintilianus, neque satis
    docet, nec delectat._ But this was only Filelfo’s opinion, for which
    he would not have been able to furnish such scientific grounds as
    that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1 p. 356) supplied by
    Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the adjective _pandus_. This word was
    in use in the days of Ennius, and occurs often afterwards in poetry,
    but not in prose. In Spain, however, it lingered, and is used by
    Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and especially by Quintilian.
    After these writers it disappears again till the fourth century.
    --Cp. i. 5, 57 _gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex
    Hispania duxisse originem audivi_, which has been quoted (by Abbé
    Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely enough in
    disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.]


It is quite possible to exemplify from the Tenth Book alone the main
features in which Quintilian’s language and style differ from those of
Cicero. And first, in regard to his vocabulary, a list may be appended
of words which, though not peculiar to Quintilian, are yet not to be
found in the republican period[68].

    [Footnote 68: For this section I am especially indebted to a
    _Dissertatio_ by Adamus Marty: _De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia
    Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis_. Also the
    _Prolegomena_ in Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’s _Remarques sur la
    Langue de Quintilien_.]

#Amaritudo#, figuratively (Plin. S., Sen., Val. Max.), x. 1, 117.

#Auditorium# (Tac. Dial., Plin. S., Suet.), x. 1, 79: cp. v. 12, 20
_licet hanc (eloquentiam) auditoria probent_.

#Classis#, of a class in a school (Suet., Col., Petr.), x. 5, 21.

#Confinis#, figuratively (Ovid, Sen.), x. 5, 12.

#Consummatus# (Sen., Mart., Plin. S.), x. 5, 14: cp. i. 9, 3; ii. 19, 1,
and often. The Ciceronian equivalent is _perfectus_.

#Decretorius# (Sen., Plin., Suet.), x. 5, 20: cp. vi. 4, 6.

#Diversitas# (Tac., Plin., Suet.), x. 1, 106.

#Evalesco# (Verg., Hor., Plin., Tac.), x. 2, 10: cp. ii. 8, 5; viii.
6, 33.

#Expavesco# (Hor., Liv., Sen., Plin., Suet.), x. 3, 30: cp. ix. 4, 35;
vi. 2, 31.

#Extemporalis# (Petr., Tac., Plin. S.), x. 6, 1, 5 and 8; 7, 13, 16, 18:
cp. iv. 1, 54 _extemporalis oratio_, for which Cicero would have written
_subita et fortuita oratio_.

#Exundo# (Sen., Plin., Tac.), x. 1, 109 #Cicero vivo gurgite exundat#.

#Favorabilis# (Vell., Sen., Plin., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 21: cp. iv. 1, 21
and often.

#Formator# (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x. 2, 20 _alienorum ingeniorum
formator_ (sc. _praeceptor_).

#Immutesco# (Statius), x. 3, 16.

#Inadfectatus# (Plin. S.), x. 1, 82.

#Inconcessus# (Verg., Ov.), x. 2, 26.

#Incredulus# (Hor.), x. 3, 11: cp. xii. 8, 11.

#Indecens# (Petr., Sen., Mart.), x. 2, 19. The Ciceronian equivalent is
_indecorus_.

#Inlaboratus# (Sen.), x. 1, 111, and often.

#Insenesco# (Hor., Ov., Tac.), x. 3, 11.

#Inspiro# (Verg., Ov., Sen.), x. 3, 24: cp. xii. 10, 62.

#Praesumo# (Verg., Sen., Plin., Tac.), x. 5, 4: cp. xi. 1, 27.

#Profectus# (Ov., Sen., Plin. S., Suet), x. 3, 2 and 15: cp. i. 2, 26,
and often. Cicero uses _progressus_, _processus_.

#Professor# (Col., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 18: cp. ii. 11, 1, and often.

#Prosa# (Vell., Col., Sen., Plin.), x. 7, 19,-- adjective: cp. xi.
2, 39. As a noun, ix. 4, 52, and often.

#Secessus# (Verg., Ov., Plin., Tac.), x. 3, 23 and 28; 5, 16. Cicero
uses _recessus_.

#Substringo# (Sen., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 4.

#Versificator# (Just., Col.), x. 1, 89.

There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word
_Romanus_ for _Latinus_. _Litterae latinae_, _scriptores latini_,
_poetae latini_, are the usual forms with Cicero and the writers of the
best period: Quintilian has _Romanes auctores_ (x. 1, 85), _sermo
Romanus_ (ib. §100), _litterae Romanae_ (ib. §123), and often elsewhere.


The following words appear in Quintilian (Book X) for the first time,
though of course it does not follow that they are his own coinage:--

#Adnotatio#, x. 2, 7 _brevis adnotatio_.

#Circulatorius#, x. 1, 8 _circulatoria volubilitas_: cp. ii. 4, 15. The
noun _circulator_ seems to have been used first by Asinius Pollio:
afterwards it is found in Seneca, Petronius, Plin. S., Apuleius, &c.

#Destructio#, x. 5, 12 _destructio et confirmatio sententiarum_.
Suetonius (Galba 12) uses this word in its proper sense of ‘pulling
down’ walls.

#Offensator# (ἅπαξ λεγόμ.), x. 3, 20.

#Significantia#, x. 1, 121.


Several words occur which, either in point of form or meaning, indicate
the influence of Greek analogies:--

#Recipere#, x. 7, 31, and often elsewhere, in the sense of _probare_. So
the Greek ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἐνδέχεσθαι. Cp. Plin. H. N. 7. 8, 29.

#Supinus#, x. 2, 17 used, like ὕπτιος in Dion. Hal., for ‘languid,’
‘spiritless.’ Cp. esp. (of Isocr.) ὑπτία (sc. λέξις) ... καὶ κεχυμένη
πλουσίως, p. 538, 6, R: also p. 1006, 14, R.

#Densus# (πυκνός), for _pressus_: x. 1, 76.

#Pedestris# (sc. _oratio_), πεζὸς λόγος: x. 1, 81.

To these may be added the use of _subripere_ (for _clam facere_), on the
analogy of κλέπτειν τι, iv. 1, 78: _transire_ (for _effugere_), on the
analogy of παρέρχεσθαι, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335 _nil transit
amantes_): _finis_ for ὅρος: _maxime_, with numerals, for μάλιστα, &c.

To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian of
_propter quod_, _per quod_, _quae_, &c. on the analogy of δι᾽ ὅ, δι᾽ ἅ
(see on x. 1, 10): _circa_ (used like περί), see on x. 1, 52: _multum_
(with compar.) like πολὺ μεῖζον (x. 1, 94): _sunt ... differentes_, 2
§16.


The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment
of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a
concrete sense (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7), and also in certain changes in
the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed in its proper place:
e.g. _componere_ for _sedare_; _vacare_ used impersonally; _venus_ for
_venustas_; _beatus_ for _uber_, _fecundus_; _secretum_; _olim_ of
future time; _utrimque_ of opposite sides, &c. Such changes in meaning
as will be noted in connection with words like _valetudo_, _ambitio_,
_advocatus_, _auctor_, _cultus_, _quicumque_, _ubicumque_, _demum_, and
all the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective
(e.g. _studiosus_), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the
Silver Age.


Taking now the Parts of Speech in their order, we may illustrate the
peculiarities of Quintilian’s vocabulary by reference to the Tenth Book.


I. NOUNS.

#Advocatus# for _causidicus_, _patronus_: x. 1, 111 (where see note):
cp. iii. 8, 51; xi. 1, 59: Plin. S. 7, 22: Suet. Claud. 15. For examples
of the use of this word in its earlier sense cp. v. 6, 6; xi. 3, 132;
xii. 3, 2.

#Ambitio# carries with it in Quintilian, as generally in the Silver Age,
a sinister meaning, so that Quintilian can call it a _vitium_: i. 2, 22
_licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio frequenter tamen causa virtutum est_. So
_perversa ambitio_ x. 7, 21: cp. Tac. Ann. vi. 46: Iuv. 8, 135. For the
Ciceronian use of the word (_popularis gratiae captatio ad adipiscendos
honores_), see pro Sulla §11: pro Planc. §45: de Orat. i. §1.

#Auctor#, almost identical with _scriptor_: see on x. 1, 24. Cp. Ep. ad
Tryph. §1 _legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles_.

#Cultus# = _ornatus_: x. 1, 124; 2, 17. Cp. iii. 8, 58 _in verbis cultum
adfectaverunt_: xi. 1, 58 _nitor et cultus_. Cicero uses _ornatus_ and
_nitor_ as applied to language: Orat. §80 _ornatus verborum_, §13 4
_orationis_. Cp. Tac. Dial. 20, 23.

#Opinio# is used for ‘reputation’ (_existimatio_), whether good or bad.
So x. 5, 18 (where see note): 7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 _contemptu
opinionis_: ii. 12, 5 _adfert et ista res opinionem_: ix. 2, 74 _veritus
opinionem iactantiae_: iv. 1, 33 _opinione adrogantiae laborare_: Tac.
Dial. 10 _ne opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores
sequitur_: Sen. Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive
(ad Att. 7, 2 _opinio integritatis_: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G.
vii. 59, 5: Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24
_falsam ... malam opinionem_).

#Opus# frequently means ‘branch,’ ‘department’ in Quintilian: x. 1, 9
(where see note). It is often identical with ‘genus’: e.g. x. 1, 123
where they are used together, _quo in genere-- in hoc opere_. Cp. iii.
7, 28 _quamquam tres status omnes cadere in hoc opus (laudativum genus)
possint_.

#Valetudo#, always in the sense of ‘bad health’ in Quintilian and
contemporary writers. If ‘good health’ is meant, an adjective is used:
e.g. x. 3, 26 _bona valetudo_: vi. 3, 77 _commodior valetudo_. With
Cicero it may mean either: de Fin. v. §84 _bonum valetudo, miser
morbus_: de Am. §8 _quod in collegio nostro non adfuisses, valetudinem
respondeo causam_: ad Fam. iv. 1, 1: in Tusc. iv. §80 he has _mala
valetudo_. With Quintilian’s usage cp. Tac. Hist. iii. 2; Ann. vi. 50:
Suet. Claud. 26: Plin. S. 2, 20.

#Venus# for _venustas_, x. 1, 79 (where see note); ib. §100. This use of
the word is poetical: Hor. A. P. 320; Car. iv. 13, 17. For _venustas_,
_lepor_ occurs in Cicero with the same meaning, see de Orat. i. §243:
Or. §96.

Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred to
in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with _vis_ or _ratio_
and the gerund (see on _vim dicendi_ x. 1, 1): the concrete use of
certain nouns in the plural (see on _historias_ §75: cp. _lectiones_
§45): the concrete use of abstract nouns (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7:
_profectus_ 5 §14: cp. _silvarum amoenitas_ for _silvae amoenae_ 3 §24).
The frequent occurrence of verbal nouns in _-tor_ must also be noted: in
Quint. they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles
(_hortator_ x. 3, 23: _offensator_ ib. §20), and may, like adjectives,
be compared by the aid of an adverb (_nimium amator_ 1 §88, where see
note)[69].

    [Footnote 69: Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in
    which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv.
    pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290
    (296) substantives in _-tor_ and 44 (46) in _-trix_. Of these 73 in
    _-tor_ and 4 in _-trix_ are also in Quintilian, who has, on the
    other hand, 28 in _-tor_ and 8 in _-trix_ which do not occur in
    Cicero. These are-- _adfectator_, _admirator_, _adsertor_,
    _agnitor_, _altercator_, _auxiliator_, _constitutor_, _consultor_,
    _contemptor_, _cunctator_, _delator_, _derisor_, _exactor_,
    _formator_, _iactator_, _insectator_, _latrator_, _legum lator_,
    _luctator_, _plosor_, _professor(?)_, _raptor_, _repertor_,
    _rixator_, _signator_, _stuprator_, _ventilator_, _versificator_,
    _cavillatrix_, _disputatrix_, _elocutrix_, _enuntiatrix_,
    _exercitatrix_, _hortatrix_, _iudicatrix_, (_litteratrix_),
    _sermocinatrix_.]


II. ADJECTIVES.

#Beatus# (_abundans_, _fecundus_): x. 1, 61 _beatissima rerum
verborumque copia_, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 _beatissimi amnes_.
Cicero does not use _beatus_ of things: cp. de Rep. ii. 19, 34
_abundantissimus amnis_.

#Densus# (like _pressus_ in Cicero): §§68, 73 (with notes), _densus et
brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides_: cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §59
_Thucydides ita verbis aptus et pressus_. So x. 1, 76, 106.

#Exactus#: x. 2, 14 _exactissimo iudicio_: 7 §30 _exacti commentarii_.
_Exactus_ bears the same relation to _exigere_ as _perfectus_ does to
_perficere_, with which _exigere_ is, in Quintilian, synonymous: _e.g._
i. 5, 2; 9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23;
also M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For _exactus_ Cicero used _diligenter
elaboratus_ (Brut. §312) or _accuratus_ (ad Att. xiii. 45, 3): or
_perfectus_ (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).

#Expositus# = _tritus_, _communis_: x. 5, 11 _voluptatem expositis
dare_: Iuv. 7, 54 _vatem-- qui nihil expositum soleat deducere, hoc qui
communi feriat carmen triviale moneta_: Sen. E. 55. Cicero has (de Orat.
i. 31, 137) _omnium communia et contrita praecepta_.

#Incompositus#: x. 1, 66 _rudis in plerisque et incompositus_
(Aeschylus): cp. iv. 5, 10; ix. 4, 32: Verg. Georg. i. 350 _motus
incompositos_: Hor. Sat. i. 10, 1: Tac. Dial. 26: Sen. Ep. 40, 4: Liv.
xxiii. 27; v. 28.

#Otiosus# = _inutilis_, _inanis_. See on x. 1, 76 _tam nihil otiosum_:
cp. 2 §17. So Tac. Dial. 40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have
_vacuus_, _otio abundans_, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.

#Praecipuus#, used by itself, see on x. 1, 94.]

#Summus#, in sense of _extremus_: x. 1, 21, where see note. The usage is
poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii. 324 _venit
summa dies_: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59, Am. iii. 9, 27:
Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio--
München_, 1890, p. 36) contends that this use is not Ciceronian, for
while Pollio writes _summo ludorum die_ (ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius
_summis Circensibus ludis_ (ad Fam. viii. 12, 3-- _Manutius: #extremis#
diebus Circensium ludorum meorum_), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii.
1, 3) _extremus elephantorum dies fuit_.

#Supinus# = _ignavus_ (as ὕπτιος, p. xliii. above): x. 2, 17 _otiosi et
supini_: cp. ix. 4, 137 _tarda et supina compositio_: Iuv. i. 66: Mart.
vi. 42 _Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter audis_. This
word may have been used first by Quintilian in this sense: in Cicero it
is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.

Noticeable also, and characteristic of his time, is Quintilian’s use of
_plerique_ and _plurimi_, the former having often the force of
_nonnulli_, _plures_, _multi_ (x. 1 §§26, 31, 34, 37, 66, 106: 2 §13: 3
§16), the latter losing its force as a superlative, and standing
generally for _permulti_ (x. 1 §§12, 22, 27, 40, 49, 58, 60, 65, 81, 95,
107, 109, 117, 128: 2 §§6, 14, 24: 6 §1: 7 §17).

Nothing is more common in Quintilian than the use of adjectives (and
participles) in the place of nouns.[70] In some cases this arises from
the actual omission of a noun, which can readily be supplied to define
the meaning of the adjective: for example x. 5, 20 _decretoriis_ (sc.
_armis_) _exerceatur_: 1 §100 _togatis_ (sc. _fabulis_) _excellit
Afranius_: 1 §88 _lascivus quidem in herois_ (sc. _versibus_) _quoque
Ovidius_. But in most cases there is no perceptible ellipse; the general
idea intended is contained in the adjective itself. In the Masculine and
Feminine only those adjectives can be used as nouns which express
personal qualities, as of character, position, reputation, &c.: the
Neuter denotes generally the properties of things, mostly abstractions.
Following the arrangement of Dr. Hirt’s paper, we may cite examples from
the Tenth Book as follows:--

    [Footnote 70: This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a
    Programm by Dr. Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des
    Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), a monument of German
    thoroughness. See also Becher’s Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen,
    1879), pp. 6 sqq.]


#The Neuter Adjective.#

(1) _The Neuter singular used by itself_:--

Nom. 3 §22 _secretum in dictando perit_.

Acc. 3 §30 _faciat sibi cogitatio secretum_.

Gen. 3 §27 _optimum secreti genus_: §30 _amator secreti_. Partitive
genitives: 6 §1 _aliquid vacui_: dependent on adj. 1 §79 _honesti
studiosus_.

Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 _proximum vero_: vi. 3, 21
_contrarium serio_.

Abl. 7 §16 _cum stilus secreto gaudeat_.

Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative and
ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the usage
in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy (ἐξ
ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.). Examples are: _in altum_ 7 §28 (= _in
profundum_): _e contrario_ 1 §19: _in deposito_ 3 §33: _in expedito_ 7
§24: (_vertere_) _in Latinum_ 5 §2 (containing the idea of locality: cp.
_ex Graeco_): _ex integro_ 1 §20 (where see note): _in posterum_ 3 §14:
_in publicum_ 7 §1: _in universum_ 1 §42: _in peius_ 2 §16: _ex proximo_
1 §13: _a summo_ 3 §2: _ad ultimum_ 7 §7; ib. 16: _ex ultimo_ ib. 10.

Sometimes the adjective, in addition to being used substantivally,
governs like a noun, the genitive depending on it being always
partitive: e.g. _multum_ 1 §§80, 94, 115: _plus_ 1 §§77, 86, 97, 99,
106: _plurimum_ 1 §§60, 65, 81, 117, 128; 3 §1; 5 §§3, 10; 6 §1; 7 §17:
_minus_ 2 §12: _quantum_ 5 §8. And with a pronoun: 7 §24 _promptum hoc
et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally in
cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g. 3 §6 _scriptorum proxima_.
Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where the case could
not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of course, when the
adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g. 5 §8 _sua brevitati gratia_,
_sua copiae_, _alia translatis virtus_, _alia propriis_; or when another
adjective or pronoun is used in the nom. or acc., e.g. 1 §35: 3 §32
_novorum interpositione priora confundant_: 5 §11. Other instances (of
2nd and 3rd decl.) are 7 §30 _subitis ex tempore occurrant_: 5 §1 _ex
latinis_: 7 §6 _ex diversis_: 1 §66 _in plerisque_: 5 §11 _varietatem
similibus dare_. So with comparatives and superlatives: 1 §63 _maioribus
aptior_: 1 §58 _cum optimis satiati sumus_, _varietas tamen nobis ex
vilioribus grata sit_: 5 §6 _certe proximis locus_.


#The Masculine Adjective.#

(1) _The Masculine Plural._

In the following places masculine adjectives are found together, in the
plural, or else along with nouns: 1 §§71, 124, 130: 2 §17: 3 §16: 5 §1.

Single instances are (Genitive) _veterum_ 1 §§97, 118: _magnorum_ 1 §25:
(Dative) _imperitis_ 7 §15: _antiquis_ 2 §17: _studiosis_ 1 §45 (where
see note: Cicero would have had _dicendi_, or _eloquentiae studiosis_):
_bonis_ 2 §3: (Accusative) _veteres_ 1 §42: _posteros_ 1 §§112, 120: 2
§6: _obvios_ 3 §29: _intentos_ 3 §33: (Ablative) _ex nostris_ 1 §114:
_ab antiquis_ 1 §126: _de novis_ 1 §40. With the comparative 5 §19 _apud
maiores_: 5 §7 _priores_: superlative 1 §58 _confessione plurimorum_. In
1 §123 we have one of the few instances of the addition of another
adjective to an adjective doing duty for a noun-- _paucissimos adhuc
eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt_.

(2) _The Masculine Singular._

When the adjective can denote a class collectively, it may be used as a
noun: this is quite frequent in Quintilian, as in most writers,
especially when the adjective stands near a substantive, e.g. _perorare
in adulterum_, _aleatorem_, _petulantem_ ii. 4, 22.

The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine singular:
(Genitive) x. 2, 26 _prudentis est_: (Accusative) 2 §3 _similem raro
natura praestat_: 3 §19 _quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes_.


#The Participle used as a Noun.#

(1) _The Neuter Singular._

Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those
which have actually become nouns (e.g. _responsum_, _praeceptum_,
_promissum_, &c.), Quintilian uses several participles as nouns in a
manner that is again an extension of classical usage. So even with a
pronoun, or another adjective: e.g. 2 §2 _ad propositum praescriptum_:
§11 _ad alienum propositum_: 5 §12 _decretum quoddam atque praeceptum_:
7 §24 _promptum hoc et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the participle
in _-us_, _-a_, _-um_ is found frequently in abl., gen., and dat. Not so
common is the plural of the 3rd decl.: 1 §86 _eminentibus vincimur_: 3
§5 _nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus_, _adhibeatur indicium
inventis_, _dispositio probatis_.

(3) _The Perfect Participle._

In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the Ciceronian
usage, according to which the participle is employed when a definite
class of individuals is indicated, and a _qui_ clause when the
description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are 1 §131
_robustis et satis firmatis legendus_: 3 §2 7 _occupatos in noctem
necessitas agit_: 5 §17 _exercitatos_; rather more general is
_a conrogatis laudantur_ 1 §18. The Masculine Singular is, in classical
Latin, generally found along with a substantive, it being incorrect to
use any such expression as, for example, _manes occisi placare_.
Quintilian makes a very free use of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24
_reddebat victo certaminis polestatem_: v. 12, 2 _spiculum in corpore
occisi inventum est_, &c.

(4) _The Future Participle._

The use of this participle received a great extension in post-Augustan
times. The following are instances of its employment as a substantive:
i. 4, 17 _non doceo, sed admoneo docturos_: 21 _liberum opinaturis
relinquo_: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 _hoc adicio ut dicturus
intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit_.

(5) _The Present Participle._

Frequent as is the substantival use of this participle in all Latin
authors, in none is it more frequent than in Quintilian-- generally in
the Gen. and Dat. Sing. and Plur., not so common in the Nom. and Acc.
Pl., and seldom in the Abl. and Nom. Sing. In some instances it is found
alongside of a noun: e.g. 2 §2: 7 §3. The most common example of the
Gen. Sing., standing alone, is (as might be expected from the
subject-matter of the _Institutio_) _discentis_, _dicentis_, &c., e.g. 1
§6: for the Dative see 1 §§17, 24, 30: Accusative 1 §20: Ablative 1 §15
(_intellegere sine demonstrante_): _eminentibus_ 1 §86: cp. _illis ...
recipientibus_ 5 §12. In the plural, the Genitive and Dative are equally
common: for the Nominative may be quoted 2 §15 _imitantes_: for the
Accusative 1 §16: 2 §26: 3 §25.


III. PRONOUNS.

#Ipse# follows the usual rules. For an interesting point in connection
with its use, see on 2 §15. It is often used as = _per se_, e.g. 1 §117:
3 §21: often with pronouns, e.g. _vel hoc ipso_ (δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο) 1 §75,
cp. 5 §8. For _et ipse_ see note on 1 §31.

#Hic# seems frequently to be used with reference to the circumstances of
the writer’s own times: e.g. 1 §43 _recens haec lascivia_: and probably
also 7 §31 _hanc brevem adnotationem_. (This is certainly the case with
_ille_: e.g. _illis dictandi deliciis_ 3 §18: _ille laudantium clamor_ 1
§17.) It has been suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be
wrong: e.g. 1 §6 _ex his_ (for _ex iis_?): but cp. 1 §§25, 33, 40, &c.
Such instances of a preference for _hic_ over _is_ come under Priscian’s
rule (xvi. 58), _#Hic# non solum de #praesente# verum etiam de #absente#
possumus dicere, ad #intellectum# referentes demonstrativum_.

The conjunction of _nullus_ and _non_ (= _quisque_, _omnis_) is common
in Quintilian and Suetonius: 7 §25 _nullo non tempore et loco_: cp. iii.
6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66; Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.

#Quicunque# has in Quintilian completely acquired the force of an
indefinite pronoun: see on 1 §12; 105.

#Quilibet unus# (1 §1) does not occur in Cicero: cp. i. 12, 7: v. 10,
117.

#Ut qui# is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian _quippe qui_,
_utpote qui_: see on 1 §55.


IV. VERBS.

An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in
Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’
of Latin prose) occurs 1 §99 _licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant_:
see note _ad loc._, and cp. Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12,
Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have _efferre laudibus_, de Am. §24: de Off. ii.
§36: de Orat. iii. §52. So elsewhere in Quintilian _finire_ for
_definire_, _solari_ for _consolari_, _spargere_ for _dispergere_, &c.

Examples of a change in the meaning of verbs common to Cicero and
Quintilian are the following:--

#Componere# occurs now in the sense of _sedare_, _placare_: e.g. ix. 4,
12 _ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum cogitationum, componerent_: iii. 4,
15 _concitando componendisve adfectibus_ (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202
_motum dicendo vel #excitare# vel #sedare#_): cp. x. 1, 119 _Vibius
Crispus compositus et iucundus_, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176)
_Isocrates est in ipsis numeris #sedatior#_. So Pollio, ad Fam. x. 33, 3
has the phrase _bellum componere_: cp. Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 8 _componere
litem_: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 _componere curas_-- both at the end of a
hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet. Caes. 4.

#Digerere# = _concoquere_: see 1 §19. For _concoquere_ in Cicero, see de
Fin. ii. §64: de N. D. ii. §§24, 124, 136.

#Praedicere# = _antea_, _supra dicere_: see on 1 §74.

#Recipere# = _probare_ (ἀποδέχομαι): 7 §31, and often.

#Vacat#: used impersonally 1 §§58, 90: cp. i. 12, 12. This usage is not
found in Cicero.


V. ADVERBS.

#Abunde# is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to increase
their force: 1 §25 _abunde similes_ (where see note): §104 _elatum
abunde spiritum_. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s _satis
superque_.

#Adhuc# occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on 1 §71 (_plus
adhuc_) and §99. It is often used also (as in Livy and others) of past
time, when it = _eo etiam tempore_, or _etiam tum_: e.g. _scholae adhuc
operatum_ 3 §13: cp. i. 8, 2: 2 §27.

#Alioqui# has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1) It occurs
pretty much as τὰ μὲν ἄλλα in Greek, with very little of an antithesis:
e.g. 1 §64 _Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate
commendari potest_: 3 §32 _expertus iuvenem, studiosum alioqui,
praelongos habuisse sermones_, &c. (There is a definite antithesis in
what seems to be the corresponding usage in Tacitus, when _alioqui_ is
opposed to an adverb of time: e.g, Ann. iii. 8 _cum incallidus alioqui
et facilis iuventa senilibus _tum_ artibus uteretur_: xiii. 20
_ingreditur Paris, solitus alioquin id temporis luxus principis
intendere, sed _tunc_ compositus ad maestitiam._) (2) It is equivalent
to _praeterea_, ‘besides’: 3 §13 _in eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps,
alioqui inter paucos disertus_. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 _ordo alioqui
sceleris ... patefactus est_. This sense is an easy transition from ‘for
the rest.’ The instance in 1 §128 (_cuius et multae alioqui et magnae
virtutes fuerunt_) seems to fall also under this head, unless it means
‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they paid him (Seneca) by
imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 _validus alioqui spernendis
honoribus_. (3) _Alioqui_ stands for ‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite
case,’ either with a _si_ clause, as 3 §16 _immutescamus alioqui si
nihil dicendum videatur_: §30 _quid alioqui fiet ... si particulas_,
&c.: or without, 6 §6 _alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam
male cohaerentem cogitationem_. Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.

#Certe# stands for _quidem_ when the point of the sentence is reinforced
by an illustration: 6 §4 _Cicero certe ... tradidit_: cp. xii. 1, 43:
vi. 2, 3.

_Demum_, which in classical Latin is an adverb of time (‘lastly’),
stands in Quintilian, and other writers of the Silver Age, for _tantum_,
_dumtaxat_, the idea of time having disappeared: 1 §44 _pressa demum et
tenuia_, where see note: cp. 3 §13: 6 §5. With pronouns it is frequently
used, for emphasis, like _adeo_: e.g. Cic. de Orat. ii. §131 _sed hi
loci ei demum oratori prodesse possunt, qui est versatus in rebus vel
usu_.

#Interim# often stands for _interdum_, as 1 §9, where see note. At 3 §33
we have _interim ... interim_ for _modo ... modo_, as also i. 7, 11:
_interim ... interdum_ vi. 2, 12: _interim ... non numquam ... saepe_
iv. 5, 20: _semper ... interim_ ii. 1, 1.

#Longe# and #multum# are both used with comparatives, instead of
_multo_: e.g. _longe clarius_ 1 §67 (where see note): _multum tersior_
(πολύ) 1 §94 (note).

#Mox# is used in enumerations in place of _deinde_: 6 §3
_primum--tum--mox_: cp. i. 2, 29 _primum--mox_: ib. 9, 2
_primum--mox--tum_.

#Nec# = _ne quidem_: 3 §7 _alioqui nec scriberentur_. Cp. ix. 2, 67
_quod in foro non expedit, illic nec liceat_ iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.

#Non# occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (3 §16, cp. 3 §5) and 3rd pers.
sing. 2 §27 where see note, (also after _dum_ xii. 10, 48 and _modo_
iii. 11, 24) where Cicero would have had _ne_: cp. i. 1, 19 _non ergo
perdamus_: ib. §5 _non adsuescat ergo_. Cp. _utinam non_ §100: and see
note on 2 §27.

#Non nisi#. These particles (_non_, _nisi_) are used together with the
force of an adverb, 1 §24 (where see note): 3 §29. Cp. Ov. Tr. iii. 12,
36.

#Olim# is never used by Cicero of future time, as 1 §94 and 104 (where
see note). Cp. Plin. Panegyr. 15.

#Plane#, though common enough in classical Latin, as in Quintilian, with
verbs and adjectives, is not found so often in conjunction with other
adverbs. There may be a touch of colloquialism about such a phrase as
_ut plane manifesto appareat_ 1 §53: cp. Pollio, in Cic. ad Fam. x. 32,
1 _plane bene_: ad Att. xiii. 6, 2: _plane belle_ ib. xii. 37, 1.

#Protinus# has its usual meaning (_statim_) in 3 §5 (where it is best
taken with _gaudeamus_, not with _offerentibus_): cp. 7 §21. Its
employment to denote logical consequence is noted at 1 §3: cp. _ib._
§42.

#Saltem# is often used for _quidem_ and _neque saltem_ for _ne quidem_:
2 §15 _nec vero saltem iis_, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 _neque
enim mihi illud saltem placet_.

#Sicut (ut) ... ita#. This formula is especially common in Quintilian,
either with or without a negative: see on 1 §1, and cp. §§3, 14, 72: ix.
2, 88, &c.

#Ubicumque#, like _quicumque_, has become an indefinite: e.g. 7 §28
_quidquid loquemur ubicumque_. The more classical use is found at 1 §§5
and 10.

#Utique#: see note on 1 §20.

#Utrimque# is used not of place, but of the ‘opposite sides’ of a
question: 5 §20 _causas utrimque tractet_: 1 §131: cp. v. 10, 81: Hor.
Ep. i. 18, 9: Tac. Hist. i. 14.

#Velut# occurs more commonly than either _quasi_ or _tamquam_ in
comparisons: see on 1 §5 _velut opes quaedam_, and cp. §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5
§17: 7 §1. So also 7 §6 _ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut
duce_.


VI. PREPOSITIONS.

#Ab# for ‘on leaving,’ as in the poets and Livy: 5 §17 _ne ab illa, in
qua consenuerunt, umbra discrimina velut quendam solem reformident_: cp.
xi. 3, 22: i. 6, 25: Ov. Met. iv. 329: Plin. N. H. xiv. 7, 9. So ἀπὸ in
Homer, Il. viii. 53 Οἱ δ᾽ ἄρα δεῖπνον ἕλοντο καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ Ῥίμφα
κατὰ κλισίας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θωρήσσοντο.

#Circa# does duty in Quintilian for _in_, _de_, _ad_, _erga_, &c.: cp.
the use of περί, ἀμφί with the acc. in Greek. So 1 §52 _utiles circa
praecepta sententiae_: see note _ad loc_.

#Citra# very often stands for _sine_ or _praeter_: e.g. _citra lectionis
exemplum_ 1 §2, where see note: cp. i. 4, 4 _neque citra musicen
grammatice potest esse perfecta_. In Cicero _citra_ is used only of
place.

The following prepositional expressions should also be noted:--

#Ante omnia# = _primum_ 1 §3: 2 §4: 7 §6. In 1 §3 we have _ante omnia_,
_proximum_, _novissimum_: cp. iv. 2, 52 _ante omnia_, _deinde_: iii. 9,
6 _ante omnia_, _deinde_, _tum_, _postremo_.

#Cum eo quod# is used as a transition formula for the Ciceronian
_accedit quod_. A certain case of this usage occurs xii. 10, 47: the
instance at x. 7, 13 has been challenged, but see the note.

#Ex integro#. Quintilian prefers the use of _ex_ in such phrases to
_de_: e.g. x. 1 §20 (where see note): _ex industria_ ib.: and so _ex
abundanti_, _ex professo_, _ex pari_, &c., elsewhere.

#Inter paucos#, ‘as few have ever been’: 3 §13 _inter paucos disertus_.

#Per quae# (_quod_) of agency or instrument: 1 §87 _in iis per quae
nomen est adsecutus_.

#Propter quae# (_quod_) for _quam ob rem_, especially in transitions:
see on 1 §10.

#Praeter id quod# for _praeterquam quod_: see on 1 §28.

#Sine dubio#. The use of this phrase at 1 §51 may possibly be an
instance of the peculiarity noted by Spalding on i. 6, 12, where he
points out that Quintilian frequently makes it stand for _quidem_, in
clauses where the idea is by _sine dubio_ made of less account than some
other statement immediately following, and introduced by _tamen_ or
_sed_ (as i. 6, 12 and 14). Examples are v. 7, 28 _sine dubio ...
tamen_: v. 10, 53 and viii. 3, 67 _sine dubio ... sed_. Applying this to
x. 1, 51 _Verum hic omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae
procul a se reliquit, epicos tamen praecipue_, we might bring out the
construction by rendering, ‘But while of course (or ‘to be sure’) Homer
has out-distanced all rivals, in every kind of eloquence, it is the epic
poets whom he leaves furthest behind.’ Cp. on 3 §15.


VII. CONJUNCTIONS.

Under this head may come #Adde quod#, a phrase which occurs seven times
in Quintilian, five times in the Tenth Book: 1 §§3, 16: 2 §§10, 11, 12:
xii. 1, 4 and 11, 29. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius
Pollio_) remarks that it must be ranked rather with Pollio ad Fam. x.
31, 4 (_adde huc quod_), where _quod_ is to be taken as a conjunction,
than with Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 7, ad Fam. xiii. 41, 1 (_addo etiam illud
quod_), and ad Fam. xvi. 16, 1 (_adde hoc quod_), where _quod_ is a
relative referring to the foregoing demonstrative. The phrase is
originally poetical: it is found in Attius, frequently in Lucretius (i.
847: iii. 827: iv. 1113), in the _Satires_ and _Epistles_ of Horace, and
over and over again in Ovid: Vergil seems to avoid it. Pollio probably
introduced it into prose, and from him it passed to others: Schmalz
refers to Plin. Ep. viii. 14, 3: iii. 14, 6: Sen. 40, 4: Symmach. 2, 7:
4, 71: Fronto, p. 92 N.

#Cum interim# = ‘though all the time.’ See note on 1 §18: cp. § III.

#Dum ... non# stands for _dummodo ... non_ 3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The
usage is poetical. _Dummodo_ does not occur in Quintilian.

#Enim# occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after
a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. _ad profectum enim_ 3 §15: and so
frequently after _sum_,-- 2 §10 _necesse est enim_: 1 §14: 7 §§15, 24: 2
§19. But _nihil enim est_ 1 §78, where Krüger suggests _nihil enim
inest_.

#Etsi#. As it is generally stated that _etsi_ does not occur in
Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i. pr. 19:
i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.

#Ideoque# is constantly used for _itaque_. See note on 1 §21.

#Licet# = _etsi_, as sometimes in Cicero: 1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and passim.

#Quamlibet# and #quamquam#. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses
which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs:
3 §19 _nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato_: cp. viii. 6, 4
_oratione quamlibet clara_: xii. 8, 7 _quamlibet verbose_: xi. 1, 34
_quamquam plena sanguinis_. A similar use of _quamvis_ is less uncommon
in other writers: cp. 1 §74 _quamvis bonorum_: ib. §94 _quamvis uno
libra_ (where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

#Quia# is sometimes used where _quod_ (_eo quod_) might have been
expected: 1 §15 _hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia_: cp. 5 §14
_Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia_ (Halm) _inventionem et
dispositionem pariter exercent_. So i. 6, 39 _nam et auctoritatem
antiquitatis habent_ (sc. _verba a vetustate repetita_) _et, quia
intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant_. Cp. _non quia non_
(with the subjunctive) x. 7, 19 and 31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii.
3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

#Quoque# often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force,
where older writers would have had _vel_ or _etiam_: 1 §20 _ex industria
quoque_: 2 §14 _in magnis quoque auctoribus_: cp. 1 §121 _ceterum
interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum_: ii. II, I _exemplo magni
quoque nominis professorum_.

#Quotiens# = _cum_: 4 §3: 7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76: viii. 3, 55.


For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed
generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often
traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo
wrote to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to
remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment.
But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian
period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent
instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly
constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the
technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such
matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say
clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great
stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is
generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to
take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come
dragging in at the end of a sentence (x. 2 §§13 and 23), and adjectival
or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable
isolation (_vel ob hoc memoria dignum_ 1 §80: _rebus tamen acuti magis
quam_, &c. 1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are
introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80: 2 §28). The thought is
sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the
Tenth Book: cp. 2 §§13 and §§20, 21; 7 §7), because the composition is
not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely
used (see on _nam_ 1 §12: cp. §50, 7 §31: _quidem_ 1 §88), and are
sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly
and abruptly introduced (see on 1 §4: cp. 7 §1). Instances of a more or
less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with:
e.g. 1 §§36, 41, 83, 102. In the order of words there is sometimes the
same departure from customary usage (1 §109, 2 §17), especially in the
case of proper names (1 §86 _Afro Domitio_ for _Domitio Afro_: cp.
_Atacinus Varro_ §87: _Bassus Aufidius_ §103)[71]. Constructions κατὰ
σύνεσιν frequently occur: 1 §65: §105: 7 §25. Under this head may be
included the omission of the subject: 1 §7 _congregat_: §66
_permiserunt_: 7 §4 _malit ... possit_: and of words to be supplied from
the context, 1 §56 _congerentes_: 1 §7 _solitos_: 1 §107 _quibus nihil
ille_: 1 §123 _qui ubique_: 2 §24: 3 §25. In the same way _esse_ is
frequently omitted for the sake of brevity: 1 §17, §66, §90: 4 §1: 5 §6:
7 §7, §23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and
negligent repetition: 1 §§8, 9, 23, 94, 131: 2 §§11-12: 5 §§6-7: 7 §23:
cp. on 2 §23.

    [Footnote 71: Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio,
    p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad
    Fam. x. 32, 5 _Gallum Cornelium_), was first introduced by Varro
    (L. Lat. 5, 83 _Scaevola Quintus_: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 _Libo
    Marcius_). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became
    general in Velleius Paterculus.]

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness
for the use of the perfect subjunctive: 1 §14 _dixerim_: §26 _maluerim_:
§37 _fuerit_, where see note: so even _ut non dixerim_ (_ne dicam_) 1
§77 and _ut sic dixerim_ 2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in
dependent clauses: see on _sciet_ 1 §4, and cp. 2 §§26, 28: 3 §28: 7
§28: also as a mild imperative, 1 §58 _revertemur_: 3 §18 _sequemur_; 2
§1 _renuntiabit_: §23 _aptabimus_. (3) The frequent use of the
infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age:
(_a_) with _verbs_, as _meruit credi_ 1 §72: _qui esse docti adfectant_
§97: _optandum ... fieri_ §127: _si consequi utrumque non dabitur_ 7
§22: _opponere verear_ 1 §101: _intermittere veremur_ 7 §26: cp.
_expertus iuvenem ... habuisse_ 3 §32: for _dubitare_ see on 1 §73:
(_b_) with _adjectives_, _legi dignus_ 1 §96: _contentum id consequi_ 2
§7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund, _ceteraque genera probandi
ac refutandi_ 1 §49: _lex orandi_ 1 §76: _inveniendi_ §69: _sive acumine
disserendi sive eloquendi facultate_ 1 §81: cp. _loquendi_ §83:
_eloquendo_ §106: _nascendi_ 3 §4: _saliendi_ 3 §6: ib. _iaculando_:
_adiciendo_ 3 §32: _emendandi_ 4 §2: _cogitandi_ 7 §25. (5) _Quamquam_
with subjunctive 1 §33: 2 §21: 7 §17: _forsitan_ with indic. 2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) _Anaphora_, or the
repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g.
nulla _varietas_, nullus _adfectus_, nulla _persona_, nulla _cuiusquam
sit oratio_ 1 §55: cp. 1 §§99, 115, 130: 2 §2: 3 §3 (illic _radices_,
illic _fundamenta sunt_, illic _opes_, &c.): §9, §29: 5 §§2, 8: 6 §1;
(2) _Asyndeton_: e.g. _facere_ quam optime, quam facillime _possit_ 1
§4: 2 §16: 6 §6: 7 §§7, 26; (3) _Chiasmus_: 5 §14 (_alitur--renovatur_)
and §15 (_ne carmine--reficiuntur_): 7 §15.


The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or
the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding
paragraph[72]. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans
that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature
than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as
the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea
and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is
generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he
is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce
his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous
times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their
rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and
illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under
the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come
to be looked upon as great national entertainments. Hence it was natural
to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one
striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is
waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than
to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’: _tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea
concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat_, x. 1,
114. The orator must always be on the alert,-- ever ‘ready for battle,’
_in procinctu_ 1 §2 (where see note): if he cannot take prompt action,
he might as well remain in camp,-- _nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit,
auxilium_ 4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand: _id
quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos
putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est_ 2 §§21-2.
Victory must ever be the end in view,-- victory in what is a real
combat, not a sham fight: 1 §§29-30 _nos vero armatos stare in acie et
summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti_: 2 §27 _quam omnia,
etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent_: 1 §79
_Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus_: 1 §31 _totum
opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam
posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur_. The orator must have all the
wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to
be made for show: 1 §33 _dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed
militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius
Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere_: 1 §30
_Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis
esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque
praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti
periculosus_: cp. 1 §60 _cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae,
plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum_: 1 §77 _carnis tamen plus habet
(Aeschines) minus lacertorum_: 2 §12 _quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac
virium declamationes habeant quam orationes_: 1 §115 _verum sanguinem
perdidisse_. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory: 1 §4,
cp. 5 §§19-20 (_iuvenis_) _iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit
certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in
gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur_: 3 §3 _vires
faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non
exhauriantur_. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether
he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his
adversary or succumb to him: cp. 1 §106 _pugnat ille (Demosthenes)
acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere_: §120 _ut esset
multo magis pugnans_. And he must not linger too long over preparatory
exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their
suppleness: 5 §16 _nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse
est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii
cotidiana pugna retundatur_.

    [Footnote 72: See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der
    Beredsamkeit aus der Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten
    Bildlichen Wendungen in der rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero,
    Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau, 1886).]




V.

MANUSCRIPTS.


Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of
Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions:
(1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and (3) the mixed.

The most important representative of the first class is the _Codex
Ambrosianus_, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan. As
we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly a
fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135 _argumenta
acria et cit_. to xii. 11, 22 _antiquitas ut possit_). Halm secured a
new and trustworthy collation of this MS., distinguishing carefully
between the original text and the readings of the second hand.

Although now in the defective condition above indicated, the
_Ambrosianus_ must have been originally complete. In this it differs
from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most valuable
member of which-- the _Bernensis_-- is of even greater importance for
the constitution of the text than the _Ambrosianus_, at least in those
parts which it contains. It is the oldest of all the known manuscripts
of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th century. The peculiarity which it
shares with the other members of its family is that it contains certain
great _lacunae_, which must have existed also in the manuscript from
which it was copied, as they are indicated in the _Bernensis_ by blank
spaces. The size of the first _lacuna_ varies with the fortunes of the
particular codex: in the _Bernensis_ it extends from the beginning to 2
§5 (_licet, et nihilo minus_). The others are identical in all cases: v.
14, 12--viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17--viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2--x. 1, 107
(_nulla contentio_): xi. 1, 71--xi. 2, 33: and xii. 10, 43 to the end.

To the same family as the _Bernensis_ belongs the _Bambergensis_ A,
which was directly copied from the _Bernensis_ not long after the latter
had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the
_Bambergensis_ the great _lacunae_ were, at a very early date, filled in
by another hand (_Bambergensis_ G[73]), this manuscript may now rank in
the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of
the _Harleianus_ (2664), and through the _Harleianus_ of the
_Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, and an innumerable company of others.
Besides reproducing _Bambergensis_ G, these MSS. follow for the most
part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halm #b#) into
the original _Bambergensis_ A. A recent examination of the
_Bambergensis_ has suggested a doubt whether the readings known as #b#,
which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from
the same codex as G.

    [Footnote 73: Halm’s account of this is more accurate than
    Meister’s. The former (Praef. p. viii) says _magnae autem lacunae
    Bernensis pergamenis insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt_. The
    _alius codex_ which the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant:
    it no doubt belonged to the same family as the _Ambrosianus_, and
    _Bambergensis_ G is consequently of first-class importance,
    especially where the _Ambrosianus_ fails us. It is incorrect to say
    (with Meister, Praef. p. vi) _lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice
    insertis expletae sunt_. The writer of G did not mutilate another
    codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on
    the blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.]

Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the
manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for
the parts where he had only the _Ambrosianus_ and the _Bambergensis_ G,
or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since the date of the publication
of his text (1868) great progress has been made with the critical study
of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain and le Coultre published a
collation of the _Nostradamensis_ (see below), the main results of which
have been incorporated in Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical
edition of the First Book of the _Institutio_ (1890) M. Ch. Fierville
has given a most complete account of all the continental manuscripts,
drawing for the purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown
proof of his interest in the subject (_De Quintilianeis Codicibus_,
1874).

There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him
aright in attaching supreme importance to the _Bernensis_ (with
_Bambergensis_ A), the _Ambrosianus_, and _Bambergensis_ G. But much has
been derived from some manuscripts of which he took no account, and
there is one in particular, which has hitherto been strangely
overlooked, and to which prominence is accordingly given in this
edition. Before proceeding to deal with it, I shall annex here a brief
notice of the various MSS. which figure in the Critical Notes, grouped
in one or other of the three divisions given above. An editor of the
Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ is especially bound to travel outside the
rather narrow range of Halm’s critical edition, as so much of the
existing text (down to 1 §107) has been based mainly on _Bambergensis_ G
alone. In addition to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such
MSS. as the _Ioannensis_ at Cambridge, the _Bodleianus_ and
_Balliolensis_ at Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex,
referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th century
manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show to have
been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This part of
the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this country,
what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously accomplished for the
manuscripts of the Continent.

Of the first family, the outstanding example is the _Ambrosianus_. The
resemblances between it and _Bambergensis_ G are sufficient to show that
the manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the
same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like the
_Ambrosianus_ originally), has altogether disappeared: one of the great
objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond the
limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish between
such examples as may seem (like the _Dorvilianus_ at Oxford) to preserve
some of the traditions of the family, and those whose origin may be
clearly traced back to _Bambergensis_ A and G. For all the complete MSS.
of Quintilian in existence must be derived either from this family or
from the mixed group of which the _Bambergensis_, in its present form,
seems to be the undoubted original.

In the second group we must include, not much inferior to the
_Bernensis_, the _Parisinus Nostradamensis_ (N) Bibl. Nat. fonds latin
18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of the
incomplete MS. from which the _Bernensis_ was copied, and as such has a
distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th century. For the
readings of this codex I have been able to compare a collation made by
M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by MM. Chatelain and le
Coultre in 1875.

Then there is the _Codex Ioannensis_ (in the library of St. John’s
College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the
account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in
some particulars. In its present condition it begins with _constaret_
(i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the
sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the
beginning of the second chapter, like the _Nostradamensis_, the
_Vossiani_ 1 and 2, the _Codex Puteanus_, and _Parisinus_ 7721 (see
Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly
_multiplici_, not _ut duplici_, and in this it agrees with the
Montpellier MS. (_Pithoeanus_), which is known to be a copy (11th
century) of the _Bernensis_ (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887).
A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which
the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included
in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they
may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from
which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably
the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) as _tum
in ipsis_ in x. 2, 14, and _virtutis_ ib. §15. It is written in a very
small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the great
_lacunae_, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally
with the _Bernensis_, though there are striking resemblances also to the
_Pratensis_ (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to
are the following:-- x. 3, 1 _sic etiam utilitatis_, for _sic utilitatis
etiam_: ib. §30 _oratione continua_, for _continua oratione_: 5 §8 _alia
propriis alia translatis virtus_, for _alia translatis virtus alia
propriis_: 7 §21 _stultis eruditi_, for _stulti eruditis_: ib. §28
_solum summum_, for _summum solum_. Some of these peculiarities (e.g.
the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.-- the _Vossiani_
i. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these
codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in
which the _Nostradamensis_ heads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may
note also the readings _viderit bona et invenit_ (2 §20), which _Ioan._
shares with _Voss._ iii.: _potius libertas ista_ (3 §24) _Ioan._ and
_Voss._ i.; _ubertate_-- for _libertate_-- (5 §15) _Ioan. Voss._ i. and
iii.

To the same family belongs the _Codex Salmantinus_, a 12th or 13th
century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca.
M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the
Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the
_Bernensis_. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from the
_Nostradamensis_ (most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some
thirty-seven places in which, while differing from the _Nostradamensis_,
it agrees with the _Bernensis_ and the _Bambergensis_. This MS. also
gives _ubertate_ in 5 §15: it agrees in showing the important reading
_alte refossa_ in 3 §2: and resembles the _Ioannensis_ in certain minor
omissions, e.g. _certa_ before _necessitate_ in 5 §15: _idem_ before
_laborandum_ in 7 §4: _et_ before _consuetudo_ in 7 §8: cp. _subiunctura
sunt_ for _subiuncturus est_ 7 §9. For other coincidences see the
Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance
for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the _Codex
Salmantinus_) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are
the _Codex Pralensis_ (No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque
nationale), of the 12th century, and the _Codex Puteanus_ (No. 7719) of
the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the
Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from the _Institutio_
amounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of
which §76 (_de figuris verborum_) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (_de
imitatione_) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (_quomodo dictandum sit_) of x.
3, 1-32; and §79 (_de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum_) of
x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it
is an undoubted transcript of the _Beccensis_, now lost. The _Beccensis_
is supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to
the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at
least equal rank with the _Bernensis_. That it was an independent copy
of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the
_Pratensis_, but also by the fact that both the _Pratensis_ and the
_Puteanus_ (which is also a transcript of the _Beccensis_) show a
_lacuna_ after the word _mutatis_ in x. 3, 32. This _lacuna_ must have
existed in the _Beccensis_, though there is no trace of it elsewhere.
Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the words _correctum fuisse
tabellis_ in his copy (the _Pratensis_): the text runs _codicibus esse
sublatum_.

The general character of the readings of the _Pratensis_ may be gathered
from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume.
Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,-- and it will be
seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm
(notably S) probably arose either from the _Pratensis_ or from its
prototype, the _Beccensis_. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S) _rogantis
Achillen Priami precibus_, while most codd. have _Priami_ before
_rogantis_: ib. §53 _eloquentie_ (so Put. S 7231, 7696) for _eloquendi_:
ib. _superatum_ (so Put.) for _superari_: §55 _aequalem credidit parem_
(as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67 _idque ego_ (as Put. S) for _idque
ego sane_: §68 _qui fuerunt_ and also _vero_, omitted (as in Put. S): so
also _tenebras_ §72, _valuerunt_ §84 (as 7231, 7696), and _veterum_ §97:
at §95 Prat, gives et _eruditissimos_ for _et doctissimos_, and hence
the omission of _erudit._ in S. On the whole, the study of the text of
the _Pratensis_ seems to give additional confidence in the readings
of G: for example §98 _imperare_ (as Put.): §101 _cesserit_ (Put. 7231,
7696): ib. _nec indignetur_. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the
Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the
contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was
originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 _quem superius institui_ for _quem
institueram in libra secundo_ is an indication of the fact that Étienne
de Rouen was making a compendium of the _Institutio_, and not
transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the
significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to the
_Pratensis_, among which may be noted 1 §48 _putat_ for _creditum est_
(where Put. has _certissimum_): §59 _ad exemplum maxime permanebit_ (_ad
exitum_ Put. and S): §78 _propinquior_ for _propior_: §80 _mediocri_ for
_medio_: §81 _assurgit_ for _surgit_: §109 _in utroque_ for _in quoque_.
Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with the _Puteanus_ (and which were
therefore probably in the _Beccensis_) are §46 _in magnis_ for _in
magnis rebus_: §49 _innuit_ for _nuntiat_: §50 _excessit_ for _excedit_:
§54 _ne virtus_ for _ne utrius_ (_neutrius_): §57 _ignoro ergo_ (S) for
_ignoro igitur_: §63 _plurimumque oratio_: §68 _in affectibus communibus
mirus_: §79 _discernendi_ for _dicendi_: §107 _nominis latini_ for
_latini sermonis_. At 1 §72 Prat. has _qui ut a pravis sui temporis
Menandro_ (Put. _ut pravis_), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671
_qui quamvis sui temp_. _Men._ There are frequent inversions, e.g.
_dicendi genere_ §52 (Put.): _Attici sermonis_ (Put.) §65: _plus Attio_
(Put.) §97: _cuicumque eorum Ciceronem_ (as Put. 7231, 7696) §105: _sit
nobis_ §112: _est autem_ (as Ioan.) §115: _forum illustrator_ (as Ioan.)
§122: _creditus sum_ §125: _dignis lectione_ 2 §1: _possumus sperare_
§9: _nemo vero eum_ §10: _aliquo tamen in loco aliquid_ §24: _scientia
movendi_ §27: _ipso opere_ 3 §8: _se res facilius_ §9: _desperatio
etiam_ §14: _vox exaudiri_ §25: _praecipue in hoc_ §26: _possunt semper_
§28[74].

    [Footnote 74: The _Pratensis_ is the oldest authority for the
    reading _tam laesae hercule_ at i. 2, 4: the _Puteanus_ and
    _Ioannensis_ agree. Again all three omit the words _de litteris_ at
    i. 4, 6, and show _praecoquum_ for _praecox_ at i. 3, 3 (so Voss.
    iii. and 7760), and _haec igitur ex verbis_ at i. 5, 2 (so Voss.
    iii.).]

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the _Codex
Puteanus_ is in general agreement with the _Pratensis_, each being an
independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS.
will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book
collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in
agreement than the _Pratensis_ with the later family, of which Halm took
S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61 _spiritu_: ib. _merito_ omitted:
§72 _possunt decernere_ (for _possis decerpere_-- _possis decernere_
Prat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the _Pratensis_,
the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1
§§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of the _Institutio_ must
have formed part of the mutilated original from which the _Beccensis_
was copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1
§§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has
been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of
the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts
from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged
to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides
the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus, _libro Xº Inst.
Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi_. M. Fierville states
(Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1
§§46-68) in the _Pratensis_, _Puteanus_, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight
occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all
four. He adds that the _Vossiani_ i. and iii. resemble the two former
more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the
usual collocation at §50 _illis Priami rogantis Achillen_: at §59 the
former has _ad exim_, the latter _ad exi_: at §61 both give _eum nemini
credit_, omitting _merito_ (as Put. and S): at §68 _namque is et
sermone_ (as Prat.: _namque sermone_ Put.): ib. _in dicendo ac
respondendo_ (Prat. Put. _in dicendo et in resp._): §72 (apparently) _ut
pravis sui temporis iudiciis_: §82 _finxisse sermonem_ (as Prat. Put.
and most codd.): §83 _ac varietate_: §88 _laudandus partibus_
(_laudandis part._ Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91 _visum_ (_visum
est_ Prat. Put.): §98 _senes non parum tragicum_ (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662,
11671): §107 _Latini nominis_: §121 _leve_ (Prat. N). In §98 _Thyestes_
is omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name
was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two
inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696: _dedit exemplum et
ortum_ 1 §46: _proximus aemulari_ §62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS.
which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes
the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_ A, _Ambrosianus_ ii., _Pithoeanus_
(these two are direct copies of the _Bernensis_), _Salmantinus_, three
Paris codices (7720, 7722 and _Didot_), and probably the _Ioannensis_.
In the second he ranks the _Nostradamensis_, _Vossiani_ i. and iii., and
a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the _Beccensis_, _Pratensis_, and
_Puteanus_: in the fourth a _codex Vaticanus_, referred to by Spalding:
and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he
rightly considers the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_, _Nostradamensis_,
_Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_ to be of greatest importance for the
constitution of the text.


At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now
be placed the _Codex Harleianus_ (2664), in the library of the British
Museum[75]. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser in
_Hermathena_ (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to
add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the
relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be
placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the
margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to
supply the great _lacunae_ in some MS. of the first or incomplete class;
one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed
facsimile, _a_ being used at the beginning and _b_ (as here x. 1, 107)
at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188
folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the
beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first
part of the _Bambergensis_ is larger than G, which the _Harleianus_ (H)
closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the
writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later.
There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch.
1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a
blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in
the text.

    [Footnote 75: An account of this important codex has already been
    given in an article on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review,
    February, 1891.]

The result of my investigations has been to identify this important
manuscript with the _Codex Dusseldorpianus_, which we know disappeared
from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface to
his edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who
had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod
sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom
from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long
unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone:
‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios
rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the
Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of
Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with
several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James
Zamboni, Resident _Chargé d’Affaires_ in England for the Elector of
Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford;
and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian
manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the Court
library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with whom
Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.

‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written
elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the
provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair
begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much
dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something
of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s
prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when
pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux
livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724,
when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices,
assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they
would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for
the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez,
Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three
weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to
Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great Vitruvius--
the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly with those in
Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is writing to
Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to make a “très
jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add. D, 66).’

What the history of the _Harleianus_ may have been before it came to
Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl
on the first page: _Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae_. This Mr. Purser
has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The _Codex
Florentinus_ has an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop
Werinharius (the first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of
St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the
library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae
suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis
characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris
ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a
less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly
have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither the
_Florentinus_ nor the _Turicensis_ can be considered identical with the
manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio
discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered
that manuscript in the _Harleianus_, if we can conceive of its having
migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.

  [Transcriber’s Note:
  The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet
  Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location
  was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in
  the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.]

Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238 sqq.), Mr.
A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some very interesting
information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems that Zamboni was
able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS. which he was selling
to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by comparing the Zamboni
correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the posthumous catalogue of
Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered that Büchels was
offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that great scholar,
which in this way ultimately found a home in the library of the British
Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann Wilhelm bought
both his books and his manuscripts. The former he presented to the
library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he retained in his
own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian codex of
Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not to
Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once
referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he
said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd.
p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his ‘Verisimilia,’
iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from the preface to
Book vi, all of which appear in the _Harleianus_ as we have it now. And
as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the library of Cologne
Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad Fam. (Harl. 2682),
Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the same time. He
evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they passed, with
many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to London.

It was only after the _Bambergensis_ arrived in the British Museum
(where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in
courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to
form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by the _Harleianus_ in
regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the experts, that the latter
MS. was distinctly of older date than the former: it is written in a
neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds alone there might have been
room for doubt. But a fuller examination convinced me that the
_Harleianus_ was copied directly from the _Bambergensis_, possibly at
the very time when the latter was being completed by the addition of the
parts known as _Bambergensis_ G, and of some at least of the readings
now generally designated #b#. These latter, indeed, the _Harleianus_
slavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in the original
_Bambergensis_: probably the copyist of the _Harleianus_ was aware of
the importance attached to the codex (uncial?) from which the #b#
readings were taken. In view, however, of the defective state in which
the _Bambergensis_ has come down to us, as regards the opening part, and
considering also the mutilation of the _Ambrosianus_, we may still claim
for the MS. in the British Museum the distinction of being the oldest
complete manuscript of Quintilian in existence.

The proof that the _Harleianus_ stands at the head of the great family
of the _mixed_ manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly
by the _Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, _Almeloveenianus_, and
_Guelferbytanus_) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to
both parts of the _Bambergensis_ on the one hand, and to those later
MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony
to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the
_Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
München_, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of the
_Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ on the _Bambergensis_ by pointing
out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in the text of
both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently
omitted by the copyist of the _Bambergensis_ from their proper context,
were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which
the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52: _circa crimen
Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te]
nihil rectius factum esse dico_. When the copyist of the _Bambergensis_
noticed his mistake, he completed _Drepanitani_ in the text, and wrote
in the words _gaudeo etiam ... abs te_ at the foot of the page, with a
pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In
the _Bambergensis_ the page ends with the words (§54) _an huius ille
legis quam_, and the next page continues _C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam
gloriatur_. Noticing that in both the _Florentinus_ and the _Turicensis_
the marginal addition (_gaudeo etiam ... abs te_) is inserted not after
_legis quam_ but after _Clodius_, Halm drew the inference that these
codices were copied from the _Bambergensis_ not directly, but through
some intervening manuscript. The _Harleianus_ is this manuscript. In it
the words referred to do come in between _legis quam_ and
(_Cloe_)_lius_: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second
hand in the _Bambergensis_, in which the letters C l o e are
subpunctuated, that the _Harleianus_ actually shows _et abs te lius a se
inventa_[76], exactly as the writer of #b# wished the _Bambergensis_ to
stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the _Harleianus_ did not
know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If
I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above the
_Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ (and all other MSS. of this family),
it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that
has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two
obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text stands _utinamque non peiora
vincant. Verum schemata_, &c. In the _Bambergensis_, _utrum nam_ is
supplied by #b# above the line, and in the margin _que peiora vincant
verum_, the words affected by the change being subpunctuated in the
text. The copyist of the _Harleianus_ takes the _utrum nam_ and leaves
the rest, showing _utrum nam schemata_: this appears as _utrim nam
schemata_ in the _Turicensis_, and as _utinam schemata_ in the
_Florentinus_ and _Almeloveenianus_. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in the
_Bambergensis_ (G) _quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque
voces aut] eadem aut diversa_, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are
the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently
omitted by the copyist of the _Harleianus_, and as a consequence we have
_supplici_ in _Turic._ and _Flor._, _supplitia_ in _Guelf._, &c. Again
at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the
_Harleianus_, which caused him to write _Neque vero tantas eum breve
saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae_, &c., has
given rise to the greatest confusion in _Turic._, _Flor._, _Alm._,
_Bodleianus_, _Burn._ 243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand
in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the words _qui foro_
between _breve saltem_ and _tempus_: at this point the copyist of H must
have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in
Bg, where the words _qui foro_ hold a conspicuous position. _Flor._ and
_Tur._ repeat the mistake, except that the latter gives _eum brevem_ for
_eum breve_. Again at the end of Book ix, _Bambergensis_ G gives _ut
numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse
videantur_: this reading is identical with that of the _Harleianus_,
except that the latter for _arcessiti_ gives _arcessisti_, a deviation
promptly reproduced by the _Florentinus_, while the _Turicensis_ shows
_accersisti_. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the
following: at iv. 2, 128 the _Bambergensis_ gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις)
ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh and eighth
letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes this
ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει-- Spalding).

    [Footnote 76: The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand
    by the _Bambergensis_ is a phenomenon which may, I think, be
    explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known as
    #b# are taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and probably
    abounded in contractions: _lius_ may have seemed to the copyist the
    nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he
    subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in the _Bambergensis_ is a very
    intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar
    mistake on the part of the writer of b occurs at x. 2, 7, where the
    Bambergensis now shows _id consequi q̣ụọd imiteris_, the writer of b
    having subpunctuated _quo_ because he did not understand the
    contraction for _quod_ which he had in the text before him. The
    copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the
    remarkable reading _id consequi dimiteris_, which in the Bodleianus
    and other MSS. becomes _de metris_ (see Crit. Note ad loc.). In
    fact, it seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in
    the text of Quintilian is due to the fact that #b# very often did
    not understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as
    followed his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp. _totas at
    cures_ (for _vires_ #b#) _suas_ in the second last line of the
    Facsimile (x. 1, 109.)]

As the _Bambergensis_ (Bg), in its present state, only commences at i.
1. 6. (_nec de patribus tantum_), the readings of the _Harleianus_ (H)
are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance.
In the pr. §1 we have _pertinerent_ H, _pertinent_ T: §2 _diversas_ H,
_divisas_ T: §5 _fieri oratorem non posse_ HF, _fieri non posse
oratorem_ T (as A): §6 _amore_ H, _studio_ F: _iτ ingenii_ H, _iter
ingenii_ T, _ingenii_ F: §13 _officio quoque_ H, _quoque officio_ F: §19
_summa_ H (also Bg), _summam_ T: §25 _demonstraturi_ HF, _demonstrari_
T: §27 _adiumenta_ H (a correction by same hand on _adiuvante_): so
Bg F: _adiuvante_ T. In chap. 1 §3 _sed plus_ HT: _sed et plus_  F: _hoc
quippe viderit_ H Bg F: _hoc quippe_ (om. _viderit_) T.

These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book,
where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there
decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings of
Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact
agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance
of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here
are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 _nihil est peius_ Bg H T,
_nihil enim est peius_ F: ib. §11 _defuerit_ Bg H T, _defuerint_ F: ib.
§12 _perbibet_ Bg H F, _perhibet_ T: ib. §16 _formandam_ Bg H,
_formandum_ F T: 2 §18 _in media rei p. vivendum_ Bg (b) H, _in med. rei
praevivendum_ T, _reip. videndum_ F: ib. §24 _depellendam_ Bg H,
_repellendam_ T: ib. §31 _concipiat quis mente_ Bg H, _quis mente
concipiat_ F: 4 §27 _tereuntur_ Bg H T, _intereuntur_ F: 6 §9 _dicet_
Bg, _dicit_ H F, _dicitur_ T: ib. §14 _dici ceris_ Bg (dici ceris),[A]
_diceres_ H, _dici_ F T: ib. §30 _aliaque quae consuetudini serviunt_ Bg
H,-- in margin of H _aliquando consuetudini servit_ (b): F and T adopt
the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 _haec
ei et cura_ H F, _haec et cura ei_ T: 11 §4 _pinguitudine_ Bg H,
_pinguedine_ F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following:
ii. 5, 13 _dicentur_ Bg H, _docentur_ T: 5 §26 _hanc_ Bg H, om. T: 15 §8
_testatum est_ Bg H, _testatum_ T. In ix. 363 G has _parem_ (for
_marem_ A): H gives _patrem_ and F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8 _hoc est_
G H, _id est_ F: ib. §16 _quoque_ G H, om. T: ib. §32 _nesciat_ G H,
_dubitet_ F: _dignatur_ G H, _digne dicatur_ F: viii. pr. §3 _dicendi_ G
H, _discendi_ T: ix. 4, 119 _ignorabo_ G, _ignoraba_ H, _ignorabam_ T:
ib. §129 _et hac fluit_ G H, _et hac et hac fluit_ T: xii. 11, 8
_scierit_ G, _scieret_ H, _sciret_ T: ib. 2 §18 _autem_ Bg H, om. T: x.
1, §4 _numuro quae_ G H, _num muro quae_ T, _numeroque_ F: ib. §50 _et
philogus_ G, _et philochus_ H T, _et epiloghus_ F: ib. §73 _porem_ G H,
_priorem_ F T: ib. §75 _vel hoc est_ G H, _hoc est vel_ T: x. 2, 7
_posteriis_ (for _historiis_) H, _posteris_ F (_posterius_ ed. Camp.):
x. 2, 10 _discernamus_ Bg, _discernantur_ b, _disnantur_ H T,
_desinantur_ F. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are
the following: _Empedoclena_ i. 4, 4: _vespueruginem_ i. 7, 12:
_tereuntur_ i. 4, 27: _flex his_ x. 1, 2: _gravissimus_ x. 1, 97: _ipsae
illae quae extorque eum credas_ x. 1, 110, where both also give _trans
usum_ for _transversum_, and _non repe_ for non rapi: _morare refinxit
finxit recipit_ x. 3, 6: _nam quod cum isocratis_ x. 4, 4. In other
instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading
of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T
mistakes for _#quo# enim #dandum#_: also _extemporal facilitas_ which
appears in T as _extempora vel facilitas_: x. 1, 79 _ven iudicis_ H (in
mistake for _se non iud._), which is made by T into _venit iudicis_.
Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the
reading _tantum_, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has
evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more like
_tantum_ than _tacitum_ (the reading of G). Again, in every place where
Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to
correspond[77].

    [A (Transcriber’s Note):
    The parentheses around (dici ceris) are in the original text. The
    letters “re” are printed above “ci” in smaller type, and a smaller
    “r” above the “r”.]

    [Footnote 77: The only places in the Tenth Book which form any
    obstacle to the theory that H was copied directly from the
    Bambergensis are the following: x. 3, 33, where the remarkable gloss
    _vindemoni_ occurs (repeated in F but not in T): see Crit. Notes ad
    loc. for an attempted explanation: x. 2, 1 _ex his #summa#_ H, a
    mistake evidently recognised by the copyist himself: and x. 1, 27
    _blandita tum_ H (so L C), _libertate_ G.]

With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt
that the _Harleianus_ must now take rank above both the manuscripts
which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a
place in the criticism of Quintilian, the _Codex Florentinus_ and the
_Codex Turicenis_. The former is an eleventh century MS., now in the
Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this inscription:
_Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae_: on the last _Liber Petri
de Medicis, Cos. fil._: and below _Liber sanctae Mariae ecclesiae
Argñ._ (= Argentoratensis) _in dormitorio_. There were two bishops of
Strasburg bearing the name of Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the
second 1065-1079. M. Fierville (Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first
Werner (of Altemburg or Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral
at Strasburg in 1015, and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable
books; and we also know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at
Frankfort to promote the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here
then we have the elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner
was a patron of letters; and learning that by the addition of what is
now known as _Bambergensis_ G a complete text of Quintilian had been
secured, he had it copied. The _Codex Harleianus_ was in all probability
the first copy, and from it the _Codex Florentinus_ was reproduced. The
latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which (though hitherto it
seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose of its claim to be
considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he describes as ‘plenum situ’
and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo quodam et obscuro carcere,
fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales quidem rei damnati
retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from Strasburg to
St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is hard to believe
that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and unknown. After 1372
we know nothing certain of its history till it reappears in the library
of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part of the fifteenth century.
It is generally supposed that some time between 1372 and 1417 it must
have been transported from Strasburg to the monastery of St. Gall, and
that it passed from there to Florence after Poggio’s departure.
A similar theory may quite as legitimately be maintained in reference to
the _Harleianus_, which, as I have already indicated, may be the very
manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 1416[78].

    [Footnote 78: The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s
    manuscript was definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in the
    _Rheinisches Museum_, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid
    refers to a Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would
    probably settle the question, if it is what it professes to be, a
    transcript of Poggio’s manuscript. It bears the following
    inscription: _Scripsit Poggius Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae
    diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante. Reperimus vero eum in
    bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures litterarum studiosi
    perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo plurimum utilitalis
    eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea Quintilianum neque
    integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis haberemus. Hec
    verba ex originali Poggii sumpta._]

The _Codex Turicensis_ was long considered to be of older date than the
_Florentinus_, but recent investigations seem to have proved the
contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the eleventh century,
and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the beginning of the eighteenth
century it passed into the library at Zürich. Spalding believed it to be
the manuscript discovered by Poggio, and M. Fierville is of the same
opinion: Halm rejects this theory. The great point in favour of the
claim of the _Turicensis_ is that it is known to have come from
St. Gall, while we can only conjecture the history of the _Harleianus_.
But the _Turicensis_ cannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with
him into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and
others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what
Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he
has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including
the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of
Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree
of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition,
Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of the
librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was the
_Harleianus_ there is perhaps little need to wonder that nothing has
been known till now of its later fortunes[79].

    [Footnote 79: For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the
    Florentinus see Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der
    Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville,
    Introduction, p. xcii. sqq.]


The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also the
_Almeloveenianus_) to the codices which have just been described, may be
determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among such
MSS. is the _Codex Bodleianus_, which has received more attention from
editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to warrant. It repeats
word for word the remarkable error attributable to the _Harleianus_ at
x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in other places it embodies attempted
emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90 _nec ipsum senectus maturavit_: 2 §7 _de
metris_ for _dimiteris_ (see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to
Archbishop Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.

Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm, the
_Lassbergensis_ and the _Monacensis_. The former was formerly at
Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The reading _atque
interrogationibus atque interrogantibus_, which Halm gives from it alone
at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G and H; this seems quite enough to
identify its parentage. The _Monacensis_ was collated by Halm for his
critical edition in the parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone:
with no conspicuous results,-- ‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut
docere possemus, ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter
corrupti sunt, emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).

Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the British
Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of this
edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its
class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the
copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of
the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove
that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it has
_posterius_ for _historiis_ (a mistake in H-- see p. lxix): and in the
same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex) _de metris_ for
_dimiteris_. This is also the reading of the second hand in the
_Turicensis_. Such differences as exist between it and H F T may be
ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g. _vertere latus_ x. 3, 21.
Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at the end of the volume.

The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to
him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and
fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them
among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they
incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of
scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript.
A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the point
of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived, through
Poggio’s manuscript, from the _Bambergensis_, and how far from such
complete manuscripts as the _Ambrosianus_ and the original of
_Bambergensis_ G? Some of them (as well as other fifteenth century MSS.,
with a description of which I desire to supplement M. Fierville’s
Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of at least as great importance as those
referred to above as having been collated in part by Halm.

The _Argentoratensis_ (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it
was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 1698[80]. This manuscript was
destroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there
are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (_Codex Guelferbytanus_), collated for the
first time by Spalding: the _Codex Gothanus_, used by Gesner for his
edition of 1738: the _Codex Vallensis_ (Parisinus 7723), which purports
to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla (9 December, 1444), whose
corrections and marginal notes it contains[81]. The list of these and
several others, all carefully described by M. Fierville, may now be
extended by a short reference to various MSS. in this country, hitherto
uncollated. The results of my examination of them (as well as of the
_Bodleianus_, and _Burneianus_ 243, referred to above) appear in the
Critical Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may
at least be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and
Meister have successively credited the early printed editions,-- e.g.
the Cologne edition of 1527,-- have now been attributed to earlier
sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS. of
France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some
importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a
description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.

    [Footnote 80: Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the
    following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right
    reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement-- §19
    _digerantur_ (G H _dirigantur_, L _dirigerantur_): §27 _blandicia_,
    so Burn. 243 (G _libertate_, H L _blandita tum_): §55 _sed_ (G H
    _et_, om. L): §65 _tamen quem_ (G H _tamen quae_: M _tamquam_): §66
    _correctas_ (G H _rectas_, M _correptas_): §67 _uter_ (G H M T
    _uterque_): §68 _reprehendunt_ (G H M _reprehendit,-- et_ H ?): §69
    _testatur_ (as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.,
    Dorv.), G M _praestatur_ (as Burn. 243, Bodl.): §76 _in eo tam_
    (G _inectam_, M _in hoc tam_).]

    [Footnote 81: See note on the following page.]

In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’s
_Institutio_: of the most important of these, the _Harleianus_ (H),
I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s
collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS.
two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each
other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of
relationship to such codices as the _Argentoratensis_ and the
_Guelferbytanus_. The first of these two MSS. (_Codex Harleianus_ 2662)
has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus
‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,--
only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an
advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T,
that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The
same may be said of the _Codex Harleianus_ 11,671, a beautiful little
quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see
Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors
will suffice to connect both these MSS. with the _Guelferbytanus_: x. 3,
12 _a patrono suo_ for _a patruo suo_: 1 §97 _verum_ for _veterum_: 1
§55 _equalem credidit parem_ (as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i. and
iii.): 1 §72 _quamvis sui temporis Menandro_ for _ut pravis sui temporis
iudiciis Menandro_: 7 §6 _adducet ducetur_. Another very interesting MS.
in the British Museum is _Harleianus_ 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it
contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced
at the time, and might be classed along with the _Vallensis_ were it not
that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most
codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘_hic deficit antiquus codex_,’ makes it
probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side[82]. This
MS. agrees with the _Vallensis_ and _Gothanus_ in reading _cognitioni_
for _cogitationi_ x. 1, 1: _ubertate_ for _ubertas_ 1 §109: _et vis
summa_ §117: _eruendas_ for _erudiendas_ 2 §6: _nobis efficiendum_ ib.
§14: _decretoriis_ 5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829)
present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them
in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was
written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with the
_Lassbergensis_. The latter finishes with the words ἡ βίβλος τοῦ
σωζομένου and the motto ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of the _Burneianus_ 244
are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general
agreement with L, and also with the _Codex Carcassonensis_, a fifteenth
century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.

    [Footnote 82: Since the above was written the readings of the
    _Vallensis_ have been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher
    (_Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_, Easter, 1891).
    With the exception of _Harl._ 4995, no other fifteenth century codex
    furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate
    whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship
    since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that the _Vallensis_ and
    _Harl._ 4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s
    belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter
    was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher
    desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in the
    _Vallensis_. Those not adopted in _Harl._ 4995 were made, in all
    probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23 _utile erit_
    (_Vall._²) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also has
    _audatiora_ 5 §4: _nobis ac_ and _uno genere_ ib. §7: _virtutum_ ib.
    §17: _recidere_ ib. §22: _diligenter effecta_, (without _una enim_)
    ib. §23: _iniicere_ 7 §29. In all these places there are corrections
    by a later hand in the _Vallensis_. But in the following passages,
    among others, the copyist of _Harl._ 4995 adopts corrections which
    had already been made in the _Vallensis_: 1 §9 _quae cultiore in
    parte_: §19 _iteratione_: §31 _molli_: §38 _exequar_: §107 _qui duo
    plurimum affectus valent_: §117 _et vis summa_: §125 _tum_: 2 §15
    _dicunt_: §17 _quam libet_: 3 §2 _et fundit_: §6 _scriptorum_: §17
    _contextis quae fudit levitas_: §21 _simul vertere latus_: §31
    _crebra relatione_: 5 §12 _de reo_: §25 _utilior_. A comparison of
    the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer of
    _Harl._ 4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in the
    _Vallensis_. Was he J. Badius?]

A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of
which (the _Codex Balliolensis_) is unclassed by Fierville, while the
other (the _D’Orville_ MS.) has never been examined at all. The former
was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at _bis vitiosa
sunt_ i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond
with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated
condition. In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first
chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words
_quam quod somno supererit_: it stops abruptly at _nostrorumque
Hort(ensium)_ x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662.
I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has _interrogatione_, a reading which
Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529:
ib. §69 it has _e rep_ with A and 7727, with the latter of which it is
in close correspondence (e.g. _forte_ at i. 5, 15, all other codices
_forsan_ or _forsitan_).

There remains the _D’Orville_ MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (_Codex
Dorvilianus_),-- a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except
for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of the _Institutio_
(1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it
shows a remarkable resemblance to the _Ambrosianus_ (e.g. _Getae_ 1 pr.
§6: _et quantum_ ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has _summam inde eloquentiae_
(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): _destinabamus al.
festinabimus_ ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A).
Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it
gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received
into the text: _neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis_:
in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has _quos eligamus ad imitandum_, a
reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with
the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the
fifteenth century,-- earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than the _Codex
Bodleianus_. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must
have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as
if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have
_quaestio ex his incidat_ except A, which gives _ex his incidat
quaestio_: the reading in the _Dorvilianus_ is _quaestio incidat ex
his_: again at i. 2, 6 _ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus_, many
codices give _mores_ for _os_: Dorv. shows _quam vel mores vel os_.


List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.

Besides the complete editions of SPALDING, ZUMPT, BONNELL, HALM (1868-9)
MEISTER (1886-87), use has been made of the following editions of
Book x.:--

  M. STEPHANUS RICCIUS.                  Venice, 1570.
  C. H. FROTSCHER.                      Leipzig, 1826.
  M. C. G. HERZOG.              2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.
  G. A. HERBST.                           Halle, 1834.
  JOHN E. B. MAYOR (incomplete).      Cambridge, 1872.
  BONNELL-MEISTER.                       Berlin, 1882.
  G. T. A. KRÜGER.              2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.
    „     „   (Gustav Krüger)   3rd ed.    „     1888.
  FR. ZAMBALDI.                         Firenze, 1883.
  S. DOSSON.                              Paris, 1884.
  D. BASSI.                              Torino, 1884.
  J. A. HILD.                             Paris, 1885.
  F. MEISTER (text only).    Leipzig and Prague, 1887.
  FRIEZE (Books x. and xii.)           New York, 1889.

Among the Translations, reference has been made to LINDNER’S
(_Philologische Klassiker_, Wien, 1881), ALBERTI’S (Leipzig, 1858), and
HERZOG’S (Leipzig, 1829); also to GUTHRIE’S (London, 1805), and WATSON’S
(in BOHN’S series).


The following have been used as books of reference:--

  WILKINS: Cicero, _De Oratore_, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.) Oxford,
    1888 and 1890.
  SANDYS: Cicero, _Orator_.    Cambridge, 1889.
  KELLOGG: Cicero, _Brutus_.    Boston, 1889.
  WOLFF: Tacitus, _Dialogus de Oratoribus_.    Gotha, 1890.
  ANDRESEN:  „               „  Leipzig, 1879.
  REISKE: Dionysius Halicarnassensis.    Vols. v-vi. Leipzig, 1775-7.
  USENER: Dionysius Halicarnassensis _Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae,
    Epistulaeque Criticae Duae_.    Bonn, 1889.
  AMMON: _De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus:
    Dissertatio Inauguralis_.    Munich, 1889.
  VOLKMANN: _Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer_.    2nd ed. Leipzig,
    1885.
  CAUSERET: _Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique
    Littéraire dans Cicéron_.    Paris, 1886.
  and FIERVILLE: _Quintilian_, Book i.    Paris, 1890.

The references to Nägelsbach’s _Lateinische Stylistik_ are to the eighth
edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).


The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of
Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent
years. The following articles and tractates have been consulted:--

  CLAUSSEN: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.    Leipzig, 1883.
  NETTLESHIP: _Journal of Philology_, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq.
  BECHER: _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.
    „     _Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit.
          Or._ (_Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu
          Ilfeld_).    Nordhausen, 1879.
    „     _Philologus XLV_.
    „     _Philologische Rundschau_, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.
    „     _Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich_.
              Ostern, 1891.
  KIDERLIN: _Blätter für das bayer_. _Gymn.-Wesen_, 1887, p. 454;
          1188, pp. 83-91.
     „    _Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik_, vol. 135,
          pp. 829-832.
     „    _Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen_, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.
     „    _Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1888, p. 829 sqq.
     „    _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin_, xiv. (1888),
          p. 62 sqq.
     „    _Hermes_, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.
     „    _Rheinisches Museum_, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.

  HIRT: _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin_, viii. (1882),
          p. 67 sqq.; ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq.; xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq.

    „   _Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian_.
            Berlin, 1890.
  MEISTER: _Philologus_, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876),
            p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.:
            xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.
  SCHÖLL: _Rheinisches Museum_, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv.
            (1880), p. 639.
  WÖLFFLIN: _Rheinisches Museum_, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq.
     „      _Hermes_, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.
  ANDRESEN: _Rheinisches Museum_, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.
  EUSSNER: _Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen_, 1881, p. 391 sqq.
  FLECKEISEN’S _Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1885, p. 615 sqq. _Literar.
            Centralblatt_, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.
  GERTZ: ‘_Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa_’
            (1876), p. 92 sqq.
  H. J. MÜLLER: _Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen_, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq.
  IWAN MÜLLER: _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.;
            vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.
  WROBEL: _Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien_, xxvii. (1876),
            p. 353 sqq.
  TÖRNEBLADH: _De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones_.
                Holmiae, 1861.
  REUTER: _De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae
            eloquentiae_.    Vratislaviae, 1887.
  GÜNTHER: _De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu_.
                Halis Saxonum, 1881.
  MORAWSKI: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.    Posnaniae, 1874.
  MARTY: _De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis
            potissimum comparatis_.    Glaronae, 1885.
  PETERS, Dr. HEINRICH: _Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in
            Quintilians Institutio Oratoria_.    Cassel, 1889.


Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of
Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).

    _Halm._
      _Meister._
        _This Edition._

  CHAP. I
  §1
    cogitationi
      cognitioni
        cognitioni.
  §2
    quae quoque sint modo
      quo quaeque sint modo
        quae quoque sint modo.
    nisi tamquam
      nisi tamquam
        nisi tamen.
  §3
    ante omnia est
      ante omnia necesse est
        ante omnia est.
    imitatio est
      imitatio est
        imitati.
  §4
    procedente opere iam minima
      procedente iam opere etiam minima
        procedente iam opere minima.
  §5
    Num ergo
      Non ergo
        Non ergo.
  §7
    [et] ... scio solitos
      et ... solitos scio
        et ... solitos scio.
    aliud quod
      aliud quo
        aliud quo.
  §8
    consequimur
      consequemur
        consequemur.
  §11
    τροπικῶς [quare tamen]
      τροπικῶς quasi tamen
        as Meister.
  §16
    imagine [ambitu]
      [imagine] ambitu
        imagine et ambitu.
  §17
    commodata
      accommodata
        accommodata.
  §18
    placent ... laudantur ... placent
      placeant ... laudentur ... placent
        as Halm.
  §19
    contrarium
      e contrario
        e contrario.
    ut actionis impetus
      as Halm
        actionis impetu.
    retractemus
      retractemus
        tractemus.
  §23
    quin etiam si
      [quin] etiam si
        as Halm.
  §28
    genus * * ostentationi
      poeticam ostentationi
        as Meister.
  §31
    etenim ... solutum est
      est enim ... solutum
        as Meister.
  §33
    ideoque
      adde quod
        adde quod.
  §35
    acriter et
      acriter _Stoici_ et
        as Meister.
  §37
    qui sint _legendi_, quaeque
      qui sint _legendi_, et quae
        qui sint _legendi_, quae.
  §38
    quibuscum vivebat
      as Halm
        [quibuscum vivebat].
    Graecos omnis [et philosophos]
      Graecos omnes _persequamur_ [et philosophos]
        as Meister.
  §42
    ad phrasin
      ad faciendam etiam phrasin
        ad faciendam φράσιν.
     de singulis
      de singulis loquar
        de singulis loquar.
  §44
    tenuia et quae
      tenuia et quae
        tenuia atque quae.
    summatim, a qua
      summatim, quid et a qua
        as Meister.
    paucos enim (sunt autem em.)
      paucos (sunt enim em.)
        paucos enim, qui sunt em.
  §45
    his simillimi
      his similes
        his simillimi.
  §46
    _omnium_ amnium fontiumque
      amnium fontiumque
        omnium _fluminum_ fontiumque.
  §48
    non _in_ utriusque
      non utriusque
        non utriusque.
    creditur
      creditum est
        creditum est.
  §53
    aliud _parem_
      aliud secundum
        aliud secundum.
  §54
    Aristophanes neminem
      Arist. poetarum iudices neminem
        as Meister.
  §59
    dum adsequamur
      dum adsequamur
        dum adsequimur.
  §61
    spiritus magnificentia
      spiritus magnificentia
        spiritu magnificentia.
  §63
    magnificus et dicendi vi
      magnificus et diligens
        magnificus et diligens.
  §68
    quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt
      quod ipsum reprehendunt
        as Meister.
  §69
    praecipuus est. Admiratus
      praecipuus. eum admiratus
        praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.
  §70
    illa mala iudicia
      as Halm
        illa iudicia.
  §72
    pravis
      pravis
        prave.
  §79
    honesti studiosus, in compositione
      honesti studiosus in compositione
        as Halm.
  §80
    is primus
      is primum
        is primum.
  §81
    orationem quam
      orationem quam
        orationem et quam.
    sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus
      sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus
        sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.
  §83
    eloquendi vi ac suavitate
      eloquendi suavitate
        eloquendi suavitate.
  §85
    haud dubie ei proximus
      as Halm
        haud dubie proximus.
  §87
    phrasin
      phrasin
        φράσιν.
  §88
    propiores
      propriores (?)
        propiores.
  §89
    tamen [ut est dictum]
      tamen ut est dictum
        as Meister.
  §90
    sed ut dicam
      et ut dicam
        et ut dicam.
  §91
    promptius
      propius
        propius.
  §92
    feres
      feras
        feres.
  §93
    elegia
      elegia
        elegea.
  §94
    nisi labor
      non labor
        non labor.
    multum eo est tersior
      as Halm
        multum est tersior.
  §96
    opus * * quibusdam interpositus
      opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus
        as Meister.
  §97
    grandissimi
      clarissimi
        clarissimi.
  §100
    linguae
      linguae
        linguae _suae_.
  §101
    commodavit
      commodavit
        commendavit.
    T. Livium
      T. Livium
        Titum Livium.
  §102
    ideoque illam immortalem
      ideoque immortalem
        ideoque immortalem.
    clari vir ingenii
      clari vir ingenii
        clarus vi ingenii.
  §103
    praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam
    suis ipse viribus minor
      praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam
      suis ipse viribus minor
        praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam
        suis ipse viribus minor.
  §104
    et ornat
      et ornat
        et exornat.
  §106
    omnia denique
      omnia denique
        [omnia] denique.
    illic--hic
      illi--huic
        illi--huic.
  §107
    vicimus
      vincimus
        vincimus.
    in quibus nihil
      quibus nibil
        quibus nihil.
  §111
    nihil umquam pulchrius
      nihil pulchrius
        nihil pulchrius.
  §115
    si quid adiecturus fuit
      as Halm
        si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.
  §117
    et fervor, sed
      et sermo purus, sed
        et fervor, sed.
  §123
    scripserunt
      scripserunt
        scripserint.
  §126
    ab eo
      ab eo
        ab illo.
  §127
    ac saltem
      aut saltem
        ac saltem.
  §130
    si ille quaedam contempsisset
      si aliqua contempsisset
        si obliqua contempsisset.
    si parum * *
      si parum _sana_
        si parum _recta_.
  §131
    potest utcumque
      potest utrimque
        potest utrimque.

  CH. II.
  §6
    tradiderint
      tradiderint
        tradiderunt.
  §8
    nulla est ars
      nulla mansit ars
        nulla _man_sit ars.
  §13
    [et] cum
      cum et
        cum et.
    accommodata est
      accommodata sit
        accommodata sit.
  §15
    et a doctis inter ipsos etiam
      as Halm.
        et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.
    ut ita dixerim
      ut ita dixerim
        ut sic dixerim.
  §17
    Attici scilicet
      Atticis scilicet
        Attici sunt scilicet.
    obscuri
      obscuri sunt
        obscuri.
  §22
    cuique proposita
      as Halm
        cuique proposito.
  §28
    deerant
      deerunt
        deerunt.
    oportebat
      oporteat
        oporteat.

  CH. III.
  §2
    alte effossa
      alte refossa
        alte refossa.
    et fundit
      et fundit
        effundit
  §10
    [ut provideamus] et efferentis.
      ut provideamus et eff.
        ut provideamus, effer.
  §15
    plura celerius
      plura celerius
        plura et celerius.
  §20
    in legendo
      in intellegendo
        in intellegendo.
  §21
    femur et latus
      as Halm.
        frontem et latus.
  §22
    secretum quod dictando
      as Halm
        secretum in dictando.
  §25
    velut * rectos
      velut tectos
        velut tectos.
  §32
    adiciendo
      adicienti
        adiciendo.

  CH. IV.
  §3
    finem habeat
      finem habet
        finem habet.

  CH. V.
  §4
    praesumunt eandem
      praes. eandem
        praes. eadem.
  §17
    inanibus _se_ simulacris ... adsuefacere
      inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere
        as Meister.
  §18
    etiam M. Porcio
      etiam Porcio
        etiam M. Porcio.
  §21
    autem is idoneus
      autem idoneus.
        autem idoneus.

  CH. VI.
  §2
    inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur
      inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur
        as Meister.
  §5
    regredi
      regredi
        redire.
  §7
    retrorsus
      retrorsum
        retrorsus.
    si utcumque
      si utrimque
        si utrimque.

  CH. VII.
  §1
    instar portus
      intrare portum
        intrare portum.
  §2
    statimque, si non succurratur
      statimque, si non succurratur
        statimque si non succuratur.
  §5
    quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps
      as Halm
        quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.
  §6
    via dicet, ducetur
      via ducetur, dicet
        via dicet, ducetur.
  §9
    observatione simul
      observatione una
        observatione una.
  §13
    superfluere video: quodsi
      videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si
        superfluere video, cum eo quod si.
  §14
    ut Cicero dictitabant
      ut Cicero ait, dictitabant
        ut Cicero dictitabant.
  §17
    adeo praemium
      adeo pretium
        adeo pretium.
  §20
    tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut
      tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut
        tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.
    non capitur
      non capitur
        non labitur.
  §24
    quam omnino non
      quam non omnino
        quam non omnino.
  §26
    est et illa
      est et illa
        est alia.
  §26
    quam illa
      quam in illa
        quam illa.
  §29
    nescio an utrumque
      nescio an si utrumque
        as Meister.
    id efficere
      id efficere
        sic dicere.
    in his
      in his
        et in his.
  §32
    quod simus
      quod non simus
        quod non simus.




ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT.


CHAPTER I.

_How to acquire a command of Diction._

§§1-4. The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired
by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical
importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically
most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose
of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and
ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v).
That is the order of development-- not necessarily the order of
importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in the
first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric,
but with the best methods of applying theory to practice.

§§5-15. The necessary store of _things_ and _words_ can be obtained only
by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the
best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock
of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the
student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the
schools.

§§16-19. The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former
more ‘catching,’ the latter more independent.

§§20-26. The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow
and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of
speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also
acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches
relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the
same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a
masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we
cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err
on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to
continual fault-finding.

§§27-30. The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring
a greater elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a
pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical
aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever
strive for the mastery.

§§31-34. History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which
should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often
defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas
the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine
of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is
rather outside the scope of the present chapter.

§§35-36. Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics
and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must
bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that
of the law-court.

§§37-42. In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to
notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be
said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,--
at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some
branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to
recommend what is profitable for the formation of style.

§§43-46. Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word
must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and
critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are
prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation
and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those
who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other.
The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models:
it does not profess to be exhaustive.


§§46-84. GREEK LITERATURE.

§§46-72. Greek Poetry.

§§46-61. _Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry
proper._

The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible to
rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of
the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus,
Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac
poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Of _iambographi_
the typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief lyric poets are
Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and Simonides (§64).

§§65-72. _Dramatic poetry._

The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of
political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the
orator than any other class of poetry,-- always excepting Homer.

Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides:
of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was
imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might alone
suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other comic
dramatists.

§§73-75. Greek Historians.

The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of
Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and
others.

§§76-80. Greek Orators.

Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either
too much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less
muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important
causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river.
Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle:
in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last
Athenian worthy of the name of orator.

§§81-84. Greek Philosophers.

Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds
the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that
‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike
for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and
versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of
his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their
strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect.


§§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.

§§85-100. Roman Poetry.

§§85-92. _Epic Poets._

Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet
does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even
Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and
Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some
merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius
is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than
beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our
special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets
his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus
fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of
Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately
lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also
failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth
reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for
orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of
the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the
compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire,
are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is
entwined with the conquering bay.’

§§93-96. _Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry._

In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is,
in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more
uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own.
Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate
such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace.
Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince
of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive
will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote _saturae_ of the
earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has
made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate
form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our
great lyric poet,-- everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in
his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living
authors of greater merit.

§§97-100. _Dramatic Poetry._

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of
thought and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they
lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s
_Thyestes_ may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s _Medea_ shows what
he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius
Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy
is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and
Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps
our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek,
is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of _togatae_, but
his is not a pure art.

§§101-104. Roman Historians.

In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides,
Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and
transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and
appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion,
especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different
but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus
did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of
our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not
mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent
spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and
expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only
giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.

§§105-122. Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make
a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is
worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other:
in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more
diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other
often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a
greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was
perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the
genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar
‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to
him. He is however no mere imitator,-- ‘no cistern of rain-water, but a
living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his
audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a
partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is
natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his
name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high
appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far
behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a
century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force.
Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe
his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius
has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some
preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous
self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral,
weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist;
and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his
enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches.
Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and
wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer
and Africanus rank highest: the former might be classed with the orators
of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and
over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal
advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for
private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough
to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too
little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good
qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many
subjects of eulogy.

§§123-131. Roman Philosophers. Though we are not strong in philosophy,
yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is
greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has
written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will
be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight,
but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in
every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of
disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I
strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his
imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on
special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is
shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but
a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young,
but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may
find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had
nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.


CHAPTER II.

_Of Imitation._

§§1-3. While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be
acquired by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the
foregoing chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of
all the good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of
imitation in art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of
imitation has its dangers.

§§4-13. Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing
but imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of
training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We
ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation
alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does
not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much
in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to
natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate
the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the
fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be
an adaptation of sound to sense.

§§14-18. Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great
circumspection must be used,-- first in the choice of models, and,
secondly, in determining the good points we would seek to reproduce; for
even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference
between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is
represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation
becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and
insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and
point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above
Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison
with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian,
delighted if they can finish off a sentence with _Esse videatur_.

§§19-21. The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify
him to imitate. A bold rugged style, for example, is appropriate to the
form of genius which would make shipwreck by an excessive affectation of
refinement. It is of course within the province of the teacher to supply
the natural defects of his pupils; but it is a far harder matter to
mould and form one’s own nature. Even the teacher will not keep up a
prolonged struggle against obstacles of natural disposition.

§§21-26. In oratory we ought not to imitate the characteristic qualities
of poets and historians, and _vice versa_: each kind of composition has
its own appropriate laws. Let us imitate what is common to eloquence in
all its manifestations. We must adapt our style to the topic and
occasion: even different parts of one and the same speech call for
different treatment. And we should not blindly follow any one model
exclusively.

§§27-28. Imitation must not be confined to words only: we should study
also propriety, arrangement, exordium, narrative, argument, pathos, &c.
The perfect orator, whom our age may hope to see, will be he who shall
unite all the good qualities of his predecessors and reject all the bad.


CHAPTER III.

_How to Write._

§§1-4. _Introductory to the three chapters on Writing: chs. iii. and iv.
treating of the manner of writing_ (quomodo), _and ch. v. of the matter
and form of writing_ (quae maxime scribi oporteat §4). The pen is the
best teacher: write much and carefully. Writing is a fundamental part of
the orator’s training.

§§5-18. As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate
and slow, with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and
the arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to
careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of
inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well,
and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is
advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to
overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of
carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also
necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly
in any given circumstances. The evil results of hasty composition can
seldom be undone even by much verbal correction. Your work should be
done with so much care from the first that it may need only to be filed
and chiselled, not recast.

§§19-27. Condemnation of the fashionable practice of dictating to an
amanuensis. He who writes for himself, no matter how rapidly, takes time
to think; but your scribe hurries you on, while shame forbids you to
pause. Such compositions reflect neither a writer’s care nor a speaker’s
animation: your one idea is to ‘keep going.’ Besides, an awkward scribe
will check the current of your thoughts. And how absurd it is to have
him looking on at the gestures which often accompany and stimulate the
process of cogitation! On the other hand, while silence and solitude are
helpful, rural seclusion and attractive scenery cannot be said to favour
concentration: closed doors are better. Night hours are the best, but
only in moderation.

§§28-30. But solitude cannot always be secured: those who cannot command
it must habituate themselves to rise superior to every distraction. They
who only study when in the humour will never want an excuse for
idleness. It is possible to think, and to prepare for debate, in a
crowd, on a jury, and even amid the noise and confusion of the
law-courts.

§§31-33. The proper writing materials: wax-tablets to be preferred to
parchment. Write on one side only, and leave the other for additions and
corrections.


CHAPTER IV.

_Of Revision._

§§1-2. The three parts of revision are addition, excision, and
alteration. It is best to lay aside for a time what has been written: an
interval after each new birth will furnish the best safeguard against
excessive parental fondness.

§§3-4. But time is not always at command. There must obviously be some
limit to revision, especially on the part of the orator, who has to meet
the needs of the moment. Not all changes are improvements: let the file
polish the work, instead of rubbing it all away.


CHAPTER V.

_What to Write._

§§1-8. The question now, as distinguished from the preliminary courses
laid down in Books i. and ii., is what form of composition we should
practise in order to acquire copiousness and readiness. First,
translation from the Greek: this exercise leaves the writer free to
choose the best terms in his own language. Second, reproduction (or
paraphrase) of Latin poets and orators: here, however, we often have to
borrow from our models. Prose renderings of the poets are especially
useful for the formation of an elevated style. And even in reproducing
orations, we are stimulated to a kind of rivalry with our author, which
may result in our surpassing him: in any case, the difficulty of
competing with masterpieces forces us to study them minutely.

§§9-11. It will be of advantage also to put our own ideas into various
forms of expression, and to cultivate the faculty of amplifying: power
is shown in making much of little.

§§11-16. Here the writing of _theses_ (or discussions of abstract
questions) forms a valuable exercise: also judicial decisions and
commonplaces. The writing of declamations, or school speeches on
fictitious cases, is also to be recommended, even for those who are
already making a name at the bar. History, dialogue, and poetry are all
valuable by way of variety and recreation: a many-sided culture is the
best safeguard against such intellectual narrowness as would otherwise
result from the daily battles of the law-courts.

§§17-20. Young students must not be kept too long at these preparatory
exercises, lest by indulging the fancy overmuch they unfit themselves
for practice. After a youth has been well schooled in _inventio_ and
_elocutio_, and has had also some moderate amount of practice, he should
attach himself to some eminent public speaker, and accompany him to the
courts: he should write speeches, too, at home on the causes he has
heard. He has no longer to fence with foils.

§§21-23. Declamations should resemble real speeches: the subject should
be treated naturally and thoroughly. Large classes and the custom of
public speech-days tend to encourage a specious showiness, in which only
the most popular and attractive parts of a subject are dealt with, and
crowded together without regard to logical connection. One subject,
thoroughly handled, is worth twenty superficially treated.


CHAPTER VI.

_Of Meditation._

§§1-4. Meditation occupies the middle ground between writing and
improvisation, and is perhaps more frequently employed than either.
_After_ we have formed our style by the constant practice of writing,
meditation can be cultivated by progressive exercise to such a degree
that an entire discourse may be prepared and arranged without the use of
the pen.

§§5-7. But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has
thought out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the
actual delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one
hand, from ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us
from improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence.
If we are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in
thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation. While we are
at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others suggested by
the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than can possibly
be covered by previous meditation.


CHAPTER VII.

_Of Extempore Speech._

§§1-4. The richest fruit of study is the ability to speak effectively on
the spur of the moment: this is in fact absolutely indispensable. ‘An
advocate who proffers help, and fails at the pinch, is a harbour
accessible only in calm weather.’ Cases may take unforeseen turns: like
ship-pilots we must change our tack with each shifting breeze. Unless
the faculty of improvisation can be attained by practice, our years of
labour will have been wasted.


Certain Practical Exercises conducive to Success in Extempore Speech.

§§5-7. (1) The student must arrange his matter in appropriate order,--
not only the order of the regular _partes_ or divisions (i.e.
introduction, narrative, proof, refutation, conclusion), and the order
of the principal points, but also the order of the matter and thought in
all its detail, under every head and in every passage (quoque loco). The
sequence of events will be our guide. Knowing what to look for at each
point of our discourse, we shall not be found skipping from one topic to
another; and in the end we shall reach the goal.

§§7-10. (2) Reading, writing, and speaking must receive unremitting
attention, and be made the subjects of scientific exercise. The
conscientious practice of writing will give even our extemporary
speeches something of the deliberate character of written compositions.
It is practice that makes the ready speaker. A certain natural quickness
of mind is necessary to look beyond what we are saying at the moment;
but neither nature nor art will enable the mind to keep before itself at
one time the whole of a speech, with all its arguments, arrangement,
expression, &c. As our tongue advances, our thoughts must still outstrip
it.

§§11-14. (3) Hence the necessity of a mechanical and unscientific habit
or ‘knack,’ such as that by which the hand moves in writing, the eye in
reading, and the juggler in his legerdemain. But this knack, though
mechanical, should have a basis of scientific method: otherwise it will
be mere ranting, such as you may hear in abundance from female scolds.
A sudden outburst is often, however, more effective than the result of
study and premeditation.

§§15-17. (4) The extemporary speaker must cultivate a lively
imagination, that his mind may be deeply impressed by all the facts of a
particular case. It is the heart that makes the orator. He must also
have distinctly in view not only the end at which he aims but the whole
pathway that leads to it: he will derive incitement even from the
presence of his audience.

§§18-23. (5) Extemporary facility can only be attained by the same
gradual and patient course as has been referred to in connection with
meditation. The orator is often debarred from preparation; but as a rule
he should not presume so far on his ability as not to take a moment to
glance mentally at the heads of his discourse,-- which is generally
possible in a court of law. Some declaimers will argue at once on any
topic, and will even ask for a word to begin with: this is foolishness.
If on any occasion we are under the necessity of speaking offhand, we
should pay more attention to our subject-matter than to our language,
and we may gain time by deliberate articulation. Gradually we shall be
able to trim our sails, and pray for a favouring breeze.

§§24-29. Continual practice is essential for improvisation. We should
speak daily before an audience whose good opinion we respect; but alone,
rather than not at all. If we do not speak to others, we can always at
least go over our subject-matter in silent thought. This fosters
exactness in composition even more than speaking aloud does; for there
we hurry onward from fear of wearying the audience. On the other hand
speaking exercises the voice and gives the opportunity of practising
delivery. Our language should always be careful and correct, but it is
constant writing that will add most weight to our words, especially if
we are obliged to speak much extempore. In fact, writing gives exactness
to speech, speech readiness to writing. If we cannot write, we can
meditate: if we can do neither, we must still contrive to make a
creditable appearance.

§§30-33. A common habit with barristers in large practice is to write
the exordium and most essential parts, formulate the rest in thought,
and meet any unforeseen turns as they arise. The note-books of Cicero
and Servius Sulpicius. It is advisable to refresh one’s memory by
consulting notes. To prepare an abstract, arranged by heads, of a speech
which we have written out entire, leads us to rely too little on the
memory, and makes the speech broken and awkward in delivery. We ought
not to write a speech out at length unless we intend to commit it to
memory. But of memory more in the following book (XI. ch. ii.).




M. FABI QUINTILIANI

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

LIBER DECIMUS




DE COPIA VERBORUM.

I.


I. § 1.

    Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt
    necessaria, ita non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis
    firma quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur;
    accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an legendo an dicendo
    conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset diligentius nobis
    examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse contenti:

#haec eloquendi praecepta#. The reference is generally to the
theoretical part of the work, which has just been completed, but
specially to the two books immediately preceding, in which Quintilian
deals with _elocutio_ (φράσις, ‘style’). In Books III-VII he has treated
of _inventio_ (including _dispositio_); and the transition to Books VIII
and IX is marked in the words ‘a dispositione ad elocutionis praecepta
labor’ vii. §17 ad fin. He passes now to the exercises necessary for
practice: quo genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit (sc.
orator) (§4.)

#sicut ... ita# = μὲν ... δὲ. So _quemadmodum ... sic_ 5 §17: cp. §14
below. More commonly ut ... ita: §§4, 15, 62, 72, 74: 3 §§28, 31.
Frequent in Livy: e.g. xxi. 35, 10 pleraque Alpium ab Italia sicut
breviora ita arrectiora sunt: cp. 39, 7.

#cognitioni#: so most edd. except Halm and Hild (see Crit. Notes). The
word denotes ‘theoretical knowledge,’ and is set over against _vis
dicendi_: for a similar opposition between theory and practice (scientia
... exercitatio) see Tac. Dial. 33. The reading may be supported by a
reference to qui sciet §2, qui ... sciet ... perceperit §4. Cp. viii.
pr. §1 Quam (rationem inveniendi et inventa disponendi) ut ... penitus
cognoscere ad summam scientiae necessarium est ita, &c.: ib. §28, qui
rationem loquendi primum cognoverit ... deinde haec omnia exercitatione
plurima roborarit. In ii. 18, 1 _cognitio_ is used to distinguish
θεωρητική from πρακτική and ποιητική. Cp. too iii. 1, 3 ut ...
adliceremus ... iuventutem ad cognitionem eorum quae necessaria studiis
arbitrabamur.-- The reading _cogitatio_ would have to be understood in a
wider sense than it has in ch. 6, or in 3 §19: Hild takes it of ‘toute
la préparation oratoire qui précède le discours proprement dit.’

#vim dicendi#: ‘true eloquence,’ as in §8 vim orandi, 2 §16 vim dicendi
atque inventionis non adsequuntur: 6 §2 vim cogitandi: xii. 1, 33 vis ac
facultas dicendi expugnat ipsam veritatem. Cp. viii. pr. 30 praeparata
dicendi vis: xii. 10, 64. Bonn. Lex., p. 233.-- The _vis_ of a thing is
its essence, that which makes it what it is: Cic. de Am. §15 id in quo
est omnis vis amicitiae. So with the genitive of a gerund it gives the
idea contained in the infinitive when used as a noun: cp. de Fin. v. §76
percipiendi vis (i.e. τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι) ita definitur a Stoicis: ibid. ii.
§17 Zenonis est ... hoc Stoici: omnem vim loquendi (πᾶν τὸ φθέγγεσθαι)
in duas tributam esse partes. See Nägelsbach, Lat. Stil., (8th ed.)
p. 45: and cp. ratio collocandi 3 §5, pronuntiandi ratio 1 §17: ratio
delendi 3 §31.

#non satis ... valent, nisi#, &c. For the necessity of practice in
addition to theory cp. 5 §19: also i. pr. §§18, 23, 27: ii. 13, 15: vii.
10, 14-15: Cic. de Orat. i. §§109-110: Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. 26 ad
fin. οὐ γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν τεχνῶν ἐστὶ ... δίχα μελέτης τε
καὶ γυμνασίας.

#firma quaedam facilitas#, a ‘sure readiness’: cp. §44 qui confirmare
facultatem dicendi volent: §59 dum adsequimur illam firmam, ut dixi,
facilitatem: 2 §12: 7 §18 sq.: xii, 9, 21 vires facilitatis.

#ἕξις#: §59 and 5 §1. Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 4 (of Isaeus) ad tantam ἕξιν
studio et exercitatione pervenit. See Schäfer on Dion. de Comp. i.
p. 7.-- In the sphere of morals the ἕξις is the fixed tendency that
results from repeated acts: ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐνεργειῶν αἱ ἕξεις γίνονται
Eth. Nic. ii. 1, 1103 a, 31.-- Prof. Mayor compares Cicero’s use of
_habitus constans_, de Inv. i. §36: ii. §30.

#scribendo ... legendo ... dicendo#: i. pr. §27 haec ipsa (natural
gifts) sine doctore perito, studio pertinaci, scribendi, legendi,
dicendi multa et continua exercitatione per se nihil prosunt. So §2
eloquentia ... stilo ... lectionis. Reading is covered by chs. i ii:
chs. iii-v treat of writing; and ch. vii. of extemporary declamation.

#conferatur#: frequent in this sense in Quint. (cp. συμφέρειν): (1) with
ad, as here, i. 8, 7: ii. 19, 1: vii. 1, 41: xii. 1, 1 and passim: (2)
with in, 7 §26: (3) with dat., §§27, 63, 71, 95: i. 1, 6, &c. Bonn.
Lex., p. 155.

#solere quaeri (ζητεῖσθαι)#: the subject is treated, e.g., by Crassus in
Cic. de Orat. i. chs. 33-34. For _quaeri_ cp. i. 4, 26: ib. 12 §1
(quaeri solet): x. 5, 13.

#qualibet ... una#: v. 10, 117, quamdiu quilibet unus superfuerit. In
reverse order i. 12, 7 una res quaelibet: xii. 1, 44 unum ex iis
quodlibet. The collocation does not occur in Cicero.


I. § 2.

    verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si
    quid ex his defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam
    neque solida atque robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo
    stilo vires acceperit, et citra lectionis exemplum labor ille
    carens rectore fluitabit; et qui sciet quae quoque sint modo
    dicenda, nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque ad omnes casus
    habuerit eloquentiam, velut clausis thesauris incubabit.

#conexa et indiscreta#. _Et_ is intensive: ‘so closely, nay, inseparably
connected.’ So i. 2, 3: iuncta ista atque indiscreta sunt. _Indiscretus_
in this sense occurs Tac. Hist. iv. 52 and often in Pliny: not in
Cicero. For the use of the perf. part. pass. instead of a verbal adj.,
cp. Sall. Iug. 43, §5 invictus: ib. 2 §3 incorruptus: 76 §1 infectum:
Livy ii. 1, 4 inviolatum: ib. 55 §3 contemptius (‘more contemptible’).
So intactus, inaccessus, &c.

#neque ... et# = οὔτε ... τε, as 3 §23: 4 §3: 5 §22.

#solida ... robusta ... vires#. Hild notes that the figure is taken from
a living organism which gathers strength from the nourishment supplied
to it: cp. §§19, 31, &c. Tac. Dial. 21: oratio autem sicut corpus
hominis ea demum pulchra est in qua non eminent venae nec ossa
numerantur, sed temperatus ac bonus sanguis implet membra et exsurgit
toris ipsosque nervos rubor tegit et decor commendat: cp. 23.

#multo stilo#: ‘by much practice in writing.’ Cic. de Orat. i. §150
Stilus optimus et praestantissimus dicendi effector ac magister (where
see Wilkins’ note). Quintilian returns to this subject below 3 §1 sq.:
cp. 6 §§1 and 3: 7 §§4 and 7.

#citra lectionis exemplum#: ‘without the models which reading supplies.’
_Citra_ is common in this sense (for _sine_, sometimes _praeter_) in
Quint. (Bonn. Lex. p. 127) and other post-Aug. writers. So 7 §7 citra
divisionem: xii. 6, 4 plusque, si separes, usus sine doctrina quam citra
usum doctrina valet. Cp. Ov. Trist. v. 8, 23 peccavi citra scelus
(‘short of’): Plin. Ep. ii. 1, 4 citra dolorem tamen.

#labor ille#, sc. scribendi.

#fluitabit#, like a vessel drifting about without a pilot (carens
rectore). The writing will want method, and the definiteness of aim
which models would impose. So vii. pr. §2 sic oratio carens hac virtute
(sc. ordine) tumultuetur necesse est et sine rectore fluitet nec
cohaereat sibi, multa repetat, multa transeat, velut nocte in ignotis
locis errans, nec initio nec fine proposito casum potius quam consilium
sequatur: cp. xii. 2 §20.

#quae quoque sint modo#. This is the reading of the oldest MSS. (see
Crit. Notes), and was adopted by Halm: cp. §8 quod quoque loco sit
aptissimum: 7 §5 quid quoque loco primum sit, and §6 quid quoque loco
quaerant. So iv. 2, 33 quid quoque loco prosit. _Quae_ covers
_inventio_: while _quoque modo_ may be taken of the exhaustive
discussion of the various departments of _elocutio_ which has just been
concluded.-- Meister has returned to Spalding’s _quo quaeque sint modo_,
probably from a doubt whether Halm (followed by Mayor) is right in
explaining _quae quoque_ as = _quae et quomodo_, ‘what is to be said and
how’; ‘copulae enim _que_ in coniunctione talium membrorum relativorum
inter se discretorum non aptus est locus,’ Osann, i. p. 14. But _quoque_
may very well be the abl. of _quisque_, though Cicero seems to avoid
such a collocation, unless there is a prep. to make the construction
clear: e.g. pro Sulla §73 quae ex quoque ordine multitudo: pro Domo §33
qui de quaque re constituti iudices sint: Har. Resp. §24 quae de quoque
deo ... tradita sunt. Cp. in Cat. iii. §10 tabellas quae a quoque
dicebantur datae. Even in the exactly parallel passage Sall. Cat. 23, 4
quae quoque modo audierat ... narravit (where Mommsen suggests
_quoquo_), it is possible to understand _quoque_ of the various methods
Fulvia had employed to get information from Curius. So quid ubique, ib.
21, 1.

#tamen#: see Crit. Notes.

#in procinctu#: ‘ready for battle.’ So xii. 9, 21 quem armatum semper ac
velut in procinctu stantem non magis umquam in causis oratio quam in
rebus cotidianis ac domesticis sermo deficiet. Similarly in 7 §24
promptum hoc et in expedito positum. Examples of the proper use of the
phrase occur Tac. Hist. iii. 2: Ovid Pont. i. 8, 10: Gell. i. 11: Plin.
Nat. Hist. vi. 22. Quintilian expresses a similar idea by another of his
military metaphors, viii pr. 15: eloqui enim hoc est omnia quae mente
conceperis promere atque ad audientes perferre; sine quo supervacua sunt
priora et similia gladio condito atque intra vaginam suam haerenti: cp.
vi. 4, 8. For the explanation of the phrase _procingo_, ‘I gird up’) see
Mayor’s note on Cic. de N. D. ii. 3 §9: “_in procinctu_ is used of an
army in readiness for battle, Milton’s ‘war in procinct’ (P. L. vi. 19):
cp. Festus, pp. 43 and 225 procincta classis dicebatur cum exercitus
cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus. Vetustius enim fuit
multitudinem hominum, quam navium, classem appellari, also p. 249
procincta toga Romani olim ad pugnam ire soliti. The _cinctus Gabinus_
was a particular way of wearing the _toga_, so as to use part of it as
a girdle, tying it in a knot in front. Servius (Aen. vii. 612) says the
ancient Latins, before they were acquainted with the use of defensive
armour, praecinctis togis bellabant, unde etiam milites _in procinctu_
esse dicuntur.” For the figurative use cp. Sen. de Benef. i. 1, 4
severitatem abditam clementiam in procinctu habeo: [Quint.] Decl. 3, 1
neque in militiam gravissimo asperrimoque bello ita venit, ut nesciret
sibi mortem in procinctu habendam.

#paratam#: 5 §12: Cic. ad Fam. vi. 21, 1 ad omnem eventum paratus sum.

#velut cl. thes. incubabit#. Unless he adds practice to his theoretical
knowledge, all he knows will be as useless as a miser’s hoard. The
phrase is a reminiscence of Verg. Georg. ii. 507 condit opes alius,
defossoque incubat auro: cp. Aen. vi. 610 aut qui divitiis soli
incubuere repertis. Martial, xii. 53, 3-4 largiris nihil incubasque
gazae, ut magnus draco. Mayor quotes Ecclus. 20, 30 Wisdom that is hid,
and treasure that is hoarded up, what profit is in them both?


I. § 3.

    Non autem ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad
    efficiendum oratorem maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe,
    cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium, dicere ante
    omnia est, atque hinc initium eius artis fuisse manifestum est:
    proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum scribendi quoque
    diligentia.

The argument here requires elucidation. Quint. has said (§§1, 2) that
for the _firma facilitas_ or ἕξις which must be superadded to theory,
writing, reading and speaking are all essential. He now goes on to state
that it does not follow that what is theoretically most indispensable
(cp. cognitioni necessaria §1 above) is for the practical training of
the orator of greatest consequence. The most essential element is of
course that of speech (_dicere_)-- followed by imitation and writing.
But perfection of speech can only be attained, like other forms of
perfection, by starting from first beginnings (principia), which become
relatively unimportant (minima) as things progress. This is not however
the place for dealing with the methods of preliminary training in
rhetoric: our student has done his theory, and we must now show him how
to apply it to practice. Cp. Analysis, p. 1.

#ut quidquid#. Properly _quisquis_ is an indefinite relative: in this
usage it has the same force as _quisque_ (Roby, 2283, 2285). It may have
been an archaism which became colloquial. Madvig (on de Fin. v. §24)
shows that undoubted instances occur in Plautus, Terence, Cato (de R. R.
57: uti quidquid operis facient), Lucretius (with whom it is especially
common: e.g. ruit qua quidquid fluctibus obstat, i. 289, where see
Munro), Cicero (Tusc. v. 98), and in the Agrarian Law (utei quicquid
quoieique ante h. l. r. licuit, ita &c. Mommsen C.I.L. 1 n. 200 v. 27).
Cp. vii. 2, 35. So too Corn. ad. Herenn. ii. §47, where the MSS. almost
without exception give _quidquid_ (quicquid) for _quicque_. For the
spelling here, cp. i. 7, 6 frigidiora his alia, ut ‘quidquid’ c quartam
haberet, ne interrogare bis videremur.

#ad efficiendum oratorem#: i. 10, 2.

#protinus#, of logical consequence, as frequently _continuo_ in Cicero:
generally with a negative, or a question implying a negative answer. For
the form of the sentence cp. viii. 2, 4 non tamen quidquid non erit
proprium protinus et improprii vitio laborabit: and §42 below, sed non
quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet protinus ad faciendam
φράσιν ... accommodatum. So 3 §22 (§§5 and 18 are different): ii. 21,
10: v. 10, 102 and 119: vii. 4, 38.

#nam certe#. This leads up to the next sentence, beginning _sed ut_.

#in eloquendo#: cp. viii. pr. 15 (quoted on in procinctu, §2 above):
Cic. Or. §61 sed iam illius perfecti oratoris et summae eloquentiae
species exprimenda est; quem hoc uno (sc. in eloquendo) excellere cetera
in eo latere indicat nomen ipsum. Non enim inventor aut compositor aut
actor qui haec complexus est omnia, sed et Graece ab eloquendo ῥήτωρ et
Latine eloquens dictus est. Ceterarum enim rerum quae sunt in oratore
partem aliquam sibi quisque vindicat; dicendi autem, id est eloquendi,
maxima vis soli huic conceditur. Cp. de Orat. ii. §38.

#ante omnia est#. Becher vindicates the traditional reading by comparing
ii. 15, 12 atqui non multum ab hoc fine abest Apollodorus dicens
iudicialis orationis primum et _super omnia esse persuadere_ iudici et
sententiam eius _ducere_ in id quod velit. So too iii. 8, 56 an _pro
Caesare fuerit occidi_ Pompeium?-- See Crit. Notes. For _ante omnia_ cp.
Introd. p. lii.

#hinc ... fuisse#: cp. viii. 2, 7 proprie tamen unde initium est: vi.
pr. §10 ut prorsus posset hinc esse tanti fulminis metus.

#proximum#: cp. i. 3, 1 proximum imitatio. As is evident from ch. ii,
_imitatio_ here includes not _lectio_ only but _auditio_ as well: §8
optima legendo atque audiendo. It was in this sense that Dion. Hal.
entitled his work περὶ μιμήσεως: see Usener, Praef. pp. 1-4: and cp.
Cic. de Orat. i. §14 sq. and §149 sq.


I. § 4.

    Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex principiis non potest, ita
    procedente iam opere minima incipiunt esse quae prima sunt.
    Verum nos non quo modo sit instituendus orator hoc loco dicimus,
    (nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est), sed
    athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo
    genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum
    qui res invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et
    collocandi rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod
    didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.

#sed ut perveniri#, &c. 7 §18. Cp. i. pr. §§4-5 contemnentes tamquam
parva quae prius discimus studia ... ego cum existimem nihil arti
oratoriae alienum sine quo fieri non posse oratorem fatendum est, nec ad
ullius rei summam nisi praecedentibus initiis perveniri ad minora illa
... demittere me non recusabo.

#procedente iam opere#: here of the progress of the orator’s training.

#minima# in importance: _prima_ in point of time. Krüger says that
_dicere_ alone is meant, being the _initium artis_ above; but it seems
better to understand Quint. to be indicating here that the order of
importance does not correspond with the order of development as stated
above, viz. (1) the faculty of speech, (2) reading (included under
_imitatio_) and (3) writing. These are to be taken first as the
subsidiary beginnings (principia) from which we attain to the ultimate
object: but as things progress they will become relatively unimportant
(_minima_), and their place will be taken by systematic training in
speaking or declamation, an exercise which is always essential to
success and can therefore never be left off (7 §24).

#aut ... aut# in the sense of si minus satis, at certe uti potuimus: cp.
xii. 11, 21.

#athleta#: a metaphor abruptly introduced: cp. §33: 3 §7: 4 §4: 7 §§1
and 23. The orator is often compared to an athlete, gladiator, soldier,
&c.: see on §33 non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis, and Introd.
p. lvi. Cp. §§29, 31, 79: 3 §3: 5 §§15, 17. Cic. de Orat. i. §73 ut qui
pila ludunt ... sic in orationibus: iii. §83: Or. §§14, 42, 228-9. Tac.
Dial. 34 ferro non rudibus dimicantes: cp. end of 37.

#numeros#: here of rhythmical movements, ‘movements according to rule,
“passes” in fencing, “throws” in wrestling,’ &c.-- Mayor. The use of the
word in this sense is probably founded on the analogy between rhythm
(for which see ix. 4, 45) and graceful motion: ix. 4, 8 in omni
palaestra quid satis recte cavetur ac petitur cui non artifex motus et
certi quidam pedes adsint? Cp. xii. 2, 12: ut palaestrici doctores illos
quos numeros vocant non idcirco discentibus tradunt, ut iis omnibus ii
qui didicerint in ipso luctandi certamine utantur ... sed ut subsit
copia illa ex qua unum aut alterum cuius se occasio dederit efficiant:
ii. 8, 13 sicut ille ... exercendi corpora peritus non ... nexus modo
atque in iis certos aliquos docebit, sed omnia quae sunt eius
certaminis. Sen. de Benef. vii. 1 §4 magnus luctator est non qui omnes
numeros nexusque perdidicit. So Iuv. vi. 249 of the lady in the arena,
omnes implet numeros: cp. Tac. Dial. 32 per omnes eloquentiae numeros
isse. That this use is based on the notion of rhythm may be seen from a
comparison of these exx. with Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 144 verae numerosque
modosque ediscere vitae. For the wider meaning of _numeri_, in which it
is used of that which is complete and perfect in all its parts, v. on
§70.

#igitur#. As to whether the position of _igitur_ at the beginning of a
sentence is to be considered an instance of _transmutatio_ (like ‘quoque
ego,’ ‘enim hoc voluit’) Quintilian says (i. 5, 39) there is a doubt:
‘quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios
sit etiam frequens, apud alios numquam reperiatur.’ Numerous instances
from his own work are given in Bonn. Lex., p. 394. In Tacitus, _igitur_
always stands first except in the following passages: Dial. 8, 29: 10,
37: 20, 21: Agr. 16, 12: Germ. 45, 22: Hist. iv. 15, 15: Ann. i. 47, 5
(Gerber and Greef). In Cicero it is very rarely found first: de Leg.
Agr. ii. 72: pro Milone §48: Phil. ii. §94: de Fin. i. §61: de Nat.
Deor. i. §80.

#res invenire#. For the five parts of oratory (which are quite distinct
from the five parts of an oration) cp. 7 §9: iii. 3, §§1 and 7. They are
_inventio_ (treated of in Books iii.-vi.), _dispositio_ (vii.),
_elocutio_ (viii.-ix.), _memoria_, _actio_ or _pronuntiatio_ (xi.).
Cicero has substantially the same division de Orat. ii. §79, quinque
faciunt quasi membra eloquentiae, invenire quod dicas, inventa
disponere, deinde ornare verbis, post memoriae mandare, tum ad extremum
agere ac pronuntiare: cp. i. §142: and for _inventio_, de Inv. i. §9,
inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae causam
probabilem reddant.-- For the antithesis between _res_ and _verba_, cp.
§§5 and 6: also §61: 2 §27: 3 §§5, 9: 6 §2: 7 §§9, 22.

#sciet#. Bonnell calls attention to the use of the fut. in dependent
relative sentences as common in manuals of instruction: §§5, 10, 13, 17,
22, 25, 33, 112, &c. _Instruamus_ is virtually future.

#eligendi# §6: cp. #dilectus# 3 §5.

#collocandi#: Cic. de Orat. ii. §307 ordo collocatioque rerum ac
locorum: cp. Or. §50: Brut. §139. For both cp. Brut. §140 in verbis et
eligendis ... et collocandis: de Part. Or. i. §3. Both are parts of
_elocutio_, for which see viii. 1, 1. For _ratio_ with gerund cp. §§17,
54: 2 §1: 3 §§5, 31: and see note on 2 §3.

#qua ratione#. The recurrence of _ratione_ so soon after _rationem_ need
create no difficulty in Quintilian: for similar instances of negligence
see on 2 §23. For Kiderlin’s treatment of the whole passage, see Crit.
Notes.

#optime ... facillime#, xii. 10, 77 neque vero omnia ista de quibus
locuti sumus orator optime tantum sed etiam facillime faciet.


I. § 5.

    Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam
    parandae, quibus uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae
    constant copia rerum ac verborum.

#velut ... quaedam#. So §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5 §17: 7 §1, and frequently
elsewhere: e.g. xii. 10, 19 velut sata quaedam: iii. 8, 29 veluti
quoddam templum. Cicero generally uses _quasi_ or _tanquam quidam_.
Indeed Quintilian seems to have a general preference for _velut_ over
_quasi_ or _tanquam_ in introducing similes: cp. 7 §6 ducetur ante omnia
rerum ipsa serie velut duce: viii. 5, 29 inaequalia tantum et velut
confragosa: see Bonn. Lex., s.v.

#ubicumque#, so §10 below. For a less classical use (as an indefinite)
see 7 §28 quidquid loquemur ubicumque.


I. § 6.

    Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes,
    verba in universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent
    singula, minorem curam postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis
    protinus rebus offerrent. Sed cum sint aliis alia aut magis
    propria aut magis ornata aut plus efficientia aut melius
    sonantia, debent esse non solum nota omnia, sed in promptu
    atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se iudicio dicentis
    ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio.

#sed res ... paranda#: an example of the construction so common in Greek
and Latin, by which two contrasted clauses are co-ordinated. In English
we subordinate the one to the other by using ‘while,’ ‘whereas,’ or some
such word. In Greek the use of μὲν makes the antithesis plainer.-- Here
_res_ = νοήματα: _verba_ = ὀνόματα.

#paucis communes#. For the _loci communes_, appropriate to several
causae, v. Cic. de Inv. ii. §48 argumenta quae transferri in multas
causas possunt, and compare the Topica.

#cum ipsis protinus rebus#. For the order of words cp. §33 historico
nonnumquam nitore. Herbst gives the following exx. of an adv. inserted
between the adj. and the noun: §§38, 41, 104, 116, 120: 2 §§7, 8: 3 §§2,
31: 5 §7: 7 §§3, 28.-- For the thought, cp. Hor. A. P. 311 verbaque
provisam rem non invita sequentur: Cic. de Orat. ii. §146 ea (sc. res et
sententiae) vi sua verba parient: iii. §125 rerum enim copia verborum
copiam gignit. No doubt Quintilian in his teaching also gave due
prominence to Cato’s golden rule, ‘rem tene verba sequentur.’

#propria#. The general meaning under which all uses of _proprius_ and
its cognates may be included is that in which it contrasts with all
departures from and innovations on ordinary language. Sometimes it may
mean nothing more than ‘suitable,’ ‘appropriate,’ in which sense
_proprie_ occurs immediately below, in §9: cp. opportune proprieque 2
§13, and proprie et copiose (dicere) i. 4, 5. This is the meaning with
which it is applied to the language of Simonides §64 below,-- ‘natural’;
cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §154, where _verba propria_ occurs alongside of
_ornatissima_ and corresponds with _idonea_, introduced shortly
afterwards: cp. _id._ iii. §31, where _propria_ is reinforced by _apta_,
and _ib._ §49 proprie demonstrantibus (verbis) ea quae significari ac
declarari volemus. The use of _proprietas_ in §46 and §121 below may be
compared with this: cp. also the first of the meanings assigned to the
word in the important passage viii. 2, 1-11: also ix. 2, 18 and xii.
2, 19. The translators here render by ‘suitable’ or ‘significant,’ but
the juxtaposition of _ornata_ seems rather to point to the use in which
_verba propria_ are the antithesis of _translata_,-- direct, literal,
and natural, as opposed to figurative: i. 5, 71 propria sunt verba cum
id significant in quod primo denominata sunt: translata, cum alium
natura intellectum, alium loco praebent. Cp. i. 5, 3: viii. 3, 24: 6, 5,
and 48 (where _propria ... ornata_ in the passage above may well be
illustrated by the words species ex arcessitis verbis venit et
intellectus ex propriis): ix. 1, 4. This is undoubtedly the meaning in
which _proprius_ is used in §29 below: also in 5 §8 alia translatis
virtus alia propriis. The nearest equivalent in Greek would be οἰκεῖα
ὀνόματα, rather than κύρια ὀνόματα, which correspond to ‘usitata verba’
in Quint, (i. 5, 71, and v. 14, 33 verbis quam maxime propriis et ex
usu),-- though he may have had in mind here, as Mayor suggests, ἔστι γὰρ
ἄλλο ἄλλου κυριώτερον, Arist. Rhet. iii. 2, p. 1405 b, 11. (For the
distinction between ὄνομα οἰκεῖον and ὄνομα κύριον see Cope on Ar. Rhet.
iii. 2 §§2 and 6, and Introd. p. 282 note). Many parallels might be
cited from Cicero: e.g. de Or. iii. §149 (verbis eis) quae _propria_
sunt et certa quasi vocabula rerum, paene una nata cum rebus ipsis: cp.
_ib._ §150: Brutus §274: Or. §80.

#ornata#: cp. viii. 3, 15 quamquam enim rectissime traditum est
perspicuitatem propriis, ornatum translatis verbis magis egere, sciamus
nihil ornatum esse quod sit improprium: _ib._ pr. §26 ut propria sint
(verba) et dilucida et ornata et apte collocentur, and §31: ii. 5, 9
quod verbum proprium, ornatum, sublime: and especially viii. 1, 1 in
singulis (verbis) intuendum est ut sint Latina, perspicua, ornata, ad id
quod efficere volumus accommodata.

#plus efficientia#, ‘more significant’: ix. 4, §123 membrum autem est
sensus ... per se nihil efficiens. The adj. _efficax_ occurs only once
in Quint. (vi. 1, 41).

#melius sonantia#. So _vocaliora_ viii. 3, §16 sq.: cp. i. 5, 4 sola est
quae notari possit vocalitas, quae εὐφωνία dicitur: cuius in eo dilectus
est ut inter duo quae idem significant ac tantundem valent quod melius
sonet malis. Cic. de Or. iii. §150 lectis atque illustribus (verbis)
utatur, in quibus plenum quiddam et sonans inesse videatur: Or. §163
verba ... legenda sunt potissimum bene sonantia: §149, and §80 (verbum)
quod aut optime sonat aut rem maxime explanat (= plus effic.): Part. Or.
§17 alia (verba) sonantiora, grandiora, leviora: and §53 gravia, plena,
sonantia verba.

#non solum ... sed# (οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλά), a formula used where the second
clause is stronger than or includes and comprehends the first. Cp. §8
below: §46 (nec modo sed): 7 §8 (non modo sed): 3 §20 (non tantum sed):
5 §5 (neque tantum sed): 7 §16 (non tantum sed). Of the numerous exx. in
Cicero’s speeches (Merguet, pp. 361-2) none are exceptions to the rule
thus stated,-- not even the seeming anticlimax of pro Sest. §45 iecissem
me potius in profundum ut ceteros conservarem quam illos mei tam cupidos
non modo ad certam mortem sed in magnum vitae discrimen adducerem: here
_sed_ still introduces the stronger clause, as the sacrifice would be
greater if it were made to avert _discrimen_ than if it were made to
avert _certa mors_. Becher cps. pro Lege Manil. §66: Div. in Caec.
§27.-- There is nothing in the distinction which Herbst (followed by
Dosson) seeks to set up (on the strength of _sed etiam_ in §13): ‘pro
simplici _sed_, ἀλλά, infertur _sed etiam_, ἀλλὰ καί, si utrumque
orationis membrum pari vi praeditum est.’ Cp. the following: (a) non
solum sed, vi. 2, 13 and 36: non solum sed (or verum) etiam, vii. 10,
17: ii. 2, 14: vii. 5, 3: viii. 3, 64: i. 11, 14. (b) non tantum sed,
ix. 3, 28, 78: xi. 1, 7: ii. 17, 2: non tantum sed etiam (or et), xi. 2,
5: viii. 3, 3: ix. 2, 50. (c) non modo sed, pr. §9: x. 1, 46: ii. 17, 3:
iv. 5, 6: non modo sed etiam (or quoque), ix. 3, 50: xi. 1, 15: i. 10,
9: ii. 2, 12: vi. 3, 57: ix. 3, 47: i. 1, 34: i. 4, 6: i. 11, 13: ix. 4,
9: x. 1, 10.

#in promptu#-- in readiness, ‘at one’s fingers’ ends,’ as it were: i.e.
not only must we be able to recognise them when we see or hear them, but
we must always have a stock of them on hand. Cp. ii. 4, 27 ut quidam ...
scriptos eos (locos) memoriaeque diligentissime mandatos in promptu
habuerint: vii. 10, 14 non respiciendum ad haec sed in promptu habenda:
viii. pr. 28 ut semper in promptu sint et ante oculos: xi. 2, 1
exemplorum ... velut quasdam copias quibus abundare quasque in promptu
habere debet orator. In ix. 1, 13 we have simplex atque in promptu
positus dicendi modus. Cp. Demetrius Cynicus ap. Senec. de Benef. vii. 1
§3: plus prodesse si pauca praecepta sapientiae teneas sed illa in
promptu tibi et in usu sint quam si multa quidem didiceris sed illa non
habeas ad manum.-- In Lucr. ii. 149 and 246 (in promptu manifestumque
esse videmus) the phrase rather = in aperto: as often in Cicero, e.g. de
Off. i. §§61, 95, 105, 126.

#ut ita dicam, in conspectu#. So vii. 1, 4 cum haec (themata s.
proposita) in conspectu quodammodo collocaveram. Cp. viii. 3, 37 quod
idem (‘ut ita dicam’) etiam in iis quae licentius translata erunt
proderit.


I. § 7.

    Et quae idem significarent solitos {scio} ediscere, quo
    facilius et occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi
    aliquo, si breve intra spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae
    repetitionis gratia sumerent aliud quo idem intellegi posset.
    Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam infelicis operae, tum etiam
    utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat, ex qua sine
    discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

#quae idem significarent#: ‘synonyms.’ Cp. i. 5, 4 (quoted above on
_melius sonantia_): viii. 3, 16.

#solitos# sc. quosdam. Cp. §56 audire videor congerentes. See Crit.
Notes.

#occurreret# = in mentem veniret: §13: 3 §33.

#quo idem intellegi posset#. Cp. iii. 11, 27 his plura intelleguntur.
See Crit. Notes.

#cum ... tum etiam#. Cp. cum ... tum praecipue 3 §28: and, for cum ...
tum, §§60, 65, 68, 84, 101. Bonn. Lex., s.v. _cum_ p. 195.

#cuiusdam#. This use of _quidam_ indicates that the word to which it is
attached is being employed in some peculiar sense, or else that it comes
nearest to the idea in the writer’s mind: cp. §§76, 81.

#infelicis operae#: of trouble which one gives oneself unnecessarily
(cp. 3 §10: 7 §14), with the further idea of unproductiveness, as 2 §8
nostra potissimum tempora damnamus huius infelicitatis: tr. ‘a thankless
task.’ Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 1, 90 infelix operam perdas: A. P. 34 infelix
operis summa. With viii. pr. §§27-8 Mayor compares Plato Phaedr. 229 d
ἄλλως τὰ τοιαῦτα χαρίεντα ἡγοῦμαι λίαν δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ ἐπιπόνου καὶ οὐ
πάνυ εὐτυχοῦς ἀνδρός.

#congregat#. The subject here is indefinite, and must be supplied from
the context-- ‘the man who learns by rote.’ Quintilian often omits such
words as discipulus, orator, declamator, lector: cp. 2 §24: 7 §4 and §25
est alia exercitatio cogitandi totasque materias vel silentio (dum tamen
quasi dicat intra se ipsum) persequendi. So Cic. de Off. i. §101 omnis
autem actio vacare debet temeritate et neglegentia nec vero agere
quicquam cuius non possit (sc. is qui agit) causam probabilem reddere:
_ib._ §121 si natura non feret ut quaedam imitari possit (sc. is qui
imitatur): §134: ii. §39: iii. §107: de Amic. §25 quae non volt: §72
quoad ... possit: de Or. ii. §62 audeat.-- There is thus no need for
Gemoll’s conjecture _congregat actor_.


I. § 8.

    Nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non
    circulatoriam volubilitatem spectantibus. Id autem consequemur
    optima legendo atque audiendo; non enim solum nomina ipsa rerum
    cognoscemus hac cura, sed quod quoque loco sit aptissimum.

§§8-15. The preceding sections (§§5-7) form the transition to what he
now seeks to prove,-- the need for _multa lectio_ and _auditio_. ‘By
reading and hearing the best models we learn to choose appropriate
words, to arrange and pronounce them rightly; to employ the figures of
speech in their proper places.’-- Mayor.

#cum iudicio#, §116: 2 §3. Mayor cites Cic. de Or. iii. §150 sed in hoc
verborum genere propriorum dilectus est habendus quidem atque is aurium
quoque iudicio ponderandus est. The phrase gives the antithesis of _sine
discrimine_ above.

#vim orandi#: see on §1 above, vim dicendi: cp. 5 §6: ii. 16, 9: vi.
2, 2. The words denote ‘true oratory’ as opposed to the ‘fluency of a
mountebank’ or charlatan. For the absolute use of _orare_ (common in the
Silver Age) see on §16.

#circulatoriam volubilitatem#: ii. 4, 15 circulatoriae vere iactationis
est. The _circulator_ was a strolling mountebank who amused the crowd by
his legerdemain: Sen. de Benef. vi. 11, 2. So of quack philosophers,
_Id._ Epist. 29 §7 circulatores qui philosophiam honestius neglexissent
quam vendunt: 40 §3 sic itaque habe, istam vim dicendi rapidam atque
abundantem aptiorem esse circulanti quam agenti in rem magnam ac seriam
docentique: 52 §8 eligamus non eos qui verba magna celeritate
praecipitant, et communes locos volvunt et in privato circulantur, sed
eos qui vita[m] docent.-- For _volubilitas_ cp. xi. 3, 52: Cic. de Orat.
§17 est enim et scientia comprehendenda rerum plurimarum, sine qua
verborum volubilitas inanis atque inridenda est, et ipsa oratio
conformanda non solum electione sed etiam constructione verborum: so
linguae volubilitas, pro Planc. §62 flumen aliis verborum volubilitasque
cordi est: pro Flacc. §48 homo volubilis praecipiti quadam celeritate
dicendi. Pliny Ep. v. 20, 4: est plerisque Graecorum ut illi pro copia
volubilitas. Juvenal’s sermo promptus et Isaeo torrentior (3, 73-4)
indicates the same feature.

#id#, of the idea contained in the previous sentence (parare copiam cum
iudicio): 6 §6: 7 §4.

#non enim#. Herbst cites §109 and 5 §8 to show that in this form the
negative is either attached to a single word, or is meant to be more
emphatic: so Cic. Orat. §§47, 101. On the other hand _neque enim_ has
less emphasis: §105: 2 §1: 3 §§10, 23: 4 §1: 6 §5: 7 §§5, 18, 19, 27.
For _enim ... enim ... nam_ he compares 3 §2 and, in Greek, Xen. Anab.
iii. 2, 32: v. 6, 4.

#quod quoque#. See Crit. Notes.


I. § 9.

    Omnibus enim fere verbis praeter pauca, quae sunt parum
    verecunda, in oratione locus est. Nam scriptores quidem iamborum
    veterisque comoediae etiam in illis saepe laudantur, sed nobis
    nostrum opus intueri sat est. Omnia verba, exceptis de quibus
    dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et humilibus interim et
    vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte videntur
    sordida, ubi res poscit, proprie dicuntur.

#parum verecunda#. These expressions are characterised in the same
indirect way i. 2, 7 verba ne Alexandrinis quidem permittenda deliciis.
Cp. viii. 3, 38 excepto si obscena nudis nominibus enuntientur: _ib._ 2
§1 obscena vitabimus. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 22.

#nam# is here slightly elliptical (cp. §83), introducing a confirmation
of the statement contained in the words _praeter pauca quae sunt parum
verecunda_: ‘I make exceptions, for though even these may be admired in
ἰαμβογράφοι (Archilochus §59, Hipponax, &c.), and in the old Comedy, we
must look to our own department.’ The sentence might have run,-- nam,
etiamsi scriptores quidem, &c. etiam in illis saepe laudantur, nobis
nostrum opus intueri sat est. This seems better than, with Mayor, to
press _in oratione_: ‘_in oratione_ I say, for even these may be
admired, &c.’

#scriptores iamborum#: §59 Horace imitated Archilochus in some of his
Epodes: these are ‘parum verecunda.’ Mayor refers also to the Priapeia.
The _vetus comoedia_ (_antiqua_ in §65) is often associated with
ἰαμβογράφοι: §§59, 65, 96. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 1 sq.: ii. 3, 12.

#in illis ... laudantur#. In such expressions _in_ with the abl. denotes
the range or scope within which the action of the verb takes place.
Nägelsb. p. 491. Cic. Qu. fr. ii. 6, 5 Pompeius noster in amicitia
P. Lentuli vituperatur. Cp. §§54, 63, 64: v. 12, 22 ut ad peiora iuvenes
laude ducuntur ita laudari in bonis malent.

#nostrum opus#: not ‘our proper work, the education of an orator’
(Hild); but ‘what we have to do with here,’ our ‘department’ or
‘branch.’ It thus = opus dicendi Cic. Brut. §214, or oratorium _ib._
§200. In the Silver Age _opus_ (like _genus_) is often used to denote a
special branch. Herbst cites §§31, 35, 64, 69, 70, 72, 74, 93, 96, 123;
2 §21. Cp. Introd. p. xliv.

#intueri#: v. 13, 31 dum locum praesentem non totam causam intuentur.
Cp. 2 §§2, 26: 7 §16.

#exceptis ... dixi#: sc. _iis_ (parum verecundis). Cp. §104 circumcisis
quae dixisse ei nocuerat.

#humilibus ... vulgaribus#. So xi. 1, 6 humile et cotidianum sermonis
genus. _Humilia verba_ (ταπεινά ὀνόματα) are opposed to _grandia_,
_elata verba_. By Cicero _abiectus_ is often used to indicate a still
lower depth: Brut. §227 verbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur, sed
tamen non abiectis. Mayor cites De Orat. iii. §177 non enim sunt alia
sermonis, alia contentionis verba, neque ex alio genere ad usum
cotidianum, alio ad scenam pompamque sumuntur; sed ea nos cum iacentia
sustulimus e medio sicut mollissimam ceram ad nostrum arbitrium formamus
et fingimus. Hor. A. P. 229 ne ... migret in obscuras humili sermone
tabernas.

#interim# for _interdum_, as often in Quintilian, Seneca, and Pliny: cp.
§24: 3 §§7, 19, 20, 32, 33 (where we have interim ... interim for modo
... modo): 7 §31. See Introd. p. li.

#nitidiore ... sordida#. There is the same antithesis at viii. 3. 49.
Cp. Cic. Brut. §238 non valde nitens non plane horrida oratio. See note
on §79: and cp. §§33, 44, 83, 97, 98, 113, 124. Sulp. Vict. inst. or. 15
in Halm rhet. lat. p. 321, 3 adhibendus est nitor ... ut scilicet verba
non sordida et vulgaria et de trivio, quod dicitur, sumpta sint, sed
electa de libris et hausta de liquido fonte doctrinae.-- For _sordida_
cp. Sen. Ep. 100 (of Fabianus) nihil invenies sordidum ... verba ...
splendida ... quamvis sumantur e medio. Quint. ii. 5, 10: viii. 2, 1.

#proprie#: v. on §6 propria. Cp. 5 §4 verba poetica libertate audaciora
non praesumunt eadem proprie dicendi facultatem: viii. 2, 2 non
mediocriter errare quidam solent qui omnia quae sunt in usu, etiam si
causae necessitas postulet, reformidant.


I. § 10.

    Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non significationem modo, sed
    formas etiam mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque erunt posita
    conveniant, nisi multa lectione atque auditione adsequi nullo
    modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem auribus primum accipiamus.
    Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus iussu regum in
    solitudine educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse traduntur,
    tamen loquendi facultate caruerunt.

#non ... modo, sed ... etiam#: see on §6. Herbst notes that Quint.
usually separates these words by others, as here: cp. §55 non forum
modo, verum ipsam etiam urbem: 2 §23 non causarum modo inter ipsas
condicio, sed in singulis etiam causis partium. On the other hand we
have 3 §15 non exercitatio modo ... sed etiam ratio: 7 §19 non in prosa
modo, sed etiam in carmine.

#formas#. The _forma_ of a word, in the widest sense, must mean its
_shape_ as determined by the syllables and letters of which it consists:
cp. viii. 3, 16, where he notes the importance of this in regard to
sound. But the reference here is more particularly to the grammatical
forms of inflection, i.e. accidence, τὰς πτώσεις τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς
ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων (Dion. Hal. Comp. Verbor. 25, p. 402 Schäfer). See
i. 6, 15 sq. Mayor refers to the grammatical discussions in Cic. Orat.
§§152-161. Quint. i. 4 esp. §§22-29: 5-7.

#mensuras#: the ‘quantities’ of single syllables, i.e. prosody. Cic. Or.
§159: §§162-236: Quint. i. 10 ‘de musice.’ Latin concrete plurals often
correspond to our abstract names of sciences, e.g. _numeri_
‘arithmetic,’ _tempora_ ‘chronology.’ Nägelsbach 12 §2, p. 71.

#ut ubicumque#. For _ut_ (L) most MSS. (G H S) give _et_. Krüger records
a conj. by Rowecki, who proposes to read _utque_, so as to make both _ut
sciamus_ and _ut conveniant_ depend upon _adsequi_. But this seems
unnecessary.

#auditione#. Then, as now, _auditio_ would be specially valuable in
regard to prosody (mensurae). The next clause gives the reason for
putting it alongside of _lectio_, and also serves to introduce the
reference which follows.

#propter quod# ( = δι᾽ ὅ), often in Quint. where Cicero would have used
_quam ob rem_. Cp. §66: 5 §23: 7 §6: _propter quae_ (= δι᾽ ἅ) §61: 3
§30: ii. 13, 14: xii. 1, 39. At §28 and 3 §6 we have _praeter id quod_
for _praeterquam quod_.

#infantes ... caruerunt#. In spite of the vagueness of _regum_ and _a
mutis nutricibus_, the reference is obviously to the story told by
Herodotus (ii. 2), which Quint. may only have remembered indistinctly.
Psammetichus, king of Egypt, wishing to discover if there were any
people older than the Egyptians, gave two infants into the charge of a
shepherd, who was to keep them out of reach of all human sounds and
bring them up on the milk of goats. After two years they greeted the
shepherd with the cry βεκός, which on inquiry turned out to be the
Phrygian for bread. On the strength of this experiment the sapient king
allowed that the Phrygians were more ancient than the Egyptians.
Claudian, in Eutrop. ii. 252-4 nec rex Aegyptius ultra Restitit, humani
postquam puer uberis expers In Phrygiam primum laxavit murmura vocem.
A similar story is told of James IV of Scotland, with the difference
that in his case Hebrew instead of Phrygian resulted from the
experiment.-- By _mutis nutr._ Quint. probably means the goats of
Psammetichus; _mutus_ having its proper sense, ‘uttering inarticulate
sounds’: so mutae pecudes Lucr. v. 1059: animalia muta Iuv. viii. 56:
mutum ac turpe pecus Hor. Sat. i. 3, 100.

#verba emisisse#: Lucr. v. 1087-8 ergo si varii sensus animalia cogunt
Muta tamen cum sint, varias emittere voces, &c.

#caruerunt# is obviously the right reading, not _caruerint_ (Hild),
which would introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the
narrative: caruerunt propter(ea) quod sermonem auribus _non_ acceperunt.
Even though Quint. may have been sceptical about the story its ‘moral’
agreed entirely with his own conclusions.-- Note _etiamsi ...
traduntur_, _etiamsi ... sint_ §11 below.


I. § 11.

    Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem pluribus vocibus
    declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius utaris,
    intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria
    rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem
    intellectum feruntur, ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’.

#alia#, sc. verba. See Crit. Notes.

#vocibus#: ‘sounds,’-- words in regard to their sound and form, while
_verba_ are words in regard to their meaning. The distinction is given
Cic. Or. §162 rerum verborumque iudicium prudentiae est, vocum autem et
numerorum aures sunt iudices: de Or. iii. §196 itaque non solum verbis
arte positis moventur omnes, verum etiam numeris ac vocibus (of musical
sounds). Hor. Sat. i. 3, 103 donec verba quibus voces sensusque
notarent, Nominaque invenere-- where _verba_ are the articulate words by
which men gave form and meaning to the primitive inarticulate sounds
(_voces_).

#significationis#, for the more usual _ad significationem_, ‘in point of
meaning’: vii. 2, 20 nihil interest actionum: ix. 4, 44 plurimum refert
compositionis. So Plin. Ep. ix. 13 §25 verane haec adfirmare non ausim:
interest tamen exempli ut vera videantur. Cicero has in ad Fam. iv. 10,
5 multum interesse rei familiaris tuae te quam primum venire: and
interesse reipublicae occurs (as a sort of personal genitive) in Cicero,
Caesar, and Livy. But with such a word as that in the text Cicero would
have used ad c. acc.: ad Fam. v. 12, 1 equidem ad nostram laudem non
multum video interesse, sed ad properationem meam quiddam interest non
te exspectare dum ad locum venias.

#quo#, sc. verbo.

#ensis# is the poetic word for _gladius_, though in Quint.’s time the
difference between prose usage and poetical in regard to such words had
begun to disappear. Mayor (following Gesner) notes that ‘ensis’ occurs
over sixty times in Vergil, ‘gladius’ only five times.

#τροπικῶς#, by a ‘turn’ or change of application. On metaphor see viii.
2, 6 sq.: Cic. de Orat. iii. §155: Or. §§81, 82 sq. The meaning is that
while some words are naturally synonymous, others _become_ synonyms (ad
eundem intellectum feruntur) when used figuratively, though in their
literal sense they have each a distinct application (propria rerum
aliquarum sint nomina). In the one case there are several words with the
same meaning: in the other the original meaning is different (e.g.
ferrum, mucro), but the words come to be used synonymously.-- For the
position of _quasi_, after τροπικῶς, cp. Sall. Iug. 48 §3: and see Crit.
Notes.

#ad eundem intellectum#, viii. 3, 39: feruntur 3 §6: lit. ‘pass into the
same meaning.’

#ferrum#, #mucro#, viii. 6, 20 (of synecdoche) nam prosa ut ‘mucronem’
pro gladio et ‘tectum’ pro domo recipiet, ita non ‘puppem’ pro navi nee
‘abietem’ pro tabellis, et rursus ut pro gladio ‘ferrum’ ita non pro
equo ‘quadripedem.’-- Mayor compares the use of ‘iron’ and ‘steel’ for
‘sword’ in Shakespeare.


I. § 12.

    Nam per abusionem sicarios etiam omnes vocamus qui caedem
    telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia circuitu verborum plurium
    ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia lactis.’ Plurima vero
    mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me fugit’ et ‘non
    me praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium est’.

#Nam# is again elliptical, as in §9. It introduces here a proof of what
has just been said in the shape of a reference to something still more
striking: ‘and we may go even further, for,’ &c. It may be translated
‘and indeed,’ or ‘nay more,’ or ‘likewise.’ Cp. §§23, 83: and with
_quidem_ §50. The ellipse may be supplied by the words ‘neque id mirum’:
‘and no wonder, for.’

#per abusionem#: by the figure called ‘catachresis,’-- the use of a word
of kindred signification for the proper word: Corn. ad Herenn. 10 §45
abusio est quae verbo simili et propinquo pro certo et proprio abutitur.
Cp. viii. 2, 5 abusio, quae κατάχρησις dicitur, necessaria: ib. 6 §34
κατάχρησις, quam recte dicimus abusionem, quae non habentibus nomen suum
accommodat, quod in proximo est, sic: equum divina Palladis arte
Aedificant: iii. 3, 9: ix. 2, 35. Cic. de Orat. iii. §169: Or. §94.
Quint. states the difference between _abusio_ and _translatio_ viii. 6
§35: discernendumque est _ab_ hoc totum translationis genus, quod abusio
est ubi nomen deficit, translatio ubi aliud fuit: i.e. _abusio_ is used
when a thing has not a name, and the name of something similar is given
to it, _translatio_ when one name is used instead of another. Mayor
cites Serv. Georg. iii. 533 donaria proprie loca sunt in quibus dona
reponuntur deorum, abusive templa. Cp. Quint. viii. 6, 35 poetae solent
abusive etiam in his rebus quibus nomina sua sunt vicinis potius uti.

#sicarios#. The _sica_ among the Romans specially denoted the assassin’s
poniard: Cic. de Off. iii. §36: de Nat. Deor. iii. §74: pro Rosc. Amer.
§103. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 4.

#quocumque#. Even before Quint.’s time _quicumque_ had acquired the
force of an indefinite pronoun (quivis or quilibet): Cic. Cat. 2, 5 quae
sanare poterunt, quacumque ratione (potero) sanabo. Cp. §105, 7 §2: i.
10, 35: ii. 21, 1: and frequently in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Juvenal
(e.g. x. 359). Mayor cites among other passages from Martial viii. 48, 5
non quicumque capit saturatas murice vestes.

#circuitu verborum plurium#, i.e. periphrasis. viii. 6, 59 pluribus
autem verbis cum id quod uno aut paucioribus certe dici potest
explicatur περίφρασιν vocant, circuitum quendam eloquendi: ib. §61 cum
in vitium incidit περισσολογία dicitur. Cp. xii. 10, 16: 41: viii. pr.
§24: 2 §17.

#ostendimus# = declaramus, significamus, as §14.

#et pressi copia lactis#: Verg. Ecl. 1, 81.

#plurima#, ‘very many,’ not ‘most’: a common usage in Quint. Cp. §§22,
27, 40, 49, 58, 60, 65, 81, 95, 107, 109, 117, 128: 2 §§6, 14, 24: 6 §1:
7 §17.

#mutatione figuramus#. For this use of _figurare_ (σχηματίζειν) cp. ix.
1, 9 tam enim translatis verbis quam propriis figuratur oratio: here
however _plurima_ is a cognate accus.,-- lit. ‘we very often use a
figure in substituting one form of expression for another.’ The verb is
found in this sense also in Seneca and Pliny. See Crit. Notes.--
_Figurae_ is Quint.’s favourite word for rendering σχήματα. He uses it
in more than a hundred places (i. 8, 16 schemata utraque, id est
figuras, quaeque λέξεως quaeque διανοίας vocantur): and it is to this
use of the word by him and by the later rhetoricians that we owe the
modern term ‘figure.’ Cicero has no fixed equivalent for σχήματα: he
uses _formae_, _conformationes_, _lumina_, _gestus_, _figurae_,-- often
with the Greek word added; e.g. Brut. §69 sententiarum orationisque
formis quae vocant σχήματα: cp. Or. §83, and de Opt. Gen. §14 (where
_figuris_ is accompanied by _tanquam_). Quint. defines _figura_ ix. 1, 4
as ‘conformatio quaedam orationis remota a communi et primum se
offerente ratione’: _ib._ §14 arte aliqua novata forma dicendi. The idea
of a divergence from what is usual and ordinary is always prominent in
his treatment of _figurae_: ii. 13, 11 mutant enim aliquid a recto atque
hanc prae se virtutem ferunt quod a consuetudine vulgari recesserut: ix.
1, 11 in sensu vel sermone aliqua a vulgari et simplici specie cum
ratione mutatio.-- That this idea is not involved in the original
meaning of σχήματα, but was extended to them from the τρόποι (a name
which indicates changes or ‘turns of expression’), is shown by Causeret
pp. 170-180.


I. § 13.

    Sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et
    ‘sentio’ et ‘video’ saepe idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis
    ubertatem ac divitias dabit lectio, ut non solum quo modo
    occurrent, sed etiam quo modo oportet utamur.

#ex proximo mutuari#: i.e. borrow a word that is cognate in meaning,
instead of using such negative inversions as the preceding.-- Intellego,
sentio, video, scio, are cognate words,-- ‘next door’ (in proximo) to
each other.-- For the substantival use (in Cicero and Livy) of neuter
adjectives in acc. and abl., with prepositions, in expressions denoting
place and the like, see Nägelsbach §21 pp. 102-109. Exx. are ex integro
(§20), in aperto, ex propinquo, in immensum, de alieno, ad extremum, in
praecipiti, in praesenti, in melius, e contrario (§19).

#idem valent# = ταὐτό or ἴσον δύναται, as often in Cicero and elsewhere
in Quintilian.

#ubertatem ac divitias#: hendiadys, ‘a rich store.’ For the use of two
synonymous nouns in Latin instead of a noun and an adjective, see
Nägelsbach, §73 pp. 280-281. Exx. are Cic. de Or. i. §300 absolutionem
perfectionemque ( = summa perfectio, which never occurs): de Off. ii. 5,
16 conspiratione hominum atque consensu. For this metaphorical use of
_divitiae_ cp. de Orat. i. §161 in oratione Crassi divitias atque
ornamenta eius ingenii per quaedam involucra atque integumenta perspexi.

#occurrent#: §7 and frequently elsewhere in this sense.


I. § 14.

    Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de
    intellectu animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum
    ‘intellego’, nec ut ‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’
    ostendit.

#non semper enim#, etc., ‘they do not always coincide in meaning,’ are
not always identical and interchangeable. Cf. ix. 3, 47 nec verba modo
sed sensus quoque idem facientes acervantur: where _facere_ =
_efficere_, the words being spoken of as if they were agents in
producing the meaning. _Inter se_ (ἀλλήλοις) = ‘reciprocally,’
‘mutually’: cp. ix. 3, 31: _ib._ §49.

#intellego#: repeat _recte dixerim_. For the ellipse Herbst compares v.
11, 26: viii. 6, 20: xii. 11, 27.

#mucro#: for instance in 5 §16 _gladius_ could not be substituted for
_mucro_ without the point being lost. Cp. viii. 6, 20: vi. 4, 4: ix.
4, 30.

#ostendit# = indicat, significat. Cp. §12.


I. § 15.

    Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum
    gratia legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque
    docemus, hoc sunt exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur
    artibus (cum eo qui discit perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine
    demonstrante et sequi iam suis viribus possit), quia quae doctor
    praecepit orator ostendit.

#ut ... ita#: v. on _sicut ... ita_ §1.

#sic#, multa lectione atque auditione §10. In reading and hearing we are
not to aim merely at increasing our stock of words: many other things
may be learned by the same practical method. Cp. 2 §1.

#hoc# = idcirco, ideo, corresponding to _quia_ below. Cp. §34 hoc
potentiora quod: §129 eo perniciosissima quod: v. 11, 37. See Crit.
Notes.

#etiam ipsis#: §24. Herbst cites also Hor. Sat. i. 3, 39 Turpia
decipiunt caecum vitia aut etiam ipsa haec delectant. Cicero uses _etiam
ipse_ (with rather more emphasis than _ipse quoque_) de Nat. Deor. ii.
§46: Rab. Post. §33: pro Planc. §73: pro Mil. §21-- Nägelsbach p. 367.

#quae traduntur artibus#. _Artes_ is here used, as often in the plural,
for the rules or collections of rules taught in schools. So ii. 5, 14
hoc diligentiae genus ausim dicere plus collaturum discentibus quam
omnes omnium artes. Pr. §26 nihil praecepta atque artes valere nisi
adiuvante natura: cp. §47 below litium et consiliorum artes: §49 qui de
artibus scripserunt. This use is derived from that in which _ars_ stands
generally for ‘system’ or ‘theory’: ii. 14, 5 ars erit quae disciplina
percipi debet (cp. Cic. de Or. ii. §30 ars earum rerum est quae
sciuntur): and below 7 §12 hic usus ita proderit si ea de qua locuti
sumus ars antecesserit. Elsewhere in Quint. it is frequently used for a
technical treatise: ii. 13, 1 a plerisque scriptoribus artium: 15 §4 si
re vera ars quae circumfertur eius (Isocratis) est: cp. Iuv. 7, 177
artem scindes Theodori. This last use is found also in Cicero: Brutus
§46 ait Aristoteles ... artem et praecepta Siculos Coracem et Tisiam
conscripsisse: de Fin. iii. §4 ipsae rhetorum artes: iv. §5 non solum
praecepta in artibus sed etiam exempla in orationibus bene dicendi
reliquerunt: _ib._ §7 quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes: de
Invent. i. §8: ii. §7.-- _Traduntur_ = docentur, just as accipere =
discere: cf. i. 3, 3 quae tradentur non difficulter accipiet: ii. 9, 3:
iii. 6, 59.

#sine demonstrante#: ‘without a guide’ or teacher. For this use of the
participle, cp. i. 2, 12 lectio quoque non omnis nec semper praeeuntevel
interpretante eget.

#iam# heightens the contrast between the two stages-- pupilage and
independent study. There is therefore no need for Hild’s conjecture
_viam_.

#ostendit# ‘gives a practical demonstration of.’ We are not merely to
learn the rules (artes) from the _doctor_, but to observe how they are
applied by the best writers and speakers.


I. § 16.

    Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat
    qui dicit spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus
    incendit. Vivunt omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa
    velut nascentia cum favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo
    iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum qui orant periculo adficimur.

#alia# does not refer to some particular kinds of speeches, as Watson
translates. Literally, it is ‘some things do more good when one hears
them, others when one reads them’: but _alia_ and _adiuvant_ run into
each other, as it were, and the meaning is ‘some benefits are derived
from hearing, others from reading,’ i.e. they have each their special
points. In the passive it would stand ‘aliter audientes adiuvantur
aliter legentes.’

#spiritu ipso#: the ‘living breath’ (vivunt omnia et moventur), as
opposed to the dead letter: the sound of the voice (viva vox) instead of
the ‘cold medium of written symbols’ (Frieze), ii. 2, 8 viva illa, ut
dicitur, vox alit plenius (sc. quam exempla). Plin. Ep. ii. 3, 9 multo
magis, ut vulgo dicitur, viva vox adficit. nam liceat acriora sint quae
legas, altius tamen in animo sedent quae pronuntiatio vultus habitus
gestus etiam dicentis adfigit. Cic. Orat. §130 carent libri spiritu illo
propter quem maiora eadem illa cum aguntur quam cum leguntur videri
solent, where Sandys quotes Isocr. Phil. §26. So Dion. Hal. de Dem. 54
(p. 112 R) of the speeches of Demosthenes when ill delivered, τὸ
κάλλιστον αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς λέξεως) ἀπολεῖται, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐδὲν διοίσει
σώματος καλοῦ μὲν ἀκινήτου δὲ καὶ νεκροῦ.

#ambitu rerum#. This phrase has been variously explained. Wolff thought
that it was equivalent to ‘rerum circumscriptio quam prima lineamenta
ducentes faciunt pictores’; and following him many render by ‘bare
outline,’ ‘rough draft or sketch,’ ‘outline drawing,’ without however
citing any apposite parallel. Others say it = ‘ambitiosa rerum
expositione’: cp. iv. 1, 18 hic ambitus ... pronuntiandi faciendique
iniuste: xii. 10, 3 proprio quodam intellegendi ambitu (‘affectation of
superior judgment’): Declam. IV, sub fin., novo mihi inauditoque opus
est ambitu rerum: ib. I pr. si iuvenis innocentissimus iudices uti
vellet ambitu tristissimae calamitatis. Schöll sees no difficulty if
the phrase is taken in the same sense as ‘ambitus parietis,’ ‘ambitus
aedificiorum.’ If _ambitus_ is not a gloss, may the meaning not be that
the speaker goes straight to the heart of his subject instead of
‘beating about the bush,’ like the more leisurely writer? See Crit.
Notes.

#vivunt omnia enim#: ‘all is life and movement.’ For the position of
_enim_ cp. non semper enim §14. In Lucr. _enim_ often comes third in the
sentence, and even later. Mayor cites Cic. ad Att. xiv. 6 §1 odiosa illa
enim fuerant: Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 105.

#nova illa velut nascentia#: the ‘new births’ of his imagination-- of
the _spoken_ word which has more of the impromptu element about it than
the written. 3 §7 omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur placent. For this use
of _ille_ cp. §17 ille laudantium clamor: §47: 3 §6 calor quoque ille
cogitationis: 3 §§18, 22, 31: 5 §§4, 12: ii 10, 7 tremor ille inanis.

#fortuna iudicii#: Cic. Or. §98 ancipites dicendi incertosque casus: de
Orat. i. §120 dicendi difficultatem variosque eventus orationis: pro
Marcello §15 incertus exitus et anceps fortuna belli. This is of the
issue of the trial in itself: _ipsorum qui orant periculo_ is used of
the issue as it affects the advocate, who will have all the credit or
discredit of success or failure. For the strain which this involved cp.
Plin. Ep. iv. 19 §3.-- For the absolute use of _orare_ cp. §76: 5 §6.
Plin. Ep. vii. 9, 7 studium orandi: cp. Tac. Hist. i. 90. Tac. Dial. §6
illa secretiora et tantum ipsis orantibus nota maiora sunt.


I. § 17.

    Praeter haec vox, actio decora, accommodata, ut quisque
    locus postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima in dicendo)
    ratio et, ut semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione
    certius iudicium, quod audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor
    aut ille laudantium clamor extorquet.

#vox, actio ... pronuntiandi ratio#. Here _actio_ takes the place of
_gestus_ in 7 §9, with the same meaning (the management of the person in
speaking): adhibita vocis pronuntiationis gestus observatione. In a
wider sense (§19) it is used of ‘delivery’ generally (ὑπόκρισις),
occurring more commonly in this sense in previous writers than
_pronuntiatio_, which Quintilian gives as an alternative term in iii. 3,
1: cp. xi. 3, 1 pronuntiatio a plerisque actio dicitur, sed prius nomen
a voce, sequens a gestu videtur accipere. Namque actionem Cicero alias
(de Or. iii. §222) quasi sermonem, alias (Or. §55) eloquentiam quandam
corporis dicit. Idem tamen duas eius partes facit quae sunt eaedem
pronuntiationis, vocem atque motum: quapropter utraque appellatione
indifferenter uti licet. In xi. 3, 14 he goes on to divide _actio_ into
_vox_ and _gestus_: cp. Dion. Hal. de Dem. 53, where ὑπόκρισις is
divided into τὰ πάθη τὰ τῆς φωνῆς and τὰ σχήματα τοῦ σώματος: Cic. Brut.
§§141, 239.-- _Pronuntiandi ... ratio_. As voice and gesture (together
making up _actio_ or _pronuntiatio_ in the wide sense) have now been
mentioned, it is tempting to take this third item in the narrower
meaning of ‘articulation,’ in which it occurs 7 §22 tardior
pronuntiatio: cp. dilucida pronuntiatio xi. 3, 33: citata ... pressa ib.
§111. But the prominence given to it (see on _vel potentissima_ below)
seems to make it necessary to understand _pronunt. ratio_ in the widest
sense of _pronuntiatio_ (as probably §119), including voice, gesture,
and other kindred elements; cp. ad Herenn. §3 pronuntiatio est vocis
vultus gestus moderatio cum venustate: Cic. de Inv. §7 pronuntiatio est
vocis et corporis moderatio. For _accommodata ut_ see Crit. Notes.

#vel potentissima#: §15 potentiora. For the supreme importance of
‘delivery’ cp. the well-known story of Demosthenes xi. 3, 6 Demosth.
quid esset in toto dicendi opere primum interrogatus, pronuntiationi
palmam dedit eidemque secundum ac tertium locum, donec ab eo quaeri
desineret, ut eam videri posset non praecipuam sed solam iudicasse. Cp.
Cic. Brut. §142: de Or. iii. §213: Or. §56. Cicero’s use of _actio_ for
_pronuntiatio_ in these passages is probably the origin of the
misunderstanding of this anecdote that shows itself, e.g. in Bacon’s
Essay ‘Of Boldnesse.’ _Actio_ is far wider than our English word: for
its scope and importance cp. de Orat. i. §18 (Actio) quae motu corporis,
quae gestu, quae voltu, quae vocis conformatione ac varietate moderanda
est: quae sola per se ipsa quanta sit, &c.

#semel#: ‘once for all’ 3 §22, and often; Cic. de Off. iii. §62 ut sibi
... semel indicaretur.

#frequenter#, as often in this sense in Quint. The lexx. give no example
from Cicero, but cp. de Nat. Deor. i. 21, 59 Zenonem cum Athenis essem
audiebam frequenter: de Fin. i. 5, 16 eos cum Attico nostro frequenter
audivi: ii. 4, 12 hoc frequenter dici solet a vobis: v. 3, 8 qui fratrem
eius Aristum frequenter audieris: Tusc. Disp. ii. 3, 9 Philo quem nos
frequenter audivimus: Or. §221 non modo non frequenter verum etiam raro
(Wilkins on de Or. ii. §155, 2nd ed.). Cp. Sandys’ note on Or. §81,
where Dr. Reid adds ‘This sense is by no means as uncommon as it is
usually thought to be. There are a good many exx. in the Letters.’ So
Plin. Ep. i. 1, 1: ix. 23, 1.

#suus cuique favor#: ‘one’s preference for a particular speaker.’
Instead of the dat., we have ‘est naturalis favor pro laborantibus’ iv.
1, 9: Tacitus uses _in_ and _erga_ c. acc. (Hist. i. 53: Germ. 33.)

#ille laudantium clamor#. _Ille_ again (§16) to denote something
notorious: ἐκεῖνος. Ancient audiences were highly appreciative:
Isocrates (Panath. §2) speaks of the antitheses, the symmetrical
clauses, and other figures which lend brilliancy to oratorical displays,
compelling the listeners to give clamorous applause (ἐπισημαίνεσθαι καὶ
θορυβεῖν). Cp. xi. 3, 126 conveniet etiam ambulatio quaedam propter
immodicas laudationum moras: §131: and see on §18 below. The references
in Cicero are numerous: Brut. §§164, 326: de Or. i. §152 haec sunt quae
clamores et admirationes in bonis oratoribus efficiunt: ad Att. i. 14, 4
Quid multa? clamores: Or. §§214, 168. Tac. Dial. 39 oratori autem
clamore plausuque opus est et velut quodam theatro, with which Andresen
compares Brut. §191 poema enim reconditum paucorum approbationem, oratio
popularis assensum vulgi debet movere. Plin. Ep. ii. 10, 7: iv. 5, 1:
ix. 13, 18.

#extorquet#: iv. 5, 6 cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre. For the
figure Mayor cps. de Orat. ii. §74 numquam sententias de manibus iudicum
vi quadam orationis extorsimus.


I. § 18.

    Pudet enim dissentire, et velut tacita quadam verecundia
    inhibemur plus nobis credere, cum interim et vitiosa pluribus
    placent, et a conrogatis laudantur etiam quae non placent.

#pudet dissentire#: of Cicero §111 in omnibus quae dicit tanta
auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat.

#velut tacita quadam verecundia#. _Tacitus_ is used frequently of
‘unexpressed’ thought or feeling: Cic. pro Balb. §2 opinio tacita
vestrorum animorum: Cluent. §63 tacita vestra expectatio. Cp. Or. §203
(versuum) modum notat ars, sed aures ipsae tacito eum sensu sine arte
definiunt, where Sandys renders ‘by an unconscious intuition’: de Or.
iii. §195 magna quaedam est vis incredibilisque naturae; omnes enim
tacito quodam sensu sine ulla arte aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac
rationibus recta ac prava diiudicant. On these passages Nägelsbach
relies to prove that _tacitus sensus_ (not inscius, insciens, nescius,
imprudens, &c.) is the right equivalent for ‘the unconscious’-- ‘das
Gefühl, das durch die Sprache nicht zum Ausdruck, mithin nicht zum
Bewusstsein gekommen ist, also gleichsam stillschweigend in der Seele
ruht.’ The correct Latin for Hartmann’s ‘philosophy of the unconscious’
is therefore ‘Hartmanni quae est de tacito sensu (hominum) philosophia.’
In proof of this the passage in the text is cited (p. 312) and
translated ‘durch unbewusste Scheu,’ ‘owing to a sort of unconscious
shyness’: cp. vi. 3, 17 urbanitas qua quidem significari video sumptam
ex conversatione doctorum tacitam eruditionem, ‘unconsciously acquired’:
xi. 2, 17 cum in loca aliqua post tempus reversi sumus quae in his
fecerimus reminiscimur personaeque subeunt, nonnunquam tacitae quoque
cogitationes in mentem revertuntur, ‘unausgesprochene, im Bewusstsein
zurückgedrängte, unbewusst gewordene Gedanken.’

#inhibemur ... credere#. Cic. pro Rab. Post. §24 cum stultitia sua
impeditus sit, quoquo modo possit se expedire. In classical Latin the
infinitive is common enough after such verbs in the passive, and an
object clause is often met with after _prohibere_ even in the active:
after _impedire_ Cicero uses the infinitive only when there is a neuter
subject: e.g. de Or. i. §163 me impedit pudor haec exquirere: de Off.
ii. 2, 8: de Nat. Deor. i. §87.-- For Quintilian’s preference for the
infin. cp. §72 meruit credi: §96 legi dignus: §97 esse docti affectant:
2 §7 contentum esse id consequi: 5 §5 qui vertere orationes Latinas
vetant. See Introd. pp. lv, lvi.

#cum interim#: with indic. as §111 below. This is the more common
construction in Quintilian: Roby, 1733. Cp. i. 12, 3: ii. 12, 2: xii.
10, 67. So _cum interea_: Cic. Cluent. §82. The subj. occurs iv. 2, 57.
Bonnell-Meister strangely say it = quin etiam here and §111. Translate
‘though all the time’ the taste of the majority is wrong, while the
claqueurs will applaud anything. Cp. Crit. Notes.

#vitiosa pluribus placent#: i. 6, 44 unde enim tantum boni ut pluribus
quae recta sunt placeant.

#a conrogatis#. The reference is to the _claqueurs_ who were often
brought together for a fee to applaud the speakers in the courts: iv. 2,
37 ad clamorem dispositae vel etiam forte circumfusae multitudinis
compositi: Plin. Ep. ii. 14, 4 sequuntur auditores actoribus similes,
conducti et redempti: manceps convenitur: in media basilica tam palam
sportulae quam in triclinio dantur ... heri duo nomenclatores mei ...
ternis denariis ad laudandum trahebantur. tanti constat ut sis
disertissimus. hoc pretio quamlibet numerosa subsellia implentur, hoc
ingens corona colligitur, hoc infiniti clamores commoventur, cum
μεσόχορος dedit signum. opus est enim signo apud non intellegentes, ne
audientes quidem: nam plerique non audiunt, nec ulli magis laudant....
scito eum pessime dicere qui laudabitur maxime. primus hunc audiendi
morem induxit Largus Licinus, hactenus tamen ut auditores corrogaret:
ita certe ex Quintiliano, praeceptore meo, audisse memini. Cp. Iuv. vii.
44 with Mayor’s note.


I. § 19.

    Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam
    prava iudicia non referant. Lectio libera est nec actionis
    impetu transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive dubites
    sive memoriae penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et
    tractemus et, ut cibos mansos ac prope liquefactos demittimus,
    quo facilius digerantur, ita lectio non cruda, sed multa
    iteratione mollita et velut confecta memoriae imitationique
    tradatur.

#gratiam ... non referunt#: ‘a depraved taste will fail to give proper
recognition to what is more than well spoken.’ For _prava iud._ cp. §125
severiora iudicia: so ii. 5, 10 iudiciorum pravitate: and §72 below,
e contrario: see on _ex proximo_ §16, and cp. Crit. Notes.

#nec actionis impetu transcurrit#: ‘does not hurry past us with the
rapid swoop of oral delivery.’ For the active use see 5 §8 non enim
scripta lectione secura transcurrimus sed tractamus singula, which gives
the same antithesis as there is between this sentence and the next. For
the abl. cp. _diversitate_ 5 §10. See Crit. Notes.

#sive ... sive#: the subj. of the 2nd person represents the French _on_
or Germ. _man_ with the 3rd person. Cp. ix. 2, 69 ideoque a quibusdam
tota res repudiatur, sive intellegatur sive non intellegatur.

#repetamus et tractemus#: subj. of command ‘we must go back on what we
have read and revise (think over) it thoroughly.’ Cp. the antithesis in
5 §8 quoted above. Cic. Or. §118 habeat omnes philosophiae notos ac
tractatos locos. See Crit. Notes.

#cibos#. Note the parallelism between _mansos_, _liquefactos_, and
_demittimus_ on the one hand, and _mollita_, _confecta_, _tradatur_ on
the other.-- For _mansos_ cp. de Or. ii. §162: qui omnes tenuissimas
particulas atque omnia minima mansa ut nutrices infantibus pueris in os
inserant. The word _mandere_ (Eng. mange, manger) means originally
‘moisten,’ from root mand-, cp. mad-, madeo. Quint. xi. 2, 41 taedium
illud et scripta et lecta saepius revolvendi et quasi eundem cibum
remandendi.

#digerantur#, late Latin for _concoquantur_, xi. 2, 35 digestum cibum.
Introd. p. 1.

#lectio# = ‘what we read.’

#mollita#. Herbst and Mayor cite Ov. Met. i. 228 atque ita semineces
partim ferventibus artus Mollit aquis; and for _confecta_ (‘chewed,’
‘masticated’) Columella vi. 2 §14 (of oxen) multi cibi edaces verum in
eo conficiendo lenti: nam hi melius concoquunt ... qui ex commodo quam
qui festinanter mandunt: Pliny, N. H. xi. §160 (of the teeth) qui
digerunt cibum (the incisors) lati et acuti, qui conficiunt (the
grinders) duplices. Cp. Cic. N. D. ii. §134: Livy ii. 32, 10. Elsewhere
it is used of the action of the stomach on food: Cic. N. D. ii. §137:
Pliny N. H. xi. §180: viii. §72.

#memoriae imitationique#, ‘to the memory for (subsequent) imitation.’


I. § 20.

    Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi
    minime fallat legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi
    sollicitudinem, nec per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed
    perlectus liber utique ex integro resumendus, praecipueque
    oratio, cuius virtutes frequenter ex industria quoque
    occultantur.

#non nisi# is here practically an adverb (tantum), modifying only one
term of the proposition instead of, as in Ciceronian Latin, belonging to
different clauses, or at least different parts of the same clause. In
the latter case it is almost always separated, the _non_ preceding or
following the _nisi_: 3 §30 nisi in solitudine reperire non possumus: 5
§5: 7 §1. For the text cp. 3 §29 non nisi refecti, and Ovid, Tr. iii.
12, 36.

#fallat#, i.e. as a model of style. For the construction cp. tenuia et
quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedant: §§78, 118, 119.

#sed# does not bear an adversative meaning, but is equivalent to _et
quidem_, _immo vero_, ‘nay more.’ See Mayor on Iuv. iv. 27 and v. 147.
Holden on de Off. i. §33 quotes ad Att. v. 21 §6 Q. Volusium, certum
hominem, sed mirifice etiam abstinentem, misi in Cyprum: ad Fam. xiii.
§64 apud ipsum praeclarissime posueris sed mihi etiam gratissimum
feceris.

#ad# (i.e. usque ad) #scribendi sollicitudinem#, i.e. as thoroughly and
as slowly. Cic. pro Mil. §80 prope ad immortalitatis et religionem et
memoriam consecrantur: ‘bis zur Verehrung der Unsterblichkeit’ (Hand),
i.e. ‘so much venerated as almost to obtain the religious worship and
commemoration proper to an immortal state of being’ (Purton). For
_scrib. soll._ (of the careful deliberation one gives to writing) cp.
scribentium curam 3 §20: Plin. Ep. ii. 5 §2 his tu rogo intentionem
scribentis accommodes.

#utique#, ‘by all means.’ In §57 we have nec utique = nullo modo:
without the negative it = omni modo, ‘anyhow,’ ‘under any
circumstances,’ ‘happen what may.’ (Cp. Cic. ad Att. xii. 8: xiii.
48, 2.) The difference may be seen in the following from Seneca (Ep. 85
§31) Sapienti propositum est in vita agenda non utique quod temptat
efficere, sed omnino recte facere: gubernatori propositum est utique
navem in portum perducere. It frequently occurs with the gerundive, as
here: cp. §§24, 103: 2 §10: 5 §12: 7 §§14, 19, 30. For _non utique_
(‘not of course,’ ‘not necessarily’) cp. xii. 2, 18.

#ex integro# occurs four times in Quint., here and at 3 §§6, 18: xi. 3,
156. In such adverbial expressions _de_ or _ab_ was formerly more
common: but cp. _ex improviso_ Cic. Verr. i. 112. Quintilian has _de
integro_ only once, ii. 4, 13: cp. ix. 3, 37.

#praecipue# for _praesertim_: cp. §89: and with _cum_ ix. 2, 85: Hor.
Ep. ii. 1, 261.

#ex industria# (§125: 5 §9) occurs Plaut. Poen. i. 2, 9: Livy i. 56, 8.
Quintilian has _de industria_ ix. 4, 144.

#quoque#: as often in Quint. for _etiam_. Cp. on §125: Introd. p. liv.


I. § 21.

    Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur orator, eaque
    in prima parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa profutura.
    Itaque suo loco minus placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint
    ignorantibus; ideoque erunt cognitis omnibus repetenda.

#saepe enim#: cp. xii. 9, 4.

#praeparat#: cp. iv. 2, 55 hoc faciunt et illae praeparationes, cum reus
dicitur robustus, armatus, sollicitus contra infirmos, inermes, securos:
ix. 2, 17.

#actionis# as below §22: 5 §20. Cp. Prima actio in Verrem, &c.

#in summa#: i.e. will not tell till the end is reached. Cp. iv. 2, 112
cur quod in summa parte sum actionis petiturus, non in primo statim
rerum ingressu, si fieri potest, consequar? For summus = extremus, cp.
§97 summa in excolendis operibus manus: see Introd. p. xlvi.

#suo loco#, ‘where they occur,’ not as 5 §23. To appreciate such points
thoroughly, we must know their bearing on the whole argument.

#ideoque# very common in Quint. for _itaque_: §§27, 31, 102: 2 §§17, 26:
3 §§16, 25, 28, 33: 5 §§5, 16: 6 §§3, 5: 7 §15. So Tac. Dial. 31 ad
fin.: Germ. 26.

#repetenda# as §19.


I. § 22.

    Illud vero utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes
    in manus sumpserimus, et, quotiens continget, utrimque habitas
    legere actiones: ut Demosthenis et Aeschinis inter se
    contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque Messallae, quorum alter pro
    Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et Cassi reo Asprenate
    aliasque plurimas.

#illud#, like ἐκεῖνο to introduce what follows: §67: 2 §7: 5 §11: 7 §32.

#causas quarum orationes#: Cic. de Senect. §38 causarum illustrium
quascunque defendi nunc cum maxime conficio orationes.

#utrimque#, §131: 5 §20.

#Demosthenis et Aeschinis#. The reference is to the _De Corona_ of
Demosthenes and Aeschines _Contra Ctesiphontem_,-- both translated by
Cicero (Opt. Gen. Or. §14): also to the _De Falsa Legatione_ and
Aeschines _Contra Timarchum_.

#Servi Sulpici#: see on §116.

#Messallae#: see on §113.

#pro Aufidia#. From iv. 2, 106 it would appear that Messalla was
prosecutor in this case: but in vi. 1, 20 that rôle is assigned to
Sulpicius. Schöll has proposed to alter the text of the latter passage
as follows: ut Servium Sulpicium Messalla contra Aufidiam ne signatorum,
ne ipsius discrimen obiciat sibi praemonet. It is probable that the case
concerned an inheritance.

#Pollionis#: see on §113.

#Cassi#: see on §116.

#reo Asprenate#. C. Nonius Asprenas, a friend of Augustus, was
prosecuted by Cassius for poisoning, and was defended by Pollio, Suet.
Aug. 56. In xi. 1, 57 Quint. urges that an accuser should always appear
reluctant to press the charge, and adds ‘ideoque mihi illud Cassi Severi
non mediocriter displicet: di boni, vivo, et, quo me vivere iuvet,
Asprenatem reum video.’ Pliny (N. H. 35, 46) tells us that 130 guests
were poisoned.


I. § 23.

    Quin etiam si minus pares videbuntur aliquae, tamen ad
    cognoscendam litium quaestionem recte requirentur, ut contra
    Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre.
    Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque {egerit utile} erit scire.
    Nam de domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et pro Milone orationem
    Brutus exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi egisse eum
    Cornelius Celsus falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla
    defenderunt eosdem, et nobis pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo
    Domiti Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi Laeli orationes ferebantur.

#quin etiam#: see Crit. Notes.

#minus pares#, i.e. in point of rhetorical worth. For _si ... aliquae_
cp. 2 §23: 6 §5.

#recte requirentur#, i.e. ‘it will be well to get them up.’

#Ciceronis orationes#: ‘pro Ligario,’ and ‘in Verrem.’ The former was
impeached by Q. Tubero (B.C. 46) in respect of having sided with the
Pompeians in Africa. ‘Cicero defended him successfully before Caesar in
the forum (Plut. Cic. 39); the speech was greatly admired at the time
(ad Att. xiii. 12 §2: 19 §2: 20 §2: 44 §3) and since, for, short as it
is, it is often cited by Quint. and the other rhet. lat.’ (Mayor).

#Hortensi pro Verre#, B.C. 70. Nothing of Hortensius remains, so that
posterity has not had the opportunity which Cicero hoped it would enjoy:
dicendi autem genus quod fuerit in utroque orationes utriusque etiam
posteris nostris indicabunt (Brut. §324). Quint. does not mention him
among the Roman orators, §§105-122. His oratory depended greatly for its
effect on his graceful delivery, and he was not to be judged by his
written speeches: Cic. Or. §132 dicebat melius quam scripsit Hortensius:
he ‘spoke better, i.q. was accustomed to speak better than he has
written,-- than he shows himself in his written speeches which are still
extant’ (Sandys): cp. Quint. xi. 3, 8 where he extols his effective
delivery and goes on ‘cuius rei fides est quod eius scripta tantum intra
famam sunt, qua diu princeps oratorum aliquando aemulus Ciceronis
existimatus est, novissime, quoad vixit, secundus, ut appareat placuisse
aliquid eo dicente quod legentes non invenimus.’-- For other references
to the case of Verres, see vi. 3, 98: 5, 4.

#utile erit scire#: see Crit. Notes.

#de domo Ciceronis#. Cicero’s house was destroyed at the instigation of
Clodius, after his banishment in B.C. 58. On his return he delivered his
speech pro Domo Sua before the Pontiffs, and the senate decreed that his
house should be restored at the public cost.

#dixit Calidius#. His speech must have been something more than a mere
rhetorical exercise, as some have supposed: it probably argued the
question before a tribunal in a different form. For Calidius see Brut.
§274 non fuit orator unus e multis, potius inter multos prope singularis
fuit, &c. Cp. xi. 3, 123 and 155: xii. 10, 11 subtilitatem Calidii
(‘finished elegance’): ib. §37. He was born B.C. 97; was praetor 57; and
died 47.

#Brutus, M. Iunius# (B.C. 85-42) justified in this speech the murder of
Clodius, not (as Cicero had done) by the statement that Clodius had
plotted Milo’s death, but on the ground that he was a bad citizen and
deserved to die: iii. 6, 93. Other references are §123 and 5 §20.

#egisse#: to have actually delivered it: opposed to _scripsit_.

#Cornelius Celsus#: see on §124.

#et Pollio et Messalla#. The first _et_ is not correlative to the
second, but adds to the _et pro Milone_ clause a third example, as the
_et_ before _nobis pueris_ does a fourth. Spalding thought that et ...
et was here = tam ... quam.

#defenderunt eosdem#: e.g. Liburnia ix. 2, 34.

#nobis pueris#: an autobiographical reminiscence. Cp. i. 7, 27: vi. 3,
57: viii. 3, 22-3: ib. 1, 31: x. 1, 86: viii. 3, 76: 5, 21: i. 5, 24: v.
6, 6.

#Voluseno Catulo#: not mentioned elsewhere.

#Domiti Afri#: see on §§86, 118. Of his orations, those on behalf of
Volusenus and Cloatilla seem to have been the most celebrated: cp. viii.
5, 16: ix. 2, 20: 3, 66. For his work on Testimony, see v. 7, 7: and for
his ‘libri urbane dictorum’ vi. 3, 42.

#Crispi Passieni#. He was the stepfather of Nero, according to Suetonius
(Nero, 6), and died A.D. 49. In vi. 1, 50 we have a reference to a
speech of his on behalf of his wife Domitia. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. iv.
pr. §6 says of him ‘quo ego nil novi subtilius in omnibus rebus, maxime
in distinguendis et curandis vitiis.’ In speaking of Caligula’s
obsequiousness under Tiberius, Tacitus (Ann. vi. 20) says ‘unde mox
scitum Passieni oratoris dictum percrebruit neque meliorem umquam servum
neque deteriorem dominum fuisse.’ His father’s oratory is highly praised
by M. Seneca, who ranks him after Pollio and Corvinus (Contr. 13, 17:
Exc. Contr. 3 pr. 10, 14), and appears also to mention the grandfather
(Contr. 10 pr. 11). Seneca the philosopher refers to the hereditary
eloquence of the family in the epigram he addresses to Crispus: Maxima
facundo vel avo vel gloria patri (vi. 9). Pliny, Ep. vii. 6, 11.

#Decimi Laeli#: probably the same as the Laelius Balbus who undertook an
impeachment under Tiberius: Tac. Ann. vi. 47. In the next chapter we are
told that the punishment which overtook him (deportation and loss of
senatorian rank) was a source of satisfaction ‘quia Balbus truci
eloquentia habebatur, promptus adversum insontes.’

#ferebantur#: ‘were in circulation,’ ‘were talked of’; cp. §129: 7 §30:
vii. 224: i. pr. §7. Cic. Brut. §27 ante Periclem cuius scripta quaedam
feruntur: Suet. Iul. 20: Tac. Dial. 10 ad fin.


I. § 24.

    Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi
    auctores dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur
    aliquando et oneri cedunt et indulgent ingeniorum suorum
    voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum; nonnumquam fatigantur,
    cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes, Horatio vero etiam
    Homerus ipse videatur.

#Neque id statim# introduces a second precept, the first having been
given in §20. He passes here from orators to writers in general.

#id# of what follows (omnia ... esse perfecta): as §§37, 112: 2 §21. So
_illud_ §22.

#auctores# = scriptores. In the Ciceronian age _auctor_ carried with it
some idea of ‘authority,’ ‘warranty’ or the like: Cic. pro Mur. §30 and
Tusc. iv. §3: cp. §§37, 40, 48, 66, 72, 74, 85, 93, 124: 2 §§1, 15: 5
§§3, 8. Prof. Nettleship (Lat. Lex.) thinks that it is never quite
synonymous with _scriptor_, even in Quintilian, and would render by
‘master’: just as in Cic. Att. xii. 18, 1 quos nunc lectito auctores:
Suet. Aug. 89 in evolvendis utriusque linguae auctoribus peritus: Sen.
Ep. ii. 2 lectio auctorum multorum et omnis generis voluminum: Tranq. 9,
4 paucis te auctoribus tradere: Iuv. vii. 231 ut legat historias,
auctores noverit omnes.

#utique#: see on §20. It is often used in stating a consequence: v. 10,
57 quod iustitia est utique virtus est, quod non est iustitia potest
esse virtus: ib. §73 si continentia virtus utique et abstinentia. Bonn.
Lex. p. 930.

#labuntur#: §94: 2 §15 nam in magnis quoque auctoribus incidunt aliqua
vitiosa.

#oneri cedunt#: contrast §123 suffecit ponderi rerum.

#indulgent ... voluptati#: cp. §98: and nimium amator ingenii sui (of
Ovid) §88.

#intendunt animum#: Sall. Cat. 51, 3 ubi intenderis ingenium valet (sc.
animus).

#dormitare#: xii. 1, 22 quamquam neque ipsi Ciceroni Demosthenes
videatur satis esse perfectus, quem dormitare interim dicit. Cic. Or.
§104 ut usque eo difficiles ac morosi simus ut nobis non satisfaciat
ipse Demosthenes. It was in a letter that Cicero made use of the
expression here cited: Plut. Cic. 24 καίτοι τινὲς τῶν προσποιουμένων
δημοσθενίζειν ἐπιφύονται φωνῇ τοῦ Κικέρωνος, ἣν πρός τινα τῶν ἑταίρων
ἔθηκεν ἐν ἐπιστολῇ γράψας, ἐνιαχοῦ τῶν λόγων ὑπονυστάζειν τὸν Δημοσθένη.

#interim#: see on §9. Quint. here uses _aliquando_, _nec semper_,
_nonnumquam_, and _interim_ alongside of each other: cp. iv. 5, 20.

#Horatio#: A. P. 359 et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.
Homer was not above the criticism of the Greek grammarians and
philosophers, who delighted to discover faults and inconsistencies in
his poems: hence Zoilus was known as Ὁμηρομάστιξ. The fragments of
Horace’s predecessor Lucilius also contain some criticisms of Homer:
e.g. Sat. ix. 12 (Gerlach) Quapropter dico nemo qui culpat Homerum
Perpetuo culpat, &c., and xv. where he satirizes the story of
Polyphemus.

#etiam ... ipse#: see on §15.


I. § 25.

    Summi enim sunt, homines tamen, acciditque his qui,
    quidquid apud illos reppererunt, dicendi legem putant, ut
    deteriora imitentur (id enim est facilius) ac se abunde similes
    putent si vitia magnorum consequantur.

#homines#. Cp. Petronius 75 nemo nostrum non peccat: homines sumus non
dei: ib. 130 fateor me, domina, saepe peccasse; nam et homo sum et adhuc
iuvenis.

#deteriora#: cp. §127 sq. (of the imitation of Seneca’s faults): 2 §§15,
16.

#facilius#: Iuv. xiv. 40 quoniam dociles imitandis turpibus ac pravis
omnes sumus. So Hor. Ep. i. 19, 17 decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile.

#abunde#, often used to heighten the force of adjs. and advbs. Cp. xi.
1, 36 abunde disertus: xii. 11, 19 abunde satis: Hor. Sat. i. 2, 59:
Sall. Iug. 14: Liv. viii. 29. See on §94: and cp. §104.

#vitia magnorum#: cp. de Or. ii. §90 non ut multos imitatores saepe
cognovi, qui aut ea quae facilia sunt aut etiam illa quae insignia ac
paene vitiosa consectantur imitando-- in eo ipso quem delegerat imitari
etiam vitia voluit.


I. § 26.

    Modesto tamen et circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris
    pronuntiandum est, ne, quod plerisque accidit, damnent quae non
    intellegunt. Ac si necesse est in alteram errare partem, omnia
    eorum legentibus placere quam multa displicere maluerim.

#circumspecto#. So verba non circumspecta Ov. Fast. v. 539: also in
Sueton., Colum., Seneca, and Val. Max. Cp. v. 7, 31: xii. 10, 23.

#plerisque#: see Introd. p. xlvi.

#damnent#. Strabo vii. 3, p. 300, in speaking of Callimachus, who
censured Homer, περὶ ὧν ἀγνοοῦσιν αὐτοί, περὶ τούτων τῷ ποιητῇ
προφέρουσι.

#ac si#: 2 §8. It almost = quod si: both relate to what has gone before.

#alteram# = alterutram: ‘on one side or on the other.’ Cp. ii. 6, 2: v.
10, 69 ex duobus quorum necesse est alterum verum (esse): i. 4, 24: ix.
3, 6. So also in Cicero: e.g. ad Att. xi. 18, 1: Acad. ii. 43. 132.

#maluerim#: see on _fuerit_ §37.


I. § 27.

    Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem
    poetarum multique eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito.
    Namque ab his in rebus spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in
    adfectibus motus omnis et in personis decor petitur,
    praecipueque velut attrita cotidiano actu forensi ingenia optime
    rerum talium blanditia reparantur; ideoque in hac lectione
    Cicero requiescendum putat.

#conferre# with dat. §§63, 71, 95. Cp. on §1.

#Theoparastus#: probably in his lost work περὶ λέξεως, or some other of
the ten treatises on Rhetoric which are ascribed to him by Diogenes
Laertius (v. 46-50). See on §83.

#neque immerito#: ‘and not without reason,’-- an elliptical expression
(referring to both _dicit_ and _sequuntur_) used to introduce the proof
of a foregoing statement. So §79 nec immerito, and ii. 8, 1: neque
immerito vii. 7, 1: et merito vi. 1, 4. Cicero often has neque iniuria,
nam, &c., e.g. de Or. i. §150: and even after _est_ pro Sext. Rosc. §116
in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est: neque iniuria.

#ab his ... petitur#: ‘it is to the poets that we must go for,’ &c.

#rebus#. See on §4.

#spiritus#: §§44, 61, 104: 3 §22: 5 §4: ‘inspiration.’ So often in
Horace: Od. iv. 6, 29 spiritum Phoebus mihi ... dedit poetae: Sat. i. 4,
46 quod acer spiritus ac vis Nec verbis nec rebus inest. Cp. also i. 8,
5 interim et sublimitate heroi carminis animus adsurgat et ex
magnitudine rerum spiritum ducat et optimis imbuatur.

#in verbis sublimitas#: ‘elevation of language.’ Cp. viii. 6, 11. So the
author of the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ makes sublimity attainable by
the imitation and emulation of the great writers and poets of former
days: 13 §2.

#in adfectibus motus omnis#. Poetry shows how to appeal to every feeling
of our emotional nature. For _adfectus_ see vi. 2, 7, where the two
divisions are given, πάθος and ἦθος. Cp. §§48, 53, 55, 68, 107: 2 §27: 7
§§14, 15.

#in personis decor#: ‘the appropriate treatment of the characters,’ a
sense of what the fitness of things demands in adapting speech to the
persons to whom it relates. Cp. Cic. Or. §§70-71 especially semperque in
omni parte orationis ut vitae quid deceat est considerandum; quod et in
re de qua agitur positum est, et in personis et eorum qui dicunt et
eorum qui audiunt. This ‘propriety’ was always much praised in Lysias,
Hor. A. P. 156-7. Cp. §§62, 71: 2 §27, 22: vi. 1, 25 prosopopoeiae, id
est fictae alienarum personarum orationes quales litigatoris ore dicit
patronus (e.g. Cicero pro Milone §93). Cic. de Off. i. §87 sed tum
servare illud poetas quod deceat dicimus cum id quod quaque persona
dignum est et fit et dicitur, &c. De Or. iii. §§210-211.

#attrita cotidiano actu#. 5 §14 alitur enim atque enitescit velut pabulo
laetiore facundia et adsidua contentionum asperitate fatigata renovatur.
So i. 8, 11: videmus ... inseri versus summa non eruditionis modo
gratia, sed etiam iucunditatis, cum poeticis voluptatibus aures a
forensi asperitate respirent. Petronius ch. 5 interdum subducta foro det
pagina versum: 118 forensibus ministeriis exercitati frequenter ad
carminis tranquillitatem tamquam ad portum feliciorem refugerunt. So
Tac. Dial. 13 me vero dulces, ut Vergilius ait, Musae, &c.: cp. 3 and 4.
Plin. Ep. viii. 4, 4.-- For _attrita_ cp. viii. pr. §2 ingenia ...
asperiorum tractatu rerum atteruntur: for the spelling _cotidie_ see i.
7, 6.

#Cicero#, pro Arch. §12 Quaeres a nobis, Grati, cur tanto opere hoc
homine delectemur. Quia suppeditat nobis ubi et animus ex hoc forensi
strepitu reficiatur et aures convicio defessae conquiescant.


I. § 28.

    Meminerimus tamen non per omnia poetas esse oratori
    sequendos nec libertate verborum nec licentia figurarum:
    {poeticam} ostentationi comparatam et praeter id quod solam
    petit voluptatem, eamque etiam fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam
    quaedam incredibilia sectatur, patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari,

#non per omnia#, &c. 2 §§21-22.

#libertate verborum#, §29: 5 §4.

#licentia figurarum# see exx. in §12, with note on _figuramus_: cp. §29.

#ostentationi comparatam#. Poetry is ‘epideictic’ in character: and of
the γενος ἐπιδεικτικόν Quint. says (iii. 4, 13) non tam demonstrationis
vim habere quam ostentationis videtur. Forensic oratory, like everything
else that has an immediate and practical aim, cannot afford to set such
store on ‘beauty of presentation.’ Cp. ii. 10, 10: iv. 3, 2: viii.
3, 11. Cic. Orat. §§37, 38, 42. See Crit. Notes for _poeticam_.

#praeter id quod# for the more classical _praeterquam quod_ (which only
occurs twice in Quint.). So 2 §26: 3 §6: cp. §80 ob hoc quod: §108 in
hoc quod: 3 §18 ex eo quod.

#fingendo ... falsa#. Hild cites Arist. Poet. 9 and 24; especially (of
Homer) Δεδίδαχε δὲ μάλιστα Ὅμηρος καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψευδῆ λέγειν ὡς δεῖ
... Προαιρεῖσθαί τε δεῖ ἀδύνατα καὶ εἰκότα μᾶλλον ἢ δύνατα καὶ ἀπίθανα.

#patrocinio#: i. 12, 16 difficultatis patrocinia praeteximus segnitiae.
Poetry has the benefit of a sort of ‘prerogative,’ as compared with
history. Krüger explains = esse quae huic generi patrocinentur, unde
defensionem et excusationem petat poetarum licentia. The idea of
‘defence’ implies ‘justification’: and much that could be justified and
vindicated in the poet would be without excuse in the orator.


I. § 29.

    quod adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem non semper uti
    propriis possit, sed depulsa recta via necessario ad eloquendi
    quaedam deverticula confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba,
    sed extendere, conripere, convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero
    armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad
    victoriam niti.

#adligata#, 3 §10. For the ‘restraints of metre’ cp. i. 8, 14 servire
metro coguntur (poetae). Cic. de Or. i. §70 est enim finitimus oratori
poeta, numeris astrictior paulo verborum autem licentia liberior. Or.
§67 cum sit versu astrictior (poeta).

#propriis#, sc. verbis: v. on §6. Direct, natural, and unartificial
language is meant, as opposed to metaphorical.

#deverticula#: ‘by-ways’ of expression. The word literally means a lane
turning off from a highway (ii. 3, 9 recto itinere lassi plerumque
devertunt): and so metaphorically xii. 3, 11: ix. 2, 78: Livy ix. 17, 1.

#mutare# includes all changes in the use of words, and covers both
_libertas verborum_ and _licentia figurarum_: e.g. ‘mucro’ for
‘gladius.’

#extendere# and #conripere# are used of syllables: #convertere# and
#dividere# of words. An instance of ‘lengthening’ (extendere) is
‘induperator’ for imperator: of ‘contracting’ (conripere) ‘periclum’ for
periculum. Mayor takes it of quantity only, and compares i. 5, 18: 6,
32: ix. 4, 89: 3, 69: vii. 9, 13. As an instance of ‘transposition’ (the
removal of words from their usual order) we may take ‘collo dare
bracchia circum’ for circumdare collum bracchiis, or ‘transtra per et
remos’: and for _dividere_ (separation by tmesis) ‘hyperboreo septem
subiecta trioni’ (viii. 6, 66) and other instances from Vergil (e.g.
Aen. i. 610 ‘quae me cumque vocant terrae’).

#nos#: ‘we advocates.’ For the figure in _armatos stare_ see on §4
athleta. Cp. Or. §42 verum haec ludorum atque pompae; nos autem iam in
aciem dimicationemque veniamus. Mayor cites also ii. 10, 8: vi. 4, 17:
Cic. Opt. Gen. Or. §17: de Or. i. §147, 157: ii. 94: de Legg. iii. 14:
Brut. §222: Introd. p. lvi.

#decernere#, another military figure: cp. Cic. de Or. ii. §200 pro mea
omni fama prope fortunisque decernere. See on _decretoriis_ 5 §20: and
cp. xii. 7, 5.


I. § 30.

    Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed
    fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens
    simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique,
    imbellis et potius habenti periculosus.

#Neque ego velim#: ‘and yet I should not like.’ The same adversative
sense of neque = but not (elsewhere strengthened by _rursus_) is found
§80: 5 §5: 7 §4. For _ego_ (_ergo_?) see Crit. Notes.

#arma#. De Orat. i. §32 Quid autem tam necessarium quam tenere semper
arma quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis vel provocare improbos (conj.
integer) vel te ulcisci lacessitus? Tac. Dial. 5 quid est tutius quam
eam exercere artem qua semper armatus praesidium amicis, opem alienis,
salutem periclitantibus, invidis vero inimicis metum et terrorem ultro
feras? ... sin proprium periculum increpuit, non hercule lorica et
gladius in acie firmius munimentum quam reo et periclitanti eloquentia
praesidium simul ac telum, quo propugnare pariter et incessere sive in
iudicio sive in senatu sive apud principem possis. So ‘arma facundiae’
ii. 16, 10 and often.

#situs#, the ‘rust’ or ‘mould’ that comes from _being let alone_ (sino),
as often in Vergil, e.g. segnem patiere situ durescere campum Georg. i.
72: loca senta situ Aen. vi. 462. So i. 2, 18 quendam velut in opaco
situm ducit: xii. 5, 2.

#fulgorem ... qui terreat#: viii. 3, 3 nec fortibus modo sed etiam
fulgentibus armis proeliatur. Hor. Car. ii. 1, 19-20 iam fulgor armorum
fugaces terret equos equitumque voltus. Mayor cites also Veget. ii. 14:
a cavalry officer must make his men often scour their cuirasses, helmets
and pikes: plurimum enim terroris hostibus armorum splendor importat.
quis credat militem bellicosum cuius dissimulatione situ ac rubigine
arma foedantur?

#ferri#: viii. 3, 5 nam et ferrum adfert oculis terroris aliquid, et
fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si vis eorum tantum non etiam ipse
fulgor timeretur.

#quo#, sc. fulgore.

#praestringitur# §92. Cic. de Fin. iv. §37 aciem animorum nostrorum
virtutis splendore praestringitis: and with _ut ita dicam_ to soften the
metaphor de Sen. §42 mentis ut ita dicam praestringit oculos (sc.
voluptas.)

#auri argentique ... periculosus#. The practical speaker would only
prejudice his case by the use of ornament which, as in poetry, makes
_ostentatio_ and _voluptas_ (§28) its chief object. The commentators
cite Livy ix. 17, 16 of Darius: inter purpuram atque aurum, oneratum
fortunae apparatibus suae, praedam verius quam hostem ... incruentus
devicit (sc. Alexander): ib. 40 §4 militem ... non caelatum auro et
argento sed ferro et animis fretum: so Livy x. 39 per ... aurata scuta
transire Romanum pilum: cp. Aesch. Septem c. Th. 397. Curt. iii. 10 §§9,
10 aciem hostium auro purpuraque fulgentem intueri iubebat, praedam non
arma gestantem, irent et imbellibus feminis aurum viri eriperent.

#potius# is used pretty much as _saepius_ (‘oftener than not’) below
§32. Krüger takes it closely with _habenti_ (sc. quam adversario). This
is better than Hild’s _quam utilis_.


I. § 31.

    Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco
    potest; verum et ipsa sic est legenda ut sciamus plerasque eius
    virtutes oratori esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et
    quodam modo carmen solutum, et scribitur ad narrandum, non ad
    probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem,
    sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur;
    ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris narrandi
    taedium evitat.

#Historia# §§73-75: §§101-4; ii. 4, 2 apud rhetorem initium sit
historia, tanto robustior quanto verior: ib. 5 §1: 8 §7: iii. 8, 67:
xii. 4. Cic. de Orat. i. §201 monumenta rerum gestarum et vetustatis
exempla oratori nota esse (debent): ii. §§51-64, where Antonius
discourses on history: Or. §66 huic generi historia finitima est, in qua
et narratur ornate et regio saepe aut pugna describitur; interponuntur
etiam contiones et hortationes, sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens
expetitur, non haec contorta et acris oratio,-- of the flowing
smoothness of ‘historical oratory’ as against the compact and incisive
style of actual public speaking. Pliny Ep. v. 8 §9 habet quidem oratio
et historia multa communia, sed plura diversa in his ipsis quae communia
videntur. Narrat illa, narrat haec, sed aliter: huic pleraque humilia et
sordida et ex medio petita, illi omnia recondita splendida excelsa
conveniunt: hanc saepius ossa musculi nervi, illam tori quidam et quasi
iubae decent: haec vel maxime vi amaritudine instantia, illa tractu et
suavitate atque etiam dulcedine placet. Postremo alia verba, alius
sonus, alia constructio. Nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, κτῆμα
sit an ἀγώνισμα; quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.-- The
relation of this last passage to the text is discussed by Eussner in
Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. xvii. vol. 9, pp. 391-393. He rightly insists
(as against de la Beye) that in Pliny _illa_, _illi_, _illam_ refer to
historia, _haec_, _huic_, _hanc_ to oratio.

#suco#, ‘sap’: Donatus on Ter. Eun. ii. 3, 7 (‘corpus solidum et suci
plenum’) explains sucus as ‘humor in corpore quo abundant bene
valentes.’ Cicero often uses the same figure: de Or. ii. §93 (Critias
Theramenes Lysias) retinebant illum Pericli sucum, sed erant paulo
uberiore filo: ib. §88: iii. §96: Brut. §36 sucus ille et sanguis
incorruptus: and ad Att. iv. 16 c §10 amisimus ... omnem non modo sucum
ac sanguinem sed etiam colorem et speciem pristinae civitatis.-- For
uberi see Crit. Notes.

#et ipsa#: like poetry in §28: καὶ αὐτή, ‘likewise.’ For the much
debated question whether _et ipse_ was used by Cicero see the note in
Nägelsbach, pp. 366-367, from which it will appear that no conclusive
instance can be cited: Merguet gives only pro Rosc. Am. §48 qui _et_
ipsi incensi sunt studio, where, however, the _et_ is now generally
disconnected from _ipsi_ and referred to the following vitam_que_
rusticam arbitrantur. In all other passages _et_ seems to have been
interpolated in conformity with the later usage.-- “Livy often uses _et
ipse_ meaning ‘on his part’ or ‘as well,’ in cases where it is implied
that the predicate or attribute of the subject expressed is common
thereto with a subject unexpressed save in the context, e.g. xxi. 17, 7
Cornelio minus copiarum datum, quia L. Manlius praetor et ipse cum haud
invalido praesidio in Galliam mittebatur, ‘Manlius was being sent _as
well_ (as Cornelius)’; i. pr. §3 iuvabit tamen rerum gestarum memoriae
principis terrarum populi pro virili parte et ipsum consuluisse.
‘I shall be glad to have done _my_ part (as well as others) for Roman
history.’ In each case the words in question are equivalent to a very
strong _etiam_.”-- Fausset on Cic. pro Cluent. §141.-- For other exx.
see 5 §§4, 20: 6 §1: 7 §26.

#sic ... ut#: ‘in reading history we must bear in mind,’ &c.

#vitandas#: cp. 2 §21. Cic. Or. §68 seiunctus igitur orator a
philosophorum eloquentia, a sophistarum, ab historicorum, a poetarum,
explicandus est nobis qualis futurus sit.

#poetis# = poetarum operibus. The metonymy here is motived by
Quintilian’s avoidance of _poesis_ (cp. on §28). Many such exx. occur in
Cicero: e.g. de Or. ii. §4 nostrorum hominum prudentiam Graecis
(Graecorum prudentiae) anteferre. In these and similar instances the
property of one thing is compared (by _comparatio compendiaria_), not
with the property of another thing but with the thing itself, to which
the property belongs. So Pliny Ep. i. 16, 3 orationes eius ... facile
cuilibet veterum ... comparabis. Cp. Holden’s note on de Off. i. §76:
Madvig §280, obs. 2.-- Cp. the passage in Aristotle’s Poetics (ch. ix.)
on the relations of Poetry to History. Dosson refers to Dion. Hal. de
Thucyd. Iud. ch. li. ad fin., and Lucian’s Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορ. συγγρ. 44-79.
For est enim, see Crit. Notes.

#solutum#, sc. necessitate pedum §29.

#opus#: the whole class of work: see on §9.

#ad actum rei# = ad rem agendam, the doing or performance of a thing.
Cp. §27 actu forensi: 6 §1 inter medios rerum actus (where see note):
vii. 2, 41: ii. 18, 1 actus operis. So Plin. Ep. ix. 25, 3 me rerum
actus ... distringit: Suet. Aug. §78 residua diurni actus. In Suet. Aug.
§32 actus rerum is used specially of judicial proceedings: cp. Claud.
§15: Nero §17. So _actus_ alone came to mean the method followed in such
proceedings, Trajan ap. Plin. Ep. x. 97 (Nettleship, Lat. Lex.).-- Note
the chiastic construction, _actum rei_ corresponding with _ingenii
famam_ and _pugnam praes._ with _memor. posteritatis_.

#pugnam praesentem# §29. So ad pugnam forensem (ἀγῶνα) v. 12, 17. Cp.
what Thucydides says of his history i. 22, 4 κτῆμά τε ἐς ἀεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ
ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα ἀκούειν ξύγκειται,-- referred to in the passage
quoted above from Pliny Ep. v. 8, 9-11.

#ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam#. Pliny l.c. §1 mihi pulchrum
in primis videtur non pati occidere quibus aeternitas debeatur
aliorumque famam cum sua extendere. In vii. 17, 3 he looks less to the
last element: non ostentationi sed fidei veritatique componitur. Hild
quotes Livy Pr. §3 et si in tanta scriptorum turba mea fama in obscuro
sit, &c.: and Cic. Brut. §92 where Cicero, speaking of some orators,
says memoriam autem in posterum ingenii sui non desiderant.-- For
_memoria posteritatis_ cp. §§41, 104: 7 §30: i. 10, 9: vi. 1, 22: xii.
11, 3: Plin. Ep. v. 8, 2.

#remotioribus# = ab usu remotis iv. 2 36: viii. 2, 12. Cp. libertate
verborum §28.

#evitat#, ‘seeks to avoid,’ a present of endeavour.


I. § 32.

    Itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil
    apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud
    occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum
    captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit
    eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit.

#ut dixi#. Cp. iv. 2, 45 vitanda est etiam illa Sallustiana ... brevitas
et abruptum sermonis genus: quod otiosum fortasse lectorem minus fallat,
audientem transvolat, nec dum percipiatur expectat, cum praesertim
lector non fere sit nisi eruditus, iudicem rura plerumque in decurias
mittant, de eo pronuntiaturum quod intellexerit. §102 illam immortalem
Sallusti velocitatem.-- So Cicero, speaking of Thucydides, says ‘nihil
ab eo transferri potest ad forensem usum et publicum,’ Or. §30: cp.
Brut. §287.

#vacuas# is opposed to ‘occupatum variis cogitationibus,’ just as
_eruditas_ is to ‘saepius ineruditum.’ Cp. _si vacet_ §90: 3 §27. The
word is frequently used in this sense, both in poetry and prose, e.g.
Lucr. i. 50: the opposite _occupatae aures_ occurs Livy xlv. 19, 9: cp.
Tac. Hist. iv. 17 arriperent vacui occupatos.

#saepius ineruditum#. Since Augustus added to the three ‘iudicum
decuriae’ a fourth to judge of minor cases (quartam ex inferiore censu
quae ... iudicaret de levioribus summis Suet. Aug. 32), this office fell
into disrepute. Caligula afterwards raised the number to five: Calig.
16. As with us, it was not considered necessary that the juror who was
to say ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’ (in the _iudicia publica_) should be
learned in the law, or even that he should be an educated man.-- Cp. the
quotation above from iv. 2, 45 cum ... iudicem rura plerumque in
decurias mittant. So v. 14, 29 saepius apud omnino imperitos atque
illarum certe ignaros litterarum loquendum est: cp. xii. 10, 53. Mayor
quotes Iuv. vii. 116-7 dicturus dubia pro libertate bubulco iudice,
where see his note.

#lactea ubertas#: ‘pure, clear, fulness.’ The expression is evidently
chosen to denote the characteristic of Livy’s style mentioned in §101
(clarissimi candoris): ii. 5, 19 (candidissimum et maxime expositum): it
signifies not rich fulness merely, but fulness combined with clearness
and simplicity: cp. Hieron. Ep. 53, 1 T. Livius lacteo eloquentiae fonte
manans. Milk is taken as the type of natural sweet and simple fare: cp.
candens lacteus umor Lucr. i. 258. It is also nourishing, so that
_lactea ubertas_ is not the mere fulness of empty words: ii. 4, 5 quin
ipsis quoque doctoribus hoc esse curae velim ut teneras adhuc mentes
more nutricum mollius alant et satiari velut quodam iucundioris
disciplinae lacte patiantur.-- Becher (Phil. Rundschau iii. 15, p. 469)
compares Seneca Controv. vii. pr. 2, p. 268 (Müll.) sententiae, quas
optime Pollio Asinius albas vocabat, simplices, apertae, nihil occultum,
nihil insperatum adferentes, sed vocales et splendidae, and explains
_lactea ubertas_ as ‘eine reine lautere Fülle und keine forcierte,
künstlich aufgebauschte, schwülstige.’

#satis docebit#, i.e. in narratio §49 (διήγησις). See note on the three
_genera dicendi_ §80.

#speciem ... fidem#. It is not beauty of exposition (species or
splendor) that the juror looks for in _narratio_ or _expositio_, but
truth and credibility (fides): cp. ad narrandum non ad probandum, of
history, §31. For _fides_ cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 34 Titus Livius eloquentiae
ac fidei praeclarus in primis.


I. § 33.

    Adde quod M. Tullius ne Thucydiden quidem aut Xenophontem
    utiles oratori putat, quamquam illum ‘bellicum canere,’ huius
    ‘ore Musas esse locutas’ existimet. Licet tamen nobis in
    digressionibus uti vel historico nonnumquam nitore, dum in his
    de quibus erit quaestio meminerimus non athletarum toris, sed
    militum lacertis {opus} esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua
    Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem
    pulverem facere.

#Adde quod# 2 §§10, 11, 12. See Crit. Notes. Cp. Introd. p. liii.

#M. Tullius#. Or. §§30, 31, 32 quis porro umquam Graecorum rhetorum a
Thucydide quicquam duxit? ‘at laudatus est ab omnibus,’ fateor; sed ita
ut rerum explicator prudens, severus, gravis; non ut in iudiciis
versaret causas, sed ut in historiis bella narraret, itaque numquam est
numeratus orator ... nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se
cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior, sed a forensi
strepitu remotissimus. Yet Dion. Hal. tells us that Demosthenes was
especially indebted to Thucydides (Iud. de Thuc. 52). Cicero saw that
‘Thucydides represents an immature stage in the development of oratory:
his speeches had been superseded by maturer models’ (Sandys). Cp. Brut.
§287-8.-- Cp. §73.

#Xenophontem# §§75, 82. Cic. Brut. §112 complains that while the
Cyropaedia was read the speeches and autobiography of Scaurus were
neglected: ad Quint. Fratr. i. §23.

#quamquam# with subj. as 2 §21: 7 §17.

#bellicum canere#: Or. §39 incitatior fertur et de bellicis rebus canit
etiam quodam modo bellicum: his style is a ‘call to arms,’ it stirs like
the sound of a war-trumpet §76. Cp. pro Mur. §30: Phil. vii. 3. Quint,
ix. 4, 11 non eosdem modos adhibent cum bellicum est canendum et cum
posito genu supplicandum est.

#huius ore#, &c. Or. §62 Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt.
Diog. Laert. ii. §57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς
ἑρμηνείας. Cp. §82 below, with the note: Brut. §132 molli et Xenophonteo
genere sermonis: de Or. ii. 58.

#in digressionibus#: opposed to _in his de quibus erit quaestio_ below.
See the ch. on _Egressio_ iv. 3: especially §12 hanc partem παρέκβασιν
vocant Graeci, Latini egressum vel egressionem, defined afterwards (§14)
as alicuius rei, sed ad utilitatem pertinentis, extra ordinem excurrens
tractatio. Cp. ix. 2, 55. Cic. de Or. ii. 311 sq. digredi tamen ab eo
quod proposueris atque agas permovendorum animorum causa saepe utile
est: ib. §80 ornandi aut augendi causa digredi: Brut. §82: de Inv. i.
§97.

#historico ... nitore#: 5 §15: Plin. Ep. ii. 5, 5 descriptiones locorum,
quae in hoc libro frequentiores erunt, non historice tantum sed prope
poetice prosequi fas est: id. vii. 9, 8 saepe in orationes quoque non
historica modo sed prope poetica descriptionum necessitas incidit. For
_nitor_ see on §9 _nitidus_: cp. Cic. Or. §115 quidam orationis nitor.

#dum#. Quint. does not use _dummodo_: _dum_ is again used in this sense
in 3 §7: 7 §25. In 3 §5 it occurs without a verb, sit primo vel tardus
dum diligens, stilus: so _modo_ 5 §20.

#toris ... lacertis#, ‘not the athlete’s swelling thews, but the sinewy
arm of the soldier.’ Cp. the antithesis _carnis_-- _lacertorum_ §77. The
primary meaning of _torus_ seems to be anything _swelling_ or _bulging_,
e.g. the knots of a rope or the protuberance of the muscles. The point
of the antithesis is clearly brought out in xi. 3, 26 adsueta gymnasiis
et oleo corpora, quamlibet sint in suis certaminibus speciosa atque
robusta, si militare iter fascemque et vigilias imperes, deficiant et
quaerant unctores suos nudumque sudorem,-- a passage which must have
been suggested by the contrast Plato draws between the sleepy habit of
athletes and the wiry vigour of the soldier: σχέδον γέ τι πάντων μάλιστα
(sc. ἐμποδίζει) ἥ γε περαιτέρω γυμναστικῆς ἡ περιττὴ αὕτη ἐπιμέλεια τοῦ
σώματος‧ καὶ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκονομίας καὶ πρὸς στρατείας καὶ πρὸς ἑδραίους ἐν
πόλει ἀρχὰς δύσκολος Rep. iii. 408. Mayor cites also xii. 10, 41 sicut
athletarum corpora, etiam si validiora fiant exercitatione et lege
quadam ciborum (cp. x. 5, 15) non tamen esse naturalia (sc. putant)
atque ab illa specie quae sit concessa hominibus abhorrere. Cp. Tac.
Dial. 21 oratio autem sicut corpus hominis, &c.: Nepos xv. 2 §4: Pliny
v. 8, 10 (quoted on §31 above). For cognate metaphors see Nägelsbach
136, 4 pp. 556-8. From Professor Mayor’s rich list of parallel passages
I select the following: ‘Kleochares ... compared the speeches of
Demosthenes to _soldiers_ διὰ τὴν πολεμικὴν δύναμιν, those of Isokrates
to _athletes_ τέρψιν γὰρ παρέχειν αὐτοὺς θεατρικήν. Plut. Philopoem. 3
§§3, 4 Philopoemen when recommended to enter upon a course of athletic
training asked whether it did not interfere with military exercises; and
when told that the frame and life, diet and training of the two were
entirely different, the athlete needing much sleep and food, regular
intervals of exercise and rest, and being unable to bear any change from
his habits, while the soldier was inured to hunger and thirst and
sleepless nights; he both in his private capacity wholly abstained from
athletic exercises, and tried to abolish them when a general. _Id._ Fab.
Max. 19 §2 Fabius hoped that Hannibal, if unopposed, would wear himself
out, ὥσπερ ἀθλητικοῦ σώματος τῆς δυναμεως ὑπεργονου γενομένης καὶ
καταπόνου. Lucian Dial. Mort. x. 5 the athlete Damasias, πολύσαρκός τις
ὤν, lest he should sink Charon’s boat by his weight, is forced to strip
off his flesh and crowns.’

#lacertis#. As opposed to _brachium_, _lacertus_ is the upper part of
the arm, from the shoulder to the elbow. Cp. Cic. Brut. §64 in Lysia
sunt saepe etiam lacerti, sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.

#versicolorem ... vestem#, probably a translation of some Greek phrase
used in reference to Demetrius, to indicate a style too ornamental for
the forum: cp. viii. pr. 20 similiter illa translucida et versicolor
quorundam elocutio res ipsas effeminat, quae illo verborum habitu
vestiantur. For Demetrius see on §80. ‘His style, like his life, was
elegantly luxurious; but in becoming ornate it became nerveless; there
is no longer, says Cicero, “sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus,” the sap,
the fresh vigour, which had hitherto been in oratory; in their place
there is “fucatus nitor,” an artificial gloss,’ Jebb, Att. Or. ii.
p. 441. _Vestis_ is more than a mere metaphor here: Demetrius was as
foppish in dress as he was in his style. The main feature of the latter
is generally indicated by _floridus_ and similar terms: e.g. Cic. Brut.
§285: _dulcis_ de Off. i. §3 (cp. Or. §94), _suavis_ Brut. §38: it was
over-coloured (like his dress), being intended only to please. For the
figure suggested cp. Tac. Dial. 26: adeo melius est orationem vel hirta
toga induere quam fucatis et meretriciis vestibus insignire.

#dicebatur#, i.e. by his contemporaries.

#bene ad ... facere#: 5 §11 in hoc optime facient infinitae quaestiones.
This construction is common in Ovid; e.g. Her. xvi. 189 ad talem formam
non facit iste locus: cp. ib. vi. 128: and with dat. Prop. iii. 1, 19
non faciet capiti dura corona meo. “It is also occasionally used
absolutely: so Ovid, complaining in his exile, says Trist.(?) ‘Nec
caelum nec aquae faciunt nec terra nec imber’: ‘do not agree with me.’
It is thus used especially in medicine. Cp. Colum. viii. 17, Facit etiam
ex pomis adaperta ficus: ‘is serviceable.’” Palmer on Ov. Her. ii. 39.

#pulverem#. Cp. Cic. Brut. §37 (quoted on §80 inclinasse): and for a
different judgment de Legg. iii. §14 a Theophrasto Phalereus ille
Demetrius ... mirabiliter doctrinam ex umbraculis eruditorum otioque non
modo in solem atque in pulverem, sed in ipsum discrimen aciemque
produxit.


I. § 34.

    Est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem maximus, sed
    non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum
    exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne
    omnia testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex
    vetustate diligenter sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea
    sola criminibus odii et gratiae vacant.

#historiis#: for the plural see on §75. Cp. note on _lectionum_ §45.

#alius usus ... ex cognitione#, &c. Crassus in the de Or. i. §48 insists
on this: neque enim sine multa pertractatione omnium rerum publicarum,
neque sine legum, morum, iuris scientia ... in his ipsis rebus satis
callide versari et perite potest (sc. orator): cp. ib. §18 tenenda
praeterea est omnis antiquitas exemplorumque vis: §158 cognoscendae
historiae: §256: Brutus §322: Tac. Dial. 30 nec in evolvenda antiquitate
... satis operae insumitur. In Quint. cp. ii. 4, 20 multa inde cognitio
rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in omni genere causarum potentissima,
iam tum instruitur, cum res poscet, usurus: iii. 8, 67: v. 11 ‘de
exemplis’-- παράδειγμα quo nomine et generaliter usi sunt in omni
similium adpositione et specialiter in iis quae rerum gestarum
auctoritate nituntur: xii. 4, 10: cp. §17 rerum cognitio cotidie
crescit, et tamen quam multorum ad eam librorum necessaria lectio est,
quibus aut rerum exempla ab historicis aut dicendi ab oratoribus
petuntur.

#et is quidem#. Cic. de Fin. i. §65 Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem
angusta, quam magnos ... tenuit amicorum greges. In 5 §7 we have _et
quidem_ with the pronoun omitted: cp. Cic. Phil. ii. 43 et quidem
immunia: and often in Pliny, e.g. Ep. i. 6, 1 ego ille quem nosti apros
tres et quidem pulcherrimos cepi.

#non ad praesentem ... locum#, because here he is speaking of the
advantage of reading history only from the point of view of _elocutio_:
his subject is _copia verborum_. For the material benefit to be obtained
from the study of history see the passages cited above: esp. xii. 4: v.
11, 36 sq.

#testimonia#. Cp. v. 7, 1 ea dicuntur aut per tabulas aut a
praesentibus. The advocate is not to confine himself to these.

#litigatore#, the client, from whom the essential facts of the case must
be learned: xii. 8 §§6-8.

#cognita# (with _vetustate_), of the result rather than the process.
Before _sumat_ supply _ut_.

#hoc quod ... vacant# §15. Cp. v. 11, 36-37 Adhibebitur extrinsecus in
causam et auctoritas ... si quid ita visum gentibus, populis,
sapientibus viris, claris civibus, inlustribus poetis referri potest. Ne
haec quidem vulgo dicta et recepta persuasione populari sine usu
fuerint. Testimonia sunt enim quodam modo vel potentiora etiam, quod non
causis accommodata sunt, sed liberis odio et gratia mentibus ideo tantum
dicta factaque, quia aut honestissima aut verissima videbantur. Cp. Cic.
pro Marcello §29: Tac. Hist. i. 1: Ann. i. 1.


I. § 35.

    A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda
    vitio factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis
    parte cesserunt. Nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus iisque
    quae sunt istis contraria, et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et
    argumentantur acriter {Stoici}, et altercationibus atque
    interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime Socratici praeparant.

#philosophorum#: §§81-84: §§123-131. We have the same complaint, that
the orator has ‘abandoned the fairest part of his province’ to the
philosopher in Book i. pr. §§9-18: esp. neque enim hoc concesserim,
rationem rectae honestaeque vitae ... ad philosophos relegandam, cum vir
ille vere civilis et publicarum privatarumque rerum administrationi
accommodatus, qui regere consiliis urbes, fundare legibus, emendare
iudiciis possit, non alius sit profecto quam orator.... Fueruntque haec,
ut Cicero apertissime colligit, quemadmodum iuncta natura, sic officio
quoque copulata, ut idem sapientes atque eloquentes haberentur. Scidit
deinde se studium atque inertia factum est ut artes esse plures
viderentur. Nam ut primum lingua esse coepit in quaestu institutumque
eloquentiae bonis male uti, curam morum qui diserti habebantur
reliquerunt. Cp. xii. 2 §§4-10, esp. §8 id quod est oratori necessarium
nec a dicendi praeceptoribus traditur ab iis petere nimirum necesse est
apud quos remansit: evolvendi penitus auctores qui de virtute
praecipiunt, ut oratoris vita cum scientia divinaram rerum sit
humanarumque coniuncta. Quintilian’s frequent statement of the argument
that philosophy, especially moral philosophy, is an essential part of
the orator’s equipment is a corollary to his main thesis, ‘non posse
oratorem esse nisi virum bonum’: i. pr. §9: xii. 1: cp. rationem dicendi
a bono viro non separamus. Cp. Introd. p. xxv. In the Orator §§11-19
Cicero places a philosophical training among the first requisites of the
ideal orator: esp. §14 nam nec latius neque copiosius de magnis
variisque rebus sine philosophia potest quisquam dicere: ib. §118: cp.
de Or. i. §87: ib. iii. §§56-73 hanc, inquam, cogitandi pronuntiandique
rationem vimque dicendi veteres Graeci sapientiam nominabant ... §61
hinc (from the separation of eloquence and philosophy made by Socrates)
discidium illud exstitit quasi linguae atque cordis, absurdum sane et
inutile et reprehendendum, ut alii nos sapere, alii dicere docerent.
Cicero has told us himself what he owed to philosophy: xii. 2, 23
M. Tullius non tantum se debere scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae
spatiis frequenter (e.g. Or. §12, Brut. 315) ipse testatus est: Tac.
Dial. §31 sq.

#operis#: see on §9. So ea iure vereque contenderim esse operis nostri.
i. pr. §11.

#cesserunt#: for this constr. with dat. and abl. cp. Cic. pro Mil. §75
nisi sibi hortorum possessione cessissent.

#de iustis#, &c.: cp. i. pr. §§11, 12.

#de rebus divinis#. The Stoic definition of σοφία included this--
ἐμπειρία τῶν θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτου αἰτιῶν, transl. by
Cicero, de Off. ii. 5: cp. Tusc. iv. 57: Sen. Ep. xiv. 1, 5. They made
this σοφία the foundation of every virtue: it is ‘speculative wisdom’ as
distinguished from ‘practical wisdom’ (φρόνησις).

#maxime# = potissimum.

#Stoici#: §84: xii. 2, 25 Stoici ... nullos aut probare acrius aut
concludere subtilius contendunt. _Stoici_ was first inserted by Meister.
Hirt (Berl. Wochenschrift v. p. 629) objects, on the ground that
Quintilian is only giving here the general idea that eloquence and
philosophy were at first mutually inclusive: cp. de Or. iii. §54. See
Crit. Notes.

#altercationibus#. The essence of the _altercatio_ is that it was
conducted in the way of short answers or retorts: it is specially used
of a dispute carried on in this way between two speakers in the senate,
or in a court of law, or in public. A famous instance in the senate is
the dialogue between Cicero and Clodius (ad Att. i. 16, 8): Clodium
praesentem fregi in senatu cum oratione perpetua plenissima gravitatis,
tum altercatione, &c. Tac. Dial. 34 ut altercationes quoque exciperet et
iurgiis interesset. The _altercatio_ (actio brevis atque concisa vi.
4, 2) is opp. to _perpetua_ or _continua oratio_: e.g. Liv. iv. 6, 1 res
a perpetuis orationibus in altercationem vertisset: Tac. Hist. iv. 7
paulatim per altercationem ad continuas et infestas orationes provecti
sunt.-- As to the construction, both words are generally taken as
ablatives of instrument; _not_ ‘for debates and examinations of
witnesses.’ By _interrogationibus_ is then meant the Socratic ἔλενχος:
cp. v. 7, 28 in quibus (dialogis) adeo scitae sunt interrogationes ut,
cum plerisque bene respondeatur, res tamen ad id quod volunt efficere
perveniat. But see Crit. Notes.

#Socratici#: §83. The writers of the Socratic form of dialogue are
meant, Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines Socraticus: v. 11, 27 etiam in
illis interrogationibus Socraticis ... cavendum ne incante respondeas.
Their practice of fashioning the imagined objections of their opponents
in such a manner as to make them easy of refutation would render them
good models: cp. xii. 1, 10 ne more Socraticorum nobismet ipsi responsum
finxisse videamur.


I. § 36.

    Sed his quoque adhibendum est simile iudicium, ut etiam cum
    in rebus versemur isdem non tamen eandem esse condicionem
    sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii, praeceptorum
    et periculorum.

#his quoque#, sc. philosophis-- as well as with the poets and historians
§§28, 31.

#ut ... sciamus#, consecutive, expressing result, not final: tr. by
participle ‘remembering,’ &c.: cp. ut sciamus after _sic_ in §31. Not
all the instances of the introduction of a subordinate clause by this
consecutive _ut_ cited by Herbst are exactly apposite: cp. 2 §28: 4 §4:
5 §§6, 9: 6 §3: 7 §10.

#in rebus isdem#: ‘on the same topics,’ viz. questions of right and
wrong, &c., which are common to philosophy and law.

#litium ac disputationum#: ‘lawsuits and philosophical discussions’:
vii. 3 §13 sed de his disputatur non litigatur: xi. 1, 70 inter eos non
forensem contentionem, sed studiosam disputationem crederes incidisse:
Cic. de Off. i. §3 illud forense dicendi et hoc quietum disputandi
genus: de Fin. i. §28 neque enim disputari sine reprehensione, nec cum
iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest: Brut. §118 iidem
(Stoici) traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur: cp. Or.
§113. There is a similar antithesis in foro ... in scholis v. 13, 36.

#fori ... periculorum#: note the chiasmus. For the antithesis _fori ...
auditorii_ cp. §79 auditoriis ... non iudiciis. Tac. Dial. 10 nunc te ab
auditoriis et theatris in forum et ad causas et ad vera proelia voco.
For _auditorium_ used of the lecture-room, or generally a place for
public prelections, literary and philosophical, cp. ii. 11, 3: v. 12,
20: Suet. Aug. 85. These _auditoria_ were the scene of the
_recitationes_ of which we hear so much in this age: §18.

#periculorum#: law-suits, actions-at-law, referring, as often in Cicero,
to the issues at stake for the defendant in such actions. Cp. 7 §1: iv.
2, 122 capitis aut fortunarum pericula: vi. 1, 36 (where ‘pericula’ and
‘privatae causae’ are contrasted). Etymologically periculum is from the
root PER-, seen in πεῖρα, περάω: it denotes ‘trial’ and, in view of
possible failure, ‘danger.’ Cp. Reid on Cic. pro Arch. §13: the English
‘danger’ (Low Latin dangiarium from dominium, Old Fr. dongier, feudal
authority) was originally a legal term: Shakesp. Merchant of Venice iv.
1, ‘You stand within his danger.’ Chaucer, Prol. 663. See Skeat’s Etym.
Dict.


I. § 37.

    Credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in
    legendo iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint
    {legendi}, quae in auctore quoque praecipua virtus. Sed persequi
    singulos infiniti fuerit operis.

This paragraph forms a transition from the general consideration of
oratory (§20), poetry (§27), history (§31), and philosophy (§35) to the
characterisation of individual representatives of each of these four
departments. Quintilian now begins to discourse on the ‘Choice of
Books,’ or the ‘Best Hundred Authors,’ both in Greek and Latin. His list
does not however aim at completeness: it is conditioned by the object
which he has in view, viz. the reading of what is profitable for the
formation of style (ad faciendam φράσιν §42), and he constantly reminds
the reader that he is merely giving a sample of the best authors (§§44:
56-60: 74: 80: 104: 122). Cp. Plin. Ep. vii. 9 §§15-16.

#qui sint legendi#: see Crit. Notes.

#auctore#: see on §24.

#persequi singulos#: ‘to notice all individually’: §118 sunt alii multi
diserti quos persequi longum est.

#fuerit#: cp. superaverit §46: dixerim §14: maluerim §26: dederit §85:
cesserimus §86: quos viderim §98: cesserit §101: opposuerim §105:
abstulerit §107: ne hoc ... suaserim 2 §24: nemo dubitaverit 3 §22:
contulerit 5 §4: ne ... contrarium fuerit 5 §15.


I. § 38.

    Quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius tot milibus versuum de
    Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis
    suae, [quibuscum vivebat], exceptis Caesare atque Marcello,
    silentium egerit, quis erit modus si et illos et qui postea
    fuerunt et Graecos omnes {persequamur} [et philosophos]?

#Quippe cum#, only here in Quint.: cp. §76.

#versuum#: often in Quint. of ‘lines’ of prose: §41: 3 §32: 7 §11: xi.
2, 32 (but §39 opp. to prosam orationem): vii. 1, 37 multis milibus
versuum scio apud quosdam esse quaesitum, &c. Hor. Sat. ii. 5, 53-4, of
a will, quid prima secundo cera velit versu. Cic. Rab. Post. vi. §14 ut
primum versum (legis) attenderet: ad Att. ii. 16, 3: Plin. Ep. iv. 11,
16.

#Romanis ... oratoribus#. One of Cicero’s motives in writing the
_Brutus_ was to do justice to the earlier Roman orators, and to trace
the development of the art down to his own time. Hild cites Fronto (de
elog. p. 235 ed. Rom.) oratores quos ... Cicero eloquentiae civitate
gregatim donavit, as showing that the writer thought that Cicero wished
to exalt his own style by contrast with the ruder efforts of his
predecessors.

#aetatis suae#. Frieze remarks that this expression, taken by itself,
would embrace either the whole career of Cicero as an orator, about 35
years, to the date of the Brutus (B.C. 46), or else his life from the
time when he began to hear the orators of the forum as a student (B.C.
90), a period of over 44 years: Brut. §303 hoc (Hortensio) igitur
florescente, Crassus est mortuus, Cotta pulsus, iudicia intermissa
bello, nos (Cicero) in forum venimus.-- The rule which Cicero imposed on
himself in the Brutus is given §231: in hoc sermone nostro statui
neminem eorum qui viverent nominare.

[#quibuscum vivebat#]: see Crit. Notes.

#Caesare atque Marcello#. These exceptions were made at the request of
Brutus himself §248. Brutus eulogises Marcellus, while the account of
Caesar is mainly put into the mouth of Atticus: then at §262 Cicero
returns to the dead,-- sed ad eos, si placet, qui vita excesserunt
revertamur.-- For Caesar see on §114. M. Claudius Marcellus, consul B.C.
51, was a Pompeian who, after Pharsalus, retired to Mitylene, where he
studied under Cratippus. His friends procured the pardon which he would
not himself sue for, and Cicero in the pro Marcello (B.C. 46) expresses
his satisfaction at the event. On his way home in the following year
Marcellus was assassinated at Athens. Cp. Sen. ad Helviam ix. §§4-8.

#quis ... modus#. When _quis_ is used adjectivally, as here and in §50,
it does not mean ‘what kind of’ (as _qui_), but rather ‘will there be
any?’ &c. Cp. quis locus = ‘where is the spot?’ vii. 2, 54 quis testis?
quis iudex? ... quod pretium? quis conscius? For the reading see Crit.
Notes.


I. § 39.

    Fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima quae est apud Livium in
    epistula ad filium scripta, ‘legendos Demosthenen atque
    Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et Ciceroni
    simillimus.’

#brevitas illa# = brevis illa sententia, introducing the clause in acc.
c. inf. Hirt compares Cic. Tusc. iv. §83 et aegritudinis et reliquorum
animi morborum una sanatio est, omnes opinabiles esse et voluntarios.
For #fuit# see Crit. Notes.

#apud Livium#. Cp. ii. 5, 20 Cicero ... et iucundus incipientibus quoque
et apertus est satis, nec prodesse tantum, sed etiam amari potest: tum,
quemadmodum Livius praecipit, ut quisque erit Ciceroni simillimus. In
viii. 2, 18 there is a reference probably to the same source: Livy is
made the authority for the story of a teacher ‘qui discipulos obscurare
quae dicerent iuberet, Graeco verbo utens σκότισον.’ Sen. Ep. 100 Nomina
adhuc T. Livium. scripsit enim et dialogos, quos non magis philosophiae
adnumerare possis quam historiae, et ex professo philosophiam
continentes libros. The son is mentioned again in Plin. N. H. i. 5
and 6. See Teuffel, Rom. Lit. 251 §4.

#Demostheni et Ciceroni#: §§105-112: Iuv. x. 114. Note the pointed
repetition of the names.


I. § 40.

    Non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa. Paucos
    enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem pertulerunt
    existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus adlaturus
    sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque
    vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte
    carentibus, plurimum fateatur adiutum.

#nostri iudicii summa#: ‘my opinion in general,’ as opposed to the
criticism of each writer individually. What the gist of this opinion is
he states in the next sentence, with _enim_: see Crit. Notes.-- For
_summa_ cp. §48: 3 §10.

#vix ullum#, &c.: §57. Mayor compares Plin. Ep. iii. 5 §10 (of the elder
Pliny) nihil enim legit quod non excerperet: dicere enim solebat nullum
esse librum tam malum ut non aliqua parte prodesset. It would be hard to
be so charitable now!

#vetustatem pertulerunt#: ‘have stood the test of time.’ The phrase is
properly used of wine,-- wine that will ‘keep,’ as we should say
(aetatem ferre): Cic. de Amic. §67 ut ea vina quae vetustatem ferunt:
ii. 4, 9 musta ... et annos ferent et vetustate proficiunt: Cat. de
R. R. 114, 2 vinum in vetustatem servare. So Ovid, of his own works,
scripta vetustatem si modo nostra ferent, Trist. v. 9, 8. For _vetustas_
(lapse of time) cp. Cic. Brut. §258.-- There is a sort of antithesis
between the class of authors here referred to and the _vetustissimi
auctores_ mentioned below. In the former he includes Cato and the
Gracchi, ii. 5, 21: the latter are those who were hardly read at all in
Quintilian’s day. In general he uses _veteres_ or _antiqui_ in
contradistinction to those who were to him _novi_, i.e. the writers of
the post-Augustan period: including in the former Cicero himself as well
as his predecessors. ii. 5, 23 et antiquos legere et novos: v. 4, 1
orationes veterum ac novorum: ix. 3, 1 omnes veteres et Cicero
praecipue: Plin. Ep. ix. 22, 1, of C. Passennus Paullus, in litteris
veteres aemulatur ... Propertium in primis: Tac. Dial. 17, 18.

#iudicium adhibentibus#: §131: §72.

#ingeniosis ... carentibus#: i. 8, 8 multum autem veteres etiam Latini
conferunt, quamquam plerique plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt. Ov. Amor.
i. 15, 14, of Callimachus, quamvis ingenio non valet, arte valet: Tr.
ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus arte rudis. Mayor quotes also from
Munro’s Lucretius: vol. ii. p. 18 ‘At this period when the νεώτεροι, as
Cicero calls them, were striving to bring the Alexandrine style into
fashion, there seems to have been almost a formal antithesis between the
rude genius of Ennius and the modern art.’

#ingeniosis quidem#. Here again (cp. on §34) Cicero would have used the
pronoun,-- ingeniosis illis quidem. Cp. §§88, 124: i. 10, 17.

#Cicero ... fateatur#. The Brutus contains e.g. a eulogy of Cato, who is
said to be rough, but excellent, like the early statues and paintings
and poems: §§61-66: Or. §109. Mayor cites Seneca apud Gell. xii. 2
(Fragmenta 111) Apud ipsum quoque Ciceronem invenies etiam in prosa
oratione quaedam ex quibus intelligas illum non perdidisse operam quod
Ennium legit.


I. § 41.

    Nec multo aliud de novis sentio; quotus enim quisque
    inveniri tam demens potest, qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe
    fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? Qui si quis
    est, intra primos statim versus deprehendetur, et citius nos
    dimittet quam ut eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet
    experimentum.

#multo aliud#: cp. _quanto aliud_ §53. _Aliud_ here serves for a
comparative. So ix. 4, 26 multo optimum: §72 multo foedissimum, and in
Plin. N. H. _multo_ very often for the more usual _longe_. Spald.

#novis#: the writers subsequent to Cicero; viii. 5, 12: ix. 2, 42.

#quotus quisque#: ‘each unit of what whole number’ = ‘one in how many,’
and so ‘how small a proportion,’ ‘how few.’ In the nom. sing. masc. it
occurs several times in Cicero, and frequently in Pliny’s letters. Ovid,
A. A. iii. 103, has the fem., Forma dei munus. Forma quota quaeque
superbit. The dat. quoto cuique Plin. Ep. iii. 20 §8: the acc. quotum
quemque Tac. Dial. 29.

#tam demens ... qui#: §48 nemo erit tam indoctus qui non ... fateatur:
on the other hand §57 tam ... ut non. Herbst cites Pliny, Ep. viii. 14,
3 quotus enim quisque tam patiens ut velit discere quod in usu non sit
habiturus: cp. ib. ii. 19, 6: Panegyr. 15: Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 12 τίς οὕτω
μαίνεται ὅστις οὐ σοὶ βούλεται φίλος εἶναι; ib. vii. 1, 28 ἔστι τις
οὕτως ἄφρων ὅστις οἴεται ἂν ἡμᾶς περιγενέσθαι;; Cic. Phil. ii. §33,
where Mayor quotes Dem. Mid. p. 536, 6 §66 τίς οὕτως ἀλόγιστος ... ἔστιν
ὅστις ἑκὼν ἂν ... ἐθελήσειεν ἀναλῶσαι; and

  ‘Lives there a man with soul so dead
   _Who_ never to himself has said...?’

#alicuius fiducia partis#: ‘with even the smallest confidence at least
in some portion or other (of his writings).’ For the obj. gen. cp. iv.
2, 113: ix. 3, 51.

#memoriam posteritatis#: see on §31.

#versus#: §38.

#detrimento#: vi. 3, 35 nimium enim risus pretium est si probitatis
impendio constat. The word occurs less commonly than some of its
synonyms with the genitive: here its etymological meaning (detero--
tempus ‘terere’) makes it very appropriate.


I. § 42.

    Sed non quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet,
    protinus ad faciendam φράσιν, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.

    Verum antequam de singulis loquar, pauca in universum de
    varietate opinionum dicenda sunt.

#protinus#: ‘at once,’ ‘as a matter of course.’ See on §3: cp. statim
§24.

#ad faciendam φράσιν#: ‘for the formation of style’: cp. §87 phrasin ...
faciant: viii. 1, 1 igitur quam Graeci φράσιν vocant, Latine dicimus
elocutionem. For the whole expression cp. §65 ad oratores faciendos
aptior: xii. 8, 5 cur non sit orator quando ... oratorem facit: x. 3, 3
vires ... faciamus: ib. §10 qui robur aliquod in stilo fecerint: ib. §28
faciendus usus: also i. 10, 6: ii. 8, 7: xii. 7, 1. _Faciendam_ must
have belonged to the original text: see Crit. Notes.-- Hild reminds us
that we must always keep this point of view in mind in estimating the
literary judgments pronounced by Quintilian in this book: he is
concerned mainly with _form_, in its relation to oratorical style. In
the same way, §87, he does not insist on the study of Macer and
Lucretius: legendi quidem sed non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae,
faciant. M. Seneca opposes φράσις to ἕξις (§1): non ἕξις magna sed
φράσις (of Albucius) Contr. vii. pr. §2: elsewhere he has (Excerpt.
Contr. iii. pr. §7) habebat ... phrasin non vulgarem nec sordidam, sed
lectam.

#in universum#: Tac. Germ. 6 in universum aestimanti: ib. 27 _in
commune_ opp. to _singuli_.

#de varietate opinionum#. Dosson refers to Hipp. Rigault, Histoire de la
querelle des anciens et des modernes, vol. i. 1859. In the third cent.
B.C. the question of the superiority of the ancients over the moderns
was discussed between the supporters and the opponents of Demetrius of
Phalerum: in Cicero’s day it had become confused with the quarrel
between the true and the false Atticists (cp. Brut. §283 sq.): Horace
treated it in the first Epistle of the Second Book: in Quintilian’s own
time it was still discussed, as may be seen from this passage and from
the Dialogus de Oratoribus.


I. § 43.

    Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant neque in ullis
    aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum
    arbitrantur, alios recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad
    voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant.

#solos veteres#. Here again (see on §40) _veteres_ includes the writers
of the Augustan age: cp. §§118, 122, 126: 2 §17. See also ii. 5, 21 sq.,
where Quintilian says that in the case of young people both extremes
should be avoided:-- the ancients (such as the Gracchi and Cato), fient
enim horridi atque ieiuni: the moderns, with their depraved taste, ‘ne
recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur.’

#robur viris dignum#: ii. 5, 23 ex quibus (sc. antiquis) si adsumatur
solida ac virilis ingenii vis deterso rudis saeculi squalore, tum noster
hic cultus clarius enitescet: i. 8, 9 sanctitas certe et, ut sic dicam,
virilitas ab iis (i.e. the veteres Latini) petenda est, quando nos in
omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus: v. 12, 17.

#recens haec lascivia deliciaeque#: ‘the voluptuous and affected style
of our own day’ opp. to rectum dicendi genus, below. Cp. ‘recentis huius
lasciviae flosculi,’ quoted above, also ‘deliciarum vitia.’ Mayor cites
Sen. Ep. xxxiii. 1 non fuerunt circa flosculos occupati: totus contextus
illorum virilis est. See on lascivus §88. Seneca is probably aimed at
here: cp. §125 sq., and Introd. p. xxv. sqq.


I. § 44.

    Ipsorum etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi volunt, alii
    pressa demum et tenuia atque quae minimum ab usu cotidiano
    recedant, sana et vere Attica putant; quosdam elatior ingenii
    vis et magis concitata et plena spiritus capit; sunt etiam lenis
    et nitidi et compositi generis non pauci amatores. De qua
    differentia disseram diligentius, cum de genere dicendi
    quaerendum erit: interim summatim, quid et a qua lectione petere
    possint qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent, attingam:
    paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est.

#rectum dicendi genus#: the true standard of style (cp. §89), natural
and unaffected, and imitating neither the rude archaism of the ancients
nor the bad taste of the moderns. In ii. 5, 11 it is called sermo rectus
(‘straight,’ i.e. direct and natural) et secundum naturam enuntiatus:
and in ix. 3, 3, simplex rectumque loquendi genus: the style which aims
above everything at the clear and effective expression of thought, apart
from all ornament and trickery. Though termed here a _genus_, it is
itself divided into three _genera_: (1) the simple, terse, concise
(ἰσχνόν, tenue, subtile, pressum ... quod minimum ab usu cotidiano
recedit); (2) the grand, broad, lofty, stirring, passionate (ἁδρόν,
uber, grande, amplum, elatum, concitatum); (3) the flowing, plastic,
polished, smooth, melodious, intermediate (ἀνθηρόν, lene, nitidum,
suave, compositum, medium).

This threefold division of style, ascribed to Theophrastus, was
generally recognised in Greece after the latter part of the 4th century
B.C. Gellius (vi. 14, 8) tells us that Varro recognised it, employing
_uber_, _gracile_, and _mediocre_ to represent ἁδρόν, ἰσχνόν, and μέσον;
and Mr. Nettleship (J. of Philol. xviii. p. 232) thinks that his
treatise περὶ χαρακτήρων bore on this subject. It is adopted in Cornif.
ad Herenn. iv. §§11-16, and is carefully explained by Cicero in the
Orator §§20-21 (where see Sandys’ notes): tria sunt omnino genera
dicendi quibus in singulis quidam floruerunt, peraeque autem, id quod
volumus, perpauci in omnibus. Quintilian evidently considers that Cicero
(see §108) came up to his own ideal standard in all three styles: Or.
§100 is est enim eloquens qui et humilia subtiliter et magna graviter et
mediocria temperate potest dicere.

Dion. Hal. (probably following Theophrastus περὶ λέξεως) has the same
division, distinguishing as the τρία πλάσματα τῆς λέξεως or γενικώτατοι
χαρακτῆρες the χαρακτὴρ ὑψηλός (_genus grande_), ἰσχνός (_genus tenue,
subtile_), and μέσος (_medium, mediocre_): de Dem. 33 and 34. In xii.
10, 58 Quintilian repeats this: discerni posse etiam recte dicendi
genera inter se videntur. Namque unum _subtile_, quod ἰσχνόν vocant,
alterum _grande_ atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, constituunt; tertium
alii _medium_ ex duobus, alii _floridum_ (namque id ἀνθηρόν appellant)
addiderant. In the next section he goes on to connect this triple
division with the three functions of the orator as laid down in iii. 5,
2: tria sunt item quae praestare debeat orator, ut doceat, moveat,
delectet. The ‘plain’ style is especially adapted for teaching and
explaining: the ‘grand’ for moving the feelings; while of the ‘middle’
he says ‘ea fere ratio est ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare
videatur officium.’ Cp. Arist. Rhet. i. 2 p. 1356 _a_ 2 τῶν δὲ διὰ τοῦ
λόγου ποριζομένων πίστεων τρία εἴδη ἐστίν‧ αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ ἤθει
τοῦ λέγοντος (those which conciliate good-will-- the _medium_, _lene_,
_compositum genus_), αἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ἀκροατὴν διαθεῖναί πως (those which
stir the passions-- the _grande genus_), αἱ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τοῦ
δεικνύναι ἢ φαίνεσθαι δεικνύναι (those which are addressed to the
intellect-- the _genus subtile_). Further on (xii. 10 §64) he says that
the three classes are typified by the oratory of Menelaus, Nestor, and
Ulysses: cp. ii. 17, 8 and Gellius, vi. 14.

In anticipation of the rest of the section the main features of each of
the three styles may here be resumed. The ‘grand’ is distinguished by a
careful avoidance of everything familiar and ordinary: it seeks to rise
above the common idiom by a sustained dignity both of thought and
language, and employs a profusion of ornament of every kind. The ‘plain’
style is marked by simplicity and clearness: it may employ the aid of
art, but it is an art that conceals itself in the avoidance of
everything unfamiliar and in the artistic use of the language of
ordinary life. The ‘middle’ style has more charm than force: while not
distinguished for the excellencies of the other species it has a grace
and sweetness of its own, whence its alternative designation _floridum_
(ἀνθηρόν) in Quintilian, quoted above: see note on §80.

#pressa ... et tenuia#, &c., i.e. the _subtile genus_, or ‘plain style.’
Pressus is used in Quintilian both of a writer and of his style: it
means ‘concise’ (premo), ‘terse,’ and the juxtaposition of _tenuis_ here
shows that ‘plain straightforwardness’ is the quality referred to. Cp.
xii. 10, 38 tenuiora haec ac pressiora: Cic. de Orat. ii. §96, where
oratio pressior is opp. to luxuries quaedam quae stilo depascenda est:
Brut. §201 attenuate presseque dicere opp. to sublate ampleque: Quint.
viii. 3, 40 dicere abundanter an presse ... magnifice an subtiliter: ii.
8, 4 presso limatoque genere dicendi: §15 non enim satis est dicere
presse tantum aut subtiliter aut aspere. _Pressum_ is well defined by
Mayor on this passage: ‘pruned of all rankness, concise, quiet,
moderate, self-controlled; opposed to extravagance, heat, turgidity,
redundance’: cp. premere tumentia 4 §1. To writers _pressus_ is applied
§§46, 102: 2 §16: cp. xii. 10, 16 (Attici) pressi et integri ...
(Asiani) inflati et inanes: Brut. §51 parum pressi et nimis redundantes:
ib. §202 cavenda presso illi oratori inopia et ieiunitas: Tac. Dial. 18
inflatus et tumens nec satis pressus sed supra modum exultans.-- In Cic.
de Or. ii. §56 Wilkins thinks that _pressus_ (verbis aptus et pressus--
of Thucydides) means ‘precise,’ not ‘concise’: comparing de Fin. iv. 10,
2