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

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

 


The Table of Contents shows the original arrangement of the book.
Entries in _italics_ were added by the transcriber.

                                             PAGE
_Preface_

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
_Chapter I_                                   _11_
_Chapters II-VII_                             _122_
Critical Notes                                185
Index of Names                                223
Index of Matters                              225

For this e-text some changes have been made; in all cases, the
original page numbers will be seen in the right margin.

see caption

Harleian MS. 2664. 149 v.
(See Introd. p.
lxiv.)

i
 



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 Rome1. 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
ii
 
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.

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.
iii
 
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
Reifferscheid2 that Jerome here follows the authority of Suetonius
(Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and rhetoricians.

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,
iv
 
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
v
 
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 emperor3.

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
vi
 
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 tribunal4.

vii
 
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
person5.
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).

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
viii
 
of law—others trained in the practice of delation to every form of
trickery and violence—Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood
by himself6.’

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 influence7. 

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty
years8,
Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading at
ix
 
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, 769. 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
x
 
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_.

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 appreciation12; but did not exercise it for long13, 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.

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
xi
 
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’
xii
 
from the provinces, with neither pride of family nor pride of
nationality to save them from the corrupting influences of their
surroundings14.

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 everything15.’ 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
xiii
 
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.

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 misconception16.
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.


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
xiv
 
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 subject17. 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 fact18. 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.

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
xv
 
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 himself19. 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 altercation20. 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:
xvi
 
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 conclusion21. “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 posterity22.’”


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
xvii
 
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 forms23.”

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 home24 and in school, and
on the respect due to the young25, 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 discipline26.” 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.

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its
publication, and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to
Quintilian in the
xviii
 
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 volume27, 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 Renaissance28. 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
over29. 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
xix
 
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 father30. 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 Quintilian31.’ 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.


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,
xx
 
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.

xxi
 
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
xxii
 
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
xxiii
 
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

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
xxiv
 
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
prejudice33. Quintilian represents the literature of erudition, and
his
xxv
 
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 method34: 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 orator35.

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
Book36. In this passage
xxvi
 
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.

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
xxvii
 
Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero37. 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 virtues38.
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 dislike39. 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
noster40, protinus
agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri meritum
stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum confessuros’
(pp. 44-5).

Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt
xxviii
 
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 Gellius41 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.

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
xxix
 
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 others42. 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 borrowing44. The
coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract from the
originality of his work.
xxx
 
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.

Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated
mainly with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace45. 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.

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 μιμήσεως47. The second
book of this treatise has long been known to scholars
xxxi
 
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.

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
xxxii
 
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.

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 authority49: cp.
§52 _datur palma_
(_Hesiodo_,)
xxxiii
 
§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 Menander50, 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.

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 Ephorus51: in writing it Cicero probably followed
some list similar
xxxiv
 
to those which were accessible both to Dionysius and Quintilian52. 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.

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 others53. 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 Pergamum54. 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.

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
xxxv
 
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 ‘grammaticus55.’

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
xxxvi
 
of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of the
dialogue,—the praise of philosophy57.
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.

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 attached58.

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.

κωμῳδοποιοὶ
ἀρχαίας ζ´‧ Ἐπίχαρμος Κρατῖνος Εὔπολις Ἀριστοφάνης Φερεκράτης Κράτης
Πλάτων.

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης
Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς
Καλλίμαχος.

λυρικοι
θ´‧ Ἀλκμάν Ἀλκαῖος Σαπφώ Στησίχορος Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης Ἴβυκος Ἀνακρέων
Σιμωνίδης....

xxxvii
 
ῥητορες θ´‧ Δημοσθένης Λυσίας Ὑπερείδης Ἰσοκράτης Ἀισχίνης
Λυκοῦργος Ἰσαῖος Ἀντιφῶν Ἀνδοκίδης.

ἱστορικοὶ ι´‧ Θουκυδίδης Ἡρόδοτος Ξενοφῶν Φίλιστος Θεόπομπος
Ἔφορος Ἀναξιμένης Καλλισθένης Ἑλλάνικος Πολύβιος.

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
xxxviii
 
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
Herodotus59.” 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 there60.” 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
xxxix
 
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 times61.


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
xl
 
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 palate62. 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 recommendations63. 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 others64. The
charm of style and the test of its excellence consisted in its being
artificial, inflated, meretricious, involved, obscure—in a word,
depraved65.

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 sentences66. 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
xli
 
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 us67.


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 period68.

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.

xlii
 
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
6;
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:—

xliii
 
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.

xliv
 
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
xlv
 
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.

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.

xlvi
 
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:—

The Neuter Adjective.

(1) _The Neuter singular used by itself_:—

Nom.
3 §22 _secretum in
dictando perit_.

xlvii
 
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.

xlviii
 
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
xlix
 
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
l
 
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
li
 
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.

lii
 
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_.

liii
 
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
liv
 
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
lv
 
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.

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive
fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive:
1 §14 _dixerim_:
§26
lvi
 
_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 paragraph72. 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
lvii
 
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_.


lviii
 
V.
Manuscripts.


In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted
because they would have been more distracting than useful.

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_ G73), this manuscript may now rank in the
third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the
lix
 
_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.

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
lx
 
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
lxi
 
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
lxii
 
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:
lxiii
 
_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_ §2874.

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
lxiv
 
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 Museum75. 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.

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
lxv
 
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
lxvi
 
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.

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
lxvii
 
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
lxviii
 
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).


The four forms of the Greek word appear in the printed text as:

text image

text image

text image

text image

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
lxix
 
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
lxx
 
place where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will
be found to correspond77.

A.
(_dici ceris_) text image showing inserted letters:

text images

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
lxxi
 
already indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at
St. Gall in 141678.

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 fortunes79.

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
lxxii
 
_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 169880. This
manuscript was
lxxiii
 
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
contains81. 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.

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.
lxxiv
 
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 side82. 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.

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.
lxxv
 
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.
lxxvi
 
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.

lxxvii
 
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.
lxxviii
 
§ 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.
lxxix
 
§ 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.
lxxx
 
§ 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.

 

FOOTNOTES

1.
(Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores auctoritatem
habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.

2.
C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Leipzig 1860,
p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.

3.
There is however some doubt about the name, most editors reading
L. Galba.

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_.

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_.

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.

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_.

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.

9.
See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae:
Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae 1887.

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).

11.
See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt, Gryphiswaldiae 1883,
_De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur
Declamationibus_.

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_.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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._

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.

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.

20.
See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good
account of Quintilian’s system.

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_.

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_.

23.
Dr. Reid in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

24.
i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.

25.
i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.

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.

27.
M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris,
Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.

28.
For the identification of this manuscript see below p. lxx.

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_.

30.
Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.

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.

32.
Dr. Reid in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

33.
See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae
Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.

34.
Ep. xvi. 5, 6 _de compositione non constat_: Ep. xix. 5, 13
_oratio certam regulam non habet_.

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.

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.

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.

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_.

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_.’

40.
Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

45.
See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’
in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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_.

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.

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.

53.
Cp. the note on _qui parcissime_ x.
4, 4.

54.
De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.

55.
_A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium
sumpserat, fuitque ante κριτική quam γραμματική_—Usener, p. 132.

56.
See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.

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_.

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.

59.
Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.

60.
Havell’s translation, p. 27.

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.

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.

63.
_Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque
exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit_: viii. 2. 21.

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_.

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_.

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.

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.

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_.

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_.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.).

75.
An account of this important codex has already been given in an article
on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.

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.)

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.

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._

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.

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_).

81.
See note on the following page.

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?




1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.

10
§§ 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.).

 

11

M. FABI QUINTILIANI

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

LIBER DECIMUS




CHAPTER I.

How to acquire a command of Diction.


De copia verborum.

I:1
I. Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt necessaria, ita
non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis firma
12
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:

§ 1.
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
12
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, 1103a, 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,
13
nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque ad omnes casus habuerit eloquentiam,
velut clausis thesauris incubabit.

§ 2.
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
13
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
14
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.

§ 3.
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.

14
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,
15
(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.

§ 4.
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
15
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
16
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.

16

 
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.

§ 5.
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
17
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.

§ 6.
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
17
§§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
18
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.

§ 7.
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.

18
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. 229d 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 2 §24: §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_.


§§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.


 
I:8
Nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non circulatoriam
volubilitatem spectantibus. Id autem consequemur
19
optima legendo atque audiendo; non enim solum nomina ipsa rerum
cognoscemus hac cura, sed quod quoque loco sit aptissimum.

§ 8.
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.

19
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
20
sordida, ubi res poscit, proprie dicuntur.

§ 9.
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.—
20
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.

§ 10.
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
21
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
21
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’.

§ 11.
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
22
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’.

§ 12.
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.
22
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
23
ac divitias dabit lectio, ut non solum quo modo occurrent, sed etiam quo
modo oportet utamur.

§ 13.
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
23
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.

§ 14.
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.
24
§ 15.
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
24
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.

§ 16.
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
25
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.

§ 17.
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
25
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
26
sententias de manibus iudicum vi quadam orationis extorsimus.


 
I:18
Pudet enim dissentire, et velut
26
tacita quadam verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere, cum interim et
vitiosa pluribus placent, et a conrogatis laudantur etiam quae non
placent.

§ 18.
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
27
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.

§ 19.
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.

27
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
28
liber utique ex integro resumendus, praecipueque oratio, cuius virtutes
frequenter ex industria quoque occultantur.

§ 20.
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.

28
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.

§ 21.
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.

§ 22.
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
29
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
29
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.

§ 23.
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
30
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.

30

 
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
31
etiam Homerus ipse videatur.

§ 24.
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
31
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.

§ 25.
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.

§ 26.
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
32
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.

§ 27.
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
32
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,

§ 28.
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
33
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.

§ 29.
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).

33
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.
34
§ 30.
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
34
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
35
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.

§ 31.
Historia §§73-75: §§101-104; 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,
35
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
36
Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed
fidem quaerit.

§ 32.
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.
36
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
37
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,
38
vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere.

§ 33.
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.
37
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
38
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.

§ 34.
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
39
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.

§ 35.
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
39
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.

40
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
40
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.

§ 36.
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.

§ 37.
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
41
§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
41
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]?

§ 38.
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.’

§ 39.
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
42
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.

§ 40.
nostri iudicii summa: ‘my
42
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,
43
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.

§ 41.
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...?’

43
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.

§ 42.
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
44
deliciaeque et omnia ad voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita
delectant.

§ 43.
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
44
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
45
ab usu cotidiano recedant, sana et vere Attica putant; quosdam
46
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.

§ 44.
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,’
45
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, 24 mihi placet agi
subtilius et pressius: Tusc. iv. 7, 14 definiunt pressius: Cic. Hortens.
Fragm. 46 (Baiter) ‘pressum, subtile, M. Tullius in Hortensio, quis
te aut est aut fuit unquam in partiundis rebus, in definiendis, in
explicandis pressior?’ Cp. Quint, iv. 2, 117 pressus et velut adplicitus
rei cultus.—The word frequently occurs in Pliny: see Mayor on iii.
18, 10.

tenuia: §64: 2 §19. The Greek equivalents are
ἰσχνός, λιτός,
ἀφελής. Cp Or. §20, where Sandys says “The primary meaning of
_tenuis_ is ‘thin’; its metaphorical use as an epithet of style is
derived, not from the notion of slimness and slenderness of form (like
ἰσχνός and
_gracilis_), but from thinness and fineness of texture (§124 ‘tenuis causa,’ ‘tenue argumentandi filum’;
Quint. ix. 4, 17 illud in Lysia dicendi textum tenue atque rasum,
_al._ rarum). Cp. _subtilis_ and _simplex_.” The word is
used in a depreciatory sense xii. 8, 1 neque enim quisquam tam ingenio
tenui reperietur qui, cum omnia quae sunt in causa diligenter cognoverit
ad docendum certe iudicem non sufficiat. In this sense Hor. Car. ii. 16,
38 is generally interpreted: spiritum Graiae tenuem Camenae.—For
atque quae, see Crit. Notes.

demum, 3 §13: 6 §5: = ‘only,’ for
_tantum_, _dumtaxat_, with no indication of time, though
Frieze says the use implies ‘that some conclusion has been reached as
the only thing that remains to be accepted after every alternative has
been considered.’ So i. pr. 3 plusquam imponebatur oneris sponte
suscepi, ... simul ne vulgarem viam ingressus alienis demum vestigiis
insisterem: ii. 15, 1 bonis demum (haec) tribui volunt. Suet. Aug. 24:
Traian. ad Plin. E. 10, 33.—It is, of course, frequent in Latin of
every period with pronouns, to give emphasis, like _adeo_: ei demum
oratori, Cic. de Or. ii. §131.

usu cotidiano: xii. 10, 40 Adhuc quidam nullam esse naturalem
putant eloquentiam nisi quae sit cotidiano sermoni simillima: viii. pr.
23 sunt optima minime arcessita et simplicibus atque ab ipsa veritate
profectis similia, §25 atqui satis aperte Cicero praeceperat ‘in dicendo
vitium vel maximum esse a vulgari genere orationis ... abhorrere’: xi.
1, 6 neque humile atque cotidianum sermonis genus ... epilogis dabimus.
Mayor cites Dion. Hal. ad Cn. Pomp. de Plat. p. 758 R: id. de
Lys. 3: de Isocr. 2 and 11.

sana et vere Attica. Those who take this view interpret the
term ‘Attic’ too narrowly: it comprehends the best examples of all three
_genera_. Quintilian protests against this misrepresentation in
xii. 10, 21 sq. quapropter mihi falli multum videntur qui solos esse
Atticos credunt tenues et lucidos et significantes, sed quadam
eloquentiae frugalitate contentos ac semper manum intra pallium
continentes: §25 quid est igitur cur in iis demum qui tenui venula per
calculos fluunt Atticum saporem putent, ibi demum thymum redolere
dicant? ib. §26 melius de hoc nomine sentiant credantque Attice dicere
esse optime dicere. The discussion of the true and the false Atticism
holds a place also in the Brutus of Cicero: see esp. §201 sq. and
§§283-292, the criticism of Calvus and his school: cp. ib. §51 illam
salubritatem Atticae dictionis et quasi sanitatem ... Asiatici oratores
... parum pressi et nimis redundantes. Rhodii saniores et Atticorum
similiores. Or. §90: de Opt. Gen. Or. §8 imitemur ... eos potius qui
incorrupta sanitate sunt, quod est proprium Atticorum: ib. §§11, 12.
Tac. Dial. 25 omnes (Calvus, Asinius, Caesar, Brutus, Cicero) eandem
sanitatem eloquentiae prae se ferunt: cp. 26 illam ipsam quam
46
iactant sanitatem non firmitate sed ieiunio consequuntur: Quint. ii. 4,
9 macies pro sanitate: xii. 10, 15 hi sunt enim qui suae imbecillitati
sanitatis appellationem, quae est maxime contraria, obtendunt. So ὑγιές in Greek: cp. bona
valetudo, Brut. §64.

elatior ingenii vis, as in the _grave genus_, or ‘grand
style’: Cic. Orat. §§97-99. Cp. nihil elatum vi. 2, 19: ib. §§20-24. For
the compar. cp. _tersior_ §94.

et magis concitata. Frequently in Quintilian a comparative is
followed by the positive with _magis_: cp. §§74, 77, 88, 94, 120. For _concitata_ cp. §§73, 90, 114, 118: 2 §23: xii. 10, 26.

plena spiritus: see on §27: cp.
§§16, 61, 104: 3 §22.—In ix. 3, 1
Quintilian observes that in his time _plenus_ was generally used
with the abl., while in Cicero it usually has the gen. He himself has
both.

lenis et nitidi et compositi generis, i.e. the ‘middle’ style:
see above, and on §121 (with quotation
from Cic. Or. §21: cp. ib. §91 and §§95-96). Cp. xii. 10, 60: and 67
illud lene aut ascendit ad fortiora aut ad tenuiora summittitur. The
constant antithesis of such words as _vehemens_, _acer_,
&c. makes it probable that _lenis_ is the right reading here,
not _levis_ (see Crit.
Notes): cp. esp. Cic. de Or. ii. §211, where lenis atque summissa
(oratio) is opposed to intenta ac vehemens (quae suscipitur ab oratore
ad concitandos animos atque omni ratione flectendos): de Or. i. §255
sermonis lenitas ... vis et contentio: Brut. 317 alter remissus et lenis
... alter acer, verborum et actionis genere commotior: ‘lenis’ opposed
to ‘vehemens’ de Or. ii. §§58, 200, 211, 216 and similarly to asper §64:
ib. iii. 7, 28: Or. §127: Quint. iii. 8, 51: vi. 3, 87.

nitidi: see on §9.

compositi: see on §79
compositione. It means ‘harmonious,’ ‘rhythmical,’ referring to the
careful arrangement of words, §§52, 66: 2 §1. This is a special feature
of the ‘middle’ style: compositione aptus xii. 10, 60.—(Dosson
renders ‘tranquille,’ unimpassioned,—a common use of the word, but
perhaps not so appropriate here.)

de genere dicendi: see xii. 10, §§63-70, where he teaches that
every variety of style in oratory has its place and use.

confirmare facultatem dicendi = i.e. acquire the _firma
facilitas_ of §1.


 
I: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.
47
§ 45.
paucos enim explains _summatim_, ‘for _only_ a few.’
See Mayor on Iuv. x. 2: and cp. §§3, 8, 27, 31, 35, 42, 67, 87 for a similar limitation. See Crit. Notes.

studiosis, used absolutely (cp. studendum 3 §29), of students of
literature, or (most commonly) of students of rhetoric. So i. pr. 23:
ii. 10, 15: xii. 10, 62: and (with _iuvenis_) 3 §32: xii. 11, 31. Cp. Cic. de
Opt. Gen. Or. §13 (possibly with _dicendi_): Plin. Ep. iii. 5, 2
(where see Mayor’s note): ib. iv. 13, 10: Tac. Dial. 21.

ne quisquam queratur: i.e. quod commemoro propterea, ne ... ‘I
say this, lest,’ &c.—For qui a me, see Crit. Notes.

genera ipsa: here and in §104
_genera_ = classes or kinds, as represented by their characteristic
or typical writers.—“For _ipsum_ in the sense of ‘merely’ cp.
de Or. ii. §§109, 219, 306: ib. iii. §222: pro Balb. §33: ad Quint.
Fratr. i. 3, 6: Val. Max. iii. 2, 7: Quint. ix. 2, 44: x. 1,
103.”—Reid, on Orator (Sandys), §181.

lectionum: ‘what is to be read.’ For the passive use cp. Sen.
Tranq. i. 12 ubi lectio fortior erexit animum et aculeos
47
subdiderunt exempla nobilia. The plural occurs only here in Quintilian:
elsewhere the word is singular, with an abstract meaning: but cp. §19.—Note the accumulation of verbs at
the end of the sentence.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT (46-84)


§§ 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
3
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.

 
I: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.
48
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.

§ 46.
ab Iove incipiendum. Phaenom. 1 ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα. Cic. de Rep. i. §36 imitemur
(al. mitabor ergo) Aratum qui magnis de rebus dicere exordiens a Iove
incipiendum putat ... rite ab eo dicendi principium capiamus. So Theocr.
xvii. 1 Ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα καὶ ες Δία λήγετε
Μοῖσαι—imitated by Vergil, Ecl. iii. 60 Ab Iove principium
musae: cp. Hor. Od. i. 12, 13 quid prius dicam solitis parentis
laudibus?—For Aratus see on §55

rite. Cp. §85 ut apud illos
(Graecos) Homerus sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit
exordium. “Such a commencement will be a sort of consecration of the
whole course; it is the solemn and auspicious order of
proceeding.”—Mayor.

coepturi ... videmur: sc. nobis: cp. §56: Cic. de Off. i. §§1, 2: ii. §5.—For the
participle instead of the fut. inf. cp. v. pr. §5 eius praecepta sic
optime divisuri videmur: ib. 7 §13: i. 2, 2: ii. 5, 3: vi. pr. §1
hanc optimam partem relicturus hereditatis videbar: ib. 4, 1: vii.
2, 42. Becher (Quaest. Gramm. p. 16) explains the usage by
assuming an ellipse, so that ‘rite coepturi ab Homero videmur’ = ‘nos ab
Homero coepturi rite coepisse videmur’; but this is unnecessary, and the
collocation of _coepturi_ and _coepisse_ in fact
impossible.

ab Homero. So in the schools i. 8, §5 ideoque optime
institutum est ut ab Homero atque Vergilio lectio inciperet: cp. Plin.
Ep. ii. 14, §2.

ex Oceano. Il. xxi. 195-197 Ὠκεανοῖο ἐξ οὗπερ πάντες ποταμοὶ καὶ πᾶσα
θάλασσα καὶ πᾶσαι κρῆναι καὶ φρείατα μακρὰ νάουσιν.—Dion.
Hal. uses the same image de Comp. Verb. 24 Κορυφὴ μὲν οὖν
ἁπάντων καὶ σκοπός, ἐξ οὗπερ πάντες ποταμοὶ καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα καὶ πᾶσαι
κρῆναι δικαίως ἂν Ὅμηρος λέγοιτο. Cp. Ovid, Amor. iii. 9, 25
Aspice Maeoniden, a quo, ceu fonte perenni, Vatum Pieriis ora rigantur
aquis.

omnium fluminum fontiumque. For the reading see Crit. Notes: cp. §78.

omnibus eloquentiae partibus. Eustathius pr. ad Odys.
p. 1379 τὸν πάσης τῆς ἐν λόγοις τέχνης καθηγητήν, ἐξ οὗ
οἷα τινὸς ὠκεανοῦ πάντες ποταμοῖ καὶ πᾶσαι λογικῶν μεθόδων πηγαί:
Manilius, Astr. ii. 8 Cuiusque ex ore profusos Omnis posteritas latices
in carmina duxit Amnemque in tenues ausa est diducere rivos Unius
fecunda bonis. Cp. the references to Homer in the various departments of
literature dealt with by Quintilian: §§62,
65, 81, 85, 86. So xii.
11, 21 in quo (sc. Homero) nullius non artis aut opera perfecta aut
certe non dubia vestigia reperiuntur. Cic. Brut. §40 ornatus in dicendo
et plane orator. Homer’s influence on all later culture is a
common-place in ancient writers. Specially in regard to oratory, the
speeches of his three heroes were taken as types of three styles of
rhetoric: xii. 10, 64: ii. 17, 8. The eulogy here pronounced on him
is systematically arranged with reference to the essential elements of
practical oratory. After alluding to (1) the three kinds of oratory
(see notes on §44) in the terms
_sublimitas_, _proprietas_, _pressus_, _laetus_ (§46), he passes (2) to the two classes of
practical speeches, judicial and deliberative (_litium ac
consiliorum_) (§47): and then refers to
(3) the mastery of the emotions (_adfectus_) (§48): (4) the constituent parts of a regular
forensic speech—(_prooemium_, _genera probandi ac
refutandi_, _epilogus_) (§§48, 49, 50):
(5) well-chosen terms, well-put thoughts, lively figures, and
everywhere clear arrangement (_dispositio_) (§50). “In this notice of Homer and in that of Cicero
(§105 sqq.) and of Seneca (§125 sqq.) Quintilian introduces more of detail than
in his brief remarks on the rest of the authors in his sketch. In
general his plan, as indicated above in §§44, 45, is to mention
the typical writers of different departments of literature best adapted
to the purposes of the orator or forensic advocate, and in a few words
to point out their characteristics with particular reference to their
fitness as exemplars of oratorical style, or φράσις. As this is his sole aim, so distinctly
stated, the strictures of some critics on the brevity and meagreness of
these notices show that they have failed to comprehend the purpose of
the author.”—Frieze.

48
sublimitate: §27: viii. 6,
§11.

proprietate. Here this word furnishes a sort of antithesis to
_sublimitas_, and means ‘suitability,’ ‘simplicity,’ ‘naturalness’:
cp. the definition given at viii. 2, 1 sua cuiusque rei appellatio. In
the same sense §64 sermone proprio, of an
easy and unaffected style. A different use of _proprius_ will
be found at §6 (where see note): §29: 5 §8.

superaverit. For this subj. of modified assertion cp. on
_fuerit_ §37.

laetus, ‘flowery,’ i.e. rich, ornate, exuberant. Cp. 2 §16: xii. 10, 80: xi.
1, 49. This use is akin to that by which the word is employed as a
metaphor to denote richness of vegetation: Verg. Georg. i. 1 and 74 (cp.
note on 5 §14): and
also of the sleek condition of well-fed cattle: Aen. iii. 220. Cp. Cic.
de Orat. iii. §155.—There is no need for Francius’s conj.
_latus_ or Kraffert’s _latior_ (cp. xii. 10, 23), or
Gustaffson’s _elatus_ (4 §1).

pressus, pruned, trimmed down, ‘chaste,’ ‘concise’: see on §44.

iucundus et gravis, ‘sprightly and serious.’ So §119 iucundus et delectationi natus: and iucunditas
§§64, 82: 2 §23. Mayor cites Plin.
Ep. iv. 3, 2 nam severitatem istam pari iucunditate condire summaeque
gravitati tantum comitatis adiungere non minus difficile quam magnum
est: ib. v. 17, 2 (of Calpurnius Piso) excelsa depressis, exilia plenis,
severis iucunda mutabat.

tum ... tum: a usage (frequent in Cicero) which Quintilian
sought to revive. Wölfflin, Archiv f. Lexikogr. ii. p. 241.


 
I:47
Nam ut de laudibus, exhortationibus,
49
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?

§ 47.
Nam ut, &c. This sentence contains the proof of Homer’s
_oratoria virtus_: he furnishes models of the three recognised
styles of rhetoric, (1) genus demonstrativum (ἐπιδεικτικόν) or _laudativum_:
(2) genus deliberativum sive suasorium (συμβουλευτικόν): and (3) genus iudiciale
(δικανικόν). Cp.
iii. 4. Cope Arist. Rhet. introd. 118-123, and the notes on
13 §1: Cic. de Inv. i. §§7, 8, 12: ii. §§12, 13: Orat. Part.
§§10-14, 69-138: de Orat. i. §141 and Wilkins’ introd. p. 56.

In the words ut ... taceam, Quintilian passes lightly over the
main features of the γένος ἐπιδεικτικόν (set speeches aiming at
display—ἐπίδειξις, ‘ostentatio declamatoria’ iv. 3, 2),
in order to dwell more specially on the appropriateness of the study of
Homer with reference to forensic and legislative debates (litium ac
consiliorum). In doing so, he no doubt wishes to indicate the relative
importance of the three kinds for the practical training of the orator,
just as Cicero (Or. §§37-42) restricts his portraiture of the perfect
orator to the _practical_ oratory of public life, i.e. the
deliberative and forensic branches, to the exclusion of the γένος ἐπιδεικτικόν.

laudibus. These belong distinctly to the epideictic branch,
for which see iii. 4, 12: Tac. Dial. 31 in laudationibus de honestate
disserimus. So ἔπαινοι
and ἐγκώμια: see
Volkmann, Rhet. §33. As examples of _laudationes_ may be cited
Cicero’s Eulogy on Cato (Or. §35) and his sister Porcia (ad Att. xiii.
37, 3): and in Greek the Evagoras and Helenae Encomium of
Isocrates.

exhortationibus might in itself (like _consolationibus_:
cp. xi. 3, 153) be used of the _genus deliberativum_, which
included the _suasoriae_ (Tac. Dial. 35)—‘consilium dedimus
Sullae privatus ut altum dormiret’, Iuv. i. 16; and in order to find a
reference in each of the three items enumerated to the three kinds of
rhetoric, Kraffert proposed to read _consultationibus_ for
_consolationibus_ (cp. controversiae Tac. Dial. 35), so that
_laudibus_ should = laudativum genus, _exhortationibus_ =
deliberativum, and _consultationibus_ = iudiciale. But this is a
misunderstanding of Quintilian’s meaning. _Exhortatio_ and
_consolatio_ may easily enter into a λόγος ἐπιδεικτικός, a speech written for
display and not for delivery in public, just as _suasio_ does in
the passage of the _Orator_ referred to above: laudationum et
historiarum et ... suasionum ... reliquarumque scriptionum formam, quae
absunt a forensi contentione, eiusque totius generis, quod Graece ἐπιδεικτικόν nominatur ...
non complectar hoc tempore (§37). Cp. Quint. iii. 4, 14 an quisquam
negaverit Panegyricos ἐπιδεικτικούς esse? atqui formam suadendi habent,
&c.

49
legatio of Odysseus, Aias, and Phoenix: contentio
between Achilles and Agamemnon: dictae ... sententiae: the
council of war (Agamemnon, Ulysses, Nestor, Thersites) Il. ii.
40-394.—The selection from a poet of such passages as seemed to
bear most closely on the training of a student of rhetoric was a
familiar process in ancient schools.

litium ac consiliorum. These words contain a distinct
reference to the _genus iudiciale_ and the _genus
deliberativum_, respectively,—to the exclusion of the _genus
demonstrativum_, i.e. the ‘epideictic’ or non-practical kind of
speeches. Cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §22 Graecos ... video ... seposuisse a
ceteris dictionibus eam partem dicendi quae in forensibus
disceptationibus iudiciorum aut deliberationum versaretur: cp. suasoriae
et controversiae Tac. Dial. 35. The prominence given to _litium ac
consiliorum_ shows that Professor Mayor is wrong in seeing in
_exhortationibus_ and _consolationibus_ above a specific
reference to the ‘genus deliberativum’: that would involve a duplicate
enumeration.

artes: the ‘rules of art,’ or technical precepts of the
rhetoricians. See on §15 exempla potentiora
... ipsis quae traduntur artibus.


 
I: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
50
quas praesidere vatibus creditum est, et intentum proposita rerum
magnitudine, et docilem summa celeriter comprehensa facit.

§ 48.
Adfectus quidem, &c. In the passage which Quintilian may have
had in view. Dionysius, after showing, as Quintilian has done, that
Homer is admirable in every respect, and not in one only, goes on to say
that he is a master in particular of the ἤθη and πάθη,
of μέγεθος (rerum
magnitudine §48) and of οἰκονομία (in dispositione totius
operis §50): τῆς μὲν οὖν Ὁμηρικῆς
ποιήσεως οὐ μίαν τινὰ τοῦ σώματος μοῖραν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκτύπωσαι τὸ σύμπαν, καὶ
λάβε ζῆλον ἠθῶν τε τῶν ἐκεῖ καὶ παθῶν καὶ μεγέθους, καὶ τῆς οἰκονομίας
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν ἁπασῶν εἰς ἀληθῆ τὴν παρὰ σοὶ μίμησιν ἠλλαγμένων:
περὶ μιμήσεως 2 (Usener, p. 19). See what Quintilian says of
_adfectus_ in vi. 2 §§8-10: esp. adfectus igitur concitatos
πάθος, mites atque
compositos ἦθος esse
dixerunt: and cp. §§73 and 101 below. _Illos ... hos_ indicates what was a
well-known antithesis. The former (ἤθη) were habitual and characteristic conditions of
individual minds: the latter (πάθη) for the most part occasional (temporale vi.
2, 10), and more moving (perturbatio ib.).

tam ... qui: see on §41.

auctorem: ‘master,’ ‘teacher.’ Cp, on §24.

Age vero: ‘and further,’ a formula of transition generally
leading to something more important. Here it introduces the five
constituent parts of an oration, exordium (προοίμιον), narratio, probatio, refutatio (διήγησις, πίστις or
ἀπόδειξις or κατασκευή, λύσις or
ἀνασκευή §49), peroratio (ἐπίλογος). Cp. Cic. Or. §122 and de Orat. ii. §80 with
Sandys’ and Wilkins’ notes: de Inv. i. §19: Cornif. ad Herenn. i.
§4.

ingressu: see Crit.
Notes.

non dico ... sed. So 7 §2: cp. i. 10, 35.

legem prooemiorum ... constituit: iv. 1, 34 docilem sine dubio
et haec ipsa praestat attentio, sed et illud, si breviter et dilucide
summam rei, de qua cognoscere debeat, iudicaverimus: quod Homerus atque
Vergilius operum suorum principiis faciunt: ib. §42 ut sit in principiis
recta benevolentiae et attentionis postulatio: Hor. Ars Poet. 140.

benevolum ... intentum ... docilem. The orator’s first task is
to gain the good-will of his hearers, and to secure their attention. Cp.
iv. i, 5 causa principii (i.e. prooemii, exordii) nulla alia est quam ut
auditorem, quo sit nobis in ceteris partibus accommodatior, praeparemus.
Id fieri tribus maxime rebus inter auctores plurimos constat, si
benevolum attentum docilem fecerimus: iii. 5, 2: xi. 1, 6. Cic. de
Orat. ii. §115 and
50
322-3: Brut. §185. Mayor cites Dion. Hal. de Lysia 17 οὔτε γὰρ εὔνοιαν κινῆσαι
βουλόμενος, οὔτε προσοχήν, οὔτε εὐμάθειαν, ἀτυχήσειέ ποτε τοῦ
σκοποῦ.

invocatione dearum. Μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, and Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα.

vatibus: ‘bards,’ instinctis divino spiritu vatibus xii. 10,
24: Verg. Eclog. ix. 32 me fecere poetam Pierides ... me quoque dicunt
vatem pastores. Tac. Dial. 9 Saleium nostrum, egregium poetam, vel si
hoc honorificentius est, praeclarissimum vatem. _Poeta_, which is
sometimes used slightingly of verse-makers (Cic. in Pis. 29 ut
assentatorem, ut poetam: Tusc. i. 2 quod in provinciam poetas duxisset),
had not the same solemn associations as _vates_.

creditum est: as at 4 §1: cp. ii. 15, 7. The
perfect is continuous = νενόμισται. The personal construction occurs at §125. For the impersonal cp. Tac. Ann. ii.
69. ‘Tacitus appears to prefer the personal construction when a single
personal subject is spoken of, and the impersonal in other cases, but
even this rule is by no means without exceptions’ Furneaux, Introd. to
Annals, p. 45.

intentum ... magnitudine. Cic. de Inv. i. §23 attentos autem
faciemus si demonstrabimus ea quae dicturi erimus magna nova
incredibilia esse.

docilem: ‘receptive’; iv. 1, 34 (cited above on _legem
prooemiorum_), ad Herenn. i. §7 dociles auditores habere poterimus,
si summam causae breviter exponemus.

comprehensa: cp. xi. 1, 51: ix. 3, 91 comprehensa breviter
sententia. So Lucr. vi. 1083 sed breviter paucis praestat comprendere
multa: Cic. de Orat. i. §34. So that _celeriter_ here almost =
breviter.


 
I: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
51
ac refutandi sunt ita multa ut etiam qui de artibus scripserunt plurima
earum rerum testimonia ab hoc poeta petant.

§ 49.
narrare: iv. 2, 31 eam (narrationem) plerique scriptores ...
volunt esse lucidam, brevem, veri similem: Cic. de Inv. i. §28 brevis,
aperta, probabilis.

qui ... nuntiat: Antilochus, Il. xviii. 18. His κεῖται Πάτροκλος seems to have
become proverbial: Pliny Ep. iv. 11, 12.

significantius: ‘more graphically,’ or ‘with more force of
expression.’ Cp. significantia §121.

qui ... exponit, Phoenix, in Il. ix. 529 sqq.

iam, transitional particle, as often in Cicero: §§98, 111.

similitudines. v. 11, 1 tertium genus ex iis quae extrinsecus
adducuntur in causam Graeci vocant παράδειγμα, quo nomine et generaliter usi sunt in
omni similium adpositione et specialiter in iis quae rerum gestarum
auctoritate nituntur. Nostri fere _similitudinem_ vocare maluerunt
quod ab illis παραβολή
dicitur, hoc alterum _exemplum_: viii. 3, 72 praeclare ad
inferendam rebus lucem repertae sunt similitudines (i.e. the use of
simile).

amplificationes = αὐξήσεις (Cic. Or. §125). The various rhetorical means
of expanding and developing an idea in expression are discussed in viii.
4, 3 under the heads of _incrementum_, _comparatio_,
_ratiocinatio_, and _congeries_. Ad Herenn. ii. 47
amplificatio est res quae per locum communem instigationis auditorum
causa sumitur.

exempla: v. 11, 6 potentissimum autem est inter ea quae sunt
huius generis exemplum, id est rei gestae aut ut gestae utilis ad
persuadendum id quod intenderis commemoratio: ib. 2 §1: Cic. de
Inv. i. §49. The stock illustration is that given in Aristotle’s
Rhetoric: “if a man has asked for a bodyguard, and the speaker wishes to
show that the aim is a tyranny, he may quote the ‘instances’ (παραδείγματα) of Dionysius
and Pisistratus.”

digressus, ‘episodes’: cp. on §33.

signa rerum et argumenta: the ‘evidence of material facts’ and
‘inferences.’ In the former we have sensible proof of things (e.g.
cruenta vestis, clamor, livor, &c. v. 9, 1); in the latter
logical deductions from circumstantial facts: v. 10, 11 cum sit
argumentum ratio probationem praestans, qua colligitur aliquid per
aliud, et quae quod est dubium per id quod dubium non est confirmat. To
distinguish _signa_ from _argumenta_ Quintilian says v. 9, 1
nec inveniuntur ab oratore
51
sed ad eam cum ipsa cansa deferuntur: and again, signa sive indubitata
sunt, non sunt argumenta, quia, ubi illa sunt, quaestio non est,
argumento autem nisi in re controversa locus esse non potest: sive dubia
non sunt argumenta, sed ipsa argumentis egent: Cic. de Inv. §48. For
_argumenta_ see v. 10, 1 hoc ... nomine complectimur omnia quae
Graeci ἐνθυμήματα, ἐπιχειρήματα, ἀποδείξεις vocant: ib.
§§10-12.

ceteraque genera: see Crit. Notes.

probandi. After _narratio_ comes _probatio_ or (as
more commonly in Cicero, e.g. de Inv. i. §34) _confirmatio_ (see on
5 §12). So ii. 17, 6
narrent, probent, refutent. Cp. iv. 2, 79 aut quid inter probationem et
narrationem interest, nisi quod narratio est probationis continua
propositio, rursus probatio narrationi congruens confirmatio? For the
_probationes artificiales_ (ἔντεχνοι πίστεις) see v. chs. 8-12: for the
_probationes inartificiales_ ἄτεχνοι πίστεις ib. chs. 1-7.

refutandi. For Quintilian’s definition see v. 13, 1 sq., and
cp. note on _destructio_ 5 §12. Cicero often uses
_refellere_: de Orat. ii. §163 aut ad probandum aut ad refellendum.
For _refutare_ cp. ib. §80 nostra confirmare argumentis ac
rationibus, deinde contraria refutare: §§203, 307, 312.—In de
Prov. Cons. §32 and de Har. Resp. §7 (conatum refutabo) the word is used
in the sense of _repellere_.

artibus, the ‘principles of rhetoric’: §§15 and 47.

testimonia, ‘illustrations,’ confirmatory examples. Cp. i.
8, 12. ‘Homerus’ in the index to most Greek and Latin authors will
supply evidence of the truth of Quintilian’s statement. Cic. ad Att. i.
16, 1 respondebo tibi ὕστερον πρότερον
Ὀμηρικῶς: Plin. Ep. iii. 9, 28 praepostere ... facit hoc Homerus
multique illius exemplo.


 
I: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
52
potest, sed intellectu sequi.

§ 50.
nam. See on §12: cp. §§9, 50.

epilogus = peroratio: see note on §107. The advocate will find many pathetic and
moving passages in Homer such as will be serviceable for his closing
appeal, which is generally addressed to the feelings and hearts of his
hearers; vii. 4, 19 epilogi omnes in eadem fere materia versari solent:
vi. 1, 1 eius (perorationis) duplex ratio est, posita aut in rebus aut
in adfectibus. Cicero uses _conclusio_ as a synonym, de Inv. i.
§98, where he says it has three parts, _enumeratio_,
_indignatio_, and _conquestio_, defining the last (§106) as
oratio auditorum misericordiam captans. in hac primum animum auditoris
mitem et misericordem conficere oportet.—For Priam’s entreaty see
Il. xxiv. 486 sqq.

Quid? ... nonne: cp. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. §119. So with
_non_ §56 below, and 2 §25.

verbis, sententiis, figuris: xii. 9, 6 verborum quidem
dilectus, gravitas sententiarum, figurarum elegantia. For _figurae_
see on §12. _Sententiis_ = γνώμαις §§52, 60, 68, 90, 102, 129, 130: 2 §17: 5 §4. See viii. 5, 1 sq.
consuetudo iam tenuit ut mente concepta sensus vocaremus, lumina autem
praecipueque in clausulis posita sententias ... antiquissimae sunt quae
proprie, quamvis omnibus idem nomen sit, sententiae vocantur, quas
Graeci γνώμας appellant:
utrumque autem nomen ex eo acceperunt quod similes sunt consiliis aut
decretis. est autem haec vox universalis, quae etiam citra complexum
causae possit esse laudabilis, &c.

dispositione = οἰκονομίᾳ: see on _adfectus_ §48. Cp. 5 §14.

humani ingenii modum: §86 ut illi
naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus.

ut magni sit. There has been some controversy over this. The
text is best explained by supplying _ingenii_ out of what
immediately precedes. Others supply _viri_, which is actually given
in some of the later MSS.: while others again take _magni_ as a
gen. of price ‘of great value,’ or ‘worth much.’ Wrobel thinks it can
stand alone, as _res magni est_: i.e. it ‘takes a good deal’ even
to appreciate Homer’s excellences. Kiderlin supposes that
_spiritus_ has fallen out, and compares i. 9, 6. See Crit. Notes.

52
intellectu sequi: ii. 5, 21 neque vim eorum adhuc intellectu
consequentur.


 
I: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.

§ 51.
sine dubio: see Introd. p. liii.

clarissima comparatio: ‘the contrast is most striking.’


 
I: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.

§ 52.
adsurgit: cp. insurgit §96: 2 §23: i. 8, 5 sublimitate
heroi carminis animus adsurgat.—If Hesiod ‘seldom soars’ it is
because in him epic poetry has descended to the sphere of common life.
Homer was the bard of ‘warriors and noble men’ in the brave days of old.
Hesiod is the poet of the people, earning their daily bread in the
labour of the field.

pars eius: metonymy for _pars carminum eius_; cp. on §31 poetis.—Gemoll proposes to read
_operis eius_: cp. §§35 and 63.

in nominibus: specially in the Theogony: e.g. 226 sqq., 337 sqq.

circa: ‘in regard to’: 2 §14: 5 §§5, 6. Such uses of _circa_ (like
περί, ἀμφί, c. acc.)
are very frequent in Quintilian and later writers: ii. 16, 14 circa quae omnia multus hominibus labor: iii. 11, 5 circa verba dissensio. Also with verbs Pr. §20 circa ima subsistere: vii. 1, 54 circa patrem quaerimus; and for ‘in the time of’ (like κατά) ii. 4, 41 circa Demetrium Phalerea. It is also used absolutely ix. 2, 45 omnia circa fere recta sunt: cp. 7 §16 below. For exx. from other writers see Hand, Turs. ii. pp. 66-8.

praecepta. Lindner translates ‘Lehrvorschriften.’ The reference is to Hesiod’s proverbial philosophy: ‘maxims of moral wisdom.’

sententiae: §50. See Duncker’s Greece, vol. i. p. 485: Cic. ad Fam. vi. 18, 5 Lepta suavissimus ediscat Hesiodum et habeat in ore τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετης ἱδρῶτα et cetera: Brut. §15 illud Hesiodium laudatur a doctis, quod eadem mensura reddere iubet qua acceperis, aut etiam cumulatiore, si possis. Cp. Crit. Notes.

levitas verborum et compositionis. Here Quintilian is again in exact agreement with Dion. Hal. περὶ μιμήσεως 2 (Usener, p. 19), Ἡσίοδος μὲν γὰρ ἐφρόντισεν ἡδονῆς καὶ ὀνομάτων λειότητος καὶ συνθέσεως ἐμμελοῦς. It is also to be noted that Dionysius names Hesiod, Antimachus, and Panyasis after Homer.—Mayor cites Demetrius περὶ ἑρμηνείας §176, who ‘calls that ὄνομα λεῖον which has many vowels,
as Αἴας,—opp. to τραχύ as βέβρωκε; ib. §299 he defines ἡ λειότης ἡ περὶ σύνθεσιν, such as the school of Isocrates cultivated, the painful avoidance of hiatus.’ Cic. de Orat. iii. §171 struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus et levis: cp. §172: Or. §20: Quint, ii. 5, 9 levis et quadrata ...
compositio: viii. 3, 6.—For _compositio_ (the combination of words) see on §79: and cp.
§§44, 66, 118: 2 §13: 3 §9: viii. ch. 4, esp. §22 in
omni porro compositione tria sunt genera necessaria, ordo, iunctura,
numerus: ad Herenn. iv. §18 compositio est verborum constructio quae
facit omnes partes orationis aequabiliter perpolitas.

medio genere. See on §44. Dion.
Hal. de Comp. Verb. 23, p. 173 R. ἐποποιῶν μὲν οὖν ἔγωγε μάλιστα νομίζω τουτονὶ τὸν
χαρακτῆρα (sc. τὸν
ἀνθηρόν or _medium_ Quint, xii. 10, 58) ἐπεξεργάσασθαι
Ἡσίοδον.—From the point of view of oratory, the _medium
genus_ was the Rhodian school (xii. 10, 18), which stood between the
_genus Atticum_ and _Asianum_, ‘quod velut medium esse atque
ex utroque mixtum volunt: neque enim Attice pressi neque Asiane sunt
abundantes’ (sc. Rhodii).

 

 
I:53
Contra in Antimacho vis
53
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.

§ 53.
Antimachus of Colophon (or rather Claros by Colophon) flourished
about B.C. 405. He wrote a Thebaid, an
epic narrative of the wars of the Seven against Thebes and of the
Epigoni: Cic. Brut. §191. Fragments of his poems have been preserved. He
also edited a critical text of Homer. Antimachus served as a model for
Statius, and for the emperor Hadrian: Spartian §15 Catachanas libros
53
obscurissimos Antimachum imitando scripsit. For the criticism _vis ...
laudem_ cp. Dion. Hal. l.c. Ἀντίμαχος δ᾽ εὐτονίας (ἐφρόντισεν) καὶ ἀγωνιστικῆς
τραχύτητος καὶ τοῦ συνήθους τῆς ἐξαλλαγῆς.

minime vulgare: viii. pr. §25: Arist. Poet. §22 λέξεως δὲ
ἀρετῆ σαφῆ καὶ μὴ ταπεινὴν εἶναι. An uncommon elevation of style
was evidently one of his characteristics.

habet laudem = ἔχει ἔπαινον. Xen. Anab. vii. 6, 33: Plin. xxxvii. §65:
xxxvi. §164.

secundas: sc. partes, after Homer: §58. So Cic. Or. §18 cui (Pericli) primae sine
controversia deferebantur: Brut. §84: ad Att. i. 17, 5. The phrase
is probably borrowed from the theatre: primas agere Brut. §308: Hor.
Sat. i. 9, 46. On the other hand primas ferre (Brut. §183) suggests
πρωτεῖα
φέρεσθαι. Tac. Ann. xiv. 21 eloquentiae primas nemo tulit, sed
victorem esse Caesarem pronuntiatum.

grammaticorum consensus. For this sense of _grammatici_
(‘literary critics,’ ‘professors of literature’ Hor. A. P. 78) cp.
ii. 1, 4 grammatice, quam in Latinum transferentes litteraturam
vocaverunt ... cum praeter rationem recte loquendi non parum alioqui
copiosam prope omnium maximarum artium scientiam amplexa sit.—The
phrase is one more indication of the second-hand character of
Quintilian’s criticism of Greek authors: cp. §27, where he specially refers to Theophrastus: §52 datur ei palma: §54 putant: §58 princeps
habetur and confessione plurimorum: §59
Aristarchi iudicio: §72 consensu omnium: §73 nemo dubitat. No doubt Quintilian and
Dionysius were both indebted to the lists of the Alexandrian
bibliographers.

adfectibus ... deficitur: ‘he fails in pathos’: §48. His lament for Lyde (nec tantum Clario Lyde
dilecta poetae Ovid, Tr. i. 6, 1) contained a catalogue of the
misfortunes of all the mythical heroes who had lost their loves. Λύδη καὶ
παχὺ γράμμα καὶ οὐ τόρον Callim. fr. 441.

iucunditate: see on §46.

dispositione: §50. Catull. 95, 10
At populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho.

arte: ‘poetical skill.’

plane: see Introd. p. lii.

proximum ... secundum. Cp. Verg. Aen. v. 320 proximus huic
longo sed proximus intervallo insequitur Salius. _Secundus_ here
means much less than _proximus_ (‘very near’): it only means ‘prior
tertio et reliquis.’ Cp. Corn. Nep. Pelop. iv. 2 haec fuit altera
persona Thebis sed tamen secunda ita ut proxima esset Epaminondae: §85 below, secundus ... est Vergilius, propior
tamen primo quam tertio, i.e. Vergil is _proximus_ to Homer as well
as _secundus_.—This is the usual explanation, motived
probably by the recurrence of _secundum_ so soon after
_secundas_ above (cp. §§58, 72, 85). The difficulty
is that it is exactly the reverse of the well-known passage in Horace,
Car. i. 12, 18 nec viget quidquam simile (Iovi) aut secundum: proximos
illi tamen occupavit Pallas honores, where the idea is that Pallas is
what sportsmen call a ‘bad second,’—_proximus_ meaning ‘next’
(however far apart), while _secundus_ (sequor) implies contiguity.
The two passages could be reconciled by supposing that Quintilian has
negligently omitted to note the repetition _secundas ... secundum_,
and that he means ‘what a difference there is between a bad (proximum)
and a good second (secundum)’—between being second and
coming near the first. Cp. Cic. Brut. §173 Duobus igitur summis, Crasso
et Antonio, L. Philippus proximus accedebat, sed longo intervallo
tamen proximus; itaque eum, etsi nemo intercedebat qui se illi
anteferret, neque secundum tamen neque tertium dixerim. If Quintilian is
conscious of the recurrence of _secundus_, he may mean that the
Greek critics would have been nearer the truth if they had called
Antimachus _next_ (proximus) rather than _second_ to
Homer.—Cp. Crit. Notes.


 
I:54
Panyasin, ex utroque mixtum, putant in
54
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.

§ 54.
Panyasin. Panyasis of Halicarnassus, the uncle of Herodotus,
wrote a Heracleia in fourteen books, fragments of which are quoted by
Stobaeus and
54
Athenaeus. He also composed six books of ‘Ionica,’—elegiac poems
on the Ionic migration. Suidas describes him as “an epic poet, who
fanned into a flame the smouldering embers of epic poetry, ὁς σβεσθεῖσαν
τὴν ποίησιν ἐπανήγαγε. Among the poets he is ranked after Homer;
according to some, _also after Hesiod and Antimachus_” (Mayor).
Panyasis flourished circ. B.C.
480.

ex utroque mixtum. Dion. Hal. l.c. Πανύασις δὲ τὰς
τ᾽ ἀμφοῖν ἀρετὰς ἠνέγκατο καὶ αὐτῶν (εἰσηνέγκατο καὶ αὐτός—Usener)
πραγματείᾳ (materia)
καὶ τῇ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν (αὐτὴν?) οἰκονομίᾳ διήνεγκεν.

putant. Mr. Nettleship (Journ. Phil. xviii. p. 259) notes
that Quintilian ‘while saying evidently much the same as Dionysius, says
not _putat Dionysius_ but _putant_,’ showing that both
Dionysius and he followed the _grammatici_, i.e. probably
Aristarchus and Aristophanes. Cp. Usener, p. 110 sq., and see
Introd. p. xxxii.

alterum ... materia: Hesiod, the ‘singer of Helots.’ “The
labours of Herakles supply a more varied and attractive theme than the
pedigrees of a Theogony or the homely Tusser-like maxims of the ‘Works
and Days.’” Mayor.

Apollonius, surnamed Rhodius, because he was honoured with the
freedom of the city of Rhodes, after having retired thither from
Alexandria. Returning to Alexandria he succeeded Eratosthenes as
librarian. He was a pupil of Callimachus, and flourished circ. 220 B.C. For a sympathetic account of the
Argonautica see Mahaffy’s Greek Lit. vol. i. ch. ix. It was
rendered into Latin by Atacinus Varro (§87) and Valerius Flaccus
(§90).

ordinem a grammaticis datum. The lists of approved authors
drawn up by the critics of Alexandria constituted what they called κανόνες (_indices_, here
called _ordo_). See Usener, p. 134 sq. Cp. venire, redigi,
recipi in ordinem or numerum. So i. 4 §3 ut ... auctores alios in
ordinem redegerint alios omnino exemerint numero. See Introd. p. xxxv.

Aristarchus, of Samothrace, lived and taught at Alexandria
about the middle of the second cent. B.C. His name is inseparably associated with the
text of the Homeric poems: see Wolf’s _Prolegomena_, Lehrs de
Aristarchi Studiis Homericis (3rd edit. 1882), and Pierron’s Introd. to
Homer, p. xxxv. sq. It became a synonym for rigorous criticism:
Cic. ad Att. i. 14, 3 meis orationibus quarum tu Aristarchus es: Hor.
A. P. 450 fiet Aristarchus.—See Mahaffy’s Grk. Lit.
ch. iii. §32 sq.

Aristophanes, of Byzantium, was librarian at Alexandria before
Aristarchus, having succeeded Apollonius Rhodius. He died about 180
B.C. He revised his master Zenodotus’s
edition of Homer, and was the first to reject the end of the Odyssey
after xxiii. 296. He also left critical and exegetical commentaries on
the lyric and dramatic poets, and compiled _argumenta_ or prefaces
to the individual plays.

poetarum iudices. This looks like a gloss: see Crit.
Notes.

in numerum redegerunt: cp. above on in ordinem a grammaticis
datum. The phrase represents the Greek ἐγκρίνειν.—With the exception of the official
eulogy of Domitian (§91), Quintilian followed this rule himself.

reddidit. Though it would be hard to find an exact parallel,
this use of _reddo_ seems not impossible, especially in Quintilian.
It must be explained either by the analogy of the use in which land is
said to ‘produce’ the expected crop (cp. tibiae sonum reddunt xi.
3, 20), or less probably with reference to the use which describes
such physical processes as dum nimis imperat voci ... sanguinem reddidit
Plin. v. 19, 6. In Cicero such an expression could only have been
explained on the analogy of ‘placidum reddere’ for ‘placare’: cp. omnia
enim breviora reddet ordo et ratio et modus xii. 11, 13.—But see
Crit. Notes.

aequali quadam mediocritate: §86
aequalitate pensamus. No disparagement
55
is implied: the meaning is that Apollonius keeps pretty uniformly to the
_genus medium_ (see on §44), neither
rising on the one hand to the _genus grande_ nor on the other
descending to the _genus subtile_. So in the περὶ ὕψους 33 §4 he receives the
epithet ἄπτωτος. For this
sense of _mediocritas_ cp. Gellius 7 §14 of Terence: Hor. Car.
ii. 10, 5.—“This is a fair criticism of the greatest of the
Alexandrine poems; it is learned and correct, tells the story of the
Argonauts with a due regard to proportion, and has many minor idyllic
beauties, but wants epic unity and inspiration.” Mayor.


 
I:55
Arati materia motu caret, ut
55
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.

§ 55.
Arati. Aratus was born at Soli in Cilicia, and lived at the court
of Antigonus Gonatas, king of Macedonia, circ. B.C. 270. At the request of the latter he composed
Φαινόμενα καὶ
Διοσημεῖα, a didactic epic on the heavenly bodies and
meteorology, which was translated into Latin verse by Cicero and
afterwards by Germanicus. Avienus also made a rendering of it, probably
late in the fourth century. See Teuffel §259 §6 and §394 §2,
and Munro on Lucr. v. 619 (cp. vol. ii. pp. 3, 9, 299: J. B.
Mayor on Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. §104).

ut in qua. Törnebladh (‘de coniunctionum causalium apud Quint.
usu’) has collected ten additional examples of this construction in
Quint.,—_ut qui_ i. 2, 19: x. 1,
57 and 74: xi. 3, 53 (sing.): v. 14, 28
(plur.): _ut quae_ (sing.) iii. 5, 9: xii. 2, 20; _ut quod_
viii. 3, 12: 4, 16: _ut quorum_ x. 2, 13. For _ut cum_ see
on §76. It is incorrect to say that the
usage does not occur in Cicero: see Draeger, Hist. Syn. ii.
p. 509.

Theocritus lived at Syracuse (probably his native place) under
Hiero, and spent some time also at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
where he wrote his 14th, 15th, and 17th idylls about the year 259 B.C. Vergil’s obligations to him in the
Eclogues are well known: cp. Sicelides Musae iv. 1: Arethusa x. 1.

musa illa rustica et pastoralis. Theocritus is the type of
real, as opposed to artificial, pastoral poetry. “He finds all things
delectable in the rural life: ‘sweet are the voices of the calves, and
sweet the heifer’s lowing; sweet plays the shepherd on the shepherd’s
pipe, and sweet is the echo.’ Even in courtly poems and in the
artificial hymns ... the memory of the joyful country life comes over
him. He praises Hiero, because Hiero is to restore peace to Syracuse,
and when peace returns, then ‘thousands of sheep fattened in the meadows
will bleat along the plain, and the kine, as they flock in crowds to the
stalls, will make the belated traveller hasten on his way.’” Mr. Lang’s
Introduction.


 
I:56
Audire videor undique congerentes nomina plurimorum poetarum. Quid?
Herculis acta non bene Pisandros? Nicandrum frustra
secuti Macer atque Vergilius? Quid?
56
Euphorionem transibimus? Quem nisi probasset Vergilius idem,
numquam certe ‘conditorum Chalcidico versu carminum’ fecisset in
Bucolicis mentionem. Quid? Horatius frustra Tyrtaeum Homero
subiungit?

§ 56.
videor: §46. Hor. Car. iii. 4, 6
audire magnos iam videor duces. So often _videre videor_: e.g. Cic.
in Catil. iv. §11.

congerentes: participle without subject: cp. solitos §7.

non: 2 §25.

Pisandros, of Cameirus in Rhodes, fl. circ. B.C. 645. He wrote a poem called _Heracleia_,
an epic narrative of the deeds of Hercules. He is often cited as an
authority for the various details of the legend, and was the first to
arm the hero with the club and lion’s skin.

Nicandrum, of Colophon, lived in the middle of the second
century B.C. at the court of Attalus
III, king of Pergamus. His didactic poem on the bites of venomous
animals (Θηριακὰ καὶ Ἀλεξιφάρμακα) is still extant. He also
wrote five books of ἑτεροιούμενα, on which Ovid drew for his
Metamorphoses.

frustra = temere, ‘without good reason’ (sine iusta causa):
cp. _frustra ... subiungit_ below. Cicero, de Div. ii. 60 nec
frustra ac sine causa quid facere deo dignum est. So i. 10, 15 non
igitur frustra Plato civili viro ... necessariam musicen credidit: xii.
2, 5 Caesar has _non nequiquam_ in the same sense B. G.
56
ii. 27, 5. In some cases it makes little difference whether the
rendering is ‘without good reason’ or ‘without good result,’ but here it
is very improbable that Quintilian is asking ‘whether Vergil can be
called an _unsuccessful_ follower of Nicander,’ as Conington puts
it.

Macer: §87. Aemilius Macer of
Verona, the friend and contemporary of Vergil and Ovid, wrote the
‘Ornithogonia’ (‘bird-breeding’) and the ‘Theriaca,’ neither of which is
extant. Ovid, Trist. iv. 10, 43-4 Saepe suos volucres legit mihi
grandior aevo, Quaeque necet serpens, quae iuvet herba, Macer.

Vergilius. See Conington’s Vergil, vol. i. pp. 141 sqq.
None of the extant fragments of Nicander’s Γεωργικά justify the supposition that Vergil was
indebted to it for the Georgics; but he seems to have used his work on
bees (μελισσουργικά) and also the θηριακά above mentioned (Georg. iii. 415,
425). And Macrobius (Sat. v. 22) tells us that it was from Nicander that
Vergil borrowed the legend of Pan drawing the moon down after him to the
woods by a fleece of snow-white wool (Georg. iii. 391).

Euphorionem. Euphorion, of Chalcis in Euboea, was a
contemporary of Ptolemy Euergetes, and Antiochus the Great, circ. B.C. 220. Among other works he wrote a
Georgica, or poem on agriculture.

in Bucolicis. Verg. Ecl. x. 50 ibo et Chalcidico quae sunt
mihi condita versu Carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor avena, where the
speaker is the elegiac poet Cornelius Gallus (§93 note), who had introduced Euphorion to general
notice by translating some of his poems.

Tyrtaeum. Tyrtaeus was a native either of Athens or of
Aphidnae in Attica, and flourished at the time of the second Messenian
War (in the seventh century B.C.), in
which he is said to have contributed to the success of the Spartan arms
by his inspiring battle-songs. The reference to Horace is A. P. 401
Post hos (Orpheus and Amphion) insignis Homerus Tyrtaeusque mares animos
in Martia bella Versibus exacuit. Mayor cites passages from Dio Chrys.
where Homer and Tyrtaeus are coupled in the same way: cp. Plato, Laws
ix. 858 E, where Tyrtaeus is classed with Homer for his moral and
political influence.


 
I: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.

§ 57.
tam ... ut non: Plin. Ep. iii. 5, 10: cp. §41 and §48 above.

indicem, ‘a catalogue.’ Any one can at least (if he does not
know anything more about them) make out a list of such poets in some
library, and note the titles of their works in his compilation. For
_index_ cp. Cic. Hortens., indicem tragicorum: Plin. Ep. iii. 5, 2
fungar indicis partibus: Seneca de Tranq. 9 §4 quo innumerabiles
libros et bibliothecas, quarum dominus vix tota vita indices perlegit?
Ep. 39 §2 sume in manus indicem philosophorum.—_Non ...
certe_ almost = _ne quidem_.

nec utique, ‘nor by any means.’ See on §20: cp. §24.
Krüger3 renders by ‘unbedingt,’ ‘absolut,’ ‘jedenfalls.’

ut qui dixerim: see on §55.


 
I:58
Sed ad illos iam perfectis constitutisque viribus revertemur, quod in
cenis grandibus saepe
57
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.

§ 58.
perfectis constitutisque viribus, i.e. by the reading of the epic
poets who are most suited to our purpose: §59 optimis adsuescendum est, &c. So §131 (of Seneca) iam robustis et severiore genere
satis firmatis legendus: 5 §1 iam robustorum. Cp i. 8, 6
(of amatory elegy and hendecasyllabics) amoveantur, si fieri potest, si
minus, certe ad firmius aetatis robur reserventur: §12
robustiores.—For _constitutis_ cp. ἐν τῇ καθεστηκυίᾳ ἡλικίᾳ:
xi. 3, 29.

revertemur: future used as a mild imperative. Cp. 7 §1.

quod ... ut. The dependent clause here gives the explanation
of _quod facimus_
57
in the form of a result, so that the construction is really pleonastic:
cp. 5 §18: 7 §11. In 3 §6 (where see note) _ut_
may have more of the idea of purpose.

tunc: when our taste is formed.

elegiam. Cp. i. 8, 6 quoted above. In A. P. 77 Horace
characterises the elegy as _exiguus_, i.e. it is slighter and less
dignified than the epic hexameter.

vacabit. This impersonal use (cp. §90) does not occur in Cicero. For the expression see
Introd. p. xxxii,
note.

Callimachus, of Cyrene, was the second director of the library
at Alexandria (§54): he flourished in the
middle of the 3rd century. Catullus, Propertius, and Ovid all imitated
his elegies. ‘The erotic elegy of Callimachus, Philetas, and their
school is chiefly interesting as having been the model of the Roman
elegy, which is one of the glories of Latin literature in the hands of
Ovid, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius.’ Mahaffy.

secundas, §53.

Philetas of Cos, instructor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 290
B.C. Like Callimachus he was a
literary critic as well as a poet, though probably less erudite than his
greater contemporary.

occupavit: Hor. Car. i. 12, 19 proximos illi tamen occupavit
Pallas honores.


 
I: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
58
iamborum ad ἕξιν maxime
pertinebit unus Archilochus.

§ 59.
adsequimur, a present of endeavour: cp. §31. This gives a good contrast to _iam perfectis
constitutisque viribus_ and _tunc_, so that there is no need for
Halm’s conjecture _adsequamur_, which is however generally adopted:
see Crit. Notes.

ut dixi: see on §1.

multa ... multorum: Plin. Ep. vii. 9 §15 tu memineris sui
cuiusque generis auctores diligenter eligere. Aiunt enim multum legendum
esse, non multa. Mayor compares also Seneca, Epist. 2 §§2-4.

ducendus color: Verg. Ecl. ix. 49 (astrum) quo duceret apricis
in collibus uva colorem. _Ducere_ expresses the gradual process of
‘taking on’ a tinge; the agent in this process is here _lectio_, as
in Vergil it is the constellation. _Color_ is here the ‘appropriate
tone’ which will vary with the subject or the occasion: xii. 10, 71 non
unus color prooemii, narrationis, argumentorum, egressionis,
perorationis servabitur. Sen. Ep. 108 §3 non novimus quosdam qui
multis apud philosophum annis persederint et ne colorem quidem duxerint:
ib. 71 §31. So Cicero, Orat. §42 educata huius (Isocratis)
nutrimentis eloquentia ipsa se postea colorat (‘gathers strength and
colour’): de Or. ii. 60 ut cum in sole ambulem ... fieri natura ... ut
colorer, sic, cum istos libros ... studiosius legerim, sentio illorum
tactu orationem meam quasi colorari. Cp. on §116: 6 §5: 7 §7.

ex tribus receptis: sc. in ordinem sive numerum: cp. §54. The other two are Simonides of Amorgos
(Semonides) and Hipponax of Ephesus. The former is best known by his
satire on women; the latter is often mentioned along with Archilochus:
his spirit reappears in the later comedy. The treatise of Dion. Hal. as
we have it now does not contain any criticism either of the elegiac or
the iambic poets. Proclus however has: Ἰάμβων ποιηταὶ Ἀρχίλοχός τε ἄριστος καὶ Σιμωνίδης καὶ
Ἱππῶναξ (p. 242, Westphal.)

Aristarchi iudicio: §52.

scriptoribus iamborum: see on §9.
Diomedes iii. p. 485 11 k (p. 18, Reiff.) iambus est carmen
maledicum plerumque trimetro versu et epodo sequente compositum ...
appellatum est autem παρὰ τὸ ἰαμβίζειν, quod est maledicere. Cuius carminis
praecipui scriptores apud Graecos Archilochus et Hipponax, apud Romanos
Lucilius et Catullus et Horatius et Bibaculus: cp. §96.—The word ἄαμβος is derived from ἰάπτω ‘I fling’ (Curt. Etym.5 537: E. T.
ii. 154), and denoted originally a ‘flinging,’ or a verse ‘flung at’ a
person: hence ἰαμβίζειν, ‘to lampoon.’ Cp. ix. 4, 141 aspera vero
et maledica ... etiam in carmine iambis grassantur. Hor. Car. i. 16, 2
criminosis ... iambis: ib.
58
22-5 me quoque pectoris Temptavit in dulci iuventa Fervor et in celeres
iambos Misit furentem.

ἕξιν: see on §1.

maxime unus. _Unus_ is very commonly used in this way to
strengthen a superlative: Cic. in Verr. i. §1 quod unum ad invidiam
vestri ordinis ... sedandam maxime pertinebat: de Amic. §1 quem unum
nostrae civitatis ... praestantissimum audeo dicere: Verg. Aen. ii. 426
cadit et Rhipeus iustissimus unus. Becher thinks _unus_ may merely
be set over against _tribus_: cp. pro Sest. §49 unus bis
rempublicam servavi.

Archilochus of Paros (circ. 686 B.C.) was a master of various forms of metrical
composition; but his distinctive characteristic was that alluded to
here,—the employment of the iambic trimeter as the vehicle of
satire, the sting of which, as wielded by him, is said to have driven
people into hanging themselves. Hor. A. P. 79 Archilochum proprio
rabies armavit iambo.


 
I: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.

§ 60.
vibrantes, of the quivering motion of a spear (cp. ‘shafts’ of
eloquence) thrown from a stout arm. Cic. Brut. §326 oratio incitata et
vibrans: Quint. xii. 9, 3 nec illis vibrantibus concitatisque sententiis
velut missilibus utetur: xi. 3, 120 sententias vibrantes digitis
iaculantur: ix. 4, 55 neque enim Demosthenis fulmina tanto opere
vibratura dicit nisi numeris contorta ferrentur: cp. note on 7 §7 below.

sanguinis atque nervorum. The former refers to the quality of
‘fulness’ or ‘richness’ of thought and style, the latter (often
_lacerti_) to ‘force’: sanguinis et virium 2 §12. Cp. tori and caro §33 (note) and §77.
For _sanguis_, cp. §115 verum
sanguinem: 2 §12. “In
good Latin _nervus_, like νεῦρον, always denotes sinews or tendons (literal or
metaphorical): cp. Celsus viii. 1 nervi quos τένοντας Graeci appellant; but sometimes appears to
include also what we call ‘nerves’: see Mayor on Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii.
55, 136. Galen (born 130 A.D.) was the
first to limit νεῦρον to
the meaning ‘nerve,’ in its present sense.” Wilkins on Hor. A. P.
26.

quibusdam: cp. §64 ut quidam ...
eum ... praeferant: §93 quosdam ita deditos
sibi adhuc habet amatores: §113 adeo ut
quibusdam etiam nimia videatur.

quod quoquam minor est. This clause is the subject of
_videatur_, and the meaning is: with such high qualities the fact
that Archilochus comes behind any (if that is the case) is to be
attributed to his _materia_, not to his _ingenium_, which
latter would give him a claim to a place alongside of the very foremost,
Homer: cp. §65 post Homerum tamen, quem ut
Achillen semper excipi par est. So §62
copiae vitium est: §74 praedictis minor.
For _quod_ without _id_, cp. 4 §4. See Crit. Notes.

materia, ‘subject-matter,’ which was mainly personal character
and conduct in common life. Pind. Pyth. ii. 55 ψογερὸν
Ἀρχίλοχον βαρυλόγοις ἔχθεσιν πιαινόμενον. Hor. Ep. i. 19, 23
Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Latio, numeros animosque secutus
Archilochi non res et agentia verba Lycamben: 28 Temperat Archilochi
musam pede mascula Sappho Temperat Alcaeus sed rebus et ordine dispar,
Nec socerum quaerit quem versibus oblinat atris Nec sponsae laqueum
famoso carmine nectit. Val. Max. vi. 3, E. §1 tells us that the Spartans
banished the poems of Archilochus because of their corrupting influence
on the morals of their youth: Maximum poetam aut certe summo proximum
... carminum exilio multarunt. Velleius (i. 5, 1) brackets Homer
and Archilochus.


 
I:61
Novem vero lyricorum longe Pindarus
59
princeps spiritu magnificentia, sententiis figuris, beatissima rerum
verborumque copia et velut quodam eloquentiae flumine; propter quae
Horatius eum merito credidit nemini imitabilem.

§ 61.
novem ... lyricorum. Of the nine lyric poets not received into
the ‘canon’ those not mentioned here are Alcman, Sappho, Ibycus,
Anacreon, and Bacchylides. The four whom Quintilian names are the same
as those criticised by Dionysius, except that in the latter Simonides
comes next after Pindar.

Pindarus (521-441 B.C.,
though known to us now mainly by his Epinician Odes, essayed various
forms of the lyric art, most of which (except the skolia and encomia)
are pervaded by a deeply religious tone. He had the disadvantage of
belonging to the Medising city of
59
Thebes, but he spoke fearlessly out (after Salamis) for the liberators
of Greece; and both in the instinct for a national unity to which his
poems bear witness and in his ethical and religious beliefs he is
eminently representative of his age. He is the crowning glory of Greek
lyric poetry, and may be said in a sense to stand as it were midway
between the Homeric epos and the drama at Athens.

princeps, &c. Here Quintilian again coincides with
Dionysius (l.c.) Ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ
μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας ... καὶ σεμνότητος καὶ
γνωμολογίας καὶ ἐνεργείας καὶ σχηματισμῶν.

spiritu: see on §27: i. 8, 5. See
Crit. Notes.

magnificentia, μεγαλοπρέπεια iv. 2, 61. This is Pindar’s
distinctive quality: he is φιλάγλαος, ‘splendour-loving.’ Cp. magnificus §63: §84: iii. 8,
61: vi. 1, 52: xi. 3, 153.

sententiis: see on §50.

figuris: see on §12.

beatissima = fecundissima, uberrima: §109: 3 §22. Cp. Tac. Dial. 9: Hist.
iii. 66.

propter quae: see on §10, propter
quod.

Horatius: Car. iv. 2, 1 Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari ...
Monte decurrens velut amnis imbres Quem super notas aluere ripas, Fervet
immensusque ruit profundo Pindarus ore.


 
I: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
60
redundat atque effunditur, quod ut est reprehendendum, ita copiae vitium
est.

§ 62.
Stesichorus of Himera in Sicily (cir. 632-553 B.C.) is, like Simonides and Pindar, a
representative of the Dorian or choral lyric poetry of
Greece,—distinguished from the Aeolic (Alcaeus and Sappho) by its
greater complexity of structure and by the wider audience to which it
was addressed. His real name is said to have been Teisias: that by which
he is known he derived from the changes in the structure of the choral
ode which were introduced by him. He relieved the combination of strophe
and antistrophe by the _epode_, composed in a different manner, and
sung by the chorus standing before the altar,—thus affording it an
interval of rest after the movements to right and left. By Alexander the
Great, Homer and Stesichorus were classed together as the two poets
worthy to be studied by kings and conquerors.—With Quintilian’s
criticism cp. Dionysius l.c. (Usener, p. 20) Ὅρα δὲ καὶ Στησίχορον ἔν τε τοῖς ἑκατέρων τῶν
προειρημένων (Pindar and Simonides) πλεονεκτήμασι
κατορθοῦντα, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧν ἐκεῖνοι λείπονται κρατοῦντα‧ λέγω δὲ τῇ
μεγαλοπρεπείᾳ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ὑποθέσεις πραγμάτων, ἐν οἷς τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὰ
ἀξιώματα τῶν προσώπων τετήρηκεν.

ingenio validus: Cic. in Verr. ii. 35 Stesichori qui ... et
est et fuit tota Graecia summo propter ingenium honore et nomine.

materiae. The titles of his poems (Ἰλίου
Πέρσις, Γηρυονηίς, Ὀρέστεια, Νόστοι, Κέρβερος, Ἑλένα) show that
Stesichorus made extensive use of the old epic legends, which would
naturally fall more or less into a narrative form. Cp. Hor. Car. iv. 9,
8 Stesichorique graves Camenae. Ael. Hist. Anim xvii, 37 calls him σεμνός: and Pliny, Nat. Hist.
ii. 15, 54 has Stesichori et Pindari vatum sublimia ora.

si tenuisset ... videtur potuisse = potuit, ut videtur. Cp. on
§98. This use of the pf. indic. in such
clauses indicates the possibility (or duty, obligation, &c.) more
unconditionally than the plpf. subj. would do: e.g. Cic. in Vatin. §1
debuisti, Vatini, etiamsi falso venisses in suspicionem P. Sestio,
tamen mihi ignoscere: pro Mil. §31 quod si ita putasset, certe
optabilius Miloni fuit. &c. In the indirect there is a parallel
instance, de Off. i. §4 Platonem existimo ... si ... voluisset ...
potuisse dicere.

aemulari, with dat. §122.

Homerum. The author of the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ calls
Stesichorus Ὁμηρικώτατος, 13 §3: cp. Dio Chr. Or. ii.
p. 284
60
τοῦτό γε ἅπαντές φασιν οἱ Ἕλληνες, Στησίχορον Ὁμήρου
ζηλωτὴν γενέσθαι καὶ σφόδρα γε ἐοικέναι κατὰ τὴν ποίησιν.

redundat atque effunditur. Hermogenes, de Id. ii. 4
p. 322 Στησίχορος
σφόδρα ἡδὺς εἶναι δοκεῖ, διὰ τὸ πολλοῖς χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις.
Mayor quotes also Anth. Pal. vii. 75, 1-2 Στασίχορον, ζαπληθὲς ἀμετρήτου στόμα Μούσης,
ἐκτέρισεν Κατάνας αἰθαλόεν δάπεδον.

copiae vitium: ii. 4, 4 vitium utrumque, peius tamen illud
quod ex inopia quam quod ex copia venit: ib. 12 §4 effusus pro
copioso accipitur. Cp. Plin. Ep. i. 20 §§20-1; Cic. de Orat. ii.
§88.


 
I: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.

§ 63.
Alcaeus of Mitylene, cir. 600 B.C. The criticism of Dionysius is as
follows:—Ἀλκαίου δὲ
σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετά δεινότητος, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς
σχηματισμοὺς καὶ τὴν σαφήνειαν, ὅσον αὐτῆς μὴ τῇ διαλέκτῳ τι κεκάκωται‧
καὶ πρὸ ἁπάντων τὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων (ποιημάτων?) ἦθος. Πολλαχοῦ γοῦν τὸ μέτρον τις εἰ περιέλοι, ῥητορικὴν ἂν
εὕροι πολιτείαν (ῥητορείαν ... πολιτικήν Usener).

in parte: see on §9 in illis.

aureo plectro. ‘Plectrum’ is from πλήσσω (πλήκτρον), the ‘striking thing.’ Hor. Car. ii. 13, 26
Et te sonantem plenius aureo Alcaee plectro dura navis, Dura fugae mala,
dura belli.

tyrannos insectatus. These were Myrsilus and Pittacus, by the
latter of whom Alcaeus was driven into banishment. Those of his poems
which relate to the ten years’ civil war waged against the tyrants were
called στασιωτικά. At
some time during the rule of Pittacus, the party of Alcaeus attempted a
forcible return: Alcaeus was taken prisoner, but was at once set free by
the ruler whom he had so bitterly attacked. Cp. Hor. l.c. sed magis
Pugnas et exactos tyrannos Densum umeris bibit ore vulgus: id. i.
32, 5.

moribus: cp. ἦθος
in the passage quoted from Dionysius. Mayor appositely cites his saying
ἄνδρες
γὰρ πόλιος πύργος ἀρεύιοι.—For _confert_ with dat. cp.
§27.

brevis ... magnificus ... oratori similis: cp. in regard to
each of these points the criticism of Dionysius.—For
_diligens_ see Crit.
Notes.

lusit. For _ludere_, ‘to write sportively,’ to
‘trifle’,
cp. Hor. Car. iv. 9, 9 nec si quid olim lusit Anacreon delevit aetas: i.
32, 2: Verg. Georg. iv. 566 carmina qui lusi.

in amores descendit, in his ἐρωτικά and συμποτικά. Cic. Tusc. Disp. iv. §71 fortis vir in sua
republica cognitus quae de iuvenum amore scribit Alcaeus! Hor. Car. i.
32, 3 sqq. Age, dic Latinum, barbite, carmen, Lesbio primum modulate
civi, Qui ferox bello tamen inter arma, Sive iactatam religarat udo
Litore navim, Liberum et Musas Veneremque et illi Semper haerentem
puerum canebat, Et Lycum nigris oculis nigroque Crine decorum.

maioribus = rebus maioribus, ‘loftier themes.’ Introd. p. xlvii. Cp. i. pr. §5 ad
minora illa, sed quae si neglegas, non sit maioribus locus. Cp.
_subitis_ 7 §30:
Nägelsbach §24, 2 (pp. 116-117).


 
I:64
Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone
61
proprio et iucunditate quadam commendari potest; praecipua tamen eius in
commovenda miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac eum parte omnibus eius
operis auctoribus praeferant.

§ 64.
Simonides of Ceos (556-468), like Pindar, was fortunate in his
age, and the most considerable of his fragments that remain are full of
the fire kindled in his heart by the great national struggle with
Persia. He was a sort of cosmopolitan poet, living by turns in Athens,
at the court of the Aleuadae and Scopadae in Thessaly, Corinth, Sparta,
and Sicily. He cultivated friendly relations with Miltiades and
Themistocles, with Pausanias of Sparta, and (like Pindar and Aeschylus)
with Hiero of Syracuse. He was famed for his elegies, epigrams,
epinician odes, and every form of choral lyric poetry. His wisdom was
renowned: σοφὸς καὶ θεῖος ὁ ἀνήρ, Plat. Rep. 331 E, where some of his
gnomic utterances are discussed: cp. ib. 335 E: Protag.
316 D.—The criticism of Dionysius (l.c.) corresponds: Σιμωνίδου δὲ παρατήρει τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων
(sermone proprio), τῆς συνθέσεως τὴν
ἀκρίβειαν‧ πρὸς τούτοις, καθ᾽ ὃ βελτίων εὑρίσκεται καὶ Πινδάρου, τὸ
οἰκτίζεσθαι μὴ μεγαλοπρεπῶς, ἀλλὰ παθητικῶς.

61
tenuis, ‘simple,’ ‘natural’: cp. 2 §19 and §23 (tenuitas), also μὴ μεγαλοπρεπῶς quoted above.
Λεπτότης (‘terse
simplicity’) was a quality of Simonides’ style, especially in his
epigrams: ‘when least adorned adorned the most,’ Mayor. Cp. §44, note. Opposites are _grandis_,
_copiosus_, _plenus_.

alioqui = τὰ μὲν
ἄλλα, ‘for the rest’: cp. ceterum. See on 3 §13, and Introd. p. li.

sermone proprio: see on §46.

iucundidate: see on iucundus §46,
and cp. §§82, 96, 101, 110, 113: 2 §23. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. §60
non enim poeta solum suavis, verum etiam ceteroqui doctus sapiensque
traditur. So Tac. Dial. 10 lyricorum iucunditatem.

miseratione. He was a master of pathos, especially in his
θρῆνοι: witness his
‘Lament of Danae,’ truly a ‘precious tender-hearted scroll of pure
Simonides.’ Generally his poems seem to have been tinged with the same
melancholy resignation as inspired the earlier writers of elegy: e.g.
fr. 39 ‘slight is the strength of men, and vain are all their cares, and
in their brief life trouble follows upon trouble; and death, which none
can shun, hangs over all,—in him both good and bad share equally.’
Catull. 38, 7 paulum quidlibet adlocutionis maestius lacrimis Simonidis:
Hor. Car. ii. 1, 37 sed ne relictis Musa procax iocis Ceae retractes
munera neniae.

quidam: see on putant §54.

in hac parte, ‘in this respect.’ Cp. i. 3, 17: 7 §19:
10 §4: ii. 17, 1: iii. 6, 64: xii. 1, 16. So ab (ex) hac
parte.

operis = _generis_, ‘class of poetry.’ See on §9: cp. §28 §85.

auctoribus, §24.


 
I: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
62
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.

§ 65.
Quintilian now proceeds to deal with the Comic and Tragic Drama. In the
περὶ μιμήσεως of
Dionysius there is nothing about the Old Comedy, and very little that
corresponds with Quintilian in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides. Both however pass from Euripides to Menander.

The Old Comedy (§§65-66) was closely
connected with the political life of the day, as may be seen from its
plots, and especially from the _parabases_. When the licence of
ridicule was curbed (by the laws μὴ κωμῳδεῖν and μὴ κωμῳδεῖν ὀνομαστί), it passed into what is
known as Middle Comedy (B.C. 404-338),
in which literary and speculative pursuits take the place of politics;
its atmosphere is not that of the agora, but of the literary academies
and schools of philosophy. In the New Comedy (§§69-72) the Chorus, which has been becoming less and
less important, is altogether abandoned, along with other features which
the Middle Comedy had in common with the Old. Its strength lies in its
delineation of social life and manners, and the materials on which it
relied were handed on to Rome, whence, through Plautus and Terence, they
were transmitted to Modern Comedy.

Quintilian takes no notice of what is termed Middle Comedy. Between
the Old and the New, Tragedy is made to find a place (§§66-67), the plays of Euripides affording a
transition to those of Menander.

antiqua comoedia: cp. veteris comoediae §§9 and 82. See Hor. Sat. i. 4, 2: 10, 17.

sinceram ... gratiam: §44 sana et
vere Attica: §100 illam solis concessam
Atticis venerem: §107 illa quae Attici
mirantur. The same phrase occurs xii. 10, 35. Of Roman Comedy he says
(i. 8, 8) in comoediis elegantia et quidam velut ἀττικισμός inveniri potest.

libertatis = παρρησίας §§94, 104. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 5 multa cum libertate
notabant: A. P. 281-284 successit vetus his comoedia, non sine
multa Laude; sed in vitium libertas excidit et vim Dignam lege regi; lex
est accepta chorusque Turpiter obticuit sublato iure nocendi. Isocr. de
Pace 14 ἐγὼ δ᾽ οἶδα μὲν ὅτι ... δημοκρατίας οὔσης οὐκ ἔστι
παρρησία πλὴν ... ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τοῖς κωμῳδιδασκάλοις. Marc. Aurel.
xi. 6:)
62
ἡ ἀρχαία κωμῳδία ... παιδαγωγικὴν παρρησίαν
ἔχουσα.—For the reading see Crit. Notes.

grandis = ὑψηλός, §77: 2 §16 (where it is opposed to
_tumidus_). Hor. A. P. 93-4 Interdum tamen et vocem comoedia
tollit. Iratusque Chremes tumido delitigat ore.

elegans: §§78, 87, 93, 99: 2 §19, ‘choice,’ ‘tasteful.’ Cp.
Cic. Brut. §272 verborum delectus elegans. In the treatise ad Herenn.
(iv. 12) _elegantia_ stands along with _compositio_ and
_dignitas_ as a requisite of style: it includes _Latinitas_
(which avoids solecisms and barbarisms), and _explanatio_, which
uses _verba usitata_ and _propria_.

venusta: vi. 3, 18 venustum esse quod cum venere quadam et
gratia dicatur apparet. Krüger sees in these adjj. a reference to the
main characteristics of the three different styles distinguished by
rhetoricians, §44.

nescio an ulla: see Crit. Notes.

ut Achillen: Il. ii. 673-4 Νιρεύς, ὃς κάλλιστος ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθε Τῶν ἄλλων
Δαναῶν μετ᾽ ἀμύμονα Πηλεΐωνα: ib. 768. Alcaeus fr. 63 Κρονίδα βασιλήας γένος Αἴαν, τὸν ἄριστον πεδ᾽
Ἀχιλλέα.

similior oratoribus: §63
plerumque oratori similis. The same description of the style of the Old
Comedy is given by one of the rhetoricians, Walz Rhet. Gr. v. 471 (cp.
vi. 164, vii. 932) λόγοειδεστέρα‧
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἡ κωμικωτέρα καὶ προσβεβληκυῖα λόγῳ πεζῷ κατὰ
συνθήκην, ὅθεν τινὲς καὶ ῥητορικὴν ἔμμετρον τὴν κωμῳδίαν
ἐκόλεσαν. Students of oratory went to the comic actors for
_pronuntiatio_ and _gestus_: i. 11, 1-14: 12, 14: xi. 3,
181.


 
I:66
Plures eius auctores, Aristophanes tamen et Eupolis
Cratinusque praecipui. Tragoedias primus in lucem
Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus
63
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.

§ 66.
Aristophanes ... Eupolis ... Cratinus. The same representatives
of Old Comedy are named in Hor. Sat. i. 4, 1: cp. Persius i. 123 Audaci
quicumque adflate Cratino Iratum Eupolidem praegrandi cum sene palles.
So also Dionysius, Art. Rhet. viii. 11, p. 302 R (there is
nothing about Old Comedy in the ἀρχ. κρ.): ἡ δὲ κωμῳδία ὅτι
πολιτεύεται ἐν τοῖς δράμασι καὶ φιλοσοφεῖ, ἡ τῶν περὶ τὸν Κρατῖνον καὶ
Ἀριστοφάνην καὶ Εὔπολιν, τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν; Velleius i. 16, 3:
Diomed. p. 489 K (p. 9 Reiff.) ‘Ar. Eup. et Crat. qui vel principum
vitia sectati acerbissimas comoedias composuerunt.’ The chronological
order would be, Cratinus (519-422), Aristophanes (448-380), Eupolis
(446-410). In 424 B.C. Cratinus with
his Πυτίνη (‘Wine-flask’)
gained the victory over the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes, while in the
previous year Eupolis is said to have helped his greater rival in the
composition of the _Knights_. Cratinus was the real originator of
political comedy: see the grammarian quoted by Meineke (i. p. 540):
‘he added a serious moral object to the mere amusement in comedy, by
reviling evil-doers (τοὺς κακῶς πράττοντας διαβάλλων, cp.
insectandis vitiis) and chastising them with his comedy, as it were with
a public scourge’: cp. Platon. de Com. p. 27 οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ὁ
Ἀριστοφάνης ἐπιτρέχειν τὴν χάριν τοῖς σκώμμασι ποιεῖ ... ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς καὶ
κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν γυμνῇ κεφαλῇ τίθησι τὰς βλασφημίας κατὰ τῶν
ἁμαρτανόντων.

primus. Just as in treating of Comedy Quintilian passes over
the Megarian farces of Susarion, and such earlier writers as Chionides
and Magnes, so now he omits all mention of Pratinas, Choerilus, Thespis
and Phrynichus. Thespis introduced the actor (ὑποκριτής) and arranged that the dithyrambic
choruses should be interrupted by regular dialogue between the
coryphaeus and the actor. This step secured the entrance of the dramatic
element, as distinct from the lyric, and made subsequent development
easy. Aeschylus is however the real founder of tragedy: he introduced a
second actor and subordinated the choral song to the dialogue, besides
elaborating the machinery of the stage and the scenic decoration
employed thereon. Cp. Hor. A. P. 275 sqq.

sublimis, &c. Cp. Dionysius, l.c., (Usener, p. 21)
63
Ὁ δ᾽ οὖν Αἰσχυλος πρῶτος ὑψηλός τε καὶ τῆς
μεγαλοπρεπείας ἐχόμενος, καὶ ἠθῶν καὶ παθῶν τὸ πρέπον εἰδώς, καὶ τῇ
τροπικῇ καὶ τῇ κυρίᾳ λέξει διαφερόντως // κεκοσμημενος, πολλαχοῦ δὲ καὶ
αὐτος δημιουργὸς καὶ ποιητὴς ἰδίων ὀνομάτων καὶ πραγμάτων.

grandiloquus. Cp. Aristoph. Frogs 823 βρυχώμενος ἥσει ῥήματα
γομφοπαγῆ, 939 τὴν τέχνην ...
οἰδοῦσαν ὑπὸ κομπασμάτων καὶ ῥημάτων ἐπαχθων, 1004, ἀλλ᾽ ὦ πρῶτος τῶν Ἑλλήνων πυργώσας
ῥήματα σεμνὰ καὶ κοσμήσας τραγικὸν λῆρον κ.τ.λ. So too the
biographer of Aeschylus, κατὰ δὲ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῆς
ποιήσεως ζηλοῖ τὸ ἁδρὸν (see on §44)
ἀεὶ πλάσμα ... πᾶσι τοῖς δυναμένοις
ὄγκον τῇ φράσει περιθεῖναι χρώμενος. Hor. A. P. 280 ‘et
docuit magnumque loqui nitique cothurno.’

rudis et incompositus, ‘uncouth and inharmonious.’ Cp. horride
atque incomposite 2 §17: and note on
_compositus_ §44. In the de Comp.
Verb. c. 22 Dionysius names Aeschylus along with Antimachus as a
representative of ἡ
αὐστηρὰ ἁρμονία (p. 150 R). For _rudis_ cp. Hor. Sat.
i. 10, 66 rudis et Graecis intacti carminis auctor: for
_incompositus_ see Introd. p. xlv. The author of the
treatise ‘On the Sublime’ qualifies his eulogy of Aeschylus by adding in
the same way that his plays were frequently unpolished, ill digested,
and rough in style.

in plerisque; neut. ‘in general,’ ‘for the most part.’ See
Intod. p. xlvii.

propter quod = quam ob rem: 7 §6: 5 §23. See on §10.

correctas ... permiserunt. This passage has been the subject
of much controversy. It seems inconsistent with our knowledge of the
statute passed by the orator Lycurgus (396) enacting that official
copies of the plays of the three great tragedians should be made, and
that no new performance of them should be allowed without a comparison
of the acting copy with the State MS. Perhaps Quintilian misunderstood
the phrase δράματα
διεσκευασμένα, commonly applied to plays revised by the author
himself with a view to a second representation. Madvig however (Kl.
philol. Schr. 1875, pp. 464-5) thinks it quite probable that
revised versions of plays of Aeschylus were allowed to be brought into
competition by later poets (say in the latter half of the 4th century),
when Aeschylus came in for criticism on the score of the defects alluded
to above (_rudis et incompositus_), but when, on the other hand,
creative genius was not so abundant. Krüger quotes Rohde (‘Scenica,’
Rhein. Mus. 1883, vol. 38, p. 289 sqq.), who sees in the words of
the scholiast on Arist. Ach. 10 (μόνου
αὐτοῦ τὰ δράματα ψηφίσματι κοινῷ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον ἐδιδάσκετο) a
compliment paid to Aeschylus alone, and consisting not merely in the
appreciative revival of his plays after his death, but in the fact that
they were reproduced not as παλαιαί but as new dramas, were provided afresh with
choruses by the archon, and were admitted to competition at the great
Dionysia (where only new tragedies were represented) if any one
appeared, who in the name of the dead poet asked to be provided with a
chorus. Cp. οὐκ ὀλίγας μετὰ τελευτὴν νίκας ἀπηνέγκατο, vit.
Acschyl. 68, Dindorf5.


 
I: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
64
relinquo. Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad
agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden.

§ 67.
longe, with the comp. vi. 4, 21: 3 §13. Cp. Verg. Aen. ix.
556: Vell. ii. 74, 1. In Cicero _longe_ is used only with the
superl. (and with _alius_: pro Caec. i. §3) with the compar. he
generally has _multo_. Quintilian has also _longe princeps_ §61: and _multo_ with superl., e.g. i.
2, 24.

opus: sc. tragoedias in lucem proferendi. See on §9.

in dispari dicendi via. By Dionysius Euripides is made the
only representative of the ‘smooth’ style of composition (γλαφυρὰ ἁρμονία, de Comp.
Verb. c. 23), while Sophocles represents the middle style (κοινή or μέση ἁρμονία, ib. c. 24). This must of course be
kept distinct from the three λέξεις, or styles of _diction_, which he enumerates
in his essay on Demosthenes, c. 1-3.

quaeritur. Modern criticism has taken
64
up the issue, and Euripides has suffered from being identified with what
was practically a dramatic revolution. Schlegel depreciated him as
contrasting with Sophocles in many points. Mr. Jebb’s utterance will
stand: ‘no one is capable of feeling that Sophocles is supreme who does
not feel that Euripides is admirable’ (Att. Or. i. p. xcix).

utiliorem: so _magis accedit oratorio generi_ immediately
below: Dionysius l.c. xi. (Usener, p. 22) κεκραμένη μεσότητι τῆς
λέξεως κέχρηται.


 
I: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.

§ 68.
quod ipsum reprehendunt: see Crit. Notes.

gravitas ... sublimior. The use of the comparative takes away
from the difficulty which commentators have found in the conjunction of
_sublimior_ as a predicate with _gravitas_ and
_cothurnus_ as well as with _sonus_.—For
_cothurnus_, cp. Iuv. vi. 634 Fingimus haec, altum Satira sumente
cothurnum Scilicet et finem egressi legemque priorum Grande Sophocleo
carmen bacchamur hiatu.

sententiis densus: cp. _sent. creber_ §102: and for _densus_ (= pressus) §§73, 76. Euripides
had been a pupil of Anaxagoras. Something might be said in support of
Halm’s suggestion to insert _est_ after _densus_.

sapientibus. In Euripides philosophy is brought on the stage,
and different theories are put forward in his plays as to such questions
as the moral government of the world, the opposition between freedom and
authority, the nature of punishment, the question of a future life,
&c.

dicendo ac respondendo. In this appears the influence of his
sophistic training. Euripides knew his audience, and in his plays the
characters indulge to the full all the tendencies that were fostered by
the sophistic habit of debate, while the chorus is as it were the jury
to which they address their arguments for and against a particular
proposition. Cp. Dion. l.c. πολὺς ἐν ταῖς ῥητορικαῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς.

adfectibus ... miseratione. Arist. Poet. 13 τραγικώτατός γε
τῶν ποιητῶν φαίνεται.

facile. So _facile princeps_ Cic. ad Fam. vi. 10, 2:
_facile primus_ pro Rosc. Amer. §15. For the reading see Crit. Notes.


 
I: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
65
vitae imaginem expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi
facultas, ita est omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus.

§ 69.
testatur: not in any extant fragment, though it is by no means
improbable that in some of his numerous plays Menander expressed an
admiration for the most popular tragedian of the day.

Menander, 342-290 B.C. At
his death the Athenians erected his tomb near the cenotaph of Euripides,
in token of the affectionate regard in which he had held the elder poet.
‘Euripides was the forerunner of the New Comedy; the poets of this
species admired him especially, and acknowledged him for their master.
Nay, so great is this affinity of tone and spirit between Euripides and
the poets of the New Comedy, that apothegms of Euripides have been
ascribed to Menander and _vice versa_. On the contrary, we find
among the fragments of Menander maxims of consolation which rise, in a
striking manner, even into the tragic tone.’ Schlegel. See Meineke Com.
Frag. iv. Epimetrum ii., Menander imitator Euripidis.

omnem vitae imaginem. Menander was the ‘mirror of life’: cp.
the exclamation of Aristophanes of Byzantium Ὦ Μένανδρε
καὶ βίε, πότερος ἄρ᾽ ὑμῶν πότερον ἐμιμήσατο; Manilius v. 470
Menander
65
Qui vitam ostendit vitae. So Cicero in a fragment of the De Republica
(or the Hortensius, Usener, p. 120): Comoedia est imitatio vitae,
speculum consuetudinis, et veritatis imago.—For this use of
_exprimere_, a figure from the plastic art, cp. Hor. A. P.
32-3.

tauta in eo, &c. Cp. with this Dionysius l.c. (Usener,
p. 22) τῶν δὲ κωμῳδῶν μιμητέον τὰς λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς
ἁπάσας‧ εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι καθαροὶ καὶ σαφεῖς, καὶ βραχεῖς καὶ
μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ δεινοὶ καὶ ἠθικοί. Μενάνδρου δὲ καὶ τὸ πραγματικὸν
θεωρητέον.


 
I: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.

§ 70.
nihil viderunt: they have not ‘lacked discrimination.’ So, of
political insight or foresight, Cic. pro. Leg. Manil. §64 sin autem vos
plus in republica vidistis: Phil. ii. §39 cum me vidisse plus fateretur,
se speravisse meliora.

Charisius, an Athenian orator, a contemporary of Demosthenes,
who wrote speeches for others, in which he was thought to imitate
Lysias: he was in turn imitated by Hegesias, Cic. Brut. §286.

addicuntur: Aul. Gell. iii. 3. 13 istaec comoediae nomini eius
(Plauti) addicuntur.

in opere suo: ‘I consider that he proves his oratorical
ability far more in his own department’ (i.e. as a writer of
comedy)—than in those speeches of Charisius, supposing that he did
compose them. For _opus_ see on §9: cp.
§67.

nisi forte, ironical: see on 5 §6: cp. 2 §8. The formula introduces ‘a
case which is in fact inadmissible, but is intended to suggest to
another person that he cannot differ from our opinion, without admitting
as true a thing which is improbable and absurd,’ Zumpt §526.

iudicia ... meditationes: ‘judicial pleadings,’ speeches
suitable to be made before a court—‘extra-judicial pleadings,’
law-school speeches, _declamationes_, μελέται. Cp. iv. 2, 29 cum sit declamatio forensium
actionum meditatio: 5 §14.—The names are those
of some of Menander’s comedies: The Trusting, The Heiress, The Locri,
The Timid Man, The Lawyer, The Changeling. The second and the last are
known to have been imitated by Caecilius. For the reading see Crit. Notes.

numeris: here as at §91 rather
than as at §4, where see note. Here it only
= _partibus_ and has nothing to do with rhythmical composition. In
this sense it is found almost invariably with _omnis_: Varro apud
Aul. Gell. xiii. 11, 1 ipsum deinde convivium constat ex rebus quatuor,
et tum denique omnibus suis numeris absolutum est, &c.: Cic. de
N. D. ii. §37 mundum ... perfectum expletumque omnibus suis numeris
et partibus: de Div. i. §23 quod omnes habet in se numeros: de Off. iii.
§14: de Fin. iii. §24 omnes numeros virtutis continent: Sen. Ep.
71 §16 (veritas) habet numeros suos: plena est: 95 §5: Iuv.
vi. 249: Tac. Dial. 32 per omnes eloquentiae numeros isse. So viii. pr.
§1 per omnes numeros penitus cognoscere.


 
I:71
Ego tamen plus adhuc quiddam collaturum eum declamatoribus puto, quoniam
his necesse est secundum
66
condicionem controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum filiorum,
militum rusticorum, divitum pauperum, irascentium deprecantium, mitium
asperorum; in quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc poeta decor.

§ 71.
plus adhuc quiddam = πλέον τι, or ἔτι καὶ πλέον. _Adhuc_ with compar. (for
_etiam_) is post-Augustan: cp. §99.
Here _quiddam_ (like τι)
is used to modify the force of the comparative. So adhuc melius ii. 4,
13: adhuc difficilior i. 5, 22: liberior adhuc disputatio vii. 2, 14:
and Tac. Germ. 29: Suet. Nero 10: Sen. Ep. 85, 24: Spalding on i.
5, 22.

declamatoribus. Students in the schools of rhetoric, and even
speakers of a more mature type, practised declamation at Rome in the
shape of oratorical compositions on questions which, though fictitious,
were yet akin to such as were argued in the law-courts. The youthful
aspirant learned in this way to speak in
66
public (Cic. de Orat. i. §149: Quint. ii. 10, 4: ib. §12), while the
orator had the opportunity of perfecting his articulation and delivery.
To these two aims the Greek terms μελέτη and φωνασκία correspond: for the first cp. de Orat. i.
§251, and for the second Brut. §310. It was in the age of the decadence
of Roman oratory that declamation came to be an end in itself. At first
it had been merely a preparatory exercise; now, under the head of
_suasoriae_ (deliberativae materiae) and _controversiae_
(iudiciales materiae), finished oratorical compositions were produced,
graced by all the ornaments of genuine rhetoric. Cp. Tac. Dial. 35.

controversiarum. Cp. iv. 2, 97 evenit aliquando in
scholasticis controversiis quod in foro an possit accidere dubito: iii.
8, 51 praecipue declamatoribus considerandum est quid cuique personae
conveniat, qui parcissimas controversias ita dicunt ut advocati:
plerumque filii, parentes, divites, senes, asperi, lenes, avari, denique
superstitiosi, timidi, derisores fiunt, ut vix comoediarum actoribus
plures habitus in pronuntiando concipiendi sunt, quam his in
dicendo.

decor: see on §27.


 
I: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.

§ 72.
eiusdem operis, i.e. Comedy, not the New Comedy only, as is shown
by _alii comici_ below. Along with Menander and Philemon, Velleius
(i. 16, 3) and Diomedes (p. 489 K, p. 9 Reiff.) mention
Diphilus, on whom both Plautus and Terence drew for material.

nomen: see on §87.

fulgore ... obduxit: ‘has put them in the shade by the
brightness of his own glory.’

cum venia: cp. i. 5, 11: Ov. Tr. i. 1, 46 scriptaque cum venia
qualiacumque leget: ib. iv. 1, 104 cum venia facito, quisquis es, ista
legas. Kiderlin rightly holds this reading to be, not only possible, but
at least as appropriate to _habent quaedam_ as any of the
conjectures (see Crit. Notes) by which it has been proposed to supplant
it. The _severe_ critic will perhaps not find anything in the other
comic poets useful for the orator: but he who reads them with indulgence
(i.e. making allowance for their poverty as compared with Menander) will
find something. It is different with Menander, in whose plays even the
rigorous critic will find everything that the orator needs (§69).

Philemon, of Soli in Cilicia, 360-262. Fragments of fifty-six
of his ninety plays are extant. His Θησαυρός was used by Plautus for the
_Trinummus_, and his Ἔμπορος for the _Mercator_.

prave, ‘adverbium pro sententia.’ Cp. iii. 7, 18 quidam sicut
Menander iustiora posteriorum quam suae aetatis iudicia sunt consecuti:
Aul. Gell. 17, 1 Menander a Philemone nequaquam pari scriptore in
certaminibus comoediarum ... saepenumero vincebatur.—See Crit. Notes.

meruit credi = merito creditus est (or creditur). Cp. §74. Elsewhere _mereo_ means little more than
_adipisci_, _consequi_: §§94, 116: vi. 4, 5 nec immerito quidam ...
meruerunt nomina patronorum. For the nomin. with inf. cp. §97 qui esse docti adfectant: Ov. Met. xiii. 314 esse
reus merui.


§73-75.
Greek Historians:—

In his Ἀρχαίων
κρίσις (or περὶ
μιμήσεως 2) Dionysius says nothing of Ephorus, Clitarchus,
or Timagenes, but draws a more elaborate parallel (Usener, p. 22)
between Herodotus and Thucydides, as well as between Philistus and
Xenophon: Theopompus he treats by himself. Illustrative
67
passages are found also in the _Iudicium de Thucydide_ and the
_Epistola ad Cn. Pompeium_ (de Praecip. Historicis). Cp. also
Cicero, de Orat. ii. §55 sq., where the order is Herodotus and
Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes,
and Timaeus. For the last two Quint. substitutes Clitarchus and
Timagenes. Cp. Introd. p. xxxiii.


 
I:73
Historiam multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe
67
duos ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem
consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi
68
Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus:
ille concitatis hic remissis adfectibus melior, ille contionibus hic
sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate.

§ 73.
scripsere. In i. 5, 42 Quint. (speaking of the forms
_scripsere_ and _legere_) says ‘evitandae asperitatis gratia
mollitum est ut apud veteres pro male _mereris_, male
_merere_,’ ib. §44 ‘quid? non Livius circa initia statim primi
libri, _tenuere_, inquit, _arcem Sabini_? et mox, _in
adversum Romani subiere_? sed quem potius ego quam M. Tullium
sequor, qui in Oratore, _non reprehendo_, inquit, _scripsere;
scripserunt esse verius sentio_.’ The passage referred to is Or.
§157. The termination _-ere_ for _-erunt_ is ‘found in some of
the earliest inscriptions, and is not uncommon in Plautus and Terence,
_rare in Cicero_ and Caesar, but frequent in dactylic poets and
Livy,’ Roby, §578. Mr. Sandys also quotes Dr. Reid: ‘There is hardly a
sound example of _-ere_ in the perfect in any really good MS. of
Cicero (see Neue, ii. 390 ff.); and similarly in the case of Caesar.’
Quintilian has permiserunt, §66 (where the
later MSS. give _-ere_): illustraverunt §67: viderunt §70:
indulsere §84. See Bonnell, Proleg. de
Gramm. Quint. p. xxvii.

nemo dubitat ... praeferendos. The acc. and inf. with
_dubito_ (for the negative expression of doubt) is much the more
common construction in Quint. (cp. §81, 4 §2), though he also uses
_quin_ and subj. (e.g. 2 §1: xii. 1, 42 ad hoc nemo
dubitabit quin ... magis e republica sit). A study of the instances
in Bonn. Lex. will fail to reveal any principle of difference: cp. vii.
6, 10 quis dubitaret quin ea voluntas fuisset testantis? with ix. 4, 68
quis enim dubitet unum sensum in hoc et unum spiritum esse? and i. 10,
12 atqui claros nomine sapientiae viros nemo dubitaverit studiosos
musices fuisse. The acc. with inf. belongs on the whole to the usage of
the Silver Age, being frequent in Livy, Nepos (e.g. his opening words
‘non dubito fore plerosque, Attice’), Tacitus, Pliny (e.g. praef. 18 nec
dubitamus multa esse), Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius. It
never occurs in Caesar or Sallust, and in Cicero only in doubtful cases:
these are his youthful transl. of Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, where he has
(§6) quis enim dubitet nihil esse pulchrius in omni ratione vitae
dispositione atque ordine? ad Att. vii. 1, 2, where the passage may be
differently construed: de Fin. iii. 11, 38 nihil est enim de quo minus
dubitari possit quam et honesta expetenda per se et eodem modo turpia
per se esse fugienda. In the last instance the dependent clause ‘de quo
... possit’ = ‘certius’: and after ‘quam’ ‘illud’ may be supplied. On
the other hand cp. for _quin_ Rep. i. 23: Brut. §71: de Sen. §31:
in Verr. ii. 1, 40. In young Cicero’s letter to Tiro (ad Fam. xvi.
21, 2) we find the acc. c. inf., though below (§7) he has the usual construction.

diversa virtus ... consecuta: as for example from Dionysius,
Epist. ad Cn. Pomp. pp. 775-7 R (Usener, p. 57 sq.).

Densus, §68. It is opposed to
_fusus_ here as in §106 to
_copiosus_. Cp. Dionysius, p. 869 R, τό τε
πειρᾶσθαι δι᾽ ἐλαχίστων ὀνομάτων πλεῖστα σημαίνειν πράγματα, καὶ πολλὰ
συντιθέναι νοήματα εἰς ἕν.

brevis: Dion. Ἀρχ.
κρ. p. 425 R (Usener, pp. 22-3) καὶ τὸ μὲν σύντομόν ἐστι παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τὸ δ᾽ ἐναργὲς
παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις. This is what Dion. calls τὸ τάχος τῆς σημασίας
p. 793 R (Us. p. 82).

semper instans sibi, ‘ever pressing on.’ Thucydides does not
‘let things drift,’ but closely follows up each thought, making every
word tell, and even hurrying on to a new idea before he has fully
developed the previous one: Dion. l.c. καὶ ἔτι
προσδεχόμενόν τι τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἀκούσεσθαι καταλιπεῖν. Cp. xi. 3,
164 instandum quibusdam in partibus et densanda oratio. Hor. Ep. i. 2,
71 nec praecedentibus insto: cp. Sat. i. 10, 9 est brevitate opus ut
currat sententia neu se impediat verbis lassas onerantibus
aures.—Cicero’s references to Thucydides are similar: Orat. §40
Thucydides praefractior nec satis ut ita dicam rotundus; de Orat. ii.
§56 creber est rerum frequentia ... porro verbis est aptus et pressus;
ibid. §93 (with Pericles and Alcibiades) subtiles, acuti, breves,
sententiisque magis quam verbis abundantes; Brut. §29 grandes erant
verbis, crebri
68
sententiis, compressione rerum breves et ob eam ipsam causam interdum
subobscuri.

dulcis, §77, ‘pleasing,’ cp.
voluptate, below. So Cic. Hortens. ‘quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut
Thucydide gravius?’ Γλυκύτης is one of the essentials of ἡδεῖα λέξις in Dionysius (de Comp.
Verb. xi. p. 53 R). In the preceding chapter he has
distinguished between ἡ
ἡδονή and τὸ
καλόν, allowing the latter to Thucydides and both to Herodotus:
ἡ δὲ Ἡροδότου σύνθεσις ἀμφότερα
ταῦτα ἔχει‧ καὶ γὰρ ἡδεῖά ἐστι καὶ καλή. Hermogenes (ii.
p. 226) makes γλυκύτης the characteristic of Herodotus on account of
the attractiveness of his digressions.

candidus: §§113, 121: Cic. Orat. §53 elaborant alii in ... puro et
quasi quodam candido genere dicendi. So in ii. 5, 19 Quintilian
recommends young persons to read candidum quemque et maxime
expositum,—Livy rather than Sallust: of Livy he says elsewhere (§101) in narrando mirae iucunditatis
clarissimique candoris. The word denotes ‘clearness,’ ‘transparency’:
Dion. (Ἀρχ. κρ. R,
Us. p. 22) τῆς δὲ σαφηνείας
ἀναμφισβητήτως Ἡροδότῳ τὸ κατόρθωμα δέδοται. Such a quality of
style is the revelation of a man’s inner nature. It avoids all
adventitious ornament (ibid. τῷ ἀφελεῖ αὐτοφυεῖ ἀβασανίστῳ). Undue
_brevitas_ often interferes with it (ἀσαφὲς γίγνεται τὸ βραχύ), so that
the word gives a partial antithesis to _brevis_.

fusus supplies the antithesis to _densus_ as well as to
_semper instans sibi_. Cp. §77: ii. 3,
5 constricta an latius fusa oratio: ix. 4, 138 fusi ac fluentes. So
Cicero Orat. §39 alter sine ullis salebris quasi sedatus amnis fluit,
alter incitatior fertur.

concitatis ... remissis adfectibus. Dionysius, speaking of
τῶν ἠθων
τε καὶ παθῶν μίμησις (ad Cn. Pomp. p. 776 R, Us.
p. 58), says διῄρηνται τὴν ἀρετὴν
ταύτην οἱ συγγράφεις‧ Θουκυδίδης μὲν γὰρ τὰ πάθη δηλῶσαι κρείττων,
Ἡρόδοτος δὲ τὰ γ᾽ ἤθη παραστῆσαι δεινότερος. So (Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 425 R, Us.
p. 23) ἐν μέντοι τοῖς
ἠθικοῖς κρατεῖ Ἡρόδοτος, ἐν δὲ τοῖς παθητικοῖς ὁ Θουκυδίδης. Cp.
p. 793 R ὑπὲρ ἅπαντα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα τὸ παθητικόν.
For the distinction between τὸ ἠθικόν (the appeal to the moral sense) and τὸ παθητικόν (the appeal
to the emotions) see Cic. Orat. §128: Quint. vi. 2, §§8-10 Adfectus
igitur hos concitatos πάθος illos mites atque compositos ἦθος esse dixerunt, and sq. Cp. §§48 and 101 of
this book, and iii. 4, 15 concitandis componendisve adfectibus.

contionibus ... sermonibus: not the same antithesis as
_narrando ... contionibus_ §101, q.v.
The opposition here is between the set harangues of Thucydides and the
less formal conversations of Herodotus. In Thucydides the only dialogues
are that between the Melians and the Athenians in Book V, and that
between Archidamus and the Plataeans in Book II, whereas Herodotus
‘seldom speaks where there is a fair pretext for making the characters
speak.... Even the longer speeches have usually the conversational tone
rather than the rhetorical,’ Jebb. (Hild is wrong in referring
_sermonibus_ to τὸ πραγματικὸν εἶδος in Dionysius and _contionibus_
to τὸ λεκτικόν: Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 424 R,
Us. p. 22: cp. de Admir. Deor. vi. c. 51, p. 1112 R sq.).
The speeches of Thucydides are criticised by Dionysius (under the head
both of τὸ
πραγματικὸν μέρος and τὸ λεκτικόν) in his Iudicium, ch. 34,
p. 896 R sq. Herodotus on the other hand (ibid. 23 ad fin.),
οὐδὲ δημηγορίαις πολλαῖς ... οὐδ᾽ ἐναγωνίοις
κέχρηται λόγοις, οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ παθαίνειν καὶ δεινοποιεῖν τὰ πράγματα τὴν
ἀλκὴν ἔχει. Dionysius’s own opinion of the speeches in Thucydides
is seen from the last chapter of his Iudicium (pp. 950-2 R) to have
agreed with that of Cicero, Orator §30: ipsae illae contiones ita multas
habent obscuras abditasque sententias vix ut intellegantur. (Cp. Brutus
§287.) On this ground he says nihil ab eo transferri potest ad forensem
usum et publicum: cp. de Opt. Gen. 15, 16. Dionysius, however (ch. 34 ad
init.) indicates that some people thought differently: τῶν δημηγοριῶν ἐν αἷς οἴονταί τινες τὴν
ἄκραν τοῦ συγγραφέως εἶναι δύναμιν.—For the speeches see
Blass, Att. Bereds p. 231 sq.: and Jebb’s Essay in
_Hellenica_, esp. pp. 269-275.

vi ... voluptate. Many passages may be quoted from Dionysius
to illustrate this antithesis: Ἀχρ. κρ. p. 425 R, Usener p. 23
69
ῥώμῃ δὲ καὶ ἰσχύι καὶ τόνῳ καὶ τῷ περιττῷ καὶ
πολυσχηματίστῳ παρηυδοκίμησε Θουκυδίδης: ἡδονῇ δὲ καὶ πειθοῖ καὶ χάριτι
... μακρῷ διενεγκόντα τὸν Ἡρόδοτον εὑρίσκομεν: ad. Cn. Pomp. iii.
p. 776 R (Us. p. 58) ἕπονται ταύταις αἱ
τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὸν τόνον καὶ τὰς ὁμοιοτρόπους δυνάμεις τῆς φράσεως ἀρεταὶ
περιέχουσαι. κρείττων ἐν ταύταις Ἡροδότου Θουκυδίδης. ἡδονὴν δὲ καὶ
πειθὼ καὶ τέρψιν καὶ τὰς ὁμοιογενεῖς ἀρετὰς εἰσφέρεται μακρῷ Θουκυδίδου
κρείττονας Ἡρόδοτος. So Iud. de Thucyd. 23, p. 866 R
πειθοῦς τε καὶ χαρίτων καὶ τῆς εἰς ἀκρὸν
ἡκούσης ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα. So in the Epist. ad Pomp. iii.
p. 767 R he praises Herodotus for his choice of subject (ὑπόθεσιν ... καλὴν καὶ κεχαρισμένην τοῖς
ἀναγνωσομένοις Us. p. 50), while Thucyd. was conscious ὅτι εἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι
(de Comp. Verb. p. 165 R). It is his variety (μεταβολὴ καὶ ποικίλον)
and the providing of agreeable ἀναπαύσεις that give Hdt. his charm: καὶ γὰρ τὸ βιβλίον ἢν
αὐτοῦ λάβωμεν μέχρι τῆς ἐσχάτης συλλαβῆς ἀγάμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ τὸ πλεῖον
ἐπιζητοῦμεν p. 772 R: while Thucydides is by comparison
ἀσαφὴς
καὶ δυσπαρακολούθητος p. 773 (Usener pp. 54-5).

For vi cp. also Orat. §39 alter incitatior fertur, et de bellicis
rebus canit etiam quodam modo bellicum: for voluptate Quint. ix. 4, 18
in Herodoto vero cum omnia, ut ego quidem sentio, leniter fluunt, tum
ipsa διάλεκτος habet
eam iucunditatem ut latentes in se numeros complexa videatur. And again
Dionysius, p. 777 R: Us. p. 59 διαφέρουσι δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα
ἀλλήλων ὅτι τὸ μὲν Ἡροδότου κάλλος ἱλαρόν ἐστι, φοβερὸν δὲ
(‘impressive’) τὸ
Θουκυδίδου.


 
I:74
Theopompus his proximus
69
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,
70
ita aliquatenus lucidior. Ephorus, ut Isocrati visum,
calcaribus eget. Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides
infamatur.

§ 74.
Theopompus, of Chios, born about 378 B.C. What Quint. says of him is not found in Dion.
though the latter gives him high praise in the Epist. ad Cn. Pomp.
p. 782 R sq. Cp. Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 428 sq. He wrote two histories, neither of
which has come down to us:—(1) Ἡλληνικά, containing in twelve books the sequel to
the Peloponnesian War, down to the battle of Knidos (B.C. 394); and (2) Φιλιππικά, a history of affairs under Philip, in
fifty-eight books. Dionysius says that he was the most distinguished of
all the pupils of Isocrates, whom he resembled in style (l.c.
p. 786). His master said that he needed the bit, as Ephorus (see
below) the spur: ii. 8, 11, cp. Brut. §204. Quint. says elsewhere (ix.
4, 35) that, like the followers of Isocrates in general, he was
unduly solicitous about avoiding the coalition of vowels: Orat. §151. In
the Brutus (§66) Cicero, comparing him with Philistus and Thucydides,
says officit Theopompus elatione atque altitudine orationis suae. His
fragments are collected in Müller’s Fragm. Histor. Graec. i.
pp. 278-333.

praedictis = antea, supra dictis. This is the usual meaning of
the word in Quint.: cp. tria quae praediximus iii. 6, 89: vicina
praedictae sed amplior virtus viii. 3, 83: ii. 4, 24: ix. 3, 66: Vell.
Pat. i. 4, 1: Suet. Aug. 90: Plin. N. H. lxxii. 16, 35. The
Ciceronian use appears only in ‘praedicta pernicies’ iii. 7, 19 (cp. iv.
2, 98): vii. 1, 30.

opus: §§31, 67, 69, 70, 96, 123: 2 §21. Cp. Introd. p. xliv.

sollicitatus by his master Isocrates. Cicero tells us this:
postea vero ex clarissima quasi rhetorum officina duo praestantes
ingenio, Theopompus et Ephorus, ab Isocrate magistro impulsi se ad
historiam contulerunt (de Orat. ii. §57).

Philistus, of Syracuse, born about B.C. 430. He was a contemporary of both the
Dionysii, by the elder of whom he was exiled and by the younger
recalled. He wrote a history of Sicily in two parts,—περὶ Σικελίας μὲν τὴν προτέραν ἐπιγραφων,
περὶ Διονυσίου δὲ τὴν ὑστέραν, Dion. ad Pomp. p 780 R (Us.
p. 61). Cicero says he liked the latter: me magis de Dionysio
delectat, ad Q. Fr. ii. 13, 4.—Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr.
i. 185-192.

meretur qui: see on §72.

quamvis bonorum. For this brachyology cp. §94, and note: Livy ii. 54 §7 nec auctor quamvis
audaci facinori deerat: ibid. 51 §7. Cp. quamlibet properato 3 §19. Introd. p. liv.

eximatur: with _ex_ or _de_ in classical Latin, as
in the phrase ex reis eximi, aliquem de reis eximere (Cic.) For the dat.
cp. i. 4, 3 ut auctores alios omnino exemerint numero (opp. to in
ordinem redigere): Hor. Car. ii. 2, 19 Phraaten numero beatorum eximit
virtus. The same meaning appears in xii. 2, 28 quid ... eximat nos
opinionibus vulgi. In Tac. the dat. is common in the sense of to ‘free
from’: infamiae, morti, ignominiae.
70
What follows might be a condensation of Dion.’s criticism of Philistus:
Φίλιστος δὲ μιμητής
ἐστι Θουκυδίδου, ἔξω τοῦ ἤθους‧ ᾧ μὲν γὰρ ἐλεύθερον καὶ φρονήματος
μεστόν‧ τούτῳ δὲ θεραπευτικὸν τῶν τυράννων καὶ δοῦλον πλεονεξίας,
Ἀρχ. κρ.
p. 426 R, Us. p. 24: cp. ad Pomp. v. (p. 779 R)
Φίλιστος
δὲ Θουκυδίδη μᾶλλον <ἂν> δοξεῖεν ἐοικέναι, καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον
κοσμεῖσθαι τὸν χαρακτῆρα: Cic. de Orat. ii. 57 hunc (Thucydidem)
consecutus est Syracosius Philistus qui, cum Dionysii tyranni
familiarissimus esset, otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda,
maximeque Thucydidem est, sicut mihi videtur, imitatus.

infirmior: Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 13, 4 Siculus ille (Philistus)
capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides: Dionysius,
Ἀρχ. κρ. (p.
427 R, Us. p. 25) μικρὸς δὲ ἐστι καὶ ταπεινὸς κομιδῇ ταῖς
ἐκφράσεσιν ... οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ πράγματος ἐξισοῦται:
ad Pomp. (p. 781 R) μικρός τε περὶ πᾶσαν ἰδέαν ἐστὶ καὶ
ἐντελής κ.τ.λ.

aliquatenus with comparative, instead of the ablative
_aliquanto_, just as he uses _longe_ and _multum_ for
_multo_. So xi. 3, 97 aliquatenus liberius.

lucidior: τῆς δὲ λέξεως τὸ
μὲν γλωσσηματικὸν καὶ περίεργον οὐκ ἐζήλωκε Θουκυδίδου (Ἀρχ. κρ. l.c.). Yet Dionysius
blames him, even more than Thucyd., for ἀταξία τῆς οἰκονομίας, and adds that,
like Thucyd., δυσπαρακολούθητον τὴν
πραγματείαν τῇ συνχύσει τῶν εἰρημένων πεποίηκε.

Ephorus, of Cumae in Aeolis, was a contemporary of Philip and
Alexander: fl. cir. B.C. 340. He wrote
a Universal History down to his own times. Like Theopompus, he was a
pupil of Isocrates (de Orat. ii. §57: iii. §36: Orator §191); and
Dionysius mentions him, along with Theopompus, as the best example,
among historians, of ἡ γλαφυρὰ καὶ ἀνθηρὰ σύνθεσις, just as
Isocrates was among rhetoricians (de Comp. Verb. 23,
p. 173 R). Plutarch (Dion. 36) blames him for his sophistical
tendencies: Polybius (v. 33, 2) praises his wide knowledge.

calcaribus. Brutus §204 ut Isocratem in acerrimo ingenio
Theopompi et lenissimo Ephori dixisse traditum est, alteri se calcaria
adhibere, alteri frenos: de Orat. iii. 9, 36 quod dicebat Isocrates,
doctor singularis, se calcaribus in Ephoro contra autem in Theopompo
frenis uti solere: Hortensius: quid ... aut Philisto brevius aut
Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? Cp. also ad Att. vi.
1, 12: Quint, ii. 8, 11. So Suidas, ὁ γοῦν Ἰσοκράτης τὸν μὲν Θεόπομπον ἔφη χαλινοῦ δεῖσθαι,
τὸν δὲ Ἔφορον κέντρου (s.v. Ephorus). A similar story is
told of Plato, teacher of Aristotle and Xenocrates; and of Aristotle,
who in turn taught Theophrastus and Callisthenes.

Clitarchus, of Megara, a contemporary of Alexander the Great,
whom he accompanied on his expeditions, and whose history he wrote, in
twelve books, down to the battle of Ipsos. He also wrote a history of
the Persians before and after Xerxes. Cicero alludes (Brutus §42 sq.) to
his romantic turn: concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut
aliquid dicere possint argutius (‘more racily’); ut enim tu nunc de
Coriolano, sic Clitarchus, sic Stratocles de Themistocle finxit: de
Legg. i. 2.


 
I:75
Longo post intervallo temporis natus Timagenes vel hoc est ipso
probabilis, quod intermissam historias scribendi industriam nova
71
laude reparavit. Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter
philosophos reddendus est.

§ 75.
Timagenes belongs to the Augustan Age. He is said to have been a
native of Syria, who came to Rome after the capture of Alexandria (B.C. 55). At Rome he founded a school of
rhetoric, and wrote a history of Alexander the Great and his successors.
He was a friend of Asinius Pollio, and enjoyed the patronage of Augustus
till he incurred his censure for having spoken too boldly of the members
of the Imperial family: Hor. Ep. i. 19, 15. Quintilian might have filled
the gap (_intervallo temporis_) between Clitarchus and Timagenes
with such names as Timaeus (de Orat. ii. §58), Polybius, and Dionysius
himself.

historias scribendi: cp. §34 and
2 §7. The plural is
used of historical works, in the concrete: the sing. generally of
history as a mode of composition: §§31, 73, 74, 101, 102; 5 §15,—seldom as 1. 8, 20
cum historiae cuidam tanquam vanae repugnaret. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 3, 89
amaras porrecto iugulo historias captivus ut audit: Car. ii. 12, 9
pedestribus dices historiis praelia Caesaris. Cicero has the sing. most
frequently: Brutus §287 si historiam scribere ... cogitatis: but the pl.
occurs ib. §42 (quoted above).

71
Xenophon §§33 and 82. By
Dionysius he is treated as a historian, and compared to Philistus. The
philosophic character of his work is however indicated in several
places: e.g. Ἀρχ. κρ.
(p. 426 R, Us. p. 24) ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοῦ
πρέποντος τοῖς προσώποις πολλάκις ἐστοχάσατο, περιτιθεὶς ἀνδράσιν
ἰδιώταις καὶ βαρβάροις ἐσθ᾽ ὅτε λόγους φιλοσόφους: ad Cn. Pomp. 4
(p. 777) τὰς
ὑποθέσεις τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐξελέξατο καλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ ἀνδρὶ
φιλοσόφῳ προσηκούσας‧ τήν τε Κύρου παιδείαν, εἰκόνα βασιλέως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ
εὐδαίμονος κ.τ.λ.. Besides Cicero (de Orat. ii. §58 denique etiam
a philosophia profectus—Xenophon—scripsit historiam),
Diogenes Laertius and Dio Chrysostom speak of Xenophon as a philosopher,
all probably following an ancient authority. See Usener, p. 117,
and cp. Introd. p. xxxiii.

inter. Becher notes this use of the prep. ( = ‘among a number
of’) as occurring first in Livy. Cp. §116
ponendus inter praecipuos.


§§76-80.
Attic Orators:—

 
I:76
Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis
72
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.

ut cum. So _utpote cum_ Cic. ad Att. v. 8, 1 and Asinius
Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 4: _quippe cum_ ad Att. x. 3. Bonn. Lex.
s.v. _ut_ (B ad fin.) gives other exx. from Quintilian: e.g.
v. 10, 44: vi. 1, 51: 3, 9: ix. i, 15.

decem. This is not a round number (Hild), but indicates a
recognised group of orators, generally considered to have been canonised
by the critics of Alexandria, in the course of the last two centuries
before the Christian era. Brzoska, however, in a recent paper (De canone
decem oratorum Atticorum quaestiones—Vratislaviae, 1883) develops
with great probability the view of A. Reifferscheid, that the canon
originated, towards the end of the second cent. B.C., with the school of Pergamus, where special
attention was paid to rhetoric and grammar, which the Alexandrian
critics neglected in favour of poetry. The group consisted of Antiphon,
Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Lycurgus,
Hyperides, and Dinarchus. Of these Quintilian omits here Antiphon,
Andocides, Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus, though all except the
last-named are mentioned in xii. 10, §§21-22. Demetrius of Phalerum is
thrown in at the end, probably after Cicero (see on §80). The earliest reference to the Ten Orators as a
recognised group occurs in the title of a lost work by Caecilius of
Calacte,—περὶ χαρακτῆρος τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων. But though Caecilius
was a contemporary of Dionysius at Rome in the age of Augustus, and is
known to have been intimate with him (p. 777 R, Us. p. 59),
there is no reference in Dionysius’s writings to the canon thus adopted.
Mr. Jebb thinks he may have deliberately disregarded it as not helpful
for the purpose with which he wrote, viz. to establish a standard of
Greek prose by a study of the orators as representing tendencies in the
historical development of the art of oratory (Att. Or. Introd.
p. 67: but see Brzoska, pp. 20-22). Besides this _decem_
in Quintilian (cp. on _ceteros_ §80),
the number ten is again recognised in the treatise on the Lives of the
Ten Orators, wrongly attributed to Plutarch, by Proclus (circ. 450 A.D.), and by Suidas (circ. 1100). In
selecting the five whom he treats here, Quintilian would seem to have
followed Dionysius. In the De Oratoribus Antiquis, 4 (p. 451 R), he
gives a chronological classification (κατὰ τὰς ἡλικίας), taking Lysias, Isocrates,
and Isaens to represent the first series (ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων: cp. his aetate Lysias
maior §74); and Demosthenes, Hyperides, and
Aeschines for the next. Elsewhere (de Din. Iud. i. p. 629 R)
he arrives at the same result on another principle, Lysias, Isocrates,
and Isaeus being classed as εὑρεταὶ ἰδίου χαρακτῆρος, while the other
three (Aeschines now taking the second place, as emphatically at
p. 1063 R) appear as τῶν εὑρημένων ἑτέροις τελειωταί.
Of Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Aeschines he says: ἡ γὰρ δὴ τελειοτάτη
ῥητορικὴ καὶ τὸ κράτος τῶν ἐναγωνίων λόγων ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν
ἔοικεν εἶναι, de Isaeo Iud. p. 629 R. The Ἀρχαίων κρίσις briefly
characterises, in the order in which they are named, Lysias, Isocrates,
Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Hyperides; Quintilian omits
Lycurgus, the paragraph about whom in the Ἀρχ. κρ. is suspected by Claussen (p. 352). (Brzoska
notes that Quintilian’s list is identical with that given by Cicero de
Orat. iii. 28: and from a comparison of de Opt. Gen. Or. §7—qui
aut Attici numerantur aut dicunt
72
Attice—he infers that the canon was probably known also to
Cicero.) We have separate treatises by Dionysius on Lysias, Isocrates,
and Isaeus (the εὑρεταί), but those in which he discussed Demosthenes,
Hyperides, and Aeschines (the τελειωταί), are no longer extant. Instead we have the
first part of a longer work on Demosthenes (περὶ τῆς λεκτικῆς
Δημοσθένους δεινότητος pp. 953-1129 R), and a
bibliographical account of Dinarchus. Antiphon he only alludes to
briefly (de Isaeo, 20), in company with Thrasymachus, Polycrates, and
Critias: cp. Quint, iii. 1, 11.

Athenis. Dionysius groups the orators of whom he treats under
the title Ἀττικοί (p.
758 R, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἀττικῶν πραγματείᾳ ῥητόρων).
Ammon (pp. 81-82) points out that Demetrius Magnes used the same
appellation (Dion. de Din. i. p. 631 R), and further suggests
that the Attic canon is already indicated in Cicero de Opt. Gen. Or. §13
ex quo intellegitur quoniam Graecorum oratorum praestantissimi sint ii
qui fuerunt Athenis, eorum autem princeps facile Demosthenes, hunc si
qui imitetur eum et attice dicturum et optime, ut quoniam attici
propositi sunt ad imitandum bene dicere id sit attice dicere.

aetas una, used here in a wide sense (as is shown by _aetate
... maior_, below). The period referred to extends from the latter
part of the 5th to the latter part of the 4th century B.C. So Cicero, Brut. §36 haec enim aetas effudit
hanc copiam: where he gives a place among the others to Demades.

longe princeps: Dion. de Thucyd. Iud. 55, p. 950 R,
Δημοσθένει ὃν ἁπάντων ῥητόρων
κράτιστον γεγενῆσθαι πειθόμεθα: cp. de vi Demosth. 33,
p. 1058 R sq.

vis, δεινότης.
Dion. de Thucyd. Iud. 53, p. 944 R τὴν ἐξεγείρουσαν τὰ πάθη
δεινότητα (of Demosthenes): cp. p. 865 τὸ ἐρρωμένον καὶ ἐναγώνιον πνεῦμα ἐξ ὧν ἡ καλουμένη γίγνεται
δεινότης: Cic. de Orat. iii. 28 vim Demosthenes habuit. For the
place of _vis_ in oratory cp. Orat. §69, and de Orat. ii.
128-9.

densa: §§68, 73, 106. So
_pressus_: Introd. p. xliii. The Greek
equivalent is τὸ
πυκνόν, ἡ πυκνότης. Dionysius attributes his brevity and
conciseness, as well as his energy and power of rousing the emotions, to
the influence of Thucydides.

quibusdam, inserted on account of the metaphor, as often in
Cicero, e.g. de Orat. i. §9 procreatricem quandam et quasi parentem:
Brut. §46 eloquentia est bene constitutae civitatis quasi alumna
quaedam: and constantly in translating Greek words and phrases (cp. Reid
on Acad. i. 5, 20 and 24). For _nervis intenta_ cp. εὔτονος τῇ φράσει, Ἀρχ.
κρ. p. 433 R: also ix. 4, 9, and note on 1 §60.

tam nihil otiosum, i.e. everything is so much to the point.
Cp. i. 1, 35 otiosas sententias, of copy-book headings that have no
point: viii. 3, 89 ἐνέργεια ... cuius propria sit virtus non esse quae
dicuntur otiosa: ibid. 4, 16: ii. 5, 7: Sen. Epist. 100, 11 exibunt
multa nec ferient et interdum otiosa praeterlabetur oratio. In Tac.
Dial. §§18 and 22 the meaning is ‘spiritless,’ ‘wearisome’ (cp.
lentitudo and tepor §21). In Quintilian there is also the idea of
‘superfluous,’ ‘unprofitable’: i, 12, 18 otiosis sermonibus, useless
gossip: ii. 10, 8: viii. 3, 55 quotiens otiosum fuerit et supererit: ix.
4, 58 adicere dum non otiosa et detrahere dum non necessaria. Cp.
Introd. p. xlv.

is dicendi modus: Cic. Orat. §23 hoc nec gravior exstitit
quisquam nec callidior nec temperatior.

quod desit: a reminiscence of Cic. Brut. §35 nam plane quidem
perfectum et cui nihil admodum desit Demosthenem facile dixeris.
Quintilian qualifies his eulogy in comparing him with Cicero §107 below: cp. xii. 12, 26, and Cic. Orat. §§90 and
104. See Crit. Notes.


 
I:77
Plenior Aeschines et magis fusus et grandiori similis, quo
73
minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum. Dulcis in
primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis—
74
ut non dixerim utilior— magis par.

§ 77.
Plenior ... magis fusus: opposed to tam densa omnia, above.
Aeschines had not the terseness and intensity of Demosthenes, but was
not without a certain fluent vehemence of his own. Cicero mentions
_levitas_ and _splendor verborum_ as characteristics of
Aeschines,
73
Orat. §110; and Dionysius, Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 434 R, has ἀτονώτερος μὲν τοῦ Δημοσθένους, ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξεων ἐκλογῇ
πομπικός ἅμα καὶ δεινός ... καὶ σφόδρα ἐνεργὴς καὶ βαρὺς καὶ αὐξητικὸς
καὶ πικρὸς καὶ ... σφοδρός: Cic. de Orat. iii. §128 sonitum
Aeschines habuit. For a comparison between the two great rivals v.
Jebb’s Alt. Or. ii. 393 sq. See also Cicero’s de Optim. Gen. Orat.,
which was written as a preface to his translation of Aeschines’s speech
against Ctesiphon and Demosthenes on the Crown.

grandiori is certainly not neuter (sc. generi dicendi) as
Krüger (2nd edition), who compares the plural _maioribus_ §63 (where however we have _aptior_, not
_similior_), and ii. 11, 2, which is quite different: moreover
Quintilian never uses _grandius_ by itself to designate the more
sublime style, and with such an expression as ‘grandiori generi dicendi’
he would have employed _magis accedit_ (§68) or _propior est_ (§78) rather than _similis_. If the text is
allowed to stand _grandiori_ must be masc. (just like
_strictus_) and be used in a good sense: e.g. Cic. de Opt. Gen. Or.
§9 imitemur Lysiam, et eius quidem tenuitatem potissimum: est enim
multis in locis grandior: Brut. §203 fuit Sulpicius ... grandis et ut
ita dicam tragicus orator: Orat. §119 quo grandior sit et quodam modo
excelsior. _Similis_ gets the force of a comparative from
_magis_ preceding, and _minus_ following it (cp. §93 tersus atque elegans maxime: xii. 6, 6 a quam
maxime facili ac favorabili causa) so that we may render ‘he has an
appearance of greater elevation in proportion as his style is less
compressed.’ See Crit.
Notes.

minus strictus = remissior, cp. ἀτονώτερος above. Instead of being _nervis
intenta_ (εὔτονος) his
style was characterised as προπετής (‘headlong’) by the critics.

carnis ... lacertorum. The style of Aeschines is deficient in
compact force: it is often overcharged and redundant (cp. πομπικός and αὐξητικός above). So also Dem. Or. 19 (of
Aeschines) §133 σεμνολόγος: §255 σεμνολογεῖ. For _lacerti_ cp. Brut. §64 in
Lysia saepe sunt etiam lacerti sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.

Hyperides, one of the leading orators of the patriotic party,
was put to death by order of Antipater, B.C. 322, just seven days before the death of
Demosthenes, with whom he had generally acted, though differences arose
between them in later life.

Dulcis: §73. So Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 435 R χάριτος μεστός: cp. de
Din. Iud. 8, p. 645 R, where he says that the imitators of
Hyperides, by failing to reproduce his exquisite charm, as well as his
force, became dry and rough in style: διαμαρτόντες τῆς χάριτος ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς ἄλλης δυνάμεως
αὐχμηροί τινες ἐγένοντο.

acutus. Cic. de Orat. iii. §28 acumen Hyperides ... habuit:
Orat. §110 nihil argutiis et acumine Hyperidi (cedit Demosthenes).
_Acumen_ (§§106, 114) is the quality required for the _tenue
genus_ which aims at instructing (Cic. de Orat. ii. §129: Quint, xii.
10, 59): it appeals mainly to the intellect. Here therefore
_acutus_ means ‘pointed,’ ‘direct’: cp. xii. 10, 39, Orat. §§20,
84, 98, where it is used of style. _Subtilis_ and _acutus_
sometimes go together as characteristics of the plain style: so in 5 §2 _subtilitas_ is
ascribed to Hyperides. On the other hand _acutus_ is used (§84 below) expressly of power of thought as opposed
to power of expression: cp. too §83
inventionem acumine opposed to eloquendi suavitate, and §81 acumine disserendi ... eloquendi facultate. So it
may be that Quintilian uses _acutus_ here to represent Dionysius:
εὔστοχος μὲν ... καὶ συνέσει πολλῇ κεχορήγηται (p.
434 R).

minoribus causis. Cp. with this the criticisms of Longinus,
Hermogenes, and others in Blass’s preface to the Teubner text. The
author of περὶ ὕψους
says:—“He knows when it is proper to speak with simplicity, and
does not, like Demosthenes, continue the same key throughout,” §34, and
below: “Nevertheless all the beauties of Hyperides, however numerous,
cannot make him sublime. He never exhibits strong feeling, has little
energy, rouses no emotion” (Havell). His style is “that of a newer
school than Demosthenes—of the school of Menander and the New
Comedy, to whom long periods and elaborate structure seemed tedious, and
who affected short and terse statement, clear and epigrammatic points,
smart raillery, and an easy and careless tone even in serious debate.
Hence the critics, such as Quintilian, think him more suited to slight
subjects.” Mahaffy, ii. p. 377. Dionysius says εὔστοχος μὲν
σπάνιον δ᾽ αὐξητικός: he hits his mark neatly, but
74
seldom lends grandeur to his theme by amplification. His Funeral Oration
is an exception: here he has ‘thoroughly caught from Isocrates the tone
of elevated panegyric’ (Jebb). His reputation as a wit and an easy-going
member of society may have helped to produce on casual students the
impression Quintilian wishes to convey: ‘unquestionably one great secret
of his success as a speaker,’ says Mr. Jebb, ‘was his art of making a
lively Athenian audience feel that here was no austere student of
Thucydides, but one who was in bright sympathy with the everyday life of
the time.’ For his wit cp. Cic. Orat. §90 and Sandys’ note. Dionysius’s
judgment is given at length in Jebb’s Attic Orators, ii. p. 383
sq.

ut non dixerim = ne dicam. Cp. 2 §15, and note. Tacitus makes a
similar use of the potential perfect in secondary clauses.—For
_utilior_ Maehly needlessly conjectures _futilibus_.


 
I: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
75
tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior.

§ 78.
aetate maior. The date of his birth has been variously fixed at
B.C. 459 and B.C. 436: see Sandys, Introd. to Orator,
p. xiii, and note; Wilkins, de Orat. i. (2nd ed.), p. 33. Jebb
gives the approximate date of his extant work as 403-380 B.C.

subtilis atque elegans. Cic. Orat. §30 subtilem et elegantem:
Brut. §35 egregie subtilis scriptor et elegans, quem iam prope audeas
oratorem perfectum dicere: ibid. §64: de Orat. iii. §28 subtilitatem ...
Lysias habuit: Orat. §110 nihil Lysiae subtilitate (cedit Demosthenes).
It is the ‘plain elegance’ of Lysias, his artistic and graceful
plainness, that Quintilian is commending: cp. ix. 4, 17 nam neque illud
in Lysia dicendi textum tenue atque rasum laetioribus numeris
corrumpendum erat: perdidisset enim gratiam, quae in eo maxima est,
simplicis atque inaffectati coloris, perdidisset fidem
quoque.—_Subtilitas_ and _elegantia_ go together 2 §19.

subtilis. Originally ‘suited for weaving’
(* _sub–telis_ from _tela_—Wharton). From
this the word came to be used metaphorically:—(1) ‘graceful,’
‘refined,’ ‘delicate’: subtilitas pronuntiandi, de Orat. iii. §42,
‘graceful refinement of utterance’: (2) ‘precise,’ ‘accurate,’
common in Cicero to represent ἀκριβης: cp. praeceptor acer atque subtilis, Quintilian
i. 4, 25: (3) ‘plain,’ ‘unadorned’: especially subtile genus
dicendi (xii. 10, 58) = τὸ ἰσχνὸν γένος, the ‘plain’ style of rhetorical
composition, which, with a careful concealment of art, imitated the
language of ordinary life, unlike the ‘grand’ style, which was more
artificial, seeking by the use of ornament to rise above the common
idiom. The sense in which the word is used here is mainly (3): it
represents what Dionysius says Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 432 R, (Us. p. 28) ἰσχνότητι γὰρ τῆς φράσεως σαφῆ καὶ
ἀπηκριβωμένην ἔχουσι τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἔκθεσιν. But there is a
reference also to (1), helped out by the addition of _elegans_,
‘choice,’ ‘tasteful.’ The style of Lysias was plain, but not without
Attic refinement.

docere. So Dion., in eulogising him for τὴν δεινότητα τῆς εὑρέσεως,
says (de Lysia 15, p. 486 R), τὰ πάνυ δοκοῦντα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄπορα εἶναι καὶ ἀδύνατα
εὔπορα καὶ δυνατὰ φαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ. He could make the most of his
case: persuasiveness (πιθανότης) is mentioned (ibid. 13) as one of his
leading characteristics. ‘His statements of facts,’ says Mr. Jebb (ii.
182), ‘are distinguished by conciseness, clearness, and charm, and by a
power of producing conviction without apparent effort to convince’: cp.
Dion. de Lysia 18, p. 492 R ἐν δὲ τῷ διηγεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα ... ἀναμφιβόλως ἡγοῦμαι
κράτιστον αὐτὸν εἶναι πάντων ῥητόρων, ὅρον τε καὶ κάνονα τῆς ἰδέας
ταύτης αὐτὸν ἀποφαίνομαι: and below, αἱ
διηγήσεις ... τὴν πίστιν ἅμα λεληθότως συνεπιφέρουσιν. But that
this is not the whole office of the orator Quintilian himself declares
iv. 5, 6 non enim solum oratoris est docere, sed plus eloquentia circa
movendum valet. Cp. iii. 5, 2: Brut. §105: de Orat. ii. §128. In regard
to this, Lysias is comparatively weak: ‘he cannot heighten the force of
a plea, represent a wrong, or invoke compassion, with sufficient spirit
and intensity,’ Jebb: in the words of Dion. (19, p. 496 R),
περὶ τὰ
πάθη μαλακώτερός ἐστι: he understands οὔτε αὐξήσεις οὔτε
δεινώσεις οὔτε οἴκτους. Cp. 13 ad fin.

nihil ... inane: cp. Orator §29 dum intellegamus hoc esse
Atticum in Lysia, non quod tenuis sit atque inornatus sed quod nihil
habeat insolens aut ineptum.

75
nihil arcessitum: Cp. Dion. de Lysia 13 ad fin.
p. 483 R ἀσφαλής τε μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἢ
παρακεκινδυνευμένη, καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἰσχὺν ἱκανὴ δηλῶσαι τέχνης ἐφ᾽
ὅσον ἀλήθειαν εἰκάσαι φύσεως. Cp. 8, p. 468 ἀποίητός τις καὶ ἀτεχνίτευτος ὁ τῆς ἁρμονίας αὐτοῦ
χαρακτήρ. So Ἀρχ.
κρ. πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν
αὐτάρκης—Krüger3 suggests nihil enim
_inest_ inane. For the order see Introd. p. liii.

magno flumini: cp. Cicero, Orator §30 nam qui Lysiam sequuntur
causidicum quemdam sequuntur, non illum quidem amplum atque grandem,
subtilem et elegantem tamen et qui in forensibus causis possit praeclare
consistere. Cp. Dion. 13, p. 482, where he says that, besides
pathos, Lysias wants also grandeur and spirit: ὑψηλὴ δὲ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ Λυσίου λέξις, οὐδὲ
καταπληκτικὴ μὰ Δία καὶ θαυμαστή ... οὐδὲ θυμοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἐστι
μεστή. Cicero says he shows elevation at times, though grandeur
was seldom possible in the treatment of the subjects he chose. Cp. the
whole passage, de Opt. Gen. Oratorum §9 Imitemur si potuerimus, Lysiam,
et eius quidem tenuitatem potissimum. Est enim multis locis grandior;
sed quia et privatas ille plerasque et eas ipsas aliis et parvarum rerum
causulas scripsit videtur esse ieiunior, cum se ipse consulto ad
minutarum genera causarum limaverit. He therefore prefers Demosthenes as
a model on account of his power: ib. §10 ita fit ut Demosthenes certe
possit summisse dicere, elate Lysias fortasse non possit.

Lysias was the favourite model of those who at Rome, in Cicero’s
time, sought to bring about the revival of Atticism. The unaffected
simplicity of his diction, his purity, lucidity, and naturalness amply
entitled him to this distinction. Dionysius’ criticism is most
appreciative: he praises the style of Lysias ‘not only for its purity of
diction, its moderation in metaphor, its perspicuity, its conciseness,
its terseness, its vividness, its truth to character, its perfect
appropriateness, and its winning persuasiveness; but also for a nameless
and indefinable charm, which he compares to the bloom of a beautiful
face, to the harmony of musical tones, or to perfect rhythm in the
marking of time’—v. de Lysia xi, xii.: Sandys, Introd. to Orator,
p. xvi.


 
I:79
Isocrates in diverso genere dicendi nitidus et comptus et
palaestrae quam pugnae
76
magis accommodatus omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito:
auditoriis enim se, non iudiciis compararat: in inventione facilis,
honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo diligens
77
ut cura eius reprehendatur.

§ 79.
Isocrates, the most celebrated of all the ancient teachers of
rhetoric, and called the father of eloquence (ille pater eloquentiae, de
Orat. ii. §10) from the number of orators produced by his school. His
home is described as being a school of eloquence and manufactory of
rhetoric for the whole of Greece, from which, as from the Trojan horse,
there came forth heroes only: Brut. §32 Isocrates, cuius domus cunctae
Graeciae quasi ludus quidam patuit atque officina dicendi: de Orat. ii.
§94 cuius e ludo tamquam ex equo Troiano meri principes exierunt: Orat.
§40 domus eius officina habita eloquentiae est. He is said to have died
of voluntary starvation shortly after the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.) at the advanced age of 97. The story
of his death is examined by Jebb, ii. 31.

in diverso genere dicendi. The pupil of Gorgias, according to
Aristotle (v. Quint, iii. 1, 13), Isocrates worked out his master’s
theory of elaborately ornate and rhythmical style of composition. His is
not the _subtile genus_ of which Lysias is the best representative:
_suavitas_ (‘smoothness’) rather than _subtilitas_
(‘plainness’) is his chief characteristic (de Orat. iii. §28). He
carefully cultivated the period, to which he gave a large and luxuriant
expansion: Or. §40 primus instituit dilatare verbis et mollioribus
numeris explere sententias: Dion. de Isocr. 13, p. 561 R ὁ τῶν περιόδων ῥυθμός, ἐκ παντὸς διώκων τὸ γλαφυρόν.
In comparing him with Lysias (de Isocr. ii.-iii.), Dion. notes that his
style is less terse and compact, and characterised by a kind of opulent
diffuseness (κεχυμένη
πλουσίως), as well as by a more free use of metaphor and other
tropes.

nitidus: its opposite is _sordidus_ (viii. 3, 49):
cp. Brut. §238 non valde nitens sed plane horrida oratio. So nitidum et
laetum (genus verborum) de Orat. i. §81: where Wilkins says the word is
used ‘especially of things which are bright, because of the pains
bestowed on them,’ and cps. Hor. Ep. i. 4, 15 ‘nitidum bene curata cute
vises.’ There is the same opposition between niddus and _horridus_
Orat. §36: squalidus, ibid. §115: cp. de Orat. iii §51 ita de horridis
rebus nitida ... est oratio tua: de Legg. i. 2, 6 (of Caelius Antipater)
habuitque vires agrestes ille quidem atque horridas, sine nitore et
76
palaestra: Brut. §238 (of C. Macer) non valde nitens, non plane horrida
oratio.

comptus—κομψεύεται, Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ.: cp. viii. 3, 42 non quia comi expolirique
non debeat (oratio). With _nitidus et comptus_ cp. Cicero’s
statement that he had lavished on a Greek version of the story of his
consulship, ‘all the _fragrant essences_ of Isocrates and all the
little perfume-boxes of his pupils’: totum Isocrati μυροθήκιον atque omnes eius
discipulorum arculas, ad Att. ii. 1, §1.

palaestrae quam pugnae: Cp. Orat. §42 of epideictic oratory
(dulce ... orationis genus) pompae quam pugnae aptius gymnasiis et
palaestrae dicatum, spretum et pulsum foro: de Orat. i. §81 nitidum
quoddam genus est verborum et laetum et palaestrae magis et olei quam
huius civilis turbae ac fori. So of Demetrius non tam armis institutus
quam palaestrae, Brut. §37. For the meaning cp. ibid. §32 forensi luce
caruit intraque parietes aluit eam gloriam. Isocrates had not the
vigorous compression of style necessary for real contests, πανηγυρικώτερος ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ
δικανικώτερος ... καὶ πομπικός ἐστι ... οὐ μὴν ἀγωνιστικός Dion.
Ἀρχ. κρ.,
p. 432 R: Pseudo-Plut. Vit. X Or. p. 845 (Φιλιππος) ἐκάλει τοὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ (Δημοσθένους) λόγους
ὁμοίους τοῖς στρατιώταις διὰ τὴν πομπικὴν δύναμιν, τοὺς δ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους
τοῖς ἀθληταῖς. For the figure involved in pugnae (ἀγών) cp. §§29, 31: 3, 3: 5, 17. Cicero says the pupils of
Isocrates were great alike on parade and in actual combat: eorum partim
in pompa partim in acie illustres esse voluerunt, de Orat. §94. See
Jebb, ii. 70-71.

veneres: in this sense only in poetry and post-Augustan prose,
and generally in the singular. Cp. Hor. Ars Poet. 320 Fabula nullius
veneris sine pondere et arte. Cp. §100
illam solis concessam Atticis venerem: vi. 3, 18 venustum esse quod cum
gratia quadam et venere dicatur apparet: iv. 2, 116 narrationem ... omni
qua potest gratia et venere exornandam puto: Seneca, de Benef. ii. 28, 2
habuit suam venerem: Plin. 35, 10, 36 §79 (of paintings) deesse iis
unam illam suam venerem dicebat quam Graeci charita vocant.

sectatus est: cp. Dion. de Isocr. 2, p. 538 R ὁ
γὰρ ἀνὴρ οὗτος τὴν εὐέπειαν ἐκ παντὸς διώκει, καὶ τοῦ γλαφυρῶς λέγειν
στοχάζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ ἀφελῶς. There is a certain elaborate
affectation about Isocrates: what in Lysias is the gift of nature he
attempts to gain by the aid of art,—πέφυκε γὰρ ἡ Λυσίου λέξις ἔχειν τὸ χαρίεν, ἡ δ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους
βούλεται ibid. p. 541. For the whole passage cp. Orat. §38
In Panathenaico autem (§§1, 2) Isocrates ea se studiose consectatum
fatetur; non enim ad iudiciorum certamen sed ad voluptatem aurium
scripserat.

nec immerito: see on §27.

auditoriis ... non iudiciis: cp. §36: Dion, de Isocr. 2, p. 539 R ἀναγνώσεώς τε μᾶλλον οἰκειότερός
ἐστιν ἢ ῥήσεως‧ τοιγάρτοι τὰς μὲν ἐπιδείξεις τὰς ἐν ταῖς πανηγύρεσι καὶ
τὴν ἐκ χειρὸς θεωρίαν φέρουσιν αὐτοῦ οἱ λόγοι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐν ἐκκλησίαις καὶ
δικαστηρίοις ἀγῶνας οὐχ ὑπομένουσι Aristotle, Rhet. i. a 9 (p.
1368 a) διὰ τὴν ἀσυνήθείαν τοῦ δικολογεῖν. Isocrates himself
tells us that it was his weakness of utterance and timidity of
disposition that precluded him from public appearances: Panath. §10
οὕτω
γὰρ ἐνδεὴς ἀμφοτέρων ἐγενόμην, φωνῆς ἱκανῆς καὶ τόλμης, ὡς οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰ
τις ἀλλος τῶν πολιτῶν. Cp. Cic. de Rep. iii. 30, 42 duas sibi res
quominus in volgus et in foro diceret confidentiam et vocem defuisse:
Plin. Ep. vi. 29, 6 infirmitate vocis, mollitie frontis, ne in publico
diceret impediebatur. Moreover he laid claim to being a teacher of
morality; and looking on rhetoric as the highest and most important
branch of education, he spoke with contempt of those who wrote for the
law-courts, and with whom victory was the only object: Jebb, ii.
p. 7 and p. 43: Isocr. Panegyr. §11 with Sandys’ note.

inventione: here Dionysius says he is in no way inferior to
Lysias: ἡ
μὲν εὕρεσις τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων ἡ πρὸς ἕκαστον ἁρμόττουσα πρᾶγμα πολλὴ καὶ
πυκνὴ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκείνης (sc. Lysiae) λειπομένη Iud. de Isocr. 4, p. 452 R.

honesti studiosus. This may refer to the diction of Isocrates:
cp. Dion. Iud. 2, p. 538 R, where his λέξις is said to be ἠθική τε καὶ πιθανή: and again de Dem.
p. 963. Cp. ix. 4, 146-7, on which Becher mainly relies for his
proposal (supported by Hirt. Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 59) to take
‘honesti studiosus in compositione’ together: compositio debet esse
77
honesta, iucunda, varia ... cura ita magna ut sentiendi atque eloquendi
prior sit: so viii. 3, 16. But two considerations seem to prove the
correctness of the traditional interpretation and punctuation:
(1) the ascription of _honestum_ (in an ethical sense) to
Isocrates is peculiarly appropriate, and the word is constantly used in
this sense by Quintilian (see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii γ): and
(2) _diligens_ could hardly stand alone, divorced from _in
compositione_: and moreover a similar expression (in compositione
adeo diligens, &c.) is used by Dionysius, ἐν τῇ
συνθέσει τῶν ὀνομάτων ... Ἰσοκράτην περιεργότερον (de Isocr. Iud.
11, p. 557 R): cp. p. 538. There is a similar criticism
at §118 in cura verborum nimius et
compositione nonnumquam longior.

As to (1) cp. Jebb, ii. pp. 44-5. The high moral tone of Isocrates is
seen both in his choice of noble themes and in the care with which he
ever keeps the higher aspects of his subject in view. Dion. Iud. 4,
p. 543 R μάλιστα δ᾽ ἡ προαίρεσις ἡ τῶν λόγων περὶ οὓς
ἐσπούδαζε καὶ τῶν ὑποθέσεων τὸ κάλλος ἐν αἷς ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διατριβάς‧ ἐξ
ὧν οὐ λέγειν δεινοὺς μόνον ἀπεργάσαιτ᾽ ἂν τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐτῷ τὸν
νοῦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἤθη σπουδαίους ... κράτιστα γὰρ δὴ παιδεύματα πρὸς
ἀρετὴν ἐν τοῖς Ἰσοκράτους ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν λόγοις. (2) Though
Becher points to the chiasmus obtained by punctuating ‘in inventione
facilis, honesti studiosus in compositione’ (cp. §97: Bonn. Lex. pr. lxviii) the rhythm of the
sentence tells the other way; and to his objection that the ethical
point of view does not belong to the history of literature (especially
when inserted between two such words as _inventio_ and
_compositio_) we can only answer that Quintilian is not an artist
in style, and that the ethical tone of Isocrates is too characteristic
to have been overlooked.

There is no need for Maehly’s conjecture ‘disponendi studiosus’: nor
for Eussner’s proposal to invert the clauses and read ... ‘compararat,
honesti studiosus: in inventione facilis, in comp. a. d.’ &c.: on
the ground that _honesti studiosus_ refers to the γένος ἐπιδεικτικόν of
Isocrates, which is regulated by _honestum_, as the δημηγορικόν is by _utile_, and
the δικανικόν by
_iustum_.

compositione: §§44, 66; ix. 4, 116: quem in poemate locum habet
versificatio eam in oratione compositio: ad Her. iv. 12, 18 compositio
est verborum constructio quae facit omnes partes orationis aequabiliter
perpolitas: Ἀρχ. κρ.
p. 433 R, (Us. p. 28) καὶ
αὐτοῦ μάλιστα ζηλωτέον τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐκλογὴν καὶ συνέχειαν.
‘Isocrates was the earliest great artist in the rhythm proper to prose,’
Jebb, ii. pp. 60-1. Cicero, Brutus §32 primus intellexit etiam in
soluta oratione, dum versum effugeres, modum tamen et numerum quendam
oportere servari: Orat. §174.

cura ... reprehendatur. This refers especially to his studied
avoidance of hiatus: cp. ix. 4, 35 nimiosque non immerito in hac cura
putant omnes Isocratem secutos, praecipueque Theopompum. So Orat. §151
in quo quidam Theopompum etiam reprehendunt ... etsi idem magister eius
Isocrates—(with Sandys’ note). Dionysius (de Isocr. 2)
contrasts in general terms his σύνθεσις (compositio) with that of Lysias, noting
especially the point here alluded to: p. 558 R περιεργοτέραν, and de Dem. 4,
pp. 963-4 R. Plutarch, de gloria Athen. p. 350 E πῶς οὖν οὐκ
ἔμελλεν ἅνθρωπος (Isocr.) ψόφον
ὅπλων φοβεῖσθαι καὶ σύρρηγμα φάλαγγος ὁ φοβούμενος φωνῆεν φωνήεντι
συγκροῦσαι καὶ συλλαβῇ τὸ ἰσόκωλον ἐνδεὲς ἐξενεγκεῖν; Jebb, ii,
pp. 66-7. With such excessive solicitude we can understand how
Isocrates should have taken ten years to write the Panegyricus (4 §4).

The judgments of Cicero and Dionysius will be found conveniently
summarised in Sandys’ Introd. to Orator, pp. xx-xxii.


 
I: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,
78
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.

§ 80.
ceteros: cp. on _decem_ §76.
The use of the word involves a reference to a recognised group, from
which he has omitted Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, Lycurgus, and
Dinarchus. So Dion. p. 451 R, after mentioning Lysias,
Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines, says οὓς ἐγὼ τῶν
ἄλλων ἡγοῦμαι κρατίστους. Demetrius is evidently an addition by
Quintilian himself, as is shown by the use of _quin etiam_.

78
Demetrius, of Phalerum, governed Athens, under Cassander, from
317 B.C. till he was overthrown by
Demetrius Poliorcetes in 307. He fled to Thebes and thence to Egypt,
where he died in 283, after assisting Ptolemy to draw up laws and found
his famous library. In citing him after the Attic orators, Quintilian
seems to follow Cicero, Brut. §37 Phalereus ... successit eis senibus
adulescens, &c. The same order (Phalereus before Demetrius) occurs
in Cicero, de Legg. iii. 14: de Orat. ii. §95: de Rep. ii. 2: Brut.
§285.—For _illum_ see on §17.

inclinasse: Brut. §38 (where _primus_ has been used
(Halm) as an argument against _primum_ in the text, though
Quintilian is only quoting from memory, as often, cp. §94): hic primus inflexit orationem et eam mollem
teneramque reddidit et suavis, sicut fuit, maluit esse quam gravis. He
impaired the strength of Attic oratory, depriving it of what Cicero
calls its ‘sap and fresh vigour’ (sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus),
and substituting an ‘artificial gloss’ (fucatus nitor): processerat enim
in solem et pulverem, non ut e militari tabernaculo, sed ut e
Theophrasti doctissimi hominis umbraculis. ibid. §37. Of all the orators
who flourished after Demosthenes (when alia quaedam _molliora_ ac
_remissiora_ genera viguerunt) he was the most polished: de Orat.
ii. §95. He was more florid than Hyperides and Lysias, Brut. §285. In
the Orator, §§91-2, Cicero says that his diction has a smooth and
tranquil flow, and is also ‘lit up by the stars of metaphor and
metonymy’: oratio cum sedate placideque labitur, tum illustrant eam
quasi stellae quaedam tralata verba atque immutata. Cp. de Off. i. §3
disputator subtilis, orator parum vehemens, dulcis tamen, ut Theophrasti
discipulum possis agnoscere.

multum ingenii ... et facundiae: Diog. Laert. v. 82 χαρακτὴρ δὲ φιλόσοφος, εὐτονίᾳ ῥητορικῇ καὶ δυνάμει
κεκραμένος.

ultimus ... ex Atticis: Brut. §285 mihi quidem ex illius
orationibus redolere ipsae Athenae videntur.

medio genere dicendi: the ‘middle’ style: see on §44. In xii. 10, 59 he says of this style ‘ea fere
est ratio ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare videatur
officium’: with which cp. Cicero of Demetrius, _delectabat_ magis
Athenienses quam inflammabat.—Of the middle style generally Cicero
says (Orator, §21) est autem quidam interiectus inter hos medius et
quasi temperatus nec acumine posteriorum nec flumine utens superiorum,
vicinus amborum, in neutro excellens, utriusque particeps, vel
utriusque, si verum quaerimus, potius expers; isque uno tenore, ut
aiunt, in dicendo fluit nihil adferens praeter facilitatem et
aequabilitatem, aut addit aliquos ut in corona toros (‘raised ornaments’
or ‘knots’) omnemque orationem ornamentis modicis verborum
sententiarumque distinguit.

praefert omnibus Cicero: de Orat. ii. §95 omnium istorum mea
sententia politissimus: Orat. §92 in qua (sc. media orationis forma)
multi floruerunt apud Graecos, sed Phalereus Demetrius meo iudicio
praestitit ceteris.—For _quem tamen_ see Crit. Notes.


§§ 81-84.
Greek Philosophers:—

In this paragraph there is a correspondence between the criticisms of
Quintilian and those of Cicero and Dionysius. In the Ἀρχ. κρ. (ch. 4, Us. pp. 26-7)
the latter recommends the study of the Pythagorean philosophers (μεγαλοπρεπεῖς γὰρ τῇ λέξει καὶ ποιητικοί), holding up
Xenophon and Plato as the best models, and eulogising also Aristotle and
his followers: μιμητέον δὲ ...
μάλιστα Ξενοφῶντα καὶ Πλάτωνα ... παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς
μίμησιν ... φιλοτιμώμεθα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐντυνχάνειν.
Quintilian’s selection of Theophrastus is probably motived by the
passage in Cicero, Orat. §2 (already quoted by him in §33): philosophi quidam ornate locuti sunt, siquidem
et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit et Aristoteles
Isocratem ipsum lacessivit
79
et Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt et longe omnium,
quicunque scripserunt aut locuti sunt, exstitit et gravitate et
suavitate princeps Plato.


 
I:81
Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae
79
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.

§ 81.
confitetur: xii. 2, 23 nam M. Tullius non tantum se debere
scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae spatiis frequenter ipse testatus est:
neque se tanta unquam in eo fudisset ubertas si ingenium suum consaepto
fori non ipsius rerum natura finibus terminasset. In the Orator, §12,
Cicero tells us he had got his oratory not from the narrow schoolrooms
and mechanical workshops of the rhetoricians, but from the groves of the
Academy, the real school for every kind of discourse: fateor me
oratorem, si modo sim aut etiam quicunque sim, non ex rhetorum officinis
sed ex Academiae spatiis exstitisse; illa enim sunt curricula
multiplicium variorumque sermonum in quibus Platonis primum sunt
impressa vestigia. Cp. Tac. Dial. de Or. §32. In the De Div. ii. §4
Cicero speaks of his rhetorical works as bordering on philosophy:
quumque Aristoteles itemque Theophrastus, excellentes viri cum
subtilitate tum copia, cum philosophia dicendi etiam praecepta
coniunxerint, nostri quoque oratorii libri in eundem numerum referendi
videntur.

praecipuum: cp. Orat. §62 (quoted above) longe omnium ...
princeps Plato. So Dionysius ad Pomp. p. 752 R: de Dem. 41,
p. 1083 R.

sive ... sive: cp. xii. 10, 26 quae defuisse ei sive ipsius
natura seu lege civitatis videntur: Cic. pro Clu. §76. _Sive_ is
frequently used as a single disjunctive, to give one word as an
alternative for another: i. 4, 20 vocabulum sive appellationem nomini
subiecerunt: xii. 10, 59 delectandi sive ... conciliandi officium. Cp.
too Cic. de Am. §100 ex quo exardescit sive amor sive amicitia—a
kind of brachyology: de Orat. ii. §70 in hac sive ratione sive
exercitatione dicendi,—a shorter formula than ib. §29 hoc totum,
quicquid est, sive artificium sive studium dicendi.

divina. Cic. Tusc. Disp. i. §79 quem (Platonem) omnibus locis
divinum, quem sapientissimum, quem sanctissimum, quem Homerum
philosophorum appellat (Panaetius). Cp. Dion. de Dem. 23,
p. 1024 R πάντων ... φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ῥητόρων ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ
πράγματα δαιμονιώτατον..

Homerica: §86 ut illi naturae
caelesit atque immortali cesserimus: §§48,
65.

prosam orationem et. The omission of _et_, proposed by
recent editors, would make Quintilian give a rather useless synonym for
_prosa oratio_, which (like _prosa_ by itself) he often uses
without explanation. _Prosa oratio_ is used of prose as contrasted
with verse (cp. xi. 2, 39 facilius versus ediscimus quam prosam
orationem): _pedestris oratio_ includes all composition of a
prosaic order, not necessarily prose only: so Horace speaks of his
Satires as _Musa pedestris_ (Sat. ii. 6, 17): _pedestres
historiae_ in Car. ii. 12, 9 are prose histories: _sermo
pedester_ in A. P. 95 (tragicus plerumque dolet sermone
pedestri) is homely language: cp. ib. 229, and Ep. ii. 1, 251. So Plato,
Soph. 237 A πεζῇ τε ὧδε ἑκάστοτε λέγων καὶ μετὰ μέτρων:
Aristoph. Fr. 713 παῦσαι μελῳδοῦς᾽ ἀλλὰ πεζῇ μοι φράσον. Palmer
(on Hor. Sat. l.c.) cites also Luc. de Consecr. Hist. 8 πεζή τις ποιητική of a
bombastic history: and adds ‘the metaphor is from a person soberly
jogging on on foot, contrasted with the dashing pace of a mounted
cavalier.’—For prose Cicero uses _oratio soluta_ (Brut. §32)
to which he opposes _vincula numerorum_ (Orat. §§64, 77: de Orat.
iii. §184).—Numerous examples of a similar use of _et_ are
cited, Bonn. Lex. s.v. _et_ iii.

quodam Delphici, &c. See Crit. Notes. For _quodam_ cp. §109 dono quodam providentiae genitus: xii.
11, 5 ductus amore quodam operis: ib. 10 §21: ix. 2, 76: and §82 below; and for _Delphici ... dei_
Cic. de Legg. i. §58 cuius praecepti tanta vis ... est ut ea non homini
cuipiam sed Delphico deo tribueretur.

80

 
I:82
Quid ego
80
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.

§ 82.
Xenophontis, §§33, 75.

iucunditatem: so Tac. Dial. 31. Dionysius’s criticism is
fuller: καθαρὸς τοῖς
ὀνόμασι καὶ σαφὴς καὶ ἐναργής, καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἡδὺς καὶ
εὔχαρις: Diog. Laert. ii. 57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ
Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς ἑρμηνείας: Suidas Ξενοφῶν Ἀττικὴ
μέλιττα ἐπανομάζετο: Brutus, §132 molli et Xenophonteo genere
sermonis: cp. ibid. §292: Orat. §32 cuius sermo est ille quidem melle
dulcior sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus: de Orat. ii. §58 leniore
quodam sono est usus, et qui illum impetum oratoris non habeat, vehemens
fortasse minus, sed aliquanto tamen est, ut mihi quidem videtur,
dulcior.—For _inadfectatus_, see Introd. p. xlii.

Gratiae: for the form of expression cp. Orat. §62 Xenophontis
voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt (x. 1
§33). So §99 below: Plin. Ep. ii. 13,
7: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 27.

de Pericle. So xii. 2, 22: 10, 65: Pliny, Ep. i. 20, 17 nec me
praeterit summum oratorem Periclem sic a comico Eupolide laudari ...
πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθητο τοῖσι χείλεσιν κ.τ.λ. (The line is
given in Kock’s _Fragmenta_ 1, p. 281 πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν
ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν: so Meineke ii. p. 458.) Brutus §38
quemadmodum de Pericle scripsit Eupolis: §59 πειθώ quam vocant Graeci, cuius effector est orator,
hanc Suadam appellavit Ennius ... ut quam deam in Pericli labris
scripsit Eupolis sessitavisse huius hic medullam nostrum oratorem (sc.
Cethegum) fuisse dixerit. (Cp. de Orat. iii. §138.) The phrase of which
this is the explanation (suadae medulla—the essence, marrow, of
persuasiveness) is used again de Sen. §50: cp. Quint, ii. 15, 4.
Horace has Suadela, Ep. i. 6, 38.

quandam, i.e. something which may be called _persuadendi
dea_: cp. _quodam_ below, and _quibusdam_ §76: xii. 10, ii quadam eloquentiae frugalitate. See
Crit. Notes.


 
I: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
81
ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.

§ 83.
Socratici §35.

elegantiam: §114: 2 §19: ‘chaste simplicity,’
Frieze.

Aristotelen. It is to be noticed that in both Dionysius and
Quintilian, Aristotle comes after Plato and Xenophon: Ἀρχ. κρ. 4, (Us. p. 27) παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς μίμησιν τῆς τε περὶ τὴν
ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος καὶ τῆς σαφηνείας καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος καὶ
πολυμαθοῦς: Brut. §121 quis Aristotele nervosior? Orat. §172 quis
omnium doctior, quis acutior, quis in rebus vel inveniendis vel
iudicandis acrior Aristotele fuit?

scientia ... copia ... suavitate: Orat. §5 admirabili quadam
scientia et copia: Topica 1 §3 dicendi incredibili quadam quum
copia tum etiam suavitate: cp. de Inv. ii. §6.

acumine: see on §77.

nam has come to serve as a transition-formula: so §§9, 12, 50: 4, 4. It generally involves an ellipse: cp.
Sall, Iug. ch. 19, 2: 31, 2: 82, 2: Cicero, Tusc. Disp. iv. §52.

Theophrasto. Brut. §121 quis Theophrasto dulcior? Theophrastus
succeeded Aristotle in the conduct of his school B.C. 322, and died 287.

tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut. Becher takes
_tam_ closely with _divinus_, making _tam divinus est_
the pred. and _loquendi nitor ille_ the subj.: and so Krüger (3rd
ed.). For the order of words he compares §122 habebunt magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam
vere laudandi, and adds (Quaest. p. 18) ‘omnino autem tenendum est
perplexam et arcessitam verborum turbam magis quam ordinem (Bonn.
Proleg. lxxviii.) aetatis argenteae scriptoribus in deliciis fuisse,
quae intellectum legentium non tam adiuvet quam
81
impediat.’ We might also cp. §76 tam nihil
otiosum, and 7 §27.
Even in Cicero a similar separation occurs: pro Cael. §16 nunquam enim
tam Caelius amens fuisset: in Verr. v. §121 quis tam fuit illo tempore
durus et ferreus. Kiderlin, however (Hermes 23, p. 109), challenges
this explanation, contending that the words _loquendi nitor ille
divinus_ are obviously meant to be taken together, and that
_ille_ makes it impossible to join _tam_ and _divinus_.
He rejects as inappropriate the analogies cited from Brutus §58 (cp.
§§174, 41): ad Q. Fr. i. 2, 3 §9 (atque ego haec tam esse quam
audio non puto—where it has been proposed to insert a word): ad
Fam. vi. 7, 1. But more weight should be attached to the following
passages to which K. himself refers: Quint. ii. 16, 15 (sed ipsa ratio
neque tam nos iuvaret neque tam esset in nobis manifesta, nisi, &c.)
and viii. 3, 5 (et fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si, &c.).
Kiderlin however holds that all those passages differ from this,
inasmuch as either there is a negative with _tam_, or it is joined
with an adverb, or it follows _quam_ immediately. He rejects
Spalding’s _tantus est_, and proposes to read _tam manifestus
est_: _manifestus_ goes well with the preceding sentence, where
Quintilian does not know which of Aristotle’s great points to praise
most, while with Theophrastus there is no such doubt, since his
_loquendi nitor_ is so striking that he is said, &c. K. thinks
that _manifestus_ (which is a favourite word of Quintilian: see
Bonn. Lex.) might easily have fallen out, as _tam est_ and
_manifest_ are pretty much alike.—In support of the reading
_loquendi_ (for which Meister gives, by a misprint,
_eloquendi_), Kiderlin points out that Quintilian probablv wished
to translate φράζειν.

nitor: cp. §§33, 9, 79 (where see note on
_nitidus_): Cicero, de Fin. iv. 3, 5 primum enim ipsa illa, quae
subtiliter disserenda erant, polite apteque dixerunt, tum definientes,
tum partientes, ut vestri etiam; sed vos (Stoici) squalidius; illorum
(sc. Peripateticorum et Academicorum) vides quam niteat oratio. Of the
Peripatetics generally he says (Brutus §120) in doctrina atque
praeceptis disserendi ratio coniungitur cum suavitate dicendi et
copia.

nomen traxisse: Orat. §62 siquidem et Theophrastus divinitate
loquendi nomen invenit: Diog. Laert. v. 38 τοῦτον, Τύρταμον λεγόμενον, Θεόφραστον διὰ τὸ
τῆς φράσεως θεσπέσιον Ἀριστοτέλης μετωνόμασεν.


 
I: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.
82
§ 84.
Stoici veteres. See xii. 1, 24 sq. for a discussion of the
various philosophical systems in regard to their fitness for oratorical
purposes. For the comparative unfitness of the Stoic writers see esp.
Cic. de Orat. iii. 18, 66: de Fin. iv. 28, 78 sq.: de Orat. ii. 38, 159.
So too Brutus §114 (Stoicorum) peracutum et artis plenum orationis genus
scio tamen esse exile nec satis populari adsensioni adcommodatum: §118
ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant
sintque architecti paene verborum, eidem traducti a disputando ad
dicendum inopes reperiantur.

quae instituerant: ‘their principles.’ De Off. i. 1, 1
praecepta institutaque philosophiae: de Am. §13: de Fin. v. 3, 7 scripta
et instituta: Brut. §31 and esp. §119.

colligendo: ‘arguing,’ not necessarily here of the formal
process of syllogistic reasoning. Cp. xii. 2, 10 ambigua aperire et
perplexa discernere et de falsis iudicare et colligere et resolvere quae
velis oratorum est.

rebus acuti: ‘shrewd thinkers,’ rather than masters of the
grand style. For the constr. (where in Greek the pr. part. would have
been used) cp. §80 vel ob hoc memoria
dignum.

quod sane non adfect. Cp. Sen. Ep. 108, 35 illud admoneo,
auditionem philosophorum lectionemque ad propositum beatae vitae
trahendam, non ut verba prisca aut ficta captemus et translationes
improbas figurasque dicendi, sed ut profutura praecepta et magnificas
voces et animosas, quae mox in rem transferantur: sic ista ediscamus ut
quae fuerint verba sint opera.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT (85-131)


§§ 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
4
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
5
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.

82
§§85-100.
Roman Poets.—Quintilian’s criticisms of Latin literature,
though naturally more independent than his judgments of Greek authors,
are hampered, as Professor Nettleship has shown (Journ. Phil. 18
p. 262 sq.) by ‘the idea of making canons of classical Latin
authors to correspond as closely as possible with the Greek canons.
Vergil leads the van among the poets as the Latin Homer; Macer and
Lucretius follow as representing Hesiod and the didactic poets. The
elegiac poets, Propertius and Tibullus, follow next, answering to
Tyrtaeus; then the satirists who of course have no Greek counterparts;
then the writers of lampoon, Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace, to match
Archilochus; the lyric poets, Horace corresponding to Pindar; the
dramatists, comic and tragic, among whom Varius is singled out as equal
to any Of the Greeks: the historians, Sallust being matched with
Thucydides, and Livy with Herodotus; the orators, Cicero being of course
compared in detail with Demosthenes; and the philosophers, among whom we
are told that Cicero is _aemulus Platonis_.’


 
I: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.

§ 85.
Idem ... ordo ducendus. Cp. 5 §1 robustorum studiis ordinem
dedimus: xii. 2, 10 ut ordinem retro agamus. There is a suggestion of
military associations in the use of the phrase: tr. ‘in the same way we
must marshal.’ Cp. Brut. §15 explicatis ordinibus temporum; and i. 4, 3
with Spalding’s note.—For _ordinem ducere_ in the sense of
‘to be the leader of a company’ (sc. as centurion) cp. Cic. Phil. i. 8,
20: Caes. B. C. i. 13, 4: iii. 104, 3: Livy ii. 23, 4.

Vergilius: his claim to rank along with Homer is indicated in
i. 8, 5 optime institutum est ut ab Homero atque Vergilio lectio
inciperet.

auspicatissimum. Cp. Tac. Germ. 11 agendis rebus hoc
anspicatissimum initium credunt: Plin. ad Traian, xvii. 3 cum mihi
contigerit, quod erat auspicatissimum, natalem tuum in provincia
celebrare. Cp. the opening words of Pliny’s Panegyricus: Bene ac
sapienter, patres conscripti, maiores instituerunt ut rerum agendarum
ita dicendi initium a precationibus capere, quod nihil rite, nihil
providenter homines sine deorum immortalium ope consilio honore
auspicarentur. Cicero, de Div. i. 16, 28 Nihil fere quondam maioris rei
nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur.

dederit: v. on §37.

haud dubie: see Crit.
Notes.


 
I:86
Utar enim verbis isdem quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi: qui mihi
83
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.

§ 86.
Afro Domitio. The order is characteristic of the silver age,
though examples are found also in Cicero’s letters (Introd. p. lv.): cp. Atacinus Varro,
below, and §103. Domitius Afer (cp. §24) was a distinguished orator who flourished
under Tiberius and his successors, and died in the reign of Nero, A.D. 59 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 19). He was a native
of Nemausus (Nismes), and first rose to fame by the prosecution of
Agrippina’s cousin Claudia Pulchra: Tiberius avowed that he was a ‘born
orator’ (suo iure disertum, Tac. Ann. iv. 52). Being of an unscrupulous
character (quoquo facinore properus clarescere, ibid.) he placed his
rhetorical powers at the disposal of the government: mox capessendis
accusationibus aut reos tutando prosperiore eloquentiae quam morum fama
fuit, ibid. Quintilian’s connection with him (cp. v. 7, 7 quem
adolescentulus senem colui) comes out in the story he told to Pliny
about Afer: ‘adsectabar Domitium,’ Plin. Epist. ii. 14. Below (§118) he speaks of him, along with Iulius Africanus,
(to whom he prefers him) as the best orator he had ever heard: though he
tells us elsewhere that Afer lost much of his reputation by continuing
to speak in public after he should have retired: vidi ego longe omnium
quos mihi cognoscere contigit summum oratorem, Domitium Afrum, valde
senem, cotidie aliquid ex ea quam meruerat auctoritate perdentem, cum
agente illo quem principem fuisse quondam fori non erat dubium alii,
quod indignum videatur, riderent, alii erubescerent; quae occasio fuit
dicendi, malle eum deficere quam desinere. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 52 ad fin.
aetas extrema multum etiam eloquentiae dempsit dum fessa mente retinet
silentii impatientiam.

excepi. As distinguished from _accipere_,
83
which, when used in this sense, means to get some information at
second-hand, _excipere_ always refers to what is said in one’s
presence, whether one is meant to hear, as in this passage, or not; as
Livy ii. 4 sermonem eorum ex servis unus excepit.

Homero. The same dative with _accedere_ occurs §68 magis accedit oratorio generi (Euripides). With
the name of a person Cicero also uses the dative,—e.g. Crasso et
Antonio L. Philippus proximus accedebat, Brut. §173, and so ad Fam.
xi. 21, 4 me huic tuae virtuti proxime accedere: otherwise more commonly
ad c. acc. Cp. de Orat. 1 §262 (dubitare) utrius oratio propius ad
veritatem videretur accedere with Quint. xii. 10, 9 ad veritatem
Lysippum ac Praxitelem optime accessisse. So xii. 2, 2: 1, 20:
2, 25.

propior tamen primo. See note on §53 ut plane manifesto appareat quanto sit aliud
proximum esse, aliud secundum. Here the interval between first and
second is less than that between second and third: Vergil is a ‘good
second.’

ut illi: see Crit.
Notes.

naturae = ingenio, as §119 erant
clara et nuper ingenia: cp. §122. Cic. in
Verr. ii. 1 §40 non enim potest ea natura quae tantum facinus
commiserit hoc uno scelere esse contenta.

caelesti: for the hyperbole cp. caelestis huius in dicendo
viri (Ciceronis) 2 §18. So Cic. Phil. v. §28
caelestes divinasque legiones: Ps. Cic. ad Brutum ii. 7, 2 res a te
gesta memorabilis et paene caelestis.

ut ... cesserimus ita. For _ut ... ita_ (μὲν ... δέ) cp. 3, §§1 and 31. _Ut_ is not concessive and
does not affect the verb, which is in the subjunctive of modified
assertion (for cedendum est): cp. dederit above §85: Cic. Brut. §25 sine ulla dubitatione
confirmaverim. Quintilian is speaking throughout of the Romans in the
person of their great poet: cp. vincimur, pensamus, below; also §93 provocamus, §99
consequimur, §107 vincimus. Kiderlin’s
objection that, as fully admitting the superiority of Homer, he would
not have been likely to choose, on patriotic grounds, a form that seems
to modify the force of the concession, is met by the instance of the
potential subj. quoted above alongside of _sine ulla
dubitatione_.

eminentibus: neut. of adj. used substantively,—common
enough in Quintilian even with adjj. of the third declension: cp. 3 §5 nec protinus
offerentibus se gaudeamus. See Introduction, p. xlix (5). Such
‘outstanding’ passages as those alluded to Horace terms the ‘speciosa
miracula’ (‘striking,’ ‘picturesque marvels’) of the Homeric poems,
A. P. 144.

aequalitate, ‘uniform excellence’: cp. aequali quadam
mediocritate §54. In §24 Quintilian has already referred to the
_quandoque dormitat_, and his words are probably an echo of the
Horatian criticism. For the use of _aequalitas_ cp. xi. 3, §§43-44.
In regard to style, Cicero has Orat. §198 omnis nec claudicans nec quasi
fluctuans sed aequaliter constanterque ingrediens numerosa habetur
oratio: and using _aequabilitas_ ibid. §53 elaborant alii in
lenitate et aequabilitate et puro quasi quodam et candido genere
dicendi.


 
I: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
84
est adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum ad
augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.

§ 87.
Macer: v. on §56.

Lucretius. The references made to Lucretius in Latin
literature are collected by Teuffel, R. L. §201. The two are named
together again xii. 11 §27.

φράσιν =
elocutionem, v, §42. So ad augendam facultatem dicendi, below. For
‘corpus eloquentiae’ cp. Petronius, Satyr. ii. (of the imitators of
Seneca) ‘effecistis ut corpus orationis enervaretur et caderet.’

humilis: ‘common-place,’

difficilis: cp. multis luminibus ingenii multae tamen
artis,—Cicero’s criticism, dealt with by Munro, ii. p. 315
(3rd ed.).

Varro, P. Terentius (B.C.
82-37), called
84
Atacinus from the river Atax in Gallia Narbonensis, his native province.
Quintilian’s criticism here refers to the work by which he was best
known—his translation of the _Argonautica_ of Apollonius
Rhodius (‘interpres operis alieni’). He also wrote what is described as
a metrical system of astronomy and geography under the title
_Chorographia_ or _Cosmographia_: a heroic poem _Bellum
Sequanicum_, in the style of Ennius and Naevias: and _Saturae_
which, if we may trust Horace, were a failure: Satires i. 10, 46 Hoc
erat experto frustra Varrone Atacino ... Melius quod scribere
possem.

per quae: common in Quintilian to designate ‘means by which’:
cp. v. 10, 32. So also _per quod_, _per hoc_: see on §10.

nomen: cp. §72, §120, 5,
§18: xii. 6, 7: ii. 11, 1: Tac. Dial. 10 nomen inserere famae: ib.
36 plus notitiae ac nominis apud plebem parabat.


 
I: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
85
quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimium amator ingenii sui,
laudandus tamen in partibus.

§ 88.
Ennius, the Chaucer of Latin literature (239-169 B.C.),—qui primus amoeno detulit ex Helicone
perenni fronde coronam (Lucr. i. 119). Lucretius in this passage calls
him ‘Ennius noster,’ as does also Cicero, pro Archia §18, §22.

‘It will be observed,’ says Professor Nettleship, ‘that Quintilian is
a Ciceronian, and that both as against the younger school of his own day
and as against the pre-Ciceronian literature. Ennius he sets aside with
a few respectful words: Pacuvius and Accius, one must almost suppose, he
had never read (97): if he had read them, then, he did not think it
worth while to pass an independent judgment upon them (but see note ad
loc.) The comedians, Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, he will hardly
notice; so far, he thinks, do they fall below their Greek originals.
Lucretius he totally misconceives, even granting his point of view, for
can it be said that there are no fine passages of rhetoric in the De
Rerum Natura? The criticisms on the post-Ciceronian orators are for the
most part (remembering that Quintilian is thinking of the needs of an
orator) sound and well expressed, notably that upon Ovid (88). But they
are mostly too short, and leave the impression that the writer is
anxious to get to the end of them. In speaking of Cicero, however,
Quintilian rises to the height of real enthusiasm.’ Journ. of Phil.
l.c.

sacros vetustate lucos. For the reverence attaching to groves
cp. Seneca, Epist. Mor. IV, xii. (41) Si tibi occurrerit vetustis
arboribus et solitam altitudinem egressis frequens lucus et conspectum
caeli ramorum aliorum alios protegentium umbra submovens: illa
proceritas silvae et secretum loci et admiratio umbrae in aperto tam
densae atque continuae fidem tibi numinis facit.

speciem. So Ovid, Trist. ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus, arte
rudis: Am. i. 15, 19 Ennius arte carens. Cp. Quint, i. 8, 8 plerique
plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt (veteres Latini).

Propiores, not Vergilio, as Bonnell and Krüger (the latter, in
2nd ed., contrasting §86 ceteri omnes longe
sequentur): but rather, by inference from ‘vetustate’ and ‘antiqua’ in
the previous sentence = propiores nostrae aetati. But see Claussen,
Quaest. Quintil. pp. 358-9.

ad hoc de quo loquimur = ad augendam facultatem dicendi: φράσιν.

lascivus: so below §93 Ovidius
utroque (Tibullo et Propertio) lascivior, sicut durior Gallus. The word
and its cognates are used by Quintilian of ‘running riot,’ whether in
thought, language, or manner. The verb _lascivire_ is used in
regard to a certain mannerism of Ovid, iv. 1, 77 ut Ovidius lascivire in
metamorphosesi solet,—wrongly classed in Bonnell’s lexicon under
_mores_: cp. ix. 4, 28. So ii. 4, 3 neque ... arcessitis
descriptionibus, in quas plerique imitatione poeticae licentiae
ducuntur, lasciviat: xii. 10, 73 genus dicendi quod puerilibus
sententiolis lascivit: ix. 4, 6: iv. 2, 39: xi. 1, 56. See above,
recens haec lascivia §43: cp. ii. 5, 10 and
22: Tac. Dial. §26 lascivia verborum et levitate sententiarum et
licentia compositionis. The adjective occurs along with _hilare_ v.
3, 27, and with _dicaces_ vi. 3, 41: cp. Tac. Dial. §29 parvulos
assuefaciunt ... lasciviae et dicacitati. It
85
means ‘exuberance’ of any kind, as against severe restraint: ix. 4, 142
duram potius atque asperam compositionem malim esse quam effeminatam et
enervem, qualis apud multos, et cotidie magis, lascivissimis syntonorum
modis saltat: Horace, A. P. 106 ludentem lasciva (verba decent)
severum seria dictu: i.e. ‘sportive’ as opp. to ‘serious’: Ep. ii. 2,
216 lasciva decentius aetas, ‘that may more becomingly make merry.’
Wilkins says the word occurs ten times in Horace, and never in a
distinctly bad sense: lascivi pueri Sat. i. 3, 134: lasciva puella Verg.
Ecl. iii. 64.

in herois quoque: sc. versibus. Cp. ix. 4, 88 and 89. This
characteristic of his elegiac compositions reappears even in his heroic
verse, i.e. the Metamorphoses. At ix. 4, 88 (pes) herous = μέτρον ἡρῷον. So Martial iii. 20,
6 lascivus elegis an severus herois?

nimium amator ingenii sui: cp. §98 below, si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere
maluisset. M. Seneca, Controv. iv. 28, 17 (p. 281) Ovidius nescit
quod bene cessit relinquere: ii. 10, 12 (of a declamatio by Ovid) verbis
minime licenter usus est nisi in carminibus, in quibus non ignoravit
vitia sua, sed amavit ... adparet summi ingenii viro non indicium
defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carminum suorum, sed animum. Cp. Sen.
Nat. Quaest. iii. 27, 13 poetarum ingeniosissimus ... nisi tantum
impetum ingenii et materiae ad pueriles ineptias reduxisset. Of Seneca
the philosopher Quintilian uses similar language below §130 si non omnia sua amasset. For the use of an
adv. with verb-noun in -tor (as if it were a participle) cp. Hor. Sat.
i. 10, 12 Quis tam Lucili fautor inepte est. See Introd. p. xlv.

in partibus, opp. to _totum_ (‘in einzeln
Partien’—Nägelsbach §76 p. 296). Cp. in parte 7 §25: also 2 §26 in partibus: vii. 2, 22 si
quando in partibus laborabimus, universitate pugnandum est. The
frequency with which _in parte_ occurs in Quintilian (as well as
_ex parte_, which is used by Cicero and Livy) makes the reading
probable, though the MSS. omit _in_, while many give _parcius_
for _partibus_. Cp. ii. 8, 6 quod ... mihi in parte verum videtur:
iv. 5, 13: v. 7, 22: xi. 2, 34.


 
I:89
Cornelius autem Severus, etiamsi sit versificator quam
poeta melior, si tamen, ut est
86
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.

§ 89.
Cornelius Severus, contemporary and friend of Ovid, who addresses
to him Epist. ex Ponto iv. 2 (1 O vates magnorum maxime regum:
11 sq. fertile pectus habes interque Helicona colentes Uberius
nulli provenit ista seges): cp. carmen regale iv. 16, 9. In spite
of the apology in iv. 2 (eius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos), it
is probable that Epist. i. 8 is also addressed to him: v. 2 pars animae
magna, Severe, meae: 25, o iucunde sodalis. M. Seneca (Suas.
vi. 26) quotes twenty-five hexameters of his, with the introductory
remark, which seems well deserved, ‘nemo ex tot disertissimis viris
melius Ciceronis mortem deflevit quam Severus Cornelius.’

etiamsi sit. The use of the subj. would seem to indicate that
Quintilian leaves the truth of the criticism an open question (Roby
§1560). Osann is wrong in taking it as indicating Quintilian’s own
opinion. See Crit. Notes. 

versificator. This word occurs also in Justin. vi. 9, 4:
versificatores meliores quam duces: Vopisc. Saturn. i. 7, 4: Terent.
Maur. 1012: Bede 2354 P. If taken in a depreciatory sense it seems
rather inconsistent with the high praise given him in what follows: but
we gather from notices in the grammarians and from the extant fragments
that Severus was ‘inclined to artificiality of expression and to the
affectation of elegance, even where the thought is quite simple,’ as in
the quotation in Charisius, p. 83 Huc ades Aonia crinem circumdata
serta. For the antithesis _versificator ... poeta_ cp. Hor. Sat. i.
4, 39 neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse satis ... (ut) putes
hunc esse poetam.

si tamen. _Tamen_ really goes with _vindicaret_, but
the inversion _tamen si_ (Hild) is quite unnecessary; elsewhere in
Quintilian _tamen_ is found attached to the subordinate and not to
the principal sentence: xi. 3, 56 etiam si non utique vocis sunt vitia,
quia tamen propter vocem accidunt, potissimum huic loco subiciantur: ii.
17, 24-25: cp. cum tamen xi. 3, 91. (In ix. 2, 55 si tamen = si
modo, si quidem: in quo est et illa si tamen inter schemata numerari
debet ... digressio: cp. ii. 15, 4.)

ut est dictum. Becher agrees with Halm in considering this to
be a gloss on
86
etiam si (sit) melior, and it is omitted in Krüger’s 3rd ed. But it is
obvious that (unless he is quoting from himself) Quintilian is here
giving a criticism at secondhand (dictum sc. ab aliis), and conveying
the opinion of contemporary critics: cp. §60 adeo ut videatur quibusdam, of Archilochus. No
great difficulty need be occasioned by the position of the words, though
they would have been at least as well placed in the main sentence.
Kiderlin (in Hermes) proposes to read ‘etiamsi versificator quam poeta
melior sit, tamen, ut est dictum, si ad exemplar,’ &c.

bellum Siculum: i.e. the war with Sext. Pompeius B.C. 38-36 (Siculae classica bella fugae Propert.
ii. 1, 28). Scaliger suggested _bellum civile_, with which
Severus’s poems seem to have dealt, either in whole or in part. The
_primus liber_ is unknown. Bernhardy refers to the extract in
Seneca, Suas. vii. (Burm. A. L. ii. 155) as justifying Quintilian’s
criticism, and seems inclined to hazard the conjecture (based on a
quotation from Valerius Probus in the Wiener Analecta Gramm.
p. 216—Cornelius Severus rerum Romanarum l. 1) that the
title of the whole work was Res Romanae, the Bellum Siculum being only a
section.—(Can _bellum Siculum_ have crept into the text as a
gloss on ‘primi libri,’ the more general title _bellum civile_
dropping out? The whole poem cannot have dealt with the _bellum
Siculum_).

perscripsisset: common enough in the sense of ‘write a full
account of’: here ‘from beginning to end’: cp. perlegere, pervenire.

secundum locum—among epic poets, after Vergil.

Serranum is the conjectural emendation generally adopted in
place of the readings of the MSS. It rests on the passage in Juvenal
vii. 79 Contentus fama iaceat Lucanus in hortis Marmoreis; at Serrano
tenuique Saleio Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est? Some
have ascribed to him the Eclogues which have come down to us under the
name of Calpurnius Siculus. Martial (iv. 37, 2) speaks of a
Serranus who was deep in debt. Most old edd. read _Sed eum_, still
referring to Severus.

consummari: cp. §122: 2 §28: 5 §14 and frequently in
Quintilian (v. Bonnell’s Lex.). Seneca, Ep. 88, 28, una re consummatur
animus, scientia bonorum ac malorum immutabili, quae soli philosophiae
competit.

in aetate illa: ‘for one so young.’

recti generis: cp. §44 rectum
dicendi genus: ix. 3, §3: ii. 5, §11. The objective genitive after
‘voluntas’ is noteworthy: cp. libertatis novae gaudium Flor. i.
9, 3.


 
I:90
Multum in Valerio Flacco nuper amisimus. Vehemens et poeticum
ingenium Salei Bassi
87
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.

§ 90.
Valerio Flacco. Martial addresses him in i. 77, exhorting him,
with some irony, to give up verse-writing as unprofitable and turn
lawyer. From another epigram (i. 61) we gather that he was a native of
Padua (‘Apona tellus’). He flourished in the reign of Vespasian, to whom
he dedicated his _Argonautica_, c. A.D. 70, and died about 88. Juvenal may be referring
to this poem i. 8-10: where see Mayor’s notes. There is a touch of
personal sorrow about the use of _amisimus_. For the expression cp.
Florus iv. 7, 14 Brutus cum in Cassio suum animum perdidisset.

nuper: Flaccus died about 88 A.D. Quintilian wrote his work between 93 and
95.

Salei Bassi. Cp. tenuique Saleio, Iuv. vii. 80, quoted above.
His name occurs several times in the Dial. de Orat.: Saleium Bassum, cum
optimum virum tum absolutissimum poetam §5: egregium poetam vel si hoc
honorificentius est praeclarissimum vatem §9, where it is stated that he
got a gift of 500 sestertia from Vespasian: cp. also §10. The Bassus
ridiculed by Martial (iii. 47, 58: v. 23: viii. 10: vii. 96) is a
different person, though he also wrote tragedies: v. 53, 1-2 Colchida
quid scribis, quid scribis, amice, Thyesten? Quo tibi vel Nioben, Basse,
vel Andromachen?

87
nec ipsum senectute maturuit: ‘but it was not mellowed by
age’: _nec ipsum_ = his genius no more than that of Serranus,
above. On the other reading (senectus maturavit) _ipsum_ would be
accus. masc.: but the construction is harsh, and _maturo_ in this
transitive use is only found in Pliny, of the processes of nature.

Rabirius, a contemporary of Ovid, Ep. ex Ponto iv. 16, 5
magnique Rabirius oris. Velleius Paterculus mentions him along with
Vergil, omitting Horace: inter quae (ingenia) maxime nostri aevi eminent
princeps carminum Vergilius Rabiriusque ii. 36, 3: Seneca de Benef. vi.
3, 1 egregie mihi videtur M. Antonius apud Rabirium poetam ...
exclamare, hoc habeo quodcunque dedi. He is generally supposed to be the
author of a fragment on the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra,
discovered in the rolls of Herculaneum.

Pedo, C. Albinovanus, friend of Ovid, who styles him
_sidereus_ ex Pont. iv. 16, 6, _carissime_ iv. 10, 3.
Martial refers to him as a scholarly poet (doctique Pedonis ii. 77) and
epigrammatist (i. praef.)—in both places along with Domitius
Marsus: Paley and Stone are wrong in identifying him with the Celsus
Albinovanus of Horace, Epist. i. 3, 15 and 8, 1. Seneca tells a
story he had heard from him in Ep. 122, 13, and compliments him as being
‘fabulator elegantissimus.’ M. Seneca (Suas. i. 14) gives us 23
hexameters of his which formed part of a poem celebrating the famous
voyage of Germanicus (cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 23). The ‘Consolatio ad Liviam
Augustam de morte Drusi Neronis,’ first attributed to him by Scaliger,
is now believed to be a production of the fifteenth century (Bernhardy,
pp. 486-7). He also wrote a Theseis (Ovid, ex Pont. iv. 10, 71
sq.).

Lucanus, M. Annaeus, the author of the ‘Pharsalia,’ A.D. 38-65. The criticism of Quintilian puts
before us Lucan’s merits and defects,—the predominance of the
declamatory element being prominent among the latter. In the Dial. de
Orat. §20 he is classed along with Vergil and Horace, exigitur ... ab
oratore etiam poeticus decor ... ex Horatii et Vergilii et Lucani
sacrario prolatus. On the other hand Serv. ad Aen. i. 382 Lucanus ideo
in numero poetarum esse non meruit quia videtur historiam composuisse
non poema: cp. Petron. Sat. 118. So, too, Martial xiv. 194 Lucanus, Sunt
quidam qui me dicant non esse poetam, Sed qui me vendit bibliopola
putat. The _ut dicam quod sentio_ seems to indicate that Quintilian
is combating the prevailing sentiment about Lucan.—Cp. Heitland’s
Introd. to Lucan’s Pharsalia (Haskins), p. lxx.

sententiis—γνώμαις, v. §§50, 61, ‘such general utterances as have
a bearing upon human life and action,’ Heitland, pp. lxv-lxvii.


 
I:91
Hos nominavimus, quia Germanicum Augustum ab
institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque
88
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?

§ 91.
Hos, sub. _tantum_: as 5 §7 uno genere. See Nägelsbach
§84 on the omission of adverbs: p. 331 sq.

Germanicum. Domitian took this title after his expedition
against the Chatti, A.D. 84:
Frontinus, Strateg. ii. 11, 7 Imperator Caesar Augustus Germanicus eo
bello quo victis hostibus cognomen Germanici meruit. Of this triumph
Tacitus says (Agric. 39) that Domitian was conscious ‘derisui fuisse
falsum e Germania triumphum.’ For the tone of adulation cp. Proem. Book
IV, 2 sq., where Domitian is spoken of as ‘sanctissimus censor,’ and
‘principem ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia eminentissimum,’ and is even
invoked as a divinity,—nunc omnes in auxilium deos ipsumque in
primis quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen
est, invocem. Hild compares the following passages as showing the spirit
of the age:—Statius, Silvae i. 1 and 4: iii. 3: iv. 1 and 2:
Silius Italicus iii. 618 sq.: Valerius Flaccus i. 12: and Martial,
Epist. Ded. of vii.: cp. 65, 82 et passim. See Introd. p. xi.

ab institutes studiis: Suet. Dom. 2 simulavit et ipse mire
modestiam imprimisque poeticae studium, tam insuetum antea sibi quam
postea spretum et abiectum, recitavitque etiam publice. From Val. Flacc.
i. 12 it would appear that he contemplated an epic poem on the war with
the Jews. Tac. Hist. iv. 86 Domitianus sperni a senioribus iuventam suam
cernens, modice quoque et usurpata antea munia imperii omittebat,
simplicitatis ac
88
modestiae imagine, in altitudinem conditus studiumque litterarum et
amorem carminum simulans, quo velaret animum et fratris aemulationi
subduceretur, cuius disparem mitioremque naturam contra interpretabatur.
Cp. Pliny, Introd. to Nat. Hist. But Suetonius §20 gives the reverse
side: nunquam ... aut historiae carminibusve noscendis operam ullam, aut
stilo vel necessario dedit. Praeter commentarios et acta Tiberii
Caesaris nihil lectitabat; epistolas orationesque et edicta alieno
formabat ingenio.

cura terrarum: cp. Mart. viii. 82 Posse deum rebus pariter
Musisque vacare Scimus, et haec etiam serta placere tibi.

donato imperio, i.e. to his father Vespasian, as he pretended,
and his brother Titus: cp. Suet. Dom. §13 principatum adeptus neque in
senatu iactare dubitavit ‘et patri se et fratri imperium dedisse.’

numeris: §70.

qui sic gerit: cp. §114 of
Julius Caesar, ‘eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit.’ Statius has a similar
compliment to Domitian, Achil. i. 15, 16 cui geminae florent vatumque
ducumque certatim laurus: olim dolet altera vinci.

praesidentes deae: §48
invocatione dearum quas praesidere vatibus creditum est.

propius audirent: cp. Aen. i. 526 parce pio generi et propius
res aspice nostras. The phrase is used of interest as well as nearness,
and refers either to the presence and sympathy of the Muses when the
poet reads his compositions (recitavitque etiam publice Suet.
Dom. 2), or (less probably) to their gracious answer to his prayer
for inspiration. Becher cites also Ovid, Trist. i. 2, 7 oderat Aenean
propior Saturnia Turno.—See Crit. Notes.

familiare numen Minervae: Domitian was desirous of passing for
a son of Minerva (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. vii. 24), and punished with
death a priest of Tarentum who had failed to address him by this title
in offering sacrifice. He also instituted the Quinquatria Minervae
(Suet. 4), with contests in poetry and rhetoric. At the
quinquennial festival of Jupiter Capitolinus he himself presided,
‘capite gestans coronam auream cum effigie Iovis ac Iunonis
Minervaeque.’ Merivale vii. 391-394.—Krüger cites Aen. i. 447
(templum) donis opulentum et numine divae.


 
I: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.

§ 92.
praestringitur: §30.

feres, see Crit.
Notes. The subj. (_feras_) is given in many edd. as more
appropriate to the subservient tone of the whole passage.

Vergiliano: Ecl. viii, 13, addressed to Pollio. Cp. Mart.
viii. 82, 7 Non quercus te sola decet, nec laurea Phoebi: fiat et ex
hedera civica nostra tibi.

 
I:93
Elegea quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque
89
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
90
adeptus Lucilius quosdam ita deditos sibi adhuc habet amatores
ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed omnibus poetis praeferre
non dubitent.

§ 93.
Elegea. The form _elegea_ is received into the text by Halm
in i. 8, 6, but not by Meister. Ovid has _elegeïa_,—flebilis
indignos elegeia solve capillos, Am. iii. 9, 3: cp. cultis aut elegia
comis Martial v. 30, 4. _Elegi_ is more common: Hor. Car. i.
33, 2 miserabiles, A. P. 77 exiguos: Tib. ii. 4, 13: Prop. v. 1,
135: Iuv. i. 4.—The same names are enumerated in chronological
order by Ovid: Successor fuit hic (Tibullus) tibi, Galle, Propertius
illi. Quartus ab his serie temporis ipse fui, Trist. iv. 10, 63: Teuffel
§29.

provocamus: post-Aug. in this figurative sense: Plin. Ep. ii.
7, 4 senes illos provocare virtute: (cp. ea pictura naturam ipsam
provocavit Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10, 36 §94.) So of things
immensum Iatus circi templorom
89
pulchritudinem provocat, Panegyr. §51.—Hild quotes Diomed. iii.
60, p. 484 Quod genus carminis praecipue scripserunt apud Romanos
Propertius et Tibullus et Gallus, imitati graecos Callimachum et
Euphoriona. Catullus also had used the elegiac metre, though, as Mr.
Munro says (Catullus, p. 231), his elegies are by no means up to
the level of his lyrics. In his hands the elegy retained the ease and
freedom of its original form, though often wanting in technical finish:
Tibullus and his successors Latinized it, and adapted it to new
conditions.

tersus, ‘smooth and finished’: xii. 10, 50 quod libris
dedicatur ... tersum ac limatum ... esse oportere. So below §94.

Tibullus, c. 54-18 B.C. Hor.
Epist. i. 4: Ovid, Am. iii. 9. As distinguished from Propertius (c.
50-15 B.C.), he is the poet of warm,
tender, natural feeling, which he expresses in neat and finished verse.
He confines himself to such themes and such scenes as suited the
limitations of his genius. Propertius has more force and strength; but
he is more involved, often in fact obscure; and his indirectness and
artificiality have greatly interfered with the adequate recognition of
his undoubted powers. Cp. Muretus, Schol. in Propert.: illum (Tibullum)
iudices simplicius scripsisse quae cogitaret: hunc (Propertium)
diligentius cogitasse quae scriberet. In illo plus naturae, in hoc plus
curae atque industriae perspicias. For a modern estimate cp. Postgate’s
Select Elegies lvii. sqq., esp. lxvii: “No real judge of poetry will
hesitate for a moment to place Propertius high above them both (Tibullus
and Ovid). It is true that in some respects they may both claim the
advantage over him; Tibullus for refined simplicity, for natural grace
and exquisiteness of touch; Ovid for the technical merits of execution,
for transparency of construction, for smoothness and polish of
expression. But in all the higher qualities of a poet he is as much
their superior.”

lascivior: v. on §88. The
antithesis is here given in _durior_ (‘more masculine’), which
seems to show that the reference is primarily to Ovid’s style: (cp. ix.
4, 142, quoted at §88). Ovid’s exuberant
vivacity and sportive imagination, as well as his indifference to deep
conviction and high ideals, might however well be included in the
criticism. Tac. Dial. 10 elegorum lascivias et iamborum amaritudinem.
Martial has of Propertius ‘Cynthia te vatem fecit, lascive Properti’
viii. 73, 5: which, like Ovid’s _tener_ (A. A. iii. 333),
Postgate thinks refers rather to his subject than to his treatment of
it. “With Tibullus and Propertius love was at any rate a passion. With
Ovid it was _une affaire de cœur_.”

Gallus, Cornelius, of Forum Iulii (69-26), was the first
_praefectus Aegypti_ under Augustus, but on a report of some rash
speeches was banished, and committed suicide in his forty-third year.
Vergil is said to have originally finished the Georgics with a tribute
to Gallus, and on being ordered to erase it, substituted the Aristaeus
episode which now occupies the latter half of Book IV. Vergil’s regard
for him, however, comes out in Eclogue vi. 64 sqq., and in the
dedication of Eclogue x. (sollicitos Galli dicamus amores), in which he
seeks to console him for the loss of his love Lycoris (Cytheris). On it
Servius observes: et Euphorionem ... transtulit in latinum sermonem (l.
50) et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quatuor. Cp. Ovid,
Trist. ii. 445 Nec fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, Amor. i.
15, 30: Trist. iv. 10, 53: Remed. 765 Quis potuit lecto durus discedere
Gallo?

Satura. As to the derivation, v. Diomed. iii. p. 485
(Palmer, Introd. to Hor. Sat. p. vii) Satira autem dicta sive a
Satyris, quod similiter in hoc carmine ridiculae res pudendaeque
dicuntur, quae velut a Satyris proferuntur et fiunt; sive satura a
lance, quae referta variis multisque primitiis in sacro apud priscos dis
inferebatur...; sive a quodam genere farciminis, quod multis rebus
refertum saturam dicit Varro vocitatum. The second derivation (lanx
satura—the platter filled with first fruits of various sorts which
was an annual thank-offering to Ceres and Bacchus: and so a ‘medley’ or
‘hodge-podge’) was long preferred; but Mommsen holds (cp. Ribbeck, Röm.
Trag. 21) that the word means the ‘masque of the full men’ (σάτυροι),—the song enacted at a
popular carnival, when repletion in the performers leads to
90
a certain ‘fulness’ about the performance. Cp. Tibullus ii. 1, 23 saturi
... coloni: 53 satur arenti primum est modulatus avena carmen
(agricola).

tota nostra. This claim must be understood of satire in its
Roman form. The spirit of personal invective had already found
expression in the lampoons of Greek satire, e.g. in the iambics of
Archilochus and Hipponax, to say nothing of the Old Comedy at Athens;
but Satire at Rome grew to be a distinct art, a serious practical aim
being imposed on the literary form that was developed out of the
original _Satura_ (for which see below, §95). “It followed the Old Comedy of Athens in its
plain-speaking, and the method of Archilochus in its bitter hostility to
those who provoked attack. But it differed from the former in its
non-political bias, as well as its non-dramatic form; and from the
latter in its motive, which is not personal enmity, but public spirit.
Thus the assertion of Horace (S. i. 4, 1-6) that Lucilius is indebted to
the old comedians, must be taken in a general sense only, and not be
held to invalidate the generally received opinion that, in its final and
perfective form, Satire was a genuine product of Rome” (Cruttwell,
R. L. p. 76). Contrast the ‘hinc omnis pendet Lucilius hosce
secutus’ (est) of the passage referred to with ‘Lucilius ausus (est)
primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem’ (ii. 1, 62), and the
recognition of Ennius as ‘Graecis intacti carminis auctor’ (i. 10, 66).
The claim made by Quintilian springs from the consciousness that Satire
was pre-eminently the national organ of public opinion at Rome. Whatever
the topic treated might be,—politics, literature, philosophy, or
social life and manners,—the tone was always genuinely national
and popular. Moreover, it was the only form of literature that enjoyed a
continuous development at Rome, extending as it did from the most
flourishing era of the Commonwealth into the second century of the
Empire. See for the whole subject Professor Nettleship’s Essay on the
Roman Satura—its original form in connection with its literary
development, Clarendon Press, 1878: Palmer’s Satires of Horace, Intr. p. ix.

Lucilius, C. (B.C.
168(?)-103), was a member of an equestrian family of Suessa, and
belonged to the circle of the younger Scipio, under whom he had served
during the Numantine War. He left behind him thirty books of Satires, of
which the first twenty and the thirtieth were in hexameter verse, the
others being in different metres; and of these only some 1100 lines are
now extant. He gave Satire its true popular tone at Rome, speaking out
openly and with a courageous frankness against the iniquity and
incompetence of the nobles, the sordid, avaricious and pleasure-seeking
aims of the middle-class, and the venality of the mob. Horace passes a
rather mixed judgment on him, censuring his discursiveness, roughness,
careless rapidity, and verbosity; but commending him for his original
force and frank outspokenness. See Sat. i. 4, 6-12, 57: 10, 1-5, 20-24,
48-71: ii. 1, 17, 29-34, 62-75. In the time of Tacitus some preferred
Lucilius to Horace: Dial. 23 vobis utique versantur ante oculos qui
Lucilium pro Horatio et Lucretium pro Vergilio legunt.

 

 
I: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
91
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.

§ 94.
fluere lutulentum, a quotation from memory of Sat. i. 4, 11 cum
flueret lutulentus erat quod tollere velles. Cp. i. 10, 50-1 ferentem
plura quidem tollenda relinquendis.

eruditio mira: i. 6, 8 hominis eruditissimi (Lucili).

libertas: Hor. Sat. i. 4, 5 multa cum libertate notabant.
Trebonius in Cic. Fam. xii. 16, §3 deinde qui magis hoc Lucilio licuerit
assumere libertatis quam nobis? quum, etiamsi odio pari fuerit in eos
quos laesit, tamen certe non magis dignos habuerit, in quos tanta
libertate verborum incurreret: Macr. iii. 16, §17 Lucilius acer et
violentus poeta.

inde: it was his personal independence (libertas) that gave so
keen an edge to his satire (acerbitas): Hor. Sat. ii. 1, 62.
_inde_ is in fact _causal_ here. Becher notes pro Mur. §26 as
the only parallel
91
instance in Cicero, and there it occurs in a law formula: inde ibi ego
te ex iure manu consertum voco.

abunde salis: Verg. Aen. vii. 552 terrorum et fraudis abunde
est: Suet. Caes. 86 potentiae gloriaeque abunde, but not in earlier
prose. According to Hand. Turs. i. 71 _abunde_ was originally neut.
of _abundis_, used substantially (cp. pote and necesse) and so
becoming an adverb, from which was formed in time, by a false analogy,
an adj. _abundus_. Other uses are (1) like ‘satis esse,’ as in
Tac. Hist. ii. 95, §5 ipse abunde ratus si praesentibus frueretur:
(2) as simple adv. qualifying verbs adjectives and other adverbs
(cp. on §25): Cic. Div. ii. 1, 3 erit
abunde satisfactum toti huic quaestioni. Sall. Iug. 14, 18 abunde magna
praesidia. Wharton takes it from *_habundus_, ‘possessing,’ the
gerundive of habeo.—See Crit. Notes.

multum: for _multum_ before a comparative, like πολὺ μεῖζον etc., see
Introd. p. li.: cp.
Stat. Theb. ix. 559, Iuv. x. 197. In spite of ‘multum maius’ (de Or.
iii. §92), Cicero very rarely has _multum_ for _multo_. For
the reading, see Crit. Notes.

purus magis gives the antithesis to _lutulentus_.

non labor: cp. vi. 3, 3 sive amore immodico praecipui in
eloquentia viri (Ciceronis) labor: Cic. Brut. 244 ambitione labi. In
spite of the stricture passed in i. 8, 6 (Horatium nolim in quibusdam
interpretari), Quint. had a high admiration for Horace: see below §96. Many codd. give _nisi_ for
_non_: see Crit. Notes. For _praecipuus_ used absolutely cp.
§§68, 81, 116.

Multum et verae = multum gloriae et quidem verae gloriae. Cp.
Cic. ad Fam. iv. 6, 1 filium consularem, claram virum et magnis rebus
gestis, amisit. So the Greek καὶ ταῦτα. For acc. w. _mereo_ cp. §116.

quamvis: cp. §74. Even in
classical Latin _quamvis_ is used with adjectives and adverbs, and
without any verb: but this is a more remarkable instance than e.g. Cic.
Nat. Deor. ii. 1, 1 rhetorem quamvis eloquentem: Tusc. iii. §73
stultitiam accusare quamvis copiose licet.

Persius (34-62 A.D.) The
best account of his satires is that prefixed to Conington’s edition. Cp.
Mart. iv. 29, 7 Saepius in libro numeratur Persius uno Quam levis in
tota Marsus Amazonide.

Sunt clari hodieque et: ‘there are brilliant satirists at the
present day,—men whose names will hereafter be on the roll of
fame.’ Cp. for the general sense iii. 1, 21 sunt et hodie clari eiusdem
operis auctores, qui si omnia complexi forent, consuluissent labori meo,
sed parco nominibus viventium: veniet eorum laudi suum tempus: ad
posteros enim virtus durabit, non perveniet invidia. So too §104 below qui olim _nominabitur_ nunc
_intellegitur_.—This use of _hodieque_ (‘noch
heutzutage’) is quite different from such simple instances as e.g. Cic.
de Orat. i. 103 hoc facere coeperunt hodieque faciunt, where -que is
merely copulative. The Dictt. quote several instances in post-Augustan
prose, though the word occurs in Quint. only here: Vell. Paterc. i. 4, 3
quae hodieque appellate Ionia: ii. 8, 3 porticus quae hodieque celebres
sunt: 27, 3 Utcunque cecidit, hodieque tanta patris imagine non
obscuratur eius memoria: Seneca, Epist. 90, 16 non hodieque magna
Scytharum pars tergis vulpium induitur? Plin. ii. 58, 59 §150 in
Abydi gymnasio colitur hodieque: viii. 45, 70 §176 et hodieque
reliquiae durant: Tac. Germ. iii. quod in ripa Rheni situm hodieque
incolitur: Dial. 34 ad fin., quas hodieque cum admiratione legimus:
Suet. Claud. 17: Tit. 2. Krüger (3rd. ed.) thinks that _que_
is thrown in to correspond with _et_ in what follows (τε ... καί, ‘sowohl als auch’):
‘posthumous renown is introduced, as the more precious, not simply by
_et olim_ but in a special relative clause.’ Certainly it is the
same writers who are _clari_ now and who will hereafter receive
proper recognition (_nominabuntur_ cp. §104 below), though at present he refrains from
giving names. The position of _et_, and indeed its presence at all
in the sentence, seem to be motived by the choice of the form
_hodieque_. But see Crit.
Notes.

Juvenal can hardly be referred to here, as his first Satire is later
than the reign of Domitian, under whom Quint. composed his work. The
reference is more probably to some minor Satirists, like the authors of
the ‘scripta famosa, vulgoque edita, quibus primores viri ac feminae
notabantur,’—mentioned by Suet. (Dom. 8) as current in
Domitian’s reign. Cp. Nero 42: Tac. Ann. i. 72.—For olim see on §104.


 
I:95
Alterum illud etiam
92
prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum condidit
Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus.
93
Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos composuit, peritissimus linguae
Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum nostrarumque, plus
tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae.

§ 95.
Alterum illud, &c. This takes
92
us back to the earliest forms of the Roman Satura. Alongside of the
Fescennine verses (Hor. Epist. ii. 139, sq.), which had originated in
the rustic raillery and coarse mirth of vintage and harvest homes, there
grew up a sort of dramatic medley or farce, probably containing an
element of dialogue, to give opportunity for the sportive exchange of
repartees, and soon coming to have a regular musical accompaniment and
corresponding gestures. These ‘Saturae’ differed from the Fescennine
verses in having more of a set form and not being extemporised; while,
again, they were distinct from the developed drama in having no
connected plot. They seem from the first to have contained a dramatic
element, consisting as they did of comic songs or stories recited with
gesticulation and flute accompaniment. In addition to the censorious
freedom which they derived from the Fescennine verses, the Saturae
received an impulse from the mimetic dances that had been imported from
Etruria. They had been acted on the stage for more than a century before
Livius Andronicus gave his first dramatic representation (B.C. 240), and after the development of the regular
drama they passed into a distinct form of literature, which retained to
some extent its dramatic cast, but was not intended now for public
representation. In the hands of Ennius the Satura became a medley of
metrical pieces—a metrical miscellany—in which the poet gave
utterance, not without the element of dialogue, to his views on things
in general, in a tone that began to be more serious than would have
suited the stage and the theatre-going public, who were now to look to
Latin Comedy for undiluted amusement. With Lucilius, Satire passed from
miscellaneous metrical composition to that aggressive and censorious
criticism of persons, manners, literature, and politics, which the word
has ever since been employed to denote. It was a form of literary
activity that would seem to have been called for by the social and
political conditions of Roman life in the latter part of the second
century.—The transition is indicated in the following passage from
Diomedes, Art. Gram. iii. p. 485 K Satira dicitur carmen apud
Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae
comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius
et Persius; at olim carmen quod ex variis poematibus constabat satira
vocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius et Ennius.

etiam prius, i.e. even before the _satura_ of Lucilius:
cp. olim carmen quod, &c. in the passage just quoted. The
_satura_ of Varro (like that of Menippus, whom he imitated),
besides being composed in all sorts of metres, admitted prose also:
hence ‘non sola carminum varietate mixtum’ (for the implied antithesis
cp. 7 §19 in prosa
... in carmine). It was also, in respect of material, a sort of
_pot-pourri_ or ‘hodge-podge’: cp. multis rebus refertum, Diomedes,
l.c. See Crit. Notes.

condidit: see §56. There is no
need for Jahn’s conj. _condivit_. The word means ‘wrote,’
‘composed’ (not ‘founded,’ as Mayor in his analysis): cp. iii. 1, 19
primus condidit aliqua (in arte rhetorica) M. Cato: xii. II, 23
Cato ... idem historiae conditor.

Terentius Varro, M. (B.C.
116-27). Of his many works (said to number about 600) we have only three
books of the De Re Rustica, parts of the De Lingua Latina (in 25 books),
and fragments of the Menippean Satires. For the last v. esp. Mommsen,
iv. pt. 2, p. 594. A good account of Varro’s life and writings
is given in Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 141-156. In regard to the
Saturae, v. esp. pp. 144-145: ‘There was one class of semi-poetical
composition which Varro made peculiarly his own, the Satura Menippea, a
medley of prose and verse, treating of all kinds of subjects just as
they came to hand in the plebeian style, often with much grossness, but
with sparkling point. Of these Saturae he wrote no less than 150 books,
of which fragments have been preserved amounting to near 600 lines.
Menippus of Gadara, the originator of this style of composition, lived
about 280 B.C.; he interspersed
jocular and commonplace topics with moral maxims and philosophical
doctrines, and may have added contemporary pictures, though this is
uncertain. Varro followed him; we find him in the _Academicae
Quaestiones_ of Cicero (i. 2, 8) saying that he adopted this
method in the hope of enticing the unlearned to read something that
might profit them. In these _saturae_ topics were
93
handled with the greatest freedom. They were not satires in the modern
sense. They are rather to be considered as lineal descendants of the old
_saturae_ which existed before (cp. etiam prius) any regular
literature.’

Romanorum eruditissimus: cp. Cicero ad Att. xiii. 18 where,
with some pique, he writes homo πολυγραφώτατος nunquam me lacessivit (by
dedicating a work to him): August. C. D. vi. 2 homo omnium facile
acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus. Dion. Hal. ii. 21
ἀνὴρ ...
πολυπειρότατος: and Plut. Rom. 12 ἄνδρα Ῥωμαίων ἐν ἱστορίᾳ
βιβλιακώτατον.

omnis antiquitatis. He wrote Antiquitates rerum humanarum et
divinarum, in forty-one books. Cp. Cic. Brut. 15, 60 diligentissimus
investigator antiquitatis. For his general activity v. Acad. Post. i. 3,
9 nos in nostra urbe peregrinantes ... tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt
... tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura, tu
sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu bellicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum,
locorum, tu omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina, genera, officia,
causas aperuisti plurimumque idem poetis nostris omninoque latinis et
litteris luminis et verbis attulisti, atque ipse varium et elegans omni
fere numero poema fecisti philosophiamque multis locis inchoasti, ad
inpellendum satis, ad edocendum parum. Cp. Phil. ii. 41, 105, where
distinct reference is made (as Halm points out) to treatises de Iure
Civili, in fifteen books: de Vita Populi Romani, in four books: Annales
in three books: Antiquitates in forty-one books: de Fama Philosophiae:
and nine books Disciplinarum: Quint. xii. 11, 24, Quam multa, paene
omnia, tradidit Varro.—For this use of _antiquitas_ cp. Tac.
Ann. ii. 59 cognoscendae antiquitatis: and other exx. in Nettleship’s
Lat. Lex. s.v. 3.

scientiae ... eloquentiae: cp. August. C. D. vi. 2
M. Varro ... tametsi minus est suavis eloquio, doctrina tamen atque
sententiis ita refertus est ut in omni eruditione ... studiosum rerum
tantum iste doceat quantum studiosum verborum Cicero delectat. For the
datives cp. §27, §63, §71: conferre with
_in_ c. acc. occurs 7 §26, q.v.


 
I:96
Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, _sed
aliis_ quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in Catullo,
Bibaculo,
94
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.

§ 96.
Iambus = carmina iambica: cp. §9, §59.

celebratus est: cp. ix. 2, 92 celebrata apud Graecos schemata:
i. 9, 6 narratiunculas a poetis celebratas. Cp. frequentare.

ut proprium opus, i.e. as a separate form of composition, such
as it was in the hands of Archilochus, Hipponax, and Simonides.

aliis quibusdam (sc. carminibus) interpositus. Hild
takes this as referring both to the alternation of the iambic with other
metres and the substitution of other feet for the iambus itself (as
commonly in Horace). It is probable that it only includes the former,
being repeated, as regards Horace, in the words quamquam illi epodos
intervenit.’ See Crit. Notes.

Catullo. Cp. Fragm. i. At non effugies meos iambos. The most
famous examples of his _acerbitas_ are the lampoons on Julius
Caesar, especially that contained in the twenty-ninth poem (where see
Munro for an appreciation of the meaning of ancient defamation and
invective). Here Catullus appears as the genuine successor of the early
Greek iambic writers. (Cp. the more offensive hendecasyllabics of lvii.)
These are the two poems which Suetonius (Caesar 73) regarded as having
attached an ‘everlasting stigma’ to the name of Caesar: cp. liii. ad
fin. Irascere iterum meis iambis Immerentibus unice imperator. Sellar’s
Roman Poets, p. 431 sq.

Bibaculo. M. Furius Bibaculus (b. at Cremona B.C. 99),
like Catullus, the author of lampoons directed especially against the
monarchists: Tac. Ann. iv. 34 carmina Bibaculi et Catulli referta
contumeliis Caesarum leguntur: sed ipse divus Iulius, ipse divus
Augustus et tulere ista et reliquere. Some apply to him the words of
Horace, Satires ii. 5, 40, sq. seu pingui tentus omaso Furius hibernas
cana nive conspuet Alpes (where the scholiast credits him with having
written an account of the Gallic War): also i. 10, 36 Turgidus
94
Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona,—the nickname Alpinus having been
given to him on account of this ludicrous description of Jupiter
sputtering snow over the Alps: v. Quint. viii. 6, 17, where the
original line is quoted as an instance of a forced metaphor. The
reference in i. 10, 36 is however doubtful; and Bernhardy (R. L.
p. 566) supposes that in both passages some unknown poet is meant,
whose name may have been Furius Alpinus. See Teuffel, R. L. i.
313.

illi, sc. iambo = iambicis versibus.

epodos: ὁ
ἐπῳδός, sc. στίχος
= a shorter (iambic) verse, alternating with a longer. Epodi dicuntur
versus quolibet modo scripti et sequentes clausulas habentes
particularum quales sunt epodi Horatii: in quibus singulis versibus
singulae clausulae adiciuntur.... Dicti autem epodi συνεκδοχικῶς a partibus versuum,
quae legitimis et integris versibus ἐπᾴδονται, i.e. accinuntur: Diomedes. Though the term
epode includes all kinds of metre (except elegiac) in which a long and a
short line are combined, it is used especially of the alternation of the
iambic trimeter and dimeter (Hor. Epod. 1-10). Horace himself (who has
only one poem—Epod. 17—in iambic trimeter by itself)
includes all his Epodes under the head of iambi: Epod. 14, 7: Ep. i. 19,
23-25 Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Latio numeros animosque secutus
Archilochi: cp. Car. i. 16, 3, and esp. 23-25 me quoque pectoris
Tentavit in dulci iuventa Fervor et in celeres iambos Misit furentem. In
Ep. ii. 2, 59 he divides his poetry into _carmina_—Odes:
_iambi_—Epodes: and ‘_Bionei sermones_’—Satires.
Of course it was not Horace who introduced the epode into the
Archilochean iambics: the form was invented and used by Archilochus
himself. See Bernhardy, p. 601.

legi dignus: a poetical constr., which passed into the prose
of the Silver Age: cp. Plin. Paneg. vii. 4 dignus alter eligi alter
eligere. See Crit. Notes.

varius figuris: cp. §68
sententiis densus.

verbis felicissime audax: cp. Hor. A. P. 46 sq.: In
verbis etiam tenuis cautusque serendis, hoc amet, hoc spernat promissi
carminis auctor. Dixeris egregie notum si callida verbum Reddiderit
iunctura novum,—where Orelli gives, as instances of _callida
iunctura_ in Horace himself, the well-known phrases ‘splendide
mendax,’ ‘insanientis sapientiae consultus,’ ‘animae magnae prodigus.’
Cp. Petron. Sat. 118 Horatii curiosa felicitas. Ovid pronounces his
eulogy in Trist. iv. 10, 49 Tenuit nostras numerosus Horatius aures, Dum
ferit Ausonia carmina culta lyra.

Caesius Bassus: mentioned by Ovid in the lines immediately
preceding the passage just quoted, ll. 47-8: Ponticus Heroo, Bassus
quoque clarus Iambo, Dulcia convictus membra fuere mei. He was the
friend of Persius, who addresses his sixth Satire to him: and at the
request of Cornutus he edited the whole six, after they had been
prepared for publication by the latter. He is said to have perished in
the eruption of Vesuvius (A.D. 79),
which was fatal also to the elder Pliny. He is probably the Bassus who
wrote a treatise on metres, which still exists in an interpolated
epitome: Keil. Gram. Lat. vi. 305 sq.—For _vidimus_,
‘amisimus’ and ‘perdidimus’ have been needlessly suggested.

ingenia viventium: cp. sunt clari hodieque §94 above. It is only in favour of Domitian §91 that Quint. breaks his rule not to mention living
writers. Hild suspects Quint. of a little ‘log-rolling’ in these
compliments.


 
I:97
Tragoediae scriptores veterum Attius atque Pacuvius
clarissimi
95
gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum.
96
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.

§ 97.
Tragoediae scriptores. Quint. did not consider it necessary for
his purpose to take any account of the first beginnings of tragedy,
otherwise he would have mentioned Livius Andronicus (284-204), Naevius
(235), and Ennius himself, who was probably almost as great in tragedy
as in narrative poetry. It was
95
Ennius who first impressed on Roman tragedy the deeply moral and highly
didactic character which it bore down to the age of Cicero. He made it
his endeavour to hold up patterns of heroic virtue to his audience and
to inspire them with right ideas of life. Even his adaptations from the
Greek (nearly half of the extant names of his tragedies suggest subjects
taken from the Trojan cycle) are fired with the truly national spirit
which he succeeded in handing on to his successors, Attius and Pacuvius.
Ennius also wrote some _praetextatae_ (i.e. national tragedies on
historic subjects of poetic interest, e.g. the Rape of the Sabine
Women); and in view of this fact it may appear strange that his example
was not more widely followed, so that these national dramas should have
outlived the hackneyed subjects drawn from Greek legend. The reason
probably is that there was too much party life in Rome to make the
dramatic treatment of the national history equally acceptable to all.
Few incidents could have been dramatised that would not have excited
various feelings in the hearts of an audience, say, in the times of the
Gracchi. Under the Empire the free treatment of the national history for
dramatic purposes was positively discouraged, and under the Republic the
Senate had exercised almost as severe a political censorship as the
Emperor did in later times.

From many points of view it might have been expected that tragedy
would have found a congenial home at Rome. There was much in the
national character, history, and institutions that was favourable to its
growth. The speculative element and the deep spiritual interest which
pervades Greek tragedy must no doubt have been absent; though Schlegel
thought that the place of Nemesis could naturally have been taken by the
idea of Religio, in so far as it comprehended the subordination of the
individual to the State, and his supreme self-surrender. But tragedy
flourished at Rome only during a comparatively short period: the
populace probably failed to rise to the demands made on them by its
lofty and serious purpose. Their tastes became more and more estranged
from it, as gladiatorial and spectacular shows grew in favour; and
appreciation of the drama came to be the proof of the culture of a small
and exclusive class. But the popularity which it enjoyed for a time must
have been due to the fact that, though the subjects were generally
adapted from the Greek, Roman tragedy came to have a character of its
own. It appealed to the ethical and political sympathies of the
audience, and satisfied that taste for rhetoric which led afterwards to
the development of Latin oratory. There may have been about it no subtle
analysis of character, no lofty delineation of the action and passion of
men entangled in the meshes of a destiny which they could neither
understand nor unravel; but it seems to have embodied all the manly
feeling and moral dignity of which the nation was capable. By its
vigorous rhetoric it may be said at least to have helped to develop the
language for use in those departments in which it achieved so great
success, i.e. oratory, history, and philosophical composition. And when
under the Empire literature had become altogether divorced from
practical life, the composition of tragedies was still a favourite
practice with many (e.g. Seneca) who recognised in that pursuit an
appropriate sphere for the rhetorical style which was then so much in
vogue.

Attius L., (170-about 90 B.C.) should have come after Pacuvius, as being
fifteen years younger. He produced his first play in conjunction with
Pacuvius, cir. 140. We have the titles of about fifty of his dramas, and
the fragments extant contain some 700 verses. He seems to have had
pretty much the same qualities as Ennius and Pacuvius, manly seriousness
of style combined with fervour of spirit. Cicero, who is said to have
conversed with him in his boyhood, and others, bear witness to his
oratorical force, his gravity, and passionate energy: pro Plancio, §59
gravis et ingeniosus poeta: pro Sest. §120 summus poeta: Ovid, Am. i.
15, 19 animosi Attius oris: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 55-6 Ambigitur quotiens uter
utro sit prior, aufert Pacuvius docti famam senis, Accius alti. Sellar’s
Rom. Poets, pp. 146-7. Quintilian gives a shrewd answer of his (v.
13, 43): aiunt Attium interrogatum cur causas non ageret, cum apud eum
in tragoediis tanta vis esset optime respondendi, hanc reddidisse
rationem: quod illic ea dicerentur quae ipse vellet, in foro dicturi
adversarii essent quae minime vellet.

Pacuvius, M. (220-132), the son of Ennius’s sister. Of
provincial birth (his birth-place was Brundisium), he could
96
not, according to Cicero, boast the pure Latinity which was the pride of
Naevius and Plautus: Brut. §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos
videmus. But in Orat. §36 an imaginary opinion is given as
follows:—omnes apud hunc ornati elaboratique versus, multa apud
alterum (Ennium) neglegentius. Martial (xi. 90), addressing a
wrong-headed admirer of the old poets, jeers at him for delighting in
archaisms,—Attonitusque legis terrai frugiferai Attius et quidquid
Pacuviusque vomunt. We have about 400 lines extant, which are discussed
in Sellar’s Roman Poets, and also by Ribbeck (Römische Tragödie,
pp. 216-339). The epithet _doctus_, in the use of which Horace
and Quintilian agree, probably refers to his wide acquaintance with
Greek literature: see below.

clarissimi: see Crit.
Notes.

nitor: v. on §79: and cp. §§33, 83, 98, 113: §124 cultus ac nitor.

summa manus: Cic. Brut. §126 manus extrema (the ‘finishing
touch’) non accessit operibus eius: Cp. i. pr. §4 quasi perfectis omni
alio genere doctrinae summam inde eloquentiae manum imponerent. See on
§21.

magis ... temporibus: but see Cicero, Brut. l.c. Aetatis
illius ista fuit laus, tamquam innocentiae, sic latine loquendi ...
omnes tum fere ... recte loquebantur.

virium Attio: cp. Ovid’s ‘animosi oris,’ quoted above: Vell.
Paterc. ii. §9 adeo quidem ut in illis limae in hoc paene plus videatur
fuisse sanguinis. Persius is less complimentary, Brisaei ... venosus
liber Acci (1, 76), the ‘shrivelled volume of the old Bacchanal
Accius.’—Quintilian is here only recording current literary
opinion: but such references as those at i. 5, 67: 7, 14: 8, 11: v. 10,
84: 13, 43 go far to prove independent knowledge.

doctiorem: cp. Horace’s ‘docti famam senis,’ quoted above.

esse docti adfectant: for the constr. cp. §72 meruit credi secundus: Introd. p. lvi. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 9, 7
noris nos, inquit, docti sumus, where Professor Wilkins remarks: “The
epithet of _doctus_ was especially assumed by those who were versed
in Greek literature and mythology, especially the products of the
Alexandrine school.” It aptly characterises the artificial tendencies of
the literature of the Empire.

Iam—a formula of transition. Kr.3 suggests
Nam: see on §12.


 
I:98
Iam Vari Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest.
Ovidi Medea videtur mihi ostendere quantum ille vir praestare
potuerit si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere
97
maluisset. Eorum quos viderim longe princeps Pomponius
Secundus, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac
nitore praestare confitebantur.

§ 98.
L. Varius Rufus (64 B.C.-9
A.D.), the friend of Vergil and Horace
(Hor. Sat. i. 5, 40: 6, 55), enjoyed a high reputation as an epic
poet before he took up tragedy. Macrobius (vi. 1, 39 sq.: i. 2, 19 sq.)
gives twelve hexameters of his from an epic poem on Caesar’s death:
hence Hor. Sat. i. 10, 51 forte epos acer ut nemo Varius ducit. From a
Panegyricus Augusti Horace is said to have borrowed the verses which
occur Ep. i. 16, 27-29. Cp. the ode addressed to Agrippa (i. 6)
Scriberis Vario ... Maeonii carminis alite. He is mentioned as an epic
poet together with Vergil, Ep. ii. 1, 147: A. P. 55. His tragedy
Thyestes was performed at the games after the battle of Actium (B.C. 29). Cp. Tac. Dial. 12 Nec ullus Asinii
aut Messallae liber tam illustris est quam Medea Ovidii aut Varii
Thyestes: Philargyr. on Verg. Ecl. viii. 10 Varium cuius exstat Thyestes
tragoedia, omnibus tragicis praeferenda. A quotation from it is
given iii. 8, 45. He edited the Aeneid after Vergil’s death, along
with Plotius and Tucca: probably prefixing the biographical sketch from
which Quintilian quotes x.
3, 8.

Graecarum, sc. fabularum.

Medea: a quotation from it is given viii. 5, 6 servare potui:
perdere an possim rogas?

quantum potuerit ... si maluisset: cp. §62. The use of the perf. subj. in such a sentence
corresponds to the use of the pf. ind. in _oratio recta_ with verbs
implying possibility, duty, right, &c., as if to express the idea
more unconditionally: e.g. deleri totus exercitus potuit si fugientes
persecuti victores essent (Livy xxxii. 12), So Ventum erat eo ut si
hostem similem antiquis Macedonum regibus habuisset consul magna clades
accipi potuerit (Livy xliv. 4). Roby, 1568.

ingenio imperare: cp. nimium amator ingenii sui §88.

97
quos viderim, §118. The subj.
seems to be used here on the analogy of the _qui_ of restriction
and limitation (Roby 1692): omnium quidem oratorum, quos quidem ego
cognoverim, acutissimum iudico Q. Sertorium Brut. §48: cp. §65. The indic. is also used: in iis etiam quos
ipsi vidimus xii. 10, 11.

Pomponius Secundus underwent an imprisonment of several years’
duration on account of his friendship with Aelius Gallus, son of
Sejanus: Tac. Ann. v. 8 multa morum elegantia et ingenio illustri: ibid.
xi. 13: xii. 28, where we are told that he obtained a triumph under
Claudius,—modica pars famae eius apud postero, in quis carminum
gloria praecellit: Dial. xiii, ne nostris quidem temporibus Secundus
Pomponius Afro Domitio vel dignitate vitae vel perpetuitate famae
cesserit. One of his plays was called ‘Aeneas.’ He died 60 A.D.

parum tragicum: contrast Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 166 Nam spirat
tragicum satis et feliciter audet. See Crit. Notes.


 
I:99
In comoedia maxime claudicamus. Licet Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis
sententia,
98
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
99
genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura gratiae si intra versus
trimetros stetissent),

§ 99.
maxime claudicamus. No doubt this dictum must be taken as
implying that ‘the educated taste of Romans under the Empire did not
find much that was congenial in the works of Plautus, Caecilius, or
Terence’ (Sellar, R. P. p. 154). But Quintilian must also have
been biassed by a comparison with Greek Comedy, of the superiority of
which we can have only an imperfect appreciation, owing to the
scantiness of the survivals; while in depreciating Roman Comedy, as
compared with Tragedy, he also had the advantage over us of a full
acquaintance with the whole range of the latter. Moreover, it was
Satire, not Comedy, that represented at Rome much of the spirit of the
old Comedy of Athens. Horace, too, is more severe on Plautus than on
Ennius and the tragic poets (Ep. ii. 1, 170: A. P. 270 sq.). Again,
in Quintilian’s day the Mimus had so completely re-asserted its position
that the production of comedies seems to have almost entirely ceased.
“Comedy was not congenial to the educated or the uneducated taste of
Romans in the last years of the Republic, and in the early Empire. But,
on the other hand, the popularity enjoyed by the old comedy between the
time of Naevius and of Terence, and even down to the earlier half of the
Ciceronian age, when some of the great parts in Plautus continued to be
performed by the ‘accomplished Roscius,’ and the admiration expressed
for its authors by grammarians and critics, from Aelius Stilo down to
Varro and Cicero, shows its adaptation to an earlier and not less
vigorous, if less refined stage of intellectual development; while the
actual survival of many Roman comedies can only be accounted for by a
more real adaptation to human nature, both in style and substance, than
was attained by Roman tragedy in its straining after a higher ideal of
sentiment and expression.” Sellar, Roman Poets l.c.

Musas. To this Muretus added ‘Ne illae saepe, si Plautino more
loquerentur, meretricio magis quam virginali more loquerentur.’ For the
epigram cp. Plato on Aristophanes Αἱ χάριτες τέμενός τι λαβεῖν ὅπερ οὐχὶ πεσεῖται Διζόμεναι
ψυχὴν εὗρον Ἀριστοφάνους.

Aeli Stilonis, the first Roman philologist (144-70 B.C.). His name was L. Aelius Praeconinus: he
received the additional cognomen Stilo on the ground of his literary
eminence. Suet, de Gramm. 2 Aelius cognomine duplici fuit; nam et
Praeconinus, quod pater eius praeconium fecerat, vocabatur, et Stilo,
quod orationes nobilissimo cuique scribere solebat. Cp. Cic. Brut. §205
scribebat tamen orationes quas alii dicerent: and above, fuit is omnino
vir egregius et eques Romanus cum primis honestus idemque eruditissimus
et Graecis litteris et Latinis, antiquitatisque nostrae et in inventis
rebus et in actis scriptorumque veterum litterate peritus. Quam
scientiam Varro noster acceptam ab illo auctamque per sese ... pluribus
et illustrioribus litteris explicavit. Varro ap. Gell. N. A. i. 18,
2 L. Aelius noster, litteris ornatissimus memoria nostra: and
L. L. vii. 2 homo in primis in litteris latinis exercitatus. Varro
was his pupil; and we are told by Gellius (iii. 3, 1) that both
master and pupil made lists of the plays of Plautus, Varro
distinguishing his classes according to his personal feeling and
judgment as to whether a play was worthy of Plautus or not. Cicero tells
98
us (l.c.) that in his youth he was a very diligent student under Aelius;
and as Lucilius addressed some of his satires to him he may be looked on
as a bond of connection between the two epochs.

sententia: abl. by itself, after the analogy of _mea_,
_tua_, _sententia_. Varro took the criticism from his
master.

vellent: the possibility is looked upon as still present.

Plautino sermone. Plautus (254-184) fills a very distinct
place in the development of Latin comedy. He engrafted the festive
traditions of the Italian farce on the literary form which he borrowed
from Greece, producing a picture of Roman life and manners which secured
for his dramas a degree of popularity that caused them to be represented
almost uninterruptedly down even to the fourth century of our era.
Modern comedy is under deep obligations to him if only for his spirit of
unrestrained fun. See Bernhardy, p. 452 sq.: Teuffel §§84-88:
Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 43-48: and Sellar’s Roman Poets,
p. 189 sq.

Caecilius, Statius (219-166), an Insubrian Gaul by birth, and
contemporary with Ennius. Fragments of his plays are preserved by
Gellius, who tells us (xv. 24) that Volcatius Sedigitus (a critic
who probably belonged to the earlier part of the first
century,—Ritschl, Parerga, p. 240 sq.) placed him at the head
of all the Roman comic poets: Caecilio palmam statuo dandam comico,
Plautus secundus facile exsuperat ceteros. The three next are Naevius,
Licinius, and Atilius; Terence comes only sixth on the list. Cicero
inclines to the same verdict: de Opt. Gen. Orat. §1 itaque licet dicere
et Ennium summum epicum poetam, si cui ita videtur: et Pacuvium
tragicum: et Caecilium fortasse comicum. But elsewhere he censures his
provincial style: Brutus, §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos
videmus: ad. Att. vii. 3, 10 malus enim auctor Latinitatis est. For
other quotations v. de Orat. ii §40: Lael. 99: de Sen. 96: de Fin.
i. 4. Nonius (p. 374) quotes Varro as saying In argumentis
Caecilius poscit palmam, in ethesi Terentius, in sermonibus Plautus.
Horace’s criticism (Ep. ii. 1, 57) is still more familiar: Dicitur
Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare
Epicharmi, Vincere Caecilius gravitate, Terentius arte. By
_gravitas_ Horace probably means the sententious maxims for which
he was distinguished (Sellar, p. 202). See Mommsen, ii. 441.
Caecilius imitated Menander mainly, to whom Gellius compares him (ii.
23), while admitting the superiority of his Greek model. He is said
neither to have amused his audience, like Plautus, by confounding Greek
and Roman terms, manners, and customs, &c., nor like Terence, on the
other hand, to have carefully excised everything that did not accord
with Roman usage. He is said also to have recognised the division of
tastes and interests that was now springing up at Rome, and to have
begun to address only the higher classes, to whom Plautus had appealed
along with ‘the gallery.’

laudibus ferant, for the Ciceronian _efferant_: Tac. Ann.
ii. 13. Cp. Introd. p. l.

Terentii scripta ... elegantissima. The gap between the
classes at Rome, alluded to above, had widened in the interval that
separates Plautus from Terence (cir. 194-159 B.C.). The educated class was growing more refined
and fastidious under the leavening influence of Greek culture, while the
uneducated section of the people was gradually becoming coarser and more
debased. A leading member of the Scipionic circle, he may be said
to have begun the movement by which the creations of the genius of Rome
became more perfect as works of art addressed to a smaller circle of men
of rank and education, but lost also something of directness of purpose
as having less bearing on the passions and interests of the time. The
growing appreciation of Greek literature had produced a sense of
dissatisfaction with the uncouth efforts of a previous age; and elegance
of style, the cultivation of refinement and taste in thought and
language, were the objects now aimed at. There is distinctly less of the
drollery of the tavern about Terence than about Plautus. The ‘art’ with
which Horace credits him (v. above) is seen in the careful finish of his
style. Cp. Caesar’s lines, quoted by Sueton. Vit. Terent., in which he
calls him _puri sermonis amator_, and _dimidiate Menander_.
See Sellar, p. 208 sq.: Mommsen, vol. iii. p. 449 sq.

ad Scipionem Africanum. Cp. Sueton. Vit. Ter. (Roth.
p. 293) non obscura fama
99
est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione, eamque ipse
auxit nunquam nisi leviter refutare conatus, ut in prologo Adelphorum:
Nam quod isti dicunt malevoli, homines nobiles Hunc adiutare adsidueque
una scribere, &c. The rumour may have arisen from the fact of his
Carthaginian origin, which renders all the more remarkable the success
with which he cultivated a refined and elegant style.

plus adhuc = etiam plus: see on §71.

habitura. For this use of the fut. part, in a conditional
sentence cp. xi. 1, 74 detracturus alioqui plurimum auctoritatis sibi si
eum se esse qui temere nocentes reos susciperet fateretur. So too §119 below (without a _si_ clause):
pronuntiatio vel scaenis suffectura.

intra versus trimetros. This is a curious criticism, but it
can be paralleled from Priscian, de Metris Terentii: quosdam vel
abnegare esse in Terentii comoediis metra, vel ea quasi arcana quaedam
et ab omnibus doctis semota sibi solis esse cognita confirmare. The
vagaries of comic prosody were certainly not appreciated by ancient
critics: they could not excuse what to them seemed carelessness and
undue freedom from constraint: cp. Cicero, Orat. §184 at comicorum
senarii propter similitudinem sermonis sic saepe sunt abiecti ut
nonnunquam vix in eis numerus et versus intellegi possit. Quintilian and
others would no doubt have preferred a stricter imitation of Menander’s
versification. Horace himself took the same point of view in writing
about Plautus, Ep. ii. 1, 272 si modo ego et vos ... legitimumque sonum
digitis callemus et aure. Cp. Bernhardy, 325 n. and 350 n.


 
I: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.
100
§ 100.
vix levem ... umbram: a proverbial expression, from the same
disparaging point of view as _claudicamus_, above.

alio genere linguae suae, i.e. another dialect. The charm
referred to is the peculiar property of Attic writers
generally,—not the comic poets alone. Latin is too formal and
rhetorical to fall into the simple naturalness and directness of Attic
Greek. For _suae_ see Crit.
Notes.

Togatis, sc. fabulis. The _Comoediae Togatae_ (though
founded on Greek models) aspired to be thoroughly national in dress,
manners, and tone: quae scriptae sunt secundum ritus et habitum
togatorum, i.e. Romanorum (Diom. iii. p. 489). On the other hand,
in the _Palliatae_ of Plautus, Caecilius and Terence (so called
from _pallium_, the Greek actor’s cloak, xi. 3, 143), all the
surroundings are meant to be Greek, though much of the fun of the
Plautine comedy is the result of the inconsistencies that sprang from
the introduction into Greek circumstances of Roman names, scenes,
manners, and characters.

Afranius, fl. cir. 150 B.C.
He was the chief writer of _togatae_, and began to aim at getting
rid altogether of Greek surroundings: and so comedy, descending into the
low humours of Italian country life, and specially the debaucheries of
the Italian towns, rapidly degenerated into farce. He borrowed freely
from Menander: dicitur Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Hor. Ep. ii. 1,
57,—‘Menander’s speeches came very well from the characters of
Afranius.’ Cic. de Fin. i. 3, 7. But he did not confine his
attentions to Menander only: Macrob. Sat. vi. 1, 4 Afranius togatarum
scriptor ... non inverecunde respondens arguentibus quod plura
sumpsisset a Menandro, ‘Fateor,’ inquit, ‘sumpsi non ab illo modo sed ut
quisque habuit conveniret quod mihi, quodque me non melius facere
credidi, etiam a Latino.’ Cicero, Brut. §167 L. Afranius poeta,
homo perargutus, in fabulis quidem etiam, ut scitis, disertus.

utinam non, i. 2, 6: ix. 3, 1: more usually _utinam ne_:
Cic. ad Fam. 5, 17 illud utinam ne vere scriberem: Catull. 64, 171.
Krüger (3rd ed.) cites however Cic. ad Att. xi. 9, 3 haec ad te die
natali meo scripsi: quo utinam susceptus non essem aut ne quid ex eadem
matre postea natum esset.

foedis amoribus: cp. Auson. Epigr.
100
71 vitiosa libido ... quam toga facundi scenis agitavit Afrani.


 
I: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:
101
ita quae dicuntur omnia cum rebus, tum personis accommodata sunt:
adfectus quidem praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime
dicam, nemo historicorum commendavit magis.

§ 101.
cesserit. So §85 auspicatissimum
dederit exordium: cp. cesserimus §86. There
is no need for Halm’s suggestion _in historia cesserimus_: or
Spalding’s _cesserim_ with _historia_ in abl. Cp. Cicero, de
Legg. i. 2, 5 ut in hoc etiam genere Graeciae nihil cedamus, and the
whole passage.

Sallustium. This is a bold statement. Sallust evidently
accepted Thucydides as his literary model, imitating his style, and
following him in his speeches and the general arrangement of his work.
(Capes’ Sallust: Introd. p. 13 sq.). Brevity (cp. illa Sallustiana
brevitas §32) is a conspicuous feature in
both: but the brevity of Thucydides is greatly the result of inability
to keep pace with the rush of thought, whereas that of Sallust is often
laboured and artificial, and is attained by conscious processes of
excision and compression. Cp. iv. 2, 45 vitanda est etiam illa
Sallustiana (quamquam in ipso virtutis obtinet locum) brevitas et
abruptum sermonis genus: Seneca, Ep. 114, 17 Sallustio vigente amputatae
sententiae et verba ante exspectatum cadentia et obscura brevitas fuere
pro cultu: Aul. Gell. iii. 1, 6 Sallustium subtilissimum brevitatis
artificem. His Grecisms are referred to by Quint. ix. 3, 17 ex Graeco
vero translata vel Sallustii plurima. According to Suetonius (Gramm. 10
extr.) Ateius exhorted Asinius Pollio (ut) vitet maxime obscuritatem
Sallustii et audaciam in translationibus. For the high esteem in which
he was held in antiquity cp. Velleius ii. 36, 2 aemulum Thucydidi
Sallustium: Tacitus, Ann. iii. 30 rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor:
Martial xiv. 191 primus Romana Crispus in historia. See Teuffel
§§203-205. In modern times Milton exalted him above Tacitus, saying of
the latter that ‘his highest praise consists in his having imitated
Sallust with all his might.’ On the other hand Scaliger spoke of
Sallust’s style as ‘anxium atque insiticium dicendi genus.’

Titum Livium. Quintilian’s estimate of Livy is very happily
expressed so far as it goes. He ignores of course the defects which are
obvious to modern students of Livy,—his want of that historic
sense which shows itself in ability to trace the gradual development of
institutions and to take a philosophic view of general political and
social conditions, his indifference to the scrupulous collation and
weighing of evidence, and his neglect of chronological and geographical
precision. Munro in his ‘Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus’ speaks
of Livy’s style as the greatest prose style that has ever been written
in any age or language, and certainly it has all the beauties which
Quintilian mentions here: besides, the happy adaptation of the language
to the ever-varying phases of the subject is one of its greatest charms.
Teuffel, §251 sq. The best proof of Livy’s popularity in ancient times
may be found in the story of the man from Gades, Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 8
Nunquamne legisti Gaditanum quendam Titi Livi nomine gloriaque commotum
ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse statimque ut viderat
abisse?

narrando ... contionibus. This antithesis is common in
Dionysius: διηγήσεσιν ... δημηγορίαις (ad Pomp.
p. 776 R, Us. pp. 58-9) τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέρος ... τὸ
δημηγορικόν (Iud. de Thucyd.) p. 952 R.

candoris, ‘transparency’: ii. 5, 19 candidissimum quemque et
maxime expositum velim, ut Livium a pueris magis quam Sallustium: etsi
hic historiae maior est auctor, ad quem tamen intellegendum iam profectu
opus sit: §32 lactea ubertas. Cp. dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus
§73, where see note: §113 nitidus et candidus.—In a different
sense, Seneca, Suas. vi. 22, ut est natura candidissimus omnium magnorum
ingeniorum aestimator T. Livius.

contionibus. The speeches are introduced in order to give a
portrait of some one (xlv. 25, 3), or to indicate motives (viii. 7:
iii. 47, 5). Though they make no claim to historical truth (in hanc
sententiam locutum accipio iii. 67, 1), they generally give a
trustworthy picture of the circumstances and character of the speaker:
cp. e.g. vii. 34. In some instances we can see how Livy rhetorically
101
enlarges on the brief hints of a predecessor: cp. Polyb. iii. 64 with
Liv. xxi. 40 sq. Teuffel §252, 12.

supra quam: cp. Sall. Cat. 5, 3 supra quam cuiquam credibile
est: Iug. 24, 5: Cicero, Orator §139 saepe supra feret quam fieri posset
(cp. de Nat. Deor. ii. §136). Quintilian has _inenarrabilis_ xi. 3,
177, which occurs also in Livy xliv. 5, 1: xli. 15, 2.

eloquentem: viii. 1, 3 Tito Livio, mirae facundiae viro: Tac.
Agr. 10 Livius veterum Fabius Rusticus recentium eloquentissimi
auctores: Ann. iv. 34 T. Livius eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in
primis: Seneca, de Ira i. 20, 6 apud disertissimum virum Livium.

adfectus: §48 adfectus quidem,
vel illos mites vel hos concitatos: ‘the softer passions.’

parcissime: cp. below, 4 §4 qui parcissime: xi. 1, 66:
3, 100.

commendavit magis: ‘has set in a fairer light,’ ‘represented
more perfectly’ (‘hat angemessen und eindringlich
dargestellt.’—Bonnell-Meister). Spalding felt a difficulty about
this word, but rightly suggested that it means ‘approbavit suis
lectoribus,’—a meaning to which _ut parcissime dicam_ is
quite appropriate. The nearest parallel is iv. 1, 13 Nam tum dignitas
eius (litigatoris) adlegatur, tum commendatur infirmitas (‘set in a
_strong_ light,’ ‘made much of’),—where too the verb is used
absolutely, without a dative. The usual construction is found v. 11, 38
misericordiam commendabo iudici. In the sense of ‘set off’
(_ornare_), without a dat., we have quae memoria complecteretur
actio commendaret viii. Prooem. 6: quaedam ... virtus haec sola
commendat ix. 4, 13: hoc oratio recta, illud figura declinata commendat
x. 5, 8.—For the
reading _commodavit_ see Crit. Notes.


 
I: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
102
nobis auditus est clarus vi ingenii et sententiis creber, sed minus
pressus quam historiae auctoritas postulat.

§ 102.
immortalem: so §86, where it is more
appropriate.

velocitatem: ‘rapid brevity.’ It is the quality which
Dionysius denotes by τὸ τάχος τῆς ἀπαγγελίας p. 870 R. Cp. Hor.
Sat i. 10, 9 Est brevitate opus ut currat sententia,—quoted on §73 brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides,
where see note. Arist. Rhet. iii. 16, 4 ταχεῖαν διήγησιν. So _celeritas_ xii.
10, 65 hanc vim et celeritatem in Pericle miratur Eupolis: Eupolis
having said of Pericles ταχὺς λέγειν μέν, πρὸς δέ γ᾽
αὐτῷ τῷ τάχει πειθώ τις (Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 535).

consecutus est, lit. = ‘equalled in point of fame’: the real
object is not _velocitatem_, so that the idea is awkwardly
expressed. Quintilian means that by other good points (cp. §73 diversis virtutibus) Livy obtained a degree of
fame not inferior to what Sallust gained by his ‘velocitas.’ It is in
fact a brachyology for ‘immortalitatem illius Sallustianae velocitatis.’
Cp. Cic. Phil. xiv. 35 parem virtutis gloriam consecuta est (legio):
Quint. iii. 7, 9 quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti. See Crit.
Notes.

Servilius Nonianus. In mentioning his death (A.D. 60) along with that of Domitius Afer (§86), Tacitus says that he rivalled the latter’s
abilities and surpassed his morals:—summis honoribus et multa
eloquentia viguerant, ille orando causas, Servilius diu foro, mox
tradendis rebus Romanis celebris et elegantia vitae, quam clariorem
effecit, ut par ingenio, ita morum diversus. Cp. Dial. ch. 23 eloquentia
... Servilii Noniani. Like most of the Roman historians, except Livy, he
was a man of affairs. Pliny, N. H. xxviii. 2, 5 princeps civitatis.
He was the friend—possibly at one time the teacher—of the
satirist Persius, who is said to have reverenced him as a father (coluit
ut patrem). Pliny tells us (Ep. i. 13, 3) how Claudius, on hearing
the thunders of applause that greeted his recitations, entered the
building and seated himself unobserved among the audience: memoria
parentura Claudium Caesarem ferunt, cum in palatio spatiaretur
andissetque clamorem, causam requisisse, cumque dictum esset recitare
Nonianum, subitum recitanti inopinantique venisse.

et ipse. Quintilian had not only read his works, but had heard
him: he
102
would be between twenty and twenty-five when Servilius died.—For
_et ipse_ see on §31.

clarus vi ingenii: see Crit. Notes.

sententiis creber; cp. §68
sententiis densus. For _sententiis_ (γνώμαις) cp. §60 §61: 2 §17. He was full of point and
matter, but not concise enongh for the dignity of history. For
_pressus_ v. §44.


 
I: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.

§ 103.
Bassus Aufidius. Tacitus mentions him along with Servilius
Nonianus, Dial. 23, where he speaks of antiquarians ‘quibus eloquentia
Aufidii Bassi aut Servilii Noniani ex comparatione Sisennae aut Varronis
sordet.’ Seneca gives some account of him in his thirtieth letter: §1
Bassum Aufidium, virum optimum, vidi quassum, aetati obluctantem: §3
Bassus tamen noster alacer animo est. hoc philosophia praestat. Cp. §§5,
10, 14. His history probably ended with the reign of Claudius, at which
point Pliny the elder took it up: N. H. praef. 20 diximus ...
temporum nostrorum historiam, orsi a fine Aufidii Bassi. The ‘libri
Belli Germanici’ may have been an independent work.—The practice
of placing the cognomen before the gentile name grew under the Empire:
many instances are found even in Cicero’s letters, but not in the
ordinary prose of the Republic; cp. §86,
and Introd. p. lv.

genere ipso = ‘gerade durch den Stil’ (Kiderlin)—as
being suitable to _historiae auctoritas_. Quintilian often uses
_genus_ in this sense (without dicendi): often with an adj. like
_rectum_, but often also without, e.g. x. 2, 18 noveram quosdam &c.: 2 §23 uni alicui generi.
For the reading, see Crit.
Notes.—From the specimens (on the death of Cicero) given by
Seneca the rhetorician (Suas. vi. 18 and 23), we should infer that the
style of Bassus was rather affected and pretentious.


 
I:104
Superest adhuc et exornat
103
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.

§ 104.
Superest. The fact that Cremutius put an end to his life in A.D. 25 is sufficient to disprove the theory
that he is referred to here: _superest_ when taken along with
_exornat aetatis nostrae gloriam_ cannot mean anything but
_superstes est_ (cp. supersunt 2 §28).—The
Bonnell-Meister edition (1882) understands the reference to be to
Tacitus: but though admirers of Tacitus would like to appropriate for
him the phrase _vir saeculorum memoria dignus_, this can hardly be
accepted. In the first place the words _superest adhuc_ are, in
their natural sense, inapplicable to one who had not published anything
when Quintilian wrote (about 93 A.D.).
He has just spoken of Servilius, who is known to have died in A.D. 60, and of Aufidius, who was old and
frail in Seneca’s life-time, i.e. before A.D. 65: and though it may be proposed to take
_superest adhuc_ as meaning simply ‘I have still to refer to
(a living writer),’ (cp. _supersunt_ §123), in which sense the words might apply to
Tacitus, it seems extremely improbable that after speaking of a youthful
contemporary, Quintilian would in the next sentence return to Cremutius,
who died as far back as A.D. 25. It
might be argued that the point of the passage is that, after this
indirect eulogy of Tacitus, the writer means to imply that the spirit of
Cremutius still survives in him: ‘there is with us now one who will
afterwards be famous but of whom we may not speak at present. The
independence of Cremutius is still appreciated.’ But _habet
amatores_ will hardly cover this interpretation: it introduces a
critique of Cremutius which has no relation to what goes before. And
moreover it is doubtful whether Quintilian, who never mentions any
living writer, except Domitian, would have hazarded a reference to one
whose anti-imperial tendencies must have been so well known in Rome.
Krüger’s supposition (3rd ed. p. 97) that after _adhuc_ the
name _Tacitus_ has fallen out, or that we should write ‘superest
Tacitus et ornat,’ is altogether out of the question: it would quite
destroy the point of the sentence (nominabitur ... intellegitur). It
seems safest, therefore, to follow those who with Nipperdey (Philol. vi.
p. 193) understand the historian here meant to be Fabius Rusticus.
It would have been strange if Quintilian had omitted to mention him,
considering his eminence: Livius veterum, Fabius Rusticus recentium
eloquentissimi
103
auctores, Tac. Agr. 10. And what he says fits Fabius very well; he was
an intimate friend of Seneca (Tac. Ann. xiii. 20 sane Fabius inclinat ad
laudes Senecae cuius amicitia floruit), and from the fact that he was
made co-heir with Tacitus and Pliny in the will of Dasumius we know that
he was still alive 108 or 109 A.D.
Mommsen thinks that to him also is addressed Pliny, Ep. ix. 29.

vir saeculorum memoria dignus: Cp. §80: iii. 7, 18 ingeniorum monumenta, quae saeculis
probarentur: xi. 1, 13 perpetua saeculorum admiratione celebrantur.

olim, of future time, as §94. The
writer referred to will come actually to enjoy the renown of which
Quint. here declares him worthy.

nunc intellegitur. For Quint.’s rule not to mention living
writers cp. iii. 1, 21, quoted at §95; and
for the antithesis between _nominabitur_ and _intellegitur_,
xi. 1, 10 maluit emim vir sapientissimus (Socrates) quod superesset ex
vita sibi perire quam quod praeterisset. Et quando ab hominibus sui
temporis parum intellegebatur, posterorum se iudiciis reservavit brevi
detrimento iam ultimae senectutis aevum saeculorum omnium
consecutus.

Cremuti libertas: παρρησία, §65, §94. Cremutius Cordus published a history of the
Civil Wars and of the reign of Augustus—unius saeculi facta, Sen.
Cons. ad Marc. 26, 5. Augustus is said to have read the work, or to
have heard it read, without disapproval (Dion. 57, 24, 2; Sueton. Tib.
61). He afterwards incurred the displeasure of Sejanus by some bold
remarks, as, for example, when he said in regard to the statue of
Sejanus which he was told the Senate had resolved to erect in Pompey’s
theatre, restored by Tiberius after a fire, ‘tunc vere theatrum
perire’—Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 22, 4. In A.D. 25 he was brought to trial ‘novo ac tunc primum
audito crimine, quod editis annalibus laudatoque M. Bruto
C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset’ (Tac. Ann. iv. 34 sq.).
Finding his case prejudged, after a spirited defence he went home and
starved himself to death. The Senate ordered his books to be burned:
‘sed manserunt,’ says Tacitus, ‘occultati et editi.’ Dion. tells us that
‘afterwards (i.e. under Caligula) they were published again, for they
had been preserved by various people, and particularly by his daughter
Marcia; and they were esteemed much more highly on account of the fate
of Cordus’ (lvii. 24). For Marcia v. Senecae Consolatio ad Marciam
c. 1. Suet. Calig. 16 tells us that the suppressed writings of
others also (Titus Labienus and Cassius Severus) were allowed by
Caligula to come again into circulation, after a process of editing
similar to that referred to by Quint. (_circumcisis_, &c.).
Tacitus’s reflections on the ineffectual attempt to destroy Cremutius’s
works are interesting in connection with our passage: quo magis
socordiam eorum inridere licet, qui praesenti potentia credunt extingui
posse etiam sequentis aevi memoriam. Nam contra, punitis ingeniis
gliscit auctoritas, neque aliud externi reges aut qui eadem saevitia usi
sunt, nisi dedecus sibi atque illis gloriam peperere, Ann. iv. 35 ad
fin.

abunde: used here to emphasise _elatum_: v. on §94.

spiritus, §§44, 61; 3 §22. The excisions and
emendations in regard to matters of detail had evidently not interfered
with the independent tone of Cremutius’s writings.

alii scriptores, συγγραφεῖς: the word being used specially of
historians. He has not mentioned Caesar, or Nepos, or Velleius, or
Quintus Curtius.

degustamus: ‘dipping into’: 5 §23 inchoatae et quasi
degustatae. The opposite is _persequi_: §45 genera ipsa lectionum ... persequar.


 
I:105
Oratores vero vel praecipue Latinam eloquentiam parem facere
104
Graecae possunt; nam Ciceronem cuicumque eorum fortiter
opposuerim. Nec ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum
105
praesertim non id sit propositi ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc tempore;
neque enim attinet, cum Demosthenen in primis legendum vel ediscendum
potius putem.

§ 105.
parem facere. Cicero uses _aequare_ in a passage of the
Brutus (§138), in which, speaking of Antonius and Crassus, he says: nam
ego sic existimo,
104
hos oratores fuisse maximos et in his primum cum Graecorum gloria Latine
dicendi copiam aequatam. In the Silver Age, the phrase _paria
facere_ commonly occurs for ‘settling up’: e.g. nihil differamus.
cotidie cum vita paria faciamus Sen. Ep. 101, 7. A near
parallel to the passage in the text is ii. 8, 13 ea cura paria faciet
iis in quibus eminebat.—Other reff. to Cicero’s pre-eminence are
vi. 3, 1 Latinae eloquentiae princeps: xii. 1, 20 stetisse ipsum
(Ciceronem) in fastigio eloquentiae fateor.

cuicumque, §12. The use of
_quicumque_ (which in classical Latin is joined with a verb) for
_quivis_ or _quilibet_ (which are used absolutely) may be
noted as a sign of the decay of the language. Cp. note on §12: Roby §2289.—For eorum Andresen and
Jeep propose _Graecorum_.

fortiter opposuerim. The adv. is not merely one of manner: it
conveys the expression of a judgment, ‘nicht die Art und Weise, sondern
ein Urteil über die Handlung,’ Becher. So ‘inique Castorem cum Domitio
comparo,’ Cicero, pro Deiot. §31. Cp. i, 5, 72 fortiter diceremus: v.
10, 78 fortiter ... iunxerim.—Roby (1540) gives numerous examples
of this use of subj. (involving a suppressed condition such as ‘if
occasion arose’) with such adverbs as merito, facile, lubenter,
citius.

quantam ... pugnam: owing to the existing prejudice against
the style of Cicero. Cp. Tac. Dial. 12 Plures hodie reperies qui
Ciceronis gloriam quam qui Vergilii detrectent: ibid. 18 Satis constat
ne Ciceroni quidem obtrectatores defuisse, quibus inflatus et tumens nec
satis pressus, sed supra modum exsultans et superfluens et parum Atticus
videretur. Legistis utique et Calvi et Bruti ad Ciceronem missas
epistulas ex quibus facile est deprehendere Calvum quidem Ciceroni visum
exsanguem et aridum, Brutum autem otiosum atque diiunctum, rursus
Ciceronem a Calvo quidem male audisse tamquam solutum et enervem, a
Bruto autem, ut ipsius verbis utar, tamquam fractum atque
elumbem.—Hortensius had been from B.C. 95 the Latin representative of Asianism. Under
the influence of his teachers, the Rhodian eclectics, Cicero emancipated
himself from this school without, on the other hand, binding himself by
the most rigorous canons of Atticism. His critics, who adhered to
severer models, considered the fulness and richness of his style
turgidity and bombast, and pointed to his elaborately periodic structure
and rhythmical amplitude as proving that he was really an Asianist in
disguise. Besides Brutus and Calvus, mentioned above (cp. Quint, xii.
1, 22), there were the Asinii, father and son (etiam inimice,
ibid.), and Caelius. Asinius Gallus wrote a work _de comparatione
patris et Ciceronis_, which was controverted by the emperor Claudius:
Plin. Epist. vii. 4 §6 libros Galli ... quibus ille parenti ausus
de Cicerone dare est palmamque decusque: Sueton. Claud. 41. Cicero, on
the other hand, thought that his Atticising critics were too apt to
forget (what he asks Atticus to remember) that the ‘thunders of
Demosthenes show that the Attic style is quite consistent with the
highest degree of grandeur’—si recordabere Δημοσθένους fulmina, tum intelliges posse
et ἀττικώτατα
gravissime dici, ad Att. xv. 1, ad fin. Quintilian denounces them in
strong language, xii. 10, §§12-14 A. At L. M. Tullium non
illum habemus Euphranorem circa plures artium species praestantem, sed
in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur eminentissimum. Quem tamen et suorum
homines temporum incessere audebant ut tumidiorem et Asianum et
redundantem et in repetitionibus nimium et in salibus aliquando frigidum
et in compositione fractum, exultantem ac paene, quod procul absit, viro
molliorem: postea vero quam triumvirati proscriptione consumptus est,
passim qui oderant, qui invidebant, qui aemulabantur, adulatores etiam
praesentis potentiae non responsurum invaserunt. Ille tamen, qui ieiunus
a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire
quam nimiis floribus et ingenii adfluentia potuit. Falsum utrumque, sed
tamen illa mentiendi propior occasio. Praecipue vero presserunt eum qui
videri Atticorum imitatores concupierant. Haec manus quasi quibusdam
sacris initiata ut alienigenam et parum superstitiosum devinctumque
illis legibus insequebatur, unde nunc quoque aridi et exsuci et
exsangues. Hi sunt enim qui suae imbecillitati sanitatis appellationem,
quae est maxime contraria, obtendant: qui quia clariorem vim eloquentiae
velut solem ferre non possunt, umbra magni nominis (i.e. Athens)
delitescunt. In Quintilian’s own day (cp. nunc quoque above) a certain
105
Largius Licinus wrote a work which he called _Ciceromastix_,
repeating the criticisms of Asinius Gallus: cp. Aul. Gell. xvii. 1, 1
nonnulli tam prodigiosi tamque vaecordes exstiterunt in quibus sunt
Gallus Asinius et Largius Licinus, cuius liber etiam fertur infando
titulo ‘Ciceromastix,’ ut scribere ausi sint M. Ciceronem parum
integre atque improprie atque inconsiderate locutum. These rigid
Atticists appear to have ignored, as Sandys has pointed out (Introd. to
Orator, p. lxii), the ‘difference between the two languages,
between the power and breadth and compass of Greek as compared with the
more limited resources of Latin.’ Mr. Sandys appends an apt quotation
from J. H. Newman (in H. Thompson’s Rom. Lit.—Encyc.
Metrop. p. 307, ed. 1852):—‘Greek is celebrated for
copiousness in its vocabulary and perspicuity in its phrases; and the
consequent facility of expressing the most novel or abstruse ideas with
precision and elegance. Hence the Attic style of eloquence was plain and
simple, because simplicity and plainness were not incompatible with
clearness, energy, and harmony. But it was a singular want of judgment,
an ignorance of the very principles of composition, which induced
Brutus, Calvus, Sallust, and others to imitate this terse and severe
beauty in their own defective language, and even to pronounce the
opposite kind of diction deficient in taste and purity. In Greek,
indeed, the words fall, as it were, naturally, into a distinct and
harmonious order; and from the exuberant richness of the materials, less
is left to the ingenuity of the artist. But the Latin language is
comparatively weak, scanty, and unmusical; and requires considerable
skill and management to render it expressive and graceful. Simplicity in
Latin is scarcely separable from baldness; and justly as Terence is
celebrated for chaste and unadorned diction, yet even he, compared with
Attic writers, is flat and heavy (Quint. x. 1, §100).’ Cp. for a similar
contrast Quint. xii. 10, §§27-39.

cum praesertim: Krüger (3rd ed.) gives the sense as follows,
‘especially since I do not intend to prove my statement by a detailed
comparison’: following Becher (but see Crit. Notes), who thinks that Quint.
means to say that the _pugna_ will be all the more violent because
he does not intend to go into a detailed comparison. Such a comparison
would be out of place (neque enim attinet), as he is not denying the
supreme excellence of Demosthenes. _Cum praesertim_ means that
there is all the less reason for controversy as he does not intend to
compare the two: it gives an additional ground for what is really, if
not formally, the main idea in the writer’s mind, viz. the needlessness
of a _pugna_ at this point. Hence it comes to have the force of
_quamvis_, or _idque cum tamen_: tr. ‘and that though,’
‘though indeed,’ ‘which is all the less necessary because,’ etc. Cp.
Cic. de Fin. ii. 8, 25 cum praesertim in eo omne studium
poneret,—where see Madvig’s note: in Verr. ii. 113 ut ex oppido
Thermis nihil ex sacro, nihil de publico attingeres, cum praesertim
essent multa praeclara, &c., i.e. ‘which is all the more wonderful
because’—very much as in our text: Philipp. viii. 2, 5
C. quidem Caesar non expectavit vestra decreta, praesertim cum
illud aetatis erat—i.e. as he might well have done at his age:
ibid. ii. 64 inventus est nemo praeter Antonium, praesertim cum tot
essent, &c.: i.e. which was all the more remarkable as, &c.:
Brutus, §267 M. Bibulus qui et scriptitavit adcurate, cum
praesertim non esset orator, et, &c., i.e. ‘and that too though’: de
Off. ii. 56: Orator §32 nec vero si historiam non scripsisset
(Thucydides) nomen eius exstaret, cum praesertim fuisset honoratus et
nobilis. Roby §1732: Nägelsbach8, pp. 695-6.

propositi: for the gen. cp. iv. 2, 21 quid acti sit: quid tui
consilii sit (Cic. ad Att. xii. 29, 2: Caes. B. G. i. 21, 2):
quid offici sui sit Cic. Acad. Pr. ii. §25, with Dr. Reid’s note.

hoc tempore: Demosthenes and Cicero are eulogised together,
xii. 1, §§14-22.

neque enim attinet, i.e. nor would there be any point in such
a controversy. They have no need to draw the sword against me, for I too
give Demosthenes the highest place. In exalting Cicero I do not mean to
depreciate Demosthenes. Cp. Tac. Dial. 25 quo modo inter Atticos primae
Demostheni tribuuntur ... sic apud nos Cicero quidem ceteros eorundem
temporum disertos antecessit.

106

 
I:106
Quorum ego virtutes
106
plerasque arbitror similes, consilium, ordinem, dividendi, praeparandi,
probandi rationem, [omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis.
107
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.

§ 106.
consilium: vi. 5 §3 consilium vero ratio est quaedam alte petita
et plerumque plura perpendens et comparans habensque in se et
inventionem et iudicationem: §11 illud dicere satis habeo, nihil esse
non modo in orando, sed in omni vita prius consilio, and the whole
passage from §9 to end: ii. 13, 2 res in oratore praecipua consilium
est, quia varie et ad rerum momenta convertitur. This ‘tact’ or
‘judgment’ would be specially shown in _inventio_ and in
_dispositio_, here made a part of inventio: _elocutio_ is a
higher gift. Cp. viii, Pr. §14 M. Tullius inventionem quidem ac
dispositionem prudentis hominis putat, eloquentiam oratoris: Cicero, de
Orat. ii. 120 cum haec duo nobis quaerenda sint in causis, primum quid
[_inventio_], deinde quomodo [_elocutio_] dicamus, alterum ...
prudentiae est paene mediocris [quid dicendum sit videre]: alterum est,
in quo oratoris vis illa divina virtusque cernitur, ea quae dicenda sunt
ornate copiose varieque dicere; Orator §44 nam et invenire et iudicare
quid dicas magna illa quidem sunt et tamquam animi instar in corpore,
sed propria magis prudentiae quam eloquentiae.

ordinem (τάξιν):
_ordo_ corresponds to _dispositio_ iii. 3, 8. In vii. 1,
1 the two are separately defined: _ordo_ recta quaedam collocatio
prioribus sequentia adnectens: _dispositio_ utilis rerum ac partium
in locos distributio.

dividendi. _Divisio_ is defined, along with
_partitio_, in vii. 1, 1: _divisio_ rerum plurium in singulas,
_partitio_ singularum in partes discretio. Here _dividendi
ratio_ is used in a more general sense, as equivalent to
_partitio_ in iv. 5: i.e. nostrarum aut adversarii propositionum
aut utrarumque ordine collocata enumeratio. Of this useful process
Quintilian says (iv. 5, 22): neque enim solum id efficit ut
clariora fiant quae dicuntur, rebus velut ex turba extractis et in
conspectu iudicum positis, sed reficit quoque audientem certo singularum
partium fine, non aliter quam facientibus iter multum detrahunt
fatigationis notata inscriptis lapidibus spatia.—Kiderlin (Hermes
23, p. 176) thinks it remarkable that _divisio_ should here be
ranked alongside of _praeparandi_, _probandi rationem_,
whereas in iii. 3, 1 it stands independently alongside of
_inventio_ itself. He sees no difference between _ordinem_ and
_dividendi rationem_ (iii. 3, 8), and suggests that in the
MSS. readings (videndi and indicendi) there may be concealed some noun
to correspond with _ordinem_: e.g. _viam dicendi_ (‘der Gang
der Reden’): cp. iv. 5, 3: x.
7, 5. But in x. 7,
9 we have both _ordo_ and _dispositio_, in spite of iii.
3, 8, and so it is here.

praeparandi: iii. 9, 7 expositio enim probationum est
praeparatio, nec esse utilis potest nisi prius constiterit, quid debeat
de probatione promittere. A less formal use occurs x. 1 §21: cp. iv. 2 §55.

probandi rationem = _confirmationem_, the establishment
of the case. Understanding the passage to contain an enumeration of the
five parts of an oration (exordium, narratio, probatio, refutatio, and
peroratio), Kiderlin takes _probandi_ here as covering the third
and fourth, which were often considered one part. _Praeparandi_ =
exordium, and the _peroratio_ is omitted, because here Demosthenes
and Cicero were unlike, for the reason given below (§107). In order to include _narratio_, he
proposes to insert _narrandi_ after _praeparandi_: it may
easily, he thinks, have fallen out after _-arandi_. It is always
included in similar enumerations: ii. 5, 7-8: ii. 13, 1: iv. pr. 6: x. 2, 27.

[omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis: see Crit. Notes. ‘Inventio,’ the orator’s
first requisite, may of course be shown in all the various parts of a
speech, e.g. narratio, divisio, confirmatio, as here. But in the
antithesis between _inventionis_ and _in eloquendo_ Quintilian
is thinking of that fundamental distinction between substance and form
on which he based his treatment of his subject. Applying a rough
division to his work, we may say that Books iii. to vii. deal with
_inventio_ including _dispositio_, i.e. εὕρεσις and τάξις: while Books viii-xi. treat of _elocutio_
(λέξις), including
_actio_ or _pronuntiatio_, ‘delivery’ (ὑπόκρισις). So Cicero in the Orator §43
introduces a description of the ideal orator in the three relations of
(1) inventio—quid dicat (εὕρεσις): (2) collocatio or dispositio—quo
quidque loco (τάξις), and
(3) actio or pronuntiatio (ὑπόκρισις): and elocutio (λέξις)—quo modo. Quintilian in iii. 3 gives
in more detail the traditional parts of rhetoric: inventio, dispositio,
elocutio, memoria, pronuntiatio (or actio). See §§1-9. For the division
here cp. also xii. 10, 27 Latina mihi facundia, ut inventione,
dispositione, consilio, ceteris huius generis artibus similis Graecae ac
prorsus discipula eius videtur, ita circa
107
rationem eloquendi vix habere imitationis locum.

aliqua diversitas: Morawski (Quaest. p. 33) thinks that
this passage may be founded on a tractate by Caecilius (contemporary
with Dion. Hal.), which is mentioned by Plutarch, Dem. 3 σύγκρισις τοῦ
Δημοσθένους καὶ Κικέρωνος. A parallel passage is found in
the περὶ ὕψους (Sp.
i. p. 261), the author of which may also have borrowed from
Caecilius:—ὁ μὲν γὰρ (Δημοσθένης) ἐν ὕψει τὸ πλέον ἀποτόμῳ, ὁ
δὲ Κικέρων ἐν χύσει, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἡμέτερος διὰ τὸ μετὰ βίας ἕκαστα, ἔτι δὲ
τάχους, ῥώμης, δεινότητος οἷον καίειν τε ἅμα καὶ διαρπάζειν, σκηπτῷ τινι
παρεικάζοιτ᾽ ἂν ἢ κεραυνῷ, ὁ δὲ Κικέρων ὡς ἀμφιλαφής τις ἐμπρησμὸς οἶμαι
πάντη νέμεται καὶ ἀνειλεῖται.... Cp. Introd. p. xxxviii.

densior: §76 tam densa omnia: so
of Thucydides §73 densus et brevis.

concludit, not, as Bonnell = ratiocinatur (xii. 2, 25),
but of the ‘rounding off’ of a period: ix. 4, 22, περίοδον quae est vel ambitus vel circumductum
vel continuatio vel conclusio. Cp. Cic. Brutus §33 verborum ... quaedam
ad numerum conclusio: cp. §34 below, concluditque sententiam: Orator §20
conclusa oratio: §177 concluse apteque dicere: §§200, 220, 230, 231: de
Orat. ii. §34 quod carmen artificiosa verborum conclusione (‘artistic
period’) aptius? Hor. Sat. i. 4, 40 concludere versum. The opposite is
membratim caesimque dicere, Quint. ix. 4, 126: cp. Cic. Orat. §212
incise membratimve: de Orat. iii. 49, 190 carpere membris minutioribus
orationem. For a contrast cp. Brutus §120 ut Stoicorum adstrictior est
oratio aliquantoque contractior quam aures populi requirunt, sic illorum
(Peripateticorum Academicorumque) liberior et latior quam patitur
consuetudo iudiciorum et fori: §162 quin etiam comprehensio et ambitus
ille verborum, si sic περίοδον appellari placet, erat apud illum (i.e.
Crassum) contractus et brevis, et in membra quaedam, quae κῶλα Graeci vocant, dispertiebat orationem
libentius.

astrictius ... latius: there is more compactness about the
periodic structure in Demosthenes, greater breadth in that of Cicero.
This could hardly be said of Demosthenes’s periods as a whole: it rather
refers to the care which Cicero and Roman orators generally bestowed on
the closing syllables of a period (Blass, Att. Ber. iii. 117). It was
this liking for a sonorous and copious diction that seemed to Cicero’s
critics to justify the epithets (inflatus, tumens, &c.) applied to
him in Dial. de Orat. 18 (quoted above, §105); he himself tells us in the Orator, §104, that
his ears craved for something more full and sonorous even than
Demosthenes: ‘non semper implet aures meas: ita sunt avidae et capaces
et semper aliquid immensum infinitumque desiderant.’

pugnat: used figuratively for _dicit_: cp. §4.

acumine: the word is used in §§81
and 83 of ‘power of thought,’ ‘intellectual penetration’: viii. 2, 21:
x. 1, §81 and §83. See on acutus §77.
So Cic. de Orat. i. §128 acumen dialecticorum. Here it includes the idea
of ‘point’ in expression: following up the metaphor contained in
‘pugnat,’ we might render, ‘Demosthenes always thrusts with the rapier,
Cicero often uses the bludgeon too.’ (Landor, speaking of Shaftesbury
and Bolingbroke, as compared with Lord Brougham, said that they had
‘more of the rapier than the bludgeon.’) Cp. de Orat. ii. §158 ipsi se
compungunt suis acuminibus. The contrast is something like that implied
in xii. 10, 36 subtilitate vincimur (a Graecis): valeamus pondere:
cp. ibid. §11 gravitatem Bruti acumen Sulpici.

nihil detrahi: cp. §76 is dicendi
modus ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.

curae ... naturae: v. Jebb’s Attic Orators, i. Introd.
p. cvi, where it is remarked that this paradox is true in this
sense alone, ‘that Cicero is an inferior artist, and indulges more
freely the taste of the natural man for ornament.’ Quintilian may also
refer to the laborious training which Demosthenes imposed on himself,
and in consequence of which, says Plutarch, δόξαν εἶχεν ὡς οὐκ εὐφυὴς ὤν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πόνου
συγκειμένῃ δεινότητι καὶ δυνάμει χρώμενος (Vit. Demosth. viii.).
Cp. the taunt of Pytheas, that his work ‘smelled of the lamp’: ἐλλυχνίων ὄζειν,
ibid.; also
108
Parallel. ch. i. It was the rule with Demosthenes never to speak without
preparation: Cicero may have relied at times on the faculty of
extemporising at need.


 
I:107
Salibus certe et
108
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
109
minus permiserit. In epistulis quidem, quamquam sunt utriusque,
dialogisve, quibus nihil ille, nulla contentio est.

§ 107.
salibus: cp. vi. 3, 2 plerique Demostheni facultatem defuisse
huic rei credunt, Ciceroni modum, nec videri potest noluisse
Demosthenes, cuius pauca admodum dicta nec sane ceteris eius virtutibus
respondentia palam ostendunt non displicuisse illi iocos sed non
contigisse ... mihi quidem ... mira quaedam in eo (Cicerone) videtur
fuisse urbanitas. So §21 Demosthenem urbanum fuisse dicunt, dicacem
negant: Cic. Orat. §90 non tam dicax quam facetus: Dion. Hal. Dem. c. 54
πάσας ἔχουσα τὰς ἀρετὰς ἡ Δημοσθένους
λέξις ... λείπεται εὐτραπελίας. Cp. περὶ ὕψους, 34, where the judgment is unduly
severe, ἔνθα μέντοι
γελοῖος εἶναι βιάζεται καὶ ἀστεῖος οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ
καταγελᾶται. Cp. Sandys’ note on Orat. §90, “Though not
obtrusively witty, Demosthenes nevertheless is not wanting in humour, as
is proved by the speech on the Chersonesus §§5, 11 ff. and esp. 23
(characterized by Brougham as ‘full of refined and almost playful wit’):
Plut. iii. §66: de Cor. §§198, 234 (Blass, Att. Ber. iii. 163-6).” For a
criticism of Cicero’s wit, on the other hand, v. Plut. Parallel. §1
Κικέρων δὲ πολλαχοῦ τῷ σκωπτικῷ πρὸς τὸ βωμολόχον ἐκφερόμενος
καὶ πράγματα σπουδῆς ἄξια γέλωτι καὶ παιδιᾷ κατειρωνευόμενος ἐν ταῖς
δίκαις εἰς τὸ χρειῶδες ἠφείδει τοῦ πρέποντος, and below, Cato’s
ὡς γελοῖον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἔχομεν ὕπατον. Δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γέλωτος
οἰκεῖος ὁ Κικέρων γεγονέναι καὶ φιλοσκώπτης κ.τ.λ.

commiseratione, ‘pathos.’ See Orator §130 in quo ut viderer
excellere non ingenio, sed dolore adsequebar; i.e. it was real sympathy
more than any special talent that enabled him to excel in this
respect.

in adfectibus, ‘where the feelings are concerned.’ Under
_adfectus_ (vi. 2) is included everything that makes an
impression on the judges: §1 opus ... movendi iudicum animos: among
other things laughter itself, virtus quae risum iudicis movendo et illos
tristes solvit adfectus et animum ab intentione rerum frequenter avertit
et aliquando etiam reficit et a satietate vel a fatigatione renovat.

vincimus: for the present cp. §§93, 101, 105.

epilogos, ‘perorations.’ The peroration was looked on as
giving a great opportunity for moving the feelings: Arist. Rhet. iii. 19
says one of its parts is εἰς τὰ πάθη τὸν ἀκροατὴν καταστῆσαι. So
Quint. iv. 1, 28 quod in ingressu parcius et modestius praetemptanda sit
iudicis misericordia: in epilogo vero liceat totos effundere adfectus.
The word is common in this sense in Quintilian: vi. 1, 37, sq. esp. §52
at hic, si usquam, totos eloquentiae aperire fontes licet. Nam et, si
bene diximus reliqua, possidebimus iam iudicum animos, et e confragosis
atque asperis evecti tota pandere possumus vela, et, cum sit maxima pars
epilogi amplificatio, verbis atque sententiis uti licet magnificis et
ornatis. Tunc est commovendum theatrum cum ventum est ad ipsum illud,
quo veteres tragoediae comoediaeque cluduntur, plodite: cp. also Cicero,
Brutus §33 exstat eius peroratio, qui epilogus dicitur: de Orat. ii.
§278: ad Att. iv. 15, 4.

mos civitatis: ii. 16 §4 Athenis ubi actor movere
adfectus vetabatur velut recisam orandi potestatem: vi. 1, 7, where he
says that with the Attic orators the _epilogus_ generally took the
form of recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις = enumeratio) ‘quia Athenis
adfectus movere etiam per praeconem prohibebatur orator.’ Cp. xii. 10,
26. This would be especially the case in trials before the Areopagus.
But it was the Hellenic instinct for moderation that imposed its own
law. Lord Brougham, in his Dissertation on the Eloquence of the Ancients
(p. 25), remarks on the calmness of the Greek peroration: cp. his Essay
on Demosthenes (p. 184): ‘It seems to have been a rule enjoined by the
severe taste of those times, that after being wrought up to a great
pitch of emotion, the speaker should, in quitting his audience, leave an
impression of dignity, which cannot be maintained without composure.’
Cp. Jebb, i. ciii-civ: ‘Cicero has now and then an Attic peroration, as
in the Second Philippic and the Pro Milone; more often he breaks off in
a burst of eloquence—as in the First Catilinarian, the Pro Flacco,
and the Pro Cluentio.’

illa quae Attici mirantur: cp. §65, §100 illam solis
concessam Atticis venerem: xii. 10 §35 illam gratiam sermonis
Attici.

109
epistulis. If it were not for the ineptitude of the comparison
which follows (in quibus _nihil_ ille) we might be inclined to
imagine that Quintilian knew of more letters of Demosthenes than the six
which are still extant, and which are generally considered
apocryphal.

dialogis: comprising most of Cicero’s philosophical works, and
the Brutus and De Oratore among his rhetorical.

nihil ille, sc. effecit, consecutus est: cp. §§56, 123: 2 §§6, 24: 3 §25: 7 §§7, 23.


 
I: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.

§ 108.
effinxisse, ‘artistically reproduced.’

iucunditatem. ‘The idea which Cicero got from Isocrates was
that of number. See esp. de Orat. iii. 44 §173.’ Jebb. So
‘suavitatem Isocrates ... vim Demosthenes habuit’ de Orat. iii. §28.

 
I: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.

§ 109.
ex se ipso ... extulit: cp. Cic. Acad. ii. 8, 23 artem vivendi
quae ipsa ex sese habeat constantiam, where Dr. Reid cites this passage,
along with many others, e.g. Sen. Ep. 52, 3 hos quibus ex se impetus
fuit: Cic. N. D. iii. 88 a se sumere.

beatissima: cp. §61 beatissima
rerum verborumque copia: 3,
§22 beatiorem spiritum. Cp. the eulogy by Caesar, in his Analogia
(written as he was crossing the Alps, and dedicated to Cicero himself):
ac si ut cogitata praeclare eloqui possent non nulli studio et usu
elaboraverunt, cuius te paene principem copiae atque inventorem bene de
nomine ac dignitate populi Romani meritum esse existimare debemus,
&c.—quoted in Brutus §253. Hild adds Pliny H. N. vii. 30
Facundiae Latiarumque litterarum parens atque ... omnium triumphorum
gloria maior, quanto plus est ingenii Romani terminos in tantum
promovisse quam imperii,—where the language has a close
resemblance to that of Cicero himself in Brutus §255.

ut ait Pindarus. We get the _pluvias aquas_ in the οὐρανίων ὑδάτων
ὀμβρίων of Olymp. xi, but there is nothing in Pindar’s extant
works that corresponds to the quotation.

exundat: cp. Tac. Dial. 30 ex multa eruditione et plurimis
artibus et omnium rerum scientia exundat et exuberat illa admirabilis
eloquentia.

providentia is used very frequently by itself in Quintilian,
e.g. i. 10, 7 oratio qua nihil praestantius homini dedit providentia (v.
Bonn. Lex.); also in xi. i, 23 with deorum immortalium.

eloquentia: cp. Sen. Ep. 40, 11 Cicero quoque noster, a quo
Romana eloquentia exsiluit.

 

 
I:110
Nam quis docere diligentius, movere vehementius potest? Cui tanta umquam
iucunditas adfuit? ut ipsa illa quae extorquet
110
impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat, tamen
ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi.

§ 110.
docere ... movere. Cp. iii. 5 §2 tria sunt item quae
praestare debeat orator, ut doceat, moveat, delectet (quoted on §80). _Iucunditas_ here expresses the third.
So Cicero, Brutus §185 tria sunt enim, ut quidem ego sentio, quae sint
efficienda dicendo: ut doceatur is apud quem dicetur, ut delectetur, ut
moveatur vehementius.

extorquet: cp. v. 7, 17 at in eo qui invitus dicturus est
prima felicitas interrogantis extorquere quod is noluerit: ib. §27. Cic.
de Or. ii. §74 qui nunquam sententias de manibus iudicum vi quadam
orationis extorsimus ac potius placatis eorum animis tantum quantum ipsi
patiebantur accepimus.

110
transversus = ‘turned across,’ i.e. at right angles to the
original line. So transversis itineribus Sall. Iug. 45, 2. For the
figure contained in _transversum ferat_ cp. ibid. 6, 3 opportunitas
quae etiam mediocres viros ... transversos agit: 14, 20. The
_iudex_ is ‘turned athwart’—away from the path of his own
judgment. So Sen. Ep. 8, 3 cum coepit transversos agere felicitas: Cic.
Brutus 331 cuius in adulescentiam ... transversa incurrit misera fortuna
rei publicae.


 
I: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.

§ 111.
advocati, ‘pleader,’ as generally in Quintilian, syn. with ‘actor
causae,’ ‘causidicus,’ ‘patronus.’ In Cicero the word is reserved for
those who lent their countenance and personal support to a friend,
especially in legal matters: e.g. Brutus §289: pro Clu. §110 quis eum
unquam non modo in patroni, sed in laudatoris aut advocati loco viderat?
See Fausset’s note on _advocabat_ pro Clu. §54.

fidem: ‘trustworthiness,’ ‘credibility.’ So quantam afferat
fidem iv. 2, 125.

cum interim: Roby §1732. Cp. note on §18.

posset: the use of the imperf. subj. points to a suppressed
protasis, sc. si vellet. Cp. i. 1, 22 cur improbetur si quis ea quae
domi suae recte _faceret_ in publicum promit? So too below, 2 §25 qui noceret, where see
note.

tamen is a reminiscence of tamen ille non rapi videatur, in
the previous sentence, and must be taken with _cum interim_: = ‘for
all that.’

facilitatem: cp. §1.


 
I: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.

§ 112.
regnare: cp. Cic. ad Fam. vii. 24, 1 olim quum regnare
existimabamur: ad Att. i. 1 illud suum regnum iudiciale,—his
‘sovereignty of the bar’: in Verr. i. 12, 35 (of Hortensius) omnis
dominatio regnumque iudiciorum: ad Fam. ix. 18, 1 amisso regno forensi:
cp. pro Sulla §7.

non hominis ... sed eloquentiae. There is no thought here of
holding the balance with Demosthenes, §105. Cp. what Brutus says after Caesar’s eulogy
quoted above (§109 note): quo enim uno
vincebamur a victa Graecia, id aut ereptum illis est aut certe nobis cum
illis communicatum: Brut. §254. Hild quotes from Plutarch (Cicero, §4)
the story of Molo, one of Cicero’s teachers, who, on hearing him
declaim, said that he had to pity the hard fate of Greece, from whom the
palm of eloquence, her sole surviving glory, was now to pass away.

exemplum, predicative, hoc being neuter by a common form of
attraction: cp. 3 §17.

profecisse: Hild quotes Boileau, Art. Poet. iii. 308, speaking
of Homer: c’est avoir profité que de savoir s’y plaire.


 
I:113
Multa in Asinio Pollione inventio, summa
111
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.

§ 113.
Quintilian makes no mention of orators previous to Cicero: for them see
Brutus §53 sqq. Velleius disposes of them in the following sentence (i.
17, 3): At oratio ac vis forensis perfectumque prosae eloquentiae
decus, ut idem separetur Cato, pace P. Crassi Scipionisque et Laeli
et Gracchorum et Fanni et Servi Galbae dixerim, ita universa sub
principe operis sui erupit Tullio, ut delectari ante eum paucissimis,
mirari vero neminem possis, nisi aut ab illo visum aut qui illum
viderit. Cp. Tac. Dial. 25. Hild cites also Seneca, Controv. i. praef.:
quidquid Romana facundia habet, quod insolenti Graeciae aut opponat aut
praeferat, circa Ciceronem effloruit; omnia ingenia quae lucem studiis
nostris attulerunt, tunc nata sunt.

111
Asinio Pollione. C. Asinius Pollio (75 B.C.–4 A.D.)
was consul in 40, when he helped Maecenas to arrange the Peace of
Brundisium: afterwards becoming estranged from Antony he retired into
private life and devoted himself to letters. Vergil dedicates the Fourth
Eclogue to him, and in the first Ode of Book ii Horace recounts his
various titles to distinction. He was a poet as well as an orator: Verg.
Ecl. viii. 10 Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno: iii. 86 Pollio
et ipse facit nova carmina: Hor. S. i. 10, 42. He was also distinguished
as a historian, having written a history of the Civil Wars from the
first triumvirate (Motum ex Metello consule Hor. Car. ii. 1, 1). In
the same Ode (II. 13, 14) Horace alludes to his fame as an orator, both
at the bar and in the senate. Quintilian’s judgment on him in this
capacity may be compared with that of Seneca, Ep. 100, 7 Lege Ciceronem:
compositio eius una est, pedem servat lenta et sine infamia mollis. At
contra Pollionis Asinii salebrosa et exsiliens et ubi minime expectes
relictura. Denique omnia apud Ciceronem desinunt, apud Pollionem cadunt
exceptis paucissimis, quae ad certum modum et ad unum exemplar adstricta
sunt. Cp. 2 §17 below
tristes ac ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur.

diligentia: 2 §25 vim Caesaris, asperitatem
Caelii, diligentiam Pollionis. The word does not refer to the
historian’s painstaking care (which could hardly ever be ‘nimia’), but
to the ‘precision’ or ‘exactitude’ of his language: v. the fragment
quoted in ix. 4, 132.

consilii, ‘judgment,’ §106.

animi, ‘spirit,’ ‘vivacity.’

nitore: v. on §97.

saeculo prior. ‘As an orator and writer he affected antique
severity in opposition to Ciceronian smoothness,’—Teuffel. Cp.
Tac. Dial. 21 Asinius quoque quamquam propioribus temporibus natus sit,
videtur mihi inter Menenios et Appios studuisse; Pacuvium certe et
Accium non solum tragoediis sed etiam orationibus suis expressit: adeo
durus et siccus est: Sen. Controv. iv. praef. 3 illud strictum eius et
aspersum et nimis iratum in censendo iudicium adeo cessabat ut in multis
illi venia opus esset quae ab ipso vix impetrabatur. See Schmalz ‘Ueber
den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio,’ p. 289; München, 1890.
Pollio’s antipathy to Cicero and his dislike of Cicero’s style may be
seen from the story in Seneca, Suas. vi. extr., quoted by Bernhardy
(q.v.), R. L. p. 268 (note 182).

Messalla, M. Valerius Corvinus (64 B.C.-8 A.D.), the
friend of Tibullus, who dedicates to him i. 7: cp. the panegyric
iv. 1. Cp. Tac. Dial. 18 Cicerone mitior Corvinus et dulcior et in
verbis magis elaboratus,—with the latter part of which cp. Sen.
Controv. ii. 12, 8 Latini utique sermonis observator diligentissimus.
Cicero’s own opinion of him may be seen in Epist. ad Brutum i. 15, 1
cave putes probitate, constantia, cura, studio reipublicae quidquam illi
esse simile; ut eloquentia, qua mirabiliter excellit, vix in eo locum ad
laudandum habere videatur: quamquam in hac ipsa sapientia plus apparet:
ita gravi iudicio multaque arte se exercuit in verissimo genere dicendi,
tanta autem industria est tantumque evigilat in studio ut non maxima
ingenio (quod in eo summum est) gratia habenda videatur. By
_verissimum genus dicendi_ Cicero seems to indicate that Messalla
was neither an Asianist like Hortensius, nor an extreme Atticist like
Calvus. See also Brutus §246, where the judgment is less favourable:
nullo modo inops, sed non nimis ornatus genere verborum.

nitidus: cp. i. 7, 35 ideo minus Messalla nitidus quia,
&c.

candidus: v. on §73.

quodam modo: cp. Cic. Brut. §30 (where Kellogg wrongly renders
‘with a certain style’): ib. §149: de Orat. iii. §37: §184.

praeferens = prae se ferens: cp. vi. 3, 17: 2, 14.

viribus minor: cp. §103.


 
I:114
C. vero Caesar si foro tantum vacasset, non alius ex
112
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.

§ 114.
Caesar. The purity and correctness of Caesar’s style are
eulogised in the Brutus §§251-262: see esp. §261 non video cui debeat
cedere. Cp. Phil. ii. 45 Fuit in illo ingenium, ratio, memoria,
112
litterae, cura, cogitatio, diligentia: and with special reference to his
oratorical talent, Suet. Caes. 55, where is cited a fragment from a
letter of Cicero: ‘Quid? oratorum quem huic antepones eorum qui nihil
aliud egerunt? Quis sententiis aut acutior aut crebrior? Quis verbis aut
ornatior aut elegantior?’ Tac. Ann, xiii. 3 dictator Caesar summis
oratoribus aemulus.

si foro tantum vacasset. So of Pompeius (Brut. 239), vir ad
omnia summa natus, maiorem dicendi gloriam habuisset, nisi eum maioris
gloriae cupiditas ad bellicas laudes abstraxisset: Tac. Dial. 21
concedamus sane C. Caesari, ut propter magnitudinem cogitationum et
occupationes rerum in eloquentia non effecerit quae divinum eius
ingenium postulabat.

contra, ‘by the side of,’ with the notion of being ‘pitted
against’: cp. proximumque Ciceroni Caesarem, Vell. Pat. ii.
36, 2.

vis: xii. 10, 11 vim Caesaris.

acumen. See on §106: here
probably of a pointed incisive style.

eodem animo: Livy xxxviii. 50 dicebantur enim ab eodem animo
ingenioque a quo gesta erant.

proprie studiosus: cp. i. 7, 34 aut vim C. Caesaris
fregerunt editi de analogia libri? Suet. Caes. 56: Gell. xix. 8, 3.
See too Brutus §253, where we learn that the work was dedicated to
Cicero: ‘qui etiam in maximis occupationibus ad te ipsum,’ inquit in me
intuens, ‘de ratione Latine loquendi adcuratissime scripserit primoque
in libro dixerit verborum delectum originem esse eloquentiae.’—Cp.
Gell. xvi. 8 C. Caesar gravis auctor linguae
latinae,—_Proprie_ in this sense is post-Augustan: cp. Vell.
Pat. ii. 9, 1.

elegantia: Brutus §252 ita iudico ... illum omnium fere
oratorum Latine loqui elegantissime. In the Preface to B. G. viii.
Hirtius says Erat autem in Caesare quum facultas atque elegantia summa
scribendi tum, etc.


 
I:115
Multum ingenii in Caelio et praecipue in accusando multa
urbanitas, dignusque vir, cui et mens melior et vita longior
contigisset. Inveni qui Calvum
113
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
114
quoque. Imitator autem est Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors
iniuriam, si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.

§ 115.
Caelius, M. Rufus (82-48 B.C.),
a man of loose morals and luxurious life, whom Cicero defended from some
charges of sedition and attempted poisoning, 56 B.C. He had not much strength of character: during
Cicero’s absence in Cilicia he was in friendly correspondence with him,
but afterwards he joined Caesar, while urging Cicero to remain neutral.
Becoming discontented, he intrigued with Milo to raise an insurrection
against Caesar, and was put to death near Thurii by some foreign
cavalry, 48 B.C. Cp. Brutus §273
splendida et grandis et eadem in primis faceta et perurbana oratio.
Graves eius contiones aliquot fuerunt, acres accusationes tres (one
against C. Antonius) ... defensiones ... sane tolerabiles. There
was something bitter about him: 2 §25 asperitatem Caelii: cp.
Tac. Dial. 25 amarior Caelius: Sen. de Ira iii. 8, 6 oratorem ...
iracundissimum. A description of one of his speeches is given iv.
2, 123 sq.: for witticisms on Clodia v. viii. 6, 53. Cp. Tac. Dial.
21 and 25.

praecipue in accusando: vi. 3, 69 idem (Cicero) per allegoriam
M. Caelium, melius obicientem crimina quam defendentem, bonam
dextram malam sinistram habere dicebat.

urbanitas is defined vi. 3, 17 as sermonem praeferentem in
verbis et sono et usu proprium quendam gustum urbis et sumptam ex
conversatione doctorum tacitam eruditionem, denique cui contraria sit
rusticitas. Here the idea of _wit_ is uppermost, as in ii. 11, 2
and vi. 3, 105. Cp. vi. 3 §41 Caelius cum omnia venustissime finxit
tum illud ultimum: i. 6, 29.

mens melior: Brut. §273 quaecunque eius in exitu vel fortuna
vel mens fuit: Vell. Pat. ii. 68 vir eloquio animoque Curioni
simillimus, sed in utroque perfectior nec minus ingeniose nequam.

Calvus, Gaius Licinius (B.C.
82-48), was the leading spirit among the stricter Atticists in Cicero’s
day, and is censured by him in the Brutus (§§284-291) for taking so
narrow a view of the full meaning of Attic oratory as to have introduced
the attempt to imitate certain particular models among the Attic
orators. A poet himself, he was the friend of Catullus, and, like
Catullus, an opponent of Caesar. He prosecuted Vatinius on three
separate
113
occasions, and once showed such vehemence and energy that the defendant
rose in court, saying ‘rogo vos, iudices, num si iste disertus est ideo
me damnari oportet’ (Sen. Controv. vii. 6): Tac. Dial. 34 Vatinium
eis orationibus insecutus est, quas hodieque cum admiratione legimus:
cp. ib. 21. Cp. Catullus 53, where we get a lively idea of his energetic
eloquence at the trial. The passage of Cicero referred to (Brutus §283
quoted below) was written after the death of Calvus: but already in Dec.
47 Cicero, in writing to his friend Trebonius, had stated his opinion
that Calvus had made an error of judgment in the choice of his style,
and that he was wanting in force: ad Fam. xv. 21 §4 genus quoddam
sequebatur, in quo iudicio lapsus, quo valebat, tamen assequebatur quod
probaret. Multae erant et reconditae litterae, vis non erat (Quint. x.
2, 25 ‘iudicium Calvi’). In the Dial. de Or. ch. 18 Tacitus refers to
certain letters, now lost, from Calvus and Brutus to Cicero, showing
that the latter regarded Calvus as _exsanguis_ and _attritus_
(v.l. aridus), while Calvus stigmatised Cicero as _solutus_ and
_enervis_. His position as leader of a school (which took Lysias
mainly for its model and cultivated ‘plainness’ at the expense of other
good qualities) is indicated by Cicero’s remark that he ‘not only went
wrong himself, but also led others astray’ (Brut. §284).

Ciceroni crederent, &c. “In writing of his oratorical
style in the _Brutus_, two years after his death, Cicero observes
that, while he was more accomplished in literature than the younger
Curio, he had also a more accurate and exquisite style; and although he
handled it with skill and elegance, he was too minute and nice in his
self-criticism; losing the very life-blood of style for fear of tainting
its purity, and cultivating too scrupulous a taste to win the approval
of the general public” (Sandys, Orator, Introd. xlvi.). The passage from
the Brutus (283) is as follows:—adcuratius quoddam dicendi et
exquisitius adferebat genus; quod quanquam scienter eleganterque
tractabat, nimium tamen inquirens in se atque ipse sese observans
metuensque ne vitiosum colligeret, etiam verum sanguinem deperdebat ...
Atticum ... se dici oratorem volebat; inde erat ista exilitas, quam ille
de industria consequebatur.

nimia ... calumnia, ‘by over-rigorous self-censure,’—a
morbid habit of introspective criticism: the word being used to express
nimium inquirens ... observans ... metuensque in the passage just
quoted. Perhaps the nearest parallel to this use is to be found in Caec.
ap. Cic. ad Fam. vi. 7, 4 in hac igitur calumnia, timoris et caecae
suspicionis tormento,—of exaggerated fears inspired by the spirit
of carping self-criticism, for which cp. 4 §3: 7 §14. The verb is found in the
same sense in 3 §10
infelicem calumniandi se poenam: viii. prooem. 31 nullus est finis
calumniandi se et cum singulis paene syllabis commoriendi. Cp. Plin.
xxxiv. 8, 19 §92 calumniator sui, of one who is over-anxious in
regard to his work. Cicero uses the verb absolutely: ad Fam. ix. 2, 3
mihi quidem venit in mentem bellum esse aliquo exire ... sed calumniabar
ipse: putabam qui obviam mihi venisset ... suspicaturum aut dicturum,
&c., where the meaning is ‘I indulged groundless fears’ (Nägelsbach,
p. 54). The word _calumnia_ is derived from the root
_calv_ found in _calvor_, to trick, quibble, through a
participial form *calvomenos, calumnus (cp. autumnus, aerumna, columna).
Its first meaning is a malicious charge or ‘cavil’: ad Fam. i. 1, 1,
religionis calumniam, the ‘trumped-up plea of a religious difficulty.’
Hence it was applied in Roman law (Gaius 4, 178) to the vexatious abuse
of legal forms, chicanery, legal quirks and quibbles, and generally to
the pettifogging tendency which exalts the letter above the spirit.

verum sanguinem perdidisse: cp. 4 §3 exsanguia.

sancta et gravis: his style is ‘solemn and weighty,’ xii. 10,
11 ‘sanctitatem Calvi.’

castigata, ‘chastened,’ ‘severely finished’: cp. Hor.
A. P. 292 carmen reprehendite quod non Multa dies et multa litura
coercuit atque Praesectum decies non castigavit ad unguem, i.e. by
pruning away everything that is useless and inappropriate: Tac. Dial. 25
adstrictior Calvus, numerosior Asinius.

frequenter: see on §17.

vehemens: cp. Sen. Controv. viii. 7
114
solebat praeterea excedere subsellia sua et impetu latus usque ad
adversariorum partem transcurrere. Seneca adds that he resembled
Demosthenes inasmuch as he was all struggle and excitement, though he
sometimes employed a gentler style, ib. §8 nihil in illa (compositione)
placidum, nihil lene est, omnia excitata et fluctuantia.

properata mors: cp. immatura mors. He died at the early age of
34. Cp. Brutus §279 facienda mentio est ... duorum adulescentium (Curio
and Calvus) qui si diutius vixissent magnam essent eloquentiae laudem
consecuti.

adiecturus, i.e. if it was likely that he would have added to
the purity of his diction other and richer qualities. The cold dry
manner of the strictest Atticists failed to hold the ear of Roman
audiences: Brut. §289 subsellia grandiorem et pleniorem vocem
desiderant, a larger and fuller utterance than that of the Atticists who
spoke ‘anguste et exiliter.’ See Crit. Notes.

detracturus: sc. nimia contra se calumnia. He is _exilis_
enough as it is.


 
I: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.

§ 116.
Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the most distinguished jurist of
Cicero’s day, consul B.C. 51. See
reff. in Brutus §150: §152: §153 (adiunxit etiam et litterarum scientiam
et loquendi elegantiam). His letter of sympathy to Cicero on the death
of Tullia is well known: ad Fam. iv. 5. Cp. 5 §4: 7 §30 and above §22.

meruit = _consecutus est_, as §94. See on §72.

Cassius Severus flourished under Augustus, and was banished on
account of his libellous attacks (_procacibus scriptis_), first to
Crete and then to Seriphos, where he is said to have died A.D. 34, in the twenty-fifth year of his exile; Tac.
Ann. iv. 21: i. 72. He is spoken of as the introducer of the new school
of declamatory eloquence, Tac. Dial. 19 Antiquorum admiratores ...
Cassium Severum ... primum affirmant flexisse ab illa vetere atque
directa dicendi via, &c.: ibid. 26 equidem non negaverim Cassium
Severum ... si iis comparetur qui postea fuerunt, posse oratorem vocari,
quamquam in magna parte librorum suorum plus bilis habeat quam
sanguinis: primus enim contempto ordine rerum, omissa modestia ac pudore
verborum, ipsis etiam quibus utitur armis incompositus et studio
feriendi plerumque detectus, non pugnat sed rixatur; ceterum ... et
varietate eruditionis et lepore urbanitatis et ipsaram virium robore
multum ceteros superat.

colorem: cp. on §59. The word is
not here used in the technical sense which it bears in rhetoric, i.e.
the particular aspect given to a case by a skilful representation of the
facts,—the ‘gloss’ or ‘varnish’ put on them by either the accused
or the accuser. For this sense see iv. 2, 88: Inv. vi. 279 Dic aliquem,
sodes, dic Quintiliane colorem: vii. 155 with Mayor’s note. Here it has
a more general sense. Quintilian is charging Cassius with a want of
proper ‘tone’: cp. omissa modestia ac pudore verborum, above: Cic. de
Or. iii. 96 ornatur oratio genere primum et quasi colore quodam et suco
suo.

gravitatem: Cassius was wanting in dignity, and his wit was
apt to carry him too far. Quintilian gives an instance of this xi. 1,
57; Seneca, Controv. iii. praef. 2 says however ‘gravitas, quae deerat
vitae, actioni supererat.’


 
I:117
Nam et ingenii plurimum est in eo et acerbitas mira et urbanitas et
fervor, sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit. Praeterea
115
ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicula est.

§ 117.
ingenii plurimum: Tacitus (Ann. iv. 21) allows that he was
‘orandi validus’: and Seneca (l.c.) says oratio eius erat valens culta
ingentibus plena sententiis ... non est quod illum ex his quae edidit
aestimetis ... eloquentia eius longe maior erat quam lectio.

acerbitas mira: cp. Tac. Ann. i. 72 commotus Cassii Severi
libidine qua viros feminasque inlustres procacibus scriptis
diffamaverat.

urbanitas, v. on §115. For
examples see vi. 1, 43: viii. 3, 89: xi. 3, 133.

et fervor: see Crit. Notes, and cp.
115
Seneca l.c. habebat ... genus dicendi ... ardens et concitatum.

stomacho: he was full of passionate impulse: cp. the passage
quoted from Dial. 26 above.

praeterea ... ridicula est. Spalding’s interpretation of this
passage is followed by Krüger (2nd ed.) and Hild: the other editors do
not seem to have felt any difficulty. The sentence is taken in
continuation of the _praise_ of Cassius, attaching closely to
‘urbanitas’: the words from _sed plus_ to _dedit_ being then
interjected as the only note of disparagement. The literal translation
would then be ‘while his wit is bitter, the bitterness itself is often
enough to make you laugh.’ ‘He has a caustic wit, but his causticity by
itself will often make you laugh.’ For this sense of _ridicula_
(Sp. ‘risum movet auditorum’) cp. vi. 3, 22 _ridiculum_ ... haec
tota disputatio a Graecis περὶ γελοίου inscribitur: 3 §6 ridiculum (‘funny,’
‘droll’) dictum plerumque falsum est (ad hoc semper humile). Frieze
compares vi. 3, 7: and adds ‘success in exciting the mirth of the court
and the audience is not always a proof of the orator’s wit; but is often
due to mere bitterness of invective, and coarse and rough or droll terms
of abuse.’

One objection to this interpretation is the arrangement of the
sentences: _praeterea ... ridicula est_ connects even more
naturally with _sed plus ... dedit_ than with the eulogy contained
in _urbanitas et fervor_. And it may be doubted if Quintilian or
any other writer who had just been censuring Cassius for
_stomachus_ would immediately go on (using _ridiculus_ in a
good sense) to say that ‘often when he is merely bitter without being
witty (this is the force of _amaritudo ipsa_, cp. note on §45) he makes you laugh.’ Drollery can hardly be
claimed for unrelieved acrimoniousness.

A better sense can be obtained by taking _amaritudo ipsa ridicula
est_ as part not of the praise but of the censure of Cassius, and
interpreting ridicula as ‘silly,’ ‘absurd,’ ‘ridiculous.’ Cicero uses
the word in this sense, and there is abundant authority in Quintilian
himself: cp. sint grandia et tumida, non stulta etiam et acrioribus
oculis intuenti ridicula ii. 10, 6; ridiculum est v. 13, 7; fecit enim
risum sed ridiculus fuit vi. 1, 48; quibus nos ... ridiculi videmur vii.
1, 43: ix. 3, 100; x. 3,
21; xi. 3, 128. The meaning then is ‘while his wit is bitter, yet
bitterness by itself is silly,’ i.e. his wit has a bitter turn, but
where he is (as often) bitter without being witty, the result is poor.
There is undoubtedly something unsatisfactory about _ut amari
sales_ (sc. sunt), which might well have a general reference. See Crit. Notes.


 
I:118
Sunt alii multi diserti, quos persequi longum est. Eorum quos viderim
Domitius Afer et Iulius Africanus longe
praestantissimi.
116
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.

§ 118.
diserti here, as in §68 and 3 §13, almost synonymous with
_eloquentes_. In viii. pr. §13, however, Quintilian quotes a saying
of M. Antonius, which was meant to establish a difference: nam et
M. Antonius ... cum a se disertos visos esse multos ait, eloquentem
neminem, diserto satis putat dicere quae oporteat, ornate autem dicere
proprium esse eloquentis. Cp. i. 10, 8 ‘Fuit aliquis sine his disertus’:
‘at ego oratorem volo.’ Cicero gives the same quotation: Orat. §18: de
Orat. i. §94, where the reason for the distinction between the
‘accomplished speaker’ and ‘the eloquent orator’ is given by Antonius
himself,—quod ego eum statuebam disertum, qui posset satis acute
atque dilucide apud mediocres homines ex communi quadam opinione hominum
dicere, eloquentem vero, qui mirabilius et magnificentius augere posset
atque ornare quae vellet, omnesque omnium rerum, quae ad dicendum
pertinerent, fontes animo ac memoria contineret. Cp. Plin. Ep. v.
20 §5. For the derivation of _disertus_ v. Sandys on Orat.
§18.

longum est: the action is spoken of as still possible. Roby
1735. So Cic. pro Sest. 5: Longum est ea dicere: sed hoc breve dicam.
Cp. 2 §§4, 7: 5 §7: 6 §2.

quos viderim: see on §98. In xii.
10, 11 he has ‘in iis etiam quos ipsi vidimus,’ mentioning both Afer and
Africanus. Quintilian’s fondness for the perfect subjunctive is marked:
cp. xii. 5, 5.

Domitius Afer: see on §86: cp. v.
7, 7 quem adolescentulus senem colui.

Iulius Africanus: a native of Gaul, who flourished under Nero.
In xii. 10, 11 he is again named alongside of Afer,—vires
Africani, maturitatem Afri. He is quoted as speaking to Nero in the name
of Gaul viii. 5, 15 Insigniter Africanus apud Neronem de morte matris:
rogant
116
te, Caesar, Galliae tuae, ut felicitatem tuam fortiter feras. He divided
the palm of eloquence with Afer: Tac. Dial. 15, He was a son of the
Iulius Africanus of whom Tacitus speaks (Ann. vi. 7) as e Santonis
Gallica civitate (Saintonge, to the N. of the lower Garonne): a grandson
of his, also an orator, is mentioned by Pliny vii. 6, 11.

in numero veterum: cp. Tac. Dial. 15, ad fin.

compositione: v. on §79. If it
has the same meaning here, it must = the euphonious collocation of
words: see Cicero Orat. §147 de verbis enim componendis, &c., and
§149 sq. Quintilian treats of _compositio_ ix. 4, 1: Tr. ‘tedious
in his phraseology’: viii. 3, 52: ix. 4, 144 neque longioribus quam
oportet hyperbolis compositioni serviamus.

longior: i.e. he used ‘padding’ in the effort to round off his
periods.

translationibus: viii. 6, 4 sq.: esp. 16 sed copia quoque
modum egressa vitiosa est, praecipue in eadem specie.


 
I: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
117
natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior.

§ 119.
Trachalus, M. Galerius: consul A.D. 68 along with Silius Italicus. Tacitus (Hist.
i. 90) tells us he was supposed to have written the speech delivered by
Otho to an assembly of the people: in rebus urbanis Galerii Trachali
ingenio Othonem uti credebatur. Et erant qui genus ipsum orandi
noscerent, crebro fori usu celebre et ad inplendas populi aures latum et
sonans. After Otho’s death he was fortunate in securing the protection
of Galeria, wife of Vitellius (ibid. ii. 60), who may have been a
relation of his. From viii. 5, 19 we learn that he had published an
oration _Contra Spatalem_, in a case where Vibius Crispus appeared
for the accused. Cp. vi. 3, 78.

velle optima, not ‘well-meaning,’ in a moral sense, but with
reference to qualities of style: cp. below §122 ad optima tendentium: §131 meliora vellet.

auditus maior. In the passage often quoted already (xii. 10,
11) Quintilian singles out his _sonus_ for special
mention,—‘sonum Trachali.’—Gertz suggested _melior_ for
_maior_.

vocis ... felicitas: cp. xii. 5, 5, where, after enumerating
_vox_, _latus_, and _decor_ as the ‘naturalia
instrumenta’ of the orator, he refers specially to the ‘external
advantages’ (cp. omnia ... quae sunt extra, below) of Trachalus: Habuit
oratores aetas nostra copiosiores, sed cum diceret eminere inter
aequales Trachalus videbatur, Ea corporis sublimitas erat, is ardor
oculorum, frontis auctoritas, gestus praestantia, vox quidem non, ut
Cicero desiderat, paene tragoedorum sed super omnes, quos ego quidem
audierim, tragoedos. Certe cum in basilica Iulia diceret primo
tribunali, quattuor autem iudicia, ut moris est, cogerentur, atque omnia
clamoribus fremerent, et auditum eum et intellectum et, quod agentibus
ceteris contumeliosissimum fuit, laudatum quoque ex quattuor
tribunalibus memini. Sed hoc votum est et rara felicitas.

suffectura, conditional, for _quae suffectura fuisset_,
without the protasis _si voluisset_. Cp. note on _habitura_ §99. So _taciturus_ xi. 2, 16. Hor.
Car. iv. 3, 20 donatura, si libeat: and ii. 6, 1 (where there is no
protasis), Septimi Gades aditure mecum—For _pronuntiatio_ see
on §17.

superfuerunt, he had an abundant share of such advantages.

Vibius Crispus, a _delator_ of the age of Nero, who
amassed great wealth by the practice of his profession down to about
A.D. 90. Tac. Hist. ii. 10 Vibius
Crispus, pecunia potentia ingenio inter claros magis quam inter bonos
... Crispum easdem accusationes cum praemio exercuisse meminerant: ibid.
iv. 41, 43. In the Dialogue Tacitus speaks of the fame of his eloquence,
ch. 8 ausim contendere Marcellum Eprium et Crispum Vibium
117
non minores esse in extremis partibus terrarum quam Capuae aut
Vercellis, ubi nati dicuntur; hoc ... illis praestat ... ipsa
eloquentia...; per multos iam annos potentissimi sunt civitatis ac,
donec libuit, principes fori, nunc principes in Caesaris (i.e.
Vespasiani) amicitia agunt feruntque cuncta, &c. And yet (ibid. 13)
Adligati canum adulatione nec imperantibus unquam satis servi videntur
nec nobis satis liberi. That he was still in favour with Domitian
appears from Suet. 3 inter initia principatus quotidie secretum sibi
horarium sumere solebat; nec quidquam amplius quam muscas captare ac
stylo praeacuto configere: ut cuidam interroganti esset ne quis intus
cum Caesare non absurde responsum sit a Vibio Crispo ‘Ne musca quidem.’
His wealth was proverbial: divitior Crispo Mart. iv. 54, 7: he was worth
200,000,000 sesterces, or even 300,000,000 according to Dial. 8. By
its means he was enabled to shelter his brother Vibius Secundus, when
accused of ‘repetundae’ in Mauretania: Tac. Ann. xiv. 28. Juvenal gives
a sketch of his character iv. 81-93 Venit et Crispi iucunda senectus
Cuius erant mores qualis facundia mite Ingenium ... nec civis erat qui
libera posset Verba animi proferre et vitam impendere vero ... Sic
multas hiemes atque octogesima vidit Solstitia his armis illa (of
Domitian) quoque tutus in aula.

compositus: generally applied to style, ‘well-balanced,’ e.g.
§44 lenis et nitidi et compositi generis:
cp. Cicero Orat. §208 composita oratio. Here the epithet is transferred
to the orator in the sense of ‘orderly,’ ‘finished’ in the choice and
combination of words. Cp. Orat. §232 compositi oratoris bene structam
collocationem dissolvere permutatione verborum: 2 §16 below fiunt ... pro ...
compositis exultantes: §66
incompositus.

iucundus, ‘lively, agreeable, entertaining’: cp. Crispi
iucunda senectus, Iuv., quoted above. In xii. 10, §11 Quintilian places
_iucunditatem Crispi_ alongside of the distinguishing
characteristics of other orators: cp. v. 13, 48 Vibius Crispus vir
ingenii iucundi et elegantis.


 
I: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.

§ 120.
Iulius Secundus is highly spoken of 3 §12 below: aequalem meum
atque a me, ut notum est, familiariter amatum, mirae facundiae virum,
infinitae tamen curae: and in xii. 10, 11 he is named as conspicuous for
‘elegantia.’ He is one of the interlocutors in the Dialogue of Tacitus,
where he is made to pose as umpire between the representatives of
Imperial and Republican eloquence: cp. esp. ch. 2 Aper et Iulius
Secundus, celeberrima tum (under Vespasian) ingenia fori nostri ...
Secundo purus et pressus et in quantum satis erat profluens sermo non
defuit: chs. 4 and 14.

adiciebat: he had begun the improvement when death overtook
him. He died about 88 A.D., not long
before Quintilian began his _Institutio_.

curam rerum: he is to care for substance as well as form.
Fabianus in Seneca (Epist. 100) had the opposite fault: visne illum
assidere pusillae rei, verbis?


 
I: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
118
quibusdam ex periculo petitis significantia.

§ 121.
interceptus: so vi. pr. 1 si me ... fata intercepissent.

candidum: ‘lucid,’ v. on §73
(Herodotus), and cp. §113 Messalla ...
candidus: §101 clarissimi candoris, of
Livy.

lene opp. to forte et vehemens dicendi genus: §44. See Crit. Notes.

adsumpta = _translata_, ‘used figuratively.’ Cp. viii. 3,
43 adsumere ea, quibus inlustrem fieri orationem putat, delecta,
translata, superlata, ad nomen adiuncta, duplicata et idem significantia
atque ab ipsa actione atque imitatione rerum non abhorrentia. When the
process is carried too far the _verba adsumpta_, become
_arcessita_ viii. 3. 56.

proprietas, v. on §46.

118
ex periculo: ii. 12, 5 quod est in elocutione ipsa periculum:
viii. 6, 11 (verba) quae audaci et proxime periculum translatione
tolluntur ... qualis est: pontem indignatus Araxes. Cp. paene
periclitantia xi. 1, 32. For the phrase ex periculo petere cp. ii.
11, 3 sententiis grandibus, quarum optima quaeque a periculo petarur.
Gr. παρακεκινδυνευμένα.

significantia: §49.


 
I: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.

§ 122.
eos qui nunc vigent. Who these were we can infer from the
Dialogue of Tacitus and from Pliny’s Letters, e.g. Aper, Marcellus,
Maternus, Aquilius Regulus, and others. Quintilian must of course have
meant to include Tacitus and Pliny themselves.

consummati: often equivalent to _perfectus_ in
Quintilian: 5 §14. Cp.
above §89. It is combined with
_perfectus_ v. 10, 119 ne se ... perfectos protinus atque
consummates putent.

veteribus. _Aemulari_ occurs elsewhere with the
accusative, §62; 2 §17. So of envious emulation
Cic. Tusc. i. §44: cp. iv. §17 with the dative of the person.

iuvenum ad optima tendentium. Hild refers to the speeches of
Messalla and Maternus in the Dial. (28-30, 34-36) as indicating the
oratorical aspirations of the youth of Rome when Quintilian wrote.


 
I: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
119
extitit. Egregius vero multoque quam in orationibus praestantior
Brutus suffecit ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire quae
dicit.

§ 123.
philosophia. For the attitude of the Romans to philosophy see
Teuffel, §40 sq. Abstract speculation, leading to no practical end, was
not held in honour by them: like Neoptolemus, in the play of Ennius,
they said ‘philosophari est mihi necesse, at paucis (i.e. ‘only a
little’: Roby, §1237) nam omnino haud placet,’—Cicero de Orat. ii.
§156: de Repub. i. 18, 30: Pacuvius too (in Gell. xiii. 8) had made
one of his characters exclaim: ego odi homines ignava opera et
philosopha sententia. The Romans disliked the unsettling tendencies
which seemed to accompany the study of philosophy: hence e.g. their
treatment of the Athenian ambassadors in the middle of the second
century B.C. The prejudice against
such studies had by no means entirely disappeared even in the time of
Cicero, who constantly apologises for and seeks to justify his leanings
to philosophy: de Off. ii. 1, 2 sqq.: de Fin. i. 1, 1. Tacitus,
Agricola 4, tells us that Agricola used to say ‘se prima in iuventa
studium philosophiae acrius, ultra quam concessum Romano ac senatori,
hausisse, ni prudentia matris incensum ac flagrantem animum
coercuisset.’ About the time when Quintilian was writing, Domitian
banished the philosophers from Rome: ibid. ch. 2. For the help
which philosophy can give to oratory see xii. 11, which contains (§7) an
expression of the Roman ideal: atqui ego illum quem instituo Romanum
quendam velim esse sapientem, qui non secretis disputationibus, sed
rerum experimentis atque operibus vere civilem virum exhibeat. Cp.
Cicero’s boast in regard to himself and Cato of Utica: nos philosophiam
veram illam et antiquam, quae quibusdam otii esse ac desidiae videtur,
in forum atque in rempublicam atque in ipsam aciem paene deduximus. See
on §84.

paucissimos ... eloquentes. The addition of an adj. to another
adj. used as a subst. is rare in Quintilian. Hirt (Subst. des Adj.
p. 17) cites only five exx. besides this one: e.g. iii. 8, 31
antiquis nobilibus ortos.

qui ubique. The sense is clear: it is a repetition of the
claim made in §108 mihi videtur
M. Tullius ... effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam Platonis,
iucunditatem Isocratis. But it was not _ubique_ that Cicero
rivalled Plato: it was only in Plato’s own domain (sc. in hoc opere).
The expression
119
was adopted for brevity’s sake: Spalding says it is equivalent to ‘ut
ubique Graecorum praestantissimi cuiusque, ita in hoc opere Platonis.’
For Cicero’s philosophical writings cp. Teuffel, §173 sq.

Brutus: cp. §23. He is not
included in Quintilian’s list of orators; and though Cicero uses towards
him the language of extravagant eulogy (v. esp. Brut. §22) in many of
his works, yet we know from a passage in the Dialogue already quoted
that he sometimes found him ‘otiosum atque disiunctum’ ch. 18. Cp.
ch. 21 Brutum philosophiae suae relinquamus. Nam in orationibus minorem
esse, fama sua etiam admiratores eius fatentur. A reference follows
to his speech ‘Pro rege Deiotaro,’ which the speaker (Aper) considers
‘dull and tedious’—_lentitudo_ and _tepor_ being the
words used. A fragment of a declamation by him is quoted ix. 3
§95–. On his philosophical works see Cic. Acad. i. 3, 12 (with
Reid’s note). He was an adherent of the Stoico-academic school, whose
tenets he had studied under Aristus and Antiochus: cp. Tusc. v. 21:
Brut. 120, 149, 332: de Fin. v. 8. There was a treatise _de
Virtute_ addressed to Cicero, one περὶ καθήκοντος, and one _de Patientia_:
Teuffel, 209 §§2 and 3.

suffecit ponderi rerum: Quint. xii. 10, 11 names
_gravitas_ as his distinguishing quality: cp. gravior Brutus, Tac.
Dial. ch. 25.

sentire quae dicit. The intensity and sincerity of his nature
can be inferred from ad Att. xiv. 1, 2, where Caesar is quoted as saying
of him _magni refert hic quid velit, sed quicquid vult valde vult_.
For his devotion to study see 7 §27 below.


 
I: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
120
auctor est Catius.

§ 124.
non parum multa: litotes, as at vi. 2, 3 semper fuerunt non parum
multi.—Becher compares also non parum multi Cic. in Verr. iii. 9,
22: Phil. vii. 6, 18: pro Quinctio 3, 11: in Verr. iv. 12, 29: parum
saepe de Fin. ii. 4, 12. The opposite of _non parum_ is _non
nimis_: cp. Liv. xxii. 26, 4 haud parum callide with Cic. de Nat.
Deor. i. 25, 70 nihil horum nimis callide.

Cornelius Celsus: a celebrated encyclopaedist under Augustus
and Tiberius, who wrote on rhetoric, jurisprudence, farming, medicine,
military art, and practical philosophy. Only eight books on medicine
have come down to us. He survived into the reign of Nero. Cp. §23 above. Of his philosophy Augustine writes as
follows (de Haeres. Prol.): opiniones omnium philosophorum qui sectas
varias condiderunt usque ad tempora sua ... sex non parvis voluminibus
... absolvit; nec redarguit aliquem, sed tantum quid sentirent aperuit,
ea brevitate sermonis ut tantum adhiberet eloquii quantum ... aperiendae
iudicandaeque sententiae sufficeret. In xii. 11, 24 Quintilian refers to
the universality of his knowledge, though he speaks of him as mediocri
vir ingenio. “In other passages also Quintilian often expresses his
disagreement from this predecessor of his, e.g. ii. 15, 22, 32: iii. 6,
13 sq.: viii. 3, 47: ix. 1, 18 ... Even when he agrees with him he does
so with reserve, e.g. vii. 1, 10.—It may be that Quintilian
was vexed that a subject to which he had devoted an entire life was
merely cursorily treated by Celsus, and besides an encyclopaedia might
easily be open to technical objections. At all events, Celsus’
rhetorical manual was obscured by that of Quintilian. It is mentioned
only by Fortunat. iii. 2 (p. 121, 10 H)”—Teuffel, 275.

Sextios. The Sextii, father and son, were contemporary with
Caesar and Augustus, and belonged to the Pythagorean school, though not
without a leaning to the Stoics (Seneca, Ep. 64 §2–). Seneca
speaks frequently of the elder Sextius in his letters: e.g.
59 §7– ‘virum acrem, Graecis verbis, Romanis moribus
philosophantem.’ In the Nat. Quaest. vii. 32, 2 we are told how their
following—‘Sextiorum nova et Romani roboris secta’—soon fell
away: ‘inter initia sua extincta est,’ v. Teuffel 261.

cultu ac nitore: v. §79 and §83, with notes.

Plautus. The text is not certain (see Crit. Notes), but as Quintilian
elsewhere (ii. 14, 2 and iii. 6, 23) refers to a philosopher
120
of this name as employing the unusual words _queentia_ and
_essentia_, it may as well be retained. (In ii. 14, 2 however
Meister reads Flavi: cp. Teuffel, 261, §9.)

levis: ‘of no weight.’

Catius, an Insubrian by birth, contemporary with Cicero, who
speaks of his recent death ad Fam. xv. 16, 1; cp. 19, 2 Epicurus, a quo
omnes Catii et Amafinii, mali verborum interpretes (referring to their
faithful transcripts of Greek terminology) proficiscuntur. The scholiast
on Hor. Sat. ii. 4 tells us that he wrote ‘quattuor libros de rerum
natura et de summo bono.’


 
I: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.

§ 125.
Seneca: A.D. 2-65. For his life
and works see Teuffel 282 sqq., Bernhardy p. 871 sq. Martha gives
an estimate of the moral teaching of his well-known Letters in
‘Moralistes sous l’Empire Romain.’ Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca is
subjected to a searching examination by M. Samuel Rocheblave in a
pamphlet De M. Fabio Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae Judice
(Paris, 1890): see esp. chs. iii. and iv. Introduction, pp. xxiv.
sqq.

opinionem. Quintilian worked hard to recall the Romans to a
more temperate and classical style. He aimed too at a partial ‘return to
Cicero,’ and considered Seneca a dangerous model for the youth of the
day. See Introduction, pp. xxxix. sqq. Fronto and others used
stronger language: e.g. p. 155 N eloquentiam ... Senecae mollibus
et febriculosis prunuleis insitam subvertendam censeo radicitus ...
neque ignoro copiosum sententiis et redundantem hominem esse, verum
sententias eius tolutares video, quatere campum quadripedo concita
cursu, tenere nusquam, pugnare nusquam ... dicteria potius eum quam
dicta continere. Cp. Aul. Gell. xii. 2, 1 de Annaeo Seneca partim
existimant ut de scriptore minime utili, cuius libros attingere nullum
pretium operae sit, quod oratio eius vulgaris videatur et protrita, res
atque sententiae aut inepto inanique impetu sint aut levi et quasi
dicaci argutia, eruditio autem vernacula et plebeia nihilque ex veterum
scriptis habens neque gratiae neque dignitatis. Alii vero elegantiae in
verbis parum esse non infitias eunt, sed et rerum quas dicat scientiam
doctrinamque ei non deesse dicunt et in vitiis morum obiurgandis
severitatem gravitatemque non invenustam. So too Caligula (Suet. 53) had
called Seneca’s productions arena sine calce, commissiones merae.

damnare ... invisum habere. There is nothing in this of a
moral judgment, though some of Quintilian’s contemporaries, notably
Tacitus, disliked Seneca, probably because they could not acquit him
from blame in regard to his pupil Nero’s excesses, and other matters.
The only parallel to _et invisum quoque_ in classical Latin is said
by Becher to be Cic. pro Domo §47 quoniam iam dialecticus es et haec
quoque liguris. It does not occur in Caesar, seldom in Livy, but
frequently in Quintilian. Cp. on §20.

corruption ... genus. He is not speaking of the false taste of
Seneca’s style exclusively, but of the general deterioration that
prevailed: cp. §43 recens haec
lascivia.

dum contendo: ‘through the efforts I made’: the _tum_
which follows shows that it refers to past time.

solus hic fere in manibus. Tac. Ann. xiii. 3 fuit illi viro
ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus adcommodatum. In his
endeavours to introduce a purer taste Quintilian naturally made so
popular an author as Seneca the peg on which to hang his discourse.


 
I:126
Quem non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non
sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum diversi sibi conscius
121
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.

§ 126.
excutere: sc. e manibus adulescentium.

incessere. At the close of the passage quoted above, Gellius
goes on to quote, with much indignation, Seneca’s disparaging criticism
of Ennius, Cicero, and Vergil, from Book xxii of the Letters to Lucilius
(no longer extant). In Ep. 114 we find
121
him censoring Sallust and those who imitated him. Sueton. Ner. 52 a
cognitione veterum oratorum Seneca praeceptor, quo diutius in
admiratione sui detineret (Neronem avertit). For _iis_, see Crit. Notes.

defluebant = degenerabant, i. 8, 9 quando nos in omnia
deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus.


 
I: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.

§ 127.
Foret ... optandum, of a wish that is considered
impossible,—which shows how high was Quintilian’s opinion of
Seneca: cp. _ac saltem proximus_. So velles §130. For the infin. see Introd. p. lvi.

ad ea ... effingenda: cp. Cic. Orat. §9 ad illius
similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. For _effingenda_ cp. §108.

quae poterat, sc. effingere: cp. Caesar, B.C. 37 quam
celerrime potuit (comparare).

infamabat, ‘brought reproach on.’


 
I: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.

§ 128.
alioqui: see Introd. p. li.

quibus ... mandabat. Especially for physical science he must
have been greatly indebted to external aid. His VII Books ‘Naturalium
Quaestionum,’ with the addition of moral meditations, were used as a
text-book in the Middle Ages.

 
I: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
122
fuit. Multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum gratia
legenda, sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima,
quod abundant dulcibus vitiis.

§ 129.
orationes. None survive. Quintilian refers (viii. 5, 18) to
the speech he made for Nero on the occasion of his mother’s funeral:
Tac. Ann. xiii. 3, cp. 11. It is probable also that Seneca wrote the
speeches mentioned by Suet. Ner. 7, the ‘gratiarum actio’ in the Senate,
‘pro Bononiensibus latine, pro Rhodiis atque Iliensibus graece.’ He also
pleaded with success in the law-courts (Dion Cass. 59, 19, 7.).

poemata. That Seneca wrote poetry is evident from Tacitus Ann.
xiv. 52, where his accusers, in order to prejudice him in the eyes of
Nero (who was jealous of his reputation as a poet and an
orator),—obiiciebant etiam eloquentiae laudem uni sibi adsciscere
et carmina crebrius factitare postquam Neroni amor eorum venisset: cp.
Suet. Ner. 52. He is said also to have written epigrams, and other forms
of verse.—His tragedies are not referred to here, though
Quintilian quotes from the Medea ix. 2, 8: see for them Teuffel 285;
Bernhardy, note 322.

epistulae. The Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, as we have them
now (see 3rd vol. of Teubner edition), are 124 in number, arranged in
twenty books. There were more however originally, and Priscian speaks of
Book x of the letters to Novatus (in decimo epistularum ad Novatum),
while Martial (vii. 45, 3) refers to letters to Caesonius Maximus,
of which we know nothing more.

dialogi, i.e. the works called by this name in the Milan MS.,
not his tragedies, though these were written to be read rather than to
be acted. There are twelve of them (v. Teuffel 284 §4–), and
each is dedicated to some particular individual. There is besides the De
Clementia ad Neronem, and a Dialogus de Superstitione (no longer extant
except in the fragment given in Augustine’s C.D. vi. 10) directed
against the anthropomorphism of popular superstition.

feruntur: §23.

parum diligens: ‘not very critical.’ He was a student of life
rather than a student of thought.

vitiorum insectator: cp. Lactantius,
122
Inst. Div. v. 9 morum vitiorumqne publicorum et descriptor verissimus et
accusator acerrimus.

eo for ideo: cp. Hor. Sat. i. 6, 89 eoque non ... Quod non
ingenuos habeat ... parentes.

 

 
I: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.

§ 130.
iudicio, ‘taste,’ as §127 above:
cp. M. Seneca (of Capito) ‘habebat in sua potestate ingenium, in
aliena modum.’

obliqua. For this apt conjecture (in place of the traditional
_aliqua_), see Crit. Notes.

si parum recta. On the assumption that a word has fallen out
of the MSS. after _parum_, _recta_ is preferable to Halm and
Meister’s _sana_. For _rectum_ as abstr. cp. ii. 13, 11: xii.
1, 12. See Crit.
Notes.

omnia sua amasset, §88 of Ovid,
nimium amator ingenii sui. Cp. below 3 §12 utros peccare validius
putem, quibus omnia sua placent...

rerum pondera ... fregisset: contrast §123 suffecit ponderi rerum. Seneca ‘weakened the
force of his matter by striving after epigrammatic brevity.’

amore, of an ill-considered attachment (§94: 2 §19), whereas _studio_
would have indicated mature taste, vi. 2, 12 amor πάθος, caritas ἦθος.


 
I: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.

§ 131.
sic quoque = καὶ
οὕτως.

robustis, opp. to _pueris_: cp. 5 §1 below. Cp. Tac. Dial. 35
‘controversiae robustioribus adsignantur,’ while ‘suasoriae pueris
delegantur.’

firmatis. So occupatos 3 §27: exercitatos 5 §17. Introd.
pp. xlviii-ix.

vel ideo quod: §86: 5 §16.

utrimque, i.e. laudantium et vituperantium, ‘for and against
him.’ So 5, 20: 6, 7: and cp. 1, 22. Introd. p. lii.

Multa enim ... digna enim, another instance of the want of
care that has been already noted, 2 §23.

natura: cp. §86.




CHAPTER II.

Of Imitation.


De Imitatione.

II:1
II. 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
123
enim dubitari potest, quin artis pars magna contineatur imitatione. Nam
ut invenire primum fuit estque praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa sunt
utile sequi.

§ 1.
verborum ... copia: cp. 1 §5 and §8.

varietas figurarum: see note on plurima vero mutatione
figuramus 1 §12.

componendi ratio, the ‘theory of rhythmical arrangement’: see
on _compositione_ 1 §79: and cp. §§44, 52, and 66.

tum ... virtutum omnium: i.e. in reading the best authors we
are not only to acquire facility and dexterity in regard to the points
enumerated, but to imitate also all the good qualities exemplified in
their works.

ad exemplum, ‘after the model of,’ as ii. 3, 12 ad Phoenicis
Homerici exemplum
123
dicere ac facere: not like _in exemplum_ §2 below, ‘as a model.’ The same use of _ad_
occurs below ad propositum sibi praescriptum: and 7 §3 ad incursus tempestatum ... ratio mutanda
est.

mens derigenda: so vi. 5, 2 ideoque nos quid in quaque re
sequendum cavendumque sit docemus ac deinceps docebimus, ut ad ea
iudicium derigatur. For the form _derigo_ see Munro on Lucr. vi.
823: ‘this was probably the only genuine ancient form.’ So Cic. pro Mur.
§3 vitam ad certam rationis normam derigenti: Orator §9 ad illius
similitudinem artem et manum derigebat (where, however, Sandys reads
dirigebat): Tac. Dial. §5 ad utilitatem vitae omnia consilia ...
derigenda sunt: Ann. iv. 40 ad famam praecipua rerum derigere. Cp. note
on 3 §28.

dubitari: see on 1 §73, §81.

imitatione: a reference to Aristotle’s general theory of art,
made to introduce the subject of imitation (μίμησις, ζῆλος) in the sphere of oratory. This
is defined by Cornif. ad Herenn. i. 2, 3 imitatio est qua impellimur cum
diligenti ratione ut aliquorum similes in dicendo velimus esse: cp. de
Orat. ii. §90 sq.


 
II: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.
124
§ 2.
ratio sic constat: ‘it is a universal rule of life that,’ &c.
More usual would have been ‘ita ratio comparata est vitae ut,’ &c.
(Cic. de Amicit. §101). The phrase _ratio constat_ (cp. rationem
reddere) was originally a figure taken from commerce (ratio—reor,
‘calculate,’ ‘count’), as Tac. Ann. i. 6 eam condicionem esse imperandi
ut non aliter ratio constet quam si uni reddatur: i.e. if you are an
absolute ruler the only way to ‘get your accounts square’ is to audit
them yourself. So Nettleship (Lat. Lex.) would explain here ‘there is
this balance in ordinary life’: i.e. the account of life only comes out
right on the supposition that, &c,—civilised life would come
to an end unless, &c. More probably Quintilian is employing here a
loose combination of two modes of expression, ratio constat ut, &c.,
and such a phrase as that quoted from Cic. de Amicit. §101: cp. Acad.
ii. §132 omnis ratio vitae definitione summi boni continetur. In Pliny’s
letters the same expression is constantly used (like _ratio est_ in
Cicero) for ‘it is right or reasonable’: iii. 18, 10 confido in hoc
genere materiae laetioris stili constare rationem: i. 5, 16 mihi et
temptandi aliquid et quiescendi ... ratio constabit: ii. 4, 4 in te vero
ratio constabit: cp. vii. 6, 4.—For the thought cp. Arist.
Poet. 1, 4 τό τε γὰρ μιμεῖσθαι σύμφυτον τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις ἐκ παίδων ἐστί κ.τ.λ.

ductus, ‘tracings,’—writing-copies made on wax-tablets:
cp. i. 1. 25 sq., esp. §27 cum vero iam ductus sequi coeperit, non
inutile erit eas tabellae quam optime insculpi, ut per illos velut
sulcos ducatur stilus.

usus: cp. Cic. Acad. ii. §2 Ingenii magnitudo non desideravit
indocilem usus disciplinam: de Orat. i. §15 ut ad eam doctrinam quam suo
quisque studio adsecutus esset adiungeretur usus frequens: pro Balbo §45.

experimento: cp. vi. 2, 25 experimento meo ac natura ipsa
duce. The phrase _experimento probare_ occurs in the Vulgate, Esth.
iii. 5.

in exemplum: cp. §11 in exemplum
adsumimus.

initia, abstract for concrete: cp. 3 §8 hanc moram et sollicitudinem initiis (i.e.
incipientibus) impero. So in ii. 4, 13 ‘studia’ is put for
‘studiosi.’

ad ... praescriptum: subst. as frequently in Cicero, e.g.
Orat. §36. So Quint. ii. 13, 2: iv. 2, 84: ix. 4, 117. Cp. Seneca Ep. 94
§51 pueri ad praescriptum discunt. On the other hand _propositum_
is even more frequently used as a noun by Quintilian: e.g. §11 omnis imitatio ... ad alienum propositum
accommodatur: ii. 10, 15 omne propositum operis
124
a nobis destinati: v. 11, 31 ad praesens propositum.


 
II: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.

§ 3.
hoc ipsum quod must go together, ‘the fact that’: cp. ix. 2, 69
aperta figura perdit hoc ipsum quod figura est. The commentators wrongly
take _quod_ as the conjunction and explain _hoc ipsum_ as
imitatio (or perhaps the advantage of having examples to follow).

tanto without a correlative: cp. tanto plena §28: Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. i. 1, 2 at tanto
officiosior quam ceteri? In all three instances the quam depends on the
comparative.

rationem rerum omnium: the general course, method, or
procedure of everything, ‘every process’: cp. 3 §31 ratio delendi. _Ratio_ is often
used with the genitive of a subst. as a periphrasis for the subst.
itself, Zumpt. §678: the various instances are well classified by
Nettleship, Lat. Lex. p. 566, 9 and 11.

adprehenditur, frequent in Quintilian of taking hold of a
fact, idea, or argument: cp. v. 14, 23 quae (leges oratorias) Graeci
adprehensa magis in catenas ligant: vi. 4, 18 quod adprehendens maius
aliquid cogatur dimittere: vii. 1, 56 in hoc de quo loquimur patre quid
adprehendi potest?


 
II: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.

§ 4.
Ante omnia: cp. the formula _ac primum quidem_, introducing
the first argument, viz. that imitation is not sufficient in itself:
others follow in §7: §10: and §12 adde quod
ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt, &c.

vel quia: ‘just because,’ i.e. because (if for no other
reason) it is the mark of, &c. The use of _vel_ implies that
there are other reasons which could be adduced, if the reader cared to
have them (vel—si velis). Cp. 1 §75 vel hoc est ipso
probabilis: §80,
§86: 5 §8: Roby §2222.

Quid futurum erat: §7 below.
Contrast the use of the plpf. subj. in the _definite_ apodosis
supplied in ‘nihil fuisset inventum.’ For the indic. cp. longum est
1 §118: oportebat
2 §28: fas erat
5 §7: satis erat
6 §2.

Nempe, ‘why!’ For a similar use of _nempe_, apart from
all irony, in answer to a question, cp. Livy vi. 41 penes quos igitur
sunt auspicia more maiorum? nempe penes patres. In such cases the assent
of the imaginary interlocutor is taken for granted.—Frotscher
compares Libanius, Declam. xviii. p. 487 εἰ δ᾽ ἀεί τινος ἔδει παραδείγματος οὐκ ἂν ἀρχὴν οὐδὲ ἓν
ἐλάμβανεν.


 
II: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?

§ 5.
illi rudes is explained by §4
temporibus illis quae sine exemplo fuerunt. _An_ is the mark of a
double question, being used to introduce the second alternative as
opposed to the first, even when the first is understood rather than
expressed. Here it almost = num, and implies the needlessness of the
preceding remark (Roby 2255), and introduces an _à fortiori_
argument; cp. Cicero, Tusc. v. §90 Cur pecuniam ... curet omnino? An
Scythes Anacharsis potuit pro nihilo pecuniam ducere, nostrates
philosophi facere non potuerunt? Cic. Cat. i. 1, 3. So 3 §29 below an vero ... hoc cogitatio
praestat: 5 §7.

certe scimus. _Certe_ is less absolute
125
than _certo_. Acc. to Klotz ad Cic. de Sen. i. 2 certe scio =
certum est me scire (‘I am sure that I know’): certo scio = certum est
quod scio (‘I have certain or sure knowledge,’ ‘my knowledge is
accurate’). Cp. Ter. Andr. 503 with 929.


 
II:6
Et
125
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.

§ 6.
cuiusquam rei. _Quisquam_ (generally subst.) is, when
employed adjectivally, more usually found along with names of persons or
words implying personality: cp. iv. 1, 10 ne contumeliosi in quenquam
hominem ordinemve videamur: 7 §3
below quisquam ... orator: iii. 1, 22 cuiusquam sectae.

in posteros: so i. 1, 6: ad posteros xii. 11, 28.—For
tradiderunt, see Crit.
Notes.

eruendas: ix. 2, 64 latens aliquid eruitur: xii. 8, 13 multa
... patronus eruet: iv. 2, 60 hoc quoque tamquam occultum et a se
prudenter erutum tradunt. Quintilian follows Cicero in the figurative
use of this word; e.g. de Orat. ii. 146 scrutari locos ex quibus
argumenta eruamus: ibid. 360 hac exercitatione non eruenda memoria est,
si est nulla naturalis, sed certe, si latet, evocanda est.

beneficii. This gen. occurs in the phrase ‘sui beneficii
facere,’ not uncommon in the Latin of the Silver Age, ‘to make dependent
on one’s own bounty or favour.’ Suet. Claud. 23 commeatus a senatu peti
solitos benefici sui fecit: Iust. xiii. 4, 9 ut munus imperii beneficii
sui faceret: Sen. Ben. iii. 18, 4. The phrase is equivalent to
nihil habebimus _nisi quod sit_ or _quod non sit_ ben. al. =
nisi quod debeamus aliis (‘due to the favour of others’). Becher cites
the analogous expression ‘tui muneris habeo’ in Tac. Ann. xiv. 55: cp.
ib. xv. 52, 4 ne ... sui muneris rem publicam faceret, and tui muneris
est Hor. Car. iv. 3, 21. So ‘ducere aliquid offici sui.’ The
genitive must not therefore be explained as a gen. of quality, dependent
on _nihil_ (as Meister).

in id solum student. The construction (which occurs again xii.
6, 6 in quam rem studendum sit) seems to be modelled on that of
_niti_. Here, however, _ei soli_ could not have
stood.—The process of ‘copying by measures and lines’ is not
unknown even now. The picture to be reproduced, and the surface on which
the copy was to be made, were divided into equal numbers of squares
(mensurae) by lines drawn across at right angles.


 
II: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
126
pontificum annales haberemus; ratibus adhuc navigaremus; non esset
pictura, nisi quae lineas modo extremas umbrae, quam corpora in sole
fecissent, circumscriberet.

§ 7.
turpe etiam. For the argument see Crit. Notes.

contentum ... consequi. The constr. c. infin. is very common
in Quintilian: over a dozen instances are given in Bonn. Lex. (q.v.). It
passed from the usage of poetry (e.g. Ovid, Metam. i. 461) into the
prose of the Silver Age. Cicero would have used _satis habere_. Cp.
solus legi dignus 1 §96.

rursus resumes quid futurum erat §4.

in poetis ... in historiis: see on 1 §28: 1 §75.

Livius Andronicus. Cicero (Brutus §71) compares his translation of the Odyssey to the
first rude attempts at sculpture, which passed under the name of
Daedalus: nam et Odyssia Latina est sic tamquam opus aliquod Daedali et
Livianae fabulae non satis dignae quae iterum legantur. Cp. Liv. xxvii.
§37 forsitan laudabile rudibus ingeniis, nunc abhorrens et
inconditum.—Livius was a native of Tarentum, who came to Rome as a
slave after the capture of his native city (272 B.C.) and set up as a schoolmaster: his Odyssey
survived for scholastic purposes down to the days of Orbilius and Horace
(Ep. ii. 1, 69). His production in B.C. 240—the year after the end of the First
Punic War—of a tragedy and comedy in Latin (in which he discarded
the old Saturnian metre), may be said to mark the beginning of Roman
literature. For thirty years he continued to produce plays at the Roman
games, adapting the indigenous Italian drama,
126
such as it was, to the laws which regulated dramatic composition among
the Greeks; and when he died at a ripe old age, a compliment was paid to
his memory by the assignment of the Temple of Minerva on the Aventine to
the ‘guild of poets’ (collegium poetarum) as a place for their
meetings.

pontificum annales: also called Annales Maximi, probably
because they were kept by the Pontifex Maximus. In them was preserved
the list of consuls and other magistrates, and they recorded in the
baldest fashion the most noteworthy events of each magistracy. Cp. Cic.
de Orat. ii. §52 erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio,
&c. P. Mucius Scaevola, the consul of 133 B.C., edited them in thirty books. Teuffel §66: Mommsen, i. 477 sq.

lineas extremas, i.e. the tracing of outlines: this was said
to have been the origin of painting. Pliny N. H. xxxv. 5 Graeci
(picturam affirmant) ... repertam ... umbra hominis lineis circumducta.
Cp. the distinction between free imitation and servile copying in the
following from Aulus Gellius (xvii. 20, 8): ea quae in Platonis
oratione demiramur, non aemulari quidem, sed lineas umbrasque facere
ausi sumus.


 
II: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.

§ 8.
nisi forte: cp. 1 §70: 3 §31: 5 §6.

infelicitatis: cp. on 1 §7 infelicis operae. So viii.
prooem. §27 abominanda ... haec infelicitas ... quae et cursum dicendi
refrenat et calorem cogitationis extinguit mora et diffidentia. xi. 2,
49 haec rara infelicitas erit. Pliny N. H. praef. 23 has ‘infelix’
ingenium for ‘sterile.’ The opposite would be beatissima ubertas 1 §109. For the constr. c.
genit. cp. ii. 5, 24 neque enim nos tarditatis natura damnavit: ix. 2,
81 tyrannidis affectatae damnatus: vii. 8, 3 incesti damnata.

demum: v. on 1 §44.


 
II: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.

§ 9.
oratorem perfectum: §28 below, with
which cp. the preface to Book i, §9 Oratorem autem instituimus illum
perfectum qui esse nisi vir bonus non potest. So Cicero, Orat. §7: de
Orat. i. §117.

nemo sit inventus: cp. Pr. i. §18 qualis fortasse nemo adhuc
fuerit. So too i. 10, 4 where referring to Cicero’s Orator he says:
quibus ego primum hoc respondeo, quod M. Cicero scripto ad Brutum
libro frequentius testatur: non eum a nobis institui oratorem qui sit
aut fuerit, sed imaginem quandam concepisse nos animo perfecti illius et
nulla parte cessantis. Orat. §7 non saepe atque haud scio an
nunquam.

summa: Pr. i. §§19-20 nobis ad summa tendendum est ... altius
tamen ibunt qui ad summa nitentur. xii. 11 §26 contendere = certare
ut priores sunt, ‘compete,’ ‘rival.’


 
II: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
127
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.

§ 10.
forsitan: c. ind. as in Quint. Curt. iv. xiv. 20.

utique. See on 1 §20. Tr. ‘in whose footsteps he
thinks he must by all means follow.’

127
adde quod, used thrice within three paragraphs §§10, 11, 12: another proof of a certain want of finish in
Quintilian’s style. Cp. on 2 §23: and
discrimine ... discernantur, below.—See Introd. p. liii.

in hoc, i.e. in the endeavour to reproduce.

utique ... aliquo: iv. 5, 8 in omni partitione est utique
aliquid potentissimum: iv. 1, 77 aliquam utique sententiam: xii. 10, 67
utique aliquo momento.


 
II: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.

§ 11.
veris adfectibus. Cp. vi. 2, 35 Vidi ego saepe histriones atque
comoedos, cum ex aliquo graviore actu personam deposuissent, flentes
adhuc egredi. quod si in alienis scriptis sola pronuntiatio ita falsis
accendit adfectibus, quid nos faciemus qui illa cogitare debemus ut
moveri periclitantium vice possimus? Cp. Hor. A. P. 431-433.

alienum proposition, i.e. the purpose of the imitator, not
that of the original writer or speaker.


 
II: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.

§ 12.
sanguinis: 1 §60
(of Archilochus) plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum: §115 eum (Calvum) ...
verum sanguinem perdidisse: viii. 3, 6 (hic ornatus) sanguine et viribus niteat.

illis ... his. This is only an apparent inversion of the usual
arrangement: _declamationes_ is the nearer subject in thought, as
being the subject of the sentence, in which it comes before
_orationes_. The use of _hic_ may also serve to indicate the
prevalence of declamation in Quintilian’s day: 5 §14.—See Zumpt §700.


 
II: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
128
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.

§ 13.
compositionis: see §1 componendi
ratio. Tr. ‘particular cadences in the arrangement’ 1 §52. Cp. especially ix. 4, 116
quem in poemate locum habet versificatio, eum in oratione
compositio.

cum et, &c., ‘though, as for the words, they drop out or
come into use in course of time ... while the arrangement,’ &c.
_Verba_ is opp. to _compositio_ below: cp. _verba_ and
_comp. pedes_ above. See Crit. Notes.

verba intercidant ... consuetudine. Hor. A. P. 70, Multa
renascentur quae iam cecidere, cadentque Quae nunc sunt in honore
vocabula, si volet usus, Quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma
loquendi. Ibid. 60-62 Ut silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos, Prima
cadunt, ita verborum vetus interit aetas, Et iuvenum ritu florent modo
nata vigentque. viii. 6, 32 cum multa (ὀνόματα) cotidie ab antiquis ficta moriantur.

ut quorum = quippe. Cp. 1 §55 ut in qua ... sit: 1 §§57, 74. I have put this clause in
brackets to show that it stands by itself: _consuetudine_ explains
_temporibus_, while _non sua natura ... sed prout ...
collocata_ introduce a new idea. See following note.

128
eaque is a continuation of the clause _cum et verba_. The
use and disuse of words is a matter of fashion: _and moreover_
their value depends on their proper employment.—The commentators,
except Krüger (3rd ed.), explain this as part of the clause _ut
quorum_, &c., the demonstr. taking the place of the relative, as
not infrequently with double relative clauses in Cicero: Orat. §9 quam
intuens in eaque defixus: de Fin. i. 12, 42 quod ipsum nullam ad aliam
rem, ad id autem res referuntur omnes (where see Madvig): ad Att. x. 16,
3: Brutus §258. Cp. Lucr. i. 718-21, and Munro’s note. But the context
is against this. See Crit.
Notes.

proprie: v. on 1 §9.

collocata here not much more than _adhibita_. In
themselves words are nothing: their effect depends entirely on their
appropriate use.

et compositio: i.e. and though, as to the arrangement (_et
compositio_ corresponds to _et verba_ above), it may owe its
effect in the original to the manner in which it has been adapted to the
sense (_rebus accommodata_), while moreover (cum ... tum) its charm
lies in its very variety. The art by which the _compositio_ is
saved from monotony in the original is lost by the servile copyists of
particular extracts: they take no account of the fact that the style
ought to reflect the sense, and they forget that the motive for a
particular _compositio_ in their original was the desire to produce
an agreeable effect by diversity of form.—See Crit. Notes.


 
II: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.

§ 14.
exactissimo: so 7 §30
commentarii ita exacti = perfecti. In the sense of ‘perfectly finished’
it is found Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Ovid, Met. i. 405.

circa: v. on 1 §52.

corruptissimi: cp. §16 declinant
in peius, &c. The word is used of a vicious style, 1 §125.

efficiendum = effingendum, as §13 above.


 
II:15
Nam in magnis quoque auctoribus incidunt aliqua vitiosa et a doctis
inter ipsos etiam mutuo reprehensa;
129
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.

§ 15.
in ... auctoribus. _In_ is used for _apud_ in speaking
of an author’s whole works or general characteristics, not of a
particular passage or a particular composition. So Hor. Sat. i. 10, 52:
Tu nihil in magno doctus reprendis Homero? 1 §76 tanta vis in eo
(Demosthene). For _apud_ cp. 1 §39 brevitas illa ... quae est
apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta.—The same warning is
given 1 §24 Neque id
statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi auctores dixerint utique
esse perfecta.

a doctis, ‘by competent critics’: cp. 1 §97 qui esse docti adfectant:
viii. 3, 2 in ceteris iudicium doctorum, in hoc vero etiam popularem
laudem petit: xii. 10, 72 tum laudem quoque, nec doctorum modo sed etiam
vulgi consequatur: ib. 1 §20: 9 §4: 10 §50.

inter ipsos is to be referred to _in magnis auctoribus_,
not to _a doctis_: hence the comma.—_Inter ipsos_ would
have been _inter se_ if the word to which the pronoun refers had
been nom. or acc. Cp. 1, 14 non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt:
Cic. de Off. i. §50 conciliat inter se homines. But societas hominum
inter ipsos, Cic. de Off. i. §20: quam sancta est societas civium inter
ipsos, Leg. ii. 7: latissime patens hominibus inter ipsos ... societas
haec est, de Off. i. §51. Cp. §23 below.
On the other hand we have multa sunt civibus inter se communia, de Off.
i. §53: communia esse amicorum inter se omnia, Ter. Ad. v.
3, 18.

mutuo, only here in Quintilian: he frequently uses
_invicem_. Liv. viii. 24, 6 cum interclusissent trifariam a mutuo
inter se auxilio.

129
mutuo reprehensa. Cp. the reference to the letters of Calvus
and Brutus to Cicero, Tac. Dial. 18 ex quibus facile est deprehendere
Calvum quidem Ciceroni visum exsanguem et attritum, Brutum autem otiosum
atque diiunctum; rursusque Ciceronem a Calvo quidem male audisse tanquam
solutum et enervem, a Bruto autem, ut ipsius verbis utar, tanquam
fractum atque elumbem.—For the position of tam, cp. on 7 §27.

mala (sc. imitantes) peius, as in the case of
Seneca’s imitators: placebat propter sola vitia et ad ea se quisque
dirigebat effingenda quae poterat: 1 §127.

nec ... saltem. _Saltem_ with a negative is used by
Quintilian in the sense of _ne ... quidem_, standing sometimes
before, sometimes after the word to which it applies: here with
_sufficiat_. Cp. i. 1, 24 Neque enim mihi illud saltem placet quod
fieri in plurimis video: 7 §20 below
ut non breve saltem tempus sumamus, &c.: v. 1, 4 neque enim de
omnibus causis dicere quisquam potest saltem praeteritis, ut taceam de
futuris: xii. 11, 11 ut ipsum iter neque impervium neque saltem durum
putent.

ut sic dixerim, for the more classical ‘ut ita dicam’: cp. 1 §§6, 77. So Tac. Ann. xiv. 53, 14: Dial.
34, 8: 40, 19: ut ita dixerim Agr. 3, 13. See Crit. Notes.

Epicuri figuras. The reference is to the theory of εἴδωλα first adopted to explain
sensation by Democritus, and afterwards developed by Epicurus. Cp. Plut.
de Pl. Phil. iv. 8 Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν
γίγνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν προσιόντων. See Ritter and Preller §155 sq. Cp. Lucret. iv. 42 sq. Dico igitur
rerum effigias tenuesque figuras Mittier ab rebus summo de corpore
rerum, Quoi quasi membranae, vel cortex nominitandast, Quod speciem ac
formam similem gerit eius imago Cuiuscumque cluet de corpore fusa
vagari: cp. 157-8 Perpetuo fluere ut noscas e corpore summo Texturas
rerum tenues tenuesque figuras.


 
II: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
130
exultantes, simplicibus neglegentes.

§ 16.
numeris, ‘rhythm’: cp. compositio §13, and 1 §79. Numeros ῥυθμούς accipi volo ix.
4, 45.

sunt ... differentes: a Greek construction.

vim dicendi 1 §1: viii. pr. 30. Neither in
force of expression nor in power of thought do they come up to their
models.

in peius. Cp. i. 1, 5 bona facile mutantur in peius, i. 3, 1:
ii. 16, 2: Verg. Georg. i. 200 in peius ruere. See Introd. p. xlvii.

proxima virtutibus vitia. Cp. Hor. A. P. 25-28 Decipimur
specie recti: brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio; sectantem levia nervi
Deficiunt animique; professus grandia turget; Serpit humi tutus nimium
timidusque procellae. Below (32-37) Quintilian draws the moral that
knowledge is necessary in order to avoid a fault, otherwise the opposite
fault may be committed. With ‘specie recti’ in Horace cp. Quint. viii.
3, 56 Κακόζηλον, id est
mala adfectatio, per omne dicendi genus peccat: nam et tumida et pusilla
et praedulcia et abundantia et arcessita et exultantia sub idem nomen
cadunt. Denique cacozelon vocatur quidquid est ultra virtutem, quotiens
ingenium iudicio caret et specie boni fallitur, omnium in eloquentia
vitiorum pessimum.

comprehendunt: a rare use. See on §3 adprehenditur. Cp. Cic. pro Balb. §3 omnes animo
virtutes penitus comprehendere.

pro grandibus tumidi: so grandia non tumida xii. 10, 80:
professus grandia turget Hor. l.c.

pressis, ‘concise,’ ‘chaste,’ 1 §44, §46.

exiles, ‘bald.’ Cp. Cic. Brut. §202 Sed cavenda est presso
illi oratori inopia
130
et ieiunitas, amplo autem inflatum et corruptum orationis genus.

fortibus temerarii: strength of style ought not to become
rashness. Cp. iii. 7, 25 pro temerario fortem ... vocemus: ii. 12, 4 est
praeterea quaedam virtutum vitiorumque vicinia qua maledicus pro libero,
temerarius pro forti, effusus pro copioso accipitur: ii. 12, 11 vim
appellant quae est potius violentia.

laetis corrupti: xii. 10, 80 laeta non luxuriosa. Wealth of
style ought not to degenerate into extravagance. For _laetus_ cp.
1 §46.

compositis exultantes: lit. ‘bounding instead of measured’:
cp. exultantia coercere 4 §1, where
see note. For _compositis_ v. 1 §44: for _exultantes_ cp.
ix. 4, 28 quaedam transgressiones ... sunt etiam compositione vitiosae
quae in hoc ipsum petuntur ut exultent atque lasciviant quales illae
Maecenatis: Sole et aurora rubent plurima, &c., ibid. §142, where
_saltare_ is used of this style, in which the excessive care
bestowed on the arrangement (_compositio_) degenerates into
affectation. See Crit.
Notes.

simplicibus neglegentes: Cicero, de Inv. i. 21, 30 opposes
dilucide et ornate ... to obscure et neglegenter. _Neglegentes_
implies contempt for as well as absence of ornament, almost
‘slovenliness.’


 
II: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
131
atque Thucydiden superant; tristes ac ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur;
otiosi et supini, si quid modo longius circumduxerunt, iurant ita
Ciceronem locuturum fuisse.

§ 17.
horride atque incomposite: horride inculteque Cic. Orat. 28: cp.
1 §66 rudis in
plerisque et incompositus (Aeschylus): Tac. Dial. 18 sunt enim horridi
et impoliti et rudes et informes. _Horridus_ is the opposite of
_nitidus_: Cic. de Orat. iii. 51: de Legg. i. 2, 6: Brutus §§68,
83, 117, 238, 268.

quidlibet illud frigidum et inane. As the expression
_horride atque incomposite_ denotes the unpleasing form, so this
phrase (cp. frigida et inanis adfectatio ix. 3, 74) stigmatises the
tasteless and vapid substance of the incompetent imitators (Hor. Ep. i.
19, 19 O imitatores, servum pecus): tr. ‘writers who have come out
with their favourite platitudes and inanities.’ There is something
deictic about _illud_. Becher compares ix. 2, 94 postulandum est ut
_nescio quid illud_ quod adversarii obliquis sententiis significare
voluerint obiciant palam: i. 3, 4 hi sunt qui ... quicquid illud possunt
statim ostendunt: Liv. ix. 3, 13 vivet semper in pectoribus illorum
quidquid istud praesens necessitas inusserit. Cp. xii. 6, 2: vi. pr. §3
(quidquid hoc est in me), and often _ipsum illud_, _hoc illud_
(e.g. Liv. praef. 10): Liv. i. 29, 3 domos suas ultimum illud
visuri.

extulerunt. The commentators explain as = dicendo extulerunt:
cp. i. 5, 16: viii. 3, 40: and Cicero, Orat. §150. But it is more
probably the same use as we have in 1 §109, viz. a metaphor from a
productive soil: cp. Cic. de Natur. Deor. ii. §86, and Brut. §16.

antiquis: 1 §43 quidam solos veteres
legendos putant: Tac. Dial. 20 tristem et impexam antiquitatem: 21
sordes autem illae verborum et hians compositio et inconditi sensus
redolent antiquitatem: Quint. v. 14, 32 se antiquis per hoc similes
vocant. In the Dialogue, Aper (15-23) criticises excessive devotion to
antique models,—holding ‘vitio malignitatis humanae vetera semper
in laude, praesentia in fastidio esse.’

cultu = ornatu: 1 §124: See Introd. p. xliv.

sententiis: 1 §61, §90, §129.

Attici: 1 §44. See Crit. Notes. Cp. xii. 10, 16 Et
antiqua quidem illa divisio inter Atticos atque Asianos fuit, cum hi
pressi et integri, contra inflati illi et inanes haberentur, in his
nihil superflueret, illis iudicium maxime ac modus deesset: ibid. 21
quapropter mihi falli multum videntur qui solos esse Atticos credunt
tenues et lucidos et significantes, sed quadam eloquentiae frugalitate
contentos ac semper manum intra pallium continentes. Cp. Cic. de Opt.
Gen. Orat. §11: Brutus §284 sq.: Orator §28 putant enim qui horride inculteque dicat, modo
id eleganter enucleateque faciat, eum solum Attice dicere.
scilicet, ironical.

praecisis. iv. 2, 47 neque mihi umquam tanta fuerit cura
brevitatis ut non ea quae credibilem faciunt expositionem inseri velim.
Simplex enim et undique praecisa non tam narratio vocari potest quam
confessio.

conclusionibus, the clauses that ‘round off’ the period: cp.
on concludit 1 §106.
Anacoluths result in such a style from the omission of something
essential to the complete period.

obscuri. A similar cause of obscurity
131
is noted viii. 2, 19 alii brevitatem aemulati necessaria quoque orationi
subtrahunt verba et, velut satis sit scire ipsos, quid dicere velint,
quantum ad alios pertineant, nihil putant referre. For the omission of
_sunt_, see Introd. p. lv.

Sallustium: cp. 1 §32,
§102: iv. 2, 45 quare vitanda est etiam illa
Sallustiana (quamquam in ipso virtutis obtinet locum) brevitas et
abruptum sermonis genus.

Thucydiden: 1 §73.

tristes ac ieiuni. The opposite would be _hilares et
copiosi_: viii. 3, 49 proinde quaedam hebes, sordida, ieiuna, tristis
(‘dreary’), ingrata, vilis oratio est. Quae vitia facillime fient
manifesta contrariis virtutibus. Nam primum acuto, secundum nitido,
tertium copioso, deinceps hilari, iucundo, accurato diversum est.

Pollionem, 1 §113. Cp. vi. 3, 110 de
Pollione Asinio seriis iocisque pariter accommodato dictum est, esse eum
omnium horarum.

otiosi et supini: ‘your easy-going drawler.’ For
_supinus_ cp. ὑπτιος
in Dion. Hal. de Isocr. 15: de Dein. 8, &c. So supini securique xi.
3. 3: Iuv. 1, 66 multum referens de Maecenate supino: Martial ii. 6, 13
nunquam deliciae supiniores: vi. 42, 22 Non attendis, et aure me supina
Iamdudum quasi negligenter audis. See Introd. p. xliii. and xlvi.—For _otiosus_, see
on 1 §76.

circumduxerunt: ix. 4, 124 cum sensus unus longiore ambitu
circumducitur.

Ciceronem: cp. lentus est in principiis, &c. Tac. Dial.
22.


 
II: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.

§ 18.
se expressisse. This unusual construction (after _sibi
viderentur_ = persuasum haberent) may express intensity of
conviction: these imitators are thoroughly convinced of their own
excellence, whatever the opinion of others may be (_sibi_, sc.
_non_ aliis). Cp. Cic. de Off. iii. §71 ea malitia quae volt ...
videri se esse prudentiam. The same construction occurs sometimes after
_mihi videtur_ in the sense of _mihi placet_: 1 §91: Cic. Tusc. v. 5, 12 Non
mihi videtur ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem: Sall. Iug. 85, 2:
Livy xxxvi. 13, 9 quia videbatur et Limnaeum eodem tempore oppugnari
posse.

caelestis: 1 §86.

clausula. Cicero gives minute directions for ending a period,
Orator. §215: cp. Quint. ix. 3, 45 and 77: iv. 62, 75, 96, &c.

esse videatur: Tac. Dial. 23 illud tertio quoque sensu in
omnibus orationibus pro sententia positum ‘esse videatur’: Quint, ix. 4,
73 esse videatur iam nimis frequens, octonarium inchoat. An instance
occurs below 7 §29.

primum est ut: cp. rarum est ut 7, §24. Zumpt §623.


 
II: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
132
et vim suam perdat et elegantiam quam cupit non persequatur; nihil est
enim tam indecens quam cum mollia dure fiunt.

§ 19.
consulat suas vires. So Hor. A. P. 38 Sumite materiam
vestris, qui scribitis, aequam Viribus, et versate diu quid ferre
recusent, Quid valeant umeri. Cui lecta potenter erit res Nec facundia
deseret hunc nec lucidus ordo.

imitabilia: i.e. there are some things which are (in
themselves) fit patterns for imitation, but—then follows the
limitation (quibus c. subj.).

tenue ingenium = ability for the _tenue genus dicendi_,
for which see on 1 §44.
Cp. xii. 10, 35 nec rerum nimiam tenuitatem ... fortioribus ... verbis
miscebimus.

fortia et abrupta: a ‘bold and rugged style,’ the latter
quality being often associated with excessive brevity: iv. 2, 45 vitanda
est illa Sallustiana brevitas et abruptum sermonis genus.

forte (sc. ingenium): a talent for vigorous and energetic
diction. Cp. Cic. de
132
Orat. ii. 183 non enim semper fortis oratio quaeritur, sed saepe
placida, summissa, lenis. So below §23
‘lene ac remissum genus causarum’ is that which calls for ‘lene ac
remissum genus dicendi.’

indomitum: ‘violent,’ unbridled, unrestrained. In such a case
the _genus dicendi grande atque robustum_ will be more appropriate
than the _genus subtile_: cp. 1 §44. For the union of
_subtilitas_ and _elegantia_ cp. 1, 78 Lysias subtilis atque
elegans.

et ... et: not for aut ... aut as Bonnell-Meister, on
the ground that et is inconsistent with the negative. He loses
_vis_ and fails to secure _elegantia_ at one and the same
time. The construction occurs when the writer wishes to indicate that
the coincidence of the two should be guarded against: cp. Cic. ad Att.
iii. 7, 2 ne et meum maerorem exagitem et te in eundem luctum vocem: id.
xii. 40, 2: ad Fam. xi. 7, 2: de Off. i. 14, 42.

mollia = lenia, dulcia. He might have added, having regard to
what has gone before, _aut cum dura molliter_. Cp. Arist. Rhet.
iii. 7 ἐὰν οὖν τὰ μαλακὰ σκληρῶς καὶ
τὰ σκληρὰ μαλακῶς λέγηται ἀπίθανον γίγνεται.


 
II: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.

§ 20.
atque has in transitions often the force of _atqui_. Tr. ‘To
be sure ... I expressed the belief that’ (_credidi_.)

in libro secundo: ch. 8, where he discusses the question, An
secundum sui quisque ingenii naturam docendus sit. The conclusion
arrived at there might seem inconsistent with what he is now saying, so
this paragraph is added to clear away the contradiction.—The
sequence of thought is as follows: the teacher must not confine himself
to what his pupils have a natural bent for. Besides developing latent
talent, he must ‘adicere quae desunt et emendare quaedam et mutare’: for
his office is to mould the minds of others, and that is not so hard. It
is more difficult to form one’s own character. But he ought not to waste
his pains over what he finds repugnant to the mind of his pupils.

compositum: cp. ii. 8, 7.

naturam suam fingere: i.e. without the help and supervision of
a _praeceptor_ to assist in applying such principles as are laid
down in §19.


 
II: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.

§ 21.
quamquam: v. 1 §33 and §96: 7 §17 below.

in illis operibus, sc. in poesi et historia: cp. 1 §31.

declamatores: 1 §71.

 
II:22
Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est: nec comoedia in cothurnos
adsurgit, nec contra
133
tragoedia socco ingreditur. Habet tamen omnis eloquentia aliquid
commune: id imitemur quod commune est.

§ 22.
proposito, i.e. officio poetarum, historicorum, oratorum: cp. ix.
4, 19: xi. 1, 33. See Crit.
Notes.

decor, ‘appropriate character’: v. on 1 §27. Quintilian seems to have
in view here the passage in Ars Poetica (86-118) where Horace insists on
the necessity for maintaining proper tone and style. Cp. esp. 86
Descriptas servare vices operumque colores, and 92 Singula quaeque
133
locum teneant sortita decentem. Cp. also Cicero, de Opt. Gen. Oratorum
1 §1 Itaque et in
tragoedia comicum vitiosum est, et in comoedia turpe tragicum: et in
ceteris suus est cuique sonus et quaedam intellegentibus vox.

cothurnos ... socco. Hor. A. P. 89-91 Versibus exponi tragicis
res comica non vult; Indignatur item privatis ac prope socco Dignis
carminibus narrari cena Thyestae. In line 80 he contrasts the
_soccus_ (κρηπίς) or
‘slipper’ of comedy with the _grandes cothurni_ (‘buskins’) of
tragedy. Cp. Milton’s ‘the buskin’d stage,’ and ‘If Jonson’s learned
sock be on.’ Bombast must be avoided in comedy, though Interdum tamen et
vocem comoedia tollit, Iratusque Chremes tumido delitigat ore
(A. P. 93): and tragedy on the other hand should soar above the
tone suited to the affairs of daily life (cp. 95 sq.).—For
adsurgit cp. 1 §52.

nec ... nec contra: iv. 1, 60 Nec argumentis autem nec locis
nec narrationi similis esse in prooemio debet oratio, neque tamen
deducta semper atque circumlita, &c.

habet tamen, i.e. notwithstanding the rules appropriate to
each department (lex cuique proposita).

omnis eloquentia. For this wide use of the word cp. Tac.
Dial. x. Ego vero omnem eloquentiam omnesque eius partes sacras et
venerabiles puto: nec solum cothurnum vestrum aut heroici carminis
sonum, sed lyricorum quoque iucunditatem et elegorum lascivias et
iamborum amaritudinem et epigrammatum lusus et quamcumque aliam speciem
eloquentia habeat, anteponendam ceteris aliarum artium studiis credo.
For _oratoria eloquentia_ on the other hand see cap. vi. and
_passim_.

 

 
II: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:
134
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.

§ 23.
uni alicui: cp. §24 below, also in
reverse order 7 §16 aliquam rem
unam. It is used as the singular of _singuli_.

asperitas, ‘passion,’ opp. to _lenitas_ and
_aequabilitas_. Cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. 64 genus orationis fusum
atque tractum (‘easy and flowing’) et cum lenitate quadam aequabili
profluens sine hac iudiciali asperitate et sine sententiarum forensibus
aculeis: Quint. i. 8, 11 forensi asperitate: cp. 5 §14 below. The same antithesis is given in
other words Orat. §53 Elaborant alii in lenitate et aequabilitate et
puro quasi quodam et candido genere dicendi; ecce aliqui duritatem et
severitatem quandam in verbis et orationis quasi maestitiam sequuntur.
Cp. de Orat. iii. 7, 28 Gravitatem Africanus, lenitatem Laelius,
asperitatem Galba, profluens quiddam habuit Carbo et canorum.

alicuius, ‘some particular author’: for the use of the full
form in a conditional clause, whereby the pronoun receives emphasis, cp.
1 §22, §130: 6 §5: 7 §2,
§15, §16.

leni ac remisso, cp. on forte (sc. ingenium) §19, above. So Brutus §317 Cotta et Hortensius,
quorum alter remissus et lenis et propriis verbis comprehendens solute
et facile sententiam, alter ornatus, acer, ... verborum et actionis
genere commotior: de Orat. ii. 95 dicendi molliora ac remissiora
genera.

tenuitas: like subtilitas in §19
above, amore subtilitatis vim suam perdat: cp. 12, 2, 13 sectas ad
tenuitatem suam vires ipsa subtilitate consumet. In conjunction with
_iucunditas_ (cp. 1 §§46, 64, 82, 96, 101, 113) it is certainly not used in a
depreciatory sense, though it always implies the absence of all attempt
at embellishment. Ernesti (Clav. Cic.) says: corporis est
_tenuitas_, cum sucus ei et carnis copia deest, cum sit sanum: unde
ad dicendi genus subtile transfertur, quod sine vitiis est, _sed et
sine ornamentis_. Tr. ‘simplicity,’ ‘naturalness’: cp. 1 §44. Perhaps _tenuitas_
and _iucunditas_ together might be rendered ‘artless grace,’ which
does not suffice where _gravitas_ or even _asperitas_
orationis is called for. See Crit. Notes.

asperis: ‘exciting’ causes, i.e. such as arouse passion, so
that the speaker cannot be _lenis ac remissus_, ‘smooth and
unimpassioned.’

134
cum sit: cp. §13.

diversa ... diversa: an instance of negligent repetition, of
which we have another in _uni alicui_ immediately following. Cp. 1 §§8, 9, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 42, 80, 94, 116, 126, 131: 2 §§11-13, 24: 3 §§7, 21: 5 §§6, 7: 6 §7: 7 §§7, 30.

inter ipsas, §15.

docendi ... movendi, cp. xii. 10, 58 quoted on 1 §44.


 
II: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.

§ 24.
suaserim ... se addicere: for the infinitive cp. Cic. de Orat. i.
§251; Zumpt 616.

sequatur: the subj. is to be supplied from the indefinite
pronoun (sc. aliquem) understood before _addicere_. Cp. 1 §7: ii. 15, 12 primum esse ...
ducere in id quod velit: 16, 19 in quae velit ducere. For this use of
_sequi_ cp. 1 §28:
2 §7.

longe perfectissimus: 1 §§39, 105.

melius. The same ellipse of the verb is repeated below 3 §25.


 
II: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?

§ 25.
non est: cp. 1 §56.

M. Tullius; for Quintilian’s reverence for Cicero see 1 §39 and §105 sq.

quid tamen noceret should be taken in connection with the
foregoing. The meaning is, ‘yet even if I _could_ rival Cicero in
every respect, what harm would it do?’ etc. The impf. is motived by the
preceding _si possem_,—an unrealisable supposition.

vim Caesaris: 1 §114. Cp. i. 7, 34 vim
Caesaris fregerunt editi de analogia libri?

asperitatem Caeli: 1 §115. For an example see iv.
2, 123. For ‘asperitatem’ Eussner proposes _acerbitatem_.

Pollionis: 1 §113.

Calvi: 1 §115. A similar
enumeration is given, xii. 10, 11, vim Caesaris, indolem Caeli,
subtilitatem Calidi, diligentiam Pollionis, dignitatem Messallae,
sanctitatem Calvi, gravitatem Bruti, acumen Sulpici, acerbitatem
Cassi.

adsumere: as §27 utilitatis
gratia adsumpta; not as 1 §121.


 
II: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.
135
§ 26.
praeter id quod: see on 1 §28: cp. 3 §6.

tum, as if the sentence had opened with _Nam primum_.

vix ... sequitur: ‘some element, or quality, is realised with
difficulty, if we look only at one model.’ _Vix aliqui_ gives
prominence to the affirmative, and so differs from _vix quisquam_:
it is achieved but with difficulty. For aliqua cp. 7 §16. _Sequitur_ here =
_contingit_. See on §27: and cp. xi.
2, 39, quod meae quoque memoriae infirmitatem sequebatur.

aliud ex alio: sc. scriptore.

haereat: sc. in animo legentis. Cp. Hor. A. P. 195 quod
non proposito conducat et haereat apte.

135

 
II: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.

§ 27.
saepius: §§12-13: §16.

non sit: cp. non putemus 3 §16: ibid. §5.
(Cp. also utinam non inquinasset 1 §100.) Cic. pro Cluent. §155 a
legibus non recedamus: Hor. Sat. ii. 5, 91 non etiam sileas. Draeger,
Hist. Synt. 1, 312 speaks of the usage as a stronger negation than
_ne_. Nettleship on Aen. 12, 78 says that non is used ‘if a
particular part of the sentence is to be emphasized.’ Kr.3
suggests that _non_ should be taken with _tantum_.—See
Introd. p. lii.

delectationi ... data: xii. 10, 45 atque id fecisse
M. Tullium video, ut cum plurimum utilitati, turn partem quandam
delectationi daret.

ad victoriam: 1 §29 ad victoriam niti: ii. 4,
32: v. 12, 22: xii. 10, 48.

prooemio, narrandi, probandi, refellendi, adfectibus movendis
give the five essential parts of a judicial speech (iii. 9, 1); the
introduction, the narrative, the proof, the refutation, and the closing
appeal (epilogus, peroratio).

laus popularis: cp. 1 §17 laudantium clamor:
referring to the crowd surrounding the tribunal. Tac. Dial. vi. coire
populum et circumfundi coronam et accipere adfectum quemcumque orator
induerit. In viii. 3, 2 Quintilian opposes to _laus popularis_,
_iudicium doctorum_.

adsumpta (sit): ‘how popular applause itself has been worked
in,’ made useful for winning the case.

cum sequitur, ‘when it is given spontaneously, not courted.’
So viii. prooem. 18 decoris qui est in dicendo mea quidem sententia
pulcherrimus, sed cum sequitur, non cum adfectatur. Cp. Sall. Cat. 54 ad
fin.: quo minus petebat gloriam, eo magis illum sequebatur:
ibid. 3. Plin. Epist. i. 8, 14 sequi enim gloria non adpeti debet,
nec si casu aliquo non sequatur, idcirco quod gloriam meruit minus
pulchrum est.


 
II: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.

§ 28.
perfectus orator: see on §9 quomodo
sperare possumus illum oratorem perfectum?

quem ... consummari. If _quem_ can be referred only to
_orator_ in what immediately precedes (and not to _perfectus
orator_) the inf. need not mean anything more than ‘perfectum fieri.’
This is Becher’s view (Quaest. Quint. p. 19) adopted by Krüger (3rd
ed.). But ‘_perfectus orator_’ forms so much a single idea here
that it seems more probable that _quem_ covers both the noun and
the adj. In so loose a writer as Quintilian no difficulty need be felt
about _consummari_, though the editors think it necessary to assume
that, with the infin., _perfectus_ is proleptic = oratorem
consummari ita ut perfectus fiat, comparing (with Krüger, 2nd ed.)
Demosth. μέγας ἐκ μικροῦ ὁ Φίλιππος ηὔξηται. See 1 §122 on
_consummatus_.

oporteat: see Crit.
Notes.

eorum: sc. qui adhuc summi sunt,—those who have hitherto
been (and are) pre-eminent.




CHAPTER III.

How to Write.


136
136
Quo modo scribendum sit.

III:1
III. 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.

§ 1.
nobis ipsis opp. to _extrinsecus_: what _we_ must
provide for _ourselves_, by our own gifts and industry. There is,
however, much to be said for Gertz’s conjecture _e nobis ipsis_,
which gives a better antithesis to _extrinsecus_: cp. 5 §10 plurimum autem parari facultatis existimo
ex simplicissima quaque materia.

stilus: see on 1 §2.

M. Tullius: de Orat. i. §150 caput autem est quod, ut vere
dicam, minime facimus; est enim magni laboris, quem plerique fugimus:
quam plurimum scribere. stilus optimus et praestantissimus dicendi
effector ac magister; neque iniuria: nam si subitam et fortuitam
orationem commentatio et cogitatio facile vincit, hanc ipsam profecto
adsidua ac diligens scriptura superabit: ibid. §257 stilus ille tuus,
quem tu vere dixisti perfectorem dicendi esse ac magistrum, multi
sudoris est. Cp. iii. §190: Brutus §96 artifex, ut ita dicam, stilus: ad
Fam. vii. 25, 2 is (stilus) est dicendi opifex.

L. Crassi. L. Licinius Crassus, B.C. 140-91, was the most illustrious of Roman
orators before Cicero, who in the De Oratore seems to make him the
mouthpiece of his own opinions. The other leading character in the
dialogue is _M. Antonius_ (B.C. 143-87), grandfather of the triumvir. For a
parallel estimate of the two see Brutus §143 sq.

personam ... adsignando: cp. 1 §71 plures subire personas.


 
III: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
137
modo loquacitatem dabit et verba in labris nascentia.

§ 2.
alte refossa: see Crit.
Notes. The meaning is that just as deep ploughing produces heavy
crops, so progress that is not superficial (non a summo petitus) brings
forth fruit more abundantly and secures its permanence. For the figure
cp. i. 3, 5 non multum praestant, sed cito. Non subest vera vis nec
penitus immissis radicibus nititur, ut quae summo solo sparsa sunt
semina celerius se effundunt et imitatae spicas herbulae inanibus
aristis ante messem flavescunt. For _refodere_ cp. Lucan, iv. 242
tellure refossa: Plin. N. H. xix. 88 solo quam altissime
refosso.

profectus: cp. §15 below, ad
profectum opus est studio: i. 3, 5 stat profectus (‘growth’). The word
does not occur in Cicero, though it is often used in the same sense by
Seneca: e.g. Ep. 71, 35-36, nemo profectum ibi invenit ubi reliquerat
... magna pars est profectus velle proficere: 100, 11 ad profectum omnia
tendunt. Quintilian frequently insists that it requires diligent and
constant practice: e.g. ii. 7, 1 cum profectus praecipue diligentia
constet.

a summo, i.e. from the surface, ‘superficial,’ as i. 3, 5 quae
summo solo sparsa sunt semina. The opposite is ‘verus ille profectus et
alte radicibus nixus,’ i. 1, 28. Cp. 2 §15. Other instances of such expressions are
1 §13 ex proximo: 7 §7 ad ultimum: §10 ex ultimo: 2 §16 in peius. See Introd. p. xlvii.

sine hac conscientia = sine huius rei conscientia, i.e.
without the consciousness of diligent application in composition. In
such expressions (frequent with words like cura, metus, spes, timor) the
pronoun
137
takes the place of a complementary genitive, suggested by what goes
before: cp. i. 10, 28 haec ei cura, &c.: and below 7 §19.

verba in labris nascentia. Cp. Sen. Ep. 10, 3 non a summis
labris ista venerunt; habent hae voces fundamentum.


 
III: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.

§ 3.
illic = stilo sive exercitatione scribendi.

sanctiore ... aerario. The reference is to the reserve
treasure (aerarium sanctius) that was never touched except in great
emergencies. It was kept in a vault in the Temple of Saturn. Caes.
B. C. i. 14, 1: Livy xxvii., 10, 11: Macrob. i. 8, 3: Lucan. Phars.
iii. 153 sq.

certaminum: so 1 §4 quo genere exercitationis ad
certamina praeparandus sit. Certamen = ἀγών. Cp. 1 §§31, 106, &c.

proferantur: for the subj. (consecutive) cp. 1 §30: 3 §33: 5 §10.

et ... non: not _neque_, as the negative really connects
only with the verb, while _et_ serves simply to introduce
_usu_. Cp. 7 §33.


 
III: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.

§ 4.
rerum ipsa natura: here of ‘nature’ as a creative agency: cp. §26 below: Munro on Lucretius i. 25.

praeposuitque. When it is clear from the context that there is
an opposition, sentences and words of opposite meanings are often
coupled (after a negative) not by a disjunctive but by a conjunctive
particle, as here: cp. Cic. de Off. i. §22 non nobis solum nati sumus
ortusque nostri partem patria vindicat partem amici: ibid. §86 neque
opes aut potentiam consectabitur totamque eam (rempublicam) sic tuebitur
ut omnibus consulat: Hor. Car. iii. 30, 6 Non omnis moriar, multaque
pars mei Vitabit Libitinam. In each instance, however, the positive
clause (que, et, atque) is an explanation of, rather than an antithesis
to, the negative: the opposition is formal rather than real.

difficultatem. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 9, 59 Nil sine magno Vita
labore dedit mortalibus: Hesiod ἔργα καὶ ἡμέρ. 289 τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα θεοὶ
προπάροιθεν ἔθηκαν: Soph. El. 945 πόνου τοι χωρὶς οὐδὲν εὐτυχεῖ,
&c. Frag. 364 οὔτοι ποθ᾽ ἅψει τῶν ἄκρων ἄνευ πόνου:
Epicharmus in Xenoph. Mem. ii. 1, 20 τῶν πόνων πωλοῦσιν ἡμῖν
πάντα τἀγάθ᾽ οἱ θεοί.

quae maxime, v. ch. 5.

iam hinc ordinem sequar, i.e. ‘I shall now proceed to deal
with these questions in their order.’ And so follows _quomodo_ in
chs. iii-iv, and _quae maxime scribi_ oporteat in ch. v. The
phrase is parallel to iii. 6, 104 nunc, quia in tria genera causas
divisi, ordinem sequar: cp. ut ordinem sequar ix. 4, 33. In support
of Obrecht’s reading _hunc ordinem_ Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. Bayer,
Gymn. 1888, pp. 84-5) urges that in the instances quoted for _iam
hinc_ (ii. 11, 1, and iii. 1, 1: add viii. 3, 40 iam hinc igitur ad
rationem sermonis coniuncti transeamus, and _hinc iam_ viii. pr.
14: ii. 4, 1) there is always a marked transition to a new subject,
whereas here the preceding subordinate clause (cum sit ... oporteat)
lays down the order that is afterwards followed.—But all that
_iam hinc_ means here is simply that the writer will _now_
take the two questions he has proposed in the order stated.


 
III:5
Sit primo vel tardus dum
138
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.

§ 5.
dum diligens, _without a verb_: cp. 1 §94 quamvis uno libro: Cic.
Acad. ii. §104 sequentes tantum modo quod ita visum sit, dum sine
adsensu: cp. Hirtius in Cic. ad Att. xv. 6, 3 dummodo diligentibus.

138
optima, i.e. both in thought and word.

protinus goes with _gaudeamus_, not with
_offerentibus_, which can stand by itself: cp. 1 §§2 and 42. For _offerentibus_ cp. on
_eminentibus_ 1 §86.

dilectus ... agendus. This may possibly be one of Quintilian’s
military figures: xii. 3, 5 dilectus agere (of an _imperator_);
Tac. Hist. ii. 16, 82, Agric. 7. But cp. also ii. 8, 7 studiorum
facere dilectum: Tac. Dial. 22 verbis delectum adhibuit: Cic. de Or.
iii. §150 in hoc verborum genere propriorum _delectus est habendus
quidam_ atque in aurium quodam iudicio _ponderandus est_: de
Off. i. §149 habere dilectum civis et peregrini: ib. §49: de Fin. v.
§90: Brut. §253 verborum dilectum originem esse eloquentiae.

ratio collocandi. For this periphrastic constr. see Nägelsbach
§27 ad fin. (p. 130) and note on _vim dicendi_ 1 §1. Cp. Cic. ad Quint. Fr. i. 1,
6, 18 sed nescio quo pacto ad praecipiendi rationem delapsa est oratio
mea: pro Rosc. Amer. 1 §3 ignoscendi ratio ... de civitate sublata
est.—Dion. Hal. unites ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων with σύνθεσις τῶν ἐκλεγέντων.

numeri: ix. 4, 45 numeros ῥυθμούς accipi volo. Cp. note on 2 §16.


 
III: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.

§ 6.
repetenda: we must go back on what we have just written.

praeter id quod: cp. 2 §26,
and see note on 1 §28.

repetito spatio, i.e. ‘going back to take a spring,’ as is
shown by what follows. He passes from the figure involved in calor ...
refrixit, and anticipates the idea contained in the next clause: calor
... sumit impetum = calor ... denuo exardescit. Hild compares de Orat.
i. §153 for a similar figure: ut concitato navigio, cum remiges
inhibuerunt, retinet tamen ipsa navis motum et cursum suum intermisso
impetu pulsuque remorum, sic in oratione perpetua, cum scripta
deficiunt, parem tamen obtinet oratio reliqua cursum scriptorum
similitudine et vi concitata.

quod ... videmus, ut. For a similar instance of the use of the
pronoun to anticipate a dependent clause cp. 7 §11. The other two examples commonly given
are rather cases of pleonasm, viz. 1 §58 and 5 §18.

conatum longius petant: ‘take a longer run.’ Cp. repetito
spatio above.

ad illud quo contenditur spatium, i.e. jump the distance they
aim at covering. _Quo contenditur_ = lit. to which their efforts
are directed.

retro tendimus. Cp. Verg. Aen. v. 500 Validis flexos incurvant
viribus arcus.


 
III:7
Interim tamen, si feret flatus, danda sunt vela, dum nos indulgentia
illa non
139
fallat; omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur placent, alioqui nec
scriberentur. Sed redeamus ad iudicium et retractemus suspectam
facilitatem.

§ 7.
interim = interdum, v. on 1 §9.

danda sunt vela: ‘we must spread our sails before a favouring
breeze’ (cp. quo ventus ferebat Caes. B. G. iii. 15, 3). So
Ep. ad Tryph. §3 permittamus vela ventis et oram solventibus bene
precemur. The figure is frequent in Cicero: quocunque feremur danda
nimirum vela sunt Orat. §75: ad id unde aliquis flatus ostenditur vela
do (i.e. set my sails to catch the breeze from a particular quarter) de
Orat. ii. §187. So Martial (of Nerva’s modesty) Pieriam tenui frontem
redimire corona Contentus, famae nec dare vela suae viii. 70.

dum ... non, instead of _ne_, as sometimes
139
in poetry. Here the negative attaches closely to the verb: cp. §3. So
xii. 10, §48 dum rem contineant et copia non redundent. Quintilian never
uses _dummodo_: only _dum_, or _modo_. Si modo (si
quidem), which Meister cites, is different: it expresses the limitation
of a hypothesis.

dum nascuntur: cp. 1 §16 excipimusque nova illa
velut nascentia cum favore ac sollicitudine.

nec for ne ... quidem: ii. 13, 7 alioqui nec scriberem:
v. 10, 119 alioqui nec dixissem: ix. 2, 67 quod in foro non expedit,
illic nec liceat (not in Cicero). For other instances see Bonn. Lex.
_nec_ η and _neque_ ζ: Roby 2230b: Madvig de Finibus
pp. 816-822.

facilitatem: abstract for concrete = quae facilius scripta
sunt. Cp. initiis below, and 2 §2.


 
III:8
Sic scripsisse Sallustium accepimus, et sane manifestus est etiam ex
opere ipso labor. Vergilium quoque paucissimos die composuisse versus
auctor est Varius.

§ 8.
Sallustium: see on 1 §101.

Vergilium: Aul. Gell. N. A. 17, 10 Dicere solitum ferunt
parere se versus more atque ritu ursino. Namque ut illa bestia fetum
ederet ineffigiatum informemque, lambendoque id postea, quod ita
edidisset, conformaret et fingeret; proinde ingenii quoque sui partes
recentes rudi esse facie et imperfecta, sed deinceps tractando
colendoque reddere iis se oris et vultus lineamenta. So too in the
Donatus Life of Vergil ix: Cum Georgica scriberet traditur cotidie
meditatos mane plurimos versus dictare solitus, ac per totum diem
retractando ad paucissimos redigere, non absurde carmen se ursae more
parere dicens et lambendo demum effingere.

die, for _in die_. Cp. Hor. Sat. ii. 1, 3 putat ... mille
die versus deduci posse: i. 4, 9 in hora saepe ducentos ... dictabat
versus. So bisque die Verg. Ecl. iii. 34: Cic. pro Rosc. Am.
46 §132 in anno: ad Fam. xv. 16, 1 in hora.

Varius, see on 1 §98. His biographical sketch of
his lifelong friend was entitled De ingenio moribusque Vergilii. Aul.
Gell. (xvii. 10) speaks of the Amici familiaresque P. Vergilii in
eis quae de ingenio moribusque eius memoriae tradiderunt.


 
III: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.

§ 9.
sollicitudinem: 1 §20 scribendi sollicitudinem:
and §20, below, scribentium curam.

initiis = incipientibus: cp. 2 §2. So also ii. 4, 13 quatenus nullo magis
studia (= studiosi) quam spe gaudent.

compositio: 1 §79: cp. §§44, 46. The three essentials are here
enumerated: thought (_res_), language (_verba_), arrangement
(_compositio_).

in officio: cp. viii. pr. §30 erunt in officio. As in a
well-ordered establishment, he says, everything will be found fulfilling
its proper function.

 
III: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
140
_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.

§ 10.
summa haec. ‘Write quickly and you will never write well: write
well and in time you will write quickly.’ The Greek rhetoricians are
said to have had a saying ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν τὸ λέγειν πορίζεται, on which
Cicero seems to make Crassus found a similar utterance de Orat. i. §150
dicendo homines ut dicant efficere solere, ... perverse dicere homines
perverse dicendo facillime consequi.

facultas illa, sc. cito scribendi.

resistamus: ‘let us pause,’ ‘call a halt.’ Cp. §19: 7 §14: xi.
2, 46: 3, 121: ix. 3, 55. Cp. the use of _intersistere_ ix.
4, 33.

ut provideamus: 6 §6 non
sollicitos
140
et respicientes et una spe suspensos recordationis non sinant providere:
7 §10 ut donec perveniamus ad finem
non minus prospectu procedamus quam gradu: i. 12, 4 nonne alia dicimus,
alia providemus. So far from being a gloss, the words seem to be
necessary to define the meaning and motive of _resistamus_: it is
in order to ‘look ahead’ that we ought to pause from time to time. See
Crit. Notes.

efferentes se: ‘running away,’ or rather, ‘trying to make
off,’ a _praesens conatus_, as is shown by _non tam moram
faciet_, &c. Cp. Hom. Il. 23, 376 ποδώκεες ἔκφερον ἵπποι: Xen. de Re
Equestr., 3 §4. In Livy xxx. 20, 3, the figure is taken rather from
the ‘prancing and curveting’ of a horse, Neque ... tam P. Scipio
exultabit atque efferet sese quam Hanno. (Hild’s parallel βίᾳ φέρουσιν, sc. ἄστομοι πῶλοι from Soph. Electr.
725, cp. Eurip. Hippol. 1224, is more appropriate to the reading
_ferentes equos_.) For the omission of _et_ before
_efferentes_ (found in no MS.) cp. 7 §1 where a figure is added without any
conjunction (auxilium in publicum polliceri ... intrare portum).

neque enim: the ellipse may be supplied as follows,—si
moram faceret non suaderem. The meaning is, it is only in cases where it
will not cause injurious delay that I recommend this curbing and
self-restraint; for neither, again, &c.

robur fecerint: §3 vires
faciamus.

infelicem: see on 1 §7 cuiusdam infelicis
operae.

calumniandi se: ‘the wretched task of pedantic
self-criticism.’ See on 1 §115 nimia contra se calumnia:
viii. pr. 31 quibus nullus est finis calumniandi se et cum singulis
paene syllabis commoriendi, qui etiam cum optima sunt reperta, quaerunt
aliquid quod sit magis antiquum: §11
remotum, inopinatum.

 

 
III: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.

§ 11.
officiis civilibus: ‘the duties of a citizen,’ here with special
reference to legal practice and the advocacy of cases in courts of law:
7 §1: cp. Suet. Tib. 8 civilium
officiorum rudimentis. The phrase in its widest application includes all
the ‘civilities’ and attentions which one citizen may be expected to
show to another, especially in the relation of patron and client: e.g.
_officio_ togae virilis interfui, Plin. Ep. i. 9 §2. Casaubon
defines _officium_ ‘cum honoris causa praesentiam nostram alicui
commodamus’: for instances of its use in this sense cp. Plin. Ep. i. 5,
11: i. 13, 7: ii. 1, 8: Hor. Epist. i. 7, 8 _officiosaque_
sedulitas et opella forensis: Sat. ii. 6, 24 officio respondeat (‘answer
duty’s call,’ Palmer).

velint: potential, as often. The clause stands by itself, and
there is no need for supposing the omission of the relative.

increduli quidam: ‘a diffident sort of people,’ ‘somehow
afraid of themselves.’ For quidam cp. 1 §76. It is employed, as often
by Cicero, to show that the word used is as near the author’s meaning as
possible, though sometimes it is joined with an expression that is
merely a makeshift: cp. τινες. It indicates an undefined degree of the adjective
with which it is connected, and has sometimes a modifying, sometimes an
intensifying effect: here the former is not so probable considering the
strength of the phrase that follows, ‘sinning grievously against their
natural gifts.’

diligentiam is pred.: supply _esse_. The subject is
_facere ... difficultatem_.


 
III:12
Nec promptum est dicere utros peccare validius
141
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.

§ 12.
validius. Common in Quintilian: iii. 8, 61 verborum autem
magnificentia non validius est adfectanda suasorias declamantibus, sed
contingit magis: vi. Prooem. §8 quo me validius cruciaret: ix. 2, 76
quanto validius bonos inhibet pudor quam metus. The superlative is
frequent in Pliny: e.g. validissime placere Ep. i. 20, 22: te
validissime diligo iii. 15, 2: vi. 8, 9 validissime vereor: ix. 35, 1
141
validissime cupere. Cp. Caelias in Cic. ad Fam. viii. 2, 1 ego quum pro
amicitia validissime facerem ei. Horace has valdius oblectat populam
A. P. 321: cp. Ep. i. 9, 6.

omnia sua: cp. 1 §130 (of Seneca) si non omnia
sua amasset: ibid. §88 (of
Ovid) nimium amator ingenii sui.

narrasse: Quintilian always uses the perfect infin. after
_memini_, even where the person who recalls the event was a witness
of it. The rule is thus stated by Roby §1372 ‘_Memini_ is used with
the present (and sometimes the perfect) infinitive of events of which
the subject himself was witness, with the perfect infinitive of events
of which the subject was not witness.’ On this Dr. Reid has a valuable
note de Amic. §2: ‘The rule may be somewhat more precisely stated thus:
If the person who recalls an event was a witness of it, he may either
(_a_) vividly picture to himself the event and its attendant
circumstances so that it becomes really present to his mind’s eye for
the moment, in which case he uses the present infinitive, or (_b_)
he may simply recall the _fact_ that the event _did_ take
place in past time, in which case the perfect infinitive is used. If he
was not a witness, he evidently can conceive the event only in the
latter of these two ways. As regards (_a_) cp. Verg. Ecl. ix. 52
longos cantando puerum memini me condere soles with Georg. iv. 125
memini me Corycium vidisse senem. Examples like the latter of these two
are more numerous than is commonly supposed.’

Iulius Secundus, 1 §120.


 
III:13
Is fuit Iulius Florus, in eloquentia Galliarum, quoniam ibi demum
exercuit eam, princeps, alioqui inter
142
paucos disertus et dignus illa propinquitate. Is cum Secundum, scholae
adhuc operatum, tristem forte vidisset, interrogavit quae causa frontis
tam adductae?

§ 13.
Iulius Florus is generally supposed to be identical with the
individual to whom, as one of the _comites_ of Tiberius Claudius in
his mission to the East, Horace addresses (B.C. 20) the Third Epistle of the First Book: cp.
also ii. 2. Horace indicates his young friend’s ability in the
following lines (i. 3, 21) Non tibi parvum Ingenium, non incultum
est et turpiter hirtum: Seu linguam causis acuis, seu civica iura
Respondere paras, seu condis amabile carmen, Prima feres hederae
victricis praemia. The scholiast Porphyrio tells us that he wrote
satires: Hic Florus fuit satirarum scriptor, cuius sunt electae ex
Ennio, Lucilio, Varrone satirae, ‘by which is meant, doubtless,’ says
Prof. Wilkins, ‘that he re-wrote some of the poems of these earlier
authors, adapting them to the taste of his own day, much as Dryden and
Pope re-wrote Chaucer’s tales.’ There is, however, a chronological
difficulty in the identification of the Florus who was a young man in
B.C. 20 with the Florus who was the
_patruus_ of Iulius Secundus, a contemporary of Quintilian
(aequalem meum), who died towards the end of Domitian’s reign before he
had completed the natural term of life (si longius contigisset aetas 1 §120). Seneca (Controv.
ix. 25, 258) mentions a Iulius Florus who was a pupil of Porcius Latro
(fl. cir. B.C. 17). There is also the
Gaulish nobleman who headed a rebellion among the Treveri, and
afterwards committed suicide, A.D. 21
(Tac. Ann. iii. 40-42). Hild identifies this Florus with the one in the
text: but it is absolutely impossible that the Florus who died in A.D. 21 can have seen Secundus (_scholae
adhuc operatum_), who cannot have been born till about twenty years
later.

in eloquentia. The genitive is more common with princeps: 1 §58: viii. 6, 30 Romanae
eloquentiae principem: vi. 3, 1.

Galliarum. Eloquence flourished in Gaul under the Empire. At
Lugdunum Caligula instituted (A.D.
39-40) a contest in Greek and Latin oratory (certamen Graecae Latinaeque
facundiae, Suet. Calig. 20). Cp. Iuv. i. 44 Aut Lugdunensem rhetor
dicturus ad aram.

quoniam introduces what is virtually a parenthesis, referring
not to the whole sentence but only to _Galliarum_.

ibi demum: 1 §44: 2 §8: 6 §5.
142
Here it leads up to _alioqui_ (_apart from this fact:
moreover_) (1 §64):
it was in Gaul that he practised, but he would have shone anywhere.

alioqui: 1 §64. Here it = apart from this
fact, even if compared with orators of other countries. Transl.
‘besides,’ and cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 validus alioqui spernendis
honoribus: Hist. ii. 27: iii. 32. Other instances in Quintilian are ii.
1, 4: 15, 9: iv. pr. 6: v. 9, 11, &c.

inter paucos, ‘as few have ever been’: Livy xxii. 7, 1 inter
paucas memorata populi Romani clades: cp. xxiii. 44, 4: xxxviii. 15, 9;
Q. Curtius iv. 8, 7 in paucis Alexandro carus: cp. vi.
8, 2.

illa propinquitate, i.e. his relationship to Secundus, of whom
Quintilian speaks with pride as a friend and contemporary 1 §120.

Is fuit ... Is cum: one of Quintilian’s negligences: cp. 2 §23.

adhuc = etiam tum, as Livy xxi. 48 Scipio quamquam gravis
adhuc vulnere erat. Strictly _adhuc_ is applicable to what
continues up to the time of speaking: here of continuance in past time.
Introd. p. l.

operatum: cp. Tac. Ann. iii. 42 nobilissima Galliarum subole
liberalibus studiis ibi operata (v. 2): reipublicae Livy iv. 60, 2:
conubiis arvisque novis operata iuventus Verg. Aen. iii. 136.

adductae. So adducere frontem Sen. Ben. i. 1: cp. attrahere
frontem 6, 7: cp. contrahere frontem Cic. pro Cluent. §72. The opposite
is _frontem remittere_: Pliny, Ep. ii. 5, 5. Cp. sollicitam
explicuere frontem Hor. Car. iii. 29, 16. _Obductus_ is used in a
similar sense: cp. Hor. Epod. xiii. 5 obducta solvatur fronte senectus:
Iuv. Sat. ix. 2 quare ... tristis occurras fronte obducta.


 
III: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?’

§ 14.
Tertium diem ... quod. _Quod_ does not here = _ex quo_,
as it denotes not point of time, but duration: in the direct it would be
_quod non invenio_, not _quod_ (ex quo) _non inveni_. An
exact analogy is Plaut. Amphit. i. 1, 148 (302) iam diu ’st _quod_
ventri victum non datis (where, however, Fleckeisen reads _quom_,
and is followed by Palmer). The commentators quote Pliny, Ep. iv. 27, 1
Tertius dies est quod audivi recitantem Sentium: but there _quod_ =
_ex quo_, just as _ut_ is used for _ex quo_ Stich. 29 Nam
viri nostri domo ut abierunt hic tertiust annus. Nägelsbach (note on
p. 167) says this construction of Quintilian’s was imitated not
only by Pliny (l.c.), but by others: Schmalz, Antibarbarus, s.v. e, ex.
It might, however, be argued that we ought to read _quum_
(_quomomni_): C. ad Fam. xv. 14 Multi anni sunt cum M. Attius
in meo aere est, and often elsewhere, e.g. de Off. ii. §75 (Roby §1723).
If _quod_ stands it must = ‘as regards the fact that he could find
no _exordium_, it was now the third day’: cp. the German ‘es ist
schon der dritte Tag dass,’ &c.

omni labore: a modal ablative, ‘in spite of every effort.’
There are two instances in Cicero of a similar use of the ablative,
_with the gerundive_: pro Mur. §17 qui non modo Curiis, Catonibus,
Pompeiis, antiquis illis fortissimis viris, sed his recentibus, Mariis
et Didiis et Caeliis, commemorandis iacebant: = quamvis Curios, &c.,
commemorarent: de Off. i. 2 §5 quis est enim qui nullis officii
praeceptis tradendis philosophum se audeat dicere? = quamvis non
tradat.

materiae: cp. v. 10, 9 quo apparet omnem ad scribendum
destinatam materiam ita appellari (sc. argumentum): ‘a theme on which he
had to write.’ There seems no reason why _materiae_ should not
143
be taken as genitive, though Hild and others make it dative of the
remote object of _inveniret_.


 
III: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,
143
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.

§ 15.
sine dubio. This substantival use of the neuter adj. with prep.
is frequent in Cicero, but does not occur in Caesar or Sallust. Nägelsb.
Stil. §21: cp. Introd. p. liii.

ratio, ‘judgment’ (λόγος), such as rational human beings may be expected to
show (cp. humano quodam modo, below). In this sense _ratio_ and
_consilium_ are often found together. A parallel passage is
ii. 11, §4 Quin etiam in cogitando nulla ratione adhibita aut tectum
intuentes magnum aliquid, quod ultro se offerat, pluribus saepe diebus
expectant, aut murmure incerto velut classico instincti concitatissimum
corporis motum non enuntiandis sed quaerendis verbis accommodant.

resupini (‘with upturned face’) goes closely with
_spectantes tectum_: cp. Martial ix. 43, 3 Quaeque tulit spectat
resupino sidera vultu.

quod sit tempus. xi. 1, 46 Tempus quoque ac locus egent
observatione propria; nam et tempus tum triste tum laetum, tum liberum
tum angustum est, atque ad haec omnia componendus orator.

humano quodam modo, ‘in true human or rational fashion,’ i.e.
without looking for inspiration to—the ceiling! Cp.
_instincti_, quoted above, and 7 §14 deum tunc affuisse, &c. For
_quidam_ see §11.


 
III: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.

§ 16.
certa, fixed and definite, as belonging necessarily to the
subject, and suggested at once by the thought of it. _Pleraque_ is
not limited to _initia_, though the next sentence is (unde
incipiant).

non ... putemus: v. on 2 §27. Emphasis is secured both by the use of
_non_ for _ne_, and by its place in the sentence.

immutescamus, very rare for _obmutescamus_, Stat. Theb.
v. 542 ruptis immutuit ore querelis: vi. 184.

alioqui. The condition implied in the word is here expressed
in the clause which follows: cp. §30
below. Introd. p. li.


 
III: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
144
deinde et componunt quae effuderant; sed verba emendantur et numeri,
manet in rebus temere congestis quae fuit levitas.

§ 17.
diversum with the dat. (like _contrarium_) is common in
Quintilian and later writers: Cicero has _ab_ c. abl. Cp. Hor. Ep.
i. 18, 5 Est huic diversum vitio vitium prope maius: Caesar B.C. iii.
30, 2 diversa sibi consilia.

silvam. This word is here used as a translation of ὕλη, properly timber for building, then,
metaphorically, raw material, or as here ‘rough draft.’ Cic. Orat. §12
omnis enim ubertas et quasi silva dicendi ducta ab illis (philosophis)
est, nec satis tamen instructa ad forenses causas: §139 quasi silvam
vides: de Or. ii. 65 infinita silva: iii. 93 rerum est silva magna: 103
primum silva rerum (ac sententiarum) comparanda est: 118 qui loco omnis
virtutum et vitiorum est silva subiecta: 54 ea est ei (oratori) subiecta
materies (ὑποκειμένη
ὕλη): de Inv. i. 34 quandam silvam atque materiam ... omnium
argumentationum: Suet. Gram. 24 Reliquit non mediocrem silvam
observationum sermonis antiqui (Probus). The philosophical definition of
ὕλη; is given in Isidorus,
Orig. xiii. 3, 1 hylen (ὕλην)
144
Graeci rerum quamdam primam materiam dicunt, nullo prorsus modo
formatam, sed omnium corporalium formarum capacem, ex qua visibilia haec
elementa formata sunt.

componunt, of ‘arrangement’: cp.
1, §§44,
66,
79.

levitas, ‘superficiality,’ want of thoroughness and solidity:
opp. to _gravitas_. Cp. 7, §4 manet
eadem quae fuit incipientibus difficultas.—The improvement extends
only to the _verba_ and _numeri_, not to the substance.


 
III: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.

§ 18.
protinus = statim ab initio.

opus ducere: 5 §9 velut eadem
cera aliae aliaeque formae duci solent: ii. 4, 7 si non ab initio tenuem
nimium laminam duxerimus et quam caelatura altior rumpat. The same
figure is used Hor. Sat. i. 10, 43-44 forte epos acer ut nemo Varius
ducit. So carmen ducere Ov. Trist. i. 11, 18: iii. 14, 32: ex Pont. i.
5, 7: ducere versus, Trist. v. 12, 63. In all these the metaphor is
originally from drawing out the threads in spinning: cp. Hor. Ep. ii. 1,
225 tenui deducta poemata filo: Sat. ii. 1, 3 putat ... mille die versus
deduci posse. In reference to statuary we have Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 240
ducent aera fortis Alexandri vultum simulantia: Verg. Aen. vi. 84, 7
vivos ducent de marmore vultus.

caelandum, ‘chiselled,’ ‘filed’: Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 92
caelatumque novem Musis opus.

sequemur: so 1 §58 revertemur: 7, 1
renuntiabit: a common use of the future in rules. Warmth of feeling, he
says, will often compensate for want of finish.


 
III: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,
145
atque interim pudet etiam dubitare aut resistere aut mutare quasi
conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes.

§ 19.
illis dictandi deliciis: i.e. the practice which is so much in
fashion, so much ‘affected’: for _deliciae_ (‘affectation’) cp. 1 §43 recens haec lascivia
deliciaeque: xii. 8, 4 ne illas quidem tulerim delicias eorum qui,
&c. The phrase _in deliciis esse alicui_ is common in Cicero:
cp. also Orat. §39 longissime tamen ipsi a talibus deliciis vel potius
ineptiis afuerunt. The practice of dictation became so common that
_dictare_ came to have the same sense as _scribere_
(‘compose’): Pers. i. 52 non si qua eligidia crudi dictarunt proceres?
Literary men had of course always their _librarii_; and we get a
glimpse of a great advocate at work in Brutus §87 illum ... omnibus
exclusis commentatum in quadam testudine cum servis litteratis fuisse,
quorum alii aliud dictare eodem tempore solitus esset. Pliny, the elder,
used to redeem the time by dictating to a _notarius_ even when on
his travels: so too his nephew (who tells of his uncle’s habits iii.
5, 15), notarium voco et die admisso quae formaveram dicto ix. 36,
2: illa quae dictavi identidem retractantur ibid. 40, 2. Gesner has
an interesting note: “scilicet iam tum notabilis erat ea mollities, ut
circa scribendi artem negligentiores essent homines in aliquo fastigio
constituti: (vid. i. 1, 28) quae postea ita invaluit ut
_dictare_ iam esset eruditorum hominum opus, quem admodum antea
_scribere_. Itaque _vario dictandi genere_ supergressum se
alios dicit Sidonius Apollin. 8, 6 et ab initio eiusdem epistolae
coniungit _studia certandi, dictandi, lectitandique_.” He quotes
authorities to show that, owing to the growth of the practice of
dictation, the leading men in Charlemagne’s time, as well as the
bishops, and Charlemagne himself, were ignorant of the art of
writing.

in stilo: i.e. when the author himself uses it. The
_quidem_ introduces an antithesis in _ille cui dictamus_.

urget: he ‘presses,’ whereas even
145
those authors who can write fast take time to stop and think. No doubt
the most practised amanuensis would fail to write as fast as a man can
think, but this is not asserted. All that is said in the antithesis is
that the amanuensis is always ready for more, as it were: his whole
interest is in the writing, not in the thought. One even (etiam) feels
_ashamed_ at times (in addition to being merely conscious of the
fact that the scribe’s pen is not busy) of one’s hesitancy, &c. See
Crit. Notes.

resistere: v. on §10.


 
III: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.

§ 20.
impropria = quae significatione deerrant. Cp. i. 5, 46 dubito an
id improprium potius appellem; significatione enim deerrat. On verba
propria see 1 §6.

consequantur: i.e. such utterances do not come up either to
the care with which one writes or the animation with which one
speaks.

at idem ille introduces the second objection to dictation: §21 supplies a third and §22 a fourth.

incertior in intellegendo, i.e. not to be depended upon to
understand what is dictated to him. See Crit. Notes. Against
_legendo_ it must be urged that the reference to _reading_ is
not very appropriate: the author would not be likely to call on the
scribe to read what he had written, except at an appropriate pause,
otherwise he would himself be to blame for the interruption to the
‘swing’ (cursus) of his thoughts.

offensator, a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, whence the use of _velut_. It is
employed here of one whose slowness or muddle-headedness is always
bringing the author to a standstill. Cp. offensantes 7 §10.

quae erat: cp. §17 quae fuit
levitas.

concepta mentis intentio, i.e. the thread of ideas.
_Concipere_ is of frequent occurrence in Quintilian: 7 §14: xi. 3, 25: ix. i, 16: ii. 20, 4: vi. 2,
33, &c. For the gen. cp. animi intentio i. 1, 34. The reading
_conceptae mentis_ (see Crit. Notes) is supported by i. 2, 29
praeceptores ipsos non idem mentis ac spiritus in dicendo posse
concipere: the genitive would then be objective, as §23 below: perhaps ‘attention to the conceived
thought.’

excutitur: Aristoph. Clouds 138 καὶ φροντίδ᾽ ἐξήμβλωκας
ἐξευρημένην.


 
III: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
146
notat, cum leviter dicendi genus significat, ‘nec pluteum,’ inquit,
‘caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues,’ etiam ridicula sunt, nisi cum soli
sumus.

§ 21.
quaeque ipsa: i.e. per se: so §23
below, quae ipsa delectant.

frontem et latus ... obiurgare. I venture to insert this
conjecture in the text, as justified both by the MSS. tradition (see Crit. Notes) and by the
context. Quintilian is speaking not of the gestures by which animation
is imparted to an actual effort of oratory, but of such little
mannerisms as the men of his day indulged in when in the throes of
solitary composition,—just as they bite quill pens to pieces or
scratch their heads now. For _frontem obiurgare_ cp. Brut. §278
nulla perturbatio animi nulla corporis, frons non percussa, non femur,
quoted xi. 3, 123: femur pectus frontem caedere ii. 12, 10: ut frontem
ferias Cic. ad Att. i. 1, 1, though this last passage implies a more
vexatious state of distraction.

obiurgare, i.e. caedere, ferire, plectere. Gertz objected to
_latus obiurgare_ on the ground that _obiurgare_ by itself
could not mean to ‘strike.’ We have ablatives in Pers.v. 169 solea puer
obiurgabere rubra: Sen. de Ira iii. 12, 6 servulum istum verberibus
obiurga: Suet. Calig. §20 ferulis obiurgari: id. Otho §2 flagris:
Petronius 34 colaphis. But in all these
146
the abl. is needed to define the meaning of _obiurgare_, while no
one could mistake _latus obiurgare_.

leviter dicendi genus: cp. §17
levitas. The reference is to listlessness and carelessness of style,
‘not the kind that beats the desk or savours of the bitten
nail,’—without earnestness or feeling.

nec pluteum caedit. The _pluteus_ or _pluteum_ is
the back board of the ‘lecticula lucubratoria’ in which writing was done
in a recumbent position. The quotation is from Sat. i. 106, where
Persius pictures a drivelling versifier, listlessly pouring forth his
verses without any physical exertion or trace of feeling.

demorsos sapit ungues: imitated from Hor. Sat. i. 10, 70,
speaking of what Lucilius would do if he lived now: in versu faciendo
Saepe caput scaberet, vivos et roderet ungues.

nisi cum soli sumus. This refers to practice only.
A different point of view is stated in i. ii. §31, where Quintilian
sums up in these words, Non esset in rebus humanis eloquentia, si tantum
cum singulis loqueremur.


 
III: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.

§ 22.
ut semel ... dicam: 1 §17.

secretum in dictando. This is the fourth objection. Cp. 7 §16 cum stilus secreto gaudeat atque
omnes arbitros reformidet. Hirt (Substantivierung des Adj. bei
Quint.—Berlin, 1890) notes that this use of the nom. neut.
standing by itself is not so common as other cases: he cites about a
dozen instances, e.g. iv. 1, 41 honestum satis per se valet: v. 11, 13
dissimile plures casus habet: vi. 3, 84 inopinatum et a lacessente poni
solet. See Crit. Notes.

protinus: see on 1 §3, §42.

aptissima in hoc. A poetical constr.: only here in
Quintilian, instead of _dat._ or _ad_. Livy xxviii. 31 genere
pugnae in quod minime apti sunt: Ovid Metam. xiv. 765 formas deus aptus
in omnes.

nemora silvasque. Quintilian is speaking of oratory: poetry on
the other hand may fitly seek its inspiration in solitude. Tac. Dial.
ix. poetis ... in nemora et lucos id est in solitudinem recedendum est:
cp. xii nemora vero et luci et secretum ipsum, &c. The poet’s love
of retirement and the necessity for his being exempted from the fears
and anxieties of the vulgar is in fact a commonplace in Latin
literature: Horace, Car. i. 1, 30: 32, 1: iv. 3, 10 sq.: Ep. ii. 2, 77:
A. P. 298: Ovid, Tristia i. 1, 41 Carmina secessum scribentis et
otia quaerunt, cp. v. 12, 3: Iuv. vii. 58: Pliny ix. 10 §2 (to
Tacitus) poemata quiescunt, quae tu inter nemora et lucos commodissime
perfici putas: so for study of all kinds i. 6, 2; cp. ix.
36, 6.

beatiorem spiritum: i. §27, §44 (spiritus: cp. 5 §4 sublimis spiritus): and i. §61, §109
(beatus). Cp. dives vena in Hor. A. P. 409.


 
III: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
147
in multa simul intendere animus totum potest, et quocumque respexit,
desinit intueri quod propositum erat.

§ 23.
hortator: cp. Liv. xxvii. 18, 14 foederum ruptor dux et populus:
Cic. pro Mil. §50 ipse ille latronum occultator et receptor locus.
Introd. p. xlv.

quae ipsa: §21 above. Cic.
Tusc. Disp. v. 21, 62 iam ipsae defluebant coronae.

bona fide, ‘earnestly and conscientiously’: ut non fallat (sc.
animus) sed officiis suis probe sufficiat (Wolff). The phrase is
borrowed from the language of the law-courts, where it was applied to
judicial awards made not according to any positive enactment but in
equity. Cicero, de Off. iii. 61 et sine lege iudiciis,
147
in quibus additur _ex fide bona_. See Holden’s note _ad
loc._


 
III: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.

§ 24.
late circumspiciendi. Wölfflin thinks that Quintilian designedly
avoided such alliterations as ‘longe lateque circumspicere’: cp. Sall.
Iug. 5, Tac. Hist. iv. 50. In viii. 3, 65 he has ‘vultum et oculos’
instead of ‘ora et oculos’: and ‘satis’ by itself, or ‘satis abunde,’
instead of ‘satis superque.’

remittere ... intendere: the figure is derived from the use of
the bow.

 
III: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.

§ 25.
Demosthenes: Plut. Dem. 7 ἐκ τούτου κατάγειον μὲν οἰκοδομῆσαι μελετήριον ὃ δὴ διεσώζετο καὶ
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς.

cogerent: for a similar modified use of _cogere_ cp.
Corn. Nep. Milt. 7, 1: Suet. Domit. 11.

lumen for _lucerna_: Cic. de Divin. 1 §36 lumine
adposito.

velut tectos, ‘as if under cover’: sc. ad omnia quae oculis
vel auribus incursant. This is said to be one of Quintilian’s military
metaphors, whence the use of _velut_. Becher (Philol. xliii. 203
sq.) compares de Orat. i. 8, 32 quid autem tam necessarium quam tenere
semper arma quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis vel provocare improbos
vel te ulcisci lacessitus? and Orelli on pro Deiot. 6, 16: (quis
consideratior illo? quis tectior? quis prudentior?) ‘est metaphora
petita a gladiatoribus qui, uti debent, contra ictus adversariorum se
tegunt.’ Here the ‘weapons of defence’ are three: ‘silentium noctis,’
‘clausum cubiculum,’ and ‘lumen unum’ (i.e. nobis solum appositum). The
opposite of _tectus_ in this sense is _apertus_: e.g. latus
apertum Tac. Hist. ii. 21 _aperti_ incautique muros subiere, ‘of a
force which has no adequate defensive means at its disposal for
conducting a siege’ (Spooner). For the thought Krüger (3rd ed.)
compares Plin. Ep. x. 36 clausae fenestrae manent. Mire enim silentio et
tenebris animus alitur. Ab iis quae avocant abductus et liber et mihi
relictus non oculos animo sed animum oculis sequor, qui eadem quae mens
vident, quoties non adsunt alia.—See Crit. Notes.

maxime = potissimum, and leads up to §28 ut sunt _maxime_ optanda. Cp. μάλιστα: Plat. Rep. 326 A πεῖσαι μάλιστα μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰ δὲ
μὴ τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν.

teneat, potential: ‘if we work at night, the silence, &c.
will secure us from interruption.’ But Krüger (2nd ed.), looking to
_lucubrantes_ (which is emphatic), explains = ita lucubremus ut ...
teneat, and Wrobel makes it an imperative, ‘let us work by night, and
under such conditions, with such precautions that,’ &c.

 

 
III:26
Sed cum in omni studiorum genere, tum in hoc praecipue bona valetudo,
quaeque eam maxime praestat, frugalitas necessaria est, cum tempora ab
ipsa
148
rerum natura ad quietem refectionemque nobis data in acerrimum laborem
convertimus. Cui tamen non plus inrogandum est quam quod somno
supererit, haud deerit;

§ 26.
in hoc, i.e. for night work (= in hoc studiorum genere; viz.
cum lucubramus).

frugalitas: regularity of life, in a wide sense (as moderatio,
temperantia, σωφροσύνη): cp. xii. 1, 8 Age non ad perferendos
studiorum labores necessaria frugalitas? quid ergo ex libidine ac
luxuria spei? Cic. pro Deiot. ix. §26.

cum ... convertimus: the temporal signification of _cum_
c. ind. passes here into the causal. Cp. i. 6, 2 auctoritas ab
oratoribus vel historicis peti solet ... cum summorum in eloquentia
virorum iudicium pro ratione, et vel error honestus est magnos duces
sequentibus.—Becher on the other hand (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.)
insists that the use is here exclusively temporal, and that the clause
is merely a development of ‘cum lucubramus,’—
148
the idea contained in the foregoing in hoc (sc. stud. genere).

cui: sc. labori scribendi.

inrogandum = impendendum, tribuendum.

supererit ... deerit. Tr. ‘only so much as would be superfluous for
sleep, not insufficient.’ The meaning is clear: we must not encroach on
the time necessary for the repose of mind and body,—‘not more than
what is not needed for sleep, and what will not be missed.’ For what may
seem a superfluous addition cp. 1 §115 si quid adiecturus sibi
non si quid detracturus fuit: Verg. Aen. ix. 282 ‘tantum fortuna secunda
Haud adversa cadat.’ The juxtaposition of compounds of _esse_ is
very common: esp. _superesse_, _deesse_. Asin. Pollio, ad Fam.
x. 33, 5: Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 63, 2: Cic. in Gellius i. 22, 7: Val. Max.
viii. 7, 2: Suet. Aug. 56 (Schmalz). See Crit. Notes.


 
III: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.

§ 27.
si vacet ... occupatos. The antithesis should be noted: the days
are long enough when one has nothing else to do: it is the busy man who
is driven to encroach on the night.

 
III: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.

§ 28.
codices: writing-books or tablets, as §32.

faciendus usus. Cp. ut scribendi fiat usus in 2 §2: and §3 below
vires faciamus: 6 §3 facienda multo
stilo forma est.

derexeris: see on 2 §1. So
xii. 3, 8: ii. 13, 5: ii. 1, 11. On the other hand in x. 1 §127 and v. 7, 6 Halm and
Meister print _dirigere_.

incursant: stronger than §16 in
oculos incurrunt. The constr. with the dative is poetical (Ovid, Metam.
i. 303, xiv. 190).

 


 
III: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.

§ 29.
An vero ... non consequemur. For this form of the _argumentum a
minore ad maius_ cp. 2 §5. Cic. pro
Rab. 5 An vero servos nostros ... dominorum benignitas ... liberabit hos
a verberibus ... nostri honores (non) vindicabunt?

deerremus with simple abl. is post-classical.

idem, i.e. the same abstraction.

si et voluerimus: ‘by an effort of will,’ opp. to _fortuita
cogitatio_.

non nisi: see on 1 §20.

 


 
III:30
Quare in turba, itinere, conviviis etiam faciat sibi cogitatio ipsa
149
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.

§ 30.
itinere: Sen. Ep. 72 §2 quaedam enim sunt quae possis et in
cisio scribere: Plin. Ep. iv. 14 §2 accipies cum hac epistula
hendecasyllabos nostros, quibus nos in vehiculo, in balineo, inter
149
cenam oblectamus otium temporis. Pliny even took with him to the chase
his _pugillares_, that he might note down any passing thought: i.
6, 1: ix. 10, 2. He had learnt the lesson from his uncle, who made
use of his time at dinner, in the bath, on a journey: see the
description his nephew gives of his habits Ep. iii. 5 §§10, 11, 14-16.
Cato the Younger used to read while the Senate was assembling: Cic. de
Fin. iii. 2 §7.

alioqui: see on §16. Cp. §7 and
Introd. p. li.

tot circumstantibus iudiciis. Four courts were commonly held
in one and the same basilica. Cp. xii. 5, 6 cum in basilica Iulia
diceret primo tribunali (Trachalus 1 §119) quatuor autem iudicia, ut
moris est, cogerentur, atque omnia clamoribus fremerent, et auditum eum
et intellectum et, quod agentibus ceteris contumeliosissimum fuit,
laudatum quoque ex quatuor tribunalibus memini: Plin. Ep. i. 18, 3 eram
acturus ... in quadruplici iudicio: iv. 24, 1: vi. 33, 2.

particulas: the ‘jottings’ which we ought to be able to make
even in spite of surrounding confusion, if we are to be effective when
called on to speak _ex tempore_.

ceris: used especially for rough notes. Iuv. i. 63: xiv. 191.
These tablets were “made of thin slabs or leaves of wood, coated with
wax, and having a raised margin all round to preserve the contents from
friction. They were made of different sizes and varied in the number of
their leaves, whence the word, in this sense, is applied in the plural”
(Rich).

in litore: Frotscher quotes Lib. Vit. Demosth. φασὶν
αὐτὸν ἄνεμον ῥαγδαῖον τηροῦντα, καὶ κινουμένην σφοδρῶς τὴν θάλατταν,
παρὰ τοὺς αἰγιαλοὺς βαδίζοντα, λέγειν καὶ τῷ τῆς θαλάττης ἤχῳ
συνεθίζεσθαι φέρειν τὰς τοῦ δήμου καταβοάς: Plut. Vit. X Orat. 8,
p. 844 E καὶ κατιόντα ἐπὶ τὸ Φαληρικὸν πρὸς
τὰς τῶν κυμάτων ἐμβολὰς τὰς σκέψεις ποιεῖσθαι, ἵν᾽ εἴ ποτε θορυβοίη ὁ
δῆμος, μὴ ἐκσταίη: Cic. de Fin. v. 2, 5 Noli inquit, ex me
quaerere, qui in Phalericum etiam descenderim, quo in loco ad fluctum
aiunt declamare solitum Demosthenem, ut fremitum assuesceret voce
vincere: Val. Max. viii. 7, ext. 1.

meditans, ‘practising’: cp. de Orat. i. §260 (Demosthenes)
perfecit meditando ut nemo planius esse locutus putaretur: §136: Brutus
§302 nullum patiebatur esse diem (Hortensius) quin aut in foro diceret
aut meditaretur extra forum: Quint. ii. 10, 2: iv. 2, 29.

expavescere. This corresponds with the motive attributed to
Demosthenes by Plutarch and Libanius, as quoted above; Cicero’s
explanation (ut fremitum assuesceret voce vincere) is perhaps the more
credible.

 

 
III: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
150
exiget, quae ut iuvant aciem, ita crebra relatione, quoad intinguntur
calami, morantur manum et cogitationis impetum frangunt.

§ 31.
optime: §33: 1 §72 (prave): 1 §105 (fortiter), where see
note: 5 §13 (rectene and honestene).
Becher says ‘_optime_ giebt ein Urteil über die Handlung an, drückt
nicht die Art und Weise aus’: hence it = _optimum esse_.

scribi ceris: for the omission of in cp. xi. 2, 32 illud
neminem non iuvabit iisdem quibus scripserit ceris ediscere. In viii. 6,
64 Meister reads _in ceris_.

ratio delendi: see on 2 §3:
‘erasure,’ the ‘art of blotting.’ A similar periphrasis is _ratio
collocandi_ §5. For the purpose of
erasure the reverse end of the _stilus_ was flat. Hor. Sat. i. 10,
72 saepe stilum vertas (cp. 4 §1):
Cic. de Orat. ii. §96 luxuries quaedam quae stilo depascenda est. With
parchment the method of erasure was of course different: Hor. A. P.
446 incomptis adlinet atrum transverso calamo signum.

nisi forte is not ironical here, as in 1 §70: 2 §8: 5 §§6-7.

150
membranarum. Parchment was more expensive than the tablets
(cerae), though probably cheaper now than it had been previously. It
could be used for rough notes, the writing being erased to make room for
fresh matter,—‘palimpsest.’ Even when a published book consisted
of papyrus paper (charta), parchment was often used for the wrapper. It
was called _membrana pergamena_ because the industry received its
development under the kings of Pergamum.

exiget: for the indic. cp. v. 2, 2 refelluntur autem
(praeiudicia) raro per contumeliam iudicum, nisi forte manifesta in iis
culpa erit. The commentators quote Sall. Iug. xiv. 10, but there the
subj. is really consecutive.

relatione is here used in the etymological sense of ‘carrying
the pen back,’ or ‘to and fro’ in supplying it with ink. No other
example can be quoted in which this sense ( = reductio) occurs. Kiderlin
(l.c.) thinks that the idea of ‘raising’ the hand would be more
appropriate to the context than that of ‘drawing it back’: he proposes
therefore to read ‘_crebriore elatione_.’ See Crit. Notes.

intinguntur, i.e. in the ink (atramentum), which was generally
an artificial compound, sometimes the natural juice of the
cuttle-fish.


 
III: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.

§ 32.
contra = ex adverso. Space must be left for corrections and
additions opposite to what has been written: there must be blank pages.
Cp. _contra_ 1 §114.

adiciendo, ‘for making additions,’ comes under the head of the
‘dative for work contemplated’ Roby §§1156 and 1383. So Tacitus
constantly uses the dative of gerund or gerundive in a final sense after
verbs and adjectives. See Crit.
Notes.

aut certe, with no previous _aut_: cp. ix. 2, 94:
3, 60. For novorum cp. _subitis_ 7 §30, and see Introd. p. xlvii.

confundant: potential. It states a possibility: _faciunt_
a fact.

expertus with acc. and inf. is rare.

studiosum: 1 §45.

alioqui: see Introd. p. li.

versuum: 1 §38.


 
III: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
151
intentos ab alia inventione declinant ideoque optime sunt in
deposito.

§ 33.
locus ... loci. There is something of Quintilian’s not infrequent
negligence of style in the repetition of the word, especially as by
_locus_ he means only ‘room,’ while _loci_ are the different
parts of the composition.

notentur, ‘jot down.’

inrumpunt, ‘break in upon us,’ with a force that is hard to
resist (cp. memoriam sui intentos below).

sensus: ‘ideas’: viii. 5, 2 sententiam veteres quod animo
sensissent vocaverunt ... sed consuetudo iam tenuit ut mente concepta
sensus vocaremus, lumina autem praecipueque in clausulis posita
sententias: 5 §5: 7 §6.

interim ... interim: frequent in Quintilian (see Introduction
p. li.) for _nunc ... nunc_, _modo ... modo_.

optime sunt: §31 = optimum est
eos esse.

151
inventione: ‘line of thought.’

in deposito: ‘in store,’ ‘in a place of safety,’ i.e. noted
down: see Introd. p. xlvii. The phrase is
borrowed from law: vii. 2, 51 depositi quaestiones, Pandects, xxxvi.
3, 5.




CHAPTER IV.

Of Revision.


De Emendatione.

IV:1
IV. 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.

§ 1.
creditum est: 1 §48. The perfect indicates that
the opinion was adopted and is still maintained. Hor. Ep. i. 2, 5 cur
ita crediderim (= credam): cp. credidi 2 §20 above.

non minus, sc. quam cum scribit. Hild sees a similar ellipse
in 1 §30 potius habenti
periculosus, sc. quam utilis. But see note _ad loc._

replenda ... deicienda correspond to adicere ...
detrahere. This use is suggested by the idea of _levelling_.
Cp. Digest xlii. 1, 4 lege repletur quod sententiae deest: Ovid, Her. x.
37 quod voci deerat plangore replebam.

premere, ‘prune’: v. on _pressus_ 1 §§44, 46: Hor. Sat. i. 10, 69 Detereret sibi
multa, recideret omne quod ultra Perfectum traheretur.

luxuriantia, ‘exuberance’: Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 122 luxuriantia
compescet, where Wilkins cites this passage, also de Orat. ii. 96
luxuries quaedam quae stilo depascenda est, i.e. must be kept down by
the practice of writing.

inordinata: of expression, viii. 2, §23 nam si ... neque plura
neque inordinata aut indistincta dixerimus, erunt dilucida et
neglegenter quoque audientibus aperta: ix. 4, 27 felicissimus tamen
sermo est cui et rectos ordo et apta iunctura et cum his numerus
opportune cadens contigit.

soluta componere = numeris adstringere verba: ‘reducing to
metre what is unrhythmical.’ Cp. carmen solutum 1 §31. For _componere_, see
on 1 §44.

exultantia: cp. 2 §15,
where the opposition of _compositi_ and _exultantes_ shows
that the latter denotes the extreme,—the excess of that of which
_solutus_ is the defect. Cp. Cic. Orat. §195. The three terms might
be arranged in a series: soluta, composita, exultantia,—the last
denoting ‘combinations of words producing an undignified, skipping, or
dancing movement’ (Frieze).


 
IV: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.

§ 2.
emendandi genus. Like _vis_ and _ratio_ (see on 1 §1), _genus_ is used with
the gerund to supply the place of a noun (here _emendatio_): cp.
ix. 3, 35 est et illud repetendi genus (‘this too is repetition’): Cic.
pro Rab. Post. neque solum hoc genus pecuniae capiendae turpe sed etiam
nefarium esse arbitrabatur: and even with the perf. part. pass. in Verr.
ii. §141 non mihi praetermittendum videtur ne illud quidem genus
pecuniae conciliatae: Nägelsbach, p. 130.

in aliquod tempus. Hor. A. P. 388 nonumque prematur in annum:
advice to which Quintilian alludes in his dedicatory letter to Tryphon,
dabam iis otium ut refrigerato inventionis amore diligenter repetitos
tamquam lector perpenderem.

recentes fetus: 1 §16 nova illa velut
152
nascentia: 3 §7 omnia nostra dum
nascuntur placent.


 
IV:3
Sed
152
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.

§ 3.
finem habet: there must be a limit. Cp. §4.

sunt enim: the _increduli_ of 3 §11: quibus nihil sit satis, &c.

medicis. This is not flattering to the profession in
Quintilian’s day: he may have owed the doctors a grudge. Dion. Hal. ad
Cn. Pomp. vi. (p. 785 R.) has a similar figure.

accidit itaque. Livy sometimes has itaque in the second place,
Cicero never.

cicatricosa, ‘covered with sutures’: ‘patchwork.’

exsanguia: cp. 1 §115, where he says of Calvus
‘nimia contra se calumnia verum sanguinem perdidisse.’

cura peiora: cp. Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxv. 10 nocere saepe nimiam
diligentiam: Plin. Ep. ix. 35, 2 nimia cura deterit magis quam
emendat.

 
IV: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.

§ 4.
lima: Hor. A. P. 291 limae labor et mora: Plin. Ep. v. 10, §3
perfectum opus absolutumque est, nec iam splendescit lima sed
atteritur.

nam: cp. 1 §§9, 50. quod: see on 1 §60.

Cinnae Smyrnam. C. Helvius Cinna, a friend of Catullus, was
the author of a poem entitled Smyrna (Zmyrna), in which he described the
incestuous love of Myrrha for her father Cinyras, the subject being
treated in the fashion of the Alexandrian poets. (Cp. Teuffel, Rom. Lit.
210 §§2-3.) Vergil seems to have admired him (Ecl. ix. 35): but the
elaborate care he spent over his poem, which was after all not a long
one, resulted in obscurity: fuit autem liber obscurus adeo ut et
nonnulli eius aetatis grammatici in eum scripserint magnamque ex eius
enarratione sint gloriam consecuti. Quod obscurus fuerit etiam Martialis
ostendit in illo versu (x. 21, 4): iudice te melior Cinna Marone
fuit,—Philargyrius, quoted by Teuffel. Cp. Catullus xcv Zmyrna mei
Cinnae nonam post denique messem Quam coeptast nonamque edita post
hiememst. Horace’s nonum ... prematur in annum is believed to contain a
direct reference to the Smyrna.

Panegyricum Isocratis. This speech received its name from the
fact that it was written for recitation at one of the great πανηγύρεις or festal assemblies,
such as the Panhellenic festival at Olympia. It was probably published
in the latter part of the summer of B.C. 380, and consisted of an appeal to the Greeks
to join in an expedition against Persia, under the joint command of
Athens and Sparta.

parcissime, sc. dicunt: cp. 1 §101 ut parcissime dicam.
Quintilian seems here to be following Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 25
(Reiske v. p. 208) ὁ μὲν γὰρ τὸν πανηγυρικὸν
λόγον, ὡς οἱ τὸν ἐλάχιστον χρόνον γράφοντες ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα
συνετάξατο. Plutarch says that some mentioned 15 years: τὸν πανηγυρικὸν ἔτεσι δέκα συνέθηκεν, οἱ δὲ
δεκαπέντε λέγουσιν Dec. Orat. p. 837 F: cp. Mor. 350 E,
where he speaks of ‘almost three Olympiads.’ The writer of the treatise
‘On the Sublime’ (ch. 4) gives ten years as the period.

elaboratum: 7 §32. Cp.
Cic. Brutus §312 deinceps inde multae (causae) quas nos diligenter
elaboratas et tamquam elucubratas adferebamus.

nullum erit, ‘will be of no avail’ = non dignum erit cuius
ulla ratio habeatur.
153
Cp. Cic. in Vatin. xii. §30 Dices supplicationes te illas non probasse.
Optime. Nullae fuerint supplicationes.




CHAPTER V.

What to Write.


153
Quae scribenda sint praecipue.

V:1
V. 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.

§ 1.
ἑξιν: v. 1 §1 and note. For the reading see
Crit. Notes.

operis: ‘this part of my work,’ viz. the present chapter.

materiae. The plural is especially frequent in Quintilian 1 §62: 5 §22: 7 §25: cp. ii. 4, 12 and 41: 6, 1: 10, 1 and
4: iii. 5, 2: iv. 1, 43: vi. 2, 10: 3, 15: vii. pro. §4: 4, 24 and 40.
He is not treating here of the kinds of subjects for a general course of
rhetorical training, but limits himself to the point ‘de quo agitur,
unde copia ac facilitas maxime veniat.’

primo libro: see ch. 9, where he adds to the office of the
grammarian, after _ratio loquendi_ and _enarratio auctorum_,
quaedam dicendi primordia quibus aetates nondum rhetorem capientes
instituant.

secundo: ch. 4 de primis apud rhetorem exercitationibus, and
ch. 10 de utilitate et ratione declamandi.

puerorum ... robustorum: cp. i. 8, 12 priora illa ad pueros
magis, haec sequentia ad robustiores pertinebunt: ii. 2, 14 infirmitas a
robustioribus separanda est: x. 1 §130 robustis et severiore
genere satis firmatis: ii. 5, 2 robusti iuvenes: i. 1, 9 robustum quoque
et iam maximum regem ab institutione illa puerili sunt prosecuta: i. 5,
9: 12, 1.

sed: supply _ut explicemus_, or (for an independent
clause) _explicandum est_.

de quo nunc agitur: i.e. the avowed object of the tenth book:
cp. 1 §1.

copia: 1 §5
opes quaedam parandae ... eae constant copia rerum ac verborum. It is
the _copia verborum_ that is specially meant here.


 
V: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
154
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.

§ 2.
Latinum: to be taken substantively, cp. i. 6, 3 and 19: ii. 1, 4:
§4 below, _Latinis_: cp. Cicero Tusc.
iii. §29 licet, ut saepe facimus, in Latinum illa convertere.

de Oratore i. §155 postea mihi placuit, eoque sum usus
adulescens, ut summorum oratorum Graecas orationes explicarem, quibus
lectis hoc adsequebar, ut cum ea quae legeram Graece, Latine redderem,
non solum optimis verbis uterer et tamen usitatis, sed etiam exprimerem
quaedam verba imitando, quae nova nostris essent, dummodo essent idonea.
Prof. Wilkins there refers, for the value to be attached to translation
at sight, as giving a command over appropriate diction, to Stanhope’s
Life of Pitt, vol. i. pp. 8 and 18. Cp. Stanley’s Arnold, i.
120.

sua ipse persona: in his own name, and not merely by the mouth
of one of the persons of a dialogue, like Crassus in the De Oratore.
There are no passages in Cicero’s extant writings that account for the
words _frequentissime praecipit_: cp., however, Brutus §310
Commentabar declamitans ... idque faciebam multum etiam Latine sed
Graece saepius: ad Fam. xvi. 21, 5 declamitare Graece apud Cassium
institui. The introductions to the De Officiis and De Finibus contain
Cicero’s advocacy of the study of Greek. Suet. de Rhet. 1-2 Cicero ad
praeturam usque Graece declamavit, Latine vero senior quoque.

libros Platonis atque Xenophontis. Cicero translated, at about
the age of 20
154
years (de Off. ii. §87) the Oeconomicus of Xenophon: in early life also
the Protagoras of Plato, and later the Timaeus. Quintilian might have
included a reference to Cicero’s translation of Aeschines in
Ctesiphontem and Demosthenes de Corona, his preface to which survives in
the De Optimo Genere Oratorum: §14 Converti enim ex Atticis duorum
eloquentissimorum nobilissimas orationes inter se contrarias, Aeschinis
Demosthenisque: nec converti ut interpres sed ut orator, &c. His
motive was to lay down a standard of ‘Atticism,’ as well as to free
himself from the charge of ‘Asianism’: §23 erit regula ad quam eorum
dirigantur orationes qui Attice volent dicere. Cp. Quint, xii. 10.

hoc genere: 3 §26: and
below §7.

Messallae: v. 1 §22 and §113 with the notes.

Hyperidis pro Phryne: Quintilian refers to the well-known
story ii. 15, 9 et Phrynen non Hyperidis actione quamquam admirabili,
sed conspectu corporis, quod illa speciosissimum alioqui diducta
nudaverit tunica, putant periculo liberatam. Phryne was accused of ἀσέβεια. For Hyperides v. 1 §77, and note.

cum illa ... pro Phryne ... subtilitate. The commentators
quote a similar brachyology in Cic. Orator §108 ipsa enim illa pro
Roscio iuvenilis redundantia, though the text is not certain.

difficillima Romanis subtilitat. Cp. 1 §100 cum sermo ipse Romanus
non recipere videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem. For
_subtilitas_ cp. 1 §78, 2 §19, Brutus §67 sed ea in nostris inscitia
est, quod hi ipsi, qui in Graecis antiquitate delectantur eaque
subtilitate quam Atticam appellant, hanc in Catone ne noverunt quidem.
Hyperidae volunt esse et Lysiae. Laudo; sed cur nolunt Catones?


 
V: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.

§ 3.
auctores: see on 1 §24.

transferentibus: personal dat. after _licet_.

verbis uti optimis: cp. hoc adsequebar ut .... non solum
optimis verbis uterer de Oratore i. §155, quoted above.

nostris is predicative = omnia enim quibus utimur nostra sunt.
Translation from the Greek leaves us free to choose the best
expressions: it is not like translation from Latin (i.e. reproduction or
paraphrase), where we must often borrow from our models (optimis
occupatis §5.).

figuras. Cp. 1 §12, note on figuramus. In ix.
1, Quintilian discusses the meaning of _figura_, which he defines
broadly in §4 as ‘conformatio quaedam orationis remota a communi et
primum se offerente ratione.’ Here he refers both to rhetorical and to
grammatical figures; the latter require idiomatic rendering, while a
rhetorical figure which may be appropriate in the one language may not
be allowable in the other. In i. 1, 13 he gives a warning against the
exclusive use of Greek in early training: hinc enim accidunt et oris
plurima vitia in peregrinum sonum corrupti et sermonis, cui cum Graecae
figurae adsidua consuetudine haeserunt, in diversa quoque loquendi
ratione pertinacissime durant.


 
V:4
Sed et illa ex Latinis conversio multum et ipsa contulerit.
155
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.

§ 4.
ex Latinis conversio. Verbal nouns are often joined with the case
governed by the verb from which they are derived: vii. 2, 35 ex causis
probatio. In Plautus there are several instances even of the accusative,
but the dative is more frequent.

multum et ipsa = ipsa quoque ... multum contulerit, ‘even
paraphrase of
155
itself,’ i.e. apart from translation. See on 1 §31 and cp. §20 below, 6 §1: 7 §26.

contulerit: v. on 1 §37. (Cicero uses ipse by
itself, or ipse etiam: Livy, ipse quoque.)

de carminibus: Hild wrongly takes this of Greek poetry.
Quintilian is commending those exercises in ‘reproduction’ or
‘paraphrase,’ which are substituted in many schools now for English
‘parsing.’

Sulpicius, 1 §116.

sublimis spiritus: cp. 1 §27 in rebus spiritus et in
verbis sublimitas: §61
spiritu, magnificentia: §104 elatum abunde spiritum: 3 §22 beatiorem spiritum.

orationem: ‘prose style.’ The fire of the poetry gives
elevation to the paraphrase. _Oratio_ is used (without prosa) in
Cicero for ‘prose’: Orator §70 saepissime et in poematis et in oratione
peccatur: ibid. §§166, 174, 178, 198, &c.

poetica libertate. Cp. Quintilian’s remarks on the study of
poetry, 1 §§27-30, esp.
§28 libertate verborum ...
licentia figurarum.

praesumunt. The use of this verb, with such a nominative as
_verba_ (which seems here to be in a way personified), would be
hard to parallel either from Quintilian or from any other writer.
Elsewhere it is generally used with a personal reference in the sense of
to ‘take beforehand’ (προλαμβάνω)),—with derived meanings; e.g. i.
10, 27: i. 1, 19: ii. 4, 7; 17, 28: viii. 6, 23: xii. 9, 9. The
passage xi. 1, 27 inviti iudices audiunt praesumentem partes suas is
quoted as showing that the meaning is ‘encroach upon,’ but that is
secondary: there it simply means ‘anticipating them in the discharge of
their functions,’ cp. sumere sibi imperatorias partes Caesar B.C. iii.
51. ‘Forestall’ is the nearest English equivalent: praeripere (Becher),
praecidere (Hild), praecipere (sumere aliquid ante tempus) Dosson. Cp.
Aen. xi. 18: Ovid Ar. Amat. iii. 757: and praeclusam §7 below.—In what follows eadem is the only
reading that will make sense of a very difficult passage: if it is the
nom. pl. (agreeing with _verba_), tr. ‘do not at the same time
(i.e. in consequence of their being _poet. libert. audac._) exhaust
beforehand the power of using the language of ordinary prose: no (sed =
ἀλλὰ), we may add to the
thought (of the poem) the strength of rhetoric,’ &c. Even if the
words are ‘poetica libertate audaciora’ the ‘facultas proprie dicendi’
can secure strength, completeness, and compactness for the reproduction.
But _eadem_ is usually taken as the acc. pl. neut.: ‘do not use up
beforehand the ability to say the same things in ordinary prose.’ The
reading _eandem_ (Halm and Meister) would seem to require a
different meaning for _praesumunt_.—See Crit. Notes.

effusa substringere: cp. 4 §1 luxuriantia adstringere.
_Substringere_ means to ‘gather up’ as one does with dishevelled
(_effusus_) hair, from which the figure may be taken: Tac. Germ. 38
substringere crinem nodo. Burmann quotes from Tertullian de Oration,
ch. i. de brevitate orationis dominicae quantum substringitur
verbis tantum diffunditur sensibus.


 
V:5
Neque ego paraphrasin esse interpretationem tantum volo, sed circa
eosdem sensus certamen atque aemulationem. Ideoque ab illis dissentio
qui vertere
156
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:

§ 5.
paraphrasin, subject: cp. conversio §4 above. The paraphrase is not to be a mere
word-for-word translation: for interpretatio cp. iii. 5, 17. Among
the ‘dicendi primordia’ proper for the training of ‘aetates nondum
rhetorem capientes’ Quintilian lays down the practice of paraphrase: tum
paraphrasi audacius vertere (Aesopi Fabellas), qua et breviare quaedam
et exornare salvo modo poetae sensu permittitur.

circa eosdem sensus. The writer is to endeavour to rival his
original in expressing the same idea. For _sensus_ cp. 3 §33: _circa_ again below §6 circa voces easdem. See on 1 §52.

vertere orationes. Till now he has
156
been speaking of _conversio ex carminibus_. It was probably the
custom in schools of rhetoric to make pupils give a free rendering
(vertere) of passages also from some great oration. Quintilian is
defending such practices against the criticism which Cicero, for
example, puts in the mouth of Crassus, de Orat. i. §154 equidem mihi
adulescentulus proponere solebam illam exercitationem maxime ... ut aut
versibus propositis quam maxime gravibus aut oratione aliqua lecta ad
eum finem, quem memoria possem comprehendere, eam rem ipsam quam
legissem verbis aliis quam maxime possem lectis pronuntiarem: sed post
animadverti hoc esse in hoc vitii, quod ea verba quae maxime cuiusque
rei propria quaeque essent ornatissima atque optima occupasset aut
Ennius, si ad eius versus me exercerem, aut Gracchus, si eius orationem
mihi forte proposuissem: ita, si eisdem verbis uterer, nihil prodesse,
si aliis, etiam obesse, cum minus idoneis uti consuescerem. So he took
to translating from the Greek, as shown in what follows, quoted on §2 above.

una de re. Along with _in eadem materia_ below, this
shows what freedom Quintilian would allow in such reproductions: cp. non
interpretationem tantum, &c. above. Hild refers to a quotation, on
the other hand, from La Bruyère (Ouvrages de l’Esprit 17), which has
more of the spirit of the true artist: Entre toutes les différentes
expressions qui peuvent rendre une seule de nos pensées, il n’y en a
qu’une qui soit la bonne. On ne la rencontre pas toujours en parlant ou
en écrivant; il est vrai néanmoins qu’elle existe, que tout ce qui ne
l’est pas est faible, et ne satisfait point un homme d’esprit qui veut
se faire entendre.


 
V: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.

§ 6.
nisi forte: a formula generally used, as in Cicero, to introduce
an ironical argument, e.g. i. §70: 2 §8. For a similar constr. cp. i. 10, 6: nisi
forte ἀντιδότους
quidem atque alia, quae oculis aut vulneribus medentur, ex multis atque
interim contrariis quoque inter se effectibus componi videmus ... et
muta animalia mellisillum inimitabilem humanae rationis saporem vario
florum ac sucorum genere perficiunt: nos mirabamur si oratio, qua nihil
praestantius homini dedit providentia, pluribus artibus egeat. And, with
_autem_ in the second clause, ii. 3, 6 Nisi forte Iovem quidem
Phidias optime fecit, illa autem alius melius elaborasset. Cp. the use
of _an_, _an vero_ with antithetical clauses.—The
reasoning is by no means conclusive, the analogy on which it rests
having nothing to recommend it except to a teacher of rhetoric.
Quintilian may have had in his mind what went on between Cicero and
Roscius: Satis constat contendere eum cum ipso histrione solitum, utrum
ille saepius eandem sententiam variis gestibus efficeret, an ipse per
eloquentiae copiam sermone diverso pronuntiaret,—Macrobius,
Saturn. ii. 40.

esto: with acc. and infin. as in Hor. Ep. i. 1, 81 Verum esto
aliis alios rebus studiisque teneri: Idem eadem possunt horam durare
probantes. The subj. is more common: Cic. pro Sest. 97 esto (est) ... ut
sint. Or else _esto_ may be used independently: Hor. Sat. ii.
2, 30. Quint. ix. 2, 84 sed esto, voluerit: Verg. Aen. iv. 35 esto,
nulli flexere mariti.

par ... proximis: cp. 1 §127 pares ac saltem proximos
illi viro fieri. With _proximis_ understand ‘illis quae dicta
sunt.’


 
V:7
An vero ipsi non bis ac saepius de eadem re dicimus et quidem continuas
nonnumquam sententias? Nisi
157
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.

§ 7.
An vero: see on 3 §29.

et quidem: see on 1 §34, and cp. Plin. Ep. i. 12, 1 decessit Corellius Rufus, et quidem sponte.

157
nisi forte: v. on §6 above. For
such repetitions see 2 §23, and
note.

uno: supply _tantum_, as in 1 §91 hos nominavimus. For genere
(= ratione, modo) cp. 3 §26.

fas erat. With verbs expressing possibility, duty, necessity,
convenience, intention, &c. the indicative is often used in the
apodosis when the verb in the protasis is subjunctive. Cp. Livy v. 6 Si
mediusfidius ad hoc bellum nihil pertineret, ad disciplinam certe
militiae plurimum intererat, &c.: Sallust. Iug. 85 ad fin. Quae si
dubia aut procul essent, tamen omnes bonos rei publicae subvenire
decebat.

plurimae ... ducunt. The expression seems proverbial: cp. ‘All
roads lead to Rome.’


 
V: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.

§ 8.
oratio recta. See on 1 §44 rectum dicendi genus: the
opposite is _oratio figurata_, or _figura declinata_ (1 §12). Cp. ix. 1, 3 Utraque
res (figures and tropes) de recta et simplici ratione cum aliqua dicendi
virtute deflectitur.

figura is ablative, the phrase being equivalent to
_figurata_: 1 §12.

commendat: v. 1 §101.

tractamus: cp. repetamus autem et tractemus 1 §19.

 
V: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.

§ 9.
numerosissime: not merely ‘as often as possible’ (saepissime),
but ‘in every possible variety’: cp. aliae aliaeque formae, below. Cp.
ii. 12, 3 sparsa compositis numerosiora creduntur: viii. pr. §2
difficultate institutionis tam numerosae atque perplexae deterreri: xi.
2, 27 ni forte tam numerosus (locus) ut ipse quoque dividi debeat: vi.
3, 36 neque enim minus numerosi sunt loci ex quibus haec dicta ...
ducuntur. But Quintilian also uses it in the Ciceronian sense
(‘rhythmically,’ ‘harmoniously’) viii. 6, 64 sermonem facere numerosum:
ix. 4, 56: xi. 1, 33.

eadem cera: Cic. de Orat iii. §177 sed ea nos ... sicut
mollissimam ceram ad nostrum arbitrium formamus et fingimus: Pliny Ep.
vii. 9, 11 Ut laus est cerae mollis cedensque sequatur Si doctos digitos
iussaque fiat opus, &c.

aliae aliaeque, ‘first one and then another’: of a continuous
succession: cp. quam numerosissime, above. Cp. Cels. iii. 3 extr. febres
... aliae aliaeque subinde oriuntur. With this exception, Quintilian
consistently prefers the Ciceronian _atque_ in such expressions,
instead of the enclitic. Krüger cites Tibull. iv. 1, 16, sq. ut tibi
possim Inde alios aliosque memor componere versus.

duci: 3 §18: ii. 4, 7 si
non ab initio tenuem nimium laminam duxerimus.

 

 
V:10
Plurimum autem parari facultatis existimo ex simplicissima quaque
materia. Nam illa multiplici
158
personarum, causarum, temporum, locorum, dictorum, factorum diversitate
facile delitescet infirmitas, tot se undique rebus, ex quibus aliquam
adprehendas, offerentibus.

§ 10.
illa ... diversitate: xii. 10, 15 umbra magni nominis
delitescunt. The less complicated the subject, the more will the orator
have to depend on his own resources: with the _diversitas_ that
characterises actual pleading, where the speaker must have regard to
every feature
158
of the case, want of original talent or poverty of invention
(infirmitas) can easily shelter itself behind a crowd of details.

causarum, ‘circumstances’: opp. to _personarum_, as
_loca_, to _tempora_, and _facta_ to _dicta_. So
personis causisque iii. 5, 11: _rerum_ is used in a similar
enumeration iii. 5, 7. So Krüger, of the ‘points of law’ involved
in particular cases: for _causa_ in the wider sense cp. iii. 5, 18
with Cic. Top. §80.


 
V: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
159
diximus, quibus Cicero iam princeps in re publica exerceri solebat.

§ 11.
fundere ... contracta: cp. ii. 13, 5 constricta an latius fusa
narratio: _fusus_ 1 §73. The word = dilatare (cp.
Cic. de Fin. iii. 15), copiosius et latius efferre. So _latum atque
fusum_ is opp. to _contractum atque submissum_ xi. 3, 50.
Cp. Cicero Orat. §125 tum se latius fundet orator,—a phrase which
Quintilian reproduces in many places.

augere parva. Cp. Plato, Phaedrus 267 A (of Tisias and
Gorgias) τά τε αὖ σμικρὰ
μεγάλα καὶ τὰ μεγάλα σμικρὰ φαίνεσθαι ποιοῦσι διὰ ῥώμην λόγου.
Isocrates is said to have defined rhetoric as that which τά τε
μικρὰ μεγάλα, τὰ δὲ μεγάλα μικρὰ ποιεῖ—Pseudo-Plutarch
838 F. See too the Exordium of the Panegyricus of Isocrates §8
ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οἱ λόγοι τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν ὥσθ᾽ οἷον τ᾽
εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλαχῶς ἐξηγήσασθαι (varietatem similibus)
καὶ τά τε μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι
καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς μέγεθος περιθεῖναι κ.τ.λ.

expositis: ‘commonplace,’ ‘trite.’ Iuv. vii. 53 Sed vatem
egregium, cui non sit publica vena, Qui nil expositum soleat deducere,
nec qui Communi feriat carmen triviale moneta. Introd. p. xlvii.

In hoc: cp. 2 §5. It denotes
the end or aim, like _ad hoc_. For this use of _facere_ cp. 1 §33 bene ad forensem
pulverem facere: 7 §4 quid porro
multus stilus ... facit?

infinitae quaestiones quas vocari theses diximus: iii. 5, 5
sq. Item convenit quaestiones esse aut infinitas aut finitas. Infinitae
sunt quae remotis personis et temporibus et locis ceterisque similibus
in utramque partem (i.e. affirmatively and negatively) tractantur, quod
Graeci θέσιν dicunt,
Cicero propositum, alii quaestiones universales civiles, alii
quaestiones philosopho convenientes, Athenaeus partem caussae appellat.
Hoc genus Cicero scientia et actione distinguit (speculative and
practical), ut sit scientia ‘an providentia mundus regatur,’ actionis
‘an accedendum ad rempublicam administrandam.’ ... Finitae autem sunt ex
complexu rerum, personarum, temporum, ceterorumque quae ὑποθέσεις a Graecis dicuntur,
causae a nostris. In his omnis quaestio videtur circa res personasque
consistere. Amplior est semper infinita, inde enim finita descendit.
Quod ut exemplo pateat, infinita est ‘an uxor ducenda,’ finita ‘an
Catoni ducenda.’—The division of the subject-matter of oratory
into questions of the universal kind, ‘general problems,’ and questions
of a special kind, ‘particular problems,’ is familiar in ancient
rhetoric. The former were abstract, and had no specified relation to
individual persons or circumstances: the latter were concrete, involving
a reference to actual persons and circumstances. In the ad Herenn. the
_quaestiones infinitae_ (θέσεις), _proposita_ (Top. §79) or
_consultationes_ (Part. Or. §61) are subdivided, as above, into
_quaestiones scientiae_ or _cognitionis_, ‘theoretical
questions’ (e.g. ecquid bonum sit praeter honestatem), and
_quaestiones actionis_ ‘questions of practical life,’ (e.g. an uxor
ducenda). The _quaestiones finitae_, on the other hand, ὑποθέσεις, _causae_,
_controversiae_ (de Orat. iii. §109), are those concerning
individuals: cum personarum certarum interpositione, de Inv. i.
6, 8. The θέσις is
thus defined in Hermogenes, Sp. ii. 17: ἐπίσκηψίν τινος πράγματος θεωρουμένου, ἀμοιροῦσαν πάσης
ἰδικῆς περιστάσεως: cp. res posita in infinita dubitatione, de
Orat. ii. §78. The _quaestio finita_ on the other hand is res
posita in disceptatione reorum et controversia (ibid.):
159
προστεθείσης περιστάσεως τελεία ὑπόθεσις
γίνεται (Nicolaus Soph. Progym. Sp. iii. 493). The passages to
compare in Cicero are the following:—de Orat. i. §138: ii. §41,
§78, and §133: iii. §109-§111: Orat. §45: Top. §79: de Invent. i. 6, §8:
Part. Orat. §61, §106.

Cicero. It was considered one of his strong points that he
could rise from the special instance to the higher ground of the general
principle: Brutus §322 dicam de ceteris quorum nemo erat qui ...
dilatare posset atque a propria ac definita disputatione hominis ac
temporis ad communem quaestionem universi generis orationem traducere.
He writes to Atticus in 49 B.C. (ix.
4, 1) Ne me totum aegritudini dedam, sumpsi mihi quasdam tanquam
θέσεις: cp. ib. 9, 1
θέσεις meas commentari
non desino. Aristotle recognised the importance of the practice of the
θέσις: in hac A.
adulescentes, non ad philosophorum morem tenuiter disserendi, sed ad
copiam rhetorum in utramque partem ut ornatius et uberius dici posset,
exercuit. Cp. Tusc. Disp. ii. 3 §9: de Orat. iii. §107: Quint. xii.
2, 25. Among his θέσεις we may probably reckon the Paradoxa.


 
V: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,
160
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.

§ 12.
confinis: frequent in this figurative sense in Quintilian: not in
Cicero.

destructio ... confirmatio correspond respectively to ἀνασκευή (refutatio) and κατασκευή (probatio). Cp. ii.
4, 18 Narrationibus non inutiliter subiungitur opus destruendi
confirmandique eas, quod ἀνασκευή et κατασκευή vocatur. Hermog. Sp. ii. 8 ἀνασκευή ἐστιν ἀνατροπὴ τοῦ
προτεθέντος πράγματος, κατασκευὴ δὲ τοὐναντίον βεβαίωσις. For
_confirmatio_ v. Cic. de Invent. i. 24: de Orat. ii. 331: Part. Or.
1, 4: 8, 27: Cornif. ad Her. i. 3: Quint. iv. 3, 1: v. 13, 1.
Quintilian here transfers to judicial findings the language applicable
to _narratio_, as above: _sententia_ = a judicial sentence,
and is synonymous with _iudicium_. “In sententia, quae est de re
iudicium, fieri potest idem quod in facto narrato, quod est res
ipsa.”—Spalding. That is to say, _sententia_ and
_iudicium_ “pertain to individual cases (res): but the particular
sentence or judgment is also _a kind_ of (general) _decree and
prescription_, or general rule of law; because, to be sustained or
refuted, it must be put into a general form or statement like such a
general decree. Thus the special sentence is argued (quaeritur) on the
same grounds as the case itself (res) on which it has been pronounced.
See the case of Milo, quoted below, ii §13. Of course no specific
question of fact will come into such a discussion; only a general one of
right or wrong, of legal precedent, or of law in general.” Frieze.

loci communes: ‘general arguments,’ ‘commonplaces,’ i.e.
topics for argument on all sorts of matters. Cicero defines them de
Invent. ii. 48 sq. haec argumenta, quae transferri in multas causas
possunt, locos communes nominamus ... distinguitur autem oratio atque
illustratur maxime raro inducendis locis communibus et aliquo loco iam
certioribus illis argumentis confirmato ... omnia autem ornamenta
elocutionis, in quibus et suavitatis et gravitatis plurimum consistit,
in communes locos conferuntur: de Or. iii. §106 consequentur etiam illi
loci, qui quamquam proprii causarum et inhaerentes in earum nervis esse
debent, tamen quia de universa re tractare solent, communes a veteribus
nominati sunt, quorum partim habent vitiorum et peccatorum acrem quandam
cum amplificatione incusationem aut querelam ... quibus uti confirmatis
criminibus oportet...; alii autem habent deprecationem aut miserationem;
alii vero ancipites disputationes, in quibus de universo genere in
utramque partem disseri copiose licet: Orat. §§46-7: §126: Part. Orat.
§115. Quint. ii. 4, 22 communes loci ... quibus citra personas in ipsa
vitia moris est perorare, ut in adulterum, aleatorem, petulantem: ii. 1,
9-11. “Any subject or topic of a general character that is capable of
being variously applied and constantly introduced on any appropriate
occasion is a _locus communis_; any common current maxim or
alternative proposition, such as _suspitionibus credi_
[_oportere_] _non oportere et contra suspitionibus credi
oportere, testibus credi oportere et non oportere._ Again
_invidia_, _avaritia_, _testes inimici_, _potentes
amici_ (Quint. v. 12 §§15, 16) may furnish _loci communes_; or
they may be constructed _de virtute_, _de officio_, _de_
160
_aequo et bono_, _de dignitate_, _utilitate_,
_honore_, _ignominia_, and on other moral topics” (Cope’s
Intr. to Ar. Rhet. p. 130).

ab oratoribus: e.g. Cicero and Hortensius. ii. 1, 11 Communes
loci, sive qui sunt in vitia directi, quales legimus a Cicerone
compositos, seu quibus quaestiones generaliter tractantur, quales sunt
editi a Q. quoque Hortensio, ut: ‘Sitne parvis augmentis credendum?’ et
pro testibus et in testes. Aristotle made _loci communes_ the
subject of his τοπικά, in
eight books, and it was the substance of this treatise that Cicero
reproduced in his ‘Topica.’

haec recta ... in illis, &c. The opposition here is
between the simple themes (cp. ex simplicissima quaque materia, §10) which deal with the general and abstract and
do not diverge into the special (ii. 1, 9 citra complexum rerum
personarumque), and the digressions involved in the ‘multiplex
personarum causarum temporum locorum dictorum factorum diversitas,’
referred to in §10. With the former cp.
Cic. de Orat. ii. §67 vaga et libera et late patens quaestio: iii. §120
orationes eae quae latissime vagantur et a privata ac singulari
controversia se ad universi generis vim explicandam conferunt: Brutus
§322 nemo qui dilatare posset atque a propria ac definita disputatione
hominis ac temporis ad communem quaestionem universi generis orationem
traducere. The two form the duo genera causarum of de Orat. ii. §133
unum ... in quo sine personis atque temporibus de universo genere
quaeratur; alterum, quod personis certis et temporibus definiatur. For
_recta tantum et in nullos flexus recedentia_ cp. v. 13, 2 inde
recta fere ... est actio, hinc mille flexus et artes desiderantur: §8 above, oratio recta ... figura
declinata.

utique, ‘without fail’: common in this sense in Cicero’s
letters. In Quintilian it is very frequent, especially in stating a
consequence: cp. 1 §24
and note.

in illis, i.e. the great majority of causes.

plures excursus recipientibus, i.e. that admit of various
digressions, and are susceptible of various applications according to
circumstances, persons, place, time, &c.

in omnes causas paratus: for the constr. cp. Tac. Dial. xli.
inter bonos mores et in obsequium regentis paratos. A similar
expression occurs ibid. xxxiv. solus statim et unus cuicunque causae par
erat. So too x. 1, 2, above, paratam ad omnes casus ... eloquentiam.

generalibus quaestionibus. Cp. iii. 5, 9 Hae autem, quas
infinitas voco, et generales appellantur: quod si est verum, finitae
speciales erunt. In omni autem speciali utique inest generalis, ut quae
sit prior: xii. 2, 18 omnis generalis quaestio speciali potentior, quia
universo pars continetur, non utique accedit parti quod universum est:
ii. 4, 22 ab illo generali tractatu ad quasdam deduci species. Cp. v.
7, 35.


 
V:13
Nam quid interest ‘Cornelius tribunus plebis,
161
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.

§ 13.
C. Cornelius was tribune in B.C. 67, when he tried to do some useful work. In
order to check the bribery and corruption that were rife at the time, he
proposed a law to make all loans that should be lent to foreign
ambassadors non-actionable. The rejection of this proposal prompted the
tribune to bring forward the rogation here referred to,—ne quis
nisi per populum legibus solveretur. The senate had usurped the power of
giving dispensations in particular cases, without any reference whatever
to the people, though constitutionally such dispensations lay with the
people and not the senate. When the bill was to be read, a colleague,
P. Servilius Globulus, acting in the interests of the senate,
interposed his veto, and forbade the herald to make the proclamation
which he would otherwise have done in the form dictated by the clerk.
Thereupon Cornelius himself read the draft of the proposed law
(codicem). A riot ensued, and the meeting was broken up. Cornelius
was afterwards successful in securing the enactment of a law which
provided that 200 senators should be present when any dispensation was
granted. On the expiry of his term of office Cornelius was impeached by
P. Cominius
161
for having disregarded the veto of his colleague, and though the case
was suppressed it came on again in the following year (65). Cornelius
was defended by Cicero (Brutus §271), who delivered the two speeches of
which we have a few important fragments, along with the interesting
Argumentum of Asconius. Cornelius was evidently a fighting character:
Asconius calls him ‘pertinacior,’ and says ‘per ... contentiones totus
prope tribunatus eius peractus est.’ Another of his laws was ‘ut
praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent’: “what had hitherto
been understood as matter of course was now expressly laid down as a
law, that the praetors were bound to administer justice in conformity
with the rules set forth by them, as was the Roman use and wont, at
their entering on office.” Mommsen.—For the reference in the text
cp. iv. 4, 8: v. 13, 26: vi. 5, 10: vii. 3, 35 (maiestas est in imperii
atque in nominis populi Romani dignitate): vii. 3, 3.

reus sit. The subjunctive is motived only by the double
interrogation, so there is no need for Halm’s conjectural emendation
(see Crit. Notes). In the
direct speech the _finita_, or _specialis causa_ would run:
C. Cornelius ... reus est: cp. vii. 1, 34 accusatur Milo, quod
Clodium occiderit: iii. 5, 10. It is put in the form of a positive
statement. The _infinita causa_ on the other hand is stated in the
form of a question, and this form is maintained in both the
_finitae_ and the _infinitae quaestiones_ that follow.

violeturne maiestas. Asconius: Cicero quia non poterat negare
id factum esse, eo confugit ut diceret non ideo quod lectus sit codex a
tribuno imminutam esse tribunitiam potestatem. Cicero in Vatin. ii. §5
Codicem legisse dicebatur: defendebatur, testibus collegis suis, non
recitandi causa legisse, sed recognoscendi. Constabat tamen Cornelium
concilium illo die dimisisse, intercessioni paruisse.

oporteatne ... interfici. This is the line taken in the Pro
Milone, for which cp. 1 §23. Also iii. 6, 93: iv. 3,
17: vii. 1, 34.

Cato Marciam, &c. This remarkable episode is referred to
also iii. 5, 11. Marcia lived with Hortensius from 56 to 50 with
the consent both of her husband and her father, and then went back on
the death of Hortensius to Cato. Lucan says of Cato ii. 388 Urbi pater
est urbique maritus. Cp. Meyer’s Orat. Rom. Fragm. p. 377: Strab.
xi. p. 515: Hild also cites Tertullian (Apol. 39),
St. Augustine (de Bono Conj. 18), as protesting against such an
instance of pagan corruption.

rebus = rebus generalibus, i.e. general questions, principles.
_Oporteatne_ and _conveniatne_ above give the special
questions treated as _quaestiones infinitae_.


 
V:14
Declamationes vero, quales in scholis rhetorum dicuntur, si modo sunt ad
veritatem accommodatae
162
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.

§ 14.
Declamationes, 2 §12.
Quintilian defines them ii. 4, 41 fictas ad imitationem fori
consiliorumque materias apud Graecos dicere circa Demetrium Phalerea
institutum fere constat. Cp. iv. 2, 28-9. This sense of the word came in
about the end of Augustus’s reign, though the thing was known to Cicero,
de Orat. i. §149. Cp. M. Seneca Controv. praef. xi. sqq.: and see
note on _declamatoribus_ 1 §71.

ad veritatem accommodatae. That they were by no means always
so may be seen from Tac. Dial. 35 Quales per fidem et quam
incredibiliter compositae! Sequitur autem ut materiae abhorrenti a
veritate declamatio quoque adhibeatur. Cp. Quint. ii. 20, 4 qui in
declamationibus, quas esse veritati dissimillimas volunt, aetatem multo
studio ac labore consumunt. See the whole of ch. 10, ibid. esp. §4
declamatio imitetur eas actiones, in quarum exercitationem reperta est,
and §12 declamatio iudiciorum
consiliorumque imago: iv. 2, 29 cum sit declamatio forensium actionum
meditatio.

162
orationibus, real speeches made in court.

profectus: abstract for concrete: cp. facilitatem 3 §7: initiis 2 §2. So too i. 2, §26 firmiores in litteris
profectus alit aemulatio. See Crit. Notes.

pariter: i.e. simul cum elocutione, this last being the most
important element in such rhetorical exercises. Dispositio is
defined Cic. de Invent. i. §9 rerum inventarum in ordinem
distributio.

consummatus: sc. adulescens, or rather iuvenis: as though
_adulescit profectus_ above had been _adulescens proficit_.
For _consummatus_ see on 1 §89.

velut pabulo laetiore. Livy has in the ordinary language of
prose ‘ut quiete et pabulo laeto reficeret boves’ i. 7, 4: for the
figure cp. Quint. viii. Prooem. §23 velut laeto gramine sata.
_Laetus_ is frequently used in Vergil of rich vegetation: e.g.
Georg. iii. 385 fuge pabula laeta, where, however, as also in 494, the
word means ‘luxuriant,’ in the sense of rankness rather than richness.
In Lucretius ‘pabula laeta’ occurs six or seven times with armenta,
arbusta, vineta: e.g. i. 14.—Hortensius is a case in point: nullum
enim patiebatur esse diem quin aut in foro diceret aut meditaretur extra
forum; saepissime autem eodem die utrumque faciebat Brut. §302.


 
V: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,
163
otio et iucundioribus epulis reficiuntur.

§ 15.
historiae ubertas. Cp. 1 §31. Pliny, Epist. vii. 9, 8
Volo interdum aliquem ex historia locum adprehendas ... nam saepe in
orationes quoque non historica modo sed prope poetica descriptionum
necessitas incidit.

in aliqua ... ponenda: ‘should be introduced in some part of
our written exercises.’ Becher (Quaest. gramm.) compares Cic. Tusc.
Disp. iv. §42 aegritudines susceptae continuo in magna pestis parte
versantur, i.e. magnam partem continent. He renders ‘Es mache einen
Theil der Stilübung aus, die Fülle der geschichtlichen Darstellung in
Anwendung zu bringen.’ 

dialogorum libertate gestiendum: ‘we should indulge (‘let
ourselves out’) in the easy freedom of dialogue.’ The same abl. occurs
in Livy vi. 36, 1 gestire otio: secundis rebus xlv. 19, 7: in Cicero it
is generally voluptate or laetitia. For _gestio_ c. inf. see Hor.
Ep. ii. 1, 175: A. P. 159.

Ne carmine quidem &c. Cp. Pliny l.c. Fas est et carmine
remitti ... Lusus vocantur. Ludere is used of poetry in all the
Latin poets, especially of love poetry: e.g. Ovid. Tr. i. 9, 61 scis
vetus hoc iuveni lusum mihi carmen: Catullus l. 2 multum lusimus in meis
tabellis: Hor. Car. i. 32 Poscimur: si quid vacui sub umbra Lusimus
tecum. Even in prose it is used of light writings thrown off in sport:
Cic. Parad. pr. illa ipsa ludens conieci in communes locos: especially,
as here, where a contrast is implied between sport and serious business,
e.g. videant ... ad ludendumne an ad pugnandum arma sint sumpturi (of
military exercises) de Orat. ii. §84. So too ‘_ludicra_’: pueri
etiam cum cessant exercitatione aliqua ludicra (‘in sport’) delectantur
de Nat. Deor. i. §102: exercitatione quasi ludicra praediscere ac
meditari de Orat. i. §147. ‘Res ludicra,’ the drama (Hor. Ep. ii. 1,
180), introduces another set of associations.

contrarium = alienum, inconsistent with one’s aim,
‘inapposite.’ So Tacitus, speaking of the unpractical character of the
rhetorical theses in the schools of declamation, says ‘ipsae vero
exercitationes magna ex parte contrariae’ Dial. 35: cp. ‘ubi nemo impune
stulte aliquid aut contrarie dicit’ ibid. 34.

sicut athletae: for this frequently recurring comparison see
on 1 §4.

ciborum ... certa necessitate. Epictetus uses ἀναγκοφαγέω and ἀναγκοτροφέω
163
for eating by regimen like athletes in training.—The chiasmus may
be noted.


 
V: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.

§ 16.
studiorum secessus: the ‘by-ways’ of study, remote from the
_adsidua contentionum asperitas_ referred to above. Cp. 3 §§23 and 28.
So Tacitus contrasts the ‘securum et quietum Vergilii secessum’ with the
‘inquieta et anxia oratorum vita’ Dial. 13: cp. secedit animus in loca
pura atque innocentia 12.

durescat articulus keeps up the figure of athletic contests.
_Articulus_ is properly a little limb: then esp. the finger. Cp.
ii. 12, 2 excipit adversarii mollis articulus (of the gladiator handling
his sword _with flexible fingers_, which like xi. 1, 70 (quam molli
articulo tractavit Catonem) points to a proverbial expression.

cotidiana pugna retundatur: cp. 1 §27 velut attrita cotidiano
actu forensi ingenia optime rerum talium blanditia reparantur with the
passage from pro Archia §12 quoted there. Pliny, Epist. vii. 9, 7 Scio
nunc tibi esse praecipuum studium orandi: sed non ideo semper pugnacem
et quasi bellatorium stilum suaserim. Ut enim terrae variis mutatisque
seminibus, ita ingenia nostra nunc hac nunc illa meditatione
recoluntur.

quem ad modum ... sic. Cp. iii. 6, 33: v. 10, 125: ix. 2, 46,
and (with _ita_) ii. 5, 1. In the instance in the text,
however, there is no comparison between two different subjects: the two
clauses are parallel. _Ut ... ita_ would have been more usual: 3 §28: sicut ... ita 1 §1.


 
V: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
164
discrimina velut quendam solem reformident.

§ 17.
forensibus certaminibus exercitatos: Petron. 118 forensibus
ministeriis exercitati frequenter ad carminis tranquillitatem tamquam ad
portum feliciorem refugerunt.

quasi militantes: 1 §§29, 31, 79.

haec velut sagina dicendi: ‘this rich food of eloquence.’ Cp.
iucundioribus epulis §15 above: gladiatoria
sagina Tac. Hist. ii. 88.

falsa rerum imagine, i.e. the declamations, which in contrast
with the reality of ‘forenses actiones’ are mere shams: cp. note on ad
veritatem accommodatae §14: xii. 11, 15
quid attinet tam multis annis ... declamitare in schola et tantum
laboris in rebus falsis consumere, cum satis sit modico tempore imaginem
veri discriminis et dicendi leges comperisse. Cp. ii. 10, 4: Tac. Dial.
35 quidquid in scholis cotidie agitur, in foro vel raro vel nunquam: 34
nec praeceptor deerat ... qui faciem eloquentiae non imaginem
praestaret. Cp. 2 §12 above.

inanibus simulacris: ii. 10 §8 quibusdam pugnae
simulacris ad verum discrimen aciemque iustam consuescimus. For the
reading see Crit. Notes.

ab illa ... umbra: i.e. in coming out of it. Juvenal vii. 173
ad pugnam qui rhetorica descendit ab umbra. For _ab_ in sense of
_post_ cp. Livy xliv. 34 ab his praeceptis contionem dimisit:
Introd. p. lii.

in qua prope consenuerunt: xii. 6, 5 non nulli senes in schola
facti stupent novitate cum in iudicia venerunt.

umbra ... solem. The shady retreat of the school is constantly
compared with the dust and sun of real life. Cicero, de Leg. iii. 6, 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: Brut. §37 processerat in solem et
pulverem non ut e militari tabernaculo sed ut e Theophrasti doctissimi
hominis umbraculis: de §64 (umbratilis—‘cloistral’). So
‘umbraticavita’ Quint. i. 2, 18: ‘studia in umbra educata’
164
Tac. Ann. xiv. 53: ‘umbraticas litteras’ Pliny, Epist. ix. 2, 3-4, opp.
to ‘arma castra cornua tubas sudorem pulverem soles’: M. Seneca
Contr. ix. pr. §4 itaque velut ex umbroso et obscuro prodeuntes loco
clarae lucis fulgor obcaecat, sic istos a scholis in forum transeuntes
omnia tanquam nova et inusitata perturbant. For analogies in Greek cp.
Plat. Phaedrus 239 c. οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἡλίῳ καθαρῷ
τεθραμμένον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ συμμιγεῖ σκιᾷ, with Thompson’s note.


 
V: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
165
eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus videretur.

§ 18.
Quod ... ut. The pronoun is here used pleonastically, to lead up
to the dependent clause. Cp. 1 §58.

M. Porcius Latro, a celebrated rhetorician in the reign of
Augustus, the friend and compatriot of the elder Seneca, who praises him
greatly (Controv. i. pr. §13 sq.). Of his pupils Ovid was the most
distinguished. ‘In his school he was accustomed to declaim himself, and
seldom set his pupils to declaim, whence they received the name of
_auditores_, which word came gradually into use as synonymous with
_discipuli_.’ (Smith, Dict.)

professor is post-Augustan: it was used of a public teacher of
rhetoric, and then acquired a more extended sense: Quint. xii. 11, 20
geometrae et musici et grammatici ceterarumque artium professores: ii.
11, 1 exemplo magni quoque nominis professorum. _Profiteri_ with
acc. is quite Ciceronian: Tusc. ii. §12 quod in eo ipso peccet cuius
profitetur scientiam: ibid., artemque vitae professus delinquit in vita.
The introduction of _professor_ was helped by the fact that the
verb came to be used absolutely (ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι): Plin. Ep. iv. 11, 1 audistine
Valerium Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri? ibid. 14 translatus est in
Siciliam ubi nunc profitetur: cp. Plin. ii. 18, 3.

opinionem = existimationem, famam, with which it is often
joined. For this absolute use cp. 7 §17 below: fructu laudis opinionisque: i. 2,
4 exempla ... conservatae opinionis: ii. 12, 5 adfert et ista res
opinionem: xii. 9, 4 cupidissimis opinionis. So too Tac. Dial. 10 ne
opinio quidem et fama, cui soli serviunt. In Cicero and Caesar, who also
use the word absolutely, there is always an implied reference to those
who have the _opinio_: a man’s ‘esteem’ and ‘reputation’ depend on
the ‘estimate’ and ‘opinion’ formed of him by others. Cp. Videor enim
non solum studium ad defendendas causas, verum opinionis aliquid et
auctoritatis afferre, pro Sulla iii. §10, with opinione fortasse non
nulla quam de meis moribus habebat, de Amic. §30: detracta opinione
probitatis (‘character for’ high principle) de Off. ii. §34, and opinio
iustitiae (character for justice), ibid. §39, with quorum de iustitia
magna esset opinio multitudinis ibid. §42. So too de Orat. ii. §156
opinionem istorum studiorum et suspicionem artificii apud eos qui res
iudicent oratori adversariam esse arbitror. The passages in Caesar are
all reducible to this ‘passive’ sense,—the estimate entertained by
others: B.G. ii. 8 propter eximiam opinionem virtutis: ii. 24 Treviri
quorum inter Gallos virtutis opinio est singularis: iv. 16 uti opinione
et amicitia populi Romani tuti esse possint: vi. 24 quae gens ... summam
habet iustitiae et bellicae laudis opinionem: cp. vii. 59 and 83. Cp.
Introd. p. xliv.

subsellia ... transferrentur, ‘that the court should remove.’
For this general sense of _subsellia_ cp. Cic. Brutus §289
subsellia grandiorem et pleniorem vocem desiderant: de Orat. i. §32 and
§264 (habitare in subselliis, to ‘haunt the law-courts’). The word
sometimes means the bench of judges, sometimes the seats of the lawyers,
suitors, witnesses, &c., and sometimes both: Cic. in Vatin. §34, pro
Rosc. Amer. §17 (accusatorum subsellia), ad Fam. xiii. 10, 2 (versatus
in utrisque subselliis). In Quintilian the word is never used except of
the law-courts.

basilicam. The basilicae erected in or near the forum served
as courts of justice as well as places for merchants and business people
to meet in. See Rich. Dict. Antiq.—For the incident cp. Sen.
Controv. iv. pr. Narratur ... declamatoriae virtutis Latronem Porcium
unicum exemplum, cum pro reo in Hispania Rustico Porcio propinquo suo
165
diceret, usque eo esse confusum ut a soloecismo inciperet nec ante
potuisse confirmari, tectum ac parietes desiderantem, quam impetravit ut
iudicium ex foro in basilicam transferretur. Usque eo ingenia in
scholasticis exercitationibus delicate nutriuntur ut clamorem silentium
risum caelum denique pati nesciant.


 
V: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.

§ 19.
inveniendi eloquendique covers briefly the whole field of
theoretical rhetoric.

apud maiores: xii. 11, 5 frequentabunt vero eius domum optimi
iuvenes more veterum et vere dicendi viam velut ex oraculo petent. Tac.
Dial. 34 Ergo apud maiores nostros iuvenis ille qui foro et eloquentiae
parabatur, imbutus iam domestica disciplina, refertus honestis studiis,
deducebatur a patre vel a propinquis ad eum oratorem qui principem in
civitate locum obtinebat. Hunc sectari, hunc prosequi, huius omnibus
dictionibus interesse, sive in iudiciis sive in contionibus,
adsuescebat, ita ut altercationes quoque exciperet et iurgiis interesset
utque sic dixerim pugnare in proelio disceret. So Cicero tells us in
Brut. ch. 89 how he sought every opportunity of hearing the
distinguished speakers of his day: §305 reliquos frequenter audiens
acerrimo studio tenebar cotidieque et scribens et legens et commentans
oratoriis tantum exercitationibus contentus non eram.

iudiciis intersit: Cic. Brut. §304 cui (iudicio) frequens
aderam.


 
V: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.
166
§ 20.
et ipse: frequent in Livy, like ipse quoque = καὶ αὐτός. Cicero uses ipse, ipse
etiam (etiam ipse). Cp. on §4: 7 §26.

utrimque: 1 §22.

in gladiatoribus: xi. 3, 66 nutus ... in mutis pro sermone
sunt. Cp. Caes. B.C. i. 61 Caesaris erat in barbaris nomen
obscurius.

decretoriis, sc. armis, ‘decisive’ or ‘real weapons’: Seneca,
Ep. 117, 25 Renove ista lusoria arma, decretoriis opus est. Cp. vi. 4, 6
pugnamque illam decretoriam imperitis ac saepe pullatae turbae
relinquunt. Suet. Calig. 54 has ‘pugnatoria,’ sc. arma: opp. to ‘rudes,’
as Tac. Dial. 34 adversarii et aemuli ferro, non rudibus dimicantes, and
Cic. de Opt. Gen. Orat. vi. 17 non enim in acie versatur et ferro, sed
quasi rudibus eius eludit oratio. Quint. v. 12, 17 declamationes quibus
ad pugnam forensem velut praepilatis exerceri solebamus.

diximus: 1 §23, where see note.

rescribere: ἀντιγράφειν. Tac. Ann. iv. 34, of Caesar’s
‘Anticato,’ Ciceronis libro ... dictator Caesar ... rescripta oratione
velut apud iudices respondit. The word is common in this sense in
Suetonius: Caes. 73, Calig. 53, Gram. 19; cp. Aug. 85.

Cestius: Sen. Contr. iii. pr. 13 (Ciceronis) orationes non
legunt nisi eas quibus Cestius rescripsit. L. Cestius Pius taught
rhetoric at Rome towards the end of the Republic and in the beginning of
the Empire. Seneca has preserved several passages of his declamations.
His hostile criticisms of Cicero were avenged on him by Cicero’s son:
Sen. Suas. §7, 13. See Teuffel, 263 §6.

166

 
V: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.

§ 21.
per totas ire materias. This use of the prep. after _ire_
with an acc. of extent over which speech, thought, or feeling travels,
is poetical (Aen. i. 375) and post-classical. Cp. vii. 1, 64: Tac. Dial.
32.

favorabilia, ‘popular’; frequent in Quintilian, who also has
_favorabiliter_. The word is first found in Velleius, also in
Tacitus and Pliny.

quod secundo loco posui, i.e. the practice of treating a
subject thoroughly: per totas ire materias. What he recommends _primo
loco_ is given in §§19-20. For the
formula cp. vii. 2, 9: ix. 2, 6.

classium: not used in this sense before the Silver Age; i. 2,
23 Non inutilem scio servatum esse a praeceptoribus 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.

persuasio: frequent in this sense in Quintilian; for exx. see
Bonnell’s Lex. Tac. Agric. 11. superstitionum persuasione. The
interference of parents is commented on also in ii. 7, 1 Illud ex
consuetudine mutandum prorsus existimo in iis, de quibus nunc
disserimus, aetatibus, ne omnia quae scripserint ediscant et certa, ut
moris est, die dicant: quod quidem maxime patres exigunt atque ita demum
studere liberos suos, si quam frequentissime declamaverint, credunt, cum
profectus praecipue diligentia constet.


 
V: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.

§ 22.
primo ... libro: i. 2, 15 neque praeceptor bonus maiore se turba
quam ut sustinere eam possit oneraverit.

recidet. Hor. A. P. 447 ambitiosa recidet ornamenta: Sat. I.
10, 69 recideret omne quod ultra Perfectum traheretur.

laxabit &c.: ‘he will either extend the period within
which speaking is compulsory, or allow the pupil to distribute his
matter over several days.’

dicendi necessitatem: cp. remissa ... ciborum atque
exercitationum certa necessitate §15,
above. This would break in on the ‘consuetudo classium certis diebus
andiendarum’ referred to in §21.

materias dividere, i.e. he will allow the subject to be
treated of in parts on successive declamation days.


 
V:23
Diligenter effecta plus proderit quam plures inchoatae et quasi
degustatae. Propter quod accidit
167
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.

§ 23.
effecta. There is the same antithesis v. 13, 34 ut ... pro
effectis relinquant vixdum inchoata.

inchoatae: Cic. de Off. i. §153 cognitio manca atqne inchoata
(‘imperfect’): de Nat. Deor. ii. §33 a primis inchoatisque naturis ad
ultimas perfectasque procedere: de Orat. i. §5 inchoata ac rudia.

degustatae: cp. genera degustamus 1 §104; the word means ‘dip
into,’ ‘skim over.’

Propter quod: see on 1 §66, The idea contained in the
relative is the superficial methods alluded to in _degustatae_: cp.
facillima et maxime favorabilia decerpunt §21. When such methods are adopted, says Quintilian,
everything is sure to go wrong.

167
servent suam legem: the commencement (illa quae prima sunt:
cp. priora below) is not what it should be: it goes beyond reasonable
limits, as the young men crowd together in the part each is to deliver
the embellishments that would naturally be distributed throughout the
whole (omnium partium), if the production were _diligenter effecta_
and not merely _inchoata et quasi degustata_.

flosculos: ii. 5, 22 recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti.
The word is always used in a depreciatory sense: xii. 10, 73: vi. pr.
§9: (opp. to certos fructus). Cp. Seneca, Ep. 33 §1 and §7 viro captare
flosculos turpe est.

timentes: the fear that they will not be able to finish makes
them introduce into the earlier parts inapposite and confusing
embellishments.

priora confundant = permisceant ea rebus alienis, i.e. with
the ornamentation that would have been more appropriate later on.




CHAPTER VI.

Of Meditation.


De Cogitatione.

VI:1
VI. 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.

§ 1.
stilo: see on 1 §2.

cogitatio, ‘premeditation’: cp. _commentatio_
(‘preparation’) and _meditatio_. So ii. 6, 3: and below, 7 §8. Cic. de Orat. ii. §103 ita adsequor ut
alio tempore cogitem quid dicam et alio dicam ... sed certe eidem illi
melius aliquanto dicerent si aliud sumendum sibi tempus ad cogitandum
aliud ad dicendum putarent: cp. id. i. §150 etsi utile est etiam subito
saepe dicere, tamen illud utilius sumpto spatio ad cogitandum paratius
atque adcuratius dicere ... nam si subitam et fortuitam orationem
commentatio et cogitatio facile vincit, hanc ipsam profecto adsidua ac
diligens scriptura superabit. Cp. Brutus §253.

et ipsa: ‘likewise,’ i.e. as well as the _facultas ex
tempore dicendi_, which, as stated in 3 §§1-4, derives its strength mainly from the
pen. See on 1 §31.

extemporalemque fortunam: ‘the chances of improvisation,’
which depends so much on the inspiration of the moment (fortunam opp. to
laborem): = ‘fortunam quam ex tempore dicentes experimur’ (Krüger). Cp.
§§5, 6: and 7 §13 successum
extemporalem.

media quaedam: cp. xi. 2, 3 memoria ... quasi media quaedam
manus.

nescio an: see on 1 §65.

somnus: cp. 3 §25.

rerum actus, as inter ipsas actiones xii. 3, 2, ‘in the midst
of legal proceedings,’ and so rather more special than _actum rei_
1 §31, where see note.
Cp. esp. Plin. Ep. ix. 25, 3 Nunc me rerum actus modice sed tamen
distringit: and Suet. Aug. 32 triginta amplius dies ... actis rerum
accommodavit. In xi. 1, 47 actus is again quite general: in ceteris
actibus vitae.

otium: ‘inactivity.’ A good advocate will be able to
think out a speech even while a trial is going on.


 
VI:2
Neque vero rerum ordinem modo, quod ipsum satis erat, intra se ipsa
disponit, sed verba etiam
168
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.

§ 2.
satis erat: see on 5 §7 fas
erat.

intra se ipsa, ‘by itself’: there is no need for any recourse
to writing. This is
168
quite parallel to such expressions as ‘virtus per se ipsa placet,’ and
‘medici ipsi se curare non possunt,’ where the tendency is to keep
_ipse_ in the nominative so as to emphasise the subject. Cp. 5 §2: 3 §30.

scribendi securitate. Cp. the story of Theuth and Thamus,
Phaedrus 274 sq., esp. 275 A τοῦτο γὰρ τῶν μαθόντων λήθην μὲν ἐν ψυχαῖς παρέξει, μνήμης
ἀμελετησίᾳ, κ.τ.λ.: xi. 2, 9 quamquam invenio apud Platonem
obstare memoriae usum litterarum: videlicet quod illa quae scriptis
reposuimus velut custodire desinimus, et ipsa securitate dimittimus.
Reliance on written memoranda, he says, may in the end make the mind
incapable of retaining by a special effort what can be at any time
recalled by a glance at the paper.

vim cogitandi: see on vim dicendi 1 §1. For the thought cp. 3 §9.


 
VI: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.

§ 3.
forma, a pattern, model, or ideal: we must ‘form our style’ by
constant writing, and attain to the ease described in 3 §9 verba respondebunt, compositio sequetur,
cuncta denique ut in familia bene instituta in officio erunt. For
_facere formam_ cp. 3 §28
_faciendus usus_.

onerari: the labour is not perceptibly increased. So xi. 2,
41, of exercising the memory, turn cotidie adicere (decet) singulos
versus, quorum accessio labori sensum incrementi non adferat.

in illum locum: memory is treated in xi. 2.

 
VI: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.

§ 4.
pervenit, sc. vis, just as in 7 §19 facilitas extemporalis is generally
supplied.

ei ... fidem servent: ‘keep their faith with him,’ i.e. are as
much at his command when he comes to speak as, &c.

certe: see Introd. p.
li.

Metrodorus of Scepsis in Mysia, a philosopher of the Academic
school, and a pupil of Carneades. Cic. de Orat. ii. §360 vidi enim ego
summos homines et divina prope memoria, Athenis Charmadam, in Asia, quem
vivere hodie aiunt, Scepsium Metrodorum, quorum uterque tamquam litteris
in cera, sic se aiebat imaginibus in eis locis quos haberet quae
meminisse vellet perscribere. Cp. Tusc. i. §59.

Empylus is nowhere else mentioned.

Hortensium: Brut. §301 memoria (erat) tanta quantam in nullo
cognovisse me arbitror, ut quae secum commentatus esset ea sine scripto
verbis eisdem redderet quibus cogitavisset: hoc adiumento ille tanto sic
utebatur ut sua et commentata et scripta et nullo referente omnia
adversariorum dicta meminisset. Cp. xi. 2, 24.

ad verbum. Cp. Plin. Ep. ix. 36, 1 cogito ad verbum scribenti
emendantique similis.

 

 
VI:5
Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum offulserit extemporalis color,
169
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.

§ 5.
si ... aliqui: see on 2 §23.

extemporalis color, a sudden inspiration,
169
or ‘happy thought’: the notion of suddenness being contained in
offulserit. _Color_ must carry the idea here of something that
‘sets off’ the subject,—an unpremeditated turn of expression,
embodying a thought which suddenly flashes on the speaker’s mind. In the
Bonnell-Meister edition it is said to denote the particular
_complexion_ given to the style by happy improvisation: but this
seems too wide for what may be only an occasional divergence from the
written word. Krüger takes it as the abstract for ‘id quod habet colorem
extemporalem’ (dictorum ex tempore): a thought or expression which
suddenly occurs, and which has on it the mark of improvisation. Cp.
‘extemporalem fortunam’ §1, and ‘scriptorum
color’ 7 §7, which presents a sort of
antithesis to ‘extemporalis color’: also 1 §§59, 116 with the notes.

superstitiose: i. 1, 13 non tamen hoc adeo superstitiose fieri
velim.

demum: see on 1 §44: Introd. p. li. Traian. ad Plin. Ep. 10, 33
Nobis autem utilitas demum spectanda est.

habent, sc. cogitata. What we premeditate is not so accurately
thought out as to leave no room for extemporary chance (fortuna, cp.
on §1).

scriptis: even in _written_ speeches, on which a greater
degree of _cura_ has been bestowed, sudden inspirations (subito
nata) are often introduced during delivery.


 
VI: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.

§ 6.
domo adferre: ‘bring from the study’; cp. 7 §30 quae domo adferunt: Cicero, Orat. §89
domo adlata quae plerumque sunt frigida.

refutare = repudiare, ‘reject,’ ‘despise,’ the inspirations of
the moment (temporis munera). Cic. Tusc. ii. §55 inprimisque refutetur
ac reiciatur Philocteteus ille clamor: pro Rab. Post. §44 quam ...
bonitatem ... non modo non aspernari ac refutare sed complecti etiam et
augere debetis.

in hoc: see on 5 §11.

decipere: ‘nonplus’ or embarrass us: make us to stumble. The
chance opening must not find us unequipped with well-shaped thoughts: we
must be ready to improve our opportunity.

non ... non sinant. The double negative hampers the clause,
though it is simplified by making _non sinant_ = _prohibeant_.
Krüger compares ix. 3, 72. After the first _non_ the words
_fiet ut illa_ must be repeated, or simply _ut_. Tr. ‘It is by
our powers of memory that we must secure the easy flow of what we have
formulated in thought, instead of letting it keep us from looking ahead
by anxious backward glances and the consciousness of being absolutely
dependent on what we can recall to mind.’ The last phrase describes a
familiar style of oratory, referring as it does to those speakers ‘qui
apprennent par cœur et sont paralysés par la crainte de rester
court.’—Fénelon, quoted by Hild.

extemporalem temeritatem, ‘the rashness of improvisation’: cp.
§1 above. Tac. Dial. §6 Sed extemporalis audaciae atque ipsius
temeritatis vel praecipua iucunditas est.—For alioqui, see Introd.
p. li.


 
VI:7
Peius enim quaeritur retrorsus, quia, dum illa desideramus, ab aliis
170
avertimur, et ex memoria potius res petimus quam ex materia. Plura sunt
autem, si utrimque quaerendum est, quae inveniri possunt quam quae
inventa sunt.

§ 7.
Peius enim quaeritur retrorsus: ‘we are at a disadvantage in
looking back.’ It would be better to throw over our premeditated ideas
altogether: while we are at a loss for them (illa) we miss others.

170
utrimque, i.e. ex memoria and ex materia: cp. 1 §131 and 5 §20. To the former corresponds chiastically
_quae inventa sunt_, to the latter _quae inveniri
possunt_.




CHAPTER VII.

Of Extempore Speech.


Quem ad modum extemporalis facilitas paretur et contineatur.

VII:1
VII. 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,—

§ 1.
civilibus officiis: see note on 3 §11.

renuntiabit ... convertet: the future as a mild imperative.
Cp. 1 §§41, 58: 3 §18. For this use of _renuntiare_ cp.
Plin. Ep. ii. 1, 8.

in publicum, ‘for general use,’ ‘for the common good,’ ‘for
the benefit of all and sundry.’ The phrase is formed on the analogy of
such expressions as ‘in publicum,’ ‘in commune consulere,’—for the
benefit of the state and the citizen. Cp. vi. 1, 7 in commune profutura.
Introd. p. xlvii.

intrare portum. The infin. depends on _convenit_. For a
similarly abrupt introduction of a figure in connection with, or to
illustrate, the preceding thought cp. 1 §4: 3 §10 (omitting Burmann’s _et_ before
_efferentes_). The meaning is generally understood to be that the
advocate who undertakes legal business, though he has no power of
extempore speaking, is as unconscionable as the pilot (cp. the simile
in §3) who engages to steer a ship
into a harbour that can only be approached in mild weather. The one
forgets that sudden emergencies may arise, calling for a power which he
does not possess; the other does not take into consideration the sudden
storms which may render his poor skill of no avail.—Hirt however
(Jahr. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin 1888, p. 54) points out that
this is to strain _intrare_: Quintilian cannot have meant to say
that it ‘shows bad faith _to enter_ a harbour which can only be
approached in good weather,’—for once you are in the harbour all
is well. _Intrare_ may be corrupt: see Crit. Notes.


 
VII: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,
171
moras et secessum et silentium quaeret, dum illa verba fabricentur et
memoriae insidant et vox ac latus praeparetur?

§ 2.
siquidem, εἴγε, εἴπερ, §27 below, and often in Quintilian: ‘iam apud
Cicero nem perinde atque _quoniam_ invenitur causam omnibus notam
significans’ (Günther).

apud magistratus: ‘in virtue of some extraordinary procedure,
and without the day having been appointed for the parties to the suit,’
Hild.

repraesentatis: ‘when a trial is suddenly brought on.’ Cp.
pecuniam repraesentare = ante diem solvere. Caes. B. G. i. 40, 14
se, quod in longiorem diem collaturus esset, repraesentaturum: Sen. Ep.
95 petis a me ut id quod in diem suam dixeram debere differri
repraesentem.

cuicumque. See on 1 §12 quocunque.

petentibus ... perituris: dat. of interest, after
_quaeret_. For the sense cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §251 Hoc nos si
facere velimus ante condemnentur ei quorum causas receperimus quam
totiens quotiens praescribitur Paeanem aut hymnum recitarimus.

171
statimque. _Statim_ goes with _succurratur_, rather
than with _perituris_: its position gives it emphasis. Cp.
_continuo_ agendi.

secessum et silentium: 3 §28.

illa verba, ironical: illa tam egregia verba.

vox ac latus (‘lungs’): often conjoined. Cp. Cic. Verr. iv.
30, 67 quae vox, quae latera: Brut. §316. So xii. 11, 2 neque enim
scientia modo constat orator, ... sed voce, latere, firmitate. For
_latus_ cp. Hor. Ep. i. 7, 26: xii. 5: Sat. i. 9, 32.


 
VII: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.

§ 3.
ratio: ‘theory’ of eloquence. Cp. 3 §15, where it is opposed to
_exercitatio_.—Others explain as = _ratio non patitur_,
like _ratio non est_, _nulla ratio est_, there is no reason or
sense in doing, &c.: Cic. Acad. ii. §74 ironiam enim alterius
perpetuam praesertim, nulla fuit ratio persequi: ib. §17: in Verr. Act.
i. 24: Caec. §15: Tac. Hist. i. 32: iii. 22: and ad Herenn. iv. 18 ei
rationi ratio non est fidem habere.

quisquam ... orator: see on 2 §6.

omittere casus: ‘to leave sudden issues out of consideration,’
i.e. to conduct his case strictly according to the lines of a written or
premeditated speech, without allowing for the emergence of some
unexpected fact in the evidence, or some difficulty suddenly raised by
the other side. For _casus_ cp. 1 §2 paratam ad omnes casus
eloquentiam: 3 §3 unde ad subitos
quoque casus ... proferantur (opes), and below §30: vi. 1, 42 at qui a stilo non recedunt aut
conticescunt ad hos casus aut frequentissime falsa dicunt: xii. 9, 20
licet tamen praecogitare plura et animum ad omnes casus componere.

fallunt: when the opposing counsel does not pursue the line of
argument we had anticipated, and against which we had prepared a written
speech.

ad incursus: see on 2 §1 ad
exemplum.


 
VII: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.

§ 4.
longa studiorum aetas: i.e. longum tempus in studiis consumptum.
Cp. i. 8, 8: Hor. Sat. i. 4, 132.

malit ... possit: sc. orator. For such omissions see note on
congregat 1 §7: and cp.
quaerant §6 and dicat §25 below.

 
VII: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
172
deinceps: quae ita sunt natura copulata ut mutari aut intervelli sine
confusione non possint.

§ 5.
dicendi via: the method, pathway, or track of the argument.

neque enim &c. The reason is given in the form of a
simile: we cannot run a race without knowing the goal and the track, and
it is the same with eloquence. For a similar figure cp. 3 §10.

partes: i.e. prooemium, narratio, probatio, refutatio,
epilogus. Cp. iii. 9, 1.

disponere: vii. 10, 5 quaestio omnis ac locus habet suam
dispositionem.

primum ... secundum: vii. 10, 5 Non enim causa tantum universa
in quaestiones ac locos diducenda est, sed hae
172
ipsae partes habent rursus ordinem suum. Nam et in prooemio primum est
aliquid et secundum ac deinceps, &c.

intervelli: cp. xii. 9, 17.

 

 
VII: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.

§ 6.
via dicet: ‘methodically’, ‘systematically,’ cp. dicendi via §5. So ii. 17, 41 via id est ordine. Cic.
Brut. §46 (ait Aristoteles) antea nominem solitum via nec arte, sed
adcurate tamen et de scripto plerosque dicere: Orat. §§10, 116 ratione
et via disputare, docere: de Fin. ii. §3 (oratio) quae via quadam et
ratione habetur. Roby 1236. See Crit. Notes.

velut: see on 1 §5. It softens the expression
_serie ... duce_, being equivalent to ‘ut ita dicam.’ The
collocation _ducetur ... duce_ is to be classed among the rather
negligent repetitions of which a list is given on 2 §23. Becher compares Cic. de Nat. Deor.
ii. §135 depulsum et quasi detrusum cibum accepit depellit (where
J. B. Mayor however reads delapsum): cp. ib. §145. For ‘serie
ducere’ cp. xi. 2, 39 etiam quae bene composita erunt memoriam serie sua
ducent.

propter quod: see on 1 §66: 5 §23.

quaerant, ‘look for as matter of discourse,’ as 6 §7. The occurrence of _homines_ in the
interval leads up from the singular _quisquis_ to the plural.

sensibus: see on 3 §33.

confundent ex diversis: ‘make it a jumble of
incongruities.’

huc illuc: Cic. ad Att. ix. 9, 2 ne ... cursem huc illuc via
deterrima.


 
VII: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
173
etiam multa dicamus.

§ 7.
citra: see on 1 §2.

divisionem: ‘here the distribution of the matter of the speech
both into the general divisions and subordinate heads, and also into the
minuter passages and sentences; their order constituting the _via
dicendi_.’ Frieze.

Expletis ... quae proposuerint: ‘when they have overtaken all
the points advanced,’ exhausted the various heads of their discourse, v.
10, 109 nec minus in hoc curae debet adhiberi quid proponendum quam
quomodo sit quod proposueris probandum.

haec quidem &c. The meaning is that while the observance
of the foregoing precepts (haec) depends on knowledge of theory (ars),
as embodied in specific rules and directions, what is now to come (illa)
demands _studium_, i.e. scientific exercise, applied to reading,
imitation, writing, and the practice of speaking (cp. 1 §1). The sentence is an awkward
one: it is best explained by making the _ut_ before _copiam_
co-ordinate with the _ut_ before _cum multa scripserimus_, and
supplying a corresponding _ut_ with _formetur_. _Illa_
then introduces all three clauses, the first referring mainly to
_legere_, the second to _scribere_, and the third to
_dicere_. The precepts in regard to reading and imitation
(quemadmodum praeceptum est) are found in chs. i and ii: writing is
covered by chs. iii, iv and v: while speech is dealt with in the present
chapter.

fideli stilo, the ‘conscientious practice of composition.’

scriptorum colorem: see 6 §5.

effusa sint: cp. 3 §17
componunt quae effuderant.

cum multa scripserimus. The practice
173
of speaking (including extempore utterance) is to come _after_
writing: cp. 1 §3
sq.


 
VII: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;

§ 8.
consuetudo et exercitatio, referring only to the last-mentioned
precept, _ut multa dicamus_.

velocitas illa. The demonstr. is vivid,—‘the requisite
rapidity,’ that which we either have acquired or hope to acquire.

os coit atque concurrit. Cp. xi. 3, 56 est aliis concursus
oris et cum verbis suis colluctatio: viii. 3, 45 littera quae exprimi
nisi labris coeuntibus non potest: xi. 3, 121 his accedunt vitia non
naturae, sed trepidationis, cum ore concurrente rixari. “Os concurrit
cum prae anxietate dicentis musculi oris invitis etiam trahuntur et
convelluntur ut labia et lingua quasi trepident.” Wolff.

mobilitate animi: cp. §22. His
mind must be quick of movement in order to express properly what is to
be said on the instant (_proxima_ corresponding to _nostram
vocem_), and at the same time be shaping (_struere_) what is
further on (_ulteriora_ corresponding to _provisa et formata
cogitatio_). Tr. proxima, ‘what we are about to say’:
nostram vocem, ‘what has just been said.’ For provisa cp.
on 3 §10.


 
VII: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.

§ 9.
ratio, cp. note on §3.

quae dicit, sc. ‘orator,’ as with _sufficiat_ ‘animus’
must be supplied. Cp. on §4.

vocis ... gestus. See 1 §17 for a similar enumeration,
and cp. the note.

una = simul, which indeed Halm substitutes for it in his
text.


 
VII: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.
174
§ 10.
intentio: cp. intendunt animum 1 §24.

prae se res agat. The mind must pursue or chase, as it were,
the ideas that are still in front of it, and have them available in
advance.

consumitur ... prorogetur: expressions derived from banking
transactions. ‘In proportion as the speaker pays out, must he make
advances to himself out of what is to come later.’ For this use of
_prorogare_ see the Lexx. Ex ultimo was understood by Wolff
to mean _ex eo quod modo dictum est_: but Becher (Quaest. Quint.
p. 9) pointed out that it = ‘vom Ende aus,’ and correctly rendered
the whole sentence ‘so viel im Reden drauf geht, so viel muss er sich im
Voraus vom Ende aus flüssig machen und so gewissermassen seine
Zahlungsfähigkeit länger hinausschieben,’—ut ne in inopiam
redactus bonam copiam eiuret. The speaker is to be continually drawing
from his reserve funds (_ex ultimo_, i.e. from the part of his
subject-matter that remains) just so much as he is expending in
delivery.

prospectu procedamus: cp. xi. 2, 3 nam dum alia dicimus, quae
dicturi sumus intuenda sunt: ita cum semper cogitatio ultra eat, id quod
est longius quaerit, quidquid autem repperit quodam modo apud memoriam
deponit, quod illa quas media quaedam manus acceptum ab inventione
tradit elocutioni.

si non ... eiecturi sumus: ‘if we
174
want to avoid coming to a standstill, stuttering, and giving forth our
short, broken phrases, like persons gasping out what they have to
say.’—For offensantes cp. _offensator_ 3 §10: and for brevia illa 2 §17 illud frigidum et inane.

 

 
VII: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.

§ 11.
inrationalis: ‘mechanical,’ ‘unscientific.’ Cp. ii. 15, 23 quidam
eam neque vim neque scientiam neque artem putaverunt, sed Critolaus usum
dicendi (nam hoc τριβή
significat).... For the opposition between τέχνη and τριβή (‘knack’) see Plato, Phaedrus 260 E οὐκ ἔστι τέχνη
ἄλλ᾽ ἄτεχνος τριβή: Gorgias 501 A κομιδῇ ἀτέχνως ... ἔρχεται ... ἀλόγως τε
παντάπασιν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ... τριβὴ καὶ ἐμπειρία: ib.
463 B.

manus ... decurrit. Cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §130 neque enim
quotiens verbum aliquod est scribendum nobis, totiens eius verbi
litterae sunt cogitatione conquirendae; nec quotiens causa dicenda est,
totiens ad eius causae seposita argumenta revolvi nos oportet, sed
habere certos locos, qui ut litterae ad verbum scribendum, sic illi ad
causam explicandam statim occurrant.

versus: see on 1 §38.

flexus ... et transitus. These words are generally taken in
their literal sense; but the rendering ‘turns and transitions’
(‘Wendungen and Uebergänge’) seems not sufficiently to explain the
passage. May _flexus_ not refer here to the modulation of the
voice, as frequently in Quintilian (v. Bonn. Lex.), and _transitus_
to the punctuation which marks the passage from one clause to another?
In reading the eye takes in all this in advance. Tr. ‘observe the
intonations and the stops.’ On the other hand Frieze (who alone of the
commentators seems to have felt any difficulty): ‘the action of the eye
itself in reading is ascribed to the lines of the manuscript.
_Flexus_ seems to refer to the turning of the eye from the end of a
line to the beginning of the next, and _transitus_ the passing from
one column of the manuscript to the next.’ But this explanation of
_transitus_ can hardly be right.

dixerunt, sc. lectores,—before the reader has
articulated (to himself) what comes first, the eye runs on to what
follows. For the change of subject cp. §9.

miracula = θαύματα, ‘conjuring-tricks.’

pilariorum ac ventilatorum: ‘jugglers and professors of
legerdemain.’ For the former (who resembled the Indian juggler) see
Rich’s Dict. Ant. s.v., where a figure is shown from a Diptych in the
Museum at Verona exhibiting dexterous feats with a number of balls,
‘throwing them up with both hands, catching them on, and making them
rebound from, the inner joint of the elbow, leg, forehead, and instep,
so that they kept playing in a continuous circle round his person
without falling to the ground, as minutely described by Manilius
(_Astron._ 169-171).’ The ventilator was one who winnowed grain
with the _ventilabrum_ (see Rich. s.v.), and so is generally taken
here of a juggler ‘tossing his balls into the air as the winnower does
his corn’; but looking to the use of _ventilare_ for to ‘conjure
away’ (magicis artibus vitas insontium et manibus accitis ventilare,
Imp. Constant. cod. 9, 18, 6 and cod. Th. 9, 16, 5), I prefer
Professor Key’s explanation of the word, ‘a juggler, as affecting to
toss things away with an οἴχεται, or with a puff of breath’: cp. Prudent.
Peristeph. x. 78 tu ventilator urbis et vulgi levis procella.—The
genitives are to be referred to _scaenis_, not _miracula_.

ut ea: for this constr. see on 1 §58.

in manus: Krüger and Dosson are wrong in taking this of the
hands of the spectators. The balls return to the hands of the performers
themselves. For _qua_ (sc. via) cp. ii. 20, 2 multos video qua vel
impudentia vel fames duxit ruentes: ix. 1, 19: xii. 10, 61.


 
VII:12
Sed hic usus ita proderit, si ea de qua locuti sumus ars antecesserit,
ut
175
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.

§ 12.
ita ... si, in a limiting sense (= ita demum si), ‘only so
far as.’ Cp. xi. 3, 130 ambulantem loqui ita demum oportet si in causis
publicis, &c. In Brut.
175
§195 Cicero has cum _ita_ heres institutus esset _si_ pupillus
ante mortuus esset. In this restrictive sense ita is more
commonly followed by ut (Verr. iv. §150): sometimes by _cum_
(Brut. §222). In Top. §44 we have agens de eo qui testamento _sic_
heredem instituisset ut si filius natus esset, &c.

locuti sumus, i.e. in §§5-7.

quod ... non habet: cp. §11
usus inrationalis, where there is no consciousness of method.

in ratione versetur = arte, artis et rationis praeceptis
contineatur. Though mechanical, through habit it should be based on
method and rational principle.

nisi qui &c. Cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §48 Sin oratoris nihil
vis esse nisi _composite_ _ornate_ _copiose_ loqui,
&c. The first refers to _collocatio_, the second to
_elocutio_, and the third to _inventio_.

tumultuari, to ‘rant.’ Cp. vii. pr. §3 oratio carens hac
virtute (sc. ordine) tumultuetur necesse est: ii. 12, 11 cum interim non
actores modo aliquos invenias, sed, quod est turpius, praeceptores etiam
qui brevem dicendi exercitationem consecuti omissa ratione, ut tulit
impetus, passim tumultuentur, eosque qui plus honoris litteris
tribuerunt ineptos et ieiunos et tepidos et infirmos, ut quodque verbum
contumeliosissimum occurrit, appellent.


 
VII: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.

§ 13.
fortuiti sermonis, ‘random talk.’

contextum = continuam orationem, cp. §26. The word denotes mere continuity of speech, a
mere train of words.

superfluere video: see Crit. Notes.

cum eo quod, ‘with this consideration that,’ connects in a
loose manner with what goes before: ‘and this I say with the addition
that,’ &c.
The usual explanation is ‘with the exception or limitation that,’
&c.: so Günther ‘postquam sese mirari nunquam fortuiti sermonis
contextum dixit, hoc enuntiato a “cum eo quod” pendente orationi
moderatur et concedit frequenter, si calor ac spiritus tulerit, curam
consequi non posse successum extemporalem’: cp. Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, §4
sit sane, quoniam ita tu vis, sed tamen cum eo, credo, quod sine peccato
meo fiat. But Quintilian is not ‘taking back’ what he has said in ‘nec
mirabor’: he is going on to add what is really an independent statement.
Other uses of _cum eo quod_ occur ii. 4, 30 cum eo quidem, quod vix
ullus est tam communis locus, qui possit cohaerere cum causa nisi aliquo
propriae quaestionis circulo copulatus: xii. 10, 47 cum eo quod, si non
ad luxuriam ac libidinem referas, eadem speciosiora quoque sint quae
honestiora. See Introd. p. liii.

spiritus: see on 1 §27.

tulit. For _ferre_ used absolutely: cp. 3 §7 si feret flatus, and such phrases as ‘si
occasio tulerit.’ Krüger supplies _aliquem_, comparing 1 §110.—For the perfect,
used like the Greek aorist to denote repeated occurrence, cp. refrixit
3 §6, and accessit ... restitit §14 below.

ut ... possit—that the success of such impromptu
speaking is not attained by study and premeditation (cura).


 
VII: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,
176
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.

§ 14.
ut Cicero. No such saying can be found in Cicero’s extant works:
cp. however de Orat. i. §202. For the reading see Crit. Notes.

ratio manifesta est: cp. 5 §3.

bene concepti adfectus, ‘emotion profoundly felt’: v. on §15 and cp. vi. 2, 30 has (imagines rerum)
quisquis bene conceperit is erit in adfectibus potentissimus.

recentes rerum imagines: ‘fresh,’ ‘vivid’ conceptions, or
ideas: a lively imagination.

continuo impetu feruntur: ‘sweep along in uninterrupted
course.’

refrigescunt, cp. 3 §6, and
§33. 

utique: see on 1 §20.

176
infelix ... verborum cavillatio: of the morbid carping
self-criticism spoken of in 3 §10:
1 §115. For
_infelix_ see on 1 §7.

non potest ferri contorta vis: ‘there can be no energy in the
swing,’ a figure taken from the discharge of missile weapons, such as
the sling and the javelin. _Vis contorta fertur_ = the _vis_
(of the speech) is ‘whirled and sped onward’: for _ferri_ cp. ix.
4, 112 oratio quae ferri debet et fluere. For the whole expression cp.
Cic. Orator §234 Demosthenes! cuius non tam vibrarent fulmina illa, nisi
numeris contorta ferrentur, (Quint. ix. 4, 55,) where _contorquere_
describes the whirling action which imparts to the missile that rotating
movement by which (as with our rifled guns) it is made more certain to
hit the mark: see Sandys ad loc. Quintilian has a similar figure in ix.
4, 9 mihi compositione velut amentis quibusdam nervisve intendi et
concitari sententiae videntur.

ut = though.

continua ... composita, ‘the style is not all of one pattern,
but rather a patchwork,’—it does not flow on spontaneously, but is
elaborately put together. The subject _oratio_ must be supplied out
of the context: cp. §26, and 1 §§7 and 29. Becher renders ‘nicht aus ganzem
Holze (geschnitten) sondern geleimt,’—not all of one piece but
glued together: and compares ‘corpora continua’ and ‘composita’ in Sen.
Epist. xvii. 2, 6 (102),—‘organisms’ and mechanical fabrics.


 
VII: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.

§ 15.
de quibus dixi. Cp. vi. 2, 29 Quas φαντασίας Graeci vocant (nos sane visiones
appellemus) per quas imagines rerum absentium ita repraesentantur animo
ut eas cernere oculis ac praesentes habere videamur, has quisquis bene
conceperit is erit in adfectibus potentissimus. So of the creations of
the painter’s fancy, xii. 10, 6 concipiendis visionibus, quas φαντασίας vocant,
praestantissimus Theon Samius.

dicturi erimus. The careful selection of the tense is to be
noted: cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §223 eorum apud quos aliquid aget aut erit
acturus mentes sensusque degustet, where _agit_ is contemporaneous
with _degustet_, while _erit acturus_ is regarded as still
future.—There is negligence in the juxtaposition of _dixi_
and _dicturi erimus_.

in adfectus recipienda, sc. that emotions may thereby be
excited which shall find expression in what we say. The intensity of
these emotions will depend on the vividness of the images in the
mind.

pectus: ‘feeling.’ The sentence is carefully arranged: besides
the chiasmus above (_habenda in oculis_, _in adfectus
recipienda_) _pectus_ now takes up _in adfectus
recipienda_, while vis mentis refers to _habenda in
oculis_, and denotes accordingly force or clearness of
conception.


 
VII: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
177
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.

§ 16.
Tum, if allowed to stand (see Crit. Notes), does not introduce a
help to oratory, like _pectus_ above (cp. si modo sunt aliquo
adfectu concitati), and addit ad dicendum etiam _pudor_ stimulos in
the following sentence. The words from _pectus est enim_ to
_verba non desunt_ form a parenthesis, and _tum intendendus_
resumes the previous recommendation, _omniaque de quibus dicturi
erimus ... recipienda_. This is clear from the correspondence of
participles, _capiendae_ ... _habenda_ ... _recipienda_
... _intendendus_.

continuas, here of things that ‘hang together’: tr. ‘in an
orderly sequence.’

circa, ‘on either side.’

177
pudor = ‘amour-propre,’ sense of honour as (possibly) to be
compromised by failure.

stilus secreto: 3 §23
sq.

congestu signorum: the ‘crowded standards,’—of the
moment when the legion is about to advance, and the standard of every
company is set in motion at the same time. This is better than to take
it of the assembling of the standard-bearers with their ensigns round
the general’s tribunal, while he addresses the army on the eve of
battle.


 
VII: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.

§ 17.
difficiliorem: thought that labours, is slow to find
utterance.

expellit, stronger than _exprimit_: cp. 3 §6.

secundos impetus, ‘the favourable glow,’—the ‘élan’ so
helpful for the expression of thought.

pretium, like _praemium_ in a parallel passage, Tac.
Dial. 36: ita ad summa eloquentiae praemia magna etiam necessitas
accedebat, et quo modo disertum haberi pulchrum et gloriosum sic contra
mutum et elinguem videri deforme habebatur.

quamquam, with subj. 1 §33.

opinionis, ‘reputation,’ the favourable estimate which others
form of us: see on 5 §18 and cp. §24 below: Cic. pro Arch. §26. Introd. p. xliv.


 
VII: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.

§ 18.
id, i.e. ut ex tempore dicere possit: the faculty of
improvisation.

praecepimus: 6 §3.

contineri, 6 §3 augenda vis
et exercitatione multa continenda est.

 
VII: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
178
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.

§ 19.
debet. The subject which the editors generally say is to be
supplied is ‘facilitas extemporalis’: cp. 6 §4. But Becher is probably right in supplying
a personal subject (as 1 §7: 2 §24: 7 §§4, 25),—‘the orator,’ ‘the budding rhetorician,’
or even τις: cp. nec
quisquam.* If _extemporalis facilitas_ were the subject of the
sentence, _ipsa_ would have been expected instead of _ea_. See
Critical Notes.* recte: _nec quisquam fidat_, _above_.

non utique: ‘not of course,’ ‘not necessarily.’ See on 1 §20: cp. xii. 2, 18.

in prosa: see on 1 §81.

Antipater of Sidon, an Alexandrine poet, cir. B.C. 135. Cic. de Orat. iii. §194 quod si Antipater
ille Sidonius ... solitus est versus hexametros aliosque variis modis
atque numeris fundere ex tempore, tantumque hominis ingeniosi ac memoris
valuit exercitatio ut, cum se mente ac voluntate coniecisset in versum,
verba sequerentur, quanto id facilius in oratione, exercitatione et
consuetudine adhibita, consequemur!

Archias. Cic. pro Arch. 8 §18 quotiens ego hunc vidi, cum
litteram scripsisset nullam, magnum numerum optimorum versuum de iis
ipsis rebus quae tum agerentur dicere ex tempore.

non quia ... non. For the subjunctive, see Introd. p. liv: cp. §31, below.
178
Becher rightly explains (Bursian’s Jahresb.) that _credendum enim
Ciceroni est_ is to be bracketed as a parenthesis of the writer’s to
Antipater Sidonius and Licinias Archias,—examples which give the
motive for the half apology _non quia_, &c. Tr. ‘though I do
not wish to be understood to mean that,’ &c. Others explain the
sentence as elliptical: ‘I do not quote Cicero’s authority because we
have not abundant examples in our own times, but because his authority,
at any rate, will be unquestioned,’ Frieze.

quidam. Hild thinks the reference must be particularly to
Statius: Silv. 1 pr. hos libellos qui mihi subito calore et quadam
festinandi voluptate fluxerunt: and iii. pr. libellos ... subito natos.
Possibly also to Remmius Palaemon, the teacher of Quintilian: Suet.
Gram. 23 poemata faciebat ex tempore.

quod ... ipsum. ‘This accomplishment in itself,’ viz.
facilitas ex tempore carmina fingendi.

in hanc spem = huius in rei spem. Cp. 3 §2 sine hac conscientia.

 

 
VII: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.

§ 20.
non ... saltem: see on 2 §15.

didicerit. In acquainting himself with the facts of a case,
and considering (however briefly) the principles applicable to it, the
judicial pleader has always some little time to think over his
speech.

 
VII: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.

§ 21.
Declamatores: see on 1 §71.

ambitio: see Introd. p. xliv.

exposita controversia, ‘as soon as the question is
stated.’

frivolum, ‘in bad taste,’ a word characteristic of the Silver
Age.

scaenicum, ‘theatrical.’ On the stage, actors often start off
with such a ‘cue.’ Cp. i. 11, 3 plurimum ... aberit a scaenico: xi. 3,
57 modulatio scaenica: ib. §123 nam et complodere manus scaenicum est et
pectus caedere. We may also recall ‘nedum ille scaenicus (Nero)’: Tac.
Ann. xv. 59.

 

 
VII: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
179
haesitare videamur.

§ 22.
vis omnis intendenda rebus. Cp. Cato’s golden rule for the
speaker, rem tene verba sequentur: Cic. de Orat. ii. §146: iii. §125:
Hor. A. P. 311.

non dabitur, cp. §29: Verg.
Aen. i. 408 cur dextrae iungere dextram non datur?

tardior pronuntiatio. The opposite is _citata_ xi. 3, 111
aliis locis citata aliis pressa conveniet pronuntiatio.

habet, ‘secures.’ Krüger (3rd ed.) would prefer to read
_habebit_.

suspensa ... dubitans: a ‘slow and undecided style of
speaking,’ in which one is, as it were, feeling one’s way. Tac. Ann. i.
11 of Tiberius, suspensa semper et obscura verba.

179

 
VII: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.

§ 23.
hoc, sc. fieri potest. For the ellipse cp. vi. 4, 10 hoc, dum
ordo est et pudor: xi. 1, 76 hoc et apud eos.

dum egredimur, &c. As in §1
the simile takes the place of the main thought without any word of
introduction: cp. athleta 1 §4.

simul. The juxtaposition of _simul_ and _euntes_
reminds us of the Greek constr. of ἅμα with a participle = ἅμα πορευόμενοι.

aptabimus ... optabimus. The assonance is surely an example of
Quintilian’s negligent style, rather than (as Krüger thinks) an
intentional pun. So _aptatis ... aptabimus_, in this passage.


 
VII: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.

§ 24.
ars: cp. on §7.

non labitur. The sense is clear, though the reading is very
uncertain: ‘la connaissance théorique une fois acquise ne se perd pas,’
Hild, who suspects that _animo_ or _mente_ has fallen out. Cp.
de Orat. ii. §109 ante enim praeterlabitur (sc. definitio) quam percepta
est. _Labi_ by itself well expresses the gradual ‘oozing away’ of
anything from the mind. Verg. Ecl. i. 63 quam nostro illius labatur
pectore vultus. It might however be preferable to read _nunquam_
instead of _non_. See Crit. Notes.

deperdit. Cic. Verr. ii. 2, 30 ut ne quid de libertate
deperderit.

promptum hoc et in expedito positum: ‘this promptitude and
readiness for action.’ The neuter of the adj. and the part. are used
along with the demonstrative in place of abstract nouns, in which Latin
is not strong. Cp. Livy vii. 8, 5 diu non perlitatum tenuerat
dictatorem: Tac. Ann. iii. 80 Capito insignitior infamia fuit quod ...
egregium publicum et bonas domi artes dehonestavisset; v. Nägelsbach,
Lat. Stil. p. 98 sq. and 140 sq.: Introd. p. xlviii.

rarum est ut = raro fit ut. Cp. primum est ut 2 §18.

non omnino. The adverb strengthens the negative (cp. οὐ πάνυ), instead of the
negative being employed for the negation of the adverb. So often
_prorsus_ and _sane_.


 
VII:25
Est alia exercitatio cogitandi
180
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;

§ 25.
est alia exercitatio cogitandi ... persequendi. There is a
similar transition at ix. 2, 57 est alia non quidem reticentia. The
sequence of thought is as follows: the best method of acquiring and
maintaining the _facultas ex tempore dicendi_ is to discourse daily
before competent hearers: if that is not possible _soli tamen
dicamus_; this is better than not speaking at all. There is another
_exercitatio_ (i.e. as a help to keeping up the _facultas ex
tempore dicendi_), viz. the going over our subject-matter in silent
thought, as we can do always and everywhere. _Cogitandi_ and
_persequendi_ are genitives of definition, or epexegetic genitives
standing in the place of appositional infinitives): cp. exitus mortis,
τέλος θανάτοιο,
and (cited by Krüger) Cic. de Fin. iii. 14, 45 denique ipsum bonum quod
in eo positum est ut naturae consentiat, crescendi accessionem ( =
accessionem quae fit crescendo) nullam habet: de Orat. 1 §90 quod
consuetudo exercitatioque et intellegendi prudentiam (= prudentiam
quae cernitur in intellegendo, or prudentiam ad intellegendum) acueret
et eloquendi celeritatem incitaret. With
180
exercitatio, supply ‘continendi facultatem ex tempore dicendi.’

totasque materias ... persequendi: cp. 5 §21 per totas ire materias.

tamen: i.e. even though it be _silentio_.

dicat. Again the subject (sc. orator) is to be supplied out of
the context. Cp. 1 §7.

explicari potest: ‘can have full scope given to it,’ an
exercise in which we can indulge freely.

in parte, often in Quintilian. See on 1 §88.

haec proxima: viz. that recommended in §24 ut cotidie dicamus audientibus pluribus: to
which _illa_ and _prior_ in §26
refer.


 
VII: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.

§ 26.
diligentius enim componitur quam illa: ‘it (i.e. discourse thus
premeditated) is more accurately put together.’ The grammatical subject
of _componitur_ is _exercitatio cogitandi_, &c., but the
verb is chosen with reference to the train of thought which the mind is
exercised in pursuing. The virtual subject is thus rather _oratio quam
cogitando persequimur_, or _tacita oratio_ (as shown by _dum
tamen quasi dicat intra se ipsum_). _Illa_ (like _proxima_)
refers to the practice of extempore speaking, either alone or in the
presence of others. Grammatically the _exercitatio_ of §24 must be understood along with it: logically the
_oratio_ which is the result of that
_exercitatio_.—Krüger (3rd ed.) takes _componitur_ as
used impersonally, but that would seem to be impossible without some
reference to _exercitatio cogitandi_. The sentence, though
grammatically awkward, is quite consistent with Quintilian’s loose style
of writing, so that there seems no necessity for such a device about
_componitur_, or for Gertz’s conjecture _in illa_: see Crit. Notes.

contextum dicendi: cp. §13.

veremur, with infin. as 1 §101, and even in Cicero: cp.
the striking instance de Fin. ii. §39 quos non est veritum in ...
voluptate ... summum bonum ponere.

Rursus, ‘on the other hand.’

in alia ... confert. See on 1 §1 for the constr. of
_conferre_ (συμφέρειν): cp. 5 §11 in hoc facient.

prior, viz. speaking.

firmitatem. In such enumerations Quintilian does not repeat
the prep.: cp. 2 §16.

oris facilitatem = ‘ease of utterance.’

ut dixi, 3 §21.

pedis supplosione. Cp. xi. 3, 128 pedis supplosio ut loco est
opportuna, ut ait Cicero, in contentionibus aut incipiendis aut
finiendis, ita crebra et inepti est hominis et desinit iudicem in se
convertere: Sen. Epist. 75 §2: Cic. Brut. §141.

sicut cauda leones. Hom. Il. xx. 170 οὐρῇ δὲ πλευράς τε καὶ ἰσχία ἀμφοτέρωθεν
Μαστίεται, ἑὲ δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐποτρύνει μαχέσασθαι: Hesiod, Shield of
Herc. 430 γλαυκιόων δ᾽ ὄσσοις
δεινὸν πλευράς τε καὶ ὤμους οὐρῇ μαστιόων ποσσὶ γλάφει. Plin.
Nat. Hist. viii. 16, 19 leonum animi index cauda ... immota ergo
placido, clemens blandienti, quod rarum est: crebrior enim iracundia,
eius in principio terra verberatur, incremento terga ceu quodam
incitamento flagellantur.

studendum, 3 §29. Cp. note
on _studiosis_ 1 §45.


 
VII:27
Studendum vero semper et ubique. Neque enim fere tam est ullus dies
occupatus, ut nihil lucrativae, ut Cicero Brutum facere tradit,
181
operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum rapi aliquo momento
temporis possit: siquidem C. Carbo etiam in tabernaculo solebat hac
uti exercitatione dicendi.

§ 27.
tam est ... occupatus. The order supports the traditional reading
at 1 §83, where see
note.

lucrativae operae. Cic. ad Att. vii. 11, 1 unam mehercule
tecum apricationem in illo lucrativo tuo sole malim quam omnia istius
modi regna: Fronto, ad Anton. imp. 2, 2 lucrativa tua in tantis negotiis
tempora. Tr. ‘a few precious moments’:
181
_lucrativa opera_ means an occupation which profitably occupies our
spare time. The adjective is properly a legal term, applied to things
acquired by gift or bequest: e.g. species possessionis Gai. 2, 56:
usucapio 2, 60: adquisitio Ulp. Dig. xliv. 4, 4, 31. Krüger refers
to the special meaning of _lucrum_, ‘an unexpected gain’: Hor. Car.
i. 9, 14 quem fors dierum cumque dabit, lucro adpone. Spalding says:
“_operam lucrativam_ a Qu. dici potuisse censeo quidquid operae
iniunctis et necessariis laboribus negotiisque velut surriperetur et
dilectis studiis accederet.” Cp. i. 12, 13 quibus potius studiis haec
temporum velut subsiciva donabimus? Cic. de Orat. ii. 364 quae cursim
adripui, quae subsicivis operis, ut aiunt.

Cicero. The reference seems to be to the remark addressed to
Brutus in the Orator §34 iam quantum illud est quod in maximis
occupationibus numquam intermittis studia doctrinae, semper aut ipse
scribis aliquid aut me vocas ad scribendum. So in the Brutus §332 he
praises his _perennia studia_, and §22 his _singularis
industria_. Cp. Plutarch, Brutus, §4 and §36. See Crit. Notes.

siquidem, see on §2, above.

C. Carbo. In the Brutus §§103-105 Cicero eulogises his
eloquence and industry: industrium etiam et diligentem et in
exercitationibus commentationibusque multum operae solitum esse ponere:
cp. de Orat. i. §154.—Carbo, who had originally been a supporter
of Ti. Gracchus, but had afterwards gone over to the optimates, became
consul in B.C. 120; and it was in
connection with his prosecution in the year following, on some charge
not distinctly specified, that Crassus made his first public appearance.
Carbo was driven to commit suicide.


 
VII: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.

§ 28.
Ciceroni. The reference cannot be traced.

ubicumque: see on 1 §5.

pondus, ‘solidity.’

innatans, sc. in superficie: ‘floating’ and so ‘superficial.’
Cp. vii. 1, 44 haec velut innatantia videbunt: Persius i. 104-5 summa
delumbe saliva Hoc natat in labris, where Conington cites Gell. i. 15
qui nullo rerum pondere innixi verbis humidis et lapsantibus diffluunt,
eorum orationem bene existimatum est _in ore nasci_ non in pectore:
so 3 §2 verba in labris nascentia,
where see note.

in altum reducetur = in profundum, giving the antithesis to
the figure (‘the shallows’) involved in _innatans_. Tr. ‘will gain
in depth.’ For such combinations of the prep. with the acc. or abl.
neuter of adj. see Introd. p. xlvii.

proximas, the uppermost roots, which protrude from the surface
of the ground. By paring these away, the taproots (inferiores) are
forced to strike deeper.


 
VII:29
Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et studio fecerimus, invicem prosit,
ut scribendo dicamus diligentius, dicendo scribamus facilius. Scribendum
ergo quotiens licebit;
182
si id non dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen _sic
d_icere ut neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse
videatur.

§ 29.
nescio an = fortasse, as at 6 §1; see on 1 §65. Tr. ‘and I rather think
that there is this reciprocal advantage, viz. that,’ &c.

utrumque, i.e. dicere and scribere, both in the way of
_exercitatio_.

Scribendum ergo, &c. This is Quintilian’s summing up. If
the advocate has time to elaborate his speech in writing, that is best
(as a rule); if writing is impossible, he must have recourse to
cogitatio (ch. vi). If there is time for neither
the one nor the other, the discipline which
182
is being recommended ought nevertheless (_tamen_, i.e. in spite of
the fact that there has been no opportunity for either writing or
reflection) to enable him to “speak in such a way that no one will think
either that the pleader has been taken aback or that the client has been
left in the lurch.” The emendation _sic dicere_, which I venture to
introduce in the text (see Crit. Notes), seems in harmony not
only with the tradition of the MSS. but also with the whole context.
There is the same sequence immediately below (§30) _scribant ... cogitatione complectantur ...
subitis extempore occurrant_. The busy advocate will make use of all
three methods: but in most cases writing, according to Quintilian, is to
be recommended, and, failing it, meditation,—not that the latter
is better than off-hand speech, but safer (tutior §19). Lastly, even such _subitae necessitates_
as are referred to in §2 ought to find the
advocate prepared to make a creditable extempore appearance: cp. §4 neque ego hoc ago ut extempore dicere malit sed
ut possit.

deprehensus: cp. xii. 9, 20: Seneca Ep. xi. 1 non enim ex
praeparato locutus est, sed subito deprehensus.


 
VII: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.

§ 30.
utique, ‘especially,’ or ‘at all events’: see on 1 §20.

domo adferunt: cp. 6 §6.

subitis: ‘emergencies,’ unforeseen developments, e.g.
questions and objections by the other side. Cp. Plin. Ep. iii. 9, 16 vir
exercitatus et quamlibet subitis paratus.

commentariis: ‘note-books,’ memoranda containing jottings,
outlines, &c. Cp. iv. 1, 69.

feruntur: see note on ferebantur 1 §23.

et ... et = ‘some ... others.’ In the one case the actual
jottings have been found, just as they were originally set down for the
guidance of the speaker: in the other they have been put together in
book form, for the benefit of later readers.

causarum: sc. commentarii: outlines of cases.

Servio Sulpicio: see on 1 §116. He left only three
written speeches, but his friends had edited his notes of the numerous
cases in which he had appeared.

hi. The memoranda, as opposed to the finished speeches
(orationes).

exacti: see on 2 §14.

in memoriam posteritatis: see on 1 §31.


 
VII:31
Nam Ciceronis ad praesens modo tempus aptatos libertus Tiro contraxit:
quos non ideo excuso quia non
183
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.

§ 31.
Nam: see on 1 §12. The meaning is as follows:
I make special mention of the finished character of Sulpicius’s
outline speeches, as written out by himself: for in Cicero’s case it is
different: his commentarii ‘non sunt ab ipso compositi in memoriam
posteritatis.’ Moreover they are not now in their original form: by
Cicero they were prepared only for the occasion (ad praesens tempus
aptati), and were afterwards abridged (contraxit) by Tiro. But even in
this shorter form they are of great value.

contraxit, ‘abbreviated.’ The context shows, on the whole,
that this is the proper sense to attach to this word. Sulpicius’s
memoranda had been put together (in libros digesti) by his friends, but
so finished are they that one might think he had intended them to
survive. This gives
183
two points of contrast with Cicero. The first (cp. _exacti_ with
_ad praesens modo tempus aptatos_) would hardly be enough by
itself, as Quintilian rather insinuates than asserts that Sulpicius
intended his jottings to go down to posterity: the second is that in
Cicero’s case we have his sketches in a still briefer form than that in
which they were originally composed. The contrast would not be so
striking if _contraxit_ were practically synonymous with _in
libros digesti_. Becher is strongly, however, in favour of
_contraxit_ = collected: cp. Tac. Dial. 37.—For Tiro see esp.
Teuffel’s Rom. Lit. §178.

quos ... probem. The meaning is this: I do not make this
apology or explanation (excuso) as to the character of Tiro’s abridgment
of Cicero’s memoranda, compared with the studied elaboration of
Sulpicius, with any idea of implying inferiority, but in order
that—even in their present form—they may excite even greater
admiration of Cicero’s genius.—Quintilian is conscious that in
giving prominence to the two points of contrast in regard to Cicero’s
remains, as compared with those of Sulpicius, he may be in danger of
being misunderstood.—For _non quia_ with subj. cp. §19 above: Introd. p. liv.

In hoc genere, i.e. in this _extemporalis actio_. The
opposite is ‘in his quae scripserimus’ §32.

recipio: ‘I allow, admit,’ δέχομαι: cp. Cic. de Off. iii. §119 non recipit istam
coniunctionem honestas, aspernatur repellit: Introd. p. xliii.

hanc seems to indicate what was a common practice in
Quintilian’s time.


 
VII: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
184
nos cogitatio ad illa elaborata nec sinat praesentem fortunam
experiri.

§ 32.
Laenas, Popilius, a rhetorician who flourished under Tiberius. He
is mentioned as a contemporary of Cornelius Celsus, iii. 1, 21 and xi.
3, 183.

et in his quae scripserimus. See Crit. Notes. The reference obviously
is to speeches carefully written out before delivery, (contrast _in
hoc genere_ above, of the extempore kind). Quintilian says that he
cannot approve of Laenas’s recommendation that, after we have written
out a speech in this way, we should proceed to prepare an abstract.
Dependence on this abstract will make us careless about learning off
what we have written, and this will check the flow of our eloquence, and
mar and disfigure our discourse. Iwan Müller points out that in the
sentence _in his quae scripserimus ... conferre_, Quintilian is
probably quoting from some rhetorical treatise of Laenas.

velut summas in ... conferre. The reading is very uncertain:
see Crit. Notes for
Kiderlin’s proposed emendation. The text may be rendered ‘to enter in a
notebook arranged according to heads the essence, as it were,’ of what
we have written, the genitive required by _summas_ being supplied
out of _in his quae scripserimus_. Cp. Cic. Brut. §164 non est
oratio sed quasi capita rerum et orationis commentarium paulo
plenius.

haec ... fiducia. See on 3 §2 hac conscientia.

ne ... quidem: ‘neither should we.’ There is no climax here:
like οὐδέ the particles
_ne ... quidem_ are often used, as Madvig pointed out, ‘ubi sine
ullo orationis descensu aut gradatione negativi aliquid adiungitur
superioribus simile’ (see 3rd excursus to de Fin. pp. 802-3 2nd
ed.).

quod non simus. The context makes the reading certain, and
also gives the key to the interpretation. We ought not to write out,
says Quintilian, what we do not intend to commit perfectly to memory; it
would be better to trust to ‘extemporalis facilitas.’ If we do so, he
goes on to say, our imperfect recollection of what we have written (illa
elaborata) will interfere with the free play of thought.—For
_memoria persequi_ cp. Cic. pro Sulla §42.

hic quoque: cp. 6 §§5-7,
where it is
184
said of imperfect _premeditation_ (cogitatio) that if it is to make
the speaker hesitate between what he has written, but can hardly recall,
and the new ideas which the subject might inspire, he would do better to
trust wholly to improvisation.

praesentem fortunam: cp. 6 §1 extemporalem fortunam.


 
VII: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.
11
§ 33.
scripta perdidit, i.e. because he is suffering the consequences
of _ediscendi neglegentia_.

non quaerit nova—being too much occupied with the
attempt to remember what he had written.

de memoria = disputationi de memoria. See xi. 2.




185
CRITICAL NOTES.


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.

Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.

B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.

G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt.
Introd. p. lviii.

b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.

H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd. p. lxiv, sqq.

F = codex Florentinus.

T = codex Turicensis.

N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.

Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.

For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh
collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and
Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex
Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex
Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani,
&c.

A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by
M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd.
p. lxi,
sqq.):—

Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.

Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.

Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.

Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.

Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.

The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s
Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.

Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this
edition, are the following (Introd. p. lxxiii, sqq.):—

Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears
that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.

Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.

Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.

Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).

Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).

Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).

Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).

Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing
after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.

Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1,
1, 13).

Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).

The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are
given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus,
Paris, 1874).


186

CHAPTER I.

§1.
cognitioni, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.).
_Cogitationi_ G and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in
the ancient text.

§2.
sciet G. The reading _scierit_ (Harl. 4995 and many codd.)
is probably due to H, which gives _sciuit_ (so FT).

quae quoque sint modo dicenda. So GHFTL, and Halm. The
alternative reading is _quo quaeque s. m. d._, S and all
my 15th cent. MSS: Spalding and Meister, with the approval of Becher.
See note ad loc. In the parallel passages i. 8. 1 Halm adopts Spalding’s
reading (ut sciat) quo quidque flexu ... dicendum for quid quoque ABMS,
and i. 6. 16 (notatum) quo quidque modo caderet for quid quoque BMS, and
so Meister: Fierville returns to the reading of the MSS. In support of
_quo quaeque_ other exx. might be cited: v. 10. 17 quo quaeque modo
res vitari vel appeti soleat, and vi. 4. 22 quo quaeque ordine probatio
sit proferenda. But the parallel instances in the Tenth Book quoted in
the notes (1 §8: 7 §§5 and 6) seem to guarantee the correctness
of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to take
_quoque_ as the ablative of _quisque_ than (as Halm) as the
relative with que.

tamen: GHFT Harl. 4950: _tanquam_ Harl. 2662, 11671,
4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244 _tanquam_
is corrected to _tamen_. _Paratam_ explains _in
procinctu_: so that _tanquam_ is not so necessary as
_velut_ in xii. 9. 21.

§3.
ante omnia est: so all codd., and Halm. Hirt (Jahresb. des
philol. Vereins zu Berlin viii. p. 69 sq. 1882: ix. p. 312 sq.
1883) conjectured _ante omnia necessarium est_, and this is
approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp.
_necessarium_ just above, and _necessaria_ in §1. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84)
first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may
have been _ante omnia stat atque_, corrupted into _ante omniast
[at] atque_: for which use of _sto_, see Bonn. Lex. s.v.
ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forward _ante omnia
necesse est_, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch.
iii. 14. 428) proposed _ante omnia sciet_, though more recently he
has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly
suggested _ante omnia opus esse_. Perhaps the true reading may be
_ante omnia prodest_.

The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following
passage. GH agree in giving _proximam deinde inimitationem novissimam
scribendi quoque diligentia_. This Halm converted into _proximum
deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia_,—where the
_est_ is certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be
doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whether
_proxima deinde imitatio, novissima_ &c. would not be a
sufficient change: Kiderlin compares ‘proxima huic narratio,’ ii. 13. 1,
and ‘novissima qualitas superest,’ and objects to the citation of
‘proximum imitatio,’ in 1. 3,
in support of the neuter, on the ground that there ‘signum ingenii’ is
to be supplied.

Kiderlin’s proposed modification of Gemoll’s conjecture (l.c.
p. 454 note, cp. Rhein. Mus. 46 p. 10 note) _proximum deinde
multa lectio_ is adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the
sequence of thought makes the special mention of _legere_
(alongside of _dicere_ and _scribere_) a necessity:
_multa_ corresponds to _diligentia_ in what follows: cp. multa
lectione §10. But
_legere_ has already been touched on in §2, and moreover is included under
_imitatio_ (sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione
repetitorum).

§4.
iam opere. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd. _iam opere
iam_. Becher reports _iam opere_ also from the Vallensis.

qua ratione. For _qua in oratione_, the reading of all
MSS., Hirt conjectured
187
_qua exercitatione_. Schöll proposed to reject _in oratione_
as a gloss: but _qua_ by itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint.
with verbs of motion: see on 7 §11.

In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891),
Kiderlin subjects the whole of §4 to a searching and destructive
analysis. He translates: ‘doch nicht darüber, wie der Redner
heranzubilden ist, sprechen wir in diesem Abschnitte (denn dies ist
genügend oder wenigstens so gut, als wir konnten, besprochen worden)
sondern darüber, durch welche Art von Uebung der Athlet, welcher alle
Bewegungen von seinem Lehrer bereits genau erlernt hat, für die Kämpfe
vorzubereiten ist.’ He doubts whether such passages as §33 and 7 §1 can be cited to justify the
abrupt transition from orator to athlete, on the ground of the formal
antithesis in which the two stand to each other,—‘orator’ coming
in at the end of one clause, and ‘athleta’ standing at the head of
another, in front of ‘quo genere exercitationis.’ And yet it is just the
‘orator’ who is to be understood in the ‘athleta.’ As to the sentence
introduced by ‘Igitur eum,’ if by ‘athleta qui omnes iam perdidicerit a
praeceptore numeros’ we are to understand one who has mastered the whole
theory of rhetoric, then it adds nothing to what has been said already,
and is therefore altogether superfluous.

Kiderlin proposes to read: sed _ut_ (so L and S,—also
Harl. 2662, 4995) athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore
numeros, multo (nonnullo?) varioque (numuro quae G,—also H: num
muro quae T: numeroque F L; nimirum quo S) genere exercitationis ad
certamina praeparandus _erit_ (sit, the codd.) _ita_ (so
S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit,
instruamus, qua in _praeparatione_ (qua in oratione, the codd.)
quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit. _Ut_ may
easily, he contends, have fallen out before _at_: and the running
of three words into one (_numeros multo vario—numero_) is
paralleled by such a case as §23, where it
will be found that Kiderlin sees _ut duo tresque_ in
_utrisque_. For ‘multo varioque’ he compares viii. 5. 28 multis ac
variis: x. 5. 3 multas ac varias: xi. 3. 163 varia et multiplex: xii. 1.
7 totae tam variis; and, for ‘varioque,’ vii. 3. 16 latiore varioque,
and xii. 10. 36 sublimes variique. ‘Vario genere’ actually occurs i. 10.
7, and _multo_ may easily have been written in the singular, like
_nonnullus_ vi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and
elsewhere. The motive for changing _que_, _quae_, into
_quo_ and _erit_ (_est_?) into _sit_ may have been
the analogy of the foregoing _quomodo sit_. As for ut (sicut) ita
(sic), it is so favourite a form with Quintilian that he uses it seven
times in the first nineteen paragraphs of this chapter. _Qua in
oratione_, the reading of all MSS., may have resulted from _qua in
praeparatione_ more probably than from _qua ratione_, which
appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the
context as _qua in praeparatione_ (cp. _praeparandus_ above,
and _parandae_ below). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what
preparation (cp. praeparant §35, comparant §67, praeparetur 6 §6, praeparantur 7 §19) the orator may best and
most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For
the preposition (_in_ praeparatione) cp. viii. pr. 22: ut in hac
diligentia deterior etiam fiat oratio.

The text of Quintilian, especially of this part of the Tenth Book, is
admittedly very defective, and invites emendation: there is a great deal
to be said for the theory that in many places several words must have
dropped out. Kiderlin’s attempts to remedy existing defects are always
marked by the greatest ingenuity: they are all well worth recording as
evidences of critical ability and insight, even though it may be that
not all of them will be received into the ultimate text. Here there
seems no reason why Quintilian, who was notoriously a loose writer,
should not have said in the concluding sentence of the paragraph what he
had already said, in the form of a metaphor, in the clause immediately
preceding. Indeed the word _igitur_ seems to suggest that after
indulging in his favourite metaphor (_sed athleta_, &c.) he
wishes to resume, as it were, and is now going on to say what he means
in more ordinary language. It may not be artistic: but it is Quintilian.
If he had had some of his modern critics at
188
his side when preparing a second edition of the _Institutio_ some
of his angularities might have been smoothed away.

§5.
Non ergo. Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: I find this reading in
Harl. 4995, and Burn. 243. So Vall. Halm. has _Num ergo_, and so
most codd. (including HFT Bodl. and Ball.).

§6.
ex his. Qy. _ex iis_? so §128: cp. Introd. p. xlix.

§7.
quo idem, Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: _quod idem_ Halm,
supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree
with GLS in _quod_: _quo_ occurs in Harl. 4995 only.

§8.
quod quoque GH Halm, Meister: _quid quoque_ (as 7 §5) occurs in L S, also in
Bodl., Ball. For _quid_ Zumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723
and 7724 (Fierville). _Aptissimum_ (strangely mangled in most
codd.—e.g. _locis ita petissimum_ G) is given rightly in
Dorv.

§9.
omnibus enim fere verbis. This reading, ascribed by Meister to
Badius, and by Halm to ed. Colon. (1527), I have found in Harl.
4995 (A.D. 1470): _ferebis vel_ G
H: _fere rebus vel_ L S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis
Becher reports _fere verbis vel_.

intueri, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I find _interim
intueri_: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl., _interim
tueri_.

quae nitidiore in parte occurs first in ed. Col. 1527:
Vall.2 Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. shows _quae cultiore in
p._: GH _quaetidiorem in p._: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl. _quae
utiliore in p._

§10.
cum omnem, &c. _cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamus_
GH: _cum omnem enim_, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and
Krüger (3rd ed.), suggested _omnem enim sermonem a. pr.
accipimus_.

§11.
alia vero, Frotscher: _aliave_ GH: _aliaque_ Harl.
4995. This last Becher now prefers (_alia que_ Vall.: _alia
quae_ Regius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.

τροπικῶς quasi
tamen, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.): _tropicos
quare tam_ GH, _quare tamen_, later MSS. Halm obelized _quare
tamen_: Mayor only _quare_. Becher recommends _tamen_ by
itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) reads _tamen quasi_, and is
followed by Hild, who takes _quasi_ with _feruntur_ in the
sense of _referuntur_ (μεταφορά): Zumpt took it with _eundem
intellectum_. Gemoll approves of the exclusion of _quare_, which
he thinks must have arisen from a gloss _figurate_ (either marginal
or interlinear) on τροπικῶς. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks the _quare
tam_ of GHL a mutilation of the gloss _figurate_: _gurate_
and _quare tā_ are not far apart.

§12.
figurarum G (per compendium): _figuranus_ H. Kiderlin
suggests _mutuatione figurarum_, sc. _ostendimus_: after which
Quintilian continues ‘sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet.’ Cp. Cic. de
Or. iii. 156 translationes quasi mutuationes sunt. Kiderlin adds (Rhein.
Mus. 46, p. 14 note) that in iii. 4. 14 all MSS. wrongly give
_mutantes_ for _mutuantes_, and in i. 4. 7 A1 has
_mutamur_ for _mutuamur_.

§15.
hoc sunt exempla potentiora. _Hoc_ is a conj. of Regius
(also Vall.2), all the MSS. giving _haec_ (hec).
_Hoc_ appears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665.
It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who says
_quia_ stands too far away from _hoc_ to allow of such a
construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According
to him _haec exempla_ (those derived from _lectio_ and
_auditio_) are set over against those which one gets in theoretical
books and lectures: they are more telling, because they act directly on
the mind, and are not served up as dry theory in the form of extracts
(‘quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit’). He therefore understands
‘ipsis (exemplis) quae traduntur artibus,’ but admits that ‘etiam’ is
thus otiose, and would therefore read _quam ipsis quae traduntur
artibus_.

Schöll is supported by Hirt (Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin,
1882, p. 70), who thus gives the sense of the passage: ‘Der
Wortschatz wird durch Lektüre und vieles
189
Hören erworben. Aber nicht nur seinetwegen soll man lesen und hören; man
soll es auch noch aus einem anderen Grunde. In allem nämlich, was wir
lehren, sind diese Beispiele, d.h. diejenigen, welche uns die Lektüre
und der Vortrag bieten, wichtiger selbst als die Beispiele welche die
Handbücher und Vorlesungen darbieten, weil, was der Lehrer nur als
Forderung aufstellt, bei dem Redner That geworden ist und sich durch den
Erfolg bewährt hat.’

Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. vii. 1879, 2, p. 168) objects
that if Quintilian had wished to convey this meaning he would have said,
not _haec exempla_, but _hinc ducta (petita)_ or _quae hinc
ducuntur (petuntur) exempla_; and he rightly desiderates also _quam
quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus_. Meister also opposes Schöll
(Philol. xlii. p. 149): the order _quam ipsis quae traduntur
artibus_ is in fact impossible.

On the whole it seems much better to keep _hoc_, and to
understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: the
_doctor_ relies only on precept, the _orator_ on example.’

Gertz conjectures _nam omnium quaecunque docemus hinc_ (cp. v.
10. 5: xii. 2. 31) _sunt exempla, potentiora_ (i.e. _quae
potentiora sunt_) _etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus_. But with
_hinc_, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb than _sunt_
would be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. giving
_nihil_, and in xii. 2. 31 _hinc_ belongs to _bibat_ and
_sumptam_. Kiderlin himself at first proposed _haec praestant
exempla, potentiora_: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus.
46, p. 15) in favour of _haec suggerunt exempla, potentiora_,
&c. By _haec_ he understands _legere_ and _audire_,
and gives the sequence of thought as follows:—‘Aber wenn auch auf
diese Weise eine Fülle von Ausdrücken erworben wird, so ist das doch
nicht der einzige Zweck des Lesens und Hörens. Denn _von allem_ was
wir lehren (nicht nur von den Ausdrücken) liefert dieses (das Lesen und
Hören) Beispiele, welche noch wirksamer sind als die vorgetragenen
Theorieen selbst (wenn der Lernende so weit gefördert ist, dass er die
Beispiele ohne Beihilfe verstehen und sie bereits aus eigener Kraft
befolgen kann), weil der Redner das zeigt, was der Lehrer nur
vorgeschrieben hat.’ For _suggerere_ Kiderlin compares i. 10. 7
artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret
materiam interrogationi: cp. also §13 quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias
dabit lectio, and ii. 2. 8 licet satis exemplorum ad imitandum ex
lectione suppeditet.

§16.
imagine et ambitu rerum: so Harl. 2662 L S Ball. Burn. 243 and
Bodl.: followed by Spalding, Frotscher, Herbst, and Bonnell. GH give
_imagine ambitu rerum_. Halm (after Bursian) bracketed
_ambitu_: but it is more probable that _imagine_ is a gloss on
_ambitu_ than vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister
accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [_imagine_]
_ambitu rerum_. It seems just as likely, however, that _et_
has fallen out. Hertz suggested _imagine ambituve rerum_: Maehly
thinks that _ambitu_ was originally _tantum_.

nec fortune modo. Gertz proposed _nec forma modo_: pro
Mil. §1 movet nos forma ipsa et species veri iudicii.

§17.
accommodata ut: ed. Col. 1527, and so Meister and Krüger (3rd
ed.): _commodata ut_ Halm (after Bursian): _commoda ut_
Spald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS give _commoda aut_:
L and all my MSS _commoda ut_ (except Burn. 243 which shows
_comendat ut_).

et, ut semel dicam. Kiderlin would delete _et_, rendering
‘Stimme, Aktion, Vortrag ist, um es kurz zu sagen, alles in gleicher
Weise belehrend.’

§18.
placent—laudantur—placent: so Halm and most edd.,
following S, with which all my MSS. agree. The emphasis gained by the
opposition of _placent_ and _non placent_ makes this reading
probable. But GH give _laudetur_: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd
ed.) prefer to follow Regius in reading
_placeant—laudentur—placent_.

§19.
e contrario. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd.
vett.,’ occurs in
190
Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher
reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrote _contrarium_.

actionis impetu, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.): _actionis
impetus_ GH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s in
_impetus_ has been deleted): _ut actionis impetus_ Halm and
Meister.

tractemus GHL: _tractamus_ all my MSS.:
_retractemus_ Spald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii.
14. 429) supports _tractemus_, arguing that the phrase is a sort of
hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to
Lex. p. xxxviii), or that the _re_ of _repetamus_ is to be
supplied in thought with _tractemus_: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1
‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’ _Tractamus_ in 5 §8 also supports this
reading.

iteratione, Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: most MSS.
_altercatione_ (as G) or _alteratione_ (as Harl.
2662).

§22.
illud vero. The MSS. vary between _illa_ (GH) and
_illud_ (Harl. 4995 Vall.2). Kiderlin suggests _illa
... utilissima_.

§23.
Quin etiam si ... tamen: so all MSS.
Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to exclude
_quin_. Becher on the other hand objects (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887.
xv. 2, p. 9). From some points of view the deletion would be an
improvement: it would bring out better the chiastic arrangement,
_utilissimum ... utrimque habitas legere actiones_ and _easdem
causas ... utile erit scire_. But (1) such careless repetition
(_quin etiam—quin etiam_) is not unusual in Quint.: and
(2) _si_ when followed by _tamen_ often = _etiamsi_:
Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c.,
so that it is not necessary to connect _etiam_ with it like
_etiamsi ... tamen_ xi. 3. 48. The sentence (as recommending the
reading of the ‘minus pares actiones’) forms an exception to the rule
otherwise consistently followed, ‘non nisi optimus quisque legendus,’
&c.

Again Spalding, Bonnell, and Hild put the comma before, not after
_aliquae_, which they take with _requirentur_ (‘yet in some
cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque
habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any
idea of _selecting from_ the ‘minus pares.’

causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire, Halm and Meister
following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527: _causas utile erit scire_
Vall.: all other codd. _causas utrisque erit scire_. Meister thinks
_non inutile_ would be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage.
Gemoll suggests _causas ut plures egerint intererit scire_, Kaibel
_ut quisque egerit e re erit scire_. Perhaps (with Becher)
_causas ut quisque egerit intererit scire_.

Kiderlin’s treatment of the passage merits a separate notice. He
accepts the first _quin etiam_, as the reading of the MSS., and
also as quite appropriate to the context (‘in cases even where the
combatants are not equally matched—as were Demosthenes and
Aeschines’). But he doubts whether Quintilian could have written two
sentences running, each beginning with _quin etiam_, and relies
greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. have
_quis etiam_,—_quin_ being an emendation by Regius. The
MS. reading is _quis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire_: this
Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiam _illud utile neget_
(or, negat esse utile) easdem causas ut quisque egerit,
scire’?—comparing xii. 10. 48 ceterum hoc quod vulgo sententias
vocamus ... quis utile neget? But _ut quisque_ does not quite
satisfy him. In the sequel reference is made to cases in which two and
even three orators have handled the same theme: Kiderlin therefore
proposes _ut duo tresque_ for the MS. _utrisque_. The passage
would then run: ‘quis etiam _illud utile neget_ (negat esse utile?)
easdem causas u_t duo_ tr_e_sque (tresve?)
e_g_eri_n_t, scire?’ The position of _easdem causas_ is due to
a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position of _scire_ cp.
v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit
verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.

191
§28.
poeticam ostentationi comparatam. This is Schöll’s conj. for the
MSS. _genus ostent. comparatum_, which is however defended by
Becher in Bursian’s Jahresb. (1887), p. 40: he contends that the
feminine participles below (_adligata_, _depulsa_) refer to
_poesis_, present in the mind of the writer, and that the text of
the MSS. is simply a case of constr. κατὰ σύνεσιν: cp. ix. 2. 79: ib. 3 §3, and such
passages as Cic. Or. §68 ego autem etiamsi quorundam grandis et ornata
vox est poetarum, tamen in ea (sc. poesi), &c. This would support
also the traditional reading _nescio an ulla_ §65 below, where see note. Becher
explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent.
comp. (esse)—Halm prints _genus * * * ostent._, and
supposes that _poeseos_ has fallen out.—For _genus_ cp.
§68: de Or. ii. §55, where
_genus hoc_ = history.

Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian
cannot have passed from _genus_ to _adligata_: Halm’s _genus
poeseos_ is not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of
the word _poesis_ (cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there
only in A _in rasura_—GM giving _poetas_, which was
probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now read
_poetica_). The text may have been altered by interpolation from
viii. 3. 11: namque illud genus (sc. demonstrativum) ostentationi
compositum solam petit audientium voluptatem,—from which passage
_genus_ may have been written in where the Greek ποιητικήν had fallen out, giving rise
to comparat_um_. Meister, who adopts _poeticam_, thinks it
probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions
are _praeter id quod_, _genus ost. comp._, _sol. petit
vol._ (Hild),—a transposition which does no good, especially as
it leaves no subject to ‘iuvari’: _figurarum sed esse hoc eloquentiae
genus ost. comp. et ... iuvari_ (Binde); _fig._, _ingenuam
ost. comparatam artem_ (Gemoll); Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 164)
thinks we ought to assume a lacuna, and would read _poeticam (or
poesin?) ut illud demonstrativum genus_, _ostentationi
comparatam_: cp. ii. 10. 11: v. 10. 43: iii. 7. 28: viii. 3. 11.

§30.
neque ego: Spald., Frotscher, Herbst, Halm, Meister. _Neque
ergo_ all MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the
latter explaining _ergo_ ‘viz. because I have given this caution to
the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’

§31.
quodam uberi: Spald. for _quodam moveri_ of GH and all MSS.
except Harl. 4995, Vail.2 and Burn. 243, which give _quodam
molli_. Kiderlin suggests _quodammodo uberi_, thinking that
_uberi_ became _ueri_, while the letters _mo_ (in
_moveri_) point to _modo_: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A has
_quomo_ for _quomodo_, and xi. 3. 97 where b has _homo_
for _hoc modo_. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which have
_moveri_) I find _quodammodo vero_.

est enim, H, which (like G) has _est_ also
after _solutum_. Halm adopts Osann’s conjecture _etenim_:
Kiderlin suggests _ea enim_ or _ista enim_, which may be
right. Becher defends the double _est_ (GH), comparing ix.
3. 7 quod minus mirum est, quia in natura verborum est, and i. 3. 14
(reading servile est et ... iniuria est).

poetis, H, following b: _poesi_ Spald. ‘recte ut
videtur,’ Halm.

§33.
adde quod, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.).
_audeo quia_ GH; _audio quia_ L S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662,
&c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj. _ideoque_: and the Bonn. Meister
ed. reads _adeo_. Becher proposes _quid? quod_: Kiderlin _id
eo magis (fortius) dicere audeo_. The last conj. revives what I find
is the reading of some old edd. (e.g. ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570)
_quod dicere fortius audeo quia_, except that from _id eo_ the
eye might pass more easily to _audeo_.

opus, accepted from Spalding (who conjectured it
independently) by Halm and Meister, already appears in ed. Col. 1527 and
in that of Riccius 1570.

§34.
rerum exemplorumque. Kiderlin suspects a lacuna after
_rerum_ and suggests _ex cognitione rerum enim venit copia
exemplorum_. His argument is that
192
while ‘ex cognitione rerum’ might serve as a sort of explanation of ‘ex
historiis,’ ‘exemplorumque’ must also be accounted for, and that after
‘locum’ we expect to hear what advantage is derived from historical
literature, not from what that advantage arises. The omission by a
copyist of _enim venit copia_ explains how _exemplorum_ comes
to be joined with _rerum_: cp. xii. 4. 1 in primis vero abundare
debet orator exemplorum copia cum veterum tum etiam novorum, and esp.
ii. 4. 20 et multa inde cognitio rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in
omni genere potentissima, iam tum instruit, cum res poscet, usurum. For
_ne omnia_ (Badius and Vall.2) the codd. give _nec
omnia_, which Becher prefers.

§35.
vitio factum est oratorum. G gives _est orum_ with _al.
oratorum_ written in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with
FTLS Bodl.) gives _est alia oratorum_,—one of many strong
indications that it was copied from G: for _alia_ some MSS. give
_alias_. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks that _orum_ in G may
have stood for _rhetorum_.

quae sunt istis. GHLS and Vall. all give _sint_. But
iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.

Stoici supplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin
would place it after _maxime_, just as _Socratici_ stands
after _optime_. Perhaps _Stoici_ and _Socratici_ are both
glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves
the matter of oratory (_de iustis_, &c.) and also the form (by
_altercationes_ and _interrogationes_). _Stoici_ looks
appropriate to _de rebus divinis_ (see note): and _argumentantur
acriter_ is quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned
for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the
other hand _interrogationibus_ would be as apt in regard to them as
to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum
suarum atque _interrogationum_ laqueis te inretitum tenerent.

On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note,
_altercationibus_ and _interrogationibus_ are taken as datives
(as often in Quint. after _praeparo_), referring to two
well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As
regards the _altercatio_ indeed, previous writers on rhetoric had
not stated any special rules for its conduct, probably (as Quint., in
his treatment of the subject, suggests vi. 4. 1) because it was
sufficiently covered by precepts of a more general kind. In a
court-of-law, the _altercatio_ was a discussion carried on between
opposing advocates in the way of short answers or retorts: it followed
(when resorted to) the examination of the witnesses, which was in Roman
usage _preceded_ by the main speeches for the prosecution and
defence, embracing all the facts of the case (Cic. in Verr. i. 1 §55).
Cp. Cic. Brut. §159 iam in altercando (Crassus) invenit parem
neminem.—See Poiret, _L’éloquence judiciaire à Rome_
pp. 212-216.

§37.
qui sint legendi. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS. _qui sint.
Legendi_ appears in ed. Col. 1527, and I have found it also inserted
by a later hand above the line in the Bodleian codex. It may have fallen
out because of _legendo_ above, and Spalding is probably right in
regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for
eliminating the asyndeton by reading _et quae_ (with Meister) or
_quaeque_ (Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that
the original may have run _qui sint qui prosint_: cp. 2 §14 tum in ipsis quos
elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid
sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantum
_utilitatis_ in legendo iudicemus, and §40 paucos enim ... utilitatis
aliquid. Cp. ii. 5. 20 nec prodesse tantum sed etiam amari potest
(Cicero).

§38.
[quibuscum vivebat] is bracketed by Krüger (3rd ed.), as it had
already been by Frotscher and Herbst. This reading first appears in the
Aldine edition: the only MS. in which I have been able to find any trace
of it is Burn. 243, where _quibuscum convivebat_ is inserted as a
correction. Some have refused to recognise it as a gloss, in spite of
the uncertainty of the MSS., and have sought to interpret it ‘with whom
he lived in close, familiar intercourse’ (opp. to quos viderim §§98, 118): cp. Cic. de
193
Off. i. §143 quibuscum vivimus, ib. §46. But in Brut. §231 Cicero
distinctly says in hoc sermone nostro statui neminem eorum qui viverent
nominare, whence Jeep was led to conj. _qui quidem viverent_:
Hortensius, for example, was ‘aetatis suae,’ but had died four years
before the date of the Brutus. So Geel conjectured _qui tum
vivebant_ (a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527
and Riccius 1570): Törnebladh _qui quidem tum vivebant_, Wrobel
_qui tunc vigebant_ (cp. §122), Zambaldi _ut quisque tum
vivebat_, and Kiderlin _qui quidem nondum e vita excesserant_;
see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to read _qui quidem
sescenti erant_.

G (and practically H) gives _quidqui convivebit_. FT part
company with H, the former reading _quod quid convivabit_, the
latter _quidque contuuebit_ (man. sec. _quod quisque
contuebat_). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) have
_quid quisque convivebat_ (_convivabit_ L). The
Carcassonensis gives _quid quod convivabit_.

persequamur [et philosophos]. _Persequamur_ is a conj. of
Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. give _et Graecos omnes et
philosophos_ (_philosophis_ HFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is dated
A.D. 1470) I have however found
_et philosophos exequar_: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The
reading of the ed. Col. 1527 is _Graecos omnes et philosophos et
poetas persequi velim_.

Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejected _et philosophos_ as a gloss,
as both here and in the next sentence Quint. is evidently speaking of
orators only. Certainly, if it stood, we should expect the poets and
historians to come in also. Accordingly Claussen (Quaest. Quint.
p. 335) suspected a lacuna consisting both of the finite verb and
the poets and historians: Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts his conjecture and
reads _si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur
et poetas et historicos et philosophos?_ He cps. 1 §25 nam si, quantum de quaque re
dici potest, persequamur, finis operis non reperietur: v. 10. 91: viii.
5. 25. So Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 520), except that he omits
‘persequamur,’ and proposes to read above _de Romanis tantum_ et
_oratoribus_ for _et_ in sense of ‘and that’: cp. §§51, 94. Gertz suggests _et Graecos omnes
persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et
philosophos_. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.)
prefers _persequamur_ because of _iudicemus_ and
_adiungamus_ above. If the verb could be dispensed with, he would
propose ‘et praeter hos oratores etiam omnes poetas et historicos et
philosophos,’—arguing that et praeter hos and philosophos may have
run together in the eye of the copyist and so caused the lacuna. For
_et philosophos_ Jeep suggested _explico novos_.

§39.
fuit igitur, all codd.: _fuerit_, Regius. That the
difficulty of the passage was felt by the early editors is obvious from
this emendation, and also from the fact that in §40 the traditional reading has been
_non est tamen_ (for _non est_): _sed non est_, Spalding:
_at non est_ Osann.

Taking §§37-45
as they stand the sequence of thought seems to be
this: ‘If I am asked to recommend individual writers I shall have to
take refuge in some such utterance as that of Livy. His _dictum_
was “read Demosthenes and Cicero first, and let others follow in the
order of their resemblance to Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mine is that
there is some good to be got out of almost every author,—except of
course the utterly worthless. But (_sed non quidquid_, &c. §42) the particular object I
have in view itself supplies a limitation for what would otherwise be an
endless task (_infiniti operis_ §37). My business is the formation of
style. In regard to this matter there is a difference of opinion—a
cleavage between the old school and the new (see esp. §43). This opens up the whole question of the
various _genera dicendi_, a detailed examination of which I must
postpone: for the present I shall take the various departments of
literature (_genera lectionum_ §45) and mention in connection
therewith certain representative writers who may serve as models for the
students of style (_(iis) qui confirmare facultatem dicendi
volent_).’

This seems satisfactory enough, especially in the case of so loose a
writer as Quintilian.
194
§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical: §39 says ‘Livy’s prescription was the
safest,’ while §40 gives a
general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverance
_brevitas_ is meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of
individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and
philosophy.

In his _Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians
Institutio Oratoria_ (Cassel, 1889), Dr. Heinrich Peters makes some
very drastic proposals in regard to the sections under discussion. He
fails to see any satisfactory connection between the purport of §§40-42 and that of §§37-39. And he thinks the statement
of a _summa iudicii_ in §40 is inconsistent with the special
treatment of individual authors which begins at §46. On these and other grounds he
proposes to transfer §§40-42 (down to _accommodatum_) to §44 and read: _interim non est
dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa_. _Summa iudicii_ then
furnishes the antithesis to _disseram diligentius_: _nostri
quoque iudicii_ receives additional point from the reference to
conflicting views which immediately precede it: an explanation is gained
of the emphasis laid in §§40-41 on the distinction between the
_veteres_ and the _novi_,—the later sections §§43-44 explain the preceding
(§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in §39 to _verum antequam de
singulis_ in §42 is
natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue: _quid
sumat_ (for _summatim_, see below) _et a qua lectione petere
possit qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volet attingam_. This gives
a very satisfactory and even a necessary sequel, he thinks, to _non
quidquid ... accommodatum_. Sections 40-42 are then addressed, not to the
student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the
comparative merits of the _veteres_ and the _novi_: Quintilian
says ‘something may be learned from everybody.’ Then he continues ‘for
the formation of style a selection is necessary, and that I now proceed
to make under the two heads of what the student is to appropriate and to
whom he is to go for it.’

quae est apud Livium, &c. Schöll unnecessarily conjectured
_qua praecipit Livius_ (cp. ii. 5. 20) or _qua apud Livium in ep.
ad fil. praescribitur_,—doubting if _brevitas_ could have
an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G gives _quae
apud Livium epistula_, _in_ being inserted by the second hand,
which H as usual follows.

§42.
ad faciendam φράσιν. This is the reading now proposed by
Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), though φράσιν appeared as early as the edition
of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readings _ad farisin_
G: _ad faciendam etiam ad farisin_ H (_affaresim_ S. Harl.
2662 Bodl. Ball. _apharesim_ Harl. 4295) _ad faciendam
affarisin_ L. Meister adopts the vulgate, _ad faciendam etiam
phrasin_: Halm reads _ad phrasin_.

The parallel passage in §87 clearly makes for
_faciendam_. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally
written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp. ἕξις in §1: §59: 5 §1, where the MSS. vary between
_ex his_, _lexis_, _exitum_, &c.: τροπικῶς §11. Cp. on §87. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt)
show ἀφέρεσιν.
_Etiam_ Kiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may be
_protinus_ et _ad faciendam_ φράσιν.

de singulis loquar, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omits
_loquar_, with G.

§44.
tenuia atque quae. In a very interesting note (Programm des
königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, 1891, p. 8) Becher establishes
the correctness of this reading, instead of the traditional _tenuia et
quae_. The Vallensis has _tenuia atque que_ (i.e. _atque
quae_): for what may appear a cacophony, Becher compares i. 3. 8
atque ea quoque quae, Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 33. 90 atque qui. ‘That V
(Vall.) has preserved the true reading is confirmed by the other
codices: not only S, which gives _tenia atque que_, but also GL
[and H], _tenui atque_, which is nothing else than tenui
AtQUE, i.e. tenuia atque quae.’ In the Rh. Mus. xi. (‘zur Kritik
der ciceronischen Briefe’ pp. 512-13) Buecheler says, ‘One of the
commonest sources of corruption in the Florentine codex is that when two
“consonant syllables” follow each other, one is omitted. The
195
reason of this phenomenon is probably the fact that in the archetype of
which this MS. is an indirect copy the sounds which were to be repeated
were distinguished by letters of a larger size.’ Becher finds the same
phenomenon in the manuscripts of Quintilian, and gives the following
examples, selected at random from many others: §45 aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e.
aliQUOS = aliquos quos: §54 reddit G(H)V, i.e.
redDIt = reddidit (so cod. Almen.): §79 auditoris S (audituris G,
also H), i.e. auditorIs = auditoriis (as Vall. M: also Ball.
Dorv. Burn. 244 Harl. 4829, 4995): ibid. comparat GMS (and all my codd.)
i.e. compARat = compararat: §84 probandoque G (and H) =
probandoQUE: §89
etiam sit G (see Crit. Note _ad loc._) = etiam SIt. Especially
significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. o
fortuNATAM me consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground
for _atque_, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’
more closely than _et_, in the fact that already in Cicero
_tenuis_ is used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de
multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.

lenis ... generis. For _lenis_ Krüger (3rd ed.) reads
_levis_, adopting a conj. of Meyer (Halm ii. p. 369) for which
cp. §52 (levitas verborum)
and v. 12. 18 (levia ac nitida): supported by Becher Phil. Runds. iii.
14. 430. In this sense _levis_ (λεῖος) is opp. to _asper_: cp. de Orat. iii. §171
struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed
quodam modo coagmentatus et _levis_: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint.
ii. 5. 9 _levis_ et quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas
coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.

interim. H. Peters would prefer _nunc_ (if the text
stands as it is), comparing v. 11. 5; 14. 33: ix. 4. 19.

summatim quid et a qua. Kiderlin approves of Meister’s
retention of the vulgate: _petere_ must have an object. So Krüger,
3rd ed. The original reading in G is _sumat et a qua_, corrected to
_sumat quia et a qua_, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my
other MSS. agree with S in reading _summa_ for _sumat_. Even
if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would
prefer _quid sumat et a qua_, as nearer the MSS.

§45.
paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed.
have _paucos_ (_sunt enim em._) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc.
tantum) §91. Halm reads
_paucos enim_ (_sunt autem em._) GH give _paucos enim sunt
em_. L and the British Museum MSS. all read _paucos sunt
enim_. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and
approved by Kiderlin: cp. §101 qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37
quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposed _paucos enim_, _sunt
enim_.

his simillimi, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares §39: _his similes_ Meister and
Krüger (3rd ed.). G has _hi similibus_, corrected by the same
hand to _simillimis_: H gives _his simillimis_: all the
other MSS. _his simillimi_.

plures is the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and
also Vall. (Becher). GHFT give _plurimis_: LS and the later MSS.
generally _plurimos_. Kiderlin proposes _pluris iis_ as being
nearer _plurimis_. The pronoun, he argues, is not superfluous,
because Quintilian is distinguishing between ‘qui confirmare fac. dic.
volent’ (i.e. those who have finished their rhetorical studies and want
practice) and the ‘studiosi’ (young men busy with theory). The latter
will read more authors than those for whom _this_ book is intended,
its aim being (§4) to instruct the young orator (after the stage of
theory) how best and most readily to use what he has acquired.—For
_aliquos quos_ see on _tenuia atque quae_ §44 above.

qui a me nominabuntur, ed. Col. 1527; GH have _quia
nom_.: Vall. LS _qui nom_. Hertz rejects _a me_, and he may
be right.

§46.
omnium fluminum. GHL Bodl. _annium_: S Harl. 2662, 4950,
Ball. _amnium vim_. Halm, following Osann, read _omnium
amnium_: but though _omnium_ is necessary (cp. πάντες ποταμοί Il. 21. 196),
Quintilian would surely have avoided such
196
a cacophony as _omnium amnium_. Wölfflin conjectured _omnium
fluminum_ (Rhein. Mus. 42, Pt. 1, 1887, p. 144), and this is now
accepted by Meister (vol. ii. p. 362 and Pref. to Book x,
p. xiii). Wölfflin supposes that the archetype had _omnium
fontiumque_, _fluminum_ having fallen out: _omnium_ was
then corrected into _amnium_. _Amnis_ however is rare, and
_fluminum_ not only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly
found: cp. §78 puro fonti
quam magno flumini propior: viii. 3. 76 magnorum fluminum navigabiles
fontes: Lucr. iv. 1024: v. 261, 945 (‘fluvii fontesque’): Ovid Met. i.
334.

§47.
ac consiliorum L: _hac con._ G: _et con._ Prat. Put.
_atque con._ 7231, 7696.

§48.
operis sui ingressu: _operis si ingressus_ GH: _operis
sui_ Bodl.: _operis_ Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv.
Ball. Badius conj. _ingressu_, and Halm added _in_, which is
however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4
initiis operum suorum. Becher keeps _ingressus_, but makes it a
genitive dependent on _versibus_.

Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) give _nam_ for
_non_, and in the former case the _nam_ looks very like
_viam_. It is possible that _viam_ may be the true reading:
cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca
dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on the
_regular treatment_ of a subject. _Age vero_ is not always
found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Without _non_, the
reading may possibly be _age vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in
paucissimis_, &c. The _si_ after _operis_ may have
arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous for
_ingressus_, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc.
vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong. _Utrumque opus
ingressus_ would have been more natural: _viam utriusque operis
ingressus_ is not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable
to keep the question and read _nonne viam ut. op. ingressus_.

nam benevolum. _nam et ben_, Put. 7231, 7696: so too the
Carcassonensis.

§49.
ceteraque genera. GHL and the Brit. Mus. MSS. give _ceteraque
quae_: so too Bodl. and Ball. _Genera_ was conjectured by Caesar
(Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposes
_ceteraeque viae ... multae_: Kiderlin _ceteraque, quae probandi
ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?_ For _quae
... sunt_ he compares §106 omnia denique quae sunt
inventionis.

§50.
ut magni sit. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.: _sint_ H: _ut
magni sit viri_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950,
4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (_sint_ L): _ut magnum sit_,
Gensler: _ut magni sit spiritus_, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).

§51.
et in omni: _et_ om. Prat. and Put.

clarissima LS and most codd.: _durissima_ GHT Prat. Put.
7231, 7696, Dorv.

§52.
utiles circa praecepta, &c. Kraffert proposed _utilis circa
praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum_ ... With _praecepta_
may there not have been a genitive in the original text: _utilis circa
praecepta sapientiae_ (pr. §19: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhaps
_utiles circa morum praecepta sententiae_ (xii. ii. 9)?

§53.
secundum Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv.
Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, gives _parem_ (cp. §127 pares ac saltem proximo):
_aequalem_ would be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in §55. Schöll now thinks
_secundum_ an old interpolation, and conjectures _quam sit aliud
atque aliud proximum esse_, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.

§54.
poetarum iudices Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball. _iudicium_
G, _iuditium_ H. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced
from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis §109) and Mayor removed it from the
text.

reddidit cod. Almen.: _reddit_ GHFT Vall. Harl. 4995
Bodl. Burn. 243. _Edidit_ is given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl.
2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.

sufficit MSS.: Halm would prefer _suffecit_ (cp. §123). For _parem_ many MSS.
197
give _equalem_, which must have been a gloss: S has _equalem
credidit parem_, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd. p. lxxix) Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) and 11671 (A.D. 1467).

§56.
Macer atque Vergilius. Unger suggested _Valgius_ for
Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to
insert the comma after _Vergilius_ instead of after _idem_
below.

§59.
adsequimur GHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and
British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’s _assequatur_
and 4829 which has _assecuntur_). Halm reads _adsequamur_, and
is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes _ut
adsequamur_.

§60.
quibusdam quod quoquam minor est. GH give _quibus_ for
quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. have _quibusdam quod quidem
minor est_: (_minoris_ Bodl. Burn. 243): _quod quodam_
7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposes _quod
idem amarior est_: _amarus_ (§117) indicates the excess of
_acerbitas_ (§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for
his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. But
_quoquam_ (Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that there
_is_ any one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the
range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s
mind. _Quoquam_ is not to be restricted to the narrow circle of
iambic writers, otherwise _materiae_ would have no point.
Quintilian means that Archilochus must be ranked immediately after
Homer, if indeed the disadvantage of his subject-matter forbids us to
place him alongside of Homer. That he had a schoolmaster’s liking for an
‘order of merit’ is shown by §§53, 62, 85, 86.

§61.
spiritu, magnificentia, Put. 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671,
Dorv.: _spiritus_ H (_sps._) Prat. 7231 Harl. 4950 Burn. 243
Bodl. Ball., and so Halm and Meister. The strongest argument for the
abl. is that the nouns go together in pairs,—spiritu
magnificentia, sententiis figuris, copia ... flumine. So Claussen
(Quaest. Quint. p. 334), who compares Dion. Hal. ἀρχ. κρ. 2. 5, p. 420 R
ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ
μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ
σχηματισμῶν.

§62.
Stesichorum Badius: _iste sichorus_ GH: _Stesichorus_
Bodl. 7696: _Stesicorus_ Harl. 4995: other MSS. _Terpsichorus_
or _Terpsicorus_.

§63.
magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: GH
_magnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis_; so Burn.
243 and Bodl. (_orationi_); most other MSS. _et diligens
plurimusque_ (_plurimum_ or _plurimumque_) _Homero
similis_: _plurimumque oratio_, Prat. Put.: _plerumque
orationis_ 7231, 7696. Halm gives _dicendi vi_, which, after
_in eloquendo_, would be strange. Wölfflin proposes _elegans
et_ (for dicendi et, diligens et): cp. §§78, 83, 87, 93, 114, and Dion. Hal. l.c. Ἀλκαίου δὲ σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετὰ δεινότητος
... καὶ πρὸ πάντων τὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων ἦθος. Halm’s
_dicendi vi_ rested on μετὰ δεινότητος, but we need not suppose that
Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius. With _in eloquendo_,
_diligens_ seems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo
positum oratoris officium.

Sed et lusit, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3: _sed et eius sit_
GH: _sed in lusus_ MS Ball. Dorv.: _sed editus sit_ Bodl.

§64.
eius operis: _ei_ GH: _eius_ M Bodl. Burn. 243:
_eiusdem_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829,
Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order is _in hac parte
omnibus eum eiusdem operis_.

§65.
est et in. The MSS. give _etsi est_: Wölfflin conjectured
_est et_, and Halm, (following some old edd.) inserted _in_,
comparing §§64 and 68. So too Meister. _Etsi_ may
have crept into the text to anticipate _tamen_ (ii. 5. 19): or the
true reading may be _est et etsi in_. Schöll suggests (Krüger, 3rd
ed. p. 92) that the passage ought to run as follows:—_ant.
com. cum sincera illa sermonis Attici gratia prope sola retinet_
198
_vim_ (_dum_ G, _tum_ vulg.) _fac. libertatis, et si
est in insect. vitiis praecip._, _plur. tamen_, &c.

nescio an ulla. This is the reading of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696,
M, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 11671, Dorv. Ball., and if it can be
sustained, the sense it gives is quite satisfactory. We must suppose
that _poesis_ (probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was
present in the writer’s mind: see on _poeticam_ §28 above.

But in Quint. _poesis_ occurs only once (cp. on §28),—at xii. 11. 26, where it
is not used of a special branch of poetry, as here; and even there a
doubt has been expressed about the reading. Kiderlin therefore urges
(Hermes 23, p. 163) that it is incredible that Quintilian would
have left his readers to supply for themselves a word which he uses only
once, if at all: _ullum genus_ would surely have occurred to him,
as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of
literature. Again the text gives _post_ not _praeter_ Homerum.
Founding on the reading _an illa_ (GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin
therefore suggests _an illa poeta ullo post_ &c.: ‘und ich
weiss nicht, ob nicht jene mehr als irgend ein Dichter (nach Homer
jedoch, &c.).’ The copyist would easily wander from _poet._ to
_post_, and it is not unusual to compare old comedy &c. with
the poets and not their works (cp. similior oratoribus: historia proxima
poetis est §31: at non
historia cesserit Graecis §101); especially as here _post
Homerum_ follows at once. For _ullo_ cp. §60 quod quoquam minor est. An
alternative emendation would be _poesi ulla_.

The _aut ... aut_ immediately below is very much against this
conjecture, which however Krüger (3rd ed.) has received into the text:
we should expect rather _nescio an illa quisquam_, or _nullus
poeta_, or keeping _illa_ as nominative _nescio an illa poeta
ullo_. Quintilian’s use of _nescio an_ (like that of
post-Augustan writers generally) is vague: it is usually an expression
of doubt, the _an_ meaning either ‘whether,’ or ‘whether not’
indifferently. Cp. ix. 4. 1: vi. 3. 6: viii. 6. 22: xii. 10. 2: i. 7.
24. (Mayor cites also Plin. Ep. i. 14. 9: iii. 1. 1: iv. 2. 1: v. 3. 7:
vi. 21. 3: vii. 10. 3: 19. 4: viii. 16. 3: ix. 2. 5; and adds ‘In all
these instances _nescio an_ (dubito an) is ‘I doubt whether’; in
Cicero the meaning is always ‘I rather think.’’) Andresen proposed
_nescio an ulla poeseos pars_. The passage closely resembles §28, and must be emended on the
same lines.

§66.
tragoedias. Thurot (Revue de Phil. 1880, iv. 1, p. 24)
conjectured _tragoediam_: cp. §67 hoc opus. He is followed by
Dosson, against all MS. authority. Becher points out that we must supply
with _hoc opus_ in §67
the words ‘tragoedias in lucem proferendi,’ so that _opus_ and
_tragoedias_ square well enough with each other.

§68.
quod ipsum reprehendunt, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) and Becher.
This reading also occurs in the Codex Dorvilianus. Other readings are
_quod ipsum quod_ GHT Burn. 243, Bodl.: _quo ipsum_ MS Harl.
2662, 4995, 4950, Ball. Halm conjectured _quem ipsum quoque_, and
was followed by Mayor and Hild. But as no fault has been found with
Euripides in the foregoing, _quoque_ seems out of place.

Founding on the reading of GHT, &c., also on that of F (which
gives _quod ipsum qui_) Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 165) proposes
to read _quod ipsum quidam_, comparing §98, where for _quem senes quem_
(GT) Spalding rightly conjectured _quem senes quidem_, and 7, §21, where Bn, Bg give
_quod_ for _quosdam_. He then goes on, in an interesting
paper, to reconstruct the whole passage, which is open to suspicion,
especially in respect that _sublimior_ stands as predicate with
_gravitas_ and _cothurnus_, as well as with _sonus_. The
admirers of Sophocles consider his elevation of tone more appropriate
than the strain of Euripides. _Sublimior_ is therefore perhaps
_not_ the predicate of the sentence, however suitable it may be as
the attribute of _sonus_. The predicate may have dropped out, and
_sublimior_ may have been transferred from its real place to supply
it. It is striking that GFTM (also H and Bodl.) all give _sublimior
erit_. Kiderlin imagines that a copyist who missed the predicate
wrote in the margin ‘sublimior erit ponendum
199
post esse’: and then another inserted _sublimior erit_ after
_esse_ in the text. For the predicate, _magis accommodatus_
might stand: in copying, the eye may have wandered from _magis
accommodatus_ to _magis accedit_: for _magis accomm._ cp.
ii. 5. 18 and x. 1. 79. Kiderlin therefore boldly proposes to make the
parenthesis run, ‘quod ipsum quidam reprehendunt quibus gravitas et
cothurnus et sublimior sonus Sophocli videtur esse magis accommodatus’:
‘was gerade manche tadeln, welchen das Würdevolle, der Kothurnus, und
der erhabenere Ton des Sophokles angemessener zu sein scheint.’

et dicendo ac respondendo 7231, 7696: _dicendo ac
respondo_ GH: _in dicendo et in respondendo_ Prat. Put. S (_et
respondendo_ M).

praecipuus. Hunc admiratus maxime est. This is Meister’s
reading, except that for _eum_ I give (with Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
Harl. 2662 and 4995) _hunc_, which is commoner in Quint. at the
beginning of a sentence (§§46, 78, 91, 112). The following are the
readings of the MSS.: GH _praecipuus et admiratus miratus_: M Bodl.
Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, C, Burn. 243 Ball. Dorv. _praecipuus et
admirandus_: S _praecipuum. Nunc admiratus et_: Prat. Put. Harl.
2262 and 11671 _praecipuus hunc admiratus et maxime est ut saepe test.
et sec. quamvis_: Harl. 4995, _hunc admiratus max. ut s. test. et
eum secutus quamquam_. Halm gives _praecipuus est. Admiratus maxime
est_: Kiderlin insists on the _est_ after _praecipuus_, to
correspond with _accedit_, though it seems better to take all that
comes after _accedit_ as an explanation of the statement _magis
accedit oratorio generi_: he also retains the _et_ of most MSS.
and reads _praecipuus est. hunc et admiratus_ (Blätter f. d. bayer.
Gymn. 24, p. 84). Wölfflin (partly followed by Krüger 3rd ed.)
proposed a more radical change (Rhein. Mus. 1887, 2 H. p. 313)
_praecipuus. Hunc imitatus_, quoting in support of the conjunction
_imitatus ... secutus_ §122, eos iuvenum imitatur et
sequitur industria: 5 §19, deligat quem sequatur,
quem imitetur: Ovid, Fasti v. 157, ne non imitata maritum esset et ex
omni parte secuta virum. But Kiderlin (l.c.) aptly remarks that if
Quintilian had written _imitatus_, he would not have said _ut
saepe testatur_ but _ut ex multis locis patet_ (_apparet,
videmus_): while vii. 4. 17 (on which Wölfflin relies) is not really
to the point. Moreover Quintilian, would never have separated such
synonyms as _imitatus_ and _secutus_ by _ut saepe
testatur_.

Charisi nomini addicuntur, Frotscher: _Charis in homine
adductura_ GH: _Charisii nomine eduntur_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
Harl. 2662 Dorv.

§70.
aut illa iudicia Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 4995. GH Harl. 4950
give _aut illa mala iudicia_: Bodl. Burn. 243 _aut alia mala
iud._ S Harl. 2662 Dorv. and Ball. _aut alia iudicia._ The edd.,
following Gesner, have generally given (with Harl. 4950) _aut illa
mala iudicia_ (so Halm and Meister), and have taken _mala_ as
predicate, though the order of the words makes that impossible. Becher
approves of Andresen’s deletion of _mala_. Krüger (3rd ed.) prints
_mala [illa] iudicia_, thinking that _illa_ arose by
dittography, and that then the order was changed in the codd. to _illa
mala iudicia_. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23) gives as an alternative to
deleting _mala_ the conjecture _illa simulata iudicia_ (‘jene
erdichteten nachgemachten Gerichtsverhandlungen’; cp. xi. 1. 56: cum
etiam hoc genus simulari litium soleat). A similar mutilation
occurs, e.g., xi. 1. 20, where b gives _secum_ M _secus_
instead of _consecutum_.

§71.
filiorum militum, most codd.: _filiorum maritorum militum_
Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S.

§72.
si cum venia leguntur. The reading of the MSS. is upheld by Iwan
Müller, Meister, and Kiderlin. Spalding suggested _cum verecundia_:
Schöll _cum iudicio_: Becher _cum ingenio_. Becher points out
(Bursians Jahresb. 1887) that the expression is meant to cover
_decerpere_ as well as _legere_, and _decerpere_
indicates careful and intelligent reading (cp. §69, _diligenter_ lectus): _cum
ingenio_ = ‘mit Verstand’: cp. Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 10. 2 quod
versabatur in hoc studio nostro .. et cum ingenio .. nec sine industria:
Ulp. Dig. 1. 16. 9 patientem esse proconsulem oportet, sed cum
200
ingenio, ne contemptibilis videatur. Finally, Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes
_cum acumine_ or _cum vigilantia_ (cp. v. 7. 10).—Prat.
Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662 all give Osann’s conjecture
_legantur_.

prave GH Harl. 4995, 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl.: _pravis_
Regius, Halm, Meister, Becher draws attention to the parallelism between
the clauses: _ut prave praelatus est sui temporis iudiciis, ita merito
creditur_ (= meruit credi) _secundus consensu omnium_.

§76.
nec quod desit ... nec quod redundet: H Burn. 243 and Bodl. give
_quod .. quod_: Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244,
Dorv. C, and Ball, _quid .. quid_. The latter reading is supported
by Becher (Phil. Rund. iii. 434). For _quod_ cp. xii. 10. 46: (xii.
1. 20 where for _quod adhuc_ BM give _quid adhuc_): on the
other hand, in vi. 3. 5 the MSS. are in favour of _quid_, though
Halm reads _quod_ (followed by Meister). For _quid_ cp. Cic.
pro Quint. §41, neque praeterea quid possis dicere invenio.

§77.
grandiori similis. So all MSS.: Halm and Meister. Several
conjectural emendations have been put forward. Comparing 2 §16 (fiunt pro grandibus
tumidi), Becher suggests _grandi oratori_,—an easy change, if
the copyist used contractions, but without point: above in §74, ‘oratori magis similis’ is
appropriate enough in speaking of _historians_, but ‘oratori’ would
be inappropriate here. This is accepted, however, by Hirt (Berl. Jahr.
ix., 1883, p. 312; cp. P. Hirt, Subst. des Adjectivums,
p. 12). Schöll proposes to read _gladiatori_ similis, in view
of the close connection with what follows, strictus ... carnis ...
lacertorum: but _plenior_ and _magis fusus_ are a bad
introduction to _gladiatori_, and if Aeschines had _plus
carnis_ and _minus lacertorum_, he cannot really have resembled
a gladiator. This reading is, however, adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.).
Finally, Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 166 sq.) has conjectured _et
grandi_ (or _grandiori_) _organo similis_, and applies the
figure throughout: ‘voller und breiter lässt Aeschines den Ton
hervorströmen, einem grossen Musikinstrumente gleich’: ‘einer Orgel
gleich,’—he is _grandisonus_. The translation appears to
limit unnecessarily the meaning of _plenus_ and _fusus_:
though the former is used of tone i. 11. 6 (cp. xi. 3. 15 of the voice:
ib. §§42, 62: and §55 of the breath): while _fusus_ is used of the
voice xi. 3. 64. For such a use of _grandis_ cp. §58 (cenae): §88 (robora): xi. 2. 12 (convivium):
3. 15 (vox): 68 (speculum): and for _organum_, i. 10. 25: ix. 4.
10: xi. 3. 20 (where there is a comparison between the throat and a
musical instrument): probably also i. 2. 30. There is an antithesis in
the two parts of the sentence between fulness and breadth, on the one
hand, and real strength on the other; and for the transition to the
second figure Kiderlin compares §33.

§78.
nihil enim est inane: perhaps ‘nihil enim est _in eo_ inane’
(Becher), or _nihil enim inest_.

§79.
honesti studiosus. Becher’s proposal to alter the punctuation of
this passage is discussed in the note _ad loc._—For
_auditoriis_ and _compararat_, see on _tenuia atque quae_
§44, above.

§80.
quem tamen. Kiderlin, in Hermes (23, p. 168), raises a
difficulty here. _Tamen_ shows that the clause cannot go with the
main statement (_fateor_), and its position forbids us to take it
with the _quamquam is primum_ clause: it can only go with _quod
ultimus est_, &c., ‘though Demosthenes is _ultimus fere_,
&c., _yet_ Cicero, &c.’ To prevent so awkward a joining of
the clauses, Kiderlin proposes to read _eumque tamen_: pointing out
that the _quae_ of the MSS. (GH) may have arisen out of _que_,
and that Quintilian may have written _eumque_; cp. vi. 2. 13, where
Halm makes _utque_ out of _quae_ (G), and xi. 2. 32, where
Meister reads _estque_. The meaning will then be: Demetrius is
worthy of record as being about the last, &c., and yet Cicero gives
him the first place in the _medium genus_.—It seems better,
however, to give _tamen_ a general reference: ‘yet, in spite of all
that can be said on the other side’ (e.g., inclinasse eloquentiam
dicitur). Cp. §99 quae tamen
sunt in hoc genere elegantissima.

201
§81.
prosam (prorsam) orationem et all MSS.; Halm,
Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) omit _et_. I find that Becher
supports the view stated in the note _ad loc._: he would however
write _prorsam_, which the best MSS. give also in Plin. v. 31,
112 D.

quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus: so Frotscher,
followed by Krüger (3rd ed.). On the other hand Claussen (Quaest.
Quint., p. 356) and Wölfflin (followed now by Meister, pref. to ed.
of Book x., p. 13) propose to delete _Delphici_, of which
Becher also approves. But the MS. evidence cannot be disregarded. The
following are the various readings: GH _quaedam Delphico videatur
oraculo de instrictus_, and so FT, the former giving also (by a later
hand) _de instinctus_, the latter _dei instructus_. Bodl.
gives _quodam delphico videatur oraculo dei instructus_. The most
frequent reading is that of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995,
4829, 11671, Ball. and most edd., _quodam delphico videatur oraculo
instinctus_: S agrees, but is reported to have _delphico_
after _oraculo_: Harl. 4950 and Burn. 244 have the same reading,
with _institutus_ corr. to _instinctus_: Burn. 243 gives
_instructus_. _Delphico_ was originally deleted by Caesar:
Phil xiii, p. 758. Halm read _tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo
instinctus_: but Quintilian would take no trouble to avoid the
repetition of _quidam_ (cp. divina quadam, above).—For the
arrangement of words, Krüger (3rd ed.) compares §41 qui ne minima quidem alicuius
certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit.

§82.
quandam persuadendi deam. Nettleship (Journ. of Philol., xxix,
p. 22) conjectures _Suadam_ [_persuadendi deam_],
comparing Brutus, §59, quoted _ad loc. Persuadendi deam_ would thus
become a gloss on _Suadam_: but the expression in the text is quite
in Quintilian’s style.

§83.
eloquendi suavitate: _eloquendi usus_ (or _usu_)
_suav._ GH and all codd. except Harl. 4950, and Dorv., both of
which give simply _eloq. suav._ Halm admitted into his text Geel’s
conj. for _usus_, ‘eloquendi _vi ac_ suavitate,’ and this has
met with some acceptance (Iwan Müller and Becher). But the parallel from
Dion. Hal., Ἀρχ. κρ. 4
is hardly conclusive: τῆς τε περὶ ἑρμηνείαν
δεινότητος ... καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος. Hirt properly remarks that the
agreement between the two is not so great as to allow of correcting the
one by the other. Kiderlin conjectures _eloquendi vi_,
_suavitate_, _perspicuitate_.

tam est loquendi. See note _ad loc._ for Kiderlin’s conj.
_tam manifestus est_. Though Meister’s _tam est eloquendi_ is
probably a misprint, it is found in some MSS.—Harl. 4950: Burn.
244.

§84.
sane non affectaverunt. Bodl. and Vall. (_veru_
subpunctuated in the latter: _affectant_ Prat. Put. 7231 MS Ball.
Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671: _sene non adfectitacuerunt_ GH
Burn. 243: _adfectarunt_ 7696: _adfectitant_ Harl. 4950, and
so Burn. 244 (corrected from _affectant_).

§85.
haud dubie proximus. Halm inserted _ei_ after _dubie_,
though it is not found in any MS.: Regius had suggested _illi_.
Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 170) points out that if _propiores
alii_ in §88 is allowed
to stand without a dative, _ei_ is not necessary here. He suggests,
however, _illi_ before _alii_ in §88: both passages must be dealt with
in the same way.—For _haud_ (Vall.), GHS have _aut_: M
_haut_. Cp. on 3 §26.

§86.
ut illi ... cesserimus: _cum illi_ GHFT Harl. 4995 Burn.
243: _ut illi_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696: and so S Harl. 4950 (with
_caelesti atque divinae_): _ut ille_ M Harl. 2662. Kiderlin
(Hermes, p. 170) proposes to go back to the reading of the older
MSS. _cum illi_, and instead of _cesserimus_ to read
_cesserit_, so as to make Vergil the subject throughout. _Cum_
cannot, he contends, be a copyist’s error, motived by _ita_; and it
is probable, therefore, that at first _cesserit a_ was
inadvertently written for _cesserit_; then (in G or some older MS.)
_cesserimus ita_ was made out of that, to correspond with
_vincimur_ below: and then in the later MSS. _cum_ was changed
to _ut_, because of _ita_. For the transition, with this
reading, from cesserit to the plural (_vincimur, pensamus_), he
202
compares §107, where, after
speaking of Demosthenes and Cicero, Quintilian passes to
_vincimus_.

§87.
sequentur MS Halm and Meister: _sequenter_ G _seq̅nt’_
H: _sequuntur_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.

φράσιν id est.
These words are omitted in the Pratensis, which is Étienne de Rouen’s
abridgement of the _Beccensis_, now lost. This is an additional
proof that φράσιν was
originally written in Greek: cp. on §42.

§88.
propiores H Prat. Put. Vall. Harl. 2662, 4495, 11671, Burn. 243.
Bodl., Halm: _propriores_ GMS 7231, 7696, Harl. 4950, C, Burn. 244,
Dorv., Meister. In Cicero and Quintilian _magis proprii_ would be
more usual for the latter.

§89.
etiam si sit. This conjecture of Spalding’s (for _etiam sit_
GH Bodl. &c.: _etiam si_ M Harl. 4950 Dorv.: _etiam sic_
Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662) I have found in the Balliol codex. 7231
and 7696 give _etiam si est_. Cp. note on _tenuia atque quae_
§44, above.

ut est dictum. These words were bracketed as a gloss by Halm,
and are now omitted altogether by Krüger (3rd ed.): see however note
_ad loc._ Döderlein proposed to place them after _poeta
melior_, Fleckeisen after _etiam si_.

Serranum is Lange’s conjecture for _ferrenum_ GHM:
_farrenum_ 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 11671: _Pharrenum_ Prat.
Put. Some MSS. (e.g. Vall. Harl. 4995, Burn. 243 and 244) give _sed
eum_, but it is obvious that the criticism of Severus stopped with
the word _locum_.

§90.
senectute maturuit ed. Col. 1527 and so 7231, 7696 (Fierville):
_senectutem maturbit_ GH: _senectute maturum_ Prat. Put. MS
Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. and Ball.: _senectus
maturavit_ Bodl., Burn. 243.

et, ut dicam. Halm’s _sed_ instead of _et_ has been
rejected by later critics. Cp. Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 357
note): _sed_ ‘sententiam efficit ab hac operis parte alienam. Nam
cum oratori futuro exempla quaerantur oratoria virtus in quovis
scriptore laudi vertitur (§§46, 63, 65, 67, 74, &c.). Itaque
propter huius censurae consilium Quintilianus Lucani elocutionem
oratoriam laudat, sed ingenium poeticum una reprehendit.’

§91.
propius H Prat. Put. Burn. 243, Harl. 2662 and other codd.: Bodl.
Ball. Harl. 4950 _proprius_. Reisig conjectured _propitius_,
which also is apt; but in spite of _industrius_,
_necessarius_, cited in its support (cp. iv. 2. 27: vii. 1. 12), it
is too uncertain a form to be received into the text. Iwan Müller thinks
it would have to be _magis propitiae_. Halm gives _promptius_:
Wölfflin _pronius_: while Schöll now suggests _propitiae
potius_ (cp. iv. pr. §5: 2 §27: vii. 1. 12).

§92.
feres G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4829, Dorv., Ball.,
Halm.: _feras_ H, Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. C and M, Meister and
Krüger (3rd ed.). Harl. 4995 has _fere_: from Vall. Becher reports
feras, ‘probably at first _feres_.’

elegea GH 7696, and so A2 BN Put. S at i. 8. 6.

§94.
abunde salis G Prat. Put. M and all my MSS. except H, Burn. 243,
Bodl. which have _abundantia salis_.

multum est tersior. The variety of MS. readings seems to point
to an _et_ wrongly inserted after _multum_, perhaps from a
confusion with ‘multum et ver gloriae’ below. GH give _multum et est
tersior_: M Harl. 4950, Bodl. Ball. C Dorv. Burn. 243 and also Harl.
4829 _multum etiam est t._: Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662,
11671 _multum est tersior_: while Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) has
_multo et est tersior_. Osann proposed _multo eo est tersior_:
Wölfflin _multo est tersior_: Halm and Meister print _multum eo
est tersior_. For _multum_, cp. multum ante xii. 6. 1: and see
Introd. p. li.

non labor GH Burn. 243 Bodl. and Meister: _nisi labor_
7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv. Ball.
C, and Halm. Prat. and Put. have _mihi labor_.

203
hodieque et qui: H, Prat., Put., 7231, 7696, Harl. 2662, 4829,
Bodl. Dorv.: _hodie et qui_ Burn. 243: _hodie quoque et qui_
Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: _hodie quod et qui_ S.—Becher is
of opinion that the text will not bear the explanation given in the
note, and would read _hodie quoque et qui_: ‘es giebt auch heute
noch berühmte Satirendichter, die einst &c.’ _Et qui_ he takes
with _clari_, not with _hodie quoque_, the _et_ being
omitted in translation: clari (hodie quoque) qui (olim)
nominabuntur.

§95.
etiam prius. Founding on the classification given in Diomedes
(see note _ad loc._), according to which the _satura_ of
Pacuvius and Ennius preceded and was distinct from that of Lucilius,
Horace, and Persius, Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 337) thinks that
the true reading here may be _Alterum illud et iam prius_ Ennio
temptatum _saturae genus_, &c. For the satura of Ennius, cp.
ix. 2. 36. Iwan Müller points out that Ennius is not mentioned below
(§97), beside Attius and Pacuvius, probably because neither in tragedy
nor in satire did Quintilian consider him to have produced anything
helpful for the formation of an oratorical style. Other unnecessary
conjectures are _etiam posterius_, Gesner: _etiam proprium_,
Spald.: _etiam amplius_, L. Müller: _etiam verius_,
Riese: _alterum illud Lucilio prius sat. genus_, Krüger (3rd
ed.).

sola: _solum_ Prat. and Put.

collaturus quam eloquentiae. These words, omitted in GHS Bodl.
Burn. 243, occur in all my other codd.

§96.
sed aliis quibusdam interpositus: sc. carminibus, Christ. In H
the reading is _quibusdam interpositus_: so 7231, 7696 Bodl. and
Burn. 243: but M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Dorv. and Ball, give _a
quibusdam interpositus_: S _cuiusdam_: Prat. and Put. _opus
interpositus_. Osann conjectures _sed quibusdam_, and so Hild.
In the margin of Harl. 4995 is the variant _aliquibus
interpositis_.

In Hermes, vol. 23, p. 172, Kiderlin makes a fresh conjecture.
Recognising that something must have fallen out before _quibusdam_,
but dissatisfied with Osann’s _sed_ and Christ’s _sed aliis_,
he proposes to read _ut proprium opus, quibusdam aliis tamen
carminibus_ (or _versibus_) _a quibusdam interpositus_. The
eye of a copyist may easily, Kiderlin thinks, have wandered from the
first to the second _quibusdam_: cp. v. 10. 64, ut quaedam a
quibusdam utique non sunt, &c., and for quibusdam aliis xi. 3. 66,
et quibusdam aliis corporis signis.

intervenit, which is a conjecture of Osann, I have found
in Harl. 2662, 11671 Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.

lyricorum. Kiderlin thinks there may be something wrong in the
text here. The last sentence (sed eum longe, &c.) shows clearly that
Quintilian had a high opinion of the lyrists of his day: if Bassus was
_legi dignus_, they were even more so. Would he then have said ‘of
the Roman lyrists Horace is almost the only one worth reading’? Perhaps
we should read _lyricorum priorum_: after _-ricorum_,
_priorum_ might easily fall out, and it gives a good antithesis to
_viventium_. Bassus (quem nuper vidimus) forms the transition: and
the next paragraph begins _Tragoediae scriptores veterum_,
&c.

§97.
clarissimi. This reading is stated by Halm to be ‘incerta
auctoritate,’ and is referred by Meister to the Aldine edition. It
occurs in Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) Vall. 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.:
Put. gives _clarissime_: G has _gravissima_: HFTS
_gravissimus_, and so also Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. and
C. Halm prints _grandissimi_: Ribbeck (Röm. Trag.
p. 337, 3) inclines to accept the sing. _grandissimus_,
M, of Pacuvius alone.

Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings.
_Gravissimus_ and _gravissima_ are obviously due, he says, to
_gravitate_ following: but the word before _gravitate_ must
have begun with the same letter, and so _clarissimi_ cannot stand,
especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For _ceterum_
shows that the sentence before it must have contained some slight
censure: some defect, or quality excluding others equally good, must
have been mentioned. He therefore conjectures _grandes nimis_, in
preference to
204
_grandissimi_, which in tragedy would hardly be a fault. Attius and
Pacuvius, Quintilian says, are ‘zu grossartig, sie kümmern sich zu wenig
um Zierlichkeit (Eleganz) und die letzte Feile (d.h. Sauberkeit im
Kleinen); doch daran ist mehr ihre Zeit schuld als sie selbst.’ He
evidently thinks more of the ‘Thyestes’ of Varius and Ovid’s Medea: cp.
Tac. Dial. 12. With this judgment Kiderlin compares §§66, 67 tragoedias primus in lucem
Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad
vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ... sed longe clarius
inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, and is of opinion
that the parallelism cannot be mistaken. For the position of
_nimis_ he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe
nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.

§98.
quem senes quidem parum tragicum. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,
Meister, and Krüger. _Quidem_ occurs in no MS.: GH have
_quem_, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn.
243 and Dorv. show the corruption _Pindarum_. Becher would exclude
_quidem_, regarding _quem_ in G as an instance of the tendency
of copyists inadvertently to repeat, after a particular word that by
which it has been immediately preceded, e.g. §68 quod ipsum quod (G): ix. 4. 57 ut
cum ut (G): iv. 1. 7 ipsis litigatoribus ipsis (b): iv. 2. 5 aut ante
aut (bT): x. i. 4 iam opere iam (G).—But here the authority of the
Pratensis and its cognates may be invoked. In the archetype from which
they are derived something must have stood before _parum_, as Prat.
Put. 7696, 7231 all give _quem senes non parum tragicum_: so Harl.,
2662 (A.D. 1434), and 11671. Above in
§96, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
have _si quidem_ for _si quem_.

§100.
linguae suae. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13):
_suae_ supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give
_linguae quae_: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. _linguae_:
while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether:
M has _ligweque_.

§101.
Titum: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.

commendavit: Halm and Meister give _commodavit_, which is
approved also by Hirt. Halm compares §69 where Menander is said to be
‘omnibus rebus personis adfectibus accommodatus.’ But this would require
the meaning ‘appropriately treated,’ and there is no instance in
Quintilian of the verb used absolutely in this sense. Nor is there any
example to support Hild’s interpretation _praestitit_, which would
be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after
_accommodata_ tells against Halm’s reading, though Quintilian is
negligent on this head.—On the other hand, in vi. 3. 14 the
reading ‘ad hanc consuetudinem commodata’ is rightly accepted against
‘commendata’ most edd.

§102.
immortalem GS Meister: _illam immortalem_ Prat. Put. M Halm:
_immortalem illam_ Vall.

velocitatem. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which
have _civilitatem_. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks
that we might have expected _ideoque immortalem gloriam quam
velocitate Sallustius consecutus est_: ‘und darum hat er die
_velocitas_ durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge
erreicht.’ _Consequi_ cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and
_immortalis_ is inappropriate as an attribute of _velocitas_:
besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s _velocitas_, even
indirectly. Schlenger conjectured _claritatem_: Andresen
_auctoritatem_ (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii.
11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes _divinitatem_, which in Cicero =
Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous
sentences the expression is not too strong. For _immortalem
divinitatem_ cp. §86 illi
... caelesti atque immortali: and for _consecutus est_ iii. 7. 9
quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.

clarus vi ingenii. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I
find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give _clarius
ingenii_: Prat. Put. _clari ingenii vir_: 7231, 7696 _clari
vir ingenii_: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.
205
C and Ball, _clarus ingenio_; Harl. 2662 and 11671 _clarus_
(?) or _claret vir ingenii_. Spalding had already pointed out that
_clarus_ is not found with _ingenium_, except where
_ingenium_ is used of a person: e.g. §119 erant clara et nuper ingenia: he
therefore wrote _elati vir ingenii_ (following Goth. _elatus
ingenio_ and Bodl. _elatus ingeniis_). Kiderlin compares §70 sententiis clarissimus, and for
_vis ingenii_ i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The
reading _clarus vi ingenii_ points the contrast to what follows in
‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his _style_ that did not
altogether suit the dignity of history.

§103.
genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam. Till
Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175)
_genere_ had always been joined with _probabilis_, and the
text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give _in
omnibus quibusdam_: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. _in
omnibus sed in quibusdam_, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.
Out of _omnibus_ Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, _operibus_:
afterwards he decided for _partibus_, and this (though
_omnibus_ to _partibus_ is not an easy transition) is adopted
by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung
verdienen seine Leistungen _alle_, _manche_ stehen hinter
_seiner_ Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are
_probabiles_ (cp. viii. 3. 42 probabile Cicero id genus dicit quod
non plus minusve est quam decet); but they do not show the great powers
that distinguish his other writings. It is uncertain whether Quintilian
wrote _in quibusdam_ or _sed in quibusdam_ (M). The easiest
explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he
wrote _in omnibus in quibusdam_: perhaps the copyist of M saw that
_omnibus_ and _quibusdam_ were antithetical, and inserted
_sed_. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any
conjunction: cp. §106 in
illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).

suis ipse viribus: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville)
7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (A.D. 1434 and 1467) _suis_ already appears,
corrected from _vis_ GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has _suis viribus
minor_: so Prat. and Put.

§104.
et exornat. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and
most edd.: _et ornat_ M Halm, Meister, Krüger: _exornat_ GHS.
Becher remarks that _et exornat_ might easily pass into
_exornat_.

nominabitur: Weber and Osann proposed _nominabatur_
(which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to _-itur_). Krüger at
first accepted this in support of his theory that the whole passage
refers to Cremutius, who ‘in former days (olim), while his works were
under a ban, was only named (i.e. was a mere name, but now is known and
appreciated).’ The parallel passage (§94) is sufficient to dispose of
any such interpretation: sunt clari hodieque et qui olim
nominabuntur.

Cremuti. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and
Meister: _remuti_ H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 _remremuti_ G,
_rem utili_ Burn. 243: _remitti_ S. Bodl.: _nec imitatores
uti_ Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671. A review of the
various explanations of the whole passage (Superest—quae manent)
will be found in Holub’s Programm ‘Warum hielt sich Tacitus von 89-96 n.
Chr. nicht in Rom auf?’—Weidenau, 1883: but his conjecture
_remoti_ (i.e. relegati) for _remuti_ is not to be thought
of.

dividendi: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have
_videndi_, except M (_indicendi_) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995
(_vivendi_). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.

§105.
In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his
views: ‘wie zu _cum_ causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu
_cum_ concessivum, in diesem Falle wiedenzugeben mit, “was um so
auffallender ist, als.” Der Sinn ist also: “Ich weiss sehr wohl, welchen
Sturm des Unwillens ich gegen mich errege, und dies (dieser Sturm) ist
um so auffallender, als ich jetzt gar nicht die Absicht hege, meine (in
Potentialis gesprochene) Behauptung (fortiter opposuerim) wahr zu
machen, resp. comparando durchzuführen. Ich lasse ja dem Demosthenes
seinen Ruhm—in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius.”’

206
§106.
praeparandi. For Kiderlin’s conj. _praeparandi_,
_narrandi_, _probandi_ see _ad loc._

[omnia] denique, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit _omnia_
(which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following
Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and
Cicero were _not_ alike in _everything_ that belongs to
_inventio_. Halm thinks that _omnia_ is to be found in
_racioni_ of the older MSS.: but Kiderlin points out that this
error may have arisen from the carelessness of a copyist who, after
thrice writing the termination _i_, gave it also to the fourth
word.

illi—huic Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl.
&c.: _illic—hic_ GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.

§107.
vincimus, H, G2, and most MSS.: (cp. §86): _vicimus_ G.

§109.
ubertate Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and
Goth.: all the
other MSS. give _ubertas_.

totas virtutes Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: _totas
vires_ M b.

§112.
ab hominibus Halm and Meister: _ab omnibus_ Bn Bg HFT Ioan.
Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: _hominibus_ S Harl. 4995 Bodl.

§115.
urbanitas. Kiderlin proposes to read _et praecipua in accusando
asperitas et multa urbanitas_: cp. §117: §64: 2 §25: ii. 5. 8.

Ciceroni, for _Ciceronem_ of the MSS. In the Rev. de
Phil. (Janv.-Mars, 1887) Bonnet quotes from the Montpellier MS. a note
of the sixteenth century deleting the name as a gloss (on
_inveni_). Certainly all codd. give _Ciceronem_, not
_Ciceroni_. Bonnet thinks that the insertion does not accord with
Quintilian’s habitual deference towards Cicero: ‘Quintilien se trouvant
dans le cas de contredire Cicéron ne le nomme pas.’—Becher reports
_Ciceroni_, a correction in the Vallensis.

castigata, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl.
2662, 4995, 11671: _custodita_ H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829,
Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For _gravis_ (bH M Vall. and
seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give _brevis_.

si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit, Vall.
Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit 3 §26. Halm and Meister print
_si quid adiecturus fuit_—(sc. _virtutibus suis_, cp. §§116, 120)—the reading of B (i.e. Bn
and Bg), which is also that of Ioan. Prat. N 7231 Harl. 2662, 11671:
while M Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244 have _si quid adiecturus fuit, non
si quid detracturus_. The reading of H is _si quid adiecturus sibi
non si quid detracturus_ [_Sulpicius insignus_] _fuit ut
servius sulpicius insignem_ &c.: so also T, Burn. 243, Bodl. The
brackets in H are by a later hand, indicating a gloss which arose from a
mistake made by the copyist of H. In Bg the passage
stands:—

sibi non si quid detracturus
si quid adiecturus: fuit et servius sulpicius

The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.

In copying H wrote: _si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid
detracturus_ (then omitting _fuit_ continues) _et Serv.
Sulp._ (then goes back and resumes) _fuit et servius_ &c.
This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this
family.

§117.
et fervor. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and
Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have _et sermo_,
which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662,
4950 and Ball.: Hb _et summo_: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 _et
smo_: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T
_eius summa_, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis
(Laurentius Valla) made _et vis summa_, a reading which occurs also
in Harl. 4995. Meister reads _et sermo purus_; while Kiderlin
proposes _et simplex sermo_ (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3:
4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).

ut amari sales. Francius conjectured _ut amantur sales_,
but this loses the antithesis between _amari_ and _amaritudo
ipsa_. Kiderlin’s _ut amantur amari sales_ (viii. 3.
207
87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if _ridicula_ is taken in a
good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving
way unduly to _stomachus_, Quintilian should go on to say,
‘moreover, though bitter wit gives pleasure, bitterness by itself is
often laughable.’ Is it possible that we ought to read _ut amari sales
risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est_? Such an antithesis
might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words _risum
movent_ may then have dropped out. See the note _ad loc._: and
cp. especially vi. 1. 48 _fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit_, and
οὐ
γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται, quoted in the note on 1 §107.—Krüger (3rd
ed.) adopts _frequentior_ for _frequenter_, which gives a good
sense, except that _freq. amar ipsa_ is awkward.

§121.
lene Halm and Meister: _leve_ B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C.
Here again Becher prefers _leve_, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii.
§171, quoted on §44 above:
levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.

§123.
scripserint. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995,
2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among
other passages 2 §14
(concupierint), and points out that Quintilian is not thinking of
individual writers on philosophy, but of the class, as opposed to the
class of orators, historians, &c.—Halm, Meister, and Krüger
have _supersunt_ (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).

§124.
Plautus, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:
_plantus_ M Harl. 4950: _Plantatus_ Sal.: _plaustus_ Hb:
_Plancus_ edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.

Catius. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.

§126.
iis quibus illi. _Iis_ is the conjecture of Regius, followed
by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain _in quibus
illi_,—the reading of BN Prat. Ioan. Vall. M Harl. 4995, 2662,
4950, 11671, Burn. 244 Dorv. Ball. The difficulty of construing probably
led to the omission of _in_ in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696,
Spalding and Bonnell.

ab illo B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: _ab
eo_ bHM Burn. 243.

§127.
foret enim optandum: _fore enim aliquid optandum_ bHFT.
Spalding conjectured _alioqui optandum_, which Kiderlin
approves.

ac saltem all MSS.: Meister has _aut saltem_, probably
relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii,
p. 369.

illi viro B: _illi virus_ bHM: _illi virtutibus_
Halm: _illi viro eos_ (or _viro plurimos_) Kiderlin.

§128.
multa rerum cognitio: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl.
4995, which have _multarum rerum cognitio_. b omits _cognitio_
and is followed by HFT.

§130.
si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset.
I adopt the reading recently proposed for this vexed passage by Ed.
Wölfflin in Hermes, vol. xxv (1890), pp. 326-7, though it is right
to note that he was partly (as will be seen below) anticipated by
Kiderlin. _Obliqua_ seems thoroughly appropriate in reference to
Seneca’s unnatural, stilted, affected style,—‘jene unnatürliche,
durch unmässigen Gebrauch von Tropen und Figuren auf Schrauben gestellte
Ausdrucksweise, welche statt der Klarheit ein Schillern zur Folge hat.’
Wölfflin compares ix. 2. 78 _rectum genus_ adprobari nisi maximis
viribus non potest: haec diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt
infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt, cum haec quae
adfectatur ratio sententiarum non procul a ratione iocandi abhorreat.
Adiuvat etiam, quod auditor gaudet intellegere et favet ingenio suo et
alio dicente se laudat. Itaque non solum si persona obstaret _rectae
orationi_ (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est)
decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem
_obliquis_ sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed
suggested by _obliqua_ itself) the antithesis _parum recta_:
cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.

208
In the _Jahrbücher f. Philologie_ (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828)
Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The
traditional reading _si aliqua contempsisset_ (b) he considers too
indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though
preferable to the _si nil aequalium cont._ of the later MSS., it
cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give _simile
quam_ without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be
nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s
_si antiqua non_, on the ground that it is improbable that
_simile quam_ arose out of _antiqua_. He introduces his own
conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the
contrast between _schemata_ and _rectum genus_, _recta
oratio_; the former are called _lumina_ or _lumina
orationis_ (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: _nam si
mille ille schemata_ (or _illas figuras_) _similiaque lumina
contempsisset, si parum rectum genus_ (or _sermonem_) _non
concupisset_, &c. _Similiaque_ occurs ix. 4. 43:
_mille_ (for _sescenti_) is used v. 14. 32: for
_contempsisset_ cp. ix. 4. 113. _Si mille illa_ and
_similiaque_ may easily have run together, when _schemata_ (or
_figuras_) would fall out: _quam_ in the older MSS. may
represent _que lumina_, which again reappears in the _qualium_
of the later codd. (_si nil aequalium_). As an alternative for
_parum rectum genns_ (or _sermonem_) Kiderlin suggests
Wölfflin’s reading _parum recta_: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v.
13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.

Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree
with Bn and Bg in giving _simile quam_: b has _si aliqua_:
HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. _aliqua_: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244,
Dorv. C _si nil aequalium_. Among previous conjectures are _si
multa aequalium_, Törnebladh: _si ille quaedam_, Halm (where
_ille_ is surely superfluous): _si antiqua non_, Jeep. Meister
accepts the reading _si aliqua non_: Becher thinks that _si nil
aequalium_ may be right.

It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after
_parum_: the codd. all give _si parum non concupisset_. Jeep
proposed _si pravum_ (= _corruptum_: cp. ii. 5. 10)
_non conc._: on which Halm, comparing _omnia sua_, remarks,
‘debebat saltem _prava_.’ But _prava_ seems too strong a word
for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously
mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested _si parum sana_, and is
followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155
_n_. Sarpe proposed _si prava_ or _parva_ or
_plura_: Buttmann _si parum concupiscenda_ (or
_convenientia_): Herzog _si parvum_: Madvig _si partim_
or _partem_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam aliqua_, and in opp. to
_omnia sua_, below): Hoffmann _si opiparum_: Seyffert _si
garum_: Kraffert _si non parum excussisset_ (cp. §101, §126: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8.
13, &c.): Gustaffson _si parva_ (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in
parvis iactantiae): Andresen _si similem ei quem contempsit se
esse_ (sc. _concupisset_; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist.
i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) _si parem non concupisset_ (i.e. _si
Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius
aemulari maluisset_): or, _nam si similem ei quem contempsit se
esse, non parem concupisset_: Krüger (3rd ed.) _si parum arguta_: Hertz (who
argues that the word which has fallen out must, with _parum_,
correspond to _corrupta_ above) _si parum pura_.

utrimque Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and
Bonnell: _utrumque_ B N 7231, 7696: _virumque_ M:
_utcumque_ Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or
another,’—proposed by Gesner at 6 §7.

209
CHAPTER II.

§2.
atque omnis. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887,
p. 454) proposes to put commas at _sequi_ and _velimus_,
and make this clause also subordinate.

§3.
aut similes aut dissimiles. Andresen suggests _aut similes aut
non dissimiles_ or _aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles_.

§6.
tradiderunt (BNM Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 243, and Dorv.) is
powerfully supported by Becher in his latest tractate (Programm des
königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, p. 13) against
_tradiderint_, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in
the last from _tradiderunt_), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,
Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in
Cicero, _cum_ with the indicative is often used in such a way
(quoting from C. F. W. Müller) ‘ut non prorsus idem sit, sed
simillimum ei, quod barbare dicere solemus identitatis. Nam ut “cum
tacent clamant” non est “si tacent,” multo minus “quo tempore” aut
“propterea quod” aut “quamquam,”—sed “tacent idque idem est ac si
clament,” sic “cum hoc facis qui potes facere illud?” et sim., German,
item “_wenn du dies thust_” valet: “hoc facis ex eoque per se
efficitur, non ratione, sed ipsa natura, ut illud non possis facere.” Ut
pro Q. Roscio 3. 9 quam ob rem, cum cetera nomina in ordinem
referebas, hoc nomen in adversariis relinquebas? non significat nec
“quamquam” nec “quando,” sed “_wenn_.”’ Becher adds the following
parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae
divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi
_dixerunt_ non liquere, and Verg. Ecl. 3. 16 quid domini facient,
audent cum talia fures? (Cp. Madvig de Fin. p. 25.) In the same way
he treats _cum ... sunt consecuti_ 7 §19 below, which seems,
however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in
such cases _cum_ (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative:
there the clause ‘_cum sint consecuti_’ is added to show the
reasonableness (_cum_ = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary
facility shall be made fully equal to _cogitatio_—see _ad
loc._ Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of _cum_
with the indic. used of ‘identity’ (as ‘cum tacent, clamant,’ quoted
above): in such cases the subject is generally the same in both clauses.
And in such a passage as pro Cluent. §131 _cum_ is usually
explained as = _quo tamen tempore_.

eruendas M Harl. 4995: all other codd. _erudiendas_.

mensuris ac lineis. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the
conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4.
p. 194. 4) _eisdem mensuris ac lineis_, and recommends
the insertion of _eisdem_ in the text,—after _lineis_,
where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.

§7.
turpe etiam illud est. Hild puts a comma after _sciant_, and
by supplying before _turpe est_ an _ita_ to correspond with
_quemadmodum_, makes out a comparison of which _quemadmodum_,
&c., is the first clause and _turpe etiam illud est_ the
second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The
_quemadmodum_ clause goes with what is before, not with what
follows, so that a comma after _alieni_ would be enough, were it
not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. §9 below). Then _turpe etiam illud
est_ comes in, resuming _pigri est ingenii_ in §4, just as immediately afterwards
_rursus quid erat futurum_ §7 resumes _quid enim futurum
erat_ §4. The whole
passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which §4 opens, ‘imitatio per se ipsa non
sufficit.’ Quintilian first says that we, as well as those who have gone
before us, may make discoveries (cur igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a
nobis quod ante non fuerit?). Surely we are not to confine ourselves to hard and
fast lines like servile copyists.
210
Then he goes on to add in §7 that we must surpass our models
(plus efficere eo quem sequimur), instead of resting content with mere
reproduction (id consequi quod imitamur): otherwise Livius Andronicus
would still be the prince of poets, we should still be sailing on rafts,
and painting would still be nothing more than the tracing of outlines.
The necessity for progress is first shown (§§4-6) by an appeal to the
example of the past, and by the unfruitful work of such painters as are
mere copyists: then in §7
poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for
the argument _ex contrario_.

§8.
mansit, Meister: _sit_ codd.: _est_ Fleckeisen (and
Halm): _fuit_ Gensler.

§9.
adpetent Bg HFT: _appetent_ Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl.
&c.: _appetunt_ N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.

hoc agit Halm, followed by Meister (cp. 7 §4): _hoc ait_ b H,
_om_. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: _agit_ (_sine
hoc_) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.

§10.
quaeque pares maxime may be a gloss: it is found only in those
MSS. which give _simplicissimae_ for _simillimae_: b H Harl.
4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.

utique (b M Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243 Bodl. Dorv.) may
also be suspected: it does not occur in Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662,
4829, 11671.

§11.
orationibus, Bg: Ioan, gives _oratione_: so also Voss. 1 and
3 (Zumpt).

accommodatur b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and
Meister: _commodatur_ Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.

§12.
inventio vis B Harl. 2662, 11671: _inventionis_ b H Harl.
4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.

§13.
cum et, ed. Colon. 1527: _et cum_ B H Ioan. Prat. N (_et
quum_) M: _cum_ Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of
this difficult passage _ut quorum ... collocata sunt_ forms one
parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of
_intercidant invalescantque temporibus_. See _ad loc._

accommodata sit, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits
_sit_: _acc. est_ Halm, followed by Hild (depending on
_prout_, not _cum_: see note _ad loc._). Madvig’s
conjecture _accommodanda sit_ is approved by Kiderlin (cp. ix. 4.
126 adeoque rebus accommodanda compositio). But the correctness of the
reading in the text (and also of the explanation given in the note _ad
loc._) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence
carefully. To _cum et verba intercidant_ corresponds exactly the
double clause _et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit_ on the one
hand, and _et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima_ (sc.
_sit_—repeated from _accommodata sit_) on the other.
This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by _cum ... tum_. To
take _accommodata sit_ as depending on the _cum_ which follows
_compositio_ is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this
case an independent _sit_ would have to be supplied with
_gratissima_ (to make _et compositio ... gratissima sit_
correspond to _et verba intercidant_ above): and the translation
would then be: ‘it is just when (_cum ... tum_), or exactly in
proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (_rebus accommodata_)
that the very variety (thereby secured) gives the arrangement its
greatest charm.’ But if this had been Quintilian’s meaning he would
surely have written _cum rebus accommodatur_ (or—_ata
est_) _tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima_.

§14.
quos imitemur. The D’Orville MS. gives _quos eligamus ad
imitandum_,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it
may explain the origin of the reading of b and H _quos at
imitandum_.

quid sit ad quod nos. The _ad_ is due to Regius: most
codd. have _quid sit quod nos_, except Harl. 4995, which is again
in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2:
_quid sit quod nobis_.

§15.
et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam. The explanation given in the
notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however,
wished to insert _et_ before _inter_
211
_ipsos_. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl.
Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).

dicunt, Harl. 4995: _dicant_ all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’
(Halm).

ut sic dixerim Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9:
v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have _ut dixerim_. Halm wrote _ut ita
dixerim_, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but _ut sic_ is more
common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.

§16.
compositis exultantes. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888,
p. 72) would prefer _compositis rigidi_ (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii.
10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), _comptis_ (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42)
_exultantes_ = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend
putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is _laetis exultantes,
compositis corrupti_ (Lindau): or _compositis exiles_
(Düntzner).

§17.
quidlibet, most codd.: _quamlibet_ M, Vall. Harl. 4995,
4950: _qui licet_ bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879,
p. 162) condemns _illud_, and would read either _quamlibet
frigidum_ (cp. 3 §19 and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet
apertum), or _quidlibet frigidum_, which latter is approved by
P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of _illud frigidum et
inane_, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on §16.

Attici sunt scilicet. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to
be preferred. The retention of _sunt_ (represented in some MSS. by
a simple _s_,—hence the reading _Atticis scilicet_)
makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a _sunt_
after _qui praec. concl. obscuri_: in so loose a writer as
Quintilian the first _sunt_ would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn
and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have
_Attici scilicet_: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives
_Atticis scilicet_. In the Ioannensis I find _Attici s_ (for
_sunt_): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give _Atticis s. Scilicet_ (om.
Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be _Attici sunt_.
Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give _Atticos scilicet_
(_Athicos_ Harl. 4995): qy. _Atticorum similes_? (cp. Cic.
Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers _Atticis_ (sc. _se pares
credunt_).

§22.
proposito. This conjecture by Gertz (Opuscula philol. &c.,
p. 134) I have found in the Ioannensis (*ppo) and in Harl.
2662 and 11671. It is approved also by Kiderlin. BNHb Prat. Sal. give
_propositio_: all other codd. _proposita_. Perhaps we should
read (with Ioan.) _sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est_.
Prat. omits the second _est_.

§23.
tenuitas aut iucunditas, Halm and Meister: _tenuitas ac
iucunditas_ b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: _tenuitas aut nuditas_ N
Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: _tenuitas ac nuditas_ Prat. Harl. 4995,
4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: _aut iuditas_ Bg.

§25.
quid ergo? non est satis, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly
afterwards, _mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem,
quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere?_ (= _sed etiam
si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si
omnia haec consequi possem_).

§28.
deerunt, Francius: _deerant_ (derant) all codd. Becher
defends _deerant_: ‘der Rhetor meint dass _qui propria bona
adiecerit_ öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu
ergänzen als zu beschneiden _si quid redundabit_.’

oporteat bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: _oportebat_ B
Prat. N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671 Burn. 244 Dorv. The
latter (which is adopted by Halm) would indicate (cp. viii. 4. 22) a
condition which ought to have been and may still be realised: the former
(adopted by Meister and approved by Becher) is the conjunctive
potential, and is quite in Quintilian’s manner (cp. xi. 2. 20): it
conveys the expression of a present duty and obligation, the realisation
of which may now be expected, and it connects also more intimately with
_erit_ in the following sentence.

212
CHAPTER III.

§1.
nobis ipsis, codd.: _e nobis ipsis_ Gertz.

utilitatis etiam. Ioan. gives _etiam utilitatis_, which
Spalding quotes also from Goth.

§2.
alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also
in Ioan. and Prat.: _alter effossa_ BH: _altius effossa_ Harl.
4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.: _alte effossa_ Harl.
2662, 11671.

fecundior fit. _Fit_ appears as a correction in T and
Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662.
Perhaps _fecundior_ is the true reading, and _est_ is to be
supplied in thought: Introd. p. lv.

effundit B Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.: _effunditur_
b H. et
fundit Vall.2 M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.

parentis: _parentium_ Ioan.: _parentum_ Dorv. Harl.
4950 Burn. 244 C: _parentibus_ bH Bodl.

§4.
iam hinc. Obrecht _iam hunc_: see note _ad loc._ Harl.
2662 and 11671 agree in _iam hic_.

§6.
scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and
Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last
corr. from _-em_). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus),
and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.

§9.
sequetur Bn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:
_persequetur_ b Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: _prosequetur_ HM Bodl.
and Prat. _Prosequetur_ (Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is
a graphic touch about the compound.

§10.
ut provideamus obelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note.
Becher proposed _provideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus_:
Krüger suggests rather _resistamus et provideamus ut ...
coerceamus_: Jeep, _ut provide eamus_, also, for _efferentes
se_, _efferventes_. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin
(Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision
of _et_ before _efferentes_, as it is found in no MS. He
translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu
schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell
schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir
innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir
gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considers _ut
provideamus_ a necessary addition, in order to make the meaning of
_resistamus_ clear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass
er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen,
welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt
werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. read _resist. ut
provid. efferentes equos frenis_: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 give _ut_
for _et_: Harl. 4995 has _resist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos
fr. quib. coerc._: 4950 and Burn. 244 _resist. ut prohibeamus
efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc._ The reading _et efferentes
se_ is due to Burmann. Something might be said for _et ferentes
se_: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious
pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.

§12.
patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both give _patrono_: which,
with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the
Guelferbytanus (Spald.).

§14.
quod omni, see note _ad loc._: edd. vett _ex quo_.

§15.
plura et celerius Prat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and
Ambrosianus ii. _Et_ had escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister
follows, _plura celerius_.

213
sed quid: _sed_ is supplied by the old edd., but does not
appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjectures _at_, which
may easily have slipped out after _obveniat_.

§17.
quae fuit: (_manent_) _quae fudit_ Harl. 4995 (as also
Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)

§19.
urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888,
p. 86) his proposal to read _urgetur_, which would however
give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts
outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is
writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’

§20.
in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller
and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister: _legendo_
BM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See note _ad loc._ The true reading
may be _si tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo
velut offensator fuit_. This is supported by _et diligendo_ (bH
Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjectured _et delendo_,
Gertz _in tenendo_ (‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem
verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut
saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl.
4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) have _inertior_ for
_incertior_: but this gives no antithesis to _tardior_: it
appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M)
have _fuerit_, for _fuit_, which may be right.

concepta Regius: _conceptae_ codd. Becher points out that
_concipere_ and _excutere_ are ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib.
ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo
conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore
flammas.

§21.
altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed.
Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) and 11671 (A.D. 1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.
_aptiorem_: Prat. _apertiorem_, and so a later hand in
Vall.

frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl.
2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all give _simul et
interim_: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.)
and Burn. 243 have _simul vertere latus et interim_ (the reading of
many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omits _et_. It is to b that
we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and
b gives _sintieletus_, which H shows as _sintielatus_.
Considering how liable _s_ (ſ) and _f_ are to be confused,
I venture to think that _ſinti_ may conceal _fronte_.

Bursian’s _femur et latus_ (Halm and Meister) is not so near the
MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quoted _ad loc._),
but the latter passage would warrant _frontem_ quite as much as
_femur_, and _frontem ferire_ seems to have been considered by
Quintilian a more extravagant action than _femur ferire_, of which
he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In
any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if
alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his
thigh.’

Frotscher and Bonnell’s _sinum et latus_ cannot be supported by
any parallel for such an expression as _sinum caedere_,
_ferire_, _obiurgare_. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecture
_semet interim obiurgare_, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd
ed.) as = _increpare_: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium
sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’

Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f.
d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines
of b) _singultire, latus int. ob._ This would need to be taken
of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer
addresses πρὸς ὃν
θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers to
_singultantium_ in 7 §20, of broken utterance: but
we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is
not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be
indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s
presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggests _singultu latus interim
obiurgare_, comparing for the ablative §15 cogitationem murmure agitantes.
_Singultus_ is common
214
enough: and Kiderlin thinks that as _singultire_ is nearer the MSS.
than _singultare_, it may possibly have been used here by
Quintilian.

§22.
secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.,
M, Dorv.: _quod dictando_ BN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671,
Burn. 244 (corr. to _in_). With the reading _quod dictando perit,
atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit_ (Halm and Meister) it is
senseless to quote 2 §20 (Bonn., Meister, and
Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) reads _secretum dictando perit.
Atque liberum arbitris_, &c.

§23.
mihi certe iucundus. After these words H has _videmoni_ (and
so the cod. Alm.): Flor. _vindemoni_. This word greatly puzzled
Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions
of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it into _mihi certe vitae
inani iucundus_, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr.
L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He
thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage
about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on
Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesie _vinum
daemonum_.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright
tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus
propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to
Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these
quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert.
&c. c. 4. Hence the phrase _vinum daemonum_ may have been
compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as
seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in
the Bambergensis four lines further down, where _tendere ani_(mum)
is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.

§24.
ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in
Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other
codd. _rami_.

voluptas ista videatur most codd.: _videatur ista
voluptas_ N.

§25.
oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex
quo nulla exaudiri vox that _aures aut_ has fallen out before
_oculi_. Cp. §28
nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.

velut tectos: _velut rectos_ all codd. There is the same
confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M has _recteque_ for _tecteque_
(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgate _tectos_
(first in ed. Leid.) see _ad loc._ Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer.
Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that for _tectos
teneat_ we should have expected _tegat_. The figure also seems
to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an
enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away
from his task: §23
_avocent_, _respexit_: §24 _ad se trahunt_: §25 _aliud agere_. He
proposes, therefore, _velut recto itinere_, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut
vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et
recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt. _Itinere_ may first have
fallen out, and then _recto_ may have been changed to
_rectos_.—Halm conjectured _velut secretos_, or
_coercitos_; Wrobel, _velut relictos_.

§26.
haud deerit: _aut deerit_ BN Ioan, and all codd. except a
later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent
use of _haud_ in Quintilian, though _haud dubie_ 1 §85 (where however GH have
_aut_) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on
the consensus of the MSS. for _aut_ he proposes to read _aut non
deerit_ or _aut certe non deerit_. But _haud_ goes closely
with _deerit_, and does not (like _non_, _ac non_)
introduce an antithesis to _supererit_. _Aut deerit_ might be
made to mean that the _sleepless_ man is to work: but this would be
too cruel!

§29.
et itinere deerremus: _et ita ne_ BN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,
11671, Dorv. and Ball.: _ita erremus_ HMb Bodl. (_erramus_).
The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old
editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.

§31.
crebra relatione appears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected from
_crebro relationi_ which is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd.
Jeep suggested _crebra dilatione_,
215
Kiderlin _crebriore elatione_. Other proposals are _crebra
relictionis_, _q. i. c., repetitione_, Gottfried Hermann (in
Frotscher), _crebra relictione_, _q. i. c., et repetitione_,
Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinks _crebro_ may be
right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:
_crebro_ would then go closely with _morantur_ and
_frangunt_.

§32.
adiciendo ‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and
Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. have _adicienda_: b
_adiciendi sint_: Harl. _adjiciendi sit_. Meister adopts
_adicienti_ from ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo
cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B has
_cognoscendi_).

ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omits _esse_, and is
thus in agreement with N.


CHAPTER IV.

§3.
habet: _habeat_, Halm quoting from ed. Camp. _Habeat_
occurs in Burn. 243: most codd. have _habet_, but some (H and
Bodl.) give _habent_.


CHAPTER V.

§1.
ἕξιν parantibus: for
the _ex imparantibus_ of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added _non est
huius_. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives _nec exuberantis id quidem est
operis ut explicemus_.

factum est iam, Halm and Meister: _est etiam_ all codd.
except Ioan, which has _factum etiam_.

iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omit
_iam_: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give _iam
robustiorum_.

§2.
id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however
give _M. id Messalae_: and Harl. 4995 _Marco id Messalae_. The
spelling _Messallae_ is adopted in the text as more correct.

§4.
eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger
(3rd ed.): _eandem_ all codd., with the single exception of M, and
so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the
meaning. The only way to explain _eandem_ seems to be to continue
the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp.
eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an
elevating influence, while his licences of style _do not carry with
them in advance_, or _involve_, the corresponding ability to use
the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’
This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also
Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no _non_ with _praesumunt_,
at least if we may read _eadem_: ‘poetical licence implies that the
orator can say the same things _propriis verbis_.’ Bursian
suggested _nec_ (for _et_) _verba_ ...
_praesumunt_.

§5.
post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,
_praeter quod_: so Vall.

§13.
reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. _rectene reus
sit_, to correspond with _rectene occiderit_ and _honestene
tradiderit_ in what follows: along with Gertz’s _quaeramus, an_
to correspond with _veniat in iudicium an_, Becher, however
(Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a
change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read,
‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui
... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run,
‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod
216
Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of
parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.

Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit
insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?,
so here the _finita_ or _specialis causa_ shows the form of a
positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.
_Reus sit_ and _legerit_ are motived only by the disjunctive
interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or
only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The _infinita quaestio_, on
the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a
question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following
_finitae_ and _infinitae quaestiones_. The _finita
quaestio_ rests on the _generalis quaestio_: acquittal of the
charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to _violeturne_,
&c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10)
Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne,
&c.

§14.
dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244,
Ball.: _inventus_ Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.
_invenis_ appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. _dum adul.
profectui sunt util._

quia inventionem, Halm: _quae inventionem_ all codd. Qy.
_quod_?

§16.
materia fuerit. Meister suggests _erit_: perhaps
rather _fuerit—necesse erit_.

§17.
assuescere Zumpt: _assuefieri_ Philander. All MSS. have
_assuefacere_. Frotscher wrote _inanibus_ se _simulacris ...
assuefacere_, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan.
Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give _difficilis digressus_:
but in view of the consensus for _assuefacere_ the alternation
_difficilius digressos_ (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243)
is worth considering: _inanibus simulacris_ would then go (though
awkwardly) with _detineri_ (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and
the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.

§18.
transferrentur N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.

§20.
decretoriis Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.:
Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) _derectoriis_ BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:
_detectoris_ b: _delectoris_ H: _delectoriis_ Bodl.:
_de rhetoriis_ Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _vel
rhetoricis_ M.

satis so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 _litis_: Hb
_sitis_.

§21.
idoneus bHM: _si idoneus_ Bn Bg Sal.: _sudoneus_ N:
_is idoneus_ Halm.

§22.
sustinere Halm and Meister: _sustineri_ Bn Bg HN Sal.

recidet occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a
correction in Vall.: all other codd. _recidere_.

§23.
diligenter effecta all codd. Regius proposed _una diligenter
effecta_, Badius _una enim diligenter effecta_, and so many edd.
_Una_ would come in well before _quam_; but Becher rightly
holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative
alone, but qualitative as well. He reports _una enim_ as a
correction in the Vallensis.

quidque. Fleckeisen proposed _quicquid_; see Madvig on de
Fin. v. §24.


CHAPTER VI.

§1.
vacui nec otium patitur. The reading in the text, which is quite
satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg give
_vacuum otium pat._, and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and
11671. For _otium patitur_ b (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable
reading _experientium_ (_experientiam_ Burn. 243, Bodl.),
which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true
reading perhaps be _nec ἕξιν parantibus otium patitur_? Jeep suggested
_expetit otium_: _nec perire otium patitur_ has also been
suggested.

217
§2.
desit. After this word there is a considerable space left blank
in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671.
In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic
deficit antiquus codex.’

inhaeret ... quod laxatur: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and
Krüger. BMN give _inhaeret ... quae laxatur_, which appears in ed.
Camp. (and Halm) as _inhaerent ... quae laxantur_.

§4.
tandem Madvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61, _tamen_ libri.

§5.
redire. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829,
and restore it to the text, in place of _regredi_ (Halm and
Meister), which seems to have arisen out of _redi_ HF, and occurs
in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.

§6.
domo Harl. 4995: _domū_ B Ioan. MN Sal.

§7.
utrimque Bonnell and Meister. The codd. give _utrumque_.
Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposed _utcumque_:
Spalding _utique_: Jeep _si tutius utcumque quaerendum est_
(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of b _strict_
* * * (_margine adcisa_), which reappears in HFT
(_strictius—strutius_).


CHAPTER VII.

§1.
praemium quoddam Harl. 4995, probably following a correction in
the Vallensis: _primus quid amplius_ Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl.
2662, 4950. _Amplissimum_ Stoer.

intrare portum Bn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts
Meiser’s conj. _instar portus_. On this reading the advocate who
has nothing but (_solam_) the _scribendi facultas_, and who
therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which
seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing
to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is
calm, and so not _praesentissimis quibusque periculis_. Neither of
the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that
the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions are
_monstrare portum_: _instaurare p._: and _in terra
portum_ (?) Jeep.

§2.
statimque. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: see
_ad loc._ The editors print _statimque, si non succ._

§3.
quae vero patitur, &c. In the text _possit_ (for
_sit_ of MSS.) is due to Frotscher, _omittere_ (for
_mittere_) to Bonnell. _Ratio_ (for _oratio_ Bn Bg H
Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz,
reads _quae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando?
mitto casus: quid_, &c. _Aliquando_ he takes as = ‘only
sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit).
For _mitto casus_ (‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2.
25.

§5.
quid secundum ac deinceps: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point
to this reading, though Halm and Meister print _ac sec. et deinc_.
Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) have _ac sec. ac dein._: but
in Bg above the first _ac_ the letter _d_ appears (evidently
for _quid_, not _ad_ as H), and over the second
_ac_, _et_ is written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the
first _ac_ Harl. 2662 gives _atque_, and so Spalding reports
Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis
also has _quid secundum_.

§6.
via dicet ducetur, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244: _ducet
ducetur_ Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variant _viam
discet_ (as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts
the words, reading _ducetur_, _dicet_ to avoid a ‘tautology’:
cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changed _ducetur_ into
_utetur_. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wrote _ducetur
... velut duce_, and suggests that _certa_ may have fallen
218
out after _serie_ (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he
thinks, additional point to the clause introduced by _propter
quod_: men who have had but little practice do not always speak
methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in
keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events
is ‘a trusty guide.’

§8.
paulum, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:
_paululum_ bHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.

sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit, Halm, by adding _os_
to the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995). _sed ipsum os quoque
concurrit_, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I find _sed id
ipsum coit atque conc._, which may show that we ought to read _os
ipsum_.

elocutioni, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio
an recte,’ Halm.

§9.
observatione una, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:
_observationen_ (_-nū_ Bg) _in luna_ Bn Bg Ioan. N Sal.
Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _observatione_ (_-um_ H) _in
una_ bH: _observatione simul_ Halm.

§13.
superfluere video, cum eo quod, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald.
and most edd.: _superfluere video: quodsi_ Halm, and a later hand
in Vall. (Becher): _videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsi_ Meister,
followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading is
_superfluere cum eo quod_ (BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,
11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from which _video_ seems to have
disappeared: the later hand in Bg gives _videantur_.

Meister seems to be right in retaining _cum eo quod_, though his
adoption of _videmus_ for _video_ is unnecessary, considering
_mirabor_ in the same sentence. _Cum eo quod_ (see _ad
loc._) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle,
1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable that _video_
dropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corrupto _cumeo_
latet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo
quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att.
vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation in
_quodsi_ (‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported
Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the
whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten
Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft,
dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages
erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu
Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the
text.

§14.
ut Cicero dictitabant. The reading is far from certain, but it
seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in
agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best
alternative is _ut Cicero dicit aiebant_ (C, Par. 1, also in margin
of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 give _dicit
agebant_, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived
probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake for
_dictitabant_. Bg gives _dictabant_: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2,
Par. 2, sec. m. _aiebant_: Regius conjectured _ut Cicero ait
dictitabant_: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the
inclusion of Cicero among the _veteres_ cp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes
veteres et Cicero praecipue.’

§16.
tum intendendus. Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets _tum_ (which
is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain,
like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after
the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ...
non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before
(omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also
the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus.
H. 2662 gives _tamen_ (and is here again in agreement with
Guelf.).

addit ad dicendum, B: _addiscendum_ (om. _addit_)
bHFT. The loss of _addit_ seems to have given rise to
interpolation: M shows _addit ad discendum stimulos habet et
dicendorum expectata laus_. Bonnell prints _Ad dic. etiam pudor
stim. habet et dic. exp. aus_: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst.
cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefanda
219
viii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore
dicendis inseri possit.

§17.
pretium, all codd.: _praemium_ Halm, following Regius.

§18.
praecepimus, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and
Vall.2: other codd. _praecipimus_.

§19.
cum ... sint consecuti bHM: _cum ... sunt consecuti_ Bn
Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here,
as at 2 §6
(_tradiderunt_), where see note. Here _cum_ is more or less
causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are
no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to
acquire _extemporalis facilitas_ must consider it his duty to
arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.

Gertz put a full stop at _tutior_, and for _cum_ read
_quin_, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. with
_extemporalis facilitas_ as subject), _potest_ would be
expected instead of _debet_. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s
third edition. H. J. Müller suggested _Nam ... sunt
consecuti_.

§20.
tanta esse umquam debet. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod.
Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’s
_tanta sit umquam_. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 give _tanta esse
umquam fiducia_: M has _tantam esse umquam fiduciam_: Vall.
_esse unquam tantam fid._: Harl. 4995 _esse tantam unquam_.
Regius made the addition of _velim_ after _facilitatis_:
Becher thinks it may have dropped out before _ut non_. Meister
follows: perhaps rather _tantam velim_ (tm) _esse
unquam_.

§22.
consequi, Spald.: _non sequi_ bH: _sequi_ MC Harl.
4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it,
explaining _utrumque non dabitur_ as ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis
intendere.’

§23.
satis Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result
of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela
et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.

§24.
non labitur. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading
(which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is
undoubtedly better than _non capitur_, which occurs in Bn Bg H
Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.
_Capitur_ is explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to
such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente
captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand.
Another reading is _rapitur_, which Halm thought might be right:
but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context,
though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4
a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem.
Hild suggests _animo_ (or _mente_) _non labitur_: Jeep
_non carpitur_ (cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere
quod potest carpi): Becher _non abit_ (cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis
vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation: _non
cadit_ might stand alongside of Becher’s _non abit_, or such a
future as _servabitur_ or _retinebitur_ could take the place
of the negation, though we should then look for _deperdet_ instead
of _deperdit_.

non omnino B and codd.: _omnino non_ Gesner, followed by
Halm.

§25.
est alia exercitatio, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829,
11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.): _est illa_ BH
Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.: _est et illa_ Spalding Halm and Meister (cp.
ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).

utilior (Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd.
vett.’) Vall.2, Harl. 4995: all other codd. _utilitatis_
(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?). In support of his proposal to read _maioris
utilitatis_, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90)
compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60
quod est sane summae difficultatis.

§26.
quam illa: so all codd. Gertz _quam in illa_ (sc.
exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s
Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zu _componitur_
220
ist Subjekt _exercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio_
(_dum tamen ... ipsum_) _persequendi_, d.h. dem Sinne nach
_tacita oratio_, wie _dum t. q. dicat i. s. i._ zeigt, zu
_illa_ ist Subjekt _vera oratio_; _componitur oratio_
aber ist nicht auffälliger als _explicatur exercitatio_.’

§27.
ut Cicero ... tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in
transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, after
_ubique_. Becher rejects it as a gloss.

aut legendum b M: om. BN Sal.: _vel ad legendum_ Vall.
Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned
only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it
promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’

§28.
innatans Stoer: _unatrans_ BN Ioan. Sal.: _inatrans_
bH: _iura trans_ Harl. 2662: _intrans_ FM
Vall.2.

§29.
an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.): _ac si_ bHFT Burn.
243: _an_ Bn Bg M.

debent, all codd.: _debemus_ Krüger (3rd ed.) after
Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the
participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’
&c.

sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are
stated in the note _ad loc._ Bn Bg HN and most codd. have
_inicere_, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the
repetition of the letters _-ic_ in what I take to be the original
text, whereupon the preceding _tamen_ (or _tam̅_) would assist
the transition to _in_icere. Cp. the omission of _sic_ in most
codd. in _ut sic dixerim_ 2 §15. Halm (after Bursian)
wrote _id efficere_, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations
are _vincere_ M, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2: _tantum
iniicere_ Harl. 4995: _inniti_ or _adniti_ edd.: _id
agere_ Badius: _evincere_ Törnebladh.

§32.
et in his: _in his_ Halm and Meister: _ne in his_ BN
Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.: _ne in iis_ Harl. 2662: _vel in iis_
Spald.: _vel in his_ Bonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture
on _et_, which seems to help the antithesis with _in hoc
genere_ above: v. _ad loc._

velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm,
Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly: _vel in summas
in_ (_sine_ bH: _sive_ Harl. 4995) _commentarium_ Bn
Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662: _velin summas et_ (suprascr. _in_)
_commentarium_ N: _vel insinuamus sine commendarios_ M:
_commentarioram et capita_ Harl. 4950. Other conjectural
emendations are _velut in summas commentarium_ Spald.: _mihi quae
scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf._ Zumpt: _nec in his
quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferri_
Frotscher; _vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas_ (cp. Liv. xl. 29.
11 lectis rerum summis) _in commentarios conferre_ Jeep: _ex iis
quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre_,
Zambaldi,—(on the ground that with _conferre_, _ex his_
gives a better sense than _in his_). To these may perhaps be added
_et in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita
conferre_.

In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin
discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS.
(_ne in his_) he proposes _ne in his quae scripserimus
erremus_: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir
geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use of _errare_
xi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above for
_vel in summas_ on the ground that it is impossible to explain
‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of
‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt
in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte
einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’
be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not
in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte
aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den
Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’
Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:
221
‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den
Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’

Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice
was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the
elimination of the unmeaning _et_ which wrongly conjoins
_commentarium_ and _capita_. Again as _summa_ and
_caput_ are synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi.
1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and the _vel_
in _vel in summas_ seems to show that these words were originally a
marginal gloss to explain (_in_) _capita_. Kiderlin therefore
proposes to transform the text as follows: _ne in his quae
scripserimus erremus_ [_vel in summas_] _in
commentarium capita conferre._

quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger
(3rd ed.): _quod simus_ Bn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm: _non
simus_ bHT Bodl. In explanation of _quod simus_ Spalding says
‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’;
and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by
writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the
written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’

hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.: _hoc quoque_ Harl.
4995: _id quoque_ bHM.

 


223

INDEX OF NAMES.

 

(The references are to chapters and sections.)

 


Achilles, i. 47, 50, 65.

Aelius (Lucius) Stilo, i. 99.

Aeschines, i. 22,
77.

Aeschylus, i.
66.

Afranius, i.
100.

Alcaeus, i. 63.

Antimachus, i.
53.

Antipater Sidonius, vii. 19.

Apollonius, i.
54.

Aratus, i. 55.

Archias, Aul. Licinius, vii. 19.

Archilochus, i.
59.

Aristarchus, i. 54,
59.

Aristophanes, i.
66.

Aristophanes of Byzantium, i. 54.

Aristotle, i.
83.

Asinius Pollio, i.
22, 24, 113: ii. 17, 25.

Asprenas, C. Nonius, i.
22.

Attici—Attic Orators, i. 76-80: cp. ii. 17; i. 115.

Attius (Accius), i.
97.

Aufidia, i. 22.

Aufidius Bassus, i.
103.


Bibaculus, M. Furius, i.
96.

Brutus, M. Iunius, i.
123, 23: v. 20: vii. 27.


Caecilius Statius, i.
99.

Caelius, M. Rufus, i.
115: ii. 25.

Caesar, C. Iulius, i.
114: ii. 25.

Caesius Bassus, i.
96.

Calidius M., i.
23.

Callimachus, i.
58.

Calvus, i, 115: ii.
25.

Carbo, vii.
27.

Cassius Severus, i.
22, 116.

Catius, i.
124.

Cato, v. 13.

Catullus, i.
96.

Cestius, v. 20.

Charisius, i.
70.

Cicero, i. 33, 40, 80, 81, 105-112, 123: ii. 18: iii. 1: v. 2, 11, 16: vii. 19, 27, 30.

Cinna, C. Helvius, iv.
4.

Clitarchus, i.
75.

Clodius, v. 13.

Cornelius, C., v.
13.

Cornelius Celsus, i.
23, 124.

Cornelius Gallus, i.
93.

Cornelius Severus, i.
89.

Crassus, iii. 1:
v. 2.

Cratinus, i.
63.

Cremutius, i.
104.

Crispus, i. 23.


Demetrius of Phalerum, i.
33, 80.

Demosthenes, i. 22,
24, 39, 76, 105: ii. 24: iii. 25, 30.

Domitian, i.
91.

Domitius Afer, i.
23, 86, 118.


Empylus Rhodius, vi.
4.

Ennius, i. 88.

Ephorus, i. 75.

Epicurus, ii. 15:
cp. i. 124.

Euphorion, i.
56.

Eupolis, i. 65.

Euripides, i.
67.


Gallus (Cornelius), i.
93.


Helvius (C. Cinna), iv.
4.

Hercules, i.
56.

Herodotus, i. 73,
101.

Hesiod, i. 52.

Hipponax, see on i.
59.

Homer, i. 24, 48 sqq., 57, 62, 81, 85.

Horace, i. 24, 56, 61, 94, 96.

Hortensius, v. 13:
vi. 4: cp. i. 23.

Hyperides, i. 77:
v. 2.


Isocrates, i. 79, 108: iv. 4.

Iulius Africanus, i.
118.

Iulius Florus, iii.
13.

Iulius Secundus, i.
120: iii.
12.


Laelius, Decimus, i.
23.

Laenas Popilius, vii.
32.

Ligarius, i.
23.

Livius Andronicus, ii.
7.

Livy, i. 32, 39, 101.

Lucan, i. 90.

Lucilius, i. 93
sqq.

Lucretius, i.
87.

Lysias, i. 78.

Macer, i. 56, 87.

Marcellus, i.
38.

Marcia, v. 13.

Menander, i. 69
sqq.

Messalla, i. 22, 24, 113: v. 2.

Metrodorus Scepsius, vi. 4.

Milo, i. 23: vii. 13, 20.

Minerva, i. 91.


Nicander, i. 56.


Ovid, i. 88, 93, 98.


Pacuvius, i. 97.

Panyasis, i.
54.

Patroclus, i.
49.

Pedo Albinovanus, i.
90.

Pericles, i.
82.

Persius, i. 94: iii. 21.

Philemon, i.
72.

Philetas, i.
50.

224
Philistus, i.
74.

Phryne, v. 2.

Pindar, i.
109.

Pisandros, i.
56.

Plato, i. 81.

Plautus, i. 99.

Plautus (Stoicus), i.
124.

Pomponius Secundus, i.
98.

Porcius Latro, v.
18.

Priam, i. 50.

Propertius, i.
93.


Quintilian:

_Life_, Introd. pp.
i-xiii.

_The Institutio Oratorio_, pp. xiii-xxii.

_Literary Criticism_, pp. xxii-xxxix.

_Style and Language_, pp. xxxix-lvii.

_Manuscripts_, pp.
lviii-lxxv.


Rabirius, i. 90.


Saleius Bassus, i.
90.

Sallust, i. 31, 101, 102: ii. 17: iii. 8.

Scipio, i. 99.

Seneca, i.
125-131. Introd. p.
xxiv. sqq.

Serranus, i.
89.

Servilius Nonianus, i.
101.

Sextii (father and son), i. 124.

Simonides, i.
64.

Simonides of Amorgos, see on i. 59.

Sophocles, i. 67
sqq.

Stesichorus, i.
62.

Sulpicius, i. 22,
116: v. 4: vii. 30.


Terence, i. 99.

Theocritus, i.
55.

Theophrastus, i.
27, 83.

Theopompus, i.
74.

Thucydides, i. 33,
73, 101: ii. 17.

Thyestes, i.
98.

Tibullus, i.
93.

Timagenes, i.
75.

Tiro, vii.
31.

Trachalus, i.
119.

Tubero, i. 23.

Tyrtaeus, i.
56.


Valerius Flaccus, i.
90.

Varius, i. 98: iii. 8.

Varro (M. Terentius), i. 95.

Varro Atacinus, i.
87.

Vergil, i. 56, 85: iii. 8.

Verres, i. 23.

Vibius Crispus, i.
119.

Volusenus Catulus, i.
23.


Xenophon, i. 33, 82: v. 2.


225

INDEX OF MATTERS.

 

(The first reference is to the chapter and section of the text; the
second to the page and column of the explanatory notes. References to
the Introduction are given separately.)

The above paragraph was in the original text. For this e-text, only the
section numbers are linked; sections are generally very short, and notes
adjoin the text.


abruptus, ii. 19:
131b.

abunde, i. 94:
91a.

abusio, i. 12:
21b.

accedere, i. 86:
83a.

actio, i. 17:
24b.

actus rei, i. 31:
35a.

acutus, i. 77:
73b.

acumen, i. 106:
107b.

adde quod, Introd. p. liii.

adducere frontem, iii. 13: 142a.

adfectus, i. 27:
31b.: and i. 48:
49a.

adhuc, Introd. pp.
l-li.

Adjectives, _use of_: Introd. p. xlvi. sqq.

advocatus, i. 111:
110a.

alioqui, Introd. p.
li.

ἄλογος τριβή, vii. 11: 174a.

altercatio, i. 35:
39b.

ambitio, Introd. p.
xliv.

ambitus rerum, i.
16: 24a.

amplificationes, i.
49: 50b.

Annales Pontificum, ii.
7: 126a.

ante omnia, Introd. p. liii.

antiqui, ii. 17:
130b.

argumenta et signa rerum, i. 49: 50b.

artes, i. 15:
23b.

atticus, i. 44:
45b.

auctor, i. 24:
30a.

auditorium, i. 36:
40a.

aureum plectrum, i.
63: 60a.

auspicatus, i. 85:
82a.


basilica, v. 18:
164b.

beatus, i. 61:
59a.

bellicum canere, i.
33: 36b.

bona fide, iii.
23: 146b.


calumnia, i. 115:
113b.

calcaribus egere, i.
74: 70a.

candidus, i. 73:
68a.

candor, i. 101:
100b.

caro, i. 77:
73a.

cerae, iii. 30:
149a.

certe scio, ii. 5:
124b.

circa, i. 52:
52a.

circulatorius, i. 8:
18b.

citra, i. 2:
12b.

civilia officia, iii.
11: 140a.

classis, v. 18:
166a.

claudicare, i. 99:
97a.

cogitatio, vi. 1:
167a.

color, i. 116:
114b.

_Comedy, Greek_, i. 65: 61a.

 „_Latin_, i. 99: 97a.

commendare, i.
101: 101a.

communes loci, v.
12: 159b.

compositio, i. 52:
52b. and i. 79:
77b.

compositus, i.
119: 117a.

concludere, i.
106: 107a.

conferre, i. 1:
12a.

confirmatio sententiarum, v. 12: 159a.

contorta vis, vii.
14: 176a.

conrogati, i. 18:
26b.

cothurnus (Sophocli), i. 68: 64a: and ii. 22: 133a.

cultus, Introd. p.
xliv.

cum interim, i. 18:
26b.

cum praesertim, i.
105: 105a.

cum eo quod, vii.
13: 175a.


declinata figura oratio, v.
8: 157a.

decor, i. 27:
32a.

decretoria (arma), v.
20: 165b.

demum, Introd. p.
li.

densus, i. 68and 73.

destructio sententiarum, v. 12: 159a.

dicendi veneres, i.
79: 76a.

dicendi ex tempore facultas, iii. 2: vii. 1, 5, 24.

declamatores, i.
71: 65b.

dictare, iii. 19:
144a.

digerere cibum, i.
19: inordinata, iv.
1: commentarios, vii. 30.

digressiones, i.
33: 36b.

dilectus, iii. 5:
138a.

disertus, i. 118:
115b.

_Dramatic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 65: _Latin_, i. 97.

dubitare, i. 73:
67a.

ducere (colorem), i.
59: 57a.

ducere opus, iii.
18: 144a.

dulcis, i. 73:
68a.

dum non, iii. 7:
138b.

226
efferre se, iii. 10:
140a.

elegans, i. 65:
62a.

_Elegy_, _Greek_, i. 58: _Latin_, i. 93.

_Epic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 46 sqq.: _Latin_, i. 85 sqq.

epilogus, i. 50:
51b: and i. 107:
108b.

epodos, i. 96:
94a.

exactus, ii. 14:
128a.

exempla, i. 49:
50b.

exilis, ii. 16:
129b.

expositus, Introd. p.
xlv.

extemporalis color, vi.
5: 168b.

extemporalis actio, vii. 18: temeritas, vi. 6.

exultare, ii. 16:
130a.


facere (bene) ad aliquid, i. 33: 38a.

facilitas, i. 1: ii. 12: iii. 7: vii. 19.

fas erat, v. 7:
157a.

favorabilis, v. 21:
166a.

figurae, i. 12:
22a.

_Figures_ (_military_, &c.), Introd. pp. lvi-vii.

forsitan, ii. 10:
126b.

frequenter, i. 17:
25b.

frugalitas, iii.
26: 147b.


genera dicendi, i. 44:
44-5.

genera lectionum, i.
45: 46b.

grammatici, i. 53:
53a.

grandis, i. 65:
62a.


habere laudem, i. 53:
53a.

ἕξις, i. 1: 12a.

_History_, i.
31: 34a; _Greek_, i. 73: 66a; _Latin_, i. 101: 100a.

hodieque, i. 94:
91b.

horride, ii. 17:
130a.


_Iambic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 59: 57b; _Latin_, i. 96.

ideoque, i. 21:
28b.

igitur, i. 4:
15a.

index, i. 57:
56b.

indiscretus, i. 2:
12a.

infelicitas, ii. 8:
126a.

infinitae questiones, iii. 11: 158a.

interim, i. 9:
19b.

inventio, i. 106: 106b.

ipse, Introd. p.
xlix.

iucundus, i. 46:
48a.


lacerti, i. 33:
37a.

lactea (ubertas), i.
32: 36a.

laetus, i. 46:
48a.

lascivia (recens haec), i. 43: 43b.

lascivus, i. 88:
84b.

lene dicendi genus, i.
121: 117b.

lima, iv. 4:
152a.

loci communes, v.
12: 159b.

lucrativa opera, vii.
27: 180b.

_Lyric Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 61: 58b; _Latin_, i. 96.


medium dicendi genus, i.
52: 52b; i. 80:
78b.

membranae, iii.
31: 150a.

memoria posteritatis, i. 31: 35b.

mensurae verborum, i.
10: 20a.

merere, i. 72:
66b.


nam (elliptical), i. 9:
19a.

nescio an ulla, i.
65.

nisi forte, i. 70:
65a.

nitidus, i. 9: 19b;
i. 79: 75b.

non sit, ii. 27:
135a.

numeri, i. 4: 15a;
i. 70: 65b.


obiurgare, iii. 20:
145a.

offensator, iii.
20: 145a.

olim, i. 104:
103a.

opinio, v. 18:
164a.

opus, i. 9: 19b.

_Oratory_, _Greek_, i. 76: _Latin_, i. 105.

_Orators_, Canon of the Ten, i. 76: 71a.

ostentatio, i. 28:
32b.

otiosus, i. 76:
72b.


palaestra, i. 79:
76a.

paraphrasis, v. 5:
155b.

parem facere, i.
105: 103b.

parum (non), i.
124: 119a.

pedestris oratio, i.
81: 79b.

periculum, i. 36:
42b.

_Philosophy_, i.
35: 38b: _Greek_, i. 81: 78b; _Latin_, i. 123: 118a.

φράσις, i. 42: 43a.

pilarii, vii. 11:
174b.

_Poetry, the study of_, i. 27 sqq.

pontificum annales, ii.
7: 126a.

praescriptum, ii.
2: 123b.

praesertim (cum), i.
105: 105a.

praestringere, i.
30: 33b.

praesumere, v. 4:
155a.

pressus, i. 44:
44b.

procinctu (in), i.
2: 13a.

profectus, iii. 2:
136b.

professor, v. 18:
164a.

propria, i. 6:
16a.

proprietas, i. 46:
48a.

prosa (oratio), i.
81: 79b.

protinus, i. 3:
14a.

proximus—secundus, i. 53: 53b.


quia, Introd. p.
liv.

quicunque, i. 12:
22a.

quisque, i. 2:
12b.

quoque (etiam), i.
20: 28a; i. 125:
120b.

quotas quisque, i.
41: 42b.


rarum est ut, vii.
24: 179b.

ratio c. gerund, iii.
31: 149b.

ratio constat, ii.
1: 123a.

ratio (in scribendo), iii. 15: 143a.

rectum (dicendi genus), i. 44: 44a.

repraesentare, vii.
2: 170b.

ridiculus, i. 117:
115a.


sales, i. 107:
108a.

sanguis, i. 60:
58a.

_Satire_, i.
93: 89b.

sententiae, i. 50,
52, 68, 90, 102, 129, 130: ii. 17: v. 4.

signa rerum et argumenta, i. 49: 50b.

silva, iii. 17:
143b.

similitudines, i.
49: 50b.

sine dubio, Introd. p. liii.

Socratici, i. 35:
39b.

solum (non, sed), i.
6: 17a.

sordidus, i. 9:
19b.

spiritus, i. 27:
31b.

stilus, i. 2: 12b;
iii. 1, 32; vii. 16.

Stoici, i. 84:
81b.

subtilis, i. 78:
74a.

summus, Introd. p.
xlvi.

supinus, ii. 17:
131a.

supplosio pedis, vii.
26: 180b.


tacitus, i. 19:
26a.

tenuis, i. 44:
45a.

tenuitas, ii. 23:
133b.

theses, v. 11:
158a.

togatae, i. 100:
99b.

tori athletarum, i.
33: 37a.

227
_Tragedy_, _Latin_, i. 97: 94b; _Greek_, i. 66.

transversus, i.
110: 110a.

τριβὴ ἄλογος, vii. 11: 174a.

τροπικῶς, i. 11: 21a.


ubicumque, Introd. p.
liii.

urbanitas, i. 115:
112b.

utinam non, i.
100: 99b.

utique: i. 20:
28a.

utrimque, i. 131:
122b.


valetudo, Introd. p.
liv.

validius, iii.
12: 140b.

velocitatem (Sallusti), i. 102: 101a.

veneres dicendi, i.
79: 76a.

ventilator, vii.
11: 174b.

verbum—vox, i.
11: 21a.

versificator, i.
89: 85b.

vibrantes sententiae, i. 60: 58a.

vis dicendi, i. 1:
11b.

voluntas recti generis, i. 89: 86b.

vox—verbum, i.
11: 21a.


223


INDEX OF NAMES.

 

(The references are to chapters and sections.)

 


Antipater Sidonius, vii. 19.

Archias, Aul. Licinius, vii. 19.

Asinius Pollio, ii. 17, 25.

Attici—Attic Orators, ii. 17.


Brutus, M. Iunius, v. 20: vii. 27.


Caelius, M. Rufus, ii. 25.

Caesar, C. Iulius, ii. 25.

Calvus, i, 115: ii. 25.

Carbo, vii. 27.

Cato, v. 13.

Cestius, v. 20.

Cicero, ii. 18: iii. 1: v. 2, 11, 16: vii. 19, 27, 30.

Cinna, C. Helvius, iv. 4.

Clodius, v. 13.

Cornelius, C., v. 13.

Crassus, iii. 1: v. 2.


Demosthenes, ii. 24: iii. 25, 30.


Empylus Rhodius, vi. 4.

Epicurus, ii. 154.


Helvius (C. Cinna), iv. 4.

Hortensius, v. 13: vi. 4.

Hyperides, v. 2.


Isocrates, iv. 4.

Iulius Florus, iii. 13.

Iulius Secundus, iii. 12.


Laenas Popilius, vii. 32.

Livius Andronicus, ii. 7.


Marcia, v. 13.

Messalla, v. 2.

Metrodorus Scepsius, vi. 4.

Milo, vii. 13, 20.


Persius, iii. 21.

224
Phryne, v. 2.

Porcius Latro, v. 18.


Sallust, ii. 17: iii. 8.

Sulpicius, v. 4: vii. 30.


Thucydides, ii. 17.

Tiro, vii. 31.


Varius, iii. 8.

Vergil, iii. 8.


Xenophon, v. 2.


225

INDEX OF MATTERS.

 

(The first reference is to the chapter and section of the text; the
second to the page and column of the explanatory notes. References to
the Introduction are given separately.)

The above paragraph was in the original text. For this e-text, only the
section numbers are linked; sections are generally very short, and notes
adjoin the text.


abruptus, ii. 19: 131b.

adducere frontem, iii. 13: 142a.

ἄλογος τριβή, vii. 11: 174a.

Annales Pontificum, ii. 7: 126a.

antiqui, ii. 17: 130b.


basilica, v. 18: 164b.

bona fide, iii. 23: 146b.


cerae, iii. 30: 149a.

certe scio, ii. 5: 124b.

civilia officia, iii. 11: 140a.

classis, v. 18: 166a.

cogitatio, vi. 1: 167a.

communes loci, v. 12: 159b.

confirmatio sententiarum, v. 12:
159a.

contorta vis, vii. 14: 176a.

cothurnus (Sophocli), ii. 22: 133a.

cum eo quod, vii. 13: 175a.


declinata figura oratio, v. 8: 157a.

decretoria (arma), v. 20: 165b.

destructio sententiarum, v. 12:
159a.

dicendi ex tempore facultas, iii. 2: vii. 1, 5, 24.

dictare, iii. 19: 144a.

digerere inordinata, iv. 1:
commentarios, vii. 30.

dilectus, iii. 5: 138a.

ducere opus, iii. 18: 144a.

dum non, iii. 7: 138b.

226
efferre se, iii. 10: 140a.

exactus, ii. 14: 128a.

exilis, ii. 16: 129b.

extemporalis color, vi. 5: 168b.

extemporalis actio, vii. 18:
temeritas, vi. 6.

exultare, ii. 16: 130a.


facilitas, ii. 12: iii. 7: vii. 19.

fas erat, v. 7: 157a.

favorabilis, v. 21: 166a.

forsitan, ii. 10: 126b.

frugalitas, iii. 26: 147b.


horride, ii. 17: 130a.


infelicitas, ii. 8: 126a.

infinitae questiones, iii. 11:
158a.


lima, iv. 4: 152a.

loci communes, v. 12: 159b.

lucrativa opera, vii. 27: 180b.

membranae, iii. 31: 150a.


non sit, ii. 27: 135a.


obiurgare, iii. 20: 145a.

offensator, iii. 20: 145a.

opinio, v. 18: 164a.


paraphrasis, v. 5: 155b.

pilarii, vii. 11: 174b.

pontificum annales, ii. 7: 126a.

praescriptum, ii. 2: 123b.

praesumere, v. 4: 155a.

profectus, iii. 2: 136b.

professor, v. 18: 164a.


rarum est ut, vii. 24: 179b.

ratio c. gerund, iii. 31: 149b.

ratio constat, ii. 1: 123a.

ratio (in scribendo), iii. 15:
143a.

repraesentare, vii. 2: 170b.


sententiae, ii. 17: v. 4.

silva, iii. 17: 143b.

stilus, iii. 1, 32; vii. 16.

supinus, ii. 17: 131a.

supplosio pedis, vii. 26: 180b.

tenuitas, ii. 23: 133b.

theses, v. 11: 158a.

227
τριβὴ ἄλογος, vii. 11: 174a.

validius, iii. 12: 140b.

ventilator, vii. 11: 174b.