Title: M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus
Author: Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius, 35-100?
Language: Latin
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus" ***


by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)



  [Transcriber’s Note:

  This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8
  (Unicode) text readers, including accented Greek and some letters
  with uncommon diacritics:

    τῶν δὲ κωμῳδῶν μιμητέον
    ạḍ (under-dots, here representing expunctuation)
    āō (macrons)

  If any of these characters do not display properly-- in particular,
  if the diacritic does not appear directly above or below the letter--
  or if the quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make
  sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to
  Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.
  As a last resort, use the latin-1 version of the file instead.

  Boldface type is shown with #marks#. Italics are generally shown with
  _lines_. Where this form would be unduly distracting, as in the body
  text (showing editorial emendations) or critical notes (marking
  individual letters within a word), {braces} are used instead.
  Superscript numbers referring to editions are given in (parentheses).

  In the original text, section numbers for the Latin text were printed
  in the margin, while chapter numbers appeared as page headers. Most
  paragraphs contained several numbered sections; they have been broken
  up for this e-text.

  The Introduction, Notes and Commentary “outweigh” the Latin text by
  a factor of at least 12. The Latin text _by itself_ is therefore
  duplicated at the very beginning of the e-text, before the Preface. If
  saved as a separate file it should take up less than 100 kilobytes.]



  M. FABI QUINTILIANI

  INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

  LIBER DECIMUS


  A Revised Text

  With Introductory Essays
  Critical and Explanatory Notes
  and a Facsimile of the Harleian Ms.

  by W. Peterson


  Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung
  Hildesheim



  Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1891
  Mit Genehmigung der Clarendon Press, Oxford
  Printed in Germany
  Herstellung: fotokop, Reprografischer Betrieb GmbH, Darmstadt
  Best.-Nr. 5101664


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


M. Fabi Quintiliani

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

Liber Decimus

  [_Primary Text Only_: See Transcriber’s Note.

  Italicized words and letters are emendations, as explained in the
  Commentary and Critical Notes. They are shown here in {braces}.
  Paragraph divisions are as in the original text.]



+De copia verborum.+

I.


|1| Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt necessaria, ita
non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis firma quaedam facilitas,
quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur; accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an
legendo an dicendo conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset
diligentius nobis examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse
contenti: |2| verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si
quid ex his defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam neque solida
atque robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo stilo vires acceperit,
et citra lectionis exemplum labor ille carens rectore fluitabit; et qui
sciet quae quoque sint modo dicenda, nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque
ad omnes casus habuerit eloquentiam, velut clausis thesauris incubabit.
|3| Non autem ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad efficiendum
oratorem maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe, cum sit in eloquendo
positum oratoris officium, dicere ante omnia est, atque hinc initium
eius artis fuisse manifestum est: proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum
scribendi quoque diligentia. |4| Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex
principiis non potest, ita procedente iam opere minima incipiunt esse
quae prima sunt. Verum nos non quo modo sit instituendus orator hoc loco
dicimus, (nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est),
sed athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo
genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum qui res
invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et collocandi
rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod didicerit facere quam
optime, quam facillime possit.

|5| Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam parandae, quibus
uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae constant copia rerum ac
verborum. |6| Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes,
verba in universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent singula,
minorem curam postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis protinus rebus
offerrent. Sed cum sint aliis alia aut magis propria aut magis ornata
aut plus efficientia aut melius sonantia, debent esse non solum nota
omnia, sed in promptu atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se
iudicio dicentis ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio. |7|
Et quae idem significarent solitos {scio} ediscere, quo facilius et
occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi aliquo, si breve intra
spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae repetitionis gratia sumerent
aliud quo idem intellegi posset. Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam
infelicis operae, tum etiam utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat,
ex qua sine discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

|8| Nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non
circulatoriam volubilitatem spectantibus. Id autem consequemur optima
legendo atque audiendo; non enim solum nomina ipsa rerum cognoscemus hac
cura, sed quod quoque loco sit aptissimum. |9| Omnibus enim fere verbis
praeter pauca, quae sunt parum verecunda, in oratione locus est. Nam
scriptores quidem iamborum veterisque comoediae etiam in illis saepe
laudantur, sed nobis nostrum opus intueri sat est. Omnia verba, exceptis
de quibus dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et humilibus interim et
vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte videntur sordida, ubi
res poscit, proprie dicuntur. |10| Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non
significationem modo, sed formas etiam mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque
erunt posita conveniant, nisi multa lectione atque auditione adsequi
nullo modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem auribus primum accipiamus.
Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus iussu regum in solitudine
educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse traduntur, tamen loquendi
facultate caruerunt. |11| Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem
pluribus vocibus declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius
utaris, intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria
rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem intellectum
feruntur, ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’. |12| Nam per abusionem sicarios etiam
omnes vocamus qui caedem telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia circuitu
verborum plurium ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia lactis.’ Plurima
vero mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me fugit’ et ‘non me
praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium est’. |13| Sed etiam ex
proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et ‘sentio’ et ‘video’ saepe
idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias dabit
lectio, ut non solum quo modo occurrent, sed etiam quo modo oportet
utamur. |14| Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de
intellectu animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum
‘intellego’, nec ut ‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’ ostendit.
|15| Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum gratia
legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque docemus, hoc sunt
exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus (cum eo qui discit
perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine demonstrante et sequi iam suis
viribus possit), quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit.

|16| Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat qui
dicit spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus incendit.
Vivunt omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa velut nascentia
cum favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum
qui orant periculo adficimur. |17| Praeter haec vox, actio decora,
accommodata, ut quisque locus postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima
in dicendo) ratio et, ut semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione
certius iudicium, quod audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor aut
ille laudantium clamor extorquet. |18| Pudet enim dissentire, et velut
tacita quadam verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere, cum interim et
vitiosa pluribus placent, et a conrogatis laudantur etiam quae non
placent. |19| Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam
prava iudicia non referant. Lectio libera est nec actionis impetu
transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive dubites sive memoriae
penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et tractemus et, ut cibos mansos
ac prope liquefactos demittimus, quo facilius digerantur, ita lectio non
cruda, sed multa iteratione mollita et velut confecta memoriae
imitationique tradatur.

|20| Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi minime fallat
legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi sollicitudinem, nec
per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed perlectus liber utique ex integro
resumendus, praecipueque oratio, cuius virtutes frequenter ex industria
quoque occultantur. |21| Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur
orator, eaque in prima parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa
profutura. Itaque suo loco minus placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint
ignorantibus; ideoque erunt cognitis omnibus repetenda. |22| Illud vero
utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes in manus sumpserimus, et,
quotiens continget, utrimque habitas legere actiones: ut Demosthenis et
Aeschinis inter se contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque Messallae, quorum
alter pro Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et Cassi reo
Asprenate aliasque plurimas. |23| Quin etiam si minus pares videbuntur
aliquae, tamen ad cognoscendam litium quaestionem recte requirentur, ut
contra Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre.
Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque {egerit utile} erit scire. Nam de
domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et pro Milone orationem Brutus
exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi egisse eum Cornelius Celsus
falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla defenderunt eosdem, et nobis
pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo Domiti Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi
Laeli orationes ferebantur.

|24| Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi auctores
dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur aliquando et oneri cedunt
et indulgent ingeniorum suorum voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum;
nonnumquam fatigantur, cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes,
Horatio vero etiam Homerus ipse videatur. |25| Summi enim sunt, homines
tamen, acciditque his qui, quidquid apud illos reppererunt, dicendi
legem putant, ut deteriora imitentur (id enim est facilius) ac se abunde
similes putent si vitia magnorum consequantur. |26| Modesto tamen et
circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris pronuntiandum est, ne, quod
plerisque accidit, damnent quae non intellegunt. Ac si necesse est in
alteram errare partem, omnia eorum legentibus placere quam multa
displicere maluerim.

|27| Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem poetarum
multique eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito. Namque ab his in rebus
spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in adfectibus motus omnis et in
personis decor petitur, praecipueque velut attrita cotidiano actu
forensi ingenia optime rerum talium blanditia reparantur; ideoque in hac
lectione Cicero requiescendum putat. |28| Meminerimus tamen non per
omnia poetas esse oratori sequendos nec libertate verborum nec licentia
figurarum: {poeticam} ostentationi comparatam et praeter id quod solam
petit voluptatem, eamque etiam fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam quaedam
incredibilia sectatur, patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari, |29| quod
adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem non semper uti propriis possit,
sed depulsa recta via necessario ad eloquendi quaedam deverticula
confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba, sed extendere, conripere,
convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis
de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti. |30| Neque ego arma squalere
situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est
ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri
argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus.

|31| Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco potest;
verum et ipsa sic est legenda ut sciamus plerasque eius virtutes oratori
esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et quodam modo carmen solutum, et
scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei
pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam
componitur; ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris
narrandi taedium evitat. |32| Itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana
brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse
perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius
ineruditum captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis
docebit eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit. |33| Adde
quod M. Tullius ne Thucydiden quidem aut Xenophontem utiles oratori
putat, quamquam illum ‘bellicum canere,’ huius ‘ore Musas esse locutas’
existimet. Licet tamen nobis in digressionibus uti vel historico
nonnumquam nitore, dum in his de quibus erit quaestio meminerimus non
athletarum toris, sed militum lacertis {opus} esse, nec versicolorem
illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem
pulverem facere. |34| Est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem
maximus, sed non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum
exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne omnia
testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex vetustate diligenter
sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea sola criminibus odii et
gratiae vacant.

|35| A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda vitio
factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis parte cesserunt.
Nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus iisque quae sunt istis contraria,
et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et argumentantur acriter {Stoici}, et
altercationibus atque interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime
Socratici praeparant. |36| Sed his quoque adhibendum est simile
iudicium, ut etiam cum in rebus versemur isdem non tamen eandem esse
condicionem sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii,
praeceptorum et periculorum.

|37| Credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in legendo
iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint {legendi}, quae in
auctore quoque praecipua virtus. Sed persequi singulos infiniti fuerit
operis. |38| Quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius tot milibus versuum de
Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis suae,
[quibuscum vivebat], exceptis Caesare atque Marcello, silentium egerit,
quis erit modus si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes
{persequamur} [et philosophos]? |39| Fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima
quae est apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta, ‘legendos
Demosthenen atque Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et
Ciceroni simillimus.’ |40| Non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii
summa. Paucos enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem
pertulerunt existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus
adlaturus sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque
vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte carentibus,
plurimum fateatur adiutum. |41| Nec multo aliud de novis sentio; quotus
enim quisque inveniri tam demens potest, qui ne minima quidem alicuius
certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? Qui si quis est,
intra primos statim versus deprehendetur, et citius nos dimittet quam ut
eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet experimentum. |42| Sed non
quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet, protinus ad faciendam
φράσιν, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.

Verum antequam de singulis loquar, pauca in universum de varietate
opinionum dicenda sunt. |43| Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant
neque in ullis aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum
arbitrantur, alios recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad
voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant. |44| Ipsorum
etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi volunt, alii pressa demum et tenuia
atque quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedant, sana et vere Attica
putant; quosdam elatior ingenii vis et magis concitata et plena spiritus
capit; sunt etiam lenis et nitidi et compositi generis non pauci
amatores. De qua differentia disseram diligentius, cum de genere dicendi
quaerendum erit: interim summatim, quid et a qua lectione petere possint
qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent, attingam: paucos enim, qui
sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est. |45| Facile est autem
studiosis, qui sint his simillimi, iudicare, ne quisquam queratur
omissos forte aliquos quos ipse valde probet; fateor enim plures
legendos esse quam qui a me nominabuntur. Sed nunc genera ipsa
lectionum, quae praecipue convenire intendentibus ut oratores fiant
existimem, persequar.

|46| Igitur, ut Aratus ab Iove incipiendum putat, ita nos rite coepturi
ab HOMERO videmur. Hic enim, quem ad modum ex Oceano dicit ipse omnium
{fluminum} fontiumque cursus initium capere, omnibus eloquentiae
partibus exemplum et ortum dedit. Hunc nemo in magnis rebus sublimitate,
in parvis proprietate superaverit. Idem laetus ac pressus, iucundus et
gravis, tum copia tum brevitate mirabilis, nec poetica modo, sed
oratoria virtute eminentissimus. |47| Nam ut de laudibus,
exhortationibus, consolationibus taceam, nonne vel nonus liber, quo
missa ad Achillen legatio continetur, vel in primo inter duces illa
contentio vel dictae in secundo sententiae omnes litium ac consiliorum
explicant artes? |48| Adfectus quidem vel illos mites vel hos concitatos
nemo erit tam indoctus qui non in sua potestate hunc auctorem habuisse
fateatur. Age vero, non utriusque operis sui ingressu in paucissimis
versibus legem prooemiorum non dico servavit, sed constituit? Nam
benevolum auditorem invocatione dearum quas praesidere vatibus creditum
est, et intentum proposita rerum magnitudine, et docilem summa celeriter
comprehensa facit. |49| Narrare vero quis brevius quam qui mortem
nuntiat Patrocli, quis significantius potest quam qui Curetum
Aetolorumque proelium exponit? Iam similitudines, amplificationes,
exempla, digressus, signa rerum et argumenta ceteraque {genera} probandi
ac refutandi sunt ita multa ut etiam qui de artibus scripserunt plurima
earum rerum testimonia ab hoc poeta petant. |50| Nam epilogus quidem
quis umquam poterit illis Priami rogantis Achillen precibus aequari?
Quid? In verbis, sententiis, figuris, dispositione totius operis nonne
humani ingenii modum excedit? ut magni sit virtutes eius non
aemulatione, quod fieri non potest, sed intellectu sequi. |51| Verum hic
omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae procul a se reliquit,
epicos tamen praecipue, videlicet quia clarissima in materia simili
comparatio est. |52| Raro adsurgit HESIODUS magnaque pars eius in
nominibus est occupata, tamen utiles circa praecepta sententiae
levitasque verborum et compositionis probabilis, daturque ei palma in
illo medio genere dicendi. |53| Contra in ANTIMACHO vis et gravitas et
minime vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. Sed quamvis ei secundas
fere grammaticorum consensus deferat, et adfectibus et iucunditate et
dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat
quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud secundum. |54| PANYASIN, ex
utroque mixtum, putant in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, alterum
tamen ab eo materia, alterum disponendi ratione superari. APOLLONIUS in
ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque
Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum
redegerunt; non tamen contemnendum reddidit opus aequali quadam
mediocritate. |55| ARATI materia motu caret, ut in qua nulla varietas,
nullus adfectus, nulla persona, nulla cuiusquam sit oratio; sufficit
tamen operi cui se parem credidit. Admirabilis in suo genere THEOCRITUS,
sed musa illa rustica et pastoralis non forum modo, verum ipsam etiam
urbem reformidat. |56| Audire videor undique congerentes nomina
plurimorum poetarum. Quid? Herculis acta non bene PISANDROS? NICANDRUM
frustra secuti Macer atque Vergilius? Quid? EUPHORIONEM transibimus?
Quem nisi probasset Vergilius idem, numquam certe ‘conditorum Chalcidico
versu carminum’ fecisset in Bucolicis mentionem. Quid? Horatius frustra
TYRTAEUM Homero subiungit? |57| Nec sane quisquam est tam procul a
cognitione eorum remotus ut non indicem certe ex bibliotheca sumptum
transferre in libros suos possit. Nec ignoro igitur quos transeo nec
utique damno, ut qui dixerim esse in omnibus utilitatis aliquid. |58|
Sed ad illos iam perfectis constitutisque viribus revertemur, quod in
cenis grandibus saepe facimus, ut, cum optimis satiati sumus, varietas
tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit. Tunc et elegiam vacabit in manus
sumere, cuius princeps habetur CALLIMACHUS, secundas confessione
plurimorum PHILETAS occupavit. |59| Sed dum adsequimur illam firmam, ut
dixi, facilitatem, optimis adsuescendum est et multa magis quam multorum
lectione formanda mens et ducendus color. Itaque ex tribus receptis
Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad ἕξιν maxime pertinebit unus
ARCHILOCHUS. |60| Summa in hoc vis elocutionis, cum validae tum breves
vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum, adeo ut
videatur quibusdam, quod quoquam minor est, materiae esse, non ingenii
vitium. |61| Novem vero lyricorum longe PINDARUS princeps spiritu
magnificentia, sententiis figuris, beatissima rerum verborumque copia et
velut quodam eloquentiae flumine; propter quae Horatius eum merito
credidit nemini imitabilem. |62| STESICHORUM, quam sit ingenio validus,
materiae quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et
epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem. Reddit enim personis in agendo
simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem, ac si tenuisset modum, videtur
aemulari proximus Homerum potuisse; sed redundat atque effunditur, quod
ut est reprehendendum, ita copiae vitium est. |63| ALCAEUS in parte
operis ‘aureo plectro’ merito donatur, qua tyrannos insectatus multum
etiam moribus confert, in eloquendo quoque brevis et magnificus et
diligens et plerumque oratori similis; sed et lusit et in amores
descendit, maioribus tamen aptior. |64| SIMONIDES, tenuis alioqui,
sermone proprio et iucunditate quadam commendari potest; praecipua tamen
eius in commovenda miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac eum parte
omnibus eius operis auctoribus praeferant.

|65| Antiqua comoedia cum sinceram illam sermonis Attici gratiam prope
sola retinet, tum facundissimae libertatis est et in insectandis vitiis
praecipua; plurimum tamen virium etiam in ceteris partibus habet. Nam et
grandis et elegans et venusta, et nescio an ulla, post Homerum tamen,
quem ut Achillen semper excipi par est, aut similior sit oratoribus aut
ad oratores faciendos aptior. |66| Plures eius auctores, ARISTOPHANES
tamen et EUPOLIS CRATINUSque praecipui. Tragoedias primus in lucem
AESCHYLUS protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad
vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus; propter quod correctas
eius fabulas in certamen deferre posterioribus poetis Athenienses
permiserunt, suntque eo modo multi coronati. |67| Sed longe clarius
inlustraverunt hoc opus SOPHOCLES atque EURIPIDES, quorum in dispari
dicendi via uter sit poeta melior inter plurimos quaeritur. Idque ego
sane, quoniam ad praesentem materiam nihil pertinet, iniudicatum
relinquo. Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad
agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden. |68| Namque is et
sermone (quod ipsum reprehendunt quibus gravitas et cothurnus et sonus
Sophocli videtur esse sublimior) magis accedit oratorio generi, et
sententiis densus et in iis quae a sapientibus tradita sunt paene ipsis
par, et dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt in foro
diserti comparandus; in adfectibus vero cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis
qui in miseratione constant facile praecipuus. |69| Hunc admiratus
maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quamquam in opere diverso,
MENANDER, qui vel unus meo quidem iudicio diligenter lectus ad cuncta
quae praecipimus effingenda sufficiat: ita omnem vitae imaginem
expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi facultas, ita est
omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus. |70| Nec nihil
profecto viderunt qui orationes, quae Charisi nomini addicuntur, a
Menandro scriptas putant. Sed mihi longe magis orator probari in opere
suo videtur, nisi forte aut illa iudicia, qua Epitrepontes, Epicleros,
Locroe habent, aut meditationes in Psophodee, Nomothete, Hypobolimaeo
non omnibus oratoriis numeris sunt absolutae. |71| Ego tamen plus adhuc
quiddam collaturum eum declamatoribus puto, quoniam his necesse est
secundum condicionem controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum
filiorum, militum rusticorum, divitum pauperum, irascentium
deprecantium, mitium asperorum; in quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc
poeta decor. |72| Atque ille quidem omnibus eiusdem operis auctoribus
abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit. Tamen
habent alii quoque comici, si cum venia leguntur, quaedam quae possis
decerpere, et praecipue PHILEMON; qui ut prave sui temporis iudiciis
Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi
secundus.

|73| Historiam multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe duos
ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem
consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi THUCYDIDES, dulcis et
candidus et fusus HERODOTUS: ille concitatis hic remissis adfectibus
melior, ille contionibus hic sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate. |74|
THEOPOMPUS his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori
magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus, diu fuerit
orator. PHILISTUS quoque meretur qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos
auctorum eximatur, imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita
aliquatenus lucidior. EPHORUS, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget.
CLITARCHI probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. |75| Longo post intervallo
temporis natus TIMAGENES vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam
historias scribendi industriam nova laude reparavit. XENOPHON non
excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est.

|76| Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas
una tulerit. Quorum longe princeps DEMOSTHENES ac paene lex orandi fuit:
tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam
nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod
redundet invenias. |77| Plenior AESCHINES et magis fusus et grandiori
similis, quo minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus
lacertorum. Dulcis in primis et acutus HYPERIDES, sed minoribus causis--
ut non dixerim utilior-- magis par. |78| His aetate LYSIAS maior,
subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis sit docere,
quaeras perfectius; nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum, puro tamen
fonti quam magno flumini propior. |79| ISOCRATES in diverso genere
dicendi nitidus et comptus et palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus
omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito: auditoriis enim se,
non iudiciis compararat: in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in
compositione adeo diligens ut cura eius reprehendatur. |80| Neque ego in
his de quibus sum locutus has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto,
nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos. Quin etiam PHALEREA illum DEMETRIUM,
quamquam is primum inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii
habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus
est fere ex Atticis qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio
genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero.

|81| Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae M.
Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet PLATONEM esse praecipuum sive acumine
disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? Multum
enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut
mihi non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei
instinctus. |82| Quid ego commemorem XENOPHONTIS illam iucunditatem
inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae
sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle veteris
comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in
labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam. |83| Quid reliquorum
Socraticorum elegantiam? Quid ARISTOTELEN? Quem dubito scientia rerum an
scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an
varietate operum clariorem putem. Nam in THEOPHRASTO tam est loquendi
nitor ille divinus ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur. |84| Minus
indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres, sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in
colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen
acuti magis quam (id quod sane non adfectaverunt) oratione magnifici.

|85| Idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. Itaque ut
apud illos Homerus, sic apud nos VERGILIUS auspicatissimum dederit
exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie
proximus. |86| Utar enim verbis isdem quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis
excepi: qui mihi interroganti quem Homero crederet maxime accedere,
‘secundus,’ inquit, ‘est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio.’ Et
hercule ut illi naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae
et diligentiae vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum;
et quantum eminentibus vincimur fortasse aequalitate pensamus. |87|
Ceteri omnes longe sequentur. Nam MACER et LUCRETIUS legendi quidem, sed
non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in sua
quisque materia, sed alter humilis, alter difficilis. ATACINUS VARRO in
iis per quae nomen est adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus
quidem, verum ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples. |88| ENNIUM
sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua
robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem. Propiores alii,
atque ad hoc de quo loquimur magis utiles. Lascivus quidem in herois
quoque OVIDIUS et nimium amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in
partibus. |89| CORNELIUS autem SEVERUS, etiamsi sit versificator quam
poeta melior, si tamen, ut est dictum, ad exemplar primi libri bellum
Siculum perscripsisset, vindicaret sibi iure secundum locum. SERRANUM
consummari mors immatura non passa est, puerilia tamen eius opera et
maximam indolem ostendunt et admirabilem praecipue in aetate illa recti
generis voluntatem. |90| Multum in VALERIO FLACCO nuper amisimus.
Vehemens et poeticum ingenium SALEI BASSI fuit, nec ipsum senectute
maturuit. RABIRIUS ac PEDO non in digni cognitione, si vacet. LUCANUS
ardens et concitatus et sententiis clarissimus, et, ut dicam quod
sentio, magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus. |91| Hos nominavimus,
quia GERMANICUM AUGUSTUM ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum,
parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum. Quid tamen his ipsis
eius operibus, in quae donato imperio iuvenis secesserat, sublimius,
doctius, omnibus denique numeris praestantius? Quis enim caneret bella
melius quam qui sic gerit? Quem praesidentes studiis deae propius
audirent? Cui magis suas artes aperiret familiare numen Minervae? |92|
Dicent haec plenius futura saecula, nunc enim ceterarum fulgore virtutum
laus ista praestringitur. Nos tamen sacra litterarum colentes feres,
Caesar, si non tacitum hoc praeterimus et Vergiliano certe versu
testamur:

  inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.

|93| Elegea quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque elegans
maxime videtur auctor TIBULLUS: sunt qui PROPERTIUM malint. OVIDIUS
utroque lascivior, sicut durior GALLUS. Satura quidem tota nostra est,
in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus LUCILIUS quosdam ita deditos sibi
adhuc habet amatores ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed
omnibus poetis praeferre non dubitent. |94| Ego quantum ab illis, tantum
ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere lutulentum et esse aliquid
quod tollere possis, putat. Nam eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque
inde acerbitas et abunde salis. Multum est tersior ac purus magis
HORATIUS et, non labor eius amore, praecipuus. Multum et verae gloriae
quamvis uno libro PERSIUS meruit. Sunt clari hodieque et qui olim
nominabuntur. |95| Alterum illud etiam prius saturae genus, sed non sola
carminum varietate mixtum condidit TERENTIUS VARRO, vir Romanorum
eruditissimus. Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos composuit,
peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum
nostrarumque, plus tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae. |96|
Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, {sed aliis}
quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in CATULLO, BIBACULO, HORATIO,
quamquam illi epodos intervenit, reperietur. At lyricorum idem HORATIUS
fere solus legi dignus; nam et insurgit aliquando et plenus est
iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax.
Si quem adicere velis, is erit CAESIUS BASSUS, quem nuper vidimus; sed
eum longe praecedunt ingenia viventium.

|97| Tragoediae scriptores veterum ATTIUS atque PACUVIUS clarissimi
gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum.
Ceterum nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus magis videri potest
temporibus quam ipsis defuisse; virium tamen Attio plus tribuitur,
Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt. |98| Iam VARI
Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest. OVIDI Medea videtur mihi
ostendere quantum ille vir praestare potuerit si ingenio suo imperare
quam indulgere maluisset. Eorum quos viderim longe princeps POMPONIUS
SECUNDUS, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac
nitore praestare confitebantur. |99| In comoedia maxime claudicamus.
Licet Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis sententia, Plautino dicat sermone
locuturas fuisse, si Latine loqui vellent, licet CAECILIUM veteres
laudibus ferant, licet TERENTI scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur
(quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura
gratiae si intra versus trimetros stetissent), |100| vix levem
consequimur umbram: adeo ut mihi sermo ipse Romanus non recipere
videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem, cum eam ne Graeci quidem
in alio genere linguae {suae} obtinuerint. Togatis excellit AFRANIUS:
utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus mores suos
fassus.

|101| At non historia cesserit Graecis. Nec opponere Thucydidi
SALLUSTIUM verear, nec indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari TITUM LIVIUM,
cum in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris, tum in
contionibus supra quam enarrari potest eloquentem: ita quae dicuntur
omnia cum rebus, tum personis accommodata sunt: adfectus quidem
praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime dicam, nemo
historicorum commendavit magis. |102| Ideoque immortalem Sallusti
velocitatem diversis virtutibus consecutus est. Nam mihi egregie dixisse
videtur SERVILIUS NONIANUS, pares eos magis quam similes; qui et ipse a
nobis auditus est clarus vi ingenii et sententiis creber, sed minus
pressus quam historiae auctoritas postulat. |103| Quam paulum aetate
praecedens eum BASSUS AUFIDIUS egregie, utique in libris belli
Germanici, praestitit genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in
quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor. |104| Superest adhuc et exornat
aetatis nostrae gloriam vir saeculorum memoria dignus, qui olim
nominabitur, nunc intellegitur. Habet amatores nec immerito CREMUTI
libertas, quamquam circumcisis quae dixisse ei nocuerat; sed elatum
abunde spiritum et audaces sententias deprehendas etiam in his quae
manent. Sunt et alii scriptores boni, sed nos genera degustamus, non
bibliothecas excutimus.

|105| Oratores vero vel praecipue Latinam eloquentiam parem facere
Graecae possunt; nam CICERONEM cuicumque eorum fortiter opposuerim. Nec
ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum praesertim non id sit propositi
ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc tempore; neque enim attinet, cum
Demosthenen in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius putem. |106| Quorum
ego virtutes plerasque arbitror similes, consilium, ordinem, dividendi,
praeparandi, probandi rationem, [omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis.
In eloquendo est aliqua diversitas: densior ille hic copiosior, ille
concludit adstrictius hic latius, pugnat ille acumine semper hic
frequenter et pondere, illi nihil detrahi potest huic nihil adici, curae
plus in illo in hoc naturae. |107| Salibus certe et commiseratione, quae
duo plurimum in adfectibus valent, vincimus. Et fortasse epilogos illi
mos civitatis abstulerit, sed et nobis illa, quae Attici mirantur,
diversa Latini sermonis ratio minus permiserit. In epistulis quidem,
quamquam sunt utriusque, dialogisve, quibus nihil ille, nulla contentio
est. |108| Cedendum vero in hoc, quod et prior fuit et ex magna parte
Ciceronem quantus est fecit. Nam mihi videtur M. Tullius, cum se totum
ad imitationem Graecorum contulisset, effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam
Platonis, iucunditatem Isocratis. |109| Nec vero quod in quoque optimum
fuit studio consecutus est tantum, sed plurimas vel potius omnes ex se
ipso virtutes extulit immortalis ingenii beatissima ubertate. Non enim
‘pluvias,’ ut ait Pindarus, ‘aquas colligit, sed vivo gurgite exundat,’
dono quodam providentiae genitus, in quo totas vires suas eloquentia
experiretur. |110| Nam quis docere diligentius, movere vehementius
potest? Cui tanta umquam iucunditas adfuit? ut ipsa illa quae extorquet
impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat, tamen
ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi. |111| Iam in omnibus quae dicit tanta
auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat, nec advocati studium sed testis
aut iudicis adferat fidem; cum interim haec omnia, quae vix singula
quisquam intentissima cura consequi posset, fluunt inlaborata et illa,
qua nihil pulchrius auditum est, oratio prae se fert tamen felicissimam
facilitatem. |112| Quare non immerito ab hominibus aetatis suae regnare
in iudiciis dictus est, apud posteros vero id consecutus, ut Cicero iam
non hominis nomen sed eloquentiae habeatur. Hunc igitur spectemus, hoc
propositum nobis sit exemplum, ille se profecisse sciat, cui Cicero
valde placebit. |113| Multa in ASINIO POLLIONE inventio, summa
diligentia, adeo ut quibusdam etiam nimia videatur, et consilii et animi
satis: a nitore et iucunditate Ciceronis ita longe abest ut videri
possit saeculo prior. At MESSALLA nitidus et candidus et quodam modo
praeferens in dicendo nobilitatem suam, viribus minor. |114| C. vero
CAESAR si foro tantum vacasset, non alius ex nostris contra Ciceronem
nominaretur. Tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum
eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat; exornat tamen haec omnia mira
sermonis, cuius proprie studiosus fuit, elegantia. |115| Multum ingenii
in CAELIO et praecipue in accusando multa urbanitas, dignusque vir, cui
et mens melior et vita longior contigisset. Inveni qui CALVUM
praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui Ciceroni crederent eum nimia contra se
calumnia verum sanguinem perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio
et castigata et frequenter vehemens quoque. Imitator autem est
Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors iniuriam, si quid adiecturus
sibi non si quid detracturus fuit. |116| Et SERVIUS SULPICIUS insignem
non immerito famam tribus orationibus meruit. Multa, si cum iudicio
legatur, dabit imitatione digna CASSIUS SEVERUS, qui si ceteris
virtutibus colorem et gravitatem orationis adiecisset, ponendus inter
praecipuos foret. |117| Nam et ingenii plurimum est in eo et acerbitas
mira et urbanitas et fervor, sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit.
Praeterea ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicula est.
|118| Sunt alii multi diserti, quos persequi longum est. Eorum quos
viderim DOMITIUS AFER et IULIUS AFRICANUS longe praestantissimi.
Verborum arte ille et toto genere dicendi praeferendus et quem in numero
veterum habere non timeas: hic concitatior, sed in cura verborum nimius
et compositione nonnumquam longior et translationibus parum modicus.
Erant clara et nuper ingenia. |119| Nam et TRACHALUS plerumque sublimis
et satis apertus fuit et quem velle optima crederes, auditus tamen
maior; nam et vocis, quantam in nullo cognovi, felicitas et pronuntiatio
vel scaenis suffectura et decor, omnia denique ei, quae sunt extra,
superfuerunt: et VIBIUS CRISPUS compositus et iucundus et delectationi
natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior. |120| IULIO SECUNDO,
si longior contigisset aetas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud
posteros foret; adiecisset enim atque adiciebat ceteris virtutibus suis
quod desiderari potest, id est autem ut esset multo magis pugnax et
saepius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret. |121| Ceterum
interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ea est facundia, tanta in
explicando quod velit gratia, tam candidum et lene et speciosum dicendi
genus, tanta verborum etiam quae adsumpta sunt proprietas, tanta in
quibusdam ex periculo petitis significantia. |122| Habebunt qui post nos
de oratoribus scribent magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam vere
laudandi; sunt enim summa hodie, quibus inlustratur forum, ingenia.
Namque et consummati iam patroni veteribus aemulantur et eos iuvenum ad
optima tendentium imitatur ac sequitur industria.

|123| Supersunt qui de philosophia scripserint, quo in genere
paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt. Idem igitur M.
TULLIUS, qui ubique, etiam in hoc opere Platonis aemulus extitit.
Egregius vero multoque quam in orationibus praestantior BRUTUS suffecit
ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire quae dicit. |124| Scripsit non parum
multa CORNELIUS CELSUS, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore.
PLAUTUS in Stoicis rerum cognitioni utilis. In Epicureis levis quidem,
sed non iniucundus tamen auctor est CATIUS. |125| Ex industria SENECAM
in omni genere eloquentiae distuli propter vulgatam falso de me
opinionem, qua damnare eum et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. Quod
accidit mihi dum corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo; tum autem solus hic fere in
manibus adulescentium fuit. |126| Quem non equidem omnino conabar
excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat
incessere, cum diversi sibi conscius generis placere se in dicendo posse
{iis} quibus illi placerent diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis quam
imitabantur, tantumque ab illo defluebant quantum ille ab antiquis
descenderat. |127| Foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi
viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia et ad ea se quisque
dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde cum se iactaret eodem modo
dicere, Senecam infamabat. |128| Cuius et multae alioqui et magnae
virtutes fuerunt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa
rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab his quibus inquirenda quaedam
mandabat deceptus est. |129| Tractavit etiam omnem fere studiorum
materiam; nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et dialogi
feruntur. In philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum
insectator fuit. Multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum
gratia legenda, sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque atque eo
perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis. |130| Velles eum suo
ingenio dixisse, alieno iudicio; nam si {ob}liqua contempsisset, si
parum {recta} non concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset, si rerum
pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius
eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. |131| Verum sic quoque iam
robustis et severiore genere satis firmatis legendus vel ideo quod
exercere potest utrimque iudicium. Multa enim, ut dixi, probanda in eo,
multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curae sit, quod utinam ipse
fecisset. Digna enim fuit illa natura, quae meliora vellet: quod voluit
effecit.



+De Imitatione.+

II.


|1| Ex his ceterisque lectione dignis auctoribus et verborum sumenda
copia est et varietas figurarum et componendi ratio, tum ad exemplum
virtutum omnium mens derigenda. Neque enim dubitari potest, quin artis
pars magna contineatur imitatione. Nam ut invenire primum fuit estque
praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa sunt utile sequi. |2| Atque omnis
vitae ratio sic constat, ut quae probamus in aliis facere ipsi velimus.
Sic litterarum ductus, ut scribendi fiat usus, pueri sequuntur; sic
musici vocem docentium, pictores opera priorum, rustici probatam
experimento culturam in exemplum intuentur; omnis denique disciplinae
initia ad propositum sibi praescriptum formari videmus. |3| Et hercule
necesse est aut similes aut dissimiles bonis simus. Similem raro natura
praestat, frequenter imitatio. Sed hoc ipsum quod tanto faciliorem nobis
rationem rerum omnium facit quam fuit iis qui nihil quod sequerentur
habuerunt, nisi caute et cum iudicio adprehenditur, nocet.

|4| Ante omnia igitur imitatio per se ipsa non sufficit, vel quia pigri
est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab aliis inventa. Quid enim
futurum erat temporibus illis quae sine exemplo fuerunt, si homines
nihil, nisi quod iam cognovissent, faciendum sibi aut cogitandum
putassent? Nempe nihil fuisset inventum. |5| Cur igitur nefas est
reperiri aliquid a nobis, quod ante non fuerit? An illi rudes sola
mentis natura ducti sunt in hoc, ut tam multa generarent: nos ad
quaerendum non eo ipso concitemur, quod certe scimus invenisse eos qui
quaesierunt? |6| Et cum illi, qui nullum cuiusquam rei habuerunt
magistrum, plurima in posteros tradiderunt, nobis usus aliarum rerum ad
eruendas alias non proderit, sed nihil habebimus nisi beneficii alieni?
quem ad modum quidam pictores in id solum student, ut describere tabulas
mensuris ac lineis sciant. |7| Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id
consequi quod imiteris. Nam rursus quid erat futurum, si nemo plus
effecisset eo quem sequebatur? Nihil in poetis supra Livium Andronicum,
nihil in historiis supra pontificum annales haberemus; ratibus adhuc
navigaremus; non esset pictura, nisi quae lineas modo extremas umbrae,
quam corpora in sole fecissent, circumscriberet. |8| Ac si omnia
percenseas, nulla {man}sit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium
stetit: nisi forte nostra potissimum tempora damnamus huius
infelicitatis, ut nunc demum nihil crescat: nihil autem crescit sola
imitatione. |9| Quod si prioribus adicere fas non est, quo modo sperare
possumus illum oratorem perfectum? cum in his, quos maximos adhuc
novimus, nemo sit inventus in quo nihil aut desideretur aut
reprehendatur. Sed etiam qui summa non adpetent, contendere potius quam
sequi debent. |10| Nam qui hoc agit ut prior sit, forsitan etiamsi non
transierit aequabit. Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi
utique insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui
sequitur. Adde quod plerumque facilius est plus facere quam idem; tantam
enim difficultatem habet similitudo ut ne ipsa quidem natura in hoc ita
evaluerit ut non res quae simillimae quaeque pares maxime videantur
utique discrimine aliquo discernantur. |11| Adde quod quidquid alteri
simile est, necesse est minus sit eo quod imitatur, ut umbra corpore et
imago facie et actus histrionum veris adfectibus. Quod in orationibus
quoque evenit. Namque iis quae in exemplum adsumimus subest natura et
vera vis; contra omnis imitatio facta est et ad alienum propositum
accommodatur. |12| Quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes
habeant quam orationes, quod in illis vera, in his adsimilata materia
est. Adde quod ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt,
ingenium, inventio, vis, facilitas et quidquid arte non traditur. |13|
Ideoque plerique, cum verba quaedam ex orationibus excerpserunt aut
aliquos compositionis certos pedes, mire a se quae legerunt effingi
arbitrantur, cum et verba intercidant invalescantque temporibus, (ut
quorum certissima sit regula in consuetudine,) eaque non sua natura sint
bona aut mala-- nam per se soni tantum sunt-- sed prout opportune
proprieque aut secus collocata sunt, et compositio cum rebus accommodata
sit, tum ipsa varietate gratissima.

|14| Quapropter exactissimo iudicio circa hanc partem studiorum
examinanda sunt omnia. Primum, quos imitemur: nam sunt plurimi qui
similitudinem pessimi cuiusque et corruptissimi concupierint: tum in
ipsis quos elegerimus, quid sit {ad} quod nos efficiendum comparemus.
|15| Nam in magnis quoque auctoribus incidunt aliqua vitiosa et a doctis
inter ipsos etiam mutuo reprehensa; atque utinam tam bona imitantes
dicerent melius quam mala peius dicunt. Nec vero saltem iis quibus ad
evitanda vitia iudicii satis fuit sufficiat imaginem virtutis effingere
et solam, ut sic dixerim, cutem vel potius illas Epicuri figuras, quas e
summis corporibus dicit effluere. |16| Hoc autem his accidit qui non
introspectis penitus virtutibus ad primum se velut adspectum orationis
aptarunt; et cum iis felicissime cessit imitatio, verbis atque numeris
sunt non multum differentes, vim dicendi atque inventionis non
adsequuntur, sed plerumque declinant in peius et proxima virtutibus
vitia comprehendunt fiuntque pro grandibus tumidi, pressis exiles,
fortibus temerarii, laetis corrupti, compositis exultantes, simplicibus
neglegentes. |17| Ideoque qui horride atque incomposite quidlibet illud
frigidum et inane extulerunt, antiquis se pares credunt; qui carent
cultu atque sententiis, Attici sunt scilicet; qui praecisis
conclusionibus obscuri, Sallustium atque Thucydiden superant; tristes ac
ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur; otiosi et supini, si quid modo longius
circumduxerunt, iurant ita Ciceronem locuturum fuisse. |18| Noveram
quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus illud caelestis huius in
dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in clausula posuissent ‘esse videatur.’
Ergo primum est ut quod imitaturus est quisque intellegat, et quare
bonum sit sciat.

|19| Tum in suscipiendo onere consulat suas vires. Nam quaedam sunt
imitabilia, quibus aut infirmitas naturae non sufficiat aut diversitas
repugnet. Ne, cui tenue ingenium erit, sola velit fortia et abrupta, cui
forte quidem, sed indomitum, amore subtilitatis et vim suam perdat et
elegantiam quam cupit non persequatur; nihil est enim tam indecens quam
cum mollia dure fiunt. |20| Atque ego illi praeceptori quem institueram
in libro secundo credidi non ea sola docenda esse, ad quae quemque
discipulorum natura compositum videret; nam is et adiuvare debet quae in
quoque eorum invenit bona, et, quantum fieri potest, adicere quae desunt
et emendare quaedam et mutare; rector enim est alienorum ingeniorum
atque formator. Difficilius est naturam suam fingere. |21| Sed ne ille
quidem doctor, quamquam omnia quae recta sunt velit esse in suis
auditoribus quam plenissima, in eo tamen cui naturam obstare viderit
laborabit.

Id quoque vitandum, in quo magna pars errat, ne in oratione poetas nobis
et historicos, in illis operibus oratores aut declamatores imitandos
putemus. |22| Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est: nec comoedia in
cothurnos adsurgit, nec contra tragoedia socco ingreditur. Habet tamen
omnis eloquentia aliquid commune: id imitemur quod commune est.

|23| Etiam hoc solet incommodi accidere iis qui se uni alicui generi
dediderunt, ut, si asperitas iis placuit alicuius, hanc etiam in leni ac
remisso causarum genere non exuant; si tenuitas aut iucunditas, in
asperis gravibusque causis ponderi rerum parum respondeant: cum sit
diversa non causarum modo inter ipsas condicio, sed in singulis etiam
causis partium, sintque alia leniter alia aspere, alia concitate alia
remisse, alia docendi alia movendi gratia dicenda; quorum omnium
dissimilis atque diversa inter se ratio est. |24| Itaque ne hoc quidem
suaserim, uni se alicui proprie, quem per omnia sequatur, addicere.
Longe perfectissimus Graecorum Demosthenes, aliquid tamen aliquo in loco
melius alii, plurima ille. Sed non qui maxime imitandus, et solus
imitandus est. |25| Quid ergo? non est satis omnia sic dicere quo modo
M. Tullius dixit? Mihi quidem satis esset, si omnia consequi possem:
quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris, asperitatem Caeli, diligentiam
Pollionis, iudicium Calvi quibusdam in locis adsumere? |26| Nam praeter
id quod prudentis est quod in quoque optimum est, si possit, suum
facere, tum in tanta rei difficultate unum intuentes vix aliqua pars
sequitur. Ideoque cum totum exprimere quem elegeris paene sit homini
inconcessum, plurium bona ponamus ante oculos, ut aliud ex alio haereat,
et quo quidque loco conveniat aptemus.

|27| Imitatio autem (nam saepius idem dicam) non sit tantum in verbis.
Illuc intendenda mens, quantum fuerit illis viris decoris in rebus atque
personis, quod consilium, quae dispositio, quam omnia, etiam quae
delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent; quid agatur
prooemio, quae ratio et quam varia narrandi, quae vis probandi ac
refellendi, quanta in adfectibus omnis generis movendis scientia,
quamque laus ipsa popularis utilitatis gratia adsumpta, quae tum est
pulcherrima, cum sequitur, non cum arcessitur. Haec si perviderimus, tum
vere imitabimur. |28| Qui vero etiam propria his bona adiecerit, ut
suppleat quae deerunt, circumcidat si quid redundabit, is erit, quem
quaerimus, perfectus orator; quem nunc consummari potissimum oporteat,
cum tanto plura exempla bene dicendi supersunt quam illis qui adhuc
summi sunt contigerunt. Nam erit haec quoque laus eorum, ut priores
superasse, posteros docuisse dicantur.



+Quo modo scribendum sit.+

III.


|1| Et haec quidem auxilia extrinsecus adhibentur; in iis autem quae
nobis ipsis paranda sunt, ut laboris, sic utilitatis etiam longe
plurimum adfert stilus. Nec immerito M. Tullius hunc ‘optimum effectorem
ac magistrum dicendi’ vocat, cui sententiae personam L. Crassi in
disputationibus quae sunt de oratore adsignando, iudicium suum cum
illius auctoritate coniunxit. |2| Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et
quam plurimum. Nam ut terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus
fecundior fit, sic profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus
effundit uberius et fidelius continet. Nam sine hac quidem conscientia
ipsa illa ex tempore dicendi facultas inanem modo loquacitatem dabit et
verba in labris nascentia. |3| Illic radices, illic fundamenta sunt,
illic opes velut sanctiore quodam aerario conditae, unde ad subitos
quoque casus, cum res exiget, proferantur. Vires faciamus ante omnia,
quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. |4| Nihil
enim rerum ipsa natura voluit magnum effici cito, praeposuitque
pulcherrimo cuique operi difficultatem; quae nascendi quoque hanc
fecerit legem, ut maiora animalia diutius visceribus parentis
continerentur.

Sed cum sit duplex quaestio, quo modo et quae maxime scribi oporteat,
iam hinc ordinem sequar. |5| Sit primo vel tardus dum diligens stilus,
quaeramus optima nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus, adhibeatur
iudicium inventis, dispositio probatis; dilectus enim rerum verborumque
agendus est et pondera singulorum examinanda. Post subeat ratio
collocandi versenturque omni modo numeri, non ut quodque se proferet
verbum occupet locum. |6| Quae quidem ut diligentius exsequamur,
repetenda saepius erunt scriptorum proxima. Nam praeter id quod sic
melius iunguntur prioribus sequentia, calor quoque ille cogitationis,
qui scribendi mora refrixit, recipit ex integro vires et velut repetito
spatio sumit impetum; quod in certamine saliendi fieri videmus, ut
conatum longius petant et ad illud quo contenditur spatium cursu
ferantur, utque in iaculando brachia reducimus et expulsuri tela nervos
retro tendimus. |7| Interim tamen, si feret flatus, danda sunt vela, dum
nos indulgentia illa non fallat; omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur
placent, alioqui nec scriberentur. Sed redeamus ad iudicium et
retractemus suspectam facilitatem. |8| Sic scripsisse Sallustium
accepimus, et sane manifestus est etiam ex opere ipso labor. Vergilium
quoque paucissimos die composuisse versus auctor est Varius. |9|
Oratoris quidem alia condicio est; itaque hanc moram et sollicitudinem
initiis impero. Nam primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut
quam optime scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo. Paulatim res
facilius se ostendent, verba respondebunt, compositio sequetur, cuncta
denique ut in familia bene instituta in officio erunt. |10| Summa haec
est rei: cito scribendo non fit ut bene scribatur, bene scribendo fit ut
cito. Sed tum maxime, cum facultas illa contigerit, resistamus ut
provideamus, efferentes {se} equos frenis quibusdam coerceamus; quod non
tam moram faciet quam novos impetus dabit. Neque enim rursus eos qui
robur aliquod in stilo fecerint ad infelicem calumniandi se poenam
adligandos puto. |11| Nam quo modo sufficere officiis civilibus possit
qui singulis actionum partibus insenescat? Sunt autem quibus nihil sit
satis: omnia mutare, omnia aliter dicere quam occurrit velint,--
increduli quidam et de ingenio suo pessime meriti, qui diligentiam
putant facere sibi scribendi difficultatem. |12| Nec promptum est dicere
utros peccare validius putem, quibus omnia sua placent an quibus nihil.
Accidit enim etiam ingeniosis adulescentibus frequenter, ut labore
consumantur et in silentium usque descendant nimia bene dicendi
cupiditate. Qua de re memini narrasse mihi Iulium Secundum illum,
aequalem meum atque a me, ut notum est, familiariter amatum, mirae
facundiae virum, infinitae tamen curae, quid esset sibi a patruo suo
dictum. |13| Is fuit Iulius Florus, in eloquentia Galliarum, quoniam ibi
demum exercuit eam, princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus et dignus
illa propinquitate. Is cum Secundum, scholae adhuc operatum, tristem
forte vidisset, interrogavit quae causa frontis tam adductae? |14| Nec
dissimulavit adulescens, tertium iam diem esse quod omni labore materiae
ad scribendum destinatae non inveniret exordium; quo sibi non praesens
tantum dolor, sed etiam desperatio in posterum fieret. Tum Florus
adridens, ‘numquid tu,’ inquit, ‘melius dicere vis quam potes?’ |15| Ita
se res habet: curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen pro
facultate; ad profectum enim opus est studio, non indignatione. Ut
possimus autem scribere etiam plura et celerius, non exercitatio modo
praestabit, in qua sine dubio multum est, sed etiam ratio: si non
resupini spectantesque tectum et cogitationem murmure agitantes
expectaverimus quid obveniat, {sed} quid res poscat, quid personam
deceat, quod sit tempus, qui iudicis animus intuiti, humano quodam modo
ad scribendum accesserimus. Sic nobis et initia et quae sequuntur natura
ipsa praescribit. |16| Certa sunt enim pleraque et, nisi coniveamus, in
oculos incurrunt; ideoque nec indocti nec rustici diu quaerunt, unde
incipiant; quo pudendum est magis, si difficultatem facit doctrina. Non
ergo semper putemus optimum esse quod latet: immutescamus alioqui, si
nihil dicendum videatur nisi quod non invenimus. |17| Diversum est huic
eorum vitium qui primo decurrere per materiam stilo quam velocissimo
volunt, et sequentes calorem atque impetum ex tempore scribunt; hanc
silvam vocant. Repetunt deinde et componunt quae effuderant; sed verba
emendantur et numeri, manet in rebus temere congestis quae fuit levitas.
|18| Protinus ergo adhibere curam rectius erit atque ab initio sic opus
ducere, ut caelandum, non ex integro fabricandum sit. Aliquando tamen
adfectus sequemur, in quibus fere plus calor quam diligentia valet.

|19| Satis apparet ex eo quod hanc scribentium neglegentiam damno, quid
de illis dictandi deliciis sentiam. Nam in stilo quidem quamlibet
properato dat aliquam cogitationi moram non consequens celeritatem eius
manus: ille cui dictamus urget, atque interim pudet etiam dubitare aut
resistere aut mutare quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes. |20|
Quo fit ut non rudia tantum et fortuita, sed impropria interim, dum sola
est conectendi sermonis cupiditas, effluant, quae nec scribentium curam
nec dicentium impetum consequantur. At idem ille qui excipit, si tardior
in scribendo aut incertior in {intel}legendo velut offensator fuit,
inhibetur cursus, atque omnis quae erat concepta mentis intentio mora et
interdum iracundia excutitur. |21| Tum illa, quae altiorem animi motum
sequuntur quaeque ipsa animum quodam modo concitant, quorum est iactare
manum, torquere vultum, {frontem et} latus interim obiurgare, quaeque
Persius notat, cum leviter dicendi genus significat, ‘nec pluteum,’
inquit, ‘caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues,’ etiam ridicula sunt, nisi
cum soli sumus. |22| Denique ut semel quod est potentissimum dicam,
secretum in dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris locum et quam
altissimum silentium scribentibus maxime convenire nemo dubitaverit: non
tamen protinus audiendi qui credunt aptissima in hoc nemora silvasque,
quod illa caeli libertas locorumque amoenitas sublimem animum et
beatiorem spiritum parent. |23| Mihi certe iucundus hic magis quam
studiorum hortator videtur esse secessus. Namque illa, quae ipsa
delectant, necesse est avocent ab intentione operis destinati. Neque
enim se bona fide in multa simul intendere animus totum potest, et
quocumque respexit, desinit intueri quod propositum erat. |24| Quare
silvarum amoenitas et praeterlabentia flumina et inspirantes ramis
arborum aurae volucrumque cantus et ipsa late circumspiciendi libertas
ad se trahunt, ut mihi remittere potius voluptas ista videatur
cogitationem quam intendere. |25| Demosthenes melius, qui se in locum ex
quo nulla exaudiri vox et ex quo nihil prospici posset recondebat, ne
aliud agere mentem cogerent oculi. Ideoque lucubrantes silentium noctis
et clausum cubiculum et lumen unum velut {t}ectos maxime teneat. |26|
Sed cum in omni studiorum genere, tum in hoc praecipue bona valetudo,
quaeque eam maxime praestat, frugalitas necessaria est, cum tempora ab
ipsa rerum natura ad quietem refectionemque nobis data in acerrimum
laborem convertimus. Cui tamen non plus inrogandum est quam quod somno
supererit, haud deerit; |27| obstat enim diligentiae scribendi etiam
fatigatio, et abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt; occupatos in
noctem necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam integri ac
refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.

|28| Sed silentium et secessus et undique liber animus ut sunt maxime
optanda, ita non semper possunt contingere; ideoque non statim, si quid
obstrepet, abiciendi codices erunt et deplorandus dies, verum incommodis
repugnandum et hic faciendus usus, ut omnia quae impedient vincat
intentio; quam si tota mente in opus ipsum derexeris, nihil eorum quae
oculis vel auribus incursant ad animum perveniet. |29| An vero
frequenter etiam fortuita hoc cogitatio praestat, ut obvios non videamus
et itinere deerremus: non consequemur idem, si et voluerimus? Non est
indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi refecti, non nisi hilares,
non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes studendum existimarimus, semper
erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus. |30| Quare in turba, itinere,
conviviis etiam faciat sibi cogitatio ipsa secretum. Quid alioqui fiet,
cum in medio foro, tot circumstantibus iudiciis, iurgiis, fortuitis
etiam clamoribus, erit subito continua oratione dicendum, si particulas
quas ceris mandamus nisi in solitudine reperire non possumus? Propter
quae idem ille tantus amator secreti Demosthenes in litore, in quo se
maximo cum sono fluctus inlideret, meditans consuescebat contionum
fremitus non expavescere.

|31| Illa quoque minora (sed nihil in studiis parvum est) non sunt
transeunda: scribi optime ceris, in quibus facillima est ratio delendi,
nisi forte visus infirmior membranarum potius usum exiget, quae ut
iuvant aciem, ita crebra relatione, quoad intinguntur calami, morantur
manum et cogitationis impetum frangunt. |32| Relinquendae autem in
utrolibet genere contra erunt vacuae tabellae, in quibus libera
adiciendo sit excursio. Nam interim pigritiam emendandi angustiae
faciunt, aut certe novorum interpositione priora confundant. Ne latas
quidem ultra modum esse ceras velim, expertus iuvenem studiosum alioqui
praelongos habuisse sermones, quia illos numero versuum metiebatur,
idque vitium, quod frequenti admonitione corrigi non potuerat, mutatis
codicibus esse sublatum. |33| Debet vacare etiam locus in quo notentur
quae scribentibus solent extra ordinem, id est ex aliis quam qui sunt in
manibus loci, occurrere. Inrumpunt enim optimi nonnumquam sensus, quos
neque inserere oportet neque differre tutum est, quia interim elabuntur,
interim memoriae sui intentos ab alia inventione declinant ideoque
optime sunt in deposito.



+De Emendatione.+

IV.


|1| Sequitur emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim sine
causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius autem operis
est adicere, detrahere, mutare. Sed facilius in iis simpliciusque
iudicium quae replenda vel deicienda sunt; premere vero tumentia,
humilia extollere, luxuriantia adstringere, inordinata digerere, soluta
componere, exultantia coercere duplicis operae; nam et damnanda sunt
quae placuerant et invenienda quae fugerant. |2| Nec dubium est optimum
esse emendandi genus, si scripta in aliquod tempus reponantur, ut ad ea
post intervallum velut nova atque aliena redeamus, ne nobis scripta
nostra tamquam recentes fetus blandiantur. |3| Sed neque hoc contingere
semper potest praesertim oratori, cui saepius scribere ad praesentes
usus necesse est, et ipsa emendatio finem habet. Sunt enim qui ad omnia
scripta tamquam vitiosa redeant et, quasi nihil fas sit rectum esse quod
primum est, melius existiment quidquid est aliud, idque faciant quotiens
librum in manus resumpserunt, similes medicis etiam integra secantibus.
Accidit itaque ut cicatricosa sint et exsanguia et cura peiora. |4| Sit
ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod sufficiat, ut opus poliat
lima, non exterat. Temporis quoque esse debet modus. Nam quod Cinnae
Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam, et Panegyricum Isocratis, qui
parcissime, decem annis dicunt elaboratum, ad oratorem nihil pertinet,
cuius nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium.



+Quae scribenda sint praecipue.+

V.


|1| Proximum est ut dicamus quae praecipue scribenda sint ἕξιν
parantibus. {Non est huius} quidem operis ut explicemus quae sint
materiae, quae prima aut secunda aut deinceps tractanda sint (nam id
factum est iam primo libro, quo puerorum, et secundo, quo iam robustorum
studiis ordinem dedimus), sed, de quo nunc agitur, unde copia ac
facilitas maxime veniat.

|2| Vertere Graeca in Latinum veteres nostri oratores optimum
iudicabant. Id se L. Crassus in illis Ciceronis de Oratore libris dicit
factitasse; id Cicero sua ipse persona frequentissime praecipit, quin
etiam libros Platonis atque Xenophontis edidit hoc genere translatos; id
Messallae placuit, multaeque sunt ab eo scriptae ad hunc modum
orationes, adeo ut etiam cum illa Hyperidis pro Phryne difficillima
Romanis subtilitate contenderet. Et manifesta est exercitationis huiusce
ratio. |3| Nam et rerum copia Graeci auctores abundant et plurimum artis
in eloquentiam intulerunt, et hos transferentibus verbis uti optimis
licet; omnibus enim utimur nostris. Figuras vero, quibus maxime ornatur
oratio, multas ac varias excogitandi etiam necessitas quaedam est, quia
plerumque a Graecis Romana dissentiunt.

|4| Sed et illa ex Latinis conversio multum et ipsa contulerit. Ac de
carminibus quidem neminem credo dubitare, quo solo genere exercitationis
dicitur usus esse Sulpicius. Nam et sublimis spiritus attollere
orationem potest, et verba poetica libertate audaciora non praesumunt
eadem proprie dicendi facultatem; sed et ipsis sententiis adicere licet
oratorium robur et omissa supplere et effusa substringere. |5| Neque ego
paraphrasin esse interpretationem tantum volo, sed circa eosdem sensus
certamen atque aemulationem. Ideoque ab illis dissentio qui vertere
orationes Latinas vetant, quia optimis occupatis, quidquid aliter
dixerimus, necesse sit esse deterius. Nam neque semper est desperandum
aliquid illis quae dicta sunt melius posse reperiri, neque adeo ieiunam
ac pauperem natura eloquentiam fecit ut una de re bene dici nisi semel
non possit: |6| nisi forte histrionum multa circa voces easdem variare
gestus potest, orandi minor vis, ut dicatur aliquid post quod in eadem
materia nihil dicendum sit. Sed esto neque melius quod invenimus esse
neque par, est certe proximis locus. |7| An vero ipsi non bis ac saepius
de eadem re dicimus et quidem continuas nonnumquam sententias? Nisi
forte contendere nobiscum possumus, cum aliis non possumus. Nam si uno
genere bene diceretur, fas erat existimari praeclusam nobis a prioribus
viam; nunc vero innumerabiles sunt modi plurimaeque eodem viae ducunt.
|8| Sua brevitati gratia, sua copiae, alia translatis virtus, alia
propriis, hoc oratio recta, illud figura declinata commendat. Ipsa
denique utilissima est exercitationi difficultas. Quid quod auctores
maximi sic diligentius cognoscuntur? Non enim scripta lectione secura
transcurrimus, sed tractamus singula et necessario introspicimus et,
quantum virtutis habeant, vel hoc ipso cognoscimus, quod imitari non
possumus.

|9| Nec aliena tantum transferre, sed etiam nostra pluribus modis
tractare proderit, ut ex industria sumamus sententias quasdam easque
versemus quam numerosissime, velut eadem cera aliae aliaeque formae duci
solent. |10| Plurimum autem parari facultatis existimo ex simplicissima
quaque materia. Nam illa multiplici personarum, causarum, temporum,
locorum, dictorum, factorum diversitate facile delitescet infirmitas,
tot se undique rebus, ex quibus aliquam adprehendas, offerentibus. |11|
Illud virtutis indicium est, fundere quae natura contracta sunt, augere
parva, varietatem similibus, voluptatem expositis dare et bene dicere
multa de paucis.

In hoc optime facient infinitae quaestiones, quas vocari theses diximus,
quibus Cicero iam princeps in re publica exerceri solebat. |12| His
confinis est destructio et confirmatio sententiarum. Nam cum sit
sententia decretum quoddam atque praeceptum, quod de re, idem de iudicio
rei quaeri potest. Tum loci communes, quos etiam scriptos ab oratoribus
scimus. Nam qui haec recta tantum et in nullos flexus recedentia copiose
tractaverit, utique in illis plures excursus recipientibus magis
abundabit eritque in omnes causas paratus; omnes enim generalibus
quaestionibus constant. |13| Nam quid interest ‘Cornelius tribunus
plebis, quod codicem legerit, reus sit,’ an quaeramus ‘violeturne
maiestas, si magistratus rogationem suam populo ipse recitarit’: ‘Milo
Clodium rectene occiderit’ veniat in iudicium, an ‘oporteatne
insidiatorem interfici vel perniciosum rei publicae civem, etiamsi non
insidietur’: ‘Cato Marciam honestene tradiderit Hortensio,’ an
‘conveniatne res talis bono viro’? De personis iudicatur, sed de rebus
contenditur. |14| Declamationes vero, quales in scholis rhetorum
dicuntur, si modo sunt ad veritatem accommodatae et orationibus similes,
non tantum dum adulescit profectus sunt utilissimae, quia inventionem et
dispositionem pariter exercent, sed etiam cum est consummatus ac iam in
foro clarus; alitur enim atque enitescit velut pabulo laetiore facundia
et adsidua contentionum asperitate fatigata renovatur. |15| Quapropter
historiae nonnumquam ubertas in aliqua exercendi stili parte ponenda et
dialogorum libertate gestiendum. Ne carmine quidem ludere contrarium
fuerit, sicut athletae, remissa quibusdam temporibus ciborum atque
exercitationum certa necessitate, otio et iucundioribus epulis
reficiuntur. |16| Ideoque mihi videtur M. Tullius tantum intulisse
eloquentiae lumen, quod in hos quoque studiorum secessus excurrit. Nam
si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et
durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna
retundatur.

|17| Sed quem ad modum forensibus certaminibus exercitatos et quasi
militantes reficit ac reparat haec velut sagina dicendi, sic
adulescentes non debent nimium in falsa rerum imagine detineri, et
inanibus simulacris usque adeo ut difficilis ab his digressus sit
adsuescere, ne ab illa, in qua prope consenuerunt, umbra vera discrimina
velut quendam solem reformident. |18| Quod accidisse etiam M. Porcio
Latroni, qui primus clari nominis professor fuit, traditur, ut, cum ei
summam in scholis opinionem obtinenti causa in foro esset oranda,
impense petierit uti subsellia in basilicam transferrentur. Ita illi
caelum novum fuit ut omnis eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus
videretur. |19| Quare iuvenis qui rationem inveniendi eloquendique a
praeceptoribus diligenter acceperit (quod non est infiniti operis, si
docere sciant et velint), exercitationem quoque modicam fuerit
consecutus, oratorem sibi aliquem, quod apud maiores fieri solebat,
deligat, quem sequatur, quem imitetur: iudiciis intersit quam plurimis,
et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator. |20| Tum causas,
vel easdem quas agi audierit, stilo et ipse componat, vel etiam alias,
veras modo, et utrimque tractet et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus,
decretoriis exerceatur, ut fecisse Brutum diximus pro Milone. Melius hoc
quam rescribere veteribus orationibus, ut fecit Cestius contra Ciceronis
actionem habitam pro eodem, cum alteram partem satis nosse non posset ex
sola defensione.

|21| Citius autem idoneus erit iuvenis, quem praeceptor coegerit in
declamando quam simillimum esse veritati et per totas ire materias,
quarum nunc facillima et maxime favorabilia decerpunt. Obstant huic,
quod secundo loco posui, fere turba discipulorum et consuetudo classium
certis diebus audiendarum, nonnihil etiam persuasio patrum numerantium
potius declamationes quam aestimantium. |22| Sed, quod dixi primo, ut
arbitror, libro, nec ille se bonus praeceptor maiore numero quam
sustinere possit onerabit et nimiam loquacitatem recidet, ut omnia quae
sunt in controversia, non, ut quidam volunt, quae in rerum natura,
dicantur; et vel longiore potius dierum spatio laxabit dicendi
necessitatem vel materias dividere permittet. |23| Diligenter effecta
plus proderit quam plures inchoatae et quasi degustatae. Propter quod
accidit ut nec suo loco quidque ponatur, nec illa quae prima sunt
servent suam legem, iuvenibus flosculos omnium partium in ea quae sunt
dicturi congerentibus; quo fit ut timentes ne sequentia perdant priora
confundant.



+De Cogitatione.+

VI.


|1| Proxima stilo cogitatio est, quae et ipsa vires ab hoc accipit et
est inter scribendi laborem extemporalemque fortunam media quaedam et
nescio an usus frequentissimi. Nam scribere non ubique nec semper
possumus, cogitationi temporis ac loci plurimum est. Haec paucis admodum
horis magnas etiam causas complectitur; haec, quotiens intermissus est
somnus, ipsis noctis tenebris adiuvatur; haec inter medios rerum actus
aliquid invenit vacui nec otium patitur. |2| Neque vero rerum ordinem
modo, quod ipsum satis erat, intra se ipsa disponit, sed verba etiam
copulat totamque ita contexit orationem ut ei nihil praeter manum desit;
nam memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla scribendi
securitate laxatur.

Sed ne ad hanc quidem vim cogitandi perveniri potest aut subito aut
cito. |3| Nam primum facienda multo stilo forma est, quae nos etiam
cogitantes sequatur: tum adsumendus usus paulatim, ut pauca primum
complectamur animo, quae reddi fideliter possint: mox per incrementa tam
modica ut onerari se labor ille non sentiat augenda vis et exercitatione
multa continenda est, quae quidem maxima ex parte memoria constat.
Ideoque aliqua mihi in illum locum differenda sunt. |4| Eo tandem
pervenit ut is cui non refragetur ingenium acri studio adiutus tantum
consequatur ut ei tam quae cogitarit quam quae scripserit atque
edidicerit in dicendo fidem servent. Cicero certe Graecorum Metrodorum
Scepsium et Empylum Rhodium nostrorumque Hortensium tradidit quae
cogitaverant ad verbum in agendo rettulisse.

|5| Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum offulserit extemporalis color,
non superstitiose cogitatis demum est inhaerendum. Neque enim tantum
habent curae ut non sit dandus et fortunae locus, cum saepe etiam
scriptis ea quae subito nata sunt inserantur. Ideoque totum hoc
exercitationis genus ita instituendum est ut et digredi ex eo et redire
in id facile possimus. |6| Nam ut primum est domo adferre paratam
dicendi copiam et certam, ita refutare temporis munera longe
stultissimum est. Quare cogitatio in hoc praeparetur, ut nos fortuna
decipere non possit, adiuvare possit. Id autem fiet memoriae viribus, ut
illa quae complexi animo sumus fluant secura, non sollicitos et
respicientes et una spe suspensos recordationis non sinant providere:
alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem
cogitationem. |7| Peius enim quaeritur retrorsus, quia, dum illa
desideramus, ab aliis avertimur, et ex memoria potius res petimus quam
ex materia. Plura sunt autem, si utrimque quaerendum est, quae inveniri
possunt quam quae inventa sunt.



+Quem ad modum extemporalis facilitas paretur et contineatur.+

VII.


|1| Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium quoddam
amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas; quam qui non erit
consecutus mea quidem sententia civilibus officiis renuntiabit et solam
scribendi facultatem potius ad alia opera convertet. Vix enim bonae
fidei viro convenit auxilium in publicum polliceri quod praesentissimis
quibusque periculis desit, intrare portum ad quem navis accedere nisi
lenibus ventis vecta non possit,-- |2| siquidem innumerabiles accidunt
subitae necessitates vel apud magistratus vel repraesentatis iudiciis
continuo agendi. Quarum si qua, non dico cuicumque innocentium civium,
sed amicorum ac propinquorum alicui evenerit, stabitne mutus et
salutarem petentibus vocem, statimque si non succurratur perituris,
moras et secessum et silentium quaeret, dum illa verba fabricentur et
memoriae insidant et vox ac latus praeparetur? |3| Quae vero patitur hoc
ratio, ut quisquam possit orator aliquando omittere casus? Quid, cum
adversario respondendum erit, fiet? Nam saepe ea quae opinati sumus et
contra quae scripsimus fallunt, ac tota subito causa mutatur; atque ut
gubernatori ad incursus tempestatium, sic agenti ad varietatem causarum
ratio mutanda est. |4| Quid porro multus stilus et adsidua lectio et
longa studiorum aetas facit, si manet eadem quae fuit incipientibus
difficultas? Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem, cui
semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore dicere
malit, sed ut possit. Id autem maxime hoc modo consequemur.

|5| Nota sit primum dicendi via; neque enim prius contingere cursus
potest quam scierimus quo sit et qua perveniendum. Nec satis est non
ignorare quae sint causarum iudicialium partes, aut quaestionum ordinem
recte disponere, quamquam ista sunt praecipua, sed quid quoque loco
primum sit, quid secundum ac deinceps: quae ita sunt natura copulata ut
mutari aut intervelli sine confusione non possint. |6| Quisquis autem
via dicet, ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce, propter quod
homines etiam modice exercitati facillime tenorem in narrationibus
servant. Deinde quid quoque loco quaerant scient, nec circumspectabunt
nec offerentibus se aliunde sensibus turbabuntur nec confundent ex
diversis orationem velut salientes huc illuc nec usquam insistentes. |7|
Postremo habebunt modum et finem, qui esse citra divisionem nullus
potest. Expletis pro facultate omnibus quae proposuerint, pervenisse se
ad ultimum sentient.

Et haec quidem ex arte, illa vero ex studio: ut copiam sermonis optimi,
quem ad modum praeceptum est, comparemus, multo ac fideli stilo sic
formetur oratio ut scriptorum colorem etiam quae subito effusa sint
reddant, ut cum multa scripserimus etiam multa dicamus. |8| Nam
consuetudo et exercitatio facilitatem maxime parit: quae si paulum
intermissa fuerit, non velocitas illa modo tardatur, sed ipsum {os} coit
atque concurrit. Quamquam enim opus est naturali quadam mobilitate
animi, ut, dum proxima dicimus, struere ulteriora possimus semperque
nostram vocem provisa et formata cogitatio excipiat; |9| vix tamen aut
natura aut ratio in tam multiplex officium diducere animum queat ut
inventioni, dispositioni, elocutioni, ordini rerum verborumque, tum iis
quae dicit, quae subiuncturus est, quae ultra spectanda sunt, adhibita
vocis, pronuntiationis, gestus observatione, una sufficiat. |10| Longe
enim praecedat oportet intentio ac prae se res agat, quantumque dicendo
consumitur, tantum ex ultimo prorogetur, ut, donec perveniamus ad finem,
non minus prospectu procedamus quam gradu, si non intersistentes
offensantesque brevia illa atque concisa singultantium modo eiecturi
sumus.

|11| Est igitur usus quidam inrationalis, quam Graeci ἄλογον τριβήν
vocant, qua manus in scribendo decurrit, qua oculi totos simul in
lectione versus flexusque eorum et transitus intuentur et ante sequentia
vident quam priora dixerunt. Quo constant miracula illa in scaenis
pilariorum ac ventilatorum, ut ea quae emiserint ultro venire in manus
credas et qua iubentur decurrere. |12| Sed hic usus ita proderit, si ea
de qua locuti sumus ars antecesserit, ut ipsum illud quod in se rationem
non habet in ratione versetur. Nam mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi
qui disposite, ornate, copiose dicit, sed tumultuari. |13| Nec fortuiti
sermonis contextum mirabor umquam, quem iurgantibus etiam mulierculis
superfluere video, cum eo quod, si calor ac spiritus tulit, frequenter
accidit ut successum extemporalem consequi cura non possit. |14| Deum
tunc adfuisse, cum id evenisset, veteres oratores, ut Cicero,
dictitabant. Sed ratio manifesta est. Nam bene concepti adfectus et
recentes rerum imagines continuo impetu feruntur, quae nonnumquam mora
stili refrigescunt et dilatae non revertuntur. Utique vero, cum infelix
illa verborum cavillatio accessit et cursus ad singula vestigia
restitit, non potest ferri contorta vis; sed, ut optime vocum singularum
cedat electio, non continua sed composita est.

|15| Quare capiendae sunt illae, de quibus dixi, rerum imagines, quas
vocari φαντασίας indicavimus, omniaque, de quibus dicturi erimus,
personae, quaestiones, spes, metus, habenda in oculis, in adfectus
recipienda; pectus est enim, quod disertos facit, et vis mentis. Ideoque
imperitis quoque, si modo sunt aliquo adfectu concitati, verba non
desunt. |16| Tum intendendus animus, non in aliquam rem unam, sed in
plures simul continuas, ut si per aliquam rectam viam mittamus oculos
simul omnia quae sunt in ea circaque intuemur, non ultimum tantum
videmus, sed usque ad ultimum. Addit ad dicendum etiam pudor stimulos,
mirumque videri potest quod, cum stilus secreto gaudeat atque omnes
arbitros reformidet, extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles
congestu signorum, excitatur. |17| Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem
exprimit et expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget
placendi cupido. Adeo pretium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quoque,
quamquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis, maxime tamen praesenti fructu
laudis opinionisque ducatur. |18| Nec quisquam tantum fidat ingenio ut
id sibi speret incipienti statim posse contingere, sed, sicut in
cogitatione praecepimus, ita facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis
initiis paulatim perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque
contineri nisi usu potest. |19| Ceterum pervenire eo debet ut cogitatio
non utique melior sit ea, sed tutior, cum hanc facilitatem non in prosa
modo multi sint consecuti, sed etiam in carmine, ut Antipater Sidonius
et Licinius Archias (credendum enim Ciceroni est)-- non quia nostris
quoque temporibus non et fecerint quidam hoc et faciant. Quod tamen non
ipsum tam probabile puto (neque enim habet aut usum res aut
necessitatem) quam exhortandis in hanc spem, qui foro praeparantur,
utile exemplum. |20| Neque vero tanta esse umquam {debet} fiducia
facilitatis ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea
quae dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus, quod quidem in iudiciis ac foro
datur semper; neque enim quisquam est qui causam quam non didicerit
agat. |21| Declamatores quosdam perversa ducit ambitio ut exposita
controversia protinus dicere velint, quin etiam, quod est in primis
frivolum ac scaenicum, verbum petant quo incipiant. Sed tam
contumeliosos in se ridet invicem eloquentia, et qui stultis videri
eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis videntur. |22| Si qua tamen fortuna tam
subitam fecerit agendi necessitatem, mobiliore quodam opus erit ingenio,
et vis omnis intendenda rebus et in praesentia remittendum aliquid ex
cura verborum, si consequi utrumque non dabitur. Tum et tardior
pronuntiatio moras habet et suspensa ac velut dubitans oratio, ut tamen
deliberare, non haesitare videamur. |23| Hoc, dum egredimur e portu, si
nos nondum aptatis satis armamentis aget ventus; deinde paulatim simul
euntes aptabimus vela et disponemus rudentes et impleri sinus optabimus.
Id potius quam se inani verborum torrenti dare quasi tempestatibus quo
volent auferendum.

|24| Sed non minore studio continetur haec facultas quam paratur. Ars
enim semel percepta non labitur, stilus quoque intermissione paulum
admodum de celeritate deperdit: promptum hoc et in expedito positum
exercitatione sola continetur. Hac uti sic optimum est ut cotidie
dicamus audientibus pluribus, maxime de quorum simus iudicio atque
opinione solliciti; rarum est enim ut satis se quisque vereatur. Vel
soli tamen dicamus potius quam non omnino dicamus. |25| Est alia
exercitatio cogitandi totasque materias vel silentio (dum tamen quasi
dicat intra se ipsum) persequendi, quae nullo non et tempore et loco,
quando non aliud agimus, explicari potest, et est in parte utilior quam
haec proxima; |26| diligentius enim componitur quam illa, in qua
contextum dicendi intermittere veremur. Rursus in alia plus prior
confert, vocis firmitatem, oris facilitatem, motum corporis, qui et
ipse, ut dixi, excitat oratorem et iactatione manus, pedis supplosione,
sicut cauda leones facere dicuntur, hortatur. |27| Studendum vero semper
et ubique. Neque enim fere tam est ullus dies occupatus, ut nihil
lucrativae, ut Cicero Brutum facere tradit, operae ad scribendum aut
legendum aut dicendum rapi aliquo momento temporis possit: siquidem C.
Carbo etiam in tabernaculo solebat hac uti exercitatione dicendi. |28|
Ne id quidem tacendum est, quod eidem Ciceroni placet, nullum nostrum
usquam neglegentem esse sermonem: quidquid loquemur ubicumque, sit pro
sua scilicet portione perfectum. Scribendum certe numquam est magis quam
cum multa dicemus ex tempore. Ita enim servabitur pondus et innatans
illa verborum facilitas in altum reducetur, sicut rustici proximas vitis
radices amputant, quae illam in summum solum ducunt, ut inferiores
penitus descendendo firmentur. |29| Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et
studio fecerimus, invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius,
dicendo scribamus facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit; si id non
dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen {sic d}icere ut
neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.

|30| Plerumque autem multa agentibus accidit ut maxime necessaria et
utique initia scribant, cetera, quae domo adferunt, cogitatione
complectantur, subitis ex tempore occurrant; quod fecisse M. Tullium
commentariis ipsius apparet. Sed feruntur aliorum quoque et inventi
forte, ut eos dicturus quisque composuerat, et in libros digesti, ut
causarum, quae sunt actae a Servio Sulpicio, cuius tres orationes
extant; sed hi de quibus loquor commentarii ita sunt exacti ut ab ipso
mihi in memoriam posteritatis videantur esse compositi. |31| Nam
Ciceronis ad praesens modo tempus aptatos libertus Tiro contraxit: quos
non ideo excuso quia non probem, sed ut sint magis admirabiles. In hoc
genere prorsus recipio hanc brevem adnotationem libellosque, qui vel
manu teneantur et ad quos interim respicere fas sit. |32| Illud quod
Laenas praecipit displicet mihi, {et} in his quae scripserimus velut
summas in commentarium et capita conferre. Facit enim ediscendi
neglegentiam haec ipsa fiducia et lacerat ac deformat orationem. Ego
autem ne scribendum quidem puto quod {non} simus memoria persecuturi;
nam hic quoque accidit ut revocet nos cogitatio ad illa elaborata nec
sinat praesentem fortunam experiri. |33| Sic anceps inter utrumque
animus aestuat, cum et scripta perdidit et non quaerit nova. Sed de
memoria destinatus est libro proximo locus nec huic parti subiungendus,
quia sunt alia prius nobis dicenda.


  [End of duplicated material:
  See Transcriber’s Note at beginning of text.]


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


PREFACE.


This volume has grown in my hands during the last eighteen months. If I
had contented myself with a short commentary, it might have appeared
sooner and in a slighter form. But in addition to the full and careful
illustration required for the matter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, the
criticism of the text has become so important as to call for separate
treatment. It has engaged, within recent years, a large share of the
attention of some of the foremost scholars on the Continent. Even while
this volume was passing through the press, fresh evidence of their
continued activity was received in the shape of two valuable papers-- an
article by Moriz Kiderlin in one of the current numbers of the
_Rheinisches Museum_, and Becher’s ‘Zum zehnten Buch des Quintilianus’
in the _Programm des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_ for Easter, 1891.
The latter I have found especially interesting, as confirming many of
the conclusions at which, with the help of one of the manuscripts in the
British Museum (Harl. 4995), I had arrived in regard to textual
difficulties.

The importance ascribed to another English codex (Harl. 2664) will,
I venture to think, be held to be justified by the account of it given
in the Introduction. After I had examined it for myself, a collation of
it was kindly put at my disposal by Mr. L. C. Purser, of Trinity
College, Dublin, to whom I take this opportunity of rendering my best
thanks. I am indebted also to M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au
Lycée Charlemagne, for sending me his collation of four important Paris
manuscripts (Pratensis, Puteanus, 7231 and 7696), and also of the
Spanish Salmantinus. As to the other codices which I have been at the
trouble of collating personally, it will not be imagined that any
mistaken estimate has been formed of their value. If some of them throw
little fresh light on existing difficulties, they have each a bearing on
the history of the constitution of the text; and it seemed desirable to
complete, by some account of them, the elaborate description of the
Manuscripts of Quintilian given by M. Fierville in his latest volume.

A reference to the list of authorities consulted will show the extent of
the obligations incurred to other editors and critics. Kruger’s third
edition has been especially useful. And though Professor Mayor’s
commentary extends only to the fifty-sixth section of the first chapter,
I trust I have profited by the example of scholarly thoroughness which
he set me in the part of the work which he was able to overtake. His
Analysis has also been largely followed.

For convenience of reference, a table of places has been added in which
the text of this edition differs from that of Halm and of Meister.
Special attention has been paid to the matter of punctuation, in regard
to which German methods have not been adopted.

One or two of my own conjectural emendations I have presumed to insert
in the text, and others are suggested in the Critical Notes. Perhaps the
most important is _sic dicere_ for the MS. _inicere_ at 7 §29.

If my volume should strike any student as having been prepared on too
elaborate a scale, I trust it will be remembered that Quintilian is a
neglected author, for whom nothing has been done in this country (with
the exception of Professor Mayor’s incomplete edition of the Tenth Book)
since the beginning of the present century. Perhaps its publication may
help to clear the way for a final issue of the whole text of the
_Institutio_.

  W. P.

    Dundee, 26th June, 1891.



CONTENTS

                                                Page
  INTRODUCTION--
    I. Life of Quintilian                          i
    II. The Institutio Oratoria                 xiii
    III. Quintilian’s Literary Criticism        xxii
    IV. Style and Language                     xxxix
    V. Manuscripts                            lxviii

  ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT                         1

  TEXT                                            11

  CRITICAL NOTES                                 185
  Index of Names                                 223
  Index of Matters                               225



  [Illustration: Harleian MS. 2664. 149 V.
  (See Introd. p. lxiv.)]



INTRODUCTION.



I.

LIFE OF QUINTILIAN.


It would be possible to state in a very few lines all that is certainly
known about Quintilian’s personal history; but much would remain to be
said in order to convey an adequate idea of the large place he must have
filled in the era of which he is so typical a representative. The period
of his activity at Rome is nearly co-extensive with the reign of the
Flavian emperors,-- Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. For twenty years he
was the recognised head of the teaching profession in the capital, and a
large proportion of those who came to maturity in the days of Trajan and
Hadrian must have received their intellectual training in his school. It
is in itself a sign of the tendencies of the age that Quintilian should
have enjoyed the immediate patronage of the reigning emperor in the
conduct of work which would formerly have attracted little notice. In
earlier days the profession of teaching had been held in low repute at
Rome[1]. The first attempt to open a school of rhetoric, in B.C. 94, was
looked on with the greatest suspicion and disfavour. Even Cicero adopts
a tone of apology in the rhetorical text-books which he wrote for the
instruction of others. But now all was changed, and education had come
to be, as it was in a still greater degree under Nerva, Trajan, and the
Antonines, a department of the government itself. Vespasian was the
founder of a new dynasty; and, though he had little culture to boast of
himself, he was shrewd enough to appreciate the advantages to be derived
from systematising the education of the Roman youth, and maintaining
friendly relations with those to whom it was entrusted. Quintilian, for
his part, seems to have diligently seconded, in the scholastic sphere,
his patron’s efforts to efface the memory of the time of trouble and
unrest which had followed the extinction of the Julian line in the
person of Nero. After his retirement from the active duties of his
profession, he received the consular insignia from Domitian,-- the
promotion of a teacher of rhetoric to the highest dignity in the State
being regarded as a most unexampled phenomenon by the conservative
opinion of the day, which had failed to recognise the significance of
the alliance between prince and pedagogue. The interest with which the
publication of the _Institutio Oratorio_ was looked forward to, at the
close of his laborious professional career, is sufficient evidence of
the authoritative position Quintilian had gained for himself at Rome. It
was a tribute not only to the successful teacher, but also to the man of
letters who, conscious that his was an age of literary decadence, sought
to probe the causes of the national decline and to counteract its evil
influences.

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

Like so many of the distinguished men of his time, Quintilian was a
Spaniard by birth. There must have been something in the Spanish
national character that rendered the inhabitants of that country
peculiarly susceptible to the influences of Roman culture: certainly no
province assimilated more rapidly than Spain the civilisation of its
conquerors. The expansion of Rome may be clearly traced in the history
of her literature. Just as Italy, rather than the imperial city itself,
had supplied the court of Augustus with its chiefest literary ornaments,
so now Spain sends up to the centre of attraction for all things Roman a
band of authors united, if by nothing else, at least by the ties of a
common origin. Pomponius Mela is said to have come from a place called
Cingentera, on the bay of Algesiras; Columella was a native of Gades,
Martial of Bilbilis; the two Senecas and Lucan were born in Corduba. The
emperor Trajan came from Italica, near Seville; while Hadrian belonged
to a family which had long been settled there. Quintilian’s birthplace
was the town of Calagurris (Calahorra) on the Ebro, memorable in
previous history only for the resistance which it enabled Sertorius to
offer to Metellus and Pompeius: it was the last place that submitted
after the murder of the insurgent general in B.C. 72.

In most of the older editions of Quintilian an anonymous Life appears,
the author of which (probably either Omnibonus Leonicenus or Laurentius
Valla) prefers a conjecture of his own to the ‘books of the time,’ and
makes out that Quintilian was born in Rome. His main argument is that
Martial does not include his name among those of the distinguished
authors to whom he refers as being of Spanish origin (e.g. Epigr. i. 61
and 49), though he addresses him separately in complimentary terms
(Epigr. ii. 90). Against this we may set, however, the line in which
Ausonius embodies what was evidently a well-known and accepted tradition
(Prof. i. 7):--

  _Adserat usque licet Fabium Calagurris alumnum;_

and the statement of Hieronymus in the _Eusebian Chronicle:--
Quintilianus, ex Hispania Calagurritanus, primus Romae publicam scholam_
[_aperuit_]. The latter extract carries additional weight if we accept
the conjecture of Reifferscheid[2] that Jerome here follows the
authority of Suetonius (Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and
rhetoricians.

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

The fact of Quintilian’s Spanish origin may therefore be regarded as
fully established, though we cannot cite the authority of Quintilian
himself on the subject. His removal to Rome, at a very early period of
his life, would naturally make him more of a Roman than a Spaniard; and
this is probably the reason why he nowhere refers to the accident of his
birth-place. Indeed his work does not lend itself to autobiographical
revelations. Most of his reminiscences, some of which occur in the Tenth
Book (1 §§23 and 86, 3 §12: cp. v. 7, 7: vi. 1, 14: xii. 11, 3) are
suggested by some detail connected with his subject. Apart from the
famous introduction to Book VI, where his grief for the loss of his wife
and two sons is allowed to interrupt the continuity of his argument, he
speaks of his father only once (ix. 3, 73), and then simply to quote,
not without some diffidence, a _bon mot_ of his in illustration of a
figure of speech. The father was himself a rhetorician, and seems to
have taught the subject both at Calagurris and also after the family
removed to Rome: whether he is identical with the Quintilianus mentioned
as a declaimer of moderate reputation by the elder Seneca (Controv. x.
praef. 2: cp. ib. 33, 19) cannot now be ascertained.

The date of Quintilian’s birth has been variously given as A.D. 42, A.D.
38, and A.D. 35, the last being now most commonly adopted. It cannot be
determined with certainty, though a few considerations may here be
adduced to show why it seems necessary to discard any theory that would
put it after A.D. 38. Dodwell, in his ‘Annales Quintilianei’ (see
Burmann’s edition, vol. ii. p. 1117), arrived at the year A.D. 42, after
a careful examination of all the passages on which he thought it
allowable to base an inference. But Quintilian tells us himself that he
was a young man (_nobis adulescentibus_ vi. 1, 14) at the trial of
Cossutianus Capito, which we know from Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 33) took
place in A.D. 57: a fact which is in itself enough to show that Dodwell
is at least two years too late. Another indication is derived from the
references which Quintilian makes to his teacher Domitius Afer, who is
known to have died at a ripe old age in A.D. 59: cp. xii. 11, 3 _vidi
ego ... Domitium Afrum valde senem_: v. 7, 7 _quem adulescentulus senem
colui_: x. 1, 86 _quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi_. Unfortunately we
do not know the date of the trial of Volusenus Catulus referred to in x.
1, 23: Quintilian was a boy at the time (_nobis pueris_). In the preface
to Book VI he writes like an old man: this appears especially in the
reference he makes to the wife whom he had lost and who was only
nineteen,-- _aetate tam puellari praesertim meae comparata_ §5. If we
may infer that Quintilian was nearer sixty than fifty when he wrote
these words, in A.D. 93 or 94, we may be certain that he was born not
later than A.D. 38, and probably two or three years earlier.

Quintilian received his early education at Rome, and his father’s
position as a teacher of rhetoric, as well as the whole tendency of the
education of the day, no doubt gave it a rhetorical turn from the very
first. Even boys at school practised declamation, as may be seen from
the following passage of the _Institutio_:--

‘_Non inutilem scio servatum esse a praeceptoribus meis morem, qui cum
pueros in classes distribuerant, ordinem dicendi secundum vires ingenii
dabant; et ita superiore loco quisque declamabat ut praecedere profectu
videbatur. Huius rei iudicia praebebantur: ea nobis ingens palma, ducere
vero classem multo pulcherrimum. Nec de hoc semel decretum erat:
tricesimus dies reddebat victo certaminis potestatem. Ita nec superior
successu curam remittebat, et dolor victum ad depellendam ignominiam
concitabat. Id nobis acriores ad studia dicendi faces subdidisse quam
exhortationem docentium, paedagogorum custodiam, vota parentium, quantum
animi mei coniectura colligere possum, contenderim._’ --i. 2, 23-25.

The same style of exercise was kept up at a later stage, when the boy
passed into the hands of a professed teacher of rhetoric, such as the
notorious Remmius Palaemon, who is said by the scholiast on Juvenal (vi.
451) to have been Quintilian’s master:--

‘_Solebant praeceptores mei neque inutili et nobis etiam iucundo genere
exercitationis praeparare nos coniecturalibus causis, cum quaerere atque
exsequi iuberent “cur armata apud Lacedaemonios Venus” et “quid ita
crederetur Cupido puer atque volucer et sagittis ac face armatus” et
similia, in quibus scrutabamur voluntatem._’ --ii. 4, 26.

He now came into contact with, and listened to the eloquence of, the
most celebrated orators of the day. In his relations with the greatest
of these, Domitius Afer, Quintilian seems to have acted on the maxim
which he himself lays down for the budding advocate: _oratorem sibi
aliquem, quod apud maiores fieri solebat, deligat, quem sequatur, quem
imitetur_ x. 5, 19. To Afer he attached himself (_adsectabar Domitium
Afrum_ Plin. Ep. ii. 14, 10), and was in all probability by him
initiated in the business of the law-courts and public life generally:
cp. v. 7, 7 _adulescentulus senem colui_ (_Domitium_). In this passage
Afer is said to have written two books on the examination of witnesses;
and from vi. 3, 42 it would appear that his ‘dicta’ or witticisms were
sufficiently distinguished to merit the honour of publication. He had
held high office under Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, and his
pre-eminence at the bar was undisputed: xii. 11, 3 _principem fuisse
quondam fori non erat dubium_. In his review of Latin oratory,
Quintilian gives him high praise: _arte et toto genere dicendi
praeferendus, et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas_ x. 1, 118.
The pupil was fortunate therefore in his master, and he drew upon his
reminiscences of Afer’s teaching when he himself came to instruct others
(Plin. l.c.). Among other notable orators of the day were Servilius
Nonianus (x. 1, 102), Iulius Africanus (x. 1, 118: xii. 10, 11), Iulius
Secundus (x. 1, 120: 3, 12: xii. 10, 11), Galerius Trachalus (x. 1, 119:
xii. 10, 11), and Vibius Crispus (ibid.).

When he was about twenty-five years of age some motive induced
Quintilian to return to Calagurris, his native town; and there he spent
several years in the practice of his profession as teacher and
barrister. We know that he came back to Rome with Galba in A.D. 68: the
evidence for this is again the statement made by Hieronymus in the
Eusebian Chronicle, _M. Fabius Quintilianus Romam a Galba perducitur_.
Galba had been governor of Hispania Tarraconensis under Nero (A.D.
61-68), and it is not improbable that Quintilian, when he returned to
his native country, was in some way attached to his official retinue;
the numerous _bons mots_ which he records in the third chapter of the
Sixth Book (§§62, 64, 66, 80, 90) seem to point to a certain amount of
personal intercourse between himself and the future emperor[3].

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

At Rome Quintilian must soon have proved himself thoroughly qualified
for the work of teaching and training the young. The imperial
countenance afterwards shown him by Vespasian was in all probability
only an official expression of the esteem felt in the Roman community
for one who was serving with such distinction in a sphere of which the
importance was coming now to be more adequately recognised. Quintilian
was not only a learned man and a great teacher: he was a great moral
power in the midst of a people which had long been demoralised by the
vices of its rulers. The fundamental principle of his teaching, _non
posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum_ (i. pr. §9 and xii. 1), shows the
high ideal he cherished and the wide view he took of the opportunities
of his position. He felt himself strong enough to make a protest against
the literary influence of Seneca, then the popular favourite, and to
endeavour to recall a vitiated taste to more rigorous standards:
_corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora
iudicia contendo_ (x. 1, 125). And when, in the evening of his days, he
wrote his great treatise on the ‘technical training’ of the orator, it
was from himself and his own successful practice that he drew many of
his most cogent illustrations, e.g. vi. 2, 36, and (in regard to his
powers of memory) xi. 2, 39 and iv. 2, 86.

In the earlier years of his career at Rome, before he became absorbed in
the work of teaching, Quintilian must have had a considerable amount of
practice at the bar. He tells us himself of a speech which he published,
_ductus iuvenali cupiditate gloriae_ viii. 2, 24. It was of a common
type. A certain Naevius Arpinianus was accused of having killed his
wife, who had fallen from a window; and we may infer with certainty from
the tone of Quintilian’s reference to the circumstances of the case that
he succeeded in securing the acquittal of Naevius-- more fortunate than
the wife-killer of whom we read in Tacitus (Ann. iv. 22). A more
distinguished cause was that of Berenice, the Jewish Queen before whom
St. Paul appeared (Acts xxv. 13), and whose subsequent visit to Rome was
connected with the ascendency she had established over the heart of the
youthful Titus (Tac. Hist. ii. 2: Suet. Tit. 7). We can only speculate
on the nature of the issue involved, as Quintilian confines himself to a
bare statement of fact-- _ego pro regina Berenice apud ipsam causam
dixi_ iv. 1, 19. It was in all probability a civil suit brought or
defended by Berenice against some Jewish countryman; and the phenomenon
of the queen herself presiding over a trial in which she was an
interested party is accounted for by the hypothesis that, at least in
civil suits, Roman tolerance allowed the Jews to settle their own
disputes according to their national law. On such occasions the person
of highest rank in the community to which the disputants belonged might
naturally be designated to preside over the tribunal[4].

    [Footnote 4: So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the
    following authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of
    Asia: Joseph, xiv. 10. 17 Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον
    ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν
    ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι-- the
    words of L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp.
    id. xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11,
    24. The privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see
    inter alia Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10 _sane si qui per compromissum, ad
    similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu
    partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri
    eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur_.]

In another case, Quintilian seems to have shown some of the dexterity
attributed to him in the oft-quoted line of Juvenal (vi. 280) _Dic
aliquem, sodes, dic, Quintiliane, colorem_. He was counsel for a woman
who had been party to an arrangement by which the provisions of the
Voconian law (passed B.C. 169 to prevent the accumulation of property in
the hands of females) had been evaded by the not uncommon method of a
fraudulent disposition to a third person[5]. Quintilian’s client was
accused of having produced a forged will. This charge it was easy to
rebut, though it rendered necessary the explanation that the heirs named
in the will had really undertaken to hand the property over to the
woman; and if this explanation were openly given it would involve the
loss of the estate. There is an evident tone of satisfaction in
Quintiiian’s description of what happened: _ita ergo fuit nobis agendum
ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores non possent
adprehendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque_ (ix. 2, 74).

    [Footnote 5: Gaius ii §274 _mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris
    census est, per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen
    fideicommisso relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest_.]

Unlike his great model Cicero, who was considered most effective in the
_peroratio_ of a great case, where the work was divided among several
pleaders, Quintilian was generally relied on to state a case (_ponere
causam_) in its main lines for subsequent elaboration: _me certe,
quantacunque nostris experimentis habenda est fides, fecisse hoc in
foro, quotiens ita desiderabat utilitas, probantibus et eruditis et iis
qui iudicabant, scio: et (quod non adroganter dixerim, quia sunt plurimi
quibuscum egi qui me refellere possint si mentiar) fere a me ponendae
causae officium exigebatur_ iv. 2, 86. His methodical habit of mind
would render him specially effective for this department of work. Other
orators may have been more brilliant, more full of fire, and more able
to work upon the feelings of an audience: if Quintilian had not the
‘grand style’-- if he represents the type of an orator that is ‘made’
rather than ‘born’-- we may at least believe that he was unsurpassed for
judicious, moderate, and effective statement. His model in this as in
other matters was probably Domitius Afer, of whom Pliny says (Ep. ii.
14, 10) _apud decemviros dicebat graviter et lente, hoc enim illi
actionis genus erat_. His character and training would secure him a
place apart from the common herd. ‘Among the orators of the day, some
ignorant and coarse, having left mean occupations, without any
preliminary study, for the bar, where they made up in audacity for lack
of talent, and in noisy conceit for a defective knowledge of law--
others trained in the practice of delation to every form of trickery and
violence-- Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood by himself[6].’

    [Footnote 6: Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited
    from contemporary literature describing both types. For the first
    cp. Martial viii. 16 _Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas
    agis_, and _passim_: Petronius, Sat. 46 _destinavi illum artificii
    docere, aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum_ ...
    Philero was lately a street porter: _nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se
    extendit; litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur_:
    Juv. vii. 106 sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class
    the best representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and
    legacy-hunter, on whose account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s
    famous utterance, _vir malus dicendi imperitus_ Plin. iv. 7, 5 and
    ii. 20.]

It was after Quintilian had attained some distinction in the practice of
his profession, probably in the year 72, that his activity became
invested with an official and public character. We learn the facts from
Suetonius’s Life of Vespasian (ch. 18): _primus e fisco latinis
graecisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit_: and the Eusebian
chronicle (see Roth’s Suetonius, p. 272), _Quintilianus, ex Hispania
Calagurritanus, qui primus Romae publicam_ (‘state-supported’) _scholam_
[_aperuit_] _et salarium e fisco accepit, claruit_-- the zenith of his
fame being placed between the years 85 and 89 A.D. Vespasian, in fact,
created and endowed a professorial Chair of Rhetoric, and Quintilian was
its first occupant. He thus became the official head of the foremost
school of oratory at Rome, and the ‘supreme controller of its restless
youth’:

  _Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae,
  Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae._ --Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.

In this capacity he must have exercised the greatest possible influence
on the rising youth of Rome. The younger Pliny was his pupil, and
evidently retained a grateful memory of the instruction which he
received from him: Ep. ii. 14, 9 and vi. 6, 3. The same is true, in all
probability, of Pliny’s friend Tacitus, who has much in common with
Quintilian: possibly also of Suetonius. If Juvenal was not actually his
pupil,-- he is believed to have practised declamation till well on in
life,-- we may infer from the complimentary references which occur in
his Satires that he at least appreciated Quintilian’s work and
recognised its healthy influence[7].

    [Footnote 7: Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with
    Quint, i. 2, 8 and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with
    Quint, ii. 2, 4: _Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram
    Spirantesque crocos et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem
    sancti valuere parentis Esse loco!_ and _Sumat ante omnia parentis
    erga discipulos suos animum_ (sc. _praeceptor_) _ac succedere se in
    eorum locum a quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet_.]

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty
years[8], Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading
at the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model,
Domitius Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier
(xii. 11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still
be missed,-- _et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et in
foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum
desideraremur_, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the
practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into
retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a
treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for
which the _Institutio Oratoria_ was afterwards to provide a remedy. It
was entitled _De causis corruptae eloquentiae_, and was long confounded
with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he refers to this
work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4, 42: v. 12, 23:
vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 76[9]. This treatise is no longer
extant, and we have lost also the two books _Artis Rhetoricae_, which
were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), _neque editi a me
neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum habitum pueri
quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane diebus, quantum
notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed nimium amantes
mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant_[10]. In a recent edition of
the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani declamationes quae
supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter endeavours to show that
this is the work referred to in the passage quoted above, from the
preface to the _Institutio_: cp. Die Quintilianischen Declamationen,
Freiburg i.B., und Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.[11] Meister’s view,
however, is that, like the ‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally
admitted to have been composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’
also were written subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more
probably) by imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend
their compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy
professional days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate
publishers: he tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in
circulation under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely
his own: _nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia
excipientium in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei
habent_.

    [Footnote 8: i. pr. §1 _post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae
    per viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_. The chronology
    is rather uncertain. It is supposed that Quintilian began his
    _Institutio_ in 92 or 93 and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period
    of twenty years is to be interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that
    he is referring to his official career, as it may have been in 72
    that Vespasian took the step referred to above, p. viii. Or we may
    understand him to be dating the period of his educational activity
    as extending from A.D. 70 to A.D. 90, though he did not begin to
    write the _Institutio_ till 92. The latter is the more probable
    alternative.]

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

    [Footnote 10: The _Declamationes_ may also be mentioned here, as
    having long been credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer
    and 145 shorter pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of
    rhetorical exercise, and with success,-- at least in the earlier
    part of his career,-- is clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but
    it seems probable, from the nature of the contents of the existing
    collection, if not from the style, that tradition has erred in
    attributing to the master what must have been, in the main, the work
    of pupils and imitators. The popular habit of tacking on to a great
    name whatever seems not unworthy of it, may account for the fact
    that these rhetorical efforts are credited to Quintilian as early as
    the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15) _Seu libeat fictas
    ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam Quintilianus habet_.
    St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks of his _concinnas
    declamationes_: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which has disappeared
    from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a historian of
    the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of Gaulish
    origin, adds: _fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus ut
    eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae_ (Trig. tyr. 4, 2):
    cp. ib. _Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis acutissimum
    vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat_ (Hild,
    Introd. p. xxi. note).]

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

While living in retirement, and engaged on the composition of his work,
Quintilian received a fresh mark of Imperial favour, this time from
Domitian. This prince had adopted two grand-nephews, whom he destined to
succeed him on the throne,-- the children of his niece Flavia Domitilla,
and of Flavius Clemens, a cousin whom he associated with himself about
this time in the duties of the consulship. They were rechristened
Vespasian and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and the care of their education
was entrusted to Quintilian (A.D. 93). He accepted it with fulsome
expressions of gratitude and appreciation[12]; but did not exercise it
for long[13], as the children, with their parents, became the victims of
the tyrant’s capriciousness shortly before his murder, and were ruined
as rapidly as they had risen. Flavius Clemens was put to death, and his
wife Domitilla, probably accompanied by her two sons, was sent into
exile. They seem to have embraced the Jewish faith; and it is
interesting to speculate on the possibility that through intercourse
with them, and with their children, Quintilian may have come into
contact with a religion which was the forerunner of that which was
destined soon afterwards to achieve so universal a triumph.

    [Footnote 12: iv. pr. 2 _Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis
    suae nepotum delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum
    caelestium intellegam, nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem
    metiar_.]

    [Footnote 13: If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he
    wrote the Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his
    domestic losses he says that he will live henceforth not to himself
    but to the youth of Rome), he would almost certainly have made some
    reference to them.]

It was while he was acting as tutor to the two princes that Quintilian
received, through the influence of their father Flavius Clemens, the
compliment of the consular insignia. This we learn from Ausonius,
himself the recipient of a similar favour from his pupil Gratian:
_Quintilianus per Clementem ornamenta consularia sortitus, honestamenta
nominis potius videtur quam insignia potestatis habuisse_. It was
probably in allusion to this promotion, unexampled at that time in the
case of a teacher of rhetoric, that Juvenal wrote (vii. 197-8)--

  _Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul;
  Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:_

while another parallel is chronicled by Pliny, Ep. iv. 11, 1 _praetorius
hic modo ... nunc eo decidit ut exsul de senatore, rhetor de oratore
fieret. Itaque ipse in praefatione dixit dolenter el graviter: ‘quos
tibi Fortuna, ludos facis?’ facis enim ex professoribus senatores, ex
senatoribus professores._

The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and
similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably
manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear
that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an
‘upright guardian of morals’ (_sanctissimus censor_ iv. pr. §3), even
when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There may
have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian, like
Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical productions are
said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and his attachment to
literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he instituted in honour of
Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which rhetorical, musical, and
artistic contests were a prominent feature (see on x. 1, 91). But this
is no justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in
the introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as
the protecting deity of literary men: _ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia
eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis
propitium numen est_; nor for his profession of belief that nothing but
the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the greatest
poet of Rome: _Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura
terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum_ x. 1, 91 sq.
Few would recognise Domitian in the following reference: _laudandum in
quibusdam quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute
sint consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum
decus fecit_ iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially explained
by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the circumstances
of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age: Quintilian
shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and Valerius Flaccus.
The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal maintained during the
horrors of this reign is a better expression of the virtue of old Rome,
which seems to have burned with steadier flame in the hearts of her
genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’ from the provinces, with
neither pride of family nor pride of nationality to save them from the
corrupting influences of their surroundings[14].

    [Footnote 14: In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar
    extravagances have not been unknown in our own literature. His
    translator, Guthrie-- an Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm
    for his author-- cries out in a note on this passage: “I will engage
    to point out from the works of some of the greatest and most learned
    men, as well as of the best poets, of England, compliments to the
    abilities not only of princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay,
    private gentlemen, who in this respect deserved them as little as
    Domitian did.”]

That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and
partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made
by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are
the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when
compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks off,--
_unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus?_ How does it come about (if
his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns so many
estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this conundrum is
that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a lucky man, and
your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good quality in
himself, and can expect everything[15].’ We must remember however, that,
while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his profession, no
charge is made against him as having placed his abilities at the
disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under Nero,
Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of Thrasea, and
received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33): if
Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal
would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as
with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were
counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the
memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the _Institutio_ would
perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a
testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless
widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl
whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he
had lost a daughter rather than a wife: _cum omni virtute quae in
feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam
puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter
vulnera orbitatis_ vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger of whom
did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year when he
died. The father now concentrated all his affection on the elder, and it
was with his education in view that he made all haste to complete his
great work, which he considered would be the best inheritance he could
leave to him,-- _hanc optimum partem relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut
si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit, fata intercepissent, praeceptore
tamen patre uteretur_ ib. §1. But the blow again descended, and his
house was desolate: _at me fortuna id agentem diebus ac noctibus
festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita subito prostravit ut laboris
mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me pertineret. Illum enim, de quo
summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam senectutis reponebam, repetito
vulnere orbitatis amisi_ ib. §2.

    [Footnote 15: The expression used in vi. pr. §4, _meo casu cui tamen
    nihil obici nisi quod vivam potest_, shows that Quintilian was quite
    conscious of his comfortable circumstances. --Halm (followed by
    Meister) reads _quam_ quod vivam: but I find _nisi_ in both the
    Bamberg (G) and the Harleian codices.]

This would be about the year 94 A.D., and the _Institutio Oratoria_ is
said to have seen the light in 95. After that we hear no more of
Quintilian. Domitian was assassinated in 96, and under the new _régime_
it is possible that the favourite of the Flavian emperors may have been
under a cloud. But his work was done; even if he lived on for a few
years longer in retirement, his career had virtually closed with the
publication of his great treatise. It used to be believed that he lived
into the reign of Hadrian, and died about 118 A.D., but this idea is
founded on a misconception[16]. Probably he did not even see the
accession of Nerva in 96: if he did, he must have died soon afterwards,
for there are two letters of Pliny’s (one written between 97 and 100,
and the other about 105) in which Pliny does not speak of his old
teacher as of one still alive.

    [Footnote 16: Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second
    marriage (sometime between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two
    children. This theory, which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel,
    and most authorities, was invented to account for the existence of a
    grown-up daughter, to whom, on the occasion of her marriage (about
    the year 105), Pliny gives a present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi.
    32. But this young lady must have been the daughter of another
    Quintilianus altogether. What we know of our Quintilian’s affluent
    circumstances is inconsistent with such liberality on Pliny’s part:
    the gift is offered as to a man who is comparatively poor. Moreover,
    the letter intimating the gift contains no such reference to the
    services of a former teacher as might have been expected on so
    interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost inconceivable that
    Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to Book vi. (about
    93 A.D.) the bereavements that left him desolate (_superstes omnium
    meorum_), should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of
    marriageable age.]



II.

THE INSTITUTIO ORATORIA.


Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition of
the _Institutio Oratorio_, his work really embodies the experience of a
lifetime. No doubt much of it lay ready to his hand, even before he
began to write, and he would willingly have kept it longer; but the
solicitations of Trypho, the publisher, were too much for him. His
letter to Trypho shows that he fully appreciated the magnitude of his
task; and there is even the suggestion that (like many a busy teacher
since his time) he only realised when called upon to publish that he had
not covered the whole ground of his subject[17]. The opening words of
the introduction (_post impetratam studiis meis quietem, quae per
viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_, &c.) show that the
_Institutio_ was the work of his retirement: and various indications
lead us to fix the date of its composition as falling between A.D. 93
and 95. The introduction to the Fourth Book was evidently written when
(probably in 93) Domitian had appointed Quintilian tutor to his
grand-nephews; the Sixth Book, where he refers to his family losses,
must have followed shortly afterwards; while the harshness of his
references to the philosophers in the concluding portions of the work
(cp. xi. 1, 30, xii. 3, 11, with 1, pr. 15, which may have been written,
or at least revised, after the rest was finished) seems to suggest that
their expulsion by Domitian (in 94) was already an accomplished
fact[18]. The book is dedicated to Victorius Marcellus, to whom Statius
also addresses the Fourth Book of his _Silvae_, evidently as to a person
of some consideration and an orator of repute (cp. Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 8,
and 41 sq.). Marcellus had a son called Geta (Inst. Or. i. pr. 6: Stat.
Silv. iv. 4, 71), and it was originally with a view to the education of
this youth (_erudiendo Getae tuo_) that Quintilian associated the
father’s name with his work. Geta is again referred to, along with
Quintilian’s elder son, and also the grand-nephews of Domitian, in the
introduction to the Fourth Book; but the opening words of the Sixth Book
show that they are all gone, and the epilogue, at the conclusion of Book
xii, is addressed to Marcellus on behoof of ‘studiosi iuvenes’ in
general.

    [Footnote 17: _Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam
    biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non
    tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et
    legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles, datum est._]

    [Footnote 18: Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x. 1,
    35 and 123, may have been written before the event mentioned above
    (the date of which is fixed by Suet. Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and
    may have been allowed to stand.]

The plan of the _Institutio Oratorio_ cannot be better given than in its
author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): _Liber primus ea quae sunt ante
officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem elementa et
quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus, quinque
deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur) quattuor
elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt, dabuntur.
Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui mores
eius, quae in suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod
eloquentiae genus, quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem
studia, quantum nostra valebit infirmitas, disseremus._ The first book
deals with what the pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician;
it gives an account of home-training and school discipline, and contains
also a statement of Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book
treats of rhetoric in general: the choice of a proper instructor, as
well as his character and function, and the nature, principles, aims,
and use of oratory. It is in these early books especially that
Quintilian reveals the high tone which has made him an authority on
educational morals, as well as rhetorical training: see especially i. 2,
8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum, _maxima debetur puero
reverentia_; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates gentle and conciliatory
methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,-- a picture of the ideal teacher in
language which might be applied to Quintilian himself[19]. The remaining
books, except the twelfth, are devoted to the five ‘parts of
rhetoric,’-- invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery (Cic.
de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we have a classification of the
different kinds of oratory. Next he treats of the ‘different divisions
of a speech, the purpose of the exordium, the proper form of a statement
of facts, what constitutes the force of proofs, either in confirming our
own assertions or refuting those of our adversary, and of the different
powers of the peroration, whether it be regarded as a summary of the
arguments previously used, or as a means of exciting the feelings of the
judge rather than of refreshing his memory.’ This brings us to the end
of the sixth book, which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and
of altercation[20]. The discussion of arrangement finishes with the
seventh book, which is extremely technical: style (_elocutio_) is the
main subject of the four books which follow. Of these the eighth and
ninth treat of the elements of a good style,-- such as perspicuity,
ornament, &c.; the tenth of the practical studies and exercises
(including a course of reading) by which the actual command of these
elements may be obtained; while the eleventh deals with appropriateness
(i.e. the different kinds of oratory which suit different audiences),
memory, and delivery. The twelfth book-- which Quintilian calls the most
grave and important part of the whole work-- treats of the high moral
qualifications requisite in the perfect orator: just as the first book,
introductory to the whole, describes the early training which should
precede the technical studies of the orator, so the last book sets forth
that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is their crown and
conclusion[21]. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice when the
public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end. Even then
his activity will not come to an end. He will write the history of his
times, will explain the law to those who consult him, will write, like
Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set forth the highest
principles of morality. The young men will throng round and consult him
as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot. What can be more
honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has a thorough
knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator ought not to
be thought happiest at that period of his life when, sequestered from
the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by envy, and remote from
strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour of safety,
experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more commonly offered
after death, and observing how his character will be regarded by
posterity[22].’”

    [Footnote 19: _Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius
    tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus
    oriatur. Plurimus ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius
    monuerit, hoc rarius castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum
    quae emendanda erunt dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens
    laboris, adsiduus potius quam immodicus_ ii. 2, 5.]

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

    [Footnote 21: xii. 1, 3 and 4 _ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum
    bonum: ... ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi
    omnibus vitiis libera potest_.]

    [Footnote 22: Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4:
    _ac nescio an eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam
    secretus et consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam
    in tuto collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari
    magis solet, venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit
    videbit_.]


The _Institutio Oratoria_ differs from all other previous rhetorical
treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It is a
complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to the
public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is the
_vir bonus dicendi peritus_, Quintilian considers it necessary to take
him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards both
goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore for
us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on education
in general, and on rhetorical education in particular. Throughout the
whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which everything is
undertaken,-- the goal to which the entire moral and intellectual
training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s high conception
of his subject is reflected in the language of the ‘Dialogue on
Oratory’: _Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel ad utilitatem
fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem amplius vel ad
urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium gentium
notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest_ (ch. 5). Though the field for the
practical display of eloquence had been greatly limited by the
extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric represented,
in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the Romans what
μουσική was to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because
of its eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must
therefore be fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture:
there is no form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted
for his purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in
education. He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over
preliminary cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming
in the schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops
all the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no
parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the
illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet,
that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of
necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is
necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle
and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of
a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing
to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient
culture in all its forms[23].”

    [Footnote 23: Dr. Reid in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.]

It is in connection with the general rather than with the technical
training of his pupils that Quintilian establishes a claim to rank with
the highest educational authorities,-- as for example in his insistence
on the necessity of good example both at home[24] and in school, and on
the respect due to the young[25], as well as his catalogue of the
qualifications required in the trainer of youth (ii. 2, 5: 4, 10), his
protest against corporal punishment (i. 3, 14), and his consistent
advocacy of the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of education.
His system was conceived as a remedy for the existing state of things at
Rome, where eloquence and the arts in general had, as Messalla puts it
in the ‘Dialogue on Oratory,’ “declined from their ancient glory, not
from the dearth of men, but from the indolence of the young, the
carelessness of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and neglect of the
old discipline[26].” Under it parents and teachers were to be united in
the effort to develop the moral and intellectual qualities of the Roman
youth: and through education the state was to recover something of her
old vigour and virtue.

    [Footnote 24: i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.]

    [Footnote 25: i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.]

    [Footnote 26: _Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes
    descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia
    iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et
    oblivione moris antiqui?_ --ch. 28.]

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its publication,
and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to Quintilian in the
literature of the period, that it long held an honoured place in Roman
schools. But it is curious that the earliest known references are not to
the _Institutio_ but to the _Declamationes_. In an interesting chapter
of the Introduction to a recent volume[27], M. Fierville has gathered
together all the references that occur in the literature of the early
centuries of our era. Trebellius Pollio and Lactantius (both of the 3rd
century) speak of the Declamations, and Ausonius (4th century) refers to
Quintilian without naming his writings: the first definite mention of
the _Institutio_ is made by Hilary of Poitiers (died 367) and afterwards
by St. Jerome (died 420). Later Cassiodorus (468-562) pronounced a
eulogy which may stand as proof of his high appreciation: _Quintilianus
tamen doctor egregius, qui post fluvios Tullianos singulariter valuit
implere quae docuit, virum bonum dicendi peritum a prima aetate
suscipiens, per cunctas artes ac disciplinas nobilium litterarum
erudiendum esse monstravit, quem merito ad defendendum totius civitatis
vota requirerent_ (de Arte Rhetor. --Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p. 498).
The Ars Rhetorica of Julius Victor (6th century) is largely borrowed
from Quintilian: see Halm, praef. p. ix. Isidore, Bishop of Seville
(570-630), studied Quintilian in conjunction with Aristotle and Cicero.
After the Dark Age, Poggio’s discovery, at St. Gall in 1416, of a
complete manuscript of Quintilian was ranked as one of the most
important literary events in what we know now as the era of the
Renaissance[28]. The great scholars of the fifteenth century worked hard
at the emendation of the text. The _editio princeps_ was given to the
world by G. A. Campani in 1470; and in the concluding words of his
preface the editor reflects something of the enthusiasm for his author
which had already been expressed by Petrarch, Poggio, and others,--
_proinde de Quintiliano sic habe, post unam beatissimam et unicam
felicitatem M. Tullii, quae fastigii loco suspicienda est omnibus et
tamquam adoranda, hunc unum esse quem praecipuum habere possis in
eloquentia ducem: quem si assequeris, quidquid tibi deerit ad cumulum
consummationis id a natura desiderabis non ab arte deposces_. This
edition was followed in rapid succession by various others, so that by
the end of the 16th century Quintilian had been edited a hundred times
over[29]. The 17th century is not so rich in editions, but Quintilian
still reigned in the schools as the great master of rhetoric: students
of English literature will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the
authority of his name when referring to the roughness of northern
nomenclature:--

  Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek
  That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.

In his ‘Tractate on Education’ too Milton strongly recommends the first
two or three books of the _Institutio_. The 18th century provided the
notable editions of Burmann (1720), Capperonier (1725), Gesner (1738),
and witnessed also the commencement of Spalding’s (1798-1816), whose
text, as revised by Zumpt and Bonnell, practically held the field till
the publication of Halm’s critical edition (1868). Towards the close of
last century it would appear that Quintilian was as much studied as he
had ever been,-- probably by many who believed in, as well as by some
who would have rejected the application of the maxim ‘_orator_ nascitur
non fit.’ William Pitt, for example, shortly after his arrival at
Cambridge (1773), and while ‘still bent on his main object of oratorical
excellence,’ attended a course of lectures on Quintilian, which caused
him on one occasion to interrupt his correspondence with his father[30].
His lasting popularity must have been due, not only to his own intrinsic
merits, but to the fact that his writings harmonised well with the
studies of those days: it was promoted also by the serviceable
abridgments of the _Institutio_, either in whole or in part, that were
from time to time published,-- notably that of Ch. Rollin in 1715. In
our own day men whose education was moulded on the old lines-- such as
J. S. Mill-- considered Quintilian an indispensable part of a scholar’s
equipment. Macaulay read him in India, along with the rest of classical
literature. Lord Beaconsfield professed that he was ‘very fond of
Quintilian[31].’ But by our classical scholars he has been almost
entirely neglected, no complete edition having appeared in this country
since a revised text was issued in London in 1822. German criticism, on
the other hand, has of late paid Quintilian special attention, with
conspicuous results for the emendation and illustration of his text: to
the great names of Spalding, Zumpt, and Bonnell, must be added those of
Halm, Meister, Becher, Wölfflin, and Kiderlin.

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

    [Footnote 28: For the identification of this manuscript see below
    p. lxx.]

    [Footnote 29: Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at
    Leipzig the professor of eloquence was designated _Quintiliani
    professor_. Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him
    to almost every other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of
    his works, especially Books i and x of the _Institutio_.]

    [Footnote 30: Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.]

    [Footnote 31: To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of
    Quintilian, and said it was strange that in the decadence of Roman
    literature, as it was called, we had three such authors as Tacitus,
    Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s ‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii.
    p. 178.]


Besides the literary criticism for which it has always attracted
attention, and which will form the subject of the next section, the
Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ contains valuable precepts in regard to
various practical matters which are still of as great importance as they
were in Quintilian’s day. Among these are the practice of writing, the
use of an amanuensis, the art of revision, the limits of imitation, the
best exercises in style, the advantages of preparation, and the faculty
of improvisation.

The following list of LOCI MEMORIALES (mainly taken from Krüger’s third
edition, pp. 108-110) will give some idea of the various points on
which, especially in the later chapters of the Tenth Book, Quintilian
states his opinion weightily and often with epigrammatic terseness:

  1 §112 (p. 110) Ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero valde placebit.

  2 §4 (p. 124) Pigri est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab
  aliis inventa.

  2 §7 (p. 125) Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id consequi quod
  imiteris.

  2 §8 (p. 126) Nulla mansit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium
  stetit.

  2 §10 (pp. 126-7) Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi
  utique insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui
  sequitur.

  2 §10 (p. 127) Plerumque facilius est plus facere quam idem.

  2 §12 (ibid.) Ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt,
  ingenium, inventio, vis, facilitas, et quidquid arte non traditur.

  2 §18 (p. 131) Noveram quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus
  illud caelestis huius in dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in
  clausula posuissent ‘esse videatur.’

  2 §20 (p. 132) (Praeceptor) rector est alienorum ingeniorum atque
  formator. Difficilius est naturam suam fingere.

  2 §22 (ibid.) Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est.

  2 §24 (p. 134) Non qui maxime imitandus, et solus imitandus est.

  3 §2 (p. 136) Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et quam plurimum.
  Nam ut terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus fecundior
  fit, sic profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus effundit
  uberius et fidelius continet.

  3 §2 (p. 137) Verba in labris nascentia.

  3 §3 (ibid.) Vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori
  certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. Nihil enim rerum ipsa natura
  voluit magnum effici cito, praeposuitque pulcherrimo cuique operi
  difficultatem.

  3 §7 (p. 139) Omnia nostra dum nascuntur placent, alioqui nec
  scriberentur.

  3 §9 (ibid.) Primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut quam
  optime scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo.

  3 §10 (ibid.) Summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit ut bene
  scribatur, bene scribendo fit ut cito.

  3 §15 (p. 142) Curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen
  pro facultate.

  3 §22 (p. 146) Secretum in dictando perit.

  3 §26 (p. 148) Cui (acerrimo labori) non plus inrogandum est quam
  quod somno supererit, haud deerit.

  3 §27 (ibid.) Abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt: occupatos
  in noctem necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam
  integri ac refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.

  3 §29 (ibid.) Non est indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi
  refecti, non nisi hilares, non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes
  studendum existimarimus, semper erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus.

  3 §31 (p. 149) Nihil in studiis parvum est.

  4 §1 (p. 151) Emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim
  sine causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius
  autem operis est adicere, detrahere, mutare.

  4 §4 (p. 152) Sit ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod
  sufficiat, ut opus poliat lima, non exterat.

  5 §23 (p. 166) Diligenter effecta (sc. materia) plus proderit quam
  plures inchoatae et quasi degustatae.

  6 §1 (p. 167) Haec (sc. cogitatio) inter medios rerum actus aliquid
  invenit vacui nec otium patitur.

  6 §2 (p. 168) Memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla
  scribendi securitate laxatur.

  6 §5 (ibid.) Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum effulserit
  extemporalis color, non superstitiose cogitatis demum est
  inhaerendum.

  6 §6 (p. 169) Refutare temporis munera longe stultissimum est.

  6 §6 (ibid.) Extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem
  cogitationem.

  7 §1 (p. 170) Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium
  quoddam amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas.

  7 §4 (p. 171) Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem,
  cui semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore
  dicere malit, sed ut possit.

  7 §12 (p. 175) Mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi qui disposite,
  ornate, copiose dicit, sed tumultuari.

  7 §15 (p. 176) Pectus est enim, quod disertos facit, et vis mentis.

  7 §§16-17 (p. 177) Extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles
  congestu signorum, excitatur. Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem
  exprimit et expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget
  placendi cupido.

  7 §18 (ibid.) Facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis initiis
  paulatim perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque contineri
  nisi usu potest.

  7 §20 (p. 178) Neque vero tanta esse umquam fiducia facilitatis
  debet ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea
  quae dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus.

  7 §21 (p. 178) Qui stultis videri eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis
  videntur.

  7 §24 (p. 179) Rarum est ut satis se quisque vereatur.

  7 §26 (p. 180) Studendum vero semper et ubique.

  7 §27 (p. 180-1) Neque enim fere tan est ullus dies occupatus ut
  nihil lucrativae ... operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum
  rapi aliquo momento temporis possit.

  7 §28 (p. 181) Quidquid loquemur ubicumque sit pro sua scilicet
  portione perfectum.

  7 §28 (ibid.) Scribendum certe numquam est magis, quam cum multa
  dicemus ex tempore.

  7 §29 (p. 181-2) Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et studio
  fecerimus, invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius, dicendo
  scribamus facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit, si id non
  dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen sic dicere ut
  neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.



III.

QUINTILIANS’S LITARY CRITICISM.


It was the conviction that a cultured orator is better than an orator
with no culture that induced Quintilian to devote so considerable a part
of the Tenth Book to a review of Greek and Roman literature. He was
aware that in order to speak with effect it is necessary for a man to
know a good deal that lies outside the scope of the particular case
which he may undertake to plead; and while the ‘firm facility’ ἕξις at
which he taught the orator to aim could only be attained by a variety of
exercises and qualifications, a course of wide and careful reading must
always, he considered, form one of the factors in the combination.

In judging of the merits of Quintilian’s literary criticism we must not
forget the point of view from which he wrote. He is not dealing with
literature in and for itself. His was not the cast of mind in which the
faculty of literary appreciation finds artistic expression in the form
in which criticism becomes a part of literature itself. We cannot think
of the author of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ as one whom a
divinely implanted instinct for literature impelled, towards the evening
of his days, to leave a record of the personal impressions he had
derived from contact with those whom we now recognise as the
master-minds of classical antiquity. Quintilian writes, not as the
literary man for a sympathetic brotherhood, but as the professor of
rhetoric for students in his school. If, in the course of his just and
sober, but often trite and obvious criticisms, he characterises a writer
in language which has stood the test of time, it is always when that
writer touches his main interest most nearly, as one from whom the
student of style may learn much. In short, his work in the department of
literary criticism is done much in the same spirit as that which, in
these later days, has moved many sober and sensible, but on the whole
average persons, conversant with the general current of contemporary
thought, and not without the faculty of appreciative discrimination, to
draw up a list of the ‘Best Hundred Books.’ Their aim, however, has been
to guide and direct the work of that peculiar product of modern times,
the ‘general reader’: Quintilian’s victim was the professed student of
rhetoric.

But this limitation, arising partly out of the special aim which he had
imposed upon himself, partly, also, in all probability, from the
constitution of his own mind, ought not to blind us to the value of the
comprehensive review of ancient literature which Quintilian has left us
in this Tenth Book. “His literary sympathies are extraordinarily wide.
When obliged to condemn, as in the case of Seneca, he bestows generous
and even extravagant praise on such merit as he can find. He can
cordially admire even Sallust, the true fountain-head of the style which
he combats, while he will not suffer Lucilius to lie under the
aspersions of Horace.... The judgments which he passes may be in many
instances traditional, but, looking to all the circumstances of the
time, it seems remarkable that there should then have lived at Rome a
single man who could make them his own and give them expression. The
form in which these judgments are rendered is admirable. The gentle
justness of the sentiments is accompanied by a curious felicity of
phrase. Who can forget the ‘immortal swiftness of Sallust,’ or the
‘milky richness of Livy,’ or how ‘Horace soars now and then, and is full
of sweetness and grace, and in his varied forms and phrases is most
fortunately bold’? Ancient literary criticism perhaps touched its
highest points in the hands of Quintilian.”[32]

    [Footnote 32: Dr. Reid in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.]

The course of reading which Quintilian recommends is selected with
express reference to the aim which he had in view, and which is put
prominently forward in connection with nearly every individual
criticism. The young man who aspires to success in speaking must have
his taste formed: when he reads Homer, let him note that, great poet as
Homer is, and admirable in every respect, he is also _oratoria virtute
eminentissimus_ (1 §46). Alcaeus is _plerumque oratori similis_ (1 §63):
Euripides is, on that ground, to be preferred to Sophocles (1 §67):
Lucan is _magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus_ (1 §70): and the old
Greek comedy is specially recommended as a form of poetry ‘than which
probably none is better suited to form the orator’ (1 §65). With the
prose writers Quintilian is thoroughly at home, and he nowhere lets in
so much light on his own sympathies as in the estimates he gives us of
Cicero (1 §§105-112) and Seneca (1 §§125-131). His criticism of Cicero
is precisely what might have been expected from the general tone of the
references throughout the _Institutio_. Cicero is Quintilian’s model, to
whom he looks up with reverential admiration: he will not hear of his
faults. In his own day the great orator had been attacked by Atticists
of the severer type for the richness of his style and the excessive
attention which they alleged that he paid to rhythm. The ‘plainness’ of
Lysias was their ideal, and they failed to recognise the fact that, with
the more limited resources of the Latin language, such simplicity and
condensation would be perilously near to baldness (cp. note on 1 §105).
Cicero they regarded as an Asianist in disguise; in the words of his
devoted follower, they “dared to censure him as unduly turgid and
Asiatic and redundant; as too much given to repetition, and sometimes
insipid in his witticisms; and as spiritless, diffuse, and (save the
mark!) even effeminate in his arrangement” (_Inst. Or._ xii. 10, 12,
quoted on 1 §105). That this criticism had not been forgotten in
Quintilian’s own day is obvious not only from the _Institutio_ but also
from the discussion in the _Dialogus de Oratoribus_, where Aper is
represented as saying “We know that even Cicero was not without his
disparagers, who thought him inflated, turgid, not sufficiently concise,
but unduly diffuse and luxuriant, and far from Attic” (ch. 18). To such
detractors of his great model Quintilian will have nothing to say, and
in his criticism of Cicero he gives full expression to his enthusiastic
admiration for the genius of one who had brought eloquence to the
highest pinnacle of perfection (vi. 31 _Latinae eloquentiae princeps_:
cp. x. 1 §§105-112: xii. 1, 20 _stetisse ipsum in fastigio eloquentiae
fateor_: 10, 12 sqq. _in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur
eminentissimum_).

With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be
expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca.
Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return
to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary
reform which Quintilian had at heart-- _corruptum et omnibus vitiis
fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_ x. 1, 125.
It is probable that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he
assumes in dealing with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain
degree of prejudice[33]. Quintilian represents the literature of
erudition, and his standard is the best of what had been done in the
past: Seneca was, like Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed
perfectly natural that new thoughts should find utterance in new forms
of expression. Seneca’s motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’-- he gave free
rein to the play of his fancy, and rejected all method[34]: Quintilian
looked with horror (in the interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was
so near to licence, and set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds
to the ‘good old ways,’ and extolling Cicero as the synonym for
eloquence itself. In such a conflict of tastes as regards things
literary, and apart from the ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal
career, it is not surprising that Quintilian should have been
unfavourably disposed towards him. He had a grudge, moreover, against
philosophers in general, especially the Stoics. They had encroached on
what his comprehensive scheme of education impelled him to believe was
the province of the teacher of rhetoric,-- the moral training of the
future orator[35].

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

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

    [Footnote 35: i Prooem. §10 sqq., especially _neque enim hoc
    concesserim rationem rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt,
    ad philosophos relegandam_. Cp. x. 1, 35: and xii. 2, 9 _Utinam ...
    orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona eius
    corrumpentium invisam vindicet._ M. Rocheblave sees in these and
    other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives of
    philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as
    powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open
    denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of
    Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the
    philosophers from Rome in A.D. 94. It is certainly noticeable that
    the tone of his references to them becomes more bitter in the later
    books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12. The Prooemium to
    Book i. may have been written last of all: and apart from it there
    is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x. 1, 35 and 123) so
    acrimonious as the extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.]

He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no
extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their
proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as
representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that
Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in
many passages of the _Institutio_, where he is not specially named, it
is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references
corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth
Book[36]. In this passage Quintilian is evidently putting forward the
whole force of his authority in order to counteract Seneca’s influence.
He has kept him waiting in a marked manner, to the very end of his
literary review: and when he comes to deal with him he does not confine
his criticism to a few words or phrases, but devotes nearly as much
space to him as he did to Cicero himself. In his estimate of Seneca
nothing is more remarkable than the careful manner in which Quintilian
mingles praise and blame. But the praise is reluctant and half-hearted:
it is Seneca’s faults that his critic wishes to make prominent. He
admits his ability (_ingenium facile et copiosum_ §128), and even goes
the length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise
to his level (_foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro
fieri_ §127). But praise is no sooner given than it is immediately
recalled. It was his faults that secured imitators for Seneca (_placebat
propter sola vitia_ ib.); if he was distinguished for wide knowledge
(_plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio_ §128), he was often misled by
those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is good
in him, ‘much even to admire’ (_multa ... probanda in eo, multa etiam
admiranda sunt_ §131), still it requires picking out. In short, so
dangerous a model is he, that he should be read only by those who have
come to maturity, and then not so much, evidently, for improvement, as
for the reason that it is good to ‘see both sides,’-- _quod exercere
potest utrimque iudicium_, ib.

    [Footnote 36: See ii. 5, 10-12 _Ne id quidem inutile, etiam
    corruptas aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique
    iudiciorum pravitate mirantar, legi palam ostendique in his quam
    multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva,
    effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a plerisque sed, quod est
    peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur._ With this last
    cp. x. 1, 127 (of Seneca) _placebat propter sola vitia_. So i. 8, 9
    _quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione
    defluximus_: ii. 5, 22 (_cavendum est_) _ne recentis huius lasciviae
    flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus
    et puerilibus ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament_: with
    which compare x. 1, 129 _corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima,
    quod abundant dulcibus vitiis_: §130 _consensu potius eruditorum
    quam puerorum amore comprobaretur_. Rocheblave cites also viii. 5,
    27, 28, 30.]

It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of
Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the
philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to
time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of
philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion-- and his
position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express
his view distinctly-- that Seneca was a dangerous model for the budding
orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his peculiarities
lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished to put forward
a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day, and to recall--
in their own interests-- to severer models Seneca’s youthful
imitators,-- those of whom he writes _ad ea_ (i.e. _eius vitia_) _se
quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde quum se iactaret
eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat_ §127. Seneca was of course not
responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian would
never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any particular
model, especially if that model were characterised by such peculiar
features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he could not
forgive Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero[37].
Admirers of Seneca think that he failed to make allowance for the
influences at work on the philosopher’s style, and that he judged him
too much from the standpoint of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s
faults-- his tendency to declamation, the want of balance in his style,
his excessive subtlety, his affectation, his want of method: but they
contend that these faults are compensated by still greater virtues[38].
M. Rocheblave, who possesses the appreciation of Seneca traditional
among Frenchmen, follows Diderot in inclining to believe that the
philosopher was the victim of envy and dislike[39]. For himself he
protests in the following terms against what he considers the inadequacy
of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi quemvis Annaei librorum ignarum, et
dicito num ex istis Quintiliani laudibus non modo perspicere, sed
suspicari etiam possit quanto sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu steterit
scriptor qui in tota latina facundia optima senserit, humanissima
docuerit, maxima et multo plurima excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex
antiqua morali philosophia seu graeca seu latina depromptis, adiectis
pluribus, potuerit in unum propriumque saporem omnia illa quasi
sapientiae humanae libamenta confundere? Credisne a tali lectore
scriptorem vivo gurgite exundantem, sensibus scatentem, legentes in
perpetuas rapientem cogitationes, eum denique quem ob vim animi
ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius noster[40], protinus
agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri
meritum stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum
confessuros’ (pp. 44-5).

    [Footnote 37: It is doubtful if the allusion in §126 (_potioribus
    praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere_, &c.) is
    exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references
    to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43)
    cites Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the
    choice of words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy:
    xviii. 4, 10 where he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and
    xvi. 5, 7.]

    [Footnote 38: Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46 _De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut
    olim de Catone defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici
    videtur posse, quae deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem
    tempori esse attribuenda; quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse
    propria, et in primis oculos capere_: p. 36 _Eloquentiam non verbis,
    sed rebus valere, nec per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit,
    esse excolendam Annaeus semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra
    delectu verborum praecipue constare, et per se amandam et
    requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum adhibita ratione, docebant
    rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus_: p. 38 _Ergo quum in eloquentia
    duo sint praesertim consideranda, scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium
    est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro verbis, utrumque asperrime,
    egisse_.]

    [Footnote 39: See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is
    quoted by Diderot in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of
    Seneca being the ‘corruptor eloquentiae’ the truth is that ‘il ne
    corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il s’accommoda au goût de ses
    contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur plaire et de s’en faire
    admirer; et _l’envie lui fit un crime de ce qui passerait pour vrai
    talent dans un homme moins célèbre_.’]

    [Footnote 40: Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.]

Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt that
the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was in
his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of Seneca’s
influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature of the
next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model for
imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered on
Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that it
displayed much grace of style (_multum cultus_), as was to be expected
from one who possessed _ingenium amoenum et temporis_ eius _auribus
accommodatum_ (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how Caligula disparaged
the _lenius comtiusque scribendi genus_ which Seneca represented; and
here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a fame that had passed
away,-- _Senecam #tum# maxime placentem_, just as the elder Pliny,
writing about the time of Seneca’s death, speaks of him as _princeps
#tum# eruditorum_ (Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto
and Aulus Gellius[41] were much more unreserved and even immoderate in
their censure. And it is a remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that
the name of the great Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his
successors, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest
literary ornament of Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the
second century.

    [Footnote 41: Fronto, De Oration. p. 157 _At enim quaedam in libris
    eius scite dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum
    argentiolae cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas
    redimemus?_ For Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.]

In regard to the general body of Quintilian’s literary criticism, the
question of greatest interest for modern readers is the degree of its
originality. How far is Quintilian giving us his own independent
judgments on the writings of authors whom he had read at first hand? How
far is he merely registering current criticism, which must already have
found more or less definite expression in the writings and teaching of
previous rhetoricians and grammarians? The circumstances of the case
make it impossible for us to approach the special questions which it
involves with any great prejudice in favour of Quintilian’s originality
in general. The extent of his indebtedness to previous writers, as
regards the main body of his work, may be inferred from a glance at the
‘Index scriptorum et artificum’ in Halm’s edition. In many places he is
merely simplifying the rules of the Greek rhetoricians whom he followed.
Probably he was not equally well up in all the departments of the
subject of which he treats, and he naturally relied, to some extent, on
the works of those who had preceded him. But did he take his literary
criticism from others? Was Quintilian one of those reprehensible persons
who do not scruple to borrow, and to give forth as their own, the
estimate formed and expressed by some one else of authors whose works
they may never themselves have read?

In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be
convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart
from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he
might _a priori_ be expected to be more familiar. The notes to that part
of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (1 §§46-84)
will show too many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in
addressing himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian
scrupulously avoided incurring any obligations to others[42]. No doubt
in his long career as a teacher he had come into contact with
traditional opinion as to the merits and characteristics not only of the
Greek but also of the Latin writers; and in the two years which he tells
us he devoted to the composition of the _Institutio_[43] he may still
further have increased his debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact
impossible that Quintilian should have been unaware of the nature of the
criticism current in his own day, and of what had previously been said
and written by others. But he is not to be thought of as one who, before
indicating his opinion of a particular writer, carefully refers, not to
that writer’s works, but to the opinion of others concerning them. The
cases in which he reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of
others are not always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious
borrowing[44]. The coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract
from the originality of his work. But we do not need to believe that, in
writing his individual criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the
works of others: he no doubt had them at hand, and his career as a
teacher had probably impressed on his memory many _dicta_ which he could
hardly fail to reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather
together the results of his teaching.

    [Footnote 42: “In the case of the first list, or list of Greek
    authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating
    other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In §27 he
    mentions Theophrastus by name; in §52, speaking of Hesiod, he says
    _datur ei palma_, &c.; in §53 the second place is given to
    Antimachus by the consent of the _grammatici_; Panyasis is thought
    (_putant_) _in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes_, Callimachus
    (58) _princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum
    Philetas occupavit_. In 59 only three _iambographi_ are mentioned,
    those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The _novem lyrici_
    were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are the
    _Pindarus novemque lyrici_ (for this need not be taken to mean
    strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.” --Prof. Nettleship in
    Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.]

    [Footnote 43: _Quod tempus_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam biennium_) _non
    tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et_
    legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles _datum est_: Epist. ad
    Tryphonem.]

    [Footnote 44: Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873,
    p. 343 note: _sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia
    quae contuli opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos
    memoria tenuit, adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret_.
    This (though somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii)
    is a milder verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after
    speaking of Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (_vir
    bonus dicendi peritus_, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know
    whether he would have thought it a necessary virtue in a _bonus
    grammaticus_ to read and conscientiously study the Greek authors on
    whom he passes formal critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain
    that, whether Quintilian had or had not read them, he contents
    himself in many cases with merely repeating the traditional
    criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of the principal Greek
    authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 257.)]

Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated mainly
with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace[45]. Varro was the author of
numerous works bearing on the history and criticism of literature: such
were his _de Poetis_, _de Poematis_, περὶ χαρακτήρων, _de Actionibus
Scaenicis_, _Quaestiones Plautinae_. Our knowledge of their scope and
character is however derived only by inference from a few scattered
fragments, and in regard to these it is impossible to say definitely to
which of his treatises they severally belong. Quintilian’s references to
his literary activity as well as his great learning (_vir Romanorum
eruditissimus_ x. 1, 95), and the quotation of his estimate of Plautus
(ib. §99), are sufficient evidence that he was not unacquainted with
Varro’s writings. Cicero he knew probably better than he knew any other
author: the extent of his indebtedness to such works as the _Brutus_ may
be inferred from the parallelisms which occur in his treatment of the
Attic orators (x. 1, 76-80). He dissents expressly from Horace’s
estimate of Lucilius (ib. §94): and the frequency of his references to
other literary judgments of Horace (cp. §§24, 56, 61, 63) shows that he
must have been in the habit of illustrating his teaching by quotations
from the works of that cultured critic of literature and life.

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

But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in
common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the
Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by
name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other
parts of the _Institutio_[46]. Quintilian no doubt knew his works well,
especially that which originally consisted of three books περὶ
μιμήσεως[47]. The second book of this treatise has long been known to
scholars in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many
striking resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first
chapter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as,
for instance, H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed
freely from the earlier writer: _multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat;
quibus modo nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo #putant#
sua non esse declarat_. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn
out by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly
remarks that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common
property not only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned
world of the day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to
this edition, 1 §§46-84.

    [Footnote 46: Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek
    rhetoricians; ix. 3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus
    Dionysius’). Cp. the parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of
    Isocrates, x. 4, 4: and for other instances see Claussen, op. cit.
    pp. 339-340.]

    [Footnote 47: The extant remains of this treatise have recently been
    edited by Usener (Bonn. 1889), with a valuable _Epilogus_. The scope
    of the work is indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad
    Pompeium iii. p. 776 R, Usener p. 50: τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν
    περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ
    τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους
    (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.]

The general resemblances between Quintilian and Dionysius are apparent
in their order of treatment. In his introduction to the _Iudicium de
Thucydide_, the latter sets forth the plan of his second book in terms
which present many points of analogy with the scheme of the Tenth Book
of the _Institutio_: ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι Περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως
ὑπομνηατισμοῖς ἐπεληλυθὼς οὓς ὑπελάμβανον ἐπιφανεστάτους εἶναι ποιητάς
τε καὶ συγγραφεῖς ... καὶ δεδηληκὼς ἐν ὀλίγοις τίνας ἕκαστος αὐτῶν
εἰσφέρεται πραγματικάς τε καὶ λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ πῇ μάλιστα χείρων
ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται ... ἵνα τοῖς προαιρουμένοις γράφειν τε καὶ λέγειν εὖ
καλοὶ καὶ δεδοκιμασμένοι κανόνες ὦσιν ἐφ᾽ ὧν ποιήσονται τὰς κατὰ μέρος
γυμνασίας, μὴ πάντα μιμούμενοι τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις κείμενα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν,
ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν ἀρετὰς αὐτῶν λαμβάνοντες, τὰς δ᾽ ἀποτυχίας φυλαττόμενοι‧
ἁψάμενός τε τῶν συγγραφέων ἐδήλωσα καὶ περὶ Θουκουδίδου τὰ δοκοῦντά μοι
συντόμῳ τε καὶ κεφαλαιώδει γραφῇ περιλαβών, ... ὡς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἐποίησα‧ οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀκριβῆ καὶ διεξοδικὴν δήλωσιν ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνδρῶν
ποιεῖσθαι προελόμενον εἰς ἐλάχιστον ὄγκον συναγαγεῖν τὴν πραγματείαν.
In like manner Quintilian, addressing himself throughout to young men
aspiring to success as public speakers, enumerates the various authors
who seem to be fit subjects for reading and imitation. While admitting
that some benefit may be derived from almost every writer (1 §57), he
confines himself to the most distinguished in the various departments of
literature (§44 _paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo
est_); and even with regard to these he warns his readers, as Dionysius
does, that they are not to imitate all their characteristics, but only
what is good (1 §24: 2 §§14-15).

The order of treatment is almost identical in the two writers. First
come the poets, with the writers of epic poetry at their head: these are
not only named in the same order (Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis),
but they are commended in very similar terms. But if Quintilian had been
translating directly from Dionysius, it is very probable that he would
have mentioned him by name, instead of concealing his obligations by the
use of such a phrase as _putant_ (in speaking of Panyasis-- see note on
§54). If he goes on to add some criticisms which are not in Dionysius,
viz. on Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Theocritus, and to mention also
Pisander, Nicander, and Euphorion, it is with the express intimation
that they do not rank in the canon fixed by the _grammatici_,-- the very
reason for which these writers had been omitted by Dionysius. The Greek
rhetorician says nothing of the elegiac and iambic poets mentioned by
Quintilian,-- the former in general terms (_princeps #habetur#
Callimachus_, _secundas #confessione plurimorum# Philetas occupavit_
§58), the latter with express reference to the judgment of Aristarchus
on the great Archilochus (§59)[48]. In treating of the lyric poets,
Quintilian mentions the number nine (§61), which Dionysius does not; but
as regards the substance of his criticisms, he is again almost in exact
agreement with his predecessor. Both refer to Pindar, Stesichorus,
Alcman, and Simonides, with the trifling difference that in Dionysius
Simonides comes second instead of fourth on the list. In §65 Quintilian
proceeds to deal with the Old Comedy, which finds no place in the
treatise of Dionysius, as we now have it. And there is very little that
corresponds with Dionysius in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides. But it is noticeable that in both Euripides is made to form
the transition to Menander and the New Comedy.

    [Footnote 48: The standpoint from which both critics regarded this
    class of poetry was probably much the same as that which Dio
    Chrysostom applies to lyric poetry generally: μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα
    καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια (cp. tunc
    et elegiam vacabit, &c., §58) τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις
    καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή (Or.
    xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)]

In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while Quintilian
was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is rather
incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary schools
than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was of
opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even goes
so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of Dionysius (of
which the treatise long known as the Ἀρχαίων κρίσις or the _De Veterum
Censura_ is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices of
the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian, as
well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives of
the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a
judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking
advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of
which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long
career), he is not slavishly following any single authority[49]: cp. §52
_datur palma_ (_Hesiodo_,) §53 _grammaticorum consensus_, §54 _ordinem a
grammaticis datum_, §58 _princeps habetur_ and _confessione plurimorum_,
§59 _ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum_, §64
_quidam_ (probably including Dionysius), §67 _inter plurimos quaeritur_,
§72 _consensu ... omnium_. And the tone and substance of his estimate of
Homer, of Euripides, and of Menander[50], seem to show that he was
prepared to rely, when necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp.
_meo quidem iudicio_ §69), especially in dealing with the poets who
would be of greatest service for his professed purpose.

    [Footnote 49: How diverse the tradition of the various authorities
    came to be in regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s
    note p. 137.]

    [Footnote 50: Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 _Aristophanis propria
    fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli_ p. 1085
    (C.I.Gr. 6083): _cuius iudicii Kaibelius_ p. 490 _in Quintiliano_ x.
    1, 69 _vestigia recte observavit_.]

In both Dionysius and Quintilian the poets are followed by the
historians. The order in Dionysius is Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,
Philistus, and Theopompus; in Quintilian, Thucydides, Herodotus,
Theopompus, Philistus,-- with short notices of Ephorus, Clitarchus and
Timagenes. The insertion of the three additional names, and the
precedence given to Theopompus, are not the only points in which
Quintilian differs here from Dionysius, who is known in this case to
have limited himself to the five names in question (Epist. ad Pomp.
767 R: Usener, p. 50, 10): Xenophon is by Quintilian expressly postponed
for treatment among the philosophers. In this he probably followed an
older tradition, which survived also elsewhere. Cicero speaks of
Xenophon as a philosopher (de Orat. ii. §58): in Diogenes Laertius (ii.
48) it is said of him ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν φιλοσόφων πρῶτος ἔγραψε-- a
remark which Usener (p. 113) thinks was probably derived from some
library list in which Xenophon was ranked among the writers of
philosophy; and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xviii.) omits him from his list of
the historians, and includes him in that of the Socratics.

These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s allegation
that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s _primus et praecipuus fons_.
It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the historians, he had
before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s _Orator_, to which
reference has already been made (§55 sq.). There Cicero mentions
Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the
addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at
hand the great orator’s lost treatise _Hortensius_, two fragments of
which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides,
Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus[51]: in writing it Cicero probably
followed some list similar to those which were accessible both to
Dionysius and Quintilian[52]. Again there is sufficient resemblance here
between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as also in regard to Euripides
and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.) to justify the supposition that
they followed the same tradition. Dio expressly elevates Theopompus to
the second rank (10, p. 479), τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν
δευτέρων Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων
ἔχει. With this compare Quintilian’s words: _Theopompus his proximus ut
in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis_ (§74). Ephorus,
on the other hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.

    [Footnote 51: See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii. _quid enim aut Herodoto
    dulcius aut Thucydide gravius_, fr. xviii. _aut Philisto brevius aut
    Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?_ It has been
    supposed that between these two fragments the words _aut Xenophonte
    iucundius_ may have fallen out: cp. Quint, x. 1, 82.]

    [Footnote 52: See especially fr. xi. _qua re velim dari mihi,
    Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt_: and
    cp. note on 1 §57.]

It is perhaps in dealing with the orators that Quintilian gives the
surest proofs that he is not following any individual guide. The
parallel passages cited in the notes to §§76-80 are by no means confined
to the writings of Dionysius, though here again words and phrases occur
(see esp. the note on _honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo
diligens_, &c., §79) which seem to suggest that Quintilian must have
kept a common-place book into which he ‘conveyed’ points which struck
him as just or appropriate in the literary criticism of others[53].
Unlike Dionysius, however, he refers to the canon of the ten orators
(§76) which the recent work of Brzoska, following A. Reifferscheid, has
shown to have originated not with the critics of Alexandria, but with
those of Pergamum[54]. It is noticeable that the five orators whom
Quintilian selects for notice out of this canon are identical with those
enumerated, in reverse order, by Cicero, de Orat. iii. 28.

    [Footnote 53: Cp. the note on _qui parcissime_ x. 4, 4.]

    [Footnote 54: De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones.
    Breslau, 1883.]

In their treatment of the philosophers, the chief point in common
between Dionysius and Quintilian is that both put Plato and Xenophon
before Aristotle. And, though they agree generally in the terms in which
they speak of Aristotle, there is no other noteworthy coincidence. The
section on Theophrastus and the Stoics has nothing corresponding to it
in Dionysius: here, as elsewhere in the account of philosophy, Cicero
was laid under contribution.

We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of the
Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the literary
schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own opinion much
that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He cannot be
supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather be
considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of
criticism from Theophrastus (x. 1, 27) down to his own day. He accepted
from others, with probably few modifications, the approved lists of
poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and adopted the
conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered criticisms
upon them-- “somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof. Nettleship
says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and insight, but
which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart and handing on
to future generations of pupils.” These lists of ‘classical’ writers may
probably be traced back, in the main, to the literary activity of the
critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be well known to the Greek
rhetoricians who were at work on the education of the Roman youth as
early as the beginning of the first century B.C., and may have served as
the basis of their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (κρίσις
ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ) was an essential part of the office of the
‘grammaticus[55].’

    [Footnote 55: _A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica
    initium sumpserat, fuitque ante κριτική quam γραμματική_ --Usener,
    p. 132.]

In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of _recte
loquendi scientia_ and _poetarum enarratio_, Quintilian adds (i. 4, 3):
_et mixtum his omnibus #iudicium# est; quo quidem ita severe sunt usi
veteres grammatici ut non versus modo censoria quadam virgula notare et
libros, qui falso viderentur inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere
familia permiserint sibi, sed auctores alios in ordinem redegerint,
alios omnino exemerint numero_. Beginning with a critical examination of
individual texts, the ‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their
work, on the literary side, in short characterisations of the various
writers whom they made the subject of their study, and finally drew up
lists of the best authors in each department of literature, with a
careful indication of their good points as well as of the features in
which they were not to be used as models. This process received a more
or less final form at the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his
follower Aristarchus (see on x. 1, 54), the latter of whom probably
introduced such modifications in the list of his predecessor as approved
themselves to his own judgment (cp. x. 1, 59 _tres receptos #Aristarchi
iudicio# scriptores iamborum_). The influence of this method in Roman
literature may be seen, early in the first century, in the so-called
‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius (15, 24)[56]: he
makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy of the canon of the
ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine critics was probably in
the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp. 114-126), when he wrote
his ‘Hortensius,’-- a treatise which seems to have originally contained
an introductory sketch of the great contributors to the various
departments of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of
the dialogue,-- the praise of philosophy[57]. Then there is Dio
Chrysostom, a writer who flourished not long after Quintilian himself,
and whose reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted. Such
divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by
the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In
the preliminary sketch in the _Hortensius_ the object seems to have been
not the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio draws a
careful distinction between the branches which serve for the student of
rhetoric, and those which may be expected to benefit and delight men who
have finished their studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and again
reiterated, is to lay down a course of reading suited to form the taste
of a young man aspiring to success as a speaker.

    [Footnote 56: See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.]

    [Footnote 57: Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by
    Cicero, Usener reckons his judgments on the Greek historians
    (Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus,
    Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus) in the second book of the _de
    Oratore_ (§§55-58), a work which was written ten years before the
    _Hortensius_: on Herodotus and Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad
    Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4, _ad Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo,
    in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum
    negotium, quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille
    capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides_.]

The probability that there existed such traditional lists as those
referred to (which would also be of service in the arrangement of the
great public libraries), is strikingly illustrated in Usener’s
_Epilogus_ (p. 128 sq.) by the publication of one which may here be
transcribed as of great interest to readers of Quintilian. It will be
noticed that though the philosophers are omitted, it contains many
points of analogy with that followed by Quintilian, particularly the
addition of the later elegiac poets, Philetas and Callimachus. Names
only are given, without any criticism attached[58].

    [Footnote 58: _Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex
    codice Coisliniano_ n. 387 _olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius
    edidit bibl. Coislin_. p. 597, _ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni
    recentiore Cramerus anecd._ Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener,
    p. 129.]

  [Transcriber’s Note:
  Greek numerals were printed with overlines ¯. They are shown here
  in ´ form to reduce text-display problems.]

Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.

ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.

τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων Ἀχαιός.: Aischulos
Sophoklês Euripidês Iôn Achaios.]

κωμῳδοποιοὶ ἀρχαίας ζ´‧ Ἐπίχαρμος Κρατῖνος Εὔπολις Ἀριστοφάνης
Φερεκράτης Κράτης Πλάτων.: Epicharmos Kratinos Eupolis Aristophanês
Pherekratês Kratês Platôn.]

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.: Antiphanes Alexis
Thourios.]

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.:
Menandros Philippidês Diphilos Philêmôn Apollodôros.]

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς Καλλίμαχος.: Kallinos
Mimnermos Philêtas Kallimachos.]

λυρικοι θ´‧ Ἀλκμάν Ἀλκαῖος Σαπφώ Στησίχορος Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης Ἴβυκος
Ἀνακρέων Σιμωνίδης.: Alkman Alkaios Sapphô Stêsichoros Pindaros
Bakchulidês Ibukos Anakreôn Simônidês.] ....

ῥητορες θ´‧ Δημοσθένης Λυσίας Ὑπερείδης Ἰσοκράτης Ἀισχίνης Λυκοῦργος
Ἰσαῖος Ἀντιφῶν Ἀνδοκίδης.· Dêmosthenês Lysias Hypereidês Isokratês
Aischinês Lykourgos Isaios Antiphôn Andokidês.]

ἱστορικοὶ ι´‧ Θουκυδίδης Ἡρόδοτος Ξενοφῶν Φίλιστος Θεόπομπος Ἔφορος
Ἀναξιμένης Καλλισθένης Ἑλλάνικος Πολύβιος.· Thoukydidês Hêrodotos
Xenophôn Philistos Theopompos Ephoros Anaximenês Kallisthenês Hellanikos
Polybios.]

In regard to the historians, Usener notes that this list seems to
indicate the principle on which they were selected and arranged. They
are enumerated in pairs, Herodotus and Thucydides coming first, with
their imitators Xenophon and Philistus immediately following them. Then
come Theopompus and Ephorus, as representing the second rank; and next
the historians of Alexander’s victories, Anaximenes and Callisthenes
(cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §58), in place of whom Clitarchus is mentioned by
Quintilian. Peculiar features about the list given above are that
Thucydides comes first of all (just as Demosthenes does among the
orators), and that, perhaps to make up the number ten, a fifth pair of
historians is added,-- Hellanicus from those of older date, and Polybius
to represent more recent writers.

Usener states the conclusion at which he arrives in the following words,
which may be accepted with the proviso that they are not to be taken as
meaning that Quintilian was altogether ignorant of what Dionysius wrote:
_Iudicia de poetis scriptoribusque Graecis non a Dionysio Quintilianus
mutuatus est. Igitur ne Dionysius quidem sua profert, sed diversum
uterque exemplum iudiciorum ut plerumque consonantium expressit. Fontis
utrique communis antiquitatem Hortensius Tullianus cum Dione comparatus
demonstravit. Posteriore tempore cum eruditionis copia in angustae
memoriae paupertatem sensim contraheretur, iudiciis neglectis sola
electorum auctorum nomina relicta sunt et laterculi formam induerunt._
Quintilian did not transcribe his criticisms of Greek literature from
Dionysius. He had no need to do so: the materials from which Dionysius
had drawn were available also to him. This is sufficient to account for
the resemblances in their critical judgments. But on the other hand it
is improbable that Quintilian, in the course of his reading and
teaching, had not studied the writings of Dionysius; and some at least
of the coincidences to which prominence is given in the notes in this
edition must have been the result of his acquaintance with the work of
his predecessor.

In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us the
fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again the
notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers, such
as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary criticism.
The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved that he did
not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press them, when
necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the _Analysis_ (pp. 3-5) will
show that in this part of his work Quintilian follows the method which
had been traditionally applied to the criticism of the Greek writers.
The same order is preserved (§85); the various departments of literature
are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek (§§93, 99,
101, 105, 123); and individual writers are pitted against each other,
and are sometimes characterised in similar terms. In all this Quintilian
is consistent with the scheme according to which he had evidently
determined to arrange his work: he is consistent also with the general
tradition of literary criticism among his countrymen. “As Latin
literature since Naevius had adopted Greek models and Greek metres,
every Latin writer of any pretensions took some Greek author as his
ideal of excellence in the particular style which he was adopting.
Criticism accordingly drifted into the vicious course of comparison; of
pitting every Latin writer against a Greek writer, as though borrowing
from a man would constitute you his rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer,
Afranius a Menander, Plautus an Epicharmus, before the days of Horace:
in Horace’s time there were three Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil.
Cicero and Demosthenes were compared by the Greek critics in the
Augustan age, and by the time of Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin
Thucydides, Livy the Latin Herodotus[59].” It is this idea of making
‘canons’ of Latin writers, to correspond as nearly as possible with
those which he had accepted from former critics for the classical
writers of Greece, that gives an air of artificiality to Quintilian’s
criticism of Latin literature, and interferes somewhat with the general
effect which his sane and sober appreciations would otherwise produce.
The individual estimates are in the main all that could be wished for,
notably the enthusiastic eulogy of Cicero (§§105-112), which it is
interesting to compare with a similar passage in the treatise ‘On the
Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may be discerned in
the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his Grecian rival. The
sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and abrupt: that of Cicero
is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement, rapid, vigorous, terrible;
he burns and sweeps away all before him; and hence we may liken him to a
whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a widespread conflagration,
which rolls over and feeds on all around it, whose fire is extensive and
burns long, breaking out successively in different places, and finding
its fuel now here, now there[60].” Excellent also are the shorter
characterisations of such writers as Sallust (_immortalem Sallusti
velocitatem_ 1 §102), of Livy (_Livi lactea ubertas_ 1 §32: _mirae
iucunditatis clarissimique candoris_ §101), of Ovid (_nimium amator
ingenii sui_ §88), and of Horace (_et insurgit aliquando et plenus est
iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax_
§96). But the general impression we derive is that Quintilian is
producing many of his criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he
tied down to the plan he has adopted. It is to this same method of
mechanical comparison-- born of the artificial traditions of the
literary schools-- that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has
not been without imitators in more recent times[61].

    [Footnote 59: Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.]

    [Footnote 60: Havell’s translation, p. 27.]

    [Footnote 61: See the note on x. 1, 85, with the quotation from
    Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of Philology. In the
    _Rheinisches Museum_ (xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.) Mercklin pushed the
    parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to find a
    correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer
    mentioned by Quintilian.]



IV.

STYLE AND LANGUAGE.


Quintilian’s own style is pretty much what might be expected from the
tone of his judgments on others. Cicero was his model, Seneca
represented to him everything that was to be avoided: but the interval
of a hundred years which separated him from the former was a sufficient
barrier to anything more than an approximation to his style, while on
the other hand he does not succeed in emancipating himself entirely from
the literary tendencies of his own time, which found so complete
expression in the writings of Seneca. All the writers of what is known
as the Silver Age possess certain marked characteristics, which
differentiate them from the best models of the republican period; and of
these Quintilian has his share. But he did not fall in with the
fashionable depreciation of those models. He knew that it was impossible
to bring back the Latinity of the Golden Age in all its characteristic
features; but he could at least lift up his voice against the
affectation and artificiality of his contemporaries, who looked upon
that Latinity as tame, insipid, and commonplace. The point of view from
which, as we have already seen, he regarded Seneca may be stated with a
wider application: _corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_, x. 1, 125.

The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral and
social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition from
republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion of
Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca. The literary public had lost all
appetite for the natural straightforwardness of the Ciceronian style: it
craved for something akin to the highly seasoned dishes by which the
epicures of the day sought to stimulate a jaded palate[62]. It was not
enough now to clothe the thought in pure, clear, and elegant language,
even when adorned by a wealth of expression that bordered on exuberance,
and made musical by the exquisite modulation of the period. No one could
win a hearing who did not countenance the fashionable craze for
affectation, abruptness, and extravagance. Directness, ease, and
intelligibility were no recommendations[63]. In order to strike and
stimulate, everything must be full of point. Feebleness of thought was
considered to be redeemed by epigram and formal antithesis. The
amplitude and artistic symmetry of the Ciceronian period gave place to a
broken and abrupt style, the main object of which was to arrest
attention and to challenge admiration. Showy passages were looked for,
expressed in new and striking phraseology, such as could be reproduced
and even handed on to others[64]. The charm of style and the test of its
excellence consisted in its being artificial, inflated, meretricious,
involved, obscure-- in a word, depraved[65].

    [Footnote 62: “His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is
    hardly a sentence which might not be quoted; but to read him
    straight forward is like dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”
    --Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life, i. p. 448.]

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

    [Footnote 64: Tac. Dial. 20 _Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire
    sed etiam referre domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt,
    traduntque invicem ac saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt,
    sive sensus aliquis arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus
    exquisito et poetico cultu enituit_.]

    [Footnote 65: ii. 5, 10 _ostendi in his quam multa impropria,
    obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae
    non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc
    ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur_.]

Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to return
to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion to one
particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own
declared principles,-- _non qui maxime imitandus et solus imitandus est_
(2 §24); and accordingly, in spite of his great admiration for Cicero,
we find several well-marked features of difference between him and his
master, not only in the use of words, but also in the structure and
composition of sentences[66]. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise.
Quintilian’s mission was to restore to Latin composition the direct and
natural character of the earlier style; but he could not extirpate that
tendency to poetical expression which had taken root at Rome as far back
as the days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time
by the wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making
some concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the
‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist.
That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a
passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be
adapted to contemporary requirements: _ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates
nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, #nisi ut sensus nos quidem
dicamus plures#: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et
dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et
invicem offecerint. Sed me #hactenus cedentem# nemo insequatur ultra_,
&c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he refused to go:
clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to effect. These
qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is also sufficiently
varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must remember the
defective state in which his text has come down to us[67].

    [Footnote 66: He resembles other writers of the decadence in the
    frequent use of rare or poetical words, in neglecting the nice
    distinctions formerly made between synonyms, in the numbers of
    adjectives used substantively, &c.]

    [Footnote 67: In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must
    not be forgotten that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent
    pamphlet, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei
    Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr. Paul Hirt quotes an interesting
    remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt, ‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i.
    p. 467 note), which has lately received some corroboration: _sapit
    hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est barbariem plane quandam_. Filelfo
    did not like Quintilian: _nullam habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem,
    nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo Quintilianus, neque satis
    docet, nec delectat._ But this was only Filelfo’s opinion, for which
    he would not have been able to furnish such scientific grounds as
    that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1 p. 356) supplied by
    Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the adjective _pandus_. This word was
    in use in the days of Ennius, and occurs often afterwards in poetry,
    but not in prose. In Spain, however, it lingered, and is used by
    Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and especially by Quintilian.
    After these writers it disappears again till the fourth century.
    --Cp. i. 5, 57 _gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex
    Hispania duxisse originem audivi_, which has been quoted (by Abbé
    Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely enough in
    disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.]


It is quite possible to exemplify from the Tenth Book alone the main
features in which Quintilian’s language and style differ from those of
Cicero. And first, in regard to his vocabulary, a list may be appended
of words which, though not peculiar to Quintilian, are yet not to be
found in the republican period[68].

    [Footnote 68: For this section I am especially indebted to a
    _Dissertatio_ by Adamus Marty: _De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia
    Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis_. Also the
    _Prolegomena_ in Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’s _Remarques sur la
    Langue de Quintilien_.]

#Amaritudo#, figuratively (Plin. S., Sen., Val. Max.), x. 1, 117.

#Auditorium# (Tac. Dial., Plin. S., Suet.), x. 1, 79: cp. v. 12, 20
_licet hanc (eloquentiam) auditoria probent_.

#Classis#, of a class in a school (Suet., Col., Petr.), x. 5, 21.

#Confinis#, figuratively (Ovid, Sen.), x. 5, 12.

#Consummatus# (Sen., Mart., Plin. S.), x. 5, 14: cp. i. 9, 3; ii. 19, 1,
and often. The Ciceronian equivalent is _perfectus_.

#Decretorius# (Sen., Plin., Suet.), x. 5, 20: cp. vi. 4, 6.

#Diversitas# (Tac., Plin., Suet.), x. 1, 106.

#Evalesco# (Verg., Hor., Plin., Tac.), x. 2, 10: cp. ii. 8, 5; viii.
6, 33.

#Expavesco# (Hor., Liv., Sen., Plin., Suet.), x. 3, 30: cp. ix. 4, 35;
vi. 2, 31.

#Extemporalis# (Petr., Tac., Plin. S.), x. 6, 1, 5 and 8; 7, 13, 16, 18:
cp. iv. 1, 54 _extemporalis oratio_, for which Cicero would have written
_subita et fortuita oratio_.

#Exundo# (Sen., Plin., Tac.), x. 1, 109 #Cicero vivo gurgite exundat#.

#Favorabilis# (Vell., Sen., Plin., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 21: cp. iv. 1, 21
and often.

#Formator# (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x. 2, 20 _alienorum ingeniorum
formator_ (sc. _praeceptor_).

#Immutesco# (Statius), x. 3, 16.

#Inadfectatus# (Plin. S.), x. 1, 82.

#Inconcessus# (Verg., Ov.), x. 2, 26.

#Incredulus# (Hor.), x. 3, 11: cp. xii. 8, 11.

#Indecens# (Petr., Sen., Mart.), x. 2, 19. The Ciceronian equivalent is
_indecorus_.

#Inlaboratus# (Sen.), x. 1, 111, and often.

#Insenesco# (Hor., Ov., Tac.), x. 3, 11.

#Inspiro# (Verg., Ov., Sen.), x. 3, 24: cp. xii. 10, 62.

#Praesumo# (Verg., Sen., Plin., Tac.), x. 5, 4: cp. xi. 1, 27.

#Profectus# (Ov., Sen., Plin. S., Suet), x. 3, 2 and 15: cp. i. 2, 26,
and often. Cicero uses _progressus_, _processus_.

#Professor# (Col., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 18: cp. ii. 11, 1, and often.

#Prosa# (Vell., Col., Sen., Plin.), x. 7, 19,-- adjective: cp. xi.
2, 39. As a noun, ix. 4, 52, and often.

#Secessus# (Verg., Ov., Plin., Tac.), x. 3, 23 and 28; 5, 16. Cicero
uses _recessus_.

#Substringo# (Sen., Tac., Suet.), x. 5, 4.

#Versificator# (Just., Col.), x. 1, 89.

There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word
_Romanus_ for _Latinus_. _Litterae latinae_, _scriptores latini_,
_poetae latini_, are the usual forms with Cicero and the writers of the
best period: Quintilian has _Romanes auctores_ (x. 1, 85), _sermo
Romanus_ (ib. §100), _litterae Romanae_ (ib. §123), and often elsewhere.


The following words appear in Quintilian (Book X) for the first time,
though of course it does not follow that they are his own coinage:--

#Adnotatio#, x. 2, 7 _brevis adnotatio_.

#Circulatorius#, x. 1, 8 _circulatoria volubilitas_: cp. ii. 4, 15. The
noun _circulator_ seems to have been used first by Asinius Pollio:
afterwards it is found in Seneca, Petronius, Plin. S., Apuleius, &c.

#Destructio#, x. 5, 12 _destructio et confirmatio sententiarum_.
Suetonius (Galba 12) uses this word in its proper sense of ‘pulling
down’ walls.

#Offensator# (ἅπαξ λεγόμ.), x. 3, 20.

#Significantia#, x. 1, 121.


Several words occur which, either in point of form or meaning, indicate
the influence of Greek analogies:--

#Recipere#, x. 7, 31, and often elsewhere, in the sense of _probare_. So
the Greek ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἐνδέχεσθαι. Cp. Plin. H. N. 7. 8, 29.

#Supinus#, x. 2, 17 used, like ὕπτιος in Dion. Hal., for ‘languid,’
‘spiritless.’ Cp. esp. (of Isocr.) ὑπτία (sc. λέξις) ... καὶ κεχυμένη
πλουσίως, p. 538, 6, R: also p. 1006, 14, R.

#Densus# (πυκνός), for _pressus_: x. 1, 76.

#Pedestris# (sc. _oratio_), πεζὸς λόγος: x. 1, 81.

To these may be added the use of _subripere_ (for _clam facere_), on the
analogy of κλέπτειν τι, iv. 1, 78: _transire_ (for _effugere_), on the
analogy of παρέρχεσθαι, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335 _nil transit
amantes_): _finis_ for ὅρος: _maxime_, with numerals, for μάλιστα, &c.

To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian of
_propter quod_, _per quod_, _quae_, &c. on the analogy of δι᾽ ὅ, δι᾽ ἅ
(see on x. 1, 10): _circa_ (used like περί), see on x. 1, 52: _multum_
(with compar.) like πολὺ μεῖζον (x. 1, 94): _sunt ... differentes_, 2
§16.


The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment
of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a
concrete sense (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7), and also in certain changes in
the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed in its proper place:
e.g. _componere_ for _sedare_; _vacare_ used impersonally; _venus_ for
_venustas_; _beatus_ for _uber_, _fecundus_; _secretum_; _olim_ of
future time; _utrimque_ of opposite sides, &c. Such changes in meaning
as will be noted in connection with words like _valetudo_, _ambitio_,
_advocatus_, _auctor_, _cultus_, _quicumque_, _ubicumque_, _demum_, and
all the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective
(e.g. _studiosus_), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the
Silver Age.


Taking now the Parts of Speech in their order, we may illustrate the
peculiarities of Quintilian’s vocabulary by reference to the Tenth Book.


I. NOUNS.

#Advocatus# for _causidicus_, _patronus_: x. 1, 111 (where see note):
cp. iii. 8, 51; xi. 1, 59: Plin. S. 7, 22: Suet. Claud. 15. For examples
of the use of this word in its earlier sense cp. v. 6, 6; xi. 3, 132;
xii. 3, 2.

#Ambitio# carries with it in Quintilian, as generally in the Silver Age,
a sinister meaning, so that Quintilian can call it a _vitium_: i. 2, 22
_licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio frequenter tamen causa virtutum est_. So
_perversa ambitio_ x. 7, 21: cp. Tac. Ann. vi. 46: Iuv. 8, 135. For the
Ciceronian use of the word (_popularis gratiae captatio ad adipiscendos
honores_), see pro Sulla §11: pro Planc. §45: de Orat. i. §1.

#Auctor#, almost identical with _scriptor_: see on x. 1, 24. Cp. Ep. ad
Tryph. §1 _legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles_.

#Cultus# = _ornatus_: x. 1, 124; 2, 17. Cp. iii. 8, 58 _in verbis cultum
adfectaverunt_: xi. 1, 58 _nitor et cultus_. Cicero uses _ornatus_ and
_nitor_ as applied to language: Orat. §80 _ornatus verborum_, §13 4
_orationis_. Cp. Tac. Dial. 20, 23.

#Opinio# is used for ‘reputation’ (_existimatio_), whether good or bad.
So x. 5, 18 (where see note): 7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 _contemptu
opinionis_: ii. 12, 5 _adfert et ista res opinionem_: ix. 2, 74 _veritus
opinionem iactantiae_: iv. 1, 33 _opinione adrogantiae laborare_: Tac.
Dial. 10 _ne opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores
sequitur_: Sen. Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive
(ad Att. 7, 2 _opinio integritatis_: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G.
vii. 59, 5: Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24
_falsam ... malam opinionem_).

#Opus# frequently means ‘branch,’ ‘department’ in Quintilian: x. 1, 9
(where see note). It is often identical with ‘genus’: e.g. x. 1, 123
where they are used together, _quo in genere-- in hoc opere_. Cp. iii.
7, 28 _quamquam tres status omnes cadere in hoc opus (laudativum genus)
possint_.

#Valetudo#, always in the sense of ‘bad health’ in Quintilian and
contemporary writers. If ‘good health’ is meant, an adjective is used:
e.g. x. 3, 26 _bona valetudo_: vi. 3, 77 _commodior valetudo_. With
Cicero it may mean either: de Fin. v. §84 _bonum valetudo, miser
morbus_: de Am. §8 _quod in collegio nostro non adfuisses, valetudinem
respondeo causam_: ad Fam. iv. 1, 1: in Tusc. iv. §80 he has _mala
valetudo_. With Quintilian’s usage cp. Tac. Hist. iii. 2; Ann. vi. 50:
Suet. Claud. 26: Plin. S. 2, 20.

#Venus# for _venustas_, x. 1, 79 (where see note); ib. §100. This use of
the word is poetical: Hor. A. P. 320; Car. iv. 13, 17. For _venustas_,
_lepor_ occurs in Cicero with the same meaning, see de Orat. i. §243:
Or. §96.

Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred to
in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with _vis_ or _ratio_
and the gerund (see on _vim dicendi_ x. 1, 1): the concrete use of
certain nouns in the plural (see on _historias_ §75: cp. _lectiones_
§45): the concrete use of abstract nouns (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7:
_profectus_ 5 §14: cp. _silvarum amoenitas_ for _silvae amoenae_ 3 §24).
The frequent occurrence of verbal nouns in _-tor_ must also be noted: in
Quint. they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles
(_hortator_ x. 3, 23: _offensator_ ib. §20), and may, like adjectives,
be compared by the aid of an adverb (_nimium amator_ 1 §88, where see
note)[69].

    [Footnote 69: Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in
    which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv.
    pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290
    (296) substantives in _-tor_ and 44 (46) in _-trix_. Of these 73 in
    _-tor_ and 4 in _-trix_ are also in Quintilian, who has, on the
    other hand, 28 in _-tor_ and 8 in _-trix_ which do not occur in
    Cicero. These are-- _adfectator_, _admirator_, _adsertor_,
    _agnitor_, _altercator_, _auxiliator_, _constitutor_, _consultor_,
    _contemptor_, _cunctator_, _delator_, _derisor_, _exactor_,
    _formator_, _iactator_, _insectator_, _latrator_, _legum lator_,
    _luctator_, _plosor_, _professor(?)_, _raptor_, _repertor_,
    _rixator_, _signator_, _stuprator_, _ventilator_, _versificator_,
    _cavillatrix_, _disputatrix_, _elocutrix_, _enuntiatrix_,
    _exercitatrix_, _hortatrix_, _iudicatrix_, (_litteratrix_),
    _sermocinatrix_.]


II. ADJECTIVES.

#Beatus# (_abundans_, _fecundus_): x. 1, 61 _beatissima rerum
verborumque copia_, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 _beatissimi amnes_.
Cicero does not use _beatus_ of things: cp. de Rep. ii. 19, 34
_abundantissimus amnis_.

#Densus# (like _pressus_ in Cicero): §§68, 73 (with notes), _densus et
brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides_: cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §59
_Thucydides ita verbis aptus et pressus_. So x. 1, 76, 106.

#Exactus#: x. 2, 14 _exactissimo iudicio_: 7 §30 _exacti commentarii_.
_Exactus_ bears the same relation to _exigere_ as _perfectus_ does to
_perficere_, with which _exigere_ is, in Quintilian, synonymous: _e.g._
i. 5, 2; 9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23;
also M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For _exactus_ Cicero used _diligenter
elaboratus_ (Brut. §312) or _accuratus_ (ad Att. xiii. 45, 3): or
_perfectus_ (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).

#Expositus# = _tritus_, _communis_: x. 5, 11 _voluptatem expositis
dare_: Iuv. 7, 54 _vatem-- qui nihil expositum soleat deducere, hoc qui
communi feriat carmen triviale moneta_: Sen. E. 55. Cicero has (de Orat.
i. 31, 137) _omnium communia et contrita praecepta_.

#Incompositus#: x. 1, 66 _rudis in plerisque et incompositus_
(Aeschylus): cp. iv. 5, 10; ix. 4, 32: Verg. Georg. i. 350 _motus
incompositos_: Hor. Sat. i. 10, 1: Tac. Dial. 26: Sen. Ep. 40, 4: Liv.
xxiii. 27; v. 28.

#Otiosus# = _inutilis_, _inanis_. See on x. 1, 76 _tam nihil otiosum_:
cp. 2 §17. So Tac. Dial. 40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have
_vacuus_, _otio abundans_, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.

#Praecipuus#, used by itself, see on x. 1, 94.]

#Summus#, in sense of _extremus_: x. 1, 21, where see note. The usage is
poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii. 324 _venit
summa dies_: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59, Am. iii. 9, 27:
Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio--
München_, 1890, p. 36) contends that this use is not Ciceronian, for
while Pollio writes _summo ludorum die_ (ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius
_summis Circensibus ludis_ (ad Fam. viii. 12, 3-- _Manutius: #extremis#
diebus Circensium ludorum meorum_), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii.
1, 3) _extremus elephantorum dies fuit_.

#Supinus# = _ignavus_ (as ὕπτιος, p. xliii. above): x. 2, 17 _otiosi et
supini_: cp. ix. 4, 137 _tarda et supina compositio_: Iuv. i. 66: Mart.
vi. 42 _Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter audis_. This
word may have been used first by Quintilian in this sense: in Cicero it
is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.

Noticeable also, and characteristic of his time, is Quintilian’s use of
_plerique_ and _plurimi_, the former having often the force of
_nonnulli_, _plures_, _multi_ (x. 1 §§26, 31, 34, 37, 66, 106: 2 §13: 3
§16), the latter losing its force as a superlative, and standing
generally for _permulti_ (x. 1 §§12, 22, 27, 40, 49, 58, 60, 65, 81, 95,
107, 109, 117, 128: 2 §§6, 14, 24: 6 §1: 7 §17).

Nothing is more common in Quintilian than the use of adjectives (and
participles) in the place of nouns.[70] In some cases this arises from
the actual omission of a noun, which can readily be supplied to define
the meaning of the adjective: for example x. 5, 20 _decretoriis_ (sc.
_armis_) _exerceatur_: 1 §100 _togatis_ (sc. _fabulis_) _excellit
Afranius_: 1 §88 _lascivus quidem in herois_ (sc. _versibus_) _quoque
Ovidius_. But in most cases there is no perceptible ellipse; the general
idea intended is contained in the adjective itself. In the Masculine and
Feminine only those adjectives can be used as nouns which express
personal qualities, as of character, position, reputation, &c.: the
Neuter denotes generally the properties of things, mostly abstractions.
Following the arrangement of Dr. Hirt’s paper, we may cite examples from
the Tenth Book as follows:--

    [Footnote 70: This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a
    Programm by Dr. Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des
    Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), a monument of German
    thoroughness. See also Becher’s Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen,
    1879), pp. 6 sqq.]


#The Neuter Adjective.#

(1) _The Neuter singular used by itself_:--

Nom. 3 §22 _secretum in dictando perit_.

Acc. 3 §30 _faciat sibi cogitatio secretum_.

Gen. 3 §27 _optimum secreti genus_: §30 _amator secreti_. Partitive
genitives: 6 §1 _aliquid vacui_: dependent on adj. 1 §79 _honesti
studiosus_.

Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 _proximum vero_: vi. 3, 21
_contrarium serio_.

Abl. 7 §16 _cum stilus secreto gaudeat_.

Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative and
ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the usage
in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy (ἐξ
ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.). Examples are: _in altum_ 7 §28 (= _in
profundum_): _e contrario_ 1 §19: _in deposito_ 3 §33: _in expedito_ 7
§24: (_vertere_) _in Latinum_ 5 §2 (containing the idea of locality: cp.
_ex Graeco_): _ex integro_ 1 §20 (where see note): _in posterum_ 3 §14:
_in publicum_ 7 §1: _in universum_ 1 §42: _in peius_ 2 §16: _ex proximo_
1 §13: _a summo_ 3 §2: _ad ultimum_ 7 §7; ib. 16: _ex ultimo_ ib. 10.

Sometimes the adjective, in addition to being used substantivally,
governs like a noun, the genitive depending on it being always
partitive: e.g. _multum_ 1 §§80, 94, 115: _plus_ 1 §§77, 86, 97, 99,
106: _plurimum_ 1 §§60, 65, 81, 117, 128; 3 §1; 5 §§3, 10; 6 §1; 7 §17:
_minus_ 2 §12: _quantum_ 5 §8. And with a pronoun: 7 §24 _promptum hoc
et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally in
cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g. 3 §6 _scriptorum proxima_.
Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where the case could
not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of course, when the
adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g. 5 §8 _sua brevitati gratia_,
_sua copiae_, _alia translatis virtus_, _alia propriis_; or when another
adjective or pronoun is used in the nom. or acc., e.g. 1 §35: 3 §32
_novorum interpositione priora confundant_: 5 §11. Other instances (of
2nd and 3rd decl.) are 7 §30 _subitis ex tempore occurrant_: 5 §1 _ex
latinis_: 7 §6 _ex diversis_: 1 §66 _in plerisque_: 5 §11 _varietatem
similibus dare_. So with comparatives and superlatives: 1 §63 _maioribus
aptior_: 1 §58 _cum optimis satiati sumus_, _varietas tamen nobis ex
vilioribus grata sit_: 5 §6 _certe proximis locus_.


#The Masculine Adjective.#

(1) _The Masculine Plural._

In the following places masculine adjectives are found together, in the
plural, or else along with nouns: 1 §§71, 124, 130: 2 §17: 3 §16: 5 §1.

Single instances are (Genitive) _veterum_ 1 §§97, 118: _magnorum_ 1 §25:
(Dative) _imperitis_ 7 §15: _antiquis_ 2 §17: _studiosis_ 1 §45 (where
see note: Cicero would have had _dicendi_, or _eloquentiae studiosis_):
_bonis_ 2 §3: (Accusative) _veteres_ 1 §42: _posteros_ 1 §§112, 120: 2
§6: _obvios_ 3 §29: _intentos_ 3 §33: (Ablative) _ex nostris_ 1 §114:
_ab antiquis_ 1 §126: _de novis_ 1 §40. With the comparative 5 §19 _apud
maiores_: 5 §7 _priores_: superlative 1 §58 _confessione plurimorum_. In
1 §123 we have one of the few instances of the addition of another
adjective to an adjective doing duty for a noun-- _paucissimos adhuc
eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt_.

(2) _The Masculine Singular._

When the adjective can denote a class collectively, it may be used as a
noun: this is quite frequent in Quintilian, as in most writers,
especially when the adjective stands near a substantive, e.g. _perorare
in adulterum_, _aleatorem_, _petulantem_ ii. 4, 22.

The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine singular:
(Genitive) x. 2, 26 _prudentis est_: (Accusative) 2 §3 _similem raro
natura praestat_: 3 §19 _quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes_.


#The Participle used as a Noun.#

(1) _The Neuter Singular._

Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those
which have actually become nouns (e.g. _responsum_, _praeceptum_,
_promissum_, &c.), Quintilian uses several participles as nouns in a
manner that is again an extension of classical usage. So even with a
pronoun, or another adjective: e.g. 2 §2 _ad propositum praescriptum_:
§11 _ad alienum propositum_: 5 §12 _decretum quoddam atque praeceptum_:
7 §24 _promptum hoc et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the participle
in _-us_, _-a_, _-um_ is found frequently in abl., gen., and dat. Not so
common is the plural of the 3rd decl.: 1 §86 _eminentibus vincimur_: 3
§5 _nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus_, _adhibeatur indicium
inventis_, _dispositio probatis_.

(3) _The Perfect Participle._

In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the Ciceronian
usage, according to which the participle is employed when a definite
class of individuals is indicated, and a _qui_ clause when the
description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are 1 §131
_robustis et satis firmatis legendus_: 3 §2 7 _occupatos in noctem
necessitas agit_: 5 §17 _exercitatos_; rather more general is
_a conrogatis laudantur_ 1 §18. The Masculine Singular is, in classical
Latin, generally found along with a substantive, it being incorrect to
use any such expression as, for example, _manes occisi placare_.
Quintilian makes a very free use of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24
_reddebat victo certaminis polestatem_: v. 12, 2 _spiculum in corpore
occisi inventum est_, &c.

(4) _The Future Participle._

The use of this participle received a great extension in post-Augustan
times. The following are instances of its employment as a substantive:
i. 4, 17 _non doceo, sed admoneo docturos_: 21 _liberum opinaturis
relinquo_: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 _hoc adicio ut dicturus
intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit_.

(5) _The Present Participle._

Frequent as is the substantival use of this participle in all Latin
authors, in none is it more frequent than in Quintilian-- generally in
the Gen. and Dat. Sing. and Plur., not so common in the Nom. and Acc.
Pl., and seldom in the Abl. and Nom. Sing. In some instances it is found
alongside of a noun: e.g. 2 §2: 7 §3. The most common example of the
Gen. Sing., standing alone, is (as might be expected from the
subject-matter of the _Institutio_) _discentis_, _dicentis_, &c., e.g. 1
§6: for the Dative see 1 §§17, 24, 30: Accusative 1 §20: Ablative 1 §15
(_intellegere sine demonstrante_): _eminentibus_ 1 §86: cp. _illis ...
recipientibus_ 5 §12. In the plural, the Genitive and Dative are equally
common: for the Nominative may be quoted 2 §15 _imitantes_: for the
Accusative 1 §16: 2 §26: 3 §25.


III. PRONOUNS.

#Ipse# follows the usual rules. For an interesting point in connection
with its use, see on 2 §15. It is often used as = _per se_, e.g. 1 §117:
3 §21: often with pronouns, e.g. _vel hoc ipso_ (δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο) 1 §75,
cp. 5 §8. For _et ipse_ see note on 1 §31.

#Hic# seems frequently to be used with reference to the circumstances of
the writer’s own times: e.g. 1 §43 _recens haec lascivia_: and probably
also 7 §31 _hanc brevem adnotationem_. (This is certainly the case with
_ille_: e.g. _illis dictandi deliciis_ 3 §18: _ille laudantium clamor_ 1
§17.) It has been suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be
wrong: e.g. 1 §6 _ex his_ (for _ex iis_?): but cp. 1 §§25, 33, 40, &c.
Such instances of a preference for _hic_ over _is_ come under Priscian’s
rule (xvi. 58), _#Hic# non solum de #praesente# verum etiam de #absente#
possumus dicere, ad #intellectum# referentes demonstrativum_.

The conjunction of _nullus_ and _non_ (= _quisque_, _omnis_) is common
in Quintilian and Suetonius: 7 §25 _nullo non tempore et loco_: cp. iii.
6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66; Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.

#Quicunque# has in Quintilian completely acquired the force of an
indefinite pronoun: see on 1 §12; 105.

#Quilibet unus# (1 §1) does not occur in Cicero: cp. i. 12, 7: v. 10,
117.

#Ut qui# is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian _quippe qui_,
_utpote qui_: see on 1 §55.


IV. VERBS.

An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in
Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’
of Latin prose) occurs 1 §99 _licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant_:
see note _ad loc._, and cp. Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12,
Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have _efferre laudibus_, de Am. §24: de Off. ii.
§36: de Orat. iii. §52. So elsewhere in Quintilian _finire_ for
_definire_, _solari_ for _consolari_, _spargere_ for _dispergere_, &c.

Examples of a change in the meaning of verbs common to Cicero and
Quintilian are the following:--

#Componere# occurs now in the sense of _sedare_, _placare_: e.g. ix. 4,
12 _ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum cogitationum, componerent_: iii. 4,
15 _concitando componendisve adfectibus_ (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202
_motum dicendo vel #excitare# vel #sedare#_): cp. x. 1, 119 _Vibius
Crispus compositus et iucundus_, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176)
_Isocrates est in ipsis numeris #sedatior#_. So Pollio, ad Fam. x. 33, 3
has the phrase _bellum componere_: cp. Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 8 _componere
litem_: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 _componere curas_-- both at the end of a
hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet. Caes. 4.

#Digerere# = _concoquere_: see 1 §19. For _concoquere_ in Cicero, see de
Fin. ii. §64: de N. D. ii. §§24, 124, 136.

#Praedicere# = _antea_, _supra dicere_: see on 1 §74.

#Recipere# = _probare_ (ἀποδέχομαι): 7 §31, and often.

#Vacat#: used impersonally 1 §§58, 90: cp. i. 12, 12. This usage is not
found in Cicero.


V. ADVERBS.

#Abunde# is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to increase
their force: 1 §25 _abunde similes_ (where see note): §104 _elatum
abunde spiritum_. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s _satis
superque_.

#Adhuc# occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on 1 §71 (_plus
adhuc_) and §99. It is often used also (as in Livy and others) of past
time, when it = _eo etiam tempore_, or _etiam tum_: e.g. _scholae adhuc
operatum_ 3 §13: cp. i. 8, 2: 2 §27.

#Alioqui# has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1) It occurs
pretty much as τὰ μὲν ἄλλα in Greek, with very little of an antithesis:
e.g. 1 §64 _Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate
commendari potest_: 3 §32 _expertus iuvenem, studiosum alioqui,
praelongos habuisse sermones_, &c. (There is a definite antithesis in
what seems to be the corresponding usage in Tacitus, when _alioqui_ is
opposed to an adverb of time: e.g, Ann. iii. 8 _cum incallidus alioqui
et facilis iuventa senilibus _tum_ artibus uteretur_: xiii. 20
_ingreditur Paris, solitus alioquin id temporis luxus principis
intendere, sed _tunc_ compositus ad maestitiam._) (2) It is equivalent
to _praeterea_, ‘besides’: 3 §13 _in eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps,
alioqui inter paucos disertus_. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 _ordo alioqui
sceleris ... patefactus est_. This sense is an easy transition from ‘for
the rest.’ The instance in 1 §128 (_cuius et multae alioqui et magnae
virtutes fuerunt_) seems to fall also under this head, unless it means
‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they paid him (Seneca) by
imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 _validus alioqui spernendis
honoribus_. (3) _Alioqui_ stands for ‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite
case,’ either with a _si_ clause, as 3 §16 _immutescamus alioqui si
nihil dicendum videatur_: §30 _quid alioqui fiet ... si particulas_,
&c.: or without, 6 §6 _alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam
male cohaerentem cogitationem_. Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.

#Certe# stands for _quidem_ when the point of the sentence is reinforced
by an illustration: 6 §4 _Cicero certe ... tradidit_: cp. xii. 1, 43:
vi. 2, 3.

_Demum_, which in classical Latin is an adverb of time (‘lastly’),
stands in Quintilian, and other writers of the Silver Age, for _tantum_,
_dumtaxat_, the idea of time having disappeared: 1 §44 _pressa demum et
tenuia_, where see note: cp. 3 §13: 6 §5. With pronouns it is frequently
used, for emphasis, like _adeo_: e.g. Cic. de Orat. ii. §131 _sed hi
loci ei demum oratori prodesse possunt, qui est versatus in rebus vel
usu_.

#Interim# often stands for _interdum_, as 1 §9, where see note. At 3 §33
we have _interim ... interim_ for _modo ... modo_, as also i. 7, 11:
_interim ... interdum_ vi. 2, 12: _interim ... non numquam ... saepe_
iv. 5, 20: _semper ... interim_ ii. 1, 1.

#Longe# and #multum# are both used with comparatives, instead of
_multo_: e.g. _longe clarius_ 1 §67 (where see note): _multum tersior_
(πολύ) 1 §94 (note).

#Mox# is used in enumerations in place of _deinde_: 6 §3
_primum--tum--mox_: cp. i. 2, 29 _primum--mox_: ib. 9, 2
_primum--mox--tum_.

#Nec# = _ne quidem_: 3 §7 _alioqui nec scriberentur_. Cp. ix. 2, 67
_quod in foro non expedit, illic nec liceat_ iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.

#Non# occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (3 §16, cp. 3 §5) and 3rd pers.
sing. 2 §27 where see note, (also after _dum_ xii. 10, 48 and _modo_
iii. 11, 24) where Cicero would have had _ne_: cp. i. 1, 19 _non ergo
perdamus_: ib. §5 _non adsuescat ergo_. Cp. _utinam non_ §100: and see
note on 2 §27.

#Non nisi#. These particles (_non_, _nisi_) are used together with the
force of an adverb, 1 §24 (where see note): 3 §29. Cp. Ov. Tr. iii. 12,
36.

#Olim# is never used by Cicero of future time, as 1 §94 and 104 (where
see note). Cp. Plin. Panegyr. 15.

#Plane#, though common enough in classical Latin, as in Quintilian, with
verbs and adjectives, is not found so often in conjunction with other
adverbs. There may be a touch of colloquialism about such a phrase as
_ut plane manifesto appareat_ 1 §53: cp. Pollio, in Cic. ad Fam. x. 32,
1 _plane bene_: ad Att. xiii. 6, 2: _plane belle_ ib. xii. 37, 1.

#Protinus# has its usual meaning (_statim_) in 3 §5 (where it is best
taken with _gaudeamus_, not with _offerentibus_): cp. 7 §21. Its
employment to denote logical consequence is noted at 1 §3: cp. _ib._
§42.

#Saltem# is often used for _quidem_ and _neque saltem_ for _ne quidem_:
2 §15 _nec vero saltem iis_, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 _neque
enim mihi illud saltem placet_.

#Sicut (ut) ... ita#. This formula is especially common in Quintilian,
either with or without a negative: see on 1 §1, and cp. §§3, 14, 72: ix.
2, 88, &c.

#Ubicumque#, like _quicumque_, has become an indefinite: e.g. 7 §28
_quidquid loquemur ubicumque_. The more classical use is found at 1 §§5
and 10.

#Utique#: see note on 1 §20.

#Utrimque# is used not of place, but of the ‘opposite sides’ of a
question: 5 §20 _causas utrimque tractet_: 1 §131: cp. v. 10, 81: Hor.
Ep. i. 18, 9: Tac. Hist. i. 14.

#Velut# occurs more commonly than either _quasi_ or _tamquam_ in
comparisons: see on 1 §5 _velut opes quaedam_, and cp. §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5
§17: 7 §1. So also 7 §6 _ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut
duce_.


VI. PREPOSITIONS.

#Ab# for ‘on leaving,’ as in the poets and Livy: 5 §17 _ne ab illa, in
qua consenuerunt, umbra discrimina velut quendam solem reformident_: cp.
xi. 3, 22: i. 6, 25: Ov. Met. iv. 329: Plin. N. H. xiv. 7, 9. So ἀπὸ in
Homer, Il. viii. 53 Οἱ δ᾽ ἄρα δεῖπνον ἕλοντο καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ Ῥίμφα
κατὰ κλισίας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θωρήσσοντο.

#Circa# does duty in Quintilian for _in_, _de_, _ad_, _erga_, &c.: cp.
the use of περί, ἀμφί with the acc. in Greek. So 1 §52 _utiles circa
praecepta sententiae_: see note _ad loc_.

#Citra# very often stands for _sine_ or _praeter_: e.g. _citra lectionis
exemplum_ 1 §2, where see note: cp. i. 4, 4 _neque citra musicen
grammatice potest esse perfecta_. In Cicero _citra_ is used only of
place.

The following prepositional expressions should also be noted:--

#Ante omnia# = _primum_ 1 §3: 2 §4: 7 §6. In 1 §3 we have _ante omnia_,
_proximum_, _novissimum_: cp. iv. 2, 52 _ante omnia_, _deinde_: iii. 9,
6 _ante omnia_, _deinde_, _tum_, _postremo_.

#Cum eo quod# is used as a transition formula for the Ciceronian
_accedit quod_. A certain case of this usage occurs xii. 10, 47: the
instance at x. 7, 13 has been challenged, but see the note.

#Ex integro#. Quintilian prefers the use of _ex_ in such phrases to
_de_: e.g. x. 1 §20 (where see note): _ex industria_ ib.: and so _ex
abundanti_, _ex professo_, _ex pari_, &c., elsewhere.

#Inter paucos#, ‘as few have ever been’: 3 §13 _inter paucos disertus_.

#Per quae# (_quod_) of agency or instrument: 1 §87 _in iis per quae
nomen est adsecutus_.

#Propter quae# (_quod_) for _quam ob rem_, especially in transitions:
see on 1 §10.

#Praeter id quod# for _praeterquam quod_: see on 1 §28.

#Sine dubio#. The use of this phrase at 1 §51 may possibly be an
instance of the peculiarity noted by Spalding on i. 6, 12, where he
points out that Quintilian frequently makes it stand for _quidem_, in
clauses where the idea is by _sine dubio_ made of less account than some
other statement immediately following, and introduced by _tamen_ or
_sed_ (as i. 6, 12 and 14). Examples are v. 7, 28 _sine dubio ...
tamen_: v. 10, 53 and viii. 3, 67 _sine dubio ... sed_. Applying this to
x. 1, 51 _Verum hic omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae
procul a se reliquit, epicos tamen praecipue_, we might bring out the
construction by rendering, ‘But while of course (or ‘to be sure’) Homer
has out-distanced all rivals, in every kind of eloquence, it is the epic
poets whom he leaves furthest behind.’ Cp. on 3 §15.


VII. CONJUNCTIONS.

Under this head may come #Adde quod#, a phrase which occurs seven times
in Quintilian, five times in the Tenth Book: 1 §§3, 16: 2 §§10, 11, 12:
xii. 1, 4 and 11, 29. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius
Pollio_) remarks that it must be ranked rather with Pollio ad Fam. x.
31, 4 (_adde huc quod_), where _quod_ is to be taken as a conjunction,
than with Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 7, ad Fam. xiii. 41, 1 (_addo etiam illud
quod_), and ad Fam. xvi. 16, 1 (_adde hoc quod_), where _quod_ is a
relative referring to the foregoing demonstrative. The phrase is
originally poetical: it is found in Attius, frequently in Lucretius (i.
847: iii. 827: iv. 1113), in the _Satires_ and _Epistles_ of Horace, and
over and over again in Ovid: Vergil seems to avoid it. Pollio probably
introduced it into prose, and from him it passed to others: Schmalz
refers to Plin. Ep. viii. 14, 3: iii. 14, 6: Sen. 40, 4: Symmach. 2, 7:
4, 71: Fronto, p. 92 N.

#Cum interim# = ‘though all the time.’ See note on 1 §18: cp. § III.

#Dum ... non# stands for _dummodo ... non_ 3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The
usage is poetical. _Dummodo_ does not occur in Quintilian.

#Enim# occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after
a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. _ad profectum enim_ 3 §15: and so
frequently after _sum_,-- 2 §10 _necesse est enim_: 1 §14: 7 §§15, 24: 2
§19. But _nihil enim est_ 1 §78, where Krüger suggests _nihil enim
inest_.

#Etsi#. As it is generally stated that _etsi_ does not occur in
Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i. pr. 19:
i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.

#Ideoque# is constantly used for _itaque_. See note on 1 §21.

#Licet# = _etsi_, as sometimes in Cicero: 1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and passim.

#Quamlibet# and #quamquam#. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses
which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs:
3 §19 _nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato_: cp. viii. 6, 4
_oratione quamlibet clara_: xii. 8, 7 _quamlibet verbose_: xi. 1, 34
_quamquam plena sanguinis_. A similar use of _quamvis_ is less uncommon
in other writers: cp. 1 §74 _quamvis bonorum_: ib. §94 _quamvis uno
libra_ (where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

#Quia# is sometimes used where _quod_ (_eo quod_) might have been
expected: 1 §15 _hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia_: cp. 5 §14
_Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia_ (Halm) _inventionem et
dispositionem pariter exercent_. So i. 6, 39 _nam et auctoritatem
antiquitatis habent_ (sc. _verba a vetustate repetita_) _et, quia
intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant_. Cp. _non quia non_
(with the subjunctive) x. 7, 19 and 31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii.
3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

#Quoque# often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force,
where older writers would have had _vel_ or _etiam_: 1 §20 _ex industria
quoque_: 2 §14 _in magnis quoque auctoribus_: cp. 1 §121 _ceterum
interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum_: ii. II, I _exemplo magni
quoque nominis professorum_.

#Quotiens# = _cum_: 4 §3: 7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76: viii. 3, 55.


For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed
generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often
traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo
wrote to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to
remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment.
But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian
period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent
instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly
constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the
technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such
matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say
clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great
stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is
generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to
take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come
dragging in at the end of a sentence (x. 2 §§13 and 23), and adjectival
or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable
isolation (_vel ob hoc memoria dignum_ 1 §80: _rebus tamen acuti magis
quam_, &c. 1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are
introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80: 2 §28). The thought is
sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the
Tenth Book: cp. 2 §§13 and §§20, 21; 7 §7), because the composition is
not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely
used (see on _nam_ 1 §12: cp. §50, 7 §31: _quidem_ 1 §88), and are
sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly
and abruptly introduced (see on 1 §4: cp. 7 §1). Instances of a more or
less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with:
e.g. 1 §§36, 41, 83, 102. In the order of words there is sometimes the
same departure from customary usage (1 §109, 2 §17), especially in the
case of proper names (1 §86 _Afro Domitio_ for _Domitio Afro_: cp.
_Atacinus Varro_ §87: _Bassus Aufidius_ §103)[71]. Constructions κατὰ
σύνεσιν frequently occur: 1 §65: §105: 7 §25. Under this head may be
included the omission of the subject: 1 §7 _congregat_: §66
_permiserunt_: 7 §4 _malit ... possit_: and of words to be supplied from
the context, 1 §56 _congerentes_: 1 §7 _solitos_: 1 §107 _quibus nihil
ille_: 1 §123 _qui ubique_: 2 §24: 3 §25. In the same way _esse_ is
frequently omitted for the sake of brevity: 1 §17, §66, §90: 4 §1: 5 §6:
7 §7, §23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and
negligent repetition: 1 §§8, 9, 23, 94, 131: 2 §§11-12: 5 §§6-7: 7 §23:
cp. on 2 §23.

    [Footnote 71: Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio,
    p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad
    Fam. x. 32, 5 _Gallum Cornelium_), was first introduced by Varro
    (L. Lat. 5, 83 _Scaevola Quintus_: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 _Libo
    Marcius_). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became
    general in Velleius Paterculus.]

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness
for the use of the perfect subjunctive: 1 §14 _dixerim_: §26 _maluerim_:
§37 _fuerit_, where see note: so even _ut non dixerim_ (_ne dicam_) 1
§77 and _ut sic dixerim_ 2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in
dependent clauses: see on _sciet_ 1 §4, and cp. 2 §§26, 28: 3 §28: 7
§28: also as a mild imperative, 1 §58 _revertemur_: 3 §18 _sequemur_; 2
§1 _renuntiabit_: §23 _aptabimus_. (3) The frequent use of the
infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age:
(_a_) with _verbs_, as _meruit credi_ 1 §72: _qui esse docti adfectant_
§97: _optandum ... fieri_ §127: _si consequi utrumque non dabitur_ 7
§22: _opponere verear_ 1 §101: _intermittere veremur_ 7 §26: cp.
_expertus iuvenem ... habuisse_ 3 §32: for _dubitare_ see on 1 §73:
(_b_) with _adjectives_, _legi dignus_ 1 §96: _contentum id consequi_ 2
§7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund, _ceteraque genera probandi
ac refutandi_ 1 §49: _lex orandi_ 1 §76: _inveniendi_ §69: _sive acumine
disserendi sive eloquendi facultate_ 1 §81: cp. _loquendi_ §83:
_eloquendo_ §106: _nascendi_ 3 §4: _saliendi_ 3 §6: ib. _iaculando_:
_adiciendo_ 3 §32: _emendandi_ 4 §2: _cogitandi_ 7 §25. (5) _Quamquam_
with subjunctive 1 §33: 2 §21: 7 §17: _forsitan_ with indic. 2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) _Anaphora_, or the
repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g.
nulla _varietas_, nullus _adfectus_, nulla _persona_, nulla _cuiusquam
sit oratio_ 1 §55: cp. 1 §§99, 115, 130: 2 §2: 3 §3 (illic _radices_,
illic _fundamenta sunt_, illic _opes_, &c.): §9, §29: 5 §§2, 8: 6 §1;
(2) _Asyndeton_: e.g. _facere_ quam optime, quam facillime _possit_ 1
§4: 2 §16: 6 §6: 7 §§7, 26; (3) _Chiasmus_: 5 §14 (_alitur--renovatur_)
and §15 (_ne carmine--reficiuntur_): 7 §15.


The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or
the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding
paragraph[72]. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans
that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature
than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as
the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea
and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is
generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he
is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce
his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous
times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their
rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and
illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under
the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come
to be looked upon as great national entertainments. Hence it was natural
to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one
striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is
waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than
to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’: _tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea
concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat_, x. 1,
114. The orator must always be on the alert,-- ever ‘ready for battle,’
_in procinctu_ 1 §2 (where see note): if he cannot take prompt action,
he might as well remain in camp,-- _nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit,
auxilium_ 4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand: _id
quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos
putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est_ 2 §§21-2.
Victory must ever be the end in view,-- victory in what is a real
combat, not a sham fight: 1 §§29-30 _nos vero armatos stare in acie et
summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti_: 2 §27 _quam omnia,
etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent_: 1 §79
_Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus_: 1 §31 _totum
opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam
posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur_. The orator must have all the
wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to
be made for show: 1 §33 _dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed
militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius
Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere_: 1 §30
_Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis
esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque
praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti
periculosus_: cp. 1 §60 _cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae,
plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum_: 1 §77 _carnis tamen plus habet
(Aeschines) minus lacertorum_: 2 §12 _quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac
virium declamationes habeant quam orationes_: 1 §115 _verum sanguinem
perdidisse_. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory: 1 §4,
cp. 5 §§19-20 (_iuvenis_) _iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit
certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in
gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur_: 3 §3 _vires
faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non
exhauriantur_. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether
he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his
adversary or succumb to him: cp. 1 §106 _pugnat ille (Demosthenes)
acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere_: §120 _ut esset
multo magis pugnans_. And he must not linger too long over preparatory
exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their
suppleness: 5 §16 _nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse
est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii
cotidiana pugna retundatur_.

    [Footnote 72: See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der
    Beredsamkeit aus der Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten
    Bildlichen Wendungen in der rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero,
    Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau, 1886).]



V.

MANUSCRIPTS.


Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of
Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions:
(1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and (3) the mixed.

The most important representative of the first class is the _Codex
Ambrosianus_, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan. As
we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly a
fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135 _argumenta
acria et cit_. to xii. 11, 22 _antiquitas ut possit_). Halm secured a
new and trustworthy collation of this MS., distinguishing carefully
between the original text and the readings of the second hand.

Although now in the defective condition above indicated, the
_Ambrosianus_ must have been originally complete. In this it differs
from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most valuable
member of which-- the _Bernensis_-- is of even greater importance for
the constitution of the text than the _Ambrosianus_, at least in those
parts which it contains. It is the oldest of all the known manuscripts
of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th century. The peculiarity which it
shares with the other members of its family is that it contains certain
great _lacunae_, which must have existed also in the manuscript from
which it was copied, as they are indicated in the _Bernensis_ by blank
spaces. The size of the first _lacuna_ varies with the fortunes of the
particular codex: in the _Bernensis_ it extends from the beginning to 2
§5 (_licet, et nihilo minus_). The others are identical in all cases: v.
14, 12--viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17--viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2--x. 1, 107
(_nulla contentio_): xi. 1, 71--xi. 2, 33: and xii. 10, 43 to the end.

To the same family as the _Bernensis_ belongs the _Bambergensis_ A,
which was directly copied from the _Bernensis_ not long after the latter
had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the
_Bambergensis_ the great _lacunae_ were, at a very early date, filled in
by another hand (_Bambergensis_ G[73]), this manuscript may now rank in
the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of
the _Harleianus_ (2664), and through the _Harleianus_ of the
_Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, and an innumerable company of others.
Besides reproducing _Bambergensis_ G, these MSS. follow for the most
part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halm #b#) into
the original _Bambergensis_ A. A recent examination of the
_Bambergensis_ has suggested a doubt whether the readings known as #b#,
which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from
the same codex as G.

    [Footnote 73: Halm’s account of this is more accurate than
    Meister’s. The former (Praef. p. viii) says _magnae autem lacunae
    Bernensis pergamenis insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt_. The
    _alius codex_ which the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant:
    it no doubt belonged to the same family as the _Ambrosianus_, and
    _Bambergensis_ G is consequently of first-class importance,
    especially where the _Ambrosianus_ fails us. It is incorrect to say
    (with Meister, Praef. p. vi) _lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice
    insertis expletae sunt_. The writer of G did not mutilate another
    codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on
    the blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.]

Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the
manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for
the parts where he had only the _Ambrosianus_ and the _Bambergensis_ G,
or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since the date of the publication
of his text (1868) great progress has been made with the critical study
of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain and le Coultre published a
collation of the _Nostradamensis_ (see below), the main results of which
have been incorporated in Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical
edition of the First Book of the _Institutio_ (1890) M. Ch. Fierville
has given a most complete account of all the continental manuscripts,
drawing for the purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown
proof of his interest in the subject (_De Quintilianeis Codicibus_,
1874).

There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him
aright in attaching supreme importance to the _Bernensis_ (with
_Bambergensis_ A), the _Ambrosianus_, and _Bambergensis_ G. But much has
been derived from some manuscripts of which he took no account, and
there is one in particular, which has hitherto been strangely
overlooked, and to which prominence is accordingly given in this
edition. Before proceeding to deal with it, I shall annex here a brief
notice of the various MSS. which figure in the Critical Notes, grouped
in one or other of the three divisions given above. An editor of the
Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ is especially bound to travel outside the
rather narrow range of Halm’s critical edition, as so much of the
existing text (down to 1 §107) has been based mainly on _Bambergensis_ G
alone. In addition to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such
MSS. as the _Ioannensis_ at Cambridge, the _Bodleianus_ and
_Balliolensis_ at Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex,
referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th century
manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show to have
been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This part of
the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this country,
what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously accomplished for the
manuscripts of the Continent.

Of the first family, the outstanding example is the _Ambrosianus_. The
resemblances between it and _Bambergensis_ G are sufficient to show that
the manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the
same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like the
_Ambrosianus_ originally), has altogether disappeared: one of the great
objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond the
limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish between
such examples as may seem (like the _Dorvilianus_ at Oxford) to preserve
some of the traditions of the family, and those whose origin may be
clearly traced back to _Bambergensis_ A and G. For all the complete MSS.
of Quintilian in existence must be derived either from this family or
from the mixed group of which the _Bambergensis_, in its present form,
seems to be the undoubted original.

In the second group we must include, not much inferior to the
_Bernensis_, the _Parisinus Nostradamensis_ (N) Bibl. Nat. fonds latin
18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of the
incomplete MS. from which the _Bernensis_ was copied, and as such has a
distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th century. For the
readings of this codex I have been able to compare a collation made by
M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by MM. Chatelain and le
Coultre in 1875.

Then there is the _Codex Ioannensis_ (in the library of St. John’s
College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the
account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in
some particulars. In its present condition it begins with _constaret_
(i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the
sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the
beginning of the second chapter, like the _Nostradamensis_, the
_Vossiani_ 1 and 2, the _Codex Puteanus_, and _Parisinus_ 7721 (see
Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly
_multiplici_, not _ut duplici_, and in this it agrees with the
Montpellier MS. (_Pithoeanus_), which is known to be a copy (11th
century) of the _Bernensis_ (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887).
A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which
the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included
in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they
may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from
which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably
the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) as _tum
in ipsis_ in x. 2, 14, and _virtutis_ ib. §15. It is written in a very
small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the great
_lacunae_, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally
with the _Bernensis_, though there are striking resemblances also to the
_Pratensis_ (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to
are the following:-- x. 3, 1 _sic etiam utilitatis_, for _sic utilitatis
etiam_: ib. §30 _oratione continua_, for _continua oratione_: 5 §8 _alia
propriis alia translatis virtus_, for _alia translatis virtus alia
propriis_: 7 §21 _stultis eruditi_, for _stulti eruditis_: ib. §28
_solum summum_, for _summum solum_. Some of these peculiarities (e.g.
the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.-- the _Vossiani_
i. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these
codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in
which the _Nostradamensis_ heads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may
note also the readings _viderit bona et invenit_ (2 §20), which _Ioan._
shares with _Voss._ iii.: _potius libertas ista_ (3 §24) _Ioan._ and
_Voss._ i.; _ubertate_-- for _libertate_-- (5 §15) _Ioan. Voss._ i. and
iii.

To the same family belongs the _Codex Salmantinus_, a 12th or 13th
century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca.
M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the
Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the
_Bernensis_. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from the
_Nostradamensis_ (most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some
thirty-seven places in which, while differing from the _Nostradamensis_,
it agrees with the _Bernensis_ and the _Bambergensis_. This MS. also
gives _ubertate_ in 5 §15: it agrees in showing the important reading
_alte refossa_ in 3 §2: and resembles the _Ioannensis_ in certain minor
omissions, e.g. _certa_ before _necessitate_ in 5 §15: _idem_ before
_laborandum_ in 7 §4: _et_ before _consuetudo_ in 7 §8: cp. _subiunctura
sunt_ for _subiuncturus est_ 7 §9. For other coincidences see the
Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance
for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the _Codex
Salmantinus_) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are
the _Codex Pralensis_ (No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque
nationale), of the 12th century, and the _Codex Puteanus_ (No. 7719) of
the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the
Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from the _Institutio_
amounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of
which §76 (_de figuris verborum_) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (_de
imitatione_) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (_quomodo dictandum sit_) of x.
3, 1-32; and §79 (_de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum_) of
x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it
is an undoubted transcript of the _Beccensis_, now lost. The _Beccensis_
is supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to
the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at
least equal rank with the _Bernensis_. That it was an independent copy
of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the
_Pratensis_, but also by the fact that both the _Pratensis_ and the
_Puteanus_ (which is also a transcript of the _Beccensis_) show a
_lacuna_ after the word _mutatis_ in x. 3, 32. This _lacuna_ must have
existed in the _Beccensis_, though there is no trace of it elsewhere.
Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the words _correctum fuisse
tabellis_ in his copy (the _Pratensis_): the text runs _codicibus esse
sublatum_.

The general character of the readings of the _Pratensis_ may be gathered
from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume.
Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,-- and it will be
seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm
(notably S) probably arose either from the _Pratensis_ or from its
prototype, the _Beccensis_. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S) _rogantis
Achillen Priami precibus_, while most codd. have _Priami_ before
_rogantis_: ib. §53 _eloquentie_ (so Put. S 7231, 7696) for _eloquendi_:
ib. _superatum_ (so Put.) for _superari_: §55 _aequalem credidit parem_
(as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67 _idque ego_ (as Put. S) for _idque
ego sane_: §68 _qui fuerunt_ and also _vero_, omitted (as in Put. S): so
also _tenebras_ §72, _valuerunt_ §84 (as 7231, 7696), and _veterum_ §97:
at §95 Prat, gives et _eruditissimos_ for _et doctissimos_, and hence
the omission of _erudit._ in S. On the whole, the study of the text of
the _Pratensis_ seems to give additional confidence in the readings
of G: for example §98 _imperare_ (as Put.): §101 _cesserit_ (Put. 7231,
7696): ib. _nec indignetur_. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the
Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the
contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was
originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 _quem superius institui_ for _quem
institueram in libra secundo_ is an indication of the fact that Étienne
de Rouen was making a compendium of the _Institutio_, and not
transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the
significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to the
_Pratensis_, among which may be noted 1 §48 _putat_ for _creditum est_
(where Put. has _certissimum_): §59 _ad exemplum maxime permanebit_ (_ad
exitum_ Put. and S): §78 _propinquior_ for _propior_: §80 _mediocri_ for
_medio_: §81 _assurgit_ for _surgit_: §109 _in utroque_ for _in quoque_.
Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with the _Puteanus_ (and which were
therefore probably in the _Beccensis_) are §46 _in magnis_ for _in
magnis rebus_: §49 _innuit_ for _nuntiat_: §50 _excessit_ for _excedit_:
§54 _ne virtus_ for _ne utrius_ (_neutrius_): §57 _ignoro ergo_ (S) for
_ignoro igitur_: §63 _plurimumque oratio_: §68 _in affectibus communibus
mirus_: §79 _discernendi_ for _dicendi_: §107 _nominis latini_ for
_latini sermonis_. At 1 §72 Prat. has _qui ut a pravis sui temporis
Menandro_ (Put. _ut pravis_), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671
_qui quamvis sui temp_. _Men._ There are frequent inversions, e.g.
_dicendi genere_ §52 (Put.): _Attici sermonis_ (Put.) §65: _plus Attio_
(Put.) §97: _cuicumque eorum Ciceronem_ (as Put. 7231, 7696) §105: _sit
nobis_ §112: _est autem_ (as Ioan.) §115: _forum illustrator_ (as Ioan.)
§122: _creditus sum_ §125: _dignis lectione_ 2 §1: _possumus sperare_
§9: _nemo vero eum_ §10: _aliquo tamen in loco aliquid_ §24: _scientia
movendi_ §27: _ipso opere_ 3 §8: _se res facilius_ §9: _desperatio
etiam_ §14: _vox exaudiri_ §25: _praecipue in hoc_ §26: _possunt semper_
§28[74].

    [Footnote 74: The _Pratensis_ is the oldest authority for the
    reading _tam laesae hercule_ at i. 2, 4: the _Puteanus_ and
    _Ioannensis_ agree. Again all three omit the words _de litteris_ at
    i. 4, 6, and show _praecoquum_ for _praecox_ at i. 3, 3 (so Voss.
    iii. and 7760), and _haec igitur ex verbis_ at i. 5, 2 (so Voss.
    iii.).]

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the _Codex
Puteanus_ is in general agreement with the _Pratensis_, each being an
independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS.
will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book
collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in
agreement than the _Pratensis_ with the later family, of which Halm took
S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61 _spiritu_: ib. _merito_ omitted:
§72 _possunt decernere_ (for _possis decerpere_-- _possis decernere_
Prat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the _Pratensis_,
the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1
§§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of the _Institutio_ must
have formed part of the mutilated original from which the _Beccensis_
was copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1
§§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has
been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of
the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts
from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged
to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides
the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus, _libro Xº Inst.
Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi_. M. Fierville states
(Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1
§§46-68) in the _Pratensis_, _Puteanus_, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight
occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all
four. He adds that the _Vossiani_ i. and iii. resemble the two former
more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the
usual collocation at §50 _illis Priami rogantis Achillen_: at §59 the
former has _ad exim_, the latter _ad exi_: at §61 both give _eum nemini
credit_, omitting _merito_ (as Put. and S): at §68 _namque is et
sermone_ (as Prat.: _namque sermone_ Put.): ib. _in dicendo ac
respondendo_ (Prat. Put. _in dicendo et in resp._): §72 (apparently) _ut
pravis sui temporis iudiciis_: §82 _finxisse sermonem_ (as Prat. Put.
and most codd.): §83 _ac varietate_: §88 _laudandus partibus_
(_laudandis part._ Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91 _visum_ (_visum
est_ Prat. Put.): §98 _senes non parum tragicum_ (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662,
11671): §107 _Latini nominis_: §121 _leve_ (Prat. N). In §98 _Thyestes_
is omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name
was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two
inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696: _dedit exemplum et
ortum_ 1 §46: _proximus aemulari_ §62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS.
which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes
the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_ A, _Ambrosianus_ ii., _Pithoeanus_
(these two are direct copies of the _Bernensis_), _Salmantinus_, three
Paris codices (7720, 7722 and _Didot_), and probably the _Ioannensis_.
In the second he ranks the _Nostradamensis_, _Vossiani_ i. and iii., and
a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the _Beccensis_, _Pratensis_, and
_Puteanus_: in the fourth a _codex Vaticanus_, referred to by Spalding:
and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he
rightly considers the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_, _Nostradamensis_,
_Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_ to be of greatest importance for the
constitution of the text.


At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now
be placed the _Codex Harleianus_ (2664), in the library of the British
Museum[75]. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser in
_Hermathena_ (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to
add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the
relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be
placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the
margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to
supply the great _lacunae_ in some MS. of the first or incomplete class;
one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed
facsimile, _a_ being used at the beginning and _b_ (as here x. 1, 107)
at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188
folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the
beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first
part of the _Bambergensis_ is larger than G, which the _Harleianus_ (H)
closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the
writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later.
There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch.
1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a
blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in
the text.

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

The result of my investigations has been to identify this important
manuscript with the _Codex Dusseldorpianus_, which we know disappeared
from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface to
his edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who
had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod
sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom
from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long
unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone:
‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios
rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the
Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of
Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with
several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James
Zamboni, Resident _Chargé d’Affaires_ in England for the Elector of
Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford;
and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian
manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the Court
library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with whom
Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.

‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written
elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the
provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair
begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much
dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something
of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s
prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when
pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux
livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724,
when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices,
assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they
would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for
the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez,
Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three
weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to
Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great Vitruvius--
the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly with those in
Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is writing to
Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to make a “très
jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add. D, 66).’

What the history of the _Harleianus_ may have been before it came to
Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl
on the first page: _Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae_. This Mr. Purser
has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The _Codex
Florentinus_ has an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop
Werinharius (the first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of
St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the
library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae
suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis
characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris
ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a
less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly
have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither the
_Florentinus_ nor the _Turicensis_ can be considered identical with the
manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio
discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered
that manuscript in the _Harleianus_, if we can conceive of its having
migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.

  [Transcriber’s Note:
  The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet
  Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location
  was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in
  the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.]

Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238 sqq.), Mr.
A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some very interesting
information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems that Zamboni was
able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS. which he was selling
to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by comparing the Zamboni
correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the posthumous catalogue of
Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered that Büchels was
offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that great scholar,
which in this way ultimately found a home in the library of the British
Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann Wilhelm bought
both his books and his manuscripts. The former he presented to the
library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he retained in his
own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian codex of
Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not to
Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once
referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he
said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd.
p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his ‘Verisimilia,’
iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from the preface to
Book vi, all of which appear in the _Harleianus_ as we have it now. And
as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the library of Cologne
Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad Fam. (Harl. 2682),
Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the same time. He
evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they passed, with
many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to London.

It was only after the _Bambergensis_ arrived in the British Museum
(where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in
courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to
form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by the _Harleianus_ in
regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the experts, that the latter
MS. was distinctly of older date than the former: it is written in a
neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds alone there might have been
room for doubt. But a fuller examination convinced me that the
_Harleianus_ was copied directly from the _Bambergensis_, possibly at
the very time when the latter was being completed by the addition of the
parts known as _Bambergensis_ G, and of some at least of the readings
now generally designated #b#. These latter, indeed, the _Harleianus_
slavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in the original
_Bambergensis_: probably the copyist of the _Harleianus_ was aware of
the importance attached to the codex (uncial?) from which the #b#
readings were taken. In view, however, of the defective state in which
the _Bambergensis_ has come down to us, as regards the opening part, and
considering also the mutilation of the _Ambrosianus_, we may still claim
for the MS. in the British Museum the distinction of being the oldest
complete manuscript of Quintilian in existence.

The proof that the _Harleianus_ stands at the head of the great family
of the _mixed_ manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly
by the _Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, _Almeloveenianus_, and
_Guelferbytanus_) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to
both parts of the _Bambergensis_ on the one hand, and to those later
MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony
to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the
_Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
München_, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of the
_Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ on the _Bambergensis_ by pointing
out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in the text of
both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently
omitted by the copyist of the _Bambergensis_ from their proper context,
were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which
the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52: _circa crimen
Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te]
nihil rectius factum esse dico_. When the copyist of the _Bambergensis_
noticed his mistake, he completed _Drepanitani_ in the text, and wrote
in the words _gaudeo etiam ... abs te_ at the foot of the page, with a
pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In
the _Bambergensis_ the page ends with the words (§54) _an huius ille
legis quam_, and the next page continues _C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam
gloriatur_. Noticing that in both the _Florentinus_ and the _Turicensis_
the marginal addition (_gaudeo etiam ... abs te_) is inserted not after
_legis quam_ but after _Clodius_, Halm drew the inference that these
codices were copied from the _Bambergensis_ not directly, but through
some intervening manuscript. The _Harleianus_ is this manuscript. In it
the words referred to do come in between _legis quam_ and
(_Cloe_)_lius_: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second
hand in the _Bambergensis_, in which the letters C l o e are
subpunctuated, that the _Harleianus_ actually shows _et abs te lius a se
inventa_[76], exactly as the writer of #b# wished the _Bambergensis_ to
stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the _Harleianus_ did not
know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If
I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above the
_Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ (and all other MSS. of this family),
it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that
has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two
obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text stands _utinamque non peiora
vincant. Verum schemata_, &c. In the _Bambergensis_, _utrum nam_ is
supplied by #b# above the line, and in the margin _que peiora vincant
verum_, the words affected by the change being subpunctuated in the
text. The copyist of the _Harleianus_ takes the _utrum nam_ and leaves
the rest, showing _utrum nam schemata_: this appears as _utrim nam
schemata_ in the _Turicensis_, and as _utinam schemata_ in the
_Florentinus_ and _Almeloveenianus_. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in the
_Bambergensis_ (G) _quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque
voces aut] eadem aut diversa_, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are
the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently
omitted by the copyist of the _Harleianus_, and as a consequence we have
_supplici_ in _Turic._ and _Flor._, _supplitia_ in _Guelf._, &c. Again
at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the
_Harleianus_, which caused him to write _Neque vero tantas eum breve
saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae_, &c., has
given rise to the greatest confusion in _Turic._, _Flor._, _Alm._,
_Bodleianus_, _Burn._ 243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand
in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the words _qui foro_
between _breve saltem_ and _tempus_: at this point the copyist of H must
have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in
Bg, where the words _qui foro_ hold a conspicuous position. _Flor._ and
_Tur._ repeat the mistake, except that the latter gives _eum brevem_ for
_eum breve_. Again at the end of Book ix, _Bambergensis_ G gives _ut
numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse
videantur_: this reading is identical with that of the _Harleianus_,
except that the latter for _arcessiti_ gives _arcessisti_, a deviation
promptly reproduced by the _Florentinus_, while the _Turicensis_ shows
_accersisti_. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the
following: at iv. 2, 128 the _Bambergensis_ gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις)
ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh and eighth
letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes this
ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει-- Spalding).

    [Footnote 76: The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand
    by the _Bambergensis_ is a phenomenon which may, I think, be
    explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known as
    #b# are taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and probably
    abounded in contractions: _lius_ may have seemed to the copyist the
    nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he
    subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in the _Bambergensis_ is a very
    intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar
    mistake on the part of the writer of b occurs at x. 2, 7, where the
    Bambergensis now shows _id consequi q̣ụọd imiteris_, the writer of b
    having subpunctuated _quo_ because he did not understand the
    contraction for _quod_ which he had in the text before him. The
    copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the
    remarkable reading _id consequi dimiteris_, which in the Bodleianus
    and other MSS. becomes _de metris_ (see Crit. Note ad loc.). In
    fact, it seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in
    the text of Quintilian is due to the fact that #b# very often did
    not understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as
    followed his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp. _totas at
    cures_ (for _vires_ #b#) _suas_ in the second last line of the
    Facsimile (x. 1, 109.)]

As the _Bambergensis_ (Bg), in its present state, only commences at i.
1. 6. (_nec de patribus tantum_), the readings of the _Harleianus_ (H)
are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance.
In the pr. §1 we have _pertinerent_ H, _pertinent_ T: §2 _diversas_ H,
_divisas_ T: §5 _fieri oratorem non posse_ HF, _fieri non posse
oratorem_ T (as A): §6 _amore_ H, _studio_ F: _iτ ingenii_ H, _iter
ingenii_ T, _ingenii_ F: §13 _officio quoque_ H, _quoque officio_ F: §19
_summa_ H (also Bg), _summam_ T: §25 _demonstraturi_ HF, _demonstrari_
T: §27 _adiumenta_ H (a correction by same hand on _adiuvante_): so
Bg F: _adiuvante_ T. In chap. 1 §3 _sed plus_ HT: _sed et plus_  F: _hoc
quippe viderit_ H Bg F: _hoc quippe_ (om. _viderit_) T.

These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book,
where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there
decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings of
Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact
agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance
of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here
are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 _nihil est peius_ Bg H T,
_nihil enim est peius_ F: ib. §11 _defuerit_ Bg H T, _defuerint_ F: ib.
§12 _perbibet_ Bg H F, _perhibet_ T: ib. §16 _formandam_ Bg H,
_formandum_ F T: 2 §18 _in media rei p. vivendum_ Bg (b) H, _in med. rei
praevivendum_ T, _reip. videndum_ F: ib. §24 _depellendam_ Bg H,
_repellendam_ T: ib. §31 _concipiat quis mente_ Bg H, _quis mente
concipiat_ F: 4 §27 _tereuntur_ Bg H T, _intereuntur_ F: 6 §9 _dicet_
Bg, _dicit_ H F, _dicitur_ T: ib. §14 _dici ceris_ Bg (dici ceris),[A]
_diceres_ H, _dici_ F T: ib. §30 _aliaque quae consuetudini serviunt_ Bg
H,-- in margin of H _aliquando consuetudini servit_ (b): F and T adopt
the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 _haec
ei et cura_ H F, _haec et cura ei_ T: 11 §4 _pinguitudine_ Bg H,
_pinguedine_ F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following:
ii. 5, 13 _dicentur_ Bg H, _docentur_ T: 5 §26 _hanc_ Bg H, om. T: 15 §8
_testatum est_ Bg H, _testatum_ T. In ix. 363 G has _parem_ (for
_marem_ A): H gives _patrem_ and F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8 _hoc est_
G H, _id est_ F: ib. §16 _quoque_ G H, om. T: ib. §32 _nesciat_ G H,
_dubitet_ F: _dignatur_ G H, _digne dicatur_ F: viii. pr. §3 _dicendi_ G
H, _discendi_ T: ix. 4, 119 _ignorabo_ G, _ignoraba_ H, _ignorabam_ T:
ib. §129 _et hac fluit_ G H, _et hac et hac fluit_ T: xii. 11, 8
_scierit_ G, _scieret_ H, _sciret_ T: ib. 2 §18 _autem_ Bg H, om. T: x.
1, §4 _numuro quae_ G H, _num muro quae_ T, _numeroque_ F: ib. §50 _et
philogus_ G, _et philochus_ H T, _et epiloghus_ F: ib. §73 _porem_ G H,
_priorem_ F T: ib. §75 _vel hoc est_ G H, _hoc est vel_ T: x. 2, 7
_posteriis_ (for _historiis_) H, _posteris_ F (_posterius_ ed. Camp.):
x. 2, 10 _discernamus_ Bg, _discernantur_ b, _disnantur_ H T,
_desinantur_ F. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are
the following: _Empedoclena_ i. 4, 4: _vespueruginem_ i. 7, 12:
_tereuntur_ i. 4, 27: _flex his_ x. 1, 2: _gravissimus_ x. 1, 97: _ipsae
illae quae extorque eum credas_ x. 1, 110, where both also give _trans
usum_ for _transversum_, and _non repe_ for non rapi: _morare refinxit
finxit recipit_ x. 3, 6: _nam quod cum isocratis_ x. 4, 4. In other
instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading
of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T
mistakes for _#quo# enim #dandum#_: also _extemporal facilitas_ which
appears in T as _extempora vel facilitas_: x. 1, 79 _ven iudicis_ H (in
mistake for _se non iud._), which is made by T into _venit iudicis_.
Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the
reading _tantum_, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has
evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more like
_tantum_ than _tacitum_ (the reading of G). Again, in every place where
Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to
correspond[77].

    [A (Transcriber’s Note):
    The parentheses around (dici ceris) are in the original text. The
    letters “re” are printed above “ci” in smaller type, and a smaller
    “r” above the “r”.]

    [Footnote 77: The only places in the Tenth Book which form any
    obstacle to the theory that H was copied directly from the
    Bambergensis are the following: x. 3, 33, where the remarkable gloss
    _vindemoni_ occurs (repeated in F but not in T): see Crit. Notes ad
    loc. for an attempted explanation: x. 2, 1 _ex his #summa#_ H, a
    mistake evidently recognised by the copyist himself: and x. 1, 27
    _blandita tum_ H (so L C), _libertate_ G.]

With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt
that the _Harleianus_ must now take rank above both the manuscripts
which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a
place in the criticism of Quintilian, the _Codex Florentinus_ and the
_Codex Turicenis_. The former is an eleventh century MS., now in the
Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this inscription:
_Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae_: on the last _Liber Petri
de Medicis, Cos. fil._: and below _Liber sanctae Mariae ecclesiae
Argñ._ (= Argentoratensis) _in dormitorio_. There were two bishops of
Strasburg bearing the name of Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the
second 1065-1079. M. Fierville (Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first
Werner (of Altemburg or Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral
at Strasburg in 1015, and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable
books; and we also know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at
Frankfort to promote the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here
then we have the elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner
was a patron of letters; and learning that by the addition of what is
now known as _Bambergensis_ G a complete text of Quintilian had been
secured, he had it copied. The _Codex Harleianus_ was in all probability
the first copy, and from it the _Codex Florentinus_ was reproduced. The
latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which (though hitherto it
seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose of its claim to be
considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he describes as ‘plenum situ’
and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo quodam et obscuro carcere,
fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales quidem rei damnati
retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from Strasburg to
St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is hard to believe
that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and unknown. After 1372
we know nothing certain of its history till it reappears in the library
of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part of the fifteenth century.
It is generally supposed that some time between 1372 and 1417 it must
have been transported from Strasburg to the monastery of St. Gall, and
that it passed from there to Florence after Poggio’s departure.
A similar theory may quite as legitimately be maintained in reference to
the _Harleianus_, which, as I have already indicated, may be the very
manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 1416[78].

    [Footnote 78: The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s
    manuscript was definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in the
    _Rheinisches Museum_, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid
    refers to a Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would
    probably settle the question, if it is what it professes to be, a
    transcript of Poggio’s manuscript. It bears the following
    inscription: _Scripsit Poggius Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae
    diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante. Reperimus vero eum in
    bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures litterarum studiosi
    perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo plurimum utilitalis
    eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea Quintilianum neque
    integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis haberemus. Hec
    verba ex originali Poggii sumpta._]

The _Codex Turicensis_ was long considered to be of older date than the
_Florentinus_, but recent investigations seem to have proved the
contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the eleventh century,
and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the beginning of the eighteenth
century it passed into the library at Zürich. Spalding believed it to be
the manuscript discovered by Poggio, and M. Fierville is of the same
opinion: Halm rejects this theory. The great point in favour of the
claim of the _Turicensis_ is that it is known to have come from
St. Gall, while we can only conjecture the history of the _Harleianus_.
But the _Turicensis_ cannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with
him into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and
others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what
Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he
has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including
the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of
Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree
of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition,
Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of the
librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was the
_Harleianus_ there is perhaps little need to wonder that nothing has
been known till now of its later fortunes[79].

    [Footnote 79: For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the
    Florentinus see Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der
    Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville,
    Introduction, p. xcii. sqq.]


The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also the
_Almeloveenianus_) to the codices which have just been described, may be
determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among such
MSS. is the _Codex Bodleianus_, which has received more attention from
editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to warrant. It repeats
word for word the remarkable error attributable to the _Harleianus_ at
x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in other places it embodies attempted
emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90 _nec ipsum senectus maturavit_: 2 §7 _de
metris_ for _dimiteris_ (see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to
Archbishop Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.

Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm, the
_Lassbergensis_ and the _Monacensis_. The former was formerly at
Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The reading _atque
interrogationibus atque interrogantibus_, which Halm gives from it alone
at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G and H; this seems quite enough to
identify its parentage. The _Monacensis_ was collated by Halm for his
critical edition in the parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone:
with no conspicuous results,-- ‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut
docere possemus, ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter
corrupti sunt, emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).

Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the British
Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of this
edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its
class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the
copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of
the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove
that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it has
_posterius_ for _historiis_ (a mistake in H-- see p. lxix): and in the
same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex) _de metris_ for
_dimiteris_. This is also the reading of the second hand in the
_Turicensis_. Such differences as exist between it and H F T may be
ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g. _vertere latus_ x. 3, 21.
Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at the end of the volume.

The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to
him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and
fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them
among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they
incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of
scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript.
A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the point
of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived, through
Poggio’s manuscript, from the _Bambergensis_, and how far from such
complete manuscripts as the _Ambrosianus_ and the original of
_Bambergensis_ G? Some of them (as well as other fifteenth century MSS.,
with a description of which I desire to supplement M. Fierville’s
Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of at least as great importance as those
referred to above as having been collated in part by Halm.

The _Argentoratensis_ (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it
was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 1698[80]. This manuscript was
destroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there
are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (_Codex Guelferbytanus_), collated for the
first time by Spalding: the _Codex Gothanus_, used by Gesner for his
edition of 1738: the _Codex Vallensis_ (Parisinus 7723), which purports
to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla (9 December, 1444), whose
corrections and marginal notes it contains[81]. The list of these and
several others, all carefully described by M. Fierville, may now be
extended by a short reference to various MSS. in this country, hitherto
uncollated. The results of my examination of them (as well as of the
_Bodleianus_, and _Burneianus_ 243, referred to above) appear in the
Critical Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may
at least be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and
Meister have successively credited the early printed editions,-- e.g.
the Cologne edition of 1527,-- have now been attributed to earlier
sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS. of
France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some
importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a
description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.

    [Footnote 80: Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the
    following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right
    reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement-- §19
    _digerantur_ (G H _dirigantur_, L _dirigerantur_): §27 _blandicia_,
    so Burn. 243 (G _libertate_, H L _blandita tum_): §55 _sed_ (G H
    _et_, om. L): §65 _tamen quem_ (G H _tamen quae_: M _tamquam_): §66
    _correctas_ (G H _rectas_, M _correptas_): §67 _uter_ (G H M T
    _uterque_): §68 _reprehendunt_ (G H M _reprehendit,-- et_ H ?): §69
    _testatur_ (as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.,
    Dorv.), G M _praestatur_ (as Burn. 243, Bodl.): §76 _in eo tam_
    (G _inectam_, M _in hoc tam_).]

    [Footnote 81: See note on the following page.]

In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’s
_Institutio_: of the most important of these, the _Harleianus_ (H),
I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s
collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS.
two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each
other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of
relationship to such codices as the _Argentoratensis_ and the
_Guelferbytanus_. The first of these two MSS. (_Codex Harleianus_ 2662)
has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus
‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,--
only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an
advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T,
that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The
same may be said of the _Codex Harleianus_ 11,671, a beautiful little
quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see
Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors
will suffice to connect both these MSS. with the _Guelferbytanus_: x. 3,
12 _a patrono suo_ for _a patruo suo_: 1 §97 _verum_ for _veterum_: 1
§55 _equalem credidit parem_ (as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i. and
iii.): 1 §72 _quamvis sui temporis Menandro_ for _ut pravis sui temporis
iudiciis Menandro_: 7 §6 _adducet ducetur_. Another very interesting MS.
in the British Museum is _Harleianus_ 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it
contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced
at the time, and might be classed along with the _Vallensis_ were it not
that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most
codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘_hic deficit antiquus codex_,’ makes it
probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side[82]. This
MS. agrees with the _Vallensis_ and _Gothanus_ in reading _cognitioni_
for _cogitationi_ x. 1, 1: _ubertate_ for _ubertas_ 1 §109: _et vis
summa_ §117: _eruendas_ for _erudiendas_ 2 §6: _nobis efficiendum_ ib.
§14: _decretoriis_ 5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829)
present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them
in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was
written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with the
_Lassbergensis_. The latter finishes with the words ἡ βίβλος τοῦ
σωζομένου and the motto ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of the _Burneianus_ 244
are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general
agreement with L, and also with the _Codex Carcassonensis_, a fifteenth
century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.

    [Footnote 82: Since the above was written the readings of the
    _Vallensis_ have been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher
    (_Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_, Easter, 1891).
    With the exception of _Harl._ 4995, no other fifteenth century codex
    furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate
    whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship
    since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that the _Vallensis_ and
    _Harl._ 4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s
    belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter
    was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher
    desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in the
    _Vallensis_. Those not adopted in _Harl._ 4995 were made, in all
    probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23 _utile erit_
    (_Vall._²) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also has
    _audatiora_ 5 §4: _nobis ac_ and _uno genere_ ib. §7: _virtutum_ ib.
    §17: _recidere_ ib. §22: _diligenter effecta_, (without _una enim_)
    ib. §23: _iniicere_ 7 §29. In all these places there are corrections
    by a later hand in the _Vallensis_. But in the following passages,
    among others, the copyist of _Harl._ 4995 adopts corrections which
    had already been made in the _Vallensis_: 1 §9 _quae cultiore in
    parte_: §19 _iteratione_: §31 _molli_: §38 _exequar_: §107 _qui duo
    plurimum affectus valent_: §117 _et vis summa_: §125 _tum_: 2 §15
    _dicunt_: §17 _quam libet_: 3 §2 _et fundit_: §6 _scriptorum_: §17
    _contextis quae fudit levitas_: §21 _simul vertere latus_: §31
    _crebra relatione_: 5 §12 _de reo_: §25 _utilior_. A comparison of
    the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer of
    _Harl._ 4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in the
    _Vallensis_. Was he J. Badius?]

A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of
which (the _Codex Balliolensis_) is unclassed by Fierville, while the
other (the _D’Orville_ MS.) has never been examined at all. The former
was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at _bis vitiosa
sunt_ i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond
with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated
condition. In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first
chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words
_quam quod somno supererit_: it stops abruptly at _nostrorumque
Hort(ensium)_ x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662.
I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has _interrogatione_, a reading which
Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529:
ib. §69 it has _e rep_ with A and 7727, with the latter of which it is
in close correspondence (e.g. _forte_ at i. 5, 15, all other codices
_forsan_ or _forsitan_).

There remains the _D’Orville_ MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (_Codex
Dorvilianus_),-- a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except
for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of the _Institutio_
(1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it
shows a remarkable resemblance to the _Ambrosianus_ (e.g. _Getae_ 1 pr.
§6: _et quantum_ ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has _summam inde eloquentiae_
(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): _destinabamus al.
festinabimus_ ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A).
Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it
gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received
into the text: _neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis_:
in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has _quos eligamus ad imitandum_, a
reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with
the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the
fifteenth century,-- earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than the _Codex
Bodleianus_. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must
have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as
if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have
_quaestio ex his incidat_ except A, which gives _ex his incidat
quaestio_: the reading in the _Dorvilianus_ is _quaestio incidat ex
his_: again at i. 2, 6 _ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus_, many
codices give _mores_ for _os_: Dorv. shows _quam vel mores vel os_.


List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.

Besides the complete editions of SPALDING, ZUMPT, BONNELL, HALM (1868-9)
MEISTER (1886-87), use has been made of the following editions of
Book x.:--

  M. STEPHANUS RICCIUS.                  Venice, 1570.
  C. H. FROTSCHER.                      Leipzig, 1826.
  M. C. G. HERZOG.              2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.
  G. A. HERBST.                           Halle, 1834.
  JOHN E. B. MAYOR (incomplete).      Cambridge, 1872.
  BONNELL-MEISTER.                       Berlin, 1882.
  G. T. A. KRÜGER.              2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.
    „     „   (Gustav Krüger)   3rd ed.    „     1888.
  FR. ZAMBALDI.                         Firenze, 1883.
  S. DOSSON.                              Paris, 1884.
  D. BASSI.                              Torino, 1884.
  J. A. HILD.                             Paris, 1885.
  F. MEISTER (text only).    Leipzig and Prague, 1887.
  FRIEZE (Books x. and xii.)           New York, 1889.

Among the Translations, reference has been made to LINDNER’S
(_Philologische Klassiker_, Wien, 1881), ALBERTI’S (Leipzig, 1858), and
HERZOG’S (Leipzig, 1829); also to GUTHRIE’S (London, 1805), and WATSON’S
(in BOHN’S series).


The following have been used as books of reference:--

  WILKINS: Cicero, _De Oratore_, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.) Oxford,
    1888 and 1890.
  SANDYS: Cicero, _Orator_.    Cambridge, 1889.
  KELLOGG: Cicero, _Brutus_.    Boston, 1889.
  WOLFF: Tacitus, _Dialogus de Oratoribus_.    Gotha, 1890.
  ANDRESEN:  „               „  Leipzig, 1879.
  REISKE: Dionysius Halicarnassensis.    Vols. v-vi. Leipzig, 1775-7.
  USENER: Dionysius Halicarnassensis _Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae,
    Epistulaeque Criticae Duae_.    Bonn, 1889.
  AMMON: _De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus:
    Dissertatio Inauguralis_.    Munich, 1889.
  VOLKMANN: _Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer_.    2nd ed. Leipzig,
    1885.
  CAUSERET: _Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique
    Littéraire dans Cicéron_.    Paris, 1886.
  and FIERVILLE: _Quintilian_, Book i.    Paris, 1890.

The references to Nägelsbach’s _Lateinische Stylistik_ are to the eighth
edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).


The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of
Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent
years. The following articles and tractates have been consulted:--

  CLAUSSEN: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.    Leipzig, 1883.
  NETTLESHIP: _Journal of Philology_, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq.
  BECHER: _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.
    „     _Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit.
          Or._ (_Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu
          Ilfeld_).    Nordhausen, 1879.
    „     _Philologus XLV_.
    „     _Philologische Rundschau_, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.
    „     _Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich_.
              Ostern, 1891.
  KIDERLIN: _Blätter für das bayer_. _Gymn.-Wesen_, 1887, p. 454;
          1188, pp. 83-91.
     „    _Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik_, vol. 135,
          pp. 829-832.
     „    _Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen_, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.
     „    _Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1888, p. 829 sqq.
     „    _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin_, xiv. (1888),
          p. 62 sqq.
     „    _Hermes_, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.
     „    _Rheinisches Museum_, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.

  HIRT: _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin_, viii. (1882),
          p. 67 sqq.; ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq.; xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq.

    „   _Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian_.
            Berlin, 1890.
  MEISTER: _Philologus_, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876),
            p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.:
            xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.
  SCHÖLL: _Rheinisches Museum_, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv.
            (1880), p. 639.
  WÖLFFLIN: _Rheinisches Museum_, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq.
     „      _Hermes_, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.
  ANDRESEN: _Rheinisches Museum_, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.
  EUSSNER: _Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen_, 1881, p. 391 sqq.
  FLECKEISEN’S _Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1885, p. 615 sqq. _Literar.
            Centralblatt_, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.
  GERTZ: ‘_Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa_’
            (1876), p. 92 sqq.
  H. J. MÜLLER: _Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen_, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq.
  IWAN MÜLLER: _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.;
            vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.
  WROBEL: _Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien_, xxvii. (1876),
            p. 353 sqq.
  TÖRNEBLADH: _De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones_.
                Holmiae, 1861.
  REUTER: _De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae
            eloquentiae_.    Vratislaviae, 1887.
  GÜNTHER: _De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu_.
                Halis Saxonum, 1881.
  MORAWSKI: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.    Posnaniae, 1874.
  MARTY: _De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis
            potissimum comparatis_.    Glaronae, 1885.
  PETERS, Dr. HEINRICH: _Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in
            Quintilians Institutio Oratoria_.    Cassel, 1889.


Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of
Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).

    _Halm._
      _Meister._
        _This Edition._

  CHAP. I
  §1
    cogitationi
      cognitioni
        cognitioni.
  §2
    quae quoque sint modo
      quo quaeque sint modo
        quae quoque sint modo.
    nisi tamquam
      nisi tamquam
        nisi tamen.
  §3
    ante omnia est
      ante omnia necesse est
        ante omnia est.
    imitatio est
      imitatio est
        imitati.
  §4
    procedente opere iam minima
      procedente iam opere etiam minima
        procedente iam opere minima.
  §5
    Num ergo
      Non ergo
        Non ergo.
  §7
    [et] ... scio solitos
      et ... solitos scio
        et ... solitos scio.
    aliud quod
      aliud quo
        aliud quo.
  §8
    consequimur
      consequemur
        consequemur.
  §11
    τροπικῶς [quare tamen]
      τροπικῶς quasi tamen
        as Meister.
  §16
    imagine [ambitu]
      [imagine] ambitu
        imagine et ambitu.
  §17
    commodata
      accommodata
        accommodata.
  §18
    placent ... laudantur ... placent
      placeant ... laudentur ... placent
        as Halm.
  §19
    contrarium
      e contrario
        e contrario.
    ut actionis impetus
      as Halm
        actionis impetu.
    retractemus
      retractemus
        tractemus.
  §23
    quin etiam si
      [quin] etiam si
        as Halm.
  §28
    genus * * ostentationi
      poeticam ostentationi
        as Meister.
  §31
    etenim ... solutum est
      est enim ... solutum
        as Meister.
  §33
    ideoque
      adde quod
        adde quod.
  §35
    acriter et
      acriter _Stoici_ et
        as Meister.
  §37
    qui sint _legendi_, quaeque
      qui sint _legendi_, et quae
        qui sint _legendi_, quae.
  §38
    quibuscum vivebat
      as Halm
        [quibuscum vivebat].
    Graecos omnis [et philosophos]
      Graecos omnes _persequamur_ [et philosophos]
        as Meister.
  §42
    ad phrasin
      ad faciendam etiam phrasin
        ad faciendam φράσιν.
     de singulis
      de singulis loquar
        de singulis loquar.
  §44
    tenuia et quae
      tenuia et quae
        tenuia atque quae.
    summatim, a qua
      summatim, quid et a qua
        as Meister.
    paucos enim (sunt autem em.)
      paucos (sunt enim em.)
        paucos enim, qui sunt em.
  §45
    his simillimi
      his similes
        his simillimi.
  §46
    _omnium_ amnium fontiumque
      amnium fontiumque
        omnium _fluminum_ fontiumque.
  §48
    non _in_ utriusque
      non utriusque
        non utriusque.
    creditur
      creditum est
        creditum est.
  §53
    aliud _parem_
      aliud secundum
        aliud secundum.
  §54
    Aristophanes neminem
      Arist. poetarum iudices neminem
        as Meister.
  §59
    dum adsequamur
      dum adsequamur
        dum adsequimur.
  §61
    spiritus magnificentia
      spiritus magnificentia
        spiritu magnificentia.
  §63
    magnificus et dicendi vi
      magnificus et diligens
        magnificus et diligens.
  §68
    quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt
      quod ipsum reprehendunt
        as Meister.
  §69
    praecipuus est. Admiratus
      praecipuus. eum admiratus
        praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.
  §70
    illa mala iudicia
      as Halm
        illa iudicia.
  §72
    pravis
      pravis
        prave.
  §79
    honesti studiosus, in compositione
      honesti studiosus in compositione
        as Halm.
  §80
    is primus
      is primum
        is primum.
  §81
    orationem quam
      orationem quam
        orationem et quam.
    sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus
      sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus
        sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.
  §83
    eloquendi vi ac suavitate
      eloquendi suavitate
        eloquendi suavitate.
  §85
    haud dubie ei proximus
      as Halm
        haud dubie proximus.
  §87
    phrasin
      phrasin
        φράσιν.
  §88
    propiores
      propriores (?)
        propiores.
  §89
    tamen [ut est dictum]
      tamen ut est dictum
        as Meister.
  §90
    sed ut dicam
      et ut dicam
        et ut dicam.
  §91
    promptius
      propius
        propius.
  §92
    feres
      feras
        feres.
  §93
    elegia
      elegia
        elegea.
  §94
    nisi labor
      non labor
        non labor.
    multum eo est tersior
      as Halm
        multum est tersior.
  §96
    opus * * quibusdam interpositus
      opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus
        as Meister.
  §97
    grandissimi
      clarissimi
        clarissimi.
  §100
    linguae
      linguae
        linguae _suae_.
  §101
    commodavit
      commodavit
        commendavit.
    T. Livium
      T. Livium
        Titum Livium.
  §102
    ideoque illam immortalem
      ideoque immortalem
        ideoque immortalem.
    clari vir ingenii
      clari vir ingenii
        clarus vi ingenii.
  §103
    praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam
    suis ipse viribus minor
      praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam
      suis ipse viribus minor
        praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam
        suis ipse viribus minor.
  §104
    et ornat
      et ornat
        et exornat.
  §106
    omnia denique
      omnia denique
        [omnia] denique.
    illic--hic
      illi--huic
        illi--huic.
  §107
    vicimus
      vincimus
        vincimus.
    in quibus nihil
      quibus nibil
        quibus nihil.
  §111
    nihil umquam pulchrius
      nihil pulchrius
        nihil pulchrius.
  §115
    si quid adiecturus fuit
      as Halm
        si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.
  §117
    et fervor, sed
      et sermo purus, sed
        et fervor, sed.
  §123
    scripserunt
      scripserunt
        scripserint.
  §126
    ab eo
      ab eo
        ab illo.
  §127
    ac saltem
      aut saltem
        ac saltem.
  §130
    si ille quaedam contempsisset
      si aliqua contempsisset
        si obliqua contempsisset.
    si parum * *
      si parum _sana_
        si parum _recta_.
  §131
    potest utcumque
      potest utrimque
        potest utrimque.

  CH. II.
  §6
    tradiderint
      tradiderint
        tradiderunt.
  §8
    nulla est ars
      nulla mansit ars
        nulla _man_sit ars.
  §13
    [et] cum
      cum et
        cum et.
    accommodata est
      accommodata sit
        accommodata sit.
  §15
    et a doctis inter ipsos etiam
      as Halm.
        et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.
    ut ita dixerim
      ut ita dixerim
        ut sic dixerim.
  §17
    Attici scilicet
      Atticis scilicet
        Attici sunt scilicet.
    obscuri
      obscuri sunt
        obscuri.
  §22
    cuique proposita
      as Halm
        cuique proposito.
  §28
    deerant
      deerunt
        deerunt.
    oportebat
      oporteat
        oporteat.

  CH. III.
  §2
    alte effossa
      alte refossa
        alte refossa.
    et fundit
      et fundit
        effundit
  §10
    [ut provideamus] et efferentis.
      ut provideamus et eff.
        ut provideamus, effer.
  §15
    plura celerius
      plura celerius
        plura et celerius.
  §20
    in legendo
      in intellegendo
        in intellegendo.
  §21
    femur et latus
      as Halm.
        frontem et latus.
  §22
    secretum quod dictando
      as Halm
        secretum in dictando.
  §25
    velut * rectos
      velut tectos
        velut tectos.
  §32
    adiciendo
      adicienti
        adiciendo.

  CH. IV.
  §3
    finem habeat
      finem habet
        finem habet.

  CH. V.
  §4
    praesumunt eandem
      praes. eandem
        praes. eadem.
  §17
    inanibus _se_ simulacris ... adsuefacere
      inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere
        as Meister.
  §18
    etiam M. Porcio
      etiam Porcio
        etiam M. Porcio.
  §21
    autem is idoneus
      autem idoneus.
        autem idoneus.

  CH. VI.
  §2
    inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur
      inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur
        as Meister.
  §5
    regredi
      regredi
        redire.
  §7
    retrorsus
      retrorsum
        retrorsus.
    si utcumque
      si utrimque
        si utrimque.

  CH. VII.
  §1
    instar portus
      intrare portum
        intrare portum.
  §2
    statimque, si non succurratur
      statimque, si non succurratur
        statimque si non succuratur.
  §5
    quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps
      as Halm
        quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.
  §6
    via dicet, ducetur
      via ducetur, dicet
        via dicet, ducetur.
  §9
    observatione simul
      observatione una
        observatione una.
  §13
    superfluere video: quodsi
      videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si
        superfluere video, cum eo quod si.
  §14
    ut Cicero dictitabant
      ut Cicero ait, dictitabant
        ut Cicero dictitabant.
  §17
    adeo praemium
      adeo pretium
        adeo pretium.
  §20
    tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut
      tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut
        tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.
    non capitur
      non capitur
        non labitur.
  §24
    quam omnino non
      quam non omnino
        quam non omnino.
  §26
    est et illa
      est et illa
        est alia.
  §26
    quam illa
      quam in illa
        quam illa.
  §29
    nescio an utrumque
      nescio an si utrumque
        as Meister.
    id efficere
      id efficere
        sic dicere.
    in his
      in his
        et in his.
  §32
    quod simus
      quod non simus
        quod non simus.



ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT.


CHAPTER I.

_How to acquire a command of Diction._

§§1-4. The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired
by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical
importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically
most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose
of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and
ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v).
That is the order of development-- not necessarily the order of
importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in the
first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric,
but with the best methods of applying theory to practice.

§§5-15. The necessary store of _things_ and _words_ can be obtained only
by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the
best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock
of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the
student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the
schools.

§§16-19. The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former
more ‘catching,’ the latter more independent.

§§20-26. The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow
and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of
speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also
acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches
relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the
same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a
masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we
cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err
on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to
continual fault-finding.

§§27-30. The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring
a greater elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a
pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical
aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever
strive for the mastery.

§§31-34. History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which
should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often
defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas
the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine
of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is
rather outside the scope of the present chapter.

§§35-36. Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics
and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must
bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that
of the law-court.

§§37-42. In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to
notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be
said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,--
at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some
branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to
recommend what is profitable for the formation of style.

§§43-46. Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word
must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and
critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are
prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation
and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those
who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other.
The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models:
it does not profess to be exhaustive.


§§46-84. GREEK LITERATURE.

§§46-72. Greek Poetry.

§§46-61. _Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry
proper._

The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible to
rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of
the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus,
Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac
poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Of _iambographi_
the typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief lyric poets are
Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and Simonides (§64).

§§65-72. _Dramatic poetry._

The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of
political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the
orator than any other class of poetry,-- always excepting Homer.

Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides:
of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was
imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might alone
suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other comic
dramatists.

§§73-75. Greek Historians.

The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of
Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and
others.

§§76-80. Greek Orators.

Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either
too much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less
muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important
causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river.
Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle:
in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last
Athenian worthy of the name of orator.

§§81-84. Greek Philosophers.

Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds
the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that
‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike
for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and
versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of
his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their
strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect.


§§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.

§§85-100. Roman Poetry.

§§85-92. _Epic Poets._

Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet
does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even
Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and
Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some
merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius
is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than
beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our
special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets
his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus
fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of
Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately
lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also
failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth
reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for
orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of
the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the
compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire,
are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is
entwined with the conquering bay.’

§§93-96. _Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry._

In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is,
in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more
uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own.
Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate
such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace.
Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince
of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive
will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote _saturae_ of the
earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has
made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate
form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our
great lyric poet,-- everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in
his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living
authors of greater merit.

§§97-100. _Dramatic Poetry._

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of
thought and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they
lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s
_Thyestes_ may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s _Medea_ shows what
he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius
Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy
is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and
Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps
our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek,
is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of _togatae_, but
his is not a pure art.

§§101-104. Roman Historians.

In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides,
Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and
transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and
appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion,
especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different
but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus
did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of
our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not
mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent
spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and
expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only
giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.

§§105-122. Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make
a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is
worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other:
in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more
diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other
often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a
greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was
perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the
genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar
‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to
him. He is however no mere imitator,-- ‘no cistern of rain-water, but a
living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his
audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a
partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is
natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his
name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high
appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far
behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a
century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force.
Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe
his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius
has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some
preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous
self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral,
weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist;
and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his
enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches.
Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and
wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer
and Africanus rank highest: the former might be classed with the orators
of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and
over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal
advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for
private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough
to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too
little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good
qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many
subjects of eulogy.

§§123-131. Roman Philosophers. Though we are not strong in philosophy,
yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is
greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has
written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will
be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight,
but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in
every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of
disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I
strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his
imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on
special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is
shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but
a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young,
but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may
find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had
nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.


CHAPTER II.

_Of Imitation._

§§1-3. While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be
acquired by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the
foregoing chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of
all the good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of
imitation in art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of
imitation has its dangers.

§§4-13. Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing
but imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of
training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We
ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation
alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does
not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much
in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to
natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate
the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the
fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be
an adaptation of sound to sense.

§§14-18. Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great
circumspection must be used,-- first in the choice of models, and,
secondly, in determining the good points we would seek to reproduce; for
even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference
between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is
represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation
becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and
insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and
point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above
Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison
with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian,
delighted if they can finish off a sentence with _Esse videatur_.

§§19-21. The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify
him to imitate. A bold rugged style, for example, is appropriate to the
form of genius which would make shipwreck by an excessive affectation of
refinement. It is of course within the province of the teacher to supply
the natural defects of his pupils; but it is a far harder matter to
mould and form one’s own nature. Even the teacher will not keep up a
prolonged struggle against obstacles of natural disposition.

§§21-26. In oratory we ought not to imitate the characteristic qualities
of poets and historians, and _vice versa_: each kind of composition has
its own appropriate laws. Let us imitate what is common to eloquence in
all its manifestations. We must adapt our style to the topic and
occasion: even different parts of one and the same speech call for
different treatment. And we should not blindly follow any one model
exclusively.

§§27-28. Imitation must not be confined to words only: we should study
also propriety, arrangement, exordium, narrative, argument, pathos, &c.
The perfect orator, whom our age may hope to see, will be he who shall
unite all the good qualities of his predecessors and reject all the bad.


CHAPTER III.

_How to Write._

§§1-4. _Introductory to the three chapters on Writing: chs. iii. and iv.
treating of the manner of writing_ (quomodo), _and ch. v. of the matter
and form of writing_ (quae maxime scribi oporteat §4). The pen is the
best teacher: write much and carefully. Writing is a fundamental part of
the orator’s training.

§§5-18. As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate
and slow, with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and
the arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to
careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of
inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well,
and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is
advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to
overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of
carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also
necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly
in any given circumstances. The evil results of hasty composition can
seldom be undone even by much verbal correction. Your work should be
done with so much care from the first that it may need only to be filed
and chiselled, not recast.

§§19-27. Condemnation of the fashionable practice of dictating to an
amanuensis. He who writes for himself, no matter how rapidly, takes time
to think; but your scribe hurries you on, while shame forbids you to
pause. Such compositions reflect neither a writer’s care nor a speaker’s
animation: your one idea is to ‘keep going.’ Besides, an awkward scribe
will check the current of your thoughts. And how absurd it is to have
him looking on at the gestures which often accompany and stimulate the
process of cogitation! On the other hand, while silence and solitude are
helpful, rural seclusion and attractive scenery cannot be said to favour
concentration: closed doors are better. Night hours are the best, but
only in moderation.

§§28-30. But solitude cannot always be secured: those who cannot command
it must habituate themselves to rise superior to every distraction. They
who only study when in the humour will never want an excuse for
idleness. It is possible to think, and to prepare for debate, in a
crowd, on a jury, and even amid the noise and confusion of the
law-courts.

§§31-33. The proper writing materials: wax-tablets to be preferred to
parchment. Write on one side only, and leave the other for additions and
corrections.


CHAPTER IV.

_Of Revision._

§§1-2. The three parts of revision are addition, excision, and
alteration. It is best to lay aside for a time what has been written: an
interval after each new birth will furnish the best safeguard against
excessive parental fondness.

§§3-4. But time is not always at command. There must obviously be some
limit to revision, especially on the part of the orator, who has to meet
the needs of the moment. Not all changes are improvements: let the file
polish the work, instead of rubbing it all away.


CHAPTER V.

_What to Write._

§§1-8. The question now, as distinguished from the preliminary courses
laid down in Books i. and ii., is what form of composition we should
practise in order to acquire copiousness and readiness. First,
translation from the Greek: this exercise leaves the writer free to
choose the best terms in his own language. Second, reproduction (or
paraphrase) of Latin poets and orators: here, however, we often have to
borrow from our models. Prose renderings of the poets are especially
useful for the formation of an elevated style. And even in reproducing
orations, we are stimulated to a kind of rivalry with our author, which
may result in our surpassing him: in any case, the difficulty of
competing with masterpieces forces us to study them minutely.

§§9-11. It will be of advantage also to put our own ideas into various
forms of expression, and to cultivate the faculty of amplifying: power
is shown in making much of little.

§§11-16. Here the writing of _theses_ (or discussions of abstract
questions) forms a valuable exercise: also judicial decisions and
commonplaces. The writing of declamations, or school speeches on
fictitious cases, is also to be recommended, even for those who are
already making a name at the bar. History, dialogue, and poetry are all
valuable by way of variety and recreation: a many-sided culture is the
best safeguard against such intellectual narrowness as would otherwise
result from the daily battles of the law-courts.

§§17-20. Young students must not be kept too long at these preparatory
exercises, lest by indulging the fancy overmuch they unfit themselves
for practice. After a youth has been well schooled in _inventio_ and
_elocutio_, and has had also some moderate amount of practice, he should
attach himself to some eminent public speaker, and accompany him to the
courts: he should write speeches, too, at home on the causes he has
heard. He has no longer to fence with foils.

§§21-23. Declamations should resemble real speeches: the subject should
be treated naturally and thoroughly. Large classes and the custom of
public speech-days tend to encourage a specious showiness, in which only
the most popular and attractive parts of a subject are dealt with, and
crowded together without regard to logical connection. One subject,
thoroughly handled, is worth twenty superficially treated.


CHAPTER VI.

_Of Meditation._

§§1-4. Meditation occupies the middle ground between writing and
improvisation, and is perhaps more frequently employed than either.
_After_ we have formed our style by the constant practice of writing,
meditation can be cultivated by progressive exercise to such a degree
that an entire discourse may be prepared and arranged without the use of
the pen.

§§5-7. But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has
thought out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the
actual delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one
hand, from ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us
from improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence.
If we are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in
thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation. While we are
at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others suggested by
the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than can possibly
be covered by previous meditation.


CHAPTER VII.

_Of Extempore Speech._

§§1-4. The richest fruit of study is the ability to speak effectively on
the spur of the moment: this is in fact absolutely indispensable. ‘An
advocate who proffers help, and fails at the pinch, is a harbour
accessible only in calm weather.’ Cases may take unforeseen turns: like
ship-pilots we must change our tack with each shifting breeze. Unless
the faculty of improvisation can be attained by practice, our years of
labour will have been wasted.


Certain Practical Exercises conducive to Success in Extempore Speech.

§§5-7. (1) The student must arrange his matter in appropriate order,--
not only the order of the regular _partes_ or divisions (i.e.
introduction, narrative, proof, refutation, conclusion), and the order
of the principal points, but also the order of the matter and thought in
all its detail, under every head and in every passage (quoque loco). The
sequence of events will be our guide. Knowing what to look for at each
point of our discourse, we shall not be found skipping from one topic to
another; and in the end we shall reach the goal.

§§7-10. (2) Reading, writing, and speaking must receive unremitting
attention, and be made the subjects of scientific exercise. The
conscientious practice of writing will give even our extemporary
speeches something of the deliberate character of written compositions.
It is practice that makes the ready speaker. A certain natural quickness
of mind is necessary to look beyond what we are saying at the moment;
but neither nature nor art will enable the mind to keep before itself at
one time the whole of a speech, with all its arguments, arrangement,
expression, &c. As our tongue advances, our thoughts must still outstrip
it.

§§11-14. (3) Hence the necessity of a mechanical and unscientific habit
or ‘knack,’ such as that by which the hand moves in writing, the eye in
reading, and the juggler in his legerdemain. But this knack, though
mechanical, should have a basis of scientific method: otherwise it will
be mere ranting, such as you may hear in abundance from female scolds.
A sudden outburst is often, however, more effective than the result of
study and premeditation.

§§15-17. (4) The extemporary speaker must cultivate a lively
imagination, that his mind may be deeply impressed by all the facts of a
particular case. It is the heart that makes the orator. He must also
have distinctly in view not only the end at which he aims but the whole
pathway that leads to it: he will derive incitement even from the
presence of his audience.

§§18-23. (5) Extemporary facility can only be attained by the same
gradual and patient course as has been referred to in connection with
meditation. The orator is often debarred from preparation; but as a rule
he should not presume so far on his ability as not to take a moment to
glance mentally at the heads of his discourse,-- which is generally
possible in a court of law. Some declaimers will argue at once on any
topic, and will even ask for a word to begin with: this is foolishness.
If on any occasion we are under the necessity of speaking offhand, we
should pay more attention to our subject-matter than to our language,
and we may gain time by deliberate articulation. Gradually we shall be
able to trim our sails, and pray for a favouring breeze.

§§24-29. Continual practice is essential for improvisation. We should
speak daily before an audience whose good opinion we respect; but alone,
rather than not at all. If we do not speak to others, we can always at
least go over our subject-matter in silent thought. This fosters
exactness in composition even more than speaking aloud does; for there
we hurry onward from fear of wearying the audience. On the other hand
speaking exercises the voice and gives the opportunity of practising
delivery. Our language should always be careful and correct, but it is
constant writing that will add most weight to our words, especially if
we are obliged to speak much extempore. In fact, writing gives exactness
to speech, speech readiness to writing. If we cannot write, we can
meditate: if we can do neither, we must still contrive to make a
creditable appearance.

§§30-33. A common habit with barristers in large practice is to write
the exordium and most essential parts, formulate the rest in thought,
and meet any unforeseen turns as they arise. The note-books of Cicero
and Servius Sulpicius. It is advisable to refresh one’s memory by
consulting notes. To prepare an abstract, arranged by heads, of a speech
which we have written out entire, leads us to rely too little on the
memory, and makes the speech broken and awkward in delivery. We ought
not to write a speech out at length unless we intend to commit it to
memory. But of memory more in the following book (XI. ch. ii.).



M. FABI QUINTILIANI

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

LIBER DECIMUS



DE COPIA VERBORUM.

I.


I. § 1.

    Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt
    necessaria, ita non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis
    firma quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur;
    accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an legendo an dicendo
    conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset diligentius nobis
    examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse contenti:

#haec eloquendi praecepta#. The reference is generally to the
theoretical part of the work, which has just been completed, but
specially to the two books immediately preceding, in which Quintilian
deals with _elocutio_ (φράσις, ‘style’). In Books III-VII he has treated
of _inventio_ (including _dispositio_); and the transition to Books VIII
and IX is marked in the words ‘a dispositione ad elocutionis praecepta
labor’ vii. §17 ad fin. He passes now to the exercises necessary for
practice: quo genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit (sc.
orator) (§4.)

#sicut ... ita# = μὲν ... δὲ. So _quemadmodum ... sic_ 5 §17: cp. §14
below. More commonly ut ... ita: §§4, 15, 62, 72, 74: 3 §§28, 31.
Frequent in Livy: e.g. xxi. 35, 10 pleraque Alpium ab Italia sicut
breviora ita arrectiora sunt: cp. 39, 7.

#cognitioni#: so most edd. except Halm and Hild (see Crit. Notes). The
word denotes ‘theoretical knowledge,’ and is set over against _vis
dicendi_: for a similar opposition between theory and practice (scientia
... exercitatio) see Tac. Dial. 33. The reading may be supported by a
reference to qui sciet §2, qui ... sciet ... perceperit §4. Cp. viii.
pr. §1 Quam (rationem inveniendi et inventa disponendi) ut ... penitus
cognoscere ad summam scientiae necessarium est ita, &c.: ib. §28, qui
rationem loquendi primum cognoverit ... deinde haec omnia exercitatione
plurima roborarit. In ii. 18, 1 _cognitio_ is used to distinguish
θεωρητική from πρακτική and ποιητική. Cp. too iii. 1, 3 ut ...
adliceremus ... iuventutem ad cognitionem eorum quae necessaria studiis
arbitrabamur.-- The reading _cogitatio_ would have to be understood in a
wider sense than it has in ch. 6, or in 3 §19: Hild takes it of ‘toute
la préparation oratoire qui précède le discours proprement dit.’

#vim dicendi#: ‘true eloquence,’ as in §8 vim orandi, 2 §16 vim dicendi
atque inventionis non adsequuntur: 6 §2 vim cogitandi: xii. 1, 33 vis ac
facultas dicendi expugnat ipsam veritatem. Cp. viii. pr. 30 praeparata
dicendi vis: xii. 10, 64. Bonn. Lex., p. 233.-- The _vis_ of a thing is
its essence, that which makes it what it is: Cic. de Am. §15 id in quo
est omnis vis amicitiae. So with the genitive of a gerund it gives the
idea contained in the infinitive when used as a noun: cp. de Fin. v. §76
percipiendi vis (i.e. τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι) ita definitur a Stoicis: ibid. ii.
§17 Zenonis est ... hoc Stoici: omnem vim loquendi (πᾶν τὸ φθέγγεσθαι)
in duas tributam esse partes. See Nägelsbach, Lat. Stil., (8th ed.)
p. 45: and cp. ratio collocandi 3 §5, pronuntiandi ratio 1 §17: ratio
delendi 3 §31.

#non satis ... valent, nisi#, &c. For the necessity of practice in
addition to theory cp. 5 §19: also i. pr. §§18, 23, 27: ii. 13, 15: vii.
10, 14-15: Cic. de Orat. i. §§109-110: Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. 26 ad
fin. οὐ γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν τεχνῶν ἐστὶ ... δίχα μελέτης τε
καὶ γυμνασίας.

#firma quaedam facilitas#, a ‘sure readiness’: cp. §44 qui confirmare
facultatem dicendi volent: §59 dum adsequimur illam firmam, ut dixi,
facilitatem: 2 §12: 7 §18 sq.: xii, 9, 21 vires facilitatis.

#ἕξις#: §59 and 5 §1. Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 4 (of Isaeus) ad tantam ἕξιν
studio et exercitatione pervenit. See Schäfer on Dion. de Comp. i.
p. 7.-- In the sphere of morals the ἕξις is the fixed tendency that
results from repeated acts: ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐνεργειῶν αἱ ἕξεις γίνονται
Eth. Nic. ii. 1, 1103 a, 31.-- Prof. Mayor compares Cicero’s use of
_habitus constans_, de Inv. i. §36: ii. §30.

#scribendo ... legendo ... dicendo#: i. pr. §27 haec ipsa (natural
gifts) sine doctore perito, studio pertinaci, scribendi, legendi,
dicendi multa et continua exercitatione per se nihil prosunt. So §2
eloquentia ... stilo ... lectionis. Reading is covered by chs. i ii:
chs. iii-v treat of writing; and ch. vii. of extemporary declamation.

#conferatur#: frequent in this sense in Quint. (cp. συμφέρειν): (1) with
ad, as here, i. 8, 7: ii. 19, 1: vii. 1, 41: xii. 1, 1 and passim: (2)
with in, 7 §26: (3) with dat., §§27, 63, 71, 95: i. 1, 6, &c. Bonn.
Lex., p. 155.

#solere quaeri (ζητεῖσθαι)#: the subject is treated, e.g., by Crassus in
Cic. de Orat. i. chs. 33-34. For _quaeri_ cp. i. 4, 26: ib. 12 §1
(quaeri solet): x. 5, 13.

#qualibet ... una#: v. 10, 117, quamdiu quilibet unus superfuerit. In
reverse order i. 12, 7 una res quaelibet: xii. 1, 44 unum ex iis
quodlibet. The collocation does not occur in Cicero.


I. § 2.

    verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si
    quid ex his defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam
    neque solida atque robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo
    stilo vires acceperit, et citra lectionis exemplum labor ille
    carens rectore fluitabit; et qui sciet quae quoque sint modo
    dicenda, nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque ad omnes casus
    habuerit eloquentiam, velut clausis thesauris incubabit.

#conexa et indiscreta#. _Et_ is intensive: ‘so closely, nay, inseparably
connected.’ So i. 2, 3: iuncta ista atque indiscreta sunt. _Indiscretus_
in this sense occurs Tac. Hist. iv. 52 and often in Pliny: not in
Cicero. For the use of the perf. part. pass. instead of a verbal adj.,
cp. Sall. Iug. 43, §5 invictus: ib. 2 §3 incorruptus: 76 §1 infectum:
Livy ii. 1, 4 inviolatum: ib. 55 §3 contemptius (‘more contemptible’).
So intactus, inaccessus, &c.

#neque ... et# = οὔτε ... τε, as 3 §23: 4 §3: 5 §22.

#solida ... robusta ... vires#. Hild notes that the figure is taken from
a living organism which gathers strength from the nourishment supplied
to it: cp. §§19, 31, &c. Tac. Dial. 21: oratio autem sicut corpus
hominis ea demum pulchra est in qua non eminent venae nec ossa
numerantur, sed temperatus ac bonus sanguis implet membra et exsurgit
toris ipsosque nervos rubor tegit et decor commendat: cp. 23.

#multo stilo#: ‘by much practice in writing.’ Cic. de Orat. i. §150
Stilus optimus et praestantissimus dicendi effector ac magister (where
see Wilkins’ note). Quintilian returns to this subject below 3 §1 sq.:
cp. 6 §§1 and 3: 7 §§4 and 7.

#citra lectionis exemplum#: ‘without the models which reading supplies.’
_Citra_ is common in this sense (for _sine_, sometimes _praeter_) in
Quint. (Bonn. Lex. p. 127) and other post-Aug. writers. So 7 §7 citra
divisionem: xii. 6, 4 plusque, si separes, usus sine doctrina quam citra
usum doctrina valet. Cp. Ov. Trist. v. 8, 23 peccavi citra scelus
(‘short of’): Plin. Ep. ii. 1, 4 citra dolorem tamen.

#labor ille#, sc. scribendi.

#fluitabit#, like a vessel drifting about without a pilot (carens
rectore). The writing will want method, and the definiteness of aim
which models would impose. So vii. pr. §2 sic oratio carens hac virtute
(sc. ordine) tumultuetur necesse est et sine rectore fluitet nec
cohaereat sibi, multa repetat, multa transeat, velut nocte in ignotis
locis errans, nec initio nec fine proposito casum potius quam consilium
sequatur: cp. xii. 2 §20.

#quae quoque sint modo#. This is the reading of the oldest MSS. (see
Crit. Notes), and was adopted by Halm: cp. §8 quod quoque loco sit
aptissimum: 7 §5 quid quoque loco primum sit, and §6 quid quoque loco
quaerant. So iv. 2, 33 quid quoque loco prosit. _Quae_ covers
_inventio_: while _quoque modo_ may be taken of the exhaustive
discussion of the various departments of _elocutio_ which has just been
concluded.-- Meister has returned to Spalding’s _quo quaeque sint modo_,
probably from a doubt whether Halm (followed by Mayor) is right in
explaining _quae quoque_ as = _quae et quomodo_, ‘what is to be said and
how’; ‘copulae enim _que_ in coniunctione talium membrorum relativorum
inter se discretorum non aptus est locus,’ Osann, i. p. 14. But _quoque_
may very well be the abl. of _quisque_, though Cicero seems to avoid
such a collocation, unless there is a prep. to make the construction
clear: e.g. pro Sulla §73 quae ex quoque ordine multitudo: pro Domo §33
qui de quaque re constituti iudices sint: Har. Resp. §24 quae de quoque
deo ... tradita sunt. Cp. in Cat. iii. §10 tabellas quae a quoque
dicebantur datae. Even in the exactly parallel passage Sall. Cat. 23, 4
quae quoque modo audierat ... narravit (where Mommsen suggests
_quoquo_), it is possible to understand _quoque_ of the various methods
Fulvia had employed to get information from Curius. So quid ubique, ib.
21, 1.

#tamen#: see Crit. Notes.

#in procinctu#: ‘ready for battle.’ So xii. 9, 21 quem armatum semper ac
velut in procinctu stantem non magis umquam in causis oratio quam in
rebus cotidianis ac domesticis sermo deficiet. Similarly in 7 §24
promptum hoc et in expedito positum. Examples of the proper use of the
phrase occur Tac. Hist. iii. 2: Ovid Pont. i. 8, 10: Gell. i. 11: Plin.
Nat. Hist. vi. 22. Quintilian expresses a similar idea by another of his
military metaphors, viii pr. 15: eloqui enim hoc est omnia quae mente
conceperis promere atque ad audientes perferre; sine quo supervacua sunt
priora et similia gladio condito atque intra vaginam suam haerenti: cp.
vi. 4, 8. For the explanation of the phrase _procingo_, ‘I gird up’) see
Mayor’s note on Cic. de N. D. ii. 3 §9: “_in procinctu_ is used of an
army in readiness for battle, Milton’s ‘war in procinct’ (P. L. vi. 19):
cp. Festus, pp. 43 and 225 procincta classis dicebatur cum exercitus
cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus. Vetustius enim fuit
multitudinem hominum, quam navium, classem appellari, also p. 249
procincta toga Romani olim ad pugnam ire soliti. The _cinctus Gabinus_
was a particular way of wearing the _toga_, so as to use part of it as
a girdle, tying it in a knot in front. Servius (Aen. vii. 612) says the
ancient Latins, before they were acquainted with the use of defensive
armour, praecinctis togis bellabant, unde etiam milites _in procinctu_
esse dicuntur.” For the figurative use cp. Sen. de Benef. i. 1, 4
severitatem abditam clementiam in procinctu habeo: [Quint.] Decl. 3, 1
neque in militiam gravissimo asperrimoque bello ita venit, ut nesciret
sibi mortem in procinctu habendam.

#paratam#: 5 §12: Cic. ad Fam. vi. 21, 1 ad omnem eventum paratus sum.

#velut cl. thes. incubabit#. Unless he adds practice to his theoretical
knowledge, all he knows will be as useless as a miser’s hoard. The
phrase is a reminiscence of Verg. Georg. ii. 507 condit opes alius,
defossoque incubat auro: cp. Aen. vi. 610 aut qui divitiis soli
incubuere repertis. Martial, xii. 53, 3-4 largiris nihil incubasque
gazae, ut magnus draco. Mayor quotes Ecclus. 20, 30 Wisdom that is hid,
and treasure that is hoarded up, what profit is in them both?


I. § 3.

    Non autem ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad
    efficiendum oratorem maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe,
    cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium, dicere ante
    omnia est, atque hinc initium eius artis fuisse manifestum est:
    proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum scribendi quoque
    diligentia.

The argument here requires elucidation. Quint. has said (§§1, 2) that
for the _firma facilitas_ or ἕξις which must be superadded to theory,
writing, reading and speaking are all essential. He now goes on to state
that it does not follow that what is theoretically most indispensable
(cp. cognitioni necessaria §1 above) is for the practical training of
the orator of greatest consequence. The most essential element is of
course that of speech (_dicere_)-- followed by imitation and writing.
But perfection of speech can only be attained, like other forms of
perfection, by starting from first beginnings (principia), which become
relatively unimportant (minima) as things progress. This is not however
the place for dealing with the methods of preliminary training in
rhetoric: our student has done his theory, and we must now show him how
to apply it to practice. Cp. Analysis, p. 1.

#ut quidquid#. Properly _quisquis_ is an indefinite relative: in this
usage it has the same force as _quisque_ (Roby, 2283, 2285). It may have
been an archaism which became colloquial. Madvig (on de Fin. v. §24)
shows that undoubted instances occur in Plautus, Terence, Cato (de R. R.
57: uti quidquid operis facient), Lucretius (with whom it is especially
common: e.g. ruit qua quidquid fluctibus obstat, i. 289, where see
Munro), Cicero (Tusc. v. 98), and in the Agrarian Law (utei quicquid
quoieique ante h. l. r. licuit, ita &c. Mommsen C.I.L. 1 n. 200 v. 27).
Cp. vii. 2, 35. So too Corn. ad. Herenn. ii. §47, where the MSS. almost
without exception give _quidquid_ (quicquid) for _quicque_. For the
spelling here, cp. i. 7, 6 frigidiora his alia, ut ‘quidquid’ c quartam
haberet, ne interrogare bis videremur.

#ad efficiendum oratorem#: i. 10, 2.

#protinus#, of logical consequence, as frequently _continuo_ in Cicero:
generally with a negative, or a question implying a negative answer. For
the form of the sentence cp. viii. 2, 4 non tamen quidquid non erit
proprium protinus et improprii vitio laborabit: and §42 below, sed non
quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet protinus ad faciendam
φράσιν ... accommodatum. So 3 §22 (§§5 and 18 are different): ii. 21,
10: v. 10, 102 and 119: vii. 4, 38.

#nam certe#. This leads up to the next sentence, beginning _sed ut_.

#in eloquendo#: cp. viii. pr. 15 (quoted on in procinctu, §2 above):
Cic. Or. §61 sed iam illius perfecti oratoris et summae eloquentiae
species exprimenda est; quem hoc uno (sc. in eloquendo) excellere cetera
in eo latere indicat nomen ipsum. Non enim inventor aut compositor aut
actor qui haec complexus est omnia, sed et Graece ab eloquendo ῥήτωρ et
Latine eloquens dictus est. Ceterarum enim rerum quae sunt in oratore
partem aliquam sibi quisque vindicat; dicendi autem, id est eloquendi,
maxima vis soli huic conceditur. Cp. de Orat. ii. §38.

#ante omnia est#. Becher vindicates the traditional reading by comparing
ii. 15, 12 atqui non multum ab hoc fine abest Apollodorus dicens
iudicialis orationis primum et _super omnia esse persuadere_ iudici et
sententiam eius _ducere_ in id quod velit. So too iii. 8, 56 an _pro
Caesare fuerit occidi_ Pompeium?-- See Crit. Notes. For _ante omnia_ cp.
Introd. p. lii.

#hinc ... fuisse#: cp. viii. 2, 7 proprie tamen unde initium est: vi.
pr. §10 ut prorsus posset hinc esse tanti fulminis metus.

#proximum#: cp. i. 3, 1 proximum imitatio. As is evident from ch. ii,
_imitatio_ here includes not _lectio_ only but _auditio_ as well: §8
optima legendo atque audiendo. It was in this sense that Dion. Hal.
entitled his work περὶ μιμήσεως: see Usener, Praef. pp. 1-4: and cp.
Cic. de Orat. i. §14 sq. and §149 sq.


I. § 4.

    Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex principiis non potest, ita
    procedente iam opere minima incipiunt esse quae prima sunt.
    Verum nos non quo modo sit instituendus orator hoc loco dicimus,
    (nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est), sed
    athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo
    genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum
    qui res invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et
    collocandi rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod
    didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.

#sed ut perveniri#, &c. 7 §18. Cp. i. pr. §§4-5 contemnentes tamquam
parva quae prius discimus studia ... ego cum existimem nihil arti
oratoriae alienum sine quo fieri non posse oratorem fatendum est, nec ad
ullius rei summam nisi praecedentibus initiis perveniri ad minora illa
... demittere me non recusabo.

#procedente iam opere#: here of the progress of the orator’s training.

#minima# in importance: _prima_ in point of time. Krüger says that
_dicere_ alone is meant, being the _initium artis_ above; but it seems
better to understand Quint. to be indicating here that the order of
importance does not correspond with the order of development as stated
above, viz. (1) the faculty of speech, (2) reading (included under
_imitatio_) and (3) writing. These are to be taken first as the
subsidiary beginnings (principia) from which we attain to the ultimate
object: but as things progress they will become relatively unimportant
(_minima_), and their place will be taken by systematic training in
speaking or declamation, an exercise which is always essential to
success and can therefore never be left off (7 §24).

#aut ... aut# in the sense of si minus satis, at certe uti potuimus: cp.
xii. 11, 21.

#athleta#: a metaphor abruptly introduced: cp. §33: 3 §7: 4 §4: 7 §§1
and 23. The orator is often compared to an athlete, gladiator, soldier,
&c.: see on §33 non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis, and Introd.
p. lvi. Cp. §§29, 31, 79: 3 §3: 5 §§15, 17. Cic. de Orat. i. §73 ut qui
pila ludunt ... sic in orationibus: iii. §83: Or. §§14, 42, 228-9. Tac.
Dial. 34 ferro non rudibus dimicantes: cp. end of 37.

#numeros#: here of rhythmical movements, ‘movements according to rule,
“passes” in fencing, “throws” in wrestling,’ &c.-- Mayor. The use of the
word in this sense is probably founded on the analogy between rhythm
(for which see ix. 4, 45) and graceful motion: ix. 4, 8 in omni
palaestra quid satis recte cavetur ac petitur cui non artifex motus et
certi quidam pedes adsint? Cp. xii. 2, 12: ut palaestrici doctores illos
quos numeros vocant non idcirco discentibus tradunt, ut iis omnibus ii
qui didicerint in ipso luctandi certamine utantur ... sed ut subsit
copia illa ex qua unum aut alterum cuius se occasio dederit efficiant:
ii. 8, 13 sicut ille ... exercendi corpora peritus non ... nexus modo
atque in iis certos aliquos docebit, sed omnia quae sunt eius
certaminis. Sen. de Benef. vii. 1 §4 magnus luctator est non qui omnes
numeros nexusque perdidicit. So Iuv. vi. 249 of the lady in the arena,
omnes implet numeros: cp. Tac. Dial. 32 per omnes eloquentiae numeros
isse. That this use is based on the notion of rhythm may be seen from a
comparison of these exx. with Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 144 verae numerosque
modosque ediscere vitae. For the wider meaning of _numeri_, in which it
is used of that which is complete and perfect in all its parts, v. on
§70.

#igitur#. As to whether the position of _igitur_ at the beginning of a
sentence is to be considered an instance of _transmutatio_ (like ‘quoque
ego,’ ‘enim hoc voluit’) Quintilian says (i. 5, 39) there is a doubt:
‘quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios
sit etiam frequens, apud alios numquam reperiatur.’ Numerous instances
from his own work are given in Bonn. Lex., p. 394. In Tacitus, _igitur_
always stands first except in the following passages: Dial. 8, 29: 10,
37: 20, 21: Agr. 16, 12: Germ. 45, 22: Hist. iv. 15, 15: Ann. i. 47, 5
(Gerber and Greef). In Cicero it is very rarely found first: de Leg.
Agr. ii. 72: pro Milone §48: Phil. ii. §94: de Fin. i. §61: de Nat.
Deor. i. §80.

#res invenire#. For the five parts of oratory (which are quite distinct
from the five parts of an oration) cp. 7 §9: iii. 3, §§1 and 7. They are
_inventio_ (treated of in Books iii.-vi.), _dispositio_ (vii.),
_elocutio_ (viii.-ix.), _memoria_, _actio_ or _pronuntiatio_ (xi.).
Cicero has substantially the same division de Orat. ii. §79, quinque
faciunt quasi membra eloquentiae, invenire quod dicas, inventa
disponere, deinde ornare verbis, post memoriae mandare, tum ad extremum
agere ac pronuntiare: cp. i. §142: and for _inventio_, de Inv. i. §9,
inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae causam
probabilem reddant.-- For the antithesis between _res_ and _verba_, cp.
§§5 and 6: also §61: 2 §27: 3 §§5, 9: 6 §2: 7 §§9, 22.

#sciet#. Bonnell calls attention to the use of the fut. in dependent
relative sentences as common in manuals of instruction: §§5, 10, 13, 17,
22, 25, 33, 112, &c. _Instruamus_ is virtually future.

#eligendi# §6: cp. #dilectus# 3 §5.

#collocandi#: Cic. de Orat. ii. §307 ordo collocatioque rerum ac
locorum: cp. Or. §50: Brut. §139. For both cp. Brut. §140 in verbis et
eligendis ... et collocandis: de Part. Or. i. §3. Both are parts of
_elocutio_, for which see viii. 1, 1. For _ratio_ with gerund cp. §§17,
54: 2 §1: 3 §§5, 31: and see note on 2 §3.

#qua ratione#. The recurrence of _ratione_ so soon after _rationem_ need
create no difficulty in Quintilian: for similar instances of negligence
see on 2 §23. For Kiderlin’s treatment of the whole passage, see Crit.
Notes.

#optime ... facillime#, xii. 10, 77 neque vero omnia ista de quibus
locuti sumus orator optime tantum sed etiam facillime faciet.


I. § 5.

    Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam
    parandae, quibus uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae
    constant copia rerum ac verborum.

#velut ... quaedam#. So §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5 §17: 7 §1, and frequently
elsewhere: e.g. xii. 10, 19 velut sata quaedam: iii. 8, 29 veluti
quoddam templum. Cicero generally uses _quasi_ or _tanquam quidam_.
Indeed Quintilian seems to have a general preference for _velut_ over
_quasi_ or _tanquam_ in introducing similes: cp. 7 §6 ducetur ante omnia
rerum ipsa serie velut duce: viii. 5, 29 inaequalia tantum et velut
confragosa: see Bonn. Lex., s.v.

#ubicumque#, so §10 below. For a less classical use (as an indefinite)
see 7 §28 quidquid loquemur ubicumque.


I. § 6.

    Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes,
    verba in universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent
    singula, minorem curam postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis
    protinus rebus offerrent. Sed cum sint aliis alia aut magis
    propria aut magis ornata aut plus efficientia aut melius
    sonantia, debent esse non solum nota omnia, sed in promptu
    atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se iudicio dicentis
    ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio.

#sed res ... paranda#: an example of the construction so common in Greek
and Latin, by which two contrasted clauses are co-ordinated. In English
we subordinate the one to the other by using ‘while,’ ‘whereas,’ or some
such word. In Greek the use of μὲν makes the antithesis plainer.-- Here
_res_ = νοήματα: _verba_ = ὀνόματα.

#paucis communes#. For the _loci communes_, appropriate to several
causae, v. Cic. de Inv. ii. §48 argumenta quae transferri in multas
causas possunt, and compare the Topica.

#cum ipsis protinus rebus#. For the order of words cp. §33 historico
nonnumquam nitore. Herbst gives the following exx. of an adv. inserted
between the adj. and the noun: §§38, 41, 104, 116, 120: 2 §§7, 8: 3 §§2,
31: 5 §7: 7 §§3, 28.-- For the thought, cp. Hor. A. P. 311 verbaque
provisam rem non invita sequentur: Cic. de Orat. ii. §146 ea (sc. res et
sententiae) vi sua verba parient: iii. §125 rerum enim copia verborum
copiam gignit. No doubt Quintilian in his teaching also gave due
prominence to Cato’s golden rule, ‘rem tene verba sequentur.’

#propria#. The general meaning under which all uses of _proprius_ and
its cognates may be included is that in which it contrasts with all
departures from and innovations on ordinary language. Sometimes it may
mean nothing more than ‘suitable,’ ‘appropriate,’ in which sense
_proprie_ occurs immediately below, in §9: cp. opportune proprieque 2
§13, and proprie et copiose (dicere) i. 4, 5. This is the meaning with
which it is applied to the language of Simonides §64 below,-- ‘natural’;
cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §154, where _verba propria_ occurs alongside of
_ornatissima_ and corresponds with _idonea_, introduced shortly
afterwards: cp. _id._ iii. §31, where _propria_ is reinforced by _apta_,
and _ib._ §49 proprie demonstrantibus (verbis) ea quae significari ac
declarari volemus. The use of _proprietas_ in §46 and §121 below may be
compared with this: cp. also the first of the meanings assigned to the
word in the important passage viii. 2, 1-11: also ix. 2, 18 and xii.
2, 19. The translators here render by ‘suitable’ or ‘significant,’ but
the juxtaposition of _ornata_ seems rather to point to the use in which
_verba propria_ are the antithesis of _translata_,-- direct, literal,
and natural, as opposed to figurative: i. 5, 71 propria sunt verba cum
id significant in quod primo denominata sunt: translata, cum alium
natura intellectum, alium loco praebent. Cp. i. 5, 3: viii. 3, 24: 6, 5,
and 48 (where _propria ... ornata_ in the passage above may well be
illustrated by the words species ex arcessitis verbis venit et
intellectus ex propriis): ix. 1, 4. This is undoubtedly the meaning in
which _proprius_ is used in §29 below: also in 5 §8 alia translatis
virtus alia propriis. The nearest equivalent in Greek would be οἰκεῖα
ὀνόματα, rather than κύρια ὀνόματα, which correspond to ‘usitata verba’
in Quint, (i. 5, 71, and v. 14, 33 verbis quam maxime propriis et ex
usu),-- though he may have had in mind here, as Mayor suggests, ἔστι γὰρ
ἄλλο ἄλλου κυριώτερον, Arist. Rhet. iii. 2, p. 1405 b, 11. (For the
distinction between ὄνομα οἰκεῖον and ὄνομα κύριον see Cope on Ar. Rhet.
iii. 2 §§2 and 6, and Introd. p. 282 note). Many parallels might be
cited from Cicero: e.g. de Or. iii. §149 (verbis eis) quae _propria_
sunt et certa quasi vocabula rerum, paene una nata cum rebus ipsis: cp.
_ib._ §150: Brutus §274: Or. §80.

#ornata#: cp. viii. 3, 15 quamquam enim rectissime traditum est
perspicuitatem propriis, ornatum translatis verbis magis egere, sciamus
nihil ornatum esse quod sit improprium: _ib._ pr. §26 ut propria sint
(verba) et dilucida et ornata et apte collocentur, and §31: ii. 5, 9
quod verbum proprium, ornatum, sublime: and especially viii. 1, 1 in
singulis (verbis) intuendum est ut sint Latina, perspicua, ornata, ad id
quod efficere volumus accommodata.

#plus efficientia#, ‘more significant’: ix. 4, §123 membrum autem est
sensus ... per se nihil efficiens. The adj. _efficax_ occurs only once
in Quint. (vi. 1, 41).

#melius sonantia#. So _vocaliora_ viii. 3, §16 sq.: cp. i. 5, 4 sola est
quae notari possit vocalitas, quae εὐφωνία dicitur: cuius in eo dilectus
est ut inter duo quae idem significant ac tantundem valent quod melius
sonet malis. Cic. de Or. iii. §150 lectis atque illustribus (verbis)
utatur, in quibus plenum quiddam et sonans inesse videatur: Or. §163
verba ... legenda sunt potissimum bene sonantia: §149, and §80 (verbum)
quod aut optime sonat aut rem maxime explanat (= plus effic.): Part. Or.
§17 alia (verba) sonantiora, grandiora, leviora: and §53 gravia, plena,
sonantia verba.

#non solum ... sed# (οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλά), a formula used where the second
clause is stronger than or includes and comprehends the first. Cp. §8
below: §46 (nec modo sed): 7 §8 (non modo sed): 3 §20 (non tantum sed):
5 §5 (neque tantum sed): 7 §16 (non tantum sed). Of the numerous exx. in
Cicero’s speeches (Merguet, pp. 361-2) none are exceptions to the rule
thus stated,-- not even the seeming anticlimax of pro Sest. §45 iecissem
me potius in profundum ut ceteros conservarem quam illos mei tam cupidos
non modo ad certam mortem sed in magnum vitae discrimen adducerem: here
_sed_ still introduces the stronger clause, as the sacrifice would be
greater if it were made to avert _discrimen_ than if it were made to
avert _certa mors_. Becher cps. pro Lege Manil. §66: Div. in Caec.
§27.-- There is nothing in the distinction which Herbst (followed by
Dosson) seeks to set up (on the strength of _sed etiam_ in §13): ‘pro
simplici _sed_, ἀλλά, infertur _sed etiam_, ἀλλὰ καί, si utrumque
orationis membrum pari vi praeditum est.’ Cp. the following: (a) non
solum sed, vi. 2, 13 and 36: non solum sed (or verum) etiam, vii. 10,
17: ii. 2, 14: vii. 5, 3: viii. 3, 64: i. 11, 14. (b) non tantum sed,
ix. 3, 28, 78: xi. 1, 7: ii. 17, 2: non tantum sed etiam (or et), xi. 2,
5: viii. 3, 3: ix. 2, 50. (c) non modo sed, pr. §9: x. 1, 46: ii. 17, 3:
iv. 5, 6: non modo sed etiam (or quoque), ix. 3, 50: xi. 1, 15: i. 10,
9: ii. 2, 12: vi. 3, 57: ix. 3, 47: i. 1, 34: i. 4, 6: i. 11, 13: ix. 4,
9: x. 1, 10.

#in promptu#-- in readiness, ‘at one’s fingers’ ends,’ as it were: i.e.
not only must we be able to recognise them when we see or hear them, but
we must always have a stock of them on hand. Cp. ii. 4, 27 ut quidam ...
scriptos eos (locos) memoriaeque diligentissime mandatos in promptu
habuerint: vii. 10, 14 non respiciendum ad haec sed in promptu habenda:
viii. pr. 28 ut semper in promptu sint et ante oculos: xi. 2, 1
exemplorum ... velut quasdam copias quibus abundare quasque in promptu
habere debet orator. In ix. 1, 13 we have simplex atque in promptu
positus dicendi modus. Cp. Demetrius Cynicus ap. Senec. de Benef. vii. 1
§3: plus prodesse si pauca praecepta sapientiae teneas sed illa in
promptu tibi et in usu sint quam si multa quidem didiceris sed illa non
habeas ad manum.-- In Lucr. ii. 149 and 246 (in promptu manifestumque
esse videmus) the phrase rather = in aperto: as often in Cicero, e.g. de
Off. i. §§61, 95, 105, 126.

#ut ita dicam, in conspectu#. So vii. 1, 4 cum haec (themata s.
proposita) in conspectu quodammodo collocaveram. Cp. viii. 3, 37 quod
idem (‘ut ita dicam’) etiam in iis quae licentius translata erunt
proderit.


I. § 7.

    Et quae idem significarent solitos {scio} ediscere, quo
    facilius et occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi
    aliquo, si breve intra spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae
    repetitionis gratia sumerent aliud quo idem intellegi posset.
    Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam infelicis operae, tum etiam
    utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat, ex qua sine
    discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

#quae idem significarent#: ‘synonyms.’ Cp. i. 5, 4 (quoted above on
_melius sonantia_): viii. 3, 16.

#solitos# sc. quosdam. Cp. §56 audire videor congerentes. See Crit.
Notes.

#occurreret# = in mentem veniret: §13: 3 §33.

#quo idem intellegi posset#. Cp. iii. 11, 27 his plura intelleguntur.
See Crit. Notes.

#cum ... tum etiam#. Cp. cum ... tum praecipue 3 §28: and, for cum ...
tum, §§60, 65, 68, 84, 101. Bonn. Lex., s.v. _cum_ p. 195.

#cuiusdam#. This use of _quidam_ indicates that the word to which it is
attached is being employed in some peculiar sense, or else that it comes
nearest to the idea in the writer’s mind: cp. §§76, 81.

#infelicis operae#: of trouble which one gives oneself unnecessarily
(cp. 3 §10: 7 §14), with the further idea of unproductiveness, as 2 §8
nostra potissimum tempora damnamus huius infelicitatis: tr. ‘a thankless
task.’ Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 1, 90 infelix operam perdas: A. P. 34 infelix
operis summa. With viii. pr. §§27-8 Mayor compares Plato Phaedr. 229 d
ἄλλως τὰ τοιαῦτα χαρίεντα ἡγοῦμαι λίαν δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ ἐπιπόνου καὶ οὐ
πάνυ εὐτυχοῦς ἀνδρός.

#congregat#. The subject here is indefinite, and must be supplied from
the context-- ‘the man who learns by rote.’ Quintilian often omits such
words as discipulus, orator, declamator, lector: cp. 2 §24: 7 §4 and §25
est alia exercitatio cogitandi totasque materias vel silentio (dum tamen
quasi dicat intra se ipsum) persequendi. So Cic. de Off. i. §101 omnis
autem actio vacare debet temeritate et neglegentia nec vero agere
quicquam cuius non possit (sc. is qui agit) causam probabilem reddere:
_ib._ §121 si natura non feret ut quaedam imitari possit (sc. is qui
imitatur): §134: ii. §39: iii. §107: de Amic. §25 quae non volt: §72
quoad ... possit: de Or. ii. §62 audeat.-- There is thus no need for
Gemoll’s conjecture _congregat actor_.


I. § 8.

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

§§8-15. The preceding sections (§§5-7) form the transition to what he
now seeks to prove,-- the need for _multa lectio_ and _auditio_. ‘By
reading and hearing the best models we learn to choose appropriate
words, to arrange and pronounce them rightly; to employ the figures of
speech in their proper places.’-- Mayor.

#cum iudicio#, §116: 2 §3. Mayor cites Cic. de Or. iii. §150 sed in hoc
verborum genere propriorum dilectus est habendus quidem atque is aurium
quoque iudicio ponderandus est. The phrase gives the antithesis of _sine
discrimine_ above.

#vim orandi#: see on §1 above, vim dicendi: cp. 5 §6: ii. 16, 9: vi.
2, 2. The words denote ‘true oratory’ as opposed to the ‘fluency of a
mountebank’ or charlatan. For the absolute use of _orare_ (common in the
Silver Age) see on §16.

#circulatoriam volubilitatem#: ii. 4, 15 circulatoriae vere iactationis
est. The _circulator_ was a strolling mountebank who amused the crowd by
his legerdemain: Sen. de Benef. vi. 11, 2. So of quack philosophers,
_Id._ Epist. 29 §7 circulatores qui philosophiam honestius neglexissent
quam vendunt: 40 §3 sic itaque habe, istam vim dicendi rapidam atque
abundantem aptiorem esse circulanti quam agenti in rem magnam ac seriam
docentique: 52 §8 eligamus non eos qui verba magna celeritate
praecipitant, et communes locos volvunt et in privato circulantur, sed
eos qui vita[m] docent.-- For _volubilitas_ cp. xi. 3, 52: Cic. de Orat.
§17 est enim et scientia comprehendenda rerum plurimarum, sine qua
verborum volubilitas inanis atque inridenda est, et ipsa oratio
conformanda non solum electione sed etiam constructione verborum: so
linguae volubilitas, pro Planc. §62 flumen aliis verborum volubilitasque
cordi est: pro Flacc. §48 homo volubilis praecipiti quadam celeritate
dicendi. Pliny Ep. v. 20, 4: est plerisque Graecorum ut illi pro copia
volubilitas. Juvenal’s sermo promptus et Isaeo torrentior (3, 73-4)
indicates the same feature.

#id#, of the idea contained in the previous sentence (parare copiam cum
iudicio): 6 §6: 7 §4.

#non enim#. Herbst cites §109 and 5 §8 to show that in this form the
negative is either attached to a single word, or is meant to be more
emphatic: so Cic. Orat. §§47, 101. On the other hand _neque enim_ has
less emphasis: §105: 2 §1: 3 §§10, 23: 4 §1: 6 §5: 7 §§5, 18, 19, 27.
For _enim ... enim ... nam_ he compares 3 §2 and, in Greek, Xen. Anab.
iii. 2, 32: v. 6, 4.

#quod quoque#. See Crit. Notes.


I. § 9.

    Omnibus enim fere verbis praeter pauca, quae sunt parum
    verecunda, in oratione locus est. Nam scriptores quidem iamborum
    veterisque comoediae etiam in illis saepe laudantur, sed nobis
    nostrum opus intueri sat est. Omnia verba, exceptis de quibus
    dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et humilibus interim et
    vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte videntur
    sordida, ubi res poscit, proprie dicuntur.

#parum verecunda#. These expressions are characterised in the same
indirect way i. 2, 7 verba ne Alexandrinis quidem permittenda deliciis.
Cp. viii. 3, 38 excepto si obscena nudis nominibus enuntientur: _ib._ 2
§1 obscena vitabimus. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 22.

#nam# is here slightly elliptical (cp. §83), introducing a confirmation
of the statement contained in the words _praeter pauca quae sunt parum
verecunda_: ‘I make exceptions, for though even these may be admired in
ἰαμβογράφοι (Archilochus §59, Hipponax, &c.), and in the old Comedy, we
must look to our own department.’ The sentence might have run,-- nam,
etiamsi scriptores quidem, &c. etiam in illis saepe laudantur, nobis
nostrum opus intueri sat est. This seems better than, with Mayor, to
press _in oratione_: ‘_in oratione_ I say, for even these may be
admired, &c.’

#scriptores iamborum#: §59 Horace imitated Archilochus in some of his
Epodes: these are ‘parum verecunda.’ Mayor refers also to the Priapeia.
The _vetus comoedia_ (_antiqua_ in §65) is often associated with
ἰαμβογράφοι: §§59, 65, 96. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 1 sq.: ii. 3, 12.

#in illis ... laudantur#. In such expressions _in_ with the abl. denotes
the range or scope within which the action of the verb takes place.
Nägelsb. p. 491. Cic. Qu. fr. ii. 6, 5 Pompeius noster in amicitia
P. Lentuli vituperatur. Cp. §§54, 63, 64: v. 12, 22 ut ad peiora iuvenes
laude ducuntur ita laudari in bonis malent.

#nostrum opus#: not ‘our proper work, the education of an orator’
(Hild); but ‘what we have to do with here,’ our ‘department’ or
‘branch.’ It thus = opus dicendi Cic. Brut. §214, or oratorium _ib._
§200. In the Silver Age _opus_ (like _genus_) is often used to denote a
special branch. Herbst cites §§31, 35, 64, 69, 70, 72, 74, 93, 96, 123;
2 §21. Cp. Introd. p. xliv.

#intueri#: v. 13, 31 dum locum praesentem non totam causam intuentur.
Cp. 2 §§2, 26: 7 §16.

#exceptis ... dixi#: sc. _iis_ (parum verecundis). Cp. §104 circumcisis
quae dixisse ei nocuerat.

#humilibus ... vulgaribus#. So xi. 1, 6 humile et cotidianum sermonis
genus. _Humilia verba_ (ταπεινά ὀνόματα) are opposed to _grandia_,
_elata verba_. By Cicero _abiectus_ is often used to indicate a still
lower depth: Brut. §227 verbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur, sed
tamen non abiectis. Mayor cites De Orat. iii. §177 non enim sunt alia
sermonis, alia contentionis verba, neque ex alio genere ad usum
cotidianum, alio ad scenam pompamque sumuntur; sed ea nos cum iacentia
sustulimus e medio sicut mollissimam ceram ad nostrum arbitrium formamus
et fingimus. Hor. A. P. 229 ne ... migret in obscuras humili sermone
tabernas.

#interim# for _interdum_, as often in Quintilian, Seneca, and Pliny: cp.
§24: 3 §§7, 19, 20, 32, 33 (where we have interim ... interim for modo
... modo): 7 §31. See Introd. p. li.

#nitidiore ... sordida#. There is the same antithesis at viii. 3. 49.
Cp. Cic. Brut. §238 non valde nitens non plane horrida oratio. See note
on §79: and cp. §§33, 44, 83, 97, 98, 113, 124. Sulp. Vict. inst. or. 15
in Halm rhet. lat. p. 321, 3 adhibendus est nitor ... ut scilicet verba
non sordida et vulgaria et de trivio, quod dicitur, sumpta sint, sed
electa de libris et hausta de liquido fonte doctrinae.-- For _sordida_
cp. Sen. Ep. 100 (of Fabianus) nihil invenies sordidum ... verba ...
splendida ... quamvis sumantur e medio. Quint. ii. 5, 10: viii. 2, 1.

#proprie#: v. on §6 propria. Cp. 5 §4 verba poetica libertate audaciora
non praesumunt eadem proprie dicendi facultatem: viii. 2, 2 non
mediocriter errare quidam solent qui omnia quae sunt in usu, etiam si
causae necessitas postulet, reformidant.


I. § 10.

    Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non significationem modo, sed
    formas etiam mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque erunt posita
    conveniant, nisi multa lectione atque auditione adsequi nullo
    modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem auribus primum accipiamus.
    Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus iussu regum in
    solitudine educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse traduntur,
    tamen loquendi facultate caruerunt.

#non ... modo, sed ... etiam#: see on §6. Herbst notes that Quint.
usually separates these words by others, as here: cp. §55 non forum
modo, verum ipsam etiam urbem: 2 §23 non causarum modo inter ipsas
condicio, sed in singulis etiam causis partium. On the other hand we
have 3 §15 non exercitatio modo ... sed etiam ratio: 7 §19 non in prosa
modo, sed etiam in carmine.

#formas#. The _forma_ of a word, in the widest sense, must mean its
_shape_ as determined by the syllables and letters of which it consists:
cp. viii. 3, 16, where he notes the importance of this in regard to
sound. But the reference here is more particularly to the grammatical
forms of inflection, i.e. accidence, τὰς πτώσεις τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς
ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων (Dion. Hal. Comp. Verbor. 25, p. 402 Schäfer). See
i. 6, 15 sq. Mayor refers to the grammatical discussions in Cic. Orat.
§§152-161. Quint. i. 4 esp. §§22-29: 5-7.

#mensuras#: the ‘quantities’ of single syllables, i.e. prosody. Cic. Or.
§159: §§162-236: Quint. i. 10 ‘de musice.’ Latin concrete plurals often
correspond to our abstract names of sciences, e.g. _numeri_
‘arithmetic,’ _tempora_ ‘chronology.’ Nägelsbach 12 §2, p. 71.

#ut ubicumque#. For _ut_ (L) most MSS. (G H S) give _et_. Krüger records
a conj. by Rowecki, who proposes to read _utque_, so as to make both _ut
sciamus_ and _ut conveniant_ depend upon _adsequi_. But this seems
unnecessary.

#auditione#. Then, as now, _auditio_ would be specially valuable in
regard to prosody (mensurae). The next clause gives the reason for
putting it alongside of _lectio_, and also serves to introduce the
reference which follows.

#propter quod# ( = δι᾽ ὅ), often in Quint. where Cicero would have used
_quam ob rem_. Cp. §66: 5 §23: 7 §6: _propter quae_ (= δι᾽ ἅ) §61: 3
§30: ii. 13, 14: xii. 1, 39. At §28 and 3 §6 we have _praeter id quod_
for _praeterquam quod_.

#infantes ... caruerunt#. In spite of the vagueness of _regum_ and _a
mutis nutricibus_, the reference is obviously to the story told by
Herodotus (ii. 2), which Quint. may only have remembered indistinctly.
Psammetichus, king of Egypt, wishing to discover if there were any
people older than the Egyptians, gave two infants into the charge of a
shepherd, who was to keep them out of reach of all human sounds and
bring them up on the milk of goats. After two years they greeted the
shepherd with the cry βεκός, which on inquiry turned out to be the
Phrygian for bread. On the strength of this experiment the sapient king
allowed that the Phrygians were more ancient than the Egyptians.
Claudian, in Eutrop. ii. 252-4 nec rex Aegyptius ultra Restitit, humani
postquam puer uberis expers In Phrygiam primum laxavit murmura vocem.
A similar story is told of James IV of Scotland, with the difference
that in his case Hebrew instead of Phrygian resulted from the
experiment.-- By _mutis nutr._ Quint. probably means the goats of
Psammetichus; _mutus_ having its proper sense, ‘uttering inarticulate
sounds’: so mutae pecudes Lucr. v. 1059: animalia muta Iuv. viii. 56:
mutum ac turpe pecus Hor. Sat. i. 3, 100.

#verba emisisse#: Lucr. v. 1087-8 ergo si varii sensus animalia cogunt
Muta tamen cum sint, varias emittere voces, &c.

#caruerunt# is obviously the right reading, not _caruerint_ (Hild),
which would introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the
narrative: caruerunt propter(ea) quod sermonem auribus _non_ acceperunt.
Even though Quint. may have been sceptical about the story its ‘moral’
agreed entirely with his own conclusions.-- Note _etiamsi ...
traduntur_, _etiamsi ... sint_ §11 below.


I. § 11.

    Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem pluribus vocibus
    declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius utaris,
    intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria
    rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem
    intellectum feruntur, ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’.

#alia#, sc. verba. See Crit. Notes.

#vocibus#: ‘sounds,’-- words in regard to their sound and form, while
_verba_ are words in regard to their meaning. The distinction is given
Cic. Or. §162 rerum verborumque iudicium prudentiae est, vocum autem et
numerorum aures sunt iudices: de Or. iii. §196 itaque non solum verbis
arte positis moventur omnes, verum etiam numeris ac vocibus (of musical
sounds). Hor. Sat. i. 3, 103 donec verba quibus voces sensusque
notarent, Nominaque invenere-- where _verba_ are the articulate words by
which men gave form and meaning to the primitive inarticulate sounds
(_voces_).

#significationis#, for the more usual _ad significationem_, ‘in point of
meaning’: vii. 2, 20 nihil interest actionum: ix. 4, 44 plurimum refert
compositionis. So Plin. Ep. ix. 13 §25 verane haec adfirmare non ausim:
interest tamen exempli ut vera videantur. Cicero has in ad Fam. iv. 10,
5 multum interesse rei familiaris tuae te quam primum venire: and
interesse reipublicae occurs (as a sort of personal genitive) in Cicero,
Caesar, and Livy. But with such a word as that in the text Cicero would
have used ad c. acc.: ad Fam. v. 12, 1 equidem ad nostram laudem non
multum video interesse, sed ad properationem meam quiddam interest non
te exspectare dum ad locum venias.

#quo#, sc. verbo.

#ensis# is the poetic word for _gladius_, though in Quint.’s time the
difference between prose usage and poetical in regard to such words had
begun to disappear. Mayor (following Gesner) notes that ‘ensis’ occurs
over sixty times in Vergil, ‘gladius’ only five times.

#τροπικῶς#, by a ‘turn’ or change of application. On metaphor see viii.
2, 6 sq.: Cic. de Orat. iii. §155: Or. §§81, 82 sq. The meaning is that
while some words are naturally synonymous, others _become_ synonyms (ad
eundem intellectum feruntur) when used figuratively, though in their
literal sense they have each a distinct application (propria rerum
aliquarum sint nomina). In the one case there are several words with the
same meaning: in the other the original meaning is different (e.g.
ferrum, mucro), but the words come to be used synonymously.-- For the
position of _quasi_, after τροπικῶς, cp. Sall. Iug. 48 §3: and see Crit.
Notes.

#ad eundem intellectum#, viii. 3, 39: feruntur 3 §6: lit. ‘pass into the
same meaning.’

#ferrum#, #mucro#, viii. 6, 20 (of synecdoche) nam prosa ut ‘mucronem’
pro gladio et ‘tectum’ pro domo recipiet, ita non ‘puppem’ pro navi nee
‘abietem’ pro tabellis, et rursus ut pro gladio ‘ferrum’ ita non pro
equo ‘quadripedem.’-- Mayor compares the use of ‘iron’ and ‘steel’ for
‘sword’ in Shakespeare.


I. § 12.

    Nam per abusionem sicarios etiam omnes vocamus qui caedem
    telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia circuitu verborum plurium
    ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia lactis.’ Plurima vero
    mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me fugit’ et ‘non
    me praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium est’.

#Nam# is again elliptical, as in §9. It introduces here a proof of what
has just been said in the shape of a reference to something still more
striking: ‘and we may go even further, for,’ &c. It may be translated
‘and indeed,’ or ‘nay more,’ or ‘likewise.’ Cp. §§23, 83: and with
_quidem_ §50. The ellipse may be supplied by the words ‘neque id mirum’:
‘and no wonder, for.’

#per abusionem#: by the figure called ‘catachresis,’-- the use of a word
of kindred signification for the proper word: Corn. ad Herenn. 10 §45
abusio est quae verbo simili et propinquo pro certo et proprio abutitur.
Cp. viii. 2, 5 abusio, quae κατάχρησις dicitur, necessaria: ib. 6 §34
κατάχρησις, quam recte dicimus abusionem, quae non habentibus nomen suum
accommodat, quod in proximo est, sic: equum divina Palladis arte
Aedificant: iii. 3, 9: ix. 2, 35. Cic. de Orat. iii. §169: Or. §94.
Quint. states the difference between _abusio_ and _translatio_ viii. 6
§35: discernendumque est _ab_ hoc totum translationis genus, quod abusio
est ubi nomen deficit, translatio ubi aliud fuit: i.e. _abusio_ is used
when a thing has not a name, and the name of something similar is given
to it, _translatio_ when one name is used instead of another. Mayor
cites Serv. Georg. iii. 533 donaria proprie loca sunt in quibus dona
reponuntur deorum, abusive templa. Cp. Quint. viii. 6, 35 poetae solent
abusive etiam in his rebus quibus nomina sua sunt vicinis potius uti.

#sicarios#. The _sica_ among the Romans specially denoted the assassin’s
poniard: Cic. de Off. iii. §36: de Nat. Deor. iii. §74: pro Rosc. Amer.
§103. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 4.

#quocumque#. Even before Quint.’s time _quicumque_ had acquired the
force of an indefinite pronoun (quivis or quilibet): Cic. Cat. 2, 5 quae
sanare poterunt, quacumque ratione (potero) sanabo. Cp. §105, 7 §2: i.
10, 35: ii. 21, 1: and frequently in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Juvenal
(e.g. x. 359). Mayor cites among other passages from Martial viii. 48, 5
non quicumque capit saturatas murice vestes.

#circuitu verborum plurium#, i.e. periphrasis. viii. 6, 59 pluribus
autem verbis cum id quod uno aut paucioribus certe dici potest
explicatur περίφρασιν vocant, circuitum quendam eloquendi: ib. §61 cum
in vitium incidit περισσολογία dicitur. Cp. xii. 10, 16: 41: viii. pr.
§24: 2 §17.

#ostendimus# = declaramus, significamus, as §14.

#et pressi copia lactis#: Verg. Ecl. 1, 81.

#plurima#, ‘very many,’ not ‘most’: a common usage in Quint. Cp. §§22,
27, 40, 49, 58, 60, 65, 81, 95, 107, 109, 117, 128: 2 §§6, 14, 24: 6 §1:
7 §17.

#mutatione figuramus#. For this use of _figurare_ (σχηματίζειν) cp. ix.
1, 9 tam enim translatis verbis quam propriis figuratur oratio: here
however _plurima_ is a cognate accus.,-- lit. ‘we very often use a
figure in substituting one form of expression for another.’ The verb is
found in this sense also in Seneca and Pliny. See Crit. Notes.--
_Figurae_ is Quint.’s favourite word for rendering σχήματα. He uses it
in more than a hundred places (i. 8, 16 schemata utraque, id est
figuras, quaeque λέξεως quaeque διανοίας vocantur): and it is to this
use of the word by him and by the later rhetoricians that we owe the
modern term ‘figure.’ Cicero has no fixed equivalent for σχήματα: he
uses _formae_, _conformationes_, _lumina_, _gestus_, _figurae_,-- often
with the Greek word added; e.g. Brut. §69 sententiarum orationisque
formis quae vocant σχήματα: cp. Or. §83, and de Opt. Gen. §14 (where
_figuris_ is accompanied by _tanquam_). Quint. defines _figura_ ix. 1, 4
as ‘conformatio quaedam orationis remota a communi et primum se
offerente ratione’: _ib._ §14 arte aliqua novata forma dicendi. The idea
of a divergence from what is usual and ordinary is always prominent in
his treatment of _figurae_: ii. 13, 11 mutant enim aliquid a recto atque
hanc prae se virtutem ferunt quod a consuetudine vulgari recesserut: ix.
1, 11 in sensu vel sermone aliqua a vulgari et simplici specie cum
ratione mutatio.-- That this idea is not involved in the original
meaning of σχήματα, but was extended to them from the τρόποι (a name
which indicates changes or ‘turns of expression’), is shown by Causeret
pp. 170-180.


I. § 13.

    Sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et
    ‘sentio’ et ‘video’ saepe idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis
    ubertatem ac divitias dabit lectio, ut non solum quo modo
    occurrent, sed etiam quo modo oportet utamur.

#ex proximo mutuari#: i.e. borrow a word that is cognate in meaning,
instead of using such negative inversions as the preceding.-- Intellego,
sentio, video, scio, are cognate words,-- ‘next door’ (in proximo) to
each other.-- For the substantival use (in Cicero and Livy) of neuter
adjectives in acc. and abl., with prepositions, in expressions denoting
place and the like, see Nägelsbach §21 pp. 102-109. Exx. are ex integro
(§20), in aperto, ex propinquo, in immensum, de alieno, ad extremum, in
praecipiti, in praesenti, in melius, e contrario (§19).

#idem valent# = ταὐτό or ἴσον δύναται, as often in Cicero and elsewhere
in Quintilian.

#ubertatem ac divitias#: hendiadys, ‘a rich store.’ For the use of two
synonymous nouns in Latin instead of a noun and an adjective, see
Nägelsbach, §73 pp. 280-281. Exx. are Cic. de Or. i. §300 absolutionem
perfectionemque ( = summa perfectio, which never occurs): de Off. ii. 5,
16 conspiratione hominum atque consensu. For this metaphorical use of
_divitiae_ cp. de Orat. i. §161 in oratione Crassi divitias atque
ornamenta eius ingenii per quaedam involucra atque integumenta perspexi.

#occurrent#: §7 and frequently elsewhere in this sense.


I. § 14.

    Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de
    intellectu animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum
    ‘intellego’, nec ut ‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’
    ostendit.

#non semper enim#, etc., ‘they do not always coincide in meaning,’ are
not always identical and interchangeable. Cf. ix. 3, 47 nec verba modo
sed sensus quoque idem facientes acervantur: where _facere_ =
_efficere_, the words being spoken of as if they were agents in
producing the meaning. _Inter se_ (ἀλλήλοις) = ‘reciprocally,’
‘mutually’: cp. ix. 3, 31: _ib._ §49.

#intellego#: repeat _recte dixerim_. For the ellipse Herbst compares v.
11, 26: viii. 6, 20: xii. 11, 27.

#mucro#: for instance in 5 §16 _gladius_ could not be substituted for
_mucro_ without the point being lost. Cp. viii. 6, 20: vi. 4, 4: ix.
4, 30.

#ostendit# = indicat, significat. Cp. §12.


I. § 15.

    Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum
    gratia legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque
    docemus, hoc sunt exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur
    artibus (cum eo qui discit perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine
    demonstrante et sequi iam suis viribus possit), quia quae doctor
    praecepit orator ostendit.

#ut ... ita#: v. on _sicut ... ita_ §1.

#sic#, multa lectione atque auditione §10. In reading and hearing we are
not to aim merely at increasing our stock of words: many other things
may be learned by the same practical method. Cp. 2 §1.

#hoc# = idcirco, ideo, corresponding to _quia_ below. Cp. §34 hoc
potentiora quod: §129 eo perniciosissima quod: v. 11, 37. See Crit.
Notes.

#etiam ipsis#: §24. Herbst cites also Hor. Sat. i. 3, 39 Turpia
decipiunt caecum vitia aut etiam ipsa haec delectant. Cicero uses _etiam
ipse_ (with rather more emphasis than _ipse quoque_) de Nat. Deor. ii.
§46: Rab. Post. §33: pro Planc. §73: pro Mil. §21-- Nägelsbach p. 367.

#quae traduntur artibus#. _Artes_ is here used, as often in the plural,
for the rules or collections of rules taught in schools. So ii. 5, 14
hoc diligentiae genus ausim dicere plus collaturum discentibus quam
omnes omnium artes. Pr. §26 nihil praecepta atque artes valere nisi
adiuvante natura: cp. §47 below litium et consiliorum artes: §49 qui de
artibus scripserunt. This use is derived from that in which _ars_ stands
generally for ‘system’ or ‘theory’: ii. 14, 5 ars erit quae disciplina
percipi debet (cp. Cic. de Or. ii. §30 ars earum rerum est quae
sciuntur): and below 7 §12 hic usus ita proderit si ea de qua locuti
sumus ars antecesserit. Elsewhere in Quint. it is frequently used for a
technical treatise: ii. 13, 1 a plerisque scriptoribus artium: 15 §4 si
re vera ars quae circumfertur eius (Isocratis) est: cp. Iuv. 7, 177
artem scindes Theodori. This last use is found also in Cicero: Brutus
§46 ait Aristoteles ... artem et praecepta Siculos Coracem et Tisiam
conscripsisse: de Fin. iii. §4 ipsae rhetorum artes: iv. §5 non solum
praecepta in artibus sed etiam exempla in orationibus bene dicendi
reliquerunt: _ib._ §7 quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes: de
Invent. i. §8: ii. §7.-- _Traduntur_ = docentur, just as accipere =
discere: cf. i. 3, 3 quae tradentur non difficulter accipiet: ii. 9, 3:
iii. 6, 59.

#sine demonstrante#: ‘without a guide’ or teacher. For this use of the
participle, cp. i. 2, 12 lectio quoque non omnis nec semper praeeuntevel
interpretante eget.

#iam# heightens the contrast between the two stages-- pupilage and
independent study. There is therefore no need for Hild’s conjecture
_viam_.

#ostendit# ‘gives a practical demonstration of.’ We are not merely to
learn the rules (artes) from the _doctor_, but to observe how they are
applied by the best writers and speakers.


I. § 16.

    Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat
    qui dicit spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus
    incendit. Vivunt omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa
    velut nascentia cum favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo
    iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum qui orant periculo adficimur.

#alia# does not refer to some particular kinds of speeches, as Watson
translates. Literally, it is ‘some things do more good when one hears
them, others when one reads them’: but _alia_ and _adiuvant_ run into
each other, as it were, and the meaning is ‘some benefits are derived
from hearing, others from reading,’ i.e. they have each their special
points. In the passive it would stand ‘aliter audientes adiuvantur
aliter legentes.’

#spiritu ipso#: the ‘living breath’ (vivunt omnia et moventur), as
opposed to the dead letter: the sound of the voice (viva vox) instead of
the ‘cold medium of written symbols’ (Frieze), ii. 2, 8 viva illa, ut
dicitur, vox alit plenius (sc. quam exempla). Plin. Ep. ii. 3, 9 multo
magis, ut vulgo dicitur, viva vox adficit. nam liceat acriora sint quae
legas, altius tamen in animo sedent quae pronuntiatio vultus habitus
gestus etiam dicentis adfigit. Cic. Orat. §130 carent libri spiritu illo
propter quem maiora eadem illa cum aguntur quam cum leguntur videri
solent, where Sandys quotes Isocr. Phil. §26. So Dion. Hal. de Dem. 54
(p. 112 R) of the speeches of Demosthenes when ill delivered, τὸ
κάλλιστον αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς λέξεως) ἀπολεῖται, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐδὲν διοίσει
σώματος καλοῦ μὲν ἀκινήτου δὲ καὶ νεκροῦ.

#ambitu rerum#. This phrase has been variously explained. Wolff thought
that it was equivalent to ‘rerum circumscriptio quam prima lineamenta
ducentes faciunt pictores’; and following him many render by ‘bare
outline,’ ‘rough draft or sketch,’ ‘outline drawing,’ without however
citing any apposite parallel. Others say it = ‘ambitiosa rerum
expositione’: cp. iv. 1, 18 hic ambitus ... pronuntiandi faciendique
iniuste: xii. 10, 3 proprio quodam intellegendi ambitu (‘affectation of
superior judgment’): Declam. IV, sub fin., novo mihi inauditoque opus
est ambitu rerum: ib. I pr. si iuvenis innocentissimus iudices uti
vellet ambitu tristissimae calamitatis. Schöll sees no difficulty if
the phrase is taken in the same sense as ‘ambitus parietis,’ ‘ambitus
aedificiorum.’ If _ambitus_ is not a gloss, may the meaning not be that
the speaker goes straight to the heart of his subject instead of
‘beating about the bush,’ like the more leisurely writer? See Crit.
Notes.

#vivunt omnia enim#: ‘all is life and movement.’ For the position of
_enim_ cp. non semper enim §14. In Lucr. _enim_ often comes third in the
sentence, and even later. Mayor cites Cic. ad Att. xiv. 6 §1 odiosa illa
enim fuerant: Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 105.

#nova illa velut nascentia#: the ‘new births’ of his imagination-- of
the _spoken_ word which has more of the impromptu element about it than
the written. 3 §7 omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur placent. For this use
of _ille_ cp. §17 ille laudantium clamor: §47: 3 §6 calor quoque ille
cogitationis: 3 §§18, 22, 31: 5 §§4, 12: ii 10, 7 tremor ille inanis.

#fortuna iudicii#: Cic. Or. §98 ancipites dicendi incertosque casus: de
Orat. i. §120 dicendi difficultatem variosque eventus orationis: pro
Marcello §15 incertus exitus et anceps fortuna belli. This is of the
issue of the trial in itself: _ipsorum qui orant periculo_ is used of
the issue as it affects the advocate, who will have all the credit or
discredit of success or failure. For the strain which this involved cp.
Plin. Ep. iv. 19 §3.-- For the absolute use of _orare_ cp. §76: 5 §6.
Plin. Ep. vii. 9, 7 studium orandi: cp. Tac. Hist. i. 90. Tac. Dial. §6
illa secretiora et tantum ipsis orantibus nota maiora sunt.


I. § 17.

    Praeter haec vox, actio decora, accommodata, ut quisque
    locus postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima in dicendo)
    ratio et, ut semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione
    certius iudicium, quod audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor
    aut ille laudantium clamor extorquet.

#vox, actio ... pronuntiandi ratio#. Here _actio_ takes the place of
_gestus_ in 7 §9, with the same meaning (the management of the person in
speaking): adhibita vocis pronuntiationis gestus observatione. In a
wider sense (§19) it is used of ‘delivery’ generally (ὑπόκρισις),
occurring more commonly in this sense in previous writers than
_pronuntiatio_, which Quintilian gives as an alternative term in iii. 3,
1: cp. xi. 3, 1 pronuntiatio a plerisque actio dicitur, sed prius nomen
a voce, sequens a gestu videtur accipere. Namque actionem Cicero alias
(de Or. iii. §222) quasi sermonem, alias (Or. §55) eloquentiam quandam
corporis dicit. Idem tamen duas eius partes facit quae sunt eaedem
pronuntiationis, vocem atque motum: quapropter utraque appellatione
indifferenter uti licet. In xi. 3, 14 he goes on to divide _actio_ into
_vox_ and _gestus_: cp. Dion. Hal. de Dem. 53, where ὑπόκρισις is
divided into τὰ πάθη τὰ τῆς φωνῆς and τὰ σχήματα τοῦ σώματος: Cic. Brut.
§§141, 239.-- _Pronuntiandi ... ratio_. As voice and gesture (together
making up _actio_ or _pronuntiatio_ in the wide sense) have now been
mentioned, it is tempting to take this third item in the narrower
meaning of ‘articulation,’ in which it occurs 7 §22 tardior
pronuntiatio: cp. dilucida pronuntiatio xi. 3, 33: citata ... pressa ib.
§111. But the prominence given to it (see on _vel potentissima_ below)
seems to make it necessary to understand _pronunt. ratio_ in the widest
sense of _pronuntiatio_ (as probably §119), including voice, gesture,
and other kindred elements; cp. ad Herenn. §3 pronuntiatio est vocis
vultus gestus moderatio cum venustate: Cic. de Inv. §7 pronuntiatio est
vocis et corporis moderatio. For _accommodata ut_ see Crit. Notes.

#vel potentissima#: §15 potentiora. For the supreme importance of
‘delivery’ cp. the well-known story of Demosthenes xi. 3, 6 Demosth.
quid esset in toto dicendi opere primum interrogatus, pronuntiationi
palmam dedit eidemque secundum ac tertium locum, donec ab eo quaeri
desineret, ut eam videri posset non praecipuam sed solam iudicasse. Cp.
Cic. Brut. §142: de Or. iii. §213: Or. §56. Cicero’s use of _actio_ for
_pronuntiatio_ in these passages is probably the origin of the
misunderstanding of this anecdote that shows itself, e.g. in Bacon’s
Essay ‘Of Boldnesse.’ _Actio_ is far wider than our English word: for
its scope and importance cp. de Orat. i. §18 (Actio) quae motu corporis,
quae gestu, quae voltu, quae vocis conformatione ac varietate moderanda
est: quae sola per se ipsa quanta sit, &c.

#semel#: ‘once for all’ 3 §22, and often; Cic. de Off. iii. §62 ut sibi
... semel indicaretur.

#frequenter#, as often in this sense in Quint. The lexx. give no example
from Cicero, but cp. de Nat. Deor. i. 21, 59 Zenonem cum Athenis essem
audiebam frequenter: de Fin. i. 5, 16 eos cum Attico nostro frequenter
audivi: ii. 4, 12 hoc frequenter dici solet a vobis: v. 3, 8 qui fratrem
eius Aristum frequenter audieris: Tusc. Disp. ii. 3, 9 Philo quem nos
frequenter audivimus: Or. §221 non modo non frequenter verum etiam raro
(Wilkins on de Or. ii. §155, 2nd ed.). Cp. Sandys’ note on Or. §81,
where Dr. Reid adds ‘This sense is by no means as uncommon as it is
usually thought to be. There are a good many exx. in the Letters.’ So
Plin. Ep. i. 1, 1: ix. 23, 1.

#suus cuique favor#: ‘one’s preference for a particular speaker.’
Instead of the dat., we have ‘est naturalis favor pro laborantibus’ iv.
1, 9: Tacitus uses _in_ and _erga_ c. acc. (Hist. i. 53: Germ. 33.)

#ille laudantium clamor#. _Ille_ again (§16) to denote something
notorious: ἐκεῖνος. Ancient audiences were highly appreciative:
Isocrates (Panath. §2) speaks of the antitheses, the symmetrical
clauses, and other figures which lend brilliancy to oratorical displays,
compelling the listeners to give clamorous applause (ἐπισημαίνεσθαι καὶ
θορυβεῖν). Cp. xi. 3, 126 conveniet etiam ambulatio quaedam propter
immodicas laudationum moras: §131: and see on §18 below. The references
in Cicero are numerous: Brut. §§164, 326: de Or. i. §152 haec sunt quae
clamores et admirationes in bonis oratoribus efficiunt: ad Att. i. 14, 4
Quid multa? clamores: Or. §§214, 168. Tac. Dial. 39 oratori autem
clamore plausuque opus est et velut quodam theatro, with which Andresen
compares Brut. §191 poema enim reconditum paucorum approbationem, oratio
popularis assensum vulgi debet movere. Plin. Ep. ii. 10, 7: iv. 5, 1:
ix. 13, 18.

#extorquet#: iv. 5, 6 cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre. For the
figure Mayor cps. de Orat. ii. §74 numquam sententias de manibus iudicum
vi quadam orationis extorsimus.


I. § 18.

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

#pudet dissentire#: of Cicero §111 in omnibus quae dicit tanta
auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat.

#velut tacita quadam verecundia#. _Tacitus_ is used frequently of
‘unexpressed’ thought or feeling: Cic. pro Balb. §2 opinio tacita
vestrorum animorum: Cluent. §63 tacita vestra expectatio. Cp. Or. §203
(versuum) modum notat ars, sed aures ipsae tacito eum sensu sine arte
definiunt, where Sandys renders ‘by an unconscious intuition’: de Or.
iii. §195 magna quaedam est vis incredibilisque naturae; omnes enim
tacito quodam sensu sine ulla arte aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac
rationibus recta ac prava diiudicant. On these passages Nägelsbach
relies to prove that _tacitus sensus_ (not inscius, insciens, nescius,
imprudens, &c.) is the right equivalent for ‘the unconscious’-- ‘das
Gefühl, das durch die Sprache nicht zum Ausdruck, mithin nicht zum
Bewusstsein gekommen ist, also gleichsam stillschweigend in der Seele
ruht.’ The correct Latin for Hartmann’s ‘philosophy of the unconscious’
is therefore ‘Hartmanni quae est de tacito sensu (hominum) philosophia.’
In proof of this the passage in the text is cited (p. 312) and
translated ‘durch unbewusste Scheu,’ ‘owing to a sort of unconscious
shyness’: cp. vi. 3, 17 urbanitas qua quidem significari video sumptam
ex conversatione doctorum tacitam eruditionem, ‘unconsciously acquired’:
xi. 2, 17 cum in loca aliqua post tempus reversi sumus quae in his
fecerimus reminiscimur personaeque subeunt, nonnunquam tacitae quoque
cogitationes in mentem revertuntur, ‘unausgesprochene, im Bewusstsein
zurückgedrängte, unbewusst gewordene Gedanken.’

#inhibemur ... credere#. Cic. pro Rab. Post. §24 cum stultitia sua
impeditus sit, quoquo modo possit se expedire. In classical Latin the
infinitive is common enough after such verbs in the passive, and an
object clause is often met with after _prohibere_ even in the active:
after _impedire_ Cicero uses the infinitive only when there is a neuter
subject: e.g. de Or. i. §163 me impedit pudor haec exquirere: de Off.
ii. 2, 8: de Nat. Deor. i. §87.-- For Quintilian’s preference for the
infin. cp. §72 meruit credi: §96 legi dignus: §97 esse docti affectant:
2 §7 contentum esse id consequi: 5 §5 qui vertere orationes Latinas
vetant. See Introd. pp. lv, lvi.

#cum interim#: with indic. as §111 below. This is the more common
construction in Quintilian: Roby, 1733. Cp. i. 12, 3: ii. 12, 2: xii.
10, 67. So _cum interea_: Cic. Cluent. §82. The subj. occurs iv. 2, 57.
Bonnell-Meister strangely say it = quin etiam here and §111. Translate
‘though all the time’ the taste of the majority is wrong, while the
claqueurs will applaud anything. Cp. Crit. Notes.

#vitiosa pluribus placent#: i. 6, 44 unde enim tantum boni ut pluribus
quae recta sunt placeant.

#a conrogatis#. The reference is to the _claqueurs_ who were often
brought together for a fee to applaud the speakers in the courts: iv. 2,
37 ad clamorem dispositae vel etiam forte circumfusae multitudinis
compositi: Plin. Ep. ii. 14, 4 sequuntur auditores actoribus similes,
conducti et redempti: manceps convenitur: in media basilica tam palam
sportulae quam in triclinio dantur ... heri duo nomenclatores mei ...
ternis denariis ad laudandum trahebantur. tanti constat ut sis
disertissimus. hoc pretio quamlibet numerosa subsellia implentur, hoc
ingens corona colligitur, hoc infiniti clamores commoventur, cum
μεσόχορος dedit signum. opus est enim signo apud non intellegentes, ne
audientes quidem: nam plerique non audiunt, nec ulli magis laudant....
scito eum pessime dicere qui laudabitur maxime. primus hunc audiendi
morem induxit Largus Licinus, hactenus tamen ut auditores corrogaret:
ita certe ex Quintiliano, praeceptore meo, audisse memini. Cp. Iuv. vii.
44 with Mayor’s note.


I. § 19.

    Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam
    prava iudicia non referant. Lectio libera est nec actionis
    impetu transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive dubites
    sive memoriae penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et
    tractemus et, ut cibos mansos ac prope liquefactos demittimus,
    quo facilius digerantur, ita lectio non cruda, sed multa
    iteratione mollita et velut confecta memoriae imitationique
    tradatur.

#gratiam ... non referunt#: ‘a depraved taste will fail to give proper
recognition to what is more than well spoken.’ For _prava iud._ cp. §125
severiora iudicia: so ii. 5, 10 iudiciorum pravitate: and §72 below,
e contrario: see on _ex proximo_ §16, and cp. Crit. Notes.

#nec actionis impetu transcurrit#: ‘does not hurry past us with the
rapid swoop of oral delivery.’ For the active use see 5 §8 non enim
scripta lectione secura transcurrimus sed tractamus singula, which gives
the same antithesis as there is between this sentence and the next. For
the abl. cp. _diversitate_ 5 §10. See Crit. Notes.

#sive ... sive#: the subj. of the 2nd person represents the French _on_
or Germ. _man_ with the 3rd person. Cp. ix. 2, 69 ideoque a quibusdam
tota res repudiatur, sive intellegatur sive non intellegatur.

#repetamus et tractemus#: subj. of command ‘we must go back on what we
have read and revise (think over) it thoroughly.’ Cp. the antithesis in
5 §8 quoted above. Cic. Or. §118 habeat omnes philosophiae notos ac
tractatos locos. See Crit. Notes.

#cibos#. Note the parallelism between _mansos_, _liquefactos_, and
_demittimus_ on the one hand, and _mollita_, _confecta_, _tradatur_ on
the other.-- For _mansos_ cp. de Or. ii. §162: qui omnes tenuissimas
particulas atque omnia minima mansa ut nutrices infantibus pueris in os
inserant. The word _mandere_ (Eng. mange, manger) means originally
‘moisten,’ from root mand-, cp. mad-, madeo. Quint. xi. 2, 41 taedium
illud et scripta et lecta saepius revolvendi et quasi eundem cibum
remandendi.

#digerantur#, late Latin for _concoquantur_, xi. 2, 35 digestum cibum.
Introd. p. 1.

#lectio# = ‘what we read.’

#mollita#. Herbst and Mayor cite Ov. Met. i. 228 atque ita semineces
partim ferventibus artus Mollit aquis; and for _confecta_ (‘chewed,’
‘masticated’) Columella vi. 2 §14 (of oxen) multi cibi edaces verum in
eo conficiendo lenti: nam hi melius concoquunt ... qui ex commodo quam
qui festinanter mandunt: Pliny, N. H. xi. §160 (of the teeth) qui
digerunt cibum (the incisors) lati et acuti, qui conficiunt (the
grinders) duplices. Cp. Cic. N. D. ii. §134: Livy ii. 32, 10. Elsewhere
it is used of the action of the stomach on food: Cic. N. D. ii. §137:
Pliny N. H. xi. §180: viii. §72.

#memoriae imitationique#, ‘to the memory for (subsequent) imitation.’


I. § 20.

    Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi
    minime fallat legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi
    sollicitudinem, nec per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed
    perlectus liber utique ex integro resumendus, praecipueque
    oratio, cuius virtutes frequenter ex industria quoque
    occultantur.

#non nisi# is here practically an adverb (tantum), modifying only one
term of the proposition instead of, as in Ciceronian Latin, belonging to
different clauses, or at least different parts of the same clause. In
the latter case it is almost always separated, the _non_ preceding or
following the _nisi_: 3 §30 nisi in solitudine reperire non possumus: 5
§5: 7 §1. For the text cp. 3 §29 non nisi refecti, and Ovid, Tr. iii.
12, 36.

#fallat#, i.e. as a model of style. For the construction cp. tenuia et
quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedant: §§78, 118, 119.

#sed# does not bear an adversative meaning, but is equivalent to _et
quidem_, _immo vero_, ‘nay more.’ See Mayor on Iuv. iv. 27 and v. 147.
Holden on de Off. i. §33 quotes ad Att. v. 21 §6 Q. Volusium, certum
hominem, sed mirifice etiam abstinentem, misi in Cyprum: ad Fam. xiii.
§64 apud ipsum praeclarissime posueris sed mihi etiam gratissimum
feceris.

#ad# (i.e. usque ad) #scribendi sollicitudinem#, i.e. as thoroughly and
as slowly. Cic. pro Mil. §80 prope ad immortalitatis et religionem et
memoriam consecrantur: ‘bis zur Verehrung der Unsterblichkeit’ (Hand),
i.e. ‘so much venerated as almost to obtain the religious worship and
commemoration proper to an immortal state of being’ (Purton). For
_scrib. soll._ (of the careful deliberation one gives to writing) cp.
scribentium curam 3 §20: Plin. Ep. ii. 5 §2 his tu rogo intentionem
scribentis accommodes.

#utique#, ‘by all means.’ In §57 we have nec utique = nullo modo:
without the negative it = omni modo, ‘anyhow,’ ‘under any
circumstances,’ ‘happen what may.’ (Cp. Cic. ad Att. xii. 8: xiii.
48, 2.) The difference may be seen in the following from Seneca (Ep. 85
§31) Sapienti propositum est in vita agenda non utique quod temptat
efficere, sed omnino recte facere: gubernatori propositum est utique
navem in portum perducere. It frequently occurs with the gerundive, as
here: cp. §§24, 103: 2 §10: 5 §12: 7 §§14, 19, 30. For _non utique_
(‘not of course,’ ‘not necessarily’) cp. xii. 2, 18.

#ex integro# occurs four times in Quint., here and at 3 §§6, 18: xi. 3,
156. In such adverbial expressions _de_ or _ab_ was formerly more
common: but cp. _ex improviso_ Cic. Verr. i. 112. Quintilian has _de
integro_ only once, ii. 4, 13: cp. ix. 3, 37.

#praecipue# for _praesertim_: cp. §89: and with _cum_ ix. 2, 85: Hor.
Ep. ii. 1, 261.

#ex industria# (§125: 5 §9) occurs Plaut. Poen. i. 2, 9: Livy i. 56, 8.
Quintilian has _de industria_ ix. 4, 144.

#quoque#: as often in Quint. for _etiam_. Cp. on §125: Introd. p. liv.


I. § 21.

    Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur orator, eaque
    in prima parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa profutura.
    Itaque suo loco minus placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint
    ignorantibus; ideoque erunt cognitis omnibus repetenda.

#saepe enim#: cp. xii. 9, 4.

#praeparat#: cp. iv. 2, 55 hoc faciunt et illae praeparationes, cum reus
dicitur robustus, armatus, sollicitus contra infirmos, inermes, securos:
ix. 2, 17.

#actionis# as below §22: 5 §20. Cp. Prima actio in Verrem, &c.

#in summa#: i.e. will not tell till the end is reached. Cp. iv. 2, 112
cur quod in summa parte sum actionis petiturus, non in primo statim
rerum ingressu, si fieri potest, consequar? For summus = extremus, cp.
§97 summa in excolendis operibus manus: see Introd. p. xlvi.

#suo loco#, ‘where they occur,’ not as 5 §23. To appreciate such points
thoroughly, we must know their bearing on the whole argument.

#ideoque# very common in Quint. for _itaque_: §§27, 31, 102: 2 §§17, 26:
3 §§16, 25, 28, 33: 5 §§5, 16: 6 §§3, 5: 7 §15. So Tac. Dial. 31 ad
fin.: Germ. 26.

#repetenda# as §19.


I. § 22.

    Illud vero utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes
    in manus sumpserimus, et, quotiens continget, utrimque habitas
    legere actiones: ut Demosthenis et Aeschinis inter se
    contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque Messallae, quorum alter pro
    Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et Cassi reo Asprenate
    aliasque plurimas.

#illud#, like ἐκεῖνο to introduce what follows: §67: 2 §7: 5 §11: 7 §32.

#causas quarum orationes#: Cic. de Senect. §38 causarum illustrium
quascunque defendi nunc cum maxime conficio orationes.

#utrimque#, §131: 5 §20.

#Demosthenis et Aeschinis#. The reference is to the _De Corona_ of
Demosthenes and Aeschines _Contra Ctesiphontem_,-- both translated by
Cicero (Opt. Gen. Or. §14): also to the _De Falsa Legatione_ and
Aeschines _Contra Timarchum_.

#Servi Sulpici#: see on §116.

#Messallae#: see on §113.

#pro Aufidia#. From iv. 2, 106 it would appear that Messalla was
prosecutor in this case: but in vi. 1, 20 that rôle is assigned to
Sulpicius. Schöll has proposed to alter the text of the latter passage
as follows: ut Servium Sulpicium Messalla contra Aufidiam ne signatorum,
ne ipsius discrimen obiciat sibi praemonet. It is probable that the case
concerned an inheritance.

#Pollionis#: see on §113.

#Cassi#: see on §116.

#reo Asprenate#. C. Nonius Asprenas, a friend of Augustus, was
prosecuted by Cassius for poisoning, and was defended by Pollio, Suet.
Aug. 56. In xi. 1, 57 Quint. urges that an accuser should always appear
reluctant to press the charge, and adds ‘ideoque mihi illud Cassi Severi
non mediocriter displicet: di boni, vivo, et, quo me vivere iuvet,
Asprenatem reum video.’ Pliny (N. H. 35, 46) tells us that 130 guests
were poisoned.


I. § 23.

    Quin etiam si minus pares videbuntur aliquae, tamen ad
    cognoscendam litium quaestionem recte requirentur, ut contra
    Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre.
    Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque {egerit utile} erit scire.
    Nam de domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et pro Milone orationem
    Brutus exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi egisse eum
    Cornelius Celsus falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla
    defenderunt eosdem, et nobis pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo
    Domiti Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi Laeli orationes ferebantur.

#quin etiam#: see Crit. Notes.

#minus pares#, i.e. in point of rhetorical worth. For _si ... aliquae_
cp. 2 §23: 6 §5.

#recte requirentur#, i.e. ‘it will be well to get them up.’

#Ciceronis orationes#: ‘pro Ligario,’ and ‘in Verrem.’ The former was
impeached by Q. Tubero (B.C. 46) in respect of having sided with the
Pompeians in Africa. ‘Cicero defended him successfully before Caesar in
the forum (Plut. Cic. 39); the speech was greatly admired at the time
(ad Att. xiii. 12 §2: 19 §2: 20 §2: 44 §3) and since, for, short as it
is, it is often cited by Quint. and the other rhet. lat.’ (Mayor).

#Hortensi pro Verre#, B.C. 70. Nothing of Hortensius remains, so that
posterity has not had the opportunity which Cicero hoped it would enjoy:
dicendi autem genus quod fuerit in utroque orationes utriusque etiam
posteris nostris indicabunt (Brut. §324). Quint. does not mention him
among the Roman orators, §§105-122. His oratory depended greatly for its
effect on his graceful delivery, and he was not to be judged by his
written speeches: Cic. Or. §132 dicebat melius quam scripsit Hortensius:
he ‘spoke better, i.q. was accustomed to speak better than he has
written,-- than he shows himself in his written speeches which are still
extant’ (Sandys): cp. Quint. xi. 3, 8 where he extols his effective
delivery and goes on ‘cuius rei fides est quod eius scripta tantum intra
famam sunt, qua diu princeps oratorum aliquando aemulus Ciceronis
existimatus est, novissime, quoad vixit, secundus, ut appareat placuisse
aliquid eo dicente quod legentes non invenimus.’-- For other references
to the case of Verres, see vi. 3, 98: 5, 4.

#utile erit scire#: see Crit. Notes.

#de domo Ciceronis#. Cicero’s house was destroyed at the instigation of
Clodius, after his banishment in B.C. 58. On his return he delivered his
speech pro Domo Sua before the Pontiffs, and the senate decreed that his
house should be restored at the public cost.

#dixit Calidius#. His speech must have been something more than a mere
rhetorical exercise, as some have supposed: it probably argued the
question before a tribunal in a different form. For Calidius see Brut.
§274 non fuit orator unus e multis, potius inter multos prope singularis
fuit, &c. Cp. xi. 3, 123 and 155: xii. 10, 11 subtilitatem Calidii
(‘finished elegance’): ib. §37. He was born B.C. 97; was praetor 57; and
died 47.

#Brutus, M. Iunius# (B.C. 85-42) justified in this speech the murder of
Clodius, not (as Cicero had done) by the statement that Clodius had
plotted Milo’s death, but on the ground that he was a bad citizen and
deserved to die: iii. 6, 93. Other references are §123 and 5 §20.

#egisse#: to have actually delivered it: opposed to _scripsit_.

#Cornelius Celsus#: see on §124.

#et Pollio et Messalla#. The first _et_ is not correlative to the
second, but adds to the _et pro Milone_ clause a third example, as the
_et_ before _nobis pueris_ does a fourth. Spalding thought that et ...
et was here = tam ... quam.

#defenderunt eosdem#: e.g. Liburnia ix. 2, 34.

#nobis pueris#: an autobiographical reminiscence. Cp. i. 7, 27: vi. 3,
57: viii. 3, 22-3: ib. 1, 31: x. 1, 86: viii. 3, 76: 5, 21: i. 5, 24: v.
6, 6.

#Voluseno Catulo#: not mentioned elsewhere.

#Domiti Afri#: see on §§86, 118. Of his orations, those on behalf of
Volusenus and Cloatilla seem to have been the most celebrated: cp. viii.
5, 16: ix. 2, 20: 3, 66. For his work on Testimony, see v. 7, 7: and for
his ‘libri urbane dictorum’ vi. 3, 42.

#Crispi Passieni#. He was the stepfather of Nero, according to Suetonius
(Nero, 6), and died A.D. 49. In vi. 1, 50 we have a reference to a
speech of his on behalf of his wife Domitia. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. iv.
pr. §6 says of him ‘quo ego nil novi subtilius in omnibus rebus, maxime
in distinguendis et curandis vitiis.’ In speaking of Caligula’s
obsequiousness under Tiberius, Tacitus (Ann. vi. 20) says ‘unde mox
scitum Passieni oratoris dictum percrebruit neque meliorem umquam servum
neque deteriorem dominum fuisse.’ His father’s oratory is highly praised
by M. Seneca, who ranks him after Pollio and Corvinus (Contr. 13, 17:
Exc. Contr. 3 pr. 10, 14), and appears also to mention the grandfather
(Contr. 10 pr. 11). Seneca the philosopher refers to the hereditary
eloquence of the family in the epigram he addresses to Crispus: Maxima
facundo vel avo vel gloria patri (vi. 9). Pliny, Ep. vii. 6, 11.

#Decimi Laeli#: probably the same as the Laelius Balbus who undertook an
impeachment under Tiberius: Tac. Ann. vi. 47. In the next chapter we are
told that the punishment which overtook him (deportation and loss of
senatorian rank) was a source of satisfaction ‘quia Balbus truci
eloquentia habebatur, promptus adversum insontes.’

#ferebantur#: ‘were in circulation,’ ‘were talked of’; cp. §129: 7 §30:
vii. 224: i. pr. §7. Cic. Brut. §27 ante Periclem cuius scripta quaedam
feruntur: Suet. Iul. 20: Tac. Dial. 10 ad fin.


I. § 24.

    Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi
    auctores dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur
    aliquando et oneri cedunt et indulgent ingeniorum suorum
    voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum; nonnumquam fatigantur,
    cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes, Horatio vero etiam
    Homerus ipse videatur.

#Neque id statim# introduces a second precept, the first having been
given in §20. He passes here from orators to writers in general.

#id# of what follows (omnia ... esse perfecta): as §§37, 112: 2 §21. So
_illud_ §22.

#auctores# = scriptores. In the Ciceronian age _auctor_ carried with it
some idea of ‘authority,’ ‘warranty’ or the like: Cic. pro Mur. §30 and
Tusc. iv. §3: cp. §§37, 40, 48, 66, 72, 74, 85, 93, 124: 2 §§1, 15: 5
§§3, 8. Prof. Nettleship (Lat. Lex.) thinks that it is never quite
synonymous with _scriptor_, even in Quintilian, and would render by
‘master’: just as in Cic. Att. xii. 18, 1 quos nunc lectito auctores:
Suet. Aug. 89 in evolvendis utriusque linguae auctoribus peritus: Sen.
Ep. ii. 2 lectio auctorum multorum et omnis generis voluminum: Tranq. 9,
4 paucis te auctoribus tradere: Iuv. vii. 231 ut legat historias,
auctores noverit omnes.

#utique#: see on §20. It is often used in stating a consequence: v. 10,
57 quod iustitia est utique virtus est, quod non est iustitia potest
esse virtus: ib. §73 si continentia virtus utique et abstinentia. Bonn.
Lex. p. 930.

#labuntur#: §94: 2 §15 nam in magnis quoque auctoribus incidunt aliqua
vitiosa.

#oneri cedunt#: contrast §123 suffecit ponderi rerum.

#indulgent ... voluptati#: cp. §98: and nimium amator ingenii sui (of
Ovid) §88.

#intendunt animum#: Sall. Cat. 51, 3 ubi intenderis ingenium valet (sc.
animus).

#dormitare#: xii. 1, 22 quamquam neque ipsi Ciceroni Demosthenes
videatur satis esse perfectus, quem dormitare interim dicit. Cic. Or.
§104 ut usque eo difficiles ac morosi simus ut nobis non satisfaciat
ipse Demosthenes. It was in a letter that Cicero made use of the
expression here cited: Plut. Cic. 24 καίτοι τινὲς τῶν προσποιουμένων
δημοσθενίζειν ἐπιφύονται φωνῇ τοῦ Κικέρωνος, ἣν πρός τινα τῶν ἑταίρων
ἔθηκεν ἐν ἐπιστολῇ γράψας, ἐνιαχοῦ τῶν λόγων ὑπονυστάζειν τὸν Δημοσθένη.

#interim#: see on §9. Quint. here uses _aliquando_, _nec semper_,
_nonnumquam_, and _interim_ alongside of each other: cp. iv. 5, 20.

#Horatio#: A. P. 359 et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.
Homer was not above the criticism of the Greek grammarians and
philosophers, who delighted to discover faults and inconsistencies in
his poems: hence Zoilus was known as Ὁμηρομάστιξ. The fragments of
Horace’s predecessor Lucilius also contain some criticisms of Homer:
e.g. Sat. ix. 12 (Gerlach) Quapropter dico nemo qui culpat Homerum
Perpetuo culpat, &c., and xv. where he satirizes the story of
Polyphemus.

#etiam ... ipse#: see on §15.


I. § 25.

    Summi enim sunt, homines tamen, acciditque his qui,
    quidquid apud illos reppererunt, dicendi legem putant, ut
    deteriora imitentur (id enim est facilius) ac se abunde similes
    putent si vitia magnorum consequantur.

#homines#. Cp. Petronius 75 nemo nostrum non peccat: homines sumus non
dei: ib. 130 fateor me, domina, saepe peccasse; nam et homo sum et adhuc
iuvenis.

#deteriora#: cp. §127 sq. (of the imitation of Seneca’s faults): 2 §§15,
16.

#facilius#: Iuv. xiv. 40 quoniam dociles imitandis turpibus ac pravis
omnes sumus. So Hor. Ep. i. 19, 17 decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile.

#abunde#, often used to heighten the force of adjs. and advbs. Cp. xi.
1, 36 abunde disertus: xii. 11, 19 abunde satis: Hor. Sat. i. 2, 59:
Sall. Iug. 14: Liv. viii. 29. See on §94: and cp. §104.

#vitia magnorum#: cp. de Or. ii. §90 non ut multos imitatores saepe
cognovi, qui aut ea quae facilia sunt aut etiam illa quae insignia ac
paene vitiosa consectantur imitando-- in eo ipso quem delegerat imitari
etiam vitia voluit.


I. § 26.

    Modesto tamen et circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris
    pronuntiandum est, ne, quod plerisque accidit, damnent quae non
    intellegunt. Ac si necesse est in alteram errare partem, omnia
    eorum legentibus placere quam multa displicere maluerim.

#circumspecto#. So verba non circumspecta Ov. Fast. v. 539: also in
Sueton., Colum., Seneca, and Val. Max. Cp. v. 7, 31: xii. 10, 23.

#plerisque#: see Introd. p. xlvi.

#damnent#. Strabo vii. 3, p. 300, in speaking of Callimachus, who
censured Homer, περὶ ὧν ἀγνοοῦσιν αὐτοί, περὶ τούτων τῷ ποιητῇ
προφέρουσι.

#ac si#: 2 §8. It almost = quod si: both relate to what has gone before.

#alteram# = alterutram: ‘on one side or on the other.’ Cp. ii. 6, 2: v.
10, 69 ex duobus quorum necesse est alterum verum (esse): i. 4, 24: ix.
3, 6. So also in Cicero: e.g. ad Att. xi. 18, 1: Acad. ii. 43. 132.

#maluerim#: see on _fuerit_ §37.


I. § 27.

    Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem
    poetarum multique eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito.
    Namque ab his in rebus spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in
    adfectibus motus omnis et in personis decor petitur,
    praecipueque velut attrita cotidiano actu forensi ingenia optime
    rerum talium blanditia reparantur; ideoque in hac lectione
    Cicero requiescendum putat.

#conferre# with dat. §§63, 71, 95. Cp. on §1.

#Theoparastus#: probably in his lost work περὶ λέξεως, or some other of
the ten treatises on Rhetoric which are ascribed to him by Diogenes
Laertius (v. 46-50). See on §83.

#neque immerito#: ‘and not without reason,’-- an elliptical expression
(referring to both _dicit_ and _sequuntur_) used to introduce the proof
of a foregoing statement. So §79 nec immerito, and ii. 8, 1: neque
immerito vii. 7, 1: et merito vi. 1, 4. Cicero often has neque iniuria,
nam, &c., e.g. de Or. i. §150: and even after _est_ pro Sext. Rosc. §116
in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est: neque iniuria.

#ab his ... petitur#: ‘it is to the poets that we must go for,’ &c.

#rebus#. See on §4.

#spiritus#: §§44, 61, 104: 3 §22: 5 §4: ‘inspiration.’ So often in
Horace: Od. iv. 6, 29 spiritum Phoebus mihi ... dedit poetae: Sat. i. 4,
46 quod acer spiritus ac vis Nec verbis nec rebus inest. Cp. also i. 8,
5 interim et sublimitate heroi carminis animus adsurgat et ex
magnitudine rerum spiritum ducat et optimis imbuatur.

#in verbis sublimitas#: ‘elevation of language.’ Cp. viii. 6, 11. So the
author of the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ makes sublimity attainable by
the imitation and emulation of the great writers and poets of former
days: 13 §2.

#in adfectibus motus omnis#. Poetry shows how to appeal to every feeling
of our emotional nature. For _adfectus_ see vi. 2, 7, where the two
divisions are given, πάθος and ἦθος. Cp. §§48, 53, 55, 68, 107: 2 §27: 7
§§14, 15.

#in personis decor#: ‘the appropriate treatment of the characters,’ a
sense of what the fitness of things demands in adapting speech to the
persons to whom it relates. Cp. Cic. Or. §§70-71 especially semperque in
omni parte orationis ut vitae quid deceat est considerandum; quod et in
re de qua agitur positum est, et in personis et eorum qui dicunt et
eorum qui audiunt. This ‘propriety’ was always much praised in Lysias,
Hor. A. P. 156-7. Cp. §§62, 71: 2 §27, 22: vi. 1, 25 prosopopoeiae, id
est fictae alienarum personarum orationes quales litigatoris ore dicit
patronus (e.g. Cicero pro Milone §93). Cic. de Off. i. §87 sed tum
servare illud poetas quod deceat dicimus cum id quod quaque persona
dignum est et fit et dicitur, &c. De Or. iii. §§210-211.

#attrita cotidiano actu#. 5 §14 alitur enim atque enitescit velut pabulo
laetiore facundia et adsidua contentionum asperitate fatigata renovatur.
So i. 8, 11: videmus ... inseri versus summa non eruditionis modo
gratia, sed etiam iucunditatis, cum poeticis voluptatibus aures a
forensi asperitate respirent. Petronius ch. 5 interdum subducta foro det
pagina versum: 118 forensibus ministeriis exercitati frequenter ad
carminis tranquillitatem tamquam ad portum feliciorem refugerunt. So
Tac. Dial. 13 me vero dulces, ut Vergilius ait, Musae, &c.: cp. 3 and 4.
Plin. Ep. viii. 4, 4.-- For _attrita_ cp. viii. pr. §2 ingenia ...
asperiorum tractatu rerum atteruntur: for the spelling _cotidie_ see i.
7, 6.

#Cicero#, pro Arch. §12 Quaeres a nobis, Grati, cur tanto opere hoc
homine delectemur. Quia suppeditat nobis ubi et animus ex hoc forensi
strepitu reficiatur et aures convicio defessae conquiescant.


I. § 28.

    Meminerimus tamen non per omnia poetas esse oratori
    sequendos nec libertate verborum nec licentia figurarum:
    {poeticam} ostentationi comparatam et praeter id quod solam
    petit voluptatem, eamque etiam fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam
    quaedam incredibilia sectatur, patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari,

#non per omnia#, &c. 2 §§21-22.

#libertate verborum#, §29: 5 §4.

#licentia figurarum# see exx. in §12, with note on _figuramus_: cp. §29.

#ostentationi comparatam#. Poetry is ‘epideictic’ in character: and of
the γενος ἐπιδεικτικόν Quint. says (iii. 4, 13) non tam demonstrationis
vim habere quam ostentationis videtur. Forensic oratory, like everything
else that has an immediate and practical aim, cannot afford to set such
store on ‘beauty of presentation.’ Cp. ii. 10, 10: iv. 3, 2: viii.
3, 11. Cic. Orat. §§37, 38, 42. See Crit. Notes for _poeticam_.

#praeter id quod# for the more classical _praeterquam quod_ (which only
occurs twice in Quint.). So 2 §26: 3 §6: cp. §80 ob hoc quod: §108 in
hoc quod: 3 §18 ex eo quod.

#fingendo ... falsa#. Hild cites Arist. Poet. 9 and 24; especially (of
Homer) Δεδίδαχε δὲ μάλιστα Ὅμηρος καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψευδῆ λέγειν ὡς δεῖ
... Προαιρεῖσθαί τε δεῖ ἀδύνατα καὶ εἰκότα μᾶλλον ἢ δύνατα καὶ ἀπίθανα.

#patrocinio#: i. 12, 16 difficultatis patrocinia praeteximus segnitiae.
Poetry has the benefit of a sort of ‘prerogative,’ as compared with
history. Krüger explains = esse quae huic generi patrocinentur, unde
defensionem et excusationem petat poetarum licentia. The idea of
‘defence’ implies ‘justification’: and much that could be justified and
vindicated in the poet would be without excuse in the orator.


I. § 29.

    quod adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem non semper uti
    propriis possit, sed depulsa recta via necessario ad eloquendi
    quaedam deverticula confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba,
    sed extendere, conripere, convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero
    armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad
    victoriam niti.

#adligata#, 3 §10. For the ‘restraints of metre’ cp. i. 8, 14 servire
metro coguntur (poetae). Cic. de Or. i. §70 est enim finitimus oratori
poeta, numeris astrictior paulo verborum autem licentia liberior. Or.
§67 cum sit versu astrictior (poeta).

#propriis#, sc. verbis: v. on §6. Direct, natural, and unartificial
language is meant, as opposed to metaphorical.

#deverticula#: ‘by-ways’ of expression. The word literally means a lane
turning off from a highway (ii. 3, 9 recto itinere lassi plerumque
devertunt): and so metaphorically xii. 3, 11: ix. 2, 78: Livy ix. 17, 1.

#mutare# includes all changes in the use of words, and covers both
_libertas verborum_ and _licentia figurarum_: e.g. ‘mucro’ for
‘gladius.’

#extendere# and #conripere# are used of syllables: #convertere# and
#dividere# of words. An instance of ‘lengthening’ (extendere) is
‘induperator’ for imperator: of ‘contracting’ (conripere) ‘periclum’ for
periculum. Mayor takes it of quantity only, and compares i. 5, 18: 6,
32: ix. 4, 89: 3, 69: vii. 9, 13. As an instance of ‘transposition’ (the
removal of words from their usual order) we may take ‘collo dare
bracchia circum’ for circumdare collum bracchiis, or ‘transtra per et
remos’: and for _dividere_ (separation by tmesis) ‘hyperboreo septem
subiecta trioni’ (viii. 6, 66) and other instances from Vergil (e.g.
Aen. i. 610 ‘quae me cumque vocant terrae’).

#nos#: ‘we advocates.’ For the figure in _armatos stare_ see on §4
athleta. Cp. Or. §42 verum haec ludorum atque pompae; nos autem iam in
aciem dimicationemque veniamus. Mayor cites also ii. 10, 8: vi. 4, 17:
Cic. Opt. Gen. Or. §17: de Or. i. §147, 157: ii. 94: de Legg. iii. 14:
Brut. §222: Introd. p. lvi.

#decernere#, another military figure: cp. Cic. de Or. ii. §200 pro mea
omni fama prope fortunisque decernere. See on _decretoriis_ 5 §20: and
cp. xii. 7, 5.


I. § 30.

    Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed
    fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens
    simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique,
    imbellis et potius habenti periculosus.

#Neque ego velim#: ‘and yet I should not like.’ The same adversative
sense of neque = but not (elsewhere strengthened by _rursus_) is found
§80: 5 §5: 7 §4. For _ego_ (_ergo_?) see Crit. Notes.

#arma#. De Orat. i. §32 Quid autem tam necessarium quam tenere semper
arma quibus vel tectus ipse esse possis vel provocare improbos (conj.
integer) vel te ulcisci lacessitus? Tac. Dial. 5 quid est tutius quam
eam exercere artem qua semper armatus praesidium amicis, opem alienis,
salutem periclitantibus, invidis vero inimicis metum et terrorem ultro
feras? ... sin proprium periculum increpuit, non hercule lorica et
gladius in acie firmius munimentum quam reo et periclitanti eloquentia
praesidium simul ac telum, quo propugnare pariter et incessere sive in
iudicio sive in senatu sive apud principem possis. So ‘arma facundiae’
ii. 16, 10 and often.

#situs#, the ‘rust’ or ‘mould’ that comes from _being let alone_ (sino),
as often in Vergil, e.g. segnem patiere situ durescere campum Georg. i.
72: loca senta situ Aen. vi. 462. So i. 2, 18 quendam velut in opaco
situm ducit: xii. 5, 2.

#fulgorem ... qui terreat#: viii. 3, 3 nec fortibus modo sed etiam
fulgentibus armis proeliatur. Hor. Car. ii. 1, 19-20 iam fulgor armorum
fugaces terret equos equitumque voltus. Mayor cites also Veget. ii. 14:
a cavalry officer must make his men often scour their cuirasses, helmets
and pikes: plurimum enim terroris hostibus armorum splendor importat.
quis credat militem bellicosum cuius dissimulatione situ ac rubigine
arma foedantur?

#ferri#: viii. 3, 5 nam et ferrum adfert oculis terroris aliquid, et
fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si vis eorum tantum non etiam ipse
fulgor timeretur.

#quo#, sc. fulgore.

#praestringitur# §92. Cic. de Fin. iv. §37 aciem animorum nostrorum
virtutis splendore praestringitis: and with _ut ita dicam_ to soften the
metaphor de Sen. §42 mentis ut ita dicam praestringit oculos (sc.
voluptas.)

#auri argentique ... periculosus#. The practical speaker would only
prejudice his case by the use of ornament which, as in poetry, makes
_ostentatio_ and _voluptas_ (§28) its chief object. The commentators
cite Livy ix. 17, 16 of Darius: inter purpuram atque aurum, oneratum
fortunae apparatibus suae, praedam verius quam hostem ... incruentus
devicit (sc. Alexander): ib. 40 §4 militem ... non caelatum auro et
argento sed ferro et animis fretum: so Livy x. 39 per ... aurata scuta
transire Romanum pilum: cp. Aesch. Septem c. Th. 397. Curt. iii. 10 §§9,
10 aciem hostium auro purpuraque fulgentem intueri iubebat, praedam non
arma gestantem, irent et imbellibus feminis aurum viri eriperent.

#potius# is used pretty much as _saepius_ (‘oftener than not’) below
§32. Krüger takes it closely with _habenti_ (sc. quam adversario). This
is better than Hild’s _quam utilis_.


I. § 31.

    Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco
    potest; verum et ipsa sic est legenda ut sciamus plerasque eius
    virtutes oratori esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et
    quodam modo carmen solutum, et scribitur ad narrandum, non ad
    probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem,
    sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur;
    ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris narrandi
    taedium evitat.

#Historia# §§73-75: §§101-4; ii. 4, 2 apud rhetorem initium sit
historia, tanto robustior quanto verior: ib. 5 §1: 8 §7: iii. 8, 67:
xii. 4. Cic. de Orat. i. §201 monumenta rerum gestarum et vetustatis
exempla oratori nota esse (debent): ii. §§51-64, where Antonius
discourses on history: Or. §66 huic generi historia finitima est, in qua
et narratur ornate et regio saepe aut pugna describitur; interponuntur
etiam contiones et hortationes, sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens
expetitur, non haec contorta et acris oratio,-- of the flowing
smoothness of ‘historical oratory’ as against the compact and incisive
style of actual public speaking. Pliny Ep. v. 8 §9 habet quidem oratio
et historia multa communia, sed plura diversa in his ipsis quae communia
videntur. Narrat illa, narrat haec, sed aliter: huic pleraque humilia et
sordida et ex medio petita, illi omnia recondita splendida excelsa
conveniunt: hanc saepius ossa musculi nervi, illam tori quidam et quasi
iubae decent: haec vel maxime vi amaritudine instantia, illa tractu et
suavitate atque etiam dulcedine placet. Postremo alia verba, alius
sonus, alia constructio. Nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, κτῆμα
sit an ἀγώνισμα; quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.-- The
relation of this last passage to the text is discussed by Eussner in
Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. xvii. vol. 9, pp. 391-393. He rightly insists
(as against de la Beye) that in Pliny _illa_, _illi_, _illam_ refer to
historia, _haec_, _huic_, _hanc_ to oratio.

#suco#, ‘sap’: Donatus on Ter. Eun. ii. 3, 7 (‘corpus solidum et suci
plenum’) explains sucus as ‘humor in corpore quo abundant bene
valentes.’ Cicero often uses the same figure: de Or. ii. §93 (Critias
Theramenes Lysias) retinebant illum Pericli sucum, sed erant paulo
uberiore filo: ib. §88: iii. §96: Brut. §36 sucus ille et sanguis
incorruptus: and ad Att. iv. 16 c §10 amisimus ... omnem non modo sucum
ac sanguinem sed etiam colorem et speciem pristinae civitatis.-- For
uberi see Crit. Notes.

#et ipsa#: like poetry in §28: καὶ αὐτή, ‘likewise.’ For the much
debated question whether _et ipse_ was used by Cicero see the note in
Nägelsbach, pp. 366-367, from which it will appear that no conclusive
instance can be cited: Merguet gives only pro Rosc. Am. §48 qui _et_
ipsi incensi sunt studio, where, however, the _et_ is now generally
disconnected from _ipsi_ and referred to the following vitam_que_
rusticam arbitrantur. In all other passages _et_ seems to have been
interpolated in conformity with the later usage.-- “Livy often uses _et
ipse_ meaning ‘on his part’ or ‘as well,’ in cases where it is implied
that the predicate or attribute of the subject expressed is common
thereto with a subject unexpressed save in the context, e.g. xxi. 17, 7
Cornelio minus copiarum datum, quia L. Manlius praetor et ipse cum haud
invalido praesidio in Galliam mittebatur, ‘Manlius was being sent _as
well_ (as Cornelius)’; i. pr. §3 iuvabit tamen rerum gestarum memoriae
principis terrarum populi pro virili parte et ipsum consuluisse.
‘I shall be glad to have done _my_ part (as well as others) for Roman
history.’ In each case the words in question are equivalent to a very
strong _etiam_.”-- Fausset on Cic. pro Cluent. §141.-- For other exx.
see 5 §§4, 20: 6 §1: 7 §26.

#sic ... ut#: ‘in reading history we must bear in mind,’ &c.

#vitandas#: cp. 2 §21. Cic. Or. §68 seiunctus igitur orator a
philosophorum eloquentia, a sophistarum, ab historicorum, a poetarum,
explicandus est nobis qualis futurus sit.

#poetis# = poetarum operibus. The metonymy here is motived by
Quintilian’s avoidance of _poesis_ (cp. on §28). Many such exx. occur in
Cicero: e.g. de Or. ii. §4 nostrorum hominum prudentiam Graecis
(Graecorum prudentiae) anteferre. In these and similar instances the
property of one thing is compared (by _comparatio compendiaria_), not
with the property of another thing but with the thing itself, to which
the property belongs. So Pliny Ep. i. 16, 3 orationes eius ... facile
cuilibet veterum ... comparabis. Cp. Holden’s note on de Off. i. §76:
Madvig §280, obs. 2.-- Cp. the passage in Aristotle’s Poetics (ch. ix.)
on the relations of Poetry to History. Dosson refers to Dion. Hal. de
Thucyd. Iud. ch. li. ad fin., and Lucian’s Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορ. συγγρ. 44-79.
For est enim, see Crit. Notes.

#solutum#, sc. necessitate pedum §29.

#opus#: the whole class of work: see on §9.

#ad actum rei# = ad rem agendam, the doing or performance of a thing.
Cp. §27 actu forensi: 6 §1 inter medios rerum actus (where see note):
vii. 2, 41: ii. 18, 1 actus operis. So Plin. Ep. ix. 25, 3 me rerum
actus ... distringit: Suet. Aug. §78 residua diurni actus. In Suet. Aug.
§32 actus rerum is used specially of judicial proceedings: cp. Claud.
§15: Nero §17. So _actus_ alone came to mean the method followed in such
proceedings, Trajan ap. Plin. Ep. x. 97 (Nettleship, Lat. Lex.).-- Note
the chiastic construction, _actum rei_ corresponding with _ingenii
famam_ and _pugnam praes._ with _memor. posteritatis_.

#pugnam praesentem# §29. So ad pugnam forensem (ἀγῶνα) v. 12, 17. Cp.
what Thucydides says of his history i. 22, 4 κτῆμά τε ἐς ἀεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ
ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα ἀκούειν ξύγκειται,-- referred to in the passage
quoted above from Pliny Ep. v. 8, 9-11.

#ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam#. Pliny l.c. §1 mihi pulchrum
in primis videtur non pati occidere quibus aeternitas debeatur
aliorumque famam cum sua extendere. In vii. 17, 3 he looks less to the
last element: non ostentationi sed fidei veritatique componitur. Hild
quotes Livy Pr. §3 et si in tanta scriptorum turba mea fama in obscuro
sit, &c.: and Cic. Brut. §92 where Cicero, speaking of some orators,
says memoriam autem in posterum ingenii sui non desiderant.-- For
_memoria posteritatis_ cp. §§41, 104: 7 §30: i. 10, 9: vi. 1, 22: xii.
11, 3: Plin. Ep. v. 8, 2.

#remotioribus# = ab usu remotis iv. 2 36: viii. 2, 12. Cp. libertate
verborum §28.

#evitat#, ‘seeks to avoid,’ a present of endeavour.


I. § 32.

    Itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil
    apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud
    occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum
    captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit
    eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit.

#ut dixi#. Cp. iv. 2, 45 vitanda est etiam illa Sallustiana ... brevitas
et abruptum sermonis genus: quod otiosum fortasse lectorem minus fallat,
audientem transvolat, nec dum percipiatur expectat, cum praesertim
lector non fere sit nisi eruditus, iudicem rura plerumque in decurias
mittant, de eo pronuntiaturum quod intellexerit. §102 illam immortalem
Sallusti velocitatem.-- So Cicero, speaking of Thucydides, says ‘nihil
ab eo transferri potest ad forensem usum et publicum,’ Or. §30: cp.
Brut. §287.

#vacuas# is opposed to ‘occupatum variis cogitationibus,’ just as
_eruditas_ is to ‘saepius ineruditum.’ Cp. _si vacet_ §90: 3 §27. The
word is frequently used in this sense, both in poetry and prose, e.g.
Lucr. i. 50: the opposite _occupatae aures_ occurs Livy xlv. 19, 9: cp.
Tac. Hist. iv. 17 arriperent vacui occupatos.

#saepius ineruditum#. Since Augustus added to the three ‘iudicum
decuriae’ a fourth to judge of minor cases (quartam ex inferiore censu
quae ... iudicaret de levioribus summis Suet. Aug. 32), this office fell
into disrepute. Caligula afterwards raised the number to five: Calig.
16. As with us, it was not considered necessary that the juror who was
to say ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’ (in the _iudicia publica_) should be
learned in the law, or even that he should be an educated man.-- Cp. the
quotation above from iv. 2, 45 cum ... iudicem rura plerumque in
decurias mittant. So v. 14, 29 saepius apud omnino imperitos atque
illarum certe ignaros litterarum loquendum est: cp. xii. 10, 53. Mayor
quotes Iuv. vii. 116-7 dicturus dubia pro libertate bubulco iudice,
where see his note.

#lactea ubertas#: ‘pure, clear, fulness.’ The expression is evidently
chosen to denote the characteristic of Livy’s style mentioned in §101
(clarissimi candoris): ii. 5, 19 (candidissimum et maxime expositum): it
signifies not rich fulness merely, but fulness combined with clearness
and simplicity: cp. Hieron. Ep. 53, 1 T. Livius lacteo eloquentiae fonte
manans. Milk is taken as the type of natural sweet and simple fare: cp.
candens lacteus umor Lucr. i. 258. It is also nourishing, so that
_lactea ubertas_ is not the mere fulness of empty words: ii. 4, 5 quin
ipsis quoque doctoribus hoc esse curae velim ut teneras adhuc mentes
more nutricum mollius alant et satiari velut quodam iucundioris
disciplinae lacte patiantur.-- Becher (Phil. Rundschau iii. 15, p. 469)
compares Seneca Controv. vii. pr. 2, p. 268 (Müll.) sententiae, quas
optime Pollio Asinius albas vocabat, simplices, apertae, nihil occultum,
nihil insperatum adferentes, sed vocales et splendidae, and explains
_lactea ubertas_ as ‘eine reine lautere Fülle und keine forcierte,
künstlich aufgebauschte, schwülstige.’

#satis docebit#, i.e. in narratio §49 (διήγησις). See note on the three
_genera dicendi_ §80.

#speciem ... fidem#. It is not beauty of exposition (species or
splendor) that the juror looks for in _narratio_ or _expositio_, but
truth and credibility (fides): cp. ad narrandum non ad probandum, of
history, §31. For _fides_ cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 34 Titus Livius eloquentiae
ac fidei praeclarus in primis.


I. § 33.

    Adde quod M. Tullius ne Thucydiden quidem aut Xenophontem
    utiles oratori putat, quamquam illum ‘bellicum canere,’ huius
    ‘ore Musas esse locutas’ existimet. Licet tamen nobis in
    digressionibus uti vel historico nonnumquam nitore, dum in his
    de quibus erit quaestio meminerimus non athletarum toris, sed
    militum lacertis {opus} esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua
    Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem
    pulverem facere.

#Adde quod# 2 §§10, 11, 12. See Crit. Notes. Cp. Introd. p. liii.

#M. Tullius#. Or. §§30, 31, 32 quis porro umquam Graecorum rhetorum a
Thucydide quicquam duxit? ‘at laudatus est ab omnibus,’ fateor; sed ita
ut rerum explicator prudens, severus, gravis; non ut in iudiciis
versaret causas, sed ut in historiis bella narraret, itaque numquam est
numeratus orator ... nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se
cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior, sed a forensi
strepitu remotissimus. Yet Dion. Hal. tells us that Demosthenes was
especially indebted to Thucydides (Iud. de Thuc. 52). Cicero saw that
‘Thucydides represents an immature stage in the development of oratory:
his speeches had been superseded by maturer models’ (Sandys). Cp. Brut.
§287-8.-- Cp. §73.

#Xenophontem# §§75, 82. Cic. Brut. §112 complains that while the
Cyropaedia was read the speeches and autobiography of Scaurus were
neglected: ad Quint. Fratr. i. §23.

#quamquam# with subj. as 2 §21: 7 §17.

#bellicum canere#: Or. §39 incitatior fertur et de bellicis rebus canit
etiam quodam modo bellicum: his style is a ‘call to arms,’ it stirs like
the sound of a war-trumpet §76. Cp. pro Mur. §30: Phil. vii. 3. Quint,
ix. 4, 11 non eosdem modos adhibent cum bellicum est canendum et cum
posito genu supplicandum est.

#huius ore#, &c. Or. §62 Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt.
Diog. Laert. ii. §57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς
ἑρμηνείας. Cp. §82 below, with the note: Brut. §132 molli et Xenophonteo
genere sermonis: de Or. ii. 58.

#in digressionibus#: opposed to _in his de quibus erit quaestio_ below.
See the ch. on _Egressio_ iv. 3: especially §12 hanc partem παρέκβασιν
vocant Graeci, Latini egressum vel egressionem, defined afterwards (§14)
as alicuius rei, sed ad utilitatem pertinentis, extra ordinem excurrens
tractatio. Cp. ix. 2, 55. Cic. de Or. ii. 311 sq. digredi tamen ab eo
quod proposueris atque agas permovendorum animorum causa saepe utile
est: ib. §80 ornandi aut augendi causa digredi: Brut. §82: de Inv. i.
§97.

#historico ... nitore#: 5 §15: Plin. Ep. ii. 5, 5 descriptiones locorum,
quae in hoc libro frequentiores erunt, non historice tantum sed prope
poetice prosequi fas est: id. vii. 9, 8 saepe in orationes quoque non
historica modo sed prope poetica descriptionum necessitas incidit. For
_nitor_ see on §9 _nitidus_: cp. Cic. Or. §115 quidam orationis nitor.

#dum#. Quint. does not use _dummodo_: _dum_ is again used in this sense
in 3 §7: 7 §25. In 3 §5 it occurs without a verb, sit primo vel tardus
dum diligens, stilus: so _modo_ 5 §20.

#toris ... lacertis#, ‘not the athlete’s swelling thews, but the sinewy
arm of the soldier.’ Cp. the antithesis _carnis_-- _lacertorum_ §77. The
primary meaning of _torus_ seems to be anything _swelling_ or _bulging_,
e.g. the knots of a rope or the protuberance of the muscles. The point
of the antithesis is clearly brought out in xi. 3, 26 adsueta gymnasiis
et oleo corpora, quamlibet sint in suis certaminibus speciosa atque
robusta, si militare iter fascemque et vigilias imperes, deficiant et
quaerant unctores suos nudumque sudorem,-- a passage which must have
been suggested by the contrast Plato draws between the sleepy habit of
athletes and the wiry vigour of the soldier: σχέδον γέ τι πάντων μάλιστα
(sc. ἐμποδίζει) ἥ γε περαιτέρω γυμναστικῆς ἡ περιττὴ αὕτη ἐπιμέλεια τοῦ
σώματος‧ καὶ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκονομίας καὶ πρὸς στρατείας καὶ πρὸς ἑδραίους ἐν
πόλει ἀρχὰς δύσκολος Rep. iii. 408. Mayor cites also xii. 10, 41 sicut
athletarum corpora, etiam si validiora fiant exercitatione et lege
quadam ciborum (cp. x. 5, 15) non tamen esse naturalia (sc. putant)
atque ab illa specie quae sit concessa hominibus abhorrere. Cp. Tac.
Dial. 21 oratio autem sicut corpus hominis, &c.: Nepos xv. 2 §4: Pliny
v. 8, 10 (quoted on §31 above). For cognate metaphors see Nägelsbach
136, 4 pp. 556-8. From Professor Mayor’s rich list of parallel passages
I select the following: ‘Kleochares ... compared the speeches of
Demosthenes to _soldiers_ διὰ τὴν πολεμικὴν δύναμιν, those of Isokrates
to _athletes_ τέρψιν γὰρ παρέχειν αὐτοὺς θεατρικήν. Plut. Philopoem. 3
§§3, 4 Philopoemen when recommended to enter upon a course of athletic
training asked whether it did not interfere with military exercises; and
when told that the frame and life, diet and training of the two were
entirely different, the athlete needing much sleep and food, regular
intervals of exercise and rest, and being unable to bear any change from
his habits, while the soldier was inured to hunger and thirst and
sleepless nights; he both in his private capacity wholly abstained from
athletic exercises, and tried to abolish them when a general. _Id._ Fab.
Max. 19 §2 Fabius hoped that Hannibal, if unopposed, would wear himself
out, ὥσπερ ἀθλητικοῦ σώματος τῆς δυναμεως ὑπεργονου γενομένης καὶ
καταπόνου. Lucian Dial. Mort. x. 5 the athlete Damasias, πολύσαρκός τις
ὤν, lest he should sink Charon’s boat by his weight, is forced to strip
off his flesh and crowns.’

#lacertis#. As opposed to _brachium_, _lacertus_ is the upper part of
the arm, from the shoulder to the elbow. Cp. Cic. Brut. §64 in Lysia
sunt saepe etiam lacerti, sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.

#versicolorem ... vestem#, probably a translation of some Greek phrase
used in reference to Demetrius, to indicate a style too ornamental for
the forum: cp. viii. pr. 20 similiter illa translucida et versicolor
quorundam elocutio res ipsas effeminat, quae illo verborum habitu
vestiantur. For Demetrius see on §80. ‘His style, like his life, was
elegantly luxurious; but in becoming ornate it became nerveless; there
is no longer, says Cicero, “sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus,” the sap,
the fresh vigour, which had hitherto been in oratory; in their place
there is “fucatus nitor,” an artificial gloss,’ Jebb, Att. Or. ii.
p. 441. _Vestis_ is more than a mere metaphor here: Demetrius was as
foppish in dress as he was in his style. The main feature of the latter
is generally indicated by _floridus_ and similar terms: e.g. Cic. Brut.
§285: _dulcis_ de Off. i. §3 (cp. Or. §94), _suavis_ Brut. §38: it was
over-coloured (like his dress), being intended only to please. For the
figure suggested cp. Tac. Dial. 26: adeo melius est orationem vel hirta
toga induere quam fucatis et meretriciis vestibus insignire.

#dicebatur#, i.e. by his contemporaries.

#bene ad ... facere#: 5 §11 in hoc optime facient infinitae quaestiones.
This construction is common in Ovid; e.g. Her. xvi. 189 ad talem formam
non facit iste locus: cp. ib. vi. 128: and with dat. Prop. iii. 1, 19
non faciet capiti dura corona meo. “It is also occasionally used
absolutely: so Ovid, complaining in his exile, says Trist.(?) ‘Nec
caelum nec aquae faciunt nec terra nec imber’: ‘do not agree with me.’
It is thus used especially in medicine. Cp. Colum. viii. 17, Facit etiam
ex pomis adaperta ficus: ‘is serviceable.’” Palmer on Ov. Her. ii. 39.

#pulverem#. Cp. Cic. Brut. §37 (quoted on §80 inclinasse): and for a
different judgment de Legg. iii. §14 a Theophrasto Phalereus ille
Demetrius ... mirabiliter doctrinam ex umbraculis eruditorum otioque non
modo in solem atque in pulverem, sed in ipsum discrimen aciemque
produxit.


I. § 34.

    Est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem maximus, sed
    non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum
    exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne
    omnia testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex
    vetustate diligenter sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea
    sola criminibus odii et gratiae vacant.

#historiis#: for the plural see on §75. Cp. note on _lectionum_ §45.

#alius usus ... ex cognitione#, &c. Crassus in the de Or. i. §48 insists
on this: neque enim sine multa pertractatione omnium rerum publicarum,
neque sine legum, morum, iuris scientia ... in his ipsis rebus satis
callide versari et perite potest (sc. orator): cp. ib. §18 tenenda
praeterea est omnis antiquitas exemplorumque vis: §158 cognoscendae
historiae: §256: Brutus §322: Tac. Dial. 30 nec in evolvenda antiquitate
... satis operae insumitur. In Quint. cp. ii. 4, 20 multa inde cognitio
rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in omni genere causarum potentissima,
iam tum instruitur, cum res poscet, usurus: iii. 8, 67: v. 11 ‘de
exemplis’-- παράδειγμα quo nomine et generaliter usi sunt in omni
similium adpositione et specialiter in iis quae rerum gestarum
auctoritate nituntur: xii. 4, 10: cp. §17 rerum cognitio cotidie
crescit, et tamen quam multorum ad eam librorum necessaria lectio est,
quibus aut rerum exempla ab historicis aut dicendi ab oratoribus
petuntur.

#et is quidem#. Cic. de Fin. i. §65 Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem
angusta, quam magnos ... tenuit amicorum greges. In 5 §7 we have _et
quidem_ with the pronoun omitted: cp. Cic. Phil. ii. 43 et quidem
immunia: and often in Pliny, e.g. Ep. i. 6, 1 ego ille quem nosti apros
tres et quidem pulcherrimos cepi.

#non ad praesentem ... locum#, because here he is speaking of the
advantage of reading history only from the point of view of _elocutio_:
his subject is _copia verborum_. For the material benefit to be obtained
from the study of history see the passages cited above: esp. xii. 4: v.
11, 36 sq.

#testimonia#. Cp. v. 7, 1 ea dicuntur aut per tabulas aut a
praesentibus. The advocate is not to confine himself to these.

#litigatore#, the client, from whom the essential facts of the case must
be learned: xii. 8 §§6-8.

#cognita# (with _vetustate_), of the result rather than the process.
Before _sumat_ supply _ut_.

#hoc quod ... vacant# §15. Cp. v. 11, 36-37 Adhibebitur extrinsecus in
causam et auctoritas ... si quid ita visum gentibus, populis,
sapientibus viris, claris civibus, inlustribus poetis referri potest. Ne
haec quidem vulgo dicta et recepta persuasione populari sine usu
fuerint. Testimonia sunt enim quodam modo vel potentiora etiam, quod non
causis accommodata sunt, sed liberis odio et gratia mentibus ideo tantum
dicta factaque, quia aut honestissima aut verissima videbantur. Cp. Cic.
pro Marcello §29: Tac. Hist. i. 1: Ann. i. 1.


I. § 35.

    A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda
    vitio factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis
    parte cesserunt. Nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus iisque
    quae sunt istis contraria, et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et
    argumentantur acriter {Stoici}, et altercationibus atque
    interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime Socratici praeparant.

#philosophorum#: §§81-84: §§123-131. We have the same complaint, that
the orator has ‘abandoned the fairest part of his province’ to the
philosopher in Book i. pr. §§9-18: esp. neque enim hoc concesserim,
rationem rectae honestaeque vitae ... ad philosophos relegandam, cum vir
ille vere civilis et publicarum privatarumque rerum administrationi
accommodatus, qui regere consiliis urbes, fundare legibus, emendare
iudiciis possit, non alius sit profecto quam orator.... Fueruntque haec,
ut Cicero apertissime colligit, quemadmodum iuncta natura, sic officio
quoque copulata, ut idem sapientes atque eloquentes haberentur. Scidit
deinde se studium atque inertia factum est ut artes esse plures
viderentur. Nam ut primum lingua esse coepit in quaestu institutumque
eloquentiae bonis male uti, curam morum qui diserti habebantur
reliquerunt. Cp. xii. 2 §§4-10, esp. §8 id quod est oratori necessarium
nec a dicendi praeceptoribus traditur ab iis petere nimirum necesse est
apud quos remansit: evolvendi penitus auctores qui de virtute
praecipiunt, ut oratoris vita cum scientia divinaram rerum sit
humanarumque coniuncta. Quintilian’s frequent statement of the argument
that philosophy, especially moral philosophy, is an essential part of
the orator’s equipment is a corollary to his main thesis, ‘non posse
oratorem esse nisi virum bonum’: i. pr. §9: xii. 1: cp. rationem dicendi
a bono viro non separamus. Cp. Introd. p. xxv. In the Orator §§11-19
Cicero places a philosophical training among the first requisites of the
ideal orator: esp. §14 nam nec latius neque copiosius de magnis
variisque rebus sine philosophia potest quisquam dicere: ib. §118: cp.
de Or. i. §87: ib. iii. §§56-73 hanc, inquam, cogitandi pronuntiandique
rationem vimque dicendi veteres Graeci sapientiam nominabant ... §61
hinc (from the separation of eloquence and philosophy made by Socrates)
discidium illud exstitit quasi linguae atque cordis, absurdum sane et
inutile et reprehendendum, ut alii nos sapere, alii dicere docerent.
Cicero has told us himself what he owed to philosophy: xii. 2, 23
M. Tullius non tantum se debere scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae
spatiis frequenter (e.g. Or. §12, Brut. 315) ipse testatus est: Tac.
Dial. §31 sq.

#operis#: see on §9. So ea iure vereque contenderim esse operis nostri.
i. pr. §11.

#cesserunt#: for this constr. with dat. and abl. cp. Cic. pro Mil. §75
nisi sibi hortorum possessione cessissent.

#de iustis#, &c.: cp. i. pr. §§11, 12.

#de rebus divinis#. The Stoic definition of σοφία included this--
ἐμπειρία τῶν θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτου αἰτιῶν, transl. by
Cicero, de Off. ii. 5: cp. Tusc. iv. 57: Sen. Ep. xiv. 1, 5. They made
this σοφία the foundation of every virtue: it is ‘speculative wisdom’ as
distinguished from ‘practical wisdom’ (φρόνησις).

#maxime# = potissimum.

#Stoici#: §84: xii. 2, 25 Stoici ... nullos aut probare acrius aut
concludere subtilius contendunt. _Stoici_ was first inserted by Meister.
Hirt (Berl. Wochenschrift v. p. 629) objects, on the ground that
Quintilian is only giving here the general idea that eloquence and
philosophy were at first mutually inclusive: cp. de Or. iii. §54. See
Crit. Notes.

#altercationibus#. The essence of the _altercatio_ is that it was
conducted in the way of short answers or retorts: it is specially used
of a dispute carried on in this way between two speakers in the senate,
or in a court of law, or in public. A famous instance in the senate is
the dialogue between Cicero and Clodius (ad Att. i. 16, 8): Clodium
praesentem fregi in senatu cum oratione perpetua plenissima gravitatis,
tum altercatione, &c. Tac. Dial. 34 ut altercationes quoque exciperet et
iurgiis interesset. The _altercatio_ (actio brevis atque concisa vi.
4, 2) is opp. to _perpetua_ or _continua oratio_: e.g. Liv. iv. 6, 1 res
a perpetuis orationibus in altercationem vertisset: Tac. Hist. iv. 7
paulatim per altercationem ad continuas et infestas orationes provecti
sunt.-- As to the construction, both words are generally taken as
ablatives of instrument; _not_ ‘for debates and examinations of
witnesses.’ By _interrogationibus_ is then meant the Socratic ἔλενχος:
cp. v. 7, 28 in quibus (dialogis) adeo scitae sunt interrogationes ut,
cum plerisque bene respondeatur, res tamen ad id quod volunt efficere
perveniat. But see Crit. Notes.

#Socratici#: §83. The writers of the Socratic form of dialogue are
meant, Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines Socraticus: v. 11, 27 etiam in
illis interrogationibus Socraticis ... cavendum ne incante respondeas.
Their practice of fashioning the imagined objections of their opponents
in such a manner as to make them easy of refutation would render them
good models: cp. xii. 1, 10 ne more Socraticorum nobismet ipsi responsum
finxisse videamur.


I. § 36.

    Sed his quoque adhibendum est simile iudicium, ut etiam cum
    in rebus versemur isdem non tamen eandem esse condicionem
    sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii, praeceptorum
    et periculorum.

#his quoque#, sc. philosophis-- as well as with the poets and historians
§§28, 31.

#ut ... sciamus#, consecutive, expressing result, not final: tr. by
participle ‘remembering,’ &c.: cp. ut sciamus after _sic_ in §31. Not
all the instances of the introduction of a subordinate clause by this
consecutive _ut_ cited by Herbst are exactly apposite: cp. 2 §28: 4 §4:
5 §§6, 9: 6 §3: 7 §10.

#in rebus isdem#: ‘on the same topics,’ viz. questions of right and
wrong, &c., which are common to philosophy and law.

#litium ac disputationum#: ‘lawsuits and philosophical discussions’:
vii. 3 §13 sed de his disputatur non litigatur: xi. 1, 70 inter eos non
forensem contentionem, sed studiosam disputationem crederes incidisse:
Cic. de Off. i. §3 illud forense dicendi et hoc quietum disputandi
genus: de Fin. i. §28 neque enim disputari sine reprehensione, nec cum
iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest: Brut. §118 iidem
(Stoici) traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur: cp. Or.
§113. There is a similar antithesis in foro ... in scholis v. 13, 36.

#fori ... periculorum#: note the chiasmus. For the antithesis _fori ...
auditorii_ cp. §79 auditoriis ... non iudiciis. Tac. Dial. 10 nunc te ab
auditoriis et theatris in forum et ad causas et ad vera proelia voco.
For _auditorium_ used of the lecture-room, or generally a place for
public prelections, literary and philosophical, cp. ii. 11, 3: v. 12,
20: Suet. Aug. 85. These _auditoria_ were the scene of the
_recitationes_ of which we hear so much in this age: §18.

#periculorum#: law-suits, actions-at-law, referring, as often in Cicero,
to the issues at stake for the defendant in such actions. Cp. 7 §1: iv.
2, 122 capitis aut fortunarum pericula: vi. 1, 36 (where ‘pericula’ and
‘privatae causae’ are contrasted). Etymologically periculum is from the
root PER-, seen in πεῖρα, περάω: it denotes ‘trial’ and, in view of
possible failure, ‘danger.’ Cp. Reid on Cic. pro Arch. §13: the English
‘danger’ (Low Latin dangiarium from dominium, Old Fr. dongier, feudal
authority) was originally a legal term: Shakesp. Merchant of Venice iv.
1, ‘You stand within his danger.’ Chaucer, Prol. 663. See Skeat’s Etym.
Dict.


I. § 37.

    Credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in
    legendo iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint
    {legendi}, quae in auctore quoque praecipua virtus. Sed persequi
    singulos infiniti fuerit operis.

This paragraph forms a transition from the general consideration of
oratory (§20), poetry (§27), history (§31), and philosophy (§35) to the
characterisation of individual representatives of each of these four
departments. Quintilian now begins to discourse on the ‘Choice of
Books,’ or the ‘Best Hundred Authors,’ both in Greek and Latin. His list
does not however aim at completeness: it is conditioned by the object
which he has in view, viz. the reading of what is profitable for the
formation of style (ad faciendam φράσιν §42), and he constantly reminds
the reader that he is merely giving a sample of the best authors (§§44:
56-60: 74: 80: 104: 122). Cp. Plin. Ep. vii. 9 §§15-16.

#qui sint legendi#: see Crit. Notes.

#auctore#: see on §24.

#persequi singulos#: ‘to notice all individually’: §118 sunt alii multi
diserti quos persequi longum est.

#fuerit#: cp. superaverit §46: dixerim §14: maluerim §26: dederit §85:
cesserimus §86: quos viderim §98: cesserit §101: opposuerim §105:
abstulerit §107: ne hoc ... suaserim 2 §24: nemo dubitaverit 3 §22:
contulerit 5 §4: ne ... contrarium fuerit 5 §15.


I. § 38.

    Quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius tot milibus versuum de
    Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis
    suae, [quibuscum vivebat], exceptis Caesare atque Marcello,
    silentium egerit, quis erit modus si et illos et qui postea
    fuerunt et Graecos omnes {persequamur} [et philosophos]?

#Quippe cum#, only here in Quint.: cp. §76.

#versuum#: often in Quint. of ‘lines’ of prose: §41: 3 §32: 7 §11: xi.
2, 32 (but §39 opp. to prosam orationem): vii. 1, 37 multis milibus
versuum scio apud quosdam esse quaesitum, &c. Hor. Sat. ii. 5, 53-4, of
a will, quid prima secundo cera velit versu. Cic. Rab. Post. vi. §14 ut
primum versum (legis) attenderet: ad Att. ii. 16, 3: Plin. Ep. iv. 11,
16.

#Romanis ... oratoribus#. One of Cicero’s motives in writing the
_Brutus_ was to do justice to the earlier Roman orators, and to trace
the development of the art down to his own time. Hild cites Fronto (de
elog. p. 235 ed. Rom.) oratores quos ... Cicero eloquentiae civitate
gregatim donavit, as showing that the writer thought that Cicero wished
to exalt his own style by contrast with the ruder efforts of his
predecessors.

#aetatis suae#. Frieze remarks that this expression, taken by itself,
would embrace either the whole career of Cicero as an orator, about 35
years, to the date of the Brutus (B.C. 46), or else his life from the
time when he began to hear the orators of the forum as a student (B.C.
90), a period of over 44 years: Brut. §303 hoc (Hortensio) igitur
florescente, Crassus est mortuus, Cotta pulsus, iudicia intermissa
bello, nos (Cicero) in forum venimus.-- The rule which Cicero imposed on
himself in the Brutus is given §231: in hoc sermone nostro statui
neminem eorum qui viverent nominare.

[#quibuscum vivebat#]: see Crit. Notes.

#Caesare atque Marcello#. These exceptions were made at the request of
Brutus himself §248. Brutus eulogises Marcellus, while the account of
Caesar is mainly put into the mouth of Atticus: then at §262 Cicero
returns to the dead,-- sed ad eos, si placet, qui vita excesserunt
revertamur.-- For Caesar see on §114. M. Claudius Marcellus, consul B.C.
51, was a Pompeian who, after Pharsalus, retired to Mitylene, where he
studied under Cratippus. His friends procured the pardon which he would
not himself sue for, and Cicero in the pro Marcello (B.C. 46) expresses
his satisfaction at the event. On his way home in the following year
Marcellus was assassinated at Athens. Cp. Sen. ad Helviam ix. §§4-8.

#quis ... modus#. When _quis_ is used adjectivally, as here and in §50,
it does not mean ‘what kind of’ (as _qui_), but rather ‘will there be
any?’ &c. Cp. quis locus = ‘where is the spot?’ vii. 2, 54 quis testis?
quis iudex? ... quod pretium? quis conscius? For the reading see Crit.
Notes.


I. § 39.

    Fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima quae est apud Livium in
    epistula ad filium scripta, ‘legendos Demosthenen atque
    Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et Ciceroni
    simillimus.’

#brevitas illa# = brevis illa sententia, introducing the clause in acc.
c. inf. Hirt compares Cic. Tusc. iv. §83 et aegritudinis et reliquorum
animi morborum una sanatio est, omnes opinabiles esse et voluntarios.
For #fuit# see Crit. Notes.

#apud Livium#. Cp. ii. 5, 20 Cicero ... et iucundus incipientibus quoque
et apertus est satis, nec prodesse tantum, sed etiam amari potest: tum,
quemadmodum Livius praecipit, ut quisque erit Ciceroni simillimus. In
viii. 2, 18 there is a reference probably to the same source: Livy is
made the authority for the story of a teacher ‘qui discipulos obscurare
quae dicerent iuberet, Graeco verbo utens σκότισον.’ Sen. Ep. 100 Nomina
adhuc T. Livium. scripsit enim et dialogos, quos non magis philosophiae
adnumerare possis quam historiae, et ex professo philosophiam
continentes libros. The son is mentioned again in Plin. N. H. i. 5
and 6. See Teuffel, Rom. Lit. 251 §4.

#Demostheni et Ciceroni#: §§105-112: Iuv. x. 114. Note the pointed
repetition of the names.


I. § 40.

    Non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa. Paucos
    enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem pertulerunt
    existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus adlaturus
    sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque
    vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte
    carentibus, plurimum fateatur adiutum.

#nostri iudicii summa#: ‘my opinion in general,’ as opposed to the
criticism of each writer individually. What the gist of this opinion is
he states in the next sentence, with _enim_: see Crit. Notes.-- For
_summa_ cp. §48: 3 §10.

#vix ullum#, &c.: §57. Mayor compares Plin. Ep. iii. 5 §10 (of the elder
Pliny) nihil enim legit quod non excerperet: dicere enim solebat nullum
esse librum tam malum ut non aliqua parte prodesset. It would be hard to
be so charitable now!

#vetustatem pertulerunt#: ‘have stood the test of time.’ The phrase is
properly used of wine,-- wine that will ‘keep,’ as we should say
(aetatem ferre): Cic. de Amic. §67 ut ea vina quae vetustatem ferunt:
ii. 4, 9 musta ... et annos ferent et vetustate proficiunt: Cat. de
R. R. 114, 2 vinum in vetustatem servare. So Ovid, of his own works,
scripta vetustatem si modo nostra ferent, Trist. v. 9, 8. For _vetustas_
(lapse of time) cp. Cic. Brut. §258.-- There is a sort of antithesis
between the class of authors here referred to and the _vetustissimi
auctores_ mentioned below. In the former he includes Cato and the
Gracchi, ii. 5, 21: the latter are those who were hardly read at all in
Quintilian’s day. In general he uses _veteres_ or _antiqui_ in
contradistinction to those who were to him _novi_, i.e. the writers of
the post-Augustan period: including in the former Cicero himself as well
as his predecessors. ii. 5, 23 et antiquos legere et novos: v. 4, 1
orationes veterum ac novorum: ix. 3, 1 omnes veteres et Cicero
praecipue: Plin. Ep. ix. 22, 1, of C. Passennus Paullus, in litteris
veteres aemulatur ... Propertium in primis: Tac. Dial. 17, 18.

#iudicium adhibentibus#: §131: §72.

#ingeniosis ... carentibus#: i. 8, 8 multum autem veteres etiam Latini
conferunt, quamquam plerique plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt. Ov. Amor.
i. 15, 14, of Callimachus, quamvis ingenio non valet, arte valet: Tr.
ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus arte rudis. Mayor quotes also from
Munro’s Lucretius: vol. ii. p. 18 ‘At this period when the νεώτεροι, as
Cicero calls them, were striving to bring the Alexandrine style into
fashion, there seems to have been almost a formal antithesis between the
rude genius of Ennius and the modern art.’

#ingeniosis quidem#. Here again (cp. on §34) Cicero would have used the
pronoun,-- ingeniosis illis quidem. Cp. §§88, 124: i. 10, 17.

#Cicero ... fateatur#. The Brutus contains e.g. a eulogy of Cato, who is
said to be rough, but excellent, like the early statues and paintings
and poems: §§61-66: Or. §109. Mayor cites Seneca apud Gell. xii. 2
(Fragmenta 111) Apud ipsum quoque Ciceronem invenies etiam in prosa
oratione quaedam ex quibus intelligas illum non perdidisse operam quod
Ennium legit.


I. § 41.

    Nec multo aliud de novis sentio; quotus enim quisque
    inveniri tam demens potest, qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe
    fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? Qui si quis
    est, intra primos statim versus deprehendetur, et citius nos
    dimittet quam ut eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet
    experimentum.

#multo aliud#: cp. _quanto aliud_ §53. _Aliud_ here serves for a
comparative. So ix. 4, 26 multo optimum: §72 multo foedissimum, and in
Plin. N. H. _multo_ very often for the more usual _longe_. Spald.

#novis#: the writers subsequent to Cicero; viii. 5, 12: ix. 2, 42.

#quotus quisque#: ‘each unit of what whole number’ = ‘one in how many,’
and so ‘how small a proportion,’ ‘how few.’ In the nom. sing. masc. it
occurs several times in Cicero, and frequently in Pliny’s letters. Ovid,
A. A. iii. 103, has the fem., Forma dei munus. Forma quota quaeque
superbit. The dat. quoto cuique Plin. Ep. iii. 20 §8: the acc. quotum
quemque Tac. Dial. 29.

#tam demens ... qui#: §48 nemo erit tam indoctus qui non ... fateatur:
on the other hand §57 tam ... ut non. Herbst cites Pliny, Ep. viii. 14,
3 quotus enim quisque tam patiens ut velit discere quod in usu non sit
habiturus: cp. ib. ii. 19, 6: Panegyr. 15: Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 12 τίς οὕτω
μαίνεται ὅστις οὐ σοὶ βούλεται φίλος εἶναι; ib. vii. 1, 28 ἔστι τις
οὕτως ἄφρων ὅστις οἴεται ἂν ἡμᾶς περιγενέσθαι;; Cic. Phil. ii. §33,
where Mayor quotes Dem. Mid. p. 536, 6 §66 τίς οὕτως ἀλόγιστος ... ἔστιν
ὅστις ἑκὼν ἂν ... ἐθελήσειεν ἀναλῶσαι; and

  ‘Lives there a man with soul so dead
   _Who_ never to himself has said...?’

#alicuius fiducia partis#: ‘with even the smallest confidence at least
in some portion or other (of his writings).’ For the obj. gen. cp. iv.
2, 113: ix. 3, 51.

#memoriam posteritatis#: see on §31.

#versus#: §38.

#detrimento#: vi. 3, 35 nimium enim risus pretium est si probitatis
impendio constat. The word occurs less commonly than some of its
synonyms with the genitive: here its etymological meaning (detero--
tempus ‘terere’) makes it very appropriate.


I. § 42.

    Sed non quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet,
    protinus ad faciendam φράσιν, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.

    Verum antequam de singulis loquar, pauca in universum de
    varietate opinionum dicenda sunt.

#protinus#: ‘at once,’ ‘as a matter of course.’ See on §3: cp. statim
§24.

#ad faciendam φράσιν#: ‘for the formation of style’: cp. §87 phrasin ...
faciant: viii. 1, 1 igitur quam Graeci φράσιν vocant, Latine dicimus
elocutionem. For the whole expression cp. §65 ad oratores faciendos
aptior: xii. 8, 5 cur non sit orator quando ... oratorem facit: x. 3, 3
vires ... faciamus: ib. §10 qui robur aliquod in stilo fecerint: ib. §28
faciendus usus: also i. 10, 6: ii. 8, 7: xii. 7, 1. _Faciendam_ must
have belonged to the original text: see Crit. Notes.-- Hild reminds us
that we must always keep this point of view in mind in estimating the
literary judgments pronounced by Quintilian in this book: he is
concerned mainly with _form_, in its relation to oratorical style. In
the same way, §87, he does not insist on the study of Macer and
Lucretius: legendi quidem sed non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae,
faciant. M. Seneca opposes φράσις to ἕξις (§1): non ἕξις magna sed
φράσις (of Albucius) Contr. vii. pr. §2: elsewhere he has (Excerpt.
Contr. iii. pr. §7) habebat ... phrasin non vulgarem nec sordidam, sed
lectam.

#in universum#: Tac. Germ. 6 in universum aestimanti: ib. 27 _in
commune_ opp. to _singuli_.

#de varietate opinionum#. Dosson refers to Hipp. Rigault, Histoire de la
querelle des anciens et des modernes, vol. i. 1859. In the third cent.
B.C. the question of the superiority of the ancients over the moderns
was discussed between the supporters and the opponents of Demetrius of
Phalerum: in Cicero’s day it had become confused with the quarrel
between the true and the false Atticists (cp. Brut. §283 sq.): Horace
treated it in the first Epistle of the Second Book: in Quintilian’s own
time it was still discussed, as may be seen from this passage and from
the Dialogus de Oratoribus.


I. § 43.

    Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant neque in ullis
    aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum
    arbitrantur, alios recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad
    voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant.

#solos veteres#. Here again (see on §40) _veteres_ includes the writers
of the Augustan age: cp. §§118, 122, 126: 2 §17. See also ii. 5, 21 sq.,
where Quintilian says that in the case of young people both extremes
should be avoided:-- the ancients (such as the Gracchi and Cato), fient
enim horridi atque ieiuni: the moderns, with their depraved taste, ‘ne
recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur.’

#robur viris dignum#: ii. 5, 23 ex quibus (sc. antiquis) si adsumatur
solida ac virilis ingenii vis deterso rudis saeculi squalore, tum noster
hic cultus clarius enitescet: i. 8, 9 sanctitas certe et, ut sic dicam,
virilitas ab iis (i.e. the veteres Latini) petenda est, quando nos in
omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus: v. 12, 17.

#recens haec lascivia deliciaeque#: ‘the voluptuous and affected style
of our own day’ opp. to rectum dicendi genus, below. Cp. ‘recentis huius
lasciviae flosculi,’ quoted above, also ‘deliciarum vitia.’ Mayor cites
Sen. Ep. xxxiii. 1 non fuerunt circa flosculos occupati: totus contextus
illorum virilis est. See on lascivus §88. Seneca is probably aimed at
here: cp. §125 sq., and Introd. p. xxv. sqq.


I. § 44.

    Ipsorum etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi volunt, alii
    pressa demum et tenuia atque quae minimum ab usu cotidiano
    recedant, sana et vere Attica putant; quosdam elatior ingenii
    vis et magis concitata et plena spiritus capit; sunt etiam lenis
    et nitidi et compositi generis non pauci amatores. De qua
    differentia disseram diligentius, cum de genere dicendi
    quaerendum erit: interim summatim, quid et a qua lectione petere
    possint qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent, attingam:
    paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est.

#rectum dicendi genus#: the true standard of style (cp. §89), natural
and unaffected, and imitating neither the rude archaism of the ancients
nor the bad taste of the moderns. In ii. 5, 11 it is called sermo rectus
(‘straight,’ i.e. direct and natural) et secundum naturam enuntiatus:
and in ix. 3, 3, simplex rectumque loquendi genus: the style which aims
above everything at the clear and effective expression of thought, apart
from all ornament and trickery. Though termed here a _genus_, it is
itself divided into three _genera_: (1) the simple, terse, concise
(ἰσχνόν, tenue, subtile, pressum ... quod minimum ab usu cotidiano
recedit); (2) the grand, broad, lofty, stirring, passionate (ἁδρόν,
uber, grande, amplum, elatum, concitatum); (3) the flowing, plastic,
polished, smooth, melodious, intermediate (ἀνθηρόν, lene, nitidum,
suave, compositum, medium).

This threefold division of style, ascribed to Theophrastus, was
generally recognised in Greece after the latter part of the 4th century
B.C. Gellius (vi. 14, 8) tells us that Varro recognised it, employing
_uber_, _gracile_, and _mediocre_ to represent ἁδρόν, ἰσχνόν, and μέσον;
and Mr. Nettleship (J. of Philol. xviii. p. 232) thinks that his
treatise περὶ χαρακτήρων bore on this subject. It is adopted in Cornif.
ad Herenn. iv. §§11-16, and is carefully explained by Cicero in the
Orator §§20-21 (where see Sandys’ notes): tria sunt omnino genera
dicendi quibus in singulis quidam floruerunt, peraeque autem, id quod
volumus, perpauci in omnibus. Quintilian evidently considers that Cicero
(see §108) came up to his own ideal standard in all three styles: Or.
§100 is est enim eloquens qui et humilia subtiliter et magna graviter et
mediocria temperate potest dicere.

Dion. Hal. (probably following Theophrastus περὶ λέξεως) has the same
division, distinguishing as the τρία πλάσματα τῆς λέξεως or γενικώτατοι
χαρακτῆρες the χαρακτὴρ ὑψηλός (_genus grande_), ἰσχνός (_genus tenue,
subtile_), and μέσος (_medium, mediocre_): de Dem. 33 and 34. In xii.
10, 58 Quintilian repeats this: discerni posse etiam recte dicendi
genera inter se videntur. Namque unum _subtile_, quod ἰσχνόν vocant,
alterum _grande_ atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, constituunt; tertium
alii _medium_ ex duobus, alii _floridum_ (namque id ἀνθηρόν appellant)
addiderant. In the next section he goes on to connect this triple
division with the three functions of the orator as laid down in iii. 5,
2: tria sunt item quae praestare debeat orator, ut doceat, moveat,
delectet. The ‘plain’ style is especially adapted for teaching and
explaining: the ‘grand’ for moving the feelings; while of the ‘middle’
he says ‘ea fere ratio est ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare
videatur officium.’ Cp. Arist. Rhet. i. 2 p. 1356 _a_ 2 τῶν δὲ διὰ τοῦ
λόγου ποριζομένων πίστεων τρία εἴδη ἐστίν‧ αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ ἤθει
τοῦ λέγοντος (those which conciliate good-will-- the _medium_, _lene_,
_compositum genus_), αἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ἀκροατὴν διαθεῖναί πως (those which
stir the passions-- the _grande genus_), αἱ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τοῦ
δεικνύναι ἢ φαίνεσθαι δεικνύναι (those which are addressed to the
intellect-- the _genus subtile_). Further on (xii. 10 §64) he says that
the three classes are typified by the oratory of Menelaus, Nestor, and
Ulysses: cp. ii. 17, 8 and Gellius, vi. 14.

In anticipation of the rest of the section the main features of each of
the three styles may here be resumed. The ‘grand’ is distinguished by a
careful avoidance of everything familiar and ordinary: it seeks to rise
above the common idiom by a sustained dignity both of thought and
language, and employs a profusion of ornament of every kind. The ‘plain’
style is marked by simplicity and clearness: it may employ the aid of
art, but it is an art that conceals itself in the avoidance of
everything unfamiliar and in the artistic use of the language of
ordinary life. The ‘middle’ style has more charm than force: while not
distinguished for the excellencies of the other species it has a grace
and sweetness of its own, whence its alternative designation _floridum_
(ἀνθηρόν) in Quintilian, quoted above: see note on §80.

#pressa ... et tenuia#, &c., i.e. the _subtile genus_, or ‘plain style.’
Pressus is used in Quintilian both of a writer and of his style: it
means ‘concise’ (premo), ‘terse,’ and the juxtaposition of _tenuis_ here
shows that ‘plain straightforwardness’ is the quality referred to. Cp.
xii. 10, 38 tenuiora haec ac pressiora: Cic. de Orat. ii. §96, where
oratio pressior is opp. to luxuries quaedam quae stilo depascenda est:
Brut. §201 attenuate presseque dicere opp. to sublate ampleque: Quint.
viii. 3, 40 dicere abundanter an presse ... magnifice an subtiliter: ii.
8, 4 presso limatoque genere dicendi: §15 non enim satis est dicere
presse tantum aut subtiliter aut aspere. _Pressum_ is well defined by
Mayor on this passage: ‘pruned of all rankness, concise, quiet,
moderate, self-controlled; opposed to extravagance, heat, turgidity,
redundance’: cp. premere tumentia 4 §1. To writers _pressus_ is applied
§§46, 102: 2 §16: cp. xii. 10, 16 (Attici) pressi et integri ...
(Asiani) inflati et inanes: Brut. §51 parum pressi et nimis redundantes:
ib. §202 cavenda presso illi oratori inopia et ieiunitas: Tac. Dial. 18
inflatus et tumens nec satis pressus sed supra modum exultans.-- In Cic.
de Or. ii. §56 Wilkins thinks that _pressus_ (verbis aptus et pressus--
of Thucydides) means ‘precise,’ not ‘concise’: comparing de Fin. iv. 10,
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 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.

#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 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.


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. 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.

#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.

#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, 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?

#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.

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

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

#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 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 Ὁμηρικῶς: 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 potest, sed intellectu sequi.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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 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 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.

#Panyasin#. Panyasis of Halicarnassus, the uncle of Herodotus, wrote a
Heracleia in fourteen books, fragments of which are quoted by Stobaeus
and 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 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 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.

#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? EUPHORIONEM
    transibimus? Quem nisi probasset Vergilius idem, numquam certe
    ‘conditorum Chalcidico versu carminum’ fecisset in Bucolicis
    mentionem. Quid? Horatius frustra TYRTAEUM Homero subiungit?

#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. 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.

#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. Krüger(3) 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 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.

#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_ 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 iamborum ad ἕξιν maxime
    pertinebit unus ARCHILOCHUS.

#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. 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.

#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 princeps spiritu
    magnificentia, sententiis figuris, beatissima rerum verborumque
    copia et velut quodam eloquentiae flumine; propter quae Horatius
    eum merito credidit nemini imitabilem.

#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 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 redundat atque
    effunditur, quod ut est reprehendendum, ita copiae vitium est.

#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 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.

#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 proprio et iucunditate
    quadam commendari potest; praecipua tamen eius in commovenda
    miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac eum parte omnibus eius
    operis auctoribus praeferant.

#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.

#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
    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.

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:) 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‧ ταυτ᾽ ἐστιν 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 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.

#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) 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, Dindorf(5).


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

#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 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.

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

#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 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.

#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 condicionem
    controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum filiorum, militum
    rusticorum, divitum pauperum, irascentium deprecantium, mitium
    asperorum; in quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc poeta decor.

#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 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.

#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.


I. § 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
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
    duos ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene
    est parem consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi
    THUCYDIDES, dulcis et candidus et fusus HERODOTUS: ille
    concitatis hic remissis adfectibus melior, ille contionibus hic
    sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate.

#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 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: Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 425 R, Usener p. 23 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 ut in historia praedictis minor,
    ita oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus
    sollicitatus, diu fuerit orator. PHILISTUS quoque meretur qui
    turbae quamvis bonorum post eos auctorum eximatur, imitator
    Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior.
    EPHORUS, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget. CLITARCHI probatur
    ingenium, fides infamatur.

#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. 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 laude reparavit. XENOPHON non excidit mihi, sed inter
    philosophos reddendus est.

#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).

#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.


I. §§ 76-80.

ATTIC ORATORS:--


I. § 76.

    Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis
    aetas una tulerit. Quorum longe princeps DEMOSTHENES ac paene
    lex orandi fuit: tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam
    nervis intenta sunt, tam nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec
    quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.

#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 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
    minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum.
    Dulcis in primis et acutus HYPERIDES, sed minoribus causis-- ut
    non dixerim utilior-- magis par.

#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, 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 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 tamen fonti quam magno
    flumini propior.

#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.

#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-- Krüger(3) 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 magis accommodatus omnes dicendi veneres
    sectatus est, nec immerito: auditoriis enim se, non iudiciis
    compararat: in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in
    compositione adeo diligens ut cura eius reprehendatur.

#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 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 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, 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.

#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_.

#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.


I. §§ 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 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
    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.

#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.


I. § 82.

    Quid ego commemorem XENOPHONTIS illam iucunditatem
    inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut
    ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle
    veteris comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime
    possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam.

#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
    ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.

#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 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.

#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.


I. §§ 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.

#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 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.

#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_, 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 est
    adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum
    ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.

#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 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 quidem in herois quoque OVIDIUS et nimium
    amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in partibus.

#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 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 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.

#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 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 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.

#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?

#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 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?

#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 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.

#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
    elegans maxime videtur auctor TIBULLUS: sunt qui PROPERTIUM
    malint. OVIDIUS utroque lascivior, sicut durior GALLUS. Satura
    quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus
    LUCILIUS quosdam ita deditos sibi adhuc habet amatores ut eum
    non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed omnibus poetis praeferre
    non dubitent.

#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 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 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 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.

#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 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 prius saturae genus, sed non sola
    carminum varietate mixtum condidit TERENTIUS VARRO, vir
    Romanorum eruditissimus. Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos
    composuit, peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et
    rerum Graecarum nostrarumque, plus tamen scientiae collaturus
    quam eloquentiae.

#Alterum illud#, &c. This takes 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 Licilius 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 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, 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.

#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 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 gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate
    personarum. Ceterum nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus
    magis videri potest temporibus quam ipsis defuisse; virium tamen
    Attio plus tribuitur, Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti
    adfectant volunt.

#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 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 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 maluisset. Eorum
    quos viderim longe princeps POMPONIUS SECUNDUS, quem senes
    quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac nitore praestare
    confitebantur.

#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.

#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, Plautino dicat sermone locuturas fuisse, si
    Latine loqui vellent, licet CAECILIUM veteres laudibus ferant,
    licet TERENTI scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur (quae
    tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura
    gratiae si intra versus trimetros stetissent),

#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 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 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.

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

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

#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
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.

#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 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.

#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 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 Graecae possunt; nam CICERONEM cuicumque eorum fortiter
    opposuerim. Nec ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum
    praesertim non id sit propositi ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc
    tempore; neque enim attinet, cum Demosthenen in primis legendum
    vel ediscendum potius putem.

#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, 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
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: Nägelsbach(8),
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.


I. § 106.

    Quorum ego virtutes plerasque arbitror similes, consilium,
    ordinem, dividendi, praeparandi, probandi rationem, [omnia]
    denique quae sunt inventionis. In eloquendo est aliqua
    diversitas: densior ille hic copiosior, ille concludit
    adstrictius hic latius, pugnat ille acumine semper hic
    frequenter et pondere, illi nihil detrahi potest huic nihil
    adici, curae plus in illo in hoc naturae.

#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 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 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 commiseratione, quae duo plurimum in
    adfectibus valent, vincimus. Et fortasse epilogos illi mos
    civitatis abstulerit, sed et nobis illa, quae Attici mirantur,
    diversa Latini sermonis ratio minus permiserit. In epistulis
    quidem, quamquam sunt utriusque, dialogisve, quibus nihil ille,
    nulla contentio est.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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
    impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat,
    tamen ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

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.

#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
    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.

#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, 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 praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui
    Ciceroni crederent eum nimia contra se calumnia verum sanguinem
    perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio et castigata et
    frequenter vehemens quoque. Imitator autem est Atticorum,
    fecitque illi properata mors iniuriam, si quid adiecturus sibi
    non si quid detracturus fuit.

#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 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 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.

#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 ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicula
    est.

#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. 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. 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.

#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
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 natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior.

#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 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.

#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 quibusdam ex
    periculo petitis significantia.

#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.

#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.

#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 extitit. Egregius vero multoque quam in orationibus
    praestantior BRUTUS suffecit ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire
    quae dicit.

#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 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 auctor est CATIUS.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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.

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

#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, 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.

#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.

#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.



DE IMITATIONE.

II.


II. § 1.

    Ex his ceterisque lectione dignis auctoribus et verborum
    sumenda copia est et varietas figurarum et componendi ratio, tum
    ad exemplum virtutum omnium mens derigenda. Neque enim dubitari
    potest, quin artis pars magna contineatur imitatione. Nam ut
    invenire primum fuit estque praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa
    sunt utile sequi.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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?

#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 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 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.

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

#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, 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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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.’

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.

#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; 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.

#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.

#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
    exultantes, simplicibus neglegentes.

#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 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 atque Thucydiden
    superant; tristes ac ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur; otiosi et
    supini, si quid modo longius circumduxerunt, iurant ita
    Ciceronem locuturum fuisse.

#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 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.

#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 et vim suam perdat et elegantiam quam cupit non
    persequatur; nihil est enim tam indecens quam cum mollia dure
    fiunt.

#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 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.

#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.


#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 tragoedia socco ingreditur. Habet
    tamen omnis eloquentia aliquid commune: id imitemur quod commune
    est.

#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
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: 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.

#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.’

#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.

#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?

#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.

#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.


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.

#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.

#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.



QUO MODO SCRIBENDUM SIT.

III.


III. § 1.

    Et haec quidem auxilia extrinsecus adhibentur; in iis autem
    quae nobis ipsis paranda sunt, ut laboris, sic utilitatis etiam
    longe plurimum adfert stilus. Nec immerito M. Tullius hunc
    ‘optimum effectorem ac magistrum dicendi’ vocat, cui sententiae
    personam L. Crassi in disputationibus quae sunt de oratore
    adsignando, iudicium suum cum illius auctoritate coniunxit.

#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 modo
    loquacitatem dabit et verba in labris nascentia.

#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 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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.

#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 fallat; omnia enim nostra dum nascuntur
    placent, alioqui nec scriberentur. Sed redeamus ad iudicium et
    retractemus suspectam facilitatem.

#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 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.

#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.

#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
    {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.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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
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 paucos disertus et
    dignus illa propinquitate. Is cum Secundum, scholae adhuc
    operatum, tristem forte vidisset, interrogavit quae causa
    frontis tam adductae?

#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. 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?’

#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 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, 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.

#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.

#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
    deinde et componunt quae effuderant; sed verba emendantur et
    numeri, manet in rebus temere congestis quae fuit levitas.

#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) 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.

#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,
    atque interim pudet etiam dubitare aut resistere aut mutare
    quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes.

#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 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.

#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
    notat, cum leviter dicendi genus significat, ‘nec pluteum,’
    inquit, ‘caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues,’ etiam ridicula sunt,
    nisi cum soli sumus.

#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 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.

#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 in multa simul intendere animus totum potest, et quocumque
    respexit, desinit intueri quod propositum erat.

#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, 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.

#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.

#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 rerum natura ad quietem refectionemque
    nobis data in acerrimum laborem convertimus. Cui tamen non plus
    inrogandum est quam quod somno supererit, haud deerit;

#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,’-- 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.

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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 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 exiget, quae ut iuvant aciem, ita crebra relatione, quoad
    intinguntur calami, morantur manum et cogitationis impetum
    frangunt.

#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.

#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.

#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 intentos ab alia inventione
    declinant ideoque optime sunt in deposito.

#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.

#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.



DE EMENDATIONE.

IV.


IV. § 1.

    Sequitur emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque
    enim sine causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet.
    Huius autem operis est adicere, detrahere, mutare. Sed facilius
    in iis simpliciusque iudicium quae replenda vel deicienda sunt;
    premere vero tumentia, humilia extollere, luxuriantia
    adstringere, inordinata digerere, soluta componere, exultantia
    coercere duplicis operae; nam et damnanda sunt quae placuerant
    et invenienda quae fugerant.

#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.

#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 nascentia: 3 §7 omnia nostra dum
nascuntur placent.


IV. § 3.

    Sed neque hoc contingere semper potest praesertim oratori,
    cui saepius scribere ad praesentes usus necesse est, et ipsa
    emendatio finem habet. Sunt enim qui ad omnia scripta tamquam
    vitiosa redeant et, quasi nihil fas sit rectum esse quod primum
    est, melius existiment quidquid est aliud, idque faciant
    quotiens librum in manus resumpserunt, similes medicis etiam
    integra secantibus. Accidit itaque ut cicatricosa sint et
    exsanguia et cura peiora.

#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.

#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. Cp. Cic. in Vatin. xii. §30 Dices supplicationes te illas non
probasse. Optime. Nullae fuerint supplicationes.



QUAE SCRIBENDA SINT PRAECIPUE.

V.


V. § 1.

    Proximum est ut dicamus quae praecipue scribenda sint ἕξιν
    parantibus. {Non est huius} quidem operis ut explicemus quae
    sint materiae, quae prima aut secunda aut deinceps tractanda
    sint (nam id factum est iam primo libro, quo puerorum, et
    secundo, quo iam robustorum studiis ordinem dedimus), sed, de
    quo nunc agitur, unde copia ac facilitas maxime veniat.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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.
    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.

#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 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 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:

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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 personarum, causarum,
    temporum, locorum, dictorum, factorum diversitate facile
    delitescet infirmitas, tot se undique rebus, ex quibus aliquam
    adprehendas, offerentibus.

#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 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
    diximus, quibus Cicero iam princeps in re publica exerceri
    solebat.

#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.): 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, 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.

#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 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, 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.

#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 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 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.

#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.

#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, otio et iucundioribus epulis reficiuntur.

#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 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.

#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 discrimina velut quendam solem reformident.

#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 Orat. i. §157: Orator §64 (umbratilis--
‘cloistral’). So ‘umbraticavita’ Quint. i. 2, 18: ‘studia in umbra
educata’ 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 eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus
    videretur.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.


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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.



DE COGITATIONE.

VI.


VI. § 1.

    Proxima stilo cogitatio est, quae et ipsa vires ab hoc
    accipit et est inter scribendi laborem extemporalemque fortunam
    media quaedam et nescio an usus frequentissimi. Nam scribere non
    ubique nec semper possumus, cogitationi temporis ac loci
    plurimum est. Haec paucis admodum horis magnas etiam causas
    complectitur; haec, quotiens intermissus est somnus, ipsis
    noctis tenebris adiuvatur; haec inter medios rerum actus aliquid
    invenit vacui nec otium patitur.

#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 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.

#satis erat#: see on 5 §7 fas erat.

#intra se ipsa#, ‘by itself’: there is no need for any recourse to
writing. This is 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.

#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.

#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, 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.

#si ... aliqui#: see on 2 §23.

#extemporalis color#, a sudden inspiration, 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.

#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 avertimur, et ex memoria potius res petimus quam ex
    materia. Plura sunt autem, si utrimque quaerendum est, quae
    inveniri possunt quam quae inventa sunt.

#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.

#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_.



QUEM AD MODUM EXTEMPORALIS FACILITAS PARETUR ET CONTINEATUR.

VII.


VII. § 1.

    Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium quoddam
    amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas; quam qui
    non erit consecutus mea quidem sententia civilibus officiis
    renuntiabit et solam scribendi facultatem potius ad alia opera
    convertet. Vix enim bonae fidei viro convenit auxilium in
    publicum polliceri quod praesentissimis quibusque periculis
    desit, intrare portum ad quem navis accedere nisi lenibus ventis
    vecta non possit,--

#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, moras et secessum et silentium quaeret, dum illa
    verba fabricentur et memoriae insidant et vox ac latus
    praeparetur?

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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
    deinceps: quae ita sunt natura copulata ut mutari aut intervelli
    sine confusione non possint.

#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 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.

#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 etiam
    multa dicamus.

#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 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;

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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 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.

#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. §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.

#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, 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.

#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.

#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.

#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 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.

#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.’

#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.

#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.

#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
    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.

#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. 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.

#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.

#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 haesitare videamur.

#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.


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.

#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.

#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 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;

#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 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.

#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, operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum
    rapi aliquo momento temporis possit: siquidem C. Carbo etiam in
    tabernaculo solebat hac uti exercitatione dicendi.

#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’: _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.

#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; si id non
    dabitur, cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen {sic
    d}icere ut neque deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus
    esse videatur.

#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
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.

#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 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.

#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 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 nos cogitatio ad illa elaborata nec sinat
    praesentem fortunam experiri.

#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 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.

#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.



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).


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. 31, 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 _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 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 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 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.

§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 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 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. §§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.

  [In the following paragraph, text shown in {braces} was printed as
  “gesperrt” (extended).]

§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 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. {ali}QUOS = aliquos quos: §54
reddit G(H)V, i.e. {red}DI{t} = 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. {comp}AR{at} = compararat: §84 probandoque G (and H) =
{probando}QUE: §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 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. 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 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 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 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.

§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 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_.

#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 _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. 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.”’

§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. 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.

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.


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.
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 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.


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_.

#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 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_, 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 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.

§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 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.’

#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 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_ (t^m)
_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_ 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 di{x}erim_ 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: ‘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.



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.
  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.


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.)

  abruptus, ii. 19: 131 b.
  abunde, i. 94: 91 a.
  abusio, i. 12: 21 b.
  accedere, i. 86: 83 a.
  actio, i. 17: 24 b.
  actus rei, i. 31: 35 a.
  acutus, i. 77: 73 b.
  acumen, i. 106: 107 b.
  adde quod, Introd. p. liii.
  adducere frontem, iii. 13: 142 a.
  adfectus, i. 27: 31 b.: and i. 48: 49 a.
  adhuc, Introd. pp. l-li.
  Adjectives, _use of_: Introd. p. xlvi. sqq.
  advocatus, i. 111: 110 a.
  alioqui, Introd. p. li.
  ἄλογος τριβή, vii. 11: 174 a.
  altercatio, i. 35: 39 b.
  ambitio, Introd. p. xliv.
  ambitus rerum, i. 16: 24 a.
  amplificationes, i. 49: 50 b.
  Annales Pontificum, ii. 7: 126 a.
  ante omnia, Introd. p. liii.
  antiqui, ii. 17: 130 b.
  argumenta et signa rerum, i. 49: 50 b.
  artes, i. 15: 23 b.
  atticus, i. 44: 45 b.
  auctor, i. 24: 30 a.
  auditorium, i. 36: 40 a.
  aureum plectrum, i. 63: 60 a.
  auspicatus, i. 85: 82 a.

  basilica, v. 18: 164 b.
  beatus, i. 61: 59 a.
  bellicum canere, i. 33: 36 b.
  bona fide, iii. 23: 146 b.

  calumnia, i. 115: 113 b.
  calcaribus egere, i. 74: 70 a.
  candidus, i. 73: 68 a.
  candor, i. 101: 100 b.
  caro, i. 77: 73 a.
  cerae, iii. 30: 149 a.
  certe scio, ii. 5: 124 b.
  circa, i. 52: 52 a.
  circulatorius, i. 8: 18 b.
  citra, i. 2: 12 b.
  civilia officia, iii. 11: 140 a.
  classis, v. 18: 166 a.
  claudicare, i. 99: 97 a.
  cogitatio, vi. 1: 167 a.
  color, i. 116: 114 b.
  _Comedy_, _Greek_, i. 65: 61 a.
      „     _Latin_, i. 99: 97 a.
  commendare, i. 101: 101 a.
  communes loci, v. 12: 159 b.
  compositio, i. 52: 52 b. and i. 79: 77 b.
  compositus, i. 119: 117 a.
  concludere, i. 106: 107 a.
  conferre, i. 1: 12 a.
  confirmatio sententiarum, v. 12: 159 a.
  contorta vis, vii. 14: 176 a.
  conrogati, i. 18: 26 b.
  cothurnus (Sophocli), i. 68: 64 a: and ii. 22: 133 a.
  cultus, Introd. p. xliv.
  cum interim, i. 18: 26 b.
  cum praesertim, i. 105: 105 a.
  cum eo quod, vii. 13: 175 a.

  declinata figura oratio, v. 8: 157 a.
  decor, i. 27: 32 a.
  decretoria (arma), v. 20: 165 b.
  demum, Introd. p. li.
  densus, i. 68 and 73.
  destructio sententiarum, v. 12: 159 a.
  dicendi veneres, i. 79: 76 a.
  dicendi ex tempore facultas, iii. 2: vii. 1, 5, 24.
  declamatores, i. 71: 65 b.
  dictare, iii. 19: 144 a.
  digerere cibum, i. 19: inordinata, iv. 1: commentarios, vii. 30.
  digressiones, i. 33: 36 b.
  dilectus, iii. 5: 138 a.
  disertus, i. 118: 115 b.
  _Dramatic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 65: _Latin_, i. 97.
  dubitare, i. 73: 67 a.
  ducere (colorem), i. 59: 57 a.
  ducere opus, iii. 18: 144 a.
  dulcis, i. 73: 68 a.
  dum non, iii. 7: 138 b.

  efferre se, iii. 10: 140 a.
  elegans, i. 65: 62 a.
  _Elegy_, _Greek_, i. 58: _Latin_, i. 93.
  _Epic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 46 sqq.: _Latin_, i. 85 sqq.
  epilogus, i. 50: 51 b: and i. 107: 108 b.
  epodos, i. 96: 94 a.
  exactus, ii. 14: 128 a.
  exempla, i. 49: 50 b.
  exilis, ii. 16: 129 b.
  expositus, Introd. p. xlv.
  extemporalis color, vi. 5: 168 b.
  extemporalis actio, vii. 18: temeritas, vi. 6.
  exultare, ii. 16: 130 a.

  facere (bene) ad aliquid, i. 33: 38 a.
  facilitas, i. 1: ii. 12: iii. 7: vii. 19.
  fas erat, v. 7: 157 a.
  favorabilis, v. 21: 166 a.
  figurae, i. 12: 22 a.
  _Figures_ (_military_, &c.), Introd. pp. lvi-vii.
  forsitan, ii. 10: 126 b.
  frequenter, i. 17: 25 b.
  frugalitas, iii. 26: 147 b.

  genera dicendi, i. 44: 44-5.
  genera lectionum, i. 45: 46 b.
  grammatici, i. 53: 53 a.
  grandis, i. 65: 62 a.

  habere laudem, i. 53: 53 a.
  ἕξις, i. 1: 12 a.
  _History_, i. 31: 34 a; _Greek_, i. 73: 66 a; _Latin_, i. 101: 100 a.
  hodieque, i. 94: 91 b.
  horride, ii. 17: 130 a.

  _Iambic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 59: 57 b; _Latin_, i. 96.
  ideoque, i. 21: 28 b.
  igitur, i. 4: 15 a.
  index, i. 57: 56 b.
  indiscretus, i. 2: 12 a.
  infelicitas, ii. 8: 126 a.
  infinitae questiones, iii. 11: 158 a.
  interim, i. 9: 19 b.
  inventio, i. 106: 106 b.
  ipse, Introd. p. xlix.
  iucundus, i. 46: 48 a.

  lacerti, i. 33: 37 a.
  lactea (ubertas), i. 32: 36 a.
  laetus, i. 46: 48 a.
  lascivia (recens haec), i. 43: 43 b.
  lascivus, i. 88: 84 b.
  lene dicendi genus, i. 121: 117 b.
  lima, iv. 4: 152 a.
  loci communes, v. 12: 159 b.
  lucrativa opera, vii. 27: 180 b.
  _Lyric Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 61: 58 b; _Latin_, i. 96.

  medium dicendi genus, i. 52: 52 b; i. 80: 78b.
  membranae, iii. 31: 150 a.
  memoria posteritatis, i. 31: 35 b.
  mensurae verborum, i. 10: 20 a.
  merere, i. 72: 66 b.

  nam (elliptical), i. 9: 19 a.
  nescio an ulla, i. 65.
  nisi forte, i. 70: 65 a.
  nitidus, i. 9: 19 b; i. 79: 75 b.
  non sit, ii. 27: 135 a.
  numeri, i. 4: 15 a; i. 70: 65 b.

  obiurgare, iii. 20: 145 a.
  offensator, iii. 20: 145 a.
  olim, i. 104: 103 a.
  opinio, v. 18: 164 a.
  opus, i. 9: 19 b.
  _Oratory_, _Greek_, i. 76: _Latin_, i. 105.
  _Orators_, Canon of the Ten, i. 76: 71 a.
  ostentatio, i. 28: 32 b.
  otiosus, i. 76: 72 b.

  palaestra, i. 79: 76 a.
  paraphrasis, v. 5: 155 b.
  parem facere, i. 105: 103 b.
  parum (non), i. 124: 119 a.
  pedestris oratio, i. 81: 79 b.
  periculum, i. 36: 42 b.
  _Philosophy_, i. 35: 38 b: _Greek_, i. 81: 78 b;
    _Latin_, i. 123: 118 a.
  φράσις, i. 42: 43 a.
  pilarii, vii. 11: 174 b.
  _Poetry, the study of_, i. 27 sqq.
  pontificum annales, ii. 7: 126 a.
  praescriptum, ii. 2: 123 b.
  praesertim (cum), i. 105: 105 a.
  praestringere, i. 30: 33 b.
  praesumere, v. 4: 155 a.
  pressus, i. 44: 44 b.
  procinctu (in), i. 2: 13 a.
  profectus, iii. 2: 136 b.
  professor, v. 18: 164 a.
  propria, i. 6: 16 a.
  proprietas, i. 46: 48 a.
  prosa (oratio), i. 81: 79 b.
  protinus, i. 3: 14 a.
  proximus--secundus, i. 53: 53 b.

  quia, Introd. p. liv.
  quicunque, i. 12: 22 a.
  quisque, i. 2: 12 b.
  quoque (etiam), i. 20: 28 a; i. 125: 120 b.
  quotas quisque, i. 41: 42 b.

  rarum est ut, vii. 24: 179 b.
  ratio c. gerund, iii. 31: 149 b.
  ratio constat, ii. 1: 123 a.
  ratio (in scribendo), iii. 15: 143 a.
  rectum (dicendi genus), i. 44: 44 a.
  repraesentare, vii. 2: 170 b.
  ridiculus, i. 117: 115 a.

  sales, i. 107: 108 a.
  sanguis, i. 60: 58 a.
  _Satire_, i. 93: 89 b.
  sententiae, i. 50, 52, 68, 90, 102, 129, 130: ii. 17: v. 4.
  signa rerum et argumenta, i. 49: 50 b.
  silva, iii. 17: 143 b.
  similitudines, i. 49: 50 b.
  sine dubio, Introd. p. liii.
  Socratici, i. 35: 39 b.
  solum (non, sed), i. 6: 17 a.
  sordidus, i. 9: 19 b.
  spiritus, i. 27: 31 b.
  stilus, i. 2: 12 b; iii. 1, 32; vii. 16.
  Stoici, i. 84: 81 b.
  subtilis, i. 78: 74 a.
  summus, Introd. p. xlvi.
  supinus, ii. 17: 131 a.
  supplosio pedis, vii. 26: 180 b.

  tacitus, i. 19: 26 a.
  tenuis, i. 44: 45 a.
  tenuitas, ii. 23: 133 b.
  theses, v. 11: 158 a.
  togatae, i. 100: 99 b.
  tori athletarum, i. 33: 37 a.
  _Tragedy_, _Latin_, i. 97: 94 b; _Greek_, i. 66.
  transversus, i. 110: 110 a.
  τριβὴ ἄλογος, vii. 11: 174 a.
  τροπικῶς, i. 11: 21 a.

  ubicumque, Introd. p. liii.
  urbanitas, i. 115: 112 b.
  utinam non, i. 100: 99 b.
  utique: i. 20: 28 a.
  utrimque, i. 131: 122 b.

  valetudo, Introd. p. liv.
  validius, iii. 12: 140 b.
  velocitatem (Sallusti), i. 102: 101 a.
  veneres dicendi, i. 79: 76 a.
  ventilator, vii. 11: 174 b.
  verbum--vox, i. 11: 21 a.
  versificator, i. 89: 85 b.
  vibrantes sententiae, i. 60: 58 a.
  vis dicendi, i. 1: 11 b.
  voluntas recti generis, i. 89: 86 b.
  vox--verbum, i. 11: 21 a.


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


ERRATA

No errors were found in the primary text.

_Introduction_

I.
  Quintilianus, ex Hispania Calagurritanus
    [printed as “Quinti/tilianus” at line break]
  stood by himself[6].’ [double quote for single]
  healthy influence[7]. [period missing]
  fn 8 from A.D. 70 to A.D. 90 [missing period in “A.D. 90”]
II.
  his memory.’ This brings us to ... and of altercation
    [close quote printed after “altercation”]
III.
  [Footnote 39]
  the truth is that [“the truth it that”]
  ... moins célèbre_.’ [missing close quote]
  §44 _paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi_ [“§45”]
IV.
  #Consummatus# ... i. 9, 3 [“1. 9, 3”]
  #Extemporalis# ... x. 6, 1, 5 and 6 [“... 1, 5 and 8”]
  5 §12 _decretum quoddam_ [“5 §72”]
  the acc. in Greek [missing period]
V.
  [Footnote 82]
  5 §12 _de reo_: [print unclear, but body text has “de re”]

List of Editions
  FRIEZE (Books x. and xii.) [extra period after “and.”]
List of Articles
  MEISTER ... p. 534 sqq. [missing period after “sqq.”]
Comparative Table
  I.3 imitati. [missing period]
  I.35 as Meister. [missing period]
  VII.20 debet fiducia facilitatis ut. [missing period]


_Commentary_

I.2
  Har. Resp. §24 [missing period after “Har.”]
  _procingo_, ‘I gird up’ [superfluous close parenthesis after “up’”]
I.16
  it was equivalent to [“equivalent so”]
I.27
  heroi carminis [first “i” in “carminis” invisible]
I.31
  Roman history.’ In each case the words
    [close quote misprinted as open quote before “In”]
I.46
  #pressus# ... ‘chaste,’ [invisible open quote]
I.47
  altum dormiret’, [missing close quote]
I.49
  Ὁμηρικῶς [Ὀμηρικῶς (with smooth breathing mark)]
I.53
  between a bad (proximum) and a good second (secundum)’
    [close quote printed after “second”]
I.54
  κατ᾽ αὐτὸν (αὐτὴν?) οἰκονομίᾳ διήνεγκεν. [query in original]
I.63
  to ‘trifle’, cp. Hor. Car. iv. 9 [missing close quote]
I.65
  τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν ...
    [omicron invisible: supplied from original Greek text]
I.73
  Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 425 R [Ἀχρ.]
I.89
  #etiamsi sit# ... See Crit. Notes. [final period missing]
I.95
  quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius [“Licilius”]
II.4
  #Quid futurum erat# ... 6 §2. ["6 §12"]
II.22
  #decor# ... Singula quaeque [“quaeqae”]
III.26
  conducting a siege’ [invisible close quote]
  --#supererit ... deerit#. Tr. [missing period after “Tr.”]
V.7
  #et quidem#: see on 1 §34 [text has only “§34”, as if to 5.34]
V.15
  in Anwendung zu bringen.’ [missing close quote]
VII.13
  ‘and this I say with the addition that,’ &c. [missing period]
VII.14
  #refrigescunt#, cp. 3 §6, and §33. [missing period]
VII.19
  #debet#.
   [asterisks in this paragraph are in the original text]
VII.24
  § 24. [invisible period]


_Critical Notes_

1.3 [line reference missing]
1.23
  #Quin etiam si ... tamen#
    [changed from etiamsi to agree with body text]
  e{g}eri{n}t, scire?’ [close quote invisible]
1.39
  the old school and the new (see esp. §43). [final period missing]
1.65
  ‘I rather think.’’ [second close quote missing (nested quotes)]
1.109
  codd. Vall. and Goth.: [period after “Goth.” missing]
1.130 [line reference missing]
  as an alternative for _parum rectum genns_ (or _sermonem_)
    [text unchanged: error for “genus”?]
  Krüger (3rd ed.) _si parum arguta_ [period after “ed.” missing]
2.7
  Surely we are not [“are uot”]
3.2
  #et fundit# [text unchanged: bold seems to be error for italic]
3.32 [line reference missing]
5.16
  §16. #materia fuerit#. [period after “§16.” missing]
7.16 [line reference missing]
7.25
  (Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?).
    [text unchanged: unclear whether missing close quote belongs
    before or after question mark, or whether “?” is itself an error
    for close quote]


_Index_

  inventio, i. 106: 106 b.
    [printed between “infelicitas” and “infinitae”]





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.