CHAPTER I.

M. FABI QUINTILIANI

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

LIBER DECIMUS

A REVISED TEXT

WITH INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

AND A FACSIMILE OF THE HARLEIAN MS.

by W. Peterson

Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung

Hildesheim

Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1891

Mit Genehmigung der Clarendon Press, Oxford

Printed in Germany

Herstellung: fotokop, Reprografischer Betrieb GmbH, Darmstadt

Best.-Nr. 5101664

PREFACE.

This volume has grown in my hands

during the last eighteen months. If I had contented myself with a short

commentary, it might have appeared sooner and in a slighter form. But in

addition to the full and careful illustration required for the matter of

Quintilian’s Tenth Book, the criticism of the text has become so

important as to call for separate treatment. It has engaged, within

recent years, a large share of the attention of some of the foremost

scholars on the Continent. Even while this volume was passing through

the press, fresh evidence of their continued activity was received in

the shape of two valuable papers—an article by Moriz Kiderlin in

one of the current numbers of the _Rheinisches Museum_, and

Becher’s ‘Zum zehnten Buch des Quintilianus’ in the _Programm des

Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_ for Easter, 1891. The latter I have

found especially interesting, as confirming many of the conclusions at

which, with the help of one of the manuscripts in the British Museum

(Harl. 4995), I had arrived in regard to textual difficulties.

The importance ascribed to another English codex (Harl. 2664) will,

I venture to think, be held to be justified by the account of it given in

the Introduction. After I had examined it for myself, a collation of it was

kindly put at my disposal by Mr. L. C. Purser, of Trinity College, Dublin,

to whom I take this opportunity of rendering my best thanks. I am indebted

also to M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne,

for sending me his collation of four important Paris manuscripts (Pratensis,

Puteanus, 7231 and 7696), and also of the Spanish Salmantinus. As to the other

codices which I have been at the trouble of collating personally, it will not

be imagined that any mistaken estimate has been formed of their value. If some

of them throw little fresh light on existing difficulties, they have each a

bearing on the history of the constitution of the text; and it seemed desirable

to complete, by some account of them, the elaborate description of the

Manuscripts of Quintilian given by M. Fierville in his latest volume.

A reference to the list of authorities consulted will show the extent

of the obligations incurred to other editors and critics. Kruger’s third

edition has been especially useful. And though Professor Mayor’s

commentary extends only to the fifty-sixth section of the first chapter,

I trust I have profited by the example of scholarly thoroughness

which he set me in the part of the work which he was able to overtake.

His Analysis has also been largely followed.

For convenience of reference, a table of places has been added in

which the text of this edition differs from that of Halm and of Meister.

Special attention has been paid to the matter of punctuation, in regard

to which German methods have not been adopted.

One or two of my own conjectural emendations I have presumed to

insert in the text, and others are suggested in the Critical Notes.

Perhaps the most important is _sic dicere_ for the MS.

_inicere_ at 7 §29.

If my volume should strike any student as having been prepared on too

elaborate a scale, I trust it will be remembered that Quintilian is

a neglected author, for whom nothing has been done in this country (with

the exception of Professor Mayor’s incomplete edition of the Tenth Book)

since the beginning of the present century. Perhaps its publication may

help to clear the way for a final issue of the whole text of the

_Institutio_.

W. P.

Dundee, 26th _June_, 1891.

CONTENTS

The Table of Contents shows the original arrangement of the book.

Entries in _italics_ were added by the transcriber.

PAGE

_Preface_

Introduction—

I. Life of Quintilian i

II. The Institutio Oratoria xiii

III. Quintilian’s Literary Criticism xxii

IV. Style and Language xxxix

V. Manuscripts lxviii

Analysis of the Argument 1

Text 11

_Chapter I_ _11_

_Chapters II-VII_ _122_

Critical Notes 185

Index of Names 223

Index of Matters 225

For this e-text some changes have been made; in all cases, the

original page numbers will be seen in the right margin.

see caption

Harleian MS. 2664. 149 v.

(See Introd. p.

lxiv.)

i

INTRODUCTION.

I.

Life of Quintilian.

It would be possible to state in a

very few lines all that is certainly known about Quintilian’s personal

history; but much would remain to be said in order to convey an adequate

idea of the large place he must have filled in the era of which he is so

typical a representative. The period of his activity at Rome is nearly

co-extensive with the reign of the Flavian emperors,—Vespasian,

Titus, and Domitian. For twenty years he was the recognised head of the

teaching profession in the capital, and a large proportion of those who

came to maturity in the days of Trajan and Hadrian must have received

their intellectual training in his school. It is in itself a sign of the

tendencies of the age that Quintilian should have enjoyed the immediate

patronage of the reigning emperor in the conduct of work which would

formerly have attracted little notice. In earlier days the profession of

teaching had been held in low repute at Rome1. The first attempt to open a

school of rhetoric, in B.C. 94, was

looked on with the greatest suspicion and disfavour. Even Cicero adopts

a tone of apology in the rhetorical text-books which he wrote for the

instruction of others. But now all was changed, and education had come

to be, as it was in a still greater degree under Nerva, Trajan, and the

Antonines, a department of the government itself. Vespasian was the

founder of a new dynasty; and, though he had little culture to boast of

himself, he was shrewd enough to appreciate the advantages to be derived

from systematising the education of the Roman youth, and maintaining

friendly relations

ii

with those to whom it was entrusted. Quintilian, for his part, seems to

have diligently seconded, in the scholastic sphere, his patron’s efforts

to efface the memory of the time of trouble and unrest which had

followed the extinction of the Julian line in the person of Nero. After

his retirement from the active duties of his profession, he received the

consular insignia from Domitian,—the promotion of a teacher of

rhetoric to the highest dignity in the State being regarded as a most

unexampled phenomenon by the conservative opinion of the day, which had

failed to recognise the significance of the alliance between prince and

pedagogue. The interest with which the publication of the _Institutio

Oratorio_ was looked forward to, at the close of his laborious

professional career, is sufficient evidence of the authoritative

position Quintilian had gained for himself at Rome. It was a tribute not

only to the successful teacher, but also to the man of letters who,

conscious that his was an age of literary decadence, sought to probe the

causes of the national decline and to counteract its evil

influences.

Like so many of the distinguished men of his time, Quintilian was a

Spaniard by birth. There must have been something in the Spanish

national character that rendered the inhabitants of that country

peculiarly susceptible to the influences of Roman culture: certainly no

province assimilated more rapidly than Spain the civilisation of its

conquerors. The expansion of Rome may be clearly traced in the history

of her literature. Just as Italy, rather than the imperial city itself,

had supplied the court of Augustus with its chiefest literary ornaments,

so now Spain sends up to the centre of attraction for all things Roman a

band of authors united, if by nothing else, at least by the ties of a

common origin. Pomponius Mela is said to have come from a place called

Cingentera, on the bay of Algesiras; Columella was a native of Gades,

Martial of Bilbilis; the two Senecas and Lucan were born in Corduba. The

emperor Trajan came from Italica, near Seville; while Hadrian belonged

to a family which had long been settled there. Quintilian’s birthplace

was the town of Calagurris (Calahorra) on the Ebro, memorable in

previous history only for the resistance which it enabled Sertorius to

offer to Metellus and Pompeius: it was the last place that submitted

after the murder of the insurgent general in B.C. 72.

In most of the older editions of Quintilian an anonymous Life

appears, the author of which (probably either Omnibonus Leonicenus or

Laurentius Valla) prefers a conjecture of his own to the ‘books of the

time,’ and makes out that Quintilian was born in Rome. His main argument

is that Martial does not include his name among those of the

distinguished authors to whom he refers as being of Spanish origin (e.g.

Epigr. i.

iii

61 and 49), though he addresses him separately in complimentary terms

(Epigr. ii. 90). Against this we may set, however, the line in which

Ausonius embodies what was evidently a well-known and accepted tradition

(Prof. i. 7):—

Adserat usque licet Fabium Calagurris

alumnum;

and the statement of Hieronymus in the _Eusebian

Chronicle:—Quintilianus, ex Hispania

Calagurritanus, primus Romae publicam scholam_ [_aperuit_]. The

latter extract carries additional weight if we accept the conjecture of

Reifferscheid2 that Jerome here follows the authority of Suetonius

(Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and rhetoricians.

The fact of Quintilian’s Spanish origin may therefore be regarded as

fully established, though we cannot cite the authority of Quintilian

himself on the subject. His removal to Rome, at a very early period of

his life, would naturally make him more of a Roman than a Spaniard; and

this is probably the reason why he nowhere refers to the accident of his

birth-place. Indeed his work does not lend itself to autobiographical

revelations. Most of his reminiscences, some of which occur in the Tenth

Book (1 §§23 and

86,

3 §12: cp. v. 7, 7: vi. 1,

14: xii. 11, 3) are suggested by some detail connected with his

subject. Apart from the famous introduction to Book VI, where his grief

for the loss of his wife and two sons is allowed to interrupt the

continuity of his argument, he speaks of his father only once (ix.

3, 73), and then simply to quote, not without some diffidence,

a _bon mot_ of his in illustration of a figure of speech. The

father was himself a rhetorician, and seems to have taught the subject

both at Calagurris and also after the family removed to Rome: whether he

is identical with the Quintilianus mentioned as a declaimer of moderate

reputation by the elder Seneca (Controv. x. praef. 2: cp. ib.

33, 19) cannot now be ascertained.

The date of Quintilian’s birth has been variously given as A.D. 42, A.D. 38, and A.D.

35, the last being now most commonly adopted. It cannot be determined

with certainty, though a few considerations may here be adduced to show

why it seems necessary to discard any theory that would put it after

A.D. 38. Dodwell, in his ‘Annales

Quintilianei’ (see Burmann’s edition, vol. ii. p. 1117), arrived at

the year A.D. 42, after a careful

examination of all the passages on which he thought it allowable to base

an inference. But Quintilian tells us himself that he was a young man

(_nobis adulescentibus_ vi. 1, 14) at the trial of Cossutianus

Capito,

iv

which we know from Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 33) took place in A.D. 57: a fact which is in itself enough to show

that Dodwell is at least two years too late. Another indication is

derived from the references which Quintilian makes to his teacher

Domitius Afer, who is known to have died at a ripe old age in A.D. 59: cp. xii. 11, 3 _vidi ego ...

Domitium Afrum valde senem_: v. 7, 7 _quem adulescentulus senem

colui_: x.

1, 86 _quae ex Afro

Domitio iuvenis excepi_. Unfortunately we do not know the date of the

trial of Volusenus Catulus referred to in x.

1, 23: Quintilian was a

boy at the time (_nobis pueris_). In the preface to Book VI he

writes like an old man: this appears especially in the reference he

makes to the wife whom he had lost and who was only

nineteen,—_aetate tam puellari praesertim meae comparata_

§5. If we may infer that

Quintilian was nearer sixty than fifty when he wrote these words, in

A.D. 93 or 94, we may be certain that

he was born not later than A.D. 38,

and probably two or three years earlier.

Quintilian received his early education at Rome, and his father’s

position as a teacher of rhetoric, as well as the whole tendency of the

education of the day, no doubt gave it a rhetorical turn from the very

first. Even boys at school practised declamation, as may be seen from

the following passage of the _Institutio_:—

‘_Non inutilem scio servatum esse a praeceptoribus meis morem, qui

cum pueros in classes distribuerant, ordinem dicendi secundum vires

ingenii dabant; et ita superiore loco quisque declamabat ut praecedere

profectu videbatur. Huius rei iudicia praebebantur: ea nobis ingens

palma, ducere vero classem multo pulcherrimum. Nec de hoc semel decretum

erat: tricesimus dies reddebat victo certaminis potestatem. Ita nec

superior successu curam remittebat, et dolor victum ad depellendam

ignominiam concitabat. Id nobis acriores ad studia dicendi faces

subdidisse quam exhortationem docentium, paedagogorum custodiam, vota

parentium, quantum animi mei coniectura colligere possum,

contenderim._’—i. 2, 23-25.

The same style of exercise was kept up at a later stage, when the boy

passed into the hands of a professed teacher of rhetoric, such as the

notorious Remmius Palaemon, who is said by the scholiast on Juvenal (vi.

451) to have been Quintilian’s master:—

‘_Solebant praeceptores mei neque inutili et nobis etiam iucundo

genere exercitationis praeparare nos coniecturalibus causis, cum

quaerere atque exsequi iuberent “cur armata apud Lacedaemonios Venus” et

“quid ita crederetur Cupido puer atque volucer et sagittis ac face

armatus” et similia, in quibus scrutabamur voluntatem._’—ii.

4, 26.

He now came into contact with, and listened to the eloquence of, the

most celebrated orators of the day. In his relations with the greatest

of

v

these, Domitius Afer, Quintilian seems to have acted on the maxim which

he himself lays down for the budding advocate: _oratorem sibi aliquem,

quod apud maiores fieri solebat, deligat, quem sequatur, quem

imitetur_ x.

5, 19. To Afer he

attached himself (_adsectabar Domitium Afrum_ Plin. Ep. ii.

14, 10), and was in all probability by him initiated in the

business of the law-courts and public life generally: cp. v. 7, 7

_adulescentulus senem colui_ (_Domitium_). In this passage

Afer is said to have written two books on the examination of witnesses;

and from vi. 3, 42 it would appear that his ‘dicta’ or witticisms were

sufficiently distinguished to merit the honour of publication. He had

held high office under Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, and his

pre-eminence at the bar was undisputed: xii. 11, 3 _principem fuisse

quondam fori non erat dubium_. In his review of Latin oratory,

Quintilian gives him high praise: _arte et toto genere dicendi

praeferendus, et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas_ x.

1, 118. The pupil was

fortunate therefore in his master, and he drew upon his reminiscences of

Afer’s teaching when he himself came to instruct others (Plin. l.c.).

Among other notable orators of the day were Servilius Nonianus (x.

1, 102), Iulius

Africanus (x.

1, 118: xii.

10, 11), Iulius Secundus (x.

1, 120:

3, 12: xii. 10, 11),

Galerius Trachalus (x.

1, 119: xii.

10, 11), and Vibius Crispus (ibid.).

When he was about twenty-five years of age some motive induced

Quintilian to return to Calagurris, his native town; and there he spent

several years in the practice of his profession as teacher and

barrister. We know that he came back to Rome with Galba in A.D. 68: the evidence for this is again the

statement made by Hieronymus in the Eusebian Chronicle,

_M. Fabius Quintilianus Romam a Galba perducitur_. Galba had

been governor of Hispania Tarraconensis under Nero (A.D. 61-68), and it is not improbable that

Quintilian, when he returned to his native country, was in some way

attached to his official retinue; the numerous _bons mots_ which he

records in the third chapter of the Sixth Book (§§62, 64, 66,

80, 90) seem to point to a certain amount of personal intercourse

between himself and the future emperor3.

At Rome Quintilian must soon have proved himself thoroughly qualified

for the work of teaching and training the young. The imperial

countenance afterwards shown him by Vespasian was in all probability

only an official expression of the esteem felt in the Roman community

for one who was serving with such distinction in a sphere of which the

importance was coming now to be more adequately recognised. Quintilian

was not only a learned man and a great teacher: he was a great

vi

moral power in the midst of a people which had long been demoralised by

the vices of its rulers. The fundamental principle of his teaching,

_non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum_ (i. pr. §9 and

xii. 1), shows the high ideal he cherished and the wide view he

took of the opportunities of his position. He felt himself strong enough

to make a protest against the literary influence of Seneca, then the

popular favourite, and to endeavour to recall a vitiated taste to more

rigorous standards: _corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus

revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_ (x.

1, 125). And when, in

the evening of his days, he wrote his great treatise on the ‘technical

training’ of the orator, it was from himself and his own successful

practice that he drew many of his most cogent illustrations, e.g. vi. 2,

36, and (in regard to his powers of memory) xi. 2, 39 and iv.

2, 86.

In the earlier years of his career at Rome, before he became absorbed

in the work of teaching, Quintilian must have had a considerable amount

of practice at the bar. He tells us himself of a speech which he

published, _ductus iuvenali cupiditate gloriae_ viii. 2, 24. It was

of a common type. A certain Naevius Arpinianus was accused of

having killed his wife, who had fallen from a window; and we may infer

with certainty from the tone of Quintilian’s reference to the

circumstances of the case that he succeeded in securing the acquittal of

Naevius—more fortunate than the wife-killer of whom we read in

Tacitus (Ann. iv. 22). A more distinguished cause was that of

Berenice, the Jewish Queen before whom St. Paul appeared (Acts xxv.

13), and whose subsequent visit to Rome was connected with the

ascendency she had established over the heart of the youthful Titus

(Tac. Hist. ii. 2: Suet. Tit. 7). We can only speculate on the

nature of the issue involved, as Quintilian confines himself to a bare

statement of fact—_ego pro regina Berenice apud ipsam causam

dixi_ iv. 1, 19. It was in all probability a civil suit brought or

defended by Berenice against some Jewish countryman; and the phenomenon

of the queen herself presiding over a trial in which she was an

interested party is accounted for by the hypothesis that, at least in

civil suits, Roman tolerance allowed the Jews to settle their own

disputes according to their national law. On such occasions the person

of highest rank in the community to which the disputants belonged might

naturally be designated to preside over the tribunal4.

vii

In another case, Quintilian seems to have shown some of the dexterity

attributed to him in the oft-quoted line of Juvenal (vi. 280) _Dic

aliquem, sodes, dic, Quintiliane, colorem_. He was counsel for a

woman who had been party to an arrangement by which the provisions of

the Voconian law (passed B.C. 169 to

prevent the accumulation of property in the hands of females) had been

evaded by the not uncommon method of a fraudulent disposition to a third

person5.

Quintilian’s client was accused of having produced a forged will. This

charge it was easy to rebut, though it rendered necessary the

explanation that the heirs named in the will had really undertaken to

hand the property over to the woman; and if this explanation were openly

given it would involve the loss of the estate. There is an evident tone

of satisfaction in Quintiiian’s description of what happened: _ita

ergo fuit nobis agendum ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores

non possent adprehendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque_ (ix.

2, 74).

Unlike his great model Cicero, who was considered most effective in

the _peroratio_ of a great case, where the work was divided among

several pleaders, Quintilian was generally relied on to state a case

(_ponere causam_) in its main lines for subsequent elaboration:

_me certe, quantacunque nostris experimentis habenda est fides,

fecisse hoc in foro, quotiens ita desiderabat utilitas, probantibus et

eruditis et iis qui iudicabant, scio: et (quod non adroganter dixerim,

quia sunt plurimi quibuscum egi qui me refellere possint si mentiar)

fere a me ponendae causae officium exigebatur_ iv. 2, 86. His

methodical habit of mind would render him specially effective for this

department of work. Other orators may have been more brilliant, more

full of fire, and more able to work upon the feelings of an audience: if

Quintilian had not the ‘grand style’—if he represents the type of

an orator that is ‘made’ rather than ‘born’—we may at least

believe that he was unsurpassed for judicious, moderate, and effective

statement. His model in this as in other matters was probably Domitius

Afer, of whom Pliny says (Ep. ii. 14, 10) _apud decemviros

dicebat graviter et lente, hoc enim illi actionis genus erat_. His

character and training would secure him a place apart from the common

herd. ‘Among the orators of the day, some ignorant and coarse, having

left mean occupations, without any preliminary study, for the bar, where

they made up in audacity for lack of talent, and in noisy conceit for a

defective knowledge

viii

of law—others trained in the practice of delation to every form of

trickery and violence—Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood

by himself6.’

It was after Quintilian had attained some distinction in the practice

of his profession, probably in the year 72, that his activity became

invested with an official and public character. We learn the facts from

Suetonius’s Life of Vespasian (ch. 18): _primus e fisco latinis

graecisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit_: and the Eusebian

chronicle (see Roth’s Suetonius, p. 272), _Quintilianus, ex

Hispania Calagurritanus, qui primus Romae publicam_

(‘state-supported’) _scholam_ [_aperuit_] _et salarium e

fisco accepit, claruit_—the zenith of his fame being placed

between the years 85 and 89 A.D.

Vespasian, in fact, created and endowed a professorial Chair of

Rhetoric, and Quintilian was its first occupant. He thus became the

official head of the foremost school of oratory at Rome, and the

‘supreme controller of its restless youth’:

Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae,

Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae.

—Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.

In this capacity he must have exercised the greatest possible

influence on the rising youth of Rome. The younger Pliny was his pupil,

and evidently retained a grateful memory of the instruction which he

received from him: Ep. ii. 14, 9 and vi. 6, 3. The same is true, in

all probability, of Pliny’s friend Tacitus, who has much in common with

Quintilian: possibly also of Suetonius. If Juvenal was not actually his

pupil,—he is believed to have practised declamation till well on

in life,—we may infer from the complimentary references which

occur in his Satires that he at least appreciated Quintilian’s work and

recognised its healthy influence7.

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty

years8,

Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading at

ix

the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model, Domitius

Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier (xii.

11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still

be missed,—_et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et

in foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum

desideraremur_, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the

practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into

retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a

treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for

which the _Institutio Oratoria_ was afterwards to provide a remedy.

It was entitled _De causis corruptae eloquentiae_, and was long

confounded with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he

refers to this work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4,

42: v. 12, 23: vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 769. This treatise is no longer

extant, and we have lost also the two books _Artis Rhetoricae_,

which were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), _neque

editi a me neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum

habitum pueri quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane

diebus, quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed

nimium amantes mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant_10. In a recent

edition of the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani

declamationes quae supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter

endeavours to show that this is the work referred to in the passage

quoted above, from the preface to the _Institutio_: cp. Die

Quintilianischen Declamationen, Freiburg i.B., und

x

Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.11 Meister’s view, however, is that, like the

‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally admitted to have been

composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’ also were written

subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more probably) by

imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend their

compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy professional

days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate publishers: he

tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in circulation

under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely his own:

_nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia excipientium

in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei habent_.

While living in retirement, and engaged on the composition of his

work, Quintilian received a fresh mark of Imperial favour, this time

from Domitian. This prince had adopted two grand-nephews, whom he

destined to succeed him on the throne,—the children of his niece

Flavia Domitilla, and of Flavius Clemens, a cousin whom he associated

with himself about this time in the duties of the consulship. They were

rechristened Vespasian and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and the care of

their education was entrusted to Quintilian (A.D. 93). He accepted it with fulsome expressions of

gratitude and appreciation12; but did not exercise it for long13, as the

children, with their parents, became the victims of the tyrant’s

capriciousness shortly before his murder, and were ruined as rapidly as

they had risen. Flavius Clemens was put to death, and his wife

Domitilla, probably accompanied by her two sons, was sent into exile.

They seem to have embraced the Jewish faith; and it is interesting to

speculate on the possibility that through intercourse with them, and

with their children, Quintilian may have come into contact with a

religion which was the forerunner of that which was destined soon

afterwards to achieve so universal a triumph.

It was while he was acting as tutor to the two princes that

Quintilian received, through the influence of their father Flavius

Clemens, the compliment of the consular insignia. This we learn from

Ausonius, himself the recipient of a similar favour from his pupil

Gratian: _Quintilianus per Clementem ornamenta consularia sortitus,

honestamenta nominis potius videtur quam insignia potestatis

habuisse_. It was probably in allusion to

xi

this promotion, unexampled at that time in the case of a teacher of

rhetoric, that Juvenal wrote (vii. 197-8)—

Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul;

Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:

while another parallel is chronicled by Pliny, Ep. iv. 11, 1

_praetorius hic modo ... nunc eo decidit ut exsul de senatore, rhetor

de oratore fieret. Itaque ipse in praefatione dixit dolenter el

graviter: ‘quos tibi Fortuna, ludos facis?’ facis enim ex professoribus

senatores, ex senatoribus professores._

The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and

similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably

manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear

that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an

‘upright guardian of morals’ (_sanctissimus censor_ iv. pr. §3),

even when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There

may have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian,

like Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical

productions are said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and

his attachment to literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he

instituted in honour of Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which

rhetorical, musical, and artistic contests were a prominent feature (see

on x.

1, 91). But this is no

justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in the

introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as the

protecting deity of literary men: _ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia

eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis

propitium numen est_; nor for his profession of belief that nothing

but the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the

greatest poet of Rome: _Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis

deflexit cura terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum

poetarum_ x.

1, 91 sq. Few would

recognise Domitian in the following reference: _laudandum in quibusdam

quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute sint

consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum

decus fecit_ iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially

explained by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the

circumstances of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age:

Quintilian shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and

Valerius Flaccus. The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal

maintained during the horrors of this reign is a better expression of

the virtue of old Rome, which seems to have burned with steadier flame

in the hearts of her genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’

xii

from the provinces, with neither pride of family nor pride of

nationality to save them from the corrupting influences of their

surroundings14.

That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and

partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made

by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are

the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when

compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks

off,—_unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus?_ How does it

come about (if his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns

so many estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this

conundrum is that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a

lucky man, and your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good

quality in himself, and can expect everything15.’ We must remember however,

that, while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his

profession, no charge is made against him as having placed his abilities

at the disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under

Nero, Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of

Thrasea, and received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33):

if Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal

would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as

with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were

counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the

memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the _Institutio_ would

perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a

testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless

widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl

whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he

had lost a daughter rather than a wife: _cum omni virtute quae in

feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam

puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter

vulnera orbitatis_ vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger

of whom did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year

when he died. The father now concentrated all his affection

xiii

on the elder, and it was with his education in view that he made all

haste to complete his great work, which he considered would be the best

inheritance he could leave to him,—_hanc optimum partem

relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit,

fata intercepissent, praeceptore tamen patre uteretur_ ib. §1. But

the blow again descended, and his house was desolate: _at me fortuna

id agentem diebus ac noctibus festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita

subito prostravit ut laboris mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me

pertineret. Illum enim, de quo summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam

senectutis reponebam, repetito vulnere orbitatis amisi_ ib. §2.

This would be about the year 94 A.D., and the _Institutio Oratoria_ is said to

have seen the light in 95. After that we hear no more of Quintilian.

Domitian was assassinated in 96, and under the new _régime_ it is

possible that the favourite of the Flavian emperors may have been under

a cloud. But his work was done; even if he lived on for a few years

longer in retirement, his career had virtually closed with the

publication of his great treatise. It used to be believed that he lived

into the reign of Hadrian, and died about 118 A.D., but this idea is founded on a misconception16.

Probably he did not even see the accession of Nerva in 96: if he did, he

must have died soon afterwards, for there are two letters of Pliny’s

(one written between 97 and 100, and the other about 105) in which Pliny

does not speak of his old teacher as of one still alive.

II.

The Institutio Oratoria.

Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition

of the _Institutio Oratorio_, his work really embodies the

experience of a

xiv

lifetime. No doubt much of it lay ready to his hand, even before he

began to write, and he would willingly have kept it longer; but the

solicitations of Trypho, the publisher, were too much for him. His

letter to Trypho shows that he fully appreciated the magnitude of his

task; and there is even the suggestion that (like many a busy teacher

since his time) he only realised when called upon to publish that he had

not covered the whole ground of his subject17. The opening words of the

introduction (_post impetratam studiis meis quietem, quae per viginti

annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_, &c.) show that the

_Institutio_ was the work of his retirement: and various

indications lead us to fix the date of its composition as falling

between A.D. 93 and 95. The

introduction to the Fourth Book was evidently written when (probably in

93) Domitian had appointed Quintilian tutor to his grand-nephews; the

Sixth Book, where he refers to his family losses, must have followed

shortly afterwards; while the harshness of his references to the

philosophers in the concluding portions of the work (cp. xi. 1, 30, xii.

3, 11, with 1, pr. 15, which may have been written, or at least revised,

after the rest was finished) seems to suggest that their expulsion by

Domitian (in 94) was already an accomplished fact18. The book is dedicated to

Victorius Marcellus, to whom Statius also addresses the Fourth Book of

his _Silvae_, evidently as to a person of some consideration and an

orator of repute (cp. Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 8, and 41 sq.). Marcellus had a

son called Geta (Inst. Or. i. pr. 6: Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 71), and it

was originally with a view to the education of this youth (_erudiendo

Getae tuo_) that Quintilian associated the father’s name with his

work. Geta is again referred to, along with Quintilian’s elder son, and

also the grand-nephews of Domitian, in the introduction to the Fourth

Book; but the opening words of the Sixth Book show that they are all

gone, and the epilogue, at the conclusion of Book xii, is addressed to

Marcellus on behoof of ‘studiosi iuvenes’ in general.

The plan of the _Institutio Oratorio_ cannot be better given

than in its author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): _Liber primus ea quae

sunt ante officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem

elementa et quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus,

quinque deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur)

quattuor elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt,

dabuntur. Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui

mores eius, quae in

xv

suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod eloquentiae genus,

quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem studia, quantum nostra

valebit infirmitas, disseremus._ The first book deals with what the

pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician; it gives an account

of home-training and school discipline, and contains also a statement of

Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book treats of rhetoric in

general: the choice of a proper instructor, as well as his character and

function, and the nature, principles, aims, and use of oratory. It is in

these early books especially that Quintilian reveals the high tone which

has made him an authority on educational morals, as well as rhetorical

training: see especially i. 2, 8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum,

_maxima debetur puero reverentia_; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates

gentle and conciliatory methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,—a

picture of the ideal teacher in language which might be applied to

Quintilian himself19. The remaining books, except the twelfth, are devoted

to the five ‘parts of rhetoric,’—invention, arrangement, style,

memory, and delivery (Cic. de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we

have a classification of the different kinds of oratory. Next he treats

of the ‘different divisions of a speech, the purpose of the exordium,

the proper form of a statement of facts, what constitutes the force of

proofs, either in confirming our own assertions or refuting those of our

adversary, and of the different powers of the peroration, whether it be

regarded as a summary of the arguments previously used, or as a means of

exciting the feelings of the judge rather than of refreshing his

memory.’ This brings us to the end of the sixth book,

which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and of altercation20. The

discussion of arrangement finishes with the seventh book, which is

extremely technical: style (_elocutio_) is the main subject of the

four books which follow. Of these the eighth and ninth treat of the

elements of a good style,—such as perspicuity, ornament, &c.;

the tenth of the practical studies and exercises (including a course of

reading) by which the actual command of these elements may be obtained;

while the eleventh deals with appropriateness (i.e. the different kinds

of oratory which suit different audiences), memory, and delivery. The

twelfth book—which Quintilian calls the most grave and important

part of the whole work—treats of the high moral qualifications

requisite in the perfect orator:

xvi

just as the first book, introductory to the whole, describes the early

training which should precede the technical studies of the orator, so

the last book sets forth that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is

their crown and conclusion21. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice

when the public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end.

Even then his activity will not come to an end. He will write the

history of his times, will explain the law to those who consult him,

will write, like Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set

forth the highest principles of morality. The young men will throng

round and consult him as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot.

What can be more honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has

a thorough knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator

ought not to be thought happiest at that period of his life when,

sequestered from the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by

envy, and remote from strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour

of safety, experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more

commonly offered after death, and observing how his character will be

regarded by posterity22.’”

The _Institutio Oratoria_ differs from all other previous

rhetorical treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It

is a complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to

the public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is

the _vir bonus dicendi peritus_, Quintilian considers it necessary

to take him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards

both goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore

for us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on

education in general, and on rhetorical education in particular.

Throughout the whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which

everything is undertaken,—the goal to which the entire moral and

intellectual training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s

high conception of his subject is reflected in the language of the

‘Dialogue on Oratory’: _Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel

ad utilitatem fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem

amplius vel ad urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium

gentium notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest_ (ch. 5). Though

the field for the practical display of eloquence had been greatly

limited by

xvii

the extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric

represented, in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the

Romans what μουσική was

to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because of its

eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must therefore be

fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture: there is no

form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted for his

purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in education.

He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over preliminary

cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming in the

schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops all

the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no

parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the

illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet,

that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of

necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is

necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle

and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of

a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing

to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient

culture in all its forms23.”

It is in connection with the general rather than with the technical

training of his pupils that Quintilian establishes a claim to rank with

the highest educational authorities,—as for example in his

insistence on the necessity of good example both at home24 and in school, and

on the respect due to the young25, as well as his catalogue of the

qualifications required in the trainer of youth (ii. 2, 5: 4, 10),

his protest against corporal punishment (i. 3, 14), and his

consistent advocacy of the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of

education. His system was conceived as a remedy for the existing state

of things at Rome, where eloquence and the arts in general had, as

Messalla puts it in the ‘Dialogue on Oratory,’ “declined from their

ancient glory, not from the dearth of men, but from the indolence of the

young, the carelessness of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and

neglect of the old discipline26.” Under it parents and teachers were to

be united in the effort to develop the moral and intellectual qualities

of the Roman youth: and through education the state was to recover

something of her old vigour and virtue.

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its

publication, and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to

Quintilian in the

xviii

literature of the period, that it long held an honoured place in Roman

schools. But it is curious that the earliest known references are not to

the _Institutio_ but to the _Declamationes_. In an interesting

chapter of the Introduction to a recent volume27, M. Fierville has

gathered together all the references that occur in the literature of the

early centuries of our era. Trebellius Pollio and Lactantius (both of

the 3rd century) speak of the Declamations, and Ausonius (4th century)

refers to Quintilian without naming his writings: the first definite

mention of the _Institutio_ is made by Hilary of Poitiers (died

367) and afterwards by St. Jerome (died 420). Later Cassiodorus

(468-562) pronounced a eulogy which may stand as proof of his high

appreciation: _Quintilianus tamen doctor egregius, qui post fluvios

Tullianos singulariter valuit implere quae docuit, virum bonum dicendi

peritum a prima aetate suscipiens, per cunctas artes ac disciplinas

nobilium litterarum erudiendum esse monstravit, quem merito ad

defendendum totius civitatis vota requirerent_ (de Arte

Rhetor.—Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p. 498). The Ars Rhetorica

of Julius Victor (6th century) is largely borrowed from Quintilian: see

Halm, praef. p. ix. Isidore, Bishop of Seville (570-630), studied

Quintilian in conjunction with Aristotle and Cicero. After the Dark Age,

Poggio’s discovery, at St. Gall in 1416, of a complete manuscript

of Quintilian was ranked as one of the most important literary events in

what we know now as the era of the Renaissance28. The great scholars of the

fifteenth century worked hard at the emendation of the text. The

_editio princeps_ was given to the world by G. A. Campani in

1470; and in the concluding words of his preface the editor reflects

something of the enthusiasm for his author which had already been

expressed by Petrarch, Poggio, and others,—_proinde de

Quintiliano sic habe, post unam beatissimam et unicam felicitatem

M. Tullii, quae fastigii loco suspicienda est omnibus et tamquam

adoranda, hunc unum esse quem praecipuum habere possis in eloquentia

ducem: quem si assequeris, quidquid tibi deerit ad cumulum

consummationis id a natura desiderabis non ab arte deposces_. This

edition was followed in rapid succession by various others, so that by

the end of the 16th century Quintilian had been edited a hundred times

over29. The 17th century is not so rich in editions, but

Quintilian still reigned in the schools as the great master of rhetoric:

students of English literature

xix

will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the authority of his name when

referring to the roughness of northern nomenclature:—

Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek

That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.

In his ‘Tractate on Education’ too Milton strongly recommends the

first two or three books of the _Institutio_. The 18th century

provided the notable editions of Burmann (1720), Capperonier (1725),

Gesner (1738), and witnessed also the commencement of Spalding’s

(1798-1816), whose text, as revised by Zumpt and Bonnell, practically

held the field till the publication of Halm’s critical edition (1868).

Towards the close of last century it would appear that Quintilian was as

much studied as he had ever been,—probably by many who believed

in, as well as by some who would have rejected the application of the

maxim ‘_orator_ nascitur non fit.’ William Pitt, for example,

shortly after his arrival at Cambridge (1773), and while ‘still bent on

his main object of oratorical excellence,’ attended a course of lectures

on Quintilian, which caused him on one occasion to interrupt his

correspondence with his father30. His lasting popularity must have been

due, not only to his own intrinsic merits, but to the fact that his

writings harmonised well with the studies of those days: it was promoted

also by the serviceable abridgments of the _Institutio_, either in

whole or in part, that were from time to time published,—notably

that of Ch. Rollin in 1715. In our own day men whose education was

moulded on the old lines—such as J. S. Mill—considered

Quintilian an indispensable part of a scholar’s equipment. Macaulay read

him in India, along with the rest of classical literature. Lord

Beaconsfield professed that he was ‘very fond of Quintilian31.’ But by our

classical scholars he has been almost entirely neglected, no complete

edition having appeared in this country since a revised text was issued

in London in 1822. German criticism, on the other hand, has of late paid

Quintilian special attention, with conspicuous results for the

emendation and illustration of his text: to the great names of Spalding,

Zumpt, and Bonnell, must be added those of Halm, Meister, Becher,

Wölfflin, and Kiderlin.

Besides the literary criticism for which it has always attracted

attention, and which will form the subject of the next section, the

Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ contains valuable precepts in regard

to various practical matters which are still of as great importance as

they were in Quintilian’s day. Among these are the practice of writing,

the use of an amanuensis,

xx

the art of revision, the limits of imitation, the best exercises in

style, the advantages of preparation, and the faculty of

improvisation.

The following list of Loci

Memoriales (mainly taken from Krüger’s third edition, pp.

108-110) will give some idea of the various points on which, especially

in the later chapters of the Tenth Book, Quintilian states his opinion

weightily and often with epigrammatic terseness:

1 §112

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

2 §4

(p. 124) Pigri est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab aliis

inventa.

2 §7

(p. 125) Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id consequi quod

imiteris.

2 §8

(p. 126) Nulla mansit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium

stetit.

2 §10

(pp. 126-7) Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi utique

insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui

sequitur.

2 §10

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

2 §12

(ibid.) Ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt, ingenium,

inventio, vis, facilitas, et quidquid arte non traditur.

2 §18

(p. 131) Noveram quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus illud

caelestis huius in dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in clausula

posuissent ‘esse videatur.’

2 §20

(p. 132) (Praeceptor) rector est alienorum ingeniorum atque formator.

Difficilius est naturam suam fingere.

2 §22

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

2 §24

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

3 §2

(p. 136) Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et quam plurimum. Nam ut

terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus fecundior fit, sic

profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus effundit uberius et

fidelius continet.

3 §2

(p. 137) Verba in labris nascentia.

3 §3

(ibid.) Vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et

usu non exhauriantur. Nihil enim rerum ipsa natura voluit magnum effici

cito, praeposuitque pulcherrimo cuique operi difficultatem.

3 §7

(p. 139) Omnia nostra dum nascuntur placent, alioqui nec

scriberentur.

3 §9

(ibid.) Primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut quam optime

scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo.

3 §10

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

bene scribendo fit ut cito.

3 §15

(p. 142) Curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen pro

facultate.

3 §22

(p. 146) Secretum in dictando perit.

xxi

3 §26

(p. 148) Cui (acerrimo labori) non plus inrogandum est quam quod somno

supererit, haud deerit.

3 §27

(ibid.) Abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt: occupatos in noctem

necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam integri ac

refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.

3 §29

(ibid.) Non est indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi refecti,

non nisi hilares, non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes studendum

existimarimus, semper erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus.

3 §31

(p. 149) Nihil in studiis parvum est.

4 §1

(p. 151) Emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim sine

causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius autem operis

est adicere, detrahere, mutare.

4 §4

(p. 152) Sit ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod sufficiat, ut

opus poliat lima, non exterat.

5 §23

(p. 166) Diligenter effecta (sc. materia) plus proderit quam plures

inchoatae et quasi degustatae.

6 §1

(p. 167) Haec (sc. cogitatio) inter medios rerum actus aliquid invenit

vacui nec otium patitur.

6 §2

(p. 168) Memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla

scribendi securitate laxatur.

6 §5

(ibid.) Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum effulserit extemporalis

color, non superstitiose cogitatis demum est inhaerendum.

6 §6

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

6 §6

(ibid.) Extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem

cogitationem.

7 §1

(p. 170) Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium quoddam

amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas.

7 §4

(p. 171) Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem, cui

semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore dicere

malit, sed ut possit.

7 §12

(p. 175) Mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi qui disposite, ornate,

copiose dicit, sed tumultuari.

7 §15

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

7 §§16-17

(p. 177) Extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles congestu

signorum, excitatur. Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem exprimit et

expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget placendi

cupido.

7 §18

(ibid.) Facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis initiis paulatim

perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque contineri nisi usu

potest.

7 §20

(p. 178) Neque vero tanta esse umquam fiducia facilitatis

xxii

debet ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea quae

dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus.

7 §21

(p. 178) Qui stultis videri eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis

videntur.

7 §24

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

7 §26

(p. 180) Studendum vero semper et ubique.

7 §27

(p. 180-1) Neque enim fere tan est ullus dies occupatus ut nihil

lucrativae ... operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum rapi

aliquo momento temporis possit.

7 §28

(p. 181) Quidquid loquemur ubicumque sit pro sua scilicet portione

perfectum.

7 §28

(ibid.) Scribendum certe numquam est magis, quam cum multa dicemus ex

tempore.

7 §29

(p. 181-2) Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et studio fecerimus,

invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius, dicendo scribamus

facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit, si id non dabitur,

cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen sic dicere ut neque

deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.

III.

Quintilians’s Litary Criticism.

It was the conviction that a cultured orator is better than an orator

with no culture that induced Quintilian to devote so considerable a part

of the Tenth Book to a review of Greek and Roman literature. He was

aware that in order to speak with effect it is necessary for a man to

know a good deal that lies outside the scope of the particular case

which he may undertake to plead; and while the ‘firm facility’ ἕξις at which he taught the

orator to aim could only be attained by a variety of exercises and

qualifications, a course of wide and careful reading must always, he

considered, form one of the factors in the combination.

In judging of the merits of Quintilian’s literary criticism we must

not forget the point of view from which he wrote. He is not dealing with

literature in and for itself. His was not the cast of mind in which the

faculty of literary appreciation finds artistic expression in the form

in which criticism becomes a part of literature itself. We cannot think

of the author of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ as one whom a

divinely implanted instinct for literature impelled, towards the evening

of his days, to leave a record of the personal impressions he had

derived from contact with those whom we now recognise as the

master-minds of classical antiquity. Quintilian writes, not as the

literary man for a sympathetic brotherhood, but as the professor of

rhetoric for students in his school. If, in the

xxiii

course of his just and sober, but often trite and obvious criticisms, he

characterises a writer in language which has stood the test of time, it

is always when that writer touches his main interest most nearly, as one

from whom the student of style may learn much. In short, his work in the

department of literary criticism is done much in the same spirit as that

which, in these later days, has moved many sober and sensible, but on

the whole average persons, conversant with the general current of

contemporary thought, and not without the faculty of appreciative

discrimination, to draw up a list of the ‘Best Hundred Books.’ Their

aim, however, has been to guide and direct the work of that peculiar

product of modern times, the ‘general reader’: Quintilian’s victim was

the professed student of rhetoric.

But this limitation, arising partly out of the special aim which he

had imposed upon himself, partly, also, in all probability, from the

constitution of his own mind, ought not to blind us to the value of the

comprehensive review of ancient literature which Quintilian has left us

in this Tenth Book. “His literary sympathies are extraordinarily wide.

When obliged to condemn, as in the case of Seneca, he bestows generous

and even extravagant praise on such merit as he can find. He can

cordially admire even Sallust, the true fountain-head of the style which

he combats, while he will not suffer Lucilius to lie under the

aspersions of Horace.... The judgments which he passes may be in many

instances traditional, but, looking to all the circumstances of the

time, it seems remarkable that there should then have lived at Rome a

single man who could make them his own and give them expression. The

form in which these judgments are rendered is admirable. The gentle

justness of the sentiments is accompanied by a curious felicity of

phrase. Who can forget the ‘immortal swiftness of Sallust,’ or the

‘milky richness of Livy,’ or how ‘Horace soars now and then, and is full

of sweetness and grace, and in his varied forms and phrases is most

fortunately bold’? Ancient literary criticism perhaps touched its

highest points in the hands of Quintilian.”32

The course of reading which Quintilian recommends is selected with

express reference to the aim which he had in view, and which is put

prominently forward in connection with nearly every individual

criticism. The young man who aspires to success in speaking must have

his taste formed: when he reads Homer, let him note that, great poet as

Homer is, and admirable in every respect, he is also _oratoria virtute

eminentissimus_ (1 §46). Alcaeus is _plerumque

oratori similis_ (1 §63): Euripides is, on that

ground, to be preferred to Sophocles (1 §67): Lucan is _magis

oratoribus quam poetis imitandus_ (1 §70): and the old Greek comedy

is

xxiv

specially recommended as a form of poetry ‘than which probably none is

better suited to form the orator’ (1 §65). With the prose writers

Quintilian is thoroughly at home, and he nowhere lets in so much light

on his own sympathies as in the estimates he gives us of Cicero (1 §§105-112) and Seneca (1 §§125-131). His

criticism of Cicero is precisely what might have been expected from the

general tone of the references throughout the _Institutio_. Cicero

is Quintilian’s model, to whom he looks up with reverential admiration:

he will not hear of his faults. In his own day the great orator had been

attacked by Atticists of the severer type for the richness of his style

and the excessive attention which they alleged that he paid to rhythm.

The ‘plainness’ of Lysias was their ideal, and they failed to recognise

the fact that, with the more limited resources of the Latin language,

such simplicity and condensation would be perilously near to baldness

(cp. note on

1 §105). Cicero they

regarded as an Asianist in disguise; in the words of his devoted

follower, they “dared to censure him as unduly turgid and Asiatic and

redundant; as too much given to repetition, and sometimes insipid in his

witticisms; and as spiritless, diffuse, and (save the mark!) even

effeminate in his arrangement” (_Inst. Or._ xii. 10, 12, quoted on

1 §105). That this

criticism had not been forgotten in Quintilian’s own day is obvious not

only from the _Institutio_ but also from the discussion in the

_Dialogus de Oratoribus_, where Aper is represented as saying “We

know that even Cicero was not without his disparagers, who thought him

inflated, turgid, not sufficiently concise, but unduly diffuse and

luxuriant, and far from Attic” (ch. 18). To such detractors of his great

model Quintilian will have nothing to say, and in his criticism of

Cicero he gives full expression to his enthusiastic admiration for the

genius of one who had brought eloquence to the highest pinnacle of

perfection (vi. 31 _Latinae eloquentiae princeps_: cp. x.

1 §§105-112: xii. 1,

20 _stetisse ipsum in fastigio eloquentiae fateor_: 10, 12 sqq.

_in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur eminentissimum_).

With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be

expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca.

Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return

to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary

reform which Quintilian had at heart—_corruptum et omnibus

vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_

x.

1, 125. It is probable

that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he assumes in dealing

with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain degree of

prejudice33. Quintilian represents the literature of erudition, and

his

xxv

standard is the best of what had been done in the past: Seneca was, like

Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed perfectly natural that

new thoughts should find utterance in new forms of expression. Seneca’s

motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’—he gave free rein to the play of

his fancy, and rejected all method34: Quintilian looked with horror (in the

interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was so near to licence, and

set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds to the ‘good old ways,’

and extolling Cicero as the synonym for eloquence itself. In such a

conflict of tastes as regards things literary, and apart from the

ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal career, it is not surprising

that Quintilian should have been unfavourably disposed towards him. He

had a grudge, moreover, against philosophers in general, especially the

Stoics. They had encroached on what his comprehensive scheme of

education impelled him to believe was the province of the teacher of

rhetoric,—the moral training of the future orator35.

He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no

extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their

proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as

representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that

Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in

many passages of the _Institutio_, where he is not specially named,

it is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references

corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth

Book36. In this passage

xxvi

Quintilian is evidently putting forward the whole force of his authority

in order to counteract Seneca’s influence. He has kept him waiting in a

marked manner, to the very end of his literary review: and when he comes

to deal with him he does not confine his criticism to a few words or

phrases, but devotes nearly as much space to him as he did to Cicero

himself. In his estimate of Seneca nothing is more remarkable than the

careful manner in which Quintilian mingles praise and blame. But the

praise is reluctant and half-hearted: it is Seneca’s faults that his

critic wishes to make prominent. He admits his ability (_ingenium

facile et copiosum_

§128), and even goes the

length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise to

his level (_foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro

fieri_

§127). But praise is no

sooner given than it is immediately recalled. It was his faults that

secured imitators for Seneca (_placebat propter sola vitia_ ib.);

if he was distinguished for wide knowledge (_plurimum studii, multa

rerum cognitio_

§128), he was often misled

by those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is

good in him, ‘much even to admire’ (_multa ... probanda in eo, multa

etiam admiranda sunt_

§131), still it requires

picking out. In short, so dangerous a model is he, that he should be

read only by those who have come to maturity, and then not so much,

evidently, for improvement, as for the reason that it is good to ‘see

both sides,’—_quod exercere potest utrimque iudicium_,

ib.

It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of

Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the

philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to

time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of

philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion—and his

position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express

his view distinctly—that Seneca was a dangerous model for the

budding orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his

peculiarities lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished

to put forward a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day,

and to recall—in their own interests—to severer models

Seneca’s youthful imitators,—those of whom he writes _ad ea_

(i.e. _eius vitia_) _se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae

poterat; deinde quum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam

infamabat_

§127. Seneca was of course

not responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian

would never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any

particular model, especially if that model were characterised by such

peculiar features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he

could not forgive

xxvii

Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero37. Admirers of Seneca think

that he failed to make allowance for the influences at work on the

philosopher’s style, and that he judged him too much from the standpoint

of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s faults—his tendency to

declamation, the want of balance in his style, his excessive subtlety,

his affectation, his want of method: but they contend that these faults

are compensated by still greater virtues38.

M. Rocheblave, who possesses the appreciation of Seneca traditional among

Frenchmen, follows Diderot in inclining to believe that the philosopher was the

victim of envy and dislike39. For himself he protests in the following terms against what

he considers the inadequacy of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi quemvis Annaei

librorum ignarum, et dicito num ex istis Quintiliani laudibus non modo

perspicere, sed suspicari etiam possit quanto sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu

steterit scriptor qui in tota latina facundia optima senserit, humanissima

docuerit, maxima et multo plurima excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex antiqua

morali philosophia seu graeca seu latina depromptis, adiectis pluribus,

potuerit in unum propriumque saporem omnia illa quasi sapientiae humanae

libamenta confundere? Credisne a tali lectore scriptorem vivo gurgite

exundantem, sensibus scatentem, legentes in perpetuas rapientem cogitationes,

eum denique quem ob vim animi ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius

noster40, protinus

agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri meritum

stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum confessuros’

(pp. 44-5).

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

xxviii

that the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was

in his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of

Seneca’s influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature

of the next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model

for imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered

on Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that

it displayed much grace of style (_multum cultus_), as was to be

expected from one who possessed _ingenium amoenum et temporis_ eius

_auribus accommodatum_ (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how

Caligula disparaged the _lenius comtiusque scribendi genus_ which

Seneca represented; and here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a

fame that had passed away,—_Senecam tum maxime

placentem_, just as the elder Pliny, writing about the time of

Seneca’s death, speaks of him as _princeps tum eruditorum_

(Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto and Aulus Gellius41 were

much more unreserved and even immoderate in their censure. And it is a

remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that the name of the great

Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his successors, Epictetus and

Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest literary ornament of

Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the second century.

In regard to the general body of Quintilian’s literary criticism, the

question of greatest interest for modern readers is the degree of its

originality. How far is Quintilian giving us his own independent

judgments on the writings of authors whom he had read at first hand? How

far is he merely registering current criticism, which must already have

found more or less definite expression in the writings and teaching of

previous rhetoricians and grammarians? The circumstances of the case

make it impossible for us to approach the special questions which it

involves with any great prejudice in favour of Quintilian’s originality

in general. The extent of his indebtedness to previous writers, as

regards the main body of his work, may be inferred from a glance at the

‘Index scriptorum et artificum’ in Halm’s edition. In many places he is

merely simplifying the rules of the Greek rhetoricians whom he followed.

Probably he was not equally well up in all the departments of the

subject of which he treats, and he naturally relied, to some extent, on

the works of those who had preceded him. But did he take his literary

criticism from others? Was Quintilian one of those reprehensible persons

who do not scruple to borrow, and to give forth as their own, the

estimate formed and expressed

xxix

by some one else of authors whose works they may never themselves have

read?

In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be

convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart

from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he

might _a priori_ be expected to be more familiar. The notes to

that part of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (1 §§46-84) will show too

many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in addressing

himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian scrupulously avoided

incurring any obligations to others42. No doubt in his long career as a

teacher he had come into contact with traditional opinion as to the

merits and characteristics not only of the Greek but also of the Latin

writers; and in the two years which he tells us he devoted to the

composition of the _Institutio_43 he may still further have increased his

debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact impossible that Quintilian

should have been unaware of the nature of the criticism current in his

own day, and of what had previously been said and written by others. But

he is not to be thought of as one who, before indicating his opinion of

a particular writer, carefully refers, not to that writer’s works, but

to the opinion of others concerning them. The cases in which he

reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of others are not

always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious borrowing44. The

coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract from the

originality of his work.

xxx

But we do not need to believe that, in writing his individual

criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the works of others: he no

doubt had them at hand, and his career as a teacher had probably

impressed on his memory many _dicta_ which he could hardly fail to

reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather together the

results of his teaching.

Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated

mainly with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace45. Varro was the author of

numerous works bearing on the history and criticism of literature: such

were his _de Poetis_, _de Poematis_, περὶ χαρακτήρων, _de Actionibus

Scaenicis_, _Quaestiones Plautinae_. Our knowledge of their

scope and character is however derived only by inference from a few

scattered fragments, and in regard to these it is impossible to say

definitely to which of his treatises they severally belong. Quintilian’s

references to his literary activity as well as his great learning

(_vir Romanorum eruditissimus_ x.

1, 95), and the

quotation of his estimate of Plautus (ib. §99), are sufficient evidence

that he was not unacquainted with Varro’s writings. Cicero he knew

probably better than he knew any other author: the extent of his

indebtedness to such works as the _Brutus_ may be inferred from the

parallelisms which occur in his treatment of the Attic orators (x.

1, 76-80). He dissents

expressly from Horace’s estimate of Lucilius (ib. §94): and the

frequency of his references to other literary judgments of Horace (cp.

§§24, 56, 61, 63) shows that he must have been in the habit of

illustrating his teaching by quotations from the works of that cultured

critic of literature and life.

But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in

common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the

Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by

name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other

parts of the _Institutio_46. Quintilian no doubt knew his works

well, especially that which originally consisted of three books περὶ μιμήσεως47. The second

book of this treatise has long been known to scholars

xxxi

in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many striking

resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first chapter of

Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as, for instance,

H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed freely from

the earlier writer: _multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat; quibus modo

nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo putant sua

non esse declarat_. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn out

by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly remarks

that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common property not

only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned world of the

day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to this edition,

1 §§46-84.

The general resemblances between Quintilian and Dionysius are

apparent in their order of treatment. In his introduction to the

_Iudicium de Thucydide_, the latter sets forth the plan of his

second book in terms which present many points of analogy with the

scheme of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_: ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι Περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ὑπομνηατισμοῖς

ἐπεληλυθὼς οὓς ὑπελάμβανον ἐπιφανεστάτους εἶναι ποιητάς τε καὶ

συγγραφεῖς ... καὶ δεδηληκὼς ἐν ὀλίγοις τίνας ἕκαστος αὐτῶν εἰσφέρεται

πραγματικάς τε καὶ λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ πῇ μάλιστα χείρων ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται

... ἵνα τοῖς προαιρουμένοις γράφειν τε καὶ λέγειν εὖ καλοὶ καὶ

δεδοκιμασμένοι κανόνες ὦσιν ἐφ᾽ ὧν ποιήσονται τὰς κατὰ μέρος γυμνασίας,

μὴ πάντα μιμούμενοι τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις κείμενα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν

ἀρετὰς αὐτῶν λαμβάνοντες, τὰς δ᾽ ἀποτυχίας φυλαττόμενοι‧ ἁψάμενός τε τῶν

συγγραφέων ἐδήλωσα καὶ περὶ Θουκουδίδου τὰ δοκοῦντά μοι συντόμῳ τε καὶ

κεφαλαιώδει γραφῇ περιλαβών, ... ὡς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐποίησα‧ οὐ γὰρ

ἦν ἀκριβῆ καὶ διεξοδικὴν δήλωσιν ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνδρῶν ποιεῖσθαι

προελόμενον εἰς ἐλάχιστον ὄγκον συναγαγεῖν τὴν πραγματείαν. In

like manner Quintilian, addressing himself throughout to young men

aspiring to success as public speakers, enumerates the various authors

who seem to be fit subjects for reading and imitation. While admitting

that some benefit may be derived from almost every writer (1 §57), he confines himself to

the most distinguished in the various departments of literature (§44 _paucos enim, qui sunt

eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est_); and even with regard to

these he warns his readers, as Dionysius does, that they are not to

imitate all their characteristics, but only what is good (1 §24:

2 §§14-15).

The order of treatment is almost identical in the two writers. First

come the poets, with the writers of epic poetry at their head: these are

not only named in the same order (Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis),

but they are commended in very similar terms. But if Quintilian had been

translating directly from Dionysius, it is very probable that he would

have mentioned him by name, instead of concealing his obligations

xxxii

by the use of such a phrase as _putant_ (in speaking of

Panyasis—see note on

§54). If he goes on to add

some criticisms which are not in Dionysius, viz. on Apollonius Rhodius,

Aratus, Theocritus, and to mention also Pisander, Nicander, and

Euphorion, it is with the express intimation that they do not rank in

the canon fixed by the _grammatici_,—the very reason for

which these writers had been omitted by Dionysius. The Greek rhetorician

says nothing of the elegiac and iambic poets mentioned by

Quintilian,—the former in general terms (_princeps

habetur Callimachus_, _secundas confessione

plurimorum Philetas occupavit_

§58), the latter with

express reference to the judgment of Aristarchus on the great

Archilochus (§59)48. In treating

of the lyric poets, Quintilian mentions the number nine (§61), which Dionysius does not; but as

regards the substance of his criticisms, he is again almost in exact

agreement with his predecessor. Both refer to Pindar, Stesichorus,

Alcman, and Simonides, with the trifling difference that in Dionysius

Simonides comes second instead of fourth on the list. In

§65 Quintilian proceeds to

deal with the Old Comedy, which finds no place in the treatise of

Dionysius, as we now have it. And there is very little that corresponds

with Dionysius in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

But it is noticeable that in both Euripides is made to form the

transition to Menander and the New Comedy.

In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while

Quintilian was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is

rather incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary

schools than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was

of opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even

goes so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of

Dionysius (of which the treatise long known as the Ἀρχαίων κρίσις or the _De Veterum

Censura_ is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices

of the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian,

as well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives

of the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a

judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking

advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of

which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long

career), he is not slavishly following any single authority49: cp.

§52 _datur palma_

(_Hesiodo_,)

xxxiii

§53 _grammaticorum

consensus_,

§54 _ordinem a grammaticis

datum_,

§58 _princeps habetur_

and _confessione plurimorum_,

§59 _ex tribus receptis

Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum_,

§64 _quidam_ (probably

including Dionysius),

§67 _inter plurimos

quaeritur_,

§72 _consensu ...

omnium_. And the tone and substance of his estimate of Homer, of

Euripides, and of Menander50, seem to show that he was prepared to rely, when

necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp. _meo quidem

iudicio_

§69), especially in dealing

with the poets who would be of greatest service for his professed

purpose.

In both Dionysius and Quintilian the poets are followed by the

historians. The order in Dionysius is Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,

Philistus, and Theopompus; in Quintilian, Thucydides, Herodotus,

Theopompus, Philistus,—with short notices of Ephorus, Clitarchus

and Timagenes. The insertion of the three additional names, and the

precedence given to Theopompus, are not the only points in which

Quintilian differs here from Dionysius, who is known in this case to

have limited himself to the five names in question (Epist. ad Pomp.

767 R: Usener, p. 50, 10): Xenophon is by Quintilian expressly

postponed for treatment among the philosophers. In this he probably

followed an older tradition, which survived also elsewhere. Cicero

speaks of Xenophon as a philosopher (de Orat. ii. §58): in Diogenes

Laertius (ii. 48) it is said of him ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν φιλοσόφων

πρῶτος ἔγραψε—a remark which Usener (p. 113) thinks was

probably derived from some library list in which Xenophon was ranked

among the writers of philosophy; and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xviii.) omits

him from his list of the historians, and includes him in that of the

Socratics.

These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s

allegation that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s _primus et

praecipuus fons_. It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the

historians, he had before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s

_Orator_, to which reference has already been made (§55 sq.). There Cicero mentions

Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the

addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at

hand the great orator’s lost treatise _Hortensius_, two fragments

of which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides,

Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus51: in writing it Cicero probably followed

some list similar

xxxiv

to those which were accessible both to Dionysius and Quintilian52. Again there

is sufficient resemblance here between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as

also in regard to Euripides and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.)

to justify the supposition that they followed the same tradition. Dio

expressly elevates Theopompus to the second rank (10, p. 479),

τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν δευτέρων

Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων

ἔχει.. With this compare Quintilian’s words: _Theopompus his

proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis_

(§74). Ephorus, on the other

hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.

It is perhaps in dealing with the orators that Quintilian gives the

surest proofs that he is not following any individual guide. The

parallel passages cited in the notes to

§§76-80 are by no means

confined to the writings of Dionysius, though here again words and

phrases occur (see esp. the note on _honesti studiosus, in

compositione adeo diligens_, &c.,

§79) which seem to suggest

that Quintilian must have kept a common-place book into which he

‘conveyed’ points which struck him as just or appropriate in the

literary criticism of others53. Unlike Dionysius, however, he refers to the

canon of the ten orators (§76) which the recent work of Brzoska,

following A. Reifferscheid, has shown to have originated not with

the critics of Alexandria, but with those of Pergamum54. It is noticeable

that the five orators whom Quintilian selects for notice out of this

canon are identical with those enumerated, in reverse order, by Cicero,

de Orat. iii. 28.

In their treatment of the philosophers, the chief point in common

between Dionysius and Quintilian is that both put Plato and Xenophon

before Aristotle. And, though they agree generally in the terms in which

they speak of Aristotle, there is no other noteworthy coincidence. The

section on Theophrastus and the Stoics has nothing corresponding to it

in Dionysius: here, as elsewhere in the account of philosophy, Cicero

was laid under contribution.

We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of

the Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the

literary schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own

opinion much that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He

cannot be supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather

be considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of

criticism from

xxxv

Theophrastus (x.

1, 27) down to his own

day. He accepted from others, with probably few modifications, the

approved lists of poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and

adopted the conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered

criticisms upon them—“somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof.

Nettleship says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and

insight, but which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart

and handing on to future generations of pupils.” These lists of

‘classical’ writers may probably be traced back, in the main, to the

literary activity of the critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be

well known to the Greek rhetoricians who were at work on the education

of the Roman youth as early as the beginning of the first century B.C., and may have served as the basis of

their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (κρίσις ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ)

was an essential part of the office of the ‘grammaticus55.’

In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of

_recte loquendi scientia_ and _poetarum enarratio_, Quintilian

adds (i. 4, 3): _et mixtum his omnibus iudicium est; quo

quidem ita severe sunt usi veteres grammatici ut non versus modo

censoria quadam virgula notare et libros, qui falso viderentur

inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere familia permiserint sibi, sed

auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero_.

Beginning with a critical examination of individual texts, the

‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their work, on the literary

side, in short characterisations of the various writers whom they made

the subject of their study, and finally drew up lists of the best

authors in each department of literature, with a careful indication of

their good points as well as of the features in which they were not to

be used as models. This process received a more or less final form at

the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his follower Aristarchus (see

on x.

1, 54), the latter of

whom probably introduced such modifications in the list of his

predecessor as approved themselves to his own judgment (cp. x.

1, 59 _tres receptos

Aristarchi iudicio scriptores iamborum_). The influence of

this method in Roman literature may be seen, early in the first century,

in the so-called ‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius

(15, 24)56: he makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy

of the canon of the ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine

critics was probably in the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp.

114-126), when he wrote his ‘Hortensius,’—a treatise which seems

to have originally contained an introductory sketch of the great

contributors to the various departments

xxxvi

of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of the

dialogue,—the praise of philosophy57.

Then there is Dio Chrysostom, a writer who flourished not long after Quintilian

himself, and whose reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted.

Such divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by

the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In the

preliminary sketch in the _Hortensius_ the object seems to have been not

the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio draws a careful

distinction between the branches which serve for the student of rhetoric, and

those which may be expected to benefit and delight men who have finished their

studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and again reiterated, is to lay down a course

of reading suited to form the taste of a young man aspiring to success as a

speaker.

The probability that there existed such traditional lists as those

referred to (which would also be of service in the arrangement of the

great public libraries), is strikingly illustrated in Usener’s

_Epilogus_ (p. 128 sq.) by the publication of one which may here be

transcribed as of great interest to readers of Quintilian. It will be

noticed that though the philosophers are omitted, it contains many

points of analogy with that followed by Quintilian, particularly the

addition of the later elegiac poets, Philetas and Callimachus. Names

only are given, without any criticism attached58.

Greek numerals were printed with overlines ¯. They are shown here

in ´ form to reduce text-display problems.

Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος

Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.

ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.

τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων

Ἀχαιός.

κωμῳδοποιοὶ

ἀρχαίας ζ´‧ Ἐπίχαρμος Κρατῖνος Εὔπολις Ἀριστοφάνης Φερεκράτης Κράτης

Πλάτων.

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης

Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς

Καλλίμαχος.

λυρικοι

θ´‧ Ἀλκμάν Ἀλκαῖος Σαπφώ Στησίχορος Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης Ἴβυκος Ἀνακρέων

Σιμωνίδης....

xxxvii

ῥητορες θ´‧ Δημοσθένης Λυσίας Ὑπερείδης Ἰσοκράτης Ἀισχίνης

Λυκοῦργος Ἰσαῖος Ἀντιφῶν Ἀνδοκίδης.

ἱστορικοὶ ι´‧ Θουκυδίδης Ἡρόδοτος Ξενοφῶν Φίλιστος Θεόπομπος

Ἔφορος Ἀναξιμένης Καλλισθένης Ἑλλάνικος Πολύβιος.

In regard to the historians, Usener notes that this list seems to

indicate the principle on which they were selected and arranged. They

are enumerated in pairs, Herodotus and Thucydides coming first, with

their imitators Xenophon and Philistus immediately following them. Then

come Theopompus and Ephorus, as representing the second rank; and next

the historians of Alexander’s victories, Anaximenes and Callisthenes

(cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §58), in place of whom Clitarchus is mentioned by

Quintilian. Peculiar features about the list given above are that

Thucydides comes first of all (just as Demosthenes does among the

orators), and that, perhaps to make up the number ten, a fifth pair of

historians is added,—Hellanicus from those of older date, and

Polybius to represent more recent writers.

Usener states the conclusion at which he arrives in the following

words, which may be accepted with the proviso that they are not to be

taken as meaning that Quintilian was altogether ignorant of what

Dionysius wrote: _Iudicia de poetis scriptoribusque Graecis non a

Dionysio Quintilianus mutuatus est. Igitur ne Dionysius quidem sua

profert, sed diversum uterque exemplum iudiciorum ut plerumque

consonantium expressit. Fontis utrique communis antiquitatem Hortensius

Tullianus cum Dione comparatus demonstravit. Posteriore tempore cum

eruditionis copia in angustae memoriae paupertatem sensim contraheretur,

iudiciis neglectis sola electorum auctorum nomina relicta sunt et

laterculi formam induerunt._ Quintilian did not transcribe his

criticisms of Greek literature from Dionysius. He had no need to do so:

the materials from which Dionysius had drawn were available also to him.

This is sufficient to account for the resemblances in their critical

judgments. But on the other hand it is improbable that Quintilian, in

the course of his reading and teaching, had not studied the writings of

Dionysius; and some at least of the coincidences to which prominence is

given in the notes in this edition must have been the result of his

acquaintance with the work of his predecessor.

In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us

the fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again

the notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers,

such as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary

criticism. The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved

that he did not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press

them, when

xxxviii

necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the _Analysis_

(pp. 3-5) will show that in this part of his work Quintilian

follows the method which had been traditionally applied to the criticism

of the Greek writers. The same order is preserved (§85); the various departments of

literature are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek

(§§93,

99,

101,

105,

123); and individual

writers are pitted against each other, and are sometimes characterised

in similar terms. In all this Quintilian is consistent with the scheme

according to which he had evidently determined to arrange his work: he

is consistent also with the general tradition of literary criticism

among his countrymen. “As Latin literature since Naevius had adopted

Greek models and Greek metres, every Latin writer of any pretensions

took some Greek author as his ideal of excellence in the particular

style which he was adopting. Criticism accordingly drifted into the

vicious course of comparison; of pitting every Latin writer against a

Greek writer, as though borrowing from a man would constitute you his

rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer, Afranius a Menander, Plautus an

Epicharmus, before the days of Horace: in Horace’s time there were three

Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil. Cicero and Demosthenes were

compared by the Greek critics in the Augustan age, and by the time of

Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin Thucydides, Livy the Latin

Herodotus59.” It is this idea of making ‘canons’ of Latin writers,

to correspond as nearly as possible with those which he had accepted

from former critics for the classical writers of Greece, that gives an

air of artificiality to Quintilian’s criticism of Latin literature, and

interferes somewhat with the general effect which his sane and sober

appreciations would otherwise produce. The individual estimates are in

the main all that could be wished for, notably the enthusiastic eulogy

of Cicero (§§105-112),

which it is interesting to compare with a similar passage in the

treatise ‘On the Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may

be discerned in the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his

Grecian rival. The sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and

abrupt: that of Cicero is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement,

rapid, vigorous, terrible; he burns and sweeps away all before him; and

hence we may liken him to a whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a

widespread conflagration, which rolls over and feeds on all around it,

whose fire is extensive and burns long, breaking out successively in

different places, and finding its fuel now here, now there60.” Excellent

also are the shorter characterisations of such writers as Sallust

(_immortalem Sallusti velocitatem_

1 §102), of Livy

(_Livi lactea ubertas_

1 §32: _mirae

iucunditatis clarissimique

xxxix

candoris_

§101), of Ovid (_nimium

amator ingenii sui_

§88), and of Horace (_et

insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius

figuris et verbis felicissime audax_

§96). But the general

impression we derive is that Quintilian is producing many of his

criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he tied down to the plan he

has adopted. It is to this same method of mechanical

comparison—born of the artificial traditions of the literary

schools—that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has not

been without imitators in more recent times61.

IV.

Style and Language.

Quintilian’s own style is pretty much what might be expected from the

tone of his judgments on others. Cicero was his model, Seneca

represented to him everything that was to be avoided: but the interval

of a hundred years which separated him from the former was a sufficient

barrier to anything more than an approximation to his style, while on

the other hand he does not succeed in emancipating himself entirely from

the literary tendencies of his own time, which found so complete

expression in the writings of Seneca. All the writers of what is known

as the Silver Age possess certain marked characteristics, which

differentiate them from the best models of the republican period; and of

these Quintilian has his share. But he did not fall in with the

fashionable depreciation of those models. He knew that it was impossible

to bring back the Latinity of the Golden Age in all its characteristic

features; but he could at least lift up his voice against the

affectation and artificiality of his contemporaries, who looked upon

that Latinity as tame, insipid, and commonplace. The point of view from

which, as we have already seen, he regarded Seneca may be stated with a

wider application: _corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus

revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_, x.

1, 125.

The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral

and social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition

from republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion

xl

of Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca. The literary public had lost all

appetite for the natural straightforwardness of the Ciceronian style: it

craved for something akin to the highly seasoned dishes by which the

epicures of the day sought to stimulate a jaded palate62. It was not enough

now to clothe the thought in pure, clear, and elegant language, even

when adorned by a wealth of expression that bordered on exuberance, and

made musical by the exquisite modulation of the period. No one could win

a hearing who did not countenance the fashionable craze for affectation,

abruptness, and extravagance. Directness, ease, and intelligibility were

no recommendations63. In order to strike and stimulate, everything must be

full of point. Feebleness of thought was considered to be redeemed by

epigram and formal antithesis. The amplitude and artistic symmetry of

the Ciceronian period gave place to a broken and abrupt style, the main

object of which was to arrest attention and to challenge admiration.

Showy passages were looked for, expressed in new and striking

phraseology, such as could be reproduced and even handed on to others64. The

charm of style and the test of its excellence consisted in its being

artificial, inflated, meretricious, involved, obscure—in a word,

depraved65.

Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to

return to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion

to one particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own

declared principles,—_non qui maxime imitandus et solus

imitandus est_ (2 §24); and accordingly, in

spite of his great admiration for Cicero, we find several well-marked

features of difference between him and his master, not only in the use

of words, but also in the structure and composition of sentences66. Indeed, it

could not have been otherwise. Quintilian’s mission was to restore to

Latin composition the direct and natural character of the earlier style;

but he could not extirpate that tendency to poetical expression which

had taken root at Rome as far back as the

xli

days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time by the

wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making some

concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the

‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist.

That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a

passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be

adapted to contemporary requirements: _ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates

nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, nisi ut sensus nos quidem

dicamus plures: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et

dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et

invicem offecerint. Sed me hactenus cedentem nemo insequatur

ultra_, &c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he

refused to go: clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to

effect. These qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is

also sufficiently varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must

remember the defective state in which his text has come down to us67.

It is quite possible to exemplify from the Tenth Book alone the main

features in which Quintilian’s language and style differ from those of

Cicero. And first, in regard to his vocabulary, a list may be appended

of words which, though not peculiar to Quintilian, are yet not to be

found in the republican period68.

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

1, 117.

Auditorium (Tac. Dial., Plin. S., Suet.), x.

1, 79: cp. v. 12, 20

_licet hanc (eloquentiam) auditoria probent_.

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

5, 21.

Confinis, figuratively (Ovid, Sen.), x.

5, 12.

xlii

Consummatus (Sen., Mart., Plin. S.), x.

5, 14: cp. i. 9, 3; ii. 19, 1, and

often. The Ciceronian equivalent is _perfectus_.

Decretorius (Sen., Plin., Suet.), x.

5, 20: cp. vi.

4, 6.

Diversitas (Tac., Plin., Suet.), x.

1, 106.

Evalesco (Verg., Hor., Plin., Tac.), x.

2, 10: cp. ii. 8, 5;

viii. 6, 33.

Expavesco (Hor., Liv., Sen., Plin., Suet.), x.

3, 30: cp. ix. 4, 35;

vi. 2, 31.

Extemporalis (Petr., Tac., Plin. S.), x.

6, 1,

5 and

6;

7, 13,

16,

18: cp. iv. 1, 54

_extemporalis oratio_, for which Cicero would have written

_subita et fortuita oratio_.

Exundo (Sen., Plin., Tac.), x.

1, 109 Cicero vivo

gurgite exundat.

Favorabilis (Vell., Sen., Plin., Tac., Suet.), x.

5, 21: cp. iv. 1, 21

and often.

Formator (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x.

2, 20 _alienorum

ingeniorum formator_ (sc. _praeceptor_).

Immutesco (Statius), x.

3, 16.

Inadfectatus (Plin. S.), x.

1, 82.

Inconcessus (Verg., Ov.), x.

2, 26.

Incredulus (Hor.), x.

3, 11: cp. xii.

8, 11.

Indecens (Petr., Sen., Mart.), x.

2, 19. The Ciceronian

equivalent is _indecorus_.

Inlaboratus (Sen.), x.

1, 111, and often.

Insenesco (Hor., Ov., Tac.), x.

3, 11.

Inspiro (Verg., Ov., Sen.), x.

3, 24: cp. xii. 10,

62.

Praesumo (Verg., Sen., Plin., Tac.), x.

5, 4: cp. xi.

1, 27.

Profectus (Ov., Sen., Plin. S., Suet), x.

3, 2 and

15: cp. i. 2, 26, and

often. Cicero uses _progressus_, _processus_.

Professor (Col., Tac., Suet.), x.

5, 18: cp. ii. 11, 1,

and often.

Prosa (Vell., Col., Sen., Plin.), x.

7, 19,—adjective: cp. xi.

2, 39. As a noun, ix. 4, 52, and often.

Secessus (Verg., Ov., Plin., Tac.), x.

3, 23 and

28;

5, 16. Cicero uses

_recessus_.

Substringo (Sen., Tac., Suet.), x.

5, 4.

Versificator (Just., Col.), x.

1, 89.

There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word

_Romanus_ for _Latinus_. _Litterae latinae_,

_scriptores latini_, _poetae latini_, are the usual forms with

Cicero and the writers of the best period: Quintilian has _Romanes

auctores_ (x.

1, 85), _sermo

Romanus_ (ib.

§100), _litterae

Romanae_ (ib.

§123), and often

elsewhere.

The following words appear in Quintilian (Book X) for the first

time, though of course it does not follow that they are his own

coinage:—

xliii

Adnotatio, x.

2, 7 _brevis

adnotatio_.

Circulatorius, x.

1, 8 _circulatoria

volubilitas_: cp. ii. 4, 15. The noun _circulator_ seems to

have been used first by Asinius Pollio: afterwards it is found in

Seneca, Petronius, Plin. S., Apuleius, &c.

Destructio, x.

5, 12 _destructio et

confirmatio sententiarum_. Suetonius (Galba 12) uses this word in its

proper sense of ‘pulling down’ walls.

Offensator (ἅπαξ

λεγόμ.), x.

3, 20.

Significantia, x.

1, 121.

Several words occur which, either in point of form or meaning, indicate

the influence of Greek analogies:—

Recipere, x.

7, 31, and often

elsewhere, in the sense of _probare_. So the Greek ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἐνδέχεσθαι. Cp. Plin. H. N.

7. 8, 29.

Supinus, x.

2, 17 used, like ὕπτιος in Dion. Hal., for

‘languid,’ ‘spiritless.’ Cp. esp. (of Isocr.) ὑπτία (sc. λέξις) ... καὶ κεχυμένη πλουσίως, p. 538, 6, R: also

p. 1006, 14, R.

Densus (πυκνός),

for _pressus_: x.

1, 76.

Pedestris (sc. _oratio_), πεζὸς λόγος: x.

1, 81.

To these may be added the use of _subripere_ (for _clam

facere_), on the analogy of κλέπτειν τι, iv. 1, 78: _transire_ (for

_effugere_), on the analogy of παρέρχεσθαι, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335

_nil transit amantes_): _finis_ for ὅρος: _maxime_, with numerals, for μάλιστα, &c.

To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian

of _propter quod_, _per quod_, _quae_, &c. on the

analogy of δι᾽ ὅ, δι᾽ ἅ (see on x.

1, 10): _circa_

(used like περί), see on x.

1, 52: _multum_

(with compar.) like πολὺ

μεῖζον (x.

1, 94): _sunt ...

differentes_,

2 §16.

The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment

of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a

concrete sense (e.g. _facilitatem_

3 §7), and also in

certain changes in the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed

in its proper place: e.g. _componere_ for _sedare_;

_vacare_ used impersonally; _venus_ for _venustas_;

_beatus_ for _uber_, _fecundus_; _secretum_;

_olim_ of future time; _utrimque_ of opposite sides, &c.

Such changes in meaning as will be noted in connection with words like

_valetudo_, _ambitio_, _advocatus_, _auctor_,

_cultus_, _quicumque_, _ubicumque_, _demum_, and all

the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective (e.g.

_studiosus_), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the

Silver Age.

Taking now the Parts of Speech in their order, we may illustrate the

peculiarities of Quintilian’s vocabulary by reference to the Tenth

Book.

xliv

I. Nouns.

Advocatus for _causidicus_, _patronus_: x.

1, 111 (where see

note): cp. iii. 8, 51; xi. 1, 59: Plin. S. 7, 22: Suet. Claud. 15. For

examples of the use of this word in its earlier sense cp. v. 6, 6; xi.

3, 132; xii. 3, 2.

Ambitio carries with it in Quintilian, as generally in the

Silver Age, a sinister meaning, so that Quintilian can call it a

_vitium_: i. 2, 22 _licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio frequenter

tamen causa virtutum est_. So _perversa ambitio_ x.

7, 21: cp. Tac. Ann.

vi. 46: Iuv. 8, 135. For the Ciceronian use of the word (_popularis

gratiae captatio ad adipiscendos honores_), see pro Sulla §11: pro

Planc. §45: de Orat. i. §1.

Auctor, almost identical with _scriptor_: see on x.

1, 24. Cp. Ep. ad

Tryph. §1 _legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles_.

Cultus = _ornatus_: x.

1, 124;

2, 17. Cp. iii. 8, 58

_in verbis cultum adfectaverunt_: xi. 1, 58 _nitor et cultus_.

Cicero uses _ornatus_ and _nitor_ as applied to language:

Orat. §80 _ornatus verborum_, §13 4 _orationis_. Cp. Tac.

Dial. 20, 23.

Opinio is used for ‘reputation’ (_existimatio_), whether

good or bad. So x.

5, 18 (where see note):

7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 _contemptu opinionis_: ii. 12, 5 _adfert et

ista res opinionem_: ix. 2, 74 _veritus opinionem iactantiae_:

iv. 1, 33 _opinione adrogantiae laborare_: Tac. Dial. 10 _ne

opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores sequitur_: Sen.

Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive (ad Att. 7, 2

_opinio integritatis_: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G. vii. 59, 5:

Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24 _falsam ...

malam opinionem_).

Opus frequently means ‘branch,’ ‘department’ in Quintilian: x.

1, 9 (where see note).

It is often identical with ‘genus’: e.g. x.

1, 123 where they are

used together, _quo in genere—in hoc opere_. Cp. iii. 7, 28

_quamquam tres status omnes cadere in hoc opus (laudativum genus)

possint_.

Valetudo, always in the sense of ‘bad health’ in Quintilian

and contemporary writers. If ‘good health’ is meant, an adjective is

used: e.g. x.

3, 26 _bona

valetudo_: vi. 3, 77 _commodior valetudo_. With Cicero it may

mean either: de Fin. v. §84 _bonum valetudo, miser morbus_: de Am.

§8 _quod in collegio nostro non adfuisses, valetudinem respondeo

causam_: ad Fam. iv. 1, 1: in Tusc. iv. §80 he has _mala

valetudo_. With Quintilian’s usage cp. Tac. Hist. iii. 2; Ann. vi.

50: Suet. Claud. 26: Plin. S. 2, 20.

Venus for _venustas_, x.

1, 79 (where see note);

ib.

§100. This use of the word

is poetical: Hor. A. P. 320; Car. iv. 13, 17. For _venustas_,

_lepor_ occurs in Cicero with the same meaning, see de Orat. i.

§243: Or. §96.

Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred

to

xlv

in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with _vis_ or

_ratio_ and the gerund (see on _vim dicendi_ x.

1, 1): the concrete use

of certain nouns in the plural (see on _historias_

§75: cp. _lectiones_

§45): the concrete use of

abstract nouns (e.g. _facilitatem_

3 §7: _profectus_

5 §14: cp. _silvarum

amoenitas_ for _silvae amoenae_

3 §24). The frequent

occurrence of verbal nouns in _-tor_ must also be noted: in Quint.

they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles

(_hortator_ x.

3, 23:

_offensator_ ib.

§20), and may, like

adjectives, be compared by the aid of an adverb (_nimium amator_

1 §88, where see

note)69.

II. Adjectives.

Beatus (_abundans_, _fecundus_): x.

1, 61 _beatissima

rerum verborumque copia_, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 _beatissimi

amnes_. Cicero does not use _beatus_ of things: cp. de Rep. ii.

19, 34 _abundantissimus amnis_.

Densus (like _pressus_ in Cicero):

§§68,

73 (with notes), _densus

et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides_: cp. Cic. de Orat. ii.

§59 _Thucydides ita verbis aptus et pressus_. So x.

1, 76,

106.

Exactus: x.

2, 14 _exactissimo

iudicio_:

7 §30 _exacti

commentarii_. _Exactus_ bears the same relation to

_exigere_ as _perfectus_ does to _perficere_, with which

_exigere_ is, in Quintilian, synonymous: _e.g._ i. 5, 2;

9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23; also

M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For _exactus_ Cicero used

_diligenter elaboratus_ (Brut. §312) or _accuratus_ (ad Att.

xiii. 45, 3): or _perfectus_ (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).

Expositus = _tritus_, _communis_: x.

5, 11 _voluptatem

expositis dare_: Iuv. 7, 54 _vatem—qui nihil expositum soleat

deducere, hoc qui communi feriat carmen triviale moneta_: Sen. E. 55.

Cicero has (de Orat. i. 31, 137) _omnium communia et contrita

praecepta_.

Incompositus: x.

1, 66 _rudis in

plerisque et incompositus_ (Aeschylus): cp. iv. 5, 10; ix. 4, 32:

Verg. Georg. i. 350 _motus incompositos_: Hor. Sat. i. 10, 1: Tac.

Dial. 26: Sen. Ep. 40, 4: Liv. xxiii. 27; v. 28.

Otiosus = _inutilis_, _inanis_. See on x.

1, 76 _tam nihil

otiosum_: cp.

2 §17. So Tac. Dial.

40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have _vacuus_, _otio

abundans_, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.

xlvi

Praecipuus, used by itself, see on x.

1, 94.

Summus, in sense of _extremus_: x.

1, 21, where see note.

The usage is poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii.

324 _venit summa dies_: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59,

Am. iii. 9, 27: Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des

Asinius Pollio—München_, 1890, p. 36) contends that this

use is not Ciceronian, for while Pollio writes _summo ludorum die_

(ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius _summis Circensibus ludis_ (ad

Fam. viii. 12, 3—_Manutius: extremis diebus Circensium

ludorum meorum_), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii. 1, 3)

_extremus elephantorum dies fuit_.

Supinus = _ignavus_ (as ὕπτιος, p. xliii. above): x.

2, 17 _otiosi et

supini_: cp. ix. 4, 137 _tarda et supina compositio_: Iuv. i.

66: Mart. vi. 42 _Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter

audis_. This word may have been used first by Quintilian in this

sense: in Cicero it is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.

Noticeable also, and characteristic of his time, is Quintilian’s use

of _plerique_ and _plurimi_, the former having often the force

of _nonnulli_, _plures_, _multi_ (x.

1 §§26,

31,

34,

37,

66,

106:

2 §13:

3 §16), the latter

losing its force as a superlative, and standing generally for

_permulti_ (x.

1 §§12,

22,

27,

40,

49,

58,

60,

65,

81,

95,

107,

109,

117,

128:

2 §§6,

14,

24:

6 §1:

7 §17).

Nothing is more common in Quintilian than the use of adjectives (and

participles) in the place of nouns.70 In some cases this arises from the

actual omission of a noun, which can readily be supplied to define the

meaning of the adjective: for example x.

5, 20

_decretoriis_ (sc. _armis_) _exerceatur_:

1 §100 _togatis_

(sc. _fabulis_) _excellit Afranius_:

1 §88 _lascivus

quidem in herois_ (sc. _versibus_) _quoque Ovidius_. But in

most cases there is no perceptible ellipse; the general idea intended is

contained in the adjective itself. In the Masculine and Feminine only

those adjectives can be used as nouns which express personal qualities,

as of character, position, reputation, &c.: the Neuter denotes

generally the properties of things, mostly abstractions. Following the

arrangement of Dr. Hirt’s paper, we may cite examples from the Tenth

Book as follows:—

The Neuter Adjective.

(1) _The Neuter singular used by itself_:—

Nom.

3 §22 _secretum in

dictando perit_.

xlvii

Acc.

3 §30 _faciat sibi

cogitatio secretum_.

Gen.

3 §27 _optimum

secreti genus_:

§30 _amator secreti_.

Partitive genitives:

6 §1 _aliquid

vacui_: dependent on adj.

1 §79 _honesti

studiosus_.

Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 _proximum vero_: vi.

3, 21 _contrarium serio_.

Abl.

7 §16 _cum stilus

secreto gaudeat_.

Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative

and ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the

usage in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy

(ἐξ

ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.). Examples are: _in altum_

7 §28 (= _in

profundum_): _e contrario_

1 §19: _in

deposito_

3 §33: _in

expedito_

7 §24:

(_vertere_) _in Latinum_

5 §2 (containing the

idea of locality: cp. _ex Graeco_): _ex integro_

1 §20 (where see note):

_in posterum_

3 §14: _in

publicum_

7 §1: _in

universum_

1 §42: _in peius_

2 §16: _ex

proximo_

1 §13: _a summo_

3 §2: _ad

ultimum_

7 §7; ib.

16: _ex ultimo_ ib.

10.

Sometimes the adjective, in addition to being used substantivally,

governs like a noun, the genitive depending on it being always

partitive: e.g. _multum_

1 §§80,

94,

115: _plus_

1 §§77,

86,

97,

99,

106: _plurimum_

1 §§60,

65,

81,

117,

128;

3 §1;

5 §§3,

10;

6 §1;

7 §17: _minus_

2 §12: _quantum_

5 §8. And with a

pronoun:

7 §24 _promptum hoc

et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally

in cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g.

3 §6 _scriptorum

proxima_. Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where

the case could not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of

course, when the adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g.

5 §8 _sua brevitati

gratia_, _sua copiae_, _alia translatis virtus_, _alia

propriis_; or when another adjective or pronoun is used in the nom.

or acc., e.g.

1 §35:

3 §32 _novorum

interpositione priora confundant_:

5 §11. Other instances

(of 2nd and 3rd decl.) are

7 §30 _subitis ex

tempore occurrant_:

5 §1 _ex latinis_:

7 §6 _ex

diversis_:

1 §66 _in

plerisque_:

5 §11 _varietatem

similibus dare_. So with comparatives and superlatives:

1 §63 _maioribus

aptior_:

1 §58 _cum optimis

satiati sumus_, _varietas tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit_:

5 §6 _certe proximis

locus_.

The Masculine Adjective.

(1) _The Masculine Plural._

In the following places masculine adjectives are found together, in

the plural, or else along with nouns:

1 §§71,

124,

130:

2 §17:

3 §16:

5 §1.

xlviii

Single instances are (Genitive) _veterum_

1 §§97,

118: _magnorum_

1 §25: (Dative)

_imperitis_

7 §15:

_antiquis_

2 §17:

_studiosis_

1 §45 (where see note:

Cicero would have had _dicendi_, or _eloquentiae studiosis_):

_bonis_

2 §3: (Accusative)

_veteres_

1 §42: _posteros_

1 §§112,

120:

2 §6: _obvios_

3 §29:

_intentos_

3 §33: (Ablative)

_ex nostris_

1 §114: _ab

antiquis_

1 §126: _de

novis_

1 §40. With the

comparative

5 §19 _apud

maiores_:

5 §7 _priores_:

superlative

1 §58 _confessione

plurimorum_. In

1 §123 we have one of

the few instances of the addition of another adjective to an adjective

doing duty for a noun—_paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae

Romanae tulerunt_.

(2) _The Masculine Singular._

When the adjective can denote a class collectively, it may be used as

a noun: this is quite frequent in Quintilian, as in most writers,

especially when the adjective stands near a substantive, e.g.

_perorare in adulterum_, _aleatorem_, _petulantem_ ii.

4, 22.

The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine

singular: (Genitive) x.

2, 26 _prudentis

est_: (Accusative)

2 §3 _similem raro

natura praestat_:

3 §19 _quasi

conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes_.

The Participle used as a Noun.

(1) _The Neuter Singular._

Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those

which have actually become nouns (e.g. _responsum_,

_praeceptum_, _promissum_, &c.), Quintilian uses several

participles as nouns in a manner that is again an extension of classical

usage. So even with a pronoun, or another adjective: e.g.

2 §2 _ad propositum

praescriptum_:

§11 _ad alienum

propositum_:

5 §12 _decretum

quoddam atque praeceptum_:

7 §24 _promptum hoc

et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the

participle in _-us_, _-a_, _-um_ is found frequently in

abl., gen., and dat. Not so common is the plural of the 3rd decl.:

1 §86 _eminentibus

vincimur_:

3 §5 _nec protinus

offerentibus se gaudeamus_, _adhibeatur indicium inventis_,

_dispositio probatis_.

(3) _The Perfect Participle._

In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the

Ciceronian usage, according to which the participle is employed when a

definite class of individuals is indicated, and a _qui_ clause when

the description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are

1 §131 _robustis et

xlix

satis firmatis legendus_:

3 §2 7 _occupatos in

noctem necessitas agit_:

5 §17

_exercitatos_; rather more general is _a conrogatis

laudantur_

1 §18. The Masculine

Singular is, in classical Latin, generally found along with a

substantive, it being incorrect to use any such expression as, for

example, _manes occisi placare_. Quintilian makes a very free use

of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24 _reddebat victo certaminis

polestatem_: v. 12, 2 _spiculum in corpore occisi inventum

est_, &c.

(4) _The Future Participle._

The use of this participle received a great extension in

post-Augustan times. The following are instances of its employment as a

substantive: i. 4, 17 _non doceo, sed admoneo docturos_: 21

_liberum opinaturis relinquo_: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 _hoc

adicio ut dicturus intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit_.

(5) _The Present Participle._

Frequent as is the substantival use of this participle in all Latin

authors, in none is it more frequent than in Quintilian—generally

in the Gen. and Dat. Sing. and Plur., not so common in the Nom. and Acc.

Pl., and seldom in the Abl. and Nom. Sing. In some instances it is found

alongside of a noun: e.g.

2 §2:

7 §3. The most common

example of the Gen. Sing., standing alone, is (as might be expected from

the subject-matter of the _Institutio_) _discentis_,

_dicentis_, &c., e.g.

1 §6: for the Dative see

1 §§17,

24,

30: Accusative

1 §20: Ablative

1 §15 (_intellegere

sine demonstrante_): _eminentibus_

1 §86: cp. _illis ...

recipientibus_

5 §12. In the plural,

the Genitive and Dative are equally common: for the Nominative may be

quoted

2 §15

_imitantes_: for the Accusative

1 §16:

2 §26:

3 §25.

III. Pronouns.

Ipse follows the usual rules. For an interesting point in

connection with its use, see on

2 §15. It is often

used as = _per se_, e.g.

1 §117:

3 §21: often with

pronouns, e.g. _vel hoc ipso_ (δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο)

1 §75, cp.

5 §8. For _et ipse_

see note on

1 §31.

Hic seems frequently to be used with reference to the

circumstances of the writer’s own times: e.g.

1 §43 _recens haec

lascivia_: and probably also

7 §31 _hanc brevem

adnotationem_. (This is certainly the case with _ille_: e.g.

_illis dictandi deliciis_

3 §18: _ille

laudantium clamor_

1 §17.) It has been

suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be wrong: e.g.

1 §6 _ex his_ (for

_ex iis_?): but cp.

1 §§25,

33,

40, &c. Such instances

of a preference for _hic_ over _is_ come under Priscian’s rule

(xvi. 58), _Hic

l

non solum de praesente verum etiam de absente possumus

dicere, ad intellectum referentes demonstrativum_.

The conjunction of _nullus_ and _non_

(= _quisque_, _omnis_) is common in Quintilian and

Suetonius:

7 §25 _nullo non

tempore et loco_: cp. iii. 6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66;

Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.

Quicunque has in Quintilian completely acquired the force of

an indefinite pronoun: see on

1 §12; 105.

Quilibet unus (1 §1) does not occur in Cicero:

cp. i. 12, 7: v. 10, 117.

Ut qui is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian

_quippe qui_, _utpote qui_: see on

1 §55.

IV. Verbs.

An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in

Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’

of Latin prose) occurs

1 §99 _licet

Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant_: see note _ad loc._, and cp.

Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12, Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have

_efferre laudibus_, de Am. §24: de Off. ii. §36: de Orat. iii. §52.

So elsewhere in Quintilian _finire_ for _definire_,

_solari_ for _consolari_, _spargere_ for

_dispergere_, &c.

Examples of a change in the meaning of verbs common to Cicero and

Quintilian are the following:—

Componere occurs now in the sense of _sedare_,

_placare_: e.g. ix. 4, 12 _ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum

cogitationum, componerent_: iii. 4, 15 _concitando componendisve

adfectibus_ (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202 _motum dicendo vel

excitare vel sedare_): cp. x.

1, 119 _Vibius

Crispus compositus et iucundus_, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176)

_Isocrates est in ipsis numeris sedatior_. So Pollio, ad

Fam. x. 33, 3 has the phrase _bellum componere_: cp. Hor. Ep. ii.

1, 8 _componere litem_: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 _componere

curas_—both at the end of a hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet.

Caes. 4.

Digerere = _concoquere_: see

1 §19. For

_concoquere_ in Cicero, see de Fin. ii. §64: de N. D. ii.

§§24, 124, 136.

Praedicere = _antea_, _supra dicere_: see on

1 §74.

Recipere = _probare_ (ἀποδέχομαι):

7 §31, and often.

Vacat: used impersonally

1 §§58,

90: cp. i. 12, 12. This

usage is not found in Cicero.

V. Adverbs.

Abunde is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to

increase their force:

1 §25 _abunde

similes_ (where see note):

§104 _elatum abunde

spiritum_. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s _satis

superque_.

Adhuc occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on

1 §71 (_plus

adhuc_) and

§99. It is often used also

(as in Livy and others) of

li

past time, when it = _eo etiam tempore_, or _etiam tum_: e.g.

_scholae adhuc operatum_

3 §13: cp. i. 8, 2:

2 §27.

Alioqui has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1)

It occurs pretty much as τὰ

μὲν ἄλλα in Greek, with very little of an antithesis: e.g.

1 §64 _Simonides,

tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate commendari potest_:

3 §32 _expertus

iuvenem, studiosum alioqui, praelongos habuisse sermones_, &c.

(There is a definite antithesis in what seems to be the corresponding

usage in Tacitus, when _alioqui_ is opposed to an adverb of time:

e.g, Ann. iii. 8 _cum incallidus alioqui et facilis iuventa senilibus

_tum_ artibus uteretur_: xiii. 20 _ingreditur Paris, solitus

alioquin id temporis luxus principis intendere, sed _tunc_

compositus ad maestitiam._) (2) It is equivalent to _praeterea_,

‘besides’:

3 §13 _in

eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus_.

Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 _ordo alioqui sceleris ... patefactus est_.

This sense is an easy transition from ‘for the rest.’ The instance in

1 §128 (_cuius et

multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt_) seems to fall also under

this head, unless it means ‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they

paid him (Seneca) by imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 _validus

alioqui spernendis honoribus_. (3) _Alioqui_ stands for

‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite case,’ either with a _si_ clause, as

3 §16 _immutescamus

alioqui si nihil dicendum videatur_:

§30 _quid alioqui fiet

... si particulas_, &c.: or without,

6 §6 _alioqui vel

extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem cogitationem_.

Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.

Certe stands for _quidem_ when the point of the sentence

is reinforced by an illustration:

6 §4 _Cicero certe

... tradidit_: cp. xii. 1, 43: vi. 2, 3.

_Demum_, which in classical Latin is an adverb of time

(‘lastly’), stands in Quintilian, and other writers of the Silver Age,

for _tantum_, _dumtaxat_, the idea of time having disappeared:

1 §44 _pressa demum

et tenuia_, where see note: cp.

3 §13:

6 §5. With pronouns it

is frequently used, for emphasis, like _adeo_: e.g. Cic. de Orat.

ii. §131 _sed hi loci ei demum oratori prodesse possunt, qui est

versatus in rebus vel usu_.

Interim often stands for _interdum_, as

1 §9, where see note. At

3 §33 we have

_interim ... interim_ for _modo ... modo_, as also i. 7, 11:

_interim ... interdum_ vi. 2, 12: _interim ... non numquam ...

saepe_ iv. 5, 20: _semper ... interim_ ii. 1, 1.

Longe and multum are both used with comparatives,

instead of _multo_: e.g. _longe clarius_

1 §67 (where see note):

_multum tersior_ (πολύ)

1 §94 (note).

Mox is used in enumerations in place of _deinde_:

6 §3

_primum—tum—mox_: cp. i. 2, 29 _primum—mox_:

ib. 9, 2 _primum—mox—tum_.

Nec = _ne quidem_:

3 §7 _alioqui nec

scriberentur_. Cp. ix. 2, 67 _quod in foro non expedit, illic nec

liceat_ iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.

lii

Non occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (3 §16, cp.

3 §5) and 3rd pers.

sing.

2 §27 where see note,

(also after _dum_ xii. 10, 48 and _modo_ iii. 11, 24) where

Cicero would have had _ne_: cp. i. 1, 19 _non ergo perdamus_:

ib. §5 _non adsuescat ergo_. Cp. _utinam non_

§100: and see note on

2 §27.

Non nisi. These particles (_non_, _nisi_) are used

together with the force of an adverb,

1 §24 (where see note):

3 §29. Cp. Ov. Tr.

iii. 12, 36.

Olim is never used by Cicero of future time, as

1 §94 and

104 (where see note). Cp.

Plin. Panegyr. 15.

Plane, though common enough in classical Latin, as in

Quintilian, with verbs and adjectives, is not found so often in

conjunction with other adverbs. There may be a touch of colloquialism

about such a phrase as _ut plane manifesto appareat_

1 §53: cp. Pollio, in

Cic. ad Fam. x. 32, 1 _plane bene_: ad Att. xiii. 6, 2: _plane

belle_ ib. xii. 37, 1.

Protinus has its usual meaning (_statim_) in

3 §5 (where it is best

taken with _gaudeamus_, not with _offerentibus_): cp.

7 §21. Its employment

to denote logical consequence is noted at

1 §3: cp. _ib._

§42.

Saltem is often used for _quidem_ and _neque saltem_

for _ne quidem_:

2 §15 _nec vero

saltem iis_, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 _neque enim mihi

illud saltem placet_.

Sicut (ut) ... ita. This formula is especially common in

Quintilian, either with or without a negative: see on

1 §1, and cp.

§§3,

14,

72: ix. 2, 88, &c.

Ubicumque, like _quicumque_, has become an indefinite:

e.g.

7 §28 _quidquid

loquemur ubicumque_. The more classical use is found at

1 §§5 and

10.

Utique: see note on

1 §20.

Utrimque is used not of place, but of the ‘opposite sides’ of

a question:

5 §20 _causas

utrimque tractet_:

1 §131: cp. v. 10, 81:

Hor. Ep. i. 18, 9: Tac. Hist. i. 14.

Velut occurs more commonly than either _quasi_ or

_tamquam_ in comparisons: see on

1 §5 _velut opes

quaedam_, and cp.

§§18,

61:

3 §3:

5 §17:

7 §1. So also

7 §6 _ducetur ante

omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce_.

VI. Prepositions.

Ab for ‘on leaving,’ as in the poets and Livy:

5 §17 _ne ab illa, in

qua consenuerunt, umbra discrimina velut quendam solem reformident_:

cp. xi. 3, 22: i. 6, 25: Ov. Met. iv. 329: Plin. N. H. xiv.

7, 9. So ἀπὸ in Homer,

Il. viii. 53 Οἱ

δ᾽ ἄρα δεῖπνον ἕλοντο καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ Ῥίμφα κατὰ κλισίας, ἀπὸ δ᾽

αὐτοῦ θωρήσσοντο.

Circa does duty in Quintilian for _in_, _de_,

_ad_, _erga_, &c.: cp. the use of περί, ἀμφί with the acc. in Greek. So

1 §52 _utiles circa

praecepta sententiae_: see note _ad loc_.

liii

Citra very often stands for _sine_ or _praeter_:

e.g. _citra lectionis exemplum_

1 §2, where see note:

cp. i. 4, 4 _neque citra musicen grammatice potest esse perfecta_.

In Cicero _citra_ is used only of place.

The following prepositional expressions should also be

noted:—

Ante omnia = _primum_

1 §3:

2 §4:

7 §6. In

1 §3 we have _ante

omnia_, _proximum_, _novissimum_: cp. iv. 2, 52 _ante

omnia_, _deinde_: iii. 9, 6 _ante omnia_, _deinde_,

_tum_, _postremo_.

Cum eo quod is used as a transition formula for the Ciceronian

_accedit quod_. A certain case of this usage occurs xii. 10,

47: the instance at x.

7, 13 has been

challenged, but see the note.

Ex integro. Quintilian prefers the use of _ex_ in such

phrases to _de_: e.g. x.

1 §20 (where see note):

_ex industria_ ib.: and so _ex abundanti_, _ex professo_,

_ex pari_, &c., elsewhere.

Inter paucos, ‘as few have ever been’:

3 §13 _inter paucos

disertus_.

Per quae (_quod_) of agency or instrument:

1 §87 _in iis per

quae nomen est adsecutus_.

Propter quae (_quod_) for _quam ob rem_, especially

in transitions: see on

1 §10.

Praeter id quod for _praeterquam quod_: see on

1 §28.

Sine dubio. The use of this phrase at

1 §51 may possibly be

an instance of the peculiarity noted by Spalding on i. 6, 12, where he

points out that Quintilian frequently makes it stand for _quidem_,

in clauses where the idea is by _sine dubio_ made of less account

than some other statement immediately following, and introduced by

_tamen_ or _sed_ (as i. 6, 12 and 14). Examples are v. 7, 28

_sine dubio ... tamen_: v. 10, 53 and viii. 3, 67 _sine dubio ...

sed_. Applying this to x.

1, 51 _Verum hic

omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae procul a se reliquit,

epicos tamen praecipue_, we might bring out the construction by

rendering, ‘But while of course (or ‘to be sure’) Homer has

out-distanced all rivals, in every kind of eloquence, it is the epic

poets whom he leaves furthest behind.’ Cp. on

3 §15.

VII. Conjunctions.

Under this head may come Adde quod, a phrase which occurs

seven times in Quintilian, five times in the Tenth Book:

1 §§3,

16:

2 §§10,

11,

12: xii. 1, 4 and 11, 29.

Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio_) remarks

that it must be ranked rather with Pollio ad Fam. x. 31, 4 (_adde huc

quod_), where _quod_ is to be taken as a conjunction, than with

Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 7, ad Fam. xiii. 41, 1 (_addo etiam illud

quod_), and ad Fam. xvi. 16, 1 (_adde hoc quod_), where

_quod_ is a relative referring to the foregoing demonstrative. The

phrase is originally

liv

poetical: it is found in Attius, frequently in Lucretius (i. 847: iii.

827: iv. 1113), in the _Satires_ and _Epistles_ of Horace, and

over and over again in Ovid: Vergil seems to avoid it. Pollio probably

introduced it into prose, and from him it passed to others: Schmalz

refers to Plin. Ep. viii. 14, 3: iii. 14, 6: Sen. 40, 4: Symmach. 2, 7:

4, 71: Fronto, p. 92 N.

Cum interim = ‘though all the time.’ See note on

1 §18: cp. § III.

Dum ... non stands for _dummodo ... non_

3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48.

The usage is poetical. _Dummodo_ does not occur in Quintilian.

Enim occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third

place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. _ad profectum

enim_

3 §15: and so

frequently after _sum_,—2 §10 _necesse est enim_:

1 §14:

7 §§15,

24:

2 §19. But _nihil

enim est_

1 §78, where Krüger

suggests _nihil enim inest_.

Etsi. As it is generally stated that _etsi_ does not

occur in Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i.

pr. 19: i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.

Ideoque is constantly used for _itaque_. See note on

1 §21.

Licet = _etsi_, as sometimes in Cicero:

1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and

passim.

Quamlibet and quamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in

clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and

adverbs:

3 §19 _nam in stilo

quidem quamlibet properato_: cp. viii. 6, 4 _oratione quamlibet

clara_: xii. 8, 7 _quamlibet verbose_: xi. 1, 34 _quamquam

plena sanguinis_. A similar use of _quamvis_ is less

uncommon in other writers: cp.

1 §74 _quamvis

bonorum_: ib. §94 _quamvis uno libra_ (where see note). See

Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

Quia is sometimes used where _quod_ (_eo quod_)

might have been expected:

1 §15 _hoc sunt

exempla potentiora ... quia_: cp.

5 §14 _Declamationes

vero ... sunt utilissimae quia_ (Halm) _inventionem et

dispositionem pariter exercent_. So i. 6, 39 _nam et auctoritatem

antiquitatis habent_ (sc. _verba a vetustate repetita_) _et,

quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant_. Cp. _non

quia non_ (with the subjunctive) x.

7, 19 and

31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5,

65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

Quoque often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its

force, where older writers would have had _vel_ or _etiam_:

1 §20 _ex industria

quoque_:

2 §14 _in magnis

quoque auctoribus_: cp.

1 §121 _ceterum

interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum_: ii. II, I _exemplo

magni quoque nominis professorum_.

Quotiens = _cum_:

4 §3:

7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76:

viii. 3, 55.

For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed

generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often

traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo

wrote

lv

to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to

remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment.

But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian

period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent

instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly

constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the

technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such

matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say

clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great

stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is

generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to

take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come

dragging in at the end of a sentence (x.

2 §§13 and

23), and adjectival or

attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable

isolation (_vel ob hoc memoria dignum_

1 §80: _rebus tamen

acuti magis quam_, &c.

1 §84: cp. §§85, 95,

103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of

fashion (1 §80:

2 §28). The thought is

sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the

Tenth Book: cp.

2 §§13 and

§§20,

21;

7 §7), because the

composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition

particles are loosely used (see on _nam_

1 §12: cp. §50,

7 §31: _quidem_

1 §88), and are

sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly

and abruptly introduced (see on

1 §4: cp.

7 §1). Instances of a

more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often

met with: e.g.

1 §§36,

41,

83,

102. In the order of words

there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (1 §109,

2 §17), especially in

the case of proper names (1 §86 _Afro Domitio_ for

_Domitio Afro_: cp. _Atacinus Varro_

§87: _Bassus Aufidius_

§103)71. Constructions κατὰ σύνεσιν frequently

occur:

1 §65:

§105:

7 §25. Under this

head may be included the omission of the subject:

1 §7 _congregat_:

§66 _permiserunt_:

7 §4 _malit ...

possit_: and of words to be supplied from the context,

1 §56

_congerentes_:

1 §7 _solitos_:

1 §107 _quibus nihil

ille_:

1 §123 _qui

ubique_:

2 §24:

3 §25. In the same

way _esse_ is frequently omitted for the sake of brevity:

1 §17,

§66,

§90:

4 §1:

5 §6:

7 §7,

§23. Lastly there are

frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition:

1 §§8,

9,

23,

94,

131:

2 §§11-12:

5 §§6-7:

7 §23: cp. on

2 §23.

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive

fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive:

1 §14 _dixerim_:

§26

lvi

_maluerim_:

§37 _fuerit_, where see

note: so even _ut non dixerim_ (_ne dicam_)

1 §77 and _ut sic

dixerim_

2 §15. (2) The

use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see on _sciet_

1 §4, and cp.

2 §§26,

28:

3 §28:

7 §28: also as a mild

imperative,

1 §58

_revertemur_:

3 §18

_sequemur_;

2 §1

_renuntiabit_:

§23 _aptabimus_.

(3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are

characteristic of the Silver Age: (_a_) with _verbs_, as

_meruit credi_

1 §72: _qui esse

docti adfectant_

§97: _optandum ...

fieri_

§127: _si consequi

utrumque non dabitur_

7 §22: _opponere

verear_

1 §101:

_intermittere veremur_

7 §26: cp.

_expertus iuvenem ... habuisse_

3 §32: for

_dubitare_ see on

1 §73:

(_b_) with _adjectives_, _legi dignus_

1 §96: _contentum id

consequi_

2 §7. (4) The

substantival use of the gerund, _ceteraque genera probandi ac

refutandi_

1 §49: _lex

orandi_

1 §76:

_inveniendi_

§69: _sive acumine

disserendi sive eloquendi facultate_

1 §81: cp.

_loquendi_

§83: _eloquendo_

§106: _nascendi_

3 §4: _saliendi_

3 §6: ib.

_iaculando_: _adiciendo_

3 §32:

_emendandi_

4 §2: _cogitandi_

7 §25.

(5) _Quamquam_ with subjunctive

1 §33:

2 §21:

7 §17:

_forsitan_ with indic.

2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) _Anaphora_, or

the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses:

e.g. nulla _varietas_, nullus _adfectus_, nulla

_persona_, nulla _cuiusquam sit oratio_

1 §55: cp.

1 §§99,

115,

130:

2 §2:

3 §3 (illic

_radices_, illic _fundamenta sunt_, illic _opes_,

&c.):

§9,

§29:

5 §§2,

8:

6 §1;

(2) _Asyndeton_: e.g. _facere_ quam optime, quam

facillime _possit_

1 §4:

2 §16:

6 §6:

7 §§7,

26;

(3) _Chiasmus_:

5 §14

(_alitur—renovatur_) and

§15 (_ne

carmine—reficiuntur_):

7 §15.

The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or

the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is

in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no

more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war,

which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their

images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime

occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what

is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that

a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both

Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is

little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical

treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in

which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian

emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked

upon as great national

lvii

entertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main

object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with

weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment

can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he

fought’: _tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum

eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat_, x.

1, 114. The orator

must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’ _in

procinctu_

1 §2 (where see note):

if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in

camp,—_nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium_

4 §4. His style must be

appropriate to the matter in hand: _id quoque vitandum ne in oratione

poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito

lex, suus cuique decor est_

2 §§21-2. Victory must

ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a

sham fight:

1 §§29-30 _nos vero

armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam

niti_:

2 §27 _quam omnia,

etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent_:

1 §79 _Isocrates ...

palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus_:

1 §31 _totum opus

(historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam

posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur_. The orator must have all

the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not

to be made for show:

1 §33 _dum ...

meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec

versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene

ad forensem pulverem facere_:

1 §30 _Neque ego arma

squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat,

qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis

auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus_: cp.

1 §60 _cum validae

tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque

nervorum_:

1 §77 _carnis tamen

plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum_:

2 §12 _quo fit ut

minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes_:

1 §115 _verum

sanguinem perdidisse_. As soon as possible he must add practice to

theory:

1 §4, cp.

5 §§19-20

(_iuvenis_) _iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis

cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri

videmus, decretoriis exerceatur_:

3 §3 _vires faciamus

ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non

exhauriantur_. His whole activity is that of the battle-field:

whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either

overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp.

1 §106 _pugnat ille

(Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere_:

§120 _ut esset multo

magis pugnans_. And he must not linger too long over preparatory

exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their

suppleness:

5 §16 _nam si nobis

sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat

articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur_.

lviii

V.

Manuscripts.

In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted

because they would have been more distracting than useful.

Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of

Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions:

(1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and

(3) the mixed.

The most important representative of the first class is the _Codex

Ambrosianus_, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan.

As we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly

a fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135

_argumenta acria et cit_. to xii. 11, 22 _antiquitas ut

possit_). Halm secured a new and trustworthy collation of this MS.,

distinguishing carefully between the original text and the readings of

the second hand.

Although now in the defective condition above indicated, the

_Ambrosianus_ must have been originally complete. In this it

differs from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most

valuable member of which—the _Bernensis_—is of even

greater importance for the constitution of the text than the

_Ambrosianus_, at least in those parts which it contains. It is the

oldest of all the known manuscripts of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th

century. The peculiarity which it shares with the other members of its

family is that it contains certain great _lacunae_, which must have

existed also in the manuscript from which it was copied, as they are

indicated in the _Bernensis_ by blank spaces. The size of the first

_lacuna_ varies with the fortunes of the particular codex: in the

_Bernensis_ it extends from the beginning to 2 §5 (_licet,

et nihilo minus_). The others are identical in all cases: v. 14,

12—viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17—viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2—x.

1, 107 (_nulla contentio_): xi. 1, 71—xi. 2, 33: and

xii. 10, 43 to the end.

To the same family as the _Bernensis_ belongs the

_Bambergensis_ A, which was directly copied from the

_Bernensis_ not long after the latter had been written: it also is

of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the _Bambergensis_ the

great _lacunae_ were, at a very early date, filled in by another

hand (_Bambergensis_ G73), this manuscript may now rank in the

third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the

lix

_Harleianus_ (2664), and through the _Harleianus_ of the

_Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, and an innumerable company of

others. Besides reproducing _Bambergensis_ G, these MSS.

follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called

by Halm b) into the original _Bambergensis_ A.

A recent examination of the _Bambergensis_ has suggested a

doubt whether the readings known as b, which are often of a very

faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex

as G.

Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the

manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for

the parts where he had only the _Ambrosianus_ and the

_Bambergensis_ G, or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since

the date of the publication of his text (1868) great progress has been

made with the critical study of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain

and le Coultre published a collation of the _Nostradamensis_

(see below), the main results of which have been incorporated in

Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical edition of the First Book

of the _Institutio_ (1890) M. Ch. Fierville has given a most

complete account of all the continental manuscripts, drawing for the

purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown proof of his

interest in the subject (_De Quintilianeis Codicibus_, 1874).

There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him

aright in attaching supreme importance to the _Bernensis_ (with

_Bambergensis_ A), the _Ambrosianus_, and

_Bambergensis_ G. But much has been derived from some

manuscripts of which he took no account, and there is one in particular,

which has hitherto been strangely overlooked, and to which prominence is

accordingly given in this edition. Before proceeding to deal with it,

I shall annex here a brief notice of the various MSS. which figure

in the Critical Notes, grouped in one or other of the three divisions

given above. An editor of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ is

especially bound to travel outside the rather narrow range of Halm’s

critical edition, as so much of the existing text (down to 1 §107)

has been based mainly on _Bambergensis_ G alone. In addition

to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such MSS. as the

_Ioannensis_ at Cambridge, the _Bodleianus_ and

_Balliolensis_ at Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex,

referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th

century manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show

to have been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This

part of the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this

country, what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously

accomplished for the manuscripts of the Continent.

Of the first family, the outstanding example is the

_Ambrosianus_. The resemblances between it and

_Bambergensis_ G are sufficient to show that

lx

the manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the

same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like the

_Ambrosianus_ originally), has altogether disappeared: one of the

great objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond

the limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish

between such examples as may seem (like the _Dorvilianus_ at

Oxford) to preserve some of the traditions of the family, and those

whose origin may be clearly traced back to _Bambergensis_ A

and G. For all the complete MSS. of Quintilian in existence must be

derived either from this family or from the mixed group of which the

_Bambergensis_, in its present form, seems to be the undoubted

original.

In the second group we must include, not much inferior to the

_Bernensis_, the _Parisinus Nostradamensis_ (N) Bibl. Nat.

fonds latin 18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of

the incomplete MS. from which the _Bernensis_ was copied, and as

such has a distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th

century. For the readings of this codex I have been able to compare a

collation made by M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by

MM. Chatelain and le Coultre in 1875.

Then there is the _Codex Ioannensis_ (in the library of

St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has

shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr.

p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition

it begins with _constaret_ (i. 2, 3), but a portion of the

first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter:

originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second

chapter, like the _Nostradamensis_, the _Vossiani_ 1

and 2, the _Codex Puteanus_, and _Parisinus_ 7721 (see

Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly

_multiplici_, not _ut duplici_, and in this it agrees with the

Montpellier MS. (_Pithoeanus_), which is known to be a copy (11th

century) of the _Bernensis_ (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil.

1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of

inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I

have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be

subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this

manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible

in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space

being left blank) as _tum in ipsis_ in x. 2, 14, and

_virtutis_ ib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand,

with no contemporary indication of the great _lacunae_, and may be

ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with the

_Bernensis_, though there are striking resemblances also to the

_Pratensis_ (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions

referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1 _sic etiam

utilitatis_, for _sic utilitatis etiam_: ib. §30 _oratione

continua_, for _continua oratione_: 5 §8 _alia propriis

alia translatis virtus_, for _alia

lxi

translatis virtus alia propriis_: 7 §21 _stultis eruditi_,

for _stulti eruditis_: ib. §28 _solum summum_, for _summum

solum_. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8)

it shares with the Leyden MSS.—the _Vossiani_ i. and iii., a

collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices

M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which

the _Nostradamensis_ heads the list (see below, p. lxiv).

I may note also the readings _viderit bona et invenit_ (

2 §20), which _Ioan._ shares with _Voss._ iii.: _potius

libertas ista_ ( 3 §24) _Ioan._ and _Voss._ i.;

_ubertate_—for _libertate_—( 5 §15) _Ioan.

Voss._ i. and iii.

To the same family belongs the _Codex Salmantinus_, a 12th or

13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca.

M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the

Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the

_Bernensis_. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs

from the _Nostradamensis_ (most of them being the errors of a

copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from

the _Nostradamensis_, it agrees with the _Bernensis_ and the

_Bambergensis_. This MS. also gives _ubertate_ in 5 §15 :

it agrees in showing the important reading _alte refossa_ in

3 §2 : and resembles the _Ioannensis_ in certain minor

omissions, e.g. _certa_ before _necessitate_ in 5 §15 :

_idem_ before _laborandum_ in 7 §4 : _et_ before

_consuetudo_ in 7 §8 : cp. _subiunctura sunt_ for

_subiuncturus est_ 7 §9 . For other coincidences see the

Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance

for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the _Codex

Salmantinus_) I am indebted to the kindness of

M. Fierville. They are the _Codex Pralensis_ (No. 14146 fonds

latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and the

_Codex Puteanus_ (No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of

Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of

extracts from the _Institutio_ amounting to nearly a third of the

whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (_de figuris

verborum_) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (_de imitatione_)

consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (_quomodo dictandum sit_) of x.

3, 1-32; and §79 (_de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam

Latinorum_) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises

from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of the

_Beccensis_, now lost. The _Beccensis_ is supposed by

M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the

9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least

equal rank with the _Bernensis_. That it was an independent copy of

some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the

_Pratensis_, but also by the fact that both the _Pratensis_

and the _Puteanus_ (which is also a transcript of the

_Beccensis_) show a _lacuna_ after the word _mutatis_ in

lxii

x. 3, 32. This _lacuna_ must have existed in the _Beccensis_,

though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne

de Rouen added the words _correctum fuisse tabellis_ in his copy

(the _Pratensis_): the text runs _codicibus esse

sublatum_.

The general character of the readings of the _Pratensis_ may be

gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this

volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and

it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used

by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from the _Pratensis_

or from its prototype, the _Beccensis_. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives

(like S) _rogantis Achillen Priami precibus_, while most codd.

have _Priami_ before _rogantis_: ib. §53 _eloquentie_ (so

Put. S 7231, 7696) for _eloquendi_: ib. _superatum_ (so Put.)

for _superari_: §55 _aequalem credidit parem_ (as Put. S Harl.

2662, 11671): §67 _idque ego_ (as Put. S) for _idque ego

sane_: §68 _qui fuerunt_ and also _vero_, omitted (as in

Put. S): so also _tenebras_ §72, _valuerunt_ §84 (as

7231, 7696), and _veterum_ §97: at §95 Prat, gives et

_eruditissimos_ for _et doctissimos_, and hence the omission

of _erudit._ in S. On the whole, the study of the text of the

_Pratensis_ seems to give additional confidence in the readings

of G: for example §98 _imperare_ (as Put.): §101

_cesserit_ (Put. 7231, 7696): ib. _nec indignetur_. Étienne de

Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his

original, and this strengthens the contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp.

§42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 _quem superius

institui_ for _quem institueram in libra secundo_ is an

indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of

the _Institutio_, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This

probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to

be peculiar to the _Pratensis_, among which may be noted 1 §48

_putat_ for _creditum est_ (where Put. has

_certissimum_): §59 _ad exemplum maxime permanebit_ (_ad

exitum_ Put. and S): §78 _propinquior_ for _propior_:

§80 _mediocri_ for _medio_: §81 _assurgit_ for

_surgit_: §109 _in utroque_ for _in quoque_. Peculiar

readings which Prat. shares with the _Puteanus_ (and which were

therefore probably in the _Beccensis_) are §46 _in magnis_ for

_in magnis rebus_: §49 _innuit_ for _nuntiat_: §50

_excessit_ for _excedit_: §54 _ne virtus_ for _ne

utrius_ (_neutrius_): §57 _ignoro ergo_ (S) for _ignoro

igitur_: §63 _plurimumque oratio_: §68 _in affectibus

communibus mirus_: §79 _discernendi_ for _dicendi_: §107

_nominis latini_ for _latini sermonis_. At 1 §72 Prat.

has _qui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro_ (Put. _ut

pravis_), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671 _qui quamvis

sui temp_. _Men._ There are frequent inversions, e.g. _dicendi

genere_ §52 (Put.): _Attici sermonis_ (Put.) §65: _plus

Attio_ (Put.) §97: _cuicumque eorum Ciceronem_ (as Put. 7231,

7696) §105: _sit nobis_ §112:

lxiii

_est autem_ (as Ioan.) §115: _forum illustrator_ (as Ioan.)

§122: _creditus sum_ §125: _dignis lectione_ 2 §1:

_possumus sperare_ §9: _nemo vero eum_ §10: _aliquo tamen in

loco aliquid_ §24: _scientia movendi_ §27: _ipso opere_

3 §8: _se res facilius_ §9: _desperatio etiam_ §14:

_vox exaudiri_ §25: _praecipue in hoc_ §26: _possunt

semper_ §2874.

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the

_Codex Puteanus_ is in general agreement with the _Pratensis_,

each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given

by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the

Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it

is even more in agreement than the _Pratensis_ with the later

family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61

_spiritu_: ib. _merito_ omitted: §72 _possunt decernere_

(for _possis decerpere_—_possis decernere_ Prat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the

_Pratensis_, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist

respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions

of the _Institutio_ must have formed part of the mutilated original

from which the _Beccensis_ was copied, and they have been

reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS.

(7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by

M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century,

containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian

form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of

Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian.

In both the title runs Quintilianus, _libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui

auctores Graecorum maxime legendi_. M. Fierville states (Introd.

p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x.

1 §§46-68) in the _Pratensis_, _Puteanus_, 7231, and

7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two

latter, and nine in all four. He adds that the _Vossiani_ i. and

iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231

and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50 _illis Priami

rogantis Achillen_: at §59 the former has _ad exim_, the latter

_ad exi_: at §61 both give _eum nemini credit_, omitting

_merito_ (as Put. and S): at §68 _namque is et sermone_

(as Prat.: _namque sermone_ Put.): ib. _in dicendo ac

respondendo_ (Prat. Put. _in dicendo et in resp._): §72

(apparently) _ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis_: §82 _finxisse

sermonem_ (as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83 _ac varietate_:

§88 _laudandus partibus_ (_laudandis part._ Prat. Put. Harl.

2662, 11671): §91 _visum_ (_visum est_ Prat. Put.): §98

_senes

lxiv

non parum tragicum_ (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107 _Latini

nominis_: §121 _leve_ (Prat. N). In §98 _Thyestes_ is

omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was

written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions

which do not seem to appear in 7696: _dedit exemplum et ortum_

1 §46: _proximus aemulari_ §62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of

MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first

includes the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_ A,

_Ambrosianus_ ii., _Pithoeanus_ (these two are direct

copies of the _Bernensis_), _Salmantinus_, three Paris codices

(7720, 7722 and _Didot_), and probably the _Ioannensis_. In

the second he ranks the _Nostradamensis_, _Vossiani_ i. and

iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the _Beccensis_,

_Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_: in the fourth a _codex

Vaticanus_, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments

just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers the

_Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_, _Nostradamensis_,

_Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_ to be of greatest importance for

the constitution of the text.

At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now

be placed the _Codex Harleianus_ (2664), in the library of the

British Museum75. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C.

Purser in _Hermathena_ (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I

am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain

indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date,

it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There

are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was

used to supply the great _lacunae_ in some MS. of the first or

incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the

annexed facsimile, _a_ being used at the beginning and _b_ (as

here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript

contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At

the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first

part of the _Bambergensis_ is larger than G, which the

_Harleianus_ (H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more

recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been

supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v.,

where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next

page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though

nothing is wanting in the text.

The result of my investigations has been to identify this important

manuscript with the _Codex Dusseldorpianus_, which we know

disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the

preface to

lxv

his edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who

had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod

sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom

from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long

unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone:

‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios

rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the

Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of

Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with

several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James

Zamboni, Resident _Chargé d’Affaires_ in England for the Elector of

Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford;

and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian

manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the

Court library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with

whom Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.

‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written

elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the

provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair

begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much

dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something

of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s

prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when

pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux

livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724,

when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices,

assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they

would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for

the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez,

Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three

weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to

Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great

Vitruvius—the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly

with those in Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is

writing to Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to

make a “très jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add.

D, 66).’

What the history of the _Harleianus_ may have been before it

came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue

is a scrawl on the first page: _Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae_.

This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The

_Codex Florentinus_ has an inscription showing that it was given by

Bishop Werinharius (the

lxvi

first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at

Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there

(circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae

praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus

scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi

videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at

Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged.

And if, as is now generally believed, neither the _Florentinus_ nor

the _Turicensis_ can be considered identical with the manuscript

which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered

it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that

manuscript in the _Harleianus_, if we can conceive of its having

migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.

The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet

Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location

was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in

the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.

Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238

sqq.), Mr. A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some

very interesting information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems

that Zamboni was able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS.

which he was selling to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by

comparing the Zamboni correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the

posthumous catalogue of Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered

that Büchels was offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that

great scholar, which in this way ultimately found a home in the library

of the British Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann

Wilhelm bought both his books and his manuscripts. The former he

presented to the library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he

retained in his own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian

codex of Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not

to Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once

referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he

said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd.

p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his

‘Verisimilia,’ iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from

the preface to Book vi, all of which appear in the _Harleianus_ as

we have it now. And as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the

library of Cologne Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad

Fam. (Harl. 2682), Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the

same time. He evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they

passed, with many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to

London.

It was only after the _Bambergensis_ arrived in the British

Museum (where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in

courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to

form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by the

_Harleianus_ in regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the

experts, that the latter MS. was distinctly of older date than the

former: it is written in a neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds

alone there might have been room for doubt. But a fuller examination

convinced me that the _Harleianus_ was copied directly from the

_Bambergensis_, possibly at the very time when the latter was being

completed by the addition of the parts known as

_Bambergensis_ G, and of some at least of the readings now

generally designated b. These latter, indeed, the

_Harleianus_ slavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in

the original _Bambergensis_: probably the copyist of the

_Harleianus_ was aware of the importance attached to the codex

(uncial?) from which the b readings were taken. In view, however,

of the defective state in which the _Bambergensis_ has come down to

us, as regards the opening part, and considering also the mutilation of

the _Ambrosianus_, we may still claim for the MS. in the British

Museum the distinction of being the oldest complete manuscript of

Quintilian in existence.

The proof that the _Harleianus_ stands at the head of the great

family of the _mixed_ manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till

now mainly by the _Florentinus_, _Turicensis_,

_Almeloveenianus_, and _Guelferbytanus_) is derived from a

consideration of its relationship to both parts of the

_Bambergensis_ on the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the

other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the

critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the

_Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu

München_, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of

the _Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ on the

_Bambergensis_ by pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion

at a wrong place in the

lxvii

text of both these codices of certain words which, having been

inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the _Bambergensis_ from

their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the

foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is

ix. 2, 52: _circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid

ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico_. When the

copyist of the _Bambergensis_ noticed his mistake, he completed

_Drepanitani_ in the text, and wrote in the words _gaudeo etiam

... abs te_ at the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication

of the place where they were to be taken in. In the _Bambergensis_

the page ends with the words (§54) _an huius ille legis quam_, and

the next page continues _C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur_.

Noticing that in both the _Florentinus_ and the _Turicensis_

the marginal addition (_gaudeo etiam ... abs te_) is inserted not

after _legis quam_ but after _Clodius_, Halm drew the

inference that these codices were copied from the _Bambergensis_

not directly, but through some intervening manuscript. The

_Harleianus_ is this manuscript. In it the words referred to do

come in between _legis quam_ and (_Cloe_)_lius_: indeed,

so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in the

_Bambergensis_, in which the letters C l o e are

subpunctuated, that the _Harleianus_ actually shows _et abs te

lius a se inventa_76, exactly as the writer of b wished the

_Bambergensis_ to stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the

_Harleianus_ did not know enough Latin to save him from making very

considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript

must take rank above the _Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_

(and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with

a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It

may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text

stands _utinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata_, &c. In

the _Bambergensis_, _utrum nam_ is supplied by b above

the line, and in the margin _que peiora vincant verum_, the words

affected by the change being

lxviii

subpunctuated in the text. The copyist of the _Harleianus_ takes

the _utrum nam_ and leaves the rest, showing _utrum nam

schemata_: this appears as _utrim nam schemata_ in the

_Turicensis_, and as _utinam schemata_ in the

_Florentinus_ and _Almeloveenianus_. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in

the _Bambergensis_ (G) _quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris.

Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa_, &c. The words

enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.);

they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the _Harleianus_,

and as a consequence we have _supplici_ in _Turic._ and

_Flor._, _supplitia_ in _Guelf._, &c. Again at x. 7,

20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the

_Harleianus_, which caused him to write _Neque vero tantas eum

breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae_,

&c., has given rise to the greatest confusion in _Turic._,

_Flor._, _Alm._, _Bodleianus_, _Burn._ 243, &c.

In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the

remarkable insertion of the words _qui foro_ between _breve

saltem_ and _tempus_: at this point the copyist of H must have

allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg,

where the words _qui foro_ hold a conspicuous position.

_Flor._ and _Tur._ repeat the mistake, except that the latter

gives _eum brevem_ for _eum breve_. Again at the end of Book

ix, _Bambergensis_ G gives _ut numerum spondet flexisse non

arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur_: this reading is

identical with that of the _Harleianus_, except that the latter for

_arcessiti_ gives _arcessisti_, a deviation promptly

reproduced by the _Florentinus_, while the _Turicensis_ shows

_accersisti_. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the

following: at iv. 2, 128 the _Bambergensis_ gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις) ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as

ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh

and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist.

F makes this ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει—Spalding).

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

text image

text image

text image

text image

As the _Bambergensis_ (Bg), in its present state, only commences

at i. 1. 6. (_nec de patribus tantum_), the readings of the

_Harleianus_ (H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of

first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we have _pertinerent_ H,

_pertinent_ T: §2 _diversas_ H, _divisas_ T: §5 _fieri

oratorem non posse_ HF, _fieri non posse oratorem_ T

(as A): §6 _amore_ H, _studio_ F: _iτ ingenii_ H,

_iter ingenii_ T, _ingenii_ F: §13 _officio quoque_ H,

_quoque officio_ F: §19 _summa_ H (also Bg), _summam_ T:

§25 _demonstraturi_ HF, _demonstrari_ T: §27 _adiumenta_

H (a correction by same hand on _adiuvante_): so Bg F:

_adiuvante_ T. In chap. 1 §3 _sed plus_ HT: _sed et

plus_ F: _hoc quippe viderit_ H Bg F: _hoc

quippe_ (om. _viderit_) T.

These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First

Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and

there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the

readings of

lxix

Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in

exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s

ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T

or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 _nihil

est peius_ Bg H T, _nihil enim est peius_ F: ib. §11

_defuerit_ Bg H T, _defuerint_ F: ib. §12 _perbibet_ Bg H

F, _perhibet_ T: ib. §16 _formandam_ Bg H, _formandum_ F

T: 2 §18 _in media rei p. vivendum_ Bg (b) H, _in med.

rei praevivendum_ T, _reip. videndum_ F: ib. §24

_depellendam_ Bg H, _repellendam_ T: ib. §31 _concipiat quis

mente_ Bg H, _quis mente concipiat_ F: 4 §27

_tereuntur_ Bg H T, _intereuntur_ F: 6 §9 _dicet_

Bg, _dicit_ H F, _dicitur_ T: ib. §14 _dici ceris_ Bg

(dici ceris),A _diceres_ H, _dici_ F T: ib. §30 _aliaque

quae consuetudini serviunt_ Bg H,—in margin of H _aliquando

consuetudini servit_ (b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the

alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 _haec ei et cura_ H F,

_haec et cura ei_ T: 11 §4 _pinguitudine_ Bg H,

_pinguedine_ F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the

following: ii. 5, 13 _dicentur_ Bg H, _docentur_ T: 5 §26

_hanc_ Bg H, om. T: 15 §8 _testatum est_ Bg H,

_testatum_ T. In ix. 363 G has _parem_ (for

_marem_ A): H gives _patrem_ and F T follow suit:

cp. ix. 4, 8 _hoc est_ G H, _id est_ F: ib. §16 _quoque_

G H, om. T: ib. §32 _nesciat_ G H, _dubitet_ F:

_dignatur_ G H, _digne dicatur_ F: viii. pr. §3 _dicendi_

G H, _discendi_ T: ix. 4, 119 _ignorabo_ G, _ignoraba_ H,

_ignorabam_ T: ib. §129 _et hac fluit_ G H, _et hac et hac

fluit_ T: xii. 11, 8 _scierit_ G, _scieret_ H,

_sciret_ T: ib. 2 §18 _autem_ Bg H, om. T: x. 1, §4

_numuro quae_ G H, _num muro quae_ T, _numeroque_ F: ib.

§50 _et philogus_ G, _et philochus_ H T, _et epiloghus_

F: ib. §73 _porem_ G H, _priorem_ F T: ib. §75 _vel hoc

est_ G H, _hoc est vel_ T: x. 2, 7 _posteriis_ (for

_historiis_) H, _posteris_ F (_posterius_ ed. Camp.): x.

2, 10 _discernamus_ Bg, _discernantur_ b,

_disnantur_ H T, _desinantur_ F. Noteworthy cases of the

close adherence of T to H are the following: _Empedoclena_ i. 4, 4:

_vespueruginem_ i. 7, 12: _tereuntur_ i. 4, 27: _flex

his_ x. 1, 2: _gravissimus_ x. 1, 97: _ipsae

illae quae extorque eum credas_ x. 1, 110, where both also

give _trans usum_ for _transversum_, and _non repe_ for

non rapi: _morare refinxit finxit recipit_ x. 3, 6: _nam

quod cum isocratis_ x. 4, 4. In other instances the writer

of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the

title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes for

_quo enim dandum_: also _extemporal facilitas_

which appears in T as _extempora vel facilitas_: x. 1, 79

_ven iudicis_ H (in mistake for _se non iud._), which is made

by T into _venit iudicis_. Many similar instances could be cited in

regard to both T and F; the reading _tantum_, for instance, in x.

1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which

here shows something that looks more like _tantum_ than

_tacitum_ (the reading of G). Again, in every

lxx

place where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will

be found to correspond77.

A.

(_dici ceris_) text image showing inserted letters:

text images

With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt

that the _Harleianus_ must now take rank above both the manuscripts

which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a

place in the criticism of Quintilian, the _Codex Florentinus_ and

the _Codex Turicenis_. The former is an eleventh century MS., now

in the Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this

inscription: _Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae_: on the

last _Liber Petri de Medicis, Cos. fil._: and below _Liber

sanctae Mariae ecclesiae Argñ._ (= Argentoratensis) _in

dormitorio_. There were two bishops of Strasburg bearing the name of

Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the second 1065-1079. M. Fierville

(Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first Werner (of Altemburg or

Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral at Strasburg in 1015,

and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable books; and we also

know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at Frankfort to promote

the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here then we have the

elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner was a patron of

letters; and learning that by the addition of what is now known as

_Bambergensis_ G a complete text of Quintilian had been

secured, he had it copied. The _Codex Harleianus_ was in all

probability the first copy, and from it the _Codex Florentinus_ was

reproduced. The latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which

(though hitherto it seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose

of its claim to be considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he

describes as ‘plenum situ’ and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo

quodam et obscuro carcere, fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales

quidem rei damnati retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from

Strasburg to St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is

hard to believe that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and

unknown. After 1372 we know nothing certain of its history till it

reappears in the library of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part

of the fifteenth century. It is generally supposed that some time

between 1372 and 1417 it must have been transported from Strasburg to

the monastery of St. Gall, and that it passed from there to

Florence after Poggio’s departure. A similar theory may quite as

legitimately be maintained in reference to the _Harleianus_, which,

as I have

lxxi

already indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at

St. Gall in 141678.

The _Codex Turicensis_ was long considered to be of older date

than the _Florentinus_, but recent investigations seem to have

proved the contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the

eleventh century, and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the

beginning of the eighteenth century it passed into the library at

Zürich. Spalding believed it to be the manuscript discovered by Poggio,

and M. Fierville is of the same opinion: Halm rejects this theory.

The great point in favour of the claim of the _Turicensis_ is that

it is known to have come from St. Gall, while we can only

conjecture the history of the _Harleianus_. But the

_Turicensis_ cannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with him

into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and

others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what

Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he

has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including

the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of

Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree

of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition,

Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of

the librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was

the _Harleianus_ there is perhaps little need to wonder that

nothing has been known till now of its later fortunes79.

The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also the

_Almeloveenianus_) to the codices which have just been described,

may be determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among

such MSS. is the _Codex Bodleianus_, which has received more

attention from editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to

warrant. It repeats word for word the remarkable error attributable to

the _Harleianus_ at x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in

other places it embodies attempted emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90

_nec ipsum senectus maturavit_: 2 §7 _de metris_ for

lxxii

_dimiteris_ (see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to Archbishop

Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.

Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm,

the _Lassbergensis_ and the _Monacensis_. The former was

formerly at Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The reading

_atque interrogationibus atque interrogantibus_, which Halm gives

from it alone at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G

and H; this seems quite enough to identify its parentage. The

_Monacensis_ was collated by Halm for his critical edition in the

parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone: with no conspicuous

results,—‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut docere possemus,

ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter corrupti sunt,

emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).

Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the

British Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of

this edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its

class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the

copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of

the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove

that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it has

_posterius_ for _historiis_ (a mistake in H—see

p. lxix): and in the same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex)

_de metris_ for _dimiteris_. This is also the reading of the

second hand in the _Turicensis_. Such differences as exist between

it and H F T may be ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g.

_vertere latus_ x. 3, 21. Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at

the end of the volume.

The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to

him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and

fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them

among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they

incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of

scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript.

A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the

point of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived,

through Poggio’s manuscript, from the _Bambergensis_, and how far

from such complete manuscripts as the _Ambrosianus_ and the

original of _Bambergensis_ G? Some of them (as well as other

fifteenth century MSS., with a description of which I desire to

supplement M. Fierville’s Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of

at least as great importance as those referred to above as having been

collated in part by Halm.

The _Argentoratensis_ (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned

first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 169880. This

manuscript was

lxxiii

destroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there

are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (_Codex Guelferbytanus_), collated for

the first time by Spalding: the _Codex Gothanus_, used by Gesner

for his edition of 1738: the _Codex Vallensis_ (Parisinus 7723),

which purports to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla

(9 December, 1444), whose corrections and marginal notes it

contains81. The list of these and several others, all carefully

described by M. Fierville, may now be extended by a short reference

to various MSS. in this country, hitherto uncollated. The results of my

examination of them (as well as of the _Bodleianus_, and

_Burneianus_ 243, referred to above) appear in the Critical

Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may at least

be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and Meister

have successively credited the early printed editions,—e.g. the

Cologne edition of 1527,—have now been attributed to earlier

sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS.

of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some

importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a

description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.

In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of

Quintilian’s _Institutio_: of the most important of these, the

_Harleianus_ (H), I have already given an account, and one of

two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of

the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete

agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in

the notes) of relationship to such codices as the _Argentoratensis_

and the _Guelferbytanus_. The first of these two MSS. (_Codex

Harleianus_ 2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by

Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of

January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great

discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with

the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes

little to that family. The same may be said of the _Codex

Harleianus_ 11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the

Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891,

p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to

connect both these MSS. with the _Guelferbytanus_: x. 3, 12

_a patrono suo_ for _a patruo suo_: 1 §97 _verum_

for _veterum_: 1 §55 _equalem credidit parem_ (as also

Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i.

lxxiv

and iii.): 1 §72 _quamvis sui temporis Menandro_ for _ut

pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro_: 7 §6 _adducet

ducetur_. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum is

_Harleianus_ 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of

Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and

might be classed along with the _Vallensis_ were it not that a

marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most

codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘_hic deficit antiquus codex_,’ makes it

probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side82. This MS.

agrees with the _Vallensis_ and _Gothanus_ in reading

_cognitioni_ for _cogitationi_ x. 1, 1:

_ubertate_ for _ubertas_ 1 §109: _et vis summa_

§117: _eruendas_ for _erudiendas_ 2 §6: _nobis

efficiendum_ ib. §14: _decretoriis_ 5 §20. The other two

Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest:

I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake

of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it

is often in agreement with the _Lassbergensis_. The latter finishes

with the words ἡ

βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένου and the motto ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of the _Burneianus_

244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in

general agreement with L, and also with the _Codex

Carcassonensis_, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville

published a collation in 1874.

A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one

of which (the _Codex Balliolensis_) is unclassed by Fierville,

while the other (the _D’Orville_ MS.) has never been examined at

all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at

_bis vitiosa sunt_ i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which

do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in

fact in a mutilated condition.

lxxv

In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter

till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words _quam

quod somno supererit_: it stops abruptly at _nostrorumque

Hort(ensium)_ x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with

Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has

_interrogatione_, a reading which Halm says appears for the first

time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it has _e rep_ with

A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g.

_forte_ at i. 5, 15, all other codices _forsan_ or

_forsitan_).

There remains the _D’Orville_ MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford

(_Codex Dorvilianus_),—a manuscript which has been entirely

overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition

of the _Institutio_ (1809). Yet it seems well deserving of

attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to the

_Ambrosianus_ (e.g. _Getae_ 1 pr. §6: _et quantum_

ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has _summam inde eloquentiae_

(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): _destinabamus al.

festinabimus_ ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar

to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is

7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and

which I have received into the text: _neque vero tanta esse unquam

debet fiducia facilitatis_: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has

_quos eligamus ad imitandum_, a reading peculiar to itself. For the

rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian

work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr.

Madan thinks, than the _Codex Bodleianus_. A marginal note at

ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before

him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival

readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have _quaestio ex his incidat_

except A, which gives _ex his incidat quaestio_: the reading

in the _Dorvilianus_ is _quaestio incidat ex his_: again at i.

2, 6 _ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus_, many codices give

_mores_ for _os_: Dorv. shows _quam vel mores vel

os_.

List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.

Besides the complete editions of Spalding, Zumpt,

Bonnell, Halm (1868-9) Meister (1886-87), use has been made of the following

editions of Book x.:—

M. Stephanus Riccius.

Venice, 1570.

C. H. Frotscher.

Leipzig, 1826.

M. C. G. Herzog.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.

G. A. Herbst.

Halle, 1834.

John E. B. Mayor

(incomplete).

Cambridge, 1872.

Bonnell-Meister.

Berlin, 1882.

G. T. A. Krüger.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.

„ „(Gustav Krüger) 3rd ed. „1888.

Fr. Zambaldi.

Firenze, 1883.

S. Dosson.

Paris, 1884.

D. Bassi.

Torino, 1884.

lxxvi

J. A. Hild.

Paris, 1885.

F. Meister (text only).

Leipzig and Prague, 1887.

Frieze (Books x. and xii.)

New York, 1889.

Among the Translations, reference has been made to Lindner’s (_Philologische Klassiker_, Wien,

1881), Alberti’s (Leipzig, 1858), and

Herzog’s (Leipzig, 1829); also to Guthrie’s (London, 1805), and Watson’s (in Bohn’s

series).

The following have been used as books of reference:—

Wilkins: Cicero, _De

Oratore_, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.)

Oxford, 1888 and 1890.

Sandys: Cicero,

_Orator_.

Cambridge, 1889.

Kellogg: Cicero,

_Brutus_.

Boston, 1889.

Wolff: Tacitus, _Dialogus de

Oratoribus_.

Gotha, 1890.

Andresen: „ „

Leipzig, 1879.

Reiske: Dionysius

Halicarnassensis.

Vols. v-vi.

Leipzig, 1775-7.

Usener: Dionysius

Halicarnassensis _Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque

Criticae Duae_.

Bonn, 1889.

Ammon:

_De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus:

Dissertatio Inauguralis_.

Munich, 1889.

Volkmann:

_Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer_.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1885.

Causeret:

_Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire

dans Cicéron_.

Paris, 1886.

and Fierville:

_Quintilian_, Book i.

Paris, 1890.

The references to Nägelsbach’s _Lateinische Stylistik_ are to the

eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).

The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of

Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent

years. The following articles and tractates have been

consulted:—

Claussen:

_Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.

Leipzig, 1883.

Nettleship:

_Journal of Philology_, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225

sqq.

Becher

_Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.

„

_Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit.

Or._

(_Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu

Ilfeld_).

Nordhausen, 1879.

„

_Philologus XLV_.

„

_Philologische Rundschau_, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.

„

_Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich_.

Ostern, 1891.

Kiderlin

_Blätter für das bayer_. _Gymn.-Wesen_, 1887, p. 454;

1188, pp. 83-91.

„

_Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik_, vol. 135,

pp. 829-832.

„

_Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen_, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.

„

_Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1888, p. 829 sqq.

„

_Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin_, xiv. (1888),

p. 62 sqq.

„

_Hermes_, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.

„

_Rheinisches Museum_, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.

Hirt

_Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin_, viii. (1882),

p. 67 sqq.

„

„ „ „ ix. (1883),

p. 312 sqq.

„

„ „ „ xiv. (1888),

p. 51 sqq.

„

_Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei

Quintilian_.

Berlin, 1890.

Meister

_Philologus_, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876),

p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.:

xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.

lxxvii

Schöll:

_Rheinisches Museum_, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv.

(1880), p. 639.

Wölfflin

_Rheinisches Museum_, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310

sqq.

„

_Hermes_, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.

Andresen

_Rheinisches Museum_, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.

Eussner

_Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen_, 1881, p. 391 sqq.

Fleckeisen’s

_Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1885, p. 615 sqq. _Literar.

Centralblatt_, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.

Gertz

‘_Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa_’ (1876),

p. 92 sqq.

H. J. Müller:

_Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen_, xxxi. 12, p. 733

sqq.

Iwan Müller:

_Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii.

(1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.

Wrobel

_Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien_, xxvii. (1876),

p. 353 sqq.

Törnebladh:

_De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum

Quaestiones_.

Holmiae, 1861.

Reuter:

_De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae

eloquentiae_.

Vratislaviae, 1887.

Günther:

_De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu_.

Halis Saxonum, 1881.

Morawski:

_Quaestiones Quintilianeae_.

Posnaniae, 1874.

Marty:

_De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis

potissimum comparatis_.

Glaronae, 1885.

Peters, Dr. Heinrich:

_Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians

Institutio Oratoria_.

Cassel, 1889.

Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of

Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).

Halm. Meister. This Edition.

Chap. I.

§ 1

cogitationi

cognitioni

cognitioni.

§ 2

quae quoque sint modo

quo quaeque sint modo

quae quoque sint modo.

„

nisi tamquam

nisi tamquam

nisi tamen.

§ 3

ante omnia est

ante omnia necesse est

ante omnia est.

„

imitatio est

imitatio est

imitati.

§ 4

procedente opere iam minima

procedente iam opere etiam minima

procedente iam opere minima.

§ 5

Num ergo

Non ergo

Non ergo.

§ 7

[et] ... scio solitos

et ... solitos scio

et ... solitos scio.

„

aliud quod

aliud quo

aliud quo.

§ 8

consequimur

consequemur

consequemur.

§ 11

τροπικῶς [quare

tamen]

τροπικῶς quasi

tamen

as Meister.

§ 16

imagine [ambitu]

[imagine] ambitu

imagine et ambitu.

§ 17

commodata

accommodata

accommodata.

§ 18

placent ... laudantur ... placent

placeant ... laudentur ... placent

as Halm.

§ 19

contrarium

e contrario

e contrario.

„

ut actionis impetus

as Halm

actionis impetu.

„

retractemus

retractemus

tractemus.

§ 23

quin etiam si

[quin] etiam si

as Halm.

lxxviii

§ 28 genus * * ostentationi poeticam ostentationi as Meister.

§ 31

etenim ... solutum est

est enim ... solutum

as Meister.

§ 33

ideoque

adde quod

adde quod.

§ 35

acriter et

acriter _Stoici_ et

as Meister.

§ 37

qui sint _legendi_, quaeque

qui sint _legendi_, et quae

qui sint _legendi_, quae.

§ 38

quibuscum vivebat

as Halm

[quibuscum vivebat].

„

Graecos omnis [et philosophos]

Graecos omnes _persequamur_ [et philosophos]

as Meister.

§ 42

ad phrasin

ad faciendam etiam phrasin

ad faciendam φράσιν.

„

de singulis

de singulis loquar

de singulis loquar.

§ 44

tenuia et quae

tenuia et quae

tenuia atque quae.

„

summatim, a qua

summatim, quid et a qua

as Meister.

„

paucos enim (sunt autem em.)

paucos (sunt enim em.)

paucos enim, qui sunt em.

§ 45

his simillimi

his similes

his simillimi.

§ 46

_omnium_ amnium fontiumque

amnium fontiumque

omnium _fluminum_ fontiumque.

§ 48

non _in_ utriusque

non utriusque

non utriusque.

„

creditur

creditum est

creditum est.

§ 53

aliud _parem_

aliud secundum

aliud secundum.

§ 54

Aristophanes neminem

Arist. poetarum iudices neminem

as Meister.

§ 59

dum adsequamur

dum adsequamur

dum adsequimur.

§ 61

spiritus magnificentia

spiritus magnificentia

spiritu magnificentia.

§ 63

magnificus et dicendi vi

magnificus et diligens

magnificus et diligens.

§ 68

quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt

quod ipsum reprehendunt

as Meister.

§ 69

praecipuus est. Admiratus

praecipuus. eum admiratus

praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.

§ 70

illa mala iudicia

as Halm

illa iudicia.

§ 72

pravis

pravis

prave.

§ 79

honesti studiosus, in compositione

honesti studiosus in compositione

as Halm.

§ 80

is primus

is primum

is primum.

§ 81

orationem quam

orationem quam

orationem et quam.

„

sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus

sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus

sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.

§ 83

eloquendi vi ac suavitate

eloquendi suavitate

eloquendi suavitate.

§ 85

haud dubie ei proximus

as Halm

haud dubie proximus.

§ 87

phrasin

phrasin

φράσιν.

§ 88

propiores

propriores (?)

propiores.

§ 89

tamen [ut est dictum]

tamen ut est dictum

as Meister.

§ 90

sed ut dicam

et ut dicam

et ut dicam.

§ 91

promptius

propius

propius.

§ 92

feres

feras

feres.

§ 93

elegia

elegia

elegea.

§ 94

nisi labor

non labor

non labor.

„

multum eo est tersior

as Halm

multum est tersior.

lxxix

§ 96

opus * * quibusdam interpositus

opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus

as Meister.

§ 97

grandissimi

clarissimi

clarissimi.

§ 100

linguae

linguae

linguae _suae_.

§ 101

commodavit

commodavit

commendavit.

„

T. Livium

T. Livium

Titum Livium.

§ 102

ideoque illam immortalem

ideoque immortalem

ideoque immortalem.

„

clari vir ingenii

clari vir ingenii

clarus vi ingenii.

§ 103

praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis

ipse viribus minor

praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis

ipse viribus minor

praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam

suis ipse viribus minor.

§ 104

et ornat

et ornat

et exornat.

§ 106

omnia denique

omnia denique

[omnia] denique.

„

illic—hic

illi—huic

illi—huic.

§ 107

vicimus

vincimus

vincimus.

„

in quibus nihil

quibus nibil

quibus nihil.

§ 111

nihil umquam pulchrius

nihil pulchrius

nihil pulchrius.

§ 115

si quid adiecturus fuit

as Halm

si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.

§ 117

et fervor, sed

et sermo purus, sed

et fervor, sed.

§ 123

scripserunt

scripserunt

scripserint.

§ 126

ab eo

ab eo

ab illo.

§ 127

ac saltem

aut saltem

ac saltem.

§ 130

si ille quaedam contempsisset

si aliqua contempsisset

si obliqua contempsisset.

„

si parum * *

si parum _sana_

si parum _recta_.

§ 131

potest utcumque

potest utrimque

potest utrimque.

Ch. II.

§ 6

tradiderint

tradiderint

tradiderunt.

§ 8

nulla est ars

nulla mansit ars

nulla _man_sit ars.

§ 13

[et] cum

cum et

cum et.

„

accommodata est

accommodata sit

accommodata sit.

§ 15

et a doctis inter ipsos etiam

as Halm.

et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.

„

ut ita dixerim

ut ita dixerim

ut sic dixerim.

§ 17

Attici scilicet

Atticis scilicet

Attici sunt scilicet.

„

obscuri

obscuri sunt

obscuri.

§ 22

cuique proposita

as Halm

cuique proposito.

§ 28

deerant

deerunt

deerunt.

„

oportebat

oporteat

oporteat.

Ch. III.

§ 2

alte effossa

alte refossa

alte refossa.

„

et fundit

et fundit

effundit

§ 10

[ut provideamus] et efferentis.

ut provideamus et eff.

ut provideamus, effer.

§ 15

plura celerius

plura celerius

plura et celerius.

§ 20

in legendo

in intellegendo

in intellegendo.

§ 21

femur et latus

as Halm.

frontem et latus.

lxxx

§ 22

secretum quod dictando

as Halm

secretum in dictando.

§ 25

velut * rectos

velut tectos

velut tectos.

§ 32

adiciendo

adicienti

adiciendo.

Ch. IV.

§ 3

finem habeat

finem habet

finem habet.

Ch. V.

§ 4

praesumunt eandem

praes. eandem

praes. eadem.

§ 17

inanibus _se_ simulacris ... adsuefacere

inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere

as Meister.

§ 18

etiam M. Porcio

etiam Porcio

etiam M. Porcio.

§ 21

autem is idoneus

autem idoneus.

autem idoneus.

Ch. VI.

§ 2

inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur

inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur

as Meister.

§ 5

regredi

regredi

redire.

§ 7

retrorsus

retrorsum

retrorsus.

„

si utcumque

si utrimque

si utrimque.

Ch. VII.

§ 1

instar portus

intrare portum

intrare portum.

§ 2

statimque, si non succurratur

statimque, si non succurratur

statimque si non succuratur.

§ 5

quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps

as Halm

quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.

§ 6

via dicet, ducetur

via ducetur, dicet

via dicet, ducetur.

§ 9

observatione simul

observatione una

observatione una.

§ 13

superfluere video: quodsi

videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si

superfluere video, cum eo quod si.

§ 14

ut Cicero dictitabant

ut Cicero ait, dictitabant

ut Cicero dictitabant.

§ 17

adeo praemium

adeo pretium

adeo pretium.

§ 20

tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut

tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut

tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.

„

non capitur

non capitur

non labitur.

§ 24

quam omnino non

quam non omnino

quam non omnino.

§ 26

est et illa

est et illa

est alia.

§ 26

quam illa

quam in illa

quam illa.

§ 29

nescio an utrumque

nescio an si utrumque

as Meister.

„

id efficere

id efficere

sic dicere.

„

in his

in his

et in his.

§ 32

quod simus

quod non simus

quod non simus.

FOOTNOTES

1.

(Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores auctoritatem

habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.

2.

C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Leipzig 1860,

p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.

3.

There is however some doubt about the name, most editors reading

L. Galba.

4.

So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the following

authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of Asia: Joseph,

xiv. 10. 17 Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς

πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς

πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι—the words of

L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp. id.

xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11, 24. The

privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see inter alia

Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10 _sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem

arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili

duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure

publico non vetentur_.

5.

Gaius ii §274 _mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris census est,

per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen fideicommisso

relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest_.

6.

Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited from contemporary

literature describing both types. For the first cp. Martial viii. 16

_Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas agis_, and

_passim_: Petronius, Sat. 46 _destinavi illum artificii docere,

aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum_ ... Philero was

lately a street porter: _nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se extendit;

litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur_: Juv. vii. 106

sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class the best

representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and legacy-hunter, on whose

account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s famous utterance, _vir malus

dicendi imperitus_ Plin. iv. 7, 5 and ii. 20.

7.

Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with Quint, i. 2, 8

and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with Quint, ii. 2, 4:

_Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram Spirantesque crocos

et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem sancti valuere parentis Esse

loco!_ and _Sumat ante omnia parentis erga discipulos suos

animum_ (sc. _praeceptor_) _ac succedere se in eorum locum a

quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet_.

8.

i. pr. §1 _post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae per viginti annos

erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam_. The chronology is rather uncertain.

It is supposed that Quintilian began his _Institutio_ in 92 or 93

and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period of twenty years is to be

interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that he is referring to his

official career, as it may have been in 72 that Vespasian took the step

referred to above, p. viii. Or we may understand him to be dating

the period of his educational activity as extending from A.D. 70 to A.D. 90, though he

did not begin to write the _Institutio_ till 92. The latter is the

more probable alternative.

9.

See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae:

Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae 1887.

10.

The _Declamationes_ may also be mentioned here, as having long been

credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer and 145 shorter

pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of rhetorical exercise, and

with success,—at least in the earlier part of his career,—is

clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but it seems probable, from the

nature of the contents of the existing collection, if not from the

style, that tradition has erred in attributing to the master what must

have been, in the main, the work of pupils and imitators. The popular

habit of tacking on to a great name whatever seems not unworthy of it,

may account for the fact that these rhetorical efforts are credited to

Quintilian as early as the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15)

_Seu libeat fictas ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam

Quintilianus habet_. St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks

of his _concinnas declamationes_: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which

has disappeared from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a

historian of the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of

Gaulish origin, adds: _fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus

ut eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae_ (Trig. tyr.

4, 2): cp. ib. _Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis

acutissimum vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat_

(Hild, Introd. p. xxi. note).

11.

See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt, Gryphiswaldiae 1883,

_De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur

Declamationibus_.

12.

iv. pr. 2 _Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae nepotum

delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum caelestium intellegam,

nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar_.

13.

If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he wrote the

Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his domestic losses

he says that he will live henceforth not to himself but to the youth of

Rome), he would almost certainly have made some reference to them.

14.

In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar extravagances have

not been unknown in our own literature. His translator, Guthrie—an

Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm for his author—cries

out in a note on this passage: “I will engage to point out from the

works of some of the greatest and most learned men, as well as of the

best poets, of England, compliments to the abilities not only of

princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay, private gentlemen, who in this

respect deserved them as little as Domitian did.”

15.

The expression used in vi. pr. §4, _meo casu cui tamen nihil obici

nisi quod vivam potest_, shows that Quintilian was quite conscious of

his comfortable circumstances.—Halm (followed by Meister) reads

_quam_ quod vivam: but I find _nisi_ in both the Bamberg (G)

and the Harleian codices.

16.

Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second marriage (sometime

between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two children. This theory,

which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel, and most authorities, was

invented to account for the existence of a grown-up daughter, to whom,

on the occasion of her marriage (about the year 105), Pliny gives a

present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi. 32. But this young lady must have

been the daughter of another Quintilianus altogether. What we know of

our Quintilian’s affluent circumstances is inconsistent with such

liberality on Pliny’s part: the gift is offered as to a man who is

comparatively poor. Moreover, the letter intimating the gift contains no

such reference to the services of a former teacher as might have been

expected on so interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost

inconceivable that Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to

Book vi. (about 93 A.D.) the

bereavements that left him desolate (_superstes omnium meorum_),

should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of marriageable

age.

17.

_Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam biennium tot

alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non tam stilo quam

inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui

sunt innumerabiles, datum est._

18.

Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x.

1, 35 and

123, may have been written

before the event mentioned above (the date of which is fixed by Suet.

Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and may have been allowed to stand.

19.

_Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius tristis, non

dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus oriatur. Plurimus

ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius monuerit, hoc rarius

castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum quae emendanda erunt

dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, adsiduus potius quam

immodicus_ ii. 2, 5.

20.

See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good

account of Quintilian’s system.

21.

xii. 1, 3 and 4 _ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum bonum: ... ne

studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi omnibus vitiis libera

potest_.

22.

Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4: _ac nescio an

eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam secretus et

consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam in tuto

collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari magis solet,

venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit videbit_.

23.

Dr. Reid in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

24.

i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.

25.

i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.

26.

_Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa

vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et

neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris

antiqui?_—ch. 28.

27.

M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris,

Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.

28.

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

29.

Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at Leipzig the

professor of eloquence was designated _Quintiliani professor_.

Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him to almost every

other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of his works,

especially Books i and x of the _Institutio_.

30.

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

31.

To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of Quintilian, and said it

was strange that in the decadence of Roman literature, as it was called,

we had three such authors as Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s

‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii. p. 178.

32.

Dr. Reid in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

33.

See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae

Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.

34.

Ep. xvi. 5, 6 _de compositione non constat_: Ep. xix. 5, 13

_oratio certam regulam non habet_.

35.

i Prooem. §10 sqq., especially _neque enim hoc concesserim rationem

rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt, ad philosophos

relegandam_. Cp. x.

1, 35: and xii. 2, 9

_Utinam ... orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona

eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet._ M. Rocheblave sees in

these and other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives

of philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as

powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open

denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of

Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the

philosophers from Rome in A.D. 94. It

is certainly noticeable that the tone of his references to them becomes

more bitter in the later books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12.

The Prooemium to Book i. may have been written last of all: and

apart from it there is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x.

1, 35 and

123) so acrimonious as the

extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.

36.

See ii. 5, 10-12 _Ne id quidem inutile, etiam corruptas aliquando et

vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique iudiciorum pravitate mirantar,

legi palam ostendique in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida,

humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a

plerisque sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava

laudantur._ With this last cp. x.

1, 127 (of Seneca)

_placebat propter sola vitia_. So i. 8, 9 _quando nos in omnia

deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus_: ii. 5, 22

(_cavendum est_) _ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti

voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus et puerilibus

ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament_: with which compare x.

1, 129 _corrupta

pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis_:

§130 _consensu potius

eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur_. Rocheblave cites also

viii. 5, 27, 28, 30.

37.

It is doubtful if the allusion in

§126 (_potioribus

praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere_, &c.)

is exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references

to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43) cites

Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the choice of

words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy: xviii. 4, 10 where

he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and xvi. 5, 7.

38.

Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46 _De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut olim de Catone

defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici videtur posse, quae

deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem tempori esse attribuenda;

quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse propria, et in primis oculos

capere_: p. 36 _Eloquentiam non verbis, sed rebus valere, nec

per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit, esse excolendam Annaeus

semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra delectu verborum praecipue

constare, et per se amandam et requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum

adhibita ratione, docebant rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus_:

p. 38 _Ergo quum in eloquentia duo sint praesertim consideranda,

scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro

verbis, utrumque asperrime, egisse_.

39.

See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is quoted by Diderot

in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of Seneca being the ‘corruptor

eloquentiae’ the truth is that ‘il ne corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il

s’accommoda au goût de ses contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur

plaire et de s’en faire admirer; et _l’envie lui fit un crime de ce

qui passerait pour vrai talent dans un homme moins célèbre_.’

40.

Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.

41.

Fronto, De Oration. p. 157 _At enim quaedam in libris eius scite

dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum argentiolae

cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas redimemus?_ For

Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.

42.

“In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his

readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s

criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In

§27 he mentions Theophrastus

by name; in

§52, speaking of Hesiod, he

says _datur ei palma_, &c.; in

§53 the second place is

given to Antimachus by the consent of the _grammatici_; Panyasis is

thought (_putant_) _in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes_,

Callimachus (58) _princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione

plurimorum Philetas occupavit_. In 59 only three _iambographi_

are mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The

_novem lyrici_ were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any

case they are the _Pindarus novemque lyrici_ (for this need not be

taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof.

Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.

43.

_Quod tempus_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam biennium_) _non tam

stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et_ legendis

auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles _datum est_: Epist. ad

Tryphonem.

44.

Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873, p. 343 note:

_sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia quae contuli

opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos memoria tenuit,

adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret_. This (though

somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii) is a milder

verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after speaking of

Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (_vir bonus dicendi

peritus_, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know whether he would

have thought it a necessary virtue in a _bonus grammaticus_ to read

and conscientiously study the Greek authors on whom he passes formal

critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain that, whether Quintilian

had or had not read them, he contents himself in many cases with merely

repeating the traditional criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of

the principal Greek authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii.

p. 257.)

45.

See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’

in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.

46.

Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek rhetoricians; ix.

3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus Dionysius’). Cp. the

parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of Isocrates, x.

4, 4: and for other

instances see Claussen, op. cit. pp. 339-340.

47.

The extant remains of this treatise have recently been edited by Usener

(Bonn. 1889), with a valuable _Epilogus_. The scope of the work is

indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad Pompeium iii.

p. 776 R, Usener p. 50: τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς

μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ

ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος

περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.

48.

The standpoint from which both critics regarded this class of poetry was

probably much the same as that which Dio Chrysostom applies to lyric

poetry generally: μέλη δὲ καὶ

ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ

ἄξια (cp. tunc et elegiam vacabit, &c.,

§58) τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς

πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ

σχολή (Or. xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)

49.

How diverse the tradition of the various authorities came to be in

regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s note p. 137.

50.

Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 _Aristophanis propria fuit

Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli_ p. 1085

(C.I.Gr. 6083): _cuius iudicii Kaibelius_ p. 490 _in

Quintiliano_ x.

1, 69 _vestigia recte

observavit_.

51.

See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii. _quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut

Thucydide gravius_, fr. xviii. _aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo

acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?_ It has been supposed that

between these two fragments the words _aut Xenophonte iucundius_

may have fallen out: cp. Quint, x.

1, 82.

52.

See especially fr. xi. _qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem

tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt_: and cp. note on

1 §57.

53.

Cp. the note on _qui parcissime_ x.

4, 4.

54.

De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.

55.

_A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium

sumpserat, fuitque ante κριτική quam γραμματική_—Usener, p. 132.

56.

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

57.

Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by Cicero, Usener

reckons his judgments on the Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides,

Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus)

in the second book of the _de Oratore_ (§§55-58), a work which was

written ten years before the _Hortensius_: on Herodotus and

Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4, _ad

Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo, in quibus te video volutatum.

Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum negotium, quem ad modum aliquot

Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis,

paene pusillus Thucydides_.

58.

_Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice

Coisliniano_ n. 387 _olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit

bibl. Coislin_. p. 597, _ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni

recentiore Cramerus anecd._ Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener,

p. 129.

59.

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

60.

Havell’s translation, p. 27.

61.

See the note on x.

1, 85, with the

quotation from Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of

Philology. In the _Rheinisches Museum_ (xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.)

Mercklin pushed the parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to

find a correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer

mentioned by Quintilian.

62.

“His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is hardly a sentence

which might not be quoted; but to read him straight forward is like

dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”—Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life,

i. p. 448.

63.

_Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque

exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit_: viii. 2. 21.

64.

Tac. Dial. 20 _Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire sed etiam referre

domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt, traduntque invicem ac

saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt, sive sensus aliquis

arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus exquisito et poetico

cultu enituit_.

65.

ii. 5, 10 _ostendi in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida,

humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae non laudantur modo a

plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava

laudantur_.

66.

He resembles other writers of the decadence in the frequent use of rare

or poetical words, in neglecting the nice distinctions formerly made

between synonyms, in the numbers of adjectives used

substantively, &c.

67.

In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must not be forgotten

that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent pamphlet, ‘Ueber die

Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr.

Paul Hirt quotes an interesting remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt,

‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i. p. 467 note), which has lately

received some corroboration: _sapit hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est

barbariem plane quandam_. Filelfo did not like Quintilian: _nullam

habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem, nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo

Quintilianus, neque satis docet, nec delectat._ But this was only

Filelfo’s opinion, for which he would not have been able to furnish such

scientific grounds as that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1

p. 356) supplied by Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the

adjective _pandus_. This word was in use in the days of Ennius, and

occurs often afterwards in poetry, but not in prose. In Spain, however,

it lingered, and is used by Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and

especially by Quintilian. After these writers it disappears again till

the fourth century.—Cp. i. 5, 57 _gurdos, quos pro stolidis

accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi_, which has been

quoted (by Abbé Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely

enough in disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.

68.

For this section I am especially indebted to a _Dissertatio_ by

Adamus Marty: _De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis

potissimum comparatis_. Also the _Prolegomena_ in Bonnell’s

Lexicon: and Dosson’s _Remarques sur la Langue de Quintilien_.

69.

Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to

the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has

been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in

_-tor_ and 44 (46) in _-trix_. Of these 73 in _-tor_ and

4 in _-trix_ are also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28

in _-tor_ and 8 in _-trix_ which do not occur in Cicero. These

are—_adfectator_, _admirator_, _adsertor_,

_agnitor_, _altercator_, _auxiliator_,

_constitutor_, _consultor_, _contemptor_,

_cunctator_, _delator_, _derisor_, _exactor_,

_formator_, _iactator_, _insectator_, _latrator_,

_legum lator_, _luctator_, _plosor_, _professor(?)_,

_raptor_, _repertor_, _rixator_, _signator_,

_stuprator_, _ventilator_, _versificator_,

_cavillatrix_, _disputatrix_, _elocutrix_,

_enuntiatrix_, _exercitatrix_, _hortatrix_,

_iudicatrix_, (_litteratrix_), _sermocinatrix_.

70.

This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a Programm by Dr.

Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’

(Berlin, 1890), a monument of German thoroughness. See also Becher’s

Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen, 1879), pp. 6 sqq.

71.

Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says

that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5

_Gallum Cornelium_), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5,

83 _Scaevola Quintus_: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 _Libo Marcius_). It

is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius

Paterculus.

72.

See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der Beredsamkeit aus der

Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten Bildlichen Wendungen in der

rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero, Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau,

1886).

73.

Halm’s account of this is more accurate than Meister’s. The former

(Praef. p. viii) says _magnae autem lacunae Bernensis pergamenis

insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt_. The _alius codex_ which

the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant: it no doubt belonged to

the same family as the _Ambrosianus_, and

_Bambergensis_ G is consequently of first-class importance,

especially where the _Ambrosianus_ fails us. It is incorrect to say

(with Meister, Praef. p. vi) _lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice

insertis expletae sunt_. The writer of G did not mutilate another

codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on the

blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.

74.

The _Pratensis_ is the oldest authority for the reading _tam

laesae hercule_ at i. 2, 4: the _Puteanus_ and _Ioannensis_

agree. Again all three omit the words _de litteris_ at i. 4, 6, and

show _praecoquum_ for _praecox_ at i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and

7760), and _haec igitur ex verbis_ at i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).

75.

An account of this important codex has already been given in an article

on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.

76.

The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand by the

_Bambergensis_ is a phenomenon which may, I think, be

explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known as

b are taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and

probably abounded in contractions: _lius_ may have seemed to the

copyist the nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he

subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in the _Bambergensis_ is a very

intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar mistake

on the part of the writer of b occurs at x.

2, 7, where the

Bambergensis now shows _id consequi q̣ụọd imiteris_, the writer of

b having subpunctuated _quo_ because he did not understand the

contraction for _quod_ which he had in the text before him. The

copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the remarkable

reading _id consequi dimiteris_, which in the Bodleianus and other

MSS. becomes _de metris_ (see Crit. Note ad loc.). In fact, it

seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in the text of

Quintilian is due to the fact that b very often did not

understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as followed

his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp. _totas at cures_

(for _vires_ b) _suas_ in the second last line of

the Facsimile (x.

1, 109.)

77.

The only places in the Tenth Book which form any obstacle to the theory

that H was copied directly from the Bambergensis are the following: x.

3, 33, where the

remarkable gloss _vindemoni_ occurs (repeated in F but not

in T): see Crit. Notes ad loc. for an attempted explanation: x.

2, 1 _ex his

summa_ H, a mistake evidently recognised by the copyist

himself: and x.

1, 27 _blandita

tum_ H (so L C), _libertate_ G.

78.

The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s manuscript was

definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in the _Rheinisches

Museum_, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid refers to a

Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would probably settle the

question, if it is what it professes to be, a transcript of Poggio’s

manuscript. It bears the following inscription: _Scripsit Poggius

Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante.

Reperimus vero eum in bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures

litterarum studiosi perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo

plurimum utilitalis eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea

Quintilianum neque integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis

haberemus. Hec verba ex originali Poggii sumpta._

79.

For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the Florentinus see

Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu

München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville, Introduction,

p. xcii. sqq.

80.

Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following

passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add

those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19 _digerantur_

(G H _dirigantur_, L _dirigerantur_):

§27 _blandicia_, so

Burn. 243 (G _libertate_, H L _blandita tum_):

§55 _sed_ (G H

_et_, om. L):

§65 _tamen quem_

(G H _tamen quae_: M _tamquam_):

§66 _correctas_

(G H _rectas_, M _correptas_):

§67 _uter_ (G H M

T _uterque_):

§68 _reprehendunt_

(G H M _reprehendit,—et_ H ?):

§69 _testatur_ (as

Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G M

_praestatur_ (as Burn. 243, Bodl.):

§76 _in eo tam_

(G _inectam_, M _in hoc tam_).

81.

See note on the following page.

82.

Since the above was written the readings of the _Vallensis_ have

been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (_Programm des

königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_, Easter, 1891). With the exception

of _Harl._ 4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so

correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the

improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s

discovery, or to the fact that the _Vallensis_ and _Harl._

4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but

from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from

the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for

discriminating between the corrections made in the _Vallensis_.

Those not adopted in _Harl._ 4995 were made, in all probability,

after 1470. For example in 1. §23 _utile erit_

(_Vall._2) does not appear in the London manuscript,

which also has _audatiora_

5 §4: _nobis ac_

and _uno genere_ ib. §7: _virtutum_ ib. §17: _recidere_

ib. §22: _diligenter effecta_, (without _una enim_) ib. §23:

_iniicere_

7 §29. In all these

places there are corrections by a later hand in the _Vallensis_.

But in the following passages, among others, the copyist of _Harl._

4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in the

_Vallensis_:

1 §9 _quae cultiore in

parte_:

§19 _iteratione_:

§31 _molli_:

§38 _exequar_:

§107 _qui duo plurimum

affectus valent_:

§117 _et vis summa_:

§125 _tum_:

2 §15 _dicunt_:

§17 _quam libet_:

3 §2 _et fundit_:

§6 _scriptorum_:

§17 _contextis quae fudit

levitas_:

§21 _simul vertere

latus_:

§31 _crebra relatione_:

5 §12 _de reo_:

§25 _utilior_.

A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that

the writer of _Harl._ 4995 is himself the author of some of the

emendations in the _Vallensis_. Was he J. Badius?

1

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT.

CHAPTER I.

How to acquire a command of Diction.

§§ 1-4.

The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired by

writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical

importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically

most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose

of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and

ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs.

iii-v). That is the order of development—not necessarily the order

of importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in

the first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of

rhetoric, but with the best methods of applying theory to practice.

§§ 5-15.

The necessary store of _things_ and _words_ can be obtained

only by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear

the best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a

stock of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the

student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the

schools.

§§ 16-19.

The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former more

‘catching,’ the latter more independent.

§§ 20-26.

The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow and

searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of speeches)

to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also acquaint

ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches relate, and

read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the same side

should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a masterpiece our

admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we cannot assume the

perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err on the side of

appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to continual

fault-finding.

§§ 27-30.

The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greater

2

elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable

recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the

orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever strive for the

mastery.

§§ 31-34.

History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which should be

used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often defects in

the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas the orator

must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine of ancient

precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is rather

outside the scope of the present chapter.

§§ 35-36.

Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics and

dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must bear

in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that of the

law-court.

§§ 37-42.

In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to notice

individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be said

generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth

reading,—at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in

relation to some branch of knowledge, but outside my present object,

which is to recommend what is profitable for the formation of style.

§§ 43-46.

Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word must be

said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and critics

regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are

prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation

and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those

who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other.

The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models:

it does not profess to be exhaustive.

§§ 46-84. GREEK LITERATURE.

§§ 46-72. Greek Poetry.

§§ 46-61.

_Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry

proper._

The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible

to rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master

of the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus,

Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the

elegiac poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Of

_iambographi_ the typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief

lyric poets are Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and

Simonides (§64).

§§ 65-72.

_Dramatic poetry._

The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of

political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the

orator than any other class of poetry,—always excepting Homer.

Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and

Euripides: of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He

was imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might

alone suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other

comic dramatists.

§§ 73-75.

Greek Historians.

The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of

Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and

others.

§§ 76-80.

Greek Orators.

Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing

either too

3

much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’

Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias

resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to

the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement

punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy

of the name of orator.

§§ 81-84.

Greek Philosophers.

Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato

holds the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that

‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike

for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and

versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of

his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their

strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not

affect.

§§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.

§§ 85-100.

Roman Poetry.

§§ 85-92.

_Epic Poets._

Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third

poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass

even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and

Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some

merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius

is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than

beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our

special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets

his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus

fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of

Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately

lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also

failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth

reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for

orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of

the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the

compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire,

are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is

entwined with the conquering bay.’

§§ 93-96.

_Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry._

In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined

is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more

uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own.

Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever.

I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure

of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is

the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others

still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote

_saturae_ of the earlier kind. A profound scholar,

antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to

knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic

poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric

poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his

language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors

of greater merit.

§§ 97-100.

_Dramatic Poetry._

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of

thought

4

and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack

finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s

_Thyestes_ may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s _Medea_

shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds.

Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself

seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus,

Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our

originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm

which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best

writer of _togatae_, but his is not a pure art.

§§ 101-104.

Roman Historians.

In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides,

Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and

transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and

appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion,

especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different

but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus

did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of

our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not

mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent

spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and

expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only

giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.

§§ 105-122.

Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however,

to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes

is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each

other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more

diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other

often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a

greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was

perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the

genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar

‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to

him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water,

but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his

audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a

partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is

natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his

name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high

appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far

behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a

century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force.

Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe

his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius

has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some

preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous

self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral,

weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist;

and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his

enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches.

Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and

wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer

and Africanus rank highest: the

5

former might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is

more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus

has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus

is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius

Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is

too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has

fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish

the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.

§§ 123-131.

Roman Philosophers.

Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully

is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he

speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of

works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer.

Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal.

I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but

have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The

fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a

purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated

his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he

was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory,

poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious,

yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him

of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in

him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet

he realised the aims he had.

CHAPTER II.

Of Imitation.

§§ 1-3.

While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be acquired

by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the foregoing

chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of all the

good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of imitation in

art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of imitation

has its dangers.

§§ 4-13.

Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing but

imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of

training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We

ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation

alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does

not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much

in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to

natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate

the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the

fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be

an adaptation of sound to sense.

§§ 14-18.

Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great

circumspection must be used,—first in the choice of models, and,

secondly, in determining

6

the good points we would seek to reproduce; for even good authors have

their defects. Again, we must know the difference between superficial

imitation and that in which the inner spirit is represented. In cases

where only the outward manner is caught elevation becomes bombast, and

simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and insipidity in substance

pass for antique plainness; want of polish and point, for Attic

restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above Sallust and

Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison with Pollio;

easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian, delighted if

they can finish off a sentence with _Esse videatur_.

§§ 19-21.

The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify him to

imitate. A bold rugged style, for example, is appropriate to the

form of genius which would make shipwreck by an excessive affectation of

refinement. It is of course within the province of the teacher to supply

the natural defects of his pupils; but it is a far harder matter to

mould and form one’s own nature. Even the teacher will not keep up a

prolonged struggle against obstacles of natural disposition.

§§ 21-26.

In oratory we ought not to imitate the characteristic qualities of poets

and historians, and _vice versa_: each kind of composition has its

own appropriate laws. Let us imitate what is common to eloquence in all

its manifestations. We must adapt our style to the topic and occasion:

even different parts of one and the same speech call for different

treatment. And we should not blindly follow any one model

exclusively.

§§ 27-28.

Imitation must not be confined to words only: we should study also

propriety, arrangement, exordium, narrative, argument, pathos, &c.

The perfect orator, whom our age may hope to see, will be he who shall

unite all the good qualities of his predecessors and reject all the

bad.

CHAPTER III.

How to Write.

§§ 1-4.

_Introductory to the three chapters on Writing: chs. iii. and iv.

treating of the manner of writing_ (quomodo), _and ch. v. of the

matter and form of writing_ (quae maxime scribi oporteat §4). The pen

is the best teacher: write much and carefully. Writing is a fundamental

part of the orator’s training.

§§ 5-18.

As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate and slow,

with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and the

arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to

careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of

inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well,

and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is

advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to

overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of

carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also

necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly

in any given circumstances. The

7

evil results of hasty composition can seldom be undone even by much

verbal correction. Your work should be done with so much care from the

first that it may need only to be filed and chiselled, not recast.

§§ 19-27.

Condemnation of the fashionable practice of dictating to an amanuensis.

He who writes for himself, no matter how rapidly, takes time to think;

but your scribe hurries you on, while shame forbids you to pause. Such

compositions reflect neither a writer’s care nor a speaker’s animation:

your one idea is to ‘keep going.’ Besides, an awkward scribe will check

the current of your thoughts. And how absurd it is to have him looking

on at the gestures which often accompany and stimulate the process of

cogitation! On the other hand, while silence and solitude are helpful,

rural seclusion and attractive scenery cannot be said to favour

concentration: closed doors are better. Night hours are the best, but

only in moderation.

§§ 28-30.

But solitude cannot always be secured: those who cannot command it must

habituate themselves to rise superior to every distraction. They who

only study when in the humour will never want an excuse for idleness. It

is possible to think, and to prepare for debate, in a crowd, on a jury,

and even amid the noise and confusion of the law-courts.

§§ 31-33.

The proper writing materials: wax-tablets to be preferred to parchment.

Write on one side only, and leave the other for additions and

corrections.

CHAPTER IV.

Of Revision.

§§ 1-2.

The three parts of revision are addition, excision, and alteration. It

is best to lay aside for a time what has been written: an interval after

each new birth will furnish the best safeguard against excessive

parental fondness.

§§ 3-4.

But time is not always at command. There must obviously be some limit to

revision, especially on the part of the orator, who has to meet the

needs of the moment. Not all changes are improvements: let the file

polish the work, instead of rubbing it all away.

CHAPTER V.

What to Write.

§§ 1-8.

The question now, as distinguished from the preliminary courses laid

down in Books i. and ii., is what form of composition we should practise

in order to acquire copiousness and readiness. First, translation from

the Greek: this exercise leaves the writer free to choose the best terms

in his own language.

8

Second, reproduction (or paraphrase) of Latin poets and orators: here,

however, we often have to borrow from our models. Prose renderings of

the poets are especially useful for the formation of an elevated style.

And even in reproducing orations, we are stimulated to a kind of rivalry

with our author, which may result in our surpassing him: in any case,

the difficulty of competing with masterpieces forces us to study them

minutely.

§§ 9-11.

It will be of advantage also to put our own ideas into various forms of

expression, and to cultivate the faculty of amplifying: power is shown

in making much of little.

§§ 11-16.

Here the writing of _theses_ (or discussions of abstract questions)

forms a valuable exercise: also judicial decisions and commonplaces. The

writing of declamations, or school speeches on fictitious cases, is also

to be recommended, even for those who are already making a name at the

bar. History, dialogue, and poetry are all valuable by way of variety

and recreation: a many-sided culture is the best safeguard against

such intellectual narrowness as would otherwise result from the daily

battles of the law-courts.

§§ 17-20.

Young students must not be kept too long at these preparatory exercises,

lest by indulging the fancy overmuch they unfit themselves for practice.

After a youth has been well schooled in _inventio_ and

_elocutio_, and has had also some moderate amount of practice, he

should attach himself to some eminent public speaker, and accompany him

to the courts: he should write speeches, too, at home on the causes he

has heard. He has no longer to fence with foils.

§§ 21-23.

Declamations should resemble real speeches: the subject should be

treated naturally and thoroughly. Large classes and the custom of public

speech-days tend to encourage a specious showiness, in which only the

most popular and attractive parts of a subject are dealt with, and

crowded together without regard to logical connection. One subject,

thoroughly handled, is worth twenty superficially treated.

CHAPTER VI.

Of Meditation.

§§ 1-4.

Meditation occupies the middle ground between writing and improvisation,

and is perhaps more frequently employed than either. _After_ we

have formed our style by the constant practice of writing, meditation

can be cultivated by progressive exercise to such a degree that an

entire discourse may be prepared and arranged without the use of the

pen.

§§ 5-7.

But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has thought

out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the actual

delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one hand, from

ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us from

improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence. If we

are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in

thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation.

9

While we are at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others

suggested by the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than

can possibly be covered by previous meditation.

CHAPTER VII.

Of Extempore Speech.

§§ 1-4.

The richest fruit of study is the ability to speak effectively on the

spur of the moment: this is in fact absolutely indispensable. ‘An

advocate who proffers help, and fails at the pinch, is a harbour

accessible only in calm weather.’ Cases may take unforeseen turns: like

ship-pilots we must change our tack with each shifting breeze. Unless

the faculty of improvisation can be attained by practice, our years of

labour will have been wasted.

Certain Practical Exercises

conducive to Success in Extempore Speech.

§§ 5-7.

(1) The student must arrange his matter in appropriate order,—not

only the order of the regular _partes_ or divisions (i.e.

introduction, narrative, proof, refutation, conclusion), and the order

of the principal points, but also the order of the matter and thought in

all its detail, under every head and in every passage (quoque loco). The

sequence of events will be our guide. Knowing what to look for at each

point of our discourse, we shall not be found skipping from one topic to

another; and in the end we shall reach the goal.

§§ 7-10.

(2) Reading, writing, and speaking must receive unremitting attention,

and be made the subjects of scientific exercise. The conscientious

practice of writing will give even our extemporary speeches something of

the deliberate character of written compositions. It is practice that

makes the ready speaker. A certain natural quickness of mind is

necessary to look beyond what we are saying at the moment; but neither

nature nor art will enable the mind to keep before itself at one time

the whole of a speech, with all its arguments, arrangement, expression,

&c. As our tongue advances, our thoughts must still outstrip it.

§§ 11-14.

(3) Hence the necessity of a mechanical and unscientific habit or

‘knack,’ such as that by which the hand moves in writing, the eye in

reading, and the juggler in his legerdemain. But this knack, though

mechanical, should have a basis of scientific method: otherwise it will

be mere ranting, such as you may hear in abundance from female scolds.

A sudden outburst is often, however, more effective than the result

of study and premeditation.

§§ 15-17.

(4) The extemporary speaker must cultivate a lively imagination, that

his mind may be deeply impressed by all the facts of a particular case.

It is the heart that makes the orator. He must also have distinctly in

view not only the end at which he aims but the whole pathway that leads

to it: he will derive incitement even from the presence of his

audience.

10

§§ 18-23.

(5) Extemporary facility can only be attained by the same gradual and

patient course as has been referred to in connection with meditation.

The orator is often debarred from preparation; but as a rule he should

not presume so far on his ability as not to take a moment to glance

mentally at the heads of his discourse,—which is generally

possible in a court of law. Some declaimers will argue at once on any

topic, and will even ask for a word to begin with: this is foolishness.

If on any occasion we are under the necessity of speaking offhand, we

should pay more attention to our subject-matter than to our language,

and we may gain time by deliberate articulation. Gradually we shall be

able to trim our sails, and pray for a favouring breeze.

§§ 24-29.

Continual practice is essential for improvisation. We should speak daily

before an audience whose good opinion we respect; but alone, rather than

not at all. If we do not speak to others, we can always at least go over

our subject-matter in silent thought. This fosters exactness in

composition even more than speaking aloud does; for there we hurry

onward from fear of wearying the audience. On the other hand speaking

exercises the voice and gives the opportunity of practising delivery.

Our language should always be careful and correct, but it is constant

writing that will add most weight to our words, especially if we are

obliged to speak much extempore. In fact, writing gives exactness to

speech, speech readiness to writing. If we cannot write, we can

meditate: if we can do neither, we must still contrive to make a

creditable appearance.

§§ 30-33.

A common habit with barristers in large practice is to write the

exordium and most essential parts, formulate the rest in thought, and

meet any unforeseen turns as they arise. The note-books of Cicero and

Servius Sulpicius. It is advisable to refresh one’s memory by consulting

notes. To prepare an abstract, arranged by heads, of a speech which we

have written out entire, leads us to rely too little on the memory, and

makes the speech broken and awkward in delivery. We ought not to write a

speech out at length unless we intend to commit it to memory. But of

memory more in the following book (XI. ch. ii.).

11

M. FABI QUINTILIANI

INSTITUTIONIS ORATORIAE

LIBER DECIMUS

CHAPTER I.

How to acquire a command of Diction.

De copia verborum.

I:1

I. Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt necessaria, ita

non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis firma

12

quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur; accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an

legendo an dicendo conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset

diligentius nobis examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse

contenti:

§ 1.

haec eloquendi praecepta. The reference is generally to the

theoretical part of the work, which has just been completed, but

specially to the two books immediately preceding, in which Quintilian

deals with _elocutio_ (φράσις, ‘style’). In Books III-VII he has treated of

_inventio_ (including _dispositio_); and the transition to

Books VIII and IX is marked in the words ‘a dispositione ad elocutionis

praecepta labor’ vii. §17 ad fin. He passes now to the exercises

necessary for practice: quo genere exercitationis ad certamina

praeparandus sit (sc. orator) (§4.)

sicut ... ita = μὲν

... δὲ. So _quemadmodum ... sic_ 5 §17: cp. §14 below. More commonly ut ... ita: §§4, 15, 62, 72, 74: 3 §§28, 31. Frequent in Livy: e.g. xxi. 35,

10 pleraque Alpium ab Italia sicut breviora ita arrectiora sunt: cp.

39, 7.

cognitioni: so most edd. except Halm and Hild (see Crit. Notes). The word denotes

‘theoretical knowledge,’ and is set over against _vis dicendi_: for

a similar opposition between theory and practice (scientia ...

exercitatio) see Tac. Dial. 33. The reading may be supported by a

reference to qui sciet §2, qui ... sciet ...

perceperit §4. Cp. viii. pr. §1 Quam

(rationem inveniendi et inventa disponendi) ut ... penitus cognoscere ad

summam scientiae necessarium est ita, &c.: ib. §28, qui rationem

loquendi primum cognoverit ... deinde haec omnia exercitatione plurima

roborarit. In ii. 18, 1 _cognitio_ is used to distinguish θεωρητική from πρακτική and ποιητική. Cp. too iii. 1, 3 ut ... adliceremus

... iuventutem ad cognitionem eorum quae necessaria studiis

arbitrabamur.—The reading _cogitatio_ would have to be

understood in a wider sense than it has in ch. 6, or in 3 §19: Hild takes it of ‘toute

la préparation oratoire qui précède le discours proprement dit.’

vim dicendi: ‘true eloquence,’ as in §8 vim orandi, 2 §16 vim dicendi atque

inventionis non adsequuntur: 6 §2 vim cogitandi: xii. 1, 33

vis ac facultas dicendi expugnat ipsam veritatem. Cp. viii. pr. 30

praeparata dicendi vis: xii. 10, 64. Bonn. Lex., p. 233.—The

_vis_ of a thing is its essence, that which makes it what it is:

Cic. de Am. §15 id in quo est omnis vis amicitiae. So with the genitive

of a gerund it gives the idea contained in the infinitive when used as a

noun: cp. de Fin. v. §76 percipiendi vis (i.e. τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι) ita definitur

a Stoicis: ibid. ii. §17 Zenonis est ... hoc Stoici: omnem vim loquendi

(πᾶν τὸ

φθέγγεσθαι) in duas tributam esse partes. See Nägelsbach, Lat.

Stil., (8th ed.) p. 45: and cp. ratio collocandi 3 §5, pronuntiandi ratio 1 §17: ratio delendi 3 §31.

non satis ... valent, nisi, &c. For the necessity of

practice in addition to theory cp. 5 §19: also i. pr. §§18, 23, 27:

ii. 13, 15: vii. 10, 14-15: Cic. de Orat. i. §§109-110: Dion. Hal. de

Comp. Verb. 26 ad fin. οὐ

γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν τεχνῶν ἐστὶ ... δίχα μελέτης τε καὶ

γυμνασίας.

firma quaedam facilitas, a ‘sure readiness’: cp. §44 qui confirmare facultatem

12

dicendi volent: §59 dum adsequimur illam

firmam, ut dixi, facilitatem: 2 §12: 7 §18 sq.: xii, 9, 21 vires

facilitatis.

ἕξις: §59 and 5 §1. Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 4 (of

Isaeus) ad tantam ἕξιν

studio et exercitatione pervenit. See Schäfer on Dion. de Comp. i.

p. 7.—In the sphere of morals the ἕξις is the fixed tendency that results from repeated

acts: ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐνεργειῶν αἱ ἕξεις γίνονται Eth. Nic. ii.

1, 1103a, 31.—Prof. Mayor compares Cicero’s use of

_habitus constans_, de Inv. i. §36: ii. §30.

scribendo ... legendo ... dicendo: i. pr. §27 haec ipsa

(natural gifts) sine doctore perito, studio pertinaci, scribendi,

legendi, dicendi multa et continua exercitatione per se nihil prosunt.

So §2 eloquentia ... stilo ... lectionis.

Reading is covered by chs. i ii: chs. iii-v treat of writing; and

ch. vii. of extemporary declamation.

conferatur: frequent in this sense in Quint. (cp. συμφέρειν): (1) with ad, as

here, i. 8, 7: ii. 19, 1: vii. 1, 41: xii. 1, 1 and passim:

(2) with in, 7 §26: (3) with dat., §§27, 63, 71, 95: i. 1,

6, &c. Bonn. Lex., p. 155.

solere quaeri (ζητεῖσθαι): the subject is treated, e.g., by

Crassus in Cic. de Orat. i. chs. 33-34. For _quaeri_ cp. i. 4, 26:

ib. 12 §1 (quaeri solet): x. 5, 13.

qualibet ... una: v. 10, 117, quamdiu quilibet unus

superfuerit. In reverse order i. 12, 7 una res quaelibet: xii. 1, 44

unum ex iis quodlibet. The collocation does not occur in Cicero.

I:2

verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si quid ex his

defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam neque solida atque

robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo stilo vires acceperit, et

citra lectionis exemplum labor ille carens rectore fluitabit; et qui

sciet quae quoque sint modo dicenda,

13

nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque ad omnes casus habuerit eloquentiam,

velut clausis thesauris incubabit.

§ 2.

conexa et indiscreta. _Et_ is intensive: ‘so closely, nay,

inseparably connected.’ So i. 2, 3: iuncta ista atque indiscreta sunt.

_Indiscretus_ in this sense occurs Tac. Hist. iv. 52 and often in

Pliny: not in Cicero. For the use of the perf. part. pass. instead of a

verbal adj., cp. Sall. Iug. 43, §5 invictus: ib. 2 §3 incorruptus:

76 §1 infectum: Livy ii. 1, 4 inviolatum: ib. 55 §3

contemptius (‘more contemptible’). So intactus, inaccessus, &c.

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

solida ... robusta ... vires. Hild notes that the figure is

taken from a living organism which gathers strength from the nourishment

supplied to it: cp. §§19, 31, &c. Tac. Dial. 21: oratio autem sicut corpus

hominis ea demum pulchra est in qua non eminent venae nec ossa

numerantur, sed temperatus ac bonus sanguis implet membra et exsurgit

toris ipsosque nervos rubor tegit et decor commendat: cp. 23.

multo stilo: ‘by much practice in writing.’ Cic. de Orat. i.

§150 Stilus optimus et praestantissimus dicendi effector ac magister

(where see Wilkins’ note). Quintilian returns to this subject below 3 §1 sq.: cp. 6 §§1 and 3: 7 §§4 and 7.

citra lectionis exemplum: ‘without the models which reading

supplies.’ _Citra_ is common in this sense (for _sine_,

sometimes _praeter_) in Quint. (Bonn. Lex. p. 127) and other

post-Aug. writers. So 7 §7 citra divisionem: xii. 6, 4

plusque, si separes, usus sine doctrina quam citra usum doctrina valet.

Cp. Ov. Trist. v. 8, 23 peccavi citra scelus (‘short of’): Plin. Ep. ii.

1, 4 citra dolorem tamen.

labor ille, sc. scribendi.

fluitabit, like a vessel drifting about without a pilot

(carens rectore). The writing will want method, and the definiteness of

aim which models would impose. So vii. pr. §2 sic oratio carens hac

virtute (sc. ordine) tumultuetur necesse est et sine rectore fluitet nec

cohaereat sibi, multa repetat, multa transeat, velut nocte in ignotis

locis errans, nec initio nec fine proposito casum potius quam consilium

sequatur: cp. xii. 2 §20.

quae quoque sint modo. This is the

13

reading of the oldest MSS. (see Crit. Notes), and was adopted by Halm:

cp. §8 quod quoque loco sit aptissimum: 7 §5 quid quoque loco

primum sit, and §6 quid quoque loco

quaerant. So iv. 2, 33 quid quoque loco prosit. _Quae_ covers

_inventio_: while _quoque modo_ may be taken of the exhaustive

discussion of the various departments of _elocutio_ which has just

been concluded.—Meister has returned to Spalding’s _quo quaeque

sint modo_, probably from a doubt whether Halm (followed by Mayor) is

right in explaining _quae quoque_ as = _quae et quomodo_,

‘what is to be said and how’; ‘copulae enim _que_ in coniunctione

talium membrorum relativorum inter se discretorum non aptus est locus,’

Osann, i. p. 14. But _quoque_ may very well be the abl.

of _quisque_, though Cicero seems to avoid such a collocation,

unless there is a prep. to make the construction clear: e.g. pro Sulla

§73 quae ex quoque ordine multitudo: pro Domo §33 qui de quaque re

constituti iudices sint: Har. Resp. §24 quae de quoque deo ... tradita sunt. Cp.

in Cat. iii. §10 tabellas quae a quoque dicebantur datae. Even in the

exactly parallel passage Sall. Cat. 23, 4 quae quoque modo audierat ...

narravit (where Mommsen suggests _quoquo_), it is possible to

understand _quoque_ of the various methods Fulvia had employed to

get information from Curius. So quid ubique, ib. 21, 1.

tamen: see Crit.

Notes.

in procinctu: ‘ready for battle.’ So xii. 9, 21 quem armatum

semper ac velut in procinctu stantem non magis umquam in causis oratio

quam in rebus cotidianis ac domesticis sermo deficiet. Similarly in 7 §24 promptum hoc et in

expedito positum. Examples of the proper use of the phrase occur Tac.

Hist. iii. 2: Ovid Pont. i. 8, 10: Gell. i. 11: Plin. Nat. Hist.

vi. 22. Quintilian expresses a similar idea by another of his

military metaphors, viii pr. 15: eloqui enim hoc est omnia quae mente

conceperis promere atque ad audientes perferre; sine quo supervacua sunt

priora et similia gladio condito atque intra vaginam suam haerenti: cp.

vi. 4, 8. For the explanation of the phrase _procingo_, ‘I

gird up’ see

Mayor’s note on Cic. de N. D. ii. 3 §9: “_in procinctu_

is used of an army in readiness for battle, Milton’s ‘war in procinct’

(P. L. vi. 19): cp. Festus, pp. 43 and 225 procincta classis

dicebatur cum exercitus cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus.

Vetustius enim fuit multitudinem hominum, quam navium, classem

appellari, also p. 249 procincta toga Romani olim ad pugnam ire

soliti. The _cinctus Gabinus_ was a particular way of wearing the

_toga_, so as to use part of it as a girdle, tying it in a knot in

front. Servius (Aen. vii. 612) says the ancient Latins, before they were

acquainted with the use of defensive armour, praecinctis togis

bellabant, unde etiam milites _in procinctu_ esse dicuntur.” For

the figurative use cp. Sen. de Benef. i. 1, 4 severitatem abditam

clementiam in procinctu habeo: [Quint.] Decl. 3, 1 neque in militiam

gravissimo asperrimoque bello ita venit, ut nesciret sibi mortem in

procinctu habendam.

paratam: 5 §12: Cic. ad Fam. vi. 21, 1 ad

omnem eventum paratus sum.

velut cl. thes. incubabit. Unless he adds practice to his

theoretical knowledge, all he knows will be as useless as a miser’s

hoard. The phrase is a reminiscence of Verg. Georg. ii. 507 condit opes

alius, defossoque incubat auro: cp. Aen. vi. 610 aut qui divitiis soli

incubuere repertis. Martial, xii. 53, 3-4 largiris nihil incubasque

gazae, ut magnus draco. Mayor quotes Ecclus. 20, 30 Wisdom that is hid,

and treasure that is hoarded up, what profit is in them both?

I:3

Non autem

14

ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad efficiendum oratorem

maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe, cum sit in eloquendo positum

oratoris officium, dicere ante omnia est, atque hinc initium eius artis

fuisse manifestum est: proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum scribendi

quoque diligentia.

§ 3.

The argument here requires elucidation. Quint. has said (§§1, 2) that for the

_firma facilitas_ or ἕξις which must be superadded to theory, writing, reading

and speaking are all essential. He now goes on to state that it does not

follow that what is theoretically most indispensable (cp. cognitioni

necessaria §1 above) is for the practical

training of the orator of greatest consequence. The most essential

element is of course that of speech (_dicere_)—followed by

imitation and writing. But perfection of speech can only be attained,

like other forms of perfection, by starting from first beginnings

(principia), which become relatively unimportant (minima) as things

progress. This is not however the place for dealing with the methods of

preliminary training in rhetoric: our student has done his theory, and

we must now show him how to apply it to practice. Cp. Analysis,

p. 1.

14

ut quidquid. Properly _quisquis_ is an indefinite

relative: in this usage it has the same force as _quisque_ (Roby,

2283, 2285). It may have been an archaism which became colloquial.

Madvig (on de Fin. v. §24) shows that undoubted instances occur in

Plautus, Terence, Cato (de R. R. 57: uti quidquid operis facient),

Lucretius (with whom it is especially common: e.g. ruit qua quidquid

fluctibus obstat, i. 289, where see Munro), Cicero (Tusc. v. 98), and in

the Agrarian Law (utei quicquid quoieique ante h. l. r. licuit, ita

&c. Mommsen C.I.L. 1 n. 200 v. 27). Cp. vii. 2, 35. So too

Corn. ad. Herenn. ii. §47, where the MSS. almost without exception give

_quidquid_ (quicquid) for _quicque_. For the spelling here,

cp. i. 7, 6 frigidiora his alia, ut ‘quidquid’ c quartam haberet, ne

interrogare bis videremur.

ad efficiendum oratorem: i. 10, 2.

protinus, of logical consequence, as frequently

_continuo_ in Cicero: generally with a negative, or a question

implying a negative answer. For the form of the sentence cp. viii. 2, 4

non tamen quidquid non erit proprium protinus et improprii vitio

laborabit: and §42 below, sed non quidquid

ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet protinus ad faciendam φράσιν ... accommodatum. So 3 §22 (§§5 and 18 are different): ii. 21, 10: v. 10, 102 and

119: vii. 4, 38.

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

_sed ut_.

in eloquendo: cp. viii. pr. 15 (quoted on in procinctu, §2 above): Cic. Or. §61 sed iam illius perfecti

oratoris et summae eloquentiae species exprimenda est; quem hoc uno (sc.

in eloquendo) excellere cetera in eo latere indicat nomen ipsum. Non

enim inventor aut compositor aut actor qui haec complexus est omnia, sed

et Graece ab eloquendo ῥήτωρ et Latine eloquens dictus est. Ceterarum enim

rerum quae sunt in oratore partem aliquam sibi quisque vindicat; dicendi

autem, id est eloquendi, maxima vis soli huic conceditur. Cp. de Orat.

ii. §38.

ante omnia est. Becher vindicates the traditional reading by

comparing ii. 15, 12 atqui non multum ab hoc fine abest Apollodorus

dicens iudicialis orationis primum et _super omnia esse persuadere_

iudici et sententiam eius _ducere_ in id quod velit. So too iii. 8,

56 an _pro Caesare fuerit occidi_ Pompeium?—See Crit. Notes. For _ante omnia_ cp.

Introd. p. lii.

hinc ... fuisse: cp. viii. 2, 7 proprie tamen unde initium

est: vi. pr. §10 ut prorsus posset hinc esse tanti fulminis metus.

proximum: cp. i. 3, 1 proximum imitatio. As is evident from

ch. ii, _imitatio_ here includes not _lectio_ only but

_auditio_ as well: §8 optima legendo

atque audiendo. It was in this sense that Dion. Hal. entitled his work

περὶ μιμήσεως: see

Usener, Praef. pp. 1-4: and cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §14 sq. and §149

sq.

I:4

Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex principiis non potest, ita procedente

iam opere minima incipiunt esse quae prima sunt. Verum nos non quo modo

sit instituendus orator hoc loco dicimus,

15

(nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est), sed

athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo genere

exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum qui res

invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et collocandi

rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod didicerit facere quam

optime, quam facillime possit.

§ 4.

sed ut perveniri, &c. 7 §18. Cp. i. pr. §§4-5

contemnentes tamquam parva quae prius discimus studia ... ego cum

existimem nihil arti oratoriae alienum sine quo fieri non posse oratorem

fatendum est, nec ad ullius rei summam nisi praecedentibus initiis

perveniri ad minora illa ... demittere me non recusabo.

procedente iam opere: here of the progress of the orator’s

training.

minima in importance: _prima_ in point of time. Krüger

says that _dicere_ alone is meant, being the _initium artis_

above; but it seems better to understand Quint. to be indicating here

that the order of importance does not correspond with the order of

development as stated above, viz. (1) the faculty of speech,

(2) reading (included under _imitatio_) and (3) writing.

These are to be taken first as the subsidiary beginnings (principia)

from which we attain to the ultimate object: but as things progress they

will become relatively unimportant (_minima_), and their

15

place will be taken by systematic training in speaking or declamation,

an exercise which is always essential to success and can therefore never

be left off (7 §24).

aut ... aut in the sense of si minus satis, at certe uti

potuimus: cp. xii. 11, 21.

athleta: a metaphor abruptly introduced: cp. §33: 3 §7: 4 §4: 7 §§1 and 23. The orator is often compared to

an athlete, gladiator, soldier, &c.: see on §33 non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis, and

Introd. p. lvi. Cp.

§§29, 31, 79: 3 §3: 5 §§15, 17. Cic. de Orat. i. §73 ut qui pila

ludunt ... sic in orationibus: iii. §83: Or. §§14, 42, 228-9. Tac. Dial.

34 ferro non rudibus dimicantes: cp. end of 37.

numeros: here of rhythmical movements, ‘movements according to

rule, “passes” in fencing, “throws” in wrestling,’ &c.—Mayor.

The use of the word in this sense is probably founded on the analogy

between rhythm (for which see ix. 4, 45) and graceful motion: ix.

4, 8 in omni palaestra quid satis recte cavetur ac petitur cui non

artifex motus et certi quidam pedes adsint? Cp. xii. 2, 12: ut

palaestrici doctores illos quos numeros vocant non idcirco discentibus

tradunt, ut iis omnibus ii qui didicerint in ipso luctandi certamine

utantur ... sed ut subsit copia illa ex qua unum aut alterum cuius se

occasio dederit efficiant: ii. 8, 13 sicut ille ... exercendi corpora

peritus non ... nexus modo atque in iis certos aliquos docebit, sed

omnia quae sunt eius certaminis. Sen. de Benef. vii. 1 §4 magnus

luctator est non qui omnes numeros nexusque perdidicit. So Iuv. vi. 249

of the lady in the arena, omnes implet numeros: cp. Tac. Dial. 32 per

omnes eloquentiae numeros isse. That this use is based on the notion of

rhythm may be seen from a comparison of these exx. with Hor. Ep. ii. 2,

144 verae numerosque modosque ediscere vitae. For the wider meaning of

_numeri_, in which it is used of that which is complete and perfect

in all its parts, v. on §70.

igitur. As to whether the position of _igitur_ at the

beginning of a sentence is to be considered an instance of

_transmutatio_ (like ‘quoque ego,’ ‘enim hoc voluit’) Quintilian

says (i. 5, 39) there is a doubt: ‘quia maximos auctores in diversa

fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios

numquam reperiatur.’ Numerous instances from his own work are given in

Bonn. Lex., p. 394. In Tacitus, _igitur_ always stands first

except in the following passages: Dial. 8, 29: 10, 37: 20, 21: Agr. 16,

12: Germ. 45, 22: Hist. iv. 15, 15: Ann. i. 47, 5 (Gerber and Greef). In

Cicero it is very rarely found first: de Leg. Agr. ii. 72: pro Milone

§48: Phil. ii. §94: de Fin. i. §61: de Nat. Deor. i. §80.

res invenire. For the five parts of oratory (which are quite

distinct from the five parts of an oration) cp. 7 §9: iii. 3, §§1 and 7.

They are _inventio_ (treated of in Books iii.-vi.),

_dispositio_ (vii.), _elocutio_ (viii.-ix.), _memoria_,

_actio_ or _pronuntiatio_ (xi.). Cicero has substantially the

same division de Orat. ii. §79, quinque faciunt quasi membra

eloquentiae, invenire quod dicas, inventa disponere, deinde ornare

verbis, post memoriae mandare, tum ad extremum agere ac pronuntiare: cp.

i. §142: and for _inventio_, de Inv. i. §9, inventio est

excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae causam probabilem

reddant.—For the antithesis between _res_ and _verba_,

cp. §§5 and 6: also §61: 2 §27: 3 §§5, 9: 6 §2: 7 §§9, 22.

sciet. Bonnell calls attention to the use of the fut. in

dependent relative sentences as common in manuals of instruction: §§5, 10, 13, 17, 22, 25, 33, 112, &c.

_Instruamus_ is virtually future.

eligendi §6: cp. dilectus

3 §5.

collocandi: Cic. de Orat. ii. §307 ordo collocatioque rerum ac

locorum: cp. Or. §50: Brut. §139. For both cp. Brut. §140 in verbis et

eligendis ... et collocandis: de Part. Or. i. §3. Both are parts of

_elocutio_, for which see viii. 1, 1. For _ratio_ with

gerund cp. §§17, 54: 2 §1: 3 §§5, 31: and see note on 2 §3.

qua ratione. The recurrence of _ratione_ so soon after

_rationem_ need create no difficulty in Quintilian: for similar

instances of negligence see on 2 §23. For

16

Kiderlin’s treatment of the whole passage, see Crit. Notes.

optime ... facillime, xii. 10, 77 neque vero omnia ista de

quibus locuti sumus orator optime tantum sed etiam facillime faciet.

16

I:5

Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam parandae, quibus

uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae constant copia rerum ac

verborum.

§ 5.

velut ... quaedam. So §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5 §17: 7 §1, and frequently elsewhere:

e.g. xii. 10, 19 velut sata quaedam: iii. 8, 29 veluti quoddam templum.

Cicero generally uses _quasi_ or _tanquam quidam_. Indeed

Quintilian seems to have a general preference for _velut_ over

_quasi_ or _tanquam_ in introducing similes: cp. 7 §6 ducetur ante omnia rerum

ipsa serie velut duce: viii. 5, 29 inaequalia tantum et velut

confragosa: see Bonn. Lex., s.v.

ubicumque, so §10 below. For a

less classical use (as an indefinite) see 7 §28 quidquid loquemur

ubicumque.

I:6

Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes, verba in

universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent singula, minorem curam

postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis protinus rebus offerrent. Sed cum

sint aliis alia aut magis propria aut magis ornata aut plus efficientia

17

aut melius sonantia, debent esse non solum nota omnia, sed in promptu

atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se iudicio dicentis

ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio.

§ 6.

sed res ... paranda: an example of the construction so common in

Greek and Latin, by which two contrasted clauses are co-ordinated. In

English we subordinate the one to the other by using ‘while,’ ‘whereas,’

or some such word. In Greek the use of μὲν makes the antithesis plainer.—Here _res_ =

νοήματα: _verba_ =

ὀνόματα.

paucis communes. For the _loci communes_, appropriate to

several causae, v. Cic. de Inv. ii. §48 argumenta quae transferri in

multas causas possunt, and compare the Topica.

cum ipsis protinus rebus. For the order of words cp. §33 historico nonnumquam nitore. Herbst gives the

following exx. of an adv. inserted between the adj. and the noun: §§38, 41, 104, 116, 120: 2 §§7, 8: 3 §§2, 31: 5 §7: 7 §§3, 28.—For the thought, cp. Hor.

A. P. 311 verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur: Cic. de Orat.

ii. §146 ea (sc. res et sententiae) vi sua verba parient: iii. §125

rerum enim copia verborum copiam gignit. No doubt Quintilian in his

teaching also gave due prominence to Cato’s golden rule, ‘rem tene verba

sequentur.’

propria. The general meaning under which all uses of

_proprius_ and its cognates may be included is that in which it

contrasts with all departures from and innovations on ordinary language.

Sometimes it may mean nothing more than ‘suitable,’ ‘appropriate,’ in

which sense _proprie_ occurs immediately below, in §9: cp. opportune proprieque 2 §13, and proprie et copiose

(dicere) i. 4, 5. This is the meaning with which it is applied to

the language of Simonides §64

below,—‘natural’; cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §154, where _verba

propria_ occurs alongside of _ornatissima_ and corresponds with

_idonea_, introduced shortly afterwards: cp. _id._ iii. §31,

where _propria_ is reinforced by _apta_, and _ib._ §49

proprie demonstrantibus (verbis) ea quae significari ac declarari

volemus. The use of _proprietas_ in §46 and §121 below may

be compared with this: cp. also the first of the meanings assigned to

the word in the important passage viii. 2, 1-11: also ix. 2, 18 and xii.

2, 19. The translators here render by ‘suitable’ or ‘significant,’

but the juxtaposition of _ornata_ seems rather to point to the use

in which _verba propria_ are the antithesis of

_translata_,—direct, literal, and natural, as opposed to

figurative: i. 5, 71 propria sunt verba cum id significant in quod primo

denominata sunt: translata, cum alium natura intellectum, alium loco

praebent. Cp. i. 5, 3: viii. 3, 24: 6, 5, and 48 (where _propria ...

ornata_ in the passage above may well be illustrated by the words

species ex arcessitis verbis venit et intellectus ex propriis): ix.

1, 4. This is undoubtedly the meaning in which _proprius_ is

used in §29 below: also in 5 §8 alia translatis virtus alia

propriis. The nearest equivalent in Greek would be οἰκεῖα ὀνόματα, rather than κύρια ὀνόματα, which correspond

to ‘usitata verba’ in Quint, (i. 5, 71, and v. 14, 33 verbis quam maxime

propriis et ex usu),—though he may have had in mind here, as Mayor

suggests, ἔστι γὰρ ἄλλο ἄλλου κυριώτερον, Arist. Rhet. iii. 2,

p. 1405 b, 11. (For the distinction between ὄνομα οἰκεῖον and ὄνομα κύριον see Cope on Ar. Rhet. iii. 2

17

§§2 and 6, and Introd. p. 282 note). Many parallels might be cited from

Cicero: e.g. de Or. iii. §149 (verbis eis) quae _propria_ sunt et

certa quasi vocabula rerum, paene una nata cum rebus ipsis: cp.

_ib._ §150: Brutus §274: Or. §80.

ornata: cp. viii. 3, 15 quamquam enim rectissime traditum est

perspicuitatem propriis, ornatum translatis verbis magis egere, sciamus

nihil ornatum esse quod sit improprium: _ib._ pr. §26 ut propria

sint (verba) et dilucida et ornata et apte collocentur, and §31: ii. 5, 9 quod verbum proprium, ornatum, sublime:

and especially viii. 1, 1 in singulis (verbis) intuendum est ut sint

Latina, perspicua, ornata, ad id quod efficere volumus accommodata.

plus efficientia, ‘more significant’: ix. 4, §123 membrum

autem est sensus ... per se nihil efficiens. The adj. _efficax_

occurs only once in Quint. (vi. 1, 41).

melius sonantia. So _vocaliora_ viii. 3, §16 sq.: cp. i.

5, 4 sola est quae notari possit vocalitas, quae εὐφωνία dicitur: cuius in eo dilectus est ut

inter duo quae idem significant ac tantundem valent quod melius sonet

malis. Cic. de Or. iii. §150 lectis atque illustribus (verbis) utatur,

in quibus plenum quiddam et sonans inesse videatur: Or. §163 verba ...

legenda sunt potissimum bene sonantia: §149, and §80 (verbum) quod aut

optime sonat aut rem maxime explanat (= plus effic.): Part. Or. §17

alia (verba) sonantiora, grandiora, leviora: and §53 gravia, plena,

sonantia verba.

non solum ... sed (οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλά), a formula used where the second clause

is stronger than or includes and comprehends the first. Cp. §8 below: §46 (nec modo

sed): 7 §8 (non modo

sed): 3 §20 (non

tantum sed): 5 §5 (neque

tantum sed): 7 §16

(non tantum sed). Of the numerous exx. in Cicero’s speeches (Merguet,

pp. 361-2) none are exceptions to the rule thus stated,—not

even the seeming anticlimax of pro Sest. §45 iecissem me potius in

profundum ut ceteros conservarem quam illos mei tam cupidos non modo ad

certam mortem sed in magnum vitae discrimen adducerem: here _sed_

still introduces the stronger clause, as the sacrifice would be greater

if it were made to avert _discrimen_ than if it were made to avert

_certa mors_. Becher cps. pro Lege Manil. §66: Div. in Caec.

§27.—There is nothing in the distinction which Herbst (followed by

Dosson) seeks to set up (on the strength of _sed etiam_ in §13): ‘pro simplici _sed_, ἀλλά, infertur _sed etiam_, ἀλλὰ καί, si utrumque

orationis membrum pari vi praeditum est.’ Cp. the following:

(a) non solum sed, vi. 2, 13 and 36: non solum sed (or verum)

etiam, vii. 10, 17: ii. 2, 14: vii. 5, 3: viii. 3, 64: i. 11, 14.

(b) non tantum sed, ix. 3, 28, 78: xi. 1, 7: ii. 17, 2: non tantum

sed etiam (or et), xi. 2, 5: viii. 3, 3: ix. 2, 50. (c) non

modo sed, pr. §9: x. 1, 46: ii. 17, 3: iv. 5, 6: non modo sed etiam (or

quoque), ix. 3, 50: xi. 1, 15: i. 10, 9: ii. 2, 12: vi. 3, 57: ix. 3,

47: i. 1, 34: i. 4, 6: i. 11, 13: ix. 4, 9: x.

1, 10.

in promptu—in readiness, ‘at one’s fingers’ ends,’ as it

were: i.e. not only must we be able to recognise them when we see or

hear them, but we must always have a stock of them on hand. Cp. ii. 4,

27 ut quidam ... scriptos eos (locos) memoriaeque diligentissime

mandatos in promptu habuerint: vii. 10, 14 non respiciendum ad haec sed

in promptu habenda: viii. pr. 28 ut semper in promptu sint et ante

oculos: xi. 2, 1 exemplorum ... velut quasdam copias quibus abundare

quasque in promptu habere debet orator. In ix. 1, 13 we have simplex

atque in promptu positus dicendi modus. Cp. Demetrius Cynicus ap. Senec.

de Benef. vii. 1 §3: plus prodesse si pauca praecepta sapientiae teneas

sed illa in promptu tibi et in usu sint quam si multa quidem didiceris

sed illa non habeas ad manum.—In Lucr. ii. 149 and 246 (in promptu

manifestumque esse videmus) the phrase rather = in aperto: as often in

Cicero, e.g. de Off. i. §§61, 95, 105, 126.

ut ita dicam, in conspectu. So vii. 1, 4 cum haec (themata s.

proposita) in conspectu quodammodo collocaveram. Cp. viii. 3, 37 quod

idem (‘ut ita dicam’) etiam in iis quae licentius translata erunt

proderit.

I:7

Et quae idem significarent solitos _scio_ ediscere, quo facilius et

18

occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi aliquo, si breve intra

spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae repetitionis gratia sumerent

aliud quo idem intellegi posset. Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam

infelicis operae, tum etiam utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat,

ex qua sine discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

§ 7.

quae idem significarent: ‘synonyms.’ Cp. i. 5, 4 (quoted above on

_melius sonantia_): viii. 3, 16.

solitos sc. quosdam. Cp. §56

audire videor congerentes. See Crit. Notes.

18

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

quo idem intellegi posset. Cp. iii. 11, 27 his plura

intelleguntur. See Crit.

Notes.

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

cuiusdam. This use of _quidam_ indicates that the word to

which it is attached is being employed in some peculiar sense, or else

that it comes nearest to the idea in the writer’s mind: cp. §§76, 81.

infelicis operae: of trouble which one gives oneself

unnecessarily (cp. 3 §10: 7 §14), with the further idea

of unproductiveness, as 2 §8 nostra potissimum tempora

damnamus huius infelicitatis: tr. ‘a thankless task.’ Cp. Hor. Sat. i.

1, 90 infelix operam perdas: A. P. 34 infelix operis summa. With

viii. pr. §§27-8 Mayor compares Plato Phaedr. 229d ἄλλως τὰ τοιαῦτα

χαρίεντα ἡγοῦμαι λίαν δὲ δεινοῦ καὶ ἐπιπόνου καὶ οὐ πάνυ εὐτυχοῦς

ἀνδρός.

congregat. The subject here is indefinite, and must be

supplied from the context—‘the man who learns by rote.’ Quintilian

often omits such words as discipulus, orator, declamator, lector: cp. 2 §24: 7 §4 and 2 §24: §25 est alia exercitatio cogitandi

totasque materias vel silentio (dum tamen quasi dicat intra se ipsum)

persequendi. So Cic. de Off. i. §101 omnis autem actio vacare debet

temeritate et neglegentia nec vero agere quicquam cuius non possit (sc.

is qui agit) causam probabilem reddere: _ib._ §121 si natura non

feret ut quaedam imitari possit (sc. is qui imitatur): §134: ii. §39:

iii. §107: de Amic. §25 quae non volt: §72 quoad ... possit: de Or. ii.

§62 audeat.—There is thus no need for Gemoll’s conjecture

_congregat actor_.

§§8-15. The preceding sections (§§5-7) form the transition to what he now seeks to

prove,—the need for _multa lectio_ and _auditio_. ‘By

reading and hearing the best models we learn to choose appropriate

words, to arrange and pronounce them rightly; to employ the figures of

speech in their proper places.’—Mayor.

I:8

Nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non circulatoriam

volubilitatem spectantibus. Id autem consequemur

19

optima legendo atque audiendo; non enim solum nomina ipsa rerum

cognoscemus hac cura, sed quod quoque loco sit aptissimum.

§ 8.

cum iudicio, §116: 2 §3. Mayor cites Cic. de Or.

iii. §150 sed in hoc verborum genere propriorum dilectus est habendus

quidem atque is aurium quoque iudicio ponderandus est. The phrase gives

the antithesis of _sine discrimine_ above.

vim orandi: see on §1 above, vim

dicendi: cp. 5 §6: ii.

16, 9: vi. 2, 2. The words denote ‘true oratory’ as opposed to the

‘fluency of a mountebank’ or charlatan. For the absolute use of

_orare_ (common in the Silver Age) see on §16.

circulatoriam volubilitatem: ii. 4, 15 circulatoriae vere

iactationis est. The _circulator_ was a strolling mountebank who

amused the crowd by his legerdemain: Sen. de Benef. vi. 11, 2. So

of quack philosophers, _Id._ Epist. 29 §7 circulatores qui

philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt: 40 §3 sic itaque habe,

istam vim dicendi rapidam atque abundantem aptiorem esse circulanti quam

agenti in rem magnam ac seriam docentique: 52 §8 eligamus non eos qui

verba magna celeritate praecipitant, et communes locos volvunt et in

privato circulantur, sed eos qui vita[m] docent.—For

_volubilitas_ cp. xi. 3, 52: Cic. de Orat. §17 est enim et scientia

comprehendenda rerum plurimarum, sine qua verborum volubilitas inanis

atque inridenda est, et ipsa oratio conformanda non solum electione sed

etiam constructione verborum: so linguae volubilitas, pro Planc. §62

flumen aliis verborum volubilitasque cordi est: pro Flacc. §48 homo

volubilis praecipiti quadam celeritate dicendi. Pliny Ep. v. 20, 4: est

plerisque Graecorum ut illi pro copia volubilitas. Juvenal’s sermo

promptus et Isaeo torrentior (3, 73-4) indicates the same

feature.

id, of the idea contained in the previous sentence (parare

copiam cum iudicio): 6 §6: 7 §4.

19

non enim. Herbst cites §109 and

5 §8 to show that in

this form the negative is either attached to a single word, or is meant

to be more emphatic: so Cic. Orat. §§47, 101. On the other hand _neque

enim_ has less emphasis: §105: 2 §1: 3 §§10, 23: 4 §1: 6 §5: 7 §§5, 18, 19, 27. For _enim ... enim ... nam_

he compares 3 §2 and,

in Greek, Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 32: v. 6, 4.

quod quoque. See Crit.

Notes.

I:9

Omnibus enim fere verbis praeter pauca, quae sunt parum verecunda, in

oratione locus est. Nam scriptores quidem iamborum veterisque comoediae

etiam in illis saepe laudantur, sed nobis nostrum opus intueri sat est.

Omnia verba, exceptis de quibus dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et

humilibus interim et vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte

videntur

20

sordida, ubi res poscit, proprie dicuntur.

§ 9.

parum verecunda. These expressions are characterised in the same

indirect way i. 2, 7 verba ne Alexandrinis quidem permittenda deliciis.

Cp. viii. 3, 38 excepto si obscena nudis nominibus enuntientur:

_ib._ 2 §1 obscena vitabimus. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 22.

nam is here slightly elliptical (cp. §83), introducing a confirmation of the statement

contained in the words _praeter pauca quae sunt parum verecunda_:

‘I make exceptions, for though even these may be admired in ἰαμβογράφοι (Archilochus §59,

Hipponax, &c.), and in the old Comedy, we must look to our own

department.’ The sentence might have run,—nam, etiamsi scriptores

quidem, &c. etiam in illis saepe laudantur, nobis nostrum opus

intueri sat est. This seems better than, with Mayor, to press _in

oratione_: ‘_in oratione_ I say, for even these may be

admired, &c.’

scriptores iamborum: §59 Horace

imitated Archilochus in some of his Epodes: these are ‘parum verecunda.’

Mayor refers also to the Priapeia. The _vetus comoedia_

(_antiqua_ in §65) is often associated

with ἰαμβογράφοι: §§59, 65, 96. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 1 sq.: ii. 3, 12.

in illis ... laudantur. In such expressions _in_ with the

abl. denotes the range or scope within which the action of the verb

takes place. Nägelsb. p. 491. Cic. Qu. fr. ii. 6, 5 Pompeius noster

in amicitia P. Lentuli vituperatur. Cp. §§54, 63, 64: v. 12, 22 ut ad peiora iuvenes laude ducuntur ita

laudari in bonis malent.

nostrum opus: not ‘our proper work, the education of an

orator’ (Hild); but ‘what we have to do with here,’ our ‘department’ or

‘branch.’ It thus = opus dicendi Cic. Brut. §214, or oratorium

_ib._ §200. In the Silver Age _opus_ (like _genus_) is

often used to denote a special branch. Herbst cites §§31, 35, 64, 69, 70, 72, 74, 93, 96, 123; 2 §21. Cp. Introd. p. xliv.

intueri: v. 13, 31 dum locum praesentem non totam causam

intuentur. Cp. 2 §§2,

26: 7 §16.

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

nocuerat.

humilibus ... vulgaribus. So xi. 1, 6 humile et cotidianum

sermonis genus. _Humilia verba_ (ταπεινά ὀνόματα) are opposed to _grandia_,

_elata verba_. By Cicero _abiectus_ is often used to indicate

a still lower depth: Brut. §227 verbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur,

sed tamen non abiectis. Mayor cites De Orat. iii. §177 non enim sunt

alia sermonis, alia contentionis verba, neque ex alio genere ad usum

cotidianum, alio ad scenam pompamque sumuntur; sed ea nos cum iacentia

sustulimus e medio sicut mollissimam ceram ad nostrum arbitrium formamus

et fingimus. Hor. A. P. 229 ne ... migret in obscuras humili

sermone tabernas.

interim for _interdum_, as often in Quintilian, Seneca,

and Pliny: cp. §24: 3 §§7, 19, 20, 32, 33 (where we have interim ...

interim for modo ... modo): 7 §31. See Introd. p. li.

nitidiore ... sordida. There is the same antithesis at viii.

3. 49. Cp. Cic. Brut. §238 non valde nitens non plane horrida oratio.

See note on §79: and cp. §§33, 44, 83, 97, 98, 113, 124. Sulp. Vict. inst. or. 15 in Halm rhet. lat.

p. 321, 3 adhibendus est nitor ... ut scilicet verba non sordida et

vulgaria et de trivio, quod dicitur, sumpta sint, sed electa de libris

et hausta de liquido fonte doctrinae.—

20

For _sordida_ cp. Sen. Ep. 100 (of Fabianus) nihil invenies

sordidum ... verba ... splendida ... quamvis sumantur e medio. Quint.

ii. 5, 10: viii. 2, 1.

proprie: v. on §6 propria. Cp. 5 §4 verba poetica

libertate audaciora non praesumunt eadem proprie dicendi facultatem:

viii. 2, 2 non mediocriter errare quidam solent qui omnia quae sunt in

usu, etiam si causae necessitas postulet, reformidant.

I:10

Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non significationem modo, sed formas etiam

mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque erunt posita conveniant, nisi multa

lectione atque auditione adsequi nullo modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem

auribus primum accipiamus. Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus

iussu regum in solitudine educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse

traduntur, tamen loquendi facultate caruerunt.

§ 10.

non ... modo, sed ... etiam: see on §6. Herbst notes that Quint. usually separates these

words by others, as here: cp. §55 non forum

modo, verum ipsam etiam urbem: 2 §23 non causarum modo inter

ipsas condicio, sed in singulis etiam causis partium. On the other hand

we have 3 §15 non

exercitatio modo ... sed etiam ratio: 7 §19 non in prosa modo, sed

etiam in carmine.

formas. The _forma_ of a word, in the widest sense, must

mean its _shape_ as determined by the syllables and letters of

which it consists: cp. viii. 3, 16, where he notes the importance of

this in regard to sound. But the reference here is more particularly to

the grammatical forms of inflection, i.e. accidence, τὰς πτώσεις τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων

(Dion. Hal. Comp. Verbor. 25, p. 402 Schäfer). See i. 6, 15 sq.

Mayor refers to the grammatical discussions in Cic. Orat. §§152-161.

Quint. i. 4 esp. §§22-29: 5-7.

mensuras: the ‘quantities’ of single syllables, i.e. prosody.

Cic. Or. §159: §§162-236: Quint. i. 10 ‘de musice.’ Latin concrete

plurals often correspond to our abstract names of sciences, e.g.

_numeri_ ‘arithmetic,’ _tempora_ ‘chronology.’ Nägelsbach 12

§2, p. 71.

ut ubicumque. For _ut_ (L) most MSS. (G H S)

give _et_. Krüger records a conj. by Rowecki, who proposes to read

_utque_, so as to make both _ut sciamus_ and _ut

conveniant_ depend upon _adsequi_. But this seems

unnecessary.

auditione. Then, as now, _auditio_ would be specially

valuable in regard to prosody (mensurae). The next clause gives the

reason for putting it alongside of _lectio_, and also serves to

introduce the reference which follows.

propter quod ( = δι᾽

ὅ), often in Quint. where Cicero would have used _quam ob

rem_. Cp. §66: 5 §23: 7 §6: _propter quae_

(= δι᾽ ἅ) §61: 3 §30: ii. 13, 14: xii.

1, 39. At §28 and 3 §6 we have _praeter id

quod_ for _praeterquam quod_.

infantes ... caruerunt. In spite of the vagueness of

_regum_ and _a mutis nutricibus_, the reference is obviously

to the story told by Herodotus (ii. 2), which Quint. may only have

remembered indistinctly. Psammetichus, king of Egypt, wishing to

discover if there were any people older than the Egyptians, gave two

infants into the charge of a shepherd, who was to keep them out of reach

of all human sounds and bring them up on the milk of goats. After two

years they greeted the shepherd with the cry βεκός, which on inquiry turned out to be the Phrygian

for bread. On the strength of this experiment the sapient king allowed

that the Phrygians were more ancient than the Egyptians. Claudian, in

Eutrop. ii. 252-4 nec rex Aegyptius ultra Restitit, humani postquam puer

uberis expers In Phrygiam primum laxavit murmura vocem. A similar

story is told of James IV of Scotland, with the difference that in his

case Hebrew instead of Phrygian resulted from the experiment.—By

_mutis nutr._ Quint. probably means the goats of Psammetichus;

_mutus_ having its proper sense, ‘uttering inarticulate sounds’: so

mutae pecudes Lucr. v. 1059: animalia muta Iuv. viii. 56: mutum ac turpe

pecus Hor. Sat. i. 3, 100.

verba emisisse: Lucr. v. 1087-8 ergo si varii sensus animalia

cogunt Muta tamen cum sint, varias emittere voces, &c.

caruerunt is obviously the right reading, not _caruerint_

(Hild), which would

21

introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the narrative:

caruerunt propter(ea) quod sermonem auribus _non_ acceperunt. Even

though Quint. may have been sceptical about the story its ‘moral’ agreed

entirely with his own conclusions.—Note _etiamsi ...

traduntur_, _etiamsi ... sint_ §11

below.

I:11

Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem

21

pluribus vocibus declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius

utaris, intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria

rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem intellectum feruntur,

ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’.

§ 11.

alia, sc. verba. See Crit.

Notes.

vocibus: ‘sounds,’—words in regard to their sound and

form, while _verba_ are words in regard to their meaning. The

distinction is given Cic. Or. §162 rerum verborumque iudicium prudentiae

est, vocum autem et numerorum aures sunt iudices: de Or. iii. §196

itaque non solum verbis arte positis moventur omnes, verum etiam numeris

ac vocibus (of musical sounds). Hor. Sat. i. 3, 103 donec verba quibus

voces sensusque notarent, Nominaque invenere—where _verba_

are the articulate words by which men gave form and meaning to the

primitive inarticulate sounds (_voces_).

significationis, for the more usual _ad significationem_,

‘in point of meaning’: vii. 2, 20 nihil interest actionum: ix. 4, 44

plurimum refert compositionis. So Plin. Ep. ix. 13 §25 verane haec

adfirmare non ausim: interest tamen exempli ut vera videantur. Cicero

has in ad Fam. iv. 10, 5 multum interesse rei familiaris tuae te quam

primum venire: and interesse reipublicae occurs (as a sort of personal

genitive) in Cicero, Caesar, and Livy. But with such a word as that in

the text Cicero would have used ad c. acc.: ad Fam. v. 12, 1 equidem ad

nostram laudem non multum video interesse, sed ad properationem meam

quiddam interest non te exspectare dum ad locum venias.

quo, sc. verbo.

ensis is the poetic word for _gladius_, though in

Quint.’s time the difference between prose usage and poetical in regard

to such words had begun to disappear. Mayor (following Gesner) notes

that ‘ensis’ occurs over sixty times in Vergil, ‘gladius’ only five

times.

τροπικῶς, by a

‘turn’ or change of application. On metaphor see viii. 2, 6 sq.: Cic. de

Orat. iii. §155: Or. §§81, 82 sq. The meaning is that while some words

are naturally synonymous, others _become_ synonyms (ad eundem

intellectum feruntur) when used figuratively, though in their literal

sense they have each a distinct application (propria rerum aliquarum

sint nomina). In the one case there are several words with the same

meaning: in the other the original meaning is different (e.g. ferrum,

mucro), but the words come to be used synonymously.—For the

position of _quasi_, after τροπικῶς, cp. Sall. Iug. 48 §3: and see Crit. Notes.

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

meaning.’

ferrum, mucro, viii. 6, 20 (of synecdoche) nam prosa ut

‘mucronem’ pro gladio et ‘tectum’ pro domo recipiet, ita non ‘puppem’

pro navi nee ‘abietem’ pro tabellis, et rursus ut pro gladio ‘ferrum’

ita non pro equo ‘quadripedem.’—Mayor compares the use of ‘iron’

and ‘steel’ for ‘sword’ in Shakespeare.

I:12

Nam per abusionem

22

sicarios etiam omnes vocamus qui caedem telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia

circuitu verborum plurium ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia

lactis.’ Plurima vero mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me

fugit’ et ‘non me praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium

est’.

§ 12.

Nam is again elliptical, as in §9. It

introduces here a proof of what has just been said in the shape of a

reference to something still more striking: ‘and we may go even further,

for,’ &c. It may be translated ‘and indeed,’ or ‘nay more,’ or

‘likewise.’ Cp. §§23, 83: and with _quidem_ §50. The ellipse may be supplied by the words ‘neque

id mirum’: ‘and no wonder, for.’

per abusionem: by the figure called ‘catachresis,’—the

use of a word of kindred signification for the proper word: Corn. ad

Herenn. 10 §45 abusio est quae verbo simili et propinquo pro certo

et proprio abutitur. Cp. viii. 2, 5 abusio, quae κατάχρησις dicitur, necessaria: ib.

6 §34 κατάχρησις, quam recte dicimus abusionem, quae non

habentibus nomen suum accommodat, quod in proximo est, sic: equum divina

Palladis arte Aedificant: iii. 3, 9: ix. 2, 35. Cic. de Orat. iii.

§169: Or. §94. Quint. states the difference between _abusio_ and

_translatio_ viii. 6 §35: discernendumque est _ab_ hoc

totum translationis genus, quod abusio est ubi nomen deficit, translatio

ubi aliud fuit: i.e. _abusio_ is used when a thing has not a name,

and the name of something similar is given to it, _translatio_ when

one name is used instead of another. Mayor cites Serv. Georg. iii.

22

533 donaria proprie loca sunt in quibus dona reponuntur deorum, abusive

templa. Cp. Quint. viii. 6, 35 poetae solent abusive etiam in his rebus

quibus nomina sua sunt vicinis potius uti.

sicarios. The _sica_ among the Romans specially denoted

the assassin’s poniard: Cic. de Off. iii. §36: de Nat. Deor. iii. §74:

pro Rosc. Amer. §103. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 4.

quocumque. Even before Quint.’s time _quicumque_ had

acquired the force of an indefinite pronoun (quivis or quilibet): Cic.

Cat. 2, 5 quae sanare poterunt, quacumque ratione (potero) sanabo. Cp.

§105, 7 §2: i. 10, 35: ii. 21, 1: and

frequently in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Juvenal (e.g. x. 359). Mayor cites

among other passages from Martial viii. 48, 5 non quicumque capit

saturatas murice vestes.

circuitu verborum plurium, i.e. periphrasis. viii. 6, 59

pluribus autem verbis cum id quod uno aut paucioribus certe dici potest

explicatur περίφρασιν

vocant, circuitum quendam eloquendi: ib. §61 cum in vitium incidit περισσολογία dicitur. Cp.

xii. 10, 16: 41: viii. pr. §24: 2 §17.

ostendimus = declaramus, significamus, as §14.

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

plurima, ‘very many,’ not ‘most’: a common usage in Quint. Cp.

§§22, 27, 40, 49, 58, 60, 65, 81, 95, 107, 109, 117, 128: 2 §§6, 14, 24: 6 §1: 7 §17.

mutatione figuramus. For this use of _figurare_ (σχηματίζειν) cp. ix. 1, 9

tam enim translatis verbis quam propriis figuratur oratio: here however

_plurima_ is a cognate accus.,—lit. ‘we very often use a

figure in substituting one form of expression for another.’ The verb is

found in this sense also in Seneca and Pliny. See Crit. Notes.—_Figurae_ is

Quint.’s favourite word for rendering σχήματα. He uses it in more than a hundred places (i.

8, 16 schemata utraque, id est figuras, quaeque λέξεως quaeque διανοίας vocantur): and it is to this use of the word

by him and by the later rhetoricians that we owe the modern term

‘figure.’ Cicero has no fixed equivalent for σχήματα: he uses _formae_,

_conformationes_, _lumina_, _gestus_,

_figurae_,—often with the Greek word added; e.g. Brut. §69

sententiarum orationisque formis quae vocant σχήματα: cp. Or. §83, and de Opt. Gen. §14 (where

_figuris_ is accompanied by _tanquam_). Quint. defines

_figura_ ix. 1, 4 as ‘conformatio quaedam orationis remota a

communi et primum se offerente ratione’: _ib._ §14 arte aliqua

novata forma dicendi. The idea of a divergence from what is usual and

ordinary is always prominent in his treatment of _figurae_: ii. 13,

11 mutant enim aliquid a recto atque hanc prae se virtutem ferunt quod a

consuetudine vulgari recesserut: ix. 1, 11 in sensu vel sermone aliqua a

vulgari et simplici specie cum ratione mutatio.—That this idea is

not involved in the original meaning of σχήματα, but was extended to them from the τρόποι (a name which indicates

changes or ‘turns of expression’), is shown by Causeret

pp. 170-180.

I:13

Sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et ‘sentio’ et

‘video’ saepe idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis ubertatem

23

ac divitias dabit lectio, ut non solum quo modo occurrent, sed etiam quo

modo oportet utamur.

§ 13.

ex proximo mutuari: i.e. borrow a word that is cognate in

meaning, instead of using such negative inversions as the

preceding.—Intellego, sentio, video, scio, are cognate

words,—‘next door’ (in proximo) to each other.—For the

substantival use (in Cicero and Livy) of neuter adjectives in acc. and

abl., with prepositions, in expressions denoting place and the like, see

Nägelsbach §21 pp. 102-109. Exx. are ex integro (§20), in aperto, ex propinquo, in immensum, de

alieno, ad extremum, in praecipiti, in praesenti, in melius, e contrario

(§19).

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

Quintilian.

ubertatem ac divitias: hendiadys, ‘a rich store.’ For the use

of two synonymous nouns in Latin instead of a noun and an adjective, see

Nägelsbach, §73 pp. 280-281. Exx. are Cic. de Or. i. §300

absolutionem perfectionemque ( = summa

23

perfectio, which never occurs): de Off. ii. 5, 16 conspiratione hominum

atque consensu. For this metaphorical use of _divitiae_ cp. de

Orat. i. §161 in oratione Crassi divitias atque ornamenta eius ingenii

per quaedam involucra atque integumenta perspexi.

occurrent: §7 and frequently

elsewhere in this sense.

I:14

Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de intellectu

animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum ‘intellego’, nec ut

‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’ ostendit.

§ 14.

non semper enim, etc., ‘they do not always coincide in meaning,’

are not always identical and interchangeable. Cf. ix. 3, 47 nec verba

modo sed sensus quoque idem facientes acervantur: where _facere_ =

_efficere_, the words being spoken of as if they were agents in

producing the meaning. _Inter se_ (ἀλλήλοις) = ‘reciprocally,’ ‘mutually’: cp. ix. 3, 31:

_ib._ §49.

intellego: repeat _recte dixerim_. For the ellipse Herbst

compares v. 11, 26: viii. 6, 20: xii. 11, 27.

mucro: for instance in 5 §16 _gladius_ could not be

substituted for _mucro_ without the point being lost. Cp. viii. 6,

20: vi. 4, 4: ix. 4, 30.

ostendit = indicat, significat. Cp. §12.

I:15

Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum gratia

legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque docemus, hoc sunt

exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus (cum eo qui discit

perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine demonstrante et sequi iam suis

viribus possit), quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit.

24

§ 15.

ut ... ita: v. on _sicut ... ita_ §1.

sic, multa lectione atque auditione §10. In reading and hearing we are not to aim merely

at increasing our stock of words: many other things may be learned by

the same practical method. Cp. 2 §1.

hoc = idcirco, ideo, corresponding to _quia_ below. Cp.

§34 hoc potentiora quod: §129 eo perniciosissima quod: v. 11, 37. See Crit. Notes.

etiam ipsis: §24. Herbst cites

also Hor. Sat. i. 3, 39 Turpia decipiunt caecum vitia aut etiam ipsa

haec delectant. Cicero uses _etiam ipse_ (with rather more emphasis

than _ipse quoque_) de Nat. Deor. ii. §46: Rab. Post. §33: pro

Planc. §73: pro Mil. §21—Nägelsbach p. 367.

quae traduntur artibus. _Artes_ is here used, as often in

the plural, for the rules or collections of rules taught in schools. So

ii. 5, 14 hoc diligentiae genus ausim dicere plus collaturum discentibus

quam omnes omnium artes. Pr. §26 nihil

praecepta atque artes valere nisi adiuvante natura: cp. §47 below litium et consiliorum artes: §49 qui de artibus scripserunt. This use is derived

from that in which _ars_ stands generally for ‘system’ or ‘theory’:

ii. 14, 5 ars erit quae disciplina percipi debet (cp. Cic. de Or. ii.

§30 ars earum rerum est quae sciuntur): and below 7 §12 hic usus ita proderit si

ea de qua locuti sumus ars antecesserit. Elsewhere in Quint. it is

frequently used for a technical treatise: ii. 13, 1 a plerisque

scriptoribus artium: 15 §4 si re vera ars quae circumfertur eius

(Isocratis) est: cp. Iuv. 7, 177 artem scindes Theodori. This last use

is found also in Cicero: Brutus §46 ait Aristoteles ... artem et

praecepta Siculos Coracem et Tisiam conscripsisse: de Fin. iii. §4 ipsae

rhetorum artes: iv. §5 non solum praecepta in artibus sed etiam exempla

in orationibus bene dicendi reliquerunt: _ib._ §7 quamquam scripsit

artem rhetoricam Cleanthes: de Invent. i. §8: ii.

§7.—_Traduntur_ = docentur, just as accipere = discere: cf.

i. 3, 3 quae tradentur non difficulter accipiet: ii. 9, 3: iii.

6, 59.

sine demonstrante: ‘without a guide’ or teacher. For this use

of the participle, cp. i. 2, 12 lectio quoque non omnis nec semper

praeeuntevel interpretante eget.

iam heightens the contrast between the two

stages—pupilage and independent study. There is therefore no need

for Hild’s conjecture _viam_.

ostendit ‘gives a practical demonstration of.’ We are not

merely to learn the rules (artes) from the _doctor_, but to observe

24

how they are applied by the best writers and speakers.

I:16

Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat qui dicit

spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus incendit. Vivunt

omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa velut nascentia cum

favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum qui

orant periculo adficimur.

§ 16.

alia does not refer to some particular kinds of speeches, as

Watson translates. Literally, it is ‘some things do more good when one

hears them, others when one reads them’: but _alia_ and

_adiuvant_ run into each other, as it were, and the meaning is

‘some benefits are derived from hearing, others from reading,’ i.e. they

have each their special points. In the passive it would stand ‘aliter

audientes adiuvantur aliter legentes.’

spiritu ipso: the ‘living breath’ (vivunt omnia et moventur),

as opposed to the dead letter: the sound of the voice (viva vox) instead

of the ‘cold medium of written symbols’ (Frieze), ii. 2, 8 viva illa, ut

dicitur, vox alit plenius (sc. quam exempla). Plin. Ep. ii. 3, 9 multo

magis, ut vulgo dicitur, viva vox adficit. nam liceat acriora sint quae

legas, altius tamen in animo sedent quae pronuntiatio vultus habitus

gestus etiam dicentis adfigit. Cic. Orat. §130 carent libri spiritu illo

propter quem maiora eadem illa cum aguntur quam cum leguntur videri

solent, where Sandys quotes Isocr. Phil. §26. So Dion. Hal. de Dem. 54

(p. 112 R) of the speeches of Demosthenes when ill delivered,

τὸ κάλλιστον

αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς

λέξεως) ἀπολεῖται, τὸ

πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐδὲν διοίσει σώματος καλοῦ μὲν ἀκινήτου δὲ καὶ

νεκροῦ.

ambitu rerum. This phrase has been variously explained. Wolff

thought that it was equivalent to ‘rerum circumscriptio quam prima lineamenta

ducentes faciunt pictores’; and following him many render by ‘bare

outline,’ ‘rough draft or sketch,’ ‘outline drawing,’ without however

citing any apposite parallel. Others say it = ‘ambitiosa rerum

expositione’: cp. iv. 1, 18 hic ambitus ... pronuntiandi faciendique

iniuste: xii. 10, 3 proprio quodam intellegendi ambitu (‘affectation of

superior judgment’): Declam. IV, sub fin., novo mihi inauditoque opus

est ambitu rerum: ib. I pr. si iuvenis innocentissimus iudices uti

vellet ambitu tristissimae calamitatis. Schöll sees no difficulty if the

phrase is taken in the same sense as ‘ambitus parietis,’ ‘ambitus

aedificiorum.’ If _ambitus_ is not a gloss, may the meaning not be

that the speaker goes straight to the heart of his subject instead of

‘beating about the bush,’ like the more leisurely writer? See Crit. Notes.

vivunt omnia enim: ‘all is life and movement.’ For the

position of _enim_ cp. non semper enim §14. In Lucr. _enim_ often comes third in the

sentence, and even later. Mayor cites Cic. ad Att. xiv. 6 §1 odiosa

illa enim fuerant: Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 105.

nova illa velut nascentia: the ‘new births’ of his

imagination—of the _spoken_ word which has more of the

impromptu element about it than the written. 3 §7 omnia enim nostra dum

nascuntur placent. For this use of _ille_ cp. §17 ille laudantium clamor: §47: 3 §6 calor quoque ille

cogitationis: 3 §§18,

22, 31: 5 §§4, 12: ii 10, 7 tremor ille inanis.

fortuna iudicii: Cic. Or. §98 ancipites dicendi incertosque

casus: de Orat. i. §120 dicendi difficultatem variosque eventus

orationis: pro Marcello §15 incertus exitus et anceps fortuna belli.

This is of the issue of the trial in itself: _ipsorum qui orant

periculo_ is used of the issue as it affects the advocate, who will

have all the credit or discredit of success or failure. For the strain

which this involved cp. Plin. Ep. iv. 19 §3.—For the absolute

use of _orare_ cp. §76: 5 §6. Plin. Ep. vii. 9, 7 studium

orandi: cp. Tac. Hist. i. 90. Tac. Dial. §6 illa secretiora et

tantum ipsis orantibus nota maiora sunt.

I:17

Praeter haec vox, actio decora, accommodata, ut quisque locus

25

postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima in dicendo) ratio et, ut

semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione certius iudicium, quod

audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor aut ille laudantium clamor

extorquet.

§ 17.

vox, actio ... pronuntiandi ratio. Here _actio_ takes the

place of _gestus_ in 7 §9, with the same meaning (the

management of the person in speaking): adhibita vocis pronuntiationis

gestus observatione. In a wider sense (§19)

it is used of ‘delivery’ generally (ὑπόκρισις), occurring more commonly in this sense in

previous writers than _pronuntiatio_, which Quintilian

25

gives as an alternative term in iii. 3, 1: cp. xi. 3, 1 pronuntiatio a

plerisque actio dicitur, sed prius nomen a voce, sequens a gestu videtur

accipere. Namque actionem Cicero alias (de Or. iii. §222) quasi

sermonem, alias (Or. §55) eloquentiam quandam corporis dicit. Idem tamen

duas eius partes facit quae sunt eaedem pronuntiationis, vocem atque

motum: quapropter utraque appellatione indifferenter uti licet. In xi.

3, 14 he goes on to divide _actio_ into _vox_ and

_gestus_: cp. Dion. Hal. de Dem. 53, where ὑπόκρισις is divided into τὰ πάθη τὰ τῆς φωνῆς and

τὰ σχήματα τοῦ

σώματος: Cic. Brut. §§141, 239.—_Pronuntiandi ...

ratio_. As voice and gesture (together making up _actio_ or

_pronuntiatio_ in the wide sense) have now been mentioned, it is

tempting to take this third item in the narrower meaning of

‘articulation,’ in which it occurs 7 §22 tardior pronuntiatio: cp.

dilucida pronuntiatio xi. 3, 33: citata ... pressa ib. §111. But the

prominence given to it (see on _vel potentissima_ below) seems to

make it necessary to understand _pronunt. ratio_ in the widest

sense of _pronuntiatio_ (as probably §119), including voice, gesture, and other kindred

elements; cp. ad Herenn. §3 pronuntiatio est vocis vultus gestus

moderatio cum venustate: Cic. de Inv. §7 pronuntiatio est vocis et

corporis moderatio. For _accommodata ut_ see Crit. Notes.

vel potentissima: §15 potentiora.

For the supreme importance of ‘delivery’ cp. the well-known story of

Demosthenes xi. 3, 6 Demosth. quid esset in toto dicendi opere primum

interrogatus, pronuntiationi palmam dedit eidemque secundum ac tertium

locum, donec ab eo quaeri desineret, ut eam videri posset non praecipuam

sed solam iudicasse. Cp. Cic. Brut. §142: de Or. iii. §213: Or. §56.

Cicero’s use of _actio_ for _pronuntiatio_ in these passages

is probably the origin of the misunderstanding of this anecdote that

shows itself, e.g. in Bacon’s Essay ‘Of Boldnesse.’ _Actio_ is far

wider than our English word: for its scope and importance cp. de

Orat. i. §18 (Actio) quae motu corporis, quae gestu, quae voltu,

quae vocis conformatione ac varietate moderanda est: quae sola per se

ipsa quanta sit, &c.

semel: ‘once for all’ 3 §22, and often; Cic. de Off.

iii. §62 ut sibi ... semel indicaretur.

frequenter, as often in this sense in Quint. The lexx. give no

example from Cicero, but cp. de Nat. Deor. i. 21, 59 Zenonem cum Athenis

essem audiebam frequenter: de Fin. i. 5, 16 eos cum Attico nostro

frequenter audivi: ii. 4, 12 hoc frequenter dici solet a vobis: v. 3, 8

qui fratrem eius Aristum frequenter audieris: Tusc. Disp. ii. 3, 9 Philo

quem nos frequenter audivimus: Or. §221 non modo non frequenter verum

etiam raro (Wilkins on de Or. ii. §155, 2nd ed.). Cp. Sandys’ note on

Or. §81, where Dr. Reid adds ‘This sense is by no means as uncommon as

it is usually thought to be. There are a good many exx. in the Letters.’

So Plin. Ep. i. 1, 1: ix. 23, 1.

suus cuique favor: ‘one’s preference for a particular

speaker.’ Instead of the dat., we have ‘est naturalis favor pro

laborantibus’ iv. 1, 9: Tacitus uses _in_ and _erga_ c. acc.

(Hist. i. 53: Germ. 33.)

ille laudantium clamor. _Ille_ again (§16) to denote something notorious: ἐκεῖνος. Ancient audiences were highly

appreciative: Isocrates (Panath. §2) speaks of the antitheses, the

symmetrical clauses, and other figures which lend brilliancy to

oratorical displays, compelling the listeners to give clamorous applause

(ἐπισημαίνεσθαι καὶ θορυβεῖν). Cp. xi. 3, 126 conveniet

etiam ambulatio quaedam propter immodicas laudationum moras: §131: and see on §18

below. The references in Cicero are numerous: Brut. §§164, 326: de Or.

i. §152 haec sunt quae clamores et admirationes in bonis oratoribus

efficiunt: ad Att. i. 14, 4 Quid multa? clamores: Or. §§214, 168. Tac.

Dial. 39 oratori autem clamore plausuque opus est et velut quodam

theatro, with which Andresen compares Brut. §191 poema enim reconditum

paucorum approbationem, oratio popularis assensum vulgi debet movere.

Plin. Ep. ii. 10, 7: iv. 5, 1: ix. 13, 18.

extorquet: iv. 5, 6 cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre. For

the figure Mayor cps. de Orat. ii. §74 numquam

26

sententias de manibus iudicum vi quadam orationis extorsimus.

I:18

Pudet enim dissentire, et velut

26

tacita quadam verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere, cum interim et

vitiosa pluribus placent, et a conrogatis laudantur etiam quae non

placent.

§ 18.

pudet dissentire: of Cicero §111 in

omnibus quae dicit tanta auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat.

velut tacita quadam verecundia. _Tacitus_ is used

frequently of ‘unexpressed’ thought or feeling: Cic. pro Balb. §2 opinio

tacita vestrorum animorum: Cluent. §63 tacita vestra expectatio. Cp. Or.

§203 (versuum) modum notat ars, sed aures ipsae tacito eum sensu sine

arte definiunt, where Sandys renders ‘by an unconscious intuition’: de

Or. iii. §195 magna quaedam est vis incredibilisque naturae; omnes enim

tacito quodam sensu sine ulla arte aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac

rationibus recta ac prava diiudicant. On these passages Nägelsbach

relies to prove that _tacitus sensus_ (not inscius, insciens,

nescius, imprudens, &c.) is the right equivalent for ‘the

unconscious’—‘das Gefühl, das durch die Sprache nicht zum

Ausdruck, mithin nicht zum Bewusstsein gekommen ist, also gleichsam

stillschweigend in der Seele ruht.’ The correct Latin for Hartmann’s

‘philosophy of the unconscious’ is therefore ‘Hartmanni quae est de

tacito sensu (hominum) philosophia.’ In proof of this the passage in the

text is cited (p. 312) and translated ‘durch unbewusste Scheu,’

‘owing to a sort of unconscious shyness’: cp. vi. 3, 17 urbanitas qua

quidem significari video sumptam ex conversatione doctorum tacitam

eruditionem, ‘unconsciously acquired’: xi. 2, 17 cum in loca aliqua post

tempus reversi sumus quae in his fecerimus reminiscimur personaeque

subeunt, nonnunquam tacitae quoque cogitationes in mentem revertuntur,

‘unausgesprochene, im Bewusstsein zurückgedrängte, unbewusst gewordene

Gedanken.’

inhibemur ... credere. Cic. pro Rab. Post. §24 cum stultitia

sua impeditus sit, quoquo modo possit se expedire. In classical Latin

the infinitive is common enough after such verbs in the passive, and an

object clause is often met with after _prohibere_ even in the

active: after _impedire_ Cicero uses the infinitive only when there

is a neuter subject: e.g. de Or. i. §163 me impedit pudor haec

exquirere: de Off. ii. 2, 8: de Nat. Deor. i. §87.—For

Quintilian’s preference for the infin. cp. §72 meruit credi: §96

legi dignus: §97 esse docti affectant: 2 §7 contentum esse id

consequi: 5 §5 qui

vertere orationes Latinas vetant. See Introd. pp. lv, lvi.

cum interim: with indic. as §111

below. This is the more common construction in Quintilian: Roby, 1733.

Cp. i. 12, 3: ii. 12, 2: xii. 10, 67. So _cum interea_: Cic.

Cluent. §82. The subj. occurs iv. 2, 57. Bonnell-Meister strangely

say it = quin etiam here and §111.

Translate ‘though all the time’ the taste of the majority is wrong,

while the claqueurs will applaud anything. Cp. Crit. Notes.

vitiosa pluribus placent: i. 6, 44 unde enim tantum boni ut

pluribus quae recta sunt placeant.

a conrogatis. The reference is to the _claqueurs_ who

were often brought together for a fee to applaud the speakers in the

courts: iv. 2, 37 ad clamorem dispositae vel etiam forte circumfusae

multitudinis compositi: Plin. Ep. ii. 14, 4 sequuntur auditores

actoribus similes, conducti et redempti: manceps convenitur: in media

basilica tam palam sportulae quam in triclinio dantur ... heri duo

nomenclatores mei ... ternis denariis ad laudandum trahebantur. tanti

constat ut sis disertissimus. hoc pretio quamlibet numerosa subsellia

implentur, hoc ingens corona colligitur, hoc infiniti clamores

commoventur, cum μεσόχορος dedit signum. opus est enim signo apud non

intellegentes, ne audientes quidem: nam plerique non audiunt, nec ulli

magis laudant.... scito eum pessime dicere qui laudabitur maxime. primus

hunc audiendi morem induxit Largus Licinus, hactenus tamen ut auditores

corrogaret: ita certe ex Quintiliano, praeceptore meo, audisse memini.

Cp. Iuv. vii. 44 with Mayor’s note.

I:19

Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam prava iudicia

non referant. Lectio libera

27

est nec actionis impetu transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive

dubites sive memoriae penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et

tractemus et, ut cibos mansos ac prope liquefactos demittimus, quo

facilius digerantur, ita lectio non cruda, sed multa iteratione mollita

et velut confecta memoriae imitationique tradatur.

§ 19.

gratiam ... non referunt: ‘a depraved taste will fail to give

proper recognition to what is more than well spoken.’ For _prava

iud._ cp. §125 severiora iudicia: so

ii. 5, 10 iudiciorum pravitate: and §72

below, e contrario: see on _ex proximo_ §16, and cp. Crit. Notes.

27

nec actionis impetu transcurrit: ‘does not hurry past us with

the rapid swoop of oral delivery.’ For the active use see 5 §8 non enim scripta lectione

secura transcurrimus sed tractamus singula, which gives the same

antithesis as there is between this sentence and the next. For the abl.

cp. _diversitate_ 5 §10. See Crit. Notes.

sive ... sive: the subj. of the 2nd person represents the

French _on_ or Germ. _man_ with the 3rd person. Cp. ix. 2, 69

ideoque a quibusdam tota res repudiatur, sive intellegatur sive non

intellegatur.

repetamus et tractemus: subj. of command ‘we must go back on

what we have read and revise (think over) it thoroughly.’ Cp. the

antithesis in 5 §8

quoted above. Cic. Or. §118 habeat omnes philosophiae notos ac tractatos

locos. See Crit. Notes.

cibos. Note the parallelism between _mansos_,

_liquefactos_, and _demittimus_ on the one hand, and

_mollita_, _confecta_, _tradatur_ on the other.—For

_mansos_ cp. de Or. ii. §162: qui omnes tenuissimas particulas

atque omnia minima mansa ut nutrices infantibus pueris in os inserant.

The word _mandere_ (Eng. mange, manger) means originally ‘moisten,’

from root mand-, cp. mad-, madeo. Quint. xi. 2, 41 taedium illud et

scripta et lecta saepius revolvendi et quasi eundem cibum

remandendi.

digerantur, late Latin for _concoquantur_, xi. 2, 35

digestum cibum. Introd. p. 1.

lectio = ‘what we read.’

mollita. Herbst and Mayor cite Ov. Met. i. 228 atque ita

semineces partim ferventibus artus Mollit aquis; and for _confecta_

(‘chewed,’ ‘masticated’) Columella vi. 2 §14 (of oxen) multi cibi

edaces verum in eo conficiendo lenti: nam hi melius concoquunt ... qui

ex commodo quam qui festinanter mandunt: Pliny, N. H. xi. §160 (of

the teeth) qui digerunt cibum (the incisors) lati et acuti, qui

conficiunt (the grinders) duplices. Cp. Cic. N. D. ii. §134: Livy

ii. 32, 10. Elsewhere it is used of the action of the stomach on food:

Cic. N. D. ii. §137: Pliny N. H. xi. §180: viii. §72.

memoriae imitationique, ‘to the memory for (subsequent)

imitation.’

I:20

Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi minime fallat

legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi sollicitudinem, nec

per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed perlectus

28

liber utique ex integro resumendus, praecipueque oratio, cuius virtutes

frequenter ex industria quoque occultantur.

§ 20.

non nisi is here practically an adverb (tantum), modifying only

one term of the proposition instead of, as in Ciceronian Latin,

belonging to different clauses, or at least different parts of the same

clause. In the latter case it is almost always separated, the _non_

preceding or following the _nisi_: 3 §30 nisi in solitudine

reperire non possumus: 5 §5: 7 §1. For the text cp. 3 §29 non nisi refecti, and

Ovid, Tr. iii. 12, 36.

fallat, i.e. as a model of style. For the construction cp.

tenuia et quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedant: §§78, 118, 119.

sed does not bear an adversative meaning, but is equivalent to

_et quidem_, _immo vero_, ‘nay more.’ See Mayor on Iuv. iv. 27

and v. 147. Holden on de Off. i. §33 quotes ad Att. v. 21 §6

Q. Volusium, certum hominem, sed mirifice etiam abstinentem, misi

in Cyprum: ad Fam. xiii. §64 apud ipsum praeclarissime posueris sed mihi

etiam gratissimum feceris.

ad (i.e. usque ad) scribendi sollicitudinem, i.e. as

thoroughly and as slowly. Cic. pro Mil. §80 prope ad immortalitatis et

religionem et memoriam consecrantur: ‘bis zur Verehrung der

Unsterblichkeit’ (Hand), i.e. ‘so much venerated as almost to obtain the

religious worship and commemoration proper to an immortal state of

being’ (Purton). For _scrib. soll._ (of the careful deliberation

one gives to writing) cp. scribentium curam 3 §20: Plin. Ep. ii. 5 §2

his tu rogo intentionem scribentis accommodes.

28

utique, ‘by all means.’ In §57 we

have nec utique = nullo modo: without the negative it = omni modo,

‘anyhow,’ ‘under any circumstances,’ ‘happen what may.’ (Cp. Cic. ad

Att. xii. 8: xiii. 48, 2.) The difference may be seen in the

following from Seneca (Ep. 85 §31) Sapienti propositum est in vita

agenda non utique quod temptat efficere, sed omnino recte facere:

gubernatori propositum est utique navem in portum perducere. It

frequently occurs with the gerundive, as here: cp. §§24, 103: 2 §10: 5 §12: 7 §§14, 19, 30. For _non utique_ (‘not of

course,’ ‘not necessarily’) cp. xii. 2, 18.

ex integro occurs four times in Quint., here and at 3 §§6, 18: xi. 3, 156. In such adverbial

expressions _de_ or _ab_ was formerly more common: but cp.

_ex improviso_ Cic. Verr. i. 112. Quintilian has _de

integro_ only once, ii. 4, 13: cp. ix. 3, 37.

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

1, 261.

ex industria (§125: 5 §9) occurs Plaut. Poen. i. 2, 9:

Livy i. 56, 8. Quintilian has _de industria_ ix.

4, 144.

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

I:21

Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur orator, eaque in prima

parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa profutura. Itaque suo loco minus

placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint ignorantibus; ideoque erunt

cognitis omnibus repetenda.

§ 21.

saepe enim: cp. xii. 9, 4.

praeparat: cp. iv. 2, 55 hoc faciunt et illae praeparationes,

cum reus dicitur robustus, armatus, sollicitus contra infirmos, inermes,

securos: ix. 2, 17.

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

&c.

in summa: i.e. will not tell till the end is reached. Cp. iv.

2, 112 cur quod in summa parte sum actionis petiturus, non in primo

statim rerum ingressu, si fieri potest, consequar? For summus =

extremus, cp. §97 summa in excolendis

operibus manus: see Introd. p. xlvi.

suo loco, ‘where they occur,’ not as 5 §23. To appreciate such points

thoroughly, we must know their bearing on the whole argument.

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

fin.: Germ. 26.

repetenda as §19.

I:22

Illud vero utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes in manus

sumpserimus, et, quotiens continget, utrimque habitas legere actiones:

ut Demosthenis et Aeschinis inter se contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque

Messallae, quorum alter pro Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et

Cassi reo Asprenate aliasque plurimas.

§ 22.

illud, like ἐκεῖνο

to introduce what follows: §67: 2 §7: 5 §11: 7 §32.

causas quarum orationes: Cic. de Senect. §38 causarum

illustrium quascunque defendi nunc cum maxime conficio orationes.

utrimque, §131: 5 §20.

Demosthenis et Aeschinis. The reference is to the _De

Corona_ of Demosthenes and Aeschines _Contra

Ctesiphontem_,—both translated by Cicero (Opt. Gen. Or. §14):

also to the _De Falsa Legatione_ and Aeschines _Contra

Timarchum_.

Servi Sulpici: see on §116.

Messallae: see on §113.

pro Aufidia. From iv. 2, 106 it would appear that Messalla was

prosecutor in this case: but in vi. 1, 20 that rôle is assigned to

Sulpicius. Schöll has proposed to alter the text of the latter passage

as follows: ut Servium Sulpicium Messalla contra Aufidiam ne signatorum,

ne ipsius discrimen obiciat sibi praemonet. It is probable that the case

concerned an inheritance.

Pollionis: see on §113.

Cassi: see on §116.

reo Asprenate. C. Nonius Asprenas, a friend of Augustus, was

prosecuted by Cassius for poisoning, and was defended by Pollio, Suet.

Aug. 56. In xi. 1, 57 Quint. urges that an accuser should always

29

appear reluctant to press the charge, and adds ‘ideoque mihi illud Cassi

Severi non mediocriter displicet: di boni, vivo, et, quo me vivere

iuvet, Asprenatem reum video.’ Pliny (N. H. 35, 46) tells us that

130 guests were poisoned.

I:23

Quin

29

etiam si minus pares videbuntur aliquae, tamen ad cognoscendam litium

quaestionem recte requirentur, ut contra Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis

in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre. Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque

_egerit utile_ erit scire. Nam de domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et

pro Milone orationem Brutus exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi

egisse eum Cornelius Celsus falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla

defenderunt eosdem, et nobis pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo Domiti

Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi Laeli orationes ferebantur.

§ 23.

quin etiam: see Crit.

Notes.

minus pares, i.e. in point of rhetorical worth. For _si ...

aliquae_ cp. 2 §23:

6 §5.

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

Ciceronis orationes: ‘pro Ligario,’ and ‘in Verrem.’ The

former was impeached by Q. Tubero (B.C. 46) in respect of having sided with the

Pompeians in Africa. ‘Cicero defended him successfully before Caesar in

the forum (Plut. Cic. 39); the speech was greatly admired at the time

(ad Att. xiii. 12 §2: 19 §2: 20 §2: 44 §3) and

since, for, short as it is, it is often cited by Quint. and the other

rhet. lat.’ (Mayor).

Hortensi pro Verre, B.C. 70.

Nothing of Hortensius remains, so that posterity has not had the

opportunity which Cicero hoped it would enjoy: dicendi autem genus quod

fuerit in utroque orationes utriusque etiam posteris nostris indicabunt

(Brut. §324). Quint. does not mention him among the Roman orators, §§105-122. His oratory depended greatly for

its effect on his graceful delivery, and he was not to be judged by his

written speeches: Cic. Or. §132 dicebat melius quam scripsit Hortensius:

he ‘spoke better, i.q. was accustomed to speak better than he has

written,—than he shows himself in his written speeches which are

still extant’ (Sandys): cp. Quint. xi. 3, 8 where he extols his

effective delivery and goes on ‘cuius rei fides est quod eius scripta

tantum intra famam sunt, qua diu princeps oratorum aliquando aemulus

Ciceronis existimatus est, novissime, quoad vixit, secundus, ut appareat

placuisse aliquid eo dicente quod legentes non invenimus.’—For

other references to the case of Verres, see vi. 3, 98: 5, 4.

utile erit scire: see Crit. Notes.

de domo Ciceronis. Cicero’s house was destroyed at the

instigation of Clodius, after his banishment in B.C. 58. On his return he delivered his speech pro

Domo Sua before the Pontiffs, and the senate decreed that his house

should be restored at the public cost.

dixit Calidius. His speech must have been something more than

a mere rhetorical exercise, as some have supposed: it probably argued

the question before a tribunal in a different form. For Calidius see

Brut. §274 non fuit orator unus e multis, potius inter multos prope

singularis fuit, &c. Cp. xi. 3, 123 and 155: xii. 10, 11

subtilitatem Calidii (‘finished elegance’): ib. §37. He was born B.C. 97; was praetor 57; and died 47.

Brutus, M. Iunius (B.C.

85-42) justified in this speech the murder of Clodius, not (as Cicero

had done) by the statement that Clodius had plotted Milo’s death, but on

the ground that he was a bad citizen and deserved to die: iii.

6, 93. Other references are §123 and

5 §20.

egisse: to have actually delivered it: opposed to

_scripsit_.

Cornelius Celsus: see on §124.

et Pollio et Messalla. The first _et_ is not correlative

to the second, but adds to the _et pro Milone_ clause a third

example, as the _et_ before _nobis pueris_ does a fourth.

Spalding thought that et ... et was here = tam ... quam.

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

nobis pueris: an autobiographical reminiscence. Cp. i. 7, 27:

vi. 3, 57: viii. 3, 22-3: ib. 1, 31: x. 1,

86: viii. 3, 76: 5, 21: i. 5, 24: v. 6, 6.

Voluseno Catulo: not mentioned elsewhere.

Domiti Afri: see on §§86, 118. Of

30

his orations, those on behalf of Volusenus and Cloatilla seem to have

been the most celebrated: cp. viii. 5, 16: ix. 2, 20: 3, 66. For

his work on Testimony, see v. 7, 7: and for his ‘libri urbane dictorum’

vi. 3, 42.

Crispi Passieni. He was the stepfather of Nero, according to

Suetonius (Nero, 6), and died A.D. 49. In vi. 1, 50 we have a reference to a

speech of his on behalf of his wife Domitia. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. iv.

pr. §6 says of him ‘quo ego nil novi subtilius in omnibus rebus, maxime

in distinguendis et curandis vitiis.’ In speaking of Caligula’s

obsequiousness under Tiberius, Tacitus (Ann. vi. 20) says ‘unde mox

scitum Passieni oratoris dictum percrebruit neque meliorem umquam servum

neque deteriorem dominum fuisse.’ His father’s oratory is highly praised

by M. Seneca, who ranks him after Pollio and Corvinus (Contr. 13,

17: Exc. Contr. 3 pr. 10, 14), and appears also to mention the

grandfather (Contr. 10 pr. 11). Seneca the philosopher refers to

the hereditary eloquence of the family in the epigram he addresses to

Crispus: Maxima facundo vel avo vel gloria patri (vi. 9). Pliny,

Ep. vii. 6, 11.

Decimi Laeli: probably the same as the Laelius Balbus who

undertook an impeachment under Tiberius: Tac. Ann. vi. 47. In the next

chapter we are told that the punishment which overtook him (deportation

and loss of senatorian rank) was a source of satisfaction ‘quia Balbus

truci eloquentia habebatur, promptus adversum insontes.’

ferebantur: ‘were in circulation,’ ‘were talked of’; cp. §129: 7 §30: vii. 224: i. pr. §7.

Cic. Brut. §27 ante Periclem cuius scripta quaedam feruntur: Suet. Iul.

20: Tac. Dial. 10 ad fin.

30

I:24

Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi auctores

dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur aliquando et oneri cedunt

et indulgent ingeniorum suorum voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum;

nonnumquam fatigantur, cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes,

Horatio vero

31

etiam Homerus ipse videatur.

§ 24.

Neque id statim introduces a second precept, the first having

been given in §20. He passes here from

orators to writers in general.

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

auctores = scriptores. In the Ciceronian age _auctor_

carried with it some idea of ‘authority,’ ‘warranty’ or the like: Cic.

pro Mur. §30 and Tusc. iv. §3: cp. §§37, 40, 48, 66, 72, 74, 85, 93, 124: 2 §§1, 15: 5 §§3, 8. Prof. Nettleship (Lat. Lex.) thinks

that it is never quite synonymous with _scriptor_, even in

Quintilian, and would render by ‘master’: just as in Cic. Att. xii. 18,

1 quos nunc lectito auctores: Suet. Aug. 89 in evolvendis utriusque

linguae auctoribus peritus: Sen. Ep. ii. 2 lectio auctorum multorum et

omnis generis voluminum: Tranq. 9, 4 paucis te auctoribus tradere: Iuv.

vii. 231 ut legat historias, auctores noverit omnes.

utique: see on §20. It is often

used in stating a consequence: v. 10, 57 quod iustitia est utique virtus

est, quod non est iustitia potest esse virtus: ib. §73 si continentia

virtus utique et abstinentia. Bonn. Lex. p. 930.

labuntur: §94: 2 §15 nam in magnis quoque

auctoribus incidunt aliqua vitiosa.

oneri cedunt: contrast §123

suffecit ponderi rerum.

indulgent ... voluptati: cp. §98:

and nimium amator ingenii sui (of Ovid) §88.

intendunt animum: Sall. Cat. 51, 3 ubi intenderis ingenium

valet (sc. animus).

dormitare: xii. 1, 22 quamquam neque ipsi Ciceroni Demosthenes

videatur satis esse perfectus, quem dormitare interim dicit. Cic. Or.

§104 ut usque eo difficiles ac morosi simus ut nobis non satisfaciat

ipse Demosthenes. It was in a letter that Cicero made use of the

expression here cited: Plut. Cic. 24 καίτοι τινὲς τῶν

προσποιουμένων δημοσθενίζειν ἐπιφύονται φωνῇ τοῦ Κικέρωνος, ἣν πρός τινα

τῶν ἑταίρων ἔθηκεν ἐν ἐπιστολῇ γράψας, ἐνιαχοῦ τῶν λόγων ὑπονυστάζειν

τὸν Δημοσθένη.

interim: see on §9. Quint. here

uses _aliquando_, _nec semper_, _nonnumquam_, and

_interim_ alongside of each other: cp. iv. 5, 20.

Horatio: A. P. 359 et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat

Homerus. Homer was not above the criticism of the Greek grammarians and

philosophers, who delighted to discover faults and inconsistencies

31

in his poems: hence Zoilus was known as Ὁμηρομάστιξ. The fragments of Horace’s predecessor

Lucilius also contain some criticisms of Homer: e.g. Sat. ix. 12

(Gerlach) Quapropter dico nemo qui culpat Homerum Perpetuo culpat,

&c., and xv. where he satirizes the story of Polyphemus.

etiam ... ipse: see on §15.

I:25

Summi enim sunt, homines tamen, acciditque his qui, quidquid apud illos

reppererunt, dicendi legem putant, ut deteriora imitentur (id enim est

facilius) ac se abunde similes putent si vitia magnorum

consequantur.

§ 25.

homines. Cp. Petronius 75 nemo nostrum non peccat: homines sumus

non dei: ib. 130 fateor me, domina, saepe peccasse; nam et homo sum et

adhuc iuvenis.

deteriora: cp. §127 sq. (of the

imitation of Seneca’s faults): 2 §§15, 16.

facilius: Iuv. xiv. 40 quoniam dociles imitandis turpibus ac

pravis omnes sumus. So Hor. Ep. i. 19, 17 decipit exemplar vitiis

imitabile.

abunde, often used to heighten the force of adjs. and advbs.

Cp. xi. 1, 36 abunde disertus: xii. 11, 19 abunde satis: Hor.

Sat. i. 2, 59: Sall. Iug. 14: Liv. viii. 29. See on §94: and cp. §104.

vitia magnorum: cp. de Or. ii. §90 non ut multos imitatores

saepe cognovi, qui aut ea quae facilia sunt aut etiam illa quae insignia

ac paene vitiosa consectantur imitando—in eo ipso quem delegerat

imitari etiam vitia voluit.

I:26

Modesto tamen et circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris pronuntiandum est,

ne, quod plerisque accidit, damnent quae non intellegunt. Ac si necesse

est in alteram errare partem, omnia eorum legentibus placere quam multa

displicere maluerim.

§ 26.

circumspecto. So verba non circumspecta Ov. Fast. v. 539: also in

Sueton., Colum., Seneca, and Val. Max. Cp. v. 7, 31: xii. 10, 23.

plerisque: see Introd. p. xlvi.

damnent. Strabo vii. 3, p. 300, in speaking of Callimachus,

who censured Homer, περὶ ὧν ἀγνοοῦσιν αὐτοί, περὶ

τούτων τῷ ποιητῇ προφέρουσι.

ac si: 2 §8.

It almost = quod si: both relate to what has gone before.

alteram = alterutram: ‘on one side or on the other.’ Cp. ii.

6, 2: v. 10, 69 ex duobus quorum necesse est alterum verum (esse): i. 4,

24: ix. 3, 6. So also in Cicero: e.g. ad Att. xi. 18, 1: Acad. ii.

43. 132.

maluerim: see on _fuerit_ §37.

I:27

Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem poetarum multique

eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito. Namque ab his in rebus spiritus

et in verbis sublimitas et in

32

adfectibus motus omnis et in personis decor petitur, praecipueque velut

attrita cotidiano actu forensi ingenia optime rerum talium blanditia

reparantur; ideoque in hac lectione Cicero requiescendum putat.

§ 27.

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

Theoparastus: probably in his lost work περὶ λέξεως, or some other of the ten

treatises on Rhetoric which are ascribed to him by Diogenes Laertius (v.

46-50). See on §83.

neque immerito: ‘and not without reason,’—an elliptical

expression (referring to both _dicit_ and _sequuntur_) used to

introduce the proof of a foregoing statement. So §79 nec immerito, and ii. 8, 1: neque immerito vii.

7, 1: et merito vi. 1, 4. Cicero often has neque iniuria, nam,

&c., e.g. de Or. i. §150: and even after _est_ pro Sext. Rosc.

§116 in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est: neque

iniuria.

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

&c.

rebus. See on §4.

spiritus: §§44, 61, 104: 3 §22: 5 §4: ‘inspiration.’ So often in

Horace: Od. iv. 6, 29 spiritum Phoebus mihi ... dedit poetae: Sat. i. 4,

46 quod acer spiritus ac vis Nec verbis nec rebus inest. Cp. also i. 8,

5 interim et sublimitate heroi carminis animus adsurgat et ex magnitudine rerum

spiritum ducat et optimis imbuatur.

in verbis sublimitas: ‘elevation of language.’ Cp. viii.

6, 11. So the author of the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ makes

sublimity attainable by the imitation and emulation of the great writers

and poets of former days: 13 §2.

in adfectibus motus omnis. Poetry

32

shows how to appeal to every feeling of our emotional nature. For

_adfectus_ see vi. 2, 7, where the two divisions are given, πάθος and ἦθος. Cp. §§48, 53, 55, 68, 107: 2 §27: 7 §§14, 15.

in personis decor: ‘the appropriate treatment of the

characters,’ a sense of what the fitness of things demands in adapting

speech to the persons to whom it relates. Cp. Cic. Or. §§70-71

especially semperque in omni parte orationis ut vitae quid deceat est

considerandum; quod et in re de qua agitur positum est, et in personis

et eorum qui dicunt et eorum qui audiunt. This ‘propriety’ was always

much praised in Lysias, Hor. A. P. 156-7. Cp. §§62, 71: 2 §27, 22: vi. 1, 25 prosopopoeiae, id est

fictae alienarum personarum orationes quales litigatoris ore dicit

patronus (e.g. Cicero pro Milone §93). Cic. de Off. i. §87 sed tum

servare illud poetas quod deceat dicimus cum id quod quaque persona

dignum est et fit et dicitur, &c. De Or. iii. §§210-211.

attrita cotidiano actu. 5 §14 alitur enim atque enitescit

velut pabulo laetiore facundia et adsidua contentionum asperitate

fatigata renovatur. So i. 8, 11: videmus ... inseri versus summa non

eruditionis modo gratia, sed etiam iucunditatis, cum poeticis

voluptatibus aures a forensi asperitate respirent. Petronius ch. 5

interdum subducta foro det pagina versum: 118 forensibus ministeriis

exercitati frequenter ad carminis tranquillitatem tamquam ad portum

feliciorem refugerunt. So Tac. Dial. 13 me vero dulces, ut Vergilius

ait, Musae, &c.: cp. 3 and 4. Plin. Ep. viii.

4, 4.—For _attrita_ cp. viii. pr. §2 ingenia ...

asperiorum tractatu rerum atteruntur: for the spelling _cotidie_

see i. 7, 6.

Cicero, pro Arch. §12 Quaeres a nobis, Grati, cur tanto opere

hoc homine delectemur. Quia suppeditat nobis ubi et animus ex hoc

forensi strepitu reficiatur et aures convicio defessae conquiescant.

I:28

Meminerimus tamen non per omnia poetas esse oratori sequendos nec

libertate verborum nec licentia figurarum: _poeticam_ ostentationi

comparatam et praeter id quod solam petit voluptatem, eamque etiam

fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam quaedam incredibilia sectatur,

patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari,

§ 28.

non per omnia, &c. 2 §§21-22.

libertate verborum, §29: 5 §4.

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

ostentationi comparatam. Poetry is ‘epideictic’ in character:

and of the γενος

ἐπιδεικτικόν Quint. says (iii. 4, 13) non tam

demonstrationis vim habere quam ostentationis videtur. Forensic oratory,

like everything else that has an immediate and practical aim, cannot

afford to set such store on ‘beauty of presentation.’ Cp. ii. 10, 10:

iv. 3, 2: viii. 3, 11. Cic. Orat. §§37, 38, 42. See Crit. Notes for _poeticam_.

praeter id quod for the more classical _praeterquam quod_

(which only occurs twice in Quint.). So 2 §26: 3 §6: cp. §80 ob hoc quod: §108

in hoc quod: 3 §18 ex

eo quod.

fingendo ... falsa. Hild cites Arist. Poet. 9 and 24;

especially (of Homer) Δεδίδαχε δὲ

μάλιστα Ὅμηρος καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψευδῆ λέγειν ὡς δεῖ ... Προαιρεῖσθαί τε

δεῖ ἀδύνατα καὶ εἰκότα μᾶλλον ἢ δύνατα καὶ ἀπίθανα.

patrocinio: i. 12, 16 difficultatis patrocinia praeteximus

segnitiae. Poetry has the benefit of a sort of ‘prerogative,’ as

compared with history. Krüger explains = esse quae huic generi

patrocinentur, unde defensionem et excusationem petat poetarum licentia.

The idea of ‘defence’ implies ‘justification’: and much that could be

justified and vindicated in the poet would be without excuse in the

orator.

I:29

quod adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem

33

non semper uti propriis possit, sed depulsa recta via necessario ad

eloquendi quaedam deverticula confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba,

sed extendere, conripere, convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero armatos

stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti.

§ 29.

adligata, 3 §10. For the ‘restraints of

metre’ cp. i. 8, 14 servire metro coguntur (poetae). Cic. de Or. i. §70

est enim finitimus oratori poeta, numeris astrictior paulo verborum

autem licentia liberior. Or. §67 cum sit versu astrictior (poeta).

33

propriis, sc. verbis: v. on §6.

Direct, natural, and unartificial language is meant, as opposed to

metaphorical.

deverticula: ‘by-ways’ of expression. The word literally means

a lane turning off from a highway (ii. 3, 9 recto itinere lassi

plerumque devertunt): and so metaphorically xii. 3, 11: ix. 2, 78: Livy

ix. 17, 1.

mutare includes all changes in the use of words, and covers

both _libertas verborum_ and _licentia figurarum_: e.g.

‘mucro’ for ‘gladius.’

extendere and conripere are used of syllables:

convertere and dividere of words. An instance of

‘lengthening’ (extendere) is ‘induperator’ for imperator: of

‘contracting’ (conripere) ‘periclum’ for periculum. Mayor takes it of

quantity only, and compares i. 5, 18: 6, 32: ix. 4, 89: 3, 69: vii.

9, 13. As an instance of ‘transposition’ (the removal of words from

their usual order) we may take ‘collo dare bracchia circum’ for

circumdare collum bracchiis, or ‘transtra per et remos’: and for

_dividere_ (separation by tmesis) ‘hyperboreo septem subiecta

trioni’ (viii. 6, 66) and other instances from Vergil (e.g. Aen. i.

610 ‘quae me cumque vocant terrae’).

nos: ‘we advocates.’ For the figure in _armatos stare_

see on §4 athleta. Cp. Or. §42 verum haec

ludorum atque pompae; nos autem iam in aciem dimicationemque veniamus.

Mayor cites also ii. 10, 8: vi. 4, 17: Cic. Opt. Gen. Or. §17: de Or. i.

§147, 157: ii. 94: de Legg. iii. 14: Brut. §222: Introd. p. lvi.

decernere, another military figure: cp. Cic. de Or. ii. §200

pro mea omni fama prope fortunisque decernere. See on _decretoriis_

5 §20: and cp. xii.

7, 5.