inclinasse: Brut. §38 (where _primus_ ha_M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

(Halm) as an argument against _primum_ in the text, though

Quintilian is only quoting from memory, as often, cp. §94): hic primus inflexit orationem et eam mollem

teneramque reddidit et suavis, sicut fuit, maluit esse quam gravis. He

impaired the strength of Attic oratory, depriving it of what Cicero

calls its ‘sap and fresh vigour’ (sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus),

and substituting an ‘artificial gloss’ (fucatus nitor): processerat enim

in solem et pulverem, non ut e militari tabernaculo, sed ut e

Theophrasti doctissimi hominis umbraculis. ibid. §37. Of all the orators

who flourished after Demosthenes (when alia quaedam _molliora_ ac

_remissiora_ genera viguerunt) he was the most polished: de Orat.

ii. §95. He was more florid than Hyperides and Lysias, Brut. §285. In

the Orator, §§91-2, Cicero says that his diction has a smooth and

tranquil flow, and is also ‘lit up by the stars of metaphor and

metonymy’: oratio cum sedate placideque labitur, tum illustrant eam

quasi stellae quaedam tralata verba atque immutata. Cp. de Off. i. §3

disputator subtilis, orator parum vehemens, dulcis tamen, ut Theophrasti

discipulum possis agnoscere.

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

κεκραμένος.

ultimus ... ex Atticis: Brut. §285 mihi quidem ex illius

orationibus redolere ipsae Athenae videntur.

medio genere dicendi: the ‘middle’ style: see on §44. In xii. 10, 59 he says of this style ‘ea fere

est ratio ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare videatur

officium’: with which cp. Cicero of Demetrius, _delectabat_ magis

Athenienses quam inflammabat.—Of the middle style generally Cicero

says (Orator, §21) est autem quidam interiectus inter hos medius et

quasi temperatus nec acumine posteriorum nec flumine utens superiorum,

vicinus amborum, in neutro excellens, utriusque particeps, vel

utriusque, si verum quaerimus, potius expers; isque uno tenore, ut

aiunt, in dicendo fluit nihil adferens praeter facilitatem et

aequabilitatem, aut addit aliquos ut in corona toros (‘raised ornaments’

or ‘knots’) omnemque orationem ornamentis modicis verborum

sententiarumque distinguit.

praefert omnibus Cicero: de Orat. ii. §95 omnium istorum mea

sententia politissimus: Orat. §92 in qua (sc. media orationis forma)

multi floruerunt apud Graecos, sed Phalereus Demetrius meo iudicio

praestitit ceteris.—For _quem tamen_ see Crit. Notes.

§§ 81-84.

Greek Philosophers:—

In this paragraph there is a correspondence between the criticisms of

Quintilian and those of Cicero and Dionysius. In the Ἀρχ. κρ. (ch. 4, Us. pp. 26-7)

the latter recommends the study of the Pythagorean philosophers (μεγαλοπρεπεῖς γὰρ τῇ λέξει καὶ ποιητικοί), holding up

Xenophon and Plato as the best models, and eulogising also Aristotle and

his followers: μιμητέον δὲ ...

μάλιστα Ξενοφῶντα καὶ Πλάτωνα ... παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς

μίμησιν ... φιλοτιμώμεθα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐντυνχάνειν.

Quintilian’s selection of Theophrastus is probably motived by the

passage in Cicero, Orat. §2 (already quoted by him in §33): philosophi quidam ornate locuti sunt, siquidem

et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit et Aristoteles

Isocratem ipsum lacessivit

et Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt et longe omnium,

quicunque scripserunt aut locuti sunt, exstitit et gravitate et

suavitate princeps Plato.

I:81

Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae

M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse

praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina

quadam et Homerica? Multum enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem

Graeci vocant surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphici

videatur oraculo dei instinctus.

§ 81.

confitetur: xii. 2, 23 nam M. Tullius non tantum se debere

scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae spatiis frequenter ipse testatus est:

neque se tanta unquam in eo fudisset ubertas si ingenium suum consaepto

fori non ipsius rerum natura finibus terminasset. In the Orator, §12,

Cicero tells us he had got his oratory not from the narrow schoolrooms

and mechanical workshops of the rhetoricians, but from the groves of the

Academy, the real school for every kind of discourse: fateor me

oratorem, si modo sim aut etiam quicunque sim, non ex rhetorum officinis

sed ex Academiae spatiis exstitisse; illa enim sunt curricula

multiplicium variorumque sermonum in quibus Platonis primum sunt

impressa vestigia. Cp. Tac. Dial. de Or. §32. In the De Div. ii. §4

Cicero speaks of his rhetorical works as bordering on philosophy:

quumque Aristoteles itemque Theophrastus, excellentes viri cum

subtilitate tum copia, cum philosophia dicendi etiam praecepta

coniunxerint, nostri quoque oratorii libri in eundem numerum referendi

videntur.

praecipuum: cp. Orat. §62 (quoted above) longe omnium ...

princeps Plato. So Dionysius ad Pomp. p. 752 R: de Dem. 41,

p. 1083 R.

sive ... sive: cp. xii. 10, 26 quae defuisse ei sive ipsius

natura seu lege civitatis videntur: Cic. pro Clu. §76. _Sive_ is

frequently used as a single disjunctive, to give one word as an

alternative for another: i. 4, 20 vocabulum sive appellationem nomini

subiecerunt: xii. 10, 59 delectandi sive ... conciliandi officium. Cp.

too Cic. de Am. §100 ex quo exardescit sive amor sive amicitia—a

kind of brachyology: de Orat. ii. §70 in hac sive ratione sive

exercitatione dicendi,—a shorter formula than ib. §29 hoc totum,

quicquid est, sive artificium sive studium dicendi.

divina. Cic. Tusc. Disp. i. §79 quem (Platonem) omnibus locis

divinum, quem sapientissimum, quem sanctissimum, quem Homerum

philosophorum appellat (Panaetius). Cp. Dion. de Dem. 23,

p. 1024 R πάντων ... φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ῥητόρων ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ

πράγματα δαιμονιώτατον..

Homerica: §86 ut illi naturae

caelesit atque immortali cesserimus: §§48,

65.

prosam orationem et. The omission of _et_, proposed by

recent editors, would make Quintilian give a rather useless synonym for

_prosa oratio_, which (like _prosa_ by itself) he often uses

without explanation. _Prosa oratio_ is used of prose as contrasted

with verse (cp. xi. 2, 39 facilius versus ediscimus quam prosam

orationem): _pedestris oratio_ includes all composition of a

prosaic order, not necessarily prose only: so Horace speaks of his

Satires as _Musa pedestris_ (Sat. ii. 6, 17): _pedestres

historiae_ in Car. ii. 12, 9 are prose histories: _sermo

pedester_ in A. P. 95 (tragicus plerumque dolet sermone

pedestri) is homely language: cp. ib. 229, and Ep. ii. 1, 251. So Plato,

Soph. 237 A πεζῇ τε ὧδε ἑκάστοτε λέγων καὶ μετὰ μέτρων:

Aristoph. Fr. 713 παῦσαι μελῳδοῦς᾽ ἀλλὰ πεζῇ μοι φράσον. Palmer

(on Hor. Sat. l.c.) cites also Luc. de Consecr. Hist. 8 πεζή τις ποιητική of a

bombastic history: and adds ‘the metaphor is from a person soberly

jogging on on foot, contrasted with the dashing pace of a mounted

cavalier.’—For prose Cicero uses _oratio soluta_ (Brut. §32)

to which he opposes _vincula numerorum_ (Orat. §§64, 77: de Orat.

iii. §184).—Numerous examples of a similar use of _et_ are

cited, Bonn. Lex. s.v. _et_ iii.

quodam Delphici, &c. See Crit. Notes. For _quodam_ cp. §109 dono quodam providentiae genitus: xii.

11, 5 ductus amore quodam operis: ib. 10 §21: ix. 2, 76: and §82 below; and for _Delphici ... dei_

Cic. de Legg. i. §58 cuius praecepti tanta vis ... est ut ea non homini

cuipiam sed Delphico deo tribueretur.

I:82

Quid ego

commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed

quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse

Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est

in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam

persuadendi deam.

§ 82.

Xenophontis, §§33, 75.

iucunditatem: so Tac. Dial. 31. Dionysius’s criticism is

fuller: καθαρὸς τοῖς

ὀνόμασι καὶ σαφὴς καὶ ἐναργής, καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἡδὺς καὶ

εὔχαρις: Diog. Laert. ii. 57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ

Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς ἑρμηνείας: Suidas Ξενοφῶν Ἀττικὴ

μέλιττα ἐπανομάζετο: Brutus, §132 molli et Xenophonteo genere

sermonis: cp. ibid. §292: Orat. §32 cuius sermo est ille quidem melle

dulcior sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus: de Orat. ii. §58 leniore

quodam sono est usus, et qui illum impetum oratoris non habeat, vehemens

fortasse minus, sed aliquanto tamen est, ut mihi quidem videtur,

dulcior.—For _inadfectatus_, see Introd. p. xlii.

Gratiae: for the form of expression cp. Orat. §62 Xenophontis

voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt (x. 1

§33). So §99 below: Plin. Ep. ii. 13,

7: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 27.

de Pericle. So xii. 2, 22: 10, 65: Pliny, Ep. i. 20, 17 nec me

praeterit summum oratorem Periclem sic a comico Eupolide laudari ...

πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθητο τοῖσι χείλεσιν κ.τ.λ. (The line is

given in Kock’s _Fragmenta_ 1, p. 281 πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν

ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν: so Meineke ii. p. 458.) Brutus §38

quemadmodum de Pericle scripsit Eupolis: §59 πειθώ quam vocant Graeci, cuius effector est orator,

hanc Suadam appellavit Ennius ... ut quam deam in Pericli labris

scripsit Eupolis sessitavisse huius hic medullam nostrum oratorem (sc.

Cethegum) fuisse dixerit. (Cp. de Orat. iii. §138.) The phrase of which

this is the explanation (suadae medulla—the essence, marrow, of

persuasiveness) is used again de Sen. §50: cp. Quint, ii. 15, 4.

Horace has Suadela, Ep. i. 6, 38.

quandam, i.e. something which may be called _persuadendi

dea_: cp. _quodam_ below, and _quibusdam_ §76: xii. 10, ii quadam eloquentiae frugalitate. See

Crit. Notes.

I:83

Quid reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam? Quid Aristotelen? Quem

dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an

inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem. Nam in

Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut

ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.

§ 83.

Socratici §35.

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

Frieze.

Aristotelen. It is to be noticed that in both Dionysius and

Quintilian, Aristotle comes after Plato and Xenophon: Ἀρχ. κρ. 4, (Us. p. 27) παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς μίμησιν τῆς τε περὶ τὴν

ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος καὶ τῆς σαφηνείας καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος καὶ

πολυμαθοῦς: Brut. §121 quis Aristotele nervosior? Orat. §172 quis

omnium doctior, quis acutior, quis in rebus vel inveniendis vel

iudicandis acrior Aristotele fuit?

scientia ... copia ... suavitate: Orat. §5 admirabili quadam

scientia et copia: Topica 1 §3 dicendi incredibili quadam quum

copia tum etiam suavitate: cp. de Inv. ii. §6.

acumine: see on §77.

nam has come to serve as a transition-formula: so §§9, 12, 50: 4, 4. It generally involves an ellipse: cp.

Sall, Iug. ch. 19, 2: 31, 2: 82, 2: Cicero, Tusc. Disp. iv. §52.

Theophrasto. Brut. §121 quis Theophrasto dulcior? Theophrastus

succeeded Aristotle in the conduct of his school B.C. 322, and died 287.

tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut. Becher takes

_tam_ closely with _divinus_, making _tam divinus est_

the pred. and _loquendi nitor ille_ the subj.: and so Krüger (3rd

ed.). For the order of words he compares §122 habebunt magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam

vere laudandi, and adds (Quaest. p. 18) ‘omnino autem tenendum est

perplexam et arcessitam verborum turbam magis quam ordinem (Bonn.

Proleg. lxxviii.) aetatis argenteae scriptoribus in deliciis fuisse,

quae intellectum legentium non tam adiuvet quam

impediat.’ We might also cp. §76 tam nihil

otiosum, and 7 §27.

Even in Cicero a similar separation occurs: pro Cael. §16 nunquam enim

tam Caelius amens fuisset: in Verr. v. §121 quis tam fuit illo tempore

durus et ferreus. Kiderlin, however (Hermes 23, p. 109), challenges

this explanation, contending that the words _loquendi nitor ille

divinus_ are obviously meant to be taken together, and that

_ille_ makes it impossible to join _tam_ and _divinus_.

He rejects as inappropriate the analogies cited from Brutus §58 (cp.

§§174, 41): ad Q. Fr. i. 2, 3 §9 (atque ego haec tam esse quam

audio non puto—where it has been proposed to insert a word): ad

Fam. vi. 7, 1. But more weight should be attached to the following

passages to which K. himself refers: Quint. ii. 16, 15 (sed ipsa ratio

neque tam nos iuvaret neque tam esset in nobis manifesta, nisi, &c.)

and viii. 3, 5 (et fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si, &c.).

Kiderlin however holds that all those passages differ from this,

inasmuch as either there is a negative with _tam_, or it is joined

with an adverb, or it follows _quam_ immediately. He rejects

Spalding’s _tantus est_, and proposes to read _tam manifestus

est_: _manifestus_ goes well with the preceding sentence, where

Quintilian does not know which of Aristotle’s great points to praise

most, while with Theophrastus there is no such doubt, since his

_loquendi nitor_ is so striking that he is said, &c. K. thinks

that _manifestus_ (which is a favourite word of Quintilian: see

Bonn. Lex.) might easily have fallen out, as _tam est_ and

_manifest_ are pretty much alike.—In support of the reading

_loquendi_ (for which Meister gives, by a misprint,

_eloquendi_), Kiderlin points out that Quintilian probablv wished

to translate φράζειν.

nitor: cp. §§33, 9, 79 (where see note on

_nitidus_): Cicero, de Fin. iv. 3, 5 primum enim ipsa illa, quae

subtiliter disserenda erant, polite apteque dixerunt, tum definientes,

tum partientes, ut vestri etiam; sed vos (Stoici) squalidius; illorum

(sc. Peripateticorum et Academicorum) vides quam niteat oratio. Of the

Peripatetics generally he says (Brutus §120) in doctrina atque

praeceptis disserendi ratio coniungitur cum suavitate dicendi et

copia.

nomen traxisse: Orat. §62 siquidem et Theophrastus divinitate

loquendi nomen invenit: Diog. Laert. v. 38 τοῦτον, Τύρταμον λεγόμενον, Θεόφραστον διὰ τὸ

τῆς φράσεως θεσπέσιον Ἀριστοτέλης μετωνόμασεν.

I:84

Minus indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres, sed cum honesta suaserunt

tum in colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt,

rebus tamen acuti magis quam (id quod sane non adfectaverunt) oratione

magnifici.

§ 84.

Stoici veteres. See xii. 1, 24 sq. for a discussion of the

various philosophical systems in regard to their fitness for oratorical

purposes. For the comparative unfitness of the Stoic writers see esp.

Cic. de Orat. iii. 18, 66: de Fin. iv. 28, 78 sq.: de Orat. ii. 38, 159.

So too Brutus §114 (Stoicorum) peracutum et artis plenum orationis genus

scio tamen esse exile nec satis populari adsensioni adcommodatum: §118

ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant

sintque architecti paene verborum, eidem traducti a disputando ad

dicendum inopes reperiantur.

quae instituerant: ‘their principles.’ De Off. i. 1, 1

praecepta institutaque philosophiae: de Am. §13: de Fin. v. 3, 7 scripta

et instituta: Brut. §31 and esp. §119.

colligendo: ‘arguing,’ not necessarily here of the formal

process of syllogistic reasoning. Cp. xii. 2, 10 ambigua aperire et

perplexa discernere et de falsis iudicare et colligere et resolvere quae

velis oratorum est.

rebus acuti: ‘shrewd thinkers,’ rather than masters of the

grand style. For the constr. (where in Greek the pr. part. would have

been used) cp. §80 vel ob hoc memoria

dignum.

quod sane non adfect. Cp. Sen. Ep. 108, 35 illud admoneo,

auditionem philosophorum lectionemque ad propositum beatae vitae

trahendam, non ut verba prisca aut ficta captemus et translationes

improbas figurasque dicendi, sed ut profutura praecepta et magnificas

voces et animosas, quae mox in rem transferantur: sic ista ediscamus ut

quae fuerint verba sint opera.

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT (85-131)

§§ 85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.

§§ 85-100.

Roman Poetry.

§§85-92. _Epic Poets._

Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third

poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass

even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and

Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some

merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius

is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than

beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our

special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets

his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus

fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of

Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately

lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also

failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth

reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for

orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of

the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the

compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire,

are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is

entwined with the conquering bay.’

§§93-96. _Elegy, Satire, iambic and

lyric poetry._

In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined

is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more

uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own.

Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever.

I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure

of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is

the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others

still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote

_saturae_ of the earlier kind. A profound scholar,

antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to

knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic

poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric

poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his

language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors

of greater merit.

§§97-100. _Dramatic Poetry._

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of

thought

and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack

finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s

_Thyestes_ may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s _Medea_

shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds.

Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself

seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus,

Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our

originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm

which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best

writer of _togatae_, but his is not a pure art.

§§101-104. Roman Historians.

In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides,

Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and

transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and

appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion,

especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different

but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus

did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of

our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not

mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent

spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and

expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only

giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.

§§105-122. Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however,

to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes

is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each

other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more

diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other

often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a

greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was

perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the

genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar

‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to

him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water,

but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his

audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a

partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is

natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his

name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high

appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far

behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a

century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force.

Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe

his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius

has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some

preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous

self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral,

weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist;

and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his

enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches.

Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and

wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer

and Africanus rank highest: the

former might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is

more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus

has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus

is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius

Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is

too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has

fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish

the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.

§§123-131. Roman Philosophers.

Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully

is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he

speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of

works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer.

Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal.

I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but

have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The

fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a

purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated

his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he

was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory,

poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious,

yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him

of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in

him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet

he realised the aims he had.

§§85-100.

Roman Poets.—Quintilian’s criticisms of Latin literature,

though naturally more independent than his judgments of Greek authors,

are hampered, as Professor Nettleship has shown (Journ. Phil. 18

p. 262 sq.) by ‘the idea of making canons of classical Latin

authors to correspond as closely as possible with the Greek canons.

Vergil leads the van among the poets as the Latin Homer; Macer and

Lucretius follow as representing Hesiod and the didactic poets. The

elegiac poets, Propertius and Tibullus, follow next, answering to

Tyrtaeus; then the satirists who of course have no Greek counterparts;

then the writers of lampoon, Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace, to match

Archilochus; the lyric poets, Horace corresponding to Pindar; the

dramatists, comic and tragic, among whom Varius is singled out as equal

to any Of the Greeks: the historians, Sallust being matched with

Thucydides, and Livy with Herodotus; the orators, Cicero being of course

compared in detail with Demosthenes; and the philosophers, among whom we

are told that Cicero is _aemulus Platonis_.’

I:85

Idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. Itaque ut apud

illos Homerus, sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit

exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie

proximus.

§ 85.

Idem ... ordo ducendus. Cp. 5 §1 robustorum studiis ordinem

dedimus: xii. 2, 10 ut ordinem retro agamus. There is a suggestion of

military associations in the use of the phrase: tr. ‘in the same way we

must marshal.’ Cp. Brut. §15 explicatis ordinibus temporum; and i. 4, 3

with Spalding’s note.—For _ordinem ducere_ in the sense of

‘to be the leader of a company’ (sc. as centurion) cp. Cic. Phil. i. 8,

20: Caes. B. C. i. 13, 4: iii. 104, 3: Livy ii. 23, 4.

Vergilius: his claim to rank along with Homer is indicated in

i. 8, 5 optime institutum est ut ab Homero atque Vergilio lectio

inciperet.

auspicatissimum. Cp. Tac. Germ. 11 agendis rebus hoc

anspicatissimum initium credunt: Plin. ad Traian, xvii. 3 cum mihi

contigerit, quod erat auspicatissimum, natalem tuum in provincia

celebrare. Cp. the opening words of Pliny’s Panegyricus: Bene ac

sapienter, patres conscripti, maiores instituerunt ut rerum agendarum

ita dicendi initium a precationibus capere, quod nihil rite, nihil

providenter homines sine deorum immortalium ope consilio honore

auspicarentur. Cicero, de Div. i. 16, 28 Nihil fere quondam maioris rei

nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur.

dederit: v. on §37.

haud dubie: see Crit.

Notes.

I:86

Utar enim verbis isdem quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi: qui mihi

interroganti quem Homero crederet maxime accedere, ‘secundus,’ inquit,

‘est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio.’ Et hercule ut illi

naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae et diligentiae

vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum; et quantum

eminentibus vincimur fortasse aequalitate pensamus.

§ 86.

Afro Domitio. The order is characteristic of the silver age,

though examples are found also in Cicero’s letters (Introd. p. lv.): cp. Atacinus Varro,

below, and §103. Domitius Afer (cp. §24) was a distinguished orator who flourished

under Tiberius and his successors, and died in the reign of Nero, A.D. 59 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 19). He was a native

of Nemausus (Nismes), and first rose to fame by the prosecution of

Agrippina’s cousin Claudia Pulchra: Tiberius avowed that he was a ‘born

orator’ (suo iure disertum, Tac. Ann. iv. 52). Being of an unscrupulous

character (quoquo facinore properus clarescere, ibid.) he placed his

rhetorical powers at the disposal of the government: mox capessendis

accusationibus aut reos tutando prosperiore eloquentiae quam morum fama

fuit, ibid. Quintilian’s connection with him (cp. v. 7, 7 quem

adolescentulus senem colui) comes out in the story he told to Pliny

about Afer: ‘adsectabar Domitium,’ Plin. Epist. ii. 14. Below (§118) he speaks of him, along with Iulius Africanus,

(to whom he prefers him) as the best orator he had ever heard: though he

tells us elsewhere that Afer lost much of his reputation by continuing

to speak in public after he should have retired: vidi ego longe omnium

quos mihi cognoscere contigit summum oratorem, Domitium Afrum, valde

senem, cotidie aliquid ex ea quam meruerat auctoritate perdentem, cum

agente illo quem principem fuisse quondam fori non erat dubium alii,

quod indignum videatur, riderent, alii erubescerent; quae occasio fuit

dicendi, malle eum deficere quam desinere. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 52 ad fin.

aetas extrema multum etiam eloquentiae dempsit dum fessa mente retinet

silentii impatientiam.

excepi. As distinguished from _accipere_,

which, when used in this sense, means to get some information at

second-hand, _excipere_ always refers to what is said in one’s

presence, whether one is meant to hear, as in this passage, or not; as

Livy ii. 4 sermonem eorum ex servis unus excepit.

Homero. The same dative with _accedere_ occurs §68 magis accedit oratorio generi (Euripides). With

the name of a person Cicero also uses the dative,—e.g. Crasso et

Antonio L. Philippus proximus accedebat, Brut. §173, and so ad Fam.

xi. 21, 4 me huic tuae virtuti proxime accedere: otherwise more commonly

ad c. acc. Cp. de Orat. 1 §262 (dubitare) utrius oratio propius ad

veritatem videretur accedere with Quint. xii. 10, 9 ad veritatem

Lysippum ac Praxitelem optime accessisse. So xii. 2, 2: 1, 20:

2, 25.

propior tamen primo. See note on §53 ut plane manifesto appareat quanto sit aliud

proximum esse, aliud secundum. Here the interval between first and

second is less than that between second and third: Vergil is a ‘good

second.’

ut illi: see Crit.

Notes.

naturae = ingenio, as §119 erant

clara et nuper ingenia: cp. §122. Cic. in

Verr. ii. 1 §40 non enim potest ea natura quae tantum facinus

commiserit hoc uno scelere esse contenta.

caelesti: for the hyperbole cp. caelestis huius in dicendo

viri (Ciceronis) 2 §18. So Cic. Phil. v. §28

caelestes divinasque legiones: Ps. Cic. ad Brutum ii. 7, 2 res a te

gesta memorabilis et paene caelestis.

ut ... cesserimus ita. For _ut ... ita_ (μὲν ... δέ) cp. 3, §§1 and 31. _Ut_ is not concessive and

does not affect the verb, which is in the subjunctive of modified

assertion (for cedendum est): cp. dederit above §85: Cic. Brut. §25 sine ulla dubitatione

confirmaverim. Quintilian is speaking throughout of the Romans in the

person of their great poet: cp. vincimur, pensamus, below; also §93 provocamus, §99

consequimur, §107 vincimus. Kiderlin’s

objection that, as fully admitting the superiority of Homer, he would

not have been likely to choose, on patriotic grounds, a form that seems

to modify the force of the concession, is met by the instance of the

potential subj. quoted above alongside of _sine ulla

dubitatione_.

eminentibus: neut. of adj. used substantively,—common

enough in Quintilian even with adjj. of the third declension: cp. 3 §5 nec protinus

offerentibus se gaudeamus. See Introduction, p. xlix (5). Such

‘outstanding’ passages as those alluded to Horace terms the ‘speciosa

miracula’ (‘striking,’ ‘picturesque marvels’) of the Homeric poems,

A. P. 144.

aequalitate, ‘uniform excellence’: cp. aequali quadam

mediocritate §54. In §24 Quintilian has already referred to the

_quandoque dormitat_, and his words are probably an echo of the

Horatian criticism. For the use of _aequalitas_ cp. xi. 3, §§43-44.

In regard to style, Cicero has Orat. §198 omnis nec claudicans nec quasi

fluctuans sed aequaliter constanterque ingrediens numerosa habetur

oratio: and using _aequabilitas_ ibid. §53 elaborant alii in

lenitate et aequabilitate et puro quasi quodam et candido genere

dicendi.

I:87

Ceteri omnes longe sequentur. Nam Macer et Lucretius

legendi quidem, sed non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in

sua quisque materia, sed alter humilis, alter difficilis. Atacinus

Varro in iis per quae nomen

est adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum ad

augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.

§ 87.

Macer: v. on §56.

Lucretius. The references made to Lucretius in Latin

literature are collected by Teuffel, R. L. §201. The two are named

together again xii. 11 §27.

φράσιν =

elocutionem, v, §42. So ad augendam facultatem dicendi, below. For

‘corpus eloquentiae’ cp. Petronius, Satyr. ii. (of the imitators of

Seneca) ‘effecistis ut corpus orationis enervaretur et caderet.’

humilis: ‘common-place,’

difficilis: cp. multis luminibus ingenii multae tamen

artis,—Cicero’s criticism, dealt with by Munro, ii. p. 315

(3rd ed.).

Varro, P. Terentius (B.C.

82-37), called

Atacinus from the river Atax in Gallia Narbonensis, his native province.

Quintilian’s criticism here refers to the work by which he was best

known—his translation of the _Argonautica_ of Apollonius

Rhodius (‘interpres operis alieni’). He also wrote what is described as

a metrical system of astronomy and geography under the title

_Chorographia_ or _Cosmographia_: a heroic poem _Bellum

Sequanicum_, in the style of Ennius and Naevias: and _Saturae_

which, if we may trust Horace, were a failure: Satires i. 10, 46 Hoc

erat experto frustra Varrone Atacino ... Melius quod scribere

possem.

per quae: common in Quintilian to designate ‘means by which’:

cp. v. 10, 32. So also _per quod_, _per hoc_: see on §10.

nomen: cp. §72, §120, 5,

§18: xii. 6, 7: ii. 11, 1: Tac. Dial. 10 nomen inserere famae: ib.

36 plus notitiae ac nominis apud plebem parabat.

I:88

Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia

et antiqua robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem.

Propiores alii, atque ad hoc de quo loquimur magis utiles. Lascivus

quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimium amator ingenii sui,

laudandus tamen in partibus.

§ 88.

Ennius, the Chaucer of Latin literature (239-169 B.C.),—qui primus amoeno detulit ex Helicone

perenni fronde coronam (Lucr. i. 119). Lucretius in this passage calls

him ‘Ennius noster,’ as does also Cicero, pro Archia §18, §22.

‘It will be observed,’ says Professor Nettleship, ‘that Quintilian is

a Ciceronian, and that both as against the younger school of his own day

and as against the pre-Ciceronian literature. Ennius he sets aside with

a few respectful words: Pacuvius and Accius, one must almost suppose, he

had never read (97): if he had read them, then, he did not think it

worth while to pass an independent judgment upon them (but see note ad

loc.) The comedians, Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, he will hardly

notice; so far, he thinks, do they fall below their Greek originals.

Lucretius he totally misconceives, even granting his point of view, for

can it be said that there are no fine passages of rhetoric in the De

Rerum Natura? The criticisms on the post-Ciceronian orators are for the

most part (remembering that Quintilian is thinking of the needs of an

orator) sound and well expressed, notably that upon Ovid (88). But they

are mostly too short, and leave the impression that the writer is

anxious to get to the end of them. In speaking of Cicero, however,

Quintilian rises to the height of real enthusiasm.’ Journ. of Phil.

l.c.

sacros vetustate lucos. For the reverence attaching to groves

cp. Seneca, Epist. Mor. IV, xii. (41) Si tibi occurrerit vetustis

arboribus et solitam altitudinem egressis frequens lucus et conspectum

caeli ramorum aliorum alios protegentium umbra submovens: illa

proceritas silvae et secretum loci et admiratio umbrae in aperto tam

densae atque continuae fidem tibi numinis facit.

speciem. So Ovid, Trist. ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus, arte

rudis: Am. i. 15, 19 Ennius arte carens. Cp. Quint, i. 8, 8 plerique

plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt (veteres Latini).

Propiores, not Vergilio, as Bonnell and Krüger (the latter, in

2nd ed., contrasting §86 ceteri omnes longe

sequentur): but rather, by inference from ‘vetustate’ and ‘antiqua’ in

the previous sentence = propiores nostrae aetati. But see Claussen,

Quaest. Quintil. pp. 358-9.

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

lascivus: so below §93 Ovidius

utroque (Tibullo et Propertio) lascivior, sicut durior Gallus. The word

and its cognates are used by Quintilian of ‘running riot,’ whether in

thought, language, or manner. The verb _lascivire_ is used in

regard to a certain mannerism of Ovid, iv. 1, 77 ut Ovidius lascivire in

metamorphosesi solet,—wrongly classed in Bonnell’s lexicon under

_mores_: cp. ix. 4, 28. So ii. 4, 3 neque ... arcessitis

descriptionibus, in quas plerique imitatione poeticae licentiae

ducuntur, lasciviat: xii. 10, 73 genus dicendi quod puerilibus

sententiolis lascivit: ix. 4, 6: iv. 2, 39: xi. 1, 56. See above,

recens haec lascivia §43: cp. ii. 5, 10 and

22: Tac. Dial. §26 lascivia verborum et levitate sententiarum et

licentia compositionis. The adjective occurs along with _hilare_ v.

3, 27, and with _dicaces_ vi. 3, 41: cp. Tac. Dial. §29 parvulos

assuefaciunt ... lasciviae et dicacitati. It

means ‘exuberance’ of any kind, as against severe restraint: ix. 4, 142

duram potius atque asperam compositionem malim esse quam effeminatam et

enervem, qualis apud multos, et cotidie magis, lascivissimis syntonorum

modis saltat: Horace, A. P. 106 ludentem lasciva (verba decent)

severum seria dictu: i.e. ‘sportive’ as opp. to ‘serious’: Ep. ii. 2,

216 lasciva decentius aetas, ‘that may more becomingly make merry.’

Wilkins says the word occurs ten times in Horace, and never in a

distinctly bad sense: lascivi pueri Sat. i. 3, 134: lasciva puella Verg.

Ecl. iii. 64.

in herois quoque: sc. versibus. Cp. ix. 4, 88 and 89. This

characteristic of his elegiac compositions reappears even in his heroic

verse, i.e. the Metamorphoses. At ix. 4, 88 (pes) herous = μέτρον ἡρῷον. So Martial iii. 20,

6 lascivus elegis an severus herois?

nimium amator ingenii sui: cp. §98 below, si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere

maluisset. M. Seneca, Controv. iv. 28, 17 (p. 281) Ovidius nescit

quod bene cessit relinquere: ii. 10, 12 (of a declamatio by Ovid) verbis

minime licenter usus est nisi in carminibus, in quibus non ignoravit

vitia sua, sed amavit ... adparet summi ingenii viro non indicium

defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carminum suorum, sed animum. Cp. Sen.

Nat. Quaest. iii. 27, 13 poetarum ingeniosissimus ... nisi tantum

impetum ingenii et materiae ad pueriles ineptias reduxisset. Of Seneca

the philosopher Quintilian uses similar language below §130 si non omnia sua amasset. For the use of an

adv. with verb-noun in -tor (as if it were a participle) cp. Hor. Sat.

i. 10, 12 Quis tam Lucili fautor inepte est. See Introd. p. xlv.

in partibus, opp. to _totum_ (‘in einzeln

Partien’—Nägelsbach §76 p. 296). Cp. in parte 7 §25: also 2 §26 in partibus: vii. 2, 22 si

quando in partibus laborabimus, universitate pugnandum est. The

frequency with which _in parte_ occurs in Quintilian (as well as

_ex parte_, which is used by Cicero and Livy) makes the reading

probable, though the MSS. omit _in_, while many give _parcius_

for _partibus_. Cp. ii. 8, 6 quod ... mihi in parte verum videtur:

iv. 5, 13: v. 7, 22: xi. 2, 34.

I:89

Cornelius autem Severus, etiamsi sit versificator quam

poeta melior, si tamen, ut est

dictum, ad exemplar primi libri bellum Siculum perscripsisset,

vindicaret sibi iure secundum locum. Serranum consummari mors

immatura non passa est, puerilia tamen eius opera et maximam indolem

ostendunt et admirabilem praecipue in aetate illa recti generis

voluntatem.

§ 89.

Cornelius Severus, contemporary and friend of Ovid, who addresses

to him Epist. ex Ponto iv. 2 (1 O vates magnorum maxime regum:

11 sq. fertile pectus habes interque Helicona colentes Uberius

nulli provenit ista seges): cp. carmen regale iv. 16, 9. In spite

of the apology in iv. 2 (eius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos), it

is probable that Epist. i. 8 is also addressed to him: v. 2 pars animae

magna, Severe, meae: 25, o iucunde sodalis. M. Seneca (Suas.

vi. 26) quotes twenty-five hexameters of his, with the introductory

remark, which seems well deserved, ‘nemo ex tot disertissimis viris

melius Ciceronis mortem deflevit quam Severus Cornelius.’

etiamsi sit. The use of the subj. would seem to indicate that

Quintilian leaves the truth of the criticism an open question (Roby

§1560). Osann is wrong in taking it as indicating Quintilian’s own

opinion. See Crit. Notes.

versificator. This word occurs also in Justin. vi. 9, 4:

versificatores meliores quam duces: Vopisc. Saturn. i. 7, 4: Terent.

Maur. 1012: Bede 2354 P. If taken in a depreciatory sense it seems

rather inconsistent with the high praise given him in what follows: but

we gather from notices in the grammarians and from the extant fragments

that Severus was ‘inclined to artificiality of expression and to the

affectation of elegance, even where the thought is quite simple,’ as in

the quotation in Charisius, p. 83 Huc ades Aonia crinem circumdata

serta. For the antithesis _versificator ... poeta_ cp. Hor. Sat. i.

4, 39 neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse satis ... (ut) putes

hunc esse poetam.

si tamen. _Tamen_ really goes with _vindicaret_, but

the inversion _tamen si_ (Hild) is quite unnecessary; elsewhere in

Quintilian _tamen_ is found attached to the subordinate and not to

the principal sentence: xi. 3, 56 etiam si non utique vocis sunt vitia,

quia tamen propter vocem accidunt, potissimum huic loco subiciantur: ii.

17, 24-25: cp. cum tamen xi. 3, 91. (In ix. 2, 55 si tamen = si

modo, si quidem: in quo est et illa si tamen inter schemata numerari

debet ... digressio: cp. ii. 15, 4.)

ut est dictum. Becher agrees with Halm in considering this to

be a gloss on

etiam si (sit) melior, and it is omitted in Krüger’s 3rd ed. But it is

obvious that (unless he is quoting from himself) Quintilian is here

giving a criticism at secondhand (dictum sc. ab aliis), and conveying

the opinion of contemporary critics: cp. §60 adeo ut videatur quibusdam, of Archilochus. No

great difficulty need be occasioned by the position of the words, though

they would have been at least as well placed in the main sentence.

Kiderlin (in Hermes) proposes to read ‘etiamsi versificator quam poeta

melior sit, tamen, ut est dictum, si ad exemplar,’ &c.

bellum Siculum: i.e. the war with Sext. Pompeius B.C. 38-36 (Siculae classica bella fugae Propert.

ii. 1, 28). Scaliger suggested _bellum civile_, with which

Severus’s poems seem to have dealt, either in whole or in part. The

_primus liber_ is unknown. Bernhardy refers to the extract in

Seneca, Suas. vii. (Burm. A. L. ii. 155) as justifying Quintilian’s

criticism, and seems inclined to hazard the conjecture (based on a

quotation from Valerius Probus in the Wiener Analecta Gramm.

p. 216—Cornelius Severus rerum Romanarum l. 1) that the

title of the whole work was Res Romanae, the Bellum Siculum being only a

section.—(Can _bellum Siculum_ have crept into the text as a

gloss on ‘primi libri,’ the more general title _bellum civile_

dropping out? The whole poem cannot have dealt with the _bellum

Siculum_).

perscripsisset: common enough in the sense of ‘write a full

account of’: here ‘from beginning to end’: cp. perlegere, pervenire.

secundum locum—among epic poets, after Vergil.

Serranum is the conjectural emendation generally adopted in

place of the readings of the MSS. It rests on the passage in Juvenal

vii. 79 Contentus fama iaceat Lucanus in hortis Marmoreis; at Serrano

tenuique Saleio Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est? Some

have ascribed to him the Eclogues which have come down to us under the

name of Calpurnius Siculus. Martial (iv. 37, 2) speaks of a

Serranus who was deep in debt. Most old edd. read _Sed eum_, still

referring to Severus.

consummari: cp. §122: 2 §28: 5 §14 and frequently in

Quintilian (v. Bonnell’s Lex.). Seneca, Ep. 88, 28, una re consummatur

animus, scientia bonorum ac malorum immutabili, quae soli philosophiae

competit.

in aetate illa: ‘for one so young.’

recti generis: cp. §44 rectum

dicendi genus: ix. 3, §3: ii. 5, §11. The objective genitive after

‘voluntas’ is noteworthy: cp. libertatis novae gaudium Flor. i.

9, 3.

I:90

Multum in Valerio Flacco nuper amisimus. Vehemens et poeticum

ingenium Salei Bassi

fuit, nec ipsum senectute maturuit. Rabirius ac Pedo

non in digni cognitione, si vacet. Lucanus ardens et concitatus

et sententiis clarissimus, et, ut dicam quod sentio, magis oratoribus

quam poetis imitandus.

§ 90.

Valerio Flacco. Martial addresses him in i. 77, exhorting him,

with some irony, to give up verse-writing as unprofitable and turn

lawyer. From another epigram (i. 61) we gather that he was a native of

Padua (‘Apona tellus’). He flourished in the reign of Vespasian, to whom

he dedicated his _Argonautica_, c. A.D. 70, and died about 88. Juvenal may be referring

to this poem i. 8-10: where see Mayor’s notes. There is a touch of

personal sorrow about the use of _amisimus_. For the expression cp.

Florus iv. 7, 14 Brutus cum in Cassio suum animum perdidisset.

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

95.

Salei Bassi. Cp. tenuique Saleio, Iuv. vii. 80, quoted above.

His name occurs several times in the Dial. de Orat.: Saleium Bassum, cum

optimum virum tum absolutissimum poetam §5: egregium poetam vel si hoc

honorificentius est praeclarissimum vatem §9, where it is stated that he

got a gift of 500 sestertia from Vespasian: cp. also §10. The Bassus

ridiculed by Martial (iii. 47, 58: v. 23: viii. 10: vii. 96) is a

different person, though he also wrote tragedies: v. 53, 1-2 Colchida

quid scribis, quid scribis, amice, Thyesten? Quo tibi vel Nioben, Basse,

vel Andromachen?

nec ipsum senectute maturuit: ‘but it was not mellowed by

age’: _nec ipsum_ = his genius no more than that of Serranus,

above. On the other reading (senectus maturavit) _ipsum_ would be

accus. masc.: but the construction is harsh, and _maturo_ in this

transitive use is only found in Pliny, of the processes of nature.

Rabirius, a contemporary of Ovid, Ep. ex Ponto iv. 16, 5

magnique Rabirius oris. Velleius Paterculus mentions him along with

Vergil, omitting Horace: inter quae (ingenia) maxime nostri aevi eminent

princeps carminum Vergilius Rabiriusque ii. 36, 3: Seneca de Benef. vi.

3, 1 egregie mihi videtur M. Antonius apud Rabirium poetam ...

exclamare, hoc habeo quodcunque dedi. He is generally supposed to be the

author of a fragment on the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra,

discovered in the rolls of Herculaneum.

Pedo, C. Albinovanus, friend of Ovid, who styles him

_sidereus_ ex Pont. iv. 16, 6, _carissime_ iv. 10, 3.

Martial refers to him as a scholarly poet (doctique Pedonis ii. 77) and

epigrammatist (i. praef.)—in both places along with Domitius

Marsus: Paley and Stone are wrong in identifying him with the Celsus

Albinovanus of Horace, Epist. i. 3, 15 and 8, 1. Seneca tells a

story he had heard from him in Ep. 122, 13, and compliments him as being

‘fabulator elegantissimus.’ M. Seneca (Suas. i. 14) gives us 23

hexameters of his which formed part of a poem celebrating the famous

voyage of Germanicus (cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 23). The ‘Consolatio ad Liviam

Augustam de morte Drusi Neronis,’ first attributed to him by Scaliger,

is now believed to be a production of the fifteenth century (Bernhardy,

pp. 486-7). He also wrote a Theseis (Ovid, ex Pont. iv. 10, 71

sq.).

Lucanus, M. Annaeus, the author of the ‘Pharsalia,’ A.D. 38-65. The criticism of Quintilian puts

before us Lucan’s merits and defects,—the predominance of the

declamatory element being prominent among the latter. In the Dial. de

Orat. §20 he is classed along with Vergil and Horace, exigitur ... ab

oratore etiam poeticus decor ... ex Horatii et Vergilii et Lucani

sacrario prolatus. On the other hand Serv. ad Aen. i. 382 Lucanus ideo

in numero poetarum esse non meruit quia videtur historiam composuisse

non poema: cp. Petron. Sat. 118. So, too, Martial xiv. 194 Lucanus, Sunt

quidam qui me dicant non esse poetam, Sed qui me vendit bibliopola

putat. The _ut dicam quod sentio_ seems to indicate that Quintilian

is combating the prevailing sentiment about Lucan.—Cp. Heitland’s

Introd. to Lucan’s Pharsalia (Haskins), p. lxx.

sententiis—γνώμαις, v. §§50, 61, ‘such general utterances as have

a bearing upon human life and action,’ Heitland, pp. lxv-lxvii.

I:91

Hos nominavimus, quia Germanicum Augustum ab

institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque

dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum. Quid tamen his ipsis eius

operibus, in quae donato imperio iuvenis secesserat, sublimius, doctius,

omnibus denique numeris praestantius? Quis enim caneret bella melius

quam qui sic gerit? Quem praesidentes studiis deae propius audirent? Cui

magis suas artes aperiret familiare numen Minervae?

§ 91.

Hos, sub. _tantum_: as 5 §7 uno genere. See Nägelsbach

§84 on the omission of adverbs: p. 331 sq.

Germanicum. Domitian took this title after his expedition

against the Chatti, A.D. 84:

Frontinus, Strateg. ii. 11, 7 Imperator Caesar Augustus Germanicus eo

bello quo victis hostibus cognomen Germanici meruit. Of this triumph

Tacitus says (Agric. 39) that Domitian was conscious ‘derisui fuisse

falsum e Germania triumphum.’ For the tone of adulation cp. Proem. Book

IV, 2 sq., where Domitian is spoken of as ‘sanctissimus censor,’ and

‘principem ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia eminentissimum,’ and is even

invoked as a divinity,—nunc omnes in auxilium deos ipsumque in

primis quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen

est, invocem. Hild compares the following passages as showing the spirit

of the age:—Statius, Silvae i. 1 and 4: iii. 3: iv. 1 and 2:

Silius Italicus iii. 618 sq.: Valerius Flaccus i. 12: and Martial,

Epist. Ded. of vii.: cp. 65, 82 et passim. See Introd. p. xi.

ab institutes studiis: Suet. Dom. 2 simulavit et ipse mire

modestiam imprimisque poeticae studium, tam insuetum antea sibi quam

postea spretum et abiectum, recitavitque etiam publice. From Val. Flacc.

i. 12 it would appear that he contemplated an epic poem on the war with

the Jews. Tac. Hist. iv. 86 Domitianus sperni a senioribus iuventam suam

cernens, modice quoque et usurpata antea munia imperii omittebat,

simplicitatis ac

modestiae imagine, in altitudinem conditus studiumque litterarum et

amorem carminum simulans, quo velaret animum et fratris aemulationi

subduceretur, cuius disparem mitioremque naturam contra interpretabatur.

Cp. Pliny, Introd. to Nat. Hist. But Suetonius §20 gives the reverse

side: nunquam ... aut historiae carminibusve noscendis operam ullam, aut

stilo vel necessario dedit. Praeter commentarios et acta Tiberii

Caesaris nihil lectitabat; epistolas orationesque et edicta alieno

formabat ingenio.

cura terrarum: cp. Mart. viii. 82 Posse deum rebus pariter

Musisque vacare Scimus, et haec etiam serta placere tibi.

donato imperio, i.e. to his father Vespasian, as he pretended,

and his brother Titus: cp. Suet. Dom. §13 principatum adeptus neque in

senatu iactare dubitavit ‘et patri se et fratri imperium dedisse.’

numeris: §70.

qui sic gerit: cp. §114 of

Julius Caesar, ‘eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit.’ Statius has a similar

compliment to Domitian, Achil. i. 15, 16 cui geminae florent vatumque

ducumque certatim laurus: olim dolet altera vinci.

praesidentes deae: §48

invocatione dearum quas praesidere vatibus creditum est.

propius audirent: cp. Aen. i. 526 parce pio generi et propius

res aspice nostras. The phrase is used of interest as well as nearness,

and refers either to the presence and sympathy of the Muses when the

poet reads his compositions (recitavitque etiam publice Suet.

Dom. 2), or (less probably) to their gracious answer to his prayer

for inspiration. Becher cites also Ovid, Trist. i. 2, 7 oderat Aenean

propior Saturnia Turno.—See Crit. Notes.

familiare numen Minervae: Domitian was desirous of passing for

a son of Minerva (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. vii. 24), and punished with

death a priest of Tarentum who had failed to address him by this title

in offering sacrifice. He also instituted the Quinquatria Minervae

(Suet. 4), with contests in poetry and rhetoric. At the

quinquennial festival of Jupiter Capitolinus he himself presided,

‘capite gestans coronam auream cum effigie Iovis ac Iunonis

Minervaeque.’ Merivale vii. 391-394.—Krüger cites Aen. i. 447

(templum) donis opulentum et numine divae.

I:92

Dicent haec plenius futura saecula, nunc enim ceterarum fulgore virtutum

laus ista praestringitur. Nos tamen sacra litterarum colentes feres,

Caesar, si non tacitum hoc praeterimus et Vergiliano certe versu

testamur:

inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.

§ 92.

praestringitur: §30.

feres, see Crit.

Notes. The subj. (_feras_) is given in many edd. as more

appropriate to the subservient tone of the whole passage.

Vergiliano: Ecl. viii, 13, addressed to Pollio. Cp. Mart.

viii. 82, 7 Non quercus te sola decet, nec laurea Phoebi: fiat et ex

hedera civica nostra tibi.

I:93

Elegea quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque

elegans maxime videtur auctor Tibullus: sunt qui

Propertium malint. Ovidius utroque lascivior, sicut

durior Gallus. Satura quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus

insignem laudem

adeptus Lucilius quosdam ita deditos sibi adhuc habet amatores

ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed omnibus poetis praeferre

non dubitent.

§ 93.

Elegea. The form _elegea_ is received into the text by Halm

in i. 8, 6, but not by Meister. Ovid has _elegeïa_,—flebilis

indignos elegeia solve capillos, Am. iii. 9, 3: cp. cultis aut elegia

comis Martial v. 30, 4. _Elegi_ is more common: Hor. Car. i.

33, 2 miserabiles, A. P. 77 exiguos: Tib. ii. 4, 13: Prop. v. 1,

135: Iuv. i. 4.—The same names are enumerated in chronological

order by Ovid: Successor fuit hic (Tibullus) tibi, Galle, Propertius

illi. Quartus ab his serie temporis ipse fui, Trist. iv. 10, 63: Teuffel

§29.

provocamus: post-Aug. in this figurative sense: Plin. Ep. ii.

7, 4 senes illos provocare virtute: (cp. ea pictura naturam ipsam

provocavit Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10, 36 §94.) So of things

immensum Iatus circi templorom

pulchritudinem provocat, Panegyr. §51.—Hild quotes Diomed. iii.

60, p. 484 Quod genus carminis praecipue scripserunt apud Romanos

Propertius et Tibullus et Gallus, imitati graecos Callimachum et

Euphoriona. Catullus also had used the elegiac metre, though, as Mr.

Munro says (Catullus, p. 231), his elegies are by no means up to

the level of his lyrics. In his hands the elegy retained the ease and

freedom of its original form, though often wanting in technical finish:

Tibullus and his successors Latinized it, and adapted it to new

conditions.

tersus, ‘smooth and finished’: xii. 10, 50 quod libris

dedicatur ... tersum ac limatum ... esse oportere. So below §94.

Tibullus, c. 54-18 B.C. Hor.

Epist. i. 4: Ovid, Am. iii. 9. As distinguished from Propertius (c.

50-15 B.C.), he is the poet of warm,

tender, natural feeling, which he expresses in neat and finished verse.

He confines himself to such themes and such scenes as suited the

limitations of his genius. Propertius has more force and strength; but

he is more involved, often in fact obscure; and his indirectness and

artificiality have greatly interfered with the adequate recognition of

his undoubted powers. Cp. Muretus, Schol. in Propert.: illum (Tibullum)

iudices simplicius scripsisse quae cogitaret: hunc (Propertium)

diligentius cogitasse quae scriberet. In illo plus naturae, in hoc plus

curae atque industriae perspicias. For a modern estimate cp. Postgate’s

Select Elegies lvii. sqq., esp. lxvii: “No real judge of poetry will

hesitate for a moment to place Propertius high above them both (Tibullus

and Ovid). It is true that in some respects they may both claim the

advantage over him; Tibullus for refined simplicity, for natural grace

and exquisiteness of touch; Ovid for the technical merits of execution,

for transparency of construction, for smoothness and polish of

expression. But in all the higher qualities of a poet he is as much

their superior.”

lascivior: v. on §88. The

antithesis is here given in _durior_ (‘more masculine’), which

seems to show that the reference is primarily to Ovid’s style: (cp. ix.

4, 142, quoted at §88). Ovid’s exuberant

vivacity and sportive imagination, as well as his indifference to deep

conviction and high ideals, might however well be included in the

criticism. Tac. Dial. 10 elegorum lascivias et iamborum amaritudinem.

Martial has of Propertius ‘Cynthia te vatem fecit, lascive Properti’

viii. 73, 5: which, like Ovid’s _tener_ (A. A. iii. 333),

Postgate thinks refers rather to his subject than to his treatment of

it. “With Tibullus and Propertius love was at any rate a passion. With

Ovid it was _une affaire de cœur_.”

Gallus, Cornelius, of Forum Iulii (69-26), was the first

_praefectus Aegypti_ under Augustus, but on a report of some rash

speeches was banished, and committed suicide in his forty-third year.

Vergil is said to have originally finished the Georgics with a tribute

to Gallus, and on being ordered to erase it, substituted the Aristaeus

episode which now occupies the latter half of Book IV. Vergil’s regard

for him, however, comes out in Eclogue vi. 64 sqq., and in the

dedication of Eclogue x. (sollicitos Galli dicamus amores), in which he

seeks to console him for the loss of his love Lycoris (Cytheris). On it

Servius observes: et Euphorionem ... transtulit in latinum sermonem (l.

50) et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quatuor. Cp. Ovid,

Trist. ii. 445 Nec fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, Amor. i.

15, 30: Trist. iv. 10, 53: Remed. 765 Quis potuit lecto durus discedere

Gallo?

Satura. As to the derivation, v. Diomed. iii. p. 485

(Palmer, Introd. to Hor. Sat. p. vii) Satira autem dicta sive a

Satyris, quod similiter in hoc carmine ridiculae res pudendaeque

dicuntur, quae velut a Satyris proferuntur et fiunt; sive satura a

lance, quae referta variis multisque primitiis in sacro apud priscos dis

inferebatur...; sive a quodam genere farciminis, quod multis rebus

refertum saturam dicit Varro vocitatum. The second derivation (lanx

satura—the platter filled with first fruits of various sorts which

was an annual thank-offering to Ceres and Bacchus: and so a ‘medley’ or

‘hodge-podge’) was long preferred; but Mommsen holds (cp. Ribbeck, Röm.

Trag. 21) that the word means the ‘masque of the full men’ (σάτυροι),—the song enacted at a

popular carnival, when repletion in the performers leads to

a certain ‘fulness’ about the performance. Cp. Tibullus ii. 1, 23 saturi

... coloni: 53 satur arenti primum est modulatus avena carmen

(agricola).

tota nostra. This claim must be understood of satire in its

Roman form. The spirit of personal invective had already found

expression in the lampoons of Greek satire, e.g. in the iambics of

Archilochus and Hipponax, to say nothing of the Old Comedy at Athens;

but Satire at Rome grew to be a distinct art, a serious practical aim

being imposed on the literary form that was developed out of the

original _Satura_ (for which see below, §95). “It followed the Old Comedy of Athens in its

plain-speaking, and the method of Archilochus in its bitter hostility to

those who provoked attack. But it differed from the former in its

non-political bias, as well as its non-dramatic form; and from the

latter in its motive, which is not personal enmity, but public spirit.

Thus the assertion of Horace (S. i. 4, 1-6) that Lucilius is indebted to

the old comedians, must be taken in a general sense only, and not be

held to invalidate the generally received opinion that, in its final and

perfective form, Satire was a genuine product of Rome” (Cruttwell,

R. L. p. 76). Contrast the ‘hinc omnis pendet Lucilius hosce

secutus’ (est) of the passage referred to with ‘Lucilius ausus (est)

primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem’ (ii. 1, 62), and the

recognition of Ennius as ‘Graecis intacti carminis auctor’ (i. 10, 66).

The claim made by Quintilian springs from the consciousness that Satire

was pre-eminently the national organ of public opinion at Rome. Whatever

the topic treated might be,—politics, literature, philosophy, or

social life and manners,—the tone was always genuinely national

and popular. Moreover, it was the only form of literature that enjoyed a

continuous development at Rome, extending as it did from the most

flourishing era of the Commonwealth into the second century of the

Empire. See for the whole subject Professor Nettleship’s Essay on the

Roman Satura—its original form in connection with its literary

development, Clarendon Press, 1878: Palmer’s Satires of Horace, Intr. p. ix.

Lucilius, C. (B.C.

168(?)-103), was a member of an equestrian family of Suessa, and

belonged to the circle of the younger Scipio, under whom he had served

during the Numantine War. He left behind him thirty books of Satires, of

which the first twenty and the thirtieth were in hexameter verse, the

others being in different metres; and of these only some 1100 lines are

now extant. He gave Satire its true popular tone at Rome, speaking out

openly and with a courageous frankness against the iniquity and

incompetence of the nobles, the sordid, avaricious and pleasure-seeking

aims of the middle-class, and the venality of the mob. Horace passes a

rather mixed judgment on him, censuring his discursiveness, roughness,

careless rapidity, and verbosity; but commending him for his original

force and frank outspokenness. See Sat. i. 4, 6-12, 57: 10, 1-5, 20-24,

48-71: ii. 1, 17, 29-34, 62-75. In the time of Tacitus some preferred

Lucilius to Horace: Dial. 23 vobis utique versantur ante oculos qui

Lucilium pro Horatio et Lucretium pro Vergilio legunt.

I:94

Ego quantum ab illis, tantum ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere

lutulentum et esse aliquid quod tollere possis, putat. Nam eruditio in

eo mira et libertas atque inde acerbitas et abunde salis. Multum est

tersior ac

purus magis Horatius et, non labor eius

amore, praecipuus. Multum et verae gloriae quamvis uno libro

Persius meruit. Sunt clari hodieque et

qui olim nominabuntur.

§ 94.

fluere lutulentum, a quotation from memory of Sat. i. 4, 11 cum

flueret lutulentus erat quod tollere velles. Cp. i. 10, 50-1 ferentem

plura quidem tollenda relinquendis.

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

libertas: Hor. Sat. i. 4, 5 multa cum libertate notabant.

Trebonius in Cic. Fam. xii. 16, §3 deinde qui magis hoc Lucilio licuerit

assumere libertatis quam nobis? quum, etiamsi odio pari fuerit in eos

quos laesit, tamen certe non magis dignos habuerit, in quos tanta

libertate verborum incurreret: Macr. iii. 16, §17 Lucilius acer et

violentus poeta.

inde: it was his personal independence (libertas) that gave so

keen an edge to his satire (acerbitas): Hor. Sat. ii. 1, 62.

_inde_ is in fact _causal_ here. Becher notes pro Mur. §26 as

the only parallel

instance in Cicero, and there it occurs in a law formula: inde ibi ego

te ex iure manu consertum voco.

abunde salis: Verg. Aen. vii. 552 terrorum et fraudis abunde

est: Suet. Caes. 86 potentiae gloriaeque abunde, but not in earlier

prose. According to Hand. Turs. i. 71 _abunde_ was originally neut.

of _abundis_, used substantially (cp. pote and necesse) and so

becoming an adverb, from which was formed in time, by a false analogy,

an adj. _abundus_. Other uses are (1) like ‘satis esse,’ as in

Tac. Hist. ii. 95, §5 ipse abunde ratus si praesentibus frueretur:

(2) as simple adv. qualifying verbs adjectives and other adverbs

(cp. on §25): Cic. Div. ii. 1, 3 erit

abunde satisfactum toti huic quaestioni. Sall. Iug. 14, 18 abunde magna

praesidia. Wharton takes it from *_habundus_, ‘possessing,’ the

gerundive of habeo.—See Crit. Notes.

multum: for _multum_ before a comparative, like πολὺ μεῖζον etc., see

Introd. p. li.: cp.

Stat. Theb. ix. 559, Iuv. x. 197. In spite of ‘multum maius’ (de Or.

iii. §92), Cicero very rarely has _multum_ for _multo_. For

the reading, see Crit. Notes.

purus magis gives the antithesis to _lutulentus_.

non labor: cp. vi. 3, 3 sive amore immodico praecipui in

eloquentia viri (Ciceronis) labor: Cic. Brut. 244 ambitione labi. In

spite of the stricture passed in i. 8, 6 (Horatium nolim in quibusdam

interpretari), Quint. had a high admiration for Horace: see below §96. Many codd. give _nisi_ for

_non_: see Crit. Notes. For _praecipuus_ used absolutely cp.

§§68, 81, 116.

Multum et verae = multum gloriae et quidem verae gloriae. Cp.

Cic. ad Fam. iv. 6, 1 filium consularem, claram virum et magnis rebus

gestis, amisit. So the Greek καὶ ταῦτα. For acc. w. _mereo_ cp. §116.

quamvis: cp. §74. Even in

classical Latin _quamvis_ is used with adjectives and adverbs, and

without any verb: but this is a more remarkable instance than e.g. Cic.

Nat. Deor. ii. 1, 1 rhetorem quamvis eloquentem: Tusc. iii. §73

stultitiam accusare quamvis copiose licet.

Persius (34-62 A.D.) The

best account of his satires is that prefixed to Conington’s edition. Cp.

Mart. iv. 29, 7 Saepius in libro numeratur Persius uno Quam levis in

tota Marsus Amazonide.

Sunt clari hodieque et: ‘there are brilliant satirists at the

present day,—men whose names will hereafter be on the roll of

fame.’ Cp. for the general sense iii. 1, 21 sunt et hodie clari eiusdem

operis auctores, qui si omnia complexi forent, consuluissent labori meo,

sed parco nominibus viventium: veniet eorum laudi suum tempus: ad

posteros enim virtus durabit, non perveniet invidia. So too §104 below qui olim _nominabitur_ nunc

_intellegitur_.—This use of _hodieque_ (‘noch

heutzutage’) is quite different from such simple instances as e.g. Cic.

de Orat. i. 103 hoc facere coeperunt hodieque faciunt, where -que is

merely copulative. The Dictt. quote several instances in post-Augustan

prose, though the word occurs in Quint. only here: Vell. Paterc. i. 4, 3

quae hodieque appellate Ionia: ii. 8, 3 porticus quae hodieque celebres

sunt: 27, 3 Utcunque cecidit, hodieque tanta patris imagine non

obscuratur eius memoria: Seneca, Epist. 90, 16 non hodieque magna

Scytharum pars tergis vulpium induitur? Plin. ii. 58, 59 §150 in

Abydi gymnasio colitur hodieque: viii. 45, 70 §176 et hodieque

reliquiae durant: Tac. Germ. iii. quod in ripa Rheni situm hodieque

incolitur: Dial. 34 ad fin., quas hodieque cum admiratione legimus:

Suet. Claud. 17: Tit. 2. Krüger (3rd. ed.) thinks that _que_

is thrown in to correspond with _et_ in what follows (τε ... καί, ‘sowohl als auch’):

‘posthumous renown is introduced, as the more precious, not simply by

_et olim_ but in a special relative clause.’ Certainly it is the

same writers who are _clari_ now and who will hereafter receive

proper recognition (_nominabuntur_ cp. §104 below), though at present he refrains from

giving names. The position of _et_, and indeed its presence at all

in the sentence, seem to be motived by the choice of the form

_hodieque_. But see Crit.

Notes.

Juvenal can hardly be referred to here, as his first Satire is later

than the reign of Domitian, under whom Quint. composed his work. The

reference is more probably to some minor Satirists, like the authors of

the ‘scripta famosa, vulgoque edita, quibus primores viri ac feminae

notabantur,’—mentioned by Suet. (Dom. 8) as current in

Domitian’s reign. Cp. Nero 42: Tac. Ann. i. 72.—For olim see on §104.

I:95

Alterum illud etiam

prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum condidit

Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus.

Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos composuit, peritissimus linguae

Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum nostrarumque, plus

tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae.

§ 95.

Alterum illud, &c. This takes

us back to the earliest forms of the Roman Satura. Alongside of the

Fescennine verses (Hor. Epist. ii. 139, sq.), which had originated in

the rustic raillery and coarse mirth of vintage and harvest homes, there

grew up a sort of dramatic medley or farce, probably containing an

element of dialogue, to give opportunity for the sportive exchange of

repartees, and soon coming to have a regular musical accompaniment and

corresponding gestures. These ‘Saturae’ differed from the Fescennine

verses in having more of a set form and not being extemporised; while,

again, they were distinct from the developed drama in having no

connected plot. They seem from the first to have contained a dramatic

element, consisting as they did of comic songs or stories recited with

gesticulation and flute accompaniment. In addition to the censorious

freedom which they derived from the Fescennine verses, the Saturae

received an impulse from the mimetic dances that had been imported from

Etruria. They had been acted on the stage for more than a century before

Livius Andronicus gave his first dramatic representation (B.C. 240), and after the development of the regular

drama they passed into a distinct form of literature, which retained to

some extent its dramatic cast, but was not intended now for public

representation. In the hands of Ennius the Satura became a medley of

metrical pieces—a metrical miscellany—in which the poet gave

utterance, not without the element of dialogue, to his views on things

in general, in a tone that began to be more serious than would have

suited the stage and the theatre-going public, who were now to look to

Latin Comedy for undiluted amusement. With Lucilius, Satire passed from

miscellaneous metrical composition to that aggressive and censorious

criticism of persons, manners, literature, and politics, which the word

has ever since been employed to denote. It was a form of literary

activity that would seem to have been called for by the social and

political conditions of Roman life in the latter part of the second

century.—The transition is indicated in the following passage from

Diomedes, Art. Gram. iii. p. 485 K Satira dicitur carmen apud

Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae

comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius

et Persius; at olim carmen quod ex variis poematibus constabat satira

vocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius et Ennius.

etiam prius, i.e. even before the _satura_ of Lucilius:

cp. olim carmen quod, &c. in the passage just quoted. The

_satura_ of Varro (like that of Menippus, whom he imitated),

besides being composed in all sorts of metres, admitted prose also:

hence ‘non sola carminum varietate mixtum’ (for the implied antithesis

cp. 7 §19 in prosa

... in carmine). It was also, in respect of material, a sort of

_pot-pourri_ or ‘hodge-podge’: cp. multis rebus refertum, Diomedes,

l.c. See Crit. Notes.

condidit: see §56. There is no

need for Jahn’s conj. _condivit_. The word means ‘wrote,’

‘composed’ (not ‘founded,’ as Mayor in his analysis): cp. iii. 1, 19

primus condidit aliqua (in arte rhetorica) M. Cato: xii. II, 23

Cato ... idem historiae conditor.

Terentius Varro, M. (B.C.

116-27). Of his many works (said to number about 600) we have only three

books of the De Re Rustica, parts of the De Lingua Latina (in 25 books),

and fragments of the Menippean Satires. For the last v. esp. Mommsen,

iv. pt. 2, p. 594. A good account of Varro’s life and writings

is given in Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 141-156. In regard to the

Saturae, v. esp. pp. 144-145: ‘There was one class of semi-poetical

composition which Varro made peculiarly his own, the Satura Menippea, a

medley of prose and verse, treating of all kinds of subjects just as

they came to hand in the plebeian style, often with much grossness, but

with sparkling point. Of these Saturae he wrote no less than 150 books,

of which fragments have been preserved amounting to near 600 lines.

Menippus of Gadara, the originator of this style of composition, lived

about 280 B.C.; he interspersed

jocular and commonplace topics with moral maxims and philosophical

doctrines, and may have added contemporary pictures, though this is

uncertain. Varro followed him; we find him in the _Academicae

Quaestiones_ of Cicero (i. 2, 8) saying that he adopted this

method in the hope of enticing the unlearned to read something that

might profit them. In these _saturae_ topics were

handled with the greatest freedom. They were not satires in the modern

sense. They are rather to be considered as lineal descendants of the old

_saturae_ which existed before (cp. etiam prius) any regular

literature.’

Romanorum eruditissimus: cp. Cicero ad Att. xiii. 18 where,

with some pique, he writes homo πολυγραφώτατος nunquam me lacessivit (by

dedicating a work to him): August. C. D. vi. 2 homo omnium facile

acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus. Dion. Hal. ii. 21

ἀνὴρ ...

πολυπειρότατος: and Plut. Rom. 12 ἄνδρα Ῥωμαίων ἐν ἱστορίᾳ

βιβλιακώτατον.

omnis antiquitatis. He wrote Antiquitates rerum humanarum et

divinarum, in forty-one books. Cp. Cic. Brut. 15, 60 diligentissimus

investigator antiquitatis. For his general activity v. Acad. Post. i. 3,

9 nos in nostra urbe peregrinantes ... tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt

... tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura, tu

sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu bellicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum,

locorum, tu omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina, genera, officia,

causas aperuisti plurimumque idem poetis nostris omninoque latinis et

litteris luminis et verbis attulisti, atque ipse varium et elegans omni

fere numero poema fecisti philosophiamque multis locis inchoasti, ad

inpellendum satis, ad edocendum parum. Cp. Phil. ii. 41, 105, where

distinct reference is made (as Halm points out) to treatises de Iure

Civili, in fifteen books: de Vita Populi Romani, in four books: Annales

in three books: Antiquitates in forty-one books: de Fama Philosophiae:

and nine books Disciplinarum: Quint. xii. 11, 24, Quam multa, paene

omnia, tradidit Varro.—For this use of _antiquitas_ cp. Tac.

Ann. ii. 59 cognoscendae antiquitatis: and other exx. in Nettleship’s

Lat. Lex. s.v. 3.

scientiae ... eloquentiae: cp. August. C. D. vi. 2

M. Varro ... tametsi minus est suavis eloquio, doctrina tamen atque

sententiis ita refertus est ut in omni eruditione ... studiosum rerum

tantum iste doceat quantum studiosum verborum Cicero delectat. For the

datives cp. §27, §63, §71: conferre with

_in_ c. acc. occurs 7 §26, q.v.

I:96

Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, _sed

aliis_ quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in Catullo,

Bibaculo,

Horatio, quamquam illi epodos intervenit, reperietur. At

lyricorum idem Horatius fere solus legi dignus; nam et insurgit

aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et

verbis felicissime audax. Si quem adicere velis, is erit Caesius

Bassus, quem nuper vidimus; sed eum longe praecedunt ingenia

viventium.

§ 96.

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

celebratus est: cp. ix. 2, 92 celebrata apud Graecos schemata:

i. 9, 6 narratiunculas a poetis celebratas. Cp. frequentare.

ut proprium opus, i.e. as a separate form of composition, such

as it was in the hands of Archilochus, Hipponax, and Simonides.

aliis quibusdam (sc. carminibus) interpositus. Hild

takes this as referring both to the alternation of the iambic with other

metres and the substitution of other feet for the iambus itself (as

commonly in Horace). It is probable that it only includes the former,

being repeated, as regards Horace, in the words quamquam illi epodos

intervenit.’ See Crit. Notes.

Catullo. Cp. Fragm. i. At non effugies meos iambos. The most

famous examples of his _acerbitas_ are the lampoons on Julius

Caesar, especially that contained in the twenty-ninth poem (where see

Munro for an appreciation of the meaning of ancient defamation and

invective). Here Catullus appears as the genuine successor of the early

Greek iambic writers. (Cp. the more offensive hendecasyllabics of lvii.)

These are the two poems which Suetonius (Caesar 73) regarded as having

attached an ‘everlasting stigma’ to the name of Caesar: cp. liii. ad

fin. Irascere iterum meis iambis Immerentibus unice imperator. Sellar’s

Roman Poets, p. 431 sq.

Bibaculo. M. Furius Bibaculus (b. at Cremona B.C. 99),

like Catullus, the author of lampoons directed especially against the

monarchists: Tac. Ann. iv. 34 carmina Bibaculi et Catulli referta

contumeliis Caesarum leguntur: sed ipse divus Iulius, ipse divus

Augustus et tulere ista et reliquere. Some apply to him the words of

Horace, Satires ii. 5, 40, sq. seu pingui tentus omaso Furius hibernas

cana nive conspuet Alpes (where the scholiast credits him with having

written an account of the Gallic War): also i. 10, 36 Turgidus

Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona,—the nickname Alpinus having been

given to him on account of this ludicrous description of Jupiter

sputtering snow over the Alps: v. Quint. viii. 6, 17, where the

original line is quoted as an instance of a forced metaphor. The

reference in i. 10, 36 is however doubtful; and Bernhardy (R. L.

p. 566) supposes that in both passages some unknown poet is meant,

whose name may have been Furius Alpinus. See Teuffel, R. L. i.

313.

illi, sc. iambo = iambicis versibus.

epodos: ὁ

ἐπῳδός, sc. στίχος

= a shorter (iambic) verse, alternating with a longer. Epodi dicuntur

versus quolibet modo scripti et sequentes clausulas habentes

particularum quales sunt epodi Horatii: in quibus singulis versibus

singulae clausulae adiciuntur.... Dicti autem epodi συνεκδοχικῶς a partibus versuum,

quae legitimis et integris versibus ἐπᾴδονται, i.e. accinuntur: Diomedes. Though the term

epode includes all kinds of metre (except elegiac) in which a long and a

short line are combined, it is used especially of the alternation of the

iambic trimeter and dimeter (Hor. Epod. 1-10). Horace himself (who has

only one poem—Epod. 17—in iambic trimeter by itself)

includes all his Epodes under the head of iambi: Epod. 14, 7: Ep. i. 19,

23-25 Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Latio numeros animosque secutus

Archilochi: cp. Car. i. 16, 3, and esp. 23-25 me quoque pectoris

Tentavit in dulci iuventa Fervor et in celeres iambos Misit furentem. In

Ep. ii. 2, 59 he divides his poetry into _carmina_—Odes:

_iambi_—Epodes: and ‘_Bionei sermones_’—Satires.

Of course it was not Horace who introduced the epode into the

Archilochean iambics: the form was invented and used by Archilochus

himself. See Bernhardy, p. 601.

legi dignus: a poetical constr., which passed into the prose

of the Silver Age: cp. Plin. Paneg. vii. 4 dignus alter eligi alter

eligere. See Crit. Notes.

varius figuris: cp. §68

sententiis densus.

verbis felicissime audax: cp. Hor. A. P. 46 sq.: In

verbis etiam tenuis cautusque serendis, hoc amet, hoc spernat promissi

carminis auctor. Dixeris egregie notum si callida verbum Reddiderit

iunctura novum,—where Orelli gives, as instances of _callida

iunctura_ in Horace himself, the well-known phrases ‘splendide

mendax,’ ‘insanientis sapientiae consultus,’ ‘animae magnae prodigus.’

Cp. Petron. Sat. 118 Horatii curiosa felicitas. Ovid pronounces his

eulogy in Trist. iv. 10, 49 Tenuit nostras numerosus Horatius aures, Dum

ferit Ausonia carmina culta lyra.

Caesius Bassus: mentioned by Ovid in the lines immediately

preceding the passage just quoted, ll. 47-8: Ponticus Heroo, Bassus

quoque clarus Iambo, Dulcia convictus membra fuere mei. He was the

friend of Persius, who addresses his sixth Satire to him: and at the

request of Cornutus he edited the whole six, after they had been

prepared for publication by the latter. He is said to have perished in

the eruption of Vesuvius (A.D. 79),

which was fatal also to the elder Pliny. He is probably the Bassus who

wrote a treatise on metres, which still exists in an interpolated

epitome: Keil. Gram. Lat. vi. 305 sq.—For _vidimus_,

‘amisimus’ and ‘perdidimus’ have been needlessly suggested.

ingenia viventium: cp. sunt clari hodieque §94 above. It is only in favour of Domitian §91 that Quint. breaks his rule not to mention living

writers. Hild suspects Quint. of a little ‘log-rolling’ in these

compliments.

I:97

Tragoediae scriptores veterum Attius atque Pacuvius

clarissimi

gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum.

Ceterum nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus magis videri potest

temporibus quam ipsis defuisse; virium tamen Attio plus tribuitur,

Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt.

§ 97.

Tragoediae scriptores. Quint. did not consider it necessary for

his purpose to take any account of the first beginnings of tragedy,

otherwise he would have mentioned Livius Andronicus (284-204), Naevius

(235), and Ennius himself, who was probably almost as great in tragedy

as in narrative poetry. It was

Ennius who first impressed on Roman tragedy the deeply moral and highly

didactic character which it bore down to the age of Cicero. He made it

his endeavour to hold up patterns of heroic virtue to his audience and

to inspire them with right ideas of life. Even his adaptations from the

Greek (nearly half of the extant names of his tragedies suggest subjects

taken from the Trojan cycle) are fired with the truly national spirit

which he succeeded in handing on to his successors, Attius and Pacuvius.

Ennius also wrote some _praetextatae_ (i.e. national tragedies on

historic subjects of poetic interest, e.g. the Rape of the Sabine

Women); and in view of this fact it may appear strange that his example

was not more widely followed, so that these national dramas should have

outlived the hackneyed subjects drawn from Greek legend. The reason

probably is that there was too much party life in Rome to make the

dramatic treatment of the national history equally acceptable to all.

Few incidents could have been dramatised that would not have excited

various feelings in the hearts of an audience, say, in the times of the

Gracchi. Under the Empire the free treatment of the national history for

dramatic purposes was positively discouraged, and under the Republic the

Senate had exercised almost as severe a political censorship as the

Emperor did in later times.

From many points of view it might have been expected that tragedy

would have found a congenial home at Rome. There was much in the

national character, history, and institutions that was favourable to its

growth. The speculative element and the deep spiritual interest which

pervades Greek tragedy must no doubt have been absent; though Schlegel

thought that the place of Nemesis could naturally have been taken by the

idea of Religio, in so far as it comprehended the subordination of the

individual to the State, and his supreme self-surrender. But tragedy

flourished at Rome only during a comparatively short period: the

populace probably failed to rise to the demands made on them by its

lofty and serious purpose. Their tastes became more and more estranged

from it, as gladiatorial and spectacular shows grew in favour; and

appreciation of the drama came to be the proof of the culture of a small

and exclusive class. But the popularity which it enjoyed for a time must

have been due to the fact that, though the subjects were generally

adapted from the Greek, Roman tragedy came to have a character of its

own. It appealed to the ethical and political sympathies of the

audience, and satisfied that taste for rhetoric which led afterwards to

the development of Latin oratory. There may have been about it no subtle

analysis of character, no lofty delineation of the action and passion of

men entangled in the meshes of a destiny which they could neither

understand nor unravel; but it seems to have embodied all the manly

feeling and moral dignity of which the nation was capable. By its

vigorous rhetoric it may be said at least to have helped to develop the

language for use in those departments in which it achieved so great

success, i.e. oratory, history, and philosophical composition. And when

under the Empire literature had become altogether divorced from

practical life, the composition of tragedies was still a favourite

practice with many (e.g. Seneca) who recognised in that pursuit an

appropriate sphere for the rhetorical style which was then so much in

vogue.

Attius L., (170-about 90 B.C.) should have come after Pacuvius, as being

fifteen years younger. He produced his first play in conjunction with

Pacuvius, cir. 140. We have the titles of about fifty of his dramas, and

the fragments extant contain some 700 verses. He seems to have had

pretty much the same qualities as Ennius and Pacuvius, manly seriousness

of style combined with fervour of spirit. Cicero, who is said to have

conversed with him in his boyhood, and others, bear witness to his

oratorical force, his gravity, and passionate energy: pro Plancio, §59

gravis et ingeniosus poeta: pro Sest. §120 summus poeta: Ovid, Am. i.

15, 19 animosi Attius oris: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 55-6 Ambigitur quotiens uter

utro sit prior, aufert Pacuvius docti famam senis, Accius alti. Sellar’s

Rom. Poets, pp. 146-7. Quintilian gives a shrewd answer of his (v.

13, 43): aiunt Attium interrogatum cur causas non ageret, cum apud eum

in tragoediis tanta vis esset optime respondendi, hanc reddidisse

rationem: quod illic ea dicerentur quae ipse vellet, in foro dicturi

adversarii essent quae minime vellet.

Pacuvius, M. (220-132), the son of Ennius’s sister. Of

provincial birth (his birth-place was Brundisium), he could

not, according to Cicero, boast the pure Latinity which was the pride of

Naevius and Plautus: Brut. §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos

videmus. But in Orat. §36 an imaginary opinion is given as

follows:—omnes apud hunc ornati elaboratique versus, multa apud

alterum (Ennium) neglegentius. Martial (xi. 90), addressing a

wrong-headed admirer of the old poets, jeers at him for delighting in

archaisms,—Attonitusque legis terrai frugiferai Attius et quidquid

Pacuviusque vomunt. We have about 400 lines extant, which are discussed

in Sellar’s Roman Poets, and also by Ribbeck (Römische Tragödie,

pp. 216-339). The epithet _doctus_, in the use of which Horace

and Quintilian agree, probably refers to his wide acquaintance with

Greek literature: see below.

clarissimi: see Crit.

Notes.

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

summa manus: Cic. Brut. §126 manus extrema (the ‘finishing

touch’) non accessit operibus eius: Cp. i. pr. §4 quasi perfectis omni

alio genere doctrinae summam inde eloquentiae manum imponerent. See on

§21.

magis ... temporibus: but see Cicero, Brut. l.c. Aetatis

illius ista fuit laus, tamquam innocentiae, sic latine loquendi ...

omnes tum fere ... recte loquebantur.

virium Attio: cp. Ovid’s ‘animosi oris,’ quoted above: Vell.

Paterc. ii. §9 adeo quidem ut in illis limae in hoc paene plus videatur

fuisse sanguinis. Persius is less complimentary, Brisaei ... venosus

liber Acci (1, 76), the ‘shrivelled volume of the old Bacchanal

Accius.’—Quintilian is here only recording current literary

opinion: but such references as those at i. 5, 67: 7, 14: 8, 11: v. 10,

84: 13, 43 go far to prove independent knowledge.

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

esse docti adfectant: for the constr. cp. §72 meruit credi secundus: Introd. p. lvi. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 9, 7

noris nos, inquit, docti sumus, where Professor Wilkins remarks: “The

epithet of _doctus_ was especially assumed by those who were versed

in Greek literature and mythology, especially the products of the

Alexandrine school.” It aptly characterises the artificial tendencies of

the literature of the Empire.

Iam—a formula of transition. Kr.3 suggests

Nam: see on §12.

I:98

Iam Vari Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest.

Ovidi Medea videtur mihi ostendere quantum ille vir praestare

potuerit si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere

maluisset. Eorum quos viderim longe princeps Pomponius

Secundus, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac

nitore praestare confitebantur.

§ 98.

L. Varius Rufus (64 B.C.-9

A.D.), the friend of Vergil and Horace

(Hor. Sat. i. 5, 40: 6, 55), enjoyed a high reputation as an epic

poet before he took up tragedy. Macrobius (vi. 1, 39 sq.: i. 2, 19 sq.)

gives twelve hexameters of his from an epic poem on Caesar’s death:

hence Hor. Sat. i. 10, 51 forte epos acer ut nemo Varius ducit. From a

Panegyricus Augusti Horace is said to have borrowed the verses which

occur Ep. i. 16, 27-29. Cp. the ode addressed to Agrippa (i. 6)

Scriberis Vario ... Maeonii carminis alite. He is mentioned as an epic

poet together with Vergil, Ep. ii. 1, 147: A. P. 55. His tragedy

Thyestes was performed at the games after the battle of Actium (B.C. 29). Cp. Tac. Dial. 12 Nec ullus Asinii

aut Messallae liber tam illustris est quam Medea Ovidii aut Varii

Thyestes: Philargyr. on Verg. Ecl. viii. 10 Varium cuius exstat Thyestes

tragoedia, omnibus tragicis praeferenda. A quotation from it is

given iii. 8, 45. He edited the Aeneid after Vergil’s death, along

with Plotius and Tucca: probably prefixing the biographical sketch from

which Quintilian quotes x.

3, 8.

Graecarum, sc. fabularum.

Medea: a quotation from it is given viii. 5, 6 servare potui:

perdere an possim rogas?

quantum potuerit ... si maluisset: cp. §62. The use of the perf. subj. in such a sentence

corresponds to the use of the pf. ind. in _oratio recta_ with verbs

implying possibility, duty, right, &c., as if to express the idea

more unconditionally: e.g. deleri totus exercitus potuit si fugientes

persecuti victores essent (Livy xxxii. 12), So Ventum erat eo ut si

hostem similem antiquis Macedonum regibus habuisset consul magna clades

accipi potuerit (Livy xliv. 4). Roby, 1568.

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

quos viderim, §118. The subj.

seems to be used here on the analogy of the _qui_ of restriction

and limitation (Roby 1692): omnium quidem oratorum, quos quidem ego

cognoverim, acutissimum iudico Q. Sertorium Brut. §48: cp. §65. The indic. is also used: in iis etiam quos

ipsi vidimus xii. 10, 11.

Pomponius Secundus underwent an imprisonment of several years’

duration on account of his friendship with Aelius Gallus, son of

Sejanus: Tac. Ann. v. 8 multa morum elegantia et ingenio illustri: ibid.

xi. 13: xii. 28, where we are told that he obtained a triumph under

Claudius,—modica pars famae eius apud postero, in quis carminum

gloria praecellit: Dial. xiii, ne nostris quidem temporibus Secundus

Pomponius Afro Domitio vel dignitate vitae vel perpetuitate famae

cesserit. One of his plays was called ‘Aeneas.’ He died 60 A.D.

parum tragicum: contrast Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 166 Nam spirat

tragicum satis et feliciter audet. See Crit. Notes.

I:99

In comoedia maxime claudicamus. Licet Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis

sententia,

Plautino dicat sermone locuturas fuisse, si Latine loqui vellent, licet

Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant, licet Terenti

scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur (quae tamen sunt in hoc

genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura gratiae si intra versus

trimetros stetissent),

§ 99.

maxime claudicamus. No doubt this dictum must be taken as

implying that ‘the educated taste of Romans under the Empire did not

find much that was congenial in the works of Plautus, Caecilius, or

Terence’ (Sellar, R. P. p. 154). But Quintilian must also have

been biassed by a comparison with Greek Comedy, of the superiority of

which we can have only an imperfect appreciation, owing to the

scantiness of the survivals; while in depreciating Roman Comedy, as

compared with Tragedy, he also had the advantage over us of a full

acquaintance with the whole range of the latter. Moreover, it was

Satire, not Comedy, that represented at Rome much of the spirit of the

old Comedy of Athens. Horace, too, is more severe on Plautus than on

Ennius and the tragic poets (Ep. ii. 1, 170: A. P. 270 sq.). Again,

in Quintilian’s day the Mimus had so completely re-asserted its position

that the production of comedies seems to have almost entirely ceased.

“Comedy was not congenial to the educated or the uneducated taste of

Romans in the last years of the Republic, and in the early Empire. But,

on the other hand, the popularity enjoyed by the old comedy between the

time of Naevius and of Terence, and even down to the earlier half of the

Ciceronian age, when some of the great parts in Plautus continued to be

performed by the ‘accomplished Roscius,’ and the admiration expressed

for its authors by grammarians and critics, from Aelius Stilo down to

Varro and Cicero, shows its adaptation to an earlier and not less

vigorous, if less refined stage of intellectual development; while the

actual survival of many Roman comedies can only be accounted for by a

more real adaptation to human nature, both in style and substance, than

was attained by Roman tragedy in its straining after a higher ideal of

sentiment and expression.” Sellar, Roman Poets l.c.

Musas. To this Muretus added ‘Ne illae saepe, si Plautino more

loquerentur, meretricio magis quam virginali more loquerentur.’ For the

epigram cp. Plato on Aristophanes Αἱ χάριτες τέμενός τι λαβεῖν ὅπερ οὐχὶ πεσεῖται Διζόμεναι

ψυχὴν εὗρον Ἀριστοφάνους.

Aeli Stilonis, the first Roman philologist (144-70 B.C.). His name was L. Aelius Praeconinus: he

received the additional cognomen Stilo on the ground of his literary

eminence. Suet, de Gramm. 2 Aelius cognomine duplici fuit; nam et

Praeconinus, quod pater eius praeconium fecerat, vocabatur, et Stilo,

quod orationes nobilissimo cuique scribere solebat. Cp. Cic. Brut. §205

scribebat tamen orationes quas alii dicerent: and above, fuit is omnino

vir egregius et eques Romanus cum primis honestus idemque eruditissimus

et Graecis litteris et Latinis, antiquitatisque nostrae et in inventis

rebus et in actis scriptorumque veterum litterate peritus. Quam

scientiam Varro noster acceptam ab illo auctamque per sese ... pluribus

et illustrioribus litteris explicavit. Varro ap. Gell. N. A. i. 18,

2 L. Aelius noster, litteris ornatissimus memoria nostra: and

L. L. vii. 2 homo in primis in litteris latinis exercitatus. Varro

was his pupil; and we are told by Gellius (iii. 3, 1) that both

master and pupil made lists of the plays of Plautus, Varro

distinguishing his classes according to his personal feeling and

judgment as to whether a play was worthy of Plautus or not. Cicero tells

us (l.c.) that in his youth he was a very diligent student under Aelius;

and as Lucilius addressed some of his satires to him he may be looked on

as a bond of connection between the two epochs.

sententia: abl. by itself, after the analogy of _mea_,

_tua_, _sententia_. Varro took the criticism from his

master.

vellent: the possibility is looked upon as still present.

Plautino sermone. Plautus (254-184) fills a very distinct

place in the development of Latin comedy. He engrafted the festive

traditions of the Italian farce on the literary form which he borrowed

from Greece, producing a picture of Roman life and manners which secured

for his dramas a degree of popularity that caused them to be represented

almost uninterruptedly down even to the fourth century of our era.

Modern comedy is under deep obligations to him if only for his spirit of

unrestrained fun. See Bernhardy, p. 452 sq.: Teuffel §§84-88:

Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 43-48: and Sellar’s Roman Poets,

p. 189 sq.

Caecilius, Statius (219-166), an Insubrian Gaul by birth, and

contemporary with Ennius. Fragments of his plays are preserved by

Gellius, who tells us (xv. 24) that Volcatius Sedigitus (a critic

who probably belonged to the earlier part of the first

century,—Ritschl, Parerga, p. 240 sq.) placed him at the head

of all the Roman comic poets: Caecilio palmam statuo dandam comico,

Plautus secundus facile exsuperat ceteros. The three next are Naevius,

Licinius, and Atilius; Terence comes only sixth on the list. Cicero

inclines to the same verdict: de Opt. Gen. Orat. §1 itaque licet dicere

et Ennium summum epicum poetam, si cui ita videtur: et Pacuvium

tragicum: et Caecilium fortasse comicum. But elsewhere he censures his

provincial style: Brutus, §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos

videmus: ad. Att. vii. 3, 10 malus enim auctor Latinitatis est. For

other quotations v. de Orat. ii §40: Lael. 99: de Sen. 96: de Fin.

i. 4. Nonius (p. 374) quotes Varro as saying In argumentis

Caecilius poscit palmam, in ethesi Terentius, in sermonibus Plautus.

Horace’s criticism (Ep. ii. 1, 57) is still more familiar: Dicitur

Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare

Epicharmi, Vincere Caecilius gravitate, Terentius arte. By

_gravitas_ Horace probably means the sententious maxims for which

he was distinguished (Sellar, p. 202). See Mommsen, ii. 441.

Caecilius imitated Menander mainly, to whom Gellius compares him (ii.

23), while admitting the superiority of his Greek model. He is said

neither to have amused his audience, like Plautus, by confounding Greek

and Roman terms, manners, and customs, &c., nor like Terence, on the

other hand, to have carefully excised everything that did not accord

with Roman usage. He is said also to have recognised the division of

tastes and interests that was now springing up at Rome, and to have

begun to address only the higher classes, to whom Plautus had appealed

along with ‘the gallery.’

laudibus ferant, for the Ciceronian _efferant_: Tac. Ann.

ii. 13. Cp. Introd. p. l.

Terentii scripta ... elegantissima. The gap between the

classes at Rome, alluded to above, had widened in the interval that

separates Plautus from Terence (cir. 194-159 B.C.). The educated class was growing more refined

and fastidious under the leavening influence of Greek culture, while the

uneducated section of the people was gradually becoming coarser and more

debased. A leading member of the Scipionic circle, he may be said

to have begun the movement by which the creations of the genius of Rome

became more perfect as works of art addressed to a smaller circle of men

of rank and education, but lost also something of directness of purpose

as having less bearing on the passions and interests of the time. The

growing appreciation of Greek literature had produced a sense of

dissatisfaction with the uncouth efforts of a previous age; and elegance

of style, the cultivation of refinement and taste in thought and

language, were the objects now aimed at. There is distinctly less of the

drollery of the tavern about Terence than about Plautus. The ‘art’ with

which Horace credits him (v. above) is seen in the careful finish of his

style. Cp. Caesar’s lines, quoted by Sueton. Vit. Terent., in which he

calls him _puri sermonis amator_, and _dimidiate Menander_.

See Sellar, p. 208 sq.: Mommsen, vol. iii. p. 449 sq.

ad Scipionem Africanum. Cp. Sueton. Vit. Ter. (Roth.

p. 293) non obscura fama

est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione, eamque ipse

auxit nunquam nisi leviter refutare conatus, ut in prologo Adelphorum:

Nam quod isti dicunt malevoli, homines nobiles Hunc adiutare adsidueque

una scribere, &c. The rumour may have arisen from the fact of his

Carthaginian origin, which renders all the more remarkable the success

with which he cultivated a refined and elegant style.

plus adhuc = etiam plus: see on §71.

habitura. For this use of the fut. part, in a conditional

sentence cp. xi. 1, 74 detracturus alioqui plurimum auctoritatis sibi si

eum se esse qui temere nocentes reos susciperet fateretur. So too §119 below (without a _si_ clause):

pronuntiatio vel scaenis suffectura.

intra versus trimetros. This is a curious criticism, but it

can be paralleled from Priscian, de Metris Terentii: quosdam vel

abnegare esse in Terentii comoediis metra, vel ea quasi arcana quaedam

et ab omnibus doctis semota sibi solis esse cognita confirmare. The

vagaries of comic prosody were certainly not appreciated by ancient

critics: they could not excuse what to them seemed carelessness and

undue freedom from constraint: cp. Cicero, Orat. §184 at comicorum

senarii propter similitudinem sermonis sic saepe sunt abiecti ut

nonnunquam vix in eis numerus et versus intellegi possit. Quintilian and

others would no doubt have preferred a stricter imitation of Menander’s

versification. Horace himself took the same point of view in writing

about Plautus, Ep. ii. 1, 272 si modo ego et vos ... legitimumque sonum

digitis callemus et aure. Cp. Bernhardy, 325 n. and 350 n.

I:100

vix levem consequimur umbram: adeo ut mihi sermo ipse Romanus non

recipere videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem, cum eam ne

Graeci quidem in alio genere linguae _suae_ obtinuerint. Togatis

excellit Afranius: utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum

foedis amoribus mores suos fassus.

100

§ 100.

vix levem ... umbram: a proverbial expression, from the same

disparaging point of view as _claudicamus_, above.

alio genere linguae suae, i.e. another dialect. The charm

referred to is the peculiar property of Attic writers

generally,—not the comic poets alone. Latin is too formal and

rhetorical to fall into the simple naturalness and directness of Attic

Greek. For _suae_ see Crit.

Notes.

Togatis, sc. fabulis. The _Comoediae Togatae_ (though

founded on Greek models) aspired to be thoroughly national in dress,

manners, and tone: quae scriptae sunt secundum ritus et habitum

togatorum, i.e. Romanorum (Diom. iii. p. 489). On the other hand,

in the _Palliatae_ of Plautus, Caecilius and Terence (so called

from _pallium_, the Greek actor’s cloak, xi. 3, 143), all the

surroundings are meant to be Greek, though much of the fun of the

Plautine comedy is the result of the inconsistencies that sprang from

the introduction into Greek circumstances of Roman names, scenes,

manners, and characters.

Afranius, fl. cir. 150 B.C.

He was the chief writer of _togatae_, and began to aim at getting

rid altogether of Greek surroundings: and so comedy, descending into the

low humours of Italian country life, and specially the debaucheries of

the Italian towns, rapidly degenerated into farce. He borrowed freely

from Menander: dicitur Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Hor. Ep. ii. 1,

57,—‘Menander’s speeches came very well from the characters of

Afranius.’ Cic. de Fin. i. 3, 7. But he did not confine his

attentions to Menander only: Macrob. Sat. vi. 1, 4 Afranius togatarum

scriptor ... non inverecunde respondens arguentibus quod plura

sumpsisset a Menandro, ‘Fateor,’ inquit, ‘sumpsi non ab illo modo sed ut

quisque habuit conveniret quod mihi, quodque me non melius facere

credidi, etiam a Latino.’ Cicero, Brut. §167 L. Afranius poeta,

homo perargutus, in fabulis quidem etiam, ut scitis, disertus.

inclinasse: Brut. §38 (where _primus_ has been used