Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings.

_Gravissimus_ and _gravissima_ are obviously due, he says, to

_gravitate_ following: but the word before _gravitate_ must

have begun with the same letter, and so _clarissimi_ cannot stand,

especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For _ceterum_

shows that the sentence before it must have contained some slight

censure: some defect, or quality excluding others equally good, must

have been mentioned. He therefore conjectures _grandes nimis_, in

preference to

204

_grandissimi_, which in tragedy would hardly be a fault. Attius and

Pacuvius, Quintilian says, are ‘zu grossartig, sie kümmern sich zu wenig

um Zierlichkeit (Eleganz) und die letzte Feile (d.h. Sauberkeit im

Kleinen); doch daran ist mehr ihre Zeit schuld als sie selbst.’ He

evidently thinks more of the ‘Thyestes’ of Varius and Ovid’s Medea: cp.

Tac. Dial. 12. With this judgment Kiderlin compares §§66, 67 tragoedias primus in lucem

Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad

vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ... sed longe clarius

inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, and is of opinion

that the parallelism cannot be mistaken. For the position of

_nimis_ he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe

nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.

§98.

quem senes quidem parum tragicum. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,

Meister, and Krüger. _Quidem_ occurs in no MS.: GH have

_quem_, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn.

243 and Dorv. show the corruption _Pindarum_. Becher would exclude

_quidem_, regarding _quem_ in G as an instance of the tendency

of copyists inadvertently to repeat, after a particular word that by

which it has been immediately preceded, e.g. §68 quod ipsum quod (G): ix. 4. 57 ut

cum ut (G): iv. 1. 7 ipsis litigatoribus ipsis (b): iv. 2. 5 aut ante

aut (bT): x. i. 4 iam opere iam (G).—But here the authority of the

Pratensis and its cognates may be invoked. In the archetype from which

they are derived something must have stood before _parum_, as Prat.

Put. 7696, 7231 all give _quem senes non parum tragicum_: so Harl.,

2662 (A.D. 1434), and 11671. Above in

§96, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696

have _si quidem_ for _si quem_.

§100.

linguae suae. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13):

_suae_ supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give

_linguae quae_: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. _linguae_:

while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether:

M has _ligweque_.

§101.

Titum: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.

commendavit: Halm and Meister give _commodavit_, which is

approved also by Hirt. Halm compares §69 where Menander is said to be

‘omnibus rebus personis adfectibus accommodatus.’ But this would require

the meaning ‘appropriately treated,’ and there is no instance in

Quintilian of the verb used absolutely in this sense. Nor is there any

example to support Hild’s interpretation _praestitit_, which would

be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after

_accommodata_ tells against Halm’s reading, though Quintilian is

negligent on this head.—On the other hand, in vi. 3. 14 the

reading ‘ad hanc consuetudinem commodata’ is rightly accepted against

‘commendata’ most edd.

§102.

immortalem GS Meister: _illam immortalem_ Prat. Put. M Halm:

_immortalem illam_ Vall.

velocitatem. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which

have _civilitatem_. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks

that we might have expected _ideoque immortalem gloriam quam

velocitate Sallustius consecutus est_: ‘und darum hat er die

_velocitas_ durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge

erreicht.’ _Consequi_ cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and

_immortalis_ is inappropriate as an attribute of _velocitas_:

besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s _velocitas_, even

indirectly. Schlenger conjectured _claritatem_: Andresen

_auctoritatem_ (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii.

11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes _divinitatem_, which in Cicero =

Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous

sentences the expression is not too strong. For _immortalem

divinitatem_ cp. §86 illi

... caelesti atque immortali: and for _consecutus est_ iii. 7. 9

quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.

clarus vi ingenii. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I

find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give _clarius

ingenii_: Prat. Put. _clari ingenii vir_: 7231, 7696 _clari

vir ingenii_: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.

205

C and Ball, _clarus ingenio_; Harl. 2662 and 11671 _clarus_

(?) or _claret vir ingenii_. Spalding had already pointed out that

_clarus_ is not found with _ingenium_, except where

_ingenium_ is used of a person: e.g. §119 erant clara et nuper ingenia: he

therefore wrote _elati vir ingenii_ (following Goth. _elatus

ingenio_ and Bodl. _elatus ingeniis_). Kiderlin compares §70 sententiis clarissimus, and for

_vis ingenii_ i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The

reading _clarus vi ingenii_ points the contrast to what follows in

‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his _style_ that did not

altogether suit the dignity of history.

§103.

genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam. Till

Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175)

_genere_ had always been joined with _probabilis_, and the

text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give _in

omnibus quibusdam_: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. _in

omnibus sed in quibusdam_, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.

Out of _omnibus_ Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, _operibus_:

afterwards he decided for _partibus_, and this (though

_omnibus_ to _partibus_ is not an easy transition) is adopted

by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung

verdienen seine Leistungen _alle_, _manche_ stehen hinter

_seiner_ Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are

_probabiles_ (cp. viii. 3. 42 probabile Cicero id genus dicit quod

non plus minusve est quam decet); but they do not show the great powers

that distinguish his other writings. It is uncertain whether Quintilian

wrote _in quibusdam_ or _sed in quibusdam_ (M). The easiest

explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he

wrote _in omnibus in quibusdam_: perhaps the copyist of M saw that

_omnibus_ and _quibusdam_ were antithetical, and inserted

_sed_. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any

conjunction: cp. §106 in

illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).

suis ipse viribus: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville)

7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (A.D. 1434 and 1467) _suis_ already appears,

corrected from _vis_ GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has _suis viribus

minor_: so Prat. and Put.

§104.

et exornat. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and

most edd.: _et ornat_ M Halm, Meister, Krüger: _exornat_ GHS.

Becher remarks that _et exornat_ might easily pass into

_exornat_.

nominabitur: Weber and Osann proposed _nominabatur_

(which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to _-itur_). Krüger at

first accepted this in support of his theory that the whole passage

refers to Cremutius, who ‘in former days (olim), while his works were

under a ban, was only named (i.e. was a mere name, but now is known and

appreciated).’ The parallel passage (§94) is sufficient to dispose of

any such interpretation: sunt clari hodieque et qui olim

nominabuntur.

Cremuti. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and

Meister: _remuti_ H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 _remremuti_ G,

_rem utili_ Burn. 243: _remitti_ S. Bodl.: _nec imitatores

uti_ Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671. A review of the

various explanations of the whole passage (Superest—quae manent)

will be found in Holub’s Programm ‘Warum hielt sich Tacitus von 89-96 n.

Chr. nicht in Rom auf?’—Weidenau, 1883: but his conjecture

_remoti_ (i.e. relegati) for _remuti_ is not to be thought

of.

dividendi: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have

_videndi_, except M (_indicendi_) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995

(_vivendi_). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.

§105.

In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his

views: ‘wie zu _cum_ causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu

_cum_ concessivum, in diesem Falle wiedenzugeben mit, “was um so

auffallender ist, als.” Der Sinn ist also: “Ich weiss sehr wohl, welchen

Sturm des Unwillens ich gegen mich errege, und dies (dieser Sturm) ist

um so auffallender, als ich jetzt gar nicht die Absicht hege, meine (in

Potentialis gesprochene) Behauptung (fortiter opposuerim) wahr zu

machen, resp. comparando durchzuführen. Ich lasse ja dem Demosthenes

seinen Ruhm—in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius.”’

206

§106.

praeparandi. For Kiderlin’s conj. _praeparandi_,

_narrandi_, _probandi_ see _ad loc._

[omnia] denique, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit _omnia_

(which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following

Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and

Cicero were _not_ alike in _everything_ that belongs to

_inventio_. Halm thinks that _omnia_ is to be found in

_racioni_ of the older MSS.: but Kiderlin points out that this

error may have arisen from the carelessness of a copyist who, after

thrice writing the termination _i_, gave it also to the fourth

word.

illi—huic Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl.

&c.: _illic—hic_ GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.

§107.

vincimus, H, G2, and most MSS.: (cp. §86): _vicimus_ G.

§109.

ubertate Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and

Goth.: all the

other MSS. give _ubertas_.

totas virtutes Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: _totas

vires_ M b.

§112.

ab hominibus Halm and Meister: _ab omnibus_ Bn Bg HFT Ioan.

Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: _hominibus_ S Harl. 4995 Bodl.

§115.

urbanitas. Kiderlin proposes to read _et praecipua in accusando

asperitas et multa urbanitas_: cp. §117: §64: 2 §25: ii. 5. 8.

Ciceroni, for _Ciceronem_ of the MSS. In the Rev. de

Phil. (Janv.-Mars, 1887) Bonnet quotes from the Montpellier MS. a note

of the sixteenth century deleting the name as a gloss (on

_inveni_). Certainly all codd. give _Ciceronem_, not

_Ciceroni_. Bonnet thinks that the insertion does not accord with

Quintilian’s habitual deference towards Cicero: ‘Quintilien se trouvant

dans le cas de contredire Cicéron ne le nomme pas.’—Becher reports

_Ciceroni_, a correction in the Vallensis.

castigata, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl.

2662, 4995, 11671: _custodita_ H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829,

Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For _gravis_ (bH M Vall. and

seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give _brevis_.

si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit, Vall.

Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit 3 §26. Halm and Meister print

_si quid adiecturus fuit_—(sc. _virtutibus suis_, cp. §§116, 120)—the reading of B (i.e. Bn

and Bg), which is also that of Ioan. Prat. N 7231 Harl. 2662, 11671:

while M Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244 have _si quid adiecturus fuit, non

si quid detracturus_. The reading of H is _si quid adiecturus sibi

non si quid detracturus_ [_Sulpicius insignus_] _fuit ut

servius sulpicius insignem_ &c.: so also T, Burn. 243, Bodl. The

brackets in H are by a later hand, indicating a gloss which arose from a

mistake made by the copyist of H. In Bg the passage

stands:—

sibi non si quid detracturus

si quid adiecturus: fuit et servius sulpicius

The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.

In copying H wrote: _si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid

detracturus_ (then omitting _fuit_ continues) _et Serv.

Sulp._ (then goes back and resumes) _fuit et servius_ &c.

This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this

family.

§117.

et fervor. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and

Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have _et sermo_,

which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662,

4950 and Ball.: Hb _et summo_: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 _et

smo_: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T

_eius summa_, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis

(Laurentius Valla) made _et vis summa_, a reading which occurs also

in Harl. 4995. Meister reads _et sermo purus_; while Kiderlin

proposes _et simplex sermo_ (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3:

4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).

ut amari sales. Francius conjectured _ut amantur sales_,

but this loses the antithesis between _amari_ and _amaritudo

ipsa_. Kiderlin’s _ut amantur amari sales_ (viii. 3.

207

87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if _ridicula_ is taken in a

good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving

way unduly to _stomachus_, Quintilian should go on to say,

‘moreover, though bitter wit gives pleasure, bitterness by itself is

often laughable.’ Is it possible that we ought to read _ut amari sales

risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est_? Such an antithesis

might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words _risum

movent_ may then have dropped out. See the note _ad loc._: and

cp. especially vi. 1. 48 _fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit_, and

οὐ

γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται, quoted in the note on 1 §107.—Krüger (3rd

ed.) adopts _frequentior_ for _frequenter_, which gives a good

sense, except that _freq. amar ipsa_ is awkward.

§121.

lene Halm and Meister: _leve_ B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C.

Here again Becher prefers _leve_, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii.

§171, quoted on §44 above:

levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.

§123.

scripserint. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995,

2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among

other passages 2 §14

(concupierint), and points out that Quintilian is not thinking of

individual writers on philosophy, but of the class, as opposed to the

class of orators, historians, &c.—Halm, Meister, and Krüger

have _supersunt_ (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).

§124.

Plautus, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:

_plantus_ M Harl. 4950: _Plantatus_ Sal.: _plaustus_ Hb:

_Plancus_ edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.

Catius. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.

§126.

iis quibus illi. _Iis_ is the conjecture of Regius, followed

by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain _in quibus

illi_,—the reading of BN Prat. Ioan. Vall. M Harl. 4995, 2662,

4950, 11671, Burn. 244 Dorv. Ball. The difficulty of construing probably

led to the omission of _in_ in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696,

Spalding and Bonnell.

ab illo B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: _ab

eo_ bHM Burn. 243.

§127.

foret enim optandum: _fore enim aliquid optandum_ bHFT.

Spalding conjectured _alioqui optandum_, which Kiderlin

approves.

ac saltem all MSS.: Meister has _aut saltem_, probably

relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii,

p. 369.

illi viro B: _illi virus_ bHM: _illi virtutibus_

Halm: _illi viro eos_ (or _viro plurimos_) Kiderlin.

§128.

multa rerum cognitio: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl.

4995, which have _multarum rerum cognitio_. b omits _cognitio_

and is followed by HFT.

§130.

si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset.

I adopt the reading recently proposed for this vexed passage by Ed.

Wölfflin in Hermes, vol. xxv (1890), pp. 326-7, though it is right

to note that he was partly (as will be seen below) anticipated by

Kiderlin. _Obliqua_ seems thoroughly appropriate in reference to

Seneca’s unnatural, stilted, affected style,—‘jene unnatürliche,

durch unmässigen Gebrauch von Tropen und Figuren auf Schrauben gestellte

Ausdrucksweise, welche statt der Klarheit ein Schillern zur Folge hat.’

Wölfflin compares ix. 2. 78 _rectum genus_ adprobari nisi maximis

viribus non potest: haec diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt

infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt, cum haec quae

adfectatur ratio sententiarum non procul a ratione iocandi abhorreat.

Adiuvat etiam, quod auditor gaudet intellegere et favet ingenio suo et

alio dicente se laudat. Itaque non solum si persona obstaret _rectae

orationi_ (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est)

decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem

_obliquis_ sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed

suggested by _obliqua_ itself) the antithesis _parum recta_:

cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.

208

In the _Jahrbücher f. Philologie_ (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828)

Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The

traditional reading _si aliqua contempsisset_ (b) he considers too

indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though

preferable to the _si nil aequalium cont._ of the later MSS., it

cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give _simile

quam_ without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be

nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s

_si antiqua non_, on the ground that it is improbable that

_simile quam_ arose out of _antiqua_. He introduces his own

conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the

contrast between _schemata_ and _rectum genus_, _recta

oratio_; the former are called _lumina_ or _lumina

orationis_ (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: _nam si

mille ille schemata_ (or _illas figuras_) _similiaque lumina

contempsisset, si parum rectum genus_ (or _sermonem_) _non

concupisset_, &c. _Similiaque_ occurs ix. 4. 43:

_mille_ (for _sescenti_) is used v. 14. 32: for

_contempsisset_ cp. ix. 4. 113. _Si mille illa_ and

_similiaque_ may easily have run together, when _schemata_ (or

_figuras_) would fall out: _quam_ in the older MSS. may

represent _que lumina_, which again reappears in the _qualium_

of the later codd. (_si nil aequalium_). As an alternative for

_parum rectum genns_ (or _sermonem_) Kiderlin suggests

Wölfflin’s reading _parum recta_: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v.

13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.

Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree

with Bn and Bg in giving _simile quam_: b has _si aliqua_:

HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. _aliqua_: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244,

Dorv. C _si nil aequalium_. Among previous conjectures are _si

multa aequalium_, Törnebladh: _si ille quaedam_, Halm (where

_ille_ is surely superfluous): _si antiqua non_, Jeep. Meister

accepts the reading _si aliqua non_: Becher thinks that _si nil

aequalium_ may be right.

It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after

_parum_: the codd. all give _si parum non concupisset_. Jeep

proposed _si pravum_ (= _corruptum_: cp. ii. 5. 10)

_non conc._: on which Halm, comparing _omnia sua_, remarks,

‘debebat saltem _prava_.’ But _prava_ seems too strong a word

for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously

mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested _si parum sana_, and is

followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155

_n_. Sarpe proposed _si prava_ or _parva_ or

_plura_: Buttmann _si parum concupiscenda_ (or

_convenientia_): Herzog _si parvum_: Madvig _si partim_

or _partem_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam aliqua_, and in opp. to

_omnia sua_, below): Hoffmann _si opiparum_: Seyffert _si

garum_: Kraffert _si non parum excussisset_ (cp. §101, §126: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8.

13, &c.): Gustaffson _si parva_ (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in

parvis iactantiae): Andresen _si similem ei quem contempsit se

esse_ (sc. _concupisset_; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist.

i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) _si parem non concupisset_ (i.e. _si

Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius

aemulari maluisset_): or, _nam si similem ei quem contempsit se

esse, non parem concupisset_: Krüger (3rd ed.) _si parum arguta_: Hertz (who

argues that the word which has fallen out must, with _parum_,

correspond to _corrupta_ above) _si parum pura_.

utrimque Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and

Bonnell: _utrumque_ B N 7231, 7696: _virumque_ M:

_utcumque_ Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or

another,’—proposed by Gesner at 6 §7.

209

CHAPTER II.

§2.

atque omnis. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887,

p. 454) proposes to put commas at _sequi_ and _velimus_,

and make this clause also subordinate.

§3.

aut similes aut dissimiles. Andresen suggests _aut similes aut

non dissimiles_ or _aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles_.

§6.

tradiderunt (BNM Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 243, and Dorv.) is

powerfully supported by Becher in his latest tractate (Programm des

königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, p. 13) against

_tradiderint_, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in

the last from _tradiderunt_), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,

Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in

Cicero, _cum_ with the indicative is often used in such a way

(quoting from C. F. W. Müller) ‘ut non prorsus idem sit, sed

simillimum ei, quod barbare dicere solemus identitatis. Nam ut “cum

tacent clamant” non est “si tacent,” multo minus “quo tempore” aut

“propterea quod” aut “quamquam,”—sed “tacent idque idem est ac si

clament,” sic “cum hoc facis qui potes facere illud?” et sim., German,

item “_wenn du dies thust_” valet: “hoc facis ex eoque per se

efficitur, non ratione, sed ipsa natura, ut illud non possis facere.” Ut

pro Q. Roscio 3. 9 quam ob rem, cum cetera nomina in ordinem

referebas, hoc nomen in adversariis relinquebas? non significat nec

“quamquam” nec “quando,” sed “_wenn_.”’ Becher adds the following

parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae

divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi

_dixerunt_ non liquere, and Verg. Ecl. 3. 16 quid domini facient,

audent cum talia fures? (Cp. Madvig de Fin. p. 25.) In the same way

he treats _cum ... sunt consecuti_ 7 §19 below, which seems,

however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in

such cases _cum_ (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative:

there the clause ‘_cum sint consecuti_’ is added to show the

reasonableness (_cum_ = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary

facility shall be made fully equal to _cogitatio_—see _ad

loc._ Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of _cum_

with the indic. used of ‘identity’ (as ‘cum tacent, clamant,’ quoted

above): in such cases the subject is generally the same in both clauses.

And in such a passage as pro Cluent. §131 _cum_ is usually

explained as = _quo tamen tempore_.

eruendas M Harl. 4995: all other codd. _erudiendas_.

mensuris ac lineis. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the

conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4.

p. 194. 4) _eisdem mensuris ac lineis_, and recommends

the insertion of _eisdem_ in the text,—after _lineis_,

where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.

§7.

turpe etiam illud est. Hild puts a comma after _sciant_, and

by supplying before _turpe est_ an _ita_ to correspond with

_quemadmodum_, makes out a comparison of which _quemadmodum_,

&c., is the first clause and _turpe etiam illud est_ the

second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The

_quemadmodum_ clause goes with what is before, not with what

follows, so that a comma after _alieni_ would be enough, were it

not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. §9 below). Then _turpe etiam illud

est_ comes in, resuming _pigri est ingenii_ in §4, just as immediately afterwards

_rursus quid erat futurum_ §7 resumes _quid enim futurum

erat_ §4. The whole

passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which §4 opens, ‘imitatio per se ipsa non

sufficit.’ Quintilian first says that we, as well as those who have gone

before us, may make discoveries (cur igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a

nobis quod ante non fuerit?). Surely we are not to confine ourselves to hard and

fast lines like servile copyists.

210

Then he goes on to add in §7 that we must surpass our models

(plus efficere eo quem sequimur), instead of resting content with mere

reproduction (id consequi quod imitamur): otherwise Livius Andronicus

would still be the prince of poets, we should still be sailing on rafts,

and painting would still be nothing more than the tracing of outlines.

The necessity for progress is first shown (§§4-6) by an appeal to the

example of the past, and by the unfruitful work of such painters as are

mere copyists: then in §7

poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for

the argument _ex contrario_.

§8.

mansit, Meister: _sit_ codd.: _est_ Fleckeisen (and

Halm): _fuit_ Gensler.

§9.

adpetent Bg HFT: _appetent_ Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl.

&c.: _appetunt_ N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.

hoc agit Halm, followed by Meister (cp. 7 §4): _hoc ait_ b H,

_om_. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: _agit_ (_sine

hoc_) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.

§10.

quaeque pares maxime may be a gloss: it is found only in those

MSS. which give _simplicissimae_ for _simillimae_: b H Harl.

4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.

utique (b M Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243 Bodl. Dorv.) may

also be suspected: it does not occur in Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662,

4829, 11671.

§11.

orationibus, Bg: Ioan, gives _oratione_: so also Voss. 1 and

3 (Zumpt).

accommodatur b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and

Meister: _commodatur_ Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.

§12.

inventio vis B Harl. 2662, 11671: _inventionis_ b H Harl.

4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.

§13.

cum et, ed. Colon. 1527: _et cum_ B H Ioan. Prat. N (_et

quum_) M: _cum_ Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of

this difficult passage _ut quorum ... collocata sunt_ forms one

parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of

_intercidant invalescantque temporibus_. See _ad loc._

accommodata sit, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits

_sit_: _acc. est_ Halm, followed by Hild (depending on

_prout_, not _cum_: see note _ad loc._). Madvig’s

conjecture _accommodanda sit_ is approved by Kiderlin (cp. ix. 4.

126 adeoque rebus accommodanda compositio). But the correctness of the

reading in the text (and also of the explanation given in the note _ad

loc._) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence

carefully. To _cum et verba intercidant_ corresponds exactly the

double clause _et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit_ on the one

hand, and _et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima_ (sc.

_sit_—repeated from _accommodata sit_) on the other.

This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by _cum ... tum_. To

take _accommodata sit_ as depending on the _cum_ which follows

_compositio_ is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this

case an independent _sit_ would have to be supplied with

_gratissima_ (to make _et compositio ... gratissima sit_

correspond to _et verba intercidant_ above): and the translation

would then be: ‘it is just when (_cum ... tum_), or exactly in

proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (_rebus accommodata_)

that the very variety (thereby secured) gives the arrangement its

greatest charm.’ But if this had been Quintilian’s meaning he would

surely have written _cum rebus accommodatur_ (or—_ata

est_) _tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima_.

§14.

quos imitemur. The D’Orville MS. gives _quos eligamus ad

imitandum_,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it

may explain the origin of the reading of b and H _quos at

imitandum_.

quid sit ad quod nos. The _ad_ is due to Regius: most

codd. have _quid sit quod nos_, except Harl. 4995, which is again

in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2:

_quid sit quod nobis_.

§15.

et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam. The explanation given in the

notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however,

wished to insert _et_ before _inter_

211

_ipsos_. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl.

Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).

dicunt, Harl. 4995: _dicant_ all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’

(Halm).

ut sic dixerim Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9:

v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have _ut dixerim_. Halm wrote _ut ita

dixerim_, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but _ut sic_ is more

common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.

§16.

compositis exultantes. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888,

p. 72) would prefer _compositis rigidi_ (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii.

10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), _comptis_ (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42)

_exultantes_ = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend

putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is _laetis exultantes,

compositis corrupti_ (Lindau): or _compositis exiles_

(Düntzner).

§17.

quidlibet, most codd.: _quamlibet_ M, Vall. Harl. 4995,

4950: _qui licet_ bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879,

p. 162) condemns _illud_, and would read either _quamlibet

frigidum_ (cp. 3 §19 and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet

apertum), or _quidlibet frigidum_, which latter is approved by

P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of _illud frigidum et

inane_, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on §16.

Attici sunt scilicet. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to

be preferred. The retention of _sunt_ (represented in some MSS. by

a simple _s_,—hence the reading _Atticis scilicet_)

makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a _sunt_

after _qui praec. concl. obscuri_: in so loose a writer as

Quintilian the first _sunt_ would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn

and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have

_Attici scilicet_: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives

_Atticis scilicet_. In the Ioannensis I find _Attici s_ (for

_sunt_): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give _Atticis s. Scilicet_ (om.

Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be _Attici sunt_.

Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give _Atticos scilicet_

(_Athicos_ Harl. 4995): qy. _Atticorum similes_? (cp. Cic.

Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers _Atticis_ (sc. _se pares

credunt_).

§22.

proposito. This conjecture by Gertz (Opuscula philol. &c.,

p. 134) I have found in the Ioannensis (*ppo) and in Harl.

2662 and 11671. It is approved also by Kiderlin. BNHb Prat. Sal. give

_propositio_: all other codd. _proposita_. Perhaps we should

read (with Ioan.) _sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est_.

Prat. omits the second _est_.

§23.

tenuitas aut iucunditas, Halm and Meister: _tenuitas ac

iucunditas_ b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: _tenuitas aut nuditas_ N

Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: _tenuitas ac nuditas_ Prat. Harl. 4995,

4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: _aut iuditas_ Bg.

§25.

quid ergo? non est satis, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly

afterwards, _mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem,

quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere?_ (= _sed etiam

si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si

omnia haec consequi possem_).

§28.

deerunt, Francius: _deerant_ (derant) all codd. Becher

defends _deerant_: ‘der Rhetor meint dass _qui propria bona

adiecerit_ öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu

ergänzen als zu beschneiden _si quid redundabit_.’

oporteat bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: _oportebat_ B

Prat. N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671 Burn. 244 Dorv. The

latter (which is adopted by Halm) would indicate (cp. viii. 4. 22) a

condition which ought to have been and may still be realised: the former

(adopted by Meister and approved by Becher) is the conjunctive

potential, and is quite in Quintilian’s manner (cp. xi. 2. 20): it

conveys the expression of a present duty and obligation, the realisation

of which may now be expected, and it connects also more intimately with

_erit_ in the following sentence.

212

CHAPTER III.

§1.

nobis ipsis, codd.: _e nobis ipsis_ Gertz.

utilitatis etiam. Ioan. gives _etiam utilitatis_, which

Spalding quotes also from Goth.

§2.

alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also

in Ioan. and Prat.: _alter effossa_ BH: _altius effossa_ Harl.

4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.: _alte effossa_ Harl.

2662, 11671.

fecundior fit. _Fit_ appears as a correction in T and

Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662.

Perhaps _fecundior_ is the true reading, and _est_ is to be

supplied in thought: Introd. p. lv.

effundit B Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.: _effunditur_

b H. et

fundit Vall.2 M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.

parentis: _parentium_ Ioan.: _parentum_ Dorv. Harl.

4950 Burn. 244 C: _parentibus_ bH Bodl.

§4.

iam hinc. Obrecht _iam hunc_: see note _ad loc._ Harl.

2662 and 11671 agree in _iam hic_.

§6.

scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and

Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last

corr. from _-em_). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus),

and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.

§9.

sequetur Bn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:

_persequetur_ b Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: _prosequetur_ HM Bodl.

and Prat. _Prosequetur_ (Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is

a graphic touch about the compound.

§10.

ut provideamus obelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note.

Becher proposed _provideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus_:

Krüger suggests rather _resistamus et provideamus ut ...

coerceamus_: Jeep, _ut provide eamus_, also, for _efferentes

se_, _efferventes_. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin

(Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision

of _et_ before _efferentes_, as it is found in no MS. He

translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu

schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell

schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir

innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir

gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considers _ut

provideamus_ a necessary addition, in order to make the meaning of

_resistamus_ clear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass

er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen,

welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt

werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. read _resist. ut

provid. efferentes equos frenis_: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 give _ut_

for _et_: Harl. 4995 has _resist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos

fr. quib. coerc._: 4950 and Burn. 244 _resist. ut prohibeamus

efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc._ The reading _et efferentes

se_ is due to Burmann. Something might be said for _et ferentes

se_: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious

pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.

§12.

patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both give _patrono_: which,

with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the

Guelferbytanus (Spald.).

§14.

quod omni, see note _ad loc._: edd. vett _ex quo_.

§15.

plura et celerius Prat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and

Ambrosianus ii. _Et_ had escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister

follows, _plura celerius_.

213

sed quid: _sed_ is supplied by the old edd., but does not

appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjectures _at_, which

may easily have slipped out after _obveniat_.

§17.

quae fuit: (_manent_) _quae fudit_ Harl. 4995 (as also

Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)

§19.

urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888,

p. 86) his proposal to read _urgetur_, which would however

give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts

outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is

writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’

§20.

in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller

and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister: _legendo_

BM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See note _ad loc._ The true reading

may be _si tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo

velut offensator fuit_. This is supported by _et diligendo_ (bH

Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjectured _et delendo_,

Gertz _in tenendo_ (‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem

verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut

saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl.

4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) have _inertior_ for

_incertior_: but this gives no antithesis to _tardior_: it

appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M)

have _fuerit_, for _fuit_, which may be right.

concepta Regius: _conceptae_ codd. Becher points out that

_concipere_ and _excutere_ are ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib.

ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo

conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore

flammas.

§21.

altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed.

Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) and 11671 (A.D. 1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.

_aptiorem_: Prat. _apertiorem_, and so a later hand in

Vall.

frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl.

2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all give _simul et

interim_: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.)

and Burn. 243 have _simul vertere latus et interim_ (the reading of

many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omits _et_. It is to b that

we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and

b gives _sintieletus_, which H shows as _sintielatus_.

Considering how liable _s_ (ſ) and _f_ are to be confused,

I venture to think that _ſinti_ may conceal _fronte_.

Bursian’s _femur et latus_ (Halm and Meister) is not so near the

MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quoted _ad loc._),

but the latter passage would warrant _frontem_ quite as much as

_femur_, and _frontem ferire_ seems to have been considered by

Quintilian a more extravagant action than _femur ferire_, of which

he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In

any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if

alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his

thigh.’

Frotscher and Bonnell’s _sinum et latus_ cannot be supported by

any parallel for such an expression as _sinum caedere_,

_ferire_, _obiurgare_. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecture

_semet interim obiurgare_, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd

ed.) as = _increpare_: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium

sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’

Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f.

d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines

of b) _singultire, latus int. ob._ This would need to be taken

of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer

addresses πρὸς ὃν

θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers to

_singultantium_ in 7 §20, of broken utterance: but

we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is

not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be

indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s

presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggests _singultu latus interim

obiurgare_, comparing for the ablative §15 cogitationem murmure agitantes.

_Singultus_ is common

214

enough: and Kiderlin thinks that as _singultire_ is nearer the MSS.

than _singultare_, it may possibly have been used here by

Quintilian.

§22.

secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.,

M, Dorv.: _quod dictando_ BN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671,

Burn. 244 (corr. to _in_). With the reading _quod dictando perit,

atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit_ (Halm and Meister) it is

senseless to quote 2 §20 (Bonn., Meister, and

Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) reads _secretum dictando perit.

Atque liberum arbitris_, &c.

§23.

mihi certe iucundus. After these words H has _videmoni_ (and

so the cod. Alm.): Flor. _vindemoni_. This word greatly puzzled

Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions

of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it into _mihi certe vitae

inani iucundus_, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr.

L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He

thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage

about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on

Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesie _vinum

daemonum_.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright

tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus

propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to

Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these

quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert.

&c. c. 4. Hence the phrase _vinum daemonum_ may have been

compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as

seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in

the Bambergensis four lines further down, where _tendere ani_(mum)

is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.

§24.

ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in

Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other

codd. _rami_.

voluptas ista videatur most codd.: _videatur ista

voluptas_ N.

§25.

oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex

quo nulla exaudiri vox that _aures aut_ has fallen out before

_oculi_. Cp. §28

nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.

velut tectos: _velut rectos_ all codd. There is the same

confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M has _recteque_ for _tecteque_

(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgate _tectos_

(first in ed. Leid.) see _ad loc._ Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer.

Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that for _tectos

teneat_ we should have expected _tegat_. The figure also seems

to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an

enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away

from his task: §23

_avocent_, _respexit_: §24 _ad se trahunt_: §25 _aliud agere_. He

proposes, therefore, _velut recto itinere_, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut

vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et

recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt. _Itinere_ may first have

fallen out, and then _recto_ may have been changed to

_rectos_.—Halm conjectured _velut secretos_, or

_coercitos_; Wrobel, _velut relictos_.

§26.

haud deerit: _aut deerit_ BN Ioan, and all codd. except a

later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent

use of _haud_ in Quintilian, though _haud dubie_ 1 §85 (where however GH have

_aut_) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on

the consensus of the MSS. for _aut_ he proposes to read _aut non

deerit_ or _aut certe non deerit_. But _haud_ goes closely

with _deerit_, and does not (like _non_, _ac non_)

introduce an antithesis to _supererit_. _Aut deerit_ might be

made to mean that the _sleepless_ man is to work: but this would be

too cruel!

§29.

et itinere deerremus: _et ita ne_ BN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,

11671, Dorv. and Ball.: _ita erremus_ HMb Bodl. (_erramus_).

The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old

editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.

§31.

crebra relatione appears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected from

_crebro relationi_ which is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd.

Jeep suggested _crebra dilatione_,

215

Kiderlin _crebriore elatione_. Other proposals are _crebra

relictionis_, _q. i. c., repetitione_, Gottfried Hermann (in

Frotscher), _crebra relictione_, _q. i. c., et repetitione_,

Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinks _crebro_ may be

right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:

_crebro_ would then go closely with _morantur_ and

_frangunt_.

§32.

adiciendo ‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and

Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. have _adicienda_: b

_adiciendi sint_: Harl. _adjiciendi sit_. Meister adopts

_adicienti_ from ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo

cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B has

_cognoscendi_).

ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omits _esse_, and is

thus in agreement with N.

CHAPTER IV.

§3.

habet: _habeat_, Halm quoting from ed. Camp. _Habeat_

occurs in Burn. 243: most codd. have _habet_, but some (H and

Bodl.) give _habent_.

CHAPTER V.

§1.

ἕξιν parantibus: for

the _ex imparantibus_ of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added _non est

huius_. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives _nec exuberantis id quidem est

operis ut explicemus_.

factum est iam, Halm and Meister: _est etiam_ all codd.

except Ioan, which has _factum etiam_.

iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omit

_iam_: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give _iam

robustiorum_.

§2.

id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however

give _M. id Messalae_: and Harl. 4995 _Marco id Messalae_. The

spelling _Messallae_ is adopted in the text as more correct.

§4.

eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger

(3rd ed.): _eandem_ all codd., with the single exception of M, and

so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the

meaning. The only way to explain _eandem_ seems to be to continue

the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp.

eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an

elevating influence, while his licences of style _do not carry with

them in advance_, or _involve_, the corresponding ability to use

the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’

This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also

Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no _non_ with _praesumunt_,

at least if we may read _eadem_: ‘poetical licence implies that the

orator can say the same things _propriis verbis_.’ Bursian

suggested _nec_ (for _et_) _verba_ ...

_praesumunt_.

§5.

post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,

_praeter quod_: so Vall.

§13.

reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. _rectene reus

sit_, to correspond with _rectene occiderit_ and _honestene

tradiderit_ in what follows: along with Gertz’s _quaeramus, an_

to correspond with _veniat in iudicium an_, Becher, however

(Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a

change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read,

‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui

... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run,

‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod

216

Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of

parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.

Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit

insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?,

so here the _finita_ or _specialis causa_ shows the form of a

positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.

_Reus sit_ and _legerit_ are motived only by the disjunctive

interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or

only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The _infinita quaestio_, on

the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a

question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following

_finitae_ and _infinitae quaestiones_. The _finita

quaestio_ rests on the _generalis quaestio_: acquittal of the

charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to _violeturne_,

&c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10)

Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne,

&c.

§14.

dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244,

Ball.: _inventus_ Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.

_invenis_ appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. _dum adul.

profectui sunt util._

quia inventionem, Halm: _quae inventionem_ all codd. Qy.

_quod_?

§16.

materia fuerit. Meister suggests _erit_: perhaps

rather _fuerit—necesse erit_.

§17.

assuescere Zumpt: _assuefieri_ Philander. All MSS. have

_assuefacere_. Frotscher wrote _inanibus_ se _simulacris ...

assuefacere_, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan.

Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give _difficilis digressus_:

but in view of the consensus for _assuefacere_ the alternation

_difficilius digressos_ (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243)

is worth considering: _inanibus simulacris_ would then go (though

awkwardly) with _detineri_ (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and

the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.

§18.

transferrentur N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.

§20.

decretoriis Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.:

Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) _derectoriis_ BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:

_detectoris_ b: _delectoris_ H: _delectoriis_ Bodl.:

_de rhetoriis_ Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _vel

rhetoricis_ M.

satis so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 _litis_: Hb

_sitis_.

§21.

idoneus bHM: _si idoneus_ Bn Bg Sal.: _sudoneus_ N:

_is idoneus_ Halm.

§22.

sustinere Halm and Meister: _sustineri_ Bn Bg HN Sal.

recidet occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a

correction in Vall.: all other codd. _recidere_.

§23.

diligenter effecta all codd. Regius proposed _una diligenter

effecta_, Badius _una enim diligenter effecta_, and so many edd.

_Una_ would come in well before _quam_; but Becher rightly

holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative

alone, but qualitative as well. He reports _una enim_ as a

correction in the Vallensis.

quidque. Fleckeisen proposed _quicquid_; see Madvig on de

Fin. v. §24.

CHAPTER VI.

§1.

vacui nec otium patitur. The reading in the text, which is quite

satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg give

_vacuum otium pat._, and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and

11671. For _otium patitur_ b (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable

reading _experientium_ (_experientiam_ Burn. 243, Bodl.),

which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true

reading perhaps be _nec ἕξιν parantibus otium patitur_? Jeep suggested

_expetit otium_: _nec perire otium patitur_ has also been

suggested.

217

§2.

desit. After this word there is a considerable space left blank

in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671.

In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic

deficit antiquus codex.’

inhaeret ... quod laxatur: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and

Krüger. BMN give _inhaeret ... quae laxatur_, which appears in ed.

Camp. (and Halm) as _inhaerent ... quae laxantur_.

§4.

tandem Madvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61, _tamen_ libri.

§5.

redire. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829,

and restore it to the text, in place of _regredi_ (Halm and

Meister), which seems to have arisen out of _redi_ HF, and occurs

in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.

§6.

domo Harl. 4995: _domū_ B Ioan. MN Sal.

§7.

utrimque Bonnell and Meister. The codd. give _utrumque_.

Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposed _utcumque_:

Spalding _utique_: Jeep _si tutius utcumque quaerendum est_

(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of b _strict_

* * * (_margine adcisa_), which reappears in HFT

(_strictius—strutius_).

CHAPTER VII.

§1.

praemium quoddam Harl. 4995, probably following a correction in

the Vallensis: _primus quid amplius_ Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl.

2662, 4950. _Amplissimum_ Stoer.

intrare portum Bn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts

Meiser’s conj. _instar portus_. On this reading the advocate who

has nothing but (_solam_) the _scribendi facultas_, and who

therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which

seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing

to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is

calm, and so not _praesentissimis quibusque periculis_. Neither of

the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that

the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions are

_monstrare portum_: _instaurare p._: and _in terra

portum_ (?) Jeep.

§2.

statimque. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: see

_ad loc._ The editors print _statimque, si non succ._

§3.

quae vero patitur, &c. In the text _possit_ (for

_sit_ of MSS.) is due to Frotscher, _omittere_ (for

_mittere_) to Bonnell. _Ratio_ (for _oratio_ Bn Bg H

Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz,

reads _quae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando?

mitto casus: quid_, &c. _Aliquando_ he takes as = ‘only

sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit).

For _mitto casus_ (‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2.

25.

§5.

quid secundum ac deinceps: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point

to this reading, though Halm and Meister print _ac sec. et deinc_.

Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) have _ac sec. ac dein._: but

in Bg above the first _ac_ the letter _d_ appears (evidently

for _quid_, not _ad_ as H), and over the second

_ac_, _et_ is written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the

first _ac_ Harl. 2662 gives _atque_, and so Spalding reports

Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis

also has _quid secundum_.

§6.

via dicet ducetur, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244: _ducet

ducetur_ Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variant _viam

discet_ (as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts

the words, reading _ducetur_, _dicet_ to avoid a ‘tautology’:

cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changed _ducetur_ into

_utetur_. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wrote _ducetur

... velut duce_, and suggests that _certa_ may have fallen

218

out after _serie_ (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he

thinks, additional point to the clause introduced by _propter

quod_: men who have had but little practice do not always speak

methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in

keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events

is ‘a trusty guide.’

§8.

paulum, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:

_paululum_ bHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.

sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit, Halm, by adding _os_

to the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995). _sed ipsum os quoque

concurrit_, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I find _sed id

ipsum coit atque conc._, which may show that we ought to read _os

ipsum_.

elocutioni, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio

an recte,’ Halm.

§9.

observatione una, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:

_observationen_ (_-nū_ Bg) _in luna_ Bn Bg Ioan. N Sal.

Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _observatione_ (_-um_ H) _in

una_ bH: _observatione simul_ Halm.

§13.

superfluere video, cum eo quod, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald.

and most edd.: _superfluere video: quodsi_ Halm, and a later hand

in Vall. (Becher): _videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsi_ Meister,

followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading is

_superfluere cum eo quod_ (BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,

11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from which _video_ seems to have

disappeared: the later hand in Bg gives _videantur_.

Meister seems to be right in retaining _cum eo quod_, though his

adoption of _videmus_ for _video_ is unnecessary, considering

_mirabor_ in the same sentence. _Cum eo quod_ (see _ad

loc._) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle,

1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable that _video_

dropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corrupto _cumeo_

latet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo

quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att.

vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation in

_quodsi_ (‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported

Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the

whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten

Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft,

dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages

erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu

Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the

text.

§14.

ut Cicero dictitabant. The reading is far from certain, but it

seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in

agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best

alternative is _ut Cicero dicit aiebant_ (C, Par. 1, also in margin

of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 give _dicit

agebant_, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived

probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake for

_dictitabant_. Bg gives _dictabant_: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2,

Par. 2, sec. m. _aiebant_: Regius conjectured _ut Cicero ait

dictitabant_: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the

inclusion of Cicero among the _veteres_ cp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes

veteres et Cicero praecipue.’

§16.

tum intendendus. Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets _tum_ (which

is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain,

like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after

the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ...

non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before

(omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also

the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus.

H. 2662 gives _tamen_ (and is here again in agreement with

Guelf.).

addit ad dicendum, B: _addiscendum_ (om. _addit_)

bHFT. The loss of _addit_ seems to have given rise to

interpolation: M shows _addit ad discendum stimulos habet et

dicendorum expectata laus_. Bonnell prints _Ad dic. etiam pudor

stim. habet et dic. exp. aus_: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst.

cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefanda

219

viii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore

dicendis inseri possit.

§17.

pretium, all codd.: _praemium_ Halm, following Regius.

§18.

praecepimus, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and

Vall.2: other codd. _praecipimus_.

§19.

cum ... sint consecuti bHM: _cum ... sunt consecuti_ Bn

Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here,

as at 2 §6

(_tradiderunt_), where see note. Here _cum_ is more or less

causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are

no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to

acquire _extemporalis facilitas_ must consider it his duty to

arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.

Gertz put a full stop at _tutior_, and for _cum_ read

_quin_, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. with

_extemporalis facilitas_ as subject), _potest_ would be

expected instead of _debet_. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s

third edition. H. J. Müller suggested _Nam ... sunt

consecuti_.

§20.

tanta esse umquam debet. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod.

Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’s

_tanta sit umquam_. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 give _tanta esse

umquam fiducia_: M has _tantam esse umquam fiduciam_: Vall.

_esse unquam tantam fid._: Harl. 4995 _esse tantam unquam_.

Regius made the addition of _velim_ after _facilitatis_:

Becher thinks it may have dropped out before _ut non_. Meister

follows: perhaps rather _tantam velim_ (tm) _esse

unquam_.

§22.

consequi, Spald.: _non sequi_ bH: _sequi_ MC Harl.

4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it,

explaining _utrumque non dabitur_ as ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis

intendere.’

§23.

satis Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result

of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela

et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.

§24.

non labitur. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading

(which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is

undoubtedly better than _non capitur_, which occurs in Bn Bg H

Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.

_Capitur_ is explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to

such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente

captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand.

Another reading is _rapitur_, which Halm thought might be right:

but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context,

though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4

a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem.

Hild suggests _animo_ (or _mente_) _non labitur_: Jeep

_non carpitur_ (cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere

quod potest carpi): Becher _non abit_ (cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis

vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation: _non

cadit_ might stand alongside of Becher’s _non abit_, or such a

future as _servabitur_ or _retinebitur_ could take the place

of the negation, though we should then look for _deperdet_ instead

of _deperdit_.

non omnino B and codd.: _omnino non_ Gesner, followed by

Halm.

§25.

est alia exercitatio, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829,

11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.): _est illa_ BH

Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.: _est et illa_ Spalding Halm and Meister (cp.

ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).

utilior (Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd.

vett.’) Vall.2, Harl. 4995: all other codd. _utilitatis_

(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?). In support of his proposal to read _maioris

utilitatis_, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90)

compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60

quod est sane summae difficultatis.

§26.

quam illa: so all codd. Gertz _quam in illa_ (sc.

exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s

Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zu _componitur_

220

ist Subjekt _exercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio_

(_dum tamen ... ipsum_) _persequendi_, d.h. dem Sinne nach

_tacita oratio_, wie _dum t. q. dicat i. s. i._ zeigt, zu

_illa_ ist Subjekt _vera oratio_; _componitur oratio_

aber ist nicht auffälliger als _explicatur exercitatio_.’

§27.

ut Cicero ... tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in

transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, after

_ubique_. Becher rejects it as a gloss.

aut legendum b M: om. BN Sal.: _vel ad legendum_ Vall.

Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned

only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it

promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’

§28.

innatans Stoer: _unatrans_ BN Ioan. Sal.: _inatrans_

bH: _iura trans_ Harl. 2662: _intrans_ FM

Vall.2.

§29.

an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.): _ac si_ bHFT Burn.

243: _an_ Bn Bg M.

debent, all codd.: _debemus_ Krüger (3rd ed.) after

Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the

participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’

&c.

sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are

stated in the note _ad loc._ Bn Bg HN and most codd. have

_inicere_, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the

repetition of the letters _-ic_ in what I take to be the original

text, whereupon the preceding _tamen_ (or _tam̅_) would assist

the transition to _in_icere. Cp. the omission of _sic_ in most

codd. in _ut sic dixerim_ 2 §15. Halm (after Bursian)

wrote _id efficere_, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations

are _vincere_ M, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2: _tantum

iniicere_ Harl. 4995: _inniti_ or _adniti_ edd.: _id

agere_ Badius: _evincere_ Törnebladh.

§32.

et in his: _in his_ Halm and Meister: _ne in his_ BN

Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.: _ne in iis_ Harl. 2662: _vel in iis_

Spald.: _vel in his_ Bonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture

on _et_, which seems to help the antithesis with _in hoc

genere_ above: v. _ad loc._

velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm,

Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly: _vel in summas

in_ (_sine_ bH: _sive_ Harl. 4995) _commentarium_ Bn

Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662: _velin summas et_ (suprascr. _in_)

_commentarium_ N: _vel insinuamus sine commendarios_ M:

_commentarioram et capita_ Harl. 4950. Other conjectural

emendations are _velut in summas commentarium_ Spald.: _mihi quae

scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf._ Zumpt: _nec in his

quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferri_

Frotscher; _vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas_ (cp. Liv. xl. 29.

11 lectis rerum summis) _in commentarios conferre_ Jeep: _ex iis

quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre_,

Zambaldi,—(on the ground that with _conferre_, _ex his_

gives a better sense than _in his_). To these may perhaps be added

_et in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita

conferre_.

In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin

discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS.

(_ne in his_) he proposes _ne in his quae scripserimus

erremus_: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir

geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use of _errare_

xi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above for

_vel in summas_ on the ground that it is impossible to explain

‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of

‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt

in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte

einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’

be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not

in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte

aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den

Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’

Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:

221

‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den

Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’

Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice

was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the

elimination of the unmeaning _et_ which wrongly conjoins

_commentarium_ and _capita_. Again as _summa_ and

_caput_ are synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi.

1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and the _vel_

in _vel in summas_ seems to show that these words were originally a

marginal gloss to explain (_in_) _capita_. Kiderlin therefore

proposes to transform the text as follows: _ne in his quae

scripserimus erremus_ [_vel in summas_] _in

commentarium capita conferre._

quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger

(3rd ed.): _quod simus_ Bn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm: _non

simus_ bHT Bodl. In explanation of _quod simus_ Spalding says

‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’;

and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by

writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the

written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’

hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.: _hoc quoque_ Harl.

4995: _id quoque_ bHM.

223

INDEX OF NAMES.

(The references are to chapters and sections.)

Achilles, i. 47, 50, 65.

Aelius (Lucius) Stilo, i. 99.

Aeschines, i. 22,

77.

Aeschylus, i.

66.

Afranius, i.

100.

Alcaeus, i. 63.

Antimachus, i.

53.

Antipater Sidonius, vii. 19.

Apollonius, i.

54.

Aratus, i. 55.

Archias, Aul. Licinius, vii. 19.

Archilochus, i.

59.

Aristarchus, i. 54,

59.

Aristophanes, i.

66.

Aristophanes of Byzantium, i. 54.

Aristotle, i.

83.

Asinius Pollio, i.

22, 24, 113: ii. 17, 25.

Asprenas, C. Nonius, i.

22.

Attici—Attic Orators, i. 76-80: cp. ii. 17; i. 115.

Attius (Accius), i.

97.

Aufidia, i. 22.

Aufidius Bassus, i.

103.

Bibaculus, M. Furius, i.

96.

Brutus, M. Iunius, i.

123, 23: v. 20: vii. 27.

Caecilius Statius, i.

99.

Caelius, M. Rufus, i.

115: ii. 25.

Caesar, C. Iulius, i.

114: ii. 25.

Caesius Bassus, i.

96.

Calidius M., i.

23.

Callimachus, i.

58.

Calvus, i, 115: ii.

25.

Carbo, vii.

27.

Cassius Severus, i.

22, 116.

Catius, i.

124.

Cato, v. 13.

Catullus, i.

96.

Cestius, v. 20.

Charisius, i.

70.

Cicero, i. 33, 40, 80, 81, 105-112, 123: ii. 18: iii. 1: v. 2, 11, 16: vii. 19, 27, 30.

Cinna, C. Helvius, iv.

4.

Clitarchus, i.

75.

Clodius, v. 13.

Cornelius, C., v.

13.

Cornelius Celsus, i.

23, 124.

Cornelius Gallus, i.

93.

Cornelius Severus, i.

89.

Crassus, iii. 1:

v. 2.

Cratinus, i.

63.

Cremutius, i.

104.

Crispus, i. 23.

Demetrius of Phalerum, i.

33, 80.

Demosthenes, i. 22,

24, 39, 76, 105: ii. 24: iii. 25, 30.

Domitian, i.

91.

Domitius Afer, i.

23, 86, 118.

Empylus Rhodius, vi.

4.

Ennius, i. 88.

Ephorus, i. 75.

Epicurus, ii. 15:

cp. i. 124.

Euphorion, i.

56.

Eupolis, i. 65.

Euripides, i.

67.

Gallus (Cornelius), i.

93.

Helvius (C. Cinna), iv.

4.

Hercules, i.

56.

Herodotus, i. 73,

101.

Hesiod, i. 52.

Hipponax, see on i.

59.

Homer, i. 24, 48 sqq., 57, 62, 81, 85.

Horace, i. 24, 56, 61, 94, 96.

Hortensius, v. 13:

vi. 4: cp. i. 23.

Hyperides, i. 77:

v. 2.

Isocrates, i. 79, 108: iv. 4.

Iulius Africanus, i.

118.

Iulius Florus, iii.

13.

Iulius Secundus, i.

120: iii.

12.

Laelius, Decimus, i.

23.

Laenas Popilius, vii.

32.

Ligarius, i.

23.

Livius Andronicus, ii.

7.

Livy, i. 32, 39, 101.

Lucan, i. 90.

Lucilius, i. 93

sqq.

Lucretius, i.

87.

Lysias, i. 78.

Macer, i. 56, 87.

Marcellus, i.

38.

Marcia, v. 13.

Menander, i. 69

sqq.

Messalla, i. 22, 24, 113: v. 2.

Metrodorus Scepsius, vi. 4.

Milo, i. 23: vii. 13, 20.

Minerva, i. 91.

Nicander, i. 56.

Ovid, i. 88, 93, 98.

Pacuvius, i. 97.

Panyasis, i.

54.

Patroclus, i.

49.

Pedo Albinovanus, i.

90.

Pericles, i.

82.

Persius, i. 94: iii. 21.

Philemon, i.

72.

Philetas, i.

50.

224

Philistus, i.

74.

Phryne, v. 2.

Pindar, i.

109.

Pisandros, i.

56.

Plato, i. 81.

Plautus, i. 99.

Plautus (Stoicus), i.

124.

Pomponius Secundus, i.

98.

Porcius Latro, v.

18.

Priam, i. 50.

Propertius, i.

93.

Quintilian:

_Life_, Introd. pp.

i-xiii.

_The Institutio Oratorio_, pp. xiii-xxii.

_Literary Criticism_, pp. xxii-xxxix.

_Style and Language_, pp. xxxix-lvii.

_Manuscripts_, pp.

lviii-lxxv.

Rabirius, i. 90.

Saleius Bassus, i.

90.

Sallust, i. 31, 101, 102: ii. 17: iii. 8.

Scipio, i. 99.

Seneca, i.

125-131. Introd. p.

xxiv. sqq.

Serranus, i.

89.

Servilius Nonianus, i.

101.

Sextii (father and son), i. 124.

Simonides, i.

64.

Simonides of Amorgos, see on i. 59.

Sophocles, i. 67

sqq.

Stesichorus, i.

62.

Sulpicius, i. 22,

116: v. 4: vii. 30.

Terence, i. 99.

Theocritus, i.

55.

Theophrastus, i.

27, 83.

Theopompus, i.

74.

Thucydides, i. 33,

73, 101: ii. 17.

Thyestes, i.

98.

Tibullus, i.

93.

Timagenes, i.

75.

Tiro, vii.

31.

Trachalus, i.

119.

Tubero, i. 23.

Tyrtaeus, i.

56.

Valerius Flaccus, i.

90.

Varius, i. 98: iii. 8.

Varro (M. Terentius), i. 95.

Varro Atacinus, i.

87.

Vergil, i. 56, 85: iii. 8.

Verres, i. 23.

Vibius Crispus, i.

119.

Volusenus Catulus, i.

23.

Xenophon, i. 33, 82: v. 2.

225

INDEX OF MATTERS.

(The first reference is to the chapter and section of the text; the

second to the page and column of the explanatory notes. References to

the Introduction are given separately.)

The above paragraph was in the original text. For this e-text, only the

section numbers are linked; sections are generally very short, and notes

adjoin the text.

abruptus, ii. 19:

131b.

abunde, i. 94:

91a.

abusio, i. 12:

21b.

accedere, i. 86:

83a.

actio, i. 17:

24b.

actus rei, i. 31:

35a.

acutus, i. 77:

73b.

acumen, i. 106:

107b.

adde quod, Introd. p. liii.

adducere frontem, iii. 13: 142a.

adfectus, i. 27:

31b.: and i. 48:

49a.

adhuc, Introd. pp.

l-li.

Adjectives, _use of_: Introd. p. xlvi. sqq.

advocatus, i. 111:

110a.

alioqui, Introd. p.

li.

ἄλογος τριβή, vii. 11: 174a.

altercatio, i. 35:

39b.

ambitio, Introd. p.

xliv.

ambitus rerum, i.

16: 24a.

amplificationes, i.

49: 50b.

Annales Pontificum, ii.

7: 126a.

ante omnia, Introd. p. liii.

antiqui, ii. 17:

130b.

argumenta et signa rerum, i. 49: 50b.

artes, i. 15:

23b.

atticus, i. 44:

45b.

auctor, i. 24:

30a.

auditorium, i. 36:

40a.

aureum plectrum, i.

63: 60a.

auspicatus, i. 85:

82a.

basilica, v. 18:

164b.

beatus, i. 61:

59a.

bellicum canere, i.

33: 36b.

bona fide, iii.

23: 146b.

calumnia, i. 115:

113b.

calcaribus egere, i.

74: 70a.

candidus, i. 73:

68a.

candor, i. 101:

100b.

caro, i. 77:

73a.

cerae, iii. 30:

149a.

certe scio, ii. 5:

124b.

circa, i. 52:

52a.

circulatorius, i. 8:

18b.

citra, i. 2:

12b.

civilia officia, iii.

11: 140a.

classis, v. 18:

166a.

claudicare, i. 99:

97a.

cogitatio, vi. 1:

167a.

color, i. 116:

114b.

_Comedy, Greek_, i. 65: 61a.

„_Latin_, i. 99: 97a.

commendare, i.

101: 101a.

communes loci, v.

12: 159b.

compositio, i. 52:

52b. and i. 79:

77b.

compositus, i.

119: 117a.

concludere, i.

106: 107a.

conferre, i. 1:

12a.

confirmatio sententiarum, v. 12: 159a.

contorta vis, vii.

14: 176a.

conrogati, i. 18:

26b.

cothurnus (Sophocli), i. 68: 64a: and ii. 22: 133a.

cultus, Introd. p.

xliv.

cum interim, i. 18:

26b.

cum praesertim, i.

105: 105a.

cum eo quod, vii.

13: 175a.

declinata figura oratio, v.

8: 157a.

decor, i. 27:

32a.

decretoria (arma), v.

20: 165b.

demum, Introd. p.

li.

densus, i. 68and 73.

destructio sententiarum, v. 12: 159a.

dicendi veneres, i.

79: 76a.

dicendi ex tempore facultas, iii. 2: vii. 1, 5, 24.

declamatores, i.

71: 65b.

dictare, iii. 19:

144a.

digerere cibum, i.

19: inordinata, iv.

1: commentarios, vii. 30.

digressiones, i.

33: 36b.

dilectus, iii. 5:

138a.

disertus, i. 118:

115b.

_Dramatic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 65: _Latin_, i. 97.

dubitare, i. 73:

67a.

ducere (colorem), i.

59: 57a.

ducere opus, iii.

18: 144a.

dulcis, i. 73:

68a.

dum non, iii. 7:

138b.

226

efferre se, iii. 10:

140a.

elegans, i. 65:

62a.

_Elegy_, _Greek_, i. 58: _Latin_, i. 93.

_Epic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 46 sqq.: _Latin_, i. 85 sqq.

epilogus, i. 50:

51b: and i. 107:

108b.

epodos, i. 96:

94a.

exactus, ii. 14:

128a.

exempla, i. 49:

50b.

exilis, ii. 16:

129b.

expositus, Introd. p.

xlv.

extemporalis color, vi.

5: 168b.

extemporalis actio, vii. 18: temeritas, vi. 6.

exultare, ii. 16:

130a.

facere (bene) ad aliquid, i. 33: 38a.

facilitas, i. 1: ii. 12: iii. 7: vii. 19.

fas erat, v. 7:

157a.

favorabilis, v. 21:

166a.

figurae, i. 12:

22a.

_Figures_ (_military_, &c.), Introd. pp. lvi-vii.

forsitan, ii. 10:

126b.

frequenter, i. 17:

25b.

frugalitas, iii.

26: 147b.

genera dicendi, i. 44:

44-5.

genera lectionum, i.

45: 46b.

grammatici, i. 53:

53a.

grandis, i. 65:

62a.

habere laudem, i. 53:

53a.

ἕξις, i. 1: 12a.

_History_, i.

31: 34a; _Greek_, i. 73: 66a; _Latin_, i. 101: 100a.

hodieque, i. 94:

91b.

horride, ii. 17:

130a.

_Iambic Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 59: 57b; _Latin_, i. 96.

ideoque, i. 21:

28b.

igitur, i. 4:

15a.

index, i. 57:

56b.

indiscretus, i. 2:

12a.

infelicitas, ii. 8:

126a.

infinitae questiones, iii. 11: 158a.

interim, i. 9:

19b.

inventio, i. 106: 106b.

ipse, Introd. p.

xlix.

iucundus, i. 46:

48a.

lacerti, i. 33:

37a.

lactea (ubertas), i.

32: 36a.

laetus, i. 46:

48a.

lascivia (recens haec), i. 43: 43b.

lascivus, i. 88:

84b.

lene dicendi genus, i.

121: 117b.

lima, iv. 4:

152a.

loci communes, v.

12: 159b.

lucrativa opera, vii.

27: 180b.

_Lyric Poetry_, _Greek_, i. 61: 58b; _Latin_, i. 96.

medium dicendi genus, i.

52: 52b; i. 80:

78b.

membranae, iii.

31: 150a.

memoria posteritatis, i. 31: 35b.

mensurae verborum, i.

10: 20a.

merere, i. 72:

66b.

nam (elliptical), i. 9:

19a.

nescio an ulla, i.

65.

nisi forte, i. 70:

65a.

nitidus, i. 9: 19b;

i. 79: 75b.

non sit, ii. 27:

135a.

numeri, i. 4: 15a;

i. 70: 65b.

obiurgare, iii. 20:

145a.

offensator, iii.

20: 145a.

olim, i. 104:

103a.

opinio, v. 18:

164a.

opus, i. 9: 19b.

_Oratory_, _Greek_, i. 76: _Latin_, i. 105.

_Orators_, Canon of the Ten, i. 76: 71a.

ostentatio, i. 28:

32b.

otiosus, i. 76:

72b.

palaestra, i. 79:

76a.

paraphrasis, v. 5:

155b.

parem facere, i.

105: 103b.

parum (non), i.

124: 119a.

pedestris oratio, i.

81: 79b.

periculum, i. 36:

42b.

_Philosophy_, i.

35: 38b: _Greek_, i. 81: 78b; _Latin_, i. 123: 118a.

φράσις, i. 42: 43a.

pilarii, vii. 11:

174b.

_Poetry, the study of_, i. 27 sqq.

pontificum annales, ii.

7: 126a.

praescriptum, ii.

2: 123b.

praesertim (cum), i.

105: 105a.

praestringere, i.

30: 33b.

praesumere, v. 4:

155a.

pressus, i. 44:

44b.

procinctu (in), i.

2: 13a.

profectus, iii. 2:

136b.

professor, v. 18:

164a.

propria, i. 6:

16a.

proprietas, i. 46:

48a.

prosa (oratio), i.

81: 79b.

protinus, i. 3:

14a.

proximus—secundus, i. 53: 53b.

quia, Introd. p.

liv.

quicunque, i. 12:

22a.

quisque, i. 2:

12b.

quoque (etiam), i.

20: 28a; i. 125:

120b.

quotas quisque, i.

41: 42b.

rarum est ut, vii.

24: 179b.

ratio c. gerund, iii.

31: 149b.

ratio constat, ii.

1: 123a.

ratio (in scribendo), iii. 15: 143a.

rectum (dicendi genus), i. 44: 44a.

repraesentare, vii.

2: 170b.

ridiculus, i. 117:

115a.

sales, i. 107:

108a.

sanguis, i. 60:

58a.

_Satire_, i.

93: 89b.

sententiae, i. 50,

52, 68, 90, 102, 129, 130: ii. 17: v. 4.

signa rerum et argumenta, i. 49: 50b.

silva, iii. 17:

143b.

similitudines, i.

49: 50b.

sine dubio, Introd. p. liii.

Socratici, i. 35:

39b.

solum (non, sed), i.

6: 17a.

sordidus, i. 9:

19b.

spiritus, i. 27:

31b.

stilus, i. 2: 12b;

iii. 1, 32; vii. 16.

Stoici, i. 84:

81b.

subtilis, i. 78:

74a.

summus, Introd. p.

xlvi.

supinus, ii. 17:

131a.

supplosio pedis, vii.

26: 180b.

tacitus, i. 19:

26a.

tenuis, i. 44:

45a.

tenuitas, ii. 23:

133b.

theses, v. 11:

158a.

togatae, i. 100:

99b.

tori athletarum, i.

33: 37a.

227

_Tragedy_, _Latin_, i. 97: 94b; _Greek_, i. 66.

transversus, i.

110: 110a.

τριβὴ ἄλογος, vii. 11: 174a.

τροπικῶς, i. 11: 21a.

ubicumque, Introd. p.

liii.

urbanitas, i. 115:

112b.

utinam non, i.

100: 99b.

utique: i. 20:

28a.

utrimque, i. 131:

122b.

valetudo, Introd. p.

liv.

validius, iii.

12: 140b.

velocitatem (Sallusti), i. 102: 101a.

veneres dicendi, i.

79: 76a.

ventilator, vii.

11: 174b.

verbum—vox, i.

11: 21a.

versificator, i.

89: 85b.

vibrantes sententiae, i. 60: 58a.

vis dicendi, i. 1:

11b.

voluntas recti generis, i. 89: 86b.

vox—verbum, i.

11: 21a.

223

INDEX OF NAMES.

(The references are to chapters and sections.)

Antipater Sidonius, vii. 19.

Archias, Aul. Licinius, vii. 19.

Asinius Pollio, ii. 17, 25.

Attici—Attic Orators, ii. 17.

Brutus, M. Iunius, v. 20: vii. 27.

Caelius, M. Rufus, ii. 25.

Caesar, C. Iulius, ii. 25.

Calvus, i, 115: ii. 25.

Carbo, vii. 27.

Cato, v. 13.

Cestius, v. 20.

Cicero, ii. 18: iii. 1: v. 2, 11, 16: vii. 19, 27, 30.

Cinna, C. Helvius, iv. 4.

Clodius, v. 13.

Cornelius, C., v. 13.

Crassus, iii. 1: v. 2.

Demosthenes, ii. 24: iii. 25, 30.

Empylus Rhodius, vi. 4.

Epicurus, ii. 154.

Helvius (C. Cinna), iv. 4.

Hortensius, v. 13: vi. 4.

Hyperides, v. 2.

Isocrates, iv. 4.

Iulius Florus, iii. 13.

Iulius Secundus, iii. 12.

Laenas Popilius, vii. 32.

Livius Andronicus, ii. 7.

Marcia, v. 13.

Messalla, v. 2.

Metrodorus Scepsius, vi. 4.

Milo, vii. 13, 20.

Persius, iii. 21.

224

Phryne, v. 2.

Porcius Latro, v. 18.

Sallust, ii. 17: iii. 8.

Sulpicius, v. 4: vii. 30.

Thucydides, ii. 17.

Tiro, vii. 31.

Varius, iii. 8.

Vergil, iii. 8.

Xenophon, v. 2.

225

INDEX OF MATTERS.

(The first reference is to the chapter and section of the text; the

second to the page and column of the explanatory notes. References to

the Introduction are given separately.)

The above paragraph was in the original text. For this e-text, only the

section numbers are linked; sections are generally very short, and notes

adjoin the text.

abruptus, ii. 19: 131b.

adducere frontem, iii. 13: 142a.

ἄλογος τριβή, vii. 11: 174a.

Annales Pontificum, ii. 7: 126a.

antiqui, ii. 17: 130b.

basilica, v. 18: 164b.

bona fide, iii. 23: 146b.

cerae, iii. 30: 149a.

certe scio, ii. 5: 124b.

civilia officia, iii. 11: 140a.

classis, v. 18: 166a.

cogitatio, vi. 1: 167a.

communes loci, v. 12: 159b.

confirmatio sententiarum, v. 12:

159a.

contorta vis, vii. 14: 176a.

cothurnus (Sophocli), ii. 22: 133a.

cum eo quod, vii. 13: 175a.

declinata figura oratio, v. 8: 157a.

decretoria (arma), v. 20: 165b.

destructio sententiarum, v. 12:

159a.

dicendi ex tempore facultas, iii. 2: vii. 1, 5, 24.

dictare, iii. 19: 144a.

digerere inordinata, iv. 1:

commentarios, vii. 30.

dilectus, iii. 5: 138a.

ducere opus, iii. 18: 144a.

dum non, iii. 7: 138b.

226

efferre se, iii. 10: 140a.

exactus, ii. 14: 128a.

exilis, ii. 16: 129b.

extemporalis color, vi. 5: 168b.

extemporalis actio, vii. 18:

temeritas, vi. 6.

exultare, ii. 16: 130a.

facilitas, ii. 12: iii. 7: vii. 19.

fas erat, v. 7: 157a.

favorabilis, v. 21: 166a.

forsitan, ii. 10: 126b.

frugalitas, iii. 26: 147b.

horride, ii. 17: 130a.

infelicitas, ii. 8: 126a.

infinitae questiones, iii. 11:

158a.

lima, iv. 4: 152a.

loci communes, v. 12: 159b.

lucrativa opera, vii. 27: 180b.

membranae, iii. 31: 150a.

non sit, ii. 27: 135a.

obiurgare, iii. 20: 145a.

offensator, iii. 20: 145a.

opinio, v. 18: 164a.

paraphrasis, v. 5: 155b.

pilarii, vii. 11: 174b.

pontificum annales, ii. 7: 126a.

praescriptum, ii. 2: 123b.

praesumere, v. 4: 155a.

profectus, iii. 2: 136b.

professor, v. 18: 164a.

rarum est ut, vii. 24: 179b.

ratio c. gerund, iii. 31: 149b.

ratio constat, ii. 1: 123a.

ratio (in scribendo), iii. 15:

143a.

repraesentare, vii. 2: 170b.

sententiae, ii. 17: v. 4.

silva, iii. 17: 143b.

stilus, iii. 1, 32; vii. 16.

supinus, ii. 17: 131a.

supplosio pedis, vii. 26: 180b.

tenuitas, ii. 23: 133b.

theses, v. 11: 158a.

227

τριβὴ ἄλογος, vii. 11: 174a.

validius, iii. 12: 140b.

ventilator, vii. 11: 174b.