The Project Gutenberg eBook of M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

Author: Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

Editor: William Peterson

Release date: June 14, 2007 [eBook #21827]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2021

Language: Latin

Credits: Louise Hope, Robert Connal and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team







by W. Peterson


Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

W. P.

Dundee, 26th June, 1891.



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


Life of Quintilian


The Institutio Oratoria


Quintilian’s Literary Criticism


Style and Language




Analysis of the Argument

Text 11
Chapter I 11
Chapters II-VII 122

Critical Notes


Index of Names


Index of Matters


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

Illustration: Harleian MS. 2664. 149 v.

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




Life of Quintilian.

It would be possible to state in a very few lines all that is certainly known about Quintilian’s personal history; but much would remain to be said in order to convey an adequate idea of the large place he must have filled in the era of which he is so typical a representative. The period of his activity at Rome is nearly co-extensive with the reign of the Flavian emperors,—Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. For twenty years he was the recognised head of the teaching profession in the capital, and a large proportion of those who came to maturity in the days of Trajan and Hadrian must have received their intellectual training in his school. It is in itself a sign of the tendencies of the age that Quintilian should have enjoyed the immediate patronage of the reigning emperor in the conduct of work which would formerly have attracted little notice. In earlier days the profession of teaching had been held in low repute at Rome1. The first attempt to open a school of rhetoric, in B.C. 94, was looked on with the greatest suspicion and disfavour. Even Cicero adopts a tone of apology in the rhetorical text-books which he wrote for the instruction of others. But now all was changed, and education had come to be, as it was in a still greater degree under Nerva, Trajan, and the Antonines, a department of the government itself. Vespasian was the founder of a new dynasty; and, though he had little culture to boast of himself, he was shrewd enough to appreciate the advantages to be derived from systematising the education of the Roman youth, and maintaining friendly relations ii with those to whom it was entrusted. Quintilian, for his part, seems to have diligently seconded, in the scholastic sphere, his patron’s efforts to efface the memory of the time of trouble and unrest which had followed the extinction of the Julian line in the person of Nero. After his retirement from the active duties of his profession, he received the consular insignia from Domitian,—the promotion of a teacher of rhetoric to the highest dignity in the State being regarded as a most unexampled phenomenon by the conservative opinion of the day, which had failed to recognise the significance of the alliance between prince and pedagogue. The interest with which the publication of the Institutio Oratorio was looked forward to, at the close of his laborious professional career, is sufficient evidence of the authoritative position Quintilian had gained for himself at Rome. It was a tribute not only to the successful teacher, but also to the man of letters who, conscious that his was an age of literary decadence, sought to probe the causes of the national decline and to counteract its evil influences.

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

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

Adserat usque licet Fabium Calagurris alumnum;

and the statement of Hieronymus in the Eusebian Chronicle:—Quintilianus, ex Hispania Calagurritanus, primus Romae publicam scholam [aperuit]. The latter extract carries additional weight if we accept the conjecture of Reifferscheid2 that Jerome here follows the authority of Suetonius (Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and rhetoricians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When he was about twenty-five years of age some motive induced Quintilian to return to Calagurris, his native town; and there he spent several years in the practice of his profession as teacher and barrister. We know that he came back to Rome with Galba in A.D. 68: the evidence for this is again the statement made by Hieronymus in the Eusebian Chronicle, M. Fabius Quintilianus Romam a Galba perducitur. Galba had been governor of Hispania Tarraconensis under Nero (A.D. 61-68), and it is not improbable that Quintilian, when he returned to his native country, was in some way attached to his official retinue; the numerous bons mots which he records in the third chapter of the Sixth Book (§§62, 64, 66, 80, 90) seem to point to a certain amount of personal intercourse between himself and the future emperor3.

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

In the earlier years of his career at Rome, before he became absorbed in the work of teaching, Quintilian must have had a considerable amount of practice at the bar. He tells us himself of a speech which he published, ductus iuvenali cupiditate gloriae viii. 2, 24. It was of a common type. A certain Naevius Arpinianus was accused of having killed his wife, who had fallen from a window; and we may infer with certainty from the tone of Quintilian’s reference to the circumstances of the case that he succeeded in securing the acquittal of Naevius—more fortunate than the wife-killer of whom we read in Tacitus (Ann. iv. 22). A more distinguished cause was that of Berenice, the Jewish Queen before whom St. Paul appeared (Acts xxv. 13), and whose subsequent visit to Rome was connected with the ascendency she had established over the heart of the youthful Titus (Tac. Hist. ii. 2: Suet. Tit. 7). We can only speculate on the nature of the issue involved, as Quintilian confines himself to a bare statement of fact—ego pro regina Berenice apud ipsam causam dixi iv. 1, 19. It was in all probability a civil suit brought or defended by Berenice against some Jewish countryman; and the phenomenon of the queen herself presiding over a trial in which she was an interested party is accounted for by the hypothesis that, at least in civil suits, Roman tolerance allowed the Jews to settle their own disputes according to their national law. On such occasions the person of highest rank in the community to which the disputants belonged might naturally be designated to preside over the tribunal4.


In another case, Quintilian seems to have shown some of the dexterity attributed to him in the oft-quoted line of Juvenal (vi. 280) Dic aliquem, sodes, dic, Quintiliane, colorem. He was counsel for a woman who had been party to an arrangement by which the provisions of the Voconian law (passed B.C. 169 to prevent the accumulation of property in the hands of females) had been evaded by the not uncommon method of a fraudulent disposition to a third person5. Quintilian’s client was accused of having produced a forged will. This charge it was easy to rebut, though it rendered necessary the explanation that the heirs named in the will had really undertaken to hand the property over to the woman; and if this explanation were openly given it would involve the loss of the estate. There is an evident tone of satisfaction in Quintiiian’s description of what happened: ita ergo fuit nobis agendum ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores non possent adprehendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque (ix. 2, 74).

Unlike his great model Cicero, who was considered most effective in the peroratio of a great case, where the work was divided among several pleaders, Quintilian was generally relied on to state a case (ponere causam) in its main lines for subsequent elaboration: me certe, quantacunque nostris experimentis habenda est fides, fecisse hoc in foro, quotiens ita desiderabat utilitas, probantibus et eruditis et iis qui iudicabant, scio: et (quod non adroganter dixerim, quia sunt plurimi quibuscum egi qui me refellere possint si mentiar) fere a me ponendae causae officium exigebatur iv. 2, 86. His methodical habit of mind would render him specially effective for this department of work. Other orators may have been more brilliant, more full of fire, and more able to work upon the feelings of an audience: if Quintilian had not the ‘grand style’—if he represents the type of an orator that is ‘made’ rather than ‘born’—we may at least believe that he was unsurpassed for judicious, moderate, and effective statement. His model in this as in other matters was probably Domitius Afer, of whom Pliny says (Ep. ii. 14, 10) apud decemviros dicebat graviter et lente, hoc enim illi actionis genus erat. His character and training would secure him a place apart from the common herd. ‘Among the orators of the day, some ignorant and coarse, having left mean occupations, without any preliminary study, for the bar, where they made up in audacity for lack of talent, and in noisy conceit for a defective knowledge viii of law—others trained in the practice of delation to every form of trickery and violence—Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood by himself6.’

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

Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae,

Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae. —Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.

In this capacity he must have exercised the greatest possible influence on the rising youth of Rome. The younger Pliny was his pupil, and evidently retained a grateful memory of the instruction which he received from him: Ep. ii. 14, 9 and vi. 6, 3. The same is true, in all probability, of Pliny’s friend Tacitus, who has much in common with Quintilian: possibly also of Suetonius. If Juvenal was not actually his pupil,—he is believed to have practised declamation till well on in life,—we may infer from the complimentary references which occur in his Satires that he at least appreciated Quintilian’s work and recognised its healthy influence7

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty years8, Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading at ix the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model, Domitius Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier (xii. 11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still be missed,—et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et in foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum desideraremur, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for which the Institutio Oratoria was afterwards to provide a remedy. It was entitled De causis corruptae eloquentiae, and was long confounded with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he refers to this work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4, 42: v. 12, 23: vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 769. This treatise is no longer extant, and we have lost also the two books Artis Rhetoricae, which were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), neque editi a me neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum habitum pueri quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane diebus, quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed nimium amantes mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant10. In a recent edition of the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani declamationes quae supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter endeavours to show that this is the work referred to in the passage quoted above, from the preface to the Institutio: cp. Die Quintilianischen Declamationen, Freiburg i.B., und x Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.11 Meister’s view, however, is that, like the ‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally admitted to have been composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’ also were written subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more probably) by imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend their compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy professional days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate publishers: he tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in circulation under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely his own: nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia excipientium in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei habent.

While living in retirement, and engaged on the composition of his work, Quintilian received a fresh mark of Imperial favour, this time from Domitian. This prince had adopted two grand-nephews, whom he destined to succeed him on the throne,—the children of his niece Flavia Domitilla, and of Flavius Clemens, a cousin whom he associated with himself about this time in the duties of the consulship. They were rechristened Vespasian and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and the care of their education was entrusted to Quintilian (A.D. 93). He accepted it with fulsome expressions of gratitude and appreciation12; but did not exercise it for long13, as the children, with their parents, became the victims of the tyrant’s capriciousness shortly before his murder, and were ruined as rapidly as they had risen. Flavius Clemens was put to death, and his wife Domitilla, probably accompanied by her two sons, was sent into exile. They seem to have embraced the Jewish faith; and it is interesting to speculate on the possibility that through intercourse with them, and with their children, Quintilian may have come into contact with a religion which was the forerunner of that which was destined soon afterwards to achieve so universal a triumph.

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

Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul;

Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:

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

The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an ‘upright guardian of morals’ (sanctissimus censor iv. pr. §3), even when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There may have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian, like Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical productions are said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and his attachment to literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he instituted in honour of Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which rhetorical, musical, and artistic contests were a prominent feature (see on x. 1, 91). But this is no justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in the introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as the protecting deity of literary men: ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen est; nor for his profession of belief that nothing but the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the greatest poet of Rome: Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum x. 1, 91 sq. Few would recognise Domitian in the following reference: laudandum in quibusdam quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum decus fecit iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially explained by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the circumstances of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age: Quintilian shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and Valerius Flaccus. The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal maintained during the horrors of this reign is a better expression of the virtue of old Rome, which seems to have burned with steadier flame in the hearts of her genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’ xii from the provinces, with neither pride of family nor pride of nationality to save them from the corrupting influences of their surroundings14.

That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks off,—unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus? How does it come about (if his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns so many estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this conundrum is that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a lucky man, and your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good quality in himself, and can expect everything15.’ We must remember however, that, while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his profession, no charge is made against him as having placed his abilities at the disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under Nero, Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of Thrasea, and received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33): if Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the Institutio would perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he had lost a daughter rather than a wife: cum omni virtute quae in feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter vulnera orbitatis vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger of whom did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year when he died. The father now concentrated all his affection xiii on the elder, and it was with his education in view that he made all haste to complete his great work, which he considered would be the best inheritance he could leave to him,—hanc optimum partem relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit, fata intercepissent, praeceptore tamen patre uteretur ib. §1. But the blow again descended, and his house was desolate: at me fortuna id agentem diebus ac noctibus festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita subito prostravit ut laboris mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me pertineret. Illum enim, de quo summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam senectutis reponebam, repetito vulnere orbitatis amisi ib. §2.

This would be about the year 94 A.D., and the Institutio Oratoria is said to have seen the light in 95. After that we hear no more of Quintilian. Domitian was assassinated in 96, and under the new régime it is possible that the favourite of the Flavian emperors may have been under a cloud. But his work was done; even if he lived on for a few years longer in retirement, his career had virtually closed with the publication of his great treatise. It used to be believed that he lived into the reign of Hadrian, and died about 118 A.D., but this idea is founded on a misconception16. Probably he did not even see the accession of Nerva in 96: if he did, he must have died soon afterwards, for there are two letters of Pliny’s (one written between 97 and 100, and the other about 105) in which Pliny does not speak of his old teacher as of one still alive.

The Institutio Oratoria.

Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition of the Institutio Oratorio, his work really embodies the experience of a xiv lifetime. No doubt much of it lay ready to his hand, even before he began to write, and he would willingly have kept it longer; but the solicitations of Trypho, the publisher, were too much for him. His letter to Trypho shows that he fully appreciated the magnitude of his task; and there is even the suggestion that (like many a busy teacher since his time) he only realised when called upon to publish that he had not covered the whole ground of his subject17. The opening words of the introduction (post impetratam studiis meis quietem, quae per viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam, &c.) show that the Institutio was the work of his retirement: and various indications lead us to fix the date of its composition as falling between A.D. 93 and 95. The introduction to the Fourth Book was evidently written when (probably in 93) Domitian had appointed Quintilian tutor to his grand-nephews; the Sixth Book, where he refers to his family losses, must have followed shortly afterwards; while the harshness of his references to the philosophers in the concluding portions of the work (cp. xi. 1, 30, xii. 3, 11, with 1, pr. 15, which may have been written, or at least revised, after the rest was finished) seems to suggest that their expulsion by Domitian (in 94) was already an accomplished fact18. The book is dedicated to Victorius Marcellus, to whom Statius also addresses the Fourth Book of his Silvae, evidently as to a person of some consideration and an orator of repute (cp. Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 8, and 41 sq.). Marcellus had a son called Geta (Inst. Or. i. pr. 6: Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 71), and it was originally with a view to the education of this youth (erudiendo Getae tuo) that Quintilian associated the father’s name with his work. Geta is again referred to, along with Quintilian’s elder son, and also the grand-nephews of Domitian, in the introduction to the Fourth Book; but the opening words of the Sixth Book show that they are all gone, and the epilogue, at the conclusion of Book xii, is addressed to Marcellus on behoof of ‘studiosi iuvenes’ in general.

The plan of the Institutio Oratorio cannot be better given than in its author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): Liber primus ea quae sunt ante officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem elementa et quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus, quinque deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur) quattuor elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt, dabuntur. Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui mores eius, quae in xv suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod eloquentiae genus, quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem studia, quantum nostra valebit infirmitas, disseremus. The first book deals with what the pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician; it gives an account of home-training and school discipline, and contains also a statement of Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book treats of rhetoric in general: the choice of a proper instructor, as well as his character and function, and the nature, principles, aims, and use of oratory. It is in these early books especially that Quintilian reveals the high tone which has made him an authority on educational morals, as well as rhetorical training: see especially i. 2, 8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum, maxima debetur puero reverentia; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates gentle and conciliatory methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,—a picture of the ideal teacher in language which might be applied to Quintilian himself19. The remaining books, except the twelfth, are devoted to the five ‘parts of rhetoric,’—invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery (Cic. de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we have a classification of the different kinds of oratory. Next he treats of the ‘different divisions of a speech, the purpose of the exordium, the proper form of a statement of facts, what constitutes the force of proofs, either in confirming our own assertions or refuting those of our adversary, and of the different powers of the peroration, whether it be regarded as a summary of the arguments previously used, or as a means of exciting the feelings of the judge rather than of refreshing his memory.’ This brings us to the end of the sixth book, which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and of altercation20. The discussion of arrangement finishes with the seventh book, which is extremely technical: style (elocutio) is the main subject of the four books which follow. Of these the eighth and ninth treat of the elements of a good style,—such as perspicuity, ornament, &c.; the tenth of the practical studies and exercises (including a course of reading) by which the actual command of these elements may be obtained; while the eleventh deals with appropriateness (i.e. the different kinds of oratory which suit different audiences), memory, and delivery. The twelfth book—which Quintilian calls the most grave and important part of the whole work—treats of the high moral qualifications requisite in the perfect orator: xvi just as the first book, introductory to the whole, describes the early training which should precede the technical studies of the orator, so the last book sets forth that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is their crown and conclusion21. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice when the public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end. Even then his activity will not come to an end. He will write the history of his times, will explain the law to those who consult him, will write, like Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set forth the highest principles of morality. The young men will throng round and consult him as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot. What can be more honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has a thorough knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator ought not to be thought happiest at that period of his life when, sequestered from the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by envy, and remote from strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour of safety, experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more commonly offered after death, and observing how his character will be regarded by posterity22.’”

The Institutio Oratoria differs from all other previous rhetorical treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It is a complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to the public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is the vir bonus dicendi peritus, Quintilian considers it necessary to take him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards both goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore for us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on education in general, and on rhetorical education in particular. Throughout the whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which everything is undertaken,—the goal to which the entire moral and intellectual training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s high conception of his subject is reflected in the language of the ‘Dialogue on Oratory’: Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel ad utilitatem fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem amplius vel ad urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium gentium notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest (ch. 5). Though the field for the practical display of eloquence had been greatly limited by xvii the extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric represented, in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the Romans what μουσική was to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because of its eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must therefore be fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture: there is no form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted for his purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in education. He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over preliminary cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming in the schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops all the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet, that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient culture in all its forms23.”

It is in connection with the general rather than with the technical training of his pupils that Quintilian establishes a claim to rank with the highest educational authorities,—as for example in his insistence on the necessity of good example both at home24 and in school, and on the respect due to the young25, as well as his catalogue of the qualifications required in the trainer of youth (ii. 2, 5: 4, 10), his protest against corporal punishment (i. 3, 14), and his consistent advocacy of the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of education. His system was conceived as a remedy for the existing state of things at Rome, where eloquence and the arts in general had, as Messalla puts it in the ‘Dialogue on Oratory,’ “declined from their ancient glory, not from the dearth of men, but from the indolence of the young, the carelessness of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and neglect of the old discipline26.” Under it parents and teachers were to be united in the effort to develop the moral and intellectual qualities of the Roman youth: and through education the state was to recover something of her old vigour and virtue.

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its publication, and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to Quintilian in the xviii literature of the period, that it long held an honoured place in Roman schools. But it is curious that the earliest known references are not to the Institutio but to the Declamationes. In an interesting chapter of the Introduction to a recent volume27, M. Fierville has gathered together all the references that occur in the literature of the early centuries of our era. Trebellius Pollio and Lactantius (both of the 3rd century) speak of the Declamations, and Ausonius (4th century) refers to Quintilian without naming his writings: the first definite mention of the Institutio is made by Hilary of Poitiers (died 367) and afterwards by St. Jerome (died 420). Later Cassiodorus (468-562) pronounced a eulogy which may stand as proof of his high appreciation: Quintilianus tamen doctor egregius, qui post fluvios Tullianos singulariter valuit implere quae docuit, virum bonum dicendi peritum a prima aetate suscipiens, per cunctas artes ac disciplinas nobilium litterarum erudiendum esse monstravit, quem merito ad defendendum totius civitatis vota requirerent (de Arte Rhetor.—Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p. 498). The Ars Rhetorica of Julius Victor (6th century) is largely borrowed from Quintilian: see Halm, praef. p. ix. Isidore, Bishop of Seville (570-630), studied Quintilian in conjunction with Aristotle and Cicero. After the Dark Age, Poggio’s discovery, at St. Gall in 1416, of a complete manuscript of Quintilian was ranked as one of the most important literary events in what we know now as the era of the Renaissance28. The great scholars of the fifteenth century worked hard at the emendation of the text. The editio princeps was given to the world by G. A. Campani in 1470; and in the concluding words of his preface the editor reflects something of the enthusiasm for his author which had already been expressed by Petrarch, Poggio, and others,—proinde de Quintiliano sic habe, post unam beatissimam et unicam felicitatem M. Tullii, quae fastigii loco suspicienda est omnibus et tamquam adoranda, hunc unum esse quem praecipuum habere possis in eloquentia ducem: quem si assequeris, quidquid tibi deerit ad cumulum consummationis id a natura desiderabis non ab arte deposces. This edition was followed in rapid succession by various others, so that by the end of the 16th century Quintilian had been edited a hundred times over29. The 17th century is not so rich in editions, but Quintilian still reigned in the schools as the great master of rhetoric: students of English literature xix will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the authority of his name when referring to the roughness of northern nomenclature:—

Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek

That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.

In his ‘Tractate on Education’ too Milton strongly recommends the first two or three books of the Institutio. The 18th century provided the notable editions of Burmann (1720), Capperonier (1725), Gesner (1738), and witnessed also the commencement of Spalding’s (1798-1816), whose text, as revised by Zumpt and Bonnell, practically held the field till the publication of Halm’s critical edition (1868). Towards the close of last century it would appear that Quintilian was as much studied as he had ever been,—probably by many who believed in, as well as by some who would have rejected the application of the maxim ‘orator nascitur non fit.’ William Pitt, for example, shortly after his arrival at Cambridge (1773), and while ‘still bent on his main object of oratorical excellence,’ attended a course of lectures on Quintilian, which caused him on one occasion to interrupt his correspondence with his father30. His lasting popularity must have been due, not only to his own intrinsic merits, but to the fact that his writings harmonised well with the studies of those days: it was promoted also by the serviceable abridgments of the Institutio, either in whole or in part, that were from time to time published,—notably that of Ch. Rollin in 1715. In our own day men whose education was moulded on the old lines—such as J. S. Mill—considered Quintilian an indispensable part of a scholar’s equipment. Macaulay read him in India, along with the rest of classical literature. Lord Beaconsfield professed that he was ‘very fond of Quintilian31.’ But by our classical scholars he has been almost entirely neglected, no complete edition having appeared in this country since a revised text was issued in London in 1822. German criticism, on the other hand, has of late paid Quintilian special attention, with conspicuous results for the emendation and illustration of his text: to the great names of Spalding, Zumpt, and Bonnell, must be added those of Halm, Meister, Becher, Wölfflin, and Kiderlin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Quintilians’s Litary Criticism.

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

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

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

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

With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca. Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary reform which Quintilian had at heart—corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo x. 1, 125. It is probable that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he assumes in dealing with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain degree of prejudice33. Quintilian represents the literature of erudition, and his xxv standard is the best of what had been done in the past: Seneca was, like Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed perfectly natural that new thoughts should find utterance in new forms of expression. Seneca’s motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’—he gave free rein to the play of his fancy, and rejected all method34: Quintilian looked with horror (in the interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was so near to licence, and set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds to the ‘good old ways,’ and extolling Cicero as the synonym for eloquence itself. In such a conflict of tastes as regards things literary, and apart from the ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal career, it is not surprising that Quintilian should have been unfavourably disposed towards him. He had a grudge, moreover, against philosophers in general, especially the Stoics. They had encroached on what his comprehensive scheme of education impelled him to believe was the province of the teacher of rhetoric,—the moral training of the future orator35.

He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in many passages of the Institutio, where he is not specially named, it is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth Book36. In this passage xxvi Quintilian is evidently putting forward the whole force of his authority in order to counteract Seneca’s influence. He has kept him waiting in a marked manner, to the very end of his literary review: and when he comes to deal with him he does not confine his criticism to a few words or phrases, but devotes nearly as much space to him as he did to Cicero himself. In his estimate of Seneca nothing is more remarkable than the careful manner in which Quintilian mingles praise and blame. But the praise is reluctant and half-hearted: it is Seneca’s faults that his critic wishes to make prominent. He admits his ability (ingenium facile et copiosum §128), and even goes the length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise to his level (foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro fieri §127). But praise is no sooner given than it is immediately recalled. It was his faults that secured imitators for Seneca (placebat propter sola vitia ib.); if he was distinguished for wide knowledge (plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio §128), he was often misled by those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is good in him, ‘much even to admire’ (multa ... probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt §131), still it requires picking out. In short, so dangerous a model is he, that he should be read only by those who have come to maturity, and then not so much, evidently, for improvement, as for the reason that it is good to ‘see both sides,’—quod exercere potest utrimque iudicium, ib.

It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion—and his position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express his view distinctly—that Seneca was a dangerous model for the budding orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his peculiarities lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished to put forward a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day, and to recall—in their own interests—to severer models Seneca’s youthful imitators,—those of whom he writes ad ea (i.e. eius vitia) se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde quum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat §127. Seneca was of course not responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian would never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any particular model, especially if that model were characterised by such peculiar features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he could not forgive xxvii Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero37. Admirers of Seneca think that he failed to make allowance for the influences at work on the philosopher’s style, and that he judged him too much from the standpoint of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s faults—his tendency to declamation, the want of balance in his style, his excessive subtlety, his affectation, his want of method: but they contend that these faults are compensated by still greater virtues38. M. Rocheblave, who possesses the appreciation of Seneca traditional among Frenchmen, follows Diderot in inclining to believe that the philosopher was the victim of envy and dislike39. For himself he protests in the following terms against what he considers the inadequacy of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi quemvis Annaei librorum ignarum, et dicito num ex istis Quintiliani laudibus non modo perspicere, sed suspicari etiam possit quanto sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu steterit scriptor qui in tota latina facundia optima senserit, humanissima docuerit, maxima et multo plurima excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex antiqua morali philosophia seu graeca seu latina depromptis, adiectis pluribus, potuerit in unum propriumque saporem omnia illa quasi sapientiae humanae libamenta confundere? Credisne a tali lectore scriptorem vivo gurgite exundantem, sensibus scatentem, legentes in perpetuas rapientem cogitationes, eum denique quem ob vim animi ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius noster40, protinus agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri meritum stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum confessuros’ (pp. 44-5).

Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt xxviii that the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was in his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of Seneca’s influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature of the next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model for imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered on Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that it displayed much grace of style (multum cultus), as was to be expected from one who possessed ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus accommodatum (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how Caligula disparaged the lenius comtiusque scribendi genus which Seneca represented; and here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a fame that had passed away,—Senecam tum maxime placentem, just as the elder Pliny, writing about the time of Seneca’s death, speaks of him as princeps tum eruditorum (Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto and Aulus Gellius41 were much more unreserved and even immoderate in their censure. And it is a remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that the name of the great Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his successors, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest literary ornament of Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the second century.

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

In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he might a priori be expected to be more familiar. The notes to that part of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (1 §§46-84) will show too many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in addressing himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian scrupulously avoided incurring any obligations to others42. No doubt in his long career as a teacher he had come into contact with traditional opinion as to the merits and characteristics not only of the Greek but also of the Latin writers; and in the two years which he tells us he devoted to the composition of the Institutio43 he may still further have increased his debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact impossible that Quintilian should have been unaware of the nature of the criticism current in his own day, and of what had previously been said and written by others. But he is not to be thought of as one who, before indicating his opinion of a particular writer, carefully refers, not to that writer’s works, but to the opinion of others concerning them. The cases in which he reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of others are not always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious borrowing44. The coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract from the originality of his work. xxx But we do not need to believe that, in writing his individual criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the works of others: he no doubt had them at hand, and his career as a teacher had probably impressed on his memory many dicta which he could hardly fail to reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather together the results of his teaching.

Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated mainly with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace45. Varro was the author of numerous works bearing on the history and criticism of literature: such were his de Poetis, de Poematis, περὶ χαρακτήρων, de Actionibus Scaenicis, Quaestiones Plautinae. Our knowledge of their scope and character is however derived only by inference from a few scattered fragments, and in regard to these it is impossible to say definitely to which of his treatises they severally belong. Quintilian’s references to his literary activity as well as his great learning (vir Romanorum eruditissimus x. 1, 95), and the quotation of his estimate of Plautus (ib. §99), are sufficient evidence that he was not unacquainted with Varro’s writings. Cicero he knew probably better than he knew any other author: the extent of his indebtedness to such works as the Brutus may be inferred from the parallelisms which occur in his treatment of the Attic orators (x. 1, 76-80). He dissents expressly from Horace’s estimate of Lucilius (ib. §94): and the frequency of his references to other literary judgments of Horace (cp. §§24, 56, 61, 63) shows that he must have been in the habit of illustrating his teaching by quotations from the works of that cultured critic of literature and life.

But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other parts of the Institutio46. Quintilian no doubt knew his works well, especially that which originally consisted of three books περὶ μιμήσεως47. The second book of this treatise has long been known to scholars xxxi in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many striking resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first chapter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as, for instance, H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed freely from the earlier writer: multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat; quibus modo nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo putant sua non esse declarat. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn out by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly remarks that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common property not only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned world of the day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to this edition, 1 §§46-84.

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

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

In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while Quintilian was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is rather incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary schools than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was of opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even goes so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of Dionysius (of which the treatise long known as the Ἀρχαίων κρίσις or the De Veterum Censura is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices of the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian, as well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives of the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long career), he is not slavishly following any single authority49: cp. §52 datur palma (Hesiodo,) xxxiii §53 grammaticorum consensus, §54 ordinem a grammaticis datum, §58 princeps habetur and confessione plurimorum, §59 ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum, §64 quidam (probably including Dionysius), §67 inter plurimos quaeritur, §72 consensu ... omnium. And the tone and substance of his estimate of Homer, of Euripides, and of Menander50, seem to show that he was prepared to rely, when necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp. meo quidem iudicio §69), especially in dealing with the poets who would be of greatest service for his professed purpose.

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

These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s allegation that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s primus et praecipuus fons. It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the historians, he had before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s Orator, to which reference has already been made (§55 sq.). There Cicero mentions Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at hand the great orator’s lost treatise Hortensius, two fragments of which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus51: in writing it Cicero probably followed some list similar xxxiv to those which were accessible both to Dionysius and Quintilian52. Again there is sufficient resemblance here between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as also in regard to Euripides and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.) to justify the supposition that they followed the same tradition. Dio expressly elevates Theopompus to the second rank (10, p. 479), τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν δευτέρων Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων ἔχει.. With this compare Quintilian’s words: Theopompus his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis (§74). Ephorus, on the other hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.

It is perhaps in dealing with the orators that Quintilian gives the surest proofs that he is not following any individual guide. The parallel passages cited in the notes to §§76-80 are by no means confined to the writings of Dionysius, though here again words and phrases occur (see esp. the note on honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo diligens, &c., §79) which seem to suggest that Quintilian must have kept a common-place book into which he ‘conveyed’ points which struck him as just or appropriate in the literary criticism of others53. Unlike Dionysius, however, he refers to the canon of the ten orators (§76) which the recent work of Brzoska, following A. Reifferscheid, has shown to have originated not with the critics of Alexandria, but with those of Pergamum54. It is noticeable that the five orators whom Quintilian selects for notice out of this canon are identical with those enumerated, in reverse order, by Cicero, de Orat. iii. 28.

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

We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of the Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the literary schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own opinion much that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He cannot be supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather be considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of criticism from xxxv Theophrastus (x. 1, 27) down to his own day. He accepted from others, with probably few modifications, the approved lists of poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and adopted the conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered criticisms upon them—“somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof. Nettleship says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and insight, but which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart and handing on to future generations of pupils.” These lists of ‘classical’ writers may probably be traced back, in the main, to the literary activity of the critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be well known to the Greek rhetoricians who were at work on the education of the Roman youth as early as the beginning of the first century B.C., and may have served as the basis of their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (κρίσις ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ) was an essential part of the office of the ‘grammaticus55.’

In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of recte loquendi scientia and poetarum enarratio, Quintilian adds (i. 4, 3): et mixtum his omnibus iudicium est; quo quidem ita severe sunt usi veteres grammatici ut non versus modo censoria quadam virgula notare et libros, qui falso viderentur inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere familia permiserint sibi, sed auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero. Beginning with a critical examination of individual texts, the ‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their work, on the literary side, in short characterisations of the various writers whom they made the subject of their study, and finally drew up lists of the best authors in each department of literature, with a careful indication of their good points as well as of the features in which they were not to be used as models. This process received a more or less final form at the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his follower Aristarchus (see on x. 1, 54), the latter of whom probably introduced such modifications in the list of his predecessor as approved themselves to his own judgment (cp. x. 1, 59 tres receptos Aristarchi iudicio scriptores iamborum). The influence of this method in Roman literature may be seen, early in the first century, in the so-called ‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius (15, 24)56: he makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy of the canon of the ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine critics was probably in the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp. 114-126), when he wrote his ‘Hortensius,’—a treatise which seems to have originally contained an introductory sketch of the great contributors to the various departments xxxvi of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of the dialogue,—the praise of philosophy57. Then there is Dio Chrysostom, a writer who flourished not long after Quintilian himself, and whose reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted. Such divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In the preliminary sketch in the Hortensius the object seems to have been not the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio draws a careful distinction between the branches which serve for the student of rhetoric, and those which may be expected to benefit and delight men who have finished their studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and again reiterated, is to lay down a course of reading suited to form the taste of a young man aspiring to success as a speaker.

The probability that there existed such traditional lists as those referred to (which would also be of service in the arrangement of the great public libraries), is strikingly illustrated in Usener’s Epilogus (p. 128 sq.) by the publication of one which may here be transcribed as of great interest to readers of Quintilian. It will be noticed that though the philosophers are omitted, it contains many points of analogy with that followed by Quintilian, particularly the addition of the later elegiac poets, Philetas and Callimachus. Names only are given, without any criticism attached58.

Greek numerals were printed with overlines ¯. They are shown here in ´ form to reduce text-display problems.

Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.

ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.

τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων Ἀχαιός.

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

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς Καλλίμαχος.

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

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

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

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

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

In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us the fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again the notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers, such as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary criticism. The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved that he did not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press them, when xxxviii necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the Analysis (pp. 3-5) will show that in this part of his work Quintilian follows the method which had been traditionally applied to the criticism of the Greek writers. The same order is preserved (§85); the various departments of literature are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek (§§93, 99, 101, 105, 123); and individual writers are pitted against each other, and are sometimes characterised in similar terms. In all this Quintilian is consistent with the scheme according to which he had evidently determined to arrange his work: he is consistent also with the general tradition of literary criticism among his countrymen. “As Latin literature since Naevius had adopted Greek models and Greek metres, every Latin writer of any pretensions took some Greek author as his ideal of excellence in the particular style which he was adopting. Criticism accordingly drifted into the vicious course of comparison; of pitting every Latin writer against a Greek writer, as though borrowing from a man would constitute you his rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer, Afranius a Menander, Plautus an Epicharmus, before the days of Horace: in Horace’s time there were three Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil. Cicero and Demosthenes were compared by the Greek critics in the Augustan age, and by the time of Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin Thucydides, Livy the Latin Herodotus59.” It is this idea of making ‘canons’ of Latin writers, to correspond as nearly as possible with those which he had accepted from former critics for the classical writers of Greece, that gives an air of artificiality to Quintilian’s criticism of Latin literature, and interferes somewhat with the general effect which his sane and sober appreciations would otherwise produce. The individual estimates are in the main all that could be wished for, notably the enthusiastic eulogy of Cicero (§§105-112), which it is interesting to compare with a similar passage in the treatise ‘On the Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may be discerned in the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his Grecian rival. The sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and abrupt: that of Cicero is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement, rapid, vigorous, terrible; he burns and sweeps away all before him; and hence we may liken him to a whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a widespread conflagration, which rolls over and feeds on all around it, whose fire is extensive and burns long, breaking out successively in different places, and finding its fuel now here, now there60.” Excellent also are the shorter characterisations of such writers as Sallust (immortalem Sallusti velocitatem 1 §102), of Livy (Livi lactea ubertas 1 §32: mirae iucunditatis clarissimique xxxix candoris §101), of Ovid (nimium amator ingenii sui §88), and of Horace (et insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax §96). But the general impression we derive is that Quintilian is producing many of his criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he tied down to the plan he has adopted. It is to this same method of mechanical comparison—born of the artificial traditions of the literary schools—that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has not been without imitators in more recent times61.

IV. Style and Language.

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

The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral and social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition from republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion xl of Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca. The literary public had lost all appetite for the natural straightforwardness of the Ciceronian style: it craved for something akin to the highly seasoned dishes by which the epicures of the day sought to stimulate a jaded palate62. It was not enough now to clothe the thought in pure, clear, and elegant language, even when adorned by a wealth of expression that bordered on exuberance, and made musical by the exquisite modulation of the period. No one could win a hearing who did not countenance the fashionable craze for affectation, abruptness, and extravagance. Directness, ease, and intelligibility were no recommendations63. In order to strike and stimulate, everything must be full of point. Feebleness of thought was considered to be redeemed by epigram and formal antithesis. The amplitude and artistic symmetry of the Ciceronian period gave place to a broken and abrupt style, the main object of which was to arrest attention and to challenge admiration. Showy passages were looked for, expressed in new and striking phraseology, such as could be reproduced and even handed on to others64. The charm of style and the test of its excellence consisted in its being artificial, inflated, meretricious, involved, obscure—in a word, depraved65.

Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to return to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion to one particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own declared principles,—non qui maxime imitandus et solus imitandus est (2 §24); and accordingly, in spite of his great admiration for Cicero, we find several well-marked features of difference between him and his master, not only in the use of words, but also in the structure and composition of sentences66. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise. Quintilian’s mission was to restore to Latin composition the direct and natural character of the earlier style; but he could not extirpate that tendency to poetical expression which had taken root at Rome as far back as the xli days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time by the wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making some concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the ‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist. That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be adapted to contemporary requirements: ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, nisi ut sensus nos quidem dicamus plures: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et invicem offecerint. Sed me hactenus cedentem nemo insequatur ultra, &c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he refused to go: clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to effect. These qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is also sufficiently varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must remember the defective state in which his text has come down to us67.

It is quite possible to exemplify from the Tenth Book alone the main features in which Quintilian’s language and style differ from those of Cicero. And first, in regard to his vocabulary, a list may be appended of words which, though not peculiar to Quintilian, are yet not to be found in the republican period68.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Extemporalis (Petr., Tac., Plin. S.), x. 6, 1, 5 and 6; 7, 13, 16, 18: cp. iv. 1, 54 extemporalis oratio, for which Cicero would have written subita et fortuita oratio.

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

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

Formator (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x. 2, 20 alienorum ingeniorum formator (sc. praeceptor).

Immutesco (Statius), x. 3, 16.

Inadfectatus (Plin. S.), x. 1, 82.

Inconcessus (Verg., Ov.), x. 2, 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Versificator (Just., Col.), x. 1, 89.

There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word Romanus for Latinus. Litterae latinae, scriptores latini, poetae latini, are the usual forms with Cicero and the writers of the best period: Quintilian has Romanes auctores (x. 1, 85), sermo Romanus (ib. §100), litterae Romanae (ib. §123), and often elsewhere.

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


Adnotatio, x. 2, 7 brevis adnotatio.

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

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

Offensator (ἅπαξ λεγόμ.), x. 3, 20.

Significantia, x. 1, 121.

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

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

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

Densus (πυκνός), for pressus: x. 1, 76.

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

To these may be added the use of subripere (for clam facere), on the analogy of κλέπτειν τι, iv. 1, 78: transire (for effugere), on the analogy of παρέρχεσθαι, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335 nil transit amantes): finis for ὅρος: maxime, with numerals, for μάλιστα, &c.

To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian of propter quod, per quod, quae, &c. on the analogy of δι᾽ ὅ, δι᾽ ἅ (see on x. 1, 10): circa (used like περί), see on x. 1, 52: multum (with compar.) like πολὺ μεῖζον (x. 1, 94): sunt ... differentes, 2 §16.

The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a concrete sense (e.g. facilitatem 3 §7), and also in certain changes in the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed in its proper place: e.g. componere for sedare; vacare used impersonally; venus for venustas; beatus for uber, fecundus; secretum; olim of future time; utrimque of opposite sides, &c. Such changes in meaning as will be noted in connection with words like valetudo, ambitio, advocatus, auctor, cultus, quicumque, ubicumque, demum, and all the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective (e.g. studiosus), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the Silver Age.

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

I. Nouns.

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

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

Auctor, almost identical with scriptor: see on x. 1, 24. Cp. Ep. ad Tryph. §1 legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles.

Cultus = ornatus: x. 1, 124; 2, 17. Cp. iii. 8, 58 in verbis cultum adfectaverunt: xi. 1, 58 nitor et cultus. Cicero uses ornatus and nitor as applied to language: Orat. §80 ornatus verborum, §13 4 orationis. Cp. Tac. Dial. 20, 23.

Opinio is used for ‘reputation’ (existimatio), whether good or bad. So x. 5, 18 (where see note): 7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 contemptu opinionis: ii. 12, 5 adfert et ista res opinionem: ix. 2, 74 veritus opinionem iactantiae: iv. 1, 33 opinione adrogantiae laborare: Tac. Dial. 10 ne opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores sequitur: Sen. Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive (ad Att. 7, 2 opinio integritatis: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G. vii. 59, 5: Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24 falsam ... malam opinionem).

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

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

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

Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred to xlv in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with vis or ratio and the gerund (see on vim dicendi x. 1, 1): the concrete use of certain nouns in the plural (see on historias §75: cp. lectiones §45): the concrete use of abstract nouns (e.g. facilitatem 3 §7: profectus 5 §14: cp. silvarum amoenitas for silvae amoenae 3 §24). The frequent occurrence of verbal nouns in -tor must also be noted: in Quint. they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles (hortator x. 3, 23: offensator ib. §20), and may, like adjectives, be compared by the aid of an adverb (nimium amator 1 §88, where see note)69.

II. Adjectives.

Beatus (abundans, fecundus): x. 1, 61 beatissima rerum verborumque copia, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 beatissimi amnes. Cicero does not use beatus of things: cp. de Rep. ii. 19, 34 abundantissimus amnis.

Densus (like pressus in Cicero): §§68, 73 (with notes), densus et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides: cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §59 Thucydides ita verbis aptus et pressus. So x. 1, 76, 106.

Exactus: x. 2, 14 exactissimo iudicio: 7 §30 exacti commentarii. Exactus bears the same relation to exigere as perfectus does to perficere, with which exigere is, in Quintilian, synonymous: e.g. i. 5, 2; 9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23; also M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For exactus Cicero used diligenter elaboratus (Brut. §312) or accuratus (ad Att. xiii. 45, 3): or perfectus (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).

Expositus = tritus, communis: x. 5, 11 voluptatem expositis dare: Iuv. 7, 54 vatem—qui nihil expositum soleat deducere, hoc qui communi feriat carmen triviale moneta: Sen. E. 55. Cicero has (de Orat. i. 31, 137) omnium communia et contrita praecepta.

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

Otiosus = inutilis, inanis. See on x. 1, 76 tam nihil otiosum: cp. 2 §17. So Tac. Dial. 40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have vacuus, otio abundans, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.


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

Summus, in sense of extremus: x. 1, 21, where see note. The usage is poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii. 324 venit summa dies: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59, Am. iii. 9, 27: Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio—München, 1890, p. 36) contends that this use is not Ciceronian, for while Pollio writes summo ludorum die (ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius summis Circensibus ludis (ad Fam. viii. 12, 3—Manutius: extremis diebus Circensium ludorum meorum), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii. 1, 3) extremus elephantorum dies fuit.

Supinus = ignavus (as ὕπτιος, p. xliii. above): x. 2, 17 otiosi et supini: cp. ix. 4, 137 tarda et supina compositio: Iuv. i. 66: Mart. vi. 42 Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter audis. This word may have been used first by Quintilian in this sense: in Cicero it is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.

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

Nothing is more common in Quintilian than the use of adjectives (and participles) in the place of nouns.70 In some cases this arises from the actual omission of a noun, which can readily be supplied to define the meaning of the adjective: for example x. 5, 20 decretoriis (sc. armis) exerceatur: 1 §100 togatis (sc. fabulis) excellit Afranius: 1 §88 lascivus quidem in herois (sc. versibus) quoque Ovidius. But in most cases there is no perceptible ellipse; the general idea intended is contained in the adjective itself. In the Masculine and Feminine only those adjectives can be used as nouns which express personal qualities, as of character, position, reputation, &c.: the Neuter denotes generally the properties of things, mostly abstractions. Following the arrangement of Dr. Hirt’s paper, we may cite examples from the Tenth Book as follows:—

The Neuter Adjective.

(1) The Neuter singular used by itself:—

Nom. 3 §22 secretum in dictando perit.


Acc. 3 §30 faciat sibi cogitatio secretum.

Gen. 3 §27 optimum secreti genus: §30 amator secreti. Partitive genitives: 6 §1 aliquid vacui: dependent on adj. 1 §79 honesti studiosus.

Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 proximum vero: vi. 3, 21 contrarium serio.

Abl. 7 §16 cum stilus secreto gaudeat.

Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative and ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the usage in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy (ἐξ ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.). Examples are: in altum 7 §28 (= in profundum): e contrario 1 §19: in deposito 3 §33: in expedito 7 §24: (vertere) in Latinum 5 §2 (containing the idea of locality: cp. ex Graeco): ex integro 1 §20 (where see note): in posterum 3 §14: in publicum 7 §1: in universum 1 §42: in peius 2 §16: ex proximo 1 §13: a summo 3 §2: ad ultimum 7 §7; ib. 16: ex ultimo ib. 10.

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

(2) The Neuter Plural.

Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally in cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g. 3 §6 scriptorum proxima. Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where the case could not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of course, when the adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g. 5 §8 sua brevitati gratia, sua copiae, alia translatis virtus, alia propriis; or when another adjective or pronoun is used in the nom. or acc., e.g. 1 §35: 3 §32 novorum interpositione priora confundant: 5 §11. Other instances (of 2nd and 3rd decl.) are 7 §30 subitis ex tempore occurrant: 5 §1 ex latinis: 7 §6 ex diversis: 1 §66 in plerisque: 5 §11 varietatem similibus dare. So with comparatives and superlatives: 1 §63 maioribus aptior: 1 §58 cum optimis satiati sumus, varietas tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit: 5 §6 certe proximis locus.

The Masculine Adjective.

(1) The Masculine Plural.

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


Single instances are (Genitive) veterum 1 §§97, 118: magnorum 1 §25: (Dative) imperitis 7 §15: antiquis 2 §17: studiosis 1 §45 (where see note: Cicero would have had dicendi, or eloquentiae studiosis): bonis 2 §3: (Accusative) veteres 1 §42: posteros 1 §§112, 120: 2 §6: obvios 3 §29: intentos 3 §33: (Ablative) ex nostris 1 §114: ab antiquis 1 §126: de novis 1 §40. With the comparative 5 §19 apud maiores: 5 §7 priores: superlative 1 §58 confessione plurimorum. In 1 §123 we have one of the few instances of the addition of another adjective to an adjective doing duty for a noun—paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt.

(2) The Masculine Singular.

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

The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine singular: (Genitive) x. 2, 26 prudentis est: (Accusative) 2 §3 similem raro natura praestat: 3 §19 quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes.

The Participle used as a Noun.

(1) The Neuter Singular.

Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those which have actually become nouns (e.g. responsum, praeceptum, promissum, &c.), Quintilian uses several participles as nouns in a manner that is again an extension of classical usage. So even with a pronoun, or another adjective: e.g. 2 §2 ad propositum praescriptum: §11 ad alienum propositum: 5 §12 decretum quoddam atque praeceptum: 7 §24 promptum hoc et in expedito positum.

(2) The Neuter Plural.

Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the participle in -us, -a, -um is found frequently in abl., gen., and dat. Not so common is the plural of the 3rd decl.: 1 §86 eminentibus vincimur: 3 §5 nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus, adhibeatur indicium inventis, dispositio probatis.

(3) The Perfect Participle.

In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the Ciceronian usage, according to which the participle is employed when a definite class of individuals is indicated, and a qui clause when the description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are 1 §131 robustis et xlix satis firmatis legendus: 3 §2 7 occupatos in noctem necessitas agit: 5 §17 exercitatos; rather more general is a conrogatis laudantur 1 §18. The Masculine Singular is, in classical Latin, generally found along with a substantive, it being incorrect to use any such expression as, for example, manes occisi placare. Quintilian makes a very free use of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24 reddebat victo certaminis polestatem: v. 12, 2 spiculum in corpore occisi inventum est, &c.

(4) The Future Participle.

The use of this participle received a great extension in post-Augustan times. The following are instances of its employment as a substantive: i. 4, 17 non doceo, sed admoneo docturos: 21 liberum opinaturis relinquo: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 hoc adicio ut dicturus intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit.

(5) The Present Participle.

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

III. Pronouns.

Ipse follows the usual rules. For an interesting point in connection with its use, see on 2 §15. It is often used as = per se, e.g. 1 §117: 3 §21: often with pronouns, e.g. vel hoc ipso (δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο) 1 §75, cp. 5 §8. For et ipse see note on 1 §31.

Hic seems frequently to be used with reference to the circumstances of the writer’s own times: e.g. 1 §43 recens haec lascivia: and probably also 7 §31 hanc brevem adnotationem. (This is certainly the case with ille: e.g. illis dictandi deliciis 3 §18: ille laudantium clamor 1 §17.) It has been suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be wrong: e.g. 1 §6 ex his (for ex iis?): but cp. 1 §§25, 33, 40, &c. Such instances of a preference for hic over is come under Priscian’s rule (xvi. 58), Hic l non solum de praesente verum etiam de absente possumus dicere, ad intellectum referentes demonstrativum.

The conjunction of nullus and non (= quisque, omnis) is common in Quintilian and Suetonius: 7 §25 nullo non tempore et loco: cp. iii. 6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66; Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.

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

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

Ut qui is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian quippe qui, utpote qui: see on 1 §55.

IV. Verbs.

An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’ of Latin prose) occurs 1 §99 licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant: see note ad loc., and cp. Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12, Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have efferre laudibus, de Am. §24: de Off. ii. §36: de Orat. iii. §52. So elsewhere in Quintilian finire for definire, solari for consolari, spargere for dispergere, &c.

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

Componere occurs now in the sense of sedare, placare: e.g. ix. 4, 12 ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum cogitationum, componerent: iii. 4, 15 concitando componendisve adfectibus (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202 motum dicendo vel excitare vel sedare): cp. x. 1, 119 Vibius Crispus compositus et iucundus, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176) Isocrates est in ipsis numeris sedatior. So Pollio, ad Fam. x. 33, 3 has the phrase bellum componere: cp. Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 8 componere litem: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 componere curas—both at the end of a hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet. Caes. 4.

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

Praedicere = antea, supra dicere: see on 1 §74.

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

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

V. Adverbs.

Abunde is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to increase their force: 1 §25 abunde similes (where see note): §104 elatum abunde spiritum. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s satis superque.

Adhuc occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on 1 §71 (plus adhuc) and §99. It is often used also (as in Livy and others) of li past time, when it = eo etiam tempore, or etiam tum: e.g. scholae adhuc operatum 3 §13: cp. i. 8, 2: 2 §27.

Alioqui has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1) It occurs pretty much as τὰ μὲν ἄλλα in Greek, with very little of an antithesis: e.g. 1 §64 Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate commendari potest: 3 §32 expertus iuvenem, studiosum alioqui, praelongos habuisse sermones, &c. (There is a definite antithesis in what seems to be the corresponding usage in Tacitus, when alioqui is opposed to an adverb of time: e.g, Ann. iii. 8 cum incallidus alioqui et facilis iuventa senilibus tum artibus uteretur: xiii. 20 ingreditur Paris, solitus alioquin id temporis luxus principis intendere, sed tunc compositus ad maestitiam.) (2) It is equivalent to praeterea, ‘besides’: 3 §13 in eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 ordo alioqui sceleris ... patefactus est. This sense is an easy transition from ‘for the rest.’ The instance in 1 §128 (cuius et multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt) seems to fall also under this head, unless it means ‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they paid him (Seneca) by imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 validus alioqui spernendis honoribus. (3) Alioqui stands for ‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite case,’ either with a si clause, as 3 §16 immutescamus alioqui si nihil dicendum videatur: §30 quid alioqui fiet ... si particulas, &c.: or without, 6 §6 alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem cogitationem. Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.

Certe stands for quidem when the point of the sentence is reinforced by an illustration: 6 §4 Cicero certe ... tradidit: cp. xii. 1, 43: vi. 2, 3.

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

Interim often stands for interdum, as 1 §9, where see note. At 3 §33 we have interim ... interim for modo ... modo, as also i. 7, 11: interim ... interdum vi. 2, 12: interim ... non numquam ... saepe iv. 5, 20: semper ... interim ii. 1, 1.

Longe and multum are both used with comparatives, instead of multo: e.g. longe clarius 1 §67 (where see note): multum tersior (πολύ) 1 §94 (note).

Mox is used in enumerations in place of deinde: 6 §3 primum—tum—mox: cp. i. 2, 29 primum—mox: ib. 9, 2 primum—mox—tum.

Nec = ne quidem: 3 §7 alioqui nec scriberentur. Cp. ix. 2, 67 quod in foro non expedit, illic nec liceat iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.


Non occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (3 §16, cp. 3 §5) and 3rd pers. sing. 2 §27 where see note, (also after dum xii. 10, 48 and modo iii. 11, 24) where Cicero would have had ne: cp. i. 1, 19 non ergo perdamus: ib. §5 non adsuescat ergo. Cp. utinam non §100: and see note on 2 §27.

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

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

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

Protinus has its usual meaning (statim) in 3 §5 (where it is best taken with gaudeamus, not with offerentibus): cp. 7 §21. Its employment to denote logical consequence is noted at 1 §3: cp. ib. §42.

Saltem is often used for quidem and neque saltem for ne quidem: 2 §15 nec vero saltem iis, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 neque enim mihi illud saltem placet.

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

Ubicumque, like quicumque, has become an indefinite: e.g. 7 §28 quidquid loquemur ubicumque. The more classical use is found at 1 §§5 and 10.

Utique: see note on 1 §20.

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

Velut occurs more commonly than either quasi or tamquam in comparisons: see on 1 §5 velut opes quaedam, and cp. §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5 §17: 7 §1. So also 7 §6 ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce.

VI. Prepositions.

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

Circa does duty in Quintilian for in, de, ad, erga, &c.: cp. the use of περί, ἀμφί with the acc. in Greek. So 1 §52 utiles circa praecepta sententiae: see note ad loc.


Citra very often stands for sine or praeter: e.g. citra lectionis exemplum 1 §2, where see note: cp. i. 4, 4 neque citra musicen grammatice potest esse perfecta. In Cicero citra is used only of place.

The following prepositional expressions should also be noted:—

Ante omnia = primum 1 §3: 2 §4: 7 §6. In 1 §3 we have ante omnia, proximum, novissimum: cp. iv. 2, 52 ante omnia, deinde: iii. 9, 6 ante omnia, deinde, tum, postremo.

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

Ex integro. Quintilian prefers the use of ex in such phrases to de: e.g. x. 1 §20 (where see note): ex industria ib.: and so ex abundanti, ex professo, ex pari, &c., elsewhere.

Inter paucos, ‘as few have ever been’: 3 §13 inter paucos disertus.

Per quae (quod) of agency or instrument: 1 §87 in iis per quae nomen est adsecutus.

Propter quae (quod) for quam ob rem, especially in transitions: see on 1 §10.

Praeter id quod for praeterquam quod: see on 1 §28.

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

VII. Conjunctions.

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

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

Dum ... non stands for dummodo ... non 3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The usage is poetical. Dummodo does not occur in Quintilian.

Enim occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. ad profectum enim 3 §15: and so frequently after sum,—2 §10 necesse est enim: 1 §14: 7 §§15, 24: 2 §19. But nihil enim est 1 §78, where Krüger suggests nihil enim inest.

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

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

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

Quamlibet and quamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs: 3 §19 nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato: cp. viii. 6, 4 oratione quamlibet clara: xii. 8, 7 quamlibet verbose: xi. 1, 34 quamquam plena sanguinis. A similar use of quamvis is less uncommon in other writers: cp. 1 §74 quamvis bonorum: ib. §94 quamvis uno libra (where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

Quia is sometimes used where quod (eo quod) might have been expected: 1 §15 hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia: cp. 5 §14 Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia (Halm) inventionem et dispositionem pariter exercent. So i. 6, 39 nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent (sc. verba a vetustate repetita) et, quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant. Cp. non quia non (with the subjunctive) x. 7, 19 and 31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

Quoque often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force, where older writers would have had vel or etiam: 1 §20 ex industria quoque: 2 §14 in magnis quoque auctoribus: cp. 1 §121 ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ii. II, I exemplo magni quoque nominis professorum.

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

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

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive: 1 §14 dixerim: §26 lvi maluerim: §37 fuerit, where see note: so even ut non dixerim (ne dicam) 1 §77 and ut sic dixerim 2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see on sciet 1 §4, and cp. 2 §§26, 28: 3 §28: 7 §28: also as a mild imperative, 1 §58 revertemur: 3 §18 sequemur; 2 §1 renuntiabit: §23 aptabimus. (3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age: (a) with verbs, as meruit credi 1 §72: qui esse docti adfectant §97: optandum ... fieri §127: si consequi utrumque non dabitur 7 §22: opponere verear 1 §101: intermittere veremur 7 §26: cp. expertus iuvenem ... habuisse 3 §32: for dubitare see on 1 §73: (b) with adjectives, legi dignus 1 §96: contentum id consequi 2 §7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund, ceteraque genera probandi ac refutandi 1 §49: lex orandi 1 §76: inveniendi §69: sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate 1 §81: cp. loquendi §83: eloquendo §106: nascendi 3 §4: saliendi 3 §6: ib. iaculando: adiciendo 3 §32: emendandi 4 §2: cogitandi 7 §25. (5) Quamquam with subjunctive 1 §33: 2 §21: 7 §17: forsitan with indic. 2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) Anaphora, or the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g. nulla varietas, nullus adfectus, nulla persona, nulla cuiusquam sit oratio 1 §55: cp. 1 §§99, 115, 130: 2 §2: 3 §3 (illic radices, illic fundamenta sunt, illic opes, &c.): §9, §29: 5 §§2, 8: 6 §1; (2) Asyndeton: e.g. facere quam optime, quam facillime possit 1 §4: 2 §16: 6 §6: 7 §§7, 26; (3) Chiasmus: 5 §14 (alitur—renovatur) and §15 (ne carmine—reficiuntur): 7 §15.

The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked upon as great national lvii entertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’: tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat, x. 1, 114. The orator must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’ in procinctu 1 §2 (where see note): if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in camp,—nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium 4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand: id quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est 2 §§21-2. Victory must ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a sham fight: 1 §§29-30 nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti: 2 §27 quam omnia, etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent: 1 §79 Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus: 1 §31 totum opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur. The orator must have all the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to be made for show: 1 §33 dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere: 1 §30 Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus: cp. 1 §60 cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum: 1 §77 carnis tamen plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum: 2 §12 quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes: 1 §115 verum sanguinem perdidisse. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory: 1 §4, cp. 5 §§19-20 (iuvenis) iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur: 3 §3 vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp. 1 §106 pugnat ille (Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere: §120 ut esset multo magis pugnans. And he must not linger too long over preparatory exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their suppleness: 5 §16 nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur.

V. Manuscripts.

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

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

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

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

To the same family as the Bernensis belongs the Bambergensis A, which was directly copied from the Bernensis not long after the latter had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the Bambergensis the great lacunae were, at a very early date, filled in by another hand (Bambergensis G73), this manuscript may now rank in the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the lix Harleianus (2664), and through the Harleianus of the Florentinus, Turicensis, and an innumerable company of others. Besides reproducing Bambergensis G, these MSS. follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halm b) into the original Bambergensis A. A recent examination of the Bambergensis has suggested a doubt whether the readings known as b, which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex as G.

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

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

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

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

Then there is the Codex Ioannensis (in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition it begins with constaret (i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second chapter, like the Nostradamensis, the Vossiani 1 and 2, the Codex Puteanus, and Parisinus 7721 (see Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly multiplici, not ut duplici, and in this it agrees with the Montpellier MS. (Pithoeanus), which is known to be a copy (11th century) of the Bernensis (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) as tum in ipsis in x. 2, 14, and virtutis ib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the great lacunae, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with the Bernensis, though there are striking resemblances also to the Pratensis (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1 sic etiam utilitatis, for sic utilitatis etiam: ib. §30 oratione continua, for continua oratione: 5 §8 alia propriis alia translatis virtus, for alia lxi translatis virtus alia propriis: 7 §21 stultis eruditi, for stulti eruditis: ib. §28 solum summum, for summum solum. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.—the Vossiani i. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which the Nostradamensis heads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may note also the readings viderit bona et invenit ( 2 §20), which Ioan. shares with Voss. iii.: potius libertas ista ( 3 §24) Ioan. and Voss. i.; ubertate—for libertate—( 5 §15) Ioan. Voss. i. and iii.

To the same family belongs the Codex Salmantinus, a 12th or 13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca. M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the Bernensis. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from the Nostradamensis (most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from the Nostradamensis, it agrees with the Bernensis and the Bambergensis. This MS. also gives ubertate in 5 §15 : it agrees in showing the important reading alte refossa in 3 §2 : and resembles the Ioannensis in certain minor omissions, e.g. certa before necessitate in 5 §15 : idem before laborandum in 7 §4 : et before consuetudo in 7 §8 : cp. subiunctura sunt for subiuncturus est 7 §9 . For other coincidences see the Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the Codex Salmantinus) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are the Codex Pralensis (No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and the Codex Puteanus (No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from the Institutio amounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (de figuris verborum) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (de imitatione) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (quomodo dictandum sit) of x. 3, 1-32; and §79 (de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of the Beccensis, now lost. The Beccensis is supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least equal rank with the Bernensis. That it was an independent copy of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the Pratensis, but also by the fact that both the Pratensis and the Puteanus (which is also a transcript of the Beccensis) show a lacuna after the word mutatis in lxii x. 3, 32. This lacuna must have existed in the Beccensis, though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the words correctum fuisse tabellis in his copy (the Pratensis): the text runs codicibus esse sublatum.

The general character of the readings of the Pratensis may be gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from the Pratensis or from its prototype, the Beccensis. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S) rogantis Achillen Priami precibus, while most codd. have Priami before rogantis: ib. §53 eloquentie (so Put. S 7231, 7696) for eloquendi: ib. superatum (so Put.) for superari: §55 aequalem credidit parem (as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67 idque ego (as Put. S) for idque ego sane: §68 qui fuerunt and also vero, omitted (as in Put. S): so also tenebras §72, valuerunt §84 (as 7231, 7696), and veterum §97: at §95 Prat, gives et eruditissimos for et doctissimos, and hence the omission of erudit. in S. On the whole, the study of the text of the Pratensis seems to give additional confidence in the readings of G: for example §98 imperare (as Put.): §101 cesserit (Put. 7231, 7696): ib. nec indignetur. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 quem superius institui for quem institueram in libra secundo is an indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of the Institutio, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to the Pratensis, among which may be noted 1 §48 putat for creditum est (where Put. has certissimum): §59 ad exemplum maxime permanebit (ad exitum Put. and S): §78 propinquior for propior: §80 mediocri for medio: §81 assurgit for surgit: §109 in utroque for in quoque. Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with the Puteanus (and which were therefore probably in the Beccensis) are §46 in magnis for in magnis rebus: §49 innuit for nuntiat: §50 excessit for excedit: §54 ne virtus for ne utrius (neutrius): §57 ignoro ergo (S) for ignoro igitur: §63 plurimumque oratio: §68 in affectibus communibus mirus: §79 discernendi for dicendi: §107 nominis latini for latini sermonis. At 1 §72 Prat. has qui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro (Put. ut pravis), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671 qui quamvis sui temp. Men. There are frequent inversions, e.g. dicendi genere §52 (Put.): Attici sermonis (Put.) §65: plus Attio (Put.) §97: cuicumque eorum Ciceronem (as Put. 7231, 7696) §105: sit nobis §112: lxiii est autem (as Ioan.) §115: forum illustrator (as Ioan.) §122: creditus sum §125: dignis lectione 2 §1: possumus sperare §9: nemo vero eum §10: aliquo tamen in loco aliquid §24: scientia movendi §27: ipso opere 3 §8: se res facilius §9: desperatio etiam §14: vox exaudiri §25: praecipue in hoc §26: possunt semper §2874.

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the Codex Puteanus is in general agreement with the Pratensis, each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in agreement than the Pratensis with the later family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61 spiritu: ib. merito omitted: §72 possunt decernere (for possis decerperepossis decernere Prat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the Pratensis, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of the Institutio must have formed part of the mutilated original from which the Beccensis was copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus, libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi. M. Fierville states (Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1 §§46-68) in the Pratensis, Puteanus, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all four. He adds that the Vossiani i. and iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50 illis Priami rogantis Achillen: at §59 the former has ad exim, the latter ad exi: at §61 both give eum nemini credit, omitting merito (as Put. and S): at §68 namque is et sermone (as Prat.: namque sermone Put.): ib. in dicendo ac respondendo (Prat. Put. in dicendo et in resp.): §72 (apparently) ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis: §82 finxisse sermonem (as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83 ac varietate: §88 laudandus partibus (laudandis part. Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91 visum (visum est Prat. Put.): §98 senes lxiv non parum tragicum (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107 Latini nominis: §121 leve (Prat. N). In §98 Thyestes is omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696: dedit exemplum et ortum 1 §46: proximus aemulari §62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes the Bernensis, Bambergensis A, Ambrosianus ii., Pithoeanus (these two are direct copies of the Bernensis), Salmantinus, three Paris codices (7720, 7722 and Didot), and probably the Ioannensis. In the second he ranks the Nostradamensis, Vossiani i. and iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the Beccensis, Pratensis, and Puteanus: in the fourth a codex Vaticanus, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers the Bernensis, Bambergensis, Nostradamensis, Pratensis, and Puteanus to be of greatest importance for the constitution of the text.

At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now be placed the Codex Harleianus (2664), in the library of the British Museum75. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser in Hermathena (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to supply the great lacunae in some MS. of the first or incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed facsimile, a being used at the beginning and b (as here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first part of the Bambergensis is larger than G, which the Harleianus (H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proof that the Harleianus stands at the head of the great family of the mixed manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly by the Florentinus, Turicensis, Almeloveenianus, and Guelferbytanus) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to both parts of the Bambergensis on the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of the Turicensis and the Florentinus on the Bambergensis by pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in the lxvii text of both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the Bambergensis from their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52: circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico. When the copyist of the Bambergensis noticed his mistake, he completed Drepanitani in the text, and wrote in the words gaudeo etiam ... abs te at the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In the Bambergensis the page ends with the words (§54) an huius ille legis quam, and the next page continues C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur. Noticing that in both the Florentinus and the Turicensis the marginal addition (gaudeo etiam ... abs te) is inserted not after legis quam but after Clodius, Halm drew the inference that these codices were copied from the Bambergensis not directly, but through some intervening manuscript. The Harleianus is this manuscript. In it the words referred to do come in between legis quam and (Cloe)lius: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in the Bambergensis, in which the letters C l o e are subpunctuated, that the Harleianus actually shows et abs te lius a se inventa76, exactly as the writer of b wished the Bambergensis to stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the Harleianus did not know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above the Turicensis and the Florentinus (and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text stands utinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata, &c. In the Bambergensis, utrum nam is supplied by b above the line, and in the margin que peiora vincant verum, the words affected by the change being lxviii subpunctuated in the text. The copyist of the Harleianus takes the utrum nam and leaves the rest, showing utrum nam schemata: this appears as utrim nam schemata in the Turicensis, and as utinam schemata in the Florentinus and Almeloveenianus. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in the Bambergensis (G) quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the Harleianus, and as a consequence we have supplici in Turic. and Flor., supplitia in Guelf., &c. Again at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the Harleianus, which caused him to write Neque vero tantas eum breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae, &c., has given rise to the greatest confusion in Turic., Flor., Alm., Bodleianus, Burn. 243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the words qui foro between breve saltem and tempus: at this point the copyist of H must have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg, where the words qui foro hold a conspicuous position. Flor. and Tur. repeat the mistake, except that the latter gives eum brevem for eum breve. Again at the end of Book ix, Bambergensis G gives ut numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur: this reading is identical with that of the Harleianus, except that the latter for arcessiti gives arcessisti, a deviation promptly reproduced by the Florentinus, while the Turicensis shows accersisti. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the following: at iv. 2, 128 the Bambergensis gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις) ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes this ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει—Spalding).

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

text image

text image

text image

text image

As the Bambergensis (Bg), in its present state, only commences at i. 1. 6. (nec de patribus tantum), the readings of the Harleianus (H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we have pertinerent H, pertinent T: §2 diversas H, divisas T: §5 fieri oratorem non posse HF, fieri non posse oratorem T (as A): §6 amore H, studio F: iτ ingenii H, iter ingenii T, ingenii F: §13 officio quoque H, quoque officio F: §19 summa H (also Bg), summam T: §25 demonstraturi HF, demonstrari T: §27 adiumenta H (a correction by same hand on adiuvante): so Bg F: adiuvante T. In chap. 1 §3 sed plus HT: sed et plus  F: hoc quippe viderit H Bg F: hoc quippe (om. viderit) T.

These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings of lxix Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 nihil est peius Bg H T, nihil enim est peius F: ib. §11 defuerit Bg H T, defuerint F: ib. §12 perbibet Bg H F, perhibet T: ib. §16 formandam Bg H, formandum F T: 2 §18 in media rei p. vivendum Bg (b) H, in med. rei praevivendum T, reip. videndum F: ib. §24 depellendam Bg H, repellendam T: ib. §31 concipiat quis mente Bg H, quis mente concipiat F: 4 §27 tereuntur Bg H T, intereuntur F: 6 §9 dicet Bg, dicit H F, dicitur T: ib. §14 dici ceris Bg (dici ceris),A diceres H, dici F T: ib. §30 aliaque quae consuetudini serviunt Bg H,—in margin of H aliquando consuetudini servit (b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 haec ei et cura H F, haec et cura ei T: 11 §4 pinguitudine Bg H, pinguedine F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following: ii. 5, 13 dicentur Bg H, docentur T: 5 §26 hanc Bg H, om. T: 15 §8 testatum est Bg H, testatum T. In ix. 363 G has parem (for marem A): H gives patrem and F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8 hoc est G H, id est F: ib. §16 quoque G H, om. T: ib. §32 nesciat G H, dubitet F: dignatur G H, digne dicatur F: viii. pr. §3 dicendi G H, discendi T: ix. 4, 119 ignorabo G, ignoraba H, ignorabam T: ib. §129 et hac fluit G H, et hac et hac fluit T: xii. 11, 8 scierit G, scieret H, sciret T: ib. 2 §18 autem Bg H, om. T: x. 1, §4 numuro quae G H, num muro quae T, numeroque F: ib. §50 et philogus G, et philochus H T, et epiloghus F: ib. §73 porem G H, priorem F T: ib. §75 vel hoc est G H, hoc est vel T: x. 2, 7 posteriis (for historiis) H, posteris F (posterius ed. Camp.): x. 2, 10 discernamus Bg, discernantur b, disnantur H T, desinantur F. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are the following: Empedoclena i. 4, 4: vespueruginem i. 7, 12: tereuntur i. 4, 27: flex his x. 1, 2: gravissimus x. 1, 97: ipsae illae quae extorque eum credas x. 1, 110, where both also give trans usum for transversum, and non repe for non rapi: morare refinxit finxit recipit x. 3, 6: nam quod cum isocratis x. 4, 4. In other instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes for quo enim dandum: also extemporal facilitas which appears in T as extempora vel facilitas: x. 1, 79 ven iudicis H (in mistake for se non iud.), which is made by T into venit iudicis. Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the reading tantum, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more like tantum than tacitum (the reading of G). Again, in every lxx place where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to correspond77.

A. (dici ceris) text image showing inserted letters:

text images

With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt that the Harleianus must now take rank above both the manuscripts which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a place in the criticism of Quintilian, the Codex Florentinus and the Codex Turicenis. The former is an eleventh century MS., now in the Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this inscription: Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae: on the last Liber Petri de Medicis, Cos. fil.: and below Liber sanctae Mariae ecclesiae Argñ. (= Argentoratensis) in dormitorio. There were two bishops of Strasburg bearing the name of Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the second 1065-1079. M. Fierville (Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first Werner (of Altemburg or Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral at Strasburg in 1015, and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable books; and we also know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at Frankfort to promote the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here then we have the elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner was a patron of letters; and learning that by the addition of what is now known as Bambergensis G a complete text of Quintilian had been secured, he had it copied. The Codex Harleianus was in all probability the first copy, and from it the Codex Florentinus was reproduced. The latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which (though hitherto it seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose of its claim to be considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he describes as ‘plenum situ’ and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo quodam et obscuro carcere, fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales quidem rei damnati retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from Strasburg to St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is hard to believe that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and unknown. After 1372 we know nothing certain of its history till it reappears in the library of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part of the fifteenth century. It is generally supposed that some time between 1372 and 1417 it must have been transported from Strasburg to the monastery of St. Gall, and that it passed from there to Florence after Poggio’s departure. A similar theory may quite as legitimately be maintained in reference to the Harleianus, which, as I have lxxi already indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 141678.

The Codex Turicensis was long considered to be of older date than the Florentinus, but recent investigations seem to have proved the contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the eleventh century, and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the beginning of the eighteenth century it passed into the library at Zürich. Spalding believed it to be the manuscript discovered by Poggio, and M. Fierville is of the same opinion: Halm rejects this theory. The great point in favour of the claim of the Turicensis is that it is known to have come from St. Gall, while we can only conjecture the history of the Harleianus. But the Turicensis cannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with him into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition, Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of the librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was the Harleianus there is perhaps little need to wonder that nothing has been known till now of its later fortunes79.

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

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

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

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

The Argentoratensis (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 169880. This manuscript was lxxiii destroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (Codex Guelferbytanus), collated for the first time by Spalding: the Codex Gothanus, used by Gesner for his edition of 1738: the Codex Vallensis (Parisinus 7723), which purports to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla (9 December, 1444), whose corrections and marginal notes it contains81. The list of these and several others, all carefully described by M. Fierville, may now be extended by a short reference to various MSS. in this country, hitherto uncollated. The results of my examination of them (as well as of the Bodleianus, and Burneianus 243, referred to above) appear in the Critical Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may at least be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and Meister have successively credited the early printed editions,—e.g. the Cologne edition of 1527,—have now been attributed to earlier sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS. of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.

In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’s Institutio: of the most important of these, the Harleianus (H), I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of relationship to such codices as the Argentoratensis and the Guelferbytanus. The first of these two MSS. (Codex Harleianus 2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The same may be said of the Codex Harleianus 11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to connect both these MSS. with the Guelferbytanus: x. 3, 12 a patrono suo for a patruo suo: 1 §97 verum for veterum: 1 §55 equalem credidit parem (as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i. lxxiv and iii.): 1 §72 quamvis sui temporis Menandro for ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro: 7 §6 adducet ducetur. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum is Harleianus 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and might be classed along with the Vallensis were it not that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘hic deficit antiquus codex,’ makes it probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side82. This MS. agrees with the Vallensis and Gothanus in reading cognitioni for cogitationi x. 1, 1: ubertate for ubertas 1 §109: et vis summa §117: eruendas for erudiendas 2 §6: nobis efficiendum ib. §14: decretoriis 5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with the Lassbergensis. The latter finishes with the words ἡ βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένου and the motto ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of the Burneianus 244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general agreement with L, and also with the Codex Carcassonensis, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.

A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of which (the Codex Balliolensis) is unclassed by Fierville, while the other (the D’Orville MS.) has never been examined at all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at bis vitiosa sunt i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated condition. lxxv In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words quam quod somno supererit: it stops abruptly at nostrorumque Hort(ensium) x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has interrogatione, a reading which Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it has e rep with A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g. forte at i. 5, 15, all other codices forsan or forsitan).

There remains the D’Orville MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (Codex Dorvilianus),—a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of the Institutio (1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to the Ambrosianus (e.g. Getae 1 pr. §6: et quantum ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has summam inde eloquentiae (Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): destinabamus al. festinabimus ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received into the text: neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has quos eligamus ad imitandum, a reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than the Codex Bodleianus. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have quaestio ex his incidat except A, which gives ex his incidat quaestio: the reading in the Dorvilianus is quaestio incidat ex his: again at i. 2, 6 ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus, many codices give mores for os: Dorv. shows quam vel mores vel os.

List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.

Besides the complete editions of Spalding, Zumpt, Bonnell, Halm (1868-9) Meister (1886-87), use has been made of the following editions of Book x.:—

M. Stephanus Riccius.

Venice, 1570.

C. H. Frotscher.

Leipzig, 1826.

M. C. G. Herzog.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.

G. A. Herbst.

Halle, 1834.

John E. B. Mayor (incomplete).

Cambridge, 1872.


Berlin, 1882.

G. T. A. Krüger.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.
 „ „(Gustav Krüger) 3rd ed. „1888.

Fr. Zambaldi.

Firenze, 1883.

S. Dosson.

Paris, 1884.

D. Bassi.

Torino, 1884.

J. A. Hild.

Paris, 1885.

F. Meister (text only).

Leipzig and Prague, 1887.

Frieze (Books x. and xii.)

New York, 1889.

Among the Translations, reference has been made to Lindner’s (Philologische Klassiker, Wien, 1881), Alberti’s (Leipzig, 1858), and Herzog’s (Leipzig, 1829); also to Guthrie’s (London, 1805), and Watson’s (in Bohn’s series).

The following have been used as books of reference:—

Wilkins: Cicero, De Oratore, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.)

Oxford, 1888 and 1890.

Sandys: Cicero, Orator.

Cambridge, 1889.

Kellogg: Cicero, Brutus.

Boston, 1889.

Wolff: Tacitus, Dialogus de Oratoribus.

Gotha, 1890.

Andresen: „   „

Leipzig, 1879.

Reiske: Dionysius Halicarnassensis.

Vols. v-vi.
Leipzig, 1775-7.

Usener: Dionysius Halicarnassensis Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque Criticae Duae.

Bonn, 1889.

Ammon: De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus: Dissertatio Inauguralis.

Munich, 1889.

Volkmann: Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer.

2nd ed. Leipzig, 1885.

Causeret: Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire dans Cicéron.

Paris, 1886.

and Fierville: Quintilian, Book i.

Paris, 1890.

The references to Nägelsbach’s Lateinische Stylistik are to the eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).

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


Quaestiones Quintilianeae.

Leipzig, 1883.

Journal of Philology, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq.


Bursian’s Jahresbericht, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.


Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit. Or.
(Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu Ilfeld).

Nordhausen, 1879.

Philologus XLV.


Philologische Rundschau, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.


Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich.

Ostern, 1891.

Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen, 1887, p. 454; 1188, pp. 83-91.


Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik, vol. 135, pp. 829-832.


Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.


Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie, 1888, p. 829 sqq.


Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin, xiv. (1888), p. 62 sqq.


Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.


Rheinisches Museum, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.


Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin, viii. (1882), p. 67 sqq.


 „  „  „ ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq.


 „  „  „ xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq.


Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian.

Berlin, 1890.

Philologus, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876), p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.: xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.

lxxvii Schöll:

Rheinisches Museum, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv. (1880), p. 639.


Rheinisches Museum, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq.


Hermes, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.


Rheinisches Museum, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.


Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen, 1881, p. 391 sqq.


Jahrb. f. Philologie, 1885, p. 615 sqq. Literar. Centralblatt, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.


Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa’ (1876), p. 92 sqq.

H. J. Müller:

Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq.

Iwan Müller:

Bursian’s Jahresbericht, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.


Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien, xxvii. (1876), p. 353 sqq.


De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones.

Holmiae, 1861.

De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae eloquentiae.

Vratislaviae, 1887.

De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu.

Halis Saxonum, 1881.

Quaestiones Quintilianeae.

Posnaniae, 1874.

De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis.

Glaronae, 1885.
Peters, Dr. Heinrich:

Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians Institutio Oratoria.

Cassel, 1889.

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

Halm. Meister. This Edition.
Chap. I.
§ 1




§ 2

quae quoque sint modo

quo quaeque sint modo

quae quoque sint modo.


nisi tamquam

nisi tamquam

nisi tamen.

§ 3

ante omnia est

ante omnia necesse est

ante omnia est.


imitatio est

imitatio est


§ 4

procedente opere iam minima

procedente iam opere etiam minima

procedente iam opere minima.

§ 5

Num ergo

Non ergo

Non ergo.

§ 7

[et] ... scio solitos

et ... solitos scio

et ... solitos scio.


aliud quod

aliud quo

aliud quo.

§ 8




§ 11

τροπικῶς [quare tamen]

τροπικῶς quasi tamen

as Meister.

§ 16

imagine [ambitu]

[imagine] ambitu

imagine et ambitu.

§ 17




§ 18

placent ... laudantur ... placent

placeant ... laudentur ... placent

as Halm.

§ 19


e contrario

e contrario.


ut actionis impetus

as Halm

actionis impetu.





§ 23

quin etiam si

[quin] etiam si

as Halm.

lxxviii § 28 genus * * ostentationi poeticam ostentationi as Meister.
§ 31

etenim ... solutum est

est enim ... solutum

as Meister.

§ 33


adde quod

adde quod.

§ 35

acriter et

acriter Stoici et

as Meister.

§ 37

qui sint legendi, quaeque

qui sint legendi, et quae

qui sint legendi, quae.

§ 38

quibuscum vivebat

as Halm

[quibuscum vivebat].


Graecos omnis [et philosophos]

Graecos omnes persequamur [et philosophos]

as Meister.

§ 42

ad phrasin

ad faciendam etiam phrasin

ad faciendam φράσιν.


de singulis

de singulis loquar

de singulis loquar.

§ 44

tenuia et quae

tenuia et quae

tenuia atque quae.


summatim, a qua

summatim, quid et a qua

as Meister.


paucos enim (sunt autem em.)

paucos (sunt enim em.)

paucos enim, qui sunt em.

§ 45

his simillimi

his similes

his simillimi.

§ 46

omnium amnium fontiumque

amnium fontiumque

omnium fluminum fontiumque.

§ 48

non in utriusque

non utriusque

non utriusque.



creditum est

creditum est.

§ 53

aliud parem

aliud secundum

aliud secundum.

§ 54

Aristophanes neminem

Arist. poetarum iudices neminem

as Meister.

§ 59

dum adsequamur

dum adsequamur

dum adsequimur.

§ 61

spiritus magnificentia

spiritus magnificentia

spiritu magnificentia.

§ 63

magnificus et dicendi vi

magnificus et diligens

magnificus et diligens.

§ 68

quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt

quod ipsum reprehendunt

as Meister.

§ 69

praecipuus est. Admiratus

praecipuus. eum admiratus

praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.

§ 70

illa mala iudicia

as Halm

illa iudicia.

§ 72




§ 79

honesti studiosus, in compositione

honesti studiosus in compositione

as Halm.

§ 80

is primus

is primum

is primum.

§ 81

orationem quam

orationem quam

orationem et quam.


sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus

sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus

sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.

§ 83

eloquendi vi ac suavitate

eloquendi suavitate

eloquendi suavitate.

§ 85

haud dubie ei proximus

as Halm

haud dubie proximus.

§ 87




§ 88


propriores (?)


§ 89

tamen [ut est dictum]

tamen ut est dictum

as Meister.

§ 90

sed ut dicam

et ut dicam

et ut dicam.

§ 91




§ 92




§ 93




§ 94

nisi labor

non labor

non labor.


multum eo est tersior

as Halm

multum est tersior.

lxxix § 96

opus * * quibusdam interpositus

opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus

as Meister.

§ 97




§ 100



linguae suae.

§ 101





T. Livium

T. Livium

Titum Livium.

§ 102

ideoque illam immortalem

ideoque immortalem

ideoque immortalem.


clari vir ingenii

clari vir ingenii

clarus vi ingenii.

§ 103

praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor

praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor

praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor.

§ 104

et ornat

et ornat

et exornat.

§ 106

omnia denique

omnia denique

[omnia] denique.





§ 107





in quibus nihil

quibus nibil

quibus nihil.

§ 111

nihil umquam pulchrius

nihil pulchrius

nihil pulchrius.

§ 115

si quid adiecturus fuit

as Halm

si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.

§ 117

et fervor, sed

et sermo purus, sed

et fervor, sed.

§ 123




§ 126

ab eo

ab eo

ab illo.

§ 127

ac saltem

aut saltem

ac saltem.

§ 130

si ille quaedam contempsisset

si aliqua contempsisset

si obliqua contempsisset.


si parum * *

si parum sana

si parum recta.

§ 131

potest utcumque

potest utrimque

potest utrimque.

Ch. II.
§ 6




§ 8

nulla est ars

nulla mansit ars

nulla mansit ars.

§ 13

[et] cum

cum et

cum et.


accommodata est

accommodata sit

accommodata sit.

§ 15

et a doctis inter ipsos etiam

as Halm.

et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.


ut ita dixerim

ut ita dixerim

ut sic dixerim.

§ 17

Attici scilicet

Atticis scilicet

Attici sunt scilicet.



obscuri sunt


§ 22

cuique proposita

as Halm

cuique proposito.

§ 28








Ch. III.
§ 2

alte effossa

alte refossa

alte refossa.


et fundit

et fundit


§ 10

[ut provideamus] et efferentis.

ut provideamus et eff.

ut provideamus, effer.

§ 15

plura celerius

plura celerius

plura et celerius.

§ 20

in legendo

in intellegendo

in intellegendo.

§ 21

femur et latus

as Halm.

frontem et latus.

lxxx § 22

secretum quod dictando

as Halm

secretum in dictando.

§ 25

velut * rectos

velut tectos

velut tectos.

§ 32




Ch. IV.
§ 3

finem habeat

finem habet

finem habet.

Ch. V.
§ 4

praesumunt eandem

praes. eandem

praes. eadem.

§ 17

inanibus se simulacris ... adsuefacere

inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere

as Meister.

§ 18

etiam M. Porcio

etiam Porcio

etiam M. Porcio.

§ 21

autem is idoneus

autem idoneus.

autem idoneus.

Ch. VI.
§ 2

inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur

inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur

as Meister.

§ 5




§ 7





si utcumque

si utrimque

si utrimque.

Ch. VII.
§ 1

instar portus

intrare portum

intrare portum.

§ 2

statimque, si non succurratur

statimque, si non succurratur

statimque si non succuratur.

§ 5

quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps

as Halm

quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.

§ 6

via dicet, ducetur

via ducetur, dicet

via dicet, ducetur.

§ 9

observatione simul

observatione una

observatione una.

§ 13

superfluere video: quodsi

videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si

superfluere video, cum eo quod si.

§ 14

ut Cicero dictitabant

ut Cicero ait, dictitabant

ut Cicero dictitabant.

§ 17

adeo praemium

adeo pretium

adeo pretium.

§ 20

tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut

tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut

tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.


non capitur

non capitur

non labitur.

§ 24

quam omnino non

quam non omnino

quam non omnino.

§ 26

est et illa

est et illa

est alia.

§ 26

quam illa

quam in illa

quam illa.

§ 29

nescio an utrumque

nescio an si utrumque

as Meister.


id efficere

id efficere

sic dicere.


in his

in his

et in his.

§ 32

quod simus

quod non simus

quod non simus.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. iv. pr. 2 Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae nepotum delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum caelestium intellegam, nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar.

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

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

15. The expression used in vi. pr. §4, meo casu cui tamen nihil obici nisi quod vivam potest, shows that Quintilian was quite conscious of his comfortable circumstances.—Halm (followed by Meister) reads quam quod vivam: but I find nisi in both the Bamberg (G) and the Harleian codices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Dr. Reid in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

24. i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.

25. i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.

26. Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris antiqui?—ch. 28.

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

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

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

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

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

32. Dr. Reid in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

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

34. Ep. xvi. 5, 6 de compositione non constat: Ep. xix. 5, 13 oratio certam regulam non habet.

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

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

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

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

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

40. Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.

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

42. “In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In §27 he mentions Theophrastus by name; in §52, speaking of Hesiod, he says datur ei palma, &c.; in §53 the second place is given to Antimachus by the consent of the grammatici; Panyasis is thought (putant) in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, Callimachus (58) princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit. In 59 only three iambographi are mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The novem lyrici were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are the Pindarus novemque lyrici (for this need not be taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof. Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.

43. Quod tempus (i.e. paulo plus quam biennium) non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles datum est: Epist. ad Tryphonem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

50. Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 Aristophanis propria fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli p. 1085 (C.I.Gr. 6083): cuius iudicii Kaibelius p. 490 in Quintiliano x. 1, 69 vestigia recte observavit.

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

52. See especially fr. xi. qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt: and cp. note on 1 §57.

53. Cp. the note on qui parcissime x. 4, 4.

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

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

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

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

58. Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice Coisliniano n. 387 olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit bibl. Coislin. p. 597, ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni recentiore Cramerus anecd. Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener, p. 129.

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

60. Havell’s translation, p. 27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68. For this section I am especially indebted to a Dissertatio by Adamus Marty: De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis. Also the Prolegomena in Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’s Remarques sur la Langue de Quintilien.

69. Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in -tor and 44 (46) in -trix. Of these 73 in -tor and 4 in -trix are also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28 in -tor and 8 in -trix which do not occur in Cicero. These are—adfectator, admirator, adsertor, agnitor, altercator, auxiliator, constitutor, consultor, contemptor, cunctator, delator, derisor, exactor, formator, iactator, insectator, latrator, legum lator, luctator, plosor, professor(?), raptor, repertor, rixator, signator, stuprator, ventilator, versificator, cavillatrix, disputatrix, elocutrix, enuntiatrix, exercitatrix, hortatrix, iudicatrix, (litteratrix), sermocinatrix.

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

71. Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5 Gallum Cornelium), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5, 83 Scaevola Quintus: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 Libo Marcius). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius Paterculus.

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

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

74. The Pratensis is the oldest authority for the reading tam laesae hercule at i. 2, 4: the Puteanus and Ioannensis agree. Again all three omit the words de litteris at i. 4, 6, and show praecoquum for praecox at i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and 7760), and haec igitur ex verbis at i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).

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

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

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

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

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

80. Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19 digerantur (G H dirigantur, L dirigerantur): §27 blandicia, so Burn. 243 (G libertate, H L blandita tum): §55 sed (G H et, om. L): §65 tamen quem (G H tamen quae: M tamquam): §66 correctas (G H rectas, M correptas): §67 uter (G H M T uterque): §68 reprehendunt (G H M reprehendit,—et H ?): §69 testatur (as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G M praestatur (as Burn. 243, Bodl.): §76 in eo tam (G inectam, M in hoc tam).

81. See note on the following page.

82. Since the above was written the readings of the Vallensis have been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Easter, 1891). With the exception of Harl. 4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that the Vallensis and Harl. 4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in the Vallensis. Those not adopted in Harl. 4995 were made, in all probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23 utile erit (Vall.2) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also has audatiora 5 §4: nobis ac and uno genere ib. §7: virtutum ib. §17: recidere ib. §22: diligenter effecta, (without una enim) ib. §23: iniicere 7 §29. In all these places there are corrections by a later hand in the Vallensis. But in the following passages, among others, the copyist of Harl. 4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in the Vallensis: 1 §9 quae cultiore in parte: §19 iteratione: §31 molli: §38 exequar: §107 qui duo plurimum affectus valent: §117 et vis summa: §125 tum: 2 §15 dicunt: §17 quam libet: 3 §2 et fundit: §6 scriptorum: §17 contextis quae fudit levitas: §21 simul vertere latus: §31 crebra relatione: 5 §12 de reo: §25 utilior. A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer of Harl. 4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in the Vallensis. Was he J. Badius?




How to acquire a command of Diction.

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

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

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

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

§§ 27-30. The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greater 2 elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever strive for the mastery.

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

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

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

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


§§ 46-72. Greek Poetry.

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

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

§§ 65-72. Dramatic poetry.

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

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

§§ 73-75. Greek Historians.

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

§§ 76-80. Greek Orators.

Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either too 3 much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy of the name of orator.

§§ 81-84. Greek Philosophers.

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


§§ 85-100. Roman Poetry.

§§ 85-92. Epic Poets.

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

§§ 93-96. Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry.

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

§§ 97-100. Dramatic Poetry.

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thought 4 and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s Thyestes may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s Medea shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of togatae, but his is not a pure art.

§§ 101-104. Roman Historians.

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

§§ 105-122. Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar ‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and Africanus rank highest: the 5 former might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.

§§ 123-131. Roman Philosophers.

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

Of Imitation.

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

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

§§ 14-18. Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great circumspection must be used,—first in the choice of models, and, secondly, in determining 6 the good points we would seek to reproduce; for even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian, delighted if they can finish off a sentence with Esse videatur.

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

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

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

How to Write.

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

§§ 5-18. As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate and slow, with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and the arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well, and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly in any given circumstances. The 7 evil results of hasty composition can seldom be undone even by much verbal correction. Your work should be done with so much care from the first that it may need only to be filed and chiselled, not recast.

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

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

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

Of Revision.

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

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

What to Write.

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

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

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

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

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

Of Meditation.

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

§§ 5-7. But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has thought out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the actual delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one hand, from ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us from improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence. If we are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation. 9 While we are at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others suggested by the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than can possibly be covered by previous meditation.

Of Extempore Speech.

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

Certain Practical Exercises
conducive to Success in Extempore Speech.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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






How to acquire a command of Diction.

De copia verborum.

I:1 I. Sed haec eloquendi praecepta, sicut cognitioni sunt necessaria, ita non satis ad vim dicendi valent, nisi illis firma 12 quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur; accesserit; ad quam scribendo plus an legendo an dicendo conferatur, solere quaeri scio. Quod esset diligentius nobis examinandum, si qualibet earum rerum possemus una esse contenti:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:2 verum ita sunt inter se conexa et indiscreta omnia ut, si quid ex his defuerit, frustra sit in ceteris laboratum. Nam neque solida atque robusta fuerit umquam eloquentia nisi multo stilo vires acceperit, et citra lectionis exemplum labor ille carens rectore fluitabit; et qui sciet quae quoque sint modo dicenda, 13 nisi tamen in procinctu paratamque ad omnes casus habuerit eloquentiam, velut clausis thesauris incubabit.

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

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

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

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

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

labor ille, sc. scribendi.

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

quae quoque sint modo. This is the 13 reading of the oldest MSS. (see Crit. Notes), and was adopted by Halm: cp. §8 quod quoque loco sit aptissimum: 7 §5 quid quoque loco primum sit, and §6 quid quoque loco quaerant. So iv. 2, 33 quid quoque loco prosit. Quae covers inventio: while quoque modo may be taken of the exhaustive discussion of the various departments of elocutio which has just been concluded.—Meister has returned to Spalding’s quo quaeque sint modo, probably from a doubt whether Halm (followed by Mayor) is right in explaining quae quoque as = quae et quomodo, ‘what is to be said and how’; ‘copulae enim que in coniunctione talium membrorum relativorum inter se discretorum non aptus est locus,’ Osann, i. p. 14. But quoque may very well be the abl. of quisque, though Cicero seems to avoid such a collocation, unless there is a prep. to make the construction clear: e.g. pro Sulla §73 quae ex quoque ordine multitudo: pro Domo §33 qui de quaque re constituti iudices sint: HarResp. §24 quae de quoque deo ... tradita sunt. Cp. in Cat. iii. §10 tabellas quae a quoque dicebantur datae. Even in the exactly parallel passage Sall. Cat. 23, 4 quae quoque modo audierat ... narravit (where Mommsen suggests quoquo), it is possible to understand quoque of the various methods Fulvia had employed to get information from Curius. So quid ubique, ib. 21, 1.

tamen: see Crit. Notes.

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

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

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

I:3 Non autem 14 ut quidquid praecipue necessarium est, sic ad efficiendum oratorem maximi protinus erit momenti. Nam certe, cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium, dicere ante omnia est, atque hinc initium eius artis fuisse manifestum est: proximum deinde imitatio, novissimum scribendi quoque diligentia.

§ 3. The argument here requires elucidation. Quint. has said (§§12) that for the firma facilitas or ἕξις which must be superadded to theory, writing, reading and speaking are all essential. He now goes on to state that it does not follow that what is theoretically most indispensable (cp. cognitioni necessaria §1 above) is for the practical training of the orator of greatest consequence. The most essential element is of course that of speech (dicere)—followed by imitation and writing. But perfection of speech can only be attained, like other forms of perfection, by starting from first beginnings (principia), which become relatively unimportant (minima) as things progress. This is not however the place for dealing with the methods of preliminary training in rhetoric: our student has done his theory, and we must now show him how to apply it to practice. Cp. Analysis, p. 1.


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

ad efficiendum oratorem: i. 10, 2.

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

nam certe. This leads up to the next sentence, beginning sed ut.

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

ante omnia est. Becher vindicates the traditional reading by comparing ii. 15, 12 atqui non multum ab hoc fine abest Apollodorus dicens iudicialis orationis primum et super omnia esse persuadere iudici et sententiam eius ducere in id quod velit. So too iii. 8, 56 an pro Caesare fuerit occidi Pompeium?—See Crit. Notes. For ante omnia cp. Introd. p. lii.

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

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

I:4 Sed ut perveniri ad summa nisi ex principiis non potest, ita procedente iam opere minima incipiunt esse quae prima sunt. Verum nos non quo modo sit instituendus orator hoc loco dicimus, 15 (nam id quidem aut satis aut certe uti potuimus dictum est), sed athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, quo genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus sit. Igitur eum qui res invenire et disponere sciet, verba quoque et eligendi et collocandi rationem perceperit, instruamus qua ratione quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.

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

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

minima in importance: prima in point of time. Krüger says that dicere alone is meant, being the initium artis above; but it seems better to understand Quint. to be indicating here that the order of importance does not correspond with the order of development as stated above, viz. (1) the faculty of speech, (2) reading (included under imitatio) and (3) writing. These are to be taken first as the subsidiary beginnings (principia) from which we attain to the ultimate object: but as things progress they will become relatively unimportant (minima), and their 15 place will be taken by systematic training in speaking or declamation, an exercise which is always essential to success and can therefore never be left off (7 §24).

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

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

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

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

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

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

eligendi §6: cp. dilectus 3 §5.

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

qua ratione. The recurrence of ratione so soon after rationem need create no difficulty in Quintilian: for similar instances of negligence see on 2 §23. For 16 Kiderlin’s treatment of the whole passage, see Crit. Notes.

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


I:5 Non ergo dubium est quin ei velut opes sint quaedam parandae, quibus uti, ubicumque desideratum erit, possit: eae constant copia rerum ac verborum.

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

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

I:6 Sed res propriae sunt cuiusque causae aut paucis communes, verba in universas paranda; quae si rebus singulis essent singula, minorem curam postularent, nam cuncta sese cum ipsis protinus rebus offerrent. Sed cum sint aliis alia aut magis propria aut magis ornata aut plus efficientia 17 aut melius sonantia, debent esse non solum nota omnia, sed in promptu atque, ut ita dicam, in conspectu, ut, cum se iudicio dicentis ostenderint, facilis ex his optimorum sit electio.

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

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

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

propria. The general meaning under which all uses of proprius and its cognates may be included is that in which it contrasts with all departures from and innovations on ordinary language. Sometimes it may mean nothing more than ‘suitable,’ ‘appropriate,’ in which sense proprie occurs immediately below, in §9: cp. opportune proprieque 2 §13, and proprie et copiose (dicere) i. 4, 5. This is the meaning with which it is applied to the language of Simonides §64 below,—‘natural’; cp. Cic. de Orat. i. §154, where verba propria occurs alongside of ornatissima and corresponds with idonea, introduced shortly afterwards: cp. id. iii. §31, where propria is reinforced by apta, and ib. §49 proprie demonstrantibus (verbis) ea quae significari ac declarari volemus. The use of proprietas in §46 and §121 below may be compared with this: cp. also the first of the meanings assigned to the word in the important passage viii. 2, 1-11: also ix. 2, 18 and xii. 2, 19. The translators here render by ‘suitable’ or ‘significant,’ but the juxtaposition of ornata seems rather to point to the use in which verba propria are the antithesis of translata,—direct, literal, and natural, as opposed to figurative: i. 5, 71 propria sunt verba cum id significant in quod primo denominata sunt: translata, cum alium natura intellectum, alium loco praebent. Cp. i. 5, 3: viii. 3, 24: 6, 5, and 48 (where propria ... ornata in the passage above may well be illustrated by the words species ex arcessitis verbis venit et intellectus ex propriis): ix. 1, 4. This is undoubtedly the meaning in which proprius is used in §29 below: also in 5 §8 alia translatis virtus alia propriis. The nearest equivalent in Greek would be οἰκεῖα ὀνόματα, rather than κύρια ὀνόματα, which correspond to ‘usitata verba’ in Quint, (i. 5, 71, and v. 14, 33 verbis quam maxime propriis et ex usu),—though he may have had in mind here, as Mayor suggests, ἔστι γὰρ ἄλλο ἄλλου κυριώτερον, Arist. Rhet. iii. 2, p. 1405 b, 11. (For the distinction between ὄνομα οἰκεῖον and ὄνομα κύριον see Cope on Ar. Rhet. iii. 2 17 §§2 and 6, and Introd. p. 282 note). Many parallels might be cited from Cicero: e.g. de Or. iii. §149 (verbis eis) quae propria sunt et certa quasi vocabula rerum, paene una nata cum rebus ipsis: cp. ib. §150: Brutus §274: Or. §80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:7 Et quae idem significarent solitos scio ediscere, quo facilius et 18 occurreret unum ex pluribus, et, cum essent usi aliquo, si breve intra spatium rursus desideraretur, effugiendae repetitionis gratia sumerent aliud quo idem intellegi posset. Quod cum est puerile et cuiusdam infelicis operae, tum etiam utile parum: turbam tantum modo congregat, ex qua sine discrimine occupet proximum quodque.

§ 7. quae idem significarent: ‘synonyms.’ Cp. i. 5, 4 (quoted above on melius sonantia): viii. 3, 16.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

quod quoque. See Crit. Notes.

I:9 Omnibus enim fere verbis praeter pauca, quae sunt parum verecunda, in oratione locus est. Nam scriptores quidem iamborum veterisque comoediae etiam in illis saepe laudantur, sed nobis nostrum opus intueri sat est. Omnia verba, exceptis de quibus dixi, sunt alicubi optima; nam et humilibus interim et vulgaribus est opus, et quae nitidiore in parte videntur 20 sordida, ubi res poscit, proprie dicuntur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nitidiore ... sordida. There is the same antithesis at viii. 3. 49. Cp. Cic. Brut. §238 non valde nitens non plane horrida oratio. See note on §79: and cp. §§33, 44, 83, 97, 98, 113, 124. Sulp. Vict. inst. or. 15 in Halm rhet. lat. p. 321, 3 adhibendus est nitor ... ut scilicet verba non sordida et vulgaria et de trivio, quod dicitur, sumpta sint, sed electa de libris et hausta de liquido fonte doctrinae.— 20 For sordida cp. Sen. Ep. 100 (of Fabianus) nihil invenies sordidum ... verba ... splendida ... quamvis sumantur e medio. Quint. ii. 5, 10: viii. 2, 1.

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

I:10 Haec ut sciamus atque eorum non significationem modo, sed formas etiam mensurasque norimus, ut ubicumque erunt posita conveniant, nisi multa lectione atque auditione adsequi nullo modo possumus, cum omnem sermonem auribus primum accipiamus. Propter quod infantes a mutis nutricibus iussu regum in solitudine educati, etiamsi verba quaedam emisisse traduntur, tamen loquendi facultate caruerunt.

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

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

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

ut ubicumque. For ut (L) most MSS. (G H S) give et. Krüger records a conj. by Rowecki, who proposes to read utque, so as to make both ut sciamus and ut conveniant depend upon adsequi. But this seems unnecessary.

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

propter quod ( = δι᾽ ὅ), often in Quint. where Cicero would have used quam ob rem. Cp. §66: 5 §23: 7 §6: propter quae (= δι᾽ ἅ) §61: 3 §30: ii. 13, 14: xii. 1, 39. At §28 and 3 §6 we have praeter id quod for praeterquam quod.

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

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

caruerunt is obviously the right reading, not caruerint (Hild), which would 21 introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the narrative: caruerunt propter(ea) quod sermonem auribus non acceperunt. Even though Quint. may have been sceptical about the story its ‘moral’ agreed entirely with his own conclusions.—Note etiamsi ... traduntur, etiamsi ... sint §11 below.

I:11 Sunt autem alia huius naturae, ut idem 21 pluribus vocibus declarent, ita ut nihil significationis, quo potius utaris, intersit, ut ‘ensis’ et ‘gladius’; alia vero, etiamsi propria rerum aliquarum sint nomina, τροπικῶς quasi tamen ad eundem intellectum feruntur, ut ‘ferrum’ et ‘mucro’.

§ 11. alia, sc. verba. See Crit. Notes.

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

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

quo, sc. verbo.

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

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

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

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

I:12 Nam per abusionem 22 sicarios etiam omnes vocamus qui caedem telo quocumque commiserunt. Alia circuitu verborum plurium ostendimus, quale est ‘et pressi copia lactis.’ Plurima vero mutatione figuramus: scio ‘non ignoro’ et ‘non me fugit’ et ‘non me praeterit’ et ‘quis nescit?’ et ‘nemini dubium est’.

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

per abusionem: by the figure called ‘catachresis,’—the use of a word of kindred signification for the proper word: Corn. ad Herenn. 10 §45 abusio est quae verbo simili et propinquo pro certo et proprio abutitur. Cp. viii. 2, 5 abusio, quae κατάχρησις dicitur, necessaria: ib. 6 §34 κατάχρησις, quam recte dicimus abusionem, quae non habentibus nomen suum accommodat, quod in proximo est, sic: equum divina Palladis arte Aedificant: iii. 3, 9: ix. 2, 35. Cic. de Orat. iii. §169: Or. §94. Quint. states the difference between abusio and translatio viii. 6 §35: discernendumque est ab hoc totum translationis genus, quod abusio est ubi nomen deficit, translatio ubi aliud fuit: i.e. abusio is used when a thing has not a name, and the name of something similar is given to it, translatio when one name is used instead of another. Mayor cites Serv. Georg. iii. 22 533 donaria proprie loca sunt in quibus dona reponuntur deorum, abusive templa. Cp. Quint. viii. 6, 35 poetae solent abusive etiam in his rebus quibus nomina sua sunt vicinis potius uti.

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

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

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

ostendimus = declaramus, significamus, as §14.

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

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

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

I:13 Sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet. Nam et ‘intellego’ et ‘sentio’ et ‘video’ saepe idem valent quod ‘scio’. Quorum nobis ubertatem 23 ac divitias dabit lectio, ut non solum quo modo occurrent, sed etiam quo modo oportet utamur.

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

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

ubertatem ac divitias: hendiadys, ‘a rich store.’ For the use of two synonymous nouns in Latin instead of a noun and an adjective, see Nägelsbach, §73 pp. 280-281. Exx. are Cic. de Or. i. §300 absolutionem perfectionemque ( = summa 23 perfectio, which never occurs): de Off. ii. 5, 16 conspiratione hominum atque consensu. For this metaphorical use of divitiae cp. de Orat. i. §161 in oratione Crassi divitias atque ornamenta eius ingenii per quaedam involucra atque integumenta perspexi.

occurrent: §7 and frequently elsewhere in this sense.

I:14 Non semper enim haec inter se idem faciunt, nec sicut de intellectu animi recte dixerim ‘video’, ita de visu oculorum ‘intellego’, nec ut ‘mucro’ gladium, sic mucronem ‘gladius’ ostendit.

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

intellego: repeat recte dixerim. For the ellipse Herbst compares v. 11, 26: viii. 6, 20: xii. 11, 27.

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

ostendit = indicat, significat. Cp. §12.

I:15 Sed ut copia verborum sic paratur, ita non verborum tantum gratia legendum vel audiendum est. Nam omnium, quaecumque docemus, hoc sunt exempla potentiora etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus (cum eo qui discit perductus est, ut intellegere ea sine demonstrante et sequi iam suis viribus possit), quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit.


§ 15. ut ... ita: v. on sicut ... ita §1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ostendit ‘gives a practical demonstration of.’ We are not merely to learn the rules (artes) from the doctor, but to observe 24 how they are applied by the best writers and speakers.

I:16 Alia vero audientes, alia legentes magis adiuvant. Excitat qui dicit spiritu ipso, nec imagine et ambitu rerum, sed rebus incendit. Vivunt omnia enim et moventur, excipimusque nova illa velut nascentia cum favore ac sollicitudine. Nec fortuna modo iudicii, sed etiam ipsorum qui orant periculo adficimur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:17 Praeter haec vox, actio decora, accommodata, ut quisque locus 25 postulabit, pronuntiandi (vel potentissima in dicendo) ratio et, ut semel dicam, pariter omnia docent. In lectione certius iudicium, quod audienti frequenter aut suus cuique favor aut ille laudantium clamor extorquet.

§ 17. vox, actio ... pronuntiandi ratio. Here actio takes the place of gestus in 7 §9, with the same meaning (the management of the person in speaking): adhibita vocis pronuntiationis gestus observatione. In a wider sense (§19) it is used of ‘delivery’ generally (ὑπόκρισις), occurring more commonly in this sense in previous writers than pronuntiatio, which Quintilian 25 gives as an alternative term in iii. 3, 1: cp. xi. 3, 1 pronuntiatio a plerisque actio dicitur, sed prius nomen a voce, sequens a gestu videtur accipere. Namque actionem Cicero alias (de Or. iii. §222) quasi sermonem, alias (Or. §55) eloquentiam quandam corporis dicit. Idem tamen duas eius partes facit quae sunt eaedem pronuntiationis, vocem atque motum: quapropter utraque appellatione indifferenter uti licet. In xi. 3, 14 he goes on to divide actio into vox and gestus: cp. Dion. Hal. de Dem. 53, where ὑπόκρισις is divided into τὰ πάθη τὰ τῆς φωνῆς and τὰ σχήματα τοῦ σώματος: Cic. Brut. §§141, 239.—Pronuntiandi ... ratio. As voice and gesture (together making up actio or pronuntiatio in the wide sense) have now been mentioned, it is tempting to take this third item in the narrower meaning of ‘articulation,’ in which it occurs 7 §22 tardior pronuntiatio: cp. dilucida pronuntiatio xi. 3, 33: citata ... pressa ib. §111. But the prominence given to it (see on vel potentissima below) seems to make it necessary to understand pronunt. ratio in the widest sense of pronuntiatio (as probably §119), including voice, gesture, and other kindred elements; cp. ad Herenn. §3 pronuntiatio est vocis vultus gestus moderatio cum venustate: Cic. de Inv. §7 pronuntiatio est vocis et corporis moderatio. For accommodata ut see Crit. Notes.

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

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

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

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

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

extorquet: iv. 5, 6 cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre. For the figure Mayor cps. de Orat. ii. §74 numquam 26 sententias de manibus iudicum vi quadam orationis extorsimus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:19 Sed e contrario quoque accidit ut optime dictis gratiam prava iudicia non referant. Lectio libera 27 est nec actionis impetu transcurrit, sed repetere saepius licet, sive dubites sive memoriae penitus adfigere velis. Repetamus autem et tractemus et, ut cibos mansos ac prope liquefactos demittimus, quo facilius digerantur, ita lectio non cruda, sed multa iteratione mollita et velut confecta memoriae imitationique tradatur.

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


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

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

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

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

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

lectio = ‘what we read.’

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

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

I:20 Ac diu non nisi optimus quisque et qui credentem sibi minime fallat legendus est, sed diligenter ac paene ad scribendi sollicitudinem, nec per partes modo scrutanda omnia, sed perlectus 28 liber utique ex integro resumendus, praecipueque oratio, cuius virtutes frequenter ex industria quoque occultantur.

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

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

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

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


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

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

praecipue for praesertim: cp. §89: and with cum ix. 2, 85: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 261.

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

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

I:21 Saepe enim praeparat, dissimulat, insidiatur orator, eaque in prima parte actionis dicit quae sunt in summa profutura. Itaque suo loco minus placent, adhuc nobis quare dicta sint ignorantibus; ideoque erunt cognitis omnibus repetenda.

§ 21. saepe enim: cp. xii. 9, 4.

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

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

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

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

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

repetenda as §19.

I:22 Illud vero utilissimum, nosse eas causas quarum orationes in manus sumpserimus, et, quotiens continget, utrimque habitas legere actiones: ut Demosthenis et Aeschinis inter se contrarias, et Servi Sulpici atque Messallae, quorum alter pro Aufidia, contra dixit alter, et Pollionis et Cassi reo Asprenate aliasque plurimas.

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

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

utrimque, §131: 5 §20.

Demosthenis et Aeschinis. The reference is to the De Corona of Demosthenes and Aeschines Contra Ctesiphontem,—both translated by Cicero (Opt. Gen. Or. §14): also to the De Falsa Legatione and Aeschines Contra Timarchum.

Servi Sulpici: see on §116.

Messallae: see on §113.

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

Pollionis: see on §113.

Cassi: see on §116.

reo Asprenate. C. Nonius Asprenas, a friend of Augustus, was prosecuted by Cassius for poisoning, and was defended by Pollio, Suet. Aug. 56. In xi. 1, 57 Quint. urges that an accuser should always 29 appear reluctant to press the charge, and adds ‘ideoque mihi illud Cassi Severi non mediocriter displicet: di boni, vivo, et, quo me vivere iuvet, Asprenatem reum video.’ Pliny (N. H. 35, 46) tells us that 130 guests were poisoned.

I:23 Quin 29 etiam si minus pares videbuntur aliquae, tamen ad cognoscendam litium quaestionem recte requirentur, ut contra Ciceronis orationes Tuberonis in Ligarium et Hortensi pro Verre. Quin etiam easdem causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire. Nam de domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius et pro Milone orationem Brutus exercitationis gratia scripsit, etiamsi egisse eum Cornelius Celsus falso existimat, et Pollio et Messalla defenderunt eosdem, et nobis pueris insignes pro Voluseno Catulo Domiti Afri, Crispi Passieni, Decimi Laeli orationes ferebantur.

§ 23. quin etiam: see Crit. Notes.

minus pares, i.e. in point of rhetorical worth. For si ... aliquae cp. 2 §23: 6 §5.

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

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

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

utile erit scire: see Crit. Notes.

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

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

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

egisse: to have actually delivered it: opposed to scripsit.

Cornelius Celsus: see on §124.

et Pollio et Messalla. The first et is not correlative to the second, but adds to the et pro Milone clause a third example, as the et before nobis pueris does a fourth. Spalding thought that et ... et was here = tam ... quam.

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

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

Voluseno Catulo: not mentioned elsewhere.

Domiti Afri: see on §§86, 118. Of 30 his orations, those on behalf of Volusenus and Cloatilla seem to have been the most celebrated: cp. viii. 5, 16: ix. 2, 20: 3, 66. For his work on Testimony, see v. 7, 7: and for his ‘libri urbane dictorum’ vi. 3, 42.

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

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

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


I:24 Neque id statim legenti persuasum sit, omnia quae optimi auctores dixerint utique esse perfecta. Nam et labuntur aliquando et oneri cedunt et indulgent ingeniorum suorum voluptati, nec semper intendunt animum; nonnumquam fatigantur, cum Ciceroni dormitare interim Demosthenes, Horatio vero 31 etiam Homerus ipse videatur.

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

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

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

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

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

oneri cedunt: contrast §123 suffecit ponderi rerum.

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

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

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

interim: see on §9. Quint. here uses aliquando, nec semper, nonnumquam, and interim alongside of each other: cp. iv. 5, 20.

Horatio: A. P. 359 et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Homer was not above the criticism of the Greek grammarians and philosophers, who delighted to discover faults and inconsistencies 31 in his poems: hence Zoilus was known as Ὁμηρομάστιξ. The fragments of Horace’s predecessor Lucilius also contain some criticisms of Homer: e.g. Sat. ix. 12 (Gerlach) Quapropter dico nemo qui culpat Homerum Perpetuo culpat, &c., and xv. where he satirizes the story of Polyphemus.

etiam ... ipse: see on §15.

I:25 Summi enim sunt, homines tamen, acciditque his qui, quidquid apud illos reppererunt, dicendi legem putant, ut deteriora imitentur (id enim est facilius) ac se abunde similes putent si vitia magnorum consequantur.

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

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

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

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

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

I:26 Modesto tamen et circumspecto iudicio de tantis viris pronuntiandum est, ne, quod plerisque accidit, damnent quae non intellegunt. Ac si necesse est in alteram errare partem, omnia eorum legentibus placere quam multa displicere maluerim.

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

plerisque: see Introd. p. xlvi.

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

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

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

maluerim: see on fuerit §37.

I:27 Plurimum dicit oratori conferre Theophrastus lectionem poetarum multique eius iudicium sequuntur, neque immerito. Namque ab his in rebus spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in 32 adfectibus motus omnis et in personis decor petitur, praecipueque velut attrita cotidiano actu forensi ingenia optime rerum talium blanditia reparantur; ideoque in hac lectione Cicero requiescendum putat.

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

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

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

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

rebus. See on §4.

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

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

in adfectibus motus omnis. Poetry 32 shows how to appeal to every feeling of our emotional nature. For adfectus see vi. 2, 7, where the two divisions are given, πάθος and ἦθος. Cp. §§48, 53, 55, 68, 107: 2 §27: 7 §§14, 15.

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

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

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

I:28 Meminerimus tamen non per omnia poetas esse oratori sequendos nec libertate verborum nec licentia figurarum: poeticam ostentationi comparatam et praeter id quod solam petit voluptatem, eamque etiam fingendo non falsa modo sed etiam quaedam incredibilia sectatur, patrocinio quoque aliquo iuvari,

§ 28. non per omnia, &c. 2 §§21-22.

libertate verborum, §29: 5 §4.

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

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

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

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

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

I:29 quod adligata ad certam pedum necessitatem 33 non semper uti propriis possit, sed depulsa recta via necessario ad eloquendi quaedam deverticula confugiat, nec mutare quaedam modo verba, sed extendere, conripere, convertere, dividere cogatur: nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti.

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


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

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

mutare includes all changes in the use of words, and covers both libertas verborum and licentia figurarum: e.g. ‘mucro’ for ‘gladius.’

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

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

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

I:30 Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus.


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

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

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

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

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

quo, sc. fulgore.

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

auri argentique ... periculosus. The practical speaker would only prejudice 34 his case by the use of ornament which, as in poetry, makes ostentatio and voluptas (§28) its chief object. The commentators cite Livy ix. 17, 16 of Darius: inter purpuram atque aurum, oneratum fortunae apparatibus suae, praedam verius quam hostem ... incruentus devicit (sc. Alexander): ib. 40 §4 militem ... non caelatum auro et argento sed ferro et animis fretum: so Livy x. 39 per ... aurata scuta transire Romanum pilum: cp. Aesch. Septem c. Th. 397. Curt. iii. 10 §§9, 10 aciem hostium auro purpuraque fulgentem intueri iubebat, praedam non arma gestantem, irent et imbellibus feminis aurum viri eriperent.

potius is used pretty much as saepius (‘oftener than not’) below §32. Krüger takes it closely with habenti (sc. quam adversario). This is better than Hild’s quam utilis.

I:31 Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco potest; verum et ipsa sic est legenda ut sciamus plerasque eius virtutes oratori esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et 35 quodam modo carmen solutum, et scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur; ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris narrandi taedium evitat.

§ 31. Historia §§73-75: §§101-104; ii. 4, 2 apud rhetorem initium sit historia, tanto robustior quanto verior: ib. 5 §1: 8 §7: iii. 8, 67: xii. 4. Cic. de Orat. i. §201 monumenta rerum gestarum et vetustatis exempla oratori nota esse (debent): ii. §§51-64, where Antonius discourses on history: Or. §66 huic generi historia finitima est, in qua et narratur ornate et regio saepe aut pugna describitur; interponuntur etiam contiones et hortationes, sed in his tracta quaedam et fluens expetitur, non haec contorta et acris oratio,—of the flowing smoothness of ‘historical oratory’ as against the compact and incisive style of actual public speaking. Pliny Ep. v. 8 §9 habet quidem oratio et historia multa communia, sed plura diversa in his ipsis quae communia videntur. Narrat illa, narrat haec, sed aliter: huic pleraque humilia et sordida et ex medio petita, illi omnia recondita splendida excelsa conveniunt: hanc saepius ossa musculi nervi, illam tori quidam et quasi iubae decent: haec vel maxime vi amaritudine instantia, illa tractu et suavitate atque etiam dulcedine placet. Postremo alia verba, alius sonus, alia constructio. Nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, κτῆμα sit an ἀγώνισμα; quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.—The relation of this last passage to the text is discussed by Eussner in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. xvii. vol. 9, pp. 391-393. He rightly insists (as against de la Beye) that in Pliny illa, illi, illam refer to historia, haec, huic, hanc to oratio.

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

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

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

vitandas: cp. 2 §21. Cic. Or. §68 seiunctus igitur orator a philosophorum eloquentia, a sophistarum, ab historicorum, 35 a poetarum, explicandus est nobis qualis futurus sit.

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

solutum, sc. necessitate pedum §29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:32 Itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum captanda nobis est, neque illa 36 Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit eum qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit.

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

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

saepius ineruditum. Since Augustus added to the three ‘iudicum decuriae’ a fourth to judge of minor cases (quartam ex inferiore censu quae ... iudicaret de levioribus summis Suet. Aug. 32), this office fell into disrepute. Caligula afterwards raised the number to five: Calig. 16. 36 As with us, it was not considered necessary that the juror who was to say ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’ (in the iudicia publica) should be learned in the law, or even that he should be an educated man.—Cp. the quotation above from iv. 2, 45 cum ... iudicem rura plerumque in decurias mittant. So v. 14, 29 saepius apud omnino imperitos atque illarum certe ignaros litterarum loquendum est: cp. xii. 10, 53. Mayor quotes Iuv. vii. 116-7 dicturus dubia pro libertate bubulco iudice, where see his note.

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

satis docebit, i.e. in narratio §49 (διήγησις). See note on the three genera dicendi §80.

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

I:33 Adde quod M. Tullius ne Thucydiden quidem aut Xenophontem utiles oratori putat, quamquam illum ‘bellicum canere,’ huius ‘ore Musas esse locutas’ existimet. Licet tamen nobis in digressionibus uti vel historico 37 nonnumquam nitore, dum in his de quibus erit quaestio meminerimus non athletarum toris, sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, 38 vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere.

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

M. Tullius. Or. §§30, 31, 32 quis porro umquam Graecorum rhetorum a Thucydide quicquam duxit? ‘at laudatus est ab omnibus,’ fateor; sed ita ut rerum explicator prudens, severus, gravis; non ut in iudiciis versaret causas, sed ut in historiis bella narraret, itaque numquam est numeratus orator ... nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior, sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus. Yet Dion. Hal. tells us that Demosthenes was especially indebted to Thucydides (Iud. de Thuc. 52). Cicero saw that ‘Thucydides represents an immature stage in the development of oratory: his speeches had been superseded by maturer models’ (Sandys). Cp. Brut. §287-8.—Cp. §73.

Xenophontem §§75, 82. Cic. Brut. §112 complains that while the Cyropaedia was read the speeches and autobiography of Scaurus were neglected: ad Quint. Fratr. i. §23.

quamquam with subj. as 2 §21: 7 §17.

bellicum canere: Or. §39 incitatior fertur et de bellicis rebus canit etiam quodam modo bellicum: his style is a ‘call to arms,’ it stirs like the sound of a war-trumpet §76. Cp. pro Mur. §30: Phil. vii. 3. Quint, ix. 4, 11 non eosdem modos adhibent cum bellicum est canendum et cum posito genu supplicandum est.

huius ore, &c. Or. §62 Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt. Diog. Laert. ii. §57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς ἑρμηνείας. Cp. §82 below, with the note: Brut. §132 molli et Xenophonteo genere sermonis: de Or. ii. 58.

in digressionibus: opposed to in his de quibus erit quaestio below. See the ch. on Egressio iv. 3: especially §12 hanc partem παρέκβασιν vocant Graeci, Latini egressum vel egressionem, defined afterwards (§14) as alicuius rei, sed ad utilitatem pertinentis, extra ordinem excurrens tractatio. Cp. ix. 2, 55. Cic. de Or. ii. 37 311 sq. digredi tamen ab eo quod proposueris atque agas permovendorum animorum causa saepe utile est: ib. §80 ornandi aut augendi causa digredi: Brut. §82: de Inv. i. §97.

historico ... nitore: 5 §15: Plin. Ep. ii. 5, 5 descriptiones locorum, quae in hoc libro frequentiores erunt, non historice tantum sed prope poetice prosequi fas est: id. vii. 9, 8 saepe in orationes quoque non historica modo sed prope poetica descriptionum necessitas incidit. For nitor see on §9 nitidus: cp. Cic. Or. §115 quidam orationis nitor.

dum. Quint. does not use dummodo: dum is again used in this sense in 3 §7: 7 §25. In 3 §5 it occurs without a verb, sit primo vel tardus dum diligens, stilus: so modo 5 §20.

toris ... lacertis, ‘not the athlete’s swelling thews, but the sinewy arm of the soldier.’ Cp. the antithesis carnislacertorum §77. The primary meaning of torus seems to be anything swelling or bulging, e.g. the knots of a rope or the protuberance of the muscles. The point of the antithesis is clearly brought out in xi. 3, 26 adsueta gymnasiis et oleo corpora, quamlibet sint in suis certaminibus speciosa atque robusta, si militare iter fascemque et vigilias imperes, deficiant et quaerant unctores suos nudumque sudorem,—a passage which must have been suggested by the contrast Plato draws between the sleepy habit of athletes and the wiry vigour of the soldier: σχέδον γέ τι πάντων μάλιστα (sc. ἐμποδίζει) ἥ γε περαιτέρω γυμναστικῆς ἡ περιττὴ αὕτη ἐπιμέλεια τοῦ σώματος‧ καὶ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκονομίας καὶ πρὸς στρατείας καὶ πρὸς ἑδραίους ἐν πόλει ἀρχὰς δύσκολος Rep. iii. 408. Mayor cites also xii. 10, 41 sicut athletarum corpora, etiam si validiora fiant exercitatione et lege quadam ciborum (cp. x. 5, 15) non tamen esse naturalia (sc. putant) atque ab illa specie quae sit concessa hominibus abhorrere. Cp. Tac. Dial. 21 oratio autem sicut corpus hominis, &c.: Nepos xv. 2 §4: Pliny v. 8, 10 (quoted on §31 above). For cognate metaphors see Nägelsbach 136, 4 pp. 556-8. From Professor Mayor’s rich list of parallel passages I select the following: ‘Kleochares ... compared the speeches of Demosthenes to soldiers διὰ τὴν πολεμικὴν δύναμιν, those of Isokrates to athletes τέρψιν γὰρ παρέχειν αὐτοὺς θεατρικήν. Plut. Philopoem. 3 §§3, 4 Philopoemen when recommended to enter upon a course of athletic training asked whether it did not interfere with military exercises; and when told that the frame and life, diet and training of the two were entirely different, the athlete needing much sleep and food, regular intervals of exercise and rest, and being unable to bear any change from his habits, while the soldier was inured to hunger and thirst and sleepless nights; he both in his private capacity wholly abstained from athletic exercises, and tried to abolish them when a general. Id. Fab. Max. 19 §2 Fabius hoped that Hannibal, if unopposed, would wear himself out, ὥσπερ ἀθλητικοῦ σώματος τῆς δυναμεως ὑπεργονου γενομένης καὶ καταπόνου. Lucian Dial. Mort. x. 5 the athlete Damasias, πολύσαρκός τις ὤν, lest he should sink Charon’s boat by his weight, is forced to strip off his flesh and crowns.’

lacertis. As opposed to brachium, lacertus is the upper part of the arm, from the shoulder to the elbow. Cp. Cic. Brut. §64 in Lysia sunt saepe etiam lacerti, sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.

versicolorem ... vestem, probably a translation of some Greek phrase used in reference to Demetrius, to indicate a style too ornamental for the forum: cp. viii. pr. 20 similiter illa translucida et versicolor quorundam elocutio res ipsas effeminat, quae illo verborum habitu vestiantur. For Demetrius see on §80. ‘His style, like his life, was elegantly luxurious; but in becoming ornate it became nerveless; there is no longer, says Cicero, “sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus,” the sap, the fresh vigour, which had hitherto been in oratory; in their place there is “fucatus nitor,” an artificial gloss,’ Jebb, Att. Or. ii. p. 441. Vestis is more than a mere metaphor here: Demetrius was as foppish in dress as he was in his style. The main feature of the latter is generally indicated by floridus and similar terms: e.g. Cic. Brut. §285: dulcis de Off. i. §3 (cp. Or. §94), suavis Brut. §38: it was over-coloured (like his dress), being intended only to please. For the figure suggested 38 cp. Tac. Dial. 26: adeo melius est orationem vel hirta toga induere quam fucatis et meretriciis vestibus insignire.

dicebatur, i.e. by his contemporaries.

bene ad ... facere: 5 §11 in hoc optime facient infinitae quaestiones. This construction is common in Ovid; e.g. Her. xvi. 189 ad talem formam non facit iste locus: cp. ib. vi. 128: and with dat. Prop. iii. 1, 19 non faciet capiti dura corona meo. “It is also occasionally used absolutely: so Ovid, complaining in his exile, says Trist.(?) ‘Nec caelum nec aquae faciunt nec terra nec imber’: ‘do not agree with me.’ It is thus used especially in medicine. Cp. Colum. viii. 17, Facit etiam ex pomis adaperta ficus: ‘is serviceable.’” Palmer on Ov. Her. ii. 39.

pulverem. Cp. Cic. Brut. §37 (quoted on §80 inclinasse): and for a different judgment de Legg. iii. §14 a Theophrasto Phalereus ille Demetrius ... mirabiliter doctrinam ex umbraculis eruditorum otioque non modo in solem atque in pulverem, sed in ipsum discrimen aciemque produxit.

I:34 Est et alius ex historiis usus et is quidem maximus, sed non ad praesentem pertinens locum, ex cognitione rerum exemplorumque, quibus in primis instructus esse debet orator, ne omnia testimonia exspectet a litigatore, sed pleraque ex vetustate diligenter sibi cognita sumat, hoc potentiora, quod ea sola criminibus odii et gratiae vacant.

§ 34. historiis: for the plural see on §75. Cp. note on lectionum §45.

alius usus ... ex cognitione, &c. Crassus in the de Or. i. §48 insists on this: neque enim sine multa pertractatione omnium rerum publicarum, neque sine legum, morum, iuris scientia ... in his ipsis rebus satis callide versari et perite potest (sc. orator): cp. ib. §18 tenenda praeterea est omnis antiquitas exemplorumque vis: §158 cognoscendae historiae: §256: Brutus §322: Tac. Dial. 30 nec in evolvenda antiquitate ... satis operae insumitur. In Quint. cp. ii. 4, 20 multa inde cognitio rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in omni genere causarum potentissima, iam tum instruitur, cum res poscet, usurus: iii. 8, 67: v. 11 ‘de exemplis’—παράδειγμα quo nomine et generaliter usi sunt in omni similium adpositione et specialiter in iis quae rerum gestarum auctoritate nituntur: xii. 4, 10: cp. §17 rerum cognitio cotidie crescit, et tamen quam multorum ad eam librorum necessaria lectio est, quibus aut rerum exempla ab historicis aut dicendi ab oratoribus petuntur.

et is quidem. Cic. de Fin. i. §65 Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos ... tenuit amicorum greges. In 5 §7 we have et quidem with the pronoun omitted: cp. Cic. Phil. ii. 43 et quidem immunia: and often in Pliny, e.g. Ep. i. 6, 1 ego ille quem nosti apros tres et quidem pulcherrimos cepi.

non ad praesentem ... locum, because here he is speaking of the advantage of reading history only from the point of view of elocutio: his subject is copia verborum. For the material benefit to be obtained from the study of history see the passages cited above: esp. xii. 4: v. 11, 36 sq.

testimonia. Cp. v. 7, 1 ea dicuntur aut per tabulas aut a praesentibus. The advocate is not to confine himself to these.

litigatore, the client, from whom the essential facts of the case must be learned: xii. 8 §§6-8.

cognita (with vetustate), of the result rather than the process. Before sumat supply ut.

hoc quod ... vacant §15. Cp. v. 11, 36-37 Adhibebitur extrinsecus in causam et auctoritas ... si quid ita visum gentibus, populis, sapientibus viris, claris civibus, inlustribus poetis referri potest. Ne haec quidem vulgo dicta et recepta persuasione populari sine usu fuerint. Testimonia sunt enim quodam modo vel potentiora etiam, quod non causis accommodata sunt, sed liberis odio et gratia mentibus ideo tantum dicta factaque, quia aut honestissima aut verissima videbantur. Cp. Cic. pro Marcello §29: Tac. Hist. i. 1: Ann. i. 1.

I:35 A philosophorum vero lectione ut essent multa nobis petenda 39 vitio factum est oratorum, qui quidem illis optima sui operis parte cesserunt. Nam et de iustis, honestis, utilibus iisque quae sunt istis contraria, et de rebus divinis maxime dicunt et argumentantur acriter Stoici, et altercationibus atque interrogationibus oratorem futurum optime Socratici praeparant.

§ 35. philosophorum: §§81-84: §§123-131. We have the same complaint, that the orator has ‘abandoned the fairest part of his province’ to the philosopher in Book i. pr. §§9-18: esp. neque 39 enim hoc concesserim, rationem rectae honestaeque vitae ... ad philosophos relegandam, cum vir ille vere civilis et publicarum privatarumque rerum administrationi accommodatus, qui regere consiliis urbes, fundare legibus, emendare iudiciis possit, non alius sit profecto quam orator.... Fueruntque haec, ut Cicero apertissime colligit, quemadmodum iuncta natura, sic officio quoque copulata, ut idem sapientes atque eloquentes haberentur. Scidit deinde se studium atque inertia factum est ut artes esse plures viderentur. Nam ut primum lingua esse coepit in quaestu institutumque eloquentiae bonis male uti, curam morum qui diserti habebantur reliquerunt. Cp. xii. 2 §§4-10, esp. §8 id quod est oratori necessarium nec a dicendi praeceptoribus traditur ab iis petere nimirum necesse est apud quos remansit: evolvendi penitus auctores qui de virtute praecipiunt, ut oratoris vita cum scientia divinaram rerum sit humanarumque coniuncta. Quintilian’s frequent statement of the argument that philosophy, especially moral philosophy, is an essential part of the orator’s equipment is a corollary to his main thesis, ‘non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum’: i. pr. §9: xii. 1: cp. rationem dicendi a bono viro non separamus. Cp. Introd. p. xxv. In the Orator §§11-19 Cicero places a philosophical training among the first requisites of the ideal orator: esp. §14 nam nec latius neque copiosius de magnis variisque rebus sine philosophia potest quisquam dicere: ib. §118: cp. de Or. i. §87: ib. iii. §§56-73 hanc, inquam, cogitandi pronuntiandique rationem vimque dicendi veteres Graeci sapientiam nominabant ... §61 hinc (from the separation of eloquence and philosophy made by Socrates) discidium illud exstitit quasi linguae atque cordis, absurdum sane et inutile et reprehendendum, ut alii nos sapere, alii dicere docerent. Cicero has told us himself what he owed to philosophy: xii. 2, 23 M. Tullius non tantum se debere scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae spatiis frequenter (e.g. Or. §12, Brut. 315) ipse testatus est: Tac. Dial. §31 sq.

operis: see on §9. So ea iure vereque contenderim esse operis nostri. i. pr. §11.

cesserunt: for this constr. with dat. and abl. cp. Cic. pro Mil. §75 nisi sibi hortorum possessione cessissent.

de iustis, &c.: cp. i. pr. §§11, 12.

de rebus divinis. The Stoic definition of σοφία included this—ἐμπειρία τῶν θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτου αἰτιῶν, transl. by Cicero, de Off. ii. 5: cp. Tusc. iv. 57: Sen. Ep. xiv. 1, 5. They made this σοφία the foundation of every virtue: it is ‘speculative wisdom’ as distinguished from ‘practical wisdom’ (φρόνησις).

maxime = potissimum.

Stoici: §84: xii. 2, 25 Stoici ... nullos aut probare acrius aut concludere subtilius contendunt. Stoici was first inserted by Meister. Hirt (Berl. Wochenschrift v. p. 629) objects, on the ground that Quintilian is only giving here the general idea that eloquence and philosophy were at first mutually inclusive: cp. de Or. iii. §54. See Crit. Notes.

altercationibus. The essence of the altercatio is that it was conducted in the way of short answers or retorts: it is specially used of a dispute carried on in this way between two speakers in the senate, or in a court of law, or in public. A famous instance in the senate is the dialogue between Cicero and Clodius (ad Att. i. 16, 8): Clodium praesentem fregi in senatu cum oratione perpetua plenissima gravitatis, tum altercatione, &c. Tac. Dial. 34 ut altercationes quoque exciperet et iurgiis interesset. The altercatio (actio brevis atque concisa vi. 4, 2) is opp. to perpetua or continua oratio: e.g. Liv. iv. 6, 1 res a perpetuis orationibus in altercationem vertisset: Tac. Hist. iv. 7 paulatim per altercationem ad continuas et infestas orationes provecti sunt.—As to the construction, both words are generally taken as ablatives of instrument; not ‘for debates and examinations of witnesses.’ By interrogationibus is then meant the Socratic ἔλενχος: cp. v. 7, 28 in quibus (dialogis) adeo scitae sunt interrogationes ut, cum plerisque bene respondeatur, res tamen ad id quod volunt efficere perveniat. But see Crit. Notes.


Socratici: §83. The writers of the Socratic form of dialogue are meant, Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines Socraticus: v. 11, 27 etiam in illis interrogationibus Socraticis ... cavendum ne incante respondeas. Their practice of fashioning the imagined objections of their opponents in such a manner as to make them easy of refutation would render them good models: cp. xii. 1, 10 ne more Socraticorum nobismet ipsi responsum finxisse videamur.

I:36 Sed 40 his quoque adhibendum est simile iudicium, ut etiam cum in rebus versemur isdem non tamen eandem esse condicionem sciamus litium ac disputationum, fori et auditorii, praeceptorum et periculorum.

§ 36. his quoque, sc. philosophis—as well as with the poets and historians §§28, 31.

ut ... sciamus, consecutive, expressing result, not final: tr. by participle ‘remembering,’ &c.: cp. ut sciamus after sic in §31. Not all the instances of the introduction of a subordinate clause by this consecutive ut cited by Herbst are exactly apposite: cp. 2 §28: 4 §4: 5 §§6, 9: 6 §3: 7 §10.

in rebus isdem: ‘on the same topics,’ viz. questions of right and wrong, &c., which are common to philosophy and law.

litium ac disputationum: ‘lawsuits and philosophical discussions’: vii. 3 §13 sed de his disputatur non litigatur: xi. 1, 70 inter eos non forensem contentionem, sed studiosam disputationem crederes incidisse: Cic. de Off. i. §3 illud forense dicendi et hoc quietum disputandi genus: de Fin. i. §28 neque enim disputari sine reprehensione, nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest: Brut. §118 iidem (Stoici) traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur: cp. Or. §113. There is a similar antithesis in foro ... in scholis v. 13, 36.

fori ... periculorum: note the chiasmus. For the antithesis fori ... auditorii cp. §79 auditoriis ... non iudiciis. Tac. Dial. 10 nunc te ab auditoriis et theatris in forum et ad causas et ad vera proelia voco. For auditorium used of the lecture-room, or generally a place for public prelections, literary and philosophical, cp. ii. 11, 3: v. 12, 20: Suet. Aug. 85. These auditoria were the scene of the recitationes of which we hear so much in this age: §18.

periculorum: law-suits, actions-at-law, referring, as often in Cicero, to the issues at stake for the defendant in such actions. Cp. 7 §1: iv. 2, 122 capitis aut fortunarum pericula: vi. 1, 36 (where ‘pericula’ and ‘privatae causae’ are contrasted). Etymologically periculum is from the root PER-, seen in πεῖρα, περάω: it denotes ‘trial’ and, in view of possible failure, ‘danger.’ Cp. Reid on Cic. pro Arch. §13: the English ‘danger’ (Low Latin dangiarium from dominium, Old Fr. dongier, feudal authority) was originally a legal term: Shakesp. Merchant of Venice iv. 1, ‘You stand within his danger.’ Chaucer, Prol. 663. See Skeat’s Etym. Dict.

I:37 Credo exacturos plerosque, cum tantum esse utilitatis in legendo iudicemus, ut id quoque adiungamus operi, qui sint legendi, quae in auctore quoque praecipua virtus. Sed persequi singulos infiniti fuerit operis.

§ 37. This paragraph forms a transition from the general consideration of oratory (§20), poetry (§27), history (§31), and philosophy (§35) to the characterisation of individual representatives of each of these four departments. Quintilian now begins to discourse on the ‘Choice of Books,’ or the ‘Best Hundred Authors,’ both in Greek and Latin. His list does not however aim at completeness: it is conditioned by the object which he has in view, viz. the reading of what is profitable for the formation of style (ad faciendam φράσιν §42), and he constantly reminds the reader that he is merely giving a sample of the best authors (§§44: 56-60: 74: 80: 104: 122). Cp. Plin. Ep. vii. 9 §§15-16.

qui sint legendi: see Crit. Notes.

auctore: see on §24.

persequi singulos: ‘to notice all individually’: §118 sunt alii multi diserti quos persequi longum est.

fuerit: cp. superaverit §46: dixerim §14: maluerim §26: dederit §85: cesserimus §86: quos viderim §98: cesserit §101: opposuerim §105: abstulerit 41 §107: ne hoc ... suaserim 2 §24: nemo dubitaverit 3 §22: contulerit 5 §4: ne ... contrarium fuerit 5 §15.

I:38 Quippe cum in Bruto M. Tullius 41 tot milibus versuum de Romanis tantum oratoribus loquatur et tamen de omnibus aetatis suae, [quibuscum vivebat], exceptis Caesare atque Marcello, silentium egerit, quis erit modus si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur [et philosophos]?

§ 38. Quippe cum, only here in Quint.: cp. §76.

versuum: often in Quint. of ‘lines’ of prose: §41: 3 §32: 7 §11: xi. 2, 32 (but §39 opp. to prosam orationem): vii. 1, 37 multis milibus versuum scio apud quosdam esse quaesitum, &c. Hor. Sat. ii. 5, 53-4, of a will, quid prima secundo cera velit versu. Cic. Rab. Post. vi. §14 ut primum versum (legis) attenderet: ad Att. ii. 16, 3: Plin. Ep. iv. 11, 16.

Romanis ... oratoribus. One of Cicero’s motives in writing the Brutus was to do justice to the earlier Roman orators, and to trace the development of the art down to his own time. Hild cites Fronto (de elog. p. 235 ed. Rom.) oratores quos ... Cicero eloquentiae civitate gregatim donavit, as showing that the writer thought that Cicero wished to exalt his own style by contrast with the ruder efforts of his predecessors.

aetatis suae. Frieze remarks that this expression, taken by itself, would embrace either the whole career of Cicero as an orator, about 35 years, to the date of the Brutus (B.C. 46), or else his life from the time when he began to hear the orators of the forum as a student (B.C. 90), a period of over 44 years: Brut. §303 hoc (Hortensio) igitur florescente, Crassus est mortuus, Cotta pulsus, iudicia intermissa bello, nos (Cicero) in forum venimus.—The rule which Cicero imposed on himself in the Brutus is given §231: in hoc sermone nostro statui neminem eorum qui viverent nominare.

[quibuscum vivebat]: see Crit. Notes.

Caesare atque Marcello. These exceptions were made at the request of Brutus himself §248. Brutus eulogises Marcellus, while the account of Caesar is mainly put into the mouth of Atticus: then at §262 Cicero returns to the dead,—sed ad eos, si placet, qui vita excesserunt revertamur.—For Caesar see on §114. M. Claudius Marcellus, consul B.C. 51, was a Pompeian who, after Pharsalus, retired to Mitylene, where he studied under Cratippus. His friends procured the pardon which he would not himself sue for, and Cicero in the pro Marcello (B.C. 46) expresses his satisfaction at the event. On his way home in the following year Marcellus was assassinated at Athens. Cp. Sen. ad Helviam ix. §§4-8.

quis ... modus. When quis is used adjectivally, as here and in §50, it does not mean ‘what kind of’ (as qui), but rather ‘will there be any?’ &c. Cp. quis locus = ‘where is the spot?’ vii. 2, 54 quis testis? quis iudex? ... quod pretium? quis conscius? For the reading see Crit. Notes.

I:39 Fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima quae est apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta, ‘legendos Demosthenen atque Ciceronem, tum ita, ut quisque esset Demostheni et Ciceroni simillimus.’

§ 39. brevitas illa = brevis illa sententia, introducing the clause in acc. c. inf. Hirt compares Cic. Tusc. iv. §83 et aegritudinis et reliquorum animi morborum una sanatio est, omnes opinabiles esse et voluntarios. For fuit see Crit. Notes.

apud Livium. Cp. ii. 5, 20 Cicero ... et iucundus incipientibus quoque et apertus est satis, nec prodesse tantum, sed etiam amari potest: tum, quemadmodum Livius praecipit, ut quisque erit Ciceroni simillimus. In viii. 2, 18 there is a reference probably to the same source: Livy is made the authority for the story of a teacher ‘qui discipulos obscurare quae dicerent iuberet, Graeco verbo utens σκότισον.’ Sen. Ep. 100 Nomina adhuc T. Livium. scripsit enim et dialogos, quos non magis philosophiae adnumerare possis quam historiae, et ex professo philosophiam continentes libros. The son is mentioned again in Plin. N. H. i. 5 and 6. See Teuffel, Rom. Lit. 251 §4.

Demostheni et Ciceroni: §§105-112: Iuv. x. 114. Note the pointed repetition of the names.

I:40 Non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii 42 summa. Paucos enim vel potius vix ullum ex his qui vetustatem pertulerunt existimo posse reperiri, quin iudicium adhibentibus adlaturus sit utilitatis aliquid, cum se Cicero ab illis quoque vetustissimis auctoribus, ingeniosis quidem, sed arte carentibus, plurimum fateatur adiutum.

§ 40. nostri iudicii summa: ‘my 42 opinion in general,’ as opposed to the criticism of each writer individually. What the gist of this opinion is he states in the next sentence, with enim: see Crit. Notes.—For summa cp. §48: 3 §10.

vix ullum, &c.: §57. Mayor compares Plin. Ep. iii. 5 §10 (of the elder Pliny) nihil enim legit quod non excerperet: dicere enim solebat nullum esse librum tam malum ut non aliqua parte prodesset. It would be hard to be so charitable now!

vetustatem pertulerunt: ‘have stood the test of time.’ The phrase is properly used of wine,—wine that will ‘keep,’ as we should say (aetatem ferre): Cic. de Amic. §67 ut ea vina quae vetustatem ferunt: ii. 4, 9 musta ... et annos ferent et vetustate proficiunt: Cat. de R. R. 114, 2 vinum in vetustatem servare. So Ovid, of his own works, scripta vetustatem si modo nostra ferent, Trist. v. 9, 8. For vetustas (lapse of time) cp. Cic. Brut. §258.—There is a sort of antithesis between the class of authors here referred to and the vetustissimi auctores mentioned below. In the former he includes Cato and the Gracchi, ii. 5, 21: the latter are those who were hardly read at all in Quintilian’s day. In general he uses veteres or antiqui in contradistinction to those who were to him novi, i.e. the writers of the post-Augustan period: including in the former Cicero himself as well as his predecessors. ii. 5, 23 et antiquos legere et novos: v. 4, 1 orationes veterum ac novorum: ix. 3, 1 omnes veteres et Cicero praecipue: Plin. Ep. ix. 22, 1, of C. Passennus Paullus, in litteris veteres aemulatur ... Propertium in primis: Tac. Dial. 17, 18.

iudicium adhibentibus: §131: §72.

ingeniosis ... carentibus: i. 8, 8 multum autem veteres etiam Latini conferunt, quamquam plerique plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt. Ov. Amor. i. 15, 14, of Callimachus, quamvis ingenio non valet, arte valet: Tr. ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus arte rudis. Mayor quotes also from Munro’s Lucretius: vol. ii. p. 18 ‘At this period when the νεώτεροι, as Cicero calls them, were striving to bring the Alexandrine style into fashion, there seems to have been almost a formal antithesis between the rude genius of Ennius and the modern art.’

ingeniosis quidem. Here again (cp. on §34) Cicero would have used the pronoun,—ingeniosis illis quidem. Cp. §§88, 124: i. 10, 17.

Cicero ... fateatur. The Brutus contains e.g. a eulogy of Cato, who is said to be rough, but excellent, like the early statues and paintings and poems: §§61-66: Or. §109. Mayor cites Seneca apud Gell. xii. 2 (Fragmenta 111) Apud ipsum quoque Ciceronem invenies etiam in prosa oratione quaedam ex quibus intelligas illum non perdidisse operam quod Ennium legit.

I:41 Nec multo aliud de novis sentio; quotus enim quisque inveniri tam demens potest, 43 qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit? Qui si quis est, intra primos statim versus deprehendetur, et citius nos dimittet quam ut eius nobis magno temporis detrimento constet experimentum.

§ 41. multo aliud: cp. quanto aliud §53. Aliud here serves for a comparative. So ix. 4, 26 multo optimum: §72 multo foedissimum, and in Plin. N. H. multo very often for the more usual longe. Spald.

novis: the writers subsequent to Cicero; viii. 5, 12: ix. 2, 42.

quotus quisque: ‘each unit of what whole number’ = ‘one in how many,’ and so ‘how small a proportion,’ ‘how few.’ In the nom. sing. masc. it occurs several times in Cicero, and frequently in Pliny’s letters. Ovid, A. A. iii. 103, has the fem., Forma dei munus. Forma quota quaeque superbit. The dat. quoto cuique Plin. Ep. iii. 20 §8: the acc. quotum quemque Tac. Dial. 29.

tam demens ... qui: §48 nemo erit tam indoctus qui non ... fateatur: on the other hand §57 tam ... ut non. Herbst cites Pliny, Ep. viii. 14, 3 quotus enim quisque tam patiens ut velit discere quod in usu non sit habiturus: cp. ib. ii. 19, 6: Panegyr. 15: Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 12 τίς οὕτω μαίνεται ὅστις οὐ σοὶ βούλεται φίλος εἶναι; ib. vii. 1, 28 ἔστι τις οὕτως ἄφρων ὅστις οἴεται ἂν ἡμᾶς περιγενέσθαι;; Cic. Phil. ii. §33, where Mayor quotes Dem. Mid. p. 536, 6 §66 τίς οὕτως ἀλόγιστος ... ἔστιν ὅστις ἑκὼν ἂν ... ἐθελήσειεν ἀναλῶσαι; and

‘Lives there a man with soul so dead

Who never to himself has said...?’


alicuius fiducia partis: ‘with even the smallest confidence at least in some portion or other (of his writings).’ For the obj. gen. cp. iv. 2, 113: ix. 3, 51.

memoriam posteritatis: see on §31.

versus: §38.

detrimento: vi. 3, 35 nimium enim risus pretium est si probitatis impendio constat. The word occurs less commonly than some of its synonyms with the genitive: here its etymological meaning (detero–tempus ‘terere’) makes it very appropriate.

I:42 Sed non quidquid ad aliquam partem scientiae pertinet, protinus ad faciendam φράσιν, de qua loquimur, accommodatum.

Verum antequam de singulis loquar, pauca in universum de varietate opinionum dicenda sunt.

§ 42. protinus: ‘at once,’ ‘as a matter of course.’ See on §3: cp. statim §24.

ad faciendam φράσιν: ‘for the formation of style’: cp. §87 phrasin ... faciant: viii. 1, 1 igitur quam Graeci φράσιν vocant, Latine dicimus elocutionem. For the whole expression cp. §65 ad oratores faciendos aptior: xii. 8, 5 cur non sit orator quando ... oratorem facit: x. 3, 3 vires ... faciamus: ib. §10 qui robur aliquod in stilo fecerint: ib. §28 faciendus usus: also i. 10, 6: ii. 8, 7: xii. 7, 1. Faciendam must have belonged to the original text: see Crit. Notes.—Hild reminds us that we must always keep this point of view in mind in estimating the literary judgments pronounced by Quintilian in this book: he is concerned mainly with form, in its relation to oratorical style. In the same way, §87, he does not insist on the study of Macer and Lucretius: legendi quidem sed non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae, faciant. M. Seneca opposes φράσις to ἕξις (§1): non ἕξις magna sed φράσις (of Albucius) Contr. vii. pr. §2: elsewhere he has (Excerpt. Contr. iii. pr. §7) habebat ... phrasin non vulgarem nec sordidam, sed lectam.

in universum: Tac. Germ. 6 in universum aestimanti: ib. 27 in commune opp. to singuli.

de varietate opinionum. Dosson refers to Hipp. Rigault, Histoire de la querelle des anciens et des modernes, vol. i. 1859. In the third cent. B.C. the question of the superiority of the ancients over the moderns was discussed between the supporters and the opponents of Demetrius of Phalerum: in Cicero’s day it had become confused with the quarrel between the true and the false Atticists (cp. Brut. §283 sq.): Horace treated it in the first Epistle of the Second Book: in Quintilian’s own time it was still discussed, as may be seen from this passage and from the Dialogus de Oratoribus.

I:43 Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant neque in ullis aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum arbitrantur, alios recens haec lascivia 44 deliciaeque et omnia ad voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant.

§ 43. solos veteres. Here again (see on §40) veteres includes the writers of the Augustan age: cp. §§118, 122, 126: 2 §17. See also ii. 5, 21 sq., where Quintilian says that in the case of young people both extremes should be avoided:—the ancients (such as the Gracchi and Cato), fient enim horridi atque ieiuni: the moderns, with their depraved taste, ‘ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur.’

robur viris dignum: ii. 5, 23 ex quibus (sc. antiquis) si adsumatur solida ac virilis ingenii vis deterso rudis saeculi squalore, tum noster hic cultus clarius enitescet: i. 8, 9 sanctitas certe et, ut sic dicam, virilitas ab iis (i.e. the veteres Latini) petenda est, quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus: v. 12, 17.

recens haec lascivia deliciaeque: ‘the voluptuous and affected style of our own day’ opp. to rectum dicendi genus, below. Cp. ‘recentis huius lasciviae flosculi,’ quoted above, also ‘deliciarum vitia.’ Mayor cites Sen. Ep. xxxiii. 1 non fuerunt circa flosculos occupati: totus contextus 44 illorum virilis est. See on lascivus §88. Seneca is probably aimed at here: cp. §125 sq., and Introd. p. xxv. sqq.

I:44 Ipsorum etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi volunt, alii pressa demum et tenuia atque quae minimum 45 ab usu cotidiano recedant, sana et vere Attica putant; quosdam 46 elatior ingenii vis et magis concitata et plena spiritus capit; sunt etiam lenis et nitidi et compositi generis non pauci amatores. De qua differentia disseram diligentius, cum de genere dicendi quaerendum erit: interim summatim, quid et a qua lectione petere possint qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent, attingam: paucos enim, qui sunt eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est.

§ 44. rectum dicendi genus: the true standard of style (cp. §89), natural and unaffected, and imitating neither the rude archaism of the ancients nor the bad taste of the moderns. In ii. 5, 11 it is called sermo rectus (‘straight,’ i.e. direct and natural) et secundum naturam enuntiatus: and in ix. 3, 3, simplex rectumque loquendi genus: the style which aims above everything at the clear and effective expression of thought, apart from all ornament and trickery. Though termed here a genus, it is itself divided into three genera: (1) the simple, terse, concise (ἰσχνόν, tenue, subtile, pressum ... quod minimum ab usu cotidiano recedit); (2) the grand, broad, lofty, stirring, passionate (ἁδρόν, uber, grande, amplum, elatum, concitatum); (3) the flowing, plastic, polished, smooth, melodious, intermediate (ἀνθηρόν, lene, nitidum, suave, compositum, medium).

This threefold division of style, ascribed to Theophrastus, was generally recognised in Greece after the latter part of the 4th century B.C. Gellius (vi. 14, 8) tells us that Varro recognised it, employing uber, gracile, and mediocre to represent ἁδρόν, ἰσχνόν, and μέσον; and Mr. Nettleship (J. of Philol. xviii. p. 232) thinks that his treatise περὶ χαρακτήρων bore on this subject. It is adopted in Cornif. ad Herenn. iv. §§11-16, and is carefully explained by Cicero in the Orator §§20-21 (where see Sandys’ notes): tria sunt omnino genera dicendi quibus in singulis quidam floruerunt, peraeque autem, id quod volumus, perpauci in omnibus. Quintilian evidently considers that Cicero (see §108) came up to his own ideal standard in all three styles: Or. §100 is est enim eloquens qui et humilia subtiliter et magna graviter et mediocria temperate potest dicere.

Dion. Hal. (probably following Theophrastus περὶ λέξεως) has the same division, distinguishing as the τρία πλάσματα τῆς λέξεως or γενικώτατοι χαρακτῆρες the χαρακτὴρ ὑψηλός (genus grande), ἰσχνός (genus tenue, subtile), and μέσος (medium, mediocre): de Dem. 33 and 34. In xii. 10, 58 Quintilian repeats this: discerni posse etiam recte dicendi genera inter se videntur. Namque unum subtile, quod ἰσχνόν vocant, alterum grande atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, constituunt; tertium alii medium ex duobus, alii floridum (namque id ἀνθηρόν appellant) addiderant. In the next section he goes on to connect this triple division with the three functions of the orator as laid down in iii. 5, 2: tria sunt item quae praestare debeat orator, ut doceat, moveat, delectet. The ‘plain’ style is especially adapted for teaching and explaining: the ‘grand’ for moving the feelings; while of the ‘middle’ he says ‘ea fere ratio est ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare videatur officium.’ Cp. Arist. Rhet. i. 2 p. 1356 a 2 τῶν δὲ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ποριζομένων πίστεων τρία εἴδη ἐστίν‧ αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ ἤθει τοῦ λέγοντος (those which conciliate good-will—the medium, lene, compositum genus), αἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ἀκροατὴν διαθεῖναί πως (those which stir the passions—the grande genus), αἱ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τοῦ δεικνύναι ἢ φαίνεσθαι δεικνύναι (those which are addressed to the intellect—the genus subtile). Further on (xii. 10 §64) he says that the three classes are typified by the oratory of Menelaus, Nestor, and Ulysses: cp. ii. 17, 8 and Gellius, vi. 14.

In anticipation of the rest of the section the main features of each of the three styles may here be resumed. The ‘grand’ is distinguished by a careful avoidance of everything familiar and ordinary: it seeks to rise above the common idiom by a sustained dignity both of thought and language, and employs a profusion of ornament of every kind. The ‘plain’ style is marked by simplicity and clearness: it may employ the aid of art, but it is an art that conceals itself in the avoidance of everything unfamiliar and in the artistic use of the language of ordinary life. The ‘middle’ style has more charm than force: while not distinguished for the excellencies of the other species it has a grace and sweetness of its own, whence its alternative designation floridum (ἀνθηρόν) in Quintilian, quoted above: see note on §80.

pressa ... et tenuia, &c., i.e. the subtile genus, or ‘plain style.’ Pressus is used in Quintilian both of a writer and of his style: it means ‘concise’ (premo), ‘terse,’ 45 and the juxtaposition of tenuis here shows that ‘plain straightforwardness’ is the quality referred to. Cp. xii. 10, 38 tenuiora haec ac pressiora: Cic. de Orat. ii. §96, where oratio pressior is opp. to luxuries quaedam quae stilo depascenda est: Brut. §201 attenuate presseque dicere opp. to sublate ampleque: Quint. viii. 3, 40 dicere abundanter an presse ... magnifice an subtiliter: ii. 8, 4 presso limatoque genere dicendi: §15 non enim satis est dicere presse tantum aut subtiliter aut aspere. Pressum is well defined by Mayor on this passage: ‘pruned of all rankness, concise, quiet, moderate, self-controlled; opposed to extravagance, heat, turgidity, redundance’: cp. premere tumentia 4 §1. To writers pressus is applied §§46, 102: 2 §16: cp. xii. 10, 16 (Attici) pressi et integri ... (Asiani) inflati et inanes: Brut. §51 parum pressi et nimis redundantes: ib. §202 cavenda presso illi oratori inopia et ieiunitas: Tac. Dial. 18 inflatus et tumens nec satis pressus sed supra modum exultans.—In Cic. de Or. ii. §56 Wilkins thinks that pressus (verbis aptus et pressus—of Thucydides) means ‘precise,’ not ‘concise’: comparing de Fin. iv. 10, 24 mihi placet agi subtilius et pressius: Tusc. iv. 7, 14 definiunt pressius: Cic. Hortens. Fragm. 46 (Baiter) ‘pressum, subtile, M. Tullius in Hortensio, quis te aut est aut fuit unquam in partiundis rebus, in definiendis, in explicandis pressior?’ Cp. Quint, iv. 2, 117 pressus et velut adplicitus rei cultus.—The word frequently occurs in Pliny: see Mayor on iii. 18, 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nitidi: see on §9.

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

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

confirmare facultatem dicendi = i.e. acquire the firma facilitas of §1.

I:45 Facile est autem studiosis, qui sint his simillimi, iudicare, ne quisquam queratur omissos forte aliquos quos ipse valde probet; fateor enim plures legendos esse quam qui a me nominabuntur. Sed nunc genera ipsa lectionum, quae praecipue convenire intendentibus ut oratores fiant existimem, persequar.


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

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

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

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

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



§§ 46-72. Greek Poetry.

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

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

§§65-72. Dramatic poetry.

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

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

§§73-75. Greek Historians.

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

§§76-80. Greek Orators.

Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either too 3 much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy of the name of orator.

§§81-84. Greek Philosophers.

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

I:46 Igitur, ut Aratus ab Iove incipiendum putat, ita nos rite coepturi ab Homero videmur. Hic enim, quem ad modum ex Oceano dicit ipse omnium fluminum fontiumque cursus initium capere, omnibus eloquentiae partibus exemplum et ortum dedit. 48 Hunc nemo in magnis rebus sublimitate, in parvis proprietate superaverit. Idem laetus ac pressus, iucundus et gravis, tum copia tum brevitate mirabilis, nec poetica modo, sed oratoria virtute eminentissimus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


sublimitate: §27: viii. 6, §11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:47 Nam ut de laudibus, exhortationibus, 49 consolationibus taceam, nonne vel nonus liber, quo missa ad Achillen legatio continetur, vel in primo inter duces illa contentio vel dictae in secundo sententiae omnes litium ac consiliorum explicant artes?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I:48 Adfectus quidem vel illos mites vel hos concitatos nemo erit tam indoctus qui non in sua potestate hunc auctorem habuisse fateatur. Age vero, non utriusque operis sui ingressu in paucissimis versibus legem prooemiorum non dico servavit, sed constituit? Nam benevolum auditorem invocatione dearum 50 quas praesidere vatibus creditum est, et intentum proposita rerum magnitudine, et docilem summa celeriter comprehensa facit.

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

tam ... qui: see on §41.

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

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

ingressu: see Crit. Notes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:49 Narrare vero quis brevius quam qui mortem nuntiat Patrocli, quis significantius potest quam qui Curetum Aetolorumque proelium exponit? Iam similitudines, amplificationes, exempla, digressus, signa rerum et argumenta ceteraque genera probandi 51 ac refutandi sunt ita multa ut etiam qui de artibus scripserunt plurima earum rerum testimonia ab hoc poeta petant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

digressus, ‘episodes’: cp. on §33.

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

ceteraque genera: see Crit. Notes.

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

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

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

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

I:50 Nam epilogus quidem quis umquam poterit illis Priami rogantis Achillen precibus aequari? Quid? In verbis, sententiis, figuris, dispositione totius operis nonne humani ingenii modum excedit? ut magni sit virtutes eius non aemulatione, quod fieri non 52 potest, sed intellectu sequi.

§ 50. nam. See on §12: cp. §§950.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I:51 Verum hic omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae procul a se reliquit, epicos tamen praecipue, videlicet quia clarissima in materia simili comparatio est.

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

clarissima comparatio: ‘the contrast is most striking.’

I:52 Raro adsurgit Hesiodus magnaque pars eius in nominibus est occupata, tamen utiles circa praecepta sententiae levitasque verborum et compositionis probabilis, daturque ei palma in illo medio genere dicendi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:53 Contra in Antimacho vis 53 et gravitas et minime vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. Sed quamvis ei secundas fere grammaticorum consensus deferat, et adfectibus et iucunditate et dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud secundum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

iucunditate: see on §46.

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

arte: ‘poetical skill.’

plane: see Introd. p. lii.

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

I:54 Panyasin, ex utroque mixtum, putant in 54 eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, alterum tamen ab eo materia, alterum disponendi ratione superari. Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes poetarum iudices neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt; non tamen contemnendum reddidit opus aequali quadam mediocritate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:55 Arati materia motu caret, ut 55 in qua nulla varietas, nullus adfectus, nulla persona, nulla cuiusquam sit oratio; sufficit tamen operi cui se parem credidit. Admirabilis in suo genere Theocritus, sed musa illa rustica et pastoralis non forum modo, verum ipsam etiam urbem reformidat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

non: 2 §25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:57 Nec sane quisquam est tam procul a cognitione eorum remotus ut non indicem certe ex bibliotheca sumptum transferre in libros suos possit. Nec ignoro igitur quos transeo nec utique damno, ut qui dixerim esse in omnibus utilitatis aliquid.

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

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

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

ut qui dixerim: see on §55.

I:58 Sed ad illos iam perfectis constitutisque viribus revertemur, quod in cenis grandibus saepe 57 facimus, ut, cum optimis satiati sumus, varietas tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit. Tunc et elegiam vacabit in manus sumere, cuius princeps habetur Callimachus, secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit.

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

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

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

tunc: when our taste is formed.

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

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

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

secundas, §53.

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

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

I:59 Sed dum adsequimur illam firmam, ut dixi, facilitatem, optimis adsuescendum est et multa magis quam multorum lectione formanda mens et ducendus color. Itaque ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus 58 iamborum ad ἕξιν maxime pertinebit unus Archilochus.

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

ut dixi: see on §1.

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

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

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

Aristarchi iudicio: §52.

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

ἕξιν: see on §1.

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

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

I:60 Summa in hoc vis elocutionis, cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum, adeo ut videatur quibusdam, quod quoquam minor est, materiae esse, non ingenii vitium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sententiis: see on §50.

figuris: see on §12.

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

propter quae: see on §10, propter quod.

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

I:62 Stesichorum, quam sit ingenio validus, materiae quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem. Reddit enim personis in agendo simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem, ac si tenuisset modum, videtur aemulari proximus Homerum potuisse; sed 60 redundat atque effunditur, quod ut est reprehendendum, ita copiae vitium est.

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

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

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

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

aemulari, with dat. §122.

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

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

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

I:63 Alcaeus in parte operis ‘aureo plectro’ merito donatur, qua tyrannos insectatus multum etiam moribus confert, in eloquendo quoque brevis et magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis; sed et lusit et in amores descendit, maioribus tamen aptior.

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

in parte: see on §9 in illis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

sermone proprio: see on §46.

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

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

quidam: see on putant §54.

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

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

auctoribus, §24.

I:65 Antiqua comoedia cum sinceram illam sermonis Attici gratiam prope sola retinet, tum facundissimae libertatis est et in insectandis vitiis praecipua; plurimum tamen virium etiam in 62 ceteris partibus habet. Nam et grandis et elegans et venusta, et nescio an ulla, post Homerum tamen, quem ut Achillen semper excipi par est, aut similior sit oratoribus aut ad oratores faciendos aptior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elegans: §§78, 87, 93, 99: 2 §19, ‘choice,’ ‘tasteful.’ Cp. Cic. Brut. §272 verborum delectus elegans. In the treatise ad Herenn. (iv. 12) elegantia stands along with compositio and dignitas as a requisite of style: it includes Latinitas (which avoids solecisms and barbarisms), and explanatio, which uses verba usitata and propria.

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

nescio an ulla: see Crit. Notes.

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

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

I:66 Plures eius auctores, Aristophanes tamen et Eupolis Cratinusque praecipui. Tragoedias primus in lucem Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus 63 saepe usque ad vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus; propter quod correctas eius fabulas in certamen deferre posterioribus poetis Athenienses permiserunt, suntque eo modo multi coronati.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:67 Sed longe clarius inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, quorum in dispari dicendi via uter sit poeta melior inter plurimos quaeritur. Idque ego sane, quoniam ad praesentem materiam nihil pertinet, iniudicatum 64 relinquo. Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden.

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

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

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

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

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

I:68 Namque is et sermone (quod ipsum reprehendunt quibus gravitas et cothurnus et sonus Sophocli videtur esse sublimior) magis accedit oratorio generi, et sententiis densus et in iis quae a sapientibus tradita sunt paene ipsis par, et dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt in foro diserti comparandus; in adfectibus vero cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis qui in miseratione constant facile praecipuus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:69 Hunc admiratus maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quamquam in opere diverso, Menander, qui vel unus meo quidem iudicio diligenter lectus ad cuncta quae praecipimus effingenda sufficiat: ita omnem 65 vitae imaginem expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi facultas, ita est omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus.

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

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

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

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

I:70 Nec nihil profecto viderunt qui orationes, quae Charisi nomini addicuntur, a Menandro scriptas putant. Sed mihi longe magis orator probari in opere suo videtur, nisi forte aut illa iudicia, qua Epitrepontes, Epicleros, Locroe habent, aut meditationes in Psophodee, Nomothete, Hypobolimaeo non omnibus oratoriis numeris sunt absolutae.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decor: see on §27.

I:72 Atque ille quidem omnibus eiusdem operis auctoribus abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit. Tamen habent alii quoque comici, si cum venia leguntur, quaedam quae possis decerpere, et praecipue Philemon; qui ut prave sui temporis iudiciis Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi secundus.

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

nomen: see on §87.

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

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

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

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

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

§73-75. Greek Historians:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:74 Theopompus his proximus 69 ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus, diu fuerit orator. Philistus quoque meretur qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos auctorum eximatur, imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, 70 ita aliquatenus lucidior. Ephorus, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget. Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur.

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

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

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

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

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

meretur qui: see on §72.

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

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

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

aliquatenus with comparative, instead of the ablative aliquanto, just as he uses longe and multum for multo. So xi. 3, 97 aliquatenus liberius.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

§§76-80. Attic Orators:—

I:76 Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis 72 aetas una tulerit. Quorum longe princeps Demosthenes ac paene lex orandi fuit: tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:78 His aetate Lysias maior, subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis sit docere, quaeras perfectius; nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum, puro 75 tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nec immerito: see on §27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:80 Neque ego in his de quibus sum locutus has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto, nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos. Quin etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, 78 quamquam is primum inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus est fere ex Atticis qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

§§ 81-84. Greek Philosophers:—

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

I:81 Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae 79 M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? Multum enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I:82 Quid ego 80 commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam.

§ 82. Xenophontis, §§33, 75.

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

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

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

quandam, i.e. something which may be called persuadendi dea: cp. quodam below, and quibusdam §76: xii. 10, ii quadam eloquentiae frugalitate. See Crit. Notes.

I:83 Quid reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam? Quid Aristotelen? Quem dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem. Nam in Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut 81 ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.

§ 83. Socratici §35.

elegantiam: §114: 2 §19: ‘chaste simplicity,’ Frieze.

Aristotelen. It is to be noticed that in both Dionysius and Quintilian, Aristotle comes after Plato and Xenophon: Ἀρχ. κρ. 4, (Us. p. 27) παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς μίμησιν τῆς τε περὶ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος καὶ τῆς σαφηνείας καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος καὶ πολυμαθοῦς: Brut. §121 quis Aristotele nervosior? Orat. §172 quis omnium doctior, quis acutior, quis in rebus vel inveniendis vel iudicandis acrior Aristotele fuit?

scientia ... copia ... suavitate: Orat. §5 admirabili quadam scientia et copia: Topica 1 §3 dicendi incredibili quadam quum copia tum etiam suavitate: cp. de Inv. ii. §6.

acumine: see on §77.

nam has come to serve as a transition-formula: so §§9, 12, 50: 4, 4. It generally involves an ellipse: cp. Sall, Iug. ch. 19, 2: 31, 2: 82, 2: Cicero, Tusc. Disp. iv. §52.

Theophrasto. Brut. §121 quis Theophrasto dulcior? Theophrastus succeeded Aristotle in the conduct of his school B.C. 322, and died 287.

tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut. Becher takes tam closely with divinus, making tam divinus est the pred. and loquendi nitor ille the subj.: and so Krüger (3rd ed.). For the order of words he compares §122 habebunt magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam vere laudandi, and adds (Quaest. p. 18) ‘omnino autem tenendum est perplexam et arcessitam verborum turbam magis quam ordinem (Bonn. Proleg. lxxviii.) aetatis argenteae scriptoribus in deliciis fuisse, quae intellectum legentium non tam adiuvet quam 81 impediat.’ We might also cp. §76 tam nihil otiosum, and 7 §27. Even in Cicero a similar separation occurs: pro Cael. §16 nunquam enim tam Caelius amens fuisset: in Verr. v. §121 quis tam fuit illo tempore durus et ferreus. Kiderlin, however (Hermes 23, p. 109), challenges this explanation, contending that the words loquendi nitor ille divinus are obviously meant to be taken together, and that ille makes it impossible to join tam and divinus. He rejects as inappropriate the analogies cited from Brutus §58 (cp. §§174, 41): ad Q. Fr. i. 2, 3 §9 (atque ego haec tam esse quam audio non puto—where it has been proposed to insert a word): ad Fam. vi. 7, 1. But more weight should be attached to the following passages to which K. himself refers: Quint. ii. 16, 15 (sed ipsa ratio neque tam nos iuvaret neque tam esset in nobis manifesta, nisi, &c.) and viii. 3, 5 (et fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si, &c.). Kiderlin however holds that all those passages differ from this, inasmuch as either there is a negative with tam, or it is joined with an adverb, or it follows quam immediately. He rejects Spalding’s tantus est, and proposes to read tam manifestus est: manifestus goes well with the preceding sentence, where Quintilian does not know which of Aristotle’s great points to praise most, while with Theophrastus there is no such doubt, since his loquendi nitor is so striking that he is said, &c. K. thinks that manifestus (which is a favourite word of Quintilian: see Bonn. Lex.) might easily have fallen out, as tam est and manifest are pretty much alike.—In support of the reading loquendi (for which Meister gives, by a misprint, eloquendi), Kiderlin points out that Quintilian probablv wished to translate φράζειν.

nitor: cp. §§33, 9, 79 (where see note on nitidus): Cicero, de Fin. iv. 3, 5 primum enim ipsa illa, quae subtiliter disserenda erant, polite apteque dixerunt, tum definientes, tum partientes, ut vestri etiam; sed vos (Stoici) squalidius; illorum (sc. Peripateticorum et Academicorum) vides quam niteat oratio. Of the Peripatetics generally he says (Brutus §120) in doctrina atque praeceptis disserendi ratio coniungitur cum suavitate dicendi et copia.

nomen traxisse: Orat. §62 siquidem et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit: Diog. Laert. v. 38 τοῦτον, Τύρταμον λεγόμενον, Θεόφραστον διὰ τὸ τῆς φράσεως θεσπέσιον Ἀριστοτέλης μετωνόμασεν.

I:84 Minus indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres, sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen acuti magis quam (id quod sane non adfectaverunt) oratione magnifici.


§ 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.



§§ 85-100. Roman Poetry.

§§85-92. Epic Poets.

Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire, are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is entwined with the conquering bay.’

§§93-96. Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry.

In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own. Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote saturae of the earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors of greater merit.

§§97-100. Dramatic Poetry.

Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thought 4 and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s Thyestes may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s Medea shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of togatae, but his is not a pure art.

§§101-104. Roman Historians.

In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides, Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion, especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.

§§105-122. Roman Orators.

Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar ‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and Africanus rank highest: the 5 former might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.

§§123-131. Roman Philosophers.

Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.


§§85-100. Roman Poets.—Quintilian’s criticisms of Latin literature, though naturally more independent than his judgments of Greek authors, are hampered, as Professor Nettleship has shown (Journ. Phil. 18 p. 262 sq.) by ‘the idea of making canons of classical Latin authors to correspond as closely as possible with the Greek canons. Vergil leads the van among the poets as the Latin Homer; Macer and Lucretius follow as representing Hesiod and the didactic poets. The elegiac poets, Propertius and Tibullus, follow next, answering to Tyrtaeus; then the satirists who of course have no Greek counterparts; then the writers of lampoon, Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace, to match Archilochus; the lyric poets, Horace corresponding to Pindar; the dramatists, comic and tragic, among whom Varius is singled out as equal to any Of the Greeks: the historians, Sallust being matched with Thucydides, and Livy with Herodotus; the orators, Cicero being of course compared in detail with Demosthenes; and the philosophers, among whom we are told that Cicero is aemulus Platonis.’

I:85 Idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. Itaque ut apud illos Homerus, sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie proximus.

§ 85. Idem ... ordo ducendus. Cp. 5 §1 robustorum studiis ordinem dedimus: xii. 2, 10 ut ordinem retro agamus. There is a suggestion of military associations in the use of the phrase: tr. ‘in the same way we must marshal.’ Cp. Brut. §15 explicatis ordinibus temporum; and i. 4, 3 with Spalding’s note.—For ordinem ducere in the sense of ‘to be the leader of a company’ (sc. as centurion) cp. Cic. Phil. i. 8, 20: Caes. B. C. i. 13, 4: iii. 104, 3: Livy ii. 23, 4.

Vergilius: his claim to rank along with Homer is indicated in i. 8, 5 optime institutum est ut ab Homero atque Vergilio lectio inciperet.

auspicatissimum. Cp. Tac. Germ. 11 agendis rebus hoc anspicatissimum initium credunt: Plin. ad Traian, xvii. 3 cum mihi contigerit, quod erat auspicatissimum, natalem tuum in provincia celebrare. Cp. the opening words of Pliny’s Panegyricus: Bene ac sapienter, patres conscripti, maiores instituerunt ut rerum agendarum ita dicendi initium a precationibus capere, quod nihil rite, nihil providenter homines sine deorum immortalium ope consilio honore auspicarentur. Cicero, de Div. i. 16, 28 Nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur.

dederit: v. on §37.

haud dubie: see Crit. Notes.

I:86 Utar enim verbis isdem quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi: qui mihi 83 interroganti quem Homero crederet maxime accedere, ‘secundus,’ inquit, ‘est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio.’ Et hercule ut illi naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae et diligentiae vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum; et quantum eminentibus vincimur fortasse aequalitate pensamus.

§ 86. Afro Domitio. The order is characteristic of the silver age, though examples are found also in Cicero’s letters (Introd. p. lv.): cp. Atacinus Varro, below, and §103. Domitius Afer (cp. §24) was a distinguished orator who flourished under Tiberius and his successors, and died in the reign of Nero, A.D. 59 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 19). He was a native of Nemausus (Nismes), and first rose to fame by the prosecution of Agrippina’s cousin Claudia Pulchra: Tiberius avowed that he was a ‘born orator’ (suo iure disertum, Tac. Ann. iv. 52). Being of an unscrupulous character (quoquo facinore properus clarescere, ibid.) he placed his rhetorical powers at the disposal of the government: mox capessendis accusationibus aut reos tutando prosperiore eloquentiae quam morum fama fuit, ibid. Quintilian’s connection with him (cp. v. 7, 7 quem adolescentulus senem colui) comes out in the story he told to Pliny about Afer: ‘adsectabar Domitium,’ Plin. Epist. ii. 14. Below (§118) he speaks of him, along with Iulius Africanus, (to whom he prefers him) as the best orator he had ever heard: though he tells us elsewhere that Afer lost much of his reputation by continuing to speak in public after he should have retired: vidi ego longe omnium quos mihi cognoscere contigit summum oratorem, Domitium Afrum, valde senem, cotidie aliquid ex ea quam meruerat auctoritate perdentem, cum agente illo quem principem fuisse quondam fori non erat dubium alii, quod indignum videatur, riderent, alii erubescerent; quae occasio fuit dicendi, malle eum deficere quam desinere. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 52 ad fin. aetas extrema multum etiam eloquentiae dempsit dum fessa mente retinet silentii impatientiam.

excepi. As distinguished from accipere, 83 which, when used in this sense, means to get some information at second-hand, excipere always refers to what is said in one’s presence, whether one is meant to hear, as in this passage, or not; as Livy ii. 4 sermonem eorum ex servis unus excepit.

Homero. The same dative with accedere occurs §68 magis accedit oratorio generi (Euripides). With the name of a person Cicero also uses the dative,—e.g. Crasso et Antonio L. Philippus proximus accedebat, Brut. §173, and so ad Fam. xi. 21, 4 me huic tuae virtuti proxime accedere: otherwise more commonly ad c. acc. Cp. de Orat. 1 §262 (dubitare) utrius oratio propius ad veritatem videretur accedere with Quint. xii. 10, 9 ad veritatem Lysippum ac Praxitelem optime accessisse. So xii. 2, 2: 1, 20: 2, 25.

propior tamen primo. See note on §53 ut plane manifesto appareat quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud secundum. Here the interval between first and second is less than that between second and third: Vergil is a ‘good second.’

ut illi: see Crit. Notes.

naturae = ingenio, as §119 erant clara et nuper ingenia: cp. §122. Cic. in Verr. ii. 1 §40 non enim potest ea natura quae tantum facinus commiserit hoc uno scelere esse contenta.

caelesti: for the hyperbole cp. caelestis huius in dicendo viri (Ciceronis) 2 §18. So Cic. Phil. v. §28 caelestes divinasque legiones: Ps. Cic. ad Brutum ii. 7, 2 res a te gesta memorabilis et paene caelestis.

ut ... cesserimus ita. For ut ... ita (μὲν ... δέ) cp. 3, §§1 and 31. Ut is not concessive and does not affect the verb, which is in the subjunctive of modified assertion (for cedendum est): cp. dederit above §85: Cic. Brut. §25 sine ulla dubitatione confirmaverim. Quintilian is speaking throughout of the Romans in the person of their great poet: cp. vincimur, pensamus, below; also §93 provocamus, §99 consequimur, §107 vincimus. Kiderlin’s objection that, as fully admitting the superiority of Homer, he would not have been likely to choose, on patriotic grounds, a form that seems to modify the force of the concession, is met by the instance of the potential subj. quoted above alongside of sine ulla dubitatione.

eminentibus: neut. of adj. used substantively,—common enough in Quintilian even with adjj. of the third declension: cp. 3 §5 nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus. See Introduction, p. xlix (5). Such ‘outstanding’ passages as those alluded to Horace terms the ‘speciosa miracula’ (‘striking,’ ‘picturesque marvels’) of the Homeric poems, A. P. 144.

aequalitate, ‘uniform excellence’: cp. aequali quadam mediocritate §54. In §24 Quintilian has already referred to the quandoque dormitat, and his words are probably an echo of the Horatian criticism. For the use of aequalitas cp. xi. 3, §§43-44. In regard to style, Cicero has Orat. §198 omnis nec claudicans nec quasi fluctuans sed aequaliter constanterque ingrediens numerosa habetur oratio: and using aequabilitas ibid. §53 elaborant alii in lenitate et aequabilitate et puro quasi quodam et candido genere dicendi.

I:87 Ceteri omnes longe sequentur. Nam Macer et Lucretius legendi quidem, sed non ut φράσιν, id est corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in sua quisque materia, sed alter humilis, alter difficilis. Atacinus Varro in iis per quae nomen 84 est adsecutus interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.

§ 87. Macer: v. on §56.

Lucretius. The references made to Lucretius in Latin literature are collected by Teuffel, R. L. §201. The two are named together again xii. 11 §27.

φράσιν = elocutionem, v, §42. So ad augendam facultatem dicendi, below. For ‘corpus eloquentiae’ cp. Petronius, Satyr. ii. (of the imitators of Seneca) ‘effecistis ut corpus orationis enervaretur et caderet.’

humilis: ‘common-place,’

difficilis: cp. multis luminibus ingenii multae tamen artis,—Cicero’s criticism, dealt with by Munro, ii. p. 315 (3rd ed.).

Varro, P. Terentius (B.C. 82-37), called 84 Atacinus from the river Atax in Gallia Narbonensis, his native province. Quintilian’s criticism here refers to the work by which he was best known—his translation of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (‘interpres operis alieni’). He also wrote what is described as a metrical system of astronomy and geography under the title Chorographia or Cosmographia: a heroic poem Bellum Sequanicum, in the style of Ennius and Naevias: and Saturae which, if we may trust Horace, were a failure: Satires i. 10, 46 Hoc erat experto frustra Varrone Atacino ... Melius quod scribere possem.

per quae: common in Quintilian to designate ‘means by which’: cp. v. 10, 32. So also per quod, per hoc: see on §10.

nomen: cp. §72, §120, 5, §18: xii. 6, 7: ii. 11, 1: Tac. Dial. 10 nomen inserere famae: ib. 36 plus notitiae ac nominis apud plebem parabat.

I:88 Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem. Propiores alii, atque ad hoc de quo loquimur magis utiles. Lascivus 85 quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimium amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in partibus.

§ 88. Ennius, the Chaucer of Latin literature (239-169 B.C.),—qui primus amoeno detulit ex Helicone perenni fronde coronam (Lucr. i. 119). Lucretius in this passage calls him ‘Ennius noster,’ as does also Cicero, pro Archia §18, §22.

‘It will be observed,’ says Professor Nettleship, ‘that Quintilian is a Ciceronian, and that both as against the younger school of his own day and as against the pre-Ciceronian literature. Ennius he sets aside with a few respectful words: Pacuvius and Accius, one must almost suppose, he had never read (97): if he had read them, then, he did not think it worth while to pass an independent judgment upon them (but see note ad loc.) The comedians, Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, he will hardly notice; so far, he thinks, do they fall below their Greek originals. Lucretius he totally misconceives, even granting his point of view, for can it be said that there are no fine passages of rhetoric in the De Rerum Natura? The criticisms on the post-Ciceronian orators are for the most part (remembering that Quintilian is thinking of the needs of an orator) sound and well expressed, notably that upon Ovid (88). But they are mostly too short, and leave the impression that the writer is anxious to get to the end of them. In speaking of Cicero, however, Quintilian rises to the height of real enthusiasm.’ Journ. of Phil. l.c.

sacros vetustate lucos. For the reverence attaching to groves cp. Seneca, Epist. Mor. IV, xii. (41) Si tibi occurrerit vetustis arboribus et solitam altitudinem egressis frequens lucus et conspectum caeli ramorum aliorum alios protegentium umbra submovens: illa proceritas silvae et secretum loci et admiratio umbrae in aperto tam densae atque continuae fidem tibi numinis facit.

speciem. So Ovid, Trist. ii. 424 Ennius ingenio maximus, arte rudis: Am. i. 15, 19 Ennius arte carens. Cp. Quint, i. 8, 8 plerique plus ingenio quam arte valuerunt (veteres Latini).

Propiores, not Vergilio, as Bonnell and Krüger (the latter, in 2nd ed., contrasting §86 ceteri omnes longe sequentur): but rather, by inference from ‘vetustate’ and ‘antiqua’ in the previous sentence = propiores nostrae aetati. But see Claussen, Quaest. Quintil. pp. 358-9.

ad hoc de quo loquimur = ad augendam facultatem dicendi: φράσιν.

lascivus: so below §93 Ovidius utroque (Tibullo et Propertio) lascivior, sicut durior Gallus. The word and its cognates are used by Quintilian of ‘running riot,’ whether in thought, language, or manner. The verb lascivire is used in regard to a certain mannerism of Ovid, iv. 1, 77 ut Ovidius lascivire in metamorphosesi solet,—wrongly classed in Bonnell’s lexicon under mores: cp. ix. 4, 28. So ii. 4, 3 neque ... arcessitis descriptionibus, in quas plerique imitatione poeticae licentiae ducuntur, lasciviat: xii. 10, 73 genus dicendi quod puerilibus sententiolis lascivit: ix. 4, 6: iv. 2, 39: xi. 1, 56. See above, recens haec lascivia §43: cp. ii. 5, 10 and 22: Tac. Dial. §26 lascivia verborum et levitate sententiarum et licentia compositionis. The adjective occurs along with hilare v. 3, 27, and with dicaces vi. 3, 41: cp. Tac. Dial. §29 parvulos assuefaciunt ... lasciviae et dicacitati. It 85 means ‘exuberance’ of any kind, as against severe restraint: ix. 4, 142 duram potius atque asperam compositionem malim esse quam effeminatam et enervem, qualis apud multos, et cotidie magis, lascivissimis syntonorum modis saltat: Horace, A. P. 106 ludentem lasciva (verba decent) severum seria dictu: i.e. ‘sportive’ as opp. to ‘serious’: Ep. ii. 2, 216 lasciva decentius aetas, ‘that may more becomingly make merry.’ Wilkins says the word occurs ten times in Horace, and never in a distinctly bad sense: lascivi pueri Sat. i. 3, 134: lasciva puella Verg. Ecl. iii. 64.

in herois quoque: sc. versibus. Cp. ix. 4, 88 and 89. This characteristic of his elegiac compositions reappears even in his heroic verse, i.e. the Metamorphoses. At ix. 4, 88 (pes) herous = μέτρον ἡρῷον. So Martial iii. 20, 6 lascivus elegis an severus herois?

nimium amator ingenii sui: cp. §98 below, si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere maluisset. M. Seneca, Controv. iv. 28, 17 (p. 281) Ovidius nescit quod bene cessit relinquere: ii. 10, 12 (of a declamatio by Ovid) verbis minime licenter usus est nisi in carminibus, in quibus non ignoravit vitia sua, sed amavit ... adparet summi ingenii viro non indicium defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carminum suorum, sed animum. Cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. iii. 27, 13 poetarum ingeniosissimus ... nisi tantum impetum ingenii et materiae ad pueriles ineptias reduxisset. Of Seneca the philosopher Quintilian uses similar language below §130 si non omnia sua amasset. For the use of an adv. with verb-noun in -tor (as if it were a participle) cp. Hor. Sat. i. 10, 12 Quis tam Lucili fautor inepte est. See Introd. p. xlv.

in partibus, opp. to totum (‘in einzeln Partien’—Nägelsbach §76 p. 296). Cp. in parte 7 §25: also 2 §26 in partibus: vii. 2, 22 si quando in partibus laborabimus, universitate pugnandum est. The frequency with which in parte occurs in Quintilian (as well as ex parte, which is used by Cicero and Livy) makes the reading probable, though the MSS. omit in, while many give parcius for partibus. Cp. ii. 8, 6 quod ... mihi in parte verum videtur: iv. 5, 13: v. 7, 22: xi. 2, 34.

I:89 Cornelius autem Severus, etiamsi sit versificator quam poeta melior, si tamen, ut est 86 dictum, ad exemplar primi libri bellum Siculum perscripsisset, vindicaret sibi iure secundum locum. Serranum consummari mors immatura non passa est, puerilia tamen eius opera et maximam indolem ostendunt et admirabilem praecipue in aetate illa recti generis voluntatem.

§ 89. Cornelius Severus, contemporary and friend of Ovid, who addresses to him Epist. ex Ponto iv. 2 (1 O vates magnorum maxime regum: 11 sq. fertile pectus habes interque Helicona colentes Uberius nulli provenit ista seges): cp. carmen regale iv. 16, 9. In spite of the apology in iv. 2 (eius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos), it is probable that Epist. i. 8 is also addressed to him: v. 2 pars animae magna, Severe, meae: 25, o iucunde sodalis. M. Seneca (Suas. vi. 26) quotes twenty-five hexameters of his, with the introductory remark, which seems well deserved, ‘nemo ex tot disertissimis viris melius Ciceronis mortem deflevit quam Severus Cornelius.’

etiamsi sit. The use of the subj. would seem to indicate that Quintilian leaves the truth of the criticism an open question (Roby §1560). Osann is wrong in taking it as indicating Quintilian’s own opinion. See Crit. Notes

versificator. This word occurs also in Justin. vi. 9, 4: versificatores meliores quam duces: Vopisc. Saturn. i. 7, 4: Terent. Maur. 1012: Bede 2354 P. If taken in a depreciatory sense it seems rather inconsistent with the high praise given him in what follows: but we gather from notices in the grammarians and from the extant fragments that Severus was ‘inclined to artificiality of expression and to the affectation of elegance, even where the thought is quite simple,’ as in the quotation in Charisius, p. 83 Huc ades Aonia crinem circumdata serta. For the antithesis versificator ... poeta cp. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 39 neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse satis ... (ut) putes hunc esse poetam.

si tamen. Tamen really goes with vindicaret, but the inversion tamen si (Hild) is quite unnecessary; elsewhere in Quintilian tamen is found attached to the subordinate and not to the principal sentence: xi. 3, 56 etiam si non utique vocis sunt vitia, quia tamen propter vocem accidunt, potissimum huic loco subiciantur: ii. 17, 24-25: cp. cum tamen xi. 3, 91. (In ix. 2, 55 si tamen = si modo, si quidem: in quo est et illa si tamen inter schemata numerari debet ... digressio: cp. ii. 15, 4.)

ut est dictum. Becher agrees with Halm in considering this to be a gloss on 86 etiam si (sit) melior, and it is omitted in Krüger’s 3rd ed. But it is obvious that (unless he is quoting from himself) Quintilian is here giving a criticism at secondhand (dictum sc. ab aliis), and conveying the opinion of contemporary critics: cp. §60 adeo ut videatur quibusdam, of Archilochus. No great difficulty need be occasioned by the position of the words, though they would have been at least as well placed in the main sentence. Kiderlin (in Hermes) proposes to read ‘etiamsi versificator quam poeta melior sit, tamen, ut est dictum, si ad exemplar,’ &c.

bellum Siculum: i.e. the war with Sext. Pompeius B.C. 38-36 (Siculae classica bella fugae Propert. ii. 1, 28). Scaliger suggested bellum civile, with which Severus’s poems seem to have dealt, either in whole or in part. The primus liber is unknown. Bernhardy refers to the extract in Seneca, Suas. vii. (Burm. A. L. ii. 155) as justifying Quintilian’s criticism, and seems inclined to hazard the conjecture (based on a quotation from Valerius Probus in the Wiener Analecta Gramm. p. 216—Cornelius Severus rerum Romanarum l. 1) that the title of the whole work was Res Romanae, the Bellum Siculum being only a section.—(Can bellum Siculum have crept into the text as a gloss on ‘primi libri,’ the more general title bellum civile dropping out? The whole poem cannot have dealt with the bellum Siculum).

perscripsisset: common enough in the sense of ‘write a full account of’: here ‘from beginning to end’: cp. perlegere, pervenire.

secundum locum—among epic poets, after Vergil.

Serranum is the conjectural emendation generally adopted in place of the readings of the MSS. It rests on the passage in Juvenal vii. 79 Contentus fama iaceat Lucanus in hortis Marmoreis; at Serrano tenuique Saleio Gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est? Some have ascribed to him the Eclogues which have come down to us under the name of Calpurnius Siculus. Martial (iv. 37, 2) speaks of a Serranus who was deep in debt. Most old edd. read Sed eum, still referring to Severus.

consummari: cp. §122: 2 §28: 5 §14 and frequently in Quintilian (v. Bonnell’s Lex.). Seneca, Ep. 88, 28, una re consummatur animus, scientia bonorum ac malorum immutabili, quae soli philosophiae competit.

in aetate illa: ‘for one so young.’

recti generis: cp. §44 rectum dicendi genus: ix. 3, §3: ii. 5, §11. The objective genitive after ‘voluntas’ is noteworthy: cp. libertatis novae gaudium Flor. i. 9, 3.

I:90 Multum in Valerio Flacco nuper amisimus. Vehemens et poeticum ingenium Salei Bassi 87 fuit, nec ipsum senectute maturuit. Rabirius ac Pedo non in digni cognitione, si vacet. Lucanus ardens et concitatus et sententiis clarissimus, et, ut dicam quod sentio, magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus.

§ 90. Valerio Flacco. Martial addresses him in i. 77, exhorting him, with some irony, to give up verse-writing as unprofitable and turn lawyer. From another epigram (i. 61) we gather that he was a native of Padua (‘Apona tellus’). He flourished in the reign of Vespasian, to whom he dedicated his Argonautica, c. A.D. 70, and died about 88. Juvenal may be referring to this poem i. 8-10: where see Mayor’s notes. There is a touch of personal sorrow about the use of amisimus. For the expression cp. Florus iv. 7, 14 Brutus cum in Cassio suum animum perdidisset.

nuper: Flaccus died about 88 A.D. Quintilian wrote his work between 93 and 95.

Salei Bassi. Cp. tenuique Saleio, Iuv. vii. 80, quoted above. His name occurs several times in the Dial. de Orat.: Saleium Bassum, cum optimum virum tum absolutissimum poetam §5: egregium poetam vel si hoc honorificentius est praeclarissimum vatem §9, where it is stated that he got a gift of 500 sestertia from Vespasian: cp. also §10. The Bassus ridiculed by Martial (iii. 47, 58: v. 23: viii. 10: vii. 96) is a different person, though he also wrote tragedies: v. 53, 1-2 Colchida quid scribis, quid scribis, amice, Thyesten? Quo tibi vel Nioben, Basse, vel Andromachen?


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.

sententiisγνώμαις, v. §§50, 61, ‘such general utterances as have a bearing upon human life and action,’ Heitland, pp. lxv-lxvii.

I:91 Hos nominavimus, quia Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque 88 dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum. Quid tamen his ipsis eius operibus, in quae donato imperio iuvenis secesserat, sublimius, doctius, omnibus denique numeris praestantius? Quis enim caneret bella melius quam qui sic gerit? Quem praesidentes studiis deae propius audirent? Cui magis suas artes aperiret familiare numen Minervae?

§ 91. Hos, sub. tantum: as 5 §7 uno genere. See Nägelsbach §84 on the omission of adverbs: p. 331 sq.

Germanicum. Domitian took this title after his expedition against the Chatti, A.D. 84: Frontinus, Strateg. ii. 11, 7 Imperator Caesar Augustus Germanicus eo bello quo victis hostibus cognomen Germanici meruit. Of this triumph Tacitus says (Agric. 39) that Domitian was conscious ‘derisui fuisse falsum e Germania triumphum.’ For the tone of adulation cp. Proem. Book IV, 2 sq., where Domitian is spoken of as ‘sanctissimus censor,’ and ‘principem ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia eminentissimum,’ and is even invoked as a divinity,—nunc omnes in auxilium deos ipsumque in primis quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen est, invocem. Hild compares the following passages as showing the spirit of the age:—Statius, Silvae i. 1 and 4: iii. 3: iv. 1 and 2: Silius Italicus iii. 618 sq.: Valerius Flaccus i. 12: and Martial, Epist. Ded. of vii.: cp. 65, 82 et passim. See Introd. p. xi.

ab institutes studiis: Suet. Dom. 2 simulavit et ipse mire modestiam imprimisque poeticae studium, tam insuetum antea sibi quam postea spretum et abiectum, recitavitque etiam publice. From Val. Flacc. i. 12 it would appear that he contemplated an epic poem on the war with the Jews. Tac. Hist. iv. 86 Domitianus sperni a senioribus iuventam suam cernens, modice quoque et usurpata antea munia imperii omittebat, simplicitatis ac 88 modestiae imagine, in altitudinem conditus studiumque litterarum et amorem carminum simulans, quo velaret animum et fratris aemulationi subduceretur, cuius disparem mitioremque naturam contra interpretabatur. Cp. Pliny, Introd. to Nat. Hist. But Suetonius §20 gives the reverse side: nunquam ... aut historiae carminibusve noscendis operam ullam, aut stilo vel necessario dedit. Praeter commentarios et acta Tiberii Caesaris nihil lectitabat; epistolas orationesque et edicta alieno formabat ingenio.

cura terrarum: cp. Mart. viii. 82 Posse deum rebus pariter Musisque vacare Scimus, et haec etiam serta placere tibi.

donato imperio, i.e. to his father Vespasian, as he pretended, and his brother Titus: cp. Suet. Dom. §13 principatum adeptus neque in senatu iactare dubitavit ‘et patri se et fratri imperium dedisse.’

numeris: §70.

qui sic gerit: cp. §114 of Julius Caesar, ‘eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit.’ Statius has a similar compliment to Domitian, Achil. i. 15, 16 cui geminae florent vatumque ducumque certatim laurus: olim dolet altera vinci.

praesidentes deae: §48 invocatione dearum quas praesidere vatibus creditum est.

propius audirent: cp. Aen. i. 526 parce pio generi et propius res aspice nostras. The phrase is used of interest as well as nearness, and refers either to the presence and sympathy of the Muses when the poet reads his compositions (recitavitque etiam publice Suet. Dom. 2), or (less probably) to their gracious answer to his prayer for inspiration. Becher cites also Ovid, Trist. i. 2, 7 oderat Aenean propior Saturnia Turno.—See Crit. Notes.

familiare numen Minervae: Domitian was desirous of passing for a son of Minerva (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. vii. 24), and punished with death a priest of Tarentum who had failed to address him by this title in offering sacrifice. He also instituted the Quinquatria Minervae (Suet. 4), with contests in poetry and rhetoric. At the quinquennial festival of Jupiter Capitolinus he himself presided, ‘capite gestans coronam auream cum effigie Iovis ac Iunonis Minervaeque.’ Merivale vii. 391-394.—Krüger cites Aen. i. 447 (templum) donis opulentum et numine divae.

I:92 Dicent haec plenius futura saecula, nunc enim ceterarum fulgore virtutum laus ista praestringitur. Nos tamen sacra litterarum colentes feres, Caesar, si non tacitum hoc praeterimus et Vergiliano certe versu testamur:

inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.

§ 92. praestringitur: §30.

feres, see Crit. Notes. The subj. (feras) is given in many edd. as more appropriate to the subservient tone of the whole passage.

Vergiliano: Ecl. viii, 13, addressed to Pollio. Cp. Mart. viii. 82, 7 Non quercus te sola decet, nec laurea Phoebi: fiat et ex hedera civica nostra tibi.

I:93 Elegea quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque 89 elegans maxime videtur auctor Tibullus: sunt qui Propertium malint. Ovidius utroque lascivior, sicut durior Gallus. Satura quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus insignem laudem 90 adeptus Lucilius quosdam ita deditos sibi adhuc habet amatores ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed omnibus poetis praeferre non dubitent.

§ 93. Elegea. The form elegea is received into the text by Halm in i. 8, 6, but not by Meister. Ovid has elegeïa,—flebilis indignos elegeia solve capillos, Am. iii. 9, 3: cp. cultis aut elegia comis Martial v. 30, 4. Elegi is more common: Hor. Car. i. 33, 2 miserabiles, A. P. 77 exiguos: Tib. ii. 4, 13: Prop. v. 1, 135: Iuv. i. 4.—The same names are enumerated in chronological order by Ovid: Successor fuit hic (Tibullus) tibi, Galle, Propertius illi. Quartus ab his serie temporis ipse fui, Trist. iv. 10, 63: Teuffel §29.

provocamus: post-Aug. in this figurative sense: Plin. Ep. ii. 7, 4 senes illos provocare virtute: (cp. ea pictura naturam ipsam provocavit Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10, 36 §94.) So of things immensum Iatus circi templorom 89 pulchritudinem provocat, Panegyr. §51.—Hild quotes Diomed. iii. 60, p. 484 Quod genus carminis praecipue scripserunt apud Romanos Propertius et Tibullus et Gallus, imitati graecos Callimachum et Euphoriona. Catullus also had used the elegiac metre, though, as Mr. Munro says (Catullus, p. 231), his elegies are by no means up to the level of his lyrics. In his hands the elegy retained the ease and freedom of its original form, though often wanting in technical finish: Tibullus and his successors Latinized it, and adapted it to new conditions.

tersus, ‘smooth and finished’: xii. 10, 50 quod libris dedicatur ... tersum ac limatum ... esse oportere. So below §94.

Tibullus, c. 54-18 B.C. Hor. Epist. i. 4: Ovid, Am. iii. 9. As distinguished from Propertius (c. 50-15 B.C.), he is the poet of warm, tender, natural feeling, which he expresses in neat and finished verse. He confines himself to such themes and such scenes as suited the limitations of his genius. Propertius has more force and strength; but he is more involved, often in fact obscure; and his indirectness and artificiality have greatly interfered with the adequate recognition of his undoubted powers. Cp. Muretus, Schol. in Propert.: illum (Tibullum) iudices simplicius scripsisse quae cogitaret: hunc (Propertium) diligentius cogitasse quae scriberet. In illo plus naturae, in hoc plus curae atque industriae perspicias. For a modern estimate cp. Postgate’s Select Elegies lvii. sqq., esp. lxvii: “No real judge of poetry will hesitate for a moment to place Propertius high above them both (Tibullus and Ovid). It is true that in some respects they may both claim the advantage over him; Tibullus for refined simplicity, for natural grace and exquisiteness of touch; Ovid for the technical merits of execution, for transparency of construction, for smoothness and polish of expression. But in all the higher qualities of a poet he is as much their superior.”

lascivior: v. on §88. The antithesis is here given in durior (‘more masculine’), which seems to show that the reference is primarily to Ovid’s style: (cp. ix. 4, 142, quoted at §88). Ovid’s exuberant vivacity and sportive imagination, as well as his indifference to deep conviction and high ideals, might however well be included in the criticism. Tac. Dial. 10 elegorum lascivias et iamborum amaritudinem. Martial has of Propertius ‘Cynthia te vatem fecit, lascive Properti’ viii. 73, 5: which, like Ovid’s tener (A. A. iii. 333), Postgate thinks refers rather to his subject than to his treatment of it. “With Tibullus and Propertius love was at any rate a passion. With Ovid it was une affaire de cœur.”

Gallus, Cornelius, of Forum Iulii (69-26), was the first praefectus Aegypti under Augustus, but on a report of some rash speeches was banished, and committed suicide in his forty-third year. Vergil is said to have originally finished the Georgics with a tribute to Gallus, and on being ordered to erase it, substituted the Aristaeus episode which now occupies the latter half of Book IV. Vergil’s regard for him, however, comes out in Eclogue vi. 64 sqq., and in the dedication of Eclogue x. (sollicitos Galli dicamus amores), in which he seeks to console him for the loss of his love Lycoris (Cytheris). On it Servius observes: et Euphorionem ... transtulit in latinum sermonem (l. 50) et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quatuor. Cp. Ovid, Trist. ii. 445 Nec fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, Amor. i. 15, 30: Trist. iv. 10, 53: Remed. 765 Quis potuit lecto durus discedere Gallo?

Satura. As to the derivation, v. Diomed. iii. p. 485 (Palmer, Introd. to Hor. Sat. p. vii) Satira autem dicta sive a Satyris, quod similiter in hoc carmine ridiculae res pudendaeque dicuntur, quae velut a Satyris proferuntur et fiunt; sive satura a lance, quae referta variis multisque primitiis in sacro apud priscos dis inferebatur...; sive a quodam genere farciminis, quod multis rebus refertum saturam dicit Varro vocitatum. The second derivation (lanx satura—the platter filled with first fruits of various sorts which was an annual thank-offering to Ceres and Bacchus: and so a ‘medley’ or ‘hodge-podge’) was long preferred; but Mommsen holds (cp. Ribbeck, Röm. Trag. 21) that the word means the ‘masque of the full men’ (σάτυροι),—the song enacted at a popular carnival, when repletion in the performers leads to 90 a certain ‘fulness’ about the performance. Cp. Tibullus ii. 1, 23 saturi ... coloni: 53 satur arenti primum est modulatus avena carmen (agricola).

tota nostra. This claim must be understood of satire in its Roman form. The spirit of personal invective had already found expression in the lampoons of Greek satire, e.g. in the iambics of Archilochus and Hipponax, to say nothing of the Old Comedy at Athens; but Satire at Rome grew to be a distinct art, a serious practical aim being imposed on the literary form that was developed out of the original Satura (for which see below, §95). “It followed the Old Comedy of Athens in its plain-speaking, and the method of Archilochus in its bitter hostility to those who provoked attack. But it differed from the former in its non-political bias, as well as its non-dramatic form; and from the latter in its motive, which is not personal enmity, but public spirit. Thus the assertion of Horace (S. i. 4, 1-6) that Lucilius is indebted to the old comedians, must be taken in a general sense only, and not be held to invalidate the generally received opinion that, in its final and perfective form, Satire was a genuine product of Rome” (Cruttwell, R. L. p. 76). Contrast the ‘hinc omnis pendet Lucilius hosce secutus’ (est) of the passage referred to with ‘Lucilius ausus (est) primus in hunc operis componere carmina morem’ (ii. 1, 62), and the recognition of Ennius as ‘Graecis intacti carminis auctor’ (i. 10, 66). The claim made by Quintilian springs from the consciousness that Satire was pre-eminently the national organ of public opinion at Rome. Whatever the topic treated might be,—politics, literature, philosophy, or social life and manners,—the tone was always genuinely national and popular. Moreover, it was the only form of literature that enjoyed a continuous development at Rome, extending as it did from the most flourishing era of the Commonwealth into the second century of the Empire. See for the whole subject Professor Nettleship’s Essay on the Roman Satura—its original form in connection with its literary development, Clarendon Press, 1878: Palmer’s Satires of Horace, Intr. p. ix.

Lucilius, C. (B.C. 168(?)-103), was a member of an equestrian family of Suessa, and belonged to the circle of the younger Scipio, under whom he had served during the Numantine War. He left behind him thirty books of Satires, of which the first twenty and the thirtieth were in hexameter verse, the others being in different metres; and of these only some 1100 lines are now extant. He gave Satire its true popular tone at Rome, speaking out openly and with a courageous frankness against the iniquity and incompetence of the nobles, the sordid, avaricious and pleasure-seeking aims of the middle-class, and the venality of the mob. Horace passes a rather mixed judgment on him, censuring his discursiveness, roughness, careless rapidity, and verbosity; but commending him for his original force and frank outspokenness. See Sat. i. 4, 6-12, 57: 10, 1-5, 20-24, 48-71: ii. 1, 17, 29-34, 62-75. In the time of Tacitus some preferred Lucilius to Horace: Dial. 23 vobis utique versantur ante oculos qui Lucilium pro Horatio et Lucretium pro Vergilio legunt.

I:94 Ego quantum ab illis, tantum ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere lutulentum et esse aliquid quod tollere possis, putat. Nam eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque inde acerbitas et abunde salis. Multum est tersior ac 91 purus magis Horatius et, non labor eius amore, praecipuus. Multum et verae gloriae quamvis uno libro Persius meruit. Sunt clari hodieque et qui olim nominabuntur.

§ 94. fluere lutulentum, a quotation from memory of Sat. i. 4, 11 cum flueret lutulentus erat quod tollere velles. Cp. i. 10, 50-1 ferentem plura quidem tollenda relinquendis.

eruditio mira: i. 6, 8 hominis eruditissimi (Lucili).

libertas: Hor. Sat. i. 4, 5 multa cum libertate notabant. Trebonius in Cic. Fam. xii. 16, §3 deinde qui magis hoc Lucilio licuerit assumere libertatis quam nobis? quum, etiamsi odio pari fuerit in eos quos laesit, tamen certe non magis dignos habuerit, in quos tanta libertate verborum incurreret: Macr. iii. 16, §17 Lucilius acer et violentus poeta.

inde: it was his personal independence (libertas) that gave so keen an edge to his satire (acerbitas): Hor. Sat. ii. 1, 62. inde is in fact causal here. Becher notes pro Mur. §26 as the only parallel 91 instance in Cicero, and there it occurs in a law formula: inde ibi ego te ex iure manu consertum voco.

abunde salis: Verg. Aen. vii. 552 terrorum et fraudis abunde est: Suet. Caes. 86 potentiae gloriaeque abunde, but not in earlier prose. According to Hand. Turs. i. 71 abunde was originally neut. of abundis, used substantially (cp. pote and necesse) and so becoming an adverb, from which was formed in time, by a false analogy, an adj. abundus. Other uses are (1) like ‘satis esse,’ as in Tac. Hist. ii. 95, §5 ipse abunde ratus si praesentibus frueretur: (2) as simple adv. qualifying verbs adjectives and other adverbs (cp. on §25): Cic. Div. ii. 1, 3 erit abunde satisfactum toti huic quaestioni. Sall. Iug. 14, 18 abunde magna praesidia. Wharton takes it from *habundus, ‘possessing,’ the gerundive of habeo.—See Crit. Notes.

multum: for multum before a comparative, like πολὺ μεῖζον etc., see Introd. p. li.: cp. Stat. Theb. ix. 559, Iuv. x. 197. In spite of ‘multum maius’ (de Or. iii. §92), Cicero very rarely has multum for multo. For the reading, see Crit. Notes.

purus magis gives the antithesis to lutulentus.

non labor: cp. vi. 3, 3 sive amore immodico praecipui in eloquentia viri (Ciceronis) labor: Cic. Brut. 244 ambitione labi. In spite of the stricture passed in i. 8, 6 (Horatium nolim in quibusdam interpretari), Quint. had a high admiration for Horace: see below §96. Many codd. give nisi for non: see Crit. Notes. For praecipuus used absolutely cp. §§68, 81, 116.

Multum et verae = multum gloriae et quidem verae gloriae. Cp. Cic. ad Fam. iv. 6, 1 filium consularem, claram virum et magnis rebus gestis, amisit. So the Greek καὶ ταῦτα. For acc. w. mereo cp. §116.

quamvis: cp. §74. Even in classical Latin quamvis is used with adjectives and adverbs, and without any verb: but this is a more remarkable instance than e.g. Cic. Nat. Deor. ii. 1, 1 rhetorem quamvis eloquentem: Tusc. iii. §73 stultitiam accusare quamvis copiose licet.

Persius (34-62 A.D.) The best account of his satires is that prefixed to Conington’s edition. Cp. Mart. iv. 29, 7 Saepius in libro numeratur Persius uno Quam levis in tota Marsus Amazonide.

Sunt clari hodieque et: ‘there are brilliant satirists at the present day,—men whose names will hereafter be on the roll of fame.’ Cp. for the general sense iii. 1, 21 sunt et hodie clari eiusdem operis auctores, qui si omnia complexi forent, consuluissent labori meo, sed parco nominibus viventium: veniet eorum laudi suum tempus: ad posteros enim virtus durabit, non perveniet invidia. So too §104 below qui olim nominabitur nunc intellegitur.—This use of hodieque (‘noch heutzutage’) is quite different from such simple instances as e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 103 hoc facere coeperunt hodieque faciunt, where -que is merely copulative. The Dictt. quote several instances in post-Augustan prose, though the word occurs in Quint. only here: Vell. Paterc. i. 4, 3 quae hodieque appellate Ionia: ii. 8, 3 porticus quae hodieque celebres sunt: 27, 3 Utcunque cecidit, hodieque tanta patris imagine non obscuratur eius memoria: Seneca, Epist. 90, 16 non hodieque magna Scytharum pars tergis vulpium induitur? Plin. ii. 58, 59 §150 in Abydi gymnasio colitur hodieque: viii. 45, 70 §176 et hodieque reliquiae durant: Tac. Germ. iii. quod in ripa Rheni situm hodieque incolitur: Dial. 34 ad fin., quas hodieque cum admiratione legimus: Suet. Claud. 17: Tit. 2. Krüger (3rd. ed.) thinks that que is thrown in to correspond with et in what follows (τε ... καί, ‘sowohl als auch’): ‘posthumous renown is introduced, as the more precious, not simply by et olim but in a special relative clause.’ Certainly it is the same writers who are clari now and who will hereafter receive proper recognition (nominabuntur cp. §104 below), though at present he refrains from giving names. The position of et, and indeed its presence at all in the sentence, seem to be motived by the choice of the form hodieque. But see Crit. Notes.

Juvenal can hardly be referred to here, as his first Satire is later than the reign of Domitian, under whom Quint. composed his work. The reference is more probably to some minor Satirists, like the authors of the ‘scripta famosa, vulgoque edita, quibus primores viri ac feminae notabantur,’—mentioned by Suet. (Dom. 8) as current in Domitian’s reign. Cp. Nero 42: Tac. Ann. i. 72.—For olim see on §104.

I:95 Alterum illud etiam 92 prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum condidit Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus. 93 Plurimos hic libros et doctissimos composuit, peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum nostrarumque, plus tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae.

§ 95. Alterum illud, &c. This takes
us back to the earliest forms of the Roman Satura. Alongside of the Fescennine verses (Hor. Epist. ii. 139, sq.), which had originated in the rustic raillery and coarse mirth of vintage and harvest homes, there grew up a sort of dramatic medley or farce, probably containing an element of dialogue, to give opportunity for the sportive exchange of repartees, and soon coming to have a regular musical accompaniment and corresponding gestures. These ‘Saturae’ differed from the Fescennine verses in having more of a set form and not being extemporised; while, again, they were distinct from the developed drama in having no connected plot. They seem from the first to have contained a dramatic element, consisting as they did of comic songs or stories recited with gesticulation and flute accompaniment. In addition to the censorious freedom which they derived from the Fescennine verses, the Saturae received an impulse from the mimetic dances that had been imported from Etruria. They had been acted on the stage for more than a century before Livius Andronicus gave his first dramatic representation (B.C. 240), and after the development of the regular drama they passed into a distinct form of literature, which retained to some extent its dramatic cast, but was not intended now for public representation. In the hands of Ennius the Satura became a medley of metrical pieces—a metrical miscellany—in which the poet gave utterance, not without the element of dialogue, to his views on things in general, in a tone that began to be more serious than would have suited the stage and the theatre-going public, who were now to look to Latin Comedy for undiluted amusement. With Lucilius, Satire passed from miscellaneous metrical composition to that aggressive and censorious criticism of persons, manners, literature, and politics, which the word has ever since been employed to denote. It was a form of literary activity that would seem to have been called for by the social and political conditions of Roman life in the latter part of the second century.—The transition is indicated in the following passage from Diomedes, Art. Gram. iii. p. 485 K Satira dicitur carmen apud Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius; at olim carmen quod ex variis poematibus constabat satira vocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius et Ennius.

etiam prius, i.e. even before the satura of Lucilius: cp. olim carmen quod, &c. in the passage just quoted. The satura of Varro (like that of Menippus, whom he imitated), besides being composed in all sorts of metres, admitted prose also: hence ‘non sola carminum varietate mixtum’ (for the implied antithesis cp. 7 §19 in prosa ... in carmine). It was also, in respect of material, a sort of pot-pourri or ‘hodge-podge’: cp. multis rebus refertum, Diomedes, l.c. See Crit. Notes.

condidit: see §56. There is no need for Jahn’s conj. condivit. The word means ‘wrote,’ ‘composed’ (not ‘founded,’ as Mayor in his analysis): cp. iii. 1, 19 primus condidit aliqua (in arte rhetorica) M. Cato: xii. II, 23 Cato ... idem historiae conditor.

Terentius Varro, M. (B.C. 116-27). Of his many works (said to number about 600) we have only three books of the De Re Rustica, parts of the De Lingua Latina (in 25 books), and fragments of the Menippean Satires. For the last v. esp. Mommsen, iv. pt. 2, p. 594. A good account of Varro’s life and writings is given in Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 141-156. In regard to the Saturae, v. esp. pp. 144-145: ‘There was one class of semi-poetical composition which Varro made peculiarly his own, the Satura Menippea, a medley of prose and verse, treating of all kinds of subjects just as they came to hand in the plebeian style, often with much grossness, but with sparkling point. Of these Saturae he wrote no less than 150 books, of which fragments have been preserved amounting to near 600 lines. Menippus of Gadara, the originator of this style of composition, lived about 280 B.C.; he interspersed jocular and commonplace topics with moral maxims and philosophical doctrines, and may have added contemporary pictures, though this is uncertain. Varro followed him; we find him in the Academicae Quaestiones of Cicero (i. 2, 8) saying that he adopted this method in the hope of enticing the unlearned to read something that might profit them. In these saturae topics were 93 handled with the greatest freedom. They were not satires in the modern sense. They are rather to be considered as lineal descendants of the old saturae which existed before (cp. etiam prius) any regular literature.’

Romanorum eruditissimus: cp. Cicero ad Att. xiii. 18 where, with some pique, he writes homo πολυγραφώτατος nunquam me lacessivit (by dedicating a work to him): August. C. D. vi. 2 homo omnium facile acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus. Dion. Hal. ii. 21 ἀνὴρ ... πολυπειρότατος: and Plut. Rom. 12 ἄνδρα Ῥωμαίων ἐν ἱστορίᾳ βιβλιακώτατον.

omnis antiquitatis. He wrote Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum, in forty-one books. Cp. Cic. Brut. 15, 60 diligentissimus investigator antiquitatis. For his general activity v. Acad. Post. i. 3, 9 nos in nostra urbe peregrinantes ... tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt ... tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura, tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu bellicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum, locorum, tu omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina, genera, officia, causas aperuisti plurimumque idem poetis nostris omninoque latinis et litteris luminis et verbis attulisti, atque ipse varium et elegans omni fere numero poema fecisti philosophiamque multis locis inchoasti, ad inpellendum satis, ad edocendum parum. Cp. Phil. ii. 41, 105, where distinct reference is made (as Halm points out) to treatises de Iure Civili, in fifteen books: de Vita Populi Romani, in four books: Annales in three books: Antiquitates in forty-one books: de Fama Philosophiae: and nine books Disciplinarum: Quint. xii. 11, 24, Quam multa, paene omnia, tradidit Varro.—For this use of antiquitas cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 59 cognoscendae antiquitatis: and other exx. in Nettleship’s Lat. Lex. s.v. 3.

scientiae ... eloquentiae: cp. August. C. D. vi. 2 M. Varro ... tametsi minus est suavis eloquio, doctrina tamen atque sententiis ita refertus est ut in omni eruditione ... studiosum rerum tantum iste doceat quantum studiosum verborum Cicero delectat. For the datives cp. §27, §63, §71: conferre with in c. acc. occurs 7 §26, q.v.

I:96 Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, sed aliis quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in Catullo, Bibaculo, 94 Horatio, quamquam illi epodos intervenit, reperietur. At lyricorum idem Horatius fere solus legi dignus; nam et insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax. Si quem adicere velis, is erit Caesius Bassus, quem nuper vidimus; sed eum longe praecedunt ingenia viventium.

§ 96. Iambus = carmina iambica: cp. §9, §59.

celebratus est: cp. ix. 2, 92 celebrata apud Graecos schemata: i. 9, 6 narratiunculas a poetis celebratas. Cp. frequentare.

ut proprium opus, i.e. as a separate form of composition, such as it was in the hands of Archilochus, Hipponax, and Simonides.

aliis quibusdam (sc. carminibus) interpositus. Hild takes this as referring both to the alternation of the iambic with other metres and the substitution of other feet for the iambus itself (as commonly in Horace). It is probable that it only includes the former, being repeated, as regards Horace, in the words quamquam illi epodos intervenit.’ See Crit. Notes.

Catullo. Cp. Fragm. i. At non effugies meos iambos. The most famous examples of his acerbitas are the lampoons on Julius Caesar, especially that contained in the twenty-ninth poem (where see Munro for an appreciation of the meaning of ancient defamation and invective). Here Catullus appears as the genuine successor of the early Greek iambic writers. (Cp. the more offensive hendecasyllabics of lvii.) These are the two poems which Suetonius (Caesar 73) regarded as having attached an ‘everlasting stigma’ to the name of Caesar: cp. liii. ad fin. Irascere iterum meis iambis Immerentibus unice imperator. Sellar’s Roman Poets, p. 431 sq.

Bibaculo. M. Furius Bibaculus (b. at Cremona B.C. 99), like Catullus, the author of lampoons directed especially against the monarchists: Tac. Ann. iv. 34 carmina Bibaculi et Catulli referta contumeliis Caesarum leguntur: sed ipse divus Iulius, ipse divus Augustus et tulere ista et reliquere. Some apply to him the words of Horace, Satires ii. 5, 40, sq. seu pingui tentus omaso Furius hibernas cana nive conspuet Alpes (where the scholiast credits him with having written an account of the Gallic War): also i. 10, 36 Turgidus 94 Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona,—the nickname Alpinus having been given to him on account of this ludicrous description of Jupiter sputtering snow over the Alps: v. Quint. viii. 6, 17, where the original line is quoted as an instance of a forced metaphor. The reference in i. 10, 36 is however doubtful; and Bernhardy (R. L. p. 566) supposes that in both passages some unknown poet is meant, whose name may have been Furius Alpinus. See Teuffel, R. L. i. 313.

illi, sc. iambo = iambicis versibus.

epodos: ὁ ἐπῳδός, sc. στίχος = a shorter (iambic) verse, alternating with a longer. Epodi dicuntur versus quolibet modo scripti et sequentes clausulas habentes particularum quales sunt epodi Horatii: in quibus singulis versibus singulae clausulae adiciuntur.... Dicti autem epodi συνεκδοχικῶς a partibus versuum, quae legitimis et integris versibus ἐπᾴδονται, i.e. accinuntur: Diomedes. Though the term epode includes all kinds of metre (except elegiac) in which a long and a short line are combined, it is used especially of the alternation of the iambic trimeter and dimeter (Hor. Epod. 1-10). Horace himself (who has only one poem—Epod. 17—in iambic trimeter by itself) includes all his Epodes under the head of iambi: Epod. 14, 7: Ep. i. 19, 23-25 Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Latio numeros animosque secutus Archilochi: cp. Car. i. 16, 3, and esp. 23-25 me quoque pectoris Tentavit in dulci iuventa Fervor et in celeres iambos Misit furentem. In Ep. ii. 2, 59 he divides his poetry into carmina—Odes: iambi—Epodes: and ‘Bionei sermones’—Satires. Of course it was not Horace who introduced the epode into the Archilochean iambics: the form was invented and used by Archilochus himself. See Bernhardy, p. 601.

legi dignus: a poetical constr., which passed into the prose of the Silver Age: cp. Plin. Paneg. vii. 4 dignus alter eligi alter eligere. See Crit. Notes.

varius figuris: cp. §68 sententiis densus.

verbis felicissime audax: cp. Hor. A. P. 46 sq.: In verbis etiam tenuis cautusque serendis, hoc amet, hoc spernat promissi carminis auctor. Dixeris egregie notum si callida verbum Reddiderit iunctura novum,—where Orelli gives, as instances of callida iunctura in Horace himself, the well-known phrases ‘splendide mendax,’ ‘insanientis sapientiae consultus,’ ‘animae magnae prodigus.’ Cp. Petron. Sat. 118 Horatii curiosa felicitas. Ovid pronounces his eulogy in Trist. iv. 10, 49 Tenuit nostras numerosus Horatius aures, Dum ferit Ausonia carmina culta lyra.

Caesius Bassus: mentioned by Ovid in the lines immediately preceding the passage just quoted, ll. 47-8: Ponticus Heroo, Bassus quoque clarus Iambo, Dulcia convictus membra fuere mei. He was the friend of Persius, who addresses his sixth Satire to him: and at the request of Cornutus he edited the whole six, after they had been prepared for publication by the latter. He is said to have perished in the eruption of Vesuvius (A.D. 79), which was fatal also to the elder Pliny. He is probably the Bassus who wrote a treatise on metres, which still exists in an interpolated epitome: Keil. Gram. Lat. vi. 305 sq.—For vidimus, ‘amisimus’ and ‘perdidimus’ have been needlessly suggested.

ingenia viventium: cp. sunt clari hodieque §94 above. It is only in favour of Domitian §91 that Quint. breaks his rule not to mention living writers. Hild suspects Quint. of a little ‘log-rolling’ in these compliments.

I:97 Tragoediae scriptores veterum Attius atque Pacuvius clarissimi 95 gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum. 96 Ceterum nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus magis videri potest temporibus quam ipsis defuisse; virium tamen Attio plus tribuitur, Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt.

§ 97. Tragoediae scriptores. Quint. did not consider it necessary for his purpose to take any account of the first beginnings of tragedy, otherwise he would have mentioned Livius Andronicus (284-204), Naevius (235), and Ennius himself, who was probably almost as great in tragedy as in narrative poetry. It was
Ennius who first impressed on Roman tragedy the deeply moral and highly didactic character which it bore down to the age of Cicero. He made it his endeavour to hold up patterns of heroic virtue to his audience and to inspire them with right ideas of life. Even his adaptations from the Greek (nearly half of the extant names of his tragedies suggest subjects taken from the Trojan cycle) are fired with the truly national spirit which he succeeded in handing on to his successors, Attius and Pacuvius. Ennius also wrote some praetextatae (i.e. national tragedies on historic subjects of poetic interest, e.g. the Rape of the Sabine Women); and in view of this fact it may appear strange that his example was not more widely followed, so that these national dramas should have outlived the hackneyed subjects drawn from Greek legend. The reason probably is that there was too much party life in Rome to make the dramatic treatment of the national history equally acceptable to all. Few incidents could have been dramatised that would not have excited various feelings in the hearts of an audience, say, in the times of the Gracchi. Under the Empire the free treatment of the national history for dramatic purposes was positively discouraged, and under the Republic the Senate had exercised almost as severe a political censorship as the Emperor did in later times.

From many points of view it might have been expected that tragedy would have found a congenial home at Rome. There was much in the national character, history, and institutions that was favourable to its growth. The speculative element and the deep spiritual interest which pervades Greek tragedy must no doubt have been absent; though Schlegel thought that the place of Nemesis could naturally have been taken by the idea of Religio, in so far as it comprehended the subordination of the individual to the State, and his supreme self-surrender. But tragedy flourished at Rome only during a comparatively short period: the populace probably failed to rise to the demands made on them by its lofty and serious purpose. Their tastes became more and more estranged from it, as gladiatorial and spectacular shows grew in favour; and appreciation of the drama came to be the proof of the culture of a small and exclusive class. But the popularity which it enjoyed for a time must have been due to the fact that, though the subjects were generally adapted from the Greek, Roman tragedy came to have a character of its own. It appealed to the ethical and political sympathies of the audience, and satisfied that taste for rhetoric which led afterwards to the development of Latin oratory. There may have been about it no subtle analysis of character, no lofty delineation of the action and passion of men entangled in the meshes of a destiny which they could neither understand nor unravel; but it seems to have embodied all the manly feeling and moral dignity of which the nation was capable. By its vigorous rhetoric it may be said at least to have helped to develop the language for use in those departments in which it achieved so great success, i.e. oratory, history, and philosophical composition. And when under the Empire literature had become altogether divorced from practical life, the composition of tragedies was still a favourite practice with many (e.g. Seneca) who recognised in that pursuit an appropriate sphere for the rhetorical style which was then so much in vogue.

Attius L., (170-about 90 B.C.) should have come after Pacuvius, as being fifteen years younger. He produced his first play in conjunction with Pacuvius, cir. 140. We have the titles of about fifty of his dramas, and the fragments extant contain some 700 verses. He seems to have had pretty much the same qualities as Ennius and Pacuvius, manly seriousness of style combined with fervour of spirit. Cicero, who is said to have conversed with him in his boyhood, and others, bear witness to his oratorical force, his gravity, and passionate energy: pro Plancio, §59 gravis et ingeniosus poeta: pro Sest. §120 summus poeta: Ovid, Am. i. 15, 19 animosi Attius oris: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 55-6 Ambigitur quotiens uter utro sit prior, aufert Pacuvius docti famam senis, Accius alti. Sellar’s Rom. Poets, pp. 146-7. Quintilian gives a shrewd answer of his (v. 13, 43): aiunt Attium interrogatum cur causas non ageret, cum apud eum in tragoediis tanta vis esset optime respondendi, hanc reddidisse rationem: quod illic ea dicerentur quae ipse vellet, in foro dicturi adversarii essent quae minime vellet.

Pacuvius, M. (220-132), the son of Ennius’s sister. Of provincial birth (his birth-place was Brundisium), he could 96 not, according to Cicero, boast the pure Latinity which was the pride of Naevius and Plautus: Brut. §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos videmus. But in Orat. §36 an imaginary opinion is given as follows:—omnes apud hunc ornati elaboratique versus, multa apud alterum (Ennium) neglegentius. Martial (xi. 90), addressing a wrong-headed admirer of the old poets, jeers at him for delighting in archaisms,—Attonitusque legis terrai frugiferai Attius et quidquid Pacuviusque vomunt. We have about 400 lines extant, which are discussed in Sellar’s Roman Poets, and also by Ribbeck (Römische Tragödie, pp. 216-339). The epithet doctus, in the use of which Horace and Quintilian agree, probably refers to his wide acquaintance with Greek literature: see below.

clarissimi: see Crit. Notes.

nitor: v. on §79: and cp. §§33, 83, 98, 113: §124 cultus ac nitor.

summa manus: Cic. Brut. §126 manus extrema (the ‘finishing touch’) non accessit operibus eius: Cp. i. pr. §4 quasi perfectis omni alio genere doctrinae summam inde eloquentiae manum imponerent. See on §21.

magis ... temporibus: but see Cicero, Brut. l.c. Aetatis illius ista fuit laus, tamquam innocentiae, sic latine loquendi ... omnes tum fere ... recte loquebantur.

virium Attio: cp. Ovid’s ‘animosi oris,’ quoted above: Vell. Paterc. ii. §9 adeo quidem ut in illis limae in hoc paene plus videatur fuisse sanguinis. Persius is less complimentary, Brisaei ... venosus liber Acci (1, 76), the ‘shrivelled volume of the old Bacchanal Accius.’—Quintilian is here only recording current literary opinion: but such references as those at i. 5, 67: 7, 14: 8, 11: v. 10, 84: 13, 43 go far to prove independent knowledge.

doctiorem: cp. Horace’s ‘docti famam senis,’ quoted above.

esse docti adfectant: for the constr. cp. §72 meruit credi secundus: Introd. p. lvi. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 9, 7 noris nos, inquit, docti sumus, where Professor Wilkins remarks: “The epithet of doctus was especially assumed by those who were versed in Greek literature and mythology, especially the products of the Alexandrine school.” It aptly characterises the artificial tendencies of the literature of the Empire.

Iam—a formula of transition. Kr.3 suggests Nam: see on §12.

I:98 Iam Vari Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest. Ovidi Medea videtur mihi ostendere quantum ille vir praestare potuerit si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere 97 maluisset. Eorum quos viderim longe princeps Pomponius Secundus, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac nitore praestare confitebantur.

§ 98. L. Varius Rufus (64 B.C.-9 A.D.), the friend of Vergil and Horace (Hor. Sat. i. 5, 40: 6, 55), enjoyed a high reputation as an epic poet before he took up tragedy. Macrobius (vi. 1, 39 sq.: i. 2, 19 sq.) gives twelve hexameters of his from an epic poem on Caesar’s death: hence Hor. Sat. i. 10, 51 forte epos acer ut nemo Varius ducit. From a Panegyricus Augusti Horace is said to have borrowed the verses which occur Ep. i. 16, 27-29. Cp. the ode addressed to Agrippa (i. 6) Scriberis Vario ... Maeonii carminis alite. He is mentioned as an epic poet together with Vergil, Ep. ii. 1, 147: A. P. 55. His tragedy Thyestes was performed at the games after the battle of Actium (B.C. 29). Cp. Tac. Dial. 12 Nec ullus Asinii aut Messallae liber tam illustris est quam Medea Ovidii aut Varii Thyestes: Philargyr. on Verg. Ecl. viii. 10 Varium cuius exstat Thyestes tragoedia, omnibus tragicis praeferenda. A quotation from it is given iii. 8, 45. He edited the Aeneid after Vergil’s death, along with Plotius and Tucca: probably prefixing the biographical sketch from which Quintilian quotes x. 3, 8.

Graecarum, sc. fabularum.

Medea: a quotation from it is given viii. 5, 6 servare potui: perdere an possim rogas?

quantum potuerit ... si maluisset: cp. §62. The use of the perf. subj. in such a sentence corresponds to the use of the pf. ind. in oratio recta with verbs implying possibility, duty, right, &c., as if to express the idea more unconditionally: e.g. deleri totus exercitus potuit si fugientes persecuti victores essent (Livy xxxii. 12), So Ventum erat eo ut si hostem similem antiquis Macedonum regibus habuisset consul magna clades accipi potuerit (Livy xliv. 4). Roby, 1568.

ingenio imperare: cp. nimium amator ingenii sui §88.


quos viderim, §118. The subj. seems to be used here on the analogy of the qui of restriction and limitation (Roby 1692): omnium quidem oratorum, quos quidem ego cognoverim, acutissimum iudico Q. Sertorium Brut. §48: cp. §65. The indic. is also used: in iis etiam quos ipsi vidimus xii. 10, 11.

Pomponius Secundus underwent an imprisonment of several years’ duration on account of his friendship with Aelius Gallus, son of Sejanus: Tac. Ann. v. 8 multa morum elegantia et ingenio illustri: ibid. xi. 13: xii. 28, where we are told that he obtained a triumph under Claudius,—modica pars famae eius apud postero, in quis carminum gloria praecellit: Dial. xiii, ne nostris quidem temporibus Secundus Pomponius Afro Domitio vel dignitate vitae vel perpetuitate famae cesserit. One of his plays was called ‘Aeneas.’ He died 60 A.D.

parum tragicum: contrast Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 166 Nam spirat tragicum satis et feliciter audet. See Crit. Notes.

I:99 In comoedia maxime claudicamus. Licet Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis sententia, 98 Plautino dicat sermone locuturas fuisse, si Latine loqui vellent, licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant, licet Terenti scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur (quae tamen sunt in hoc 99 genere elegantissima, et plus adhuc habitura gratiae si intra versus trimetros stetissent),

§ 99. maxime claudicamus. No doubt this dictum must be taken as implying that ‘the educated taste of Romans under the Empire did not find much that was congenial in the works of Plautus, Caecilius, or Terence’ (Sellar, R. P. p. 154). But Quintilian must also have been biassed by a comparison with Greek Comedy, of the superiority of which we can have only an imperfect appreciation, owing to the scantiness of the survivals; while in depreciating Roman Comedy, as compared with Tragedy, he also had the advantage over us of a full acquaintance with the whole range of the latter. Moreover, it was Satire, not Comedy, that represented at Rome much of the spirit of the old Comedy of Athens. Horace, too, is more severe on Plautus than on Ennius and the tragic poets (Ep. ii. 1, 170: A. P. 270 sq.). Again, in Quintilian’s day the Mimus had so completely re-asserted its position that the production of comedies seems to have almost entirely ceased. “Comedy was not congenial to the educated or the uneducated taste of Romans in the last years of the Republic, and in the early Empire. But, on the other hand, the popularity enjoyed by the old comedy between the time of Naevius and of Terence, and even down to the earlier half of the Ciceronian age, when some of the great parts in Plautus continued to be performed by the ‘accomplished Roscius,’ and the admiration expressed for its authors by grammarians and critics, from Aelius Stilo down to Varro and Cicero, shows its adaptation to an earlier and not less vigorous, if less refined stage of intellectual development; while the actual survival of many Roman comedies can only be accounted for by a more real adaptation to human nature, both in style and substance, than was attained by Roman tragedy in its straining after a higher ideal of sentiment and expression.” Sellar, Roman Poets l.c.

Musas. To this Muretus added ‘Ne illae saepe, si Plautino more loquerentur, meretricio magis quam virginali more loquerentur.’ For the epigram cp. Plato on Aristophanes Αἱ χάριτες τέμενός τι λαβεῖν ὅπερ οὐχὶ πεσεῖται Διζόμεναι ψυχὴν εὗρον Ἀριστοφάνους.

Aeli Stilonis, the first Roman philologist (144-70 B.C.). His name was L. Aelius Praeconinus: he received the additional cognomen Stilo on the ground of his literary eminence. Suet, de Gramm. 2 Aelius cognomine duplici fuit; nam et Praeconinus, quod pater eius praeconium fecerat, vocabatur, et Stilo, quod orationes nobilissimo cuique scribere solebat. Cp. Cic. Brut. §205 scribebat tamen orationes quas alii dicerent: and above, fuit is omnino vir egregius et eques Romanus cum primis honestus idemque eruditissimus et Graecis litteris et Latinis, antiquitatisque nostrae et in inventis rebus et in actis scriptorumque veterum litterate peritus. Quam scientiam Varro noster acceptam ab illo auctamque per sese ... pluribus et illustrioribus litteris explicavit. Varro ap. Gell. N. A. i. 18, 2 L. Aelius noster, litteris ornatissimus memoria nostra: and L. L. vii. 2 homo in primis in litteris latinis exercitatus. Varro was his pupil; and we are told by Gellius (iii. 3, 1) that both master and pupil made lists of the plays of Plautus, Varro distinguishing his classes according to his personal feeling and judgment as to whether a play was worthy of Plautus or not. Cicero tells 98 us (l.c.) that in his youth he was a very diligent student under Aelius; and as Lucilius addressed some of his satires to him he may be looked on as a bond of connection between the two epochs.

sententia: abl. by itself, after the analogy of mea, tua, sententia. Varro took the criticism from his master.

vellent: the possibility is looked upon as still present.

Plautino sermone. Plautus (254-184) fills a very distinct place in the development of Latin comedy. He engrafted the festive traditions of the Italian farce on the literary form which he borrowed from Greece, producing a picture of Roman life and manners which secured for his dramas a degree of popularity that caused them to be represented almost uninterruptedly down even to the fourth century of our era. Modern comedy is under deep obligations to him if only for his spirit of unrestrained fun. See Bernhardy, p. 452 sq.: Teuffel §§84-88: Cruttwell’s Rom. Lit. pp. 43-48: and Sellar’s Roman Poets, p. 189 sq.

Caecilius, Statius (219-166), an Insubrian Gaul by birth, and contemporary with Ennius. Fragments of his plays are preserved by Gellius, who tells us (xv. 24) that Volcatius Sedigitus (a critic who probably belonged to the earlier part of the first century,—Ritschl, Parerga, p. 240 sq.) placed him at the head of all the Roman comic poets: Caecilio palmam statuo dandam comico, Plautus secundus facile exsuperat ceteros. The three next are Naevius, Licinius, and Atilius; Terence comes only sixth on the list. Cicero inclines to the same verdict: de Opt. Gen. Orat. §1 itaque licet dicere et Ennium summum epicum poetam, si cui ita videtur: et Pacuvium tragicum: et Caecilium fortasse comicum. But elsewhere he censures his provincial style: Brutus, §258 Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos videmus: ad. Att. vii. 3, 10 malus enim auctor Latinitatis est. For other quotations v. de Orat. ii §40: Lael. 99: de Sen. 96: de Fin. i. 4. Nonius (p. 374) quotes Varro as saying In argumentis Caecilius poscit palmam, in ethesi Terentius, in sermonibus Plautus. Horace’s criticism (Ep. ii. 1, 57) is still more familiar: Dicitur Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi, Vincere Caecilius gravitate, Terentius arte. By gravitas Horace probably means the sententious maxims for which he was distinguished (Sellar, p. 202). See Mommsen, ii. 441. Caecilius imitated Menander mainly, to whom Gellius compares him (ii. 23), while admitting the superiority of his Greek model. He is said neither to have amused his audience, like Plautus, by confounding Greek and Roman terms, manners, and customs, &c., nor like Terence, on the other hand, to have carefully excised everything that did not accord with Roman usage. He is said also to have recognised the division of tastes and interests that was now springing up at Rome, and to have begun to address only the higher classes, to whom Plautus had appealed along with ‘the gallery.’

laudibus ferant, for the Ciceronian efferant: Tac. Ann. ii. 13. Cp. Introd. p. l.

Terentii scripta ... elegantissima. The gap between the classes at Rome, alluded to above, had widened in the interval that separates Plautus from Terence (cir. 194-159 B.C.). The educated class was growing more refined and fastidious under the leavening influence of Greek culture, while the uneducated section of the people was gradually becoming coarser and more debased. A leading member of the Scipionic circle, he may be said to have begun the movement by which the creations of the genius of Rome became more perfect as works of art addressed to a smaller circle of men of rank and education, but lost also something of directness of purpose as having less bearing on the passions and interests of the time. The growing appreciation of Greek literature had produced a sense of dissatisfaction with the uncouth efforts of a previous age; and elegance of style, the cultivation of refinement and taste in thought and language, were the objects now aimed at. There is distinctly less of the drollery of the tavern about Terence than about Plautus. The ‘art’ with which Horace credits him (v. above) is seen in the careful finish of his style. Cp. Caesar’s lines, quoted by Sueton. Vit. Terent., in which he calls him puri sermonis amator, and dimidiate Menander. See Sellar, p. 208 sq.: Mommsen, vol. iii. p. 449 sq.

ad Scipionem Africanum. Cp. Sueton. Vit. Ter. (Roth. p. 293) non obscura fama 99 est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione, eamque ipse auxit nunquam nisi leviter refutare conatus, ut in prologo Adelphorum: Nam quod isti dicunt malevoli, homines nobiles Hunc adiutare adsidueque una scribere, &c. The rumour may have arisen from the fact of his Carthaginian origin, which renders all the more remarkable the success with which he cultivated a refined and elegant style.

plus adhuc = etiam plus: see on §71.

habitura. For this use of the fut. part, in a conditional sentence cp. xi. 1, 74 detracturus alioqui plurimum auctoritatis sibi si eum se esse qui temere nocentes reos susciperet fateretur. So too §119 below (without a si clause): pronuntiatio vel scaenis suffectura.

intra versus trimetros. This is a curious criticism, but it can be paralleled from Priscian, de Metris Terentii: quosdam vel abnegare esse in Terentii comoediis metra, vel ea quasi arcana quaedam et ab omnibus doctis semota sibi solis esse cognita confirmare. The vagaries of comic prosody were certainly not appreciated by ancient critics: they could not excuse what to them seemed carelessness and undue freedom from constraint: cp. Cicero, Orat. §184 at comicorum senarii propter similitudinem sermonis sic saepe sunt abiecti ut nonnunquam vix in eis numerus et versus intellegi possit. Quintilian and others would no doubt have preferred a stricter imitation of Menander’s versification. Horace himself took the same point of view in writing about Plautus, Ep. ii. 1, 272 si modo ego et vos ... legitimumque sonum digitis callemus et aure. Cp. Bernhardy, 325 n. and 350 n.

I:100 vix levem consequimur umbram: adeo ut mihi sermo ipse Romanus non recipere videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem, cum eam ne Graeci quidem in alio genere linguae suae obtinuerint. Togatis excellit Afranius: utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus mores suos fassus.


§ 100. vix levem ... umbram: a proverbial expression, from the same disparaging point of view as claudicamus, above.

alio genere linguae suae, i.e. another dialect. The charm referred to is the peculiar property of Attic writers generally,—not the comic poets alone. Latin is too formal and rhetorical to fall into the simple naturalness and directness of Attic Greek. For suae see Crit. Notes.

Togatis, sc. fabulis. The Comoediae Togatae (though founded on Greek models) aspired to be thoroughly national in dress, manners, and tone: quae scriptae sunt secundum ritus et habitum togatorum, i.e. Romanorum (Diom. iii. p. 489). On the other hand, in the Palliatae of Plautus, Caecilius and Terence (so called from pallium, the Greek actor’s cloak, xi. 3, 143), all the surroundings are meant to be Greek, though much of the fun of the Plautine comedy is the result of the inconsistencies that sprang from the introduction into Greek circumstances of Roman names, scenes, manners, and characters.

Afranius, fl. cir. 150 B.C. He was the chief writer of togatae, and began to aim at getting rid altogether of Greek surroundings: and so comedy, descending into the low humours of Italian country life, and specially the debaucheries of the Italian towns, rapidly degenerated into farce. He borrowed freely from Menander: dicitur Afrani toga convenisse Menandro, Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 57,—‘Menander’s speeches came very well from the characters of Afranius.’ Cic. de Fin. i. 3, 7. But he did not confine his attentions to Menander only: Macrob. Sat. vi. 1, 4 Afranius togatarum scriptor ... non inverecunde respondens arguentibus quod plura sumpsisset a Menandro, ‘Fateor,’ inquit, ‘sumpsi non ab illo modo sed ut quisque habuit conveniret quod mihi, quodque me non melius facere credidi, etiam a Latino.’ Cicero, Brut. §167 L. Afranius poeta, homo perargutus, in fabulis quidem etiam, ut scitis, disertus.

utinam non, i. 2, 6: ix. 3, 1: more usually utinam ne: Cic. ad Fam. 5, 17 illud utinam ne vere scriberem: Catull. 64, 171. Krüger (3rd ed.) cites however Cic. ad Att. xi. 9, 3 haec ad te die natali meo scripsi: quo utinam susceptus non essem aut ne quid ex eadem matre postea natum esset.

foedis amoribus: cp. Auson. Epigr. 100 71 vitiosa libido ... quam toga facundi scenis agitavit Afrani.

I:101 At non historia cesserit Graecis. Nec opponere Thucydidi Sallustium verear, nec indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari Titum Livium, cum in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris, tum in contionibus supra quam enarrari potest eloquentem: 101 ita quae dicuntur omnia cum rebus, tum personis accommodata sunt: adfectus quidem praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime dicam, nemo historicorum commendavit magis.

§ 101. cesserit. So §85 auspicatissimum dederit exordium: cp. cesserimus §86. There is no need for Halm’s suggestion in historia cesserimus: or Spalding’s cesserim with historia in abl. Cp. Cicero, de Legg. i. 2, 5 ut in hoc etiam genere Graeciae nihil cedamus, and the whole passage.

Sallustium. This is a bold statement. Sallust evidently accepted Thucydides as his literary model, imitating his style, and following him in his speeches and the general arrangement of his work. (Capes’ Sallust: Introd. p. 13 sq.). Brevity (cp. illa Sallustiana brevitas §32) is a conspicuous feature in both: but the brevity of Thucydides is greatly the result of inability to keep pace with the rush of thought, whereas that of Sallust is often laboured and artificial, and is attained by conscious processes of excision and compression. Cp. iv. 2, 45 vitanda est etiam illa Sallustiana (quamquam in ipso virtutis obtinet locum) brevitas et abruptum sermonis genus: Seneca, Ep. 114, 17 Sallustio vigente amputatae sententiae et verba ante exspectatum cadentia et obscura brevitas fuere pro cultu: Aul. Gell. iii. 1, 6 Sallustium subtilissimum brevitatis artificem. His Grecisms are referred to by Quint. ix. 3, 17 ex Graeco vero translata vel Sallustii plurima. According to Suetonius (Gramm. 10 extr.) Ateius exhorted Asinius Pollio (ut) vitet maxime obscuritatem Sallustii et audaciam in translationibus. For the high esteem in which he was held in antiquity cp. Velleius ii. 36, 2 aemulum Thucydidi Sallustium: Tacitus, Ann. iii. 30 rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor: Martial xiv. 191 primus Romana Crispus in historia. See Teuffel §§203-205. In modern times Milton exalted him above Tacitus, saying of the latter that ‘his highest praise consists in his having imitated Sallust with all his might.’ On the other hand Scaliger spoke of Sallust’s style as ‘anxium atque insiticium dicendi genus.’

Titum Livium. Quintilian’s estimate of Livy is very happily expressed so far as it goes. He ignores of course the defects which are obvious to modern students of Livy,—his want of that historic sense which shows itself in ability to trace the gradual development of institutions and to take a philosophic view of general political and social conditions, his indifference to the scrupulous collation and weighing of evidence, and his neglect of chronological and geographical precision. Munro in his ‘Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus’ speaks of Livy’s style as the greatest prose style that has ever been written in any age or language, and certainly it has all the beauties which Quintilian mentions here: besides, the happy adaptation of the language to the ever-varying phases of the subject is one of its greatest charms. Teuffel, §251 sq. The best proof of Livy’s popularity in ancient times may be found in the story of the man from Gades, Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 8 Nunquamne legisti Gaditanum quendam Titi Livi nomine gloriaque commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse statimque ut viderat abisse?

narrando ... contionibus. This antithesis is common in Dionysius: διηγήσεσιν ... δημηγορίαις (ad Pomp. p. 776 R, Us. pp. 58-9) τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέρος ... τὸ δημηγορικόν (Iud. de Thucyd.) p. 952 R.

candoris, ‘transparency’: ii. 5, 19 candidissimum quemque et maxime expositum velim, ut Livium a pueris magis quam Sallustium: etsi hic historiae maior est auctor, ad quem tamen intellegendum iam profectu opus sit: §32 lactea ubertas. Cp. dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus §73, where see note: §113 nitidus et candidus.—In a different sense, Seneca, Suas. vi. 22, ut est natura candidissimus omnium magnorum ingeniorum aestimator T. Livius.

contionibus. The speeches are introduced in order to give a portrait of some one (xlv. 25, 3), or to indicate motives (viii. 7: iii. 47, 5). Though they make no claim to historical truth (in hanc sententiam locutum accipio iii. 67, 1), they generally give a trustworthy picture of the circumstances and character of the speaker: cp. e.g. vii. 34. In some instances we can see how Livy rhetorically 101 enlarges on the brief hints of a predecessor: cp. Polyb. iii. 64 with Liv. xxi. 40 sq. Teuffel §252, 12.

supra quam: cp. Sall. Cat. 5, 3 supra quam cuiquam credibile est: Iug. 24, 5: Cicero, Orator §139 saepe supra feret quam fieri posset (cp. de Nat. Deor. ii. §136). Quintilian has inenarrabilis xi. 3, 177, which occurs also in Livy xliv. 5, 1: xli. 15, 2.

eloquentem: viii. 1, 3 Tito Livio, mirae facundiae viro: Tac. Agr. 10 Livius veterum Fabius Rusticus recentium eloquentissimi auctores: Ann. iv. 34 T. Livius eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis: Seneca, de Ira i. 20, 6 apud disertissimum virum Livium.

adfectus: §48 adfectus quidem, vel illos mites vel hos concitatos: ‘the softer passions.’

parcissime: cp. below, 4 §4 qui parcissime: xi. 1, 66: 3, 100.

commendavit magis: ‘has set in a fairer light,’ ‘represented more perfectly’ (‘hat angemessen und eindringlich dargestellt.’—Bonnell-Meister). Spalding felt a difficulty about this word, but rightly suggested that it means ‘approbavit suis lectoribus,’—a meaning to which ut parcissime dicam is quite appropriate. The nearest parallel is iv. 1, 13 Nam tum dignitas eius (litigatoris) adlegatur, tum commendatur infirmitas (‘set in a strong light,’ ‘made much of’),—where too the verb is used absolutely, without a dative. The usual construction is found v. 11, 38 misericordiam commendabo iudici. In the sense of ‘set off’ (ornare), without a dat., we have quae memoria complecteretur actio commendaret viii. Prooem. 6: quaedam ... virtus haec sola commendat ix. 4, 13: hoc oratio recta, illud figura declinata commendat x. 5, 8.—For the reading commodavit see Crit. Notes.

I:102 Ideoque immortalem Sallusti velocitatem diversis virtutibus consecutus est. Nam mihi egregie dixisse videtur Servilius Nonianus, pares eos magis quam similes; qui et ipse a 102 nobis auditus est clarus vi ingenii et sententiis creber, sed minus pressus quam historiae auctoritas postulat.

§ 102. immortalem: so §86, where it is more appropriate.

velocitatem: ‘rapid brevity.’ It is the quality which Dionysius denotes by τὸ τάχος τῆς ἀπαγγελίας p. 870 R. Cp. Hor. Sat i. 10, 9 Est brevitate opus ut currat sententia,—quoted on §73 brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides, where see note. Arist. Rhet. iii. 16, 4 ταχεῖαν διήγησιν. So celeritas xii. 10, 65 hanc vim et celeritatem in Pericle miratur Eupolis: Eupolis having said of Pericles ταχὺς λέγειν μέν, πρὸς δέ γ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ τάχει πειθώ τις (Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 535).

consecutus est, lit. = ‘equalled in point of fame’: the real object is not velocitatem, so that the idea is awkwardly expressed. Quintilian means that by other good points (cp. §73 diversis virtutibus) Livy obtained a degree of fame not inferior to what Sallust gained by his ‘velocitas.’ It is in fact a brachyology for ‘immortalitatem illius Sallustianae velocitatis.’ Cp. Cic. Phil. xiv. 35 parem virtutis gloriam consecuta est (legio): Quint. iii. 7, 9 quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti. See Crit. Notes.

Servilius Nonianus. In mentioning his death (A.D. 60) along with that of Domitius Afer (§86), Tacitus says that he rivalled the latter’s abilities and surpassed his morals:—summis honoribus et multa eloquentia viguerant, ille orando causas, Servilius diu foro, mox tradendis rebus Romanis celebris et elegantia vitae, quam clariorem effecit, ut par ingenio, ita morum diversus. Cp. Dial. ch. 23 eloquentia ... Servilii Noniani. Like most of the Roman historians, except Livy, he was a man of affairs. Pliny, N. H. xxviii. 2, 5 princeps civitatis. He was the friend—possibly at one time the teacher—of the satirist Persius, who is said to have reverenced him as a father (coluit ut patrem). Pliny tells us (Ep. i. 13, 3) how Claudius, on hearing the thunders of applause that greeted his recitations, entered the building and seated himself unobserved among the audience: memoria parentura Claudium Caesarem ferunt, cum in palatio spatiaretur andissetque clamorem, causam requisisse, cumque dictum esset recitare Nonianum, subitum recitanti inopinantique venisse.

et ipse. Quintilian had not only read his works, but had heard him: he 102 would be between twenty and twenty-five when Servilius died.—For et ipse see on §31.

clarus vi ingenii: see Crit. Notes.

sententiis creber; cp. §68 sententiis densus. For sententiis (γνώμαις) cp. §60 §61: 2 §17. He was full of point and matter, but not concise enongh for the dignity of history. For pressus v. §44.

I:103 Quam paulum aetate praecedens eum Bassus Aufidius egregie, utique in libris belli Germanici, praestitit genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor.

§ 103. Bassus Aufidius. Tacitus mentions him along with Servilius Nonianus, Dial. 23, where he speaks of antiquarians ‘quibus eloquentia Aufidii Bassi aut Servilii Noniani ex comparatione Sisennae aut Varronis sordet.’ Seneca gives some account of him in his thirtieth letter: §1 Bassum Aufidium, virum optimum, vidi quassum, aetati obluctantem: §3 Bassus tamen noster alacer animo est. hoc philosophia praestat. Cp. §§5, 10, 14. His history probably ended with the reign of Claudius, at which point Pliny the elder took it up: N. H. praef. 20 diximus ... temporum nostrorum historiam, orsi a fine Aufidii Bassi. The ‘libri Belli Germanici’ may have been an independent work.—The practice of placing the cognomen before the gentile name grew under the Empire: many instances are found even in Cicero’s letters, but not in the ordinary prose of the Republic; cp. §86, and Introd. p. lv.

genere ipso = ‘gerade durch den Stil’ (Kiderlin)—as being suitable to historiae auctoritas. Quintilian often uses genus in this sense (without dicendi): often with an adj. like rectum, but often also without, e.g. x. 2, 18 noveram quosdam &c.: 2 §23 uni alicui generi. For the reading, see Crit. Notes.—From the specimens (on the death of Cicero) given by Seneca the rhetorician (Suas. vi. 18 and 23), we should infer that the style of Bassus was rather affected and pretentious.

I:104 Superest adhuc et exornat 103 aetatis nostrae gloriam vir saeculorum memoria dignus, qui olim nominabitur, nunc intellegitur. Habet amatores nec immerito Cremuti libertas, quamquam circumcisis quae dixisse ei nocuerat; sed elatum abunde spiritum et audaces sententias deprehendas etiam in his quae manent. Sunt et alii scriptores boni, sed nos genera degustamus, non bibliothecas excutimus.

§ 104. Superest. The fact that Cremutius put an end to his life in A.D. 25 is sufficient to disprove the theory that he is referred to here: superest when taken along with exornat aetatis nostrae gloriam cannot mean anything but superstes est (cp. supersunt 2 §28).—The Bonnell-Meister edition (1882) understands the reference to be to Tacitus: but though admirers of Tacitus would like to appropriate for him the phrase vir saeculorum memoria dignus, this can hardly be accepted. In the first place the words superest adhuc are, in their natural sense, inapplicable to one who had not published anything when Quintilian wrote (about 93 A.D.). He has just spoken of Servilius, who is known to have died in A.D. 60, and of Aufidius, who was old and frail in Seneca’s life-time, i.e. before A.D. 65: and though it may be proposed to take superest adhuc as meaning simply ‘I have still to refer to (a living writer),’ (cp. supersunt §123), in which sense the words might apply to Tacitus, it seems extremely improbable that after speaking of a youthful contemporary, Quintilian would in the next sentence return to Cremutius, who died as far back as A.D. 25. It might be argued that the point of the passage is that, after this indirect eulogy of Tacitus, the writer means to imply that the spirit of Cremutius still survives in him: ‘there is with us now one who will afterwards be famous but of whom we may not speak at present. The independence of Cremutius is still appreciated.’ But habet amatores will hardly cover this interpretation: it introduces a critique of Cremutius which has no relation to what goes before. And moreover it is doubtful whether Quintilian, who never mentions any living writer, except Domitian, would have hazarded a reference to one whose anti-imperial tendencies must have been so well known in Rome. Krüger’s supposition (3rd ed. p. 97) that after adhuc the name Tacitus has fallen out, or that we should write ‘superest Tacitus et ornat,’ is altogether out of the question: it would quite destroy the point of the sentence (nominabitur ... intellegitur). It seems safest, therefore, to follow those who with Nipperdey (Philol. vi. p. 193) understand the historian here meant to be Fabius Rusticus. It would have been strange if Quintilian had omitted to mention him, considering his eminence: Livius veterum, Fabius Rusticus recentium eloquentissimi 103 auctores, Tac. Agr. 10. And what he says fits Fabius very well; he was an intimate friend of Seneca (Tac. Ann. xiii. 20 sane Fabius inclinat ad laudes Senecae cuius amicitia floruit), and from the fact that he was made co-heir with Tacitus and Pliny in the will of Dasumius we know that he was still alive 108 or 109 A.D. Mommsen thinks that to him also is addressed Pliny, Ep. ix. 29.

vir saeculorum memoria dignus: Cp. §80: iii. 7, 18 ingeniorum monumenta, quae saeculis probarentur: xi. 1, 13 perpetua saeculorum admiratione celebrantur.

olim, of future time, as §94. The writer referred to will come actually to enjoy the renown of which Quint. here declares him worthy.

nunc intellegitur. For Quint.’s rule not to mention living writers cp. iii. 1, 21, quoted at §95; and for the antithesis between nominabitur and intellegitur, xi. 1, 10 maluit emim vir sapientissimus (Socrates) quod superesset ex vita sibi perire quam quod praeterisset. Et quando ab hominibus sui temporis parum intellegebatur, posterorum se iudiciis reservavit brevi detrimento iam ultimae senectutis aevum saeculorum omnium consecutus.

Cremuti libertas: παρρησία, §65, §94. Cremutius Cordus published a history of the Civil Wars and of the reign of Augustus—unius saeculi facta, Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 26, 5. Augustus is said to have read the work, or to have heard it read, without disapproval (Dion. 57, 24, 2; Sueton. Tib. 61). He afterwards incurred the displeasure of Sejanus by some bold remarks, as, for example, when he said in regard to the statue of Sejanus which he was told the Senate had resolved to erect in Pompey’s theatre, restored by Tiberius after a fire, ‘tunc vere theatrum perire’—Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 22, 4. In A.D. 25 he was brought to trial ‘novo ac tunc primum audito crimine, quod editis annalibus laudatoque M. Bruto C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset’ (Tac. Ann. iv. 34 sq.). Finding his case prejudged, after a spirited defence he went home and starved himself to death. The Senate ordered his books to be burned: ‘sed manserunt,’ says Tacitus, ‘occultati et editi.’ Dion. tells us that ‘afterwards (i.e. under Caligula) they were published again, for they had been preserved by various people, and particularly by his daughter Marcia; and they were esteemed much more highly on account of the fate of Cordus’ (lvii. 24). For Marcia v. Senecae Consolatio ad Marciam c. 1. Suet. Calig. 16 tells us that the suppressed writings of others also (Titus Labienus and Cassius Severus) were allowed by Caligula to come again into circulation, after a process of editing similar to that referred to by Quint. (circumcisis, &c.). Tacitus’s reflections on the ineffectual attempt to destroy Cremutius’s works are interesting in connection with our passage: quo magis socordiam eorum inridere licet, qui praesenti potentia credunt extingui posse etiam sequentis aevi memoriam. Nam contra, punitis ingeniis gliscit auctoritas, neque aliud externi reges aut qui eadem saevitia usi sunt, nisi dedecus sibi atque illis gloriam peperere, Ann. iv. 35 ad fin.

abunde: used here to emphasise elatum: v. on §94.

spiritus, §§44, 61; 3 §22. The excisions and emendations in regard to matters of detail had evidently not interfered with the independent tone of Cremutius’s writings.

alii scriptores, συγγραφεῖς: the word being used specially of historians. He has not mentioned Caesar, or Nepos, or Velleius, or Quintus Curtius.

degustamus: ‘dipping into’: 5 §23 inchoatae et quasi degustatae. The opposite is persequi: §45 genera ipsa lectionum ... persequar.

I:105 Oratores vero vel praecipue Latinam eloquentiam parem facere 104 Graecae possunt; nam Ciceronem cuicumque eorum fortiter opposuerim. Nec ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum 105 praesertim non id sit propositi ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc tempore; neque enim attinet, cum Demosthenen in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius putem.

§ 105. parem facere. Cicero uses aequare in a passage of the Brutus (§138), in which, speaking of Antonius and Crassus, he says: nam ego sic existimo, 104 hos oratores fuisse maximos et in his primum cum Graecorum gloria Latine dicendi copiam aequatam. In the Silver Age, the phrase paria facere commonly occurs for ‘settling up’: e.g. nihil differamus. cotidie cum vita paria faciamus Sen. Ep. 101, 7. A near parallel to the passage in the text is ii. 8, 13 ea cura paria faciet iis in quibus eminebat.—Other reff. to Cicero’s pre-eminence are vi. 3, 1 Latinae eloquentiae princeps: xii. 1, 20 stetisse ipsum (Ciceronem) in fastigio eloquentiae fateor.

cuicumque, §12. The use of quicumque (which in classical Latin is joined with a verb) for quivis or quilibet (which are used absolutely) may be noted as a sign of the decay of the language. Cp. note on §12: Roby §2289.—For eorum Andresen and Jeep propose Graecorum.

fortiter opposuerim. The adv. is not merely one of manner: it conveys the expression of a judgment, ‘nicht die Art und Weise, sondern ein Urteil über die Handlung,’ Becher. So ‘inique Castorem cum Domitio comparo,’ Cicero, pro Deiot. §31. Cp. i, 5, 72 fortiter diceremus: v. 10, 78 fortiter ... iunxerim.—Roby (1540) gives numerous examples of this use of subj. (involving a suppressed condition such as ‘if occasion arose’) with such adverbs as merito, facile, lubenter, citius.

quantam ... pugnam: owing to the existing prejudice against the style of Cicero. Cp. Tac. Dial. 12 Plures hodie reperies qui Ciceronis gloriam quam qui Vergilii detrectent: ibid. 18 Satis constat ne Ciceroni quidem obtrectatores defuisse, quibus inflatus et tumens nec satis pressus, sed supra modum exsultans et superfluens et parum Atticus videretur. Legistis utique et Calvi et Bruti ad Ciceronem missas epistulas ex quibus facile est deprehendere Calvum quidem Ciceroni visum exsanguem et aridum, Brutum autem otiosum atque diiunctum, rursus Ciceronem a Calvo quidem male audisse tamquam solutum et enervem, a Bruto autem, ut ipsius verbis utar, tamquam fractum atque elumbem.—Hortensius had been from B.C. 95 the Latin representative of Asianism. Under the influence of his teachers, the Rhodian eclectics, Cicero emancipated himself from this school without, on the other hand, binding himself by the most rigorous canons of Atticism. His critics, who adhered to severer models, considered the fulness and richness of his style turgidity and bombast, and pointed to his elaborately periodic structure and rhythmical amplitude as proving that he was really an Asianist in disguise. Besides Brutus and Calvus, mentioned above (cp. Quint, xii. 1, 22), there were the Asinii, father and son (etiam inimice, ibid.), and Caelius. Asinius Gallus wrote a work de comparatione patris et Ciceronis, which was controverted by the emperor Claudius: Plin. Epist. vii. 4 §6 libros Galli ... quibus ille parenti ausus de Cicerone dare est palmamque decusque: Sueton. Claud. 41. Cicero, on the other hand, thought that his Atticising critics were too apt to forget (what he asks Atticus to remember) that the ‘thunders of Demosthenes show that the Attic style is quite consistent with the highest degree of grandeur’—si recordabere Δημοσθένους fulmina, tum intelliges posse et ἀττικώτατα gravissime dici, ad Att. xv. 1, ad fin. Quintilian denounces them in strong language, xii. 10, §§12-14 A. At L. M. Tullium non illum habemus Euphranorem circa plures artium species praestantem, sed in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur eminentissimum. Quem tamen et suorum homines temporum incessere audebant ut tumidiorem et Asianum et redundantem et in repetitionibus nimium et in salibus aliquando frigidum et in compositione fractum, exultantem ac paene, quod procul absit, viro molliorem: postea vero quam triumvirati proscriptione consumptus est, passim qui oderant, qui invidebant, qui aemulabantur, adulatores etiam praesentis potentiae non responsurum invaserunt. Ille tamen, qui ieiunus a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire quam nimiis floribus et ingenii adfluentia potuit. Falsum utrumque, sed tamen illa mentiendi propior occasio. Praecipue vero presserunt eum qui videri Atticorum imitatores concupierant. Haec manus quasi quibusdam sacris initiata ut alienigenam et parum superstitiosum devinctumque illis legibus insequebatur, unde nunc quoque aridi et exsuci et exsangues. Hi sunt enim qui suae imbecillitati sanitatis appellationem, quae est maxime contraria, obtendant: qui quia clariorem vim eloquentiae velut solem ferre non possunt, umbra magni nominis (i.e. Athens) delitescunt. In Quintilian’s own day (cp. nunc quoque above) a certain 105 Largius Licinus wrote a work which he called Ciceromastix, repeating the criticisms of Asinius Gallus: cp. Aul. Gell. xvii. 1, 1 nonnulli tam prodigiosi tamque vaecordes exstiterunt in quibus sunt Gallus Asinius et Largius Licinus, cuius liber etiam fertur infando titulo ‘Ciceromastix,’ ut scribere ausi sint M. Ciceronem parum integre atque improprie atque inconsiderate locutum. These rigid Atticists appear to have ignored, as Sandys has pointed out (Introd. to Orator, p. lxii), the ‘difference between the two languages, between the power and breadth and compass of Greek as compared with the more limited resources of Latin.’ Mr. Sandys appends an apt quotation from J. H. Newman (in H. Thompson’s Rom. Lit.—Encyc. Metrop. p. 307, ed. 1852):—‘Greek is celebrated for copiousness in its vocabulary and perspicuity in its phrases; and the consequent facility of expressing the most novel or abstruse ideas with precision and elegance. Hence the Attic style of eloquence was plain and simple, because simplicity and plainness were not incompatible with clearness, energy, and harmony. But it was a singular want of judgment, an ignorance of the very principles of composition, which induced Brutus, Calvus, Sallust, and others to imitate this terse and severe beauty in their own defective language, and even to pronounce the opposite kind of diction deficient in taste and purity. In Greek, indeed, the words fall, as it were, naturally, into a distinct and harmonious order; and from the exuberant richness of the materials, less is left to the ingenuity of the artist. But the Latin language is comparatively weak, scanty, and unmusical; and requires considerable skill and management to render it expressive and graceful. Simplicity in Latin is scarcely separable from baldness; and justly as Terence is celebrated for chaste and unadorned diction, yet even he, compared with Attic writers, is flat and heavy (Quint. x. 1, §100).’ Cp. for a similar contrast Quint. xii. 10, §§27-39.

cum praesertim: Krüger (3rd ed.) gives the sense as follows, ‘especially since I do not intend to prove my statement by a detailed comparison’: following Becher (but see Crit. Notes), who thinks that Quint. means to say that the pugna will be all the more violent because he does not intend to go into a detailed comparison. Such a comparison would be out of place (neque enim attinet), as he is not denying the supreme excellence of Demosthenes. Cum praesertim means that there is all the less reason for controversy as he does not intend to compare the two: it gives an additional ground for what is really, if not formally, the main idea in the writer’s mind, viz. the needlessness of a pugna at this point. Hence it comes to have the force of quamvis, or idque cum tamen: tr. ‘and that though,’ ‘though indeed,’ ‘which is all the less necessary because,’ etc. Cp. Cic. de Fin. ii. 8, 25 cum praesertim in eo omne studium poneret,—where see Madvig’s note: in Verr. ii. 113 ut ex oppido Thermis nihil ex sacro, nihil de publico attingeres, cum praesertim essent multa praeclara, &c., i.e. ‘which is all the more wonderful because’—very much as in our text: Philipp. viii. 2, 5 C. quidem Caesar non expectavit vestra decreta, praesertim cum illud aetatis erat—i.e. as he might well have done at his age: ibid. ii. 64 inventus est nemo praeter Antonium, praesertim cum tot essent, &c.: i.e. which was all the more remarkable as, &c.: Brutus, §267 M. Bibulus qui et scriptitavit adcurate, cum praesertim non esset orator, et, &c., i.e. ‘and that too though’: de Off. ii. 56: Orator §32 nec vero si historiam non scripsisset (Thucydides) nomen eius exstaret, cum praesertim fuisset honoratus et nobilis. Roby §1732: Nägelsbach8, pp. 695-6.

propositi: for the gen. cp. iv. 2, 21 quid acti sit: quid tui consilii sit (Cic. ad Att. xii. 29, 2: Caes. B. G. i. 21, 2): quid offici sui sit Cic. Acad. Pr. ii. §25, with Dr. Reid’s note.

hoc tempore: Demosthenes and Cicero are eulogised together, xii. 1, §§14-22.

neque enim attinet, i.e. nor would there be any point in such a controversy. They have no need to draw the sword against me, for I too give Demosthenes the highest place. In exalting Cicero I do not mean to depreciate Demosthenes. Cp. Tac. Dial. 25 quo modo inter Atticos primae Demostheni tribuuntur ... sic apud nos Cicero quidem ceteros eorundem temporum disertos antecessit.


I:106 Quorum ego virtutes 106 plerasque arbitror similes, consilium, ordinem, dividendi, praeparandi, probandi rationem, [omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis. 107 In eloquendo est aliqua diversitas: densior ille hic copiosior, ille concludit adstrictius hic latius, pugnat ille acumine semper hic frequenter et pondere, illi nihil detrahi potest huic nihil adici, curae plus in illo in hoc naturae.

§ 106. consilium: vi. 5 §3 consilium vero ratio est quaedam alte petita et plerumque plura perpendens et comparans habensque in se et inventionem et iudicationem: §11 illud dicere satis habeo, nihil esse non modo in orando, sed in omni vita prius consilio, and the whole passage from §9 to end: ii. 13, 2 res in oratore praecipua consilium est, quia varie et ad rerum momenta convertitur. This ‘tact’ or ‘judgment’ would be specially shown in inventio and in dispositio, here made a part of inventio: elocutio is a higher gift. Cp. viii, Pr. §14 M. Tullius inventionem quidem ac dispositionem prudentis hominis putat, eloquentiam oratoris: Cicero, de Orat. ii. 120 cum haec duo nobis quaerenda sint in causis, primum quid [inventio], deinde quomodo [elocutio] dicamus, alterum ... prudentiae est paene mediocris [quid dicendum sit videre]: alterum est, in quo oratoris vis illa divina virtusque cernitur, ea quae dicenda sunt ornate copiose varieque dicere; Orator §44 nam et invenire et iudicare quid dicas magna illa quidem sunt et tamquam animi instar in corpore, sed propria magis prudentiae quam eloquentiae.

ordinem (τάξιν): ordo corresponds to dispositio iii. 3, 8. In vii. 1, 1 the two are separately defined: ordo recta quaedam collocatio prioribus sequentia adnectens: dispositio utilis rerum ac partium in locos distributio.

dividendi. Divisio is defined, along with partitio, in vii. 1, 1: divisio rerum plurium in singulas, partitio singularum in partes discretio. Here dividendi ratio is used in a more general sense, as equivalent to partitio in iv. 5: i.e. nostrarum aut adversarii propositionum aut utrarumque ordine collocata enumeratio. Of this useful process Quintilian says (iv. 5, 22): neque enim solum id efficit ut clariora fiant quae dicuntur, rebus velut ex turba extractis et in conspectu iudicum positis, sed reficit quoque audientem certo singularum partium fine, non aliter quam facientibus iter multum detrahunt fatigationis notata inscriptis lapidibus spatia.—Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 176) thinks it remarkable that divisio should here be ranked alongside of praeparandi, probandi rationem, whereas in iii. 3, 1 it stands independently alongside of inventio itself. He sees no difference between ordinem and dividendi rationem (iii. 3, 8), and suggests that in the MSS. readings (videndi and indicendi) there may be concealed some noun to correspond with ordinem: e.g. viam dicendi (‘der Gang der Reden’): cp. iv. 5, 3: x. 7, 5. But in x. 7, 9 we have both ordo and dispositio, in spite of iii. 3, 8, and so it is here.

praeparandi: iii. 9, 7 expositio enim probationum est praeparatio, nec esse utilis potest nisi prius constiterit, quid debeat de probatione promittere. A less formal use occurs x. 1 §21: cp. iv. 2 §55.

probandi rationem = confirmationem, the establishment of the case. Understanding the passage to contain an enumeration of the five parts of an oration (exordium, narratio, probatio, refutatio, and peroratio), Kiderlin takes probandi here as covering the third and fourth, which were often considered one part. Praeparandi = exordium, and the peroratio is omitted, because here Demosthenes and Cicero were unlike, for the reason given below (§107). In order to include narratio, he proposes to insert narrandi after praeparandi: it may easily, he thinks, have fallen out after -arandi. It is always included in similar enumerations: ii. 5, 7-8: ii. 13, 1: iv. pr. 6: x. 2, 27.

[omnia] denique quae sunt inventionis: see Crit. Notes. ‘Inventio,’ the orator’s first requisite, may of course be shown in all the various parts of a speech, e.g. narratio, divisio, confirmatio, as here. But in the antithesis between inventionis and in eloquendo Quintilian is thinking of that fundamental distinction between substance and form on which he based his treatment of his subject. Applying a rough division to his work, we may say that Books iii. to vii. deal with inventio including dispositio, i.e. εὕρεσις and τάξις: while Books viii-xi. treat of elocutio (λέξις), including actio or pronuntiatio, ‘delivery’ (ὑπόκρισις). So Cicero in the Orator §43 introduces a description of the ideal orator in the three relations of (1) inventio—quid dicat (εὕρεσις): (2) collocatio or dispositio—quo quidque loco (τάξις), and (3) actio or pronuntiatio (ὑπόκρισις): and elocutio (λέξις)—quo modo. Quintilian in iii. 3 gives in more detail the traditional parts of rhetoric: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntiatio (or actio). See §§1-9. For the division here cp. also xii. 10, 27 Latina mihi facundia, ut inventione, dispositione, consilio, ceteris huius generis artibus similis Graecae ac prorsus discipula eius videtur, ita circa 107 rationem eloquendi vix habere imitationis locum.

aliqua diversitas: Morawski (Quaest. p. 33) thinks that this passage may be founded on a tractate by Caecilius (contemporary with Dion. Hal.), which is mentioned by Plutarch, Dem. 3 σύγκρισις τοῦ Δημοσθένους καὶ Κικέρωνος. A parallel passage is found in the περὶ ὕψους (Sp. i. p. 261), the author of which may also have borrowed from Caecilius:—ὁ μὲν γὰρ (Δημοσθένης) ἐν ὕψει τὸ πλέον ἀποτόμῳ, ὁ δὲ Κικέρων ἐν χύσει, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἡμέτερος διὰ τὸ μετὰ βίας ἕκαστα, ἔτι δὲ τάχους, ῥώμης, δεινότητος οἷον καίειν τε ἅμα καὶ διαρπάζειν, σκηπτῷ τινι παρεικάζοιτ᾽ ἂν ἢ κεραυνῷ, ὁ δὲ Κικέρων ὡς ἀμφιλαφής τις ἐμπρησμὸς οἶμαι πάντη νέμεται καὶ ἀνειλεῖται.... Cp. Introd. p. xxxviii.

densior: §76 tam densa omnia: so of Thucydides §73 densus et brevis.

concludit, not, as Bonnell = ratiocinatur (xii. 2, 25), but of the ‘rounding off’ of a period: ix. 4, 22, περίοδον quae est vel ambitus vel circumductum vel continuatio vel conclusio. Cp. Cic. Brutus §33 verborum ... quaedam ad numerum conclusio: cp. §34 below, concluditque sententiam: Orator §20 conclusa oratio: §177 concluse apteque dicere: §§200, 220, 230, 231: de Orat. ii. §34 quod carmen artificiosa verborum conclusione (‘artistic period’) aptius? Hor. Sat. i. 4, 40 concludere versum. The opposite is membratim caesimque dicere, Quint. ix. 4, 126: cp. Cic. Orat. §212 incise membratimve: de Orat. iii. 49, 190 carpere membris minutioribus orationem. For a contrast cp. Brutus §120 ut Stoicorum adstrictior est oratio aliquantoque contractior quam aures populi requirunt, sic illorum (Peripateticorum Academicorumque) liberior et latior quam patitur consuetudo iudiciorum et fori: §162 quin etiam comprehensio et ambitus ille verborum, si sic περίοδον appellari placet, erat apud illum (i.e. Crassum) contractus et brevis, et in membra quaedam, quae κῶλα Graeci vocant, dispertiebat orationem libentius.

astrictius ... latius: there is more compactness about the periodic structure in Demosthenes, greater breadth in that of Cicero. This could hardly be said of Demosthenes’s periods as a whole: it rather refers to the care which Cicero and Roman orators generally bestowed on the closing syllables of a period (Blass, Att. Ber. iii. 117). It was this liking for a sonorous and copious diction that seemed to Cicero’s critics to justify the epithets (inflatus, tumens, &c.) applied to him in Dial. de Orat. 18 (quoted above, §105); he himself tells us in the Orator, §104, that his ears craved for something more full and sonorous even than Demosthenes: ‘non semper implet aures meas: ita sunt avidae et capaces et semper aliquid immensum infinitumque desiderant.’

pugnat: used figuratively for dicit: cp. §4.

acumine: the word is used in §§81 and 83 of ‘power of thought,’ ‘intellectual penetration’: viii. 2, 21: x. 1, §81 and §83. See on acutus §77. So Cic. de Orat. i. §128 acumen dialecticorum. Here it includes the idea of ‘point’ in expression: following up the metaphor contained in ‘pugnat,’ we might render, ‘Demosthenes always thrusts with the rapier, Cicero often uses the bludgeon too.’ (Landor, speaking of Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, as compared with Lord Brougham, said that they had ‘more of the rapier than the bludgeon.’) Cp. de Orat. ii. §158 ipsi se compungunt suis acuminibus. The contrast is something like that implied in xii. 10, 36 subtilitate vincimur (a Graecis): valeamus pondere: cp. ibid. §11 gravitatem Bruti acumen Sulpici.

nihil detrahi: cp. §76 is dicendi modus ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.

curae ... naturae: v. Jebb’s Attic Orators, i. Introd. p. cvi, where it is remarked that this paradox is true in this sense alone, ‘that Cicero is an inferior artist, and indulges more freely the taste of the natural man for ornament.’ Quintilian may also refer to the laborious training which Demosthenes imposed on himself, and in consequence of which, says Plutarch, δόξαν εἶχεν ὡς οὐκ εὐφυὴς ὤν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πόνου συγκειμένῃ δεινότητι καὶ δυνάμει χρώμενος (Vit. Demosth. viii.). Cp. the taunt of Pytheas, that his work ‘smelled of the lamp’: ἐλλυχνίων ὄζειν, ibid.; also 108 Parallel. ch. i. It was the rule with Demosthenes never to speak without preparation: Cicero may have relied at times on the faculty of extemporising at need.

I:107 Salibus certe et 108 commiseratione, quae duo plurimum in adfectibus valent, vincimus. Et fortasse epilogos illi mos civitatis abstulerit, sed et nobis illa, quae Attici mirantur, diversa Latini sermonis ratio 109 minus permiserit. In epistulis quidem, quamquam sunt utriusque, dialogisve, quibus nihil ille, nulla contentio est.

§ 107. salibus: cp. vi. 3, 2 plerique Demostheni facultatem defuisse huic rei credunt, Ciceroni modum, nec videri potest noluisse Demosthenes, cuius pauca admodum dicta nec sane ceteris eius virtutibus respondentia palam ostendunt non displicuisse illi iocos sed non contigisse ... mihi quidem ... mira quaedam in eo (Cicerone) videtur fuisse urbanitas. So §21 Demosthenem urbanum fuisse dicunt, dicacem negant: Cic. Orat. §90 non tam dicax quam facetus: Dion. Hal. Dem. c. 54 πάσας ἔχουσα τὰς ἀρετὰς ἡ Δημοσθένους λέξις ... λείπεται εὐτραπελίας. Cp. περὶ ὕψους, 34, where the judgment is unduly severe, ἔνθα μέντοι γελοῖος εἶναι βιάζεται καὶ ἀστεῖος οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται. Cp. Sandys’ note on Orat. §90, “Though not obtrusively witty, Demosthenes nevertheless is not wanting in humour, as is proved by the speech on the Chersonesus §§5, 11 ff. and esp. 23 (characterized by Brougham as ‘full of refined and almost playful wit’): Plut. iii. §66: de Cor. §§198, 234 (Blass, Att. Ber. iii. 163-6).” For a criticism of Cicero’s wit, on the other hand, v. Plut. Parallel. §1 Κικέρων δὲ πολλαχοῦ τῷ σκωπτικῷ πρὸς τὸ βωμολόχον ἐκφερόμενος καὶ πράγματα σπουδῆς ἄξια γέλωτι καὶ παιδιᾷ κατειρωνευόμενος ἐν ταῖς δίκαις εἰς τὸ χρειῶδες ἠφείδει τοῦ πρέποντος, and below, Cato’s ὡς γελοῖον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἔχομεν ὕπατον. Δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γέλωτος οἰκεῖος ὁ Κικέρων γεγονέναι καὶ φιλοσκώπτης κ.τ.λ.

commiseratione, ‘pathos.’ See Orator §130 in quo ut viderer excellere non ingenio, sed dolore adsequebar; i.e. it was real sympathy more than any special talent that enabled him to excel in this respect.

in adfectibus, ‘where the feelings are concerned.’ Under adfectus (vi. 2) is included everything that makes an impression on the judges: §1 opus ... movendi iudicum animos: among other things laughter itself, virtus quae risum iudicis movendo et illos tristes solvit adfectus et animum ab intentione rerum frequenter avertit et aliquando etiam reficit et a satietate vel a fatigatione renovat.

vincimus: for the present cp. §§93, 101, 105.

epilogos, ‘perorations.’ The peroration was looked on as giving a great opportunity for moving the feelings: Arist. Rhet. iii. 19 says one of its parts is εἰς τὰ πάθη τὸν ἀκροατὴν καταστῆσαι. So Quint. iv. 1, 28 quod in ingressu parcius et modestius praetemptanda sit iudicis misericordia: in epilogo vero liceat totos effundere adfectus. The word is common in this sense in Quintilian: vi. 1, 37, sq. esp. §52 at hic, si usquam, totos eloquentiae aperire fontes licet. Nam et, si bene diximus reliqua, possidebimus iam iudicum animos, et e confragosis atque asperis evecti tota pandere possumus vela, et, cum sit maxima pars epilogi amplificatio, verbis atque sententiis uti licet magnificis et ornatis. Tunc est commovendum theatrum cum ventum est ad ipsum illud, quo veteres tragoediae comoediaeque cluduntur, plodite: cp. also Cicero, Brutus §33 exstat eius peroratio, qui epilogus dicitur: de Orat. ii. §278: ad Att. iv. 15, 4.

mos civitatis: ii. 16 §4 Athenis ubi actor movere adfectus vetabatur velut recisam orandi potestatem: vi. 1, 7, where he says that with the Attic orators the epilogus generally took the form of recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις = enumeratio) ‘quia Athenis adfectus movere etiam per praeconem prohibebatur orator.’ Cp. xii. 10, 26. This would be especially the case in trials before the Areopagus. But it was the Hellenic instinct for moderation that imposed its own law. Lord Brougham, in his Dissertation on the Eloquence of the Ancients (p. 25), remarks on the calmness of the Greek peroration: cp. his Essay on Demosthenes (p. 184): ‘It seems to have been a rule enjoined by the severe taste of those times, that after being wrought up to a great pitch of emotion, the speaker should, in quitting his audience, leave an impression of dignity, which cannot be maintained without composure.’ Cp. Jebb, i. ciii-civ: ‘Cicero has now and then an Attic peroration, as in the Second Philippic and the Pro Milone; more often he breaks off in a burst of eloquence—as in the First Catilinarian, the Pro Flacco, and the Pro Cluentio.’

illa quae Attici mirantur: cp. §65, §100 illam solis concessam Atticis venerem: xii. 10 §35 illam gratiam sermonis Attici.


epistulis. If it were not for the ineptitude of the comparison which follows (in quibus nihil ille) we might be inclined to imagine that Quintilian knew of more letters of Demosthenes than the six which are still extant, and which are generally considered apocryphal.

dialogis: comprising most of Cicero’s philosophical works, and the Brutus and De Oratore among his rhetorical.

nihil ille, sc. effecit, consecutus est: cp. §§56, 123: 2 §§6, 24: 3 §25: 7 §§7, 23.

I:108 Cedendum vero in hoc, quod et prior fuit et ex magna parte Ciceronem quantus est fecit. Nam mihi videtur M. Tullius, cum se totum ad imitationem Graecorum contulisset, effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam Platonis, iucunditatem Isocratis.

§ 108. effinxisse, ‘artistically reproduced.’

iucunditatem. ‘The idea which Cicero got from Isocrates was that of number. See esp. de Orat. iii. 44 §173.’ Jebb. So ‘suavitatem Isocrates ... vim Demosthenes habuit’ de Orat. iii. §28.

I:109 Nec vero quod in quoque optimum fuit studio consecutus est tantum, sed plurimas vel potius omnes ex se ipso virtutes extulit immortalis ingenii beatissima ubertate. Non enim ‘pluvias,’ ut ait Pindarus, ‘aquas colligit, sed vivo gurgite exundat,’ dono quodam providentiae genitus, in quo totas vires suas eloquentia experiretur.

§ 109. ex se ipso ... extulit: cp. Cic. Acad. ii. 8, 23 artem vivendi quae ipsa ex sese habeat constantiam, where Dr. Reid cites this passage, along with many others, e.g. Sen. Ep. 52, 3 hos quibus ex se impetus fuit: Cic. N. D. iii. 88 a se sumere.

beatissima: cp. §61 beatissima rerum verborumque copia: 3, §22 beatiorem spiritum. Cp. the eulogy by Caesar, in his Analogia (written as he was crossing the Alps, and dedicated to Cicero himself): ac si ut cogitata praeclare eloqui possent non nulli studio et usu elaboraverunt, cuius te paene principem copiae atque inventorem bene de nomine ac dignitate populi Romani meritum esse existimare debemus, &c.—quoted in Brutus §253. Hild adds Pliny H. N. vii. 30 Facundiae Latiarumque litterarum parens atque ... omnium triumphorum gloria maior, quanto plus est ingenii Romani terminos in tantum promovisse quam imperii,—where the language has a close resemblance to that of Cicero himself in Brutus §255.

ut ait Pindarus. We get the pluvias aquas in the οὐρανίων ὑδάτων ὀμβρίων of Olymp. xi, but there is nothing in Pindar’s extant works that corresponds to the quotation.

exundat: cp. Tac. Dial. 30 ex multa eruditione et plurimis artibus et omnium rerum scientia exundat et exuberat illa admirabilis eloquentia.

providentia is used very frequently by itself in Quintilian, e.g. i. 10, 7 oratio qua nihil praestantius homini dedit providentia (v. Bonn. Lex.); also in xi. i, 23 with deorum immortalium.

eloquentia: cp. Sen. Ep. 40, 11 Cicero quoque noster, a quo Romana eloquentia exsiluit.

I:110 Nam quis docere diligentius, movere vehementius potest? Cui tanta umquam iucunditas adfuit? ut ipsa illa quae extorquet 110 impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat, tamen ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi.

§ 110. docere ... movere. Cp. iii. 5 §2 tria sunt item quae praestare debeat orator, ut doceat, moveat, delectet (quoted on §80). Iucunditas here expresses the third. So Cicero, Brutus §185 tria sunt enim, ut quidem ego sentio, quae sint efficienda dicendo: ut doceatur is apud quem dicetur, ut delectetur, ut moveatur vehementius.

extorquet: cp. v. 7, 17 at in eo qui invitus dicturus est prima felicitas interrogantis extorquere quod is noluerit: ib. §27. Cic. de Or. ii. §74 qui nunquam sententias de manibus iudicum vi quadam orationis extorsimus ac potius placatis eorum animis tantum quantum ipsi patiebantur accepimus.


transversus = ‘turned across,’ i.e. at right angles to the original line. So transversis itineribus Sall. Iug. 45, 2. For the figure contained in transversum ferat cp. ibid. 6, 3 opportunitas quae etiam mediocres viros ... transversos agit: 14, 20. The iudex is ‘turned athwart’—away from the path of his own judgment. So Sen. Ep. 8, 3 cum coepit transversos agere felicitas: Cic. Brutus 331 cuius in adulescentiam ... transversa incurrit misera fortuna rei publicae.

I:111 Iam in omnibus quae dicit tanta auctoritas inest ut dissentire pudeat, nec advocati studium sed testis aut iudicis adferat fidem; cum interim haec omnia, quae vix singula quisquam intentissima cura consequi posset, fluunt inlaborata et illa, qua nihil pulchrius auditum est, oratio prae se fert tamen felicissimam facilitatem.

§ 111. advocati, ‘pleader,’ as generally in Quintilian, syn. with ‘actor causae,’ ‘causidicus,’ ‘patronus.’ In Cicero the word is reserved for those who lent their countenance and personal support to a friend, especially in legal matters: e.g. Brutus §289: pro Clu. §110 quis eum unquam non modo in patroni, sed in laudatoris aut advocati loco viderat? See Fausset’s note on advocabat pro Clu. §54.

fidem: ‘trustworthiness,’ ‘credibility.’ So quantam afferat fidem iv. 2, 125.

cum interim: Roby §1732. Cp. note on §18.

posset: the use of the imperf. subj. points to a suppressed protasis, sc. si vellet. Cp. i. 1, 22 cur improbetur si quis ea quae domi suae recte faceret in publicum promit? So too below, 2 §25 qui noceret, where see note.

tamen is a reminiscence of tamen ille non rapi videatur, in the previous sentence, and must be taken with cum interim: = ‘for all that.’

facilitatem: cp. §1.

I:112 Quare non immerito ab hominibus aetatis suae regnare in iudiciis dictus est, apud posteros vero id consecutus, ut Cicero iam non hominis nomen sed eloquentiae habeatur. Hunc igitur spectemus, hoc propositum nobis sit exemplum, ille se profecisse sciat, cui Cicero valde placebit.

§ 112. regnare: cp. Cic. ad Fam. vii. 24, 1 olim quum regnare existimabamur: ad Att. i. 1 illud suum regnum iudiciale,—his ‘sovereignty of the bar’: in Verr. i. 12, 35 (of Hortensius) omnis dominatio regnumque iudiciorum: ad Fam. ix. 18, 1 amisso regno forensi: cp. pro Sulla §7.

non hominis ... sed eloquentiae. There is no thought here of holding the balance with Demosthenes, §105. Cp. what Brutus says after Caesar’s eulogy quoted above (§109 note): quo enim uno vincebamur a victa Graecia, id aut ereptum illis est aut certe nobis cum illis communicatum: Brut. §254. Hild quotes from Plutarch (Cicero, §4) the story of Molo, one of Cicero’s teachers, who, on hearing him declaim, said that he had to pity the hard fate of Greece, from whom the palm of eloquence, her sole surviving glory, was now to pass away.

exemplum, predicative, hoc being neuter by a common form of attraction: cp. 3 §17.

profecisse: Hild quotes Boileau, Art. Poet. iii. 308, speaking of Homer: c’est avoir profité que de savoir s’y plaire.

I:113 Multa in Asinio Pollione inventio, summa 111 diligentia, adeo ut quibusdam etiam nimia videatur, et consilii et animi satis: a nitore et iucunditate Ciceronis ita longe abest ut videri possit saeculo prior. At Messalla nitidus et candidus et quodam modo praeferens in dicendo nobilitatem suam, viribus minor.

§ 113. Quintilian makes no mention of orators previous to Cicero: for them see Brutus §53 sqq. Velleius disposes of them in the following sentence (i. 17, 3): At oratio ac vis forensis perfectumque prosae eloquentiae decus, ut idem separetur Cato, pace P. Crassi Scipionisque et Laeli et Gracchorum et Fanni et Servi Galbae dixerim, ita universa sub principe operis sui erupit Tullio, ut delectari ante eum paucissimis, mirari vero neminem possis, nisi aut ab illo visum aut qui illum viderit. Cp. Tac. Dial. 25. Hild cites also Seneca, Controv. i. praef.: quidquid Romana facundia habet, quod insolenti Graeciae aut opponat aut praeferat, circa Ciceronem effloruit; omnia ingenia quae lucem studiis nostris attulerunt, tunc nata sunt.


Asinio Pollione. C. Asinius Pollio (75 B.C.–4 A.D.) was consul in 40, when he helped Maecenas to arrange the Peace of Brundisium: afterwards becoming estranged from Antony he retired into private life and devoted himself to letters. Vergil dedicates the Fourth Eclogue to him, and in the first Ode of Book ii Horace recounts his various titles to distinction. He was a poet as well as an orator: Verg. Ecl. viii. 10 Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno: iii. 86 Pollio et ipse facit nova carmina: Hor. S. i. 10, 42. He was also distinguished as a historian, having written a history of the Civil Wars from the first triumvirate (Motum ex Metello consule Hor. Car. ii. 1, 1). In the same Ode (II. 13, 14) Horace alludes to his fame as an orator, both at the bar and in the senate. Quintilian’s judgment on him in this capacity may be compared with that of Seneca, Ep. 100, 7 Lege Ciceronem: compositio eius una est, pedem servat lenta et sine infamia mollis. At contra Pollionis Asinii salebrosa et exsiliens et ubi minime expectes relictura. Denique omnia apud Ciceronem desinunt, apud Pollionem cadunt exceptis paucissimis, quae ad certum modum et ad unum exemplar adstricta sunt. Cp. 2 §17 below tristes ac ieiuni Pollionem aemulantur.

diligentia: 2 §25 vim Caesaris, asperitatem Caelii, diligentiam Pollionis. The word does not refer to the historian’s painstaking care (which could hardly ever be ‘nimia’), but to the ‘precision’ or ‘exactitude’ of his language: v. the fragment quoted in ix. 4, 132.

consilii, ‘judgment,’ §106.

animi, ‘spirit,’ ‘vivacity.’

nitore: v. on §97.

saeculo prior. ‘As an orator and writer he affected antique severity in opposition to Ciceronian smoothness,’—Teuffel. Cp. Tac. Dial. 21 Asinius quoque quamquam propioribus temporibus natus sit, videtur mihi inter Menenios et Appios studuisse; Pacuvium certe et Accium non solum tragoediis sed etiam orationibus suis expressit: adeo durus et siccus est: Sen. Controv. iv. praef. 3 illud strictum eius et aspersum et nimis iratum in censendo iudicium adeo cessabat ut in multis illi venia opus esset quae ab ipso vix impetrabatur. See Schmalz ‘Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio,’ p. 289; München, 1890. Pollio’s antipathy to Cicero and his dislike of Cicero’s style may be seen from the story in Seneca, Suas. vi. extr., quoted by Bernhardy (q.v.), R. L. p. 268 (note 182).

Messalla, M. Valerius Corvinus (64 B.C.-8 A.D.), the friend of Tibullus, who dedicates to him i. 7: cp. the panegyric iv. 1. Cp. Tac. Dial. 18 Cicerone mitior Corvinus et dulcior et in verbis magis elaboratus,—with the latter part of which cp. Sen. Controv. ii. 12, 8 Latini utique sermonis observator diligentissimus. Cicero’s own opinion of him may be seen in Epist. ad Brutum i. 15, 1 cave putes probitate, constantia, cura, studio reipublicae quidquam illi esse simile; ut eloquentia, qua mirabiliter excellit, vix in eo locum ad laudandum habere videatur: quamquam in hac ipsa sapientia plus apparet: ita gravi iudicio multaque arte se exercuit in verissimo genere dicendi, tanta autem industria est tantumque evigilat in studio ut non maxima ingenio (quod in eo summum est) gratia habenda videatur. By verissimum genus dicendi Cicero seems to indicate that Messalla was neither an Asianist like Hortensius, nor an extreme Atticist like Calvus. See also Brutus §246, where the judgment is less favourable: nullo modo inops, sed non nimis ornatus genere verborum.

nitidus: cp. i. 7, 35 ideo minus Messalla nitidus quia, &c.

candidus: v. on §73.

quodam modo: cp. Cic. Brut. §30 (where Kellogg wrongly renders ‘with a certain style’): ib. §149: de Orat. iii. §37: §184.

praeferens = prae se ferens: cp. vi. 3, 17: 2, 14.

viribus minor: cp. §103.

I:114 C. vero Caesar si foro tantum vacasset, non alius ex 112 nostris contra Ciceronem nominaretur. Tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat; exornat tamen haec omnia mira sermonis, cuius proprie studiosus fuit, elegantia.

§ 114. Caesar. The purity and correctness of Caesar’s style are eulogised in the Brutus §§251-262: see esp. §261 non video cui debeat cedere. Cp. Phil. ii. 45 Fuit in illo ingenium, ratio, memoria, 112 litterae, cura, cogitatio, diligentia: and with special reference to his oratorical talent, Suet. Caes. 55, where is cited a fragment from a letter of Cicero: ‘Quid? oratorum quem huic antepones eorum qui nihil aliud egerunt? Quis sententiis aut acutior aut crebrior? Quis verbis aut ornatior aut elegantior?’ Tac. Ann, xiii. 3 dictator Caesar summis oratoribus aemulus.

si foro tantum vacasset. So of Pompeius (Brut. 239), vir ad omnia summa natus, maiorem dicendi gloriam habuisset, nisi eum maioris gloriae cupiditas ad bellicas laudes abstraxisset: Tac. Dial. 21 concedamus sane C. Caesari, ut propter magnitudinem cogitationum et occupationes rerum in eloquentia non effecerit quae divinum eius ingenium postulabat.

contra, ‘by the side of,’ with the notion of being ‘pitted against’: cp. proximumque Ciceroni Caesarem, Vell. Pat. ii. 36, 2.

vis: xii. 10, 11 vim Caesaris.

acumen. See on §106: here probably of a pointed incisive style.

eodem animo: Livy xxxviii. 50 dicebantur enim ab eodem animo ingenioque a quo gesta erant.

proprie studiosus: cp. i. 7, 34 aut vim C. Caesaris fregerunt editi de analogia libri? Suet. Caes. 56: Gell. xix. 8, 3. See too Brutus §253, where we learn that the work was dedicated to Cicero: ‘qui etiam in maximis occupationibus ad te ipsum,’ inquit in me intuens, ‘de ratione Latine loquendi adcuratissime scripserit primoque in libro dixerit verborum delectum originem esse eloquentiae.’—Cp. Gell. xvi. 8 C. Caesar gravis auctor linguae latinae,—Proprie in this sense is post-Augustan: cp. Vell. Pat. ii. 9, 1.

elegantia: Brutus §252 ita iudico ... illum omnium fere oratorum Latine loqui elegantissime. In the Preface to B. G. viii. Hirtius says Erat autem in Caesare quum facultas atque elegantia summa scribendi tum, etc.

I:115 Multum ingenii in Caelio et praecipue in accusando multa urbanitas, dignusque vir, cui et mens melior et vita longior contigisset. Inveni qui Calvum 113 praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui Ciceroni crederent eum nimia contra se calumnia verum sanguinem perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio et castigata et frequenter vehemens 114 quoque. Imitator autem est Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors iniuriam, si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.

§ 115. Caelius, M. Rufus (82-48 B.C.), a man of loose morals and luxurious life, whom Cicero defended from some charges of sedition and attempted poisoning, 56 B.C. He had not much strength of character: during Cicero’s absence in Cilicia he was in friendly correspondence with him, but afterwards he joined Caesar, while urging Cicero to remain neutral. Becoming discontented, he intrigued with Milo to raise an insurrection against Caesar, and was put to death near Thurii by some foreign cavalry, 48 B.C. Cp. Brutus §273 splendida et grandis et eadem in primis faceta et perurbana oratio. Graves eius contiones aliquot fuerunt, acres accusationes tres (one against C. Antonius) ... defensiones ... sane tolerabiles. There was something bitter about him: 2 §25 asperitatem Caelii: cp. Tac. Dial. 25 amarior Caelius: Sen. de Ira iii. 8, 6 oratorem ... iracundissimum. A description of one of his speeches is given iv. 2, 123 sq.: for witticisms on Clodia v. viii. 6, 53. Cp. Tac. Dial. 21 and 25.

praecipue in accusando: vi. 3, 69 idem (Cicero) per allegoriam M. Caelium, melius obicientem crimina quam defendentem, bonam dextram malam sinistram habere dicebat.

urbanitas is defined vi. 3, 17 as sermonem praeferentem in verbis et sono et usu proprium quendam gustum urbis et sumptam ex conversatione doctorum tacitam eruditionem, denique cui contraria sit rusticitas. Here the idea of wit is uppermost, as in ii. 11, 2 and vi. 3, 105. Cp. vi. 3 §41 Caelius cum omnia venustissime finxit tum illud ultimum: i. 6, 29.

mens melior: Brut. §273 quaecunque eius in exitu vel fortuna vel mens fuit: Vell. Pat. ii. 68 vir eloquio animoque Curioni simillimus, sed in utroque perfectior nec minus ingeniose nequam.

Calvus, Gaius Licinius (B.C. 82-48), was the leading spirit among the stricter Atticists in Cicero’s day, and is censured by him in the Brutus (§§284-291) for taking so narrow a view of the full meaning of Attic oratory as to have introduced the attempt to imitate certain particular models among the Attic orators. A poet himself, he was the friend of Catullus, and, like Catullus, an opponent of Caesar. He prosecuted Vatinius on three separate 113 occasions, and once showed such vehemence and energy that the defendant rose in court, saying ‘rogo vos, iudices, num si iste disertus est ideo me damnari oportet’ (Sen. Controv. vii. 6): Tac. Dial. 34 Vatinium eis orationibus insecutus est, quas hodieque cum admiratione legimus: cp. ib. 21. Cp. Catullus 53, where we get a lively idea of his energetic eloquence at the trial. The passage of Cicero referred to (Brutus §283 quoted below) was written after the death of Calvus: but already in Dec. 47 Cicero, in writing to his friend Trebonius, had stated his opinion that Calvus had made an error of judgment in the choice of his style, and that he was wanting in force: ad Fam. xv. 21 §4 genus quoddam sequebatur, in quo iudicio lapsus, quo valebat, tamen assequebatur quod probaret. Multae erant et reconditae litterae, vis non erat (Quint. x. 2, 25 ‘iudicium Calvi’). In the Dial. de Or. ch. 18 Tacitus refers to certain letters, now lost, from Calvus and Brutus to Cicero, showing that the latter regarded Calvus as exsanguis and attritus (v.l. aridus), while Calvus stigmatised Cicero as solutus and enervis. His position as leader of a school (which took Lysias mainly for its model and cultivated ‘plainness’ at the expense of other good qualities) is indicated by Cicero’s remark that he ‘not only went wrong himself, but also led others astray’ (Brut. §284).

Ciceroni crederent, &c. “In writing of his oratorical style in the Brutus, two years after his death, Cicero observes that, while he was more accomplished in literature than the younger Curio, he had also a more accurate and exquisite style; and although he handled it with skill and elegance, he was too minute and nice in his self-criticism; losing the very life-blood of style for fear of tainting its purity, and cultivating too scrupulous a taste to win the approval of the general public” (Sandys, Orator, Introd. xlvi.). The passage from the Brutus (283) is as follows:—adcuratius quoddam dicendi et exquisitius adferebat genus; quod quanquam scienter eleganterque tractabat, nimium tamen inquirens in se atque ipse sese observans metuensque ne vitiosum colligeret, etiam verum sanguinem deperdebat ... Atticum ... se dici oratorem volebat; inde erat ista exilitas, quam ille de industria consequebatur.

nimia ... calumnia, ‘by over-rigorous self-censure,’—a morbid habit of introspective criticism: the word being used to express nimium inquirens ... observans ... metuensque in the passage just quoted. Perhaps the nearest parallel to this use is to be found in Caec. ap. Cic. ad Fam. vi. 7, 4 in hac igitur calumnia, timoris et caecae suspicionis tormento,—of exaggerated fears inspired by the spirit of carping self-criticism, for which cp. 4 §3: 7 §14. The verb is found in the same sense in 3 §10 infelicem calumniandi se poenam: viii. prooem. 31 nullus est finis calumniandi se et cum singulis paene syllabis commoriendi. Cp. Plin. xxxiv. 8, 19 §92 calumniator sui, of one who is over-anxious in regard to his work. Cicero uses the verb absolutely: ad Fam. ix. 2, 3 mihi quidem venit in mentem bellum esse aliquo exire ... sed calumniabar ipse: putabam qui obviam mihi venisset ... suspicaturum aut dicturum, &c., where the meaning is ‘I indulged groundless fears’ (Nägelsbach, p. 54). The word calumnia is derived from the root calv found in calvor, to trick, quibble, through a participial form *calvomenos, calumnus (cp. autumnus, aerumna, columna). Its first meaning is a malicious charge or ‘cavil’: ad Fam. i. 1, 1, religionis calumniam, the ‘trumped-up plea of a religious difficulty.’ Hence it was applied in Roman law (Gaius 4, 178) to the vexatious abuse of legal forms, chicanery, legal quirks and quibbles, and generally to the pettifogging tendency which exalts the letter above the spirit.

verum sanguinem perdidisse: cp. 4 §3 exsanguia.

sancta et gravis: his style is ‘solemn and weighty,’ xii. 10, 11 ‘sanctitatem Calvi.’

castigata, ‘chastened,’ ‘severely finished’: cp. Hor. A. P. 292 carmen reprehendite quod non Multa dies et multa litura coercuit atque Praesectum decies non castigavit ad unguem, i.e. by pruning away everything that is useless and inappropriate: Tac. Dial. 25 adstrictior Calvus, numerosior Asinius.

frequenter: see on §17.

vehemens: cp. Sen. Controv. viii. 7 114 solebat praeterea excedere subsellia sua et impetu latus usque ad adversariorum partem transcurrere. Seneca adds that he resembled Demosthenes inasmuch as he was all struggle and excitement, though he sometimes employed a gentler style, ib. §8 nihil in illa (compositione) placidum, nihil lene est, omnia excitata et fluctuantia.

properata mors: cp. immatura mors. He died at the early age of 34. Cp. Brutus §279 facienda mentio est ... duorum adulescentium (Curio and Calvus) qui si diutius vixissent magnam essent eloquentiae laudem consecuti.

adiecturus, i.e. if it was likely that he would have added to the purity of his diction other and richer qualities. The cold dry manner of the strictest Atticists failed to hold the ear of Roman audiences: Brut. §289 subsellia grandiorem et pleniorem vocem desiderant, a larger and fuller utterance than that of the Atticists who spoke ‘anguste et exiliter.’ See Crit. Notes.

detracturus: sc. nimia contra se calumnia. He is exilis enough as it is.

I:116 Et Servius Sulpicius insignem non immerito famam tribus orationibus meruit. Multa, si cum iudicio legatur, dabit imitatione digna Cassius Severus, qui si ceteris virtutibus colorem et gravitatem orationis adiecisset, ponendus inter praecipuos foret.

§ 116. Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the most distinguished jurist of Cicero’s day, consul B.C. 51. See reff. in Brutus §150: §152: §153 (adiunxit etiam et litterarum scientiam et loquendi elegantiam). His letter of sympathy to Cicero on the death of Tullia is well known: ad Fam. iv. 5. Cp. 5 §4: 7 §30 and above §22.

meruit = consecutus est, as §94. See on §72.

Cassius Severus flourished under Augustus, and was banished on account of his libellous attacks (procacibus scriptis), first to Crete and then to Seriphos, where he is said to have died A.D. 34, in the twenty-fifth year of his exile; Tac. Ann. iv. 21: i. 72. He is spoken of as the introducer of the new school of declamatory eloquence, Tac. Dial. 19 Antiquorum admiratores ... Cassium Severum ... primum affirmant flexisse ab illa vetere atque directa dicendi via, &c.: ibid. 26 equidem non negaverim Cassium Severum ... si iis comparetur qui postea fuerunt, posse oratorem vocari, quamquam in magna parte librorum suorum plus bilis habeat quam sanguinis: primus enim contempto ordine rerum, omissa modestia ac pudore verborum, ipsis etiam quibus utitur armis incompositus et studio feriendi plerumque detectus, non pugnat sed rixatur; ceterum ... et varietate eruditionis et lepore urbanitatis et ipsaram virium robore multum ceteros superat.

colorem: cp. on §59. The word is not here used in the technical sense which it bears in rhetoric, i.e. the particular aspect given to a case by a skilful representation of the facts,—the ‘gloss’ or ‘varnish’ put on them by either the accused or the accuser. For this sense see iv. 2, 88: Inv. vi. 279 Dic aliquem, sodes, dic Quintiliane colorem: vii. 155 with Mayor’s note. Here it has a more general sense. Quintilian is charging Cassius with a want of proper ‘tone’: cp. omissa modestia ac pudore verborum, above: Cic. de Or. iii. 96 ornatur oratio genere primum et quasi colore quodam et suco suo.

gravitatem: Cassius was wanting in dignity, and his wit was apt to carry him too far. Quintilian gives an instance of this xi. 1, 57; Seneca, Controv. iii. praef. 2 says however ‘gravitas, quae deerat vitae, actioni supererat.’

I:117 Nam et ingenii plurimum est in eo et acerbitas mira et urbanitas et fervor, sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit. Praeterea 115 ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicula est.

§ 117. ingenii plurimum: Tacitus (Ann. iv. 21) allows that he was ‘orandi validus’: and Seneca (l.c.) says oratio eius erat valens culta ingentibus plena sententiis ... non est quod illum ex his quae edidit aestimetis ... eloquentia eius longe maior erat quam lectio.

acerbitas mira: cp. Tac. Ann. i. 72 commotus Cassii Severi libidine qua viros feminasque inlustres procacibus scriptis diffamaverat.

urbanitas, v. on §115. For examples see vi. 1, 43: viii. 3, 89: xi. 3, 133.

et fervor: see Crit. Notes, and cp. 115 Seneca l.c. habebat ... genus dicendi ... ardens et concitatum.

stomacho: he was full of passionate impulse: cp. the passage quoted from Dial. 26 above.

praeterea ... ridicula est. Spalding’s interpretation of this passage is followed by Krüger (2nd ed.) and Hild: the other editors do not seem to have felt any difficulty. The sentence is taken in continuation of the praise of Cassius, attaching closely to ‘urbanitas’: the words from sed plus to dedit being then interjected as the only note of disparagement. The literal translation would then be ‘while his wit is bitter, the bitterness itself is often enough to make you laugh.’ ‘He has a caustic wit, but his causticity by itself will often make you laugh.’ For this sense of ridicula (Sp. ‘risum movet auditorum’) cp. vi. 3, 22 ridiculum ... haec tota disputatio a Graecis περὶ γελοίου inscribitur: 3 §6 ridiculum (‘funny,’ ‘droll’) dictum plerumque falsum est (ad hoc semper humile). Frieze compares vi. 3, 7: and adds ‘success in exciting the mirth of the court and the audience is not always a proof of the orator’s wit; but is often due to mere bitterness of invective, and coarse and rough or droll terms of abuse.’

One objection to this interpretation is the arrangement of the sentences: praeterea ... ridicula est connects even more naturally with sed plus ... dedit than with the eulogy contained in urbanitas et fervor. And it may be doubted if Quintilian or any other writer who had just been censuring Cassius for stomachus would immediately go on (using ridiculus in a good sense) to say that ‘often when he is merely bitter without being witty (this is the force of amaritudo ipsa, cp. note on §45) he makes you laugh.’ Drollery can hardly be claimed for unrelieved acrimoniousness.

A better sense can be obtained by taking amaritudo ipsa ridicula est as part not of the praise but of the censure of Cassius, and interpreting ridicula as ‘silly,’ ‘absurd,’ ‘ridiculous.’ Cicero uses the word in this sense, and there is abundant authority in Quintilian himself: cp. sint grandia et tumida, non stulta etiam et acrioribus oculis intuenti ridicula ii. 10, 6; ridiculum est v. 13, 7; fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit vi. 1, 48; quibus nos ... ridiculi videmur vii. 1, 43: ix. 3, 100; x. 3, 21; xi. 3, 128. The meaning then is ‘while his wit is bitter, yet bitterness by itself is silly,’ i.e. his wit has a bitter turn, but where he is (as often) bitter without being witty, the result is poor. There is undoubtedly something unsatisfactory about ut amari sales (sc. sunt), which might well have a general reference. See Crit. Notes.

I:118 Sunt alii multi diserti, quos persequi longum est. Eorum quos viderim Domitius Afer et Iulius Africanus longe praestantissimi. 116 Verborum arte ille et toto genere dicendi praeferendus et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas: hic concitatior, sed in cura verborum nimius et compositione nonnumquam longior et translationibus parum modicus. Erant clara et nuper ingenia.

§ 118. diserti here, as in §68 and 3 §13, almost synonymous with eloquentes. In viii. pr. §13, however, Quintilian quotes a saying of M. Antonius, which was meant to establish a difference: nam et M. Antonius ... cum a se disertos visos esse multos ait, eloquentem neminem, diserto satis putat dicere quae oporteat, ornate autem dicere proprium esse eloquentis. Cp. i. 10, 8 ‘Fuit aliquis sine his disertus’: ‘at ego oratorem volo.’ Cicero gives the same quotation: Orat. §18: de Orat. i. §94, where the reason for the distinction between the ‘accomplished speaker’ and ‘the eloquent orator’ is given by Antonius himself,—quod ego eum statuebam disertum, qui posset satis acute atque dilucide apud mediocres homines ex communi quadam opinione hominum dicere, eloquentem vero, qui mirabilius et magnificentius augere posset atque ornare quae vellet, omnesque omnium rerum, quae ad dicendum pertinerent, fontes animo ac memoria contineret. Cp. Plin. Ep. v. 20 §5. For the derivation of disertus v. Sandys on Orat. §18.

longum est: the action is spoken of as still possible. Roby 1735. So Cic. pro Sest. 5: Longum est ea dicere: sed hoc breve dicam. Cp. 2 §§4, 7: 5 §7: 6 §2.

quos viderim: see on §98. In xii. 10, 11 he has ‘in iis etiam quos ipsi vidimus,’ mentioning both Afer and Africanus. Quintilian’s fondness for the perfect subjunctive is marked: cp. xii. 5, 5.

Domitius Afer: see on §86: cp. v. 7, 7 quem adolescentulus senem colui.

Iulius Africanus: a native of Gaul, who flourished under Nero. In xii. 10, 11 he is again named alongside of Afer,—vires Africani, maturitatem Afri. He is quoted as speaking to Nero in the name of Gaul viii. 5, 15 Insigniter Africanus apud Neronem de morte matris: rogant 116 te, Caesar, Galliae tuae, ut felicitatem tuam fortiter feras. He divided the palm of eloquence with Afer: Tac. Dial. 15, He was a son of the Iulius Africanus of whom Tacitus speaks (Ann. vi. 7) as e Santonis Gallica civitate (Saintonge, to the N. of the lower Garonne): a grandson of his, also an orator, is mentioned by Pliny vii. 6, 11.

in numero veterum: cp. Tac. Dial. 15, ad fin.

compositione: v. on §79. If it has the same meaning here, it must = the euphonious collocation of words: see Cicero Orat. §147 de verbis enim componendis, &c., and §149 sq. Quintilian treats of compositio ix. 4, 1: Tr. ‘tedious in his phraseology’: viii. 3, 52: ix. 4, 144 neque longioribus quam oportet hyperbolis compositioni serviamus.

longior: i.e. he used ‘padding’ in the effort to round off his periods.

translationibus: viii. 6, 4 sq.: esp. 16 sed copia quoque modum egressa vitiosa est, praecipue in eadem specie.

I:119 Nam et Trachalus plerumque sublimis et satis apertus fuit et quem velle optima crederes, auditus tamen maior; nam et vocis, quantam in nullo cognovi, felicitas et pronuntiatio vel scaenis suffectura et decor, omnia denique ei, quae sunt extra, superfuerunt: et Vibius Crispus compositus et iucundus et delectationi 117 natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior.

§ 119. Trachalus, M. Galerius: consul A.D. 68 along with Silius Italicus. Tacitus (Hist. i. 90) tells us he was supposed to have written the speech delivered by Otho to an assembly of the people: in rebus urbanis Galerii Trachali ingenio Othonem uti credebatur. Et erant qui genus ipsum orandi noscerent, crebro fori usu celebre et ad inplendas populi aures latum et sonans. After Otho’s death he was fortunate in securing the protection of Galeria, wife of Vitellius (ibid. ii. 60), who may have been a relation of his. From viii. 5, 19 we learn that he had published an oration Contra Spatalem, in a case where Vibius Crispus appeared for the accused. Cp. vi. 3, 78.

velle optima, not ‘well-meaning,’ in a moral sense, but with reference to qualities of style: cp. below §122 ad optima tendentium: §131 meliora vellet.

auditus maior. In the passage often quoted already (xii. 10, 11) Quintilian singles out his sonus for special mention,—‘sonum Trachali.’—Gertz suggested melior for maior.

vocis ... felicitas: cp. xii. 5, 5, where, after enumerating vox, latus, and decor as the ‘naturalia instrumenta’ of the orator, he refers specially to the ‘external advantages’ (cp. omnia ... quae sunt extra, below) of Trachalus: Habuit oratores aetas nostra copiosiores, sed cum diceret eminere inter aequales Trachalus videbatur, Ea corporis sublimitas erat, is ardor oculorum, frontis auctoritas, gestus praestantia, vox quidem non, ut Cicero desiderat, paene tragoedorum sed super omnes, quos ego quidem audierim, tragoedos. Certe cum in basilica Iulia diceret primo tribunali, quattuor autem iudicia, ut moris est, cogerentur, atque omnia clamoribus fremerent, et auditum eum et intellectum et, quod agentibus ceteris contumeliosissimum fuit, laudatum quoque ex quattuor tribunalibus memini. Sed hoc votum est et rara felicitas.

suffectura, conditional, for quae suffectura fuisset, without the protasis si voluisset. Cp. note on habitura §99. So taciturus xi. 2, 16. Hor. Car. iv. 3, 20 donatura, si libeat: and ii. 6, 1 (where there is no protasis), Septimi Gades aditure mecum—For pronuntiatio see on §17.

superfuerunt, he had an abundant share of such advantages.

Vibius Crispus, a delator of the age of Nero, who amassed great wealth by the practice of his profession down to about A.D. 90. Tac. Hist. ii. 10 Vibius Crispus, pecunia potentia ingenio inter claros magis quam inter bonos ... Crispum easdem accusationes cum praemio exercuisse meminerant: ibid. iv. 41, 43. In the Dialogue Tacitus speaks of the fame of his eloquence, ch. 8 ausim contendere Marcellum Eprium et Crispum Vibium 117 non minores esse in extremis partibus terrarum quam Capuae aut Vercellis, ubi nati dicuntur; hoc ... illis praestat ... ipsa eloquentia...; per multos iam annos potentissimi sunt civitatis ac, donec libuit, principes fori, nunc principes in Caesaris (i.e. Vespasiani) amicitia agunt feruntque cuncta, &c. And yet (ibid. 13) Adligati canum adulatione nec imperantibus unquam satis servi videntur nec nobis satis liberi. That he was still in favour with Domitian appears from Suet. 3 inter initia principatus quotidie secretum sibi horarium sumere solebat; nec quidquam amplius quam muscas captare ac stylo praeacuto configere: ut cuidam interroganti esset ne quis intus cum Caesare non absurde responsum sit a Vibio Crispo ‘Ne musca quidem.’ His wealth was proverbial: divitior Crispo Mart. iv. 54, 7: he was worth 200,000,000 sesterces, or even 300,000,000 according to Dial. 8. By its means he was enabled to shelter his brother Vibius Secundus, when accused of ‘repetundae’ in Mauretania: Tac. Ann. xiv. 28. Juvenal gives a sketch of his character iv. 81-93 Venit et Crispi iucunda senectus Cuius erant mores qualis facundia mite Ingenium ... nec civis erat qui libera posset Verba animi proferre et vitam impendere vero ... Sic multas hiemes atque octogesima vidit Solstitia his armis illa (of Domitian) quoque tutus in aula.

compositus: generally applied to style, ‘well-balanced,’ e.g. §44 lenis et nitidi et compositi generis: cp. Cicero Orat. §208 composita oratio. Here the epithet is transferred to the orator in the sense of ‘orderly,’ ‘finished’ in the choice and combination of words. Cp. Orat. §232 compositi oratoris bene structam collocationem dissolvere permutatione verborum: 2 §16 below fiunt ... pro ... compositis exultantes: §66 incompositus.

iucundus, ‘lively, agreeable, entertaining’: cp. Crispi iucunda senectus, Iuv., quoted above. In xii. 10, §11 Quintilian places iucunditatem Crispi alongside of the distinguishing characteristics of other orators: cp. v. 13, 48 Vibius Crispus vir ingenii iucundi et elegantis.

I:120 Iulio Secundo, si longior contigisset aetas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros foret; adiecisset enim atque adiciebat ceteris virtutibus suis quod desiderari potest, id est autem ut esset multo magis pugnax et saepius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret.

§ 120. Iulius Secundus is highly spoken of 3 §12 below: aequalem meum atque a me, ut notum est, familiariter amatum, mirae facundiae virum, infinitae tamen curae: and in xii. 10, 11 he is named as conspicuous for ‘elegantia.’ He is one of the interlocutors in the Dialogue of Tacitus, where he is made to pose as umpire between the representatives of Imperial and Republican eloquence: cp. esp. ch. 2 Aper et Iulius Secundus, celeberrima tum (under Vespasian) ingenia fori nostri ... Secundo purus et pressus et in quantum satis erat profluens sermo non defuit: chs. 4 and 14.

adiciebat: he had begun the improvement when death overtook him. He died about 88 A.D., not long before Quintilian began his Institutio.

curam rerum: he is to care for substance as well as form. Fabianus in Seneca (Epist. 100) had the opposite fault: visne illum assidere pusillae rei, verbis?

I:121 Ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ea est facundia, tanta in explicando quod velit gratia, tam candidum et lene et speciosum dicendi genus, tanta verborum etiam quae adsumpta sunt proprietas, tanta in 118 quibusdam ex periculo petitis significantia.

§ 121. interceptus: so vi. pr. 1 si me ... fata intercepissent.

candidum: ‘lucid,’ v. on §73 (Herodotus), and cp. §113 Messalla ... candidus: §101 clarissimi candoris, of Livy.

lene opp. to forte et vehemens dicendi genus: §44. See Crit. Notes.

adsumpta = translata, ‘used figuratively.’ Cp. viii. 3, 43 adsumere ea, quibus inlustrem fieri orationem putat, delecta, translata, superlata, ad nomen adiuncta, duplicata et idem significantia atque ab ipsa actione atque imitatione rerum non abhorrentia. When the process is carried too far the verba adsumpta, become arcessita viii. 3. 56.

proprietas, v. on §46.


ex periculo: ii. 12, 5 quod est in elocutione ipsa periculum: viii. 6, 11 (verba) quae audaci et proxime periculum translatione tolluntur ... qualis est: pontem indignatus Araxes. Cp. paene periclitantia xi. 1, 32. For the phrase ex periculo petere cp. ii. 11, 3 sententiis grandibus, quarum optima quaeque a periculo petarur. Gr. παρακεκινδυνευμένα.

significantia: §49.

I:122 Habebunt qui post nos de oratoribus scribent magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam vere laudandi; sunt enim summa hodie, quibus inlustratur forum, ingenia. Namque et consummati iam patroni veteribus aemulantur et eos iuvenum ad optima tendentium imitatur ac sequitur industria.

§ 122. eos qui nunc vigent. Who these were we can infer from the Dialogue of Tacitus and from Pliny’s Letters, e.g. Aper, Marcellus, Maternus, Aquilius Regulus, and others. Quintilian must of course have meant to include Tacitus and Pliny themselves.

consummati: often equivalent to perfectus in Quintilian: 5 §14. Cp. above §89. It is combined with perfectus v. 10, 119 ne se ... perfectos protinus atque consummates putent.

veteribus. Aemulari occurs elsewhere with the accusative, §62; 2 §17. So of envious emulation Cic. Tusc. i. §44: cp. iv. §17 with the dative of the person.

iuvenum ad optima tendentium. Hild refers to the speeches of Messalla and Maternus in the Dial. (28-30, 34-36) as indicating the oratorical aspirations of the youth of Rome when Quintilian wrote.

I:123 Supersunt qui de philosophia scripserint, quo in genere paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt. Idem igitur M. Tullius, qui ubique, etiam in hoc opere Platonis aemulus 119 extitit. Egregius vero multoque quam in orationibus praestantior Brutus suffecit ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire quae dicit.

§ 123. philosophia. For the attitude of the Romans to philosophy see Teuffel, §40 sq. Abstract speculation, leading to no practical end, was not held in honour by them: like Neoptolemus, in the play of Ennius, they said ‘philosophari est mihi necesse, at paucis (i.e. ‘only a little’: Roby, §1237) nam omnino haud placet,’—Cicero de Orat. ii. §156: de Repub. i. 18, 30: Pacuvius too (in Gell. xiii. 8) had made one of his characters exclaim: ego odi homines ignava opera et philosopha sententia. The Romans disliked the unsettling tendencies which seemed to accompany the study of philosophy: hence e.g. their treatment of the Athenian ambassadors in the middle of the second century B.C. The prejudice against such studies had by no means entirely disappeared even in the time of Cicero, who constantly apologises for and seeks to justify his leanings to philosophy: de Off. ii. 1, 2 sqq.: de Fin. i. 1, 1. Tacitus, Agricola 4, tells us that Agricola used to say ‘se prima in iuventa studium philosophiae acrius, ultra quam concessum Romano ac senatori, hausisse, ni prudentia matris incensum ac flagrantem animum coercuisset.’ About the time when Quintilian was writing, Domitian banished the philosophers from Rome: ibid. ch. 2. For the help which philosophy can give to oratory see xii. 11, which contains (§7) an expression of the Roman ideal: atqui ego illum quem instituo Romanum quendam velim esse sapientem, qui non secretis disputationibus, sed rerum experimentis atque operibus vere civilem virum exhibeat. Cp. Cicero’s boast in regard to himself and Cato of Utica: nos philosophiam veram illam et antiquam, quae quibusdam otii esse ac desidiae videtur, in forum atque in rempublicam atque in ipsam aciem paene deduximus. See on §84.

paucissimos ... eloquentes. The addition of an adj. to another adj. used as a subst. is rare in Quintilian. Hirt (Subst. des Adj. p. 17) cites only five exx. besides this one: e.g. iii. 8, 31 antiquis nobilibus ortos.

qui ubique. The sense is clear: it is a repetition of the claim made in §108 mihi videtur M. Tullius ... effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam Platonis, iucunditatem Isocratis. But it was not ubique that Cicero rivalled Plato: it was only in Plato’s own domain (sc. in hoc opere). The expression 119 was adopted for brevity’s sake: Spalding says it is equivalent to ‘ut ubique Graecorum praestantissimi cuiusque, ita in hoc opere Platonis.’ For Cicero’s philosophical writings cp. Teuffel, §173 sq.

Brutus: cp. §23. He is not included in Quintilian’s list of orators; and though Cicero uses towards him the language of extravagant eulogy (v. esp. Brut. §22) in many of his works, yet we know from a passage in the Dialogue already quoted that he sometimes found him ‘otiosum atque disiunctum’ ch. 18. Cp. ch. 21 Brutum philosophiae suae relinquamus. Nam in orationibus minorem esse, fama sua etiam admiratores eius fatentur. A reference follows to his speech ‘Pro rege Deiotaro,’ which the speaker (Aper) considers ‘dull and tedious’—lentitudo and tepor being the words used. A fragment of a declamation by him is quoted ix. 3 §95–. On his philosophical works see Cic. Acad. i. 3, 12 (with Reid’s note). He was an adherent of the Stoico-academic school, whose tenets he had studied under Aristus and Antiochus: cp. Tusc. v. 21: Brut. 120, 149, 332: de Fin. v. 8. There was a treatise de Virtute addressed to Cicero, one περὶ καθήκοντος, and one de Patientia: Teuffel, 209 §§2 and 3.

suffecit ponderi rerum: Quint. xii. 10, 11 names gravitas as his distinguishing quality: cp. gravior Brutus, Tac. Dial. ch. 25.

sentire quae dicit. The intensity and sincerity of his nature can be inferred from ad Att. xiv. 1, 2, where Caesar is quoted as saying of him magni refert hic quid velit, sed quicquid vult valde vult. For his devotion to study see 7 §27 below.

I:124 Scripsit non parum multa Cornelius Celsus, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore. Plautus in Stoicis rerum cognitioni utilis. In Epicureis levis quidem, sed non iniucundus tamen 120 auctor est Catius.

§ 124. non parum multa: litotes, as at vi. 2, 3 semper fuerunt non parum multi.—Becher compares also non parum multi Cic. in Verr. iii. 9, 22: Phil. vii. 6, 18: pro Quinctio 3, 11: in Verr. iv. 12, 29: parum saepe de Fin. ii. 4, 12. The opposite of non parum is non nimis: cp. Liv. xxii. 26, 4 haud parum callide with Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 25, 70 nihil horum nimis callide.

Cornelius Celsus: a celebrated encyclopaedist under Augustus and Tiberius, who wrote on rhetoric, jurisprudence, farming, medicine, military art, and practical philosophy. Only eight books on medicine have come down to us. He survived into the reign of Nero. Cp. §23 above. Of his philosophy Augustine writes as follows (de Haeres. Prol.): opiniones omnium philosophorum qui sectas varias condiderunt usque ad tempora sua ... sex non parvis voluminibus ... absolvit; nec redarguit aliquem, sed tantum quid sentirent aperuit, ea brevitate sermonis ut tantum adhiberet eloquii quantum ... aperiendae iudicandaeque sententiae sufficeret. In xii. 11, 24 Quintilian refers to the universality of his knowledge, though he speaks of him as mediocri vir ingenio. “In other passages also Quintilian often expresses his disagreement from this predecessor of his, e.g. ii. 15, 22, 32: iii. 6, 13 sq.: viii. 3, 47: ix. 1, 18 ... Even when he agrees with him he does so with reserve, e.g. vii. 1, 10.—It may be that Quintilian was vexed that a subject to which he had devoted an entire life was merely cursorily treated by Celsus, and besides an encyclopaedia might easily be open to technical objections. At all events, Celsus’ rhetorical manual was obscured by that of Quintilian. It is mentioned only by Fortunat. iii. 2 (p. 121, 10 H)”—Teuffel, 275.

Sextios. The Sextii, father and son, were contemporary with Caesar and Augustus, and belonged to the Pythagorean school, though not without a leaning to the Stoics (Seneca, Ep. 64 §2–). Seneca speaks frequently of the elder Sextius in his letters: e.g. 59 §7– ‘virum acrem, Graecis verbis, Romanis moribus philosophantem.’ In the Nat. Quaest. vii. 32, 2 we are told how their following—‘Sextiorum nova et Romani roboris secta’—soon fell away: ‘inter initia sua extincta est,’ v. Teuffel 261.

cultu ac nitore: v. §79 and §83, with notes.

Plautus. The text is not certain (see Crit. Notes), but as Quintilian elsewhere (ii. 14, 2 and iii. 6, 23) refers to a philosopher 120 of this name as employing the unusual words queentia and essentia, it may as well be retained. (In ii. 14, 2 however Meister reads Flavi: cp. Teuffel, 261, §9.)

levis: ‘of no weight.’

Catius, an Insubrian by birth, contemporary with Cicero, who speaks of his recent death ad Fam. xv. 16, 1; cp. 19, 2 Epicurus, a quo omnes Catii et Amafinii, mali verborum interpretes (referring to their faithful transcripts of Greek terminology) proficiscuntur. The scholiast on Hor. Sat. ii. 4 tells us that he wrote ‘quattuor libros de rerum natura et de summo bono.’

I:125 Ex industria Senecam in omni genere eloquentiae distuli propter vulgatam falso de me opinionem, qua damnare eum et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. Quod accidit mihi dum corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo; tum autem solus hic fere in manibus adulescentium fuit.

§ 125. Seneca: A.D. 2-65. For his life and works see Teuffel 282 sqq., Bernhardy p. 871 sq. Martha gives an estimate of the moral teaching of his well-known Letters in ‘Moralistes sous l’Empire Romain.’ Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca is subjected to a searching examination by M. Samuel Rocheblave in a pamphlet De M. Fabio Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae Judice (Paris, 1890): see esp. chs. iii. and iv. Introduction, pp. xxiv. sqq.

opinionem. Quintilian worked hard to recall the Romans to a more temperate and classical style. He aimed too at a partial ‘return to Cicero,’ and considered Seneca a dangerous model for the youth of the day. See Introduction, pp. xxxix. sqq. Fronto and others used stronger language: e.g. p. 155 N eloquentiam ... Senecae mollibus et febriculosis prunuleis insitam subvertendam censeo radicitus ... neque ignoro copiosum sententiis et redundantem hominem esse, verum sententias eius tolutares video, quatere campum quadripedo concita cursu, tenere nusquam, pugnare nusquam ... dicteria potius eum quam dicta continere. Cp. Aul. Gell. xii. 2, 1 de Annaeo Seneca partim existimant ut de scriptore minime utili, cuius libros attingere nullum pretium operae sit, quod oratio eius vulgaris videatur et protrita, res atque sententiae aut inepto inanique impetu sint aut levi et quasi dicaci argutia, eruditio autem vernacula et plebeia nihilque ex veterum scriptis habens neque gratiae neque dignitatis. Alii vero elegantiae in verbis parum esse non infitias eunt, sed et rerum quas dicat scientiam doctrinamque ei non deesse dicunt et in vitiis morum obiurgandis severitatem gravitatemque non invenustam. So too Caligula (Suet. 53) had called Seneca’s productions arena sine calce, commissiones merae.

damnare ... invisum habere. There is nothing in this of a moral judgment, though some of Quintilian’s contemporaries, notably Tacitus, disliked Seneca, probably because they could not acquit him from blame in regard to his pupil Nero’s excesses, and other matters. The only parallel to et invisum quoque in classical Latin is said by Becher to be Cic. pro Domo §47 quoniam iam dialecticus es et haec quoque liguris. It does not occur in Caesar, seldom in Livy, but frequently in Quintilian. Cp. on §20.

corruption ... genus. He is not speaking of the false taste of Seneca’s style exclusively, but of the general deterioration that prevailed: cp. §43 recens haec lascivia.

dum contendo: ‘through the efforts I made’: the tum which follows shows that it refers to past time.

solus hic fere in manibus. Tac. Ann. xiii. 3 fuit illi viro ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus adcommodatum. In his endeavours to introduce a purer taste Quintilian naturally made so popular an author as Seneca the peg on which to hang his discourse.

I:126 Quem non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum diversi sibi conscius 121 generis placere se in dicendo posse iis quibus illi placerent diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis quam imitabantur, tantumque ab illo defluebant quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat.

§ 126. excutere: sc. e manibus adulescentium.

incessere. At the close of the passage quoted above, Gellius goes on to quote, with much indignation, Seneca’s disparaging criticism of Ennius, Cicero, and Vergil, from Book xxii of the Letters to Lucilius (no longer extant). In Ep. 114 we find 121 him censoring Sallust and those who imitated him. Sueton. Ner. 52 a cognitione veterum oratorum Seneca praeceptor, quo diutius in admiratione sui detineret (Neronem avertit). For iis, see Crit. Notes.

defluebant = degenerabant, i. 8, 9 quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus.

I:127 Foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro fieri. Sed placebat propter sola vitia et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde cum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat.

§ 127. Foret ... optandum, of a wish that is considered impossible,—which shows how high was Quintilian’s opinion of Seneca: cp. ac saltem proximus. So velles §130. For the infin. see Introd. p. lvi.

ad ea ... effingenda: cp. Cic. Orat. §9 ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. For effingenda cp. §108.

quae poterat, sc. effingere: cp. Caesar, B.C. 37 quam celerrime potuit (comparare).

infamabat, ‘brought reproach on.’

I:128 Cuius et multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab his quibus inquirenda quaedam mandabat deceptus est.

§ 128. alioqui: see Introd. p. li.

quibus ... mandabat. Especially for physical science he must have been greatly indebted to external aid. His VII Books ‘Naturalium Quaestionum,’ with the addition of moral meditations, were used as a text-book in the Middle Ages.

I:129 Tractavit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam; nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et dialogi feruntur. In philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator 122 fuit. Multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum gratia legenda, sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis.

§ 129. orationes. None survive. Quintilian refers (viii. 5, 18) to the speech he made for Nero on the occasion of his mother’s funeral: Tac. Ann. xiii. 3, cp. 11. It is probable also that Seneca wrote the speeches mentioned by Suet. Ner. 7, the ‘gratiarum actio’ in the Senate, ‘pro Bononiensibus latine, pro Rhodiis atque Iliensibus graece.’ He also pleaded with success in the law-courts (Dion Cass. 59, 19, 7.).

poemata. That Seneca wrote poetry is evident from Tacitus Ann. xiv. 52, where his accusers, in order to prejudice him in the eyes of Nero (who was jealous of his reputation as a poet and an orator),—obiiciebant etiam eloquentiae laudem uni sibi adsciscere et carmina crebrius factitare postquam Neroni amor eorum venisset: cp. Suet. Ner. 52. He is said also to have written epigrams, and other forms of verse.—His tragedies are not referred to here, though Quintilian quotes from the Medea ix. 2, 8: see for them Teuffel 285; Bernhardy, note 322.

epistulae. The Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, as we have them now (see 3rd vol. of Teubner edition), are 124 in number, arranged in twenty books. There were more however originally, and Priscian speaks of Book x of the letters to Novatus (in decimo epistularum ad Novatum), while Martial (vii. 45, 3) refers to letters to Caesonius Maximus, of which we know nothing more.

dialogi, i.e. the works called by this name in the Milan MS., not his tragedies, though these were written to be read rather than to be acted. There are twelve of them (v. Teuffel 284 §4–), and each is dedicated to some particular individual. There is besides the De Clementia ad Neronem, and a Dialogus de Superstitione (no longer extant except in the fragment given in Augustine’s C.D. vi. 10) directed against the anthropomorphism of popular superstition.

feruntur: §23.

parum diligens: ‘not very critical.’ He was a student of life rather than a student of thought.

vitiorum insectator: cp. Lactantius, 122 Inst. Div. v. 9 morum vitiorumqne publicorum et descriptor verissimus et accusator acerrimus.

eo for ideo: cp. Hor. Sat. i. 6, 89 eoque non ... Quod non ingenuos habeat ... parentes.

I:130 Velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno iudicio; nam si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset, si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur.

§ 130. iudicio, ‘taste,’ as §127 above: cp. M. Seneca (of Capito) ‘habebat in sua potestate ingenium, in aliena modum.’

obliqua. For this apt conjecture (in place of the traditional aliqua), see Crit. Notes.

si parum recta. On the assumption that a word has fallen out of the MSS. after parum, recta is preferable to Halm and Meister’s sana. For rectum as abstr. cp. ii. 13, 11: xii. 1, 12. See Crit. Notes.

omnia sua amasset, §88 of Ovid, nimium amator ingenii sui. Cp. below 3 §12 utros peccare validius putem, quibus omnia sua placent...

rerum pondera ... fregisset: contrast §123 suffecit ponderi rerum. Seneca ‘weakened the force of his matter by striving after epigrammatic brevity.’

amore, of an ill-considered attachment (§94: 2 §19), whereas studio would have indicated mature taste, vi. 2, 12 amor πάθος, caritas ἦθος.

I:131 Verum sic quoque iam robustis et severiore genere satis firmatis legendus vel ideo quod exercere potest utrimque iudicium. Multa enim, ut dixi, probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curae sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. Digna enim fuit illa natura, quae meliora vellet: quod voluit effecit.

§ 131. sic quoque = καὶ οὕτως.

robustis, opp. to pueris: cp. 5 §1 below. Cp. Tac. Dial. 35 ‘controversiae robustioribus adsignantur,’ while ‘suasoriae pueris delegantur.’

firmatis. So occupatos 3 §27: exercitatos 5 §17. Introd. pp. xlviii-ix.

vel ideo quod: §86: 5 §16.

utrimque, i.e. laudantium et vituperantium, ‘for and against him.’ So 5, 20: 6, 7: and cp. 1, 22. Introd. p. lii.

Multa enim ... digna enim, another instance of the want of care that has been already noted, 2 §23.

natura: cp. §86.

Of Imitation.

De Imitatione.

II:1 II. Ex his ceterisque lectione dignis auctoribus et verborum sumenda copia est et varietas figurarum et componendi ratio, tum ad exemplum virtutum omnium mens derigenda. Neque 123 enim dubitari potest, quin artis pars magna contineatur imitatione. Nam ut invenire primum fuit estque praecipuum, sic ea quae bene inventa sunt utile sequi.

§ 1. verborum ... copia: cp. 1 §5 and §8.

varietas figurarum: see note on plurima vero mutatione figuramus 1 §12.

componendi ratio, the ‘theory of rhythmical arrangement’: see on compositione 1 §79: and cp. §§44, 52, and 66.

tum ... virtutum omnium: i.e. in reading the best authors we are not only to acquire facility and dexterity in regard to the points enumerated, but to imitate also all the good qualities exemplified in their works.

ad exemplum, ‘after the model of,’ as ii. 3, 12 ad Phoenicis Homerici exemplum 123 dicere ac facere: not like in exemplum §2 below, ‘as a model.’ The same use of ad occurs below ad propositum sibi praescriptum: and 7 §3 ad incursus tempestatum ... ratio mutanda est.

mens derigenda: so vi. 5, 2 ideoque nos quid in quaque re sequendum cavendumque sit docemus ac deinceps docebimus, ut ad ea iudicium derigatur. For the form derigo see Munro on Lucr. vi. 823: ‘this was probably the only genuine ancient form.’ So Cic. pro Mur. §3 vitam ad certam rationis normam derigenti: Orator §9 ad illius similitudinem artem et manum derigebat (where, however, Sandys reads dirigebat): Tac. Dial. §5 ad utilitatem vitae omnia consilia ... derigenda sunt: Ann. iv. 40 ad famam praecipua rerum derigere. Cp. note on 3 §28.

dubitari: see on 1 §73, §81.

imitatione: a reference to Aristotle’s general theory of art, made to introduce the subject of imitation (μίμησις, ζῆλος) in the sphere of oratory. This is defined by Cornif. ad Herenn. i. 2, 3 imitatio est qua impellimur cum diligenti ratione ut aliquorum similes in dicendo velimus esse: cp. de Orat. ii. §90 sq.

II:2 Atque omnis vitae ratio sic constat, ut quae probamus in aliis facere ipsi velimus. Sic litterarum ductus, ut scribendi fiat usus, pueri sequuntur; sic musici vocem docentium, pictores opera priorum, rustici probatam experimento culturam in exemplum intuentur; omnis denique disciplinae initia ad propositum sibi praescriptum formari videmus.


§ 2. ratio sic constat: ‘it is a universal rule of life that,’ &c. More usual would have been ‘ita ratio comparata est vitae ut,’ &c. (Cic. de Amicit. §101). The phrase ratio constat (cp. rationem reddere) was originally a figure taken from commerce (ratio—reor, ‘calculate,’ ‘count’), as Tac. Ann. i. 6 eam condicionem esse imperandi ut non aliter ratio constet quam si uni reddatur: i.e. if you are an absolute ruler the only way to ‘get your accounts square’ is to audit them yourself. So Nettleship (Lat. Lex.) would explain here ‘there is this balance in ordinary life’: i.e. the account of life only comes out right on the supposition that, &c,—civilised life would come to an end unless, &c. More probably Quintilian is employing here a loose combination of two modes of expression, ratio constat ut, &c., and such a phrase as that quoted from Cic. de Amicit. §101: cp. Acad. ii. §132 omnis ratio vitae definitione summ