diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:46:06 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:46:06 -0700 |
| commit | 8fc61358b69ddd6076105486f1de4a3488b4cb0b (patch) | |
| tree | a10fae4a90c451c3b01f0ef55532782c14a44120 /old/files/QuintCrit.html | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/files/QuintCrit.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/files/QuintCrit.html | 3411 |
1 files changed, 3411 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/files/QuintCrit.html b/old/files/QuintCrit.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a9a574f --- /dev/null +++ b/old/files/QuintCrit.html @@ -0,0 +1,3411 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> +<head> +<title>Quintilian X: Critical Notes</title> +<meta http-equiv = "Content-Type" content = "text/html; charset=UTF-8"> + +<link rel = "stylesheet" type = "text/css" href = "quintstyles.css"> + +</head> + +<body> + +<div class = "contents"> +<a name = "toc3" id = "toc3"> </a> + +<p><a href = "../main.html">Preface</a><br> +<i>Analysis of the Argument, Index of Names, +Index of Matters (complete)</i><br> +</p> + +<p><a href = "QuintIntro.html">Introduction</a></p> + +<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p> + +<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p> + +<p>Critical Notes:<br> +<a href = "#critI">Chapter I</a><br> +<a href = "#critII">Chapter II</a><br> +<a href = "#critIII">Chapter III</a><br> +<a href = "#critIV">Chapter IV</a><br> +<a href = "#critV">Chapter V</a><br> +<a href = "#critVI">Chapter VI</a><br> +<a href = "#critVII">Chapter VII</a> +</p> + +</div> + +<hr class = "spacer"> + +<div class = "crit"> + +<span class = "pagenum">185</span> +<h4>CRITICAL NOTES.</h4> + +<p class = "line"> </p> + +<h5>LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.</h5> + +<p class = "list"> +Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.</p> +<p class = "list"> +B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.</p> +<p class = "list"> +G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt. +Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelviii">p. lviii</a>.</p> +<p class = "list"> +b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.</p> +<p class = "list"> +H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxiv">p. lxiv</a>, sqq.</p> +<p class = "list"> +F = codex Florentinus.</p> +<p class = "list"> +T = codex Turicensis.</p> +<p class = "list"> +N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.</p> + +<p>For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh +collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and +Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex +Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex +Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani, +&c.</p> + +<p>A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by +M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd. +<a href = "QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxi">p. lxi</a>, +sqq.):—</p> + +<p class = "list"> +Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.</p> + +<p>The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s +Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.</p> + +<p>Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this +edition, are the following (Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxxiii">p. lxxiii</a>, sqq.):—</p> + +<p class = "list"> +Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears +that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing +after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1, +1, 13).</p> +<p class = "list"> +Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).</p> + +<p>The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are +given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, +Paris, 1874).</p> + +<hr class = "mid"> + + +<span class = "pagenum">186</span> + + +<h5><a name = "critI" id = "critI"> +CHAPTER I.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec1" id = "critI_sec1" href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>. +<b>cognitioni</b>, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.). +<i>Cogitationi</i> G and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in +the ancient text.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec2" id = "critI_sec2" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>sciet</b> G. The reading <i>scierit</i> (Harl. 4995 and many codd.) +is probably due to H, which gives <i>sciuit</i> (so FT).</p> + +<p><b>quae quoque sint modo dicenda</b>. So GHFTL, and Halm. The +alternative reading is <i>quo quaeque s. m. d.</i>, S and all +my 15th cent. MSS: Spalding and Meister, with the approval of Becher. +See note ad loc. In the parallel passages i. 8. 1 Halm adopts Spalding’s +reading (ut sciat) quo quidque flexu ... dicendum for quid quoque ABMS, +and i. 6. 16 (notatum) quo quidque modo caderet for quid quoque BMS, and +so Meister: Fierville returns to the reading of the MSS. In support of +<i>quo quaeque</i> other exx. might be cited: v. 10. 17 quo quaeque modo +res vitari vel appeti soleat, and vi. 4. 22 quo quaeque ordine probatio +sit proferenda. But the parallel instances in the Tenth Book quoted in +the notes (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8">1 §8</a>: <a href += "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5">7 §§5</a> and <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6">6</a>) seem to guarantee the correctness +of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to take +<i>quoque</i> as the ablative of <i>quisque</i> than (as Halm) as the +relative with que.</p> + +<p><b>tamen</b>: GHFT Harl. 4950: <i>tanquam</i> Harl. 2662, 11671, +4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244 <i>tanquam</i> +is corrected to <i>tamen</i>. <i>Paratam</i> explains <i>in +procinctu</i>: so that <i>tanquam</i> is not so necessary as +<i>velut</i> in xii. 9. 21.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec3" id = "critI_sec3" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3"><ins class = "correction" +title = "line reference missing"><b>§3</b></ins></a>. +<b>ante omnia est</b>: so all codd., and Halm. Hirt (Jahresb. des +philol. Vereins zu Berlin viii. p. 69 sq. 1882: ix. p. 312 sq. +1883) conjectured <i>ante omnia necessarium est</i>, and this is +approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp. +<i>necessarium</i> just above, and <i>necessaria</i> in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">§1</a>. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84) +first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may +have been <i>ante omnia stat atque</i>, corrupted into <i>ante omniast +[at] atque</i>: for which use of <i>sto</i>, see Bonn. Lex. s.v. +ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forward <i>ante omnia +necesse est</i>, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. +iii. 14. 428) proposed <i>ante omnia sciet</i>, though more recently he +has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly +suggested <i>ante omnia opus esse</i>. Perhaps the true reading may be +<i>ante omnia prodest</i>.</p> + +<p>The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following +passage. GH agree in giving <i>proximam deinde inimitationem novissimam +scribendi quoque diligentia</i>. This Halm converted into <i>proximum +deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia</i>,—where the +<i>est</i> is certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be +doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whether +<i>proxima deinde imitatio, novissima</i> &c. would not be a +sufficient change: Kiderlin compares ‘proxima huic narratio,’ ii. 13. 1, +and ‘novissima qualitas superest,’ and objects to the citation of +‘proximum imitatio,’ in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3"><ins +class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘1. 31’">1. 3</ins></a>, +in support of the neuter, on the ground that there ‘signum ingenii’ is +to be supplied.</p> + +<p>Kiderlin’s proposed modification of Gemoll’s conjecture (l.c. +p. 454 note, cp. Rhein. Mus. 46 p. 10 note) <i>proximum deinde +multa lectio</i> is adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the +sequence of thought makes the special mention of <i>legere</i> +(alongside of <i>dicere</i> and <i>scribere</i>) a necessity: +<i>multa</i> corresponds to <i>diligentia</i> in what follows: cp. multa +lectione <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10">§10</a>. But +<i>legere</i> has already been touched on in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2">§2</a>, and moreover is included under +<i>imitatio</i> (sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione +repetitorum).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec4" id = "critI_sec4" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>. +<b>iam opere</b>. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd. <i>iam opere +iam</i>. Becher reports <i>iam opere</i> also from the Vallensis.</p> + +<p><b>qua ratione</b>. For <i>qua in oratione</i>, the reading of all +MSS., Hirt conjectured +<span class = "pagenum">187</span> +<i>qua exercitatione</i>. Schöll proposed to reject <i>in oratione</i> +as a gloss: but <i>qua</i> by itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint. +with verbs of motion: see on <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec11">7 §11</a>.</p> + +<p>In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891), +Kiderlin subjects the whole of <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">§4</a> to a searching and destructive +analysis. He translates: ‘doch nicht darüber, wie der Redner +heranzubilden ist, sprechen wir in diesem Abschnitte (denn dies ist +genügend oder wenigstens so gut, als wir konnten, besprochen worden) +sondern darüber, durch welche Art von Uebung der Athlet, welcher alle +Bewegungen von seinem Lehrer bereits genau erlernt hat, für die Kämpfe +vorzubereiten ist.’ He doubts whether such passages as <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">§33</a> and <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a> can be cited to justify the +abrupt transition from orator to athlete, on the ground of the formal +antithesis in which the two stand to each other,—‘orator’ coming +in at the end of one clause, and ‘athleta’ standing at the head of +another, in front of ‘quo genere exercitationis.’ And yet it is just the +‘orator’ who is to be understood in the ‘athleta.’ As to the sentence +introduced by ‘Igitur eum,’ if by ‘athleta qui omnes iam perdidicerit a +praeceptore numeros’ we are to understand one who has mastered the whole +theory of rhetoric, then it adds nothing to what has been said already, +and is therefore altogether superfluous.</p> + +<p>Kiderlin proposes to read: sed <i>ut</i> (so L and S,—also +Harl. 2662, 4995) athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore +numeros, multo (nonnullo?) varioque (numuro quae G,—also H: num +muro quae T: numeroque F L; nimirum quo S) genere exercitationis ad +certamina praeparandus <i>erit</i> (sit, the codd.) <i>ita</i> (so +S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit, +instruamus, qua in <i>praeparatione</i> (qua in oratione, the codd.) +quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit. <i>Ut</i> may +easily, he contends, have fallen out before <i>at</i>: and the running +of three words into one (<i>numeros multo vario—numero</i>) is +paralleled by such a case as <a href = "#critI_sec23">§23</a>, where it +will be found that Kiderlin sees <i>ut duo tresque</i> in +<i>utrisque</i>. For ‘multo varioque’ he compares viii. 5. 28 multis ac +variis: x. 5. 3 multas ac varias: xi. 3. 163 varia et multiplex: xii. 1. +7 totae tam variis; and, for ‘varioque,’ vii. 3. 16 latiore varioque, +and xii. 10. 36 sublimes variique. ‘Vario genere’ actually occurs i. 10. +7, and <i>multo</i> may easily have been written in the singular, like +<i>nonnullus</i> vi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and +elsewhere. The motive for changing <i>que</i>, <i>quae</i>, into +<i>quo</i> and <i>erit</i> (<i>est</i>?) into <i>sit</i> may have been +the analogy of the foregoing <i>quomodo sit</i>. As for ut (sicut) ita +(sic), it is so favourite a form with Quintilian that he uses it seven +times in the first nineteen paragraphs of this chapter. <i>Qua in +oratione</i>, the reading of all MSS., may have resulted from <i>qua in +praeparatione</i> more probably than from <i>qua ratione</i>, which +appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the +context as <i>qua in praeparatione</i> (cp. <i>praeparandus</i> above, +and <i>parandae</i> below). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what +preparation (cp. praeparant <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">§35</a>, comparant <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a>, praeparetur <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a>, praeparantur <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7 §19</a>) the orator may best and +most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For +the preposition (<i>in</i> praeparatione) cp. viii. pr. 22: ut in hac +diligentia deterior etiam fiat oratio.</p> + +<p>The text of Quintilian, especially of this part of the Tenth Book, is +admittedly very defective, and invites emendation: there is a great deal +to be said for the theory that in many places several words must have +dropped out. Kiderlin’s attempts to remedy existing defects are always +marked by the greatest ingenuity: they are all well worth recording as +evidences of critical ability and insight, even though it may be that +not all of them will be received into the ultimate text. Here there +seems no reason why Quintilian, who was notoriously a loose writer, +should not have said in the concluding sentence of the paragraph what he +had already said, in the form of a metaphor, in the clause immediately +preceding. Indeed the word <i>igitur</i> seems to suggest that after +indulging in his favourite metaphor (<i>sed athleta</i>, &c.) he +wishes to resume, as it were, and is now going on to say what he means +in more ordinary language. It may not be artistic: but it is Quintilian. +If he had had some of his modern critics at +<span class = "pagenum">188</span> +his side when preparing a second edition of the <i>Institutio</i> some +of his angularities might have been smoothed away.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec5" id = "critI_sec5" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>. +<b>Non ergo</b>. Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: I find this reading in +Harl. 4995, and Burn. 243. So Vall. Halm. has <i>Num ergo</i>, and so +most codd. (including HFT Bodl. and Ball.).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec6" id = "critI_sec6" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>. +<b>ex his</b>. Qy. <i>ex iis</i>? so <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">§128</a>: cp. Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagexlix">p. xlix</a>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec7" id = "critI_sec7" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>. +<b>quo idem</b>, Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: <i>quod idem</i> Halm, +supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree +with GLS in <i>quod</i>: <i>quo</i> occurs in Harl. 4995 only.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec8" id = "critI_sec8" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>. +<b>quod quoque</b> GH Halm, Meister: <i>quid quoque</i> (as <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5">7 §5</a>) occurs in L S, also in +Bodl., Ball. For <i>quid</i> Zumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723 +and 7724 (Fierville). <i>Aptissimum</i> (strangely mangled in most +codd.—e.g. <i>locis ita petissimum</i> G) is given rightly in +Dorv.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec9" id = "critI_sec9" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>. +<b>omnibus enim fere verbis</b>. This reading, ascribed by Meister to +Badius, and by Halm to ed. Colon. (1527), I have found in Harl. +4995 (<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1470): <i>ferebis vel</i> G +H: <i>fere rebus vel</i> L S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis +Becher reports <i>fere verbis vel</i>.</p> + +<p><b>intueri</b>, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I find <i>interim +intueri</i>: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl., <i>interim +tueri</i>.</p> + +<p><b>quae nitidiore in parte</b> occurs first in ed. Col. 1527: +Vall.<sup>2</sup> Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. shows <i>quae cultiore in +p.</i>: GH <i>quaetidiorem in p.</i>: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl. <i>quae +utiliore in p.</i></p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec10" id = "critI_sec10" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>. +<b>cum omnem</b>, &c. <i>cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamus</i> +GH: <i>cum omnem enim</i>, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and +Krüger (3rd ed.), suggested <i>omnem enim sermonem a. pr. +accipimus</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec11" id = "critI_sec11" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec11"><b>§11</b></a>. +<b>alia vero</b>, Frotscher: <i>aliave</i> GH: <i>aliaque</i> Harl. +4995. This last Becher now prefers (<i>alia que</i> Vall.: <i>alia +quae</i> Regius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.</p> + +<p><span class = "greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> <b>quasi +tamen</b>, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>tropicos +quare tam</i> GH, <i>quare tamen</i>, later MSS. Halm obelized <i>quare +tamen</i>: Mayor only <i>quare</i>. Becher recommends <i>tamen</i> by +itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) reads <i>tamen quasi</i>, and is +followed by Hild, who takes <i>quasi</i> with <i>feruntur</i> in the +sense of <i>referuntur</i> (<span class = "greek" title = +"metaphora">μεταφορά</span>): Zumpt took it with <i>eundem +intellectum</i>. Gemoll approves of the exclusion of <i>quare</i>, which +he thinks must have arisen from a gloss <i>figurate</i> (either marginal +or interlinear) on <span class = "greek" title = +"tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span>. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks the <i>quare +tam</i> of GHL a mutilation of the gloss <i>figurate</i>: <i>gurate</i> +and <i>quare tā</i> are not far apart.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec12" id = "critI_sec12" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>. +<b>figurarum</b> G (per compendium): <i>figuranus</i> H. Kiderlin +suggests <i>mutuatione figurarum</i>, sc. <i>ostendimus</i>: after which +Quintilian continues ‘sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet.’ Cp. Cic. de +Or. iii. 156 translationes quasi mutuationes sunt. Kiderlin adds (Rhein. +Mus. 46, p. 14 note) that in iii. 4. 14 all MSS. wrongly give +<i>mutantes</i> for <i>mutuantes</i>, and in i. 4. 7 A<sup>1</sup> has +<i>mutamur</i> for <i>mutuamur</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec15" id = "critI_sec15" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>. +<b>hoc sunt exempla potentiora</b>. <i>Hoc</i> is a conj. of Regius +(also Vall.<sup>2</sup>), all the MSS. giving <i>haec</i> (hec). +<i>Hoc</i> appears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665. +It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who says +<i>quia</i> stands too far away from <i>hoc</i> to allow of such a +construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According +to him <i>haec exempla</i> (those derived from <i>lectio</i> and +<i>auditio</i>) are set over against those which one gets in theoretical +books and lectures: they are more telling, because they act directly on +the mind, and are not served up as dry theory in the form of extracts +(‘quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit’). He therefore understands +‘ipsis (exemplis) quae traduntur artibus,’ but admits that ‘etiam’ is +thus otiose, and would therefore read <i>quam ipsis quae traduntur +artibus</i>.</p> + +<p>Schöll is supported by Hirt (Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin, +1882, p. 70), who thus gives the sense of the passage: ‘Der +Wortschatz wird durch Lektüre und vieles +<span class = "pagenum">189</span> +Hören erworben. Aber nicht nur seinetwegen soll man lesen und hören; man +soll es auch noch aus einem anderen Grunde. In allem nämlich, was wir +lehren, sind diese Beispiele, d.h. diejenigen, welche uns die Lektüre +und der Vortrag bieten, wichtiger selbst als die Beispiele welche die +Handbücher und Vorlesungen darbieten, weil, was der Lehrer nur als +Forderung aufstellt, bei dem Redner That geworden ist und sich durch den +Erfolg bewährt hat.’</p> + +<p>Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. vii. 1879, 2, p. 168) objects +that if Quintilian had wished to convey this meaning he would have said, +not <i>haec exempla</i>, but <i>hinc ducta (petita)</i> or <i>quae hinc +ducuntur (petuntur) exempla</i>; and he rightly desiderates also <i>quam +quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus</i>. Meister also opposes Schöll +(Philol. xlii. p. 149): the order <i>quam ipsis quae traduntur +artibus</i> is in fact impossible.</p> + +<p>On the whole it seems much better to keep <i>hoc</i>, and to +understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: the +<i>doctor</i> relies only on precept, the <i>orator</i> on example.’</p> + +<p>Gertz conjectures <i>nam omnium quaecunque docemus hinc</i> (cp. v. +10. 5: xii. 2. 31) <i>sunt exempla, potentiora</i> (i.e. <i>quae +potentiora sunt</i>) <i>etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus</i>. But with +<i>hinc</i>, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb than <i>sunt</i> +would be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. giving +<i>nihil</i>, and in xii. 2. 31 <i>hinc</i> belongs to <i>bibat</i> and +<i>sumptam</i>. Kiderlin himself at first proposed <i>haec praestant +exempla, potentiora</i>: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus. +46, p. 15) in favour of <i>haec suggerunt exempla, potentiora</i>, +&c. By <i>haec</i> he understands <i>legere</i> and <i>audire</i>, +and gives the sequence of thought as follows:—‘Aber wenn auch auf +diese Weise eine Fülle von Ausdrücken erworben wird, so ist das doch +nicht der einzige Zweck des Lesens und Hörens. Denn <i>von allem</i> was +wir lehren (nicht nur von den Ausdrücken) liefert dieses (das Lesen und +Hören) Beispiele, welche noch wirksamer sind als die vorgetragenen +Theorieen selbst (wenn der Lernende so weit gefördert ist, dass er die +Beispiele ohne Beihilfe verstehen und sie bereits aus eigener Kraft +befolgen kann), weil der Redner das zeigt, was der Lehrer nur +vorgeschrieben hat.’ For <i>suggerere</i> Kiderlin compares i. 10. 7 +artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret +materiam interrogationi: cp. also <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec13">§13</a> quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias +dabit lectio, and ii. 2. 8 licet satis exemplorum ad imitandum ex +lectione suppeditet.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec16" id = "critI_sec16" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec16"><b>§16</b></a>. +<b>imagine et ambitu rerum</b>: so Harl. 2662 L S Ball. Burn. 243 and +Bodl.: followed by Spalding, Frotscher, Herbst, and Bonnell. GH give +<i>imagine ambitu rerum</i>. Halm (after Bursian) bracketed +<i>ambitu</i>: but it is more probable that <i>imagine</i> is a gloss on +<i>ambitu</i> than vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister +accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [<i>imagine</i>] +<i>ambitu rerum</i>. It seems just as likely, however, that <i>et</i> +has fallen out. Hertz suggested <i>imagine ambituve rerum</i>: Maehly +thinks that <i>ambitu</i> was originally <i>tantum</i>.</p> + +<p><b>nec fortune modo</b>. Gertz proposed <i>nec forma modo</i>: pro +Mil. §1 movet nos forma ipsa et species veri iudicii.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec17" id = "critI_sec17" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>. +<b>accommodata ut</b>: ed. Col. 1527, and so Meister and Krüger (3rd +ed.): <i>commodata ut</i> Halm (after Bursian): <i>commoda ut</i> +Spald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS give <i>commoda aut</i>: +L and all my MSS <i>commoda ut</i> (except Burn. 243 which shows +<i>comendat ut</i>).</p> + +<p><b>et, ut semel dicam</b>. Kiderlin would delete <i>et</i>, rendering +‘Stimme, Aktion, Vortrag ist, um es kurz zu sagen, alles in gleicher +Weise belehrend.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec18" id = "critI_sec18" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>. +<b>placent—laudantur—placent</b>: so Halm and most edd., +following S, with which all my MSS. agree. The emphasis gained by the +opposition of <i>placent</i> and <i>non placent</i> makes this reading +probable. But GH give <i>laudetur</i>: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd +ed.) prefer to follow Regius in reading +<i>placeant—laudentur—placent</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec19" id = "critI_sec19" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>. +<b>e contrario</b>. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd. +vett.,’ occurs in +<span class = "pagenum">190</span> +Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher +reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrote <i>contrarium</i>.</p> + +<p><b>actionis impetu</b>, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>actionis +impetus</i> GH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s in +<i>impetus</i> has been deleted): <i>ut actionis impetus</i> Halm and +Meister.</p> + +<p><b>tractemus</b> GHL: <i>tractamus</i> all my MSS.: +<i>retractemus</i> Spald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. +14. 429) supports <i>tractemus</i>, arguing that the phrase is a sort of +hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to +Lex. p. xxxviii), or that the <i>re</i> of <i>repetamus</i> is to be +supplied in thought with <i>tractemus</i>: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1 +‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’ <i>Tractamus</i> in <a +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">5 §8</a> also supports this +reading.</p> + +<p><b>iteratione</b>, Harl. 4995 and Vall.<sup>2</sup>: most MSS. +<i>altercatione</i> (as G) or <i>alteratione</i> (as Harl. +2662).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec22" id = "critI_sec22" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>. +<b>illud vero</b>. The MSS. vary between <i>illa</i> (GH) and +<i>illud</i> (Harl. 4995 Vall.<sup>2</sup>). Kiderlin suggests <i>illa +... utilissima</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec23" id = "critI_sec23" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>. +<b>Quin <ins class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘etiamsi’: changed to agree with body text">etiam si</ins> ... tamen</b>: so all MSS. +Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to exclude +<i>quin</i>. Becher on the other hand objects (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887. +xv. 2, p. 9). From some points of view the deletion would be an +improvement: it would bring out better the chiastic arrangement, +<i>utilissimum ... utrimque habitas legere actiones</i> and <i>easdem +causas ... utile erit scire</i>. But (1) such careless repetition +(<i>quin etiam—quin etiam</i>) is not unusual in Quint.: and +(2) <i>si</i> when followed by <i>tamen</i> often = <i>etiamsi</i>: +Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c., +so that it is not necessary to connect <i>etiam</i> with it like +<i>etiamsi ... tamen</i> xi. 3. 48. The sentence (as recommending the +reading of the ‘minus pares actiones’) forms an exception to the rule +otherwise consistently followed, ‘non nisi optimus quisque legendus,’ +&c.</p> + +<p>Again Spalding, Bonnell, and Hild put the comma before, not after +<i>aliquae</i>, which they take with <i>requirentur</i> (‘yet in some +cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque +habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any +idea of <i>selecting from</i> the ‘minus pares.’</p> + +<p><b>causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire</b>, Halm and Meister +following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527: <i>causas utile erit scire</i> +Vall.: all other codd. <i>causas utrisque erit scire</i>. Meister thinks +<i>non inutile</i> would be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage. +Gemoll suggests <i>causas ut plures egerint intererit scire</i>, Kaibel +<i>ut quisque egerit e re erit scire</i>. Perhaps (with Becher) +<i>causas ut quisque egerit intererit scire</i>.</p> + +<p>Kiderlin’s treatment of the passage merits a separate notice. He +accepts the first <i>quin etiam</i>, as the reading of the MSS., and +also as quite appropriate to the context (‘in cases even where the +combatants are not equally matched—as were Demosthenes and +Aeschines’). But he doubts whether Quintilian could have written two +sentences running, each beginning with <i>quin etiam</i>, and relies +greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. have +<i>quis etiam</i>,—<i>quin</i> being an emendation by Regius. The +MS. reading is <i>quis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire</i>: this +Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiam <i>illud utile neget</i> +(or, negat esse utile) easdem causas ut quisque egerit, +scire’?—comparing xii. 10. 48 ceterum hoc quod vulgo sententias +vocamus ... quis utile neget? But <i>ut quisque</i> does not quite +satisfy him. In the sequel reference is made to cases in which two and +even three orators have handled the same theme: Kiderlin therefore +proposes <i>ut duo tresque</i> for the MS. <i>utrisque</i>. The passage +would then run: ‘quis etiam <i>illud utile neget</i> (negat esse utile?) +easdem causas u<i>t duo</i> tr<i>e</i>sque (tresve?) +e<i>g</i>eri<i>n</i>t, scire<ins class = "correction" title = "close quote invisible">?’</ins> The position of <i>easdem causas</i> is due to +a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position of <i>scire</i> cp. +v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit +verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">191</span> +<p><a name = "critI_sec28" id = "critI_sec28" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>. +<b>poeticam ostentationi comparatam</b>. This is Schöll’s conj. for the +MSS. <i>genus ostent. comparatum</i>, which is however defended by +Becher in Bursian’s Jahresb. (1887), p. 40: he contends that the +feminine participles below (<i>adligata</i>, <i>depulsa</i>) refer to +<i>poesis</i>, present in the mind of the writer, and that the text of +the MSS. is simply a case of constr. <span class = "greek" title = "kata sunesin">κατὰ σύνεσιν</span>: cp. ix. 2. 79: ib. 3 §3, and such +passages as Cic. Or. §68 ego autem etiamsi quorundam grandis et ornata +vox est poetarum, tamen in ea (sc. poesi), &c. This would support +also the traditional reading <i>nescio an ulla</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">§65</a> below, where see note. Becher +explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent. +comp. (esse)—Halm prints <i>genus * * * ostent.</i>, and +supposes that <i>poeseos</i> has fallen out.—For <i>genus</i> cp. +<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§68</a>: de Or. ii. §55, where +<i>genus hoc</i> = history.</p> + +<p>Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian +cannot have passed from <i>genus</i> to <i>adligata</i>: Halm’s <i>genus +poeseos</i> is not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of +the word <i>poesis</i> (cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there +only in A <i>in rasura</i>—GM giving <i>poetas</i>, which was +probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now read +<i>poetica</i>). The text may have been altered by interpolation from +viii. 3. 11: namque illud genus (sc. demonstrativum) ostentationi +compositum solam petit audientium voluptatem,—from which passage +<i>genus</i> may have been written in where the Greek <span class = +"greek" title = "poiêtikên">ποιητικήν</span> had fallen out, giving rise +to comparat<i>um</i>. Meister, who adopts <i>poeticam</i>, thinks it +probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions +are <i>praeter id quod</i>, <i>genus ost. comp.</i>, <i>sol. petit +vol.</i> (Hild),—a transposition which does no good, especially as +it leaves no subject to ‘iuvari’: <i>figurarum sed esse hoc eloquentiae +genus ost. comp. et ... iuvari</i> (Binde); <i>fig.</i>, <i>ingenuam +ost. comparatam artem</i> (Gemoll); Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 164) +thinks we ought to assume a lacuna, and would read <i>poeticam (or +poesin?) ut illud demonstrativum genus</i>, <i>ostentationi +comparatam</i>: cp. ii. 10. 11: v. 10. 43: iii. 7. 28: viii. 3. 11.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec30" id = "critI_sec30" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec30"><b>§30</b></a>. +<b>neque ego</b>: Spald., Frotscher, Herbst, Halm, Meister. <i>Neque +ergo</i> all MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the +latter explaining <i>ergo</i> ‘viz. because I have given this caution to +the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec31" id = "critI_sec31" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31"><b>§31</b></a>. +<b>quodam uberi</b>: Spald. for <i>quodam moveri</i> of GH and all MSS. +except Harl. 4995, Vail.<sup>2</sup> and Burn. 243, which give <i>quodam +molli</i>. Kiderlin suggests <i>quodammodo uberi</i>, thinking that +<i>uberi</i> became <i>ueri</i>, while the letters <i>mo</i> (in +<i>moveri</i>) point to <i>modo</i>: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A has +<i>quomo</i> for <i>quomodo</i>, and xi. 3. 97 where b has <i>homo</i> +for <i>hoc modo</i>. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which have +<i>moveri</i>) I find <i>quodammodo vero</i>.</p> + +<p><b>est enim</b>, <b>H</b>, which (like <b>G</b>) has <i>est</i> also +after <i>solutum</i>. Halm adopts Osann’s conjecture <i>etenim</i>: +Kiderlin suggests <i>ea enim</i> or <i>ista enim</i>, which may be +right. Becher defends the double <i>est</i> (<b>GH</b>), comparing ix. +3. 7 quod minus mirum est, quia in natura verborum est, and i. 3. 14 +(reading servile est et ... iniuria est).</p> + +<p><b>poetis</b>, <b>H</b>, following b: <i>poesi</i> Spald. ‘recte ut +videtur,’ Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec33" id = "critI_sec33" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33"><b>§33</b></a>. +<b>adde quod</b>, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.). +<i>audeo quia</i> GH; <i>audio quia</i> L S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, +&c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj. <i>ideoque</i>: and the Bonn. Meister +ed. reads <i>adeo</i>. Becher proposes <i>quid? quod</i>: Kiderlin <i>id +eo magis (fortius) dicere audeo</i>. The last conj. revives what I find +is the reading of some old edd. (e.g. ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570) +<i>quod dicere fortius audeo quia</i>, except that from <i>id eo</i> the +eye might pass more easily to <i>audeo</i>.</p> + +<p><b>opus</b>, accepted from Spalding (who conjectured it +independently) by Halm and Meister, already appears in ed. Col. 1527 and +in that of Riccius 1570.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec34" id = "critI_sec34" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec34"><b>§34</b></a>. +<b>rerum exemplorumque</b>. Kiderlin suspects a lacuna after +<i>rerum</i> and suggests <i>ex cognitione rerum enim venit copia +exemplorum</i>. His argument is that +<span class = "pagenum">192</span> +while ‘ex cognitione rerum’ might serve as a sort of explanation of ‘ex +historiis,’ ‘exemplorumque’ must also be accounted for, and that after +‘locum’ we expect to hear what advantage is derived from historical +literature, not from what that advantage arises. The omission by a +copyist of <i>enim venit copia</i> explains how <i>exemplorum</i> comes +to be joined with <i>rerum</i>: cp. xii. 4. 1 in primis vero abundare +debet orator exemplorum copia cum veterum tum etiam novorum, and esp. +ii. 4. 20 et multa inde cognitio rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in +omni genere potentissima, iam tum instruit, cum res poscet, usurum. For +<i>ne omnia</i> (Badius and Vall.<sup>2</sup>) the codd. give <i>nec +omnia</i>, which Becher prefers.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec35" id = "critI_sec35" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35"><b>§35</b></a>. +<b>vitio factum est oratorum</b>. G gives <i>est orum</i> with <i>al. +oratorum</i> written in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with +FTLS Bodl.) gives <i>est alia oratorum</i>,—one of many strong +indications that it was copied from G: for <i>alia</i> some MSS. give +<i>alias</i>. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks that <i>orum</i> in G may +have stood for <i>rhetorum</i>.</p> + +<p><b>quae sunt istis</b>. GHLS and Vall. all give <i>sint</i>. But +iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.</p> + +<p><b>Stoici</b> supplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin +would place it after <i>maxime</i>, just as <i>Socratici</i> stands +after <i>optime</i>. Perhaps <i>Stoici</i> and <i>Socratici</i> are both +glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves +the matter of oratory (<i>de iustis</i>, &c.) and also the form (by +<i>altercationes</i> and <i>interrogationes</i>). <i>Stoici</i> looks +appropriate to <i>de rebus divinis</i> (see note): and <i>argumentantur +acriter</i> is quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned +for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the +other hand <i>interrogationibus</i> would be as apt in regard to them as +to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum +suarum atque <i>interrogationum</i> laqueis te inretitum tenerent.</p> + +<p>On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note, +<i>altercationibus</i> and <i>interrogationibus</i> are taken as datives +(as often in Quint. after <i>praeparo</i>), referring to two +well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As +regards the <i>altercatio</i> indeed, previous writers on rhetoric had +not stated any special rules for its conduct, probably (as Quint., in +his treatment of the subject, suggests vi. 4. 1) because it was +sufficiently covered by precepts of a more general kind. In a +court-of-law, the <i>altercatio</i> was a discussion carried on between +opposing advocates in the way of short answers or retorts: it followed +(when resorted to) the examination of the witnesses, which was in Roman +usage <i>preceded</i> by the main speeches for the prosecution and +defence, embracing all the facts of the case (Cic. in Verr. i. 1 §55). +Cp. Cic. Brut. §159 iam in altercando (Crassus) invenit parem +neminem.—See Poiret, <i>L’éloquence judiciaire à Rome</i> +pp. 212-216.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec37" id = "critI_sec37" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37"><b>§37</b></a>. +<b>qui sint legendi</b>. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS. <i>qui sint. +Legendi</i> appears in ed. Col. 1527, and I have found it also inserted +by a later hand above the line in the Bodleian codex. It may have fallen +out because of <i>legendo</i> above, and Spalding is probably right in +regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for +eliminating the asyndeton by reading <i>et quae</i> (with Meister) or +<i>quaeque</i> (Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that +the original may have run <i>qui sint qui prosint</i>: cp. <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §14</a> tum in ipsis quos +elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid +sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantum +<i>utilitatis</i> in legendo iudicemus, and <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> paucos enim ... utilitatis +aliquid. Cp. ii. 5. 20 nec prodesse tantum sed etiam amari potest +(Cicero).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec38" id = "critI_sec38" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec38"><b>§38</b></a>. +<b>[quibuscum vivebat]</b> is bracketed by Krüger (3rd ed.), as it had +already been by Frotscher and Herbst. This reading first appears in the +Aldine edition: the only MS. in which I have been able to find any trace +of it is Burn. 243, where <i>quibuscum convivebat</i> is inserted as a +correction. Some have refused to recognise it as a gloss, in spite of +the uncertainty of the MSS., and have sought to interpret it ‘with whom +he lived in close, familiar intercourse’ (opp. to quos viderim <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98">§§98</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec118">118</a>): cp. Cic. de +<span class = "pagenum">193</span> +Off. i. §143 quibuscum vivimus, ib. §46. But in Brut. §231 Cicero +distinctly says in hoc sermone nostro statui neminem eorum qui viverent +nominare, whence Jeep was led to conj. <i>qui quidem viverent</i>: +Hortensius, for example, was ‘aetatis suae,’ but had died four years +before the date of the Brutus. So Geel conjectured <i>qui tum +vivebant</i> (a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527 +and Riccius 1570): Törnebladh <i>qui quidem tum vivebant</i>, Wrobel +<i>qui tunc vigebant</i> (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec122">§122</a>), Zambaldi <i>ut quisque tum +vivebat</i>, and Kiderlin <i>qui quidem nondum e vita excesserant</i>; +see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to read <i>qui quidem +sescenti erant</i>.</p> + +<p>G (and practically H) gives <i>quidqui convivebit</i>. FT part +company with H, the former reading <i>quod quid convivabit</i>, the +latter <i>quidque contuuebit</i> (man. sec. <i>quod quisque +contuebat</i>). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) have +<i>quid quisque convivebat</i> (<i>convivabit</i> L). The +Carcassonensis gives <i>quid quod convivabit</i>.</p> + +<p><b>persequamur [et philosophos].</b> <i>Persequamur</i> is a conj. of +Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. give <i>et Graecos omnes et +philosophos</i> (<i>philosophis</i> HFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is dated +<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1470) I have however found +<i>et philosophos exequar</i>: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The +reading of the ed. Col. 1527 is <i>Graecos omnes et philosophos et +poetas persequi velim</i>.</p> + +<p>Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejected <i>et philosophos</i> as a gloss, +as both here and in the next sentence Quint. is evidently speaking of +orators only. Certainly, if it stood, we should expect the poets and +historians to come in also. Accordingly Claussen (Quaest. Quint. +p. 335) suspected a lacuna consisting both of the finite verb and +the poets and historians: Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts his conjecture and +reads <i>si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur +et poetas et historicos et philosophos?</i> He cps. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">1 §25</a> nam si, quantum de quaque re +dici potest, persequamur, finis operis non reperietur: v. 10. 91: viii. +5. 25. So Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 520), except that he omits +‘persequamur,’ and proposes to read above <i>de Romanis tantum</i> et +<i>oratoribus</i> for <i>et</i> in sense of ‘and that’: cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51">§§51</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">94</a>. Gertz suggests <i>et Graecos omnes +persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et +philosophos</i>. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.) +prefers <i>persequamur</i> because of <i>iudicemus</i> and +<i>adiungamus</i> above. If the verb could be dispensed with, he would +propose ‘et praeter hos oratores etiam omnes poetas et historicos et +philosophos,’—arguing that et praeter hos and philosophos may have +run together in the eye of the copyist and so caused the lacuna. For +<i>et philosophos</i> Jeep suggested <i>explico novos</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec39" id = "critI_sec39" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39"><b>§39</b></a>. +<b>fuit igitur</b>, all codd.: <i>fuerit</i>, Regius. That the +difficulty of the passage was felt by the early editors is obvious from +this emendation, and also from the fact that in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> the traditional reading has been +<i>non est tamen</i> (for <i>non est</i>): <i>sed non est</i>, Spalding: +<i>at non est</i> Osann.</p> + +<p>Taking <a name = "critI_sec40" id = "critI_sec40">§§37-45</a> +as they stand the sequence of thought seems to be +this: ‘If I am asked to recommend individual writers I shall have to +take refuge in some such utterance as that of Livy. His <i>dictum</i> +was “read Demosthenes and Cicero first, and let others follow in the +order of their resemblance to Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mine is that +there is some good to be got out of almost every author,—except of +course the utterly worthless. But (<i>sed non quidquid</i>, &c. <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a>) the particular object I +have in view itself supplies a limitation for what would otherwise be an +endless task (<i>infiniti operis</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">§37</a>). My business is the formation of +style. In regard to this matter there is a difference of opinion—a +cleavage between the old school and the new (see esp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec43">§43</a><ins class = "correction" title = +"period invisible">).</ins> This opens up the whole question of the +various <i>genera dicendi</i>, a detailed examination of which I must +postpone: for the present I shall take the various departments of +literature (<i>genera lectionum</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">§45</a>) and mention in connection +therewith certain representative writers who may serve as models for the +students of style (<i>(iis) qui confirmare facultatem dicendi +volent</i>).’</p> + +<p>This seems satisfactory enough, especially in the case of so loose a +writer as Quintilian. +<span class = "pagenum">194</span> +§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical: <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a> says ‘Livy’s prescription was the +safest,’ while <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> gives a +general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverance +<i>brevitas</i> is meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of +individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and +philosophy.</p> + +<p>In his <i>Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians +Institutio Oratoria</i> (Cassel, 1889), Dr. Heinrich Peters makes some +very drastic proposals in regard to the sections under discussion. He +fails to see any satisfactory connection between the purport of <a href += "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§§40-42</a> and that of <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">§§37-39</a>. And he thinks the statement +of a <i>summa iudicii</i> in §40 is inconsistent with the special +treatment of individual authors which begins at <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46">§46</a>. On these and other grounds he +proposes to transfer §§40-42 (down to <i>accommodatum</i>) to <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> and read: <i>interim non est +dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa</i>. <i>Summa iudicii</i> then +furnishes the antithesis to <i>disseram diligentius</i>: <i>nostri +quoque iudicii</i> receives additional point from the reference to +conflicting views which immediately precede it: an explanation is gained +of the emphasis laid in §§40-41 on the distinction between the +<i>veteres</i> and the <i>novi</i>,—the later sections <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec43">§§43-44</a> explain the preceding +(§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a> to <i>verum antequam de +singulis</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a> is +natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue: <i>quid +sumat</i> (for <i>summatim</i>, see below) <i>et a qua lectione petere +possit qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volet attingam</i>. This gives +a very satisfactory and even a necessary sequel, he thinks, to <i>non +quidquid ... accommodatum</i>. Sections <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">40-42</a> are then addressed, not to the +student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the +comparative merits of the <i>veteres</i> and the <i>novi</i>: Quintilian +says ‘something may be learned from everybody.’ Then he continues ‘for +the formation of style a selection is necessary, and that I now proceed +to make under the two heads of what the student is to appropriate and to +whom he is to go for it.’</p> + +<p><b>quae est apud Livium, &c.</b> Schöll unnecessarily conjectured +<i>qua praecipit Livius</i> (cp. ii. 5. 20) or <i>qua apud Livium in ep. +ad fil. praescribitur</i>,—doubting if <i>brevitas</i> could have +an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G gives <i>quae +apud Livium epistula</i>, <i>in</i> being inserted by the second hand, +which H as usual follows.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec42" id = "critI_sec42" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42"><b>§42</b></a>. +<b>ad faciendam <span class = "greek" title = +"phrasin">φράσιν</span></b>. This is the reading now proposed by +Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), though <span class = +"greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> appeared as early as the edition +of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readings <i>ad farisin</i> +G: <i>ad faciendam etiam ad farisin</i> H (<i>affaresim</i> S. Harl. +2662 Bodl. Ball. <i>apharesim</i> Harl. 4295) <i>ad faciendam +affarisin</i> L. Meister adopts the vulgate, <i>ad faciendam etiam +phrasin</i>: Halm reads <i>ad phrasin</i>.</p> + +<p>The parallel passage in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">§87</a> clearly makes for +<i>faciendam</i>. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally +written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp. <span class = "greek" title = +"hexis">ἕξις</span> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">§1</a>: <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59">§59</a>: <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1">5 §1</a>, where the MSS. vary between +<i>ex his</i>, <i>lexis</i>, <i>exitum</i>, &c.: <span class = +"greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec11">§11</a>. Cp. on <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">§87</a>. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt) +show <span class = "greek" title = "apheresin">ἀφέρεσιν</span>. +<i>Etiam</i> Kiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may be +<i>protinus</i> et <i>ad faciendam</i> <span class = "greek" title = +"phrasin">φράσιν</span>.</p> + +<p><b>de singulis loquar</b>, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omits +<i>loquar</i>, with G.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec44" id = "critI_sec44" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44"><b>§44</b></a>. +<b>tenuia atque quae</b>. In a very interesting note (Programm des +königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, 1891, p. 8) Becher establishes +the correctness of this reading, instead of the traditional <i>tenuia et +quae</i>. The Vallensis has <i>tenuia atque que</i> (i.e. <i>atque +quae</i>): for what may appear a cacophony, Becher compares i. 3. 8 +atque ea quoque quae, Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 33. 90 atque qui. ‘That V +(Vall.) has preserved the true reading is confirmed by the other +codices: not only S, which gives <i>tenia atque que</i>, but also GL +[and H], <i>tenui atque</i>, which is nothing else than <span class = "extended">tenui</span> +AtQUE, i.e. tenuia atque quae.’ In the Rh. Mus. xi. (‘zur Kritik +der ciceronischen Briefe’ pp. 512-13) Buecheler says, ‘One of the +commonest sources of corruption in the Florentine codex is that when two +“consonant syllables” follow each other, one is omitted. The +<span class = "pagenum">195</span> +reason of this phenomenon is probably the fact that in the archetype of +which this MS. is an indirect copy the sounds which were to be repeated +were distinguished by letters of a larger size.’ Becher finds the same +phenomenon in the manuscripts of Quintilian, and gives the following +examples, selected at random from many others: <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">§45</a> aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e. +<span class = "extended">ali</span>QUOS = aliquos quos: <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54">§54</a> reddit G(H)V, i.e. +<span class = "extended">red</span>D<span class = "extended">It</span> = reddidit (so cod. Almen.): <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">§79</a> auditoris S (audituris G, +also H), i.e. <span class = "extended">auditorIs</span> = auditoriis (as Vall. M: also Ball. +Dorv. Burn. 244 Harl. 4829, 4995): ibid. comparat GMS (and all my codd.) +i.e. <span class = "extended">comp</span>A<span class = "extended">Rat</span> = compararat: <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec84">§84</a> probandoque G (and H) = +<span class = "extended">probando</span>QUE: <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec89">§89</a> +etiam sit G (see Crit. Note <i>ad loc.</i>) = etiam SIt. Especially +significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. o +<span class = "extended">fortuNATAM</span> me consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground +for <i>atque</i>, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’ +more closely than <i>et</i>, in the fact that already in Cicero +<i>tenuis</i> is used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de +multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.</p> + +<p><b>lenis ... generis</b>. For <i>lenis</i> Krüger (3rd ed.) reads +<i>levis</i>, adopting a conj. of Meyer (Halm ii. p. 369) for which +cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">§52</a> (levitas verborum) +and v. 12. 18 (levia ac nitida): supported by Becher Phil. Runds. iii. +14. 430. In this sense <i>levis</i> (<span class = "greek" title = +"leios">λεῖος</span>) is opp. to <i>asper</i>: cp. de Orat. iii. §171 +struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed +quodam modo coagmentatus et <i>levis</i>: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint. +ii. 5. 9 <i>levis</i> et quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas +coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.</p> + +<p><b>interim</b>. H. Peters would prefer <i>nunc</i> (if the text +stands as it is), comparing v. 11. 5; 14. 33: ix. 4. 19.</p> + +<p><b>summatim quid et a qua</b>. Kiderlin approves of Meister’s +retention of the vulgate: <i>petere</i> must have an object. So Krüger, +3rd ed. The original reading in G is <i>sumat et a qua</i>, corrected to +<i>sumat quia et a qua</i>, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my +other MSS. agree with S in reading <i>summa</i> for <i>sumat</i>. Even +if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would +prefer <i>quid sumat et a qua</i>, as nearer the MSS.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec45" id = "critI_sec45" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45"><b>§45</b></a>. +<b>paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi</b>. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed. +have <i>paucos</i> (<i>sunt enim em.</i>) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc. +tantum) <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91">§91</a>. Halm reads +<i>paucos enim</i> (<i>sunt autem em.</i>) GH give <i>paucos enim sunt +em</i>. L and the British Museum MSS. all read <i>paucos sunt +enim</i>. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and +approved by Kiderlin: cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a> qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37 +quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposed <i>paucos enim</i>, <i>sunt +enim</i>.</p> + +<p><b>his simillimi</b>, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares <a href += "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a>: <i>his similes</i> Meister and +Krüger (3rd ed.). G has <i>hi similibus</i>, corrected by the same +hand to <i>simillimis</i>: H gives <i>his simillimis</i>: all the +other MSS. <i>his simillimi</i>.</p> + +<p><b>plures</b> is the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and +also Vall. (Becher). GHFT give <i>plurimis</i>: LS and the later MSS. +generally <i>plurimos</i>. Kiderlin proposes <i>pluris iis</i> as being +nearer <i>plurimis</i>. The pronoun, he argues, is not superfluous, +because Quintilian is distinguishing between ‘qui confirmare fac. dic. +volent’ (i.e. those who have finished their rhetorical studies and want +practice) and the ‘studiosi’ (young men busy with theory). The latter +will read more authors than those for whom <i>this</i> book is intended, +its aim being (§4) to instruct the young orator (after the stage of +theory) how best and most readily to use what he has acquired.—For +<i>aliquos quos</i> see on <i>tenuia atque quae</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> above.</p> + +<p><b>qui a me nominabuntur</b>, ed. Col. 1527; GH have <i>quia +nom</i>.: Vall. LS <i>qui nom</i>. Hertz rejects <i>a me</i>, and he may +be right.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec46" id = "critI_sec46" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46"><b>§46</b></a>. +<b>omnium fluminum</b>. GHL Bodl. <i>annium</i>: S Harl. 2662, 4950, +Ball. <i>amnium vim</i>. Halm, following Osann, read <i>omnium +amnium</i>: but though <i>omnium</i> is necessary (cp. <span class = +"greek" title = "pantes potamoi">πάντες ποταμοί</span> Il. 21. 196), +Quintilian would surely have avoided such +<span class = "pagenum">196</span> +a cacophony as <i>omnium amnium</i>. Wölfflin conjectured <i>omnium +fluminum</i> (Rhein. Mus. 42, Pt. 1, 1887, p. 144), and this is now +accepted by Meister (vol. ii. p. 362 and Pref. to Book x, +p. xiii). Wölfflin supposes that the archetype had <i>omnium +fontiumque</i>, <i>fluminum</i> having fallen out: <i>omnium</i> was +then corrected into <i>amnium</i>. <i>Amnis</i> however is rare, and +<i>fluminum</i> not only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly +found: cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78">§78</a> puro fonti +quam magno flumini propior: viii. 3. 76 magnorum fluminum navigabiles +fontes: Lucr. iv. 1024: v. 261, 945 (‘fluvii fontesque’): Ovid Met. i. +334.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec47" id = "critI_sec47" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec47"><b>§47</b></a>. +<b>ac consiliorum</b> L: <i>hac con.</i> G: <i>et con.</i> Prat. Put. +<i>atque con.</i> 7231, 7696.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec48" id = "critI_sec48" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec48"><b>§48</b></a>. +<b>operis sui ingressu</b>: <i>operis si ingressus</i> GH: <i>operis +sui</i> Bodl.: <i>operis</i> Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv. +Ball. Badius conj. <i>ingressu</i>, and Halm added <i>in</i>, which is +however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4 +initiis operum suorum. Becher keeps <i>ingressus</i>, but makes it a +genitive dependent on <i>versibus</i>.</p> + +<p>Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) give <i>nam</i> for +<i>non</i>, and in the former case the <i>nam</i> looks very like +<i>viam</i>. It is possible that <i>viam</i> may be the true reading: +cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca +dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on the +<i>regular treatment</i> of a subject. <i>Age vero</i> is not always +found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Without <i>non</i>, the +reading may possibly be <i>age vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in +paucissimis</i>, &c. The <i>si</i> after <i>operis</i> may have +arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous for +<i>ingressus</i>, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc. +vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong. <i>Utrumque opus +ingressus</i> would have been more natural: <i>viam utriusque operis +ingressus</i> is not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable +to keep the question and read <i>nonne viam ut. op. ingressus</i>.</p> + +<p><b>nam benevolum</b>. <i>nam et ben</i>, Put. 7231, 7696: so too the +Carcassonensis.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec49" id = "critI_sec49" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec49"><b>§49</b></a>. +<b>ceteraque genera</b>. GHL and the Brit. Mus. MSS. give <i>ceteraque +quae</i>: so too Bodl. and Ball. <i>Genera</i> was conjectured by Caesar +(Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposes +<i>ceteraeque viae ... multae</i>: Kiderlin <i>ceteraque, quae probandi +ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?</i> For <i>quae +... sunt</i> he compares <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">§106</a> omnia denique quae sunt +inventionis.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec50" id = "critI_sec50" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec50"><b>§50</b></a>. +<b>ut magni sit</b>. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.: <i>sint</i> H: <i>ut +magni sit viri</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, +4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (<i>sint</i> L): <i>ut magnum sit</i>, +Gensler: <i>ut magni sit spiritus</i>, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec51" id = "critI_sec51" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51"><b>§51</b></a>. +<b>et in omni</b>: <i>et</i> om. Prat. and Put.</p> + +<p><b>clarissima</b> LS and most codd.: <i>durissima</i> GHT Prat. Put. +7231, 7696, Dorv.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec52" id = "critI_sec52" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52"><b>§52</b></a>. +<b>utiles circa praecepta</b>, &c. Kraffert proposed <i>utilis circa +praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum</i> ... With <i>praecepta</i> +may there not have been a genitive in the original text: <i>utilis circa +praecepta sapientiae</i> (pr. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19">§19</a>: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhaps +<i>utiles circa morum praecepta sententiae</i> (xii. ii. 9)?</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec53" id = "critI_sec53" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53"><b>§53</b></a>. +<b>secundum</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv. +Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, gives <i>parem</i> (cp. <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">§127</a> pares ac saltem proximo): +<i>aequalem</i> would be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">§55</a>. Schöll now thinks +<i>secundum</i> an old interpolation, and conjectures <i>quam sit aliud +atque aliud proximum esse</i>, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec54" id = "critI_sec54" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54"><b>§54</b></a>. +<b>poetarum iudices</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball. <i>iudicium</i> +G, <i>iuditium</i> H. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced +from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">§109</a>) and Mayor removed it from the +text.</p> + +<p><b>reddidit</b> cod. Almen.: <i>reddit</i> GHFT Vall. Harl. 4995 +Bodl. Burn. 243. <i>Edidit</i> is given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. +2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.</p> + +<p><b>sufficit</b> MSS.: Halm would prefer <i>suffecit</i> (cp. <a href += "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">§123</a>). For <i>parem</i> many MSS. +<span class = "pagenum">197</span> +give <i>equalem</i>, which must have been a gloss: S has <i>equalem +credidit parem</i>, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxxix">p. lxxix</a>) Harl. 2662 (<span +class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) and 11671 (<span class = +"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1467).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec56" id = "critI_sec56" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec56"><b>§56</b></a>. +<b>Macer atque Vergilius</b>. Unger suggested <i>Valgius</i> for +Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to +insert the comma after <i>Vergilius</i> instead of after <i>idem</i> +below.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec59" id = "critI_sec59" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59"><b>§59</b></a>. +<b>adsequimur</b> GHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and +British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’s <i>assequatur</i> +and 4829 which has <i>assecuntur</i>). Halm reads <i>adsequamur</i>, and +is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes <i>ut +adsequamur</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec60" id = "critI_sec60" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60"><b>§60</b></a>. +<b>quibusdam quod quoquam minor est</b>. GH give <i>quibus</i> for +quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. have <i>quibusdam quod quidem +minor est</i>: (<i>minoris</i> Bodl. Burn. 243): <i>quod quodam</i> +7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposes <i>quod +idem amarior est</i>: <i>amarus</i> (§117) indicates the excess of +<i>acerbitas</i> (§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for +his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. But +<i>quoquam</i> (Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that there +<i>is</i> any one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the +range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s +mind. <i>Quoquam</i> is not to be restricted to the narrow circle of +iambic writers, otherwise <i>materiae</i> would have no point. +Quintilian means that Archilochus must be ranked immediately after +Homer, if indeed the disadvantage of his subject-matter forbids us to +place him alongside of Homer. That he had a schoolmaster’s liking for an +‘order of merit’ is shown by <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53">§§53</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec62">62</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">85</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">86</a>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec61" id = "critI_sec61" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec61"><b>§61</b></a>. +<b>spiritu, magnificentia</b>, Put. 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671, +Dorv.: <i>spiritus</i> H (<i>sps.</i>) Prat. 7231 Harl. 4950 Burn. 243 +Bodl. Ball., and so Halm and Meister. The strongest argument for the +abl. is that the nouns go together in pairs,—spiritu +magnificentia, sententiis figuris, copia ... flumine. So Claussen +(Quaest. Quint. p. 334), who compares Dion. Hal. <span class = +"greek" title = "arch. kr.">ἀρχ. κρ.</span> 2. 5, p. 420 R +<span class = "greek" title = "zêlôtos de kai Pindaros onomatôn kai noêmatôn heineka, kai megaloprepeias kai tonou, kai periousias .... kai schêmatismôn">ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ +μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ +σχηματισμῶν</span>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec62" id = "critI_sec62" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec62"><b>§62</b></a>. +<b>Stesichorum Badius</b>: <i>iste sichorus</i> GH: <i>Stesichorus</i> +Bodl. 7696: <i>Stesicorus</i> Harl. 4995: other MSS. <i>Terpsichorus</i> +or <i>Terpsicorus</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec63" id = "critI_sec63" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec63"><b>§63</b></a>. +<b>magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis</b>: GH +<i>magnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis</i>; so Burn. +243 and Bodl. (<i>orationi</i>); most other MSS. <i>et diligens +plurimusque</i> (<i>plurimum</i> or <i>plurimumque</i>) <i>Homero +similis</i>: <i>plurimumque oratio</i>, Prat. Put.: <i>plerumque +orationis</i> 7231, 7696. Halm gives <i>dicendi vi</i>, which, after +<i>in eloquendo</i>, would be strange. Wölfflin proposes <i>elegans +et</i> (for dicendi et, diligens et): cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78">§§78</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83">83</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">87</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec93">93</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec114">114</a>, and Dion. Hal. l.c. <span class += "greek" title = "Alkaiou de skopei to megalophues kai brachu kai hêdu meta deinotêtos ... kai pro pantôn to tôn politikôn pragmatôn êthos">Ἀλκαίου δὲ σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετὰ δεινότητος +... καὶ πρὸ πάντων τὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων ἦθος</span>. Halm’s +<i>dicendi vi</i> rested on <span class = "greek" title = "meta deinotêtos">μετὰ δεινότητος</span>, but we need not suppose that +Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius<!-- meaning +Quintilian took liberties, hmm? -->. With <i>in eloquendo</i>, +<i>diligens</i> seems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo +positum oratoris officium.</p> + +<p><b>Sed et lusit</b>, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3: <i>sed et eius sit</i> +GH: <i>sed in lusus</i> MS Ball. Dorv.: <i>sed editus sit</i> Bodl.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec64" id = "critI_sec64" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64"><b>§64</b></a>. +<b>eius operis</b>: <i>ei</i> GH: <i>eius</i> M Bodl. Burn. 243: +<i>eiusdem</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, +Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order is <i>in hac parte +omnibus eum eiusdem operis</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec65" id = "critI_sec65" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65"><b>§65</b></a>. +<b>est et in</b>. The MSS. give <i>etsi est</i>: Wölfflin conjectured +<i>est et</i>, and Halm, (following some old edd.) inserted <i>in</i>, +comparing <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">§§64</a> and <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">68</a>. So too Meister. <i>Etsi</i> may +have crept into the text to anticipate <i>tamen</i> (ii. 5. 19): or the +true reading may be <i>est et etsi in</i>. Schöll suggests (Krüger, 3rd +ed. p. 92) that the passage ought to run as follows:—<i>ant. +com. cum sincera illa sermonis Attici gratia prope sola retinet</i> +<span class = "pagenum">198</span> +<i>vim</i> (<i>dum</i> G, <i>tum</i> vulg.) <i>fac. libertatis, et si +est in insect. vitiis praecip.</i>, <i>plur. tamen</i>, &c.</p> + +<p><b>nescio an ulla</b>. This is the reading of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, +M, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 11671, Dorv. Ball., and if it can be +sustained, the sense it gives is quite satisfactory. We must suppose +that <i>poesis</i> (probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was +present in the writer’s mind: see on <i>poeticam</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a> above.</p> + +<p>But in Quint. <i>poesis</i> occurs only once (cp. on <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a>),—at xii. 11. 26, where it +is not used of a special branch of poetry, as here; and even there a +doubt has been expressed about the reading. Kiderlin therefore urges +(Hermes 23, p. 163) that it is incredible that Quintilian would +have left his readers to supply for themselves a word which he uses only +once, if at all: <i>ullum genus</i> would surely have occurred to him, +as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of +literature. Again the text gives <i>post</i> not <i>praeter</i> Homerum. +Founding on the reading <i>an illa</i> (GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin +therefore suggests <i>an illa poeta ullo post</i> &c.: ‘und ich +weiss nicht, ob nicht jene mehr als irgend ein Dichter (nach Homer +jedoch, &c.).’ The copyist would easily wander from <i>poet.</i> to +<i>post</i>, and it is not unusual to compare old comedy &c. with +the poets and not their works (cp. similior oratoribus: historia proxima +poetis est <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">§31</a>: at non +historia cesserit Graecis <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a>); especially as here <i>post +Homerum</i> follows at once. For <i>ullo</i> cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60">§60</a> quod quoquam minor est. An +alternative emendation would be <i>poesi ulla</i>.</p> + +<p>The <i>aut ... aut</i> immediately below is very much against this +conjecture, which however Krüger (3rd ed.) has received into the text: +we should expect rather <i>nescio an illa quisquam</i>, or <i>nullus +poeta</i>, or keeping <i>illa</i> as nominative <i>nescio an illa poeta +ullo</i>. Quintilian’s use of <i>nescio an</i> (like that of +post-Augustan writers generally) is vague: it is usually an expression +of doubt, the <i>an</i> meaning either ‘whether,’ or ‘whether not’ +indifferently. Cp. ix. 4. 1: vi. 3. 6: viii. 6. 22: xii. 10. 2: i. 7. +24. (Mayor cites also Plin. Ep. i. 14. 9: iii. 1. 1: iv. 2. 1: v. 3. 7: +vi. 21. 3: vii. 10. 3: 19. 4: viii. 16. 3: ix. 2. 5; and adds ‘In all +these instances <i>nescio an</i> (dubito an) is ‘I doubt whether’; in +Cicero the meaning is always ‘I rather think<ins class = "correction" +title = "second close quote missing">.’’)</ins> Andresen proposed +<i>nescio an ulla poeseos pars</i>. The passage closely resembles <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a>, and must be emended on the +same lines.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec66" id = "critI_sec66" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66"><b>§66</b></a>. +<b>tragoedias</b>. Thurot (Revue de Phil. 1880, iv. 1, p. 24) +conjectured <i>tragoediam</i>: cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a> hoc opus. He is followed by +Dosson, against all MS. authority. Becher points out that we must supply +with <i>hoc opus</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a> +the words ‘tragoedias in lucem proferendi,’ so that <i>opus</i> and +<i>tragoedias</i> square well enough with each other.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec68" id = "critI_sec68" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68"><b>§68</b></a>. +<b>quod ipsum reprehendunt</b>, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) and Becher. +This reading also occurs in the Codex Dorvilianus. Other readings are +<i>quod ipsum quod</i> GHT Burn. 243, Bodl.: <i>quo ipsum</i> MS Harl. +2662, 4995, 4950, Ball. Halm conjectured <i>quem ipsum quoque</i>, and +was followed by Mayor and Hild. But as no fault has been found with +Euripides in the foregoing, <i>quoque</i> seems out of place.</p> + +<p>Founding on the reading of GHT, &c., also on that of F (which +gives <i>quod ipsum qui</i>) Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 165) proposes +to read <i>quod ipsum quidam</i>, comparing <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98">§98</a>, where for <i>quem senes quem</i> +(GT) Spalding rightly conjectured <i>quem senes quidem</i>, and <a href += "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec21">7, §21</a>, where Bn, Bg give +<i>quod</i> for <i>quosdam</i>. He then goes on, in an interesting +paper, to reconstruct the whole passage, which is open to suspicion, +especially in respect that <i>sublimior</i> stands as predicate with +<i>gravitas</i> and <i>cothurnus</i>, as well as with <i>sonus</i>. The +admirers of Sophocles consider his elevation of tone more appropriate +than the strain of Euripides. <i>Sublimior</i> is therefore perhaps +<i>not</i> the predicate of the sentence, however suitable it may be as +the attribute of <i>sonus</i>. The predicate may have dropped out, and +<i>sublimior</i> may have been transferred from its real place to supply +it. It is striking that GFTM (also H and Bodl.) all give <i>sublimior +erit</i>. Kiderlin imagines that a copyist who missed the predicate +wrote in the margin ‘sublimior erit ponendum +<span class = "pagenum">199</span> +post esse’: and then another inserted <i>sublimior erit</i> after +<i>esse</i> in the text. For the predicate, <i>magis accommodatus</i> +might stand: in copying, the eye may have wandered from <i>magis +accommodatus</i> to <i>magis accedit</i>: for <i>magis accomm.</i> cp. +ii. 5. 18 and x. 1. 79. Kiderlin therefore boldly proposes to make the +parenthesis run, ‘quod ipsum quidam reprehendunt quibus gravitas et +cothurnus et sublimior sonus Sophocli videtur esse magis accommodatus’: +‘was gerade manche tadeln, welchen das Würdevolle, der Kothurnus, und +der erhabenere Ton des Sophokles angemessener zu sein scheint.’</p> + +<p><b>et dicendo ac respondendo</b> 7231, 7696: <i>dicendo ac +respondo</i> GH: <i>in dicendo et in respondendo</i> Prat. Put. S (<i>et +respondendo</i> M).</p> + +<p><b>praecipuus. Hunc admiratus maxime est</b>. This is Meister’s +reading, except that for <i>eum</i> I give (with Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 +Harl. 2662 and 4995) <i>hunc</i>, which is commoner in Quint. at the +beginning of a sentence (§§46, 78, 91, 112). The following are the +readings of the MSS.: GH <i>praecipuus et admiratus miratus</i>: M Bodl. +Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, C, Burn. 243 Ball. Dorv. <i>praecipuus et +admirandus</i>: S <i>praecipuum. Nunc admiratus et</i>: Prat. Put. Harl. +2262 and 11671 <i>praecipuus hunc admiratus et maxime est ut saepe test. +et sec. quamvis</i>: Harl. 4995, <i>hunc admiratus max. ut s. test. et +eum secutus quamquam</i>. Halm gives <i>praecipuus est. Admiratus maxime +est</i>: Kiderlin insists on the <i>est</i> after <i>praecipuus</i>, to +correspond with <i>accedit</i>, though it seems better to take all that +comes after <i>accedit</i> as an explanation of the statement <i>magis +accedit oratorio generi</i>: he also retains the <i>et</i> of most MSS. +and reads <i>praecipuus est. hunc et admiratus</i> (Blätter f. d. bayer. +Gymn. 24, p. 84). Wölfflin (partly followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) +proposed a more radical change (Rhein. Mus. 1887, 2 H. p. 313) +<i>praecipuus. Hunc imitatus</i>, quoting in support of the conjunction +<i>imitatus ... secutus</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec122">§122</a>, eos iuvenum imitatur et +sequitur industria: <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec19">5 §19</a>, deligat quem sequatur, +quem imitetur: Ovid, Fasti v. 157, ne non imitata maritum esset et ex +omni parte secuta virum. But Kiderlin (l.c.) aptly remarks that if +Quintilian had written <i>imitatus</i>, he would not have said <i>ut +saepe testatur</i> but <i>ut ex multis locis patet</i> (<i>apparet, +videmus</i>): while vii. 4. 17 (on which Wölfflin relies) is not really +to the point. Moreover Quintilian, would never have separated such +synonyms as <i>imitatus</i> and <i>secutus</i> by <i>ut saepe +testatur</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Charisi nomini addicuntur</b>, Frotscher: <i>Charis in homine +adductura</i> GH: <i>Charisii nomine eduntur</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 +Harl. 2662 Dorv.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec70" id = "critI_sec70" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec70"><b>§70</b></a>. +<b>aut illa iudicia</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 4995. GH Harl. 4950 +give <i>aut illa mala iudicia</i>: Bodl. Burn. 243 <i>aut alia mala +iud.</i> S Harl. 2662 Dorv. and Ball. <i>aut alia iudicia.</i> The edd., +following Gesner, have generally given (with Harl. 4950) <i>aut illa +mala iudicia</i> (so Halm and Meister), and have taken <i>mala</i> as +predicate, though the order of the words makes that impossible. Becher +approves of Andresen’s deletion of <i>mala</i>. Krüger (3rd ed.) prints +<i>mala [illa] iudicia</i>, thinking that <i>illa</i> arose by +dittography, and that then the order was changed in the codd. to <i>illa +mala iudicia</i>. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23) gives as an alternative to +deleting <i>mala</i> the conjecture <i>illa simulata iudicia</i> (‘jene +erdichteten nachgemachten Gerichtsverhandlungen’; cp. xi. 1. 56: cum +etiam hoc genus simulari litium soleat). A similar mutilation +occurs, e.g., xi. 1. 20, where b gives <i>secum</i> M <i>secus</i> +instead of <i>consecutum</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec71" id = "critI_sec71" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec71"><b>§71</b></a>. +<b>filiorum militum</b>, most codd.: <i>filiorum maritorum militum</i> +Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec72" id = "critI_sec72" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec72"><b>§72</b></a>. +<b>si cum venia leguntur</b>. The reading of the MSS. is upheld by Iwan +Müller, Meister, and Kiderlin. Spalding suggested <i>cum verecundia</i>: +Schöll <i>cum iudicio</i>: Becher <i>cum ingenio</i>. Becher points out +(Bursians Jahresb. 1887) that the expression is meant to cover +<i>decerpere</i> as well as <i>legere</i>, and <i>decerpere</i> +indicates careful and intelligent reading (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a>, <i>diligenter</i> lectus): <i>cum +ingenio</i> = ‘mit Verstand’: cp. Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 10. 2 quod +versabatur in hoc studio nostro .. et cum ingenio .. nec sine industria: +Ulp. Dig. 1. 16. 9 patientem esse proconsulem oportet, sed cum +<span class = "pagenum">200</span> +ingenio, ne contemptibilis videatur. Finally, Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes +<i>cum acumine</i> or <i>cum vigilantia</i> (cp. v. 7. 10).—Prat. +Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662 all give Osann’s conjecture +<i>legantur</i>.</p> + +<p><b>prave</b> GH Harl. 4995, 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl.: <i>pravis</i> +Regius, Halm, Meister, Becher draws attention to the parallelism between +the clauses: <i>ut prave praelatus est sui temporis iudiciis, ita merito +creditur</i> (= meruit credi) <i>secundus consensu omnium</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec76" id = "critI_sec76" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76"><b>§76</b></a>. +<b>nec quod desit ... nec quod redundet</b>: H Burn. 243 and Bodl. give +<i>quod .. quod</i>: Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, +Dorv. C, and Ball, <i>quid .. quid</i>. The latter reading is supported +by Becher (Phil. Rund. iii. 434). For <i>quod</i> cp. xii. 10. 46: (xii. +1. 20 where for <i>quod adhuc</i> BM give <i>quid adhuc</i>): on the +other hand, in vi. 3. 5 the MSS. are in favour of <i>quid</i>, though +Halm reads <i>quod</i> (followed by Meister). For <i>quid</i> cp. Cic. +pro Quint. §41, neque praeterea quid possis dicere invenio.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec77" id = "critI_sec77" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec77"><b>§77</b></a>. +<b>grandiori similis</b>. So all MSS.: Halm and Meister. Several +conjectural emendations have been put forward. Comparing <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">2 §16</a> (fiunt pro grandibus +tumidi), Becher suggests <i>grandi oratori</i>,—an easy change, if +the copyist used contractions, but without point: above in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec74">§74</a>, ‘oratori magis similis’ is +appropriate enough in speaking of <i>historians</i>, but ‘oratori’ would +be inappropriate here. This is accepted, however, by Hirt (Berl. Jahr. +ix., 1883, p. 312; cp. P. Hirt, Subst. des Adjectivums, +p. 12). Schöll proposes to read <i>gladiatori</i> similis, in view +of the close connection with what follows, strictus ... carnis ... +lacertorum: but <i>plenior</i> and <i>magis fusus</i> are a bad +introduction to <i>gladiatori</i>, and if Aeschines had <i>plus +carnis</i> and <i>minus lacertorum</i>, he cannot really have resembled +a gladiator. This reading is, however, adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.). +Finally, Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 166 sq.) has conjectured <i>et +grandi</i> (or <i>grandiori</i>) <i>organo similis</i>, and applies the +figure throughout: ‘voller und breiter lässt Aeschines den Ton +hervorströmen, einem grossen Musikinstrumente gleich’: ‘einer Orgel +gleich,’—he is <i>grandisonus</i>. The translation appears to +limit unnecessarily the meaning of <i>plenus</i> and <i>fusus</i>: +though the former is used of tone i. 11. 6 (cp. xi. 3. 15 of the voice: +ib. §§42, 62: and §55 of the breath): while <i>fusus</i> is used of the +voice xi. 3. 64. For such a use of <i>grandis</i> cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">§58</a> (cenae): <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a> (robora): xi. 2. 12 (convivium): +3. 15 (vox): 68 (speculum): and for <i>organum</i>, i. 10. 25: ix. 4. +10: xi. 3. 20 (where there is a comparison between the throat and a +musical instrument): probably also i. 2. 30. There is an antithesis in +the two parts of the sentence between fulness and breadth, on the one +hand, and real strength on the other; and for the transition to the +second figure Kiderlin compares <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">§33</a>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec78" id = "critI_sec78" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78"><b>§78</b></a>. +<b>nihil enim est inane</b>: perhaps ‘nihil enim est <i>in eo</i> inane’ +(Becher), or <i>nihil enim inest</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec79" id = "critI_sec79" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79"><b>§79</b></a>. +<b>honesti studiosus</b>. Becher’s proposal to alter the punctuation of +this passage is discussed in the note <i>ad loc.</i>—For +<i>auditoriis</i> and <i>compararat</i>, see on <i>tenuia atque quae</i> +<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a>, above.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec80" id = "critI_sec80" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec80"><b>§80</b></a>. +<b>quem tamen</b>. Kiderlin, in Hermes (23, p. 168), raises a +difficulty here. <i>Tamen</i> shows that the clause cannot go with the +main statement (<i>fateor</i>), and its position forbids us to take it +with the <i>quamquam is primum</i> clause: it can only go with <i>quod +ultimus est</i>, &c., ‘though Demosthenes is <i>ultimus fere</i>, +&c., <i>yet</i> Cicero, &c.’ To prevent so awkward a joining of +the clauses, Kiderlin proposes to read <i>eumque tamen</i>: pointing out +that the <i>quae</i> of the MSS. (GH) may have arisen out of <i>que</i>, +and that Quintilian may have written <i>eumque</i>; cp. vi. 2. 13, where +Halm makes <i>utque</i> out of <i>quae</i> (G), and xi. 2. 32, where +Meister reads <i>estque</i>. The meaning will then be: Demetrius is +worthy of record as being about the last, &c., and yet Cicero gives +him the first place in the <i>medium genus</i>.—It seems better, +however, to give <i>tamen</i> a general reference: ‘yet, in spite of all +that can be said on the other side’ (e.g., inclinasse eloquentiam +dicitur). Cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">§99</a> quae tamen +sunt in hoc genere elegantissima.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">201</span> +<p><a name = "critI_sec81" id = "critI_sec81" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81"><b>§81</b></a>. +<b>prosam</b> (<b>prorsam</b>) <b>orationem et</b> all MSS.; Halm, +Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) omit <i>et</i>. I find that Becher +supports the view stated in the note <i>ad loc.</i>: he would however +write <i>prorsam</i>, which the best MSS. give also in Plin. v. 31, +112 D.</p> + +<p><b>quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus</b>: so Frotscher, +followed by Krüger (3rd ed.). On the other hand Claussen (Quaest. +Quint., p. 356) and Wölfflin (followed now by Meister, pref. to ed. +of Book x., p. 13) propose to delete <i>Delphici</i>, of which +Becher also approves. But the MS. evidence cannot be disregarded. The +following are the various readings: GH <i>quaedam Delphico videatur +oraculo de instrictus</i>, and so FT, the former giving also (by a later +hand) <i>de instinctus</i>, the latter <i>dei instructus</i>. Bodl. +gives <i>quodam delphico videatur oraculo dei instructus</i>. The most +frequent reading is that of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995, +4829, 11671, Ball. and most edd., <i>quodam delphico videatur oraculo +instinctus</i>: S agrees, but is reported to have <i>delphico</i> +after <i>oraculo</i>: Harl. 4950 and Burn. 244 have the same reading, +with <i>institutus</i> corr. to <i>instinctus</i>: Burn. 243 gives +<i>instructus</i>. <i>Delphico</i> was originally deleted by Caesar: +Phil xiii, p. 758. Halm read <i>tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo +instinctus</i>: but Quintilian would take no trouble to avoid the +repetition of <i>quidam</i> (cp. divina quadam, above).—For the +arrangement of words, Krüger (3rd ed.) compares <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec41">§41</a> qui ne minima quidem alicuius +certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec82" id = "critI_sec82" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec82"><b>§82</b></a>. +<b>quandam persuadendi deam</b>. Nettleship (Journ. of Philol., xxix, +p. 22) conjectures <i>Suadam</i> [<i>persuadendi deam</i>], +comparing Brutus, §59, quoted <i>ad loc. Persuadendi deam</i> would thus +become a gloss on <i>Suadam</i>: but the expression in the text is quite +in Quintilian’s style.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec83" id = "critI_sec83" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83"><b>§83</b></a>. +<b>eloquendi suavitate</b>: <i>eloquendi usus</i> (or <i>usu</i>) +<i>suav.</i> GH and all codd. except Harl. 4950, and Dorv., both of +which give simply <i>eloq. suav.</i> Halm admitted into his text Geel’s +conj. for <i>usus</i>, ‘eloquendi <i>vi ac</i> suavitate,’ and this has +met with some acceptance (Iwan Müller and Becher). But the parallel from +Dion. Hal., <span class = "greek" title = "Arch. kr.">Ἀρχ. κρ.</span> 4 +is hardly conclusive: <span class = "greek" title = "tês te peri hermêneian deinotêtos ... kai tou hêdeos">τῆς τε περὶ ἑρμηνείαν +δεινότητος ... καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος</span>. Hirt properly remarks that the +agreement between the two is not so great as to allow of correcting the +one by the other. Kiderlin conjectures <i>eloquendi vi</i>, +<i>suavitate</i>, <i>perspicuitate</i>.</p> + +<p><b>tam est loquendi</b>. See note <i>ad loc.</i> for Kiderlin’s conj. +<i>tam manifestus est</i>. Though Meister’s <i>tam est eloquendi</i> is +probably a misprint, it is found in some MSS.—Harl. 4950: Burn. +244.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec84" id = "critI_sec84" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec84"><b>§84</b></a>. +<b>sane non affectaverunt</b>. Bodl. and Vall. (<i>veru</i> +subpunctuated in the latter: <i>affectant</i> Prat. Put. 7231 MS Ball. +Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671: <i>sene non adfectitacuerunt</i> GH +Burn. 243: <i>adfectarunt</i> 7696: <i>adfectitant</i> Harl. 4950, and +so Burn. 244 (corrected from <i>affectant</i>).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec85" id = "critI_sec85" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85"><b>§85</b></a>. +<b>haud dubie proximus</b>. Halm inserted <i>ei</i> after <i>dubie</i>, +though it is not found in any MS.: Regius had suggested <i>illi</i>. +Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 170) points out that if <i>propiores +alii</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a> is allowed +to stand without a dative, <i>ei</i> is not necessary here. He suggests, +however, <i>illi</i> before <i>alii</i> in <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a>: both passages must be dealt with +in the same way.—For <i>haud</i> (Vall.), GHS have <i>aut</i>: M +<i>haut</i>. Cp. on <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3 §26</a>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec86" id = "critI_sec86" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86"><b>§86</b></a>. +<b>ut illi ... cesserimus</b>: <i>cum illi</i> GHFT Harl. 4995 Burn. +243: <i>ut illi</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696: and so S Harl. 4950 (with +<i>caelesti atque divinae</i>): <i>ut ille</i> M Harl. 2662. Kiderlin +(Hermes, p. 170) proposes to go back to the reading of the older +MSS. <i>cum illi</i>, and instead of <i>cesserimus</i> to read +<i>cesserit</i>, so as to make Vergil the subject throughout. <i>Cum</i> +cannot, he contends, be a copyist’s error, motived by <i>ita</i>; and it +is probable, therefore, that at first <i>cesserit a</i> was +inadvertently written for <i>cesserit</i>; then (in G or some older MS.) +<i>cesserimus ita</i> was made out of that, to correspond with +<i>vincimur</i> below: and then in the later MSS. <i>cum</i> was changed +to <i>ut</i>, because of <i>ita</i>. For the transition, with this +reading, from cesserit to the plural (<i>vincimur, pensamus</i>), he +<span class = "pagenum">202</span> +compares <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">§107</a>, where, after +speaking of Demosthenes and Cicero, Quintilian passes to +<i>vincimus</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec87" id = "critI_sec87" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87"><b>§87</b></a>. +<b>sequentur</b> MS Halm and Meister: <i>sequenter</i> G <i>seq̅nt’</i> +H: <i>sequuntur</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.</p> + +<p><b><span class = "greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> id est</b>. +These words are omitted in the Pratensis, which is Étienne de Rouen’s +abridgement of the <i>Beccensis</i>, now lost. This is an additional +proof that <span class = "greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> was +originally written in Greek: cp. on <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec88" id = "critI_sec88" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88"><b>§88</b></a>. +<b>propiores</b> H Prat. Put. Vall. Harl. 2662, 4495, 11671, Burn. 243. +Bodl., Halm: <i>propriores</i> GMS 7231, 7696, Harl. 4950, C, Burn. 244, +Dorv., Meister. In Cicero and Quintilian <i>magis proprii</i> would be +more usual for the latter.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec89" id = "critI_sec89" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec89"><b>§89</b></a>. +<b>etiam si sit</b>. This conjecture of Spalding’s (for <i>etiam sit</i> +GH Bodl. &c.: <i>etiam si</i> M Harl. 4950 Dorv.: <i>etiam sic</i> +Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662) I have found in the Balliol codex. 7231 +and 7696 give <i>etiam si est</i>. Cp. note on <i>tenuia atque quae</i> +<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a>, above.</p> + +<p><b>ut est dictum</b>. These words were bracketed as a gloss by Halm, +and are now omitted altogether by Krüger (3rd ed.): see however note +<i>ad loc.</i> Döderlein proposed to place them after <i>poeta +melior</i>, Fleckeisen after <i>etiam si</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Serranum</b> is Lange’s conjecture for <i>ferrenum</i> GHM: +<i>farrenum</i> 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>Pharrenum</i> Prat. +Put. Some MSS. (e.g. Vall. Harl. 4995, Burn. 243 and 244) give <i>sed +eum</i>, but it is obvious that the criticism of Severus stopped with +the word <i>locum</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec90" id = "critI_sec90" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec90"><b>§90</b></a>. +<b>senectute maturuit</b> ed. Col. 1527 and so 7231, 7696 (Fierville): +<i>senectutem maturbit</i> GH: <i>senectute maturum</i> Prat. Put. MS +Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. and Ball.: <i>senectus +maturavit</i> Bodl., Burn. 243.</p> + +<p><b>et, ut dicam</b>. Halm’s <i>sed</i> instead of <i>et</i> has been +rejected by later critics. Cp. Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 357 +note): <i>sed</i> ‘sententiam efficit ab hac operis parte alienam. Nam +cum oratori futuro exempla quaerantur oratoria virtus in quovis +scriptore laudi vertitur (§§46, 63, 65, 67, 74, &c.). Itaque +propter huius censurae consilium Quintilianus Lucani elocutionem +oratoriam laudat, sed ingenium poeticum una reprehendit.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec91" id = "critI_sec91" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91"><b>§91</b></a>. +<b>propius</b> H Prat. Put. Burn. 243, Harl. 2662 and other codd.: Bodl. +Ball. Harl. 4950 <i>proprius</i>. Reisig conjectured <i>propitius</i>, +which also is apt; but in spite of <i>industrius</i>, +<i>necessarius</i>, cited in its support (cp. iv. 2. 27: vii. 1. 12), it +is too uncertain a form to be received into the text. Iwan Müller thinks +it would have to be <i>magis propitiae</i>. Halm gives <i>promptius</i>: +Wölfflin <i>pronius</i>: while Schöll now suggests <i>propitiae +potius</i> (cp. iv. pr. §5: 2 §27: vii. 1. 12).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec92" id = "critI_sec92" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec92"><b>§92</b></a>. +<b>feres</b> G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4829, Dorv., Ball., +Halm.: <i>feras</i> H, Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. C and M, Meister and +Krüger (3rd ed.). Harl. 4995 has <i>fere</i>: from Vall. Becher reports +feras, ‘probably at first <i>feres</i>.’</p> + +<p><b>elegea</b> GH 7696, and so A<sup>2</sup> BN Put. S at i. 8. 6.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec94" id = "critI_sec94" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94"><b>§94</b></a>. +<b>abunde salis</b> G Prat. Put. M and all my MSS. except H, Burn. 243, +Bodl. which have <i>abundantia salis</i>.</p> + +<p><b>multum est tersior</b>. The variety of MS. readings seems to point +to an <i>et</i> wrongly inserted after <i>multum</i>, perhaps from a +confusion with ‘multum et ver gloriae’ below. GH give <i>multum et est +tersior</i>: M Harl. 4950, Bodl. Ball. C Dorv. Burn. 243 and also Harl. +4829 <i>multum etiam est t.</i>: Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, +11671 <i>multum est tersior</i>: while Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) has +<i>multo et est tersior</i>. Osann proposed <i>multo eo est tersior</i>: +Wölfflin <i>multo est tersior</i>: Halm and Meister print <i>multum eo +est tersior</i>. For <i>multum</i>, cp. multum ante xii. 6. 1: and see +Introd. <a href = "QuintIntro.html#intro_pageli">p. li</a>.</p> + +<p><b>non labor</b> GH Burn. 243 Bodl. and Meister: <i>nisi labor</i> +7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv. Ball. +C, and Halm. Prat. and Put. have <i>mihi labor</i>.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">203</span> +<p><b>hodieque et qui</b>: H, Prat., Put., 7231, 7696, Harl. 2662, 4829, +Bodl. Dorv.: <i>hodie et qui</i> Burn. 243: <i>hodie quoque et qui</i> +Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: <i>hodie quod et qui</i> S.—Becher is +of opinion that the text will not bear the explanation given in the +note, and would read <i>hodie quoque et qui</i>: ‘es giebt auch heute +noch berühmte Satirendichter, die einst &c.’ <i>Et qui</i> he takes +with <i>clari</i>, not with <i>hodie quoque</i>, the <i>et</i> being +omitted in translation: clari (hodie quoque) qui (olim) +nominabuntur.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec95" id = "critI_sec95" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec95"><b>§95</b></a>. +<b>etiam prius</b>. Founding on the classification given in Diomedes +(see note <i>ad loc.</i>), according to which the <i>satura</i> of +Pacuvius and Ennius preceded and was distinct from that of Lucilius, +Horace, and Persius, Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 337) thinks that +the true reading here may be <i>Alterum illud et iam prius</i> Ennio +temptatum <i>saturae genus</i>, &c. For the satura of Ennius, cp. +ix. 2. 36. Iwan Müller points out that Ennius is not mentioned below +(§97), beside Attius and Pacuvius, probably because neither in tragedy +nor in satire did Quintilian consider him to have produced anything +helpful for the formation of an oratorical style. Other unnecessary +conjectures are <i>etiam posterius</i>, Gesner: <i>etiam proprium</i>, +Spald.: <i>etiam amplius</i>, L. Müller: <i>etiam verius</i>, +Riese: <i>alterum illud Lucilio prius sat. genus</i>, Krüger (3rd +ed.).</p> + +<p><b>sola</b>: <i>solum</i> Prat. and Put.</p> + +<p><b>collaturus quam eloquentiae</b>. These words, omitted in GHS Bodl. +Burn. 243, occur in all my other codd.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec96" id = "critI_sec96" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96"><b>§96</b></a>. +<b>sed aliis quibusdam interpositus</b>: sc. carminibus, Christ. In H +the reading is <i>quibusdam interpositus</i>: so 7231, 7696 Bodl. and +Burn. 243: but M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Dorv. and Ball, give <i>a +quibusdam interpositus</i>: S <i>cuiusdam</i>: Prat. and Put. <i>opus +interpositus</i>. Osann conjectures <i>sed quibusdam</i>, and so Hild. +In the margin of Harl. 4995 is the variant <i>aliquibus +interpositis</i>.</p> + +<p>In Hermes, vol. 23, p. 172, Kiderlin makes a fresh conjecture. +Recognising that something must have fallen out before <i>quibusdam</i>, +but dissatisfied with Osann’s <i>sed</i> and Christ’s <i>sed aliis</i>, +he proposes to read <i>ut proprium opus, quibusdam aliis tamen +carminibus</i> (or <i>versibus</i>) <i>a quibusdam interpositus</i>. The +eye of a copyist may easily, Kiderlin thinks, have wandered from the +first to the second <i>quibusdam</i>: cp. v. 10. 64, ut quaedam a +quibusdam utique non sunt, &c., and for quibusdam aliis xi. 3. 66, +et quibusdam aliis corporis signis.</p> + +<p><b>intervenit</b>, which is a conjecture of Osann, I have found +in Harl. 2662, 11671 Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.</p> + +<p><b>lyricorum</b>. Kiderlin thinks there may be something wrong in the +text here. The last sentence (sed eum longe, &c.) shows clearly that +Quintilian had a high opinion of the lyrists of his day: if Bassus was +<i>legi dignus</i>, they were even more so. Would he then have said ‘of +the Roman lyrists Horace is almost the only one worth reading’? Perhaps +we should read <i>lyricorum priorum</i>: after <i>-ricorum</i>, +<i>priorum</i> might easily fall out, and it gives a good antithesis to +<i>viventium</i>. Bassus (quem nuper vidimus) forms the transition: and +the next paragraph begins <i>Tragoediae scriptores veterum</i>, +&c.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec97" id = "critI_sec97" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec97"><b>§97</b></a>. +<b>clarissimi</b>. This reading is stated by Halm to be ‘incerta +auctoritate,’ and is referred by Meister to the Aldine edition. It +occurs in Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 (<span class = +"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) Vall. 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.: +Put. gives <i>clarissime</i>: G has <i>gravissima</i>: HFTS +<i>gravissimus</i>, and so also Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. and +C. Halm prints <i>grandissimi</i>: Ribbeck (Röm. Trag. +p. 337, 3) inclines to accept the sing. <i>grandissimus</i>, +M, of Pacuvius alone.</p> + +<p>Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings. +<i>Gravissimus</i> and <i>gravissima</i> are obviously due, he says, to +<i>gravitate</i> following: but the word before <i>gravitate</i> must +have begun with the same letter, and so <i>clarissimi</i> cannot stand, +especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For <i>ceterum</i> +shows that the sentence before it must have contained some slight +censure: some defect, or quality excluding others equally good, must +have been mentioned. He therefore conjectures <i>grandes nimis</i>, in +preference to +<span class = "pagenum">204</span> +<i>grandissimi</i>, which in tragedy would hardly be a fault. Attius and +Pacuvius, Quintilian says, are ‘zu grossartig, sie kümmern sich zu wenig +um Zierlichkeit (Eleganz) und die letzte Feile (d.h. Sauberkeit im +Kleinen); doch daran ist mehr ihre Zeit schuld als sie selbst.’ He +evidently thinks more of the ‘Thyestes’ of Varius and Ovid’s Medea: cp. +Tac. Dial. 12. With this judgment Kiderlin compares <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">§§66</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">67</a> tragoedias primus in lucem +Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad +vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ... sed longe clarius +inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, and is of opinion +that the parallelism cannot be mistaken. For the position of +<i>nimis</i> he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe +nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec98" id = "critI_sec98" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98"><b>§98</b></a>. +<b>quem senes quidem parum tragicum</b>. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, +Meister, and Krüger. <i>Quidem</i> occurs in no MS.: GH have +<i>quem</i>, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn. +243 and Dorv. show the corruption <i>Pindarum</i>. Becher would exclude +<i>quidem</i>, regarding <i>quem</i> in G as an instance of the tendency +of copyists inadvertently to repeat, after a particular word that by +which it has been immediately preceded, e.g. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§68</a> quod ipsum quod (G): ix. 4. 57 ut +cum ut (G): iv. 1. 7 ipsis litigatoribus ipsis (b): iv. 2. 5 aut ante +aut (bT): x. i. 4 iam opere iam (G).—But here the authority of the +Pratensis and its cognates may be invoked. In the archetype from which +they are derived something must have stood before <i>parum</i>, as Prat. +Put. 7696, 7231 all give <i>quem senes non parum tragicum</i>: so Harl., +2662 (<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434), and 11671. Above in +<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96">§96</a>, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 +have <i>si quidem</i> for <i>si quem</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec100" id = "critI_sec100" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100"><b>§100</b></a>. +<b>linguae suae</b>. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13): +<i>suae</i> supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give +<i>linguae quae</i>: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. <i>linguae</i>: +while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether: +M has <i>ligweque</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec101" id = "critI_sec101" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101"><b>§101</b></a>. +<b>Titum</b>: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.</p> + +<p><b>commendavit</b>: Halm and Meister give <i>commodavit</i>, which is +approved also by Hirt. Halm compares <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a> where Menander is said to be +‘omnibus rebus personis adfectibus accommodatus.’ But this would require +the meaning ‘appropriately treated,’ and there is no instance in +Quintilian of the verb used absolutely in this sense. Nor is there any +example to support Hild’s interpretation <i>praestitit</i>, which would +be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after +<i>accommodata</i> tells against Halm’s reading, though Quintilian is +negligent on this head.—On the other hand, in vi. 3. 14 the +reading ‘ad hanc consuetudinem commodata’ is rightly accepted against +‘commendata’ most edd.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec102" id = "critI_sec102" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec102"><b>§102</b></a>. +<b>immortalem</b> GS Meister: <i>illam immortalem</i> Prat. Put. M Halm: +<i>immortalem illam</i> Vall.</p> + +<p><b>velocitatem</b>. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which +have <i>civilitatem</i>. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks +that we might have expected <i>ideoque immortalem gloriam quam +velocitate Sallustius consecutus est</i>: ‘und darum hat er die +<i>velocitas</i> durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge +erreicht.’ <i>Consequi</i> cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and +<i>immortalis</i> is inappropriate as an attribute of <i>velocitas</i>: +besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s <i>velocitas</i>, even +indirectly. Schlenger conjectured <i>claritatem</i>: Andresen +<i>auctoritatem</i> (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii. +11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes <i>divinitatem</i>, which in Cicero = +Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous +sentences the expression is not too strong. For <i>immortalem +divinitatem</i> cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">§86</a> illi +... caelesti atque immortali: and for <i>consecutus est</i> iii. 7. 9 +quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.</p> + +<p><b>clarus vi ingenii</b>. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I +find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give <i>clarius +ingenii</i>: Prat. Put. <i>clari ingenii vir</i>: 7231, 7696 <i>clari +vir ingenii</i>: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv. +<span class = "pagenum">205</span> +C and Ball, <i>clarus ingenio</i>; Harl. 2662 and 11671 <i>clarus</i> +(?) or <i>claret vir ingenii</i>. Spalding had already pointed out that +<i>clarus</i> is not found with <i>ingenium</i>, except where +<i>ingenium</i> is used of a person: e.g. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec119">§119</a> erant clara et nuper ingenia: he +therefore wrote <i>elati vir ingenii</i> (following Goth. <i>elatus +ingenio</i> and Bodl. <i>elatus ingeniis</i>). Kiderlin compares <a href += "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec70">§70</a> sententiis clarissimus, and for +<i>vis ingenii</i> i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The +reading <i>clarus vi ingenii</i> points the contrast to what follows in +‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his <i>style</i> that did not +altogether suit the dignity of history.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec103" id = "critI_sec103" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec103"><b>§103</b></a>. +<b>genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam</b>. Till +Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175) +<i>genere</i> had always been joined with <i>probabilis</i>, and the +text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give <i>in +omnibus quibusdam</i>: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. <i>in +omnibus sed in quibusdam</i>, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696. +Out of <i>omnibus</i> Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, <i>operibus</i>: +afterwards he decided for <i>partibus</i>, and this (though +<i>omnibus</i> to <i>partibus</i> is not an easy transition) is adopted +by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung +verdienen seine Leistungen <i>alle</i>, <i>manche</i> stehen hinter +<i>seiner</i> Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are +<i>probabiles</i> (cp. viii. 3. 42 probabile Cicero id genus dicit quod +non plus minusve est quam decet); but they do not show the great powers +that distinguish his other writings. It is uncertain whether Quintilian +wrote <i>in quibusdam</i> or <i>sed in quibusdam</i> (M). The easiest +explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he +wrote <i>in omnibus in quibusdam</i>: perhaps the copyist of M saw that +<i>omnibus</i> and <i>quibusdam</i> were antithetical, and inserted +<i>sed</i>. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any +conjunction: cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">§106</a> in +illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).</p> + +<p><b>suis ipse viribus</b>: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville) +7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (<span class = +"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434 and 1467) <i>suis</i> already appears, +corrected from <i>vis</i> GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has <i>suis viribus +minor</i>: so Prat. and Put.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec104" id = "critI_sec104" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec104"><b>§104</b></a>. +<b>et exornat</b>. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and +most edd.: <i>et ornat</i> M Halm, Meister, Krüger: <i>exornat</i> GHS. +Becher remarks that <i>et exornat</i> might easily pass into +<i>exornat</i>.</p> + +<p><b>nominabitur</b>: Weber and Osann proposed <i>nominabatur</i> +(which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to <i>-itur</i>). Krüger at +first accepted this in support of his theory that the whole passage +refers to Cremutius, who ‘in former days (olim), while his works were +under a ban, was only named (i.e. was a mere name, but now is known and +appreciated).’ The parallel passage (§94) is sufficient to dispose of +any such interpretation: sunt clari hodieque et qui olim +nominabuntur.</p> + +<p><b>Cremuti</b>. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and +Meister: <i>remuti</i> H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 <i>remremuti</i> G, +<i>rem utili</i> Burn. 243: <i>remitti</i> S. Bodl.: <i>nec imitatores +uti</i> Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671. A review of the +various explanations of the whole passage (Superest—quae manent) +will be found in Holub’s Programm ‘Warum hielt sich Tacitus von 89-96 n. +Chr. nicht in Rom auf?’—Weidenau, 1883: but his conjecture +<i>remoti</i> (i.e. relegati) for <i>remuti</i> is not to be thought +of.</p> + +<p><b>dividendi</b>: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have +<i>videndi</i>, except M (<i>indicendi</i>) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995 +(<i>vivendi</i>). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec105" id = "critI_sec105" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105"><b>§105</b></a>. +In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his +views: ‘wie zu <i>cum</i> causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu +<i>cum</i> concessivum, in diesem Falle wiedenzugeben mit, “was um so +auffallender ist, als.” Der Sinn ist also: “Ich weiss sehr wohl, welchen +Sturm des Unwillens ich gegen mich errege, und dies (dieser Sturm) ist +um so auffallender, als ich jetzt gar nicht die Absicht hege, meine (in +Potentialis gesprochene) Behauptung (fortiter opposuerim) wahr zu +machen, resp. comparando durchzuführen. Ich lasse ja dem Demosthenes +seinen Ruhm—in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius.”’</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">206</span> +<p><a name = "critI_sec106" id = "critI_sec106" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106"><b>§106</b></a>. +<b>praeparandi</b>. For Kiderlin’s conj. <i>praeparandi</i>, +<i>narrandi</i>, <i>probandi</i> see <i>ad loc.</i></p> + +<p>[<b>omnia</b>] <b>denique</b>, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit <i>omnia</i> +(which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following +Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and +Cicero were <i>not</i> alike in <i>everything</i> that belongs to +<i>inventio</i>. Halm thinks that <i>omnia</i> is to be found in +<i>racioni</i> of the older MSS.: but Kiderlin points out that this +error may have arisen from the carelessness of a copyist who, after +thrice writing the termination <i>i</i>, gave it also to the fourth +word.</p> + +<p><b>illi—huic</b> Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl. +&c.: <i>illic—hic</i> GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec107" id = "critI_sec107" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107"><b>§107</b></a>. +<b>vincimus</b>, H, G<sup>2</sup>, and most MSS.: (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">§86</a>): <i>vicimus</i> G.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec109" id = "critI_sec109" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109"><b>§109</b></a>. +<b>ubertate</b> Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and +Goth<ins class = "correction" title = "period missing">.:</ins> all the +other MSS. give <i>ubertas</i>.</p> + +<p><b>totas virtutes</b> Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: <i>totas +vires</i> M b.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec112" id = "critI_sec112" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec112"><b>§112</b></a>. +<b>ab hominibus</b> Halm and Meister: <i>ab omnibus</i> Bn Bg HFT Ioan. +Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: <i>hominibus</i> S Harl. 4995 Bodl.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec115" id = "critI_sec115" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec115"><b>§115</b></a>. +<b>urbanitas</b>. Kiderlin proposes to read <i>et praecipua in accusando +asperitas et multa urbanitas</i>: cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">§117</a>: <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">§64</a>: <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec25">2 §25</a>: ii. 5. 8.</p> + +<p><b>Ciceroni</b>, for <i>Ciceronem</i> of the MSS. In the Rev. de +Phil. (Janv.-Mars, 1887) Bonnet quotes from the Montpellier MS. a note +of the sixteenth century deleting the name as a gloss (on +<i>inveni</i>). Certainly all codd. give <i>Ciceronem</i>, not +<i>Ciceroni</i>. Bonnet thinks that the insertion does not accord with +Quintilian’s habitual deference towards Cicero: ‘Quintilien se trouvant +dans le cas de contredire Cicéron ne le nomme pas.’—Becher reports +<i>Ciceroni</i>, a correction in the Vallensis.</p> + +<p><b>castigata</b>, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. +2662, 4995, 11671: <i>custodita</i> H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829, +Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For <i>gravis</i> (bH M Vall. and +seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give <i>brevis</i>.</p> + +<p><b>si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit</b>, Vall. +Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3 §26</a>. Halm and Meister print +<i>si quid adiecturus fuit</i>—(sc. <i>virtutibus suis</i>, cp. <a +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec116">§§116</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec120">120</a>)—the reading of B (i.e. Bn +and Bg), which is also that of Ioan. Prat. N 7231 Harl. 2662, 11671: +while M Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244 have <i>si quid adiecturus fuit, non +si quid detracturus</i>. The reading of H is <i>si quid adiecturus sibi +non si quid detracturus</i> [<i>Sulpicius insignus</i>] <i>fuit ut +servius sulpicius insignem</i> &c.: so also T, Burn. 243, Bodl. The +brackets in H are by a later hand, indicating a gloss which arose from a +mistake made by the copyist of H. In Bg the passage +stands:—</p> + +<table class = "parallel" summary = "formatted text"> +<tr> +<td></td> +<td>sibi</td> +<td>non si</td> +<td>quid</td> +<td>detracturus</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>si quid adiecturus:</td> +<td>fuit</td> +<td>et</td> +<td>servius</td> +<td>sulpicius</td> +</tr> +</table> + +<p>The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.</p> + +<p>In copying H wrote: <i>si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid +detracturus</i> (then omitting <i>fuit</i> continues) <i>et Serv. +Sulp.</i> (then goes back and resumes) <i>fuit et servius</i> &c. +This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this +family.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec117" id = "critI_sec117" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117"><b>§117</b></a>. +<b>et fervor</b>. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and +Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have <i>et sermo</i>, +which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662, +4950 and Ball.: Hb <i>et summo</i>: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 <i>et +smo</i>: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T +<i>eius summa</i>, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis +(Laurentius Valla) made <i>et vis summa</i>, a reading which occurs also +in Harl. 4995. Meister reads <i>et sermo purus</i>; while Kiderlin +proposes <i>et simplex sermo</i> (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3: +4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).</p> + +<p><b>ut amari sales</b>. Francius conjectured <i>ut amantur sales</i>, +but this loses the antithesis between <i>amari</i> and <i>amaritudo +ipsa</i>. Kiderlin’s <i>ut amantur amari sales</i> (viii. 3. +<span class = "pagenum">207</span> +87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if <i>ridicula</i> is taken in a +good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving +way unduly to <i>stomachus</i>, Quintilian should go on to say, +‘moreover, though bitter wit gives pleasure, bitterness by itself is +often laughable.’ Is it possible that we ought to read <i>ut amari sales +risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est</i>? Such an antithesis +might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words <i>risum +movent</i> may then have dropped out. See the note <i>ad loc.</i>: and +cp. especially vi. 1. 48 <i>fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit</i>, and +<span class = "greek" title = "ou gelôta kinei mallon ê katagelatai">οὐ +γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται</span>, quoted in the note on <a href += "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">1 §107</a>.—Krüger (3rd +ed.) adopts <i>frequentior</i> for <i>frequenter</i>, which gives a good +sense, except that <i>freq. amar ipsa</i> is awkward.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec121" id = "critI_sec121" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec121"><b>§121</b></a>. +<b>lene</b> Halm and Meister: <i>leve</i> B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C. +Here again Becher prefers <i>leve</i>, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii. +§171, quoted on <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> above: +levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec123" id = "critI_sec123" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123"><b>§123</b></a>. +<b>scripserint</b>. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995, +2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among +other passages <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §14</a> +(concupierint), and points out that Quintilian is not thinking of +individual writers on philosophy, but of the class, as opposed to the +class of orators, historians, &c.—Halm, Meister, and Krüger +have <i>supersunt</i> (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec124" id = "critI_sec124" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec124"><b>§124</b></a>. +<b>Plautus</b>, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: +<i>plantus</i> M Harl. 4950: <i>Plantatus</i> Sal.: <i>plaustus</i> Hb: +<i>Plancus</i> edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.</p> + +<p><b>Catius</b>. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec126" id = "critI_sec126" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126"><b>§126</b></a>. +<b>iis quibus illi</b>. <i>Iis</i> is the conjecture of Regius, followed +by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain <i>in quibus +illi</i>,—the reading of BN Prat. Ioan. Vall. M Harl. 4995, 2662, +4950, 11671, Burn. 244 Dorv. Ball. The difficulty of construing probably +led to the omission of <i>in</i> in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696, +Spalding and Bonnell.</p> + +<p><b>ab illo</b> B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: <i>ab +eo</i> bHM Burn. 243.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec127" id = "critI_sec127" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127"><b>§127</b></a>. +<b>foret enim optandum</b>: <i>fore enim aliquid optandum</i> bHFT. +Spalding conjectured <i>alioqui optandum</i>, which Kiderlin +approves.</p> + +<p><b>ac saltem</b> all MSS.: Meister has <i>aut saltem</i>, probably +relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii, +p. 369.</p> + +<p><b>illi viro</b> B: <i>illi virus</i> bHM: <i>illi virtutibus</i> +Halm: <i>illi viro eos</i> (or <i>viro plurimos</i>) Kiderlin.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec128" id = "critI_sec128" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128"><b>§128</b></a>. +<b>multa rerum cognitio</b>: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl. +4995, which have <i>multarum rerum cognitio</i>. b omits <i>cognitio</i> +and is followed by HFT.</p> + +<p><a name = "critI_sec130" id = "critI_sec130" +href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec130"><ins class = "correction" +title = "line reference missing"><b>§130</b></ins></a>. +<b>si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset</b>. +I adopt the reading recently proposed for this vexed passage by Ed. +Wölfflin in Hermes, vol. xxv (1890), pp. 326-7, though it is right +to note that he was partly (as will be seen below) anticipated by +Kiderlin. <i>Obliqua</i> seems thoroughly appropriate in reference to +Seneca’s unnatural, stilted, affected style,—‘jene unnatürliche, +durch unmässigen Gebrauch von Tropen und Figuren auf Schrauben gestellte +Ausdrucksweise, welche statt der Klarheit ein Schillern zur Folge hat.’ +Wölfflin compares ix. 2. 78 <i>rectum genus</i> adprobari nisi maximis +viribus non potest: haec diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt +infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt, cum haec quae +adfectatur ratio sententiarum non procul a ratione iocandi abhorreat. +Adiuvat etiam, quod auditor gaudet intellegere et favet ingenio suo et +alio dicente se laudat. Itaque non solum si persona obstaret <i>rectae +orationi</i> (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est) +decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem +<i>obliquis</i> sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed +suggested by <i>obliqua</i> itself) the antithesis <i>parum recta</i>: +cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">208</span> +<p>In the <i>Jahrbücher f. Philologie</i> (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828) +Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The +traditional reading <i>si aliqua contempsisset</i> (b) he considers too +indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though +preferable to the <i>si nil aequalium cont.</i> of the later MSS., it +cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give <i>simile +quam</i> without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be +nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s +<i>si antiqua non</i>, on the ground that it is improbable that +<i>simile quam</i> arose out of <i>antiqua</i>. He introduces his own +conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the +contrast between <i>schemata</i> and <i>rectum genus</i>, <i>recta +oratio</i>; the former are called <i>lumina</i> or <i>lumina +orationis</i> (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: <i>nam si +mille ille schemata</i> (or <i>illas figuras</i>) <i>similiaque lumina +contempsisset, si parum rectum genus</i> (or <i>sermonem</i>) <i>non +concupisset</i>, &c. <i>Similiaque</i> occurs ix. 4. 43: +<i>mille</i> (for <i>sescenti</i>) is used v. 14. 32: for +<i>contempsisset</i> cp. ix. 4. 113. <i>Si mille illa</i> and +<i>similiaque</i> may easily have run together, when <i>schemata</i> (or +<i>figuras</i>) would fall out: <i>quam</i> in the older MSS. may +represent <i>que lumina</i>, which again reappears in the <i>qualium</i> +of the later codd. (<i>si nil aequalium</i>). As an alternative for +<i>parum rectum <ins class = "correction" title= "text unchanged: error +for ‘genus’?">genns</ins></i> (or <i>sermonem</i>) Kiderlin suggests +Wölfflin’s reading <i>parum recta</i>: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v. +13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.</p> + +<p>Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree +with Bn and Bg in giving <i>simile quam</i>: b has <i>si aliqua</i>: +HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. <i>aliqua</i>: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, +Dorv. C <i>si nil aequalium</i>. Among previous conjectures are <i>si +multa aequalium</i>, Törnebladh: <i>si ille quaedam</i>, Halm (where +<i>ille</i> is surely superfluous): <i>si antiqua non</i>, Jeep. Meister +accepts the reading <i>si aliqua non</i>: Becher thinks that <i>si nil +aequalium</i> may be right.</p> + +<p>It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after +<i>parum</i>: the codd. all give <i>si parum non concupisset</i>. Jeep +proposed <i>si pravum</i> (= <i>corruptum</i>: cp. ii. 5. 10) +<i>non conc.</i>: on which Halm, comparing <i>omnia sua</i>, remarks, +‘debebat saltem <i>prava</i>.’ But <i>prava</i> seems too strong a word +for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously +mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested <i>si parum sana</i>, and is +followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155 +<i>n</i>. Sarpe proposed <i>si prava</i> or <i>parva</i> or +<i>plura</i>: Buttmann <i>si parum concupiscenda</i> (or +<i>convenientia</i>): Herzog <i>si parvum</i>: Madvig <i>si partim</i> +or <i>partem</i> (i.e. <i>paulo plus quam aliqua</i>, and in opp. to +<i>omnia sua</i>, below): Hoffmann <i>si opiparum</i>: Seyffert <i>si +garum</i>: Kraffert <i>si non parum excussisset</i> (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a>, <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126">§126</a>: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8. +13, &c.): Gustaffson <i>si parva</i> (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in +parvis iactantiae): Andresen <i>si similem ei quem contempsit se +esse</i> (sc. <i>concupisset</i>; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist. +i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) <i>si parem non concupisset</i> (i.e. <i>si +Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius +aemulari maluisset</i>): or, <i>nam si similem ei quem contempsit se +esse, non parem concupisset</i>: Krüger (3rd ed<ins class = "correction" +title = "period invisible">.)</ins> <i>si parum arguta</i>: Hertz (who +argues that the word which has fallen out must, with <i>parum</i>, +correspond to <i>corrupta</i> above) <i>si parum pura</i>.</p> + +<p><b>utrimque</b> Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and +Bonnell: <i>utrumque</i> B N 7231, 7696: <i>virumque</i> M: +<i>utcumque</i> Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or +another,’—proposed by Gesner at <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec7">6 §7</a>.</p> + + +<span class = "pagenum">209</span> +<h5><a name = "critII" id = "critII"> +CHAPTER II.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec2" id = "critII_sec2" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>atque omnis</b>. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, +p. 454) proposes to put commas at <i>sequi</i> and <i>velimus</i>, +and make this clause also subordinate.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec3" id = "critII_sec3" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>. +<b>aut similes aut dissimiles</b>. Andresen suggests <i>aut similes aut +non dissimiles</i> or <i>aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec6" id = "critII_sec6" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>. +<b>tradiderunt</b> (BNM Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 243, and Dorv.) is +powerfully supported by Becher in his latest tractate (Programm des +königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, p. 13) against +<i>tradiderint</i>, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in +the last from <i>tradiderunt</i>), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, +Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in +Cicero, <i>cum</i> with the indicative is often used in such a way +(quoting from C. F. W. Müller) ‘ut non prorsus idem sit, sed +simillimum ei, quod barbare dicere solemus identitatis. Nam ut “cum +tacent clamant” non est “si tacent,” multo minus “quo tempore” aut +“propterea quod” aut “quamquam,”—sed “tacent idque idem est ac si +clament,” sic “cum hoc facis qui potes facere illud?” et sim., German, +item “<i>wenn du dies thust</i>” valet: “hoc facis ex eoque per se +efficitur, non ratione, sed ipsa natura, ut illud non possis facere.” Ut +pro Q. Roscio 3. 9 quam ob rem, cum cetera nomina in ordinem +referebas, hoc nomen in adversariis relinquebas? non significat nec +“quamquam” nec “quando,” sed “<i>wenn</i>.”’ Becher adds the following +parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae +divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi +<i>dixerunt</i> non liquere, and Verg. Ecl. 3. 16 quid domini facient, +audent cum talia fures? (Cp. Madvig de Fin. p. 25.) In the same way +he treats <i>cum ... sunt consecuti</i> <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7 §19</a> below, which seems, +however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in +such cases <i>cum</i> (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative: +there the clause ‘<i>cum sint consecuti</i>’ is added to show the +reasonableness (<i>cum</i> = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary +facility shall be made fully equal to <i>cogitatio</i>—see <i>ad +loc.</i> Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of <i>cum</i> +with the indic. used of ‘identity’ (as ‘cum tacent, clamant,’ quoted +above): in such cases the subject is generally the same in both clauses. +And in such a passage as pro Cluent. §131 <i>cum</i> is usually +explained as = <i>quo tamen tempore</i>.</p> + +<p><b>eruendas</b> M Harl. 4995: all other codd. <i>erudiendas</i>.</p> + +<p><b>mensuris ac lineis</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the +conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4. +p. 194. 4) <i>eisdem mensuris ac lineis</i>, and recommends +the insertion of <i>eisdem</i> in the text,—after <i>lineis</i>, +where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec7" id = "critII_sec7" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>. +<b>turpe etiam illud est</b>. Hild puts a comma after <i>sciant</i>, and +by supplying before <i>turpe est</i> an <i>ita</i> to correspond with +<i>quemadmodum</i>, makes out a comparison of which <i>quemadmodum</i>, +&c., is the first clause and <i>turpe etiam illud est</i> the +second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The +<i>quemadmodum</i> clause goes with what is before, not with what +follows, so that a comma after <i>alieni</i> would be enough, were it +not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec9">§9</a> below). Then <i>turpe etiam illud +est</i> comes in, resuming <i>pigri est ingenii</i> in <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a>, just as immediately afterwards +<i>rursus quid erat futurum</i> <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a> resumes <i>quid enim futurum +erat</i> <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a>. The whole +passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a> opens, ‘imitatio per se ipsa non +sufficit.’ Quintilian first says that we, as well as those who have gone +before us, may make discoveries (cur igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a +nobis quod ante non fuerit?). Surely we are <ins class = "correction" +title = "text reads ‘uot’">not</ins> to confine ourselves to hard and +fast lines like servile copyists. +<span class = "pagenum">210</span> +Then he goes on to add in <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a> that we must surpass our models +(plus efficere eo quem sequimur), instead of resting content with mere +reproduction (id consequi quod imitamur): otherwise Livius Andronicus +would still be the prince of poets, we should still be sailing on rafts, +and painting would still be nothing more than the tracing of outlines. +The necessity for progress is first shown (§§4-6) by an appeal to the +example of the past, and by the unfruitful work of such painters as are +mere copyists: then in <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a> +poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for +the argument <i>ex contrario</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec8" id = "critII_sec8" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>. +<b>mansit</b>, Meister: <i>sit</i> codd.: <i>est</i> Fleckeisen (and +Halm): <i>fuit</i> Gensler.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec9" id = "critII_sec9" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>. +<b>adpetent</b> Bg HFT: <i>appetent</i> Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl. +&c.: <i>appetunt</i> N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.</p> + +<p><b>hoc agit</b> Halm, followed by Meister (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec4">7 §4</a>): <i>hoc ait</i> b H, +<i>om</i>. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>agit</i> (<i>sine +hoc</i>) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec10" id = "critII_sec10" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>. +<b>quaeque pares maxime</b> may be a gloss: it is found only in those +MSS. which give <i>simplicissimae</i> for <i>simillimae</i>: b H Harl. +4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.</p> + +<p><b>utique</b> (b M Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243 Bodl. Dorv.) may +also be suspected: it does not occur in Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, +4829, 11671.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec11" id = "critII_sec11" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec11"><b>§11</b></a>. +<b>orationibus</b>, Bg: Ioan, gives <i>oratione</i>: so also Voss. 1 and +3 (Zumpt).</p> + +<p><b>accommodatur</b> b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and +Meister: <i>commodatur</i> Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec12" id = "critII_sec12" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>. +<b>inventio vis</b> B Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>inventionis</i> b H Harl. +4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec13" id = "critII_sec13" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>. +<b>cum et</b>, ed. Colon. 1527: <i>et cum</i> B H Ioan. Prat. N (<i>et +quum</i>) M: <i>cum</i> Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of +this difficult passage <i>ut quorum ... collocata sunt</i> forms one +parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of +<i>intercidant invalescantque temporibus</i>. See <i>ad loc.</i></p> + +<p><b>accommodata sit</b>, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits +<i>sit</i>: <i>acc. est</i> Halm, followed by Hild (depending on +<i>prout</i>, not <i>cum</i>: see note <i>ad loc.</i>). Madvig’s +conjecture <i>accommodanda sit</i> is approved by Kiderlin (cp. ix. 4. +126 adeoque rebus accommodanda compositio). But the correctness of the +reading in the text (and also of the explanation given in the note <i>ad +loc.</i>) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence +carefully. To <i>cum et verba intercidant</i> corresponds exactly the +double clause <i>et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit</i> on the one +hand, and <i>et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima</i> (sc. +<i>sit</i>—repeated from <i>accommodata sit</i>) on the other. +This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by <i>cum ... tum</i>. To +take <i>accommodata sit</i> as depending on the <i>cum</i> which follows +<i>compositio</i> is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this +case an independent <i>sit</i> would have to be supplied with +<i>gratissima</i> (to make <i>et compositio ... gratissima sit</i> +correspond to <i>et verba intercidant</i> above): and the translation +would then be: ‘it is just when (<i>cum ... tum</i>), or exactly in +proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (<i>rebus accommodata</i>) +that the very variety (thereby secured) gives the arrangement its +greatest charm.’ But if this had been Quintilian’s meaning he would +surely have written <i>cum rebus accommodatur</i> (or—<i>ata +est</i>) <i>tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec14" id = "critII_sec14" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>. +<b>quos imitemur</b>. The D’Orville MS. gives <i>quos eligamus ad +imitandum</i>,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it +may explain the origin of the reading of b and H <i>quos at +imitandum</i>.</p> + +<p><b>quid sit ad quod nos</b>. The <i>ad</i> is due to Regius: most +codd. have <i>quid sit quod nos</i>, except Harl. 4995, which is again +in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2: +<i>quid sit quod nobis</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec15" id = "critII_sec15" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>. +<b>et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam</b>. The explanation given in the +notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however, +wished to insert <i>et</i> before <i>inter</i> +<span class = "pagenum">211</span> +<i>ipsos</i>. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl. +Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).</p> + +<p><b>dicunt</b>, Harl. 4995: <i>dicant</i> all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’ +(Halm).</p> + +<p><b>ut sic dixerim</b> Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9: +v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have <i>ut dixerim</i>. Halm wrote <i>ut ita +dixerim</i>, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but <i>ut sic</i> is more +common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec16" id = "critII_sec16" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16"><b>§16</b></a>. +<b>compositis exultantes</b>. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888, +p. 72) would prefer <i>compositis rigidi</i> (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii. +10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), <i>comptis</i> (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42) +<i>exultantes</i> = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend +putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is <i>laetis exultantes, +compositis corrupti</i> (Lindau): or <i>compositis exiles</i> +(Düntzner).</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec17" id = "critII_sec17" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>. +<b>quidlibet</b>, most codd.: <i>quamlibet</i> M, Vall. Harl. 4995, +4950: <i>qui licet</i> bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879, +p. 162) condemns <i>illud</i>, and would read either <i>quamlibet +frigidum</i> (cp. <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19">3 §19</a> and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet +apertum), or <i>quidlibet frigidum</i>, which latter is approved by +P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of <i>illud frigidum et +inane</i>, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on <a +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">§16</a>.</p> + +<p><b>Attici sunt scilicet</b>. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to +be preferred. The retention of <i>sunt</i> (represented in some MSS. by +a simple <i>s</i>,—hence the reading <i>Atticis scilicet</i>) +makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a <i>sunt</i> +after <i>qui praec. concl. obscuri</i>: in so loose a writer as +Quintilian the first <i>sunt</i> would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn +and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have +<i>Attici scilicet</i>: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives +<i>Atticis scilicet</i>. In the Ioannensis I find <i>Attici s</i> (for +<i>sunt</i>): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give <i>Atticis s. Scilicet</i> (om. +Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be <i>Attici sunt</i>. +Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give <i>Atticos scilicet</i> +(<i>Athicos</i> Harl. 4995): qy. <i>Atticorum similes</i>? (cp. Cic. +Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers <i>Atticis</i> (sc. <i>se pares +credunt</i>).</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec22" id = "critII_sec22" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>. +<b>proposito</b>. This conjecture by Gertz (Opuscula philol. &c., +p. 134) I have found in the Ioannensis (*ppo) and in Harl. +2662 and 11671. It is approved also by Kiderlin. BNHb Prat. Sal. give +<i>propositio</i>: all other codd. <i>proposita</i>. Perhaps we should +read (with Ioan.) <i>sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est</i>. +Prat. omits the second <i>est</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec23" id = "critII_sec23" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>. +<b>tenuitas aut iucunditas</b>, Halm and Meister: <i>tenuitas ac +iucunditas</i> b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: <i>tenuitas aut nuditas</i> N +Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>tenuitas ac nuditas</i> Prat. Harl. 4995, +4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: <i>aut iuditas</i> Bg.</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec25" id = "critII_sec25" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>. +<b>quid ergo? non est satis</b>, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly +afterwards, <i>mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem, +quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere?</i> (= <i>sed etiam +si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si +omnia haec consequi possem</i>).</p> + +<p><a name = "critII_sec28" id = "critII_sec28" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>. +<b>deerunt</b>, Francius: <i>deerant</i> (derant) all codd. Becher +defends <i>deerant</i>: ‘der Rhetor meint dass <i>qui propria bona +adiecerit</i> öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu +ergänzen als zu beschneiden <i>si quid redundabit</i>.’</p> + +<p><b>oporteat</b> bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: <i>oportebat</i> B +Prat. N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671 Burn. 244 Dorv. The +latter (which is adopted by Halm) would indicate (cp. viii. 4. 22) a +condition which ought to have been and may still be realised: the former +(adopted by Meister and approved by Becher) is the conjunctive +potential, and is quite in Quintilian’s manner (cp. xi. 2. 20): it +conveys the expression of a present duty and obligation, the realisation +of which may now be expected, and it connects also more intimately with +<i>erit</i> in the following sentence.</p> + + +<span class = "pagenum">212</span> +<h5><a name = "critIII" id = "critIII"> +CHAPTER III.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec1" id = "critIII_sec1" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>. +<b>nobis ipsis</b>, codd.: <i>e nobis ipsis</i> Gertz.</p> + +<p><b>utilitatis etiam</b>. Ioan. gives <i>etiam utilitatis</i>, which +Spalding quotes also from Goth.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec2" id = "critIII_sec2" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>alte refossa</b>. This (the reading of N) I have found also +in Ioan. and Prat.: <i>alter effossa</i> BH: <i>altius effossa</i> Harl. +4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.: <i>alte effossa</i> Harl. +2662, 11671.</p> + +<p><b>fecundior fit</b>. <i>Fit</i> appears as a correction in T and +Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662. +Perhaps <i>fecundior</i> is the true reading, and <i>est</i> is to be +supplied in thought: Introd. <a href = +"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelv">p. lv</a>.</p> + +<p><b>effundit</b> B Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.: <i>effunditur</i> +b H. <ins class = "correction" title = "anomalous boldface"><b>et +fundit</b></ins> Vall.<sup>2</sup> M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.</p> + +<p><b>parentis</b>: <i>parentium</i> Ioan.: <i>parentum</i> Dorv. Harl. +4950 Burn. 244 C: <i>parentibus</i> bH Bodl.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec4" id = "critIII_sec4" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>. +<b>iam hinc</b>. Obrecht <i>iam hunc</i>: see note <i>ad loc.</i> Harl. +2662 and 11671 agree in <i>iam hic</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec6" id = "critIII_sec6" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>. +<b>scriptorum</b>. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and +Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last +corr. from <i>-em</i>). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus), +and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec9" id = "critIII_sec9" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>. +<b>sequetur</b> Bn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671: +<i>persequetur</i> b Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: <i>prosequetur</i> HM Bodl. +and Prat. <i>Prosequetur</i> (Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is +a graphic touch about the compound.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec10" id = "critIII_sec10" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>. +<b>ut provideamus</b> obelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note. +Becher proposed <i>provideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus</i>: +Krüger suggests rather <i>resistamus et provideamus ut ... +coerceamus</i>: Jeep, <i>ut provide eamus</i>, also, for <i>efferentes +se</i>, <i>efferventes</i>. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin +(Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision +of <i>et</i> before <i>efferentes</i>, as it is found in no MS. He +translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu +schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell +schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir +innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir +gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considers <i>ut +provideamus</i> a necessary addition, in order to make the meaning of +<i>resistamus</i> clear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass +er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen, +welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt +werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. read <i>resist. ut +provid. efferentes equos frenis</i>: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 give <i>ut</i> +for <i>et</i>: Harl. 4995 has <i>resist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos +fr. quib. coerc.</i>: 4950 and Burn. 244 <i>resist. ut prohibeamus +efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc.</i> The reading <i>et efferentes +se</i> is due to Burmann. Something might be said for <i>et ferentes +se</i>: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious +pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec12" id = "critIII_sec12" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>. +<b>patruo</b>. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both give <i>patrono</i>: which, +with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the +Guelferbytanus (Spald.).</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec14" id = "critIII_sec14" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>. +<b>quod omni</b>, see note <i>ad loc.</i>: edd. vett <i>ex quo</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec15" id = "critIII_sec15" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>. +<b>plura et celerius</b> Prat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and +Ambrosianus ii. <i>Et</i> had escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister +follows, <i>plura celerius</i>.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">213</span> +<p><b>sed quid</b>: <i>sed</i> is supplied by the old edd., but does not +appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjectures <i>at</i>, which +may easily have slipped out after <i>obveniat</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec17" id = "critIII_sec17" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>. +<b>quae fuit</b>: (<i>manent</i>) <i>quae fudit</i> Harl. 4995 (as also +Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec19" id = "critIII_sec19" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>. +<b>urget</b>. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, +p. 86) his proposal to read <i>urgetur</i>, which would however +give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts +outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is +writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec20" id = "critIII_sec20" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>. +<b>in intellegendo</b>. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller +and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister: <i>legendo</i> +BM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See note <i>ad loc.</i> The true reading +may be <i>si tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo +velut offensator fuit</i>. This is supported by <i>et diligendo</i> (bH +Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjectured <i>et delendo</i>, +Gertz <i>in tenendo</i> (‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem +verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut +saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl. +4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) have <i>inertior</i> for +<i>incertior</i>: but this gives no antithesis to <i>tardior</i>: it +appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M) +have <i>fuerit</i>, for <i>fuit</i>, which may be right.</p> + +<p><b>concepta Regius</b>: <i>conceptae</i> codd. Becher points out that +<i>concipere</i> and <i>excutere</i> are ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib. +ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo +conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore +flammas.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec21" id = "critIII_sec21" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec21"><b>§21</b></a>. +<b>altiorem</b>. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed. +Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (<span class = +"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) and 11671 (<span class = +"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1467). B N Ioan, and other codd. +<i>aptiorem</i>: Prat. <i>apertiorem</i>, and so a later hand in +Vall.</p> + +<p><b>frontem et latus interim obiurgare</b>. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl. +2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all give <i>simul et +interim</i>: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.) +and Burn. 243 have <i>simul vertere latus et interim</i> (the reading of +many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omits <i>et</i>. It is to b that +we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and +b gives <i>sintieletus</i>, which H shows as <i>sintielatus</i>. +Considering how liable <i>s</i> (ſ) and <i>f</i> are to be confused, +I venture to think that <i>ſinti</i> may conceal <i>fronte</i>.</p> + +<p>Bursian’s <i>femur et latus</i> (Halm and Meister) is not so near the +MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quoted <i>ad loc.</i>), +but the latter passage would warrant <i>frontem</i> quite as much as +<i>femur</i>, and <i>frontem ferire</i> seems to have been considered by +Quintilian a more extravagant action than <i>femur ferire</i>, of which +he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In +any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if +alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his +thigh.’</p> + +<p>Frotscher and Bonnell’s <i>sinum et latus</i> cannot be supported by +any parallel for such an expression as <i>sinum caedere</i>, +<i>ferire</i>, <i>obiurgare</i>. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecture +<i>semet interim obiurgare</i>, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd +ed.) as = <i>increpare</i>: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium +sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’</p> + +<p>Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f. +d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines +of b) <i>singultire, latus int. ob.</i> This would need to be taken +of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer +addresses <span class = "greek" title = "pros hon thumon">πρὸς ὃν +θυμόν</span>, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers to +<i>singultantium</i> in <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec20">7 §20</a>, of broken utterance: but +we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is +not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be +indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s +presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggests <i>singultu latus interim +obiurgare</i>, comparing for the ablative <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">§15</a> cogitationem murmure agitantes. +<i>Singultus</i> is common +<span class = "pagenum">214</span> +enough: and Kiderlin thinks that as <i>singultire</i> is nearer the MSS. +than <i>singultare</i>, it may possibly have been used here by +Quintilian.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec22" id = "critIII_sec22" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>. +<b>secretum in dictando</b>. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl., +M, Dorv.: <i>quod dictando</i> BN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, +Burn. 244 (corr. to <i>in</i>). With the reading <i>quod dictando perit, +atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit</i> (Halm and Meister) it is +senseless to quote <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec20">2 §20</a> (Bonn., Meister, and +Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) reads <i>secretum dictando perit. +Atque liberum arbitris</i>, &c.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec23" id = "critIII_sec23" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>. +<b>mihi certe iucundus</b>. After these words H has <i>videmoni</i> (and +so the cod. Alm.): Flor. <i>vindemoni</i>. This word greatly puzzled +Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions +of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it into <i>mihi certe <b>vitae +inani</b> iucundus</i>, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr. +L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He +thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage +about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on +Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesie <i>vinum +daemonum</i>.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright +tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus +propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to +Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these +quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert. +&c. c. 4. Hence the phrase <i>vinum daemonum</i> may have been +compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as +seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in +the Bambergensis four lines further down, where <i>tendere ani</i>(mum) +is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec24" id = "critIII_sec24" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24"><b>§24</b></a>. +<b>ramis</b>, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in +Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other +codd. <i>rami</i>.</p> + +<p><b>voluptas ista videatur</b> most codd.: <i>videatur ista +voluptas</i> N.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec25" id = "critIII_sec25" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>. +<b>oculi</b>. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex +quo nulla exaudiri vox that <i>aures aut</i> has fallen out before +<i>oculi</i>. Cp. <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec28">§28</a> +nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.</p> + +<p><b>velut tectos</b>: <i>velut rectos</i> all codd. There is the same +confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M has <i>recteque</i> for <i>tecteque</i> +(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgate <i>tectos</i> +(first in ed. Leid.) see <i>ad loc.</i> Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. +Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that for <i>tectos +teneat</i> we should have expected <i>tegat</i>. The figure also seems +to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an +enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away +from his task: <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23">§23</a> +<i>avocent</i>, <i>respexit</i>: <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24">§24</a> <i>ad se trahunt</i>: <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25">§25</a> <i>aliud agere</i>. He +proposes, therefore, <i>velut recto itinere</i>, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut +vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et +recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt. <i>Itinere</i> may first have +fallen out, and then <i>recto</i> may have been changed to +<i>rectos</i>.—Halm conjectured <i>velut secretos</i>, or +<i>coercitos</i>; Wrobel, <i>velut relictos</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec26" id = "critIII_sec26" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26"><b>§26</b></a>. +<b>haud deerit</b>: <i>aut deerit</i> BN Ioan, and all codd. except a +later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent +use of <i>haud</i> in Quintilian, though <i>haud dubie</i> <a href = +"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">1 §85</a> (where however GH have +<i>aut</i>) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on +the consensus of the MSS. for <i>aut</i> he proposes to read <i>aut non +deerit</i> or <i>aut certe non deerit</i>. But <i>haud</i> goes closely +with <i>deerit</i>, and does not (like <i>non</i>, <i>ac non</i>) +introduce an antithesis to <i>supererit</i>. <i>Aut deerit</i> might be +made to mean that the <i>sleepless</i> man is to work: but this would be +too cruel!</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec29" id = "critIII_sec29" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec29"><b>§29</b></a>. +<b>et itinere deerremus</b>: <i>et ita ne</i> BN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, +11671, Dorv. and Ball.: <i>ita erremus</i> HMb Bodl. (<i>erramus</i>). +The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old +editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec31" id = "critIII_sec31" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec31"><b>§31</b></a>. +<b>crebra relatione</b> appears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected from +<i>crebro relationi</i> which is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd. +Jeep suggested <i>crebra dilatione</i>, +<span class = "pagenum">215</span> +Kiderlin <i>crebriore elatione</i>. Other proposals are <i>crebra +relictionis</i>, <i>q. i. c., repetitione</i>, Gottfried Hermann (in +Frotscher), <i>crebra relictione</i>, <i>q. i. c., et repetitione</i>, +Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinks <i>crebro</i> may be +right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives: +<i>crebro</i> would then go closely with <i>morantur</i> and +<i>frangunt</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critIII_sec32" id = "critIII_sec32" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32"><ins class = "correction" +title = "line reference missing"><b>§32</b></ins></a>. +<b>adiciendo</b> ‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and +Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. have <i>adicienda</i>: b +<i>adiciendi sint</i>: Harl. <i>adjiciendi sit</i>. Meister adopts +<i>adicienti</i> from ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo +cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B has +<i>cognoscendi</i>).</p> + +<p><b>ultra modum esse ceras velim</b>: Ioan, omits <i>esse</i>, and is +thus in agreement with N.</p> + + +<h5><a name = "critIV" id = "critIV"> +CHAPTER IV.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critIV_sec3" id = "critIV_sec3" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>. +<b>habet</b>: <i>habeat</i>, Halm quoting from ed. Camp. <i>Habeat</i> +occurs in Burn. 243: most codd. have <i>habet</i>, but some (H and +Bodl.) give <i>habent</i>.</p> + + +<h5><a name = "critV" id = "critV"> +CHAPTER V.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec1" id = "critV_sec1" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>. +<b><span class = "greek" title = "hexin">ἕξιν</span> parantibus</b>: for +the <i>ex imparantibus</i> of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added <i>non est +huius</i>. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives <i>nec exuberantis id quidem est +operis ut explicemus</i>.</p> + +<p><b>factum est iam</b>, Halm and Meister: <i>est etiam</i> all codd. +except Ioan, which has <i>factum etiam</i>.</p> + +<p><b>iam robustorum</b>: so all codd. except bHFT which omit +<i>iam</i>: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give <i>iam +robustiorum</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec2" id = "critV_sec2" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>id Messallae</b>: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however +give <i>M. id Messalae</i>: and Harl. 4995 <i>Marco id Messalae</i>. The +spelling <i>Messallae</i> is adopted in the text as more correct.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec4" id = "critV_sec4" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>. +<b>eadem</b>: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger +(3rd ed.): <i>eandem</i> all codd., with the single exception of M, and +so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the +meaning. The only way to explain <i>eandem</i> seems to be to continue +the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. +eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an +elevating influence, while his licences of style <i>do not carry with +them in advance</i>, or <i>involve</i>, the corresponding ability to use +the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ +This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also +Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no <i>non</i> with <i>praesumunt</i>, +at least if we may read <i>eadem</i>: ‘poetical licence implies that the +orator can say the same things <i>propriis verbis</i>.’ Bursian +suggested <i>nec</i> (for <i>et</i>) <i>verba</i> ... +<i>praesumunt</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec5" id = "critV_sec5" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>. +<b>post quod</b>. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2, +<i>praeter quod</i>: so Vall.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec13" id = "critV_sec13" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>. +<b>reus sit</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. <i>rectene reus +sit</i>, to correspond with <i>rectene occiderit</i> and <i>honestene +tradiderit</i> in what follows: along with Gertz’s <i>quaeramus, an</i> +to correspond with <i>veniat in iudicium an</i>, Becher, however +(Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a +change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, +‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui +... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, +‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod +<span class = "pagenum">216</span> +Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of +parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.</p> + +<p>Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit +insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, +so here the <i>finita</i> or <i>specialis causa</i> shows the form of a +positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca. +<i>Reus sit</i> and <i>legerit</i> are motived only by the disjunctive +interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or +only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The <i>infinita quaestio</i>, on +the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a +question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following +<i>finitae</i> and <i>infinitae quaestiones</i>. The <i>finita +quaestio</i> rests on the <i>generalis quaestio</i>: acquittal of the +charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to <i>violeturne</i>, +&c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) +Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, +&c.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec14" id = "critV_sec14" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>. +<b>dum adulescit profectus</b>, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, +Ball.: <i>inventus</i> Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj. +<i>invenis</i> appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. <i>dum adul. +profectui sunt util.</i></p> + +<p><b>quia inventionem</b>, Halm: <i>quae inventionem</i> all codd. Qy. +<i>quod</i>?</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec16" id = "critV_sec16" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec16"><b>§16</b></a><ins class = +"correction" title = "period missing">. +</ins><b>materia fuerit</b>. Meister suggests <i>erit</i>: perhaps +rather <i>fuerit—necesse erit</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec17" id = "critV_sec17" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>. +<b>assuescere</b> Zumpt: <i>assuefieri</i> Philander. All MSS. have +<i>assuefacere</i>. Frotscher wrote <i>inanibus</i> se <i>simulacris ... +assuefacere</i>, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. +Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give <i>difficilis digressus</i>: +but in view of the consensus for <i>assuefacere</i> the alternation +<i>difficilius digressos</i> (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) +is worth considering: <i>inanibus simulacris</i> would then go (though +awkwardly) with <i>detineri</i> (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and +the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec18" id = "critV_sec18" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>. +<b>transferrentur</b> N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec20" id = "critV_sec20" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>. +<b>decretoriis</b> Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: +Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) <i>derectoriis</i> BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244: +<i>detectoris</i> b: <i>delectoris</i> H: <i>delectoriis</i> Bodl.: +<i>de rhetoriis</i> Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: <i>vel +rhetoricis</i> M.</p> + +<p><b>satis</b> so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 <i>litis</i>: Hb +<i>sitis</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec21" id = "critV_sec21" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec21"><b>§21</b></a>. +<b>idoneus</b> bHM: <i>si idoneus</i> Bn Bg Sal.: <i>sudoneus</i> N: +<i>is idoneus</i> Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec22" id = "critV_sec22" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>. +<b>sustinere</b> Halm and Meister: <i>sustineri</i> Bn Bg HN Sal.</p> + +<p><b>recidet</b> occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a +correction in Vall.: all other codd. <i>recidere</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critV_sec23" id = "critV_sec23" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>. +<b>diligenter effecta</b> all codd. Regius proposed <i>una diligenter +effecta</i>, Badius <i>una enim diligenter effecta</i>, and so many edd. +<i>Una</i> would come in well before <i>quam</i>; but Becher rightly +holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative +alone, but qualitative as well. He reports <i>una enim</i> as a +correction in the Vallensis.</p> + +<p><b>quidque</b>. Fleckeisen proposed <i>quicquid</i>; see Madvig on de +Fin. v. §24.</p> + + +<h5><a name = "critVI" id = "critVI"> +CHAPTER VI.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critVI_sec1" id = "critVI_sec1" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>. +<b>vacui nec otium patitur</b>. The reading in the text, which is quite +satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg give +<i>vacuum otium pat.</i>, and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and +11671. For <i>otium patitur</i> b (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable +reading <i>experientium</i> (<i>experientiam</i> Burn. 243, Bodl.), +which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true +reading perhaps be <i>nec <span class = "greek" title = +"hexin">ἕξιν</span> parantibus otium patitur</i>? Jeep suggested +<i>expetit otium</i>: <i>nec perire otium patitur</i> has also been +suggested.</p> + +<span class = "pagenum">217</span> +<p><a name = "critVI_sec2" id = "critVI_sec2" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>desit</b>. After this word there is a considerable space left blank +in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671. +In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic +deficit antiquus codex.’</p> + +<p><b>inhaeret ... quod laxatur</b>: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and +Krüger. BMN give <i>inhaeret ... quae laxatur</i>, which appears in ed. +Camp. (and Halm) as <i>inhaerent ... quae laxantur</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVI_sec4" id = "critVI_sec4" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>. +<b>tandem</b> Madvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61, <i>tamen</i> libri.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVI_sec5" id = "critVI_sec5" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>. +<b>redire</b>. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, +and restore it to the text, in place of <i>regredi</i> (Halm and +Meister), which seems to have arisen out of <i>redi</i> HF, and occurs +in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVI_sec6" id = "critVI_sec6" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>. +<b>domo</b> Harl. 4995: <i>domū</i> B Ioan. MN Sal.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVI_sec7" id = "critVI_sec7" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>. +<b>utrimque</b> Bonnell and Meister. The codd. give <i>utrumque</i>. +Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposed <i>utcumque</i>: +Spalding <i>utique</i>: Jeep <i>si tutius utcumque quaerendum est</i> +(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of b <i>strict</i> +* * * (<i>margine adcisa</i>), which reappears in HFT +(<i>strictius—strutius</i>).</p> + + +<h5><a name = "critVII" id = "critVII"> +CHAPTER VII.</a></h5> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec1" id = "critVII_sec1" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>. +<b>praemium quoddam</b> Harl. 4995, probably following a correction in +the Vallensis: <i>primus quid amplius</i> Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl. +2662, 4950. <i>Amplissimum</i> Stoer.</p> + +<p><b>intrare portum</b> Bn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts +Meiser’s conj. <i>instar portus</i>. On this reading the advocate who +has nothing but (<i>solam</i>) the <i>scribendi facultas</i>, and who +therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which +seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing +to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is +calm, and so not <i>praesentissimis quibusque periculis</i>. Neither of +the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that +the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions are +<i>monstrare portum</i>: <i>instaurare p.</i>: and <i>in terra +portum</i> (?) Jeep.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec2" id = "critVII_sec2" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>. +<b>statimque</b>. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: see +<i>ad loc.</i> The editors print <i>statimque, si non succ.</i></p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec3" id = "critVII_sec3" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>. +<b>quae vero patitur</b>, &c. In the text <i>possit</i> (for +<i>sit</i> of MSS.) is due to Frotscher, <i>omittere</i> (for +<i>mittere</i>) to Bonnell. <i>Ratio</i> (for <i>oratio</i> Bn Bg H +Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz, +reads <i>quae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando? +mitto casus: quid</i>, &c. <i>Aliquando</i> he takes as = ‘only +sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit). +For <i>mitto casus</i> (‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2. +25.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec5" id = "critVII_sec5" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>. +<b>quid secundum ac deinceps</b>: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point +to this reading, though Halm and Meister print <i>ac sec. et deinc</i>. +Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) have <i>ac sec. ac dein.</i>: but +in Bg above the first <i>ac</i> the letter <i>d</i> appears (evidently +for <i>quid</i>, not <i>ad</i> as H), and over the second +<i>ac</i>, <i>et</i> is written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the +first <i>ac</i> Harl. 2662 gives <i>atque</i>, and so Spalding reports +Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis +also has <i>quid secundum</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec6" id = "critVII_sec6" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>. +<b>via dicet ducetur</b>, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244: <i>ducet +ducetur</i> Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variant <i>viam +discet</i> (as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts +the words, reading <i>ducetur</i>, <i>dicet</i> to avoid a ‘tautology’: +cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changed <i>ducetur</i> into +<i>utetur</i>. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wrote <i>ducetur +... velut duce</i>, and suggests that <i>certa</i> may have fallen +<span class = "pagenum">218</span> +out after <i>serie</i> (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he +thinks, additional point to the clause introduced by <i>propter +quod</i>: men who have had but little practice do not always speak +methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in +keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events +is ‘a trusty guide.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec8" id = "critVII_sec8" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>. +<b>paulum</b>, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.: +<i>paululum</i> bHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.</p> + +<p><b>sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit</b>, Halm, by adding <i>os</i> +to the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995). <i>sed ipsum os quoque +concurrit</i>, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I find <i>sed id +ipsum coit atque conc.</i>, which may show that we ought to read <i>os +ipsum</i>.</p> + +<p><b>elocutioni</b>, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio +an recte,’ Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec9" id = "critVII_sec9" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>. +<b>observatione una</b>, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister: +<i>observationen</i> (<i>-nū</i> Bg) <i>in luna</i> Bn Bg Ioan. N Sal. +Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: <i>observatione</i> (<i>-um</i> H) <i>in +una</i> bH: <i>observatione simul</i> Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec13" id = "critVII_sec13" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>. +<b>superfluere video, cum eo quod</b>, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald. +and most edd.: <i>superfluere video: quodsi</i> Halm, and a later hand +in Vall. (Becher): <i>videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsi</i> Meister, +followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading is +<i>superfluere cum eo quod</i> (BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, +11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from which <i>video</i> seems to have +disappeared: the later hand in Bg gives <i>videantur</i>.</p> + +<p>Meister seems to be right in retaining <i>cum eo quod</i>, though his +adoption of <i>videmus</i> for <i>video</i> is unnecessary, considering +<i>mirabor</i> in the same sentence. <i>Cum eo quod</i> (see <i>ad +loc.</i>) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle, +1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable that <i>video</i> +dropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corrupto <i>cumeo</i> +latet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo +quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att. +vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation in +<i>quodsi</i> (‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported +Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the +whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten +Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft, +dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages +erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu +Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the +text.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec14" id = "critVII_sec14" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>. +<b>ut Cicero dictitabant</b>. The reading is far from certain, but it +seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in +agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best +alternative is <i>ut Cicero dicit aiebant</i> (C, Par. 1, also in margin +of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 give <i>dicit +agebant</i>, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived +probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake for +<i>dictitabant</i>. Bg gives <i>dictabant</i>: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2, +Par. 2, sec. m. <i>aiebant</i>: Regius conjectured <i>ut Cicero ait +dictitabant</i>: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the +inclusion of Cicero among the <i>veteres</i> cp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes +veteres et Cicero praecipue.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec16" id = "critVII_sec16" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16"><ins class = "correction" +title = "line reference missing"><b>§16</b></ins></a>. +<b>tum intendendus</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets <i>tum</i> (which +is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain, +like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after +the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ... +non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before +(omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also +the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus. +H. 2662 gives <i>tamen</i> (and is here again in agreement with +Guelf.).</p> + +<p><b>addit ad dicendum</b>, B: <i>addiscendum</i> (om. <i>addit</i>) +bHFT. The loss of <i>addit</i> seems to have given rise to +interpolation: M shows <i>addit ad discendum stimulos habet et +dicendorum expectata laus</i>. Bonnell prints <i>Ad dic. etiam pudor +stim. habet et dic. exp. aus</i>: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst. +cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefanda +<span class = "pagenum">219</span> +viii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore +dicendis inseri possit.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec17" id = "critVII_sec17" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>. +<b>pretium</b>, all codd.: <i>praemium</i> Halm, following Regius.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec18" id = "critVII_sec18" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>. +<b>praecepimus</b>, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and +Vall.<sup>2</sup>: other codd. <i>praecipimus</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec19" id = "critVII_sec19" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>. +<b>cum ... sint consecuti</b> bHM: <i>cum ... sunt consecuti</i> Bn +Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here, +as at <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6">2 §6</a> +(<i>tradiderunt</i>), where see note. Here <i>cum</i> is more or less +causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are +no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to +acquire <i>extemporalis facilitas</i> must consider it his duty to +arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.</p> + +<p>Gertz put a full stop at <i>tutior</i>, and for <i>cum</i> read +<i>quin</i>, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. with +<i>extemporalis facilitas</i> as subject), <i>potest</i> would be +expected instead of <i>debet</i>. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s +third edition. H. J. Müller suggested <i>Nam ... sunt +consecuti</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec20" id = "critVII_sec20" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>. +<b>tanta esse umquam debet</b>. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod. +Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’s +<i>tanta sit umquam</i>. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 give <i>tanta esse +umquam fiducia</i>: M has <i>tantam esse umquam fiduciam</i>: Vall. +<i>esse unquam tantam fid.</i>: Harl. 4995 <i>esse tantam unquam</i>. +Regius made the addition of <i>velim</i> after <i>facilitatis</i>: +Becher thinks it may have dropped out before <i>ut non</i>. Meister +follows: perhaps rather <i>tantam velim</i> (t<sup>m</sup>) <i>esse +unquam</i>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec22" id = "critVII_sec22" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>. +<b>consequi</b>, Spald.: <i>non sequi</i> bH: <i>sequi</i> MC Harl. +4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it, +explaining <i>utrumque non dabitur</i> as ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis +intendere.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec23" id = "critVII_sec23" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>. +<b>satis</b> Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result +of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela +et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec24" id = "critVII_sec24" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24"><b>§24</b></a>. +<b>non labitur</b>. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading +(which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is +undoubtedly better than <i>non capitur</i>, which occurs in Bn Bg H +Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister. +<i>Capitur</i> is explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to +such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente +captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand. +Another reading is <i>rapitur</i>, which Halm thought might be right: +but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context, +though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4 +a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem. +Hild suggests <i>animo</i> (or <i>mente</i>) <i>non labitur</i>: Jeep +<i>non carpitur</i> (cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere +quod potest carpi): Becher <i>non abit</i> (cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis +vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation: <i>non +cadit</i> might stand alongside of Becher’s <i>non abit</i>, or such a +future as <i>servabitur</i> or <i>retinebitur</i> could take the place +of the negation, though we should then look for <i>deperdet</i> instead +of <i>deperdit</i>.</p> + +<p><b>non omnino</b> B and codd.: <i>omnino non</i> Gesner, followed by +Halm.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec25" id = "critVII_sec25" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>. +<b>est alia exercitatio</b>, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829, +11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>est illa</i> BH +Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.: <i>est et illa</i> Spalding Halm and Meister (cp. +ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).</p> + +<p><b>utilior</b> (Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd. +vett.’) Vall.<sup>2</sup>, Harl. 4995: all other codd. <i>utilitatis</i> +(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis<ins class = "correction" title = "punctuation unchanged">?).</ins> In support of his proposal to read <i>maioris +utilitatis</i>, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90) +compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60 +quod est sane summae difficultatis.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec26" id = "critVII_sec26" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec26"><b>§26</b></a>. +<b>quam illa</b>: so all codd. Gertz <i>quam in illa</i> (sc. +exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s +Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zu <i>componitur</i> +<span class = "pagenum">220</span> +ist Subjekt <i>exercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio</i> +(<i>dum tamen ... ipsum</i>) <i>persequendi</i>, d.h. dem Sinne nach +<i>tacita oratio</i>, wie <i>dum t. q. dicat i. s. i.</i> zeigt, zu +<i>illa</i> ist Subjekt <i>vera oratio</i>; <i>componitur oratio</i> +aber ist nicht auffälliger als <i>explicatur exercitatio</i>.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec27" id = "critVII_sec27" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec27"><b>§27</b></a>. +<b>ut Cicero ... tradit</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in +transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, after +<i>ubique</i>. Becher rejects it as a gloss.</p> + +<p><b>aut legendum</b> b M: om. BN Sal.: <i>vel ad legendum</i> Vall. +Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned +only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it +promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec28" id = "critVII_sec28" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>. +<b>innatans</b> Stoer: <i>unatrans</i> BN Ioan. Sal.: <i>inatrans</i> +bH: <i>iura trans</i> Harl. 2662: <i>intrans</i> FM +Vall.<sup>2</sup>.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec29" id = "critVII_sec29" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec29"><b>§29</b></a>. +<b>an si</b>, Meister (following ed. Camp.): <i>ac si</i> bHFT Burn. +243: <i>an</i> Bn Bg M.</p> + +<p><b>debent</b>, all codd.: <i>debemus</i> Krüger (3rd ed.) after +Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the +participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’ +&c.</p> + +<p><b>sic dicere</b>. The grounds on which I base this emendation are +stated in the note <i>ad loc.</i> Bn Bg HN and most codd. have +<i>inicere</i>, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the +repetition of the letters <i>-ic</i> in what I take to be the original +text, whereupon the preceding <i>tamen</i> (or <i>tam̅</i>) would assist +the transition to <i>in</i>icere. Cp. the omission of <i>sic</i> in most +codd. in <i>ut sic d<span class = "extended">ix</span>erim</i> <a href = +"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a>. Halm (after Bursian) +wrote <i>id efficere</i>, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations +are <i>vincere</i> M, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.<sup>2</sup>: <i>tantum +iniicere</i> Harl. 4995: <i>inniti</i> or <i>adniti</i> edd.: <i>id +agere</i> Badius: <i>evincere</i> Törnebladh.</p> + +<p><a name = "critVII_sec32" id = "critVII_sec32" +href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec32"><b>§32</b></a>. +<b>et in his</b>: <i>in his</i> Halm and Meister: <i>ne in his</i> BN +Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.: <i>ne in iis</i> Harl. 2662: <i>vel in iis</i> +Spald.: <i>vel in his</i> Bonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture +on <i>et</i>, which seems to help the antithesis with <i>in hoc +genere</i> above: v. <i>ad loc.</i></p> + +<p><b>velut summas ... conferre</b>. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm, +Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly: <i>vel in summas +in</i> (<i>sine</i> bH: <i>sive</i> Harl. 4995) <i>commentarium</i> Bn +Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662: <i>velin summas et</i> (suprascr. <i>in</i>) +<i>commentarium</i> N: <i>vel insinuamus sine commendarios</i> M: +<i>commentarioram et capita</i> Harl. 4950. Other conjectural +emendations are <i>velut in summas commentarium</i> Spald.: <i>mihi quae +scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf.</i> Zumpt: <i>nec in his +quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferri</i> +Frotscher; <i>vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas</i> (cp. Liv. xl. 29. +11 lectis rerum summis) <i>in commentarios conferre</i> Jeep: <i>ex iis +quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre</i>, +Zambaldi,—(on the ground that with <i>conferre</i>, <i>ex his</i> +gives a better sense than <i>in his</i>). To these may perhaps be added +<i>et in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita +conferre</i>.</p> + +<p>In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin +discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS. +(<i>ne in his</i>) he proposes <i>ne in his quae scripserimus +erremus</i>: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir +geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use of <i>errare</i> +xi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above for +<i>vel in summas</i> on the ground that it is impossible to explain +‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of +‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt +in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte +einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’ +be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not +in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte +aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den +Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’ +Lindner’s is even less satisfactory: +<span class = "pagenum">221</span> +‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den +Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’</p> + +<p>Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice +was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the +elimination of the unmeaning <i>et</i> which wrongly conjoins +<i>commentarium</i> and <i>capita</i>. Again as <i>summa</i> and +<i>caput</i> are synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi. +1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and the <i>vel</i> +in <i>vel in summas</i> seems to show that these words were originally a +marginal gloss to explain (<i>in</i>) <i>capita</i>. Kiderlin therefore +proposes to transform the text as follows: <i>ne in his quae +scripserimus <b>erremus</b></i> [<i>vel in summas</i>] <i>in +commentarium capita conferre.</i></p> + +<p><b>quod non simus</b>, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger +(3rd ed.): <i>quod simus</i> Bn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm: <i>non +simus</i> bHT Bodl. In explanation of <i>quod simus</i> Spalding says +‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’; +and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by +writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the +written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’</p> + +<p><b>hic quoque</b>, Bn Bg and most codd.: <i>hoc quoque</i> Harl. +4995: <i>id quoque</i> bHM.</p> + +</div> <!-- crit --> + + +<hr class = "spacer"> + +<div class = "contents"> + +<p><a href = "../main.html">Preface</a></p> + +<p><a href = "QuintIntro.html">Introduction</a></p> + +<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p> + +<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p> + +<p><a href = "#toc3">Critical Notes</a> <i>top</i></p> +</div> + + +</body> +</html> + |