1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Quintilian X: Introduction</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">
<p><a href = "../main.html#preface">Preface</a></p>
<p class = "space">
Introduction:</p>
<p><a href = "#intro_chapI"> I. Life of Quintilian</a></p>
<p><a href = "#intro_chapII"> II. The Institutio Oratoria</a></p>
<p><a href = "#intro_chapIII">III. Quintilian’s Literary
Criticism</a></p>
<p><a href = "#intro_chapIV">IV. Style and Language</a></p>
<p><a href = "#intro_chapV"> V. Manuscripts</a></p>
<p class = "space">
<a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p>
<p>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p>
<p>
<a href = "QuintCrit.html">Critical Notes</a></p>
</div>
<div class = "intro">
<!-- page numbering starts over -->
<span class = "pagenum">i</span>
<a name = "intro_pagei" id = "intro_pagei"> </a>
<h4><a name = "intro" id = "intro">
INTRODUCTION.</a></h4>
<p class = "line"> </p>
<h5><a name = "intro_chapI" id = "intro_chapI">I.</a><br>
Life of Quintilian.</h5>
<p><span class = "smallcaps">It</span> would be possible to state in a
very few lines all that is certainly known about Quintilian’s personal
history; but much would remain to be said in order to convey an adequate
idea of the large place he must have filled in the era of which he is so
typical a representative. The period of his activity at Rome is nearly
co-extensive with the reign of the Flavian emperors,—Vespasian,
Titus, and Domitian. For twenty years he was the recognised head of the
teaching profession in the capital, and a large proportion of those who
came to maturity in the days of Trajan and Hadrian must have received
their intellectual training in his school. It is in itself a sign of the
tendencies of the age that Quintilian should have enjoyed the immediate
patronage of the reigning emperor in the conduct of work which would
formerly have attracted little notice. In earlier days the profession of
teaching had been held in low repute at Rome<a class = "tag" name =
"tag1" id = "tag1" href = "#note1">1</a>. The first attempt to open a
school of rhetoric, in <span class = "smallroman">B.C.</span> 94, was
looked on with the greatest suspicion and disfavour. Even Cicero adopts
a tone of apology in the rhetorical text-books which he wrote for the
instruction of others. But now all was changed, and education had come
to be, as it was in a still greater degree under Nerva, Trajan, and the
Antonines, a department of the government itself. Vespasian was the
founder of a new dynasty; and, though he had little culture to boast of
himself, he was shrewd enough to appreciate the advantages to be derived
from systematising the education of the Roman youth, and maintaining
friendly relations
<span class = "pagenum">ii</span>
<a name = "intro_pageii" id = "intro_pageii"> </a>
with those to whom it was entrusted. Quintilian, for his part, seems to
have diligently seconded, in the scholastic sphere, his patron’s efforts
to efface the memory of the time of trouble and unrest which had
followed the extinction of the Julian line in the person of Nero. After
his retirement from the active duties of his profession, he received the
consular insignia from Domitian,—the promotion of a teacher of
rhetoric to the highest dignity in the State being regarded as a most
unexampled phenomenon by the conservative opinion of the day, which had
failed to recognise the significance of the alliance between prince and
pedagogue. The interest with which the publication of the <i>Institutio
Oratorio</i> was looked forward to, at the close of his laborious
professional career, is sufficient evidence of the authoritative
position Quintilian had gained for himself at Rome. It was a tribute not
only to the successful teacher, but also to the man of letters who,
conscious that his was an age of literary decadence, sought to probe the
causes of the national decline and to counteract its evil
influences.</p>
<p>Like so many of the distinguished men of his time, Quintilian was a
Spaniard by birth. There must have been something in the Spanish
national character that rendered the inhabitants of that country
peculiarly susceptible to the influences of Roman culture: certainly no
province assimilated more rapidly than Spain the civilisation of its
conquerors. The expansion of Rome may be clearly traced in the history
of her literature. Just as Italy, rather than the imperial city itself,
had supplied the court of Augustus with its chiefest literary ornaments,
so now Spain sends up to the centre of attraction for all things Roman a
band of authors united, if by nothing else, at least by the ties of a
common origin. Pomponius Mela is said to have come from a place called
Cingentera, on the bay of Algesiras; Columella was a native of Gades,
Martial of Bilbilis; the two Senecas and Lucan were born in Corduba. The
emperor Trajan came from Italica, near Seville; while Hadrian belonged
to a family which had long been settled there. Quintilian’s birthplace
was the town of Calagurris (Calahorra) on the Ebro, memorable in
previous history only for the resistance which it enabled Sertorius to
offer to Metellus and Pompeius: it was the last place that submitted
after the murder of the insurgent general in <span class =
"smallroman">B.C.</span> 72.</p>
<p>In most of the older editions of Quintilian an anonymous Life
appears, the author of which (probably either Omnibonus Leonicenus or
Laurentius Valla) prefers a conjecture of his own to the ‘books of the
time,’ and makes out that Quintilian was born in Rome. His main argument
is that Martial does not include his name among those of the
distinguished authors to whom he refers as being of Spanish origin (e.g.
Epigr. i.
<span class = "pagenum">iii</span>
<a name = "intro_pageiii" id = "intro_pageiii"> </a>
61 and 49), though he addresses him separately in complimentary terms
(Epigr. ii. 90). Against this we may set, however, the line in which
Ausonius embodies what was evidently a well-known and accepted tradition
(Prof. i. 7):—</p>
<p class = "poem ital">Adserat usque licet Fabium Calagurris
alumnum;</p>
<p>and the statement of Hieronymus in the <i>Eusebian
Chronicle:—<ins class = "correction" title =
"text reads ‘Quinti/tilianus’ at line break">Quintilianus</ins>, ex Hispania
Calagurritanus, primus Romae publicam scholam</i> [<i>aperuit</i>]. The
latter extract carries additional weight if we accept the conjecture of
Reifferscheid<a class = "tag" name = "tag2" id = "tag2" href =
"#note2">2</a> that Jerome here follows the authority of Suetonius
(Roth, p. 272) in his work on the grammarians and rhetoricians.</p>
<p>The fact of Quintilian’s Spanish origin may therefore be regarded as
fully established, though we cannot cite the authority of Quintilian
himself on the subject. His removal to Rome, at a very early period of
his life, would naturally make him more of a Roman than a Spaniard; and
this is probably the reason why he nowhere refers to the accident of his
birth-place. Indeed his work does not lend itself to autobiographical
revelations. Most of his reminiscences, some of which occur in the Tenth
Book (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23">1 §§23</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">86</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec12">3 §12</a>: cp. v. 7, 7: vi. 1,
14: xii. 11, 3) are suggested by some detail connected with his
subject. Apart from the famous introduction to Book VI, where his grief
for the loss of his wife and two sons is allowed to interrupt the
continuity of his argument, he speaks of his father only once (ix.
3, 73), and then simply to quote, not without some diffidence,
a <i>bon mot</i> of his in illustration of a figure of speech. The
father was himself a rhetorician, and seems to have taught the subject
both at Calagurris and also after the family removed to Rome: whether he
is identical with the Quintilianus mentioned as a declaimer of moderate
reputation by the elder Seneca (Controv. x. praef. 2: cp. ib.
33, 19) cannot now be ascertained.</p>
<p>The date of Quintilian’s birth has been variously given as <span
class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 42, <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 38, and <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span>
35, the last being now most commonly adopted. It cannot be determined
with certainty, though a few considerations may here be adduced to show
why it seems necessary to discard any theory that would put it after
<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 38. Dodwell, in his ‘Annales
Quintilianei’ (see Burmann’s edition, vol. ii. p. 1117), arrived at
the year <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 42, after a careful
examination of all the passages on which he thought it allowable to base
an inference. But Quintilian tells us himself that he was a young man
(<i>nobis adulescentibus</i> vi. 1, 14) at the trial of Cossutianus
Capito,
<span class = "pagenum">iv</span>
<a name = "intro_pageiv" id = "intro_pageiv"> </a>
which we know from Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 33) took place in <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 57: a fact which is in itself enough to show
that Dodwell is at least two years too late. Another indication is
derived from the references which Quintilian makes to his teacher
Domitius Afer, who is known to have died at a ripe old age in <span
class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 59: cp. xii. 11, 3 <i>vidi ego ...
Domitium Afrum valde senem</i>: v. 7, 7 <i>quem adulescentulus senem
colui</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">1, 86</a> <i>quae ex Afro
Domitio iuvenis excepi</i>. Unfortunately we do not know the date of the
trial of Volusenus Catulus referred to in x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23">1, 23</a>: Quintilian was a
boy at the time (<i>nobis pueris</i>). In the preface to Book VI he
writes like an old man: this appears especially in the reference he
makes to the wife whom he had lost and who was only
nineteen,—<i>aetate tam puellari praesertim meae comparata</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec5">§5</a>. If we may infer that
Quintilian was nearer sixty than fifty when he wrote these words, in
<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 93 or 94, we may be certain that
he was born not later than <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 38,
and probably two or three years earlier.</p>
<p>Quintilian received his early education at Rome, and his father’s
position as a teacher of rhetoric, as well as the whole tendency of the
education of the day, no doubt gave it a rhetorical turn from the very
first. Even boys at school practised declamation, as may be seen from
the following passage of the <i>Institutio</i>:—</p>
<p>‘<i>Non inutilem scio servatum esse a praeceptoribus meis morem, qui
cum pueros in classes distribuerant, ordinem dicendi secundum vires
ingenii dabant; et ita superiore loco quisque declamabat ut praecedere
profectu videbatur. Huius rei iudicia praebebantur: ea nobis ingens
palma, ducere vero classem multo pulcherrimum. Nec de hoc semel decretum
erat: tricesimus dies reddebat victo certaminis potestatem. Ita nec
superior successu curam remittebat, et dolor victum ad depellendam
ignominiam concitabat. Id nobis acriores ad studia dicendi faces
subdidisse quam exhortationem docentium, paedagogorum custodiam, vota
parentium, quantum animi mei coniectura colligere possum,
contenderim.</i>’—i. 2, 23-25.</p>
<p>The same style of exercise was kept up at a later stage, when the boy
passed into the hands of a professed teacher of rhetoric, such as the
notorious Remmius Palaemon, who is said by the scholiast on Juvenal (vi.
451) to have been Quintilian’s master:—</p>
<p>‘<i>Solebant praeceptores mei neque inutili et nobis etiam iucundo
genere exercitationis praeparare nos coniecturalibus causis, cum
quaerere atque exsequi iuberent “cur armata apud Lacedaemonios Venus” et
“quid ita crederetur Cupido puer atque volucer et sagittis ac face
armatus” et similia, in quibus scrutabamur voluntatem.</i>’—ii.
4, 26.</p>
<p>He now came into contact with, and listened to the eloquence of, the
most celebrated orators of the day. In his relations with the greatest
of
<span class = "pagenum">v</span>
<a name = "intro_pagev" id = "intro_pagev"> </a>
these, Domitius Afer, Quintilian seems to have acted on the maxim which
he himself lays down for the budding advocate: <i>oratorem sibi aliquem,
quod apud maiores fieri solebat, deligat, quem sequatur, quem
imitetur</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec19">5, 19</a>. To Afer he
attached himself (<i>adsectabar Domitium Afrum</i> Plin. Ep. ii.
14, 10), and was in all probability by him initiated in the
business of the law-courts and public life generally: cp. v. 7, 7
<i>adulescentulus senem colui</i> (<i>Domitium</i>). In this passage
Afer is said to have written two books on the examination of witnesses;
and from vi. 3, 42 it would appear that his ‘dicta’ or witticisms were
sufficiently distinguished to merit the honour of publication. He had
held high office under Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, and his
pre-eminence at the bar was undisputed: xii. 11, 3 <i>principem fuisse
quondam fori non erat dubium</i>. In his review of Latin oratory,
Quintilian gives him high praise: <i>arte et toto genere dicendi
praeferendus, et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec118">1, 118</a>. The pupil was
fortunate therefore in his master, and he drew upon his reminiscences of
Afer’s teaching when he himself came to instruct others (Plin. l.c.).
Among other notable orators of the day were Servilius Nonianus (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec102">1, 102</a>), Iulius
Africanus (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec118">1, 118</a>: xii.
10, 11), Iulius Secundus (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec120">1, 120</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec12">3, 12</a>: xii. 10, 11),
Galerius Trachalus (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec119">1, 119</a>: xii.
10, 11), and Vibius Crispus (ibid.).</p>
<p>When he was about twenty-five years of age some motive induced
Quintilian to return to Calagurris, his native town; and there he spent
several years in the practice of his profession as teacher and
barrister. We know that he came back to Rome with Galba in <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 68: the evidence for this is again the
statement made by Hieronymus in the Eusebian Chronicle,
<i>M. Fabius Quintilianus Romam a Galba perducitur</i>. Galba had
been governor of Hispania Tarraconensis under Nero (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 61-68), and it is not improbable that
Quintilian, when he returned to his native country, was in some way
attached to his official retinue; the numerous <i>bons mots</i> which he
records in the third chapter of the Sixth Book (§§62, 64, 66,
80, 90) seem to point to a certain amount of personal intercourse
between himself and the future emperor<a class = "tag" name = "tag3" id
= "tag3" href = "#note3">3</a>.</p>
<p>At Rome Quintilian must soon have proved himself thoroughly qualified
for the work of teaching and training the young. The imperial
countenance afterwards shown him by Vespasian was in all probability
only an official expression of the esteem felt in the Roman community
for one who was serving with such distinction in a sphere of which the
importance was coming now to be more adequately recognised. Quintilian
was not only a learned man and a great teacher: he was a great
<span class = "pagenum">vi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagevi" id = "intro_pagevi"> </a>
moral power in the midst of a people which had long been demoralised by
the vices of its rulers. The fundamental principle of his teaching,
<i>non posse oratorem esse nisi virum bonum</i> (i. pr. §9 and
xii. 1), shows the high ideal he cherished and the wide view he
took of the opportunities of his position. He felt himself strong enough
to make a protest against the literary influence of Seneca, then the
popular favourite, and to endeavour to recall a vitiated taste to more
rigorous standards: <i>corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo</i> (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec125">1, 125</a>). And when, in
the evening of his days, he wrote his great treatise on the ‘technical
training’ of the orator, it was from himself and his own successful
practice that he drew many of his most cogent illustrations, e.g. vi. 2,
36, and (in regard to his powers of memory) xi. 2, 39 and iv.
2, 86.</p>
<p>In the earlier years of his career at Rome, before he became absorbed
in the work of teaching, Quintilian must have had a considerable amount
of practice at the bar. He tells us himself of a speech which he
published, <i>ductus iuvenali cupiditate gloriae</i> viii. 2, 24. It was
of a common type. A certain Naevius Arpinianus was accused of
having killed his wife, who had fallen from a window; and we may infer
with certainty from the tone of Quintilian’s reference to the
circumstances of the case that he succeeded in securing the acquittal of
Naevius—more fortunate than the wife-killer of whom we read in
Tacitus (Ann. iv. 22). A more distinguished cause was that of
Berenice, the Jewish Queen before whom St. Paul appeared (Acts xxv.
13), and whose subsequent visit to Rome was connected with the
ascendency she had established over the heart of the youthful Titus
(Tac. Hist. ii. 2: Suet. Tit. 7). We can only speculate on the
nature of the issue involved, as Quintilian confines himself to a bare
statement of fact—<i>ego pro regina Berenice apud ipsam causam
dixi</i> iv. 1, 19. It was in all probability a civil suit brought or
defended by Berenice against some Jewish countryman; and the phenomenon
of the queen herself presiding over a trial in which she was an
interested party is accounted for by the hypothesis that, at least in
civil suits, Roman tolerance allowed the Jews to settle their own
disputes according to their national law. On such occasions the person
of highest rank in the community to which the disputants belonged might
naturally be designated to preside over the tribunal<a class = "tag"
name = "tag4" id = "tag4" href = "#note4">4</a>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">vii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagevii" id = "intro_pagevii"> </a>
<p>In another case, Quintilian seems to have shown some of the dexterity
attributed to him in the oft-quoted line of Juvenal (vi. 280) <i>Dic
aliquem, sodes, dic, Quintiliane, colorem</i>. He was counsel for a
woman who had been party to an arrangement by which the provisions of
the Voconian law (passed <span class = "smallroman">B.C.</span> 169 to
prevent the accumulation of property in the hands of females) had been
evaded by the not uncommon method of a fraudulent disposition to a third
person<a class = "tag" name = "tag5" id = "tag5" href = "#note5">5</a>.
Quintilian’s client was accused of having produced a forged will. This
charge it was easy to rebut, though it rendered necessary the
explanation that the heirs named in the will had really undertaken to
hand the property over to the woman; and if this explanation were openly
given it would involve the loss of the estate. There is an evident tone
of satisfaction in Quintiiian’s description of what happened: <i>ita
ergo fuit nobis agendum ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores
non possent adprehendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque</i> (ix.
2, 74).</p>
<p>Unlike his great model Cicero, who was considered most effective in
the <i>peroratio</i> of a great case, where the work was divided among
several pleaders, Quintilian was generally relied on to state a case
(<i>ponere causam</i>) in its main lines for subsequent elaboration:
<i>me certe, quantacunque nostris experimentis habenda est fides,
fecisse hoc in foro, quotiens ita desiderabat utilitas, probantibus et
eruditis et iis qui iudicabant, scio: et (quod non adroganter dixerim,
quia sunt plurimi quibuscum egi qui me refellere possint si mentiar)
fere a me ponendae causae officium exigebatur</i> iv. 2, 86. His
methodical habit of mind would render him specially effective for this
department of work. Other orators may have been more brilliant, more
full of fire, and more able to work upon the feelings of an audience: if
Quintilian had not the ‘grand style’—if he represents the type of
an orator that is ‘made’ rather than ‘born’—we may at least
believe that he was unsurpassed for judicious, moderate, and effective
statement. His model in this as in other matters was probably Domitius
Afer, of whom Pliny says (Ep. ii. 14, 10) <i>apud decemviros
dicebat graviter et lente, hoc enim illi actionis genus erat</i>. His
character and training would secure him a place apart from the common
herd. ‘Among the orators of the day, some ignorant and coarse, having
left mean occupations, without any preliminary study, for the bar, where
they made up in audacity for lack of talent, and in noisy conceit for a
defective knowledge
<span class = "pagenum">viii</span>
<a name = "intro_pageviii" id = "intro_pageviii"> </a>
of law—others trained in the practice of delation to every form of
trickery and violence—Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood
by himself<a class = "tag" name = "tag6" id = "tag6" href =
"#note6">6</a><ins class = "correction" title = "text has double quote">.’</ins></p>
<p>It was after Quintilian had attained some distinction in the practice
of his profession, probably in the year 72, that his activity became
invested with an official and public character. We learn the facts from
Suetonius’s Life of Vespasian (ch. 18): <i>primus e fisco latinis
graecisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit</i>: and the Eusebian
chronicle (see Roth’s Suetonius, p. 272), <i>Quintilianus, ex
Hispania Calagurritanus, qui primus Romae publicam</i>
(‘state-supported’) <i>scholam</i> [<i>aperuit</i>] <i>et salarium e
fisco accepit, claruit</i>—the zenith of his fame being placed
between the years 85 and 89 <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span>
Vespasian, in fact, created and endowed a professorial Chair of
Rhetoric, and Quintilian was its first occupant. He thus became the
official head of the foremost school of oratory at Rome, and the
‘supreme controller of its restless youth’:</p>
<div class = "poem ital">
<p>Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae,</p>
<p>Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae.
<span class = "plaintext">—Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.</span></p>
</div>
<p>In this capacity he must have exercised the greatest possible
influence on the rising youth of Rome. The younger Pliny was his pupil,
and evidently retained a grateful memory of the instruction which he
received from him: Ep. ii. 14, 9 and vi. 6, 3. The same is true, in
all probability, of Pliny’s friend Tacitus, who has much in common with
Quintilian: possibly also of Suetonius. If Juvenal was not actually his
pupil,—he is believed to have practised declamation till well on
in life,—we may infer from the complimentary references which
occur in his Satires that he at least appreciated Quintilian’s work and
recognised its healthy influence<a class = "tag" name = "tag7" id =
"tag7" href = "#note7">7</a><ins class = "correction" title = "period missing">. </ins></p>
<p>After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty
years<a class = "tag" name = "tag8" id = "tag8" href = "#note8">8</a>,
Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading at
<span class = "pagenum">ix</span>
<a name = "intro_pageix" id = "intro_pageix"> </a>
the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model, Domitius
Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier (xii.
11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still
be missed,—<i>et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et
in foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum
desideraremur</i>, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the
practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into
retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a
treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for
which the <i>Institutio Oratoria</i> was afterwards to provide a remedy.
It was entitled <i>De causis corruptae eloquentiae</i>, and was long
confounded with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he
refers to this work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4,
42: v. 12, 23: vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 76<a class = "tag" name =
"tag9" id = "tag9" href = "#note9">9</a>. This treatise is no longer
extant, and we have lost also the two books <i>Artis Rhetoricae</i>,
which were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), <i>neque
editi a me neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum
habitum pueri quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane
diebus, quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed
nimium amantes mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant</i><a class =
"tag" name = "tag10" id = "tag10" href = "#note10">10</a>. In a recent
edition of the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani
declamationes quae supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter
endeavours to show that this is the work referred to in the passage
quoted above, from the preface to the <i>Institutio</i>: cp. Die
Quintilianischen Declamationen, Freiburg i.B., und
<span class = "pagenum">x</span>
<a name = "intro_pagex" id = "intro_pagex"> </a>
Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.<a class = "tag" name = "tag11" id = "tag11"
href = "#note11">11</a> Meister’s view, however, is that, like the
‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally admitted to have been
composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’ also were written
subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more probably) by
imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend their
compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy professional
days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate publishers: he
tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in circulation
under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely his own:
<i>nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia excipientium
in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei habent</i>.</p>
<p>While living in retirement, and engaged on the composition of his
work, Quintilian received a fresh mark of Imperial favour, this time
from Domitian. This prince had adopted two grand-nephews, whom he
destined to succeed him on the throne,—the children of his niece
Flavia Domitilla, and of Flavius Clemens, a cousin whom he associated
with himself about this time in the duties of the consulship. They were
rechristened Vespasian and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and the care of
their education was entrusted to Quintilian (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 93). He accepted it with fulsome expressions of
gratitude and appreciation<a class = "tag" name = "tag12" id = "tag12"
href = "#note12">12</a>; but did not exercise it for long<a class =
"tag" name = "tag13" id = "tag13" href = "#note13">13</a>, as the
children, with their parents, became the victims of the tyrant’s
capriciousness shortly before his murder, and were ruined as rapidly as
they had risen. Flavius Clemens was put to death, and his wife
Domitilla, probably accompanied by her two sons, was sent into exile.
They seem to have embraced the Jewish faith; and it is interesting to
speculate on the possibility that through intercourse with them, and
with their children, Quintilian may have come into contact with a
religion which was the forerunner of that which was destined soon
afterwards to achieve so universal a triumph.</p>
<p>It was while he was acting as tutor to the two princes that
Quintilian received, through the influence of their father Flavius
Clemens, the compliment of the consular insignia. This we learn from
Ausonius, himself the recipient of a similar favour from his pupil
Gratian: <i>Quintilianus per Clementem ornamenta consularia sortitus,
honestamenta nominis potius videtur quam insignia potestatis
habuisse</i>. It was probably in allusion to
<span class = "pagenum">xi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexi" id = "intro_pagexi"> </a>
this promotion, unexampled at that time in the case of a teacher of
rhetoric, that Juvenal wrote (vii. 197-8)—</p>
<div class = "poem ital">
<p>Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul;</p>
<p>Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:</p>
</div>
<p>while another parallel is chronicled by Pliny, Ep. iv. 11, 1
<i>praetorius hic modo ... nunc eo decidit ut exsul de senatore, rhetor
de oratore fieret. Itaque ipse in praefatione dixit dolenter el
graviter: ‘quos tibi Fortuna, ludos facis?’ facis enim ex professoribus
senatores, ex senatoribus professores.</i></p>
<p>The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and
similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably
manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear
that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an
‘upright guardian of morals’ (<i>sanctissimus censor</i> iv. pr. §3),
even when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There
may have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian,
like Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical
productions are said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and
his attachment to literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he
instituted in honour of Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which
rhetorical, musical, and artistic contests were a prominent feature (see
on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91">1, 91</a>). But this is no
justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in the
introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as the
protecting deity of literary men: <i>ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia
eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis
propitium numen est</i>; nor for his profession of belief that nothing
but the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the
greatest poet of Rome: <i>Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis
deflexit cura terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum
poetarum</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91">1, 91</a> sq. Few would
recognise Domitian in the following reference: <i>laudandum in quibusdam
quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute sint
consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum
decus fecit</i> iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially
explained by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the
circumstances of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age:
Quintilian shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and
Valerius Flaccus. The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal
maintained during the horrors of this reign is a better expression of
the virtue of old Rome, which seems to have burned with steadier flame
in the hearts of her genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’
<span class = "pagenum">xii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexii" id = "intro_pagexii"> </a>
from the provinces, with neither pride of family nor pride of
nationality to save them from the corrupting influences of their
surroundings<a class = "tag" name = "tag14" id = "tag14" href =
"#note14">14</a>.</p>
<p>That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and
partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made
by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are
the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when
compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks
off,—<i>unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus?</i> How does it
come about (if his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns
so many estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this
conundrum is that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a
lucky man, and your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good
quality in himself, and can expect everything<a class = "tag" name =
"tag15" id = "tag15" href = "#note15">15</a>.’ We must remember however,
that, while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his
profession, no charge is made against him as having placed his abilities
at the disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under
Nero, Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of
Thrasea, and received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33):
if Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal
would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as
with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were
counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the
memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the <i>Institutio</i> would
perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a
testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless
widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl
whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he
had lost a daughter rather than a wife: <i>cum omni virtute quae in
feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam
puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter
vulnera orbitatis</i> vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger
of whom did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year
when he died. The father now concentrated all his affection
<span class = "pagenum">xiii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexiii" id = "intro_pagexiii"> </a>
on the elder, and it was with his education in view that he made all
haste to complete his great work, which he considered would be the best
inheritance he could leave to him,—<i>hanc optimum partem
relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit,
fata intercepissent, praeceptore tamen patre uteretur</i> ib. §1. But
the blow again descended, and his house was desolate: <i>at me fortuna
id agentem diebus ac noctibus festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita
subito prostravit ut laboris mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me
pertineret. Illum enim, de quo summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam
senectutis reponebam, repetito vulnere orbitatis amisi</i> ib. §2.</p>
<p>This would be about the year 94 <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span>, and the <i>Institutio Oratoria</i> is said to
have seen the light in 95. After that we hear no more of Quintilian.
Domitian was assassinated in 96, and under the new <i>régime</i> it is
possible that the favourite of the Flavian emperors may have been under
a cloud. But his work was done; even if he lived on for a few years
longer in retirement, his career had virtually closed with the
publication of his great treatise. It used to be believed that he lived
into the reign of Hadrian, and died about 118 <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span>, but this idea is founded on a misconception<a
class = "tag" name = "tag16" id = "tag16" href = "#note16">16</a>.
Probably he did not even see the accession of Nerva in 96: if he did, he
must have died soon afterwards, for there are two letters of Pliny’s
(one written between 97 and 100, and the other about 105) in which Pliny
does not speak of his old teacher as of one still alive.</p>
<hr class = "mid">
<h5><a name = "intro_chapII" id = "intro_chapII">II.</a><br>
The Institutio Oratoria.</h5>
<p>Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition
of the <i>Institutio Oratorio</i>, his work really embodies the
experience of a
<span class = "pagenum">xiv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexiv" id = "intro_pagexiv"> </a>
lifetime. No doubt much of it lay ready to his hand, even before he
began to write, and he would willingly have kept it longer; but the
solicitations of Trypho, the publisher, were too much for him. His
letter to Trypho shows that he fully appreciated the magnitude of his
task; and there is even the suggestion that (like many a busy teacher
since his time) he only realised when called upon to publish that he had
not covered the whole ground of his subject<a class = "tag" name =
"tag17" id = "tag17" href = "#note17">17</a>. The opening words of the
introduction (<i>post impetratam studiis meis quietem, quae per viginti
annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam</i>, &c.) show that the
<i>Institutio</i> was the work of his retirement: and various
indications lead us to fix the date of its composition as falling
between <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 93 and 95. The
introduction to the Fourth Book was evidently written when (probably in
93) Domitian had appointed Quintilian tutor to his grand-nephews; the
Sixth Book, where he refers to his family losses, must have followed
shortly afterwards; while the harshness of his references to the
philosophers in the concluding portions of the work (cp. xi. 1, 30, xii.
3, 11, with 1, pr. 15, which may have been written, or at least revised,
after the rest was finished) seems to suggest that their expulsion by
Domitian (in 94) was already an accomplished fact<a class = "tag" name =
"tag18" id = "tag18" href = "#note18">18</a>. The book is dedicated to
Victorius Marcellus, to whom Statius also addresses the Fourth Book of
his <i>Silvae</i>, evidently as to a person of some consideration and an
orator of repute (cp. Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 8, and 41 sq.). Marcellus had a
son called Geta (Inst. Or. i. pr. 6: Stat. Silv. iv. 4, 71), and it
was originally with a view to the education of this youth (<i>erudiendo
Getae tuo</i>) that Quintilian associated the father’s name with his
work. Geta is again referred to, along with Quintilian’s elder son, and
also the grand-nephews of Domitian, in the introduction to the Fourth
Book; but the opening words of the Sixth Book show that they are all
gone, and the epilogue, at the conclusion of Book xii, is addressed to
Marcellus on behoof of ‘studiosi iuvenes’ in general.</p>
<p>The plan of the <i>Institutio Oratorio</i> cannot be better given
than in its author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): <i>Liber primus ea quae
sunt ante officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem
elementa et quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus,
quinque deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur)
quattuor elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt,
dabuntur. Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui
mores eius, quae in
<span class = "pagenum">xv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexv" id = "intro_pagexv"> </a>
suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod eloquentiae genus,
quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem studia, quantum nostra
valebit infirmitas, disseremus.</i> The first book deals with what the
pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician; it gives an account
of home-training and school discipline, and contains also a statement of
Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book treats of rhetoric in
general: the choice of a proper instructor, as well as his character and
function, and the nature, principles, aims, and use of oratory. It is in
these early books especially that Quintilian reveals the high tone which
has made him an authority on educational morals, as well as rhetorical
training: see especially i. 2, 8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum,
<i>maxima debetur puero reverentia</i>; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates
gentle and conciliatory methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,—a
picture of the ideal teacher in language which might be applied to
Quintilian himself<a class = "tag" name = "tag19" id = "tag19" href =
"#note19">19</a>. The remaining books, except the twelfth, are devoted
to the five ‘parts of rhetoric,’—invention, arrangement, style,
memory, and delivery (Cic. de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we
have a classification of the different kinds of oratory. Next he treats
of the ‘different divisions of a speech, the purpose of the exordium,
the proper form of a statement of facts, what constitutes the force of
proofs, either in confirming our own assertions or refuting those of our
adversary, and of the different powers of the peroration, whether it be
regarded as a summary of the arguments previously used, or as a means of
exciting the feelings of the judge rather than of refreshing his
memory<ins class = "correction" title = "close quote misprinted after next footnote tag">.’</ins> This brings us to the end of the sixth book,
which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and of altercation<a
class = "tag" name = "tag20" id = "tag20" href = "#note20">20</a>. The
discussion of arrangement finishes with the seventh book, which is
extremely technical: style (<i>elocutio</i>) is the main subject of the
four books which follow. Of these the eighth and ninth treat of the
elements of a good style,—such as perspicuity, ornament, &c.;
the tenth of the practical studies and exercises (including a course of
reading) by which the actual command of these elements may be obtained;
while the eleventh deals with appropriateness (i.e. the different kinds
of oratory which suit different audiences), memory, and delivery. The
twelfth book—which Quintilian calls the most grave and important
part of the whole work—treats of the high moral qualifications
requisite in the perfect orator:
<span class = "pagenum">xvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexvi" id = "intro_pagexvi"> </a>
just as the first book, introductory to the whole, describes the early
training which should precede the technical studies of the orator, so
the last book sets forth that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is
their crown and conclusion<a class = "tag" name = "tag21" id = "tag21"
href = "#note21">21</a>. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice
when the public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end.
Even then his activity will not come to an end. He will write the
history of his times, will explain the law to those who consult him,
will write, like Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set
forth the highest principles of morality. The young men will throng
round and consult him as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot.
What can be more honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has
a thorough knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator
ought not to be thought happiest at that period of his life when,
sequestered from the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by
envy, and remote from strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour
of safety, experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more
commonly offered after death, and observing how his character will be
regarded by posterity<a class = "tag" name = "tag22" id = "tag22" href =
"#note22">22</a>.’”</p>
<p class = "space">
The <i>Institutio Oratoria</i> differs from all other previous
rhetorical treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It
is a complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to
the public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is
the <i>vir bonus dicendi peritus</i>, Quintilian considers it necessary
to take him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards
both goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore
for us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on
education in general, and on rhetorical education in particular.
Throughout the whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which
everything is undertaken,—the goal to which the entire moral and
intellectual training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s
high conception of his subject is reflected in the language of the
‘Dialogue on Oratory’: <i>Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel
ad utilitatem fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem
amplius vel ad urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium
gentium notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest</i> (ch. 5). Though
the field for the practical display of eloquence had been greatly
limited by
<span class = "pagenum">xvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexvii" id = "intro_pagexvii"> </a>
the extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric
represented, in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the
Romans what <span class = "greek" title = "mousikê">μουσική</span> was
to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because of its
eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must therefore be
fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture: there is no
form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted for his
purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in education.
He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over preliminary
cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming in the
schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops all
the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no
parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the
illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet,
that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of
necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is
necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle
and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of
a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing
to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient
culture in all its forms<a class = "tag" name = "tag23" id = "tag23"
href = "#note23">23</a>.”</p>
<p>It is in connection with the general rather than with the technical
training of his pupils that Quintilian establishes a claim to rank with
the highest educational authorities,—as for example in his
insistence on the necessity of good example both at home<a class = "tag"
name = "tag24" id = "tag24" href = "#note24">24</a> and in school, and
on the respect due to the young<a class = "tag" name = "tag25" id =
"tag25" href = "#note25">25</a>, as well as his catalogue of the
qualifications required in the trainer of youth (ii. 2, 5: 4, 10),
his protest against corporal punishment (i. 3, 14), and his
consistent advocacy of the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of
education. His system was conceived as a remedy for the existing state
of things at Rome, where eloquence and the arts in general had, as
Messalla puts it in the ‘Dialogue on Oratory,’ “declined from their
ancient glory, not from the dearth of men, but from the indolence of the
young, the carelessness of parents, the ignorance of teachers, and
neglect of the old discipline<a class = "tag" name = "tag26" id =
"tag26" href = "#note26">26</a>.” Under it parents and teachers were to
be united in the effort to develop the moral and intellectual qualities
of the Roman youth: and through education the state was to recover
something of her old vigour and virtue.</p>
<p>The work was expected with the greatest interest before its
publication, and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to
Quintilian in the
<span class = "pagenum">xviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexviii" id = "intro_pagexviii"> </a>
literature of the period, that it long held an honoured place in Roman
schools. But it is curious that the earliest known references are not to
the <i>Institutio</i> but to the <i>Declamationes</i>. In an interesting
chapter of the Introduction to a recent volume<a class = "tag" name =
"tag27" id = "tag27" href = "#note27">27</a>, M. Fierville has
gathered together all the references that occur in the literature of the
early centuries of our era. Trebellius Pollio and Lactantius (both of
the 3rd century) speak of the Declamations, and Ausonius (4th century)
refers to Quintilian without naming his writings: the first definite
mention of the <i>Institutio</i> is made by Hilary of Poitiers (died
367) and afterwards by St. Jerome (died 420). Later Cassiodorus
(468-562) pronounced a eulogy which may stand as proof of his high
appreciation: <i>Quintilianus tamen doctor egregius, qui post fluvios
Tullianos singulariter valuit implere quae docuit, virum bonum dicendi
peritum a prima aetate suscipiens, per cunctas artes ac disciplinas
nobilium litterarum erudiendum esse monstravit, quem merito ad
defendendum totius civitatis vota requirerent</i> (de Arte
Rhetor.—Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p. 498). The Ars Rhetorica
of Julius Victor (6th century) is largely borrowed from Quintilian: see
Halm, praef. p. ix. Isidore, Bishop of Seville (570-630), studied
Quintilian in conjunction with Aristotle and Cicero. After the Dark Age,
Poggio’s discovery, at St. Gall in 1416, of a complete manuscript
of Quintilian was ranked as one of the most important literary events in
what we know now as the era of the Renaissance<a class = "tag" name =
"tag28" id = "tag28" href = "#note28">28</a>. The great scholars of the
fifteenth century worked hard at the emendation of the text. The
<i>editio princeps</i> was given to the world by G. A. Campani in
1470; and in the concluding words of his preface the editor reflects
something of the enthusiasm for his author which had already been
expressed by Petrarch, Poggio, and others,—<i>proinde de
Quintiliano sic habe, post unam beatissimam et unicam felicitatem
M. Tullii, quae fastigii loco suspicienda est omnibus et tamquam
adoranda, hunc unum esse quem praecipuum habere possis in eloquentia
ducem: quem si assequeris, quidquid tibi deerit ad cumulum
consummationis id a natura desiderabis non ab arte deposces</i>. This
edition was followed in rapid succession by various others, so that by
the end of the 16th century Quintilian had been edited a hundred times
over<a class = "tag" name = "tag29" id = "tag29" href =
"#note29">29</a>. The 17th century is not so rich in editions, but
Quintilian still reigned in the schools as the great master of rhetoric:
students of English literature
<span class = "pagenum">xix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexix" id = "intro_pagexix"> </a>
will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the authority of his name when
referring to the roughness of northern nomenclature:—</p>
<div class = "poem">
<p>Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek</p>
<p>That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.</p>
</div>
<p>In his ‘Tractate on Education’ too Milton strongly recommends the
first two or three books of the <i>Institutio</i>. The 18th century
provided the notable editions of Burmann (1720), Capperonier (1725),
Gesner (1738), and witnessed also the commencement of Spalding’s
(1798-1816), whose text, as revised by Zumpt and Bonnell, practically
held the field till the publication of Halm’s critical edition (1868).
Towards the close of last century it would appear that Quintilian was as
much studied as he had ever been,—probably by many who believed
in, as well as by some who would have rejected the application of the
maxim ‘<i>orator</i> nascitur non fit.’ William Pitt, for example,
shortly after his arrival at Cambridge (1773), and while ‘still bent on
his main object of oratorical excellence,’ attended a course of lectures
on Quintilian, which caused him on one occasion to interrupt his
correspondence with his father<a class = "tag" name = "tag30" id =
"tag30" href = "#note30">30</a>. His lasting popularity must have been
due, not only to his own intrinsic merits, but to the fact that his
writings harmonised well with the studies of those days: it was promoted
also by the serviceable abridgments of the <i>Institutio</i>, either in
whole or in part, that were from time to time published,—notably
that of Ch. Rollin in 1715. In our own day men whose education was
moulded on the old lines—such as J. S. Mill—considered
Quintilian an indispensable part of a scholar’s equipment. Macaulay read
him in India, along with the rest of classical literature. Lord
Beaconsfield professed that he was ‘very fond of Quintilian<a class =
"tag" name = "tag31" id = "tag31" href = "#note31">31</a>.’ But by our
classical scholars he has been almost entirely neglected, no complete
edition having appeared in this country since a revised text was issued
in London in 1822. German criticism, on the other hand, has of late paid
Quintilian special attention, with conspicuous results for the
emendation and illustration of his text: to the great names of Spalding,
Zumpt, and Bonnell, must be added those of Halm, Meister, Becher,
Wölfflin, and Kiderlin.</p>
<p class = "space">
Besides the literary criticism for which it has always attracted
attention, and which will form the subject of the next section, the
Tenth Book of the <i>Institutio</i> contains valuable precepts in regard
to various practical matters which are still of as great importance as
they were in Quintilian’s day. Among these are the practice of writing,
the use of an amanuensis,
<span class = "pagenum">xx</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexx" id = "intro_pagexx"> </a>
the art of revision, the limits of imitation, the best exercises in
style, the advantages of preparation, and the faculty of
improvisation.</p>
<p>The following list of <span class = "smallcaps">Loci
Memoriales</span> (mainly taken from Krüger’s third edition, pp.
108-110) will give some idea of the various points on which, especially
in the later chapters of the Tenth Book, Quintilian states his opinion
weightily and often with epigrammatic terseness:</p>
<div class = "inset">
<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec112">1 §112</a>
(p. 110) Ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero valde placebit.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">2 §4</a>
(p. 124) Pigri est ingenii contentum esse iis quae sint ab aliis
inventa.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">2 §7</a>
(p. 125) Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id consequi quod
imiteris.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec8">2 §8</a>
(p. 126) Nulla mansit ars qualis inventa est, nec intra initium
stetit.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2 §10</a>
(pp. 126-7) Eum vero nemo potest aequare cuius vestigiis sibi utique
insistendum putat; necesse est enim semper sit posterior qui
sequitur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2 §10</a>
(p. 127) Plerumque facilius est plus facere quam idem.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12">2 §12</a>
(ibid.) Ea quae in oratore maxima sunt imitabilia non sunt, ingenium,
inventio, vis, facilitas, et quidquid arte non traditur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec18">2 §18</a>
(p. 131) Noveram quosdam qui se pulchre expressisse genus illud
caelestis huius in dicendo viri sibi viderentur, si in clausula
posuissent ‘esse videatur.’</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec20">2 §20</a>
(p. 132) (Praeceptor) rector est alienorum ingeniorum atque formator.
Difficilius est naturam suam fingere.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec22">2 §22</a>
(ibid.) Sua cuique proposito lex, suus decor est.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec24">2 §24</a>
(p. 134) Non qui maxime imitandus, et solus imitandus est.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3 §2</a>
(p. 136) Scribendum ergo quam diligentissime et quam plurimum. Nam ut
terra alte refossa generandis alendisque seminibus fecundior fit, sic
profectus non a summo petitus studiorum fructus effundit uberius et
fidelius continet.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3 §2</a>
(p. 137) Verba in labris nascentia.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec3">3 §3</a>
(ibid.) Vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et
usu non exhauriantur. Nihil enim rerum ipsa natura voluit magnum effici
cito, praeposuitque pulcherrimo cuique operi difficultatem.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec7">3 §7</a>
(p. 139) Omnia nostra dum nascuntur placent, alioqui nec
scriberentur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec9">3 §9</a>
(ibid.) Primum hoc constituendum, hoc obtinendum est, ut quam optime
scribamus: celeritatem dabit consuetudo.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec10">3 §10</a>
(ibid.) Summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit ut bene scribatur,
bene scribendo fit ut cito.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">3 §15</a>
(p. 142) Curandum est ut quam optime dicamus, dicendum tamen pro
facultate.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec22">3 §22</a>
(p. 146) Secretum in dictando perit.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xxi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxi" id = "intro_pagexxi"> </a>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3 §26</a>
(p. 148) Cui (acerrimo labori) non plus inrogandum est quam quod somno
supererit, haud deerit.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec27">3 §27</a>
(ibid.) Abunde, si vacet, lucis spatia sufficiunt: occupatos in noctem
necessitas agit. Est tamen lucubratio, quotiens ad eam integri ac
refecti venimus, optimum secreti genus.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec29">3 §29</a>
(ibid.) Non est indulgendum causis desidiae. Nam si non nisi refecti,
non nisi hilares, non nisi omnibus aliis curis vacantes studendum
existimarimus, semper erit propter quod nobis ignoscamus.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec31">3 §31</a>
(p. 149) Nihil in studiis parvum est.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec1">4 §1</a>
(p. 151) Emendatio, pars studiorum longe utilissima; neque enim sine
causa creditum est stilum non minus agere, cum delet. Huius autem operis
est adicere, detrahere, mutare.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec4">4 §4</a>
(p. 152) Sit ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe quod sufficiat, ut
opus poliat lima, non exterat.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec23">5 §23</a>
(p. 166) Diligenter effecta (sc. materia) plus proderit quam plures
inchoatae et quasi degustatae.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6 §1</a>
(p. 167) Haec (sc. cogitatio) inter medios rerum actus aliquid invenit
vacui nec otium patitur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec2">6 §2</a>
(p. 168) Memoriae quoque plerumque inhaeret fidelius quod nulla
scribendi securitate laxatur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec5">6 §5</a>
(ibid.) Sed si forte aliqui inter dicendum effulserit extemporalis
color, non superstitiose cogitatis demum est inhaerendum.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a>
(p. 169) Refutare temporis munera longe stultissimum est.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a>
(ibid.) Extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem
cogitationem.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a>
(p. 170) Maximus vero studiorum fructus est et velut praemium quoddam
amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec4">7 §4</a>
(p. 171) Perisse profecto confitendum est praeteritum laborem, cui
semper idem laborandum est. Neque ego hoc ago ut ex tempore dicere
malit, sed ut possit.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec12">7 §12</a>
(p. 175) Mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi qui disposite, ornate,
copiose dicit, sed tumultuari.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec15">7 §15</a>
(p. 176) Pectus est enim, quod disertos facit, et vis mentis.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16">7 §§16-17</a>
(p. 177) Extemporalis actio auditorum frequentia, ut miles congestu
signorum, excitatur. Namque et difficiliorem cogitationem exprimit et
expellit dicendi necessitas, et secundos impetus auget placendi
cupido.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec18">7 §18</a>
(ibid.) Facilitatem quoque extemporalem a parvis initiis paulatim
perducemus ad summam, quae neque perfici neque contineri nisi usu
potest.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec20">7 §20</a>
(p. 178) Neque vero tanta esse umquam fiducia facilitatis
<span class = "pagenum">xxii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxii" id = "intro_pagexxii"> </a>
debet ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea quae
dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec21">7 §21</a>
(p. 178) Qui stultis videri eruditi volunt, stulti eruditis
videntur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24">7 §24</a>
(p. 179) Rarum est ut satis se quisque vereatur.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec26">7 §26</a>
(p. 180) Studendum vero semper et ubique.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec27">7 §27</a>
(p. 180-1) Neque enim fere tan est ullus dies occupatus ut nihil
lucrativae ... operae ad scribendum aut legendum aut dicendum rapi
aliquo momento temporis possit.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28">7 §28</a>
(p. 181) Quidquid loquemur ubicumque sit pro sua scilicet portione
perfectum.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28">7 §28</a>
(ibid.) Scribendum certe numquam est magis, quam cum multa dicemus ex
tempore.</p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec29">7 §29</a>
(p. 181-2) Ac nescio an si utrumque cum cura et studio fecerimus,
invicem prosit, ut scribendo dicamus diligentius, dicendo scribamus
facilius. Scribendum ergo quotiens licebit, si id non dabitur,
cogitandum; ab utroque exclusi debent tamen sic dicere ut neque
deprehensus orator neque litigator destitutus esse videatur.</p>
</div>
<hr class = "mid">
<h5><a name = "intro_chapIII" id = "intro_chapIII">III.</a>
Quintilians’s Litary Criticism.</h5>
<p>It was the conviction that a cultured orator is better than an orator
with no culture that induced Quintilian to devote so considerable a part
of the Tenth Book to a review of Greek and Roman literature. He was
aware that in order to speak with effect it is necessary for a man to
know a good deal that lies outside the scope of the particular case
which he may undertake to plead; and while the ‘firm facility’ <span
class = "greek" title = "hexis">ἕξις</span> at which he taught the
orator to aim could only be attained by a variety of exercises and
qualifications, a course of wide and careful reading must always, he
considered, form one of the factors in the combination.</p>
<p>In judging of the merits of Quintilian’s literary criticism we must
not forget the point of view from which he wrote. He is not dealing with
literature in and for itself. His was not the cast of mind in which the
faculty of literary appreciation finds artistic expression in the form
in which criticism becomes a part of literature itself. We cannot think
of the author of the Tenth Book of the <i>Institutio</i> as one whom a
divinely implanted instinct for literature impelled, towards the evening
of his days, to leave a record of the personal impressions he had
derived from contact with those whom we now recognise as the
master-minds of classical antiquity. Quintilian writes, not as the
literary man for a sympathetic brotherhood, but as the professor of
rhetoric for students in his school. If, in the
<span class = "pagenum">xxiii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxiii" id = "intro_pagexxiii"> </a>
course of his just and sober, but often trite and obvious criticisms, he
characterises a writer in language which has stood the test of time, it
is always when that writer touches his main interest most nearly, as one
from whom the student of style may learn much. In short, his work in the
department of literary criticism is done much in the same spirit as that
which, in these later days, has moved many sober and sensible, but on
the whole average persons, conversant with the general current of
contemporary thought, and not without the faculty of appreciative
discrimination, to draw up a list of the ‘Best Hundred Books.’ Their
aim, however, has been to guide and direct the work of that peculiar
product of modern times, the ‘general reader’: Quintilian’s victim was
the professed student of rhetoric.</p>
<p>But this limitation, arising partly out of the special aim which he
had imposed upon himself, partly, also, in all probability, from the
constitution of his own mind, ought not to blind us to the value of the
comprehensive review of ancient literature which Quintilian has left us
in this Tenth Book. “His literary sympathies are extraordinarily wide.
When obliged to condemn, as in the case of Seneca, he bestows generous
and even extravagant praise on such merit as he can find. He can
cordially admire even Sallust, the true fountain-head of the style which
he combats, while he will not suffer Lucilius to lie under the
aspersions of Horace.... The judgments which he passes may be in many
instances traditional, but, looking to all the circumstances of the
time, it seems remarkable that there should then have lived at Rome a
single man who could make them his own and give them expression. The
form in which these judgments are rendered is admirable. The gentle
justness of the sentiments is accompanied by a curious felicity of
phrase. Who can forget the ‘immortal swiftness of Sallust,’ or the
‘milky richness of Livy,’ or how ‘Horace soars now and then, and is full
of sweetness and grace, and in his varied forms and phrases is most
fortunately bold’? Ancient literary criticism perhaps touched its
highest points in the hands of Quintilian.”<a class = "tag" name =
"tag32" id = "tag32" href = "#note32">32</a></p>
<p>The course of reading which Quintilian recommends is selected with
express reference to the aim which he had in view, and which is put
prominently forward in connection with nearly every individual
criticism. The young man who aspires to success in speaking must have
his taste formed: when he reads Homer, let him note that, great poet as
Homer is, and admirable in every respect, he is also <i>oratoria virtute
eminentissimus</i> (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46">1 §46</a>). Alcaeus is <i>plerumque
oratori similis</i> (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec63">1 §63</a>): Euripides is, on that
ground, to be preferred to Sophocles (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">1 §67</a>): Lucan is <i>magis
oratoribus quam poetis imitandus</i> (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec70">1 §70</a>): and the old Greek comedy
is
<span class = "pagenum">xxiv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxiv" id = "intro_pagexxiv"> </a>
specially recommended as a form of poetry ‘than which probably none is
better suited to form the orator’ (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">1 §65</a>). With the prose writers
Quintilian is thoroughly at home, and he nowhere lets in so much light
on his own sympathies as in the estimates he gives us of Cicero (<a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">1 §§105-112</a>) and Seneca (<a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec125">1 §§125-131</a>). His
criticism of Cicero is precisely what might have been expected from the
general tone of the references throughout the <i>Institutio</i>. Cicero
is Quintilian’s model, to whom he looks up with reverential admiration:
he will not hear of his faults. In his own day the great orator had been
attacked by Atticists of the severer type for the richness of his style
and the excessive attention which they alleged that he paid to rhythm.
The ‘plainness’ of Lysias was their ideal, and they failed to recognise
the fact that, with the more limited resources of the Latin language,
such simplicity and condensation would be perilously near to baldness
(cp. note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">1 §105</a>). Cicero they
regarded as an Asianist in disguise; in the words of his devoted
follower, they “dared to censure him as unduly turgid and Asiatic and
redundant; as too much given to repetition, and sometimes insipid in his
witticisms; and as spiritless, diffuse, and (save the mark!) even
effeminate in his arrangement” (<i>Inst. Or.</i> xii. 10, 12, quoted on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">1 §105</a>). That this
criticism had not been forgotten in Quintilian’s own day is obvious not
only from the <i>Institutio</i> but also from the discussion in the
<i>Dialogus de Oratoribus</i>, where Aper is represented as saying “We
know that even Cicero was not without his disparagers, who thought him
inflated, turgid, not sufficiently concise, but unduly diffuse and
luxuriant, and far from Attic” (ch. 18). To such detractors of his great
model Quintilian will have nothing to say, and in his criticism of
Cicero he gives full expression to his enthusiastic admiration for the
genius of one who had brought eloquence to the highest pinnacle of
perfection (vi. 31 <i>Latinae eloquentiae princeps</i>: cp. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">1 §§105-112</a>: xii. 1,
20 <i>stetisse ipsum in fastigio eloquentiae fateor</i>: 10, 12 sqq.
<i>in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur eminentissimum</i>).</p>
<p>With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be
expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca.
Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return
to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary
reform which Quintilian had at heart—<i>corruptum et omnibus
vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo</i>
x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec125">1, 125</a>. It is probable
that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he assumes in dealing
with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain degree of
prejudice<a class = "tag" name = "tag33" id = "tag33" href =
"#note33">33</a>. Quintilian represents the literature of erudition, and
his
<span class = "pagenum">xxv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxv" id = "intro_pagexxv"> </a>
standard is the best of what had been done in the past: Seneca was, like
Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed perfectly natural that
new thoughts should find utterance in new forms of expression. Seneca’s
motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’—he gave free rein to the play of
his fancy, and rejected all method<a class = "tag" name = "tag34" id =
"tag34" href = "#note34">34</a>: Quintilian looked with horror (in the
interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was so near to licence, and
set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds to the ‘good old ways,’
and extolling Cicero as the synonym for eloquence itself. In such a
conflict of tastes as regards things literary, and apart from the
ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal career, it is not surprising
that Quintilian should have been unfavourably disposed towards him. He
had a grudge, moreover, against philosophers in general, especially the
Stoics. They had encroached on what his comprehensive scheme of
education impelled him to believe was the province of the teacher of
rhetoric,—the moral training of the future orator<a class = "tag"
name = "tag35" id = "tag35" href = "#note35">35</a>.</p>
<p>He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no
extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their
proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as
representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that
Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in
many passages of the <i>Institutio</i>, where he is not specially named,
it is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references
corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth
Book<a class = "tag" name = "tag36" id = "tag36" href =
"#note36">36</a>. In this passage
<span class = "pagenum">xxvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxvi" id = "intro_pagexxvi"> </a>
Quintilian is evidently putting forward the whole force of his authority
in order to counteract Seneca’s influence. He has kept him waiting in a
marked manner, to the very end of his literary review: and when he comes
to deal with him he does not confine his criticism to a few words or
phrases, but devotes nearly as much space to him as he did to Cicero
himself. In his estimate of Seneca nothing is more remarkable than the
careful manner in which Quintilian mingles praise and blame. But the
praise is reluctant and half-hearted: it is Seneca’s faults that his
critic wishes to make prominent. He admits his ability (<i>ingenium
facile et copiosum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">§128</a>), and even goes the
length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise to
his level (<i>foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro
fieri</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">§127</a>). But praise is no
sooner given than it is immediately recalled. It was his faults that
secured imitators for Seneca (<i>placebat propter sola vitia</i> ib.);
if he was distinguished for wide knowledge (<i>plurimum studii, multa
rerum cognitio</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">§128</a>), he was often misled
by those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is
good in him, ‘much even to admire’ (<i>multa ... probanda in eo, multa
etiam admiranda sunt</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec131">§131</a>), still it requires
picking out. In short, so dangerous a model is he, that he should be
read only by those who have come to maturity, and then not so much,
evidently, for improvement, as for the reason that it is good to ‘see
both sides,’—<i>quod exercere potest utrimque iudicium</i>,
ib.</p>
<p>It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of
Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the
philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to
time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of
philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion—and his
position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express
his view distinctly—that Seneca was a dangerous model for the
budding orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his
peculiarities lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished
to put forward a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day,
and to recall—in their own interests—to severer models
Seneca’s youthful imitators,—those of whom he writes <i>ad ea</i>
(i.e. <i>eius vitia</i>) <i>se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae
poterat; deinde quum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam
infamabat</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">§127</a>. Seneca was of course
not responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian
would never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any
particular model, especially if that model were characterised by such
peculiar features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he
could not forgive
<span class = "pagenum">xxvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxvii" id = "intro_pagexxvii"> </a>
Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero<a class = "tag" name
= "tag37" id = "tag37" href = "#note37">37</a>. Admirers of Seneca think
that he failed to make allowance for the influences at work on the
philosopher’s style, and that he judged him too much from the standpoint
of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s faults—his tendency to
declamation, the want of balance in his style, his excessive subtlety,
his affectation, his want of method: but they contend that these faults
are compensated by still greater virtues<a class = "tag" name = "tag38"
id = "tag38" href = "#note38">38</a>. M. Rocheblave, who possesses
the appreciation of Seneca traditional among Frenchmen, follows Diderot
in inclining to believe that the philosopher was the victim of envy and
dislike<a class = "tag" name = "tag39" id = "tag39" href =
"#note39">39</a>. For himself he protests in the following terms against
what he considers the inadequacy of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi
quemvis Annaei librorum ignarum, et dicito num ex istis Quintiliani
laudibus non modo perspicere, sed suspicari etiam possit quanto
sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu steterit scriptor qui in tota latina
facundia optima senserit, humanissima docuerit, maxima et multo plurima
excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex antiqua morali philosophia seu graeca
seu latina depromptis, adiectis pluribus, potuerit in unum propriumque
saporem omnia illa quasi sapientiae humanae libamenta confundere?
Credisne a tali lectore scriptorem vivo gurgite exundantem, sensibus
scatentem, legentes in perpetuas rapientem cogitationes, eum denique
quem ob vim animi ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius
noster<a class = "tag" name = "tag40" id = "tag40" href =
"#note40">40</a>, protinus agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii
laudes multum infra viri meritum stetisse (quod detrectationis sit
tutissimum genus) omnes mecum confessuros’ (pp. 44-5).</p>
<p>Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt
<span class = "pagenum">xxviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxviii" id = "intro_pagexxviii"> </a>
that the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was
in his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of
Seneca’s influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature
of the next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model
for imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered
on Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that
it displayed much grace of style (<i>multum cultus</i>), as was to be
expected from one who possessed <i>ingenium amoenum et temporis</i> eius
<i>auribus accommodatum</i> (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how
Caligula disparaged the <i>lenius comtiusque scribendi genus</i> which
Seneca represented; and here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a
fame that had passed away,—<i>Senecam <b>tum</b> maxime
placentem</i>, just as the elder Pliny, writing about the time of
Seneca’s death, speaks of him as <i>princeps <b>tum</b> eruditorum</i>
(Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto and Aulus Gellius<a
class = "tag" name = "tag41" id = "tag41" href = "#note41">41</a> were
much more unreserved and even immoderate in their censure. And it is a
remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that the name of the great
Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his successors, Epictetus and
Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest literary ornament of
Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the second century.</p>
<p>In regard to the general body of Quintilian’s literary criticism, the
question of greatest interest for modern readers is the degree of its
originality. How far is Quintilian giving us his own independent
judgments on the writings of authors whom he had read at first hand? How
far is he merely registering current criticism, which must already have
found more or less definite expression in the writings and teaching of
previous rhetoricians and grammarians? The circumstances of the case
make it impossible for us to approach the special questions which it
involves with any great prejudice in favour of Quintilian’s originality
in general. The extent of his indebtedness to previous writers, as
regards the main body of his work, may be inferred from a glance at the
‘Index scriptorum et artificum’ in Halm’s edition. In many places he is
merely simplifying the rules of the Greek rhetoricians whom he followed.
Probably he was not equally well up in all the departments of the
subject of which he treats, and he naturally relied, to some extent, on
the works of those who had preceded him. But did he take his literary
criticism from others? Was Quintilian one of those reprehensible persons
who do not scruple to borrow, and to give forth as their own, the
estimate formed and expressed
<span class = "pagenum">xxix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxix" id = "intro_pagexxix"> </a>
by some one else of authors whose works they may never themselves have
read?</p>
<p>In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be
convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart
from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he
might <i>a priori</i> be expected to be more familiar. The notes to
that part of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (<a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46">1 §§46-84</a>) will show too
many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in addressing
himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian scrupulously avoided
incurring any obligations to others<a class = "tag" name = "tag42" id =
"tag42" href = "#note42">42</a>. No doubt in his long career as a
teacher he had come into contact with traditional opinion as to the
merits and characteristics not only of the Greek but also of the Latin
writers; and in the two years which he tells us he devoted to the
composition of the <i>Institutio</i><a class = "tag" name = "tag43" id =
"tag43" href = "#note43">43</a> he may still further have increased his
debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact impossible that Quintilian
should have been unaware of the nature of the criticism current in his
own day, and of what had previously been said and written by others. But
he is not to be thought of as one who, before indicating his opinion of
a particular writer, carefully refers, not to that writer’s works, but
to the opinion of others concerning them. The cases in which he
reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of others are not
always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious borrowing<a class
= "tag" name = "tag44" id = "tag44" href = "#note44">44</a>. The
coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract from the
originality of his work.
<span class = "pagenum">xxx</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxx" id = "intro_pagexxx"> </a>
But we do not need to believe that, in writing his individual
criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the works of others: he no
doubt had them at hand, and his career as a teacher had probably
impressed on his memory many <i>dicta</i> which he could hardly fail to
reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather together the
results of his teaching.</p>
<p>Literary criticism at Rome before Quintilian’s time is associated
mainly with the names of Varro, Cicero, and Horace<a class = "tag" name
= "tag45" id = "tag45" href = "#note45">45</a>. Varro was the author of
numerous works bearing on the history and criticism of literature: such
were his <i>de Poetis</i>, <i>de Poematis</i>, <span class = "greek"
title = "peri charaktêrôn">περὶ χαρακτήρων</span>, <i>de Actionibus
Scaenicis</i>, <i>Quaestiones Plautinae</i>. Our knowledge of their
scope and character is however derived only by inference from a few
scattered fragments, and in regard to these it is impossible to say
definitely to which of his treatises they severally belong. Quintilian’s
references to his literary activity as well as his great learning
(<i>vir Romanorum eruditissimus</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec95">1, 95</a>), and the
quotation of his estimate of Plautus (ib. §99), are sufficient evidence
that he was not unacquainted with Varro’s writings. Cicero he knew
probably better than he knew any other author: the extent of his
indebtedness to such works as the <i>Brutus</i> may be inferred from the
parallelisms which occur in his treatment of the Attic orators (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">1, 76-80</a>). He dissents
expressly from Horace’s estimate of Lucilius (ib. §94): and the
frequency of his references to other literary judgments of Horace (cp.
§§24, 56, 61, 63) shows that he must have been in the habit of
illustrating his teaching by quotations from the works of that cultured
critic of literature and life.</p>
<p>But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in
common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the
Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by
name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other
parts of the <i>Institutio</i><a class = "tag" name = "tag46" id =
"tag46" href = "#note46">46</a>. Quintilian no doubt knew his works
well, especially that which originally consisted of three books <span
class = "greek" title = "peri mimêseôs">περὶ μιμήσεως</span><a class =
"tag" name = "tag47" id = "tag47" href = "#note47">47</a>. The second
book of this treatise has long been known to scholars
<span class = "pagenum">xxxi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxi" id = "intro_pagexxxi"> </a>
in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many striking
resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first chapter of
Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as, for instance,
H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed freely from
the earlier writer: <i>multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat; quibus modo
nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo <b>putant</b> sua
non esse declarat</i>. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn out
by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly remarks
that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common property not
only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned world of the
day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to this edition,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46">1 §§46-84</a>.</p>
<p>The general resemblances between Quintilian and Dionysius are
apparent in their order of treatment. In his introduction to the
<i>Iudicium de Thucydide</i>, the latter sets forth the plan of his
second book in terms which present many points of analogy with the
scheme of the Tenth Book of the <i>Institutio</i>: <span class = "greek"
title = "en tois proekdotheisi Peri tês mimêseôs hupomnêatismois epelêluthôs ous hupelambanon epiphanestatous einai poiêtas te kai sungrapheis ... kai dedêlêkôs en oligois tinas hekastos autôn eispheretai pragmatikas te kai lektikas aretas kai pê malista cheirôn heautou ginetai ... hina tois proairoumenois graphein te kai legein eu kaloi kai dedokimasmenoi kanones ôsin eph’ hôn poiêsontai tas kata meros gumnasias, mê panta mimoumenoi ta par’ ekeinois keimena tois andrasin, alla tas men aretas autôn lambanontes, tas d’ apotuchias phulattomenoi; hapsamenos te tôn sungrapheôn edêlôsa kai peri Thoukoudidou ta dokounta moi suntomô te kai kephalaiôdei graphê perilabôn, ... hôs kai peri tôn allôn epoiêsa; ou gar ên akribê kai diexodikên dêlôsin huper hekastou tôn andrôn poieisthai proelomenon eis elachiston onkon sunagagein tên pragmateian.">ἐν τοῖς προεκδοθεῖσι Περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ὑπομνηατισμοῖς
ἐπεληλυθὼς οὓς ὑπελάμβανον ἐπιφανεστάτους εἶναι ποιητάς τε καὶ
συγγραφεῖς ... καὶ δεδηληκὼς ἐν ὀλίγοις τίνας ἕκαστος αὐτῶν εἰσφέρεται
πραγματικάς τε καὶ λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ πῇ μάλιστα χείρων ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται
... ἵνα τοῖς προαιρουμένοις γράφειν τε καὶ λέγειν εὖ καλοὶ καὶ
δεδοκιμασμένοι κανόνες ὦσιν ἐφ᾽ ὧν ποιήσονται τὰς κατὰ μέρος γυμνασίας,
μὴ πάντα μιμούμενοι τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις κείμενα τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν
ἀρετὰς αὐτῶν λαμβάνοντες, τὰς δ᾽ ἀποτυχίας φυλαττόμενοι‧ ἁψάμενός τε τῶν
συγγραφέων ἐδήλωσα καὶ περὶ Θουκουδίδου τὰ δοκοῦντά μοι συντόμῳ τε καὶ
κεφαλαιώδει γραφῇ περιλαβών, ... ὡς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐποίησα‧ οὐ γὰρ
ἦν ἀκριβῆ καὶ διεξοδικὴν δήλωσιν ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνδρῶν ποιεῖσθαι
προελόμενον εἰς ἐλάχιστον ὄγκον συναγαγεῖν τὴν πραγματείαν.</span> In
like manner Quintilian, addressing himself throughout to young men
aspiring to success as public speakers, enumerates the various authors
who seem to be fit subjects for reading and imitation. While admitting
that some benefit may be derived from almost every writer (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec57">1 §57</a>), he confines himself to
the most distinguished in the various departments of literature (<ins
class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘45’"><a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a></ins> <i>paucos enim, qui sunt
eminentissimi, excerpere in animo est</i>); and even with regard to
these he warns his readers, as Dionysius does, that they are not to
imitate all their characteristics, but only what is good (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec24">1 §24</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §§14-15</a>).</p>
<p>The order of treatment is almost identical in the two writers. First
come the poets, with the writers of epic poetry at their head: these are
not only named in the same order (Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis),
but they are commended in very similar terms. But if Quintilian had been
translating directly from Dionysius, it is very probable that he would
have mentioned him by name, instead of concealing his obligations
<span class = "pagenum">xxxii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxii" id = "intro_pagexxxii"> </a>
by the use of such a phrase as <i>putant</i> (in speaking of
Panyasis—see note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54">§54</a>). If he goes on to add
some criticisms which are not in Dionysius, viz. on Apollonius Rhodius,
Aratus, Theocritus, and to mention also Pisander, Nicander, and
Euphorion, it is with the express intimation that they do not rank in
the canon fixed by the <i>grammatici</i>,—the very reason for
which these writers had been omitted by Dionysius. The Greek rhetorician
says nothing of the elegiac and iambic poets mentioned by
Quintilian,—the former in general terms (<i>princeps
<b>habetur</b> Callimachus</i>, <i>secundas <b>confessione
plurimorum</b> Philetas occupavit</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">§58</a>), the latter with
express reference to the judgment of Aristarchus on the great
Archilochus (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59">§59</a>)<a class =
"tag" name = "tag48" id = "tag48" href = "#note48">48</a>. In treating
of the lyric poets, Quintilian mentions the number nine (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec61">§61</a>), which Dionysius does not; but as
regards the substance of his criticisms, he is again almost in exact
agreement with his predecessor. Both refer to Pindar, Stesichorus,
Alcman, and Simonides, with the trifling difference that in Dionysius
Simonides comes second instead of fourth on the list. In
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">§65</a> Quintilian proceeds to
deal with the Old Comedy, which finds no place in the treatise of
Dionysius, as we now have it. And there is very little that corresponds
with Dionysius in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.
But it is noticeable that in both Euripides is made to form the
transition to Menander and the New Comedy.</p>
<p>In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while
Quintilian was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is
rather incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary
schools than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was
of opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even
goes so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of
Dionysius (of which the treatise long known as the <span class = "greek"
title = "Archaiôn krisis">Ἀρχαίων κρίσις</span> or the <i>De Veterum
Censura</i> is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices
of the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian,
as well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives
of the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a
judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking
advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of
which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long
career), he is not slavishly following any single authority<a class =
"tag" name = "tag49" id = "tag49" href = "#note49">49</a>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">§52</a> <i>datur palma</i>
(<i>Hesiodo</i>,)
<span class = "pagenum">xxxiii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxiii" id = "intro_pagexxxiii"> </a>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53">§53</a> <i>grammaticorum
consensus</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54">§54</a> <i>ordinem a grammaticis
datum</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">§58</a> <i>princeps habetur</i>
and <i>confessione plurimorum</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59">§59</a> <i>ex tribus receptis
Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">§64</a> <i>quidam</i> (probably
including Dionysius),
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a> <i>inter plurimos
quaeritur</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec72">§72</a> <i>consensu ...
omnium</i>. And the tone and substance of his estimate of Homer, of
Euripides, and of Menander<a class = "tag" name = "tag50" id = "tag50"
href = "#note50">50</a>, seem to show that he was prepared to rely, when
necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp. <i>meo quidem
iudicio</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a>), especially in dealing
with the poets who would be of greatest service for his professed
purpose.</p>
<p>In both Dionysius and Quintilian the poets are followed by the
historians. The order in Dionysius is Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,
Philistus, and Theopompus; in Quintilian, Thucydides, Herodotus,
Theopompus, Philistus,—with short notices of Ephorus, Clitarchus
and Timagenes. The insertion of the three additional names, and the
precedence given to Theopompus, are not the only points in which
Quintilian differs here from Dionysius, who is known in this case to
have limited himself to the five names in question (Epist. ad Pomp.
767 R: Usener, p. 50, 10): Xenophon is by Quintilian expressly
postponed for treatment among the philosophers. In this he probably
followed an older tradition, which survived also elsewhere. Cicero
speaks of Xenophon as a philosopher (de Orat. ii. §58): in Diogenes
Laertius (ii. 48) it is said of him <span class = "greek" title = "alla kai historian philosophôn prôtos egrapse">ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν φιλοσόφων
πρῶτος ἔγραψε</span>—a remark which Usener (p. 113) thinks was
probably derived from some library list in which Xenophon was ranked
among the writers of philosophy; and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xviii.) omits
him from his list of the historians, and includes him in that of the
Socratics.</p>
<p>These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s
allegation that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s <i>primus et
praecipuus fons</i>. It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the
historians, he had before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s
<i>Orator</i>, to which reference has already been made (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">§55</a> sq.). There Cicero mentions
Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the
addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at
hand the great orator’s lost treatise <i>Hortensius</i>, two fragments
of which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides,
Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus<a class = "tag" name = "tag51" id =
"tag51" href = "#note51">51</a>: in writing it Cicero probably followed
some list similar
<span class = "pagenum">xxxiv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxiv" id = "intro_pagexxxiv"> </a>
to those which were accessible both to Dionysius and Quintilian<a class
= "tag" name = "tag52" id = "tag52" href = "#note52">52</a>. Again there
is sufficient resemblance here between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as
also in regard to Euripides and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.)
to justify the supposition that they followed the same tradition. Dio
expressly elevates Theopompus to the second rank (10, p. 479),
<span class = "greek" title = "tôn de akrôn Thoukudidês emoi dokei kai tôn deuterôn Theopompos; kai gar rhêtorikon ti peri tên apangelian tôn logôn echei">τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν δευτέρων
Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων
ἔχει.</span>. With this compare Quintilian’s words: <i>Theopompus his
proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis</i>
(<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec74">§74</a>). Ephorus, on the other
hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.</p>
<p>It is perhaps in dealing with the orators that Quintilian gives the
surest proofs that he is not following any individual guide. The
parallel passages cited in the notes to
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">§§76-80</a> are by no means
confined to the writings of Dionysius, though here again words and
phrases occur (see esp. the note on <i>honesti studiosus, in
compositione adeo diligens</i>, &c.,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">§79</a>) which seem to suggest
that Quintilian must have kept a common-place book into which he
‘conveyed’ points which struck him as just or appropriate in the
literary criticism of others<a class = "tag" name = "tag53" id = "tag53"
href = "#note53">53</a>. Unlike Dionysius, however, he refers to the
canon of the ten orators (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">§76</a>) which the recent work of Brzoska,
following A. Reifferscheid, has shown to have originated not with
the critics of Alexandria, but with those of Pergamum<a class = "tag"
name = "tag54" id = "tag54" href = "#note54">54</a>. It is noticeable
that the five orators whom Quintilian selects for notice out of this
canon are identical with those enumerated, in reverse order, by Cicero,
de Orat. iii. 28.</p>
<p>In their treatment of the philosophers, the chief point in common
between Dionysius and Quintilian is that both put Plato and Xenophon
before Aristotle. And, though they agree generally in the terms in which
they speak of Aristotle, there is no other noteworthy coincidence. The
section on Theophrastus and the Stoics has nothing corresponding to it
in Dionysius: here, as elsewhere in the account of philosophy, Cicero
was laid under contribution.</p>
<p>We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of
the Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the
literary schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own
opinion much that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He
cannot be supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather
be considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of
criticism from
<span class = "pagenum">xxxv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxv" id = "intro_pagexxxv"> </a>
Theophrastus (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec27">1, 27</a>) down to his own
day. He accepted from others, with probably few modifications, the
approved lists of poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and
adopted the conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered
criticisms upon them—“somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof.
Nettleship says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and
insight, but which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart
and handing on to future generations of pupils.” These lists of
‘classical’ writers may probably be traced back, in the main, to the
literary activity of the critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be
well known to the Greek rhetoricians who were at work on the education
of the Roman youth as early as the beginning of the first century <span
class = "smallroman">B.C.</span>, and may have served as the basis of
their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (<span class = "greek"
title = "krisis poiêmatôn, kritikê">κρίσις ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ</span>)
was an essential part of the office of the ‘grammaticus<a class = "tag"
name = "tag55" id = "tag55" href = "#note55">55</a>.’</p>
<p>In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of
<i>recte loquendi scientia</i> and <i>poetarum enarratio</i>, Quintilian
adds (i. 4, 3): <i>et mixtum his omnibus <b>iudicium</b> est; quo
quidem ita severe sunt usi veteres grammatici ut non versus modo
censoria quadam virgula notare et libros, qui falso viderentur
inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere familia permiserint sibi, sed
auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero</i>.
Beginning with a critical examination of individual texts, the
‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their work, on the literary
side, in short characterisations of the various writers whom they made
the subject of their study, and finally drew up lists of the best
authors in each department of literature, with a careful indication of
their good points as well as of the features in which they were not to
be used as models. This process received a more or less final form at
the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his follower Aristarchus (see
on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54">1, 54</a>), the latter of
whom probably introduced such modifications in the list of his
predecessor as approved themselves to his own judgment (cp. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59">1, 59</a> <i>tres receptos
<b>Aristarchi iudicio</b> scriptores iamborum</i>). The influence of
this method in Roman literature may be seen, early in the first century,
in the so-called ‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius
(15, 24)<a class = "tag" name = "tag56" id = "tag56" href =
"#note56">56</a>: he makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy
of the canon of the ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine
critics was probably in the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp.
114-126), when he wrote his ‘Hortensius,’—a treatise which seems
to have originally contained an introductory sketch of the great
contributors to the various departments
<span class = "pagenum">xxxvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxvi" id = "intro_pagexxxvi"> </a>
of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of the
dialogue,—the praise of philosophy<a class = "tag" name = "tag57"
id = "tag57" href = "#note57">57</a>. Then there is Dio Chrysostom, a
writer who flourished not long after Quintilian himself, and whose
reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted. Such
divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by
the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In
the preliminary sketch in the <i>Hortensius</i> the object seems to have
been not the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio
draws a careful distinction between the branches which serve for the
student of rhetoric, and those which may be expected to benefit and
delight men who have finished their studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and
again reiterated, is to lay down a course of reading suited to form the
taste of a young man aspiring to success as a speaker.</p>
<p>The probability that there existed such traditional lists as those
referred to (which would also be of service in the arrangement of the
great public libraries), is strikingly illustrated in Usener’s
<i>Epilogus</i> (p. 128 sq.) by the publication of one which may here be
transcribed as of great interest to readers of Quintilian. It will be
noticed that though the philosophers are omitted, it contains many
points of analogy with that followed by Quintilian, particularly the
addition of the later elegiac poets, Philetas and Callimachus. Names
only are given, without any criticism attached<a class = "tag" name =
"tag58" id = "tag58" href = "#note58">58</a>.</p>
<p class = "mynote">
Greek numerals were printed with overlines ¯. They are shown here
in ´ form to reduce text-display problems.</p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "Poiêtai pente: Homêros Hêsiodos Peisandros Panuasis Antimachos.">Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος
Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "iambopoioi treis: Sêmonidês Archilochos Hippônax.">ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "tragôdopoioi e´: Aischulos Sophoklês Euripidês Iôn Achaios.">τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων
Ἀχαιός.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "kômôdopoioi archaias z´: Epicharmos Kratinos Eupolis Aristophanês Pherekratês Kratês Platôn.">κωμῳδοποιοὶ
ἀρχαίας ζ´‧ Ἐπίχαρμος Κρατῖνος Εὔπολις Ἀριστοφάνης Φερεκράτης Κράτης
Πλάτων.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "mesês kômôdias b´: Antiphanes Alexis Thourios.">μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "neas kômôdias e´: Menandros Philippidês Diphilos Philêmôn Apollodôros.">νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης
Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "elegeiôn poiêtai d´: Kallinos Mimnermos Philêtas Kallimachos.">ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς
Καλλίμαχος.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "lurikoi th´: Alkman Alkaios Sapphô Stêsichoros Pindaros Bakchulidês Ibukos Anakreôn Simônidês....">λυρικοι
θ´‧ Ἀλκμάν Ἀλκαῖος Σαπφώ Στησίχορος Πίνδαρος Βακχυλίδης Ἴβυκος Ἀνακρέων
Σιμωνίδης....</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "pagenum">xxxvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxvii" id = "intro_pagexxxvii"> </a>
<span class = "greek" title = "rhêtores th´: Dêmosthenês Lysias Hypereidês Isokratês Aischinês Lykourgos Isaios Antiphôn Andokidês.">ῥητορες θ´‧ Δημοσθένης Λυσίας Ὑπερείδης Ἰσοκράτης Ἀισχίνης
Λυκοῦργος Ἰσαῖος Ἀντιφῶν Ἀνδοκίδης.</span></p>
<p class = "hanging">
<span class = "greek" title = "historikoi i´: Thoukydidês Hêrodotos Xenophôn Philistos Theopompos Ephoros Anaximenês Kallisthenês Hellanikos Polybios.">ἱστορικοὶ ι´‧ Θουκυδίδης Ἡρόδοτος Ξενοφῶν Φίλιστος Θεόπομπος
Ἔφορος Ἀναξιμένης Καλλισθένης Ἑλλάνικος Πολύβιος.</span></p>
<p>In regard to the historians, Usener notes that this list seems to
indicate the principle on which they were selected and arranged. They
are enumerated in pairs, Herodotus and Thucydides coming first, with
their imitators Xenophon and Philistus immediately following them. Then
come Theopompus and Ephorus, as representing the second rank; and next
the historians of Alexander’s victories, Anaximenes and Callisthenes
(cp. Cic. de Orat. ii. §58), in place of whom Clitarchus is mentioned by
Quintilian. Peculiar features about the list given above are that
Thucydides comes first of all (just as Demosthenes does among the
orators), and that, perhaps to make up the number ten, a fifth pair of
historians is added,—Hellanicus from those of older date, and
Polybius to represent more recent writers.</p>
<p>Usener states the conclusion at which he arrives in the following
words, which may be accepted with the proviso that they are not to be
taken as meaning that Quintilian was altogether ignorant of what
Dionysius wrote: <i>Iudicia de poetis scriptoribusque Graecis non a
Dionysio Quintilianus mutuatus est. Igitur ne Dionysius quidem sua
profert, sed diversum uterque exemplum iudiciorum ut plerumque
consonantium expressit. Fontis utrique communis antiquitatem Hortensius
Tullianus cum Dione comparatus demonstravit. Posteriore tempore cum
eruditionis copia in angustae memoriae paupertatem sensim contraheretur,
iudiciis neglectis sola electorum auctorum nomina relicta sunt et
laterculi formam induerunt.</i> Quintilian did not transcribe his
criticisms of Greek literature from Dionysius. He had no need to do so:
the materials from which Dionysius had drawn were available also to him.
This is sufficient to account for the resemblances in their critical
judgments. But on the other hand it is improbable that Quintilian, in
the course of his reading and teaching, had not studied the writings of
Dionysius; and some at least of the coincidences to which prominence is
given in the notes in this edition must have been the result of his
acquaintance with the work of his predecessor.</p>
<p>In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us
the fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again
the notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers,
such as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary
criticism. The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved
that he did not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press
them, when
<span class = "pagenum">xxxviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxviii" id = "intro_pagexxxviii"> </a>
necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the <i>Analysis</i>
(pp. 3-5) will show that in this part of his work Quintilian
follows the method which had been traditionally applied to the criticism
of the Greek writers. The same order is preserved (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">§85</a>); the various departments of
literature are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek
(<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec93">§§93</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">99</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">101</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">105</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">123</a>); and individual
writers are pitted against each other, and are sometimes characterised
in similar terms. In all this Quintilian is consistent with the scheme
according to which he had evidently determined to arrange his work: he
is consistent also with the general tradition of literary criticism
among his countrymen. “As Latin literature since Naevius had adopted
Greek models and Greek metres, every Latin writer of any pretensions
took some Greek author as his ideal of excellence in the particular
style which he was adopting. Criticism accordingly drifted into the
vicious course of comparison; of pitting every Latin writer against a
Greek writer, as though borrowing from a man would constitute you his
rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer, Afranius a Menander, Plautus an
Epicharmus, before the days of Horace: in Horace’s time there were three
Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil. Cicero and Demosthenes were
compared by the Greek critics in the Augustan age, and by the time of
Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin Thucydides, Livy the Latin
Herodotus<a class = "tag" name = "tag59" id = "tag59" href =
"#note59">59</a>.” It is this idea of making ‘canons’ of Latin writers,
to correspond as nearly as possible with those which he had accepted
from former critics for the classical writers of Greece, that gives an
air of artificiality to Quintilian’s criticism of Latin literature, and
interferes somewhat with the general effect which his sane and sober
appreciations would otherwise produce. The individual estimates are in
the main all that could be wished for, notably the enthusiastic eulogy
of Cicero (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">§§105-112</a>),
which it is interesting to compare with a similar passage in the
treatise ‘On the Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may
be discerned in the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his
Grecian rival. The sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and
abrupt: that of Cicero is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement,
rapid, vigorous, terrible; he burns and sweeps away all before him; and
hence we may liken him to a whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a
widespread conflagration, which rolls over and feeds on all around it,
whose fire is extensive and burns long, breaking out successively in
different places, and finding its fuel now here, now there<a class =
"tag" name = "tag60" id = "tag60" href = "#note60">60</a>.” Excellent
also are the shorter characterisations of such writers as Sallust
(<i>immortalem Sallusti velocitatem</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec102">1 §102</a>), of Livy
(<i>Livi lactea ubertas</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec32">1 §32</a>: <i>mirae
iucunditatis clarissimique
<span class = "pagenum">xxxix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexxxix" id = "intro_pagexxxix"> </a>
candoris</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a>), of Ovid (<i>nimium
amator ingenii sui</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a>), and of Horace (<i>et
insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius
figuris et verbis felicissime audax</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96">§96</a>). But the general
impression we derive is that Quintilian is producing many of his
criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he tied down to the plan he
has adopted. It is to this same method of mechanical
comparison—born of the artificial traditions of the literary
schools—that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has not
been without imitators in more recent times<a class = "tag" name =
"tag61" id = "tag61" href = "#note61">61</a>.</p>
<hr class = "mid">
<h5><a name = "intro_chapIV" id = "intro_chapIV">IV.</a>
Style and Language.</h5>
<p>Quintilian’s own style is pretty much what might be expected from the
tone of his judgments on others. Cicero was his model, Seneca
represented to him everything that was to be avoided: but the interval
of a hundred years which separated him from the former was a sufficient
barrier to anything more than an approximation to his style, while on
the other hand he does not succeed in emancipating himself entirely from
the literary tendencies of his own time, which found so complete
expression in the writings of Seneca. All the writers of what is known
as the Silver Age possess certain marked characteristics, which
differentiate them from the best models of the republican period; and of
these Quintilian has his share. But he did not fall in with the
fashionable depreciation of those models. He knew that it was impossible
to bring back the Latinity of the Golden Age in all its characteristic
features; but he could at least lift up his voice against the
affectation and artificiality of his contemporaries, who looked upon
that Latinity as tame, insipid, and commonplace. The point of view from
which, as we have already seen, he regarded Seneca may be stated with a
wider application: <i>corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus
revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo</i>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec125">1, 125</a>.</p>
<p>The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral
and social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition
from republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion
<span class = "pagenum">xl</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexl" id = "intro_pagexl"> </a>
of Quintilian’s criticism of Seneca. The literary public had lost all
appetite for the natural straightforwardness of the Ciceronian style: it
craved for something akin to the highly seasoned dishes by which the
epicures of the day sought to stimulate a jaded palate<a class = "tag"
name = "tag62" id = "tag62" href = "#note62">62</a>. It was not enough
now to clothe the thought in pure, clear, and elegant language, even
when adorned by a wealth of expression that bordered on exuberance, and
made musical by the exquisite modulation of the period. No one could win
a hearing who did not countenance the fashionable craze for affectation,
abruptness, and extravagance. Directness, ease, and intelligibility were
no recommendations<a class = "tag" name = "tag63" id = "tag63" href =
"#note63">63</a>. In order to strike and stimulate, everything must be
full of point. Feebleness of thought was considered to be redeemed by
epigram and formal antithesis. The amplitude and artistic symmetry of
the Ciceronian period gave place to a broken and abrupt style, the main
object of which was to arrest attention and to challenge admiration.
Showy passages were looked for, expressed in new and striking
phraseology, such as could be reproduced and even handed on to others<a
class = "tag" name = "tag64" id = "tag64" href = "#note64">64</a>. The
charm of style and the test of its excellence consisted in its being
artificial, inflated, meretricious, involved, obscure—in a word,
depraved<a class = "tag" name = "tag65" id = "tag65" href =
"#note65">65</a>.</p>
<p>Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to
return to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion
to one particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own
declared principles,—<i>non qui maxime imitandus et solus
imitandus est</i> (<a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec24">2 §24</a>); and accordingly, in
spite of his great admiration for Cicero, we find several well-marked
features of difference between him and his master, not only in the use
of words, but also in the structure and composition of sentences<a class
= "tag" name = "tag66" id = "tag66" href = "#note66">66</a>. Indeed, it
could not have been otherwise. Quintilian’s mission was to restore to
Latin composition the direct and natural character of the earlier style;
but he could not extirpate that tendency to poetical expression which
had taken root at Rome as far back as the
<span class = "pagenum">xli</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexli" id = "intro_pagexli"> </a>
days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time by the
wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making some
concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the
‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist.
That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a
passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be
adapted to contemporary requirements: <i>ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates
nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, <b>nisi ut sensus nos quidem
dicamus plures</b>: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et
dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et
invicem offecerint. Sed me <b>hactenus cedentem</b> nemo insequatur
ultra</i>, &c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he
refused to go: clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to
effect. These qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is
also sufficiently varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must
remember the defective state in which his text has come down to us<a
class = "tag" name = "tag67" id = "tag67" href = "#note67">67</a>.</p>
<p class = "space">
It is quite possible to exemplify from the Tenth Book alone the main
features in which Quintilian’s language and style differ from those of
Cicero. And first, in regard to his vocabulary, a list may be appended
of words which, though not peculiar to Quintilian, are yet not to be
found in the republican period<a class = "tag" name = "tag68" id =
"tag68" href = "#note68">68</a>.</p>
<p><b>Amaritudo</b>, figuratively (Plin. S., Sen., Val. Max.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">1, 117</a>.</p>
<p><b>Auditorium</b> (Tac. Dial., Plin. S., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">1, 79</a>: cp. v. 12, 20
<i>licet hanc (eloquentiam) auditoria probent</i>.</p>
<p><b>Classis</b>, of a class in a school (Suet., Col., Petr.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec21">5, 21</a>.</p>
<p><b>Confinis</b>, figuratively (Ovid, Sen.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec12">5, 12</a>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xlii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlii" id = "intro_pagexlii"> </a>
<p><b>Consummatus</b> (Sen., Mart., Plin. S.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14">5, 14</a>: cp. <ins class =
"correction" title = "text reads ‘1’">i.</ins> 9, 3; ii. 19, 1, and
often. The Ciceronian equivalent is <i>perfectus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Decretorius</b> (Sen., Plin., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec20">5, 20</a>: cp. vi.
4, 6.</p>
<p><b>Diversitas</b> (Tac., Plin., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">1, 106</a>.</p>
<p><b>Evalesco</b> (Verg., Hor., Plin., Tac.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2, 10</a>: cp. ii. 8, 5;
viii. 6, 33.</p>
<p><b>Expavesco</b> (Hor., Liv., Sen., Plin., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec30">3, 30</a>: cp. ix. 4, 35;
vi. 2, 31.</p>
<p><b>Extemporalis</b> (Petr., Tac., Plin. S.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6, 1</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec5">5</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6"><ins class = "correction" title = "text reads (6.)8">6</ins></a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec13">7, 13</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16">16</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec18">18</a>: cp. iv. 1, 54
<i>extemporalis oratio</i>, for which Cicero would have written
<i>subita et fortuita oratio</i>.</p>
<p><b>Exundo</b> (Sen., Plin., Tac.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">1, 109</a> <b>Cicero vivo
gurgite exundat</b>.</p>
<p><b>Favorabilis</b> (Vell., Sen., Plin., Tac., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec21">5, 21</a>: cp. iv. 1, 21
and often.</p>
<p><b>Formator</b> (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec20">2, 20</a> <i>alienorum
ingeniorum formator</i> (sc. <i>praeceptor</i>).</p>
<p><b>Immutesco</b> (Statius), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec16">3, 16</a>.</p>
<p><b>Inadfectatus</b> (Plin. S.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec82">1, 82</a>.</p>
<p><b>Inconcessus</b> (Verg., Ov.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec26">2, 26</a>.</p>
<p><b>Incredulus</b> (Hor.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec11">3, 11</a>: cp. xii.
8, 11.</p>
<p><b>Indecens</b> (Petr., Sen., Mart.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec19">2, 19</a>. The Ciceronian
equivalent is <i>indecorus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Inlaboratus</b> (Sen.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec111">1, 111</a>, and often.</p>
<p><b>Insenesco</b> (Hor., Ov., Tac.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec11">3, 11</a>.</p>
<p><b>Inspiro</b> (Verg., Ov., Sen.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24">3, 24</a>: cp. xii. 10,
62.</p>
<p><b>Praesumo</b> (Verg., Sen., Plin., Tac.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec4">5, 4</a>: cp. xi.
1, 27.</p>
<p><b>Profectus</b> (Ov., Sen., Plin. S., Suet), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3, 2</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">15</a>: cp. i. 2, 26, and
often. Cicero uses <i>progressus</i>, <i>processus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Professor</b> (Col., Tac., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec18">5, 18</a>: cp. ii. 11, 1,
and often.</p>
<p><b>Prosa</b> (Vell., Col., Sen., Plin.), x.
<a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7, 19</a>,—adjective: cp. xi.
2, 39. As a noun, ix. 4, 52, and often.</p>
<p><b>Secessus</b> (Verg., Ov., Plin., Tac.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23">3, 23</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec28">28</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec16">5, 16</a>. Cicero uses
<i>recessus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Substringo</b> (Sen., Tac., Suet.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec4">5, 4</a>.</p>
<p><b>Versificator</b> (Just., Col.), x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec89">1, 89</a>.</p>
<p>There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word
<i>Romanus</i> for <i>Latinus</i>. <i>Litterae latinae</i>,
<i>scriptores latini</i>, <i>poetae latini</i>, are the usual forms with
Cicero and the writers of the best period: Quintilian has <i>Romanes
auctores</i> (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">1, 85</a>), <i>sermo
Romanus</i> (ib.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100">§100</a>), <i>litterae
Romanae</i> (ib.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">§123</a>), and often
elsewhere.</p>
<p class = "space">
The following words appear in Quintilian (Book X) for the first
time, though of course it does not follow that they are his own
coinage:—</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xliii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexliii" id = "intro_pagexliii"> </a>
<p><b>Adnotatio</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">2, 7</a> <i>brevis
adnotatio</i>.</p>
<p><b>Circulatorius</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8">1, 8</a> <i>circulatoria
volubilitas</i>: cp. ii. 4, 15. The noun <i>circulator</i> seems to
have been used first by Asinius Pollio: afterwards it is found in
Seneca, Petronius, Plin. S., Apuleius, &c.</p>
<p><b>Destructio</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec12">5, 12</a> <i>destructio et
confirmatio sententiarum</i>. Suetonius (Galba 12) uses this word in its
proper sense of ‘pulling down’ walls.</p>
<p><b>Offensator</b> (<span class = "greek" title = "hapax legom.">ἅπαξ
λεγόμ.</span>), x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec20">3, 20</a>.</p>
<p><b>Significantia</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec121">1, 121</a>.</p>
<p class = "space">
Several words occur which, either in point of form or meaning, indicate
the influence of Greek analogies:—</p>
<p><b>Recipere</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec31">7, 31</a>, and often
elsewhere, in the sense of <i>probare</i>. So the Greek <span class =
"greek" title = "apodechesthai">ἀποδέχεσθαι</span>, <span class =
"greek" title = "endechesthai">ἐνδέχεσθαι</span>. Cp. Plin. H. N.
7. 8, 29.</p>
<p><b>Supinus</b>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2, 17</a> used, like <span
class = "greek" title = "huptios">ὕπτιος</span> in Dion. Hal., for
‘languid,’ ‘spiritless.’ Cp. esp. (of Isocr.) <span class = "greek"
title = "huptia">ὑπτία</span> (sc. <span class = "greek" title =
"lexis">λέξις</span>) ... <span class = "greek" title = "kai kechumenê plousiôs">καὶ κεχυμένη πλουσίως</span>, p. 538, 6, R: also
p. 1006, 14, R.</p>
<p><b>Densus</b> (<span class = "greek" title = "puknos">πυκνός</span>),
for <i>pressus</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">1, 76</a>.</p>
<p><b>Pedestris</b> (sc. <i>oratio</i>), <span class = "greek" title =
"pezos logos">πεζὸς λόγος</span>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81">1, 81</a>.</p>
<p>To these may be added the use of <i>subripere</i> (for <i>clam
facere</i>), on the analogy of <span class = "greek" title = "kleptein ti">κλέπτειν τι</span>, iv. 1, 78: <i>transire</i> (for
<i>effugere</i>), on the analogy of <span class = "greek" title =
"parerchesthai">παρέρχεσθαι</span>, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335
<i>nil transit amantes</i>): <i>finis</i> for <span class = "greek"
title = "horos">ὅρος</span>: <i>maxime</i>, with numerals, for <span
class = "greek" title = "malista">μάλιστα</span>, &c.</p>
<p>To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian
of <i>propter quod</i>, <i>per quod</i>, <i>quae</i>, &c. on the
analogy of <span class = "greek" title = "di’ ho">δι᾽ ὅ</span>, <span
class = "greek" title = "di’ ha">δι᾽ ἅ</span> (see on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10">1, 10</a>): <i>circa</i>
(used like <span class = "greek" title = "peri">περί</span>), see on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">1, 52</a>: <i>multum</i>
(with compar.) like <span class = "greek" title = "polu meizon">πολὺ
μεῖζον</span> (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">1, 94</a>): <i>sunt ...
differentes</i>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">2 §16</a>.</p>
<p class = "space">
The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment
of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a
concrete sense (e.g. <i>facilitatem</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec7">3 §7</a>), and also in
certain changes in the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed
in its proper place: e.g. <i>componere</i> for <i>sedare</i>;
<i>vacare</i> used impersonally; <i>venus</i> for <i>venustas</i>;
<i>beatus</i> for <i>uber</i>, <i>fecundus</i>; <i>secretum</i>;
<i>olim</i> of future time; <i>utrimque</i> of opposite sides, &c.
Such changes in meaning as will be noted in connection with words like
<i>valetudo</i>, <i>ambitio</i>, <i>advocatus</i>, <i>auctor</i>,
<i>cultus</i>, <i>quicumque</i>, <i>ubicumque</i>, <i>demum</i>, and all
the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective (e.g.
<i>studiosus</i>), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the
Silver Age.</p>
<p class = "space">
Taking now the Parts of Speech in their order, we may illustrate the
peculiarities of Quintilian’s vocabulary by reference to the Tenth
Book.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xliv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexliv" id = "intro_pagexliv"> </a>
<h5>I. Nouns.</h5>
<p><b>Advocatus</b> for <i>causidicus</i>, <i>patronus</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec111">1, 111</a> (where see
note): cp. iii. 8, 51; xi. 1, 59: Plin. S. 7, 22: Suet. Claud. 15. For
examples of the use of this word in its earlier sense cp. v. 6, 6; xi.
3, 132; xii. 3, 2.</p>
<p><b>Ambitio</b> carries with it in Quintilian, as generally in the
Silver Age, a sinister meaning, so that Quintilian can call it a
<i>vitium</i>: i. 2, 22 <i>licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio frequenter
tamen causa virtutum est</i>. So <i>perversa ambitio</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec21">7, 21</a>: cp. Tac. Ann.
vi. 46: Iuv. 8, 135. For the Ciceronian use of the word (<i>popularis
gratiae captatio ad adipiscendos honores</i>), see pro Sulla §11: pro
Planc. §45: de Orat. i. §1.</p>
<p><b>Auctor</b>, almost identical with <i>scriptor</i>: see on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec24">1, 24</a>. Cp. Ep. ad
Tryph. §1 <i>legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles</i>.</p>
<p><b>Cultus</b> = <i>ornatus</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec124">1, 124</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2, 17</a>. Cp. iii. 8, 58
<i>in verbis cultum adfectaverunt</i>: xi. 1, 58 <i>nitor et cultus</i>.
Cicero uses <i>ornatus</i> and <i>nitor</i> as applied to language:
Orat. §80 <i>ornatus verborum</i>, §13 4 <i>orationis</i>. Cp. Tac.
Dial. 20, 23.</p>
<p><b>Opinio</b> is used for ‘reputation’ (<i>existimatio</i>), whether
good or bad. So x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec18">5, 18</a> (where see note):
7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 <i>contemptu opinionis</i>: ii. 12, 5 <i>adfert et
ista res opinionem</i>: ix. 2, 74 <i>veritus opinionem iactantiae</i>:
iv. 1, 33 <i>opinione adrogantiae laborare</i>: Tac. Dial. 10 <i>ne
opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores sequitur</i>: Sen.
Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive (ad Att. 7, 2
<i>opinio integritatis</i>: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G. vii. 59, 5:
Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24 <i>falsam ...
malam opinionem</i>).</p>
<p><b>Opus</b> frequently means ‘branch,’ ‘department’ in Quintilian: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9">1, 9</a> (where see note).
It is often identical with ‘genus’: e.g. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">1, 123</a> where they are
used together, <i>quo in genere—in hoc opere</i>. Cp. iii. 7, 28
<i>quamquam tres status omnes cadere in hoc opus (laudativum genus)
possint</i>.</p>
<p><b>Valetudo</b>, always in the sense of ‘bad health’ in Quintilian
and contemporary writers. If ‘good health’ is meant, an adjective is
used: e.g. x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3, 26</a> <i>bona
valetudo</i>: vi. 3, 77 <i>commodior valetudo</i>. With Cicero it may
mean either: de Fin. v. §84 <i>bonum valetudo, miser morbus</i>: de Am.
§8 <i>quod in collegio nostro non adfuisses, valetudinem respondeo
causam</i>: ad Fam. iv. 1, 1: in Tusc. iv. §80 he has <i>mala
valetudo</i>. With Quintilian’s usage cp. Tac. Hist. iii. 2; Ann. vi.
50: Suet. Claud. 26: Plin. S. 2, 20.</p>
<p><b>Venus</b> for <i>venustas</i>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">1, 79</a> (where see note);
ib.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100">§100</a>. This use of the word
is poetical: Hor. A. P. 320; Car. iv. 13, 17. For <i>venustas</i>,
<i>lepor</i> occurs in Cicero with the same meaning, see de Orat. i.
§243: Or. §96.</p>
<p>Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred
to
<span class = "pagenum">xlv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlv" id = "intro_pagexlv"> </a>
in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with <i>vis</i> or
<i>ratio</i> and the gerund (see on <i>vim dicendi</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">1, 1</a>): the concrete use
of certain nouns in the plural (see on <i>historias</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec75">§75</a>: cp. <i>lectiones</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">§45</a>): the concrete use of
abstract nouns (e.g. <i>facilitatem</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec7">3 §7</a>: <i>profectus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14">5 §14</a>: cp. <i>silvarum
amoenitas</i> for <i>silvae amoenae</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24">3 §24</a>). The frequent
occurrence of verbal nouns in <i>-tor</i> must also be noted: in Quint.
they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles
(<i>hortator</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23">3, 23</a>:
<i>offensator</i> ib.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec20">§20</a>), and may, like
adjectives, be compared by the aid of an adverb (<i>nimium amator</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">1 §88</a>, where see
note)<a class = "tag" name = "tag69" id = "tag69" href =
"#note69">69</a>.</p>
<h5>II. Adjectives.</h5>
<p><b>Beatus</b> (<i>abundans</i>, <i>fecundus</i>): x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec61">1, 61</a> <i>beatissima
rerum verborumque copia</i>, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 <i>beatissimi
amnes</i>. Cicero does not use <i>beatus</i> of things: cp. de Rep. ii.
19, 34 <i>abundantissimus amnis</i>.</p>
<p><b>Densus</b> (like <i>pressus</i> in Cicero):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§§68</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec73">73</a> (with notes), <i>densus
et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides</i>: cp. Cic. de Orat. ii.
§59 <i>Thucydides ita verbis aptus et pressus</i>. So x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">1, 76</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">106</a>.</p>
<p><b>Exactus</b>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2, 14</a> <i>exactissimo
iudicio</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec30">7 §30</a> <i>exacti
commentarii</i>. <i>Exactus</i> bears the same relation to
<i>exigere</i> as <i>perfectus</i> does to <i>perficere</i>, with which
<i>exigere</i> is, in Quintilian, synonymous: <i>e.g.</i> i. 5, 2;
9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23; also
M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For <i>exactus</i> Cicero used
<i>diligenter elaboratus</i> (Brut. §312) or <i>accuratus</i> (ad Att.
xiii. 45, 3): or <i>perfectus</i> (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).</p>
<p><b>Expositus</b> = <i>tritus</i>, <i>communis</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec11">5, 11</a> <i>voluptatem
expositis dare</i>: Iuv. 7, 54 <i>vatem—qui nihil expositum soleat
deducere, hoc qui communi feriat carmen triviale moneta</i>: Sen. E. 55.
Cicero has (de Orat. i. 31, 137) <i>omnium communia et contrita
praecepta</i>.</p>
<p><b>Incompositus</b>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">1, 66</a> <i>rudis in
plerisque et incompositus</i> (Aeschylus): cp. iv. 5, 10; ix. 4, 32:
Verg. Georg. i. 350 <i>motus incompositos</i>: Hor. Sat. i. 10, 1: Tac.
Dial. 26: Sen. Ep. 40, 4: Liv. xxiii. 27; v. 28.</p>
<p><b>Otiosus</b> = <i>inutilis</i>, <i>inanis</i>. See on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">1, 76</a> <i>tam nihil
otiosum</i>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2 §17</a>. So Tac. Dial.
40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have <i>vacuus</i>, <i>otio
abundans</i>, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xlvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlvi" id = "intro_pagexlvi"> </a>
<p><b>Praecipuus</b>, used by itself, see on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">1, 94</a>.</p>
<p><b>Summus</b>, in sense of <i>extremus</i>: x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec21">1, 21</a>, where see note.
The usage is poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii.
324 <i>venit summa dies</i>: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59,
Am. iii. 9, 27: Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (<i>Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des
Asinius Pollio—München</i>, 1890, p. 36) contends that this
use is not Ciceronian, for while Pollio writes <i>summo ludorum die</i>
(ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius <i>summis Circensibus ludis</i> (ad
Fam. viii. 12, 3—<i>Manutius: <b>extremis</b> diebus Circensium
ludorum meorum</i>), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii. 1, 3)
<i>extremus elephantorum dies fuit</i>.</p>
<p><b>Supinus</b> = <i>ignavus</i> (as <span class = "greek" title =
"huptios">ὕπτιος</span>, p. xliii. above): x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2, 17</a> <i>otiosi et
supini</i>: cp. ix. 4, 137 <i>tarda et supina compositio</i>: Iuv. i.
66: Mart. vi. 42 <i>Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter
audis</i>. This word may have been used first by Quintilian in this
sense: in Cicero it is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.</p>
<p>Noticeable also, and characteristic of his time, is Quintilian’s use
of <i>plerique</i> and <i>plurimi</i>, the former having often the force
of <i>nonnulli</i>, <i>plures</i>, <i>multi</i> (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec26">1 §§26</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">31</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec34">34</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">37</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">66</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">106</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec13">2 §13</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec16">3 §16</a>), the latter
losing its force as a superlative, and standing generally for
<i>permulti</i> (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec12">1 §§12</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec22">22</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec27">27</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">40</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec49">49</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">58</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60">60</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">65</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81">81</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec95">95</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">107</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">109</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">117</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">128</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6">2 §§6</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">14</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec24">24</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6 §1</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec17">7 §17</a>).</p>
<p>Nothing is more common in Quintilian than the use of adjectives (and
participles) in the place of nouns.<a class = "tag" name = "tag70" id =
"tag70" href = "#note70">70</a> In some cases this arises from the
actual omission of a noun, which can readily be supplied to define the
meaning of the adjective: for example x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec20">5, 20</a>
<i>decretoriis</i> (sc. <i>armis</i>) <i>exerceatur</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100">1 §100</a> <i>togatis</i>
(sc. <i>fabulis</i>) <i>excellit Afranius</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">1 §88</a> <i>lascivus
quidem in herois</i> (sc. <i>versibus</i>) <i>quoque Ovidius</i>. But in
most cases there is no perceptible ellipse; the general idea intended is
contained in the adjective itself. In the Masculine and Feminine only
those adjectives can be used as nouns which express personal qualities,
as of character, position, reputation, &c.: the Neuter denotes
generally the properties of things, mostly abstractions. Following the
arrangement of Dr. Hirt’s paper, we may cite examples from the Tenth
Book as follows:—</p>
<h5 class = "boldf">The Neuter Adjective.</h5>
<p>(1) <i>The Neuter singular used by itself</i>:—</p>
<p>Nom.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec22">3 §22</a> <i>secretum in
dictando perit</i>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xlvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlvii" id = "intro_pagexlvii"> </a>
<p>Acc.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec30">3 §30</a> <i>faciat sibi
cogitatio secretum</i>.</p>
<p>Gen.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec27">3 §27</a> <i>optimum
secreti genus</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec30">§30</a> <i>amator secreti</i>.
Partitive genitives:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6 §1</a> <i>aliquid
vacui</i>: dependent on adj.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">1 §79</a> <i>honesti
studiosus</i>.</p>
<p>Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 <i>proximum vero</i>: vi.
3, 21 <i>contrarium serio</i>.</p>
<p>Abl.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16">7 §16</a> <i>cum stilus
secreto gaudeat</i>.</p>
<p>Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative
and ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the
usage in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy
(<span class = "greek" title = "ex isou, ek tou phanerou k.t.l.">ἐξ
ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.</span>). Examples are: <i>in altum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28">7 §28</a> (= <i>in
profundum</i>): <i>e contrario</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19">1 §19</a>: <i>in
deposito</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec33">3 §33</a>: <i>in
expedito</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24">7 §24</a>:
(<i>vertere</i>) <i>in Latinum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec2">5 §2</a> (containing the
idea of locality: cp. <i>ex Graeco</i>): <i>ex integro</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec20">1 §20</a> (where see note):
<i>in posterum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec14">3 §14</a>: <i>in
publicum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a>: <i>in
universum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">1 §42</a>: <i>in peius</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">2 §16</a>: <i>ex
proximo</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec13">1 §13</a>: <i>a summo</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3 §2</a>: <i>ad
ultimum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec7">7 §7</a>; ib.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16">16</a>: <i>ex ultimo</i> ib.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec10">10</a>.</p>
<p>Sometimes the adjective, in addition to being used substantivally,
governs like a noun, the genitive depending on it being always
partitive: e.g. <i>multum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec80">1 §§80</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">94</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec115">115</a>: <i>plus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec77">1 §§77</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">86</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec97">97</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">99</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">106</a>: <i>plurimum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60">1 §§60</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">65</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81">81</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">117</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">128</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec1">3 §1</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec3">5 §§3</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec10">10</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6 §1</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec17">7 §17</a>: <i>minus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12">2 §12</a>: <i>quantum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">5 §8</a>. And with a
pronoun:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24">7 §24</a> <i>promptum hoc
et in expedito positum</i>.</p>
<p>(2) <i>The Neuter Plural.</i></p>
<p>Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally
in cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec6">3 §6</a> <i>scriptorum
proxima</i>. Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where
the case could not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of
course, when the adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">5 §8</a> <i>sua brevitati
gratia</i>, <i>sua copiae</i>, <i>alia translatis virtus</i>, <i>alia
propriis</i>; or when another adjective or pronoun is used in the nom.
or acc., e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">1 §35</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32">3 §32</a> <i>novorum
interpositione priora confundant</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec11">5 §11</a>. Other instances
(of 2nd and 3rd decl.) are
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec30">7 §30</a> <i>subitis ex
tempore occurrant</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1">5 §1</a> <i>ex latinis</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6">7 §6</a> <i>ex
diversis</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">1 §66</a> <i>in
plerisque</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec11">5 §11</a> <i>varietatem
similibus dare</i>. So with comparatives and superlatives:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec63">1 §63</a> <i>maioribus
aptior</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">1 §58</a> <i>cum optimis
satiati sumus</i>, <i>varietas tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec6">5 §6</a> <i>certe proximis
locus</i>.</p>
<h5 class = "boldf">The Masculine Adjective.</h5>
<p>(1) <i>The Masculine Plural.</i></p>
<p>In the following places masculine adjectives are found together, in
the plural, or else along with nouns:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec71">1 §§71</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec124">124</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec130">130</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2 §17</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec16">3 §16</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1">5 §1</a>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">xlviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlviii" id = "intro_pagexlviii"> </a>
<p>Single instances are (Genitive) <i>veterum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec97">1 §§97</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec118">118</a>: <i>magnorum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">1 §25</a>: (Dative)
<i>imperitis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec15">7 §15</a>:
<i>antiquis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2 §17</a>:
<i>studiosis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">1 §45</a> (where see note:
Cicero would have had <i>dicendi</i>, or <i>eloquentiae studiosis</i>):
<i>bonis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec3">2 §3</a>: (Accusative)
<i>veteres</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">1 §42</a>: <i>posteros</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec112">1 §§112</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec120">120</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6">2 §6</a>: <i>obvios</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec29">3 §29</a>:
<i>intentos</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec33">3 §33</a>: (Ablative)
<i>ex nostris</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec114">1 §114</a>: <i>ab
antiquis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126">1 §126</a>: <i>de
novis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">1 §40</a>. With the
comparative
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec19">5 §19</a> <i>apud
maiores</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec7">5 §7</a> <i>priores</i>:
superlative
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">1 §58</a> <i>confessione
plurimorum</i>. In
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">1 §123</a> we have one of
the few instances of the addition of another adjective to an adjective
doing duty for a noun—<i>paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae
Romanae tulerunt</i>.</p>
<p>(2) <i>The Masculine Singular.</i></p>
<p>When the adjective can denote a class collectively, it may be used as
a noun: this is quite frequent in Quintilian, as in most writers,
especially when the adjective stands near a substantive, e.g.
<i>perorare in adulterum</i>, <i>aleatorem</i>, <i>petulantem</i> ii.
4, 22.</p>
<p>The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine
singular: (Genitive) x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec26">2, 26</a> <i>prudentis
est</i>: (Accusative)
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec3">2 §3</a> <i>similem raro
natura praestat</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19">3 §19</a> <i>quasi
conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes</i>.</p>
<h5 class = "boldf">The Participle used as a Noun.</h5>
<p>(1) <i>The Neuter Singular.</i></p>
<p>Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those
which have actually become nouns (e.g. <i>responsum</i>,
<i>praeceptum</i>, <i>promissum</i>, &c.), Quintilian uses several
participles as nouns in a manner that is again an extension of classical
usage. So even with a pronoun, or another adjective: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec2">2 §2</a> <i>ad propositum
praescriptum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec11">§11</a> <i>ad alienum
propositum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec12"><ins class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘5 §72’">5 §12</ins></a> <i>decretum
quoddam atque praeceptum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24">7 §24</a> <i>promptum hoc
et in expedito positum</i>.</p>
<p>(2) <i>The Neuter Plural.</i></p>
<p>Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the
participle in <i>-us</i>, <i>-a</i>, <i>-um</i> is found frequently in
abl., gen., and dat. Not so common is the plural of the 3rd decl.:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">1 §86</a> <i>eminentibus
vincimur</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec5">3 §5</a> <i>nec protinus
offerentibus se gaudeamus</i>, <i>adhibeatur indicium inventis</i>,
<i>dispositio probatis</i>.</p>
<p>(3) <i>The Perfect Participle.</i></p>
<p>In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the
Ciceronian usage, according to which the participle is employed when a
definite class of individuals is indicated, and a <i>qui</i> clause when
the description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec131">1 §131</a> <i>robustis et
<span class = "pagenum">xlix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagexlix" id = "intro_pagexlix"> </a>
satis firmatis legendus</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3 §2</a> 7 <i>occupatos in
noctem necessitas agit</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec17">5 §17</a>
<i>exercitatos</i>; rather more general is <i>a conrogatis
laudantur</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec18">1 §18</a>. The Masculine
Singular is, in classical Latin, generally found along with a
substantive, it being incorrect to use any such expression as, for
example, <i>manes occisi placare</i>. Quintilian makes a very free use
of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24 <i>reddebat victo certaminis
polestatem</i>: v. 12, 2 <i>spiculum in corpore occisi inventum
est</i>, &c.</p>
<p>(4) <i>The Future Participle.</i></p>
<p>The use of this participle received a great extension in
post-Augustan times. The following are instances of its employment as a
substantive: i. 4, 17 <i>non doceo, sed admoneo docturos</i>: 21
<i>liberum opinaturis relinquo</i>: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 <i>hoc
adicio ut dicturus intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit</i>.</p>
<p>(5) <i>The Present Participle.</i></p>
<p>Frequent as is the substantival use of this participle in all Latin
authors, in none is it more frequent than in Quintilian—generally
in the Gen. and Dat. Sing. and Plur., not so common in the Nom. and Acc.
Pl., and seldom in the Abl. and Nom. Sing. In some instances it is found
alongside of a noun: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec2">2 §2</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec3">7 §3</a>. The most common
example of the Gen. Sing., standing alone, is (as might be expected from
the subject-matter of the <i>Institutio</i>) <i>discentis</i>,
<i>dicentis</i>, &c., e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec6">1 §6</a>: for the Dative see
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17">1 §§17</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec24">24</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec30">30</a>: Accusative
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec20">1 §20</a>: Ablative
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec15">1 §15</a> (<i>intellegere
sine demonstrante</i>): <i>eminentibus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">1 §86</a>: cp. <i>illis ...
recipientibus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec12">5 §12</a>. In the plural,
the Genitive and Dative are equally common: for the Nominative may be
quoted
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a>
<i>imitantes</i>: for the Accusative
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec16">1 §16</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec26">2 §26</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25">3 §25</a>.</p>
<h5>III. Pronouns.</h5>
<p><b>Ipse</b> follows the usual rules. For an interesting point in
connection with its use, see on
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a>. It is often
used as = <i>per se</i>, e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">1 §117</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec21">3 §21</a>: often with
pronouns, e.g. <i>vel hoc ipso</i> (<span class = "greek" title = "di’ auto touto">δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο</span>)
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec75">1 §75</a>, cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">5 §8</a>. For <i>et ipse</i>
see note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">1 §31</a>.</p>
<p><b>Hic</b> seems frequently to be used with reference to the
circumstances of the writer’s own times: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec43">1 §43</a> <i>recens haec
lascivia</i>: and probably also
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec31">7 §31</a> <i>hanc brevem
adnotationem</i>. (This is certainly the case with <i>ille</i>: e.g.
<i>illis dictandi deliciis</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec18">3 §18</a>: <i>ille
laudantium clamor</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17">1 §17</a>.) It has been
suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be wrong: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec6">1 §6</a> <i>ex his</i> (for
<i>ex iis</i>?): but cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">1 §§25</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">33</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">40</a>, &c. Such instances
of a preference for <i>hic</i> over <i>is</i> come under Priscian’s rule
(xvi. 58), <i><b>Hic</b>
<span class = "pagenum">l</span>
<a name = "intro_pagel" id = "intro_pagel"> </a>
non solum de <b>praesente</b> verum etiam de <b>absente</b> possumus
dicere, ad <b>intellectum</b> referentes demonstrativum</i>.</p>
<p>The conjunction of <i>nullus</i> and <i>non</i>
(= <i>quisque</i>, <i>omnis</i>) is common in Quintilian and
Suetonius:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec25">7 §25</a> <i>nullo non
tempore et loco</i>: cp. iii. 6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66;
Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.</p>
<p><b>Quicunque</b> has in Quintilian completely acquired the force of
an indefinite pronoun: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec12">1 §12</a>; <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">105</a>.</p>
<p><b>Quilibet unus</b> (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">1 §1</a>) does not occur in Cicero:
cp. i. 12, 7: v. 10, 117.</p>
<p><b>Ut qui</b> is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian
<i>quippe qui</i>, <i>utpote qui</i>: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">1 §55</a>.</p>
<h5>IV. Verbs.</h5>
<p>An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in
Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’
of Latin prose) occurs
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">1 §99</a> <i>licet
Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant</i>: see note <i>ad loc.</i>, and cp.
Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12, Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have
<i>efferre laudibus</i>, de Am. §24: de Off. ii. §36: de Orat. iii. §52.
So elsewhere in Quintilian <i>finire</i> for <i>definire</i>,
<i>solari</i> for <i>consolari</i>, <i>spargere</i> for
<i>dispergere</i>, &c.</p>
<p>Examples of a change in the meaning of verbs common to Cicero and
Quintilian are the following:—</p>
<p><b>Componere</b> occurs now in the sense of <i>sedare</i>,
<i>placare</i>: e.g. ix. 4, 12 <i>ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum
cogitationum, componerent</i>: iii. 4, 15 <i>concitando componendisve
adfectibus</i> (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202 <i>motum dicendo vel
<b>excitare</b> vel <b>sedare</b></i>): cp. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec119">1, 119</a> <i>Vibius
Crispus compositus et iucundus</i>, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176)
<i>Isocrates est in ipsis numeris <b>sedatior</b></i>. So Pollio, ad
Fam. x. 33, 3 has the phrase <i>bellum componere</i>: cp. Hor. Ep. ii.
1, 8 <i>componere litem</i>: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 <i>componere
curas</i>—both at the end of a hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet.
Caes. 4.</p>
<p><b>Digerere</b> = <i>concoquere</i>: see
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19">1 §19</a>. For
<i>concoquere</i> in Cicero, see de Fin. ii. §64: de N. D. ii.
§§24, 124, 136.</p>
<p><b>Praedicere</b> = <i>antea</i>, <i>supra dicere</i>: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec74">1 §74</a>.</p>
<p><b>Recipere</b> = <i>probare</i> (<span class = "greek" title =
"apodechomai">ἀποδέχομαι</span>):
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec31">7 §31</a>, and often.</p>
<p><b>Vacat</b>: used impersonally
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">1 §§58</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec90">90</a>: cp. i. 12, 12. This
usage is not found in Cicero.</p>
<h5>V. Adverbs.</h5>
<p><b>Abunde</b> is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to
increase their force:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">1 §25</a> <i>abunde
similes</i> (where see note):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec104">§104</a> <i>elatum abunde
spiritum</i>. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s <i>satis
superque</i>.</p>
<p><b>Adhuc</b> occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec71">1 §71</a> (<i>plus
adhuc</i>) and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">§99</a>. It is often used also
(as in Livy and others) of
<span class = "pagenum">li</span>
<a name = "intro_pageli" id = "intro_pageli"> </a>
past time, when it = <i>eo etiam tempore</i>, or <i>etiam tum</i>: e.g.
<i>scholae adhuc operatum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec13">3 §13</a>: cp. i. 8, 2:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec27">2 §27</a>.</p>
<p><b>Alioqui</b> has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1)
It occurs pretty much as <span class = "greek" title = "ta men alla">τὰ
μὲν ἄλλα</span> in Greek, with very little of an antithesis: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">1 §64</a> <i>Simonides,
tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate commendari potest</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32">3 §32</a> <i>expertus
iuvenem, studiosum alioqui, praelongos habuisse sermones</i>, &c.
(There is a definite antithesis in what seems to be the corresponding
usage in Tacitus, when <i>alioqui</i> is opposed to an adverb of time:
e.g, Ann. iii. 8 <i>cum incallidus alioqui et facilis iuventa senilibus
</i>tum<i> artibus uteretur</i>: xiii. 20 <i>ingreditur Paris, solitus
alioquin id temporis luxus principis intendere, sed </i>tunc<i>
compositus ad maestitiam.</i>) (2) It is equivalent to <i>praeterea</i>,
‘besides’:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec13">3 §13</a> <i>in
eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus</i>.
Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 <i>ordo alioqui sceleris ... patefactus est</i>.
This sense is an easy transition from ‘for the rest.’ The instance in
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">1 §128</a> (<i>cuius et
multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt</i>) seems to fall also under
this head, unless it means ‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they
paid him (Seneca) by imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 <i>validus
alioqui spernendis honoribus</i>. (3) <i>Alioqui</i> stands for
‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite case,’ either with a <i>si</i> clause, as
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec16">3 §16</a> <i>immutescamus
alioqui si nihil dicendum videatur</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec30">§30</a> <i>quid alioqui fiet
... si particulas</i>, &c.: or without,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a> <i>alioqui vel
extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem cogitationem</i>.
Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.</p>
<p><b>Certe</b> stands for <i>quidem</i> when the point of the sentence
is reinforced by an illustration:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec4">6 §4</a> <i>Cicero certe
... tradidit</i>: cp. xii. 1, 43: vi. 2, 3.</p>
<p><i>Demum</i>, which in classical Latin is an adverb of time
(‘lastly’), stands in Quintilian, and other writers of the Silver Age,
for <i>tantum</i>, <i>dumtaxat</i>, the idea of time having disappeared:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">1 §44</a> <i>pressa demum
et tenuia</i>, where see note: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec13">3 §13</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec5">6 §5</a>. With pronouns it
is frequently used, for emphasis, like <i>adeo</i>: e.g. Cic. de Orat.
ii. §131 <i>sed hi loci ei demum oratori prodesse possunt, qui est
versatus in rebus vel usu</i>.</p>
<p><b>Interim</b> often stands for <i>interdum</i>, as
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9">1 §9</a>, where see note. At
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec33">3 §33</a> we have
<i>interim ... interim</i> for <i>modo ... modo</i>, as also i. 7, 11:
<i>interim ... interdum</i> vi. 2, 12: <i>interim ... non numquam ...
saepe</i> iv. 5, 20: <i>semper ... interim</i> ii. 1, 1.</p>
<p><b>Longe</b> and <b>multum</b> are both used with comparatives,
instead of <i>multo</i>: e.g. <i>longe clarius</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">1 §67</a> (where see note):
<i>multum tersior</i> (<span class = "greek" title = "polu">πολύ</span>)
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">1 §94</a> (note).</p>
<p><b>Mox</b> is used in enumerations in place of <i>deinde</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec3">6 §3</a>
<i>primum—tum—mox</i>: cp. i. 2, 29 <i>primum—mox</i>:
ib. 9, 2 <i>primum—mox—tum</i>.</p>
<p><b>Nec</b> = <i>ne quidem</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec7">3 §7</a> <i>alioqui nec
scriberentur</i>. Cp. ix. 2, 67 <i>quod in foro non expedit, illic nec
liceat</i> iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">lii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelii" id = "intro_pagelii"> </a>
<p><b>Non</b> occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (<a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec16">3 §16</a>, cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec5">3 §5</a>) and 3rd pers.
sing.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec27">2 §27</a> where see note,
(also after <i>dum</i> xii. 10, 48 and <i>modo</i> iii. 11, 24) where
Cicero would have had <i>ne</i>: cp. i. 1, 19 <i>non ergo perdamus</i>:
ib. §5 <i>non adsuescat ergo</i>. Cp. <i>utinam non</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100">§100</a>: and see note on
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec27">2 §27</a>.</p>
<p><b>Non nisi</b>. These particles (<i>non</i>, <i>nisi</i>) are used
together with the force of an adverb,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec24">1 §24</a> (where see note):
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec29">3 §29</a>. Cp. Ov. Tr.
iii. 12, 36.</p>
<p><b>Olim</b> is never used by Cicero of future time, as
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">1 §94</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec104">104</a> (where see note). Cp.
Plin. Panegyr. 15.</p>
<p><b>Plane</b>, though common enough in classical Latin, as in
Quintilian, with verbs and adjectives, is not found so often in
conjunction with other adverbs. There may be a touch of colloquialism
about such a phrase as <i>ut plane manifesto appareat</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53">1 §53</a>: cp. Pollio, in
Cic. ad Fam. x. 32, 1 <i>plane bene</i>: ad Att. xiii. 6, 2: <i>plane
belle</i> ib. xii. 37, 1.</p>
<p><b>Protinus</b> has its usual meaning (<i>statim</i>) in
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec5">3 §5</a> (where it is best
taken with <i>gaudeamus</i>, not with <i>offerentibus</i>): cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec21">7 §21</a>. Its employment
to denote logical consequence is noted at
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3">1 §3</a>: cp. <i>ib.</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a>.</p>
<p><b>Saltem</b> is often used for <i>quidem</i> and <i>neque saltem</i>
for <i>ne quidem</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a> <i>nec vero
saltem iis</i>, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 <i>neque enim mihi
illud saltem placet</i>.</p>
<p><b>Sicut (ut) ... ita</b>. This formula is especially common in
Quintilian, either with or without a negative: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">1 §1</a>, and cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3">§§3</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec14">14</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec72">72</a>: ix. 2, 88, &c.</p>
<p><b>Ubicumque</b>, like <i>quicumque</i>, has become an indefinite:
e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28">7 §28</a> <i>quidquid
loquemur ubicumque</i>. The more classical use is found at
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec5">1 §§5</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10">10</a>.</p>
<p><b>Utique</b>: see note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec20">1 §20</a>.</p>
<p><b>Utrimque</b> is used not of place, but of the ‘opposite sides’ of
a question:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec20">5 §20</a> <i>causas
utrimque tractet</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec131">1 §131</a>: cp. v. 10, 81:
Hor. Ep. i. 18, 9: Tac. Hist. i. 14.</p>
<p><b>Velut</b> occurs more commonly than either <i>quasi</i> or
<i>tamquam</i> in comparisons: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec5">1 §5</a> <i>velut opes
quaedam</i>, and cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec18">§§18</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec61">61</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec3">3 §3</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec17">5 §17</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a>. So also
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6">7 §6</a> <i>ducetur ante
omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce</i>.</p>
<h5>VI. Prepositions.</h5>
<p><b>Ab</b> for ‘on leaving,’ as in the poets and Livy:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec17">5 §17</a> <i>ne ab illa, in
qua consenuerunt, umbra discrimina velut quendam solem reformident</i>:
cp. xi. 3, 22: i. 6, 25: Ov. Met. iv. 329: Plin. N. H. xiv.
7, 9. So <span class = "greek" title = "apo">ἀπὸ</span> in Homer,
Il. viii. 53 <span class = "greek" title = "Hoi d’ ara deipnon helonto karêkomoôntes Achaioi Rhimpha kata klisias, apo d’ autou thôrêssonto">Οἱ
δ᾽ ἄρα δεῖπνον ἕλοντο καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ Ῥίμφα κατὰ κλισίας, ἀπὸ δ᾽
αὐτοῦ θωρήσσοντο</span>.</p>
<p><b>Circa</b> does duty in Quintilian for <i>in</i>, <i>de</i>,
<i>ad</i>, <i>erga</i>, &c.: cp. the use of <span class = "greek"
title = "peri">περί</span>, <span class = "greek" title =
"amphi">ἀμφί</span> with the acc. in Greek<ins class = "correction"
title = "period missing">. </ins>So
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">1 §52</a> <i>utiles circa
praecepta sententiae</i>: see note <i>ad loc</i>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">liii</span>
<a name = "intro_pageliii" id = "intro_pageliii"> </a>
<p><b>Citra</b> very often stands for <i>sine</i> or <i>praeter</i>:
e.g. <i>citra lectionis exemplum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2">1 §2</a>, where see note:
cp. i. 4, 4 <i>neque citra musicen grammatice potest esse perfecta</i>.
In Cicero <i>citra</i> is used only of place.</p>
<p>The following prepositional expressions should also be
noted:—</p>
<p><b>Ante omnia</b> = <i>primum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3">1 §3</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">2 §4</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6">7 §6</a>. In
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3">1 §3</a> we have <i>ante
omnia</i>, <i>proximum</i>, <i>novissimum</i>: cp. iv. 2, 52 <i>ante
omnia</i>, <i>deinde</i>: iii. 9, 6 <i>ante omnia</i>, <i>deinde</i>,
<i>tum</i>, <i>postremo</i>.</p>
<p><b>Cum eo quod</b> is used as a transition formula for the Ciceronian
<i>accedit quod</i>. A certain case of this usage occurs xii. 10,
47: the instance at x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec13">7, 13</a> has been
challenged, but see the note.</p>
<p><b>Ex integro</b>. Quintilian prefers the use of <i>ex</i> in such
phrases to <i>de</i>: e.g. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec20">1 §20</a> (where see note):
<i>ex industria</i> ib.: and so <i>ex abundanti</i>, <i>ex professo</i>,
<i>ex pari</i>, &c., elsewhere.</p>
<p><b>Inter paucos</b>, ‘as few have ever been’:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec13">3 §13</a> <i>inter paucos
disertus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Per quae</b> (<i>quod</i>) of agency or instrument:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">1 §87</a> <i>in iis per
quae nomen est adsecutus</i>.</p>
<p><b>Propter quae</b> (<i>quod</i>) for <i>quam ob rem</i>, especially
in transitions: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10">1 §10</a>.</p>
<p><b>Praeter id quod</b> for <i>praeterquam quod</i>: see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">1 §28</a>.</p>
<p><b>Sine dubio</b>. The use of this phrase at
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51">1 §51</a> may possibly be
an instance of the peculiarity noted by Spalding on i. 6, 12, where he
points out that Quintilian frequently makes it stand for <i>quidem</i>,
in clauses where the idea is by <i>sine dubio</i> made of less account
than some other statement immediately following, and introduced by
<i>tamen</i> or <i>sed</i> (as i. 6, 12 and 14). Examples are v. 7, 28
<i>sine dubio ... tamen</i>: v. 10, 53 and viii. 3, 67 <i>sine dubio ...
sed</i>. Applying this to x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51">1, 51</a> <i>Verum hic
omnes sine dubio et in omni genere eloquentiae procul a se reliquit,
epicos tamen praecipue</i>, we might bring out the construction by
rendering, ‘But while of course (or ‘to be sure’) Homer has
out-distanced all rivals, in every kind of eloquence, it is the epic
poets whom he leaves furthest behind.’ Cp. on
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">3 §15</a>.</p>
<h5>VII. Conjunctions.</h5>
<p>Under this head may come <b>Adde quod</b>, a phrase which occurs
seven times in Quintilian, five times in the Tenth Book:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3">1 §§3</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec16">16</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2 §§10</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec11">11</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12">12</a>: xii. 1, 4 and 11, 29.
Schmalz (<i>Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio</i>) remarks
that it must be ranked rather with Pollio ad Fam. x. 31, 4 (<i>adde huc
quod</i>), where <i>quod</i> is to be taken as a conjunction, than with
Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 7, ad Fam. xiii. 41, 1 (<i>addo etiam illud
quod</i>), and ad Fam. xvi. 16, 1 (<i>adde hoc quod</i>), where
<i>quod</i> is a relative referring to the foregoing demonstrative. The
phrase is originally
<span class = "pagenum">liv</span>
<a name = "intro_pageliv" id = "intro_pageliv"> </a>
poetical: it is found in Attius, frequently in Lucretius (i. 847: iii.
827: iv. 1113), in the <i>Satires</i> and <i>Epistles</i> of Horace, and
over and over again in Ovid: Vergil seems to avoid it. Pollio probably
introduced it into prose, and from him it passed to others: Schmalz
refers to Plin. Ep. viii. 14, 3: iii. 14, 6: Sen. 40, 4: Symmach. 2, 7:
4, 71: Fronto, p. 92 N.</p>
<p><b>Cum interim</b> = ‘though all the time.’ See note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec18">1 §18</a>: cp. § III.</p>
<p><b>Dum ... non</b> stands for <i>dummodo ... non</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec7">3 §7</a>: cp. xii. 10, 48.
The usage is poetical. <i>Dummodo</i> does not occur in Quintilian.</p>
<p><b>Enim</b> occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third
place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. <i>ad profectum
enim</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">3 §15</a>: and so
frequently after <i>sum</i>,—<a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2 §10</a> <i>necesse est enim</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec14">1 §14</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec15">7 §§15</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24">24</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec19">2 §19</a>. But <i>nihil
enim est</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78">1 §78</a>, where Krüger
suggests <i>nihil enim inest</i>.</p>
<p><b>Etsi</b>. As it is generally stated that <i>etsi</i> does not
occur in Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i.
pr. 19: i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.</p>
<p><b>Ideoque</b> is constantly used for <i>itaque</i>. See note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec21">1 §21</a>.</p>
<p><b>Licet</b> = <i>etsi</i>, as sometimes in Cicero:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">1 §99</a>: ii. 2, 8 and
passim.</p>
<p><b>Quamlibet</b> and <b>quamquam</b>. Quintilian uses these words (in
clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and
adverbs:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19">3 §19</a> <i>nam in stilo
quidem quamlibet properato</i>: cp. viii. 6, 4 <i>oratione quamlibet
clara</i>: xii. 8, 7 <i>quamlibet verbose</i>: xi. 1, 34 <i>quamquam
plena sanguinis</i>. A similar use of <i>quamvis</i> is less
uncommon in other writers: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec74">1 §74</a> <i>quamvis
bonorum</i>: ib. §94 <i>quamvis uno libra</i> (where see note). See
Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.</p>
<p><b>Quia</b> is sometimes used where <i>quod</i> (<i>eo quod</i>)
might have been expected:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec15">1 §15</a> <i>hoc sunt
exempla potentiora ... quia</i>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14">5 §14</a> <i>Declamationes
vero ... sunt utilissimae quia</i> (Halm) <i>inventionem et
dispositionem pariter exercent</i>. So i. 6, 39 <i>nam et auctoritatem
antiquitatis habent</i> (sc. <i>verba a vetustate repetita</i>) <i>et,
quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant</i>. Cp. <i>non
quia non</i> (with the subjunctive) x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7, 19</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec31">31</a>: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5,
65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.</p>
<p><b>Quoque</b> often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its
force, where older writers would have had <i>vel</i> or <i>etiam</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec20">1 §20</a> <i>ex industria
quoque</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §14</a> <i>in magnis
quoque auctoribus</i>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec121">1 §121</a> <i>ceterum
interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum</i>: ii. II, I <i>exemplo
magni quoque nominis professorum</i>.</p>
<p><b>Quotiens</b> = <i>cum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec3">4 §3</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec29">7 §29</a>. Cp. iv. 1, 76:
viii. 3, 55.</p>
<p class = "space">
For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed
generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often
traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo
wrote
<span class = "pagenum">lv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelv" id = "intro_pagelv"> </a>
to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to
remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment.
But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian
period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent
instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly
constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the
technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such
matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say
clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great
stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is
generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to
take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come
dragging in at the end of a sentence (x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec13">2 §§13</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec23">23</a>), and adjectival or
attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable
isolation (<i>vel ob hoc memoria dignum</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec80">1 §80</a>: <i>rebus tamen
acuti magis quam</i>, &c.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec84">1 §84</a>: cp. §§85, 95,
103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of
fashion (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec80">1 §80</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec28">2 §28</a>). The thought is
sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the
Tenth Book: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec13">2 §§13</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec20">§§20</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec21">21</a>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec7">7 §7</a>), because the
composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition
particles are loosely used (see on <i>nam</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec12">1 §12</a>: cp. §50,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec31">7 §31</a>: <i>quidem</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">1 §88</a>), and are
sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly
and abruptly introduced (see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">1 §4</a>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a>). Instances of a
more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often
met with: e.g.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec36">1 §§36</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec41">41</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83">83</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec102">102</a>. In the order of words
there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">1 §109</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17">2 §17</a>), especially in
the case of proper names (<a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">1 §86</a> <i>Afro Domitio</i> for
<i>Domitio Afro</i>: cp. <i>Atacinus Varro</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">§87</a>: <i>Bassus Aufidius</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec103">§103</a>)<a class = "tag" name
= "tag71" id = "tag71" href = "#note71">71</a>. Constructions <span
class = "greek" title = "kata sunesin">κατὰ σύνεσιν</span> frequently
occur:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">1 §65</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105">§105</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec25">7 §25</a>. Under this
head may be included the omission of the subject:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec7">1 §7</a> <i>congregat</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">§66</a> <i>permiserunt</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec4">7 §4</a> <i>malit ...
possit</i>: and of words to be supplied from the context,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec56">1 §56</a>
<i>congerentes</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec7">1 §7</a> <i>solitos</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">1 §107</a> <i>quibus nihil
ille</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">1 §123</a> <i>qui
ubique</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec24">2 §24</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25">3 §25</a>. In the same
way <i>esse</i> is frequently omitted for the sake of brevity:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17">1 §17</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">§66</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec90">§90</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec1">4 §1</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec6">5 §6</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec7">7 §7</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23">§23</a>. Lastly there are
frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8">1 §§8</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9">9</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23">23</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">94</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec131">131</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec11">2 §§11-12</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec6">5 §§6-7</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec23">7 §23</a>: cp. on
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec23">2 §23</a>.</p>
<p>Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive
fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec14">1 §14</a> <i>dixerim</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec26">§26</a>
<span class = "pagenum">lvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelvi" id = "intro_pagelvi"> </a>
<i>maluerim</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">§37</a> <i>fuerit</i>, where see
note: so even <i>ut non dixerim</i> (<i>ne dicam</i>)
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec77">1 §77</a> and <i>ut sic
dixerim</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a>. (2) The
use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see on <i>sciet</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">1 §4</a>, and cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec26">2 §§26</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec28">28</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec28">3 §28</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28">7 §28</a>: also as a mild
imperative,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">1 §58</a>
<i>revertemur</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec18">3 §18</a>
<i>sequemur</i>;
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec1">2 §1</a>
<i>renuntiabit</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23">§23</a> <i>aptabimus</i>.
(3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are
characteristic of the Silver Age: (<i>a</i>) with <i>verbs</i>, as
<i>meruit credi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec72">1 §72</a>: <i>qui esse
docti adfectant</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec97">§97</a>: <i>optandum ...
fieri</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">§127</a>: <i>si consequi
utrumque non dabitur</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec22">7 §22</a>: <i>opponere
verear</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">1 §101</a>:
<i>intermittere veremur</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec26">7 §26</a>: cp.
<i>expertus iuvenem ... habuisse</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32">3 §32</a>: for
<i>dubitare</i> see on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec73">1 §73</a>:
(<i>b</i>) with <i>adjectives</i>, <i>legi dignus</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96">1 §96</a>: <i>contentum id
consequi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">2 §7</a>. (4) The
substantival use of the gerund, <i>ceteraque genera probandi ac
refutandi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec49">1 §49</a>: <i>lex
orandi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">1 §76</a>:
<i>inveniendi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a>: <i>sive acumine
disserendi sive eloquendi facultate</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81">1 §81</a>: cp.
<i>loquendi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83">§83</a>: <i>eloquendo</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">§106</a>: <i>nascendi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec4">3 §4</a>: <i>saliendi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec6">3 §6</a>: ib.
<i>iaculando</i>: <i>adiciendo</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32">3 §32</a>:
<i>emendandi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec2">4 §2</a>: <i>cogitandi</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec25">7 §25</a>.
(5) <i>Quamquam</i> with subjunctive
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">1 §33</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec21">2 §21</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec17">7 §17</a>:
<i>forsitan</i> with indic.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10">2 §10</a>: &c.</p>
<p>Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) <i>Anaphora</i>, or
the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses:
e.g. nulla <i>varietas</i>, nullus <i>adfectus</i>, nulla
<i>persona</i>, nulla <i>cuiusquam sit oratio</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">1 §55</a>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">1 §§99</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec115">115</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec130">130</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec2">2 §2</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec3">3 §3</a> (illic
<i>radices</i>, illic <i>fundamenta sunt</i>, illic <i>opes</i>,
&c.):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9">§9</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec29">§29</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec2">5 §§2</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">8</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1">6 §1</a>;
(2) <i>Asyndeton</i>: e.g. <i>facere</i> quam optime, quam
facillime <i>possit</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">1 §4</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">2 §16</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec7">7 §§7</a>,
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec26">26</a>;
(3) <i>Chiasmus</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14">5 §14</a>
(<i>alitur—renovatur</i>) and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec15">§15</a> (<i>ne
carmine—reficiuntur</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec15">7 §15</a>.</p>
<p class = "space">
The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or
the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph<a
class = "tag" name = "tag72" id = "tag72" href = "#note72">72</a>. It is
in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no
more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war,
which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their
images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime
occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what
is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that
a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both
Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is
little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical
treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in
which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian
emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked
upon as great national
<span class = "pagenum">lvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelvii" id = "intro_pagelvii"> </a>
entertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main
object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with
weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment
can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he
fought’: <i>tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum
eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat</i>, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec114">1, 114</a>. The orator
must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’ <i>in
procinctu</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2">1 §2</a> (where see note):
if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in
camp,—<i>nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec4">4 §4</a>. His style must be
appropriate to the matter in hand: <i>id quoque vitandum ne in oratione
poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito
lex, suus cuique decor est</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec21">2 §§21-2</a>. Victory must
ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a
sham fight:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec29">1 §§29-30</a> <i>nos vero
armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam
niti</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec27">2 §27</a> <i>quam omnia,
etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">1 §79</a> <i>Isocrates ...
palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">1 §31</a> <i>totum opus
(historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam
posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur</i>. The orator must have all
the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not
to be made for show:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">1 §33</a> <i>dum ...
meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec
versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene
ad forensem pulverem facere</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec30">1 §30</a> <i>Neque ego arma
squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat,
qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis
auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus</i>: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60">1 §60</a> <i>cum validae
tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque
nervorum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec77">1 §77</a> <i>carnis tamen
plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12">2 §12</a> <i>quo fit ut
minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec115">1 §115</a> <i>verum
sanguinem perdidisse</i>. As soon as possible he must add practice to
theory:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">1 §4</a>, cp.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec19">5 §§19-20</a>
(<i>iuvenis</i>) <i>iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis
cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri
videmus, decretoriis exerceatur</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec3">3 §3</a> <i>vires faciamus
ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non
exhauriantur</i>. His whole activity is that of the battle-field:
whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either
overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">1 §106</a> <i>pugnat ille
(Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec120">§120</a> <i>ut esset multo
magis pugnans</i>. And he must not linger too long over preparatory
exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their
suppleness:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec16">5 §16</a> <i>nam si nobis
sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat
articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur</i>.</p>
<hr class = "mid">
<span class = "pagenum">lviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelviii" id = "intro_pagelviii"> </a>
<h5><a name = "intro_chapV" id = "intro_chapV">V.</a>
Manuscripts.</h5>
<p class = "mynote">
In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted
because they would have been more distracting than useful.
</p>
<p>Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of
Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions:
(1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and
(3) the mixed.</p>
<p>The most important representative of the first class is the <i>Codex
Ambrosianus</i>, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan.
As we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly
a fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135
<i>argumenta acria et cit</i>. to xii. 11, 22 <i>antiquitas ut
possit</i>). Halm secured a new and trustworthy collation of this MS.,
distinguishing carefully between the original text and the readings of
the second hand.</p>
<p>Although now in the defective condition above indicated, the
<i>Ambrosianus</i> must have been originally complete. In this it
differs from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most
valuable member of which—the <i>Bernensis</i>—is of even
greater importance for the constitution of the text than the
<i>Ambrosianus</i>, at least in those parts which it contains. It is the
oldest of all the known manuscripts of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th
century. The peculiarity which it shares with the other members of its
family is that it contains certain great <i>lacunae</i>, which must have
existed also in the manuscript from which it was copied, as they are
indicated in the <i>Bernensis</i> by blank spaces. The size of the first
<i>lacuna</i> varies with the fortunes of the particular codex: in the
<i>Bernensis</i> it extends from the beginning to 2 §5 (<i>licet,
et nihilo minus</i>). The others are identical in all cases: v. 14,
12—viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17—viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2—x.
1, 107 (<i>nulla contentio</i>): xi. 1, 71—xi. 2, 33: and
xii. 10, 43 to the end.</p>
<p>To the same family as the <i>Bernensis</i> belongs the
<i>Bambergensis</i> A, which was directly copied from the
<i>Bernensis</i> not long after the latter had been written: it also is
of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the <i>Bambergensis</i> the
great <i>lacunae</i> were, at a very early date, filled in by another
hand (<i>Bambergensis</i> G<a class = "tag" name = "tag73" id =
"tag73" href = "#note73">73</a>), this manuscript may now rank in the
third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the
<span class = "pagenum">lix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelix" id = "intro_pagelix"> </a>
<i>Harleianus</i> (2664), and through the <i>Harleianus</i> of the
<i>Florentinus</i>, <i>Turicensis</i>, and an innumerable company of
others. Besides reproducing <i>Bambergensis</i> G, these MSS.
follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called
by Halm <b>b</b>) into the original <i>Bambergensis</i> A.
A recent examination of the <i>Bambergensis</i> has suggested a
doubt whether the readings known as <b>b</b>, which are often of a very
faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex
as G.</p>
<p>Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the
manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for
the parts where he had only the <i>Ambrosianus</i> and the
<i>Bambergensis</i> G, or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since
the date of the publication of his text (1868) great progress has been
made with the critical study of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain
and le Coultre published a collation of the <i>Nostradamensis</i>
(see below), the main results of which have been incorporated in
Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical edition of the First Book
of the <i>Institutio</i> (1890) M. Ch. Fierville has given a most
complete account of all the continental manuscripts, drawing for the
purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown proof of his
interest in the subject (<i>De Quintilianeis Codicibus</i>, 1874).</p>
<p>There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him
aright in attaching supreme importance to the <i>Bernensis</i> (with
<i>Bambergensis</i> A), the <i>Ambrosianus</i>, and
<i>Bambergensis</i> G. But much has been derived from some
manuscripts of which he took no account, and there is one in particular,
which has hitherto been strangely overlooked, and to which prominence is
accordingly given in this edition. Before proceeding to deal with it,
I shall annex here a brief notice of the various MSS. which figure
in the Critical Notes, grouped in one or other of the three divisions
given above. An editor of the Tenth Book of the <i>Institutio</i> is
especially bound to travel outside the rather narrow range of Halm’s
critical edition, as so much of the existing text (down to 1 §107)
has been based mainly on <i>Bambergensis</i> G alone. In addition
to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such MSS. as the
<i>Ioannensis</i> at Cambridge, the <i>Bodleianus</i> and
<i>Balliolensis</i> at Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex,
referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th
century manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show
to have been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This
part of the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this
country, what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously
accomplished for the manuscripts of the Continent.</p>
<p>Of the first family, the outstanding example is the
<i>Ambrosianus</i>. The resemblances between it and
<i>Bambergensis</i> G are sufficient to show that
<span class = "pagenum">lx</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelx" id = "intro_pagelx"> </a>
the manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the
same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like the
<i>Ambrosianus</i> originally), has altogether disappeared: one of the
great objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond
the limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish
between such examples as may seem (like the <i>Dorvilianus</i> at
Oxford) to preserve some of the traditions of the family, and those
whose origin may be clearly traced back to <i>Bambergensis</i> A
and G. For all the complete MSS. of Quintilian in existence must be
derived either from this family or from the mixed group of which the
<i>Bambergensis</i>, in its present form, seems to be the undoubted
original.</p>
<p>In the second group we must include, not much inferior to the
<i>Bernensis</i>, the <i>Parisinus Nostradamensis</i> (N) Bibl. Nat.
fonds latin 18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of
the incomplete MS. from which the <i>Bernensis</i> was copied, and as
such has a distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th
century. For the readings of this codex I have been able to compare a
collation made by M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by
MM. Chatelain and le Coultre in 1875.</p>
<p>Then there is the <i>Codex Ioannensis</i> (in the library of
St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has
shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr.
p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition
it begins with <i>constaret</i> (i. 2, 3), but a portion of the
first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter:
originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second
chapter, like the <i>Nostradamensis</i>, the <i>Vossiani</i> 1
and 2, the <i>Codex Puteanus</i>, and <i>Parisinus</i> 7721 (see
Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly
<i>multiplici</i>, not <i>ut duplici</i>, and in this it agrees with the
Montpellier MS. (<i>Pithoeanus</i>), which is known to be a copy (11th
century) of the <i>Bernensis</i> (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil.
1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of
inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I
have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be
subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this
manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible
in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space
being left blank) as <i>tum in ipsis</i> in x. 2, 14, and
<i>virtutis</i> ib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand,
with no contemporary indication of the great <i>lacunae</i>, and may be
ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with the
<i>Bernensis</i>, though there are striking resemblances also to the
<i>Pratensis</i> (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions
referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1 <i>sic etiam
utilitatis</i>, for <i>sic utilitatis etiam</i>: ib. §30 <i>oratione
continua</i>, for <i>continua oratione</i>: 5 §8 <i>alia propriis
alia translatis virtus</i>, for <i>alia
<span class = "pagenum">lxi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxi" id = "intro_pagelxi"> </a>
translatis virtus alia propriis</i>: 7 §21 <i>stultis eruditi</i>,
for <i>stulti eruditis</i>: ib. §28 <i>solum summum</i>, for <i>summum
solum</i>. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8)
it shares with the Leyden MSS.—the <i>Vossiani</i> i. and iii., a
collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices
M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which
the <i>Nostradamensis</i> heads the list (see below, p. lxiv).
I may note also the readings <i>viderit bona et invenit</i> (
2 §20), which <i>Ioan.</i> shares with <i>Voss.</i> iii.: <i>potius
libertas ista</i> ( 3 §24) <i>Ioan.</i> and <i>Voss.</i> i.;
<i>ubertate</i>—for <i>libertate</i>—( 5 §15) <i>Ioan.
Voss.</i> i. and iii.</p>
<p>To the same family belongs the <i>Codex Salmantinus</i>, a 12th or
13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca.
M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the
Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the
<i>Bernensis</i>. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs
from the <i>Nostradamensis</i> (most of them being the errors of a
copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from
the <i>Nostradamensis</i>, it agrees with the <i>Bernensis</i> and the
<i>Bambergensis</i>. This MS. also gives <i>ubertate</i> in 5 §15 :
it agrees in showing the important reading <i>alte refossa</i> in
3 §2 : and resembles the <i>Ioannensis</i> in certain minor
omissions, e.g. <i>certa</i> before <i>necessitate</i> in 5 §15 :
<i>idem</i> before <i>laborandum</i> in 7 §4 : <i>et</i> before
<i>consuetudo</i> in 7 §8 : cp. <i>subiunctura sunt</i> for
<i>subiuncturus est</i> 7 §9 . For other coincidences see the
Critical Appendix.</p>
<p>In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance
for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the <i>Codex
Salmantinus</i>) I am indebted to the kindness of
M. Fierville. They are the <i>Codex Pralensis</i> (No. 14146 fonds
latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and the
<i>Codex Puteanus</i> (No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of
Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of
extracts from the <i>Institutio</i> amounting to nearly a third of the
whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (<i>de figuris
verborum</i>) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (<i>de imitatione</i>)
consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (<i>quomodo dictandum sit</i>) of x.
3, 1-32; and §79 (<i>de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam
Latinorum</i>) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises
from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of the
<i>Beccensis</i>, now lost. The <i>Beccensis</i> is supposed by
M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the
9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least
equal rank with the <i>Bernensis</i>. That it was an independent copy of
some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the
<i>Pratensis</i>, but also by the fact that both the <i>Pratensis</i>
and the <i>Puteanus</i> (which is also a transcript of the
<i>Beccensis</i>) show a <i>lacuna</i> after the word <i>mutatis</i> in
<span class = "pagenum">lxii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxii" id = "intro_pagelxii"> </a>
x. 3, 32. This <i>lacuna</i> must have existed in the <i>Beccensis</i>,
though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne
de Rouen added the words <i>correctum fuisse tabellis</i> in his copy
(the <i>Pratensis</i>): the text runs <i>codicibus esse
sublatum</i>.</p>
<p>The general character of the readings of the <i>Pratensis</i> may be
gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this
volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and
it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used
by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from the <i>Pratensis</i>
or from its prototype, the <i>Beccensis</i>. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives
(like S) <i>rogantis Achillen Priami precibus</i>, while most codd.
have <i>Priami</i> before <i>rogantis</i>: ib. §53 <i>eloquentie</i> (so
Put. S 7231, 7696) for <i>eloquendi</i>: ib. <i>superatum</i> (so Put.)
for <i>superari</i>: §55 <i>aequalem credidit parem</i> (as Put. S Harl.
2662, 11671): §67 <i>idque ego</i> (as Put. S) for <i>idque ego
sane</i>: §68 <i>qui fuerunt</i> and also <i>vero</i>, omitted (as in
Put. S): so also <i>tenebras</i> §72, <i>valuerunt</i> §84 (as
7231, 7696), and <i>veterum</i> §97: at §95 Prat, gives et
<i>eruditissimos</i> for <i>et doctissimos</i>, and hence the omission
of <i>erudit.</i> in S. On the whole, the study of the text of the
<i>Pratensis</i> seems to give additional confidence in the readings
of G: for example §98 <i>imperare</i> (as Put.): §101
<i>cesserit</i> (Put. 7231, 7696): ib. <i>nec indignetur</i>. Étienne de
Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his
original, and this strengthens the contention that <span class = "greek"
title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp.
§42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 <i>quem superius
institui</i> for <i>quem institueram in libra secundo</i> is an
indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of
the <i>Institutio</i>, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This
probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to
be peculiar to the <i>Pratensis</i>, among which may be noted 1 §48
<i>putat</i> for <i>creditum est</i> (where Put. has
<i>certissimum</i>): §59 <i>ad exemplum maxime permanebit</i> (<i>ad
exitum</i> Put. and S): §78 <i>propinquior</i> for <i>propior</i>:
§80 <i>mediocri</i> for <i>medio</i>: §81 <i>assurgit</i> for
<i>surgit</i>: §109 <i>in utroque</i> for <i>in quoque</i>. Peculiar
readings which Prat. shares with the <i>Puteanus</i> (and which were
therefore probably in the <i>Beccensis</i>) are §46 <i>in magnis</i> for
<i>in magnis rebus</i>: §49 <i>innuit</i> for <i>nuntiat</i>: §50
<i>excessit</i> for <i>excedit</i>: §54 <i>ne virtus</i> for <i>ne
utrius</i> (<i>neutrius</i>): §57 <i>ignoro ergo</i> (S) for <i>ignoro
igitur</i>: §63 <i>plurimumque oratio</i>: §68 <i>in affectibus
communibus mirus</i>: §79 <i>discernendi</i> for <i>dicendi</i>: §107
<i>nominis latini</i> for <i>latini sermonis</i>. At 1 §72 Prat.
has <i>qui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro</i> (Put. <i>ut
pravis</i>), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671 <i>qui quamvis
sui temp</i>. <i>Men.</i> There are frequent inversions, e.g. <i>dicendi
genere</i> §52 (Put.): <i>Attici sermonis</i> (Put.) §65: <i>plus
Attio</i> (Put.) §97: <i>cuicumque eorum Ciceronem</i> (as Put. 7231,
7696) §105: <i>sit nobis</i> §112:
<span class = "pagenum">lxiii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxiii" id = "intro_pagelxiii"> </a>
<i>est autem</i> (as Ioan.) §115: <i>forum illustrator</i> (as Ioan.)
§122: <i>creditus sum</i> §125: <i>dignis lectione</i> 2 §1:
<i>possumus sperare</i> §9: <i>nemo vero eum</i> §10: <i>aliquo tamen in
loco aliquid</i> §24: <i>scientia movendi</i> §27: <i>ipso opere</i>
3 §8: <i>se res facilius</i> §9: <i>desperatio etiam</i> §14:
<i>vox exaudiri</i> §25: <i>praecipue in hoc</i> §26: <i>possunt
semper</i> §28<a class = "tag" name = "tag74" id = "tag74" href =
"#note74">74</a>.</p>
<p>From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the
<i>Codex Puteanus</i> is in general agreement with the <i>Pratensis</i>,
each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given
by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the
Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it
is even more in agreement than the <i>Pratensis</i> with the later
family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61
<i>spiritu</i>: ib. <i>merito</i> omitted: §72 <i>possunt decernere</i>
(for <i>possis decerpere</i>—<i>possis decernere</i> Prat.).</p>
<p>In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the
<i>Pratensis</i>, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist
respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions
of the <i>Institutio</i> must have formed part of the mutilated original
from which the <i>Beccensis</i> was copied, and they have been
reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS.
(7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by
M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century,
containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian
form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of
Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian.
In both the title runs Quintilianus, <i>libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui
auctores Graecorum maxime legendi</i>. M. Fierville states (Introd.
p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x.
1 §§46-68) in the <i>Pratensis</i>, <i>Puteanus</i>, 7231, and
7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two
latter, and nine in all four. He adds that the <i>Vossiani</i> i. and
iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231
and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50 <i>illis Priami
rogantis Achillen</i>: at §59 the former has <i>ad exim</i>, the latter
<i>ad exi</i>: at §61 both give <i>eum nemini credit</i>, omitting
<i>merito</i> (as Put. and S): at §68 <i>namque is et sermone</i>
(as Prat.: <i>namque sermone</i> Put.): ib. <i>in dicendo ac
respondendo</i> (Prat. Put. <i>in dicendo et in resp.</i>): §72
(apparently) <i>ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis</i>: §82 <i>finxisse
sermonem</i> (as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83 <i>ac varietate</i>:
§88 <i>laudandus partibus</i> (<i>laudandis part.</i> Prat. Put. Harl.
2662, 11671): §91 <i>visum</i> (<i>visum est</i> Prat. Put.): §98
<i>senes
<span class = "pagenum">lxiv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxiv" id = "intro_pagelxiv"> </a>
non parum tragicum</i> (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107 <i>Latini
nominis</i>: §121 <i>leve</i> (Prat. N). In §98 <i>Thyestes</i> is
omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was
written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions
which do not seem to appear in 7696: <i>dedit exemplum et ortum</i>
1 §46: <i>proximus aemulari</i> §62.</p>
<p>M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of
MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first
includes the <i>Bernensis</i>, <i>Bambergensis</i> A,
<i>Ambrosianus</i> ii., <i>Pithoeanus</i> (these two are direct
copies of the <i>Bernensis</i>), <i>Salmantinus</i>, three Paris codices
(7720, 7722 and <i>Didot</i>), and probably the <i>Ioannensis</i>. In
the second he ranks the <i>Nostradamensis</i>, <i>Vossiani</i> i. and
iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the <i>Beccensis</i>,
<i>Pratensis</i>, and <i>Puteanus</i>: in the fourth a <i>codex
Vaticanus</i>, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments
just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers the
<i>Bernensis</i>, <i>Bambergensis</i>, <i>Nostradamensis</i>,
<i>Pratensis</i>, and <i>Puteanus</i> to be of greatest importance for
the constitution of the text.</p>
<p class = "space">
At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now
be placed the <i>Codex Harleianus</i> (2664), in the library of the
British Museum<a class = "tag" name = "tag75" id = "tag75" href =
"#note75">75</a>. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C.
Purser in <i>Hermathena</i> (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I
am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain
indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date,
it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There
are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was
used to supply the great <i>lacunae</i> in some MS. of the first or
incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the
annexed facsimile, <i>a</i> being used at the beginning and <i>b</i> (as
here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript
contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At
the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first
part of the <i>Bambergensis</i> is larger than G, which the
<i>Harleianus</i> (H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more
recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been
supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v.,
where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next
page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though
nothing is wanting in the text.</p>
<p>The result of my investigations has been to identify this important
manuscript with the <i>Codex Dusseldorpianus</i>, which we know
disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the
preface to
<span class = "pagenum">lxv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxv" id = "intro_pagelxv"> </a>
his edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who
had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod
sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom
from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long
unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone:
‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios
rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the
Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of
Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with
several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James
Zamboni, Resident <i>Chargé d’Affaires</i> in England for the Elector of
Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford;
and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian
manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the
Court library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with
whom Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.</p>
<p>‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written
elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the
provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair
begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much
dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something
of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s
prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when
pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux
livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724,
when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices,
assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they
would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for
the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez,
Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three
weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to
Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great
Vitruvius—the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly
with those in Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is
writing to Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to
make a “très jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add.
D, 66).’</p>
<p>What the history of the <i>Harleianus</i> may have been before it
came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue
is a scrawl on the first page: <i>Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae</i>.
This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The
<i>Codex Florentinus</i> has an inscription showing that it was given by
Bishop Werinharius (the
<span class = "pagenum">lxvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxvi" id = "intro_pagelxvi"> </a>
first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at
Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there
(circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae
praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus
scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi
videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at
Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged.
And if, as is now generally believed, neither the <i>Florentinus</i> nor
the <i>Turicensis</i> can be considered identical with the manuscript
which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered
it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that
manuscript in the <i>Harleianus</i>, if we can conceive of its having
migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.</p>
<p class = "mynote">
The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet
Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location
was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in
the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.
</p>
<p>Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238
sqq.), Mr. A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some
very interesting information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems
that Zamboni was able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS.
which he was selling to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by
comparing the Zamboni correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the
posthumous catalogue of Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered
that Büchels was offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that
great scholar, which in this way ultimately found a home in the library
of the British Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann
Wilhelm bought both his books and his manuscripts. The former he
presented to the library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he
retained in his own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian
codex of Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not
to Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once
referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he
said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd.
p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his
‘Verisimilia,’ iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from
the preface to Book vi, all of which appear in the <i>Harleianus</i> as
we have it now. And as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the
library of Cologne Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad
Fam. (Harl. 2682), Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the
same time. He evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they
passed, with many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to
London.</p>
<p>It was only after the <i>Bambergensis</i> arrived in the British
Museum (where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in
courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to
form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by the
<i>Harleianus</i> in regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the
experts, that the latter MS. was distinctly of older date than the
former: it is written in a neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds
alone there might have been room for doubt. But a fuller examination
convinced me that the <i>Harleianus</i> was copied directly from the
<i>Bambergensis</i>, possibly at the very time when the latter was being
completed by the addition of the parts known as
<i>Bambergensis</i> G, and of some at least of the readings now
generally designated <b>b</b>. These latter, indeed, the
<i>Harleianus</i> slavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in
the original <i>Bambergensis</i>: probably the copyist of the
<i>Harleianus</i> was aware of the importance attached to the codex
(uncial?) from which the <b>b</b> readings were taken. In view, however,
of the defective state in which the <i>Bambergensis</i> has come down to
us, as regards the opening part, and considering also the mutilation of
the <i>Ambrosianus</i>, we may still claim for the MS. in the British
Museum the distinction of being the oldest complete manuscript of
Quintilian in existence.</p>
<p>The proof that the <i>Harleianus</i> stands at the head of the great
family of the <i>mixed</i> manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till
now mainly by the <i>Florentinus</i>, <i>Turicensis</i>,
<i>Almeloveenianus</i>, and <i>Guelferbytanus</i>) is derived from a
consideration of its relationship to both parts of the
<i>Bambergensis</i> on the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the
other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the
critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the
<i>Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
München</i>, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of
the <i>Turicensis</i> and the <i>Florentinus</i> on the
<i>Bambergensis</i> by pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion
at a wrong place in the
<span class = "pagenum">lxvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxvii" id = "intro_pagelxvii"> </a>
text of both these codices of certain words which, having been
inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the <i>Bambergensis</i> from
their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the
foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is
ix. 2, 52: <i>circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid
ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico</i>. When the
copyist of the <i>Bambergensis</i> noticed his mistake, he completed
<i>Drepanitani</i> in the text, and wrote in the words <i>gaudeo etiam
... abs te</i> at the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication
of the place where they were to be taken in. In the <i>Bambergensis</i>
the page ends with the words (§54) <i>an huius ille legis quam</i>, and
the next page continues <i>C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur</i>.
Noticing that in both the <i>Florentinus</i> and the <i>Turicensis</i>
the marginal addition (<i>gaudeo etiam ... abs te</i>) is inserted not
after <i>legis quam</i> but after <i>Clodius</i>, Halm drew the
inference that these codices were copied from the <i>Bambergensis</i>
not directly, but through some intervening manuscript. The
<i>Harleianus</i> is this manuscript. In it the words referred to do
come in between <i>legis quam</i> and (<i>Cloe</i>)<i>lius</i>: indeed,
so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in the
<i>Bambergensis</i>, in which the letters C l o e are
subpunctuated, that the <i>Harleianus</i> actually shows <i>et abs te
lius a se inventa</i><a class = "tag" name = "tag76" id = "tag76" href =
"#note76">76</a>, exactly as the writer of <b>b</b> wished the
<i>Bambergensis</i> to stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the
<i>Harleianus</i> did not know enough Latin to save him from making very
considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript
must take rank above the <i>Turicensis</i> and the <i>Florentinus</i>
(and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with
a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It
may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text
stands <i>utinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata</i>, &c. In
the <i>Bambergensis</i>, <i>utrum nam</i> is supplied by <b>b</b> above
the line, and in the margin <i>que peiora vincant verum</i>, the words
affected by the change being
<span class = "pagenum">lxviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxviii" id = "intro_pagelxviii"> </a>
subpunctuated in the text. The copyist of the <i>Harleianus</i> takes
the <i>utrum nam</i> and leaves the rest, showing <i>utrum nam
schemata</i>: this appears as <i>utrim nam schemata</i> in the
<i>Turicensis</i>, and as <i>utinam schemata</i> in the
<i>Florentinus</i> and <i>Almeloveenianus</i>. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in
the <i>Bambergensis</i> (G) <i>quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris.
Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa</i>, &c. The words
enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.);
they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the <i>Harleianus</i>,
and as a consequence we have <i>supplici</i> in <i>Turic.</i> and
<i>Flor.</i>, <i>supplitia</i> in <i>Guelf.</i>, &c. Again at x. 7,
20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the
<i>Harleianus</i>, which caused him to write <i>Neque vero tantas eum
breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae</i>,
&c., has given rise to the greatest confusion in <i>Turic.</i>,
<i>Flor.</i>, <i>Alm.</i>, <i>Bodleianus</i>, <i>Burn.</i> 243, &c.
In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the
remarkable insertion of the words <i>qui foro</i> between <i>breve
saltem</i> and <i>tempus</i>: at this point the copyist of H must have
allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg,
where the words <i>qui foro</i> hold a conspicuous position.
<i>Flor.</i> and <i>Tur.</i> repeat the mistake, except that the latter
gives <i>eum brevem</i> for <i>eum breve</i>. Again at the end of Book
ix, <i>Bambergensis</i> G gives <i>ut numerum spondet flexisse non
arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur</i>: this reading is
identical with that of the <i>Harleianus</i>, except that the latter for
<i>arcessiti</i> gives <i>arcessisti</i>, a deviation promptly
reproduced by the <i>Florentinus</i>, while the <i>Turicensis</i> shows
<i>accersisti</i>. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the
following: at iv. 2, 128 the <i>Bambergensis</i> gives (for <span class
= "greek" title = "epidiêgêsis">ἐπιδιήγησις</span>) <span class =
"greek" title = "EPIDIÊTÊSEI">ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ</span>: this appears in H as
<span class = "greek" title = "EPIDIÊSEI">ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ</span> the seventh
and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist.
F makes this <span class = "greek" title =
"EPITHESIE">ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ</span> and T shows <span class = "greek" title =
"EPITHSIS">ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ</span> (<span class = "greek" title =
"epiliêsei">επιλιησει</span>—Spalding).</p>
<div class = "mynote">
<p>The four forms of the Greek word appear in the printed text as:</p>
<p>
<img src = "../images/epidiegesis1.gif" width = "137" height = "16"
alt = "text image"></p>
<p><img src = "../images/epidiegesis2.gif" width = "108" height = "17"
alt = "text image"></p>
<p><img src = "../images/epidiegesis3.gif" width = "104" height = "15"
alt = "text image"></p>
<p><img src = "../images/epidiegesis4.gif" width = "88" height = "15"
alt = "text image"></p>
</div>
<p>As the <i>Bambergensis</i> (Bg), in its present state, only commences
at i. 1. 6. (<i>nec de patribus tantum</i>), the readings of the
<i>Harleianus</i> (H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of
first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we have <i>pertinerent</i> H,
<i>pertinent</i> T: §2 <i>diversas</i> H, <i>divisas</i> T: §5 <i>fieri
oratorem non posse</i> HF, <i>fieri non posse oratorem</i> T
(as A): §6 <i>amore</i> H, <i>studio</i> F: <i>iτ ingenii</i> H,
<i>iter ingenii</i> T, <i>ingenii</i> F: §13 <i>officio quoque</i> H,
<i>quoque officio</i> F: §19 <i>summa</i> H (also Bg), <i>summam</i> T:
§25 <i>demonstraturi</i> HF, <i>demonstrari</i> T: §27 <i>adiumenta</i>
H (a correction by same hand on <i>adiuvante</i>): so Bg F:
<i>adiuvante</i> T. In chap. 1 §3 <i>sed plus</i> HT: <i>sed et
plus</i> F: <i>hoc quippe viderit</i> H Bg F: <i>hoc
quippe</i> (om. <i>viderit</i>) T.</p>
<p>These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First
Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and
there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the
readings of
<span class = "pagenum">lxix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxix" id = "intro_pagelxix"> </a>
Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in
exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s
ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T
or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 <i>nihil
est peius</i> Bg H T, <i>nihil enim est peius</i> F: ib. §11
<i>defuerit</i> Bg H T, <i>defuerint</i> F: ib. §12 <i>perbibet</i> Bg H
F, <i>perhibet</i> T: ib. §16 <i>formandam</i> Bg H, <i>formandum</i> F
T: 2 §18 <i>in media rei p. vivendum</i> Bg (b) H, <i>in med.
rei praevivendum</i> T, <i>reip. videndum</i> F: ib. §24
<i>depellendam</i> Bg H, <i>repellendam</i> T: ib. §31 <i>concipiat quis
mente</i> Bg H, <i>quis mente concipiat</i> F: 4 §27
<i>tereuntur</i> Bg H T, <i>intereuntur</i> F: 6 §9 <i>dicet</i>
Bg, <i>dicit</i> H F, <i>dicitur</i> T: ib. §14 <i>dici ceris</i> Bg
(dici ceris),<a class = "tag" name = "tagA" id = "tagA" href =
"#noteA">A</a> <i>diceres</i> H, <i>dici</i> F T: ib. §30 <i>aliaque
quae consuetudini serviunt</i> Bg H,—in margin of H <i>aliquando
consuetudini servit</i> (b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the
alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 <i>haec ei et cura</i> H F,
<i>haec et cura ei</i> T: 11 §4 <i>pinguitudine</i> Bg H,
<i>pinguedine</i> F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the
following: ii. 5, 13 <i>dicentur</i> Bg H, <i>docentur</i> T: 5 §26
<i>hanc</i> Bg H, om. T: 15 §8 <i>testatum est</i> Bg H,
<i>testatum</i> T. In ix. 363 G has <i>parem</i> (for
<i>marem</i> A): H gives <i>patrem</i> and F T follow suit:
cp. ix. 4, 8 <i>hoc est</i> G H, <i>id est</i> F: ib. §16 <i>quoque</i>
G H, om. T: ib. §32 <i>nesciat</i> G H, <i>dubitet</i> F:
<i>dignatur</i> G H, <i>digne dicatur</i> F: viii. pr. §3 <i>dicendi</i>
G H, <i>discendi</i> T: ix. 4, 119 <i>ignorabo</i> G, <i>ignoraba</i> H,
<i>ignorabam</i> T: ib. §129 <i>et hac fluit</i> G H, <i>et hac et hac
fluit</i> T: xii. 11, 8 <i>scierit</i> G, <i>scieret</i> H,
<i>sciret</i> T: ib. 2 §18 <i>autem</i> Bg H, om. T: x. 1, §4
<i>numuro quae</i> G H, <i>num muro quae</i> T, <i>numeroque</i> F: ib.
§50 <i>et philogus</i> G, <i>et philochus</i> H T, <i>et epiloghus</i>
F: ib. §73 <i>porem</i> G H, <i>priorem</i> F T: ib. §75 <i>vel hoc
est</i> G H, <i>hoc est vel</i> T: x. 2, 7 <i>posteriis</i> (for
<i>historiis</i>) H, <i>posteris</i> F (<i>posterius</i> ed. Camp.): x.
2, 10 <i>discernamus</i> Bg, <i>discernantur</i> b,
<i>disnantur</i> H T, <i>desinantur</i> F. Noteworthy cases of the
close adherence of T to H are the following: <i>Empedoclena</i> i. 4, 4:
<i>vespueruginem</i> i. 7, 12: <i>tereuntur</i> i. 4, 27: <i>flex
his</i> x. 1, 2: <i>gravissimus</i> x. 1, 97: <i>ipsae
illae quae extorque eum credas</i> x. 1, 110, where both also
give <i>trans usum</i> for <i>transversum</i>, and <i>non repe</i> for
non rapi: <i>morare refinxit finxit recipit</i> x. 3, 6: <i>nam
quod cum isocratis</i> x. 4, 4. In other instances the writer
of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the
title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes for
<i><b>quo</b> enim <b>dandum</b></i>: also <i>extemporal facilitas</i>
which appears in T as <i>extempora vel facilitas</i>: x. 1, 79
<i>ven iudicis</i> H (in mistake for <i>se non iud.</i>), which is made
by T into <i>venit iudicis</i>. Many similar instances could be cited in
regard to both T and F; the reading <i>tantum</i>, for instance, in x.
1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which
here shows something that looks more like <i>tantum</i> than
<i>tacitum</i> (the reading of G). Again, in every
<span class = "pagenum">lxx</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxx" id = "intro_pagelxx"> </a>
place where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will
be found to correspond<a class = "tag" name = "tag77" id = "tag77" href
= "#note77">77</a>.</p>
<div class = "mynote">
<p><a name = "noteA" id = "noteA" href = "#tagA">A.</a>
(<i>dici ceris</i>) text image showing inserted letters:</p>
<p>
<img src = "../images/diciceris.gif" width = "171" height = "53"
alt = "text images">
</p>
</div>
<p>With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt
that the <i>Harleianus</i> must now take rank above both the manuscripts
which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a
place in the criticism of Quintilian, the <i>Codex Florentinus</i> and
the <i>Codex Turicenis</i>. The former is an eleventh century MS., now
in the Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this
inscription: <i>Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae</i>: on the
last <i>Liber Petri de Medicis, Cos. fil.</i>: and below <i>Liber
sanctae Mariae ecclesiae Argñ.</i> (= Argentoratensis) <i>in
dormitorio</i>. There were two bishops of Strasburg bearing the name of
Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the second 1065-1079. M. Fierville
(Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first Werner (of Altemburg or
Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral at Strasburg in 1015,
and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable books; and we also
know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at Frankfort to promote
the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here then we have the
elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner was a patron of
letters; and learning that by the addition of what is now known as
<i>Bambergensis</i> G a complete text of Quintilian had been
secured, he had it copied. The <i>Codex Harleianus</i> was in all
probability the first copy, and from it the <i>Codex Florentinus</i> was
reproduced. The latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which
(though hitherto it seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose
of its claim to be considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he
describes as ‘plenum situ’ and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo
quodam et obscuro carcere, fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales
quidem rei damnati retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from
Strasburg to St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is
hard to believe that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and
unknown. After 1372 we know nothing certain of its history till it
reappears in the library of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part
of the fifteenth century. It is generally supposed that some time
between 1372 and 1417 it must have been transported from Strasburg to
the monastery of St. Gall, and that it passed from there to
Florence after Poggio’s departure. A similar theory may quite as
legitimately be maintained in reference to the <i>Harleianus</i>, which,
as I have
<span class = "pagenum">lxxi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxi" id = "intro_pagelxxi"> </a>
already indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at
St. Gall in 1416<a class = "tag" name = "tag78" id = "tag78" href =
"#note78">78</a>.</p>
<p>The <i>Codex Turicensis</i> was long considered to be of older date
than the <i>Florentinus</i>, but recent investigations seem to have
proved the contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the
eleventh century, and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the
beginning of the eighteenth century it passed into the library at
Zürich. Spalding believed it to be the manuscript discovered by Poggio,
and M. Fierville is of the same opinion: Halm rejects this theory.
The great point in favour of the claim of the <i>Turicensis</i> is that
it is known to have come from St. Gall, while we can only
conjecture the history of the <i>Harleianus</i>. But the
<i>Turicensis</i> cannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with him
into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and
others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what
Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he
has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including
the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of
Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree
of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition,
Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of
the librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was
the <i>Harleianus</i> there is perhaps little need to wonder that
nothing has been known till now of its later fortunes<a class = "tag"
name = "tag79" id = "tag79" href = "#note79">79</a>.</p>
<p class = "space">
The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also the
<i>Almeloveenianus</i>) to the codices which have just been described,
may be determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among
such MSS. is the <i>Codex Bodleianus</i>, which has received more
attention from editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to
warrant. It repeats word for word the remarkable error attributable to
the <i>Harleianus</i> at x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in
other places it embodies attempted emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90
<i>nec ipsum senectus maturavit</i>: 2 §7 <i>de metris</i> for
<span class = "pagenum">lxxii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxii" id = "intro_pagelxxii"> </a>
<i>dimiteris</i> (see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to Archbishop
Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.</p>
<p>Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm,
the <i>Lassbergensis</i> and the <i>Monacensis</i>. The former was
formerly at Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The reading
<i>atque interrogationibus atque interrogantibus</i>, which Halm gives
from it alone at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G
and H; this seems quite enough to identify its parentage. The
<i>Monacensis</i> was collated by Halm for his critical edition in the
parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone: with no conspicuous
results,—‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut docere possemus,
ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter corrupti sunt,
emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).</p>
<p>Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the
British Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of
this edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its
class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the
copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of
the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove
that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it has
<i>posterius</i> for <i>historiis</i> (a mistake in H—see
p. lxix): and in the same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex)
<i>de metris</i> for <i>dimiteris</i>. This is also the reading of the
second hand in the <i>Turicensis</i>. Such differences as exist between
it and H F T may be ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g.
<i>vertere latus</i> x. 3, 21. Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at
the end of the volume.</p>
<p>The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to
him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and
fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them
among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they
incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of
scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript.
A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the
point of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived,
through Poggio’s manuscript, from the <i>Bambergensis</i>, and how far
from such complete manuscripts as the <i>Ambrosianus</i> and the
original of <i>Bambergensis</i> G? Some of them (as well as other
fifteenth century MSS., with a description of which I desire to
supplement M. Fierville’s Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of
at least as great importance as those referred to above as having been
collated in part by Halm.</p>
<p>The <i>Argentoratensis</i> (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned
first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 1698<a class =
"tag" name = "tag80" id = "tag80" href = "#note80">80</a>. This
manuscript was
<span class = "pagenum">lxxiii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxiii" id = "intro_pagelxxiii"> </a>
destroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there
are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (<i>Codex Guelferbytanus</i>), collated for
the first time by Spalding: the <i>Codex Gothanus</i>, used by Gesner
for his edition of 1738: the <i>Codex Vallensis</i> (Parisinus 7723),
which purports to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla
(9 December, 1444), whose corrections and marginal notes it
contains<a class = "tag" name = "tag81" id = "tag81" href =
"#note81">81</a>. The list of these and several others, all carefully
described by M. Fierville, may now be extended by a short reference
to various MSS. in this country, hitherto uncollated. The results of my
examination of them (as well as of the <i>Bodleianus</i>, and
<i>Burneianus</i> 243, referred to above) appear in the Critical
Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may at least
be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and Meister
have successively credited the early printed editions,—e.g. the
Cologne edition of 1527,—have now been attributed to earlier
sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS.
of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some
importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a
description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.</p>
<p>In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of
Quintilian’s <i>Institutio</i>: of the most important of these, the
<i>Harleianus</i> (H), I have already given an account, and one of
two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of
the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete
agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in
the notes) of relationship to such codices as the <i>Argentoratensis</i>
and the <i>Guelferbytanus</i>. The first of these two MSS. (<i>Codex
Harleianus</i> 2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by
Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of
January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great
discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with
the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes
little to that family. The same may be said of the <i>Codex
Harleianus</i> 11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the
Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891,
p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to
connect both these MSS. with the <i>Guelferbytanus</i>: x. 3, 12
<i>a patrono suo</i> for <i>a patruo suo</i>: 1 §97 <i>verum</i>
for <i>veterum</i>: 1 §55 <i>equalem credidit parem</i> (as also
Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i.
<span class = "pagenum">lxxiv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxiv" id = "intro_pagelxxiv"> </a>
and iii.): 1 §72 <i>quamvis sui temporis Menandro</i> for <i>ut
pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro</i>: 7 §6 <i>adducet
ducetur</i>. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum is
<i>Harleianus</i> 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of
Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and
might be classed along with the <i>Vallensis</i> were it not that a
marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most
codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘<i>hic deficit antiquus codex</i>,’ makes it
probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side<a class =
"tag" name = "tag82" id = "tag82" href = "#note82">82</a>. This MS.
agrees with the <i>Vallensis</i> and <i>Gothanus</i> in reading
<i>cognitioni</i> for <i>cogitationi</i> x. 1, 1:
<i>ubertate</i> for <i>ubertas</i> 1 §109: <i>et vis summa</i>
§117: <i>eruendas</i> for <i>erudiendas</i> 2 §6: <i>nobis
efficiendum</i> ib. §14: <i>decretoriis</i> 5 §20. The other two
Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest:
I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake
of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it
is often in agreement with the <i>Lassbergensis</i>. The latter finishes
with the words <span class = "greek" title = "hê biblos tou sôzomenou">ἡ
βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένου</span> and the motto <span class = "greek" title =
"agathê tuchê">ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ</span>. The readings of the <i>Burneianus</i>
244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in
general agreement with L, and also with the <i>Codex
Carcassonensis</i>, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville
published a collation in 1874.</p>
<p>A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one
of which (the <i>Codex Balliolensis</i>) is unclassed by Fierville,
while the other (the <i>D’Orville</i> MS.) has never been examined at
all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at
<i>bis vitiosa sunt</i> i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which
do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in
fact in a mutilated condition.
<span class = "pagenum">lxxv</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxv" id = "intro_pagelxxv"> </a>
In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter
till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words <i>quam
quod somno supererit</i>: it stops abruptly at <i>nostrorumque
Hort(ensium)</i> x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with
Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has
<i>interrogatione</i>, a reading which Halm says appears for the first
time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it has <i>e rep</i> with
A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g.
<i>forte</i> at i. 5, 15, all other codices <i>forsan</i> or
<i>forsitan</i>).</p>
<p>There remains the <i>D’Orville</i> MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford
(<i>Codex Dorvilianus</i>),—a manuscript which has been entirely
overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition
of the <i>Institutio</i> (1809). Yet it seems well deserving of
attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to the
<i>Ambrosianus</i> (e.g. <i>Getae</i> 1 pr. §6: <i>et quantum</i>
ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has <i>summam inde eloquentiae</i>
(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): <i>destinabamus al.
festinabimus</i> ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar
to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is
7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and
which I have received into the text: <i>neque vero tanta esse unquam
debet fiducia facilitatis</i>: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has
<i>quos eligamus ad imitandum</i>, a reading peculiar to itself. For the
rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian
work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr.
Madan thinks, than the <i>Codex Bodleianus</i>. A marginal note at
ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before
him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival
readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have <i>quaestio ex his incidat</i>
except A, which gives <i>ex his incidat quaestio</i>: the reading
in the <i>Dorvilianus</i> is <i>quaestio incidat ex his</i>: again at i.
2, 6 <i>ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus</i>, many codices give
<i>mores</i> for <i>os</i>: Dorv. shows <i>quam vel mores vel
os</i>.</p>
<p class = "space">
List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.</p>
<p class = "reference space">
Besides the complete editions of <span class =
"smallcaps">Spalding</span>, <span class = "smallcaps">Zumpt</span>,
<span class = "smallcaps">Bonnell</span>, <span class =
"smallcaps">Halm</span> (1868-9) <span class =
"smallcaps">Meister</span> (1886-87), use has been made of the following
editions of Book x.:—
</p>
<table class = "reference" summary = "editions of book X">
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>M. Stephanus Riccius.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Venice, 1570.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>C. H. Frotscher.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Leipzig, 1826.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>M. C. G. Herzog.</p></td>
<td class = "number">2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>G. A. Herbst.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Halle, 1834.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">John E. B. Mayor</span>
(incomplete).</p></td>
<td class = "number">Cambridge, 1872.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>Bonnell-Meister.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Berlin, 1882.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>G. T. A. Krüger.</p></td>
<td class = "number">2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ „</span>(Gustav Krüger)</td>
<td class = "number">3rd ed.<span class = "gap"> „</span>1888.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>Fr. Zambaldi.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Firenze, 1883.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>S. Dosson.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Paris, 1884.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<p>D. Bassi.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Torino, 1884.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<span class = "pagenum">lxxvi</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxvi" id = "intro_pagelxxvi"> </a>
<p>J. A. Hild.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Paris, 1885.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">F. Meister</span> (text only).</p></td>
<td class = "number">Leipzig and Prague, 1887.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Frieze</span> (Books x. and<ins class =
"correction" title = "text has . after ‘and’"> </ins>xii.)</p></td>
<td class = "number">New York, 1889.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class = "reference">
Among the Translations, reference has been made to <span class =
"smallcaps">Lindner’s</span> (<i>Philologische Klassiker</i>, Wien,
1881), <span class = "smallcaps">Alberti’s</span> (Leipzig, 1858), and
<span class = "smallcaps">Herzog’s</span> (Leipzig, 1829); also to <span
class = "smallcaps">Guthrie’s</span> (London, 1805), and <span class =
"smallcaps">Watson’s</span> (in <span class = "smallcaps">Bohn’s</span>
series).
</p>
<p class = "reference space">
The following have been used as books of reference:—</p>
<table class = "reference" summary = "reference works">
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Wilkins</span>: Cicero, <i>De
Oratore</i>, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.)</p></td>
<td class = "number" width = "33%">Oxford, 1888 and 1890.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Sandys</span>: Cicero,
<i>Orator</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Cambridge, 1889.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Kellogg</span>: Cicero,
<i>Brutus</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Boston, 1889.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Wolff</span>: Tacitus, <i>Dialogus de
Oratoribus</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Gotha, 1890.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Andresen</span>:<span class =
"gap"> „ „</span></p></td>
<td class = "number">Leipzig, 1879.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Reiske</span>: Dionysius
Halicarnassensis.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Vols. v-vi.<br>
Leipzig, 1775-7.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Usener</span>: Dionysius
Halicarnassensis <i>Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque
Criticae Duae</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Bonn, 1889.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Ammon:</span>
<i>De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus:
Dissertatio Inauguralis</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Munich, 1889.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Volkmann:</span>
<i>Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">2nd ed. Leipzig, 1885.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p><span class = "smallcaps">Causeret:</span>
<i>Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire
dans Cicéron</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Paris, 1886.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>and <span class = "smallcaps">Fierville</span>:
<i>Quintilian</i>, Book i.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Paris, 1890.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class = "reference">
The references to Nägelsbach’s <i>Lateinische Stylistik</i> are to the
eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).</p>
<p class = "reference space">
The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of
Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent
years. The following articles and tractates have been
consulted:—</p>
<table class = "reference" summary = "list of articles">
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Claussen:</td>
<td><p><i>Quaestiones Quintilianeae</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Leipzig, 1883.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Nettleship:</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Journal of Philology</i>, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225
sqq.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Becher</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Bursian’s Jahresbericht</i>, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „</span></td>
<td><p><i>Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit.
Or.</i><br>
(<i>Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu
Ilfeld</i>).</p></td>
<td class = "number">Nordhausen, 1879.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „</span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Philologus XLV</i>.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „</span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Philologische Rundschau</i>, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „</span></td>
<td>
<p><i>Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich</i>.</p>
</td>
<td class = "number">Ostern, 1891.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Kiderlin</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Blätter für das bayer</i>. <i>Gymn.-Wesen</i>, 1887, p. 454;
1188, pp. 83-91.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik</i>, vol. 135,
pp. 829-832.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen</i>, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie</i>, 1888, p. 829 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin</i>, xiv. (1888),
p. 62 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Hermes</i>, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Rheinisches Museum</i>, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Hirt</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin</i>, viii. (1882),
p. 67 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><span class = "gap"> „ „ „ </span>ix. (1883),
p. 312 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><span class = "gap"> „ „ „ </span>xiv. (1888),
p. 51 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td>
<p><i>Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei
Quintilian</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Berlin, 1890.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Meister</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Philologus</i>, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876),
p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.:
xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">
<span class = "pagenum">lxxvii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxvii" id = "intro_pagelxxvii"> </a>
Schöll:</td>
<td><p><i>Rheinisches Museum</i>, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv.
(1880), p. 639.</p></td>
<td class = "number"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Wölfflin</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Rheinisches Museum</i>, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310
sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class = "gap"> „ </span></td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Hermes</i>, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Andresen</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Rheinisches Museum</i>, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Eussner</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen</i>, 1881, p. 391 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Fleckeisen’s</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Jahrb. f. Philologie</i>, 1885, p. 615 sqq. <i>Literar.
Centralblatt</i>, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Gertz</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p>‘<i>Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa</i>’ (1876),
p. 92 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">H. J. Müller:</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen</i>, xxxi. 12, p. 733
sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Iwan Müller:</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Bursian’s Jahresbericht</i>, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii.
(1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Wrobel</td>
<td colspan = "2">
<p><i>Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien</i>, xxvii. (1876),
p. 353 sqq.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Törnebladh:</td>
<td><p><i>De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum
Quaestiones</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Holmiae, 1861.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Reuter:</td>
<td><p><i>De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae
eloquentiae</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Vratislaviae, 1887.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Günther:</td>
<td><p><i>De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Halis Saxonum, 1881.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Morawski:</td>
<td><p><i>Quaestiones Quintilianeae</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Posnaniae, 1874.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Marty:</td>
<td><p><i>De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis
potissimum comparatis</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Glaronae, 1885.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "smallcaps">Peters, Dr. Heinrich:</td>
<td><p><i>Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians
Institutio Oratoria</i>.</p></td>
<td class = "number">Cassel, 1889.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class = "space">
Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of
Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).</p>
<table class = "comp" summary = "different readings">
<tr>
<td></td>
<th>Halm.</th>
<th>Meister.</th>
<th>This Edition.</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Chap. I.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 1</td>
<td><p>cogitationi</p></td>
<td><p>cognitioni</p></td>
<td><p>cognitioni.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 2</td>
<td><p>quae quoque sint modo</p></td>
<td><p>quo quaeque sint modo</p></td>
<td><p>quae quoque sint modo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>nisi tamquam</p></td>
<td><p>nisi tamquam</p></td>
<td><p>nisi tamen.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 3</td>
<td><p>ante omnia est</p></td>
<td><p>ante omnia necesse est</p></td>
<td><p>ante omnia est.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>imitatio est</p></td>
<td><p>imitatio est</p></td>
<td><p>imitati.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 4</td>
<td><p>procedente opere iam minima</p></td>
<td><p>procedente iam opere etiam minima</p></td>
<td><p>procedente iam opere minima.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 5</td>
<td><p>Num ergo</p></td>
<td><p>Non ergo</p></td>
<td><p>Non ergo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 7</td>
<td><p>[et] ... scio solitos</p></td>
<td><p>et ... solitos scio</p></td>
<td><p>et ... solitos scio.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>aliud quod</p></td>
<td><p>aliud quo</p></td>
<td><p>aliud quo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 8</td>
<td><p>consequimur</p></td>
<td><p>consequemur</p></td>
<td><p>consequemur.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 11</td>
<td><p><span class = "greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> [quare
tamen]</p></td>
<td><p><span class = "greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> quasi
tamen</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 16</td>
<td><p>imagine [ambitu]</p></td>
<td><p>[imagine] ambitu</p></td>
<td><p>imagine et ambitu.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 17</td>
<td><p>commodata</p></td>
<td><p>accommodata</p></td>
<td><p>accommodata.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 18</td>
<td><p>placent ... laudantur ... placent</p></td>
<td><p>placeant ... laudentur ... placent</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 19</td>
<td><p>contrarium</p></td>
<td><p>e contrario</p></td>
<td><p>e contrario.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>ut actionis impetus</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>actionis impetu.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>retractemus</p></td>
<td><p>retractemus</p></td>
<td><p>tractemus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 23</td>
<td><p>quin etiam si</p></td>
<td><p>[quin] etiam si</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">
<span class = "pagenum">lxxviii</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxviii" id = "intro_pagelxxviii"> </a>
§ 28</td>
<td>genus * * ostentationi</td>
<td>poeticam ostentationi</td>
<td>as Meister.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 31</td>
<td><p>etenim ... solutum est</p></td>
<td><p>est enim ... solutum</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 33</td>
<td><p>ideoque</p></td>
<td><p>adde quod</p></td>
<td><p>adde quod.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 35</td>
<td><p>acriter et</p></td>
<td><p>acriter <i>Stoici</i> et</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 37</td>
<td><p>qui sint <i>legendi</i>, quaeque</p></td>
<td><p>qui sint <i>legendi</i>, et quae</p></td>
<td><p>qui sint <i>legendi</i>, quae.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 38</td>
<td><p>quibuscum vivebat</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>[quibuscum vivebat].</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>Graecos omnis [et philosophos]</p></td>
<td><p>Graecos omnes <i>persequamur</i> [et philosophos]</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 42</td>
<td><p>ad phrasin</p></td>
<td><p>ad faciendam etiam phrasin</p></td>
<td><p>ad faciendam <span class = "greek" title =
"phrasin">φράσιν</span>.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>de singulis</p></td>
<td><p>de singulis loquar</p></td>
<td><p>de singulis loquar.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 44</td>
<td><p>tenuia et quae</p></td>
<td><p>tenuia et quae</p></td>
<td><p>tenuia atque quae.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>summatim, a qua</p></td>
<td><p>summatim, quid et a qua</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>paucos enim (sunt autem em.)</p></td>
<td><p>paucos (sunt enim em.)</p></td>
<td><p>paucos enim, qui sunt em.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 45</td>
<td><p>his simillimi</p></td>
<td><p>his similes</p></td>
<td><p>his simillimi.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 46</td>
<td><p><i>omnium</i> amnium fontiumque</p></td>
<td><p>amnium fontiumque</p></td>
<td><p>omnium <i>fluminum</i> fontiumque.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 48</td>
<td><p>non <i>in</i> utriusque</p></td>
<td><p>non utriusque</p></td>
<td><p>non utriusque.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>creditur</p></td>
<td><p>creditum est</p></td>
<td><p>creditum est.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 53</td>
<td><p>aliud <i>parem</i></p></td>
<td><p>aliud secundum</p></td>
<td><p>aliud secundum.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 54</td>
<td><p>Aristophanes neminem</p></td>
<td><p>Arist. poetarum iudices neminem</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 59</td>
<td><p>dum adsequamur</p></td>
<td><p>dum adsequamur</p></td>
<td><p>dum adsequimur.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 61</td>
<td><p>spiritus magnificentia</p></td>
<td><p>spiritus magnificentia</p></td>
<td><p>spiritu magnificentia.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 63</td>
<td><p>magnificus et dicendi vi</p></td>
<td><p>magnificus et diligens</p></td>
<td><p>magnificus et diligens.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 68</td>
<td><p>quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt</p></td>
<td><p>quod ipsum reprehendunt</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 69</td>
<td><p>praecipuus est. Admiratus</p></td>
<td><p>praecipuus. eum admiratus</p></td>
<td><p>praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 70</td>
<td><p>illa mala iudicia</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>illa iudicia.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 72</td>
<td><p>pravis</p></td>
<td><p>pravis</p></td>
<td><p>prave.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 79</td>
<td><p>honesti studiosus, in compositione</p></td>
<td><p>honesti studiosus in compositione</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 80</td>
<td><p>is primus</p></td>
<td><p>is primum</p></td>
<td><p>is primum.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 81</td>
<td><p>orationem quam</p></td>
<td><p>orationem quam</p></td>
<td><p>orationem et quam.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus</p></td>
<td><p>sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus</p></td>
<td><p>sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 83</td>
<td><p>eloquendi vi ac suavitate</p></td>
<td><p>eloquendi suavitate</p></td>
<td><p>eloquendi suavitate.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 85</td>
<td><p>haud dubie ei proximus</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>haud dubie proximus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 87</td>
<td><p>phrasin</p></td>
<td><p>phrasin</p></td>
<td><p><span class = "greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span>.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 88</td>
<td><p>propiores</p></td>
<td><p>propriores (?)</p></td>
<td><p>propiores.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 89</td>
<td><p>tamen [ut est dictum]</p></td>
<td><p>tamen ut est dictum</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 90</td>
<td><p>sed ut dicam</p></td>
<td><p>et ut dicam</p></td>
<td><p>et ut dicam.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 91</td>
<td><p>promptius</p></td>
<td><p>propius</p></td>
<td><p>propius.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 92</td>
<td><p>feres</p></td>
<td><p>feras</p></td>
<td><p>feres.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 93</td>
<td><p>elegia</p></td>
<td><p>elegia</p></td>
<td><p>elegea.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 94</td>
<td><p>nisi labor</p></td>
<td><p>non labor</p></td>
<td><p>non labor.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>multum eo est tersior</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>multum est tersior.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">
<span class = "pagenum">lxxix</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxix" id = "intro_pagelxxix"> </a>
§ 96</td>
<td><p>opus * * quibusdam interpositus</p></td>
<td><p>opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 97</td>
<td><p>grandissimi</p></td>
<td><p>clarissimi</p></td>
<td><p>clarissimi.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 100</td>
<td><p>linguae</p></td>
<td><p>linguae</p></td>
<td><p>linguae <i>suae</i>.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 101</td>
<td><p>commodavit</p></td>
<td><p>commodavit</p></td>
<td><p>commendavit.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>T. Livium</p></td>
<td><p>T. Livium</p></td>
<td><p>Titum Livium.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 102</td>
<td><p>ideoque illam immortalem</p></td>
<td><p>ideoque immortalem</p></td>
<td><p>ideoque immortalem.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>clari vir ingenii</p></td>
<td><p>clari vir ingenii</p></td>
<td><p>clarus vi ingenii.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 103</td>
<td><p>praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis
ipse viribus minor</p></td>
<td><p>praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis
ipse viribus minor</p></td>
<td><p>praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam
suis ipse viribus minor.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 104</td>
<td><p>et ornat</p></td>
<td><p>et ornat</p></td>
<td><p>et exornat.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 106</td>
<td><p>omnia denique</p></td>
<td><p>omnia denique</p></td>
<td><p>[omnia] denique.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>illic—hic</p></td>
<td><p>illi—huic</p></td>
<td><p>illi—huic.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 107</td>
<td><p>vicimus</p></td>
<td><p>vincimus</p></td>
<td><p>vincimus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>in quibus nihil</p></td>
<td><p>quibus nibil</p></td>
<td><p>quibus nihil.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 111</td>
<td><p>nihil umquam pulchrius</p></td>
<td><p>nihil pulchrius</p></td>
<td><p>nihil pulchrius.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 115</td>
<td><p>si quid adiecturus fuit</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 117</td>
<td><p>et fervor, sed</p></td>
<td><p>et sermo purus, sed</p></td>
<td><p>et fervor, sed.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 123</td>
<td><p>scripserunt</p></td>
<td><p>scripserunt</p></td>
<td><p>scripserint.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 126</td>
<td><p>ab eo</p></td>
<td><p>ab eo</p></td>
<td><p>ab illo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 127</td>
<td><p>ac saltem</p></td>
<td><p>aut saltem</p></td>
<td><p>ac saltem.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 130</td>
<td><p>si ille quaedam contempsisset</p></td>
<td><p>si aliqua contempsisset</p></td>
<td><p>si obliqua contempsisset.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>si parum * *</p></td>
<td><p>si parum <i>sana</i></p></td>
<td><p>si parum <i>recta</i>.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 131</td>
<td><p>potest utcumque</p></td>
<td><p>potest utrimque</p></td>
<td><p>potest utrimque.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. II.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 6</td>
<td><p>tradiderint</p></td>
<td><p>tradiderint</p></td>
<td><p>tradiderunt.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 8</td>
<td><p>nulla est ars</p></td>
<td><p>nulla mansit ars</p></td>
<td><p>nulla <i>man</i>sit ars.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 13</td>
<td><p>[et] cum</p></td>
<td><p>cum et</p></td>
<td><p>cum et.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>accommodata est</p></td>
<td><p>accommodata sit</p></td>
<td><p>accommodata sit.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 15</td>
<td><p>et a doctis inter ipsos etiam</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm.</p></td>
<td><p>et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>ut ita dixerim</p></td>
<td><p>ut ita dixerim</p></td>
<td><p>ut sic dixerim.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 17</td>
<td><p>Attici scilicet</p></td>
<td><p>Atticis scilicet</p></td>
<td><p>Attici sunt scilicet.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>obscuri</p></td>
<td><p>obscuri sunt</p></td>
<td><p>obscuri.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 22</td>
<td><p>cuique proposita</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>cuique proposito.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 28</td>
<td><p>deerant</p></td>
<td><p>deerunt</p></td>
<td><p>deerunt.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>oportebat</p></td>
<td><p>oporteat</p></td>
<td><p>oporteat.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. III.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 2</td>
<td><p>alte effossa</p></td>
<td><p>alte refossa</p></td>
<td><p>alte refossa.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>et fundit</p></td>
<td><p>et fundit</p></td>
<td><p>effundit</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 10</td>
<td><p>[ut provideamus] et efferentis.</p></td>
<td><p>ut provideamus et eff.</p></td>
<td><p>ut provideamus, effer.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 15</td>
<td><p>plura celerius</p></td>
<td><p>plura celerius</p></td>
<td><p>plura et celerius.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 20</td>
<td><p>in legendo</p></td>
<td><p>in intellegendo</p></td>
<td><p>in intellegendo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 21</td>
<td><p>femur et latus</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm.</p></td>
<td><p>frontem et latus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">
<span class = "pagenum">lxxx</span>
<a name = "intro_pagelxxx" id = "intro_pagelxxx"> </a>
§ 22</td>
<td><p>secretum quod dictando</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>secretum in dictando.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 25</td>
<td><p>velut * rectos</p></td>
<td><p>velut tectos</p></td>
<td><p>velut tectos.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 32</td>
<td><p>adiciendo</p></td>
<td><p>adicienti</p></td>
<td><p>adiciendo.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. IV.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 3</td>
<td><p>finem habeat</p></td>
<td><p>finem habet</p></td>
<td><p>finem habet.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. V.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 4</td>
<td><p>praesumunt eandem</p></td>
<td><p>praes. eandem</p></td>
<td><p>praes. eadem.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 17</td>
<td><p>inanibus <i>se</i> simulacris ... adsuefacere</p></td>
<td><p>inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 18</td>
<td><p>etiam M. Porcio</p></td>
<td><p>etiam Porcio</p></td>
<td><p>etiam M. Porcio.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 21</td>
<td><p>autem is idoneus</p></td>
<td><p>autem idoneus.</p></td>
<td><p>autem idoneus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. VI.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 2</td>
<td><p>inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur</p></td>
<td><p>inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 5</td>
<td><p>regredi</p></td>
<td><p>regredi</p></td>
<td><p>redire.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 7</td>
<td><p>retrorsus</p></td>
<td><p>retrorsum</p></td>
<td><p>retrorsus.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>si utcumque</p></td>
<td><p>si utrimque</p></td>
<td><p>si utrimque.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = "4">
<span class = "smallcaps">Ch. VII.</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 1</td>
<td><p>instar portus</p></td>
<td><p>intrare portum</p></td>
<td><p>intrare portum.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 2</td>
<td><p>statimque, si non succurratur</p></td>
<td><p>statimque, si non succurratur</p></td>
<td><p>statimque si non succuratur.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 5</td>
<td><p>quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps</p></td>
<td><p>as Halm</p></td>
<td><p>quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 6</td>
<td><p>via dicet, ducetur</p></td>
<td><p>via ducetur, dicet</p></td>
<td><p>via dicet, ducetur.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 9</td>
<td><p>observatione simul</p></td>
<td><p>observatione una</p></td>
<td><p>observatione una.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 13</td>
<td><p>superfluere video: quodsi</p></td>
<td><p>videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si</p></td>
<td><p>superfluere video, cum eo quod si.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 14</td>
<td><p>ut Cicero dictitabant</p></td>
<td><p>ut Cicero ait, dictitabant</p></td>
<td><p>ut Cicero dictitabant.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 17</td>
<td><p>adeo praemium</p></td>
<td><p>adeo pretium</p></td>
<td><p>adeo pretium.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 20</td>
<td><p>tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut</p></td>
<td><p>tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut</p></td>
<td><p>tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>non capitur</p></td>
<td><p>non capitur</p></td>
<td><p>non labitur.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 24</td>
<td><p>quam omnino non</p></td>
<td><p>quam non omnino</p></td>
<td><p>quam non omnino.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 26</td>
<td><p>est et illa</p></td>
<td><p>est et illa</p></td>
<td><p>est alia.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 26</td>
<td><p>quam illa</p></td>
<td><p>quam in illa</p></td>
<td><p>quam illa.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 29</td>
<td><p>nescio an utrumque</p></td>
<td><p>nescio an si utrumque</p></td>
<td><p>as Meister.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>id efficere</p></td>
<td><p>id efficere</p></td>
<td><p>sic dicere.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">„ </td>
<td><p>in his</p></td>
<td><p>in his</p></td>
<td><p>et in his.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class = "number">§ 32</td>
<td><p>quod simus</p></td>
<td><p>quod non simus</p></td>
<td><p>quod non simus.</p></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div> <!-- end div intro -->
<div class = "footnote">
<h4>FOOTNOTES</h4>
<p><a name = "note1" id = "note1" href = "#tag1">1.</a>
(Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores auctoritatem
habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.</p>
<p><a name = "note2" id = "note2" href = "#tag2">2.</a>
C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Leipzig 1860,
p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.</p>
<p><a name = "note3" id = "note3" href = "#tag3">3.</a>
There is however some doubt about the name, most editors reading
L. Galba.</p>
<p><a name = "note4" id = "note4" href = "#tag4">4.</a>
So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the following
authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of Asia: Joseph,
xiv. 10. 17 <span class = "greek" title = "Ioudaioi ... epedeixan heautous sunodon echein idian kata tous patrious nomous ap’ archês kai topon idion, en hôi ta te pragmata kai tas pros allêlous antilogias krinousi">Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς
πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς
πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι</span>—the words of
L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp. id.
xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11, 24. The
privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see inter alia
Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10 <i>sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem
arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili
duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure
publico non vetentur</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note5" id = "note5" href = "#tag5">5.</a>
Gaius ii §274 <i>mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris census est,
per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen fideicommisso
relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note6" id = "note6" href = "#tag6">6.</a>
Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited from contemporary
literature describing both types. For the first cp. Martial viii. 16
<i>Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas agis</i>, and
<i>passim</i>: Petronius, Sat. 46 <i>destinavi illum artificii docere,
aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum</i> ... Philero was
lately a street porter: <i>nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se extendit;
litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur</i>: Juv. vii. 106
sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class the best
representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and legacy-hunter, on whose
account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s famous utterance, <i>vir malus
dicendi imperitus</i> Plin. iv. 7, 5 and ii. 20.</p>
<p><a name = "note7" id = "note7" href = "#tag7">7.</a>
Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with Quint, i. 2, 8
and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with Quint, ii. 2, 4:
<i>Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram Spirantesque crocos
et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem sancti valuere parentis Esse
loco!</i> and <i>Sumat ante omnia parentis erga discipulos suos
animum</i> (sc. <i>praeceptor</i>) <i>ac succedere se in eorum locum a
quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note8" id = "note8" href = "#tag8">8.</a>
i. pr. §1 <i>post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae per viginti annos
erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam</i>. The chronology is rather uncertain.
It is supposed that Quintilian began his <i>Institutio</i> in 92 or 93
and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period of twenty years is to be
interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that he is referring to his
official career, as it may have been in 72 that Vespasian took the step
referred to above, p. viii. Or we may understand him to be dating
the period of his educational activity as extending from <span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 70 to <span class = "smallroman"><ins class =
"correction" title = "period invisible">A.</ins>D.</span> 90, though he
did not begin to write the <i>Institutio</i> till 92. The latter is the
more probable alternative.</p>
<p><a name = "note9" id = "note9" href = "#tag9">9.</a>
See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae:
Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae 1887.</p>
<p><a name = "note10" id = "note10" href = "#tag10">10.</a>
The <i>Declamationes</i> may also be mentioned here, as having long been
credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer and 145 shorter
pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of rhetorical exercise, and
with success,—at least in the earlier part of his career,—is
clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but it seems probable, from the
nature of the contents of the existing collection, if not from the
style, that tradition has erred in attributing to the master what must
have been, in the main, the work of pupils and imitators. The popular
habit of tacking on to a great name whatever seems not unworthy of it,
may account for the fact that these rhetorical efforts are credited to
Quintilian as early as the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15)
<i>Seu libeat fictas ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam
Quintilianus habet</i>. St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks
of his <i>concinnas declamationes</i>: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which
has disappeared from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a
historian of the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of
Gaulish origin, adds: <i>fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus
ut eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae</i> (Trig. tyr.
4, 2): cp. ib. <i>Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis
acutissimum vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat</i>
(Hild, Introd. p. xxi. note).</p>
<p><a name = "note11" id = "note11" href = "#tag11">11.</a>
See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt, Gryphiswaldiae 1883,
<i>De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur
Declamationibus</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note12" id = "note12" href = "#tag12">12.</a>
iv. pr. 2 <i>Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae nepotum
delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum caelestium intellegam,
nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note13" id = "note13" href = "#tag13">13.</a>
If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he wrote the
Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his domestic losses
he says that he will live henceforth not to himself but to the youth of
Rome), he would almost certainly have made some reference to them.</p>
<p><a name = "note14" id = "note14" href = "#tag14">14.</a>
In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar extravagances have
not been unknown in our own literature. His translator, Guthrie—an
Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm for his author—cries
out in a note on this passage: “I will engage to point out from the
works of some of the greatest and most learned men, as well as of the
best poets, of England, compliments to the abilities not only of
princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay, private gentlemen, who in this
respect deserved them as little as Domitian did.”</p>
<p><a name = "note15" id = "note15" href = "#tag15">15.</a>
The expression used in vi. pr. §4, <i>meo casu cui tamen nihil obici
nisi quod vivam potest</i>, shows that Quintilian was quite conscious of
his comfortable circumstances.—Halm (followed by Meister) reads
<i>quam</i> quod vivam: but I find <i>nisi</i> in both the Bamberg (G)
and the Harleian codices.</p>
<p><a name = "note16" id = "note16" href = "#tag16">16.</a>
Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second marriage (sometime
between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two children. This theory,
which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel, and most authorities, was
invented to account for the existence of a grown-up daughter, to whom,
on the occasion of her marriage (about the year 105), Pliny gives a
present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi. 32. But this young lady must have
been the daughter of another Quintilianus altogether. What we know of
our Quintilian’s affluent circumstances is inconsistent with such
liberality on Pliny’s part: the gift is offered as to a man who is
comparatively poor. Moreover, the letter intimating the gift contains no
such reference to the services of a former teacher as might have been
expected on so interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost
inconceivable that Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to
Book vi. (about 93 <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span>) the
bereavements that left him desolate (<i>superstes omnium meorum</i>),
should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of marriageable
age.</p>
<p><a name = "note17" id = "note17" href = "#tag17">17.</a>
<i>Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam biennium tot
alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non tam stilo quam
inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui
sunt innumerabiles, datum est.</i></p>
<p><a name = "note18" id = "note18" href = "#tag18">18.</a>
Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">1, 35</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">123</a>, may have been written
before the event mentioned above (the date of which is fixed by Suet.
Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and may have been allowed to stand.</p>
<p><a name = "note19" id = "note19" href = "#tag19">19.</a>
<i>Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius tristis, non
dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus oriatur. Plurimus
ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius monuerit, hoc rarius
castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum quae emendanda erunt
dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, adsiduus potius quam
immodicus</i> ii. 2, 5.</p>
<p><a name = "note20" id = "note20" href = "#tag20">20.</a>
See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good
account of Quintilian’s system.</p>
<p><a name = "note21" id = "note21" href = "#tag21">21.</a>
xii. 1, 3 and 4 <i>ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum bonum: ... ne
studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi omnibus vitiis libera
potest</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note22" id = "note22" href = "#tag22">22.</a>
Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4: <i>ac nescio an
eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam secretus et
consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam in tuto
collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari magis solet,
venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit videbit</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note23" id = "note23" href = "#tag23">23.</a>
Dr. Reid in <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note24" id = "note24" href = "#tag24">24.</a>
i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.</p>
<p><a name = "note25" id = "note25" href = "#tag25">25.</a>
i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.</p>
<p><a name = "note26" id = "note26" href = "#tag26">26.</a>
<i>Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa
vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et
neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris
antiqui?</i>—ch. 28.</p>
<p><a name = "note27" id = "note27" href = "#tag27">27.</a>
M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris,
Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.</p>
<p><a name = "note28" id = "note28" href = "#tag28">28.</a>
For the identification of this manuscript see below p. lxx.</p>
<p><a name = "note29" id = "note29" href = "#tag29">29.</a>
Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at Leipzig the
professor of eloquence was designated <i>Quintiliani professor</i>.
Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him to almost every
other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of his works,
especially Books i and x of the <i>Institutio</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note30" id = "note30" href = "#tag30">30.</a>
Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.</p>
<p><a name = "note31" id = "note31" href = "#tag31">31.</a>
To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of Quintilian, and said it
was strange that in the decadence of Roman literature, as it was called,
we had three such authors as Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s
‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii. p. 178.</p>
<p><a name = "note32" id = "note32" href = "#tag32">32.</a>
Dr. Reid in the <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note33" id = "note33" href = "#tag33">33.</a>
See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae
Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.</p>
<p><a name = "note34" id = "note34" href = "#tag34">34.</a>
Ep. xvi. 5, 6 <i>de compositione non constat</i>: Ep. xix. 5, 13
<i>oratio certam regulam non habet</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note35" id = "note35" href = "#tag35">35.</a>
i Prooem. §10 sqq., especially <i>neque enim hoc concesserim rationem
rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt, ad philosophos
relegandam</i>. Cp. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">1, 35</a>: and xii. 2, 9
<i>Utinam ... orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona
eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet.</i> M. Rocheblave sees in
these and other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives
of philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as
powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open
denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of
Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the
philosophers from Rome in <span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 94. It
is certainly noticeable that the tone of his references to them becomes
more bitter in the later books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12.
The Prooemium to Book i. may have been written last of all: and
apart from it there is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">1, 35</a> and
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">123</a>) so acrimonious as the
extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.</p>
<p><a name = "note36" id = "note36" href = "#tag36">36.</a>
See ii. 5, 10-12 <i>Ne id quidem inutile, etiam corruptas aliquando et
vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique iudiciorum pravitate mirantar,
legi palam ostendique in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida,
humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a
plerisque sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava
laudantur.</i> With this last cp. x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">1, 127</a> (of Seneca)
<i>placebat propter sola vitia</i>. So i. 8, 9 <i>quando nos in omnia
deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus</i>: ii. 5, 22
(<i>cavendum est</i>) <i>ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti
voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus et puerilibus
ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament</i>: with which compare x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec129">1, 129</a> <i>corrupta
pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec130">§130</a> <i>consensu potius
eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur</i>. Rocheblave cites also
viii. 5, 27, 28, 30.</p>
<p><a name = "note37" id = "note37" href = "#tag37">37.</a>
It is doubtful if the allusion in
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126">§126</a> (<i>potioribus
praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere</i>, &c.)
is exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references
to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43) cites
Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the choice of
words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy: xviii. 4, 10 where
he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and xvi. 5, 7.</p>
<p><a name = "note38" id = "note38" href = "#tag38">38.</a>
Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46 <i>De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut olim de Catone
defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici videtur posse, quae
deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem tempori esse attribuenda;
quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse propria, et in primis oculos
capere</i>: p. 36 <i>Eloquentiam non verbis, sed rebus valere, nec
per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit, esse excolendam Annaeus
semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra delectu verborum praecipue
constare, et per se amandam et requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum
adhibita ratione, docebant rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus</i>:
p. 38 <i>Ergo quum in eloquentia duo sint praesertim consideranda,
scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro
verbis, utrumque asperrime, egisse</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note39" id = "note39" href = "#tag39">39.</a>
See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is quoted by Diderot
in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of Seneca being the ‘corruptor
eloquentiae’ the truth <ins class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘it’">is</ins> that ‘il ne corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il
s’accommoda au goût de ses contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur
plaire et de s’en faire admirer; et <i>l’envie lui fit un crime de ce
qui passerait pour vrai talent dans un homme moins célèbre</i>.’</p>
<p><a name = "note40" id = "note40" href = "#tag40">40.</a>
Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.</p>
<p><a name = "note41" id = "note41" href = "#tag41">41.</a>
Fronto, De Oration. p. 157 <i>At enim quaedam in libris eius scite
dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum argentiolae
cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas redimemus?</i> For
Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.</p>
<p><a name = "note42" id = "note42" href = "#tag42">42.</a>
“In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his
readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s
criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec27">§27</a> he mentions Theophrastus
by name; in
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">§52</a>, speaking of Hesiod, he
says <i>datur ei palma</i>, &c.; in
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53">§53</a> the second place is
given to Antimachus by the consent of the <i>grammatici</i>; Panyasis is
thought (<i>putant</i>) <i>in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes</i>,
Callimachus (58) <i>princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione
plurimorum Philetas occupavit</i>. In 59 only three <i>iambographi</i>
are mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The
<i>novem lyrici</i> were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any
case they are the <i>Pindarus novemque lyrici</i> (for this need not be
taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof.
Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.</p>
<p><a name = "note43" id = "note43" href = "#tag43">43.</a>
<i>Quod tempus</i> (i.e. <i>paulo plus quam biennium</i>) <i>non tam
stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et</i> legendis
auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles <i>datum est</i>: Epist. ad
Tryphonem.</p>
<p><a name = "note44" id = "note44" href = "#tag44">44.</a>
Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873, p. 343 note:
<i>sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia quae contuli
opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos memoria tenuit,
adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret</i>. This (though
somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii) is a milder
verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after speaking of
Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (<i>vir bonus dicendi
peritus</i>, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know whether he would
have thought it a necessary virtue in a <i>bonus grammaticus</i> to read
and conscientiously study the Greek authors on whom he passes formal
critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain that, whether Quintilian
had or had not read them, he contents himself in many cases with merely
repeating the traditional criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of
the principal Greek authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii.
p. 257.)</p>
<p><a name = "note45" id = "note45" href = "#tag45">45.</a>
See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’
in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.</p>
<p><a name = "note46" id = "note46" href = "#tag46">46.</a>
Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek rhetoricians; ix.
3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus Dionysius’). Cp. the
parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of Isocrates, x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec4">4, 4</a>: and for other
instances see Claussen, op. cit. pp. 339-340.</p>
<p><a name = "note47" id = "note47" href = "#tag47">47.</a>
The extant remains of this treatise have recently been edited by Usener
(Bonn. 1889), with a valuable <i>Epilogus</i>. The scope of the work is
indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad Pompeium iii.
p. 776 R, Usener p. 50: <span class = "greek" title =
"toutôn ho men prôtos autên perieilêphe tên peri tês mimêseôs zêtêsin, ho de deuteros peri tou tinas andras mimeisthai dei poiêtas te kai philosophous, historiographous (te) kai rhêtoras, ho de tritos peri tou pôs dei mimeisthai.">τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς
μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ
ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος
περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.</span></p>
<p><a name = "note48" id = "note48" href = "#tag48">48.</a>
The standpoint from which both critics regarded this class of poetry was
probably much the same as that which Dio Chrysostom applies to lyric
poetry generally: <span class = "greek" title = "melê de kai elegeia kai iamboi kai dithyramboi tô men scholên agonti pollou axia">μέλη δὲ καὶ
ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ
ἄξια</span> (cp. tunc et elegiam vacabit, &c.,
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">§58</a>) <span class = "greek"
title = "tô de prattein te kai hama tas praxeis kai tous logous auxein dianooumenô ouk an eiê pros auta scholê">τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς
πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ
σχολή</span> (Or. xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)</p>
<p><a name = "note49" id = "note49" href = "#tag49">49.</a>
How diverse the tradition of the various authorities came to be in
regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s note p. 137.</p>
<p><a name = "note50" id = "note50" href = "#tag50">50.</a>
Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 <i>Aristophanis propria fuit
Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli</i> p. 1085
(C.I.Gr. 6083): <i>cuius iudicii Kaibelius</i> p. 490 <i>in
Quintiliano</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">1, 69</a> <i>vestigia recte
observavit</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note51" id = "note51" href = "#tag51">51.</a>
See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii. <i>quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut
Thucydide gravius</i>, fr. xviii. <i>aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo
acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?</i> It has been supposed that
between these two fragments the words <i>aut Xenophonte iucundius</i>
may have fallen out: cp. Quint, x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec82">1, 82</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "note52" id = "note52" href = "#tag52">52.</a>
See especially fr. xi. <i>qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem
tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt</i>: and cp. note on
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec57">1 §57</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "note53" id = "note53" href = "#tag53">53.</a>
Cp. the note on <i>qui parcissime</i> x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec4">4, 4</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "note54" id = "note54" href = "#tag54">54.</a>
De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.</p>
<p><a name = "note55" id = "note55" href = "#tag55">55.</a>
<i>A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium
sumpserat, fuitque ante <span class = "greek" title =
"kritikê">κριτική</span> quam <span class = "greek" title =
"grammatikê">γραμματική</span></i>—Usener, p. 132.</p>
<p><a name = "note56" id = "note56" href = "#tag56">56.</a>
See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.</p>
<p><a name = "note57" id = "note57" href = "#tag57">57.</a>
Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by Cicero, Usener
reckons his judgments on the Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides,
Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus)
in the second book of the <i>de Oratore</i> (§§55-58), a work which was
written ten years before the <i>Hortensius</i>: on Herodotus and
Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4, <i>ad
Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo, in quibus te video volutatum.
Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum negotium, quem ad modum aliquot
Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis,
paene pusillus Thucydides</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note58" id = "note58" href = "#tag58">58.</a>
<i>Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice
Coisliniano</i> n. 387 <i>olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit
bibl. Coislin</i>. p. 597, <i>ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni
recentiore Cramerus anecd.</i> Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener,
p. 129.</p>
<p><a name = "note59" id = "note59" href = "#tag59">59.</a>
Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.</p>
<p><a name = "note60" id = "note60" href = "#tag60">60.</a>
Havell’s translation, p. 27.</p>
<p><a name = "note61" id = "note61" href = "#tag61">61.</a>
See the note on x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">1, 85</a>, with the
quotation from Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of
Philology. In the <i>Rheinisches Museum</i> (xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.)
Mercklin pushed the parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to
find a correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer
mentioned by Quintilian.</p>
<p><a name = "note62" id = "note62" href = "#tag62">62.</a>
“His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is hardly a sentence
which might not be quoted; but to read him straight forward is like
dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”—Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life,
i. p. 448.</p>
<p><a name = "note63" id = "note63" href = "#tag63">63.</a>
<i>Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque
exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit</i>: viii. 2. 21.</p>
<p><a name = "note64" id = "note64" href = "#tag64">64.</a>
Tac. Dial. 20 <i>Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire sed etiam referre
domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt, traduntque invicem ac
saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt, sive sensus aliquis
arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus exquisito et poetico
cultu enituit</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note65" id = "note65" href = "#tag65">65.</a>
ii. 5, 10 <i>ostendi in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida,
humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae non laudantur modo a
plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava
laudantur</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note66" id = "note66" href = "#tag66">66.</a>
He resembles other writers of the decadence in the frequent use of rare
or poetical words, in neglecting the nice distinctions formerly made
between synonyms, in the numbers of adjectives used
substantively, &c.</p>
<p><a name = "note67" id = "note67" href = "#tag67">67.</a>
In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must not be forgotten
that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent pamphlet, ‘Ueber die
Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr.
Paul Hirt quotes an interesting remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt,
‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i. p. 467 note), which has lately
received some corroboration: <i>sapit hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est
barbariem plane quandam</i>. Filelfo did not like Quintilian: <i>nullam
habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem, nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo
Quintilianus, neque satis docet, nec delectat.</i> But this was only
Filelfo’s opinion, for which he would not have been able to furnish such
scientific grounds as that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1
p. 356) supplied by Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the
adjective <i>pandus</i>. This word was in use in the days of Ennius, and
occurs often afterwards in poetry, but not in prose. In Spain, however,
it lingered, and is used by Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and
especially by Quintilian. After these writers it disappears again till
the fourth century.—Cp. i. 5, 57 <i>gurdos, quos pro stolidis
accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi</i>, which has been
quoted (by Abbé Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely
enough in disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.</p>
<p><a name = "note68" id = "note68" href = "#tag68">68.</a>
For this section I am especially indebted to a <i>Dissertatio</i> by
Adamus Marty: <i>De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis
potissimum comparatis</i>. Also the <i>Prolegomena</i> in Bonnell’s
Lexicon: and Dosson’s <i>Remarques sur la Langue de Quintilien</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note69" id = "note69" href = "#tag69">69.</a>
Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to
the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has
been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in
<i>-tor</i> and 44 (46) in <i>-trix</i>. Of these 73 in <i>-tor</i> and
4 in <i>-trix</i> are also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28
in <i>-tor</i> and 8 in <i>-trix</i> which do not occur in Cicero. These
are—<i>adfectator</i>, <i>admirator</i>, <i>adsertor</i>,
<i>agnitor</i>, <i>altercator</i>, <i>auxiliator</i>,
<i>constitutor</i>, <i>consultor</i>, <i>contemptor</i>,
<i>cunctator</i>, <i>delator</i>, <i>derisor</i>, <i>exactor</i>,
<i>formator</i>, <i>iactator</i>, <i>insectator</i>, <i>latrator</i>,
<i>legum lator</i>, <i>luctator</i>, <i>plosor</i>, <i>professor(?)</i>,
<i>raptor</i>, <i>repertor</i>, <i>rixator</i>, <i>signator</i>,
<i>stuprator</i>, <i>ventilator</i>, <i>versificator</i>,
<i>cavillatrix</i>, <i>disputatrix</i>, <i>elocutrix</i>,
<i>enuntiatrix</i>, <i>exercitatrix</i>, <i>hortatrix</i>,
<i>iudicatrix</i>, (<i>litteratrix</i>), <i>sermocinatrix</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "note70" id = "note70" href = "#tag70">70.</a>
This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a Programm by Dr.
Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’
(Berlin, 1890), a monument of German thoroughness. See also Becher’s
Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen, 1879), pp. 6 sqq.</p>
<p><a name = "note71" id = "note71" href = "#tag71">71.</a>
Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says
that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5
<i>Gallum Cornelium</i>), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5,
83 <i>Scaevola Quintus</i>: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 <i>Libo Marcius</i>). It
is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius
Paterculus.</p>
<p><a name = "note72" id = "note72" href = "#tag72">72.</a>
See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der Beredsamkeit aus der
Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten Bildlichen Wendungen in der
rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero, Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau,
1886).</p>
<p><a name = "note73" id = "note73" href = "#tag73">73.</a>
Halm’s account of this is more accurate than Meister’s. The former
(Praef. p. viii) says <i>magnae autem lacunae Bernensis pergamenis
insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt</i>. The <i>alius codex</i> which
the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant: it no doubt belonged to
the same family as the <i>Ambrosianus</i>, and
<i>Bambergensis</i> G is consequently of first-class importance,
especially where the <i>Ambrosianus</i> fails us. It is incorrect to say
(with Meister, Praef. p. vi) <i>lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice
insertis expletae sunt</i>. The writer of G did not mutilate another
codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on the
blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.</p>
<p><a name = "note74" id = "note74" href = "#tag74">74.</a>
The <i>Pratensis</i> is the oldest authority for the reading <i>tam
laesae hercule</i> at i. 2, 4: the <i>Puteanus</i> and <i>Ioannensis</i>
agree. Again all three omit the words <i>de litteris</i> at i. 4, 6, and
show <i>praecoquum</i> for <i>praecox</i> at i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and
7760), and <i>haec igitur ex verbis</i> at i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).</p>
<p><a name = "note75" id = "note75" href = "#tag75">75.</a>
An account of this important codex has already been given in an article
on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.</p>
<p><a name = "note76" id = "note76" href = "#tag76">76.</a>
The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand by the
<i>Bambergensis</i> is a phenomenon which may, I think, be
explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known as
<b>b</b> are taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and
probably abounded in contractions: <i>lius</i> may have seemed to the
copyist the nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he
subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in the <i>Bambergensis</i> is a very
intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar mistake
on the part of the writer of b occurs at x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">2, 7</a>, where the
Bambergensis now shows <i>id consequi q̣ụọd imiteris</i>, the writer of
b having subpunctuated <i>quo</i> because he did not understand the
contraction for <i>quod</i> which he had in the text before him. The
copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the remarkable
reading <i>id consequi dimiteris</i>, which in the Bodleianus and other
MSS. becomes <i>de metris</i> (see Crit. Note ad loc.). In fact, it
seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in the text of
Quintilian is due to the fact that <b>b</b> very often did not
understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as followed
his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp. <i>totas at cures</i>
(for <i>vires</i> <b>b</b>) <i>suas</i> in the second last line of
the Facsimile (x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">1, 109</a>.)</p>
<p><a name = "note77" id = "note77" href = "#tag77">77.</a>
The only places in the Tenth Book which form any obstacle to the theory
that H was copied directly from the Bambergensis are the following: x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec33">3, 33</a>, where the
remarkable gloss <i>vindemoni</i> occurs (repeated in F but not
in T): see Crit. Notes ad loc. for an attempted explanation: x.
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec1">2, 1</a> <i>ex his
<u>summa</u></i> H, a mistake evidently recognised by the copyist
himself: and x.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec27">1, 27</a> <i>blandita
tum</i> H (so L C), <i>libertate</i> G.</p>
<p><a name = "note78" id = "note78" href = "#tag78">78.</a>
The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s manuscript was
definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in the <i>Rheinisches
Museum</i>, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid refers to a
Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would probably settle the
question, if it is what it professes to be, a transcript of Poggio’s
manuscript. It bears the following inscription: <i>Scripsit Poggius
Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante.
Reperimus vero eum in bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures
litterarum studiosi perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo
plurimum utilitalis eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea
Quintilianum neque integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis
haberemus. Hec verba ex originali Poggii sumpta.</i></p>
<p><a name = "note79" id = "note79" href = "#tag79">79.</a>
For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the Florentinus see
Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville, Introduction,
p. xcii. sqq.</p>
<p><a name = "note80" id = "note80" href = "#tag80">80.</a>
Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following
passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add
those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19 <i>digerantur</i>
(G H <i>dirigantur</i>, L <i>dirigerantur</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec27">§27</a> <i>blandicia</i>, so
Burn. 243 (G <i>libertate</i>, H L <i>blandita tum</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">§55</a> <i>sed</i> (G H
<i>et</i>, om. L):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">§65</a> <i>tamen quem</i>
(G H <i>tamen quae</i>: M <i>tamquam</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">§66</a> <i>correctas</i>
(G H <i>rectas</i>, M <i>correptas</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a> <i>uter</i> (G H M
T <i>uterque</i>):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§68</a> <i>reprehendunt</i>
(G H M <i>reprehendit,—et</i> H ?):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a> <i>testatur</i> (as
Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G M
<i>praestatur</i> (as Burn. 243, Bodl.):
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76">§76</a> <i>in eo tam</i>
(G <i>inectam</i>, M <i>in hoc tam</i>).</p>
<p><a name = "note81" id = "note81" href = "#tag81">81.</a>
See note on the following page.</p>
<p><a name = "note82" id = "note82" href = "#tag82">82.</a>
Since the above was written the readings of the <i>Vallensis</i> have
been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (<i>Programm des
königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich</i>, Easter, 1891). With the exception
of <i>Harl.</i> 4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so
correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the
improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s
discovery, or to the fact that the <i>Vallensis</i> and <i>Harl.</i>
4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but
from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from
the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for
discriminating between the corrections made in the <i>Vallensis</i>.
Those not adopted in <i>Harl.</i> 4995 were made, in all probability,
after 1470. For example in 1. §23 <i>utile erit</i>
(<i>Vall.</i><sup>2</sup>) does not appear in the London manuscript,
which also has <i>audatiora</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec4">5 §4</a>: <i>nobis ac</i>
and <i>uno genere</i> ib. §7: <i>virtutum</i> ib. §17: <i>recidere</i>
ib. §22: <i>diligenter effecta</i>, (without <i>una enim</i>) ib. §23:
<i>iniicere</i>
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec29">7 §29</a>. In all these
places there are corrections by a later hand in the <i>Vallensis</i>.
But in the following passages, among others, the copyist of <i>Harl.</i>
4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in the
<i>Vallensis</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9">1 §9</a> <i>quae cultiore in
parte</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19">§19</a> <i>iteratione</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">§31</a> <i>molli</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec38">§38</a> <i>exequar</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">§107</a> <i>qui duo plurimum
affectus valent</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">§117</a> <i>et vis summa</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec125">§125</a> <i>tum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a> <i>dicunt</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17">§17</a> <i>quam libet</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2">3 §2</a> <i>et fundit</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec6">§6</a> <i>scriptorum</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17">§17</a> <i>contextis quae fudit
levitas</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec21">§21</a> <i>simul vertere
latus</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">§31</a> <i>crebra relatione</i>:
<a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec12">5 §12</a> <i>de <ins class
= "correction" title = "second letter unclear: primary text has ‘re’">reo</ins></i>:
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">§25</a> <i>utilior</i>.
A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that
the writer of <i>Harl.</i> 4995 is himself the author of some of the
emendations in the <i>Vallensis</i>. Was he J. Badius?</p>
</div> <!-- end div footnote -->
<hr class = "spacer">
<div class = "contents">
<p><a href = "../main.html">Preface</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintCrit.html">Critical Notes</a></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
|
