xii. 1), shows the high ideal he cherished and the wide view he

took of the opportunities of his position. He felt himself strong enough to make a protest against the literary influence of Seneca, then the popular favourite, and to endeavour to recall a vitiated taste to more rigorous standards: _corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_ (x. 1, 125). And when, in the evening of his days, he wrote his great treatise on the ‘technical training’ of the orator, it was from himself and his own successful practice that he drew many of his most cogent illustrations, e.g. vi. 2, 36, and (in regard to his powers of memory) xi. 2, 39 and iv. 2, 86.

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

vii

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

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

of law—others trained in the practice of delation to every form of trickery and violence—Quintilian, honest, able, and moderate stood by himself6.’

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

Quintiliane, vagae moderator summe iuventae, Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae. —Mart. ii. 90, 1-2.

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

After a public career at Rome, extending over a period of twenty years8, Quintilian definitely retired from both teaching and pleading at ix

the bar. He seems to have profited by the example of his model, Domitius Afer, who would have done better if he had retired earlier (xii. 11, 3): Quintilian thought it was well to go while he would still be missed,—_et praecipiendi munus iam pridem deprecati sumus et in foro quoque dicendi, quid honestissimum finem putabamus desinere dum desideraremur_, ii. 12, 12. The wealth which he had acquired by the practice of his profession (Juv. vii. 186-189) enabled him to go into retirement with a light heart. The first-fruits of his leisure was a treatise in which he sought to account for that decline in eloquence for which the _Institutio Oratoria_ was afterwards to provide a remedy. It was entitled _De causis corruptae eloquentiae_, and was long confounded with the Dialogue on Oratory, now ascribed to Tacitus: he refers to this work in vi. pr. §3: viii. 6, 76: possibly also in ii. 4, 42: v. 12, 23: vi. pr. §3: viii. 3, 58, and 6, 769. This treatise is no longer extant, and we have lost also the two books _Artis Rhetoricae_, which were published under Quintilian’s name (1 pr. §7), _neque editi a me neque in hoc comparati: namque alterum sermonem per biduum habitum pueri quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum pluribus sane diebus, quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum boni iuvenes sed nimium amantes mei temerario editionis honore vulgaverant_10. In a recent edition of the ‘Minor Declamations’ (M. Fabii Quintiliani declamationes quae supersunt cxlv Lipsiae, 1884), Const. Ritter endeavours to show that this is the work referred to in the passage quoted above, from the preface to the _Institutio_: cp. Die Quintilianischen Declamationen, Freiburg i.B., und x

Tübingen, 1881, p. 246 sqq.11 Meister’s view, however, is that, like the ‘Greater Declamations,’ which are generally admitted to have been composed at a later date, the ‘Minor Declamations’ also were written subsequently either by Quintilian himself or (more probably) by imitators who had caught his style and were glad to commend their compositions by the aid of his great name. Even in his busy professional days Quintilian had suffered from the zeal of pirate publishers: he tells us (vii. 2, 24) that several pleadings were in circulation under his name which he could by no means claim as entirely his own: _nam ceterae, quae sub nomine meo feruntur, neglegentia excipientium in quaestum notariorum corruptae minimam partem mei habent_.

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

It was while he was acting as tutor to the two princes that Quintilian received, through the influence of their father Flavius Clemens, the compliment of the consular insignia. This we learn from Ausonius, himself the recipient of a similar favour from his pupil Gratian: _Quintilianus per Clementem ornamenta consularia sortitus, honestamenta nominis potius videtur quam insignia potestatis habuisse_. It was probably in allusion to xi

this promotion, unexampled at that time in the case of a teacher of rhetoric, that Juvenal wrote (vii. 197-8)—

Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul; Si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor:

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

The flattery with which Quintilian loads the emperor for these and similar favours is the only stain on a character otherwise invariably manly, honourable, and straightforward. It is startling for us to hear that monster of iniquity, the last of the Flavian line, invoked as an ‘upright guardian of morals’ (_sanctissimus censor_ iv. pr. §3), even when he was ‘tearing in pieces the almost lifeless world.’ There may have been a grain of sincerity in the compliments which Quintilian, like Pliny, pays to his literary ability. Domitian’s poetical productions are said not to have been altogether wanting in merit; and his attachment to literary pursuits is shown by the festivals he instituted in honour of Minerva and Jupiter Capitolinus, in which rhetorical, musical, and artistic contests were a prominent feature (see on x. 1, 91). But this is no justification for the fulsome language employed by Quintilian in the introduction to the Fourth Book, where the emperor is spoken of as the protecting deity of literary men: _ut in omnibus ita in eloquentia eminentissimum ... quo neque praesentius aliud nec studiis magis propitium numen est_; nor for his profession of belief that nothing but the cares of government prevented Domitian from becoming the greatest poet of Rome: _Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum_ x. 1, 91 sq. Few would recognise Domitian in the following reference: _laudandum in quibusdam quod geniti immortales, quibusdam quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti: quod pietas principis nostri praesentium quoque temporum decus fecit_ iii. 7, 9. Such servility can only be partially explained by Quintilian’s official relations to the Court and by the circumstances of the time at which he wrote. It was a vice of the age: Quintilian shares it with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus, and Valerius Flaccus. The indignant silence which Tacitus and Juvenal maintained during the horrors of this reign is a better expression of the virtue of old Rome, which seems to have burned with steadier flame in the hearts of her genuine sons than in those of the ‘new men’ xii

from the provinces, with neither pride of family nor pride of nationality to save them from the corrupting influences of their surroundings14.

That Quintilian acquired considerable wealth, partly as a teacher and partly by work at the bar, is evident from the pointed references made by Juvenal in the seventh Satire. After showing how insignificant are the fees paid by Roman parents for their children’s education, when compared with their other expenses, the satirist suddenly breaks off,—_unde igitur tot Quintilianus habet saltus?_ How does it come about (if his profession is so unremunerative) that Quintilian owns so many estates? The only answer which Juvenal can give to this conundrum is that the great teacher was one of the fortunate: ‘he is a lucky man, and your lucky man, like Horace’s Stoic, unites every good quality in himself, and can expect everything15.’ We must remember however, that, while Quintilian acquired wealth in the practice of his profession, no charge is made against him as having placed his abilities at the disposal of an unscrupulous ruler for his own advancement. Under Nero, Marcellus Eprius assisted in procuring the condemnation of Thrasea, and received over £42,000 for the service (Tac. Ann. xvi. 33): if Quintilian’s name had ever been associated with such a trial, Juvenal would have been more direct in his reference. But with Quintilian, as with so many others, the advantages of position and fortune were counterbalanced by grave domestic losses. In a less rhetorical age the memorable introduction to the Sixth Book of the _Institutio_ would perhaps have taken a rather more simple form; but it is none the less a testimony to the warm human heart of the writer, now a childless widower. He had married, when already well on in life, a young girl whose death at the early age of nineteen made him feel as if in her he had lost a daughter rather than a wife: _cum omni virtute quae in feminas cadit functa insanabilem attulit marito dolorem, tum aetate tam puellari, praesertim meae comparata, potest et ipsa numerari inter vulnera orbitatis_ vi. pr. 5. She left him two sons, the younger of whom did not long survive her; he had just completed his fifth year when he died. The father now concentrated all his affection xiii

on the elder, and it was with his education in view that he made all haste to complete his great work, which he considered would be the best inheritance he could leave to him,—_hanc optimum partem relicturus hereditatis videbar, ut si me, quod aequum et optabile fuit, fata intercepissent, praeceptore tamen patre uteretur_ ib. §1. But the blow again descended, and his house was desolate: _at me fortuna id agentem diebus ac noctibus festinantemque metu meae mortalitatis ita subito prostravit ut laboris mei fructus ad neminem minus quam ad me pertineret. Illum enim, de quo summa conceperam et in quo spem unicam senectutis reponebam, repetito vulnere orbitatis amisi_ ib. §2.

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

II. The Institutio Oratoria.

Though Quintilian spent little more than two years on the composition of the _Institutio Oratorio_, his work really embodies the experience of a xiv

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

The plan of the _Institutio Oratorio_ cannot be better given than in its author’s own words (i. pr. 21 sq.): _Liber primus ea quae sunt ante officium rhetoris continebit. Secundo prima apud rhetorem elementa et quae de ipsa rhetorices substantia quaeruntur tractabimus, quinque deinceps inventioni (nam huic et dispositio subiungitur) quattuor elocutioni, in cuius partem memoria ac pronuntiatio veniunt, dabuntur. Unus accedet in quo nobis orator ipse informandus est, et qui mores eius, quae in xv

suscipiendis, discendis, agendis causis ratio, quod eloquentiae genus, quis agendi debeat esse finis, quae post finem studia, quantum nostra valebit infirmitas, disseremus._ The first book deals with what the pupil must learn before he goes to the rhetorician; it gives an account of home-training and school discipline, and contains also a statement of Quintilian’s views of grammar. The second book treats of rhetoric in general: the choice of a proper instructor, as well as his character and function, and the nature, principles, aims, and use of oratory. It is in these early books especially that Quintilian reveals the high tone which has made him an authority on educational morals, as well as rhetorical training: see especially i. 2, 8, where he enlarges on Juvenal’s dictum, _maxima debetur puero reverentia_; ii. 4, 10, where he advocates gentle and conciliatory methods in teaching; and ii. 2, 5,—a picture of the ideal teacher in language which might be applied to Quintilian himself19. The remaining books, except the twelfth, are devoted to the five ‘parts of rhetoric,’—invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery (Cic. de Inv. i. 7, 9). In the third book we have a classification of the different kinds of oratory. Next he treats of the ‘different divisions of a speech, the purpose of the exordium, the proper form of a statement of facts, what constitutes the force of proofs, either in confirming our own assertions or refuting those of our adversary, and of the different powers of the peroration, whether it be regarded as a summary of the arguments previously used, or as a means of exciting the feelings of the judge rather than of refreshing his memory.’ This brings us to the end of the sixth book, which closes with remarks on the uses of humour and of altercation20. The discussion of arrangement finishes with the seventh book, which is extremely technical: style (_elocutio_) is the main subject of the four books which follow. Of these the eighth and ninth treat of the elements of a good style,—such as perspicuity, ornament, &c.; the tenth of the practical studies and exercises (including a course of reading) by which the actual command of these elements may be obtained; while the eleventh deals with appropriateness (i.e. the different kinds of oratory which suit different audiences), memory, and delivery. The twelfth book—which Quintilian calls the most grave and important part of the whole work—treats of the high moral qualifications requisite in the perfect orator: xvi

just as the first book, introductory to the whole, describes the early training which should precede the technical studies of the orator, so the last book sets forth that ‘discipline of the whole man’ which is their crown and conclusion21. “Lastly, the experienced teacher gives advice when the public life of an orator should begin, and when it should end. Even then his activity will not come to an end. He will write the history of his times, will explain the law to those who consult him, will write, like Quintilian himself, a treatise on eloquence, or set forth the highest principles of morality. The young men will throng round and consult him as an oracle, and he will guide them as a pilot. What can be more honourable to a man than to teach that of which he has a thorough knowledge? ‘I know not,’ he concludes, ‘whether an orator ought not to be thought happiest at that period of his life when, sequestered from the world, devoted to retired study, unmolested by envy, and remote from strife, he has placed his reputation in a harbour of safety, experiencing while yet alive that respect which is more commonly offered after death, and observing how his character will be regarded by posterity22.’”

The _Institutio Oratoria_ differs from all other previous rhetorical treatises in the comprehensiveness of its aim and method. It is a complete manual for the training of the orator, from his cradle to the public platform. Founding on old Cato’s maxim, that the orator is the _vir bonus dicendi peritus_, Quintilian considers it necessary to take him at birth in order to secure the best results, as regards both goodness of character and skill in speaking. His work has therefore for us a double value and a twofold interest: it is a treatise on education in general, and on rhetorical education in particular. Throughout the whole, oratory is the end for the sake of which everything is undertaken,—the goal to which the entire moral and intellectual training of the student is to be directed. Quintilian’s high conception of his subject is reflected in the language of the ‘Dialogue on Oratory’: _Studium quo non aliud in civitate nostra vel ad utilitatem fructuosius vel ad voluptatem dulcius vel ad dignitatem amplius vel ad urbis famam pulchrius vel ad totius imperii atque omnium gentium notitiam inlustrius excogitari potest_ (ch. 5). Though the field for the practical display of eloquence had been greatly limited by xvii

the extinction of the old freedom of political life, rhetoric represented, in Quintilian’s day, the whole of education. It was to the Romans what μουσική was to the Greeks, and was valued all the more by them because of its eminently practical purpose. The student of rhetoric must therefore be fully equipped. “Quintilian postulates the widest culture: there is no form of knowledge from which something may not be extracted for his purpose; and he is fully alive to the importance of method in education. He ridicules the fashion of the day, which hurried over preliminary cultivation, and allowed men to grow grey while declaiming in the schools, where nature and reality were forgotten. Yet he develops all the technicalities of rhetoric with a fulness to which we find no parallel in ancient literature. Even in this portion of the work the illustrations are so apposite and the style so dignified and yet sweet, that the modern reader, whose initial interest in rhetoric is of necessity faint, is carried along with much less fatigue than is necessary to master most parts of the rhetorical writings of Aristotle and Cicero. At all times the student feels that he is in the company of a high-toned Roman gentleman who, so far as he could do without ceasing to be a Roman, has taken up into his nature the best results of ancient culture in all its forms23.”

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

The work was expected with the greatest interest before its publication, and we may infer, from the high authority assigned to Quintilian in the xviii

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

will remember how Milton (Sonnet xi) uses the authority of his name when referring to the roughness of northern nomenclature:—

Those rugged names to our like mouths grow sleek That would have made Quintilian stare and gasp.

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

Besides the literary criticism for which it has always attracted attention, and which will form the subject of the next section, the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ contains valuable precepts in regard to various practical matters which are still of as great importance as they were in Quintilian’s day. Among these are the practice of writing, the use of an amanuensis, xx

the art of revision, the limits of imitation, the best exercises in style, the advantages of preparation, and the faculty of improvisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 §20 (p. 178) Neque vero tanta esse umquam fiducia facilitatis xxii

debet ut non breve saltem tempus, quod nusquam fere deerit, ad ea quae dicturi sumus dispicienda sumamus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Quintilians’s Litary Criticism.

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

In judging of the merits of Quintilian’s literary criticism we must not forget the point of view from which he wrote. He is not dealing with literature in and for itself. His was not the cast of mind in which the faculty of literary appreciation finds artistic expression in the form in which criticism becomes a part of literature itself. We cannot think of the author of the Tenth Book of the _Institutio_ as one whom a divinely implanted instinct for literature impelled, towards the evening of his days, to leave a record of the personal impressions he had derived from contact with those whom we now recognise as the master-minds of classical antiquity. Quintilian writes, not as the literary man for a sympathetic brotherhood, but as the professor of rhetoric for students in his school. If, in the xxiii

course of his just and sober, but often trite and obvious criticisms, he characterises a writer in language which has stood the test of time, it is always when that writer touches his main interest most nearly, as one from whom the student of style may learn much. In short, his work in the department of literary criticism is done much in the same spirit as that which, in these later days, has moved many sober and sensible, but on the whole average persons, conversant with the general current of contemporary thought, and not without the faculty of appreciative discrimination, to draw up a list of the ‘Best Hundred Books.’ Their aim, however, has been to guide and direct the work of that peculiar product of modern times, the ‘general reader’: Quintilian’s victim was the professed student of rhetoric.

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

The course of reading which Quintilian recommends is selected with express reference to the aim which he had in view, and which is put prominently forward in connection with nearly every individual criticism. The young man who aspires to success in speaking must have his taste formed: when he reads Homer, let him note that, great poet as Homer is, and admirable in every respect, he is also _oratoria virtute eminentissimus_ (1 §46). Alcaeus is _plerumque oratori similis_ (1 §63): Euripides is, on that ground, to be preferred to Sophocles (1 §67): Lucan is _magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus_ (1 §70): and the old Greek comedy is xxiv

specially recommended as a form of poetry ‘than which probably none is better suited to form the orator’ (1 §65). With the prose writers Quintilian is thoroughly at home, and he nowhere lets in so much light on his own sympathies as in the estimates he gives us of Cicero (1 §§105-112) and Seneca (1 §§125-131). His criticism of Cicero is precisely what might have been expected from the general tone of the references throughout the _Institutio_. Cicero is Quintilian’s model, to whom he looks up with reverential admiration: he will not hear of his faults. In his own day the great orator had been attacked by Atticists of the severer type for the richness of his style and the excessive attention which they alleged that he paid to rhythm. The ‘plainness’ of Lysias was their ideal, and they failed to recognise the fact that, with the more limited resources of the Latin language, such simplicity and condensation would be perilously near to baldness (cp. note on 1 §105). Cicero they regarded as an Asianist in disguise; in the words of his devoted follower, they “dared to censure him as unduly turgid and Asiatic and redundant; as too much given to repetition, and sometimes insipid in his witticisms; and as spiritless, diffuse, and (save the mark!) even effeminate in his arrangement” (_Inst. Or._ xii. 10, 12, quoted on 1 §105). That this criticism had not been forgotten in Quintilian’s own day is obvious not only from the _Institutio_ but also from the discussion in the _Dialogus de Oratoribus_, where Aper is represented as saying “We know that even Cicero was not without his disparagers, who thought him inflated, turgid, not sufficiently concise, but unduly diffuse and luxuriant, and far from Attic” (ch. 18). To such detractors of his great model Quintilian will have nothing to say, and in his criticism of Cicero he gives full expression to his enthusiastic admiration for the genius of one who had brought eloquence to the highest pinnacle of perfection (vi. 31 _Latinae eloquentiae princeps_: cp. x. 1 §§105-112: xii. 1, 20 _stetisse ipsum in fastigio eloquentiae fateor_: 10, 12 sqq. _in omnibus quae in quoque laudantur eminentissimum_).

With such an absorbing enthusiasm for Cicero, it was hardly to be expected that Quintilian would show an adequate appreciation of Seneca. Seneca’s influence was the great obstacle in the way of a general return to the classical tradition of the Golden Age, and this was the literary reform which Quintilian had at heart—_corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo_ x. 1, 125. It is probable that, in spite of the appearance of candour which he assumes in dealing with him, Quintilian approached Seneca with a certain degree of prejudice33. Quintilian represents the literature of erudition, and his xxv

standard is the best of what had been done in the past: Seneca was, like Lucan, the child of a new era, to whom it seemed perfectly natural that new thoughts should find utterance in new forms of expression. Seneca’s motto was ‘nullius nomen fero,’—he gave free rein to the play of his fancy, and rejected all method34: Quintilian looked with horror (in the interest of his pupils) on a liberty that was so near to licence, and set himself to check it by recalling men’s minds to the ‘good old ways,’ and extolling Cicero as the synonym for eloquence itself. In such a conflict of tastes as regards things literary, and apart from the ambiguous character of Seneca’s personal career, it is not surprising that Quintilian should have been unfavourably disposed towards him. He had a grudge, moreover, against philosophers in general, especially the Stoics. They had encroached on what his comprehensive scheme of education impelled him to believe was the province of the teacher of rhetoric,—the moral training of the future orator35.

He was morbidly anxious to show that rhetoric stood in need of no extraneous assistance: even the ‘grammatici’ he teaches to know their proper place (see esp. i. 9, 6). But it was mainly, no doubt, as representing certain literary tendencies of which he disapproved that Seneca must have incurred Quintilian’s censure. It is probable that in many passages of the _Institutio_, where he is not specially named, it is Seneca that is in the writer’s mind: the tone of the references corresponds in several points with the famous passage of the Tenth Book36. In this passage xxvi

Quintilian is evidently putting forward the whole force of his authority in order to counteract Seneca’s influence. He has kept him waiting in a marked manner, to the very end of his literary review: and when he comes to deal with him he does not confine his criticism to a few words or phrases, but devotes nearly as much space to him as he did to Cicero himself. In his estimate of Seneca nothing is more remarkable than the careful manner in which Quintilian mingles praise and blame. But the praise is reluctant and half-hearted: it is Seneca’s faults that his critic wishes to make prominent. He admits his ability (_ingenium facile et copiosum_ §128), and even goes the length of saying that it would be well if his imitators could rise to his level (_foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro fieri_ §127). But praise is no sooner given than it is immediately recalled. It was his faults that secured imitators for Seneca (_placebat propter sola vitia_ ib.); if he was distinguished for wide knowledge (_plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio_ §128), he was often misled by those who assisted him in his researches; if there is much that is good in him, ‘much even to admire’ (_multa ... probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt_ §131), still it requires picking out. In short, so dangerous a model is he, that he should be read only by those who have come to maturity, and then not so much, evidently, for improvement, as for the reason that it is good to ‘see both sides,’—_quod exercere potest utrimque iudicium_, ib.

It has already been suggested that the secret of a great part of Quintilian’s antipathy to Seneca may have been his dislike of the philosophers, whom his imperial patrons found it necessary from time to time to suppress. He was anxious to exalt rhetoric at the expense of philosophy. But he was no doubt also honestly of opinion—and his position as an instructor of youth would make him feel bound to express his view distinctly—that Seneca was a dangerous model for the budding orator to imitate. His merits were many and great: but his peculiarities lent themselves readily to degradation. Quintilian wished to put forward a counterblast to the fashionable tendency of the day, and to recall—in their own interests—to severer models Seneca’s youthful imitators,—those of whom he writes _ad ea_ (i.e. _eius vitia_) _se quisque dirigebat effingenda, quae poterat; deinde quum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat_ §127. Seneca was of course not responsible for the exaggerations of his imitators, and Quintilian would never have encouraged in his pupils exclusive devotion to any particular model, especially if that model were characterised by such peculiar features of style as distinguished Sallust or Tacitus. But he could not forgive xxvii

Seneca for his share in the reaction against Cicero37. Admirers of Seneca think that he failed to make allowance for the influences at work on the philosopher’s style, and that he judged him too much from the standpoint of a rhetorician. They admit Seneca’s faults—his tendency to declamation, the want of balance in his style, his excessive subtlety, his affectation, his want of method: but they contend that these faults are compensated by still greater virtues38. M. Rocheblave, who possesses the appreciation of Seneca traditional among Frenchmen, follows Diderot in inclining to believe that the philosopher was the victim of envy and dislike39. For himself he protests in the following terms against what he considers the inadequacy of Quintilian’s estimate: ‘Da mihi quemvis Annaei librorum ignarum, et dicito num ex istis Quintiliani laudibus non modo perspicere, sed suspicari etiam possit quanto sapientiae doctrinaeque gradu steterit scriptor qui in tota latina facundia optima senserit, humanissima docuerit, maxima et multo plurima excogitaverit, ita ut, multis ex antiqua morali philosophia seu graeca seu latina depromptis, adiectis pluribus, potuerit in unum propriumque saporem omnia illa quasi sapientiae humanae libamenta confundere? Credisne a tali lectore scriptorem vivo gurgite exundantem, sensibus scatentem, legentes in perpetuas rapientem cogitationes, eum denique quem ob vim animi ingeniique acumen iure anteponat Tullio Montanius noster40, protinus agnitum iri? ...facile credo pusillas Fabii laudes multum infra viri meritum stetisse (quod detrectationis sit tutissimum genus) omnes mecum confessuros’ (pp. 44-5).

Whether they were altogether deserved or not, there can be no doubt xxviii

that the strictures made by so great a literary leader as Quintilian was in his own day must have greatly contributed to the overthrow of Seneca’s influence. There is more than one indication, in the literature of the next generation, that he is no longer regarded as a safe model for imitation. Tacitus, in reporting the panegyric which Nero delivered on Claudius after his death, and which was the work of Seneca, says that it displayed much grace of style (_multum cultus_), as was to be expected from one who possessed _ingenium amoenum et temporis_ eius _auribus accommodatum_ (Ann. xiii. 3). Suetonius tell us how Caligula disparaged the _lenius comtiusque scribendi genus_ which Seneca represented; and here (Calig. 53) occurs a similar reference to a fame that had passed away,—_Senecam tum maxime placentem_, just as the elder Pliny, writing about the time of Seneca’s death, speaks of him as _princeps tum eruditorum_ (Nat. Hist. xiv. 51). Later writers, such as Fronto and Aulus Gellius41 were much more unreserved and even immoderate in their censure. And it is a remarkable fact (noted by M. Rocheblave) that the name of the great Stoic nowhere occurs in the writings of his successors, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. He who had been the greatest literary ornament of Nero’s reign disappears almost from notice in the second century.

In regard to the general body of Quintilian’s literary criticism, the question of greatest interest for modern readers is the degree of its originality. How far is Quintilian giving us his own independent judgments on the writings of authors whom he had read at first hand? How far is he merely registering current criticism, which must already have found more or less definite expression in the writings and teaching of previous rhetoricians and grammarians? The circumstances of the case make it impossible for us to approach the special questions which it involves with any great prejudice in favour of Quintilian’s originality in general. The extent of his indebtedness to previous writers, as regards the main body of his work, may be inferred from a glance at the ‘Index scriptorum et artificum’ in Halm’s edition. In many places he is merely simplifying the rules of the Greek rhetoricians whom he followed. Probably he was not equally well up in all the departments of the subject of which he treats, and he naturally relied, to some extent, on the works of those who had preceded him. But did he take his literary criticism from others? Was Quintilian one of those reprehensible persons who do not scruple to borrow, and to give forth as their own, the estimate formed and expressed xxix

by some one else of authors whose works they may never themselves have read?

In endeavouring to find an answer to this question, it will be convenient to consider Quintilian’s criticism of the Greek writers apart from that which he applies to his own countrymen, with whose works he might _a priori_ be expected to be more familiar. The notes to that part of the Tenth Book in which he deals with Greek literature (1 §§46-84) will show too many instances of parallelism for us to believe that, in addressing himself to this portion of his subject, Quintilian scrupulously avoided incurring any obligations to others42. No doubt in his long career as a teacher he had come into contact with traditional opinion as to the merits and characteristics not only of the Greek but also of the Latin writers; and in the two years which he tells us he devoted to the composition of the _Institutio_43 he may still further have increased his debt to extraneous sources. It was in fact impossible that Quintilian should have been unaware of the nature of the criticism current in his own day, and of what had previously been said and written by others. But he is not to be thought of as one who, before indicating his opinion of a particular writer, carefully refers, not to that writer’s works, but to the opinion of others concerning them. The cases in which he reproduces, in very similar language, the verdict of others are not always to be explained on the hypothesis of conscious borrowing44. The coincidences which can be traced certainly do detract from the originality of his work. xxx

But we do not need to believe that, in writing his individual criticisms, Quintilian always had recourse to the works of others: he no doubt had them at hand, and his career as a teacher had probably impressed on his memory many _dicta_ which he could hardly fail to reproduce, in one form or another, when he came to gather together the results of his teaching.

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

But the author with whom Quintilian’s literary criticism has most in common is undoubtedly Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It is true that in the Tenth Book he nowhere expressly mentions him; but references to him by name as an authority on rhetorical matters are common enough in other parts of the _Institutio_46. Quintilian no doubt knew his works well, especially that which originally consisted of three books περὶ μιμήσεως47. The second book of this treatise has long been known to scholars xxxi

in the shape of a fragmentary epitome, which presents so many striking resemblances to the literary judgments contained in the first chapter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, that early commentators, such as, for instance, H. Stephanus, concluded that Quintilian had borrowed freely from the earlier writer: _multa hinc etiam mutuatum constat; quibus modo nomine suppresso pro suis utitur, modo addito verbo putant sua non esse declarat_. The parallelisms in question were fully drawn out by Claussen in the work mentioned above, though Usener justly remarks that he wrongly includes a good deal that was the common property not only of Dionysius and Quintilian, but of the whole learned world of the day: they will all be found duly recorded in the notes to this edition, 1 §§46-84.

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

The order of treatment is almost identical in the two writers. First come the poets, with the writers of epic poetry at their head: these are not only named in the same order (Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis), but they are commended in very similar terms. But if Quintilian had been translating directly from Dionysius, it is very probable that he would have mentioned him by name, instead of concealing his obligations xxxii

by the use of such a phrase as _putant_ (in speaking of Panyasis—see note on §54). If he goes on to add some criticisms which are not in Dionysius, viz. on Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Theocritus, and to mention also Pisander, Nicander, and Euphorion, it is with the express intimation that they do not rank in the canon fixed by the _grammatici_,—the very reason for which these writers had been omitted by Dionysius. The Greek rhetorician says nothing of the elegiac and iambic poets mentioned by Quintilian,—the former in general terms (_princeps habetur Callimachus_, _secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit_ §58), the latter with express reference to the judgment of Aristarchus on the great Archilochus (§59)48. In treating of the lyric poets, Quintilian mentions the number nine (§61), which Dionysius does not; but as regards the substance of his criticisms, he is again almost in exact agreement with his predecessor. Both refer to Pindar, Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides, with the trifling difference that in Dionysius Simonides comes second instead of fourth on the list. In §65 Quintilian proceeds to deal with the Old Comedy, which finds no place in the treatise of Dionysius, as we now have it. And there is very little that corresponds with Dionysius in the sections on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. But it is noticeable that in both Euripides is made to form the transition to Menander and the New Comedy.

In regard to the poets, then, it seems probable that, while Quintilian was no doubt familiar with the work of Dionysius, he is rather incorporating in his criticism the traditions of the literary schools than borrowing directly from a single predecessor. Claussen was of opinion that the latter is the true state of the case, and he even goes so far (p. 348) as to suppose that the original work of Dionysius (of which the treatise long known as the Ἀρχαίων κρίσις or the _De Veterum Censura_ is only a fragmentary epitome) must have contained notices of the elegiac and iambic poets corresponding with those in Quintilian, as well as of the old comic dramatists and of additional representatives of the New Comedy. But a comparison of the various passages on which a judgment may be based seems to make it certain that, while taking advantage of his knowledge of previous literary criticism (scraps of which he may have accumulated for teaching purposes during his long career), he is not slavishly following any single authority49: cp. §52 _datur palma_ (_Hesiodo_,) xxxiii

§53 _grammaticorum consensus_, §54 _ordinem a grammaticis datum_, §58 _princeps habetur_ and _confessione plurimorum_, §59 _ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum_, §64 _quidam_ (probably including Dionysius), §67 _inter plurimos quaeritur_, §72 _consensu ... omnium_. And the tone and substance of his estimate of Homer, of Euripides, and of Menander50, seem to show that he was prepared to rely, when necessary, on his own independent judgment (cp. _meo quidem iudicio_ §69), especially in dealing with the poets who would be of greatest service for his professed purpose.

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

These discrepancies may be relied on to disprove Claussen’s allegation that Dionysius’s treatise is Quintilian’s _primus et praecipuus fons_. It is quite as probable that, in dealing with the historians, he had before him the passage in the second book of Cicero’s _Orator_, to which reference has already been made (§55 sq.). There Cicero mentions Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus, with the addition of Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus. He may also have had at hand the great orator’s lost treatise _Hortensius_, two fragments of which contain short characterisations of Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus, and Ephorus51: in writing it Cicero probably followed some list similar xxxiv

to those which were accessible both to Dionysius and Quintilian52. Again there is sufficient resemblance here between Quintilian and Dio Chrysostom (as also in regard to Euripides and Menander: Dio Chr. 6, p. 477 sq.) to justify the supposition that they followed the same tradition. Dio expressly elevates Theopompus to the second rank (10, p. 479), τῶν δὲ ἄκρων Θουκυδίδης ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τῶν δευτέρων Θεόπομπος‧ καὶ γὰρ ῥητορικόν τι περὶ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τῶν λόγων ἔχει.. With this compare Quintilian’s words: _Theopompus his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis_ (§74). Ephorus, on the other hand, is expressly eliminated by Dio.

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

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

We may infer, then, on the whole, that in regard to his judgments of the Greek writers Quintilian followed the established order of the literary schools, and incorporated with the expression of his own opinion much that was traditional in their thought and phraseology. He cannot be supposed to have followed any single authority: he must rather be considered to have gleaned in the whole field of the literature of criticism from xxxv

Theophrastus (x. 1, 27) down to his own day. He accepted from others, with probably few modifications, the approved lists of poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and adopted the conventional practice of writing careful and well-considered criticisms upon them—“somewhat cut and dried criticisms,” as Prof. Nettleship says of Dionysius, “which seldom lack sanity, care, and insight, but which are rather dangerously suited for learning by heart and handing on to future generations of pupils.” These lists of ‘classical’ writers may probably be traced back, in the main, to the literary activity of the critics of Alexandria. They would no doubt be well known to the Greek rhetoricians who were at work on the education of the Roman youth as early as the beginning of the first century B.C., and may have served as the basis of their prelections to their pupils. Criticism (κρίσις ποιημάτων, κριτικὴ) was an essential part of the office of the ‘grammaticus55.’

In speaking of his duties, which fall under the two main heads of _recte loquendi scientia_ and _poetarum enarratio_, Quintilian adds (i. 4, 3): _et mixtum his omnibus iudicium est; quo quidem ita severe sunt usi veteres grammatici ut non versus modo censoria quadam virgula notare et libros, qui falso viderentur inscripti, tamquam subditos submovere familia permiserint sibi, sed auctores alios in ordinem redegerint, alios omnino exemerint numero_. Beginning with a critical examination of individual texts, the ‘grammatici’ gathered up the results of their work, on the literary side, in short characterisations of the various writers whom they made the subject of their study, and finally drew up lists of the best authors in each department of literature, with a careful indication of their good points as well as of the features in which they were not to be used as models. This process received a more or less final form at the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium and his follower Aristarchus (see on x. 1, 54), the latter of whom probably introduced such modifications in the list of his predecessor as approved themselves to his own judgment (cp. x. 1, 59 _tres receptos Aristarchi iudicio scriptores iamborum_). The influence of this method in Roman literature may be seen, early in the first century, in the so-called ‘canon’ of Volcatius Sedigitus, preserved by Gellius (15, 24)56: he makes a list of ten Latin comedians, on the analogy of the canon of the ten Attic orators. The list of the Alexandrine critics was probably in the hands of Cicero, as Usener has shown (pp. 114-126), when he wrote his ‘Hortensius,’—a treatise which seems to have originally contained an introductory sketch of the great contributors to the various departments xxxvi

of literature, by way of preparation for the main purpose of the dialogue,—the praise of philosophy57. Then there is Dio Chrysostom, a writer who flourished not long after Quintilian himself, and whose reproduction of similar judgments has already been noted. Such divergences as occur may probably be accounted for, at least in part, by the different points of view from which the various critics wrote. In the preliminary sketch in the _Hortensius_ the object seems to have been not the education of youth but the recreation of maturity: Dio draws a careful distinction between the branches which serve for the student of rhetoric, and those which may be expected to benefit and delight men who have finished their studies: Quintilian’s aim, again and again reiterated, is to lay down a course of reading suited to form the taste of a young man aspiring to success as a speaker.

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

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

Ποιηταὶ πέντε‧ Ὅμηρος Ἡσίοδος Πείσανδρος Πανύασις Ἀντίμαχος.

ἰαμβοποιοὶ τρεῖς‧ Σημονίδης Ἀρχίλοχος Ἱππῶναξ.

τραγῳδοποιοὶ ε´‧ Ἀισχύλος Σοφοκλῆς Εὐριπίδης Ἴων Ἀχαιός.

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

μέσης κωμῳδίας β´‧ Ἀντιφάνες Ἄλεξις Θούριος.

νέας κωμῳδίας ε´‧ Μένανδρος Φιλιππίδης Δίφιλος Φιλήμων Ἀπολλόδωρος.

ἐλεγείων ποιηταὶ δ´‧ Καλλῖνος Μιμνέρμος Φιλητᾶς Καλλίμαχος.

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

xxxvii

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

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

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

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

In his review of Latin literature, Quintilian is no doubt giving us the fruit of his own study and independent judgment, though here again the notes will indicate that he was familiar with what other writers, such as Cicero and Horace, had said before in the way of literary criticism. The examination of his estimate of Seneca has already proved that he did not hesitate to formulate his own opinions, and to press them, when xxxviii

necessary, upon his pupils. A reference to the _Analysis_ (pp. 3-5) will show that in this part of his work Quintilian follows the method which had been traditionally applied to the criticism of the Greek writers. The same order is preserved (§85); the various departments of literature are each compared with the corresponding departments in Greek (§§93, 99, 101, 105, 123); and individual writers are pitted against each other, and are sometimes characterised in similar terms. In all this Quintilian is consistent with the scheme according to which he had evidently determined to arrange his work: he is consistent also with the general tradition of literary criticism among his countrymen. “As Latin literature since Naevius had adopted Greek models and Greek metres, every Latin writer of any pretensions took some Greek author as his ideal of excellence in the particular style which he was adopting. Criticism accordingly drifted into the vicious course of comparison; of pitting every Latin writer against a Greek writer, as though borrowing from a man would constitute you his rival. Thus Ennius was a Homer, Afranius a Menander, Plautus an Epicharmus, before the days of Horace: in Horace’s time there were three Homers, Varius, Valgius, and Vergil. Cicero and Demosthenes were compared by the Greek critics in the Augustan age, and by the time of Quintilian Sallust has become the Latin Thucydides, Livy the Latin Herodotus59.” It is this idea of making ‘canons’ of Latin writers, to correspond as nearly as possible with those which he had accepted from former critics for the classical writers of Greece, that gives an air of artificiality to Quintilian’s criticism of Latin literature, and interferes somewhat with the general effect which his sane and sober appreciations would otherwise produce. The individual estimates are in the main all that could be wished for, notably the enthusiastic eulogy of Cicero (§§105-112), which it is interesting to compare with a similar passage in the treatise ‘On the Sublime.’ “The same difference,” says the writer, “may be discerned in the grandeur of Cicero as compared with that of his Grecian rival. The sublimity of Demosthenes is generally sudden and abrupt: that of Cicero is equally diffused. Demosthenes is vehement, rapid, vigorous, terrible; he burns and sweeps away all before him; and hence we may liken him to a whirlwind or a thunderbolt: Cicero is like a widespread conflagration, which rolls over and feeds on all around it, whose fire is extensive and burns long, breaking out successively in different places, and finding its fuel now here, now there60.” Excellent also are the shorter characterisations of such writers as Sallust (_immortalem Sallusti velocitatem_ 1 §102), of Livy (_Livi lactea ubertas_ 1 §32: _mirae iucunditatis clarissimique xxxix

candoris_ §101), of Ovid (_nimium amator ingenii sui_ §88), and of Horace (_et insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax_ §96). But the general impression we derive is that Quintilian is producing many of his criticisms to order, as it were: so much is he tied down to the plan he has adopted. It is to this same method of mechanical comparison—born of the artificial traditions of the literary schools—that we owe Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’; and it has not been without imitators in more recent times61.

IV. Style and Language.

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

The depravation of taste which had gone hand in hand with the moral and social degeneration of the Roman people, in the era of transition from republic to empire, has already been touched upon in the discussion xl

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

Quintilian’s distaste for the prevailing fashion inclined him to return to the models of the best republican period. Exclusive devotion to one particular type was forbidden him, if by nothing else, by his own declared principles,—_non qui maxime imitandus et solus imitandus est_ (2 §24); and accordingly, in spite of his great admiration for Cicero, we find several well-marked features of difference between him and his master, not only in the use of words, but also in the structure and composition of sentences66. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise. Quintilian’s mission was to restore to Latin composition the direct and natural character of the earlier style; but he could not extirpate that tendency to poetical expression which had taken root at Rome as far back as the xli

days of Sallust, and was fostered and encouraged in his own time by the wider study of Greek. He was conscious also of the need of making some concessions to the popular demand for ornament. The power of the ‘sententious’ style proved itself even on its critic and antagonist. That he was aware of the compromise he was making is clear from such a passage as the following, in which he indicates how Cicero may be adapted to contemporary requirements: _ad cuius (Ciceronis) voluptates nihil equidem quod addi possit invenio, nisi ut sensus nos quidem dicamus plures: nempe enim fieri potest salva tractatione causae et dicendi auctoritate, si non crebra haec lumina et continua fuerint et invicem offecerint. Sed me hactenus cedentem nemo insequatur ultra_, &c. (xii. 10, 46-7). There was a point beyond which he refused to go: clearness and simplicity must never be sacrificed to effect. These qualities may be claimed for Quintilian’s style; it is also sufficiently varied for his subject. When it is obscure, we must remember the defective state in which his text has come down to us67.

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

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

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

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

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

xlii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formator (Col., Sen., Plin. S.), x. 2, 20 _alienorum ingeniorum formator_ (sc. _praeceptor_).

Immutesco (Statius), x. 3, 16.

Inadfectatus (Plin. S.), x. 1, 82.

Inconcessus (Verg., Ov.), x. 2, 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Versificator (Just., Col.), x. 1, 89.

There is a touch of ‘nationalism’ about Quintilian’s use of the word _Romanus_ for _Latinus_. _Litterae latinae_, _scriptores latini_, _poetae latini_, are the usual forms with Cicero and the writers of the best period: Quintilian has _Romanes auctores_ (x. 1, 85), _sermo Romanus_ (ib. §100), _litterae Romanae_ (ib. §123), and often elsewhere.

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

xliii

Adnotatio, x. 2, 7 _brevis adnotatio_.

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

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

Offensator (ἅπαξ λεγόμ.), x. 3, 20.

Significantia, x. 1, 121.

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

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

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

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

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

To these may be added the use of _subripere_ (for _clam facere_), on the analogy of κλέπτειν τι, iv. 1, 78: _transire_ (for _effugere_), on the analogy of παρέρχεσθαι, ix. 2, 49 (cp. Stat. Theb. ii. 335 _nil transit amantes_): _finis_ for ὅρος: _maxime_, with numerals, for μάλιστα, &c.

To the same source must be attributed the frequent use in Quintilian of _propter quod_, _per quod_, _quae_, &c. on the analogy of δι᾽ ὅ, δι᾽ ἅ (see on x. 1, 10): _circa_ (used like περί), see on x. 1, 52: _multum_ (with compar.) like πολὺ μεῖζον (x. 1, 94): _sunt ... differentes_, 2 §16.

The influence of poetical usage may be seen in the frequent employment of simple verbs in the sense of compounds, of abstract nouns in a concrete sense (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7), and also in certain changes in the meaning of words, each of which will be noticed in its proper place: e.g. _componere_ for _sedare_; _vacare_ used impersonally; _venus_ for _venustas_; _beatus_ for _uber_, _fecundus_; _secretum_; _olim_ of future time; _utrimque_ of opposite sides, &c. Such changes in meaning as will be noted in connection with words like _valetudo_, _ambitio_, _advocatus_, _auctor_, _cultus_, _quicumque_, _ubicumque_, _demum_, and all the phenomena connected with the substantivation of the adjective (e.g. _studiosus_), are common to Quintilian with other writers of the Silver Age.

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

xliv

I. Nouns.

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

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

Auctor, almost identical with _scriptor_: see on x. 1, 24. Cp. Ep. ad Tryph. §1 _legendis auctoribus qui sunt innumerabiles_.

Cultus = _ornatus_: x. 1, 124; 2, 17. Cp. iii. 8, 58 _in verbis cultum adfectaverunt_: xi. 1, 58 _nitor et cultus_. Cicero uses _ornatus_ and _nitor_ as applied to language: Orat. §80 _ornatus verborum_, §13 4 _orationis_. Cp. Tac. Dial. 20, 23.

Opinio is used for ‘reputation’ (_existimatio_), whether good or bad. So x. 5, 18 (where see note): 7, 17: cp. xii. 1, 12 _contemptu opinionis_: ii. 12, 5 _adfert et ista res opinionem_: ix. 2, 74 _veritus opinionem iactantiae_: iv. 1, 33 _opinione adrogantiae laborare_: Tac. Dial. 10 _ne opinio quidem et fama ... aeque poetas quam oratores sequitur_: Sen. Ep. 79, 16. In Cicero it is found only with a genitive (ad Att. 7, 2 _opinio integritatis_: cp. Liv. xlv. 38, 6: Caes. B.G. vii. 59, 5: Tac. Dial. 15), or with an adjective (Verr. ii. 3, 24 _falsam ... malam opinionem_).

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

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

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

Other points in connection with the use of substantives are referred to xlv

in the notes: e.g. the periphrastic construction with _vis_ or _ratio_ and the gerund (see on _vim dicendi_ x. 1, 1): the concrete use of certain nouns in the plural (see on _historias_ §75: cp. _lectiones_ §45): the concrete use of abstract nouns (e.g. _facilitatem_ 3 §7: _profectus_ 5 §14: cp. _silvarum amoenitas_ for _silvae amoenae_ 3 §24). The frequent occurrence of verbal nouns in _-tor_ must also be noted: in Quint. they have come to be used almost like adjectives or participles (_hortator_ x. 3, 23: _offensator_ ib. §20), and may, like adjectives, be compared by the aid of an adverb (_nimium amator_ 1 §88, where see note)69.

II. Adjectives.

Beatus (_abundans_, _fecundus_): x. 1, 61 _beatissima rerum verborumque copia_, where see note: cp. v. 14, 31 _beatissimi amnes_. Cicero does not use _beatus_ of things: cp. de Rep. ii. 19, 34 _abundantissimus amnis_.

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

Exactus: x. 2, 14 _exactissimo iudicio_: 7 §30 _exacti commentarii_. _Exactus_ bears the same relation to _exigere_ as _perfectus_ does to _perficere_, with which _exigere_ is, in Quintilian, synonymous: _e.g._ i. 5, 2; 9, 2. So Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 72: Suet. Tib. 18: Plin. Ep. 8, 23; also M. Seneca, and Val. Max. For _exactus_ Cicero used _diligenter elaboratus_ (Brut. §312) or _accuratus_ (ad Att. xiii. 45, 3): or _perfectus_ (de Orat. i. §§34, 35).

Expositus = _tritus_, _communis_: x. 5, 11 _voluptatem expositis dare_: Iuv. 7, 54 _vatem—qui nihil expositum soleat deducere, hoc qui communi feriat carmen triviale moneta_: Sen. E. 55. Cicero has (de Orat. i. 31, 137) _omnium communia et contrita praecepta_.

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

Otiosus = _inutilis_, _inanis_. See on x. 1, 76 _tam nihil otiosum_: cp. 2 §17. So Tac. Dial. 40: Plin. S. 10, 62. In Cicero we have _vacuus_, _otio abundans_, Brut. §3: N.D. iii. §39.

xlvi

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

Summus, in sense of _extremus_: x. 1, 21, where see note. The usage is poetical: cp. Plaut. Pers. 33; Asin. 534: Verg. Aen. ii. 324 _venit summa dies_: Hor. Ep. i. 1, 1: Ovid ex Pont. iv. 9, 59, Am. iii. 9, 27: Iuv. i. 5. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio—München_, 1890, p. 36) contends that this use is not Ciceronian, for while Pollio writes _summo ludorum die_ (ad Fam. x. 32, 3) and Caelius _summis Circensibus ludis_ (ad Fam. viii. 12, 3—_Manutius: extremis diebus Circensium ludorum meorum_), Cicero himself says (ad Fam. vii. 1, 3) _extremus elephantorum dies fuit_.

Supinus = _ignavus_ (as ὕπτιος, p. xliii. above): x. 2, 17 _otiosi et supini_: cp. ix. 4, 137 _tarda et supina compositio_: Iuv. i. 66: Mart. vi. 42 _Non attendis et aure supina Iamdudum negligenter audis_. This word may have been used first by Quintilian in this sense: in Cicero it is used of the body, e.g. de Div. i. 53, 120.

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

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

The Neuter Adjective.

(1) _The Neuter singular used by itself_:—

Nom. 3 §22 _secretum in dictando perit_.

xlvii

Acc. 3 §30 _faciat sibi cogitatio secretum_.

Gen. 3 §27 _optimum secreti genus_: §30 _amator secreti_. Partitive genitives: 6 §1 _aliquid vacui_: dependent on adj. 1 §79 _honesti studiosus_.

Dat.: occurs in other books: e.g. i. pr. 4 _proximum vero_: vi. 3, 21 _contrarium serio_.

Abl. 7 §16 _cum stilus secreto gaudeat_.

Frequent instances occur in prepositional phrases, with accusative and ablative: these are mostly local, and the great extension of the usage in post-Augustan times points to the influence of Greek analogy (ἐξ ἴσου, ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ κ.τ.λ.). Examples are: _in altum_ 7 §28 (= _in profundum_): _e contrario_ 1 §19: _in deposito_ 3 §33: _in expedito_ 7 §24: (_vertere_) _in Latinum_ 5 §2 (containing the idea of locality: cp. _ex Graeco_): _ex integro_ 1 §20 (where see note): _in posterum_ 3 §14: _in publicum_ 7 §1: _in universum_ 1 §42: _in peius_ 2 §16: _ex proximo_ 1 §13: _a summo_ 3 §2: _ad ultimum_ 7 §7; ib. 16: _ex ultimo_ ib. 10.

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

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances need not be cited where adjectives are used substantivally in cases which can be recognised as neuter: e.g. 3 §6 _scriptorum proxima_. Quintilian gave a wide extension to the usage even where the case could not be recognised. It can be detected most easily, of course, when the adjective is used alongside of nouns, e.g. 5 §8 _sua brevitati gratia_, _sua copiae_, _alia translatis virtus_, _alia propriis_; or when another adjective or pronoun is used in the nom. or acc., e.g. 1 §35: 3 §32 _novorum interpositione priora confundant_: 5 §11. Other instances (of 2nd and 3rd decl.) are 7 §30 _subitis ex tempore occurrant_: 5 §1 _ex latinis_: 7 §6 _ex diversis_: 1 §66 _in plerisque_: 5 §11 _varietatem similibus dare_. So with comparatives and superlatives: 1 §63 _maioribus aptior_: 1 §58 _cum optimis satiati sumus_, _varietas tamen nobis ex vilioribus grata sit_: 5 §6 _certe proximis locus_.

The Masculine Adjective.

(1) _The Masculine Plural._

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

xlviii

Single instances are (Genitive) _veterum_ 1 §§97, 118: _magnorum_ 1 §25: (Dative) _imperitis_ 7 §15: _antiquis_ 2 §17: _studiosis_ 1 §45 (where see note: Cicero would have had _dicendi_, or _eloquentiae studiosis_): _bonis_ 2 §3: (Accusative) _veteres_ 1 §42: _posteros_ 1 §§112, 120: 2 §6: _obvios_ 3 §29: _intentos_ 3 §33: (Ablative) _ex nostris_ 1 §114: _ab antiquis_ 1 §126: _de novis_ 1 §40. With the comparative 5 §19 _apud maiores_: 5 §7 _priores_: superlative 1 §58 _confessione plurimorum_. In 1 §123 we have one of the few instances of the addition of another adjective to an adjective doing duty for a noun—_paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt_.

(2) _The Masculine Singular._

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

The following are cases of the isolated use of the masculine singular: (Genitive) x. 2, 26 _prudentis est_: (Accusative) 2 §3 _similem raro natura praestat_: 3 §19 _quasi conscium infirmitatis nostrae timentes_.

The Participle used as a Noun.

(1) _The Neuter Singular._

Participles follow the analogy of the adjective. In addition to those which have actually become nouns (e.g. _responsum_, _praeceptum_, _promissum_, &c.), Quintilian uses several participles as nouns in a manner that is again an extension of classical usage. So even with a pronoun, or another adjective: e.g. 2 §2 _ad propositum praescriptum_: §11 _ad alienum propositum_: 5 §12 _decretum quoddam atque praeceptum_: 7 §24 _promptum hoc et in expedito positum_.

(2) _The Neuter Plural._

Instances of the usual kind are too numerous to mention: the participle in _-us_, _-a_, _-um_ is found frequently in abl., gen., and dat. Not so common is the plural of the 3rd decl.: 1 §86 _eminentibus vincimur_: 3 §5 _nec protinus offerentibus se gaudeamus_, _adhibeatur indicium inventis_, _dispositio probatis_.

(3) _The Perfect Participle._

In regard to the masculine plural Quintilian here follows the Ciceronian usage, according to which the participle is employed when a definite class of individuals is indicated, and a _qui_ clause when the description is more unrestricted. Instances of the participle are 1 §131 _robustis et xlix

satis firmatis legendus_: 3 §2 7 _occupatos in noctem necessitas agit_: 5 §17 _exercitatos_; rather more general is _a conrogatis laudantur_ 1 §18. The Masculine Singular is, in classical Latin, generally found along with a substantive, it being incorrect to use any such expression as, for example, _manes occisi placare_. Quintilian makes a very free use of this participle: e.g. i. 2, 24 _reddebat victo certaminis polestatem_: v. 12, 2 _spiculum in corpore occisi inventum est_, &c.

(4) _The Future Participle._

The use of this participle received a great extension in post-Augustan times. The following are instances of its employment as a substantive: i. 4, 17 _non doceo, sed admoneo docturos_: 21 _liberum opinaturis relinquo_: and in the singular iv. 1, 52 _hoc adicio ut dicturus intueatur quid, apud quem dicendum sit_.

(5) _The Present Participle._

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

III. Pronouns.

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

Hic seems frequently to be used with reference to the circumstances of the writer’s own times: e.g. 1 §43 _recens haec lascivia_: and probably also 7 §31 _hanc brevem adnotationem_. (This is certainly the case with _ille_: e.g. _illis dictandi deliciis_ 3 §18: _ille laudantium clamor_ 1 §17.) It has been suggested that in some cases the manuscripts may be wrong: e.g. 1 §6 _ex his_ (for _ex iis_?): but cp. 1 §§25, 33, 40, &c. Such instances of a preference for _hic_ over _is_ come under Priscian’s rule (xvi. 58), _Hic l

non solum de praesente verum etiam de absente possumus dicere, ad intellectum referentes demonstrativum_.

The conjunction of _nullus_ and _non_ (= _quisque_, _omnis_) is common in Quintilian and Suetonius: 7 §25 _nullo non tempore et loco_: cp. iii. 6, 7: ix. 4, 83: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 66; Nero 16, &c.: Mart. 8, 20.

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

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

Ut qui is frequently found in place of the Ciceronian _quippe qui_, _utpote qui_: see on 1 §55.

IV. Verbs.

An instance of the use of simple for compound verbs (frequent in Quintilian and the Silver Age generally, and a mark of the ‘poetization’ of Latin prose) occurs 1 §99 _licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant_: see note _ad loc._, and cp. Plin. Ep. viii. 18, 3: Suet. Oth. 12, Vesp. 6. In Cicero we have _efferre laudibus_, de Am. §24: de Off. ii. §36: de Orat. iii. §52. So elsewhere in Quintilian _finire_ for _definire_, _solari_ for _consolari_, _spargere_ for _dispergere_, &c.

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

Componere occurs now in the sense of _sedare_, _placare_: e.g. ix. 4, 12 _ut, si quid fuisset turbidiorum cogitationum, componerent_: iii. 4, 15 _concitando componendisve adfectibus_ (Cicero, de Orat. i. §202 _motum dicendo vel excitare vel sedare_): cp. x. 1, 119 _Vibius Crispus compositus et iucundus_, whereas Cicero has (Or. §176) _Isocrates est in ipsis numeris sedatior_. So Pollio, ad Fam. x. 33, 3 has the phrase _bellum componere_: cp. Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 8 _componere litem_: Verg. Aen. iv. 341 _componere curas_—both at the end of a hexameter: Tac. Hist. iv. 50: Suet. Caes. 4.

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

Praedicere = _antea_, _supra dicere_: see on 1 §74.

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

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

V. Adverbs.

Abunde is often found along with adjectives and adverbs, to increase their force: 1 §25 _abunde similes_ (where see note): §104 _elatum abunde spiritum_. It has something of the emphasis of Cicero’s _satis superque_.

Adhuc occurs very frequently with a comparative: see on 1 §71 (_plus adhuc_) and §99. It is often used also (as in Livy and others) of li

past time, when it = _eo etiam tempore_, or _etiam tum_: e.g. _scholae adhuc operatum_ 3 §13: cp. i. 8, 2: 2 §27.

Alioqui has different uses in Quintilian, as in Tacitus. (1) It occurs pretty much as τὰ μὲν ἄλλα in Greek, with very little of an antithesis: e.g. 1 §64 _Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate commendari potest_: 3 §32 _expertus iuvenem, studiosum alioqui, praelongos habuisse sermones_, &c. (There is a definite antithesis in what seems to be the corresponding usage in Tacitus, when _alioqui_ is opposed to an adverb of time: e.g, Ann. iii. 8 _cum incallidus alioqui et facilis iuventa senilibus _tum_ artibus uteretur_: xiii. 20 _ingreditur Paris, solitus alioquin id temporis luxus principis intendere, sed _tunc_ compositus ad maestitiam._) (2) It is equivalent to _praeterea_, ‘besides’: 3 §13 _in eloquentia Galliarum ... princeps, alioqui inter paucos disertus_. Cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 11 _ordo alioqui sceleris ... patefactus est_. This sense is an easy transition from ‘for the rest.’ The instance in 1 §128 (_cuius et multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt_) seems to fall also under this head, unless it means ‘apart from’ the doubtful compliments they paid him (Seneca) by imitating him: cp. Tac. Ann. iv. 37 _validus alioqui spernendis honoribus_. (3) _Alioqui_ stands for ‘otherwise,’ ‘in the opposite case,’ either with a _si_ clause, as 3 §16 _immutescamus alioqui si nihil dicendum videatur_: §30 _quid alioqui fiet ... si particulas_, &c.: or without, 6 §6 _alioqui vel extemporalem temeritatem malo quam male cohaerentem cogitationem_. Cp. Tac. Ann. ii. 38: xi. 6.

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

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

Interim often stands for _interdum_, as 1 §9, where see note. At 3 §33 we have _interim ... interim_ for _modo ... modo_, as also i. 7, 11: _interim ... interdum_ vi. 2, 12: _interim ... non numquam ... saepe_ iv. 5, 20: _semper ... interim_ ii. 1, 1.

Longe and multum are both used with comparatives, instead of _multo_: e.g. _longe clarius_ 1 §67 (where see note): _multum tersior_ (πολύ) 1 §94 (note).

Mox is used in enumerations in place of _deinde_: 6 §3 _primum—tum—mox_: cp. i. 2, 29 _primum—mox_: ib. 9, 2 _primum—mox—tum_.

Nec = _ne quidem_: 3 §7 _alioqui nec scriberentur_. Cp. ix. 2, 67 _quod in foro non expedit, illic nec liceat_ iv. 2, 93: v. 10, 86.

lii

Non occurs with the 1st pers. plur. (3 §16, cp. 3 §5) and 3rd pers. sing. 2 §27 where see note, (also after _dum_ xii. 10, 48 and _modo_ iii. 11, 24) where Cicero would have had _ne_: cp. i. 1, 19 _non ergo perdamus_: ib. §5 _non adsuescat ergo_. Cp. _utinam non_ §100: and see note on 2 §27.

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

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

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

Protinus has its usual meaning (_statim_) in 3 §5 (where it is best taken with _gaudeamus_, not with _offerentibus_): cp. 7 §21. Its employment to denote logical consequence is noted at 1 §3: cp. _ib._ §42.

Saltem is often used for _quidem_ and _neque saltem_ for _ne quidem_: 2 §15 _nec vero saltem iis_, &c., where see note: cp. i. 1, 24 _neque enim mihi illud saltem placet_.

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

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

Utique: see note on 1 §20.

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

Velut occurs more commonly than either _quasi_ or _tamquam_ in comparisons: see on 1 §5 _velut opes quaedam_, and cp. §§18, 61: 3 §3: 5 §17: 7 §1. So also 7 §6 _ducetur ante omnia rerum ipsa serie velut duce_.

VI. Prepositions.

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

Circa does duty in Quintilian for _in_, _de_, _ad_, _erga_, &c.: cp. the use of περί, ἀμφί with the acc. in Greek. So 1 §52 _utiles circa praecepta sententiae_: see note _ad loc_.

liii

Citra very often stands for _sine_ or _praeter_: e.g. _citra lectionis exemplum_ 1 §2, where see note: cp. i. 4, 4 _neque citra musicen grammatice potest esse perfecta_. In Cicero _citra_ is used only of place.

The following prepositional expressions should also be noted:—

Ante omnia = _primum_ 1 §3: 2 §4: 7 §6. In 1 §3 we have _ante omnia_, _proximum_, _novissimum_: cp. iv. 2, 52 _ante omnia_, _deinde_: iii. 9, 6 _ante omnia_, _deinde_, _tum_, _postremo_.

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

Ex integro. Quintilian prefers the use of _ex_ in such phrases to _de_: e.g. x. 1 §20 (where see note): _ex industria_ ib.: and so _ex abundanti_, _ex professo_, _ex pari_, &c., elsewhere.

Inter paucos, ‘as few have ever been’: 3 §13 _inter paucos disertus_.

Per quae (_quod_) of agency or instrument: 1 §87 _in iis per quae nomen est adsecutus_.

Propter quae (_quod_) for _quam ob rem_, especially in transitions: see on 1 §10.

Praeter id quod for _praeterquam quod_: see on 1 §28.

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

VII. Conjunctions.

Under this head may come Adde quod, a phrase which occurs seven times in Quintilian, five times in the Tenth Book: 1 §§3, 16: 2 §§10, 11, 12: xii. 1, 4 and 11, 29. Schmalz (_Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio_) remarks that it must be ranked rather with Pollio ad Fam. x. 31, 4 (_adde huc quod_), where _quod_ is to be taken as a conjunction, than with Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 7, ad Fam. xiii. 41, 1 (_addo etiam illud quod_), and ad Fam. xvi. 16, 1 (_adde hoc quod_), where _quod_ is a relative referring to the foregoing demonstrative. The phrase is originally liv

poetical: it is found in Attius, frequently in Lucretius (i. 847: iii. 827: iv. 1113), in the _Satires_ and _Epistles_ of Horace, and over and over again in Ovid: Vergil seems to avoid it. Pollio probably introduced it into prose, and from him it passed to others: Schmalz refers to Plin. Ep. viii. 14, 3: iii. 14, 6: Sen. 40, 4: Symmach. 2, 7: 4, 71: Fronto, p. 92 N.

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

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

Enim occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. _ad profectum enim_ 3 §15: and so frequently after _sum_,—2 §10 _necesse est enim_: 1 §14: 7 §§15, 24: 2 §19. But _nihil enim est_ 1 §78, where Krüger suggests _nihil enim inest_.

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

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

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

Quamlibet and quamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs: 3 §19 _nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato_: cp. viii. 6, 4 _oratione quamlibet clara_: xii. 8, 7 _quamlibet verbose_: xi. 1, 34 _quamquam plena sanguinis_. A similar use of _quamvis_ is less uncommon in other writers: cp. 1 §74 _quamvis bonorum_: ib. §94 _quamvis uno libra_ (where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

Quia is sometimes used where _quod_ (_eo quod_) might have been expected: 1 §15 _hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia_: cp. 5 §14 _Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia_ (Halm) _inventionem et dispositionem pariter exercent_. So i. 6, 39 _nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent_ (sc. _verba a vetustate repetita_) _et, quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant_. Cp. _non quia non_ (with the subjunctive) x. 7, 19 and 31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

Quoque often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force, where older writers would have had _vel_ or _etiam_: 1 §20 _ex industria quoque_: 2 §14 _in magnis quoque auctoribus_: cp. 1 §121 _ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum_: ii. II, I _exemplo magni quoque nominis professorum_.

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

For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo wrote lv

to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment. But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come dragging in at the end of a sentence (x. 2 §§13 and 23), and adjectival or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable isolation (_vel ob hoc memoria dignum_ 1 §80: _rebus tamen acuti magis quam_, &c. 1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80: 2 §28). The thought is sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the Tenth Book: cp. 2 §§13 and §§20, 21; 7 §7), because the composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely used (see on _nam_ 1 §12: cp. §50, 7 §31: _quidem_ 1 §88), and are sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly and abruptly introduced (see on 1 §4: cp. 7 §1). Instances of a more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with: e.g. 1 §§36, 41, 83, 102. In the order of words there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (1 §109, 2 §17), especially in the case of proper names (1 §86 _Afro Domitio_ for _Domitio Afro_: cp. _Atacinus Varro_ §87: _Bassus Aufidius_ §103)71. Constructions κατὰ σύνεσιν frequently occur: 1 §65: §105: 7 §25. Under this head may be included the omission of the subject: 1 §7 _congregat_: §66 _permiserunt_: 7 §4 _malit ... possit_: and of words to be supplied from the context, 1 §56 _congerentes_: 1 §7 _solitos_: 1 §107 _quibus nihil ille_: 1 §123 _qui ubique_: 2 §24: 3 §25. In the same way _esse_ is frequently omitted for the sake of brevity: 1 §17, §66, §90: 4 §1: 5 §6: 7 §7, §23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition: 1 §§8, 9, 23, 94, 131: 2 §§11-12: 5 §§6-7: 7 §23: cp. on 2 §23.

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive: 1 §14 _dixerim_: §26 lvi

_maluerim_: §37 _fuerit_, where see note: so even _ut non dixerim_ (_ne dicam_) 1 §77 and _ut sic dixerim_ 2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see on _sciet_ 1 §4, and cp. 2 §§26, 28: 3 §28: 7 §28: also as a mild imperative, 1 §58 _revertemur_: 3 §18 _sequemur_; 2 §1 _renuntiabit_: §23 _aptabimus_. (3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age: (_a_) with _verbs_, as _meruit credi_ 1 §72: _qui esse docti adfectant_ §97: _optandum ... fieri_ §127: _si consequi utrumque non dabitur_ 7 §22: _opponere verear_ 1 §101: _intermittere veremur_ 7 §26: cp. _expertus iuvenem ... habuisse_ 3 §32: for _dubitare_ see on 1 §73: (_b_) with _adjectives_, _legi dignus_ 1 §96: _contentum id consequi_ 2 §7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund, _ceteraque genera probandi ac refutandi_ 1 §49: _lex orandi_ 1 §76: _inveniendi_ §69: _sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate_ 1 §81: cp. _loquendi_ §83: _eloquendo_ §106: _nascendi_ 3 §4: _saliendi_ 3 §6: ib. _iaculando_: _adiciendo_ 3 §32: _emendandi_ 4 §2: _cogitandi_ 7 §25. (5) _Quamquam_ with subjunctive 1 §33: 2 §21: 7 §17: _forsitan_ with indic. 2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) _Anaphora_, or the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g. nulla _varietas_, nullus _adfectus_, nulla _persona_, nulla _cuiusquam sit oratio_ 1 §55: cp. 1 §§99, 115, 130: 2 §2: 3 §3 (illic _radices_, illic _fundamenta sunt_, illic _opes_, &c.): §9, §29: 5 §§2, 8: 6 §1; (2) _Asyndeton_: e.g. _facere_ quam optime, quam facillime _possit_ 1 §4: 2 §16: 6 §6: 7 §§7, 26; (3) _Chiasmus_: 5 §14 (_alitur—renovatur_) and §15 (_ne carmine—reficiuntur_): 7 §15.

The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked upon as great national lvii

entertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’: _tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat_, x. 1, 114. The orator must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’ _in procinctu_ 1 §2 (where see note): if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in camp,—_nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium_ 4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand: _id quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est_ 2 §§21-2. Victory must ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a sham fight: 1 §§29-30 _nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti_: 2 §27 _quam omnia, etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent_: 1 §79 _Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus_: 1 §31 _totum opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur_. The orator must have all the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to be made for show: 1 §33 _dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere_: 1 §30 _Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus_: cp. 1 §60 _cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum_: 1 §77 _carnis tamen plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum_: 2 §12 _quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes_: 1 §115 _verum sanguinem perdidisse_. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory: 1 §4, cp. 5 §§19-20 (_iuvenis_) _iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur_: 3 §3 _vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur_. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp. 1 §106 _pugnat ille (Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere_: §120 _ut esset multo magis pugnans_. And he must not linger too long over preparatory exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their suppleness: 5 §16 _nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur_.

lviii

V. Manuscripts.

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

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

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

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

To the same family as the _Bernensis_ belongs the _Bambergensis_ A, which was directly copied from the _Bernensis_ not long after the latter had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the _Bambergensis_ the great _lacunae_ were, at a very early date, filled in by another hand (_Bambergensis_ G73), this manuscript may now rank in the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the lix

_Harleianus_ (2664), and through the _Harleianus_ of the _Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, and an innumerable company of others. Besides reproducing _Bambergensis_ G, these MSS. follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halm b) into the original _Bambergensis_ A. A recent examination of the _Bambergensis_ has suggested a doubt whether the readings known as b, which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex as G.

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

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

Of the first family, the outstanding example is the _Ambrosianus_. The resemblances between it and _Bambergensis_ G are sufficient to show that lx

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

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

Then there is the _Codex Ioannensis_ (in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition it begins with _constaret_ (i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second chapter, like the _Nostradamensis_, the _Vossiani_ 1 and 2, the _Codex Puteanus_, and _Parisinus_ 7721 (see Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly _multiplici_, not _ut duplici_, and in this it agrees with the Montpellier MS. (_Pithoeanus_), which is known to be a copy (11th century) of the _Bernensis_ (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) as _tum in ipsis_ in x. 2, 14, and _virtutis_ ib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the great _lacunae_, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with the _Bernensis_, though there are striking resemblances also to the _Pratensis_ (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1 _sic etiam utilitatis_, for _sic utilitatis etiam_: ib. §30 _oratione continua_, for _continua oratione_: 5 §8 _alia propriis alia translatis virtus_, for _alia lxi

translatis virtus alia propriis_: 7 §21 _stultis eruditi_, for _stulti eruditis_: ib. §28 _solum summum_, for _summum solum_. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.—the _Vossiani_ i. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which the _Nostradamensis_ heads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may note also the readings _viderit bona et invenit_ ( 2 §20), which _Ioan._ shares with _Voss._ iii.: _potius libertas ista_ ( 3 §24) _Ioan._ and _Voss._ i.; _ubertate_—for _libertate_—( 5 §15) _Ioan. Voss._ i. and iii.

To the same family belongs the _Codex Salmantinus_, a 12th or 13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca. M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the _Bernensis_. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from the _Nostradamensis_ (most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from the _Nostradamensis_, it agrees with the _Bernensis_ and the _Bambergensis_. This MS. also gives _ubertate_ in 5 §15 : it agrees in showing the important reading _alte refossa_ in 3 §2 : and resembles the _Ioannensis_ in certain minor omissions, e.g. _certa_ before _necessitate_ in 5 §15 : _idem_ before _laborandum_ in 7 §4 : _et_ before _consuetudo_ in 7 §8 : cp. _subiunctura sunt_ for _subiuncturus est_ 7 §9 . For other coincidences see the Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the _Codex Salmantinus_) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are the _Codex Pralensis_ (No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and the _Codex Puteanus_ (No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from the _Institutio_ amounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (_de figuris verborum_) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (_de imitatione_) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (_quomodo dictandum sit_) of x. 3, 1-32; and §79 (_de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum_) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of the _Beccensis_, now lost. The _Beccensis_ is supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least equal rank with the _Bernensis_. That it was an independent copy of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the _Pratensis_, but also by the fact that both the _Pratensis_ and the _Puteanus_ (which is also a transcript of the _Beccensis_) show a _lacuna_ after the word _mutatis_ in lxii

x. 3, 32. This _lacuna_ must have existed in the _Beccensis_, though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the words _correctum fuisse tabellis_ in his copy (the _Pratensis_): the text runs _codicibus esse sublatum_.

The general character of the readings of the _Pratensis_ may be gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from the _Pratensis_ or from its prototype, the _Beccensis_. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S) _rogantis Achillen Priami precibus_, while most codd. have _Priami_ before _rogantis_: ib. §53 _eloquentie_ (so Put. S 7231, 7696) for _eloquendi_: ib. _superatum_ (so Put.) for _superari_: §55 _aequalem credidit parem_ (as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67 _idque ego_ (as Put. S) for _idque ego sane_: §68 _qui fuerunt_ and also _vero_, omitted (as in Put. S): so also _tenebras_ §72, _valuerunt_ §84 (as 7231, 7696), and _veterum_ §97: at §95 Prat, gives et _eruditissimos_ for _et doctissimos_, and hence the omission of _erudit._ in S. On the whole, the study of the text of the _Pratensis_ seems to give additional confidence in the readings of G: for example §98 _imperare_ (as Put.): §101 _cesserit_ (Put. 7231, 7696): ib. _nec indignetur_. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 _quem superius institui_ for _quem institueram in libra secundo_ is an indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of the _Institutio_, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to the _Pratensis_, among which may be noted 1 §48 _putat_ for _creditum est_ (where Put. has _certissimum_): §59 _ad exemplum maxime permanebit_ (_ad exitum_ Put. and S): §78 _propinquior_ for _propior_: §80 _mediocri_ for _medio_: §81 _assurgit_ for _surgit_: §109 _in utroque_ for _in quoque_. Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with the _Puteanus_ (and which were therefore probably in the _Beccensis_) are §46 _in magnis_ for _in magnis rebus_: §49 _innuit_ for _nuntiat_: §50 _excessit_ for _excedit_: §54 _ne virtus_ for _ne utrius_ (_neutrius_): §57 _ignoro ergo_ (S) for _ignoro igitur_: §63 _plurimumque oratio_: §68 _in affectibus communibus mirus_: §79 _discernendi_ for _dicendi_: §107 _nominis latini_ for _latini sermonis_. At 1 §72 Prat. has _qui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro_ (Put. _ut pravis_), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671 _qui quamvis sui temp_. _Men._ There are frequent inversions, e.g. _dicendi genere_ §52 (Put.): _Attici sermonis_ (Put.) §65: _plus Attio_ (Put.) §97: _cuicumque eorum Ciceronem_ (as Put. 7231, 7696) §105: _sit nobis_ §112: lxiii

_est autem_ (as Ioan.) §115: _forum illustrator_ (as Ioan.) §122: _creditus sum_ §125: _dignis lectione_ 2 §1: _possumus sperare_ §9: _nemo vero eum_ §10: _aliquo tamen in loco aliquid_ §24: _scientia movendi_ §27: _ipso opere_ 3 §8: _se res facilius_ §9: _desperatio etiam_ §14: _vox exaudiri_ §25: _praecipue in hoc_ §26: _possunt semper_ §2874.

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the _Codex Puteanus_ is in general agreement with the _Pratensis_, each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in agreement than the _Pratensis_ with the later family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61 _spiritu_: ib. _merito_ omitted: §72 _possunt decernere_ (for _possis decerpere_—_possis decernere_ Prat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the _Pratensis_, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of the _Institutio_ must have formed part of the mutilated original from which the _Beccensis_ was copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus, _libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi_. M. Fierville states (Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1 §§46-68) in the _Pratensis_, _Puteanus_, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all four. He adds that the _Vossiani_ i. and iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50 _illis Priami rogantis Achillen_: at §59 the former has _ad exim_, the latter _ad exi_: at §61 both give _eum nemini credit_, omitting _merito_ (as Put. and S): at §68 _namque is et sermone_ (as Prat.: _namque sermone_ Put.): ib. _in dicendo ac respondendo_ (Prat. Put. _in dicendo et in resp._): §72 (apparently) _ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis_: §82 _finxisse sermonem_ (as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83 _ac varietate_: §88 _laudandus partibus_ (_laudandis part._ Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91 _visum_ (_visum est_ Prat. Put.): §98 _senes lxiv

non parum tragicum_ (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107 _Latini nominis_: §121 _leve_ (Prat. N). In §98 _Thyestes_ is omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696: _dedit exemplum et ortum_ 1 §46: _proximus aemulari_ §62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_ A, _Ambrosianus_ ii., _Pithoeanus_ (these two are direct copies of the _Bernensis_), _Salmantinus_, three Paris codices (7720, 7722 and _Didot_), and probably the _Ioannensis_. In the second he ranks the _Nostradamensis_, _Vossiani_ i. and iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the _Beccensis_, _Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_: in the fourth a _codex Vaticanus_, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers the _Bernensis_, _Bambergensis_, _Nostradamensis_, _Pratensis_, and _Puteanus_ to be of greatest importance for the constitution of the text.

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

The result of my investigations has been to identify this important manuscript with the _Codex Dusseldorpianus_, which we know disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface to lxv

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

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

What the history of the _Harleianus_ may have been before it came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl on the first page: _Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae_. This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The _Codex Florentinus_ has an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop Werinharius (the lxvi

first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither the _Florentinus_ nor the _Turicensis_ can be considered identical with the manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that manuscript in the _Harleianus_, if we can conceive of its having migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.

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

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

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

The proof that the _Harleianus_ stands at the head of the great family of the _mixed_ manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly by the _Florentinus_, _Turicensis_, _Almeloveenianus_, and _Guelferbytanus_) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to both parts of the _Bambergensis_ on the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the _Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München_, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of the _Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ on the _Bambergensis_ by pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in the lxvii

text of both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the _Bambergensis_ from their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52: _circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico_. When the copyist of the _Bambergensis_ noticed his mistake, he completed _Drepanitani_ in the text, and wrote in the words _gaudeo etiam ... abs te_ at the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In the _Bambergensis_ the page ends with the words (§54) _an huius ille legis quam_, and the next page continues _C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur_. Noticing that in both the _Florentinus_ and the _Turicensis_ the marginal addition (_gaudeo etiam ... abs te_) is inserted not after _legis quam_ but after _Clodius_, Halm drew the inference that these codices were copied from the _Bambergensis_ not directly, but through some intervening manuscript. The _Harleianus_ is this manuscript. In it the words referred to do come in between _legis quam_ and (_Cloe_)_lius_: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in the _Bambergensis_, in which the letters C l o e are subpunctuated, that the _Harleianus_ actually shows _et abs te lius a se inventa_76, exactly as the writer of b wished the _Bambergensis_ to stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the _Harleianus_ did not know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above the _Turicensis_ and the _Florentinus_ (and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text stands _utinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata_, &c. In the _Bambergensis_, _utrum nam_ is supplied by b above the line, and in the margin _que peiora vincant verum_, the words affected by the change being lxviii

subpunctuated in the text. The copyist of the _Harleianus_ takes the _utrum nam_ and leaves the rest, showing _utrum nam schemata_: this appears as _utrim nam schemata_ in the _Turicensis_, and as _utinam schemata_ in the _Florentinus_ and _Almeloveenianus_. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in the _Bambergensis_ (G) _quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa_, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the _Harleianus_, and as a consequence we have _supplici_ in _Turic._ and _Flor._, _supplitia_ in _Guelf._, &c. Again at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the _Harleianus_, which caused him to write _Neque vero tantas eum breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae_, &c., has given rise to the greatest confusion in _Turic._, _Flor._, _Alm._, _Bodleianus_, _Burn._ 243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the words _qui foro_ between _breve saltem_ and _tempus_: at this point the copyist of H must have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg, where the words _qui foro_ hold a conspicuous position. _Flor._ and _Tur._ repeat the mistake, except that the latter gives _eum brevem_ for _eum breve_. Again at the end of Book ix, _Bambergensis_ G gives _ut numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur_: this reading is identical with that of the _Harleianus_, except that the latter for _arcessiti_ gives _arcessisti_, a deviation promptly reproduced by the _Florentinus_, while the _Turicensis_ shows _accersisti_. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the following: at iv. 2, 128 the _Bambergensis_ gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις) ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes this ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει—Spalding).

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

text image

text image

text image

text image

As the _Bambergensis_ (Bg), in its present state, only commences at i. 1. 6. (_nec de patribus tantum_), the readings of the _Harleianus_ (H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we have _pertinerent_ H, _pertinent_ T: §2 _diversas_ H, _divisas_ T: §5 _fieri oratorem non posse_ HF, _fieri non posse oratorem_ T (as A): §6 _amore_ H, _studio_ F: _iτ ingenii_ H, _iter ingenii_ T, _ingenii_ F: §13 _officio quoque_ H, _quoque officio_ F: §19 _summa_ H (also Bg), _summam_ T: §25 _demonstraturi_ HF, _demonstrari_ T: §27 _adiumenta_ H (a correction by same hand on _adiuvante_): so Bg F: _adiuvante_ T. In chap. 1 §3 _sed plus_ HT: _sed et plus_ F: _hoc quippe viderit_ H Bg F: _hoc quippe_ (om. _viderit_) T.

These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings of lxix

Bg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8 _nihil est peius_ Bg H T, _nihil enim est peius_ F: ib. §11 _defuerit_ Bg H T, _defuerint_ F: ib. §12 _perbibet_ Bg H F, _perhibet_ T: ib. §16 _formandam_ Bg H, _formandum_ F T: 2 §18 _in media rei p. vivendum_ Bg (b) H, _in med. rei praevivendum_ T, _reip. videndum_ F: ib. §24 _depellendam_ Bg H, _repellendam_ T: ib. §31 _concipiat quis mente_ Bg H, _quis mente concipiat_ F: 4 §27 _tereuntur_ Bg H T, _intereuntur_ F: 6 §9 _dicet_ Bg, _dicit_ H F, _dicitur_ T: ib. §14 _dici ceris_ Bg (dici ceris),A _diceres_ H, _dici_ F T: ib. §30 _aliaque quae consuetudini serviunt_ Bg H,—in margin of H _aliquando consuetudini servit_ (b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28 _haec ei et cura_ H F, _haec et cura ei_ T: 11 §4 _pinguitudine_ Bg H, _pinguedine_ F T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following: ii. 5, 13 _dicentur_ Bg H, _docentur_ T: 5 §26 _hanc_ Bg H, om. T: 15 §8 _testatum est_ Bg H, _testatum_ T. In ix. 363 G has _parem_ (for _marem_ A): H gives _patrem_ and F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8 _hoc est_ G H, _id est_ F: ib. §16 _quoque_ G H, om. T: ib. §32 _nesciat_ G H, _dubitet_ F: _dignatur_ G H, _digne dicatur_ F: viii. pr. §3 _dicendi_ G H, _discendi_ T: ix. 4, 119 _ignorabo_ G, _ignoraba_ H, _ignorabam_ T: ib. §129 _et hac fluit_ G H, _et hac et hac fluit_ T: xii. 11, 8 _scierit_ G, _scieret_ H, _sciret_ T: ib. 2 §18 _autem_ Bg H, om. T: x. 1, §4 _numuro quae_ G H, _num muro quae_ T, _numeroque_ F: ib. §50 _et philogus_ G, _et philochus_ H T, _et epiloghus_ F: ib. §73 _porem_ G H, _priorem_ F T: ib. §75 _vel hoc est_ G H, _hoc est vel_ T: x. 2, 7 _posteriis_ (for _historiis_) H, _posteris_ F (_posterius_ ed. Camp.): x. 2, 10 _discernamus_ Bg, _discernantur_ b, _disnantur_ H T, _desinantur_ F. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are the following: _Empedoclena_ i. 4, 4: _vespueruginem_ i. 7, 12: _tereuntur_ i. 4, 27: _flex his_ x. 1, 2: _gravissimus_ x. 1, 97: _ipsae illae quae extorque eum credas_ x. 1, 110, where both also give _trans usum_ for _transversum_, and _non repe_ for non rapi: _morare refinxit finxit recipit_ x. 3, 6: _nam quod cum isocratis_ x. 4, 4. In other instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes for _quo enim dandum_: also _extemporal facilitas_ which appears in T as _extempora vel facilitas_: x. 1, 79 _ven iudicis_ H (in mistake for _se non iud._), which is made by T into _venit iudicis_. Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the reading _tantum_, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more like _tantum_ than _tacitum_ (the reading of G). Again, in every lxx

place where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to correspond77.

A. (_dici ceris_) text image showing inserted letters:

text images

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

already indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 141678.

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

The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also the _Almeloveenianus_) to the codices which have just been described, may be determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among such MSS. is the _Codex Bodleianus_, which has received more attention from editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to warrant. It repeats word for word the remarkable error attributable to the _Harleianus_ at x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in other places it embodies attempted emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90 _nec ipsum senectus maturavit_: 2 §7 _de metris_ for lxxii

_dimiteris_ (see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to Archbishop Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.

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

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

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

The _Argentoratensis_ (S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 169880. This manuscript was lxxiii

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

In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’s _Institutio_: of the most important of these, the _Harleianus_ (H), I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of relationship to such codices as the _Argentoratensis_ and the _Guelferbytanus_. The first of these two MSS. (_Codex Harleianus_ 2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The same may be said of the _Codex Harleianus_ 11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to connect both these MSS. with the _Guelferbytanus_: x. 3, 12 _a patrono suo_ for _a patruo suo_: 1 §97 _verum_ for _veterum_: 1 §55 _equalem credidit parem_ (as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i. lxxiv

and iii.): 1 §72 _quamvis sui temporis Menandro_ for _ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro_: 7 §6 _adducet ducetur_. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum is _Harleianus_ 4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and might be classed along with the _Vallensis_ were it not that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘_hic deficit antiquus codex_,’ makes it probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side82. This MS. agrees with the _Vallensis_ and _Gothanus_ in reading _cognitioni_ for _cogitationi_ x. 1, 1: _ubertate_ for _ubertas_ 1 §109: _et vis summa_ §117: _eruendas_ for _erudiendas_ 2 §6: _nobis efficiendum_ ib. §14: _decretoriis_ 5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with the _Lassbergensis_. The latter finishes with the words ἡ βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένου and the motto ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of the _Burneianus_ 244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general agreement with L, and also with the _Codex Carcassonensis_, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.

A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of which (the _Codex Balliolensis_) is unclassed by Fierville, while the other (the _D’Orville_ MS.) has never been examined at all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins at _bis vitiosa sunt_ i. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated condition. lxxv

In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the words _quam quod somno supererit_: it stops abruptly at _nostrorumque Hort(ensium)_ x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it has _interrogatione_, a reading which Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it has _e rep_ with A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g. _forte_ at i. 5, 15, all other codices _forsan_ or _forsitan_).

There remains the _D’Orville_ MS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (_Codex Dorvilianus_),—a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of the _Institutio_ (1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to the _Ambrosianus_ (e.g. _Getae_ 1 pr. §6: _et quantum_ ib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it has _summam inde eloquentiae_ (Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.): _destinabamus al. festinabimus_ ib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received into the text: _neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis_: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it has _quos eligamus ad imitandum_, a reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than the _Codex Bodleianus_. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices have _quaestio ex his incidat_ except A, which gives _ex his incidat quaestio_: the reading in the _Dorvilianus_ is _quaestio incidat ex his_: again at i. 2, 6 _ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus_, many codices give _mores_ for _os_: Dorv. shows _quam vel mores vel os_.

List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.

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

M. Stephanus Riccius. Venice, 1570. C. H. Frotscher. Leipzig, 1826. M. C. G. Herzog. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833. G. A. Herbst. Halle, 1834. John E. B. Mayor (incomplete). Cambridge, 1872. Bonnell-Meister. Berlin, 1882. G. T. A. Krüger. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872. „ „(Gustav Krüger) 3rd ed. „1888. Fr. Zambaldi. Firenze, 1883. S. Dosson. Paris, 1884. D. Bassi. Torino, 1884. lxxvi

J. A. Hild. Paris, 1885. F. Meister (text only). Leipzig and Prague, 1887. Frieze (Books x. and xii.) New York, 1889.

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

The following have been used as books of reference:—

Wilkins: Cicero, _De Oratore_, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.) Oxford, 1888 and 1890. Sandys: Cicero, _Orator_. Cambridge, 1889. Kellogg: Cicero, _Brutus_. Boston, 1889. Wolff: Tacitus, _Dialogus de Oratoribus_. Gotha, 1890. Andresen: „ „ Leipzig, 1879. Reiske: Dionysius Halicarnassensis. Vols. v-vi. Leipzig, 1775-7. Usener: Dionysius Halicarnassensis _Librorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque Criticae Duae_. Bonn, 1889. Ammon: _De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus: Dissertatio Inauguralis_. Munich, 1889. Volkmann: _Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer_. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1885. Causeret: _Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire dans Cicéron_. Paris, 1886. and Fierville: _Quintilian_, Book i. Paris, 1890.

The references to Nägelsbach’s _Lateinische Stylistik_ are to the eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).

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

Claussen: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_. Leipzig, 1883. Nettleship: _Journal of Philology_, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq. Becher _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61. „ _Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit. Or._ (_Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu Ilfeld_). Nordhausen, 1879. „ _Philologus XLV_. „ _Philologische Rundschau_, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq. „ _Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich_. Ostern, 1891. Kiderlin _Blätter für das bayer_. _Gymn.-Wesen_, 1887, p. 454; 1188, pp. 83-91. „ _Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik_, vol. 135, pp. 829-832. „ _Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen_, vol. 32, pp. 62-73. „ _Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1888, p. 829 sqq. „ _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin_, xiv. (1888), p. 62 sqq. „ _Hermes_, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq. „ _Rheinisches Museum_, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24. Hirt _Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin_, viii. (1882), p. 67 sqq. „ „ „ „ ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq. „ „ „ „ xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq. „ _Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian_. Berlin, 1890. Meister _Philologus_, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876), p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.: xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.

lxxvii

Schöll: _Rheinisches Museum_, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv. (1880), p. 639. Wölfflin _Rheinisches Museum_, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq. „ _Hermes_, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7. Andresen _Rheinisches Museum_, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq. Eussner _Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen_, 1881, p. 391 sqq. Fleckeisen’s _Jahrb. f. Philologie_, 1885, p. 615 sqq. _Literar. Centralblatt_, 1885, n. 22, p. 754. Gertz ‘_Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa_’ (1876), p. 92 sqq. H. J. Müller: _Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen_, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq. Iwan Müller: _Bursian’s Jahresbericht_, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq. Wrobel _Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien_, xxvii. (1876), p. 353 sqq. Törnebladh: _De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones_. Holmiae, 1861. Reuter: _De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae eloquentiae_. Vratislaviae, 1887. Günther: _De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu_. Halis Saxonum, 1881. Morawski: _Quaestiones Quintilianeae_. Posnaniae, 1874. Marty: _De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis_. Glaronae, 1885. Peters, Dr. Heinrich: _Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians Institutio Oratoria_. Cassel, 1889.

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

Halm. Meister. This Edition. Chap. I. § 1 cogitationi cognitioni cognitioni. § 2 quae quoque sint modo quo quaeque sint modo quae quoque sint modo. „ nisi tamquam nisi tamquam nisi tamen. § 3 ante omnia est ante omnia necesse est ante omnia est. „ imitatio est imitatio est imitati. § 4 procedente opere iam minima procedente iam opere etiam minima procedente iam opere minima. § 5 Num ergo Non ergo Non ergo. § 7 [et] ... scio solitos et ... solitos scio et ... solitos scio. „ aliud quod aliud quo aliud quo. § 8 consequimur consequemur consequemur. § 11 τροπικῶς [quare tamen] τροπικῶς quasi tamen as Meister. § 16 imagine [ambitu] [imagine] ambitu imagine et ambitu. § 17 commodata accommodata accommodata. § 18 placent ... laudantur ... placent placeant ... laudentur ... placent as Halm. § 19 contrarium e contrario e contrario. „ ut actionis impetus as Halm actionis impetu. „ retractemus retractemus tractemus. § 23 quin etiam si [quin] etiam si as Halm. lxxviii

§ 28 genus * * ostentationi poeticam ostentationi as Meister. § 31 etenim ... solutum est est enim ... solutum as Meister. § 33 ideoque adde quod adde quod. § 35 acriter et acriter _Stoici_ et as Meister. § 37 qui sint _legendi_, quaeque qui sint _legendi_, et quae qui sint _legendi_, quae. § 38 quibuscum vivebat as Halm [quibuscum vivebat]. „ Graecos omnis [et philosophos] Graecos omnes _persequamur_ [et philosophos] as Meister. § 42 ad phrasin ad faciendam etiam phrasin ad faciendam φράσιν. „ de singulis de singulis loquar de singulis loquar. § 44 tenuia et quae tenuia et quae tenuia atque quae. „ summatim, a qua summatim, quid et a qua as Meister. „ paucos enim (sunt autem em.) paucos (sunt enim em.) paucos enim, qui sunt em. § 45 his simillimi his similes his simillimi. § 46 _omnium_ amnium fontiumque amnium fontiumque omnium _fluminum_ fontiumque. § 48 non _in_ utriusque non utriusque non utriusque. „ creditur creditum est creditum est. § 53 aliud _parem_ aliud secundum aliud secundum. § 54 Aristophanes neminem Arist. poetarum iudices neminem as Meister. § 59 dum adsequamur dum adsequamur dum adsequimur. § 61 spiritus magnificentia spiritus magnificentia spiritu magnificentia. § 63 magnificus et dicendi vi magnificus et diligens magnificus et diligens. § 68 quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt quod ipsum reprehendunt as Meister. § 69 praecipuus est. Admiratus praecipuus. eum admiratus praecipuus. Hunc admiratus. § 70 illa mala iudicia as Halm illa iudicia. § 72 pravis pravis prave. § 79 honesti studiosus, in compositione honesti studiosus in compositione as Halm. § 80 is primus is primum is primum. § 81 orationem quam orationem quam orationem et quam. „ sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus. § 83 eloquendi vi ac suavitate eloquendi suavitate eloquendi suavitate. § 85 haud dubie ei proximus as Halm haud dubie proximus. § 87 phrasin phrasin φράσιν. § 88 propiores propriores (?) propiores. § 89 tamen [ut est dictum] tamen ut est dictum as Meister. § 90 sed ut dicam et ut dicam et ut dicam. § 91 promptius propius propius. § 92 feres feras feres. § 93 elegia elegia elegea. § 94 nisi labor non labor non labor. „ multum eo est tersior as Halm multum est tersior. lxxix

§ 96 opus * * quibusdam interpositus opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus as Meister. § 97 grandissimi clarissimi clarissimi. § 100 linguae linguae linguae _suae_. § 101 commodavit commodavit commendavit. „ T. Livium T. Livium Titum Livium. § 102 ideoque illam immortalem ideoque immortalem ideoque immortalem. „ clari vir ingenii clari vir ingenii clarus vi ingenii. § 103 praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor. § 104 et ornat et ornat et exornat. § 106 omnia denique omnia denique [omnia] denique. „ illic—hic illi—huic illi—huic. § 107 vicimus vincimus vincimus. „ in quibus nihil quibus nibil quibus nihil. § 111 nihil umquam pulchrius nihil pulchrius nihil pulchrius. § 115 si quid adiecturus fuit as Halm si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit. § 117 et fervor, sed et sermo purus, sed et fervor, sed. § 123 scripserunt scripserunt scripserint. § 126 ab eo ab eo ab illo. § 127 ac saltem aut saltem ac saltem. § 130 si ille quaedam contempsisset si aliqua contempsisset si obliqua contempsisset. „ si parum * * si parum _sana_ si parum _recta_. § 131 potest utcumque potest utrimque potest utrimque. Ch. II. § 6 tradiderint tradiderint tradiderunt. § 8 nulla est ars nulla mansit ars nulla _man_sit ars. § 13 [et] cum cum et cum et. „ accommodata est accommodata sit accommodata sit. § 15 et a doctis inter ipsos etiam as Halm. et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam. „ ut ita dixerim ut ita dixerim ut sic dixerim. § 17 Attici scilicet Atticis scilicet Attici sunt scilicet. „ obscuri obscuri sunt obscuri. § 22 cuique proposita as Halm cuique proposito. § 28 deerant deerunt deerunt. „ oportebat oporteat oporteat. Ch. III. § 2 alte effossa alte refossa alte refossa. „ et fundit et fundit effundit § 10 [ut provideamus] et efferentis. ut provideamus et eff. ut provideamus, effer. § 15 plura celerius plura celerius plura et celerius. § 20 in legendo in intellegendo in intellegendo. § 21 femur et latus as Halm. frontem et latus. lxxx

§ 22 secretum quod dictando as Halm secretum in dictando. § 25 velut * rectos velut tectos velut tectos. § 32 adiciendo adicienti adiciendo. Ch. IV. § 3 finem habeat finem habet finem habet. Ch. V. § 4 praesumunt eandem praes. eandem praes. eadem. § 17 inanibus _se_ simulacris ... adsuefacere inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere as Meister. § 18 etiam M. Porcio etiam Porcio etiam M. Porcio. § 21 autem is idoneus autem idoneus. autem idoneus. Ch. VI. § 2 inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur as Meister. § 5 regredi regredi redire. § 7 retrorsus retrorsum retrorsus. „ si utcumque si utrimque si utrimque. Ch. VII. § 1 instar portus intrare portum intrare portum. § 2 statimque, si non succurratur statimque, si non succurratur statimque si non succuratur. § 5 quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps as Halm quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps. § 6 via dicet, ducetur via ducetur, dicet via dicet, ducetur. § 9 observatione simul observatione una observatione una. § 13 superfluere video: quodsi videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si superfluere video, cum eo quod si. § 14 ut Cicero dictitabant ut Cicero ait, dictitabant ut Cicero dictitabant. § 17 adeo praemium adeo pretium adeo pretium. § 20 tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut. „ non capitur non capitur non labitur. § 24 quam omnino non quam non omnino quam non omnino. § 26 est et illa est et illa est alia. § 26 quam illa quam in illa quam illa. § 29 nescio an utrumque nescio an si utrumque as Meister. „ id efficere id efficere sic dicere. „ in his in his et in his. § 32 quod simus quod non simus quod non simus.

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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