i. 10, 66 rudis et Graecis intacti carminis auctor: for

_incompositus_ see Introd. p. xlv. The author of the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ qualifies his eulogy of Aeschylus by adding in the same way that his plays were frequently unpolished, ill digested, and rough in style.

in plerisque; neut. ‘in general,’ ‘for the most part.’ See Intod. p. xlvii.

propter quod = quam ob rem: 7 §6: 5 §23. See on §10.

correctas ... permiserunt. This passage has been the subject of much controversy. It seems inconsistent with our knowledge of the statute passed by the orator Lycurgus (396) enacting that official copies of the plays of the three great tragedians should be made, and that no new performance of them should be allowed without a comparison of the acting copy with the State MS. Perhaps Quintilian misunderstood the phrase δράματα διεσκευασμένα, commonly applied to plays revised by the author himself with a view to a second representation. Madvig however (Kl. philol. Schr. 1875, pp. 464-5) thinks it quite probable that revised versions of plays of Aeschylus were allowed to be brought into competition by later poets (say in the latter half of the 4th century), when Aeschylus came in for criticism on the score of the defects alluded to above (_rudis et incompositus_), but when, on the other hand, creative genius was not so abundant. Krüger quotes Rohde (‘Scenica,’ Rhein. Mus. 1883, vol. 38, p. 289 sqq.), who sees in the words of the scholiast on Arist. Ach. 10 (μόνου αὐτοῦ τὰ δράματα ψηφίσματι κοινῷ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον ἐδιδάσκετο) a compliment paid to Aeschylus alone, and consisting not merely in the appreciative revival of his plays after his death, but in the fact that they were reproduced not as παλαιαί but as new dramas, were provided afresh with choruses by the archon, and were admitted to competition at the great Dionysia (where only new tragedies were represented) if any one appeared, who in the name of the dead poet asked to be provided with a chorus. Cp. οὐκ ὀλίγας μετὰ τελευτὴν νίκας ἀπηνέγκατο, vit. Acschyl. 68, Dindorf5.

I:67 Sed longe clarius inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, quorum in dispari dicendi via uter sit poeta melior inter plurimos quaeritur. Idque ego sane, quoniam ad praesentem materiam nihil pertinet, iniudicatum 64 relinquo. Illud quidem nemo non fateatur necesse est, iis qui se ad agendum comparant utiliorem longe fore Euripiden.

§ 67. longe, with the comp. vi. 4, 21: 3 §13. Cp. Verg. Aen. ix. 556: Vell. ii. 74, 1. In Cicero _longe_ is used only with the superl. (and with _alius_: pro Caec. i. §3) with the compar. he generally has _multo_. Quintilian has also _longe princeps_ §61: and _multo_ with superl., e.g. i. 2, 24.

opus: sc. tragoedias in lucem proferendi. See on §9.

in dispari dicendi via. By Dionysius Euripides is made the only representative of the ‘smooth’ style of composition (γλαφυρὰ ἁρμονία, de Comp. Verb. c. 23), while Sophocles represents the middle style (κοινή or μέση ἁρμονία, ib. c. 24). This must of course be kept distinct from the three λέξεις, or styles of _diction_, which he enumerates in his essay on Demosthenes, c. 1-3.

quaeritur. Modern criticism has taken 64 up the issue, and Euripides has suffered from being identified with what was practically a dramatic revolution. Schlegel depreciated him as contrasting with Sophocles in many points. Mr. Jebb’s utterance will stand: ‘no one is capable of feeling that Sophocles is supreme who does not feel that Euripides is admirable’ (Att. Or. i. p. xcix).

utiliorem: so _magis accedit oratorio generi_ immediately below: Dionysius l.c. xi. (Usener, p. 22) κεκραμένη μεσότητι τῆς λέξεως κέχρηται.

I:68 Namque is et sermone (quod ipsum reprehendunt quibus gravitas et cothurnus et sonus Sophocli videtur esse sublimior) magis accedit oratorio generi, et sententiis densus et in iis quae a sapientibus tradita sunt paene ipsis par, et dicendo ac respondendo cuilibet eorum qui fuerunt in foro diserti comparandus; in adfectibus vero cum omnibus mirus, tum in iis qui in miseratione constant facile praecipuus.

§ 68. quod ipsum reprehendunt: see Crit. Notes.

gravitas ... sublimior. The use of the comparative takes away from the difficulty which commentators have found in the conjunction of _sublimior_ as a predicate with _gravitas_ and _cothurnus_ as well as with _sonus_.—For _cothurnus_, cp. Iuv. vi. 634 Fingimus haec, altum Satira sumente cothurnum Scilicet et finem egressi legemque priorum Grande Sophocleo carmen bacchamur hiatu.

sententiis densus: cp. _sent. creber_ §102: and for _densus_ (= pressus) §§73, 76. Euripides had been a pupil of Anaxagoras. Something might be said in support of Halm’s suggestion to insert _est_ after _densus_.

sapientibus. In Euripides philosophy is brought on the stage, and different theories are put forward in his plays as to such questions as the moral government of the world, the opposition between freedom and authority, the nature of punishment, the question of a future life, &c.

dicendo ac respondendo. In this appears the influence of his sophistic training. Euripides knew his audience, and in his plays the characters indulge to the full all the tendencies that were fostered by the sophistic habit of debate, while the chorus is as it were the jury to which they address their arguments for and against a particular proposition. Cp. Dion. l.c. πολὺς ἐν ταῖς ῥητορικαῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς.

adfectibus ... miseratione. Arist. Poet. 13 τραγικώτατός γε τῶν ποιητῶν φαίνεται.

facile. So _facile princeps_ Cic. ad Fam. vi. 10, 2: _facile primus_ pro Rosc. Amer. §15. For the reading see Crit. Notes.

I:69 Hunc admiratus maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quamquam in opere diverso, Menander, qui vel unus meo quidem iudicio diligenter lectus ad cuncta quae praecipimus effingenda sufficiat: ita omnem 65 vitae imaginem expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi facultas, ita est omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus.

§ 69. testatur: not in any extant fragment, though it is by no means improbable that in some of his numerous plays Menander expressed an admiration for the most popular tragedian of the day.

Menander, 342-290 B.C. At his death the Athenians erected his tomb near the cenotaph of Euripides, in token of the affectionate regard in which he had held the elder poet. ‘Euripides was the forerunner of the New Comedy; the poets of this species admired him especially, and acknowledged him for their master. Nay, so great is this affinity of tone and spirit between Euripides and the poets of the New Comedy, that apothegms of Euripides have been ascribed to Menander and _vice versa_. On the contrary, we find among the fragments of Menander maxims of consolation which rise, in a striking manner, even into the tragic tone.’ Schlegel. See Meineke Com. Frag. iv. Epimetrum ii., Menander imitator Euripidis.

omnem vitae imaginem. Menander was the ‘mirror of life’: cp. the exclamation of Aristophanes of Byzantium Ὦ Μένανδρε καὶ βίε, πότερος ἄρ᾽ ὑμῶν πότερον ἐμιμήσατο; Manilius v. 470 Menander 65 Qui vitam ostendit vitae. So Cicero in a fragment of the De Republica (or the Hortensius, Usener, p. 120): Comoedia est imitatio vitae, speculum consuetudinis, et veritatis imago.—For this use of _exprimere_, a figure from the plastic art, cp. Hor. A. P. 32-3.

tauta in eo, &c. Cp. with this Dionysius l.c. (Usener, p. 22) τῶν δὲ κωμῳδῶν μιμητέον τὰς λεκτικὰς ἀρετὰς ἁπάσας‧ εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι καθαροὶ καὶ σαφεῖς, καὶ βραχεῖς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ δεινοὶ καὶ ἠθικοί. Μενάνδρου δὲ καὶ τὸ πραγματικὸν θεωρητέον.

I:70 Nec nihil profecto viderunt qui orationes, quae Charisi nomini addicuntur, a Menandro scriptas putant. Sed mihi longe magis orator probari in opere suo videtur, nisi forte aut illa iudicia, qua Epitrepontes, Epicleros, Locroe habent, aut meditationes in Psophodee, Nomothete, Hypobolimaeo non omnibus oratoriis numeris sunt absolutae.

§ 70. nihil viderunt: they have not ‘lacked discrimination.’ So, of political insight or foresight, Cic. pro. Leg. Manil. §64 sin autem vos plus in republica vidistis: Phil. ii. §39 cum me vidisse plus fateretur, se speravisse meliora.

Charisius, an Athenian orator, a contemporary of Demosthenes, who wrote speeches for others, in which he was thought to imitate Lysias: he was in turn imitated by Hegesias, Cic. Brut. §286.

addicuntur: Aul. Gell. iii. 3. 13 istaec comoediae nomini eius (Plauti) addicuntur.

in opere suo: ‘I consider that he proves his oratorical ability far more in his own department’ (i.e. as a writer of comedy)—than in those speeches of Charisius, supposing that he did compose them. For _opus_ see on §9: cp. §67.

nisi forte, ironical: see on 5 §6: cp. 2 §8. The formula introduces ‘a case which is in fact inadmissible, but is intended to suggest to another person that he cannot differ from our opinion, without admitting as true a thing which is improbable and absurd,’ Zumpt §526.

iudicia ... meditationes: ‘judicial pleadings,’ speeches suitable to be made before a court—‘extra-judicial pleadings,’ law-school speeches, _declamationes_, μελέται. Cp. iv. 2, 29 cum sit declamatio forensium actionum meditatio: 5 §14.—The names are those of some of Menander’s comedies: The Trusting, The Heiress, The Locri, The Timid Man, The Lawyer, The Changeling. The second and the last are known to have been imitated by Caecilius. For the reading see Crit. Notes.

numeris: here as at §91 rather than as at §4, where see note. Here it only = _partibus_ and has nothing to do with rhythmical composition. In this sense it is found almost invariably with _omnis_: Varro apud Aul. Gell. xiii. 11, 1 ipsum deinde convivium constat ex rebus quatuor, et tum denique omnibus suis numeris absolutum est, &c.: Cic. de N. D. ii. §37 mundum ... perfectum expletumque omnibus suis numeris et partibus: de Div. i. §23 quod omnes habet in se numeros: de Off. iii. §14: de Fin. iii. §24 omnes numeros virtutis continent: Sen. Ep. 71 §16 (veritas) habet numeros suos: plena est: 95 §5: Iuv. vi. 249: Tac. Dial. 32 per omnes eloquentiae numeros isse. So viii. pr. §1 per omnes numeros penitus cognoscere.

I:71 Ego tamen plus adhuc quiddam collaturum eum declamatoribus puto, quoniam his necesse est secundum 66 condicionem controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum filiorum, militum rusticorum, divitum pauperum, irascentium deprecantium, mitium asperorum; in quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc poeta decor.

§ 71. plus adhuc quiddam = πλέον τι, or ἔτι καὶ πλέον. _Adhuc_ with compar. (for _etiam_) is post-Augustan: cp. §99. Here _quiddam_ (like τι) is used to modify the force of the comparative. So adhuc melius ii. 4, 13: adhuc difficilior i. 5, 22: liberior adhuc disputatio vii. 2, 14: and Tac. Germ. 29: Suet. Nero 10: Sen. Ep. 85, 24: Spalding on i. 5, 22.

declamatoribus. Students in the schools of rhetoric, and even speakers of a more mature type, practised declamation at Rome in the shape of oratorical compositions on questions which, though fictitious, were yet akin to such as were argued in the law-courts. The youthful aspirant learned in this way to speak in 66 public (Cic. de Orat. i. §149: Quint. ii. 10, 4: ib. §12), while the orator had the opportunity of perfecting his articulation and delivery. To these two aims the Greek terms μελέτη and φωνασκία correspond: for the first cp. de Orat. i. §251, and for the second Brut. §310. It was in the age of the decadence of Roman oratory that declamation came to be an end in itself. At first it had been merely a preparatory exercise; now, under the head of _suasoriae_ (deliberativae materiae) and _controversiae_ (iudiciales materiae), finished oratorical compositions were produced, graced by all the ornaments of genuine rhetoric. Cp. Tac. Dial. 35.

controversiarum. Cp. iv. 2, 97 evenit aliquando in scholasticis controversiis quod in foro an possit accidere dubito: iii. 8, 51 praecipue declamatoribus considerandum est quid cuique personae conveniat, qui parcissimas controversias ita dicunt ut advocati: plerumque filii, parentes, divites, senes, asperi, lenes, avari, denique superstitiosi, timidi, derisores fiunt, ut vix comoediarum actoribus plures habitus in pronuntiando concipiendi sunt, quam his in dicendo.

decor: see on §27.

I:72 Atque ille quidem omnibus eiusdem operis auctoribus abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit. Tamen habent alii quoque comici, si cum venia leguntur, quaedam quae possis decerpere, et praecipue Philemon; qui ut prave sui temporis iudiciis Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi secundus.

§ 72. eiusdem operis, i.e. Comedy, not the New Comedy only, as is shown by _alii comici_ below. Along with Menander and Philemon, Velleius (i. 16, 3) and Diomedes (p. 489 K, p. 9 Reiff.) mention Diphilus, on whom both Plautus and Terence drew for material.

nomen: see on §87.

fulgore ... obduxit: ‘has put them in the shade by the brightness of his own glory.’

cum venia: cp. i. 5, 11: Ov. Tr. i. 1, 46 scriptaque cum venia qualiacumque leget: ib. iv. 1, 104 cum venia facito, quisquis es, ista legas. Kiderlin rightly holds this reading to be, not only possible, but at least as appropriate to _habent quaedam_ as any of the conjectures (see Crit. Notes) by which it has been proposed to supplant it. The _severe_ critic will perhaps not find anything in the other comic poets useful for the orator: but he who reads them with indulgence (i.e. making allowance for their poverty as compared with Menander) will find something. It is different with Menander, in whose plays even the rigorous critic will find everything that the orator needs (§69).

Philemon, of Soli in Cilicia, 360-262. Fragments of fifty-six of his ninety plays are extant. His Θησαυρός was used by Plautus for the _Trinummus_, and his Ἔμπορος for the _Mercator_.

prave, ‘adverbium pro sententia.’ Cp. iii. 7, 18 quidam sicut Menander iustiora posteriorum quam suae aetatis iudicia sunt consecuti: Aul. Gell. 17, 1 Menander a Philemone nequaquam pari scriptore in certaminibus comoediarum ... saepenumero vincebatur.—See Crit. Notes.

meruit credi = merito creditus est (or creditur). Cp. §74. Elsewhere _mereo_ means little more than _adipisci_, _consequi_: §§94, 116: vi. 4, 5 nec immerito quidam ... meruerunt nomina patronorum. For the nomin. with inf. cp. §97 qui esse docti adfectant: Ov. Met. xiii. 314 esse reus merui.

§73-75. Greek Historians:—

In his Ἀρχαίων κρίσις (or περὶ μιμήσεως 2) Dionysius says nothing of Ephorus, Clitarchus, or Timagenes, but draws a more elaborate parallel (Usener, p. 22) between Herodotus and Thucydides, as well as between Philistus and Xenophon: Theopompus he treats by himself. Illustrative 67 passages are found also in the _Iudicium de Thucydide_ and the _Epistola ad Cn. Pompeium_ (de Praecip. Historicis). Cp. also Cicero, de Orat. ii. §55 sq., where the order is Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Timaeus. For the last two Quint. substitutes Clitarchus and Timagenes. Cp. Introd. p. xxxiii.

I:73 Historiam multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe 67 duos ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi 68 Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus: ille concitatis hic remissis adfectibus melior, ille contionibus hic sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate.

§ 73. scripsere. In i. 5, 42 Quint. (speaking of the forms _scripsere_ and _legere_) says ‘evitandae asperitatis gratia mollitum est ut apud veteres pro male _mereris_, male _merere_,’ ib. §44 ‘quid? non Livius circa initia statim primi libri, _tenuere_, inquit, _arcem Sabini_? et mox, _in adversum Romani subiere_? sed quem potius ego quam M. Tullium sequor, qui in Oratore, _non reprehendo_, inquit, _scripsere; scripserunt esse verius sentio_.’ The passage referred to is Or. §157. The termination _-ere_ for _-erunt_ is ‘found in some of the earliest inscriptions, and is not uncommon in Plautus and Terence, _rare in Cicero_ and Caesar, but frequent in dactylic poets and Livy,’ Roby, §578. Mr. Sandys also quotes Dr. Reid: ‘There is hardly a sound example of _-ere_ in the perfect in any really good MS. of Cicero (see Neue, ii. 390 ff.); and similarly in the case of Caesar.’ Quintilian has permiserunt, §66 (where the later MSS. give _-ere_): illustraverunt §67: viderunt §70: indulsere §84. See Bonnell, Proleg. de Gramm. Quint. p. xxvii.

nemo dubitat ... praeferendos. The acc. and inf. with _dubito_ (for the negative expression of doubt) is much the more common construction in Quint. (cp. §81, 4 §2), though he also uses _quin_ and subj. (e.g. 2 §1: xii. 1, 42 ad hoc nemo dubitabit quin ... magis e republica sit). A study of the instances in Bonn. Lex. will fail to reveal any principle of difference: cp. vii. 6, 10 quis dubitaret quin ea voluntas fuisset testantis? with ix. 4, 68 quis enim dubitet unum sensum in hoc et unum spiritum esse? and i. 10, 12 atqui claros nomine sapientiae viros nemo dubitaverit studiosos musices fuisse. The acc. with inf. belongs on the whole to the usage of the Silver Age, being frequent in Livy, Nepos (e.g. his opening words ‘non dubito fore plerosque, Attice’), Tacitus, Pliny (e.g. praef. 18 nec dubitamus multa esse), Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius. It never occurs in Caesar or Sallust, and in Cicero only in doubtful cases: these are his youthful transl. of Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, where he has (§6) quis enim dubitet nihil esse pulchrius in omni ratione vitae dispositione atque ordine? ad Att. vii. 1, 2, where the passage may be differently construed: de Fin. iii. 11, 38 nihil est enim de quo minus dubitari possit quam et honesta expetenda per se et eodem modo turpia per se esse fugienda. In the last instance the dependent clause ‘de quo ... possit’ = ‘certius’: and after ‘quam’ ‘illud’ may be supplied. On the other hand cp. for _quin_ Rep. i. 23: Brut. §71: de Sen. §31: in Verr. ii. 1, 40. In young Cicero’s letter to Tiro (ad Fam. xvi. 21, 2) we find the acc. c. inf., though below (§7) he has the usual construction.

diversa virtus ... consecuta: as for example from Dionysius, Epist. ad Cn. Pomp. pp. 775-7 R (Usener, p. 57 sq.).

Densus, §68. It is opposed to _fusus_ here as in §106 to _copiosus_. Cp. Dionysius, p. 869 R, τό τε πειρᾶσθαι δι᾽ ἐλαχίστων ὀνομάτων πλεῖστα σημαίνειν πράγματα, καὶ πολλὰ συντιθέναι νοήματα εἰς ἕν.

brevis: Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 425 R (Usener, pp. 22-3) καὶ τὸ μὲν σύντομόν ἐστι παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τὸ δ᾽ ἐναργὲς παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις. This is what Dion. calls τὸ τάχος τῆς σημασίας p. 793 R (Us. p. 82).

semper instans sibi, ‘ever pressing on.’ Thucydides does not ‘let things drift,’ but closely follows up each thought, making every word tell, and even hurrying on to a new idea before he has fully developed the previous one: Dion. l.c. καὶ ἔτι προσδεχόμενόν τι τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἀκούσεσθαι καταλιπεῖν. Cp. xi. 3, 164 instandum quibusdam in partibus et densanda oratio. Hor. Ep. i. 2, 71 nec praecedentibus insto: cp. Sat. i. 10, 9 est brevitate opus ut currat sententia neu se impediat verbis lassas onerantibus aures.—Cicero’s references to Thucydides are similar: Orat. §40 Thucydides praefractior nec satis ut ita dicam rotundus; de Orat. ii. §56 creber est rerum frequentia ... porro verbis est aptus et pressus; ibid. §93 (with Pericles and Alcibiades) subtiles, acuti, breves, sententiisque magis quam verbis abundantes; Brut. §29 grandes erant verbis, crebri 68 sententiis, compressione rerum breves et ob eam ipsam causam interdum subobscuri.

dulcis, §77, ‘pleasing,’ cp. voluptate, below. So Cic. Hortens. ‘quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius?’ Γλυκύτης is one of the essentials of ἡδεῖα λέξις in Dionysius (de Comp. Verb. xi. p. 53 R). In the preceding chapter he has distinguished between ἡ ἡδονή and τὸ καλόν, allowing the latter to Thucydides and both to Herodotus: ἡ δὲ Ἡροδότου σύνθεσις ἀμφότερα ταῦτα ἔχει‧ καὶ γὰρ ἡδεῖά ἐστι καὶ καλή. Hermogenes (ii. p. 226) makes γλυκύτης the characteristic of Herodotus on account of the attractiveness of his digressions.

candidus: §§113, 121: Cic. Orat. §53 elaborant alii in ... puro et quasi quodam candido genere dicendi. So in ii. 5, 19 Quintilian recommends young persons to read candidum quemque et maxime expositum,—Livy rather than Sallust: of Livy he says elsewhere (§101) in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris. The word denotes ‘clearness,’ ‘transparency’: Dion. (Ἀρχ. κρ. R, Us. p. 22) τῆς δὲ σαφηνείας ἀναμφισβητήτως Ἡροδότῳ τὸ κατόρθωμα δέδοται. Such a quality of style is the revelation of a man’s inner nature. It avoids all adventitious ornament (ibid. τῷ ἀφελεῖ αὐτοφυεῖ ἀβασανίστῳ). Undue _brevitas_ often interferes with it (ἀσαφὲς γίγνεται τὸ βραχύ), so that the word gives a partial antithesis to _brevis_.

fusus supplies the antithesis to _densus_ as well as to _semper instans sibi_. Cp. §77: ii. 3, 5 constricta an latius fusa oratio: ix. 4, 138 fusi ac fluentes. So Cicero Orat. §39 alter sine ullis salebris quasi sedatus amnis fluit, alter incitatior fertur.

concitatis ... remissis adfectibus. Dionysius, speaking of τῶν ἠθων τε καὶ παθῶν μίμησις (ad Cn. Pomp. p. 776 R, Us. p. 58), says διῄρηνται τὴν ἀρετὴν ταύτην οἱ συγγράφεις‧ Θουκυδίδης μὲν γὰρ τὰ πάθη δηλῶσαι κρείττων, Ἡρόδοτος δὲ τὰ γ᾽ ἤθη παραστῆσαι δεινότερος. So (Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 425 R, Us. p. 23) ἐν μέντοι τοῖς ἠθικοῖς κρατεῖ Ἡρόδοτος, ἐν δὲ τοῖς παθητικοῖς ὁ Θουκυδίδης. Cp. p. 793 R ὑπὲρ ἅπαντα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα τὸ παθητικόν. For the distinction between τὸ ἠθικόν (the appeal to the moral sense) and τὸ παθητικόν (the appeal to the emotions) see Cic. Orat. §128: Quint. vi. 2, §§8-10 Adfectus igitur hos concitatos πάθος illos mites atque compositos ἦθος esse dixerunt, and sq. Cp. §§48 and 101 of this book, and iii. 4, 15 concitandis componendisve adfectibus.

contionibus ... sermonibus: not the same antithesis as _narrando ... contionibus_ §101, q.v. The opposition here is between the set harangues of Thucydides and the less formal conversations of Herodotus. In Thucydides the only dialogues are that between the Melians and the Athenians in Book V, and that between Archidamus and the Plataeans in Book II, whereas Herodotus ‘seldom speaks where there is a fair pretext for making the characters speak.... Even the longer speeches have usually the conversational tone rather than the rhetorical,’ Jebb. (Hild is wrong in referring _sermonibus_ to τὸ πραγματικὸν εἶδος in Dionysius and _contionibus_ to τὸ λεκτικόν: Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 424 R, Us. p. 22: cp. de Admir. Deor. vi. c. 51, p. 1112 R sq.). The speeches of Thucydides are criticised by Dionysius (under the head both of τὸ πραγματικὸν μέρος and τὸ λεκτικόν) in his Iudicium, ch. 34, p. 896 R sq. Herodotus on the other hand (ibid. 23 ad fin.), οὐδὲ δημηγορίαις πολλαῖς ... οὐδ᾽ ἐναγωνίοις κέχρηται λόγοις, οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ παθαίνειν καὶ δεινοποιεῖν τὰ πράγματα τὴν ἀλκὴν ἔχει. Dionysius’s own opinion of the speeches in Thucydides is seen from the last chapter of his Iudicium (pp. 950-2 R) to have agreed with that of Cicero, Orator §30: ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent obscuras abditasque sententias vix ut intellegantur. (Cp. Brutus §287.) On this ground he says nihil ab eo transferri potest ad forensem usum et publicum: cp. de Opt. Gen. 15, 16. Dionysius, however (ch. 34 ad init.) indicates that some people thought differently: τῶν δημηγοριῶν ἐν αἷς οἴονταί τινες τὴν ἄκραν τοῦ συγγραφέως εἶναι δύναμιν.—For the speeches see Blass, Att. Bereds p. 231 sq.: and Jebb’s Essay in _Hellenica_, esp. pp. 269-275.

vi ... voluptate. Many passages may be quoted from Dionysius to illustrate this antithesis: Ἀχρ. κρ. p. 425 R, Usener p. 23 69 ῥώμῃ δὲ καὶ ἰσχύι καὶ τόνῳ καὶ τῷ περιττῷ καὶ πολυσχηματίστῳ παρηυδοκίμησε Θουκυδίδης: ἡδονῇ δὲ καὶ πειθοῖ καὶ χάριτι ... μακρῷ διενεγκόντα τὸν Ἡρόδοτον εὑρίσκομεν: ad. Cn. Pomp. iii. p. 776 R (Us. p. 58) ἕπονται ταύταις αἱ τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ τὸν τόνον καὶ τὰς ὁμοιοτρόπους δυνάμεις τῆς φράσεως ἀρεταὶ περιέχουσαι. κρείττων ἐν ταύταις Ἡροδότου Θουκυδίδης. ἡδονὴν δὲ καὶ πειθὼ καὶ τέρψιν καὶ τὰς ὁμοιογενεῖς ἀρετὰς εἰσφέρεται μακρῷ Θουκυδίδου κρείττονας Ἡρόδοτος. So Iud. de Thucyd. 23, p. 866 R πειθοῦς τε καὶ χαρίτων καὶ τῆς εἰς ἀκρὸν ἡκούσης ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα. So in the Epist. ad Pomp. iii. p. 767 R he praises Herodotus for his choice of subject (ὑπόθεσιν ... καλὴν καὶ κεχαρισμένην τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις Us. p. 50), while Thucyd. was conscious ὅτι εἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι (de Comp. Verb. p. 165 R). It is his variety (μεταβολὴ καὶ ποικίλον) and the providing of agreeable ἀναπαύσεις that give Hdt. his charm: καὶ γὰρ τὸ βιβλίον ἢν αὐτοῦ λάβωμεν μέχρι τῆς ἐσχάτης συλλαβῆς ἀγάμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ τὸ πλεῖον ἐπιζητοῦμεν p. 772 R: while Thucydides is by comparison ἀσαφὴς καὶ δυσπαρακολούθητος p. 773 (Usener pp. 54-5).

For vi cp. also Orat. §39 alter incitatior fertur, et de bellicis rebus canit etiam quodam modo bellicum: for voluptate Quint. ix. 4, 18 in Herodoto vero cum omnia, ut ego quidem sentio, leniter fluunt, tum ipsa διάλεκτος habet eam iucunditatem ut latentes in se numeros complexa videatur. And again Dionysius, p. 777 R: Us. p. 59 διαφέρουσι δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἀλλήλων ὅτι τὸ μὲν Ἡροδότου κάλλος ἱλαρόν ἐστι, φοβερὸν δὲ (‘impressive’) τὸ Θουκυδίδου.

I:74 Theopompus his proximus 69 ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus, diu fuerit orator. Philistus quoque meretur qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos auctorum eximatur, imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior, 70 ita aliquatenus lucidior. Ephorus, ut Isocrati visum, calcaribus eget. Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur.

§ 74. Theopompus, of Chios, born about 378 B.C. What Quint. says of him is not found in Dion. though the latter gives him high praise in the Epist. ad Cn. Pomp. p. 782 R sq. Cp. Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 428 sq. He wrote two histories, neither of which has come down to us:—(1) Ἡλληνικά, containing in twelve books the sequel to the Peloponnesian War, down to the battle of Knidos (B.C. 394); and (2) Φιλιππικά, a history of affairs under Philip, in fifty-eight books. Dionysius says that he was the most distinguished of all the pupils of Isocrates, whom he resembled in style (l.c. p. 786). His master said that he needed the bit, as Ephorus (see below) the spur: ii. 8, 11, cp. Brut. §204. Quint. says elsewhere (ix. 4, 35) that, like the followers of Isocrates in general, he was unduly solicitous about avoiding the coalition of vowels: Orat. §151. In the Brutus (§66) Cicero, comparing him with Philistus and Thucydides, says officit Theopompus elatione atque altitudine orationis suae. His fragments are collected in Müller’s Fragm. Histor. Graec. i. pp. 278-333.

praedictis = antea, supra dictis. This is the usual meaning of the word in Quint.: cp. tria quae praediximus iii. 6, 89: vicina praedictae sed amplior virtus viii. 3, 83: ii. 4, 24: ix. 3, 66: Vell. Pat. i. 4, 1: Suet. Aug. 90: Plin. N. H. lxxii. 16, 35. The Ciceronian use appears only in ‘praedicta pernicies’ iii. 7, 19 (cp. iv. 2, 98): vii. 1, 30.

opus: §§31, 67, 69, 70, 96, 123: 2 §21. Cp. Introd. p. xliv.

sollicitatus by his master Isocrates. Cicero tells us this: postea vero ex clarissima quasi rhetorum officina duo praestantes ingenio, Theopompus et Ephorus, ab Isocrate magistro impulsi se ad historiam contulerunt (de Orat. ii. §57).

Philistus, of Syracuse, born about B.C. 430. He was a contemporary of both the Dionysii, by the elder of whom he was exiled and by the younger recalled. He wrote a history of Sicily in two parts,—περὶ Σικελίας μὲν τὴν προτέραν ἐπιγραφων, περὶ Διονυσίου δὲ τὴν ὑστέραν, Dion. ad Pomp. p 780 R (Us. p. 61). Cicero says he liked the latter: me magis de Dionysio delectat, ad Q. Fr. ii. 13, 4.—Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. i. 185-192.

meretur qui: see on §72.

quamvis bonorum. For this brachyology cp. §94, and note: Livy ii. 54 §7 nec auctor quamvis audaci facinori deerat: ibid. 51 §7. Cp. quamlibet properato 3 §19. Introd. p. liv.

eximatur: with _ex_ or _de_ in classical Latin, as in the phrase ex reis eximi, aliquem de reis eximere (Cic.) For the dat. cp. i. 4, 3 ut auctores alios omnino exemerint numero (opp. to in ordinem redigere): Hor. Car. ii. 2, 19 Phraaten numero beatorum eximit virtus. The same meaning appears in xii. 2, 28 quid ... eximat nos opinionibus vulgi. In Tac. the dat. is common in the sense of to ‘free from’: infamiae, morti, ignominiae. 70 What follows might be a condensation of Dion.’s criticism of Philistus: Φίλιστος δὲ μιμητής ἐστι Θουκυδίδου, ἔξω τοῦ ἤθους‧ ᾧ μὲν γὰρ ἐλεύθερον καὶ φρονήματος μεστόν‧ τούτῳ δὲ θεραπευτικὸν τῶν τυράννων καὶ δοῦλον πλεονεξίας, Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 426 R, Us. p. 24: cp. ad Pomp. v. (p. 779 R) Φίλιστος δὲ Θουκυδίδη μᾶλλον <ἂν> δοξεῖεν ἐοικέναι, καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον κοσμεῖσθαι τὸν χαρακτῆρα: Cic. de Orat. ii. 57 hunc (Thucydidem) consecutus est Syracosius Philistus qui, cum Dionysii tyranni familiarissimus esset, otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda, maximeque Thucydidem est, sicut mihi videtur, imitatus.

infirmior: Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 13, 4 Siculus ille (Philistus) capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides: Dionysius, Ἀρχ. κρ. (p. 427 R, Us. p. 25) μικρὸς δὲ ἐστι καὶ ταπεινὸς κομιδῇ ταῖς ἐκφράσεσιν ... οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ πράγματος ἐξισοῦται: ad Pomp. (p. 781 R) μικρός τε περὶ πᾶσαν ἰδέαν ἐστὶ καὶ ἐντελής κ.τ.λ.

aliquatenus with comparative, instead of the ablative _aliquanto_, just as he uses _longe_ and _multum_ for _multo_. So xi. 3, 97 aliquatenus liberius.

lucidior: τῆς δὲ λέξεως τὸ μὲν γλωσσηματικὸν καὶ περίεργον οὐκ ἐζήλωκε Θουκυδίδου (Ἀρχ. κρ. l.c.). Yet Dionysius blames him, even more than Thucyd., for ἀταξία τῆς οἰκονομίας, and adds that, like Thucyd., δυσπαρακολούθητον τὴν πραγματείαν τῇ συνχύσει τῶν εἰρημένων πεποίηκε.

Ephorus, of Cumae in Aeolis, was a contemporary of Philip and Alexander: fl. cir. B.C. 340. He wrote a Universal History down to his own times. Like Theopompus, he was a pupil of Isocrates (de Orat. ii. §57: iii. §36: Orator §191); and Dionysius mentions him, along with Theopompus, as the best example, among historians, of ἡ γλαφυρὰ καὶ ἀνθηρὰ σύνθεσις, just as Isocrates was among rhetoricians (de Comp. Verb. 23, p. 173 R). Plutarch (Dion. 36) blames him for his sophistical tendencies: Polybius (v. 33, 2) praises his wide knowledge.

calcaribus. Brutus §204 ut Isocratem in acerrimo ingenio Theopompi et lenissimo Ephori dixisse traditum est, alteri se calcaria adhibere, alteri frenos: de Orat. iii. 9, 36 quod dicebat Isocrates, doctor singularis, se calcaribus in Ephoro contra autem in Theopompo frenis uti solere: Hortensius: quid ... aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? Cp. also ad Att. vi. 1, 12: Quint, ii. 8, 11. So Suidas, ὁ γοῦν Ἰσοκράτης τὸν μὲν Θεόπομπον ἔφη χαλινοῦ δεῖσθαι, τὸν δὲ Ἔφορον κέντρου (s.v. Ephorus). A similar story is told of Plato, teacher of Aristotle and Xenocrates; and of Aristotle, who in turn taught Theophrastus and Callisthenes.

Clitarchus, of Megara, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, whom he accompanied on his expeditions, and whose history he wrote, in twelve books, down to the battle of Ipsos. He also wrote a history of the Persians before and after Xerxes. Cicero alludes (Brutus §42 sq.) to his romantic turn: concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut aliquid dicere possint argutius (‘more racily’); ut enim tu nunc de Coriolano, sic Clitarchus, sic Stratocles de Themistocle finxit: de Legg. i. 2.

I:75 Longo post intervallo temporis natus Timagenes vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam historias scribendi industriam nova 71 laude reparavit. Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est.

§ 75. Timagenes belongs to the Augustan Age. He is said to have been a native of Syria, who came to Rome after the capture of Alexandria (B.C. 55). At Rome he founded a school of rhetoric, and wrote a history of Alexander the Great and his successors. He was a friend of Asinius Pollio, and enjoyed the patronage of Augustus till he incurred his censure for having spoken too boldly of the members of the Imperial family: Hor. Ep. i. 19, 15. Quintilian might have filled the gap (_intervallo temporis_) between Clitarchus and Timagenes with such names as Timaeus (de Orat. ii. §58), Polybius, and Dionysius himself.

historias scribendi: cp. §34 and 2 §7. The plural is used of historical works, in the concrete: the sing. generally of history as a mode of composition: §§31, 73, 74, 101, 102; 5 §15,—seldom as 1. 8, 20 cum historiae cuidam tanquam vanae repugnaret. Cp. Hor. Sat. i. 3, 89 amaras porrecto iugulo historias captivus ut audit: Car. ii. 12, 9 pedestribus dices historiis praelia Caesaris. Cicero has the sing. most frequently: Brutus §287 si historiam scribere ... cogitatis: but the pl. occurs ib. §42 (quoted above).

71 Xenophon §§33 and 82. By Dionysius he is treated as a historian, and compared to Philistus. The philosophic character of his work is however indicated in several places: e.g. Ἀρχ. κρ. (p. 426 R, Us. p. 24) ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοῦ πρέποντος τοῖς προσώποις πολλάκις ἐστοχάσατο, περιτιθεὶς ἀνδράσιν ἰδιώταις καὶ βαρβάροις ἐσθ᾽ ὅτε λόγους φιλοσόφους: ad Cn. Pomp. 4 (p. 777) τὰς ὑποθέσεις τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐξελέξατο καλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ ἀνδρὶ φιλοσόφῳ προσηκούσας‧ τήν τε Κύρου παιδείαν, εἰκόνα βασιλέως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ εὐδαίμονος κ.τ.λ.. Besides Cicero (de Orat. ii. §58 denique etiam a philosophia profectus—Xenophon—scripsit historiam), Diogenes Laertius and Dio Chrysostom speak of Xenophon as a philosopher, all probably following an ancient authority. See Usener, p. 117, and cp. Introd. p. xxxiii.

inter. Becher notes this use of the prep. ( = ‘among a number of’) as occurring first in Livy. Cp. §116 ponendus inter praecipuos.

§§76-80. Attic Orators:—

I:76 Sequitur oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis 72 aetas una tulerit. Quorum longe princeps Demosthenes ac paene lex orandi fuit: tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.

ut cum. So _utpote cum_ Cic. ad Att. v. 8, 1 and Asinius Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 4: _quippe cum_ ad Att. x. 3. Bonn. Lex. s.v. _ut_ (B ad fin.) gives other exx. from Quintilian: e.g. v. 10, 44: vi. 1, 51: 3, 9: ix. i, 15.

decem. This is not a round number (Hild), but indicates a recognised group of orators, generally considered to have been canonised by the critics of Alexandria, in the course of the last two centuries before the Christian era. Brzoska, however, in a recent paper (De canone decem oratorum Atticorum quaestiones—Vratislaviae, 1883) develops with great probability the view of A. Reifferscheid, that the canon originated, towards the end of the second cent. B.C., with the school of Pergamus, where special attention was paid to rhetoric and grammar, which the Alexandrian critics neglected in favour of poetry. The group consisted of Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Hyperides, and Dinarchus. Of these Quintilian omits here Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus, though all except the last-named are mentioned in xii. 10, §§21-22. Demetrius of Phalerum is thrown in at the end, probably after Cicero (see on §80). The earliest reference to the Ten Orators as a recognised group occurs in the title of a lost work by Caecilius of Calacte,—περὶ χαρακτῆρος τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων. But though Caecilius was a contemporary of Dionysius at Rome in the age of Augustus, and is known to have been intimate with him (p. 777 R, Us. p. 59), there is no reference in Dionysius’s writings to the canon thus adopted. Mr. Jebb thinks he may have deliberately disregarded it as not helpful for the purpose with which he wrote, viz. to establish a standard of Greek prose by a study of the orators as representing tendencies in the historical development of the art of oratory (Att. Or. Introd. p. 67: but see Brzoska, pp. 20-22). Besides this _decem_ in Quintilian (cp. on _ceteros_ §80), the number ten is again recognised in the treatise on the Lives of the Ten Orators, wrongly attributed to Plutarch, by Proclus (circ. 450 A.D.), and by Suidas (circ. 1100). In selecting the five whom he treats here, Quintilian would seem to have followed Dionysius. In the De Oratoribus Antiquis, 4 (p. 451 R), he gives a chronological classification (κατὰ τὰς ἡλικίας), taking Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaens to represent the first series (ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων: cp. his aetate Lysias maior §74); and Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Aeschines for the next. Elsewhere (de Din. Iud. i. p. 629 R) he arrives at the same result on another principle, Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus being classed as εὑρεταὶ ἰδίου χαρακτῆρος, while the other three (Aeschines now taking the second place, as emphatically at p. 1063 R) appear as τῶν εὑρημένων ἑτέροις τελειωταί. Of Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Aeschines he says: ἡ γὰρ δὴ τελειοτάτη ῥητορικὴ καὶ τὸ κράτος τῶν ἐναγωνίων λόγων ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἔοικεν εἶναι, de Isaeo Iud. p. 629 R. The Ἀρχαίων κρίσις briefly characterises, in the order in which they are named, Lysias, Isocrates, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Hyperides; Quintilian omits Lycurgus, the paragraph about whom in the Ἀρχ. κρ. is suspected by Claussen (p. 352). (Brzoska notes that Quintilian’s list is identical with that given by Cicero de Orat. iii. 28: and from a comparison of de Opt. Gen. Or. §7—qui aut Attici numerantur aut dicunt 72 Attice—he infers that the canon was probably known also to Cicero.) We have separate treatises by Dionysius on Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus (the εὑρεταί), but those in which he discussed Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Aeschines (the τελειωταί), are no longer extant. Instead we have the first part of a longer work on Demosthenes (περὶ τῆς λεκτικῆς Δημοσθένους δεινότητος pp. 953-1129 R), and a bibliographical account of Dinarchus. Antiphon he only alludes to briefly (de Isaeo, 20), in company with Thrasymachus, Polycrates, and Critias: cp. Quint, iii. 1, 11.

Athenis. Dionysius groups the orators of whom he treats under the title Ἀττικοί (p. 758 R, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἀττικῶν πραγματείᾳ ῥητόρων). Ammon (pp. 81-82) points out that Demetrius Magnes used the same appellation (Dion. de Din. i. p. 631 R), and further suggests that the Attic canon is already indicated in Cicero de Opt. Gen. Or. §13 ex quo intellegitur quoniam Graecorum oratorum praestantissimi sint ii qui fuerunt Athenis, eorum autem princeps facile Demosthenes, hunc si qui imitetur eum et attice dicturum et optime, ut quoniam attici propositi sunt ad imitandum bene dicere id sit attice dicere.

aetas una, used here in a wide sense (as is shown by _aetate ... maior_, below). The period referred to extends from the latter part of the 5th to the latter part of the 4th century B.C. So Cicero, Brut. §36 haec enim aetas effudit hanc copiam: where he gives a place among the others to Demades.

longe princeps: Dion. de Thucyd. Iud. 55, p. 950 R, Δημοσθένει ὃν ἁπάντων ῥητόρων κράτιστον γεγενῆσθαι πειθόμεθα: cp. de vi Demosth. 33, p. 1058 R sq.

vis, δεινότης. Dion. de Thucyd. Iud. 53, p. 944 R τὴν ἐξεγείρουσαν τὰ πάθη δεινότητα (of Demosthenes): cp. p. 865 τὸ ἐρρωμένον καὶ ἐναγώνιον πνεῦμα ἐξ ὧν ἡ καλουμένη γίγνεται δεινότης: Cic. de Orat. iii. 28 vim Demosthenes habuit. For the place of _vis_ in oratory cp. Orat. §69, and de Orat. ii. 128-9.

densa: §§68, 73, 106. So _pressus_: Introd. p. xliii. The Greek equivalent is τὸ πυκνόν, ἡ πυκνότης. Dionysius attributes his brevity and conciseness, as well as his energy and power of rousing the emotions, to the influence of Thucydides.

quibusdam, inserted on account of the metaphor, as often in Cicero, e.g. de Orat. i. §9 procreatricem quandam et quasi parentem: Brut. §46 eloquentia est bene constitutae civitatis quasi alumna quaedam: and constantly in translating Greek words and phrases (cp. Reid on Acad. i. 5, 20 and 24). For _nervis intenta_ cp. εὔτονος τῇ φράσει, Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 433 R: also ix. 4, 9, and note on 1 §60.

tam nihil otiosum, i.e. everything is so much to the point. Cp. i. 1, 35 otiosas sententias, of copy-book headings that have no point: viii. 3, 89 ἐνέργεια ... cuius propria sit virtus non esse quae dicuntur otiosa: ibid. 4, 16: ii. 5, 7: Sen. Epist. 100, 11 exibunt multa nec ferient et interdum otiosa praeterlabetur oratio. In Tac. Dial. §§18 and 22 the meaning is ‘spiritless,’ ‘wearisome’ (cp. lentitudo and tepor §21). In Quintilian there is also the idea of ‘superfluous,’ ‘unprofitable’: i, 12, 18 otiosis sermonibus, useless gossip: ii. 10, 8: viii. 3, 55 quotiens otiosum fuerit et supererit: ix. 4, 58 adicere dum non otiosa et detrahere dum non necessaria. Cp. Introd. p. xlv.

is dicendi modus: Cic. Orat. §23 hoc nec gravior exstitit quisquam nec callidior nec temperatior.

quod desit: a reminiscence of Cic. Brut. §35 nam plane quidem perfectum et cui nihil admodum desit Demosthenem facile dixeris. Quintilian qualifies his eulogy in comparing him with Cicero §107 below: cp. xii. 12, 26, and Cic. Orat. §§90 and 104. See Crit. Notes.

I:77 Plenior Aeschines et magis fusus et grandiori similis, quo 73 minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum. Dulcis in primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis— 74 ut non dixerim utilior— magis par.

§ 77. Plenior ... magis fusus: opposed to tam densa omnia, above. Aeschines had not the terseness and intensity of Demosthenes, but was not without a certain fluent vehemence of his own. Cicero mentions _levitas_ and _splendor verborum_ as characteristics of Aeschines, 73 Orat. §110; and Dionysius, Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 434 R, has ἀτονώτερος μὲν τοῦ Δημοσθένους, ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξεων ἐκλογῇ πομπικός ἅμα καὶ δεινός ... καὶ σφόδρα ἐνεργὴς καὶ βαρὺς καὶ αὐξητικὸς καὶ πικρὸς καὶ ... σφοδρός: Cic. de Orat. iii. §128 sonitum Aeschines habuit. For a comparison between the two great rivals v. Jebb’s Alt. Or. ii. 393 sq. See also Cicero’s de Optim. Gen. Orat., which was written as a preface to his translation of Aeschines’s speech against Ctesiphon and Demosthenes on the Crown.

grandiori is certainly not neuter (sc. generi dicendi) as Krüger (2nd edition), who compares the plural _maioribus_ §63 (where however we have _aptior_, not _similior_), and ii. 11, 2, which is quite different: moreover Quintilian never uses _grandius_ by itself to designate the more sublime style, and with such an expression as ‘grandiori generi dicendi’ he would have employed _magis accedit_ (§68) or _propior est_ (§78) rather than _similis_. If the text is allowed to stand _grandiori_ must be masc. (just like _strictus_) and be used in a good sense: e.g. Cic. de Opt. Gen. Or. §9 imitemur Lysiam, et eius quidem tenuitatem potissimum: est enim multis in locis grandior: Brut. §203 fuit Sulpicius ... grandis et ut ita dicam tragicus orator: Orat. §119 quo grandior sit et quodam modo excelsior. _Similis_ gets the force of a comparative from _magis_ preceding, and _minus_ following it (cp. §93 tersus atque elegans maxime: xii. 6, 6 a quam maxime facili ac favorabili causa) so that we may render ‘he has an appearance of greater elevation in proportion as his style is less compressed.’ See Crit. Notes.

minus strictus = remissior, cp. ἀτονώτερος above. Instead of being _nervis intenta_ (εὔτονος) his style was characterised as προπετής (‘headlong’) by the critics.

carnis ... lacertorum. The style of Aeschines is deficient in compact force: it is often overcharged and redundant (cp. πομπικός and αὐξητικός above). So also Dem. Or. 19 (of Aeschines) §133 σεμνολόγος: §255 σεμνολογεῖ. For _lacerti_ cp. Brut. §64 in Lysia saepe sunt etiam lacerti sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.

Hyperides, one of the leading orators of the patriotic party, was put to death by order of Antipater, B.C. 322, just seven days before the death of Demosthenes, with whom he had generally acted, though differences arose between them in later life.

Dulcis: §73. So Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 435 R χάριτος μεστός: cp. de Din. Iud. 8, p. 645 R, where he says that the imitators of Hyperides, by failing to reproduce his exquisite charm, as well as his force, became dry and rough in style: διαμαρτόντες τῆς χάριτος ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς ἄλλης δυνάμεως αὐχμηροί τινες ἐγένοντο.

acutus. Cic. de Orat. iii. §28 acumen Hyperides ... habuit: Orat. §110 nihil argutiis et acumine Hyperidi (cedit Demosthenes). _Acumen_ (§§106, 114) is the quality required for the _tenue genus_ which aims at instructing (Cic. de Orat. ii. §129: Quint, xii. 10, 59): it appeals mainly to the intellect. Here therefore _acutus_ means ‘pointed,’ ‘direct’: cp. xii. 10, 39, Orat. §§20, 84, 98, where it is used of style. _Subtilis_ and _acutus_ sometimes go together as characteristics of the plain style: so in 5 §2 _subtilitas_ is ascribed to Hyperides. On the other hand _acutus_ is used (§84 below) expressly of power of thought as opposed to power of expression: cp. too §83 inventionem acumine opposed to eloquendi suavitate, and §81 acumine disserendi ... eloquendi facultate. So it may be that Quintilian uses _acutus_ here to represent Dionysius: εὔστοχος μὲν ... καὶ συνέσει πολλῇ κεχορήγηται (p. 434 R).

minoribus causis. Cp. with this the criticisms of Longinus, Hermogenes, and others in Blass’s preface to the Teubner text. The author of περὶ ὕψους says:—“He knows when it is proper to speak with simplicity, and does not, like Demosthenes, continue the same key throughout,” §34, and below: “Nevertheless all the beauties of Hyperides, however numerous, cannot make him sublime. He never exhibits strong feeling, has little energy, rouses no emotion” (Havell). His style is “that of a newer school than Demosthenes—of the school of Menander and the New Comedy, to whom long periods and elaborate structure seemed tedious, and who affected short and terse statement, clear and epigrammatic points, smart raillery, and an easy and careless tone even in serious debate. Hence the critics, such as Quintilian, think him more suited to slight subjects.” Mahaffy, ii. p. 377. Dionysius says εὔστοχος μὲν σπάνιον δ᾽ αὐξητικός: he hits his mark neatly, but 74 seldom lends grandeur to his theme by amplification. His Funeral Oration is an exception: here he has ‘thoroughly caught from Isocrates the tone of elevated panegyric’ (Jebb). His reputation as a wit and an easy-going member of society may have helped to produce on casual students the impression Quintilian wishes to convey: ‘unquestionably one great secret of his success as a speaker,’ says Mr. Jebb, ‘was his art of making a lively Athenian audience feel that here was no austere student of Thucydides, but one who was in bright sympathy with the everyday life of the time.’ For his wit cp. Cic. Orat. §90 and Sandys’ note. Dionysius’s judgment is given at length in Jebb’s Attic Orators, ii. p. 383 sq.

ut non dixerim = ne dicam. Cp. 2 §15, and note. Tacitus makes a similar use of the potential perfect in secondary clauses.—For _utilior_ Maehly needlessly conjectures _futilibus_.

I:78 His aetate Lysias maior, subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis sit docere, quaeras perfectius; nihil enim est inane, nihil arcessitum, puro 75 tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior.

§ 78. aetate maior. The date of his birth has been variously fixed at B.C. 459 and B.C. 436: see Sandys, Introd. to Orator, p. xiii, and note; Wilkins, de Orat. i. (2nd ed.), p. 33. Jebb gives the approximate date of his extant work as 403-380 B.C.

subtilis atque elegans. Cic. Orat. §30 subtilem et elegantem: Brut. §35 egregie subtilis scriptor et elegans, quem iam prope audeas oratorem perfectum dicere: ibid. §64: de Orat. iii. §28 subtilitatem ... Lysias habuit: Orat. §110 nihil Lysiae subtilitate (cedit Demosthenes). It is the ‘plain elegance’ of Lysias, his artistic and graceful plainness, that Quintilian is commending: cp. ix. 4, 17 nam neque illud in Lysia dicendi textum tenue atque rasum laetioribus numeris corrumpendum erat: perdidisset enim gratiam, quae in eo maxima est, simplicis atque inaffectati coloris, perdidisset fidem quoque.—_Subtilitas_ and _elegantia_ go together 2 §19.

subtilis. Originally ‘suited for weaving’ (* _sub–telis_ from _tela_—Wharton). From this the word came to be used metaphorically:—(1) ‘graceful,’ ‘refined,’ ‘delicate’: subtilitas pronuntiandi, de Orat. iii. §42, ‘graceful refinement of utterance’: (2) ‘precise,’ ‘accurate,’ common in Cicero to represent ἀκριβης: cp. praeceptor acer atque subtilis, Quintilian i. 4, 25: (3) ‘plain,’ ‘unadorned’: especially subtile genus dicendi (xii. 10, 58) = τὸ ἰσχνὸν γένος, the ‘plain’ style of rhetorical composition, which, with a careful concealment of art, imitated the language of ordinary life, unlike the ‘grand’ style, which was more artificial, seeking by the use of ornament to rise above the common idiom. The sense in which the word is used here is mainly (3): it represents what Dionysius says Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 432 R, (Us. p. 28) ἰσχνότητι γὰρ τῆς φράσεως σαφῆ καὶ ἀπηκριβωμένην ἔχουσι τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἔκθεσιν. But there is a reference also to (1), helped out by the addition of _elegans_, ‘choice,’ ‘tasteful.’ The style of Lysias was plain, but not without Attic refinement.

docere. So Dion., in eulogising him for τὴν δεινότητα τῆς εὑρέσεως, says (de Lysia 15, p. 486 R), τὰ πάνυ δοκοῦντα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄπορα εἶναι καὶ ἀδύνατα εὔπορα καὶ δυνατὰ φαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ. He could make the most of his case: persuasiveness (πιθανότης) is mentioned (ibid. 13) as one of his leading characteristics. ‘His statements of facts,’ says Mr. Jebb (ii. 182), ‘are distinguished by conciseness, clearness, and charm, and by a power of producing conviction without apparent effort to convince’: cp. Dion. de Lysia 18, p. 492 R ἐν δὲ τῷ διηγεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα ... ἀναμφιβόλως ἡγοῦμαι κράτιστον αὐτὸν εἶναι πάντων ῥητόρων, ὅρον τε καὶ κάνονα τῆς ἰδέας ταύτης αὐτὸν ἀποφαίνομαι: and below, αἱ διηγήσεις ... τὴν πίστιν ἅμα λεληθότως συνεπιφέρουσιν. But that this is not the whole office of the orator Quintilian himself declares