iv. 5, 6 non enim solum oratoris est docere, sed plus eloquentia circa

movendum valet. Cp. iii. 5, 2: Brut. §105: de Orat. ii. §128. In regard to this, Lysias is comparatively weak: ‘he cannot heighten the force of a plea, represent a wrong, or invoke compassion, with sufficient spirit and intensity,’ Jebb: in the words of Dion. (19, p. 496 R), περὶ τὰ πάθη μαλακώτερός ἐστι: he understands οὔτε αὐξήσεις οὔτε δεινώσεις οὔτε οἴκτους. Cp. 13 ad fin.

nihil ... inane: cp. Orator §29 dum intellegamus hoc esse Atticum in Lysia, non quod tenuis sit atque inornatus sed quod nihil habeat insolens aut ineptum.

75 nihil arcessitum: Cp. Dion. de Lysia 13 ad fin. p. 483 R ἀσφαλής τε μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἢ παρακεκινδυνευμένη, καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἰσχὺν ἱκανὴ δηλῶσαι τέχνης ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἀλήθειαν εἰκάσαι φύσεως. Cp. 8, p. 468 ἀποίητός τις καὶ ἀτεχνίτευτος ὁ τῆς ἁρμονίας αὐτοῦ χαρακτήρ. So Ἀρχ. κρ. πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν αὐτάρκης—Krüger3 suggests nihil enim _inest_ inane. For the order see Introd. p. liii.

magno flumini: cp. Cicero, Orator §30 nam qui Lysiam sequuntur causidicum quemdam sequuntur, non illum quidem amplum atque grandem, subtilem et elegantem tamen et qui in forensibus causis possit praeclare consistere. Cp. Dion. 13, p. 482, where he says that, besides pathos, Lysias wants also grandeur and spirit: ὑψηλὴ δὲ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ Λυσίου λέξις, οὐδὲ καταπληκτικὴ μὰ Δία καὶ θαυμαστή ... οὐδὲ θυμοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἐστι μεστή. Cicero says he shows elevation at times, though grandeur was seldom possible in the treatment of the subjects he chose. Cp. the whole passage, de Opt. Gen. Oratorum §9 Imitemur si potuerimus, Lysiam, et eius quidem tenuitatem potissimum. Est enim multis locis grandior; sed quia et privatas ille plerasque et eas ipsas aliis et parvarum rerum causulas scripsit videtur esse ieiunior, cum se ipse consulto ad minutarum genera causarum limaverit. He therefore prefers Demosthenes as a model on account of his power: ib. §10 ita fit ut Demosthenes certe possit summisse dicere, elate Lysias fortasse non possit.

Lysias was the favourite model of those who at Rome, in Cicero’s time, sought to bring about the revival of Atticism. The unaffected simplicity of his diction, his purity, lucidity, and naturalness amply entitled him to this distinction. Dionysius’ criticism is most appreciative: he praises the style of Lysias ‘not only for its purity of diction, its moderation in metaphor, its perspicuity, its conciseness, its terseness, its vividness, its truth to character, its perfect appropriateness, and its winning persuasiveness; but also for a nameless and indefinable charm, which he compares to the bloom of a beautiful face, to the harmony of musical tones, or to perfect rhythm in the marking of time’—v. de Lysia xi, xii.: Sandys, Introd. to Orator, p. xvi.

I:79 Isocrates in diverso genere dicendi nitidus et comptus et palaestrae quam pugnae 76 magis accommodatus omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito: auditoriis enim se, non iudiciis compararat: in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo diligens 77 ut cura eius reprehendatur.

§ 79. Isocrates, the most celebrated of all the ancient teachers of rhetoric, and called the father of eloquence (ille pater eloquentiae, de Orat. ii. §10) from the number of orators produced by his school. His home is described as being a school of eloquence and manufactory of rhetoric for the whole of Greece, from which, as from the Trojan horse, there came forth heroes only: Brut. §32 Isocrates, cuius domus cunctae Graeciae quasi ludus quidam patuit atque officina dicendi: de Orat. ii. §94 cuius e ludo tamquam ex equo Troiano meri principes exierunt: Orat. §40 domus eius officina habita eloquentiae est. He is said to have died of voluntary starvation shortly after the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.) at the advanced age of 97. The story of his death is examined by Jebb, ii. 31.

in diverso genere dicendi. The pupil of Gorgias, according to Aristotle (v. Quint, iii. 1, 13), Isocrates worked out his master’s theory of elaborately ornate and rhythmical style of composition. His is not the _subtile genus_ of which Lysias is the best representative: _suavitas_ (‘smoothness’) rather than _subtilitas_ (‘plainness’) is his chief characteristic (de Orat. iii. §28). He carefully cultivated the period, to which he gave a large and luxuriant expansion: Or. §40 primus instituit dilatare verbis et mollioribus numeris explere sententias: Dion. de Isocr. 13, p. 561 R ὁ τῶν περιόδων ῥυθμός, ἐκ παντὸς διώκων τὸ γλαφυρόν. In comparing him with Lysias (de Isocr. ii.-iii.), Dion. notes that his style is less terse and compact, and characterised by a kind of opulent diffuseness (κεχυμένη πλουσίως), as well as by a more free use of metaphor and other tropes.

nitidus: its opposite is _sordidus_ (viii. 3, 49): cp. Brut. §238 non valde nitens sed plane horrida oratio. So nitidum et laetum (genus verborum) de Orat. i. §81: where Wilkins says the word is used ‘especially of things which are bright, because of the pains bestowed on them,’ and cps. Hor. Ep. i. 4, 15 ‘nitidum bene curata cute vises.’ There is the same opposition between niddus and _horridus_ Orat. §36: squalidus, ibid. §115: cp. de Orat. iii §51 ita de horridis rebus nitida ... est oratio tua: de Legg. i. 2, 6 (of Caelius Antipater) habuitque vires agrestes ille quidem atque horridas, sine nitore et 76 palaestra: Brut. §238 (of C. Macer) non valde nitens, non plane horrida oratio.

comptus—κομψεύεται, Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ.: cp. viii. 3, 42 non quia comi expolirique non debeat (oratio). With _nitidus et comptus_ cp. Cicero’s statement that he had lavished on a Greek version of the story of his consulship, ‘all the _fragrant essences_ of Isocrates and all the little perfume-boxes of his pupils’: totum Isocrati μυροθήκιον atque omnes eius discipulorum arculas, ad Att. ii. 1, §1.

palaestrae quam pugnae: Cp. Orat. §42 of epideictic oratory (dulce ... orationis genus) pompae quam pugnae aptius gymnasiis et palaestrae dicatum, spretum et pulsum foro: de Orat. i. §81 nitidum quoddam genus est verborum et laetum et palaestrae magis et olei quam huius civilis turbae ac fori. So of Demetrius non tam armis institutus quam palaestrae, Brut. §37. For the meaning cp. ibid. §32 forensi luce caruit intraque parietes aluit eam gloriam. Isocrates had not the vigorous compression of style necessary for real contests, πανηγυρικώτερος ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ δικανικώτερος ... καὶ πομπικός ἐστι ... οὐ μὴν ἀγωνιστικός Dion. Ἀρχ. κρ., p. 432 R: Pseudo-Plut. Vit. X Or. p. 845 (Φιλιππος) ἐκάλει τοὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ (Δημοσθένους) λόγους ὁμοίους τοῖς στρατιώταις διὰ τὴν πομπικὴν δύναμιν, τοὺς δ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους τοῖς ἀθληταῖς. For the figure involved in pugnae (ἀγών) cp. §§29, 31: 3, 3: 5, 17. Cicero says the pupils of Isocrates were great alike on parade and in actual combat: eorum partim in pompa partim in acie illustres esse voluerunt, de Orat. §94. See Jebb, ii. 70-71.

veneres: in this sense only in poetry and post-Augustan prose, and generally in the singular. Cp. Hor. Ars Poet. 320 Fabula nullius veneris sine pondere et arte. Cp. §100 illam solis concessam Atticis venerem: vi. 3, 18 venustum esse quod cum gratia quadam et venere dicatur apparet: iv. 2, 116 narrationem ... omni qua potest gratia et venere exornandam puto: Seneca, de Benef. ii. 28, 2 habuit suam venerem: Plin. 35, 10, 36 §79 (of paintings) deesse iis unam illam suam venerem dicebat quam Graeci charita vocant.

sectatus est: cp. Dion. de Isocr. 2, p. 538 R ὁ γὰρ ἀνὴρ οὗτος τὴν εὐέπειαν ἐκ παντὸς διώκει, καὶ τοῦ γλαφυρῶς λέγειν στοχάζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ ἀφελῶς. There is a certain elaborate affectation about Isocrates: what in Lysias is the gift of nature he attempts to gain by the aid of art,—πέφυκε γὰρ ἡ Λυσίου λέξις ἔχειν τὸ χαρίεν, ἡ δ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους βούλεται ibid. p. 541. For the whole passage cp. Orat. §38 In Panathenaico autem (§§1, 2) Isocrates ea se studiose consectatum fatetur; non enim ad iudiciorum certamen sed ad voluptatem aurium scripserat.

nec immerito: see on §27.

auditoriis ... non iudiciis: cp. §36: Dion, de Isocr. 2, p. 539 R ἀναγνώσεώς τε μᾶλλον οἰκειότερός ἐστιν ἢ ῥήσεως‧ τοιγάρτοι τὰς μὲν ἐπιδείξεις τὰς ἐν ταῖς πανηγύρεσι καὶ τὴν ἐκ χειρὸς θεωρίαν φέρουσιν αὐτοῦ οἱ λόγοι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐν ἐκκλησίαις καὶ δικαστηρίοις ἀγῶνας οὐχ ὑπομένουσι Aristotle, Rhet. i. a 9 (p. 1368 a) διὰ τὴν ἀσυνήθείαν τοῦ δικολογεῖν. Isocrates himself tells us that it was his weakness of utterance and timidity of disposition that precluded him from public appearances: Panath. §10 οὕτω γὰρ ἐνδεὴς ἀμφοτέρων ἐγενόμην, φωνῆς ἱκανῆς καὶ τόλμης, ὡς οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰ τις ἀλλος τῶν πολιτῶν. Cp. Cic. de Rep. iii. 30, 42 duas sibi res quominus in volgus et in foro diceret confidentiam et vocem defuisse: Plin. Ep. vi. 29, 6 infirmitate vocis, mollitie frontis, ne in publico diceret impediebatur. Moreover he laid claim to being a teacher of morality; and looking on rhetoric as the highest and most important branch of education, he spoke with contempt of those who wrote for the law-courts, and with whom victory was the only object: Jebb, ii. p. 7 and p. 43: Isocr. Panegyr. §11 with Sandys’ note.

inventione: here Dionysius says he is in no way inferior to Lysias: ἡ μὲν εὕρεσις τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων ἡ πρὸς ἕκαστον ἁρμόττουσα πρᾶγμα πολλὴ καὶ πυκνὴ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκείνης (sc. Lysiae) λειπομένη Iud. de Isocr. 4, p. 452 R.

honesti studiosus. This may refer to the diction of Isocrates: cp. Dion. Iud. 2, p. 538 R, where his λέξις is said to be ἠθική τε καὶ πιθανή: and again de Dem. p. 963. Cp. ix. 4, 146-7, on which Becher mainly relies for his proposal (supported by Hirt. Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 59) to take ‘honesti studiosus in compositione’ together: compositio debet esse 77 honesta, iucunda, varia ... cura ita magna ut sentiendi atque eloquendi prior sit: so viii. 3, 16. But two considerations seem to prove the correctness of the traditional interpretation and punctuation: (1) the ascription of _honestum_ (in an ethical sense) to Isocrates is peculiarly appropriate, and the word is constantly used in this sense by Quintilian (see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii γ): and (2) _diligens_ could hardly stand alone, divorced from _in compositione_: and moreover a similar expression (in compositione adeo diligens, &c.) is used by Dionysius, ἐν τῇ συνθέσει τῶν ὀνομάτων ... Ἰσοκράτην περιεργότερον (de Isocr. Iud. 11, p. 557 R): cp. p. 538. There is a similar criticism at §118 in cura verborum nimius et compositione nonnumquam longior.

As to (1) cp. Jebb, ii. pp. 44-5. The high moral tone of Isocrates is seen both in his choice of noble themes and in the care with which he ever keeps the higher aspects of his subject in view. Dion. Iud. 4, p. 543 R μάλιστα δ᾽ ἡ προαίρεσις ἡ τῶν λόγων περὶ οὓς ἐσπούδαζε καὶ τῶν ὑποθέσεων τὸ κάλλος ἐν αἷς ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διατριβάς‧ ἐξ ὧν οὐ λέγειν δεινοὺς μόνον ἀπεργάσαιτ᾽ ἂν τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐτῷ τὸν νοῦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἤθη σπουδαίους ... κράτιστα γὰρ δὴ παιδεύματα πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἐν τοῖς Ἰσοκράτους ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν λόγοις. (2) Though Becher points to the chiasmus obtained by punctuating ‘in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus in compositione’ (cp. §97: Bonn. Lex. pr. lxviii) the rhythm of the sentence tells the other way; and to his objection that the ethical point of view does not belong to the history of literature (especially when inserted between two such words as _inventio_ and _compositio_) we can only answer that Quintilian is not an artist in style, and that the ethical tone of Isocrates is too characteristic to have been overlooked.

There is no need for Maehly’s conjecture ‘disponendi studiosus’: nor for Eussner’s proposal to invert the clauses and read ... ‘compararat, honesti studiosus: in inventione facilis, in comp. a. d.’ &c.: on the ground that _honesti studiosus_ refers to the γένος ἐπιδεικτικόν of Isocrates, which is regulated by _honestum_, as the δημηγορικόν is by _utile_, and the δικανικόν by _iustum_.

compositione: §§44, 66; ix. 4, 116: quem in poemate locum habet versificatio eam in oratione compositio: ad Her. iv. 12, 18 compositio est verborum constructio quae facit omnes partes orationis aequabiliter perpolitas: Ἀρχ. κρ. p. 433 R, (Us. p. 28) καὶ αὐτοῦ μάλιστα ζηλωτέον τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐκλογὴν καὶ συνέχειαν. ‘Isocrates was the earliest great artist in the rhythm proper to prose,’ Jebb, ii. pp. 60-1. Cicero, Brutus §32 primus intellexit etiam in soluta oratione, dum versum effugeres, modum tamen et numerum quendam oportere servari: Orat. §174.

cura ... reprehendatur. This refers especially to his studied avoidance of hiatus: cp. ix. 4, 35 nimiosque non immerito in hac cura putant omnes Isocratem secutos, praecipueque Theopompum. So Orat. §151 in quo quidam Theopompum etiam reprehendunt ... etsi idem magister eius Isocrates—(with Sandys’ note). Dionysius (de Isocr. 2) contrasts in general terms his σύνθεσις (compositio) with that of Lysias, noting especially the point here alluded to: p. 558 R περιεργοτέραν, and de Dem. 4, pp. 963-4 R. Plutarch, de gloria Athen. p. 350 E πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἔμελλεν ἅνθρωπος (Isocr.) ψόφον ὅπλων φοβεῖσθαι καὶ σύρρηγμα φάλαγγος ὁ φοβούμενος φωνῆεν φωνήεντι συγκροῦσαι καὶ συλλαβῇ τὸ ἰσόκωλον ἐνδεὲς ἐξενεγκεῖν; Jebb, ii, pp. 66-7. With such excessive solicitude we can understand how Isocrates should have taken ten years to write the Panegyricus (4 §4).

The judgments of Cicero and Dionysius will be found conveniently summarised in Sandys’ Introd. to Orator, pp. xx-xxii.

I:80 Neque ego in his de quibus sum locutus has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto, nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos. Quin etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, 78 quamquam is primum inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus est fere ex Atticis qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero.

§ 80. ceteros: cp. on _decem_ §76. The use of the word involves a reference to a recognised group, from which he has omitted Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus. So Dion. p. 451 R, after mentioning Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines, says οὓς ἐγὼ τῶν ἄλλων ἡγοῦμαι κρατίστους. Demetrius is evidently an addition by Quintilian himself, as is shown by the use of _quin etiam_.

78 Demetrius, of Phalerum, governed Athens, under Cassander, from 317 B.C. till he was overthrown by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 307. He fled to Thebes and thence to Egypt, where he died in 283, after assisting Ptolemy to draw up laws and found his famous library. In citing him after the Attic orators, Quintilian seems to follow Cicero, Brut. §37 Phalereus ... successit eis senibus adulescens, &c. The same order (Phalereus before Demetrius) occurs in Cicero, de Legg. iii. 14: de Orat. ii. §95: de Rep. ii. 2: Brut. §285.—For _illum_ see on §17.

inclinasse: Brut. §38 (where _primus_ has been used (Halm) as an argument against _primum_ in the text, though Quintilian is only quoting from memory, as often, cp. §94): hic primus inflexit orationem et eam mollem teneramque reddidit et suavis, sicut fuit, maluit esse quam gravis. He impaired the strength of Attic oratory, depriving it of what Cicero calls its ‘sap and fresh vigour’ (sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus), and substituting an ‘artificial gloss’ (fucatus nitor): processerat enim in solem et pulverem, non ut e militari tabernaculo, sed ut e Theophrasti doctissimi hominis umbraculis. ibid. §37. Of all the orators who flourished after Demosthenes (when alia quaedam _molliora_ ac _remissiora_ genera viguerunt) he was the most polished: de Orat. ii. §95. He was more florid than Hyperides and Lysias, Brut. §285. In the Orator, §§91-2, Cicero says that his diction has a smooth and tranquil flow, and is also ‘lit up by the stars of metaphor and metonymy’: oratio cum sedate placideque labitur, tum illustrant eam quasi stellae quaedam tralata verba atque immutata. Cp. de Off. i. §3 disputator subtilis, orator parum vehemens, dulcis tamen, ut Theophrasti discipulum possis agnoscere.

multum ingenii ... et facundiae: Diog. Laert. v. 82 χαρακτὴρ δὲ φιλόσοφος, εὐτονίᾳ ῥητορικῇ καὶ δυνάμει κεκραμένος.

ultimus ... ex Atticis: Brut. §285 mihi quidem ex illius orationibus redolere ipsae Athenae videntur.

medio genere dicendi: the ‘middle’ style: see on §44. In xii. 10, 59 he says of this style ‘ea fere est ratio ut ... delectandi sive conciliandi praestare videatur officium’: with which cp. Cicero of Demetrius, _delectabat_ magis Athenienses quam inflammabat.—Of the middle style generally Cicero says (Orator, §21) est autem quidam interiectus inter hos medius et quasi temperatus nec acumine posteriorum nec flumine utens superiorum, vicinus amborum, in neutro excellens, utriusque particeps, vel utriusque, si verum quaerimus, potius expers; isque uno tenore, ut aiunt, in dicendo fluit nihil adferens praeter facilitatem et aequabilitatem, aut addit aliquos ut in corona toros (‘raised ornaments’ or ‘knots’) omnemque orationem ornamentis modicis verborum sententiarumque distinguit.

praefert omnibus Cicero: de Orat. ii. §95 omnium istorum mea sententia politissimus: Orat. §92 in qua (sc. media orationis forma) multi floruerunt apud Graecos, sed Phalereus Demetrius meo iudicio praestitit ceteris.—For _quem tamen_ see Crit. Notes.

§§ 81-84. Greek Philosophers:—

In this paragraph there is a correspondence between the criticisms of Quintilian and those of Cicero and Dionysius. In the Ἀρχ. κρ. (ch. 4, Us. pp. 26-7) the latter recommends the study of the Pythagorean philosophers (μεγαλοπρεπεῖς γὰρ τῇ λέξει καὶ ποιητικοί), holding up Xenophon and Plato as the best models, and eulogising also Aristotle and his followers: μιμητέον δὲ ... μάλιστα Ξενοφῶντα καὶ Πλάτωνα ... παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς μίμησιν ... φιλοτιμώμεθα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐντυνχάνειν. Quintilian’s selection of Theophrastus is probably motived by the passage in Cicero, Orat. §2 (already quoted by him in §33): philosophi quidam ornate locuti sunt, siquidem et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit et Aristoteles Isocratem ipsum lacessivit 79 et Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt et longe omnium, quicunque scripserunt aut locuti sunt, exstitit et gravitate et suavitate princeps Plato.

I:81 Philosophorum, ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae 79 M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? Multum enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.

§ 81. confitetur: xii. 2, 23 nam M. Tullius non tantum se debere scholis rhetorum quantum Academiae spatiis frequenter ipse testatus est: neque se tanta unquam in eo fudisset ubertas si ingenium suum consaepto fori non ipsius rerum natura finibus terminasset. In the Orator, §12, Cicero tells us he had got his oratory not from the narrow schoolrooms and mechanical workshops of the rhetoricians, but from the groves of the Academy, the real school for every kind of discourse: fateor me oratorem, si modo sim aut etiam quicunque sim, non ex rhetorum officinis sed ex Academiae spatiis exstitisse; illa enim sunt curricula multiplicium variorumque sermonum in quibus Platonis primum sunt impressa vestigia. Cp. Tac. Dial. de Or. §32. In the De Div. ii. §4 Cicero speaks of his rhetorical works as bordering on philosophy: quumque Aristoteles itemque Theophrastus, excellentes viri cum subtilitate tum copia, cum philosophia dicendi etiam praecepta coniunxerint, nostri quoque oratorii libri in eundem numerum referendi videntur.

praecipuum: cp. Orat. §62 (quoted above) longe omnium ... princeps Plato. So Dionysius ad Pomp. p. 752 R: de Dem. 41, p. 1083 R.

sive ... sive: cp. xii. 10, 26 quae defuisse ei sive ipsius natura seu lege civitatis videntur: Cic. pro Clu. §76. _Sive_ is frequently used as a single disjunctive, to give one word as an alternative for another: i. 4, 20 vocabulum sive appellationem nomini subiecerunt: xii. 10, 59 delectandi sive ... conciliandi officium. Cp. too Cic. de Am. §100 ex quo exardescit sive amor sive amicitia—a kind of brachyology: de Orat. ii. §70 in hac sive ratione sive exercitatione dicendi,—a shorter formula than ib. §29 hoc totum, quicquid est, sive artificium sive studium dicendi.

divina. Cic. Tusc. Disp. i. §79 quem (Platonem) omnibus locis divinum, quem sapientissimum, quem sanctissimum, quem Homerum philosophorum appellat (Panaetius). Cp. Dion. de Dem. 23, p. 1024 R πάντων ... φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ῥητόρων ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ πράγματα δαιμονιώτατον..

Homerica: §86 ut illi naturae caelesit atque immortali cesserimus: §§48, 65.

prosam orationem et. The omission of _et_, proposed by recent editors, would make Quintilian give a rather useless synonym for _prosa oratio_, which (like _prosa_ by itself) he often uses without explanation. _Prosa oratio_ is used of prose as contrasted with verse (cp. xi. 2, 39 facilius versus ediscimus quam prosam orationem): _pedestris oratio_ includes all composition of a prosaic order, not necessarily prose only: so Horace speaks of his Satires as _Musa pedestris_ (Sat. ii. 6, 17): _pedestres historiae_ in Car. ii. 12, 9 are prose histories: _sermo pedester_ in A. P. 95 (tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri) is homely language: cp. ib. 229, and Ep. ii. 1, 251. So Plato, Soph. 237 A πεζῇ τε ὧδε ἑκάστοτε λέγων καὶ μετὰ μέτρων: Aristoph. Fr. 713 παῦσαι μελῳδοῦς᾽ ἀλλὰ πεζῇ μοι φράσον. Palmer (on Hor. Sat. l.c.) cites also Luc. de Consecr. Hist. 8 πεζή τις ποιητική of a bombastic history: and adds ‘the metaphor is from a person soberly jogging on on foot, contrasted with the dashing pace of a mounted cavalier.’—For prose Cicero uses _oratio soluta_ (Brut. §32) to which he opposes _vincula numerorum_ (Orat. §§64, 77: de Orat. iii. §184).—Numerous examples of a similar use of _et_ are cited, Bonn. Lex. s.v. _et_ iii.

quodam Delphici, &c. See Crit. Notes. For _quodam_ cp. §109 dono quodam providentiae genitus: xii. 11, 5 ductus amore quodam operis: ib. 10 §21: ix. 2, 76: and §82 below; and for _Delphici ... dei_ Cic. de Legg. i. §58 cuius praecepti tanta vis ... est ut ea non homini cuipiam sed Delphico deo tribueretur.

80

I:82 Quid ego 80 commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur, et quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam.

§ 82. Xenophontis, §§33, 75.

iucunditatem: so Tac. Dial. 31. Dionysius’s criticism is fuller: καθαρὸς τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ σαφὴς καὶ ἐναργής, καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἡδὺς καὶ εὔχαρις: Diog. Laert. ii. 57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἀττικὴ Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς ἑρμηνείας: Suidas Ξενοφῶν Ἀττικὴ μέλιττα ἐπανομάζετο: Brutus, §132 molli et Xenophonteo genere sermonis: cp. ibid. §292: Orat. §32 cuius sermo est ille quidem melle dulcior sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus: de Orat. ii. §58 leniore quodam sono est usus, et qui illum impetum oratoris non habeat, vehemens fortasse minus, sed aliquanto tamen est, ut mihi quidem videtur, dulcior.—For _inadfectatus_, see Introd. p. xlii.

Gratiae: for the form of expression cp. Orat. §62 Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt (x. 1 §33). So §99 below: Plin. Ep. ii. 13, 7: Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 27.

de Pericle. So xii. 2, 22: 10, 65: Pliny, Ep. i. 20, 17 nec me praeterit summum oratorem Periclem sic a comico Eupolide laudari ... πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθητο τοῖσι χείλεσιν κ.τ.λ. (The line is given in Kock’s _Fragmenta_ 1, p. 281 πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν: so Meineke ii. p. 458.) Brutus §38 quemadmodum de Pericle scripsit Eupolis: §59 πειθώ quam vocant Graeci, cuius effector est orator, hanc Suadam appellavit Ennius ... ut quam deam in Pericli labris scripsit Eupolis sessitavisse huius hic medullam nostrum oratorem (sc. Cethegum) fuisse dixerit. (Cp. de Orat. iii. §138.) The phrase of which this is the explanation (suadae medulla—the essence, marrow, of persuasiveness) is used again de Sen. §50: cp. Quint, ii. 15, 4. Horace has Suadela, Ep. i. 6, 38.

quandam, i.e. something which may be called _persuadendi dea_: cp. _quodam_ below, and _quibusdam_ §76: xii. 10, ii quadam eloquentiae frugalitate. See Crit. Notes.

I:83 Quid reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam? Quid Aristotelen? Quem dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem. Nam in Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut 81 ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.

§ 83. Socratici §35.

elegantiam: §114: 2 §19: ‘chaste simplicity,’ Frieze.

Aristotelen. It is to be noticed that in both Dionysius and Quintilian, Aristotle comes after Plato and Xenophon: Ἀρχ. κρ. 4, (Us. p. 27) παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη εἰς μίμησιν τῆς τε περὶ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος καὶ τῆς σαφηνείας καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος καὶ πολυμαθοῦς: Brut. §121 quis Aristotele nervosior? Orat. §172 quis omnium doctior, quis acutior, quis in rebus vel inveniendis vel iudicandis acrior Aristotele fuit?

scientia ... copia ... suavitate: Orat. §5 admirabili quadam scientia et copia: Topica 1 §3 dicendi incredibili quadam quum copia tum etiam suavitate: cp. de Inv. ii. §6.

acumine: see on §77.

nam has come to serve as a transition-formula: so §§9, 12, 50: 4, 4. It generally involves an ellipse: cp. Sall, Iug. ch. 19, 2: 31, 2: 82, 2: Cicero, Tusc. Disp. iv. §52.

Theophrasto. Brut. §121 quis Theophrasto dulcior? Theophrastus succeeded Aristotle in the conduct of his school B.C. 322, and died 287.

tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus ut. Becher takes _tam_ closely with _divinus_, making _tam divinus est_ the pred. and _loquendi nitor ille_ the subj.: and so Krüger (3rd ed.). For the order of words he compares §122 habebunt magnam eos qui nunc vigent materiam vere laudandi, and adds (Quaest. p. 18) ‘omnino autem tenendum est perplexam et arcessitam verborum turbam magis quam ordinem (Bonn. Proleg. lxxviii.) aetatis argenteae scriptoribus in deliciis fuisse, quae intellectum legentium non tam adiuvet quam 81 impediat.’ We might also cp. §76 tam nihil otiosum, and 7 §27. Even in Cicero a similar separation occurs: pro Cael. §16 nunquam enim tam Caelius amens fuisset: in Verr. v. §121 quis tam fuit illo tempore durus et ferreus. Kiderlin, however (Hermes 23, p. 109), challenges this explanation, contending that the words _loquendi nitor ille divinus_ are obviously meant to be taken together, and that _ille_ makes it impossible to join _tam_ and _divinus_. He rejects as inappropriate the analogies cited from Brutus §58 (cp. §§174, 41): ad Q. Fr. i. 2, 3 §9 (atque ego haec tam esse quam audio non puto—where it has been proposed to insert a word): ad Fam. vi. 7, 1. But more weight should be attached to the following passages to which K. himself refers: Quint. ii. 16, 15 (sed ipsa ratio neque tam nos iuvaret neque tam esset in nobis manifesta, nisi, &c.) and viii. 3, 5 (et fulmina ipsa non tam nos confunderent si, &c.). Kiderlin however holds that all those passages differ from this, inasmuch as either there is a negative with _tam_, or it is joined with an adverb, or it follows _quam_ immediately. He rejects Spalding’s _tantus est_, and proposes to read _tam manifestus est_: _manifestus_ goes well with the preceding sentence, where Quintilian does not know which of Aristotle’s great points to praise most, while with Theophrastus there is no such doubt, since his _loquendi nitor_ is so striking that he is said, &c. K. thinks that _manifestus_ (which is a favourite word of Quintilian: see Bonn. Lex.) might easily have fallen out, as _tam est_ and _manifest_ are pretty much alike.—In support of the reading _loquendi_ (for which Meister gives, by a misprint, _eloquendi_), Kiderlin points out that Quintilian probablv wished to translate φράζειν.

nitor: cp. §§33, 9, 79 (where see note on _nitidus_): Cicero, de Fin. iv. 3, 5 primum enim ipsa illa, quae subtiliter disserenda erant, polite apteque dixerunt, tum definientes, tum partientes, ut vestri etiam; sed vos (Stoici) squalidius; illorum (sc. Peripateticorum et Academicorum) vides quam niteat oratio. Of the Peripatetics generally he says (Brutus §120) in doctrina atque praeceptis disserendi ratio coniungitur cum suavitate dicendi et copia.

nomen traxisse: Orat. §62 siquidem et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit: Diog. Laert. v. 38 τοῦτον, Τύρταμον λεγόμενον, Θεόφραστον διὰ τὸ τῆς φράσεως θεσπέσιον Ἀριστοτέλης μετωνόμασεν.

I:84 Minus indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres, sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen acuti magis quam (id quod sane non adfectaverunt) oratione magnifici. 82 § 84. Stoici veteres. See xii. 1, 24 sq. for a discussion of the various philosophical systems in regard to their fitness for oratorical purposes. For the comparative unfitness of the Stoic writers see esp. Cic. de Orat. iii. 18, 66: de Fin. iv. 28, 78 sq.: de Orat. ii. 38, 159. So too Brutus §114 (Stoicorum) peracutum et artis plenum orationis genus scio tamen esse exile nec satis populari adsensioni adcommodatum: §118 ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti paene verborum, eidem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur.

quae instituerant: ‘their principles.’ De Off. i. 1, 1 praecepta institutaque philosophiae: de Am. §13: de Fin. v. 3, 7 scripta et instituta: Brut. §31 and esp. §119.

colligendo: ‘arguing,’ not necessarily here of the formal process of syllogistic reasoning. Cp. xii. 2, 10 ambigua aperire et perplexa discernere et de falsis iudicare et colligere et resolvere quae velis oratorum est.

rebus acuti: ‘shrewd thinkers,’ rather than masters of the grand style. For the constr. (where in Greek the pr. part. would have been used) cp. §80 vel ob hoc memoria dignum.

quod sane non adfect. Cp. Sen. Ep. 108, 35 illud admoneo, auditionem philosophorum lectionemque ad propositum beatae vitae trahendam, non ut verba prisca aut ficta captemus et translationes improbas figurasque dicendi, sed ut profutura praecepta et magnificas voces et animosas, quae mox in rem transferantur: sic ista ediscamus ut quae fuerint verba sint opera.

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT (85-131)

§§ 85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.

§§ 85-100. Roman Poetry.

§§85-92. _Epic Poets._

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

§§93-96. _Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry._

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

§§97-100. _Dramatic Poetry._

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

§§101-104. Roman Historians.

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

§§105-122. Roman Orators.

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

§§123-131. Roman Philosophers.

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

82 §§85-100. Roman Poets.—Quintilian’s criticisms of Latin literature, though naturally more independent than his judgments of Greek authors, are hampered, as Professor Nettleship has shown (Journ. Phil. 18 p. 262 sq.) by ‘the idea of making canons of classical Latin authors to correspond as closely as possible with the Greek canons. Vergil leads the van among the poets as the Latin Homer; Macer and Lucretius follow as representing Hesiod and the didactic poets. The elegiac poets, Propertius and Tibullus, follow next, answering to Tyrtaeus; then the satirists who of course have no Greek counterparts; then the writers of lampoon, Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace, to match Archilochus; the lyric poets, Horace corresponding to Pindar; the dramatists, comic and tragic, among whom Varius is singled out as equal to any Of the Greeks: the historians, Sallust being matched with Thucydides, and Livy with Herodotus; the orators, Cicero being of course compared in detail with Demosthenes; and the philosophers, among whom we are told that Cicero is _aemulus Platonis_.’

I:85 Idem nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. Itaque ut apud illos Homerus, sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie proximus.

§ 85. Idem ... ordo ducendus. Cp. 5 §1 robustorum studiis ordinem dedimus: xii. 2, 10 ut ordinem retro agamus. There is a suggestion of military associations in the use of the phrase: tr. ‘in the same way we must marshal.’ Cp. Brut. §15 explicatis ordinibus temporum; and i. 4, 3 with Spalding’s note.—For _ordinem ducere_ in the sense of ‘to be the leader of a company’ (sc. as centurion) cp. Cic. Phil. i. 8, 20: Caes. B. C. i. 13, 4: iii. 104, 3: Livy ii. 23, 4.

Vergilius: his claim to rank along with Homer is indicated in