CHAPTER I.

§1. cognitioni, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.). _Cogitationi_ G and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in the ancient text.

§2. sciet G. The reading _scierit_ (Harl. 4995 and many codd.) is probably due to H, which gives _sciuit_ (so FT).

quae quoque sint modo dicenda. So GHFTL, and Halm. The alternative reading is _quo quaeque s. m. d._, S and all my 15th cent. MSS: Spalding and Meister, with the approval of Becher. See note ad loc. In the parallel passages i. 8. 1 Halm adopts Spalding’s reading (ut sciat) quo quidque flexu ... dicendum for quid quoque ABMS, and i. 6. 16 (notatum) quo quidque modo caderet for quid quoque BMS, and so Meister: Fierville returns to the reading of the MSS. In support of _quo quaeque_ other exx. might be cited: v. 10. 17 quo quaeque modo res vitari vel appeti soleat, and vi. 4. 22 quo quaeque ordine probatio sit proferenda. But the parallel instances in the Tenth Book quoted in the notes (1 §8: 7 §§5 and 6) seem to guarantee the correctness of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to take _quoque_ as the ablative of _quisque_ than (as Halm) as the relative with que.

tamen: GHFT Harl. 4950: _tanquam_ Harl. 2662, 11671, 4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244 _tanquam_ is corrected to _tamen_. _Paratam_ explains _in procinctu_: so that _tanquam_ is not so necessary as _velut_ in xii. 9. 21.

§3. ante omnia est: so all codd., and Halm. Hirt (Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin viii. p. 69 sq. 1882: ix. p. 312 sq. 1883) conjectured _ante omnia necessarium est_, and this is approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp. _necessarium_ just above, and _necessaria_ in §1. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84) first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may have been _ante omnia stat atque_, corrupted into _ante omniast [at] atque_: for which use of _sto_, see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forward _ante omnia necesse est_, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 428) proposed _ante omnia sciet_, though more recently he has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly suggested _ante omnia opus esse_. Perhaps the true reading may be _ante omnia prodest_.

The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following passage. GH agree in giving _proximam deinde inimitationem novissimam scribendi quoque diligentia_. This Halm converted into _proximum deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia_,—where the _est_ is certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whether _proxima deinde imitatio, novissima_ &c. would not be a sufficient change: Kiderlin compares ‘proxima huic narratio,’ ii. 13. 1, and ‘novissima qualitas superest,’ and objects to the citation of ‘proximum imitatio,’ in 1. 3, in support of the neuter, on the ground that there ‘signum ingenii’ is to be supplied.

Kiderlin’s proposed modification of Gemoll’s conjecture (l.c. p. 454 note, cp. Rhein. Mus. 46 p. 10 note) _proximum deinde multa lectio_ is adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the sequence of thought makes the special mention of _legere_ (alongside of _dicere_ and _scribere_) a necessity: _multa_ corresponds to _diligentia_ in what follows: cp. multa lectione §10. But _legere_ has already been touched on in §2, and moreover is included under _imitatio_ (sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione repetitorum).

§4. iam opere. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd. _iam opere iam_. Becher reports _iam opere_ also from the Vallensis.

qua ratione. For _qua in oratione_, the reading of all MSS., Hirt conjectured 187 _qua exercitatione_. Schöll proposed to reject _in oratione_ as a gloss: but _qua_ by itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint. with verbs of motion: see on 7 §11.

In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891), Kiderlin subjects the whole of §4 to a searching and destructive analysis. He translates: ‘doch nicht darüber, wie der Redner heranzubilden ist, sprechen wir in diesem Abschnitte (denn dies ist genügend oder wenigstens so gut, als wir konnten, besprochen worden) sondern darüber, durch welche Art von Uebung der Athlet, welcher alle Bewegungen von seinem Lehrer bereits genau erlernt hat, für die Kämpfe vorzubereiten ist.’ He doubts whether such passages as §33 and 7 §1 can be cited to justify the abrupt transition from orator to athlete, on the ground of the formal antithesis in which the two stand to each other,—‘orator’ coming in at the end of one clause, and ‘athleta’ standing at the head of another, in front of ‘quo genere exercitationis.’ And yet it is just the ‘orator’ who is to be understood in the ‘athleta.’ As to the sentence introduced by ‘Igitur eum,’ if by ‘athleta qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros’ we are to understand one who has mastered the whole theory of rhetoric, then it adds nothing to what has been said already, and is therefore altogether superfluous.

Kiderlin proposes to read: sed _ut_ (so L and S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995) athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore numeros, multo (nonnullo?) varioque (numuro quae G,—also H: num muro quae T: numeroque F L; nimirum quo S) genere exercitationis ad certamina praeparandus _erit_ (sit, the codd.) _ita_ (so S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit, instruamus, qua in _praeparatione_ (qua in oratione, the codd.) quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit. _Ut_ may easily, he contends, have fallen out before _at_: and the running of three words into one (_numeros multo vario—numero_) is paralleled by such a case as §23, where it will be found that Kiderlin sees _ut duo tresque_ in _utrisque_. For ‘multo varioque’ he compares viii. 5. 28 multis ac variis: x. 5. 3 multas ac varias: xi. 3. 163 varia et multiplex: xii. 1. 7 totae tam variis; and, for ‘varioque,’ vii. 3. 16 latiore varioque, and xii. 10. 36 sublimes variique. ‘Vario genere’ actually occurs i. 10. 7, and _multo_ may easily have been written in the singular, like _nonnullus_ vi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and elsewhere. The motive for changing _que_, _quae_, into _quo_ and _erit_ (_est_?) into _sit_ may have been the analogy of the foregoing _quomodo sit_. As for ut (sicut) ita (sic), it is so favourite a form with Quintilian that he uses it seven times in the first nineteen paragraphs of this chapter. _Qua in oratione_, the reading of all MSS., may have resulted from _qua in praeparatione_ more probably than from _qua ratione_, which appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the context as _qua in praeparatione_ (cp. _praeparandus_ above, and _parandae_ below). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what preparation (cp. praeparant §35, comparant §67, praeparetur 6 §6, praeparantur 7 §19) the orator may best and most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For the preposition (_in_ praeparatione) cp. viii. pr. 22: ut in hac diligentia deterior etiam fiat oratio.

The text of Quintilian, especially of this part of the Tenth Book, is admittedly very defective, and invites emendation: there is a great deal to be said for the theory that in many places several words must have dropped out. Kiderlin’s attempts to remedy existing defects are always marked by the greatest ingenuity: they are all well worth recording as evidences of critical ability and insight, even though it may be that not all of them will be received into the ultimate text. Here there seems no reason why Quintilian, who was notoriously a loose writer, should not have said in the concluding sentence of the paragraph what he had already said, in the form of a metaphor, in the clause immediately preceding. Indeed the word _igitur_ seems to suggest that after indulging in his favourite metaphor (_sed athleta_, &c.) he wishes to resume, as it were, and is now going on to say what he means in more ordinary language. It may not be artistic: but it is Quintilian. If he had had some of his modern critics at 188 his side when preparing a second edition of the _Institutio_ some of his angularities might have been smoothed away.

§5. Non ergo. Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: I find this reading in Harl. 4995, and Burn. 243. So Vall. Halm. has _Num ergo_, and so most codd. (including HFT Bodl. and Ball.).

§6. ex his. Qy. _ex iis_? so §128: cp. Introd. p. xlix.

§7. quo idem, Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: _quod idem_ Halm, supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree with GLS in _quod_: _quo_ occurs in Harl. 4995 only.

§8. quod quoque GH Halm, Meister: _quid quoque_ (as 7 §5) occurs in L S, also in Bodl., Ball. For _quid_ Zumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723 and 7724 (Fierville). _Aptissimum_ (strangely mangled in most codd.—e.g. _locis ita petissimum_ G) is given rightly in Dorv.

§9. omnibus enim fere verbis. This reading, ascribed by Meister to Badius, and by Halm to ed. Colon. (1527), I have found in Harl. 4995 (A.D. 1470): _ferebis vel_ G H: _fere rebus vel_ L S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis Becher reports _fere verbis vel_.

intueri, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I find _interim intueri_: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl., _interim tueri_.

quae nitidiore in parte occurs first in ed. Col. 1527: Vall.2 Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. shows _quae cultiore in p._: GH _quaetidiorem in p._: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl. _quae utiliore in p._

§10. cum omnem, &c. _cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamus_ GH: _cum omnem enim_, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and Krüger (3rd ed.), suggested _omnem enim sermonem a. pr. accipimus_.

§11. alia vero, Frotscher: _aliave_ GH: _aliaque_ Harl. 4995. This last Becher now prefers (_alia que_ Vall.: _alia quae_ Regius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.

τροπικῶς quasi tamen, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.): _tropicos quare tam_ GH, _quare tamen_, later MSS. Halm obelized _quare tamen_: Mayor only _quare_. Becher recommends _tamen_ by itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) reads _tamen quasi_, and is followed by Hild, who takes _quasi_ with _feruntur_ in the sense of _referuntur_ (μεταφορά): Zumpt took it with _eundem intellectum_. Gemoll approves of the exclusion of _quare_, which he thinks must have arisen from a gloss _figurate_ (either marginal or interlinear) on τροπικῶς. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks the _quare tam_ of GHL a mutilation of the gloss _figurate_: _gurate_ and _quare tā_ are not far apart.

§12. figurarum G (per compendium): _figuranus_ H. Kiderlin suggests _mutuatione figurarum_, sc. _ostendimus_: after which Quintilian continues ‘sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet.’ Cp. Cic. de Or. iii. 156 translationes quasi mutuationes sunt. Kiderlin adds (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 14 note) that in iii. 4. 14 all MSS. wrongly give _mutantes_ for _mutuantes_, and in i. 4. 7 A1 has _mutamur_ for _mutuamur_.

§15. hoc sunt exempla potentiora. _Hoc_ is a conj. of Regius (also Vall.2), all the MSS. giving _haec_ (hec). _Hoc_ appears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665. It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who says _quia_ stands too far away from _hoc_ to allow of such a construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According to him _haec exempla_ (those derived from _lectio_ and _auditio_) are set over against those which one gets in theoretical books and lectures: they are more telling, because they act directly on the mind, and are not served up as dry theory in the form of extracts (‘quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit’). He therefore understands ‘ipsis (exemplis) quae traduntur artibus,’ but admits that ‘etiam’ is thus otiose, and would therefore read _quam ipsis quae traduntur artibus_.

Schöll is supported by Hirt (Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin, 1882, p. 70), who thus gives the sense of the passage: ‘Der Wortschatz wird durch Lektüre und vieles 189 Hören erworben. Aber nicht nur seinetwegen soll man lesen und hören; man soll es auch noch aus einem anderen Grunde. In allem nämlich, was wir lehren, sind diese Beispiele, d.h. diejenigen, welche uns die Lektüre und der Vortrag bieten, wichtiger selbst als die Beispiele welche die Handbücher und Vorlesungen darbieten, weil, was der Lehrer nur als Forderung aufstellt, bei dem Redner That geworden ist und sich durch den Erfolg bewährt hat.’

Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. vii. 1879, 2, p. 168) objects that if Quintilian had wished to convey this meaning he would have said, not _haec exempla_, but _hinc ducta (petita)_ or _quae hinc ducuntur (petuntur) exempla_; and he rightly desiderates also _quam quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus_. Meister also opposes Schöll (Philol. xlii. p. 149): the order _quam ipsis quae traduntur artibus_ is in fact impossible.

On the whole it seems much better to keep _hoc_, and to understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: the _doctor_ relies only on precept, the _orator_ on example.’

Gertz conjectures _nam omnium quaecunque docemus hinc_ (cp. v. 10. 5: xii. 2. 31) _sunt exempla, potentiora_ (i.e. _quae potentiora sunt_) _etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus_. But with _hinc_, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb than _sunt_ would be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. giving _nihil_, and in xii. 2. 31 _hinc_ belongs to _bibat_ and _sumptam_. Kiderlin himself at first proposed _haec praestant exempla, potentiora_: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 15) in favour of _haec suggerunt exempla, potentiora_, &c. By _haec_ he understands _legere_ and _audire_, and gives the sequence of thought as follows:—‘Aber wenn auch auf diese Weise eine Fülle von Ausdrücken erworben wird, so ist das doch nicht der einzige Zweck des Lesens und Hörens. Denn _von allem_ was wir lehren (nicht nur von den Ausdrücken) liefert dieses (das Lesen und Hören) Beispiele, welche noch wirksamer sind als die vorgetragenen Theorieen selbst (wenn der Lernende so weit gefördert ist, dass er die Beispiele ohne Beihilfe verstehen und sie bereits aus eigener Kraft befolgen kann), weil der Redner das zeigt, was der Lehrer nur vorgeschrieben hat.’ For _suggerere_ Kiderlin compares i. 10. 7 artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret materiam interrogationi: cp. also §13 quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias dabit lectio, and ii. 2. 8 licet satis exemplorum ad imitandum ex lectione suppeditet.

§16. imagine et ambitu rerum: so Harl. 2662 L S Ball. Burn. 243 and Bodl.: followed by Spalding, Frotscher, Herbst, and Bonnell. GH give _imagine ambitu rerum_. Halm (after Bursian) bracketed _ambitu_: but it is more probable that _imagine_ is a gloss on _ambitu_ than vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [_imagine_] _ambitu rerum_. It seems just as likely, however, that _et_ has fallen out. Hertz suggested _imagine ambituve rerum_: Maehly thinks that _ambitu_ was originally _tantum_.

nec fortune modo. Gertz proposed _nec forma modo_: pro Mil. §1 movet nos forma ipsa et species veri iudicii.

§17. accommodata ut: ed. Col. 1527, and so Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.): _commodata ut_ Halm (after Bursian): _commoda ut_ Spald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS give _commoda aut_: L and all my MSS _commoda ut_ (except Burn. 243 which shows _comendat ut_).

et, ut semel dicam. Kiderlin would delete _et_, rendering ‘Stimme, Aktion, Vortrag ist, um es kurz zu sagen, alles in gleicher Weise belehrend.’

§18. placent—laudantur—placent: so Halm and most edd., following S, with which all my MSS. agree. The emphasis gained by the opposition of _placent_ and _non placent_ makes this reading probable. But GH give _laudetur_: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) prefer to follow Regius in reading _placeant—laudentur—placent_.

§19. e contrario. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd. vett.,’ occurs in 190 Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrote _contrarium_.

actionis impetu, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.): _actionis impetus_ GH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s in _impetus_ has been deleted): _ut actionis impetus_ Halm and Meister.

tractemus GHL: _tractamus_ all my MSS.: _retractemus_ Spald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 429) supports _tractemus_, arguing that the phrase is a sort of hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to Lex. p. xxxviii), or that the _re_ of _repetamus_ is to be supplied in thought with _tractemus_: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1 ‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’ _Tractamus_ in 5 §8 also supports this reading.

iteratione, Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: most MSS. _altercatione_ (as G) or _alteratione_ (as Harl. 2662).

§22. illud vero. The MSS. vary between _illa_ (GH) and _illud_ (Harl. 4995 Vall.2). Kiderlin suggests _illa ... utilissima_.

§23. Quin etiam si ... tamen: so all MSS. Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to exclude _quin_. Becher on the other hand objects (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887. xv. 2, p. 9). From some points of view the deletion would be an improvement: it would bring out better the chiastic arrangement, _utilissimum ... utrimque habitas legere actiones_ and _easdem causas ... utile erit scire_. But (1) such careless repetition (_quin etiam—quin etiam_) is not unusual in Quint.: and (2) _si_ when followed by _tamen_ often = _etiamsi_: Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c., so that it is not necessary to connect _etiam_ with it like _etiamsi ... tamen_ xi. 3. 48. The sentence (as recommending the reading of the ‘minus pares actiones’) forms an exception to the rule otherwise consistently followed, ‘non nisi optimus quisque legendus,’ &c.

Again Spalding, Bonnell, and Hild put the comma before, not after _aliquae_, which they take with _requirentur_ (‘yet in some cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any idea of _selecting from_ the ‘minus pares.’

causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire, Halm and Meister following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527: _causas utile erit scire_ Vall.: all other codd. _causas utrisque erit scire_. Meister thinks _non inutile_ would be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage. Gemoll suggests _causas ut plures egerint intererit scire_, Kaibel _ut quisque egerit e re erit scire_. Perhaps (with Becher) _causas ut quisque egerit intererit scire_.

Kiderlin’s treatment of the passage merits a separate notice. He accepts the first _quin etiam_, as the reading of the MSS., and also as quite appropriate to the context (‘in cases even where the combatants are not equally matched—as were Demosthenes and Aeschines’). But he doubts whether Quintilian could have written two sentences running, each beginning with _quin etiam_, and relies greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. have _quis etiam_,—_quin_ being an emendation by Regius. The MS. reading is _quis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire_: this Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiam _illud utile neget_ (or, negat esse utile) easdem causas ut quisque egerit, scire’?—comparing xii. 10. 48 ceterum hoc quod vulgo sententias vocamus ... quis utile neget? But _ut quisque_ does not quite satisfy him. In the sequel reference is made to cases in which two and even three orators have handled the same theme: Kiderlin therefore proposes _ut duo tresque_ for the MS. _utrisque_. The passage would then run: ‘quis etiam _illud utile neget_ (negat esse utile?) easdem causas u_t duo_ tr_e_sque (tresve?) e_g_eri_n_t, scire?’ The position of _easdem causas_ is due to a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position of _scire_ cp. v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.

191 §28. poeticam ostentationi comparatam. This is Schöll’s conj. for the MSS. _genus ostent. comparatum_, which is however defended by Becher in Bursian’s Jahresb. (1887), p. 40: he contends that the feminine participles below (_adligata_, _depulsa_) refer to _poesis_, present in the mind of the writer, and that the text of the MSS. is simply a case of constr. κατὰ σύνεσιν: cp. ix. 2. 79: ib. 3 §3, and such passages as Cic. Or. §68 ego autem etiamsi quorundam grandis et ornata vox est poetarum, tamen in ea (sc. poesi), &c. This would support also the traditional reading _nescio an ulla_ §65 below, where see note. Becher explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent. comp. (esse)—Halm prints _genus * * * ostent._, and supposes that _poeseos_ has fallen out.—For _genus_ cp. §68: de Or. ii. §55, where _genus hoc_ = history.

Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian cannot have passed from _genus_ to _adligata_: Halm’s _genus poeseos_ is not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of the word _poesis_ (cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there only in A _in rasura_—GM giving _poetas_, which was probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now read _poetica_). The text may have been altered by interpolation from viii. 3. 11: namque illud genus (sc. demonstrativum) ostentationi compositum solam petit audientium voluptatem,—from which passage _genus_ may have been written in where the Greek ποιητικήν had fallen out, giving rise to comparat_um_. Meister, who adopts _poeticam_, thinks it probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions are _praeter id quod_, _genus ost. comp._, _sol. petit vol._ (Hild),—a transposition which does no good, especially as it leaves no subject to ‘iuvari’: _figurarum sed esse hoc eloquentiae genus ost. comp. et ... iuvari_ (Binde); _fig._, _ingenuam ost. comparatam artem_ (Gemoll); Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 164) thinks we ought to assume a lacuna, and would read _poeticam (or poesin?) ut illud demonstrativum genus_, _ostentationi comparatam_: cp. ii. 10. 11: v. 10. 43: iii. 7. 28: viii. 3. 11.

§30. neque ego: Spald., Frotscher, Herbst, Halm, Meister. _Neque ergo_ all MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the latter explaining _ergo_ ‘viz. because I have given this caution to the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’

§31. quodam uberi: Spald. for _quodam moveri_ of GH and all MSS. except Harl. 4995, Vail.2 and Burn. 243, which give _quodam molli_. Kiderlin suggests _quodammodo uberi_, thinking that _uberi_ became _ueri_, while the letters _mo_ (in _moveri_) point to _modo_: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A has _quomo_ for _quomodo_, and xi. 3. 97 where b has _homo_ for _hoc modo_. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which have _moveri_) I find _quodammodo vero_.

est enim, H, which (like G) has _est_ also after _solutum_. Halm adopts Osann’s conjecture _etenim_: Kiderlin suggests _ea enim_ or _ista enim_, which may be right. Becher defends the double _est_ (GH), comparing ix. 3. 7 quod minus mirum est, quia in natura verborum est, and i. 3. 14 (reading servile est et ... iniuria est).

poetis, H, following b: _poesi_ Spald. ‘recte ut videtur,’ Halm.

§33. adde quod, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.). _audeo quia_ GH; _audio quia_ L S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, &c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj. _ideoque_: and the Bonn. Meister ed. reads _adeo_. Becher proposes _quid? quod_: Kiderlin _id eo magis (fortius) dicere audeo_. The last conj. revives what I find is the reading of some old edd. (e.g. ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570) _quod dicere fortius audeo quia_, except that from _id eo_ the eye might pass more easily to _audeo_.

opus, accepted from Spalding (who conjectured it independently) by Halm and Meister, already appears in ed. Col. 1527 and in that of Riccius 1570.

§34. rerum exemplorumque. Kiderlin suspects a lacuna after _rerum_ and suggests _ex cognitione rerum enim venit copia exemplorum_. His argument is that 192 while ‘ex cognitione rerum’ might serve as a sort of explanation of ‘ex historiis,’ ‘exemplorumque’ must also be accounted for, and that after ‘locum’ we expect to hear what advantage is derived from historical literature, not from what that advantage arises. The omission by a copyist of _enim venit copia_ explains how _exemplorum_ comes to be joined with _rerum_: cp. xii. 4. 1 in primis vero abundare debet orator exemplorum copia cum veterum tum etiam novorum, and esp. ii. 4. 20 et multa inde cognitio rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in omni genere potentissima, iam tum instruit, cum res poscet, usurum. For _ne omnia_ (Badius and Vall.2) the codd. give _nec omnia_, which Becher prefers.

§35. vitio factum est oratorum. G gives _est orum_ with _al. oratorum_ written in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with FTLS Bodl.) gives _est alia oratorum_,—one of many strong indications that it was copied from G: for _alia_ some MSS. give _alias_. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks that _orum_ in G may have stood for _rhetorum_.

quae sunt istis. GHLS and Vall. all give _sint_. But iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.

Stoici supplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin would place it after _maxime_, just as _Socratici_ stands after _optime_. Perhaps _Stoici_ and _Socratici_ are both glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves the matter of oratory (_de iustis_, &c.) and also the form (by _altercationes_ and _interrogationes_). _Stoici_ looks appropriate to _de rebus divinis_ (see note): and _argumentantur acriter_ is quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the other hand _interrogationibus_ would be as apt in regard to them as to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum suarum atque _interrogationum_ laqueis te inretitum tenerent.

On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note, _altercationibus_ and _interrogationibus_ are taken as datives (as often in Quint. after _praeparo_), referring to two well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As regards the _altercatio_ indeed, previous writers on rhetoric had not stated any special rules for its conduct, probably (as Quint., in his treatment of the subject, suggests vi. 4. 1) because it was sufficiently covered by precepts of a more general kind. In a court-of-law, the _altercatio_ was a discussion carried on between opposing advocates in the way of short answers or retorts: it followed (when resorted to) the examination of the witnesses, which was in Roman usage _preceded_ by the main speeches for the prosecution and defence, embracing all the facts of the case (Cic. in Verr. i. 1 §55). Cp. Cic. Brut. §159 iam in altercando (Crassus) invenit parem neminem.—See Poiret, _L’éloquence judiciaire à Rome_ pp. 212-216.

§37. qui sint legendi. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS. _qui sint. Legendi_ appears in ed. Col. 1527, and I have found it also inserted by a later hand above the line in the Bodleian codex. It may have fallen out because of _legendo_ above, and Spalding is probably right in regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for eliminating the asyndeton by reading _et quae_ (with Meister) or _quaeque_ (Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that the original may have run _qui sint qui prosint_: cp. 2 §14 tum in ipsis quos elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantum _utilitatis_ in legendo iudicemus, and §40 paucos enim ... utilitatis aliquid. Cp. ii. 5. 20 nec prodesse tantum sed etiam amari potest (Cicero).

§38. [quibuscum vivebat] is bracketed by Krüger (3rd ed.), as it had already been by Frotscher and Herbst. This reading first appears in the Aldine edition: the only MS. in which I have been able to find any trace of it is Burn. 243, where _quibuscum convivebat_ is inserted as a correction. Some have refused to recognise it as a gloss, in spite of the uncertainty of the MSS., and have sought to interpret it ‘with whom he lived in close, familiar intercourse’ (opp. to quos viderim §§98, 118): cp. Cic. de 193 Off. i. §143 quibuscum vivimus, ib. §46. But in Brut. §231 Cicero distinctly says in hoc sermone nostro statui neminem eorum qui viverent nominare, whence Jeep was led to conj. _qui quidem viverent_: Hortensius, for example, was ‘aetatis suae,’ but had died four years before the date of the Brutus. So Geel conjectured _qui tum vivebant_ (a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570): Törnebladh _qui quidem tum vivebant_, Wrobel _qui tunc vigebant_ (cp. §122), Zambaldi _ut quisque tum vivebat_, and Kiderlin _qui quidem nondum e vita excesserant_; see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to read _qui quidem sescenti erant_.

G (and practically H) gives _quidqui convivebit_. FT part company with H, the former reading _quod quid convivabit_, the latter _quidque contuuebit_ (man. sec. _quod quisque contuebat_). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) have _quid quisque convivebat_ (_convivabit_ L). The Carcassonensis gives _quid quod convivabit_.

persequamur [et philosophos]. _Persequamur_ is a conj. of Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. give _et Graecos omnes et philosophos_ (_philosophis_ HFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is dated A.D. 1470) I have however found _et philosophos exequar_: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The reading of the ed. Col. 1527 is _Graecos omnes et philosophos et poetas persequi velim_.

Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejected _et philosophos_ as a gloss, as both here and in the next sentence Quint. is evidently speaking of orators only. Certainly, if it stood, we should expect the poets and historians to come in also. Accordingly Claussen (Quaest. Quint. p. 335) suspected a lacuna consisting both of the finite verb and the poets and historians: Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts his conjecture and reads _si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur et poetas et historicos et philosophos?_ He cps. 1 §25 nam si, quantum de quaque re dici potest, persequamur, finis operis non reperietur: v. 10. 91: viii. 5. 25. So Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 520), except that he omits ‘persequamur,’ and proposes to read above _de Romanis tantum_ et _oratoribus_ for _et_ in sense of ‘and that’: cp. §§51, 94. Gertz suggests _et Graecos omnes persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et philosophos_. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.) prefers _persequamur_ because of _iudicemus_ and _adiungamus_ above. If the verb could be dispensed with, he would propose ‘et praeter hos oratores etiam omnes poetas et historicos et philosophos,’—arguing that et praeter hos and philosophos may have run together in the eye of the copyist and so caused the lacuna. For _et philosophos_ Jeep suggested _explico novos_.

§39. fuit igitur, all codd.: _fuerit_, Regius. That the difficulty of the passage was felt by the early editors is obvious from this emendation, and also from the fact that in §40 the traditional reading has been _non est tamen_ (for _non est_): _sed non est_, Spalding: _at non est_ Osann.

Taking §§37-45 as they stand the sequence of thought seems to be this: ‘If I am asked to recommend individual writers I shall have to take refuge in some such utterance as that of Livy. His _dictum_ was “read Demosthenes and Cicero first, and let others follow in the order of their resemblance to Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mine is that there is some good to be got out of almost every author,—except of course the utterly worthless. But (_sed non quidquid_, &c. §42) the particular object I have in view itself supplies a limitation for what would otherwise be an endless task (_infiniti operis_ §37). My business is the formation of style. In regard to this matter there is a difference of opinion—a cleavage between the old school and the new (see esp. §43). This opens up the whole question of the various _genera dicendi_, a detailed examination of which I must postpone: for the present I shall take the various departments of literature (_genera lectionum_ §45) and mention in connection therewith certain representative writers who may serve as models for the students of style (_(iis) qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volent_).’

This seems satisfactory enough, especially in the case of so loose a writer as Quintilian. 194 §§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical: §39 says ‘Livy’s prescription was the safest,’ while §40 gives a general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverance _brevitas_ is meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and philosophy.

In his _Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians Institutio Oratoria_ (Cassel, 1889), Dr. Heinrich Peters makes some very drastic proposals in regard to the sections under discussion. He fails to see any satisfactory connection between the purport of §§40-42 and that of §§37-39. And he thinks the statement of a _summa iudicii_ in §40 is inconsistent with the special treatment of individual authors which begins at §46. On these and other grounds he proposes to transfer §§40-42 (down to _accommodatum_) to §44 and read: _interim non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa_. _Summa iudicii_ then furnishes the antithesis to _disseram diligentius_: _nostri quoque iudicii_ receives additional point from the reference to conflicting views which immediately precede it: an explanation is gained of the emphasis laid in §§40-41 on the distinction between the _veteres_ and the _novi_,—the later sections §§43-44 explain the preceding (§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in §39 to _verum antequam de singulis_ in §42 is natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue: _quid sumat_ (for _summatim_, see below) _et a qua lectione petere possit qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volet attingam_. This gives a very satisfactory and even a necessary sequel, he thinks, to _non quidquid ... accommodatum_. Sections 40-42 are then addressed, not to the student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the comparative merits of the _veteres_ and the _novi_: Quintilian says ‘something may be learned from everybody.’ Then he continues ‘for the formation of style a selection is necessary, and that I now proceed to make under the two heads of what the student is to appropriate and to whom he is to go for it.’

quae est apud Livium, &c. Schöll unnecessarily conjectured _qua praecipit Livius_ (cp. ii. 5. 20) or _qua apud Livium in ep. ad fil. praescribitur_,—doubting if _brevitas_ could have an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G gives _quae apud Livium epistula_, _in_ being inserted by the second hand, which H as usual follows.

§42. ad faciendam φράσιν. This is the reading now proposed by Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), though φράσιν appeared as early as the edition of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readings _ad farisin_ G: _ad faciendam etiam ad farisin_ H (_affaresim_ S. Harl. 2662 Bodl. Ball. _apharesim_ Harl. 4295) _ad faciendam affarisin_ L. Meister adopts the vulgate, _ad faciendam etiam phrasin_: Halm reads _ad phrasin_.

The parallel passage in §87 clearly makes for _faciendam_. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp. ἕξις in §1: §59: 5 §1, where the MSS. vary between _ex his_, _lexis_, _exitum_, &c.: τροπικῶς §11. Cp. on §87. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt) show ἀφέρεσιν. _Etiam_ Kiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may be _protinus_ et _ad faciendam_ φράσιν.

de singulis loquar, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omits _loquar_, with G.

§44. tenuia atque quae. In a very interesting note (Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, 1891, p. 8) Becher establishes the correctness of this reading, instead of the traditional _tenuia et quae_. The Vallensis has _tenuia atque que_ (i.e. _atque quae_): for what may appear a cacophony, Becher compares i. 3. 8 atque ea quoque quae, Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 33. 90 atque qui. ‘That V (Vall.) has preserved the true reading is confirmed by the other codices: not only S, which gives _tenia atque que_, but also GL [and H], _tenui atque_, which is nothing else than tenui AtQUE, i.e. tenuia atque quae.’ In the Rh. Mus. xi. (‘zur Kritik der ciceronischen Briefe’ pp. 512-13) Buecheler says, ‘One of the commonest sources of corruption in the Florentine codex is that when two “consonant syllables” follow each other, one is omitted. The 195 reason of this phenomenon is probably the fact that in the archetype of which this MS. is an indirect copy the sounds which were to be repeated were distinguished by letters of a larger size.’ Becher finds the same phenomenon in the manuscripts of Quintilian, and gives the following examples, selected at random from many others: §45 aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e. aliQUOS = aliquos quos: §54 reddit G(H)V, i.e. redDIt = reddidit (so cod. Almen.): §79 auditoris S (audituris G, also H), i.e. auditorIs = auditoriis (as Vall. M: also Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244 Harl. 4829, 4995): ibid. comparat GMS (and all my codd.) i.e. compARat = compararat: §84 probandoque G (and H) = probandoQUE: §89 etiam sit G (see Crit. Note _ad loc._) = etiam SIt. Especially significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. o fortuNATAM me consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground for _atque_, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’ more closely than _et_, in the fact that already in Cicero _tenuis_ is used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.

lenis ... generis. For _lenis_ Krüger (3rd ed.) reads _levis_, adopting a conj. of Meyer (Halm ii. p. 369) for which cp. §52 (levitas verborum) and v. 12. 18 (levia ac nitida): supported by Becher Phil. Runds. iii. 14. 430. In this sense _levis_ (λεῖος) is opp. to _asper_: cp. de Orat. iii. §171 struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus et _levis_: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint. ii. 5. 9 _levis_ et quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.

interim. H. Peters would prefer _nunc_ (if the text stands as it is), comparing v. 11. 5; 14. 33: ix. 4. 19.

summatim quid et a qua. Kiderlin approves of Meister’s retention of the vulgate: _petere_ must have an object. So Krüger, 3rd ed. The original reading in G is _sumat et a qua_, corrected to _sumat quia et a qua_, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my other MSS. agree with S in reading _summa_ for _sumat_. Even if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would prefer _quid sumat et a qua_, as nearer the MSS.

§45. paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed. have _paucos_ (_sunt enim em._) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc. tantum) §91. Halm reads _paucos enim_ (_sunt autem em._) GH give _paucos enim sunt em_. L and the British Museum MSS. all read _paucos sunt enim_. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and approved by Kiderlin: cp. §101 qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37 quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposed _paucos enim_, _sunt enim_.

his simillimi, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares §39: _his similes_ Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.). G has _hi similibus_, corrected by the same hand to _simillimis_: H gives _his simillimis_: all the other MSS. _his simillimi_.

plures is the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and also Vall. (Becher). GHFT give _plurimis_: LS and the later MSS. generally _plurimos_. Kiderlin proposes _pluris iis_ as being nearer _plurimis_. The pronoun, he argues, is not superfluous, because Quintilian is distinguishing between ‘qui confirmare fac. dic. volent’ (i.e. those who have finished their rhetorical studies and want practice) and the ‘studiosi’ (young men busy with theory). The latter will read more authors than those for whom _this_ book is intended, its aim being (§4) to instruct the young orator (after the stage of theory) how best and most readily to use what he has acquired.—For _aliquos quos_ see on _tenuia atque quae_ §44 above.

qui a me nominabuntur, ed. Col. 1527; GH have _quia nom_.: Vall. LS _qui nom_. Hertz rejects _a me_, and he may be right.

§46. omnium fluminum. GHL Bodl. _annium_: S Harl. 2662, 4950, Ball. _amnium vim_. Halm, following Osann, read _omnium amnium_: but though _omnium_ is necessary (cp. πάντες ποταμοί Il. 21. 196), Quintilian would surely have avoided such 196 a cacophony as _omnium amnium_. Wölfflin conjectured _omnium fluminum_ (Rhein. Mus. 42, Pt. 1, 1887, p. 144), and this is now accepted by Meister (vol. ii. p. 362 and Pref. to Book x, p. xiii). Wölfflin supposes that the archetype had _omnium fontiumque_, _fluminum_ having fallen out: _omnium_ was then corrected into _amnium_. _Amnis_ however is rare, and _fluminum_ not only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly found: cp. §78 puro fonti quam magno flumini propior: viii. 3. 76 magnorum fluminum navigabiles fontes: Lucr. iv. 1024: v. 261, 945 (‘fluvii fontesque’): Ovid Met. i. 334.

§47. ac consiliorum L: _hac con._ G: _et con._ Prat. Put. _atque con._ 7231, 7696.

§48. operis sui ingressu: _operis si ingressus_ GH: _operis sui_ Bodl.: _operis_ Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv. Ball. Badius conj. _ingressu_, and Halm added _in_, which is however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4 initiis operum suorum. Becher keeps _ingressus_, but makes it a genitive dependent on _versibus_.

Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) give _nam_ for _non_, and in the former case the _nam_ looks very like _viam_. It is possible that _viam_ may be the true reading: cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on the _regular treatment_ of a subject. _Age vero_ is not always found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Without _non_, the reading may possibly be _age vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in paucissimis_, &c. The _si_ after _operis_ may have arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous for _ingressus_, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc. vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong. _Utrumque opus ingressus_ would have been more natural: _viam utriusque operis ingressus_ is not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable to keep the question and read _nonne viam ut. op. ingressus_.

nam benevolum. _nam et ben_, Put. 7231, 7696: so too the Carcassonensis.

§49. ceteraque genera. GHL and the Brit. Mus. MSS. give _ceteraque quae_: so too Bodl. and Ball. _Genera_ was conjectured by Caesar (Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposes _ceteraeque viae ... multae_: Kiderlin _ceteraque, quae probandi ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?_ For _quae ... sunt_ he compares §106 omnia denique quae sunt inventionis.

§50. ut magni sit. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.: _sint_ H: _ut magni sit viri_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (_sint_ L): _ut magnum sit_, Gensler: _ut magni sit spiritus_, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).

§51. et in omni: _et_ om. Prat. and Put.

clarissima LS and most codd.: _durissima_ GHT Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Dorv.

§52. utiles circa praecepta, &c. Kraffert proposed _utilis circa praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum_ ... With _praecepta_ may there not have been a genitive in the original text: _utilis circa praecepta sapientiae_ (pr. §19: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhaps _utiles circa morum praecepta sententiae_ (xii. ii. 9)?

§53. secundum Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv. Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, gives _parem_ (cp. §127 pares ac saltem proximo): _aequalem_ would be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in §55. Schöll now thinks _secundum_ an old interpolation, and conjectures _quam sit aliud atque aliud proximum esse_, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.

§54. poetarum iudices Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball. _iudicium_ G, _iuditium_ H. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis §109) and Mayor removed it from the text.

reddidit cod. Almen.: _reddit_ GHFT Vall. Harl. 4995 Bodl. Burn. 243. _Edidit_ is given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.

sufficit MSS.: Halm would prefer _suffecit_ (cp. §123). For _parem_ many MSS. 197 give _equalem_, which must have been a gloss: S has _equalem credidit parem_, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd. p. lxxix) Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) and 11671 (A.D. 1467).

§56. Macer atque Vergilius. Unger suggested _Valgius_ for Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to insert the comma after _Vergilius_ instead of after _idem_ below.

§59. adsequimur GHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’s _assequatur_ and 4829 which has _assecuntur_). Halm reads _adsequamur_, and is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes _ut adsequamur_.

§60. quibusdam quod quoquam minor est. GH give _quibus_ for quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. have _quibusdam quod quidem minor est_: (_minoris_ Bodl. Burn. 243): _quod quodam_ 7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposes _quod idem amarior est_: _amarus_ (§117) indicates the excess of _acerbitas_ (§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. But _quoquam_ (Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that there _is_ any one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s mind. _Quoquam_ is not to be restricted to the narrow circle of iambic writers, otherwise _materiae_ would have no point. Quintilian means that Archilochus must be ranked immediately after Homer, if indeed the disadvantage of his subject-matter forbids us to place him alongside of Homer. That he had a schoolmaster’s liking for an ‘order of merit’ is shown by §§53, 62, 85, 86.

§61. spiritu, magnificentia, Put. 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671, Dorv.: _spiritus_ H (_sps._) Prat. 7231 Harl. 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl. Ball., and so Halm and Meister. The strongest argument for the abl. is that the nouns go together in pairs,—spiritu magnificentia, sententiis figuris, copia ... flumine. So Claussen (Quaest. Quint. p. 334), who compares Dion. Hal. ἀρχ. κρ. 2. 5, p. 420 R ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ σχηματισμῶν.

§62. Stesichorum Badius: _iste sichorus_ GH: _Stesichorus_ Bodl. 7696: _Stesicorus_ Harl. 4995: other MSS. _Terpsichorus_ or _Terpsicorus_.

§63. magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: GH _magnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis_; so Burn. 243 and Bodl. (_orationi_); most other MSS. _et diligens plurimusque_ (_plurimum_ or _plurimumque_) _Homero similis_: _plurimumque oratio_, Prat. Put.: _plerumque orationis_ 7231, 7696. Halm gives _dicendi vi_, which, after _in eloquendo_, would be strange. Wölfflin proposes _elegans et_ (for dicendi et, diligens et): cp. §§78, 83, 87, 93, 114, and Dion. Hal. l.c. Ἀλκαίου δὲ σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετὰ δεινότητος ... καὶ πρὸ πάντων τὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων ἦθος. Halm’s _dicendi vi_ rested on μετὰ δεινότητος, but we need not suppose that Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius. With _in eloquendo_, _diligens_ seems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium.

Sed et lusit, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3: _sed et eius sit_ GH: _sed in lusus_ MS Ball. Dorv.: _sed editus sit_ Bodl.

§64. eius operis: _ei_ GH: _eius_ M Bodl. Burn. 243: _eiusdem_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order is _in hac parte omnibus eum eiusdem operis_.

§65. est et in. The MSS. give _etsi est_: Wölfflin conjectured _est et_, and Halm, (following some old edd.) inserted _in_, comparing §§64 and 68. So too Meister. _Etsi_ may have crept into the text to anticipate _tamen_ (ii. 5. 19): or the true reading may be _est et etsi in_. Schöll suggests (Krüger, 3rd ed. p. 92) that the passage ought to run as follows:—_ant. com. cum sincera illa sermonis Attici gratia prope sola retinet_ 198 _vim_ (_dum_ G, _tum_ vulg.) _fac. libertatis, et si est in insect. vitiis praecip._, _plur. tamen_, &c.

nescio an ulla. This is the reading of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, M, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 11671, Dorv. Ball., and if it can be sustained, the sense it gives is quite satisfactory. We must suppose that _poesis_ (probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was present in the writer’s mind: see on _poeticam_ §28 above.

But in Quint. _poesis_ occurs only once (cp. on §28),—at xii. 11. 26, where it is not used of a special branch of poetry, as here; and even there a doubt has been expressed about the reading. Kiderlin therefore urges (Hermes 23, p. 163) that it is incredible that Quintilian would have left his readers to supply for themselves a word which he uses only once, if at all: _ullum genus_ would surely have occurred to him, as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of literature. Again the text gives _post_ not _praeter_ Homerum. Founding on the reading _an illa_ (GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin therefore suggests _an illa poeta ullo post_ &c.: ‘und ich weiss nicht, ob nicht jene mehr als irgend ein Dichter (nach Homer jedoch, &c.).’ The copyist would easily wander from _poet._ to _post_, and it is not unusual to compare old comedy &c. with the poets and not their works (cp. similior oratoribus: historia proxima poetis est §31: at non historia cesserit Graecis §101); especially as here _post Homerum_ follows at once. For _ullo_ cp. §60 quod quoquam minor est. An alternative emendation would be _poesi ulla_.

The _aut ... aut_ immediately below is very much against this conjecture, which however Krüger (3rd ed.) has received into the text: we should expect rather _nescio an illa quisquam_, or _nullus poeta_, or keeping _illa_ as nominative _nescio an illa poeta ullo_. Quintilian’s use of _nescio an_ (like that of post-Augustan writers generally) is vague: it is usually an expression of doubt, the _an_ meaning either ‘whether,’ or ‘whether not’ indifferently. Cp. ix. 4. 1: vi. 3. 6: viii. 6. 22: xii. 10. 2: i. 7. 24. (Mayor cites also Plin. Ep. i. 14. 9: iii. 1. 1: iv. 2. 1: v. 3. 7: vi. 21. 3: vii. 10. 3: 19. 4: viii. 16. 3: ix. 2. 5; and adds ‘In all these instances _nescio an_ (dubito an) is ‘I doubt whether’; in Cicero the meaning is always ‘I rather think.’’) Andresen proposed _nescio an ulla poeseos pars_. The passage closely resembles §28, and must be emended on the same lines.

§66. tragoedias. Thurot (Revue de Phil. 1880, iv. 1, p. 24) conjectured _tragoediam_: cp. §67 hoc opus. He is followed by Dosson, against all MS. authority. Becher points out that we must supply with _hoc opus_ in §67 the words ‘tragoedias in lucem proferendi,’ so that _opus_ and _tragoedias_ square well enough with each other.

§68. quod ipsum reprehendunt, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) and Becher. This reading also occurs in the Codex Dorvilianus. Other readings are _quod ipsum quod_ GHT Burn. 243, Bodl.: _quo ipsum_ MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Ball. Halm conjectured _quem ipsum quoque_, and was followed by Mayor and Hild. But as no fault has been found with Euripides in the foregoing, _quoque_ seems out of place.

Founding on the reading of GHT, &c., also on that of F (which gives _quod ipsum qui_) Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 165) proposes to read _quod ipsum quidam_, comparing §98, where for _quem senes quem_ (GT) Spalding rightly conjectured _quem senes quidem_, and 7, §21, where Bn, Bg give _quod_ for _quosdam_. He then goes on, in an interesting paper, to reconstruct the whole passage, which is open to suspicion, especially in respect that _sublimior_ stands as predicate with _gravitas_ and _cothurnus_, as well as with _sonus_. The admirers of Sophocles consider his elevation of tone more appropriate than the strain of Euripides. _Sublimior_ is therefore perhaps _not_ the predicate of the sentence, however suitable it may be as the attribute of _sonus_. The predicate may have dropped out, and _sublimior_ may have been transferred from its real place to supply it. It is striking that GFTM (also H and Bodl.) all give _sublimior erit_. Kiderlin imagines that a copyist who missed the predicate wrote in the margin ‘sublimior erit ponendum 199 post esse’: and then another inserted _sublimior erit_ after _esse_ in the text. For the predicate, _magis accommodatus_ might stand: in copying, the eye may have wandered from _magis accommodatus_ to _magis accedit_: for _magis accomm._ cp. ii. 5. 18 and x. 1. 79. Kiderlin therefore boldly proposes to make the parenthesis run, ‘quod ipsum quidam reprehendunt quibus gravitas et cothurnus et sublimior sonus Sophocli videtur esse magis accommodatus’: ‘was gerade manche tadeln, welchen das Würdevolle, der Kothurnus, und der erhabenere Ton des Sophokles angemessener zu sein scheint.’

et dicendo ac respondendo 7231, 7696: _dicendo ac respondo_ GH: _in dicendo et in respondendo_ Prat. Put. S (_et respondendo_ M).

praecipuus. Hunc admiratus maxime est. This is Meister’s reading, except that for _eum_ I give (with Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 and 4995) _hunc_, which is commoner in Quint. at the beginning of a sentence (§§46, 78, 91, 112). The following are the readings of the MSS.: GH _praecipuus et admiratus miratus_: M Bodl. Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, C, Burn. 243 Ball. Dorv. _praecipuus et admirandus_: S _praecipuum. Nunc admiratus et_: Prat. Put. Harl. 2262 and 11671 _praecipuus hunc admiratus et maxime est ut saepe test. et sec. quamvis_: Harl. 4995, _hunc admiratus max. ut s. test. et eum secutus quamquam_. Halm gives _praecipuus est. Admiratus maxime est_: Kiderlin insists on the _est_ after _praecipuus_, to correspond with _accedit_, though it seems better to take all that comes after _accedit_ as an explanation of the statement _magis accedit oratorio generi_: he also retains the _et_ of most MSS. and reads _praecipuus est. hunc et admiratus_ (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 84). Wölfflin (partly followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) proposed a more radical change (Rhein. Mus. 1887, 2 H. p. 313) _praecipuus. Hunc imitatus_, quoting in support of the conjunction _imitatus ... secutus_ §122, eos iuvenum imitatur et sequitur industria: 5 §19, deligat quem sequatur, quem imitetur: Ovid, Fasti v. 157, ne non imitata maritum esset et ex omni parte secuta virum. But Kiderlin (l.c.) aptly remarks that if Quintilian had written _imitatus_, he would not have said _ut saepe testatur_ but _ut ex multis locis patet_ (_apparet, videmus_): while vii. 4. 17 (on which Wölfflin relies) is not really to the point. Moreover Quintilian, would never have separated such synonyms as _imitatus_ and _secutus_ by _ut saepe testatur_.

Charisi nomini addicuntur, Frotscher: _Charis in homine adductura_ GH: _Charisii nomine eduntur_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 Dorv.

§70. aut illa iudicia Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 4995. GH Harl. 4950 give _aut illa mala iudicia_: Bodl. Burn. 243 _aut alia mala iud._ S Harl. 2662 Dorv. and Ball. _aut alia iudicia._ The edd., following Gesner, have generally given (with Harl. 4950) _aut illa mala iudicia_ (so Halm and Meister), and have taken _mala_ as predicate, though the order of the words makes that impossible. Becher approves of Andresen’s deletion of _mala_. Krüger (3rd ed.) prints _mala [illa] iudicia_, thinking that _illa_ arose by dittography, and that then the order was changed in the codd. to _illa mala iudicia_. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23) gives as an alternative to deleting _mala_ the conjecture _illa simulata iudicia_ (‘jene erdichteten nachgemachten Gerichtsverhandlungen’; cp. xi. 1. 56: cum etiam hoc genus simulari litium soleat). A similar mutilation occurs, e.g., xi. 1. 20, where b gives _secum_ M _secus_ instead of _consecutum_.

§71. filiorum militum, most codd.: _filiorum maritorum militum_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S.

§72. si cum venia leguntur. The reading of the MSS. is upheld by Iwan Müller, Meister, and Kiderlin. Spalding suggested _cum verecundia_: Schöll _cum iudicio_: Becher _cum ingenio_. Becher points out (Bursians Jahresb. 1887) that the expression is meant to cover _decerpere_ as well as _legere_, and _decerpere_ indicates careful and intelligent reading (cp. §69, _diligenter_ lectus): _cum ingenio_ = ‘mit Verstand’: cp. Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 10. 2 quod versabatur in hoc studio nostro .. et cum ingenio .. nec sine industria: Ulp. Dig. 1. 16. 9 patientem esse proconsulem oportet, sed cum 200 ingenio, ne contemptibilis videatur. Finally, Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes _cum acumine_ or _cum vigilantia_ (cp. v. 7. 10).—Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662 all give Osann’s conjecture _legantur_.

prave GH Harl. 4995, 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl.: _pravis_ Regius, Halm, Meister, Becher draws attention to the parallelism between the clauses: _ut prave praelatus est sui temporis iudiciis, ita merito creditur_ (= meruit credi) _secundus consensu omnium_.

§76. nec quod desit ... nec quod redundet: H Burn. 243 and Bodl. give _quod .. quod_: Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. C, and Ball, _quid .. quid_. The latter reading is supported by Becher (Phil. Rund. iii. 434). For _quod_ cp. xii. 10. 46: (xii. 1. 20 where for _quod adhuc_ BM give _quid adhuc_): on the other hand, in vi. 3. 5 the MSS. are in favour of _quid_, though Halm reads _quod_ (followed by Meister). For _quid_ cp. Cic. pro Quint. §41, neque praeterea quid possis dicere invenio.

§77. grandiori similis. So all MSS.: Halm and Meister. Several conjectural emendations have been put forward. Comparing 2 §16 (fiunt pro grandibus tumidi), Becher suggests _grandi oratori_,—an easy change, if the copyist used contractions, but without point: above in §74, ‘oratori magis similis’ is appropriate enough in speaking of _historians_, but ‘oratori’ would be inappropriate here. This is accepted, however, by Hirt (Berl. Jahr. ix., 1883, p. 312; cp. P. Hirt, Subst. des Adjectivums, p. 12). Schöll proposes to read _gladiatori_ similis, in view of the close connection with what follows, strictus ... carnis ... lacertorum: but _plenior_ and _magis fusus_ are a bad introduction to _gladiatori_, and if Aeschines had _plus carnis_ and _minus lacertorum_, he cannot really have resembled a gladiator. This reading is, however, adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.). Finally, Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 166 sq.) has conjectured _et grandi_ (or _grandiori_) _organo similis_, and applies the figure throughout: ‘voller und breiter lässt Aeschines den Ton hervorströmen, einem grossen Musikinstrumente gleich’: ‘einer Orgel gleich,’—he is _grandisonus_. The translation appears to limit unnecessarily the meaning of _plenus_ and _fusus_: though the former is used of tone i. 11. 6 (cp. xi. 3. 15 of the voice: ib. §§42, 62: and §55 of the breath): while _fusus_ is used of the voice xi. 3. 64. For such a use of _grandis_ cp. §58 (cenae): §88 (robora): xi. 2. 12 (convivium): 3. 15 (vox): 68 (speculum): and for _organum_, i. 10. 25: ix. 4. 10: xi. 3. 20 (where there is a comparison between the throat and a musical instrument): probably also i. 2. 30. There is an antithesis in the two parts of the sentence between fulness and breadth, on the one hand, and real strength on the other; and for the transition to the second figure Kiderlin compares §33.

§78. nihil enim est inane: perhaps ‘nihil enim est _in eo_ inane’ (Becher), or _nihil enim inest_.

§79. honesti studiosus. Becher’s proposal to alter the punctuation of this passage is discussed in the note _ad loc._—For _auditoriis_ and _compararat_, see on _tenuia atque quae_ §44, above.

§80. quem tamen. Kiderlin, in Hermes (23, p. 168), raises a difficulty here. _Tamen_ shows that the clause cannot go with the main statement (_fateor_), and its position forbids us to take it with the _quamquam is primum_ clause: it can only go with _quod ultimus est_, &c., ‘though Demosthenes is _ultimus fere_, &c., _yet_ Cicero, &c.’ To prevent so awkward a joining of the clauses, Kiderlin proposes to read _eumque tamen_: pointing out that the _quae_ of the MSS. (GH) may have arisen out of _que_, and that Quintilian may have written _eumque_; cp. vi. 2. 13, where Halm makes _utque_ out of _quae_ (G), and xi. 2. 32, where Meister reads _estque_. The meaning will then be: Demetrius is worthy of record as being about the last, &c., and yet Cicero gives him the first place in the _medium genus_.—It seems better, however, to give _tamen_ a general reference: ‘yet, in spite of all that can be said on the other side’ (e.g., inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur). Cp. §99 quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima.

201 §81. prosam (prorsam) orationem et all MSS.; Halm, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) omit _et_. I find that Becher supports the view stated in the note _ad loc._: he would however write _prorsam_, which the best MSS. give also in Plin. v. 31, 112 D.

quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus: so Frotscher, followed by Krüger (3rd ed.). On the other hand Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 356) and Wölfflin (followed now by Meister, pref. to ed. of Book x., p. 13) propose to delete _Delphici_, of which Becher also approves. But the MS. evidence cannot be disregarded. The following are the various readings: GH _quaedam Delphico videatur oraculo de instrictus_, and so FT, the former giving also (by a later hand) _de instinctus_, the latter _dei instructus_. Bodl. gives _quodam delphico videatur oraculo dei instructus_. The most frequent reading is that of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Ball. and most edd., _quodam delphico videatur oraculo instinctus_: S agrees, but is reported to have _delphico_ after _oraculo_: Harl. 4950 and Burn. 244 have the same reading, with _institutus_ corr. to _instinctus_: Burn. 243 gives _instructus_. _Delphico_ was originally deleted by Caesar: Phil xiii, p. 758. Halm read _tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus_: but Quintilian would take no trouble to avoid the repetition of _quidam_ (cp. divina quadam, above).—For the arrangement of words, Krüger (3rd ed.) compares §41 qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit.

§82. quandam persuadendi deam. Nettleship (Journ. of Philol., xxix, p. 22) conjectures _Suadam_ [_persuadendi deam_], comparing Brutus, §59, quoted _ad loc. Persuadendi deam_ would thus become a gloss on _Suadam_: but the expression in the text is quite in Quintilian’s style.

§83. eloquendi suavitate: _eloquendi usus_ (or _usu_) _suav._ GH and all codd. except Harl. 4950, and Dorv., both of which give simply _eloq. suav._ Halm admitted into his text Geel’s conj. for _usus_, ‘eloquendi _vi ac_ suavitate,’ and this has met with some acceptance (Iwan Müller and Becher). But the parallel from Dion. Hal., Ἀρχ. κρ. 4 is hardly conclusive: τῆς τε περὶ ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος ... καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος. Hirt properly remarks that the agreement between the two is not so great as to allow of correcting the one by the other. Kiderlin conjectures _eloquendi vi_, _suavitate_, _perspicuitate_.

tam est loquendi. See note _ad loc._ for Kiderlin’s conj. _tam manifestus est_. Though Meister’s _tam est eloquendi_ is probably a misprint, it is found in some MSS.—Harl. 4950: Burn. 244.

§84. sane non affectaverunt. Bodl. and Vall. (_veru_ subpunctuated in the latter: _affectant_ Prat. Put. 7231 MS Ball. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671: _sene non adfectitacuerunt_ GH Burn. 243: _adfectarunt_ 7696: _adfectitant_ Harl. 4950, and so Burn. 244 (corrected from _affectant_).

§85. haud dubie proximus. Halm inserted _ei_ after _dubie_, though it is not found in any MS.: Regius had suggested _illi_. Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 170) points out that if _propiores alii_ in §88 is allowed to stand without a dative, _ei_ is not necessary here. He suggests, however, _illi_ before _alii_ in §88: both passages must be dealt with in the same way.—For _haud_ (Vall.), GHS have _aut_: M _haut_. Cp. on 3 §26.

§86. ut illi ... cesserimus: _cum illi_ GHFT Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: _ut illi_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696: and so S Harl. 4950 (with _caelesti atque divinae_): _ut ille_ M Harl. 2662. Kiderlin (Hermes, p. 170) proposes to go back to the reading of the older MSS. _cum illi_, and instead of _cesserimus_ to read _cesserit_, so as to make Vergil the subject throughout. _Cum_ cannot, he contends, be a copyist’s error, motived by _ita_; and it is probable, therefore, that at first _cesserit a_ was inadvertently written for _cesserit_; then (in G or some older MS.) _cesserimus ita_ was made out of that, to correspond with _vincimur_ below: and then in the later MSS. _cum_ was changed to _ut_, because of _ita_. For the transition, with this reading, from cesserit to the plural (_vincimur, pensamus_), he 202 compares §107, where, after speaking of Demosthenes and Cicero, Quintilian passes to _vincimus_.

§87. sequentur MS Halm and Meister: _sequenter_ G _seq̅nt’_ H: _sequuntur_ Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.

φράσιν id est. These words are omitted in the Pratensis, which is Étienne de Rouen’s abridgement of the _Beccensis_, now lost. This is an additional proof that φράσιν was originally written in Greek: cp. on §42.

§88. propiores H Prat. Put. Vall. Harl. 2662, 4495, 11671, Burn. 243. Bodl., Halm: _propriores_ GMS 7231, 7696, Harl. 4950, C, Burn. 244, Dorv., Meister. In Cicero and Quintilian _magis proprii_ would be more usual for the latter.

§89. etiam si sit. This conjecture of Spalding’s (for _etiam sit_ GH Bodl. &c.: _etiam si_ M Harl. 4950 Dorv.: _etiam sic_ Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662) I have found in the Balliol codex. 7231 and 7696 give _etiam si est_. Cp. note on _tenuia atque quae_ §44, above.

ut est dictum. These words were bracketed as a gloss by Halm, and are now omitted altogether by Krüger (3rd ed.): see however note _ad loc._ Döderlein proposed to place them after _poeta melior_, Fleckeisen after _etiam si_.

Serranum is Lange’s conjecture for _ferrenum_ GHM: _farrenum_ 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 11671: _Pharrenum_ Prat. Put. Some MSS. (e.g. Vall. Harl. 4995, Burn. 243 and 244) give _sed eum_, but it is obvious that the criticism of Severus stopped with the word _locum_.

§90. senectute maturuit ed. Col. 1527 and so 7231, 7696 (Fierville): _senectutem maturbit_ GH: _senectute maturum_ Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. and Ball.: _senectus maturavit_ Bodl., Burn. 243.

et, ut dicam. Halm’s _sed_ instead of _et_ has been rejected by later critics. Cp. Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 357 note): _sed_ ‘sententiam efficit ab hac operis parte alienam. Nam cum oratori futuro exempla quaerantur oratoria virtus in quovis scriptore laudi vertitur (§§46, 63, 65, 67, 74, &c.). Itaque propter huius censurae consilium Quintilianus Lucani elocutionem oratoriam laudat, sed ingenium poeticum una reprehendit.’

§91. propius H Prat. Put. Burn. 243, Harl. 2662 and other codd.: Bodl. Ball. Harl. 4950 _proprius_. Reisig conjectured _propitius_, which also is apt; but in spite of _industrius_, _necessarius_, cited in its support (cp. iv. 2. 27: vii. 1. 12), it is too uncertain a form to be received into the text. Iwan Müller thinks it would have to be _magis propitiae_. Halm gives _promptius_: Wölfflin _pronius_: while Schöll now suggests _propitiae potius_ (cp. iv. pr. §5: 2 §27: vii. 1. 12).

§92. feres G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4829, Dorv., Ball., Halm.: _feras_ H, Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. C and M, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.). Harl. 4995 has _fere_: from Vall. Becher reports feras, ‘probably at first _feres_.’

elegea GH 7696, and so A2 BN Put. S at i. 8. 6.

§94. abunde salis G Prat. Put. M and all my MSS. except H, Burn. 243, Bodl. which have _abundantia salis_.

multum est tersior. The variety of MS. readings seems to point to an _et_ wrongly inserted after _multum_, perhaps from a confusion with ‘multum et ver gloriae’ below. GH give _multum et est tersior_: M Harl. 4950, Bodl. Ball. C Dorv. Burn. 243 and also Harl. 4829 _multum etiam est t._: Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 11671 _multum est tersior_: while Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) has _multo et est tersior_. Osann proposed _multo eo est tersior_: Wölfflin _multo est tersior_: Halm and Meister print _multum eo est tersior_. For _multum_, cp. multum ante xii. 6. 1: and see Introd. p. li.

non labor GH Burn. 243 Bodl. and Meister: _nisi labor_ 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv. Ball. C, and Halm. Prat. and Put. have _mihi labor_.

203 hodieque et qui: H, Prat., Put., 7231, 7696, Harl. 2662, 4829, Bodl. Dorv.: _hodie et qui_ Burn. 243: _hodie quoque et qui_ Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: _hodie quod et qui_ S.—Becher is of opinion that the text will not bear the explanation given in the note, and would read _hodie quoque et qui_: ‘es giebt auch heute noch berühmte Satirendichter, die einst &c.’ _Et qui_ he takes with _clari_, not with _hodie quoque_, the _et_ being omitted in translation: clari (hodie quoque) qui (olim) nominabuntur.

§95. etiam prius. Founding on the classification given in Diomedes (see note _ad loc._), according to which the _satura_ of Pacuvius and Ennius preceded and was distinct from that of Lucilius, Horace, and Persius, Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 337) thinks that the true reading here may be _Alterum illud et iam prius_ Ennio temptatum _saturae genus_, &c. For the satura of Ennius, cp. ix. 2. 36. Iwan Müller points out that Ennius is not mentioned below (§97), beside Attius and Pacuvius, probably because neither in tragedy nor in satire did Quintilian consider him to have produced anything helpful for the formation of an oratorical style. Other unnecessary conjectures are _etiam posterius_, Gesner: _etiam proprium_, Spald.: _etiam amplius_, L. Müller: _etiam verius_, Riese: _alterum illud Lucilio prius sat. genus_, Krüger (3rd ed.).

sola: _solum_ Prat. and Put.

collaturus quam eloquentiae. These words, omitted in GHS Bodl. Burn. 243, occur in all my other codd.

§96. sed aliis quibusdam interpositus: sc. carminibus, Christ. In H the reading is _quibusdam interpositus_: so 7231, 7696 Bodl. and Burn. 243: but M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Dorv. and Ball, give _a quibusdam interpositus_: S _cuiusdam_: Prat. and Put. _opus interpositus_. Osann conjectures _sed quibusdam_, and so Hild. In the margin of Harl. 4995 is the variant _aliquibus interpositis_.

In Hermes, vol. 23, p. 172, Kiderlin makes a fresh conjecture. Recognising that something must have fallen out before _quibusdam_, but dissatisfied with Osann’s _sed_ and Christ’s _sed aliis_, he proposes to read _ut proprium opus, quibusdam aliis tamen carminibus_ (or _versibus_) _a quibusdam interpositus_. The eye of a copyist may easily, Kiderlin thinks, have wandered from the first to the second _quibusdam_: cp. v. 10. 64, ut quaedam a quibusdam utique non sunt, &c., and for quibusdam aliis xi. 3. 66, et quibusdam aliis corporis signis.

intervenit, which is a conjecture of Osann, I have found in Harl. 2662, 11671 Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.

lyricorum. Kiderlin thinks there may be something wrong in the text here. The last sentence (sed eum longe, &c.) shows clearly that Quintilian had a high opinion of the lyrists of his day: if Bassus was _legi dignus_, they were even more so. Would he then have said ‘of the Roman lyrists Horace is almost the only one worth reading’? Perhaps we should read _lyricorum priorum_: after _-ricorum_, _priorum_ might easily fall out, and it gives a good antithesis to _viventium_. Bassus (quem nuper vidimus) forms the transition: and the next paragraph begins _Tragoediae scriptores veterum_, &c.

§97. clarissimi. This reading is stated by Halm to be ‘incerta auctoritate,’ and is referred by Meister to the Aldine edition. It occurs in Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) Vall. 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.: Put. gives _clarissime_: G has _gravissima_: HFTS _gravissimus_, and so also Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. and C. Halm prints _grandissimi_: Ribbeck (Röm. Trag. p. 337, 3) inclines to accept the sing. _grandissimus_, M, of Pacuvius alone.

Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings. _Gravissimus_ and _gravissima_ are obviously due, he says, to _gravitate_ following: but the word before _gravitate_ must have begun with the same letter, and so _clarissimi_ cannot stand, especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For _ceterum_ shows that the sentence before it must have contained some slight censure: some defect, or quality excluding others equally good, must have been mentioned. He therefore conjectures _grandes nimis_, in preference to 204 _grandissimi_, which in tragedy would hardly be a fault. Attius and Pacuvius, Quintilian says, are ‘zu grossartig, sie kümmern sich zu wenig um Zierlichkeit (Eleganz) und die letzte Feile (d.h. Sauberkeit im Kleinen); doch daran ist mehr ihre Zeit schuld als sie selbst.’ He evidently thinks more of the ‘Thyestes’ of Varius and Ovid’s Medea: cp. Tac. Dial. 12. With this judgment Kiderlin compares §§66, 67 tragoedias primus in lucem Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ... sed longe clarius inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, and is of opinion that the parallelism cannot be mistaken. For the position of _nimis_ he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.

§98. quem senes quidem parum tragicum. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, Meister, and Krüger. _Quidem_ occurs in no MS.: GH have _quem_, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn. 243 and Dorv. show the corruption _Pindarum_. Becher would exclude _quidem_, regarding _quem_ in G as an instance of the tendency of copyists inadvertently to repeat, after a particular word that by which it has been immediately preceded, e.g. §68 quod ipsum quod (G): ix. 4. 57 ut cum ut (G): iv. 1. 7 ipsis litigatoribus ipsis (b): iv. 2. 5 aut ante aut (bT): x. i. 4 iam opere iam (G).—But here the authority of the Pratensis and its cognates may be invoked. In the archetype from which they are derived something must have stood before _parum_, as Prat. Put. 7696, 7231 all give _quem senes non parum tragicum_: so Harl., 2662 (A.D. 1434), and 11671. Above in §96, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 have _si quidem_ for _si quem_.

§100. linguae suae. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13): _suae_ supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give _linguae quae_: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. _linguae_: while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether: M has _ligweque_.

§101. Titum: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.

commendavit: Halm and Meister give _commodavit_, which is approved also by Hirt. Halm compares §69 where Menander is said to be ‘omnibus rebus personis adfectibus accommodatus.’ But this would require the meaning ‘appropriately treated,’ and there is no instance in Quintilian of the verb used absolutely in this sense. Nor is there any example to support Hild’s interpretation _praestitit_, which would be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after _accommodata_ tells against Halm’s reading, though Quintilian is negligent on this head.—On the other hand, in vi. 3. 14 the reading ‘ad hanc consuetudinem commodata’ is rightly accepted against ‘commendata’ most edd.

§102. immortalem GS Meister: _illam immortalem_ Prat. Put. M Halm: _immortalem illam_ Vall.

velocitatem. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which have _civilitatem_. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks that we might have expected _ideoque immortalem gloriam quam velocitate Sallustius consecutus est_: ‘und darum hat er die _velocitas_ durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge erreicht.’ _Consequi_ cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and _immortalis_ is inappropriate as an attribute of _velocitas_: besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s _velocitas_, even indirectly. Schlenger conjectured _claritatem_: Andresen _auctoritatem_ (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii. 11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes _divinitatem_, which in Cicero = Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous sentences the expression is not too strong. For _immortalem divinitatem_ cp. §86 illi ... caelesti atque immortali: and for _consecutus est_ iii. 7. 9 quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.

clarus vi ingenii. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give _clarius ingenii_: Prat. Put. _clari ingenii vir_: 7231, 7696 _clari vir ingenii_: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv. 205 C and Ball, _clarus ingenio_; Harl. 2662 and 11671 _clarus_ (?) or _claret vir ingenii_. Spalding had already pointed out that _clarus_ is not found with _ingenium_, except where _ingenium_ is used of a person: e.g. §119 erant clara et nuper ingenia: he therefore wrote _elati vir ingenii_ (following Goth. _elatus ingenio_ and Bodl. _elatus ingeniis_). Kiderlin compares §70 sententiis clarissimus, and for _vis ingenii_ i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The reading _clarus vi ingenii_ points the contrast to what follows in ‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his _style_ that did not altogether suit the dignity of history.

§103. genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam. Till Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175) _genere_ had always been joined with _probabilis_, and the text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give _in omnibus quibusdam_: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. _in omnibus sed in quibusdam_, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696. Out of _omnibus_ Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, _operibus_: afterwards he decided for _partibus_, and this (though _omnibus_ to _partibus_ is not an easy transition) is adopted by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung verdienen seine Leistungen _alle_, _manche_ stehen hinter _seiner_ Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are _probabiles_ (cp. viii. 3. 42 probabile Cicero id genus dicit quod non plus minusve est quam decet); but they do not show the great powers that distinguish his other writings. It is uncertain whether Quintilian wrote _in quibusdam_ or _sed in quibusdam_ (M). The easiest explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he wrote _in omnibus in quibusdam_: perhaps the copyist of M saw that _omnibus_ and _quibusdam_ were antithetical, and inserted _sed_. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any conjunction: cp. §106 in illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).

suis ipse viribus: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville) 7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (A.D. 1434 and 1467) _suis_ already appears, corrected from _vis_ GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has _suis viribus minor_: so Prat. and Put.

§104. et exornat. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and most edd.: _et ornat_ M Halm, Meister, Krüger: _exornat_ GHS. Becher remarks that _et exornat_ might easily pass into _exornat_.

nominabitur: Weber and Osann proposed _nominabatur_ (which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to _-itur_). Krüger at first accepted this in support of his theory that the whole passage refers to Cremutius, who ‘in former days (olim), while his works were under a ban, was only named (i.e. was a mere name, but now is known and appreciated).’ The parallel passage (§94) is sufficient to dispose of any such interpretation: sunt clari hodieque et qui olim nominabuntur.

Cremuti. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and Meister: _remuti_ H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 _remremuti_ G, _rem utili_ Burn. 243: _remitti_ S. Bodl.: _nec imitatores uti_ Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671. A review of the various explanations of the whole passage (Superest—quae manent) will be found in Holub’s Programm ‘Warum hielt sich Tacitus von 89-96 n. Chr. nicht in Rom auf?’—Weidenau, 1883: but his conjecture _remoti_ (i.e. relegati) for _remuti_ is not to be thought of.

dividendi: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have _videndi_, except M (_indicendi_) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995 (_vivendi_). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.

§105. In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his views: ‘wie zu _cum_ causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu _cum_ concessivum, in diesem Falle wiedenzugeben mit, “was um so auffallender ist, als.” Der Sinn ist also: “Ich weiss sehr wohl, welchen Sturm des Unwillens ich gegen mich errege, und dies (dieser Sturm) ist um so auffallender, als ich jetzt gar nicht die Absicht hege, meine (in Potentialis gesprochene) Behauptung (fortiter opposuerim) wahr zu machen, resp. comparando durchzuführen. Ich lasse ja dem Demosthenes seinen Ruhm—in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius.”’

206 §106. praeparandi. For Kiderlin’s conj. _praeparandi_, _narrandi_, _probandi_ see _ad loc._

[omnia] denique, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit _omnia_ (which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and Cicero were _not_ alike in _everything_ that belongs to _inventio_. Halm thinks that _omnia_ is to be found in _racioni_ of the older MSS.: but Kiderlin points out that this error may have arisen from the carelessness of a copyist who, after thrice writing the termination _i_, gave it also to the fourth word.

illi—huic Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl. &c.: _illic—hic_ GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.

§107. vincimus, H, G2, and most MSS.: (cp. §86): _vicimus_ G.

§109. ubertate Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and Goth.: all the other MSS. give _ubertas_.

totas virtutes Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: _totas vires_ M b.

§112. ab hominibus Halm and Meister: _ab omnibus_ Bn Bg HFT Ioan. Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: _hominibus_ S Harl. 4995 Bodl.

§115. urbanitas. Kiderlin proposes to read _et praecipua in accusando asperitas et multa urbanitas_: cp. §117: §64: 2 §25: ii. 5. 8.

Ciceroni, for _Ciceronem_ of the MSS. In the Rev. de Phil. (Janv.-Mars, 1887) Bonnet quotes from the Montpellier MS. a note of the sixteenth century deleting the name as a gloss (on _inveni_). Certainly all codd. give _Ciceronem_, not _Ciceroni_. Bonnet thinks that the insertion does not accord with Quintilian’s habitual deference towards Cicero: ‘Quintilien se trouvant dans le cas de contredire Cicéron ne le nomme pas.’—Becher reports _Ciceroni_, a correction in the Vallensis.

castigata, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671: _custodita_ H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For _gravis_ (bH M Vall. and seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give _brevis_.

si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit, Vall. Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit 3 §26. Halm and Meister print _si quid adiecturus fuit_—(sc. _virtutibus suis_, cp. §§116, 120)—the reading of B (i.e. Bn and Bg), which is also that of Ioan. Prat. N 7231 Harl. 2662, 11671: while M Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244 have _si quid adiecturus fuit, non si quid detracturus_. The reading of H is _si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus_ [_Sulpicius insignus_] _fuit ut servius sulpicius insignem_ &c.: so also T, Burn. 243, Bodl. The brackets in H are by a later hand, indicating a gloss which arose from a mistake made by the copyist of H. In Bg the passage stands:—

sibi non si quid detracturus si quid adiecturus: fuit et servius sulpicius

The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.

In copying H wrote: _si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus_ (then omitting _fuit_ continues) _et Serv. Sulp._ (then goes back and resumes) _fuit et servius_ &c. This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this family.

§117. et fervor. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have _et sermo_, which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4950 and Ball.: Hb _et summo_: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 _et smo_: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T _eius summa_, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis (Laurentius Valla) made _et vis summa_, a reading which occurs also in Harl. 4995. Meister reads _et sermo purus_; while Kiderlin proposes _et simplex sermo_ (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3: 4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).

ut amari sales. Francius conjectured _ut amantur sales_, but this loses the antithesis between _amari_ and _amaritudo ipsa_. Kiderlin’s _ut amantur amari sales_ (viii. 3. 207 87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if _ridicula_ is taken in a good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving way unduly to _stomachus_, Quintilian should go on to say, ‘moreover, though bitter wit gives pleasure, bitterness by itself is often laughable.’ Is it possible that we ought to read _ut amari sales risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est_? Such an antithesis might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words _risum movent_ may then have dropped out. See the note _ad loc._: and cp. especially vi. 1. 48 _fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit_, and οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται, quoted in the note on 1 §107.—Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts _frequentior_ for _frequenter_, which gives a good sense, except that _freq. amar ipsa_ is awkward.

§121. lene Halm and Meister: _leve_ B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C. Here again Becher prefers _leve_, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii. §171, quoted on §44 above: levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.

§123. scripserint. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among other passages 2 §14 (concupierint), and points out that Quintilian is not thinking of individual writers on philosophy, but of the class, as opposed to the class of orators, historians, &c.—Halm, Meister, and Krüger have _supersunt_ (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).

§124. Plautus, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _plantus_ M Harl. 4950: _Plantatus_ Sal.: _plaustus_ Hb: _Plancus_ edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.

Catius. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.

§126. iis quibus illi. _Iis_ is the conjecture of Regius, followed by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain _in quibus illi_,—the reading of BN Prat. Ioan. Vall. M Harl. 4995, 2662, 4950, 11671, Burn. 244 Dorv. Ball. The difficulty of construing probably led to the omission of _in_ in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696, Spalding and Bonnell.

ab illo B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: _ab eo_ bHM Burn. 243.

§127. foret enim optandum: _fore enim aliquid optandum_ bHFT. Spalding conjectured _alioqui optandum_, which Kiderlin approves.

ac saltem all MSS.: Meister has _aut saltem_, probably relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii, p. 369.

illi viro B: _illi virus_ bHM: _illi virtutibus_ Halm: _illi viro eos_ (or _viro plurimos_) Kiderlin.

§128. multa rerum cognitio: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl. 4995, which have _multarum rerum cognitio_. b omits _cognitio_ and is followed by HFT.

§130. si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset. I adopt the reading recently proposed for this vexed passage by Ed. Wölfflin in Hermes, vol. xxv (1890), pp. 326-7, though it is right to note that he was partly (as will be seen below) anticipated by Kiderlin. _Obliqua_ seems thoroughly appropriate in reference to Seneca’s unnatural, stilted, affected style,—‘jene unnatürliche, durch unmässigen Gebrauch von Tropen und Figuren auf Schrauben gestellte Ausdrucksweise, welche statt der Klarheit ein Schillern zur Folge hat.’ Wölfflin compares ix. 2. 78 _rectum genus_ adprobari nisi maximis viribus non potest: haec diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt, cum haec quae adfectatur ratio sententiarum non procul a ratione iocandi abhorreat. Adiuvat etiam, quod auditor gaudet intellegere et favet ingenio suo et alio dicente se laudat. Itaque non solum si persona obstaret _rectae orationi_ (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est) decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem _obliquis_ sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed suggested by _obliqua_ itself) the antithesis _parum recta_: cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.

208 In the _Jahrbücher f. Philologie_ (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828) Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The traditional reading _si aliqua contempsisset_ (b) he considers too indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though preferable to the _si nil aequalium cont._ of the later MSS., it cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give _simile quam_ without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s _si antiqua non_, on the ground that it is improbable that _simile quam_ arose out of _antiqua_. He introduces his own conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the contrast between _schemata_ and _rectum genus_, _recta oratio_; the former are called _lumina_ or _lumina orationis_ (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: _nam si mille ille schemata_ (or _illas figuras_) _similiaque lumina contempsisset, si parum rectum genus_ (or _sermonem_) _non concupisset_, &c. _Similiaque_ occurs ix. 4. 43: _mille_ (for _sescenti_) is used v. 14. 32: for _contempsisset_ cp. ix. 4. 113. _Si mille illa_ and _similiaque_ may easily have run together, when _schemata_ (or _figuras_) would fall out: _quam_ in the older MSS. may represent _que lumina_, which again reappears in the _qualium_ of the later codd. (_si nil aequalium_). As an alternative for _parum rectum genns_ (or _sermonem_) Kiderlin suggests Wölfflin’s reading _parum recta_: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v. 13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.

Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree with Bn and Bg in giving _simile quam_: b has _si aliqua_: HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. _aliqua_: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv. C _si nil aequalium_. Among previous conjectures are _si multa aequalium_, Törnebladh: _si ille quaedam_, Halm (where _ille_ is surely superfluous): _si antiqua non_, Jeep. Meister accepts the reading _si aliqua non_: Becher thinks that _si nil aequalium_ may be right.

It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after _parum_: the codd. all give _si parum non concupisset_. Jeep proposed _si pravum_ (= _corruptum_: cp. ii. 5. 10) _non conc._: on which Halm, comparing _omnia sua_, remarks, ‘debebat saltem _prava_.’ But _prava_ seems too strong a word for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested _si parum sana_, and is followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155 _n_. Sarpe proposed _si prava_ or _parva_ or _plura_: Buttmann _si parum concupiscenda_ (or _convenientia_): Herzog _si parvum_: Madvig _si partim_ or _partem_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam aliqua_, and in opp. to _omnia sua_, below): Hoffmann _si opiparum_: Seyffert _si garum_: Kraffert _si non parum excussisset_ (cp. §101, §126: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8. 13, &c.): Gustaffson _si parva_ (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in parvis iactantiae): Andresen _si similem ei quem contempsit se esse_ (sc. _concupisset_; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist. i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) _si parem non concupisset_ (i.e. _si Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius aemulari maluisset_): or, _nam si similem ei quem contempsit se esse, non parem concupisset_: Krüger (3rd ed.) _si parum arguta_: Hertz (who argues that the word which has fallen out must, with _parum_, correspond to _corrupta_ above) _si parum pura_.

utrimque Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and Bonnell: _utrumque_ B N 7231, 7696: _virumque_ M: _utcumque_ Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or another,’—proposed by Gesner at 6 §7.

209