# M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

## CHAPTER II.

Book page: https://www.cyberlibrary.org/la/books/m-fabi-quintiliani-institutionis-oratoriae-liber-decimus-21827/index.md

§2. atque omnis. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454) proposes to put commas at _sequi_ and _velimus_, and make this clause also subordinate.

§3. aut similes aut dissimiles. Andresen suggests _aut similes aut non dissimiles_ or _aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles_.

§6. tradiderunt (BNM Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 243, and Dorv.) is powerfully supported by Becher in his latest tractate (Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, p. 13) against _tradiderint_, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in the last from _tradiderunt_), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in Cicero, _cum_ with the indicative is often used in such a way (quoting from C. F. W. Müller) ‘ut non prorsus idem sit, sed simillimum ei, quod barbare dicere solemus identitatis. Nam ut “cum tacent clamant” non est “si tacent,” multo minus “quo tempore” aut “propterea quod” aut “quamquam,”—sed “tacent idque idem est ac si clament,” sic “cum hoc facis qui potes facere illud?” et sim., German, item “_wenn du dies thust_” valet: “hoc facis ex eoque per se efficitur, non ratione, sed ipsa natura, ut illud non possis facere.” Ut pro Q. Roscio 3. 9 quam ob rem, cum cetera nomina in ordinem referebas, hoc nomen in adversariis relinquebas? non significat nec “quamquam” nec “quando,” sed “_wenn_.”’ Becher adds the following parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi _dixerunt_ non liquere, and Verg. Ecl. 3. 16 quid domini facient, audent cum talia fures? (Cp. Madvig de Fin. p. 25.) In the same way he treats _cum ... sunt consecuti_ 7 §19 below, which seems, however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in such cases _cum_ (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative: there the clause ‘_cum sint consecuti_’ is added to show the reasonableness (_cum_ = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary facility shall be made fully equal to _cogitatio_—see _ad loc._ Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of _cum_ with the indic. used of ‘identity’ (as ‘cum tacent, clamant,’ quoted above): in such cases the subject is generally the same in both clauses. And in such a passage as pro Cluent. §131 _cum_ is usually explained as = _quo tamen tempore_.

eruendas M Harl. 4995: all other codd. _erudiendas_.

mensuris ac lineis. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4. p. 194. 4) _eisdem mensuris ac lineis_, and recommends the insertion of _eisdem_ in the text,—after _lineis_, where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.

§7. turpe etiam illud est. Hild puts a comma after _sciant_, and by supplying before _turpe est_ an _ita_ to correspond with _quemadmodum_, makes out a comparison of which _quemadmodum_, &c., is the first clause and _turpe etiam illud est_ the second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The _quemadmodum_ clause goes with what is before, not with what follows, so that a comma after _alieni_ would be enough, were it not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. §9 below). Then _turpe etiam illud est_ comes in, resuming _pigri est ingenii_ in §4, just as immediately afterwards _rursus quid erat futurum_ §7 resumes _quid enim futurum erat_ §4. The whole passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which §4 opens, ‘imitatio per se ipsa non sufficit.’ Quintilian first says that we, as well as those who have gone before us, may make discoveries (cur igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a nobis quod ante non fuerit?). Surely we are not to confine ourselves to hard and fast lines like servile copyists. 210 Then he goes on to add in §7 that we must surpass our models (plus efficere eo quem sequimur), instead of resting content with mere reproduction (id consequi quod imitamur): otherwise Livius Andronicus would still be the prince of poets, we should still be sailing on rafts, and painting would still be nothing more than the tracing of outlines. The necessity for progress is first shown (§§4-6) by an appeal to the example of the past, and by the unfruitful work of such painters as are mere copyists: then in §7 poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for the argument _ex contrario_.

§8. mansit, Meister: _sit_ codd.: _est_ Fleckeisen (and Halm): _fuit_ Gensler.

§9. adpetent Bg HFT: _appetent_ Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl. &c.: _appetunt_ N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.

hoc agit Halm, followed by Meister (cp. 7 §4): _hoc ait_ b H, _om_. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: _agit_ (_sine hoc_) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.

§10. quaeque pares maxime may be a gloss: it is found only in those MSS. which give _simplicissimae_ for _simillimae_: b H Harl. 4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.

utique (b M Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243 Bodl. Dorv.) may also be suspected: it does not occur in Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671.

§11. orationibus, Bg: Ioan, gives _oratione_: so also Voss. 1 and 3 (Zumpt).

accommodatur b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and Meister: _commodatur_ Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.

§12. inventio vis B Harl. 2662, 11671: _inventionis_ b H Harl. 4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.

§13. cum et, ed. Colon. 1527: _et cum_ B H Ioan. Prat. N (_et quum_) M: _cum_ Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of this difficult passage _ut quorum ... collocata sunt_ forms one parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of _intercidant invalescantque temporibus_. See _ad loc._

accommodata sit, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits _sit_: _acc. est_ Halm, followed by Hild (depending on _prout_, not _cum_: see note _ad loc._). Madvig’s conjecture _accommodanda sit_ is approved by Kiderlin (cp. ix. 4. 126 adeoque rebus accommodanda compositio). But the correctness of the reading in the text (and also of the explanation given in the note _ad loc._) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence carefully. To _cum et verba intercidant_ corresponds exactly the double clause _et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit_ on the one hand, and _et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima_ (sc. _sit_—repeated from _accommodata sit_) on the other. This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by _cum ... tum_. To take _accommodata sit_ as depending on the _cum_ which follows _compositio_ is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this case an independent _sit_ would have to be supplied with _gratissima_ (to make _et compositio ... gratissima sit_ correspond to _et verba intercidant_ above): and the translation would then be: ‘it is just when (_cum ... tum_), or exactly in proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (_rebus accommodata_) that the very variety (thereby secured) gives the arrangement its greatest charm.’ But if this had been Quintilian’s meaning he would surely have written _cum rebus accommodatur_ (or—_ata est_) _tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima_.

§14. quos imitemur. The D’Orville MS. gives _quos eligamus ad imitandum_,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it may explain the origin of the reading of b and H _quos at imitandum_.

quid sit ad quod nos. The _ad_ is due to Regius: most codd. have _quid sit quod nos_, except Harl. 4995, which is again in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2: _quid sit quod nobis_.

§15. et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam. The explanation given in the notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however, wished to insert _et_ before _inter_ 211 _ipsos_. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).

dicunt, Harl. 4995: _dicant_ all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’ (Halm).

ut sic dixerim Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9: v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have _ut dixerim_. Halm wrote _ut ita dixerim_, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but _ut sic_ is more common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.

§16. compositis exultantes. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 72) would prefer _compositis rigidi_ (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii. 10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), _comptis_ (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42) _exultantes_ = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is _laetis exultantes, compositis corrupti_ (Lindau): or _compositis exiles_ (Düntzner).

§17. quidlibet, most codd.: _quamlibet_ M, Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: _qui licet_ bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879, p. 162) condemns _illud_, and would read either _quamlibet frigidum_ (cp. 3 §19 and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet apertum), or _quidlibet frigidum_, which latter is approved by P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of _illud frigidum et inane_, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on §16.

Attici sunt scilicet. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to be preferred. The retention of _sunt_ (represented in some MSS. by a simple _s_,—hence the reading _Atticis scilicet_) makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a _sunt_ after _qui praec. concl. obscuri_: in so loose a writer as Quintilian the first _sunt_ would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have _Attici scilicet_: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives _Atticis scilicet_. In the Ioannensis I find _Attici s_ (for _sunt_): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give _Atticis s. Scilicet_ (om. Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be _Attici sunt_. Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give _Atticos scilicet_ (_Athicos_ Harl. 4995): qy. _Atticorum similes_? (cp. Cic. Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers _Atticis_ (sc. _se pares credunt_).

§22. proposito. This conjecture by Gertz (Opuscula philol. &c., p. 134) I have found in the Ioannensis (*ppo) and in Harl. 2662 and 11671. It is approved also by Kiderlin. BNHb Prat. Sal. give _propositio_: all other codd. _proposita_. Perhaps we should read (with Ioan.) _sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est_. Prat. omits the second _est_.

§23. tenuitas aut iucunditas, Halm and Meister: _tenuitas ac iucunditas_ b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: _tenuitas aut nuditas_ N Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: _tenuitas ac nuditas_ Prat. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: _aut iuditas_ Bg.

§25. quid ergo? non est satis, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly afterwards, _mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem, quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere?_ (= _sed etiam si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si omnia haec consequi possem_).

§28. deerunt, Francius: _deerant_ (derant) all codd. Becher defends _deerant_: ‘der Rhetor meint dass _qui propria bona adiecerit_ öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu ergänzen als zu beschneiden _si quid redundabit_.’

oporteat bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: _oportebat_ B Prat. N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671 Burn. 244 Dorv. The latter (which is adopted by Halm) would indicate (cp. viii. 4. 22) a condition which ought to have been and may still be realised: the former (adopted by Meister and approved by Becher) is the conjunctive potential, and is quite in Quintilian’s manner (cp. xi. 2. 20): it conveys the expression of a present duty and obligation, the realisation of which may now be expected, and it connects also more intimately with _erit_ in the following sentence.

212