CHAPTER III.

§1. nobis ipsis, codd.: _e nobis ipsis_ Gertz.

utilitatis etiam. Ioan. gives _etiam utilitatis_, which Spalding quotes also from Goth.

§2. alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also in Ioan. and Prat.: _alter effossa_ BH: _altius effossa_ Harl. 4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.: _alte effossa_ Harl. 2662, 11671.

fecundior fit. _Fit_ appears as a correction in T and Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662. Perhaps _fecundior_ is the true reading, and _est_ is to be supplied in thought: Introd. p. lv.

effundit B Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.: _effunditur_ b H. et fundit Vall.2 M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.

parentis: _parentium_ Ioan.: _parentum_ Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 244 C: _parentibus_ bH Bodl.

§4. iam hinc. Obrecht _iam hunc_: see note _ad loc._ Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree in _iam hic_.

§6. scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last corr. from _-em_). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus), and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.

§9. sequetur Bn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671: _persequetur_ b Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: _prosequetur_ HM Bodl. and Prat. _Prosequetur_ (Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is a graphic touch about the compound.

§10. ut provideamus obelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note. Becher proposed _provideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus_: Krüger suggests rather _resistamus et provideamus ut ... coerceamus_: Jeep, _ut provide eamus_, also, for _efferentes se_, _efferventes_. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin (Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision of _et_ before _efferentes_, as it is found in no MS. He translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considers _ut provideamus_ a necessary addition, in order to make the meaning of _resistamus_ clear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen, welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. read _resist. ut provid. efferentes equos frenis_: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 give _ut_ for _et_: Harl. 4995 has _resist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos fr. quib. coerc._: 4950 and Burn. 244 _resist. ut prohibeamus efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc._ The reading _et efferentes se_ is due to Burmann. Something might be said for _et ferentes se_: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.

§12. patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both give _patrono_: which, with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the Guelferbytanus (Spald.).

§14. quod omni, see note _ad loc._: edd. vett _ex quo_.

§15. plura et celerius Prat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and Ambrosianus ii. _Et_ had escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister follows, _plura celerius_.

213 sed quid: _sed_ is supplied by the old edd., but does not appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjectures _at_, which may easily have slipped out after _obveniat_.

§17. quae fuit: (_manent_) _quae fudit_ Harl. 4995 (as also Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)

§19. urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 86) his proposal to read _urgetur_, which would however give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’

§20. in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister: _legendo_ BM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See note _ad loc._ The true reading may be _si tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo velut offensator fuit_. This is supported by _et diligendo_ (bH Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjectured _et delendo_, Gertz _in tenendo_ (‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) have _inertior_ for _incertior_: but this gives no antithesis to _tardior_: it appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M) have _fuerit_, for _fuit_, which may be right.

concepta Regius: _conceptae_ codd. Becher points out that _concipere_ and _excutere_ are ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib. ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas.

§21. altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed. Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D. 1434) and 11671 (A.D. 1467). B N Ioan, and other codd. _aptiorem_: Prat. _apertiorem_, and so a later hand in Vall.

frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all give _simul et interim_: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.) and Burn. 243 have _simul vertere latus et interim_ (the reading of many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omits _et_. It is to b that we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and b gives _sintieletus_, which H shows as _sintielatus_. Considering how liable _s_ (ſ) and _f_ are to be confused, I venture to think that _ſinti_ may conceal _fronte_.

Bursian’s _femur et latus_ (Halm and Meister) is not so near the MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quoted _ad loc._), but the latter passage would warrant _frontem_ quite as much as _femur_, and _frontem ferire_ seems to have been considered by Quintilian a more extravagant action than _femur ferire_, of which he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his thigh.’

Frotscher and Bonnell’s _sinum et latus_ cannot be supported by any parallel for such an expression as _sinum caedere_, _ferire_, _obiurgare_. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecture _semet interim obiurgare_, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.) as = _increpare_: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’

Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines of b) _singultire, latus int. ob._ This would need to be taken of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer addresses πρὸς ὃν θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers to _singultantium_ in 7 §20, of broken utterance: but we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggests _singultu latus interim obiurgare_, comparing for the ablative §15 cogitationem murmure agitantes. _Singultus_ is common 214 enough: and Kiderlin thinks that as _singultire_ is nearer the MSS. than _singultare_, it may possibly have been used here by Quintilian.

§22. secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl., M, Dorv.: _quod dictando_ BN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 (corr. to _in_). With the reading _quod dictando perit, atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit_ (Halm and Meister) it is senseless to quote 2 §20 (Bonn., Meister, and Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) reads _secretum dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris_, &c.

§23. mihi certe iucundus. After these words H has _videmoni_ (and so the cod. Alm.): Flor. _vindemoni_. This word greatly puzzled Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it into _mihi certe vitae inani iucundus_, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr. L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesie _vinum daemonum_.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert. &c. c. 4. Hence the phrase _vinum daemonum_ may have been compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in the Bambergensis four lines further down, where _tendere ani_(mum) is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.

§24. ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other codd. _rami_.

voluptas ista videatur most codd.: _videatur ista voluptas_ N.

§25. oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex quo nulla exaudiri vox that _aures aut_ has fallen out before _oculi_. Cp. §28 nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.

velut tectos: _velut rectos_ all codd. There is the same confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M has _recteque_ for _tecteque_ (i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgate _tectos_ (first in ed. Leid.) see _ad loc._ Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that for _tectos teneat_ we should have expected _tegat_. The figure also seems to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away from his task: §23 _avocent_, _respexit_: §24 _ad se trahunt_: §25 _aliud agere_. He proposes, therefore, _velut recto itinere_, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt. _Itinere_ may first have fallen out, and then _recto_ may have been changed to _rectos_.—Halm conjectured _velut secretos_, or _coercitos_; Wrobel, _velut relictos_.

§26. haud deerit: _aut deerit_ BN Ioan, and all codd. except a later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent use of _haud_ in Quintilian, though _haud dubie_ 1 §85 (where however GH have _aut_) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on the consensus of the MSS. for _aut_ he proposes to read _aut non deerit_ or _aut certe non deerit_. But _haud_ goes closely with _deerit_, and does not (like _non_, _ac non_) introduce an antithesis to _supererit_. _Aut deerit_ might be made to mean that the _sleepless_ man is to work: but this would be too cruel!

§29. et itinere deerremus: _et ita ne_ BN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.: _ita erremus_ HMb Bodl. (_erramus_). The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.

§31. crebra relatione appears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected from _crebro relationi_ which is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd. Jeep suggested _crebra dilatione_, 215 Kiderlin _crebriore elatione_. Other proposals are _crebra relictionis_, _q. i. c., repetitione_, Gottfried Hermann (in Frotscher), _crebra relictione_, _q. i. c., et repetitione_, Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinks _crebro_ may be right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives: _crebro_ would then go closely with _morantur_ and _frangunt_.

§32. adiciendo ‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. have _adicienda_: b _adiciendi sint_: Harl. _adjiciendi sit_. Meister adopts _adicienti_ from ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B has _cognoscendi_).

ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omits _esse_, and is thus in agreement with N.