CHAPTER V.

§1. ἕξιν parantibus: for the _ex imparantibus_ of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added _non est huius_. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives _nec exuberantis id quidem est operis ut explicemus_.

factum est iam, Halm and Meister: _est etiam_ all codd. except Ioan, which has _factum etiam_.

iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omit _iam_: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give _iam robustiorum_.

§2. id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however give _M. id Messalae_: and Harl. 4995 _Marco id Messalae_. The spelling _Messallae_ is adopted in the text as more correct.

§4. eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger (3rd ed.): _eandem_ all codd., with the single exception of M, and so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the meaning. The only way to explain _eandem_ seems to be to continue the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an elevating influence, while his licences of style _do not carry with them in advance_, or _involve_, the corresponding ability to use the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no _non_ with _praesumunt_, at least if we may read _eadem_: ‘poetical licence implies that the orator can say the same things _propriis verbis_.’ Bursian suggested _nec_ (for _et_) _verba_ ... _praesumunt_.

§5. post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2, _praeter quod_: so Vall.

§13. reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. _rectene reus sit_, to correspond with _rectene occiderit_ and _honestene tradiderit_ in what follows: along with Gertz’s _quaeramus, an_ to correspond with _veniat in iudicium an_, Becher, however (Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, ‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui ... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, ‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod 216 Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.

Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, so here the _finita_ or _specialis causa_ shows the form of a positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca. _Reus sit_ and _legerit_ are motived only by the disjunctive interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The _infinita quaestio_, on the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following _finitae_ and _infinitae quaestiones_. The _finita quaestio_ rests on the _generalis quaestio_: acquittal of the charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to _violeturne_, &c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, &c.

§14. dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.: _inventus_ Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj. _invenis_ appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. _dum adul. profectui sunt util._

quia inventionem, Halm: _quae inventionem_ all codd. Qy. _quod_?

§16. materia fuerit. Meister suggests _erit_: perhaps rather _fuerit—necesse erit_.

§17. assuescere Zumpt: _assuefieri_ Philander. All MSS. have _assuefacere_. Frotscher wrote _inanibus_ se _simulacris ... assuefacere_, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give _difficilis digressus_: but in view of the consensus for _assuefacere_ the alternation _difficilius digressos_ (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) is worth considering: _inanibus simulacris_ would then go (though awkwardly) with _detineri_ (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.

§18. transferrentur N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.

§20. decretoriis Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) _derectoriis_ BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244: _detectoris_ b: _delectoris_ H: _delectoriis_ Bodl.: _de rhetoriis_ Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: _vel rhetoricis_ M.

satis so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 _litis_: Hb _sitis_.

§21. idoneus bHM: _si idoneus_ Bn Bg Sal.: _sudoneus_ N: _is idoneus_ Halm.

§22. sustinere Halm and Meister: _sustineri_ Bn Bg HN Sal.

recidet occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a correction in Vall.: all other codd. _recidere_.

§23. diligenter effecta all codd. Regius proposed _una diligenter effecta_, Badius _una enim diligenter effecta_, and so many edd. _Una_ would come in well before _quam_; but Becher rightly holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative alone, but qualitative as well. He reports _una enim_ as a correction in the Vallensis.

quidque. Fleckeisen proposed _quicquid_; see Madvig on de Fin. v. §24.