CRITICAL NOTES.

CRITICAL NOTES.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt. Introd.p. lviii.b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd.p. lxiv, sqq.F = codex Florentinus.T = codex Turicensis.N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani, &c.A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd.p. lxi, sqq.):—Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this edition, are the following (Introd.p. lxxiii, sqq.):—Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1, 1, 13).Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, Paris, 1874).CHAPTER I.§1.cognitioni, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.).CogitationiG and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in the ancient text.§2.scietG. The readingscierit(Harl. 4995 and many codd.) is probably due to H, which givessciuit(so FT).quae quoque sint modo dicenda. So GHFTL, and Halm. The alternative reading isquo 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 ofquo quaequeother 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 §§5and6) seem to guarantee the correctness of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to takequoqueas the ablative ofquisquethan (as Halm) as the relative with que.tamen: GHFT Harl. 4950:tanquamHarl. 2662, 11671, 4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244tanquamis corrected totamen.Paratamexplainsin procinctu: so thattanquamis not so necessary asvelutin 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) conjecturedante omnia necessarium est, and this is approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp.necessariumjust above, andnecessariain§1. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84) first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may have beenante omnia stat atque, corrupted intoante omniast [at] atque: for which use ofsto, see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forwardante omnia necesse est, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 428) proposedante omnia sciet, though more recently he has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly suggestedante omnia opus esse. Perhaps the true reading may beante omnia prodest.The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following passage. GH agree in givingproximam deinde inimitationem novissimam scribendi quoque diligentia. This Halm converted intoproximum deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia,—where theestis certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whetherproxima 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,’ in1. 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 lectiois adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the sequence of thought makes the special mention oflegere(alongside ofdicereandscribere) a necessity:multacorresponds todiligentiain what follows: cp. multa lectione§10. Butlegerehas already been touched on in§2, and moreover is included underimitatio(sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione repetitorum).§4.iam opere. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd.iam opere iam. Becher reportsiam operealso from the Vallensis.qua ratione. Forqua in oratione, the reading of all MSS., Hirt conjecturedqua exercitatione. Schöll proposed to rejectin orationeas a gloss: butquaby itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint. with verbs of motion: see on7 §11.In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891), Kiderlin subjects the whole of§4to 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§33and7 §1can 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: sedut(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 praeparanduserit(sit, the codd.)ita(so S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit, instruamus, qua inpraeparatione(qua in oratione, the codd.) quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.Utmay easily, he contends, have fallen out beforeat: 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 seesut duo tresqueinutrisque. 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, andmultomay easily have been written in the singular, likenonnullusvi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and elsewhere. The motive for changingque,quae, intoquoanderit(est?) intositmay have been the analogy of the foregoingquomodo 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 fromqua in praeparationemore probably than fromqua ratione, which appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the context asqua in praeparatione(cp.praeparandusabove, andparandaebelow). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what preparation (cp. praeparant§35, comparant§67, praeparetur6 §6, praeparantur7 §19) the orator may best and most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For the preposition (inpraeparatione) 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 wordigiturseems 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 athis side when preparing a second edition of theInstitutiosome 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. hasNum 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 idemHalm, supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree with GLS inquod:quooccurs in Harl. 4995 only.§8.quod quoqueGH Halm, Meister:quid quoque(as7 §5) occurs in L S, also in Bodl., Ball. ForquidZumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723 and 7724 (Fierville).Aptissimum(strangely mangled in most codd.—e.g.locis ita petissimumG) 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 velG H:fere rebus velL S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis Becher reportsfere verbis vel.intueri, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I findinterim intueri: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl.,interim tueri.quae nitidiore in parteoccurs first in ed. Col. 1527: Vall.2Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. showsquae cultiore in p.: GHquaetidiorem in p.: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl.quae utiliore in p.§10.cum omnem, &c.cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamusGH:cum omnem enim, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and Krüger (3rd ed.), suggestedomnem enim sermonem a. pr. accipimus.§11.alia vero, Frotscher:aliaveGH:aliaqueHarl. 4995. This last Becher now prefers (alia queVall.:alia quaeRegius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.τροπικῶςquasi tamen, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.):tropicos quare tamGH,quare tamen, later MSS. Halm obelizedquare tamen: Mayor onlyquare. Becher recommendstamenby itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) readstamen quasi, and is followed by Hild, who takesquasiwithferunturin the sense ofreferuntur(μεταφορά): Zumpt took it witheundem intellectum. Gemoll approves of the exclusion ofquare, which he thinks must have arisen from a glossfigurate(either marginal or interlinear) onτροπικῶς. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks thequare tamof GHL a mutilation of the glossfigurate:gurateandquare tāare not far apart.§12.figurarumG (per compendium):figuranusH. Kiderlin suggestsmutuatione 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 givemutantesformutuantes, and in i. 4. 7 A1hasmutamurformutuamur.§15.hoc sunt exempla potentiora.Hocis a conj. of Regius (also Vall.2), all the MSS. givinghaec(hec).Hocappears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665. It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who saysquiastands too far away fromhocto allow of such a construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According to himhaec exempla(those derived fromlectioandauditio) 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 readquam 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 vielesHören 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, nothaec exempla, buthinc ducta (petita)orquae hinc ducuntur (petuntur) exempla; and he rightly desiderates alsoquam quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus. Meister also opposes Schöll (Philol. xlii. p. 149): the orderquam ipsis quae traduntur artibusis in fact impossible.On the whole it seems much better to keephoc, and to understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: thedoctorrelies only on precept, theoratoron example.’Gertz conjecturesnam 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 withhinc, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb thansuntwould be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. givingnihil, and in xii. 2. 31hincbelongs tobibatandsumptam. Kiderlin himself at first proposedhaec praestant exempla, potentiora: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 15) in favour ofhaec suggerunt exempla, potentiora, &c. Byhaeche understandslegereandaudire, 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. Dennvon allemwas 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.’ ForsuggerereKiderlin compares i. 10. 7 artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret materiam interrogationi: cp. also§13quorum 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 giveimagine ambitu rerum. Halm (after Bursian) bracketedambitu: but it is more probable thatimagineis a gloss onambituthan vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [imagine]ambitu rerum. It seems just as likely, however, thatethas fallen out. Hertz suggestedimagine ambituve rerum: Maehly thinks thatambituwas originallytantum.nec fortune modo. Gertz proposednec 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 utHalm (after Bursian):commoda utSpald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS givecommoda aut: L and all my MSScommoda ut(except Burn. 243 which showscomendat ut).et, ut semel dicam. Kiderlin would deleteet, 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 ofplacentandnon placentmakes this reading probable. But GH givelaudetur: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) prefer to follow Regius in readingplaceant—laudentur—placent.§19.e contrario. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd. vett.,’ occurs inHarl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrotecontrarium.actionis impetu, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.):actionis impetusGH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s inimpetushas been deleted):ut actionis impetusHalm and Meister.tractemusGHL:tractamusall my MSS.:retractemusSpald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 429) supportstractemus, arguing that the phrase is a sort of hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to Lex. p. xxxviii), or that thereofrepetamusis to be supplied in thought withtractemus: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1 ‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’Tractamusin5 §8also supports this reading.iteratione, Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: most MSS.altercatione(as G) oralteratione(as Harl. 2662).§22.illud vero. The MSS. vary betweenilla(GH) andillud(Harl. 4995 Vall.2). Kiderlin suggestsilla ... utilissima.§23.Quinetiam si... tamen: so all MSS. Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to excludequin. 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 actionesandeasdem causas ... utile erit scire. But (1) such careless repetition (quin etiam—quin etiam) is not unusual in Quint.: and (2)siwhen followed bytamenoften =etiamsi: Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c., so that it is not necessary to connectetiamwith it likeetiamsi ... tamenxi. 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 afteraliquae, which they take withrequirentur(‘yet in some cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any idea ofselecting fromthe ‘minus pares.’causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire, Halm and Meister following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527:causas utile erit scireVall.: all other codd.causas utrisque erit scire. Meister thinksnon inutilewould be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage. Gemoll suggestscausas ut plures egerint intererit scire, Kaibelut 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 firstquin 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 withquin etiam, and relies greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. havequis etiam,—quinbeing an emendation by Regius. The MS. reading isquis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire: this Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiamillud 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? Butut quisquedoes 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 proposesut duo tresquefor the MS.utrisque. The passage would then run: ‘quis etiamillud utile neget(negat esse utile?) easdem causas ut duotresque (tresve?) egerint, scire?’The position ofeasdem causasis due to a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position ofscirecp. v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.§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 topoesis, 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 readingnescio an ulla§65below, where see note. Becher explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent. comp. (esse)—Halm printsgenus * * * ostent., and supposes thatpoeseoshas fallen out.—Forgenuscp.§68: de Or. ii. §55, wheregenus hoc= history.Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian cannot have passed fromgenustoadligata: Halm’sgenus poeseosis not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of the wordpoesis(cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there only in Ain rasura—GM givingpoetas, which was probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now readpoetica). 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 passagegenusmay have been written in where the Greekποιητικήνhad fallen out, giving rise to comparatum. Meister, who adoptspoeticam, thinks it probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions arepraeter 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 readpoeticam (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 ergoall MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the latter explainingergo‘viz. because I have given this caution to the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’§31.quodam uberi: Spald. forquodam moveriof GH and all MSS. except Harl. 4995, Vail.2and Burn. 243, which givequodam molli. Kiderlin suggestsquodammodo uberi, thinking thatuberibecameueri, while the lettersmo(inmoveri) point tomodo: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A hasquomoforquomodo, and xi. 3. 97 where b hashomoforhoc modo. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which havemoveri) I findquodammodo vero.est enim,H, which (likeG) hasestalso aftersolutum. Halm adopts Osann’s conjectureetenim: Kiderlin suggestsea enimorista enim, which may be right. Becher defends the doubleest(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:poesiSpald. ‘recte ut videtur,’ Halm.§33.adde quod, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.).audeo quiaGH;audio quiaL S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, &c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj.ideoque: and the Bonn. Meister ed. readsadeo. Becher proposesquid? quod: Kiderlinid 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 fromid eothe eye might pass more easily toaudeo.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 afterrerumand suggestsex cognitione rerum enim venit copia exemplorum. His argument is thatwhile ‘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 ofenim venit copiaexplains howexemplorumcomes to be joined withrerum: 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. Forne omnia(Badius and Vall.2) the codd. givenec omnia, which Becher prefers.§35.vitio factum est oratorum. G givesest orumwithal. oratorumwritten in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with FTLS Bodl.) givesest alia oratorum,—one of many strong indications that it was copied from G: foraliasome MSS. givealias. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks thatorumin G may have stood forrhetorum.quae sunt istis. GHLS and Vall. all givesint. But iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.Stoicisupplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin would place it aftermaxime, just asSocraticistands afteroptime. PerhapsStoiciandSocraticiare both glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves the matter of oratory (de iustis, &c.) and also the form (byaltercationesandinterrogationes).Stoicilooks appropriate tode rebus divinis(see note): andargumentantur acriteris quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the other handinterrogationibuswould be as apt in regard to them as to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum suarum atqueinterrogationumlaqueis te inretitum tenerent.On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note,altercationibusandinterrogationibusare taken as datives (as often in Quint. afterpraeparo), referring to two well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As regards thealtercatioindeed, 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, thealtercatiowas 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 usageprecededby 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 Romepp. 212-216.§37.qui sint legendi. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS.qui sint. Legendiappears 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 oflegendoabove, and Spalding is probably right in regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for eliminating the asyndeton by readinget quae(with Meister) orquaeque(Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that the original may have runqui sint qui prosint: cp.2 §14tum in ipsis quos elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantumutilitatisin legendo iudicemus, and§40paucos 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, wherequibuscum convivebatis 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. deOff. 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 conjecturedqui tum vivebant(a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570): Törnebladhqui quidem tum vivebant, Wrobelqui tunc vigebant(cp.§122), Zambaldiut quisque tum vivebat, and Kiderlinqui quidem nondum e vita excesserant; see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to readqui quidem sescenti erant.G (and practically H) givesquidqui convivebit. FT part company with H, the former readingquod quid convivabit, the latterquidque contuuebit(man. sec.quod quisque contuebat). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) havequid quisque convivebat(convivabitL). The Carcassonensis givesquid quod convivabit.persequamur [et philosophos].Persequamuris a conj. of Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. giveet Graecos omnes et philosophos(philosophisHFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is datedA.D.1470) I have however foundet philosophos exequar: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The reading of the ed. Col. 1527 isGraecos omnes et philosophos et poetas persequi velim.Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejectedet philosophosas 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 readssi et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur et poetas et historicos et philosophos?He cps.1 §25nam 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 abovede Romanis tantumetoratoribusforetin sense of ‘and that’: cp.§§51,94. Gertz suggestset Graecos omnes persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et philosophos. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.) preferspersequamurbecause ofiudicemusandadiungamusabove. 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. Foret philosophosJeep suggestedexplico 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§40the traditional reading has beennon est tamen(fornon est):sed non est, Spalding:at non estOsann.Taking§§37-45as 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. Hisdictumwas “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 variousgenera 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.§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical:§39says ‘Livy’s prescription was the safest,’ while§40gives a general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverancebrevitasis meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and philosophy.In hisBeiträge 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§§40-42and that of§§37-39. And he thinks the statement of asumma iudiciiin §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 toaccommodatum) to§44and read:interim non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa.Summa iudiciithen furnishes the antithesis todisseram diligentius:nostri quoque iudiciireceives 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 theveteresand thenovi,—the later sections§§43-44explain the preceding (§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in§39toverum antequam de singulisin§42is natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue:quid sumat(forsummatim, 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, tonon quidquid ... accommodatum. Sections40-42are then addressed, not to the student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the comparative merits of theveteresand thenovi: 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 conjecturedqua praecipit Livius(cp. ii. 5. 20) orqua apud Livium in ep. ad fil. praescribitur,—doubting ifbrevitascould have an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G givesquae apud Livium epistula,inbeing inserted by the second hand, which H as usual follows.§42.ad faciendamφράσιν. This is the reading now proposed by Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), thoughφράσινappeared as early as the edition of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readingsad farisinG:ad faciendam etiam ad farisinH (affaresimS. Harl. 2662 Bodl. Ball.apharesimHarl. 4295)ad faciendam affarisinL. Meister adopts the vulgate,ad faciendam etiam phrasin: Halm readsad phrasin.The parallel passage in§87clearly makes forfaciendam. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp.ἕξιςin§1:§59:5 §1, where the MSS. vary betweenex his,lexis,exitum, &c.:τροπικῶς§11. Cp. on§87. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt) showἀφέρεσιν.EtiamKiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may beprotinusetad faciendamφράσιν.de singulis loquar, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omitsloquar, 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 traditionaltenuia et quae. The Vallensis hastenuia 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 givestenia atque que, but also GL [and H],tenui atque, which is nothing else thantenuiAtQUE, 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. Thereason 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:§45aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e.aliQUOS = aliquos quos:§54reddit G(H)V, i.e.redDIt= reddidit (so cod. Almen.):§79auditoris 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:§84probandoque G (and H) =probandoQUE:§89etiam sit G (see Crit. Notead loc.) = etiam SIt. Especially significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. ofortuNATAMme consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground foratque, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’ more closely thanet, in the fact that already in Cicerotenuisis used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.lenis ... generis. ForlenisKrüger (3rd ed.) readslevis, 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 senselevis(λεῖος) is opp. toasper: cp. de Orat. iii. §171 struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus etlevis: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint. ii. 5. 9leviset quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.interim. H. Peters would prefernunc(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:peteremust have an object. So Krüger, 3rd ed. The original reading in G issumat et a qua, corrected tosumat quia et a qua, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my other MSS. agree with S in readingsummaforsumat. Even if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would preferquid sumat et a qua, as nearer the MSS.§45.paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed. havepaucos(sunt enim em.) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc. tantum)§91. Halm readspaucos enim(sunt autem em.) GH givepaucos enim sunt em. L and the British Museum MSS. all readpaucos sunt enim. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and approved by Kiderlin: cp.§101qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37 quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposedpaucos enim,sunt enim.his simillimi, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares§39:his similesMeister and Krüger (3rd ed.). G hashi similibus, corrected by the same hand tosimillimis: H giveshis simillimis: all the other MSS.his simillimi.pluresis the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and also Vall. (Becher). GHFT giveplurimis: LS and the later MSS. generallyplurimos. Kiderlin proposespluris iisas being nearerplurimis. 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 whomthisbook 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.—Foraliquos quossee ontenuia atque quae§44above.qui a me nominabuntur, ed. Col. 1527; GH havequia nom.: Vall. LSqui nom. Hertz rejectsa me, and he may be right.§46.omnium fluminum. GHL Bodl.annium: S Harl. 2662, 4950, Ball.amnium vim. Halm, following Osann, readomnium amnium: but thoughomniumis necessary (cp.πάντες ποταμοίIl. 21. 196), Quintilian would surely have avoided sucha cacophony asomnium amnium. Wölfflin conjecturedomnium 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 hadomnium fontiumque,fluminumhaving fallen out:omniumwas then corrected intoamnium.Amnishowever is rare, andfluminumnot only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly found: cp.§78puro 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 consiliorumL:hac con.G:et con.Prat. Put.atque con.7231, 7696.§48.operis sui ingressu:operis si ingressusGH:operis suiBodl.:operisPrat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv. Ball. Badius conj.ingressu, and Halm addedin, which is however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4 initiis operum suorum. Becher keepsingressus, but makes it a genitive dependent onversibus.Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) givenamfornon, and in the former case thenamlooks very likeviam. It is possible thatviammay be the true reading: cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on theregular treatmentof a subject.Age verois not always found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Withoutnon, the reading may possibly beage vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in paucissimis, &c. Thesiafteroperismay have arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous foringressus, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc. vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong.Utrumque opus ingressuswould have been more natural:viam utriusque operis ingressusis not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable to keep the question and readnonne 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. giveceteraque quae: so too Bodl. and Ball.Generawas conjectured by Caesar (Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposesceteraeque viae ... multae: Kiderlinceteraque, quae probandi ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?Forquae ... sunthe compares§106omnia denique quae sunt inventionis.§50.ut magni sit. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.:sintH:ut magni sit viriPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (sintL):ut magnum sit, Gensler:ut magni sit spiritus, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).§51.et in omni:etom. Prat. and Put.clarissimaLS and most codd.:durissimaGHT Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Dorv.§52.utiles circa praecepta, &c. Kraffert proposedutilis circa praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum... Withpraeceptamay there not have been a genitive in the original text:utilis circa praecepta sapientiae(pr.§19: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhapsutiles circa morum praecepta sententiae(xii. ii. 9)?§53.secundumPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv. Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, givesparem(cp.§127pares ac saltem proximo):aequalemwould be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in§55. Schöll now thinkssecunduman old interpolation, and conjecturesquam sit aliud atque aliud proximum esse, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.§54.poetarum iudicesPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball.iudiciumG,iuditiumH. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis§109) and Mayor removed it from the text.reddiditcod. Almen.:redditGHFT Vall. Harl. 4995 Bodl. Burn. 243.Ediditis given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.sufficitMSS.: Halm would prefersuffecit(cp.§123). Forparemmany MSS.giveequalem, which must have been a gloss: S hasequalem credidit parem, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd.p. lxxix) Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467).§56.Macer atque Vergilius. Unger suggestedValgiusfor Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to insert the comma afterVergiliusinstead of afteridembelow.§59.adsequimurGHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’sassequaturand 4829 which hasassecuntur). Halm readsadsequamur, and is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposesut adsequamur.§60.quibusdam quod quoquam minor est. GH givequibusfor quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. havequibusdam quod quidem minor est: (minorisBodl. Burn. 243):quod quodam7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposesquod idem amarior est:amarus(§117) indicates the excess ofacerbitas(§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. Butquoquam(Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that thereisany one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s mind.Quoquamis not to be restricted to the narrow circle of iambic writers, otherwisemateriaewould 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.:spiritusH (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 Rζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ σχηματισμῶν.§62.Stesichorum Badius:iste sichorusGH:StesichorusBodl. 7696:StesicorusHarl. 4995: other MSS.TerpsichorusorTerpsicorus.§63.magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: GHmagnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis; so Burn. 243 and Bodl. (orationi); most other MSS.et diligens plurimusque(plurimumorplurimumque)Homero similis:plurimumque oratio, Prat. Put.:plerumque orationis7231, 7696. Halm givesdicendi vi, which, afterin eloquendo, would be strange. Wölfflin proposeselegans 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’sdicendi virested onμετὰ δεινότητος, but we need not suppose that Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius. Within eloquendo,diligensseems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium.Sed et lusit, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3:sed et eius sitGH:sed in lususMS Ball. Dorv.:sed editus sitBodl.§64.eius operis:eiGH:eiusM Bodl. Burn. 243:eiusdemPrat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order isin hac parte omnibus eum eiusdem operis.§65.est et in. The MSS. giveetsi est: Wölfflin conjecturedest et, and Halm, (following some old edd.) insertedin, comparing§§64and68. So too Meister.Etsimay have crept into the text to anticipatetamen(ii. 5. 19): or the true reading may beest 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 retinetvim(dumG,tumvulg.)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 thatpoesis(probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was present in the writer’s mind: see onpoeticam§28above.But in Quint.poesisoccurs 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 genuswould surely have occurred to him, as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of literature. Again the text givespostnotpraeterHomerum. Founding on the readingan illa(GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin therefore suggestsan 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 frompoet.topost, 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 herepost Homerumfollows at once. Forullocp.§60quod quoquam minor est. An alternative emendation would bepoesi ulla.

CRITICAL NOTES.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt. Introd.p. lviii.b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd.p. lxiv, sqq.F = codex Florentinus.T = codex Turicensis.N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani, &c.A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd.p. lxi, sqq.):—Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this edition, are the following (Introd.p. lxxiii, sqq.):—Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1, 1, 13).Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, Paris, 1874).CHAPTER I.§1.cognitioni, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.).CogitationiG and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in the ancient text.§2.scietG. The readingscierit(Harl. 4995 and many codd.) is probably due to H, which givessciuit(so FT).quae quoque sint modo dicenda. So GHFTL, and Halm. The alternative reading isquo 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 ofquo quaequeother 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 §§5and6) seem to guarantee the correctness of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to takequoqueas the ablative ofquisquethan (as Halm) as the relative with que.tamen: GHFT Harl. 4950:tanquamHarl. 2662, 11671, 4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244tanquamis corrected totamen.Paratamexplainsin procinctu: so thattanquamis not so necessary asvelutin 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) conjecturedante omnia necessarium est, and this is approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp.necessariumjust above, andnecessariain§1. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84) first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may have beenante omnia stat atque, corrupted intoante omniast [at] atque: for which use ofsto, see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forwardante omnia necesse est, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 428) proposedante omnia sciet, though more recently he has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly suggestedante omnia opus esse. Perhaps the true reading may beante omnia prodest.The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following passage. GH agree in givingproximam deinde inimitationem novissimam scribendi quoque diligentia. This Halm converted intoproximum deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia,—where theestis certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whetherproxima 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,’ in1. 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 lectiois adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the sequence of thought makes the special mention oflegere(alongside ofdicereandscribere) a necessity:multacorresponds todiligentiain what follows: cp. multa lectione§10. Butlegerehas already been touched on in§2, and moreover is included underimitatio(sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione repetitorum).§4.iam opere. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd.iam opere iam. Becher reportsiam operealso from the Vallensis.qua ratione. Forqua in oratione, the reading of all MSS., Hirt conjecturedqua exercitatione. Schöll proposed to rejectin orationeas a gloss: butquaby itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint. with verbs of motion: see on7 §11.In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891), Kiderlin subjects the whole of§4to 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§33and7 §1can 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: sedut(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 praeparanduserit(sit, the codd.)ita(so S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit, instruamus, qua inpraeparatione(qua in oratione, the codd.) quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.Utmay easily, he contends, have fallen out beforeat: 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 seesut duo tresqueinutrisque. 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, andmultomay easily have been written in the singular, likenonnullusvi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and elsewhere. The motive for changingque,quae, intoquoanderit(est?) intositmay have been the analogy of the foregoingquomodo 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 fromqua in praeparationemore probably than fromqua ratione, which appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the context asqua in praeparatione(cp.praeparandusabove, andparandaebelow). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what preparation (cp. praeparant§35, comparant§67, praeparetur6 §6, praeparantur7 §19) the orator may best and most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For the preposition (inpraeparatione) 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 wordigiturseems 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 athis side when preparing a second edition of theInstitutiosome 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. hasNum 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 idemHalm, supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree with GLS inquod:quooccurs in Harl. 4995 only.§8.quod quoqueGH Halm, Meister:quid quoque(as7 §5) occurs in L S, also in Bodl., Ball. ForquidZumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723 and 7724 (Fierville).Aptissimum(strangely mangled in most codd.—e.g.locis ita petissimumG) 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 velG H:fere rebus velL S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis Becher reportsfere verbis vel.intueri, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I findinterim intueri: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl.,interim tueri.quae nitidiore in parteoccurs first in ed. Col. 1527: Vall.2Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. showsquae cultiore in p.: GHquaetidiorem in p.: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl.quae utiliore in p.§10.cum omnem, &c.cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamusGH:cum omnem enim, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and Krüger (3rd ed.), suggestedomnem enim sermonem a. pr. accipimus.§11.alia vero, Frotscher:aliaveGH:aliaqueHarl. 4995. This last Becher now prefers (alia queVall.:alia quaeRegius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.τροπικῶςquasi tamen, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.):tropicos quare tamGH,quare tamen, later MSS. Halm obelizedquare tamen: Mayor onlyquare. Becher recommendstamenby itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) readstamen quasi, and is followed by Hild, who takesquasiwithferunturin the sense ofreferuntur(μεταφορά): Zumpt took it witheundem intellectum. Gemoll approves of the exclusion ofquare, which he thinks must have arisen from a glossfigurate(either marginal or interlinear) onτροπικῶς. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks thequare tamof GHL a mutilation of the glossfigurate:gurateandquare tāare not far apart.§12.figurarumG (per compendium):figuranusH. Kiderlin suggestsmutuatione 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 givemutantesformutuantes, and in i. 4. 7 A1hasmutamurformutuamur.§15.hoc sunt exempla potentiora.Hocis a conj. of Regius (also Vall.2), all the MSS. givinghaec(hec).Hocappears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665. It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who saysquiastands too far away fromhocto allow of such a construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According to himhaec exempla(those derived fromlectioandauditio) 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 readquam 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 vielesHören 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, nothaec exempla, buthinc ducta (petita)orquae hinc ducuntur (petuntur) exempla; and he rightly desiderates alsoquam quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus. Meister also opposes Schöll (Philol. xlii. p. 149): the orderquam ipsis quae traduntur artibusis in fact impossible.On the whole it seems much better to keephoc, and to understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: thedoctorrelies only on precept, theoratoron example.’Gertz conjecturesnam 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 withhinc, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb thansuntwould be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. givingnihil, and in xii. 2. 31hincbelongs tobibatandsumptam. Kiderlin himself at first proposedhaec praestant exempla, potentiora: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 15) in favour ofhaec suggerunt exempla, potentiora, &c. Byhaeche understandslegereandaudire, 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. Dennvon allemwas 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.’ ForsuggerereKiderlin compares i. 10. 7 artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret materiam interrogationi: cp. also§13quorum 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 giveimagine ambitu rerum. Halm (after Bursian) bracketedambitu: but it is more probable thatimagineis a gloss onambituthan vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [imagine]ambitu rerum. It seems just as likely, however, thatethas fallen out. Hertz suggestedimagine ambituve rerum: Maehly thinks thatambituwas originallytantum.nec fortune modo. Gertz proposednec 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 utHalm (after Bursian):commoda utSpald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS givecommoda aut: L and all my MSScommoda ut(except Burn. 243 which showscomendat ut).et, ut semel dicam. Kiderlin would deleteet, 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 ofplacentandnon placentmakes this reading probable. But GH givelaudetur: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) prefer to follow Regius in readingplaceant—laudentur—placent.§19.e contrario. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd. vett.,’ occurs inHarl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrotecontrarium.actionis impetu, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.):actionis impetusGH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s inimpetushas been deleted):ut actionis impetusHalm and Meister.tractemusGHL:tractamusall my MSS.:retractemusSpald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 429) supportstractemus, arguing that the phrase is a sort of hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to Lex. p. xxxviii), or that thereofrepetamusis to be supplied in thought withtractemus: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1 ‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’Tractamusin5 §8also supports this reading.iteratione, Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: most MSS.altercatione(as G) oralteratione(as Harl. 2662).§22.illud vero. The MSS. vary betweenilla(GH) andillud(Harl. 4995 Vall.2). Kiderlin suggestsilla ... utilissima.§23.Quinetiam si... tamen: so all MSS. Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to excludequin. 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 actionesandeasdem causas ... utile erit scire. But (1) such careless repetition (quin etiam—quin etiam) is not unusual in Quint.: and (2)siwhen followed bytamenoften =etiamsi: Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c., so that it is not necessary to connectetiamwith it likeetiamsi ... tamenxi. 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 afteraliquae, which they take withrequirentur(‘yet in some cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any idea ofselecting fromthe ‘minus pares.’causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire, Halm and Meister following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527:causas utile erit scireVall.: all other codd.causas utrisque erit scire. Meister thinksnon inutilewould be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage. Gemoll suggestscausas ut plures egerint intererit scire, Kaibelut 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 firstquin 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 withquin etiam, and relies greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. havequis etiam,—quinbeing an emendation by Regius. The MS. reading isquis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire: this Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiamillud 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? Butut quisquedoes 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 proposesut duo tresquefor the MS.utrisque. The passage would then run: ‘quis etiamillud utile neget(negat esse utile?) easdem causas ut duotresque (tresve?) egerint, scire?’The position ofeasdem causasis due to a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position ofscirecp. v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.§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 topoesis, 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 readingnescio an ulla§65below, where see note. Becher explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent. comp. (esse)—Halm printsgenus * * * ostent., and supposes thatpoeseoshas fallen out.—Forgenuscp.§68: de Or. ii. §55, wheregenus hoc= history.Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian cannot have passed fromgenustoadligata: Halm’sgenus poeseosis not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of the wordpoesis(cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there only in Ain rasura—GM givingpoetas, which was probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now readpoetica). 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 passagegenusmay have been written in where the Greekποιητικήνhad fallen out, giving rise to comparatum. Meister, who adoptspoeticam, thinks it probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions arepraeter 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 readpoeticam (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 ergoall MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the latter explainingergo‘viz. because I have given this caution to the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’§31.quodam uberi: Spald. forquodam moveriof GH and all MSS. except Harl. 4995, Vail.2and Burn. 243, which givequodam molli. Kiderlin suggestsquodammodo uberi, thinking thatuberibecameueri, while the lettersmo(inmoveri) point tomodo: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A hasquomoforquomodo, and xi. 3. 97 where b hashomoforhoc modo. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which havemoveri) I findquodammodo vero.est enim,H, which (likeG) hasestalso aftersolutum. Halm adopts Osann’s conjectureetenim: Kiderlin suggestsea enimorista enim, which may be right. Becher defends the doubleest(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:poesiSpald. ‘recte ut videtur,’ Halm.§33.adde quod, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.).audeo quiaGH;audio quiaL S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, &c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj.ideoque: and the Bonn. Meister ed. readsadeo. Becher proposesquid? quod: Kiderlinid 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 fromid eothe eye might pass more easily toaudeo.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 afterrerumand suggestsex cognitione rerum enim venit copia exemplorum. His argument is thatwhile ‘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 ofenim venit copiaexplains howexemplorumcomes to be joined withrerum: 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. Forne omnia(Badius and Vall.2) the codd. givenec omnia, which Becher prefers.§35.vitio factum est oratorum. G givesest orumwithal. oratorumwritten in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with FTLS Bodl.) givesest alia oratorum,—one of many strong indications that it was copied from G: foraliasome MSS. givealias. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks thatorumin G may have stood forrhetorum.quae sunt istis. GHLS and Vall. all givesint. But iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.Stoicisupplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin would place it aftermaxime, just asSocraticistands afteroptime. PerhapsStoiciandSocraticiare both glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves the matter of oratory (de iustis, &c.) and also the form (byaltercationesandinterrogationes).Stoicilooks appropriate tode rebus divinis(see note): andargumentantur acriteris quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the other handinterrogationibuswould be as apt in regard to them as to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum suarum atqueinterrogationumlaqueis te inretitum tenerent.On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note,altercationibusandinterrogationibusare taken as datives (as often in Quint. afterpraeparo), referring to two well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As regards thealtercatioindeed, 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, thealtercatiowas 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 usageprecededby 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 Romepp. 212-216.§37.qui sint legendi. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS.qui sint. Legendiappears 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 oflegendoabove, and Spalding is probably right in regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for eliminating the asyndeton by readinget quae(with Meister) orquaeque(Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that the original may have runqui sint qui prosint: cp.2 §14tum in ipsis quos elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantumutilitatisin legendo iudicemus, and§40paucos 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, wherequibuscum convivebatis 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. deOff. 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 conjecturedqui tum vivebant(a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570): Törnebladhqui quidem tum vivebant, Wrobelqui tunc vigebant(cp.§122), Zambaldiut quisque tum vivebat, and Kiderlinqui quidem nondum e vita excesserant; see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to readqui quidem sescenti erant.G (and practically H) givesquidqui convivebit. FT part company with H, the former readingquod quid convivabit, the latterquidque contuuebit(man. sec.quod quisque contuebat). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) havequid quisque convivebat(convivabitL). The Carcassonensis givesquid quod convivabit.persequamur [et philosophos].Persequamuris a conj. of Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. giveet Graecos omnes et philosophos(philosophisHFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is datedA.D.1470) I have however foundet philosophos exequar: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The reading of the ed. Col. 1527 isGraecos omnes et philosophos et poetas persequi velim.Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejectedet philosophosas 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 readssi et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur et poetas et historicos et philosophos?He cps.1 §25nam 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 abovede Romanis tantumetoratoribusforetin sense of ‘and that’: cp.§§51,94. Gertz suggestset Graecos omnes persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et philosophos. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.) preferspersequamurbecause ofiudicemusandadiungamusabove. 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. Foret philosophosJeep suggestedexplico 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§40the traditional reading has beennon est tamen(fornon est):sed non est, Spalding:at non estOsann.Taking§§37-45as 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. Hisdictumwas “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 variousgenera 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.§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical:§39says ‘Livy’s prescription was the safest,’ while§40gives a general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverancebrevitasis meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and philosophy.In hisBeiträge 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§§40-42and that of§§37-39. And he thinks the statement of asumma iudiciiin §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 toaccommodatum) to§44and read:interim non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa.Summa iudiciithen furnishes the antithesis todisseram diligentius:nostri quoque iudiciireceives 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 theveteresand thenovi,—the later sections§§43-44explain the preceding (§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in§39toverum antequam de singulisin§42is natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue:quid sumat(forsummatim, 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, tonon quidquid ... accommodatum. Sections40-42are then addressed, not to the student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the comparative merits of theveteresand thenovi: 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 conjecturedqua praecipit Livius(cp. ii. 5. 20) orqua apud Livium in ep. ad fil. praescribitur,—doubting ifbrevitascould have an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G givesquae apud Livium epistula,inbeing inserted by the second hand, which H as usual follows.§42.ad faciendamφράσιν. This is the reading now proposed by Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), thoughφράσινappeared as early as the edition of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readingsad farisinG:ad faciendam etiam ad farisinH (affaresimS. Harl. 2662 Bodl. Ball.apharesimHarl. 4295)ad faciendam affarisinL. Meister adopts the vulgate,ad faciendam etiam phrasin: Halm readsad phrasin.The parallel passage in§87clearly makes forfaciendam. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp.ἕξιςin§1:§59:5 §1, where the MSS. vary betweenex his,lexis,exitum, &c.:τροπικῶς§11. Cp. on§87. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt) showἀφέρεσιν.EtiamKiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may beprotinusetad faciendamφράσιν.de singulis loquar, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omitsloquar, 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 traditionaltenuia et quae. The Vallensis hastenuia 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 givestenia atque que, but also GL [and H],tenui atque, which is nothing else thantenuiAtQUE, 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. Thereason 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:§45aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e.aliQUOS = aliquos quos:§54reddit G(H)V, i.e.redDIt= reddidit (so cod. Almen.):§79auditoris 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:§84probandoque G (and H) =probandoQUE:§89etiam sit G (see Crit. Notead loc.) = etiam SIt. Especially significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. ofortuNATAMme consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground foratque, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’ more closely thanet, in the fact that already in Cicerotenuisis used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.lenis ... generis. ForlenisKrüger (3rd ed.) readslevis, 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 senselevis(λεῖος) is opp. toasper: cp. de Orat. iii. §171 struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus etlevis: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint. ii. 5. 9leviset quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.interim. H. Peters would prefernunc(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:peteremust have an object. So Krüger, 3rd ed. The original reading in G issumat et a qua, corrected tosumat quia et a qua, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my other MSS. agree with S in readingsummaforsumat. Even if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would preferquid sumat et a qua, as nearer the MSS.§45.paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed. havepaucos(sunt enim em.) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc. tantum)§91. Halm readspaucos enim(sunt autem em.) GH givepaucos enim sunt em. L and the British Museum MSS. all readpaucos sunt enim. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and approved by Kiderlin: cp.§101qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37 quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposedpaucos enim,sunt enim.his simillimi, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares§39:his similesMeister and Krüger (3rd ed.). G hashi similibus, corrected by the same hand tosimillimis: H giveshis simillimis: all the other MSS.his simillimi.pluresis the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and also Vall. (Becher). GHFT giveplurimis: LS and the later MSS. generallyplurimos. Kiderlin proposespluris iisas being nearerplurimis. 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 whomthisbook 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.—Foraliquos quossee ontenuia atque quae§44above.qui a me nominabuntur, ed. Col. 1527; GH havequia nom.: Vall. LSqui nom. Hertz rejectsa me, and he may be right.§46.omnium fluminum. GHL Bodl.annium: S Harl. 2662, 4950, Ball.amnium vim. Halm, following Osann, readomnium amnium: but thoughomniumis necessary (cp.πάντες ποταμοίIl. 21. 196), Quintilian would surely have avoided sucha cacophony asomnium amnium. Wölfflin conjecturedomnium 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 hadomnium fontiumque,fluminumhaving fallen out:omniumwas then corrected intoamnium.Amnishowever is rare, andfluminumnot only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly found: cp.§78puro 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 consiliorumL:hac con.G:et con.Prat. Put.atque con.7231, 7696.§48.operis sui ingressu:operis si ingressusGH:operis suiBodl.:operisPrat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv. Ball. Badius conj.ingressu, and Halm addedin, which is however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4 initiis operum suorum. Becher keepsingressus, but makes it a genitive dependent onversibus.Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) givenamfornon, and in the former case thenamlooks very likeviam. It is possible thatviammay be the true reading: cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on theregular treatmentof a subject.Age verois not always found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Withoutnon, the reading may possibly beage vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in paucissimis, &c. Thesiafteroperismay have arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous foringressus, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc. vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong.Utrumque opus ingressuswould have been more natural:viam utriusque operis ingressusis not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable to keep the question and readnonne 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. giveceteraque quae: so too Bodl. and Ball.Generawas conjectured by Caesar (Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposesceteraeque viae ... multae: Kiderlinceteraque, quae probandi ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?Forquae ... sunthe compares§106omnia denique quae sunt inventionis.§50.ut magni sit. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.:sintH:ut magni sit viriPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (sintL):ut magnum sit, Gensler:ut magni sit spiritus, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).§51.et in omni:etom. Prat. and Put.clarissimaLS and most codd.:durissimaGHT Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Dorv.§52.utiles circa praecepta, &c. Kraffert proposedutilis circa praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum... Withpraeceptamay there not have been a genitive in the original text:utilis circa praecepta sapientiae(pr.§19: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhapsutiles circa morum praecepta sententiae(xii. ii. 9)?§53.secundumPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv. Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, givesparem(cp.§127pares ac saltem proximo):aequalemwould be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in§55. Schöll now thinkssecunduman old interpolation, and conjecturesquam sit aliud atque aliud proximum esse, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.§54.poetarum iudicesPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball.iudiciumG,iuditiumH. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis§109) and Mayor removed it from the text.reddiditcod. Almen.:redditGHFT Vall. Harl. 4995 Bodl. Burn. 243.Ediditis given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.sufficitMSS.: Halm would prefersuffecit(cp.§123). Forparemmany MSS.giveequalem, which must have been a gloss: S hasequalem credidit parem, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd.p. lxxix) Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467).§56.Macer atque Vergilius. Unger suggestedValgiusfor Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to insert the comma afterVergiliusinstead of afteridembelow.§59.adsequimurGHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’sassequaturand 4829 which hasassecuntur). Halm readsadsequamur, and is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposesut adsequamur.§60.quibusdam quod quoquam minor est. GH givequibusfor quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. havequibusdam quod quidem minor est: (minorisBodl. Burn. 243):quod quodam7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposesquod idem amarior est:amarus(§117) indicates the excess ofacerbitas(§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. Butquoquam(Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that thereisany one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s mind.Quoquamis not to be restricted to the narrow circle of iambic writers, otherwisemateriaewould 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.:spiritusH (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 Rζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ σχηματισμῶν.§62.Stesichorum Badius:iste sichorusGH:StesichorusBodl. 7696:StesicorusHarl. 4995: other MSS.TerpsichorusorTerpsicorus.§63.magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: GHmagnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis; so Burn. 243 and Bodl. (orationi); most other MSS.et diligens plurimusque(plurimumorplurimumque)Homero similis:plurimumque oratio, Prat. Put.:plerumque orationis7231, 7696. Halm givesdicendi vi, which, afterin eloquendo, would be strange. Wölfflin proposeselegans 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’sdicendi virested onμετὰ δεινότητος, but we need not suppose that Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius. Within eloquendo,diligensseems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium.Sed et lusit, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3:sed et eius sitGH:sed in lususMS Ball. Dorv.:sed editus sitBodl.§64.eius operis:eiGH:eiusM Bodl. Burn. 243:eiusdemPrat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order isin hac parte omnibus eum eiusdem operis.§65.est et in. The MSS. giveetsi est: Wölfflin conjecturedest et, and Halm, (following some old edd.) insertedin, comparing§§64and68. So too Meister.Etsimay have crept into the text to anticipatetamen(ii. 5. 19): or the true reading may beest 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 retinetvim(dumG,tumvulg.)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 thatpoesis(probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was present in the writer’s mind: see onpoeticam§28above.But in Quint.poesisoccurs 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 genuswould surely have occurred to him, as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of literature. Again the text givespostnotpraeterHomerum. Founding on the readingan illa(GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin therefore suggestsan 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 frompoet.topost, 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 herepost Homerumfollows at once. Forullocp.§60quod quoquam minor est. An alternative emendation would bepoesi ulla.

Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.

Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.

B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.

G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt. Introd.p. lviii.

b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.

H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd.p. lxiv, sqq.

F = codex Florentinus.

T = codex Turicensis.

N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.

Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.

For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani, &c.

A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd.p. lxi, sqq.):—

Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.

Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.

Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.

Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.

Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.

The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.

Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this edition, are the following (Introd.p. lxxiii, sqq.):—

Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.

Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.

Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.

Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).

Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).

Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).

Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).

Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.

Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1, 1, 13).

Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).

The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, Paris, 1874).

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

§2.scietG. The readingscierit(Harl. 4995 and many codd.) is probably due to H, which givessciuit(so FT).

quae quoque sint modo dicenda. So GHFTL, and Halm. The alternative reading isquo 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 ofquo quaequeother 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 §§5and6) seem to guarantee the correctness of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to takequoqueas the ablative ofquisquethan (as Halm) as the relative with que.

tamen: GHFT Harl. 4950:tanquamHarl. 2662, 11671, 4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244tanquamis corrected totamen.Paratamexplainsin procinctu: so thattanquamis not so necessary asvelutin 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) conjecturedante omnia necessarium est, and this is approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp.necessariumjust above, andnecessariain§1. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84) first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may have beenante omnia stat atque, corrupted intoante omniast [at] atque: for which use ofsto, see Bonn. Lex. s.v. ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forwardante omnia necesse est, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 428) proposedante omnia sciet, though more recently he has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly suggestedante omnia opus esse. Perhaps the true reading may beante omnia prodest.

The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following passage. GH agree in givingproximam deinde inimitationem novissimam scribendi quoque diligentia. This Halm converted intoproximum deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia,—where theestis certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whetherproxima 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,’ in1. 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 lectiois adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the sequence of thought makes the special mention oflegere(alongside ofdicereandscribere) a necessity:multacorresponds todiligentiain what follows: cp. multa lectione§10. Butlegerehas already been touched on in§2, and moreover is included underimitatio(sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione repetitorum).

§4.iam opere. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd.iam opere iam. Becher reportsiam operealso from the Vallensis.

qua ratione. Forqua in oratione, the reading of all MSS., Hirt conjecturedqua exercitatione. Schöll proposed to rejectin orationeas a gloss: butquaby itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint. with verbs of motion: see on7 §11.

In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891), Kiderlin subjects the whole of§4to 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§33and7 §1can 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: sedut(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 praeparanduserit(sit, the codd.)ita(so S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit, instruamus, qua inpraeparatione(qua in oratione, the codd.) quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit.Utmay easily, he contends, have fallen out beforeat: 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 seesut duo tresqueinutrisque. 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, andmultomay easily have been written in the singular, likenonnullusvi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and elsewhere. The motive for changingque,quae, intoquoanderit(est?) intositmay have been the analogy of the foregoingquomodo 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 fromqua in praeparationemore probably than fromqua ratione, which appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the context asqua in praeparatione(cp.praeparandusabove, andparandaebelow). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what preparation (cp. praeparant§35, comparant§67, praeparetur6 §6, praeparantur7 §19) the orator may best and most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For the preposition (inpraeparatione) 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 wordigiturseems 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 athis side when preparing a second edition of theInstitutiosome 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. hasNum 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 idemHalm, supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree with GLS inquod:quooccurs in Harl. 4995 only.

§8.quod quoqueGH Halm, Meister:quid quoque(as7 §5) occurs in L S, also in Bodl., Ball. ForquidZumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723 and 7724 (Fierville).Aptissimum(strangely mangled in most codd.—e.g.locis ita petissimumG) 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 velG H:fere rebus velL S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis Becher reportsfere verbis vel.

intueri, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I findinterim intueri: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl.,interim tueri.

quae nitidiore in parteoccurs first in ed. Col. 1527: Vall.2Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. showsquae cultiore in p.: GHquaetidiorem in p.: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl.quae utiliore in p.

§10.cum omnem, &c.cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamusGH:cum omnem enim, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and Krüger (3rd ed.), suggestedomnem enim sermonem a. pr. accipimus.

§11.alia vero, Frotscher:aliaveGH:aliaqueHarl. 4995. This last Becher now prefers (alia queVall.:alia quaeRegius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.

τροπικῶςquasi tamen, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.):tropicos quare tamGH,quare tamen, later MSS. Halm obelizedquare tamen: Mayor onlyquare. Becher recommendstamenby itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) readstamen quasi, and is followed by Hild, who takesquasiwithferunturin the sense ofreferuntur(μεταφορά): Zumpt took it witheundem intellectum. Gemoll approves of the exclusion ofquare, which he thinks must have arisen from a glossfigurate(either marginal or interlinear) onτροπικῶς. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks thequare tamof GHL a mutilation of the glossfigurate:gurateandquare tāare not far apart.

§12.figurarumG (per compendium):figuranusH. Kiderlin suggestsmutuatione 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 givemutantesformutuantes, and in i. 4. 7 A1hasmutamurformutuamur.

§15.hoc sunt exempla potentiora.Hocis a conj. of Regius (also Vall.2), all the MSS. givinghaec(hec).Hocappears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665. It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who saysquiastands too far away fromhocto allow of such a construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According to himhaec exempla(those derived fromlectioandauditio) 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 readquam 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 vielesHören 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, nothaec exempla, buthinc ducta (petita)orquae hinc ducuntur (petuntur) exempla; and he rightly desiderates alsoquam quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus. Meister also opposes Schöll (Philol. xlii. p. 149): the orderquam ipsis quae traduntur artibusis in fact impossible.

On the whole it seems much better to keephoc, and to understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: thedoctorrelies only on precept, theoratoron example.’

Gertz conjecturesnam 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 withhinc, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb thansuntwould be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. givingnihil, and in xii. 2. 31hincbelongs tobibatandsumptam. Kiderlin himself at first proposedhaec praestant exempla, potentiora: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 15) in favour ofhaec suggerunt exempla, potentiora, &c. Byhaeche understandslegereandaudire, 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. Dennvon allemwas 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.’ ForsuggerereKiderlin compares i. 10. 7 artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret materiam interrogationi: cp. also§13quorum 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 giveimagine ambitu rerum. Halm (after Bursian) bracketedambitu: but it is more probable thatimagineis a gloss onambituthan vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [imagine]ambitu rerum. It seems just as likely, however, thatethas fallen out. Hertz suggestedimagine ambituve rerum: Maehly thinks thatambituwas originallytantum.

nec fortune modo. Gertz proposednec 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 utHalm (after Bursian):commoda utSpald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS givecommoda aut: L and all my MSScommoda ut(except Burn. 243 which showscomendat ut).

et, ut semel dicam. Kiderlin would deleteet, 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 ofplacentandnon placentmakes this reading probable. But GH givelaudetur: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) prefer to follow Regius in readingplaceant—laudentur—placent.

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

actionis impetu, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.):actionis impetusGH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s inimpetushas been deleted):ut actionis impetusHalm and Meister.

tractemusGHL:tractamusall my MSS.:retractemusSpald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii. 14. 429) supportstractemus, arguing that the phrase is a sort of hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to Lex. p. xxxviii), or that thereofrepetamusis to be supplied in thought withtractemus: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1 ‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’Tractamusin5 §8also supports this reading.

iteratione, Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: most MSS.altercatione(as G) oralteratione(as Harl. 2662).

§22.illud vero. The MSS. vary betweenilla(GH) andillud(Harl. 4995 Vall.2). Kiderlin suggestsilla ... utilissima.

§23.Quinetiam si... tamen: so all MSS. Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to excludequin. 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 actionesandeasdem causas ... utile erit scire. But (1) such careless repetition (quin etiam—quin etiam) is not unusual in Quint.: and (2)siwhen followed bytamenoften =etiamsi: Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c., so that it is not necessary to connectetiamwith it likeetiamsi ... tamenxi. 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 afteraliquae, which they take withrequirentur(‘yet in some cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any idea ofselecting fromthe ‘minus pares.’

causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire, Halm and Meister following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527:causas utile erit scireVall.: all other codd.causas utrisque erit scire. Meister thinksnon inutilewould be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage. Gemoll suggestscausas ut plures egerint intererit scire, Kaibelut 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 firstquin 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 withquin etiam, and relies greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. havequis etiam,—quinbeing an emendation by Regius. The MS. reading isquis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire: this Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiamillud 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? Butut quisquedoes 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 proposesut duo tresquefor the MS.utrisque. The passage would then run: ‘quis etiamillud utile neget(negat esse utile?) easdem causas ut duotresque (tresve?) egerint, scire?’The position ofeasdem causasis due to a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position ofscirecp. v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.

§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 topoesis, 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 readingnescio an ulla§65below, where see note. Becher explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent. comp. (esse)—Halm printsgenus * * * ostent., and supposes thatpoeseoshas fallen out.—Forgenuscp.§68: de Or. ii. §55, wheregenus hoc= history.

Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian cannot have passed fromgenustoadligata: Halm’sgenus poeseosis not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of the wordpoesis(cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there only in Ain rasura—GM givingpoetas, which was probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now readpoetica). 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 passagegenusmay have been written in where the Greekποιητικήνhad fallen out, giving rise to comparatum. Meister, who adoptspoeticam, thinks it probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions arepraeter 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 readpoeticam (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 ergoall MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the latter explainingergo‘viz. because I have given this caution to the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’

§31.quodam uberi: Spald. forquodam moveriof GH and all MSS. except Harl. 4995, Vail.2and Burn. 243, which givequodam molli. Kiderlin suggestsquodammodo uberi, thinking thatuberibecameueri, while the lettersmo(inmoveri) point tomodo: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A hasquomoforquomodo, and xi. 3. 97 where b hashomoforhoc modo. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which havemoveri) I findquodammodo vero.

est enim,H, which (likeG) hasestalso aftersolutum. Halm adopts Osann’s conjectureetenim: Kiderlin suggestsea enimorista enim, which may be right. Becher defends the doubleest(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:poesiSpald. ‘recte ut videtur,’ Halm.

§33.adde quod, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.).audeo quiaGH;audio quiaL S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, &c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj.ideoque: and the Bonn. Meister ed. readsadeo. Becher proposesquid? quod: Kiderlinid 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 fromid eothe eye might pass more easily toaudeo.

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 afterrerumand suggestsex cognitione rerum enim venit copia exemplorum. His argument is thatwhile ‘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 ofenim venit copiaexplains howexemplorumcomes to be joined withrerum: 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. Forne omnia(Badius and Vall.2) the codd. givenec omnia, which Becher prefers.

§35.vitio factum est oratorum. G givesest orumwithal. oratorumwritten in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with FTLS Bodl.) givesest alia oratorum,—one of many strong indications that it was copied from G: foraliasome MSS. givealias. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks thatorumin G may have stood forrhetorum.

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

Stoicisupplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin would place it aftermaxime, just asSocraticistands afteroptime. PerhapsStoiciandSocraticiare both glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves the matter of oratory (de iustis, &c.) and also the form (byaltercationesandinterrogationes).Stoicilooks appropriate tode rebus divinis(see note): andargumentantur acriteris quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the other handinterrogationibuswould be as apt in regard to them as to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum suarum atqueinterrogationumlaqueis te inretitum tenerent.

On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note,altercationibusandinterrogationibusare taken as datives (as often in Quint. afterpraeparo), referring to two well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As regards thealtercatioindeed, 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, thealtercatiowas 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 usageprecededby 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 Romepp. 212-216.

§37.qui sint legendi. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS.qui sint. Legendiappears 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 oflegendoabove, and Spalding is probably right in regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for eliminating the asyndeton by readinget quae(with Meister) orquaeque(Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that the original may have runqui sint qui prosint: cp.2 §14tum in ipsis quos elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantumutilitatisin legendo iudicemus, and§40paucos 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, wherequibuscum convivebatis 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. deOff. 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 conjecturedqui tum vivebant(a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570): Törnebladhqui quidem tum vivebant, Wrobelqui tunc vigebant(cp.§122), Zambaldiut quisque tum vivebat, and Kiderlinqui quidem nondum e vita excesserant; see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to readqui quidem sescenti erant.

G (and practically H) givesquidqui convivebit. FT part company with H, the former readingquod quid convivabit, the latterquidque contuuebit(man. sec.quod quisque contuebat). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) havequid quisque convivebat(convivabitL). The Carcassonensis givesquid quod convivabit.

persequamur [et philosophos].Persequamuris a conj. of Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. giveet Graecos omnes et philosophos(philosophisHFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is datedA.D.1470) I have however foundet philosophos exequar: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The reading of the ed. Col. 1527 isGraecos omnes et philosophos et poetas persequi velim.

Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejectedet philosophosas 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 readssi et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur et poetas et historicos et philosophos?He cps.1 §25nam 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 abovede Romanis tantumetoratoribusforetin sense of ‘and that’: cp.§§51,94. Gertz suggestset Graecos omnes persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et philosophos. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.) preferspersequamurbecause ofiudicemusandadiungamusabove. 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. Foret philosophosJeep suggestedexplico 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§40the traditional reading has beennon est tamen(fornon est):sed non est, Spalding:at non estOsann.

Taking§§37-45as 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. Hisdictumwas “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 variousgenera 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.§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical:§39says ‘Livy’s prescription was the safest,’ while§40gives a general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverancebrevitasis meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and philosophy.

In hisBeiträge 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§§40-42and that of§§37-39. And he thinks the statement of asumma iudiciiin §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 toaccommodatum) to§44and read:interim non est dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa.Summa iudiciithen furnishes the antithesis todisseram diligentius:nostri quoque iudiciireceives 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 theveteresand thenovi,—the later sections§§43-44explain the preceding (§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in§39toverum antequam de singulisin§42is natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue:quid sumat(forsummatim, 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, tonon quidquid ... accommodatum. Sections40-42are then addressed, not to the student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the comparative merits of theveteresand thenovi: 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 conjecturedqua praecipit Livius(cp. ii. 5. 20) orqua apud Livium in ep. ad fil. praescribitur,—doubting ifbrevitascould have an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G givesquae apud Livium epistula,inbeing inserted by the second hand, which H as usual follows.

§42.ad faciendamφράσιν. This is the reading now proposed by Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), thoughφράσινappeared as early as the edition of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readingsad farisinG:ad faciendam etiam ad farisinH (affaresimS. Harl. 2662 Bodl. Ball.apharesimHarl. 4295)ad faciendam affarisinL. Meister adopts the vulgate,ad faciendam etiam phrasin: Halm readsad phrasin.

The parallel passage in§87clearly makes forfaciendam. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp.ἕξιςin§1:§59:5 §1, where the MSS. vary betweenex his,lexis,exitum, &c.:τροπικῶς§11. Cp. on§87. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt) showἀφέρεσιν.EtiamKiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may beprotinusetad faciendamφράσιν.

de singulis loquar, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omitsloquar, 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 traditionaltenuia et quae. The Vallensis hastenuia 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 givestenia atque que, but also GL [and H],tenui atque, which is nothing else thantenuiAtQUE, 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. Thereason 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:§45aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e.aliQUOS = aliquos quos:§54reddit G(H)V, i.e.redDIt= reddidit (so cod. Almen.):§79auditoris 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:§84probandoque G (and H) =probandoQUE:§89etiam sit G (see Crit. Notead loc.) = etiam SIt. Especially significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. ofortuNATAMme consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground foratque, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’ more closely thanet, in the fact that already in Cicerotenuisis used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.

lenis ... generis. ForlenisKrüger (3rd ed.) readslevis, 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 senselevis(λεῖος) is opp. toasper: cp. de Orat. iii. §171 struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus etlevis: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint. ii. 5. 9leviset quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.

interim. H. Peters would prefernunc(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:peteremust have an object. So Krüger, 3rd ed. The original reading in G issumat et a qua, corrected tosumat quia et a qua, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my other MSS. agree with S in readingsummaforsumat. Even if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would preferquid sumat et a qua, as nearer the MSS.

§45.paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed. havepaucos(sunt enim em.) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc. tantum)§91. Halm readspaucos enim(sunt autem em.) GH givepaucos enim sunt em. L and the British Museum MSS. all readpaucos sunt enim. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and approved by Kiderlin: cp.§101qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37 quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposedpaucos enim,sunt enim.

his simillimi, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares§39:his similesMeister and Krüger (3rd ed.). G hashi similibus, corrected by the same hand tosimillimis: H giveshis simillimis: all the other MSS.his simillimi.

pluresis the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and also Vall. (Becher). GHFT giveplurimis: LS and the later MSS. generallyplurimos. Kiderlin proposespluris iisas being nearerplurimis. 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 whomthisbook 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.—Foraliquos quossee ontenuia atque quae§44above.

qui a me nominabuntur, ed. Col. 1527; GH havequia nom.: Vall. LSqui nom. Hertz rejectsa me, and he may be right.

§46.omnium fluminum. GHL Bodl.annium: S Harl. 2662, 4950, Ball.amnium vim. Halm, following Osann, readomnium amnium: but thoughomniumis necessary (cp.πάντες ποταμοίIl. 21. 196), Quintilian would surely have avoided sucha cacophony asomnium amnium. Wölfflin conjecturedomnium 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 hadomnium fontiumque,fluminumhaving fallen out:omniumwas then corrected intoamnium.Amnishowever is rare, andfluminumnot only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly found: cp.§78puro 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 consiliorumL:hac con.G:et con.Prat. Put.atque con.7231, 7696.

§48.operis sui ingressu:operis si ingressusGH:operis suiBodl.:operisPrat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv. Ball. Badius conj.ingressu, and Halm addedin, which is however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4 initiis operum suorum. Becher keepsingressus, but makes it a genitive dependent onversibus.

Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) givenamfornon, and in the former case thenamlooks very likeviam. It is possible thatviammay be the true reading: cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on theregular treatmentof a subject.Age verois not always found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Withoutnon, the reading may possibly beage vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in paucissimis, &c. Thesiafteroperismay have arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous foringressus, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc. vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong.Utrumque opus ingressuswould have been more natural:viam utriusque operis ingressusis not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable to keep the question and readnonne 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. giveceteraque quae: so too Bodl. and Ball.Generawas conjectured by Caesar (Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposesceteraeque viae ... multae: Kiderlinceteraque, quae probandi ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?Forquae ... sunthe compares§106omnia denique quae sunt inventionis.

§50.ut magni sit. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.:sintH:ut magni sit viriPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (sintL):ut magnum sit, Gensler:ut magni sit spiritus, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).

§51.et in omni:etom. Prat. and Put.

clarissimaLS and most codd.:durissimaGHT Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Dorv.

§52.utiles circa praecepta, &c. Kraffert proposedutilis circa praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum... Withpraeceptamay there not have been a genitive in the original text:utilis circa praecepta sapientiae(pr.§19: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhapsutiles circa morum praecepta sententiae(xii. ii. 9)?

§53.secundumPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv. Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, givesparem(cp.§127pares ac saltem proximo):aequalemwould be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in§55. Schöll now thinkssecunduman old interpolation, and conjecturesquam sit aliud atque aliud proximum esse, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.

§54.poetarum iudicesPrat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball.iudiciumG,iuditiumH. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis§109) and Mayor removed it from the text.

reddiditcod. Almen.:redditGHFT Vall. Harl. 4995 Bodl. Burn. 243.Ediditis given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.

sufficitMSS.: Halm would prefersuffecit(cp.§123). Forparemmany MSS.giveequalem, which must have been a gloss: S hasequalem credidit parem, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd.p. lxxix) Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467).

§56.Macer atque Vergilius. Unger suggestedValgiusfor Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to insert the comma afterVergiliusinstead of afteridembelow.

§59.adsequimurGHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’sassequaturand 4829 which hasassecuntur). Halm readsadsequamur, and is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposesut adsequamur.

§60.quibusdam quod quoquam minor est. GH givequibusfor quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. havequibusdam quod quidem minor est: (minorisBodl. Burn. 243):quod quodam7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposesquod idem amarior est:amarus(§117) indicates the excess ofacerbitas(§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. Butquoquam(Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that thereisany one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s mind.Quoquamis not to be restricted to the narrow circle of iambic writers, otherwisemateriaewould 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.:spiritusH (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 Rζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ σχηματισμῶν.

§62.Stesichorum Badius:iste sichorusGH:StesichorusBodl. 7696:StesicorusHarl. 4995: other MSS.TerpsichorusorTerpsicorus.

§63.magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: GHmagnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis; so Burn. 243 and Bodl. (orationi); most other MSS.et diligens plurimusque(plurimumorplurimumque)Homero similis:plurimumque oratio, Prat. Put.:plerumque orationis7231, 7696. Halm givesdicendi vi, which, afterin eloquendo, would be strange. Wölfflin proposeselegans 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’sdicendi virested onμετὰ δεινότητος, but we need not suppose that Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius. Within eloquendo,diligensseems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo positum oratoris officium.

Sed et lusit, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3:sed et eius sitGH:sed in lususMS Ball. Dorv.:sed editus sitBodl.

§64.eius operis:eiGH:eiusM Bodl. Burn. 243:eiusdemPrat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order isin hac parte omnibus eum eiusdem operis.

§65.est et in. The MSS. giveetsi est: Wölfflin conjecturedest et, and Halm, (following some old edd.) insertedin, comparing§§64and68. So too Meister.Etsimay have crept into the text to anticipatetamen(ii. 5. 19): or the true reading may beest 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 retinetvim(dumG,tumvulg.)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 thatpoesis(probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was present in the writer’s mind: see onpoeticam§28above.

But in Quint.poesisoccurs 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 genuswould surely have occurred to him, as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of literature. Again the text givespostnotpraeterHomerum. Founding on the readingan illa(GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin therefore suggestsan 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 frompoet.topost, 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 herepost Homerumfollows at once. Forullocp.§60quod quoquam minor est. An alternative emendation would bepoesi ulla.

Back to IndexNext