§1.nobis ipsis, codd.:e nobis ipsisGertz.utilitatis etiam. Ioan. givesetiam utilitatis, which Spalding quotes also from Goth.§2.alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also in Ioan. and Prat.:alter effossaBH:altius effossaHarl. 4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.:alte effossaHarl. 2662, 11671.fecundior fit.Fitappears as a correction in T and Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662. Perhapsfecundioris the true reading, andestis to be supplied in thought: Introd.p. lv.effunditB Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.:effunditurb H.et funditVall.2M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.parentis:parentiumIoan.:parentumDorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 244 C:parentibusbH Bodl.§4.iam hinc. Obrechtiam hunc: see notead loc.Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree iniam hic.§6.scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last corr. from-em). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus), and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.§9.sequeturBn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:persequeturb Harl. 4995 Burn. 243:prosequeturHM Bodl. and Prat.Prosequetur(Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is a graphic touch about the compound.§10.ut provideamusobelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note. Becher proposedprovideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus: Krüger suggests ratherresistamus et provideamus ut ... coerceamus: Jeep,ut provide eamus, also, forefferentes se,efferventes. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin (Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision ofetbeforeefferentes, as it is found in no MS. He translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considersut provideamusa necessary addition, in order to make the meaning ofresistamusclear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen, welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. readresist. ut provid. efferentes equos frenis: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 giveutforet: Harl. 4995 hasresist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos fr. quib. coerc.: 4950 and Burn. 244resist. ut prohibeamus efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc.The readinget efferentes seis due to Burmann. Something might be said foret ferentes se: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.§12.patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both givepatrono: which, with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the Guelferbytanus (Spald.).§14.quod omni, see notead loc.: edd. vettex quo.§15.plura et celeriusPrat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and Ambrosianus ii.Ethad escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister follows,plura celerius.sed quid:sedis supplied by the old edd., but does not appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjecturesat, which may easily have slipped out afterobveniat.§17.quae fuit: (manent)quae fuditHarl. 4995 (as also Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)§19.urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 86) his proposal to readurgetur, which would however give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’§20.in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister:legendoBM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See notead loc.The true reading may besi tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo velut offensator fuit. This is supported byet diligendo(bH Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjecturedet delendo, Gertzin tenendo(‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) haveinertiorforincertior: but this gives no antithesis totardior: it appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M) havefuerit, forfuit, which may be right.concepta Regius:conceptaecodd. Becher points out thatconcipereandexcutereare ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib. ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas.§21.altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed. Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.aptiorem: Prat.apertiorem, and so a later hand in Vall.frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all givesimul et interim: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.) and Burn. 243 havesimul vertere latus et interim(the reading of many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omitset. It is to b that we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and b givessintieletus, which H shows assintielatus. Considering how liables(ſ) andfare to be confused, I venture to think thatſintimay concealfronte.Bursian’sfemur et latus(Halm and Meister) is not so near the MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quotedad loc.), but the latter passage would warrantfrontemquite as much asfemur, andfrontem ferireseems to have been considered by Quintilian a more extravagant action thanfemur ferire, of which he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his thigh.’Frotscher and Bonnell’ssinum et latuscannot be supported by any parallel for such an expression assinum caedere,ferire,obiurgare. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecturesemet interim obiurgare, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.) as =increpare: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines of b)singultire, latus int. ob.This would need to be taken of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer addressesπρὸς ὃν θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers tosingultantiumin7 §20, of broken utterance: but we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggestssingultu latus interim obiurgare, comparing for the ablative§15cogitationem murmure agitantes.Singultusis commonenough: and Kiderlin thinks that assingultireis nearer the MSS. thansingultare, it may possibly have been used here by Quintilian.§22.secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl., M, Dorv.:quod dictandoBN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 (corr. toin). With the readingquod dictando perit, atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit(Halm and Meister) it is senseless to quote2 §20(Bonn., Meister, and Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) readssecretum dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris, &c.§23.mihi certe iucundus. After these words H hasvidemoni(and so the cod. Alm.): Flor.vindemoni. This word greatly puzzled Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it intomihi certevitae inaniiucundus, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr. L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesievinum daemonum.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert. &c. c. 4. Hence the phrasevinum daemonummay have been compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in the Bambergensis four lines further down, wheretendere ani(mum) is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.§24.ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other codd.rami.voluptas ista videaturmost codd.:videatur ista voluptasN.§25.oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex quo nulla exaudiri vox thataures authas fallen out beforeoculi. Cp.§28nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.velut tectos:velut rectosall codd. There is the same confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M hasrectequefortecteque(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgatetectos(first in ed. Leid.) seead loc.Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that fortectos teneatwe should have expectedtegat. The figure also seems to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away from his task:§23avocent,respexit:§24ad se trahunt:§25aliud agere. He proposes, therefore,velut recto itinere, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt.Itineremay first have fallen out, and thenrectomay have been changed torectos.—Halm conjecturedvelut secretos, orcoercitos; Wrobel,velut relictos.§26.haud deerit:aut deeritBN Ioan, and all codd. except a later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent use ofhaudin Quintilian, thoughhaud dubie1 §85(where however GH haveaut) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on the consensus of the MSS. forauthe proposes to readaut non deeritoraut certe non deerit. Buthaudgoes closely withdeerit, and does not (likenon,ac non) introduce an antithesis tosupererit.Aut deeritmight be made to mean that thesleeplessman is to work: but this would be too cruel!§29.et itinere deerremus:et ita neBN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.:ita erremusHMb Bodl. (erramus). The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.§31.crebra relationeappears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected fromcrebro relationiwhich is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd. Jeep suggestedcrebra dilatione,Kiderlincrebriore elatione. Other proposals arecrebra relictionis,q. i. c., repetitione, Gottfried Hermann (in Frotscher),crebra relictione,q. i. c., et repetitione, Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinkscrebromay be right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:crebrowould then go closely withmoranturandfrangunt.§32.adiciendo‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. haveadicienda: badiciendi sint: Harl.adjiciendi sit. Meister adoptsadicientifrom ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B hascognoscendi).ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omitsesse, and is thus in agreement with N.CHAPTER IV.§3.habet:habeat, Halm quoting from ed. Camp.Habeatoccurs in Burn. 243: most codd. havehabet, but some (H and Bodl.) givehabent.CHAPTER V.§1.ἕξινparantibus: for theex imparantibusof Bn N and Ioan. Bursian addednon est huius. So Halm. Harl. 4995 givesnec exuberantis id quidem est operis ut explicemus.factum est iam, Halm and Meister:est etiamall codd. except Ioan, which hasfactum etiam.iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omitiam: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which giveiam robustiorum.§2.id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however giveM. id Messalae: and Harl. 4995Marco id Messalae. The spellingMessallaeis adopted in the text as more correct.§4.eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger (3rd ed.):eandemall codd., with the single exception of M, and so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the meaning. The only way to explaineandemseems to be to continue the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an elevating influence, while his licences of styledo not carry with them in advance, orinvolve, the corresponding ability to use the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have nononwithpraesumunt, at least if we may readeadem: ‘poetical licence implies that the orator can say the same thingspropriis verbis.’ Bursian suggestednec(foret)verba...praesumunt.§5.post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,praeter quod: so Vall.§13.reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj.rectene reus sit, to correspond withrectene occideritandhonestene tradideritin what follows: along with Gertz’squaeramus, anto correspond withveniat in iudicium an, Becher, however (Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, ‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui ... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, ‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quodMarciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, so here thefinitaorspecialis causashows the form of a positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.Reus sitandlegeritare motived only by the disjunctive interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ Theinfinita quaestio, on the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two followingfinitaeandinfinitae quaestiones. Thefinita quaestiorests on thegeneralis quaestio: acquittal of the charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer tovioleturne, &c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, &c.§14.dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.:inventusHb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.invenisappears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj.dum adul. profectui sunt util.quia inventionem, Halm:quae inventionemall codd. Qy.quod?§16.materia fuerit. Meister suggestserit: perhaps ratherfuerit—necesse erit.§17.assuescereZumpt:assuefieriPhilander. All MSS. haveassuefacere. Frotscher wroteinanibussesimulacris ... assuefacere, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) givedifficilis digressus: but in view of the consensus forassuefacerethe alternationdifficilius digressos(H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) is worth considering:inanibus simulacriswould then go (though awkwardly) withdetineri(for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.§18.transferrenturN Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.§20.decretoriisHarl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.)derectoriisBJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:detectorisb:delectorisH:delectoriisBodl.:de rhetoriisHarl. 2662, 4829, 11671:vel rhetoricisM.satisso most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243litis: Hbsitis.§21.idoneusbHM:si idoneusBn Bg Sal.:sudoneusN:is idoneusHalm.§22.sustinereHalm and Meister:sustineriBn Bg HN Sal.recidetoccurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a correction in Vall.: all other codd.recidere.§23.diligenter effectaall codd. Regius proposeduna diligenter effecta, Badiusuna enim diligenter effecta, and so many edd.Unawould come in well beforequam; but Becher rightly holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative alone, but qualitative as well. He reportsuna enimas a correction in the Vallensis.quidque. Fleckeisen proposedquicquid; see Madvig on de Fin. v. §24.CHAPTER VI.§1.vacui nec otium patitur. The reading in the text, which is quite satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg givevacuum otium pat., and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671. Forotium patiturb (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable readingexperientium(experientiamBurn. 243, Bodl.), which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true reading perhaps benecἕξινparantibus otium patitur? Jeep suggestedexpetit otium:nec perire otium patiturhas also been suggested.§2.desit. After this word there is a considerable space left blank in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671. In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic deficit antiquus codex.’inhaeret ... quod laxatur: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and Krüger. BMN giveinhaeret ... quae laxatur, which appears in ed. Camp. (and Halm) asinhaerent ... quae laxantur.§4.tandemMadvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61,tamenlibri.§5.redire. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, and restore it to the text, in place ofregredi(Halm and Meister), which seems to have arisen out ofrediHF, and occurs in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.§6.domoHarl. 4995:domūB Ioan. MN Sal.§7.utrimqueBonnell and Meister. The codd. giveutrumque. Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposedutcumque: Spaldingutique: Jeepsi tutius utcumque quaerendum est(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of bstrict* * * (margine adcisa), which reappears in HFT (strictius—strutius).CHAPTER VII.§1.praemium quoddamHarl. 4995, probably following a correction in the Vallensis:primus quid ampliusBn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl. 2662, 4950.AmplissimumStoer.intrare portumBn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts Meiser’s conj.instar portus. On this reading the advocate who has nothing but (solam) thescribendi facultas, and who therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is calm, and so notpraesentissimis quibusque periculis. Neither of the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions aremonstrare portum:instaurare p.: andin terra portum(?) Jeep.§2.statimque. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: seead loc.The editors printstatimque, si non succ.§3.quae vero patitur, &c. In the textpossit(forsitof MSS.) is due to Frotscher,omittere(formittere) to Bonnell.Ratio(fororatioBn Bg H Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz, readsquae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando? mitto casus: quid, &c.Aliquandohe takes as = ‘only sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit). Formitto casus(‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2. 25.§5.quid secundum ac deinceps: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point to this reading, though Halm and Meister printac sec. et deinc. Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) haveac sec. ac dein.: but in Bg above the firstacthe letterdappears (evidently forquid, notadas H), and over the secondac,etis written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the firstacHarl. 2662 givesatque, and so Spalding reports Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis also hasquid secundum.§6.via dicet ducetur, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244:ducet duceturBn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variantviam discet(as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts the words, readingducetur,dicetto avoid a ‘tautology’: cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changedduceturintoutetur. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wroteducetur ... velut duce, and suggests thatcertamay have fallenout afterserie(Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he thinks, additional point to the clause introduced bypropter quod: men who have had but little practice do not always speak methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events is ‘a trusty guide.’§8.paulum, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:paululumbHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit, Halm, by addingosto the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995).sed ipsum os quoque concurrit, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I findsed id ipsum coit atque conc., which may show that we ought to reados ipsum.elocutioni, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio an recte,’ Halm.§9.observatione una, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:observationen(-nūBg)in lunaBn Bg Ioan. N Sal. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:observatione(-umH)in unabH:observatione simulHalm.§13.superfluere video, cum eo quod, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald. and most edd.:superfluere video: quodsiHalm, and a later hand in Vall. (Becher):videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsiMeister, followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading issuperfluere cum eo quod(BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from whichvideoseems to have disappeared: the later hand in Bg givesvideantur.Meister seems to be right in retainingcum eo quod, though his adoption ofvidemusforvideois unnecessary, consideringmiraborin the same sentence.Cum eo quod(seead loc.) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle, 1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable thatvideodropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corruptocumeolatet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att. vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation inquodsi(‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft, dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the text.§14.ut Cicero dictitabant. The reading is far from certain, but it seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best alternative isut Cicero dicit aiebant(C, Par. 1, also in margin of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 givedicit agebant, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake fordictitabant. Bg givesdictabant: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2, Par. 2, sec. m.aiebant: Regius conjecturedut Cicero ait dictitabant: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the inclusion of Cicero among theveterescp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes veteres et Cicero praecipue.’§16.tum intendendus. Krüger (3rd ed.) bracketstum(which is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain, like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ... non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before (omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus. H. 2662 givestamen(and is here again in agreement with Guelf.).addit ad dicendum, B:addiscendum(om.addit) bHFT. The loss ofadditseems to have given rise to interpolation: M showsaddit ad discendum stimulos habet et dicendorum expectata laus. Bonnell printsAd dic. etiam pudor stim. habet et dic. exp. aus: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst. cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefandaviii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore dicendis inseri possit.§17.pretium, all codd.:praemiumHalm, following Regius.§18.praecepimus, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: other codd.praecipimus.§19.cum ... sint consecutibHM:cum ... sunt consecutiBn Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here, as at2 §6(tradiderunt), where see note. Herecumis more or less causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to acquireextemporalis facilitasmust consider it his duty to arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.Gertz put a full stop attutior, and forcumreadquin, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. withextemporalis facilitasas subject),potestwould be expected instead ofdebet. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s third edition. H. J. Müller suggestedNam ... sunt consecuti.§20.tanta esse umquam debet. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod. Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’stanta sit umquam. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 givetanta esse umquam fiducia: M hastantam esse umquam fiduciam: Vall.esse unquam tantam fid.: Harl. 4995esse tantam unquam. Regius made the addition ofvelimafterfacilitatis: Becher thinks it may have dropped out beforeut non. Meister follows: perhaps rathertantam velim(tm)esse unquam.§22.consequi, Spald.:non sequibH:sequiMC Harl. 4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it, explainingutrumque non dabituras ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis intendere.’§23.satisKrüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.§24.non labitur. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading (which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is undoubtedly better thannon capitur, which occurs in Bn Bg H Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.Capituris explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand. Another reading israpitur, which Halm thought might be right: but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context, though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4 a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem. Hild suggestsanimo(ormente)non labitur: Jeepnon carpitur(cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere quod potest carpi): Bechernon abit(cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation:non caditmight stand alongside of Becher’snon abit, or such a future asservabiturorretinebiturcould take the place of the negation, though we should then look fordeperdetinstead ofdeperdit.non omninoB and codd.:omnino nonGesner, followed by Halm.§25.est alia exercitatio, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.):est illaBH Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.:est et illaSpalding Halm and Meister (cp. ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).utilior(Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd. vett.’) Vall.2, Harl. 4995: all other codd.utilitatis(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?).In support of his proposal to readmaioris utilitatis, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90) compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60 quod est sane summae difficultatis.§26.quam illa: so all codd. Gertzquam in illa(sc. exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zucomponiturist Subjektexercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio(dum tamen ... ipsum)persequendi, d.h. dem Sinne nachtacita oratio, wiedum t. q. dicat i. s. i.zeigt, zuillaist Subjektvera oratio;componitur oratioaber ist nicht auffälliger alsexplicatur exercitatio.’§27.ut Cicero ... tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, afterubique. Becher rejects it as a gloss.aut legendumb M: om. BN Sal.:vel ad legendumVall. Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’§28.innatansStoer:unatransBN Ioan. Sal.:inatransbH:iura transHarl. 2662:intransFM Vall.2.§29.an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.):ac sibHFT Burn. 243:anBn Bg M.debent, all codd.:debemusKrüger (3rd ed.) after Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’ &c.sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are stated in the notead loc.Bn Bg HN and most codd. haveinicere, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the repetition of the letters-icin what I take to be the original text, whereupon the precedingtamen(ortam̅) would assist the transition toinicere. Cp. the omission ofsicin most codd. inut sic dixerim2 §15. Halm (after Bursian) wroteid efficere, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations arevincereM, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2:tantum iniicereHarl. 4995:innitioradnitiedd.:id agereBadius:evincereTörnebladh.§32.et in his:in hisHalm and Meister:ne in hisBN Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.:ne in iisHarl. 2662:vel in iisSpald.:vel in hisBonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture onet, which seems to help the antithesis within hoc genereabove: v.ad loc.velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly:vel in summas in(sinebH:siveHarl. 4995)commentariumBn Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662:velin summas et(suprascr.in)commentariumN:vel insinuamus sine commendariosM:commentarioram et capitaHarl. 4950. Other conjectural emendations arevelut in summas commentariumSpald.:mihi quae scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf.Zumpt:nec in his quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferriFrotscher;vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas(cp. Liv. xl. 29. 11 lectis rerum summis)in commentarios conferreJeep:ex iis quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre, Zambaldi,—(on the ground that withconferre,ex hisgives a better sense thanin his). To these may perhaps be addedet in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita conferre.In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS. (ne in his) he proposesne in his quae scripserimus erremus: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use oferrarexi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above forvel in summason the ground that it is impossible to explain ‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of ‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’ be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’ Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the elimination of the unmeaningetwhich wrongly conjoinscommentariumandcapita. Again assummaandcaputare synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi. 1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and thevelinvel in summasseems to show that these words were originally a marginal gloss to explain (in)capita. Kiderlin therefore proposes to transform the text as follows:ne in his quae scripserimuserremus[vel in summas]in commentarium capita conferre.quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.):quod simusBn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm:non simusbHT Bodl. In explanation ofquod simusSpalding says ‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’; and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.:hoc quoqueHarl. 4995:id quoquebHM.
§1.nobis ipsis, codd.:e nobis ipsisGertz.utilitatis etiam. Ioan. givesetiam utilitatis, which Spalding quotes also from Goth.§2.alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also in Ioan. and Prat.:alter effossaBH:altius effossaHarl. 4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.:alte effossaHarl. 2662, 11671.fecundior fit.Fitappears as a correction in T and Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662. Perhapsfecundioris the true reading, andestis to be supplied in thought: Introd.p. lv.effunditB Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.:effunditurb H.et funditVall.2M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.parentis:parentiumIoan.:parentumDorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 244 C:parentibusbH Bodl.§4.iam hinc. Obrechtiam hunc: see notead loc.Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree iniam hic.§6.scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last corr. from-em). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus), and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.§9.sequeturBn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:persequeturb Harl. 4995 Burn. 243:prosequeturHM Bodl. and Prat.Prosequetur(Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is a graphic touch about the compound.§10.ut provideamusobelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note. Becher proposedprovideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus: Krüger suggests ratherresistamus et provideamus ut ... coerceamus: Jeep,ut provide eamus, also, forefferentes se,efferventes. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin (Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision ofetbeforeefferentes, as it is found in no MS. He translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considersut provideamusa necessary addition, in order to make the meaning ofresistamusclear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen, welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. readresist. ut provid. efferentes equos frenis: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 giveutforet: Harl. 4995 hasresist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos fr. quib. coerc.: 4950 and Burn. 244resist. ut prohibeamus efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc.The readinget efferentes seis due to Burmann. Something might be said foret ferentes se: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.§12.patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both givepatrono: which, with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the Guelferbytanus (Spald.).§14.quod omni, see notead loc.: edd. vettex quo.§15.plura et celeriusPrat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and Ambrosianus ii.Ethad escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister follows,plura celerius.sed quid:sedis supplied by the old edd., but does not appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjecturesat, which may easily have slipped out afterobveniat.§17.quae fuit: (manent)quae fuditHarl. 4995 (as also Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)§19.urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 86) his proposal to readurgetur, which would however give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’§20.in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister:legendoBM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See notead loc.The true reading may besi tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo velut offensator fuit. This is supported byet diligendo(bH Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjecturedet delendo, Gertzin tenendo(‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) haveinertiorforincertior: but this gives no antithesis totardior: it appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M) havefuerit, forfuit, which may be right.concepta Regius:conceptaecodd. Becher points out thatconcipereandexcutereare ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib. ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas.§21.altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed. Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.aptiorem: Prat.apertiorem, and so a later hand in Vall.frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all givesimul et interim: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.) and Burn. 243 havesimul vertere latus et interim(the reading of many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omitset. It is to b that we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and b givessintieletus, which H shows assintielatus. Considering how liables(ſ) andfare to be confused, I venture to think thatſintimay concealfronte.Bursian’sfemur et latus(Halm and Meister) is not so near the MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quotedad loc.), but the latter passage would warrantfrontemquite as much asfemur, andfrontem ferireseems to have been considered by Quintilian a more extravagant action thanfemur ferire, of which he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his thigh.’Frotscher and Bonnell’ssinum et latuscannot be supported by any parallel for such an expression assinum caedere,ferire,obiurgare. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecturesemet interim obiurgare, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.) as =increpare: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines of b)singultire, latus int. ob.This would need to be taken of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer addressesπρὸς ὃν θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers tosingultantiumin7 §20, of broken utterance: but we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggestssingultu latus interim obiurgare, comparing for the ablative§15cogitationem murmure agitantes.Singultusis commonenough: and Kiderlin thinks that assingultireis nearer the MSS. thansingultare, it may possibly have been used here by Quintilian.§22.secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl., M, Dorv.:quod dictandoBN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 (corr. toin). With the readingquod dictando perit, atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit(Halm and Meister) it is senseless to quote2 §20(Bonn., Meister, and Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) readssecretum dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris, &c.§23.mihi certe iucundus. After these words H hasvidemoni(and so the cod. Alm.): Flor.vindemoni. This word greatly puzzled Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it intomihi certevitae inaniiucundus, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr. L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesievinum daemonum.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert. &c. c. 4. Hence the phrasevinum daemonummay have been compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in the Bambergensis four lines further down, wheretendere ani(mum) is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.§24.ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other codd.rami.voluptas ista videaturmost codd.:videatur ista voluptasN.§25.oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex quo nulla exaudiri vox thataures authas fallen out beforeoculi. Cp.§28nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.velut tectos:velut rectosall codd. There is the same confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M hasrectequefortecteque(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgatetectos(first in ed. Leid.) seead loc.Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that fortectos teneatwe should have expectedtegat. The figure also seems to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away from his task:§23avocent,respexit:§24ad se trahunt:§25aliud agere. He proposes, therefore,velut recto itinere, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt.Itineremay first have fallen out, and thenrectomay have been changed torectos.—Halm conjecturedvelut secretos, orcoercitos; Wrobel,velut relictos.§26.haud deerit:aut deeritBN Ioan, and all codd. except a later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent use ofhaudin Quintilian, thoughhaud dubie1 §85(where however GH haveaut) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on the consensus of the MSS. forauthe proposes to readaut non deeritoraut certe non deerit. Buthaudgoes closely withdeerit, and does not (likenon,ac non) introduce an antithesis tosupererit.Aut deeritmight be made to mean that thesleeplessman is to work: but this would be too cruel!§29.et itinere deerremus:et ita neBN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.:ita erremusHMb Bodl. (erramus). The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.§31.crebra relationeappears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected fromcrebro relationiwhich is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd. Jeep suggestedcrebra dilatione,Kiderlincrebriore elatione. Other proposals arecrebra relictionis,q. i. c., repetitione, Gottfried Hermann (in Frotscher),crebra relictione,q. i. c., et repetitione, Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinkscrebromay be right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:crebrowould then go closely withmoranturandfrangunt.§32.adiciendo‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. haveadicienda: badiciendi sint: Harl.adjiciendi sit. Meister adoptsadicientifrom ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B hascognoscendi).ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omitsesse, and is thus in agreement with N.CHAPTER IV.§3.habet:habeat, Halm quoting from ed. Camp.Habeatoccurs in Burn. 243: most codd. havehabet, but some (H and Bodl.) givehabent.CHAPTER V.§1.ἕξινparantibus: for theex imparantibusof Bn N and Ioan. Bursian addednon est huius. So Halm. Harl. 4995 givesnec exuberantis id quidem est operis ut explicemus.factum est iam, Halm and Meister:est etiamall codd. except Ioan, which hasfactum etiam.iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omitiam: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which giveiam robustiorum.§2.id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however giveM. id Messalae: and Harl. 4995Marco id Messalae. The spellingMessallaeis adopted in the text as more correct.§4.eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger (3rd ed.):eandemall codd., with the single exception of M, and so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the meaning. The only way to explaineandemseems to be to continue the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an elevating influence, while his licences of styledo not carry with them in advance, orinvolve, the corresponding ability to use the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have nononwithpraesumunt, at least if we may readeadem: ‘poetical licence implies that the orator can say the same thingspropriis verbis.’ Bursian suggestednec(foret)verba...praesumunt.§5.post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,praeter quod: so Vall.§13.reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj.rectene reus sit, to correspond withrectene occideritandhonestene tradideritin what follows: along with Gertz’squaeramus, anto correspond withveniat in iudicium an, Becher, however (Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, ‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui ... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, ‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quodMarciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, so here thefinitaorspecialis causashows the form of a positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.Reus sitandlegeritare motived only by the disjunctive interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ Theinfinita quaestio, on the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two followingfinitaeandinfinitae quaestiones. Thefinita quaestiorests on thegeneralis quaestio: acquittal of the charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer tovioleturne, &c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, &c.§14.dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.:inventusHb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.invenisappears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj.dum adul. profectui sunt util.quia inventionem, Halm:quae inventionemall codd. Qy.quod?§16.materia fuerit. Meister suggestserit: perhaps ratherfuerit—necesse erit.§17.assuescereZumpt:assuefieriPhilander. All MSS. haveassuefacere. Frotscher wroteinanibussesimulacris ... assuefacere, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) givedifficilis digressus: but in view of the consensus forassuefacerethe alternationdifficilius digressos(H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) is worth considering:inanibus simulacriswould then go (though awkwardly) withdetineri(for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.§18.transferrenturN Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.§20.decretoriisHarl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.)derectoriisBJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:detectorisb:delectorisH:delectoriisBodl.:de rhetoriisHarl. 2662, 4829, 11671:vel rhetoricisM.satisso most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243litis: Hbsitis.§21.idoneusbHM:si idoneusBn Bg Sal.:sudoneusN:is idoneusHalm.§22.sustinereHalm and Meister:sustineriBn Bg HN Sal.recidetoccurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a correction in Vall.: all other codd.recidere.§23.diligenter effectaall codd. Regius proposeduna diligenter effecta, Badiusuna enim diligenter effecta, and so many edd.Unawould come in well beforequam; but Becher rightly holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative alone, but qualitative as well. He reportsuna enimas a correction in the Vallensis.quidque. Fleckeisen proposedquicquid; see Madvig on de Fin. v. §24.CHAPTER VI.§1.vacui nec otium patitur. The reading in the text, which is quite satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg givevacuum otium pat., and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671. Forotium patiturb (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable readingexperientium(experientiamBurn. 243, Bodl.), which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true reading perhaps benecἕξινparantibus otium patitur? Jeep suggestedexpetit otium:nec perire otium patiturhas also been suggested.§2.desit. After this word there is a considerable space left blank in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671. In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic deficit antiquus codex.’inhaeret ... quod laxatur: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and Krüger. BMN giveinhaeret ... quae laxatur, which appears in ed. Camp. (and Halm) asinhaerent ... quae laxantur.§4.tandemMadvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61,tamenlibri.§5.redire. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, and restore it to the text, in place ofregredi(Halm and Meister), which seems to have arisen out ofrediHF, and occurs in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.§6.domoHarl. 4995:domūB Ioan. MN Sal.§7.utrimqueBonnell and Meister. The codd. giveutrumque. Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposedutcumque: Spaldingutique: Jeepsi tutius utcumque quaerendum est(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of bstrict* * * (margine adcisa), which reappears in HFT (strictius—strutius).CHAPTER VII.§1.praemium quoddamHarl. 4995, probably following a correction in the Vallensis:primus quid ampliusBn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl. 2662, 4950.AmplissimumStoer.intrare portumBn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts Meiser’s conj.instar portus. On this reading the advocate who has nothing but (solam) thescribendi facultas, and who therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is calm, and so notpraesentissimis quibusque periculis. Neither of the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions aremonstrare portum:instaurare p.: andin terra portum(?) Jeep.§2.statimque. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: seead loc.The editors printstatimque, si non succ.§3.quae vero patitur, &c. In the textpossit(forsitof MSS.) is due to Frotscher,omittere(formittere) to Bonnell.Ratio(fororatioBn Bg H Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz, readsquae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando? mitto casus: quid, &c.Aliquandohe takes as = ‘only sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit). Formitto casus(‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2. 25.§5.quid secundum ac deinceps: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point to this reading, though Halm and Meister printac sec. et deinc. Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) haveac sec. ac dein.: but in Bg above the firstacthe letterdappears (evidently forquid, notadas H), and over the secondac,etis written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the firstacHarl. 2662 givesatque, and so Spalding reports Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis also hasquid secundum.§6.via dicet ducetur, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244:ducet duceturBn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variantviam discet(as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts the words, readingducetur,dicetto avoid a ‘tautology’: cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changedduceturintoutetur. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wroteducetur ... velut duce, and suggests thatcertamay have fallenout afterserie(Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he thinks, additional point to the clause introduced bypropter quod: men who have had but little practice do not always speak methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events is ‘a trusty guide.’§8.paulum, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:paululumbHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit, Halm, by addingosto the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995).sed ipsum os quoque concurrit, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I findsed id ipsum coit atque conc., which may show that we ought to reados ipsum.elocutioni, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio an recte,’ Halm.§9.observatione una, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:observationen(-nūBg)in lunaBn Bg Ioan. N Sal. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:observatione(-umH)in unabH:observatione simulHalm.§13.superfluere video, cum eo quod, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald. and most edd.:superfluere video: quodsiHalm, and a later hand in Vall. (Becher):videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsiMeister, followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading issuperfluere cum eo quod(BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from whichvideoseems to have disappeared: the later hand in Bg givesvideantur.Meister seems to be right in retainingcum eo quod, though his adoption ofvidemusforvideois unnecessary, consideringmiraborin the same sentence.Cum eo quod(seead loc.) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle, 1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable thatvideodropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corruptocumeolatet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att. vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation inquodsi(‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft, dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the text.§14.ut Cicero dictitabant. The reading is far from certain, but it seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best alternative isut Cicero dicit aiebant(C, Par. 1, also in margin of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 givedicit agebant, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake fordictitabant. Bg givesdictabant: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2, Par. 2, sec. m.aiebant: Regius conjecturedut Cicero ait dictitabant: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the inclusion of Cicero among theveterescp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes veteres et Cicero praecipue.’§16.tum intendendus. Krüger (3rd ed.) bracketstum(which is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain, like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ... non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before (omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus. H. 2662 givestamen(and is here again in agreement with Guelf.).addit ad dicendum, B:addiscendum(om.addit) bHFT. The loss ofadditseems to have given rise to interpolation: M showsaddit ad discendum stimulos habet et dicendorum expectata laus. Bonnell printsAd dic. etiam pudor stim. habet et dic. exp. aus: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst. cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefandaviii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore dicendis inseri possit.§17.pretium, all codd.:praemiumHalm, following Regius.§18.praecepimus, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: other codd.praecipimus.§19.cum ... sint consecutibHM:cum ... sunt consecutiBn Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here, as at2 §6(tradiderunt), where see note. Herecumis more or less causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to acquireextemporalis facilitasmust consider it his duty to arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.Gertz put a full stop attutior, and forcumreadquin, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. withextemporalis facilitasas subject),potestwould be expected instead ofdebet. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s third edition. H. J. Müller suggestedNam ... sunt consecuti.§20.tanta esse umquam debet. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod. Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’stanta sit umquam. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 givetanta esse umquam fiducia: M hastantam esse umquam fiduciam: Vall.esse unquam tantam fid.: Harl. 4995esse tantam unquam. Regius made the addition ofvelimafterfacilitatis: Becher thinks it may have dropped out beforeut non. Meister follows: perhaps rathertantam velim(tm)esse unquam.§22.consequi, Spald.:non sequibH:sequiMC Harl. 4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it, explainingutrumque non dabituras ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis intendere.’§23.satisKrüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.§24.non labitur. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading (which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is undoubtedly better thannon capitur, which occurs in Bn Bg H Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.Capituris explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand. Another reading israpitur, which Halm thought might be right: but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context, though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4 a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem. Hild suggestsanimo(ormente)non labitur: Jeepnon carpitur(cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere quod potest carpi): Bechernon abit(cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation:non caditmight stand alongside of Becher’snon abit, or such a future asservabiturorretinebiturcould take the place of the negation, though we should then look fordeperdetinstead ofdeperdit.non omninoB and codd.:omnino nonGesner, followed by Halm.§25.est alia exercitatio, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.):est illaBH Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.:est et illaSpalding Halm and Meister (cp. ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).utilior(Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd. vett.’) Vall.2, Harl. 4995: all other codd.utilitatis(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?).In support of his proposal to readmaioris utilitatis, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90) compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60 quod est sane summae difficultatis.§26.quam illa: so all codd. Gertzquam in illa(sc. exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zucomponiturist Subjektexercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio(dum tamen ... ipsum)persequendi, d.h. dem Sinne nachtacita oratio, wiedum t. q. dicat i. s. i.zeigt, zuillaist Subjektvera oratio;componitur oratioaber ist nicht auffälliger alsexplicatur exercitatio.’§27.ut Cicero ... tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, afterubique. Becher rejects it as a gloss.aut legendumb M: om. BN Sal.:vel ad legendumVall. Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’§28.innatansStoer:unatransBN Ioan. Sal.:inatransbH:iura transHarl. 2662:intransFM Vall.2.§29.an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.):ac sibHFT Burn. 243:anBn Bg M.debent, all codd.:debemusKrüger (3rd ed.) after Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’ &c.sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are stated in the notead loc.Bn Bg HN and most codd. haveinicere, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the repetition of the letters-icin what I take to be the original text, whereupon the precedingtamen(ortam̅) would assist the transition toinicere. Cp. the omission ofsicin most codd. inut sic dixerim2 §15. Halm (after Bursian) wroteid efficere, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations arevincereM, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2:tantum iniicereHarl. 4995:innitioradnitiedd.:id agereBadius:evincereTörnebladh.§32.et in his:in hisHalm and Meister:ne in hisBN Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.:ne in iisHarl. 2662:vel in iisSpald.:vel in hisBonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture onet, which seems to help the antithesis within hoc genereabove: v.ad loc.velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly:vel in summas in(sinebH:siveHarl. 4995)commentariumBn Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662:velin summas et(suprascr.in)commentariumN:vel insinuamus sine commendariosM:commentarioram et capitaHarl. 4950. Other conjectural emendations arevelut in summas commentariumSpald.:mihi quae scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf.Zumpt:nec in his quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferriFrotscher;vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas(cp. Liv. xl. 29. 11 lectis rerum summis)in commentarios conferreJeep:ex iis quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre, Zambaldi,—(on the ground that withconferre,ex hisgives a better sense thanin his). To these may perhaps be addedet in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita conferre.In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS. (ne in his) he proposesne in his quae scripserimus erremus: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use oferrarexi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above forvel in summason the ground that it is impossible to explain ‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of ‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’ be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’ Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the elimination of the unmeaningetwhich wrongly conjoinscommentariumandcapita. Again assummaandcaputare synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi. 1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and thevelinvel in summasseems to show that these words were originally a marginal gloss to explain (in)capita. Kiderlin therefore proposes to transform the text as follows:ne in his quae scripserimuserremus[vel in summas]in commentarium capita conferre.quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.):quod simusBn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm:non simusbHT Bodl. In explanation ofquod simusSpalding says ‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’; and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.:hoc quoqueHarl. 4995:id quoquebHM.
§1.nobis ipsis, codd.:e nobis ipsisGertz.
utilitatis etiam. Ioan. givesetiam utilitatis, which Spalding quotes also from Goth.
§2.alte refossa. This (the reading of N) I have found also in Ioan. and Prat.:alter effossaBH:altius effossaHarl. 4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.:alte effossaHarl. 2662, 11671.
fecundior fit.Fitappears as a correction in T and Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662. Perhapsfecundioris the true reading, andestis to be supplied in thought: Introd.p. lv.
effunditB Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.:effunditurb H.et funditVall.2M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.
parentis:parentiumIoan.:parentumDorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 244 C:parentibusbH Bodl.
§4.iam hinc. Obrechtiam hunc: see notead loc.Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree iniam hic.
§6.scriptorum. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last corr. from-em). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus), and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.
§9.sequeturBn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:persequeturb Harl. 4995 Burn. 243:prosequeturHM Bodl. and Prat.Prosequetur(Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is a graphic touch about the compound.
§10.ut provideamusobelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note. Becher proposedprovideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus: Krüger suggests ratherresistamus et provideamus ut ... coerceamus: Jeep,ut provide eamus, also, forefferentes se,efferventes. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin (Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision ofetbeforeefferentes, as it is found in no MS. He translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considersut provideamusa necessary addition, in order to make the meaning ofresistamusclear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen, welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. readresist. ut provid. efferentes equos frenis: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 giveutforet: Harl. 4995 hasresist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos fr. quib. coerc.: 4950 and Burn. 244resist. ut prohibeamus efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc.The readinget efferentes seis due to Burmann. Something might be said foret ferentes se: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.
§12.patruo. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both givepatrono: which, with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the Guelferbytanus (Spald.).
§14.quod omni, see notead loc.: edd. vettex quo.
§15.plura et celeriusPrat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and Ambrosianus ii.Ethad escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister follows,plura celerius.
sed quid:sedis supplied by the old edd., but does not appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjecturesat, which may easily have slipped out afterobveniat.
§17.quae fuit: (manent)quae fuditHarl. 4995 (as also Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)
§19.urget. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 86) his proposal to readurgetur, which would however give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’
§20.in intellegendo. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister:legendoBM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See notead loc.The true reading may besi tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo velut offensator fuit. This is supported byet diligendo(bH Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjecturedet delendo, Gertzin tenendo(‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) haveinertiorforincertior: but this gives no antithesis totardior: it appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M) havefuerit, forfuit, which may be right.
concepta Regius:conceptaecodd. Becher points out thatconcipereandexcutereare ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib. ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas.
§21.altiorem. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed. Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (A.D.1434) and 11671 (A.D.1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.aptiorem: Prat.apertiorem, and so a later hand in Vall.
frontem et latus interim obiurgare. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all givesimul et interim: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.) and Burn. 243 havesimul vertere latus et interim(the reading of many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omitset. It is to b that we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and b givessintieletus, which H shows assintielatus. Considering how liables(ſ) andfare to be confused, I venture to think thatſintimay concealfronte.
Bursian’sfemur et latus(Halm and Meister) is not so near the MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quotedad loc.), but the latter passage would warrantfrontemquite as much asfemur, andfrontem ferireseems to have been considered by Quintilian a more extravagant action thanfemur ferire, of which he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his thigh.’
Frotscher and Bonnell’ssinum et latuscannot be supported by any parallel for such an expression assinum caedere,ferire,obiurgare. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecturesemet interim obiurgare, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.) as =increpare: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’
Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines of b)singultire, latus int. ob.This would need to be taken of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer addressesπρὸς ὃν θυμόν, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers tosingultantiumin7 §20, of broken utterance: but we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggestssingultu latus interim obiurgare, comparing for the ablative§15cogitationem murmure agitantes.Singultusis commonenough: and Kiderlin thinks that assingultireis nearer the MSS. thansingultare, it may possibly have been used here by Quintilian.
§22.secretum in dictando. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl., M, Dorv.:quod dictandoBN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 (corr. toin). With the readingquod dictando perit, atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit(Halm and Meister) it is senseless to quote2 §20(Bonn., Meister, and Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) readssecretum dictando perit. Atque liberum arbitris, &c.
§23.mihi certe iucundus. After these words H hasvidemoni(and so the cod. Alm.): Flor.vindemoni. This word greatly puzzled Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it intomihi certevitae inaniiucundus, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr. L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesievinum daemonum.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert. &c. c. 4. Hence the phrasevinum daemonummay have been compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in the Bambergensis four lines further down, wheretendere ani(mum) is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.
§24.ramis, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other codd.rami.
voluptas ista videaturmost codd.:videatur ista voluptasN.
§25.oculi. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex quo nulla exaudiri vox thataures authas fallen out beforeoculi. Cp.§28nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.
velut tectos:velut rectosall codd. There is the same confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M hasrectequefortecteque(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgatetectos(first in ed. Leid.) seead loc.Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that fortectos teneatwe should have expectedtegat. The figure also seems to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away from his task:§23avocent,respexit:§24ad se trahunt:§25aliud agere. He proposes, therefore,velut recto itinere, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt.Itineremay first have fallen out, and thenrectomay have been changed torectos.—Halm conjecturedvelut secretos, orcoercitos; Wrobel,velut relictos.
§26.haud deerit:aut deeritBN Ioan, and all codd. except a later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent use ofhaudin Quintilian, thoughhaud dubie1 §85(where however GH haveaut) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on the consensus of the MSS. forauthe proposes to readaut non deeritoraut certe non deerit. Buthaudgoes closely withdeerit, and does not (likenon,ac non) introduce an antithesis tosupererit.Aut deeritmight be made to mean that thesleeplessman is to work: but this would be too cruel!
§29.et itinere deerremus:et ita neBN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.:ita erremusHMb Bodl. (erramus). The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.
§31.crebra relationeappears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected fromcrebro relationiwhich is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd. Jeep suggestedcrebra dilatione,Kiderlincrebriore elatione. Other proposals arecrebra relictionis,q. i. c., repetitione, Gottfried Hermann (in Frotscher),crebra relictione,q. i. c., et repetitione, Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinkscrebromay be right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:crebrowould then go closely withmoranturandfrangunt.
§32.adiciendo‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. haveadicienda: badiciendi sint: Harl.adjiciendi sit. Meister adoptsadicientifrom ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B hascognoscendi).
ultra modum esse ceras velim: Ioan, omitsesse, and is thus in agreement with N.
§3.habet:habeat, Halm quoting from ed. Camp.Habeatoccurs in Burn. 243: most codd. havehabet, but some (H and Bodl.) givehabent.
§1.ἕξινparantibus: for theex imparantibusof Bn N and Ioan. Bursian addednon est huius. So Halm. Harl. 4995 givesnec exuberantis id quidem est operis ut explicemus.
factum est iam, Halm and Meister:est etiamall codd. except Ioan, which hasfactum etiam.
iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omitiam: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which giveiam robustiorum.
§2.id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however giveM. id Messalae: and Harl. 4995Marco id Messalae. The spellingMessallaeis adopted in the text as more correct.
§4.eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger (3rd ed.):eandemall codd., with the single exception of M, and so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the meaning. The only way to explaineandemseems to be to continue the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an elevating influence, while his licences of styledo not carry with them in advance, orinvolve, the corresponding ability to use the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have nononwithpraesumunt, at least if we may readeadem: ‘poetical licence implies that the orator can say the same thingspropriis verbis.’ Bursian suggestednec(foret)verba...praesumunt.
§5.post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,praeter quod: so Vall.
§13.reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj.rectene reus sit, to correspond withrectene occideritandhonestene tradideritin what follows: along with Gertz’squaeramus, anto correspond withveniat in iudicium an, Becher, however (Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, ‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui ... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, ‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quodMarciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.
Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, so here thefinitaorspecialis causashows the form of a positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.Reus sitandlegeritare motived only by the disjunctive interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ Theinfinita quaestio, on the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two followingfinitaeandinfinitae quaestiones. Thefinita quaestiorests on thegeneralis quaestio: acquittal of the charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer tovioleturne, &c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, &c.
§14.dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.:inventusHb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.invenisappears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj.dum adul. profectui sunt util.
quia inventionem, Halm:quae inventionemall codd. Qy.quod?
§16.materia fuerit. Meister suggestserit: perhaps ratherfuerit—necesse erit.
§17.assuescereZumpt:assuefieriPhilander. All MSS. haveassuefacere. Frotscher wroteinanibussesimulacris ... assuefacere, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) givedifficilis digressus: but in view of the consensus forassuefacerethe alternationdifficilius digressos(H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) is worth considering:inanibus simulacriswould then go (though awkwardly) withdetineri(for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.
§18.transferrenturN Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.
§20.decretoriisHarl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.)derectoriisBJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:detectorisb:delectorisH:delectoriisBodl.:de rhetoriisHarl. 2662, 4829, 11671:vel rhetoricisM.
satisso most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243litis: Hbsitis.
§21.idoneusbHM:si idoneusBn Bg Sal.:sudoneusN:is idoneusHalm.
§22.sustinereHalm and Meister:sustineriBn Bg HN Sal.
recidetoccurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a correction in Vall.: all other codd.recidere.
§23.diligenter effectaall codd. Regius proposeduna diligenter effecta, Badiusuna enim diligenter effecta, and so many edd.Unawould come in well beforequam; but Becher rightly holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative alone, but qualitative as well. He reportsuna enimas a correction in the Vallensis.
quidque. Fleckeisen proposedquicquid; see Madvig on de Fin. v. §24.
§1.vacui nec otium patitur. The reading in the text, which is quite satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg givevacuum otium pat., and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671. Forotium patiturb (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable readingexperientium(experientiamBurn. 243, Bodl.), which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true reading perhaps benecἕξινparantibus otium patitur? Jeep suggestedexpetit otium:nec perire otium patiturhas also been suggested.
§2.desit. After this word there is a considerable space left blank in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671. In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic deficit antiquus codex.’
inhaeret ... quod laxatur: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and Krüger. BMN giveinhaeret ... quae laxatur, which appears in ed. Camp. (and Halm) asinhaerent ... quae laxantur.
§4.tandemMadvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61,tamenlibri.
§5.redire. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, and restore it to the text, in place ofregredi(Halm and Meister), which seems to have arisen out ofrediHF, and occurs in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.
§6.domoHarl. 4995:domūB Ioan. MN Sal.
§7.utrimqueBonnell and Meister. The codd. giveutrumque. Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposedutcumque: Spaldingutique: Jeepsi tutius utcumque quaerendum est(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of bstrict* * * (margine adcisa), which reappears in HFT (strictius—strutius).
§1.praemium quoddamHarl. 4995, probably following a correction in the Vallensis:primus quid ampliusBn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl. 2662, 4950.AmplissimumStoer.
intrare portumBn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts Meiser’s conj.instar portus. On this reading the advocate who has nothing but (solam) thescribendi facultas, and who therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is calm, and so notpraesentissimis quibusque periculis. Neither of the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions aremonstrare portum:instaurare p.: andin terra portum(?) Jeep.
§2.statimque. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: seead loc.The editors printstatimque, si non succ.
§3.quae vero patitur, &c. In the textpossit(forsitof MSS.) is due to Frotscher,omittere(formittere) to Bonnell.Ratio(fororatioBn Bg H Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz, readsquae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando? mitto casus: quid, &c.Aliquandohe takes as = ‘only sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit). Formitto casus(‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2. 25.
§5.quid secundum ac deinceps: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point to this reading, though Halm and Meister printac sec. et deinc. Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) haveac sec. ac dein.: but in Bg above the firstacthe letterdappears (evidently forquid, notadas H), and over the secondac,etis written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the firstacHarl. 2662 givesatque, and so Spalding reports Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis also hasquid secundum.
§6.via dicet ducetur, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244:ducet duceturBn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variantviam discet(as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts the words, readingducetur,dicetto avoid a ‘tautology’: cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changedduceturintoutetur. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wroteducetur ... velut duce, and suggests thatcertamay have fallenout afterserie(Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he thinks, additional point to the clause introduced bypropter quod: men who have had but little practice do not always speak methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events is ‘a trusty guide.’
§8.paulum, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:paululumbHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.
sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit, Halm, by addingosto the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995).sed ipsum os quoque concurrit, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I findsed id ipsum coit atque conc., which may show that we ought to reados ipsum.
elocutioni, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio an recte,’ Halm.
§9.observatione una, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:observationen(-nūBg)in lunaBn Bg Ioan. N Sal. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:observatione(-umH)in unabH:observatione simulHalm.
§13.superfluere video, cum eo quod, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald. and most edd.:superfluere video: quodsiHalm, and a later hand in Vall. (Becher):videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsiMeister, followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading issuperfluere cum eo quod(BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from whichvideoseems to have disappeared: the later hand in Bg givesvideantur.
Meister seems to be right in retainingcum eo quod, though his adoption ofvidemusforvideois unnecessary, consideringmiraborin the same sentence.Cum eo quod(seead loc.) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle, 1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable thatvideodropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corruptocumeolatet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att. vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation inquodsi(‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft, dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the text.
§14.ut Cicero dictitabant. The reading is far from certain, but it seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best alternative isut Cicero dicit aiebant(C, Par. 1, also in margin of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 givedicit agebant, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake fordictitabant. Bg givesdictabant: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2, Par. 2, sec. m.aiebant: Regius conjecturedut Cicero ait dictitabant: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the inclusion of Cicero among theveterescp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes veteres et Cicero praecipue.’
§16.tum intendendus. Krüger (3rd ed.) bracketstum(which is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain, like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ... non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before (omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus. H. 2662 givestamen(and is here again in agreement with Guelf.).
addit ad dicendum, B:addiscendum(om.addit) bHFT. The loss ofadditseems to have given rise to interpolation: M showsaddit ad discendum stimulos habet et dicendorum expectata laus. Bonnell printsAd dic. etiam pudor stim. habet et dic. exp. aus: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst. cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefandaviii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore dicendis inseri possit.
§17.pretium, all codd.:praemiumHalm, following Regius.
§18.praecepimus, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and Vall.2: other codd.praecipimus.
§19.cum ... sint consecutibHM:cum ... sunt consecutiBn Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here, as at2 §6(tradiderunt), where see note. Herecumis more or less causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to acquireextemporalis facilitasmust consider it his duty to arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.
Gertz put a full stop attutior, and forcumreadquin, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. withextemporalis facilitasas subject),potestwould be expected instead ofdebet. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s third edition. H. J. Müller suggestedNam ... sunt consecuti.
§20.tanta esse umquam debet. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod. Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’stanta sit umquam. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 givetanta esse umquam fiducia: M hastantam esse umquam fiduciam: Vall.esse unquam tantam fid.: Harl. 4995esse tantam unquam. Regius made the addition ofvelimafterfacilitatis: Becher thinks it may have dropped out beforeut non. Meister follows: perhaps rathertantam velim(tm)esse unquam.
§22.consequi, Spald.:non sequibH:sequiMC Harl. 4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it, explainingutrumque non dabituras ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis intendere.’
§23.satisKrüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.
§24.non labitur. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading (which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is undoubtedly better thannon capitur, which occurs in Bn Bg H Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.Capituris explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand. Another reading israpitur, which Halm thought might be right: but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context, though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4 a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem. Hild suggestsanimo(ormente)non labitur: Jeepnon carpitur(cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere quod potest carpi): Bechernon abit(cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation:non caditmight stand alongside of Becher’snon abit, or such a future asservabiturorretinebiturcould take the place of the negation, though we should then look fordeperdetinstead ofdeperdit.
non omninoB and codd.:omnino nonGesner, followed by Halm.
§25.est alia exercitatio, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.):est illaBH Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.:est et illaSpalding Halm and Meister (cp. ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).
utilior(Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd. vett.’) Vall.2, Harl. 4995: all other codd.utilitatis(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis?).In support of his proposal to readmaioris utilitatis, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90) compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60 quod est sane summae difficultatis.
§26.quam illa: so all codd. Gertzquam in illa(sc. exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zucomponiturist Subjektexercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio(dum tamen ... ipsum)persequendi, d.h. dem Sinne nachtacita oratio, wiedum t. q. dicat i. s. i.zeigt, zuillaist Subjektvera oratio;componitur oratioaber ist nicht auffälliger alsexplicatur exercitatio.’
§27.ut Cicero ... tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, afterubique. Becher rejects it as a gloss.
aut legendumb M: om. BN Sal.:vel ad legendumVall. Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’
§28.innatansStoer:unatransBN Ioan. Sal.:inatransbH:iura transHarl. 2662:intransFM Vall.2.
§29.an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.):ac sibHFT Burn. 243:anBn Bg M.
debent, all codd.:debemusKrüger (3rd ed.) after Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’ &c.
sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are stated in the notead loc.Bn Bg HN and most codd. haveinicere, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the repetition of the letters-icin what I take to be the original text, whereupon the precedingtamen(ortam̅) would assist the transition toinicere. Cp. the omission ofsicin most codd. inut sic dixerim2 §15. Halm (after Bursian) wroteid efficere, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations arevincereM, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2:tantum iniicereHarl. 4995:innitioradnitiedd.:id agereBadius:evincereTörnebladh.
§32.et in his:in hisHalm and Meister:ne in hisBN Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.:ne in iisHarl. 2662:vel in iisSpald.:vel in hisBonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture onet, which seems to help the antithesis within hoc genereabove: v.ad loc.
velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly:vel in summas in(sinebH:siveHarl. 4995)commentariumBn Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662:velin summas et(suprascr.in)commentariumN:vel insinuamus sine commendariosM:commentarioram et capitaHarl. 4950. Other conjectural emendations arevelut in summas commentariumSpald.:mihi quae scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf.Zumpt:nec in his quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferriFrotscher;vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas(cp. Liv. xl. 29. 11 lectis rerum summis)in commentarios conferreJeep:ex iis quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre, Zambaldi,—(on the ground that withconferre,ex hisgives a better sense thanin his). To these may perhaps be addedet in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita conferre.
In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS. (ne in his) he proposesne in his quae scripserimus erremus: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use oferrarexi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above forvel in summason the ground that it is impossible to explain ‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of ‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’ be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’ Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’
Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the elimination of the unmeaningetwhich wrongly conjoinscommentariumandcapita. Again assummaandcaputare synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi. 1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and thevelinvel in summasseems to show that these words were originally a marginal gloss to explain (in)capita. Kiderlin therefore proposes to transform the text as follows:ne in his quae scripserimuserremus[vel in summas]in commentarium capita conferre.
quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.):quod simusBn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm:non simusbHT Bodl. In explanation ofquod simusSpalding says ‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’; and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’
hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.:hoc quoqueHarl. 4995:id quoquebHM.