Chapter 5

Dum ... nonstands fordummodo ... non3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The usage is poetical.Dummododoes not occur in Quintilian.Enimoccurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g.ad profectum enim3 §15: and so frequently aftersum,—2 §10necesse est enim:1 §14:7 §§15,24:2 §19. Butnihil enim est1 §78, where Krüger suggestsnihil enim inest.Etsi. As it is generally stated thatetsidoes not occur in Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i. pr. 19: i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.Ideoqueis constantly used foritaque. See note on1 §21.Licet=etsi, as sometimes in Cicero:1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and passim.Quamlibetandquamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs:3 §19nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato: cp. viii. 6, 4oratione quamlibet clara: xii. 8, 7quamlibet verbose: xi. 1, 34quamquam plena sanguinis. A similar use ofquamvisis less uncommon in other writers: cp.1 §74quamvis bonorum: ib. §94quamvis uno libra(where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.Quiais sometimes used wherequod(eo quod) might have been expected:1 §15hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia: cp.5 §14Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia(Halm)inventionem et dispositionem pariter exercent. So i. 6, 39nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent(sc.verba a vetustate repetita)et, quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant. Cp.non quia non(with the subjunctive) x.7, 19and31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.Quoqueoften occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force, where older writers would have hadveloretiam:1 §20ex industria quoque:2 §14in magnis quoque auctoribus: cp.1 §121ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ii. II, Iexemplo magni quoque nominis professorum.Quotiens=cum:4 §3:7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76: viii. 3, 55.For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo wroteto Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment. But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come dragging in at the end of a sentence (x.2 §§13and23), and adjectival or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable isolation (vel ob hoc memoria dignum1 §80:rebus tamen acuti magis quam, &c.1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80:2 §28). The thought is sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the Tenth Book: cp.2 §§13and§§20,21;7 §7), because the composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely used (see onnam1 §12: cp. §50,7 §31:quidem1 §88), and are sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly and abruptly introduced (see on1 §4: cp.7 §1). Instances of a more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with: e.g.1 §§36,41,83,102. In the order of words there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (1 §109,2 §17), especially in the case of proper names (1 §86Afro DomitioforDomitio Afro: cp.Atacinus Varro§87:Bassus Aufidius§103)71. Constructionsκατὰ σύνεσινfrequently occur:1 §65:§105:7 §25. Under this head may be included the omission of the subject:1 §7congregat:§66permiserunt:7 §4malit ... possit: and of words to be supplied from the context,1 §56congerentes:1 §7solitos:1 §107quibus nihil ille:1 §123qui ubique:2 §24:3 §25. In the same wayesseis frequently omitted for the sake of brevity:1 §17,§66,§90:4 §1:5 §6:7 §7,§23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition:1 §§8,9,23,94,131:2 §§11-12:5 §§6-7:7 §23: cp. on2 §23.Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive:1 §14dixerim:§26maluerim:§37fuerit, where see note: so evenut non dixerim(ne dicam)1 §77andut sic dixerim2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see onsciet1 §4, and cp.2 §§26,28:3 §28:7 §28: also as a mild imperative,1 §58revertemur:3 §18sequemur;2 §1renuntiabit:§23aptabimus. (3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age: (a) withverbs, asmeruit credi1 §72:qui esse docti adfectant§97:optandum ... fieri§127:si consequi utrumque non dabitur7 §22:opponere verear1 §101:intermittere veremur7 §26: cp.expertus iuvenem ... habuisse3 §32: fordubitaresee on1 §73: (b) withadjectives,legi dignus1 §96:contentum id consequi2 §7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund,ceteraque genera probandi ac refutandi1 §49:lex orandi1 §76:inveniendi§69:sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate1 §81: cp.loquendi§83:eloquendo§106:nascendi3 §4:saliendi3 §6: ib.iaculando:adiciendo3 §32:emendandi4 §2:cogitandi7 §25. (5)Quamquamwith subjunctive1 §33:2 §21:7 §17:forsitanwith indic.2 §10: &c.Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1)Anaphora, or the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g. nullavarietas, nullusadfectus, nullapersona, nullacuiusquam sit oratio1 §55: cp.1 §§99,115,130:2 §2:3 §3(illicradices, illicfundamenta sunt, illicopes, &c.):§9,§29:5 §§2,8:6 §1; (2)Asyndeton: e.g.facerequam optime, quam facillimepossit1 §4:2 §16:6 §6:7 §§7,26; (3)Chiasmus:5 §14(alitur—renovatur) and§15(ne carmine—reficiuntur):7 §15.The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked upon as great nationalentertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’:tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat, x.1, 114. The orator must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’in procinctu1 §2(where see note): if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in camp,—nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand:id quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est2 §§21-2. Victory must ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a sham fight:1 §§29-30nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti:2 §27quam omnia, etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent:1 §79Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus:1 §31totum opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur. The orator must have all the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to be made for show:1 §33dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere:1 §30Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus: cp.1 §60cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum:1 §77carnis tamen plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum:2 §12quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes:1 §115verum sanguinem perdidisse. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory:1 §4, cp.5 §§19-20(iuvenis)iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur:3 §3vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp.1 §106pugnat ille (Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere:§120ut esset multo magis pugnans. And he must not linger too long over preparatory exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their suppleness:5 §16nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur.V.Manuscripts.In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted because they would have been more distracting than useful.Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions: (1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and (3) the mixed.The most important representative of the first class is theCodex Ambrosianus, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan. As we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly a fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135argumenta acria et cit. to xii. 11, 22antiquitas ut possit). Halm secured a new and trustworthy collation of this MS., distinguishing carefully between the original text and the readings of the second hand.Although now in the defective condition above indicated, theAmbrosianusmust have been originally complete. In this it differs from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most valuable member of which—theBernensis—is of even greater importance for the constitution of the text than theAmbrosianus, at least in those parts which it contains. It is the oldest of all the known manuscripts of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th century. The peculiarity which it shares with the other members of its family is that it contains certain greatlacunae, which must have existed also in the manuscript from which it was copied, as they are indicated in theBernensisby blank spaces. The size of the firstlacunavaries with the fortunes of the particular codex: in theBernensisit extends from the beginning to 2 §5 (licet, et nihilo minus). The others are identical in all cases: v. 14, 12—viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17—viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2—x. 1, 107 (nulla contentio): xi. 1, 71—xi. 2, 33: and xii. 10, 43 to the end.To the same family as theBernensisbelongs theBambergensisA, which was directly copied from theBernensisnot long after the latter had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in theBambergensisthe greatlacunaewere, at a very early date, filled in by another hand (BambergensisG73), this manuscript may now rank in the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of theHarleianus(2664), and through theHarleianusof theFlorentinus,Turicensis, and an innumerable company of others. Besides reproducingBambergensisG, these MSS. follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halmb) into the originalBambergensisA. A recent examination of theBambergensishas suggested a doubt whether the readings known asb, which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex as G.Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for the parts where he had only theAmbrosianusand theBambergensisG, or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since the date of the publication of his text (1868) great progress has been made with the critical study of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain and le Coultre published a collation of theNostradamensis(see below), the main results of which have been incorporated in Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical edition of the First Book of theInstitutio(1890) M. Ch. Fierville has given a most complete account of all the continental manuscripts, drawing for the purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown proof of his interest in the subject (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, 1874).There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him aright in attaching supreme importance to theBernensis(withBambergensisA), theAmbrosianus, andBambergensisG. But much has been derived from some manuscripts of which he took no account, and there is one in particular, which has hitherto been strangely overlooked, and to which prominence is accordingly given in this edition. Before proceeding to deal with it, I shall annex here a brief notice of the various MSS. which figure in the Critical Notes, grouped in one or other of the three divisions given above. An editor of the Tenth Book of theInstitutiois especially bound to travel outside the rather narrow range of Halm’s critical edition, as so much of the existing text (down to 1 §107) has been based mainly onBambergensisG alone. In addition to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such MSS. as theIoannensisat Cambridge, theBodleianusandBalliolensisat Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex, referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th century manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show to have been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This part of the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this country, what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously accomplished for the manuscripts of the Continent.Of the first family, the outstanding example is theAmbrosianus. The resemblances between it andBambergensisG are sufficient to show thatthe manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like theAmbrosianusoriginally), has altogether disappeared: one of the great objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond the limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish between such examples as may seem (like theDorvilianusat Oxford) to preserve some of the traditions of the family, and those whose origin may be clearly traced back toBambergensisA and G. For all the complete MSS. of Quintilian in existence must be derived either from this family or from the mixed group of which theBambergensis, in its present form, seems to be the undoubted original.In the second group we must include, not much inferior to theBernensis, theParisinus Nostradamensis(N) Bibl. Nat. fonds latin 18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of the incomplete MS. from which theBernensiswas copied, and as such has a distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th century. For the readings of this codex I have been able to compare a collation made by M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by MM. Chatelain and le Coultre in 1875.Then there is theCodex Ioannensis(in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition it begins withconstaret(i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second chapter, like theNostradamensis, theVossiani1 and 2, theCodex Puteanus, andParisinus7721 (see Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearlymultiplici, notut duplici, and in this it agrees with the Montpellier MS. (Pithoeanus), which is known to be a copy (11th century) of theBernensis(see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) astum in ipsisin x. 2, 14, andvirtutisib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the greatlacunae, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with theBernensis, though there are striking resemblances also to thePratensis(see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1sic etiam utilitatis, forsic utilitatis etiam: ib. §30oratione continua, forcontinua oratione: 5 §8alia propriis alia translatis virtus, foraliatranslatis virtus alia propriis: 7 §21stultis eruditi, forstulti eruditis: ib. §28solum summum, forsummum solum. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.—theVossianii. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which theNostradamensisheads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may note also the readingsviderit bona et invenit( 2 §20), whichIoan.shares withVoss.iii.:potius libertas ista( 3 §24)Ioan.andVoss.i.;ubertate—forlibertate—( 5 §15)Ioan. Voss.i. and iii.To the same family belongs theCodex Salmantinus, a 12th or 13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca. M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from theBernensis. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from theNostradamensis(most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from theNostradamensis, it agrees with theBernensisand theBambergensis. This MS. also givesubertatein 5 §15 : it agrees in showing the important readingalte refossain 3 §2 : and resembles theIoannensisin certain minor omissions, e.g.certabeforenecessitatein 5 §15 :idembeforelaborandumin 7 §4 :etbeforeconsuetudoin 7 §8 : cp.subiunctura suntforsubiuncturus est7 §9 . For other coincidences see the Critical Appendix.In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of theCodex Salmantinus) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are theCodex Pralensis(No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and theCodex Puteanus(No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from theInstitutioamounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (de figuris verborum) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (de imitatione) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (quomodo dictandum sit) of x. 3, 1-32; and §79 (de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of theBeccensis, now lost. TheBeccensisis supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least equal rank with theBernensis. That it was an independent copy of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in thePratensis, but also by the fact that both thePratensisand thePuteanus(which is also a transcript of theBeccensis) show alacunaafter the wordmutatisinx. 3, 32. Thislacunamust have existed in theBeccensis, though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the wordscorrectum fuisse tabellisin his copy (thePratensis): the text runscodicibus esse sublatum.The general character of the readings of thePratensismay be gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from thePratensisor from its prototype, theBeccensis. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S)rogantis Achillen Priami precibus, while most codd. havePriamibeforerogantis: ib. §53eloquentie(so Put. S 7231, 7696) foreloquendi: ib.superatum(so Put.) forsuperari: §55aequalem credidit parem(as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67idque ego(as Put. S) foridque ego sane: §68qui fueruntand alsovero, omitted (as in Put. S): so alsotenebras§72,valuerunt§84 (as 7231, 7696), andveterum§97: at §95 Prat, gives eteruditissimosforet doctissimos, and hence the omission oferudit.in S. On the whole, the study of the text of thePratensisseems to give additional confidence in the readings of G: for example §98imperare(as Put.): §101cesserit(Put. 7231, 7696): ib.nec indignetur. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the contention thatφράσινin 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20quem superius instituiforquem institueram in libra secundois an indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of theInstitutio, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to thePratensis, among which may be noted 1 §48putatforcreditum est(where Put. hascertissimum): §59ad exemplum maxime permanebit(ad exitumPut. and S): §78propinquiorforpropior: §80mediocriformedio: §81assurgitforsurgit: §109in utroqueforin quoque. Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with thePuteanus(and which were therefore probably in theBeccensis) are §46in magnisforin magnis rebus: §49innuitfornuntiat: §50excessitforexcedit: §54ne virtusforne utrius(neutrius): §57ignoro ergo(S) forignoro igitur: §63plurimumque oratio: §68in affectibus communibus mirus: §79discernendifordicendi: §107nominis latiniforlatini sermonis. At 1 §72 Prat. hasqui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro(Put.ut pravis), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671qui quamvis sui temp.Men.There are frequent inversions, e.g.dicendi genere§52 (Put.):Attici sermonis(Put.) §65:plus Attio(Put.) §97:cuicumque eorum Ciceronem(as Put. 7231, 7696) §105:sit nobis§112:est autem(as Ioan.) §115:forum illustrator(as Ioan.) §122:creditus sum§125:dignis lectione2 §1:possumus sperare§9:nemo vero eum§10:aliquo tamen in loco aliquid§24:scientia movendi§27:ipso opere3 §8:se res facilius§9:desperatio etiam§14:vox exaudiri§25:praecipue in hoc§26:possunt semper§2874.From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that theCodex Puteanusis in general agreement with thePratensis, each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in agreement than thePratensiswith the later family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61spiritu: ib.meritoomitted: §72possunt decernere(forpossis decerpere—possis decernerePrat.).In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in thePratensis, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of theInstitutiomust have formed part of the mutilated original from which theBeccensiswas copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus,libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi. M. Fierville states (Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1 §§46-68) in thePratensis,Puteanus, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all four. He adds that theVossianii. and iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50illis Priami rogantis Achillen: at §59 the former hasad exim, the latterad exi: at §61 both giveeum nemini credit, omittingmerito(as Put. and S): at §68namque is et sermone(as Prat.:namque sermonePut.): ib.in dicendo ac respondendo(Prat. Put.in dicendo et in resp.): §72 (apparently)ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis: §82finxisse sermonem(as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83ac varietate: §88laudandus partibus(laudandis part.Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91visum(visum estPrat. Put.): §98senesnon parum tragicum(Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107Latini nominis: §121leve(Prat. N). In §98Thyestesis omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696:dedit exemplum et ortum1 §46:proximus aemulari§62.M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes theBernensis,BambergensisA,Ambrosianusii.,Pithoeanus(these two are direct copies of theBernensis),Salmantinus, three Paris codices (7720, 7722 andDidot), and probably theIoannensis. In the second he ranks theNostradamensis,Vossianii. and iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third theBeccensis,Pratensis, andPuteanus: in the fourth acodex Vaticanus, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers theBernensis,Bambergensis,Nostradamensis,Pratensis, andPuteanusto be of greatest importance for the constitution of the text.At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now be placed theCodex Harleianus(2664), in the library of the British Museum75. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser inHermathena(No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to supply the greatlacunaein some MS. of the first or incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed facsimile,abeing used at the beginning andb(as here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first part of theBambergensisis larger than G, which theHarleianus(H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in the text.The result of my investigations has been to identify this important manuscript with theCodex Dusseldorpianus, which we know disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface tohis edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone: ‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James Zamboni, ResidentChargé d’Affairesin England for the Elector of Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford; and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the Court library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with whom Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724, when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices, assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez, Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great Vitruvius—the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly with those in Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is writing to Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to make a “très jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add. D, 66).’What the history of theHarleianusmay have been before it came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl on the first page:Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae. This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. TheCodex Florentinushas an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop Werinharius (thefirst of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither theFlorentinusnor theTuricensiscan be considered identical with the manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that manuscript in theHarleianus, if we can conceive of its having migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238 sqq.), Mr. A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some very interesting information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems that Zamboni was able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS. which he was selling to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by comparing the Zamboni correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the posthumous catalogue of Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered that Büchels was offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that great scholar, which in this way ultimately found a home in the library of the British Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann Wilhelm bought both his books and his manuscripts. The former he presented to the library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he retained in his own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian codex of Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not to Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd. p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his ‘Verisimilia,’ iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from the preface to Book vi, all of which appear in theHarleianusas we have it now. And as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the library of Cologne Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad Fam. (Harl. 2682), Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the same time. He evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they passed, with many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to London.It was only after theBambergensisarrived in the British Museum (where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by theHarleianusin regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the experts, that the latter MS. was distinctly of older date than the former: it is written in a neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds alone there might have been room for doubt. But a fuller examination convinced me that theHarleianuswas copied directly from theBambergensis, possibly at the very time when the latter was being completed by the addition of the parts known asBambergensisG, and of some at least of the readings now generally designatedb. These latter, indeed, theHarleianusslavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in the originalBambergensis: probably the copyist of theHarleianuswas aware of the importance attached to the codex (uncial?) from which thebreadings were taken. In view, however, of the defective state in which theBambergensishas come down to us, as regards the opening part, and considering also the mutilation of theAmbrosianus, we may still claim for the MS. in the British Museum the distinction of being the oldest complete manuscript of Quintilian in existence.The proof that theHarleianusstands at the head of the great family of themixedmanuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly by theFlorentinus,Turicensis,Almeloveenianus, andGuelferbytanus) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to both parts of theBambergensison the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In theSitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of theTuricensisand theFlorentinuson theBambergensisby pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in thetext of both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist of theBambergensisfrom their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52:circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico. When the copyist of theBambergensisnoticed his mistake, he completedDrepanitaniin the text, and wrote in the wordsgaudeo etiam ... abs teat the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In theBambergensisthe page ends with the words (§54)an huius ille legis quam, and the next page continuesC̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur. Noticing that in both theFlorentinusand theTuricensisthe marginal addition (gaudeo etiam ... abs te) is inserted not afterlegis quambut afterClodius, Halm drew the inference that these codices were copied from theBambergensisnot directly, but through some intervening manuscript. TheHarleianusis this manuscript. In it the words referred to do come in betweenlegis quamand (Cloe)lius: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in theBambergensis, in which the letters C l o e are subpunctuated, that theHarleianusactually showset abs te lius a se inventa76, exactly as the writer ofbwished theBambergensisto stand. It must be feared that the copyist of theHarleianusdid not know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above theTuricensisand theFlorentinus(and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text standsutinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata, &c. In theBambergensis,utrum namis supplied bybabove the line, and in the marginque peiora vincant verum, the words affected by the change beingsubpunctuated in the text. The copyist of theHarleianustakes theutrum namand leaves the rest, showingutrum nam schemata: this appears asutrim nam schematain theTuricensis, and asutinam schematain theFlorentinusandAlmeloveenianus. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in theBambergensis(G)quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of theHarleianus, and as a consequence we havesuppliciinTuric.andFlor.,supplitiainGuelf., &c. Again at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of theHarleianus, which caused him to writeNeque vero tantas eum breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae, &c., has given rise to the greatest confusion inTuric.,Flor.,Alm.,Bodleianus,Burn.243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the wordsqui forobetweenbreve saltemandtempus: at this point the copyist of H must have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg, where the wordsqui forohold a conspicuous position.Flor.andTur.repeat the mistake, except that the latter giveseum brevemforeum breve. Again at the end of Book ix,BambergensisG givesut numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur: this reading is identical with that of theHarleianus, except that the latter forarcessitigivesarcessisti, a deviation promptly reproduced by theFlorentinus, while theTuricensisshowsaccersisti. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the following: at iv. 2, 128 theBambergensisgives (forἐπιδιήγησις)ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H asΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙthe seventh and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes thisΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕand T showsΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ(επιλιησει—Spalding).

Dum ... nonstands fordummodo ... non3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The usage is poetical.Dummododoes not occur in Quintilian.

Enimoccurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g.ad profectum enim3 §15: and so frequently aftersum,—2 §10necesse est enim:1 §14:7 §§15,24:2 §19. Butnihil enim est1 §78, where Krüger suggestsnihil enim inest.

Etsi. As it is generally stated thatetsidoes not occur in Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i. pr. 19: i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.

Ideoqueis constantly used foritaque. See note on1 §21.

Licet=etsi, as sometimes in Cicero:1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and passim.

Quamlibetandquamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs:3 §19nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato: cp. viii. 6, 4oratione quamlibet clara: xii. 8, 7quamlibet verbose: xi. 1, 34quamquam plena sanguinis. A similar use ofquamvisis less uncommon in other writers: cp.1 §74quamvis bonorum: ib. §94quamvis uno libra(where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.

Quiais sometimes used wherequod(eo quod) might have been expected:1 §15hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia: cp.5 §14Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia(Halm)inventionem et dispositionem pariter exercent. So i. 6, 39nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent(sc.verba a vetustate repetita)et, quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant. Cp.non quia non(with the subjunctive) x.7, 19and31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.

Quoqueoften occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force, where older writers would have hadveloretiam:1 §20ex industria quoque:2 §14in magnis quoque auctoribus: cp.1 §121ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ii. II, Iexemplo magni quoque nominis professorum.

Quotiens=cum:4 §3:7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76: viii. 3, 55.

For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo wroteto Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment. But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come dragging in at the end of a sentence (x.2 §§13and23), and adjectival or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable isolation (vel ob hoc memoria dignum1 §80:rebus tamen acuti magis quam, &c.1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80:2 §28). The thought is sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the Tenth Book: cp.2 §§13and§§20,21;7 §7), because the composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely used (see onnam1 §12: cp. §50,7 §31:quidem1 §88), and are sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly and abruptly introduced (see on1 §4: cp.7 §1). Instances of a more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with: e.g.1 §§36,41,83,102. In the order of words there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (1 §109,2 §17), especially in the case of proper names (1 §86Afro DomitioforDomitio Afro: cp.Atacinus Varro§87:Bassus Aufidius§103)71. Constructionsκατὰ σύνεσινfrequently occur:1 §65:§105:7 §25. Under this head may be included the omission of the subject:1 §7congregat:§66permiserunt:7 §4malit ... possit: and of words to be supplied from the context,1 §56congerentes:1 §7solitos:1 §107quibus nihil ille:1 §123qui ubique:2 §24:3 §25. In the same wayesseis frequently omitted for the sake of brevity:1 §17,§66,§90:4 §1:5 §6:7 §7,§23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition:1 §§8,9,23,94,131:2 §§11-12:5 §§6-7:7 §23: cp. on2 §23.

Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive:1 §14dixerim:§26maluerim:§37fuerit, where see note: so evenut non dixerim(ne dicam)1 §77andut sic dixerim2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see onsciet1 §4, and cp.2 §§26,28:3 §28:7 §28: also as a mild imperative,1 §58revertemur:3 §18sequemur;2 §1renuntiabit:§23aptabimus. (3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age: (a) withverbs, asmeruit credi1 §72:qui esse docti adfectant§97:optandum ... fieri§127:si consequi utrumque non dabitur7 §22:opponere verear1 §101:intermittere veremur7 §26: cp.expertus iuvenem ... habuisse3 §32: fordubitaresee on1 §73: (b) withadjectives,legi dignus1 §96:contentum id consequi2 §7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund,ceteraque genera probandi ac refutandi1 §49:lex orandi1 §76:inveniendi§69:sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate1 §81: cp.loquendi§83:eloquendo§106:nascendi3 §4:saliendi3 §6: ib.iaculando:adiciendo3 §32:emendandi4 §2:cogitandi7 §25. (5)Quamquamwith subjunctive1 §33:2 §21:7 §17:forsitanwith indic.2 §10: &c.

Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1)Anaphora, or the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g. nullavarietas, nullusadfectus, nullapersona, nullacuiusquam sit oratio1 §55: cp.1 §§99,115,130:2 §2:3 §3(illicradices, illicfundamenta sunt, illicopes, &c.):§9,§29:5 §§2,8:6 §1; (2)Asyndeton: e.g.facerequam optime, quam facillimepossit1 §4:2 §16:6 §6:7 §§7,26; (3)Chiasmus:5 §14(alitur—renovatur) and§15(ne carmine—reficiuntur):7 §15.

The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked upon as great nationalentertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’:tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat, x.1, 114. The orator must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’in procinctu1 §2(where see note): if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in camp,—nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand:id quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est2 §§21-2. Victory must ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a sham fight:1 §§29-30nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti:2 §27quam omnia, etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent:1 §79Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus:1 §31totum opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur. The orator must have all the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to be made for show:1 §33dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere:1 §30Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus: cp.1 §60cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum:1 §77carnis tamen plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum:2 §12quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes:1 §115verum sanguinem perdidisse. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory:1 §4, cp.5 §§19-20(iuvenis)iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur:3 §3vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp.1 §106pugnat ille (Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere:§120ut esset multo magis pugnans. And he must not linger too long over preparatory exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their suppleness:5 §16nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur.

In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted because they would have been more distracting than useful.

Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions: (1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and (3) the mixed.

The most important representative of the first class is theCodex Ambrosianus, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan. As we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly a fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135argumenta acria et cit. to xii. 11, 22antiquitas ut possit). Halm secured a new and trustworthy collation of this MS., distinguishing carefully between the original text and the readings of the second hand.

Although now in the defective condition above indicated, theAmbrosianusmust have been originally complete. In this it differs from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most valuable member of which—theBernensis—is of even greater importance for the constitution of the text than theAmbrosianus, at least in those parts which it contains. It is the oldest of all the known manuscripts of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th century. The peculiarity which it shares with the other members of its family is that it contains certain greatlacunae, which must have existed also in the manuscript from which it was copied, as they are indicated in theBernensisby blank spaces. The size of the firstlacunavaries with the fortunes of the particular codex: in theBernensisit extends from the beginning to 2 §5 (licet, et nihilo minus). The others are identical in all cases: v. 14, 12—viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17—viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2—x. 1, 107 (nulla contentio): xi. 1, 71—xi. 2, 33: and xii. 10, 43 to the end.

To the same family as theBernensisbelongs theBambergensisA, which was directly copied from theBernensisnot long after the latter had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in theBambergensisthe greatlacunaewere, at a very early date, filled in by another hand (BambergensisG73), this manuscript may now rank in the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of theHarleianus(2664), and through theHarleianusof theFlorentinus,Turicensis, and an innumerable company of others. Besides reproducingBambergensisG, these MSS. follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halmb) into the originalBambergensisA. A recent examination of theBambergensishas suggested a doubt whether the readings known asb, which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex as G.

Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for the parts where he had only theAmbrosianusand theBambergensisG, or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since the date of the publication of his text (1868) great progress has been made with the critical study of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain and le Coultre published a collation of theNostradamensis(see below), the main results of which have been incorporated in Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical edition of the First Book of theInstitutio(1890) M. Ch. Fierville has given a most complete account of all the continental manuscripts, drawing for the purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown proof of his interest in the subject (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, 1874).

There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him aright in attaching supreme importance to theBernensis(withBambergensisA), theAmbrosianus, andBambergensisG. But much has been derived from some manuscripts of which he took no account, and there is one in particular, which has hitherto been strangely overlooked, and to which prominence is accordingly given in this edition. Before proceeding to deal with it, I shall annex here a brief notice of the various MSS. which figure in the Critical Notes, grouped in one or other of the three divisions given above. An editor of the Tenth Book of theInstitutiois especially bound to travel outside the rather narrow range of Halm’s critical edition, as so much of the existing text (down to 1 §107) has been based mainly onBambergensisG alone. In addition to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such MSS. as theIoannensisat Cambridge, theBodleianusandBalliolensisat Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex, referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th century manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show to have been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This part of the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this country, what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously accomplished for the manuscripts of the Continent.

Of the first family, the outstanding example is theAmbrosianus. The resemblances between it andBambergensisG are sufficient to show thatthe manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like theAmbrosianusoriginally), has altogether disappeared: one of the great objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond the limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish between such examples as may seem (like theDorvilianusat Oxford) to preserve some of the traditions of the family, and those whose origin may be clearly traced back toBambergensisA and G. For all the complete MSS. of Quintilian in existence must be derived either from this family or from the mixed group of which theBambergensis, in its present form, seems to be the undoubted original.

In the second group we must include, not much inferior to theBernensis, theParisinus Nostradamensis(N) Bibl. Nat. fonds latin 18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of the incomplete MS. from which theBernensiswas copied, and as such has a distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th century. For the readings of this codex I have been able to compare a collation made by M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by MM. Chatelain and le Coultre in 1875.

Then there is theCodex Ioannensis(in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition it begins withconstaret(i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second chapter, like theNostradamensis, theVossiani1 and 2, theCodex Puteanus, andParisinus7721 (see Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearlymultiplici, notut duplici, and in this it agrees with the Montpellier MS. (Pithoeanus), which is known to be a copy (11th century) of theBernensis(see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) astum in ipsisin x. 2, 14, andvirtutisib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the greatlacunae, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with theBernensis, though there are striking resemblances also to thePratensis(see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1sic etiam utilitatis, forsic utilitatis etiam: ib. §30oratione continua, forcontinua oratione: 5 §8alia propriis alia translatis virtus, foraliatranslatis virtus alia propriis: 7 §21stultis eruditi, forstulti eruditis: ib. §28solum summum, forsummum solum. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.—theVossianii. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which theNostradamensisheads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may note also the readingsviderit bona et invenit( 2 §20), whichIoan.shares withVoss.iii.:potius libertas ista( 3 §24)Ioan.andVoss.i.;ubertate—forlibertate—( 5 §15)Ioan. Voss.i. and iii.

To the same family belongs theCodex Salmantinus, a 12th or 13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca. M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from theBernensis. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from theNostradamensis(most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from theNostradamensis, it agrees with theBernensisand theBambergensis. This MS. also givesubertatein 5 §15 : it agrees in showing the important readingalte refossain 3 §2 : and resembles theIoannensisin certain minor omissions, e.g.certabeforenecessitatein 5 §15 :idembeforelaborandumin 7 §4 :etbeforeconsuetudoin 7 §8 : cp.subiunctura suntforsubiuncturus est7 §9 . For other coincidences see the Critical Appendix.

In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of theCodex Salmantinus) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are theCodex Pralensis(No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and theCodex Puteanus(No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from theInstitutioamounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (de figuris verborum) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (de imitatione) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (quomodo dictandum sit) of x. 3, 1-32; and §79 (de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of theBeccensis, now lost. TheBeccensisis supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least equal rank with theBernensis. That it was an independent copy of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in thePratensis, but also by the fact that both thePratensisand thePuteanus(which is also a transcript of theBeccensis) show alacunaafter the wordmutatisinx. 3, 32. Thislacunamust have existed in theBeccensis, though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the wordscorrectum fuisse tabellisin his copy (thePratensis): the text runscodicibus esse sublatum.

The general character of the readings of thePratensismay be gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from thePratensisor from its prototype, theBeccensis. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S)rogantis Achillen Priami precibus, while most codd. havePriamibeforerogantis: ib. §53eloquentie(so Put. S 7231, 7696) foreloquendi: ib.superatum(so Put.) forsuperari: §55aequalem credidit parem(as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67idque ego(as Put. S) foridque ego sane: §68qui fueruntand alsovero, omitted (as in Put. S): so alsotenebras§72,valuerunt§84 (as 7231, 7696), andveterum§97: at §95 Prat, gives eteruditissimosforet doctissimos, and hence the omission oferudit.in S. On the whole, the study of the text of thePratensisseems to give additional confidence in the readings of G: for example §98imperare(as Put.): §101cesserit(Put. 7231, 7696): ib.nec indignetur. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the contention thatφράσινin 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20quem superius instituiforquem institueram in libra secundois an indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of theInstitutio, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to thePratensis, among which may be noted 1 §48putatforcreditum est(where Put. hascertissimum): §59ad exemplum maxime permanebit(ad exitumPut. and S): §78propinquiorforpropior: §80mediocriformedio: §81assurgitforsurgit: §109in utroqueforin quoque. Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with thePuteanus(and which were therefore probably in theBeccensis) are §46in magnisforin magnis rebus: §49innuitfornuntiat: §50excessitforexcedit: §54ne virtusforne utrius(neutrius): §57ignoro ergo(S) forignoro igitur: §63plurimumque oratio: §68in affectibus communibus mirus: §79discernendifordicendi: §107nominis latiniforlatini sermonis. At 1 §72 Prat. hasqui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro(Put.ut pravis), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671qui quamvis sui temp.Men.There are frequent inversions, e.g.dicendi genere§52 (Put.):Attici sermonis(Put.) §65:plus Attio(Put.) §97:cuicumque eorum Ciceronem(as Put. 7231, 7696) §105:sit nobis§112:est autem(as Ioan.) §115:forum illustrator(as Ioan.) §122:creditus sum§125:dignis lectione2 §1:possumus sperare§9:nemo vero eum§10:aliquo tamen in loco aliquid§24:scientia movendi§27:ipso opere3 §8:se res facilius§9:desperatio etiam§14:vox exaudiri§25:praecipue in hoc§26:possunt semper§2874.

From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that theCodex Puteanusis in general agreement with thePratensis, each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in agreement than thePratensiswith the later family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61spiritu: ib.meritoomitted: §72possunt decernere(forpossis decerpere—possis decernerePrat.).

In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in thePratensis, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of theInstitutiomust have formed part of the mutilated original from which theBeccensiswas copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus,libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi. M. Fierville states (Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1 §§46-68) in thePratensis,Puteanus, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all four. He adds that theVossianii. and iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50illis Priami rogantis Achillen: at §59 the former hasad exim, the latterad exi: at §61 both giveeum nemini credit, omittingmerito(as Put. and S): at §68namque is et sermone(as Prat.:namque sermonePut.): ib.in dicendo ac respondendo(Prat. Put.in dicendo et in resp.): §72 (apparently)ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis: §82finxisse sermonem(as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83ac varietate: §88laudandus partibus(laudandis part.Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91visum(visum estPrat. Put.): §98senesnon parum tragicum(Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107Latini nominis: §121leve(Prat. N). In §98Thyestesis omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696:dedit exemplum et ortum1 §46:proximus aemulari§62.

M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes theBernensis,BambergensisA,Ambrosianusii.,Pithoeanus(these two are direct copies of theBernensis),Salmantinus, three Paris codices (7720, 7722 andDidot), and probably theIoannensis. In the second he ranks theNostradamensis,Vossianii. and iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third theBeccensis,Pratensis, andPuteanus: in the fourth acodex Vaticanus, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers theBernensis,Bambergensis,Nostradamensis,Pratensis, andPuteanusto be of greatest importance for the constitution of the text.

At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now be placed theCodex Harleianus(2664), in the library of the British Museum75. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser inHermathena(No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to supply the greatlacunaein some MS. of the first or incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed facsimile,abeing used at the beginning andb(as here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first part of theBambergensisis larger than G, which theHarleianus(H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in the text.

The result of my investigations has been to identify this important manuscript with theCodex Dusseldorpianus, which we know disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface tohis edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone: ‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James Zamboni, ResidentChargé d’Affairesin England for the Elector of Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford; and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the Court library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with whom Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.

‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724, when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices, assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez, Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great Vitruvius—the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly with those in Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is writing to Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to make a “très jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add. D, 66).’

What the history of theHarleianusmay have been before it came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl on the first page:Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae. This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. TheCodex Florentinushas an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop Werinharius (thefirst of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither theFlorentinusnor theTuricensiscan be considered identical with the manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that manuscript in theHarleianus, if we can conceive of its having migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.

The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.

Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238 sqq.), Mr. A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some very interesting information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems that Zamboni was able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS. which he was selling to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by comparing the Zamboni correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the posthumous catalogue of Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered that Büchels was offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that great scholar, which in this way ultimately found a home in the library of the British Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann Wilhelm bought both his books and his manuscripts. The former he presented to the library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he retained in his own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian codex of Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not to Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd. p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his ‘Verisimilia,’ iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from the preface to Book vi, all of which appear in theHarleianusas we have it now. And as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the library of Cologne Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad Fam. (Harl. 2682), Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the same time. He evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they passed, with many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to London.

It was only after theBambergensisarrived in the British Museum (where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by theHarleianusin regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the experts, that the latter MS. was distinctly of older date than the former: it is written in a neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds alone there might have been room for doubt. But a fuller examination convinced me that theHarleianuswas copied directly from theBambergensis, possibly at the very time when the latter was being completed by the addition of the parts known asBambergensisG, and of some at least of the readings now generally designatedb. These latter, indeed, theHarleianusslavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in the originalBambergensis: probably the copyist of theHarleianuswas aware of the importance attached to the codex (uncial?) from which thebreadings were taken. In view, however, of the defective state in which theBambergensishas come down to us, as regards the opening part, and considering also the mutilation of theAmbrosianus, we may still claim for the MS. in the British Museum the distinction of being the oldest complete manuscript of Quintilian in existence.

The proof that theHarleianusstands at the head of the great family of themixedmanuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly by theFlorentinus,Turicensis,Almeloveenianus, andGuelferbytanus) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to both parts of theBambergensison the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In theSitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of theTuricensisand theFlorentinuson theBambergensisby pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in thetext of both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist of theBambergensisfrom their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52:circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico. When the copyist of theBambergensisnoticed his mistake, he completedDrepanitaniin the text, and wrote in the wordsgaudeo etiam ... abs teat the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In theBambergensisthe page ends with the words (§54)an huius ille legis quam, and the next page continuesC̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur. Noticing that in both theFlorentinusand theTuricensisthe marginal addition (gaudeo etiam ... abs te) is inserted not afterlegis quambut afterClodius, Halm drew the inference that these codices were copied from theBambergensisnot directly, but through some intervening manuscript. TheHarleianusis this manuscript. In it the words referred to do come in betweenlegis quamand (Cloe)lius: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in theBambergensis, in which the letters C l o e are subpunctuated, that theHarleianusactually showset abs te lius a se inventa76, exactly as the writer ofbwished theBambergensisto stand. It must be feared that the copyist of theHarleianusdid not know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above theTuricensisand theFlorentinus(and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text standsutinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata, &c. In theBambergensis,utrum namis supplied bybabove the line, and in the marginque peiora vincant verum, the words affected by the change beingsubpunctuated in the text. The copyist of theHarleianustakes theutrum namand leaves the rest, showingutrum nam schemata: this appears asutrim nam schematain theTuricensis, and asutinam schematain theFlorentinusandAlmeloveenianus. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in theBambergensis(G)quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of theHarleianus, and as a consequence we havesuppliciinTuric.andFlor.,supplitiainGuelf., &c. Again at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of theHarleianus, which caused him to writeNeque vero tantas eum breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae, &c., has given rise to the greatest confusion inTuric.,Flor.,Alm.,Bodleianus,Burn.243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the wordsqui forobetweenbreve saltemandtempus: at this point the copyist of H must have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg, where the wordsqui forohold a conspicuous position.Flor.andTur.repeat the mistake, except that the latter giveseum brevemforeum breve. Again at the end of Book ix,BambergensisG givesut numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur: this reading is identical with that of theHarleianus, except that the latter forarcessitigivesarcessisti, a deviation promptly reproduced by theFlorentinus, while theTuricensisshowsaccersisti. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the following: at iv. 2, 128 theBambergensisgives (forἐπιδιήγησις)ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H asΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙthe seventh and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes thisΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕand T showsΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ(επιλιησει—Spalding).

Back to IndexNext