The four forms of the Greek word appear in the printed text as:text imagetext imagetext imagetext imageAs theBambergensis(Bg), in its present state, only commences at i. 1. 6. (nec de patribus tantum), the readings of theHarleianus(H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we havepertinerentH,pertinentT: §2diversasH,divisasT: §5fieri oratorem non posseHF,fieri non posse oratoremT (as A): §6amoreH,studioF:iτ ingeniiH,iter ingeniiT,ingeniiF: §13officio quoqueH,quoque officioF: §19summaH (also Bg),summamT: §25demonstraturiHF,demonstrariT: §27adiumentaH (a correction by same hand onadiuvante): so Bg F:adiuvanteT. In chap. 1 §3sed plusHT:sed et plusF:hoc quippe videritH Bg F:hoc quippe(om.viderit) T.These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings ofBg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8nihil est peiusBg H T,nihil enim est peiusF: ib. §11defueritBg H T,defuerintF: ib. §12perbibetBg H F,perhibetT: ib. §16formandamBg H,formandumF T: 2 §18in media rei p. vivendumBg (b) H,in med. rei praevivendumT,reip. videndumF: ib. §24depellendamBg H,repellendamT: ib. §31concipiat quis menteBg H,quis mente concipiatF: 4 §27tereunturBg H T,intereunturF: 6 §9dicetBg,dicitH F,diciturT: ib. §14dici cerisBg (dici ceris),AdiceresH,diciF T: ib. §30aliaque quae consuetudini serviuntBg H,—in margin of Haliquando consuetudini servit(b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28haec ei et curaH F,haec et cura eiT: 11 §4pinguitudineBg H,pinguedineF T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following: ii. 5, 13dicenturBg H,docenturT: 5 §26hancBg H, om. T: 15 §8testatum estBg H,testatumT. In ix. 363 G hasparem(formaremA): H givespatremand F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8hoc estG H,id estF: ib. §16quoqueG H, om. T: ib. §32nesciatG H,dubitetF:dignaturG H,digne dicaturF: viii. pr. §3dicendiG H,discendiT: ix. 4, 119ignoraboG,ignorabaH,ignorabamT: ib. §129et hac fluitG H,et hac et hac fluitT: xii. 11, 8scieritG,scieretH,sciretT: ib. 2 §18autemBg H, om. T: x. 1, §4numuro quaeG H,num muro quaeT,numeroqueF: ib. §50et philogusG,et philochusH T,et epiloghusF: ib. §73poremG H,prioremF T: ib. §75vel hoc estG H,hoc est velT: x. 2, 7posteriis(forhistoriis) H,posterisF (posteriused. Camp.): x. 2, 10discernamusBg,discernanturb,disnanturH T,desinanturF. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are the following:Empedoclenai. 4, 4:vespueruginemi. 7, 12:tereunturi. 4, 27:flex hisx. 1, 2:gravissimusx. 1, 97:ipsae illae quae extorque eum credasx. 1, 110, where both also givetrans usumfortransversum, andnon repefor non rapi:morare refinxit finxit recipitx. 3, 6:nam quod cum isocratisx. 4, 4. In other instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes forquoenimdandum: alsoextemporal facilitaswhich appears in T asextempora vel facilitas: x. 1, 79ven iudicisH (in mistake forse non iud.), which is made by T intovenit iudicis. Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the readingtantum, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more liketantumthantacitum(the reading of G). Again, in everyplace where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to correspond77.A.(dici ceris) text image showing inserted letters:text imagesWith such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt that theHarleianusmust now take rank above both the manuscripts which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a place in the criticism of Quintilian, theCodex Florentinusand theCodex Turicenis. The former is an eleventh century MS., now in the Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this inscription:Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae: on the lastLiber Petri de Medicis, Cos. fil.: and belowLiber sanctae Mariae ecclesiae Argñ.(= Argentoratensis)in dormitorio. There were two bishops of Strasburg bearing the name of Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the second 1065-1079. M. Fierville (Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first Werner (of Altemburg or Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral at Strasburg in 1015, and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable books; and we also know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at Frankfort to promote the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here then we have the elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner was a patron of letters; and learning that by the addition of what is now known asBambergensisG a complete text of Quintilian had been secured, he had it copied. TheCodex Harleianuswas in all probability the first copy, and from it theCodex Florentinuswas reproduced. The latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which (though hitherto it seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose of its claim to be considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he describes as ‘plenum situ’ and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo quodam et obscuro carcere, fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales quidem rei damnati retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from Strasburg to St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is hard to believe that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and unknown. After 1372 we know nothing certain of its history till it reappears in the library of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part of the fifteenth century. It is generally supposed that some time between 1372 and 1417 it must have been transported from Strasburg to the monastery of St. Gall, and that it passed from there to Florence after Poggio’s departure. A similar theory may quite as legitimately be maintained in reference to theHarleianus, which, as I havealready indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 141678.TheCodex Turicensiswas long considered to be of older date than theFlorentinus, but recent investigations seem to have proved the contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the eleventh century, and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the beginning of the eighteenth century it passed into the library at Zürich. Spalding believed it to be the manuscript discovered by Poggio, and M. Fierville is of the same opinion: Halm rejects this theory. The great point in favour of the claim of theTuricensisis that it is known to have come from St. Gall, while we can only conjecture the history of theHarleianus. But theTuricensiscannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with him into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition, Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of the librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was theHarleianusthere is perhaps little need to wonder that nothing has been known till now of its later fortunes79.The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also theAlmeloveenianus) to the codices which have just been described, may be determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among such MSS. is theCodex Bodleianus, which has received more attention from editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to warrant. It repeats word for word the remarkable error attributable to theHarleianusat x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in other places it embodies attempted emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90nec ipsum senectus maturavit: 2 §7de metrisfordimiteris(see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to Archbishop Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm, theLassbergensisand theMonacensis. The former was formerly at Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The readingatque interrogationibus atque interrogantibus, which Halm gives from it alone at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G and H; this seems quite enough to identify its parentage. TheMonacensiswas collated by Halm for his critical edition in the parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone: with no conspicuous results,—‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut docere possemus, ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter corrupti sunt, emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the British Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of this edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it hasposteriusforhistoriis(a mistake in H—see p. lxix): and in the same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex)de metrisfordimiteris. This is also the reading of the second hand in theTuricensis. Such differences as exist between it and H F T may be ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g.vertere latusx. 3, 21. Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at the end of the volume.The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript. A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the point of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived, through Poggio’s manuscript, from theBambergensis, and how far from such complete manuscripts as theAmbrosianusand the original ofBambergensisG? Some of them (as well as other fifteenth century MSS., with a description of which I desire to supplement M. Fierville’s Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of at least as great importance as those referred to above as having been collated in part by Halm.TheArgentoratensis(S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 169880. This manuscript wasdestroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (Codex Guelferbytanus), collated for the first time by Spalding: theCodex Gothanus, used by Gesner for his edition of 1738: theCodex Vallensis(Parisinus 7723), which purports to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla (9 December, 1444), whose corrections and marginal notes it contains81. The list of these and several others, all carefully described by M. Fierville, may now be extended by a short reference to various MSS. in this country, hitherto uncollated. The results of my examination of them (as well as of theBodleianus, andBurneianus243, referred to above) appear in the Critical Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may at least be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and Meister have successively credited the early printed editions,—e.g. the Cologne edition of 1527,—have now been attributed to earlier sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS. of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’sInstitutio: of the most important of these, theHarleianus(H), I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of relationship to such codices as theArgentoratensisand theGuelferbytanus. The first of these two MSS. (Codex Harleianus2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The same may be said of theCodex Harleianus11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to connect both these MSS. with theGuelferbytanus: x. 3, 12a patrono suofora patruo suo: 1 §97verumforveterum: 1 §55equalem credidit parem(as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i.and iii.): 1 §72quamvis sui temporis Menandroforut pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro: 7 §6adducet ducetur. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum isHarleianus4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and might be classed along with theVallensiswere it not that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘hic deficit antiquus codex,’ makes it probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side82. This MS. agrees with theVallensisandGothanusin readingcognitioniforcogitationix. 1, 1:ubertateforubertas1 §109:et vis summa§117:eruendasforerudiendas2 §6:nobis efficiendumib. §14:decretoriis5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with theLassbergensis. The latter finishes with the wordsἡ βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένουand the mottoἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of theBurneianus244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general agreement with L, and also with theCodex Carcassonensis, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of which (theCodex Balliolensis) is unclassed by Fierville, while the other (theD’OrvilleMS.) has never been examined at all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins atbis vitiosa sunti. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated condition.In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the wordsquam quod somno supererit: it stops abruptly atnostrorumque Hort(ensium)x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it hasinterrogatione, a reading which Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it hase repwith A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g.forteat i. 5, 15, all other codicesforsanorforsitan).There remains theD’OrvilleMS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (Codex Dorvilianus),—a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of theInstitutio(1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to theAmbrosianus(e.g.Getae1 pr. §6:et quantumib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it hassummam inde eloquentiae(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.):destinabamus al. festinabimusib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received into the text:neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it hasquos eligamus ad imitandum, a reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than theCodex Bodleianus. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices havequaestio ex his incidatexcept A, which givesex his incidat quaestio: the reading in theDorvilianusisquaestio incidat ex his: again at i. 2, 6ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus, many codices givemoresforos: Dorv. showsquam vel mores vel os.List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.Besides the complete editions ofSpalding,Zumpt,Bonnell,Halm(1868-9)Meister(1886-87), use has been made of the following editions of Book x.:—M. Stephanus Riccius.Venice, 1570.C. H. Frotscher.Leipzig, 1826.M. C. G. Herzog.2nd ed. Leipzig, 1833.G. A. Herbst.Halle, 1834.John E. B. Mayor(incomplete).Cambridge, 1872.Bonnell-Meister.Berlin, 1882.G. T. A. Krüger.2nd ed. Leipzig, 1872.„ „(Gustav Krüger)3rd ed.„1888.Fr. Zambaldi.Firenze, 1883.S. Dosson.Paris, 1884.D. Bassi.Torino, 1884.J. A. Hild.Paris, 1885.F. Meister(text only).Leipzig and Prague, 1887.Frieze(Books x. andxii.)New York, 1889.Among the Translations, reference has been made toLindner’s(Philologische Klassiker, Wien, 1881),Alberti’s(Leipzig, 1858), andHerzog’s(Leipzig, 1829); also toGuthrie’s(London, 1805), andWatson’s(inBohn’sseries).The following have been used as books of reference:—Wilkins: Cicero,De Oratore, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.)Oxford, 1888 and 1890.Sandys: Cicero,Orator.Cambridge, 1889.Kellogg: Cicero,Brutus.Boston, 1889.Wolff: Tacitus,Dialogus de Oratoribus.Gotha, 1890.Andresen:„ „Leipzig, 1879.Reiske: Dionysius Halicarnassensis.Vols. v-vi.Leipzig, 1775-7.Usener: Dionysius HalicarnassensisLibrorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque Criticae Duae.Bonn, 1889.Ammon:De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus: Dissertatio Inauguralis.Munich, 1889.Volkmann:Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer.2nd ed. Leipzig, 1885.Causeret:Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire dans Cicéron.Paris, 1886.andFierville:Quintilian, Book i.Paris, 1890.The references to Nägelsbach’sLateinische Stylistikare to the eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent years. The following articles and tractates have been consulted:—Claussen:Quaestiones Quintilianeae.Leipzig, 1883.Nettleship:Journal of Philology, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq.BecherBursian’s Jahresbericht, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.„Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit. Or.(Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu Ilfeld).Nordhausen, 1879.„Philologus XLV.„Philologische Rundschau, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.„Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich.Ostern, 1891.KiderlinBlätter für das bayer.Gymn.-Wesen, 1887, p. 454; 1188, pp. 83-91.„Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik, vol. 135, pp. 829-832.„Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.„Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie, 1888, p. 829 sqq.„Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin, xiv. (1888), p. 62 sqq.„Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.„Rheinisches Museum, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.HirtJahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin, viii. (1882), p. 67 sqq.„„ „ „ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq.„„ „ „xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq.„Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian.Berlin, 1890.MeisterPhilologus, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876), p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.: xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.Schöll:Rheinisches Museum, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv. (1880), p. 639.WölfflinRheinisches Museum, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq.„Hermes, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.AndresenRheinisches Museum, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.EussnerBlätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen, 1881, p. 391 sqq.Fleckeisen’sJahrb. f. Philologie, 1885, p. 615 sqq.Literar. Centralblatt, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.Gertz‘Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa’ (1876), p. 92 sqq.H. J. Müller:Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq.Iwan Müller:Bursian’s Jahresbericht, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.WrobelZeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien, xxvii. (1876), p. 353 sqq.Törnebladh:De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones.Holmiae, 1861.Reuter:De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae eloquentiae.Vratislaviae, 1887.Günther:De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu.Halis Saxonum, 1881.Morawski:Quaestiones Quintilianeae.Posnaniae, 1874.Marty:De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis.Glaronae, 1885.Peters, Dr. Heinrich:Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians Institutio Oratoria.Cassel, 1889.Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).Halm.Meister.This Edition.Chap. I.§ 1cogitationicognitionicognitioni.§ 2quae quoque sint modoquo quaeque sint modoquae quoque sint modo.„nisi tamquamnisi tamquamnisi tamen.§ 3ante omnia estante omnia necesse estante omnia est.„imitatio estimitatio estimitati.§ 4procedente opere iam minimaprocedente iam opere etiam minimaprocedente iam opere minima.§ 5Num ergoNon ergoNon ergo.§ 7[et] ... scio solitoset ... solitos scioet ... solitos scio.„aliud quodaliud quoaliud quo.§ 8consequimurconsequemurconsequemur.§ 11τροπικῶς[quare tamen]τροπικῶςquasi tamenas Meister.§ 16imagine [ambitu][imagine] ambituimagine et ambitu.§ 17commodataaccommodataaccommodata.§ 18placent ... laudantur ... placentplaceant ... laudentur ... placentas Halm.§ 19contrariume contrarioe contrario.„ut actionis impetusas Halmactionis impetu.„retractemusretractemustractemus.§ 23quin etiam si[quin] etiam sias Halm.§ 28genus * * ostentationipoeticam ostentationias Meister.§ 31etenim ... solutum estest enim ... solutumas Meister.§ 33ideoqueadde quodadde quod.§ 35acriter etacriterStoicietas Meister.§ 37qui sintlegendi, quaequequi sintlegendi, et quaequi sintlegendi, quae.§ 38quibuscum vivebatas Halm[quibuscum vivebat].„Graecos omnis [et philosophos]Graecos omnespersequamur[et philosophos]as Meister.§ 42ad phrasinad faciendam etiam phrasinad faciendamφράσιν.„de singulisde singulis loquarde singulis loquar.§ 44tenuia et quaetenuia et quaetenuia atque quae.„summatim, a quasummatim, quid et a quaas Meister.„paucos enim (sunt autem em.)paucos (sunt enim em.)paucos enim, qui sunt em.§ 45his simillimihis simileshis simillimi.§ 46omniumamnium fontiumqueamnium fontiumqueomniumfluminumfontiumque.§ 48noninutriusquenon utriusquenon utriusque.„crediturcreditum estcreditum est.§ 53aliudparemaliud secundumaliud secundum.§ 54Aristophanes neminemArist. poetarum iudices neminemas Meister.§ 59dum adsequamurdum adsequamurdum adsequimur.§ 61spiritus magnificentiaspiritus magnificentiaspiritu magnificentia.§ 63magnificus et dicendi vimagnificus et diligensmagnificus et diligens.§ 68quem ipsum quoque reprehenduntquod ipsum reprehenduntas Meister.§ 69praecipuus est. Admiratuspraecipuus. eum admiratuspraecipuus. Hunc admiratus.§ 70illa mala iudiciaas Halmilla iudicia.§ 72pravispravisprave.§ 79honesti studiosus, in compositionehonesti studiosus in compositioneas Halm.§ 80is primusis primumis primum.§ 81orationem quamorationem quamorationem et quam.„sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctussed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctussed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.§ 83eloquendi vi ac suavitateeloquendi suavitateeloquendi suavitate.§ 85haud dubie ei proximusas Halmhaud dubie proximus.§ 87phrasinphrasinφράσιν.§ 88propiorespropriores (?)propiores.§ 89tamen [ut est dictum]tamen ut est dictumas Meister.§ 90sed ut dicamet ut dicamet ut dicam.§ 91promptiuspropiuspropius.§ 92feresferasferes.§ 93elegiaelegiaelegea.§ 94nisi labornon labornon labor.„multum eo est tersioras Halmmultum est tersior.§ 96opus * * quibusdam interpositusopus sed aliis quibuidam interpositusas Meister.§ 97grandissimiclarissimiclarissimi.§ 100linguaelinguaelinguaesuae.§ 101commodavitcommodavitcommendavit.„T. LiviumT. LiviumTitum Livium.§ 102ideoque illam immortalemideoque immortalemideoque immortalem.„clari vir ingeniiclari vir ingeniiclarus vi ingenii.§ 103praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minorpraestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minorpraestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor.§ 104et ornatet ornatet exornat.§ 106omnia deniqueomnia denique[omnia] denique.„illic—hicilli—huicilli—huic.§ 107vicimusvincimusvincimus.„in quibus nihilquibus nibilquibus nihil.§ 111nihil umquam pulchriusnihil pulchriusnihil pulchrius.§ 115si quid adiecturus fuitas Halmsi quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.§ 117et fervor, sedet sermo purus, sedet fervor, sed.§ 123scripseruntscripseruntscripserint.§ 126ab eoab eoab illo.§ 127ac saltemaut saltemac saltem.§ 130si ille quaedam contempsissetsi aliqua contempsissetsi obliqua contempsisset.„si parum * *si parumsanasi parumrecta.§ 131potest utcumquepotest utrimquepotest utrimque.Ch. II.§ 6tradiderinttradiderinttradiderunt.§ 8nulla est arsnulla mansit arsnullamansit ars.§ 13[et] cumcum etcum et.„accommodata estaccommodata sitaccommodata sit.§ 15et a doctis inter ipsos etiamas Halm.et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.„ut ita dixerimut ita dixerimut sic dixerim.§ 17Attici scilicetAtticis scilicetAttici sunt scilicet.„obscuriobscuri suntobscuri.§ 22cuique propositaas Halmcuique proposito.§ 28deerantdeeruntdeerunt.„oportebatoporteatoporteat.Ch. III.§ 2alte effossaalte refossaalte refossa.„et funditet funditeffundit§ 10[ut provideamus] et efferentis.ut provideamus et eff.ut provideamus, effer.§ 15plura celeriusplura celeriusplura et celerius.§ 20in legendoin intellegendoin intellegendo.§ 21femur et latusas Halm.frontem et latus.§ 22secretum quod dictandoas Halmsecretum in dictando.§ 25velut * rectosvelut tectosvelut tectos.§ 32adiciendoadicientiadiciendo.Ch. IV.§ 3finem habeatfinem habetfinem habet.Ch. V.§ 4praesumunt eandempraes. eandempraes. eadem.§ 17inanibussesimulacris ... adsuefacereinanibus simulacris ... adsuescereas Meister.§ 18etiam M. Porcioetiam Porcioetiam M. Porcio.§ 21autem is idoneusautem idoneus.autem idoneus.Ch. VI.§ 2inhaerent ... quae ... laxanturinhaeret.... quod ... laxaturas Meister.§ 5regrediregrediredire.§ 7retrorsusretrorsumretrorsus.„si utcumquesi utrimquesi utrimque.Ch. VII.§ 1instar portusintrare portumintrare portum.§ 2statimque, si non succurraturstatimque, si non succurraturstatimque si non succuratur.§ 5quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deincepsas Halmquid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.§ 6via dicet, duceturvia ducetur, dicetvia dicet, ducetur.§ 9observatione simulobservatione unaobservatione una.§ 13superfluere video: quodsividemus superfluere: cum eo quod sisuperfluere video, cum eo quod si.§ 14ut Cicero dictitabantut Cicero ait, dictitabantut Cicero dictitabant.§ 17adeo praemiumadeo pretiumadeo pretium.§ 20tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus uttantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim uttanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.„non capiturnon capiturnon labitur.§ 24quam omnino nonquam non omninoquam non omnino.§ 26est et illaest et illaest alia.§ 26quam illaquam in illaquam illa.§ 29nescio an utrumquenescio an si utrumqueas Meister.„id efficereid efficeresic dicere.„in hisin hiset in his.§ 32quod simusquod non simusquod non simus.
The four forms of the Greek word appear in the printed text as:text imagetext imagetext imagetext image
The four forms of the Greek word appear in the printed text as:
text image
text image
text image
text image
As theBambergensis(Bg), in its present state, only commences at i. 1. 6. (nec de patribus tantum), the readings of theHarleianus(H) are for the Prooemium and part of chapter 1 of first-class importance. In the pr. §1 we havepertinerentH,pertinentT: §2diversasH,divisasT: §5fieri oratorem non posseHF,fieri non posse oratoremT (as A): §6amoreH,studioF:iτ ingeniiH,iter ingeniiT,ingeniiF: §13officio quoqueH,quoque officioF: §19summaH (also Bg),summamT: §25demonstraturiHF,demonstrariT: §27adiumentaH (a correction by same hand onadiuvante): so Bg F:adiuvanteT. In chap. 1 §3sed plusHT:sed et plusF:hoc quippe videritH Bg F:hoc quippe(om.viderit) T.
These instances are taken from the introductory part of the First Book, where Bg almost entirely fails us, only a few words being here and there decipherable. Wherever I have compared, in other places, the readings ofBg (and G), H, T, and F, I have found H, if not always in exact agreement with the Bamberg MS. (often owing to the copyist’s ignorance of Latin) invariably nearer the parent source than either T or F. Here are a few instances from the First Book: I §8nihil est peiusBg H T,nihil enim est peiusF: ib. §11defueritBg H T,defuerintF: ib. §12perbibetBg H F,perhibetT: ib. §16formandamBg H,formandumF T: 2 §18in media rei p. vivendumBg (b) H,in med. rei praevivendumT,reip. videndumF: ib. §24depellendamBg H,repellendamT: ib. §31concipiat quis menteBg H,quis mente concipiatF: 4 §27tereunturBg H T,intereunturF: 6 §9dicetBg,dicitH F,diciturT: ib. §14dici cerisBg (dici ceris),AdiceresH,diciF T: ib. §30aliaque quae consuetudini serviuntBg H,—in margin of Haliquando consuetudini servit(b): F and T adopt the latter, and give the alternative reading in the margin: 10 §28haec ei et curaH F,haec et cura eiT: 11 §4pinguitudineBg H,pinguedineF T. Among scattered instances elsewhere are the following: ii. 5, 13dicenturBg H,docenturT: 5 §26hancBg H, om. T: 15 §8testatum estBg H,testatumT. In ix. 363 G hasparem(formaremA): H givespatremand F T follow suit: cp. ix. 4, 8hoc estG H,id estF: ib. §16quoqueG H, om. T: ib. §32nesciatG H,dubitetF:dignaturG H,digne dicaturF: viii. pr. §3dicendiG H,discendiT: ix. 4, 119ignoraboG,ignorabaH,ignorabamT: ib. §129et hac fluitG H,et hac et hac fluitT: xii. 11, 8scieritG,scieretH,sciretT: ib. 2 §18autemBg H, om. T: x. 1, §4numuro quaeG H,num muro quaeT,numeroqueF: ib. §50et philogusG,et philochusH T,et epiloghusF: ib. §73poremG H,prioremF T: ib. §75vel hoc estG H,hoc est velT: x. 2, 7posteriis(forhistoriis) H,posterisF (posteriused. Camp.): x. 2, 10discernamusBg,discernanturb,disnanturH T,desinanturF. Noteworthy cases of the close adherence of T to H are the following:Empedoclenai. 4, 4:vespueruginemi. 7, 12:tereunturi. 4, 27:flex hisx. 1, 2:gravissimusx. 1, 97:ipsae illae quae extorque eum credasx. 1, 110, where both also givetrans usumfortransversum, andnon repefor non rapi:morare refinxit finxit recipitx. 3, 6:nam quod cum isocratisx. 4, 4. In other instances the writer of T has evidently tried to improve on the reading of H: e.g. in the title of Book x, H gives an abbreviation which T mistakes forquoenimdandum: alsoextemporal facilitaswhich appears in T asextempora vel facilitas: x. 1, 79ven iudicisH (in mistake forse non iud.), which is made by T intovenit iudicis. Many similar instances could be cited in regard to both T and F; the readingtantum, for instance, in x. 1, 92, which occurs in both, has evidently arisen from H, which here shows something that looks more liketantumthantacitum(the reading of G). Again, in everyplace where Halm uses the formula ‘F T soli ex notis,’ H will be found to correspond77.
A.(dici ceris) text image showing inserted letters:text images
A.(dici ceris) text image showing inserted letters:
text images
With such evidence as has been given above, it is impossible to doubt that theHarleianusmust now take rank above both the manuscripts which, before the appearance of Halm’s edition, held so prominent a place in the criticism of Quintilian, theCodex Florentinusand theCodex Turicenis. The former is an eleventh century MS., now in the Laurentian library at Florence. On the first page is this inscription:Werinharius episcopus dedit Sanctae Mariae: on the lastLiber Petri de Medicis, Cos. fil.: and belowLiber sanctae Mariae ecclesiae Argñ.(= Argentoratensis)in dormitorio. There were two bishops of Strasburg bearing the name of Werner: the first 1001-1029, and the second 1065-1079. M. Fierville (Introd. p. xciv) tells us that the first Werner (of Altemburg or Hapsburg) laid the foundations of the cathedral at Strasburg in 1015, and presented to the Chapter a number of valuable books; and we also know that in 1006 he had attended the Council at Frankfort to promote the erection of a cathedral church at Bamberg. Here then we have the elements of a solution of the problem. Bishop Werner was a patron of letters; and learning that by the addition of what is now known asBambergensisG a complete text of Quintilian had been secured, he had it copied. TheCodex Harleianuswas in all probability the first copy, and from it theCodex Florentinuswas reproduced. The latter was still at Strasburg in 1372, a fact which (though hitherto it seems to have been unnoticed) is enough to dispose of its claim to be considered the manuscript of Poggio, which he describes as ‘plenum situ’ and ‘pulvere squalentem’ lying ‘in teterrimo quodam et obscuro carcere, fundo scilicet unius turris, quo ne capitales quidem rei damnati retruderentur.’ If so important a MS. had passed from Strasburg to St. Gall within forty years of Poggio’s visit, it is hard to believe that it would have been allowed to lie neglected and unknown. After 1372 we know nothing certain of its history till it reappears in the library of the Medicis at Florence in the latter part of the fifteenth century. It is generally supposed that some time between 1372 and 1417 it must have been transported from Strasburg to the monastery of St. Gall, and that it passed from there to Florence after Poggio’s departure. A similar theory may quite as legitimately be maintained in reference to theHarleianus, which, as I havealready indicated, may be the very manuscript which Poggio discovered at St. Gall in 141678.
TheCodex Turicensiswas long considered to be of older date than theFlorentinus, but recent investigations seem to have proved the contrary. Halm attributes it to the second part of the eleventh century, and E. Wölfflin takes a similar view. In the beginning of the eighteenth century it passed into the library at Zürich. Spalding believed it to be the manuscript discovered by Poggio, and M. Fierville is of the same opinion: Halm rejects this theory. The great point in favour of the claim of theTuricensisis that it is known to have come from St. Gall, while we can only conjecture the history of theHarleianus. But theTuricensiscannot have been the MS. which Poggio carried with him into Italy, according to a statement made by Bandini, Regius, and others. It is true that this statement is hard to reconcile with what Poggio himself says in his letter to Guarini, whom he informs that he has made hasty transcripts of his various ‘finds’ (presumably including the Quintilian) for his friends Leonardo of Arezzo and Nicolai of Florence. But Poggio may have had his own reasons for a certain degree of mystery about his good fortune. In the preface to his edition, Burmann speaks of the manuscript of St. Gall, on the authority of the librarian Kesler, as having been ‘honesto furto sublatum’: if it was theHarleianusthere is perhaps little need to wonder that nothing has been known till now of its later fortunes79.
The affiliation of other MSS. of this class (which includes also theAlmeloveenianus) to the codices which have just been described, may be determined by the application of certain tests. Prominent among such MSS. is theCodex Bodleianus, which has received more attention from editors of Quintilian than its merits seem to me to warrant. It repeats word for word the remarkable error attributable to theHarleianusat x. 7, 20 (see above, p. lxviii): in other places it embodies attempted emendations, e.g. x. 1, 90nec ipsum senectus maturavit: 2 §7de metrisfordimiteris(see above, p. lxvii, note). It belonged to Archbishop Laud, and must have been written in the fifteenth century.
Of the same age and family are two manuscripts often cited by Halm, theLassbergensisand theMonacensis. The former was formerly at Landsberg in Bavaria: it is now at Freiburg. The readingatque interrogationibus atque interrogantibus, which Halm gives from it alone at x. 1, 35, I have found also in G and H; this seems quite enough to identify its parentage. TheMonacensiswas collated by Halm for his critical edition in the parts where he had to rely on A G or on G alone: with no conspicuous results,—‘nihil fere aliud effectum est quam ut docere possemus, ubi aliquot locorum, qui in libris melioribus leviter corrupti sunt, emendatio primum tentata sit’ (praef. viii, ix).
Alongside of these I would place a rather interesting MS. in the British Museum, which has been collated specially for the purpose of this edition, with no result worth speaking of, except to establish its class. It repeats the mistake of H at x. 7, 20: and the fact that the copyist began his work in a hand that was meant to imitate writing of the eleventh century seems, along with the internal evidence, to prove that it is one of the copies of Poggio’s MS. In x. 2, 7 it hasposteriusforhistoriis(a mistake in H—see p. lxix): and in the same place it shows (like the Bodleian codex)de metrisfordimiteris. This is also the reading of the second hand in theTuricensis. Such differences as exist between it and H F T may be ascribed to attempted emendation: e.g.vertere latusx. 3, 21. Poggio’s letter to Guarini is copied at the end of the volume.
The other MSS. of the fifteenth century, so far as they are known to him, M. Fierville divides carefully into two classes (his third and fourth). The principal features of difference which distinguish them among themselves, and from those already mentioned, are that they incorporate, in varying degrees, the results of the progress of scholarship, and that they are seldom copied from any single manuscript. A detailed examination would no doubt establish what is really the point of greatest moment in regard to them: how far are they derived, through Poggio’s manuscript, from theBambergensis, and how far from such complete manuscripts as theAmbrosianusand the original ofBambergensisG? Some of them (as well as other fifteenth century MSS., with a description of which I desire to supplement M. Fierville’s Introduction, pp. cii sq.), are of at least as great importance as those referred to above as having been collated in part by Halm.
TheArgentoratensis(S), also used by Halm, may be mentioned first: it was collated by Obrecht for his edition of 169880. This manuscript wasdestroyed in the bombardment of Strasburg, August 24, 1870. Then there are the MS. of Wolfenbuttel (Codex Guelferbytanus), collated for the first time by Spalding: theCodex Gothanus, used by Gesner for his edition of 1738: theCodex Vallensis(Parisinus 7723), which purports to bear the signature of Laurentius Valla (9 December, 1444), whose corrections and marginal notes it contains81. The list of these and several others, all carefully described by M. Fierville, may now be extended by a short reference to various MSS. in this country, hitherto uncollated. The results of my examination of them (as well as of theBodleianus, andBurneianus243, referred to above) appear in the Critical Appendix: if few of them are of first-class importance, it may at least be claimed that right readings, with which Spalding, Halm, and Meister have successively credited the early printed editions,—e.g. the Cologne edition of 1527,—have now been attributed to earlier sources. And when M. Fierville had so carefully examined the MSS. of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, it seemed of some importance that his laborious work should be supplemented by a description of the MSS. belonging to the libraries of this country.
In the British Museum there are eight manuscripts in all of Quintilian’sInstitutio: of the most important of these, theHarleianus(H), I have already given an account, and one of two MSS. in Burney’s collection (Burn. 243) has also been mentioned. Of the remaining MSS. two may be taken together, as they are in complete agreement with each other, and show conclusive proofs (as will appear in the notes) of relationship to such codices as theArgentoratensisand theGuelferbytanus. The first of these two MSS. (Codex Harleianus2662) has an inscription bearing that it was written by Gaspar Cyrrus ‘nationis Lutatiae,’ and was finished on the 25th of January, 1434,—only eighteen years after Poggio made his great discovery. So great an advance is evident in the text, as compared with the readings of H F T, that it seems probable that this MS. owes little to that family. The same may be said of theCodex Harleianus11,671, a beautiful little quarto, dated 1467: it has the Epitome of Fr. Patrizi attached (see Classical Review, 1891, p. 34). The following cases of remarkable errors will suffice to connect both these MSS. with theGuelferbytanus: x. 3, 12a patrono suofora patruo suo: 1 §97verumforveterum: 1 §55equalem credidit parem(as also Prat., Guelf., S, and Voss. i.and iii.): 1 §72quamvis sui temporis Menandroforut pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro: 7 §6adducet ducetur. Another very interesting MS. in the British Museum isHarleianus4995, dated July 5, 1470: it contains the notes of Laurentius Valla, which were frequently reproduced at the time, and might be classed along with theVallensiswere it not that a marginal note at x. 6, 2 (where a false lacuna appears in most codices, as Bn. and Bg.), ‘hic deficit antiquus codex,’ makes it probable that the copyist had more than one MS. at his side82. This MS. agrees with theVallensisandGothanusin readingcognitioniforcogitationix. 1, 1:ubertateforubertas1 §109:et vis summa§117:eruendasforerudiendas2 §6:nobis efficiendumib. §14:decretoriis5 §20. The other two Harleian MSS. (4950 and 4829) present no features of special interest: I have, however, included them in the critical notes for the sake of completeness. The former was written by ‘Franciscus de Mediolano’: it is often in agreement with theLassbergensis. The latter finishes with the wordsἡ βίβλος τοῦ σωζομένουand the mottoἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. The readings of theBurneianus244 are also occasionally recorded in the notes. All three are in general agreement with L, and also with theCodex Carcassonensis, a fifteenth century MS. of which M. Fierville published a collation in 1874.
A greater degree of interest attaches to two Oxford manuscripts, one of which (theCodex Balliolensis) is unclassed by Fierville, while the other (theD’OrvilleMS.) has never been examined at all. The former was used by Gibson for his edition of 1693. It begins atbis vitiosa sunti. 5, 14, but there are various lacunae, which do not correspond with those of the incomplete family. The MS. is in fact in a mutilated condition.In the Tenth Book we miss its help after the end of the first chapter till we reach iii. §26, where it begins again with the wordsquam quod somno supererit: it stops abruptly atnostrorumque Hort(ensium)x. 6, 4. It is in general agreement with Harleianus 2662. I may note that in i. 5, 36 it hasinterrogatione, a reading which Halm says appears for the first time in the edition of Sichardus, 1529: ib. §69 it hase repwith A and 7727, with the latter of which it is in close correspondence (e.g.forteat i. 5, 15, all other codicesforsanorforsitan).
There remains theD’OrvilleMS. in the Bodleian at Oxford (Codex Dorvilianus),—a manuscript which has been entirely overlooked, except for a single reference in Ingram’s abridged edition of theInstitutio(1809). Yet it seems well deserving of attention. In some places it shows a remarkable resemblance to theAmbrosianus(e.g.Getae1 pr. §6:et quantumib. §8): at 1 pr. §4 it hassummam inde eloquentiae(Spalding’s reading, found in no other MS.):destinabamus al. festinabimusib. §6 (the alternative being a reading peculiar to A). Its most important contribution to the Tenth Book is 7 §20, where it gives the reading which Herzog conjectured and which I have received into the text:neque vero tanta esse unquam debet fiducia facilitatis: in 2 §14 (see Critical Notes) it hasquos eligamus ad imitandum, a reading peculiar to itself. For the rest it is in general agreement with the Balliol codex. It is Italian work, of the early part of the fifteenth century,—earlier, Mr. Madan thinks, than theCodex Bodleianus. A marginal note at ix. 3, 2 shows that the copyist must have had more than one MS. before him. In some cases it would appear as if he carefully balanced rival readings: at 1 pr. §12. all codices havequaestio ex his incidatexcept A, which givesex his incidat quaestio: the reading in theDorvilianusisquaestio incidat ex his: again at i. 2, 6ante palatum eorum quam os instituimus, many codices givemoresforos: Dorv. showsquam vel mores vel os.
List of editions, tractates, and books of reference.
Besides the complete editions ofSpalding,Zumpt,Bonnell,Halm(1868-9)Meister(1886-87), use has been made of the following editions of Book x.:—
M. Stephanus Riccius.
C. H. Frotscher.
M. C. G. Herzog.
G. A. Herbst.
John E. B. Mayor(incomplete).
Bonnell-Meister.
G. T. A. Krüger.
Fr. Zambaldi.
S. Dosson.
D. Bassi.
J. A. Hild.
F. Meister(text only).
Frieze(Books x. andxii.)
Among the Translations, reference has been made toLindner’s(Philologische Klassiker, Wien, 1881),Alberti’s(Leipzig, 1858), andHerzog’s(Leipzig, 1829); also toGuthrie’s(London, 1805), andWatson’s(inBohn’sseries).
The following have been used as books of reference:—
Wilkins: Cicero,De Oratore, Books i. and ii. (2nd ed.)
Sandys: Cicero,Orator.
Kellogg: Cicero,Brutus.
Wolff: Tacitus,Dialogus de Oratoribus.
Andresen:„ „
Reiske: Dionysius Halicarnassensis.
Usener: Dionysius HalicarnassensisLibrorum de Imitatione Reliquiae, Epistulaeque Criticae Duae.
Ammon:De Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus: Dissertatio Inauguralis.
Volkmann:Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer.
Causeret:Étude sur la langue de la Rhétorique et de la Critique Littéraire dans Cicéron.
andFierville:Quintilian, Book i.
The references to Nägelsbach’sLateinische Stylistikare to the eighth edition (Nägelsbach-Müller).
The periodical literature bearing specially on the Tenth Book of Quintilian has grown to very considerable dimensions within recent years. The following articles and tractates have been consulted:—
Quaestiones Quintilianeae.
Journal of Philology, Vol. xviii, No. 36, p. 225 sqq.
Bursian’s Jahresbericht, 1887, xv. 2, pp. 1-61.
Quaestiones grammaticae ad librum X. Quintiliani de Instit. Or.(Jahresbericht über die königliche Klosterschule zu Ilfeld).
Philologus XLV.
Philologische Rundschau, iii. 14: 427 sqq. and 457 sqq.
Programm des königlicken Gymnasiums zu Aurich.
Blätter für das bayer.Gymn.-Wesen, 1887, p. 454; 1188, pp. 83-91.
Jahrbücher f. Philologie u. Pädagogik, vol. 135, pp. 829-832.
Zeitschrift f. d. Gymn.-Wesen, vol. 32, pp. 62-73.
Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie, 1888, p. 829 sqq.
Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu, Berlin, xiv. (1888), p. 62 sqq.
Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 163 sqq.
Rheinisches Museum, xlvi. (1891) pp. 9-24.
Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin, viii. (1882), p. 67 sqq.
„ „ „ix. (1883), p. 312 sqq.
„ „ „xiv. (1888), p. 51 sqq.
Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian.
Philologus, xviii. (1863), p. 487 sqq.: xxxiv. (1876), p. 740 sqq.: xxxv. (1877), p. 534 sqq., and p. 685 sqq.: xxxviii. (1879), p. 160 sqq.: xlii. (1884) p. 141 sqq.
Rheinisches Museum, xxxiv. (1879), p. 84 sqq.: xxxv. (1880), p. 639.
Rheinisches Museum, xlii. (1887), p. 144 and p. 310 sqq.
Hermes, xxv. (1890), pp. 326, 7.
Rheinisches Museum, xxx. (1875), p. 506 sqq.
Blätter für das bayer. Gymn.-Wesen, 1881, p. 391 sqq.
Jahrb. f. Philologie, 1885, p. 615 sqq.Literar. Centralblatt, 1885, n. 22, p. 754.
‘Opuscula philologica ad Madvigium a discipulis missa’ (1876), p. 92 sqq.
Zeitschrift für das Gymn.-Wesen, xxxi. 12, p. 733 sqq.
Bursian’s Jahresbericht, iv. (1876), 2, p. 262 sqq.; vii. (1879), 2, p. 157 sqq.
Zeitschrift für die österreich. Gymnasien, xxvii. (1876), p. 353 sqq.
De usu Particularum apud Quintilianum Quaestiones.
De Quintiliani libro qui fuit de causis corruptae eloquentiae.
De coniunctionum causalium apud Quintilianum usu.
Quaestiones Quintilianeae.
De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis.
Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians Institutio Oratoria.
Table of places where the text of this edition differs from those of Halm (1869) and Meister (1887).
cogitationi
cognitioni
cognitioni.
quae quoque sint modo
quo quaeque sint modo
quae quoque sint modo.
nisi tamquam
nisi tamquam
nisi tamen.
ante omnia est
ante omnia necesse est
ante omnia est.
imitatio est
imitatio est
imitati.
procedente opere iam minima
procedente iam opere etiam minima
procedente iam opere minima.
Num ergo
Non ergo
Non ergo.
[et] ... scio solitos
et ... solitos scio
et ... solitos scio.
aliud quod
aliud quo
aliud quo.
consequimur
consequemur
consequemur.
τροπικῶς[quare tamen]
τροπικῶςquasi tamen
as Meister.
imagine [ambitu]
[imagine] ambitu
imagine et ambitu.
commodata
accommodata
accommodata.
placent ... laudantur ... placent
placeant ... laudentur ... placent
as Halm.
contrarium
e contrario
e contrario.
ut actionis impetus
as Halm
actionis impetu.
retractemus
retractemus
tractemus.
quin etiam si
[quin] etiam si
as Halm.
etenim ... solutum est
est enim ... solutum
as Meister.
ideoque
adde quod
adde quod.
acriter et
acriterStoiciet
as Meister.
qui sintlegendi, quaeque
qui sintlegendi, et quae
qui sintlegendi, quae.
quibuscum vivebat
as Halm
[quibuscum vivebat].
Graecos omnis [et philosophos]
Graecos omnespersequamur[et philosophos]
as Meister.
ad phrasin
ad faciendam etiam phrasin
ad faciendamφράσιν.
de singulis
de singulis loquar
de singulis loquar.
tenuia et quae
tenuia et quae
tenuia atque quae.
summatim, a qua
summatim, quid et a qua
as Meister.
paucos enim (sunt autem em.)
paucos (sunt enim em.)
paucos enim, qui sunt em.
his simillimi
his similes
his simillimi.
omniumamnium fontiumque
amnium fontiumque
omniumfluminumfontiumque.
noninutriusque
non utriusque
non utriusque.
creditur
creditum est
creditum est.
aliudparem
aliud secundum
aliud secundum.
Aristophanes neminem
Arist. poetarum iudices neminem
as Meister.
dum adsequamur
dum adsequamur
dum adsequimur.
spiritus magnificentia
spiritus magnificentia
spiritu magnificentia.
magnificus et dicendi vi
magnificus et diligens
magnificus et diligens.
quem ipsum quoque reprehendunt
quod ipsum reprehendunt
as Meister.
praecipuus est. Admiratus
praecipuus. eum admiratus
praecipuus. Hunc admiratus.
illa mala iudicia
as Halm
illa iudicia.
pravis
pravis
prave.
honesti studiosus, in compositione
honesti studiosus in compositione
as Halm.
is primus
is primum
is primum.
orationem quam
orationem quam
orationem et quam.
sed tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus
sed quodam [Delphici] videatur oraculo dei instinctus
sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.
eloquendi vi ac suavitate
eloquendi suavitate
eloquendi suavitate.
haud dubie ei proximus
as Halm
haud dubie proximus.
phrasin
phrasin
φράσιν.
propiores
propriores (?)
propiores.
tamen [ut est dictum]
tamen ut est dictum
as Meister.
sed ut dicam
et ut dicam
et ut dicam.
promptius
propius
propius.
feres
feras
feres.
elegia
elegia
elegea.
nisi labor
non labor
non labor.
multum eo est tersior
as Halm
multum est tersior.
opus * * quibusdam interpositus
opus sed aliis quibuidam interpositus
as Meister.
grandissimi
clarissimi
clarissimi.
linguae
linguae
linguaesuae.
commodavit
commodavit
commendavit.
T. Livium
T. Livium
Titum Livium.
ideoque illam immortalem
ideoque immortalem
ideoque immortalem.
clari vir ingenii
clari vir ingenii
clarus vi ingenii.
praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in operibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor
praestitit, genere ipso probabilis, in partibus quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor
praestitit genere ipso, probablis in omnibus sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor.
et ornat
et ornat
et exornat.
omnia denique
omnia denique
[omnia] denique.
illic—hic
illi—huic
illi—huic.
vicimus
vincimus
vincimus.
in quibus nihil
quibus nibil
quibus nihil.
nihil umquam pulchrius
nihil pulchrius
nihil pulchrius.
si quid adiecturus fuit
as Halm
si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit.
et fervor, sed
et sermo purus, sed
et fervor, sed.
scripserunt
scripserunt
scripserint.
ab eo
ab eo
ab illo.
ac saltem
aut saltem
ac saltem.
si ille quaedam contempsisset
si aliqua contempsisset
si obliqua contempsisset.
si parum * *
si parumsana
si parumrecta.
potest utcumque
potest utrimque
potest utrimque.
tradiderint
tradiderint
tradiderunt.
nulla est ars
nulla mansit ars
nullamansit ars.
[et] cum
cum et
cum et.
accommodata est
accommodata sit
accommodata sit.
et a doctis inter ipsos etiam
as Halm.
et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam.
ut ita dixerim
ut ita dixerim
ut sic dixerim.
Attici scilicet
Atticis scilicet
Attici sunt scilicet.
obscuri
obscuri sunt
obscuri.
cuique proposita
as Halm
cuique proposito.
deerant
deerunt
deerunt.
oportebat
oporteat
oporteat.
alte effossa
alte refossa
alte refossa.
et fundit
et fundit
effundit
[ut provideamus] et efferentis.
ut provideamus et eff.
ut provideamus, effer.
plura celerius
plura celerius
plura et celerius.
in legendo
in intellegendo
in intellegendo.
femur et latus
as Halm.
frontem et latus.
secretum quod dictando
as Halm
secretum in dictando.
velut * rectos
velut tectos
velut tectos.
adiciendo
adicienti
adiciendo.
finem habeat
finem habet
finem habet.
praesumunt eandem
praes. eandem
praes. eadem.
inanibussesimulacris ... adsuefacere
inanibus simulacris ... adsuescere
as Meister.
etiam M. Porcio
etiam Porcio
etiam M. Porcio.
autem is idoneus
autem idoneus.
autem idoneus.
inhaerent ... quae ... laxantur
inhaeret.... quod ... laxatur
as Meister.
regredi
regredi
redire.
retrorsus
retrorsum
retrorsus.
si utcumque
si utrimque
si utrimque.
instar portus
intrare portum
intrare portum.
statimque, si non succurratur
statimque, si non succurratur
statimque si non succuratur.
quid quoque loco primum sit ac secundum et deinceps
as Halm
quid quoque loco primum sit quid secundum ac deinceps.
via dicet, ducetur
via ducetur, dicet
via dicet, ducetur.
observatione simul
observatione una
observatione una.
superfluere video: quodsi
videmus superfluere: cum eo quod si
superfluere video, cum eo quod si.
ut Cicero dictitabant
ut Cicero ait, dictitabant
ut Cicero dictitabant.
adeo praemium
adeo pretium
adeo pretium.
tanta sit ... fiducia facilitatus ut
tantam esse ... fiduciam facilitatis velim ut
tanta esse umquam debet fiducia facilitatis ut.
non capitur
non capitur
non labitur.
quam omnino non
quam non omnino
quam non omnino.
est et illa
est et illa
est alia.
quam illa
quam in illa
quam illa.
nescio an utrumque
nescio an si utrumque
as Meister.
id efficere
id efficere
sic dicere.
in his
in his
et in his.
quod simus
quod non simus
quod non simus.