FOOTNOTES1.(Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores auctoritatem habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.2.C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Leipzig 1860, p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.3.There is however some doubt about the name, most editors reading L. Galba.4.So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the following authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of Asia: Joseph, xiv. 10. 17Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι—the words of L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp. id. xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11, 24. The privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see inter alia Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur.5.Gaius ii §274mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris census est, per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen fideicommisso relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest.6.Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited from contemporary literature describing both types. For the first cp. Martial viii. 16Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas agis, andpassim: Petronius, Sat. 46destinavi illum artificii docere, aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum... Philero was lately a street porter:nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se extendit; litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur: Juv. vii. 106 sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class the best representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and legacy-hunter, on whose account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s famous utterance,vir malus dicendi imperitusPlin. iv. 7, 5 and ii. 20.7.Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with Quint, i. 2, 8 and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with Quint, ii. 2, 4:Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram Spirantesque crocos et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem sancti valuere parentis Esse loco!andSumat ante omnia parentis erga discipulos suos animum(sc.praeceptor)ac succedere se in eorum locum a quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet.8.i. pr. §1post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae per viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam. The chronology is rather uncertain. It is supposed that Quintilian began hisInstitutioin 92 or 93 and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period of twenty years is to be interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that he is referring to his official career, as it may have been in 72 that Vespasian took the step referred to above, p. viii. Or we may understand him to be dating the period of his educational activity as extending fromA.D.70 toA.D.90, though he did not begin to write theInstitutiotill 92. The latter is the more probable alternative.9.See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae: Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae 1887.10.TheDeclamationesmay also be mentioned here, as having long been credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer and 145 shorter pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of rhetorical exercise, and with success,—at least in the earlier part of his career,—is clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but it seems probable, from the nature of the contents of the existing collection, if not from the style, that tradition has erred in attributing to the master what must have been, in the main, the work of pupils and imitators. The popular habit of tacking on to a great name whatever seems not unworthy of it, may account for the fact that these rhetorical efforts are credited to Quintilian as early as the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15)Seu libeat fictas ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam Quintilianus habet. St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks of hisconcinnas declamationes: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which has disappeared from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a historian of the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of Gaulish origin, adds:fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus ut eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae(Trig. tyr. 4, 2): cp. ib.Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis acutissimum vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat(Hild, Introd. p. xxi. note).11.See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt, Gryphiswaldiae 1883,De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur Declamationibus.12.iv. pr. 2Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae nepotum delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum caelestium intellegam, nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar.13.If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he wrote the Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his domestic losses he says that he will live henceforth not to himself but to the youth of Rome), he would almost certainly have made some reference to them.14.In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar extravagances have not been unknown in our own literature. His translator, Guthrie—an Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm for his author—cries out in a note on this passage: “I will engage to point out from the works of some of the greatest and most learned men, as well as of the best poets, of England, compliments to the abilities not only of princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay, private gentlemen, who in this respect deserved them as little as Domitian did.”15.The expression used in vi. pr. §4,meo casu cui tamen nihil obici nisi quod vivam potest, shows that Quintilian was quite conscious of his comfortable circumstances.—Halm (followed by Meister) readsquamquod vivam: but I findnisiin both the Bamberg (G) and the Harleian codices.16.Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second marriage (sometime between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two children. This theory, which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel, and most authorities, was invented to account for the existence of a grown-up daughter, to whom, on the occasion of her marriage (about the year 105), Pliny gives a present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi. 32. But this young lady must have been the daughter of another Quintilianus altogether. What we know of our Quintilian’s affluent circumstances is inconsistent with such liberality on Pliny’s part: the gift is offered as to a man who is comparatively poor. Moreover, the letter intimating the gift contains no such reference to the services of a former teacher as might have been expected on so interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost inconceivable that Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to Book vi. (about 93A.D.) the bereavements that left him desolate (superstes omnium meorum), should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of marriageable age.17.Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles, datum est.18.Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x.1, 35and123, may have been written before the event mentioned above (the date of which is fixed by Suet. Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and may have been allowed to stand.19.Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus oriatur. Plurimus ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius monuerit, hoc rarius castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum quae emendanda erunt dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, adsiduus potius quam immodicusii. 2, 5.20.See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good account of Quintilian’s system.21.xii. 1, 3 and 4ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum bonum: ... ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi omnibus vitiis libera potest.22.Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4:ac nescio an eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam secretus et consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam in tuto collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari magis solet, venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit videbit.23.Dr. Reid inEncyclopaedia Britannica.24.i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.25.i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.26.Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris antiqui?—ch. 28.27.M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris, Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.28.For the identification of this manuscript see below p. lxx.29.Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at Leipzig the professor of eloquence was designatedQuintiliani professor. Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him to almost every other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of his works, especially Books i and x of theInstitutio.30.Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.31.To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of Quintilian, and said it was strange that in the decadence of Roman literature, as it was called, we had three such authors as Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s ‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii. p. 178.32.Dr. Reid in theEncyclopaedia Britannica.33.See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.34.Ep. xvi. 5, 6de compositione non constat: Ep. xix. 5, 13oratio certam regulam non habet.35.i Prooem. §10 sqq., especiallyneque enim hoc concesserim rationem rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt, ad philosophos relegandam. Cp. x.1, 35: and xii. 2, 9Utinam ... orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet.M. Rocheblave sees in these and other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives of philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the philosophers from Rome inA.D.94. It is certainly noticeable that the tone of his references to them becomes more bitter in the later books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12. The Prooemium to Book i. may have been written last of all: and apart from it there is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x.1, 35and123) so acrimonious as the extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.36.See ii. 5, 10-12Ne id quidem inutile, etiam corruptas aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique iudiciorum pravitate mirantar, legi palam ostendique in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a plerisque sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur.With this last cp. x.1, 127(of Seneca)placebat propter sola vitia. So i. 8, 9quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus: ii. 5, 22 (cavendum est)ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus et puerilibus ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament: with which compare x.1, 129corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis:§130consensu potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. Rocheblave cites also viii. 5, 27, 28, 30.37.It is doubtful if the allusion in§126(potioribus praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere, &c.) is exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43) cites Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the choice of words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy: xviii. 4, 10 where he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and xvi. 5, 7.38.Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut olim de Catone defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici videtur posse, quae deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem tempori esse attribuenda; quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse propria, et in primis oculos capere: p. 36Eloquentiam non verbis, sed rebus valere, nec per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit, esse excolendam Annaeus semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra delectu verborum praecipue constare, et per se amandam et requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum adhibita ratione, docebant rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus: p. 38Ergo quum in eloquentia duo sint praesertim consideranda, scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro verbis, utrumque asperrime, egisse.39.See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is quoted by Diderot in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of Seneca being the ‘corruptor eloquentiae’ the truthisthat ‘il ne corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il s’accommoda au goût de ses contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur plaire et de s’en faire admirer; etl’envie lui fit un crime de ce qui passerait pour vrai talent dans un homme moins célèbre.’40.Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.41.Fronto, De Oration. p. 157At enim quaedam in libris eius scite dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum argentiolae cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas redimemus?For Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.42.“In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In§27he mentions Theophrastus by name; in§52, speaking of Hesiod, he saysdatur ei palma, &c.; in§53the second place is given to Antimachus by the consent of thegrammatici; Panyasis is thought (putant)in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, Callimachus (58)princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit. In 59 only threeiambographiare mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. Thenovem lyriciwere probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are thePindarus novemque lyrici(for this need not be taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof. Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.43.Quod tempus(i.e.paulo plus quam biennium)non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti etlegendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabilesdatum est: Epist. ad Tryphonem.44.Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873, p. 343 note:sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia quae contuli opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos memoria tenuit, adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret. This (though somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii) is a milder verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after speaking of Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (vir bonus dicendi peritus, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know whether he would have thought it a necessary virtue in abonus grammaticusto read and conscientiously study the Greek authors on whom he passes formal critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain that, whether Quintilian had or had not read them, he contents himself in many cases with merely repeating the traditional criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of the principal Greek authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 257.)45.See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’ in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.46.Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek rhetoricians; ix. 3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus Dionysius’). Cp. the parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of Isocrates, x.4, 4: and for other instances see Claussen, op. cit. pp. 339-340.47.The extant remains of this treatise have recently been edited by Usener (Bonn. 1889), with a valuableEpilogus. The scope of the work is indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad Pompeium iii. p. 776 R, Usener p. 50:τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.48.The standpoint from which both critics regarded this class of poetry was probably much the same as that which Dio Chrysostom applies to lyric poetry generally:μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια(cp. tunc et elegiam vacabit, &c.,§58)τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή(Or. xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)49.How diverse the tradition of the various authorities came to be in regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s note p. 137.50.Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138Aristophanis propria fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibellip. 1085 (C.I.Gr. 6083):cuius iudicii Kaibeliusp. 490in Quintilianox.1, 69vestigia recte observavit.51.See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii.quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius, fr. xviii.aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?It has been supposed that between these two fragments the wordsaut Xenophonte iucundiusmay have fallen out: cp. Quint, x.1, 82.52.See especially fr. xi.qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt: and cp. note on1 §57.53.Cp. the note onqui parcissimex.4, 4.54.De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.55.A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium sumpserat, fuitque anteκριτικήquamγραμματική—Usener, p. 132.56.See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.57.Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by Cicero, Usener reckons his judgments on the Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus) in the second book of thede Oratore(§§55-58), a work which was written ten years before theHortensius: on Herodotus and Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4,ad Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo, in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum negotium, quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides.58.Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice Coislinianon. 387olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit bibl. Coislin. p. 597,ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni recentiore Cramerus anecd.Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener, p. 129.59.Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.60.Havell’s translation, p. 27.61.See the note on x.1, 85, with the quotation from Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of Philology. In theRheinisches Museum(xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.) Mercklin pushed the parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to find a correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer mentioned by Quintilian.62.“His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is hardly a sentence which might not be quoted; but to read him straight forward is like dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”—Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life, i. p. 448.63.Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit: viii. 2. 21.64.Tac. Dial. 20Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire sed etiam referre domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt, traduntque invicem ac saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt, sive sensus aliquis arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus exquisito et poetico cultu enituit.65.ii. 5, 10ostendi in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur.66.He resembles other writers of the decadence in the frequent use of rare or poetical words, in neglecting the nice distinctions formerly made between synonyms, in the numbers of adjectives used substantively, &c.67.In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must not be forgotten that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent pamphlet, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr. Paul Hirt quotes an interesting remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt, ‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i. p. 467 note), which has lately received some corroboration:sapit hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est barbariem plane quandam. Filelfo did not like Quintilian:nullam habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem, nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo Quintilianus, neque satis docet, nec delectat.But this was only Filelfo’s opinion, for which he would not have been able to furnish such scientific grounds as that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1 p. 356) supplied by Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the adjectivepandus. This word was in use in the days of Ennius, and occurs often afterwards in poetry, but not in prose. In Spain, however, it lingered, and is used by Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and especially by Quintilian. After these writers it disappears again till the fourth century.—Cp. i. 5, 57gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi, which has been quoted (by Abbé Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely enough in disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.68.For this section I am especially indebted to aDissertatioby Adamus Marty:De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis. Also theProlegomenain Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’sRemarques sur la Langue de Quintilien.69.Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in-torand 44 (46) in-trix. Of these 73 in-torand 4 in-trixare also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28 in-torand 8 in-trixwhich do not occur in Cicero. These are—adfectator,admirator,adsertor,agnitor,altercator,auxiliator,constitutor,consultor,contemptor,cunctator,delator,derisor,exactor,formator,iactator,insectator,latrator,legum lator,luctator,plosor,professor(?),raptor,repertor,rixator,signator,stuprator,ventilator,versificator,cavillatrix,disputatrix,elocutrix,enuntiatrix,exercitatrix,hortatrix,iudicatrix, (litteratrix),sermocinatrix.70.This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a Programm by Dr. Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), a monument of German thoroughness. See also Becher’s Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen, 1879), pp. 6 sqq.71.Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5Gallum Cornelium), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5, 83Scaevola Quintus: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1Libo Marcius). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius Paterculus.72.See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der Beredsamkeit aus der Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten Bildlichen Wendungen in der rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero, Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau, 1886).73.Halm’s account of this is more accurate than Meister’s. The former (Praef. p. viii) saysmagnae autem lacunae Bernensis pergamenis insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt. Thealius codexwhich the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant: it no doubt belonged to the same family as theAmbrosianus, andBambergensisG is consequently of first-class importance, especially where theAmbrosianusfails us. It is incorrect to say (with Meister, Praef. p. vi)lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice insertis expletae sunt. The writer of G did not mutilate another codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on the blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.74.ThePratensisis the oldest authority for the readingtam laesae herculeat i. 2, 4: thePuteanusandIoannensisagree. Again all three omit the wordsde litterisat i. 4, 6, and showpraecoquumforpraecoxat i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and 7760), andhaec igitur ex verbisat i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).75.An account of this important codex has already been given in an article on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.76.The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand by theBambergensisis a phenomenon which may, I think, be explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known asbare taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and probably abounded in contractions:liusmay have seemed to the copyist the nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in theBambergensisis a very intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar mistake on the part of the writer of b occurs at x.2, 7, where the Bambergensis now showsid consequi q̣ụọd imiteris, the writer of b having subpunctuatedquobecause he did not understand the contraction forquodwhich he had in the text before him. The copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the remarkable readingid consequi dimiteris, which in the Bodleianus and other MSS. becomesde metris(see Crit. Note ad loc.). In fact, it seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in the text of Quintilian is due to the fact thatbvery often did not understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as followed his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp.totas at cures(forviresb)suasin the second last line of the Facsimile (x.1, 109.)77.The only places in the Tenth Book which form any obstacle to the theory that H was copied directly from the Bambergensis are the following: x.3, 33, where the remarkable glossvindemonioccurs (repeated in F but not in T): see Crit. Notes ad loc. for an attempted explanation: x.2, 1ex his summaH, a mistake evidently recognised by the copyist himself: and x.1, 27blandita tumH (so L C),libertateG.78.The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s manuscript was definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in theRheinisches Museum, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid refers to a Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would probably settle the question, if it is what it professes to be, a transcript of Poggio’s manuscript. It bears the following inscription:Scripsit Poggius Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante. Reperimus vero eum in bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures litterarum studiosi perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo plurimum utilitalis eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea Quintilianum neque integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis haberemus. Hec verba ex originali Poggii sumpta.79.For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the Florentinus see Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville, Introduction, p. xcii. sqq.80.Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19digerantur(G Hdirigantur, Ldirigerantur):§27blandicia, so Burn. 243 (Glibertate, H Lblandita tum):§55sed(G Het, om. L):§65tamen quem(G Htamen quae: Mtamquam):§66correctas(G Hrectas, Mcorreptas):§67uter(G H M Tuterque):§68reprehendunt(G H Mreprehendit,—etH ?):§69testatur(as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G Mpraestatur(as Burn. 243, Bodl.):§76in eo tam(Ginectam, Min hoc tam).81.See note on the following page.82.Since the above was written the readings of theVallensishave been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Easter, 1891). With the exception ofHarl.4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that theVallensisandHarl.4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in theVallensis. Those not adopted inHarl.4995 were made, in all probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23utile erit(Vall.2) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also hasaudatiora5 §4:nobis acanduno genereib. §7:virtutumib. §17:recidereib. §22:diligenter effecta, (withoutuna enim) ib. §23:iniicere7 §29. In all these places there are corrections by a later hand in theVallensis. But in the following passages, among others, the copyist ofHarl.4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in theVallensis:1 §9quae cultiore in parte:§19iteratione:§31molli:§38exequar:§107qui duo plurimum affectus valent:§117et vis summa:§125tum:2 §15dicunt:§17quam libet:3 §2et fundit:§6scriptorum:§17contextis quae fudit levitas:§21simul vertere latus:§31crebra relatione:5 §12dereo:§25utilior. A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer ofHarl.4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in theVallensis. Was he J. Badius?
1.(Rhetores) quorum professio quam nullam apud maiores auctoritatem habuerit, Tac. Dial. 30.
2.C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Leipzig 1860, p. 365 sq. and 469 sq.
3.There is however some doubt about the name, most editors reading L. Galba.
4.So Hild, Introd. p. xii, where reference is made to the following authorities as establishing this custom for the Jews of Asia: Joseph, xiv. 10. 17Ἰουδαῖοι ... ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον ἔχειν ἰδίαν δατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι—the words of L. Antonius, governor of the province of Asia, A.D. 50. Cp. id. xiv. 7, 2: Act Apost. ix. 2: xxii. 19: xxvi. 11: Cor. ii. 11, 24. The privilege was maintained under the Christian emperors: see inter alia Cod. Theod. ii. 1, 10sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur.
5.Gaius ii §274mulier quae ab eo qui centum milia aeris census est, per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen fideicommisso relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest.
6.Hild, Introd. pp. xiii.-xiv, where passages are cited from contemporary literature describing both types. For the first cp. Martial viii. 16Pistor qui fueras diu, Cipere, Nunc causas agis, andpassim: Petronius, Sat. 46destinavi illum artificii docere, aut tonstrinum aut praeconem aut certe causidicum... Philero was lately a street porter:nunc etiam adversus Norbanum se extendit; litterae thesaurum est, et artificium numquam moritur: Juv. vii. 106 sqq.: Plin. v. 13, 6 sq.: vi. 29. Of the second class the best representative is Aquilius Regulus, informer and legacy-hunter, on whose account Herennius Senecio parodied Cato’s famous utterance,vir malus dicendi imperitusPlin. iv. 7, 5 and ii. 20.
7.Hild (p. xv. note) compares Juv. Sat. xiv. 44 sqq. with Quint, i. 2, 8 and Tac. Dial. 29: and especially Sat. vii. 207 with Quint, ii. 2, 4:Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram Spirantesque crocos et in urna perpetuum ver, Qui praeceptorem sancti valuere parentis Esse loco!andSumat ante omnia parentis erga discipulos suos animum(sc.praeceptor)ac succedere se in eorum locum a quibus sibi liberi tradantur existimet.
8.i. pr. §1post impetratam studiis meis quietem quae per viginti annos erudiendis iuvenibus impenderam. The chronology is rather uncertain. It is supposed that Quintilian began hisInstitutioin 92 or 93 and finished it in 94 or 95. If the period of twenty years is to be interpreted rigorously, we may suppose that he is referring to his official career, as it may have been in 72 that Vespasian took the step referred to above, p. viii. Or we may understand him to be dating the period of his educational activity as extending fromA.D.70 toA.D.90, though he did not begin to write theInstitutiotill 92. The latter is the more probable alternative.
9.See De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae: Dissertatio Inauguralis: Augustus Reuter, Vratislaviae 1887.
10.TheDeclamationesmay also be mentioned here, as having long been credited to Quintilian: they consist of 19 longer and 145 shorter pieces. That Quintilian practised this form of rhetorical exercise, and with success,—at least in the earlier part of his career,—is clear from such passages as xi. 2, 39: but it seems probable, from the nature of the contents of the existing collection, if not from the style, that tradition has erred in attributing to the master what must have been, in the main, the work of pupils and imitators. The popular habit of tacking on to a great name whatever seems not unworthy of it, may account for the fact that these rhetorical efforts are credited to Quintilian as early as the time of Ausonius, who says (Prof. 1, 15)Seu libeat fictas ludorum evolvere lites Ancipitem palmam Quintilianus habet. St. Jerome, on Isaiah viii. praef., speaks of hisconcinnas declamationes: Lactantius i. 24 quotes one which has disappeared from the collection; and lastly, Trebellius Pollio, a historian of the age of Diocletian, speaking of a certain Postumus, of Gaulish origin, adds:fuit autem ... ita in declamationibus disertus ut eius controversiae Quintiliano dicantur insertae(Trig. tyr. 4, 2): cp. ib.Quintiliano, quem declamatorem Romani generis acutissimum vel unius capitis lectio prima statim fronte demonstrat(Hild, Introd. p. xxi. note).
11.See also the Dissertatio of Albertus Trabandt, Gryphiswaldiae 1883,De Minoribus quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur Declamationibus.
12.iv. pr. 2Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae nepotum delegaverit curam, non satis honorem iudiciorum caelestium intellegam, nisi ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar.
13.If they had still been under Quintilian’s care when he wrote the Introduction to the Sixth Book (where referring to his domestic losses he says that he will live henceforth not to himself but to the youth of Rome), he would almost certainly have made some reference to them.
14.In judging Quintilian we must not forget that similar extravagances have not been unknown in our own literature. His translator, Guthrie—an Aberdonian Scot, who is full of enthusiasm for his author—cries out in a note on this passage: “I will engage to point out from the works of some of the greatest and most learned men, as well as of the best poets, of England, compliments to the abilities not only of princes, but of noblemen, statesmen, nay, private gentlemen, who in this respect deserved them as little as Domitian did.”
15.The expression used in vi. pr. §4,meo casu cui tamen nihil obici nisi quod vivam potest, shows that Quintilian was quite conscious of his comfortable circumstances.—Halm (followed by Meister) readsquamquod vivam: but I findnisiin both the Bamberg (G) and the Harleian codices.
16.Some have supposed that Quintilian made a second marriage (sometime between 93 and 95), after losing his wife and two children. This theory, which is rejected now by Mommsen, Teuffel, and most authorities, was invented to account for the existence of a grown-up daughter, to whom, on the occasion of her marriage (about the year 105), Pliny gives a present of 50,000 sesterces: Ep. vi. 32. But this young lady must have been the daughter of another Quintilianus altogether. What we know of our Quintilian’s affluent circumstances is inconsistent with such liberality on Pliny’s part: the gift is offered as to a man who is comparatively poor. Moreover, the letter intimating the gift contains no such reference to the services of a former teacher as might have been expected on so interesting an occasion. And lastly it is almost inconceivable that Quintilian, after bewailing in the Introduction to Book vi. (about 93A.D.) the bereavements that left him desolate (superstes omnium meorum), should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of marriageable age.
17.Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles, datum est.
18.Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x.1, 35and123, may have been written before the event mentioned above (the date of which is fixed by Suet. Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and may have been allowed to stand.
19.Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus oriatur. Plurimus ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius monuerit, hoc rarius castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum quae emendanda erunt dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, adsiduus potius quam immodicusii. 2, 5.
20.See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good account of Quintilian’s system.
21.xii. 1, 3 and 4ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum bonum: ... ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi omnibus vitiis libera potest.
22.Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4:ac nescio an eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam secretus et consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam in tuto collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari magis solet, venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit videbit.
23.Dr. Reid inEncyclopaedia Britannica.
24.i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.
25.i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.
26.Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris antiqui?—ch. 28.
27.M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris, Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.
28.For the identification of this manuscript see below p. lxx.
29.Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at Leipzig the professor of eloquence was designatedQuintiliani professor. Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him to almost every other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of his works, especially Books i and x of theInstitutio.
30.Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.
31.To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of Quintilian, and said it was strange that in the decadence of Roman literature, as it was called, we had three such authors as Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s ‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii. p. 178.
32.Dr. Reid in theEncyclopaedia Britannica.
33.See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.
34.Ep. xvi. 5, 6de compositione non constat: Ep. xix. 5, 13oratio certam regulam non habet.
35.i Prooem. §10 sqq., especiallyneque enim hoc concesserim rationem rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt, ad philosophos relegandam. Cp. x.1, 35: and xii. 2, 9Utinam ... orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet.M. Rocheblave sees in these and other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives of philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the philosophers from Rome inA.D.94. It is certainly noticeable that the tone of his references to them becomes more bitter in the later books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12. The Prooemium to Book i. may have been written last of all: and apart from it there is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x.1, 35and123) so acrimonious as the extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.
36.See ii. 5, 10-12Ne id quidem inutile, etiam corruptas aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique iudiciorum pravitate mirantar, legi palam ostendique in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a plerisque sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur.With this last cp. x.1, 127(of Seneca)placebat propter sola vitia. So i. 8, 9quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus: ii. 5, 22 (cavendum est)ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus et puerilibus ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament: with which compare x.1, 129corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis:§130consensu potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. Rocheblave cites also viii. 5, 27, 28, 30.
37.It is doubtful if the allusion in§126(potioribus praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere, &c.) is exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43) cites Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the choice of words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy: xviii. 4, 10 where he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and xvi. 5, 7.
38.Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut olim de Catone defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici videtur posse, quae deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem tempori esse attribuenda; quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse propria, et in primis oculos capere: p. 36Eloquentiam non verbis, sed rebus valere, nec per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit, esse excolendam Annaeus semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra delectu verborum praecipue constare, et per se amandam et requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum adhibita ratione, docebant rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus: p. 38Ergo quum in eloquentia duo sint praesertim consideranda, scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro verbis, utrumque asperrime, egisse.
39.See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is quoted by Diderot in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of Seneca being the ‘corruptor eloquentiae’ the truthisthat ‘il ne corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il s’accommoda au goût de ses contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur plaire et de s’en faire admirer; etl’envie lui fit un crime de ce qui passerait pour vrai talent dans un homme moins célèbre.’
40.Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.
41.Fronto, De Oration. p. 157At enim quaedam in libris eius scite dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum argentiolae cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas redimemus?For Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.
42.“In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In§27he mentions Theophrastus by name; in§52, speaking of Hesiod, he saysdatur ei palma, &c.; in§53the second place is given to Antimachus by the consent of thegrammatici; Panyasis is thought (putant)in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes, Callimachus (58)princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit. In 59 only threeiambographiare mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. Thenovem lyriciwere probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are thePindarus novemque lyrici(for this need not be taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof. Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.
43.Quod tempus(i.e.paulo plus quam biennium)non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti etlegendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabilesdatum est: Epist. ad Tryphonem.
44.Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873, p. 343 note:sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia quae contuli opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos memoria tenuit, adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret. This (though somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii) is a milder verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after speaking of Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (vir bonus dicendi peritus, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know whether he would have thought it a necessary virtue in abonus grammaticusto read and conscientiously study the Greek authors on whom he passes formal critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain that, whether Quintilian had or had not read them, he contents himself in many cases with merely repeating the traditional criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of the principal Greek authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 257.)
45.See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’ in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.
46.Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek rhetoricians; ix. 3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus Dionysius’). Cp. the parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of Isocrates, x.4, 4: and for other instances see Claussen, op. cit. pp. 339-340.
47.The extant remains of this treatise have recently been edited by Usener (Bonn. 1889), with a valuableEpilogus. The scope of the work is indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad Pompeium iii. p. 776 R, Usener p. 50:τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.
48.The standpoint from which both critics regarded this class of poetry was probably much the same as that which Dio Chrysostom applies to lyric poetry generally:μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια(cp. tunc et elegiam vacabit, &c.,§58)τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή(Or. xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)
49.How diverse the tradition of the various authorities came to be in regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s note p. 137.
50.Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138Aristophanis propria fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibellip. 1085 (C.I.Gr. 6083):cuius iudicii Kaibeliusp. 490in Quintilianox.1, 69vestigia recte observavit.
51.See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii.quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius, fr. xviii.aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?It has been supposed that between these two fragments the wordsaut Xenophonte iucundiusmay have fallen out: cp. Quint, x.1, 82.
52.See especially fr. xi.qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt: and cp. note on1 §57.
53.Cp. the note onqui parcissimex.4, 4.
54.De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.
55.A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium sumpserat, fuitque anteκριτικήquamγραμματική—Usener, p. 132.
56.See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.
57.Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by Cicero, Usener reckons his judgments on the Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus) in the second book of thede Oratore(§§55-58), a work which was written ten years before theHortensius: on Herodotus and Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4,ad Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo, in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum negotium, quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides.
58.Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice Coislinianon. 387olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit bibl. Coislin. p. 597,ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni recentiore Cramerus anecd.Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener, p. 129.
59.Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.
60.Havell’s translation, p. 27.
61.See the note on x.1, 85, with the quotation from Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of Philology. In theRheinisches Museum(xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.) Mercklin pushed the parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to find a correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer mentioned by Quintilian.
62.“His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is hardly a sentence which might not be quoted; but to read him straight forward is like dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”—Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life, i. p. 448.
63.Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit: viii. 2. 21.
64.Tac. Dial. 20Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire sed etiam referre domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt, traduntque invicem ac saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt, sive sensus aliquis arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus exquisito et poetico cultu enituit.
65.ii. 5, 10ostendi in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur.
66.He resembles other writers of the decadence in the frequent use of rare or poetical words, in neglecting the nice distinctions formerly made between synonyms, in the numbers of adjectives used substantively, &c.
67.In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must not be forgotten that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent pamphlet, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr. Paul Hirt quotes an interesting remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt, ‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i. p. 467 note), which has lately received some corroboration:sapit hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est barbariem plane quandam. Filelfo did not like Quintilian:nullam habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem, nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo Quintilianus, neque satis docet, nec delectat.But this was only Filelfo’s opinion, for which he would not have been able to furnish such scientific grounds as that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1 p. 356) supplied by Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the adjectivepandus. This word was in use in the days of Ennius, and occurs often afterwards in poetry, but not in prose. In Spain, however, it lingered, and is used by Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and especially by Quintilian. After these writers it disappears again till the fourth century.—Cp. i. 5, 57gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi, which has been quoted (by Abbé Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely enough in disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.
68.For this section I am especially indebted to aDissertatioby Adamus Marty:De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis. Also theProlegomenain Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’sRemarques sur la Langue de Quintilien.
69.Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in-torand 44 (46) in-trix. Of these 73 in-torand 4 in-trixare also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28 in-torand 8 in-trixwhich do not occur in Cicero. These are—adfectator,admirator,adsertor,agnitor,altercator,auxiliator,constitutor,consultor,contemptor,cunctator,delator,derisor,exactor,formator,iactator,insectator,latrator,legum lator,luctator,plosor,professor(?),raptor,repertor,rixator,signator,stuprator,ventilator,versificator,cavillatrix,disputatrix,elocutrix,enuntiatrix,exercitatrix,hortatrix,iudicatrix, (litteratrix),sermocinatrix.
70.This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a Programm by Dr. Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), a monument of German thoroughness. See also Becher’s Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen, 1879), pp. 6 sqq.
71.Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5Gallum Cornelium), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5, 83Scaevola Quintus: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1Libo Marcius). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius Paterculus.
72.See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der Beredsamkeit aus der Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten Bildlichen Wendungen in der rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero, Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau, 1886).
73.Halm’s account of this is more accurate than Meister’s. The former (Praef. p. viii) saysmagnae autem lacunae Bernensis pergamenis insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt. Thealius codexwhich the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant: it no doubt belonged to the same family as theAmbrosianus, andBambergensisG is consequently of first-class importance, especially where theAmbrosianusfails us. It is incorrect to say (with Meister, Praef. p. vi)lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice insertis expletae sunt. The writer of G did not mutilate another codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on the blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.
74.ThePratensisis the oldest authority for the readingtam laesae herculeat i. 2, 4: thePuteanusandIoannensisagree. Again all three omit the wordsde litterisat i. 4, 6, and showpraecoquumforpraecoxat i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and 7760), andhaec igitur ex verbisat i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).
75.An account of this important codex has already been given in an article on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.
76.The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand by theBambergensisis a phenomenon which may, I think, be explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known asbare taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and probably abounded in contractions:liusmay have seemed to the copyist the nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in theBambergensisis a very intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar mistake on the part of the writer of b occurs at x.2, 7, where the Bambergensis now showsid consequi q̣ụọd imiteris, the writer of b having subpunctuatedquobecause he did not understand the contraction forquodwhich he had in the text before him. The copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the remarkable readingid consequi dimiteris, which in the Bodleianus and other MSS. becomesde metris(see Crit. Note ad loc.). In fact, it seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in the text of Quintilian is due to the fact thatbvery often did not understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as followed his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp.totas at cures(forviresb)suasin the second last line of the Facsimile (x.1, 109.)
77.The only places in the Tenth Book which form any obstacle to the theory that H was copied directly from the Bambergensis are the following: x.3, 33, where the remarkable glossvindemonioccurs (repeated in F but not in T): see Crit. Notes ad loc. for an attempted explanation: x.2, 1ex his summaH, a mistake evidently recognised by the copyist himself: and x.1, 27blandita tumH (so L C),libertateG.
78.The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s manuscript was definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in theRheinisches Museum, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid refers to a Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would probably settle the question, if it is what it professes to be, a transcript of Poggio’s manuscript. It bears the following inscription:Scripsit Poggius Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante. Reperimus vero eum in bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures litterarum studiosi perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo plurimum utilitalis eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea Quintilianum neque integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis haberemus. Hec verba ex originali Poggii sumpta.
79.For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the Florentinus see Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville, Introduction, p. xcii. sqq.
80.Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19digerantur(G Hdirigantur, Ldirigerantur):§27blandicia, so Burn. 243 (Glibertate, H Lblandita tum):§55sed(G Het, om. L):§65tamen quem(G Htamen quae: Mtamquam):§66correctas(G Hrectas, Mcorreptas):§67uter(G H M Tuterque):§68reprehendunt(G H Mreprehendit,—etH ?):§69testatur(as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G Mpraestatur(as Burn. 243, Bodl.):§76in eo tam(Ginectam, Min hoc tam).
81.See note on the following page.
82.Since the above was written the readings of theVallensishave been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Easter, 1891). With the exception ofHarl.4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that theVallensisandHarl.4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in theVallensis. Those not adopted inHarl.4995 were made, in all probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23utile erit(Vall.2) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also hasaudatiora5 §4:nobis acanduno genereib. §7:virtutumib. §17:recidereib. §22:diligenter effecta, (withoutuna enim) ib. §23:iniicere7 §29. In all these places there are corrections by a later hand in theVallensis. But in the following passages, among others, the copyist ofHarl.4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in theVallensis:1 §9quae cultiore in parte:§19iteratione:§31molli:§38exequar:§107qui duo plurimum affectus valent:§117et vis summa:§125tum:2 §15dicunt:§17quam libet:3 §2et fundit:§6scriptorum:§17contextis quae fudit levitas:§21simul vertere latus:§31crebra relatione:5 §12dereo:§25utilior. A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer ofHarl.4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in theVallensis. Was he J. Badius?
ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT.CHAPTER I.How to acquire a command of Diction.§§1-4.The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v). That is the order of development—not necessarily the order of importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in the first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric, but with the best methods of applying theory to practice.§§5-15.The necessary store ofthingsandwordscan be obtained only by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the schools.§§16-19.The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former more ‘catching,’ the latter more independent.§§20-26.The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to continual fault-finding.§§27-30.The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greaterelevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever strive for the mastery.§§31-34.History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is rather outside the scope of the present chapter.§§35-36.Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that of the law-court.§§37-42.In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,—at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to recommend what is profitable for the formation of style.§§43-46.Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other. The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models: it does not profess to be exhaustive.§§ 46-84. GREEK LITERATURE.§§ 46-72.Greek Poetry.§§ 46-61.Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry proper.The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible to rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus, Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Ofiambographithe typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief lyric poets are Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and Simonides (§64).§§ 65-72.Dramatic poetry.The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the orator than any other class of poetry,—always excepting Homer.Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might alone suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other comic dramatists.§§ 73-75.Greek Historians.The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and others.§§ 76-80.Greek Orators.Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either toomuch or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy of the name of orator.§§ 81-84.Greek Philosophers.Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that ‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect.§§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.§§ 85-100.Roman Poetry.§§85-92.Epic Poets.Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire, are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is entwined with the conquering bay.’§§93-96.Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry.In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own. Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrotesaturaeof the earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors of greater merit.§§97-100.Dramatic Poetry.Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thoughtand style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’sThyestesmay be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’sMedeashows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer oftogatae, but his is not a pure art.§§101-104.Roman Historians.In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides, Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion, especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.§§105-122.Roman Orators.Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar ‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and Africanus rank highest: theformer might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.§§123-131.Roman Philosophers.Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.CHAPTER II.Of Imitation.§§1-3.While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be acquired by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the foregoing chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of all the good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of imitation in art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of imitation has its dangers.§§4-13.Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing but imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be an adaptation of sound to sense.§§14-18.Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great circumspection must be used,—first in the choice of models, and, secondly, in determiningthe good points we would seek to reproduce; for even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian, delighted if they can finish off a sentence withEsse videatur.§§19-21.The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify him to imitate. A bold rugged style, for example, is appropriate to the form of genius which would make shipwreck by an excessive affectation of refinement. It is of course within the province of the teacher to supply the natural defects of his pupils; but it is a far harder matter to mould and form one’s own nature. Even the teacher will not keep up a prolonged struggle against obstacles of natural disposition.§§21-26.In oratory we ought not to imitate the characteristic qualities of poets and historians, andvice versa: each kind of composition has its own appropriate laws. Let us imitate what is common to eloquence in all its manifestations. We must adapt our style to the topic and occasion: even different parts of one and the same speech call for different treatment. And we should not blindly follow any one model exclusively.§§27-28.Imitation must not be confined to words only: we should study also propriety, arrangement, exordium, narrative, argument, pathos, &c. The perfect orator, whom our age may hope to see, will be he who shall unite all the good qualities of his predecessors and reject all the bad.CHAPTER III.How to Write.§§1-4.Introductory to the three chapters on Writing: chs. iii. and iv. treating of the manner of writing(quomodo),and ch. v. of the matter and form of writing(quae maxime scribi oporteat §4). The pen is the best teacher: write much and carefully. Writing is a fundamental part of the orator’s training.§§5-18.As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate and slow, with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and the arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well, and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly in any given circumstances. Theevil results of hasty composition can seldom be undone even by much verbal correction. Your work should be done with so much care from the first that it may need only to be filed and chiselled, not recast.§§19-27.Condemnation of the fashionable practice of dictating to an amanuensis. He who writes for himself, no matter how rapidly, takes time to think; but your scribe hurries you on, while shame forbids you to pause. Such compositions reflect neither a writer’s care nor a speaker’s animation: your one idea is to ‘keep going.’ Besides, an awkward scribe will check the current of your thoughts. And how absurd it is to have him looking on at the gestures which often accompany and stimulate the process of cogitation! On the other hand, while silence and solitude are helpful, rural seclusion and attractive scenery cannot be said to favour concentration: closed doors are better. Night hours are the best, but only in moderation.§§28-30.But solitude cannot always be secured: those who cannot command it must habituate themselves to rise superior to every distraction. They who only study when in the humour will never want an excuse for idleness. It is possible to think, and to prepare for debate, in a crowd, on a jury, and even amid the noise and confusion of the law-courts.§§31-33.The proper writing materials: wax-tablets to be preferred to parchment. Write on one side only, and leave the other for additions and corrections.CHAPTER IV.Of Revision.§§1-2.The three parts of revision are addition, excision, and alteration. It is best to lay aside for a time what has been written: an interval after each new birth will furnish the best safeguard against excessive parental fondness.§§3-4.But time is not always at command. There must obviously be some limit to revision, especially on the part of the orator, who has to meet the needs of the moment. Not all changes are improvements: let the file polish the work, instead of rubbing it all away.CHAPTER V.What to Write.§§1-8.The question now, as distinguished from the preliminary courses laid down in Books i. and ii., is what form of composition we should practise in order to acquire copiousness and readiness. First, translation from the Greek: this exercise leaves the writer free to choose the best terms in his own language.Second, reproduction (or paraphrase) of Latin poets and orators: here, however, we often have to borrow from our models. Prose renderings of the poets are especially useful for the formation of an elevated style. And even in reproducing orations, we are stimulated to a kind of rivalry with our author, which may result in our surpassing him: in any case, the difficulty of competing with masterpieces forces us to study them minutely.§§9-11.It will be of advantage also to put our own ideas into various forms of expression, and to cultivate the faculty of amplifying: power is shown in making much of little.§§11-16.Here the writing oftheses(or discussions of abstract questions) forms a valuable exercise: also judicial decisions and commonplaces. The writing of declamations, or school speeches on fictitious cases, is also to be recommended, even for those who are already making a name at the bar. History, dialogue, and poetry are all valuable by way of variety and recreation: a many-sided culture is the best safeguard against such intellectual narrowness as would otherwise result from the daily battles of the law-courts.§§17-20.Young students must not be kept too long at these preparatory exercises, lest by indulging the fancy overmuch they unfit themselves for practice. After a youth has been well schooled ininventioandelocutio, and has had also some moderate amount of practice, he should attach himself to some eminent public speaker, and accompany him to the courts: he should write speeches, too, at home on the causes he has heard. He has no longer to fence with foils.§§21-23.Declamations should resemble real speeches: the subject should be treated naturally and thoroughly. Large classes and the custom of public speech-days tend to encourage a specious showiness, in which only the most popular and attractive parts of a subject are dealt with, and crowded together without regard to logical connection. One subject, thoroughly handled, is worth twenty superficially treated.CHAPTER VI.Of Meditation.§§1-4.Meditation occupies the middle ground between writing and improvisation, and is perhaps more frequently employed than either.Afterwe have formed our style by the constant practice of writing, meditation can be cultivated by progressive exercise to such a degree that an entire discourse may be prepared and arranged without the use of the pen.§§5-7.But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has thought out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the actual delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one hand, from ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us from improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence. If we are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation.While we are at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others suggested by the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than can possibly be covered by previous meditation.CHAPTER VII.Of Extempore Speech.§§1-4.The richest fruit of study is the ability to speak effectively on the spur of the moment: this is in fact absolutely indispensable. ‘An advocate who proffers help, and fails at the pinch, is a harbour accessible only in calm weather.’ Cases may take unforeseen turns: like ship-pilots we must change our tack with each shifting breeze. Unless the faculty of improvisation can be attained by practice, our years of labour will have been wasted.Certain Practical Exercisesconducive to Success in Extempore Speech.§§5-7.(1) The student must arrange his matter in appropriate order,—not only the order of the regularpartesor divisions (i.e. introduction, narrative, proof, refutation, conclusion), and the order of the principal points, but also the order of the matter and thought in all its detail, under every head and in every passage (quoque loco). The sequence of events will be our guide. Knowing what to look for at each point of our discourse, we shall not be found skipping from one topic to another; and in the end we shall reach the goal.§§7-10.(2) Reading, writing, and speaking must receive unremitting attention, and be made the subjects of scientific exercise. The conscientious practice of writing will give even our extemporary speeches something of the deliberate character of written compositions. It is practice that makes the ready speaker. A certain natural quickness of mind is necessary to look beyond what we are saying at the moment; but neither nature nor art will enable the mind to keep before itself at one time the whole of a speech, with all its arguments, arrangement, expression, &c. As our tongue advances, our thoughts must still outstrip it.§§11-14.(3) Hence the necessity of a mechanical and unscientific habit or ‘knack,’ such as that by which the hand moves in writing, the eye in reading, and the juggler in his legerdemain. But this knack, though mechanical, should have a basis of scientific method: otherwise it will be mere ranting, such as you may hear in abundance from female scolds. A sudden outburst is often, however, more effective than the result of study and premeditation.§§15-17.(4) The extemporary speaker must cultivate a lively imagination, that his mind may be deeply impressed by all the facts of a particular case. It is the heart that makes the orator. He must also have distinctly in view not only the end at which he aims but the whole pathway that leads to it: he will derive incitement even from the presence of his audience.§§18-23.(5) Extemporary facility can only be attained by the same gradual and patient course as has been referred to in connection with meditation. The orator is often debarred from preparation; but as a rule he should not presume so far on his ability as not to take a moment to glance mentally at the heads of his discourse,—which is generally possible in a court of law. Some declaimers will argue at once on any topic, and will even ask for a word to begin with: this is foolishness. If on any occasion we are under the necessity of speaking offhand, we should pay more attention to our subject-matter than to our language, and we may gain time by deliberate articulation. Gradually we shall be able to trim our sails, and pray for a favouring breeze.§§24-29.Continual practice is essential for improvisation. We should speak daily before an audience whose good opinion we respect; but alone, rather than not at all. If we do not speak to others, we can always at least go over our subject-matter in silent thought. This fosters exactness in composition even more than speaking aloud does; for there we hurry onward from fear of wearying the audience. On the other hand speaking exercises the voice and gives the opportunity of practising delivery. Our language should always be careful and correct, but it is constant writing that will add most weight to our words, especially if we are obliged to speak much extempore. In fact, writing gives exactness to speech, speech readiness to writing. If we cannot write, we can meditate: if we can do neither, we must still contrive to make a creditable appearance.§§30-33.A common habit with barristers in large practice is to write the exordium and most essential parts, formulate the rest in thought, and meet any unforeseen turns as they arise. The note-books of Cicero and Servius Sulpicius. It is advisable to refresh one’s memory by consulting notes. To prepare an abstract, arranged by heads, of a speech which we have written out entire, leads us to rely too little on the memory, and makes the speech broken and awkward in delivery. We ought not to write a speech out at length unless we intend to commit it to memory. But of memory more in the following book (XI. ch. ii.).
§§1-4.The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v). That is the order of development—not necessarily the order of importance. The early training of the orator has been overtaken in the first two books. We have now to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric, but with the best methods of applying theory to practice.
§§5-15.The necessary store ofthingsandwordscan be obtained only by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the schools.
§§16-19.The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former more ‘catching,’ the latter more independent.
§§20-26.The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to continual fault-finding.
§§27-30.The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greaterelevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever strive for the mastery.
§§31-34.History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is rather outside the scope of the present chapter.
§§35-36.Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that of the law-court.
§§37-42.In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,—at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to recommend what is profitable for the formation of style.
§§43-46.Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other. The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models: it does not profess to be exhaustive.
§§ 46-84. GREEK LITERATURE.
§§ 46-72.Greek Poetry.
§§ 46-61.Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry proper.
The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible to rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus, Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Ofiambographithe typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief lyric poets are Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and Simonides (§64).
§§ 65-72.Dramatic poetry.
The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the orator than any other class of poetry,—always excepting Homer.
Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might alone suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other comic dramatists.
§§ 73-75.Greek Historians.
The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and others.
§§ 76-80.Greek Orators.
Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either toomuch or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy of the name of orator.
§§ 81-84.Greek Philosophers.
Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that ‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect.
§§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE.
§§ 85-100.Roman Poetry.
§§85-92.Epic Poets.
Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire, are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is entwined with the conquering bay.’
§§93-96.Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry.
In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own. Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace. Lucilius has learning, boldness, causticity, wit. Horace is the prince of satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrotesaturaeof the earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors of greater merit.
§§97-100.Dramatic Poetry.
Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thoughtand style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’sThyestesmay be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’sMedeashows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer oftogatae, but his is not a pure art.
§§101-104.Roman Historians.
In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides, Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion, especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries.
§§105-122.Roman Orators.
Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar ‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his anger outruns his judgment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and Africanus rank highest: theformer might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many subjects of eulogy.
§§123-131.Roman Philosophers.
Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.
§§1-3.While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be acquired by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the foregoing chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of all the good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of imitation in art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of imitation has its dangers.
§§4-13.Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing but imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be an adaptation of sound to sense.
§§14-18.Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great circumspection must be used,—first in the choice of models, and, secondly, in determiningthe good points we would seek to reproduce; for even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian, delighted if they can finish off a sentence withEsse videatur.
§§19-21.The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify him to imitate. A bold rugged style, for example, is appropriate to the form of genius which would make shipwreck by an excessive affectation of refinement. It is of course within the province of the teacher to supply the natural defects of his pupils; but it is a far harder matter to mould and form one’s own nature. Even the teacher will not keep up a prolonged struggle against obstacles of natural disposition.
§§21-26.In oratory we ought not to imitate the characteristic qualities of poets and historians, andvice versa: each kind of composition has its own appropriate laws. Let us imitate what is common to eloquence in all its manifestations. We must adapt our style to the topic and occasion: even different parts of one and the same speech call for different treatment. And we should not blindly follow any one model exclusively.
§§27-28.Imitation must not be confined to words only: we should study also propriety, arrangement, exordium, narrative, argument, pathos, &c. The perfect orator, whom our age may hope to see, will be he who shall unite all the good qualities of his predecessors and reject all the bad.
§§1-4.Introductory to the three chapters on Writing: chs. iii. and iv. treating of the manner of writing(quomodo),and ch. v. of the matter and form of writing(quae maxime scribi oporteat §4). The pen is the best teacher: write much and carefully. Writing is a fundamental part of the orator’s training.
§§5-18.As to the manner of writing, it should at first be deliberate and slow, with careful attention alike to subject-matter, language, and the arrangement of words and phrases. And the whole must be subjected to careful revision, especially if it is written in a glow, as it were, of inspiration. ‘Write quickly, and you will never write well; write well, and in time you will write quickly.’ In the case of the orator it is advisable gradually to accelerate the pace: he will never be able to overtake his professional duties unless he gets rid of the habit of carping self-criticism. Story of Iulius Florus. Judgment is also necessary, as well as practice, if we are to write naturally and clearly in any given circumstances. Theevil results of hasty composition can seldom be undone even by much verbal correction. Your work should be done with so much care from the first that it may need only to be filed and chiselled, not recast.
§§19-27.Condemnation of the fashionable practice of dictating to an amanuensis. He who writes for himself, no matter how rapidly, takes time to think; but your scribe hurries you on, while shame forbids you to pause. Such compositions reflect neither a writer’s care nor a speaker’s animation: your one idea is to ‘keep going.’ Besides, an awkward scribe will check the current of your thoughts. And how absurd it is to have him looking on at the gestures which often accompany and stimulate the process of cogitation! On the other hand, while silence and solitude are helpful, rural seclusion and attractive scenery cannot be said to favour concentration: closed doors are better. Night hours are the best, but only in moderation.
§§28-30.But solitude cannot always be secured: those who cannot command it must habituate themselves to rise superior to every distraction. They who only study when in the humour will never want an excuse for idleness. It is possible to think, and to prepare for debate, in a crowd, on a jury, and even amid the noise and confusion of the law-courts.
§§31-33.The proper writing materials: wax-tablets to be preferred to parchment. Write on one side only, and leave the other for additions and corrections.
§§1-2.The three parts of revision are addition, excision, and alteration. It is best to lay aside for a time what has been written: an interval after each new birth will furnish the best safeguard against excessive parental fondness.
§§3-4.But time is not always at command. There must obviously be some limit to revision, especially on the part of the orator, who has to meet the needs of the moment. Not all changes are improvements: let the file polish the work, instead of rubbing it all away.
§§1-8.The question now, as distinguished from the preliminary courses laid down in Books i. and ii., is what form of composition we should practise in order to acquire copiousness and readiness. First, translation from the Greek: this exercise leaves the writer free to choose the best terms in his own language.Second, reproduction (or paraphrase) of Latin poets and orators: here, however, we often have to borrow from our models. Prose renderings of the poets are especially useful for the formation of an elevated style. And even in reproducing orations, we are stimulated to a kind of rivalry with our author, which may result in our surpassing him: in any case, the difficulty of competing with masterpieces forces us to study them minutely.
§§9-11.It will be of advantage also to put our own ideas into various forms of expression, and to cultivate the faculty of amplifying: power is shown in making much of little.
§§11-16.Here the writing oftheses(or discussions of abstract questions) forms a valuable exercise: also judicial decisions and commonplaces. The writing of declamations, or school speeches on fictitious cases, is also to be recommended, even for those who are already making a name at the bar. History, dialogue, and poetry are all valuable by way of variety and recreation: a many-sided culture is the best safeguard against such intellectual narrowness as would otherwise result from the daily battles of the law-courts.
§§17-20.Young students must not be kept too long at these preparatory exercises, lest by indulging the fancy overmuch they unfit themselves for practice. After a youth has been well schooled ininventioandelocutio, and has had also some moderate amount of practice, he should attach himself to some eminent public speaker, and accompany him to the courts: he should write speeches, too, at home on the causes he has heard. He has no longer to fence with foils.
§§21-23.Declamations should resemble real speeches: the subject should be treated naturally and thoroughly. Large classes and the custom of public speech-days tend to encourage a specious showiness, in which only the most popular and attractive parts of a subject are dealt with, and crowded together without regard to logical connection. One subject, thoroughly handled, is worth twenty superficially treated.
§§1-4.Meditation occupies the middle ground between writing and improvisation, and is perhaps more frequently employed than either.Afterwe have formed our style by the constant practice of writing, meditation can be cultivated by progressive exercise to such a degree that an entire discourse may be prepared and arranged without the use of the pen.
§§5-7.But the orator is not to adhere so scrupulously to what he has thought out as to reject new ideas which may flash upon him during the actual delivery of a speech. Meditation should secure us, on the one hand, from ever being at a loss: on the other it ought not to prevent us from improving the opportunity afforded by some incidental occurrence. If we are to hesitate, painfully recollecting what we have formulated in thought, it were better to trust wholly to improvisation.While we are at a loss to recall our prepared thoughts, we miss others suggested by the subject itself, which always offers a wider field than can possibly be covered by previous meditation.
§§1-4.The richest fruit of study is the ability to speak effectively on the spur of the moment: this is in fact absolutely indispensable. ‘An advocate who proffers help, and fails at the pinch, is a harbour accessible only in calm weather.’ Cases may take unforeseen turns: like ship-pilots we must change our tack with each shifting breeze. Unless the faculty of improvisation can be attained by practice, our years of labour will have been wasted.
§§5-7.(1) The student must arrange his matter in appropriate order,—not only the order of the regularpartesor divisions (i.e. introduction, narrative, proof, refutation, conclusion), and the order of the principal points, but also the order of the matter and thought in all its detail, under every head and in every passage (quoque loco). The sequence of events will be our guide. Knowing what to look for at each point of our discourse, we shall not be found skipping from one topic to another; and in the end we shall reach the goal.
§§7-10.(2) Reading, writing, and speaking must receive unremitting attention, and be made the subjects of scientific exercise. The conscientious practice of writing will give even our extemporary speeches something of the deliberate character of written compositions. It is practice that makes the ready speaker. A certain natural quickness of mind is necessary to look beyond what we are saying at the moment; but neither nature nor art will enable the mind to keep before itself at one time the whole of a speech, with all its arguments, arrangement, expression, &c. As our tongue advances, our thoughts must still outstrip it.
§§11-14.(3) Hence the necessity of a mechanical and unscientific habit or ‘knack,’ such as that by which the hand moves in writing, the eye in reading, and the juggler in his legerdemain. But this knack, though mechanical, should have a basis of scientific method: otherwise it will be mere ranting, such as you may hear in abundance from female scolds. A sudden outburst is often, however, more effective than the result of study and premeditation.
§§15-17.(4) The extemporary speaker must cultivate a lively imagination, that his mind may be deeply impressed by all the facts of a particular case. It is the heart that makes the orator. He must also have distinctly in view not only the end at which he aims but the whole pathway that leads to it: he will derive incitement even from the presence of his audience.
§§18-23.(5) Extemporary facility can only be attained by the same gradual and patient course as has been referred to in connection with meditation. The orator is often debarred from preparation; but as a rule he should not presume so far on his ability as not to take a moment to glance mentally at the heads of his discourse,—which is generally possible in a court of law. Some declaimers will argue at once on any topic, and will even ask for a word to begin with: this is foolishness. If on any occasion we are under the necessity of speaking offhand, we should pay more attention to our subject-matter than to our language, and we may gain time by deliberate articulation. Gradually we shall be able to trim our sails, and pray for a favouring breeze.
§§24-29.Continual practice is essential for improvisation. We should speak daily before an audience whose good opinion we respect; but alone, rather than not at all. If we do not speak to others, we can always at least go over our subject-matter in silent thought. This fosters exactness in composition even more than speaking aloud does; for there we hurry onward from fear of wearying the audience. On the other hand speaking exercises the voice and gives the opportunity of practising delivery. Our language should always be careful and correct, but it is constant writing that will add most weight to our words, especially if we are obliged to speak much extempore. In fact, writing gives exactness to speech, speech readiness to writing. If we cannot write, we can meditate: if we can do neither, we must still contrive to make a creditable appearance.
§§30-33.A common habit with barristers in large practice is to write the exordium and most essential parts, formulate the rest in thought, and meet any unforeseen turns as they arise. The note-books of Cicero and Servius Sulpicius. It is advisable to refresh one’s memory by consulting notes. To prepare an abstract, arranged by heads, of a speech which we have written out entire, leads us to rely too little on the memory, and makes the speech broken and awkward in delivery. We ought not to write a speech out at length unless we intend to commit it to memory. But of memory more in the following book (XI. ch. ii.).