1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Quintilian X: Critical Notes</title>
<meta http-equiv = "Content-Type" content = "text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<link rel = "stylesheet" type = "text/css" href = "quintstyles.css">
</head>
<body>
<div class = "contents">
<a name = "toc3" id = "toc3"> </a>
<p><a href = "../main.html">Preface</a><br>
<i>Analysis of the Argument, Index of Names,
Index of Matters (complete)</i><br>
</p>
<p><a href = "QuintIntro.html">Introduction</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p>
<p>Critical Notes:<br>
<a href = "#critI">Chapter I</a><br>
<a href = "#critII">Chapter II</a><br>
<a href = "#critIII">Chapter III</a><br>
<a href = "#critIV">Chapter IV</a><br>
<a href = "#critV">Chapter V</a><br>
<a href = "#critVI">Chapter VI</a><br>
<a href = "#critVII">Chapter VII</a>
</p>
</div>
<hr class = "spacer">
<div class = "crit">
<span class = "pagenum">185</span>
<h4>CRITICAL NOTES.</h4>
<p class = "line"> </p>
<h5>LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.</h5>
<p class = "list">
Bn = codex Bernensis s. x.</p>
<p class = "list">
Bg = codex Bambergensis s. x.</p>
<p class = "list">
B = conspirantes lectiones Bernensis et Bambergensis.</p>
<p class = "list">
G = codicis Bambergensis eae partes quae alia manu suppletae sunt.
Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelviii">p. lviii</a>.</p>
<p class = "list">
b = manus secunda codicis Bambergensis.</p>
<p class = "list">
H = codex Harleianus (2664) s. x-xi. Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxiv">p. lxiv</a>, sqq.</p>
<p class = "list">
F = codex Florentinus.</p>
<p class = "list">
T = codex Turicensis.</p>
<p class = "list">
N = codex Parisinus Nostradamensis s. x-xi.</p>
<p class = "list">
Ioan. = codex Ioannensis s. xiii.</p>
<p>For the above (with the exception of H and Ioan. and a fresh
collation of Bg and G) I have depended on Spalding, Halm, and
Meister. In the same way I quote references occasionally to M (codex
Monacensis s. xv), S (codex Argentoratensis s. xv), and L (codex
Lassbergensis s. xv), the Gothanus, Guelferbytanus, Vossiani,
&c.</p>
<p>A collation of the following has kindly been put at my disposal by
M. Ch. Fierville, Censeur des études au Lycée Charlemagne (Introd.
<a href = "QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxi">p. lxi</a>,
sqq.):—</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Pratensis (Prat.) s. xii.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Puteanus (Put.) s. xiii.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Parisinus (7231) s. xii.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Parisinus (7696) s. xii.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Salmantinus (Sal.) s. xii-xiii.</p>
<p>The readings of the Codex Vallensis (Vall.) are given from Becher’s
Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, Ostern, 1891.</p>
<p>Other 15th cent. MSS., which I have specially collated for this
edition, are the following (Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxxiii">p. lxxiii</a>, sqq.):—</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Harleianus 2662 (Harl. 2662). The inscription on this codex bears
that it was finished 25th Jan., 1434.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Harleianus 11671 (Harl. 11671), bearing date 1467.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Harleianus 4995 (Harl. 4995), dated 5th July, 1470.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Harleianus 4950 (Harl. 4950).</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Harleianus 4829 (Harl. 4829).</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Burneianus 243 (Burn. 243).</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Burneianus 244 (Burn. 244).</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Balliolensis (Ball.). This MS. is mutilated, and contains nothing
after x. 6, 4: there is moreover a lacuna from ch. ii to iii §26.</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Dorvilianus (Dorv.), in the Bodleian at Oxford (codd. man. x. 1,
1, 13).</p>
<p class = "list">
Codex Bodleianus (Bodl.).</p>
<p>The readings of the Codex Carcassonensis (C—15th cent.) are
given from M. Fierville’s collation (De Quintilianeis Codicibus,
Paris, 1874).</p>
<hr class = "mid">
<span class = "pagenum">186</span>
<h5><a name = "critI" id = "critI">
CHAPTER I.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critI_sec1" id = "critI_sec1" href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>.
<b>cognitioni</b>, Harl. 4995: Burn. 243 (and so Gothanus, Spald.).
<i>Cogitationi</i> G and most codd., probably mistaking a contraction in
the ancient text.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec2" id = "critI_sec2"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>sciet</b> G. The reading <i>scierit</i> (Harl. 4995 and many codd.)
is probably due to H, which gives <i>sciuit</i> (so FT).</p>
<p><b>quae quoque sint modo dicenda</b>. So GHFTL, and Halm. The
alternative reading is <i>quo quaeque s. m. d.</i>, S and all
my 15th cent. MSS: Spalding and Meister, with the approval of Becher.
See note ad loc. In the parallel passages i. 8. 1 Halm adopts Spalding’s
reading (ut sciat) quo quidque flexu ... dicendum for quid quoque ABMS,
and i. 6. 16 (notatum) quo quidque modo caderet for quid quoque BMS, and
so Meister: Fierville returns to the reading of the MSS. In support of
<i>quo quaeque</i> other exx. might be cited: v. 10. 17 quo quaeque modo
res vitari vel appeti soleat, and vi. 4. 22 quo quaeque ordine probatio
sit proferenda. But the parallel instances in the Tenth Book quoted in
the notes (<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8">1 §8</a>: <a href
= "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5">7 §§5</a> and <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6">6</a>) seem to guarantee the correctness
of the reading of the oldest MSS.: though it is better to take
<i>quoque</i> as the ablative of <i>quisque</i> than (as Halm) as the
relative with que.</p>
<p><b>tamen</b>: GHFT Harl. 4950: <i>tanquam</i> Harl. 2662, 11671,
4995, 4829, L S Bodl. Ball. Burn. 243 Dorv. In Burn. 244 <i>tanquam</i>
is corrected to <i>tamen</i>. <i>Paratam</i> explains <i>in
procinctu</i>: so that <i>tanquam</i> is not so necessary as
<i>velut</i> in xii. 9. 21.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec3" id = "critI_sec3"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3"><ins class = "correction"
title = "line reference missing"><b>§3</b></ins></a>.
<b>ante omnia est</b>: so all codd., and Halm. Hirt (Jahresb. des
philol. Vereins zu Berlin viii. p. 69 sq. 1882: ix. p. 312 sq.
1883) conjectured <i>ante omnia necessarium est</i>, and this is
approved by Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454): cp.
<i>necessarium</i> just above, and <i>necessaria</i> in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">§1</a>. Schöll (Rh. Mus. 34, p. 84)
first challenged the MS. reading, and suggested that the original may
have been <i>ante omnia stat atque</i>, corrupted into <i>ante omniast
[at] atque</i>: for which use of <i>sto</i>, see Bonn. Lex. s.v.
ii. γ. As an alternative suggestion he put forward <i>ante omnia
necesse est</i>, and this was adopted by Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch.
iii. 14. 428) proposed <i>ante omnia sciet</i>, though more recently he
has signified his adherence to the tradition of the MSS. Maehly
suggested <i>ante omnia opus esse</i>. Perhaps the true reading may be
<i>ante omnia prodest</i>.</p>
<p>The question depends to some extent on the treatment of the following
passage. GH agree in giving <i>proximam deinde inimitationem novissimam
scribendi quoque diligentia</i>. This Halm converted into <i>proximum
deinde imitatio est, novissimum ... diligentia</i>,—where the
<i>est</i> is certainly superfluous (cp. i. 3. 1), while it may be
doubted (comparing ii. 13. 1 and iii. 6. 81—Kiderlin l.c.) whether
<i>proxima deinde imitatio, novissima</i> &c. would not be a
sufficient change: Kiderlin compares ‘proxima huic narratio,’ ii. 13. 1,
and ‘novissima qualitas superest,’ and objects to the citation of
‘proximum imitatio,’ in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec3"><ins
class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘1. 31’">1. 3</ins></a>,
in support of the neuter, on the ground that there ‘signum ingenii’ is
to be supplied.</p>
<p>Kiderlin’s proposed modification of Gemoll’s conjecture (l.c.
p. 454 note, cp. Rhein. Mus. 46 p. 10 note) <i>proximum deinde
multa lectio</i> is adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.), who thinks that the
sequence of thought makes the special mention of <i>legere</i>
(alongside of <i>dicere</i> and <i>scribere</i>) a necessity:
<i>multa</i> corresponds to <i>diligentia</i> in what follows: cp. multa
lectione <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10">§10</a>. But
<i>legere</i> has already been touched on in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec2">§2</a>, and moreover is included under
<i>imitatio</i> (sc. exemplorum ex lectione et auditione
repetitorum).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec4" id = "critI_sec4"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>.
<b>iam opere</b>. So Harl. 4995 and Regius: all other codd. <i>iam opere
iam</i>. Becher reports <i>iam opere</i> also from the Vallensis.</p>
<p><b>qua ratione</b>. For <i>qua in oratione</i>, the reading of all
MSS., Hirt conjectured
<span class = "pagenum">187</span>
<i>qua exercitatione</i>. Schöll proposed to reject <i>in oratione</i>
as a gloss: but <i>qua</i> by itself (sc. via) is only used by Quint.
with verbs of motion: see on <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec11">7 §11</a>.</p>
<p>In his latest paper (Rheinisches Museum, 46, pp. 10-13, 1891),
Kiderlin subjects the whole of <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec4">§4</a> to a searching and destructive
analysis. He translates: ‘doch nicht darüber, wie der Redner
heranzubilden ist, sprechen wir in diesem Abschnitte (denn dies ist
genügend oder wenigstens so gut, als wir konnten, besprochen worden)
sondern darüber, durch welche Art von Uebung der Athlet, welcher alle
Bewegungen von seinem Lehrer bereits genau erlernt hat, für die Kämpfe
vorzubereiten ist.’ He doubts whether such passages as <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">§33</a> and <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1">7 §1</a> can be cited to justify the
abrupt transition from orator to athlete, on the ground of the formal
antithesis in which the two stand to each other,—‘orator’ coming
in at the end of one clause, and ‘athleta’ standing at the head of
another, in front of ‘quo genere exercitationis.’ And yet it is just the
‘orator’ who is to be understood in the ‘athleta.’ As to the sentence
introduced by ‘Igitur eum,’ if by ‘athleta qui omnes iam perdidicerit a
praeceptore numeros’ we are to understand one who has mastered the whole
theory of rhetoric, then it adds nothing to what has been said already,
and is therefore altogether superfluous.</p>
<p>Kiderlin proposes to read: sed <i>ut</i> (so L and S,—also
Harl. 2662, 4995) athleta, qui omnes iam perdidicerit a praeceptore
numeros, multo (nonnullo?) varioque (numuro quae G,—also H: num
muro quae T: numeroque F L; nimirum quo S) genere exercitationis ad
certamina praeparandus <i>erit</i> (sit, the codd.) <i>ita</i> (so
S,—also Harl. 2662, 4995 and Bodl.) eum, qui ... perceperit,
instruamus, qua in <i>praeparatione</i> (qua in oratione, the codd.)
quod didicerit facere quam optime, quam facillime possit. <i>Ut</i> may
easily, he contends, have fallen out before <i>at</i>: and the running
of three words into one (<i>numeros multo vario—numero</i>) is
paralleled by such a case as <a href = "#critI_sec23">§23</a>, where it
will be found that Kiderlin sees <i>ut duo tresque</i> in
<i>utrisque</i>. For ‘multo varioque’ he compares viii. 5. 28 multis ac
variis: x. 5. 3 multas ac varias: xi. 3. 163 varia et multiplex: xii. 1.
7 totae tam variis; and, for ‘varioque,’ vii. 3. 16 latiore varioque,
and xii. 10. 36 sublimes variique. ‘Vario genere’ actually occurs i. 10.
7, and <i>multo</i> may easily have been written in the singular, like
<i>nonnullus</i> vi. 3. 11 (hoc nonnullam observationem habet) and
elsewhere. The motive for changing <i>que</i>, <i>quae</i>, into
<i>quo</i> and <i>erit</i> (<i>est</i>?) into <i>sit</i> may have been
the analogy of the foregoing <i>quomodo sit</i>. As for ut (sicut) ita
(sic), it is so favourite a form with Quintilian that he uses it seven
times in the first nineteen paragraphs of this chapter. <i>Qua in
oratione</i>, the reading of all MSS., may have resulted from <i>qua in
praeparatione</i> more probably than from <i>qua ratione</i>, which
appears first in the ed. Col. 1527, and is not so appropriate to the
context as <i>qua in praeparatione</i> (cp. <i>praeparandus</i> above,
and <i>parandae</i> below). Quintilian is detailing in this Book on what
preparation (cp. praeparant <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35">§35</a>, comparant <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a>, praeparetur <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6">6 §6</a>, praeparantur <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7 §19</a>) the orator may best and
most easily carry out in practice what he has learnt theoretically. For
the preposition (<i>in</i> praeparatione) cp. viii. pr. 22: ut in hac
diligentia deterior etiam fiat oratio.</p>
<p>The text of Quintilian, especially of this part of the Tenth Book, is
admittedly very defective, and invites emendation: there is a great deal
to be said for the theory that in many places several words must have
dropped out. Kiderlin’s attempts to remedy existing defects are always
marked by the greatest ingenuity: they are all well worth recording as
evidences of critical ability and insight, even though it may be that
not all of them will be received into the ultimate text. Here there
seems no reason why Quintilian, who was notoriously a loose writer,
should not have said in the concluding sentence of the paragraph what he
had already said, in the form of a metaphor, in the clause immediately
preceding. Indeed the word <i>igitur</i> seems to suggest that after
indulging in his favourite metaphor (<i>sed athleta</i>, &c.) he
wishes to resume, as it were, and is now going on to say what he means
in more ordinary language. It may not be artistic: but it is Quintilian.
If he had had some of his modern critics at
<span class = "pagenum">188</span>
his side when preparing a second edition of the <i>Institutio</i> some
of his angularities might have been smoothed away.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec5" id = "critI_sec5"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>.
<b>Non ergo</b>. Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: I find this reading in
Harl. 4995, and Burn. 243. So Vall. Halm. has <i>Num ergo</i>, and so
most codd. (including HFT Bodl. and Ball.).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec6" id = "critI_sec6"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>.
<b>ex his</b>. Qy. <i>ex iis</i>? so <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128">§128</a>: cp. Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagexlix">p. xlix</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec7" id = "critI_sec7"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>.
<b>quo idem</b>, Meister and ‘edd. vett.’: <i>quod idem</i> Halm,
supported by Becher and Hirt, perhaps rightly. Nearly all my MSS. agree
with GLS in <i>quod</i>: <i>quo</i> occurs in Harl. 4995 only.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec8" id = "critI_sec8"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>.
<b>quod quoque</b> GH Halm, Meister: <i>quid quoque</i> (as <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5">7 §5</a>) occurs in L S, also in
Bodl., Ball. For <i>quid</i> Zumpt cites also Par. 1 and 2: i.e. 7723
and 7724 (Fierville). <i>Aptissimum</i> (strangely mangled in most
codd.—e.g. <i>locis ita petissimum</i> G) is given rightly in
Dorv.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec9" id = "critI_sec9"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>.
<b>omnibus enim fere verbis</b>. This reading, ascribed by Meister to
Badius, and by Halm to ed. Colon. (1527), I have found in Harl.
4995 (<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1470): <i>ferebis vel</i> G
H: <i>fere rebus vel</i> L S Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829. From the Vallensis
Becher reports <i>fere verbis vel</i>.</p>
<p><b>intueri</b>, ed. Col. 1527. In Harl. 11671 I find <i>interim
intueri</i>: Harl. 2662 L S Ball., Dorv., Bodl., <i>interim
tueri</i>.</p>
<p><b>quae nitidiore in parte</b> occurs first in ed. Col. 1527:
Vall.<sup>2</sup> Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. ii. shows <i>quae cultiore in
p.</i>: GH <i>quaetidiorem in p.</i>: LS Harl. 2662 Guelf. Bodl. <i>quae
utiliore in p.</i></p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec10" id = "critI_sec10"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>.
<b>cum omnem</b>, &c. <i>cum omnem misermonem a. pr. accipiamus</i>
GH: <i>cum omnem enim</i>, most codd. Osann, followed by Gemoll and
Krüger (3rd ed.), suggested <i>omnem enim sermonem a. pr.
accipimus</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec11" id = "critI_sec11"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec11"><b>§11</b></a>.
<b>alia vero</b>, Frotscher: <i>aliave</i> GH: <i>aliaque</i> Harl.
4995. This last Becher now prefers (<i>alia que</i> Vall.: <i>alia
quae</i> Regius), comparing ix. 3. 89 and ix. 4. 87.</p>
<p><span class = "greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> <b>quasi
tamen</b>, Spalding, Zumpt, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>tropicos
quare tam</i> GH, <i>quare tamen</i>, later MSS. Halm obelized <i>quare
tamen</i>: Mayor only <i>quare</i>. Becher recommends <i>tamen</i> by
itself. Gensler (Anal. p. 25) reads <i>tamen quasi</i>, and is
followed by Hild, who takes <i>quasi</i> with <i>feruntur</i> in the
sense of <i>referuntur</i> (<span class = "greek" title =
"metaphora">μεταφορά</span>): Zumpt took it with <i>eundem
intellectum</i>. Gemoll approves of the exclusion of <i>quare</i>, which
he thinks must have arisen from a gloss <i>figurate</i> (either marginal
or interlinear) on <span class = "greek" title =
"tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span>. Kiderlin adopts this and thinks the <i>quare
tam</i> of GHL a mutilation of the gloss <i>figurate</i>: <i>gurate</i>
and <i>quare tā</i> are not far apart.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec12" id = "critI_sec12"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>.
<b>figurarum</b> G (per compendium): <i>figuranus</i> H. Kiderlin
suggests <i>mutuatione figurarum</i>, sc. <i>ostendimus</i>: after which
Quintilian continues ‘sed etiam ex proximo mutuari licet.’ Cp. Cic. de
Or. iii. 156 translationes quasi mutuationes sunt. Kiderlin adds (Rhein.
Mus. 46, p. 14 note) that in iii. 4. 14 all MSS. wrongly give
<i>mutantes</i> for <i>mutuantes</i>, and in i. 4. 7 A<sup>1</sup> has
<i>mutamur</i> for <i>mutuamur</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec15" id = "critI_sec15"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>.
<b>hoc sunt exempla potentiora</b>. <i>Hoc</i> is a conj. of Regius
(also Vall.<sup>2</sup>), all the MSS. giving <i>haec</i> (hec).
<i>Hoc</i> appears in the Basle ed. of 1555 and in that of Leyden 1665.
It is challenged by Schöll (Rhein. Mus. 44, p. 85), who says
<i>quia</i> stands too far away from <i>hoc</i> to allow of such a
construction, and thinks the context has been misunderstood. According
to him <i>haec exempla</i> (those derived from <i>lectio</i> and
<i>auditio</i>) are set over against those which one gets in theoretical
books and lectures: they are more telling, because they act directly on
the mind, and are not served up as dry theory in the form of extracts
(‘quia quae doctor praecepit orator ostendit’). He therefore understands
‘ipsis (exemplis) quae traduntur artibus,’ but admits that ‘etiam’ is
thus otiose, and would therefore read <i>quam ipsis quae traduntur
artibus</i>.</p>
<p>Schöll is supported by Hirt (Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin,
1882, p. 70), who thus gives the sense of the passage: ‘Der
Wortschatz wird durch Lektüre und vieles
<span class = "pagenum">189</span>
Hören erworben. Aber nicht nur seinetwegen soll man lesen und hören; man
soll es auch noch aus einem anderen Grunde. In allem nämlich, was wir
lehren, sind diese Beispiele, d.h. diejenigen, welche uns die Lektüre
und der Vortrag bieten, wichtiger selbst als die Beispiele welche die
Handbücher und Vorlesungen darbieten, weil, was der Lehrer nur als
Forderung aufstellt, bei dem Redner That geworden ist und sich durch den
Erfolg bewährt hat.’</p>
<p>Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. vii. 1879, 2, p. 168) objects
that if Quintilian had wished to convey this meaning he would have said,
not <i>haec exempla</i>, but <i>hinc ducta (petita)</i> or <i>quae hinc
ducuntur (petuntur) exempla</i>; and he rightly desiderates also <i>quam
quae (in) ipsis traduntur artibus</i>. Meister also opposes Schöll
(Philol. xlii. p. 149): the order <i>quam ipsis quae traduntur
artibus</i> is in fact impossible.</p>
<p>On the whole it seems much better to keep <i>hoc</i>, and to
understand: ‘in all instruction, example is better than precept: the
<i>doctor</i> relies only on precept, the <i>orator</i> on example.’</p>
<p>Gertz conjectures <i>nam omnium quaecunque docemus hinc</i> (cp. v.
10. 5: xii. 2. 31) <i>sunt exempla, potentiora</i> (i.e. <i>quae
potentiora sunt</i>) <i>etiam ipsis quae traduntur artibus</i>. But with
<i>hinc</i>, as Kiderlin observes, some other verb than <i>sunt</i>
would be expected: v. 10. 15 is an uncertain conjecture, the MSS. giving
<i>nihil</i>, and in xii. 2. 31 <i>hinc</i> belongs to <i>bibat</i> and
<i>sumptam</i>. Kiderlin himself at first proposed <i>haec praestant
exempla, potentiora</i>: this he now withdraws, however, (Rhein. Mus.
46, p. 15) in favour of <i>haec suggerunt exempla, potentiora</i>,
&c. By <i>haec</i> he understands <i>legere</i> and <i>audire</i>,
and gives the sequence of thought as follows:—‘Aber wenn auch auf
diese Weise eine Fülle von Ausdrücken erworben wird, so ist das doch
nicht der einzige Zweck des Lesens und Hörens. Denn <i>von allem</i> was
wir lehren (nicht nur von den Ausdrücken) liefert dieses (das Lesen und
Hören) Beispiele, welche noch wirksamer sind als die vorgetragenen
Theorieen selbst (wenn der Lernende so weit gefördert ist, dass er die
Beispiele ohne Beihilfe verstehen und sie bereits aus eigener Kraft
befolgen kann), weil der Redner das zeigt, was der Lehrer nur
vorgeschrieben hat.’ For <i>suggerere</i> Kiderlin compares i. 10. 7
artibus, quae ... vim occultam suggerunt, and v. 7. 8 ea res suggeret
materiam interrogationi: cp. also <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec13">§13</a> quorum nobis ubertatem ac divitias
dabit lectio, and ii. 2. 8 licet satis exemplorum ad imitandum ex
lectione suppeditet.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec16" id = "critI_sec16"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec16"><b>§16</b></a>.
<b>imagine et ambitu rerum</b>: so Harl. 2662 L S Ball. Burn. 243 and
Bodl.: followed by Spalding, Frotscher, Herbst, and Bonnell. GH give
<i>imagine ambitu rerum</i>. Halm (after Bursian) bracketed
<i>ambitu</i>: but it is more probable that <i>imagine</i> is a gloss on
<i>ambitu</i> than vice versa (so Hirt and Kiderlin), and Meister
accordingly (followed by Krüger 3rd ed.) reads [<i>imagine</i>]
<i>ambitu rerum</i>. It seems just as likely, however, that <i>et</i>
has fallen out. Hertz suggested <i>imagine ambituve rerum</i>: Maehly
thinks that <i>ambitu</i> was originally <i>tantum</i>.</p>
<p><b>nec fortune modo</b>. Gertz proposed <i>nec forma modo</i>: pro
Mil. §1 movet nos forma ipsa et species veri iudicii.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec17" id = "critI_sec17"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>.
<b>accommodata ut</b>: ed. Col. 1527, and so Meister and Krüger (3rd
ed.): <i>commodata ut</i> Halm (after Bursian): <i>commoda ut</i>
Spald., Frotsch., Herbst, and Bonnell. GHS give <i>commoda aut</i>:
L and all my MSS <i>commoda ut</i> (except Burn. 243 which shows
<i>comendat ut</i>).</p>
<p><b>et, ut semel dicam</b>. Kiderlin would delete <i>et</i>, rendering
‘Stimme, Aktion, Vortrag ist, um es kurz zu sagen, alles in gleicher
Weise belehrend.’</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec18" id = "critI_sec18"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>.
<b>placent—laudantur—placent</b>: so Halm and most edd.,
following S, with which all my MSS. agree. The emphasis gained by the
opposition of <i>placent</i> and <i>non placent</i> makes this reading
probable. But GH give <i>laudetur</i>: and so Meister and Krüger (3rd
ed.) prefer to follow Regius in reading
<i>placeant—laudentur—placent</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec19" id = "critI_sec19"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>.
<b>e contrario</b>. This reading, which Meister adopts from ‘edd.
vett.,’ occurs in
<span class = "pagenum">190</span>
Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. and Dorv. Becher
reports it also from the Vallensis. Halm wrote <i>contrarium</i>.</p>
<p><b>actionis impetu</b>, Spald. and Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>actionis
impetus</i> GH and all MSS. (except Vall., in which the s in
<i>impetus</i> has been deleted): <i>ut actionis impetus</i> Halm and
Meister.</p>
<p><b>tractemus</b> GHL: <i>tractamus</i> all my MSS.:
<i>retractemus</i> Spald., Halm, Meister. Becher (Phil. Rundsch. iii.
14. 429) supports <i>tractemus</i>, arguing that the phrase is a sort of
hendiadys = repetendo tractemus (cp. Frotscher, and Bonn. Proleg. to
Lex. p. xxxviii), or that the <i>re</i> of <i>repetamus</i> is to be
supplied in thought with <i>tractemus</i>: cp. Cic. de Div. 1 §1
‘praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum.’ <i>Tractamus</i> in <a
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec8">5 §8</a> also supports this
reading.</p>
<p><b>iteratione</b>, Harl. 4995 and Vall.<sup>2</sup>: most MSS.
<i>altercatione</i> (as G) or <i>alteratione</i> (as Harl.
2662).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec22" id = "critI_sec22"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>.
<b>illud vero</b>. The MSS. vary between <i>illa</i> (GH) and
<i>illud</i> (Harl. 4995 Vall.<sup>2</sup>). Kiderlin suggests <i>illa
... utilissima</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec23" id = "critI_sec23"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>.
<b>Quin <ins class = "correction" title = "text reads ‘etiamsi’: changed to agree with body text">etiam si</ins> ... tamen</b>: so all MSS.
Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.) accept Eussner’s proposal to exclude
<i>quin</i>. Becher on the other hand objects (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1887.
xv. 2, p. 9). From some points of view the deletion would be an
improvement: it would bring out better the chiastic arrangement,
<i>utilissimum ... utrimque habitas legere actiones</i> and <i>easdem
causas ... utile erit scire</i>. But (1) such careless repetition
(<i>quin etiam—quin etiam</i>) is not unusual in Quint.: and
(2) <i>si</i> when followed by <i>tamen</i> often = <i>etiamsi</i>:
Cic. pro Leg. Man. §50: pro Deiot. §25: Sall. Bell. Iug. 85, 48 &c.,
so that it is not necessary to connect <i>etiam</i> with it like
<i>etiamsi ... tamen</i> xi. 3. 48. The sentence (as recommending the
reading of the ‘minus pares actiones’) forms an exception to the rule
otherwise consistently followed, ‘non nisi optimus quisque legendus,’
&c.</p>
<p>Again Spalding, Bonnell, and Hild put the comma before, not after
<i>aliquae</i>, which they take with <i>requirentur</i> (‘yet in some
cases’). But this does not square with ‘quoties continget utrimque
habitas legere actiones,’—words which are distinctly against any
idea of <i>selecting from</i> the ‘minus pares.’</p>
<p><b>causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire</b>, Halm and Meister
following ed. Ald., and ed. Colon. 1527: <i>causas utile erit scire</i>
Vall.: all other codd. <i>causas utrisque erit scire</i>. Meister thinks
<i>non inutile</i> would be more in accordance with Quintilian’s usage.
Gemoll suggests <i>causas ut plures egerint intererit scire</i>, Kaibel
<i>ut quisque egerit e re erit scire</i>. Perhaps (with Becher)
<i>causas ut quisque egerit intererit scire</i>.</p>
<p>Kiderlin’s treatment of the passage merits a separate notice. He
accepts the first <i>quin etiam</i>, as the reading of the MSS., and
also as quite appropriate to the context (‘in cases even where the
combatants are not equally matched—as were Demosthenes and
Aeschines’). But he doubts whether Quintilian could have written two
sentences running, each beginning with <i>quin etiam</i>, and relies
greatly on the undoubted fact that in the second all the MSS. have
<i>quis etiam</i>,—<i>quin</i> being an emendation by Regius. The
MS. reading is <i>quis etiam easdem causas utrisque erit scire</i>: this
Kiderlin would at once convert into ‘quis etiam <i>illud utile neget</i>
(or, negat esse utile) easdem causas ut quisque egerit,
scire’?—comparing xii. 10. 48 ceterum hoc quod vulgo sententias
vocamus ... quis utile neget? But <i>ut quisque</i> does not quite
satisfy him. In the sequel reference is made to cases in which two and
even three orators have handled the same theme: Kiderlin therefore
proposes <i>ut duo tresque</i> for the MS. <i>utrisque</i>. The passage
would then run: ‘quis etiam <i>illud utile neget</i> (negat esse utile?)
easdem causas u<i>t duo</i> tr<i>e</i>sque (tresve?)
e<i>g</i>eri<i>n</i>t, scire<ins class = "correction" title = "close quote invisible">?’</ins> The position of <i>easdem causas</i> is due to
a desire for emphasis: and for the isolated position of <i>scire</i> cp.
v. 7. 2 quo minus et amicus pro amico et inimicus contra inimicum possit
verum, si integra sit ei fides, dicere.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">191</span>
<p><a name = "critI_sec28" id = "critI_sec28"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>.
<b>poeticam ostentationi comparatam</b>. This is Schöll’s conj. for the
MSS. <i>genus ostent. comparatum</i>, which is however defended by
Becher in Bursian’s Jahresb. (1887), p. 40: he contends that the
feminine participles below (<i>adligata</i>, <i>depulsa</i>) refer to
<i>poesis</i>, present in the mind of the writer, and that the text of
the MSS. is simply a case of constr. <span class = "greek" title = "kata sunesin">κατὰ σύνεσιν</span>: cp. ix. 2. 79: ib. 3 §3, and such
passages as Cic. Or. §68 ego autem etiamsi quorundam grandis et ornata
vox est poetarum, tamen in ea (sc. poesi), &c. This would support
also the traditional reading <i>nescio an ulla</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65">§65</a> below, where see note. Becher
explains the MS. reading as = genus (sc. poeticum or hoc genus) ostent.
comp. (esse)—Halm prints <i>genus * * * ostent.</i>, and
supposes that <i>poeseos</i> has fallen out.—For <i>genus</i> cp.
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§68</a>: de Or. ii. §55, where
<i>genus hoc</i> = history.</p>
<p>Schöll’s argument (Rhein. Mus. 34, p. 86) is that Quintilian
cannot have passed from <i>genus</i> to <i>adligata</i>: Halm’s <i>genus
poeseos</i> is not probable, in the light of Quintilian’s avoidance of
the word <i>poesis</i> (cp. xii. 11. 26, where it occurs once, and there
only in A <i>in rasura</i>—GM giving <i>poetas</i>, which was
probably at first the reading also of A: there Halm and Meister now read
<i>poetica</i>). The text may have been altered by interpolation from
viii. 3. 11: namque illud genus (sc. demonstrativum) ostentationi
compositum solam petit audientium voluptatem,—from which passage
<i>genus</i> may have been written in where the Greek <span class =
"greek" title = "poiêtikên">ποιητικήν</span> had fallen out, giving rise
to comparat<i>um</i>. Meister, who adopts <i>poeticam</i>, thinks it
probable that the Greek word started the corruption. Other suggestions
are <i>praeter id quod</i>, <i>genus ost. comp.</i>, <i>sol. petit
vol.</i> (Hild),—a transposition which does no good, especially as
it leaves no subject to ‘iuvari’: <i>figurarum sed esse hoc eloquentiae
genus ost. comp. et ... iuvari</i> (Binde); <i>fig.</i>, <i>ingenuam
ost. comparatam artem</i> (Gemoll); Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 164)
thinks we ought to assume a lacuna, and would read <i>poeticam (or
poesin?) ut illud demonstrativum genus</i>, <i>ostentationi
comparatam</i>: cp. ii. 10. 11: v. 10. 43: iii. 7. 28: viii. 3. 11.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec30" id = "critI_sec30"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec30"><b>§30</b></a>.
<b>neque ego</b>: Spald., Frotscher, Herbst, Halm, Meister. <i>Neque
ergo</i> all MSS. Bonnell and Frieze retain the reading of the MSS., the
latter explaining <i>ergo</i> ‘viz. because I have given this caution to
the orator about too close imitation of the poetic manner.’</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec31" id = "critI_sec31"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31"><b>§31</b></a>.
<b>quodam uberi</b>: Spald. for <i>quodam moveri</i> of GH and all MSS.
except Harl. 4995, Vail.<sup>2</sup> and Burn. 243, which give <i>quodam
molli</i>. Kiderlin suggests <i>quodammodo uberi</i>, thinking that
<i>uberi</i> became <i>ueri</i>, while the letters <i>mo</i> (in
<i>moveri</i>) point to <i>modo</i>: cp. ix. 1. 7 where A has
<i>quomo</i> for <i>quomodo</i>, and xi. 3. 97 where b has <i>homo</i>
for <i>hoc modo</i>. In the margin of Bodl. and Dorv. (both which have
<i>moveri</i>) I find <i>quodammodo vero</i>.</p>
<p><b>est enim</b>, <b>H</b>, which (like <b>G</b>) has <i>est</i> also
after <i>solutum</i>. Halm adopts Osann’s conjecture <i>etenim</i>:
Kiderlin suggests <i>ea enim</i> or <i>ista enim</i>, which may be
right. Becher defends the double <i>est</i> (<b>GH</b>), comparing ix.
3. 7 quod minus mirum est, quia in natura verborum est, and i. 3. 14
(reading servile est et ... iniuria est).</p>
<p><b>poetis</b>, <b>H</b>, following b: <i>poesi</i> Spald. ‘recte ut
videtur,’ Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec33" id = "critI_sec33"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33"><b>§33</b></a>.
<b>adde quod</b>, Regius followed by Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.).
<i>audeo quia</i> GH; <i>audio quia</i> L S Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662,
&c. Halm adopted Geel’s conj. <i>ideoque</i>: and the Bonn. Meister
ed. reads <i>adeo</i>. Becher proposes <i>quid? quod</i>: Kiderlin <i>id
eo magis (fortius) dicere audeo</i>. The last conj. revives what I find
is the reading of some old edd. (e.g. ed. Col. 1527 and Riccius 1570)
<i>quod dicere fortius audeo quia</i>, except that from <i>id eo</i> the
eye might pass more easily to <i>audeo</i>.</p>
<p><b>opus</b>, accepted from Spalding (who conjectured it
independently) by Halm and Meister, already appears in ed. Col. 1527 and
in that of Riccius 1570.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec34" id = "critI_sec34"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec34"><b>§34</b></a>.
<b>rerum exemplorumque</b>. Kiderlin suspects a lacuna after
<i>rerum</i> and suggests <i>ex cognitione rerum enim venit copia
exemplorum</i>. His argument is that
<span class = "pagenum">192</span>
while ‘ex cognitione rerum’ might serve as a sort of explanation of ‘ex
historiis,’ ‘exemplorumque’ must also be accounted for, and that after
‘locum’ we expect to hear what advantage is derived from historical
literature, not from what that advantage arises. The omission by a
copyist of <i>enim venit copia</i> explains how <i>exemplorum</i> comes
to be joined with <i>rerum</i>: cp. xii. 4. 1 in primis vero abundare
debet orator exemplorum copia cum veterum tum etiam novorum, and esp.
ii. 4. 20 et multa inde cognitio rerum venit exemplisque, quae sunt in
omni genere potentissima, iam tum instruit, cum res poscet, usurum. For
<i>ne omnia</i> (Badius and Vall.<sup>2</sup>) the codd. give <i>nec
omnia</i>, which Becher prefers.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec35" id = "critI_sec35"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec35"><b>§35</b></a>.
<b>vitio factum est oratorum</b>. G gives <i>est orum</i> with <i>al.
oratorum</i> written in above by the hand which Halm calls b. H (with
FTLS Bodl.) gives <i>est alia oratorum</i>,—one of many strong
indications that it was copied from G: for <i>alia</i> some MSS. give
<i>alias</i>. Halm (ii. p. 369) thinks that <i>orum</i> in G may
have stood for <i>rhetorum</i>.</p>
<p><b>quae sunt istis</b>. GHLS and Vall. all give <i>sint</i>. But
iniusta, inhonesta, inutilia are as definite as their contraries.</p>
<p><b>Stoici</b> supplied by Meister, whom Krüger follows. Kiderlin
would place it after <i>maxime</i>, just as <i>Socratici</i> stands
after <i>optime</i>. Perhaps <i>Stoici</i> and <i>Socratici</i> are both
glosses. Quint. may simply be saying that philosophical reading improves
the matter of oratory (<i>de iustis</i>, &c.) and also the form (by
<i>altercationes</i> and <i>interrogationes</i>). <i>Stoici</i> looks
appropriate to <i>de rebus divinis</i> (see note): and <i>argumentantur
acriter</i> is quite in place as referring to the Stoic logic, renowned
for its acuteness (Zeller, Epic. & Stoics, p. 118): but on the
other hand <i>interrogationibus</i> would be as apt in regard to them as
to the Socratics. Cp. de Or. i. §43 Stoici vero nostri disputationum
suarum atque <i>interrogationum</i> laqueis te inretitum tenerent.</p>
<p>On the alternative explanation of the passage mentioned in the note,
<i>altercationibus</i> and <i>interrogationibus</i> are taken as datives
(as often in Quint. after <i>praeparo</i>), referring to two
well-understood parts of the duty of a counsel in an action-at-law. As
regards the <i>altercatio</i> indeed, previous writers on rhetoric had
not stated any special rules for its conduct, probably (as Quint., in
his treatment of the subject, suggests vi. 4. 1) because it was
sufficiently covered by precepts of a more general kind. In a
court-of-law, the <i>altercatio</i> was a discussion carried on between
opposing advocates in the way of short answers or retorts: it followed
(when resorted to) the examination of the witnesses, which was in Roman
usage <i>preceded</i> by the main speeches for the prosecution and
defence, embracing all the facts of the case (Cic. in Verr. i. 1 §55).
Cp. Cic. Brut. §159 iam in altercando (Crassus) invenit parem
neminem.—See Poiret, <i>L’éloquence judiciaire à Rome</i>
pp. 212-216.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec37" id = "critI_sec37"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37"><b>§37</b></a>.
<b>qui sint legendi</b>. Halm, Meister: GHL and all MSS. <i>qui sint.
Legendi</i> appears in ed. Col. 1527, and I have found it also inserted
by a later hand above the line in the Bodleian codex. It may have fallen
out because of <i>legendo</i> above, and Spalding is probably right in
regarding it as indispensable. There seems however no reason for
eliminating the asyndeton by reading <i>et quae</i> (with Meister) or
<i>quaeque</i> (Halm). Kiderlin (Hermes, 23, 1888 p, 160) suggests that
the original may have run <i>qui sint qui prosint</i>: cp. <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §14</a> tum in ipsis quos
elegerimus quid sit ad quod nos efficiendum comparemus: xii. 2. 4 quid
sit quod memoriam faciat. This suits the context, cum tantum
<i>utilitatis</i> in legendo iudicemus, and <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> paucos enim ... utilitatis
aliquid. Cp. ii. 5. 20 nec prodesse tantum sed etiam amari potest
(Cicero).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec38" id = "critI_sec38"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec38"><b>§38</b></a>.
<b>[quibuscum vivebat]</b> is bracketed by Krüger (3rd ed.), as it had
already been by Frotscher and Herbst. This reading first appears in the
Aldine edition: the only MS. in which I have been able to find any trace
of it is Burn. 243, where <i>quibuscum convivebat</i> is inserted as a
correction. Some have refused to recognise it as a gloss, in spite of
the uncertainty of the MSS., and have sought to interpret it ‘with whom
he lived in close, familiar intercourse’ (opp. to quos viderim <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98">§§98</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec118">118</a>): cp. Cic. de
<span class = "pagenum">193</span>
Off. i. §143 quibuscum vivimus, ib. §46. But in Brut. §231 Cicero
distinctly says in hoc sermone nostro statui neminem eorum qui viverent
nominare, whence Jeep was led to conj. <i>qui quidem viverent</i>:
Hortensius, for example, was ‘aetatis suae,’ but had died four years
before the date of the Brutus. So Geel conjectured <i>qui tum
vivebant</i> (a reading which however I find in the ed. Col. 1527
and Riccius 1570): Törnebladh <i>qui quidem tum vivebant</i>, Wrobel
<i>qui tunc vigebant</i> (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec122">§122</a>), Zambaldi <i>ut quisque tum
vivebat</i>, and Kiderlin <i>qui quidem nondum e vita excesserant</i>;
see Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 23. Andresen proposed to read <i>qui quidem
sescenti erant</i>.</p>
<p>G (and practically H) gives <i>quidqui convivebit</i>. FT part
company with H, the former reading <i>quod quid convivabit</i>, the
latter <i>quidque contuuebit</i> (man. sec. <i>quod quisque
contuebat</i>). Many MSS. (e.g. Bodl. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995 LS) have
<i>quid quisque convivebat</i> (<i>convivabit</i> L). The
Carcassonensis gives <i>quid quod convivabit</i>.</p>
<p><b>persequamur [et philosophos].</b> <i>Persequamur</i> is a conj. of
Regius adopted by Meister: all MSS. give <i>et Graecos omnes et
philosophos</i> (<i>philosophis</i> HFT). In Harl. 4995 (which is dated
<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1470) I have however found
<i>et philosophos exequar</i>: and so (Becher) a later hand in Vall. The
reading of the ed. Col. 1527 is <i>Graecos omnes et philosophos et
poetas persequi velim</i>.</p>
<p>Schmidt, followed by Halm, rejected <i>et philosophos</i> as a gloss,
as both here and in the next sentence Quint. is evidently speaking of
orators only. Certainly, if it stood, we should expect the poets and
historians to come in also. Accordingly Claussen (Quaest. Quint.
p. 335) suspected a lacuna consisting both of the finite verb and
the poets and historians: Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts his conjecture and
reads <i>si et illos et qui postea fuerunt et Graecos omnes persequamur
et poetas et historicos et philosophos?</i> He cps. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec25">1 §25</a> nam si, quantum de quaque re
dici potest, persequamur, finis operis non reperietur: v. 10. 91: viii.
5. 25. So Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 520), except that he omits
‘persequamur,’ and proposes to read above <i>de Romanis tantum</i> et
<i>oratoribus</i> for <i>et</i> in sense of ‘and that’: cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51">§§51</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94">94</a>. Gertz suggests <i>et Graecos omnes
persequi velis nec oratores tantum, sed etiam poetas et historicos et
philosophos</i>. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahr. xiv. 1888, p. 62 sq.)
prefers <i>persequamur</i> because of <i>iudicemus</i> and
<i>adiungamus</i> above. If the verb could be dispensed with, he would
propose ‘et praeter hos oratores etiam omnes poetas et historicos et
philosophos,’—arguing that et praeter hos and philosophos may have
run together in the eye of the copyist and so caused the lacuna. For
<i>et philosophos</i> Jeep suggested <i>explico novos</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec39" id = "critI_sec39"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39"><b>§39</b></a>.
<b>fuit igitur</b>, all codd.: <i>fuerit</i>, Regius. That the
difficulty of the passage was felt by the early editors is obvious from
this emendation, and also from the fact that in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> the traditional reading has been
<i>non est tamen</i> (for <i>non est</i>): <i>sed non est</i>, Spalding:
<i>at non est</i> Osann.</p>
<p>Taking <a name = "critI_sec40" id = "critI_sec40">§§37-45</a>
as they stand the sequence of thought seems to be
this: ‘If I am asked to recommend individual writers I shall have to
take refuge in some such utterance as that of Livy. His <i>dictum</i>
was “read Demosthenes and Cicero first, and let others follow in the
order of their resemblance to Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mine is that
there is some good to be got out of almost every author,—except of
course the utterly worthless. But (<i>sed non quidquid</i>, &c. <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a>) the particular object I
have in view itself supplies a limitation for what would otherwise be an
endless task (<i>infiniti operis</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">§37</a>). My business is the formation of
style. In regard to this matter there is a difference of opinion—a
cleavage between the old school and the new (see esp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec43">§43</a><ins class = "correction" title =
"period invisible">).</ins> This opens up the whole question of the
various <i>genera dicendi</i>, a detailed examination of which I must
postpone: for the present I shall take the various departments of
literature (<i>genera lectionum</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">§45</a>) and mention in connection
therewith certain representative writers who may serve as models for the
students of style (<i>(iis) qui confirmare facultatem dicendi
volent</i>).’</p>
<p>This seems satisfactory enough, especially in the case of so loose a
writer as Quintilian.
<span class = "pagenum">194</span>
§§39 and 40 are parallel, instead of being antithetical: <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a> says ‘Livy’s prescription was the
safest,’ while <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§40</a> gives a
general utterance on the part of Quintilian. In each deliverance
<i>brevitas</i> is meant to be the distinguishing characteristic of
individual representatives of poetry, history, oratory, and
philosophy.</p>
<p>In his <i>Beiträge zur Heilung der Ueberlieferung in Quintilians
Institutio Oratoria</i> (Cassel, 1889), Dr. Heinrich Peters makes some
very drastic proposals in regard to the sections under discussion. He
fails to see any satisfactory connection between the purport of <a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">§§40-42</a> and that of <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec37">§§37-39</a>. And he thinks the statement
of a <i>summa iudicii</i> in §40 is inconsistent with the special
treatment of individual authors which begins at <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46">§46</a>. On these and other grounds he
proposes to transfer §§40-42 (down to <i>accommodatum</i>) to <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> and read: <i>interim non est
dissimulanda nostri quoque iudicii summa</i>. <i>Summa iudicii</i> then
furnishes the antithesis to <i>disseram diligentius</i>: <i>nostri
quoque iudicii</i> receives additional point from the reference to
conflicting views which immediately precede it: an explanation is gained
of the emphasis laid in §§40-41 on the distinction between the
<i>veteres</i> and the <i>novi</i>,—the later sections <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec43">§§43-44</a> explain the preceding
(§§40-42): and the transition from Livy’s dictum in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a> to <i>verum antequam de
singulis</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a> is
natural and easy. Then Dr. Peters would propose to continue: <i>quid
sumat</i> (for <i>summatim</i>, see below) <i>et a qua lectione petere
possit qui confirmare facultatem dicendi volet attingam</i>. This gives
a very satisfactory and even a necessary sequel, he thinks, to <i>non
quidquid ... accommodatum</i>. Sections <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec40">40-42</a> are then addressed, not to the
student of rhetoric, but to the disputants who quarrel over the
comparative merits of the <i>veteres</i> and the <i>novi</i>: Quintilian
says ‘something may be learned from everybody.’ Then he continues ‘for
the formation of style a selection is necessary, and that I now proceed
to make under the two heads of what the student is to appropriate and to
whom he is to go for it.’</p>
<p><b>quae est apud Livium, &c.</b> Schöll unnecessarily conjectured
<i>qua praecipit Livius</i> (cp. ii. 5. 20) or <i>qua apud Livium in ep.
ad fil. praescribitur</i>,—doubting if <i>brevitas</i> could have
an acc. and infin. depending on it. But see note. G gives <i>quae
apud Livium epistula</i>, <i>in</i> being inserted by the second hand,
which H as usual follows.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec42" id = "critI_sec42"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42"><b>§42</b></a>.
<b>ad faciendam <span class = "greek" title =
"phrasin">φράσιν</span></b>. This is the reading now proposed by
Kiderlin (in Hermes, vol. xxiii. p. 161), though <span class =
"greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> appeared as early as the edition
of Riccius (1570). The following are the MSS. readings <i>ad farisin</i>
G: <i>ad faciendam etiam ad farisin</i> H (<i>affaresim</i> S. Harl.
2662 Bodl. Ball. <i>apharesim</i> Harl. 4295) <i>ad faciendam
affarisin</i> L. Meister adopts the vulgate, <i>ad faciendam etiam
phrasin</i>: Halm reads <i>ad phrasin</i>.</p>
<p>The parallel passage in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">§87</a> clearly makes for
<i>faciendam</i>. The probability is that ‘phrasin’ was originally
written in Greek, as at viii. 1 §1: cp. <span class = "greek" title =
"hexis">ἕξις</span> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec1">§1</a>: <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59">§59</a>: <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1">5 §1</a>, where the MSS. vary between
<i>ex his</i>, <i>lexis</i>, <i>exitum</i>, &c.: <span class =
"greek" title = "tropikôs">τροπικῶς</span> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec11">§11</a>. Cp. on <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">§87</a>. Two Paris MSS. (acc. to Zumpt)
show <span class = "greek" title = "apheresin">ἀφέρεσιν</span>.
<i>Etiam</i> Kiderlin rejects: perhaps however the true reading may be
<i>protinus</i> et <i>ad faciendam</i> <span class = "greek" title =
"phrasin">φράσιν</span>.</p>
<p><b>de singulis loquar</b>, G man. 2 H L and Vall. Halm omits
<i>loquar</i>, with G.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec44" id = "critI_sec44"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44"><b>§44</b></a>.
<b>tenuia atque quae</b>. In a very interesting note (Programm des
königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, 1891, p. 8) Becher establishes
the correctness of this reading, instead of the traditional <i>tenuia et
quae</i>. The Vallensis has <i>tenuia atque que</i> (i.e. <i>atque
quae</i>): for what may appear a cacophony, Becher compares i. 3. 8
atque ea quoque quae, Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 33. 90 atque qui. ‘That V
(Vall.) has preserved the true reading is confirmed by the other
codices: not only S, which gives <i>tenia atque que</i>, but also GL
[and H], <i>tenui atque</i>, which is nothing else than <span class = "extended">tenui</span>
AtQUE, i.e. tenuia atque quae.’ In the Rh. Mus. xi. (‘zur Kritik
der ciceronischen Briefe’ pp. 512-13) Buecheler says, ‘One of the
commonest sources of corruption in the Florentine codex is that when two
“consonant syllables” follow each other, one is omitted. The
<span class = "pagenum">195</span>
reason of this phenomenon is probably the fact that in the archetype of
which this MS. is an indirect copy the sounds which were to be repeated
were distinguished by letters of a larger size.’ Becher finds the same
phenomenon in the manuscripts of Quintilian, and gives the following
examples, selected at random from many others: <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45">§45</a> aliquos G(H)LSV, i.e.
<span class = "extended">ali</span>QUOS = aliquos quos: <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54">§54</a> reddit G(H)V, i.e.
<span class = "extended">red</span>D<span class = "extended">It</span> = reddidit (so cod. Almen.): <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79">§79</a> auditoris S (audituris G,
also H), i.e. <span class = "extended">auditorIs</span> = auditoriis (as Vall. M: also Ball.
Dorv. Burn. 244 Harl. 4829, 4995): ibid. comparat GMS (and all my codd.)
i.e. <span class = "extended">comp</span>A<span class = "extended">Rat</span> = compararat: <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec84">§84</a> probandoque G (and H) =
<span class = "extended">probando</span>QUE: <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec89">§89</a>
etiam sit G (see Crit. Note <i>ad loc.</i>) = etiam SIt. Especially
significant is ix. 4. 41 o fortunatam me consule Romam AGM, i.e. o
<span class = "extended">fortuNATAM</span> me consule Romam.—Becher finds a further ground
for <i>atque</i>, as connecting ‘quae minimum ab usu cotidiano recedunt’
more closely than <i>et</i>, in the fact that already in Cicero
<i>tenuis</i> is used of a person of the commoner sort, ‘unus de
multis,’ de Leg. iii. 10. 24.</p>
<p><b>lenis ... generis</b>. For <i>lenis</i> Krüger (3rd ed.) reads
<i>levis</i>, adopting a conj. of Meyer (Halm ii. p. 369) for which
cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52">§52</a> (levitas verborum)
and v. 12. 18 (levia ac nitida): supported by Becher Phil. Runds. iii.
14. 430. In this sense <i>levis</i> (<span class = "greek" title =
"leios">λεῖος</span>) is opp. to <i>asper</i>: cp. de Orat. iii. §171
struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed
quodam modo coagmentatus et <i>levis</i>: cp. §172: Orat. §20: Quint.
ii. 5. 9 <i>levis</i> et quadrata compositio: de Orat. iii. §201 levitas
coniunctionis: Brut. §96: de Opt. Gen. Or. §2: Quint. viii. 3. 6.</p>
<p><b>interim</b>. H. Peters would prefer <i>nunc</i> (if the text
stands as it is), comparing v. 11. 5; 14. 33: ix. 4. 19.</p>
<p><b>summatim quid et a qua</b>. Kiderlin approves of Meister’s
retention of the vulgate: <i>petere</i> must have an object. So Krüger,
3rd ed. The original reading in G is <i>sumat et a qua</i>, corrected to
<i>sumat quia et a qua</i>, which occurs in HFTL. Bodl. Ball, and my
other MSS. agree with S in reading <i>summa</i> for <i>sumat</i>. Even
if the text stands (without his proposed inversion) H. Peters would
prefer <i>quid sumat et a qua</i>, as nearer the MSS.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec45" id = "critI_sec45"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec45"><b>§45</b></a>.
<b>paucos enim qui sunt eminentissimi</b>. Meister and Krüger 3rd ed.
have <i>paucos</i> (<i>sunt enim em.</i>) =‘nur wenige’: cp. hos (sc.
tantum) <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91">§91</a>. Halm reads
<i>paucos enim</i> (<i>sunt autem em.</i>) GH give <i>paucos enim sunt
em</i>. L and the British Museum MSS. all read <i>paucos sunt
enim</i>. The text is that of ed. Col. 1527 adopted by Zambaldi, and
approved by Kiderlin: cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a> qui sunt dulciores: ix 4. 37
quae sunt asperiores. Osann proposed <i>paucos enim</i>, <i>sunt
enim</i>.</p>
<p><b>his simillimi</b>, Halm, supported by Becher, who compares <a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec39">§39</a>: <i>his similes</i> Meister and
Krüger (3rd ed.). G has <i>hi similibus</i>, corrected by the same
hand to <i>simillimis</i>: H gives <i>his simillimis</i>: all the
other MSS. <i>his simillimi</i>.</p>
<p><b>plures</b> is the common reading, and occurs in Harl. 4995, and
also Vall. (Becher). GHFT give <i>plurimis</i>: LS and the later MSS.
generally <i>plurimos</i>. Kiderlin proposes <i>pluris iis</i> as being
nearer <i>plurimis</i>. The pronoun, he argues, is not superfluous,
because Quintilian is distinguishing between ‘qui confirmare fac. dic.
volent’ (i.e. those who have finished their rhetorical studies and want
practice) and the ‘studiosi’ (young men busy with theory). The latter
will read more authors than those for whom <i>this</i> book is intended,
its aim being (§4) to instruct the young orator (after the stage of
theory) how best and most readily to use what he has acquired.—For
<i>aliquos quos</i> see on <i>tenuia atque quae</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> above.</p>
<p><b>qui a me nominabuntur</b>, ed. Col. 1527; GH have <i>quia
nom</i>.: Vall. LS <i>qui nom</i>. Hertz rejects <i>a me</i>, and he may
be right.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec46" id = "critI_sec46"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec46"><b>§46</b></a>.
<b>omnium fluminum</b>. GHL Bodl. <i>annium</i>: S Harl. 2662, 4950,
Ball. <i>amnium vim</i>. Halm, following Osann, read <i>omnium
amnium</i>: but though <i>omnium</i> is necessary (cp. <span class =
"greek" title = "pantes potamoi">πάντες ποταμοί</span> Il. 21. 196),
Quintilian would surely have avoided such
<span class = "pagenum">196</span>
a cacophony as <i>omnium amnium</i>. Wölfflin conjectured <i>omnium
fluminum</i> (Rhein. Mus. 42, Pt. 1, 1887, p. 144), and this is now
accepted by Meister (vol. ii. p. 362 and Pref. to Book x,
p. xiii). Wölfflin supposes that the archetype had <i>omnium
fontiumque</i>, <i>fluminum</i> having fallen out: <i>omnium</i> was
then corrected into <i>amnium</i>. <i>Amnis</i> however is rare, and
<i>fluminum</i> not only secures an apt alliteration, but is constantly
found: cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78">§78</a> puro fonti
quam magno flumini propior: viii. 3. 76 magnorum fluminum navigabiles
fontes: Lucr. iv. 1024: v. 261, 945 (‘fluvii fontesque’): Ovid Met. i.
334.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec47" id = "critI_sec47"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec47"><b>§47</b></a>.
<b>ac consiliorum</b> L: <i>hac con.</i> G: <i>et con.</i> Prat. Put.
<i>atque con.</i> 7231, 7696.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec48" id = "critI_sec48"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec48"><b>§48</b></a>.
<b>operis sui ingressu</b>: <i>operis si ingressus</i> GH: <i>operis
sui</i> Bodl.: <i>operis</i> Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Dorv.
Ball. Badius conj. <i>ingressu</i>, and Halm added <i>in</i>, which is
however unnecessary: cp. iv. 1. 34 operum suorum principiis: iv. pr. 4
initiis operum suorum. Becher keeps <i>ingressus</i>, but makes it a
genitive dependent on <i>versibus</i>.</p>
<p>Two Oxford MSS (Bodl. and Dorvilianus) give <i>nam</i> for
<i>non</i>, and in the former case the <i>nam</i> looks very like
<i>viam</i>. It is possible that <i>viam</i> may be the true reading:
cp. ii. 10. 1 quarum (materiarum) antequam viam ingredior ... pauca
dicenda sunt,—though there the phrase refers to entering on the
<i>regular treatment</i> of a subject. <i>Age vero</i> is not always
found with questions, Hand Turs. i. p. 211. Without <i>non</i>, the
reading may possibly be <i>age vero viam utriusque operis ingressus, in
paucissimis</i>, &c. The <i>si</i> after <i>operis</i> may have
arisen from operi s ingressus. The MSS. are unanimous for
<i>ingressus</i>, and the awkwardness of operis sui ingressu in pauc.
vers. makes it very probable that something is wrong. <i>Utrumque opus
ingressus</i> would have been more natural: <i>viam utriusque operis
ingressus</i> is not far off it. Perhaps however it would be preferable
to keep the question and read <i>nonne viam ut. op. ingressus</i>.</p>
<p><b>nam benevolum</b>. <i>nam et ben</i>, Put. 7231, 7696: so too the
Carcassonensis.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec49" id = "critI_sec49"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec49"><b>§49</b></a>.
<b>ceteraque genera</b>. GHL and the Brit. Mus. MSS. give <i>ceteraque
quae</i>: so too Bodl. and Ball. <i>Genera</i> was conjectured by Caesar
(Philol. xiii. p. 757). Schöll (in Krüger 3rd ed.) proposes
<i>ceteraeque viae ... multae</i>: Kiderlin <i>ceteraque, quae probandi
ac refutandi sunt, nonne sunt ita multa ut ... petant?</i> For <i>quae
... sunt</i> he compares <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">§106</a> omnia denique quae sunt
inventionis.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec50" id = "critI_sec50"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec50"><b>§50</b></a>.
<b>ut magni sit</b>. G Burn. 243: Ball.: Bodl.: <i>sint</i> H: <i>ut
magni sit viri</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950,
4829, Dorv., Burn. 244 (<i>sint</i> L): <i>ut magnum sit</i>,
Gensler: <i>ut magni sit spiritus</i>, Kiderlin (cp. i. 9. 6).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec51" id = "critI_sec51"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec51"><b>§51</b></a>.
<b>et in omni</b>: <i>et</i> om. Prat. and Put.</p>
<p><b>clarissima</b> LS and most codd.: <i>durissima</i> GHT Prat. Put.
7231, 7696, Dorv.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec52" id = "critI_sec52"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec52"><b>§52</b></a>.
<b>utiles circa praecepta</b>, &c. Kraffert proposed <i>utilis circa
praecepta sententiasque levitas verborum</i> ... With <i>praecepta</i>
may there not have been a genitive in the original text: <i>utilis circa
praecepta sapientiae</i> (pr. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec19">§19</a>: i. 4. 4: xii. 1. 28), or perhaps
<i>utiles circa morum praecepta sententiae</i> (xii. ii. 9)?</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec53" id = "critI_sec53"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53"><b>§53</b></a>.
<b>secundum</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, Vall. LS Harl. 2662, 4995 Dorv.
Ball.: om. GHFT Bodl. Halm, following Hertz, gives <i>parem</i> (cp. <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127">§127</a> pares ac saltem proximo):
<i>aequalem</i> would be as probable, and is given by some MSS. in <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec55">§55</a>. Schöll now thinks
<i>secundum</i> an old interpolation, and conjectures <i>quam sit aliud
atque aliud proximum esse</i>, cp. i. 7. 2: ix. 4. 90.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec54" id = "critI_sec54"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec54"><b>§54</b></a>.
<b>poetarum iudices</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, LS Ball. <i>iudicium</i>
G, <i>iuditium</i> H. Halm suspected it to be a gloss introduced
from the margin (cp. laus Ciceronis <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109">§109</a>) and Mayor removed it from the
text.</p>
<p><b>reddidit</b> cod. Almen.: <i>reddit</i> GHFT Vall. Harl. 4995
Bodl. Burn. 243. <i>Edidit</i> is given in Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl.
2662, 4950, 4829 Dorv. and Ball., besides L and S.</p>
<p><b>sufficit</b> MSS.: Halm would prefer <i>suffecit</i> (cp. <a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123">§123</a>). For <i>parem</i> many MSS.
<span class = "pagenum">197</span>
give <i>equalem</i>, which must have been a gloss: S has <i>equalem
credidit parem</i>, and so Prat. (Fierville Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelxxix">p. lxxix</a>) Harl. 2662 (<span
class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) and 11671 (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1467).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec56" id = "critI_sec56"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec56"><b>§56</b></a>.
<b>Macer atque Vergilius</b>. Unger suggested <i>Valgius</i> for
Vergilius. This is however unnecessary, though it has been proposed to
insert the comma after <i>Vergilius</i> instead of after <i>idem</i>
below.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec59" id = "critI_sec59"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec59"><b>§59</b></a>.
<b>adsequimur</b> GHS Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Bodl. Ball. Dorv. and
British Mus. MSS. (except 4950 which gives C and L’s <i>assequatur</i>
and 4829 which has <i>assecuntur</i>). Halm reads <i>adsequamur</i>, and
is followed by Meister. Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes <i>ut
adsequamur</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec60" id = "critI_sec60"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60"><b>§60</b></a>.
<b>quibusdam quod quoquam minor est</b>. GH give <i>quibus</i> for
quibusdam: Prat. Put. S and all my MSS. have <i>quibusdam quod quidem
minor est</i>: (<i>minoris</i> Bodl. Burn. 243): <i>quod quodam</i>
7696. Wölfflin (Rhein. Mus. xlii. Pt. 2, p. 310) proposes <i>quod
idem amarior est</i>: <i>amarus</i> (§117) indicates the excess of
<i>acerbitas</i> (§96) which might be alleged against Archilochus for
his lampoons on Lycambes. Cp. iamborum amaritudinem Tac. Dial. 10. But
<i>quoquam</i> (Madv. 494 b) does not necessarily imply that there
<i>is</i> any one superior to the great Archilochus, though, outside the
range of iambographi, Homer is always present (§65) to the writer’s
mind. <i>Quoquam</i> is not to be restricted to the narrow circle of
iambic writers, otherwise <i>materiae</i> would have no point.
Quintilian means that Archilochus must be ranked immediately after
Homer, if indeed the disadvantage of his subject-matter forbids us to
place him alongside of Homer. That he had a schoolmaster’s liking for an
‘order of merit’ is shown by <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec53">§§53</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec62">62</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">85</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">86</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec61" id = "critI_sec61"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec61"><b>§61</b></a>.
<b>spiritu, magnificentia</b>, Put. 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671,
Dorv.: <i>spiritus</i> H (<i>sps.</i>) Prat. 7231 Harl. 4950 Burn. 243
Bodl. Ball., and so Halm and Meister. The strongest argument for the
abl. is that the nouns go together in pairs,—spiritu
magnificentia, sententiis figuris, copia ... flumine. So Claussen
(Quaest. Quint. p. 334), who compares Dion. Hal. <span class =
"greek" title = "arch. kr.">ἀρχ. κρ.</span> 2. 5, p. 420 R
<span class = "greek" title = "zêlôtos de kai Pindaros onomatôn kai noêmatôn heineka, kai megaloprepeias kai tonou, kai periousias .... kai schêmatismôn">ζηλωτὸς δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων εἵνεκα, καὶ
μεγαλοπρεπείας καὶ τόνου, καὶ περιουσίας .... καὶ
σχηματισμῶν</span>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec62" id = "critI_sec62"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec62"><b>§62</b></a>.
<b>Stesichorum Badius</b>: <i>iste sichorus</i> GH: <i>Stesichorus</i>
Bodl. 7696: <i>Stesicorus</i> Harl. 4995: other MSS. <i>Terpsichorus</i>
or <i>Terpsicorus</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec63" id = "critI_sec63"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec63"><b>§63</b></a>.
<b>magnificus et diligens et plerumque oratori similis</b>: GH
<i>magnificus et dicendi et plerumque orationis similis</i>; so Burn.
243 and Bodl. (<i>orationi</i>); most other MSS. <i>et diligens
plurimusque</i> (<i>plurimum</i> or <i>plurimumque</i>) <i>Homero
similis</i>: <i>plurimumque oratio</i>, Prat. Put.: <i>plerumque
orationis</i> 7231, 7696. Halm gives <i>dicendi vi</i>, which, after
<i>in eloquendo</i>, would be strange. Wölfflin proposes <i>elegans
et</i> (for dicendi et, diligens et): cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78">§§78</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83">83</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87">87</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec93">93</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec114">114</a>, and Dion. Hal. l.c. <span class
= "greek" title = "Alkaiou de skopei to megalophues kai brachu kai hêdu meta deinotêtos ... kai pro pantôn to tôn politikôn pragmatôn êthos">Ἀλκαίου δὲ σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετὰ δεινότητος
... καὶ πρὸ πάντων τὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων ἦθος</span>. Halm’s
<i>dicendi vi</i> rested on <span class = "greek" title = "meta deinotêtos">μετὰ δεινότητος</span>, but we need not suppose that
Quintilian translated word for word from Dionysius<!-- meaning
Quintilian took liberties, hmm? -->. With <i>in eloquendo</i>,
<i>diligens</i> seems quite appropriate: i. §3 cum sit in eloquendo
positum oratoris officium.</p>
<p><b>Sed et lusit</b>, Prat. Put. Voss. 1 and 3: <i>sed et eius sit</i>
GH: <i>sed in lusus</i> MS Ball. Dorv.: <i>sed editus sit</i> Bodl.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec64" id = "critI_sec64"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64"><b>§64</b></a>.
<b>eius operis</b>: <i>ei</i> GH: <i>eius</i> M Bodl. Burn. 243:
<i>eiusdem</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829,
Burn. 244, Dorv., Ball. In Prat. and Put. the order is <i>in hac parte
omnibus eum eiusdem operis</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec65" id = "critI_sec65"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec65"><b>§65</b></a>.
<b>est et in</b>. The MSS. give <i>etsi est</i>: Wölfflin conjectured
<i>est et</i>, and Halm, (following some old edd.) inserted <i>in</i>,
comparing <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">§§64</a> and <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">68</a>. So too Meister. <i>Etsi</i> may
have crept into the text to anticipate <i>tamen</i> (ii. 5. 19): or the
true reading may be <i>est et etsi in</i>. Schöll suggests (Krüger, 3rd
ed. p. 92) that the passage ought to run as follows:—<i>ant.
com. cum sincera illa sermonis Attici gratia prope sola retinet</i>
<span class = "pagenum">198</span>
<i>vim</i> (<i>dum</i> G, <i>tum</i> vulg.) <i>fac. libertatis, et si
est in insect. vitiis praecip.</i>, <i>plur. tamen</i>, &c.</p>
<p><b>nescio an ulla</b>. This is the reading of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696,
M, S, Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 11671, Dorv. Ball., and if it can be
sustained, the sense it gives is quite satisfactory. We must suppose
that <i>poesis</i> (probably the only fem. noun that would suit) was
present in the writer’s mind: see on <i>poeticam</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a> above.</p>
<p>But in Quint. <i>poesis</i> occurs only once (cp. on <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a>),—at xii. 11. 26, where it
is not used of a special branch of poetry, as here; and even there a
doubt has been expressed about the reading. Kiderlin therefore urges
(Hermes 23, p. 163) that it is incredible that Quintilian would
have left his readers to supply for themselves a word which he uses only
once, if at all: <i>ullum genus</i> would surely have occurred to him,
as both genus and opus are constantly used to denote departments of
literature. Again the text gives <i>post</i> not <i>praeter</i> Homerum.
Founding on the reading <i>an illa</i> (GHFT Burn. 243 Bodl.) Kiderlin
therefore suggests <i>an illa poeta ullo post</i> &c.: ‘und ich
weiss nicht, ob nicht jene mehr als irgend ein Dichter (nach Homer
jedoch, &c.).’ The copyist would easily wander from <i>poet.</i> to
<i>post</i>, and it is not unusual to compare old comedy &c. with
the poets and not their works (cp. similior oratoribus: historia proxima
poetis est <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec31">§31</a>: at non
historia cesserit Graecis <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a>); especially as here <i>post
Homerum</i> follows at once. For <i>ullo</i> cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec60">§60</a> quod quoquam minor est. An
alternative emendation would be <i>poesi ulla</i>.</p>
<p>The <i>aut ... aut</i> immediately below is very much against this
conjecture, which however Krüger (3rd ed.) has received into the text:
we should expect rather <i>nescio an illa quisquam</i>, or <i>nullus
poeta</i>, or keeping <i>illa</i> as nominative <i>nescio an illa poeta
ullo</i>. Quintilian’s use of <i>nescio an</i> (like that of
post-Augustan writers generally) is vague: it is usually an expression
of doubt, the <i>an</i> meaning either ‘whether,’ or ‘whether not’
indifferently. Cp. ix. 4. 1: vi. 3. 6: viii. 6. 22: xii. 10. 2: i. 7.
24. (Mayor cites also Plin. Ep. i. 14. 9: iii. 1. 1: iv. 2. 1: v. 3. 7:
vi. 21. 3: vii. 10. 3: 19. 4: viii. 16. 3: ix. 2. 5; and adds ‘In all
these instances <i>nescio an</i> (dubito an) is ‘I doubt whether’; in
Cicero the meaning is always ‘I rather think<ins class = "correction"
title = "second close quote missing">.’’)</ins> Andresen proposed
<i>nescio an ulla poeseos pars</i>. The passage closely resembles <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec28">§28</a>, and must be emended on the
same lines.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec66" id = "critI_sec66"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66"><b>§66</b></a>.
<b>tragoedias</b>. Thurot (Revue de Phil. 1880, iv. 1, p. 24)
conjectured <i>tragoediam</i>: cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a> hoc opus. He is followed by
Dosson, against all MS. authority. Becher points out that we must supply
with <i>hoc opus</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">§67</a>
the words ‘tragoedias in lucem proferendi,’ so that <i>opus</i> and
<i>tragoedias</i> square well enough with each other.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec68" id = "critI_sec68"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68"><b>§68</b></a>.
<b>quod ipsum reprehendunt</b>, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) and Becher.
This reading also occurs in the Codex Dorvilianus. Other readings are
<i>quod ipsum quod</i> GHT Burn. 243, Bodl.: <i>quo ipsum</i> MS Harl.
2662, 4995, 4950, Ball. Halm conjectured <i>quem ipsum quoque</i>, and
was followed by Mayor and Hild. But as no fault has been found with
Euripides in the foregoing, <i>quoque</i> seems out of place.</p>
<p>Founding on the reading of GHT, &c., also on that of F (which
gives <i>quod ipsum qui</i>) Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 165) proposes
to read <i>quod ipsum quidam</i>, comparing <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98">§98</a>, where for <i>quem senes quem</i>
(GT) Spalding rightly conjectured <i>quem senes quidem</i>, and <a href
= "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec21">7, §21</a>, where Bn, Bg give
<i>quod</i> for <i>quosdam</i>. He then goes on, in an interesting
paper, to reconstruct the whole passage, which is open to suspicion,
especially in respect that <i>sublimior</i> stands as predicate with
<i>gravitas</i> and <i>cothurnus</i>, as well as with <i>sonus</i>. The
admirers of Sophocles consider his elevation of tone more appropriate
than the strain of Euripides. <i>Sublimior</i> is therefore perhaps
<i>not</i> the predicate of the sentence, however suitable it may be as
the attribute of <i>sonus</i>. The predicate may have dropped out, and
<i>sublimior</i> may have been transferred from its real place to supply
it. It is striking that GFTM (also H and Bodl.) all give <i>sublimior
erit</i>. Kiderlin imagines that a copyist who missed the predicate
wrote in the margin ‘sublimior erit ponendum
<span class = "pagenum">199</span>
post esse’: and then another inserted <i>sublimior erit</i> after
<i>esse</i> in the text. For the predicate, <i>magis accommodatus</i>
might stand: in copying, the eye may have wandered from <i>magis
accommodatus</i> to <i>magis accedit</i>: for <i>magis accomm.</i> cp.
ii. 5. 18 and x. 1. 79. Kiderlin therefore boldly proposes to make the
parenthesis run, ‘quod ipsum quidam reprehendunt quibus gravitas et
cothurnus et sublimior sonus Sophocli videtur esse magis accommodatus’:
‘was gerade manche tadeln, welchen das Würdevolle, der Kothurnus, und
der erhabenere Ton des Sophokles angemessener zu sein scheint.’</p>
<p><b>et dicendo ac respondendo</b> 7231, 7696: <i>dicendo ac
respondo</i> GH: <i>in dicendo et in respondendo</i> Prat. Put. S (<i>et
respondendo</i> M).</p>
<p><b>praecipuus. Hunc admiratus maxime est</b>. This is Meister’s
reading, except that for <i>eum</i> I give (with Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
Harl. 2662 and 4995) <i>hunc</i>, which is commoner in Quint. at the
beginning of a sentence (§§46, 78, 91, 112). The following are the
readings of the MSS.: GH <i>praecipuus et admiratus miratus</i>: M Bodl.
Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, C, Burn. 243 Ball. Dorv. <i>praecipuus et
admirandus</i>: S <i>praecipuum. Nunc admiratus et</i>: Prat. Put. Harl.
2262 and 11671 <i>praecipuus hunc admiratus et maxime est ut saepe test.
et sec. quamvis</i>: Harl. 4995, <i>hunc admiratus max. ut s. test. et
eum secutus quamquam</i>. Halm gives <i>praecipuus est. Admiratus maxime
est</i>: Kiderlin insists on the <i>est</i> after <i>praecipuus</i>, to
correspond with <i>accedit</i>, though it seems better to take all that
comes after <i>accedit</i> as an explanation of the statement <i>magis
accedit oratorio generi</i>: he also retains the <i>et</i> of most MSS.
and reads <i>praecipuus est. hunc et admiratus</i> (Blätter f. d. bayer.
Gymn. 24, p. 84). Wölfflin (partly followed by Krüger 3rd ed.)
proposed a more radical change (Rhein. Mus. 1887, 2 H. p. 313)
<i>praecipuus. Hunc imitatus</i>, quoting in support of the conjunction
<i>imitatus ... secutus</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec122">§122</a>, eos iuvenum imitatur et
sequitur industria: <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec19">5 §19</a>, deligat quem sequatur,
quem imitetur: Ovid, Fasti v. 157, ne non imitata maritum esset et ex
omni parte secuta virum. But Kiderlin (l.c.) aptly remarks that if
Quintilian had written <i>imitatus</i>, he would not have said <i>ut
saepe testatur</i> but <i>ut ex multis locis patet</i> (<i>apparet,
videmus</i>): while vii. 4. 17 (on which Wölfflin relies) is not really
to the point. Moreover Quintilian, would never have separated such
synonyms as <i>imitatus</i> and <i>secutus</i> by <i>ut saepe
testatur</i>.</p>
<p><b>Charisi nomini addicuntur</b>, Frotscher: <i>Charis in homine
adductura</i> GH: <i>Charisii nomine eduntur</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
Harl. 2662 Dorv.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec70" id = "critI_sec70"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec70"><b>§70</b></a>.
<b>aut illa iudicia</b> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 4995. GH Harl. 4950
give <i>aut illa mala iudicia</i>: Bodl. Burn. 243 <i>aut alia mala
iud.</i> S Harl. 2662 Dorv. and Ball. <i>aut alia iudicia.</i> The edd.,
following Gesner, have generally given (with Harl. 4950) <i>aut illa
mala iudicia</i> (so Halm and Meister), and have taken <i>mala</i> as
predicate, though the order of the words makes that impossible. Becher
approves of Andresen’s deletion of <i>mala</i>. Krüger (3rd ed.) prints
<i>mala [illa] iudicia</i>, thinking that <i>illa</i> arose by
dittography, and that then the order was changed in the codd. to <i>illa
mala iudicia</i>. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23) gives as an alternative to
deleting <i>mala</i> the conjecture <i>illa simulata iudicia</i> (‘jene
erdichteten nachgemachten Gerichtsverhandlungen’; cp. xi. 1. 56: cum
etiam hoc genus simulari litium soleat). A similar mutilation
occurs, e.g., xi. 1. 20, where b gives <i>secum</i> M <i>secus</i>
instead of <i>consecutum</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec71" id = "critI_sec71"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec71"><b>§71</b></a>.
<b>filiorum militum</b>, most codd.: <i>filiorum maritorum militum</i>
Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec72" id = "critI_sec72"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec72"><b>§72</b></a>.
<b>si cum venia leguntur</b>. The reading of the MSS. is upheld by Iwan
Müller, Meister, and Kiderlin. Spalding suggested <i>cum verecundia</i>:
Schöll <i>cum iudicio</i>: Becher <i>cum ingenio</i>. Becher points out
(Bursians Jahresb. 1887) that the expression is meant to cover
<i>decerpere</i> as well as <i>legere</i>, and <i>decerpere</i>
indicates careful and intelligent reading (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a>, <i>diligenter</i> lectus): <i>cum
ingenio</i> = ‘mit Verstand’: cp. Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 10. 2 quod
versabatur in hoc studio nostro .. et cum ingenio .. nec sine industria:
Ulp. Dig. 1. 16. 9 patientem esse proconsulem oportet, sed cum
<span class = "pagenum">200</span>
ingenio, ne contemptibilis videatur. Finally, Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes
<i>cum acumine</i> or <i>cum vigilantia</i> (cp. v. 7. 10).—Prat.
Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662 all give Osann’s conjecture
<i>legantur</i>.</p>
<p><b>prave</b> GH Harl. 4995, 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl.: <i>pravis</i>
Regius, Halm, Meister, Becher draws attention to the parallelism between
the clauses: <i>ut prave praelatus est sui temporis iudiciis, ita merito
creditur</i> (= meruit credi) <i>secundus consensu omnium</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec76" id = "critI_sec76"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec76"><b>§76</b></a>.
<b>nec quod desit ... nec quod redundet</b>: H Burn. 243 and Bodl. give
<i>quod .. quod</i>: Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244,
Dorv. C, and Ball, <i>quid .. quid</i>. The latter reading is supported
by Becher (Phil. Rund. iii. 434). For <i>quod</i> cp. xii. 10. 46: (xii.
1. 20 where for <i>quod adhuc</i> BM give <i>quid adhuc</i>): on the
other hand, in vi. 3. 5 the MSS. are in favour of <i>quid</i>, though
Halm reads <i>quod</i> (followed by Meister). For <i>quid</i> cp. Cic.
pro Quint. §41, neque praeterea quid possis dicere invenio.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec77" id = "critI_sec77"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec77"><b>§77</b></a>.
<b>grandiori similis</b>. So all MSS.: Halm and Meister. Several
conjectural emendations have been put forward. Comparing <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">2 §16</a> (fiunt pro grandibus
tumidi), Becher suggests <i>grandi oratori</i>,—an easy change, if
the copyist used contractions, but without point: above in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec74">§74</a>, ‘oratori magis similis’ is
appropriate enough in speaking of <i>historians</i>, but ‘oratori’ would
be inappropriate here. This is accepted, however, by Hirt (Berl. Jahr.
ix., 1883, p. 312; cp. P. Hirt, Subst. des Adjectivums,
p. 12). Schöll proposes to read <i>gladiatori</i> similis, in view
of the close connection with what follows, strictus ... carnis ...
lacertorum: but <i>plenior</i> and <i>magis fusus</i> are a bad
introduction to <i>gladiatori</i>, and if Aeschines had <i>plus
carnis</i> and <i>minus lacertorum</i>, he cannot really have resembled
a gladiator. This reading is, however, adopted by Krüger (3rd ed.).
Finally, Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 166 sq.) has conjectured <i>et
grandi</i> (or <i>grandiori</i>) <i>organo similis</i>, and applies the
figure throughout: ‘voller und breiter lässt Aeschines den Ton
hervorströmen, einem grossen Musikinstrumente gleich’: ‘einer Orgel
gleich,’—he is <i>grandisonus</i>. The translation appears to
limit unnecessarily the meaning of <i>plenus</i> and <i>fusus</i>:
though the former is used of tone i. 11. 6 (cp. xi. 3. 15 of the voice:
ib. §§42, 62: and §55 of the breath): while <i>fusus</i> is used of the
voice xi. 3. 64. For such a use of <i>grandis</i> cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec58">§58</a> (cenae): <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a> (robora): xi. 2. 12 (convivium):
3. 15 (vox): 68 (speculum): and for <i>organum</i>, i. 10. 25: ix. 4.
10: xi. 3. 20 (where there is a comparison between the throat and a
musical instrument): probably also i. 2. 30. There is an antithesis in
the two parts of the sentence between fulness and breadth, on the one
hand, and real strength on the other; and for the transition to the
second figure Kiderlin compares <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec33">§33</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec78" id = "critI_sec78"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec78"><b>§78</b></a>.
<b>nihil enim est inane</b>: perhaps ‘nihil enim est <i>in eo</i> inane’
(Becher), or <i>nihil enim inest</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec79" id = "critI_sec79"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec79"><b>§79</b></a>.
<b>honesti studiosus</b>. Becher’s proposal to alter the punctuation of
this passage is discussed in the note <i>ad loc.</i>—For
<i>auditoriis</i> and <i>compararat</i>, see on <i>tenuia atque quae</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a>, above.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec80" id = "critI_sec80"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec80"><b>§80</b></a>.
<b>quem tamen</b>. Kiderlin, in Hermes (23, p. 168), raises a
difficulty here. <i>Tamen</i> shows that the clause cannot go with the
main statement (<i>fateor</i>), and its position forbids us to take it
with the <i>quamquam is primum</i> clause: it can only go with <i>quod
ultimus est</i>, &c., ‘though Demosthenes is <i>ultimus fere</i>,
&c., <i>yet</i> Cicero, &c.’ To prevent so awkward a joining of
the clauses, Kiderlin proposes to read <i>eumque tamen</i>: pointing out
that the <i>quae</i> of the MSS. (GH) may have arisen out of <i>que</i>,
and that Quintilian may have written <i>eumque</i>; cp. vi. 2. 13, where
Halm makes <i>utque</i> out of <i>quae</i> (G), and xi. 2. 32, where
Meister reads <i>estque</i>. The meaning will then be: Demetrius is
worthy of record as being about the last, &c., and yet Cicero gives
him the first place in the <i>medium genus</i>.—It seems better,
however, to give <i>tamen</i> a general reference: ‘yet, in spite of all
that can be said on the other side’ (e.g., inclinasse eloquentiam
dicitur). Cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec99">§99</a> quae tamen
sunt in hoc genere elegantissima.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">201</span>
<p><a name = "critI_sec81" id = "critI_sec81"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec81"><b>§81</b></a>.
<b>prosam</b> (<b>prorsam</b>) <b>orationem et</b> all MSS.; Halm,
Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) omit <i>et</i>. I find that Becher
supports the view stated in the note <i>ad loc.</i>: he would however
write <i>prorsam</i>, which the best MSS. give also in Plin. v. 31,
112 D.</p>
<p><b>quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus</b>: so Frotscher,
followed by Krüger (3rd ed.). On the other hand Claussen (Quaest.
Quint., p. 356) and Wölfflin (followed now by Meister, pref. to ed.
of Book x., p. 13) propose to delete <i>Delphici</i>, of which
Becher also approves. But the MS. evidence cannot be disregarded. The
following are the various readings: GH <i>quaedam Delphico videatur
oraculo de instrictus</i>, and so FT, the former giving also (by a later
hand) <i>de instinctus</i>, the latter <i>dei instructus</i>. Bodl.
gives <i>quodam delphico videatur oraculo dei instructus</i>. The most
frequent reading is that of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995,
4829, 11671, Ball. and most edd., <i>quodam delphico videatur oraculo
instinctus</i>: S agrees, but is reported to have <i>delphico</i>
after <i>oraculo</i>: Harl. 4950 and Burn. 244 have the same reading,
with <i>institutus</i> corr. to <i>instinctus</i>: Burn. 243 gives
<i>instructus</i>. <i>Delphico</i> was originally deleted by Caesar:
Phil xiii, p. 758. Halm read <i>tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo
instinctus</i>: but Quintilian would take no trouble to avoid the
repetition of <i>quidam</i> (cp. divina quadam, above).—For the
arrangement of words, Krüger (3rd ed.) compares <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec41">§41</a> qui ne minima quidem alicuius
certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec82" id = "critI_sec82"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec82"><b>§82</b></a>.
<b>quandam persuadendi deam</b>. Nettleship (Journ. of Philol., xxix,
p. 22) conjectures <i>Suadam</i> [<i>persuadendi deam</i>],
comparing Brutus, §59, quoted <i>ad loc. Persuadendi deam</i> would thus
become a gloss on <i>Suadam</i>: but the expression in the text is quite
in Quintilian’s style.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec83" id = "critI_sec83"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec83"><b>§83</b></a>.
<b>eloquendi suavitate</b>: <i>eloquendi usus</i> (or <i>usu</i>)
<i>suav.</i> GH and all codd. except Harl. 4950, and Dorv., both of
which give simply <i>eloq. suav.</i> Halm admitted into his text Geel’s
conj. for <i>usus</i>, ‘eloquendi <i>vi ac</i> suavitate,’ and this has
met with some acceptance (Iwan Müller and Becher). But the parallel from
Dion. Hal., <span class = "greek" title = "Arch. kr.">Ἀρχ. κρ.</span> 4
is hardly conclusive: <span class = "greek" title = "tês te peri hermêneian deinotêtos ... kai tou hêdeos">τῆς τε περὶ ἑρμηνείαν
δεινότητος ... καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος</span>. Hirt properly remarks that the
agreement between the two is not so great as to allow of correcting the
one by the other. Kiderlin conjectures <i>eloquendi vi</i>,
<i>suavitate</i>, <i>perspicuitate</i>.</p>
<p><b>tam est loquendi</b>. See note <i>ad loc.</i> for Kiderlin’s conj.
<i>tam manifestus est</i>. Though Meister’s <i>tam est eloquendi</i> is
probably a misprint, it is found in some MSS.—Harl. 4950: Burn.
244.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec84" id = "critI_sec84"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec84"><b>§84</b></a>.
<b>sane non affectaverunt</b>. Bodl. and Vall. (<i>veru</i>
subpunctuated in the latter: <i>affectant</i> Prat. Put. 7231 MS Ball.
Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671: <i>sene non adfectitacuerunt</i> GH
Burn. 243: <i>adfectarunt</i> 7696: <i>adfectitant</i> Harl. 4950, and
so Burn. 244 (corrected from <i>affectant</i>).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec85" id = "critI_sec85"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85"><b>§85</b></a>.
<b>haud dubie proximus</b>. Halm inserted <i>ei</i> after <i>dubie</i>,
though it is not found in any MS.: Regius had suggested <i>illi</i>.
Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 170) points out that if <i>propiores
alii</i> in <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a> is allowed
to stand without a dative, <i>ei</i> is not necessary here. He suggests,
however, <i>illi</i> before <i>alii</i> in <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88">§88</a>: both passages must be dealt with
in the same way.—For <i>haud</i> (Vall.), GHS have <i>aut</i>: M
<i>haut</i>. Cp. on <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3 §26</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec86" id = "critI_sec86"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86"><b>§86</b></a>.
<b>ut illi ... cesserimus</b>: <i>cum illi</i> GHFT Harl. 4995 Burn.
243: <i>ut illi</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696: and so S Harl. 4950 (with
<i>caelesti atque divinae</i>): <i>ut ille</i> M Harl. 2662. Kiderlin
(Hermes, p. 170) proposes to go back to the reading of the older
MSS. <i>cum illi</i>, and instead of <i>cesserimus</i> to read
<i>cesserit</i>, so as to make Vergil the subject throughout. <i>Cum</i>
cannot, he contends, be a copyist’s error, motived by <i>ita</i>; and it
is probable, therefore, that at first <i>cesserit a</i> was
inadvertently written for <i>cesserit</i>; then (in G or some older MS.)
<i>cesserimus ita</i> was made out of that, to correspond with
<i>vincimur</i> below: and then in the later MSS. <i>cum</i> was changed
to <i>ut</i>, because of <i>ita</i>. For the transition, with this
reading, from cesserit to the plural (<i>vincimur, pensamus</i>), he
<span class = "pagenum">202</span>
compares <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">§107</a>, where, after
speaking of Demosthenes and Cicero, Quintilian passes to
<i>vincimus</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec87" id = "critI_sec87"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec87"><b>§87</b></a>.
<b>sequentur</b> MS Halm and Meister: <i>sequenter</i> G <i>seq̅nt’</i>
H: <i>sequuntur</i> Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.</p>
<p><b><span class = "greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> id est</b>.
These words are omitted in the Pratensis, which is Étienne de Rouen’s
abridgement of the <i>Beccensis</i>, now lost. This is an additional
proof that <span class = "greek" title = "phrasin">φράσιν</span> was
originally written in Greek: cp. on <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec42">§42</a>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec88" id = "critI_sec88"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec88"><b>§88</b></a>.
<b>propiores</b> H Prat. Put. Vall. Harl. 2662, 4495, 11671, Burn. 243.
Bodl., Halm: <i>propriores</i> GMS 7231, 7696, Harl. 4950, C, Burn. 244,
Dorv., Meister. In Cicero and Quintilian <i>magis proprii</i> would be
more usual for the latter.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec89" id = "critI_sec89"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec89"><b>§89</b></a>.
<b>etiam si sit</b>. This conjecture of Spalding’s (for <i>etiam sit</i>
GH Bodl. &c.: <i>etiam si</i> M Harl. 4950 Dorv.: <i>etiam sic</i>
Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662) I have found in the Balliol codex. 7231
and 7696 give <i>etiam si est</i>. Cp. note on <i>tenuia atque quae</i>
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a>, above.</p>
<p><b>ut est dictum</b>. These words were bracketed as a gloss by Halm,
and are now omitted altogether by Krüger (3rd ed.): see however note
<i>ad loc.</i> Döderlein proposed to place them after <i>poeta
melior</i>, Fleckeisen after <i>etiam si</i>.</p>
<p><b>Serranum</b> is Lange’s conjecture for <i>ferrenum</i> GHM:
<i>farrenum</i> 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>Pharrenum</i> Prat.
Put. Some MSS. (e.g. Vall. Harl. 4995, Burn. 243 and 244) give <i>sed
eum</i>, but it is obvious that the criticism of Severus stopped with
the word <i>locum</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec90" id = "critI_sec90"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec90"><b>§90</b></a>.
<b>senectute maturuit</b> ed. Col. 1527 and so 7231, 7696 (Fierville):
<i>senectutem maturbit</i> GH: <i>senectute maturum</i> Prat. Put. MS
Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. and Ball.: <i>senectus
maturavit</i> Bodl., Burn. 243.</p>
<p><b>et, ut dicam</b>. Halm’s <i>sed</i> instead of <i>et</i> has been
rejected by later critics. Cp. Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 357
note): <i>sed</i> ‘sententiam efficit ab hac operis parte alienam. Nam
cum oratori futuro exempla quaerantur oratoria virtus in quovis
scriptore laudi vertitur (§§46, 63, 65, 67, 74, &c.). Itaque
propter huius censurae consilium Quintilianus Lucani elocutionem
oratoriam laudat, sed ingenium poeticum una reprehendit.’</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec91" id = "critI_sec91"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec91"><b>§91</b></a>.
<b>propius</b> H Prat. Put. Burn. 243, Harl. 2662 and other codd.: Bodl.
Ball. Harl. 4950 <i>proprius</i>. Reisig conjectured <i>propitius</i>,
which also is apt; but in spite of <i>industrius</i>,
<i>necessarius</i>, cited in its support (cp. iv. 2. 27: vii. 1. 12), it
is too uncertain a form to be received into the text. Iwan Müller thinks
it would have to be <i>magis propitiae</i>. Halm gives <i>promptius</i>:
Wölfflin <i>pronius</i>: while Schöll now suggests <i>propitiae
potius</i> (cp. iv. pr. §5: 2 §27: vii. 1. 12).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec92" id = "critI_sec92"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec92"><b>§92</b></a>.
<b>feres</b> G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4829, Dorv., Ball.,
Halm.: <i>feras</i> H, Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. C and M, Meister and
Krüger (3rd ed.). Harl. 4995 has <i>fere</i>: from Vall. Becher reports
feras, ‘probably at first <i>feres</i>.’</p>
<p><b>elegea</b> GH 7696, and so A<sup>2</sup> BN Put. S at i. 8. 6.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec94" id = "critI_sec94"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec94"><b>§94</b></a>.
<b>abunde salis</b> G Prat. Put. M and all my MSS. except H, Burn. 243,
Bodl. which have <i>abundantia salis</i>.</p>
<p><b>multum est tersior</b>. The variety of MS. readings seems to point
to an <i>et</i> wrongly inserted after <i>multum</i>, perhaps from a
confusion with ‘multum et ver gloriae’ below. GH give <i>multum et est
tersior</i>: M Harl. 4950, Bodl. Ball. C Dorv. Burn. 243 and also Harl.
4829 <i>multum etiam est t.</i>: Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662,
11671 <i>multum est tersior</i>: while Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) has
<i>multo et est tersior</i>. Osann proposed <i>multo eo est tersior</i>:
Wölfflin <i>multo est tersior</i>: Halm and Meister print <i>multum eo
est tersior</i>. For <i>multum</i>, cp. multum ante xii. 6. 1: and see
Introd. <a href = "QuintIntro.html#intro_pageli">p. li</a>.</p>
<p><b>non labor</b> GH Burn. 243 Bodl. and Meister: <i>nisi labor</i>
7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv. Ball.
C, and Halm. Prat. and Put. have <i>mihi labor</i>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">203</span>
<p><b>hodieque et qui</b>: H, Prat., Put., 7231, 7696, Harl. 2662, 4829,
Bodl. Dorv.: <i>hodie et qui</i> Burn. 243: <i>hodie quoque et qui</i>
Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: <i>hodie quod et qui</i> S.—Becher is
of opinion that the text will not bear the explanation given in the
note, and would read <i>hodie quoque et qui</i>: ‘es giebt auch heute
noch berühmte Satirendichter, die einst &c.’ <i>Et qui</i> he takes
with <i>clari</i>, not with <i>hodie quoque</i>, the <i>et</i> being
omitted in translation: clari (hodie quoque) qui (olim)
nominabuntur.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec95" id = "critI_sec95"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec95"><b>§95</b></a>.
<b>etiam prius</b>. Founding on the classification given in Diomedes
(see note <i>ad loc.</i>), according to which the <i>satura</i> of
Pacuvius and Ennius preceded and was distinct from that of Lucilius,
Horace, and Persius, Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 337) thinks that
the true reading here may be <i>Alterum illud et iam prius</i> Ennio
temptatum <i>saturae genus</i>, &c. For the satura of Ennius, cp.
ix. 2. 36. Iwan Müller points out that Ennius is not mentioned below
(§97), beside Attius and Pacuvius, probably because neither in tragedy
nor in satire did Quintilian consider him to have produced anything
helpful for the formation of an oratorical style. Other unnecessary
conjectures are <i>etiam posterius</i>, Gesner: <i>etiam proprium</i>,
Spald.: <i>etiam amplius</i>, L. Müller: <i>etiam verius</i>,
Riese: <i>alterum illud Lucilio prius sat. genus</i>, Krüger (3rd
ed.).</p>
<p><b>sola</b>: <i>solum</i> Prat. and Put.</p>
<p><b>collaturus quam eloquentiae</b>. These words, omitted in GHS Bodl.
Burn. 243, occur in all my other codd.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec96" id = "critI_sec96"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96"><b>§96</b></a>.
<b>sed aliis quibusdam interpositus</b>: sc. carminibus, Christ. In H
the reading is <i>quibusdam interpositus</i>: so 7231, 7696 Bodl. and
Burn. 243: but M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Dorv. and Ball, give <i>a
quibusdam interpositus</i>: S <i>cuiusdam</i>: Prat. and Put. <i>opus
interpositus</i>. Osann conjectures <i>sed quibusdam</i>, and so Hild.
In the margin of Harl. 4995 is the variant <i>aliquibus
interpositis</i>.</p>
<p>In Hermes, vol. 23, p. 172, Kiderlin makes a fresh conjecture.
Recognising that something must have fallen out before <i>quibusdam</i>,
but dissatisfied with Osann’s <i>sed</i> and Christ’s <i>sed aliis</i>,
he proposes to read <i>ut proprium opus, quibusdam aliis tamen
carminibus</i> (or <i>versibus</i>) <i>a quibusdam interpositus</i>. The
eye of a copyist may easily, Kiderlin thinks, have wandered from the
first to the second <i>quibusdam</i>: cp. v. 10. 64, ut quaedam a
quibusdam utique non sunt, &c., and for quibusdam aliis xi. 3. 66,
et quibusdam aliis corporis signis.</p>
<p><b>intervenit</b>, which is a conjecture of Osann, I have found
in Harl. 2662, 11671 Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.</p>
<p><b>lyricorum</b>. Kiderlin thinks there may be something wrong in the
text here. The last sentence (sed eum longe, &c.) shows clearly that
Quintilian had a high opinion of the lyrists of his day: if Bassus was
<i>legi dignus</i>, they were even more so. Would he then have said ‘of
the Roman lyrists Horace is almost the only one worth reading’? Perhaps
we should read <i>lyricorum priorum</i>: after <i>-ricorum</i>,
<i>priorum</i> might easily fall out, and it gives a good antithesis to
<i>viventium</i>. Bassus (quem nuper vidimus) forms the transition: and
the next paragraph begins <i>Tragoediae scriptores veterum</i>,
&c.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec97" id = "critI_sec97"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec97"><b>§97</b></a>.
<b>clarissimi</b>. This reading is stated by Halm to be ‘incerta
auctoritate,’ and is referred by Meister to the Aldine edition. It
occurs in Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) Vall. 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.:
Put. gives <i>clarissime</i>: G has <i>gravissima</i>: HFTS
<i>gravissimus</i>, and so also Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. and
C. Halm prints <i>grandissimi</i>: Ribbeck (Röm. Trag.
p. 337, 3) inclines to accept the sing. <i>grandissimus</i>,
M, of Pacuvius alone.</p>
<p>Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings.
<i>Gravissimus</i> and <i>gravissima</i> are obviously due, he says, to
<i>gravitate</i> following: but the word before <i>gravitate</i> must
have begun with the same letter, and so <i>clarissimi</i> cannot stand,
especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For <i>ceterum</i>
shows that the sentence before it must have contained some slight
censure: some defect, or quality excluding others equally good, must
have been mentioned. He therefore conjectures <i>grandes nimis</i>, in
preference to
<span class = "pagenum">204</span>
<i>grandissimi</i>, which in tragedy would hardly be a fault. Attius and
Pacuvius, Quintilian says, are ‘zu grossartig, sie kümmern sich zu wenig
um Zierlichkeit (Eleganz) und die letzte Feile (d.h. Sauberkeit im
Kleinen); doch daran ist mehr ihre Zeit schuld als sie selbst.’ He
evidently thinks more of the ‘Thyestes’ of Varius and Ovid’s Medea: cp.
Tac. Dial. 12. With this judgment Kiderlin compares <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec66">§§66</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec67">67</a> tragoedias primus in lucem
Aeschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus saepe usque ad
vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ... sed longe clarius
inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides, and is of opinion
that the parallelism cannot be mistaken. For the position of
<i>nimis</i> he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe
nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec98" id = "critI_sec98"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec98"><b>§98</b></a>.
<b>quem senes quidem parum tragicum</b>. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,
Meister, and Krüger. <i>Quidem</i> occurs in no MS.: GH have
<i>quem</i>, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn.
243 and Dorv. show the corruption <i>Pindarum</i>. Becher would exclude
<i>quidem</i>, regarding <i>quem</i> in G as an instance of the tendency
of copyists inadvertently to repeat, after a particular word that by
which it has been immediately preceded, e.g. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec68">§68</a> quod ipsum quod (G): ix. 4. 57 ut
cum ut (G): iv. 1. 7 ipsis litigatoribus ipsis (b): iv. 2. 5 aut ante
aut (bT): x. i. 4 iam opere iam (G).—But here the authority of the
Pratensis and its cognates may be invoked. In the archetype from which
they are derived something must have stood before <i>parum</i>, as Prat.
Put. 7696, 7231 all give <i>quem senes non parum tragicum</i>: so Harl.,
2662 (<span class = "smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434), and 11671. Above in
<a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec96">§96</a>, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696
have <i>si quidem</i> for <i>si quem</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec100" id = "critI_sec100"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec100"><b>§100</b></a>.
<b>linguae suae</b>. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13):
<i>suae</i> supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give
<i>linguae quae</i>: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. <i>linguae</i>:
while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether:
M has <i>ligweque</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec101" id = "critI_sec101"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101"><b>§101</b></a>.
<b>Titum</b>: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.</p>
<p><b>commendavit</b>: Halm and Meister give <i>commodavit</i>, which is
approved also by Hirt. Halm compares <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec69">§69</a> where Menander is said to be
‘omnibus rebus personis adfectibus accommodatus.’ But this would require
the meaning ‘appropriately treated,’ and there is no instance in
Quintilian of the verb used absolutely in this sense. Nor is there any
example to support Hild’s interpretation <i>praestitit</i>, which would
be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after
<i>accommodata</i> tells against Halm’s reading, though Quintilian is
negligent on this head.—On the other hand, in vi. 3. 14 the
reading ‘ad hanc consuetudinem commodata’ is rightly accepted against
‘commendata’ most edd.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec102" id = "critI_sec102"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec102"><b>§102</b></a>.
<b>immortalem</b> GS Meister: <i>illam immortalem</i> Prat. Put. M Halm:
<i>immortalem illam</i> Vall.</p>
<p><b>velocitatem</b>. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which
have <i>civilitatem</i>. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks
that we might have expected <i>ideoque immortalem gloriam quam
velocitate Sallustius consecutus est</i>: ‘und darum hat er die
<i>velocitas</i> durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge
erreicht.’ <i>Consequi</i> cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and
<i>immortalis</i> is inappropriate as an attribute of <i>velocitas</i>:
besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s <i>velocitas</i>, even
indirectly. Schlenger conjectured <i>claritatem</i>: Andresen
<i>auctoritatem</i> (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii.
11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes <i>divinitatem</i>, which in Cicero =
Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous
sentences the expression is not too strong. For <i>immortalem
divinitatem</i> cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">§86</a> illi
... caelesti atque immortali: and for <i>consecutus est</i> iii. 7. 9
quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.</p>
<p><b>clarus vi ingenii</b>. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I
find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give <i>clarius
ingenii</i>: Prat. Put. <i>clari ingenii vir</i>: 7231, 7696 <i>clari
vir ingenii</i>: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.
<span class = "pagenum">205</span>
C and Ball, <i>clarus ingenio</i>; Harl. 2662 and 11671 <i>clarus</i>
(?) or <i>claret vir ingenii</i>. Spalding had already pointed out that
<i>clarus</i> is not found with <i>ingenium</i>, except where
<i>ingenium</i> is used of a person: e.g. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec119">§119</a> erant clara et nuper ingenia: he
therefore wrote <i>elati vir ingenii</i> (following Goth. <i>elatus
ingenio</i> and Bodl. <i>elatus ingeniis</i>). Kiderlin compares <a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec70">§70</a> sententiis clarissimus, and for
<i>vis ingenii</i> i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The
reading <i>clarus vi ingenii</i> points the contrast to what follows in
‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his <i>style</i> that did not
altogether suit the dignity of history.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec103" id = "critI_sec103"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec103"><b>§103</b></a>.
<b>genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam</b>. Till
Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175)
<i>genere</i> had always been joined with <i>probabilis</i>, and the
text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give <i>in
omnibus quibusdam</i>: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. <i>in
omnibus sed in quibusdam</i>, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.
Out of <i>omnibus</i> Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, <i>operibus</i>:
afterwards he decided for <i>partibus</i>, and this (though
<i>omnibus</i> to <i>partibus</i> is not an easy transition) is adopted
by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung
verdienen seine Leistungen <i>alle</i>, <i>manche</i> stehen hinter
<i>seiner</i> Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are
<i>probabiles</i> (cp. viii. 3. 42 probabile Cicero id genus dicit quod
non plus minusve est quam decet); but they do not show the great powers
that distinguish his other writings. It is uncertain whether Quintilian
wrote <i>in quibusdam</i> or <i>sed in quibusdam</i> (M). The easiest
explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he
wrote <i>in omnibus in quibusdam</i>: perhaps the copyist of M saw that
<i>omnibus</i> and <i>quibusdam</i> were antithetical, and inserted
<i>sed</i>. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any
conjunction: cp. <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106">§106</a> in
illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).</p>
<p><b>suis ipse viribus</b>: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville)
7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434 and 1467) <i>suis</i> already appears,
corrected from <i>vis</i> GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has <i>suis viribus
minor</i>: so Prat. and Put.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec104" id = "critI_sec104"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec104"><b>§104</b></a>.
<b>et exornat</b>. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and
most edd.: <i>et ornat</i> M Halm, Meister, Krüger: <i>exornat</i> GHS.
Becher remarks that <i>et exornat</i> might easily pass into
<i>exornat</i>.</p>
<p><b>nominabitur</b>: Weber and Osann proposed <i>nominabatur</i>
(which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to <i>-itur</i>). Krüger at
first accepted this in support of his theory that the whole passage
refers to Cremutius, who ‘in former days (olim), while his works were
under a ban, was only named (i.e. was a mere name, but now is known and
appreciated).’ The parallel passage (§94) is sufficient to dispose of
any such interpretation: sunt clari hodieque et qui olim
nominabuntur.</p>
<p><b>Cremuti</b>. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and
Meister: <i>remuti</i> H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 <i>remremuti</i> G,
<i>rem utili</i> Burn. 243: <i>remitti</i> S. Bodl.: <i>nec imitatores
uti</i> Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671. A review of the
various explanations of the whole passage (Superest—quae manent)
will be found in Holub’s Programm ‘Warum hielt sich Tacitus von 89-96 n.
Chr. nicht in Rom auf?’—Weidenau, 1883: but his conjecture
<i>remoti</i> (i.e. relegati) for <i>remuti</i> is not to be thought
of.</p>
<p><b>dividendi</b>: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have
<i>videndi</i>, except M (<i>indicendi</i>) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995
(<i>vivendi</i>). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec105" id = "critI_sec105"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec105"><b>§105</b></a>.
In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his
views: ‘wie zu <i>cum</i> causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu
<i>cum</i> concessivum, in diesem Falle wiedenzugeben mit, “was um so
auffallender ist, als.” Der Sinn ist also: “Ich weiss sehr wohl, welchen
Sturm des Unwillens ich gegen mich errege, und dies (dieser Sturm) ist
um so auffallender, als ich jetzt gar nicht die Absicht hege, meine (in
Potentialis gesprochene) Behauptung (fortiter opposuerim) wahr zu
machen, resp. comparando durchzuführen. Ich lasse ja dem Demosthenes
seinen Ruhm—in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius.”’</p>
<span class = "pagenum">206</span>
<p><a name = "critI_sec106" id = "critI_sec106"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec106"><b>§106</b></a>.
<b>praeparandi</b>. For Kiderlin’s conj. <i>praeparandi</i>,
<i>narrandi</i>, <i>probandi</i> see <i>ad loc.</i></p>
<p>[<b>omnia</b>] <b>denique</b>, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit <i>omnia</i>
(which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following
Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and
Cicero were <i>not</i> alike in <i>everything</i> that belongs to
<i>inventio</i>. Halm thinks that <i>omnia</i> is to be found in
<i>racioni</i> of the older MSS.: but Kiderlin points out that this
error may have arisen from the carelessness of a copyist who, after
thrice writing the termination <i>i</i>, gave it also to the fourth
word.</p>
<p><b>illi—huic</b> Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl.
&c.: <i>illic—hic</i> GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec107" id = "critI_sec107"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107"><b>§107</b></a>.
<b>vincimus</b>, H, G<sup>2</sup>, and most MSS.: (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec86">§86</a>): <i>vicimus</i> G.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec109" id = "critI_sec109"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec109"><b>§109</b></a>.
<b>ubertate</b> Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and
Goth<ins class = "correction" title = "period missing">.:</ins> all the
other MSS. give <i>ubertas</i>.</p>
<p><b>totas virtutes</b> Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: <i>totas
vires</i> M b.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec112" id = "critI_sec112"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec112"><b>§112</b></a>.
<b>ab hominibus</b> Halm and Meister: <i>ab omnibus</i> Bn Bg HFT Ioan.
Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: <i>hominibus</i> S Harl. 4995 Bodl.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec115" id = "critI_sec115"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec115"><b>§115</b></a>.
<b>urbanitas</b>. Kiderlin proposes to read <i>et praecipua in accusando
asperitas et multa urbanitas</i>: cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117">§117</a>: <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec64">§64</a>: <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec25">2 §25</a>: ii. 5. 8.</p>
<p><b>Ciceroni</b>, for <i>Ciceronem</i> of the MSS. In the Rev. de
Phil. (Janv.-Mars, 1887) Bonnet quotes from the Montpellier MS. a note
of the sixteenth century deleting the name as a gloss (on
<i>inveni</i>). Certainly all codd. give <i>Ciceronem</i>, not
<i>Ciceroni</i>. Bonnet thinks that the insertion does not accord with
Quintilian’s habitual deference towards Cicero: ‘Quintilien se trouvant
dans le cas de contredire Cicéron ne le nomme pas.’—Becher reports
<i>Ciceroni</i>, a correction in the Vallensis.</p>
<p><b>castigata</b>, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl.
2662, 4995, 11671: <i>custodita</i> H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829,
Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For <i>gravis</i> (bH M Vall. and
seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give <i>brevis</i>.</p>
<p><b>si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit</b>, Vall.
Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26">3 §26</a>. Halm and Meister print
<i>si quid adiecturus fuit</i>—(sc. <i>virtutibus suis</i>, cp. <a
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec116">§§116</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec120">120</a>)—the reading of B (i.e. Bn
and Bg), which is also that of Ioan. Prat. N 7231 Harl. 2662, 11671:
while M Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244 have <i>si quid adiecturus fuit, non
si quid detracturus</i>. The reading of H is <i>si quid adiecturus sibi
non si quid detracturus</i> [<i>Sulpicius insignus</i>] <i>fuit ut
servius sulpicius insignem</i> &c.: so also T, Burn. 243, Bodl. The
brackets in H are by a later hand, indicating a gloss which arose from a
mistake made by the copyist of H. In Bg the passage
stands:—</p>
<table class = "parallel" summary = "formatted text">
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>sibi</td>
<td>non si</td>
<td>quid</td>
<td>detracturus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>si quid adiecturus:</td>
<td>fuit</td>
<td>et</td>
<td>servius</td>
<td>sulpicius</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.</p>
<p>In copying H wrote: <i>si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid
detracturus</i> (then omitting <i>fuit</i> continues) <i>et Serv.
Sulp.</i> (then goes back and resumes) <i>fuit et servius</i> &c.
This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this
family.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec117" id = "critI_sec117"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec117"><b>§117</b></a>.
<b>et fervor</b>. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and
Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have <i>et sermo</i>,
which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662,
4950 and Ball.: Hb <i>et summo</i>: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 <i>et
smo</i>: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T
<i>eius summa</i>, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis
(Laurentius Valla) made <i>et vis summa</i>, a reading which occurs also
in Harl. 4995. Meister reads <i>et sermo purus</i>; while Kiderlin
proposes <i>et simplex sermo</i> (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3:
4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).</p>
<p><b>ut amari sales</b>. Francius conjectured <i>ut amantur sales</i>,
but this loses the antithesis between <i>amari</i> and <i>amaritudo
ipsa</i>. Kiderlin’s <i>ut amantur amari sales</i> (viii. 3.
<span class = "pagenum">207</span>
87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if <i>ridicula</i> is taken in a
good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving
way unduly to <i>stomachus</i>, Quintilian should go on to say,
‘moreover, though bitter wit gives pleasure, bitterness by itself is
often laughable.’ Is it possible that we ought to read <i>ut amari sales
risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est</i>? Such an antithesis
might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words <i>risum
movent</i> may then have dropped out. See the note <i>ad loc.</i>: and
cp. especially vi. 1. 48 <i>fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit</i>, and
<span class = "greek" title = "ou gelôta kinei mallon ê katagelatai">οὐ
γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται</span>, quoted in the note on <a href
= "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec107">1 §107</a>.—Krüger (3rd
ed.) adopts <i>frequentior</i> for <i>frequenter</i>, which gives a good
sense, except that <i>freq. amar ipsa</i> is awkward.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec121" id = "critI_sec121"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec121"><b>§121</b></a>.
<b>lene</b> Halm and Meister: <i>leve</i> B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C.
Here again Becher prefers <i>leve</i>, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii.
§171, quoted on <a href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec44">§44</a> above:
levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec123" id = "critI_sec123"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec123"><b>§123</b></a>.
<b>scripserint</b>. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995,
2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among
other passages <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14">2 §14</a>
(concupierint), and points out that Quintilian is not thinking of
individual writers on philosophy, but of the class, as opposed to the
class of orators, historians, &c.—Halm, Meister, and Krüger
have <i>supersunt</i> (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec124" id = "critI_sec124"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec124"><b>§124</b></a>.
<b>Plautus</b>, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671:
<i>plantus</i> M Harl. 4950: <i>Plantatus</i> Sal.: <i>plaustus</i> Hb:
<i>Plancus</i> edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.</p>
<p><b>Catius</b>. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec126" id = "critI_sec126"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126"><b>§126</b></a>.
<b>iis quibus illi</b>. <i>Iis</i> is the conjecture of Regius, followed
by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain <i>in quibus
illi</i>,—the reading of BN Prat. Ioan. Vall. M Harl. 4995, 2662,
4950, 11671, Burn. 244 Dorv. Ball. The difficulty of construing probably
led to the omission of <i>in</i> in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696,
Spalding and Bonnell.</p>
<p><b>ab illo</b> B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: <i>ab
eo</i> bHM Burn. 243.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec127" id = "critI_sec127"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec127"><b>§127</b></a>.
<b>foret enim optandum</b>: <i>fore enim aliquid optandum</i> bHFT.
Spalding conjectured <i>alioqui optandum</i>, which Kiderlin
approves.</p>
<p><b>ac saltem</b> all MSS.: Meister has <i>aut saltem</i>, probably
relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii,
p. 369.</p>
<p><b>illi viro</b> B: <i>illi virus</i> bHM: <i>illi virtutibus</i>
Halm: <i>illi viro eos</i> (or <i>viro plurimos</i>) Kiderlin.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec128" id = "critI_sec128"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec128"><b>§128</b></a>.
<b>multa rerum cognitio</b>: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl.
4995, which have <i>multarum rerum cognitio</i>. b omits <i>cognitio</i>
and is followed by HFT.</p>
<p><a name = "critI_sec130" id = "critI_sec130"
href = "QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec130"><ins class = "correction"
title = "line reference missing"><b>§130</b></ins></a>.
<b>si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset</b>.
I adopt the reading recently proposed for this vexed passage by Ed.
Wölfflin in Hermes, vol. xxv (1890), pp. 326-7, though it is right
to note that he was partly (as will be seen below) anticipated by
Kiderlin. <i>Obliqua</i> seems thoroughly appropriate in reference to
Seneca’s unnatural, stilted, affected style,—‘jene unnatürliche,
durch unmässigen Gebrauch von Tropen und Figuren auf Schrauben gestellte
Ausdrucksweise, welche statt der Klarheit ein Schillern zur Folge hat.’
Wölfflin compares ix. 2. 78 <i>rectum genus</i> adprobari nisi maximis
viribus non potest: haec diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt
infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt, cum haec quae
adfectatur ratio sententiarum non procul a ratione iocandi abhorreat.
Adiuvat etiam, quod auditor gaudet intellegere et favet ingenio suo et
alio dicente se laudat. Itaque non solum si persona obstaret <i>rectae
orationi</i> (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est)
decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem
<i>obliquis</i> sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed
suggested by <i>obliqua</i> itself) the antithesis <i>parum recta</i>:
cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">208</span>
<p>In the <i>Jahrbücher f. Philologie</i> (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828)
Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The
traditional reading <i>si aliqua contempsisset</i> (b) he considers too
indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though
preferable to the <i>si nil aequalium cont.</i> of the later MSS., it
cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give <i>simile
quam</i> without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be
nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s
<i>si antiqua non</i>, on the ground that it is improbable that
<i>simile quam</i> arose out of <i>antiqua</i>. He introduces his own
conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the
contrast between <i>schemata</i> and <i>rectum genus</i>, <i>recta
oratio</i>; the former are called <i>lumina</i> or <i>lumina
orationis</i> (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: <i>nam si
mille ille schemata</i> (or <i>illas figuras</i>) <i>similiaque lumina
contempsisset, si parum rectum genus</i> (or <i>sermonem</i>) <i>non
concupisset</i>, &c. <i>Similiaque</i> occurs ix. 4. 43:
<i>mille</i> (for <i>sescenti</i>) is used v. 14. 32: for
<i>contempsisset</i> cp. ix. 4. 113. <i>Si mille illa</i> and
<i>similiaque</i> may easily have run together, when <i>schemata</i> (or
<i>figuras</i>) would fall out: <i>quam</i> in the older MSS. may
represent <i>que lumina</i>, which again reappears in the <i>qualium</i>
of the later codd. (<i>si nil aequalium</i>). As an alternative for
<i>parum rectum <ins class = "correction" title= "text unchanged: error
for ‘genus’?">genns</ins></i> (or <i>sermonem</i>) Kiderlin suggests
Wölfflin’s reading <i>parum recta</i>: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v.
13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.</p>
<p>Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree
with Bn and Bg in giving <i>simile quam</i>: b has <i>si aliqua</i>:
HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. <i>aliqua</i>: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244,
Dorv. C <i>si nil aequalium</i>. Among previous conjectures are <i>si
multa aequalium</i>, Törnebladh: <i>si ille quaedam</i>, Halm (where
<i>ille</i> is surely superfluous): <i>si antiqua non</i>, Jeep. Meister
accepts the reading <i>si aliqua non</i>: Becher thinks that <i>si nil
aequalium</i> may be right.</p>
<p>It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after
<i>parum</i>: the codd. all give <i>si parum non concupisset</i>. Jeep
proposed <i>si pravum</i> (= <i>corruptum</i>: cp. ii. 5. 10)
<i>non conc.</i>: on which Halm, comparing <i>omnia sua</i>, remarks,
‘debebat saltem <i>prava</i>.’ But <i>prava</i> seems too strong a word
for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously
mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested <i>si parum sana</i>, and is
followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155
<i>n</i>. Sarpe proposed <i>si prava</i> or <i>parva</i> or
<i>plura</i>: Buttmann <i>si parum concupiscenda</i> (or
<i>convenientia</i>): Herzog <i>si parvum</i>: Madvig <i>si partim</i>
or <i>partem</i> (i.e. <i>paulo plus quam aliqua</i>, and in opp. to
<i>omnia sua</i>, below): Hoffmann <i>si opiparum</i>: Seyffert <i>si
garum</i>: Kraffert <i>si non parum excussisset</i> (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec101">§101</a>, <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec126">§126</a>: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8.
13, &c.): Gustaffson <i>si parva</i> (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in
parvis iactantiae): Andresen <i>si similem ei quem contempsit se
esse</i> (sc. <i>concupisset</i>; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist.
i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) <i>si parem non concupisset</i> (i.e. <i>si
Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius
aemulari maluisset</i>): or, <i>nam si similem ei quem contempsit se
esse, non parem concupisset</i>: Krüger (3rd ed<ins class = "correction"
title = "period invisible">.)</ins> <i>si parum arguta</i>: Hertz (who
argues that the word which has fallen out must, with <i>parum</i>,
correspond to <i>corrupta</i> above) <i>si parum pura</i>.</p>
<p><b>utrimque</b> Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and
Bonnell: <i>utrumque</i> B N 7231, 7696: <i>virumque</i> M:
<i>utcumque</i> Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or
another,’—proposed by Gesner at <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec7">6 §7</a>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">209</span>
<h5><a name = "critII" id = "critII">
CHAPTER II.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critII_sec2" id = "critII_sec2"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>atque omnis</b>. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887,
p. 454) proposes to put commas at <i>sequi</i> and <i>velimus</i>,
and make this clause also subordinate.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec3" id = "critII_sec3"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>.
<b>aut similes aut dissimiles</b>. Andresen suggests <i>aut similes aut
non dissimiles</i> or <i>aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec6" id = "critII_sec6"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>.
<b>tradiderunt</b> (BNM Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 243, and Dorv.) is
powerfully supported by Becher in his latest tractate (Programm des
königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich, p. 13) against
<i>tradiderint</i>, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in
the last from <i>tradiderunt</i>), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm,
Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in
Cicero, <i>cum</i> with the indicative is often used in such a way
(quoting from C. F. W. Müller) ‘ut non prorsus idem sit, sed
simillimum ei, quod barbare dicere solemus identitatis. Nam ut “cum
tacent clamant” non est “si tacent,” multo minus “quo tempore” aut
“propterea quod” aut “quamquam,”—sed “tacent idque idem est ac si
clament,” sic “cum hoc facis qui potes facere illud?” et sim., German,
item “<i>wenn du dies thust</i>” valet: “hoc facis ex eoque per se
efficitur, non ratione, sed ipsa natura, ut illud non possis facere.” Ut
pro Q. Roscio 3. 9 quam ob rem, cum cetera nomina in ordinem
referebas, hoc nomen in adversariis relinquebas? non significat nec
“quamquam” nec “quando,” sed “<i>wenn</i>.”’ Becher adds the following
parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae
divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi
<i>dixerunt</i> non liquere, and Verg. Ecl. 3. 16 quid domini facient,
audent cum talia fures? (Cp. Madvig de Fin. p. 25.) In the same way
he treats <i>cum ... sunt consecuti</i> <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19">7 §19</a> below, which seems,
however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in
such cases <i>cum</i> (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative:
there the clause ‘<i>cum sint consecuti</i>’ is added to show the
reasonableness (<i>cum</i> = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary
facility shall be made fully equal to <i>cogitatio</i>—see <i>ad
loc.</i> Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of <i>cum</i>
with the indic. used of ‘identity’ (as ‘cum tacent, clamant,’ quoted
above): in such cases the subject is generally the same in both clauses.
And in such a passage as pro Cluent. §131 <i>cum</i> is usually
explained as = <i>quo tamen tempore</i>.</p>
<p><b>eruendas</b> M Harl. 4995: all other codd. <i>erudiendas</i>.</p>
<p><b>mensuris ac lineis</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the
conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4.
p. 194. 4) <i>eisdem mensuris ac lineis</i>, and recommends
the insertion of <i>eisdem</i> in the text,—after <i>lineis</i>,
where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec7" id = "critII_sec7"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>.
<b>turpe etiam illud est</b>. Hild puts a comma after <i>sciant</i>, and
by supplying before <i>turpe est</i> an <i>ita</i> to correspond with
<i>quemadmodum</i>, makes out a comparison of which <i>quemadmodum</i>,
&c., is the first clause and <i>turpe etiam illud est</i> the
second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The
<i>quemadmodum</i> clause goes with what is before, not with what
follows, so that a comma after <i>alieni</i> would be enough, were it
not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec9">§9</a> below). Then <i>turpe etiam illud
est</i> comes in, resuming <i>pigri est ingenii</i> in <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a>, just as immediately afterwards
<i>rursus quid erat futurum</i> <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a> resumes <i>quid enim futurum
erat</i> <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a>. The whole
passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec4">§4</a> opens, ‘imitatio per se ipsa non
sufficit.’ Quintilian first says that we, as well as those who have gone
before us, may make discoveries (cur igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a
nobis quod ante non fuerit?). Surely we are <ins class = "correction"
title = "text reads ‘uot’">not</ins> to confine ourselves to hard and
fast lines like servile copyists.
<span class = "pagenum">210</span>
Then he goes on to add in <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a> that we must surpass our models
(plus efficere eo quem sequimur), instead of resting content with mere
reproduction (id consequi quod imitamur): otherwise Livius Andronicus
would still be the prince of poets, we should still be sailing on rafts,
and painting would still be nothing more than the tracing of outlines.
The necessity for progress is first shown (§§4-6) by an appeal to the
example of the past, and by the unfruitful work of such painters as are
mere copyists: then in <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec7">§7</a>
poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for
the argument <i>ex contrario</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec8" id = "critII_sec8"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>.
<b>mansit</b>, Meister: <i>sit</i> codd.: <i>est</i> Fleckeisen (and
Halm): <i>fuit</i> Gensler.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec9" id = "critII_sec9"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>.
<b>adpetent</b> Bg HFT: <i>appetent</i> Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl.
&c.: <i>appetunt</i> N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.</p>
<p><b>hoc agit</b> Halm, followed by Meister (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec4">7 §4</a>): <i>hoc ait</i> b H,
<i>om</i>. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>agit</i> (<i>sine
hoc</i>) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec10" id = "critII_sec10"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>.
<b>quaeque pares maxime</b> may be a gloss: it is found only in those
MSS. which give <i>simplicissimae</i> for <i>simillimae</i>: b H Harl.
4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.</p>
<p><b>utique</b> (b M Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243 Bodl. Dorv.) may
also be suspected: it does not occur in Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662,
4829, 11671.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec11" id = "critII_sec11"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec11"><b>§11</b></a>.
<b>orationibus</b>, Bg: Ioan, gives <i>oratione</i>: so also Voss. 1 and
3 (Zumpt).</p>
<p><b>accommodatur</b> b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and
Meister: <i>commodatur</i> Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec12" id = "critII_sec12"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>.
<b>inventio vis</b> B Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>inventionis</i> b H Harl.
4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec13" id = "critII_sec13"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>.
<b>cum et</b>, ed. Colon. 1527: <i>et cum</i> B H Ioan. Prat. N (<i>et
quum</i>) M: <i>cum</i> Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of
this difficult passage <i>ut quorum ... collocata sunt</i> forms one
parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of
<i>intercidant invalescantque temporibus</i>. See <i>ad loc.</i></p>
<p><b>accommodata sit</b>, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits
<i>sit</i>: <i>acc. est</i> Halm, followed by Hild (depending on
<i>prout</i>, not <i>cum</i>: see note <i>ad loc.</i>). Madvig’s
conjecture <i>accommodanda sit</i> is approved by Kiderlin (cp. ix. 4.
126 adeoque rebus accommodanda compositio). But the correctness of the
reading in the text (and also of the explanation given in the note <i>ad
loc.</i>) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence
carefully. To <i>cum et verba intercidant</i> corresponds exactly the
double clause <i>et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit</i> on the one
hand, and <i>et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima</i> (sc.
<i>sit</i>—repeated from <i>accommodata sit</i>) on the other.
This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by <i>cum ... tum</i>. To
take <i>accommodata sit</i> as depending on the <i>cum</i> which follows
<i>compositio</i> is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this
case an independent <i>sit</i> would have to be supplied with
<i>gratissima</i> (to make <i>et compositio ... gratissima sit</i>
correspond to <i>et verba intercidant</i> above): and the translation
would then be: ‘it is just when (<i>cum ... tum</i>), or exactly in
proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (<i>rebus accommodata</i>)
that the very variety (thereby secured) gives the arrangement its
greatest charm.’ But if this had been Quintilian’s meaning he would
surely have written <i>cum rebus accommodatur</i> (or—<i>ata
est</i>) <i>tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec14" id = "critII_sec14"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>.
<b>quos imitemur</b>. The D’Orville MS. gives <i>quos eligamus ad
imitandum</i>,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it
may explain the origin of the reading of b and H <i>quos at
imitandum</i>.</p>
<p><b>quid sit ad quod nos</b>. The <i>ad</i> is due to Regius: most
codd. have <i>quid sit quod nos</i>, except Harl. 4995, which is again
in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2:
<i>quid sit quod nobis</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec15" id = "critII_sec15"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>.
<b>et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam</b>. The explanation given in the
notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however,
wished to insert <i>et</i> before <i>inter</i>
<span class = "pagenum">211</span>
<i>ipsos</i>. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl.
Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).</p>
<p><b>dicunt</b>, Harl. 4995: <i>dicant</i> all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’
(Halm).</p>
<p><b>ut sic dixerim</b> Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9:
v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have <i>ut dixerim</i>. Halm wrote <i>ut ita
dixerim</i>, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but <i>ut sic</i> is more
common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec16" id = "critII_sec16"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16"><b>§16</b></a>.
<b>compositis exultantes</b>. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888,
p. 72) would prefer <i>compositis rigidi</i> (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii.
10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), <i>comptis</i> (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42)
<i>exultantes</i> = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend
putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is <i>laetis exultantes,
compositis corrupti</i> (Lindau): or <i>compositis exiles</i>
(Düntzner).</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec17" id = "critII_sec17"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>.
<b>quidlibet</b>, most codd.: <i>quamlibet</i> M, Vall. Harl. 4995,
4950: <i>qui licet</i> bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879,
p. 162) condemns <i>illud</i>, and would read either <i>quamlibet
frigidum</i> (cp. <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19">3 §19</a> and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet
apertum), or <i>quidlibet frigidum</i>, which latter is approved by
P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of <i>illud frigidum et
inane</i>, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on <a
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec16">§16</a>.</p>
<p><b>Attici sunt scilicet</b>. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to
be preferred. The retention of <i>sunt</i> (represented in some MSS. by
a simple <i>s</i>,—hence the reading <i>Atticis scilicet</i>)
makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a <i>sunt</i>
after <i>qui praec. concl. obscuri</i>: in so loose a writer as
Quintilian the first <i>sunt</i> would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn
and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have
<i>Attici scilicet</i>: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives
<i>Atticis scilicet</i>. In the Ioannensis I find <i>Attici s</i> (for
<i>sunt</i>): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give <i>Atticis s. Scilicet</i> (om.
Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be <i>Attici sunt</i>.
Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give <i>Atticos scilicet</i>
(<i>Athicos</i> Harl. 4995): qy. <i>Atticorum similes</i>? (cp. Cic.
Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers <i>Atticis</i> (sc. <i>se pares
credunt</i>).</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec22" id = "critII_sec22"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>.
<b>proposito</b>. This conjecture by Gertz (Opuscula philol. &c.,
p. 134) I have found in the Ioannensis (*ppo) and in Harl.
2662 and 11671. It is approved also by Kiderlin. BNHb Prat. Sal. give
<i>propositio</i>: all other codd. <i>proposita</i>. Perhaps we should
read (with Ioan.) <i>sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est</i>.
Prat. omits the second <i>est</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec23" id = "critII_sec23"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>.
<b>tenuitas aut iucunditas</b>, Halm and Meister: <i>tenuitas ac
iucunditas</i> b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: <i>tenuitas aut nuditas</i> N
Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: <i>tenuitas ac nuditas</i> Prat. Harl. 4995,
4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: <i>aut iuditas</i> Bg.</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec25" id = "critII_sec25"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>.
<b>quid ergo? non est satis</b>, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly
afterwards, <i>mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem,
quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere?</i> (= <i>sed etiam
si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si
omnia haec consequi possem</i>).</p>
<p><a name = "critII_sec28" id = "critII_sec28"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>.
<b>deerunt</b>, Francius: <i>deerant</i> (derant) all codd. Becher
defends <i>deerant</i>: ‘der Rhetor meint dass <i>qui propria bona
adiecerit</i> öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu
ergänzen als zu beschneiden <i>si quid redundabit</i>.’</p>
<p><b>oporteat</b> bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: <i>oportebat</i> B
Prat. N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671 Burn. 244 Dorv. The
latter (which is adopted by Halm) would indicate (cp. viii. 4. 22) a
condition which ought to have been and may still be realised: the former
(adopted by Meister and approved by Becher) is the conjunctive
potential, and is quite in Quintilian’s manner (cp. xi. 2. 20): it
conveys the expression of a present duty and obligation, the realisation
of which may now be expected, and it connects also more intimately with
<i>erit</i> in the following sentence.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">212</span>
<h5><a name = "critIII" id = "critIII">
CHAPTER III.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec1" id = "critIII_sec1"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>.
<b>nobis ipsis</b>, codd.: <i>e nobis ipsis</i> Gertz.</p>
<p><b>utilitatis etiam</b>. Ioan. gives <i>etiam utilitatis</i>, which
Spalding quotes also from Goth.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec2" id = "critIII_sec2"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>alte refossa</b>. This (the reading of N) I have found also
in Ioan. and Prat.: <i>alter effossa</i> BH: <i>altius effossa</i> Harl.
4995 M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Bodl. Dorv.: <i>alte effossa</i> Harl.
2662, 11671.</p>
<p><b>fecundior fit</b>. <i>Fit</i> appears as a correction in T and
Vall.: it does not occur in B M Prat. H T Ioan. S Harl. 4995 or 2662.
Perhaps <i>fecundior</i> is the true reading, and <i>est</i> is to be
supplied in thought: Introd. <a href =
"QuintIntro.html#intro_pagelv">p. lv</a>.</p>
<p><b>effundit</b> B Prat. Ioan. N and most codd.: <i>effunditur</i>
b H. <ins class = "correction" title = "anomalous boldface"><b>et
fundit</b></ins> Vall.<sup>2</sup> M, Harl. 4995, Halm and Meister.</p>
<p><b>parentis</b>: <i>parentium</i> Ioan.: <i>parentum</i> Dorv. Harl.
4950 Burn. 244 C: <i>parentibus</i> bH Bodl.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec4" id = "critIII_sec4"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>.
<b>iam hinc</b>. Obrecht <i>iam hunc</i>: see note <i>ad loc.</i> Harl.
2662 and 11671 agree in <i>iam hic</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec6" id = "critIII_sec6"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>.
<b>scriptorum</b>. This reading, attributed to Badius by Halm and
Meister, is found in Ioan. Harl. 4995 Burn. 243 Harl. 2662 (the last
corr. from <i>-em</i>). It is also in the editio princeps (Campanus),
and the ed. Andr. Becher reports it as a correction in Vall.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec9" id = "critIII_sec9"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>.
<b>sequetur</b> Bn and Bg N Sal. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829, 11671:
<i>persequetur</i> b Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: <i>prosequetur</i> HM Bodl.
and Prat. <i>Prosequetur</i> (Spald. and Bonnell) may be right: there is
a graphic touch about the compound.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec10" id = "critIII_sec10"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec10"><b>§10</b></a>.
<b>ut provideamus</b> obelized by Halm (after Bursian): but see note.
Becher proposed <i>provideamus ut resistamus et ... coerceamus</i>:
Krüger suggests rather <i>resistamus et provideamus ut ...
coerceamus</i>: Jeep, <i>ut provide eamus</i>, also, for <i>efferentes
se</i>, <i>efferventes</i>. The passage is discussed by Kiderlin
(Blätter f.d. bayer Gymn. 1888, p. 85), who recommends the excision
of <i>et</i> before <i>efferentes</i>, as it is found in no MS. He
translates: ‘Aber gerade dann, wenn wir uns jene Fähigkeit (schnell zu
schreiben) angeeignet haben (bei solchen, welche noch nicht schnell
schreiben können, fehlt es an Ruhepausen obnehin nicht), wollen wir
innehalten, um vorwärts zu blicken, die durchgehenden Rosse wollen wir
gleichsam mit den Zügeln zurückhalten.’ He considers <i>ut
provideamus</i> a necessary addition, in order to make the meaning of
<i>resistamus</i> clear. ‘Was jeder Besonnene beim Schreiben thut, dass
er manchmal innehält, um vorwärts zu blicken, d.h. um sich zu besinnen,
welche Gedanken nun am besten folgen und wie sie am besten ausgedrückt
werden, rät hier Quint. seinen Lesern.’ The best MSS. read <i>resist. ut
provid. efferentes equos frenis</i>: Hb Bodl. Burn. 243 give <i>ut</i>
for <i>et</i>: Harl. 4995 has <i>resist. ut prohibeamus ferentes equos
fr. quib. coerc.</i>: 4950 and Burn. 244 <i>resist. ut prohibeamus
efferentes equos quos fr. quib. coerc.</i> The reading <i>et efferentes
se</i> is due to Burmann. Something might be said for <i>et ferentes
se</i>: ‘ferre se’ is often used by Vergil of ‘moving with conscious
pride,’ e.g. Aen. i. 503: v. 372: viii. 198: ix. 597: xi. 779.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec12" id = "critIII_sec12"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec12"><b>§12</b></a>.
<b>patruo</b>. Harl. 2662 and 11671 both give <i>patrono</i>: which,
with other coincidences, establishes their relationship to the
Guelferbytanus (Spald.).</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec14" id = "critIII_sec14"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>.
<b>quod omni</b>, see note <i>ad loc.</i>: edd. vett <i>ex quo</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec15" id = "critIII_sec15"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15"><b>§15</b></a>.
<b>plura et celerius</b> Prat. N: and so now Becher reports from B and
Ambrosianus ii. <i>Et</i> had escaped Halm’s notice, and Meister
follows, <i>plura celerius</i>.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">213</span>
<p><b>sed quid</b>: <i>sed</i> is supplied by the old edd., but does not
appear in any MS. Halm (ii. p. 369) conjectures <i>at</i>, which
may easily have slipped out after <i>obveniat</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec17" id = "critIII_sec17"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>.
<b>quae fuit</b>: (<i>manent</i>) <i>quae fudit</i> Harl. 4995 (as also
Goth. Voss. 2 and Vall.)</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec19" id = "critIII_sec19"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>.
<b>urget</b>. Kiderlin supports (in Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1888,
p. 86) his proposal to read <i>urgetur</i>, which would however
give a different antithesis. ‘When we write ourselves, our thoughts
outstrip our pen, but when we dictate we forget that the scribe is
writing under similar conditions, and give him too much to do.’</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec20" id = "critIII_sec20"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>.
<b>in intellegendo</b>. This conj., which is due to H. J. Müller
and Iwan Müller, has been adopted by Becher and Meister: <i>legendo</i>
BM Ioan, and most codd. (Halm). See note <i>ad loc.</i> The true reading
may be <i>si tardior in scribendo aut incertior, et in intellegendo
velut offensator fuit</i>. This is supported by <i>et diligendo</i> (bH
Burn. 243 Bodl.), for which Spalding conjectured <i>et delendo</i>,
Gertz <i>in tenendo</i> (‘significatur notarium imperitum et oscitantem
verba quae dictantur non statim intellegere aut fideliter tenere, ut
saepius eadem dictanda sint’). A number of codd. (Ioan. Vall. Harl.
4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv.) have <i>inertior</i> for
<i>incertior</i>: but this gives no antithesis to <i>tardior</i>: it
appears, however, in ed. Colon. 1527. The same codd. (and also M)
have <i>fuerit</i>, for <i>fuit</i>, which may be right.</p>
<p><b>concepta Regius</b>: <i>conceptae</i> codd. Becher points out that
<i>concipere</i> and <i>excutere</i> are ‘termini technici’: cp. Scrib.
ep. ad C. Jul. Callist. p. 3 R ne praegnanti medicamentum quo
conceptum excutitur detur: and Ovid, excute virgineo conceptas pectore
flammas.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec21" id = "critIII_sec21"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec21"><b>§21</b></a>.
<b>altiorem</b>. This reading, ascribed by Halm and Meister to ed.
Colon. (1536) I have found in Harl. 2662 (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1434) and 11671 (<span class =
"smallroman">A.D.</span> 1467). B N Ioan, and other codd.
<i>aptiorem</i>: Prat. <i>apertiorem</i>, and so a later hand in
Vall.</p>
<p><b>frontem et latus interim obiurgare</b>. B, Prat. M, Ioan., Harl.
2662, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 and Dorv. all give <i>simul et
interim</i>: Harl. 4995 (again in agreement with the 2nd hand in Vall.)
and Burn. 243 have <i>simul vertere latus et interim</i> (the reading of
many old edd.): so Bodl. except that it omits <i>et</i>. It is to b that
we must apply for what must be at least a trace of the true reading; and
b gives <i>sintieletus</i>, which H shows as <i>sintielatus</i>.
Considering how liable <i>s</i> (ſ) and <i>f</i> are to be confused,
I venture to think that <i>ſinti</i> may conceal <i>fronte</i>.</p>
<p>Bursian’s <i>femur et latus</i> (Halm and Meister) is not so near the
MSS.: it is based on ii. 12. 10 and xi. 3. 123 (quoted <i>ad loc.</i>),
but the latter passage would warrant <i>frontem</i> quite as much as
<i>femur</i>, and <i>frontem ferire</i> seems to have been considered by
Quintilian a more extravagant action than <i>femur ferire</i>, of which
he says ‘et usitatum est et indignantes decet et excitat auditorem.’ In
any case the man who is in the agony of composition is as likely, if
alone, to ‘rap his forehead’ and ‘smite his chest,’ as to ‘slap his
thigh.’</p>
<p>Frotscher and Bonnell’s <i>sinum et latus</i> cannot be supported by
any parallel for such an expression as <i>sinum caedere</i>,
<i>ferire</i>, <i>obiurgare</i>. Becher approves Gertz’s conjecture
<i>semet interim obiurgare</i>, which is adopted also by Krüger (3rd
ed.) as = <i>increpare</i>: ‘obiurgat semet ipse scribens et convicium
sibi facit ut stulto, si quando tardior in inveniendo est.’</p>
<p>Another interesting conjecture is put forward by Kiderlin (Blätter f.
d. bayer. Gymn. 1888, p. 87). He proposes to read (on the lines
of b) <i>singultire, latus int. ob.</i> This would need to be taken
of those more or less inarticulate sounds which the solitary writer
addresses <span class = "greek" title = "pros hon thumon">πρὸς ὃν
θυμόν</span>, when there is no one there to listen. Kiderlin refers to
<i>singultantium</i> in <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec20">7 §20</a>, of broken utterance: but
we cannot take the reference here of ‘sobs’ or ‘gasps’: the writer is
not practising with a view to theatrical effect, he is supposed to be
indulging in little peculiarities that become ridiculous in another’s
presence. As an alternative Kiderlin suggests <i>singultu latus interim
obiurgare</i>, comparing for the ablative <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec15">§15</a> cogitationem murmure agitantes.
<i>Singultus</i> is common
<span class = "pagenum">214</span>
enough: and Kiderlin thinks that as <i>singultire</i> is nearer the MSS.
than <i>singultare</i>, it may possibly have been used here by
Quintilian.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec22" id = "critIII_sec22"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>.
<b>secretum in dictando</b>. So bH Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.,
M, Dorv.: <i>quod dictando</i> BN Prat. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671,
Burn. 244 (corr. to <i>in</i>). With the reading <i>quod dictando perit,
atque liberum ... nemo dubitaverit</i> (Halm and Meister) it is
senseless to quote <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec20">2 §20</a> (Bonn., Meister, and
Dosson) as parallel. Krüger (3rd ed.) reads <i>secretum dictando perit.
Atque liberum arbitris</i>, &c.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec23" id = "critIII_sec23"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>.
<b>mihi certe iucundus</b>. After these words H has <i>videmoni</i> (and
so the cod. Alm.): Flor. <i>vindemoni</i>. This word greatly puzzled
Spalding, and has been allowed to disappear from the critical editions
of Halm and Meister. Jeep transformed it into <i>mihi certe <b>vitae
inani</b> iucundus</i>, &c. An ingenious suggestion is made by Mr.
L. C. Purser (in the Classical Review, ii, p. 222 b). He
thinks that it may be “the gloss of a monk, on a somewhat ornate passage
about poetry, who recollected how (as Bacon says in his ‘Essay on
Truth’) one of the Fathers had in great severity called Poesie <i>vinum
daemonum</i>.” Cp. Advancement of Learning ii. 22. 13, where Mr. Wright
tells us that Augustine calls poetry vinum erroris ab ebriis doctoribus
propinatum, Confess. i. 16; and that Jerome, in one of his letters to
Damasus, says Daemonum cibus est carmina poetarum, while both these
quotations are combined in one passage by Cornelius Agrippa, de Incert.
&c. c. 4. Hence the phrase <i>vinum daemonum</i> may have been
compounded.—If the gloss is to be credited to the copyist of H (as
seems probable), it perhaps arose from something that caught his eye in
the Bambergensis four lines further down, where <i>tendere ani</i>(mum)
is shown in a form that could easily be mistaken by a sleepy scribe.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec24" id = "critIII_sec24"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24"><b>§24</b></a>.
<b>ramis</b>, referred by Halm and Meister to ed. Camp., appears in
Harl. 4995: it is reported by Becher also from the Vallensis. All other
codd. <i>rami</i>.</p>
<p><b>voluptas ista videatur</b> most codd.: <i>videatur ista
voluptas</i> N.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec25" id = "critIII_sec25"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>.
<b>oculi</b>. Kiderlin thinks it allowable to infer from the words ex
quo nulla exaudiri vox that <i>aures aut</i> has fallen out before
<i>oculi</i>. Cp. <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec28">§28</a>
nihil eorum quae oculis vel auribus incursant.</p>
<p><b>velut tectos</b>: <i>velut rectos</i> all codd. There is the same
confusion at ix. 1. 20 where M has <i>recteque</i> for <i>tecteque</i>
(i.e. tectaeque). For Becher’s explanation of the vulgate <i>tectos</i>
(first in ed. Leid.) see <i>ad loc.</i> Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer.
Gymn. 1888, p. 88) is not satisfied, and objects that for <i>tectos
teneat</i> we should have expected <i>tegat</i>. The figure also seems
to him out of place, as the context speaks not of the attack of an
enemy, but of the distractions which draw the mind of the student away
from his task: <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec23">§23</a>
<i>avocent</i>, <i>respexit</i>: <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec24">§24</a> <i>ad se trahunt</i>: <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec25">§25</a> <i>aliud agere</i>. He
proposes, therefore, <i>velut recto itinere</i>, comparing iv. 2. 104 ut
vi quadam videamur adfectus velut recto itinere depulsi, and ii. 3. 9 et
recto itinere lassi plerumque devertunt. <i>Itinere</i> may first have
fallen out, and then <i>recto</i> may have been changed to
<i>rectos</i>.—Halm conjectured <i>velut secretos</i>, or
<i>coercitos</i>; Wrobel, <i>velut relictos</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec26" id = "critIII_sec26"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec26"><b>§26</b></a>.
<b>haud deerit</b>: <i>aut deerit</i> BN Ioan, and all codd. except a
later hand in Vall. Kiderlin (Blätter l.c.) comments on the infrequent
use of <i>haud</i> in Quintilian, though <i>haud dubie</i> <a href =
"QuintBody1.html#chapI_sec85">1 §85</a> (where however GH have
<i>aut</i>) must have escaped him (cp. i. 1. 4); and founding on
the consensus of the MSS. for <i>aut</i> he proposes to read <i>aut non
deerit</i> or <i>aut certe non deerit</i>. But <i>haud</i> goes closely
with <i>deerit</i>, and does not (like <i>non</i>, <i>ac non</i>)
introduce an antithesis to <i>supererit</i>. <i>Aut deerit</i> might be
made to mean that the <i>sleepless</i> man is to work: but this would be
too cruel!</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec29" id = "critIII_sec29"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec29"><b>§29</b></a>.
<b>et itinere deerremus</b>: <i>et ita ne</i> BN Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,
11671, Dorv. and Ball.: <i>ita erremus</i> HMb Bodl. (<i>erramus</i>).
The reading in the text is given by Halm and Meister as from the old
editions: it occurs in Vall. and Harl. 4995.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec31" id = "critIII_sec31"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec31"><b>§31</b></a>.
<b>crebra relatione</b> appears in Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) corrected from
<i>crebro relationi</i> which is the reading of B Ioan. and all codd.
Jeep suggested <i>crebra dilatione</i>,
<span class = "pagenum">215</span>
Kiderlin <i>crebriore elatione</i>. Other proposals are <i>crebra
relictionis</i>, <i>q. i. c., repetitione</i>, Gottfried Hermann (in
Frotscher), <i>crebra relictione</i>, <i>q. i. c., et repetitione</i>,
Zumpt (in Spald. v, p. 423). Becher thinks <i>crebro</i> may be
right, adverbs being often used in Latin where we should use adjectives:
<i>crebro</i> would then go closely with <i>morantur</i> and
<i>frangunt</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critIII_sec32" id = "critIII_sec32"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIII_sec32"><ins class = "correction"
title = "line reference missing"><b>§32</b></ins></a>.
<b>adiciendo</b> ‘for making additions’: so Bursian, Halm, and
Becher. BN Prat. Ioan, and most codd. have <i>adicienda</i>: b
<i>adiciendi sint</i>: Harl. <i>adjiciendi sit</i>. Meister adopts
<i>adicienti</i> from ed. Col. 1555: so Spalding: cp. iv. 5. 6 quo
cognoscenti iudicium conamur auferre (where B has
<i>cognoscendi</i>).</p>
<p><b>ultra modum esse ceras velim</b>: Ioan, omits <i>esse</i>, and is
thus in agreement with N.</p>
<h5><a name = "critIV" id = "critIV">
CHAPTER IV.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critIV_sec3" id = "critIV_sec3"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapIV_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>.
<b>habet</b>: <i>habeat</i>, Halm quoting from ed. Camp. <i>Habeat</i>
occurs in Burn. 243: most codd. have <i>habet</i>, but some (H and
Bodl.) give <i>habent</i>.</p>
<h5><a name = "critV" id = "critV">
CHAPTER V.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critV_sec1" id = "critV_sec1"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>.
<b><span class = "greek" title = "hexin">ἕξιν</span> parantibus</b>: for
the <i>ex imparantibus</i> of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added <i>non est
huius</i>. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives <i>nec exuberantis id quidem est
operis ut explicemus</i>.</p>
<p><b>factum est iam</b>, Halm and Meister: <i>est etiam</i> all codd.
except Ioan, which has <i>factum etiam</i>.</p>
<p><b>iam robustorum</b>: so all codd. except bHFT which omit
<i>iam</i>: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give <i>iam
robustiorum</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec2" id = "critV_sec2"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>id Messallae</b>: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however
give <i>M. id Messalae</i>: and Harl. 4995 <i>Marco id Messalae</i>. The
spelling <i>Messallae</i> is adopted in the text as more correct.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec4" id = "critV_sec4"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>.
<b>eadem</b>: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger
(3rd ed.): <i>eandem</i> all codd., with the single exception of M, and
so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the
meaning. The only way to explain <i>eandem</i> seems to be to continue
the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp.
eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an
elevating influence, while his licences of style <i>do not carry with
them in advance</i>, or <i>involve</i>, the corresponding ability to use
the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’
This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also
Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no <i>non</i> with <i>praesumunt</i>,
at least if we may read <i>eadem</i>: ‘poetical licence implies that the
orator can say the same things <i>propriis verbis</i>.’ Bursian
suggested <i>nec</i> (for <i>et</i>) <i>verba</i> ...
<i>praesumunt</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec5" id = "critV_sec5"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>.
<b>post quod</b>. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2,
<i>praeter quod</i>: so Vall.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec13" id = "critV_sec13"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>.
<b>reus sit</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. <i>rectene reus
sit</i>, to correspond with <i>rectene occiderit</i> and <i>honestene
tradiderit</i> in what follows: along with Gertz’s <i>quaeramus, an</i>
to correspond with <i>veniat in iudicium an</i>, Becher, however
(Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a
change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read,
‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui
... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run,
‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod
<span class = "pagenum">216</span>
Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of
parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.</p>
<p>Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit
insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?,
so here the <i>finita</i> or <i>specialis causa</i> shows the form of a
positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca.
<i>Reus sit</i> and <i>legerit</i> are motived only by the disjunctive
interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or
only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The <i>infinita quaestio</i>, on
the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a
question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following
<i>finitae</i> and <i>infinitae quaestiones</i>. The <i>finita
quaestio</i> rests on the <i>generalis quaestio</i>: acquittal of the
charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to <i>violeturne</i>,
&c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10)
Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne,
&c.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec14" id = "critV_sec14"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>.
<b>dum adulescit profectus</b>, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244,
Ball.: <i>inventus</i> Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj.
<i>invenis</i> appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. <i>dum adul.
profectui sunt util.</i></p>
<p><b>quia inventionem</b>, Halm: <i>quae inventionem</i> all codd. Qy.
<i>quod</i>?</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec16" id = "critV_sec16"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec16"><b>§16</b></a><ins class =
"correction" title = "period missing">.
</ins><b>materia fuerit</b>. Meister suggests <i>erit</i>: perhaps
rather <i>fuerit—necesse erit</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec17" id = "critV_sec17"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>.
<b>assuescere</b> Zumpt: <i>assuefieri</i> Philander. All MSS. have
<i>assuefacere</i>. Frotscher wrote <i>inanibus</i> se <i>simulacris ...
assuefacere</i>, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan.
Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give <i>difficilis digressus</i>:
but in view of the consensus for <i>assuefacere</i> the alternation
<i>difficilius digressos</i> (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243)
is worth considering: <i>inanibus simulacris</i> would then go (though
awkwardly) with <i>detineri</i> (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and
the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec18" id = "critV_sec18"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>.
<b>transferrentur</b> N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec20" id = "critV_sec20"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>.
<b>decretoriis</b> Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.:
Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) <i>derectoriis</i> BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244:
<i>detectoris</i> b: <i>delectoris</i> H: <i>delectoriis</i> Bodl.:
<i>de rhetoriis</i> Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: <i>vel
rhetoricis</i> M.</p>
<p><b>satis</b> so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 <i>litis</i>: Hb
<i>sitis</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec21" id = "critV_sec21"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec21"><b>§21</b></a>.
<b>idoneus</b> bHM: <i>si idoneus</i> Bn Bg Sal.: <i>sudoneus</i> N:
<i>is idoneus</i> Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec22" id = "critV_sec22"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>.
<b>sustinere</b> Halm and Meister: <i>sustineri</i> Bn Bg HN Sal.</p>
<p><b>recidet</b> occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a
correction in Vall.: all other codd. <i>recidere</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critV_sec23" id = "critV_sec23"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapV_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>.
<b>diligenter effecta</b> all codd. Regius proposed <i>una diligenter
effecta</i>, Badius <i>una enim diligenter effecta</i>, and so many edd.
<i>Una</i> would come in well before <i>quam</i>; but Becher rightly
holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative
alone, but qualitative as well. He reports <i>una enim</i> as a
correction in the Vallensis.</p>
<p><b>quidque</b>. Fleckeisen proposed <i>quicquid</i>; see Madvig on de
Fin. v. §24.</p>
<h5><a name = "critVI" id = "critVI">
CHAPTER VI.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec1" id = "critVI_sec1"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>.
<b>vacui nec otium patitur</b>. The reading in the text, which is quite
satisfactory, occurs in Harl. 4995, 4950, and Dorv. Bn and Bg give
<i>vacuum otium pat.</i>, and are followed by N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and
11671. For <i>otium patitur</i> b (followed by HFT) gives the remarkable
reading <i>experientium</i> (<i>experientiam</i> Burn. 243, Bodl.),
which reminds one of the confusion at the opening of ch. v: may the true
reading perhaps be <i>nec <span class = "greek" title =
"hexin">ἕξιν</span> parantibus otium patitur</i>? Jeep suggested
<i>expetit otium</i>: <i>nec perire otium patitur</i> has also been
suggested.</p>
<span class = "pagenum">217</span>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec2" id = "critVI_sec2"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>desit</b>. After this word there is a considerable space left blank
in Bn and Bg, as well as in some later MSS., e.g. Harl. 2662 and 11671.
In Harl. 4995 there is no blank, but in the margin the words ‘hic
deficit antiquus codex.’</p>
<p><b>inhaeret ... quod laxatur</b>: a later hand in Vall., Meister, and
Krüger. BMN give <i>inhaeret ... quae laxatur</i>, which appears in ed.
Camp. (and Halm) as <i>inhaerent ... quae laxantur</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec4" id = "critVI_sec4"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec4"><b>§4</b></a>.
<b>tandem</b> Madvig, Emend. Liv. p. 61, <i>tamen</i> libri.</p>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec5" id = "critVI_sec5"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>.
<b>redire</b>. I find this reading in Bg Ioan. C Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829,
and restore it to the text, in place of <i>regredi</i> (Halm and
Meister), which seems to have arisen out of <i>redi</i> HF, and occurs
in Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, 244, and Dorv.</p>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec6" id = "critVI_sec6"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>.
<b>domo</b> Harl. 4995: <i>domū</i> B Ioan. MN Sal.</p>
<p><a name = "critVI_sec7" id = "critVI_sec7"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVI_sec7"><b>§7</b></a>.
<b>utrimque</b> Bonnell and Meister. The codd. give <i>utrumque</i>.
Gesner (followed by Halm: cp. i. §131) proposed <i>utcumque</i>:
Spalding <i>utique</i>: Jeep <i>si tutius utcumque quaerendum est</i>
(cp. iv. 1. 21), founding on the reading of b <i>strict</i>
* * * (<i>margine adcisa</i>), which reappears in HFT
(<i>strictius—strutius</i>).</p>
<h5><a name = "critVII" id = "critVII">
CHAPTER VII.</a></h5>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec1" id = "critVII_sec1"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec1"><b>§1</b></a>.
<b>praemium quoddam</b> Harl. 4995, probably following a correction in
the Vallensis: <i>primus quid amplius</i> Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. HFTM Harl.
2662, 4950. <i>Amplissimum</i> Stoer.</p>
<p><b>intrare portum</b> Bn Bg H Ioan. N Sal. and most MSS. Halm adopts
Meiser’s conj. <i>instar portus</i>. On this reading the advocate who
has nothing but (<i>solam</i>) the <i>scribendi facultas</i>, and who
therefore is found wanting at a crisis, is compared to a harbour which
seems to promise a refuge to every ship at sea, but which really (owing
to rocks and sand-banks) can afford protection only when the sea is
calm, and so not <i>praesentissimis quibusque periculis</i>. Neither of
the two justifies the expectations formed. But it must be admitted that
the comparison of a man to a harbour is awkward. Other suggestions are
<i>monstrare portum</i>: <i>instaurare p.</i>: and <i>in terra
portum</i> (?) Jeep.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec2" id = "critVII_sec2"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec2"><b>§2</b></a>.
<b>statimque</b>. I follow Krüger (3rd ed.) in the punctuation: see
<i>ad loc.</i> The editors print <i>statimque, si non succ.</i></p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec3" id = "critVII_sec3"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec3"><b>§3</b></a>.
<b>quae vero patitur</b>, &c. In the text <i>possit</i> (for
<i>sit</i> of MSS.) is due to Frotscher, <i>omittere</i> (for
<i>mittere</i>) to Bonnell. <i>Ratio</i> (for <i>oratio</i> Bn Bg H
Ioan. M) occurs in Harl. 4995. Krüger (3rd ed.), following Gertz,
reads <i>quae vero patitur hoc ratio ut quisquam sit orator aliquando?
mitto casus: quid</i>, &c. <i>Aliquando</i> he takes as = ‘only
sometimes,’ ‘not always’ (i.e. tum demum cum se praeparare potuerit).
For <i>mitto casus</i> (‘praeteritio’) he compares v. 10. 92: xi. 2.
25.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec5" id = "critVII_sec5"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec5"><b>§5</b></a>.
<b>quid secundum ac deinceps</b>: so Harl. 4995. The MSS. clearly point
to this reading, though Halm and Meister print <i>ac sec. et deinc</i>.
Bn and Bg (as also N Ioan. and Sal.) have <i>ac sec. ac dein.</i>: but
in Bg above the first <i>ac</i> the letter <i>d</i> appears (evidently
for <i>quid</i>, not <i>ad</i> as H), and over the second
<i>ac</i>, <i>et</i> is written, and is adopted by HFTM. In place of the
first <i>ac</i> Harl. 2662 gives <i>atque</i>, and so Spalding reports
Guelf. (with which 2662 is frequently in agreement). The Carcassonensis
also has <i>quid secundum</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec6" id = "critVII_sec6"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec6"><b>§6</b></a>.
<b>via dicet ducetur</b>, bHFM Harl. 4950 Burn. 244: <i>ducet
ducetur</i> Bn Bg Ioan. Sal. Dorv. Harl. 4995 shows the variant <i>viam
discet</i> (as Goth. Voss. 2 Vall.) Meister, following Eussner, inverts
the words, reading <i>ducetur</i>, <i>dicet</i> to avoid a ‘tautology’:
cp. iii. 7. 15: ix. 4. 120. Bonnet changed <i>ducetur</i> into
<i>utetur</i>. Kiderlin cannot believe that Quintilian wrote <i>ducetur
... velut duce</i>, and suggests that <i>certa</i> may have fallen
<span class = "pagenum">218</span>
out after <i>serie</i> (Rhein. Mus. 46, p. 24). This gives, he
thinks, additional point to the clause introduced by <i>propter
quod</i>: men who have had but little practice do not always speak
methodically (via), but in telling stories they have no difficulty in
keeping to the thread of their discourse, because the sequence of events
is ‘a trusty guide.’</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec8" id = "critVII_sec8"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec8"><b>§8</b></a>.
<b>paulum</b>, BM Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv.:
<i>paululum</i> bHN Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl.</p>
<p><b>sed ipsum os coit atque concurrit</b>, Halm, by adding <i>os</i>
to the reading of B (Harl. 2662, 4995). <i>sed ipsum os quoque
concurrit</i>, Spalding after Gesner. In Ioan. I find <i>sed id
ipsum coit atque conc.</i>, which may show that we ought to read <i>os
ipsum</i>.</p>
<p><b>elocutioni</b>, b: om. B (also N Ioan. Harl. 2662 Sal.) ‘haud scio
an recte,’ Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec9" id = "critVII_sec9"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec9"><b>§9</b></a>.
<b>observatione una</b>, Harl. 4995 M Dorv. and Meister:
<i>observationen</i> (<i>-nū</i> Bg) <i>in luna</i> Bn Bg Ioan. N Sal.
Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: <i>observatione</i> (<i>-um</i> H) <i>in
una</i> bH: <i>observatione simul</i> Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec13" id = "critVII_sec13"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec13"><b>§13</b></a>.
<b>superfluere video, cum eo quod</b>, Harl. 4995, Voss. 2 Goth. Spald.
and most edd.: <i>superfluere video: quodsi</i> Halm, and a later hand
in Vall. (Becher): <i>videmus superfluere: cum eo quodsi</i> Meister,
followed by Hild and Krüger (3rd ed.). The commonest MS. reading is
<i>superfluere cum eo quod</i> (BHFTN Sal. Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829,
11671, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.), from which <i>video</i> seems to have
disappeared: the later hand in Bg gives <i>videantur</i>.</p>
<p>Meister seems to be right in retaining <i>cum eo quod</i>, though his
adoption of <i>videmus</i> for <i>video</i> is unnecessary, considering
<i>mirabor</i> in the same sentence. <i>Cum eo quod</i> (see <i>ad
loc.</i>) is defended by Günther (de Conj. Caus. apud Quint. usu: Halle,
1881, p. 24): he holds that it is more probable that <i>video</i>
dropped out of the text than that it ‘in illo corrupto <i>cumeo</i>
latet’ (Halm). Becher (Phil. Runds. I, n. 51: 1638) denied that ‘cum eo
quod’ could mean ‘mit der Einschränkung dass,’ either in Cic. ad Att.
vi. 1. 7 or anywhere in Quintilian. He found the necessary limitation in
<i>quodsi</i> (‘wenn dagegen’: Cic. ad Fam. xii. 20) and supported
Halm’s reading (which is also that of Par. 2. sec. m.), explaining the
whole passage as follows: ‘Ich bin kein Freund des extemporierten
Vortrages: wenn aber Geist und Wärme belebend wirkt, trifft es sich oft,
dass der grösste Fleiss nicht den Erfolg eines extemporierten Vortrages
erreichen kann.’ But in his latest paper (Programm des Gymnasiums zu
Aurich) he advocates the reading and explanation adopted in the
text.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec14" id = "critVII_sec14"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec14"><b>§14</b></a>.
<b>ut Cicero dictitabant</b>. The reading is far from certain, but it
seems best to adhere (with Halm) to the oldest MS., Bn, which is in
agreement with N Sal. Ioan., Harl. 2662, 11671, and Dorv. The best
alternative is <i>ut Cicero dicit aiebant</i> (C, Par. 1, also in margin
of Harl. 4950: Bonnell-Meister): b H Bodl. and Burn. 243 give <i>dicit
agebant</i>, which shows that the older codex from which b is derived
probably had this reading, if indeed it is not a mistake for
<i>dictitabant</i>. Bg gives <i>dictabant</i>: Harl. 4995 Goth. Voss. 2,
Par. 2, sec. m. <i>aiebant</i>: Regius conjectured <i>ut Cicero ait
dictitabant</i>: so ed. Camp, and Meister, cp. xii. 3. 11. For the
inclusion of Cicero among the <i>veteres</i> cp. ix. 3. 1 ‘ut omnes
veteres et Cicero praecipue.’</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec16" id = "critVII_sec16"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec16"><ins class = "correction"
title = "line reference missing"><b>§16</b></ins></a>.
<b>tum intendendus</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets <i>tum</i> (which
is omitted in bHM) on the ground that this sentence does not contain,
like the next (addit ad dicendum ...) a new thought, but rather (after
the parentheses pectus est enim ... mentis, and ideoque imperitis ...
non desunt) forms only a further development of what went before
(omniaque de quibus dicturi erimus, personae ... recipienda): hence also
the repetition of participles, habenda ... recipienda ... intendendus.
H. 2662 gives <i>tamen</i> (and is here again in agreement with
Guelf.).</p>
<p><b>addit ad dicendum</b>, B: <i>addiscendum</i> (om. <i>addit</i>)
bHFT. The loss of <i>addit</i> seems to have given rise to
interpolation: M shows <i>addit ad discendum stimulos habet et
dicendorum expectata laus</i>. Bonnell prints <i>Ad dic. etiam pudor
stim. habet et dic. exp. aus</i>: so Vall. For the gerund used as subst.
cp. pudenda xi. 1. 84: i. 8. 21: praefanda
<span class = "pagenum">219</span>
viii. 3. 45: desuescendis iii. 8. 70 and xii. 9. 17 num ex tempore
dicendis inseri possit.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec17" id = "critVII_sec17"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec17"><b>§17</b></a>.
<b>pretium</b>, all codd.: <i>praemium</i> Halm, following Regius.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec18" id = "critVII_sec18"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec18"><b>§18</b></a>.
<b>praecepimus</b>, edd. vett, occurs in Harl. 4995 and
Vall.<sup>2</sup>: other codd. <i>praecipimus</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec19" id = "critVII_sec19"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec19"><b>§19</b></a>.
<b>cum ... sint consecuti</b> bHM: <i>cum ... sunt consecuti</i> Bn
Bg N. I cannot follow Becher in adopting the indicative here,
as at <a href = "QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec6">2 §6</a>
(<i>tradiderunt</i>), where see note. Here <i>cum</i> is more or less
causal: there it is antithetical. In point of form the two sentences are
no doubt very much alike. Here the meaning seems to be ‘he who wishes to
acquire <i>extemporalis facilitas</i> must consider it his duty to
arrive at the point where..., seeing that many,’ &c.</p>
<p>Gertz put a full stop at <i>tutior</i>, and for <i>cum</i> read
<i>quin</i>, holding that, on the traditional reading (i.e. with
<i>extemporalis facilitas</i> as subject), <i>potest</i> would be
expected instead of <i>debet</i>. This suggestion is adopted in Krüger’s
third edition. H. J. Müller suggested <i>Nam ... sunt
consecuti</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec20" id = "critVII_sec20"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec20"><b>§20</b></a>.
<b>tanta esse umquam debet</b>. This conj. of Herzog I find in the cod.
Dorv., and receive it into the text; Halm and Krüger adopt Jeep’s
<i>tanta sit umquam</i>. Bn Bg N Ioan. Harl. 2662 give <i>tanta esse
umquam fiducia</i>: M has <i>tantam esse umquam fiduciam</i>: Vall.
<i>esse unquam tantam fid.</i>: Harl. 4995 <i>esse tantam unquam</i>.
Regius made the addition of <i>velim</i> after <i>facilitatis</i>:
Becher thinks it may have dropped out before <i>ut non</i>. Meister
follows: perhaps rather <i>tantam velim</i> (t<sup>m</sup>) <i>esse
unquam</i>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec22" id = "critVII_sec22"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec22"><b>§22</b></a>.
<b>consequi</b>, Spald.: <i>non sequi</i> bH: <i>sequi</i> MC Harl.
4995, 4950: om. Bn, Bg, N Sal. Ioan. Harl. 4829. Becher would omit it,
explaining <i>utrumque non dabitur</i> as ‘vim omnem et rebus et verbis
intendere.’</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec23" id = "critVII_sec23"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec23"><b>§23</b></a>.
<b>satis</b> Krüger (3rd ed.) brackets, considering it to be the result
of a dittography, and comparing what follows deinde ... aptabimus vela
et disponemus rudentes. It seems however quite genuine.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec24" id = "critVII_sec24"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec24"><b>§24</b></a>.
<b>non labitur</b>. Perhaps the most that can be said for this reading
(which is that of Spalding, following earlier edd.) is that it is
undoubtedly better than <i>non capitur</i>, which occurs in Bn Bg H
Ioan. M and most codd., and is adopted by Halm and Meister.
<i>Capitur</i> is explained in the Bonnell-Meister ed. by reference to
such phrases as ‘altero oculo capi’ and ‘mens capta’ alongside of ‘mente
captus’ in Livy: it is not ‘lamed’ or ‘weakened.’ This can hardly stand.
Another reading is <i>rapitur</i>, which Halm thought might be right:
but the notion of ‘snatching away’ seems too violent for the context,
though appropriate enough in the passages quoted in support, vi. pr. §4
a certissimis rapta fatis, and Hor. Car. iv. 7. 8 quae rapit hora diem.
Hild suggests <i>animo</i> (or <i>mente</i>) <i>non labitur</i>: Jeep
<i>non carpitur</i> (cp. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 2. 13 totum potest excidere
quod potest carpi): Becher <i>non abit</i> (cp. ix. 4. 14 abierit omnis
vis, iucunditas, decor). The passage invites emendation: <i>non
cadit</i> might stand alongside of Becher’s <i>non abit</i>, or such a
future as <i>servabitur</i> or <i>retinebitur</i> could take the place
of the negation, though we should then look for <i>deperdet</i> instead
of <i>deperdit</i>.</p>
<p><b>non omnino</b> B and codd.: <i>omnino non</i> Gesner, followed by
Halm.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec25" id = "critVII_sec25"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec25"><b>§25</b></a>.
<b>est alia exercitatio</b>, Harl. 2662 (Guelf.), 4995, 4950, 4829,
11671, Burn. 244, M, C, and so Krüger (3rd ed.): <i>est illa</i> BH
Bodl. Burn. 243 Dorv.: <i>est et illa</i> Spalding Halm and Meister (cp.
ix. 3. 35 est et illud repetendi genus, quod...).</p>
<p><b>utilior</b> (Halm and Meister, following Spalding and ‘edd.
vett.’) Vall.<sup>2</sup>, Harl. 4995: all other codd. <i>utilitatis</i>
(Halm: ‘ex utilis magis<ins class = "correction" title = "punctuation unchanged">?).</ins> In support of his proposal to read <i>maioris
utilitatis</i>, Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 24, p. 90)
compares ii. 4. 20 quod non simplicis utilitatis opus est: and xi. 1. 60
quod est sane summae difficultatis.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec26" id = "critVII_sec26"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec26"><b>§26</b></a>.
<b>quam illa</b>: so all codd. Gertz <i>quam in illa</i> (sc.
exercitatione), and so Meister. This is opposed by Becher (Bursian’s
Jahresb. 1887, p. 49), ‘Zu <i>componitur</i>
<span class = "pagenum">220</span>
ist Subjekt <i>exercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio</i>
(<i>dum tamen ... ipsum</i>) <i>persequendi</i>, d.h. dem Sinne nach
<i>tacita oratio</i>, wie <i>dum t. q. dicat i. s. i.</i> zeigt, zu
<i>illa</i> ist Subjekt <i>vera oratio</i>; <i>componitur oratio</i>
aber ist nicht auffälliger als <i>explicatur exercitatio</i>.’</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec27" id = "critVII_sec27"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec27"><b>§27</b></a>.
<b>ut Cicero ... tradit</b>. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in
transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, after
<i>ubique</i>. Becher rejects it as a gloss.</p>
<p><b>aut legendum</b> b M: om. BN Sal.: <i>vel ad legendum</i> Vall.
Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned
only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it
promotes the ‘facultas ex tempore dicendi.’</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec28" id = "critVII_sec28"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec28"><b>§28</b></a>.
<b>innatans</b> Stoer: <i>unatrans</i> BN Ioan. Sal.: <i>inatrans</i>
bH: <i>iura trans</i> Harl. 2662: <i>intrans</i> FM
Vall.<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec29" id = "critVII_sec29"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec29"><b>§29</b></a>.
<b>an si</b>, Meister (following ed. Camp.): <i>ac si</i> bHFT Burn.
243: <i>an</i> Bn Bg M.</p>
<p><b>debent</b>, all codd.: <i>debemus</i> Krüger (3rd ed.) after
Gertz. Either seems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the
participle: ‘when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,’
&c.</p>
<p><b>sic dicere</b>. The grounds on which I base this emendation are
stated in the note <i>ad loc.</i> Bn Bg HN and most codd. have
<i>inicere</i>, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the
repetition of the letters <i>-ic</i> in what I take to be the original
text, whereupon the preceding <i>tamen</i> (or <i>tam̅</i>) would assist
the transition to <i>in</i>icere. Cp. the omission of <i>sic</i> in most
codd. in <i>ut sic d<span class = "extended">ix</span>erim</i> <a href =
"QuintBody2.html#chapII_sec15">2 §15</a>. Halm (after Bursian)
wrote <i>id efficere</i>, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations
are <i>vincere</i> M, Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.<sup>2</sup>: <i>tantum
iniicere</i> Harl. 4995: <i>inniti</i> or <i>adniti</i> edd.: <i>id
agere</i> Badius: <i>evincere</i> Törnebladh.</p>
<p><a name = "critVII_sec32" id = "critVII_sec32"
href = "QuintBody2.html#chapVII_sec32"><b>§32</b></a>.
<b>et in his</b>: <i>in his</i> Halm and Meister: <i>ne in his</i> BN
Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.: <i>ne in iis</i> Harl. 2662: <i>vel in iis</i>
Spald.: <i>vel in his</i> Bonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture
on <i>et</i>, which seems to help the antithesis with <i>in hoc
genere</i> above: v. <i>ad loc.</i></p>
<p><b>velut summas ... conferre</b>. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm,
Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly: <i>vel in summas
in</i> (<i>sine</i> bH: <i>sive</i> Harl. 4995) <i>commentarium</i> Bn
Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662: <i>velin summas et</i> (suprascr. <i>in</i>)
<i>commentarium</i> N: <i>vel insinuamus sine commendarios</i> M:
<i>commentarioram et capita</i> Harl. 4950. Other conjectural
emendations are <i>velut in summas commentarium</i> Spald.: <i>mihi quae
scr. velut in commentarium summas et c. conf.</i> Zumpt: <i>nec in his
quae scrips. velim summas in commentarium et capita conferri</i>
Frotscher; <i>vel in his quae scrips. rerum summas</i> (cp. Liv. xl. 29.
11 lectis rerum summis) <i>in commentarios conferre</i> Jeep: <i>ex iis
quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre</i>,
Zambaldi,—(on the ground that with <i>conferre</i>, <i>ex his</i>
gives a better sense than <i>in his</i>). To these may perhaps be added
<i>et in his quae scrips. velut summas in commentariorum capita
conferre</i>.</p>
<p>In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 24, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin
discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS.
(<i>ne in his</i>) he proposes <i>ne in his quae scripserimus
erremus</i>: ‘damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir
geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren’: cp. the use of <i>errare</i>
xi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above for
<i>vel in summas</i> on the ground that it is impossible to explain
‘summas in commentarium et capita conferre.’ What is the meaning of
‘entering the chief points in a note-book and heads’ (‘den Hauptinhalt
in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte
einzutragen’—Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the ‘heads’
be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not
in ‘capita’: ‘in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte
aber nicht.’ Baur’s version is excluded by the order of words: ‘den
Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.’
Lindner’s is even less satisfactory:
<span class = "pagenum">221</span>
‘welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den
Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.’</p>
<p>Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas’s advice
was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the
elimination of the unmeaning <i>et</i> which wrongly conjoins
<i>commentarium</i> and <i>capita</i>. Again as <i>summa</i> and
<i>caput</i> are synonyms for ‘Hauptpunkt’ (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi.
1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss: and the <i>vel</i>
in <i>vel in summas</i> seems to show that these words were originally a
marginal gloss to explain (<i>in</i>) <i>capita</i>. Kiderlin therefore
proposes to transform the text as follows: <i>ne in his quae
scripserimus <b>erremus</b></i> [<i>vel in summas</i>] <i>in
commentarium capita conferre.</i></p>
<p><b>quod non simus</b>, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger
(3rd ed.): <i>quod simus</i> Bn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm: <i>non
simus</i> bHT Bodl. In explanation of <i>quod simus</i> Spalding says
‘ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo’;
and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), ‘We are even hampered by
writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the
written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.’</p>
<p><b>hic quoque</b>, Bn Bg and most codd.: <i>hoc quoque</i> Harl.
4995: <i>id quoque</i> bHM.</p>
</div> <!-- crit -->
<hr class = "spacer">
<div class = "contents">
<p><a href = "../main.html">Preface</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintIntro.html">Introduction</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody1.html">Chapter I</a></p>
<p><a href = "QuintBody2.html">Chapters II-VII</a></p>
<p><a href = "#toc3">Critical Notes</a> <i>top</i></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
|
