FOOT-NOTES:
[1] See D. L. Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance, New York, 1922 (Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature).
[2] So, e.g., does Petronius, Satyricon, 118.
[4] See above, Chapter V. B.
[5] Section C. 1, below.
[6] To what has already appeared from the preceding chapters may be added the opinion of George Converse Fiske: “from the Hellenistic period on, and throughout the Roman world of letters, the study of rhetoric was a prerequisite for literary composition in every field.” The Plain Style in the Scipionic Circle, page 62 (University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, number 3, 1919).
[8] See above, pages 56, 57.
[9] See above, page 102. What Alfred Croiset says of him seems true rather of the habit of his time: “questions arrêtées d’avance et toujours les mêmes; c’est dresser son signalement suivant un formulaire, qu’il s’agit simplement de remplir.” Hist. de la litt. grecque, V. 368.
[10] Nettleship, Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity (Lectures and Essays, Second Series).
[12] See the scornful comment of Croiset, V. 358.
[13] Nettleship, Lectures and Essays, I. 176 (on Horace’s Ars Poetica).
[14] See Nettleship, op. cit., 248. Saintsbury, Loci Critici, 74, quotes his Noctes Atticæ xvii. 10, on Vergil’s Æneid, III. 570.
[15] See pages 68-73, 94-97.
[17] See the quotations from Apuleius in the preceding section.
[18] For the varying relations of the “second sophistic” to rhetoric on the one hand and to philosophy on the other see the introduction to H. von Arnim’s Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, mit einer Einleitung, Sophistik, Rhetorik, Philosophie in ihrem Kampf um die Jugendbildung, Berlin, 1898; and, for later periods, A. Boulanger, Ælius Aristide et la sophistique ... au IIe siècle, Paris, 1923; W. C. Wright, Philostratus and Eunapius, the Lives of the Sophists, London and New York (Loeb Library), 1922, introduction; L. Méridier, L’influence de la seconde sophistique sur l’œuvre de Grégoire de Nysse, Paris, 1906, chapter i.
Philostratus, Vit. Soph. ii (Wright, p. 34), says that Hippias of Elis discoursed (διελέγετο) on painting and sculpture.
[20] See Chapter V. B.
[21] The definitive discussion of Dio is that of H. von Arnim cited above in foot-note 18. The latest complete edition is that of J. de Arnim, Berlin, 1893. A translation by W. E. Waters is announced for the Loeb Classical Library. Meantime Professor Waters’s translation of Oratio XII (discussed below) is printed in Volume XIV (1919-1922) of the Colonnade, published by the Andiron Club of New York University, 1922, pages 183-201. The translation below of Oratio LII is my own.
[22] H. von Arnim (op. cit. 171) finds manuscript evidence of several such adjustable preludes. Compare those preserved in the Florida of Apuleius, e.g. page 227, above.
[23] See the following sections.
[24] For the significance of the well-known passage in the Laokoön, and of the psychological formulation of Lemaître, see my College Composition, page 183. For further discussion of this oration, see Ehemann, Die XII Rede von Dio Chrysostom, Kaiserslautern, 1895. See also W. A. Montgomery, Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic, Baltimore, 1901 (Johns Hopkins dissertation).
[25] Περὶ λόγου ἀσκήσεως, Oratio XVIII, de Arnim, II, page 250.
[26] Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat, in the collection generally entitled Moralia. For English translations of the Morals see the preface to F. M. Padelford’s modern translation of this particular essay, Essays on the Study and Use of Poetry by Plutarch and Basil the Great, New York, 1902 (Yale Studies in English, XV). Padelford has added a concise and suggestive introduction on Plutarch’s theory of poetry.
[27] This bald statement may be confirmed by the more comprehensive histories of Latin literature.
[28] G. C. Fiske, The Plain Style in the Scipionic Circle, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, 3, page 62.
[30] See Nettleship, Lectures and Essays, Second Series, page 49 (on Dionysius of Halicarnassus). For the pictorial habit of much ancient description see above, page 217, on Ovid, and compare Croiset, Hist. de la litt. grecque, V. pages 771 and following.
[31] III, in Padelford’s translation, which is followed in this and the other quotations.
[32] ὅμοιον, εἰκός, πρέπον, πιθανῶς. Padelford, page 24, points out their narrowness.
[33] See above, pages 71-73, and also pages 99, 218.
[34] The Works of Horace, Oxford, 1891, Volume II, page 384.
[35] The Epistles of Horace, London, 1889, page 334.
[36] La poésie latine, Paris, 1909, page 320.
[37] Nettleship’s hypothesis, that Horace, “writing with a Greek treatise before him, was using it for practical application to the particular circumstances of his own time,” and that the Greek treatise was probably by Neoptolemus of Parium (Lectures and Essays, I. 168), is rejected by Wickham (page 385).