The aut ... aut immediately below is very much against this conjecture, which however Krüger (3rd ed.) has received into the text: we should expect rather nescio an illa quisquam, or nullus poeta, or keeping illa as nominative nescio an illa poeta ullo. Quintilian’s use of nescio an (like that of post-Augustan writers generally) is vague: it is usually an expression of doubt, the an 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 nescio an (dubito an) is ‘I doubt whether’; in Cicero the meaning is always ‘I rather think.’’) Andresen proposed nescio an ulla poeseos pars. The passage closely resembles §28, and must be emended on the same lines.
§66. tragoedias. Thurot (Revue de Phil. 1880, iv. 1, p. 24) conjectured tragoediam: cp. §67 hoc opus. He is followed by Dosson, against all MS. authority. Becher points out that we must supply with hoc opus in §67 the words ‘tragoedias in lucem proferendi,’ so that opus and tragoedias square well enough with each other.
§68. quod ipsum reprehendunt, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) and Becher. This reading also occurs in the Codex Dorvilianus. Other readings are quod ipsum quod GHT Burn. 243, Bodl.: quo ipsum MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Ball. Halm conjectured quem ipsum quoque, and was followed by Mayor and Hild. But as no fault has been found with Euripides in the foregoing, quoque seems out of place.
Founding on the reading of GHT, &c., also on that of F (which gives quod ipsum qui) Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 165) proposes to read quod ipsum quidam, comparing §98, where for quem senes quem (GT) Spalding rightly conjectured quem senes quidem, and 7, §21, where Bn, Bg give quod for quosdam. He then goes on, in an interesting paper, to reconstruct the whole passage, which is open to suspicion, especially in respect that sublimior stands as predicate with gravitas and cothurnus, as well as with sonus. The admirers of Sophocles consider his elevation of tone more appropriate than the strain of Euripides. Sublimior is therefore perhaps not the predicate of the sentence, however suitable it may be as the attribute of sonus. The predicate may have dropped out, and sublimior may have been transferred from its real place to supply it. It is striking that GFTM (also H and Bodl.) all give sublimior erit. Kiderlin imagines that a copyist who missed the predicate wrote in the margin ‘sublimior erit ponendum post esse’: and then another inserted sublimior erit after esse in the text. For the predicate, magis accommodatus might stand: in copying, the eye may have wandered from magis accommodatus to magis accedit: for magis accomm. 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.’
et dicendo ac respondendo 7231, 7696: dicendo ac respondo GH: in dicendo et in respondendo Prat. Put. S (et respondendo M).
praecipuus. Hunc admiratus maxime est. This is Meister’s reading, except that for eum I give (with Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 and 4995) hunc, which is commoner in Quint. at the beginning of a sentence (§§46, 78, 91, 112). The following are the readings of the MSS.: GH praecipuus et admiratus miratus: M Bodl. Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, C, Burn. 243 Ball. Dorv. praecipuus et admirandus: S praecipuum. Nunc admiratus et: Prat. Put. Harl. 2262 and 11671 praecipuus hunc admiratus et maxime est ut saepe test. et sec. quamvis: Harl. 4995, hunc admiratus max. ut s. test. et eum secutus quamquam. Halm gives praecipuus est. Admiratus maxime est: Kiderlin insists on the est after praecipuus, to correspond with accedit, though it seems better to take all that comes after accedit as an explanation of the statement magis accedit oratorio generi: he also retains the et of most MSS. and reads praecipuus est. hunc et admiratus (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) praecipuus. Hunc imitatus, quoting in support of the conjunction imitatus ... secutus §122, eos iuvenum imitatur et sequitur industria: 5 §19, 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 imitatus, he would not have said ut saepe testatur but ut ex multis locis patet (apparet, videmus): while vii. 4. 17 (on which Wölfflin relies) is not really to the point. Moreover Quintilian, would never have separated such synonyms as imitatus and secutus by ut saepe testatur.
Charisi nomini addicuntur, Frotscher: Charis in homine adductura GH: Charisii nomine eduntur Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662 Dorv.
§70. aut illa iudicia Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 4995. GH Harl. 4950 give aut illa mala iudicia: Bodl. Burn. 243 aut alia mala iud. S Harl. 2662 Dorv. and Ball. aut alia iudicia. The edd., following Gesner, have generally given (with Harl. 4950) aut illa mala iudicia (so Halm and Meister), and have taken mala as predicate, though the order of the words makes that impossible. Becher approves of Andresen’s deletion of mala. Krüger (3rd ed.) prints mala [illa] iudicia, thinking that illa arose by dittography, and that then the order was changed in the codd. to illa mala iudicia. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23) gives as an alternative to deleting mala the conjecture illa simulata iudicia (‘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 secum M secus instead of consecutum.
§71. filiorum militum, most codd.: filiorum maritorum militum Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S.
§72. si cum venia leguntur. The reading of the MSS. is upheld by Iwan Müller, Meister, and Kiderlin. Spalding suggested cum verecundia: Schöll cum iudicio: Becher cum ingenio. Becher points out (Bursians Jahresb. 1887) that the expression is meant to cover decerpere as well as legere, and decerpere indicates careful and intelligent reading (cp. §69, diligenter lectus): cum ingenio = ‘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 ingenio, ne contemptibilis videatur. Finally, Krüger (3rd ed.) proposes cum acumine or cum vigilantia (cp. v. 7. 10).—Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662 all give Osann’s conjecture legantur.
prave GH Harl. 4995, 4950 Burn. 243 Bodl.: pravis Regius, Halm, Meister, Becher draws attention to the parallelism between the clauses: ut prave praelatus est sui temporis iudiciis, ita merito creditur (= meruit credi) secundus consensu omnium.
§76. nec quod desit ... nec quod redundet: H Burn. 243 and Bodl. give quod .. quod: Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. C, and Ball, quid .. quid. The latter reading is supported by Becher (Phil. Rund. iii. 434). For quod cp. xii. 10. 46: (xii. 1. 20 where for quod adhuc BM give quid adhuc): on the other hand, in vi. 3. 5 the MSS. are in favour of quid, though Halm reads quod (followed by Meister). For quid cp. Cic. pro Quint. §41, neque praeterea quid possis dicere invenio.
§77. grandiori similis. So all MSS.: Halm and Meister. Several conjectural emendations have been put forward. Comparing 2 §16 (fiunt pro grandibus tumidi), Becher suggests grandi oratori,—an easy change, if the copyist used contractions, but without point: above in §74, ‘oratori magis similis’ is appropriate enough in speaking of historians, 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 gladiatori similis, in view of the close connection with what follows, strictus ... carnis ... lacertorum: but plenior and magis fusus are a bad introduction to gladiatori, and if Aeschines had plus carnis and minus lacertorum, 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 et grandi (or grandiori) organo similis, and applies the figure throughout: ‘voller und breiter lässt Aeschines den Ton hervorströmen, einem grossen Musikinstrumente gleich’: ‘einer Orgel gleich,’—he is grandisonus. The translation appears to limit unnecessarily the meaning of plenus and fusus: 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 fusus is used of the voice xi. 3. 64. For such a use of grandis cp. §58 (cenae): §88 (robora): xi. 2. 12 (convivium): 3. 15 (vox): 68 (speculum): and for organum, 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 §33.
§78. nihil enim est inane: perhaps ‘nihil enim est in eo inane’ (Becher), or nihil enim inest.
§79. honesti studiosus. Becher’s proposal to alter the punctuation of this passage is discussed in the note ad loc.—For auditoriis and compararat, see on tenuia atque quae §44, above.
§80. quem tamen. Kiderlin, in Hermes (23, p. 168), raises a difficulty here. Tamen shows that the clause cannot go with the main statement (fateor), and its position forbids us to take it with the quamquam is primum clause: it can only go with quod ultimus est, &c., ‘though Demosthenes is ultimus fere, &c., yet Cicero, &c.’ To prevent so awkward a joining of the clauses, Kiderlin proposes to read eumque tamen: pointing out that the quae of the MSS. (GH) may have arisen out of que, and that Quintilian may have written eumque; cp. vi. 2. 13, where Halm makes utque out of quae (G), and xi. 2. 32, where Meister reads estque. 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 medium genus.—It seems better, however, to give tamen a general reference: ‘yet, in spite of all that can be said on the other side’ (e.g., inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur). Cp. §99 quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima.
§81. prosam (prorsam) orationem et all MSS.; Halm, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.) omit et. I find that Becher supports the view stated in the note ad loc.: he would however write prorsam, which the best MSS. give also in Plin. v. 31, 112 D.
quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus: 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 Delphici, of which Becher also approves. But the MS. evidence cannot be disregarded. The following are the various readings: GH quaedam Delphico videatur oraculo de instrictus, and so FT, the former giving also (by a later hand) de instinctus, the latter dei instructus. Bodl. gives quodam delphico videatur oraculo dei instructus. The most frequent reading is that of Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Ball. and most edd., quodam delphico videatur oraculo instinctus: S agrees, but is reported to have delphico after oraculo: Harl. 4950 and Burn. 244 have the same reading, with institutus corr. to instinctus: Burn. 243 gives instructus. Delphico was originally deleted by Caesar: Phil xiii, p. 758. Halm read tamquam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus: but Quintilian would take no trouble to avoid the repetition of quidam (cp. divina quadam, above).—For the arrangement of words, Krüger (3rd ed.) compares §41 qui ne minima quidem alicuius certe fiducia partis memoriam posteritatis speraverit.
§82. quandam persuadendi deam. Nettleship (Journ. of Philol., xxix, p. 22) conjectures Suadam [persuadendi deam], comparing Brutus, §59, quoted ad loc. Persuadendi deam would thus become a gloss on Suadam: but the expression in the text is quite in Quintilian’s style.
§83. eloquendi suavitate: eloquendi usus (or usu) suav. GH and all codd. except Harl. 4950, and Dorv., both of which give simply eloq. suav. Halm admitted into his text Geel’s conj. for usus, ‘eloquendi vi ac suavitate,’ and this has met with some acceptance (Iwan Müller and Becher). But the parallel from Dion. Hal., Ἀρχ. κρ. 4 is hardly conclusive: τῆς τε περὶ ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος ... καὶ τοῦ ἡδέος. 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 eloquendi vi, suavitate, perspicuitate.
tam est loquendi. See note ad loc. for Kiderlin’s conj. tam manifestus est. Though Meister’s tam est eloquendi is probably a misprint, it is found in some MSS.—Harl. 4950: Burn. 244.
§84. sane non affectaverunt. Bodl. and Vall. (veru subpunctuated in the latter: affectant Prat. Put. 7231 MS Ball. Dorv. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671: sene non adfectitacuerunt GH Burn. 243: adfectarunt 7696: adfectitant Harl. 4950, and so Burn. 244 (corrected from affectant).
§85. haud dubie proximus. Halm inserted ei after dubie, though it is not found in any MS.: Regius had suggested illi. Kiderlin (Hermes 23, p. 170) points out that if propiores alii in §88 is allowed to stand without a dative, ei is not necessary here. He suggests, however, illi before alii in §88: both passages must be dealt with in the same way.—For haud (Vall.), GHS have aut: M haut. Cp. on 3 §26.
§86. ut illi ... cesserimus: cum illi GHFT Harl. 4995 Burn. 243: ut illi Prat. Put. 7231, 7696: and so S Harl. 4950 (with caelesti atque divinae): ut ille M Harl. 2662. Kiderlin (Hermes, p. 170) proposes to go back to the reading of the older MSS. cum illi, and instead of cesserimus to read cesserit, so as to make Vergil the subject throughout. Cum cannot, he contends, be a copyist’s error, motived by ita; and it is probable, therefore, that at first cesserit a was inadvertently written for cesserit; then (in G or some older MS.) cesserimus ita was made out of that, to correspond with vincimur below: and then in the later MSS. cum was changed to ut, because of ita. For the transition, with this reading, from cesserit to the plural (vincimur, pensamus), he compares §107, where, after speaking of Demosthenes and Cicero, Quintilian passes to vincimus.
§87. sequentur MS Halm and Meister: sequenter G seq̅nt’ H: sequuntur Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.
φράσιν id est. These words are omitted in the Pratensis, which is Étienne de Rouen’s abridgement of the Beccensis, now lost. This is an additional proof that φράσιν was originally written in Greek: cp. on §42.
§88. propiores H Prat. Put. Vall. Harl. 2662, 4495, 11671, Burn. 243. Bodl., Halm: propriores GMS 7231, 7696, Harl. 4950, C, Burn. 244, Dorv., Meister. In Cicero and Quintilian magis proprii would be more usual for the latter.
§89. etiam si sit. This conjecture of Spalding’s (for etiam sit GH Bodl. &c.: etiam si M Harl. 4950 Dorv.: etiam sic Prat. Put. S Harl. 2662) I have found in the Balliol codex. 7231 and 7696 give etiam si est. Cp. note on tenuia atque quae §44, above.
ut est dictum. These words were bracketed as a gloss by Halm, and are now omitted altogether by Krüger (3rd ed.): see however note ad loc. Döderlein proposed to place them after poeta melior, Fleckeisen after etiam si.
Serranum is Lange’s conjecture for ferrenum GHM: farrenum 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 11671: Pharrenum Prat. Put. Some MSS. (e.g. Vall. Harl. 4995, Burn. 243 and 244) give sed eum, but it is obvious that the criticism of Severus stopped with the word locum.
§90. senectute maturuit ed. Col. 1527 and so 7231, 7696 (Fierville): senectutem maturbit GH: senectute maturum Prat. Put. MS Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. and Ball.: senectus maturavit Bodl., Burn. 243.
et, ut dicam. Halm’s sed instead of et has been rejected by later critics. Cp. Claussen (Quaest. Quint., p. 357 note): sed ‘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.’
§91. propius H Prat. Put. Burn. 243, Harl. 2662 and other codd.: Bodl. Ball. Harl. 4950 proprius. Reisig conjectured propitius, which also is apt; but in spite of industrius, necessarius, 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 magis propitiae. Halm gives promptius: Wölfflin pronius: while Schöll now suggests propitiae potius (cp. iv. pr. §5: 2 §27: vii. 1. 12).
§92. feres G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4829, Dorv., Ball., Halm.: feras H, Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. C and M, Meister and Krüger (3rd ed.). Harl. 4995 has fere: from Vall. Becher reports feras, ‘probably at first feres.’
elegea GH 7696, and so A2 BN Put. S at i. 8. 6.
§94. abunde salis G Prat. Put. M and all my MSS. except H, Burn. 243, Bodl. which have abundantia salis.
multum est tersior. The variety of MS. readings seems to point to an et wrongly inserted after multum, perhaps from a confusion with ‘multum et ver gloriae’ below. GH give multum et est tersior: M Harl. 4950, Bodl. Ball. C Dorv. Burn. 243 and also Harl. 4829 multum etiam est t.: Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 11671 multum est tersior: while Harl. 4995 (and Vall.) has multo et est tersior. Osann proposed multo eo est tersior: Wölfflin multo est tersior: Halm and Meister print multum eo est tersior. For multum, cp. multum ante xii. 6. 1: and see Introd. p. li.
non labor GH Burn. 243 Bodl. and Meister: nisi labor 7231, 7696 S Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, 11671, Burn. 244, Dorv. Ball. C, and Halm. Prat. and Put. have mihi labor.
hodieque et qui: H, Prat., Put., 7231, 7696, Harl. 2662, 4829, Bodl. Dorv.: hodie et qui Burn. 243: hodie quoque et qui Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: hodie quod et qui S.—Becher is of opinion that the text will not bear the explanation given in the note, and would read hodie quoque et qui: ‘es giebt auch heute noch berühmte Satirendichter, die einst &c.’ Et qui he takes with clari, not with hodie quoque, the et being omitted in translation: clari (hodie quoque) qui (olim) nominabuntur.
§95. etiam prius. Founding on the classification given in Diomedes (see note ad loc.), according to which the satura 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 Alterum illud et iam prius Ennio temptatum saturae genus, &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 etiam posterius, Gesner: etiam proprium, Spald.: etiam amplius, L. Müller: etiam verius, Riese: alterum illud Lucilio prius sat. genus, Krüger (3rd ed.).
sola: solum Prat. and Put.
collaturus quam eloquentiae. These words, omitted in GHS Bodl. Burn. 243, occur in all my other codd.
§96. sed aliis quibusdam interpositus: sc. carminibus, Christ. In H the reading is quibusdam interpositus: so 7231, 7696 Bodl. and Burn. 243: but M Harl. 4950, 4829 Burn. 244 Dorv. and Ball, give a quibusdam interpositus: S cuiusdam: Prat. and Put. opus interpositus. Osann conjectures sed quibusdam, and so Hild. In the margin of Harl. 4995 is the variant aliquibus interpositis.
In Hermes, vol. 23, p. 172, Kiderlin makes a fresh conjecture. Recognising that something must have fallen out before quibusdam, but dissatisfied with Osann’s sed and Christ’s sed aliis, he proposes to read ut proprium opus, quibusdam aliis tamen carminibus (or versibus) a quibusdam interpositus. The eye of a copyist may easily, Kiderlin thinks, have wandered from the first to the second quibusdam: cp. v. 10. 64, ut quaedam a quibusdam utique non sunt, &c., and for quibusdam aliis xi. 3. 66, et quibusdam aliis corporis signis.
intervenit, which is a conjecture of Osann, I have found in Harl. 2662, 11671 Prat. Put. 7231, 7696.
lyricorum. 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 legi dignus, 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 lyricorum priorum: after -ricorum, priorum might easily fall out, and it gives a good antithesis to viventium. Bassus (quem nuper vidimus) forms the transition: and the next paragraph begins Tragoediae scriptores veterum, &c.
§97. clarissimi. 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 (A.D. 1434) Vall. 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball.: Put. gives clarissime: G has gravissima: HFTS gravissimus, and so also Harl. 4950, Burn. 243, Bodl. and C. Halm prints grandissimi: Ribbeck (Röm. Trag. p. 337, 3) inclines to accept the sing. grandissimus, M, of Pacuvius alone.
Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 173) rejects all the above readings. Gravissimus and gravissima are obviously due, he says, to gravitate following: but the word before gravitate must have begun with the same letter, and so clarissimi cannot stand, especially as it is inappropriate to the context. For ceterum 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 grandes nimis, in preference to grandissimi, 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 §§66, 67 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 nimis he compares ix. 4. 28 longae sunt nimis: v. 9. 14 longe nimium: xii. 11. 9 magna nimium.
§98. quem senes quidem parum tragicum. So Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Quidem occurs in no MS.: GH have quem, M Vall., Harl. 4995, Burn. 244, Ball, omit it: Bodl. Burn. 243 and Dorv. show the corruption Pindarum. Becher would exclude quidem, regarding quem 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. §68 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 parum, as Prat. Put. 7696, 7231 all give quem senes non parum tragicum: so Harl., 2662 (A.D. 1434), and 11671. Above in §96, G Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 have si quidem for si quem.
§100. linguae suae. So Köhler (v. Meister pref. to Book x. p. 13): suae supplies an antithesis to ‘sermo ipse Romanus’: GH give linguae quae: so Harl. 4950: S Burn. 243, Bodl. linguae: while Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671, Dorv. and Ball. omit it altogether: M has ligweque.
§101. Titum: GH Prat. Put. M. 7231, 7696.
commendavit: Halm and Meister give commodavit, which is approved also by Hirt. Halm compares §69 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 praestitit, which would be moreover extremely weak. The recurrence of the word so soon after accommodata 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.
§102. immortalem GS Meister: illam immortalem Prat. Put. M Halm: immortalem illam Vall.
velocitatem. So all MSS, except S, Burn. 243, and Bodl., which have civilitatem. Kiderlin (in Hermes 23, p. 174) thinks that we might have expected ideoque immortalem gloriam quam velocitate Sallustius consecutus est: ‘und darum hat er die velocitas durch (von der velocitas) verschiedene Vorzüge erreicht.’ Consequi cannot mean ‘to supply the place of’: and immortalis is inappropriate as an attribute of velocitas: besides, Quintilian has not spoken of Sallust’s velocitas, even indirectly. Schlenger conjectured claritatem: Andresen auctoritatem (‘klassisches Ansehen,’ cp. iv. 2. 125: xii. 11. 3): Kiderlin now proposes divinitatem, which in Cicero = Vortrefflichkeit, Meisterschaft: cp. xi. 2. 7. Judged by the previous sentences the expression is not too strong. For immortalem divinitatem cp. §86 illi ... caelesti atque immortali: and for consecutus est iii. 7. 9 quod immortalitatem virtute sint consecuti.
clarus vi ingenii. This is a conjecture of Kiderlin’s, which I find has been adopted also by Krüger (3rd ed.). GHFT give clarius ingenii: Prat. Put. clari ingenii vir: 7231, 7696 clari vir ingenii: MS Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 243 and 244, Dorv. C and Ball, clarus ingenio; Harl. 2662 and 11671 clarus (?) or claret vir ingenii. Spalding had already pointed out that clarus is not found with ingenium, except where ingenium is used of a person: e.g. §119 erant clara et nuper ingenia: he therefore wrote elati vir ingenii (following Goth. elatus ingenio and Bodl. elatus ingeniis). Kiderlin compares §70 sententiis clarissimus, and for vis ingenii i. pr. 12: ii. 5. 23: x. 1. 44: xii. 10. 10. The reading clarus vi ingenii points the contrast to what follows in ‘sed minus pressus,’ &c.: it was his style that did not altogether suit the dignity of history.
§103. genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam. Till Kiderlin made this happy conjecture (see Hermes 23, p. 175) genere had always been joined with probabilis, and the text was twisted in various directions. GHS, Burn. 243, Bodl. give in omnibus quibusdam: M Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, Burn. 244, Dorv. in omnibus sed in quibusdam, and so apparently Prat. Put. 7231, 7696. Out of omnibus Halm gives on Roth’s suggestion, operibus: afterwards he decided for partibus, and this (though omnibus to partibus is not an easy transition) is adopted by Meister. Kiderlin’s punctuation makes everything easy: ‘Anerkennung verdienen seine Leistungen alle, manche stehen hinter seiner Kraft zurück.’ Even these last, Quint. means, are probabiles (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 in quibusdam or sed in quibusdam (M). The easiest explanation of the omission in the other MSS. is to suppose that he wrote in omnibus in quibusdam: perhaps the copyist of M saw that omnibus and quibusdam were antithetical, and inserted sed. Kiderlin notes Quintilian’s liking for chiasmus, without any conjunction: cp. §106 in illo, in hoc (where in hoc is wanting in M).
suis ipse viribus: ed. Col. 1527 (Halm), and so (Fierville) 7231, 7696. In Harl. 2662 and 11671 (A.D. 1434 and 1467) suis already appears, corrected from vis GH. The Juntine ed. (1515) has suis viribus minor: so Prat. and Put.
§104. et exornat. Vall. and (apparently) Prat. Put. 7231, 7696, and most edd.: et ornat M Halm, Meister, Krüger: exornat GHS. Becher remarks that et exornat might easily pass into exornat.
nominabitur: Weber and Osann proposed nominabatur (which appears in Harl. 2662, but corrected to -itur). 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.
Cremuti. Nipperdey, Philol. vi, p. 193, Halm, and Meister: remuti H Prat. Put. 7231, 7696 remremuti G, rem utili Burn. 243: remitti S. Bodl.: nec imitatores uti 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 remoti (i.e. relegati) for remuti is not to be thought of.
dividendi: first in the Aldine edition: all MSS. have videndi, except M (indicendi) and Prat. Put. Harl. 4995 (vivendi). Cp. i. 10. 49, where the case is the same.
§105. In the Aurich Programm, Becher gives a more recent statement of his views: ‘wie zu cum causale, so tritt praesertim auch zu cum 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.”’
§106. praeparandi. For Kiderlin’s conj. praeparandi, narrandi, probandi see ad loc.
[omnia] denique, GH, Burn. 243, Bodl. omit omnia (which is in all my other MSS.), and Meister now approves (following Spalding, Osann, and Wölfflin), on the ground that Demosthenes and Cicero were not alike in everything that belongs to inventio. Halm thinks that omnia is to be found in racioni 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, gave it also to the fourth word.
illi—huic Prat. M, S Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662 Bodl. &c.: illic—hic GH Put. 7231, 7696, Halm.
§107. vincimus, H, G2, and most MSS.: (cp. §86): vicimus G.
§109. ubertate Harl. 4995. This is also the reading of codd. Vall. and Goth.: all the other MSS. give ubertas.
totas virtutes Bn Bg N Prat. Ioan. 7231, 7696: totas vires M b.
§112. ab hominibus Halm and Meister: ab omnibus Bn Bg HFT Ioan. Prat. 7231, Sal. and most codd.: hominibus S Harl. 4995 Bodl.
§115. urbanitas. Kiderlin proposes to read et praecipua in accusando asperitas et multa urbanitas: cp. §117: §64: 2 §25: ii. 5. 8.
Ciceroni, for Ciceronem 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 inveni). Certainly all codd. give Ciceronem, not Ciceroni. 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 Ciceroni, a correction in the Vallensis.
castigata, B (i.e. Bn and Bg) Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Harl. 2662, 4995, 11671: custodita H M b F T Alm. Harl. 4950, 4829, Burn. 243, 244, Bodl. Dorv. and Ball. For gravis (bH M Vall. and seemingly Prat.) B Sal. 7231, 7696 and Ioan. give brevis.
si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus fuit, Vall. Harl. 4995. For the repetition, see on haud deerit 3 §26. Halm and Meister print si quid adiecturus fuit—(sc. virtutibus suis, cp. §§116, 120)—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 si quid adiecturus fuit, non si quid detracturus. The reading of H is si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus [Sulpicius insignus] fuit ut servius sulpicius insignem &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:—
| sibi | non si | quid | detracturus | |
| si quid adiecturus: | fuit | et | servius | sulpicius |
The words added above the line are by the hand known as b.
In copying H wrote: si quid adiecturus sibi non si quid detracturus (then omitting fuit continues) et Serv. Sulp. (then goes back and resumes) fuit et servius &c. This is the origin of the confusion which exists in all the MSS. of this family.
§117. et fervor. This is Bursian’s conjecture, adopted by Halm and Krüger (3rd ed.), and now approved by Becher. BM have et sermo, which is also the reading of N Prat. Sal. 7231, 7696 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4950 and Ball.: Hb et summo: Harl. 4829, 11671, Burn. 244 et smo: while Bodl., Dorv., and Burn. 243 give the correction in T eius summa, out of which the second hand in the Vallensis (Laurentius Valla) made et vis summa, a reading which occurs also in Harl. 4995. Meister reads et sermo purus; while Kiderlin proposes et simplex sermo (cp. iv. 1. 54: viii. 3. 87: ix. 3. 3: 4. 17: viii. pr. 23: x. 2. 16).
ut amari sales. Francius conjectured ut amantur sales, but this loses the antithesis between amari and amaritudo ipsa. Kiderlin’s ut amantur amari sales (viii. 3. 87: vi. 1. 48) is an improvement; but if ridicula is taken in a good sense it seems impossible that after censuring Cassius for giving way unduly to stomachus, 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 ut amari sales risum movent ita amaritudo ipsa ridicula est? Such an antithesis might have been written ‘per compendium,’ and the words risum movent may then have dropped out. See the note ad loc.: and cp. especially vi. 1. 48 fecit enim risum sed ridiculus fuit, and οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται, quoted in the note on 1 §107.—Krüger (3rd ed.) adopts frequentior for frequenter, which gives a good sense, except that freq. amar ipsa is awkward.
§121. lene Halm and Meister: leve B Prat. N 7231 M 7696 C. Here again Becher prefers leve, comparing Cic. de Orat. iii. §171, quoted on §44 above: levitasque verborum 1. 52: and levia ... ac nitida, v. 12. 18.
§123. scripserint. So Bn Bg H Ioan. Prat. 7231, 7696 Vall. Harl. 4995, 2662, 11671, Bodl., Dorv., Spalding, and Bonnell. Becher compares among other passages 2 §14 (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 supersunt (Put. M, Ball. Burn. 243 Harl. 4950).
§124. Plautus, Prat. N, 7231 Ioan. Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: plantus M Harl. 4950: Plantatus Sal.: plaustus Hb: Plancus edd. vett. and Harl. 4995.
Catius. The name is rightly given in Harl. 4995.
§126. iis quibus illi. Iis is the conjecture of Regius, followed by Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher would retain in quibus illi,—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 in in bH Bodl. Burn. 243, 7231, 7696, Spalding and Bonnell.
ab illo B Ioan. 7231, 7696 Sal. Harl. 2662, 4950, 4829: ab eo bHM Burn. 243.
§127. foret enim optandum: fore enim aliquid optandum bHFT. Spalding conjectured alioqui optandum, which Kiderlin approves.
ac saltem all MSS.: Meister has aut saltem, probably relying on a wrong account of the Bambergensis: see Halm vol. ii, p. 369.
illi viro B: illi virus bHM: illi virtutibus Halm: illi viro eos (or viro plurimos) Kiderlin.
§128. multa rerum cognitio: so all codd. except Ioannensis and Harl. 4995, which have multarum rerum cognitio. b omits cognitio and is followed by HFT.
§130. si obliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset. 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. Obliqua 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 rectum genus 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 rectae orationi (quo in genere saepius modo quam figuris opus est) decurrebant ad schemata ... ut si pater ... iacularetur in uxorem obliquis sententiis. This passage supplies (what is indeed suggested by obliqua itself) the antithesis parum recta: cp. ii. 13. 10 si quis ut parum rectum improbet opus.
In the Jahrbücher f. Philologie (vol. 135, 1887: p. 828) Kiderlin had previously dealt with the passage on similar lines. The traditional reading si aliqua contempsisset (b) he considers too indefinite, though not impossible: in point of authority, though preferable to the si nil aequalium cont. of the later MSS., it cannot rank so high as the reading of Bn and Bg, which give simile quam without any attempt at emendation. This Kiderlin thinks must be nearest the original: he therefore rejects such conjectures as Jeep’s si antiqua non, on the ground that it is improbable that simile quam arose out of antiqua. He introduces his own conjecture by referring to ix. 2. 66 and 78 (see above), and to the contrast between schemata and rectum genus, recta oratio; the former are called lumina or lumina orationis (xii. 10. 62). Cp. viii. 5. 34. He would read: nam si mille ille schemata (or illas figuras) similiaque lumina contempsisset, si parum rectum genus (or sermonem) non concupisset, &c. Similiaque occurs ix. 4. 43: mille (for sescenti) is used v. 14. 32: for contempsisset cp. ix. 4. 113. Si mille illa and similiaque may easily have run together, when schemata (or figuras) would fall out: quam in the older MSS. may represent que lumina, which again reappears in the qualium of the later codd. (si nil aequalium). As an alternative for parum rectum genns (or sermonem) Kiderlin suggests Wölfflin’s reading parum recta: and compares ix. 2: ii. 5. 11: v. 13. 2: ix. 1. 3; 3. 3: x. 1. 44; 89: ii. 13. 10.
Of the MSS. Prat. 7231 Sal. 7696 N Ioan. Harl. 2662 and 11671 agree with Bn and Bg in giving simile quam: b has si aliqua: HFT, Burn 243, Bodl. aliqua: M Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Dorv. C si nil aequalium. Among previous conjectures are si multa aequalium, Törnebladh: si ille quaedam, Halm (where ille is surely superfluous): si antiqua non, Jeep. Meister accepts the reading si aliqua non: Becher thinks that si nil aequalium may be right.
It is generally admitted that a word must have fallen out after parum: the codd. all give si parum non concupisset. Jeep proposed si pravum (= corruptum: cp. ii. 5. 10) non conc.: on which Halm, comparing omnia sua, remarks, ‘debebat saltem prava.’ But prava seems too strong a word for Quintilian to have used in a criticism where he is so studiously mixing praise and censure. Halm suggested si parum sana, and is followed by Meister: cp. Fronto’s ‘febriculosa’ of Seneca, p. 155 n. Sarpe proposed si prava or parva or plura: Buttmann si parum concupiscenda (or convenientia): Herzog si parvum: Madvig si partim or partem (i.e. paulo plus quam aliqua, and in opp. to omnia sua, below): Hoffmann si opiparum: Seyffert si garum: Kraffert si non parum excussisset (cp. §101, §126: v. 7. 6; 7. 37; 13. 19: xii. 8. 13, &c.): Gustaffson si parva (cp. i. 6. 20 frivolae in parvis iactantiae): Andresen si similem ei quem contempsit se esse (sc. concupisset; cp. Tac. Ann. xiii. 56: xii. 64: Hist. i. 8: Livy xlv. 20. 9) si parem non concupisset (i.e. si Ciceronianum genus dicendi imitari quam diverso genere gloriam eius aemulari maluisset): or, nam si similem ei quem contempsit se esse, non parem concupisset: Krüger (3rd ed.) si parum arguta: Hertz (who argues that the word which has fallen out must, with parum, correspond to corrupta above) si parum pura.
utrimque Meister and Becher, following old edd., Spalding, and Bonnell: utrumque B N 7231, 7696: virumque M: utcumque Halm, ‘in every way,’ ‘one way or another,’—proposed by Gesner at 6 §7.
§2. atque omnis. Kiderlin (Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. 1887, p. 454) proposes to put commas at sequi and velimus, and make this clause also subordinate.
§3. aut similes aut dissimiles. Andresen suggests aut similes aut non dissimiles or aut similes aut certe haud dissimiles.
§6. tradiderunt (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 tradiderint, the reading of b Prat. Bodl. and Vall. (corrected in the last from tradiderunt), Burmann, Spalding, Bonnell, Halm, Meister, and Krüger. Becher holds that in Quintilian, as frequently in Cicero, cum 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 “wenn du dies thust” 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 “wenn.”’ Becher adds the following parallel passages: Cic. pro Cluent. 47. 131 id ipsum quantae divinationis est scire innocentem fuisse reum, cum iudices sibi dixerunt 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 cum ... sunt consecuti 7 §19 below, which seems, however, to be somewhat different. Here there is an antithesis, and in such cases cum (‘whereas’) may very well take the indicative: there the clause ‘cum sint consecuti’ is added to show the reasonableness (cum = ‘since’) of the demand that extemporary facility shall be made fully equal to cogitatio—see ad loc. Neither instance can be explained on the analogy of cum 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 cum is usually explained as = quo tamen tempore.
eruendas M Harl. 4995: all other codd. erudiendas.
mensuris ac lineis. Krüger (3rd ed.) quotes with approval the conjecture of Friedländer (Darst. aus der Sittengesch. Roms iii. 4. p. 194. 4) eisdem mensuris ac lineis, and recommends the insertion of eisdem in the text,—after lineis, where it is more likely to have fallen out. But this is unnecessary.
§7. turpe etiam illud est. Hild puts a comma after sciant, and by supplying before turpe est an ita to correspond with quemadmodum, makes out a comparison of which quemadmodum, &c., is the first clause and turpe etiam illud est the second. This is certainly to misunderstand the passage. The quemadmodum clause goes with what is before, not with what follows, so that a comma after alieni would be enough, were it not for the necessity of having the mark of interrogation (cp. §9 below). Then turpe etiam illud est comes in, resuming pigri est ingenii in §4, just as immediately afterwards rursus quid erat futurum §7 resumes quid enim futurum erat §4. The whole passage is an elaboration of the dictum with which §4 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 not to confine ourselves to hard and fast lines like servile copyists. Then he goes on to add in §7 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 §7 poetry, history, navigation, as well as painting are put in evidence for the argument ex contrario.
§8. mansit, Meister: sit codd.: est Fleckeisen (and Halm): fuit Gensler.
§9. adpetent Bg HFT: appetent Prat. Ioan. Harl. 4995 Bodl. &c.: appetunt N Harl. 2662, 11671, Burn. 243.
hoc agit Halm, followed by Meister (cp. 7 §4): hoc ait b H, om. Bn Bg N Ioan. Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671: agit (sine hoc) Harl. 4995, 4950 M, and most codd.
§10. quaeque pares maxime may be a gloss: it is found only in those MSS. which give simplicissimae for simillimae: b H Harl. 4950 M Burn. 243 Bodl.
utique (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.
§11. orationibus, Bg: Ioan, gives oratione: so also Voss. 1 and 3 (Zumpt).
accommodatur b H Ioan. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, Bodl. Dorv. and Meister: commodatur Bn N Prat. Harl. 2662, 11671, and Halm.
§12. inventio vis B Harl. 2662, 11671: inventionis b H Harl. 4495, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 243, Bodl., Dorv.
§13. cum et, ed. Colon. 1527: et cum B H Ioan. Prat. N (et quum) M: cum Vall. Harl. 4995. On the usual interpretation of this difficult passage ut quorum ... collocata sunt forms one parenthesis: but this is an unnecessary extension of the explanation of intercidant invalescantque temporibus. See ad loc.
accommodata sit, codd. except Harl. 4995, which omits sit: acc. est Halm, followed by Hild (depending on prout, not cum: see note ad loc.). Madvig’s conjecture accommodanda sit 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 ad loc.) will be evident to any one who considers the whole sentence carefully. To cum et verba intercidant corresponds exactly the double clause et compositio ... rebus accommodata sit on the one hand, and et compositio ... ipsa varietate gratissima (sc. sit—repeated from accommodata sit) on the other. This double clause is rather awkwardly joined by cum ... tum. To take accommodata sit as depending on the cum which follows compositio is to destroy the balance of the sentence. In this case an independent sit would have to be supplied with gratissima (to make et compositio ... gratissima sit correspond to et verba intercidant above): and the translation would then be: ‘it is just when (cum ... tum), or exactly in proportion as, it is adapted to the sense (rebus accommodata) 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 cum rebus accommodatur (or—ata est) tum ipsa varietate sit gratissima.
§14. quos imitemur. The D’Orville MS. gives quos eligamus ad imitandum,—probably an emendation by the copyist, though it may explain the origin of the reading of b and H quos at imitandum.
quid sit ad quod nos. The ad is due to Regius: most codd. have quid sit quod nos, except Harl. 4995, which is again in agreement with Goth. Vall. Voss. 2 and the second hand in Par. 2: quid sit quod nobis.
§15. et a doctis, inter ipsos etiam. The explanation given in the notes is due to Andresen (Rhein. Mus. 30, p. 521), who, however, wished to insert et before inter ipsos. The comma makes that unnecessary. So Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 71 sq.).
dicunt, Harl. 4995: dicant all codd.: ‘emend. Badius’ (Halm).
ut sic dixerim Vall. (Becher): cp. pr. 23: i. 6. 1: ii. 13. 9: v. 13. 2. BM Prat. have ut dixerim. Halm wrote ut ita dixerim, comparing i. 12. 2: ix. 4. 61: but ut sic is more common in the Latinity of the Silver Age.
§16. compositis exultantes. Kiderlin (Berl. Jahrb. XIV, 1888, p. 72) would prefer compositis rigidi (cp. xi. 3. 32: xii. 10. 7: ix. 3. 101: xii. 10. 33), comptis (cp. i. 79: viii. 3. 42) exultantes = ‘statt wohlgeordnet steif, statt schmuckliebend putzsüchtig.’ Another unnecessary emendation is laetis exultantes, compositis corrupti (Lindau): or compositis exiles (Düntzner).
§17. quidlibet, most codd.: quamlibet M, Vall. Harl. 4995, 4950: qui licet bH. Iwan Müller (Bursian’s Jahresb. 1879, p. 162) condemns illud, and would read either quamlibet frigidum (cp. 3 §19 and ix. 2. 67: quamlibet apertum), or quidlibet frigidum, which latter is approved by P. Hirt. Eussner suggests the deletion of illud frigidum et inane, thinking that these words may be the remains of a gloss on §16.
Attici sunt scilicet. Spalding’s reading seems on the whole to be preferred. The retention of sunt (represented in some MSS. by a simple s,—hence the reading Atticis scilicet) makes it less necessary to follow Meister in inserting a sunt after qui praec. concl. obscuri: in so loose a writer as Quintilian the first sunt would do duty for both. Halm follows Bn and Bg, which apparently (as also N Harl. 2662, 4829, and 11671) have Attici scilicet: Meister (with bHM and Harl. 4950) gives Atticis scilicet. In the Ioannensis I find Attici s (for sunt): Dorv. and Burn. 244 give Atticis s. Scilicet (om. Prat.) may be a gloss, and the true reading may be Attici sunt. Some codd. (Bodl. Burn. 243) give Atticos scilicet (Athicos Harl. 4995): qy. Atticorum similes? (cp. Cic. Brut. §287).—Becher now prefers Atticis (sc. se pares credunt).
§22. proposito. 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 propositio: all other codd. proposita. Perhaps we should read (with Ioan.) sua cuique proposito est lex, suus decor est. Prat. omits the second est.
§23. tenuitas aut iucunditas, Halm and Meister: tenuitas ac iucunditas b H, Burn. 243, Bodl.: tenuitas aut nuditas N Ioan. M Harl. 2662, 11671: tenuitas ac nuditas Prat. Harl. 4995, 4950, 4829, C, Burn. 244, Dorv.: aut iuditas Bg.
§25. quid ergo? non est satis, &c. Gertz proposes to read, shortly afterwards, mihi quidem satis esset; set si omnia consequi possem, quid tamen noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere? (= sed etiam si satis mihi esset, tamen nihil noceret vim Caesaris ... adsumere, si omnia haec consequi possem).
§28. deerunt, Francius: deerant (derant) all codd. Becher defends deerant: ‘der Rhetor meint dass qui propria bona adiecerit öfter Veranlassung gehabt haben wird, Fehlendes zu ergänzen als zu beschneiden si quid redundabit.’
oporteat bHFT Bodl. M Harl. 4950 Burn. 243: oportebat 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 erit in the following sentence.