Dum ... non stands for dummodo ... non 3 §7: cp. xii. 10, 48. The usage is poetical. Dummodo does not occur in Quintilian.
Enim occurs, conformably to classical usage, in the third place after a word preceded by a preposition: e.g. ad profectum enim 3 §15: and so frequently after sum,—2 §10 necesse est enim: 1 §14: 7 §§15, 24: 2 §19. But nihil enim est 1 §78, where Krüger suggests nihil enim inest.
Etsi. As it is generally stated that etsi does not occur in Quintilian it may be well to include it here. Instances are i. pr. 19: i. 5, 28: v. 13, 3: ix. i, 19.
Ideoque is constantly used for itaque. See note on 1 §21.
Licet = etsi, as sometimes in Cicero: 1 §99: ii. 2, 8 and passim.
Quamlibet and quamquam. Quintilian uses these words (in clauses which contain no verb) along with adjectives, participles, and adverbs: 3 §19 nam in stilo quidem quamlibet properato: cp. viii. 6, 4 oratione quamlibet clara: xii. 8, 7 quamlibet verbose: xi. 1, 34 quamquam plena sanguinis. A similar use of quamvis is less uncommon in other writers: cp. 1 §74 quamvis bonorum: ib. §94 quamvis uno libra (where see note). See Madvig on Cic. de Fin. v. §68.
Quia is sometimes used where quod (eo quod) might have been expected: 1 §15 hoc sunt exempla potentiora ... quia: cp. 5 §14 Declamationes vero ... sunt utilissimae quia (Halm) inventionem et dispositionem pariter exercent. So i. 6, 39 nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent (sc. verba a vetustate repetita) et, quia intermissa sunt, gratiam novitati similem parant. Cp. non quia non (with the subjunctive) x. 7, 19 and 31: so ii. 2, 2: iv. 1, 5, 65: viii. 3, 42: ix. 1, 23; 4, 20.
Quoque often occurs alongside of an adjective, to increase its force, where older writers would have had vel or etiam: 1 §20 ex industria quoque: 2 §14 in magnis quoque auctoribus: cp. 1 §121 ceterum interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum: ii. II, I exemplo magni quoque nominis professorum.
Quotiens = cum: 4 §3: 7 §29. Cp. iv. 1, 76: viii. 3, 55.
For the rest, Quintilian’s style cannot be called artistic. It is indeed generally clear and simple: instances of obscurity are very often traceable to the ‘insanabilis error’ in the old text, of which Leonardo wrote to Poggio, and which the progress of criticism has done so much to remedy. It is also free from all bombast and excessive embellishment. But there is little of the graceful and ample movement of the Ciceronian period: the sentence often halts, as it were, there are frequent instances of harsh expression, and the periods are awkwardly constructed. Quintilian was not an artist in style. Probably the technicalities of his subject kept him from thinking too much of such matters as rhythm, cadence, and harmony. His main object was to say clearly and directly what he wanted to say, without laying too great stress on the form in which it was cast. The leading thought is generally stated at once, and everything subordinate to it is left to take care of itself. Hence it is that causal clauses are allowed to come dragging in at the end of a sentence (x. 2 §§13 and 23), and adjectival or attributive clauses stand by themselves in a position of remarkable isolation (vel ob hoc memoria dignum 1 §80: rebus tamen acuti magis quam, &c. 1 §84: cp. §§85, 95, 103). Relative sentences also are introduced in a detached sort of fashion (1 §80: 2 §28). The thought is sometimes hard to follow (as notably in the opening sections of the Tenth Book: cp. 2 §§13 and §§20, 21; 7 §7), because the composition is not framed as a harmonious whole: the transition particles are loosely used (see on nam 1 §12: cp. §50, 7 §31: quidem 1 §88), and are sometimes wanting altogether, especially in the case of figures suddenly and abruptly introduced (see on 1 §4: cp. 7 §1). Instances of a more or less artificial striving after variety of expression are often met with: e.g. 1 §§36, 41, 83, 102. In the order of words there is sometimes the same departure from customary usage (1 §109, 2 §17), especially in the case of proper names (1 §86 Afro Domitio for Domitio Afro: cp. Atacinus Varro §87: Bassus Aufidius §103)71. Constructions κατὰ σύνεσιν frequently occur: 1 §65: §105: 7 §25. Under this head may be included the omission of the subject: 1 §7 congregat: §66 permiserunt: 7 §4 malit ... possit: and of words to be supplied from the context, 1 §56 congerentes: 1 §7 solitos: 1 §107 quibus nihil ille: 1 §123 qui ubique: 2 §24: 3 §25. In the same way esse is frequently omitted for the sake of brevity: 1 §17, §66, §90: 4 §1: 5 §6: 7 §7, §23. Lastly there are frequent instances of inadvertent and negligent repetition: 1 §§8, 9, 23, 94, 131: 2 §§11-12: 5 §§6-7: 7 §23: cp. on 2 §23.
Among minor peculiarities of idiom are (1) An almost excessive fondness for the use of the perfect subjunctive: 1 §14 dixerim: §26 maluerim: §37 fuerit, where see note: so even ut non dixerim (ne dicam) 1 §77 and ut sic dixerim 2 §15. (2) The use of the future indicative in dependent clauses: see on sciet 1 §4, and cp. 2 §§26, 28: 3 §28: 7 §28: also as a mild imperative, 1 §58 revertemur: 3 §18 sequemur; 2 §1 renuntiabit: §23 aptabimus. (3) The frequent use of the infinitive in constructions which are characteristic of the Silver Age: (a) with verbs, as meruit credi 1 §72: qui esse docti adfectant §97: optandum ... fieri §127: si consequi utrumque non dabitur 7 §22: opponere verear 1 §101: intermittere veremur 7 §26: cp. expertus iuvenem ... habuisse 3 §32: for dubitare see on 1 §73: (b) with adjectives, legi dignus 1 §96: contentum id consequi 2 §7. (4) The substantival use of the gerund, ceteraque genera probandi ac refutandi 1 §49: lex orandi 1 §76: inveniendi §69: sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate 1 §81: cp. loquendi §83: eloquendo §106: nascendi 3 §4: saliendi 3 §6: ib. iaculando: adiciendo 3 §32: emendandi 4 §2: cogitandi 7 §25. (5) Quamquam with subjunctive 1 §33: 2 §21: 7 §17: forsitan with indic. 2 §10: &c.
Among the figures of syntax may be mentioned (1) Anaphora, or the repetition of the same word at the beginning of several clauses: e.g. nulla varietas, nullus adfectus, nulla persona, nulla cuiusquam sit oratio 1 §55: cp. 1 §§99, 115, 130: 2 §2: 3 §3 (illic radices, illic fundamenta sunt, illic opes, &c.): §9, §29: 5 §§2, 8: 6 §1; (2) Asyndeton: e.g. facere quam optime, quam facillime possit 1 §4: 2 §16: 6 §6: 7 §§7, 26; (3) Chiasmus: 5 §14 (alitur—renovatur) and §15 (ne carmine—reficiuntur): 7 §15.
The frequent occurrence of figures taken from the gladiatorial arena or the field of battle may be made the subject of a concluding paragraph72. It is in keeping with the martial character of the Romans that there is no more fertile source of metaphor in their literature than the art of war, which was indeed their favourite pursuit; just as the Greeks drew their images from nothing more readily than from the sea and those maritime occupations in which they were so much at home. It is generally to what is most familiar both to himself and to those whom he is addressing that a speaker or writer has recourse in order to enforce his meaning. Both Cicero and Quintilian had lived through troublous times, and it is little wonder that even in the quiet repose of their rhetorical treatises we should frequently meet with phrases and illustrations in which we seem to hear the noise of battle. And under the Flavian emperors the less serious combats in the Coliseum had come to be looked upon as great national entertainments. Hence it was natural to picture the orator, whose main object is to win persuasion, as one striving for the mastery with weapons appropriate to the warfare he is waging. No greater compliment can be found to pay to Julius Caesar than to say that ‘he spoke as he fought’: tanta in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse quo bellavit appareat, x. 1, 114. The orator must always be on the alert,—ever ‘ready for battle,’ in procinctu 1 §2 (where see note): if he cannot take prompt action, he might as well remain in camp,—nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium 4 §4. His style must be appropriate to the matter in hand: id quoque vitandum ne in oratione poetas nobis et historicos ... imitandos putemus. Sua cuique proposito lex, suus cuique decor est 2 §§21-2. Victory must ever be the end in view,—victory in what is a real combat, not a sham fight: 1 §§29-30 nos vero armatos stare in acie et summis de rebus decernere et ad victoriam niti: 2 §27 quam omnia, etiam quae delectationi videantur data, ad victoriam spectent: 1 §79 Isocrates ... palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus: 1 §31 totum opus (historia) non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur. The orator must have all the wiry vigour of an experienced campaigner, and his weapons ought not to be made for show: 1 §33 dum ... meminerimus non athletarum toris sed militum lacertis opus esse, nec versicolorem illam, qua Demetrius Phalereus dicebatur uti, vestem bene ad forensem pulverem facere: 1 §30 Neque ego arma squalere situ ac rubigine velim, sed fulgorem in iis esse qui terreat, qualis est ferri, quo mens simul visusque praestringitur, non qualis auri argentique, imbellis et potius habenti periculosus: cp. 1 §60 cum validae tum breves vibrantesque sententiae, plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum: 1 §77 carnis tamen plus habet (Aeschines) minus lacertorum: 2 §12 quo fit ut minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes: 1 §115 verum sanguinem perdidisse. As soon as possible he must add practice to theory: 1 §4, cp. 5 §§19-20 (iuvenis) iudiciis intersit quam plurimis et sit certaminis cui destinatur frequens spectator ... et, quod in gladiatoribus fieri videmus, decretoriis exerceatur: 3 §3 vires faciamus ante omnia, quae sufficiant labori certaminum et usu non exhauriantur. His whole activity is that of the battle-field: whether he is for the prosecution or the defence, he must either overcome his adversary or succumb to him: cp. 1 §106 pugnat ille (Demosthenes) acumine semper, hic (Cicero) frequenter et pondere: §120 ut esset multo magis pugnans. And he must not linger too long over preparatory exercises, otherwise his armour will rust and his joints lose their suppleness: 5 §16 nam si nobis sola materia fuerit ex litibus, necesse est deteratur fulgor et durescat articulus et ipse ille mucro ingenii cotidiana pugna retundatur.
In this final section of the Introduction, links have been omitted because they would have been more distracting than useful.
Considerable interest attaches to the study of the manuscripts of Quintilian, the oldest of which may be grouped in three main divisions: (1) the complete manuscripts, (2) the incomplete, and (3) the mixed.
The most important representative of the first class is the Codex Ambrosianus, a manuscript of the 10th or 11th century, now at Milan. As we have it now, it is unfortunately in a mutilated condition, nearly a fourth part of the folios having been lost (from ix. 4, 135 argumenta acria et cit. to xii. 11, 22 antiquitas ut possit). Halm secured a new and trustworthy collation of this MS., distinguishing carefully between the original text and the readings of the second hand.
Although now in the defective condition above indicated, the Ambrosianus must have been originally complete. In this it differs from the representatives of the second family of MSS., the most valuable member of which—the Bernensis—is of even greater importance for the constitution of the text than the Ambrosianus, at least in those parts which it contains. It is the oldest of all the known manuscripts of Quintilian, belonging to the 10th century. The peculiarity which it shares with the other members of its family is that it contains certain great lacunae, which must have existed also in the manuscript from which it was copied, as they are indicated in the Bernensis by blank spaces. The size of the first lacuna varies with the fortunes of the particular codex: in the Bernensis it extends from the beginning to 2 §5 (licet, et nihilo minus). The others are identical in all cases: v. 14, 12—viii. 3, 64: viii. 6, 17—viii. 6, 67: ix. 3, 2—x. 1, 107 (nulla contentio): xi. 1, 71—xi. 2, 33: and xii. 10, 43 to the end.
To the same family as the Bernensis belongs the Bambergensis A, which was directly copied from the Bernensis not long after the latter had been written: it also is of the 10th century. But inasmuch as in the Bambergensis the great lacunae were, at a very early date, filled in by another hand (Bambergensis G73), this manuscript may now rank in the third group, where it became the parent, as I hope to show below, of the Harleianus (2664), and through the Harleianus of the Florentinus, Turicensis, and an innumerable company of others. Besides reproducing Bambergensis G, these MSS. follow for the most part the readings introduced by a later hand (called by Halm b) into the original Bambergensis A. A recent examination of the Bambergensis has suggested a doubt whether the readings known as b, which are often of a very faulty character, can have been derived from the same codex as G.
Halm’s critical edition of Quintilian is founded, in the main, on the manuscripts above mentioned, with a few examples of the 15th century for the parts where he had only the Ambrosianus and the Bambergensis G, or the latter exclusively, to rely on. Since the date of the publication of his text (1868) great progress has been made with the critical study of Quintilian. In 1875 MM. Chatelain and le Coultre published a collation of the Nostradamensis (see below), the main results of which have been incorporated in Meister’s edition (1886-87). And in a critical edition of the First Book of the Institutio (1890) M. Ch. Fierville has given a most complete account of all the continental manuscripts, drawing for the purpose on a previous work in which he had already shown proof of his interest in the subject (De Quintilianeis Codicibus, 1874).
There can be little doubt that Halm’s critical instinct guided him aright in attaching supreme importance to the Bernensis (with Bambergensis A), the Ambrosianus, and Bambergensis G. But much has been derived from some manuscripts of which he took no account, and there is one in particular, which has hitherto been strangely overlooked, and to which prominence is accordingly given in this edition. Before proceeding to deal with it, I shall annex here a brief notice of the various MSS. which figure in the Critical Notes, grouped in one or other of the three divisions given above. An editor of the Tenth Book of the Institutio is especially bound to travel outside the rather narrow range of Halm’s critical edition, as so much of the existing text (down to 1 §107) has been based mainly on Bambergensis G alone. In addition to collating, for the purposes of this edition, such MSS. as the Ioannensis at Cambridge, the Bodleianus and Balliolensis at Oxford, and the very important Harleian codex, referred to above, I have also carefully compared eight 15th century manuscripts in the hope (which the Critical Appendix will show to have been not entirely disappointed) of gleaning something new. This part of the present work may be regarded as supplementing, for this country, what M. Ch. Fierville has already so laboriously accomplished for the manuscripts of the Continent.
Of the first family, the outstanding example is the Ambrosianus. The resemblances between it and Bambergensis G are sufficient to show that the manuscript from which the latter was copied probably belonged to the same class. But this manuscript, which must have been complete (like the Ambrosianus originally), has altogether disappeared: one of the great objects for extending the study of the MSS. of Quintilian beyond the limits observed by Halm is the hope of being able to distinguish between such examples as may seem (like the Dorvilianus at Oxford) to preserve some of the traditions of the family, and those whose origin may be clearly traced back to Bambergensis A and G. For all the complete MSS. of Quintilian in existence must be derived either from this family or from the mixed group of which the Bambergensis, in its present form, seems to be the undoubted original.
In the second group we must include, not much inferior to the Bernensis, the Parisinus Nostradamensis (N) Bibl. Nat. fonds latin 18527. It is an independent transcript in all probability of the incomplete MS. from which the Bernensis was copied, and as such has a distinct value of its own. It is ascribed to the 10th century. For the readings of this codex I have been able to compare a collation made by M. Fierville in 1872, with that published by MM. Chatelain and le Coultre in 1875.
Then there is the Codex Ioannensis (in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge), a recent examination of which has shown me that the account given of it by Spalding (vol. ii. pr. p. 4) must be amended in some particulars. In its present condition it begins with constaret (i. 2, 3), but a portion of the first page has been cut away for the sake of the ornamental letter: originally the MS. must have begun at the beginning of the second chapter, like the Nostradamensis, the Vossiani 1 and 2, the Codex Puteanus, and Parisinus 7721 (see Fierville, p. 165). Again, the reading at xi. 2, 33 is clearly multiplici, not ut duplici, and in this it agrees with the Montpellier MS. (Pithoeanus), which is known to be a copy (11th century) of the Bernensis (see M. Bonnet in Revue de Phil. 1887). A remarkable feature about this MS. is the number of inversions which the writer sets himself to make in the text. These I have not included in the Critical Notes, but some of them may be subjoined here, as they may help to establish the derivation of this manuscript. The codex from which it was copied must have been illegible in parts: this is probably the explanation of such omissions (the space being left blank) as tum in ipsis in x. 2, 14, and virtutis ib. §15. It is written in a very small and neat hand, with no contemporary indication of the great lacunae, and may be ascribed to the 13th century. It agrees generally with the Bernensis, though there are striking resemblances also to the Pratensis (see p. lxiii and note). Among the inversions referred to are the following:—x. 3, 1 sic etiam utilitatis, for sic utilitatis etiam: ib. §30 oratione continua, for continua oratione: 5 §8 alia propriis alia translatis virtus, for alia translatis virtus alia propriis: 7 §21 stultis eruditi, for stulti eruditis: ib. §28 solum summum, for summum solum. Some of these peculiarities (e.g. the inversion at 5 §8) it shares with the Leyden MSS.—the Vossiani i. and iii., a collation of which is given in Burmann’s edition: these codices M. Fierville assigns to that division of his first group in which the Nostradamensis heads the list (see below, p. lxiv). I may note also the readings viderit bona et invenit ( 2 §20), which Ioan. shares with Voss. iii.: potius libertas ista ( 3 §24) Ioan. and Voss. i.; ubertate—for libertate—( 5 §15) Ioan. Voss. i. and iii.
To the same family belongs the Codex Salmantinus, a 12th or 13th century manuscript in the library of the University of Salamanca. M. Fierville, who kindly placed at my disposal his collation of the Tenth Book, thinks it must have been indirectly derived from the Bernensis. He notes some hundred variants in which it differs from the Nostradamensis (most of them being the errors of a copyist), and some thirty-seven places in which, while differing from the Nostradamensis, it agrees with the Bernensis and the Bambergensis. This MS. also gives ubertate in 5 §15 : it agrees in showing the important reading alte refossa in 3 §2 : and resembles the Ioannensis in certain minor omissions, e.g. certa before necessitate in 5 §15 : idem before laborandum in 7 §4 : et before consuetudo in 7 §8 : cp. subiunctura sunt for subiuncturus est 7 §9 . For other coincidences see the Critical Appendix.
In the same group must be included two MSS. of first-class importance for the text of Quintilian, for a collation of which (as of the Codex Salmantinus) I am indebted to the kindness of M. Fierville. They are the Codex Pralensis (No. 14146 fonds latin de la Bibliothèque nationale), of the 12th century, and the Codex Puteanus (No. 7719) of the 13th. The former is the work of Étienne de Rouen, a monk of the Abbey of Bec, and it consists of extracts from the Institutio amounting to nearly a third of the whole. There are eighty sections, of which §76 (de figuris verborum) includes x. 1 §§108-131; §77 (de imitatione) consists of x. 2, 1-28; §78 (quomodo dictandum sit) of x. 3, 1-32; and §79 (de laude scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum) of x. 1, 46-107. The importance of this codex arises from the fact that it is an undoubted transcript of the Beccensis, now lost. The Beccensis is supposed by M. Fierville (Introd. p. lxxvii. sq.) to have belonged to the 9th or 10th century, in which case it would take, if extant, at least equal rank with the Bernensis. That it was an independent copy of some older MS. seems to be proved, not only by the variants in the Pratensis, but also by the fact that both the Pratensis and the Puteanus (which is also a transcript of the Beccensis) show a lacuna after the word mutatis in x. 3, 32. This lacuna must have existed in the Beccensis, though there is no trace of it elsewhere. Guided by the sense, Étienne de Rouen added the words correctum fuisse tabellis in his copy (the Pratensis): the text runs codicibus esse sublatum.
The general character of the readings of the Pratensis may be gathered from a comparison of passages in the Critical Appendix to this volume. Among other variants, the following may be mentioned,—and it will be seen that certain peculiar features in some of the MSS. used by Halm (notably S) probably arose either from the Pratensis or from its prototype, the Beccensis. At x. 1. 50 Prat, gives (like S) rogantis Achillen Priami precibus, while most codd. have Priami before rogantis: ib. §53 eloquentie (so Put. S 7231, 7696) for eloquendi: ib. superatum (so Put.) for superari: §55 aequalem credidit parem (as Put. S Harl. 2662, 11671): §67 idque ego (as Put. S) for idque ego sane: §68 qui fuerunt and also vero, omitted (as in Put. S): so also tenebras §72, valuerunt §84 (as 7231, 7696), and veterum §97: at §95 Prat, gives et eruditissimos for et doctissimos, and hence the omission of erudit. in S. On the whole, the study of the text of the Pratensis seems to give additional confidence in the readings of G: for example §98 imperare (as Put.): §101 cesserit (Put. 7231, 7696): ib. nec indignetur. Étienne de Rouen carefully omitted all the Greek words which he found in his original, and this strengthens the contention that φράσιν in 1 §87 (see Crit. Notes, and cp. §42) was originally written in Greek. At 2 §20 quem superius institui for quem institueram in libra secundo is an indication of the fact that Étienne de Rouen was making a compendium of the Institutio, and not transcribing the whole treatise. This probably detracts from the significance of those readings which seem to be peculiar to the Pratensis, among which may be noted 1 §48 putat for creditum est (where Put. has certissimum): §59 ad exemplum maxime permanebit (ad exitum Put. and S): §78 propinquior for propior: §80 mediocri for medio: §81 assurgit for surgit: §109 in utroque for in quoque. Peculiar readings which Prat. shares with the Puteanus (and which were therefore probably in the Beccensis) are §46 in magnis for in magnis rebus: §49 innuit for nuntiat: §50 excessit for excedit: §54 ne virtus for ne utrius (neutrius): §57 ignoro ergo (S) for ignoro igitur: §63 plurimumque oratio: §68 in affectibus communibus mirus: §79 discernendi for dicendi: §107 nominis latini for latini sermonis. At 1 §72 Prat. has qui ut a pravis sui temporis Menandro (Put. ut pravis), and this became in S Harl. 2662 and 11671 qui quamvis sui temp. Men. There are frequent inversions, e.g. dicendi genere §52 (Put.): Attici sermonis (Put.) §65: plus Attio (Put.) §97: cuicumque eorum Ciceronem (as Put. 7231, 7696) §105: sit nobis §112: est autem (as Ioan.) §115: forum illustrator (as Ioan.) §122: creditus sum §125: dignis lectione 2 §1: possumus sperare §9: nemo vero eum §10: aliquo tamen in loco aliquid §24: scientia movendi §27: ipso opere 3 §8: se res facilius §9: desperatio etiam §14: vox exaudiri §25: praecipue in hoc §26: possunt semper §2874.
From the list of readings given above, it will be seen that the Codex Puteanus is in general agreement with the Pratensis, each being an independent copy of the same original. The variants given by this MS. will be found in the Critical Appendix for the part of the Tenth Book collated by M. Fierville, 1 §§46-107. At times it is even more in agreement than the Pratensis with the later family, of which Halm took S as the typical example: e.g. 1 §61 spiritu: ib. merito omitted: §72 possunt decernere (for possis decerpere—possis decernere Prat.).
In the arrangement introduced by Étienne de Rouen in the Pratensis, the last two sections (§§79 and 80) consist respectively of x. 1 §§46-107, and xii. 10 §§10-15. These portions of the Institutio must have formed part of the mutilated original from which the Beccensis was copied, and they have been reproduced separately along with 1 §§108-131 in two Paris MSS. (7231 and 7696), a collation of which has been put at my disposal by M. Fierville. The first is a mixed codex of the 12th century, containing nine separate works, of which the extracts from Quintilian form one. The second, also of the 12th century, belonged to the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire, and comprises five treatises besides the Quintilian. In both the title runs Quintilianus, libro Xº Inst. Orator. Qui auctores Graecorum maxime legendi. M. Fierville states (Introd. p. lxxxv.) that of forty-five variants which he compared (x. 1 §§46-68) in the Pratensis, Puteanus, 7231, and 7696, twenty-eight occur in the two former only, eight in the two latter, and nine in all four. He adds that the Vossiani i. and iii. resemble the two former more nearly than the two latter. Both 7231 and 7696 agree in giving the usual collocation at §50 illis Priami rogantis Achillen: at §59 the former has ad exim, the latter ad exi: at §61 both give eum nemini credit, omitting merito (as Put. and S): at §68 namque is et sermone (as Prat.: namque sermone Put.): ib. in dicendo ac respondendo (Prat. Put. in dicendo et in resp.): §72 (apparently) ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis: §82 finxisse sermonem (as Prat. Put. and most codd.): §83 ac varietate: §88 laudandus partibus (laudandis part. Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §91 visum (visum est Prat. Put.): §98 senes non parum tragicum (Prat. Put. Harl. 2662, 11671): §107 Latini nominis: §121 leve (Prat. N). In §98 Thyestes is omitted in both (also in Prat. Put.): is this a sign that the name was written in Greek in the original? In 7231 I have noted two inversions which do not seem to appear in 7696: dedit exemplum et ortum 1 §46: proximus aemulari §62.
M. Fierville classifies the various members of the whole family of MSS. which has just been reviewed in five sub-divisions. The first includes the Bernensis, Bambergensis A, Ambrosianus ii., Pithoeanus (these two are direct copies of the Bernensis), Salmantinus, three Paris codices (7720, 7722 and Didot), and probably the Ioannensis. In the second he ranks the Nostradamensis, Vossiani i. and iii., and a Paris MS. (7721): in the third the Beccensis, Pratensis, and Puteanus: in the fourth a codex Vaticanus, referred to by Spalding: and in the fifth the fragments just dealt with (7231, 7696). Of these he rightly considers the Bernensis, Bambergensis, Nostradamensis, Pratensis, and Puteanus to be of greatest importance for the constitution of the text.
At the head of the third group of the manuscripts of Quintilian must now be placed the Codex Harleianus (2664), in the library of the British Museum75. This manuscript was first described by Mr. L. C. Purser in Hermathena (No. xii., 1886); and to his notice of it I am now able to add a statement of its history and a pretty certain indication of the relation it bears to other known codices. As to date, it cannot be placed later than the beginning of the 11th century. There are in the margin marks which show clearly that at an early date it was used to supply the great lacunae in some MS. of the first or incomplete class; one of these should have appeared in the margin of the annexed facsimile, a being used at the beginning and b (as here x. 1, 107) at the end of the parts to be extracted. The manuscript contains 188 folios and 24 quaternions, and is written in one column. At the beginning the writing is larger than subsequently, just as the first part of the Bambergensis is larger than G, which the Harleianus (H) closely resembles. On fols. 90-91 the hand is more recent, and the writing is in darker ink: fols. 61-68 seem to have been supplied later. There is a blank of eight lines at the end of 161v., where Book xi. ch. 1 concludes; ch. 2 begins at the top of the next page. There is also a blank line (as in Bn and Bg) at iii. 8, 30, though nothing is wanting in the text.
The result of my investigations has been to identify this important manuscript with the Codex Dusseldorpianus, which we know disappeared from the library at Düsseldorf before Gesner’s time. In the preface to his edition of 1738, §20, he describes it, on the evidence of one who had seen it, as ‘Poggianis temporibus certe priorem, necdum, quod sciatur, recentiori aetate a quoquam collatum’: its remarkable freedom from variants and emendations suggests that it must have lain long unnoticed. When Gesner wanted to refer to it, he found it was gone: ‘tandem compertum est mala fraude nescio quorum hominum et hunc et alios rarissimos codices esse subductos.’ It had, in fact, been sold by the Düsseldorf librarian, possibly acting under orders. The diary of Humphrey Wanley, Harley’s librarian, shows that he bought it (along with several other manuscripts) on the 6th August, 1724, from Sig. John James Zamboni, Resident Chargé d’Affaires in England for the Elector of Hesse Darmstadt. Zamboni’s correspondence is in the Bodleian at Oxford; and I have ascertained, by examining it, that he received the Harleian manuscript of Quintilian from M. Büchels, who was librarian of the Court library at Düsseldorf in the beginning of last century, and with whom Zamboni drove a regular trade in manuscripts.
‘The correspondence’ (to quote from what has already been written elsewhere) ‘is of a very interesting character, and throws light on the provenance of several of the Harleian MSS. The transactions of the pair begin in 1721, when Büchels receives 1200 florins (not without much dunning) for a consignment of printed books. Zamboni, who was something of a humourist, is constantly endeavouring to beat down the librarian’s prices: “j’aime les beaux livres,” he says on one occasion, when pretending that he will not entertain a certain offer, “j’aime les beaux livres, mais je ne hais pas l’argent.” The trade in MSS. began in 1724, when Büchels sent a list from which Zamboni selected eleven codices, assuring his correspondent that if he would only be reasonable they would soon come to terms. Early in the year he offers 500 florins for the lot, protesting that he had no intention of selling again: “sachez, Monsieur, que je ne vous achète pas les livres pour les revendre.” Three weeks after it came to hand, he made over the whole consignment to Harley’s librarian. It included our Quintilian and the great Vitruvius—the entries in Zamboni’s letters corresponding exactly with those in Wanley’s diary. In the end of the same month Zamboni is writing to Büchels for more, protesting that his great ambition is to make a “très jolie collection” of MSS. (Bodl. MSS. Add. D, 66).’
What the history of the Harleianus may have been before it came to Düsseldorf, I have been unable to ascertain. The only clue is a scrawl on the first page: Iste liber est maioris ecclesiae. This Mr. Purser has ascribed, with great probability, to Strasburg. The Codex Florentinus has an inscription showing that it was given by Bishop Werinharius (the first of that name, 1000-1029?) to the Cathedral of St. Mary at Strasburg; and Wypheling, who made a catalogue of the library there (circ. 1508), says of this bishop: ‘multa dedit ecclesiae suae praesertim multos praestantissimos libros antiquissimis characteribus scriptos; quorum adhuc aliqui in bibliotheca maioris ecclesiae repositi videntur.’ This shows that there was a greater and a less church at Strasburg, to the latter of which the MS. may formerly have belonged. And if, as is now generally believed, neither the Florentinus nor the Turicensis can be considered identical with the manuscript which roused the enthusiasm of the literary world when Poggio discovered it in 1416, it is not impossible that we may have recovered that manuscript in the Harleianus, if we can conceive of its having migrated from Strasburg to St. Gall.
The following paragraph appeared in the book as a single-sheet Addendum labeled “Place opposite p. lxvi.” Its original location was therefore at the point “...the insertion at a wrong place in the // text...” in the second paragraph after the Addendum.
Writing in the ‘Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher’ (1891, p. 238 sqq.), Mr. A. C. Clark, of Queen’s College, Oxford, supplies some very interesting information in regard to Zamboni’s purchases. It seems that Zamboni was able to tell Lord Oxford’s librarian that the MSS. which he was selling to him had originally belonged to Graevius; and by comparing the Zamboni correspondence in the Bodleian Library with the posthumous catalogue of Graevius’s library, Mr. Clark has now discovered that Büchels was offering to Zamboni the entire MSS. collection of that great scholar, which in this way ultimately found a home in the library of the British Museum. Graevius died in 1703, and the Elector Johann Wilhelm bought both his books and his manuscripts. The former he presented to the library of the University of Heidelberg: the latter he retained in his own library at Düsseldorf. In regard to the Harleian codex of Quintilian, Mr. Clark’s theory is that it belonged formerly not to Strasburg, but to the cathedral at Cologne, which is more than once referred to as ‘maior ecclesia.’ Gesner must have been in error when he said that this codex had not been recently collated (cp. Introd. p. lxv); for Gulielmus had seen it at Cologne, and in his ‘Verisimilia,’ iii. xiv, quotes some variants and ‘proprii errores’ from the preface to Book vi, all of which appear in the Harleianus as we have it now. And as Graevius is known to have borrowed from the library of Cologne Cathedral, in 1688, an important codex of Cicero ad Fam. (Harl. 2682), Mr. Clark infers that he got the Quintilian at the same time. He evidently omitted to return them; and after his death they passed, with many other MSS., first to Düsseldorf, and then to London.
It was only after the Bambergensis arrived in the British Museum (where it was sent by the authorities of the Bamberg Library, in courteous compliance with a request from me) that it was possible to form a definite opinion as to the place occupied by the Harleianus in regard to it. At first it appeared, even to the experts, that the latter MS. was distinctly of older date than the former: it is written in a neater hand, and on palaeographical grounds alone there might have been room for doubt. But a fuller examination convinced me that the Harleianus was copied directly from the Bambergensis, possibly at the very time when the latter was being completed by the addition of the parts known as Bambergensis G, and of some at least of the readings now generally designated b. These latter, indeed, the Harleianus slavishly follows, in preference to the first hand in the original Bambergensis: probably the copyist of the Harleianus was aware of the importance attached to the codex (uncial?) from which the b readings were taken. In view, however, of the defective state in which the Bambergensis has come down to us, as regards the opening part, and considering also the mutilation of the Ambrosianus, we may still claim for the MS. in the British Museum the distinction of being the oldest complete manuscript of Quintilian in existence.
The proof that the Harleianus stands at the head of the great family of the mixed manuscripts of Quintilian (represented till now mainly by the Florentinus, Turicensis, Almeloveenianus, and Guelferbytanus) is derived from a consideration of its relationship to both parts of the Bambergensis on the one hand, and to those later MSS. on the other. I begin with a point which involves a testimony to the critical acumen of that great scholar C. Halm. In the Sitzungsberichte der königl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, i. pp. 505-6, Halm established the dependence of the Turicensis and the Florentinus on the Bambergensis by pointing out, among other proofs, the insertion at a wrong place in the text of both these codices of certain words which, having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the Bambergensis from their proper context, were written in by him in a blank space at the foot of the page in which the passage in question occurs. The passage is ix. 2, 52: circa crimen Apollonii Drepani[tani: gaudeo etiam si quid ab eo abstulisti et abs te] nihil rectius factum esse dico. When the copyist of the Bambergensis noticed his mistake, he completed Drepanitani in the text, and wrote in the words gaudeo etiam ... abs te at the foot of the page, with a pretty clear indication of the place where they were to be taken in. In the Bambergensis the page ends with the words (§54) an huius ille legis quam, and the next page continues C̣ḷọẹlius a se inventam gloriatur. Noticing that in both the Florentinus and the Turicensis the marginal addition (gaudeo etiam ... abs te) is inserted not after legis quam but after Clodius, Halm drew the inference that these codices were copied from the Bambergensis not directly, but through some intervening manuscript. The Harleianus is this manuscript. In it the words referred to do come in between legis quam and (Cloe)lius: indeed, so slavishly does the writer follow the second hand in the Bambergensis, in which the letters C l o e are subpunctuated, that the Harleianus actually shows et abs te lius a se inventa76, exactly as the writer of b wished the Bambergensis to stand. It must be feared that the copyist of the Harleianus did not know enough Latin to save him from making very considerable mistakes. If I am right in believing that this manuscript must take rank above the Turicensis and the Florentinus (and all other MSS. of this family), it is he who must be credited with a great deal of the confusion that has crept into Quintilian’s text. It may be well to mention one or two obvious examples. In ix. 3, 1 the text stands utinamque non peiora vincant. Verum schemata, &c. In the Bambergensis, utrum nam is supplied by b above the line, and in the margin que peiora vincant verum, the words affected by the change being subpunctuated in the text. The copyist of the Harleianus takes the utrum nam and leaves the rest, showing utrum nam schemata: this appears as utrim nam schemata in the Turicensis, and as utinam schemata in the Florentinus and Almeloveenianus. Take again ix. 3, 68-9 in the Bambergensis (G) quem suppli[catione dignum indicaris. Aliter quoque voces aut] eadem aut diversa, &c. The words enclosed in brackets are the last line of a particular column (142 v.); they were inadvertently omitted by the copyist of the Harleianus, and as a consequence we have supplici in Turic. and Flor., supplitia in Guelf., &c. Again at x. 7, 20 a certain sleepiness on the part of the scribe of the Harleianus, which caused him to write Neque vero tantas eum breve saltem qui foro tempus quod nusquam fere deerit ad ea quae, &c., has given rise to the greatest confusion in Turic., Flor., Alm., Bodleianus, Burn. 243, &c. In this H follows exactly the second hand in Bg., except for the remarkable insertion of the words qui foro between breve saltem and tempus: at this point the copyist of H must have allowed his eyes to stray to the beginning of the previous line in Bg, where the words qui foro hold a conspicuous position. Flor. and Tur. repeat the mistake, except that the latter gives eum brevem for eum breve. Again at the end of Book ix, Bambergensis G gives ut numerum spondet flexisse non arcessisse non arcessiti et coacti esse videantur: this reading is identical with that of the Harleianus, except that the latter for arcessiti gives arcessisti, a deviation promptly reproduced by the Florentinus, while the Turicensis shows accersisti. Perhaps the most conclusive instance of all is the following: at iv. 2, 128 the Bambergensis gives (for ἐπιδιήγησις) ΕΠΙΔΙΗΤΗϹΕΙ: this appears in H as ΕΠΙΔΙΗϹΕΙ the seventh and eighth letters having been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. F makes this ΕΠΙΘΕϹΙΕ and T shows ΕΠΙΘϹΙϹ (επιλιησει—Spalding).