Chapter II

§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.