Chapter V
Reading edition
§1. ἕξιν parantibus: for the ex imparantibus of Bn N and Ioan. Bursian added non est huius. So Halm. Harl. 4995 gives nec exuberantis id quidem est operis ut explicemus.
factum est iam, Halm and Meister: est etiam all codd. except Ioan, which has factum etiam.
iam robustorum: so all codd. except bHFT which omit iam: and Harl. 4995, Burn. 244 which give iam robustiorum.
§2. id Messallae: B Ioan. M and most codd. Ball. and Dorv. however give M. id Messalae: and Harl. 4995 Marco id Messalae. The spelling Messallae is adopted in the text as more correct.
§4. eadem: so most edd. and Spalding, followed by Mayor and Krüger (3rd ed.): eandem all codd., with the single exception of M, and so Halm and Meister, though without giving any indication of the meaning. The only way to explain eandem seems to be to continue the sentence in thought sc. quae non proprie, or quae apud poetas: cp. eandem i. 9. 1. The sense will then be: ‘the poet’s inspiration has an elevating influence, while his licences of style do not carry with them in advance, or involve, the corresponding ability to use the language of ordinary prose: something is left for the reproducer.’ This suggests that there may be something in the reading of B (also Vall. and Harl. 4995), which have no non with praesumunt, at least if we may read eadem: ‘poetical licence implies that the orator can say the same things propriis verbis.’ Bursian suggested nec (for et) verba ... praesumunt.
§5. post quod. Harl. 4995 again agrees with Goth. and Voss. 2, praeter quod: so Vall.
§13. reus sit. Krüger (3rd ed.) revives Halm’s conj. rectene reus sit, to correspond with rectene occiderit and honestene tradiderit in what follows: along with Gertz’s quaeramus, an to correspond with veniat in iudicium an, Becher, however (Philol. xiv, p. 724), has pointed out that if the object of such a change is to secure complete symmetry, we should need to read, ‘Cornelius rectene codicem legerit’ quaeramus, an ‘liceatne magistratui ... recitare’: otherwise, in the other two cases the text ought to run, ‘Milo quod Clodium occidit’ veniat in iudicium, an..., and ‘Cato quod Marciam tradidit Hortensio’ an. Qnintilian has avoided this excess of parallelism without coming into conflict with logic.
Just as at iii. 5. 10 we have Milo Clodium occidit, iure occidit insidiatorem: nonne hoc quaeritur, an sit ius insidiatorem occidendi?, so here the finita or specialis causa shows the form of a positive statement (Cornelius reus est), as frequently in Seneca. Reus sit and legerit are motived only by the disjunctive interrog.: it might have run ‘utrum dicamus, Cornelius reus est,’ or only ‘Corn. quod legit ... reus est.’ The infinita quaestio, on the other hand, appears as in the above example in the form of a question, and this form the writer adheres to in the two following finitae and infinitae quaestiones. The finita quaestio rests on the generalis quaestio: acquittal of the charge (here laesa maiestas) depends on the answer to violeturne, &c. In a word, it is as if Quintilian had written (as at iii. 5. 10) Cornelius quod codicem legit, reus est: nonne hoc quaeritur: violeturne, &c.
§14. dum adulescit profectus, B Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball.: inventus Hb Bodl. Burn. 243: Bonnell’s conj. invenis appears in Dorv. Bursian and Jeep conj. dum adul. profectui sunt util.
quia inventionem, Halm: quae inventionem all codd. Qy. quod?
§16. materia fuerit. Meister suggests erit: perhaps rather fuerit—necesse erit.
§17. assuescere Zumpt: assuefieri Philander. All MSS. have assuefacere. Frotscher wrote inanibus se simulacris ... assuefacere, and was followed by Halm. Most MSS. also (B Ioan. Ball. Harl. 2662, 4995, 4829, 11671) give difficilis digressus: but in view of the consensus for assuefacere the alternation difficilius digressos (H Bodl. Dorv. Harl. 4950 Burn. 243) is worth considering: inanibus simulacris would then go (though awkwardly) with detineri (for the rhythm cp. x. 2. 1), and the rest of the sentence makes excellent sense.
§18. transferrentur N Dorv. Ball. Harl. 2662.
§20. decretoriis Harl. 4995, probably from a correction in Vall.: Voss. 2 and Goth. (Spald.) derectoriis BJ Ball. Dorv. Burn. 244: detectoris b: delectoris H: delectoriis Bodl.: de rhetoriis Harl. 2662, 4829, 11671: vel rhetoricis M.
satis so most codd. But Bodl. Dorv. Burn. 243 litis: Hb sitis.
§21. idoneus bHM: si idoneus Bn Bg Sal.: sudoneus N: is idoneus Halm.
§22. sustinere Halm and Meister: sustineri Bn Bg HN Sal.
recidet occurs in Dorv., and is reported by Becher as a correction in Vall.: all other codd. recidere.
§23. diligenter effecta all codd. Regius proposed una diligenter effecta, Badius una enim diligenter effecta, and so many edd. Una would come in well before quam; but Becher rightly holds that it is unnecessary, the opposition being not quantitative alone, but qualitative as well. He reports una enim as a correction in the Vallensis.
quidque. Fleckeisen proposed quicquid; see Madvig on de Fin. v. §24.