CORNELI I TAC ITI

D IALOGUS DE ORATORIBUS

P E TER S ON

Bonbon

H EN RY FROWDE

OXFORD Umvzasm PRESS WAREHOUSE

AMEN CORNER, E C.

(new‘Dorfi

MACMILLAN co . ,66 F IFTH AVENUE

CORNEL I I TAC IT I

D IALOGUS DE ORATOR I BUS

JR (Bevis e b t ext

WITH INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

AND

CRITICAL AND EXPLANA TORY NOTES

W . PETERS ON,M .A .

,LL.D .

FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF CORPUS CHR IST I COLLEGE, OXFORDPR INC IPAL OF UN IVERS ITY COLLEGE, DUNDEE

ST. ANDREWS UN IVERS ITY

Oxfo tb

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

P R E F A C E

THI S b ook may b e regarded as a companion vol ume to th e

e d it ion o f th e Te n th Book o f Quint il ian’s I nstitutz'

o w h ich w as

pub l ishe d in th e au tumn o f 1 89 1 . Th e one ha s l e d t o th e oth e rindee d it w as w h ile p reparing th e Qu intil ian th at it o ccurred tome to take th e D ial ogue a l s o in hand . Th e mo t ive w as t he

s ame in b o th ca ses—a w ish to do some th ing t o remove from th e

s cho larsh ip o f t h is c ount ry t he reproach o f n egle ct ing tw o o f t hemost in te res ting spe cime ns o f La tin l i tera tu re

,or o f re lying

fo r a know le dge o f th em a lmost en tire ly on fore ign source s .Th e re ad e r t o w hom th e Dz

'

a l og us a’e Orator z

’

bus is a new w orkw il l find much in its cha racter, conte nts , and h isto ry to a ccountfo r th e e x te nt o f space w h ich I h ave c la ime d from my indu l

gent pub l ishe r s fo r its a d equa te tre a tme nt. S ch ol ars knowt h at it is b rimfu l o f p rob lems, t hough an e x haus tive d is cus s iono f th e se p rob lems , such a s I have e ndeavou red to giv e in th e

In t roduc t ion,ha s h ith e r t o b een conspicuous ly ab se nt from th e

ach ieveme nt s o f Latin ists at home . Fo r s tudent s,again , th e

t re a t ise is o f th e u tmost va lu e , as supp lying a fi e ld fo r the

ex e rcise o f many o f th e‘

qua litie s—such as sense o f s tyle , l ite ra ryj udgme nt and crit ica l ab il ityf

—jw ith o utw h ich a know l e dge o f La t in

w i l l ofte n p rove on ly a b arren posse s s ion . In this connec tion ,I may quote th e w ord s in w h ich C lasse n says there w i l l b e

ge ne ra l agre eme nt da s s de r Dia log in se inem mass igen Umfangungeme in re ich e n S toff zu de n anzie h endste n Discussio nen de r

ve rs chie d e ns te n Art da rb ie t et und d ieseEige nschaft eb en ist es ,d ie ih n nach me iner Ans icht ganz b esond e rs zur geme insame n

Le c ture mit re ife rn S chu le rn,d ie w ir zu se l b ststand igem Nach

d e nke n und umsich t igem Urth e il anzulei te n w ii nsch e n, ge e igne tmach t .

’

v i PREEACE .

A fl avou r o f an tiquarian int e re st a l so att a ches to th e t re a t is e

in v irtue o f th e s t o ry o f its d is cove ry in th e m idd l e o f th e

fi ftee nt h ce n t u ry . I hav e attemp te d to do j u stice t o th is in pa rt

o f th e chapte r on th e Manu sc rip t s . In my re s e a rches in to th e

h is t ory o f th e code x in th e B rit ish Muse um (H ar l . 2639) I haveb e e n gre a t ly inde b t e d to th e h e lp ,

a lw ays most ungrudging ly

giv e n , o f M r . G e o . F . Wa rne r,A s s is t ant K e e pe r o f MSS .

Fo r th e c ri t ica l appa ra tu s , my ch ie f ob liga t ion is to th e

co l la t ion o f th e MSS . giv e n b y M ich ae l is in h is e d ition o f 1 868 ,

a dmirab ly supp le m e n t e d a s it h a s b e e n in re ce nt ye ars b yDr. F. S ch e ue r . In re cord ing th e variou s manu script re ad ings ,I h ave ge ne ra l ly p rocee de d on th e princip le o f admi tting w hat

are ob v iou s erro rs on ly w he n th ey are in s t ru ctive a s b e aring onth e v e x e d qu e s t ion o f th e in t e r-re lation ship o f th e cod ice s .Eve ryth ing ha s b e e n inc lude d th at seeme d nece ssa ry fo r th e

c ri t ica l s tudy o f th e tex t. Th e co rrupt and de fec t ive cond it ionin w h ich it has come d ow n to us may b e advance d as s ome

j ustifi cation fo r th e acceptance o f eme ndations p roposed by

diffe rent c ritics, as w e l l a s fo r th e inse r t ion o f se v e ra l o f my o w n

conjectu re s,some o f w h ich h ave al re ady appeared in th e c o lumn s

o f th e Cl assical R eview . Th e re su lt is that th e te x t w il l b e found

to d iffe r cons ide rab ly from th at o f H a lm .

Fo r w h at is no t ne w in th e ex p l anatory notes I h ave re l ie dma in ly on th e ex ce l le nt e d it ions o f And resen, Pe ter, and Wo lff.Th e sugge s tive commentary w ith w h ich Dr. C . J ohn has enrich e dh is trans lation sh ou l d a l so b e me ntione d . I have h ad o ccasion

to re fe r mo re th an once to th e second part o f it, pub l ished a s

re cen t ly a s l ast ye ar, and contain ing much v a luab le matte r. It

is more d ifficu lt to describ e th e nature o f my ob l igations to th el arge b ody o f pamph let l ite ra t u re that h as accumulate d roundth e D ial ogue : refe rence may b e made , how ever, to th e l ists o f

tractates given on pp . l x x x ix - x ci . M any o f them are o f l i ttle

sub stantia l w o r th , b ut it may b e o f int e rest to giv e a comp lete

cata logue o f everyth ing th at I have h ad actua l ly at hand in pre

paring th is b ook. A few article s and pamph le t s w h ich I h ave ne v e rse en have b een omitted, b ut I doub t if t hey w il l b e m is se d .

W. P.

DUNDEE, j u ly, 1893 .

C O N T E N T S

INTRODUCTIONPAGE

1. THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSH IP AND DATE

I I . SUBSTANCE AND SCHEME OF THE DIALOGUE x x n

I I I. THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THE IR PARTS x x x

IV . STYLE AND LANGUAGE

v . MANUSCRIPTS

VI . B IBLIOGRAPHY l xxxix

TEXT AND NOTES

INDEX OF NAMES

INDEX OF WORDS AND PHRASES

I NTRODU CT ION

THE Dia l ogue on Oral ory has long b e e n o ne o f th e puzzle s o f lite raryantiquity. In no othe r work, o f similar characte r and Scope , is th e studentconfronte d bysomanyprob lems, th e more tantalizing b e cause some o f them,

atle ast, se em incapab le o f any final se ttlement. Th e circumstance s o f th ere -appe arance o f th e tre atise in th e midd le o f th e fifte e nth century

,th e long

w ar that has b e e n wage d ove r th e que stion whe the r it is a ge nuine worko f Tacitus

,its re lation, in point o f style and date o f composition, to th e

othe r writings o f th e historian ,its aim and purpose , its original form and

e x tent,th e distrib ution o f parts b e twe e n th e various inte rlocutors, and th e

histo ry o f th e constitution o f th e te x t— all the se are matte rs whichdemand to b e de al t with ; and the ir adequate pre sentation re quire s anamount o f Space , as we ll as o f re se arch and inve stigation,

that mightse em at fi rst sight out o f all proportion to th e unpre te nding characte r o fth e little work in which the y originate . This may he lp to account fo r th erathe r remarkab le phe nomenon that, notwithstanding th e attractive ne ssb oth o f its contents and its style , th e D ia l ogue has not hithe rto b e e nedite d in th is country . So far as English Scholarship is conce rne d, it isin fact an almost e ntire ly negle cte d work . This is all th e more to b ewonde red at as

,with th e e x ception o f th e Le tte rs o f Pliny, no contempo

rary work supplie s so vivid a picture o f th e lite rary and inte lle ctualte ndencie s o f cu lture d socie ty at Rome in th e first ”cen tury o f th e Empire .

Th e tre atise forms,as itwe re

,a conne cting link b e twe en th e b e tte r-known

prose lite rature o f th e classical pe riod and that which is repre se nte d byth e le ss familiar writings o f Sene ca, th e two Plinys, and Quintilian. It is

th e b e st introduction, e spe cially fo r younge r re ade rs, to th e historicalworks o f Tacitus himse lf, which require fo r the ir full unde rstandinga ripe r judgme nt and a gre ate r faculty o f lite rary appre ciation than isne ede d fo r th e prose authors by whom they are pre ce ded in th e ordinary

b

ii INTRODUCTION

course o f study. For this re ason—e spe cially in view o f th e comparative

pove rty o f Latin lite rature in such works— th e D ia l ogue might have b e e ne x pe cte d to w in a place fo r itse lf in th e curriculum o f our highe r schoolsand Unive rsitie s . I ts sub stance is as valuab le as its form is inte re stingand attractive . It introduce s us to a distinguishe d circle o f pub lic men

at Rome,who are repre se nte d as taking advantage o f a more or le ss

accidental gathe ring to discuss que stions o f gre at inte re st and importancefo r us as we ll as fo r themse lve s . Me e ting toge the r in th e calm reposewhich had re sulte d from th e political se ttleme nt re ce nt ly e fi

’

e cte d by th e

founde r o f th e Flavian dynasty, they b ring unde r re view past and pre sentcircumstance s in the ir b e aring Upon th e profe ssion in which they have allmore or le ss a common inte re st, th e profe ssion o f oratory, —e x changingOpinions as to th e me rit and fame o f th e gre at orators o f re pub lican time s,as we l l as th e dive rgent tende ncie s o f th e Spirit o f the ir own day, comparingth e main fe ature s o f pre vious and contemporary me thods o f e ducation,and e nde avouring to e stimate th e influe nce o f political conditions o n

th e growth and prospe rity o f th e art with which they are all conne cte d .

Al l this give s th e D ial ogue a value o f its o wn , indepe ndently o f othe rfe ature s o f inte re st. It is more ove r writte n in a natural, e asy, and straightforward Style , offe ring many points o f con tras t to that which w e are

accustome d to associate with th e lite rature o f th e epoch o f which it is socharming a survival .

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP AND DATE .

Had the re b e en any tradition in th e Middle Age s that th e historianTacitus w as th e author o f such a tre atise as th e D ia l ogue, the re wouldhave b e en le ss ground fo r th e scepticism which has so pe rsistently prevaile d in regard to it, almost Since th e date o f its re -discove ry. But the rese ems to have b e e n none . Th e Humanists o f th e Re naissance se arche dfo r many ancient writings which , though lurking conce ale d in negle cte dcorne rs

,they kne w must somewhe re e x ist ; and in the ir se arch they

stumb le d upon othe rs o f which e ven th e memory had passe d away. One

o f the se w as th e Dia l ogue, which had come down to them through th e

unb roken quie t o f th e centurie s w ithout any lite rary notice to put them o n

its track,a monks’ tre asure in regard to which o ne might almost imagine

the re had b e en a conspiracy o f Silence .

Itmight have b e en e x pe cted that a work w hich h ad e scape d th e noticeo f pre vious age s, and which, in th e o ne and only manuscript to which w e

THE QUESTION OF A UTHORSHIP AND DA TE. iii

ow e its survival, had e vide ntly proclaime d itse lf to b e th e work o fTacitus,would have b e en e ithe r accepte d without cavil and criticism or b o ldlydenounced as a forge ry and a fraud . Habeni sua f a l a l ibel l i . At first ,inde ed, th e D ia l ogue was unhe sitatingly included , along with th e othe rwritings o f th e historian ,

so far as the n known,in th e e ditio princeps, pub

l ish e d by Ve nde lin de Spira at Venice in 1 4 70 . This was within sometwe lve or thirte en ye ars o f its re-appe arance . But whe n th e discove ry, in1 508 , o f th e fi rst Six b ooks o f th e Annal s had given fre sh e vidence no t

only o f th e historical b ent o f th e ge nius o f Tacitus, b ut also o f th e pe culiarindividuality o f h is style

,doub ts b egan to b e e nte rtained . It se eme d

diffi cu lt to b e lie ve that th e e asy and flowing language o f th e D ia l ogue

could right ly b e attribute d to th e write r who had employe d what w asalmost a new me thod o f lite rary e x pre ssion in th e te rse

, pointe d, and

pregnant phrase ology o f th e Anna l s . And as th e code x from which h isminor works h ad b e e n re cove re d containe d also treatise s by othe r authors ,including Sue tonius

’

s fragme nt De Grammal ie is oi Rnel or ious , it wassuppose d that th e ascriptio n o f th e D ial ogue to Tacitus, in th e title ,might b e th e mistake o f a scrib e , who h ad inadve rtently confounde d withth e write r o f th e Ag r ico la and th e Germania th e author o f a work o n

altoge the r diffe re nt line s, which it had b e e n found convenient, at sometime or othe r

,to include in a Single code x a long with the se . Th e e arlie st

lite rary e x pre ssion o f the se scruple s is to b e found in th e e dition o f

Be atus Rh enanus (B ilde o f Rhe inau in Elsass) which appe are d at Bale in1 5 1 9 and again in 1 5 33 . Rh e nanus incline d to b e lie ve that th e D ial ogueWas a comparative ly late work, which had b e e n skilfully inve ste d with th eappe arance o f antiquity b y th e introduction o f pe rsonage s and e ventsb e longing to th e age o f Tacitus . But h e gave o nly an unce rtain sound .

His half-he arte d de live rance—Hana a’ia l ogunz vix er ea

’ia

’er inz erse Taci l i

—had nothing like th e e ffe ct on contemporary Opinion that w as afte rwards

produce d by th e more pronounce d scepticism o f th e gre at Dutch scholarLipsius. In th e pre face to h is famous e dition o f th e ye ar 1 5 7 4 ,

Lipsius de clare d against th e Tacite an authorship with al l th e confidenceo f an inspire d lite rary oracle (tam cer ium guam si r espondissel

Apol l o) . His main ground was that wh ich has b e en founde d o n e ve rSince , th e ob vious diff e re nce o f style : s l il us oa l a

’e aonuil , nonf a l lax in

lzoe g ener e argunzenl um, gui in nosz‘

r o e ons/r id us uoigue , l er es , aoul us e l

sever us mag is guam l epia’us

,lzie omnia e onl ra . To th e argume nt that

Style may vary with a write r’s advance in ye ars and with th e sub je ct o fwhich h e tre ats

,Lipsius replie d that such change is possib le only within

ce rtain limits,ne ve r to th e e x tent o f a comple te transfo rmation (num

guam i l a atprorsas aoeal a sore) . He did no t he sitate , howeve r, to c lassb 2

iv INTRODUCTI ON.

th e D ial ogue with th e b e st works o f its kind, as a genuine monume nt o f

classical antiquity . At first h e thought that h e had discove re d in itQuintil ian

’

s lost tre atise , De causis corruptae e l oguenl iae‘; and accordingly

th e title unde r which th e work appe are d in h is original Antwe rp e ditionwas F ao. Quin/zl iani, ul via

’

el ur,D ia l ogus an sui saccul i oral or es cl guar e

concea’ant: Cornel io Tacil o f al so inscrzpl us .

’ But as Quintilian w as b orn

ab out 3 5 A. D.,h e could hardly have describ e d himse lf as b e ing still

iuvenis aa’

moa’um (D ial . 1. 1 2 ) in 74—75 A.D., th e ye ar in which th e conve rsation out o f which th e D ial ogue re sulte d is ge ne ral ly unde rstood to havetake n place . This conside ration was in itse lf e nough to Shake , e ve n inh is o wn mind, th e view to which Lipsius had given a pe rhaps too hastye x pre ssion ; and so in sub seque nt issue s o f h is work Taci/o o u lgo

inscr zpl us take s th e place o f To cil a f a l so inscr ipl us, while in h is third

(Leyden) e dition o f I 58 5 , h e state s h is doub ts ab out Quintilian,though still

convince d o f th e diffi cultie s in th e way o f th e traditional view. Lipsius’

s

final attitude was,in fact

,that which is adopte d by more than o ne critic

o f th e pre se nt day— a judicial N on l igue l .

But though h e e x pre ssly d isclaime d any wish to impose h is ownopinions o n h is contemporarie s or succe ssors (nini l a l iis praeeo gaoa

7

seguanl ur ) , th e authority o f h is gre at name suffi ce d to induce a ge ne ra lsuspens ion o f judgeme nt during th e two ce n turie s which succe e de d h isepoch . Some scholars adhe re d to th e Tacitean tradition, othe rs advocate d

Quintilian2 some took a new departure , ascrib ing th e Dial ogue to th e

younge r Pliny, or to Sue tonius, or to th e poe t-ple ade r who is its ce ntralfigure , Curiatius Mate rnus. But Pliny could only have b e e n thirte enye ars o f age whe n h e is suppose d to have b e en pre sent at th e conve rsation re porte d in th e tre atise : Sue ton ius is chronologica lly still moreimpossib le : while th e the ory ab out Mate rnus is altoge the r inconsisten tw ith th e se tting o f th e Dia l ogue , which purports to b e written by o ne

w h o , so far from taking a le ading part in th e conve rsation narrate d,h ad

b e e n me re ly a liste ne r to th e views o f othe rs 3 . Th e safe st position was

1 Quint . Inst . O r . v i . Pr. 3 [Librunz]queue a

’e cansis corruptae e l oqu entiae

emisi viii . 6 , 76 euna’em l ocump l en ius ineo l i br o guo causas corruptac e l oquen l iae

r eddebanzus tractav ineus . Lipsius o ve rlo oked no t o nly th e chrono lo gical difficul tie s invo lve d in th e ascriptio n o f th e

D ia l ogu e to Quintilian, b ut also (a) th efact that th e subje ct matte r o f h is l o stwo rk w as d iffe rent from that o f th e Dialogue—th e de cadence o f style rathe r thanth e infe rio rity o f co ntempo rary e loquence(b) th e fact that Quintilian neve r Speaks

o f it as a dialo gue : and (c) th e absencefrom th e D ia l ogue o f any re fe re nce to

th e subje ct (h yb e rb o l e ) unde r d iscussio nin tl

ée passage abo ve quo te d (Quint . viii .

6 , 72 In re cent years th e Quintilian the o ry

h as again be en revived by Dr. Ro be rtNo vak .

3 An account o f th e fluctuat ions o f

Opinion , as we l l as o f th e curio us arguments used in suppo rt o f th e d ifl

'

e rent

views , wi l l b e fo und in Eckste in’

s Pro

l egomena, pp . 4 1-62 .

THE QUESTION OF A UTHORSHIP AND DATE . v

ce rtainly that o f those who did no t attempt to fasten th e tre atise o n anyknown author

,but conte nte d themse lve s with re fe rring to it as an anony

mous work gui o l ini Taciti esse pul aoatur . This was th e attitude adopte dby th e gre at critic o f Home r, Fr. A. Wolf

,who qualifie d, howeve r, h is

high commendation b oth o f th e sub stance and th e form o f th e aure o lus

l ib e l lus’

by que stioning whe the r it was altoge the r worthy o f so gre ata ge nius as Tacitus .Th e re action in favour o f th e historian b egan at th e commenceme nt o f

th e pre sent century. Spalding’s care ful study o f th e te x t o f Quintilian

l ed h im to de clare emphatically against th e the ory which attrib ute d th eauthorship o f th e D ia l ogue to th e gre at rh eto rician

lland th e way was

thus cleare d fo r a re turn to Tacitus . It was unde r Spalding’s auspice s

a lso 2 that th e fi rst intimation w as made o f th e discove ry o f a paralle lismwhich se eme d at once to de cide th e que stion in th e historian

’s favour,and

which h as the re fore playe d a large part in al l sub seque nt discussions .A. G . Lange had note d and communicate d to Spalding th e remarkab lecorre spondence b e twe en ce rtain words which occur in a le tte r addre s se dto Tacitus by h is friend Pliny and a we ll-known passage in th e D ia l ogue .Re fe rring to th e writing o f poe try, Pliny says to Tacitus (Epp . ix . I o )poemaz

‘a iu inter nemora e l l ucos commoa

’issime perfi ci pa lm ,

words which at once remind th e stude nt o f th e D ial og ue o f what Ape ris made to say at th e e nd o f ch . 9

,aa

’ice guoa

’

poel is in nemora

cl l ucos,id est in so l il ua

’inem secea

’

ena’um est : and o f Mate rnus

’

s reply,12. 1 sq. Nemora ver o cl l uci

,cl secr ez

‘um ipsum guoa

’

Aper incr epaoal ,

l antanz mifi i afi erunt vo l upl afem ul inter praecipuos carnzinunz f rucz‘

us

numer em, gaoa7

nec in s l rcpitu, &c . It must b e admitted, howeve r, thatunle ss Pliny inte nde d to make a pointe d re fe re nce to th e author’side ntification o f h is own views with those o f Mate rnus

,as h is mouthpie ce ,

the re is le ss than might appe ar at fi rst Sight to found upon in th e

paralle lism just quote d : th e comb ination nemora cl l uci is o f frequentoccurre nce e lsewhe re

, and Pliny may b e me re ly replying to Tacitus inwords which Tacitus himse lf had use d in a le tte r previously addre sse d toh is friend and corre spondent. Of at le ast equal importance is th e more

ge ne ral argument put forward by Lange in th e disse rtation in which h esub seque ntly e x pande d h is views

3. He laid stre ss on th e known fact that

Tacitus had b oth a the ore tica l.

and a practical acquaintance with th e arto f oratory, and that h is historical works contain many e x ample s o f h isab ility in this department. He also calle d attention to th e remarkab le

1 Se e h is ed ition o f Quintil ian , vo l . 11.3 ‘ Dial ogus de Orato ribus Tacito vin

pp . 4 24-4 2 7 : vo l . i . Prae f. p . xxxix . dicatus,’inco rpo rated in Dro nke

’

s edition2 Se e We inkauff, p. x vi . ( I 8 28) , pp. x vi-xxviii.

v i INTR ODUCTI ON .

similarity betwe en th e criticisms pronounce d on individual orators in th e

D ia logue and those which occur from time to time in th e historical b ooks.Furthe r, th e whole tone o f th e D ia l ogue , and th e fe ature s which re ve alth e mental attitude o f its author, we re de clare d b y Lange to b e in e ntireharmony and corre sponde nce with what w e know o f Tacitus from h is

othe r works—th e familiar hab it o f psychological re fl e ction, th e te nde ncyto dwe ll regre tfully on th e comparison o f th e pre se nt w ith th e past, th e

grave e arne stne ss with which th e write r discourse s on th e e ducation o f

youth, th e pe rvading inte nsity o f moral purpose , and th e love o f fre e domthat finds e x pre ssion in what se em to b e compromising and e ve n dange rousutte rance s . In short, th e epoch o f th e D ia l ogue , its contents, and th e

write r’s me thod o f tre ating h is sub je ct all te ll in favour o f th e b e lie f in th eauthorship o f Tacitus . As to th e style , a pub lic man in th e Rome o f

Tacitus’

s day, who would have frequent occasion to speak in th e pre senceo f othe rs , must have had at command an e asy

, Simple , flowing, and ple asingme thod o f e x pre ssion, such as that which w e find

'

in th e D ial ogue

whe re , more ove r, the re is, as might have b e e n e x pe cte d, an artisticadaptation o f th e e x te rnal form to th e characte rs and se ntiments o f th ediffe rent inte rlocutors . Th e diffe rence in style is to b e accounte d fo r byth e diffe re nce o f subje ct. Th e write r could no t have use d, fo r sucha work

,th e compre ssed , epigrammatic, and some time s even e nigmatical

language o f th e Annal s.

Lange’s views we re comb ate d by, among othe rs, H. Gutmann in

a disse rtation which Ore l l i incorporated in h is e dition o f th e D ia l ogue

(Turin,1 8 30)

1. Th e write r b ase s his acceptance o f th e conclusions o f

F. A. Wolf partly o n chronological grounds, and partly on th e inte rna levide nce o f th e sub stance and style o f th e D ia l ogue . Tacitus is knownto have b e e n prae tor in A . D. 8 8 , and th is offi ce was not usually (at le astin repub lican time s) confe rre d o n any o ne who had not attaine d th e age

o f forty. Gutmann finds it difli cul t to b e lieve that th e historian couldhave prope rly de scrib e d himse lf as having b e e n iuvenis aa

’

moa’um in th e

ye ar A. D. 74—75 . In point o f style , th e tre atise appe ars to h im to

illustrate many o f th e fe ature s o f an age o f de cline ; and while re cognizingth e inte re st and value o f much o f its contents, e spe cially Me ssal la

’

s

utte rance s ab out th e upb ringing o f th e young, h e so far forge t s th edramatic characte r o f th e conve rsation which it reports as

‘

to chargeagainst th e write r, rathe r than th e spe ake r , such ob vious sophistrie s asthose in which Ape r indulge s in chs. 16 and 17 . While giving promi

1 Se e p . 101 sq. Gutmann’

s disse rtation al so appe ars as a pre face to h is Ge rmantranslation o f th e Dial ogue : 2nd edi tion, S tuttgart, 188 2.

THE QUESTION OF A UTHORSHIP AND DATE. V1I

ne nce to Gutmann’

s argume nt , Ore l l i himse lf de clare d h is pre fe re nce fo rth e tradition o f th e Tacite an authorship . To h im th e D ia l ogue wasa wo rk o f th e histo rian’s youth, written while h e was still unde r th einflue nce o f th e associations o f th e schools o f rhe toric

,and b e fore h e had

passe d from th e stage o f e nthusiastic adhe rence to Cice ro,as th e pe rfe c t

mode l o f Latin e loque nce , to th e de ve lopment o f th e highly individualstyle which characte rize s th e H isl or ies

,and still more th e Annal s.

Th e ab surdity involve d in applying th e same standard o f criticism toa dramatic dialogue and a narrative o f events h e prote sts against in th e

following words : A l iam ora l ionem en il narrai‘io r erum,a l iam a

’isccp

ta l io guaesl ionis a l icuius. B oni scr ip l or is esi ul rumgue g enus inl e l l ecl u

a’isiinguere , a l l erul r o uti

,ex ce l l enz

‘

is o ero par ent esse in u l r iusgue ora l ionis

f acul l al e . Aigui eg o Taciz‘unz ex cel l eniem a

’icenal i artifi cem ex isi imo

,l am vi

na l urae guanz ar l e a’

ocl r inague . Quia’ mirunz zgi l ur si in cl zssimil l imo

g ener e a’

icena’i sibi ipsi a

’

issinzi l l zuzusf uzl P

I f th e curre nt o f opinion since Ore l l i’

s day had se t in th e samedire ction,

th e history o f th e controve rsy might now b e conside re d close d.

But though scholars like Do ede rl e in and Nie b uhr Side d with th e vindicatorso f Tacitus, nothing b e tte r than an open ve rdict w as arrive d at byEckste in ,

whe n h e unde rtook to revie w al l th e conditions o f th e prob lem as we l l asth e opinions which had previously b e e n pronounce d on e ithe r Side 1

.

While fully appre ciating th e force o f th e various arguments which hadb e e n adduce d in favour o f Tacitus, and without attempting to disproveth e tradition o f h is authorship o n any such grounds as infe riority Of

subje ct matte r or discrepancy o f date s, Eckste in conclude d that th edisparity o f style was so gre at (05 dzfi cul fal em in a

’

icena’i g ener e a Tacil i

pl ane a é b orrenfe posil am) that more light must b e waite d fo r b e fore any

final de live rance could b e arrive d at2. For a time negative criticism wasagain in th e asce ndant. Eckste in was fol lowe d by H . C . A. Eichstadt";whose views may b e found summarize d in Ore l l i

’

s se cond e ditionvo l . 11, p. 5 2 3 . He b e lieve d that th e tre atise was compose d

during th e re ign o f Domitian (though it may no t have se en th e

light til l th e time o f Ne rva or Trajan) by o ne who was we ll re ad incontemporary lite rature , as we ll as in th e works o f Cice ro . In ge ne ral ,th e style is he ld to re semb le that o f Quintilian, though it is admitte d thatSpalding had e ffe ctually dispose d o f th e the ory that Quintilian was th e

1 Fr. Aug . Eckste inp Pro l egomena prof erantur in medio re l inguena’am esse

in Taciti , qui vulgo fe rtur, Dialo censu ineus , p . 84 .

gum de Orato ribus : Halis Sax onum,

3

Quae st. ph ilo lo g. spe cimen se x tum

1 835 . de D ialo go qui inscrib itur de Orato rib us2

Quare totam rem,a’

um me l iora Jenae , 1839 .

v iii INTRODUCTION.

author. Wh o th e author was, must remain o ne o f th e unsolve d prob lemso f lite rature : guisnam ex i l l a ael ate conscr ipser it Dial oguni, vix po l er it

ao’l iquia

’umpera

’uci .

Th e ye ar 1 84 1 produce d no fewe r than thre e e ditions o f th e D ial ogue ,those o fHe ss,T ross, and Pab st . Th e two e ditors fi rst name d do not grapplewith th e que stion o f authorship, though the ir work was o f value in othe rre spe cts ; b ut Pab st came forward as an Uncompromising champion o f

th e Tacite an tradition,dwe lling no t only on corre spondence s b e twe en th e

D ia l ogue and th e historical b ooks in regard to th e use o f words andfigure s, &c.

,but also o n th e tone o f regre t fo r bye -gone time s, and th e

lame nt ove r th e de cay o f morals which re ade rs o f Tacitu s at oncere cognize as so characte ristic o f h is me ntal attitude . Se ve n ye ars late r,th e appe arance o f a pamphle t byA.Dupre

1b rought Gutmann again into

th e fi e ld,without e liciting, howe ve r, anything o f we ight on th e negative

Side e x cept a renewal o f th e conte ntion that it would have b e en

impossib le fo r an author who had writte n and pub lishe d th e D ia l ogueb e fore or during th e e arly part o f Domitian

’

s re ign to have live d safe lythrough th e horrors o f h is administration. B e rnhardy

,th e historian o f

Roman lite rature , Side d with th e Opposition ,arguing that th e points o f

re semb lance b e twe en th e Dial ogue and th e othe r writings o f Tacitus we reunimportant when compare d with th e points o f diffe rence , and that th e latte r

prove d more than th e forme r2. At this stage o f th e controve rsy (1 8 5 7)

Fr. We inkauff produce d th e firstfruits o f those e x haustive lab ours whiche ntitle h im to th e cre dit o f having furnishe d scholars with much o f th e

mate rial nece ssary fo r its se tt lement s. Th e dive rge ncie s from th e late r styleo f Tacitus h e e x plaine d by re fe re nce to th e characte r o f th e historian

’

se arly studie s

,and to th e care ful imitation o f Cice ro which b oth h e and h is

friend Pliny th e Younge r se em to have pre scrib e d fo r themse lve s ; andfounding not only o n th e ge ne ral tone o f th e tre atise b ut also o n

a lab orious and de taile d e x amination o f its language and Style,h e

conclude d that th e D ial ogue was a ge nuine work o f Tacitus, compose d

prob ab ly in th e e arly part o f Domitian’

s re ign . A similar view as to th edate o f th e composition (though h e afte rwards departe d from it) was alsotake n by Nippe rdey in h is e dition o f th e Anna l s : looking, howeve r, toth e introduction to th e Agr ico la , from which it might appe ar thatTacitus pub lishe d nothing during Domitian

’

s re ign, h e pre fe rre d tob e lie ve that th e D ial ogue was written and given to th e wor ld unde r

Dial ogum de Orato rib us ne c Quin 2 Se e h is Rom. Litt . p . 862 sqq.

til iano ne c cuivis alii, sed Tacito ad 3 Se e h is De Tacito Dial ogi, qui dejudicandum e sse censuit ac demo nstrare Orato rib us inscrib itur, Aucto re : Edit iotentavit A . Dupre, Licentiatus : Saint N o va atque Aucta, Co l oniae AgrippinaeCal ais, Imp . de Pe ltie r-Vo isin, 1848 . (Ro emke ) , 18 8 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x INTRODUCTION.

ge istige Richtung undWe ltanschauung de s Tacitus mit dem Inhalte und

de r Tendenz de s Dial ogus re cht gut fi b e re instimmt : so muSsen w ir de n

Handschriften,den al te ste n Ausgab e n und sonstige n Ze ugnisse n zufolge

den Tacitus,und nur de n Tacitus

,als Ve rfasse r de s Dial ogus ane rke nne n.

’

Attention was now (1 8 68 ) calle d by Profe ssor EdwardWo l ffl in to th efact that th e pe culiar and highly individual style w ith which th e name o f

Tacitus is ide ntifi e d was th e re sult o f de ve lopme nt and growth1. Wo l ffi in

prote ste d against th e hab it o f regarding th e historian’s style and diction

as a constant whole,inste ad o f as a progre ssive fe ature which h e deve lope d

through various stage s until its highe st e x pre ssion was re ache d in h is

late st w ork,th e Anna l s . Applying this principle o f a stylistic ge ne sis

’

to th e“

Dia l ogue , Wo l ffl in sought to demonstrate that the re are conne ctinglinks which

,in Spite o f an inte rval o f some twenty ye ars, enab le th e critic

to e stab lish identity o f authorship with th e e arlie st historical writings o fTacitus . His argument de rive d support from th e appe arance , in th e sameye ar, o f th e fi rst e d ition o f Draege r

’

s we l l-known work e er a’ie Syntax

and a’en S l il a

’es Tacitus . It might have b e e n e x pe cte d no w that th e

controve rsy would have b e en regarde d as, o n th e whole , se ttle d in favouro f th e vindicators o f Tacitus ; b ut in pub lishing th e e dition o f th e D ial ogue

which is pe rhaps th e most wide ly use d at th e pre se nt time , Dr. G e orgAndre se n took th e opportunity o f ranging himse lf alongside o f th e

Opponents o f th e traditional view. Andre se n agre e s with those critics whoconside r it impossib le that th e D ia l ogue can have b e e n written b e fore th ere ign o f Domitian . If it had b e en an e arly work o f Tacitus, compose dunde r T itus, h e would sure ly have re fe rre d to th e conve rsation out o f whichit re sulte d as having take n place paucos aéninc anuos rathe r than whenh e w as a ve ry young man (iuvenis Andre se n doub ts, moreove r, whe the r so young an author as Tacitus was in th e re ign o f Tituswould have b e en inte lle ctually ripe fo r th e tre atment o f such topics asthose dealt with in th e D ia l ogue : also whe the r Fab ius j ustus , th e

intimate friend o f th e younge r Pliny, and prob ab ly no olde r than h e ,would have b e en like ly in th e ye ar 7 4—7 5 A. D. (whe n Pliny, at le ast, isknown to have b e e n only thirte e n ye ars o f age ) to attack, along with th eyouthfu l Tacitus

,th e de ep-lying prob lem o f th e cause s o f th e de cline o f

e loquence . Furthe r, h e conside rs it b are ly cre dib le that th e allusions toEprius Marce llus and Vib ius Crispus (ch s. 8 and 13) would have b e e nriske d while they we re still alive : and though th e forme r die d in 79 , th elatte r is known to have flourishe d at th e court o f Domitian and to havedied, at an advance d old age , Shortly b e fore th e ye ar 93 . Andre se n

1 Phil o l o gus, vo l . xxv. p . 95 sqq.

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHI P AND DATE .

“

x i

conclude s , the re fore , that th e D ia l ogue was writte n, at th e soone st,imme diate ly afte r th e c lose o f Domitian

’

s re ign,that is to say at a time

whe n w e find,in th e Gernzania and th e Ag r ico l a,

th e historical style o f

Tacitus alre ady de ve lope d in its main fe ature s. We are thus,according

to h im, o n th e horns o f a dilemma, and must e ithe r attrib ute th e author

ship o f th e tre atise to some culture d contemporary, or e lse adopt th ethe ory (fo r which no adequate support can b e adduce d e ithe r from

psycholo gy or from th e history o f lite rature ) that it is possib le fo r th e

same write r to employ at one and th e same time th e most dive rse style s .Such are th e grounds o n which, e ve n in h is third e dition Andre se nfalls b ack o n th e N on l iquet o f Lipsius : somit e rsche int die Frage de rAutorschaft unse re r Schrift noch heute unge l o st.

’

Th e fu lle st re ce nt statement, in convenie n t form,o f th e gist o f th e whole

controve rsy is to b e found in th e work o f Jansen,a’e Tacito D ia l ogi

Auctor e, G roninge n, 1 8 7 8 . Jansen first unde rtake s to conside r whe the r,

in orde r to prove th e authorship o f Tacitus,it is ne ce ssary to ho ld that

th e D ia l ogue was th e work o f th e historian’s youth . This done,h e

proce eds to Show that th e tre atise must have actually appe are d while h ew as still a young man,

and that the re is nothing chronologically impossib lein such a Supposition . Ne x t h e reviews th e inte rnal e vidence in favouro f th e Tacite an tradition, de voting h is concluding chapte r to an

e x amination o f th e style o f th e tre atise . To h im it appe ars to b e no t sounl ike that o f th e historian as that th e diff e re nce cannot b e e x plaine d byth e inte rval o f time and othe r conside rations, while it is marke d by manyfe ature s pe culiarly Tacite an.

Th e me re narrative o f such a controve rsy as this, with all th e variousfluctuations o f Opinion e ve n up to quite re ce nt ye ars, might ve ry we l linduce in th e mind o f any re ade r unfamiliar with th e te x t o f th e D ial oguea condition o f suspe nde d judgme nt. Th e que stion has b e en thoroughlydiscusse d Since th e days o f Lipsius, and it is doub tful if any fre sh lightwill eve r b e thrown o n it. It must b e se ttle d in accordance with th ee vidence now b e fore us

,afte r a care ful and repe ate d study o f th e te x t

itse lf. But in al l such lite rary prob lems, as notab ly th e authorship and

compo sition o f th e Home ric poems, th e ve rdict arrive d at by individuals

ge ne rally varie s with th e me ntal hab it and pre-suppositions, not to say

prejudice s, o f e ach . It is commonly,in fact, a subje ctive ve rdict. Finality

is rare ly attained,and is pe rhaps hardly attainab le . Ye t, in this matte r

o f th e authorship o f th e D ial ogue, the re se em to b e data e nough , in Spiteo f diffi cultie s which ne e d not b e ignore d, fo r a pre tty confident acceptanceo f th e traditional view. It is o f course unfair to call on those who dis

x ii INTRODUCTI ON.

cre dit and reje ct it to point to any othe r author to whom th e tre atise mayb e attrib ute d with e ve n a fair Show o f prob ab ility : th e still unsolve d

prob lem o f th e identity o f th e write r re fe rre d to,as a historian

,b y Quin

tilian in th e Te nth Book o f h is I nstitutio (1 1 04) is a suffi cient reminde ro f th e gaps that e x ist in our knowle dge o f this as o f many othe r pe riodso f lite rary histo ry. But those who accept th e te stimony o f th e manuscriptsare at least e ntitle d to ask whe the r th e e vidence which h as accumulate din favour o f th e authorship o f Tacitus doe s no t outwe igh th e counte rargume n ts which must force those who adopt them into assuming th e

e x iste nce o f some unknown write r,who othe rwise make s no appe arance

in th e lite rature o f h is ow n day.

Le t us first e x amine th e data on which it is possib le to fix th e ye ar inwhich th e conve rsation narrate d in th e D ial ogue purports to have taken

pl ace . Unfortunate ly, th e passage s o f th e te x t from which the se data arede rive d are no t fre e from a Suspicion o f doub t

,b ut they furnish at le ast

approx imate re sults . That a de finite date w as pre se nt in th e mind o f th ewrite r is evide nt from 17 . 1 5 , whe re h e make s Ape r sum up h is chronological computation in th e words centum et viginti anni ao infer ita

Ciceronis in b unc a’ienz co l l zguntur

1. I f th e spe ake r is to b e taken

as me aning that e x actly 1 20 ye ars have e lapse d since Cice ro’s murde r,

th e date o f th e dialogue would se em to b e fix e d fo r De cemb e r 7 , A.D. 7 8 .

But a close r conside ration o f th e constituent pe riods o f which Ape r’s sum

total o f 1 20 ye ars is made up, as we l l as a comparison o f th e phraseimme diate ly pre ce ding (sex /am iam j e l icz

'

s l inins pr incipatus stationem

guo Vespasianus rempub l icamf oo et) wil l le ad‘ to a diffe re n t conclusion .

Whateve r diffi cultie s may b e invo lve d in th e inte rpre tation o f th e wordsjust quote d (se e note s ad l o c.) they se em undoub te dly to poin t to th e Six thye ar o f Ve spasian

’s re ign . As th e annals o f Ve spasian’s principate we re

made to date from July 1,69 , th e day o n which th e solemn oath o f

allegiance was take n to h im at Ale x andria2

, h is Six th ye ar would run

1 I f th e phrase in b unc cl ienz o ccurred in immediate juxtapo sition with ab in

o nly he re , i t wo ul d no t b e ne ce ssary to ter itu Ciceron is . When Me ssal l a , a littleinte rpre t i t strictly : cp . th e use o f l i oa

’

ie . lowe r down (25 . state s th e inte rval o fBut it is use d again by Mate rnus on th e t ime in a mo re ge ne ral w ay (anteconclusion o f Ape r’s discourse (24 ad centum annos) , h e is no t taking th e

in a clause which se ems a rathe r de ath o f Cice ro as th e starting-po int o fremarkable e cho o f whatApe r h ad said

,a de finite calculatio n, as Ape r h ad done .

cum praese rtinz centum cl v iginti anuos Se e what fo l lows .

ab inte r im Ciceron is in h unc a’

ient qfi ci ‘1 [ n itiumf eren cl i aa'

Vespasianum ini

r atio temporum co l l ege r it. Unle ss the se peri i Al ex ana’

n’

ae cooptam, f estinantewo rds are th e addition o f some late r Tiber ia A l ex andro , qu i ka l ena

’is I u l i is

write r (th e phrase o lo gy is no te d as rathe r sacranzento e ius l egione s adegi t. I sgue

pe culiar) due we ight must b e given to th e pr imus pr incipatus dies in posterum ce l e

repe tition o f th e phrase in lzunc cl ienz aratus, H ist . ii . 79 .

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP AND DA TE. x iii

from July 1, 7 4 , to July 1

, 7 5 . According to this calculation, th e co n

ve rsation re corde d in th e D ial ogue must have taken place in that ye ar : ifo n th e ve ry annive rsary o f Cice ro

’s de ath (in lzunc a’

ienz) , o n De cemb e r 7 ,A .D. 74 . But this give s, strictly Spe aking, only 1 1 6 ye ars as th e inte rvalwhich has e lapse d Since th e de ath o f Cice ro, no t 1 2 0 ye ars as state d inth e te x t . Again,

in e nume rating th e re igns o f which th e sum total iscompo sed, th e manuscripts give 59 fo r Augustus, 2 3 fo r Tib e rius, 4 fo rCaligula, 2 8 fo r Claudius and Ne ro, 1 fo r Galb a, Otho, and Vite llius, and6 fo r Ve Spasian : a total o f 1 2 1 ye ars . This last discrepancy ne e d no t

b e conside re d o f much we ight, e spe cially in view o f th e approx imatecharacte r o f some o f th e constitue nt factors, as , fo r e x ample , pr ope

guaa’

r ienniurn Gai : it is sufficiently accurate fo r th e spe ake r’s purpose .

A mo re se rious diffi culty consists in th e ascription o f 59 ye ars toAugustus, when as a matte r o f fact h e ought to b e cre dite d with only

56 (A. U . c. 7 1 1 Some have propose d to le ave this standing, asan e rror o f th e write r or th e Spe ake r (cp . 3 4 ad fin .

, whe re w e have nono

a’ecimo fo r uno cl vicesimo) b ut it is hardly like ly that a figure doub tle ssso we ll-known would have b e e n incorre ctly given . Lipsius the re forechange d novem to sex ,

and all e ditors follow h is le ad. But this give s only1 1 8 ye ars as th e total, a conside ration which has l ed to th e ob vious sugge stion that centum et a

’

uoa’emgznti should b e sub stitute d in th e te x t fo r

centum et viginti . It is usually conside re d more prob ab le , howeve r,

(e spe cially in view o f th e repe tition o f th e figure at th e e nd o f ch .

that centum cl mginti is give n as a round numb e r,summing up in a

ge ne ral w ay th e duration o f th e co nstitue nt principate s as state d in what

goe s b e fore . In any case , it is impossib le to make centunz et o ig inti

Square e x actly with sex ta statio in th e sense o f th e six th ye ar o f

Ve spasian’s re ign .

Th e numb e rs have In all prob ab ility b e en tampe re d with b y somere ade r who was anx ious to corre ct th e spe ake r

’s arithme tic this is almostce rtainly th e origin o f th e unhistorical novem et guinguag inta fo r th e

duration o f th e re ign o f Augustus . If w e suppose that Ape r date d Ve s

pasian’

s re ign from th e time o f h is arrival in Rome , in th e middle o f th eye ar 70 ,

inste ad o f from Ju ly 1,69 , w e must fo llow most e ditors in

fix ing o n A . D. 7 5 as th e ye ar in which th e dialogue was he ld . Thisw o uld give , o n th e inclusive me thod o f re ckoning, 1 1 8 ye ars as th e e x act inte rval (43 a figure with which th e de tailed e nume ration corre sponds,if w e adopt Lipsius

’

s eme ndation Statue sex et guinguag inta anuos .

On this e x planatio n also contuni et o zgz'

nti must b e e ithe r a round numb e ro r a mistake fo r centum cl a

’

uoa’ewgznti . Some thing might b e said in

favour o f th e ye ar A.D. 7 6, if w e we re to make thre e emendations o n th e

x iv INTRODUCTION.

re ading o f th e MSS . : (1) sex et guinguaginta , w ith Lipsius ; (2 ) septimam stationenz, w ith Ulrichs ; and (3) centum et una

’emigznti (cx 1x

fo r cx x ) . On th e whole , howeve r, I pre fe r to hold fast to sex tam

stationenz: and taking it as th e o ne fix e d and ce rtain factor in th e

calculation, accept th e ye ar A.D. 74—7 5 as th e date wante d, alte ring th e

othe r figure s to corre spond . This involve s th e acceptance o f Lipsius’

s

sex et guinguag inta . If w e suppose , furth e r, that in lzunc cl ient is tob e pre sse d, as indicating that th e company had me t o n or ab out th eannive rsary o f Cice ro’s de ath, i . e . in De cemb e r 7 4

1

,w e shall b e tempte d

to make an additional change from centum ct vig inti to centunz cl

sedecinz (cx x—cx vr) . Eve rything wil l in this w ay come out square , andin accordance w ith th e known facts o f history. Th e constitue nt factorsare e nume rate d separate ly and approx imate ly, and then Ape r doe s th erapid calcu lation, which give s e x actly 1 1 6 ye ars (A. U . c . 7 1 1—8 2 7 ) asth e corre c t inte rval b e twe en De cemb e r 43 B .C. and De cemb e r

, A.D. 7 4 .

In favour o f th e e nd o f th e ye ar A.D. 74 as th e date o f th e me e tingmade famous in th e D ia l ogue , a ce rtain amount o f additio nal e vide nce isde rived from various allusions in th e b ody o f th e tre atise itse lf. Thus at17 . 2 2 re fe re nce is made to th e last large ss which had b e en given to th e

people (prox imo guia’em cong iar io ipsi via

’

istis pl erosgue senes, &c .) as

some thing within re ce nt memory : it is known to have b e en give n byT itus in 7 3 . Again in 3 7 . 1 MuOianus is Spoken o f as alive and atw ork ove r a colle ction o f . Spe e che s b e longing to th e repub lican pe riod .

Now from a passage in Pliny (N . H . x x x ii. 6,

in which h e is re fe rre dto in th e past te nse , it h as b e en argue d, with gre at prob ab ility that inA .D. 7 7

— th e ye ar in which Pliny pre se nte d h is Natura l History to Titus—Mucianus was no longe r alive (se e Teuffe l-Schwab e , 3 13 Thiswou ld se em at le ast to narrow th e range o f choice to one o f th e ye ars

pre ce ding that date— as an uppe r limit. For th e lowe r limit, mentionmay b e made o f th e use o f nuper

2at 5 . 30 , re fe rring to an appe arance

made by Eprius Marce llus b e fore th e se nate , prob ab ly in th e ye ar A .D. 70 .

Anothe r re fe re nce to th e same individual,along with Vib ius Crispus,

points more de finite ly to th e ye ar 7 4 itse lf : nunc pr incipes in Caesar is

amicitia agunl fl runlgue cuncta (8 . Eprius h ad b e e n away inAsia from 7 1 to 7 3 , doing duty as proconsul : h e was consul sufi ectus

1 D o e s th e omission o f D ecembres in 2 Fo r this use o f nuper‘ de remo tio re

al l MSS. at 17 7 in any w ay suppo rt this tempo re , ’ se e Ge rbe r and G re e f, p . 988 .

suppo sition ? Ape r is mak ing Tiro h is Ve spasian’s libe rality to Sa l e ius Bassus

autho rity : b ut if th e date O f th e me e ting I aua’

av imu s nupe r ut nzz'

ram et ex inziane

w as one o f th e days be tw e en th e No ne s Vespasiani l ibera l itateuz, 9 . 24— w as

and th e Ide s, h e might have said fo r pro bably o f mo re re cent date , neare rbre vity septinzunz ia’us ( lzos th e th e t ime o f th e Dialogue than th e yearseventh o f this month. ’ A . D. 70.

THE QHESTION OF AUTHORSHIP AND DATE . x v

o n h is re turn in 74, and was the re fore in that ye ar at th e he ight o fh is fame 1

.

Taking th e e nd o f A.D. 7 4 , the re fore , as o n th e whole th e most probab le date fo r th e historical groundwork o f th e D ial ogue , w e have ne x t toinquire how it suits th e facts o f Tacitus

’

s life , e spe cially in regard to th euse o f th e phrase zuvenzs aa

’moa’um,l . 1 3 . Th e usage o f impe rial time s

show s that this e x pre ssion might emb race a pe riod e x te nding from,say,

th e e ighte enth to th e twenty-fourth ye ar2. At th e date o f th e historian’s

1 Th e known facts in th e l ife o f EpriusMarce llus are o f impo rtance fo r th e que st ion unde r d iscussio n. His full name and

th e vario us magistracies which h e he ldare de tai le d in an inscription from th e

pro vince o f Cyprus , fo und at Capua, andpre se rved at Naple s (Henzen 542

T. Cl oa’io , M f , Pa l (atina sc . tribu) ,

Epr io M arce l l o , cos . I I , augur i , cu rion i

max inzo , soa’

a l i Augusta l i , pr (ae to ri)oer (egrino ) , procosA siae I I I ( te rtium,

i . e .

h re e years) provincia Cypros. In A. D . 48

h e w as appo inted,fo r a single day, to a

vacan cy in th e prae to rship , o ccasio ned byth e de po sition o f Silanus

,Ann . x ii . 4 . In

57 h e appe ars to have be en l egatus prooraetore o f Lycia

,when h e w as accused

o f malve rsatio n, ib . xiii. 33 : b ut e scapinga ve rdict o f gui lty, h e afte rwards becameconsu l sufi ctus , —pro bably in th e ye arA. D 61 . In 66 h e unde rto o k, o n Ne ro ’

s

instructio ns, th e impe achment o f Th rase aPae tus, and w as rew arded with an honorarium o f£42 ,500 Th is bro ught h im intocontact with He l vidius Priscus

,Th rase a

’

S

son-ih -l aw , w h o w as banished at th e same

zime as Th rase a w as put to de ath ; and

He l vidius made mo re than o ne attempt ,afte r h is re turn from e xile in 68 , to takevenge ance on th e e nemy o f h is ho use .

From Hist . iv. 6 , 6 i t wo uld appe ar thath is ze al in th e conduct o f a d ire ct impe achment h ad somewhat abated be fo reth e de ath o f Galba (w ox a

’noia vo l untate

Ga l bae mu l tis senatorunz depr ecantiousonzisit P r iscas, l . but w e read in th eseque l o f tw o se parate attacks made byh im o n Marce llus, o ne in co nne xion withth e pro po sal to send an embassay to Ve s

pasian , th e new empe ro r (e nd o f A. D . 69Hist . iv. 7

—10) th e o the r, o f a mo re d ire ctcharacte r, in th e co urse o f th e ye ar fo ll owing (Epr iunz u rgebat, ardentibus patr unz an imis, Hist . iv. It is pro bablethat this w as th e o ccasio n re fe rred to inch . 5 . 30 (Qu ia

’a l iua

’zu

nf estzs patrzousn up e r Epr ius M arce l l us guam cl oquea

tia/n suam opposa it when Marce llus

triumphed by h is e loquence in spite o f

th e ho stility o f th e se nate . Th e phrasea rdentibus patrum an imis, quo te d abo vefrom th e H istor ies

,h as a ce rtain re sem

blance to inf estis patr ibus : and th e

incident w as a memo rable o ne , cunt

g l iscer et certamen , lzinc mu l ti bon iqu e ,ina

’e pauci cl va l ia

’i pertinacious oa

’i is

tena’erm t, consunzptus per a

’iscora

’ianz

a’ie s

,Hist. iv . 43 ad fin. In any case ,

th e triumph o f Marce llus re co rded in th eD ia l ogue (5 . 30) must have o ccurred abo utth e same t ime it canno t have be en late r,fo r from A . D . 7 1 to A . D . 73 h e w as awayact ing as pro co nsul o fAsia, and He l vidius

se ems spe edily to have fallen o ut o f

favo ur . On h is re turn, Marce llus be came

a se cond time consu l sufi ectus , in A .D . 74 :se e Henzen 54 18 : a . a

’. X II . k. I un ias

Q. Roti l io Cer ia l e Cd esio Rufo 11, T. Cl oa’io

Epr io Marce l l o I I cos . He w as no w (atth e t ime o f th e Dialogue ) at th e he ight o fh is powe r : cp . e spe cially 8 . 18 (quo tedabo ve ) . But h e afte rwards co nspiredagainst Ve spasian ,

and w as driven to commit su icide in A . D . 79 (Dio , lxvi . 16 ,

2 Domitian , fo r e xample , at th e age o f

e ighte en is styled iuven is aa’nzoa

’um by

Tacitus himse lf, Agr . vii . 9 : and He l

vid ius Priscus is de scribed in th e samew ay (Hist . iv . 5 , 6) at th e same age . In

Cice ro , to o , a simi lar phrase (aa’u l escensadmoa’um) is applied to L . C rassus in

h is twenty-fi rst ye ar (de Off . i i . 13 ,In th e same w ay Ve l l e ius (i i . 4 1 , 3 )spe aks o f Cae sar as aa

’moa’urn z'

uzzen is

in h is twenty-fo urth ye ar. On th e o the rhand , th e use o f th e te rms iuuen is

,

aa’u l escens, and e ven aa

'u l escentu l us , by

themse lve s, varied co nside rably : thusSallust cal ls Cae sar adu l escentu l us at th eage o f thirty-six (Cat. xlix . 2 ) M. Bru tusis styled aa

’u l escens by Nepo s e ven at th e

age o f fo rty-tw o (Att. vi i i . Pompe yagain

,at th e age o f twenty-fo ur

, is de

scribed asperaa’u l escens and aa’u l escentu l usby C ice ro , pro Leg . Man. 5 6 1 . Se e

Eckste in, p . 37 ; We inkauff, p . xl iii .

x vi INTRODUCTION.

b irth h is b iographe rs have b e e n ab le to arrive approx imate ly by a proce sso f infe re nce . He te l ls us in th e H istor ies (i . 1) that h is Offi cial care e rb egan unde r Ve spasian,

and that h e re ce ive d promotion from b oth T itusand Domitian . This must me an that h e was quae stor in th e fi rst

mentione d re ign, and e ithe r tribune or'

aedile unde r T itus : while w e

know that h e he ld th e prae torship in A .D. 8 8 . Titus re igne d from June

7 9 to Septemb e r 8 1 and,as it is improb ab le that more than o ne ye ar

inte rve ne d b e twe e n h is tenure o f th e two lowe r offi ce s,w e may infe r that

Tacitus was quae stor in e ithe r 7 8 or 7 9 . A ne ce ssary qualifi cation fo rthis Offi ce was that a candidate Shou ld have attaine d h is twe nty-fi fth ye ar,so that w e may t ake it that th e ye ar o f h is b irth must b e fi x e d at A.D. 5 3

or 54 . This wou ld make h im ab out twenty at th e date at which h e was

pre s e nt as a listene r whe n th e conve rsation reporte d in th e D ia l ogue took

place : a time o f life which agre e s admirab ly with th e phrase iuvenisaa

’moa’um. If

,with othe rs

,w e ado pt th e year 56 as th e date o f h is

b irth, h e may have b e en two ye ars younge r : and e ithe r supposition suitsth e de scription which h e give s o f himse lf as a followe r o f two o f th e mostfamous o f contemporary pleade rs , Ape r and Se cundus (2 .

Th e ne x t point to b e se ttle d , o n th e the ory th at Tacitus wrote th e

D ial ogue , is th e date at which it w as compose d and pub lishe d . He re th eviews o f th e critics dive rge , as w e have alre ady se e n ,

ve ry conside rab ly.

Many o f them have give n undue we ight to th e passage in th e Agr ico l a inwhich Tacitus re fe rs to Domitian’

s re ign as a pe riod during which‘th e

young have passe d to old age , w it/z cl osea’

l ips, and th e o ld almost to th eve ry goal and te rm o f life From th e phrase per si l entiunz it has b e e ninfe rre d that Tacitus cannot have writte n anything o f any kind in th e

re ign o f Domitian, and th e conclusion drawn has b e e n that th e D ial oguemust have b e en compose d e ithe r in th e re ign o f T itus or e lse afte rDomitian

’

s de ath , ab out th e same time as th e othe r minor works . But inth e passage unde r conside ration , Tacitus is spe aking as a historian who

(though h e may have b e e n industriously colle cting mate rial in th e e vil

days which h ad now come to a close ) is hailing a happie r e ra as pe rmitting h im at le ngth to b re ak th e sile nce into which h e had b e en

coe rce d . It is quite conce ivab le that,whe the r pub lishe d or no t at th e

time o f composition, such a work as th e D ia l ogue might have b e e n writte nin th e e arlie r and b righte r ye ars o f Domitian

’

s re ign . To o much h as nodoub t b e e n made o f th e ne ce ssity o f postulating a conside rab le inte rvalb e twe e n th e time at which th e conve rsation took place and th e time atwhich th e tre atise w as compose d , in orde r to account fo r th e use o f th e

1 Agr. iii . 14 tot ann is, gu ious iuvenes aa’senectutem,

se ize sprope ao'

ipsos ex actac

d e l ates termznospe r szl entiuuz venzmus.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x v iii INTR ODUCTI ON .

horror through which Tacitus and othe r true Romans live d in indignantsile nce . Like Ne ro, Domitian had h is ‘

quinque nnium’

and it laste de ve n longe r than Ne ro’s, though h e was throughout h is w hole re ign

gloomy and somb re , if not always active ly crue l . ‘ His conduct,’ says

Sue tonius,‘ was at fi rst a mix ture o f good and e vil

,b ut little b y little

h is virtue s b e came vice s : ne e d re nde re d h im avaricious, fe ar made h imcrue l,

’— inopia rapax ,metu saevus (Doni . If h e would have b e en

like ly to visit with punishment a write r who, in th e e arly ye ars o f h isown re ign,

indulge d in some o f th e outspoke n sentime nts which w e find inth e D ia l ogue , h e would have b e e n just as like ly to act in th e same waytowards o ne who had written and pub lishe d during th e short re ign o f h is

imme diate pre de ce ssor. Itmust have b e e n quite as safe to te l l th e storyo f th e me e ting in Mate rnus

’

s house,and o f h o w th e poe t-ple ade r de

cl ared h is inte ntion o f go ing o n with h is ‘ repub lican’ trage die s , at

a time b e fore th e tempe r o f th e new rule r had Showe d itse lf,as it would

have b e e n in th e ye ar imme diate ly b e fore Domitian came to th e throne .

For with th e inclination to conne ct th e contracte d Sphe re o f e loque ncew ith th e loss o f political fre e dom,

the re co -e x iste d in th e mind o f

Mate rnus, as wil l b e Shown afte rwards, a gene ral appre ciation o f th e

compe nsating advantage s which th e empire had b rought in its train, anda due regard, in particular , fo r th e b e ne fi ts confe rre d o n Rome by sowise and upright a ru le r as Ve spasian (4 1. Th e ground o f h is

confide nt attitude is, in fact, disclose d in h is conc luding spe e ch . Moreove r, w e know that Domitian w as a patron o f lite rature . Sue tonius te llsus that h e institute d th e Quinquatr ia Ill inervae, with conte sts in poe tryand rhe toric . He use d to pre side at th e quinquennial fe stival o f Jupite rCapito l inus, at which b oth poe ts and prose write rs re cite d the ir productions

,th e most succe ssful b e ing de co rate d with golden crowns . Qu in

tilian e njo ye d unde r Domitian th e same impe rial patronage and favourthat h ad b e e n

i

e x tended to h im in th e pre vious re igns o f Ve spasian and

Titus . It is difficu lt to b e lieve , the re fore , that th e new empe ror’s acce ssion

to th e throne was th e Signal fo r a youthful lite rary aspiran t like Tacitus atonce to c lose h is lips in Silence . Whe the r it was pub lishe d immediate ly,or shown at fi rst only to a few intimate frie nds, w e se em to b e almostforce d

,by th e conditions o f th e prob lem,

to infe r that th e D ia l ogue w aswritten ab out th e ye ar 8 4—8 5 . Such a the ory gains, in th e fi rst place ,a suffi cient inte rval b e twe e n th e date o f composition and th e h istoricframe-work, while , o n th e othe r hand, it al low s a suffi cient length o f time

fo r th e de ve lopment o f th e style o f Tacitus as w e afte rwards know it. I f

th e D ia l ogue was pub lishe d at once , it is just possib le that th e long silencewhich Tacitus maintained during th e re ign o f Domitian may have b e en

THE QUESTION OF A UTHORSHIP AND DATE . x ix

partly due to some e x pre ssion o f disapproval that had b e e n conveye d toh im. Th e tone o f Mate rnus

’

s re fe rence to some o f th e court favourite s

(13 . 10) may ve ry we l l have b e e n a ground o f Offence . Eprius Mar

ce l lus was,inde e d

,de ad and gone , and cannot have he ld a high place in

th e empe ror’s memorie s o f th e past : Domitian may no t have love d h is

fathe r,but it is impossib le that h e can have had any liking fo r conspirators

1.

Vib ius Crispus, on th e othe r hand, continue d to flourish at th e impe rialcourt till h is death at an advance d old age , in th e ye ar A. D. 9 3 . But e ve nunde r Titus such pe rsons as Crispus, who worke d the ir way to powe r byth e me thods o f th e a

’

e l ator,had b egun to b e in le ss reque st (Sue t. Tit.

It is just as like ly that any disple asure which th e empe ror may havee xpre sse d was occasione d b y th e ge ne ral comple x ion o f th e work as byany particu lar utte rance . And afte r all such disple asure cannot haveb e e n ve ry de eply fe lt . Th e write r had no t b e e n guilty o f any disparagingallusions to Domitian himse lf or to th e circumstance s o f h is re ign, andh is po litical the orie s must have b e en Share d by many in th e Rome o f

that day. Without some re fe rence to them,and some discussion o f the ir

me rits,th e schools o f rhe toric

,in which h e had b e en trained

,would have

faile d fo r want o f mate rial .While admitting that the re is nothing improb ab le in th e the ory that

th e author may have re ce ive d some indication o f impe rial disple asure2,

I cannot agre e with Wo lff in iden tifying Tacitus with th e unknown write rre fe rre d to byQuintilian in h is e nume ration o f th e historians o f Rome (x . 1 ,

1 Such a work as th e D ia l og us a’o Or ator ibus cannot have give n Tacitus

any claim to a place in that catalogue , and w e do no t know what progre ssh e had made with th e pre liminary task o f colle cting mate rial fo r h is h isto rical writings byth e time when Quintilian pub lishe d th e I nstitutio (ab o ut

95 in which th e fi rst chapte r o f th e Te nth Book is incorporate d pro bab ly as an ab stract o f th e sub stance o f much pre vious te aching. We shal lfind that it is highly prob ab le that itwas th e influence o f Quintilian wh ichdire cte d Tacitus

,along with Fab ius Justus and othe rs , to th e inve stigation

o f such prob lems as that se t forth in th e D ia l ogue, fo r th e tre atmen t o fwhich the ir youthful in te lle cts might othe rwise have b e en immature . But

Quintilian was worldly e nough to know when to assume a courtly tOne 3

,

and h e wou ld hardly have pronounce d th e e ulogy re fe rre d to , if itsunknown sub je ct had incurre d th e empe ror

’s marke d disple asure .

1 Se e p . xv , no te . l ongius pr ouectam non ab nuerim ,

’

and2 The re is a pe rsonal to uch abou t th e again ‘

r ara tempo runzfl l icitate ub i sen

phrase s used in th e Intro ductio n to th e t ire quae ve lis e t quae sentias dice reH isto r ies, which se ems to give th is the o ry l ice t . ’an additional appearance Of pro bability : 3 Se e Introd . to Bo o k X , p . x i .

a’

ig uitateni uostranz a Domitiano

x x INTRODUCTI ON.

With th e the ory that th e D ia l ogue was writte n by Tacitus whe n ab outthirty ye ars o f age , and that th e conve rsation at which h e profe sse s to have

b e e n pre se nt took place some ten ye ars previously, th e inte rnal evide nce

offe re d by th e tre atise harmonize s ve ry we ll. We Shall find that th estyle is as Cice ronian as was possib le fo r a write r living tow ards th e e nd

o f th e fi rst century : a natural phe nome non in th e case o f o ne who h ad

b egun h is care e r as an orator 1, and who was emb odying in this tre atsie

th e fruits o f h is e arly rhe torical and lite rary studie s . Th e late r style o f

Tacitus is ve ry diff e re nt, b ut it would have b e e n out o f place in sucha work as this

,e ve n if w e could suppose that h e h ad alre ady deve lope d it

at’

th e time when th e D ia l ogue appe ars to have b e e n writte n. The n h eno doub t Share d in that re action agains t Sene ca o f which Quintilianmade himse lf th e chie f e x ponent , —some o f th e fe ature s o f th e philosophe r

’s style and mode o f thought b e ing e x emplifie d in th e pe rson o f

Ape r, fo r criticism by othe rs with whom Tacitus had more lite rary and

pe rsonal sympathy : afte rwards th e b itte r e x pe rience o f pub lic affairs atRome and th e iron pre ssure o f a crue l de spotism l e d h im to adopt,in de aling with altoge the r difl e re nt sub je ct matte r, th e conce ntrate dvigour o f th e te rse , pithy, and pointe d style fo r which h is name no w

stands as a synonym . Those who que stion h is authorship o f th e

D ia l ogue , o n th e ground o f diffe re nce o f style,b ase the ir case on re asons

which wou ld le ad them also, as Mr. Simcox says , to doub t th e genuinene ss o f Mr . Carlyle

’s e arly e ssays in th e Ecl iné urg /zR eview if h e h ad no t

colle cte d them himse lf.’ While Cice ro is undoub te d ly Tacitus’s mode lin th e D ia l ogue , th e tre atise contains cle ar trace s o f th e write r

’s o wn

individuality, b e side s unmistake ab le coincidence s,as regards words and

phrase s , with th e usage o f th e historical b ooks 2. The re is a conside rab lecorre sponde nce also b e tw e e n th e criticisms pronounce d o n Roman

orators and othe rs in th e Dia l ogue , and what Tacitus says ab out th esame individuals e lsewhe re : this w ill b e b rought out in th e note s (e . g.

o n 5 . Th e eulogy o f repub lican e loquence and o f th e orators o fo ld, in ch . 3 6

,may b e compare d with th e spe e ch put into th e mouth

o f C . Silius when advocating th e e nforcemen t o f th e l ex Cincia (Ann.

x i. and o ne o f h is sentence s (pul clzerr inzam a l ioguin ot oonarum

artium pr incipem sora’ia

’is minister iis f oea

’ar i) reminds th e re ade r o f

anothe r famous passage in th e D ia l ogue (32. 1 8 ) ut quae o l ini omnium

1 Se e Pl iny, Epp . 11. I , 6 ; 1 1 , 1 7 ; iv . Pompo nius Se cundus , 13 . 9 and Ann. x 11.

1 3, 10 . 2 8 , v . 8 ; fo r Vipstanus M e ssal l a, 15 . 42 Se e ne xt page : a lso x l v nsq. and Hist . iv . 4 2 ; fo r Eprius Marce llus,2 C ompare th e re fe rence s to Cassius 5 . 30 and Hist . iv. 6, Ann. x vi . 2 2 ad fin.

Sa f e rus, 26. 16 with Ann. i . 7 2 , 13 ; fo r and ibid . 29 .

Cae sar cp . 21. 20 and Ann. xiii . 3 ; fo r

THE QUESTION OF A UTHORSHIP AND DATE. x x i

artium d’

omina pul clzerr imo comitatu pectora impl eoat nunc guasz

una ex sora'ia

’issimis artifici es a

’iscatur . Th e hab it o f e thical refle ction

and shrewd psychological ob se rvation which manife sts itse lf repe ate dly inth e historical b ooks is alre ady at work in th e Dial ogue : 8 . 2 7 a

’ivitiae et

opes, guas f acil ius invenies gui vil uper et guam gui f astia’iat 13 . 4

aa’

l zgati omni aa’ul atione

,nec imperantibus unguam satis servi o io

’entur

nec nobis satis l iber i ; 18 . 1 5 vitio autem mal ignitatis lzumanae vetera

semper in l aua’c, praesentia in f astia

’io esse 23 . 1 6 pr ope abest ab

infi rmitate in guo sol a sunitas l aucl atur 3 7 ad fin . in ore lzominum

quorum ea natura est ut secura ve l l icent 40. 5 cum aa’incessena

’

os

pr incipes vir os,ut est natura zn'

o ia’iae

, popul i guogue ut lzistr iones d ar ious

uter entur . Such an e x pre ssion as at est natura ino ia’iae

,though it

may o f course b e paralle le d from othe r write rs, has a sort o f familylike ne ss to guae natura pavor is est

, If ist. iii. 8 4 , 20 ; cupia’

zne zng enzz

[zumani l ibentius ooscura cr ea’ena

’i,io. i . 2 2 , 1 6 ; at f erme acer r ima

prox imorum oa’ia sunt

,io. iv . 70, 1 2 , and many othe r phrase s familiar to

students o f Tacitus . Th e closing de live rance o f Mate rnus, ch . 4 1 ad fin.

nunc, quoniam nemo eoa

’em tempor e aa

’segui potest magnam j amam cl

magnam quietem,é ono saccu l i sui quisque citra obtr ectationem a l ter ius

utatur reminds th e re ade r o f th e famous utte rance in th e Agr ico l a

(4 2 , 1 8 ) sciant guié us mor is est inl icita mirar i, posse etiam sub ma l is

pr inczpibus magnos viros esse,of seguiumgue ac modestiam, si ina

’

ustr ia

ac v igor aa’

sint,eo l aua

’i s escena

’er e guo pl er igue per abrupta , sea

’in

nul lum rei publ icae usum,amoitiosa morte incl aruerunt. Th e se ntime nt

o f acquie sce nce in th e ne ce ssity fo r th e ru le o f a single man,which finds

e x pre ssion in this closing spe e ch, is anothe r e leme nt in th e ide ntificationth e whole political tone

1 is quite consistent with that which w e knowwas adopte d by Tacitus . Again, that fe e ling o f regre t fo r th e past whichse ems to have ente re d into th e ve ry composition o f th e historian’s geniusis e x emplifi e d in th e poe t-ple ade r

’s fi rst spe e ch (11—1 with its b e autiful

picture o f a golde n age (cp. Ann . iii. But it is in th e sphe re o f

moral sentime nt that th e re semb lance is most pronounce d . Me ssal la’

s

lament ove r th e obl ivio mor is antiqui (28 . 6) is fitly put into h is mo nthby th e write r who made e ven h is Germania an Opportunity fo r intrOducing we ighty refle ctions o n th e moral de cadence o f Rome . He re Me ssal la

spe aks fo r Tacitus,—th e Tacitus whom w e know from h is othe r works .When th e Spe ake r b ewails th e gene ral e ff acement o f th e ‘

good o ldways

,

’

th e Shame le ssne ss o f th e pre se nt day (29 . th e de cay o f care fu lmoral training at home (29 . h e is utte ring th e sentiments o f th e write r

1 Se e p . xxxix .

x x n INTRODUCTION.

who in th e Agr ico l a congratulate s h is he ro on th e loving care o f a pure

and prude nt mothe r (4, and who in th e Germania points th e contrast

b e twe en savage virtue and civilize d corruption in th e we ll-known words

nemo i l l ic ‘

vitia . r ia’

et,nec corrumpere et cor rumpi saecul um vocul ar

plusgue ié i é oni mores val ent guam a l ié i é onae l eges ( 1 9 ad

SUBSTANCE AND SCHEME OF THE DIALOGUE .

WE may no w e nde avour to ob tain an ide a o f th e contents o f th eD ia l ogue, though th e attempt to analyze its sub stance must ne ce ssarilyanticipate some o f th e prob lems which will require to b e dealt withsub seque ntly.

Th e tre atise may b e take n as consisting o f thre e main parts , to th efi rst o f which is pre fix e d an introduction (chs . 1—4) se tting forth th e

circumstance s in which th e conve rsation narrate d is said to have take n

place , while th e third is finishe d o ff with a concluding chapte r (42)de scrib ing th e b re aking up o f th e company.

Th e first part o f th e dialogue prope r e x te nds from ch . 5 to ch . 13 ,

and contains two spe e che s, one by Ape r, th e othe r by Mate rnus.

Th e se cond part b egins with th e entrance o f a new memb e r o f th ecompany, Me ssal la (ch . and again contains two spe e che s , o ne by

Ape r, th e othe r by Me ssal la. It e nds with an inte rruption by Mate rnus

in ch . 27 .

Th e third (ch s. 28—41) is th e most important se ction, as de alingw ith th e real sub je ct o f th e tre atise . It contains th e gre at l acuna , th ee x iste nce o f which (and th e hypothe sis o f anothe r) has give n rise toa gre at diffi culty in regard to th e distrib ution o f th e speake rs

’

parts .Me ssal la is th e main disputan t from ch . 28 up to th e point at whichh is discourse is lost, at th e e nd o f ch . 3 5 . At ch . 3 6 anothe r spe ake rb egins, though th e fi rst part o f what h e says is also lost . The re isnothing in th e e x te rnal form o f th e te x t to Show that h e is not Mate rnus

(as would naturally b e suppose d from th e words Einierat M aternas,

ch . or that th e spe e ch from ch . 3 6 to ch . 4 1 is not a continuouswhole . But a ne are r conside ration o f th e gene ral Scheme o f th e

SUB STANCE AND SCHEME OF THE DIALOGUE. x x iii

tre atise will reve al th e diffi cultie s which attach to this,and

, inde e d, toany o the r the ory .

It is important to note that, though it is not d ire ctly tre ate d till th eb eginning o f th e third part, th e re al sub j e ct o f th e D ia l ogue is cle arlyand distinctly state d in th e ve ry ope ning sente nce . It is th e de cadenceand de thronement o f e loquence . Th e cause s o f this phenomenonhad fo rme d th e theme o f frequen t discussion b e twe en th e write r andh is friend, Justus Fab ius : so epe ex me r eguir is , I uste F aoi , cur , cumpr iora

saecul a tot eminentium oratorum ing eniis g l or iague f l oruer int, nostra potis

simum aetas a’

eserta et l aua’e e l oquentiae orbata nix nomen ipsum orator is

r etineat. Th e write r is conscious o f th e gre atne ss o f th e sub je ct, and o f

h is o wn inab ility to do justice to it ; b ut h e profe sse s to b e in a positionto de al with it by simply rehearsing, e x actly as it occurre d, a conve rsationto which h e had b e en privilege d to liste n when a ve ry young man . He

was then a stude nt at th e b ar,and had attache d himse lf, as was th e

manne r o f such stude nts, to two o f th e most famous ple ade rs o f th e day,Marcus Ape r and Julius Se cundus . In company with them,

h e went tocall o n th e poe t-ple ade r, Curiatius Mate rnus, whose re citation o f h is

trage dy Cato o n th e pre vious day, and h is avowe d pre fe rence o f poe tryove r oratory

,form th e sub je ct o f some introductory dialogue . Re fe rring

to th e off ence that was allege d to have b e e n take n at some o f th e se ntime nts e x pre sse d in th e Cato

,Se cundus asks Mate rnus if h e intends to

revise and alte r h is drama in any w ay ; to which Mate rnus replie s, inth e most outspoken manne r, that it wil l b e pub lishe d e x actly as it wasre ad, and that h e has o n hand anothe r trage dy, th e T/zy estes , whichwill follow h is Cato and supply any omissions. On this Ape r make sa somewhat angry prote st against what h e co nside rs th e wrong-he ade dne ss o f Mate rnus in dissipating h is e ne rgie s o n such productions, whe nh e might have h is hands full o f forensic work . Mate rnus replie sthat the ir freque nt diffe re nce s in regard to this matte r rathe r take th e

edge o ff Ape r’s attack, b ut off e rs to le ave it in th e hands o f Se cundus ,

who will e ithe r forb id h im to write poe try, or e lse , as h e himse lf would

pre fe r, use h is influence to constrain h im to le ave th e narrow groove o f

profe ssional work at th e b ar and give himse lf wholly ove r to th e-

com

panio nsh ip o f th e Muse s . He appeals to Secundus as o ne o n whosesympathie s h e can depe nd (3 . and Se cundus confe sse s to a ce rtain b iasby th e re fe rence which h e make s to h is intimate friendship with th e poe tSal e ius Bassus . Ape r, howeve r, re torts that it is quite diffe rent with thosew h o are poe ts and nothing e lse , and proce e ds to impe ach Mate rnus fo r

h is negle ct o f th e art o f oratory.

Ape r’s Spe e ch consists o f a eulogy o f orator ia el oquentia in re spe ct o f its

INTRODUCTION.

se rviceab lene ss (util itas), th e ple asure which it confe rs (o ol uptas) , and th e

pre stige (dignitas : f ama, l aus) which it wins fo r th e ora tor (ch s. 5

with a corre sponding depre ciation o f poe try as b e ing altoge the r b arre nand unprofi tab le in all the se re spe cts (ch s. 9 , Ape r is th e re alist ,th e practical man o f th e D ial ogue , whose formula in e stimating th e

worth o f poe try is th e familiar Cui é ono f’

(9 . In th e hour o f ne e d ,it is to th e ple ade r, h e says , that even poe ts must have re course .

Sal e ius Bassus h as to b eg pe ople to b e good e nough to come and he arh im give a reading o f what h e has writte n with so much e x penditure o ftime and troub le ; and e ve n this costs h im money. Eprius Marce llus ,on th e othe r hand

,and Vib ius Crispus hold a glorious p lace . The ir

friendship is a re al b oon to th e empe ror, as b ringing h im some thingwhich it passe s th e powe r e ve n o f an empe ror to give : while Bassus hasto b e thankful if prince ly favour should e nrich h im

,as it late ly did

,with

a gift o f money that only se rve s to b ring h is depe ndence o n h is patroninto gre ate r re lie f. Ye tApe r is no t without an appre ciation o f poe try,in its prope r place . His quarre l is no t with poe try, b ut with Mate rnus

’

s

pre fe rence fo r poe try : tecum mi lzi,M aterne

,r es est guod, cum natura to

in ipsam ar cem el oguentiae fl rat, errare mao is et summa adepturus in

l evior ibus sué sistis nunc te ab auditor iis cl t/zeatr is in f orum et ad

causas et ad vera proe l ia voco (ch . In concluding h is impe achme nt,Ape r points out that poe ts o f Mate rnus

’

s tempe rame nt do not e ve n e njoyth e advantage o f quie t se curity and fre e dom from o ff ence ; more wil l b eforgive n to th e ple ade r who is outspoke n o n b ehalf o f a living friendand client than to a poe t who goe s out o f h is way to e x tol th e virtue so f a de ad Cato .

Th e short reply o f Mate rnus (ch s. 11-13 ) forms o ne o f th e mostinte re sting portions o f th e b ook . Th e pe rsonal contrast b e twe e n h im

and Ape r is crystallize d in two phrase s which occur at th e ope ning o f

th e e le ve nth chapte r : Ape r h ad Spoke n acr ius, ut so l eoat,et intento

ore,Mate rnus is r emissus cl sué r idens . To this picture b oth characte rs

remain true throughout th e pie ce . In glowing language , fi tte r fo r a poe tthan fo r an orator

,

’ Mate rnus e u logize s th e poe t’s life as th e ide al to

which h e intends hence forward to devote himse lf. Conscious o f h is

o wn b lame le ssne ss,h e has no fe ar that h e w ill eve r b e calle d upon to

e x e rt h is oratorical powe rs e x cept in th e de fence o f othe rs (pr o a l ter ius

discr imine ) . It is th e charm o f th e poe t’s life that has captivate d h im

’

mid th e quie t o f grove and glade will h e live , in th e hallowe d haunts o fsong, far from th e ‘ madding crowd ’

o f clie nts and suitors and morningcalle rs . And th e poe t is as famous, h e contends, as th e orator : Home rdoe s no t b ow b e fore Demosthene s

,and Cice ro me e ts with more de traction

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x x v i INTRODUCTION.

compositions o f forme r days,with the ir intricate arrangement and

te chnical divisions—th e ‘ b ook-spe e che s’

made to orde r according toth e pre cepts o f He rmago ras and Apollodorus— must give place to th eanimation and re finement (l aetitiam cl pul c/zr itudinem ora l ionis) that havenow b e come indispe nsab le : novis cl ex quisitis el oquentiae itiner ié us opus

est per quae orator f astidium aur ium ef ug iat. Finishing with a Shortre view o f th e antiqui (21 Ape r o co nte nds that th e Cice ronianage is re ally ove rrate d : Calvus , Cae l ius, Cae sar, Brutus, Asinius Po llio,Me ssal la

,Co rvinus, and Cice ro himse lf, are we ighe d in th e b alance and

found wanting. In o ne case th e diction is slove n ly (sordes ver é orum) ,and th e rhythm de fe ctive (b ians compositio) in othe rs the re is a want o fth e ‘ b uoyancy and po lish

’ that mark pre sent-day e loquence (l aetitiamnitoremgue nostrorum temporum). When those who confine the ir ad

miratio n to th e past praise its spe ake rs fo r the ir‘Sound, pure style ,

’

they only confe ss that the se spe ake rs we re wanting in vigour : parum est

aegrum non esse,f ortem et l aetum cl alacrem vo l o pr ope aé est aé infi rmitate

in guo so l a sanitas l audatur .

Whe n Ape r has finishe d, Mate rnus (while complimenting h im on h is

Spirite d and inge nious de fence o f h is own age ) calls on Me ssal l a to fulfi lh is promise to se t forth th e cause s o f a de cline which h e himse lf regardsas an e stab lishe d fact. Me ssal la

’

s Spe e ch (25-27 ) consists o f a vigorousvindication o f th e antiqui from Ape r

’s accusations, and an attack onth e ‘ curling-tongs and j ingle-j ingle

’

(cal amistras et tinnitus) o f suchlate r spe ake rs as Mae ce nas and Gallio

,with a ge ne ral impe achme nt o f

h is o wn time s as dege ne rate and e ff eminate . He is prepare d to citee x ample s from th e past , and match them against any which Ape r may

put forward ; b ut Mate rnus again inte rrupts, and re calls th e Spe ake r toth e original theme . It is th e e x planation o f th e phe nomenon, h e says ,that they wish to have from h im

,no t a me re stateme nt o f fact . Me ssal la

the n proce e ds (ch . 28 ) to unfold th e cause s o f th e de cline o f e loque ncefrom two points o f view, taking fi rst th e me thods o f e arly nurture and

the ore tical training which ob taine d in forme r days, and contrasting themwith th e lax ity and indiffe re nce o f h is o wn time (28 and the n , afte ra few remarks from Mate rnus

,comparing also th e practical e x e rcise s

o f th e antiqui with those o f th e novi (3 3It is in this part o f th e tre atise that th e author o f th e D ial ogue fi rst

b egins to discuss dire ctly th e answe r to th e que stion announce d in th e

Ope ning sentence . That Me ssal la is me an t to appe ar as a‘ laudator

tempo ris acti’

is ob vious from th e fact that h e le ads o ff by at once attri

b uting th e de cline , not only o f e loque nce , b ut o f th e othe r arts as we l l todesidia iuventutis et neg l egentia parentum cl inscitia praecipientium et oé l ivio

SUBSTANCE AND SCHEME OF THE DIALOGUE. x x vn

mor is antiqui . In forme r days , h e says, children we re b rought up by the iro wn mothe rs, who e x e rcise d a watchful care that was afte rwards fruitfulin re sults : suus caique fi l ius non in ce l l a emptae uutr icis, sed in g remio

ac sinu matr is educaé atur,cuiuspraeczpua l aus erattuer i domum cl inseruir e

l ioer is . But now they are hande d ove r to Gre ek nurse s and pe dagogue s,whose worth le ss characte rs are spe e dily re fle cte d in th e minds o f the ircharge s . Moral supe rvision o n th e part o f parents is a thing o f th e

past : inde e d the ir influe nce is rathe r th e othe r way. Ne x t Me ssal la

complains that a narrow training in rhe toric has b e en sub stitute d fo rthat wide philosophical culture which was th e strength o f th e spe ake rs o fbye

-gone days . Se e ing that th e orator is o ne who must b e ab le to

Spe ak fi tly and pe rsuasive ly o n any and eve ry topic, h e ought to re ce iveth e b roade st possib le e ducation

,including law and history

, philosophyand scie nce . Th e negle ct o f what made Cice ro gre at is, in Me ssal la

’

s

judgme nt,th e fi rst and foremost re ason o f th e de cay o f e loque nce : erg o

Izancpr imam etpraecipuam causam ar é itror car in tantum aé e l oquentia

antiguorum oratorum r ecesser imus . The re are othe rs, but the se h e wil lle ave h is frie nds to e x plain . Mate rnus, howe ve r (ch . sugge sts that th econtrast h e h as laid down b e twe e n th e ignorant apathy o f h is o wn day

and th e e nthusiastic and fruitful application o f th e ancie nts (difi’er entiam

nostrae desidiae et inscitiae adversus acer r ima etf ecundissima eorum studia)ought to b e fo llowe d up by a comparison o f th e practical e x e rcise s (ex ercitationes ) forme rly e ngage d in b y aspirants to oratorical fame with those towhich they are confine d and limite d now . What Shou ld b e th e characte ro f th e training which is me ant to se rve as a practical preparation fo r th ee x e rcise o f th e b arriste r’s profe ssion ? This le ads Me ssal la to paint avivid picture (3 4) o f th e Roman youth o f forme r days, who afte r th e mostcare fu l home-training, and instruction in all th e b ranche s o f a lib e rale ducation (imé ul usy

iam domestica discipl ina, r ef ertus l i onestis studiis) wasintroduce d by h is fathe r or some othe r re lative to o ne o f th e mosteminen t orators and state smen o f th e day

,unde r whose immediate

auspice s h e Spe e dily acquire d familiarity with th e actual practice o f h is

profe ssion . He le arne d h is craft unde r a maste r’ s eye , studying it, no t inany cloiste re d re tre at

, b ut in th e ope n light o f day, and face to face withc ritical Situations (in media l uce atque inter ipsa discr imina) . It was onth e b attle-fi e ld

,in fact

,that h e re ce ive d le ssons in th e art o f war (pugnare

in proe l io disceé at) . What a contrast b e twe e n th e gre at opportunitie sthus afforde d o f drinking at th e we ll o f e loquence pure and unde fi l e d,

gauging th e popular taste , and gaining e x pe rience o f re al issue s, —andth e narrowing influe nce s o f th e school o f rhe toric, with its une di

‘fying companionship, its artificial me thods, its stock sub je cts fo r empty

x x viii INTRODUCTI ON .

de clamation 1! No suffi cient preparation can b e provide d the re fo r th e

concre te issue s o f actual e x pe rience .

He re Me ssal la’

s spe e ch b re aks o ff ab ruptly. Th e re st o f it is lost ina lacuna which th e indications o f th e manuscripts enab le us to infe r

2

must have originally containe d ab out o ne-ninth part o f th e whole tre atise . Th e ne x t spe ake r b egins in th e middle o f a sente nce , as Me ssal la

had le ft o ff . His identity wil l b e discusse d b e low ,as we ll as th e various

the orie s put forward by e ditors and critics as to th e distrib ution o f

parts in this last se ction o f th e D ial ogue3 me anwhile th e spe e ch

mayb e tre ate d as forming (afte r th e lost introduction) a continuous whole

(ch s. 3 6

Its main purpose is to emphasize th e fact that th e conditions o f th e

pol itical constitution o f th e old fre e-state we re more favourab le fo r th e

growth and deve lopment o f e loque nce : though it doe s no t conclude without a re fe re nce to th e compe nsating advantage s which are se cure d bya more stab le form o f gove rnment . In th e fi rst place , e loque nce wasa much large r factor then than it is now : like fi re

,it ne e ds fue l to fe e d it,

and in those troub lous time s (i l la pertur é atione ac l icentia) the re was fue lin ab undance . This was th e spe ake r

’s Opportunity : a care e r was opento h im so long as powe r re ste d with th e fi ckle populace , whose judgme nth e could sway by h is e loquence . We se e now how distracting it all wasto th e country ; but what e lse cou ld have provided th e orator with th e

fi e ld h e ne e ds ? Whe re e lse w as h e to look fo r such rich rewards ?Eloquence was , in fact

,a ne ce ssary and indispe nsab le passport to

pub lic life . No o ne cou ld ge t o n without it. And th e Sphe re o f

oratory was far gre ate r and more important the n than now. Brib e ry ate le ctions, th e pillaging o f province s, th e b utche ry o f fe llow-citizens—such

1 Th e de tailed contrast made in thispassage (35 ad fin . ) sho uld b e spe ciallyno ted . In regard to th e place o f instruc

t ion,th e fo rum h as be en supplanted by

th e scho o ls o f rhe to ric . Instead o f th e

e x emp l a Deterum th e learne r h as no

mo de l now save th e pe rfo rmance s o f

h is fe l low-students. And fo r th e dailypractice o f th e gre at l aw -co urts are now

substituted th e barren and unre al ox ercitatione fs o f th e te chnical scho o l . The seare re fe rred to unde r the ir tw o mainhe ads, suasoriae and controversiae . Th e

fo rme r co nsisted o f arguments fo r o r

against coming to some re so lution, and

we re dire cted mainly to th e cul tivationo f th e imaginative facul ty . Pe rsons and

S ituatio ns we re cho sen from l egend o r

h isto ry, and, with some assistance from

th e teache r in th e arrangement o fmate rial ,th e student o f rhe to ric h ad to put himse l fin th e po sition ,

fo r e xample , o f Aga

memno n , d ebating whe the r h e o ught toslay Iphigenia. Th e controversiae we remo re d ifficult, and invo lved a gre ate ramount o f co ncre te l egal argument . The irsubje ct matte r w as e ithe r a ltoge the r fictit ious (cp . guam incr edioi l ite r compo

sitae , 35 . o r w as made to de pendsomehow o r o the r o n a histo rical o ccurrence o r a que stio n o f pre sent-day inte re st.Thus criminal case s we re o ften taken,th e students appe aring bo th fo r th e prose cution and th e de fence . Se e no te s adl oc. , and cp . Quint . x . 1, 7 1 ; also Bursian

’

s editio n o f Annaeus Seneca.

2 Se e pp . lxxxi-lxxxii .3 Se e pp. xxxviii sq.

SUBSTANCE AND SCHEME OF THE DIALOGUE. x x ix

incidents as the se , how eve r regre ttab le in themse lve s, we re far moreinspiring than th e routine practice o f police-courts and pe tty-se ssions .Po litical and social disturb ance is th e b e st stimulant fo r oratory. Eve ry

one knows that pe ace is to b e pre fe rre d to war b ut it is war that b ringsout th e soldie r. So it is with e loquence (ch s. 3 7 ,

Again,th e forms o f judicial proce dure and th e practice o f th e l aw

courts we re more conducive to good Spe aking in forme r days . Thena ple ade r could take as much time as h e like d

,and the re was a ve ry

wide fre e dom o f adjournme nt. And th e ce ntumviral courts,—th e gre atSphe re o f forensic oratory now ,

—we re forme rly o f little account : the ywe re e clipse d by th e b rilliant surroundings o f othe r trib unals (spl endor eal iaram indiciaram o é rueé antur ) . More ve r, th e hab it o f Spe aking in

th e paenula, and in chamb e rs or offi ce s, is no t favourab le to oratorica lanimation . Th e stimu lus o f an audie nce is wanting, and th e inciteme nto f applause : things are no t now as they w e re in th e days when th e

forum was crowde d with an inte re ste d assemb lage , whe n deputationscame up from th e country-towns to Show the ir inte re st in a case ,— cum

inpl er isque iudiczzs cr eder etpopu l us R omanus sua inter esse quid iudicar etur .

And in forme r time s th e frequent pub lic me e tings, and th e notorie ty tob e gaine d by th e impe achment o f distinguishe d individuals, supplie da gre at stimulus . Again must th e truth b e state d : e loque nce thrive so n disorde r. N on de o l ioso et quieta r e l oquimur cl quae pr oé itate cl

modestia gaudeat, sed estmagna il l a cl notabi l is e l oquentia a l umna l icentiae,

quam stu l ti l ibertatem rj ocabant,comes seditionum, cjfir enatipopu l i incitamen

tum,sine obsequio , sine Dor i/ate

,contumax ,

temerar ia, adr ogans, quae in

bene constitutis civitatibus non or itur . At Athens,whe re powe r l ay in

th e hands o f th e multitude , orators we re nume rous ; at Rome,in e arlie r

days, the re was gre ate r oratorical vigour, b ut th e country h ad a he avy

price to pay in th e attempte d re vo lution o f th e Gracchi and in th e

de ath o f Cice ro (ch s. 3 9,

From this point o f view, th e surviving trace s o f th e o ld forum are onlya proof o f a socie ty that falls short o f ideal pe rfe ction . In th e ide alstate

,fre e from all taint o f wrong-doing, th e orator will b e as supe r

fluous as th e physician among those that are no t Sick . J lf inor oratorum

konor oé scur iorque g l or ia est inter Donos mor es et in of sequium r egentis

paratos . Th e transfe re nce o f powe r from th e popular assemb ly to th eempe ro r (sapienti ssimus et unus) , with all th e conse que nt change s , has co ntracte d th e Sphe re o f e loquence . Circumstance s alte r case s . I f you

,my

frie nds (th e speake r conclude s) , h ad live d unde r th e repub lic, and if th e oldorators had change d place s with you, you could no t have faile d toachie ve th e highe st oratorical renown, while they would no t have b e en

x x x INTRODUCTION

found wanting in th e mode ration and se lf-re straint that are calle d fo runde r e x isting conditions . It is he re that w e must look fo r th e re conciliation o f opposing views . Gre at oratorical fame is inconsiste nt nowwith th e se ttle d calm which pe rvade s th e s tate : l et us b e thankful fo rth e latte r without disparaging th e conditions unde r which th e fo rme rwas attainab le : nunc quoniam nemo eodem tempor e adsequi potestmagnum

j amam et magnam quietem,bono saccul i sui quisque citra obtrectationem

a l ter ius utatur (ch .

Me ssal la would have like d to state some points in reply (h e wasa more thorough-going champion o f th e Ol d orde r) , and to enlarge o n

othe rs . Mate rnus promise s h im an opportunity. For th e pre sent, h eb ids Ape r farewe ll , thre ate ning that h e will te ll th e poe ts ab out h im

,

while Me ssal la will stir up th e love rs o f th e past . Ape r re torts that h ewil l carry h is complaint ab out them to th e rhe toricians o f th e schools .And so they part, in gre at good-humour.

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THE IR PARTS .

THE unity o f th e Dial ogue has b e en th e sub j e ct o f much discussion .

No two e ditors are altoge the r agre e d ab out its scheme or plan, and e ve n

its main motive h as b e e n calle d in que stion . We cannot pre te nd tode te rmine now th e e x tent to which th e tre atise emb odie s a conve rsationwhich may have actually occurre d—how far it has a historical foundation,and how far it is th e product o f th e write r

’s imagination . The re can b e

no doub t, howeve r, that it re sts o n a ce rtain b asis o f fact . Th e dramatis

personae are al l historical pe rsonage s ; and e ven though they may al l haveb e e n de ad at th e time when Tacitus wrote , h e would no thave b e e n like lyto inve nt al l th e circumstance s o f th e me e ting at which the y are repre

sente d as having inte rchange d views with o ne anothe r. But w e cannotme e t th e charge s that have b e en made against th e construction o f th e

tre atise , against its unity o f plan and purpose , b y taking re fuge in th e

argume nt that it is Simply a narrative , as accurate as th e write r’s re co l l e c

tion could make it, o f a conve rsation which actually took place , and whichh e reports e x actly as it occurre d . In that case

,no gre ate r unity could

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THEIR PARTS. x x x i

b e looke d fo r than might b e long to any conve rsation among frie nds whomake a more or le ss casual me e ting th e opportunity o f indulging in asomewhat formal de b ate on a give n sub je ct. In Spite , howe ve r, o f th edisclaime r o f original tre atme nt which is made in th e introductory chapte r

(isdem numer is isdemque rationibus) , no o ne will b e found to contend thatth e write r is me re ly reporting, so far as h e could re call them to memory

,

th e ipsissima verba o f th e seve ra l spe ake rs . Th e main line s we re no

doub t laid down fo r h im : h e adhe re s to th e orde r o f de b ate (ser vatoordine dzlsputationis) , and th e sentime nts e x pre ssed by th e various individual s are e vide ntly in accord with th e views which they may have putforward on th e occasion re fe rre d to

,or at le ast with those which they

we re known to have e nte rtaine d . But th e write r is more than a me rereporte r : h e is a constructive artist who, with o ne main purpose in view

,

must have se t himse lf to we ld toge the r in a harmonious whole th e variousmate rials o n which h e had e le cte d to work .

Such de fe cts, or rathe r diflicultie s, o f plan and construction as haveb e en charge d against th e tre atise , are ob viously attributab le to th e incom

pl ete and mutilated condition in which it h as come down to us . As toits main motive and purpose , the re can b e no re asonab le doub t. It is an

attempt to discove r and se t forth th e re asons why e loquence no lo nge rflourishe s at Rome as it did in th e days o f Cice ro. Some have thoughtthat th e prope r sub je ct o f th e D ial ogue is th e comparative worth o f poe tryand e loquence , and th e que stion which o f th e two b ranche s a man o f geniusand culture ought, in e x ist ing po litical circumstance s, to de vote himse lfto . But this is th e sub je ct me re ly o f th e introductory part o f th e pie ce

(ch s. 1 which se rve s no t only as th e ‘ se tting’

o f th e whole,but also

as a preparat ion fo r th e note which is sounde d in th e closing chapte rs.Th e cause s o f th e de cline o f e loque nce are no t

,inde e d

,dire ctly de alt

with till th e twe nty-e ighth chapte r : b ut th e part immediate ly pre ce ding(ch s. 15—2 in which Ape r and Me ssal la de b ate th e comparativeme rits o f ancien t ’ and mode rn ’

e loquence , is ne ce ssary to th e com

position o f th e whole and quite in place as le ading up to th e main sub je cto f th e tre atise . In Spite o f th e ab e rrations o f some e ditors

,nothing can

b e plaine r than th e fac t that it is th e re ason o f th e de cay o f oratory thatis th e chie f topic o f discussion 1 . That w as a phenomenon which must

1 Se e no t o nly th e o pening sentence o f cur in tantum a é e l oquentia eorum r eces

th e first chapte r , Saepe ex me r equ ir is, & c . se r imus 27 2 n eque en im itoc co l l egi

(with which cp . eana’am Izanc quae stio deside ramus, d isertio res esse antiquos

nem,1. b ut also 15 . 10 A c De l im sed causas ex qu ir imus ; 32. 2 2 ergo Izanc

impetratum ab a l iquo vestrum ut causas pr imam ct praeczpuam causam arbitro r

itu ius i rgfin itae dfi rentiae scrutetur cur in tantum ab e l oquentia antiquorumac r eddat ; 24 . 1 1 e xprome noois non oratorum recesser inzus.

Iaudatzonem antiquaram sed causas

x x x u INTRODUCTION

have force d itse lf on th e notice o f al l inte re ste d ob se rve rs, as o f gre atmoment no t only in itse lf, b ut also in re lation to th e cause s which hadb ro ught it ab out . In th e new condition o f things introduce d b y th e

e stab lishment o f th e empire , e loquence had little room le ft it fo r e x e rciseand de ve lopme nt. Its Sphe re had b e come narrowe d and confine d . Th e

forum w as no longe r th e political centre o f gravity. De b arre d from

que stions o f importance , such as had afforde d fre e scope fo r th e oratoryo f forme r days

,th e art o f rhe toric now h id h e r diminishe d he ad in th e

infe rior law-courts, and in th e unre al atmosphe re o f th e schoo ls o f

de c lamation. Empty supe rficial ity and me chanical routine usurpe d th e

place o f th e powe r that had forme rly swaye d th e he arts o f me n ut quae

o l im omnium artium domina pul clzer r imo comitatu pectora imp l ebat, nunc

cir cumcisa cl amputata ,sine apparata , sine l i onor e, pacue dix er im sine

ing enuitate , quasi una ex sordidzlssimzk artzfi ciis discatur (32. N0

discussion o f th e cause s o f this de cline could fail to take note o f th e

change in th e pub lic taste , o f th e alte re d conditions o f e ducation at

Rome , o f th e new political circumstance s : and the se are some o f th e

topic s tre ate d in th e D ial og ue .

AS to th e construction and plan o f th e work, th e main difli cul ty hinge so n th e gre at lacuna which occurs at th e c lose o f th e thirty-fi fth chapte r,and th e distrib ution o f parts in what fo llows . This must aff e ct oure stimate o f th e part playe d in th e de b ate (1) by Se cundus, and (2 ) byMate rnus. The re is le ss doub t ab out Me ssal l a, and none at a ll ab outApe r . Ape r

’s attitude may b e plainly e nough infe rre d from th e accountalre ady give n o f th e conte nts o f th e tre atise . He is a re alist and a util itarian 1

,who has made h is way by hard work at th e b ar, and who knows

b o th th e value o f th e position h e has achie ve d and th e b e st me thods o fse curing it

2.

1 Nam si ad uti l itatem v itae omnia

consi l ia f actaque nostra derzgenda sunt,

5 . 1 8 : cp . Quint . x . 7 , 1 7 .

2 Attentio n h as be en called to th e re

semblance be twe en Ape r in th e D ia l ogueand Antonius in th e D e Orator e o f

Cice ro , e spe cial ly in re spe ct o f the ir attitude towards cu lture : cp . prooaoi l ioremIzoc popu l o oratiouem f or e cense é at suam

si omn i no didiczsse uumquamputaretu r

(de Or . i i . § 4 ) with Aper omn i e rudi

tione imbutus contemn ebat potius l iteras

quam nescz’

ebat, tamquam ma iorem ia

dustr iae et l abor is g l o r iam Izabitu rus si

ingen ium e ius uu l l is a l ienaram artiumadmiu icu l is inn iti uia

’er etu r (Dial . 2 .

Ape r be lie ved tha t h e wo ulde nhance th e fame o f h is painstaking ap

e

plicatio n if pe o pl e tho ught that h is genius

He spe aks with th e strong profe ssional fe e ling o f a man

de rived no suppo rt from any e xtrane ousaccomplishments .

’

Th e passage is no t

fre e from d ifficu lty , and some have askedwhe the r Ape r wo uld no t have mo re natural ly de sire d to enhance h is re putat io nfo r natural ability rathe r than fo r ‘ hardwo rk .

’But the re w as no ne ed fo r that :

e ven h is’

de tracto rs acknow ledged h is

natural endowments (2. 1 1 cp. de Or . ii .1,Or . 143 , o fAntonius) . The y tho ught

that h e po sse ssed gre at natural ability,b ut w as de ficient in training and culture .

Tacitus, h is pupil , says h e w as no t : o n

th e contrary , h e w as omn i er uditione

imbutus . But at th e same t ime b e te

pre sented, as a Speake r, th e tendencie s o fth e new rhe to ric (14 . Wh i le profe ssing a sympathe tic fe e ling fo r lite rature(10. h e knew that, in practice , th e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x x x iv INTRODUCTION.

gre at rhe torician’s re view o f lite rature . Th e prob ab ility is that, like

Se cundus,h e did no t live to attain to th e maturity o f h is powe rs .

Ape r’s chie f opponent is Vipstanus Me ssal la, who is known to us from

th e H istor ies as an e ne rge tic supporte r o f Ve spasian against Vite llius1.

Me ssal l a is as e nthusiastic fo r th e past as Ape r is fo r th e pre sent. He

has no sympathy with th e emptine ss and unre ality o f th e e ducation whichwas provide d in h is day, and h is instincts

‘

as a true -b orn Roman (th eonly o ne , by th e way, o f a ll th e disputants) le ad h im to dwe ll fondly onth e gre at orators o f th e past and th e cause s to which they owe d the ir

gre atne ss . To h im they re alize , far more than any contemporary spe ake r,the ide al o f what an orator ought to b e . He saw that th e mode rnspe cialization o f th e stadium,

and its ab sorpt ion in th e te chnicalitie s andtrivialities o f th e schools o f rhe toric re nde re d impossib le th e acquisitiono f that b road culture and those wide inte re sts which had b e e n th e gloryo f Cice ro and h is contemporarie s . It is this that le ads h im to de claimagainst th e views which Ape r repre sents with an inte nsity o f convictionand a vigour o f language fo r which h e fe e ls impe lle d half playfully toapologize (32 ad He re fe rs contemptuously to th e ‘

so-calle drhe toricians (expetuntur quos r lzetoras aocant, 30. 5) whose prematureactivity displace d from th e e ducation o f th e Roman youth b roade r andmore valuab le studie s, such as history and philosophy, and rob b e d it o fth e sound foundation o n which it had forme rly re ste d . His spe e ch isunfortunate ly lost just as h e is b eginning to emphasize th e e x istingdivorce o f th e schools from practical life by picturing th e discomfi ture o f

th e aspirant to oratorical re nown whe n h e is fi rst transfe rre d from th e

te chnicalitie s o f th e le cture -room to th e re alitie s o f th e forum. Thougha laudator tempo ris acti

’

Me ssal la w as himse lf no re cluse , but a man o f

action. He h ad take n an active part in th e campaign‘

against Vite ll ius,and Tacitus w as inde b te d to h im fo r an account o f some o f its incidents

(Hist. iii. 2 5 , His o wn reputation fo r e loque nce stood high , and

Ape r, in th e D ial ogue, make s a complimentary re fe re nce to th e occasionw hen h e had gaine d great fame at Rome by ple ading th e cause o f h is

le ss worthy b rothe r,Aquilins Regulus, b e fore th e Senate (ch . This

w as in A.D. 70 (Hist; iv . Me ssal la must o f course have b e e n alive fouror five years late r

,whe n th e dialogue is said to have take n place ; b ut as

h e is no t mentione d in Pliny ’s Letters (whe re allusions to Regulus are

freque nt) it has b e e n infe rre d that h e too die d young. In fact,it may

1 Legi on i tr ibuna s Vipstanus M essa l l a this characte rizatio n, such as might haveprae erat, cl ar is ma io r i lzus , egr egias ipse , be en e xpe cted from o ne w h o h ad so

et qu i so l us ad id be i/um a rtes bonas d ire ct a knowledge o f Me ssal la as th e

attu l isset, Hist . ii i . 9 . The re is a no te autho r o f th e Dialo gue .

o f pe rsonal inte re st and a'

sso ciation in

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THEIR PAR TS . x x x v

have b e en th e more or le ss re cent de ath o f all th e inte rlocutors thatinduce d Tacitus to b ring them toge the r on h is canvas.Julius Se cundus was a friend and contemporary o f Quintilian, who

re fe rs to h im more than once in complime ntary te rms1. From x . 1 , 1 2 1

w e gathe r that h e die d premature ly (interceptas), possib ly ..ab out th eye ar 8 0 A. D.

2 One characte ristic o f h is style se ems to have b e e na ce rtain want o f spontane ity : this is indicate d in th e allusion madein ch . 1 to th e criticism passe d on h im by h is de tractors (quamvis mal igne

pl er ique opinarentur nec Secundo pr omptum esse sermonem et,

aswe ll as in Quintilian

’s ph rase , infi nitae curae , quote d b e low . In th e

Dial ogue , as w e have it now ,h e doe s no t play th e part that might have

b e e n e xpe cte d o f h im from th e prominent way in which h e is introduce d,along with Ape r, in th e se cond chapte r. His prudent re se rve and re tiringdisposition are Shown in h is que stion to Mate rnus ab out a safe r ’ e dition

(secur iorem) o f that poe t’s Cato

,

’

and in th e w ay in which h e depre cate sth e proposal that h e should act as arb ite r b e twe e n Mate rnus and Ape r

(ch . Some critics have he ld that h e altoge the r de cline s this proposal ,and ask whe re h e make s h is aw ard, as the re is no t e ven a mention o f

h im in th e c losing chapte r . But it Should no t b e forgotten that it isonly as regards th e diff e re nce b e twe e n Mate rnus and Ape r (as to th ecomparative worth o f poe try and e loque nce ) that h is arb itration is pro

posed ; and, though th e entrance o f Me ssal l a in ch . 14 give s a new turnto th e de b ate

,Se cundus first summarize s th e rival spe e che s, o f which th e

introductory part consists, in an impartial de live rance , in which h e showsdue appre ciation o f th e sermo o f Ape r o n th e o ne hand

,and th e oratio

o f Mate rnus on th e othe r (14 . It is more diffi cult to de cide whe the ra Spe e ch o f Se cundus may no t have b e en lost in th e gre at lacuna whichfollows ch . 3 5 . On th e whole

,it appears prob ab le that whe the r or

no t Se cundus contrib ute d a se t spe e ch, e x pre ssing h is individual attitudeh e at least p laye d a large r part in th e de b ate than would appe ar fromth e te x t as w e have it now . To o much we ight ne e d not b e attache d towhat Mate rnus says (16 . whe n h e unde rtake s, on b ehalf o f Se cundusas we ll as fo r himse lf

,to supply what Me ssal la may omit in h is pre se nta

tion o f th e que stion unde r discussion. But, a pr ior i, it se ems improb ab lethat Se cundus would have b e e n so prominently introduce d along withApe r in th e ope ning chapte r, if h is admiring pupil h ad only inte nde d touse h im fo r a few appropriate utte rance s to mark th e de ve lopme nt o f

1 x . 3 , 1 2 aequa l em meum atque a me , o rator is apud poste rosf oret, e t sqq.

ut notum est,f anzi l iar iter amatum,mirae

,

2 Th e date sugge sted in my no te o n

facuna’

iae Dirum , infi n itae tamen curae ; Quint il ian x . I , 1 20 (A . D . 88 ) is rightlyib . I 1 20 I u l io S ecundo

,si l ongior con he ld by Pro f. A . S . Wilkins to b e se ve ral

tigisset aetas, cl ar issimumprof ecto nomen ye ars to o l ate .

d 2

x x x vi INTRODUCTI ON.

th e pie ce . In regard to this point, th e inte rpre tation o f ch . 1. 1 1 (cumsinga l i diversas quidem sed pr obaé il es causas adf err ent, dum formam suz

quisque et animi cl ing enii redderent) is o f th e gre ate st importance . To

e x clude Se cundus from th e re fe re nce he re,would be to practically limit

it to Me ssal la and Mate rnus : on th e stricte st inte rpre tation o f diaersas

causas adf erre—occurring as this phrase doe s afte r eandem l i o uc guacs

tionem (cp. 1. 1 ) pertractantes—Ape r doe s not se em to come in, b e causeit is not h is province to sugge st any causae fo r a de cline which h e doe snot admit 1. Again, if th e lacuna re ally e x tends ove r ab out one-nintho f th e whole tre atise 2, it is diffi cu lt to imagine what it can have co n

tained e x cept on th e the ory that Se cundus also spoke3, Me ssal la cannot

have gone on much longe r. His sub je ct had b e e n pre scrib e d fo r h imby Mate rnus in ch . 3 3 . 8 quibus ex ercitationibus iuaenes iam of f orumingressuri confi rmare et a l er e ingenia sua so l iti sint and unle ss h ee lab orate d th e criticism o f contemporary me thods with which h is spe e chb re aks o ff

,that sub je ct may b e said to have b e en ove rtake n b e fore th e

lacuna occurs . On th e othe r hand , it is argue d that it is more co n

Sisteh t with what w e know o f th e re tiring and unwarlike‘ disposition

o f Se cundus to conce ive h im as confining himse lf to assisting th e progre sso f th e action by appropriate inte rpe llations : also that no re fe rence ismade to h im in th e c losing chapte r, whe re Mate rnus, Me ssal la, and Ape rb ring th e discussion to a c lose . Th e the ory that w e actually have parto f a spe e ch by Se cundus in what follows afte r th e lacuna, will b e b e tte rde alt with in conne x ion with Mate rnus.

Th e fourth and last o f th e inte rlocutors in th e Dial ogue, Curiatius

Mate rnus,is th e most inte re sting o f all . Th e author ob viously inte nde d

to put h im forward as th e le ad ing pe rso nage o f th e pie ce . It is in h is

house that th e d iscussion take s place . He is introduce d as a we ll-knownce le b rity, who doe s not stand in ne e d o f e ve n th e b rie f characte rization

1 Th e passage is a we l l known crux ,

and th e te x t i s co rrup t . The re is o f

co urse much to b e said fo r Jo hn’S v iew

that so impo rtant a d isputant as Ape rcanno t po ssibl y b e omitted from th e

ref

suni é given in th e wo rds quae a praestantissimis vir is et ex cog itata subti l zte r et

dicta graviter accepi , e spe cial l y in viewo f th e apprOpriatene ss, in its applicatio nto h im, o f th e phrase dum f ormant su i

qu isque et an imi et zngenzi redderent.

Jo hn thinks that dio crsas causas (incum singu l i diversas quidem sed pr oba»bites causas adfe r rent) is meant to co ve rA

rpe r

’

5 view o f th e case , th e o riginal ide a0 th e ‘ de cline ’

o f e loquence be ing e x

tended so as to include h is po sition, which

admits, no t a de cl ine , b ut a change(18 . 8 : 19 On this inte rpre tationNequc en ine def u it, &c. (line 18 ) is addedto e xplain th e phrase diuersas causas in

l ine 15 . But as th e Wri te r's sympath ie sare evidently against Ape r, in Spite o f

h is appre ciation o f h is great abilities , itis do ubtful if h e wo ul d have cal l e d h ispre sentation o f th e que stion a probab i l iscausa , and th e e xp l anation given in th e

no te s is pe rhaps th e safe r o f th e tw o .

2 Se e pp . l xxxi—l xxxii .3 Some commentato rs sugge st that h is

subj e ct may have be en th e de te rio rationo f style (e l ocutio ) .

1 (It essetmulto magis pugnax , Quint .x . I , 1 20.

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THEIR PAR TS . x x x vu

which is given in th e same chapte r to h is two visitors,Ape r and

Se cundus. His tragedie s are made th e occasion o f th e discussion whichforms th e fi rst part o f th e tre atise ; and it is ce rtain—no matte r whatthe ory o f th e arrangement o f parts may b e adopte d— that it was h e whocontrib ute d th e closing spe e ch (42 E inierat M aternas) . It is h e alsowho guide s and contro ls th e deve lopme nt o f th e discussion, Spe aking inch . 16 fo r Se cundus as we ll as fo r himse lf, b ringing out th e re al pointsat issue in ch. 24 , re calling Me ssal l a to it in ch. 27 , and prevailingon h im to continue h is spe e ch in ch . 3 3 . As one who has b e en b otha poe t and a ple ade r, h e is we l l qualifie d to de cide b e twe en th e rivalattractions o f th e two profe ssions . Alre ady unde r Ne ro (11. 9) h e haddistinguishe d himse lf by writing a tragedy, which se ems no t to haveb e e n without some practical re su lt ; and anothe r trage dy—th e Catow as now th e topic o f gene ral conve rsation at Rome . But h is re solutionh as b e en taken. He intends to forsake th e profe ssion o f advocate (aciam me deiung ere a f orensi l aoore constitui

,11. 1 2 ) and to de vote himse lf

wholly to th e pursuit o f poe try. Nothing that Ape r can urge will shakeh im from h is purpose . Ho w long h e live d to give e ffe ct to it is a matte ro f unce rtainty . A passage from Dio Cassius 1 has b e en quote d by manycritics as proving that h e live d till 9 1 A. D.

,when h e was put to de ath by

Domitian fo r undue fre e dom o f spe e ch . But Mate rnus was a commonname in impe rial time s , and th e re fe re nce may b e to anothe r pe rsonaltoge the r. If h e had b e en th e Mate rnus o f th e Dial ogue , it is unlike lythat h e would have b e e n de signate d a

‘Sophist,

’

and as practisingde clamation

,so long afte r h e had re signe d th e profe ssion o f advocate

in favour o f poe try. Th e argument, howe ve r, has se rve d to incre aseth e difficulty as to Mate rnus

’

s pe rsonality, and to complicate th e que stiono f th e Tacite an authorship o f th e tre atise . It has b e en contende d 2 thatTacitus would no t have venture d

,in th e re ign o f Domitian and during

th e life time o f Mate rnus, to attribute to th e latte r se ntiments which se em,

at time s, almost to anticipate th e fate that is said to have afte rwardsove rtake n h im. It is just as prob ab le , howeve r, that th e Mate rnus o f

th e D ial ogue had die d (like th e othe r inte rlocutors) in th e inte rval b e twe enA. D. 74

—7 5 and th e date at which th e tre atise was compose d . A re fe rence

to this (and no t to th e fate o f th e othe r Mate rnus, th e o ogbum js) maype rhaps b e de te cte d in th e end o f ch . 13 , whe re th e Spe ake r dwe lls onth e thought o f death with an inspire d pre vision which th e write r may havewishe d to indicate had b e e n only too we ll founde d . And many diffi cul tie sas to th e gene ral tendency o f Mate rnus

’

s utte rance s, and conseque ntly

1 l

gdr epvov 63 0045107 615 51 1 lan d. r vpdw ow 67116 1 1 do nate, di ré l cr ew e ,Dio Cass. l x vu. 12 .

e e p . xviii.

x x x vm INTRODUCTION.

as to th e whole purpose o f th e Dia l ogue , are removed , or at le ast le sse ned ,

b y th ethe ory that Tacitus fol lowe d Cice ro

’s e x ample in no t introducingl iving pe rsonage s . Howeve r this may b e , Mate rnus IS undoub te dly th e

protagonist o f th e pie ce . It is through h im that Tacitus give s e x pre ssion

to h is own thoughts . Th e future h istorian saw that h is work , too ,would b e done , no t in th e b ustle and racke t o f th e forum,

b ut in quie tre tirement. His regre t fo r th e o ld fre e -state w as tempe re d, like that o f

Mate rnus, by a practical acquie scence in th e ne ce ssity fo r th e empire .

It is h is voice w e se em to he ar when th e poe t-ple ade r e x pre sse s h is

pre fe re nce fo r Ve rgil

’s life o f repose (ma l o securum cl quietam Verg i l ii

secessum,13 . and whe n ,

at th e e nd o f th e deb ate , h e poin ts out that

e ve ry age h as its o w n advantage s (nunc quoniam nemo eodem tempore

adsequi potest magnamf amam etmagnam quietem,bono saccul i sui quisque

citra obtr ectationem a l ter ius utatur,ch . 4 1 ad It is

,in fact

,by th e

closing Spe e ch that th e so -calle d repub licanism’

o fMate rnus is re concile d

and harmonize d with e x isting political conditions .

Othe r the orie s o f this closing spe e ch have b e en put forward by e ditors ,and remain to b e conside red . In this e ditio n it is attribute d to Mate rnus,

not only on th e e vidence o f th e manuscripts, b ut o n othe r grounds aswe ll . It is in it that w e find th e fulle st e x pre ssion o f that spiritualsympathy b e twe en speake r and write r which was e vidently Tacitus’s

motive in making Mate rnus th e main pe rsonage o f th e pie ce . He is,

as has b e en said, th e protagonist, with whom th e discussion b egins andwith whom it e nds . It has no t b e e n note d by any commentator thatth e true e x planation o f th e placid manne r in which , in th e introduction,

Mate rnus me e ts th e hasty criticisms which are b e ing advance d againsth is Cato,

’

is to b e found in h is consciousne ss o f h is own position . In

th e fi rst place , the se criticisms are nothing b ut th e outcome o f popular

gossip ; f a l ul ae mal ignaram as they are style d e ve n by th e cautiousSe cundus 1 (3 . Ape r doe s not se em to attach much we ight to h isfriend’s allege d indiscre tion ; to h im it is Simply an

‘ outb urst o f h isnob le soul ’ (qfi

'

ervescit Dis pul c/i err imae naturae tuae) , al l th e more disinte re ste d b e cause it was conne cted with th e name o f o ne so far remove dfrom pre sent-day controve rsie s (pr ivatas et nostr i saccul i controver sias)as Cato . Ape r woul d not shrink from a similar indiscre tion himse lf inde fence o f a friend : s i quando necesse sitpr o per icl itante amico potentiorum

aures ofi'

ender e , etproé ata sitfi des et l i é ertas ex cusata, 10 ad fin. AS fo r

Mate rnus himse lf, h e has no fe ars on h is own account, no apprehensionthat any action wil l b e take n against h im. His innocence has hithe rto

1 Cp. 2. 2 cummj'

ena’isse potentium animos dice retnr.

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THEIR PARTS . x x x ix

prove d h is b e st safeguard, and h e has no misgivings fo r th e'

future :

statum lzucusque ac secur itatem me l ius innocentia tueor quam e l oquentia ,

nec vef oor no mi/zi unquam uer é a in sonata nisi pr o a l ter ius a’

iscr imine

fi zcienda sint, ch . 11 ad fin . His clo sing spe e ch shows that h e w as no t

o ne o f those impracticab le philosophe rs against whom e ve n th e patientVe spasian had to act with vigour

1. Like Tacitus, h e h ad h is regre ts fo r

th e past, b ut h e did no t reb e l against th e pre sent. He re cognize s, withMe ssal la, th e supe riority o f th e e loque nce o f th e antiqui (27 . but h e

tempe rs Me ssal la’

s rathe r o ne -Side d e x al tation o f th e oratory o f republican time s by dwe lling o n th e regre ttab le conditions o n which it hadthrive n . His whole attitude is o ne o f re conciliation. He can ventureto b e seve re o n pe rsons o f such doub tful ante ce de nts as Crispus andMarce llus (13 . 1 and h e claims fo r himse lf th e same fre e dom o f Spe e chas h e wou ld allow to o the rs (27 . b ut h e is sensib le also o f th e

advantage s which se ttle d orde r and good gove rnment have se cure d fo rth e state (3 8 ad e ven though th e introduction o f th e new

ré gime h ad no t at once involve d th e downfall o f those who, like Crispusand Marce llus, h ad made themse lve s indispe nsab le to forme r and moreunworthy rule rs . His frequent re fe rence s to th e contracte d sphe re in

which oratory was now confine d are made as an additional justificationo f h is pe rsonal attitude . He is forsaking a profe ssion which h ad b e comeirksome to h im 2

(r emotum necessitate cotia’

ie a l iquid contra animam

f aciendi , 13 . and which can no longe r b e what it was once : minororatorum b onor o é scur iorque gl or ia inter bonos mores et in o é sequium

r egentis paratos, 4 1. 1 1 . The re is no irony in al l this,as some critics

have suppose d . Th e attitude o f Mate rnus towards impe rialism musthave b e e n common in th e cu lture d socie ty o f th e day. It w as that o fTacitus himse lf 3 . Th e chie f pe rson o f th e D ial ogue give s utte rance to

1 The ir banishment from Rome in th e

year 74 A . D .,abo ut th e time when th e

Dialo gue is re pre sented as having take nplace , sugge sts th e po ssibility that anydange r anticipated fo r Mate rnus mayhave be en due to a so rt o f ne rvo usapprehension o f th e extent to wh ich th eempe ro r might carry h is me asure s o f

re taliation . ButMate rnus did no t sym

path ize with th e ‘ intransige ant ’ party,any mo re than Tacitus himse lf.

2 It is no t ne ce ssary to disco ve r in thisfact a pro o f that Tacitus’s o bje ct inwri ting th e Dialo gue w as to justify h isown re t irement from th e pro fe ssion o f th eb ar . We do no t know, as a matte r o ffact , that h e re tire d at th e time o f th ecompo sition o f th e tre atise , i . e . when

h e w as abo ut thirty ye ars o f age . It isno t impro bable , howe ve r, that in thispre sentation o f Mate rnus th e autho r gavee xpre ssion to what we re re ally h is o w n

tho ughts and aspiratio ns on this subje ct,

tho ugh h e may no t have carried theminto e ff e ct at o nce . He w as no doubtconscio us , in Spite o f h is great succe ss asa pleade r, that fo rensic o rato ry co uldne ve r b e again what i t h ad be en , and h e

must the re fo re have be en in tho ro ughsympathy with Mate rnus

’

s statement o fth e reaso ns which h ad induced h im to

take th e re so lution re fe rred to .

3 It wo uld have be en strange if anyexce pt th e mo st impracticable pe rsonsh ad failed to re co gnize th e advantage sconfe rred on Rome by th e re cent po litical

x l INTRODUCTION.

th e thoughts that we re in th e mind o f its author, and it is in th e re conciliation

,in h im

, o f Opposing tendencie s, that th e unity o f th e pie ce isto b e sought fo r. The re is thus an e ssential re lationship b e twe en th e

fi rst part o f th e tre atise (chs. 1 which is ofte n de scrib e d as me re lyintroductory, and th e last 1. In th e forme r, Mate rnus justifie s h is prefe rence fo r poe try by th e contention that fore nsic oratory, e ve n in its

most pe rfe ct type , is nothing but an infe rior de ve lopme nt, due to th e

loss o f primitive innocence , o f th e form in which e loque nce dwe lt withme n in th e golde n age , viz. poe try : Izaec e l oquentiae pr imordia , lzaec

penetra l ia lzoc pr imam Izaé itu cul tuque commoda mortal ié us in i l l a casta

et nul l is contacta vitiis pectora infl ux it sic oracul a l oqueé antur , 12. 6 .

In th e latte r h is re tireme nt from th e profe ssion o f an advocate ise xplaine d by re fe re nce to th e narrowe r limits within which e loquencenow move s, as compare d with th e days o f old. In b oth h is Spe e che s,Mate rnus sighs fo r quie t re tirement : compare such e xpre ssions asinquieta cl anx ia oratorum vita, with its certamina and per icula, and th einsanum et l uor icumf orum,

in th e fi rst, with th e repe ate d statement inth e se cond , non de otiosa et quieta r e l oquimur et quae proditate cl modestia

gaudeat.

se ttl ement . Men’s memo rie s must have

be en ful l o f th e ho rro rs o f Ne ro ’

s re ign,

and o f th e l ongus et unus annus thath ad se en thre e empe ro rs come and go

o n th e o the r hand the y co ul d se e fo r

themse l ve s what h ad be en accompl ishe dby th e hard-wo rking and conscientious‘citizen-empe ro r, ’ Ve spasian . Tacitus nodoubt l o oked back with regre t o n th e

days o f th e o l d fre e -state : th e re publ icanfo rm o f go ve rnment was, in h is view, th emo st favourable to fre edom (Ann . vi .

But h e knew that cond itions h ad altoge the r changed, and that th e monarchyh ad now be come nece ssary fo r pe ace andfo r th e maintenance o f th e huge fabric o f

th e empire (cp . Hist . i . 1 , 5 ii . 38 ; i .Th e summary o f th e histo rian’

s po liticalconvictions given by Teuffe l -Schwabe333 , 8 ) may b e repro duced he re , as applicab l e to Mate rnus as we l l as to Tacitus :‘ Acco rd ingly—th e republic having b ecome impo ssible and th e monarchy ne ce ssary—th e individual must b e re signedand tak e things and pe o pl e as the y are

(e . g. bonos imperatorcs voto expeter e,qua l escunque to l erar e, Hist . iv. 8 : cp .

and attempt to ste e r h is co ursethro ugh these d ifficul t circumstance s so

as ne ithe r to sacrifice h is hono ur o utw ardl y no r expo se himse l f to se rio us

dange rs, by finding a ro ad midway interabruptam contuf naciam et def orme obse

qu ium (Ann . iv . Men w h o h ad

succe eded in this, mode rate libe rals w h ore cko ned with th e e stablished o rde r, andw h o bridl ed the ir aspiratio ns towardsfre edom (modum et temperamentum ad

Ii ioere , Dial . 41, Ann. iv . 20 ; non con

tumacia neque inan i iactatione l ibertatis

f amam f atumque pr ovocabant, Agr . xliiuti l ia nonestis miscebant, Agr. viii) , arethe re fo re fully appre ciated by Tacituse . g . M ’

. Le pidus (Ann . iv . 20, vi .

L . Piso (Ann. vi . C . Cassius (Ann.

x ii . 1 2 , x iv , Agrico la (Agr . viii,xli i) .

But such men asHe l vidius, Priscus (H ist .iv. and Factus Th rasea (Ann . x iv . 1

are no t afte r h is heart . ’1 Some commentato rs e ven suppo sethat Mate rnus , in this l ast spe e ch , is re

fe rring to some o f th e po ints which Ape rh ad trie d to make in the ir intro ducto rydiscussion . Thus 36 . 20

‘ Iti cl iente l is

e tiam e x te rarum nationum r edundaoant’

may b e a rej o inde r to what Ape r h adstated 3 ad fin.

‘cum te to t co l oniarum

e t municipio rum cl iente l ae in f orumvocent

’

: Cp. also Mate rnus’

s d isparagement o f th e centumviral co urts ,3 8 . 10

, with Ape r’s re fe rence to them in

7 . 6.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x lii INTRODUCTION.

quaestionis meminer imus sciamusque nos de ea re l oqui quaef acil ius tur é idis

et inquieti s tempor i é us ex sistit. Andre se n thinks that in seve ral passage sin 40, 4 1 Mate rnus is taking up and replying to th e utte rance s o f th e

previous Spe ake r ; b ut it is much pre fe rab le to regard h im as emph asizing h is points by repe ti tion

1. And nothing is gaine d with regard to

th e allege d inconsiste ncy o f h is se ntiments by making Mate rnus onlyb egin to Spe ak at 40. 7 such an utte rapce as est magna il l a et notabil is

e l oquentia a l umna l icentiae, quam stul ti l ié ertatem vocaé ant

,comes seditionum,

&c . stands as much in ne e d o f th e e x planation which h as b e en givenab ove as anything that occurs in th e pre vious chapte rs , which are

assigne d, on th e theory unde r discussion, to Se cundus or Me ssal la.

Th e main argume nt in favo ur o f assigning to Se cundus th e wholespe e ch from chs . 3 6 to 4 1 is that it se ems appropriate in th e mouth o f

o ne who was inte nde d to act as a sort o f me diator b e twe e n Me ssal la

and Mate rnus. It is thought too that th e re fe rence to such a de tailas th e we aring o f th e paenula (3 9 . 3) is more natural in h is mouththan in that o f Mate rnus : cp . di l igentis stil i anx ietatem (l . whichhas b e e n taken as an indication o f Se cundus

’

s consciousne ss o f thischaracte ristic o f h is own style . Th e historical tone o f

’

ch . 3 6 , and th ere fe rence in 3 7 . 7 to th e lite rary lab ours o f Mucianus have b e en

thought to reve al th e studious b arriste r, who has alre ady made a namefo r himse lf by writing b iography (16 adBut

,if this spe e ch is give n to Se cundus, it is difficult to imagine that

anothe r can have falle n out afte r ch . 41, b e fore th e words F inieratM aternas in ch . 42. Th e discussion is fitly b rought to an e nd in th e

te x t as w e have it : anothe r Spe ake r cou ld no t have wound it up b e tte rthan with th e closing words o f ch . 4 1 bono saccul i sui quisque citra

o é tr ectationem a l ter ius utatur . The re is also th e othe r ob vious conside ration that if Se cundus is provide d fo r in 3 6—40, and Mate rnus in a suppose d lacuna afte r 4 1, it b e come s incre asingly diffi cult to conje cturewhat can have fi lle d th e gre at lacuna at th e e nd o f 3 5 . On th e

e x planation given ab ove o f h is pe rsonal attitude , the re is no re al diffi cultyin adhe ring to th e consistent tradition o f th e manuscript s and takingMate rnus as th e spe ake r o f chs. 3 6—41 in o ne continuous whole . We

se em to re cognize h is lofty style e ve n in‘

th e first se nte nce : M agna

e l oquentia, sicat fl amma, mater ia a l itur et motié us ex citatur cl urendo

1 In additio n to th e use o f th e beginning Quae ma la sicat non accidere

phrase ut subinde admoneo in th e pas me l ius est in 38 . 1 8 . Cp. al so N on

sage just quo ted , w e may compare th e qu ia tanta f uer it &c. in 37 . 2 7 withsentence beginning Quae singu l a etsi Sed ne e tanti r ei pub l icize 40

d istra lzebant in 36 . 14 with that ad fin.

THE INTERLOCUTORS AND THEIR PAR TS . x liii

cl ar esci l (3 6 . In ch s. 3 6 and 3 7 h is main point is cle arly and

distinctly state d . Just as afte rwards in ch s. 40 and 41 th e superio rity o f repub lican e loquence is fully re cognize d (40. 8 magna il l a et

notaé i l is e l oquentia tul it sine dué io va l entiorem el oquentiam ; 4 1. 2 2

summa i l l a l aus et gl or ia in e l oquentia : cp. 3 7 . so in the se openingchapte rs (as also in ch . 3 8 ) th e spe ake r se ts forth cle arly th e disad

vantage s that we re b ound up with a state o f things favourab le to th e

production o f gre at orators : il l a pertur é atione ac l icentia mix tis

omnié us et modem /or e uno car entié us tur é ia’is et inquietis tempor ibus .

Nothing o f this ne e d b e take n as censure ; th e speake r knows th e diff e re nce b e twe en pe ace and war (3 7 . and can appre ciate th e forme rwi thout failing to re cognize that th e latte r is th e b e st training-school o fsoldi e rs. But

,unlike Me ssal la

,Mate rnus doe s no t b e lie ve that a re turn

o f such political conditions is e ithe r practicab le or de sirab le . It mayb e impossib le now to re alize again th e magna oi notaé i l is e l oquentia thatwas th e glo ry o f th e repub lic, and fo r which Sh e paid so high a price

(3 6 . 1 4 ; 40. Things have altoge the r changed. Orators are o f le ssconseque nce now than they use d to b e

,and e loque nce has to conte nt

he rse lf with a contracte d sphe re (cp. omissis f or ensium causaram angus

tiis,4 . But Mate rnus can at le ast conso le himse lf by utilizing th e

advantage s o f h is own pe ace ful time s, and de voting himse lf to th e

pursuits o f a le arne d le isure (cp. 4 ad fin . sanctiorem itl am et augus

tior em e l oquentiam co l am) . High oratorical renown and se ttle d repose are

incompatib le with e ach othe r : the re fo re while re cognizing th e supe riorityo f th e e loquence which was nurture d on th e disorde r o f forme r time s , l ete ve ry o ne b e thankfu l fo r pe ace and quie tne ss—and make th e b e st useh e can o f h is tale nts and opportunitie s .

STYLE AND LANGUAGE .

THE importance o f a conside ration o f th e language and style o f th e

Dial ogue , as b e aring o n th e prob lem o f its authorship, h as b e e n indicate din th e introductory se ction . Its ob vious want o f re semb lance to th estyle o f th e Anna l s was th e fi rst ground o n which Lipsius and h is

1 Attention h as also be en called to que stio n and o the r indications o f a styl eh is frequent use o f th e figure Anap lzora pitched in a lo fty key, as w as that o f(se e p . lix) , as we l l as th e rhe to rical Mate rnus.

x l iv INTRODUCTION.

followe rs we re l ed to que stion th e genuine ne ss o f th e tre atise . C losee x amination has

,howeve r, furn ishe d many evidence s on

__

th e othe r side .

Critics are Still inde e d found who, like Novak, make th e undoub te dre semb lance which can b e trace d b e twe en th e language o f th e D ia l ogueand that o f th e I nstitutio Orator ia an argume nt fo r th e the ory that

Quintilian must have b e en th e author, no t Tacitus . But e x clusive attention to this re semb lance , e ve n though it e x tends in seve ral passage s tothought and sub stance as we l l as to forms o f e x pre ssion, is ve ry apt tomisle ad, e spe cially when it is ove rdone . A safe r me thod is to compareTacitus, not with Quintilian,

b ut with himse lf. Th e the ory o f a continuous deve lopment o f h is style through h is various writings has b e e nworke d out byWOl ffi in (Pni l ol ogus , x x v, pp. 9 2

—1 3 4) and othe r scholars1

;

and nume rous arguments in proof o f th e authorship o f Tacitus may nowb e drawn from th e ve ry source which forme rly supplie d antagonisticcritics with the ir most truste d we apons .In th e fi rst place it must b e repe ate d that, on th e the ory that th e

D ial ogue was th e work o f th e historian’s youth, it se ems to have b e e na natural and appropriate outcome o f th e studie s in which that youth isknown to have b e e n traine d . Th e e arly b ent o f a stude nt in those dayswas ge ne rally towards rhe toric and th e art o f pub lic spe aking. This wasth e b roade st avenue to pub lic life at Rome , and Tacitus may havefollowe d it from motive s o f gene ra l conformity as we l l as from privateand pe rsonal choice . But h is ge nius must have fe lt a strong affi nity fo rth e art which, in th e pe rfe ction which it had attaine d to unde r th erepub lic , stands now fo r us as o ne o f th e symb ols o f h is country

’s gre atne ss . We know that h e gaine d high distinction as an orator in th e

e arlie r part o f h is care e r . Th e younge r Pliny, who was only some six orseven ye ars h is junior, has le ft it on re cord that h is frie nd and correspo nde nt had alre ady e stab lishe d a gre at reputation (cum iam tu f ama

g l or iaque j l oreres, VII . 20, whe n h e himse lf was just e nte ring pub l ic life .

And e ve n afte r Tacitus had re tire d from th e profe ssion o f an advocate , h isfune ral e u logy o f Ve rginius Rufus (A.D. 9 7 ) gave proof o f h is gre at gifto f e loquence

2; while h is offi cial prose cution, conjointly with Pliny

, o f

Marius Priscus, proconsu l o f Africa (in 100 A.D.) e vidently produce don h is colle ague that impre ssion o f e levation and dignity which no re ade rcan fail to carry away from th e study o f th e historian’s works 3 .

1 Se e We inkauff, pp . x c—cl xx. Tacitus e l oquentissime cl , quad ex imiam

2 Pl in. Epp . i i . 1, 6 Laua

’atus est a oration i e ius inest, d ep t/Os. It sho uld b e

causa l e Corne l io Tacito : nam lzic supre no ted also that th e spe e che s which Tacitusmus f e l icitati e ius cumu lus accessit, l au inse rts in h is histo rical wo rks bear th edator e l oquentissimus. impre ss o f h is e arly rhe to rical studies

3 Ibid . ii. 1 , 17 Respondit Corne l ius exampl es are Agr. x x x (to which add th e

STYLE AND LANGUA GE. x l v

Such de fe cts as attache d to th e curriculum tlirough which th e youth o fRome was made to pass in th e days o f Tacitus (D ial . ch s. 30—3 3) we rereme die d and corre cte d , in h is case , b y th e appre ciative study o f th e

gre at mode ls o f forme r time s, e spe cially Cice ro . Of this study th e D ia l oguebe ars ob vious trace s, and nothing wil l strike th e reade r so much ,e spe cially at fi rst, as th e studie d re semb lance which its style b e ars to thato f th e gre at orator . It was while Tacitus was full o f a gene rous e nth usiasm fo r Cice ro and h is contemporarie s that h e is repre sente d as havinglistene d to th e conve rsation which th e tre atise emb odie s and e x pands ;and at th e date at w hich it is suppose d to have b e e n writte n h is style wasstill unde r th e influe nce

_

’

o f h is e arly studie s and pursuits1. It was

,in

fact,still in what may b e calle d its fi rst stage . In al l prob ab ility, Tacitus

had mode lle d h is e arlie st e fforts at th e b ar, as ne arly as was possib leafte r such an inte rval, on th e oratory o f Cice ro and h is gre at contem

po rarie s. It was this, no doub t, that drew Pliny to h im, and l ed h im tose le ct h is frie nd as an e x ample to b e followe d

2. The ir e arly association

must have b e en partly , at least, b ase d on a kindre d se ntime nt o f re ve rencefo r th e past. Now it is a known fact that Pliny was o ne o f Quintilian

’s

pupils (Epp . 11. 1 4, 9 vi. 6,

and it is inte re sting to spe culate on th e

prob ab ility that Tacitus too h ad come unde r th e influence o f th e gre atrhe torician . Quintilian had re turne d to Rome , from Spain, in th e traino f Galb a

,and prob ab ly lost little time

3 in commencing th e e ducationalcare e r with which h is name has e ve r since b e en so c lose ly associate d.

Tacitus may e ven have b e en o ne o f h is e arlie st pupils . Chronologyse ems to favour th e supposition, and th e nume rous points o f contactwhich e x ist b e twe e n th e two write rs add to its prob ab ility. It may haveb e e n from Quintilian himse lf that Tacitus imb ib

‘

e d that antipathy tome chanical me thods and th e tinse l ornaments o f unre al disputation whichreve als itse lf inMe ssal la

’

s spe e che s, as we ll as that b e lie f in th e supe riorityo f Cice ro which h e e vidently share s with th e same spe ake r. Quintilian

’smission at Rome

,then and afte rwards

,was to re cal l th e lite rature o f th e

day from th e studie d affe ctation and empty e legance that we re the n he ld

clo sing a strophe ) ; H ist. i . 15, 29, 37 ,8 3 ; ii . 7 iv . 58 , 64. 73 3 Annal s i . 4 2

58 ; ii . 38, 7 1 ; i ii . 1 2 ; iv . 34 , 3 7, 40 ,

vi . 8 ; x i . 24 ; x iv. 43 , 53 , 55 ; xv . 20.

Se e Walte r, de Tacit i studi i s rh e to ricis,p. 20 sqq.

1 One mino r indicatio n o f this fact isth e frequent re currence o f th e fo rmulaAt Izercu l e (I taque Izercu l e) which is fo undno fewe r than twe lve time s in th e Dia

l ogue , th e MSS . o f th e Y fami lygene rally

pre fe rring lzercu l e to nercle . Se e on 21. 8 .

2 Equ idec

m adu l escentu l us, cum iam tu

f ama g l or zaqu e f l oreros, te sequ i , tiaz

l ongo sed prox imus interva l l o et esse et

Izaoer i concupiscebam. Et crunt mu l ta

clar issima i ngen ia ,sed tu mihi

”(itaSimil itudo naturae fe re bat) maxime imi

tab i l is , maxime imitandus videb aris, Pl in .

Epp. vii.3 Se e Intro duction to Quintilian, Bo o kX,p . viii, no te 3 .

x lvi INTRODUCTION.

in repute to th e purity, Simplicity and naturalne ss o f repub lican mode ls .He make s this plain in th e course o f h is e stimate and criticism o f Sene ca

(x . 1,1 2 5 e spe cially in the se we ll-known words : corruptum et

omnié us vitiisf ractum dicendi g enus r evocare ad sever iora indicia contendo .

Cice ro h e he ld forth to h is pupils as th e gre at mode l fo r imitation nunc

ig itur spectemus, Il oc propositum no é is s it ex emp l um,il l e se prof i cisse scio t

cui Cicer o va l de p l ace é it (ib . It is not e x travagant , the re fore , toassume that Tacitus may have h ad th e b e ne fi t o f Quintilian

’s te aching.

But whe the r or no h e was, or had b e en , actual ly a stude nt in h is schoo lat th e time when th e dialogue is unde rstood to have taken place—7 5 A. it is impossib le to b e lie ve that in th e inte rval which e lapse d

b e twe e n that date and th e composition o f th e tre atise Tacitu s in no waycame unde r th e influence o f o ne who w as gradually making himse lfa powe r at Rome . In th e ye ar 7 5 , th e historian is unde rstood to haveb e en only ab out twe nty ye ars o f age , and had prob ab ly just arrive d at th estage o f looking forward to actual practice in th e ce ntumviral courts : w eknow that it was at this age that h is younge r contemporary Pliny b eganh is profe ssional work (Epp . v. 8 , For th e re st

,h e h ad attache d himse lf

as an e nthusiastic pupil and companion to two o f th e most famouscounse l o f th e day, Marcus Ape r and Julius Se cundus : and h is ze alousatte ndance o n the se maste rs (se e ch . 2) is de scrib e d quite in th e Spirit o fo ne who knew th e value o f th e re commendation which Quintilian laysdown fo r th e aspiring advocate , orator em s ibi a l iquem, quod apud maior es

fi er i so l ebat, de l egat quem sequatur , quem imitetur (X . 5 , Eve n if h is

preparatory training had b e en comple te d by this time , without any assistance from Quintilian , there is still th e prob ab ility that o ne who wase vidently so we ll marke d out fo r a succe ssful care e r as Tacitus musthave b e en b rought in various ways into contact with th e author o f th eI nstitutio . Apart from al l opportunitie s o f pe rsonal inte rcourse withinth e circle o f a conge nial

“ lite rary socie ty, Tacitus may have had re courseto th e gre at te ache r fo r profe ssional he lp. Quintilian

’s pupils we re no t

all b oys . Th e study and practice o f de clamation we re continue d atRome into late r life . The re is an ample inte rval in th e n ine or ten ye arsfollowing A.D. 7 5 fo r some re lationship to have b e en e stab lished, e ithe r

pe rsonal or profe ssional or b oth , b e twe en two o f th e most inte re stingfigure s in th e history o f the ir time .

But howe ve r this may b e , the re can b e no que stion o f Tacitus’

s e arlyappre ciation o f Cice ro, or o f th e e ffe ct o f this appre ciation on th e style o f

th e D ial ogue . One ne e ds only to re ad a few chapte rs to re cognize th e

fact that it diff e rs as much from th e artificial, ove rdone , and a ff e cte d lyincisive style which was popu lar at th e time -as from that which Tacitus

STYLE AND LANGUA GE. x lv i i

himse lf sub sequently deve loped in th e Annal s . In th e historian’s late stw ork eve ry word is charge d with almost mo re than its prope r share o f

me aning, and th e re ade r’s mind is kept alw ays on th e strain . In th e

D ia l ogue e ve rything is th e opposite . The re th e style is e asy,full

,

flue nt,and continuous. The re is a regular, we ll-b alance d, pe riodic

structure , which involve s at time s a ce rtain copiousne ss even b orde ring o n re dundancy 1. Only in th e use o f a fe w pe culiar words and

phrase s, in a gre ate r lax ity o f grammatical constructions, in th e infusiono f a ce rtain poe tical co louring, and in th e fre e use o f figure s is th einflue nce o f th e Silve r Age at all prominent. Th e style o f th e D ial ogue ,

in Short,is pre tty much what might have b e e n e x pe cted a pr ior i in

a work compose d while its author w as still comparative ly a young man ,

give n h is individual sympathie s, h is oratorical training, h is admiration fo rth e e loque nce o f th e past, and th e characte r o f h is sub j e ct. In th e

Ag r ico la w e have th e fi rst stage in th e transition to th e stylistic ide alw hich Tacitus afte rwards re alize d in th e Anna l s . The re is no suspiciono f re dundancy : th e narrative is compact and th e pe riods characte rize d bya gre ate r b revity than those o f th e D ia l ogue . Th e Germania falls stillfurthe r away from rhe torical rotundity : the re is an ob vious tendency todispense with al l words that are no t indispe nsab le to th e thought, and

gre ate r disjointe dne ss in th e pe rio dic structure , such as it is, owing toa ce rtain disregard o f conne cting links . But though th e Agr ico l a and

th e Germania we re writte n some thirte e n or fourte e n ye ars afte r th eD ia l ogue, whe n Tacitus w as ove r forty ye ars o f age , they pre se nt se ve ralfe ature s o f contact with the ir pre de ce ssor

2. No t to mention ordinary

instance s o f synonyms ’ (th e employme nt o f which in th e D ia l og ue is

motive d by a love o f rhe torical fulne ss) and hendiadys, the re is some

thing characte ristic ab out th e way in which the se figure s are accumu late din Opposite groups . Take , fo r e x ample , th e following from th e Dial ogue :

2. 1 1 ingenio potius cl vi naturae quam institutione et l itter is ; 24 . 4 non

so l um ingenio ac spir itu, sed etiam eruditione cl arte ; 3 3 . 9 neque enim so l um

1 What cou l d b e mo re Cice ronian thansuch a passage as th e fo l lowing (5 .

sed ipsum so l um apud l i os arguam quod

natus ad e l oqu entiam v ir i l em et o rator iam,

qua par e re simu l et tu er i amicitias,ad

scisce re necessitud ines, comp l ectiprov incias

passi i , omittit studium qua non a l iud in

civitate no stra ve l ad uti l itatemf ru ctuosius ve l ad vo l uptatem iucundius ve l ad

d ign itatem ampl iu s ve l ad u rb is f amampu l cfi r ius ve l ad totia s impe r i i atque

omn ium gentium uotitiam in l ustr ius

ex cogi tar i potest. Nam si ad uti l itatem

v itae omn ia consi l iaf actaque nostra der igenda sunt, qu id est tutius quam eam

ex e rcer e artem qua semper armatus praes idium amicis , opem a l ion is , sa l utem pe r icl itantibus, inv idis vero cl in imicis metum

et terr orem u l tro f eras, ipse securus et

ve l ut quadam perpetua potentia acpotestate mun itus

2 The se have be en wo rked o ut, pe rhapsin e xce ssive de tail , byWe inkauff o nly th emo re strik ing instance s o f re semblanceare given he re cp . Janse n, pp . 76

—79 .

3 Se e p . Ii.

x lv iii INTR ODUCTI ON .

arte et scientia, sed l ongo mag isf acu l tate et usu ; 3 7 . 10 non vir ibus modo et

armis, sed ing enia quoque et or atione ; 19 . 2 3 vi cl potestate , non‘ iur e aut

l eg ié us ; 28 . 1 9 non studia modo carasque , sed r emissiones etiam l ususque .

Compare with the se passage s, Agr . iii. 4 non spem modo ac votum sed

ipsius votifi duciam ac roé ur ; iv. 1 7 scil icet sub l ime et er ectum ingenium

pul c/zr itudinem ac speciem magnae ex ce l saeque g l or iae ve/zementius quam

caute appeteé at; x x x i. 4 bonaf ortunaeque in tr ibutam,ager atque annus in

f rumentum ; x x x iii. 1 2 nonf ama nec rumore sed castrzls et armis tenemus

Germ. x x v . 7 non discip l ina cl sever itate sed impetu ci ira ; x x vn. 6 l amenta

et l acr imas cito,do l orem et trzlstitiam tarde ponunt x l i. 6 cum ceter i sg enti

bus arma modo castraque ostendamus , lzis domos vi l lasque patejf i cimus . In

all thre e tre atise s again the re are frequent instance s o f th e constructionknown as oratio bimembr is, and tr imemé r is,» —th e de ve lopment o f an ide ain a phrase consisting o f two or more parts . Of this th e following mayb e take n as e x ample s

D ia l . 20. 8 Vu lgus quoque adsis Ag r . x xix . I 3 omnis iuventus

tentium et aaj‘l uens et vagus auditor . quib us cruda 3 C v iridis sene ctus .

D ia l . 29 . 10 h istr ioua l is f av or cl Ag r . XIV. I Ob se ssam curiam

g l adiatorum equorumque studia .clausum armis senatum.

D ia l . 16 . 26 ad naturam saecu l a

rumac respectum immensi Izuius acu i .

D ia l . 12. 8 in i l l a casta et nu l l is

contacta v iti ispectora .

D ia l . 40. 10 sine obsequio , s ine

v eritate , contumax,temerar ia , ad

Dial . 13 . 17 a so l l icitudini bus o i Ag r . x iii. 1 dil e ctum ac trib uta et

cur is et necessitate cotid ie al iquid iniuncta impe rii mune ra.

contra animumf aciendi .

D ia l . 6. 1 1 Izomines v ete res cl senes Ag r . x l i. I 3 vigo rem e t constantiam

et totius o rbis g ratia suonix os . e t e x pe rtum b e llis animum.

D ia l . 28 . 26 sincera cl integ ra et Germ. iv. 2 propriam e t s ince ram

nu l l is prav itati bus detorta unius e t tan tum sui Simil em gentem.

cuiusque natura .

Many othe r paralle lisms are Ci te d in th e note s, as they occur, andce rtainly claim a place in th e argument fo r ide ntity o f authorship .

Re fe rence may also b e made to ce rtain Significant phrase s, some o f whichse em,

as it we re , to anticipate th e author’s late r powe r o f nove l and

Ag r . x vi. 26 inno cens Bo l anus

nul l is de l ictis invisus .

Germ. x . 13 candidi e t nullo mo rtali ope re co ntacti.

Germ. x x v111. 5 promiscuas adh uc e t

nulla regno rum po tentia d ivisas .

Ge rm . x xxv . 8 Sine cupid itate , sine

impo ten tia, quie ti se cre tique .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 INTRODUCTION.

is even allowe d (23 ad init .) to raise a laugh ove r th e hackneye d esse

videatur as w e l l as ove r some o f Cice ro’s infe rior witticisms (r otamF ortunae

,ius Verr inum,

Me ssal la, o n th e othe r hand, quote s h imas a high authority on th e ne ce ssity o f a wide philosophical culture fo rth e orator (32.

Th e se arch fo r spe cifi c re semb lance s in th e Dial ogue to th e languageand phrase ology o f Cice ro is liab le to b e ove rdone 1. Little is to b e

gaine d by re cording fo rtuitous coincide nce s o f e x pre ssion b e twe e n twoauthors

, e x cept in case s whe re th e phrase s use d by b oth are marke d bysome thing more or le ss characte ristic and striking. In this view, suchex pre ssions as th e following mayb e note d as b e ing no t improb ab ly (se e th enote s) conscious reminiscence s o f Cice ro rathe r than th e curre nt coino f th e language o f Tacitus

’

s o wn day : diem ex imer e, 19 . 10 ; contro

vers ias tuer i, 10. 3 7 ; redo l ent antiquitatem, 21. 1 8 ; animorum venas

tenere, 3 1. 1 9 . Othe r re semb lance s will b e found duly note d in th e

comme ntary, but it may b e conve nient to give a r e’

sume’

o f them alsohe re (cp. Go e lze r, p. x x x v

,note ) . Take th e first b ook o f th e De Orator e

and~cp. 2 0 etenim ex r erum cognitione qfiz

’orescat et redundet oportet

oratio with Dia l . 30. 2 3 ; 5 3 ni si qui naturas b ominum vimque omnem

lzumanitatis penitas perspex er it w ith 3 1. 1 0 ; 7 2 artibus quae sunt

l ibero h omine dignac quibus ipsis , s i in dicendo non utimur,tamen

apparet atque ex stat utrum simas earum r erum rudes an did icer imus with3 2. 4 3 2 arma quibus ve l tectus ipse esse possis vel provocar e impr obos

ve l te u l cisci l acessitus with 5 . 2 8 ; 3 1 quid enim est tam admirabil e

quam ex infi nita multitudine ex istere unum with 6 . 1 5 ; 1 1 6 profi ter i

se esse omnibus sil en/ibus unum with th e same passage ; 9 7 uti ez

qui audir ent s ic afi cerentur animis ut cos afi ci ve l l et orator with 6 . 1 7 ;

and finally th e de finition o f orator quote d from De Or . i. 1 5 , 64 in th e

note s o n 30. 2 6 . Cp. also with 3 7 . 14 H is accedebat, &c. ,De Or . i . 1 5

Ex cil abat eos magnitudo var ietas mul titudoque in omni g enere causarum.

Reminiscence s o f th e B rutus will b e found at 30. 1 3 and I 6 ; 8 . 1 5

3 3 . 1 3 . But it is in th e ge ne ral fulne ss o f th e style o f th e D ial ogue

that th e influence o f Cice ro’s writings o n its author may b e st b e trace d.

Such synonyms as th e following (some time s with a Slightly diffe re ntShade o f me aning) have a distinctly Cice ronian ring ab out them, and

have in fact b e en e x actly paralle le d by We inkauff and othe rs animi

et ing enii, cl amore plausuque , divitiae et opes, f ama et l aus, vis etf acultas,memor ia et recordatio , modestia acpudor e , operae curaeque .

1 As is true , in fact, o f th e first part as co ntaining equall y striking instance so f Kle ibe r’s tractate (pp . 1 tho ugh o f diffe rence .

th e next po rtion (pp. 33—70) is valuab le

STYLE AND LAN GUAGE . l i

As th e Syn o nym s and othe r forms o f doub le e x pre ssion in th e D ia l oguehave e ngage d a gre at de al o f attention, as forming an important parto f th e inte rnal evidence advance d by many against th e authorship o f

Tacitus, a more or le ss comple te list may b e give n he re , with th e additiono f th e more striking o f th e paralle lisms from Cice ro , Sene ca, and Quintilian which have b e e n col le cte d by th e industry o f such write rs as We in

kauff, G e ricke , Gruenwald, Kle ib e r, and No vak.

1. 13 . memori a et r ecordati one : cp. Cic .Lae l . 103 re co rdatio e tmemo ria ;De Pr ov . Cons . 43 ultimi tempo ris re co rdatione e t pro x imi memo ria.

2. 16 . industr iae et l abo r is . Cic . B rut. 237 , Ad F am. x iii. I o , 3 .

4 . 2 . f requeus et assidua contenti o . Quint. x i. 2,2 8 continua e t cre b ra

me ditatio .

4 . 3 . ag itare et insequi . Cic . P r o M ur . 2 1.

5 . 23 . metum et terr orem . Ag r . x x x ii. 8 Cic . Verr . iv . 19, 41.

5 . 24 . potentia acpotestate : se e no te ad l o c.

6 . 3 . l i be ro et ing enuo so Quint . D e cl . 10 1, 8 ; 351, 22 (e d. Ritte r) .6 . 5. p l enum etf r equentem domum.

6 . 1 I b omines v eter es ci senes .

6 . 22 . nov um et r econtem curam cp. 8 . 3 nov is et recentibus ex empl is .

So H ist. iv . 65, 15 no va e t re ce ntia iura C ic. P r o F l acc. § 6 lege h ac re cent iac no va Liv . 35 I O no va ac re centia omnia.

7 . 8 . tuer i et defi ndere se e no te ad l oc .

7 . 1 1 . f ama et l aus . Quint . Decl . 37 , I 4 laude e t fama.

7 . I 7 . adv enae etpereg r ini .

8 . 7 . numen et cae l estis v is .

8 . 1 1 . s ordidius et abiectius : so Ann . xiii. 46, 16 ab ie ctum e t so rdidum :

cp . Quint . 11. 12 , 7 ; Se n . Ep. 37 , 4 .

8 . 12 . paupertas et ang ustiae rerum.

9 . 1. carm ina et v e rsus : se e no te .

9 . 15. ex cudit cl e l ucubravit : se e no te .

9 . 2 1. certam et so l idam f rug em. Quint. De cl . 1 16, 2 fi rmam so lidamque .

9 . 29 . e l abo ra re et qfi cer e . Cic . Ad Fa in . ix . 16, 2 .

9 . 3 1 . nemo ra et l ucos . Germ. ix . 8 ; x . 12 x lv . 22 : cp. Quint . x . 3 , 22nemo ra s il vasque .

10. 14 . sacras et v enerabi l es . Sen . Ep . 14 , 1 1 and 55, 4 ; Quint . Decl . 345,

14 sacram e t v ene rab il em cp. 2 70, 2 5.

10. 2 2 . r o bur ac v ires. H ist. ii. 1 1 , 9 virium ac ro b o ris (whe re v ires re fe rshowe ve r to nume rical strength) cp. Quint . v . 12 , 18 ro bur ac lace rto s.

10. 3 1. fortuitae et subitae dicti onis s e e no te .

11. 7 . efi ice re et oniti . Cic. Ami e . 59 : cp. D iv . in Caec. 26.

l l . 1 1 . no titiae ac nominis, and again at 36. 19 .

12. 5 . l ocapura atque innocentia .

12. 12 . po etis et v ati bus.

l ii INTRODUCTION.

13 . I 7 . so l l icitudinibus et cur is. Cic. D e F in . v . 57 : cp. Quint. Decl .

50, 9 ; Inst. Or . x i. 1, 44.

14. I 6. eruditionis ac l itte rarum so‘ do ctrina e t l itte rae ’

e . g. Quint .x i. 1, 89 .

15 . I . v etera et antiqua, and again 16. 32 ; 17 ad fin. So Plaut . P ers .

1 . 2 , 1 ve te rem e t antiquum quae stum ; Pl in . P an. 1 1, 4 v ete re s e t antiquo s

aemul aris Cic. P l ei l . v . 47 maio re s no stri, ve te re s illi, admodum antiqui

Quint. Decl . 235, 14 ve tus e t antiqua.

17 ad fin . coniung ere et copu l are . Quint .Decl . 57 , 26 coniunx istis co pul astis

que cp. C ic . De Or . i . 222 iungi cOpul arique ; Or . 154 Pl in.Ep . v iii. 20, 6.

18 . 1 . f ama g l or iaque .

18 . 7 . f ortins et audentius .

18 . 9 . pl eni or et uber i or : se e no te .

18 . 19. infl atus et tumous .

imper itas et rudis . Sen. Ep. 7 2 , 9 and e lsewhe re ; Quint . Decl .

386, 1 1 rudem e t impe ritam.

19 . 22 . v i etpotestate . H ist. 11. 39 , 2 v is ac po te stas ; iii. 1 1 , I 5 Quint .D ecl . 301, 1 1 v i e t po te state ; I nst. Or . x i. 3 , 2 : cp . Germ. x l u . 8 vis e t

po tentia.

20. 6. nitore et cu l tu se e no te . Add Quint . x i. 1 , 48 .

20. I O . tri stem et impex am. Quint . D e cl . 67 , 2 8 impe x i squal idique .

21. 32 . durus et siccus . Quint . iv. 2 , 46 durum aridumque .

22. 18 . v isum et ocul os .

22. 25. uno et e odem. Quint. x i i . 10, 5 1 unum atque idem.

23 . 2 5. ma l ignitas et inv idia : cp. non mal ignitate ne c inv idia, 25 . 28 ;

Sene ca, De I ra iii . 5, 8 , and Ep. 106, 6 .

25 . 26. inv idere et l iv e r e .

25 . 28 . simpl iciter et ing enuo. Quint . x i i . 1 1, 8 candide

simplicite r.26 . 2 . optima etperf ectissimo g ene r e cp . 34. I 8 optimus et e l ectissimus .

26. 18 . modestia acpudo r e cp . Ann . iii . 26, 6 .

26. 2 8 . inpub l icum et in commune .

26. 33 . f racta et dominata .

28 . 16. probatis spectatisque . Cic. D e Or . 1 124 .

28 . 19 . stud ia enrasque . Quint . x . 7 , 29 cura e t studio .

29 . 9. pr opr ia et pecu l iar ia : cp. Sue t. Aug . 5 Pl in . Pan .

'

2 .

30. 2 2 . r erum motus causasque .

30. 24. ex undat et ex uberat.

30. 25. o rato r is v is etf acu l tas se e no te .

30. 26. aug ustis et brev ibus terminis se e no te .

32. 6 . eminet et ex ce l l it.

32. 14 . f oeda acpudenda v itia .

32. 20. circumcisa ct amputata se e no te .

32. 2 2 . primam etpraeczpuam : se e no te .

32. 28 . causae magnae etg raves.

33 . 9 . confi rmar e et a l er e . Quint. i . 1, 36 fi rmatur atque al itur.

STYLE AND LANGUAGE . l iii

33. I 3 . initia et semina : se e no te .

33. 15 . institui erudir ique .

36 . 5 . composita et quieta . Sen . Ep . 100, 8 quie tum compo situmque .

36 . 26 . conspicuum et eminentem l ocum.

36. 34. mutum et e l ingu em : se e no te .

3 7 . 12 . mu l tum operae curaeque .

3 7 . 22 . cl aram et in l ustrem.

3 7 30. turbidis et inqu ietis tempori bus cp. securus et quietus , 13 . 4 .

3 7 . 35 a l tio r et ex ce l si or .

39 . 8 . l iber i et so l uti : se e no te .

39 . 27 . e x citare et incende r e .

40. 8 . magna et notab i l is e l oquentia .

41. 2 2 . l aus etg l or ia . Quint . ii. 16, 19 ; viii. 3, 12 .

41. 23 . modus et temperamentum .

That Tacitus did not lay aside all at once th e ‘ rotundity ’

o f e x pre ssionwhich the se e x ample s illustrate might b e shown by citations from h is

late r works. Cp. fo r e x ample Agr . iv. 1 6 incensam acf l agrantem animam

ib id . 1 7 scil icet subl ime et erectum ingenium pul cb r itudinem ac speciem

magnae ex cel saeque g l or iae veb ementius quam caute adpetebat ; Ag r . vi. 1 4

quiete cl o l io (as also x lii . Germ. x x iv. 7 ex tr emo ac novzlssimo iac/u,

and many othe r instance s which he lp to Show th e continuity o f h is

stylistic de ve lopment, in spite o f th e wide gulf that separate s h is late s tfrom h is e arlie st lite rary e ffort .Some o f th e paral le lisms from Qu inti l i an quote d in th e foregoing list,

and othe rs which wil l b e found in th e note s , wil l remind th e re ade ro f th e points o f contact which e x ist b e twe en th e author o f th e Dial ogueand th e gre at contemporary profe ssor o f rhe toric . It is

, o f course ,e x treme ly crude to say, with some critics—e ve n while accepting th e

view that th e composition o f th e work must b e assigne d to th e re igno f Titus or th e e arly ye ars o f Domitian— that Quintilian

’s I nstitutio musthave se rved

,e spe cial ly in regard to phrase ology and te rminology, as th e

mode l fo r who le passage s o f th e D ial ogue . Th e I nstitutio was no t

pub lishe d til l th e e arlie r part o f th e last de cade o f th e ce ntury, and itis impossib le the re fore that it can have b e en in Tacitus

’

s hands te nor e leve n ye ars previously. But th e mate rials o f which it consists hadb e en put toge the r in th e course o f Quintilian

’s long care e r as a te ache ro f rhe toric : and if Tacitus had not actually studie d unde r h im,

h e hadno doub t me thods o f acquainting himse lf with th e sub stance and gene ralcharacte r o f th e te aching which was b e ing imparte d to th e youth o f

Rome . Th e similarity o f th e subje c t matte r o f th e Dia l ogue to thato f portions o f th e I nstitutio is e nough in itse lf to sugge st inevitab lere semb lance s . Th e prope r me thods o f e lementary instruction (cp . I nst.

l iv INTRODUCTION.

i . 1 and D ia l . 30 th e d isadvantage s o f th e e x isting school-training(i . 2 and Dial . its moral e ff e cts (i. 2 , 4 and D ial . th e place

o f rhe toric in e ducation (11. 1 and Dial . th e criticism o f lite rature

(cp. Ape r’s and Me ssal la

’s Spe e che s with th e corre sponding parts o f

Quint . x . 1 )— al l the se are sub je cts in regard to which th e two write rsse em to have had much in common . Th e fact that the ir ve rdicts onothe rs do no talways coincide ought, howeve r, to b e notice d as an additionaldisproof o f th e the ory, late ly re vive d by Novak, that it was Quintilianwho wrote th e D ia l ogue fo r e x amp le the re is a Slight diff e re nce in the ir

e stimate o f th e pr ooemia o f Me ssal la Co rvinus (se e on 20. Vib ius

Crispus is spoke n o f with more appre ciation b y Quintilian than by

Tacitus (se e o n 8 . and Sal e ius Bassus is cre dite d with a highe rdegre e o f poe tical pe rfe ction by th e latte r than by th e forme r (se eon 5 . Cp. too what is said o f Lucan, 20. 1 9 .

It would hardly have b e en possib le fo r o ne writing within twenty ye arso f th e de ath o f S en e ca to avoid Showing any signs o f th e influence o f

that ve rsatile write r . In th e Opposition b e twe en th e te nde ncie s whichh e repre sente d and th e simple r and more natural diction re comme nde db y Quintilian, Tacitus no doub t side d with th e latte r : b ut h e could no t

e scape a ltoge the r from th e e ffe ct s which th e study o f th e philosophe r’s

writings produced on th e minds o f h is re ade rs, and against which,e spe cially in th e case o f young students, Quintilian so strongly prote sts

(x . 1,1 2 5 Whe n Tacitus was a young man, Sene ca was th e most

popu lar o f Roman authors : tum autem sol us Izic f ere in manibus adul es

centiumf ai l (I. It is mainly in dive rge nce s from ordinary ph rase ology that re semb lance s have b e e n note d, and the se wil l b e found in th e

commentary : they have b e en colle cte d, again in e x ce ssive de tail, byWe inkauff (pp. cliii sqq.) and Kle ib e r (pp . 74 Re fe re nce ne e donly b e made he re to th e frequent re currence o f th e Opposition b e twe e nsensus and sententiae (se e on 20. I 6 32. th e use o f incipit (16 .

imbui (19 . znfim'

l us (fo r magnus, 14 . 1 2 and 15 . obl ectare otium

(10. 1 2 cp. otium suum obl ectat, Se n . D ial . i . 5, in eodem val etua’inar io,

21. 4, &c .,&c.

Taking now a gene ra l review o f th e language o f th e D ial ogue, w e maystate its main pe culiaritie s, unde r various he ads, as unde rTh e following words are

,in th e fi rs t place , to b e note d as occurring

in th e D ial ogue fo r th e first time (Draege r b istr ional is 29 . 1 0 ;

proel iator 3 7 . 3 2 ; p lanitas 23 . 2 4 ; scur r i l itas 22. 2 4 unif ormis 32.

dcpacare 3 8 ad fin.

He re is a list o f words which,though not pe culiar to Tacitus, Show

STYLE AND LANGUAGE . IV

in the ir use and application th e influence o f th e Silve r Age . Fore x planation and illustration re fe re nce may b e made to th e note s .Admirator 19 . 1 and 21. 2 4 ; antiquar ius 21. 1 8 ; auditor ium 9 . 1 8 ; aur es

(o f‘ taste se e on 19 . 7 and 3 4 . 1 6 ; beatus 9 . 1 9 ; conversatio 9 . 30 ; cura

(o f a b ook) 3 . 1 3 enervis 18 . 2 5 ; ex cessus 22. 1 1 ex tempora l is 6 . 2 4 ;

ex undare 30. 2 4 ; f abul osas 12. 1 9 ; f acultates (= opes) 8 . 1 5 f avorabi l is

(=g ratiosus) 7 . 3 ; inser ere 2. 1 2 ; insumere 30. 4 ; l enocinar i 6 . 2 4 ;

ma l ignus 3 . 4 (found in Plautus, Ve rgil, and Horace : no t in Cice ro) ;merer i 9 . 2 6 (fo r consequi, as ofte n in Quintilian) neg otium 9 . 1 1 ;

notitia 5 . 1 9 odorar i 19 . 1 5 ; ofi cium (o f an office or post) 6 . 7 ; otiosus

18 . 2 4 ; p l er ique 2. 10 ; p l erumque 6 . 9 ; prof ecias 20. 1 2 ; rubor 3 7 . 1 ;

scurr i l itas 22 ad fin . (cp. Quint . x i . 1, secessus 13 . 4 (in Cice ro

r ecessus) statim (o f logical conseque nce ) 18 . 1 5 stadere (use d ab so

l ute ly) 21. 30 ; studiosus 21. 9 ; substantia 8 . 1 5 .

In regard to th e use o f N o un s, pe rhaps th e most remarkab le fe ature

is th e e x te nsion o f th e liking fo r ab stract plurals to such case s asadvocationes 4 . 4 comitatus cl egr essas 6 . 1 4 ; util itates 9 . 3 (cp . Ann. i.

1 0, curd e 28 . 2 1 remissiones ib id . educationes 28 . 2 4 pravitates

28 . 2 6 . Among pe cul iar ve rb al nouns in -tor w e have , in additionto pr oe l iator and admirator cite d ab ove , def ensor 24 . 7 , not to me ntion auditor 32. 2 5 . Ex ample s o f th e use o f ab stract fo r concre te are

amicitia 8 . 1 8 ing enia 2. 5 : cp. inventio 23 . 2 2 . On th e othe r handstriking instance s o f th e use o f a noun and a participle to repre sent anab stract ide a may b e found at 29 . 1 1 and 3 7 . 2 5 .

Th e employme nt o f A dj e ctiv e s as nouns (ve ry common in th e Silve rAge : se e Introd . to Quint. X, p . x lvi is e x emplifie d in secre/um

12. 1 (cp. Quint. x . 3 , 30 il l e tantus amator secr eti Demostb enes) and

studiosus 21. 9 (Cp. Quint. x . 1, 45 f aci l e est studiosis iudicare ; Pl in . Ep .

viii . So too participle s : dicentium 6 . 1 8 orantibus 6 . 2 0 ; prae

cipientium 28 . 7 medentis 4 1. 10 ; reg entis 4 1. 1 3 : cp. servientium,Agr .

x 1. 1 3 peccantium ib . iv. 1 0 l audantes ib . x l i. 4 . Th e use o f pl acita

(pb i l osopborum placita 19 . 1 8 ) is common in th e historical works o f

Tacitus, in Sene ca, and in th e post-Augustan write rs gene rally : e .g .

Pl in . N . H. 14 , 2 2 , 2 8 , 143 . Th e omission o f a sub stantive may alsob e note d in such phrase s as in l evior ibus 10. 2 0, and bacc vetera

1

3 7 . 6 ;

also with omnibus 19 . 1 9 3 6 . 8 . In th e comparison o f participle s, b oth

pre sent and pe rfe ct, when use d as adj e ctive s, Tacitus follows th e

e x ample alre ady set by Cice ro and Livy. In th e D ial ogue w e haveaudentior 14 . 10 (cp . audentior ibus spatiis, ITist. ii. 2 , eminentior 25 .

7 ; coniunctior 5 . 5 ; distinctior 18 . 10 ; abso l utissimus 5 . 6 : cp. abiectius

8 . 1 1 . SO afte rwards,in th e Anna l s

,obaeratior vi . 1 7 , 4 ; improvisior 11.

lv i INTRODUCTION.

4 7 , 1 ; insignitior iii . 70, 10 ; metuentior x iii. 25 , 1 5 , and many othe r

instance s. Among more or le ss pe culiar use s o f adje ctive s may b e

note df ecundas 3 3 . 5 (fi cundissima corum studia : cp . Quintilian’s phrase

studiorum f ructus x . 3 , 2 ; x i i . 6 , 3 ; 1 1, beatus 9 . 1 9 ; altus 14 . 3

(a l tior sermo , i . e . gravz’

or sermo : cp . Quint . iii. 8 , 4 2 a l tior quaestio) : alsoth e pe rsonal construction with manyestus 16 . 1 1 . Th e pe cu liar use o f th e

future participle may also b e me ntione d h e re : se e on mansurum 9 . 2 2 .

As to P ro n o un s , th e use o f b ic with re fe re nce to contemporarycircumstance s is characte ristic b oth o f Tacitus and Quintilian : se e on

28 . 9 ; 32. 1 3 , and cp. 3 7 . 6 ; Ge rm. iii. 3 , x x . 1 . Instance s of '

et ipse

occur 30. 1 and 3 7 . 1 5 .

In regard to V e rb s,it is we ll known that Tacitus shows a growing

te nde ncy to pre fe r simple forms to the ir corre sponding compounds .He re are a few e x ample s . Adsuescere occurs D ial . 20. 9 ; 34 . 6 ; Ag r .

x vi . 1 9 ; x x i. 3 ; Germ. iv. 8 : suescer e,Ann. 11. 44 , 2 ; 5 2 . 4 ; x iv. 2 7 , 8 .

Adiuvare, D ial . 16 . 7 ; Ag r . x x i. 4 : iuvare, II ist. v. 2 3 , 5 ; Ann . 11. 7 8 ,

9 . I nnotescere,D ia l . 10. 5 ; Hist. iv. 50 , 2 , whe re as notescere is th e form

used in th e Annal s . Demonstrare occurs four time s in th e D ia l ogue,

e . g. 7 . 1 7 : in th e Ag r ico l a and Germania th e Simple form is found asfreque ntly. Th e author’s pre fe rence , in th e D ia l ogue , fo r compoundforms is made an argument fo r th e re te ntion o f depacaverat 3 8 ad fin.

,

w he re se e note . Cp. th e frequent use in th e Anna l s o f paratus fo r

apparatus (Dial . 22. On th e othe r hand w e have in th e D ial ogue

fl ex isse 19 . 4 ; fi nir e (fo r dcy‘inir e) 3 8 . 6 ; cludere 30. 2 6 ; pensare 40 ad

fin . ; vanescere 10. 2 5 ; fl rr e (fo r qf er r e) 19 . 1 7 f ater i 17 . 1 7 32. 9

cp . also 25 . 9 : while a few case s are doub tful,as sequitur—znsequitur 10. 3 ,

and pe rhaps b ortatur—ex lzortatur 14 . 9 .

It is hardly ne ce ssary to il lustrate th e deve lopment o f th e usage bywhich compound ve rb s take a simple accusative inste ad o f a prepositionalconstruction : cp. howe ve r anteceder e 25 . 1 5 ; praecurrere 25 . 5 , and se e

Draege r 40 .

Th e freque nt use o f th e pe rfe ct subjunctive , in mode st asse rtions , isalso to b e note d, e .g. timuer im 13 . 2 ; cesser it 13 . 10 ; di x er im 3 2. 2 2 ;

vocaver im 18 . 4 ; non negaver im 26 . 14 Draege r 2 8 . SO e ven at sic

dix er im 3 4 . 8 ; 40. 1 9 .

Among othe r pe cu liaritie s may b e mentioned a ce rtain pre fe re nce fo rth e plural ve rb e ven in case s whe re it is use d with two antithe ticalnominative s , e .g. 42. 6 Ego te poetis, M essal l a autem antiquarzzs cr imina

bimar . In othe r write rs,th e ve rb naturally fo llows th e numb e r o f th e

se cond nominative . Cp. II ist. ii. 30, 14 Caecina ut f b ea’

um ac macu

l osum, il l e ut tumidum ac vunum inr ia

’

ebant: so censuer e , Ann. i. 8 , 1 4 ;

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

lviii INTRODUCTION.

iure aut l eg ibus, though Quint . Decl . 2 1 2 , 1 9 iure l eg ibusque, and 7 9 . 2 7

l egibus ac iur e may b e cite d in support Of ac or et. I deoque (fo r itaque)3 1. 3 2 (cp. atque ideo 3 . 1 2) this form is ve ry freque nt also in Quintilianse e o n x . 1

,2 1 . Ig itur stands se cond in th e sente nce at 8 . 2 8 10. 35 ;

23 . 20 : cp. Agr . x vi. 1 2 ; Germ. x lv. 2 2 ; Hist. iv. 1 5 , 1 5 ; Ann . i .

47 , 5 . Elsewhe re in Tacitus , unlike Cice ro, it is always fir st . Quin

immo 6 . 7 ; 3 4 . 2 4 ; 3 6 . 2 4 3 9 . 9 (fo r th e more Cice ronian quin etiam ;

29 . so too in Quintilian vii. 1 0,8,and e lsewhe re : in th e Annal s

,

Tacitus ge ne rally has quin cl . L icet fo r etsi,as occasionally in Cice ro :

9 . 5 ; 13 . 2 . M odo nunc fo rmodo modo 3 . 1 6 . M ox (= deinde‘ the re afte r 10. 3 5 ; 17 . 1 1 . Cp . Ann. vi. 5 1 , 2 quamquam mater in

L iviam etmox I ul iamf amil iam adoptione transier it. N eque=ne quidem

8 . 2 7 quae neque ipsa tamen neg l eguntur , as Ofte n e lsewhe re in Tacitus

(Ge rb e r and Gre e f, p . 9 33 a). So too at 21. 3 6 some who re ad nec

e x plain it as= ne quidem,i . e . Co rvinus is no more re sponsib le than some

o f th e e arly orators alre ady re fe rre d to. For nec with th e sub junctive , inth e negative e x pre ssion o f a wish or command, se e o n 13 . 1 9 . N edam

25 . 1 0 ; nedam at 10. 5 . Nempe enim 3 5 . 1 2,introducing an asse rtion

with re fe re nce to a pre vious statement. So twice in Quintilian, 11. 1 3 , 9

nam r ecti quidem corpor i s ve l minima gratia est. N empe enim adversa

sitf acies et demissa bracb ia et iuncti pedes et a summzls ad ima r igens opus

viii. Pr . 6 . Cp. Pl in . P an . 6 2 . For nempe by itse lf se e 9 . 1 0 ; 17 . 6

21. 1 4 . N i si ut 3 3 . 1 9 : fo r at non,H ist. iv. 7 3 ad fin . P arum est

with th e infinitive,23 . 1 5 parum est aegrum non esse : cp . 3 6 . 2 7 ; this

use occurs in Livy,and freque ntly in Quintilian

’s Decl amations,1 20

,1 4

parum estf aenerar i civibus ; 1 2 2,2 5 parum erat sepel ir i ty rannum 1 5 2 ,

30parum est dicere 1 96, 2 5 tamquam parum esset ex iger e poonas 2 4 1 ,

1 0parum sit tibi perdere ; 3 5 1 , 2 parum est dicere quasi ing enua (Novak) .P l ane 27 . 4 26 . 3 1 ; 3 5 . 1 4 . P orr o 5 . 7 ; 23 . 1 4 . Quamquam fre

quent ly with th e sub junctive : 21. 2 9 ; 26 . 1 6 ; 3 4 . 1 3 . So Ag r .

iii. 3 x iii. 5 Germ. x x viii. 1 8 x ix . 1 4 . I n quantum is use d inste ad o f

quantum at 2. 1 3 and 4 1. 1 9 . It cannot, howeve r, b e right at 21 ad fin.,

whe re quam is ne are r th e MSS . th e me aning how little ,’

and th e use o f

th e e x pre ssion in an indire ct que stion, would b oth b e irregular. Quatenus

(fo r quoniam) 5 . 1 1 19 . 1 . Quominus (fo r quin) : se e o n 3 . 1 5 , and cp.

3 4 . 1 1 it is adopte d in th e te x t also at 21. 1 3 nec vol untatem ci quo

minus subl imius et cu l l ius dicer et,though th e MS . quo is de fende d by

Novak , who compare s Quint . D ecl . 4 2 , 3 l egum lator i non a’

gfuisse e l oquendi

facul tatem ut pl ane aperteque dicer et. Quoque (fo r etiam or ve l ) 6 . 1 9

7 . 1 6 ; 10. 9 ; 3 9 . 2 2 : cp. 4 . 7 ; 17 . 2 3 : fo r

b odie quoque se e o n 3 4 . 34. Statim 18 . 1 5 . Tamquam 2. 2 2. 1 5 ; 18 . 2 5 ;

STYLE AND LANGUAGE . l ix

Utique 18 . 2 1 ; 22. 7 . Utrumne an (fo r utrum3 5 . 7 and 3 7 . 1 6 so twice in Quintilian iii. 3 , 1 3 utrumne lzae partes essent

rb etor ices, an x i i . 1 , 40 . Ve l a l se ems to b e pre fe rre d, in figure s andwith comparisons, to quasi (13 . 8 32. 2 1 3 3 . 1 4) and tamquam (3 7 . 33)se e 5 . 2 3 ; 17 . 2 9 ; 32. 1 8 ;

3 9 . 4 ; 39 . 14 . Th e same holds good also o f Quintilian : se e

Introd. to B ook X, p . 111.

In regard to copulative conjunctions, Tacitus’

s love o f varie ty may b ere cognize d in such a comb ination as imagines ac titul i e t statuae 8 . 2 5 ,

which re curs frequently in th e H istor ies, and still more freque ntly in th eAnna l s . A doub tful instance o f cl atque is comme nte d o n at 14 . 1 2 .

Th e collocation nec et (o fJ'

r e 7 6) is found at 2. 10 ; 4 . 3 3 3 . 1 1 .

Th e cOpio us use o f th e copula at 17 . 4 ; 3 7 . 1 1 39 . 20 may a lso b enote d : cp . Agr . x x x vii . 1 3 Germ. x l . 3 .

Comparative sente nce s (quo eo , quanta tanto) are e xpre sse d infull, 8 . 1 1 ; 3 6 . 1 6 ; 3 7 . 33 (cp. Agr . vi. 5 ; x x x i. 1 5 ; x lu . 1 6 ; Germ.

x x . whe re as in th e late r writings th e corre lative is frequently omitte d

(e . g. H ist. i. 1 4 , 1 4 ; iii. 18 , 1 2 Ann. i . 2 , Similarly in adve rsativese nte nce s (non so l um

,modo

,tantum sed etiam) th e etiam is ofte n

omitted in th e Anna l s . As a varie ty w e have , in th e D ial ogue, non modosed quoque 2. 6 ; 3 7 . 10 : cp. ITist. i. 5 7 , 1 1 . Th e frequent use o f

quomodo sic in co -ordinating sentence s is spe cially notice ab le : se e25 . 1 0 ; 3 6 . 3 ; 3 9 . 6 ; 4 1. 9 . For aeque quam se e on 10. 2 .

Quidem is constantly use d in antithe tical se ntence s : fo llowe d by tamen3 . 8 ; 9 . 1 4 and 2 6 : by sed 8 . 8 : and by autem

25 . 1 4 . Cp. sine dubio sed 40. 2 2 and th e note the re .

At 11. 1 and 24 . 1 w e have th e formula Quae cum dix i sset. In h is

late r writings Tacitus use s, along with ve rb a se ntiendi,’

ubi in place o fcum ; Ag r . x x vi. 1 Quod ubi cognitum ITist. 11. 2 8

, 5 Quod ubi auditum

while in th e Anna l s w e find Quodpostquam i . 6, 1 4 .

H ercul e occurs (with gre at variations in th e MSS . b e twe en bercul eand b ercl e) 1. 1 0 ; 5 . 2 6 ; 14 . 1 9 ; 19 . 1 9 ; 21. 8 ;

In regard to th e use o f figure s, re fe re nce may b e made to th e frequentcase s Of Anap h o ra that are to b e found in th e D ial ogue . At 40. 2 1

nul lus is made to introduce fi ve conse cutive clause s, and l u'

nc four at3 6 . 10 cp. suus 30. 1 4 s —b os 3 6 . 2 1 b acc— lzoc 12. 6 ; tanto (thrice )36 . 1 7 ; sic 18 . 8 ; quis 20. 1 ; cum (thrice ) 3 6 . 2 7 donec 40. 19 quid

41. 1 3 ; non and il l e 30. 1 9—2 2 ; omnia (thrice ) 3 8 . 8 , and again 40. 1 7 .

So in Agr . x viii. 2 3 qui is repe ate d thre e time s ; cp. Germ. X]. 1 4 tunc

tantum nota, tunc tantum amata ; H ist. i . 10, 9 apud subiectos

,apud

l x INTRODUCTION .

prox imas, apud co l l egas ; Ann. iv. 34 , 2 5 ipse divas I ul ias, ipse divas

Au g ustus. Th e passage s re fe rre d to at 20. 1 and 4 1. 1 3 illustrate alsoth e use o f th e rhe torical que stion, which is Spe cially notice ab le in th e

spe e che s o f Ape r and Mate rnus fo r th e forme r se e 5 . 30 ; 6 . 10 7 .

1 1 sqq. ; 9 . 10 sqq. ; fo r th e latte r, 13 . 1 1 sqq. ; 41. 3 and 1 3 . SoMe ssal la, 29 . 1 1 .

Of Ze ugma , two mild instance s have b e en note d b y e ditors,mutuatus

est 24 . 5 , and detex isse 25 . 2 7 cp. l oco 26 . 10 . Re ade rs o f th e Anna l s

are familiar with th e freque n t instance s o f th e use o f this figure whichth e e ffort afte r b re vity has given rise to in that work : e . g . 11. 20

, 5

quad arduum sibi,cetera l ega l is pe rmisit ; iii. 1 2 , 6 nam si l egatus ofi cii

terminas,obsequium erga imperatorem e x uit. In th e e ar lie r works, le ss

pronounce d e x ample s (Similar to those re fe rre d to in th e D ia l ogue) mayb e quote d from Agr . iii. 4 nec spem modo ac votum secur itas pub l ica , sed

ipsius voti fi duciam ac r obur adsumpse rit ; Germ. Vl l ad fi n. cibosque cl

b ortaminapugnantibus ge stant II ist. v . 2 2,8 atque adf a l l endum si l entio

(sc. atebantar or ag ebant) ita coepta co edo, quapl us terror is adder ent cuncta

cl amor ibus misceb ant.

Of H e nd iadys (which diff e rs from th e ordinary use o f synonyms inthat o ne o f th e two co-ordinate d words de fine s th e othe r like an adje ctive ,or a ge nitive case ) ge nuine instanc e s are sever itate ac discip l ina 28 . 1 1

cursus et spatia 3 9 . 7 ; possib ly also ing eniis g l or iaque 1. 2,though it is

fully as prob ab le that the se words Should b e re nde re d‘th e genius and

th e fame .

’

Othe r e x ample s gene rally re fe rre d to this category are

pe rhaps b e tte r tre ate d as synonyms ; e . g. vir ibas cl armis 3 7 . 1 0 ;

cl amore p l ausuque 3 9 . 1 4 .

Th e fo l lowing are instance s o f P l e o nasm : maturare .f 2>stino, 3 . 1 2

si ad r espectum r tyeras, 16 . 2 5 cumpraesertim centum et viginti annos

qfici ratio temporum co l l eg er it, 24 . 1 4 ; si i l l ad ante praedix ero , 18 . 1 7 ; si

pr ias pauca praedix ero , 28 . 1 1 qui prae Catone Appium Caecum

mag is m'

irar entur, 18 . 1 7 . C h iasmu s is e x emplifi e d in 10 ad fin . cl

pr obata sitfi des et l ibertas ex cusata 19 . 1 8 praecepta r lzetorum, plzi l o

sopb orump l acita ; 3 4 . 2 6f or i auditor , sectator indiciaram ; 40. 1 6 R/zodii

quidam, pl ur imi Atb enienses aratores. Instance s o f An astr o p h e are

freque nt : qua l actar mag is 4 . 5 ; vidit namque 19 . 6 ; ipsos quin immo

6 . 7 ; 3 4 . 2 5 3 3 . 9 (cp. Ann. x v. 2 1,10) and often with adve rb s,f abu l osa

nimis 12 . 1 9 concedamus sane 21. 1 9 fi rmus sane 22. 1 4 nascenti aa’

lzac

25 . 3 3 ; tener i statim et rudes 29 . 4 ; so l us statim et anus 3 4 . 30 ; l au

davimus naper 9 . 2 4 ; rogar e ultra et ambir e 9 . 1 6 ; vocar e ul tra 3 6 . 2 2.

With the se last e x ample s cp. Agr . x ix . 1 6 emere al trof rumenta cogebantar ;

II ist. ii. 9 1 , 9 grata sane etpopa lar ia ; i. 3 3 , 2 inval ida adb ac coniuratio

STYLE AND LANGUAGE . l x i

iii. 1, 9 pul sarum naper l eg ionum ; iii. 45 , 9 concassa statimf l ag itio domus ;

Ann . x iii. 3 , 1 7 paer i l ibas statim annis ; x iv . 43 ad fin .pr onuntiemus ul tra.

It is ve ry notice ab le also,in view o f th e occurre nce o f th e same fe ature

in b oth Cice ro and Quintilian, that th e D ia l ogue contains many simile sand comparisons take n from th e practice o f war or th e me thods o f

gladiatorial comb ats1. Ape r

’s fi rst spe e ch is full o f them : se e ch . 5 .

2 0 sqq. quid est tatius quam eam ex ercer e artem qua semper armatus praesidium amicis . f eras, ipse munitus ? Ca ius vis et uti l itas a l iaram

prae sidio e t tute la inte l l egi/ar sin pr opr ium per icul um incr epuit e l o

quentia prae sidium simu l ac te lum quo pro pugnare parite r e t ince sse re

passis . Quid a l iud infe stis patr ibus naper Epr ius IlI arce l l us quam

e l oque ntiam suam apposuitzJqua accinctus e t minax eiasmodi ce r

taminum rademH e l vidii sapzé ntzam e lusit. Cp. 12. 1 1 in l ocum te li r epertas .

Th e young aspirant is to le arn th e arto f oratorical warfare o n th e fie ld o fb attle itse lf : at pugnare in pro e l io disceret (3 4 . 8 ) whe re h e will me e twith foemen worthy o f h is steel (adversar zz fe rro non rudib us dimicante s,

Just as th e so ldie r must b e furnishe d with e ve ry ne e dful we apon ,

so must th e orator posse ss a knowle dge o f e ve ry b ranch o f culture

quem [orator em] nan posse a l iter ex sister e nec ex stitisse unquam confi rmonisi eum qui tamquam in aciem omnib us armis instructus s ic in f orumomnibus artibus armatus e x ie rit, 32. 9 . Th e orator’s Sphe re is in facta b attle-fi e ld 2

: sic nunc te ab auditor iis et t/zeatr is in f orum et ad causas

cl ad ve ra pro e l ia voco,10. 2 . And th e more frequent th e comb ats in

which h e e ngage s, th e highe r wil l b e h is reputation fo r e loque nce : qaosaepius stete rit tanquam in acie quoque pl ares e t intul e rit ictus e t e x

cepe rit quoque maiore s adve rsarios acrio re sque pugnas sibi ipsa desumpser it

,tanto a l tior et ex ce l sior et i l l is nobil itata discriminibus in are lzominum

ag it, 3 7 ad fin. Lastly, Cassius Se ve rus is criticize d in languageb orrowe d from a similar figure ipsis etiamquibus ul itar armis incompositaset studio fe riendi pl erumque de ie ctus non pugnat sed r ix atar

, 26 . 1 8 . Forsuch work as th e orator h as to do

,it is e sse ntial that h e should cultivate

a good physical hab it : hence th e freque nt re curre nce o f figure s de rive d

1 Cp. Intro d. to Quintilian X, pp. l vi, Cic . Tusc. i . 46, 1 1 1 i l l a suspicia sz

lv11, and Wo l lne r’

s tractate,cite d the re .

2 To th e same so urce o f mili tary me tapho r Jo hn re fe rs th e MS . re ad ing at 25 .

8 N e i l l i qu idem parti sermon is e iusrepugno si cominus f atetur , &c . ,

‘ wenne r zur Sache kommend e rkl ii rt,

’& c. ,

comparing among o the r passage s 26 . 2 2

quorum neminem Aper nominar e et ve l utin d ci em educer e sustinu it. Vahlen h adalre ady de fended si by a re fe rence to

op inamur , and ib . i ii . 3 1 , 76 i l l am op in ianam si putet : in th e same w aycam is used 14 . 8 , and 15 . 3 . But suchpassage s as Ann . xv . 4, 10 (Par ibus nu l l acominus audacia ; cp . vi . 35 , 3 ) do no t

te ll in favo ur o f so e xtrao rd inary a co n

struction as cominus f ater i wo uld b e , ifit we re genuine . Se e te xt and no te ad

l o c. fo r an attempted emendation.

l x ii INTR 0DUCT] 02V.

from th e human b ody in conne x ion with such words as ossa, sanguis, &cse e on 21. 4 and 32.

MANUSCRIPTS .

IT is a we ll-known fact that, with th e e x ception o f Catullus, no classicalauthor has come down to th e mode rn world by so sle nde r a thre ad o ftransmission as Tacitus . Th e fi rst six b ooks o f th e Anna l s re st upon an

ab so lute ly unique manuscript, th e famous First Me dice an, which was notre cove re d fo r a ge ne ration afte r th e appe arance o f th e first printe d e ditiono f h is works

,b e ing commonly b e lieve d to have come to Rome from th e

monaste ry o f Corvey in We stphalia, ab out th e ye ar 1 5081. For e ighty

ye ars pre vious ly, th e code x now known as th e Se cond Me dice an, co ntaining th e last b ooks o f th e Annal s and th e H isfor ies

,had b e e n in th e

hands o f scholars . Poggio had re ce ive d it, at Rome , from h is friend andage nt, Niccolo Niccoli, in th e ye ar 1 4 2 7 , b ut doe s not se em to have keptit long, as h e was anx ious to ob tain in its place anothe r code x which h ehad once se e n, and which h e thought a copyist would have le ss diffi culty intranscrib ing. His myste rious allusions to its provenance , and th e gene ralse cre tive ne ss which marks h is corre sponde nce with Niccoli on thissub je ct, sugge st an e x planation o f th e phenomenon that it was longb e fore its conte nts b e came gene rally known

2 It had prob ab ly b e e n

procure d unde r circumstance s rathe r compromi sing to its new owne r.Inte rmediate b e twe e n th e re -appe arance o f the se two codice s come s

th e discove ry o f th e minor works o f Tacitus , including th e Dial ogue ,

shortly b e fore th e ye ar 1 460 . Some have thought that th e code x co n

taining the se must also have b e e n in Poggio’

s posse ssion, though h e hadkept it a close se cre t til l h is de ath in 1 459 , in th e same way as h e h adagre e d to tre at th e manuscript re ce ive d from Niccolo Niccoli. But th e

1 Ul richs thinks that th e precise datemust have be en 1 507 , as Sode rini

’

s l e tte rto Adriani , re fe rring to th e arrival o f th eco de x as quite re cent

’

(prox ime ) is datedJ an . 1 , 1508 : se e Eo s

,vo l . i . p . 243 .

Th e Med icean codex o f Pliny’s le tte rsse ems to have o riginal ly fo rme d part o fth is manuscript : se e Ke i l ’s e dition (18 70)Prae f. p . vii . On th e death o f Po peLe o X, it w as transfe rred to Flo rence ,whe re it is st ill pre se rved (Laur. 68 ,

2 Corne l ium Taci l um, cum vener it,

ooservaoo penes me occu l te . Scio en im

amuem i l l am canti l enam et uncle ex ie r it

ec‘

per quem cl qut’

s eum sibi vendicet

sed n i l duoz'

tes non ex z’

bit a me ne verba

qu idem : Poggii Epist . p . 2 1 2 . I t isma inly on th e o bscure histo ry o f this find ,

’

and o n th e late eme rge nce o f th e Firs tMedicean that Ro ss and Ho ch art( 1890) have based the ir incred ible the o rythat th e Annal s we re fo rged in th e

fifte enth century . Se e Madan’

s Bo o ks inManuscript’

,pp . 130—13 2 .

MANUS CR I P TS . lx iii

prob ab ility is that w e ow e th e minor works, not to Poggio, but to a Po pewho was also an e arne st scho lar, and practically th e founde r o f th e

Vatican Lib rary at Rome . In th e ye ar 1 45 1 , Nicholas V had se nt th emonk Enoch o f Ascoli, forme rly o ne o f h is most intimate associate s

,

into France , Ge rmany,and Denmark, to se arch fo r manuscripts and to

take copie s . The re is still e x tant a le tte r in which h e re comme nds h isemissary to th e good offi ce s o f Ludwig o f Erlichshause n. Afte r re fe rringto h is inte ntion o f making a colle ction o f Gre e k and Latin MSS .

,worthy

o f th e Supreme Pontiff and th e Apostolic Se e , Pope Nicholas spe cifi e sth e mo tive o f Enoch’s mission in th e follow ing passage : sed cum mul i i

l ior i ex anfiquis deficianz‘

, qui cu lpa super iorum iempor um sunc‘ deperdil i , ad

inquir endum cl Iranscr ibendum si r eper ianl ur e iusmodi l ior os mil /imus

dil ecium fi l ium Enoc/z Escul anum virum doctum gr ecis e l l ai inis l il l er is,

f ami l iar em nosl rum, qui diversa l oca cl monasl er ia inquiraz

‘

,si quis ex ipsis

deperdiz‘

is apud vos l ibr is r eper ir ez‘

ur . [ dcirco nosir i conl emp l a l ione ve l is

omnes l ui terr itor ii l ioros siai asc‘

endere,anl iquos pr esertim etpr isce sen}?

ture , et simul permifz‘

er e ui‘ in iuo l err itor io scr ioi f ossi l expensis nosir is .

N o l umus enim ui a l iquis l iber sur r ipia/ur , sed tan/ummodo ui fi a l copia

transcr ioendi super quious ipse Enocic tecum l oque/ur l atius ex par /e

nasira1.

At first,Enoch doe s no t se em to have fulfi lle d th e high e x pe ctations

that had b e en forme d o f th e prospe cts o f h l S mi ssmn . Poggio, in

particular, appe ars to have had a poor ide a o f h is qualifications . Enochhad b e e n a pupil o f File lfo, with whom Poggio had inte rchange d suchcourte sie s as we re common among th e scholars o f that day ; and h e wasunde rtaking a task in which Poggio himse lf h ad alre ady b e en more thanonce di sappointe d, notab ly in an e ffort to procure a comple te copy o fLivy which h e had b e en told was to b e found in a Ciste rcian monaste ryne ar Lub e ck . In a le tte r addre sse d to Fr. Co ppino , Poggio says that, intwo ye ars, Enoch had found nothing that e ven an uneducate d pe rsonwo uld find it worth h is while to re ad 2. Porphyrio

’s comme ntary o n

Horace and Apicius se em to have b e e n th e chie f re sults o f Enoch’s e arly

e fforts . But th e air was full o f th e rumo ur o f new discove rie s . Th e

time s we re favourab le , and such a mission as Enoch’s was no t like ly to

prove a failure in th e e nd. We know from Poggio’

s le tte rs to NiccoloNicco l i 3 (1 4 2 5—2 8 ) that h e had himse lf forme rly b e e n on th e track o f some

1 Se e Vo igt , D ie Wiede rbe lebung de s etiam z'

na’octz

'

nomin is l ectione .

cl assisch en A l te rth ums, ii . p . 202 .

3 Se e Massmann’

s Ge rmania , p . ry6 sqq. ;N ov issz

’

me a summapontifi ce missus Re iffe rsch e id’s Sue to ni Re liquiae , p . 4 10 ;

est ad e os l ibros [Lz'

ui ] perscrutandos Ulrich in Eo s, i . pp . 2 29 sqq. ; and

[ knock Ascu lanus, qu i adeo di l zgensf u it M ich ae l is

’

s critical e dit io n o f th e Diaut n ini l iam bienn io invenerit dignum l ogue , Prae f. pp . x i x—xxii .

lx iv IN TR ODUCTI ON .

o f th e hithe rto undiscove re d writings o f Tacitus . A ce rtain monk,who

w as charge d with important b usine ss at th e Papal Court , had onceintimate d to h im that h e knew whe re seve ral vo lume s we re to b e found

,

o ne o f which containe d what Poggio de signate s as a l iqua opera Corne l ii

Taci l i noois zgnol a—prob ab ly th e code x in which th e minor worksafte rwards came to light. Th e monk

,who had doub tle ss a prope r

appre ciation o f Poggio’

s influe nce at court, as we ll as o f h is we akne ss fo ro ld manuscripts, unde rtoo k to furnish h im with a list o f b ooks b e longingto th e lib rary o f an ancient G e rman monaste ry, invenl ar ium cuiusdam

ve/usl issimi monasl erzz in Germania, ubi est ing ens l iororum copia. In

1 4 2 7 th e monk, now de scrib e d as o f He rsfe ld (He rsfe lde nsis) b ringsth e promise d inventory, with which Poggio is gre atly disappointe d. Parto f it, howeve r, h e forwards to Niccolo : J il in/o autem ad c

‘

c nunc partem

invenl arzz sui , in quo descr ioitur vo l umen il l ud Corne l u Taci l i e l a l iorum

quious caremus quae cum sint r es quaedam parz’ul ae , non sansmagni sunt

aes l imandae . Decidi ex magna spe quam conceperam ex verbis suis . Th e

monk promise d to b ring h im th e Tacitus code x , and Poggio waite dimpatie ntly fo r it. But it did no t arrive . In th e e nd o f 1 4 2 8 h e write sto Niccoli

,Corne l ius Tacil us si l et inter Germanos neque quicquam ex inde

novi percepi de eius oper ious . Th e He rsfe ld b rothe r came again to Rome ,b ut without th e wished-fo r code x ,

whe reupon Poggio gave h im a warmre ception. He unde rtook to b ring it o n h is ne x t journey ; but as Poggiomake s no furthe r allusion to th e matte r in h is corre sponde nce , w e are

l ed to conclude that th e monk’s te rgive rsation compe lle d h im to ab andonth e h 0pe h e had ente rtaine d so long.

It is o f course impossib le now to identify th e code x to which thisincident re late s, but w e may infe r with some prob ab ility that it was th eo ne afte rwards b rought to light by Enoch o f Ascoli. Only o ne copy o fth e D ia l ogue , along with th e Germania and th e fragme nt o f Sue toniusde Grammal icis et R /zel or ious, is known to have survive d down to th edays o f Poggio . It b e came th e pare nt o f th e various MSS . o f thosetre atise s which w e now posse ss, and which can al l b e prove d to de rivefrom it and it only 1. It w as th e discove ry o f this code x , in a G e rman

monaste ry, that rewarde d Enoch’s late r journeyings, afte r h is first patron

Nicholas V had passe d away. Th e authority fo r this stateme nt is a notewhich , when h e pub lishe d h is e dition o f th e Germania and th e D ia l ogue in

1 84 1 , L. Tross reporte d from th e Leyde n code x (B) . This note w as

appended by j o vianus Pontanus (1 4 2 6—1 503 ) to th e original o f which th eLeyde n MS . is a copy, and is to th e e ffe ct that Enoch

’

s code x came to

1 Se e pp . l xxxi—l x x x n.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

l x vi INTRODUCTI ON .

othe r hand itmay b e that h e had promise d more than h e could pe rform,

as might ve ry conce ivab ly b e th e case if th e codice s which h e mentione dto Poggio we re th e prope rty o f anothe r monaste ry. It is on this the orythat Fulda b e come s possib le . Fulda is only ab out thirty mile s fromHe rsfe ld

,and is b e lie ve d to have posse sse d in e arlie r days an ancient

copy o f th e works o f Tacitus . Inde e d th e only ce rtain re fe re nce to th ehistorian’s writings b e fore th e fifte e nth century is made by Ruo do lph us,a monk o f Fulda

,o f whom w e are ab le to infe r that h e must have use d,

ab out th e ye ar 8 63 A. D.

,a code x containing b oth th e Germania and th e

Anna l s,and the re fore prob ab ly comple te .

Th e point has b e en made th e sub je c t o f nume rous conje cture s .Re iffe rsch e id

’

s late st view 1 was that Ruo do lph us may have b orrowe dth e code x from Corvey, afte r th e fashion o f that time . Othe rs, more

prob ab ly, regard Fulda itse l f as th e home o f th e comple te arche typewhich Ruo do l ph us used, and which must o f course have b e e n moreancient than any code x now e x tant . Howeve r this may b e , w e may

b e pre tty ce rtain that it was not this arche type , no r any part o f it, thatEnoch“ found . In fact it is improb ab le that Enoch

’s code x was olde rthan th e thirte e nth ce ntury. This is an infe re nce which may b e fairlyb ase d on th e state in which th e tex t o f th e minor works has come downto us . Th e manuscript to which w e ow e the ir survival must h aveab ounde d in those ab b reviations 2 and compendia which are ab sent frommanuscripts o f more remote date , but which by that time had b e e ndeve lope d into a regular system. We are in this way enab le d to e xplainth e diffe rence b e twe e n th e te x t o f th e e arly b ooks o f th e Annal s, whichhas b e en re cove re d from th e First Me dice an

,and that o f th e Germania

and th e Dia l ogue . Th e latte r, as a lso th e Sue tonius fragme nt, havesufi

’

e red conside rab ly from th e ignorance o f the ir fi rst copyists, ande spe cially from the ir inab ility to inte rpre t some o f th e compendia re fe rre dto ab ove . In orde r to gathe r up th e various thre ads o f th e tradition o f

Tacitus, Ulrichs constructe d th e hypothe sis that th e code x use d byRuodo l phus at Fulda (e ighth or ninth century) was copie d in th e latte r

part o f th e e leve nth ce ntury fo r or in th e monaste ry o f Corvey, and thatth e fi rst part o f this apograph on was len t to He rsfe ld in th e thirte enthcentury, whe re afte r b e ing copie d it was lost . It is to th e copymade atHe rsfe ld that w e are in all prob ab ility inde b te d fo r Enoch

’s discove ry.

Through h is age ncy, th eminor works o f Tacitus found the ir way, just ab outth e time o f Poggio

’

s de ath, to I taly—prob ab ly fi rst to Florence , and afte rwards (b e fore e nlarge d by th e addition o f th e Agr ico la, to Rome

3.

1 Suetoni Re l iquiae , p. xv. 2 Cp . Ro th , Sue tonius, p . l xvi .Cp. Eo s, 11. pp . 23 2 sqq.

MANUSCR IP TS . lx vii

It has already b e en indicate d as prob ab le that what Enoch b rought toI taly w as no me re copy—though h is instructions from Pope Nicho las hadoriginally b e e n to take copie s only—but th e He rsfe ld code x itse lf. Rothhas state d th e arguments in favour o f this the ory from th e point o f viewo f th e Sue tonius fragme nt (se e h is Suetonius, pp. l x v Re iffe rsche id,o n th e othe r hand (p. argue s that , while it may e ve n have b e e n th eancient arche type o f Fulda that Enoch found, our codice s are no t de rive dfrom it

,b ut from a copy made by Enoch himse lf or by a contemporary.

Th e doub le re adings so scrupulously re corde d in some manuscripts h ethinks are a sign o f th e diffi cu lty with which th e ancient manuscriptw as de ciphe re d . They some time s , inde e d, dive rge so wide ly as tosugge st th e possib ility o f th e suppositio n that anothe r code x may haveb e en discove re d , which w as afte rwards use d to compare and corre ct th ecopie s made from th e o ne Enoch found ; b ut any such theory is ve toe db y th e occurre nce o f th e lacuna at th e e nd o f ch . 3 5 o f th e D ia l ogue

1

,

which is found in e ve ry e x tant manuscript, and must the re fore havee x iste d in th e o ne and only original from which al l are de rive d . AgainstRe iffe rsch e id

’

s theory it may b e urge d that th e compendia which wouldh ave b e e n use d by a fi fte enth -ce ntury copyist, such as Enoch or a contemporary, in transcrib ing an ancie nt MS . like th e Fulda arche type ,would no t have b e en so liab le to b e misunde rstood as those in th e

(supposed) thirte enth-century copymade at He rsfe ld . And a note whichI have to report from Har l eianus 2 63 9 (H), a manuscript which will b ede scrib e d b e low

,se ems to point in th e dire ction o f th e b e lie f that Enoch

b rought more than a me re copy with h im to I taly. At th e e nd o f th e

Sue tonius fragme nt th e copyist o f H h as written in th e margin the sewords : H ic antiquz

'

ssimum ex empl ar fi nit cl b oc integ rum videtur . Unle ssit is to b e taken as a me re statement o f what h e had b e e n give n tounde rstand w as th e case , this note , occurring in a manuscript which wasundoub te dly written within a few ye ars o f Eno ch’s discove ry 2

,must b e

regarde d as e vidence that th e co pyist o f H h ad acce ss to th e original code xand was not me re ly transcrib ing from an almost contemporary copy.

Al l th e e x isting manuscripts o f th e Dia l ogue de rive , as h as b e en alre adystate d

,from th e code x wh ich Enoch found . They are divide d into two

familie s,at th e he ad o f e ach o f which is suppose d to stand a lost copy

o f Enoch’s code x , calle d re spe ctive ly X and Y byMichae lis, N and M by

Bae h re ns .

‘

Al l th e availab le e vide nce go e s to show that th e copy X wasmade by a care ful but unle arne d scrib e , and must the re fore have b e e n

1 See p . l xxxi. 2 Se e p . l xxvi.

l x v iii INTRODUCTI ON .

a more or le ss e x act transcript o f h is original : th e copyist o f Y,on th e

othe r hand,b rought gre ate r scholarship to b e ar on h is task, -_and allowe d

himse lf more fre edom in e x e cuting it. Th e X family is repre se nte dnow by th e Vaticanus 1 8 62 (A) and th e Le idensz

'

s (B) . Th e Y family

inc lude s th e F arnesianus (C) , Vaticanus 1 5 1 8 (D) , Vaticanus 449 8 (A),th e Ottooonianus (E) , th e Vindooonensis Dccx 1 (V2), th e Har l ez

'

anus (H),and th e Vindooonensis CCCLI (V)

1.

Th e editio pr inceps o f th e works o f Tacitus , which did not include th eas ye t undiscove re d fi rst six b o oks o f th e Anna l s , is unde rstood to haveb e en printe d from a code x which must have de rive d u ltimate ly from th e

manuscript now known as th e Se cond Me dice an (Laur . 68, ge ne rally

b e lie ve d to have b e e n writte n at Monte Casino in th e latte r half o f th ee leventh ce ntury. It was pub lishe d by Ve nde lin de Spira at Venice in1 4 70 . Seve ral MSS . o f th e last b ooks o f th e Anna l s and th e Histor iesmust then have b e e n availab le , some o f them copie d, no doub t, as soonas th e Se cond Me dice an had passe d, at th e time o f Nicco l o

’

s de athfrom private ke eping into th e lib rary o f th e Conve nt o f St . Mark, afte rwards

“

incorporate d with th e Laure ntian Lib rary at Flore nce . But none o fthem containe d th e minor works 2. For the se Spira must have b e enindeb te d to some copy o f Enoch’s find, by which th e Germania and th e

Dial ogue, at le ast, we re re-unite d to th e pare nt stem from which they hadso long b e e n disseve re d. Such codice s as th e F arnesianus (C) and th e

Vindooonensis (V) must have re sulte d from th e wish to comb ine Enoch’sdiscove ry with th e already known works . It was from a code x o f thisc lass (said to have b e e n at th e time in th e Lib rary o f St. Mark at Ve nice )that Spira printe d : as far as conce rns th e Dia l ogue , itmust have emb odie dmany o f th e re adings and eme ndation s o f which th e e arlie st trace is

prob ab ly to b e found in th e hithe rto negle cte d Harl eianus (H) . Thencame th e e dition o f Pute o lanus (Milan,

in which many o f th e

mistake s o f th e editio pr inceps we re corre cted . Pute o lanus is ge ne rallyunde rstood not to have h ad th e assistance o f any manuscript (Michae lis,

contents as fo l l ows Sueton i i Tranqu i l l i1 Th e heading is variously given in

de grammaticis et r lzetor ious l ior i duothe se MSS . as fo llows z—Corne l i Taci l iinczpit D ial ogas a

’e Orator ibus A Co r

n e l i i Tacitz'

Dia l ogus a'

e Orator ibus

inczpit B : Corne l i i Taciti D ia l ogus de

cl ar is .

2 Even th e unknown co dex whichOrator ians f oe l iciter incipit C :

‘ C‘ Cor

ne l i i Taciti dia l ogus a’e orato r ious D :

Corne l i i Taciti D ia l ogus'

incipit de

Orator ibus et Poetis E (et poetis e ) l n

cipit D ia l ogus de Orator ibus V2 : C.

Corne l i i Taciti equ itis Roman i D ia l ogusa’

e Orator ibus cl a r is f e l icite r z'

ncz'

p it H(do orator ious su is cl antiqu is comparatisV) . On th e first fo lio H give s th e list o f

Po ggio al l ude s to in a le tte r to N icco lo(Epist. p . 2 13 ) as one which h e h ad o nce

re ad and which h e w as anxio us again tobo rrow canno t have containe d anythingwhich is no t in th e Se co nd Me d iceano the rwise h e would no t have spo ke n o f

a l iqua opera Cor ne l i i Tacz’

ti nobz’

s ignota

(p . lxiv , .

MANUSCR IPTS . lx ix

Pre f. p. i) ; but, though this may b e true o f th e re st o f h is b ook, it is

prob ab le that h e was acquainte d with th e te x t o f th e D ia l ogue as givenin th e Har l eianus, and seve ral instance s o f true re adings hithe rto ascrib e dto Pute o lanus which are anticipate d in th e British Muse um code x willb e re corde d in th e commentary. Similar eme ndations and inte rpolationsare to b e found also in th e e ditions o f Be ro aldus ( 1 5 1 4) and BeatusRh e nanus (1 5 1 9 and By employing th e F arnesianus (C),Lipsius put th e te x t o f Tacitus on a ne w b asis in h is gre at editiono f 1 5 74 , th e popularity o f which may b e e stimate d from th e fact that nofewe r than ten re -issue s o f th e work , revise d by Lipsius himse lf, appe aredat Antwe rp and Leyde n b e twe e n 1 5 74 and 1607 . Th e last o f the seemb odie d th e improvements made on th e te x t by Pich e na : and ab outth e same time th e lab ours o f Muretus, Pithon, and Acidal ius comb ine dto purge th e D ial ogue in particular o f many o f th e b lemishe s which even

then remaine d upon it. Th e e dition o f Gro no viu'

s (Amste rdam,1 67 2 and

1 68 5 ) doe s no t indicate any independent advance . For th e D ia l ogue ,Bro tie r went b ack to th e MSS .

, and use d th e four Vatican codice s (1 8 6 2 ,1 6 1 8

,2 964 , and 4498 ) without, howeve r, re cognizing th e supreme

importance o f Vat. 1 8 6 2 (A) . Th e codex F arnesianus (C) still he ld th efi rst place , no t only in Bro tie r

’

s eye s,b ut in those o f He umann (Gottinge n,

Schulze (Le ipzig, Dro nke (Cob lenz, Ore l l i (Zurich,and Bekke r Ne x t

,Egge r collate d th e codex P ar isiensis

7 7 7 3 , which, howeve r, will b e shown b e low to b e a me re copy o f th e

Har l e ianus (H) . In h is e dition o f 1 84 1 , He ss give s th e re adings o f th eVindooonensis (V) as reporte d by Schub art . In th e same ye ar came Tro ss

’

s

collation o f th e ve ry importan t codex L eidensis (B), which had forme rlyb e longe d to Pe rizonius. Of this code x , Ritte r made a fre sh collation fo r

h is comple te e dition o f Tacitus (1 and itw as the re afte r allowe d to rankab ove th e F arnesianus (C) . But almost at th e same time th e Vaticanus1 8 62 (A) b egins to eme rge . Nippe rdey was th e fi rst to demonstrate itssupe riority (Hall . L itt. Zeit. and in h is edition o f th e Germania

Massmann suspe cte d that it must stand o n at le ast a footingo f equality with B . Th e same line was taken by Re iff e rsche id in h is

Quaestiones Suetonianae (se e e spe cially pp. 409 and lastly, byM ichae lis

,in h is critical e dition o f th e D ia l ogue M ichae l is

had e x amine d A fo r himse lf in th e ye ar 1 8 58 , and had come to th e

conclusion that it was ‘ integrio r’ than B . To A and B h e adhe re s

close ly, as against th e Y family o f MSS . Baeh rens, on th e othe r hand ,constructe d h is critical e dition (1 8 8 1 ) on th e the ory that th e Y familycontaine d a true r tradition than that o f which AB are th e repre sentative s : and this the ory

,take n along with h is own tendencie s towards

l x x INTR ODUCTI ON .

arb itrary and irre sponsib le eme ndation, enab le d h im to produce a te x twhich pre se nts many points o f contrast to that o f Michae lis . Binde , ina disse rtation to which re fe re nce will b e made again supporte dth e view o f Michae lis, with variations . Th e late st contribution to th ecriticism o f th e D ial ogue has b e e n made by F. Sche ue r who, ina pamphle t to which al l future e ditors will continue to b e inde b te d,ende avours to e stab lish th e supe riority o f th e Y family, though on othe r

grounds than those on which Bae h re ns had re lie d.

Be fore proce eding to a more de taile d conside ration o f th e sub je ct o fth e distinguishing characte ristics o f th e two familie s

,it will b e advisab le

to furnish he re a more spe cific account o f th e various codice s to whichre fe re nce has already b e en made .

Of Vaticanus 1 8 6 2 (A) , nothing ne e d b e said in addition to what h asalre ady b e en state d

,e x cept that th e orde r o f its conte nts is (1) th e

Germania, (2 ) th e fragment o f Sue tonius

,and (3 ) th e D ia l ogue . It

was doub tle ss a faithfu l copy o f th e manuscript from which it wastranscrib e d .

Th e Le idensis (B), o n th e othe r hand,in which th e Dia l ogue come s

first and is followe d by th e Germania and th e Suetonius, pre sents seve ral

points o f inte re st and pe culiarity . It was long suppose d to b e th e

actual copy made from Enoch’s code x by J ovianus Pontanus, th e intimateassociate o f Alfonso th e Magnanimous, who playe d a large part in th e

lite rary socie ty o f th e Naple s o f h is day1. It is now admitte d, howe ve r,

that B is not th e original apograph o n o f Pontanus, but a copy o f it. It

diff e rs conside rab ly from A,though it is impossib le now to say how far

th e diffe re nce is attributab le to th e change s introduce d by Pontanus h imse lf, and how far to th e copyist o f B . Pontanus is known to have b e e n ane legant and accurate scholar, and h e no doub t incorporate d many eme ndations in th e te x t as h e transcrib e d it. More ove r, th e scrib e some time smake s corre ctions in h is own hand, some o f which are right, while othe rsare wrong 2

. Lastly, th e whole was sub sequently re vise d by anothe r hand,cite d as b , th e author o f which is ge ne rally suppose d to have had othe r

1 Se e Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, fo l l owing : 13 . 2 7 mea fo r me i 22. 5pp . 362 sqq. ex verbis fo r et verbis (so B Sp .

2 Example s are given in th e critical 22. 6 l ocosque (with H ) fo r l ocos quoqueno te s : th e fo llowingmay howe ve r b e cited 8 4. 8 mu l tumque fo r mu l tum ; 36 . 24he re as among th e right co rre ctions coge rent fo r regerent ; 5 . 23 quadam

8 . 1 2 quoque fo r quosqu e 10. 28 mf'

er ve l ut fo r ve l ut quadam ; 22. 1 7 tantumvescit fo r cjfleruescet ; 10. 30 ofe ndis fo r ca fo r ca tantum 29 . I 5 u l las qu idemofi ndes ; 30. 7 qua w as fo r quo ausas fo r qu idem u l l as .

(ACEV2) . Wro ngly co rrected are th e

MANUSCRIPTS . lx x i

codice s b e side h im, and e ven printe d e ditions, such as those o f Pute o lanus

and Rh e nanus. Th e gene ral agre ement b e twe en th e variants introduce dby b and th e te x t o f th e Har l e ianus would se em to point, howeve r, toa diff e rent e x planation : se e p. lx x ix .

Th e common de rivation o f the se two codice s (A and B) is ob viousfrom th e fact that th e e nd o f th e twenty-fi fth chapte r o f th e Germania isdisplace d in b oth . The ir original (X) was prob ab ly writte n by a scrib ewho was no t so skilful in re solving compendia as th e write r o f Y : the ye ach contain corruptions which must b e attribute d to th e write r o f X ,

se e ing that in th e corre sponding place s th e memb e rs o f th e Y family giveth e te x t corre ctly. An e x ce l le nt e x ample o f this, as we ll as o f th etendency to emendation on th e part o f B ,

occurs in th e Sue tonius fragme nt

,1 2 7 . 30, 3 (Re iff e rsche id), whe re w e have ypseu A,

zpseum B ,

conspectu ECDH ,fo r gspe fl : cp . ih . 1 2 6 . 30 , 1 5 persona l em AB

, pro

consul em E, pe ons . H, pr ocos . D

, porcos C . From th e tradition o f A andB

,it is a much e asie r task to re store th e te x t o f X than it is to infe r from

th e othe r e x isting codice s what must have stood in Y. Th e copyist o fA fol lowe d h is original with th e most scrupulous care , and made ve ryfew change s : he nce A must b e regarde d as supe rior to B in lite ra laccuracy o f reproduction. In doub tful case s

,th e adhe sion o f th e repre

sentative s o f Y to th e tradition o f e ithe r A or B may b e taken as conclusiveo f what must have originally stood in X .

For th e Y family,Michae lis cite d, in h is critical edition th e

re adings o f th e F arnesianus (C), Vaticanus 1 5 1 8 (D) , Vaticanus 4498 (A) ,and Ottooonianus (E) . to the se must b e adde d th e Har l eianus (H), th eVindooonensis CCCLI (V) , and th e Vz

’

na’

ooonensis Dccx 1Th e F arnesianus (C) is o ne o f th e MSS . which must de rive indire ctly,

e x cept fo r th e minor works, from th e Se cond Me dice an . It containsAnna l s x i—x vi : H ist. i—v, th e Dial ogue, th e Germania , and th e fragme nto f Sue tonius . For its re lation to othe r e x isting MSS . o f th e historicalb ooks

,se e Furne aux

’

s Annal s,vo l . ii. pp . 2

, 3 , whe re it is classe d withth e se cond group o f codice s, from o ne o f which Spira is b e lie ve d to have

printe d h is editiopr inceps . Th e addition o f th e minor works prove s thatit is no t e arlie r than th e latte r part o f th e fi fte e nth ce ntury.

Th e two Vatican MSS . 1 5 1 8 (D) and 449 8 (A) have this in common,

that they contain some minor writings, in addition to Tacitus and

Sue tonius . The ir contents are as follows : in D w e have , afte r Porphyrio’s

commentary on Horace,and a life o f Pe rsius, with th e comme ntary

o f Cornutus, (a ) th e Sue tonius fragment, (6) th e D ial ogue , and (c) th e

Germania . Th e Sue tonius come s fi rst in A,followe d by P seudo-F l inn

lx x ii

de vir is il l ustrious, and (a) th e Agr ico la, (e) th e Dial ogue, and (c) th eGermania, &c.

Th e Ottooonianus (E) is a late code x (fi fte enth or six te enth century)with ve ry misce llane ous conte nts . Afte r M ssalae Corvini de prog enie sua

l ioe l l us come s (a) th e Sue tonius fragme nt, and (e) th e D ial ogue, followe db y many tractate s, too various to me ntion . Th e importance o f thiscode x was first re cognize d byMichae lis, but it was taken fo r a copy o f

th e F arnesianus (C) corre cte d from A. This the ory was disprove d byStending

1

,who e rre d, howeve r, in attrib uting CE and A to a common

source .

Ne x t to B may b e place d th e Vindooonensis DCCXI (V2), whose kinshipwith th e Ottooonianus has b e en cle arly demonstrate d by Sche ue r, and

whose contents are equally misce llane ous . At th e close o f th e se rie scome s (a) th e Germania

,followe d by (6) th e Dial ogue, and (c) th e

Sue tonius . This code x b e ars date A.D. 1 466 . It has b e e n de signate d V2

to distinguish it from anothe r Vienna manuscript, VIZ.

Vindooonensis cccm (V) . This code x b e ars th e arms o f MatthiasCo rvinus, King o f Hungary, fo r whom it was prob ab ly writte n. It afte rwards b e longe d to Joanne s Samb ucus It contains th e last sixb ooks o f th e Anna l s, th e H istor ies

,and (a) th e Germania , (6) th e

D ial ogue, whe re th e addition to th e title , in a late r hand, o f th e nameo f Quintilian he lpe d to forward th e theory that th e D ia l ogue was re al lyth e composition o f th e gre at te ache r o f rh e toric . For th e historicalb ooks

,it is in close agre ement with th e code x from which Spira must

have printe d h is editiopr inceps : se e Wisso wa, Lectiones Tacitinae, Spe cime n T e rtium,

1 8 3 2 . So far as th e D ial ogue is conce rned, it was

prob ab ly copie d, care le ssly e nough, from a code x c lose ly re late d to th e

Har l eianus (H), th e account o f which may b e postpone d to p. lx x v 2.Th e dive rgence b e twe en th e two familie s will b e made evident by a

conside ration o f th e following place s

AB CDEV2AVH

22. 4 aratores aetatis eiusdem e iusdem aetatis aratores

22. 7 iam senior seni or iam

1 Be itrage zur Textkritik im Dial ogde s Tacitus, 18 78 .

1 Whi le H and V be l ong o bvio usl y toth e same class o f MSS ., any the o ry thate ithe r w as co pied from th e o the r is negatived by th e o ccurrence o f striking and

characte ristic d iffe rence s, some o f whichw i l l b e reco rde d be low. The y agre e inomitting th e wo rds [ex b is suasor iaecontroversiae] at 35 . 13

-15, and al so [ergonon] at th e commencement o f ch . 3 7 .

But at 19 ad fin. V h as et f estinare se

testantur,while the se wo rds do no t o ccur

in H, as also et audiantur 35 . 1 1 . On

th e o the r hand the re are no b l ank page sl e ft in V, as in H , at th e end o f ch . 3 5

and such a variant as o ccurs at 19 . 5

(iudo H fo r iudicio, v ideo V) is eno ughto show that H w as no t co pied from Vop. 3 6. I omisisse H , omisso V ; 31 . 16

incitetur H ,concitetur V ; 16 . 36, 32 di ?

coegerunt H ,dicere cogerentur V.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

lx x iv INTR ODUCTI ON .

Th e family-tre e constructe d by Michae lis may b e e x hib ite d thus

[Th e arche type o f Fulda,e ighth or ninth century]

[Th e (He rsfe ld P) code x ,found by Enoch o f Ascoli,

o f ab out th e th irte e nth century]

[Enoch’s copy o f this code x]

[Th e code x o f Pontanus]

Baeh re ns, on th e othe r hand, took A and E fo r dire ct de scendantso f Y, while from a third copy o f Y

,now lost, h e suppose d C and D to

have Sprung,—th e forme r b e fore,th e latte r afte r the ir original had b e e n

corre cte d from some memb e r o f th e X family. His me thod o f repre

senting th e gene alogy o f th e Y family is as follows

Scheue r has shown that b oth Michae lis and Baeh rens we re wrong.

He fi rst prove s, against Michae lis, that E cannot b e de rive d from C, and

that it is impossib le to b e lie ve that ECA are th e off spring o f th e same

parent MS., as in th e tab le o f Michae lis . His tre e h e give s as unde r

MANUS CR I P TS . lx x v

It was an e x amination o f th e negle cte d Vindooonensis DCCXI (V2) thatl ed Sche ue r to h is conclusions . He found that it is ne arly akin to E,

and almost in e x act agre eme nt with it whe re E shows th e re adings o f Xinste ad o f those o f its own class Y. Both the re fore de rive from a commonsource

,which must have b e en a true r repre se ntative o f Y than that to

which CAD are to b e trace d . Th e supposition that e ithe r code x wascopie d from th e othe r is e x clude d by a list o f variants in which e achshows individual pe culiaritie s o f its own . Inste ad o f E having b e e ncorre cte d from A or B

,th e opposite is th e case . E is some time s in

agre ement with AB,or with B alone

,whe re V

2doe s no t follow it, and

w e may the re fore infe r that the ir original (y1

) had b e e n corre cte d afte r V2

w as copie d from it. In this emende d state it w as prob ab ly use d byPontanus

,or by b oth Pontanus and th e copyist o f B . Sch eue r ne x t

prove s th e common origin o f CAD,which had alre ady b e e n partly

e stab lishe d by B inde1

. The ir source h e de signate s y2

,and infe rs that its

disagre eme nt with ABEV2 must b e attrib ute d to caprice or care le ssne sso n th e part o f th e copyist, while th e te x t o f th e lost arche type Y may b e

re store d by th e agre eme nt o f y1 with A and B . Th e fact that D ofte n

forsake s its own class to agre e with A and B,whe re its kindred EV2

and

CA are in disagre ement, Scheue r e x plains by supposing fo r D (or rathe rfo r its original , as Bae h re ns had sugge ste d) what Michae lis h ad asse rte dfo r E,

name ly,corre ction out o f th e X family. In proof o f th is th e

following place s are quote d whe re D has b e en contaminate d ’

from Xand Y : 30. 2 vacantis D

,vocatis X

,vocantY ; 41. 3 quis enim quidem

quod nemo D, quidem quod nemo A, quis enim Y ; 3 7 . 1 9 est lzaoendus D,

naoendus estX,naoendus Y.

Some o f Scheue r’s conclusions re st no doub t on a supe rstructure o f

hypothe sis, but h is ge ne ral theory marks an advance o n th e work o f previous critics . It se ems to me

,howe ve r, that future spe culation as to th e

inte r-re lationship o f th e various codice s will have to take account o f th ehithe rto negle cte d Har l eianus

,which is ce rtainly o f gre at importance fo r

th e history o f th e constitution o f th e te x t. I now proce e d to report th ere sult o f my e x amination o f this inte re sting manuscript. I ts o ffi cialde scription is as follows : Brit . Mus. Harley 2 639 , ve llum 8 x 53 inche sff . 43 , fi fte e nth century. Contains Sueto nii tranquilli de grammaticis e trh eto ribus lib ri duo

,

’

ff . 2—1 4 v. C . Co rne l ii Taciti Dial ogus de Oratoribus Claris

,

’

ff . 1 5—4 2 v. On th e first folio th e name o f its last owne r iswritte n ‘Amb ro sii Bonvici, This was Amb rose Bo nw icke (1 65 2

scholar o f S t. j ohn’s College , Ox ford , in 1 669 , Lib rarian in 1 6 70,

1 De Taciti Dial ogo Quae stione s Criticae : G l ogoviae , 1884. Se e p . 7.

INTR ODUCTI ON .

and He ad Maste r o f Me rchant Taylors from 1 686 till h e was dismisse din 1 69 1 fo r no t having take n th e oath o f allegiance

1. T h e MS . was

b ought along with six othe rs, fo r th e sum o f £ 7 7s .,from W. Bowye r,

th e printe r, who acte d as Bo nw icke’

s e x e cutor afte r h is de ath on Oct. 20,1 7 2 2 . Th e date o f th e transaction is re corde d as Sept . 1 1 , 1 7 2 5

2.

Th e Har l eianus (H) is me ntione d by Roth in h is e dition o f Sue tonius

(p. l x i) , and Michae lis de rive d h is account o f it from h im. Bae h re ns alsore fe rs to it in h is critical comme ntary, b ut only to deny it any authority.

He ranks it afte r th e P ar isiensis 7 7 7 3 and th e Vindooonensis (V2) , and

de scrib e s a l l thre e as o f ve ry re cent date and vile ly inte rpolate d — l ior i

quidam recentissimi f oedissimeque interpo lati (p . I shal l b e ab le toshow

,howeve r, that th e Har l e ianus take s us b ack to within a few ye ars o f

Enoch’s discove ry, and that th e P arzsiensis,which was use d byPithon and

include d by Michae lis among th e MSS . on which h e founde d h is critica le dition was dire ctly copie d from it at a date conside rab ly late r.

Th e P ar isiensis ne e d no t b e re fe rre d to again in any discussion o f th e

te x t o f th e D ial ogue . It h as no t, and ought neve r to have b e e n allowe d,any indepe ndent value whateve r. Pe rhaps th e cle are st proof that it isa me re copy o f H may b e found in th e fact that at 40. 9 it omits th ewords [l z

'

oertatem vocaoant comes seditionum efir enati] . The se words forma single line in H,

and we re inadve rtently passe d ove r by th e copyist.Th e late date o f the P ar isienszis is indicate d by what Pith ou says in h isParis e dition in lzuius autem dial og i editione , praeter ex empl ar in

I tal ia ante aliquot anno s descr iptum,max imo noois adiumento f uitL ipszz

nostr i industr ia, &c . In h is commentary o n 15 . 2 h e reports a marginalnote Eadem verba suntP etronz in e x emplari Italico ad h . l . adscriptum

fuit Eadem acroa suntP etr oni et sane quaedam initio Satyrici Pe troniani

quae b ulus disputationis aliquot locis valde consentane a sun t.’

Th ise nab le d Egge r

3 to ide ntify th e P ar isiensis as th e code x use d by Pithon,and thus to solve a que stion to which h e allude s as

‘ l is a viris do ctisagitata

’

: h e found trace s o f th e words eadem verba suntP etronii in th e

1 His life o f h is son Ambro se Bonwicke , some time Scho l ar o f St . John’

s

Co l lege , Cambridge , ’ w as e dite d by J.E. B. Mayo r, Cambridge , 18 70 . Th e

Dialo gue is mentio ned among th e bo o kswhich h is so n read in th e course o f h is

first ye ar at th e Unive rsity2 Se e Humphrey Wanl ey

’s diary ,

Landsdowne MS. 7 7 2, f. 58 v : and cp.

Nich o l s’

s Lit . Ane o . i . 9 2 , 93 Se pt . 1 1 ,1 7 25 , be ing in company with Mr. Mo sesW illiams , h e to ld me that h e h ad thatday se en, in th e hands o f yo ung Mr.Bowye r, a small parce l o f MSS. which

we re to b e so l d . He reupon I went toMr . Bowye r this day and bought themfo r my lo rd in h is absence they will al lb e marked wi th th e date o f this day.

The se bo o ks fo rme rl y be l o nged to th e

re v. and l e arned Mr. Ambro se Bonw i cke ,de cease d .

’

3 In Zimme rmann’s Ze itschri ft fi ir d ie

Al terth umsw isse nsch aft iii. p . 337 , 1836.

A compariso n o f th e Har l e ianus with th eco ll ation o f th e Par isiens is given the reenab l e s me to affi rm that th e tw o co dice s

are throughout in almo st e xact agreement ; such mino r deviations from H as

MANUSCR IP TS l x x vn

margin o f th e P ar isiensis at th e place indicate d by Pithon. But th eauthor o f th e note was no t th e copyist o f that late manuscript, b ut th escholar who wrote th e Har l eianus

, whe re it will b e found in th e rub ric,

f. 2 3 v . Th e same is true o f th e marginal dire ction at ch. 9 Eqp e tcfia o v

f it so”, and o f th e words N emus et l ucus P oetaram which are writte n in atth e e nd o f th e same chapte r

1.

Though it is impossib le to say how th e MS . now in th e BritishMuseum came into th e hands o f Amb rose Bonw icke

,w e are fortunate ly

ab le to de te rmine th e name o f its fi rst owne r, and consequently itsapprox imate date . On th e first folio o f th e Sue tonius fragme nt appe arsa coat o f arms w hich Mr. Warne r succe e de d in ide ntifying as those o f

John Tipto ft, th e lite rary Earl o f Worce ste r (d, Tipto ft acte d asamb assador to th e Pope and Council o f Mantua in 1 459 , and re turne dto England tow ards th e e nd o f 1 460 , afte r using th e oppo rtunity afforde dby h is re sidence in I taly to ge t toge the r a valuab le lib rary 2. In Florenceh e w as take n in hand by th e b ookse lle r Ve spasiano

3, and atte nde d

incognito a le cture by th e re nowned Argyro pul o s. This would b e ab outth e time when Enoch’s discove ry had b rought th e D ia l ogue and th e

Sue tonius fragme nt, as we l l as th e Germania , to Flo rence , and whe nscholars we re b usy in eme nding a te x t that was admitte dly corrupt .What more natural than that th e English colle ctor should have wishe dto secure a copy in which , howe ve r, th e fi rst two tre atise s we re aloneincluded , owing to th e similarity o f the ir sub je c t matte r ? Th e uppe r limitfo r th e date o f Tipto ft

’

s acquisition o f th e copy in que stion is fi x e d by th etime o f h is sojourn in I taly : th e lowe r limit is de te rmine d by th e date o f

h is e x e cution, Octob e r 1 8 , 1 470, afte r which h is arms wou ld no t haveb e e n adde d to th e code x 4

. Anothe r factor in th e calculation is th e

appe ar in P se em to b e due to th e

co pyist having h ad an e arly printededitio n be fo re h im,

as we l l as H . At

30. 1 patr ia in P is a co pyist ’s e rro r fo rpr i

z

d (prima) H : so 86 ad fin .

entiae P fo r dfi (dicer e ) H .

1 It may be no ted he re that none o f

the se o ccur in th e Vindobonensis (V) .2 Bale in h is acco unt o fTipto ft (p . 6 20)give s a l ist o f h is wo rks , and adds a quo

tation from a fune ral o ratio n o f Ludo vicCarbone o f Fe rrara , in which amo ngo the r things h e says l ite rarum av ia

’iss imus

omnes,ut ita dix er im,

I ta l iae bibl iot/zecas

spo l ia'v it utpu l clzerr imis bibl iorummonu

mentis Ang l iam ex orn et.3 Fo r Ve spasiano

’

s account o f Tipto ftse e h is Duca diWo rce stri in SpicilegiumRomanum

, vo l . i . (1 839 ) p . 5 24.

1 We know that Tipto ft intende d to

l eave th e manuscript unde r conside ratio n ,along wi th o the rs

,to th e Bodle ian Library

at Oxfo rd (se e Macray’

s‘ Annals o f th e

Bo dle ian ,

’ p . 1 1 and p . But h isintentio n w as no t fulfilled

,and h isto rians

o f th e pe rio d mentio n i t as matte r fo rregre t that w e have no info rmatio n as to

what be came o f h is lite rary tre asure sse e Vo igt ,Wiede rbe lebung de s cl assisch enA l te rth ums

,i i . p . 260. In the se circum

stance s th e identification o f Tipto ft’

s co ato f arms be come s o f some impo rtance , andI append th e de scription o f it kindlysupplied to me by Mr. Warne r : argent,a saltire engrai l ed gu l es (Tipto ft) quarte ring gu l es, a lion rampant or (Charlton o f

Powys) .

lx x viii INTRODUCTI ON .

appe arance on th e last folio , in a diffe rent hand, o f two couple ts on th ede ath o f a dog, as follow

Parva ze b o r tib i parva domus e s co rpo re parvusEt b re vis e st tumulus e t b re ve carme n hab e .

Maph e us Vege tus.

Purum mo e ro r h e ri spe s quondam gone cate l l e

Hic nunc spe s furum mo e ro r h e rique iace s.

L . A. 1462 .

Maffe o Vegio w e know as‘th e single instance o f a poe t-philo loge r who

assume d th e cowl ’ (Symonds, R ena issance , p. 5 1 7 ; Voigt, 11. p.

G re ate r inte re st attache s to th e ide ntification o f th e initials attache d toth e se cond couple t. It se ems prob ab le that they are those o f th e we llknown Le on Battista Alb e rti, o ne o f th e most remarkab le figure s in th e

age o f th e Re naissance , and a man o f th e most varie d accomplishments.Alb e rti is known to have had a favourite dog, and on its de ath h ece le b rate d its praise s in a pie ce o f Latin entitle d ‘ Le onis BaptistaeAlb e rti canis Th e occurrence o f th e couple t is o f course no proofthat th e volume b e longe d to Alb e rti : th e initials may me re ly re fe r to h imas th e author o f th e couple t, and th e date may give th e ye ar in which h ecompose d it. At th e same time

,as b oth epitaphs are in a diff e re nt

hand from that o f th e copyist, it is prob ab le that they we re adde d in1 46 2 to a manuscript that had b e en written a fe w ye ars previously. Th e

write r may have intende d them as a memorial o f Tipto ft’

s re lationshipwith Alb e rti, and o f th e inte re st h e had taken in th e dog which was thuscommemorate d. Th e mode sty o f th e initials L . A.

,alongside o f Vegio

’

s

full name,might sugge st an autograph : Alb e rti, afte r me e ting Tipto ft in

Rome or e lsewhe re , may have se nt th e code x afte r h im to England, withth e couple ts attache d

2. He is known to have b e en in corre sponde nce

with Enoch o f Ascoli in 1 45 1 (se e Pozze tti, L . B . Al oerti l audatus, 1 7 8 9 ,

p . and h e prob ab ly kept himse lf informe d o f th e re su lt s o f th e

monk’s se arch fo r manuscripts . On th e othe r hand,supposing that

Tipto ft had orde re d th e code x b e fore le aving I taly in 1 460, th e inte rvalo f two ye ars se ems unne ce ssarily long.

Re fe rence has b e e n made alre ady to anothe r inte re sting fe ature in th e

1 Unfo rtunate l y h e nowhe re mentions have no t be en e xecuted by th e same artistth e name o f th e dog,

.

and it is hard to se e

what gone stands fo r in th e couple t quo tedabo ve , unle ss it b e some pet appe l lation .

2 This suppo sition de rive s some pro

h abil ity from th e fact that Tipto ft’

5 arms

as supplied th e i lluminated bo rde r fo r th efo lio in which the y appe ar. They se em

to have be en adde d afte rwards , po ssiblywhen th e bo o k w as sent to h im fromItaly.

MAN USGRI F TS . lx x ix

Har l eianus—th e occurre nce at th e end o f th e Sue tonius o f a remarkab lenote

,in th e hand o f th e copyist, II ic antiquissimum ex empl ar fi nit et noc

integ rum videtur . Take n along with indications which go to show thatth e original o f H must have b e e n a MS . ab ounding in contractions, thismust b e he ld to rende r it prob ab le that it was no me re copy that Enochb rought b ack with h im to I taly, but h is original

‘ find —th e He rsfe ldcode x—prob ab ly o f th e thirte enth century. If this infe re nce is corre ct,a line al de scent may b e e stab lishe d fo r H from th e arche type o f Fulda.Pe rhaps th e most striking inte rnal characte ristic o f H is its freque nt

agre eme nt with th e hand in th e Leidensis known as b (se e p . l x x ) . I f b

is as late as is ge ne rally supposed, th e prob ab ility is that its re adings we rede rive d from H

,or from some similar copy e x e cute d ab out th e same

time . For proof o f this agre ement, re fe re nce might b e made to th e

critical note s,b ut it may b e instructive to e x hib it he re some o f th e

re semb lance s re fe rre d to, as we ll as some o f th e diffe rence s b e twe e nth e two traditions .Th e following e x ample s in which H and b agre e are prob ab ly in

many case s th e re sult o f an indepe nde nt attempt on th e part o f th ecopyist o f H to re solve th e compendia in h is original . Th e olde st e ditions

(Spire nsis and Pute o l anus) gene rally pre se nt th e same re adings

5 . 12 so l icite fo r societate 5 . 15 nationes fo r necessitudines ; 5 . 25praesi dia

fo r pr ofug i o 5 . 26 ir repat fo r increpuit ; 6 . I 8 quacunque fo r quemcum

que ; 7 . 10 in codici l l is fo r codici l l is 8 . 7 ipsa e l oquentia cm . H ,de l . b ;

12. 14 ne aut i l l ua’

cl amore fo r nec u l l is autg l or ia mai o r ; 25 . 8 si quo minus

fo r in qua nimirum 31. 3 1 civ itatem fo r comitem 33 . 24 circa ora

l ari am (o r -um) fo r esse oratorum.

Othe r re semb lance s b e twe en H and b are

5 . 1 1 araitr ium ; 5 . 12 sed et ipsum 6 . I 8 indux er it ; 10. 33 rightly nine(so 10. 34 wrongly nine (fo r Ii ace) 21. 3 Canuti ; 21. 28 quia ; 23 . 7

isti om. H,d e l . b C 29 . 4 et w

’

r ides om. H Put., de l . b ; inuenies 29 . 12 .

On th e othe r hand , H and b diff e r in th e following place s

7 . 17 v etat H natat b , v ocat Put. ; 8 . 1 nunc Eprium b Put. , em

propri um H 8 . 1 1naoere fnus H, naoemus b ; 8 . 12 ang ustia ereptum H ,an

g ustiae parentum b 10. 5 nedum b , metr um H (Sp . Put.) 15 . 6 nza l zgnius

b , ma l zgnus h is H (Sp.) 21. 15 parte sectum H, parte seu b 21. 35 r uoo r

H , robur b 21. 38 quam b ,inquam H 25 . 13 sic b , sieut H 25 . 16 si iure b ,

sic wire H 31. 35 pl era eque b , p l erique H ; 32. 29 a w ois b , v oois H33. 22 tl l ud b , id H (and D) 36. 20paraoat b ,pro baoat H .

Th e copyist o f H le ft b lanks in h is tex t (some o f which have be en

x x x INTRODUCTI ON .

reproduce d in th e early e dd.) whe reve r h e was unce rtain as to th e re ading.

Instance s are7 . 14 quibus q et indo l es est H, quibus morum et indo l es est

V Sp . Put. ; 8 . 17 whe re th e wo rds sunt cit/ itatis are omitte d in HSp.

Put. (and whe re sunt se ems, by th e w ay, no t to b e indispe nsab le to th e

conte x t) ; 21. 17 et H, fo r regu l e AB , which is de le te d by b ;23 . 2 sensu is le ft b lank in H,

sus Sp., secundus V,serus Put. (cp . 23 . 2 1

summum HSp . fo r sensuum) 28 . 3 no“

HSp . Put. fo r nominis con

tr ov ersianz cp. 13 . 3 wh e re th e inse rtion o f contr ov e rsiae by H afte rper icu l asua et sugge sts e ithe r that th e true reading may b e ce rtamina e t pe ricul a sua

e t co ntro ve rsiae ad consul atus e ve x e rint o r e lse that th e re ad ing o f H is dueto th e misinte rpre tation o f a compendium, such as cent

‘

e v ex er‘. Similarly

in th e Sue to nius 102 . 3, 12 Harris eyaw a wh ich is vario usly rende red ino th e r co dd., is le ft a me re b lank in H, introduced b y a tentative p .

Th e remarkab le agre emen t o f H with th e e arly printe d e ditions mayb e made th e sub je ct o f a separate paragraph , as showing th e influencewhich th e copyist e x e rte d o n th e e arly constitution o f th e te x t. H hasb e en shown to b e o f e arlie r date than 14 70 , th e ye ar in which th e editio

princtps appe are d ; if it w as conveye d to England some e ight or nineye ars previously, it may have b e e n use d, b e fore b e ing sent o ff , to com

pl e te , as regards th e D ial ogue , some manuscript o f th e family to whichth e Vindooonensis (V) b e longs, and from which Spira is b e lie ve d to have

printe d h is te x t . Th e following are instance s o f mistake s in H, ge ne rallyshare d by V,

and pe rpe tuate d in th e e arly e ditions ; omissions are indicate d by square b racke ts . It will b e notice d that many o f th e re adingsare due to misinte rpre tation o f compe ndia1. 3 [e l oquentiae] 3 . 7 si quae prarj arn interpretandi materiam (writte n

in ab o ve th e line in H as an alte rnative fo r si quae pra'ua interpretamini

mate r iam) 3 . 1 1 tractatione fo r recitatione ; 3 . 16 curarum fo r causarum ;

4 . 4 [ooicis] 4 . 8 musarunz fo r causarum ; 5 . 2 5 pr ope fo r pr osper e ; 6 . 1

cense o fo r transeo (eme nd . 6 . 5 [suam] ; 6. 7 ofiz‘

czzs—adnzinistrandis

6 . 2 1 aj e r i ; 8 . 10 propr iam fo r pr ox ima ; 8 . 2 1 a ir fo r 7/ er i ; 8 . 2 5 imag ines

atta l i ; 9 . 6 crebra est fo r cui aono e st ; 9 . 10 [e ius] 9 . 1 I [ipse] 9 . 28 [suum

g eniunzpropitiae ] 11. 7 ut n iti fo r a l iquid et eniti ; 14 . 4 intueri fo r in

terv eni (emend . 16. 9 [eas] ; 16. 2 1 per/icitis fo r prof e rtis ; 17 . 22

auctorious fo r actionibus ; 18 . 5 [nu l l a parte ] 8 [quoque ] 18 . 27 v ide ri

fo r v identur ; 19 . 6 iudicio (pe r compe nd . H ) , v ide o VSp . ; 19. 7 [cum] as Dih . auctorurn fo r aurium ; 19 . 15 p/zi l o sopniarn atque fo r p/zi l osop/tiam v ide

r etur et ; 19 . 24 consi stunt ; 20. 24 et inf ornicibus teg u l isque (emend . Put. )21. 15 sir/e in univ ersa parte secturn 21. 20 cognitionzs 21. 26 l entidius ;

22. 13 ex tempore fo r ex ce rpe re 23 . 15 confi x it fo r conting it ; 23 . 2 1 summum

fo r sensuurn ; 24. 5 maturatus ; 24 . 6 ita mutasse non a’

eoes ; 24. 1 1 [igitur]ib . exprimo fo r e xpr ome ; 25 . I I [pr imae] 25 . 15 [et Cae l ius] 25 . 22 v o l u

minis fo r uo l untatis ; 26. 7 ipsorum fo r temporum (cp. 32. 12 whe re HSp .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

l x x x n INTR ODUCTI ON .

e vide nce , b oth e x te rnal and inte rnal, is against such a the ory. Th e

prob ab le characte r o f th e seque l o f Me ssal la’

s spe e ch, and o f what musth ave pre ce de d ch . 3 6 in th e arche type has alre ady b e e n discusse d

1. As

regards th e e x te rnal evidence , the re is a pre tty gene ral agre ement amongth e MSS . that th e lacuna unde r conside ration e x tende d to six fo lios

o f th e arche type , which had e vide ntly b e en lost b e fore th e fi rst copy wastaken from Enoch’s find 2. Th e proportion o f th e lost part to th e wholehas b e en variously calculate d . Url ich s (Eos, ii. p . 2 3 2 ) thought it musthave b e en o ne-te nth ; Bro tie r, who unde rtook to supply what was wantingin a ‘ Suppl eme ntum,

’ took it at o ne-six th Hab b e 3 h as calculate d it atone-se ve nth , arguing that th e se x page lle

’

o f th e MSS . must re fe r to th efolios o f th e original

‘arch etypum Fuldense

,

’

from which what is knownnow as th e First Me dice an is b e lie ve d to have b e en copie d . A constituent

part o f this last-name d MS., though separate d from itnow, is th e Me dice an

code x o f Pliny’s Letters, and Hab b e b e lie ve s that a comparison o f a mar

ginal note in th e Vatican code x o f Pliny which state s th e e x tento f th e lacuna in th e six te enth le tte r o f th e fi rst b ook as

‘ duae chartae ,’

will give th e re sult as ab ove calcu late d fo r th e D ial ogue . In th e Har

l eianus,th e copyist has care fu lly calculate d th e e x te nt o f th e lacuna in th e

code x which lay b e fore h im, and h as le ft b lank a space corre sponding toab out one-ninth o f th e whole , no doub t in th e hope that th e missing partwould one day turn up, whe n it could b e incorporated with th e re st.

In discussing th e que stion whe the r th e manuscripts o f th e X family, orthose which de rive from Y

,are th e more to b e depe nde d o n fo r a scientific

re constitution o f th e te x t, care ful note must b e take n o f the ir distin

guish ing characte ristics . The re can b e no doub t that th e copyi st o f Yhad a b e tte r know ledge o f Latin than th e copyist o f X, and was also moreskille d in th e solution o f th e various compendia which must have ab ounde din th e arche type . More ove r, h e was no t conte nt to follow h is originalto th e ve ry le tte r, e spe cially whe re h e thought h e cou ld improve on it

he nce th e MSS . which de rive from Y show trace s o f a proce ss o f emendation which h ad b egun ,

in a ll prob ab ility, with th e write r o f Y himse lf.

1 Se e p . xxxvi : cp. o n 36 . 1 . E h ic de estmu l tum in2 Th e mo st spe cific intimation o f th e paginas ; V2 h ie

e xtent o f th e l acuna IS made l n th e margin n ius f o l i i cum dimidio . In

o f B : deerant zn ex emp l ar i sex page l l e BCAD a few l ines are le ft bl ank. Fo rHuetustate consumptae . A h as in th e se e abo ve .

margin H ie desunt sex page l l e ; C (po s 3 Se e h is D e Dial ogi ” . l o cis duobus

sib l y in a late r hand) M u l tum defi cit in l acuno sis,’

18 88, p . 7

exemplarzhus quae reperi :untur A h ic

MAN USCR I P TS . lx x x iii

Th e re sult is that th e re ading which must have stood in th e original isto b e found in th e MSS . o f th e Y family more freque ntly than in AB .

But it is important to note that this doe s not ne ce ssarily imply that Ywas a true r repre se ntative than X o f th e arche type o n which they b othdepended , th e code x found by Enoch o f Ascoli, or o f th e copy which h emay have taken from that code x . On th e contrary

,th e conscie ntious

accuracy with which th e more unle arne d copyist o f X ,as repre sente d

e spe cially by A,followe d th e line s o f h is original is a guarante e o f th e

fact that, whe re th e two familie s disagre e , th e dive rgence is ofte n due'

toimproveme nt and eme ndation o n th e part o f th e memb e rs o f th e Y family.

Th e following lists have b e e n drawn out with th e view o f making clearth e nature o f th e discrepancie s : in any fina l judgment it is th e characte rand prob ab l e origin o f a particular re ading, quite as much as th ecomparative accuracy o f th e two traditions, that ought to b e care fullye x amined . Whe re A and B give a distinctive and characte ristic re ading,the re is a re asonab le ce rtainty that they are reproducing what w as b e forethem ; o n th e othe r hand, similar re adings in th e Y family are often dueto th e eme ndation o f some individual scrib e .

Le aving out o f account, in th e me antime,such comparative ly unim

portant variations as th e pronouns (e .g. il l a zsta,iis h is

,as

we ll as all case s whe re th e discrepancy se ems to have arise n from th e

misunde rstanding or th e negle ct o f compe ndia, and th e no t inconside rab lenumb e r o f instance s which must b e classe d as doub tful

,w e may se le ct

th e fo llowing as affording striking te sts o f th e two diffe re nt traditions .In th e following place s, th e right re ading is ce rtainly pre se rve d by AB,

some time s re-inforce d by D or H, or by b oth

12. 10 etma l is morihus ABDH et ex ma l is mo rihus EVQCA

21. 17 reg u l e A,regu l gBD ( fo r i l l ae EV2CA

re l iquae , se e ad l o c .)25 . 1 praescrzptam a te ABD etprescr iptam E, pe rscr iptam etC,prae

scrzptam etV2D,a te praescr iptam H

41. 12 o hscur iorque ABDH o hscur io r EV2CA

Prob ab ility is strongly in favour o f th e X family also in th e followinginstance s

,though many o f them depe nd on compendia which

"

mighte asily have b e e n misunde rstood or negle cte d

9 . 5 deinceps AB de inde EVQCADH

5 . 2 moderati ABE modesti CDAV2H

He re it w as pro b ab ly th e omission o f th e syllab le e r in th e o riginal thatgave rise to th e re ading o f th e Y c lass : cp. 17 . 17 f ateretur (b e low) ; al sb

g Z

lx x x iv INTR ODUCTI ON .

24. 15, wh e re co l l zgitur h as e v ide ntly re sulte d (in CAD) from a misunde r

standing o f co l l egi t (co l l eger itABEV2, co l l igen'

t H)

6. 7 non AB neque EV2CADH

17 . I 7 f ateretur ABD,f atetur H f ate hatur EV2CA

19 . 10 l audahatABDH l audi dabatur EV2CA

25 . 4 constatABDH constaret ECA, constare V2

27 . 13 pe rstr ing atAB perstr ing itEV2CAH perstrzgit D

31. 6 h aec enim estABH 1 h aec est enim EV2CAD

31. 19 postu l ahit ABDH cp . on postu l auerit EV2CA

exp l icahit 16 . 2

38 . 9 omnia depacaueratA (depa omnia a l ia pacauerat (a l ia omnia

raverat B ) dep. E )

Th e following, on th e othe r hand, are th e stronge st instance s o f

a gre ate r accuracy o f reproduction on th e part o f th e Y family

10. 3 sequitur EV2CADH (and co rr. A) insequitur AB

16. 2 1 pr of ertis ECAD and so V2 (co rr. profi r [i]tis A,prof eratis Bfrom proj e rcis : _géfi citis H, per

j z'

citis Sp.)18 . 2 5 autem EV2CADH (and co rr. B)27 . 1 1 et cum EV2CA

28 . 26 ad r em mi l itarem EVzCADH

31. 9 h aec ipsa EV2CADH

31 I 2 in 7/iti is EVZCAD-H

31. 36 h aec quoque EV2CADH

41. 3 Quis enim EVZCA

In th e fo llowing place s, also, th e true re ading is pre se rve d by th e

Y family,though prob ab ly by succe ssful eme ndation (as possib ly some

o f th e instance s just cite d, e .g. 28 . 2 6,whe re th e addition o f rem to

mi l itarem would re adily b e made )

6 . 18 induerit EVzCAD (indux eritHb ) indueretAB

12. I 4 u l l is EVQCAD n l l us AB

26 . 7 actores EVzCADH aucto res A,a [u]tores B

26. 15 posse EVzCADH post se A,pos*se B

1 G e rbe r and Gre e f remark (p . 346) 55 , 8 in u s enim (th e o nly co l l ocationthat e n im always o ccupie s th e se co nd po ssib le ) .place in Tacitus, e xce pt Dial . 30. 23 [ ta

2 Michae lis and Scheue r diffe r in the irest en im (whe re its po sition assists th e account o f A .

emphasis o f th e statement ) and Ann. x iv .

quidem autem AB

cum ABD

ad mi l itarem AB

h aec AB

7/2'

tzzs B (A2

h aec AB

Quidem quod nemo AH (in A

Quis enim is given ab o veth e line as a variant) : qu idenim quod nemo B quiseni quide

’

quod nemo D

MANUSCRI P TS lx x x v

26. 23 ue l ut EV2CAH (and co rr. B) uu l tAB

26. 24 incusato EV2CA in Curato A, incurato BD,

in curato H

29. 12 int/enies EV2CADH int/enir es AB

35 . 16 perfi dem EV2CAD perfidi e ABH

Prob ab ility is strongly in favour also o f

24 . 12 in tantum EV2CAH as against tantum AB37 . 19 h ahendus EV2CA h ahendus estABH (est h ahendus D)41. 9 tamen EV2CADH inde AB

He re are two case s o f transposition,in regard to which th e supe riority

o f th e Y re ading is argue d in th e note s

EVzCADH AB

22. 4 e iusdem aetatis oratores aratores e iusdem aetatis

22. 7 seni or iam 1 iam senior

Cp. also 30. 20 ing enuae artis

It is prob ab ly th e supe rior knowledge o f th e copyist that is demo nstrated in

23. 1 ins uerr inum EVQCADH as against ius v etrinum AB

5

5 . 6 Sa l e iumVZCADH ,S e l e ium E Sa l erum A, Ga l erzu B

9 . 9 Sa l eium EV2CAH,S a l tium D Cae l e ium A, Co e l eium B

Whe n w e come to e x amine th e place s whe re th e corre ct re ading se emsto have depe nde d on th e copyist

’s ab ility to inte rpre t compe ndia and

te rminal ab b reviations,w e find a ve ry conside rab le advantage on th e

side o f th e Y family. It should b e rememb e re d, howe ve r, that this isin itse lf no proof o f th e supe riority o f Y ove r X . Th e following is a listo f th e re adings which are rightly give n by th e de scendants o f Y

2. 14 omni EVQCA cu ABDH

5 . I 5 necessitudines EV2CAD n ecessitates AB (nationes H,e dd . ve tt. )

5 . 25 pe rf ugi o EVzCAD prof ug io AB (praesidia H , e dd . y e tt.)6 . 18 quemcunque C, quencun quandocunque AB (quacunque H, and

que E , quemconque D , b in marg.)

qu é‘

cuqV27 . 15 nomina EV2CADH no

“

AB

9 . 10 e ius EVzCAD (0m. H) e stAB

9 . 2 1 praecepta EV2AD percepta ABCH

1 Gudeman suppo rts th e reading o f th e to combine with et, ac, ut, non , n isi, si ,

Y class he re by po inting o ut that omit que , and th e l ike th e po stpo sitive use o f

ting such ste re o type co llo cations as iam iam is th e gene ral rule in th e D ia l o gue .

vero,iam pr z

’

a’em, iam dudum, and Such instance s, howeve r, as 32. 30 ; 7 . 1 7 ;

o bse rving that iam h as a de cided tendency 8 . 1 7 ; 32. 30 ; 39. 6, are no t to th e po int .

lx x x vi INTR ODUCTI ON .

12. 8 in i l l a EV2CADH et i l l a AB

16. 32 uester EV2CA"

27? H w’

detur ABD (b ut in B é ste in litura)18 . 2 8 v eniam EV2CADH uenias A,

uenia* B

Cp. with th e last 20. 5 dicentem dicentes AB

EVzCADH and co rr. B19 . 29 expectandum EVQCAH, expectantem AB

expectando D

20. 13 non so l um EV2CADH

22. 2 8 quia EVQCADHb

24. 13 recesser imusEV2DHand

co rr . C

28 . 14 educahatur EVQCADHb

28 . 15 erat EV2CAH

31. 15 ad EV2CA

31. 25 permanendos EV2CA

32. 14 non EV2CADH

37 . 15 causarum EVzCADb

(carH)38 . 12 a l iorum EVzCADH a l iquorum AB

Th e following may b e doub tful, though I have had little he sitationin adopting th e re ading o f th e Y class

21. 36 quia non EVQCAD

22. 30 ut sumere EVzCAD

28 . 1 Et ECADH (N 2)32. 22 e rg o EVZCADH

39 . 2 rideatur EV2CADH ridear AB

On th e othe r hand th e X family has prope rly inte rpre te d compe ndiain th e following instance s

6 . 2 1 pr ofertAB perfert EV2CA,prof e rre D,af ert H .

8 . 24 possitABCH possint EV2DA

33 . 7 quid ABD quod V2CAH

Pro bab ly also6 . 7 non ofi iczzAB neque ofi fczz EV2CADH19 . 23 aut l eg ibus AB et l eg ihus EV2CADH

31. 12 nec nec AB neque neque CEV2, nec neque H

34 . 35 h odie quoque AB h odieque EVQCAD, h odie’ H

36. 1 ve l ahiectumAB nih i l aaiectum EV2CADH

Th e prob ab ility, as regards th e last passage , is that nih il is anemendation o f th e Y family : afte r writing nih il corre ct ly in th e wordsimme diate ly pre ce ding (nih il humil e vel ahiectum) AB would not b elike ly to make a mistake in sub stituting vel fo r th e se cond nih il .

nec so l um AB

qui AB

r ecessimus AB (cp. on mode rati

p. l x x x 111)educahitur AB

critABD

etABDH

promoz/edos AB , promouendos H,com

mar/edos D

nee AB

curarum AB

MANUSCRIPTS . l x x x vu

3 5 . 2 1 must be classe d as doub tful (pr osequantnr X, persequantur Y)though I have adopte d what se ems to have b e e n th e re ading o f X .

In what may b e conside re d minor matte rs o f orthography, th e

advantage is some time s on th e one side , some time s on th e othe r, e . g.

6. 1 i ocunditas EV2CA,iucunditas H iocunditatis A, iucunditatis B

10. 16 e l eg orum ECADH ,e l egarum V2 e l eg iorum AB

26. 23 deminuta HVQCAD ,diminuta AE dimunuta B

30. 2 auctori hus EV2CADH autori hus AB

15 . 16 concentus ABE (fo r concentu ) concentus VgCADH

17 . 9 statue ABE statuae V2CAD, statug H

19 . 2 a l te AB a l tae V2CAD, a l t; H

32. 22 ut quae ABDH utque EV2CA

39 . 5 tabu l ar ia ABDH tabu l ariae V2C, tabu l ar ig E,

f abu l arig A

39 . 9 ipsam ABDH ipsa EVzCAD

Doub tful are 10. 2 1 whe re EV2CA give artes and ABDH artzs; and

22. 1 8 whe re supel l ectil e has fu lly as good MS . authority (ABEVgH) as th emore correct form supe l l ectil i CAD.

In th e fo ll owing doub tful place s th e true re ading is e stab lishe d by th eagre ement o f ABEV2 as against CAD H supports th e forme r in th e twofi rst instance s, th e latte r in th e third

ABEV2

15 . 17 autAs inio aut ah Asinio

22. 23 f ugi tetABEVzA f ug iet CD

37 . 17 expi l atis de expi l atis

ing ressi DHV,ingraessi CA

Th e following is doub tful

17 . 28 v ocetis ABEV2H‘Z/ocitetis CAD

Th e prob ab ility he re is that th e re ading vocetis is due to th e negle ct o fa mark o f ab b reviation : th e position is reve rse d at 22. 2 3 whe re f ug itet

(ABEV2A) is right as againstf ug iet (CD) . Cp. 25 . 4 whe re th e X familyse ems right with constat (ABDH) as against constar et (ECA) . On th e

othe r hand itmight o f course b e argue d that th e supe riority o f th e vocetistradition points to th e unne ce ssary inse rtion o f a suppose d omitte dsyllab le it in CDA. Th e latte r are often wrong whe re ABEV2 are right

(Scheue r, pp. 2 3 , though th e fo llowing must b e place d to the ircredit

33 . 10 arte et scientia CAD arte et inscientia ABEV2H

37 . 1 1 M ete l l os et GADH (so b ) M ete l l os sed etABEV2

Th e foregoing lists do not include some striking variations as regards

lx x x viii INTRODUCTI ON .

th e use o f pronouns (il l e iste,h zc is) which distinguish th e two

familie s o f MSS . Scheue r (afte r B inde ) has re ckone d that b oth agre ethirty-o ne time s in showing i l l e, and ten time s in iste ; the re remaintwe nty place s whe re X give s iste and Y i l l e

1. Michae lis gene rally adhe re d,

in h is critical e dition,to AB and iste, but was force d to accept il l e at

30. 2 1 (whe re th e pronoun is thrice repe ate d, per anaph oram), while at6 . 7 h e take s zpsos from E

,with al l e ditors. B inde , who give s an

e x haustive tre atmen t o f th e sub je ct in th e se cond chapte r o f h is disse rtation, thought that in th e Y c lass iste had b e en de le te d ub i nudum,

ub i

ante suum nome n,ub i post primum adie ctivum,

si sub stantivo appo nunturduo adie ctiva, positum e rat ’ ; but Scheue r rightly doub ts how a copyistcould have arrive d at such a ‘ law

,

’

and quote s against it th e instance s at23 . 7 ; 4 1. 20 26 . 6 (whe re the re is a ge ne ral agre ement fo r iste in th e

It se ems ce rtain that AB cannot b e invariab ly right, while on th e othe rhand th e Y class cannot b e followe d in al l case s . Al l e ditors agre e inalte ring isti (th e re ading o f all th e codd .) to i l l i at 4 1. 2 0 o n th e othe rhand the re is no dub ie ty ab out l ihrum istum 3 . 6 trag oediae istae 3 . 1 5

comitatus istos 11. 1 3 . As in othe r te x tual diffi cultie s, an e cle ctic me thodmust b e pursue d in de ciding b e twe en X and Y whe re they disagre e ; fo rinstance , I accept ista from AB at 19 . 4 , and, with equal prob ab ility,istos at 10. 2 3 , b ut re je ct it at 12. 1 6 . Othe r passage s fo r comparison

are 13 . 3 ; 13 . 1 9 ; 21. 2 8 ; 24 . 1 2 and 25 . 5 whe re th e Y class

give s il l os and th e X c lass istos ; 12. 20 ; 13 . 1 ; 16 . 5 ; 18 . 7 ;

and 3 3 . 2 2 whe re Y= i l lud,and X= istud ; 9 . 20 ; 12. 8 ; 13 . 1 9 ;

14 . 1 7 ; 20. 4 ; 30. 2 4 ; and 3 1. 1 5 whe re Y= il l a and X= ista ; 4 . 9

and 23 . 1 3 whe re Y= i l l am and X z z'

stam ; 19 . 9 whe re Y= i l l e and Xiste .

A similar difficul ty arise s (as frequently in othe r MSS) ab out th e useo f iis and h is . Ex ample s are : h is most codd i is B 30. 1 6 ns AB,

h is

EVZCAH

,h zzs D (as again at 11. 6) 3 4 . 34 zzs ABGAH,

h is EV2,I s D

(cp. 3 1. 4) 42. 5 iis ABC,h is EV

2DH ; 14 . 1 8 iis ABCAD,

h is EV2H ;

24 . 8 iis ABCAD, h is RY2H : cp . 25 . 9 iisdem ABCADH,

h isdem EV,

3 5 . 1 3 h is ABEV2D,iis CA ; 3 7 . 9 h is ABEVgDH,

iis CA. Th e pre fe rence o f C fo r its may b e note d in th e last two place s : cp . 5 . 2 i is CAD,

i is

h is ABEVzH ; 8 . 2 1 i is CAD, h is AEV2 [h is] B , 0111. H. and edd. ve t

1 The re can b e l ittl e do ubt that this b il ity o f misinte rpre tation is e vident frommust b e due to th e similarity o f com th e o ccurrence (Dial . 14. 1 7 ) o f iam in

pend ia. It is remarkabl e , as Binde h as CAD fo r i l l a EV2H, istaAB whil epo inted o ut, that AB neve r give iste at al l a

in th e Sue tonius fragment, and only o nce at 19 . 4 D actual l y shows i fo r i l l a Y,

in th e Ge rmania (x. 1 7) b ut th e pro ba ista X .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

x c INTR ODUCTI ON .

DUPRé : D ia l ogum de Orator ibus nec Qu inti l iano nec cu iv is a l zz sed Tacito adiudi

cundum esse censu it ac demonstrare tentav it. Saint Calais,DRYANDER : Con iecturae in D ia l ogum de orator ians. Hal le , 185 1 .

WIDAL : I n Taciti D ia l ogum de Orator ians D isputatio . . Paris, 185 1 .

SCHOPEN : D iorth otica in Corne l i i Taciti D ia l ogum. Bonn,1 858 .

STEINER : Ue he r den D ia l ogus . Kreuznach , 1 863 .

CLASSEN : Einzge B emerkungen u her den D ial ogus de Orator ians (Eo s, vo l . i .

pp. 1 1 864.

WO’

LFFLIN : se e Ph i l o l ogu s, xxv. pp . 9 2—134, 1 868 . Cp . xxvi . pp . 9 2

—166 ; x x v n.

1 13—149 .

ANDRESEN Emendatione s Taciti qu i fi rtur dia l og i de orator i hus (Acta so c. phi lo l .Lips. tom. i . fasc . i ) . Le ipzig, 18 7 1 .

MEISER : If r itisch e Studien zum D ia l ogus und zur German ia des Tacitus . Eichstatt,18 7 1 .

MAEHLY : Ohservationes a’e Drusi atque Maecenatis Epicedzzs deque Taciteo D ia l ogo

cr iticae . Basl e , 1 8 73 .

WALTER : D e Taciti Studi is rh eto r icis. Halle , 18 73 .

WACKERMANN D ia l ogus qu i de Orator ians inscr i h itur qua iure Tacito ah iudicetur .

Ro sto ck,1 8 74 .

OBERMEYER : Ana l ecta Critica ad Taciti qu i dicitur D ial ogum de Oratoribus.

Be rlin , 18 75 .

N IPPERDEY : se e h is Opuscu l a, pp . 2 74—342 , 18 7 7 .

VAHLEN : Ad Taciti D ia l ogum de Orator ians. Be rl in, 18 78 and 1 8 8 1 .

JANSEN D e Tacito D ia l ogi auctore. Groningen, 1 8 78 .

WOLFFLIN j ah resber ich t ither Tacitus (Bursian’s Jahre sbe richt, xviii. pp . 2 15

18 79 .

STEUDING B e itrage zur Tex th r itih im D ia l ogu s des Tacitus. Wurzen,1 8 78 .

KNAUT : Ohservationes cr iticae in Taci l i qu i f ertur dial ogum de orator ians. Magde

burg,1 8 79 .

WEINKAUFF : D e Tacito D ia l ogi qui de orator ibus inscr i bitur ane l are,2nd ed .

Co lo gne , 1 8 8 1 .

VOGEL : D e dia l ogi qu i Taciti nominefl ’rtur se rmone indicium. Le ipzig, 1 88 1 .

RESL : Utrum D ia l ogus qu i inscr ihitur a’e Oratori hus Tacito adscr iai possit necne

quaer itur . Cze rnowitz, 1 8 8 1 .

GERICKE : De abundanti dicendi genere Tacitino . Be rlin, 188 2.KLEIBER : Qu id Tacitus in D ia l ogo pr ior ibus scr iptorihus debeat. Hal l e , 1883 .

GRUENWALD : Quae ratio intercede re v ideatur inter Qu inti l iani I nstitutionem

Orator iam et Taciti D ial ogum. Be rlin,18 83 .

BINDE : De Taciti D ia l ogo Quaestiones Cr iticae . G l o gau, 1884.

HELMREICH : j ah resber ich t ithe r Tacitus (Bursian’

s Jahre sbe richt, xxxix. pp . 9 1

1 884 : cp . IV,1 8 8 8 , pp . 1—56 .

WIESLER Tex th r itisch e und ex egetisch e Era’

rterungen zu demD ia l ogu s a’e Oratoribus

des Tacitus. Le o ben, 18 86 .

G ILBERT : Die Einh e itl z’ch h e it des Tacite isch en D ia l ogus (Fl e cke isen’s J ah rb uch e r f.

class. Phi lo l o gie , vo l . cxxxiii. pp . 203 1886.

JOHN : Zum D ia l ogu s des Tacitus. Urach , 1886.

B I BLI OGRAPHY x c i

SCHWENKENBECHER : Quo anno D ia l ogus de Orator ibus h abitus sit quae r itu r .

Spottau, 18 86.

WUTK : D ial ogum a Tacito Traian i tempor ibus scr iptum esse demonstravit. Spandau ,18 8 7 .

REUTER : D e Qu inti l io n i Libro qui f u it de cansis corruptae e l oquentiae (pp . 56

Bre slau, 188 7 .

PHILIPP : D ia l ogi Tacitin i qu i f ertu r de orator ibus quae genu ina f uer it f orma .

Vienna, 18 8 7 .

HABBE : D e D ia l ogi de Orato r ihus qu i Taciti esse ex istimatur l ocis duohus l acunosis .

Ce l l e , 1 888 .

JOHN se e Neue J ah rb . f. Philo logie und Paedagokik, vo l . cx x x vn . pp. 5 7 2—6 , 1 888 .

LEVEGH I : D isposizi one e cr itica de l D ia l ogus de Orator ians . Trento , 1890 .

NOVAK : Mute-[ i Tacitus poh ldddn bj ti 2a pduodce d ia l ogu de oratorihus ? alsoM oino-l i , ahy hy l h do j inj sh l adate l em dia l ogu de orator ians ne é

’

Qu inti l ian ?

1890.

CZYCZKIEW ICZ : D e Tacite i sermon is propr ietatihus praecipue quae ad poetarum

dicendi genuspertineant. Bro dy, 1 890 and (zud part) 1 89 1 .

GUDEMAN 1 : Cr itical Notes on th e D ia l ogue cf Tacitus . Ame rican Jo urnal o f

Phi l o l o gy, vo l . xii . pp . 3 2 7—347 , and 444

—45 7 .

BUCHHOLZ : Verbesserungsvorsch lage zum D ia l ogu s de Orator ians . Ho f, 1891 .

SCHEUER : De Tacite i de Orator iaus D ial ogi codicum nex u etfi de . Bre sl au, 1 89 1 .

HELLER : B eitrage zur [ ( ritih und Erh la'

rung der Tacite isch en Werh e (Phil o l . li .pp . 3 16 189 2 .

HELMREI CH : j ah resber ich t ither Tacitus, 1890-9 1 (Bursian’

s J ah re sb . lx xn. pp . 1 24

189 2 .

1 Dr. Gudeman promise s an Ame rican e dition o f th e Dial ogue , th e appearance o f

which w ill b e e xpe cted with inte re st .

ABBREVIATIONS .

Vaticanus 15 1 8 .

Harl e ianus 2639 .

Vindob onensis CCCLI .

Sp. editio prince psPut. Puteo l anus

G . G .=Ge rbe r and G re e f ’s Lex icon Taciteum (Fasc.

D“. Draege r

’

s Syntax and Sty ! des Tacitus , 3rd ed.

A Vaticanus 1862 .

B Le idensis (b zud h and ) .

E Otto b onianns.

V Vindo b onensis Dccx r,

C Farnesianus.

A Vaticanus 4498 .

D

HV

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 CORNELI I TACI TI

cipe re (cr it en im aut de ingeni i s no stris ma le e x istimandum,Si

id em adsequi non pos sumus , aut d e ind icu s, Si nOl umuS) , vix

l o h e rcu le aude rem,Si m ih i me a se nt e ntia pro fe re nda ac non d ise rtis

S imo rum , ut no stris temporib u s , h ominum se rmo repe te ndus

esse t , quo s e andem h anc quae stio nem pe rtractante s iuve nis

admo dum audivi . I t a non inge n io , s e d m emoria e t re co rdatio ne

opus e st, ut quae a prae stantiss imis viris e t e x cogitata sub til ite r e t

15 d icta g ravite r acce p i, cum singul i d ive rs a s qu idem sed pro b ab i l e s

1 . 8 . er it en im is my co nj . : ut al l co dd . and e dd . ex istimandum co dd . : ex ist.sit Lipsius and edd . 10 . mea mih i Sch ul ting b ut cp . m ihi satis supe rqne , 4. 8 .

1 5 . dive rsas qu idem sed pr obabi l es V2 (eas qu idem Bae h rens) , d iversas ve l easdemsed pr oh . mo st co dd . ,

dive rsas sed easdempr oh . Ro th , Andre sen , Jo hn,Wo lff , [ve l easdemsed proh ] Halm, diversas re i e iusdem sed prob . J. H . M li lle t

,non easdem sed

probab i l es He l le r.

wo uld have be en onus susciper e (Cic . de

O r. i . 1 16 : Quint . x . 2 , ex ciper eco ntains , howe ve r, th e ide a o f tak ing th eburden o ve r from Fabius.

8 . 61 111 e n im e x i stiman dum . Thisparenthe sis (cp. 11. 3 ) is ado pted in prefe rence to th e traditio nal re ad ing, wh ichinvo lve s an awkward co ntinuat ion o f th e

idea contained in tam magnae quaestion is

pondu s. B r it (po ssibly est) may e asi lyhave run into th e pre ceding e x ciper e ,whe reupo n th e we ll-known co ntraction fo ren im wo uld b e m istaken fo r a u (ut) .o . iu di ci i s ,

‘ taste .

’Cp. auribus e t

iudici is,’20. 20 .

10 . ac n o n ,

‘ instead o f’: H ist . i . 40,

8 : Ann . v i. 2 , 2 .

1 1 . u t n o str i s t emp o r i b u s , Thisre strict io n Shows that, in th e write r’so pinio n, th e unfavo urable e stimate o f

contempo rary e lo quence implied in th e

que st io n addre ssed to h im by FabiusIustus w as no tw ith o ut fo undat io n. Cp .

Optimi e t in quantum o pus e st dise r

tissimi viri , 41. 19 .

r e p e te n d u s . Cp. th e frame-wo rk o f

Cice ro ’

s de Orato re , i . 5 2 3 re pe tam

e a quae quo ndam accepi in no stro rum

h ominum e l o quentissimo rum etomn i dignitate principum disputatio ne e sse ve rsata .

1 2 . i uv e n i s adm o dum . Se e Intro d.

p . xv. From a compariso n o f o the r place sin Tacitus whe re this phrase is use d (e sp.

Agric . v ii . 9 : cp . Hist . i i . 7 8 , 9 ; iv. 5 , itse ems that i tmayb e taken asmeaning abo u ttwenty ye ars o f age . So Quint . vi i i . 3 , 3 1 .

13 . m em o r ia re tains, r e co rd ati o re

calls : C ic . Brut. 9 : Tusc. v . 8 8 . Se e

Pro f. W ilk ins ’s no te o n‘re co rdatione et

Cic . de 01 . i . 5 2 28 .

15 . acce p i . This ve rb is much mo refrequ ently used o f knowl edge acquired bytrad itio n , o r at se cond hand

,than (like

ex cipe r e) o f what is he ard from th e ve rylips o f a spe ake r. Fo r th e fo rme r cp .

accipere in 12. 1 8 , 28 . 2 3 , 30. 8 , 40.

13 : fo r th e l atte r ex ciper e , 2. 9 , 15 . 3,29 . 14 : Agr. xlv. 19 : H ist . i i i. 85 , 5 .

But th e comparison o f such passage sas the se is no t a sufficient justificationo f Gudeman

’

s pro po sal (Ame r . Jo urn . o f

Phil . vo l . x ii . p . 3 2 7 ) to alte r th e readingo f th e MSS . to e prae st . viris ex ce pi .

Against h is be lie f in an invariable d istinction be twe en th e tw o compo unds, it issuffi cient to quo te Ann. i . 67 , 2 d icta cumsilentio accipe re : Hist . i ii . 65 , 1 handquaquam e re cto animo e as vo ce s accipie b at.In Cice ro ,

to o , w e fi nd ‘ id, quo d ipse

(se . Pe ricle s) ab Anax ago ra, cuius audito rfuerat, accepe rat,

’

de Rep. 1 25 : and

e ven ‘ut Romae ex istius amicis acce

pe ram,

’in Ve rr. i i . 4 , 136 .

s in gu l i se ems to re fe r only to tho seinte rlo cuto rs in th e d ialogue w h o admitte dth e de cl ine implied in th e que stio n withwhich th e treatise o pens, tho ugh the y h add iffe rent e xplanatio ns to give o f it : se e

e spe cially th e spe e che s o f Me ssal l a (25and Mate rnus (36 O the rs th ink

that Ape r also is included : b ut tho ughApe r knows th e d iff e rence be twe en an

cient ’ and mo de rn o rato ry,h e emph ati

cally denie s th e e xistence o f any de cl ine .

Ape r is re fe rred to (appro priate ly e no ughafte r ‘ disputatio nis

’

) in th e sentence b eginning ‘ Neque enim de fuit qui

’

: th e

who le co nte xt shows that, up to that

po int , th e write r is think ing only o f tho seinte rl o cuto rs in th e dialogue (pro bably

D IAL00US DE ORATORI B US . 3

causa s adfe rrent, dum formam su i qu isque e t anim i et ingenu

re dde re nt, isdem nunc nume ris isdemque ratio nib us pe rsequar,

se rvat o ord ine d iSputatio niS . Ne que e nim de fuit qui d ive rsam

quoque par tem suscipe re t, ac mu l t um ve x a t a e t inrisa v etustate

no stro rum t emporum e l o quentiam antiquo rum inge n i i s ante fe rre t.20

2. Nam pos te ro die quam Curiatius Mate rnus Cato nem re ci

1 7 . r edderent AB, r edder et CADH ,reddent E

, r eddent V2. pe rsequar H and

Put. : pr osequar cett. co dd .

including Se cundus) w h o to o k th e same

gro und as Fabius did in h is que stio n.

1 5 . d i v e r sas qu i d em se d p r o b ab i l e s .

On this re ading , ve l easdem is reje cted as

a glo ss added by some o ne w h o wishe dto ind icate that th e arguments advancedby th e d iffe rent spe ake rs are identical .This is true o nly so far as the y agre ein admitting th e fact o f th e de cline implied in th e que stio n o f Fabius Justus.

Se e Intro d . p . xxxi . Fo r ‘

pro b ab i l e s causas

adfe rre’cp . Ann . vi . 14, 9

cum d um . Fo r th e dependenceo f th e latte r on th e fo rme r, tho ugh ina rathe r d iff e rent constructio n, cp . Ann .

xii . 68 , 2 cum o b tege retur , dum

componuntur. Th e subj . r e d d e r e n t is

mo tived by th e mo o d o f th e fo rego ingsubo rdinate clause .

16 . an imi ing e nu ,

‘ he art ’ and‘ mind

,

’ ‘ fe e l ing ’and ‘

unde rstand ing ’

op . 21. ad fin . , C ic. de O r. iii . 5 . Tr.‘re fl e cting in e ach case th e co nstitutiono f.

’F o rf ormam cp . Agr . xlvi . 10 .

1 7 . r e d d e r e n t. Th e variant r edder etmight b e suppo rted from Ge rm . x vi . 5 ;b ut fo r instance s o f Tacitus’s pre fe rencefo r th e plural in similar case s cp . o n

adf e rant, 35 . 8 . So ‘

quisque componerent ’ Ann . vi . 16, ad fi n.

num e r i s,he re Simply o f th e succe ssive

d ivisions in which th e subje ct must b edealt w ith . Cp. Cic. de N . D . i i . 5 37mundum pe rfe ctum e x pl etumque om

nib us suis nume ris e t partibus : Quint . x .

1, 70 . Se e no te on 32. 8 , pe r omne s e l o

quentiae nume ro s isse . T1 .

‘ in th e same

stage s and w ith th e same demo nstratio ns .

’

The re is a k ind o f analo gy in Eur.

Ele ctra, 7 7 2 wo fqo 77161 q 62 na i Tim five/u?)(pa/ av ; In th e te xt , howe ve r, th e rati o n e sare th e gro unds , o r principle s , o n whichth e arrangemen t o f th e parts is based .

S e r vato o rd in e d i sp u tati o n i s is added

only to emphasize th e statement thatno thing h as be en alte red in th e ‘

vice S

l oquendi.’

1 8 . e n im is suggested by disputation i s

d iv e rsam p ar tem . Of Ape r,Mate rnus afte rw ards says : ‘

e t ipse satismani fe stus e st iam dudum in contrarium

accingi ne c aequo animo pe rfe rre hancmo strampro antiquo rum laude co nco rdiam16. 1 1 .

— Fo r Ape r’s e ul ogy o f th e‘ mo de rn ’

scho o l o f e loque nce , se e ch s.

16—23 .

20. antiqu o rum ing e n i i s . Antiqu is ,by itse lf, would have be en qui te a

usual me to nymy : cp . Cic. de Or . i i . 4no stro rum h ominum prudentiam G rae cis

( i . e . G rae co rum prudentiae ) ante fe rre .

The re is a re al antithe sis (no t, as he re , onem o tived me re ly by th e wish fo r symme try)in Agr . xxi . 7 ingenia Britanno rum studiis

Ga l l o rum ante fe rre .

2 . 1 . p o s t e r o d i e , &c . Cp . th e circumstance s o f th e renewal o f th e discussio nin th e de Orato re ii . 1 2 Po ste ro igiturdie quam i l la e rant acta re pente e o

Q . Catuh i s sene x cum C . Iul io fratre ven it .Cu r i atiu s M ate rnu s is known to us

o nly thro ugh this tre atise . H e h as now

abando ned th e pro fe ssio n o f rhe to ric, andis de vo t ing h im se lf to th e compo sit iono f tragedie s, fo ur o f which are named ,M edea , Thy estes , Domitius, Cato . Fromth e a llusio n in th e text (cp . 11 . manyhave be en l ed to infe r that h e is ide nt icalwith th e Mo

’

tr epvo s a equo-”7s w h o w as put

to de ath by Dom itian in 9 1 fo r to o greatfre edom o f spe e ch (Dio n Cass . lxvii .Se e howe ve r Intro d . p . xxxvii .Cato n em . Th e praise o fCato o fUtica

w as traditio na l at Rome from th e day o f

h is death . Cice ro wro te a‘ Cato ’

(ad Att.xiii . 46, 2 : Tac . Ann. iv. 34, 20 : G e l l . xiii .

to which Cae sar replied in an Anti

cato ’

(Plut . Cae s . l iv. 7 33 Ge l l . i v. 16 )consisting o f tw o bo o ks (Sue t . Inl . l v iJ uv . v i. 338 ) in th e fo rm o f Spe e che s

re scripta o ratio ne ve l ut apud ind ice s respo nd it,

’

Ann . 1. Cp . Ho r. Od . i . 1 2 , 35Cato nis no bile l e tum Lucan , Phars .

i . 1 2 8 ‘ victrix causa de is pl acuit, sed vie taCatoni ,’ and i i . 380 sqq. : Se ne ca, Epp . 24 ,10 : 25, 6 : 79, 14 : 97 , 8 : 104, 29 sqq.

4 CORNELI I TACI TI

tave rat,cum o ffe ndisse po te ntium animo s dice re tur tamquam in

e o trago e d iae a rgume nt o sui o b l itus tan tum Cato nemcogitasse t,

e aque de re pe r urb em frequens se rmo h ab e retur, ve ne runt ad

cum M arcu s Ape r e t Iul ius S e cundu s , ce le b e rrima turn inge nia

fori nostri, quos ego no n modo in iud iciis utro sque s t u d iose

aud ie b am, se d dom i quoque e t in pub l ico adse ctab ar mira s t u d io

2 . 2 . tamquam non in Sauppe . 3 . su i co dd . : obsequzz Buchho lz, saecu l i su iBae h rens . 6 . in z

' m

udzczzs non utrosque modo co dd . : [utrosqu e] Ritte r, Halm ,

non in iudiczzs modo utr osque Nippe rdey, utrosque non zn iudzm

czzs modo Scho pen, iniudiczzs no n modo utpl erosque J . H . Mii l l e r .

2 . p o te n tium , i . e . Ve spasian , and th e

circle o f favo urite s re fe rre d to in ch . 8 .

H is tre atment o f He l vidius Priscus showsthat e ven th e mi ld fo unde r o f th e Flavianl ine co uld re sent th e e xhibit io n o f re publican se ntiments . Fo r th e e xpre ssion , cp.

Quint . i i . 20 , 8 cum pericul o sa po tentiumo ffensa .

tam qu am c . subj . is o ften use d byTacitus (like quasi and ve lut) to intro ducean o pinio n o r statement advanced byo the rs (Draege r 1 79 : V

VOl ffi in, Philo l.xxiv. 1 15 10. 2 7 tamquam minuso bno x ium Sit. Cp. Ann . i . 1 2 ad fin.

invisus tamquam plus quam civi l ia

agitare t : 11. 84 , 3‘ tamquam mise re

rentur Agr. xxxviii . 7 .

in e o trag o e d i ae argum e n t o = in e ius

trago ediae argumento . Fo r th e inve rsioncp . C ic . in Ve rr. ii . 4 100 pe rmo tus il laatro citate nego tii .3 . su i o b l itu s ,

‘ wi tho ut thinking o f

himse lf,’ i . e . o f th e risk h e w as running.

The re is no imputation that Mate rnus

fo rgo t o r be lied h is characte r fo r o ut

Spo kenne ss and plain de aling . This ise vident eno ugh , —ia spite o f h is gene ralm ildne ss, and h is acqui e scence (40. l n th e

l imitations impo sed o n co ntempo rary e l oquence

— from h is re fe rence to h is e arlysucce ss with Vatinius (11. h is appre

ciation o f th e antiqua l ibe rtas’

(27 .

h is caustic remarks about Crispus and

Marce llus (13 . and h is calm an

no uncement o f h is Thye ste s (3 . 1 1 ) se e

Intro ductio n p . xxxviii . In anycase suchan imputation wo uld have be en a strangeo ne to make against a dramatic po e t . Th efact is that su i obl itus , while ant ithe ticalin fo rm ,

is re ally subo rdinate to tantum

Catonem cogitasset. The re is thus no

ne ed fo r th e o the rw ise ingenio us co nje ctureobsequ i i , wh ichmight howe ve r b e de fendedo n palae ogtaph ical gro unds.Cato n em c o g i tass e t Cato nis

mentem induisset et e x pre ssisset, G . and G.

o f course frequently used withan acc . , b ut th e paral le ls cited by e dito rsare hard ly so stro ng : cp . howe ve r Sene ca,de Ben . iv . 3 1 dum vete rem i l l um Scaurumco gitas : Pl in. Ep . iv. 2

,2 Incred ibile : sed

Regul um cogita .

5 . M arcu s Ap e r , l ike many o the r rh eto ricians o f this pe rio d , w as o f Gaulisho rigin (cp. 10. 6 ne quid de Gallis no stri sl oquat ) . From ch . 17 w e le arn that h eh ad se rved in Britain, po ssibly, likeTacitus

’

s fathe r-in-l aw Agrico la, unde rSue ton ius Paulinus . By th e date atwh ichthis Dialo gue is suppo sed to have takenplace (74—5 ) h e h ad a lre adymade h is w ayto th e prae to rship . Se e Intro d . p . xxxii .I u l iu s S e cu n dus w as also a Gaul

, but

a man o f a d iffe rent stamp from Ape r.He w as much admired by Quint ilian

,w h o

praise s h im fo r e l egantia’

x ii . 10 . 1 1 a

ful le r cri ticism w ill b e fo und ib . x . 1 , 1 20

and 3 1 2 , whe re se e myno te s. From th e

fo rme r o f the se tw o passage s it se ems thath e w as de ad when Quinti lian wro te h isTenth Bo o k . He is pro bably ident icalw i th th e rhe to rician mentioned by P l utarch as Otho ’

s chie f se cre tary Zeno fivao s

6 3112 7 6311 é mar ok é’

w r

yevo'

ue vo s 7 06”09031109 (Otho Se e Intro d. p . xxxv.c e l e b e rrima ing e n ia . Cp. Quint .x . 1 . 1 2 2 sunt enim summa ho die

, quibusinl ustratur fo rum, ingenia (Ape r, Mar

ce l l us ,Mate rnus, Aqui lins Regulus, Pliny,and Tacitus h imse lf) .6 . qu o s e g o n o n m o d o au d i e

b am . I base th e re ad ing given in th e textno t o nly o n th e co nsistent usage o f

Tacitus in non modo clause s (G . and G. p .

854 b) , b ut also o n th e fact that it explainsth e co rruptio ns o f th e MSS . In Tacitus

,

n on modo always stands in clo se re lationto th e wo rd o r Wo rds which fo rm th e

antithe sis,—he re in iudici is, wh ich canno tb e a glo ss. N ippe rdey w as the re fo rene arly right in sugge st ing, quo s ego non

in iudiciis mo do utro sque b ut it is mo re

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

6 CORNELI I TACI TI

pro fluens sermo non de fuit, e t Ape r omni e ruditio ne imb utus1 5 co ntemne b at potins l itte ras quam ne scie b at, tamquam maio rem

industriae e t l ab o ris g loriam h ab iturus si inge nium eius nu l l is

al ie narum a rtium adminicul is inniti v id e re tur .

3 . Igit u r ut intravimus cub icu lum M at e rn i,se de ntem ipsumque

quem pridie re citav e rat l ib rum in t e r manus h ab entem d epre

h end imus .

Tum S e cundu s ‘ N ih il ne te’

inquit,‘ M a t e rne

,fab u l ae ma l i

5 gno rum te rre nt quo minus offe nsas Cato nis tui ame s ? An id e o

l ib rum istum adpre h e ndisti ut d il ige ntius re t racta re s e t, sub l atis

S i qua pravae inte rpre tatio ni mate riam d e de runt, emitte re s

Cato nem non quid em me l io rem, s e d tamemse curio rem

Tum il le ‘ I nte l l ege s tu qu idem qu id Mate rnus sib i d e b ue rit,

14 . omn i EVzCA , cic'

ABDH (op . 13 . commun i Rh enanus. 1 7 . inn iti

ABCAD ,adn iti co rr. A and B ,

EV2, in i l i H .

3 . 1 : ipsumqu e quem re viewe r o f Walthe r’s ed . in Le ipz. Lit. Ze it . 1 8 33, p . 1 898

ipsum qu em co dd . O the rs ipsum et quem : pe rhaps et ipsum qu em. 2 . inter

Cuj as : intra co dd . 9 . I nte l l eges tu qu idem qu id i s my co nj . : l eges tu qu id

ABDEV2 , l eges tu qu idem H e dd . ve tt.,l eges qu id C , ‘ l eges

’

inqu it‘

qu id Halm,

l eges, inqu it, si l ihuer it N ipperdey, l eges tu quae aud isti et agnosces qu id M aternus

sib i debu er it Bae h rens .

14 . p r o fl u e n s . As gene rally withpu t us (Cic . Bru t . 2 74 ita pura [se .

o ratio ] ut nihil l iquidius) , th e me tapho ri s from a running stre am : cp. Cic . de Or.i i . 1 59 genus se rmonis no n l iquidum ,

non fusum ac pro fl uens : i h . § 64 fusum

atque tractum e t cum l enitate quadam

aequab i l ite r pro fiuens : Tac . Ann. iv . 6 1 6H ate rii cano rum i l l ud e tpro fi uens (as alsoin C ic. de Or. i ii. 2 8

,o f Carbo ) .

im b utu s . So 31. 33 grammatica ,musica, ge ome tria imb ue b antur : cp. no teo n 19 . 2 1 . Th e ablative at 34 . 2 may b e

s lightly d iffe rent .1 5 . c o ntemn e b at. Cp .w h atCice ro says

o fCrassus andAntonius andGre ek l e arn ing(de 01 . i i . 4)

‘no n tam e x istimari ve lle t

non didicisse quam i lla de spice re ,’

sqq.

tamqu am ,with fut. part . (like as

Ann . xi i . 49, 5 tamquam re cupe raturus ,and vi . 36, 4 . Ape r ‘ tho ught that h isreputat io n fo r ze alous pro fe ssional appl icati on wo uld b e gre ate r if, ’ &c.

16 . in du s tr i as e t l ab o r i s : Cic. Brut .2 3 7 : ad Fam . xiii . 10

, 3 . Fo r suchsyno nyms

, se e Intro d . p . li .1 7 . al i e n arum ar tium e xtrane o us ac

complishments,’

e ve rything o utside h is

pro fe ssio n , e . g . phi lo so phy, 31. 25 sqq.

Se e Intro d . p . xxxii, no te .

0118 . 3—4 . Aper’

s cr iticism of Mate rnus .

3 . I . intrav imus . Th e inclusiono f Tacitus himse lf among th e visito rso f Mate rnus is to b e e xplained fromadse ctab ar ,

’

& c . in th e preced ing chapte r.2 . inte r m anu s in manibus : cp.

Ann . i i i . 16, 1 visum inte r manus Piso nis

l ib e l l um : F lin . Epp . i i . 5 , 2 nihil e nimadh uc inte r manus h abui . So Ve rg .

Aen. xi . 3 1 1 Ante o cul o s inte rque manus

sunt omnia ve stras.

5 . qu o m inu s afte r ter reo , as Hist . i . 40,1 2 . So afte r dete r reo

,Hist . i i . 4 1 , 10 ; iv.

7 1 , 2 1 also in Cice ro , Livy, and Cu rtius .

o ff e n sas Cato n i s tu i .

‘ Yo ur e xaspe rating Cato .

’

He w as to take a warningfrom th e fate o f Cremutius C o rdus

,Ann .

iv. 34 : Cp . Quint. x . I , 104 .

am e s . Ovid , Trist. iv. 1, 30 Et carmen ,

demens, carmine l ae sus amo .

7 . p rav ae in te rp r e tati o n i m ate r iam ,

a hand le fo r misconstructio n .

’

8 . n o n qu i d em m e l i o r em . Th e mo reusual o rde rwo uld b e nonme l ioremqu idem ,

o r non i l l um qu idem me l iorem : cp.

pu l ch ri quidem,9 . 13 .

se cur i o r em ,

‘ le ss o pen to attack ,’‘safe r,

’ ‘ le ss risky ’

: Hist . i . 1 , 18 ube ri‘o rem se curio remque mate riam.

9 . I nte l l e g e s .

‘ You, Se cundus (cp. on

DIAL0GUS DE ORATOR IE as . 7

Quod S i qua omisit Ca to , s equenti

hanc e n im trago e diam d ispo sui

A tque ide o matu ra re l ib ri h u ius

e t adgno sce s quae audisti .

re citatio ne Thye s te s d ice t ;

iam e t in tra me ipse fo rmav i.

e ditio nem fe s t ino , ut d im issa p riore cu ra nov ae cogitatio ni to to

pe ct ore incumb am .

’

A d e o te trago e d iae istae non satiant, inquitApe r quo m inu s

om is s is o ratio num e t causarum studus omne tempu s mod o circa

M e de am, e cce nunc circa Th ye stem consumas, cum te to t ami

corum causae, to t co l o niarum e tmunicipio rum c l ie nte l ae in fo rum

vo cent ; qu ib us vix suffe ce ris e tiam si non novum t ib i ipse

19 . suffecer is most co dd . :

5 . w ill appre ciate my attitude . Ihave made no change s. Mo re than thatThye ste s wi l l supplement Cato .

” -It

is impo ssible to explain th e ind ire ct clausegrammatical l y,w ith o utre so rting to th e easychange from l eges to i gnte l l e es (cp . Quint .x . 3 , l eges can hardly b e co nstruedas = l egendo cognosces (as Halm, Jo hn) .Th e pf . de huer it is quite apprOpriate :

what I conside red my bo unden duty.’

1 1 . h an c e nim ,

‘ that is th e name

o f th e tragedy wh ich I have shaped ino utline and planned inmyhe ad .

’

Maternus

is he re giving h is friends a piece o f news :cp. ecce nunc, be low.

1 2 . in tr a m e i p se . Ann . xiv. 53, 1 7 utpl e rumque intra me ipse vo lvam : Quint .

. 3 , 2 quae intra no smet ipso s com

p

l

cisuimus .

m atur are f e s t in o . I f maturareis used he re as

‘acce le rate ,’ ‘ hurry o n ’

th e publicatio n o f (as o ften in Tacitus w ithcaedem and o the r accusative s) , the re isa slight ple o nasm . But o the rs take it aspe ffi cere

,ad fi n em perduce r e . This do e s

no tgo so we ll, howeve r,with ed itio (tho ugheditio is coming to have a co ncre te sense

in Quint . v . 1 1 , 40 : xii . 10 ,1 3 . cura, o f a bo ok, Ann . i ii. 24 , 1 1

Si e ffe ctis in quae tetendi pl ure s ad curaS

vi tam pro dux e ro , iv . 1 1,1 7 quo rum in

manus cura no stra vene rit : cp . Ovid , e xPonto

,iv . 16 , 39 . Of a spe e ch , 6 . 2 3 be low .

t o to p e c to r e in cumb am . Ovid, e x

Ponto,i ii . 1 , 39 pe cto re te to to cunctisque

incumb ere ne rvi s. F o r th e dat. afte rincumber e , se e Quint . xi . 3, 1

1 5 . qu o m inu s . Th e constr. is ‘no n

satiant (sc . neque imped iunt) quo minus,’

o r‘satietate no n de te rrent quo minus ,

’

& c

l it. ‘

you have no t,then , h ad so much o f

trage dy as to prevent yo u from,

’& c . Fo r

o the r cases o f an e llipse wi th quo minus

sufi ceres H and Put.

and qu in , cp. Ann . iv . 5 1 18,1e l iquiS

quo minus sub ige rentur . h iemssub venit (sc. e t impedie b at) : ih . vi . 38 , 2

no n enim Tib e rium tempus pre ce ssatias mitigab ant quin punire t : xiii .14, 9 Agr . xxvii . 8 nihi l e x arro gantia re

m itte re quo minus iuventutem‘

armarent

ib . xx. 6 nih i l inte rim apud ho ste s quie tumpati

, quo minus sub itis e x cursib us po pu

l are tur . Th e analo gy o f th e last tw opassage s e spe cially Shows that th e te xto ught to b e rende red : ‘ Then yo u haveno t h ad eno ugh o f tho se tragedie s o f

yo urs . Turning yo ur back upon yo u

spend your who le time , ’ & c . Somewhatsim ilar is So ph . Ph il . 3 39 dpne i

’

v 6301 6

pfi.—A d e o stands by itse lf at th e begin

ning o f th e sentence ,w h ich is some time s e xh ib ited as inte rro gative in fo rm I s it sotrue

,then

,that

, &c. ) cp . Ann. xi . 16, 1 7Hist . iv. 58 , 8 .

16 . m o d o nun c modo modo ,as Hist . i i . 5 1 , 2 ; iii . 8 5 , 1 . E 008 come s in

natural ly be fo re nunc, as Ape r h as justheard o f th e Thye ste s fo r th e first t im e .

But o the rw ise the re is no indicatio n o f th e

sequence o f th e plays , tho ugh some havetho ught that th e co ntext wo uld have l edus to expect Cato nem

’

in place o f‘ Mede am .

’Ape r ke eps th e ‘ Cato ’

to

th e e nd , in o rde r that h e may set it (alo ngside w ith th e ‘Domitius ’

) o ve r against th e‘ G rae cul o rum fabul ae ,

’ i . e . dramas l iketh e Mede a ’

and th e Thye ste s ’ which o nlygave a ne w pre sentmen t o f subj e cts thath ad be en tre ated sco re s o f t ime s be fo re .

c ir ca , as at 22. 1 1 ; 28 . 1 2 : Ann .

xvi . 8 . 1 1 circa summa sce le ra distentumGe rm . xxviii . 14 : Hist . i . 1 3 , 5 . So fre

quently in Seneca and Quintil ian : se e

no te o n Quint . x . 1 , 5 2 .

.

Cp.

th e use o f

rrepf, appi with th e accusative in G re ek .

19 . su ff e ce r i s, po tential : yo u coul d

8 CORNELI I TACI TI

20 n egotium importas se s , Domitium e t Cato nem,id e st nostras

quoque h is to rias e t Romana nom ina Grae cul o rum~

fab u l is ad

gregando .

4 . Et Mate rnus‘ Pe rturb arer° h ac t ua se ve ritate nisi fre

que ns e t assidua nob is co nte ntio iam prope in co nsue tudinem

ve rtisse t. Nam ne c tu agita re e t inse qui poe t as inte rmittis , e t

e go , cui de sidiam advo catio num o b icis , quo tidianum h o c pa t ro

5 cinium de fe nde ndae adve rsu s t e po e ticae e x e rce o .

20 . Domitium co dd ut Domitium N1ebuh r

Quo l ae to r

2 1 . graecorum B . adgr egando is

myOonj . (cp . 4 . 5 , whe re H h as def ende s fo r def endendae , also whe re al l co dd .

give emendare fo r emendatae) : aggregares ABCADH,aggregarem E

, aa’

gregar em V2,aggregare Pith o eus, aggr egans Ore l l i .

hardly me e t th e demand, e ven if yo u h ad

ke pt to th e tradit ional type o f tragedy,

instead o f encumbe ring yo urse lf, & c.

19 . n o vum n e g o tium . Th is do e s no tne ce ssarily imply that Mate rnus h ad o nlylate ly taken up such subje cts : like th e‘ Medea ’

(ch . th e ‘Domitius ’ w as pro

bably o ne o f h is e arl ie r dramas . Hish isto rical dramas are new

’in th e sense

o f be ing unl ike th e conve ntio nal mo de lsdrawn from Gre ek m

ytho logy,—unl ike

e ven th e prae te x tatae o f e arl ie r po e ts.(Se e Scho e l l, Commentatione s Wo e l ffii

nianae , pp . 395 The ywe re naw ai r pa‘

ytpat'

a l,subj e cts tre ated fo r th e first time ,

new histo ry-plays base s on scenes con

ne cte d wi th th e Fall o f th e Re public.

20 . imp o r tasse s impo suisse s, in

iunx isse s . Th e wo rd o ccurs in Tacituso nly he re : in Cice ro and Livy it is com

mo n eno ugh in such phrase s as‘ incom

mo dum, pe r iculum, detrimentum ( sibi ,a l iis) impo rtare .

’

So also Pliny N . H .

xxvi . 9 . T1 .

‘ if yo u h ad no t burdene dyo urse lf w ith a fre sh task , by ’

& c .

D om itium . Pro bably L . DomitiusAh eno b arbus, co nsul B . C . 54 , and a co n

s istent o pponent o f Jul ius Cae sar . H e

w as pardo ned afte r th e capture o f CO1

finium, b ut rejo ined th e Pompe ians, and

fe l l at Pharsalus . Lucan se le cts h im fo r

e ulo gy in complimen t to h is de scendan tN e ro : Phars. vii . 599

—616 .—I am no t

co nvinced by th e arguments with wh ichScho e l l suppo rts h is pro po sal (C omm.

Wo e l ff. , p . 396 sq.) to unde rstand th e

allusio n to b e to C11. Domitius Ah enobarbus (th e Eno barbus o f Shake spe are ’

s

Anto ny and tho ugh h is

care e r h ad gre ate r e lements o f romancein i t than that o f h is fathe r.i d e st : so ch . ix. ad fin. :

Ge rm. x l . 6 .

22. 8 :

Po ssibl y adgr egand i : se e Intro d . p . l vii.2 1 . adgr e gand o . Th e frequent in

stance s o f th e misinte rpre tation o f com

pendia (e spe cially te rminations ) in th e

D ialo gue , as we ll as Tacitus’s fondne ssfo r this construction , have l e d me to

inse rt adgr egando in th e text, in place o f

N iebuhr’s ut adgregares. Cp . co nce

dendo compo nendo do ce ndo

33 . 14 adiciendo Ann . v . 6, ad fi n

o the r e x x . in D”. 203 . Cp . Intro d . p . lvii .4 . 1 . f r e qu e n s e t ass idu a . F o r o the r

instance s o f th is Cice ronian amplitude ,se e Intro d . p . 11.

2 . in c o n su e tud in em v e rti s se t.

Cice ro frequently use s ven ire in consuetu

dinem e . g. pro Cae c . 6 quo d quo niam

iam in co nsuetudinem venit . Fo r th e intransitive use o f verter e (frequent in Tacitus)cp . Hist . iv . 2 7 , 6 quo d tum in mo rem ve r

te rat : Ge rm . xxxi . 2 in consensum ve rtit

Sall . Iug . 8 5 . 9 bene face re 1am e x consue

tudine in naturam ve rtit.

3 . ag i tar e e t in se qu i . C ic . pro Mur.

5 2 1 agitat rem m ilitarem,inse ctatnr

to tam hanc l egationem .

4 . d e s i d iam ad v o cati o num ,

‘negle ct

o f my pro fe ssional dutie s .

’ Such a genitiveo ccurs nowhe re e lse with desidia , tho ughcommon eno ugh w ith incur ia , neg l e

gentia , & c .

5 . d e f e n d e ndae p o e ticae . Th e

ge rund ive is an e pe xege tic genitive , showing in what th e patrocin ium co nsists , asso l itum e ffugium pro rumpendi, Ann . i i . 4 7 ,3 , cultus . . vene randi , i h . i ii . 63 , 1 2 : cp . iv.

2 , 10 if it h ad no t be en fo r th e inse rtio n o f

de f. adve rsus te ’th e wo rds h o c patro ci

nium po eticae’

might have sto o d by themse lve s . Se e Ro by, Pre f. l xvi i , whe reo rato re s pacis ’

and ‘o rato re s pacis pe ten

dae are shown to b e equ ivale nt cp . alsoC ic. in Ve rr. i i . 4 . 1 13 pro pte r e arn causam

sce l e ris istius. Th e use o f th e l egal

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

10 CORNELI I TACI TI

Se curus sit inquit Ape r e t Sal e ius Ba s sus e t quisquis al ius10 stud ium po e ticae e t ca rm inum g lo riam fo ve t, cum cau sa s age re

no n po ssit. Ego e n im, quate nu s arb itrum litis huins inv e niri

contzgit, non patiar Mate rnum s ocie t a te p l urium d e fe nd i, se d

ipsum so lum apud h os a rgu am quod na tu s a d e l oque ntiam v ir

i lem e t o rato riam, qua pare re s imu l e t tue ri amicitias, adsc isce re1 5 ne ce ssitud ine s, comp l e cti provinc ia s po ssit, omittit stud ium quo

1 1 . ego Pith o eus , et ego co dd . (cp . 8 . inven ir i contzgit is my conj . : znvenzrz

codd . (inven i r e D ) . Among o the r co njj . are inven i Pith o e us, inven imus Vahlen,iuvat i nven ir i R ibbe ck , inven ir i non puto Andre sen, non i i

z

zven i Gudeman, qu ia

(quando Muretus) te nunc inven i Rupe rti . pl ur ium Pith o eus,

pl ur imum co dd. 13 h os is substituted fo r MS . cos (ipsoI

s

2

D) vos Lipsius, eumSpenge l : nos Jo hn : apud te coarguamWe issenb om, apud se coarg . Andre sen, Baeh rens.

‘

1 5 . necessitudines EVQCAD,necessitates AB

,nationes HVb edd . vett. omittit

Rh enanus, amitti codd .

sense is de fined by Gaius Dig . L . x vi . 234,1 l o cupl e s e st qui satis ido nea habe t promagnitud ine re i quam pe t ito r re stituendame sse pe tit : ib . xii . 1 , 4 2 reum l o cupl etem

o ffe rre . I t is mo re commonly found, inth e sense o f ‘

cred ible ,’ with such wo rds

as‘aucto r,’ ‘ te st is.

’

Th e me aning is,‘ I f yo u wish to impeach po e try in th e

pe rson o f h e r mo st d ist inguished repre

sentative , I do no t think yo u could putfo rward as de fendant a pe rso n o f greate r .

impo rtance than Sal e ius Bassus .

’

9 . qu i squ is a l iu s . M o re usual l y si

qu is a l ius, as at 15 . 15 : cp . quidquid

a liud 19 . 13 .

10 . f o v e t. Tacitus’s fo ndne ss fo r th e

use o f this wo rd is probably o ne o f th e

re sults o f h is familiarity with Ve rgil.1 1 . qu at e nu s , fo r quon iam o r quando

qu idem, as again at so in Plautus,H o race (Sat. 1. and Ovid (Me t.

vi ii . 7 84 , xiv . Cp . Ann . i i i . 16 , 1 5 quatenus ve ritati e t i nno centiae me ae nus

quam lo cus e st, de o s immo rtal e s te sto r,c Pl in . Ep . i . 7 , 5 : i i i . 7 , 14 quatenus

no bis denegatur d iu vive re , re l inquamus

al iqu id quo no s v ix isse te stemur : J uv . xii .102 : Sue to n. Claud . 26.

— Tho ugh th e

te xt may b e doubtful th e me aning is o bvio ns eno ugh, in Spite o f th e abe rrationso f th e commentato rs . Ape r says thatSe cundus’s int imacy with Bassus do e s no tmatte r : Bassus is me re ly a po e t . WithMate rnus it is d iff e rent , and h e must no tshe l te r himse lf beh ind th e backs o f po e tsw h o have no t h is o rato rical gifts Th e

sequence is cle ar : S ecu rus sit B assus :

ego en im non patiar Maternum socie

tate pl ur ium defendi . To ho l d that Ape r

do es accept th e plea o f Se cundus is to

igno re this seque nce . Contzgit is ado pte do n tw o gro unds : (1 ) be cause i t fi ts be stwith th e conte xt, and (2 ) be cause it maye asily have slippe d out in its contractedfo rm (Chassant, D ict . de s Abbrev. p .

Tho se w h o take th e o ppo site Viewargue that Se cundus do e s no t actual lye xe rcise th e function o f judge in th e seque l .But th e arbitration o nly e xtends to th e

pre liminary que stion , o n wh ich Se cunduswould pe rhaps have said mo re (se e 14 . 6 )b ad it no t be en fo r th e entrance o f Me s

sal la . And th e ve ry use o f def endi Showsthat th e ide a o f an impe achment is tob e carried o ut, tho ugh th e half humo ro usse tting o f th e intro ductio n is no t adhe redto . Ape r make s no o bje ctio n to Se cundus ,b ut th e latte r d o e s no t fo rmally act.

1 2 . so c i e tate p l uri um d e f e n d i . Cp .

Sal l . Cat. xlviii . 7 .

1 3 . h o s implie s (like vos ) a complimentary re cogn itio n o f th e pre sence o f th e

yo ung Tacitus. But as th e o nly o the raud ito r is Se cundus h imse lf

,it is just po s

sible that th e re fe rence is gene ral , and thateos is a m istake fo r 53 = omnes) ipsumso lum apud omne s

’ wo uld give a go o ds ense —In 3 3 . 1 1 h i is used o f Ape r andSe cundus.

v i r i lem e t o rato ri am ,th e ‘

sturdye l o quence o f th e public Spe ake r cp. C ic .

de 01 . i . 23 1 sic i l l am o ratio nem dise r

tam sibi e t o rato riam v ide ri, fo rtem e t

virilem non v ide ri .

15 . comp l e cti p r o v inc ias , se . ut

patronus i . e . to extend o ne’

s co nnexio nsto who le pro vince s by unde rtaking th eadvo cacy o f the ir inte re sts.

DIALOGUS DE ORATORI B US . 1 1

no n a l iud in civitate nostra ve l ad util itatem fructuoSius ve l ad

vo l uptatem iucund ius ve l a d dignitatem amp l ius ve l ad urb is‘

famam pu l ch rius ve l ad to tius impe ru atque omn ium ge n tium

no titiam in l ustrius e x co gitari pote st. Nam S i ad util itatem v it ae

omn ia consi l ia factaque nos t ra d e rige nda sunt, qu id‘

e st tutius

quam e arn e x e rce re ar tem qua sempe r armatu s p rae sid ium

am icis , o pem al ie nis, sa l utem pe ricl itantib us, invidis ve ro e t

inim icis me tum e t te rro rem nl tro fe ra s,ipse se curus e t v e lut

quadam pe rpe tua pote ntia ac po te s t a te munit u s ? Cu iu s v is e t

16 . ve l ad vo l uptatem iucundius add . Nippe rdey : (cp. 6 . 1 ) h onestius Sch ul tingdu l cius Ritte r, Halm,

M iil l e r (cp . 6. 1 and 24 . f eras Lipsius,f erat co dd .

16 . u ti l itatem v o l up tatem

d i gn i tatem . Th e first head is deal t within th e pre sent chapte r, th e se cond in chapte rs 6 and 7 (as far as gratia ven it in l inewhi le th e re st o f 7 and 8 tre at o f

dign itas (fama,laus) . —Cp . Quint . xii . 1 1 ,

29 : a lso Cice ro ’

s panegyric o n th e studyo f l aw , de Or . i . 1 85

—200.

ad . Th e use o f this pre po sit ion, withadje ctive s in regard to

,

’

o n th e Sideis e spe cially commo n in Tacitus (seeGe rbe r and Gre e f, p . So also inCice ro e . g . Cat. i . 5 , 1 2 ad seve ritatem

lenius, de 01 . i i . 200 nihi l mihi ade x istimatio nem turpins, n ihi l ad do l o remace rb ius accide re po sse : cp . ib . i . 1 1 3 .

Th e add ition o f ad vo l uptatem iucundius

i s made o n th e same principle o f em enda

tio n as de uti l itate,in l audation ibus

3 1. 8 . It is po ss ible,howe ve r

,that Ape r

did no t re ally Ske tch o ut h is Spe ech so

me tho dically.1 7 . u r b i s fam am ,

‘ reputat ion at

Rome .

’

Th e o the r genitives (imp e r i ig e n t ium ) must b e taken in th e same w ay,o f th e sphe re o ve r which th e re putat io n e xtends . Cp . fo ri iudicio rum,

34. 26 . Fo r n o ti t ia in th is (passive )sense cp . 11. 1 1 Si quid in no bis no titiaeac nominis e st : 3 6 . 19 plus no titiae ac

nominis apud pl e b em parab at 18 . 5neque gratia caruit neque apud po pul um Romanum no titia . So a lre ady inOvid : cp. Nepo s

,D io n . ix . 4 : Sen . Ep .

x l x . 3 mm n o ti tia te invasit.19 . ad u ti l i tatem d e r i g e nd a . Cp .

Ann . iv. 40 , 5 quibus prae cipua re rum ad

famam de rigend a. Fo r th e fo rm der igo ,se e Munro o n Lucr. vi . 8 23 : th is w as

pro bably th e o nly genuine ancient fo rm .

’

Cp. Quint . x. 2,1,with th e no te .

20. tutiu s may b e rende re d ‘ mo readvisable

,

’

b ut th e true read ing is no t

impro bably qu id uti l ius, as Acidal ius

sugge sted .

2 1 . p rae s idi um am ic i s , &c. Cp .

C ic . d e 01 . i . 5 184 prae sidium cl ientibus

atque o pem am icis e t pro pe cunctis ci

v ib us l ucem ingeni i e t consilii sui po rrigentem atque tendentem .

2 2 . a li on i s is quite in place as an

antithe sis to amicis, and the re is the re fo reno ne ed fo r Wo lff's ‘

cl ientibus .

’ H e lmre ich compare s Ann . vi . 7 , 16 .

p e r i c l i tanti b u s , frequent in Tacituso f tho se endange red by actio ns-at-l awcp . 39 . 1 8 10. 38 : 41. 19 : Hist. iv. 4 2,1 5 , and o ften in th e Annals .

23 . ul tr o in th e usual sense o f assum

ing th e o ffens ive .

’T1 .

‘ in turn ’

cp.

H1st. iv . 23 , 20 u l tro que ipsi oppugnato re signibus pe te b antur.

f e ras . Th e change from th e MS .

f erai se ems to b e justl fi e d by th e conte xt,and e spe cially by th e o ccurrence o fpossisat th e end o f th e ne xt sentence .

—Withf erat i t wo uld , howe ve r, b e po ssible to

supply an inde finite subj e ct : cp . C ic. de

Or. i . 5 30 neque ve ro m ih i quicquam,

inquit, prae stab i l ius vide tur quam po ssevo l untate s impe lle re quo ve l it, unde

autem ve l it de duce re .

v e l ut qu ad am . So 30. 1 3 , 33 . 3 ,39 . 15 . Ouadam ve l ut (B ) is a me re ly aocidental variatio n , like ullas quidem fo r‘

quidem ullas ’at 29 . 15 : cp . 17 . 5 .

—Th efigure may b e taken from th e continuo usautho rity o f th e pr inceps as co ntrastedwith th e pe rio d ical appo intment o f magistrate s .

24 . p o te ntia ac p o te s tate . Tw o

wo rds de rived from th e same ro o t, and

1 2 CORNELI I TACI TI

25 util itas reb us p rospere flue ntib us a l io rum pe rfugio e t tu te la

inte l l egitur : Sin p roprium p e riculum incre puit, nOn h e rcu le

l orica e t g la d iu s in acie fi rmius munimentum quam re o e t

peric l itant i e l o que ntia, p rae s id ium simu l ac te l um, quo pro

pugnare parite r e t ince sse re s ive in iud ic io s ive in se natu s ive

30 apud principem po ssis . Qu id a l iud infe stis patrib us nupe r

Eprius M a rce l lu s quam e l o quentiam suam o ppo suit ? qua ac

cinctus e t minax d ise rtam qu idem sed ine x e rcitatam e t e iu s

mod i ce rtaminum rudem He l vidn sapientiam e lusit. Pl ura de

util itate no n d ico , cui pa rti m in ime cont ra d icturum Mate rnum

35 meum arb itro r.

6 . Ad vo l uptatem o rato riae e l oque ntiae transe o , cuius in

2 5 . perf ugio EV2CAD , prof ugio AB , pr aesidio HVb edd. ve tt.

2 7 . l or ica etSe e b o de , l or icae co dd .

ve l co dd. (Se e Nippe rdey, Opuscul a, pp . 2 76(inrup itWe inkauff

, Bae h rens) .and e dd .

qu i co dd.

mo re o r .l e ss synonymous , are o ften fo undtoge the r : cp. 11. 1 1 and 36 . 19 no t itiaeac nominis : 32. 1 7 sensus sententias .

So mo de rationem mo de stiamque C ic.

Phil. i i . 5 , 10 : mo de stia mo dus,Sall .

Cat. xxxvii i . 4.

25 . r e b u s p r o sp e r e fl u e nti b u s . Fo r

this favo uri te me tapho r cp. Ann . xv. 5 , 9ne c prae sentia pro spe re fi ue bant H ist . i i i .48 , 1 1 cunctis supe r vo ta fluentibus , whichl atte r phrase o ccurs in Sal lust , H . Fr. i . 70re bus supra (pe rhaps supe r) vo ta fluenti

b us . So Cic. de Off. i . § 90 in re buspro spe ris e tad vo l untatem no stram fluenti

b us : Cae s . B. G . i . 3 1 :‘Quint . De cl am.

3 , 1 2 , ad omne vo tum fluente fo rtuna.

26 . in cr e p u it. No ise and dange r areasso ciated ideas : cp . C ic. in Pisonem

99 quicqu id increpue rit pe rtime sce ntemvide re te vo lui : in Cat. i , 1 8 : pro

Mur. 2 2 simul atque increpuit suspitiotumultus : Livy iv. 43 , 10 unde Si quid

increpet terro ris : xliv . 4 1 , 7 .28 . p r o p u gn ar e in ce sse re . Cp .

C ic. de Or. i . 32 Quid autem tam ne

ce ssarium quam tene re sempe r armaquibus ve l te ctus ipse e sse po ssis ve l provo care impro b o s ve l te u l scisci l ace ssitus .

29 . i n s e n atu apu d p r in c ip em .

Th e re fe rence he re is l imite d (by r eo et

per icl itanti abo ve ) to j udicia l pro ce ed ingsbe fo re th e senate , which w as a H igh Co urtfo r such matte rs as

‘ maie stas’

unde r th eEmpire , and be fo re th e Empe ro r, w h o

h ad th e right to try o ffence s o f al l k indsin a private co urt o f h is own.

26. irr epatHVb29 . sive Mure tus

3 1 . qua Ursinus

30 . nu p e r : pro bably in th e ye ar 70 A.D .

Se e Intro d . p. xiv.3 1 . Ep r iu s M arc e l l u s, a no to rio us

de l ator unde r Ne ro , in who se re ign h e

h ad co nducted , alo ng with C o ssutianusCapito , th e pro secution o f Th rasea

(A. D. 66—Ann . xvi. This gainedfo r h im th e enmity o f Th rase a

’

s so n-in

l aw , He l vidius Priscus . His full namew as T. C l o dius Eprius Marce llus. He w as

praetor pereg‘

r inus o n th e last day o f th e

ye ar 48 A . D .,afte r th e depo sition o f Sil

anus (Ann . xi i . 4) tw ice co nsul suffe ctus,pro bably in A . D . 6 1 and again in 74 ; andthre e ye ars pro co nsul o f Asia (A. D . 70—7(Se e Intro d . p . xv

,no te ) . In 79 h e com

mitted su icide , having be en implica te d inth e conspiracy against Ve spasian whichw as d isco ve red in that year .qu a accinctus . A ccinctus is o ften

used abso lute ly in Tac itus (e . g . H ist . i i .8 8

,8 ; 89 , 2 : Ann . i ii. 34, b utqua is to

b e pre fe rred to th e MS . qu i as ind icat ingth e we apo n wh ich Marce llus used to suchgo o d purpo se .

3 2 . m inax de fiant .’ Cp. Ann . x vi .

29 , 1 quam ut e rat to rvus ac minax ,vo ce vul tu o cu l is arde sce ret : Hist . iv . 43minacibus o cul is. So acri e l oquentia,

’

Ann . x vi . 2 2 , 30 .

33 . c l u d e r e , to parry,’

ano the r figurefrom th e gladiato rial arena cp .Hist . i . 26,1 1 : Ann . iii . 34, 32 . Fo r He l vidius Pris~cus, se e Hist . iv. 5 seq . He h ad be enbanishe d by Ne ro

,but re turned to Rome

afte r h is death.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 4 CORNELI I TACI TI

1 5 Spe cie s Quae in ind icus vene ratio Quod il l ud gaudium co n

surgendi adsiste ndique inter tace nte s e t in unum conv e r s o s !

Coire popu lum e t circumfund i c oram e t accipe re adfe ctum,

quemcumque ora t or indue rit ! Vu lgata d ice ntium gaud ia e t

impe rito rum quoque o cu l is e x po sita pe rce nse o : i l la se cre tio ra

20 e t t antum ipsis o rantib us no ta maio ra s unt. Sive accuratam

me d itatamque profe rt o ratio nem, e st quo ddam s icut ipsius

d ictio nis,ita gaudii pondu s e t cons t ant ia ; S ive no vam e t re

ce ntem curam non Sine al iqua trep idatio ne an im i attul e rit, ipsa

15 . quod i l l ud EV2 , quod id ABCAD, quod H Put. and e dd . vett. 1 7 . core? co dd .,

corah am Acidal ius, Halm, M ii l l e r . 1 8 . quandocumque AB . indu er it EVQCAD,

induer et AB ,indux er itH (x abo ve th e l ine ) b , vo l uer itAndre sen. Vu lgar ia Halm .

2 1 . profert AB,perfertEV2CA , prof erre D,afi rt HV e dd. ve tt. 23 . an imi Pich ena,

an imus co dd .

From Martial w e l e arn that th e wearing o fth e to ga at this oj ‘lcium w as co nside red a

gre at grievance : it w as no t only he avyand uncpmfo rtab l e , b ut e xpens ive as we ll

,

x . 96 : x ii . 1 8, 5 . Cp . id . ix. 100

,1—2

Denaris tribus invitas e t mane togatum

Ob se rvare iub e s atria, Basse , tua : J uv . iii.

1 2 7 , with Mayo r’s no te . Friedlande r 6,p. 384.

14 . c om i tatu s e t e gr e ssu s . This co njunctio n, which is o f th e nature o f a h en

diadyS com itatus in egre ssibus) re cursat 11. 1 3 . T1 . what a fo llowing when o nego e s abro ad.

’

Cp. Ann . x i . 1 2 , 1 2 multocomitatu ventitare domum, egre ssibus ad

h ae re sce re . Fo r th e plural o f abstractno uns deno ting mo tion

, se e Dr. 5 2 .

1 5 . Qu o d i l l u d gau d ium . The re isa similar eulo gy o n o rato ry in Cic. de

Or. 1 . 3 1 Qu id enim e st aut tam ad

m irabile quam e x infinita multitud ineh ominum e x iste re unum, &c. Fo r th e

b rach yo l ogy, cp . Ann. xi . 7 , 1 quem i l l um

tanta supe rbia e sse .

1 7 . c o ir e c i rcum fund i . The se infinitive s o f e xclamat io n (Ro by, 1358) aredue to th e omissio n o f a v e rbum sentiendi .

So in case s whe re a scene is be ing picture dto th e imagination : Cic. in Ve rr . ii . 5 ,

100 O Spe ctacul um mise rum l in

po rtu Syracusano de classe po puliRomani triumph um age re piratampro C l uent. 5 19 2 mul ie rem quandam

pro ficisci ! Fo r coram (o f thronginground th e speake r) cp. H ist . iv. 65 co ramad ire ( ‘ face to face adl o quique Ve

l edam : se e o n 36. 3 1 co ram e t prae sente s.

1 8 . in d u e r it. The re is a do ubt as towhe the r this means ‘

assume s’

(se . sibi

ipsi) o r‘ inspire s ’

(so . in h is he are rs) .In suppo rt o f th e latte r inte pre tatio n( = ind ider it, in iece r it) th e o nly passagethat can b e cited is th e do ubtful o ne at

Hist . iv. 57 , 1 2 G al b am et infracta tributaho stile s spiritus induisse , whe re indid isseh as be en pro po se d, just as he re inbu

cr it, indux er it. Th e fo rmer is common

eno ugh : cp. Ann . xi . 7 , 10 faci le magnum animum induisse ,

‘ it w as e asy (fo rthem) to play a magnanimo us part . ’ Fo r

th e o rato r’s powe r o f mo ving th e fe e l ingso f o the rs, cp. Cic. de Or. i . 5 8 7 uti e i

qui audire nt sic adfi ce rentur animis ut e o sadfici ve lle t o rato r : Brut . 1 85 .

d i c e n tium . F o r th e substantival useo f th e part iciple , cp. 28 . 6 . So orantibus,immediate ly be low .

19 . qu o qu e . In Tacitus and Quint ilian (Intro d . to Bo o k X. p. liv) qu oqueis o ften used w ith adje ctive s whe re ve l o r

etiam would have be en mo re regularcp. 4. 7 : 7 . 16 : 39 . 2 2 . Cp. also

2 1 . m e d itatam . A l ist o f de ponentparticiple s use d with a passive fo rce isgi ven in Madvig, 5 1 53 : Zumpf , 632 .

F o r th e e xpre ssio n, cp . Cic . de Or. i . § 2 57adcuratae ac meditatae commentatio ne s.

2 2 . gaud i i p o n d u s e t co n stan t ia.

His satisfaction is ‘ ful le r and mo reabid ing ’ than h e co ul d de rive from a

mo re supe rficial pe rfo rmance .

23 . cu ra : se e o n 3 . 1 3 .

attu l e r i t. As with prof ert, abo ve ,supply an inde finite subje ct, ‘

quis’

:‘

th e

d iffe rence in tense and mo o d m ight b ebro ught o ut by ‘ In case s whe re ,

’

&c.,

and ‘ I f h e happens to ,’&c.

DIALOGUS DE‘

ORATOR IB US . 15

so l l icitudo comme ndat e ventum e t l e no cinatur v o l uptati . Se d

e x tempo ral is audaciae a tque ipsius teme ritatis ve l prae cipua 2 5

iucunditas e st ; nam in inge n io quoqu e , s l o ut in agro , quam

quam g rata quae d iu se rantur atqu e e lab o re ntur, gratio ra tame n

quae sua spon te nascuntur.

7 . Equidem ,ut de me ips o fate ar, non e um d iem l ae tio rem

egi quo m ih i la tu s c lavu s o b latus e st, v e l quo homo novus e t in

c iv it a te minime favo rab il i na tu s quae sturam aut trib unatum aut

prae turam acc e pi, quam e o s quib u s mih i , pro me d io critate hu ins

26 . in add . b , om . cett. co dd . 2 7 . grata quae afte r N issen (quamquam ci i l l a

quae diu se rantur atqu e e l abor entu r gr ata s int, gratiora ) , and No vak (gr ata sunt

quae seruntur atqu e e l aborantu r ) : a l ia ABEVzH , om . CD . Gudeman wo uld re adquamquam quae d iu se rantu r atque e l abor entur grata,

’Andre sen quamquam uti l iora

(o r so l idiora) quae se runtur atque e l aborantur’and (mo re re cently) No vak quam

quam iuvant quae & c.

7 . 1 . ipse EH .

24 . c omm e n d ai; e v e n tum , make sth e re sult a l l th e mo re te lling,’ ‘ give ssucce ss a gr ace .

’

Commendare is he reused with some thing like th e fo rce o f

ornar e , to‘Se t o ff,

’ ‘set in a fair light . ’

Cp. de co r comme ndat, 21. 35 .

l e n o c in atur v o l u p tati , enh ance s th e

fe e ling o f satisfacti o n . Cp . th e use o f

this ve rb in G e rm . xl111. 1 9 insitae fe ritatiarte ac tempo re l eno cinanturadd to

e x temp o ral i s au d ac iae . Tr. A bo ld ,e ven a venture some impro visatio n po s

se sse s a spe cial charm.

’

Cp . Quint . x . 6,6

Al io qui ve l e x tempo ral em teme ritatem (th erashne ss o f impro visation malo quammale co h ae rentem cogitatio nem : ih . 7 , 1 .

26 . ing e n io ag ro . So Cic . de 01 .

11. 13 1 sub acto mihi ingenio o pus e st utagro non seme l arato ,

sed no vato e t

ite rato , quo me l io re s fe tus po ssit e t

grandio re s ede re : Or. 5 48 .

qu amqu am gra ta qu ae . Th e con

tractio ns fo r grata and quae are no t

unlike , and may have create d th e co n

fusio n o ut o f wh ich a l ia re sulted . I d iffe rfrom No vak in d ispensing with sunt and

in re taining th e subjunctive , which mayhave be en mo t ive d by Tacitus’s fondne ssfo r th e use o f quamquam with subj . : he resupply sint.—Jo hn and o the rs de fend th eMS . a l ia (dAAa , r d a

’

AAa) as opp . to quae

sua sponte nascuntu r . Butan appro priatene ute r plural wo uld b e m o re in place :this might b e fo und in co ntraria ,’ wh ich ,be side s furn ish ing th e antithe sis to quae

sua spo nte nascuntur,

’and co rre spo nding

with ‘accuratam

,

’ ‘meditatam ,

’ ‘curam ’

4 . quam ago eos Vah len .

abo ve , might also b e de fended o n palae ograph ical gro unds . Th e me aning wo uldthen b e , ‘Whe re co nd itio ns are unfavo urable , o r adve rse ,much cultivation is requ isite : b ut the re is a gre ate r charm abo uta natural growth .

’Cp . 40. 23 sica t indo

mitus age r habe t quasdam he rbas l aetio re s.

2 7 . d iu . Cp . Lucan Phars . viii . 6 7 2frangi t diu ,

‘ take s a lo ng time in breaking

’

: ib . v ii . 504 . So 25 . 2 .

7 . 1 . ip s o . Th e ablat ive (wh ich give sa be tte r antithe sis to what h as go nebe fo re ) may b e suppo rte d by C ic. de Off.

i i . 6 7 ui ve re re r me de me ipso aliqu idvide re r que ri : no t howe ve r by de Sen .

30, whe re ipse co u ld no t have sto o d .

F o r ipse , on th e o the r hand , cp . ib . 8 2 ut

de me ipse al iquid mo re senum gl o rie r.

2 . latu s c lavu s , th e to ga with th e

bro ad purple bo rde r running down th efro nt . It d istinguished th e senato rs fromth e equite s , w h o wo re th e angustus cl avus .

Cp. Pl in . Ep . i i . 9 , 2 latum c l avum a

Cae sare impe travi .3 . fav o rab i l i , po pular. ’ Hist. ii . 9 7 , 1 2 .

Ape r me ans that th e communi ty to whichh e be lo nge d in Gaul w as no t in favo ur atRome (pro bably owing to some po litica ld isturbance ) , and co uld no t give h im,

the re fo re , any ‘ le tte r o f re commendation .

’

Th e wo rd is fo und first in Ve l l e ius, andis frequent in Quintilian (e .g. x . 5 ,

4 . qu am e o s , sc . ago . So Ge rm . xl i . 2quomo do paulo ante Rh enum (sc. se cutus

sum) Sic sequar : Hist . iv . 4 2 , 2 7 quomo do sene s no stri Marce l l um

,Crispum

,

iuvene s Regul um imitentur.

p ro me di o cr itate , &c. Fo r such e x

16 CORNELI I TACI TI

5 quantulae cumque in d ice ndo facu l tatis , aut reum prospere‘

de

fe nde re, aut apud ce ntumv iro s cau sam al iquam fe l ic ite r o ra re , aut

apud princ ipem ips o s il l o s l ib e rtos e t pro curato re s principum tue ri

e t d e fe nde re datur. Tum m ih i supra trib unatus e t prae turas

e t co nsu l atus a s cende re v ide o r, tum hab e re quod , S i non in

10 an imo orit ur, ne c co d ic il l is datur ne c cum gra t ia v e nit. Qu id ?

fama e t laus cu ius artis cum o rato rum g loria comparanda e st ?

5 . ant r eum co dd. aut apud patres reum Michae lis, and al l e dd .

9 . h abere Pith o e us, abi re co dd .pr inczpis Spenge l .7 . ipsum

10 . in an imo Fre inshe im,

Mii l l e r, in a l iaco dd .

,in a l iquo (cp . 3 8 . 1 2 ) Ritte r and Halm , natu ra l e Bae h rens

quad nan nata l i bus par itur Andre sen, quad nee (o r non) meta l l o emitur Buchho lz,

quad si nan in cae l o or itur He lle r. ‘

pre ssio ns o f mo de sty, cp . Cic . pro Arch .

1 3 facultas quantacumque in me e st.

5 . r e um d e f e nd e r e . Th is re fe rsto criminal pro ce sse s, w h ich might b e inst ituted e ithe r in th e o rd inary indicia ,

fo r

th e gene ral bo dy o f th e c itizens , o r in

th e senate fo r membe rs o f th e senato rialo rde r, “

as also fo r o ff e nce s against th eempe ro r o r th e state , malve rsation in th epro vince s , &c . Th e simi lar enume ratio n‘sive in iudicio sive in senatu sive apudprincipem ,

’

5 . 29 would se em to justifyth e inse rt ion ,

with mo st edd . , o f ‘apud

patre s ’: b ut it is po ssible to carry

paral le l ism to o far.

6 . ap u d ce n tumv ir o s . This co urtw as spe cially charge d with th e de cisiono f que stions by l aw invo lved in suchmatte rs as inhe ritance , wardship, &c.

From ch . 38 . 1 1 (causae centumv iral e squae

nunc primum o btinent lo cum) , it is cle arthat its functions we re o f gre at impo rtance .

Originally it consisted o f 105 membe rs,thre e be ing cho sen o ut o f e ach o f th e thirtyfi ve tribe s : at a late r time i t w as sub

d ivided , and th e membe rship ro se to 1 80 .

Se e W i lk ins’ no te o n C ic . de Or. i . 1 73.

7 . ap u d p r in c ip em . Th e empe ro r’scab inets counci l (consil ium) to o k Spe cialco gnisance o f al l actions raised againsto fficials o f th e go ve rnment .ip s o s i l l o s l i b e r t o s e t p r o cur ato r e s

p r in c ip um . It w as from th e ranks o f

th e impe r ial fre edmen that th e ‘

pro

curato re s we re fo r th e mo st part cho sen .

Th e wo rd deno te s al l th e empe ro r’sagents w h o h ad charge o f financialmatte rs e ithe r at Rome o r in th e im

pe rial pro vince s. Fo r th e great powe rwie lded by the se fre edme n, cp. 13 . 16

tantum po sse libe rti so lent : it is po intedto in th e ipsos i l l os. Se e also Friedlande r, p . 8 2 sqq.

10. [cum] Acidal ius, civ ium Baeh rens .

8 . tu e ri e t d e f e nd e r e . So ‘ tue riatque de fende re

,

’Cic. de 01 . i . 1 7 2 :

ad Fam . xiii . 64 , 1 Tac . Ge rm. x iv . 4i l l um d e fende re , tue ri . D ef ender e implie sde fence from actual attack tuer i pro te ot io n from a po ssible dange r .d atur . AS in Ve rgil and Ovid , dare

is o ften fo und in Tacitus,Quinti lian

,and

P l iny wi th an infinitive . Cp . Ann . i ii .

67 , 10 : iv. 6 , 5 , & c. D “. 145 .

10 . in an im o . This passage h as be enmuch d iscussed

,and vari o usly emende d .

I n a l iquo co uld no t stand : w e Shou ldrathe r have e xpe cted in ipsa. I n a lva

(Pith o e us) se ems to me to b e quiteuntenable . I h ad tho ught o f ‘

si n o n

innatum o ritur,

’ which Ste ine r also sugge sted : o r

‘Si non nativum

’

(cp. th e

antithe sis be twe en nativum and ascitumN ep. Att. iv . On th e who le , th e

re ading in th e te xt is th e safe st th e con

tractio ns fo r a l ia,which is found in al l

MSS .,and an ima are so sim i lar that co n

fusio n may e asily have arise n . [Buchho lzsuppo rts h is co nje cture (se e abo ve ) byassuming that a re fe rence to mo ne y (cp .

6 . 8 ) is indispensable , and by th e parall e l ism that re sults : fo r meta l l o , h e compare s Ho r. Ep . i . 10

, 39 . He l le r (Ph i lol ogus, 1 89 2 , p . 346 ) de side rate s n is i fo r sinon o n th e o rdinary read ings . S i non

in cae l o or itur h e puts fo rward as a h it

at th e po e ts, w h o co nside red inspiratio nthe ir Spe cial pre ro gative (cp . th e use o f

vate s, 9 . Ape r me ans I wo n’ t goth e length o f saying that it is th e gift o fhe aven, but i t is a gift wh ich ne ithe rprince no r pe o ple can

c o di ci l l i s,

‘ by Sign-manual . ’ Cp . 8 .

24.quo d non a principe accepe rint ne c

acc1p1 po ssit.

n e e cum gr atia v e n it= ne c comesgratiae e st, i . e it do e s no t fo ll ow in th e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 8 CORNELI I TACI TI

b us quam remo tis e t o b l itte ratis e x emp l is uto r) no n m inu s natos

e s se in e x t rem is par t ib us te rrarum quam Capuae autVe rce l l is ,

5 ub i na t i d icuntur . Ncc h o c i l lis a l ter ius bis,a l te riu s ter mi l ie s

s e s t e r t ium prae stat, quamquam ad h a s ipsas o pe S po ssunt v ide ri

e l o que ntiae b ene ficio v e nis se , sed ips a e l o que ntia ; cu iu s nume n

e t cae l e stis v is mu l t a qu idem omnibus sae cu l is e x emp la e didit,

ad quam usqu e fo rtunam hom ine s inge n i i v irib us pe rv e ne rint,

10 se d h ae c,ut sup ra d ix i , p rox ima e t quae non auditu co gno sce nda,

s ed o cu l is spe ctanda h ab e remus . Nam quo so rd idius e t ab ie ctius

na t i sunt quoque no tab il io r paupe rtas e t angustiae re rum

nas ce n te s e o s circumste te runt, e o cl ario ra e t a d d emo nstrandam

o rato riae e l o que ntiae util itatem in l ustrio ra e x emp la sunt, quod

8 . 3 . natos add . Ursinus , i l l ustres Ribbeck : qy. cl ar os ? 5 . a l ter ius bis add .

Pich ena . 7 . sed add . Lipsius. 9 . ad quam ABCAD,ad quantam H Sp .

Put. Acidal ius, ad quantum EV2 : op. 21. 38 . 1 1 . h abeamus Dro nke , Bae h rens.

1 2 . angustiae r erum Lipsius, angustia ereptum codd . 14 . nabi l itatem Acida l ius,d ign itatem Spenge l : qy. div in itatem .

2

fl o urish e ven in th e th e age o f Domitian(Sue t . Dom . He w as a no ted del atar :pe cun ia po tentia ingenio inte r claro smagis quam inte r bo no s, Hist . i i . 10

, 3 .

Juvenal Sat. v . 8 1 says o f h im ‘ Cuiuserant mo re s qual is facund ia, m ite I h

genium ,

’ giving a rathe r mo re favo urablee stimate o f h im than Tacitus ; so Quint ilian v. 1 3 . 6 . and x . 1 , 1 1 9 . H is we althw as pro ve rbial : ‘ divitio r Crispo

,

’Mart . iv .

54 , 7

3 . r em o ti s e t o b l i tte rati s :‘ distant

and half-fo rgo tten .

’ This give s th e antithe sis to nov is et recentibus (cp . 6 . 2 2)new and fre sh in th e memo ry .

’

n o n m i nu s n o t o s . Th e inse rtion o f

natas in th e te xt se ems to b e abso lute lyne ce ssary fo r th e sense . Gudeman sugge sts nan minores , comparing 21. 23mino rem e sse fama sua

’

; b ut th e com

parative se ems inappro priate he re , and

no ne o f th e o the r passage s quo ted in suppo rt o f th e emendatio n are to th e po int .5 . b i s m i l ie s (centena mi l ia) s e ste r

tium . Th e o ne w as wo rth 200 and th e

o the r 300 m i llions o f se ste rce s : some

thing unde r tw o and thre e m i l lio ns o f o urmone y. Tw o hundred m i llio n se ste rce smay b e take n8 . cae l e sti s . So e ven in C ice ro , ‘

cae

le ste s d iv inasque l egio ne s’ Phi l . v. 5 28 :

cp . Quint . x. 1,86 naturae cae l e sti atque

immo rtali .1 1 . sp e ctan d a h ab e r emu s spe ctanda

no bis e sse ni . This use o f th e ge rundiveo r ge rund) afte r h abe r e is frequent inTaci tus : cp . 19 . 24 e x spe ctandum h ab ent:

3 1. 1 8 dicendum h abue rit : 36 . 30 re

spo ndendum h ab e rent : 3 7 . 1 7 dicendumhabeas :Hist . i . 15, 19 iv . 7 7 , 16 Ann . iv .

40 , 7 : xiv . 44 , 2 . Se e Draege r, 2 7 e

and Wo l ffi in, Archiv, ii . p . 67 sqq. Th e

subjunctive is used be cause e l oque ntia is

tho ught o f as pe rsonifie d i t is part o f itsmyste rio us and go dlike scheme that w eSho uld have living e xample s o f e lo que nce ,to which it is impo ssible to shut o ur e ye s.

s o rd i d iu s e t ab i e ctiu s . Fo r th e co l

lo catio n cp. so rd ida e t ab ie cta, Quint. i i .1 2 . 7 . Th e comparat ive abiectior is saidto o ccur first in Val . Max . ii i. 5 , 4 ab ie c

tio rem et o b scenio rem vi tam e x egit.—Fo r

nascentes,be lo w , Buchho lz sugge sts pu

bescentes (ado l escentes in o rde r to avo idwhat h e co nside rs an unne ce ssary re petition : b ut th e first clause re fe is to th e

rank o f th e parents, th e se cond to the irmeans.

13 . c ir cum ste te runt, Th e use o f thisve rb is mo re striking he re , with angustiaer erum ,

than in such instance s as Hist . i .1 7 , 9 circumste te rat inte rim Palatium publica e x spe ctatio : iv . 79 , 13 circumste terat

C ivi l em e t alius me tus : Ve rg. Aen . i i .5 59 at me tum primum sal vus circumste tit ho rro r : iv. 56 1 (pe ricul a) . Cp .

also C ic. Ph il . x. 5 20 Cum ve ro d ie s e t

no cte s omnia no s undique fata circumstent.

DIALOGUS DE ORATORIB US . 9

S ine comme ndatio ne nata l ium,Sine sub s t antia facu ltatum, neute r

mo rib us egregius, a lte r h ab it u quoque corporis co ntemptus , pe r

mu l to s iam anno s po te n t is s im i sunt c ivi t a t is ac done c l ib uit

p rincipe s fo ri nunc princ ipe s in Cae saris am ic itia agunt fe runt

que cuncta a tque ab ipso p rincipe cum quadam reve re ntia

d il iguntur, qu ia Ve spasianus , ve ne rab ilis se ne x e t patie ntissimus

ve ri, b e ne inte l l egit ce te ro s quid em amico s suo s us n it i qua e ab

ip s o acce pe rint quae que ipsi a ccumu lare e t in a l ios co nge re re

promptum S it,Marce l l um au tem e t Crispum attu l isse ad am ic

i t iam suam quod non a p rincipe acce pe rint ne c acc ipi po ssit.

M inimum int e r to t ac t anta locum o b tinent imagin e s ac t i t u l i e t

statuae, quae nequ e ips a tame n negl eguntur, t am he rcu le quam

d iv itiae e t Ope s , quas facil ius inve nie s qui v itUpe re t quam qui

fastidiat.

1 8 . nunc [principe s] He lmre ich .

cataras Put., ct ceteros co dd .

est co dd.

1 5 . s in e comm e n d ati o n e n atal ium ,

Cp . Cic . Brut . 96 homo pe r se cogn itus

s ine u lla commendatione maio rnm, and

similarly Cat. i . 28 nulla commendat io ne maio rum : pro Pl anc. 67 .

w as aucto r no b il itatis suae ,’ like C ice ro

h imse l f,Tusc . iv. 2 .

su b s tan t ia means he re ‘ foundat ion,’o r, rathe r, suppo rt . ’ So Paulinus o f No la,Ep . v . 5 (e d . Migne ) substantia facul tatumno n egentio r. Th e wo rd se ems to be lo ngto th e language o f l aw . It is co inmon

eno ugh,w ith a somewhat s imi lar me an

ing, in Quintil ian : e . g . ve rba ipsa '

.

Sine re rum substantia , i i . 2 1,1 .

-Facu l

tates o ccurs again in th e sense o f apes atth e end o f th is chapte r .

16 . c o ntemp tu s . This w as pro bablyMarce l lus, b ut w e canno t b e ce rta in.

1 8 . in Cae sar i s am i c itia . So Ann .

iii . 30 ,16 in amicit ia principis : and xiii .

45 , 1 7 fl agrantissimus in amicitia Ne ro nis .

agu nt f e ru ntqu e , a f1equent”co llo ca

t ion,e spe cially in Livy : cp. d yew Ita l

(pe’

ptw . Tr . ‘ the y carry al l be fo re them .

’

I n Hist. i . 2,19 , Taci tus h as th e mo d ifi

t io n ‘cum . age rent verter ent cuncta .

’

20 . v e n e rab i l is . Ve spasian wo uld b eabo ut Sixty-five in th e ye ar in which th ed ialogue is suppo sed to have taken place .

p ati e n ti s s imu s v e r i,

‘w h o ne ve r shuts

h is e ye s to th e truth .

’ Th is is explainedbe lo w , quo d no n a principe accepe rint,

Each

H is igitu r e t h o no rib us e t o rname ntis e t facul tatib us

2 1 . v ir HV Sp . (sapientissimus v ir Acidal ius) .2 2 . ips i Lipsius, ipsis co dd .

24 . possit ABCH ,passint EVgDA .

23 . sit Halm,

25 . inte r h aec tat Vahlen .

&c . : Ve spasian h as mo re ne ed o f themthan the y have o f h im .

2 2 . accumu l ar e . Th e compo und ve rbo ccurs o nly he re in Tacitus, tho ughcumu l are is common eno ugh . So alsoaccumu l ator in Ann . i ii . 30 . 5 (o pumaccumulato r) is a aim ; Aeybp evou.

2 3 . ad ami c iti am su am,

‘to the ir

friendship with h im.

’

Cp. Cae s . Be ll .Gall . i 43 quo d ve ro ad amicitiam po pul iRomani attul issent, id i is e ripi quis patipo sse t ?

24 . qu o d is duo now o v acc. afte r accepe rint and nom . to accipi passi .t So

Ge rm . xviii . ad fin . quae nurus accipiant

rursusque ad ne po te s re fe rantur.’25 . m in imum l o cum . Andre sen

no te s this e xpre ssion as no t Cice ro nian .

imag in e s . Th e re fe rence is no t

to pride o f ance stry—Marce llus and

Crispus we re bo th ‘no vi homine s —b ut

to th e custom (Pl in . N . H . xxxv. 2,6 )

o f de co rating th e atrium w ith bro nzemedallions o f th e empe ro r and o f famo us

men (such as pleade rs might re ce ive as

gi fts from the ir clients) : th e e ulo gisticinscriptio ns placed unde rne ath are designated by titu l i Cp. Ho r. Sat. i . 6

,1 7

qui stupet in titul is e t imaginibus .

26 . tam h e rcu le q u am ,

‘ just as l ittleas .

’ Translate ‘ And ye t e ven the se are

no t d isregarded , anymo re than,’

&c . Cp .

21 . 2 2 .

I S

20

25

20 CORNEL I I TACI TI

re fe rtas domos corum v idemus qui se ab ine unt e adul e sce ntia

cans is fo re nsib us e t ora t orio s t u d io de d e runt.

9 . Nam ca rmina e t v e rs u s, qu ib us to tam v itam Mate rnus

insume re o ptat (inde e n im omnis fl ux it o ra t io), ne que d igui

tatem ul l am aucto rib us su is c onciliant ne qu e util itate s al unt ;

v o l uptatem au tem b re vem,l aud em inanem e t infructuo sam

5 co nse quuntur. Lice t h ae c ips a e t quae d e ince ps d icturus sum

au re s tuae , M a t e rne , re spuant, cui b ono e st S i apud te Aga

memnon aut Ia soa d ise rte loqu it u r ? Qu is id e o domum de fensus

e t tib i o b l igatus re d i t ? Quis Sal e ium nostrum , e gregium poe t am

v e l , Si hoc h o no rifi centius e st, prae c l arissimum vatem,

de ducit

29 . aetate adu l escentia C .

9 . 5 . de inceps AB,de inde EV2CADH. 8 . Sa l e ium EVQCAH, Sa l tium D,

ium A , Cae l e ium B .

2 7 . ab in e unte adu l e sce ntia . The recan b e no do ubt that this is th e truere ading. Gudeman thinks that th e re ading o f C (ab ineunte ae tate adul e scentia)sho w s that adu l escentia h ad be en o rigina l ly written in abo ve as an e xplanationo f ‘

ab ineunte ae tate ,’ which ought ao

co rdingl y to b e resto red as th e genuinete xt. But it is much easie r to suppo se thatth e co pyist o f C wro te aetate by a mis

take which h e did no t tro uble to co rre ct .9 . 1 . N am ,

‘as fo r po e try, o n th e o the r

hand .

’ The re is re ally an e llipse , wh ichgive s this use o f nam th e e ffe ct o f an

adve rsative conjunction .—Ape r no w pro

ce e ds (in this and th e ne xt chapte r) toshow h o w comparat ive ly thankle ss is th epro fe ssio n o f po e try.carm in a e t v e rsu s : so co uple d in

Ann. x vi . 19 , 7 (le via carmina e t faci le sv e rsus) , whe re th e ed ito rs d istinguishthem by taking th e fo rme r to me an so ngso r lyrical pie ce s, and th e latte r hexame te r, iambic, o r o the r po ems .

2 . i n sum e r e o p tat. Th e infinitivew i th aptat is rare in Cice ro : cp. howe ve rVe rg. Aen . vi . 50 1 Livy ix . 14 , 1 5 .

fl ux it. F o r this ve ry commo n figurecp . C ic . Brut . 5 20 1 a Co tta e t Sulpiciohae c omnis flux it o ratio .

d i gn itatem . Fo r th e sequence d ign itas . uti l itas, vo l uptas , l aus cp . 5 . 16 uti

l itas , vo l uptas, d ign itas ,f ama .

3 . n e qu e u ti l i tate s a l unt,‘no r do

th e y fo rward the ir in te re sts.

’

A l e r e is

fre quently used in this figura tive sense

e .g. Ann. i ii . 4 1 ad fin . a l uit dub itatio ne

be ll um. Cp. H ist . 11. 30, 16 e andem u t ilitatem fo ve re .

4 . inf ru ctu o sam , a wo rd o f th e silve rage : e lsewhe re in Tacitus o f

.m i litary

se rvi ce . H ist . i . 5 1, 5 : Ann . i . 1 7 , 1 2 .

6 . aur e s r e spu ant. Th e sameremarkable me tapho r is fo und e ven in

Cice ro : pro Pl anc. 44 re spue rentaure sin Pis. 5 45 : Orat . Part . 5 . 1 5 . So

also Quint . x i . 1, 6 1 quid aure s h ominum

magis re spuunt? Cp . o’

nro rrr b ew .

cu i b o n o e st : no t what go o d is it, ’b ut ‘

w h o gains by it. ’ Th e fo rmula w as

made famo us by L. Cass ius Lo nginus(Trib. Pleb . 1 3 7 B . C . when h e carried th e[ex Cass ia tabe l l ar ia) , w h o when quae sitariudici i in a cause o f murde r, used a lwaysto urge th e iudices to inquire w h o h ad

a mo t ive fo r th e crime , w h o wo uld gainby th e de ath .

apu d te , in yo ur tragedie s Thyestesand M edea : ch . 3 .

8 . Ba le iam : se e o n 4. 6 .

9 . v atem , bard .

’

Cp . Ve rg . Ec l . ix .

3 2 e t me fe ce re po e tam Pie ride s—mequo que d icunt vatem pasto re s . Vate s is a

wo rd with mo re so lemn asso ciat io ns thanpaeta : Quint . xii . 10 , 24 instinctis d ivinospiritu vatibus : x . 1

, 48 dearum quas

prae side re vati bus creditum e st. Paeta

is some time s used Slightingly o f ve rsemake rs C ic. in Pis. 5 29 utassentato rem ,

ut po e tam : Tusc . i . 2 quo d in pro vinciam po e tas dux isse t.d e du ci t : o f e sco rt to th e fo rum

,

s al u tat,o f th e mo rning visit

, p ro sequ i tur , o f attendance on a j ourne y.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 2 CORNEL I I TACI TI

p rae cepta, ad nu l l am ce rtarn e t so lidam pe rve nit frugem,ne c

aut amicitiam ind e re fe rt au t c l ie nte l am a u t mansurum in animo

cuiusquam b ene fi cium, s e d c l amo rem vagum e t v oce s inane s

e t gaud ium vo l ucre . Laudav imus nupe r ut m iram e t e x imiam

2 5 Ve spasian i l ib e ra l itatem, quod quinge nta se s te r tia Ba s s o do nasse t.

Pu l ch rum id qu id em ,indul ge ntiam princip is inge n io me re ri

qu an to tame n pul ch rius, s i ita re s fam il ia ris e x igat, Se ipsum

co le re,suum genium pro pitiare , suam e x pe riri l ib e ra l itatem l

Ad ice quod poe tis, Si modo d ignum a l iqu id e lab ora re e t e ffi ce re

so ve l int, re l inque nda co nve rsatio amico rum e t iucunditas u rb is ,de se renda ce te ra o ffi cia utque ips i d icunt, in memora e t l uco s,

id e st in so l itudinem se ce de ndum es t .

10. Ne opin io quid em e t fama,cui so l i se rv iunt e t quod unum

2 1 praeceptaEV2AD ,pe rcepta ABCH ,praecerpta Sch e l e , Halm, intercepta Pe e rl kamp.

2 8 . gen ium Lipsius , ingen ium co dd . l iberal itatem AE, and so Lipsius, l i bertatem ce tt.

co dd . 3 1 . utque AH , (ut quae C ) , quae D , et ut B . 3 2 . [id est in so l itudinem]Lange . secedendum Sch e l e , recedendum co dd .

2 2 . m an sur um lasting ,’ ‘ durablefrequent in Tacitus with th e fo rce o f an

adje ctive : H ist . i . 78 , 5 ; ii . 49 , 2 1 Ann.

iv. 38 , 7 . Cp . Ve rg. Aen. 3 , 86 . So du

raturus, 22. 1 5 ; 3 4 . 2 2 .

2 3 . v agum , that so on passe s awaysynonymo us w ith v o l u cr e , fle e ting .

’

24. nup e r . Se e Intro d . p . x iv,no te .

26 . m e r e r i = consequi : cp. 3 1. 2 3 .

27. S i e x i gat. Th is clause influence sth e pre ce ding part o f th e sentence pul

chrum id quidem ,

’

&c.) as we ll as that inwhich it actually stands b ut the re is none ed to transpo se it, as is done by somee d ito rs. I f w e have to find some so urceo f pro fit, l et us find it in o urse lve s rathe rthan in prince s .

’

s e ip sum co l e r e . He l l e r rightlypo ints o ut that ipsum is no t in appositiou with se th e accusat ive re sultsfrom th e fo rm o f th e sentence . Th e an

tith e sis is be twe en o rato r se ipse co l it

and Bassum Ve spasianus co l uit (se .

quinge nta se ste rt ia do nando ) : th e o rato rpays attention to himse lf, stands o n h is

o w n legs, inste ad o f re lying o n th e favo uro f princes .

28 . suum g e n ium p rOp itiar e ,‘ gain

th e go o d grace s o f one ’

s o w n genius,’ andso se cure a re turn fo r whateve r talent onemay po sse ss : se in Tal ent fruchtbringendmachen ’

(He l le r) .suam l i b e ral itatem ,

‘to fal l back

o n one’

s ow n bo unty.’ Th e contrast is

be twe en th e h umil iation implied in be inga re cipient o f impe rial favo urs, and th e

no ble inde pendence o f th e se lf-made

o rato r .—Al l MSS . give l ibertatem, whichmight pe rhaps b e allowed to stand .

29 . A d ice qu o d . This fo rmula (foracced it quad) doe s no t o ccur in Cice ro o r

Cae sar, b ut o ften in Quint .’

s De clamatio ns : adde quad is also common eno ugh(se e Quint . x . Intro d . p . li i i) . Cp. Liv.xxiii . 5 , 9 adicite ad hae c quo d , &c.

e l ab o rare e t. e ffi ce r e . So C ic. ad

Fam. ix. 16, 2 quidquid e labo rati aut

e ffi ci po tue rit.

30 . c o nv e r sati o in th e sense o f inte rco urse (usus , co nsue tudo ) is po st-classical cp . Ann . x ii . 49 , 3 Ge rm. x 1. 15Quint . vi. 3 . 1 7 (co nve rsatio do cto rum)and in Sene ca, passim.

3 1 . u tqu e i p s i d icun t. Fo r th e po e t’sl o ve o f re t irement , se e Ho r. Car. i . 1 , 30 ,

3 2 , 1 : iv . 3 , 10 sq. : Ep. 11. 2 , 7 7 : A. P .

298 Ovid Trist . i . 1 , 4 1 Carmina se ce s

sum scrib entis et o tia quae runt : cp . v . 1 2 ,3 J uv . vii . 58 . Writ ing to Tacitus, andpro bably with this passage in h is mind,Pliny says, po emata quie scunt, quae tu

inte r nemo ra e t l uco s commo d issime

pe rfici putas Ep. ix . 10 , 2 . Cp. on th e

o the r hand Quint. x . 3 , 2 2 .

10. 1 . o p in i o , reputation’= e x istima~

tio Sen . de Ben. vi . 43 , 3 o pinionem qui

dem e t-famam e o lo co h ab e amus tamquamnon duce re sed soqui deb e at. This abso lute

DIALOGOS DE ORATORIB US . 23

e s se pret ium omnis l ab o ris sui fa te h tu r , -aeque poeta s quam

o rato re s sequit u r, quoniam med iocre s poe t a s nemo novit, b onos

pauci. Quando e n im rarissimarum re citatio num fama in to tam

urb em pene trat, ne dum ut pe r to t p rovincia s inno te scat ? Quo tus 5

qu isque , cum e x H ispan ia v e l A s ia , ne quid de Ga l lis no stris

loque r , in urb em ve n it, Sal e ium Ba s sum requirit ? A tque ad e o

S i qu is requirit, ut seme l v id it,trans it e t co ntentus e st, ut si

picturam a l iquam v e l statuam v idisse t. N eque h unc me um

se rmo nem sic accipi vo lo tamquam e o s qu ib us natura sua I o

ora to rium inge nium d enegav it de te rre am a‘

carminib us, si modo

in h ac stud io rum parte o b l e ctare o t ium e t nomen inse re re po ssunt

famae . Ego ve ro omnem e l oquentiam omne sque e iu s par t e s

sa c ra s e t ve ne rab il e s pu t o, ne c s ol um co th urnum v e s t rum aut

3 . sequ itu r10. 2 . omn is A , omnes CDH ,om. B. aeque Put. ,

atqu e co dd.

EV2CADH , and 0011 . A, insequ itu r AB .

Ste ine r , rariss ima h arum Andre sen.

Put.

use is fo und frequently 1n Quintil ian se e

no te o n x. 5, 1 8 . In Cice ro opin io is

gene rally used with a genitive , as malignitatis o pinionem in ch . 15 . 6 be low : cp .

howeve r pro Sulla , 10 : pro Leg. Mani l.5 43

2 . ue qu e qu am o ccurs some

time s a lso in Plautus and Livy fo r th e

m o re classical aeque . a. c. So Hist . i i .iv . v. Ann . i i . 5 2 , 1 7 ;

iv . x i v. 38 , 7 . In al l the se instance sth e co nstructio n is negative 1 76 .

3 . se qu i tu r . So Quint. iv. 1,14 po

tente s sequ itur invidia.

4 . rar i s sim arum,

‘So few and far

be tw e en,

’—o f th e pro ductions o f ind iv idual s

,witho ut implying that read ings in

gene ral we re scarce : cp . 9 . 14 cum to toanno unum l ib rum e xcudit . Im

po rtant wo rks we re pro duced only at

inte rvals, tho ugh the re are many e v i

de uce s o f a gre ate r activity in th e pro

ductio n o f slighte r pie ce s, e spe cially inth e domain o f lyric po e try. O the rs takerar iss imarum as

“ remarkable , com

paring Agr. iv . 7 mate r rarae castitatisi h . vii . 16 rarissima mo de ratio : and Se n .

C ontro v . iv. 28 ad fin. , homo rarissimie tiamsi no n emendatissimi inge nii .5 . n e d um u t. A rare co nstruction,

fo und , howe ve r, in Livy iii . 6 ne vo cequidem incommo di, nedum ut ul la visfi e re t : cp. Quint. x i i . 1 , 39 . F o r nedumafte r affirmative clause s, se e on

8 . ut seme l Acidal ius,et seme l co dd .

4 . rar issimarum co dd cl ar iss imarum

5 . nedum b,medium ABC (metrum H Sp .

10 . sua de l . Andre sen , N o vak .

qu o tu s qu i squ e ,‘ h ow se l dom do e s

any o ne,

’& c. Th e fo rmula lite rally

means‘e ach unit o f what who le numbe r ,’

i . e . one in h ow many, and so h ow smal la pro po rtion, ’ h ow few .

’

7 . A tqu e ad e o .

‘ Ye s,and if any o ne

do e s ask afte r h im.

’

Cp . whe re i timmo po t ins .

8 . u t s em e l v i d i t. This reminds us

o f Livy’s adm ire r : nunquamne legistiG aditanum quendam Titi Livi nominegl o riaque commo tum ad v isendum cum

ab ul timo te rrarum o rbe venisse statimqueut v ide rat abisse ? Pl in. Epp. i i . 3 , 8 .

10. s i c acc ip i tamqu am : Quin t . i i.

1 2 . o b l e ctar e o t ium . Th e phraseo ccurs again , Ann . x ii . 49 , 4 .

n om e n in se r e r e famae gain a

n iche in th e temple o f fame .

’A simi lar

e xpre ssion is fo und Hist. i i . 6 1 , 2 inse re rese se fo rtunae : cp. Ann . vi. 2 , 7 dum

igno b i l itatem suam magnis nominibusinse ri t.

1 3 . e l o qu e nti am : he reS no n mo us with ‘ l ite rature .

’

Y Yutte rance .

’

14. c o th urnum v e s trum . Cp.

‘th e

b uskin’

d stage ’

(M ilton) . So Ho r. A . P .

80 co ntrasts th e saccus (upmrfs) o r ‘slippe r ’

o f comedy with th e grandes coth urn i o f

practicallyLite rally

tragedy.v e s trum ,

whi l e addre ssed to Mate rnus,

is made to incl ude th e o the r tragic po e ts.

4 CORNELI I TACI T]

1 5 h e ro ici carminis so num,se d lyrico rum quoque iucunditatem e t

e l ego rum l asciv ias e t iamb o rum amaritud inem e t e p igrammatum

lusu s e t quamcumque a liam spe ciem e l o quentia h ab e at ante

po nendam ce t e ris a l tio rum a r t ium studiis cre d o . Se d t e cum

m ihi,Ma te rne , re s e st, quod , cum na tura te t u a in ipsam arcem

2 0 e l o quentiae fe rat, e rra re mav is e t s umma adepturus in l e v io rib us

sub s is t is . Ut Si in Grae cia natu s e s se s , ub i l ud icras quoqu e a r te s

e x e rce re h o ne stum e st, ac tib i N ico strati rob u r ac v ire s d i de d is

s e nt,no n pate re r immane s isto s e t ad pugnam na to s l ace rto s

l e v i t a te iacu l i aut iactu d isci vane sce re , s ic nunc te ab aud ito ru s

16. e l eg iorum AB . ai add. Acidal ius . 1 7 . h abeat co dd . , Iza é et Heumann,Halm,

Mulle r. 18 . a l tiorum Andre se n, a l ia r am co dd . and Jo hn . Qy. a l i enam m .9 cp. 2. 1 7 .

19 . l a add . Halm. ar f em EVzH, artem ABCAD . 20 . adeptu rus Acidal ius ,adeptus co dd . (cp . ingr essur i 3 3 . 2 3 . istos ABD ,

i l l os EV2CH . 24 . [iactu]Andre sen.

1 5 . s o num ,

‘ lo fty to ne s .

’

Cp . Cic.

de Or. i i. 54 addidit h isto riae maio rem

sonum °

vo cis Quint . i . 8 , 5 inte rim e t

sub l imitate h e ro i carminis animus ad

surgat : id . x . 1 , 68 gravitas e t co thurnuse t so ans So ph o cl i .

iu cu n d itatem,

‘charm.

’So Quin

tilian,o f th e lyric po e t Simonide s, iucun

d itate quadam commendari po te st,’ x . 1 ,

64 , and o f Ho race ‘

p l enus e st iucundi

tatis e t grat iae , ’ ib . 96 . Tr . ‘ th e

charming lyric , th e wanto n e l egy, th e

biting satire , th e playful e pigram ,and

e ve ry o the r kind o f l ite rature .

’

16 . e l e g o rum . This is th e commo n

fo rm , e . g . mise rab il e s e l ego s. H o r.

Od. i . 33 , 2 : A . P . 7 7 ; e xiguo s , Tib . ii.

4 , I 3 : Prope rt. v . I , 1 35 ; J uv . i . 4 .

Ovid h as e l ege ia ,fl eb i l is ind igno s e l ege

’

i a

so lve capillo s, Am . i ii . 9 , 3 : cp . cul tis

aut e legia co mis , Mart. v . 30, 4 . Se e

Quint. x . 1 , 93 .

l asc iv i as , play fulne ss.

’

Th e wo rdindicate s e xube rance o f any k ind , as

against seve re re straint : Ho r. A . P . 106

l udentem lasciva (ve rba de cent) seve rumse ria dicta , i . e . spo rtive ’

as o ppo sed to

se rio us ’Ep . 11. 2, 2 16 lasciva de centius

ae tas, ‘ that may mo re be comingly makeme rry.’ So Qu inti lian says

, Ovidius utroque (Tibul lo e t Prope rtio ) l ascivio r sie utd urio r Gal lus, x . 1 , 9 3, whe re se e no te .

Lasciv ia re curs tw ice in th e Dialo gue ,ch s . 26. 7 and 29 . 7 .

amar i tu d in em,

‘acrimo ny. ’ Th e figu

rative use o f this wo rd o ccurs inQuintih an(x . 1 , Pliny th e Yo unge r, Sene ca,and Vale rius Maximus. Quint. x . 1, 96

Iambus cuius acerbitas in Catul lo ,Bibacul o , Ho ratio repe rie tur .

1 7 . h ab e at. Tho ugh this use o f th e

subj . is no t strictly classical, th e readingo f th e MSS . sho uld b e pre se rve d .

1 8 . al ti o rum artium . So,with spe cial

re fe rence to phi lo so phy , Hist . iv. 5 , 5 inge nium in l ustre a l tio ribus stud iis iuvenis

admo dum ded it : Quint . viii . 3 , 2 i i . 1 , 3 .

Cp . Pl in . Ep. v. 16 , 8 ut qui se ab ineunteaetate al tio rib us studiis arti busque de de rit.

19 . n atu ra f e rat Cic . de Orat . iii.5 35 quo sua quemque natura maximefe rre videa tur : Brut . 5 204 .

ar cem e l o qu e n tiae . Quint. x i 1. 1 1 2 8

Cice rone arcem tenente e l o quentiae .

20 . in l e v i o r i b u s su b s is ti s . Cp .

Quint. i . Pr . 20 a lt ius tamem ibnut quiad summa nitentur quam qui pro tinus

c irca ima sub stite rint : Sen . Co ntro v . x . pr .16 ad summa e vasurus iuvenis nisi

mo dicis co ntentus e sse t.2 1 . l u d i e ras arte s :

‘th e accom

p l ishments o f th e arena.

’ Sene ca supplie sa de finitio n l udicrae sunt quae ad vo l uptatem o cu l o rum atque aurium tendunt,Ep . 8 8 , 2 2 . Cp. Quint. i ii . 6 , 18 .

2 2 . N i co stratu s w as an o rnament o fth e prize-ring in th e e arl ie r part o f th e

fi rst ce ntury. Quintilian h ad se en h imwhen a yo ung man (i i . 8 , and Pan

sanias (v . 2 1 , 1 1 ) give s h is name as a

victo r in th e Olympic Game s .

23 . ad p u gnam ,i . e . ad pugil atum.

24 . i acul i i actu . Tacitus in

th e Dialogue do e s no t avo id th e jux tapo sitio n o f th e same o r similar wo rds2. 6 stud io se studio rum 7 . 2 latus

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

26 CORNELI I TACI TI

e t se curitatis e x cusatio nem,cum t ib i sumas adve rsarium super

io rem . N ob is s atis sit privatas e t. nos t ri sae cul i con t rove rsia s

tue ri,in qu ib us [e x pre s s is] si quando ne ce s se s it pro pe ric l itante

amico po tentio rum au re s offe nd e re , e t prob a t a s it fide s e t l ib e rta s

40 e x cusata .

’

11. Quae cum dix isse t Ape r acrius , ut so l e b at, e t inte nto o re ,

remissus e t sub ride ns Mate rnus Parantem inqu it me non m inus

d iu accusa re o rato re s qu am Ap e r l audav e rat (fore e nim arb itrab ar

ut~ a l audatio ne e o rum d igre s sus d e tre ctare t poe ta s a tqu e ca r ,

5 m inum stud ium pro ste rne re t) a rte quadam mitigav it, conce de nd oi is qui cau sa s age re non po ssent ut v e rsu s face re nt. Ego autem

sie ut in cans is age ndis e ffi ce re a liqu id e t e niti fo rtasse pos sum ,

ita re citatio ne trago e d iarum e t ingre d i famam auspicatus sum

38 . expr essis ABDH , expressit C , expouendisWagene r, ex ereeudis Inge . Qy. ex

pendeudis expromeudis (24 . 1 39 . sit expressitpro E, sit et expr essitpr o V2 .

11. 2. par emtem inqu itme Walthe r, parautem me inqu it Bekke r, Halm,paranten im

qu id me EVQCA , parant qu id en im me ABDH (parat H percmt D) . 3 . l audat

B Sp . , l audao it Acidal ius .

tence beginning To l l e igitur furnishe s a

prompt re futatio n o f a l l that can b e saidin de fence o f such (republican ) po e try :it is a greate r d isturbe r o f re po se

,by th e

enm ity it e xcite s , than anything conne ctedw ith th e pro fe ssio n o f th e b ar

,wh ich

Mate rnus h ad abandoned in o rde r tose cure repo se . F o r ado ersarium supe r ior em, cp. 2. 2 cum o ffendisse po tentium

animo s dice re tur, with no te .

3 7 . c o n tr o v e r s ias tu e r i : Cic. de 01.

i . 1 69 ut amico rum contro ve rsias causasque tueatur .

39 . fi d e s l ib e rtas . Fo r th e chiasmus

,se e Dr

. 5 235 .

Ch s . 11—13 . M aternus r epl ies to Aper .

Tlze pra ise of Poetry .

11 . 1 . in t e n t o o r e , o f th e e xpre ssiono f Ape r’s co untenance

,with th e utmo st

gravity ’: no tas C . and B . w ith vehemenceo f utte rance .

’Th e antithe sis is r emissus et

subr idens : cp. Ann. xiii . 3 , 3 intentus ipsee t ce te ri nemo risni tempe rate . The reis some thing o f th e same ant ithe sis (inteutus

‘ in tho ro ugh e arne st ’) in Ann . i .

5 2 , 8 . So be low , 14. 3 e x ipsa intentionesingul o rum,

whe re Ve rgil’s intentique o ra

tene b ant (Aen. i i . 1 ) i l lustrate s th e me anmg.

3 . di u . Cp . 25 . 2 diu co ntradicendumAnn . v i . 2 7 , 1 5 neque no b i l itas diutius demonstranda e st. Se e o n 6 . 2 7 , abo ve .

l aud av e rat. Th e pl pf. is he re quiteappro pr iate . It is ante rio r to mitigao itput me in a be tte r tempe r ’) and e ven

to parau tem . Ape r eulo gise s rhe to ricthen Mate rnus (th inking that h e will proce ed to attack po e try) ge ts re ady to

answe r h im but Ape r so o th e s h is ruffledsusce ptibi lit ie s.

5 . arte quad am , cle ve rly,

’ by a so rto f stratagem .

’

Cp . C ic . de Or. 1 74id en im ipsum artificio quo dam e s

conse cutus.

7 . s i cu t i ta. ue'

v Th e

fo rmula (tho ugh no t so commo n as ut

ita ) is frequent in Livy : e . g. xxi . 35 , 10pl e raque A lpium ab Italia sieut b re vio raita arre ctio ra sunt : cp. ib . 39 , 7 .

e fl i ce r e e t e n i ti . So C ic. Am ic . 59e niti e t e fii ce re : and cp. 9 . 29 , abo ve ,e labo rare e t e ffice re .

8 . ingr e di fum am au Sp i catu s sum ,

I to o k th e first ste p o n th e path o f fame .

’

Th e infin. afte r auspiear i is ve ry un

common : cp. Sen . Ep . 8 3 , 3 cal endis

Ianuariis auspicab ar in Virginem

d e si l ire , I o pened th e ye ar fo r luckw ith

,& c. : Pl in. xxxi . 4 1 primus (aquam

Mare iam) in urb em duce re auspicatus e st

Ancus Martins : Sue t . Ne ro xxii . ad aramIo vis cantare . Th e mo re usual construction (w ith an ace .) survive s in Burke ’spe ro rat ion on Co nciliation w ith Ame rica,

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I B US . 2 7

(cum qu id em sub N e rone improb am e t studio rum quoque sa cral

p ro fanantem Vatinii pote ntiam fregi), e t hod ie s i qu id in nob is 10

no t i t iae ac nom in is e st, magis arb itro r ca rm inum quam ora

tio num g loria part um . Ac iam me d e iunge re a fo re ns i l ab o re

cons t it ui,ne c comit a tu s isto s e t egre ssus aut fre que ntiam s a lu

tantium concupisco, non magis quam ae ra e t imagine s , quae

e t iam me no le nte in domum meam inrupe runt. Nam sta tum 1 5

h ucusque ac se curitatem me l ius innoce n t ia tue o r quam e l oque ntia,

9 . sub jVerone No vak , in ue roue AB , in N erone DC , in n eroue H : imperante N erone

Luc . Mulle r, in N er on i is Osann, enormem et Wo lff (Agr. x . 10 . Vatin ii

G ro no vius,

°zzatie iu i i co dd . et add. Lipsius . 1 1 . uomin is Hb

,uumim

'

s ce tt.

co dd . 1 2 . di iuugere Wo l Fflin ,Bae h rens, and No vak (w h o compare s Quint . i i . 1 5 ,

2 ii i . 4 , 13 sa l utautzum Sch e l e , sa l utatzouum co dd . 1 5 . iuruperuutACDAHVg, ir rumpuut BE. 16 . Izu eusgue ac Lipsius, cuzusgue ad co dd .

w e o ught to auspicate al l o ur publicpro ce ed ings on Ame rica with th e o l d

warning o f th e Church, Sursum corda !

Such ple onasms as ingr edi auspicatussum are no t uncommo n with phrase sind icating commencement . Ann . xi i i . 10,5 ut principium anni incipe retmense De

cembri : Ge rm . xxx . 1 ini tium sed is inch o ant : Hist . i . 39 , 1 1 initio caed is o rto .

Cp . Sue t . Cal . l iv. ut initium in scenam

prodeundi l icentia no ct is auspicaretur.9 . su b N e r o n e . This is th e e asie stre ading, and is mo re common in Tacitusthan imperam

‘

e N e rone . Fo r th e confu

s io n be twe en in and su b, No vak compare sLiv. xxvi . 43, 4 sub Carth aginie nsibus .

stu d i o rum sacra p r o fan antem‘ that de se crated th e sanctuary o f lite rature .

’Cp . Quint . x . 1 , 9 2 no s sacra lit

te rarum co l ente s : Ov. Am . i1 9 , 19Sci l ice t omne sacrum mo rs impo rtunapro fanat. No th ing is known in regardto th e allusion he re made .

—He l le r propo se s to inve rt th e clause s, inse rting cumqu idem f r egi afte r f ortasse possum,

o n th e gro und that such a victo ry w as

much mo re pro bably th e re sult o f an

action at l aw : b ut cum qu idem f r eg igo e s much be tte r with th e pe rfe ct auspicatus sum than w ith th e gene ral stateme ntadvanced in efi ee re a l iqu id possum.

10 . Vatin i i . Tho ugh th e name is

do ubtful, this is pro bably th e Vatinius o fAnn . xv. 34 (inte r fo edissima e ius aulaeo stenta) : th e ‘ Bene ventanus suto r ’ o f

J uv . v. 46 (whe re se e Mayo r’s no te ) .in n o b i s . Th e MS . re ading may b e

suppo rted by Ann . xiv. 43 , 6 quidquidh o c 1n no bis aucto ritatis e st.1 1 . n o ti t iae ac n om in i s . Th e phrase

re curs at 36 . 19 . Fo r notitia,se e on 5 .

1 7 . Cp . 13 . 6 .

1 2 . d e iung e r e m e , to unharne ss myse l f from,

’o r to thro w o ff th e yo ke o f

’

my l abours at th e b ar a ve ry rare wo rd .

1 3 . c om i tatus e t e gr e s su s : cp .

6 . 14 , and deducit aut sal utat aut pro sequitur

’

at 9 . 9 . I sto s re fe rs to Ape r’sprevio us eu lo gy .fr e qu e ntiam sal utantium , crowdedle ve e s : ’ cp . fremitus sal utantium 13 . 2 1

Ann . iv. 4 1 , 10 adempta sal utantum turba .

So Ve rg . Ge o rg. i i . 46 2 Si non ingentemfo ribus domus alta supe rb is Mane salutantum to tis vomit aedibus undam ,

& c

Je rome , Ep . 43 (quo ted b y Baite r on

Ho r . Sat. i . 6 , 10 1 ) pude t d ice re frequent iam sal utandi qua aut ipsi quo tid ie ad

alio s pe rgimus aut ad no s veniente s ce

te ro s e x spe ctamus : Quint . xii . 1 1, 1 8 vanussal utandi labo r. Frequent re fe rence s o ccurin Juvenal and Martial to th e burdensomeduty o f attend ing such le ve e s.

14 . imag in e s . Cp . o n 8 . 25 .

1 5 . sta tum tu e o r . So Cic . ad

Fam. ix . 16 , 6 ego me non putem tue rimeum statum Sic po sse ut, & c . In thisco nne xion, status is used with re fe renceto its lite ral me aning, viz. th e

“po sitiontaken up by a combatant to me e t anattack : C ic . Or. 1 29 magno sempe rusi impe tu saepe adve rsario s de statuomni de ie cimus. Cp . o n de iectus

16 . h u cusqu e ,‘ t ill now .

’ This i s'

said to b e th e first instance o f th e use o f

th e wo rd in this tempo ral significatio n.

I t gene rally me ans ‘to this e xtent : cp.

howe ve r, i l l uc usque fidum,Ann . xv . 54 ,

up to that po int’

(tempo ral) opp. to

tunc primum .

’

2 8 CORNELI I TACI T]

ne c ve re o r ne m ih i umquam ve rb a in se natu n isi pro a lte rius

d is crim ine facie nda s int.

12. N emo ra v e ro e t luci e t se cre t um ipsum , quod Ape r in

crepab at, tantam mih i adfe runt vo l uptatem ut inte r prae cipuo s

ca rm inum fru ctu s nume rem quod non in strepitu ne c s e d e nte

ante ostium l itigato re ne c inte r s o rd e s a c l acrimas re o rum

5 compo nuntur, se d se ce d it an imu s in loca pura atqu e innoce nt ia

fruiturque se d ib us sacris . H a e c e l o que ntiae primord ia , h ae c

pene tra l ia hoc p rimum hab it u cu ltuque commo da mo rta l ib us

in i l la ca s t a e t nu l l is con t ac t a v i tu s pe ctora influx it ; sic o ra cu la

l oque b antur. Nam l ucro sae h uius e t sanguinantis e l o que ntiae

10 u su s re ce ns e t ma l is mo rib us nat u s , atque , ut tu d ice b as , Ape r,in locum te li re pe rtus . Ce te rum

'

fe l ix il lud e t,ut more nostro

1 7 . n isi om . C .

12 . 1 . increpat B . 5 . sedit A’EV2. 7 . commoda co dd .,commendata

Muretus and mo st edd . 8 . in EV2CADH , et AB . i l l a EV2DCHb , ista AB .

9 . sangu inantis co dd . , sag iuautis e d. J untina 15 2 7 , sangu ine madautis Sch u l tmg,sangu in i iub iautis Be zzenb e rge r. 10. etma l is ABDH , et ex ma l is EV2CA .

12 . 1 . N em o ra v e r o , & c. Se e end

o f ch . 9 . S e eretum ipsum,

‘ re tirementin itse lf : fo r th e substantival use o f th e

adj . , se e Intro d . p . lv.3 . str e p itu . Ape r, o n th e o the r hand,

h ad Spo ken o f ‘ iucunditas urbis, ’ 9 ad fin .

Sch 0pen’

s pro po sal to re ad ‘ in strepitu

u rbis ’may b e re jected as unne ce ssary :

cp. Ho r. Ep . i i . 2, 79 inte r stre pitus no c

turno s atque diurno s . Fo r th e wo rryo ccasione d by th e co ntinual no ise o f

Rome (strepitum Romae , Ho r . Car . iii.

29 , 1 2) se e Juvenal’

s Third Satire , ad fin.

s e d e n te ante o s t ium l i tigato r e .

Simi lar re fe rence s are o f common o ccurrence in Ho race : Ep. i . 5 , 3 1 atria se r

vantem po stico fal le c l ientem : i i . 1 , 104mane domo vigilare , clienti prome re iuraSat. i . 1

,10 sub galli cantum consulto r

ub i o stia pul sat. Clients h ad no re spe ctfo r ho urs , and came bo th late and e arly.4 . s o r d e s ac l acr im as . So C ic. Orat .po st re d it . ad po pulum 7 co tidianae

l acrimae so rde sque lugubre s : ad Fam .

xiv . 2, 2 iace re in l acrimis e t so rdi bus .

O the r Cice ronian combinations are fl e tus

so rde sque ,’ ‘ in so rdib us, l amentis , lue tu

que iace re , spe ctacu l um so rdium atquel uctus e t tanti squa l o ris.

’

6 . H a e c p r im o rdi a , & c . Tr . ‘ He rew as th e cradle

,he re th e ve ry Shrine

o f e l oquence ; such w as th e mien and

style with w hich,’ &c . Elo quence is pe rso nifi ed, as aga in at 37 . 33 . Fo r lzab itu

cu l tuque cp. Ann . i. 10, 3 1 ii . 59, 8 .

7 . c omm o d a , ingratiating he rse lfwi th.’ Th e change to commendata , ac

ce pted by mo st e dito rs, se ems to havebe en mo t ived by th e wish to co nne ct thisphrase mo re clo se ly than th e write rintended w ith th e pre ced ing ablat ive s .

8 . e t nu l l i s , fo r‘ne c ul l is,

’

as 28 . 24Agr . x vi . 26 G e rm. x. 1 3 .

s i c ( i. e . in th e language o f po e try) iscommon ly ado pted fo r th e MS . lzie (

‘ in

this so litude9 . l u cr o sae h u iu s , &c .

‘ This gainge tting e loquence o f o urs, re e k ing wi thhuman blo o d

,is a mo de rn inve ntion, th e

growth o f a de prave d conditio n o f so cie ty, ’cp . Quint . i . 1 2 , 16 , and x i i . 7 . 3 . San

gu iuautis co ntains a re fe re nce to th e

capital co nvictions o btained by such men

as Eprius Marce llus and Vib ius Crispusre fe rred to by Ape r abo ve .

10 . mal is m o r i b us . He lmre ich de

fends this reading by re fe rence to

iv . 1 7 , 5 and vi . 16 , 6 .

u t tu di ce b as ch . 5 ad fin .

1 1 . i n l o cum te l i : cp . ingenu lo co ,26 . 10 .

C e t e rum , o n th e o the r hand ,’

Showsth at in th e pre ceding sentence uam is

no t adve rsative , as at 9 . 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

30 CORNEL1] TACI TI

famam Euripidis aut So ph o c l is quam Lysiae aut Hype ridis'

inc lu d i. F lu re s h od ie re pe rie s qui Cice ro nis glo r iam quam qui

Ve rgil ii d e tre cte nt, ne c u l l us A s inii aut Me ssa l l ae lib e r tam

in l ustris e st quam M e de a Ov id 11 au t Va r11 Thye s t e s .

13 . Ac me fo rtunam quidem vatum e t il lud fe l ix contub ern ium‘

compara re timue rim c um inqu ie t a e t anx ia o rato rum v i t a . Lice t

i l l o s ce rtamina e t pe ricu la sua ad co nsu l atus e ve x e rint, ma lo

se curum e t quie tum Ve rg il ii se ce ssum,in quo tame n nequ e apud

d ivum Augustum gratia caruit neque apud popu lum Romanum

13 . 3 . ad Lipsius, et co dd . consu l atus C , eouo eutus D , cent A, coetus B.

2 2 . E u r ip i d i s aut S o p h o c l i s . In a

comparison w ith Lysias and Hype ride s ,Euripide s natural ly come s first : magisaccedit o rato rio gene ri , Quint . x . 1 , 68 ,whe re se e no te .

23 . C i ce r o n i s . Fo r C ice ro ’

s de traeto rs , see o n chap . 18 . That Ve rgil , to o ,w as no t w itho ut h is critics, is cle ar fromth e Li fe o f Do natus

, ch . 43 : cp. Sue t .Calig. 34

24 . l i b e r he re o f course (as at 3 8 . 14 ,whe re se e no te ) o f a spe e ch , written downand publishe d . Asinius Po llio ( 75 B . C .

4 A .D . ) and M . Va le rius Me ssal l a Co r

vinns (64 B . C .—8 A . D .) are criticised to

ge the r as o rato rs by Quintilian x . 1 , 1 1 3 ,w he re se e no te s . Othe r re fe rence s to

them o ccur in ch s 17 , 18 , and 21.

25 . M e d e a Th ye ste s . Th e con

junction o f the se tw o traged ie s by Quinti lian is a lso no tewo rthy : iam VariThye ste s cui l ib e t G rae carum comparari

po te st . Ovidi Me de a vide tur m ihi o stend e re quantum i lle vir prae stare po tue rit

Si ingenio suo impe rare quam indul ge remal uisse t, x. I

, 98 . L . V ar iu s R u fus

h ad gained a high reputatio n as an e picpo e t , be fo re h e to o k to tragedy : cp Ho r.

Car. i . 6 Scrib e ris Vario Mae onii

carminis alite : Ep . ii . 1 , 246 : A . P . 55 .

He is known also as th e friend o f Ve rgiland Ho race (Sat. i . 5 , 40 : 6 , and

he lped to e d it th e Aene id afte r Ve rgil’sde ath.13 . I . i l l ud f e l ix contu b e rn ium .

Cp. assiduitate contube rnii, 5 . 5 , w ithno te : Se n . D ial . vi . 10 , 4 iam d iSic ie tur

iste comitatus, iam contub e rnia ista sub

lato clamo re so l ventur. Th e allusio n isto th e re tired l ife o f th e po e t (cp . se curume t quie tum se ce ssum,

be low) , w ithits exclus ive b ut de lightful companion

Sh ips, far from th e madding crowd’

s

igno ble strife , ’ in contrast to th e busybustling l ife o f th e advo cate

,as de scribed

e . g . at 6 . 3 . It is no t ne ce ssary h ow

to take th e wo rds as a re futat io n o f whatApe r h ad said atth e end o f ch . 9 Mate rnus knows and value s th e pleasure s o f

so litude , 1 7 be low .

3 . car tam in a e t p e r i cu l a is takenby a l l th e commentato rs as a he ndiadysfo r certamina per icu l osa . IS is no t po s

si b le , howe ve r, that wh i le pe r icu l a h as

he re its usual me aning o f act io ns at l aw ,

’

ce rtamina may re fe r to le ss fo rmal combats, such as tho se ia th e senate ? Cp. 5 .

3 2 e ius mo di ce rtaminum rudem : also ,

e t cansis e t iudiciis 34. 1 5 . P er icu l o

are co ntrasted with privatae causae in

Quint . v i . 1 , 36.

ad c o n su l atu s e v e x e r in t. Fo r th e

e xpre ssion , cp . Hist . ii . 75 , 8 e gregario ad

summa m il itiae pro ve ctum : Ve ll . Pat. i i .90 , 1 quem usque in te rt ium co nsul atum

amicit ia principis e ve x e rat. fi veb o

in th is sense is po e tical : Ho r . Car. i . 1,

5 ; Ve rg. Aen . v i. 1 30. Gudeman , w h o

wo uld re ad ve l ad, rightly argue s that an‘enume ratio n o f some o f th e po sitio nswhich an o rato r might ho pe to attainthro ugh h is e loquence de cided ly we akensth e fo rce o f th e passage , ’ and the re fo rereje cts ad o pe s e t’

(Ritte r) , ad sace rdo tia ,v e l prae turas e t (Vahlen ) . On th e o the rhand ve l (written 11) may acco unt fo r th eco nfusio n in th e MSS . Se e Intro d . p . lxxx.4 . s e cu rum e t qui e tum . So quie tis

e t se curitatis, 10. 35.

V e rg i l i i s e ce ssum . In th e l ast ye arso f h is life Ve rgil h ad a co untry-ho use at

what is no w called Po si l ippo , to th e

we st o f Naple s . Fo r secessum,cp . Quint.

x. 3, 2 8 si lentium et se ce ssum.

’

DIALOGUS DE ORATORI B US . 3 1

not itia . Te ste s Augus ti e pistu lae , te s t is ipse popu lus , qui aud itiS

in th e atro Ve rgil ii v e rs ib us surre x it univ e rsus e t for te prae se ntem

spe ctantemque Ve rgi l ium ve ne ratus e st s ic qua s i Augustum . Ne

no stris quid em temporib u s Se cundu s Pompo nius A fro Domitio

ve l d ign it ate v i tae v e l perpe tuitate famae ce sse rit. Nam C rispus

iste e t Marce l lus,

. ad quorum e x emp la me vocas, quid h ab e nt

8 . [Verg i l ium] Erne sti.

6 . Augusti e p i stu l ae . Sample s havecome down to us in Do natus

’s Life o f

Ve rgil , ch . 3 1 , and Macro b . i. 24 , 1 1

cp. Claudian , Epp. 3 , 2 3 . Se e A .

We ich e rt’

s Imp. Cae saris August i scripto rum re liqu iae , i . p. 1 59 .

7 . v e rs i b u s . Th e re fe rence to th e

po e t’s accidental pre sence at th e pe rfo rmance make s i t pro bable that some line sfrom o ne o f h is we ll-known wo rks h adchance d to b e quo ted in th e co urse o f a

d ramatic repre sentatio n . Othe rwise w e

know from Do natus (Life , ch . 26 ) and

from Se rvius (o n Ecl . vi. 1 1 ) that Ve rgil’

s

Eclo gue s, particularly th e Sixth , we reo ften rende red o n th e stage

,pro bably as

inte rlude s : if th is is what is me ant he re ,f o rte may re fe r to th e fact that th e po e tw as no t usually re sident in Rome .

8 . sp e ctan tem de fine s praesentemmo re ne arly : Ve rgil w as pre sent as a

Spe ctato r. Fo r th e repe tition o f th e

name , which is omitted by some e dito rs,cp . Hist . i i . 10 1 , 5 ne ab al iis apud Vite ll ium ante irentur

,pe rve rtisse ipsum Vite l

l ium videntur : Ann . xii . 64 , 10 pe rditaprius Domitia Le pida,mul ie b ribus cansis,quia Lepida , &c .

s i c q u as i , ‘ just as if h e h ad be e nAugustus h imse lf : cp. Cic . ad Fam . ix.16

,2 ut quasi aurum igni, sic b enevo l entiapo ssit. This act o f homage w as re

garded by th e empe ro r as h is o w n pe enliar right : cp. what Sue ton ius te l ls us

abo ut Augustus’s d isple asure when i t w as

re nde red to h is ado pte d so ns : Eisdem

praete x tatis adh uc assure ctum ab unive rsiS

in th e atro e t a stantibus p l ausum gravisSime que stus e st, Aug . ch . l vi ; Pl in.

Panegyr. l iv. 2 .

9 . P omp o n iu s S e cun dus (fo r th e inve rsio n in th e text se e o n ch . 1) w as co nsulsuffe ctus in A . D . 44, and de fe ated th e Chattias legatus in Uppe r Ge rmany in 50 . Fo r

this succe ss h e o btained from Claudiusth e ‘

o rn amenta triumph al ia ,’

b utTacituste lls uS that this w as no t h is gre ate st titleto fame : mo dica pars famae e ius apud

po ste ro s, in quis carm inum glo ria prace e l ~l it, Ann . xii . 28 ad fin. Quinti lian says o fh im (x . 1 , co rum (tragico rum) quo svide rim lo nge prince ps Pompo nius Se cundus

, quem sene s quidem parum tragicum

putab ant, e ruditio ne ac nito re prae stareconfite b antur. Th e fact that h e w as a

man o f afi airs as we l l as a po e t is o ftena lluded to cp. Pl in . vii . 80 in Pompo nioco nsul ari po eta : xiii . 8 3 apud P . S .

,

vatem civemque c l arissimum . H is friend ,Pliny th e Elde r , wro te h is life in tw o

bo o ks : se e Pl in. Ep . i ii . 5 .

A fr o D om iti o . Th e same inve rsiono ccurs in Quint . x . 1 , 86. In 5 1 18 Quint i lian ranks h im ,

alo ng with Iu l ius Africanus

,far abo ve al l co ntempo rary o rato rs

co rum quo s vide rim Domitius Afe r e t

Iu l ius A fricanus longe prae stantissimi.

Afe r w as a nat ive o f N isme s,and first

acquire d re pute by th e pro se cut ion o f

Agrippina’

s co usin Claudia Pulchra : Tib e rius de clared that h e w as a bo rn o rato r(suo iure dise rtum, Ann . iv. 5 2 , H e

w as Quintilian’s teache r and mo de l : v.

7 , 7 Pl in . Ep. i i. 14 .

10 . d ign itat e v i tae . Tacitus te lls usin th e Annals ( l . c. ) that h e w as unscru

pul o us ,‘ mo d icus d ignatio nis e t quoquo

facino re pro pe rus c l are sce re .

’He place d

h is rhe to rical ability at th e dispo sal o f th ego ve rnment : mo x cape ssend is accusa

tio nib us aut re o s tutando pro spe rio re

e l o quentiae quam mo rum fama fuit,ibid .

p e rp e tu i tate famae . Quint ilian te llsus that Afe r wo uld have be st co nsu lte dh is re pu tatio n if h e h ad re tire d earlie rfrom th e pract ice o f h is pro fe ssion (xii .1 1

, 3 ) cp . Tac. l . c . ae tas extrema mul

tum e tiam e l o quentiae dempsit dum fe ssa

mente re tine t Sil e ntii impatientiam .

ce s s e r it. Fo r a similar use o f th e

pe rfe ct subjunct ive , cp . Quint . x. 1,10 1

at no n h isto ria ce sse rit G rae cis .

C ri sp u s is te e t M arce l l u s : se e on

8 . 1 and 5 . 3 1 .

1 1 . v o ca s . Cp . Ann . iv . 4 3, 10 quo d Si

vatum, annal ium ad te stimonia vo centur.

32 CORNEL [ 1 TACI TI

in h ac sua for t una co ncup iscendum ? Quod time nt,an quod

time ntur ? Quod , cum co tidie a liqu id roge ntur, ii qu ib u s prae

s t ant indignantur ? Quod adl igati omni adu l atio ne ne c impe r

ant ib u s umquam s at is se rv i v ide ntur ne c nob is satis l ib e ri ? Quae

hae c summa e o rum pot e n t ia e st ? t antum pos s e l ib e r ti s o le nt.

Me ve ro d u l c e s , ut Ve rgi l ius a it, M u s a c, remo tum a so l l icitu

d inib us e t curis e t n e ce s sita te co tidie a liqu id contra animum

facie nd i, in i l la s acra il l o sque fo nte S fe rant ; ne c insanum u l t r a

1 2 . in [me sua mo st co dd . ,in b at praesenti (puti) sua HVSp. 1 3 . a l iqu id edd .;

a l iqu i codd . ve l i i Andre sen,M ii l l e r. qu ibuspraestaut co dd . , qu ibu s nonpr . Lipsius

(Halm sugge sts qu ibu s praesto non suut,o r opem nu l l am praestaut) . 14 . omn i

Walthe r, oz? ABE, cum CDV2H, commun i Schne ide r , b umi l i Sch u l ting , Mull e r , can iuaHalm. 19 . saera co dd . , seer eta Wo lff

, saera nemara Mae h l y, He lmre ich . i i l osgue

(istosgue) co dd .,i l l osque ad Ritte r and mo st edd . (i l lasgue f roudes Haupt) .

13 . i i qu i b u s p rae stant, sc . id, quo d

ro gati sunt, o r al iquid ,’

as w ith rogentu r .

Cp . 37 . I 5 ; 8 . 6 . No t a day passe s butthe y are asked fo r some th ing o r o the rye t succe ssful suito rs chafe unde r th eo bligatio ns which the y incur to suchpe rsons as the se : the ir favo urs bringthem in re turn no thing b ut h ad blo o d .

Cp .

’

Ann . iv . 1 8 ad fin.—Buch h o l z’s

e xplanat ion o f this passage is unne ce s

saril y ingenio us . Taking r ogentu r o f‘ inviting ’

and re ading (fo r MS . a l iqu i )no t a l iqu id , b ut in a l iqu id, o r ab a l iquo ,o r a l iquo , h e unde rstands th e al lusion to

b e to th e vexation o f tho se w h o,having

fe l t bo und to invite such pe o ple as C rispusand Marce llus, fo und the ir invitatio n ac

ce pted prae staut o r prae sto suut, o r se

praestaut.14 . ad l i gati omn i adu l ati o n e ,

‘ he ldfast in th e fe tte rs o f abje ct se rvility. ’Adl igati o b stricti, d evi ncti , enme shedby cp . furto

,me tu , sce l e re ad l igari . So

Sen. Dial . ix . 5 , 4 ut ique mo ve b imus ne c

adl igati me tu to rpe b imus . Omn i (fo rMSS . cum) is undo ubtedly th e true re ading : cp . omn i e ruditione , 2. 14 , whe reCEV have omn i and ABHD cum . So

to o at 26 . 2 8 , C give s in omne , fo r in

commune , an e xample o f th e co nfusioncause d by th e use o f co n tractions in th e

arche type .

16 . h b e rti , se . principis .

1 7 . ut V e rg i l iu s ait : Ge o rg. 11. 4 75M e ve ro primum dulce s ante omnia Musac

accipiant.

s o l l i c i tu d in i b u s e t cu r i s . F o r th e

combinatio n, cp . C ic. de Fin. v.

5 5 7

1 8 . c o n tra an imum,

against my iacl inatio n,

’said o f some thing that go e s

against th e grain Sen. D ial. i i. 19 , 2 .

19 . in i l l a sacra i l l o squ e f o nte s .

Fo r saera in th e l ota l sense o f shrine s o r

sacred’ pre cincts, ho ly place s ’

Cul tst’

at

te n,

’ Jo hn) , cp . Hist. i i i . 33 , 16 cum omniasaera pro fanaque in igne s co nside rant,so lum M e fitis templum ste titante mo enia,l o co se u num ine de fensum : Ann . i . 5 1 , 4pro fana s imul e t sacra so lo aequantur.

Gudeman po ints o ut that th e Shrine s o f th eMuse s and a ne ighbo uring spring are in

variably asso ciated, comparing Paus .

29 , 3 : Plut . de Pyth . Orac. 1 7 : Livy i . 2 1J uv. i i i. 13 nunc sacri fontis nemus e t

de lubra l o cantur, w ith Mayo r’s no te ad

100. With bo th saera and f outes, in probably ‘ towards cp. ad and i s in Gre e k .

In vie w , howe ve r, o f th e fact that th esanctuarie s . o f th e Muse s we re alwayslo cate d o n th e to p o f th e mo untains ,Gudeman pre fe rs to take in in th e sense

o f ‘up towards cp . 10. 1 9 in arcem fe rat

19 . 16 in cae lum l audib us fe re b antur .

The re is thus no ne ed to inse rt ad be fo ref oute s , as mo st ed ito rs do : still le ss fo rHaupt’s i l l asque f rondes , a sugge stio nmade 011 th e gro und that in f antes must

ine vitably mean imme rsio n ! Fo r f outescp . th e we l l-known passage s Lue r . i . 2 2 7Iuvat integro s acce de re fo nte s : Ho r. Car.

i . 26, 6 O quae fo ntibus integris Gaude sibid . i i i . 4 , 25 Ve stris amicum fontibus e t

ch o ris.

19 . n e c in sanum , &c .

‘ Le tme w i thdraw from th e d istractio ns and th e nu

ce rta inty o f th e b ar, and no lo nge r expo semyse lf with be ating heart to th e rapturo us

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

34 CORNEL I I-T2401] ?

statuarque tumulo non mae stus e t atro x ,sed b i latis e t co ro natus,

e t pro m emoria me i ne c con su lat quisquam ne c roge t.

’

14 . Vix dum fi nie rat Mate rnus, co ncitatus e t ve l ut instinctus ,

cum Vipstanus Me ssa l l a cub icu lum e iu s ingre ssus e st, susp icatus

que e x ips a in te n t ione s ingu l o rum a l tio rem inte r e o s e s se

se rmo nem, Num parum tempe stivus inquit inte rveni se c re tum

5 cons il ium e t cau sae al icuius me d itatio nem tractantib us ?’

14 . 2 . cum EV2 , tum ABCADH . Vipstanus C . A. Rupe rtus, Vi bau ius

ADAEV2 Libau ius B , t auz’

us C , Urbau ius B Sp. [e ius] Erne sti , Halm. 5 . et

co dd . ,aut Halm.

doeuugue , as in o l d fo rmulas, e .g. Gai .

D ig . 7 . 5 , 7 (ut quandoque is mo rtuus sit,& c . ) Sue t . Cae s. 8 1 cp . Ann . i . 6, 6 :iv . 3 8 , 3 . I f, o n this inte rpre tation, th equandoque clause is tacke d o n to re l in

guere , th e en im (11) must d isappe ar o eu iet

may stand (cp . tnah e t, Ho r. Car. iv. 2 ,I f on th e o the r hand it is co nne cted w ithwhat fo llows, w e must re ad statuar fo r

statudrqu e , and quandoque autem fo r

quandoque en im . Ano the r al temative is

to suppre ss bo th en im and th e gue in

statuarque, and to take quandoqu e ase t quando ,

and when in suppo rt o f thisG udeman quo te s Livius Andro nicus ap.

G e ll . i ii . 16, 1 1 Quando d ie s adveniet

quem prae fata Mo rta e st.

24 . fatal i s e tm e u s d i e s . The se wo rdsco nve y no p1e sentiment o f a

°v io l ent

e nd , and it se ems wro ng to strain them,

w ith th e commentato rs, by d isco ve ring are fe rence to th e half-u tte red fo re bo dingso f Ape r (ch . 10. ad That the y indicate a natural de ath is pro bable from Pl in .

Ep. i . 1 2 , 1 e st l uctuo sissimum ge nusm o rt is, quo d no n e x natu ra ne c fatal is

vide tur : 0p . Ve l l e ius i i . 4 (whe re f ata l ismors is o ppo se d to mo rs co nflata insid iis ’

)and Sue t . Cae s . 89 pe rcusso rum Cae saris

nemo sua mo rte de functus e st. In Ore l l i ’sInso r . Lat. (2023) w e find also H ic tuus

fatal is d ie s .

’

In th e same w ay f atum is

frequently used o f a natura l de ath Ann.

i . 3 , 1 2 : ii . 4 2 , 1 7 : 7 1 , 3 . Fo r th e co l

lo catio n, cp .

‘ longus e t unus,’

17 . 1 3 .

26 . statu ar , l it . ‘ l e t my statue b e se t

up cp . Ov . He r. 11. 67 inte r e t Aegidasm e dia statuaris in urbe : Hist . iii . 74 , 7templum seque in sinu de ae sacravit : C ic.

pro Arch . 2 2 itaque e tiam in sepu l ch ro

Scipio num putatur is (Ennius) e sse co n

stitutus in marmo re . Tumu l o is th e ab l .

o f re st in a place : D". 5 7 .

2 7 . c o n su l a t , sc .

‘senatum

’r o ge t,

se .

‘

principem’

: l et no one take any

steps to pe rpe tuate my memo ry , e ithe r bya mo t io n in th e senate o r by a pe tit ion toth e empe ro r . ’ Mate rnus de pre cate s anyaction that wo uld require spe cial sanct io n ,

such as th e e re ctio n o f a statue in some

public place (Ann. ii . 83) o r a publicfune ral (Ann . iv. 15 : vi . 1 1 , As a

po e t . h e fe e ls se cure o f immo rtality. ’C h s . 14 , 15 . Entrance of M e ssa l l a ,

l eading up to til e discussion of tb c pr opersu bj ect of tb c D ia l ogue .

14 . 1 v i x d um cum : quite a C iceronian construction , e . g. ad Att. ix . 2

, 4 . Cp .

42. 1 . F o r th e e pic rhythm o f ‘ Vix dum

finie rat Mate rnus,’ He lle r compare s Ov.

Me t. i i . 47 Vix be ne de sie rat (Phae tho n) .c o n c itatu s e t v e l u t in stin ctu s ,

‘ in a

so rt o f e cstasy o f inspiration .

’Cp . Qu int .

x . 1, 90 Lucanus ardeus e t co ncitatus

x 11. 10 ,24 instinctis d ivino spiritu vatib us

and , o f Plato , no n hominis ingenio sed

quo dam De l ph ici o racul o de i in

stinctus x . I , 8 1 .

2 . V ip stanu s M e s sal l a w as tribuneo f th e se venth legio n in th e w ar be tw e enVite llius and Ve spasian and wro tea histo ry o f th e campaign which is c itedby Tacitus (H ist. i ii . 2 5 , 2 8 ) fo r suche vents as th e se cond battle o f Bedriacumand th e sack o f C remona , in which Me s

salla h ad taken an act ive part . In Hist .i i i . 9 Tacitus Spe aks o f h im in te rms o f

high comme ndatio n : claris maio ribus,egregius ipse , e t qui so lus ad id be llumarte s bo nas attul isse t. F o r th e fame

wh ich h e acquired by h is de fence o f h is

bro the r Aqui l ius Regulus , Se e o n f ratr istu i , ch . 15 . 4 . Cp . Intro d . p . xxxiv.3 . in te n t i o n e . Se e o n intento ore

ch . 11. 1 .

4 . p arum temp e sti vu s i nte r v e ni So

Catul us , in th e de Orator e o f Cice ro (i i .14) no s quidem n isi fo rte mo le sti inte r

venimus, venisse de l e ctat.s e cre tum cons i l ium, private de l ibe ra

DIALOGUS DE ORATORIB US . 35

inqu it S e cundus ,‘atque adeo v e l l em ma

turins inte rve nisse s ; d e l e ctasse t e n im te e t Ap ri nos t ri accu r

atissimus s e rmo , cum Mate rnum ut omne inge nium ac s tu d ium

suum ad cau sa s age nda s co nve rte re t e x h o rtatus e st,e t Materni

pro carminib us su is 1ae ta , utque poe t a s d e fe nd i de ce b at, audentio r

e t po e tarum quam o rato rum'

simil io r o ratio .

’

‘ Me v e ro ’

inquit‘e t s e rmo is te infinita vo l uptate ad fe cisse t,

a tque id ip sum de l e ctat, quod v o s, v iri o ptimi e t temporum

no stro rum o rato re s , non fo re nsib us tantum nego tns e t de cl a

mato rio s t ud io inge n ia v e stra e x e rce tis,se d e ius mod i e t iam

d isputatio ne s adsumitis quae e t inge n ium al unt e t e rud itio nis

ac l itte rarum iucund issimum o b l e ctame ntum,cum v ob is qui i sta

disputatis, adfe runt, turn e t iam iiS ad quorum aure s pe rve ne rint.

9 . ex b ortatus Hb Put. , et b ortatus cett. co dd. Qy. b ortatus ? 10 . docebat EV2H .

ardentior Bae h rens. 1 2 .

°zze ro B , °

aer e ce tt. co dd . [ct] Halm. iste Halm : ipseco dd . et se rmo iste et oratio Andre sen . 1 3. et optimi temporum nostro rum oratores

Mure tus : Halm fo rme rly sugge sted summi orato res pr imi oratm es N o vak . Qy.

e l oquentissimi oratores 16. eruditione s mo st co dd ., er uditionem Rh enanus,Bae h rens .

tion .

’

Th e et which fo llows give s a mo respe cific de finit ion as, fo r e xample .

’

Fo r

m e d itati o n em (p eAe’

r qu) cp . Quint . iv . 2 ,

29 cum sitde cl amatio fo rensium actionum

medi tatio .

8 . s e rm o o rat i o . Cp . Quint . xii .10 . 4 3 Nam m ih i aliam quandam vide turhabe re naturam se rmo vulgaris, al iamviri e l oquentis o ratio . By th e first isdeno te d little mo re than co nve rsationa d isco urse in th e language o f o rdinarylife (Cic . Or . 67 , oratio implie sa highe r le ve l o f e ffo rt, and a mo refinished style . So C ice ro says o f th e

phi lo so phic style ‘Se rmo po tins quam

o rat io dicitur ’ Or. 5 64 . Thus se rmo iso ften o ppo sed to contentio (

‘sustaine d

e ffo rt in spe ak ing e . g. de Off. i . 5 1 3 2 :i i . 5 48 : de Or . i ii . 203 : and is

de fine d in ad He renn . i i i . 23 as‘o rat io

remissa e t finitima co tidianae l o cutio ni .’

i n g e n ium ac s tud ium . So Cic. de

Or. i . 13 1 inge nium studiumque : Pl in .

Ep . ix . 14 : Quint . i . 2 , 16 .

10. au d e n ti o r supplie s an antithe sis toaccuratissimus abo ve . H ist . ii . 2 , 8 .

1 2 . e t atqu e . The re is no o the rce rtain instance o f th e use o f the se co r

re lative s : Dr. 1 23 , 4 .

se rmo i s te . Mo st ed ito rs, fo llowingAndre se n, add ct oratio , on th e mistaken

suppo sitio n that 1f sermo is used he re inth e re stricte d S l gnifi cation give n to itabo ve , th e courte o us Me ssal l a wo uld no t

have fo rgo tten th e oratio o f Mate rnus.

But apart from th e d i ffi culty thus arisingo ut o f th e Singular ve rb adfecisset, sermois o bviously emplo ye d in a gene ral sense ,conve rsation,’ d isco urse , ’ d ialo gue ,’debate cp . al tio rem se rmonem

, at

th e beginning o f th e chapte r.1 3 . e t, and at th e same time

’

: cp .

Ann . x vi . 1 2 , 2 libe rto e taccusato ri, whe rebo th wo rds re fe r to th e same pe rso ni i . 8 8, 1 scripto re s senato re sque . F o r thisemphatic use o f oratores (as o ppo sed tocausidici , patron i, o r advocati ) se e on

ch . 1. 4 : cp . on 15 . 4 , o rato reme sse co n

tend e re s .—I f a wo rd is to b e adde d , e l o

qu entissimi se ems as suitable as any : th ecompendium fo r it may have dro pped o ut,

l ike e l oquentiae in many co d ice s, at 1 , 3 ,and ipsa e l oquentia at 8 , 7 .

16 . ing e n ium a l un t : cp . 33 . 9 . Thise xpre ssion o ccurs also in Cic. Brut . 1 26

cp. Quint . i . 8 , 8 ; i i . 5 , 1 8 ; vii i . pr. 5 2 ;xii . 6

,6 .

1 8 . p e rv e n e r in t. Th e tense is to b ee xplained by inse rting adf e r ent (o ut o f

adf e runt) afte r tum etiam i is . It is th ew ide r c ircle re fe rred to also at 32. 3 1 (no tth e pre sent heare rs) that is he re meant .

D 2

36 CORNEL I I TACI TI

Itaque h e rcu le no n m inu s pro b ari v ideo in te , Se cunde , quod Iu l i

20 A fricam v it am compon e ndo spem h ominib us fe c isti pl urium e ius

mod i l ib ro rum, qu am in Ap ro, quod no ndum ab sch o l asticis

co ntro ve rs iis re ce ss it e t o t ium suum mavu l t no vo rum rh e to rum

more quam v e te rum o rato rum consumere .

’

15 . Tum Ape r :‘ No n d e sinis , Me ssa l l a, v e te ra tan tum e t

an t iqua m ira ri, no stro rum autem temporum s tud ia inrid e re a tqu e

co ntemne re . Nam h unc t u um se rmo nem sae pe e x ce pi, cum

o b l itus e t t u ae e t fratris tui e l o que ntiae neminem h o c tempore

5 o rato rem e s se con te nde re s parem antiquis , e o,c re d o , audacius

20. Af r ican i N ippe rdey, Asiatici co dd . pl ur ium ABEV2H pl ur imum CAD .

2 1 . quam damnar i Halm, quam improbar i Andre sen . ab AB ,

a B CH .

15 . 1 . N on BEH,N um AVzCAD , N umguam Bae h rens. 5 . parem add . Lipsius,

with th e alte rnative o f atque id fo r anti gu is si conf em etu r antigu is M iil l e r [antiqu is]A cida l ius, Baeh rens, Jo hn , Gudeman (w h o wo uld re ad eogu e : pe rhaps rathe r idquee o as Ann . iv. 1 1

, 4 ; 39, 16 ; xiii . 45 ,

19 . I taqu e h e rcu le . So 30. 1 9 ; 3 9 . 23 .

20 . A f r i can i . Iu l ius Africanus Share dalo ng with Domitius Afe r (se e o n 13 . 9)th e repu tation o f be ing th e fo remo sto rato r o f h is t ime : Quint. x . 1 , 1 1 8 and

xii . 10 , 1 1 . He w as a native o f Gaula son o f th e Africanus whom Taci tusmentions (Ann. vi . 7) as

‘e Santo nis G al

l ica civitate ’

(Sainto nge , to th e N o rth o fth e l owe r Garo nne ) : a grandso n o f h is ,also an o rato r, is re fe rred to by Pliny ,vii . 6 , 1 1 .

h om in i b u s , th e lite rary wo rld .

’

2 1 . qu am in A p r o . The re is a realdifficulty he re . I f Ape r is included inth e compliment paid abo ve to th e

‘ virio ptimi ,

’

& c . , on th e gro und o f the ir widel ite rary sympathie s , i t se ems inco nsistentnow to say (e ven in iro ny) that h e winsappro val by sticking to sch o l asticae co n

tro ve rsiae’

cp . de c l amato rium stud ium ,

abo ve . On this gro und th e emendatio ns‘

quam dammari ’ o r‘

quam impro bari’

have be en pro po sed . But Me ssal l a is

o nly saying that Se cundus gains fully asmuch praise fo r h is l ite rary inte re sts as

Ape r do e s from b is circle o f admire rs fo rh is de vo tio n to pro fe ssional rhe to ric . Th e

implied re flexio n o n th e tendencie s o f th e

new rhe to ric brings o utApe r’s re to rt.sch o l asticae c o ntr o v e rs iae . Quint.

iv. 2 , 9 2 and 9 7 : 3 1. 3 be lo w , and 35 .

2 2 . n o v o rum v e te rum . AS co n

traste d with th e narrow viewswhich Ape ris made he re to re pre sent (cp . 2. ad fin.

contemneb at po tins l itte ras quam nescie

b at) th e o rato rs o f fo rme r days we re d istinguish ed fo r bro ad culture and widel ite rary sympathie s . F o r the ir po e tica ltaste s se e Cic . Acad. pr . ii . 16 , 5 1 (Se rv .

Sulpicius Galba) : Pl iu. Ep . v . 3 , 5 (Q .

Scaevo la , Ho rtensius, M . Innins Brutus,

C . Licimus Calvus) . Many o f themstudied histo ry and l aw .

15 . 1 . N o n d e s in i s is wro ngly takenas an inte rro gatio n Wo n

’t yo u give upw ith th e encl itic omitte d, D“

. 5 3 1 . But

nam in th e ne xt sentence is againstthis .

v e te ra e t an ti qu a. Th e same co l l ocation re curs 16 . 3 2 and 17 . ad fin .

4 . fratr i s tu i . Th is w as Aqui l ius

Regulus, h is bro the r pro bably on th e

mo the r’s side . He w as o ne o f th e mo stno to rio us o f th e de l ator es , and is fre

quently deno unced by Pliny (omniumb ipedum nequissimus

,Ep . i. 5 ) bo th in

that capacity and as a legacy hunte r.H is e lo quence is howe ve r no t denied :id . Ep. iv. 7 , 4 : v i. 2 . Mart ial alw aysment i ons h im with re spe ct , e . g. i . 1 2

vi . 64 .

5 . o r ato r em , as o ppo sed to‘ ho rum

tempo rum dise rti, causid ici e t advo cati e tpatroni e t quidvis po tius quam o rato re s

vo cantur,’

ch . 1 : cp . 14. 14 , 26 . 15 , 30.

2 7 , 32. 9 .

e o au d aciu s qu o d ,

‘ with al l th e

greate r co nfidence masmuch as yo u h ad

no cause to fear,’

&c.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

38 CORNELI I TACI TI

quam Afe r aut Africanus aut vo s ip s i a Cicerone aut Asinio

re ce ssistis .

’

16 .

‘ Magnam’

inqu it Se cundus‘e t dignam tractatu quae sti

o nem mo v isti. Se d qu is e arn iustius e x pl icab it quam tu,ad

cu iu s summam e rud itio nem e t prae stantissimum inge nium cura

quoqu e e t me d it a t io a cce s s itP

5 Et Me ssal l a ‘ Ape riam’

inqu it‘cog itatio ne s me a s, S i il lud a

v ob is ante impe trave ro , ut vo s quoque se rmo nem h unc nos t rum

adiuve tis .

’

‘ Pro duo b us’

inquit Mate rnus‘

promitto ; nam e t ego e t

Se cun du s e x sequemur e as parte s qua s inte l l e x e rimus te non tam

10 omisisse quam nob is re l iquisse . Aprum e n im so l e re d is se n t ire

e t t u pau lo ante d ix isti e t ipse sa t is manife stus e st iam dudum

1 7 . nos C . o utAsin io ABEV2H,aut ab Asin io CAD .

16 . 2 . monisti Lipsius , mov istis co dd . expl icabitABCAD , expl icavit E and (co rr.to -abit) V2, exp l icaver it HVSp . edd . vett. 5 . cogn itiones EV2. si BH

, and

(abo ve th e line ) E : om. AV2CAD.

l audantium clamo r, whe re se e no te . Scb o

l astici is he re used o f a pro fe ssio nalaud ience , in a wide sense .

1 7 . A f e r aut A fr icanu s . Fo r th e

fo rme r se e on 13 . 9 fo r th e latte r, 14. 20 .

The ir eminent re nown invo lve s a highcompliment to tho se w h o are bracke t edalong w ith them in vos ipsi . Tw o o f th e

inte rlo cuto rs, Ape r and Se cundus, havealre ady be e n re fe rred to as ce le be rrimatum ingen ia fo ri no stri , ’ ch . 2. 5 .

C h s . 16—23 . Ape r’s speecb in pra ise

of tb c e l oquence of tb c day as contrasted

w it/z tb at of f ormer times . Af ter an

attempted defi n ition (16—17 ) b e refe rs totb c cb anged conditions (18 ) and sb ow s

b ow a dzfi’

erent type of o ratory is requ iredby tb c ci rcumstances of tb c pr esent day(19 , fi n isb ing w itb a cr iticism ofr epu bl ican e l oquence , e specia l ly Cicero

(2116 . 3 . cu ra e t me di tatio . M e ssal l a

h ad alre ady given th e matte r ‘care ful

conside ration Cp. quas (causas) me cum

ipse pl e rumque co nquiro , in th e pre cedingchapte r.5 . s i i l l u d imp e trav e r o . Fo r th e

constructio n cp . 18 . 8 Si i l l ud ante praedix e ro : 28 . 1 2 . Th e passage se ems tocontain a reminiscence o f de Or. i . 2 7n o ve ro ’

inquit C rassus ‘neque An

tonium ve rbum face re patiar et ipse o b

mute scam,nisi prius a vo bis impetraro

‘

Quidnam ?’inquit Catul us. Ut h ic

SitiS ho di e .

’

In b o th passage s,quently e lsewhe re in Cice ro (e . g. de Or.ii . inquit is se ve ral t ime s repe atedin th e co urse o f a few l ine s to give a.

familiar and co nve rsational to ne .

8 . P r o d u o b u s . Cp . C ic . de O r. 11.

36 2 No s ve ro , inquit Catul us, e tenim

pro me h o c e t pro me o fratre re sponde o ,& c .

9 . p arte s ,‘ po rtio ns

,

’no t

‘ functions ’

(as 24. 1 1 , 28 . ex sequ i be ing used he reo f e xpo si tion, as Ann. xii . 58, 6 cp . 3 . 65 ,4. 4 , 11. 2 1 .

10 . om i s i ss e re l i qu i sse . Cp .

Cic. de Or. ii . 1 26 51 quid ab Antonioaut prae te rmissum aut re l ictum Sit

accidentally intentionally no n

e x pl ice s ; neque te Antoni , Si quid no n

d ix e ris, e x istimab imus non po tuisse po t insquam a C rasso dici mal uisse .

1 1 . m an i f e stu s e st. Th e pe rsonalco nstructio n o f this adj . with th e infin .

co rre spo nds to th e Gre ek 6?)b (cpav epbs)i o n with a part iciple : cp . Ann . i i . 5 7 ,1 3 dissentire manife stus. Draege r ci te s

15 2 ) instance s o f th e same use

from Statius (Theb . x . 7 59) and th e

Dige sts . So with suspectus, Hist. i . 46, 5suspe ctus consilia e ius fo visse . Cp. iv.

34 ad fin.

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I B US .

in co ntrarium a ccingi nec aequo animo pe rferre hanc no stram

pro antiquo rum laud e co nco rd iam .

’

‘ No n e n im ’

inquit Ape r‘ inaud itum e t inde fe nsum sae cu l um

nostrum pa t ia r h ac ve s t ra co nspiratio ne damnari.‘Se d h o c 1 5

p rimum inte rro gab o , quos vo ce tis antiquo s , qu am o rato rum

ae tatem significatio ne ista d e te rmine tis . Ego e n im cum au d io

antiquo s quo sdam v e te re s e t o l im natos inte l l ego ,ac mih i

v e rsantur ante o cu l o s U l ix e s ac Ne s tor , quorum ae t a s m il le

fe re e t tre ce ntis annis sae cu lum no strurn ante ce dit ; vo s au tem 20

Demo sth e nem e tHype ridem pro fe rtis , quo s sa tis con s tat Ph il ipp i

e t A le x and ri temporib us fl ornis se , ita t amem ut utrique s upe r

stit e s e sse nt. Ex quo appare t non mu lto pl ure s quam t re ce n to s

anuo s in t e re s se in te r no stram e t Demo sth e nis ae tatem : quod

spa t ium tempo ris Si ad infi rmitatem corporum no stro rum re fe ra s,2 5

fo rtasse longum v id e atur, Si ad n a turam sae cu l o rum ac re spe c tum

19 . ac AB, et EVQCADH .

(se . Alexandro ) utr ique Vahl en .

mo st edd .

saecu l orum co dd. ,sider um Usene r.

1 2 . acc ing i , middle . Cp . H ist. iii . 2 1 , 6in pro e l ium accingi so 35 , 10 in auxilium66 , 20 in audac1am

,and frequently e lse

w he re .

14 . in au d itum e t in d e f e n sum . Th e

same co llo cation o ccurs Ann. i i. 7 7 , 9 :Hist . i . 6 , 2 and

,inve rse ly, Hist . 11. 10 , 4 .

Furne aux no te s that inauditus is no t

fo und , in this sense , be fo re Tacitus, whileindef ensus is use d by Livy .

1 7 . au d i o . Se e o n auditos, 7 . ad fin .

18 . antiqu o s v e te r e s . AS no

suffi cient d iffe rence can b e indicated byth e use o f the se wo rds (which are fo undtoge the r as synonyms 15 . 1 and again at

th e end o f this chapte r) , Taci tus adds

to th e latte r th e wo rds et o l im natos. In

Quintilian vete r es and antiqu i are bo thfrequently used in contrad istinct io n to

novi, i. e . th e write rs o f th e po st-Au

gustan pe rio d . Cice ro is included in th efo rme r class

,along w ith h is prede ce sso rs

ix . 3 , 1 omne s ve te re s e t Cice ro prae cipue .

19 . m i l le f e re e t tr e c e n ti s ann i s . Era

to sth ene s and o the rs placed th e Tro janWar in 1 193

—1 184 , which wi l l give 1 268

o r 1 269 years be twe en th e commencemento f th e w ar and th e date o f th e Dialo gue(74-7 5 A . a ) .

23. tre cento s shoul d b e al l owed to

2 1 pr of eratis B, A.

23 . trecentos co dd . , quadr ingentos Lipsius and

26 .

°o idetur C . naturam co dd . , numerum Bae h re ns : qy. ration em ?

r espectum co dd . ,r espectu Spenge l .

2 2 . ut b a ic

stand , e ven tho ugh it is inco rre ct. Ape ris do ing h is be st to make o ut h is case .

It is e asy to Show that as Demo sthene sd ied in 3 2 2 B . C . at le ast 39 7 years musthave inte rvened be twe en h is ae tas ’

and

th e date o f th e D ialogue . But i t suitsApe r ’s argument to make th e tw o pe rio dsappro ximate as ne arly as po ssible : henceh e emphasize s th e fact that Demo sthene ssurvived Alexande r, tho ugh h e do e s no t

mentio n that i t w as by o nly o ne ye ar.By start ing h is calculat io n from th e dateo f th e deatb o f Demo sthene s, and byusing nostra aetas lo o se ly, fo r what w eknow as th e po st-Augustan age , h e is

able to finish with th e wo rds non mu l to

p l ur es quam t re cento s anuo s inte re sse .

With quadr ingentos , which is substitutedby mo st e dito rs fo r trecentos, the re wo u ldb e litt le po intin no n mul to p l ure s quam .

’

2 5 . s i r e f e ras , i . e . i f w e take as

a standard o f measurement o ur fe e bleframe s

,and th e brie f Span o f o ur live s ,

instead o f th e endle ss age s . Natura th e

re al o r actual co nstitution o f th e saecu l a .

Cp. Iamb l ich us, Pro trept. 8 . 47 7 16’

£0 1 2

parcpdv T i q vx pOmOV 7 63V dq oum'

v ;

dAAd 51d 7 5711 finer e’

pau do de’

ve rav , alum,Ita l

Bfo v Bpax brnr a no)

1 017 1 0 (pa in-r at noAti.

26. re sp e ctum,with reyeras, invo l ve s

40 CORNEL I I TACI TI

imne nsi hu ins aev i, pe rquam b re ve e t in p rox imo e st: Nam Si,

ut Cice ro in Hor te ns io scrib it, is e st magnus e t ve rus annus, quo

ead’

em pos it io cae l i S ide rumque quae cum max ime e st rursum

e x iste t,isque annus horum quos no s vo camus anno rum duo

d e cim m il ia no nge nto s quinquaginta quattuo r compl e ctitur, incipit

Demosth e ne s v e ste r, quem vo s ve te rem e t an t iquum fingitis , non

so lum e o dem anno quo no s , se d e tiam e o dem me nse e x titisse .

17 . S e d transe o ad La t inos o rato re s , in qu ib us non M e nen ium,

ut pu to , Agrippam , qui pote st v ide ri antiquus, no stro rum

tempo rum d ise rtis an tepon e re so l e tiS,se d Cice ro nem e tCae sarem

C

3 1 . nongentos Nic . Lo e nsis : VI I I . B , m e . A , dccc C . dccc DH,octingentos EV2.

3 2 . vester BCEV2A (but B este in l itura) , v idetu r AD ,

"

737 H, [o este r ] Ha lm .

33 . etiam M ichae lis (cp. 7 . 14 ; 20. 14 ; 21. 33 ; 24 . 5) f ama co dd . (fl ar e B co rr . , HPut. j krme Be kke r) . modo C (fo r mense ) .

17 1 . M en en ium BE (in me n imium cett. co dd . 3 . so l etis co dd ., o o l etis

Kle ibe r,Wo l fl

'

.

a slight ple onasm . It is as if th e write rh ad said s i ad immensum b oc aevum

r espex er is : Cp . 24. ad fin. , e fii ci ratiotempo rum co l l ege rit : Hist . i . 3 2 , 1 2 re

gre ssus facu l tatem in aliena po te statee sse : Ann. i l i . 3 . 8 magnitudinem mal ipe rfe rre visu non to l e rav it.

2 7 . p e rqu am b r e v e : so‘

pe rquam

b re vite r,’

C ic . de Or. i i . 20 1 . P erquam

o ccurs Ann . x ii . 49 , 3 xvi . 20 , 3 .

in p r o xim o e st. Th e grammat ica lsubje ct is spatium tempor is, b ut th e

re al subj e ct is th e pe rio d with whichi t o pens

,v iz. th e age o f Demo sthene s.

F o r i n prox imo, se e no te o n in medi,o

28 . H o r te n s i o . Th is lo st tre atised e rived its name from be ing ded icated toCice ro ’

s gre at rival : Cic. de F in . i . 1,2

quo a no bis phi lo so ph ia de fensa et co l

l audata e st, cum e sse t accusata e t vitupe rata ab Ho rtensio . A similar re fe rencei s made by Se rvius, ad Aen . i . 269 Triasunt gene ra anno rum : aut e nim l unaris

annus e st x x x d ie rum aut so lstitial is x ii

mensum aut se cundum Tu l l ium magnus,qui tene t X I IDCCCCLI I I I anno s, ut in

Ho rtensio ho rum anno rum quo s in fastis

h ab emus , magnusm o ccccmn ampl e c

t itur. Th e duration o f th e Gre at Ye arw as vario usly e stimated ; in any case itwo uld o nly b e comple te d when al l th e

heavenly bo die s came back to th e same

place s in which the y we re at th e beginn ing o f th e wo rld : cp . th e l ast Cho rus 1nShe l le y’s ‘ H e llas Th e wo rl d ’

s great

age begins anew ,

’&c . Se e Cic . de Rep.

vi . 2 2 .

29 . cum max ime = h o c ipso tempo re,

‘at th is particular moment ’ : 1117 11 7 6

pdk i o r a . So 3 7 . 7 cummaxime a Muc ianoco ntrah untur : cp . Hist . i . 29 , 14 : 84 , 16

i i i . 4 , 1 1 : iv . 55 , 18 ; 5 8 , 1 3 ; 65 , 6Ann . iii . 59 , 1 1 : iv. 2 7 , 9 (

‘at that ve ry

Th e phrase o ccurs also inCice ro (de Off. ii . 23 : in Ve rr. iv. 38 ,8 2 : Harusp . Re sp . 3 2 ) and Livy

(xl . 3 2 , A fulle r fo rm is nunc cummax ime : pro C l uent. 1 2 : Liv. xxix .

1 7 , 7 . I t is no tewo rthy that cummax ime

is no t fo und in Quinti lian,tho ugh h e h as

nunc max ime : ix . 4 , 66 quo d nunc

maxime vit ium e st, cp . xi . 3 , 5 7 .

in c ip it (dpx em n, o f a ne ce ssaryconclusio n, (like sequ itu r )

‘ it begins toappear that , ’ &c. So o ften in Sene cae . g. D ial . i ii . 10 , 3 de inde de sinit quiequam po sse ratio , Si nih i l po te st Sine ad

fe ctu , e t inc ipi t par i ll i Simil isque e sse

vii i . 8, 3 quo dsi no n invenitur i lla re s

publica, quam no s fingimus,incipit omni

b us e sse o tium ne ce ssarium : Ep . 9 5 , 3 ,

46 . Cp. Quint . De cl . 26 , 5 quare Si ap

parue rit te malam causam habe re incipisrem iniquissimam po stulare : ibid . 2 1 3 , 8 .

17 . 1 . M e n e n iu s Agr ip p a , co nsul B . C .

503 , th e autho r o f th e famo us apo lo gue o fth e Be l ly and th e Membe rs, Livy i i . 3 2 .

2 . p o t e s t v i d e r i an t igun s , maywe llb e co ns ide red ancient, ’ -ve tus e t o limnatus, I 6 . 1 8 .

Cae sarem : se e on 21. 19 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4 2 CORNELI I TACI TI

l o ginta anno s, quib u s mo x divu s Augustus rem pub l icam re x it ;

ad ice Tib e rn tre s e t v iginti, e t prope quad rie nn ium‘

Gai, ac b is

quate rno s de no s Cl aud ii e t Ne ro nis anuo s,a tque il l um Gal b ae

e t Oth o nis e t Vi te l l i longum e t unum annum,ac se x tam iam

fe l icis hu ins princ ipatus statio nem quo Ve spasianus rem pub

15 l icam fo ve t : ce ntum e t viginti ann i a b inte ritu Cice ro nis in

1 2 . i l lum EV, edd . ,i stum AB , ipsum DCA (unum Hb ) . 1 3 . sex tam co dd .

,

septimam Url ich s,sex ennem Me ise r, sex (viiii Sauppe , v ii Michae lis) tam Spe nge l

sex tum (sc. annum ) iam f e l icis b u ius [principatus] station is qua ,Bae h rens, Jo hn .

14. quo We issenbo rn , qua co dd . Andre sen. 1 5 . vigi nti CDH‘: decem ABEA

and co rr . H . Qy. centum et sedecim Se e Intro d . p . x iv .

and it is then tempting to suppo se that fo 1°viginti (xx) w e o ught to re ad undevzginti(xix) . Se e , howe ve r, Intro d . pp . xii sqq.

1 1 . tr e s e t v i g inti . Tibe rius re ignedfrom Aug. 19 , A . D . 14, t i l l h is de ath o n

March 10, A . D . 3 7 .

p r o p e qu ad r i e nn ium ,i . e . from

March 16, 3 7 to J an . 24 , 4 1 .

1 2 . -Cl au d i i e t K ar e n i s . Th e fo rme rre igned from J an. 25 , 41 to Octo be r 1 3 ,54 ; th e latte r from th e date last-namedto June 8 o r 9 , 68 .

13 . l o ngum e t unum annum (cp .

so l us et unus, 34 . 30) a memo rable

characte rizatio n o f th e e ventful yearin which th e legio ns assumed th e con

stitutional functions o f th e senate and

pe o ple o f Rome , evulgato impe ri iarcano , po sse principem al ibi quam

R omae fi e ri (Hist . i . 4 , Cp . th e

intro duction to th e H isto rie s e sp . ch . i i .Opus aggredio r Opimum caSibuS ch . xi .

ad fin. , annum sibi ultimum re i publicaepro pe supremum .

’

I f w e co unt fromN e ro ’

s d eath to th e downfall o f Vite l lius(De c . 20, 69 ) th e pe rio d e xtends re al lyo ve r e ighte en m onths but it w as as e arlyas in th e beginning o f July 69 that th estandard o f Ve spasian w as raised in Egyp t_and Pale stine

se x tam stati on em . In l ate Latinstatio came to b e used fo r an o ffice o r po sit io n unde r th e go ve rnment, and e spe ciallyth e principate i tse lf : Sue t . Claud . 38 ,Ve l l e ius

,i i . 1 24 , Pl in . Panegyr. 7 and 86 :

Anto ninus Pius ad Fron t . v i . (ed . Nabe r ) ,p . 168 , h unc d iem quo me suscipe re

hanc stationem (principatus) p l acuit

so statio impe rato ria,

’

Lampridius, Lifeo f Commo dus. Cp . Ov. Trist. i i . 2 19 ,sci lice t impe rii , prince ps, statio ne

'

re l icta.

’

Even by Cice ro 1t w as emplo yed to indicate , o n th e analo gy o f its mi litary associations, a po st from which a watch must

b e maintained ,—de Sen . 5 73 de praesidioe t statione vi tae de cede re : cp . Lucan i .44 (o f N e ro ) cum statio ne pe racta Astrape te s se rus when thy watch is o ve rVe ll . Pat. ii . 13 1 pro tegite h unc statum ,

hanc pacem, h unc principem , e ique functo

lo ngissima statio ne mo rtali de stinate suc

ce sso re s quam se renissimo s . But the re isa d istinct pe culiarity he re abo ut th e use

o f stationem w ith sex tam. Pe rhaps the reis a re fe rence to th e fact that th e tr ibun itiapotestas h ad to b e renewed to th e empe ro re ve ry ye ar, and that o n th e first day o f

e ve ry n ew ye ar th e magistrate s and

senato rs to o k th e o ath o f allegiance (inacta iurab ant) . This would give th e

ide a o f th e princeps be ing confirmed inh is po st ’ from year to year, and takingo ve r w ith it, e ach ye ar, th e o bligation o f

watching o ve r th e safe ty o f th e re alm .

Each ye ar thus fo rmed a statio in th e

empe ro r’s re ign. Ve spasian began to ruleon J an . 1 , 70, so that h e is now in th e‘Sixth stage ’

o f h is principate —Somepro po se to take sex tam as Sixth ly ,’ ao

co rd ing to th e o rde r o f enume rat io nAugustus ; (2) Tibe rius ; (3) Ca ligula ;(4) Claud ius and Ne ro ; (5 ) Galba, Otho ,and Vite llius ; (6) Ve spasian. This wo uldrequire a diffe rent e xplanation o f statio ,and it is

,mo re o ve r, inadmissible , no t

o nly grammatical ly, b ut also as no t

giving th e de finite data requ ired fo r ‘ in

h unc d iem co l l iguntur.

’ With adice ,abo ve , the re is a Slight zeugma : sex

stationes wo uld have be en mo re regular,o r e lse w e may supply respi te , considera,o ut o f ad ice .

15 . ce n tum e t v iginti‘o nly

AS a matte r o f fact , apart from th e abo veenume rat ion

,1 16 years (4 2 + 74) is th e

inte rval wh ich se parate s th e de ath o f

Cice ro from th e Sixth ye ar o f Ve spasian’

s

re ign. Se e Introd . p . x iv.

DIALOGOS DE ORATOR I B OS .

h unc d iem co l l iguntur, un iu's h omin is aeta s . Nam ipse ego in

B rit ann ia v id i se nem qui se fate re tur e i pugnae inte rfuisse qua

Cae sarem infe re ntem a rma B ri t anni arce re l ito rib us e t pe l l e re

adgre ss i sunt . I t a Si e um qu1 a rmatu s C . Cae sari re stitit v e l

captivitas v e l vo lunta s v e l fa tum al iquo d in urb em pe rtrax isse t,

acque id em e t Cae sarem ipsum e t Cice ro nem aud ire po tuit e t

no stris quoque actio nib us in te re s se . Prox imo quidem congia rio

ips i v idistis p l e ro sque s e ne s qui se a d ivo quoque Augus t o seme l

a tqu e ite rum acce pisse co ngiarium narrab ant. Ex quo co l l igi

po te s t e t Co rv inum ab i l lis e t Asinium and iri po tu isse (ri am

Co rvinus in me d ium usque Augus ti principatum,A sinius pae ne ad

1 7 . f ateretur ABDH , f atebatur EV2CA . ci EV2, Muretus et ABCADH.

1 8 . B r itann i Em e sti , Halm B r itan iae codd . , Br itann is Bipont . , Mulle r. 2 1 . ac

que idem N issen : et quidem co dd . : d e l . No vak . 26. Corv inus Asin ius co dd . ,

Ha lm , M il l l e r : Asin ius Corv inus Bo rghe si,and

,o n that read ing , (fo r medium

codd .) ex tremum N ippe rdey, No vak .

16 . c o l l igu ntu r . So , o f th e re sult o f acalculatio n, Ge rm . xxxvi i . 9 ducenti fe rmee t de cem anni co l l iguntur. A somewhatsimi lar use o ccurs ch . 24 . be low, ad fin.

Tr. Th e re sult arrived at is,’

&c .

1 7 . f ate r e tur . Th e subjunctive is

mo tived no t so much by th e fo rm o f re

po rted spe e ch (cp. qu i se narrab ant,be low) as by th e ide a contained in th e

re lat ive , ‘so o l d that ’ : cp . cane rent,

de fende rent 12. 1 3 . F o r f ater i in th e

sense o f decl arare (with ace . and inf.) cp.

Ann . i . 1 3 , 20 fate retur suscipi a se im

pe rium : i i . 1 3 . 6 : so Quintilian (w h oal so

6

use s profi ter i ) i. 6 , 23 ; 10 . 37 : vii .1, 52 1 . p o tu it. This use o f th e pe rfe c tindicative in such clause s indicate s th epo ssibi lity (o r duty, o bligatio n , &c. ) mo reuncond itional ly than th e plupf. subj . wo u lddo : e . g . Liv. xxii . 1 2 de le ri to tus e x e r

cituS po tuit Si fugiente s pe rse cuti victo re s

e ssent. Ro by,

1 566.

2 2 . acti o n i b u s , ple ad ings,’ as at

32. 1 3 .

co ng iar io . Th e last large ss to th e

pe o ple w as give n in th e name o f Titus,A . D . 7 3 . The se ‘

congiaria’ we re o rigin

ally gifts o f o i l,wine , &c. (Liv. xxv . 2 , 8

Pl in . N . H . xiv. 14 , fo r o the r instance s o f mo ney donat ions, cp . Ann . i ii .29 , 1 1 xii . 4 1 , 7 : xiii . 3 1 , 7 . Se e alsoth e Mo numentum Ancyranum , iii . 7

—2 1Marquardt, Staatsve r. i i . 104 . Th e dona

tivum w as d iffe rent, be ing spe cially usedo f a large ss to th e so ld ie rs.

23 . p l e r o squ e , a numbe r o f,’ ‘ many. ’Se e on 2. 10 .

qu oq u e . Fo r th e o rde r, cp. Ann . x1v.20 , 4 Gnaeum quoque Pompe ium d ivois tre ated as a pro pe r name . Quoque iso ften used fo r etiam, 39 . 2 2 cp . ipso rum

quoque o rato rum 19 . 1 7 , be low : Quint .x. 2 , 14 in magnis quo que aucto rib us

ii . 1 1 , 1 e xemplo magni quoque nom inispro fe sso rum. Cp . 6 . 19 .

24 . c o l l i g i : cp . 33 . 1 9 pe r quae co l

l igitur : 27 . 2 .

2 5 . n am , &c . This parenthe sis h as

gre atly e xe rcised th e critics, w h o havepro po sed vario us me tho ds o f co rre ctingApe r’s mistake . I t is undo ubted thatCo rvinus die d in A . D . 8 , and that Po lliod ied in A . D . 5 : bo th o f them might the refo re have be en said to have lived almo st

to th e clo se o f’

th e re ign o f Augustus .

In o rde r to justify th e language o f th e

te xt, Co rvinus wo uld ne ed to have d iedabo u t B .C . 14 Little is gaine d by transpo sing th e name s (Bo rghe si) in o rde rto bring o ut th e fact that i t w as Po ll iow h o d ie d first in me dium usque A .

principatum’

is re al ly as inco r1e ct fo r

h im as it is fo r Co rvinus , tho ugh et et

in th e pre vio us clause se ems to Sho w thatth e Spe ake r at first me ant to pl ace Po lliofirst in po int o f time (cp. 17 . We mustregard th e Statements in th e te xt as ano the ri llustration o f Ape r’s liability to e rro r .Gudeman pro po se s to rej e ct th e parenthe sis alto ge the r as an inte rpo latio n , basedpro bably o n 8 8 . 19 ab ipso tamemPo l

44 CORNELI I TACI TI

e x tremum duravit) ne d iv idatis sae culum,e t antiquo s ac v e te re s

vo cite tis o rato re s quos e o rund em h ominum au re s adgno sce re ac

v e l ut co niunge re e t copu la re po tue runt.

18 . H a e c id e o prae dix i ut, S i qua e x horum o rato rum fama

gl o riaque lau s temporib us adquiritur, e am do ce rem in me d io

s it am e t pro pio rem nob is quam S e rv io Gal b ae aut C . Carb on i

2 7 . vetores co dd . recentes Eckste in,Bae h rens, Mulle r, No vak . 28 . vocitetis

CAD,vocetis ABEV2H . Se e Intro d. p . lxxxvii .

18 . 2 . cam Halm candem co dd . 3 . Mo st e dd . (fo llowing Sch ul ting and

Ri tte r) give aut C. Lae l ia aut C . Carbon i , o n th e gro und o f a comparison o f 25 . 3 1

b ut th e add itio n o f aut C. Lae l ia se ems unne ce ssary.

l io ne medus divi Augusti tempo ribush ab itae (se . o ratio ne s) . But o n th e who lei t se ems impro bable that any o ne w h o

to o k th e tro uble to inse rt such an inte rpo l atio n wo uld have fai led to make itco rre ct .i n m e d ium u squ e N owhe re e l se

do e s Tacitus use in usque in a tem

po ral sense ; and Gudeman use s this as anargume nt fo r th e e liminat io n o f th e parenthe sis : h e also chal le nge s th e changefrom in to ad . Quinti lian h as ‘ in i l l um

usque d iem,

’ ‘usque ad ultimum,

’and

many Sim i lar expre ssions.

2 7 . d urav i t vitam pe rdux it : cp.

Ann. iii. 16 , 8 narratum ab iis qui no stram

ad iuventutem durav e runt, and po ssiblyalso Agr xliv . 15 durare in hanc be atissimisae cu l i l ucem . Th e wo rd canno t po ssib lyhave any o the r me aning : cp . Quint . i .2 1 inde durat ad no s usque , and fre

quently. -In o rde r to saveApe r’

s accuracy ,it h as be en pro po sed to take durav it as-f l o ru it, and to unde rstand i t as indi

cat ing th e pe rio d during wh ich Co rvinusand Asinius continue d in ful l activity atRome . But tho ugh Po llio may have do nel ittle in public afte r abo ut 1 7 B C w e

kno w from Sue ton ius (Aug . 58 ) that itw as Me ssal l a w h o , in th e ye ar B . C . 2

,

propo sed in th e senate that th e titlePate r Patr iae sho uld b e co nfe rre d o n

Augustus. This fact h as be en made an

argument fo r re ve rsing th e name s , st il ltak ing durav it as fl oru it

,so that it

wo uld b e C o rvinus, no t Asinius, w h o

paene ad extremum duravit.’So Jo hn

and Wo lff b ut du rav it can hardly standth e inte rpre tatio n thus given.

n e d i v i d ati s,

‘So that you must no t

make tw o age s o ut o f o ne .

’

Th e e xpre ssio n re ally implie s an e llipse

,sc . hae c

d ico ne : cp. Quint. x . 1, 45 facil e e st

autem studio sis qui sint ~h is Simil l imi

iudicare , ne quisquam que ratur , &c .

,so

that no o ne ne ed complain.

’ Gudeman co n

tends that th e remo val o f th e parenthe sismake s th e e llipse mo re natural and e asy .

28 . qu o s . Fo r th e omissio n o f th e

demo nstrati i e , cp . 5 . 15 stud ium quo .

29 . co n iun g e r e e t c o pu l at e , i . e . wi thth e pre sent day. Th e me aning is thusgiven by O re l l i quo s una h ominum

ae tas, qui memo ria sua to tum vitaespatium ampl e ctuntur, agno sce re ac v e l ut

co niunge re po tuitcum e is qu05 ad ultimam

iam se ne ctutem pro ve cta no stris tempo ri

b us vid it . ’18 . 1 . fam a g l o r iaqu e . The se syno

nyms are frequently fo und to ge the r e . g.

Sall . Iug . iv . 6 famam atque glo riam.

2 . temp o r i b u s ad qu i r itu r : l it.

‘ac

crue s to th e time s, ’ o r is re fle cted o n them.

Cp . Hist . i i. 76 , 8 cui summum de cus ad

quiratur.

in m e d io s itam (po sitam) ,‘common

pro pe rty, ’ i . e . common to bo th e po chs .

Th e gre at e xtensio n o f th e use o f suchadve rbial phrase s (cp. in pro ximo

in po st Augustan time s po ints to th e

influence o f Gre ek analo gy (é v KOtt'q}, & c .

cp . in obscur o , in amb iguo , in pr omiscuo,in aequo , in commun i .

3 . S e r v iu s Su lp ici u s G al ba, consul

B . C . 14 1 , w as o ne o f th e co ntempo rarie so f Lae l ius and Scipio th e Yo unge r. He

w as pro se cuted in B . C . 149 fo r atro cio uscrue lty and tre ache ry to th e Lusitanians ,b ut se cured an acqu i ttal, though th e

charge w as suppo rte d by Cato th e Ce nso r(Cic . de 01 . i . 2 27 , Brut . As an

o rato r Cice ro ranks h im ve ry h igh : e . g.

Brut . 89 Sed inte r h o s . S ine co ntrove rsia Se r. Galba e l o quentia prae stitit de

Or . i . 5 40 div inum hominem in d icendo .

C . P ap ir iu s Gar b o , co nsul B . C . 1 20 .

He h ad o riginall y be longed to th e partyo f Ti . Gracchus, b ut de serted it fo r th e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

46. CORNEL I I TACI TI

l o Gracch o po l itio r e t o rnatio r Crassus, Sic utroque distinctio r e t

urb anio r e t a l tio r Cic e ro,Cice rone m it ior Co rvinus et du l cio r e t

in ve rb is magis e l ab o ratus . Ne c quae ro qu is dise rtissimus hoc

in te rim pro b asse co nte ntus sum,no n es s e unum e l o que ntiae

1 1 . n itidior M ichae l is .

10. p o l i ti o r e t o rn ati o r , mo refinished and mo re o rnate .

’

Po l itus is

th e o ppo site o f rudis, Quint . i i . 1 2 , 3cp . po l itus scripto r atque artife x, Cic Or .1 7 2 . The re is a similar co llo cation in

C ic. de Or. i . 3 1 o rnata o ratio e t po li ta .

Th e be st de finitio n o f ornatus is to b e

fo und in Cic . de Or. i ii . 5 3 qui d istincte ,qui e xplicate , qui abundante r , qui inl uminate e t rebus e t ve rbis dicunt et in ipsao ratio ne quasi que ndam nume rum ve rsum

que co nfi ciunt, id e st quo d dico ornate

whe re Wilkins says that th e wo rd include s‘cle arne ss , artistic deve lo pment o f th e

theme, co pio usne ss , brill iant tho ughts and

phrases , and a rhythmical and pe rio d icstyle .

’

Cp . Quint . vii i. 3 , 6 1 .

Crassus , L. Licinius (B . C . 140-9 1) w as

th e mo st i llustrio us o f Roman o rato rsbe fo re Cice ro , w h o in th e De Orato remake s h im th e mo uthpie ce o f h is ow n

v iews and o pinions . Fo r h is e lo quencese e de Orat . i . 15 5 ; ii . 5 4 ; i ii . 5 70 ;Bru t . 143 sq. e rat (Crasso ) latinel o quendi accurata e t Sine mo l e stia dil igense l egantia.

di stin cti o r ,‘ mo re lumino us

,

’ he re o f

th e Spe ake r,mo re usually o f h is spe e ch

Quint . v . 14 . 33 se rmone puro e t d i l ucido

e t distincto , and imme diate ly be low dis

tincta ac pe rspicua e sse d ebe re argumenta .

In Brut . 69 distin ctus rathe r o rnatusthan ,

as he re , ‘ di l ucidus’: cp . d e Or. 1.

50 compo situm o ratio nem e t omatam

e t artificio quo dam et e x po l itione dis

tinctam . In Cice ro th e adve rb d istincteis, howe ve r , common eno ugh in th e sense

o f ‘clearly,’ e . g. de Or . i ii . 5 5 3 , quo ted

abo ve , whe re Wilk ins says that it se ems

to difi’

e r from p l ane by de no ting th e

cl e ame ss which come s from a skilfularrangement, as d istinguished from th e

inte lligibility o f Simple language .

’

In

Vulg. 4 Esdr. 1 2,8,distinctio = ‘

cl e arme aning ’

: o stende se rvo tuo mihi inte rpre tatio nem e t distinctionem visus h o rribilis h uius.

1 1 . u rb an i o r , mo re re fined .

’

m i t io r . Len is is mo re frequent l y usedin this se nse . Th e re fe rence is to whatQuintilian calls (x. 1

, 44) th e‘ lene e t

nitidum et compo situm genus’dicendi,

and C ice ro ‘ placida, summissa , l enis’

o ratio , de O r. ii. 1 8 3—that which h as

mo re suav itas than n erv i (C ic. O r.and in this conne xio n l en is is frequentlyo ppo sed (as pro bably m iti s he re ) to suchwo rds as veb emens , acer , intentus, asper .

So Quint . x i. 1 , 3 1 mite (as o pp . to audax )e l o quentiae genus v i . 2 , 19 d icendi genuspl acidum ac m ite : C ic. d e Off. 1. 3 ,o f Deme trius Ph al e reus, ‘

o rato r parumve b emens

,dulcis tamen.

’

M itis in th e

sense o f ‘ me llow ’is pro bably d iffe rent,

tho ugh th e commentato rs quo te Cic.

Brut . 288 ipse e nim Thucyd ide s Si

po ste rius fuissetmulto maturio r fuisset etmit io r.d u l c i o r

,

‘ mo re ple asing.

’

So o f th e

charm o f H e ro do tus, Cice ro in th e Ho r

tensius , quid e nim aut He ro do to dulcinsaut Th ucydide grav ius i

’

: cp. Quint . x .1 , 7 3 , and no te . Andre sen quo te s C ic . Or .3 2 , o f Xe nopho n’

s style , me l le du l cio rsed a fo rensi stre pitu remo tissimus.

’

1 2 . mag is e l ab o ratu s . So Se ne ca,Co ntro v . i i. 1 2

,8 Latini u tique se rmonis

o bse rvato r d il igentissimus. Quint ilian’

s

judgme nt o f C o rvinas may b e cited : AtM e ssal l a nitidus e t candidus e t quo dam

mo do prae fe rens in d icendo no b i l itatemsuam, v irib us mino r (x . 1

,In th e

Brutus 246) Cice ro says o f h im , M .Me s

salla mino r natu quam no s,nullo mo do

ino ps, sed non nimis o rnatus gene 1e ve rbo rum : h e also praise s h is industry , cp.

Epist . ad Brut . i . 1 5 , 1 . E l ab o ratu s ,mo re usual ly o f an autho r’s style than o f

th e autho r h imse lf : e . g. Quint . ix. 4 , 11 3 . in t e r im , fo r th e pre sent , i . e . t il lI come to th e main part o f my d isco urse ;a comparative e stimate o f th e ancientsand th e mo dem s.

p r o b asse . Th e frequent use o f th e

infinitive afte r such adje ct ive s as contentus(and also afte r ve rbs) is a characte ristico f th e Silve r Age . O the r e xample s o f

th is co nstr uction with contentas w il l b efo und in 23 . 6 and 26 . 2 7 . It se ems to

have be en ado pted from th e usage o f

po e try (e . g . Ovid , Me tam . i . and is

ve ry common in Quint i lian .—Fo r th e

pe rf. infin. o f a comple ted actio n, cp. Agr.

i ii. 18 : xliv. 1 7 .

DIAL OGOS DE ORATORIB US . 4 7

vu l tum,se d in i l lis quoque qu o s vo catis antiquo s p l ure s Spe cie s

depre h e nd i, ne c s t a t im d e te rius e s se quod d ive rsum e st, v itio 1 5

au t em ma l ignitatis h umanae ve te ra sempe r in laud e , prae sen t ia

in fastid io e s se . Num dub itamus inve nto s‘qu i prae Catone

Appium Cae cum magis mirare ntur ? Satis con st at ne Cice roni

qu id em o b tre ctato re s de fuiSSe , qu ib u s infiatus e t tume ns ne c sa tis

pre ssus, sed supra modum e x su l tans e t supe rflue ns e t parum 20

14 . in B (abo ve th e l ine ) om . ce tt. co dd . 1 7 . prae G ro sl o tius, pro co dd.

[magis] Sch urzfl e isch . 20. supra codd . , super Halm, M iil l e r .

1 5 . s ta t im , o f lo gical co nsequence , asfrequently continua in Cice ro ‘ it do e sno t at o nce fo llow th at , ’ &c. Cp . Quint .x . 1 , 24 neque id statim l egenti pe rsuasum

Sit, i . e . do no t l et th e re ade r run awaywith th e no tio n that ,’ &c . Th e use o f

pr otinus in Quinti lian furnishe s an e xactanalogy . x . no n autem ut quidquid

prae cipu e ne ce ssarium e st Sic . maximi

p ro tinus e rit momenti : cp. 4 2°

3

5 2 2 .

16 . ve te ra s emp e r in l au d e . So

Ve l l e ius i i . 9 2 , 4 Prae sentia invid ia, praete rita v ene ratione pro sequimur, e t h is no s

o b ru i i ll is instru i cred imus. Fo r similarpro te sts against a slavish and undiscrimi

nating admirat ion o f antiqu ity, cp . Ann.

i ii . 5 5 , 20 ne c omnia apud prio re s me lio ra ,

se d no stra quoque ae tas multa land is e t

artium imitanda po ste ris tulit : ii . 8 8 ad

fin. (o f Arminius) Romanis h and pe rindece l e b riS, dum ve te ra e x to l l imus re centium

incuri o si. In h is no te o n th e latte r passage

,Mr. Fume aux give s a quo tation

from th e co nclusion o f Ho bbe s’ Lemathan,

’

w h ich is even mo re appo site he re ,whe re lite rature is unde r d iscussio n : ‘ Th e

praise o f ancient autho rs pro ce eds no t

from th e re ve rence o f th e dead,b ut from

th e comp e tit io n and mutual e nvy o f th el iving.

’

1 7 . num du b itamus inv e n t o s , i . e .

in th e time o f Cato , as is cle ar from th e

sequence o f ide as. Th e co nstruction o f

dubito with ace . and infin. (fo r th e negativeexpre ssion o f doubt) be longs to th e usageo f th e Silve r Age , and is e spe cially common in Tacitus and Quintilian . I t o ccursinde e d in Livy and Nepo s , b ut ne ve r inCae sar o r Sallust , and in Cice ro o nly indo ubtful instance s (se e no te o n Quintilian ,x . 1 ,

p rae C ato n e . Prae make s magis distinctly ple o nast ic : cp . howe ve r L1vy 1x 7 ,6, whe re mag i s is gene ral ly taken with

th e comparat ive tr istio r . P ro h as be ende fende d as i f th e wri te r h ad at first intended to use some such wo rd as l egerent

(23 . o r mi rar entu r : b ut th e sentenceis to o Sho rt fo r such an anaco l uth . Cp .

Ve rg . Ae n . i . 347 ante alio s immanio romne s, &c .

1 8 . A p p iu s C laud iu s Cae cu s , censo r3 1 2 . H is spe e ch against mak ing pe acewi th Pyrrhus is re fe rred to in Cic. Brut .6 1 de Sene ct. 16.

19 . o b tre ctato r e s . Be side s Calvusand Brutus

,mentione d be low, the re we re

th e Asinii , fathe r and son, and also Cae l ius.

The se we re al l Atticists o f th e seve re rtype , w h o co nside re d th e fulne ss and

r ichne ss o f Cice ro ’

s style tuigidity and

bombast, and po inte d to th e e xce ssiveatten tion which they alleged that h e paidto rhythm as pro ving that h e w as re allyan Asianist in d isguise . Cp. no te on

Quint . x . 1,105 .

in fl atu s e t tum e n s . An e xactl yparalle l passage is Quint . x 11. 10

,1 2 quem

tamen e t sno rum homine s tempo rum ince sse re aude b ant ut tumidio rem e tAsianum

e t redundantem et in re pe titionibus ui

m ium e t in sa l ib us al iquando frigidum e t

in compo sitio ne fractum,e x sul tantem ac

paene , quo d pro cu l absit , viro mo l l io rem .

So Cice ro o f himse lf, Brut . 3 16 nimisre dundante s no s e t supe rfluente s iuve ni l i

quadam dicendi impunitate e t l icentia.

20 . p r e s su s , co ncise ’

(premo ) o r

‘ te rse .

’

Th e figure is taken from th e

pro ce ss o f pruning : preme re tumentia,Quint . x . 4 , 1 . So in C ic. de Or. ii. 96

o rat io pre ssio r’

is o ppo sed to ‘ luxurie squaedam quae sti lo de pascenda e st.

’

Cp .

Quint . xii. 10,16 (Attici ) pre ssi e t integri

(Asiani) inflati e t inane s : C ic. Brut .5 1 parum pre ss i e t nimis re dundante s

ib . 202 cavenda pre sso illi o rato ri ino piae t ie iunitas.

e x su l tan s , l it. bounding.’

Th e wo rd

4 8 CORN ELI I TACI TI

A t t icu s v id e re tur. Legistis u t ique e tCa lv i e t B ru t i ad Cice ro nem

m is s a s e pistu l as, e x qu ib u s facile e st de pre h e nd e re Cal vum

qu idem C ice ron i v isum e x sanguem e t attritum , B ru tum au tem

o tio sum a tque d iiunctum rursusque Cice ro nem a Ca lvo qu id em2 5 ma le aud isse tamquam so l utum e t e ne rv em , a B ru to au tem , ut

2 1 . Atticus Ursinus : antiquus co dd . v idetur CAD . 23 . et a ttr itum co dd

ac tr itum H Sp. Put. , et ar idum Sch ul ting, Halm and edd . : qy. atque attr itum ?

24 . di iunctum (disiunctum) co dd . : discinctum Rutge rsius. 2 5 . autem mo stco dd . qu idem autem A and at first B .

is o ppo sed to compositus (se e o n Qu int .x . 2 , and ind icate s a style in whiche xce ssive care is be stowe d o n th e matte ro f arrangement, re sulting in a so rt o f h o p,Skip, and jump ’

mo vement : cp. saltarein Quint . ix . 4 , 14 2 . So C ic . de 01 i i i .36 (Th e o pompum) e x ul tantem ve rb o rum

audacia reprime b at (Iso crate s ) Or. 26 .

Th e figure is gene rally unde rsto o d to b etaken from th e bo und ing mo vement o f afie ry ho rse .

p arum Att icu s . So ‘ Asianum’

in

th e passage quo ted fromQuinti lian, abo ve :cp . C ic . l i i ut. § 284 . Th e rigid Atticistsw h o attacke d Cice ro made th e ‘ plainne ss ’

o f Lysias the ir mo d e l . but the y se em to

h ave igno red, as Mr. Sandys h as po inte do ut (Intro d . to Orato r , p . lxi i ) , th e dif

fe rence be twe en th e tw o language s , be twe enth e powe r and breadth and compass o f

Gre ek as compared with th e mo re limitedre so urce s o f Latin.

’

2 1 . u t iqu e , ‘o f co urse .

’

Cp . 30. 10

N o tus e stvo bis utique C ice ro nis libe r, &c.

2 2 . e p i stul as . The se le tte rs are no

lo nge r e xtant .23 . e x san gu em . So Quint . x . I . 1 15

inve ni qui Cice ro ni cre de rent e um nimiaco ntra se calumnia ve rum sanguinempe rdidisse : whe re th e re fe rence is to a

passage in th e Brutus 28 3 ) in whichCice ro says that Calvus w as to o m inu teand nice in h is se lf-criticism lo sing th e

v e ry li fe-blo o d o f style fo r fe ar o f taintingits purity.’ Cp. C ic . ad Fam . xv. 2 1 4mu l tae e rant e t re co nditae l itte rae , vis

non erat.

e t attr i tum ,attenuate d .

’ This re ading, which is ne are st that o f th e MSS .

,

se ems to b e quite appro p1iate alo ngsideo f ex sangu is : th e wo rd e xpre sse s th e

o ve rdo ne style characte ristic o f Calvus .

F o r th e figure invo lve d cp. Pl in . Ep . v .

10 5 3 pe rfe ctum o pus ab so l utumque e st,

ne c iam Splent e sc1t lima sed atte ritur :

Qu int. x . 4 , 4 ut o pus po l iat lima,no n

e x te rat : Pl in . Ep . ix . 35 , 2 nimia cura

dete ritmagis quam emendat. So in th e

passage o f th e Bmtus , quo ted abo ve ,C ice ro go e s o n to Spe ak o f th e style o f

Calvus as to o fi ne-d rawn ,

’o ratio n imia

re ligio ne attenuata.—Ou th e o the r hand ,

th e gene ral ly acce pte d co nje cture et

ar idum is suppo rted by e . g. Qu int . xi i .10. 14 aridi e t e x succi e t e xsangue s (cp .

ad He renn. iv. 1 1 , and by th e

frequent instance s o f th e combination o f

ar idus w ith such wo rds as ie iunus,e x i l e ,

siccus,tenu is

,& c.

B r u tum . Se e on 17 . 4 .

24 . o ti o sum,

‘Spiritle ss, wanting in

po int , ’ ‘ te d io us,

’ ‘ wearisome .

’So 22. 1 1

cp. 21. 2 6 whe re Brutus is stigmatize d as

du l l and ted io us, ’—l entitudo and teporbe ing th e wo rds used . In Quintilianotiosus is o f frequent o ccurrence : x. 1

,

76 (o f Demo sthene s) nih i l o tio sum ,

e ve rything is to th e po int ’ : o tio sae

sententiae (i . 1 , 35 ) are co py-bo o k he adings that have no po int . Se n . Ep . 100 ,

1 1 e x ibuntmulta ne c fe rient e t inte rdumo tio sa prae te rl ab e tur o ratio .

d i iun ctum ,

‘ d isj o inted,

’i .e . wanting

in we ll-ro unded pe rio ds . G e rbe r and

G re e f e xplain th e wo rd as in minutasse ntent ias div isum e t pe rio do rum amb itu

carentem . Cp. Oregevy/A e'

vo v, Aqui la

Rom . 36, 37 .—Adiunctio and D isiunctio

(C ic . de Or. 111. 20 7 ) are figure s knownin rhe to ric : se e ad He renn . iv. 2 7 d isiunctio e st cum co rum de qu ibus dicimusaututrumque autunumquo dque ce rto conc l uditur ve rbo , sic : po pulus Romanus

Numantiam de l ev it, Carth aginem sustu l it

C o rinth um disie cit,Frege l l as evertit.

Similarly d isiunctio is de fined by Quinti lian (ix . 3 . 45 ) as

‘nominum idem sig

nificantium se paratio’

cp . o vvw vv/u’

a

se e h is cx x . ad l o c .

rursusqu e so Ge rm . xv111. ad fin.

25 . tam qu am Ci) ? w ith participle .

Cp. o n 2. 2 : tamquam plane l e vio re s,35 . 14 .

s o lu tus,th e o ppo site o f adstr ictus,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

50 CORNELI I TACI TI

inge nu ne c inscitia l itte rarum transtul isse se ad il l ud dice ndi genus

con te ndo , se d iud ic io e t inte l l e ctu . Vid it namque , ut pau lo an te

d ice b am, cum' c ond ic ione temporum e t dive rsitate au rium formam

quoque ac spe ciem o ratio nis e s se mutandam . Fa cile pe rfe re b at

prio r i l le popu lu s , ut impe ritus e t rud is , impeditissimarum

o ratio num spa t ia , atque id ip sum l audab at S i d ice ndo quis d iem

e x ime re t. Iam v e ro longa princip io rum praeparatio e t narratio nis

5 . i l l ud co dd . ( id a l iud Andre sen and edd . Qy. i l l ud suum 9 . impeditissimarum Muretus, imper itissimarum co dd . 10. l audabatABDH,

l audi da

batu r EV2CA . 1 1 . narrationum Spenge l .

says o f Deme trius Ph al e reus h ic primusinfle x it o ratio nem (Brut . 5 38 ) cp . Quint .x . 1 , 80 is primum incl inasse e l oque ntiamd icitur .

4 . di r e c ta . Recta wo uld have be e n le ssuncommo n, and is the re fo re mo re impro bable . Th e re fe rence is to a straigb t

f orw ard style , d ire ct and natural, and

fre e from a l l c ircumlo cution o r me retricio us o rnament . So inQuint ilian se rmo

re ctus ’

( i i . 5 , 1 1 ) and ‘Simple x re ctum

que l o quendi genus’

(ix . 3 , 3) are used as

indicating a style wh ich aims at cle ar ande fi

’

e ctive e xpre ssion, apart from al l em

b e l l ishment and tricke ry : cp ix . 2, 7 8

nam re ctum genus adpro b ari nisi max imis

viribus non po te st : hae c deve rticul a e t

anfractus suffugia sunt infi rmitatis, et sqq.

Fo r d ir ecta v ia cp . Cic. pro Cae l . § 4 1unum d ire ctum i te r ad l audem : it findsan ant ithe sis in no vis e t e x quisitis e l o

quentiae itine rib us,’

2 1 be low. Gudeman

i s the re fo re quite wro ng in think ing thatdi ‘recta admits o f no rat ional e x pl a

’

h atio n ,’

and in reje cting atque directa as an inte rpo l ation .

n o n in fi rm itate , & c .

,no t from any

d e fe ct ive ability o r want o f lite rary training6 . iu di c io ,

o f sound judgment, as

again,at 8 4 . 9 .

i nte l l e ctu ,

‘ insight,

’d isce rnment .’

Cp. Ann . xii i . 16 , 1 1 quibus al tio r inte ll e ctus : and with a genit ive vi . 36, 1 3

quis neque boni inte l l e ctus neque malicura : cp . 3 1. 1 2 be low.

namqu e , in th e se cond place , as in

Livy,Curtius, Pliny th e Elde r , and fre

quently in Quint ilian : e p . Ve rg . Aen. v .

7 33 : x . 6 14 . So Ann. i . 5 , 14 acribus nam

que custo diis .

p au lo an t e , mutari cum tempo ribus,’18 . 8 .

7 . aur ium , o f th e po pular ‘ear

’o r

‘ taste cp . Ann. 11111. 3, 8 ingeniumtempo ris e ius antibus accommo datum .

E t diversitate au r ium is no t really co

o rd inate wi th condicione tempor um : it israthe r th e re sult o f change d circumstance s . Translate , ‘

th e spirit o f th e ageand th e co nsequent change in po pulartaste .

’Cp . dive rsissimarum auri um

,

34. 16 .

9 . imp e di ti ss imarum . This use o f

th e wo rd is be st e xplaine d by Quint . viii .6 , 4 2 (Me iste r) Nam fit lo nga e t imped ita(sc. o ratio ) ub i co nge stio ribus e arn iungas

Simil em agmini.

to tidem l ixas h ab enti

quo t m ilite s, cui e t nume rus e st duple xne c duplum vit ium. AS applied to

Spe e che s, it means‘o ve rwe ighted ,’

with supe rfluous de tail .10 . sp ati a , emphatic fo r what is spun

spatia . Cp . Ann . ii . 5, 10

Spati ts itine rum.

1 1 . e x im e r e t= consume ret. Cp . o n

38 . 3 nemo intra paucissimas ho ras pe rorare coge b atur. A speake r w h o wishedto kil l ’ a pro po sal, whe the r in th e senateo r in th e po pular assembly, h ad o nly topro long h is o ratio n t il l sunse t, when th e

me e ting sto o d adjourned . Cp . C ic . ad

Quint . Fr. i i . 1, 3 C l od ius ro gatus d i

cendo d iem e x ime re co epit : Tul l . § 6Livy i . 50, 8 : Flin. Ep . v . 2 1

,2 .—Fo r

th e subjunctive o f case s frequently re curring (as o ften in Tacitus, and e ve n Livy,afte r cum, quoties, seu , Se e Draege r,

1 59 , 165 : Madvig, t 359 : Ro by.1 7 16 . So v ideretur and inserer et

be low.

l o n ga p r in c ip i o rum p rae p ar ati o

long preparato ry intro duct io ns .

’ Quint.iv. 2

, 5 5 h o c faciunt et i l l ae praepara

tio ne s , cum re us dicitur ro bustus, arma

tus, so l l icitus, co ntra infi rmo s,ine rme s

,

Se curo s : ix . 2 , 1 7 iv. 1,6 2 ne c m inus

e vitanda e st immodica e ius (principii)

DIALOGO'

S DE ORATOR I E US . 5 1

a l te re pe tita se rie s e t mul taruni d iv is io num o ste ntatio e t m il le

argume nto rum gradus , e t qu iquid a l iud arid issimis He rmago rae

e t Apo l l o do ri l ib ris prae cip itur, in honore e rat ; quod Si qu is

odora tu s ph il o soph iam v id e re tur e t e x e a lo cum al iquem o ratio ni 1 5

suae inse re re t, in cae lum l aud ib us fe re b atur. Ne c mirum e rant

e n im hae c nova e t incogni ta , e t ipso rum quoque o rato rum

paucissimi prae cepta rh e to rum aut ph i l o so ph o rum p lacit a cogno

ve rant. At he rcu le pe rvu l gatis iam omnib u s , cum v ix in co r tina

1 5 . odoratus BH , and EV2 (co rre cted ) : adoratus ACAD. pb i l osopb iam v idetur

(v ider etur B) et mo st co dd . , pb i l osopb iam atque HSp. Put. 16 . f erebantu r AH.

e r ant B : e rat cett. co dd . 19 . iam co dd . ,b is iam Bae h rens. in corona Ursinus.

l o ngitudo ,ne in caput e x crevisse videatur

e t quo praeparare debe t fatiget.n arr ati o n i s a l te r e p e tita s e r i e s , l it .

‘th e thre ad o f th e narrative carri ed farback far-fe tche d statements o f th e case .

Narratio w as th e se co nd o f th e fiv e partso f an o ration : e xo rdium

,narratio , pro

batio , re futatio , pe ro ratio .

1 2 . o ste ntati o : th e parade ’

o r‘ dis

play ’

o f nume ro us heads. Quint . vii . 1 , 1d ivisio re rum p l urium in singul as , partitio

Singul arum in parte s discre tio : cp . id .

iv. 5 whe re partitio is th e gene ric te rmused .

m i l l e argum e nto rum gradu s ,‘th e

co untle ss stage s o f th e pro o f.’ Cp. 20. 6

cursu argumento rum .

1 3 . H e rmag o r ae . Th e re fe rence he reis pro bably to th e gre ate st o f th e rh e to

r icians w h o bo re this name,mentioned

by Cice ro in de Invent. i . 6 , 8 , ibid . 9 , 1 2

Bru tus, 263 , 2 7 1 , and frequently byQuintil ian. Some time in th e se co nd

century B . C . ,h e drew up an e labo rate

system o f rhe to ric, wh ich w as afte rwardsve ry gene rally fo llowed .

‘ It conce rnedi tse lf almo st exclusive ly with inventio,with th e d isco ve ry o f arguments as o ppo sed to style

,and it d isse cted with in

genio us subtle ty th e d iffe ren t kinds o f

issue s raised , mo re particularly in th efo re nsic branch o f o rato ry ’

(Sandys ,Intro d . to Orato r , p . xxxvii ) . I t is o ftenre pre sented as having be e n to o subtle andScho lastic to b e o f se rvice fo r th e practicaltraining o f th e state sman o r th e advo cate .

Cp. with ar id issimis he re , Quint . iii . 1 1 ,2 1—2 2 —The re w as a yo unge r He rma

go ras (Quint . i i i . 1, 1 8

,cp . 16) w h o

a lso wro te a tre atise r e'

x va r 76771 07) :v in

S ix bo oks. Tho ugh h is fo llo w e rs we recalle d . afte r th e name o f h is maste r,Tb eodore i , in o ppo sition to th e Apo l l o

dor e i , o r scho o l of Apo l lo do rus, it ismo re pro bable that Tacitus is re fe rringhe re to th e e lde r He rmago ras , who seinfluence w as so gre at o n Cice ro and th e

fo rme r gene rat io n o f o rato rs .

14 . A p o l l o d o r i . This w as Apo l lodo rus o f Pe rgamum , th e friend and te ache ro f Octav ianus, w h o to o k h im with h im(Sue t . Aug. 89 ) in a j ourney h e made

from Rome to Apo llonia in B . C . 45 . Se e

again Quint . i ii . 1 , 1 7 .

1 5 . o d o ra tu s . Th e d ictt. give o nlyo ne o the r e xample o f this use

,from Lac

Odorar i = l ibare , to get a smatte ring o f,’dip into .

’ Wo lff compare s Cic. ad Att.

iv. 16,

1 1 re s fluit ad inte rre gnum, e t

e st no nnul l us o do r dictaturae , ‘ the re issome thing like a d ictato rship in th e air.

’

l o cum ,

‘commo n-place ’

a to pic o r

re fle ctio n no t pe culiar to th e case in hand,b ut o f a m o re gene ral characte r : cp . 20.

16,22. 6 .

‘ Any subje ct o r to pic o f a

gene ral characte r that is capable o f be ingvario usly applied and co nstant l y introduced o n any appro priate o ccasion is

a l ocus commun is ; any common currentmaxim o r alte rnative pro po sit ionAgain inv idia

,avar itia testes in imici ,

potentes amici (Qu int . v . 1 2, 1 5 , 16 )

may furnish l oci communes ; o r the y mayb e co nstructe d de v irtute , de qfi cio

,a'e

aequ o et bona, de d ign itate , uti l itate ,b onore , ignomin ia , and o n o the r mo ra lto pics ’

(Co pe’

s Intro d . to Arist. Rhe t .p . Cp. C ic. de Inve nt . ii . § 48de Or . 111. 106 : Or. 1 26 .

19 . c o r t in a .

‘ Vide tur atpr’

s b asil icarumin quibus ind ic ia ce ntumv iral ia h ab e b an

tur signi ficari,’ Halm. Th e wo rd , which

is use d fo r a‘ vault, ’ o r ‘ dome ,

’

ce rtainlyind icate s h e re some ro und space avai lablefo r th e accommodation o f th e public .

52 CORNELI I TACI TI

20 quisquam adsistat qu in e l ementis studio rum, et s i no n instructus,at ce rte imb utus S it

, novis e t e x quisitis e l o que ntiae itine rib us

opu s e st, pe r quae ora to r fas t id ium aurium e fi’

ugiat, utiqu e apud

e o S iud ice s qui vi e t pote state , non iure aut l egib us cogno scunt,

ne c accipiunt tempora se d co nstituunt, ne c e x spe ctandum h ab e nt

2 5 o rato rem dum i l l i l ib e at d e ip s o negotio d ice re,se d sae pe nl tro

admo nent atque a l io transgre d ie ntem re vo cant e t fe s t inare s e

te stantur.

20. Qu is nunc fe re t o rato rem de infi rmitate val e tud in is suae

prae fantem, qua l ia sunt fe re p rincipia Co rv ini ? Quis qu inque in

20 . qu in Mure tus, qu i co dd . etsi co dd .,

s i Acidal iuS. 23 . o utAB, et EV2CADH

(se e Intro d . p . lvii) . 24 . ex spectandum EVzCAH , expectando D ,expectantem AB .

20 . e t s i n o n . . at ce rte , as Ann x 1i .

39 , 15 . Mo re commonly si non at

certe,Ge rm . xxxiii . 8 : Hist . iv. 58 , 36 :

Quint . Pr. 2 : xii . 1 1 , 3 1 .

2 1 . im b u tu s : as w e spe ak o f a ‘ tincture ’

o f le arning . Th e o ppo sition to institutus fully equipped

’

) reminds us o f

th e e tymo lo gical meaning o f imbuer e,to

make to drink fo r th e first time , ’ hencestain , tinge .

’Se e Wi lkins o n de Orat .

11. 16 2 a l iquo iam imbutus usu : C ic.

Phil . v . 7 , 20 cum seme l gl adium san

guine imb uisset : Tusc. i. 14 an tu dia

l e cticis ne imb utus quidem e s ? Cp . Sen .

Dial . xii . 1 7 , 4 Utinam vo l uisse t te

prae ceptis sapientiae e rudiri po t ins quamimbu i : Quint . i . 2 , 16 l itte ris saltem le vite r imbutus. Cp. o n 2. 14 abo ve .

n o vi s e t e x qu i s iti s . Cp. ve te re atqued ire cta d icendi v ia, abo ve . Ex qu isita s

pro pe rly me ans so ught o ut wi th careso some time s far-fe tched .

’ H e re it co rre spo nds to th e Fr. ‘ re che rché ’ ‘ dis

tingué’

: cp . Cic. Brut. 2 8 3 accuratius

quo ddam d icendi e t e x quisitius genus :ih . 3 2 1 e x quisitius e t minime vulgareo rationis genus . Cp. to o th e ant ithe sisbe twe en sermo r ectus and dcf l ex a , ex qu i

sitiara , Quint . i i . 5 , 1 1 .

2 2 . p e r qu ae . Quint . x . 1, 37 in 1i s

pe r quae nomen e st adse cutus .

fas t id ium au rium . The re is a Simi

l ar mixed me tapho r ’ in C ic . de Or. i i i .19 2 aurium satie tate : cp . 9 . 6 abo ve ,

aure s re spuant.u t iqu e , particularly,’ ‘

e spe ciall y,’rathe r than at le ast .’

23 . v i e t p o t e s tate , o f th e abso l utepowe r o f a judge sitt ing (po ssibly as th eempe ro r’s re pre sentative ) in a co urt from

which the re is no appe al . Compare on

th e o the r hand 38 . 7 Pompe ius 1m

po suit freno s e l oquentiae , ita tamen ut

omnia in fo ro , omnia l egibus, omnia apudpraeto re s ge re rentur.

co gn o scunt. Fo r this use , cp. 41. 18

cleme ntia cogno sce ntis : Hist . iv. 4 2 , 7Ann . xi ii . 32 , 9 : and frequently in Quintilian .

24 . e x sp e ctandum h ab e n t. Se e on

8 . 1 1 .

25 . n l tro admo n e nt. Cp. 3 9 . 10

qu ia saepe inte rrogat inde x quando

1nc1p1as

26. f e stinat. Quint. iv. 5 , 10 fe stinat

enim inde x ad id quo d po tentissimum e st,

e t ve l ut o bligatum promisso patronum, Si

e st patientio r , tacitus appe llat ; Si ve l

o ccupatus ve l in al iqua po te state ve l

e tiam Sic mo ribus compo situs, cum con

vicio e fflagitat.

20. 2 . C o rv in i . Quintilian take s a

difi’

e rent view, iv . 1 , 8 : quaedam in h is

quo que commendatio tac ita, Si no s in

fi rmO

o S, imparato s, impa1es agentium co n

tra ingen i i s d ix e rimns , qual ia snnt pl e ra

que Me ssal l ae pro o emia. Est e nim na

tural is favo r pro l ab o rantibus,& c.—Be fo re

f e r e pl e rumque ) Gudeman unne ces

sari l y pro po se s to inse rt omnza : cp . 31. 7in iudiciis fe re de aequi tate disserimus .

qu inqu e in V e rr em l i b r o s : i . e . th e

fi ve parts o f th e Actio Secunda . Tho ughthey we re neve r really de live red , Ve rre shaving ant icipated sentence by fl ight

,

they we re no do ubt prepared fo r publ icatio n o n th e same scale as C ice ro wo uldhave allo w ed h imse lf l n pl e admg be fo reth e co urt .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

54 CORNELI I TACI TI

Vu lgus quoque adsiste ntium e t adfluens e t vagus auditor adsuev itiam e x ige re l ae titiam e t pul ch ritnd inem o ratio nis ; ne c magis

pe rfe rt in indicus tris t em e t impe x am an t iqu it a tem quam S i qu is

in s cae na Ro scu aut Turpio nis Amb ivn e x prime re ge s tu s v e l it.

Iam ve ro iuv e ne s e t in ip sa stud io rum incud e pos it i, qu i pro fe ctussui cau s a o rato re s se ctantur

,non so lum aud ire , se d e t iam re fe rre

domum a l iqu id inl ustre e t dignum memoria vo l unt ; traduntque

in v icem ac sae pe in co lon ia s ac p rov incias su a s scrib unt,Sive

Se n su s a l iquis a rgu t a e t b rev i se nte n t ia e ffu l sit, Siv e locu s e x

1 1 . scena HE, scenam ABCD . Q. Rosczz Bo ttich e r. Ambivzz Lipsius, autAmbiv i i

co dd . 13 . non so l um EV2CADH ,nec so l um AB . 15 . acprov i nci as ADHV2,

ctpr ov . BC . suas co dd . ,su is .

9 16. sensus Muretus,in su is co dd.

to‘

put l ife into ,’

(cp evitare ) , to che e r,e nl iven, e nte rtain . No nius, p . 3 2 1

‘ ine

v itare e st de l e ctare .

’

7 . av e r satur ,h e ‘ lo se s inte re st . ’ Tho ugh

e lsewhe re in Tacitus this ve rb is fo undwith an accusative , it is no tne ce ssary he reto conne ct it d ire ctly with dicentem : cp .

C ic . pro Cl uent. 1 7 7 ave rsari advo cati

e t iam vix fe rre po sse .

8 . ad fl u e n s e t v agu s au d i t o r ,

‘ th e

chance listene rs w h o flo ck in and o ut.’

9 . l ae ti tiam : so‘ l aetitiam nito remque ,

’

21. 3 7 . Laetus is frequently use d to

deno te a rich o r o rnate style e . g. idemlactas ac pre ssus, Quint . x. 1

, 46 , whe rese e no te . Th e Oppo site is mae stitia, C ic .

Or. 5 53 .

10 . im p e x am ,

‘unco uth,

’as o ften in

comptus, b orr idus (tristi, ho rrida o ra

tio ne , C ic. Or. 5 Cp. Quint . x. 2 , 1 7qui h o rride atque incompo site quid l ib e ti l lud frigidum e t inane e xtnl e runt, antiquis se pare s credunt : C ic. Brut. 68

antiquio r (Cato nis) se rmo e t quaedamh o rr idio ra ve rba : ih . 8 3 multo ve tustio re t h o rridio r (Lae lius) quam Scipio . Th e

o nly o the r instance o f impex us in TacitusisAnn . xvi . 10

,14 impe x a l uctu co ntinuo .

1 1 . R o sci i . Ape r’s re fe rence to thisgre at acto r, th e favo urite o f Sulla and th e

friend o f C ice ro , is an indicatio n o f th e

change which th e national taste h ad

unde rgone in things dramatic as,we l l as

o rato rical. Cp . th e e ulo gy which Cice ropro no unce s o n Ro scius de O r. 1 1 30

v ide tisne quam nihi l ab e o nisi pe rfe cte ,n ih il nisi cum summa venustate fi at, nisiita ut de ceat

,e t uti omne s mo ve at atque

de l e cte t ?

L . Am b iv iu s Turp i o w as a contempo rary o f Cato th e Ce nso r, and th e mo st

famo us acto r o f h is time . He appe aredin many o f th e plays o f Te rence . Th e

same e xchange in th e po sit io n o f nomen

and cognomen ,with th e praenomen

omi tted , o ccurs in Cic . de Sen . 48

Turpione Amb ivio .

e x p r im e r e ,‘ reproduce ,’ re dde re , imi

tari : so 21. 3 2 , 26 . 9 , 23 . 24, and o ftenin Cice ro and Quinti lian, e g g . x. 1 , 692,18

,26 . Th e figure w as taken from th e

plast ic art Ho r. A. P . 3 2—3 .

1 2 . iu v e n e s e t p o s i t i . E t is he ree pexege tic (33 . th e yo ung, tho se w h oare sti ll o n th e thre sho ld o f knowledge ,’w h o are sti ll ‘ in th e ro ugh ,’ as it we re ,and have to b e hamme red into Shape .

F o r th e figure , cp . Ovid , Tr ist . i . 7 , 29ab l atum me diis o pus e st incud ibus i l lud

De fnit e t scriptis u ltima l ima me is : C ic.

de Or. i i . 5 16 2 h 1s adsiduis nno o pe ree andem incudem diem no ctemque tun

dentib us. So Apo llinaris Sidonius, Ep.

iv. 1 ph il o soph ica incude fo rmatus.

p r o f e ctu s , no t in Cice ro , b ut o ften inQuint il ian and Sene ca .

1 3 . r e te rr e d omum . Quint . 11. 2,8

Ipse (se . praecepto r) al iquid , immo multaco tidie dicatquae se cum aud ito re s re fe rant.

15. in v i cem , frequent in Tacitus fo rinter se .

c o lo n i as , he re gene ral ly o f co untrytowns : cp . Ann iii .-2 , 5 .

16. s e n su s s e nte n t ia cp. 23 . 2

32. 1 7 . F o r th e d iffe rence be twe en th e

tw o , cp . Sen . Ep . 100 , 5 sensus ho ne sto s e t magnifico s habe s, non co acto s in

sententiam,sed latins d icto s Quint . vii i .

5 , 2 consue tudo iam tenuit ut menteconcepta sensus vo caremus (23 . 2 1 ) l nmina autem prae cipneque in cl ansn l is

po sita sententias (22. 7 : 32. In

DIALOGOS DE ORATORI B US . 55

qu is it o e t poe tico cul tu e nituit Ex igitur e nim iam ab ora t ore

e t iam poe ticus d e co r, non Accn au t Pacuvn v e te rno inquinatus ,

se d e x Ho ra t ii e t Ve rgil ii e t Lu cani sacrario pro l atus . H orum

igitu r aurib us e t iudiciis o b tempe rans no stro rum o rato rum a e t a s

pul ch rio r e t o rnatio r e x titit. N e qu e ide o m inu s e fii cace s sunt

o ratio ne s no strae qu ia a d au re s iud icantium cum vo l uptate pe r

ve niunt. Quid e n im Si infi rmio ra horum temporum temp la

cre das, qu ia non rud i caeme nto e t info rmib us tegul iS e x truuntur

se d marmore n ite nt e t auro rad iantur ?

21. Equidem fate b o r vob is Simp l iciter me in quib usdam anti

1 7 . ex igi tur Lipsius, ex igetur CA ,ex ercitur AV2, co rre cted in bo th to ex ercetur

BDEH . 23 . si co dd . ,an Obe rlin ,

n isi Osann . 2 5 . radiant Lat. Latinius.

21 . 1 . f atebor mo st co dd .

, f ateor AHSp. Cp. Equidem fate b o r vo bis Liv. v. 54, 3 .

th e use o f S e n su s (o f tho ught) th e ide ao f substance o r fo rm is always uppe rmo st : fo r th e fo rme r cp . 23 . 2 1 (whe reg rav itas sensuum is contraste d w ith n itaret cu l tus verborum) , and probably pau‘

cissimos sensus 32. 1 7 : fo r th e latte r(in additi on to th e pre sent passage )21. 1 7 ( inco nditi sensus redo lent antiquitatem) 22. 1 2 (pauci sensus apte e t

cum quo dam lumine te rminantur) : 22.

2 2 (nu ll i sensus in mo rem annal ium

compo nantur) 23 . 2 te rt io quoque sensu .

So to o Sen. Ep. 1 14 , 1 : Quint . ix. 3 ,74, 76 . Some t ime s S e n te n tia

sensus : e . g . 21. 1 1 ve rbis o rnata et sen

tentiis : 23 . 24 e a sente ntiarum p l anitas :

26 . 8 lascivia ve rb o rum e t le vitate sen

tentiarum. Mo re usually it deno te s, as

he re , a te rse , po inte d , pregnant utte rance22. 7 quasdam sententias inve nit : 23 . 2

pro sententia 32. 1 7 augustas sententias .

argu ta, ‘ po inted, ’ ‘Striking, ’ apt,

’

o nly he re in Tacitus. C ic . de Or. i i .5 250 , 268 : Brut . 3 25 sententio sum

e t argutum (genus dictionis) . Cp . co ac

to s in sententiam in th e passage quo tedfrom Seneca abo ve Quint . x . 1

, 50

breve s vib rante sque sententiae .

l o cu s . Se e o n 22. 6 lo co s quoquel ae tio re s attentavit.

1 8 . Acc i i aut P acuv i i . This is th eo rde r in which the se tw o po e ts are namedin Quint. x . 1 , 97 , tho ugh Attius ( 1 70B .C.—abo ut 90) w as re ally fifte en ye ars

yo unge r than Pacuvius (2 20 In

th e next chapte r, line 30, Pacuvius come sfirst . Quinti lian ( l . c . ) says o f them nito r

e t summa in e x co l endis o pe ribns manus

magis vide ri po te st tempo ribus quamipsis de fuisse ,

’ Martial (xi . 90) je e rs

at them fo r de lighting in archaisms,

Attonitusqne legis te rrai frugife rai Att iuse t quidquid Pacuviusque vomunt.

v e te rn o . Fo r a Similar figure cp.

’

22. 2 2 ve rbum ve l ut rubigine infe ctum .

Tr . no t d isfigure d by th e o l d rust o f an

Accius o r a Pacuvius.

’

19 . L u can i . Quintilian wo uld no t

have classed Lucan a lo ng w ith Ho raceand Ve rgil . Se e x . I . 90 Lucanus ardense t co ncitatus e t sententiis cl arissimus, etut dicam quo d sentio , magis o rato ribus

quam po e tis imitandus. Similarly Se rv.ad Aen . i . 38 2 Lucanus ide o in nume ropo e tarum e sse non me ruit quia vide turh isto riam compo suisse no n po ema : Petron . Satyr . 1 1 8 Mart . xiv. 194.

H o rum , o f th e class o f he are rs previo usl y ind icate d , e spe cial ly th e iuvenes .

2 3 . Qu i d e n im s i cr e d as Thisfo rmula reminds o ne o f th e frequent useo f n isi f orte to intro duce an ironicalargument. In bo th case s th e reade r ischallenged, as it we re , to diffe r from th e

o pinio n just advanced,on pain o f having

to admit some thing which is impro bableo r absurd . Tr . Why, o ne might as we l lbe lie ve ,’ & c.

25 . r ad i antu r , midd l e = fulgent. Cp .

Ovid , Ep . e x Ponto i ii . 4 , 103 Scnta sed

et galeae gemmis radientur e t auro .

21. 1 . Equ i d em , & c. F o r th e e x

pre ssion , cp . Cic. Brut . 293 Equidemin quibusdam risum vi x tene bam . Mo ste dd . take qu ibusdam as neute r, but nec

unum be low Shows that i t is masc. Fo r

th e partitive geni t ive afte r qu idam, cp.

Hist . i i . 49, 1 7 : 98 , 5 iv . 70 , 24 : Ann.

xii . 1 7 , 14 . So plurimi d ise rto rum,

’

40, 3,be low .

5 6 CORNEL I I TACI TI

quorum v ix risum ,in quib usdam autem v ix somnum tene re.

N e c unum d e popu lo Canu t i aut A t t i de Furnio e t To ranio

qu ique a l ii omnes in e o dem v a le tud inario h ae c o s s a e t hanc

maciem prae b ent : ipse m ihi Ca lvu s , cum unum e t v iginti, ut

puto, l ib ro s re l ique rit, v ix in una e t a lte ra o ratiuncul a s atis

facit. N e c d isse ntire ce te ro s ab hoc me o iudic io v ide o ; quo tus

e n im qu isque Ca lv i in Asitium aut in Drusum legi t ? At h e rcu le

3 . Afte r Atti Halm suppo se s a lacuna re ad pe rhaps Ne c unum de po pulo , Canuti(H b Put. , Sanuti B, Canuti AC) autAtt i in eptias refe r entem nomina, non disputo deFum io ,

’

& c . Mo st edd . (afte r G ro no vius and N ippe rdey) read Ncc unum de po pulonominaba Canutium ant Arrium ve l Purnio s et To ranio s.

’

Toran io EH,

Caran ia ADC . 4 . qu ique a l i i omnes is my conj . , qu ique a l ias AB (i . e . al i & La l ias CAD, que a l ias EVz. b anc maci em co dd . , b aec macies Gro novius and edd .

5 . praebent Ritte r , probant co dd. , produnt Acidal ius, praef eruntWo l ff. 8 . Asitium

ABCADH ,Asitium E, as iciz? V2. b ercu l e CDEVQ : b ere l e AB.

3 . u num d e p o pu l o , one o f th e rankand fi l e .

’Cp. C ic. Bru t . 3 20 no n

quivis unus e x po pul o sed e x istimato r

fl o ctus : de Fin . ii . 20, 66 unum de multisde Off i . 109 .

Canuti : pro babl y P . Canutius,whom Cice ro mentions in Brutus 205)‘aequalis meus , homo e xtra no strumo rdinem me o indicio dise rtissimus.

’Cp .

pro C l uent. 50 accusab at P. Canutius,homo in primis ingenio sus et in dicendo

e x e rcitatus : ibid . 29 homo e l o quentis

simus. Ape r to o k a d iffe rent view .

A tti . This (o r rathe r Ati ) is th e

re ading o f mo st MSS . In th e Pute o l anus

( 147 5) w e find Ari , and mo st e dito rsunde rstand th e re fe rence to b e to Q.

A rrius (prae to r in B . C . 7 3) whom Cice romentions le ss favourably in th e Brutus24 2—3 .

F urn i o . The re w as a friend o f Cice ro ,called C . Furn ius ad Fam. xxiv. 25—6 .

T o ran i o . The re we re tw o To rann ,fathe r and son. Th e fo rme r w as Octav ius

’

s tuto r : Sue t . Aug. xxvii . : Val .

Max . ix . 1 1, 5 .

4 . in e o d em v al e tu din ar i o , sc. O’

yr e s.

Cp. Sen . Ep. xxvii. 1 tamquam in e o demvale tudinari o iaceam,

de communi te cummalo con l oquo r, [et] remedia commumco .

h ae c o ssa e t h anc maci em p rae

b e nt :‘Show no thing b ut th e familiar

sk in and bone s .

’Fo r b acc in th e sense o f

‘no bis no ta ’

cp . hae c ve te ra 37 . 6 .

Figure s de rived from th e human bo dyco nstantly re cur in re fe rence to rhe to ric :Cic. Brut. 64 quo s val etudo mo do bonaSit

, tenuitas ipsa de l e ctat : 5 68 utinamimitarentur, nec o ssa so l um sed e tiam

sanguinem . Cp. be l ow, Oratio autemsicut co rpus hominis, &c . , and se e o n

Quint . x . 1, 33, 60 , 7 7 .

—Th e MS.probant Show what the y are

’: 39 . 7 :

Luc. Phars . viii . 1 2 1 ) induced Halm(fo llowing Gro no vius) to re ad quosqu e

al ias b aec macies.

5 . Cal v u s , a l eade r amo ng th e stricterAtt icists. Se e o n 17 . 4 .

6 . v i x in un a e t alte ra, i . e . hardl yin mo re than o ne . In th e same w ayunus et (atque) a l ter is used Ann. xii i .46 , 10 Si ultra unam al teramque no ctemattine retur (i . e . beyond a second ) : H ist .v . 6 , 1 2 unum atque al te rum l acum

pe rfluit (i . e . tw o lake s) . Baeh rens , h ow

e ve r, lays dow n th e l aw that , whe re a

co pul ative part icle is used , th e phraseh as th e fo rce o f nonnu l l i o r comp l ures,wh i le w ith a disjunct ive particle itpauci : h e would the re fo re re ad una aut

a l te ra , e spe cially o n th e gro und o f v ix

(cp. Ge rm . vi . 9 vix uni al te rive : Pl in.

Ep. v. 20,15 e l oquentia vix uni ant

a lte ri contih git) . Fo r th e meaning ‘o ne

o r tw o ,’ ‘

a few ,

’

cp . ch s. 9 . 20 : 29 . 2

and 39 . 1 3 (unus aut alte r) e xactlyparalle l are Hist. i . 8 3, 24 : Ann . ii i .

4 7 , 5 : iv. 1 7 ad fin. (unusu

al te rve )Agr. xv. 1 7 : x 1. 19 : Ann . i i i . 34 , 1 7(unus aut alte r) . In H ist . i i . 7 5, 5 Halmno w reads unus a l terve fo r th e trad iti o nalunus a l terqu e .

8 . in A s itium . Calvus impe achedAsitius (ASicius) fo r th e murde r o f an

Egyptian envo y, and h e w as de fended byCice ro : pro Cae l . 23 .

in B ru sum . Cice ro w as h is advo cateal so : ad Att. iv. 15 , 8 : x vi . 5, 8 : ad

Quint. Fr. 1. I 6, 3 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

58 CORNELI I TACI TI

re do lent antiqu i t atem ne c quemquam adeo ant iquarium pu t o ut

Cae l ium e x e a part e l aud e t qua antiquus e st. Co nc'

e damus s ane

C . Cae sari ut propte r magnitudinem co gitatio num e t o ccupatio ne s

re rum m inu s in e l o que ntia e ffe ce rit quam div inum e ius inge n ium

po stu l ab at, tam h e rcu le quam B ru tum ph il o so ph iae suae re l in

quamus (nam in o ratio nib us m inorem e s se fama sua e t iam

admirato re s e ius fate ntur) : n is i fo r te quisquam aut Cae saris pro

1 8 . r edo l ent ABEV2H, reddent, CA ,

’

r edentD . 2 1 . minus om . C . 24 . n isi

f orte codd . ,numf orte Classen, n ecf er e G ro no vius, Bae h rens, n ec en im N o vak.

co nstruction .

’Compositio (o v ems—th e

combination o f wo rds) is de fined in ad

He renn . i v. 1 2 , 1 8 as ve rb o rum con

structio quae facit omne s parte s o ratio nisaequab il ite r pe rpo l itas cp. Quint . ix . 4 ,1 16 quem in po emate lo cum habe t ve rsifi catio e arn in o ratio ne co

’

mpo sitio . Verba

and compositio are co nstantly co njo inedin th is w ay : e . g . Quint . x . 1 , g 1 1 8

2 ,‘

1 3 : 3, 5 9 ; 22. 5 be low . Fo r.

b ians (unco nne cted , d islo cate d cp . C ic .

Or. 3 2 cum mut ila e t h iantia quaedam

l o cuti sunt : Quint . viii. 6 , 62 fi t en imd isso luta e t hians o ratio , Si ad ne ce ssitatemo rdinis sui ve rba redigantur, e t ut quo d

que o ritur, ita pro x imis, e tiam Si vinciri

non po te st, adl igetur.—The re is o f co urse

a narrowe r sense o f b iatus , fo r which se e

C ic . de Or. ii i . 1 7 1—2 : Or. 20 , 149

50, whe re Dr. Sandys e xplains : Pro pe rpains must b e be stowed o n th e re lationsbe twe en th e last syllable o f o ne wo rd and

th e first syllable o f th e ne xt,so as to pre

vent th e co ncurrence o f h arshly soundingc o nsonants as we ll as th e juxtapo sitio n o f

o pen wo rds, ut neve aspe r e o rum con

cursus ne ve h iu l cus s it (de Or. i i i .1 7 . in co n d i t i s e n su s . This is th e 0p

po site o f 20. 16 Sive sensus al iquis argutae t brevi sententia e fful sit : tr. Shape le sspe riods

,

’—sensus be ing he re used o f th e

e xte rnal fo rm in which th e tho ught isco nve yed . Cp . C ic. Or. 1 50 quamvis

e nim suave s grave sque sententiae , tamensi inconditis ve rbis e ffe runtur, o ffe ndunt

aure s : de Or . iii . 1 7 3 princeps Iso crate sinstituisse fe rtur utinconditam antiquo rum

dicend i consuetudinem_nume ris astrin

ge re t . So Agr. iii . 1 7 ve l incond ita e t rudivo ce .

1 8 . r e d o le n t savo ur o f ’) an t iqu i tatem . So C ic . Brut . 8 2 e x i l io re s o ratio ne s

sunt et redo l ente s magis antiquitatem.

an tiqu ar ium ,fond o f ancient au

tho rs. ’ This wo rd,w hich is not fo und

in any e arlie r wri te r,re curs in 37 . 6 and

42. 7 ,

and cp . Sue t. Aug . 8 1, and Iuv. vi .

45 1 , whe re tene t antiquaria ve rsus’

is e x

plaine d byth e Scho liast as utantiquarius

ve rsus dici t.19 . e x e a p arte : cp . nulla parte , 18 . 5 .

20 . C . Cae sar i . Cp . Ann . xiii . 3 , 1 1dictato r Cae sar summis o rato ribus aemu

l us. So Quint . x .

.

1 , 1 14 C . ve ro Cae sarSi fo ro tantum vacasse t, non al ius e x

no stris contra C ice ro nem nominare tur .

Tanta in e o vis e st, id acumen, e a concitatio

,ut i l l um e o dem animo dix isse quo

b e l l avit appareat ; e x o rnat tamen hae comu l a mira se rmo nis

,cuius pro pri e

stud io sus fui t,e l egantia . C ic . Brut. 2 5 2

ita indico l l l um omnium fe re o rato rum

Latine l oqui e l egantissime : 26 1 no n

vide o cui de b eat cede re .

p r o p te r . It is no tewo rthy, as d ifi’

e ren

tiating th e usage o f Tacitus from that o fQuinti lian , that While th e latte r constant lyuse s propter in a causal sense , Tacitusalways pre fe rs ob

,e xce pt he re and in

Hist. i . 65 , 3 .

magn itu d in em c o g itatio num . Th e

same phrase is use d in re fe rence to

Cae sar’s ‘ vast de signs ’ by Ve l l e ius, i i .4 1 , 1 .

o ccup ati o n e s r e rum : h is ‘absorptio n

in affairs .

’

Fo r th e gen . cp . Cae s. Be ll .Gall . iv. 16 o ccupationibus re i publicaepro h ib e re tur : ib . 2 2 : C ic . de O r . 1

,

2 1 in h ac tanta o ccupatione urbis ac

vitae .

2 1 . d iv inum e iu s ing e n ium . So

Ve l l e ius,l . c .

, animo supe r h umanam e t

naturam et fi dem e ve ctns.

’

2 2 . B ru tum . Se e o n 17 . 4 . Cp.

Quint . x. 1,1 23 Egregius ve ro mul toque

quam in o rationibus prae stantio r Bru tussuffe cit po nde ri re rum : scias e um sentirequae dicit.

24 . n i s i f o rte : th e o the r alte rnativewo uld invo l ve th e suppo sition that, &c.

DIALOGOS DE ORATORI B US . 59

De cio Samn ite au t B ru t i pro De io taro rege ce te ro sque e iusdem

l e ntitudinis ac tepo ris l ib ros legit, n is i qu i e t ca rmina e o rundem

m iratur . Fe ce runt e nim e t ca rm ina e t inb ib l iothe ca s re ttu l e runt,

non me l ius quam Cice ro,se d fe l ic ius , qu ia il l o s fe cisse paucio re s

Sciunt. A sinius quoque , quamquam pro pio rib us t emporib u s na tu s

sit, v ide t u r m ih i in te r Me ne nio s e t Appio s studuisse . Pacuv ium

ce r te e t Ae ciumnon so lum trago e d iis se d e t iam o ratio nib us suis

e x pre ssit : ad e o durus e t s iccu s e st. O ra t io au t em , sicut corpu s

homin is , e a demum pu l ch ra e st in qua non em ine nt v e nae ne c os sa

nume rantur,se d tempe ratus a c b onu s s augu1s 1mp l e t m emb ra e t

26. tepor is Lipsius, tempor is (per compendia) co dd .

qu ia EV2CADHb : qu i AB .

3 1 . in tragoed i is Ritte r, Halm.

byb l iotecas B (also at 3 7 . 2 8 .

istos AB.

Afte r n isi f orte qu isquam nemo enim) ,n isi qu i fo llows in th e ne xt clause by anegligence fo r which cp . Ann . i i i . 5 7 , 2(n isi ut n is i quad ) . A Simi lar , b utmo re natural, co nstruction o ccurs 3 7 2 2

ne c quisquam po te st nisi quip r o D e c i o Samn i te . Th e spe e ch is

no t known, and th e d ifi’

e rence in th e name

(De cius Samnite s) Shows that it canno thave be en de l ive red , as some e dito rs suppo se , o u behalf o f th e individualmentione din C ic . pro Cl uent. 16 1 (C11 . De cidius

Samnis) .25 . p ro D e i o tar o . Se e Cic. ad Att.xiv. 1 , 2 : Bru t . 2 1 . Th e o ratio n w as

de live red by Brutus in Cae sar’s pre sence ,at N icaea, in B . C . 46 . It ‘ fai led o f its

o bje ct , fo r De io tarus lo st bo th h is titleand mo st o f h is te trarchy : Be l l . Alex . 68 .

e iu sd em l e nti tud in i s , &c. , co rrespo ndingl y ted io us and flat pro ductio ns .

’

F o r l entitud in is cp. l entus e st in principiis22. 1 1 Cic. Brut . 1 78 . te p o r , o f style ,occurs o nly he re .

2 7 . b ib l io th e cas . Th e re fe rence mustb e to private librarie s , whe re th e po ems

in que stio n wo uld find a place owing toth e repu tatio n o f the ir autho rs : th e firstpublic library w as fo unded by Asinius

Po ll io , B . c . 38 .—No th ing is known o f

any po e tical compo sitions by Brutus.

Ce rtain ca rmina are mentioned in co n

ne ction with Cae sar’s name (P l in. N . H .

xix. 8 , b ut w e are to ld by Sue to nius( J ul . l vi . ) that Augustus fo rbade the ircirculatio n in a le tte r to h is chie f librarian ,

Pompe ius Mace r. Cice ro ’

s po e t ical e ffo rtsare be tte r known Quint . x i. 1

,24 In

carminibus utinam pe pe rcisset, quae non

de sie runt carpe re maligni : cedant arma

2 7 . bibl iotb ecas ADC ,

i l l os mo st co dd .

to gae , co ncedat l aure a l inguae ,’e t o fo r

tunatam natam me consul e Romam

29 . A s in iu s . Se e 12. ad fin . Fo r

Po l l io’

s po e try , cp . Ve rg . Ecl . vii i . 10

So la Soph o cl e o tua carmina d igna co

th urno : i i i . 86 Po l lio et ipse faci t no vacarmina : Ho r. Sat. i 10

, 4 2 .

30 . M e n e n i o s Ap p i o s . Th e re

fe rence is to Menenius Agrippa (17 . 2 )and to Appius Claud ius Cae cus (18 .

stu dui s s e ,abso lute , as at 32. 8 , and

3 4. 10 : and frequently in Quint ilian . Cp .

studiosorum,abo ve .

3 2 . e x p re ss i t : se e o n 20. 1 1 . Fo r

th e judgment he re expre sse d cp . Quint . x .1,1 1 3 a nito re e t incunditate Cice ro nis ita

longe ab e st nt vide ri po ssit sae cu l o prio r.d uru s e t s i ccu s ,

‘ hard and dry.

’

Durus is th e so rt o f e pithe t (Cp. asper )that might b e applied to a man w h o h as

no‘Sense o f style .

’

Siccus aridus,ie iunus , e x il is, wizened cp . Cic. Brut .5 2 8 5 ie iunitatem e t siccitatem e t in~

Opiam . In Brut . 20 2 s iccus is used in

a go o d sense so lid ,’ ‘ wiry ’= aptus ,pre ssas) n ih i l nisi siccum atque sanum

cp . de Sene ct. 34 : Quint . ii . 4 , 6 .

3 3 . o ssa , as in line 4 , abo ve . F o r th e

figure , cp . Quint . v. 1 2 , 6 plus h ab e b untde co ris (sc . argumenta ) Si non nudo s e t

ve l ut carne spo l iato s artus o stende rint.34 . temp e ratus ,

‘Sound ,

’ ‘ we ll-tempe re d .

’

san gu i s . Quint. x. 1 , 5 60 (o f Archilo chus) pl urimum sanguinis atque ne r

vo rum : i h . 1 1 5 2 , 1 2 minus sanguinisac virium : Cic. Or. 76 non

plurimi

sanguinis e st,‘no t full-blo o ded . Fo r

cognate me tapho rs se e N'

age l sbach , 136,

4. pa 556-8 .

60 CORNELI I TACI TI

e x surgit toris ipso sque nervos rub o r tegit e t decor commendat.

N o lo Co rv inum insequ i, quia non pe r ipsum ste tit quo m inus

l ae titiam nito remque no stro rum temporum e x prime re t ; v idemus

e n im quam iud icio e iu s v is aut anim i aut inge n ii suffe ce rit.

22 . Ad C ice ro nem v e nio, cui e ad em pugna cum aequal ib us

su i s fuit quae m ih i vob iscum e st. I l l i e n im antiquo s mirab antur ,

ipse snorum temporum e l o que ntiam ante po ne b at ; ne c u l la re

magis e iusdem ae tatis o rato re s prae currit qu am iudic io . P rimus

5 enim e x co l uit o ratio nem , p rimus e t ve rb i s de l e ctum adh ib uit e t

35 . rubare ADC . 36 . qu ia non EVQCAD , qu ia necAB (qu ia nuper

37 . v idemus en im quam Jo hn v ider imus inquam ABCADH ,v ider imus i n quantum

EV2 : et v idemus in quantum (0p . 2. 13) Acidal ius , Halm ,Mii l l e r (fo r ne t et

cp . 2. 10 33 . v idemus en im in quantum Baeh rens , uberr imus in quantum

sufi cit He umann . Some w h o re ad n ec e xplain it as= ue qu idem (se e Intro d. p . lv111) .22 . 4 . e iusdem aetatis aratores EVQCADH, aratores aetatis e iusdem AB .

35 . e x surg it to r i s ,‘make s th e muscle s

swe l l o ut caree rs ’

o r‘ re ve ls ’

o ve rthem .

n e r vo s , ‘sinews ’

Se e Mayo r o n Cic.

de Nat. De o r. ii . 1 36 . Tr. ‘ whi le th e

sinews to o Show a ruddy complexio n and

a grace fu l o utline .

’

36. C o rv inum . Se e o n 12. ad fin .

n o n p e r ip sum ste tit qu o m inu s .

Cp . Livy vi . 33, 2 nihi l pe r al te ro s stare ,quo m inus incepta perseque re ntur : ix .14 , 1 Pl in . Ep . vi. 34 , 3 quod quo

minus e x h ib e re s, non pe r te ste tit.

37 . l ae ti tiam n i to r emqu e . The re isa Similar co l lo cation o f l aetus and n itidus

as e pithe ts o f style in C ic . de Or. 1 5 8 1cp . Or . 36. F o r l aetitia fl o w e rine ss

,

’

luxuriance se e on 20. 9 .

38 . qu am . Tr . h o w inadequate ly h iscritical faculty w as suppo rted by imaginative o r cre ative abili ty. ’ So virib us

mino r ’ Quint . x . 1,1 13 (quo ted o n 18 .

1 2) Cp . abo ve , Cal vum inte l l e x isse quo d

me lius e sse t, ne c vo l untatem ci sed

ingenium ac vire s de fuisse . Fo r quam ,

fo l lowing v ideo, cp . Cic . de 01 . ii . 5 1 80

vide quam Sim,inquit, deus in isto gene re :

i ii . 5 5 1 atqui vide s, inquit Antonius ,quam alias re s agamus.

iu d ic i o is he re powe r o f disce rnment,’

rathe r than taste (1. 9 , 22.

22 . 1 . p ugna cum ae qu al i b u s su is .

The se we re th e Atticists,—Calvus, Brutus,Cae l ius

,and th e tw o Asinii : cp . o n ob

trectator es 18 . 19 : Quint. xii . 10, 1 2

14 . In TacituS’

S ow n day, a ce rtainLargius Licinus repeated th e criticismso f Asinius Gal lus in a wo rk entitled

Ciceromastix : cp. Au l . Ge l l . xv11. 1 , I

no nnulli tam pro digi o si tamque vae co rde s

e x stite runt in quibus sunt Gallus Asiniuse tLargius Licinus, cuius libe r e tiam fe rturinfando titulo Cice romastix ,

’

ut scrib e re

ausi sint M . Cice ro nem parum inte greatque impro prie atque inconside ratel o cutum .

4 . e iu sd em ae tati s o rato r e s . Th e

o ri gin o f th e variant o rato re s aetatis

e iusdem’

(ado pte d by Halm) se ems to

have be en that (owing to a Similarity inth e compend ia) e ithe r aetatis o r aratores

w as omitted from th e text and writte n inabo ve th e line . The se tw o wo rds musthave sto o d ne xt e ach o the r in th e o riginal .I f arator es Slipped o ut, and w as afte rwardsinse rted, w e Sho u ld have h ad e ithe r e ius

dem ae tatis o rato re s o r o rato re s e iusdem

aetatis i f aetatis , then e iusdem ae tatis

o rato re s.

’ Mo re o ve r Gudeman po ints o utthat o ut o f ne arly 500 e xample s inTacitus o f an attributive use o f idem o r

its infle cted fo rms,it is placed a fte r its

no un in b utfi ve passage s, and these o nlyin h is late st wo rk . Cp . Ann . ii . 14 , 1 no x

e adem : x iv. 9 , 3 no cte e adem : xiii . 1 7 , 1no x e adem ne cem : i i i . 69 , 2 1 viro quondam o rdinis e iusdem v i. 3 2 , 1 2 Tiridaten

sanguinis e iusdem aemul um .

’Aga in ,

‘ in

Tacitus e iusdem w ith its substantive invariabl y pre cede s th e no un upon whichit de pe nds, e xcept Ann. i ii . 69 , 2 1 citedabo ve .

’

iud ic io , ‘ taste .

’

So at 1. 9 , 20. 20.

5 . e x co l ui t o rati o n em , gave a finishto style .

’

Cp. th e use o f cu l tus : po lish .

’

v e rb i s comp o s iti oni . Cp. 21. 1 7 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

6 2 CORNELI I TACI TI

re fe rre po ssis , e t ve l ut in rud i ae dificio , fi rmus sa’

ne p arie s e t

15 duraturus,se d non sa t is e x po l itus e t sp le nd e ns . Ego au tem

o rato rem , sie ut l o cupl e tem ac lantum patrem fam il iae , non e o

t antum vo lo t e cto tegi quod imb rem ac ve n tam arce at, se d e t iam

quod visum e t o cu l o s de l e cte t non e a so lum ins t ru i supe l le ctile

quae ne ce ssariis usib us sufii ciat, se d sit in apparatu e ius e t au rum

2 0 e t gemmae , ut sume re in manus e t aspice re saepius l ib e at.

Qua e dam ve ro pro e nl arce antur ut iam o b l itte rata e t inso l e ntia

nu l lum Sit v e rb um v e l ut rub igine infe c t um ,nu l li s e nsu s tard a e t

ine r ti stru ctu ra in morem annal ium compo nantur : fugite t fo e dam

16 . l autum Lipsius, l audatum co dd . 1 8 . supe l l ecti l e ABEV2H ,-i CAD .

1 9 . sed sit co dd . , sed esse N o vak . 20 . ut EVzCAD (aut HSp . et AB . l ibeat

Agrico la, l iceat co dd . 2 1 . arceantur Lipsius, arcentu r co dd . inso l entia 1S myco nj . (fo r th e omissio n o f i ,

n cp. o l entia co dd . , Halm ,Mulle r , antiqu itatem

o l entia Andre sen , ex o l eta Acidal ius (Sen . Ep. 1 14 . 10‘antiqua ve rba atqu e e x o l e ta

obso l eta Wo lff,Gudeman (C ic . de Or. i i i . 33 , 1 50 : in Ve rr. i . 1 , 3 1 , 56 : Quint . iv.

1,

2 2 . ve l utRh enanus, ve l co dd. 23 . f ugi tet, ABEVzA ,f ug iet CD,

f ugi at HV and e dd . vett.

emicantibus similia . F o r th e mo re gene ralsense o f l umina th e fo l lowing passage smay b e added : ad He re nn . iv . 2 3 l n-r

m inibus d istinctis il l ustrab imus o ratio nemC ic . de O r. i i i . 96 sint quasi in o rnatu

d l spo sita quaedam insignia e t lumina ;cp . ib . i i . 36 sunt e nim (lum ina ) Sim i liai llis quae in amplo o rnatu scae nae ant

fo ri appe l l antur insignia, no n quia so lao rnent , sed quo d e xce llant , Or. 1 34

(whe re se e Dr. Sandys’ no te s) . Qu itete chn ically l umina =figu rae, e . g. Bru t .2 7 5 lum ina quae vo cant Grae ci 0x 17

par a : de 01 . i ii . 5 20 1 e st quasi l n

m inibus d istinguenda e t fre quentanda

o mnis o rat io sententiarum atque ve r

bo rum .

1 3 . te rm in an tu r . Cic . Or . § 199 p l e ri

que enim censent cade re tantum nume ro seo po rte re te rminarique sente ntiam . Cp.

to o Quin t . viii . 5 , 1 3 se d nunc al iud vo l unt,ut omnis lo cus

,omnis sensus in fi ne ser

mon is fe riat aurem . This is what Sene came ans when h e says (Ep . 100 , 7 ) omniaapud Cice ronem de sinunt, apud Po l l ionemcadunt.

’

14 r e f e r r e,cp . re fe rre domum 20. 1 3 .

1 5 . d ur atu ru s . Th e fut. part . is

graph ically emplo yed by Tacitus , e . g .

Hist . i i . 49 , 2 1 sepu l ch rum mo d icume t mansurum : Ann. iv . 38 , 7 h ae pulch e rrimae e ffigie s e t mansurae . Cp . o n

mansurum 9 . 2 2 .

16 . l o cu p l e tem p atr em fam i l iae,

a

we l l—to -do ho useho lde r.’ Lautus carri e sw ith i t th e same ide a as e l egans ,

— o f o ne

w h o knows h ow to furnish wi th taste .

The re is a somewhat Similar figure inCic. de Or . 1 , 16 1 .

2 1 . o b l itte rata : cp. 8 . 3 remo tis e t

o b l itte ratis e x empl is .

in s o l e ntia : contrary to o rd inary o r

appro ved usage C ic. Brut . 5 2 74 ne c ve rou llum ant durum aut inso l ens (ve rbum )O r. 26 nul lum ve rbum inso l ens , nu llumo dio sum Quint . iv. 1

, 58 e x prae ceptis

ve te ribus mane t ne quo d inso l e ns ve rbum,

ne audacius transl atum , me aut o bso le tave tustate aut po e tica l icentia sumptum in

principio d epre h endatur . Au l . Ge ll . i . 10ut tamquam sco pulum Sic fugias inauditum

atque inso l ens ve rbum . [This co nj e c tureh as

,I find

,be en anticipated by Co rne lis

sen ih Mnemo syne , xii i. p . 260 : h e cite sGe l l . x i . 7 ve rbis uti aut n imis o b so l e tis,e x cul catisque ant inso l entibus .]

2 2 . tard a e t in e r t i , ‘ lame and stiffcp. Quint . ix . 4, 1 3 7 tarda e t supina (se .

compo sitio ) .2 3 . in m o r em ann a l ium

,

‘ in th e

style o f a chro nicle r cp . C ic . de Or. i i .5 2

-3 ; de Legg . i . 6 sq. Othe rs take

i t le ss pro bably as re fe rring to th e d iff erence s be twe en th e h isto rical styl e generally and that o f o rato ry : se e Quint. x.3 1—3 2 , with th e no te s.

DIAL 0Gvs DE ORATORIB US . 63

e t insu l sam scurril itatem , varie t compo s itio nem, ne c omne s

c lausu las uno e t e o dem modo d e te rm ine t.

23 . No lo inrid e re r o t a m F o rtu n a e e t i u s v e rr in um e t

il l ud te r t io quoque s e nsu in omn ib us o ratio nib us pro se nte n t i a

pos itum e s s e v i d e a t u r . Nam e t hae c inv itus re ttu l i e t pl ura

omis i, quae tame n sol a m irantur a tque e x primunt ii qu i se

antiquo s o rato re s vo cant. Neminem nominab o , ge nus h ominum 5

S ignifi casse co ntentus ; se d vob is u t iqu e v e rsantur an te o cu l o s

isti qu i Lucil ium pro Horat io e t Lucre tium pro Ve rgil io l egunt,

2 5 . te rminet Lipsius .

23 . 1 . verr inum EV2CADH ,vetrinum AB . 3 . inv itus B co rr . , inv itatus

codd . 5 . vacant Lipsius , vocitant Sch urzfl e isch , vocabant codd. 7 . isti ABDE(om. CH and e dd . vett. : de l . b ) : i l l i Halm .

24 . Simil ar cau tio ns are given in C ic . de Or . ii .5 237 sqq. ne quid insulse ne aut

scurril is i o cus S it aut m imicus (5scurril is o rato ri dicacitas magno o pe refugienda e st tempo ris igitur ratioe t ipsius d icacitatis mo de ratio e t tem

pe rantia e t rari tas dicto rum distingue t

o rato rem a scurra ( 5 cp . Or.8 8 , and Quint . vi . 3 , 29 .

v ar i e t c omp o s iti o n em ,Th e charge

against Cice ro w as that h e negle cte d to

do this : Sen . Ep . 100, § 7 Lege Cicero nem : compo sitio e ius una e st

,pedem

se rvat lenta et Sine infamia mo l lis .

25 . c lau su las d e te rm in e t, i . e .

h e is to avo id a mo no to no usly un ifo rmrhythmical Se e o n this passagede Or . i i i . 19 2 sq. whe re C ice ro , spe aking o f clausulae says ‘ in o ratione pauc iprimum cemunt, po strema pl e rique quae

quoniam apparen t e t inte l l eguntur , varianda sunt

,n e aut animo rum iudiciis re

pudientur'

aut aurium satie tate .

’

Cp.

( bo th fo r clausulae and fo r varie ty o frhythm gene rally ) Or. 2 1 2—2 20 . So

again o f Cice ro , Se ne ca Ep . 1 14 , 5 16

quid illa in e x itu le nta (sc . compo sitio ) ,qual is C ice ro nis e st, de v e x a e t mo l lite rd e tinens ne c alite r quam so le t , ad mo remsuum pe demque re spondens

'z Fo r nec

determinet,se e o n nec experiar ,

13 ad fin .

23 . 1 . ro tam F o rtun ae . Th e re ference is to in Pis . 2 2 in quo cum i l l um

sal tato rium ve rsare t o rb em, ne tum

quidem Fo rtunae ro tam pe rtime sce b at.

Cp. Tibul l . i. 5 , 70 ve rsatur ce le ri Fo rsl e vis o rbe to tae .

ius v e rr inum,

‘sance fo r po rk ’

o r

2‘ Ve rrine l aw . Th e passage o ccurs in

Ve rr. i . 1 , 1 2 1 H inc i lli hom ine s e rant

qui e tiam rid icul i invenie b antur e x do lo re .

Quo rum ali i , id quo d sae pe audistis, negabant mirandum e sse ins tam neqnam e sse

ve rrinum . Ape r m ight have said thatCice ro d id no t claim th e auth o rship o f

th is de plo rable pun cp. Quint . vi. 3 , 42 . i l l u d te r t i o qu o qu e s e n su

p o s i tum , th e sto ck ending o f e ve ry o the rsente nce .

’

Fo r sensus,se e o n 20. 16 .

p r o s e n te n t ia : inste ad o f a po inted ,e pigrammatic utte rance

,the re is o nly th e

j ingle o f esse v ideatu r . Cp. cum luminequo dam, 22. 1 3 . In th e same w ay Quint i lian

,Spe aking o f tho se w h o she lte r

themse lve s unde r th e name o f Cice ro ,says

(x. 2,1 7

‘o tio si e t supini

,Si quid

mo do l ongius circumdux e runt, iurant itaC ice ro nem l o cutumm fu isse . No ve ram

quo sdam qui se pul ch re e x pre ss isse ge nusi l l ud cae l e stis h uius in d icendo viri sib ivide rentur, Si in clausula po suissent esse

v ideatu r .

’

4 . e Xp r imunt, re pro duce as at

20. 1 1 21. ad fin . Inste ad o f th e re ad ingin th e text, imitantu r atqu e exprimunt

h as be en sugge sted (Co rne l issen) cp .

C ic . Or . 19 de Or. i i . 5 90 .

5 . an ti qu o s , o f th e go o d o l d scho o l .6 . s i gn i fi cas s e . Fo r this infin. afte r

contentus,se e o n probasse 18 . 13 .

u t iqu e , o f co urse ,’

anyho w,

case l

7 . L u c i l ium p r o H o rat i o . Cp .

Quint . x . 1 , 93 Luci lius quo sdam ita

de d ito s sibi adh uc habe t amato re s ut e uruno n e iusdem mo do o pe ris aucto ribus sed

omnibus po e t is prae fe rre no n dub itent.

Lu cr e tium p r o V e rg i li o . In Quin

64 CORNELI I TACI TI

qu ib us e l o quentia Aufi d i Bas si aut Se rvil ii No niani e x compa ra

tione Sise nnae aut Varro nis sord e t, qui rh e to rum no stro rum

10 comme ntario s fastidiunt e t o de runt,Ca l v i m irantur. Quos more

p ris co apud iudicem fab u l ante s no n aud it o re s sequun tu r , non

popu lu s aud it, v ix d en ique l i t igato r pe rpe titur : ad e o mae sti e t

incu lti i l l am ipsam quam iactant sanitatem non fi rmitate , se d

8 . tu ifi di co dd . 10. f astidiunt et ode runt Baeh rens, Wo lff. Th e omissiono f th e co pula in th e MSS . (exce pt B h as l e d o the rs to suspe ct a glo ss :f astidiunt [oderunt] Heumann , Halm,

Mulle r. 13 . nonfi rmitate Acidal ius,z'

n/Zrmitatem DCH Sp . infi rm itatemque AB.

til ian’

s surve y o f Roman l ite rature , Lncre t ins is named , no t along w i th Ve rgil

,

b ut with Aem il ius Mace r, x . 1, 8 7 , and

that in a w ay which re ve als a ve ry inadequate appre ciation o f h is po e t ical genius.

8 . e l o qu en tia , he re o f pro se style(tho ugh Se rvi l ius w as a rhe to rician as

we l l as a histo rian) cp . 4. 10 ; 10. 1 3 .

Au fi d iu s B as su s wro te a histo ry whichpro bably ended with th e re ign o f Claud ins, whe re Pliny th e Elde r to o k it up :

N . H . prae f . 20 d ix imus tempo rumno stro rum h isto riam , o rsi a fine Aufidii

Bassi . S e rv i l iu s N o n ianu s is said inAnn . xiv. 19 , whe re h is de ath (A . D . 60)is mentioned alo ng with that o f DomitiusAfe r, to have rival led Afe r’s abilitie s and

surpasse d h is mo rals . Quintilian characterize s th e tw o toge the r x . 1 , 102—103 e t

ipse (Se rvil ius ) a no bis auditus e st clarusv i ingeni i e t se ntentiis crebe r, se d minuspre ssus quam h isto riae aucto ritas po stulat .Quam paul um aetate prae ce dens eum

Bassus Aufidius egregie , utique in l ibrisbe lli Ge rman ici , prae stitit ge ne re ipso ,pro b ab i l is in omnibus , se d in quibusdamsuis ipse virib us mino r.e x c omp aratio n e ,

Liv. xxiv. 48, 2 xx11.8 , 2 . F o r th e b rach yo l o gy, cp. H ist. i.30, 1 neque enim re l atu virtutum in com

paratione Oth o nis e st. Se e also ch . 1 . ad fin .

9 . S i se nn a,L . Co rne lius (B . C . 1 20—6 7 )

is mentio ned in th e Brutus (5 2 28 ) as

do ctus vir e tstudiis o ptimis de d itus, beneLatine l o quens

’

o f h is h isto ry C ice rosays, cum facile omne s vincat supe rio re s

,

tum indicat tamen quantum absit a

summo quamque genus h o c scriptio nis

no ndum sit satis Latinis l itte ris in l us

tratum .

’Cp . Sall. Iug . x cv . 2 L. Sisenna

o ptume e t d i l igentissume omnium qui e as

(Sullac ) re s dix e re pe rse cutus , parumm ihi libe ro o re l o cutus vide tur. I t ispe rhaps a furthe r co nfirmation o f th e

emendat io n inso l entia pro po sed abo ve

that Sisenna is de scribe d (Brut . 259) asemendato r se rmo nis usi tat i ne a

C . Rusio quidem accusato re de te rre ri

po tuit quominus inusitatis ve rbis ute

retur’

and be low, ‘ re cte l oqui putab ate sse inusitate l oqui .

’

Varr o n i s . Be side s vari o us o the rwo rks Varro wro te Antiqu itates re rum

b umanarum et div inarum in fo rty-o nebo o ks, do Vita Popu l i Roman i in fo urbo o ks, and Anna/es in thre e bo oks.Quintilian calls h im ‘

v ir Romano rum

e ruditissimus ,’and adds : ‘

p l urimo s h ic

l ibro s e t do ctissimo s compo sa it, pe ritissimus l inguae Latinae e t omnis ant iquitatis et re rum G rae carum no strarum

que , plus tamea scientiae co l l aturus quam

e l oquentiae ,’ x . 1 , 9 5 .

s o rd e t. Cp . Ho r. Ep. i . 1 1, 4 Cum

tane prae Campo e t Tibe rino flumine

so rdent : Ve rg . Ecl . 11. 44 so rdent tibimune ra no stra : Quint . viii . pr . 26

quibus so rde t omne quo d natura dictavit.10 . c omm e n tar i o s , as at 26 . 1 1

,

l ibro s, ‘ wri tten Spe e che s.

’In th e case

o f th e ‘rh eto re s,

’ the se would b e mo de lo rations

,published fo r th e use o f pupils .

f asti d iun t e t o d e runt. Th e same

combination o ccurs H o r. Ep. ii . 1,2 2

,

fastidit et o dit : cp . Quint. x i . 1 . 1 5adfe rtque audientib us non fastidium mo do ,sed pl e rumque e tiam o dium .

1 1 . fab u l ante s , contemptuo usly‘ while they are pro sing away .

’

Cp.

n o n s e quuntur , i . e . the y l o se al l

inte re st in th e pe rfo rmance , and th e

gene ral public pays no he ed . So Cice ro ,

Spe aking o f th e Atticists (Brut . at

cum ist i Attici d icunt,no n mo do a co rona ,

quo d e st ipsum mise rabile , se d e tiam ab

advo catis re l inquuntur.

’

1 2 . m ae sti,d ismal

,

’

th e o ppo site o f

l ae ti se e o n l aetitia , 20. 9 .

13 . n o n fi rm itate, &c. It is not the ir

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

66 CORNELI I TACI TI

5 arte ab ipsis mutuatus e st pe r quae mo x ipso s ince sse re t ! Tuum

tame n , Me ssal l a , promissum immutas se non d e b e t .’

Ne que e nim

d e fe nso rem antiquo rum e x igimus ne c quemquam nos t rum ,

quamquam modo l audati sumus,l l S quos inse ctatus e st Ape r

comparamus . A c ne ip se quid em ita se ntit, se d more ve te re e t

10 a no stris ph il o so ph is sae pe ce l e b rato ‘sumps it s ib i c ontra d ice nd i

par te s . Igit u r e x prome nob is no n l audatio nem antiquo rum

(s atis e n im i l l o s fama sua laudat), s e d cau sa s cur in tantum ab

e l o que ntia e o rum re ce sse rimus, cum p rae se r t im ce ntum e t

v iginti anuo s ab inte ritu Cice ro nis in hune d iem e ffi ci ra t io

1 5 tempo rum co l l ege rit.

’

24 . 5 . ipsis co dd . , i l l is Halm . 7 . nostrum Acidal ius,nostrorum co dd. 8 . quos

insectatus estABEV2H

, quos modo insectatus est CA . 9 . veter e Ritte r , ve l cr i co dd .

10 . nostr is ABH, vestr is CDEV2 , vete r i bus N ippe rdey. 1 2 . in tantum EVQCADH

tantum AB . 1 3 . recesser imus EVZDH and co rr. C , r ecessimus AB . 14. af ie ide l . Ro e rsch , No vak. 1 5 . co l l igitur CDA .

which e dito rs po int to be twe en the sewo rds and mutuatus est is hard ly no ticeable . Ape r h ad shown no t o nly geniusand inspiration, ’ b ut also ‘ l e arning and

Skill ,’ in th e w ay in wh ich h e h ad p l unde red , as i t we re , th e armo ury o f th e

o rato rs o f fo rme r days, and turned the iro wn artille ry to be ar o n th e antiqu i .

’

This acco unts fo r th e emphatic repe tit io nipsis ipsos : it is pre cise ly against tho seto whom (whi le d isparaging them) h e isinde b ted fo r h is o rato rical gifts that Ape rh as d ire cted h is attack . Cp. Cic . de F in .

i . 69 ut ipsi am ici pro pte r se ipso samentur . Mii l l e r quo te s Pliu . N . H . 1 3 ,

5 8 nam e t ipsa cand ice ipso fe rt pomum :

2 1,20 (semen) in ipso co rt ice e st, sub ipso

fl o re .

4 . e ru d iti o n e . Cp . 2. 14 . Ape r omnie ruditione imb utus contemne bat po tinsl itte ras quam ne scie b at.

6 . p r om i ssum . Se e 16 . 5 . Th e wo rdis o f co urse in th e accusative : ‘ Ape rmust no t b e al lowed to make yo u tumyo ur back o n yo ur promise .

’

Th e pe rfe ctinfin. (immutasse ) indicate s that th e actio nis already finished : D r

. 5 _1 50.

9 . A c n o i p s e qu i d em ita s entit.

So 15 . 9, whe re Me ssal l a says ‘neque

te ipsum, Ape r, quanquam inte rdum in

contrarium d ispute s, alite r sentire credo .

’

m o r e v e t e r e e t a n o str i s p h i l o

s o p h i s . He re et= and al so : tr. ‘ in con

fo rmity with an ancient usage , and o ne

much in vogue wi th th e phi lo so phe rs o f

th e pre sent day.

’

M or e vetere re fe rs , o f

co urse , to th e Gre eks , no tably th e Sto icsand th e N ew Academy. So C rassus, inth e de Oratore , addre ssing Anto nius

h and scio an alite r sentias et utare tua

i lla mirifi ca ad re fe l l endum consue tudinecu ius facul tatis e x e rcitatio

iam in ph i l o soph o rum co nsue tud ine ve r

satur , max imeque e o rum qui de omni repro po sita in utramque partem so lentcopio sissime d ice re

,i . 5 263 .

-Fo r vete re

(as against th e MS . ve l cr i ) cp. Sirke r,Tacite isch e Fo rmenlehre , p . 36 .

1 1 . e x p r om e,

‘Setbe fo re us. ’ Cp . C ic.

Bru t . 2 5 laudare igitur e l o quentiam e t

quanta vis Sit e ius e x promere set fo rthAnn. x ii . 9 , 2 xiii . 49 , 9 .

13 . cum p r ae se r t im quamv is , o r

idqu e cum tamen ,

‘and that tho ugh ,’

th o ugh inde ed ,’ ‘ which is al l th e mo reremarkable

,conside ring that

,

’

&c . Se e

no te o n Quintil ian x . 1 , 105 .

c e n tum e t v i g inti . Tr. ‘ th o ughchrono lo gy pro ve s that from th e deatho f C ice ro to th e pre sent day is an inte rvalo f no t mo re than 1 20 ye ars.’ Fo r th e

ple onasm, cp . 16 . 2 5 : ann i ratione

efi iciantur o r co l l zgantur (as 17 16) wo uldhave be en mo re regular. Co l l zge r e he rerathe r concl udere than computar e .

-Th e

repe titio n o f th e figure centum ct v igi nti

(17 . 1 5) is an impo rtant e lement in th e

que stion discusse d in Intro d. pp.

,

x ii-x iv.

DIAL OGUS DE ORATORIE as . 6 7

25 . Tum Me ssal l a :‘ Sequar prae scriptam a te

,M a t e rne

,

formam ; nequ e e n im diu con t ra d ice ndurn e st Ap ro , qu i

primum ,ut o pino r, nom in is co ntro ve rsiam mo v it

,tamquam

pa rum p roprie an t iqu i vo care ntur quos s a tis cons t at an te ce nt um

anno s fuisse . M ih i au tem d e vo cab ul o pugna non e st Sive il l o s 5

antiquo s Sive ma iore s Sive quo a l io mavu l t nomine appe l l e t, dum

modo in confe s so Sit emine ntio rem i l l o rum temporum e l oque n

tiam fu is se . N e i l li qu idem par t i se rmo nis e iu s re pugno in qua

n imirum fate tur p l ure s formas d ice nd i e t iam isdem sae cul is ,

ne dum d ive rSiS e x titisse . Se d quo modo inter Attico s o rato re s

p rimae Demo sth e ni tribuuntur, pro x imum [autem] locum

25 . 1 . praescr iptam a te ABD,ctprescr iptam E, p erse r iptam cl C , praescr iptam et

V2A ,a te praescr iptam HSp . e dd . vett. 4 . constat ABDH , consta ret ECA ,

constar e V2. 8 . in qua n imirum is my co nj . si caminus (comminus) co dd . , si qua

minus Hb VSp . (cp. commoda fo r quomodo , 36 . Amo ng o the r conjj . are qua quasiconv ictus Halm , qua quas i comm inus u rsus , M iil l e r (Cic . de D iv . i i . si inv itus

He l le r. O the rs Simply quaf atetur , o r quomi :nusf atear EV2 gi ve f ateor fo rf ateturJo hn suppo rts th e MS. reading si cominus : se e Intro d . p . l x i, no te . 1 1 . [autem]Ritte r .

C h s . 25—26 . F irstpart of M essa l l a’s

spe ecb . He r ep l ies to Aper , and br i eflycharacter izes tb c po ints in w b icb contem

porary r b etor ic d iffers f rom tb c e l oquence

of f ormer times.

25 . 1 . p r ae scr ip tam f o rmam ,

th e dire ctio n yo u have laid down fo r me .

’

F orma is he re th e ‘o utline ’

ske tched byMate rnus : ratio disputatio nis ,

’ G . and G .

Andre sen cite s Ann. xii i . 4 , 6 fo rmamfuturi principatus prae scripsit.

2 . d iu multis ve rbis, as 11. 3 . Cp .

Ann . vi . 2 7 , 15 neque no b il itas diutius

demonstranda e st : iv. 69, 10 : xii . 6 , 4 :vi . 49 , 8 : Hist . i . 16

,2 1 mo ue re diutius

neque tempo ris h uius ,‘

s 8cc .

3 . n om i n i s c o ntr o v e r s iam , as o ftenverb i controve rsia in Cice ro (e . g . de Or. i .

a ve rbal d ispute .

’

Quint . vii i .3 , 7 dive rsnm e st genus cum co ntro ve rsiaco nsistit in nomine .

tamqu am ,

‘alleging that, ’ ‘

on th e

ground that.’ Cp . 2. 2 , 15 10. 2 7 .

4 . ante c e n tum ann o s . Me ssal l a

pre fe rs a ro und numbe r, as sufficient fo rh is purpo se .

5 . d e v o cab u l o . N ih il enim re fe rt

quomo do appe l l e tur ne c mutaturvo cab ul is vis re rum, Quint . ix . 1 , 7 .

6 . ap p e l l e t, co nce ssive subjunctive , no tdepending o n sive .

7 . in co n f e ss o s it : 27 . 3. No vak cite sthis phrase from Quint. Decl . (ed . Ritte r )

F

1 34 , 1 ; 2 16, 26 ; 2 24, 4 ; Cp . in

med ia, 18 . 3 (Ro by, 1 97 5 Pe rhapsth e n e are st Tacite an analo gy to in conf essoi s Hist . i . 78 , 1 3 ipse in suspensa tenu i t0p . Agric. i . 6 age re d igna memo ratu

pronum magisque in ape rto e rat , in occu l to

(Ann . i . 49 , 5 and o ften ) , and mo st frequently o f al l in incer ta. D r

. 80 .

8 . i l l i p arti s e rm o n i s . Se e e sp . 18 . 14in i llis quoque quo s vo catis antiquo s pl ure sspe cie s depreh endi , ne c statim de te rius

e sse quo d d ive rsnm e st : cp . 21. 14 sqq.

in qu a n im i rum f ate tu r ,‘ whe re o f

course h e h as to admit . ’ M ii l l e r’s ingenio usre ading qua quasi comminus n isus is suppo rted by th e re fe rence to 18 . 6 age reenim fo rtins iam e t audentius vo lo . But i tis against i t that o n such an inte rpre tationf atetur must= pro fite tur (17 . It is o nth e admiss ion made by Ape r that Me ssal l a

se ems to found h is argume nt fo r th e preem inence o f th e Cice ro nian age .

9 . e t iam n e dum :‘

e ven muchmo re .

’Cp. Ann . xv. 59 , 6 e tiam fo rte s

viro s sub itis te rre ri ne dum i lle scaenicus

arma contra cie ret : xii i . 20,1 5 sed

cuicnnque , ne dum parent i de fensio nemtrib uendam : Hist . iii . 66 , 14.

10 . qu o m o d o s ic . So 36 . 33 ;

Quintilian o fte n h as quemad modum sic : se e o n x . 5 . 17 .

1 1 . p r imae, Sc. parte s. So Ann . x iv . 2 1 ,

2 1 e l oquentiae prtmas nemo tulit,which

68 CORNEL I I TA CI TI

A e s ch ine s e tHype ride s e t Lys ia s e tLycurgus o b tine nt, omn ium

autem co nce ssu hae c o rato rum aeta s max ime pro batur, S ic apud

nos Cice ro qu idem ce te ro s e o rundem temporum dise rtos ante

ce ssit,Ca lvus au tem e t Asinius e t Cae sa r e t Cae l ius e t B ru tu s

iure e t prio rib us e t se que ntib us ante po nuntur.

inte r se spe cie d iffe runt, cum ge ne re co nsentiant.

Ne c re fe rt quo d

Adstrictio r

Ca lvus,nume ro sio r A sinius , sp l endidio r Caesar, amario r Cae l ius,

16 . iu r e edd . , si uere1 3 . consensu HV2 Put. and e dd . sic Eb , sicut cett. co dd .

cod d. ,sic u iraH (sua iur e Lipsius) . 1 7 . dzfi

’

e runtHalm, difierant co dd . Adstr ictior

Acidal ius, at (aut) str ictior co dd .

re calls r pm-67a (pe

’

pe o oar : cp. C ic. Brut .5 18 3 primas fe rre . Othe rwise th e phrasewo uld se em to have be en bo rrowed fromth e the atre : primas age re , Brut . 308 :

H o r. Sat. i . 9 . 46 . Cp. Cic. Or. 1 8 cui

(Pe ricl i) primae Sine contro ve rsia de fe rebantur : Brut . 84 ; ad Att. i . 1 7 , 5 .

Ly s ias . Usene r pro po sed to e x

e l ude et Lysias b ut Lysias is quite as

much in place he re as in th e paralle lenume ratio n in Quint i lian x. 1 , 78 , whe re ,howe ve r, th e fact is indicated that h eflo urished some ye ars be fo re th e o the rsh is ae tate maio r Lysias, &c .

1 3 . co n ce s su . So Ann . iii . 6 1 , 9 ;x 1l . 44, 4 : Cic. Brut . 5 84 ipso rum inte ripso s co nce ssu ,

by the ir mutual adm issi on

’

: conce ssu omnium, pro Cae l . 28 .

h ae c o r ato rum ae tas . Cp . Quint . x.1, 76 ut cum de cem simul Ath enis ae tas

una tul e rit, with th e no te s ad l o c. C ic.

Brut . 36 hae c enim ae tas e ffudit hancco piam . Ge rbe r and G re e f take th e e x

pre ssio n as ho rum o rato rum ae tas , and

re fe r to 20. 20 no stro rum o rato rum ae tascp . also in ca tragoediae argumento , 2. 4 .

14 . C ic e ro an te ce ss i t. Cp . Quintil ian

’

s eulo gy, x . 1,105 sq . : ab b omin i

b us ae tatis suae regnare in iudic11s dictuse st, 1 1 2 . Fo r th e accus . afte r antecessit,cp. prae curre re , 20. 5 Ge rm . xliii, 19 .

16 . qu o d ,

‘ that ’ cp. Pl in . Ep . x . 30ne c enim multum inte re st quo d nondum

distrib uti sunt1 7 . sp e c i e g e n e r e : Quint. x 1i . 10,

2 2 quo s inte r se gene re simi le s d iffe rente s d ix e ris spe cie .

A d str i cti o r Calvus : se e o n 17 . 4,and cp . e x sanguem e t attritum

,

’

18 . 2 3 ,w ith th e no te s : Quint . x . 1

, 1 1 5 . Ad

str ictus concise ,’

o pp . to l ibe r , r emissus ,

W’

usus, &c .) e xpre sse s th e ‘ Attic strictne ss o f Calvus

,as d istinguished from th e

rich ful ne ss o f Asianism cp . th e criticismo f Cice ro , 18 . 19 inflatus e t tumens nec

satis pre ssus . So o f Spurius Mummius,as compared with h is bro the r Lucius,Cice ro says (Brut . 5 94) nihilo i lle quidemo rnatio r se d tamen adstrictio r : fuit enimdo ctus e x d isciplina Sto ico rum ’

cp . quo

m inus str ictus e st (o f Ae sch ine s) Quint .x . 1

, 7 7 . In 3 1. 2 1,be low , w e have

adstrictum e t co l l e cttim dicendi genus,’

whe re se e no te .

1 8 . num e r o s i o r A s in iu s ‘ mo rerhythmical, ’ as compared with Calvus.

M e ise r’

s conje cture n ervosio r h as be e nado pte d by some re cent e dito rs againstth e te stimo ny o f al l th e MSS . it se ems

to have be e n based o n a m isunde rstandingo f adstr ictior , th e me aning o f wh ich isfu l ly e xplained abo ve . I f adstr ictus is

wro ngly taken (as by Wo lff ) in th e sense

o f nume ro adstr ictus (C ic. de Or. i .5 254 : cp . i ii . then numerosior

undo ubtedly be come s a d ifficulty. N u

merasa as applied to oratio is frequen tin Cice ro and Quint i lian cp .

‘nume ro sus

Ho ratius ,’ Ovid, Trist. iv . 10, 49 . Fo r

Asinius Po llio , se e o n 12. ad fin .

sp l e n d i d i o r Cae sar C ic. Brut. 26 1

Spl endidam quandam rationem dicend itene t, vo ce , mo tu fo rma e tiam magnifi ca

e t ge ne ro sa quo dammo do . Cp . C ice roin Sue tonius, Cae sar, 55, Quis ve rbisant o rnatio r aut e l egantio r ? Se e o n

21. 20.

amar i o r Cae l i us . W ith amar ior

(‘ mo re rasping cp. Quint . x . 2 , 2 5aspe ritatem Cae l u : Sen . de Ira, ii i . 8 , 6

o rato rem iracnndissimum . Fo r an

e xample o f th e style o f Cae l ius, se e

Quint . iv. 2 , 1 23—4 , whe re Quinti l ian says

nihi l h is v e h ementius e xpro b rari

po te st .’ Cp . on 21. 13 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

70 CORNEL I I TACI T]

dam e l oque ntiae e o rum ut nas centi adh uc ne c sa t is adu l tae

de fuisse .

26 . Ce terum Si om iss o optimo il lo e t pe rfe ctissimo ge ne re

e l o que ntiae e l ige nd a Sit forma d ice nd i,ma lim h e rcl e C . G racch i

impetum aut L . Cra s si maturitatem quam cal amistro s Mae ce natis

aut tinn itus Gal l io nis : ad e o me l ius e st o ratio nem ve l h irta toga

5 indue re quam fucatis e t me re tricns v e stib us ins ign ire . N eque

e n im o rato rius i ste , immo h e rcl e ne v iril is qu idem cu ltu s e st, quo

p l e rique temporum no stro rum ac tore s ita utuntur ut las c iv ia

26 . 1 . optima Put. , opimo co dd. 2 (and b ere l e ABCADH, b ercu l e EV2.

4 . orationem Andre sen , oratorem co dd. (b irtam togam insign ir i Ritte r, b irtamtogam f ucatis se Po l le ) . 7 . actor es mo st co dd .,

auto res B (u in l itura) ,auctores A,

arator es Ritte r .

33 . ad h u c,‘as ye t only ’

: H ist . i .3 1 , 1 1 incipiens adh uc e t necdum adultaseditio . So C ic. Brut . 2 7 non nascentib us Ath enis sed iam adul tis.

26 . 1 . omi s s o o p t im o 1110, & c .,apart

from th e ide al o f e lo quence ,’ le aving th e

ide ally pe rfe c t type o ut o f acco unt .2 . C . G racch i . Se e o n 18 . 9 . Plut.Tib. G racch . i i. 2 é

’

vr ovo s BEical moapas

6 Pdi’

o s.

3 . Crass i m atu ri tatem , th e r ipee l o quence o f Crassus se e Cic . de O r. i i .§ i z1 z iii . 33, 1 7 1 : Bmt. 2 15 .

So Quint . xii . 10, 1 1 ‘ maturitatem Afrio f ripe judgment, Hist . i . 8 7 ad fin.

‘ ma

turitatem Gall i . ’ Cp. 18 .

cal am i str o s , crimping-pins,

’ ‘curl ing

to ngs ’

: a me tapho r from th e to ile t,ap

plie d he re to th e bombastic flo urish o f

wo rds . Augustus w as in th e habit o fmaking fun o f the se rhe to rical flourishe so f Mae cenas : cuius uvpo ex e i

’

s,ut ait,

c incinno s usque quaque p e rsequitur e t

imitando pe r io cum irride t, Sue t . Aug. 86

whe re th e cincinn i are th e ‘curled tre sses

which re sult from th e application o f th e‘calamistri . ’ Cp. Cic. Or. § 78 Tum te

mo ve b itur ( 50: e x att ico gene re d icendi )omnis insigni s o rnatus quasi margaritarum,

ne cal amist1i quidem adh ib e bun

tur Brut . 5 262 qui vo lent illa (Cae sariscommentario s) cal amistris inure re .

—Fo rth e implied criticism o f Mae cenas, cp.

Sen . Ep . 1 14, 4 .

4 . tinn i tus , ‘

jmgl ing,’ ‘

cling-clang. ’Cp . Qu int. i i . 3 , 9 11am tumido s e t co r

rupto s e t tinnul o S e t quo cumque a liocaco ze l iae ge ne re pe ccante s ce rtum h ab e ono n vitium, se d infi rmitatis vitio l ab o rare .

So tinnu l ae sententiae (o f Seneca) ,Fronto

,p. 240 .

G al l i o ni s . Th e re fe rence is to L . InninsGal l io

, th e friend o f Ovid and th e e lde rSene ca : th e fo rme r addre sse s to h im a

le tte r o f condo lence o n th e de ath o f h is

wife (e x Ponto iv. th e latte r name sh im as one o f th e fo remo st de claime rs o fh is t ime (Co ntr. x . pr. QuintilianSpe aks o f h im d isparagingly

,ix. 2 , 9 1

remissius e t pro suo ingenio Gall io .

’

He ado pted o ne o f th e so ns o f M . Sene ca,w h o to o k h is name , and is th e Gallioknown to us in co nne xion wi th th e lifeo f St . Paul (Acts xviii .to ga v e sti b u s . Th e figure bywh ich style is Spoken o f as th e co ve ringo f tho ught is common in Cice ro : de Or. i .5 14 2 turn e a (se . inventa) denique ve stireatque o rnare o ratione : Brut . 26 2 omn io rnatu o ratio nis tamquam ve ste detracta2 74 re co nd itas e x qu isitasque sententias

mo l lis et pe l l ucens ve stie bat o ratio . Cp.

Quint . x ii . 10, 47 d o tempo ri ne h irtatoga Sit, no n ut se rica viii. 3 , 6 .

5 . f u cati s . Cp . C ic. de Or. 111. 100

cincinnis ac fuco 11. 188 Sine pigmentisfucoque pue ri li : i ii . 199 Brut . § 136 inqua naturalis ine sset no n fucatus n ito r :

de Am . 95 fucata e t Simulata . Tr. th e

paint and fine ry o f th e co urte san.

’

7 . ac t o r e s , co unse l .’ In Cice ro , actoris used w ith Spe cial re fe rence to actio

(de live ry) : d e Or. i i i . 2 16 e x quo satisSignificavit quantum e sse t in actio ne qui

o ratio nem e andem al iam fo re pntarit

acto re mutato : Brut. 2 2 1 fo rt is ve roacto r e t ve h emens : § 3 16 zOr. § 6 1 . Quint ilian use s it as a synonym fo r orator

D IALOGOS DE ORATOR I B US . 7 1

ve rb o rum e t l e v i t a te se nte ntiarum e t l icentia compo s itio nis h is

trio nal e s modos e x primant Quodque v ix aud itu faS e s se d e b e at,land is et g l o riae e t inge nu loco pl e rique iactant c an t ari s a l t a rique

comme ntario s suos : und e ori t u r i l la fo e da e t praepo ste ra , se d

tame n freque ns f ace tis b ominibus e x cl amatio,ut o rato re s nos t ri

t e ne re d ice re,h istrion e s d ise r te s a lta re d icantur . Equidem no n

negave rim Cassium Se v e rum, quem so lum Ape r nos t e r nominare

f r equens f acetis b ominibus 15 my conj . : f r eq. sieut b i s cl a et AHSp . (clam etB,

cl a et CAD,cl ausu l a ct some e dd . sicut b isdam at V2, sicut b isdam et E

f requens qu ibu sdam Rh enanus,and mo st edd . , .f r si d is p l acet Andre sen, f r . circu l is

scb o l arum Mulle r, f r . iam cl usitata Buchho lz, sed tamen f requentissima iam est

He lle r. 13 . tene re Lipsius, temere codd .

11.

'

1 2,

1 1 . That o the r asso ciationsl inge red ro und th e wo rd , may howeve r b ese en from xi . 3 , 1 84 ne dum acto ris captamus e l egantiam , pe rdamus viri boni etgravis aucto ritatem .

l asc iv ia ve rb o rum,

‘ frivo lity o f stylecp . 29 . 7 parvul o s assue faciunt lasciviae e t dicacitati , and se e o n 10. 16 e l e

go rum l ascivias. Cp. also Quint . x ii . 10,7 3 genus dicendi quo d pue ri l ibus sententio l is l ascivit : x . 1 , 43 re cens hae c lasciviade l iciaeque .

8 . l e v i tate c omp o s iti o n i s ,‘Shal

l ow tho ughts and d iso rde rly structure .

’

Fo r sententiarum 7 sensuum, se e on 20. 16 .

h i str i o n al e s m o d o s : the y re pro duceth e rhythms o f th e stage —a th ing whichCice ro also depre cate s , de 01 . i . 2 5 1 . Cp .

be low, cantari saltarique commentario s.’

In th e canticum,o r lyr ical po sition o f a

Roman play, th e cantor sang to a fluteaccompaniment, while th e acto r indicatedby appro priate ge sture s th e me aning o f

th e wo rds. Fo r this sense o f modus , cp .

Ann. x vi . 4 , 14 plebs urbis, h istrio numquo que ge stus iuvare so lita , pe rsonab atce rtis mo dis ( ‘ in se t time pl ausuque

compo sito : xiv . 15 , 5. Th e adj. b istri ona l is is pe culiar to Tac itus it o ccursbe low

,29 . 10 , and o nce againAnn. i . 16 . 1 1 .

9 . qu o d d e b e at. Fo r th e sub

junctive , cp . quo d inte rdum pude at, Cic .

de Or . 1 , 5 40 : quo d mise randum Sit,de

N . D . i i i . 6 2 .

10 . l au di s l o co ‘as some thing

commendable , famo us , and cleve r. ’ l n

gen i i is used afte r l oco by a constructionrathe r d iffe rent from that which co nne ctslandis e t gl o riae

’ w ith ‘ lo co .

’ W ith th elatte r

,No vak compare s ‘

quo d gl o riae

lo co . d ixit,

’ Quint . De cl .p l e r ique ,

‘ many ’: se e o n

can tar i sal tar i qu e , ‘ that the ir Spe e che s

can b e sung, and danced to .

’

Cp. Cic .

Or. 57 e st autem e tiam in d icendoquidam cantus o b scurio r, no n h ic e

Phrygia e t Caria rh e to rum epi l ogus

pacue canticum ,whe re Dr . Sandys quo te s

Quint . xi . 3 , 58 and 16 7 i . 8 , 1—2 .—Fo r

cantar i, cp . Quint . ix . 4 , 14 2 si Sit ne ce sse ,

duram po tins atque aspe ram compo sitio nem malim e sse quam e ffeminatam e t

ene rvem, qual is apud mul to s,e t co tidie

magis l ascivissimis synto no rum mo dis

sal tat. So again x i . 3 , 5 7 , Quint ilianasks

,

‘

quid enim m inus o rato ri co nvenitquam m o dul atio scenica ? and by w ay o f

co ncluding 1 8 1) repe ats h is warningagainst th e immo de rate use o f stageme tho ds, no n enim como e dum e sse , sed

o rato rem vo lo .

’

Cp . P l in . Ep. i i . 14 , 1 2

Pudet re fe rre quae quam fracta pro num

tiati one d icantur , quibus quam te ucriscl amo rib us e x cipiantur. Pl ausus tantumac po tins so la cymb al a e t tympana i lliscanticis de sunt.

1 1 . comm e ntar i o s . Fo r this meaning,se e o n 23 . 10 .

1 2 . fr e qu e n s fac e ti s h om in i b u s .

W ith f acetis to repre sent sicut b is o f th e

MSS . i t is po ssible to se e in cl d a case

o f a misunde rsto o d co ntractio n th e et

be fo re ex cl amatio must have re sulted fromsome so rt o f d ittography. I h ad alsotho ught o f ‘ frequent issima h is mo ribus

e x cl amatio,

’ tho ugh th e supe rlative se ems

no t to o ccur in Tacitus —Fo r th e dat iveafte r ‘ frequens,

’

cp . Ann. i i . 33 , 6 e ratadh uc frequens senato ribus prome re .

e x c l amati o , o f a po inted utte rancecp. 31. 29 be lo w .

13 . te n e r e ,‘ vo luptuo usly ’

: C ic. in

Pis . 5 89 cum h is teucris sa l tato rib us.

Cp . Quint . xi . 3 , 2 3 mo lli tene raque vo ceix . 4 , 3 1 re fugit tene ram de l icatamqnemo dul andi vo l uptatem.

7 2 CORNEL I I TACI TI

1 5 ansu s e st, si us compare tur qui pos te a fue runt, pos se o rato rem

v o cari, quamquam in magna pa rte l ib ro rum sno rum p lu s b il is

h ab e at qu am sanguin is . P rimus enim co ntempto o rd ine re rum ,

om is s a modes t ia ac pudore v e rb o rum,ipsis e t iam qu ib u s utitur

a rm is incompo situs e t s t ud io fe rie nd i p l e rumque de ie ctus , no n

20 pugnat, se d rix atur. Ce t e rum ,ut d ix i, se que ntib us comparatus

e t varie tate e ruditio nis e t le pore urb anitatis e t ipsarum v irium

rob ore mu l tum ce te ro s supe rat, quorum n eminem Ape r nom inare

e t v e l ut in aciem e duce re sustinuit. Ego autem e x spe ctab am ut

incusato As inio e t Cae l io e tCa lvo a liu d nob is agmen pro duce re t,2 5 p l ure sque v e l cer t e totid em nominare t

,e x qu ib u s a l ium Cice ron i ,

a l ium Cae sari , smgu l is d e inde s ingu l o s o ppo ne remus . Nunc

d e tre ctasse nominat im antiquo s o rato re s co nte ntus neminem

seque ntium l au da re ausus e st n is i in pub l icum e t in commune ,

1 5 . 2055 5 mo st co dd . , post re A, pafl‘se B . 16 . 6272

'

s Wo pkens, m’

s co dd . (o the rsv ir i , sucz

’

, f arm'

s,

1 7 . contempto ABEV2, contento CADH . 19 . sfua’

z'

o E and

e dd . , studi is co dd . dez’

ecl us ABEVzAH, tier/ (fetus DC ,de i ectus Lipsius (and so also

He l le r, Phi lo lo gus l i . p . 2 3 ve l utmo st co dd ., vu l tA and (o riginally) B .

24 . incusato EV2CA, in Curato A,in cura l o H

,z’

ncum to ED . 2 5 . pl u r z'

sque

ABEVZ.p l e r isqu e DCAH . 26 . N unc Rh enanus, non co dd . 28 . in commune

ABAH,in comune ED , in omne C .

16 . p lu s b i l is . So Quint . x . 1 , 1 1 7nam e t ingeni i pl urimum e st in e o e t

ace rb itas m ira e t urb anitas et fe rvo r, sedplus stomach o quam co nsi lio dedit . Praete rea ut amari sale s, ita frequente r amaritudo ipsa ridicul a e st.

1 9 . arm i s incomp o s itu s‘awkward

wi th th e weapons,’ & c . Fo r th e ablative ,e di to rs quo te Quint . iv. 5 , 10 incompo situsmo ribus. Th e juxtapo sition o f res , ver ba ,and z

'

ncompositus wo uld naturally le ad us

to e xpe ct in th e last a re fe rence to com

positio , in re spe ct o f which Cassius iscensure d by M . Sene ca : cp . 21. I 7, and

Quint . x . 3, 9 r e : ve rba com

positio , 2 13 , 1 1 18 . But it se ems

b e tte r to take z'ncomposz’

tm in th e gene ralsense o f ‘ d iso rde red , ’ in which it is appropriate to th e military figure s in th e

conte xt : e lsewhe re in Tacitus th e wo rdis used o nly o f th e diso rde red arrayo f an army

,Hist . ii . 40 , 6 ; iii . 48 , 3 ;

iv . 34, 1 9 . Cassius d id no t know h ow to

h and le h is weapo ns : cp. th e use o f in

lzabz'

l z'

s .—Fo r arma in this sense cp .

Quint . x . 1, 30 ; x ii . 5 , I . Th e mi li tary

to ne o f th e passage is kept up in in aciemdeducer e , and agmm producer e , be low.

p l e rumqu e = saepe : se e on 6 . 8 .

d e i e ctus , se . de gradu : cp. C ic. de

Off. 1 80 tumu l tuantem de gradude ici, ut dicitur, whe re Ho lden po ints o utthat gradus (cp . a

’e statu ,

Or. 1 29) is th epo sture o f a man with h is legs apart so

that th e figure is taken from a combatantw h o lo se s h is balance thro ugh e age rne ssto strike and is thus ‘ thro wn o ff h is

guard Cp . Quint . iv. 2,26 in armo rum

ratio ne antiquio r cave ndi quam ictum

infe rendi cura e st. 8 0 ad Att. xvi . 15 , 3m ih i vide tur de ie ctus de graduTusc . ii . 5 8 de d ignitatis gradu demo

ve ri : pro Cae c. 5 4 2 .

20. r i x atu r , o f‘ brawl ing

,

’as o ppo sed

to scientific fighting. Quint . i i . 1 2 , 2 quiarmo rum insci us in rixam ruit : v i . 4 , 9x i . 1, 29 .

2 2 . c e te r o s . The re is a sl ight awkw ardne ss in ceteros

,afte r segu entz

'

bur

Bae h rens pro po sed ‘cuncto s, Halm ‘

e o s .

’

23 su stinu i t= e r km did no t ventureto

,

’ ‘co uld no t bring himse lf to ’

: Hist .i . 3 7 . This use is common in Ovid, alsoin Quintil ian .

2 8 . in p u b l i cum in unive rsum ,

‘ in

gene ral .’ Cp . Ann . xiii . 56, 4 hae c in

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

74 CORNELI I TACI T]

‘ No n sum’

inquit o ffe nsus Ap ri disputatio ne , nec nunc vo s

o ffe nd i de ce b it,s i qu id forte au re s ve stras pe rstringat; cum sciatis

hanc e s se e iu s modi se rmo num legem ,ind ic ium an im i c itra

I o damnum adfe ctus pro fe rre .

Pe rge inquit Mate rnus‘e t cum de antiquis l o quaris , ute re

an t iqua l ib e r t a te , a qua v e l magis d ege ne ravimus qu am ab

e l o que ntia.

’

28 . Ht M e ssal l a :‘ No n re co nd itas , Ma te rne , causa s requiris,

ne c aut tib i ips i aut hu ic Secundo v e l hu ic Apro igno ta s , e tiam

s imih i pa r te s adsignatis pro fe re ndi in me dium quae omne s sen

timus . Qu is e n im igno rat e t e l oque ntiam e t ce te ras ar tes d e sc i

5 v is se ab il la v e te re gloria non inopia h ominum,se d desid ia

7 . Apr i Vahlen, a pr ima co dd . , Apri me i Sch urzfle isch . n ec nunc is my conj . ,nam nec EV2CA ,

nam et ABDH,nec Put. and Halm

, w h o al so pro po se s nee iam

(Andre sen nec mea) . 8 . per str ingatAB, perstr ing it EV2CAHb , perstr igi tD .

1 1 . et cum EV2CA (om . cum ABD. 1 2 . a qua b and e dd . , qua co dd .

28 .

“

1 . E t EVZCADH , Qu i AB, Tum B co rr. , Cu i Halm : pe rhaps Atque .

5 . fiominum co dd . , lzonorum Baeh rens, praemiroum He lmre ich , ingeniorum Jaco b,aptorum h ominum No vak .

7 . n e c nunc,

‘and no mo re must you

now ,

’

& c . Cp . Ann . x i . 30, 6 ne c nunc

adu l te ria o b ie cturum ait.

8 . p e rstr in gat, o f some thing thatgrate s upon th e e ar. Simi larly Ho r. Car.

i i . 1 , 1 7 Iam nunc minaci murmure co r

unum Pe rstringis aure s, deafen and in

Cice ro (fo r to‘chafe

,

’ ‘ graze , wo undslightly pro Se st . 14 ut e o s quo rumsce l e ris furo re v io l atus e ssem vo e is libe rtate pe rstringe rem .

9 . c i tra d amnum ad f e ctu s , witho utany lo ss o f go o d-wil l . ’ Adfiectus he rego o d-fe e l ing ; cp . Ann xiv. 2 7 , 1 2 sineadfe ctibus mutuis sine co nsensu e t

caritate ) : Agr . xxxii . 8 fide e t adfe ctu

tene ri . Simi lar genitive s o ften fo llowdamnum in Tacitus : Ann. iii . 58 , 1 1

nullo sacro rum damno . Andre sentake s aa’f ectus as an explanato ry genit ive :‘th e d isadvantage invo lved in e xcitedfe e ling.’—Fo r this use o f citra (= sine)cp . 41 . 25 citra o b tre ctationem : Agric.

xxxv. 6 c itra Romanum sangu inemGe rm. x vi . 8 citra spe ciem aut de l e cta

tio nem . So O v. Tris t . v. 8 , 23 pe ccavicitra sce l us (

‘sho rt o f

’

) Pl in . Ep. i i . I4 citra do l o rem tamen : Lucan iv . 7 28and frequently in Quint i l ian, x . I , 2

,

7 5 7 ; x i i o 6 , 4 .

C h s . 28—3 5 . Speed : of [Messa l la ,tracing t/ze decl ine of e l oqu ence to ( 1) Me

l oss of tb c o l d system of Izome train ing inear ly youtb , and tb e su bstitution ofmecb an ica l routine f or gen era l cu l ture

(ch s . 28 and , af ter a s/zort inter

r uption , (2) t/ze usurpation by tlze sch oo l s

of r/zetor ic of tb e part tlzat lzad been

p l ay ed in f o rmer days by distingu ish ed

l eaders of tb c bar , to w b om tb e youngaspirant w as in tb c b abit of attacb ingb imse lf (ch s . 3 3

28 . 1 . E t M e ssal l a . Fo r th e o pening , cp . Cic . de Or. i i i . 48 Tum Crassus‘

pe rvu lgatas re s requiris inquit e t t ibinon inco gnitas . Quis enim,

’

& c. : ih . 1

§ 1 3 7 : de Rep. 1 702 . ant aut v e l . In th e similarpassage 15 . 9 , abo ve , w e have aut aut

aut. Th e use o f ve l he re must b eintended to indicate subo rdination ne i

the r to yo u , o n th e o ne hand , no r to

e ithe r o f o ur friends, on th e o the r.’ So

Ann. xiv. 3 , 2 in ho rto s ant Tuscu l anum

ve l Antiatem in agrum : ib . 49 , 1 4 no n

ide o aut consul e s Th rase a ce te rive

(whe re Th rasea h as carried th e senatewi th h im against th e co nsul) .5 . i n o p ia h om inum . I t se ems be st

to ke e p to th e re ad ing o f th e MSS . the reis no lack o f suitable pe rso ns, b ut the irabilitie s are no t turne d to pro pe r account .So ino pia advo cato rum ,

’Ann . xi . 7 , 3 .

Andre sen take s ‘ ino p ia ’

o f wan t o f

DIALOGUS DE ORATORI B US . 7 5

iuve ntutis e t negl ege ntia pare ntum e t inscie ntia prae cipie ntium

e t ob l ivione moris an t iqu i ? quae ma la p rimum in urb e na ta ,mo x pe r Ital iam fus a

,iam in p rov incia s manant. Quamquam

ve s t ra vob is no tio ra sunt e go d e u rb e e t h is pro prns ac ve rna

cu l is vitiis l o quar, quae na to s s t a t im e x cipiunt e t pe r singu l o s

a e tatis gradus cumu l antur, si prius d e se ve ritate a c d iscip l ina

maio rum c irca e ducand o s fo rmando sque l ib e ro s pauca prae d ix e ro .

Nam prid em suus cuique fi l ius, e x ca sta pare n te natus , non in

ce l la emptae nutricis , se d grem io a c sinu ma t ris e ducab atur,

cu ius prae c ipua laus e ra t tue ri domurn e t inse rv ire l ib e ris. E l ige

b a tu r au tem maio r a l iqua na t u propinqua , cu ius pro b atis spe cta

8 . in BEH,om. AV2CAD . 9 . b is co dd .

,b uins Spenge l , Halm,

e ius Me ise r .1 1 . de B co rr.

,a co dd . 1 3 . NamWe issenbo rn ,

iam co dd . 14 . ce l l a Put. , ce l l a

co dd . (cel l a C) , ce l l u l a Bae h rens. gremio co dd . , in gr emio Andre sen . educabatuo

r

EV2CADHb , educabitur AB . 15 . e rat EV2CAHb , eri t ABD . Afte r l zbe r zsBe rnhardy pro po sed to inse rt ac non studiaautem codd . , e l ig. etiam Sch '

oll,aut e l igebatu r Me ise r, Bae h rens, Jo hn .

ability ; cp . infi rmitas ingeni i Hominum is then a de fining genitive o n th e

part o f ’ tho se w h o furnish th e naturalmate rial fo r th e practice o f e lo quence andth e o the r arts. On this inte rpre tation ,

Jo hn compare s C ic . de Or . i. 16 whe re‘

prae stantissima h ominum ingenia ’

is

mentio ned among th e requirements o f

e lo quence .

6 . p rae c ip i e n tium prae cepto rum .

F o r th e substantiva l use o f th e pre sentparticiple , cp . Quintilian x . Intro d. p . xlix .So discentium d iscipul o rum 30. 1

,

be low : cp . d icentium, o rantibus 6 . 1 8

,

and 20.—On th e inscientia and o the r

faults o f th e praeceptor es cp. Quint . x ii .1 1

, 14 .

7 . m o r i s an t iqu i : Hist . 11. 64 , 9 .

8 . Qu amquam , used as an adve rb(‘ howe ve r only he re and 33 . I 6 Ge rm.

xvii . 5 Ann. xii . 65 , 1 2 .

9 . ve stra, re fe rr ing to ‘ in pro vincias ,’abo ve . Ape r and Se cundus we re native so f Gaul, and so also

,in a l l pro bability,

w as Mate rnus . Me ssal l a himse lf w as th e

o nly Roman in th e company . An antithe sis to vestra is contained in b is , be low,which is used , as o ften, w ith re fe renceto e xisting and familiar co nd itions : cp.

7 . 16 tunicatus h ic po pulus : 21. 4 hae co ssa : Quint . x . 1

, 43 re cens hae c l asC l v1a .

p ro p r i is ac v e rnacu l is , i . e . o ur ow n

home -grown Roman vice s, tho se thatsurro und, as it we re

, o ur cradle (nato s

accepimus : 19 E l zgebatur

statim e x cipiunt) : so pro pria et pe enl iaria h uius urbis vitia, 29 . 9 . Fo r pr o

prz'

us z dome sticus, cp . Ann. x 11. 29 , 14Hist . iv . 16

, 9 . So crimen dome sticumac vemacul um,

Cic. in Ve rr. ii . 3 , 14 1 .

1 1 . s i p r iu s p rae d i x e r o , 16. 5 ;18 . 7 .

s e v e r itate ac d i sc ip l ina so 24be low, d isciplina ac seve ritas,

’o f a rigo

ro us system o f training ; cp . 29 . ad fin.

sev e ritate discipl inae : Ge rm. xxv. 7 no nd isciplina e t seve ritate : Ann . v i. 15 , 7Cassius se ve ra patris d isciplinaeductus .

1 2 . c ir ca : cp . Ann. x i . 1 5 , 7 publ icacirca bonas arte s so co rdia, and se e o n

3 . 16 abo ve . W ith th e ge rund ive (ashe re ) it is frequent in Quintilian and

Pl iny th e Yo unge r .14 . gr em i o ac s inu matr i s . Co n

trast this wi th ‘negl egentia parentum ,

’

abo ve . Fo r th e e xpre ssion, Cp . Agr. iv.7 in huins (matris) sinu indu lgentiaque

e ducatus : Ge rm. xx . 2 sua_ quemque

mate r ub e ribus al it , ne c anci l l is aut nu

tricibus de l egantur . C ic. Brut. 2 1 1

appare t fi l io s non tam in gremioe ducato s quam in se rmone matris . Cp .

Quint . i . 1 , 6 .

15 . E l i g e b atu r au tem , i .e . when th e

mo the r co uld no t unde rtake th e who lecharge he rse lf.

1 6 . p ro b ati s sp e ctati squ e a no t

unusual co l lo catio n : homine s spe ctati et pro b ati, C ic . de Or. i . 1 24 .

76 CORNELI I TACI TI

tisque mo rib us omnis e iusdem famil iae sub o l e s committe re tur ;

coram qua nequ e d icere fas e rat qu od turpe dic tu , nequ e face re

quod inh o ne stum factu v ide re tur. Ac no n s tud ia modo curasque ,20 se d remissio ne s e t iam l ususque pue ro rum sanctitate quadam ac

ve recund ia tempe rab at. S ic Co rne l iam Gracch o rum,s icAure l iam

Cae saris, s ic A t iam A ugu s t i [matrem] prae fuisse e ducatio nib us

ac pro dux isse p rinc ipe s l ib e ro s acce pimus . Quae d isc ip lina ac

se ve ritas e o pe rtine b at, ut since ra e t inte gra e t nu l l is prav itatib us25 de to rta un iu s cuiusque natura toto s t a t im pe c to re arripe re t a rte s

h on e s ta s , e t s ive ad rem m il it a rem s ive ad iuris scie ntiam s ive ad

e l o que ntiae stud ium inc l inasset, id so lum age ret, id universum

h aurire t.

1 8 . dicer e EHE co rr., discer e mo st co dd . 2 2 . Atiam Erne sti, Actiam BH,

Acciam mo st co dd . matrem codd de l . Sauppe . 24 . nu l l is

Rh e nanus,in nu l l is codd . (in nu l l ius H) . 26. r em mi l itarem EV2CADH,

mi l itarem AB .

1 8 . c o ram qu a . I t h as be en pro po sedto re fe r qua to subo l es (cp . 29 . 5 , quid

co ram infante domino aut dicat aut fa

ciat) : b ut th is bre aks th e continu ity o f

th e passage , and ‘sub o l e s

’canno t b e

se parated from e iusdem familiae .

’

Quamust b e co nne cted withpr opinqua . Th e

latte r is , as i t we re , th e mo the r’s deputyand what is said o f h e r is infe rentiallysti l l mo re true o f th e mo the r he rse lf.Th is e xplains th e transition ,

thro ugh‘ tempe rab at,

’

to th e statemen t abo ut th ewe l l-known matro ns o f antiquity. Th e

mo the r is tho ught o f througho ut, e venwhe re h e r de puty is ment ioned —Jo hnsimplifie s th e passage sti ll furthe r byre ad ing ‘

aut e l ige b atur’

fo r ‘e l ige b atur

autem ’: pe rhaps ‘

e l igeb atur autem in

te rdum .

’H e is undo ubted ly right in

insisting that th e con trast is no t be twe enth e o l d-fash io ned re spe ct fo r childrenand th e Shame le ssne ss o f the ir attendantsno w

,but be twe en th e conscientio us care

which parents used to be stow o n upbringing and supe rvisio n and th e mode rnhappy-go-l ucky system.

19 . cu ras r em i ss i on e s . Cp.

Agric . ix . 8 iam ve ro tempo ra curarum

remissio numque divisa.

2 1 . C o rn e l iam . C ic. Bru t . 5 104 fuitGracchus d i ligentia Com e l iae matris a

pue ro do ctus e t G rae cis l itte ris e rud itas :i h . 2 1 1 Quint . i . 1, 6 nam G racch o rume l oquentiae multum contul isse accepimus

Co rne l iam matrem, cuius do ctissimus

se rmo in po ste ro s quoque e st epistul is

traditus .

Aur e l iam , daughte r o f M . Aure liusCo tta . Plut . Cae s . ix . 7} yfirqp 1 017 Ka i

aapo s, Aé pnAia , 7 mm) acixppw v .

2 2 . Atiam . Atia w as th e daughte r o fM . Atius Bal bus, and Cae sar’s siste r JuliaSue t . Aug . iv .

e d u cati o n i b u s . Fo r similar pluralsin Tacitus , se e Dr

. 5 2, 5 . So prav itati

bus,be low .

23 . p r o du x i ss e , o f training up , J uv .

x iv . 2 28 .

p r in c ip e s l i b e r o s : tr. ‘ the ir distinguish e d sons .

’

Cp . princi pe s feminae ,Pl in. N . H . V111. 3 2, 1 19 : principib us

viris,Ann . i i i . 6 , 5 . The y we re th e chi ldren

o f th e leading men o f the ir day, and

themse lve s d e stined fo r gre atne ss.

24. c o p e rti n e b at, u t. Th e o bje cto f th is w as cp . Ann . iii . 1 2

,16 . Othe rs

take it o f th e re sult se cured, rathe r thano f th e end aimed at.

s inc e ra e t in t e gra , so und atth e co reand unco ntaminate d Hist. iv .64, 20 sincerus e t intege r e t serv itutis o b l itus po pulus.

25 . arr i p e r e t. Fo und ing o n Ve rg.

Aen . iv. 53 1 , ix . 2 76 , Pro f. Ne ttle shippro po sed (Jo urn . Ph il . x ix . p . 1 10) to re adacciperet : b ut th e l e x x . show simi larinstance s o f th e use o f arri pe re in

Cice ro and Ne po s .

28 . h aur ir e t. Cp . 30. 16 ; 3 1. 3 2

Agric . iv. 1 5 se stud ium ph iIOSOph iaeacrius h ausiSse .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

7 8 CORNEL I I TACI TI

Iarn ve ro propria et pe cu l iaria hu ins urb is v itia pae ne in ute ro

10 mat ris co ncipi m ih i v ide ntur, h istrio nal is favo r e t gl ad iato rum

e quo rumque stud ia : qu ib us o ccupatus e t o b se ssus an imus quan t

u lum l oci b onis artib us re l inquit ? Quotum quemque inve nie s

qui domi quicquam a l iud l o quatur P Quos a l io s adu l e sce ntul o rum

se rmone s e x c ipimus,s i quando aud i to ria intrav imus ? Ne p rae

1 5 cepto re s qu id em u l la s cre b rio re s cum audito rib us s u is fab u la s

h ab e nt ; co l l igunt e nim d iscipu l o s non se v e ritate d iscip l inae ne c

inge n i i e x pe rimento , se d amb itio ne sal utatio num e t inl e ce b ris

adul atio nis .

30. Transe o prima disce ntium e l ementa,in quib us e t ipsis

_1 2 . r e l inqu it ABEVZH , r e l inqu itur CAD. inven ies EV2CADH , inven ires AB.

14 . N e edd . ,N ec co dd . e xce pt E.

o the r conte xts, th e o ppo sitio n be twe ensuum and a l ienum is o f mate rial pro pe rty :Sall . Cat. v. 4 a lieni adpetens, sui pro

fusus : cp . ibid . xii . 2 Tac . H ist . i . 4 , 9 :C ic. de Or. i . 1 7 3 . So he re Jo hn ‘ wanto f regard fo r what is o ne

’

s o wn,as we l l

as fo r what be longs to o the rs ’

: th e e x

planation be ing that, when a man lo se sh is sense o f what is r ight, h e wi l l bo thsacrifice what is h is o w n and take whatdo e s no t be lo ng to h im in th e re ckle sspursuit o f pleasure . But th e o the r rende ring suppo se s a co nstructio n into whicha wr ite r l ike Tacitus might e asily haveslipped . In any case the re is no sufficientgro und fo r rej e cting th e who le e xpre ssionw ith Gudeman , as an inte rlinear glo sssuppl ie d by a monkish scribe .

9 . p e e n e in u te r o . Cp . Cic. Tusc .

D isp. i ii. 1 paene cum lacte nutricis e rrorem sux isse videamur .

10 . h i str i o nal i s fav o r favo r e rgah istri one s . F o r th e adj . se e o n 26 . 8 cp.

Ann . i . 16, 10 h istrional i studio : xiii . 25 ,1 7 l udicram quoque l icentiam et fauto re sh istrionum ve l ut in pro e l ia conve rtit impunitate e t praemiis .

g l ad iato rum . Th e wo rd is he re use d

by me tonymy fo r ‘spe ctacul um glad ia

to rum .

’

S0 frequently in Tacitus glad iato re s ede re .

’

1 1 . e qu o rum ,

‘ ho rse-racing .

’Fo r th e

fo rm wh ich it to o k at Rome , se e Pl in.

Ep. ix. 6 , and Pro fe sso r Mayo r’s e x

h austive no te s on Juvenal x i. 197 sqq.

o ccup atus e t o b se ssu s an imus .

Tacitus co nstantly use s such participle s inplace o f abstract ve rbal substant ive s o r

the ir equivalents, e spe cially as th e subj e cto f a ve rb , 3 7 . 25 .

1 2 . Qu o tum qu emqu e . Se e on Quint .x . 1 , 4 1 . Mayo r (1. quo te s th e admoni

tio n o f Epicte tus, Man . 33 5 3 2 , Spe akse ldom, and in few wo rds when o ccasion

demands i t, speak , but no t o n trivialmatte rs, no t o f swo rd plays, no r o f ho rserace s, no r o f athle te s.

’

14 . N e qu i d em ,as at 10. 1 ,

and 40. 14. Th e MSS . have nec

qu idem which some try to e xplain as

ac ne qu idem (13 . 1 and 24. b ut

He lmre ich is right in ho ld ing that nec isa co pyist ’s e rro r, e spe cial lyas th e sugge stede xplanatio n canno t b e appl ied to passage sl ike Ann . iv. 35 , 8 quas ne c (so M) victo rquidem ab o l ev it; xiv. 35, 7 (whe re se e

Fum e aux ) , o r Hist. i . 66, 2 . So in

Agr . xvii i. 3 1 B give s ne c whi le A h as

ne .

1 7 . e x p e r ime nto do cumento , as

o ften : Ann. x ii . 6, 6 datum ab ea fe cundi

tatis e x pe rimentum.

amb i ti o n e , &c . ,

‘ by inte re sted visitso f ce remony and al l th e tricks o f to adyism.

’

3 0. 1 . Tr an sc o , mo re usually amitto

o rpraeter eo . Fo r th e fo rm o f th e sentence ,co nsisting o f tw o independent clause s ,(instead o f ut transeam in th e fi rst) cp .

C ic . pro Se st . 5 54, omitto gratul atio ne s ,epul as, partitionem ae rarii ve x ab atur

uxo r me a,l ibe ri ad ne cem quae re b antur

de Sen. 5 5 2 .

di sce ntium . Se e on praecipientium28 . 6 . Fo r the se prima clementa, ’ se eQuintilian’

s first bo o k .e t ip sis . In Tacitus, et ipse o ccurs

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I B US . 7 9

pa rum l ab o ratur ne c in aucto rib us cogno sce ndis ne c in e vo l ve nda

antiquitate ne c in notit ia v e l re rum v e l h ominum ve l temporum

sa t is ope rae insumitur . S ed e x pe tuntur quos rh e to ras vo cant

30. 3 . notitia co rr . BE and edd .

,notitiam mo st codd. and Baeh rens . 4 . vacant

1'v0cant

EV2CA , vocantis D,vocatis AB

,vacant ut HSp.

mo st freque ntly in th e nominative ; cp .

37 . 15 be low, quae e t ipsa pl urimum

e l oquentiae prae stant, and fo r o the r instance s se e Ge rbe r and G re e f, s . v . e t,

pp. 399 , 400 . Th e ab l ative is fo und

H ist . i . 4 2 , 1 Titum inde Vinium invase re :de quo et ipso amb igitur , &c. In Livy,et ipse is frequently used , like ipse quoque ,as= na l a im-o

’

s. NO co nclusive instancecan b e cited from Cice ro : se e on Quint i lian x . 1 , 3 1 .

2 . n e c in , &c. Afte r th e ‘ primacl ementa,’ th e e ducation o f a Roman

yo uth w as co ntinued in grammatice o r

‘ l itte ratura’

(Quint . i i . 1,

and Me s

salla’

s complaint is that bo th the se stage swe re now premature ly d isplaced by a

barren and unreal training in th e te chnicalrule s o f rhe to ric.

au cto ri b u s scripto ribus. In th e

C ice ronian age , auctor carried with i t th eidea o f autho rity,’ ‘ warranty,’ o r th e

like : se e o n Quint . x 1,

24 . F o r

co gno sce re aucto re s,’

cp. Quint. x . 5 , 8 .

e v o l v e n d a antiqu itate . C ic . de Or.i . 1 8 tenenda prae te re a e st omnis antiquitas e x empl o rumque vis . Whi le th e

re ad ing and e xplanation o f gre at write rs ,e spe cial ly po e ts

,w as th e mo st impo rtant

function o f th e‘

grammaticus’

(Quint .i . 4 instructi on w as also given in

h isto ry (Cic. d e Or . i . 1 8 7 ; Quint . i . 2 ,14 ; cp. x . 1 , 34 with th e no te s) , as we llas in th e e lements o f science and philoso phy,—physics, logic, and e thics (Quint .i . 4 , thus Quintilian says o f ‘ grammatice ’

in i i . 1 , 4‘ tenuis a fonte ad

sumptis po etarum h isto rico rumque v iribus

pleno iam satis alve o fluit, cum prae te r

ratio nem re cte l oquendi non parum alioqu i co pio sam pro pe omnium max imarumartium scientiam ampl ex a sit.

’

3 . r e rum,

‘ departments o f knowledge(cp . omnium re rum sc ientia, be low)h ominum , human nature ,

’

characte rtemp o rum ,

circumstance s. ’ Co ncre tecond itio ns, Messal l a means, are no t

sufficiently studie d : the ir place is takenby ‘ fi ctae e t nullo mo do ad veritatemacce dente s contro ve rsiae (31. Thatthis is th e me aning se ems to me to b e

e vident from a comparison o f th e de fini

tio n with which th e chapte r conclude s,whe re w e have again re rum,

’ tempo rumand audientium . Th e nece ssity fo r a

knowledge o f characte r ( ‘ h ominum no

t itia,’ cp . nisi qui co gno vi t naturamh umanam ,

31. 1 1 ) and fo r a due appre cia

tion o f th e e ffe ct wh ich diffe rent situationsare l ike ly to pro duce upon th e fe e lings o

s

f

an audie nce tempo rum no titia ’

i) ,enlarged o n in th e next chapte r : se e e sp

s

sive apud infe sto s sive apud cupido sd icendum h ab ue rit,

’&c. ,

and cp . C ic.

Or . 1 2 3 sit tempo rum pe rsonarumque

mo de rato r, nam ne c sempe r ne c apudomne s e o dem mo do d icendum ar

b itro r .— John, howe ve r, give s a ve ry

d iffe rent inte rpre tation,which is sufficientlyingenious to m e rit spe cial no tice . He

thinks that,just as antiqu itas

’in th e

te xt re fe rs to ‘ h isto ry and antiqui tie s,’

so

‘re s

’deno te s physics (including astro

nomy) , as in re rum mo tus causasque ,’

in

l ine 2 2,be low : whi le by ‘ hom ine s ’

h e

unde rstands e th ics and psycho lo gy (3 1 .

and by tempo ra ’

a knowledge o f po liticalthe o ry . Th e last branch wo uld co r

re spo nd to Cice ro s ‘ prudentia iurispublici,’ de Or. i . 256 , o r

‘ re rumcivi l ium cognitio e tprudentia ,

’

ih . i. § 60 :cp . al so ib . i . 159 , 165 , 48 : iii . 7 2 ,

76. This would le ave o nly d iale ctics o rlogic witho ut spe cial re fe rence in th e

e nume ration o f th e funct io ns o f th e grammaticus.

’

4 . in sum itur impenditur. So alsoin Quinti lian (iii . 4, b ut mo re usuallyw ith th e dat ive , as Ann . i ii . 44, 7 l ibe ll is accusato rum insume re t o pe ram,

and

ch . 9 . 1,

abo ve , quibus to tam vitamMate rnus insume re o ptat. It is no t

ne ce ssary to re ad ‘ in no ti tiam ,

’ w ithBae h rens : in with th e ablative deno te s‘th e sphe re in which .

’

S e d , afte r a negative clause , No’

; cp.

dAAci . They spend to o little time o n

preparato ry training : th e ‘ rhe to r ’ is

premature ly called in.

qu o s r h e to ras v o cant : cp . 35 . 2 istorum qui rh e to re s vo cantur. So Crassus inde Or. i 52 ipsi magi stri qu i rh eto rici

vo cantur : i ii . 54 ho rum qui nunc ita

appe l l antur rh eto rum .

80 CORNEL I I TAC] TI

5 quorum pro fe ssro quando primum in hanc urb em intro ducta sit

quamque mu l lam apud maio res no stro s aucto ritatem h ab ue rit,

s t atim dicturus pr ius re fe ram ne ce s se e st animum a d e am d is

c ipl inam qua u so s es se e o s o rato re s accepimus, quorum infinitus

l ab o r e t cot id iana me d itatio e t in omn i ge ne re studio rum assiduae

10 e x e rcitatio ne s ipso rum e tiam continentur lib ris . N otu s e stvob is

u tique Cice ro nis 1ib e r, qui B ru tus inscrib itur, in cu ius e x trema

par te (nam p rior commemo ratio nem ve te rum o rato rum hab e t) sua

in i t ia,suo s gradu s , suae e l o que ntiae v e lut quandam e ducatio nem

re fe rt : se apud Q . Mucium ius civile d idicisse,apu d Ph il o nem

5 . s it quamque co dd. , est quam Usene t . 7 . dicturus Gronovius , de cu r zzs co dd .

pr ius ref eram Acidal ius , Halm . 10 . ex ercitationes co rr. BE : ex ercitation is ce tt.

codd . vobis Rh enanus, nobis co dd . 14 . ref ert B co rr. , refi n e cett. co dd .

7 . di cturu s . Th e fact that this promiseis no t rede emed til l 35 . 2—no t ti ll afte rMe ssal l a h as made a fre sh beginning o f

h is spee ch, ne ed no t cause much difficulty.Such incongruitie s may be he ld to givee ven a gr eate r air o f real ity to dramaticd isco urse . At th e end o f 32 Me ssal l a

pulls himse lf up,’as itwe re , mo re o r l e ss

abruptly, and i t is o nly o n re suming h isremarks that h e remembe rs to re fe r toth e promise made he re .

-Th is e xplanationrende rs supe rfluo us al l th e labouredemendatio ns o f th e critics (non l atins dictu rus , N ippe rdey ; iam non persecuturus ,M ichae lis esta l ienam de currere , Knaut ;securus statim,

Me ise r and Baeh rens) basedo n th e be lie f that Me ssal l a is ment ioningth e matte r o nly to pass it by : it alsonegative s th e view o f tho se (Pe te r, Andre sen, and o the rs) w h o th ink that Me s

salla re fe rs to th e imme diate seque l , inwhich

,while pro ce ed ing to speak o f th e

al l -ro und characte r o f th e o l d training, h epo ints at th e same time , indire ctly and byimplication, to th e l ow e ste em in whichth e scho o ls o f rhe to ric we re he ld in

fo rme r days . Usene t and Bae h rens e vengo th e length o f read ing ‘ intro ductast

quam’

fo r ‘ intro ducta sit quamque ,’

re

cognizing th e fact that, at th e mo st, th e

seque l can onl y b e he l d to contain an

answe r to th e quam h abue rit clauseagainst them Jo hn rightly po ints o ut

that , in that case , th e usage o f Tacituswo uld have l ed us to expe ct cum inste ado f quando pr imum.

Th e co rrupt io n o f dicturus into th e

decu r i is o f th e MSS . is suppo sed byHe lmre ich to po int to a marginal gl o ss

(de curis prio rum o rato rum) intended toindicate th e subje ct o f th e fo l l owingpassage : cp . 30. 2 7 , whe re C give s o rnatequid o rato r et ’

fo r ‘o rnate e t,

’ wh ile inth e rubric the re is Qu id sit orator is pro

pr ium (Qu is orator H . De qfi cio or a

tori s B) .p r iu s . Cp . Quint. V111. 3, 4 1 Ce te rum

dicturus quibus o rnetur o ratio ,prius e a

attingam . Jo hn adds Hie ron . Ep.

149 , 3 d e Pascha paul o l atius al iqu iddictur us prius o stende re vo lo , and ho ldsthat pr ius is an indispensable inse rtion as

it indicate s th e pure ly tempo ral re lationbe twe en dictu rus and referam.

10. c o n tin e ntur ,i . e . e vidence o f it

mayb e fo und in the ir own writings, as Cic.

Brut . l xxxix—xcii . Fo r th is use o f con

tineri,

’cp. Ann . i . 1 1 , 15 : H ist . v. 13 , 8 .

1 1 . u t iqu e , o f co urse so 18 , 2 1 Le

gistis utique epistul as 23 . 6 .

e x tr ema p arte : ch . 89 5 304 sq.

1 3 . grad us . Cic. Brut . § 2 3 2 gradustuo s e t quasi pro ce ssus studendi stude o

cogno sce re .

14 . Q . M u cium . Th e re fe rence is toQ. Mucins Q. F . Scae vo la , th e Augur ,as is e vident from Brutus 306 : ego

autem iuris civilis studio multum o pe raedah am Q. Scaevo l ae Q . f . , &c . cp . 101

,

2 1 2, Philipp. viii . § 3 1 . Th is Scaevo law as th e friend and son-in-l aw o f Lae lius,and th e fathe r-in-l aw o f th e o rato r Crassus.

He w as bo rn abo ut 160 B . c . : went toAsia as prae to r in 1 2 1 : w as co nsul 1 1 7and d ied afte r 8 8 . He is o ne o f th e

inte rlo cuto rs in th e de Oratore (se eW ilk ins, Intro d . p . 2 1 th e de Re

Publ ica , and th e de Amicitia . Th e family

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

82 CORNEL I I TACI TI

e st orator qui de omni quae stio ne pul ch re e t o rna te e t ad

pe rsuade ndum ap te d ice re pro d ignit a t e re rum , ad util itatem

temporum , cum vo l uptate aud ie ntium po ssit.

3 1. H oc sib i il l i v e te re s pe rsuase rant, ad h o c e fficie ndum inte l

l ege b ant opu s e s se , non ut in rh e to rum sch o l is d e cl amare nt, ne c

ut fi ctis ne c u l lo modo ad v e ritatem acce de ntib us co ntro ve rsus

l inguam modo e t vo cem e x e rce rent, se d ut iis artib us pe c t us

5 impl e re nt in qu ib u s d e b onis ac ma l is, de hone sto e t t u rpi, de

iusto e t iniusto d isputatur ; hae c e n im e st o ratori sub ie cta a d

3 1 . 1 . b oc EV2CA ,b gc EDH , b ec A.

ce tt. co dd .

b is HVSp ., i l l is Bae h rens.

p . lxxxiv, no te .

frequently urge d by C ice ro : Cp . de Or. 11.5 neminem e l o quentia sine omni

sapientia flo re te unquam e t prae stare

p o tuisse . Etenim ce te rae fe re arte s se

ipsae pe r se tuentur singu l ae : bene dice reautem no n habe t definitam a l iquam

regi onem cuius te rminis saepta tene atur .

26 . c l u d itu r , simplex pro compo sito ,’D". 25 cp . Intro d . p . lvi .i s e st o r a to r , & c . Cic . d e Or. i . 64 is

o rato r e rit mea sentent ia h o c tam gravid ignus nomine , qui , quae cumque re s incide ritquae sitdictio ne explicanda , prudente re t compo site et o rnate e tmemo rite r dice t,cum quadam actio nis e tiam d ignitate .

2 7 . p u l ch r e , o f grace o r beauty o f

style , as Cic . Or. 2 2 7 pul ch re e t o rato ried ice re : cp . de Fin. 63 . This is muchsimple r than to take th e wo rd in a mo ralsense (x aAc

’

bs) and to re fe r it, w ith Jo hn,to Quintilian’

smaxim ‘no n po sse o rato rem

e sse n isi bo num ,i . pr. 9 : cp . i i . 15 . 1 .

o rn ate , 31. 10 : Op . 18 . 10, 21. 1 1 .

Th e wo rd do e s no t so much indicate anyo ne de finite attribute o f style , as that unio no f qual itie s wh ich give s d ist inction and

é clat : fo r Cice ro ’

s de fin ition , se e de Or . ii i.5 3 (quo ted o n 18 .

ad p e r su ad e n d um ap t e . So ‘appo

site ad pe rsuadendum,

’

Cic . de Inv . i . 6

f ad pe rsuadendum adcommo date ,’de

O r . i . 1 38 . Se e Quint . i i . 15 .

2 8 . ad u ti l itatem t emp o rum , in ac

co rdance wi th what is expedie nt in th e

circumstance s. Cp . Quint . x. 3 , 15 quidre s po scat quo d sit tempus xi . 1 , 46 .

2 9 . cum v o l u p tate aud i e n ti um . Ad

H e renn . 2 cum adsensio ne aud ito rum.

3 1 . 2 . o p u s e ss e u t. This con

structio n ,which o ccurs in Tacitus o nly

h e re , is fo und in P l autus, Truc. v. 1 , 1 1

4 . ex ercer entEVQH , ex e rcent ABCAD.

6 . en im est ABH, est en im EVzCAD : se e Intro d .

ad b oc efi ciendum AAC , ad b acc efi iciendai is CA , b i is D , b is ABEVz, in

o pus nutri01 utrem ut h ab eat vete ris

vini : i b . ii . 3 , 7 mihi o pus e st ut

lavem : ii . 6, 19 nunc tibi 0pust aegramut te adsimu l e s : Po en . v. 7 , 20 h ic o puse st aliquo t utmane as d ie s .

3 . fi cti s c o ntr o v e r s i i s . C ic de

O r . i . 149 equidem pro bo ista ut

causa al iqua po sita consimi li causarumcarum quae in fo rum de fe runtur , dicat

quam maxime ad ve ritatem adcomm o

date . Sed p l e rique in h o c vo cem mo do ,neque e am sciente r, e t vire s e xe rcent suase t linguae ce l e ritatem incitant ve rb o rumque frequentia de l e ctantur. Quint . x. 2

,1 2

quo fi t ut minus sanguinis ac vit iumd e c l amatio ne s h ab e ant quam o ratio ne s,

quo d in illis ve ra in h is adsimil ata mate riae st : ih . 5 1 7 .

v e r itatem , real l ife .

’

4 . p e c tu s , th e mind : cp . Ho r . Sat. 11.

4, 90 quamvis memo ri re fe ras mihi pe cto recune ta . So again Cic . de Or. i i i . 1 2 1

non enim so lum acuenda no bis neque

pro cudenda lingua, sed o ne randum co rnp l endumque pe ctus max imarum re rum e t

pl urimarum suavitate , co pia, ve ritate .

5 . b o n is m al i s . Th e enume rationshows that th e mo ral aspe ct is prominent

,as

Ann . vi . 36, 1 3 (quis neque bo ni inte l l e ctusneque mali cura) and e lsewhe re . Jo hn ,

o n th e o the r hand, unde rstands mater ia l

go od and e vi l ,—what w e me e t w ith inpractical life Cic. de Or. i . 4 2 n ihi l tede bo nis re bus in vi ta nihi l de mal isd idicisse , Or. 1 18 .

Q

6 . su b i e cta ad d i ce nd um mate r ia,th e subje ct matte r o f o rato ry, 75fu ronetp e

’

w ;54 17. So Cic . de Or. i i. 1 16 ad prob andum autem duple x e st o rato ri sub ie ctamaterie s : i h . 1 . 201

,ii i . 54 . Cp.

ub erem ad dicendum mate riam 37 . 28 .

DIALOGOS DE ORATORIB US . 83

dice ndum mate ria . Nam in iudicus fe re d e a equit ate , in de

l ib e ratio nib us de util itate , in l audationibus de h o ne state d isse ri

mus,ita tamen ut pl e rumque ha e c ipsa in v icem misce antur : de

quib us copiose e t va rie e t ornate nemo d ice re po te st n is i qui

cognov it na turam h umanam e t v im v irtutum pravitatemque

v itio rum e t b abet inte l l e ctum corum quae ne c in v irtutib us ne c in

v itiis nume rantur. Ex h is fo ntib us e t iam il la pro fluunt, ut fac i l ius

i ram indicis v e l instige t ve l l eniat qui s cit qu id ira , e t promptius

ad mise ratio nem impe l lat qui s cit qu id sit m isericordia e t quib us

animi mo tib us co ncite tur. In h is artib us e x e rcitatio nib usque

v e rsatus o rator, s ive apud infe sto s siv e apu d cupidos s ive apud

8 . de uti l itate , in l audation ibus add . Ursinus. 9 . tamen add . Acidal ius . b aec

ipsa EVQCADH,b aec AB . 1 2 . b abet add. Scho pen (afte r inte l l ectum) , Halm as

abo ve . nec nec AB,neque nequ e CEV2, nec neque HSp . (this last

may b e right ; cp . 29 . 6 and G. and G . p . in (b e fo re v iti is) om . B. 14 . ira

et F. Jaco b , irae codd . 1 5 . ad EV2CA , et ABDH. 1 7 . v ersatu r co dd .

7 . iu d i c i i s d e l i b e rati o n i b u s

l au d ati o n i b u s . Th e re fe rence is he re toth e thre e gene ra causarum : ( I ) th e ge nusind iciale (2) th e genusde l 1b erativum sive suaso rium

and (3) th e genus demo nstrat ivum ( émBeucrmo

'

v) o r l audativum (éynwmaarmbv) .

Se e Co pe , Arist . Rhe t . Intro d . 1 1 8—1 2 3 ,and th e no te s on 1 3 . 1 Cic . de Inv .

i . 7 , 8 , 1 2 ; i i . 1 2, 1 3 : Orat . Part.

55 10—14 , 69-1 38 : de Orat . 1 . 14 1 . A

conside ratio n o f the se passage s (as we ll asa re fe rence to th e wo rds de bo nis ac malis—de hone sto e t turpi—de insto e tiniusto )will show th e ne ce ssity o f some suchadd itio n to th e text as that made byUrsinus : cp . e spe cial ly C ic . de Inv . ii . 1 3In iudiciis quid aequum sit quae ritur,in demonstrationibus quid h one stum,

in

de l ib e ratio nib us,ut no s arb itramur, qu id

h one stum sit e t qu id u ti le . But lo o kingto th e tw o ma in d ivisio ns o f ‘ de libe rativeand fo re nsic e lo quence ( indicia, de l ibe ratienes , Cic. de Or. i . 5 14 1 , cp. o n 3 4 . 1 5be low) it may b e que stio ned whe the r th eame nded te xt o ught no t to run

‘ in iudiciis

fe re de aequitate , in de l ib e 1atio nibus de

uti l itate e t de h one state disse rimus th iswould rende r le ss ne ce ssary th e tamen

supplied immemediate l y be low, which isfo und in no MS .

9 . i ta tam e n ut. So 16 . 2 2 ; 3 8 . 7 .

p l e rumqu e : se e o n 6 . 8 .

i n v i cem mi sce antu r . Cp . Agr.

xxxvi ii . 5 Britanni m isce re in vicem

consi lia de in separare . Fo r th e fac t

cp . Quint . 111. 4 , 16 stant enim quo dammo do mutuis aux il iis omnia. Nam in

l aud e iustitia util itasque tractatur e t in

co nsi l iis hone stas, e t raro iudicial em in

vene ris causam in cuius parte no n al iquidco rum quae supra dix imus repe riatur.

10 . n i s i qu i co gn o v it. C ic . de O r .i . 5 5 3 Quae nisi qui naturas h ominumvimque omnem h umanitatis causasque

e as quibus mente s aut incitantur aut

re fle ctuntur penitus pe rspe x e rit, d icendoquo d vo le t perfice re non po te rit. Fo r

n isi qu i cp . 3 7 . 2 2 Quint . x . 7 , 1 2 .

1 2 . h ab e t i n te l l e ctum . Sen . de Be n.

111. 1 7 , 2 inte l l e ctum o ptimae re i amisit

cp. o n 19 , 6 abo ve . He lmre ich cite s th eCice ronian phrase inte l l igentiam habe recp. also Ann . vi . 36, 1 3 quis neque boniinte l l e ctus neque mali cursu—Fo llow ingJo hn

,w h o take s inte l l ectum as = v im ,

Andre sen now omits b abet, and j o insinte l l ectum w ith cognovit, comparing ad

r espectum and r ef eras 16 . 26 . But th is ishard , and th e compend ium fo r b abe tmaye asi ly have dro pped o ut.

1 3 . e tiam i l l a,i . e . as we l l as th e faculty

o f spe aking co pio se e t varie e t o rnate .

’

fac i l iu s . Cp . o n th e o the r handAntonius arguing against Crassus that th estudy o f phi lo so phy is no t ind ispensablefo r th e o rato r de Or . i . 5 2 20.

1 7 . cup id o s , ‘ biassed ,

’ ‘ prejudiced ’

pe rso ns ; partisans . Th e Wo rd might al somean we ll-dispo sed ,

’ though be fo re suchan audience th e o rato r wo uld b e le ssde pe ndent on th e rule s o f h is art.

84 CORNELI I TACI TI

invide ntes sive apud triste s sive apud timente s dicendum h ab ue rit,

te ne b it venas animo rum,e t p rout cuiusque natura po stu l ab it

20 adh ib e b it manum et tempe rab it o ratio nem, pa ra t o omni instru

me nto e t ad omnem usum repo sito . Sunt apud quos adstrictum

e t co l l e ctum e t singu l a s t a tim argume nt a co nc l udens d ice ndi

ge nus p lus fide i me re tur : apud hos de disse ope ram dial e cticae

pro fi cie t. A lios fu sa e t a e qua l is e t e x communib us due t a se ns i

2 5 b us ora t io magis d e l e ctat : ad hos pe rmo v endo s mutuab imur

a‘ Pe ripate ticis ap t o s e t in omnem disputatio nem parato s iam

19 . postu l abitABDH , postu l ao er it EV2CA (cp. e x pl icab it 16. 20. oratio

nem co rr . BDCH , amu em orationem AB . 23 . fi de i Put. ,fi dem co dd . 25 . pe rmovendas EV2CAD , pr omoo endos -edos) ABH, commoo endos D. 26. apertos C .

1 8 . tr i s t e s , sul l en , mo ro se .

’

d i ce n d um h ab u e r it. Se e on 8 . 1 1 .

19 . te n e b it v e n as an im o rum h e wil lb e able to puth is finge r o n th e pulse o f h is

aud ience . Cp . Cic . de Or. 2 2 3 teneat

0po rt'e t venas cu iusque gene ris, ae tatis , o rd inis . Th e o rato r is compared to a physician(cp. 41. h e must get into to uch withh is audience , and then pro ce ed to tre atth e case be fo re h im (adh ib e b it manum ) ,care ful ly se le cting th e appro priate to nefo r what h e h as to say (tempe rab ito ratio nem ), just as do cto rs regulate th e

pro po rtio ns o f a do se o f me dicine —F o rth e impo rtance o f studying th e humourso f th e bench, cp . Quint . x. 3 , 1 5

‘

qui

iudicis animus intuit i ’ and x ii . 10, 56

nam id quo que p l urimum re fe rt, quo

mo do audire iudex ve l it, atque e ius vu l tussaepe ipse re cto r e st d icentis .

’

cui u squ e . Th e plural co ul d no t b e

used : fo r th e singular cp . auditor (fo rauditor es ) 32 . 7 .

—He lmre ich suppo rtsp o stu l ab it by re fe rence to C ic. Or . 1 25and Quint . v . 1 2

,14 .

20 . in s trum e n to , sto ck-in~tradeH o r. Sat. i . 3 , 13 1 .

2 1 . omn em u sum,

‘any and e ve ry

purpo se .

’

S un t ap u d qu o s , with indic. , as Agr .

xxvi ii . 14 fue re quo s i l iustravit.

ad str i ctum . So,alo ngside o f con

tractum (as he re o f co l l ectum ) Brut . 1 20

Nam ut Sto ico rum astrictio r e st o rat ioal iquanto que co ntractio r quam aure spo pul i requirunt, sic i l l o rum l ib e rio r e t

l atio r quam patitur co nsue tudo iudicio rume t fo ri : ih . 309 dial e ctica quasicontracta e t astricta e l o quentia putanda

e st,ih . 1 14. Cp. no te o n 25 . 1 7 abo ve .

Tr. ‘ te rse,co ncise , in which th e indivi

dual arguments are made to yie ld an immed iate co nclusio n,’ i . e . th e se parate pro o fsare rapidly summarized, o r gene ral ize d .

2 3 . m e r e tur co nsequi tur, adipisciturso Quint . x . 1 , 94 , 1 16 . Cp. Ann. xv.6 , 7 me r itae to tpe r anuo s gl o riae Ge rm.

xiv. 5 vulne ra me re ri : Agr. iv. 5 iram Gai lCae saris me ritus, and o ften. Cp. 9 . 26 .

d i al e cti cae . Th e Sto ic lo gic w as

renowne d fo r its acute ne ss Quint . x. 1 ,8 4 , with th e no te s . Cp . C ic. Top . 2 . 6

iudicandi enim vias dil igente r pe rse cutisunt (Sto ici ) ea scientia quam otak e x '

r un’

yv

appe llant : inve niendi artem , quae r omm’

;dicitur to tam re l ique runt.

24 . fusa e t ae qu al is . In th e passagequo te d abo ve from th e Brutus th e antithe sis is l iber ior et l atior : he re it is takenfrom th e flow o f wate r, a frequent so urceo f me tapho r in Latin : cp . dueta ex . C ic .

de Or. i i . 64 genus o rationis fusum atquetractum e t cum l enitate quadam aequab i

lite r pro fluens : ib . 159 : Or . 2 1, 5 66

Quint . i i. 3 , 5 co nstituta an l atius fusa

o rat io . F o r aequa l is aequab i l ite r

fluens) cp. Quint . i ii . 8,60 id quoque

aequal ius crit, ne c tumul tuo sius atqueturb idius. In this sense aequabi l is is

ce rtainly mo re commo n : but it is no t

ne ce ssary, w ith Andre sen and Wo lff, to

substi tute it in th e text fo r aequa l is .

c ommun i b u s s e n s ib u s , th e

fe e lings and instincts implanted by naturein al l rational be ings . Cp . C ic . de Or .i ii . 5 195 quo d e a in communibus infix a

sensibus ne c carum re rum quemquam

funditus natura vo l uit e sse e x pe rtem : pro

C l uent. 15 . Also o f o rd inary tactmo l e stus communi sensu plane care t .Ho r . Sat. i . 3 , 66 .

26. P e r ip ate tici s . Aristo tle and

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

86 CORNELI I TACI TI

fo rmamus neque Sto ico rum comitem, sed cum qui quasdam

arte s h aurire , omnes l ib are de b e t . Ide oque e t iuris civ il is scie n

tiam v e te re s o rato re s compre h e nde b ant, e t grammatica mus ica

ge ome t ria imb ue b antur. Incidunt e nim causae , p l urimae qu idem

3 5 ac pae ne omne s , qu ib us iu ris no t it ia de side ratur, pl e raeque

autem in quib us hae c quoque scie ntia requiritur.

3 2 . Ne c quisquam re spondeat suffice re ut ad tempu s simp le x

3 1 . comitem Vahlen ,Halm : citem A,

arte B , civitatem HDCV2 and b in marg Qy:cl ientem . o r di

'

.mtem (antistztem Mulle r , civem Do ede r l e in, artifi cemHe lle r . ne qu emSto icorum incitem H . Rohl .

We senbe rg . 34. [ incidunt

3 2 . b aur ire Lipsius, audir e co dd . l ibar e Be kke r, l i beral iter co dd . , l ibar e l ev iter Sil l ig, l ibar e l iteras Thomas . civ i l is om. B .

musice et geometr i e-ice DCH and co rr. AB) ABCD ,

em . Rh enanus.

requ ir itur] Andre sen.

qu i ,bus Me ise r and edd . p l eraeque Rh enanus, p l erumque co dd .

33 . grammatica

et de l . Be kke r,35 qu ibus co dd . in

(pl er ique HVSp .

36. b aec quoque EV2CADH, b aecAB (b arumquoque Schurzfle isch , i l l a quoque No vak)3 2 . 1 . sufi ceret c

z

o dd . (exce pt E) .

3 1 . S to i co rum com item ,a hange r

o n o f th e Sto ics.

’Fo r th e spe cial unfitne ss

o f the ir system fo r o rato rical purp o se s,se e Quint . x. 1 , 84 with th e no te . Comi

tem is rightly de fended by mo st edito rs :th e meaning i s

,o ur aim is no t to de lineate

th e philo so phic special ist (sapientem ) ,and ce rtainly no t th e adhe rent o f th e

scho o l spe cially given o ve r to d iale cticsubtle tie s. Cp. Pl in . N . H . pr. 22 qui

(Tu l lius) de republica Pl atonis se comi

tem pro fite tur.—In suppo rt o f h is conje c

ture artifi cem,He lle r quo te s Ann . xii. 66

art ife x tal ium Lo custa : Sall . Iug.

35 hom ine s talis nego tii artifi ce s . But

tho ugh th e wo rd is su itable o n palae ograph ical gro unds, the se passage s are

hard ly appo site . To th e o the r conje cture sgiven abo ve I may add cl ientem (cp. 4 1.

o r diuitem,w ith re fe rence to th e we ll

known Sto ic parado x so lum sapientem

e sse divitem.

’

Cp . Ho r . Sat. i . 3 , 1 24 si

d ive s qui sapiens e st, with Pro f. W ilkins’

s

no te ad l o c .

3 2 . h au r ire l i bare . An e arlyfo rmula fo r some thing o f e ve rything, ande ve rything o f some thing.

’ This w as

Cice ro ’

s view : ut sl t bo ni o rato rismulta l egendo pe rcucurrisse neque e a

ut sua po sse disse sed ut aliena libasse , deOr. i . 2 18 .

I d e o qu e , & c. It w as the ir knowledgeo f pract ical requirements (incidunt enim,

that induced them to fo llow o ut

this view. So o f Cice ro 30. 14 se apudQ. Mucium ,

’&c.

34 . im b u e b antur : se e o n 19 . 2 1 .

3 5 . p l e rae qu e =mul tae . Se e on 2. 10.

36. h ae c qu o qu e sci en t ia , i . e . a know

l edge o f criticism,music, and ge ome try,

as we ll as o f l aw . Th e fo rm o f th e

sentence shows that quoque is indispensable . Th e write r might have said ‘ incidunt enim causae in quibus hae c scientiarequi ritur,

’

and th e re fe rence o f b aec to

th e thre e last-named arts wo uld have be enmo re o bvio us. But h e cho se to vary th esente nce by inse rting th e paratactic b utlo gically subo rdinate clause ‘

pl urimae

quidem de side ratur,’ with which

incidunt’is le ss appro priate : quoque

is then ne ede d fo r emphas is. Jo hn po intso ut also th e appro priatene ss o f qu i .bus .

deside ratur , o f th e ind ispensable , as againstzn qu ibus r equ ir i tur o f what 15 le ssfrequently called into play . —Fo r b aec

scientia = h arum art ium scientia,cp. e i

scientiae ,’

Cic . de Or. i . § l o fo r ‘e ius

artis scientiae’

(mathemat ics) : ‘ istamscie ntiam (o f jurisprudence ) ih . 248 :

sine e a scientia quam dixi, Or. 1 18 .

3 2 . 1 . su fi i ce r e u t. This constr.avo ids a se cond subo rd inate infinit ive :Draege r 14 2 ) compare s Pl in . Ep . i ii .

2 1, 3 and (with ne ) ix . 33 , 1 1 : with th e

infin. Ge rm . xxxii . 2 .

ad temp us ,‘ fo r th e o ccasion ,

’ ‘ fo r

th e requirements ,o f th e moment ’ : so

Ann . i . 1 , 2 ; Cic. de 01 . i . 69 ad ce rtamcausam tempusque .

s imp l e x gu id d am e t un i f o rm e . Itis no t e no ugh, inste ad o f go ing thro ugha conne cted co urse o f training in eachde partment, to apply to e xpe rts, as

o ccasion may require , fo r info rmatio n o n

some concre te , spe cial , and de finite i ssue .

In l aw ,such spe cialists we re th e prag

matici, de Or. i. § 253 : cp. ib . § 242 ,

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I E US .

quiddam et uniforme do ceamur. P rimum autem a l iter utimur

p ropriis , a l ite r commo datis , l o ngeque inte re s s e manife stum e st

po ssid e at qu is quae profe rt an mutuetur. De l ude ip sa mu l tarum

ar tium sc ie n tia e tiam a liud age nt e s no s o rna t,a tque ub i m in ime 5

cre das emine t e t e x ce l l it. q ue non d o ctus mod o e t prud e ns

aud i to r, se d e t iam popu lus inte l l egit, ac s t a t im ita laud e pro se

quitur ut legit ime studuisse , ut pe r omne s e l o quentiae nume ro s

is se , ut denique o rato rem e s se fate atur ; quem non posse al iter

2 . autem co dd . , en im Rh enanus, Halm, and e dd .

issetE,is sed V2, zpse A .

whe re Antonius says ‘ in e o autem iurequo d amb igitur inte r pe ritissimo s non e st

d iffi cile o rato ri e ius part is quamcunque

de fende taucto rem al iquem invenire ; a quocum amentatas h astas accepe rit, ipse e as

o rato ris l ace rtis virib usque to rque b it. Th e

adje ctive un iformzs o ccurs e l sewhe re onlyin late autho rs.

2 . P r imum au tem . Pe te r,Wo l ff, and

Jo hn suppo rt th e MS . read ing : o the red ito rs re ad pr imum en im. At first sightautem se ems to conne ct bad ly with whatgo e s be fo re , though i t may b e use d (l ikesed 18 . 14) to co ntradict a negative asse rt io n. I f th e previous statement h ad be enpo s itive instead o f negative (At d ix e ritquispiam sufii ce re

,& c. ) i t wo uld have

be en quite in place : so in d ispo sing o f ano bje cti on, Livy v. 53 , 2 .

3 . l o n g e fo r multum (37 . The reis a reminiscence o f longe abe sse .

’

4 . mul tarum e x ce l l it. Cp. C ic.

de Or. i . 7 2 sic sentio neminem e sse in

o rato rum nume ro habendum qui no n sit

omnibus e is artibus quae sunt libe rod ignac pe rpo l i :tus quibus ipsis si in

d icendo non utimur,tamen apparet atque

e x stat utrum simus carum rude s an d id ice rimus Quint. 1. 10 , 7 .

‘Mul tarum artiumscientia ’ ‘

a w ide culture ’ ‘ ipsa ’in

and fo r itse lf.5 . al iu d ag e nte s . Th e seque l showsthat th is canno t b e taken to re fe r tofriendly inte rco urse with men o f culture ,as Andre sen unde rstands i t : th e rende ring‘even when w e are no t pro fe ssionally

e ngaged w ill no t suit th e co ntext . Th e

re fe rence is o bviously to subje cts whichwo uld no t, at first sight, se em to l end

themse lve s to cultured treatment : e venth e dry de tai ls o f a te chnical subje ct mayb e lighted up by th e manne r o f handlingi t . A many-sided culture i s an o rnamento f th e influence o f which its po sse sso r

9 . isse C , isse et ABDH,

may b e unconscio us. Jo hn e xpl ains ‘ in

th e spe e che s and po rt io ns o f spe e che s inw hich w e are no t co nscio usly e nde avo uring (id age re , Cic . Tuso . i . 46) to sho wth e e xtent o f o ur knowledge .

’Th e ne are st

paral le l is Quint . i . 1 1 , 19 : cp. also C ic.

pro . C l uent. 1 55 , 1 79 ; pro Ro sc . Am.

§ 60 ; Bru t . 5 233 ; de O r. i i i. 5 1 Quint.x . 3 , 25 . S0 Agr. xlii i . 3 : Dial . 28 . 2 7 .

8 . studu i ss e : 21. 30 .

omn e s num e r o s : cp . on 1. 1 7 . In

th is sense , numerus pars) is ve ry frequently fo und in conjunction with omn ise . g. Quint. viii . pr. 5 1 pe r omne s nume ro spenitus co gno sce re . Th e ro o t ide a mayb e

,as J o hn sugge sts, parts o f a who le

that are de signated by co ntinuo us num

be rs . The re may also b e a re fe rence toth e rhythm ical mo vements through wh icha pe rso n unde r training isput : cp. Quint .x . 1 , 4 Athle ta qu i omne s i am pe i did i ce rit

a prae cepto re nume ro s, whe re se e no te .

In Cice ro , numer i is frequently used o f

that wh ich is comple te and pe rfe ct in al l

its parts : de N . D . i i . 37 mundum

pe rfe ctum e x pl e tumque omnibus suisnume ris e t part ibus : de Div . r . 5 23 quo domne s habe t in se nume ro s : de Off. i ii .14 : de Fin . ii i . 24 . Cp. also Sen .

Ep . 7 1 16 (ve ritas) habe t nume ro s suo s,plena e st : 9 5 , 5 5 : J uv . vi . 249 .

9 . i s se . Fo r this po e t ica l and po stc l assical construction in whichper is usedafte r i re with an accusat ive o f th e e xtento ve r wh ich tho ught, spe e ch , o r fe e lingtrave l s, Cp. Aen . i . 3 75 Quint . vii. 1, 64 ,and x . 5 , 2 1 (pe r to tas ire mate rias) .o rato r em , emphatic, as in Cic . de Or.

i . 7 2, quo ted abo ve Cp . ih . 20,ac me a

qu idem sententia nemo po te rit e sse omn ilaude cumul atus o rato r, nisi e rit omniumre rum magnarum atque artium scientiam

conse cutus. Se e on or ator 1. 4 .

al i te r n i si e um . The re is an

8 8 CORNELI I TACI TI

1 0 e x iste re ne c e x titisse umquam co nfi rmo n isi e urn qui, tamquam

in aciem omn ib u s a rm i s instructus , sic in forum omni b u s artib us

armat u s e x ie rit. Quod adeo neg l egitur ab horum t emporum

d ise rtis ut in actio nib us corum h uius quoque co tidiani se rmo nis

fo e da ac pud e nd a v it ia depre h e ndantur ; ut ignore nt lege s , non

1 5 te ne ant s e natu s consu lta, ius b uius civ i t atis u l tro d e ride ant,

20

s apie n t iae v e ro stud ium e t prae ce pta prud e ntium penitus re fo r

mide nt. In pauciss imo s se nsu s e t augu s t a s se nte nt ia s d e trudunt

e l o que ntiam v e l ut e x pu l sam regno suo , ut quae o l im omn ium

ar tium dom ina pu lch e r r imo comitatu pec t o ra imp l e b at, nunc

circumcisa e t ampu ta t a , s ine apparatu, sine h onore, pae ne

13 . b u ins Halm,ius (o r v is) codd .

,ipsius Michae l is (o r rathe r ipsa) , °

a i l is Bae h rens .

14 . non EV2HCAD , nec AB . 15 . ius b uins civitatis is my co nj . , ius civ itatisco dd ., ius suae civitatis Gudeman, ius civ i l e autem Bae h rens. 1 7 . detruduntD,

detrudant ABCH .

undo ubted harshne ss abo ut this co nstruot ion , tho ugh it is no t ne ce ssary to reada l ium.

~No vak wo uld reje ct a l iter , com

paring Ann . vi. 28 .

1 3 . d i s e r ti s . Se e o n 1. 5 ho rum autemtempo rum dise rti .h u iu s c o ti d ian i se rmo n i s o ur e ve ry

day co nve rsatio n. Cp. o n h is pro pri isv itiis,

’

28 . 9 . So Cic . de Or. i . 108

h uius fo rensis no strae dictio nis. Fo r

quoque in th e sense o f etiam,se e o n 6 . 19 .

15 . s enatu s co n sul ta . Cp . C ic . To p .

5 ius civile in l egibus, senatus co nsul tis, rebus iudicatis co nsistat. Gaius 1 ,

4 senatus consultam legis vicem o b tine t.

iu s h u iu s c iv i tat is . Th e inse rtio n o f

b u ins is a ve ry simple emendatio n : byi tse l f ius civ itatis co uld hard ly stand as

equivalent to ius civ i l e (30. 14 : 3 1.

Th e phrase must deno te (as ius civ i l e

gene rally do e s) e ithe r th e ‘ laws o f th e

state as d istinct from ius naturale ’

o r‘ ius gentium ,

’

o r that po rtio n o f th e

Roman l aw which w as th e re sult o f o l dtraditio n, with Spe cial re fe rence to th e

XII Tabl e s, as d istinguishe d from th e

newe r o r equity po rt ion. In vie w o f th e

we ll-known sub-d ivision o f th e ins civ i l e ,in this narrowe r sense , into [ex and mos

,it

is pro bable that he re—l eges having alreadybe en mentio ne d—th e re fe rence is spe ciallyto traditio nal usage , pre scriptive l aw .

In fo rme r days th e impo rtance o f a kno wle dge o f this branch h ad to b e insisted o n,

cuius scientia negle cta ab o rato ribus

pl e risque no bis ad dicendum ne ce ssariavide tur,

’C ic. Part. Orat . 5 100 : cp. th e

disco urse o f Crassus de Or. i . 166—184 .

Now men no to nly negle ct it b ut sco ff at

it : Quint. xii . 3 . Fo r th e iux tapo sition

o f lege s and ‘ ius civile ,’ op . de Or. i .5 18 neque legum ac iuris civi lis scient ianegl egenda e st, Or . 1 20 .

ul tr o , as 9 . 16 ro gare u l tro 5 . 23 ul tro

fe ras.

16. p rae ce p ta p ru d e ntium ,

‘ maximso f mo ra l w isdom.

’ This is be tte r than totake th e phrase , with many e dito rs , o f

Special ists in gene ral .p e n itu s who lly,’ as Ge rm. xxx i i i . 3

Ann . x ii . 39 , 10 .

1 7 . s e n sus s e nte ntias , ‘a few

common-place s and cramped e pigrams

op. 20. 16 sive sensus al iquis arguta et

bre vi sententia e ffu l sit. Th e meaningo f angustae sententiae ’

may b e we l li llustrated by Quint . x . 1 , 1 30 (in re fe re nceto th e style o f Se ne ca) si re rum ponde raminutissimis sententiis non fregisse t.

’

Cp .

Sen. Ep . 100, 5 sensus hone sto s e tmagnifi co s habe s, non co acto s in sententiam sed

l atins dicto s : ih . 94 , 2 7 ; 1 14 , 1 .

d e tru d un t. Cp. Cic. de Or. i . § 46o rato rem e x cl udi ab omni do ctrinare rumque maio rum scient ia ac tantum in

iudicia e tco ntiuncul as tamquam in a l iquo dpistrinum detrudi e t compingi vide b am.

19 . p e cto ra imp l e b at : see o n 3 1. 4 .

Comitatu (se . re l iquarum art ium) is th esame ablative as iis artibus in th e passagere fe rred to .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

90 CORNELI I TACI TI

me, dum iuris e t ph il o soph iae scie ntiam tamquam orato ri ne ce s

sariam laudo,ineptiis m e is pl ausisse .

’

3 3 . EtMate rnus M ih i qu idem inquit susceptum a te munus

ade o pe regisse no ndum v ide ris , ut inco h asse tantum e t v e l ut v e s

tig l a ac l ine ame nta quae dam o ste nd isse v id earis . Nam quib us

ar tibus instru i ve te re s o rato re s so l iti sint d ix isti , d iffe re ntiamque

5 no strae d e sid iae e t inscie ntiae adversus a ce rrima e t fe cund is sima

corum s tu d ia demo nstrasti ce te ra e x spe cto ,ut quem ad mo durn

e x te d id ici quid aut il li scie rint aut n os ne sciamus, ita h o c quoqu e

co gno scam, qu ib u s e x e rcitatio nib us iuve ne s iam e t fo rum ingre s s

suri co nfi rmare e t a le re inge nia sua s o l iti sint. N e que e nim“

10 t antum arte e t s cie ntia , sed longe magis facu lta te e t usu e l o que n

tiam co ntine ri, ne c tu puto ab nue s e t h i s ignifi ca re vul tu vid e a tu r.’

De inde cum Ape r quoque e t Se cundu s id em adnuisse nt, Me s

sa l la quas i rursus incipie ns‘ Quoniam init ia e t sem ina ve te ris

e l o que ntiae s a t is d emonstra s se v ide o r, d o ce ndo quib us artib us

1 5 an t iqui o rato re s ins t it u i e rud irique so l i t i s int, pe rsequar nunc

3 3 . 2 . incobasse mo st co dd .

,incb oasse BDE. 4 . artibus add . Scho pen .

5 . insc ientiae Rh enanus, scientiae co dd . 7 . qu id ABD , quod EVQCAH . scier int

Sch urzfle isch , scirent co dd . 8 . ingressur i ABEV2, ingr essi DHV, ingr aessi CA .

10 . tantum Ritte r, so l um Dro nke , dum co dd . scientia CAD,inscientia ABEVQH .

usu add . Tyrwhi tt . 1 1 . b i H , i i ce tt. co dd . 13 . cl ABCDAH ,

om. EV2 . 14 . o ideor co rr . B , videtur ADCH. 1 5 . persequar co rr. B and Hpersequar ADC .

3 2 . d um,wi th th e indie . in indire ct

spe e ch, as o ften in th e h isto rica l writingso f Tac i tus : D'

. 168 Tr . ‘ I haveo nly be en e ulogising in o rde r to cryup my o w n little we akne sse s.

’

33 . i n e p ti i s m e is p l au s i sse , l it.‘ I

have be en applauding my ow n want o ftaste .

’

Cp. C ic. de Or. i . 5 1 1 1 ne h as

meas ineptias e ffe ratis : and fo r ineptiaeas

‘ taste le ss fancie s,’

ih . ii . 5 1 8 . Th e

study o f l aw and philo so phy wo ul d b econside red ineptia e by th e spe ake rs whomMe ssal l a is criticizing, and w h o h ad a

‘ tho ro ugh ho rro r ’ (pen itus rg’ormident,

abo ve ) o f such subje cts.

3 3 . 2 . v i d e ri s v i d e ar i s . Se e o n

10. 24.

5. adv e rsu s ,‘ in co ntrast with ,

’ ‘as

compared with ’

: so Ann. x i i . 1 5 , 1 2 ;xv. 19 , 5 : Livy v11. 3 2, 8 .

6. ce te ra e x sp e cto , u t : I wait fo r th eseque l, viz. that,’ &c. Cp . 26. 23.

8 . f o rum ingr e ssur i qui fo ro para

bantur, 34. 1 . So Quint. V11. 2 , 54 iturisin fo rum : ii. 8 , 8 qui fo ro de stinab itur.Fo r et op. 20. 1 2 iuvene s e t in incude

po siti .9 . al e r e ing e n i a : cp. o n 14 . 16 .

10 . facu l tate e t u su , o f th e practicalapplication o f the o re tical knowledge .

1 1 . s ign i fi car e v u l tu : supply se nonabnuere = se idem sentire .

13 . quas i rur su s in c ip ie n s . Cp . Cic.

Brut . 20 1 e t ego tamquam de integroo rdiens .

in i t ia e t sem ina , fi rst-beginnings andge rms Quint . i i . 20, 6 initia quaedamac semina : C ic. Tuse . v. 69 indagatioinitio rum e t tamquam seminum.

14 . arti b u s,b ranche s o f knowledge .

’

Cp. Quint. i . 3 , 16 quibus instituendus sitartibus qui sic fo rmab itur ut fi e ri po ssit

o rato r. In contradistinction to the se ,e x e rcitatio ne s are th e exe rcise s by whichspe ake rs we re pre pared fo r th e practice o fthe ir pro fe ssion.

DIALOGUS DE ORATORI EUS . 9

e x ercitatio ne s e o rum. Quamquam ipsis artib us ine st e x e rcitatio ,ne c quisquam pe rcipe re to t tam v a rias aut re co nd itas re s pot e st,n is i ut scientiae me dit a t io , me ditatio ni facu l t a s

,facu l tati u sus

e l o que ntiae acce dat. Pe r quae co l l igitur cand em e s se ra t ion em

e t pe rcipie nd i quae pro fe ras e t pro fe re nd i quae pe rce pe ris . Sed

s i cui o b scurio ra h ae c v identur isque scie ntiam ab e x e rcitatio ne

s epa ra t , il l ud ce r te co ncede t, instructum e t p le num h is artib us

animum longe paratio rem a d e as e x e rcitatio ne s ve nturum quae

propriae e s se o rato rum v ide ntur.

1 7 . tam var ias aut r econditas John, tamrec aut var . Bae h rens :aut

var ias ACDHV2, aut rec. tam o ar . B (cp . th e transpo sition o f utrosqu e , 2. 6) tam

(Mure tus ) r ec. tamque Halm (ac tam H e umann ) , tot, tam rec. , tam u. Mil l l e r1 8 . [u t] Acidal ius, n isi si N o vak . u sus Acidal ius , v is o r ius co dd . 19 . [e l oquentiae]

aut r ec. tam

Sauppe , N o vak .AB

,id HD .

20. per cepe r is HDC ,percip is AB .

23 . paratior em Lipsius ,pate A , parate EDA , paratu EH , ape rte C .

2 2 . i l l ud EVs , istud

24 . esse o ratorum Agrico la, cl ornaturum ABDV2, ex ornaturum E,et ornatorum CA

,

czrca orator iam HV Put. (circa orator ium b in marg. )

16 . e x e r ci tati o n e s ‘ the irpractical exe rcise s,’ dril l.e x e rc itati o . _The o ry invo lve s and

require s ‘ practice ’

: op . 3 1. 16 in h is artibus

e x e rcitationib usque ve rsatus o rato r, &c.

Th e o ppo sition be twe en the o ry and

practice runs thro ugh th e who le passagecp. qu ibus artibus ex ercitationes

abo ve , and scientiam ex ercitatione

be low. Th e fo rme r implie s th e latte rno o ne can pe rfect himse lf in the o ry witho ut touching on practice : th e rationaleo f bo th is th e same . Even tho se , th e

write r adds, w h o draw a rigid line be twe enth e tw o must admit that the o ry is, fo r th eo rato r, th e be st pre parat io n fo r practice .

1 7 . r e c o nd itas , abstruse .

’

C ic . Brut.44 de Or . i . 8 . In suppo rt o f th e read

ing ado pted in th e te xt , Jo hn quo te s Cic.

Tasc . v. 7 2 to t tam variisque v irtutibus

pro Se st . 46 causas to t tamque varias .

18 . n i s i u t nisi ita ut, ut no n . This isth e o nly instance o f th is use in Taci tuso the r example s o f th e co llo cation are al l

like Agr. xv . 3 nihi l pro fi ci patientia nisiut, & c . Cp . howe ve r Quint . v . 10

, 5 7nunquam i taque to l l e tur a spe cie genusnisi ut omne s Spe c ie s . remo ve antur

P l in . Ep. ii . 1 1,16 neque enim iam

inch o ari po te rat actio nisi ut no ctis inte rventu scinde retur.

m e di tat i o , 14. 5 . Th e l earne rmust no t depend o n memo ry alo ne : h emust make a practice o f rehe arsing whath e knows in we ll-conside re d languageno t as ye t, o f co urse , fo r public de live ry:Cic. de Or. i . 147 qui ingrediuntur in

e o rum , stadium , quique e a.quae agenda sunt in

fo ro tamquam in aci e , po ssunt e t i am nunc

e x e rcitati one quasi ludicra prae disce re ac

meditari, ih . 136, 260 . M editatio is‘th e who le inte l le ctual act ivity e xpende do n a lite rary o r rhe to rical pro duction (cp .

Ann. iv. 6 1 b ut e spe cially practicalrehearsal and e xe rcitat ion,’ Jo hn : c .p 16 .

4 , 30. 9 . Its aim and end is sk i l l in o r

capacity fo r public-spe aking (f acu l tas) ,th e faculty o f applying wha t h as be enlearned . and that only ne e ds to find a

sphe re . Fo r meditati .o . usus cp. Ge o rg.i . 1 33

‘ut varias usus med itando e x tun

de re t arte s.

’

u su s , fo r th e MS . v is , wh ich wo ul d b eo uto f place he re in spe ak ing o f the o re ticaltraining : fo r th e confusio n se e crit . no teo n Quint . x . 1

, 8 3 . Usus he re deno te se xpe rience and practice in e lo quence(Quint . i i . 1 5 , 23, 13018 17 : e x ercitatio

d icendi, Cice ro ) rathe r than th e emplo yment o f e loquence , as 12. 10, cp. 41. 9 .

Cp . facultate e t usu,l . 10 abo ve . E l o

quentiae h as be en suspe cted as a_glo ss.

19 . r a t i o n em , me tho d .

’F o r its use

with th e ge rund, se e o n Quint . x . I , 4 :2 , 3 . So far, th e pro ce sse s are identicalalike in th e Sphe re o f knowledge arte sand in that o f ‘ practice ’

(whe th e r inregard to e x e rcitatione s

’

o r rea l spe e che s)th e w ay lie s thro ugh meditatio ,f acu l tas,and usus. Th e science and th e art are o ne .

23 . p arati o r em v e nturum . C ic .

Brut . 263 h as ille tenens e t paratus ad

causas veniens .

24 . v id entur, are he l d to b e .

’

92 CORNEL I I TACI TI

3 4 . E rgo apud maiore s no stro s iuv e nis il le qui foro e t e l o

que ntiae parab atur, imb utus iam d ome s t ica d is c ip l ina , re fe rtus

h o ne stis studiis d e duce b atur a patre ve l a pro pinquis ad cum

o rato rem qui principem in civ ita t e locum o b tine b at. H 11110

5 se ctari, h unc p ro sequ i, h u ius omn ib us dictio nib us intere s se s ive

10

in ind i c i 1s s ive in co ntio nib us adsue sce b at, ita ut al te rcatio ne s

quoque e x cipe re t e t iurg i i s inte re sse t utque s ic d ix e rim, pugnare

in pro e l io d isce re t. M agnus e x h o c usus , mu ltum co nstantiae ,

p l urimum iudicu iuvenib us sta tim co ntinge b at, in me d ia luce

stude ntib us atque inter ipsa dis c rim ina, ub i nemo impune stu l te

a liqu id aut cont rarie dicit, quo minus e t iudex re spuat e t adve r

3 4 . 2 . parabatur codd ., praeparabatur Ritte r, No vak .

teresset Bekke r,ex cipere

3 4 . 2 . imb utu s,‘ trained ,

’cp. Cic . de

Off. i . 1 18 parentium prae ceptis imbuti .Th e ab l . discipl ina i s rathe r d iffe rent frome l oquentia , line 13 be low : cp . eruditione 2.

14, and cl ementis 19 . 20 (whe re se e no te ) .In o rde r to emphasize this

,Ge rbe r and

G re e f take imbutus he re as used abso lute ly(sc. iure e t e l o quentia) , comparingAnn . i i i .59 , 12 sic imbui re cto rem gene ris humani,id primum e pate rnis co nsi l iis disce re .

3 . d e du ce b atu r . Fo r this use o f

intro ducing a yo uth to a maste r o r

guardian, cp . pro Cae l . 9 : de Am . 1 .

Th e custom o f se ek ing th e so cie ty o f

distinguished jurists o r o rato rs is re fe rre dto in ve ry simi lar language by Quint ilianx . 5 , 19 quare iuvenis qui ratio nem ia

veniendi e l o quend ique a prae ce pto rib us

d i l igente r accepe rit e x e rcitatio nem

quoque mod icam fue ri t co nsecutus , o ra

to rem sibi a l iquem, quo d apud maio re sfi e ri so l e b at, de l igat, quem sequatur, quem

imite tur : iudiciis inte rsitquam pl urimis e t

sitce rtaminis cui de stinatur frequens spe ctato r . Cp . x ii . 1 1 , 5 C ic . Brut . 305

—6 .

4 . p r in cip em l o cum . So Ann . i ii .7 5, 4 principem in civitate l o cum studiis

civi l ibus asse cutus : cp. primum o b tinent

l o cum 38 . 1 1,be low.

5 . s e ctar i . Cp . adsectabar 2. 7 .

6 . iu d i ci is c o nti o n i b u s : o f ‘ fo rensic’and de libe rat ive o rato ry : se e on l ine 15 ,be low .

al te r cati o n e s . Th e a l te rcatio w as a d is

cussio n be tw e en riva l speake rs carried on

in th e w ay o f sho rt answe rs and re to rts,whe the r in a co urt-o f-l aw ,

in th e senate , o ro n a publ ic platfo rm . In jud icial case s itfo l l o w ed (when re so rted to ) th e e xamina

interesse co dd . 8 . magnus co rr. B, magnos ADCHV2.

tion o fwitne sse s whichw as inRomanusagepreceded by th e main spe e che s fo r th e pro secutio n and de fence (Cic. in Ve rr. i. 1 ,A famous instance in th e senate is th e dial o gue be twe en Cice ro and C l o dius (ad Att.i . 16, 8 ) cp . Brut . 1 59 iam in alte rcando(Crassus) invenit parem neminem . Th e a l

te rcatio (actio brevis atque co ncisa, Quint.vi . 4, 2 ) is alw ays o ppo sed to pe rpetua o r

continua oratio (Liv. iv. 6, 1 : Tac . Hist . iv .

7 , and it requ ired th e utmo st sk i l l o nth e part o f th e disputants : aspe rrima inh ac parte dimicatio e st ne c alibi dix e rismagi s mucrone pugnati , Quin t. v i . 4, 4 .

7 . u tqu e s i c di x e r im , fo r th e mo reclassical ut ita dicam so 40. 1 8 : Ge rm.

ii . 4 Ann. x iv . 53 , 14, whe re se e

Furneaux '

s no te . Cp . Quint. x. 2,15 .

8 . co n stantiae ,‘se lf-po sse ssio n,

’

re adi

ne ss .

9 . iu d i ci i , o f‘so und judgment

’

: cp . l 9 .6 .

in m e d i a l u ce . So fo rensi luce ,’C ic . Brut . 3 2 : in h ac fo ri luce , Quint.xii . 2 , 8 th e o ppo site is stud ia in umbrae ducata, ’ Ann. x iv . 5 3, 14 . Cp. Quint .i . 2

,1 8 o rato r cui in maxima ce l e b ritate

e t in me dia re i publicae luce vivendum

e st : and fo r th e frequent contrast be twe enth e shady re tre at o f th e scho o l and th e

o pen light o f practical life , Cic . Brut. 5 37de Orat . i . 5 1 57 : Or. 5 64 : Quint . x . 5 ,1 7 , whe re se e no te : ih . xii . 6 , 4 .

10. in te r ip sa d i scr imi n a . Cp. C ic.

de Legg. i i i. 6, 14 Ph al e reus ille Demetrius mirab i l ite r do ctrinam e x

umb racu l is e rudito rum o tio que non mo do

in so lem atque in pul ve rem , sed in ipsumd iscrimen aciemque produx it.

1 1. co ntrari e d icit, i . e . sib ime t ipse

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

94 CORNELI I TACI TI

d icta dissimul arentur. Scitis enim magnam il l am e t duraturam

e l o que ntiae famam no n m inus in d iv e rsis sub se l l iis para ri quam

suis inde qu in immo constantiu s su rge re, ib i fide l ius co rro b o rari.

2 5 A tque h e rcu le sub e iu s mod i prae cepto rib us iuv enis i l l e d e quel o quimur

,o rato rum d is c ipu lus , fori aud ito r, se ct ato r iudicio rum ,

e rud itus e t adsue factus a l ie nis e x pe rime ntis , cui co tid ie audie nti

no tae lege s, non novi ind icum vul tus,frequens in o cu l is co n

sue tudo co ntio num,saepe co gnitae popu l i aures, s ive a ccu sa

30 tio nem susce pe rat s ive d e fensio nem , so lu s s t atim e t unus cu icum

que cau sae par e rat. Nono de cimo ae tatis anno L . C ra s su s

2 3 . quam su is codd . , quam in su is Andre sen,Halm . 30 . so l us statim

un icu ique HV and edd. ve tt. 3 1 . N ono de cimo co dd . uno et o icesimo Nippe rdey, Baeh rens.

o f friendly and unfriendl y he are rs.

’

F o r

this use o f e x fo llowing a substantive (he reaud itor ium) cp . Ge rm . xxii i . 1 po tnihumo r e x h o rde o aut frumento : Hist . iv.

76, 14 h ullas e sse Ce rial i nisi e re l iquiis

Ge rmanici e x e rcitus legio ne s.—Ou th e

o the r hand , Jo hn th inks the re is no ne ed

e ithe r to supply a part iciple,o r to inse rt

a comma afte r novum : th e e ssentialfe ature is ‘

e x invidis e t fave ntibus’

to

which sempe r plenum, sempe r no vum ’

are subo rdinate .

2 1 . n e c b e n e n e c s e cus d icta : tr. ‘so

that ne ithe r grace s no r fau lts o f d ictio nco uld pass unno tice d.

’

Cp . Ann. xiii . 6,16 h one stis an se cus amicis ute retur : Liv.

vi i . 6 , 8 pro bene aut se cus consultoh ab itura : C ic . Pis. 68 re cte an se cus.

In favo ur o f th e re ading ut ne c male necbene dicta ,’ it h as be en urge d that th e o rde ris suppo rte d by e x invid is et faventib us

immed iate ly be low : b ut in th e passagequo ted from Livy xxii i . 46 , 1 th e me aningo f ‘

ne c bene ne c male d icta is ‘ne ithe r

praise no r blame .

’

2 2 . d u raturam , as at 22. 15 : cp . o n

mansu rum,9 . 2 2 .

23 . in di v e r s i s su b se l l i i s o n th e

benche s o f our o pponents , who se crit icismsare pro fitable and stimulating : cp . 3 7ad fin. So Quint . x i . 3 , 13 2

—3 advo cato

adve rsis sub se l l iis se dent i transirein dive rsa subse llia parum ve re cundum

e st. Fo r this use o f diversas cp . dive rsam

partem , 1. 18 .

qu am su i s . Fo r th e omission o f th e

pre p . in th e se co nd clause , cp. 32. 1 7 28 .

14 . J. M ii l l e r cite s Pl in . N . H . 2, 7 8

,l unam b is co itam cum So l e in nullo alio

signo face re quam geminis—no vissimamve ro nullo al io in s igno quam arie teconspici : 2

,1 88 : Pl in. Ep . 8 . 24 , 9 .

24 . c o n s tan t iu s c o r r o b o rar 1‘ its growth in that quarte r is mo revigo ro us, and strike s de e pe r ro o ts.

’

Cp .

C ic . Fam . vii i . 8 , 2‘ magna i l ico fama

surre x it and quo d fide l ite r fi rmum e st,’

Quint. v i . 4 , 14 .

2 6 . f o r i . iu d i ci o rum The se genitive s deno te th e Sphe re in which th e

actio n e xpre sse d by th e ve rbal no uns

take s place . Cp . 5 . 19 .

2 7 . op . 22.

9 usu et e x pe rimentis didice rat : Agr. xix .2 do ctus pe r aliena e xpe rimenta.

28 . in c ou l is , fo r ‘ante o cul o s

’

as

i v 671111101. 8 0 Hist . iv. 7 7 , 6 Ann . iii . 29 ,8 : cp.

‘ in co nspectu .

’

29 . p o p ul i aur e s : o f th e ‘ taste ’o f

th e public, as 19 . 7, and l ine 1 5 , abo ve .

Th e frequent use o f au res in th is sense in th eD ial ogus is no tewo rthy cp . 20. 20 aurib us e t iudiciis ; 9 . 6 aure s tuae ; 27 8 aure sv e stras ; 21. 1 1 auribus iudicum ; 19 . 2 2

fastidium aurium. So Ann . xii i . 3, 8 ingenium amo enum e t tempo ris e ius auri b usaccommo datum.

3o . cu1’

cumqu e cau sae . Fo r qui

cumque as an inde finite prono un quiv is

o r qui l ib e t) , se e no te o n Quint . x . 1 , 1 2 .

3 1 . n o n o d e c im o , &c . Th e facts are

no t e xactly stated by Me ssal l a . C rassus(se e o n 18 . 10) w as twenty-o ne (anno snatus unum e t v iginti , de Or. i ii . 74 )whe re h e made h is first public appe arancein co nne xio n with th e pro se cutio n o f

C . Papirius Carbo , in B . C . 1 1 9 . Cae sarw as in h is tw enty-third year when, in

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR IB US . ~ 95

C . Carb o nem , uno e t v icensimo Cae sa r Do l ab e l lain , a l te ro e t

vice nsimo As inius Po l lio C. Cato nem,no n mu ltum ae tate ante

ce de ns Ca lvus Vatinium iis o ratio nib us inse cuti sunt qua s h od ie

quoque cum admiratio ne l egimus .

3 5 . At nunc adul e sce ntu l i no s t ri d educuntur in scho las

isto rum qui rh e to re s vo cantur, quos pau lo ante Cice ro nis tempora

e x titisse ne c pl acuisse maio rib us no stris e x e o manife stum e st,

quod a Crasso e t Domitio ce nso rib us e lud e re , ut ait Cice ro ,l n d um imp ud e nti a e ius s i sunt.

3 2 . uno cl co dd . tertio ct Pich ena .

p . lx xxvii i .34 . i is ABGAH , [ s D ,

b is EV2Izodie quoque AB ,

Halm,Mul le r, He lmre ich , b odieque EV2CAD , b odie

’ H .

Se d ut d ice re institue ram , 5

se e Intro d .

3 5 . 1 . scb o l as i sto r um Haupt,sen i (se in EV2C , sem D,

scenam B co rr ., scena H)scb o l asticor um ABCADH (sco l asticorum in scb o l as corum No vak (w h o says o f

'

th e MS . read ing, in sen i scb o l asticorum,

ticor um

B . C . 7 7 , h e impe ached Do l ab e l l a (Sue t .Ia l . 4) on a charge o f r epetundae .

Quinti lian is le ss de fini te : nequ e ego anno s

de finiam,cum Calvus

,Cae sar

,Po llio

multum ante quae sto riam omne s aetatem

gravissima iudiciasuscepe rint,praete x tato se gi sse quo sdam si t trad itum,

x i i . 6,1 . It

i s inte re sting to remembe r that C rassusafte rwards regre tted h is attack o n Carbo(C ic . in Ve rr. iii . 1 , 3 ) as having invo lvedh im in a premature de claration o f h is

po l itical o pinions .

3 3 . P o l l i o accused C . Po rcius Catoin B . C . 54 . H e w as bo rn in B . C . 7 5 .

Fo r Cal vu s, se e on 17 . 4 : Vatin ius ,21. 9 .

n o n mu l tum ae tate an te ce d e n s . SoQuint . x . 1

,103 paul um aetate prae ce dens

e um : Cic. Bru t . 8 2 ae tate paul um e is

ante cede ns .

34. in s e cuti sunt. Fo r this use o f

insequ i (Btcima v) cp . Ho r . Ep . ii . 2 , 1 9Inseque ris tame n h unc e t lite mo raris

iniqua . Simi larly 4 . 3 : 21. 36 .

h o d i e qu o qu e . Mo st autho ritie sco nside r this to b e th e co rre ct re ad ing,quoqu e be ing used

,as o ften, fo r etiam :

se e o n 6 . 19 . Th e fo rm b odieque mayhave re sul te d from a misunde rsto o dco ntractio n . it o ccurs Ge rm . i i i . 1 1 quo din ripa Kheni situm h o d ieque inco l 1tur,and frequently i n Ve l l e ius, Sene ca, Plinyth e Elde r, and Sue to nius : o nly o nce in

Quintilian x. 1 , 94, whe re se e no te .

Similarly at 22. 6, B and H have l ocosque fo r l ocos quoque , wh ile on th e

o the r hand o ut o f ipsosque , Hand th e early e dd . make ipsos quoque .

Wb l fll in, howe ve r, regards b odieque as

‘o rtum vide tur e dittograph ia inse . i n scb o las

4 . a Michae lis , M mo st co dd . , M arco HV2 e dd . y e tt.

a genuine fo rm :

p . 160 .

3 5 . 1 . At n un c .

us,yo ung men,’ &c.

natus infans.

2 . r h e to re s ,’

disparagingly, as quo s

rh eto ras vo cant, 30. 4 . Cp . Cice ro ’

s

cri t icisms o f th e ‘rh eto rici do cto re s,

’

de

Or . i . 86, 8 7 .

4 . c l u d e r e l u d um . InCic. ad Fam . ix .

18 , w e have ape tite lndum.

’

u t ait C ice r o : de Or . iii . 5 94 h o ccum unum trade re tur e t cum impudentiae

ludus e sse t , putari e sse censo ris ne l o ngiusid se rpe re t pro videre . C rassus w as

censo r, alo ng with C11. Domitius Ah enobarbus, in B . C . 9 2 . Fo r the ir e dict decoe r eendis rb etor ibus Latin is

,se e Sue to

n ius , Rhe t . 1 renuntiatum e st no bis e ssehom ine s qui no vum genus d iscipl inae

institue runt, ad quo s iuventus in lndumco nveniat ; e o s sibi nomen impo suisse

Latino s rh e to ras, ib i homine s adule scentul o s d ie s to to s de side re , & c. Momm

se n, Hist . i i i. 443—4 .

5 . u t d ice r e in stitu e ram . F o r thisfo rmu la fo r re suming an inte rruptedsentence , John compare s Cic . Ve rr . i i .5 4 1 and 5 65 : i ii . 24 pro Cacciu . 1 5Th e co l loquial equivale nt w as ‘

ut co e pi

(o cce pi ) d ice re z’ Brix o n Plau t . Trin.

847 , Pe tro n . 7 5 and C ic . pro Ro se . Ame r .§ 9 1 . This is also a guarante e fo r th e

co rre ctne ss o f Haupt s emendatio n in line,

‘ deducuntur i n scho las isto rum ’

(cp .

in th e MS . re ading (se in , sem ,

sen i ) Jo hn se e s a glo ss, ‘se . in scho las, ’

an attempted e xplanat io n o f th e uninte ll igible in scb o l asticorum.

’

v . Phi l o lo gus, xxvi .

Butnowadays w ithSo 29. 1 At nunc

96 CORNELI I TACI TI

deducuntur in sch o l as , in quib us non facile dix e rim utrumne l ocus

ips e an co ndiscipul i an ge nu s studio rum p lus ma li inge niis

adfe rant.

acqu e impe ritus intrat

Nam in l oco n ih il reve re ntiae, se d in quem nemo n is i

in co nd iscipul is nih i l pro fe ctus , cum

1 0 pue ri in t e r pue ro s e t adu l e sce ntu l i in t e r adu l e sce ntu l o s pa ri

se curitate e t dicant e t aud iantur ; ipsae ve ro e x e rcitatio ne s magna

e x pa rte co ntrariae . Nempe e nim duo ge n e ra mate riarum apud

rh e to ras tractantur, suaso riae e t co ntro v e rsiae . Ex h is suaso riae

quidem etsi tamquam p lane l e vio re s e t minus prude ntiae

6 . in add. Sch urzfle isch .

u i (et Se e b o de )dal ius and Nippe rdey) .

6 . u trumn e o ccurs o nl y he re and at

I t i s howe ve r frequent inQuintilian and Sene ca .

8 . ad f e r ant. I t h as be en pro po sed tore ad adferat, but fo r th e plura l cp . 3 7 . 26

ne c C ice ronem magnum o rato rem P .

Quinctius de fensas aut Li cinius Archiasfaciunt. Even when th e act io n o f tw o

subj e cts is tho ught o f se parate ly, Tacitususual ly (as some time s Livy) h as th e ve rbin th e plural cp . criminab imur, 41 . 6 .

s e d in qu em . intrat. It is be st to ke epto th e read ing o f th e MSS . Sed come s in ,

no tunnaturally like dM o’

z) , afte r anegat ivestatement, b ut i t is unne ce ssary to al te rintrat into intret. The re is some thing tob e said fo r Jo hn’

s ut intrat fo r th e

indicative (o f a we l l-known fact ) cp.

Ge rm . x x u . 2 ut apud quo s pl urimum

hiems o ccupat, ih . xvii. 61 1 . s e cur itate , complace ncy,’ un

conce rn .

’ Quint i lian stro ngly censure s(i i . 2

, 9-1 3 ) th e prevailing fashio n o f

be stowing indiscriminate prai se upo n suchpe rfo rmance s, apart from the ir re alme rits :supe rvacua enim videntur cura ac labo rparata quidquid e ffude rint l aude .

’

1 2 . c o n trar iae , no t to th e purpo sethe y do harm rathe r than go o d : cp. 39 , 10

co ntrariam e x pe rimur (st ili anx ie tatem) .So Quint . x . 5 , 15 ne carmine quideml nde re co ntrarium fue rit a l ienum ,

’

in

cons iste nt wi th one ’

s aim,inappo site .

N emp e e n im ,o nly he re in Tacitus.

Cp . Quint . i i . 13 , 9 ; vii i . pr . 6 : Pl in.

Ep . i ii . 16 , 8 : Panegyr. 6 2, 2 . AlsoPlautus , Trinum. 6 1

13 . suas o r i ae co ntr o v e rs i ae .

8 . reve rentiae , sed

intrat Jo hn : r euer entiae est, in quem

13. rb etores BD

b, qu id et si ABEV2, quod etsi D. [Ex b is

1 5 ex ige n te s pue ris de l egantur, co ntro ve rs iae ro b ustio rib us ad

intrat co dd . : rever entiae ,intret Halm (afte r Aci

14 . qu idem etsi CA , qu idem

controversiae om . HV edd . vett.]

Se e o n de l iberatio ae and indicia l es ma

ter iae, 3 1. 7 : and cp . Intro ductio n, p .

xxvii,no te . Fo r th e omissio n o f th e third

genus causarum, cp. Quint . ii . 1,2 i lli

tso . rh eto re s) de clamare mo do et scientiam

d e cl amandi ac facul tatem trade re o fii cii

sui dicunt idque intra de libe rativas indicial e sque mate rias, ri am ce te ra ut pro fe s

sio ne sua m ino ra de spiciunt. In th e same

passage , Quint i lian take s a diffe rent viewo f th e suasor iae ‘ in quibus onus dicendive l maximum e st.

’- Se e Mayo r ’s no te on

J uv . i . 16 : et no s C onsilium dedimus

Sul l ae , privatus ut altum Do rmiret : and

fo r e xample s o f suasor iae and controversiaecp. id . vi i . 16 2 and 168 sq. : Pe rs. i ii . 4 5 .

1 4. qu id em e ts i . I fo llow Vahlen and

Jo hn in re turning to th e re ad ing o f th e

MSS . th e omission o f etsi wo uld se em to

invo lve th e ne ce ssity o f re ad ing co ntrove rs iae autem inste ad o f contro ve rsiae ,

’

immed iate ly be low—tho ugh He lmre ich

cite s Ann . iv. 29 h i quidem stat im e x

empti : in patrem e x se rvis quae situm.

Th e write r w ishe s spe cially to condemn

th e co ntro ve rsiae ,’

as pro ducing wo rsere sults in pro po rtion to th e age o f th e

pupils h e _ me ans to say as fo r th e

suasor iae , the y are handed o ve r to me rebo ys

,as be ing o f mino r impo rtance , and

requiring le ss judgment : b ut tho ugh w emight to le rate them,

what o f th e contro

versiae ? they a i e incrediblyuntrue to fact .’1 5 . r o b u sti o r i b us . The re i s th e same

antithe sis in Quintilian ,i . 8 , 1 2 prio ra i l l a

ad pue ro s magis, hae c sequentia ad ro bustio re s pertine b unt: cp. x. 1 , 13 1 : 5 , 1

ii . and o ften.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

98 CORNELI I TACI TI

3 6 . rem cogit an t . N ih i l hum il e ve l ab ie ctum e loqui

Magna e l o que ntia, sicut fl amma , mate ria a l itur e t

mo tib us e x citatur e t ure ndo c l are scit. Eadem rat io in nos t ra

quoque civ it ate antiquo rum e l o que ntiam pro ve x it. Nam e tsi

horum quoque temporum o rato re s e a co nse cuti s unt quae com

pos it a e t qu ieta e t b e a t a re pub lica t rib ui fas e ra t , tamem i l la

po te rat.

pe rturb atio ne ac l ice ntia p l ura s ib i adse qu i v ide b antur, c um ,

mix tis omn ib u s e t mode ra t o re uno care ntib us , t ant um qu isque

o rator sape re t quan tum e rrant i popu lo pe rsu ad e re po te rat.

3 6 . 1 . cogitant AB , cogitare EV2CADH , cogitar et many e dd . ve l abiectum AB ,

n ib il ab iectum EVzCADH . 4 . [antiquorum] N o vak . 6 . f as co dd . ,f as nonSch ul ting, n ef as Andre sen . i l l i Gutmann . 9 . persuadere Heumann and edd

per suader i co dd . (which might b e de fended) .Ch s . 3 6—4 1 . Speecb o Maternu s, con

necting tb c decl ine o e l oquence w itb

e x te rna l conditions an r espect of w b icb

tb e age of tb c r epu b l i cw as more f avou rabl eto its grow tb : and r ev iew ing tb e com

pensating advantages of contemporarycircumstances.

3 6 . 1 . h umi l e ab i e ctum ,o ften

co njo ined by Cice ro : de F in . v. 57nihi l ab ie ctum

,n ihi l hum i le co gitant : Or

19 2 h umi l em e t ab ie ctam o ratio nem.

2 . M agn a e l o qu e ntia . Th is is th e

passage in connexion w ith which W il liamPitt is re co rded to have pro ve d h is readysk i l l at o ff-hand translation. Some o ne

h aving prono unced i t untransl ateab l e , h ecame o ut w ith th e fo llowing It is withe loquence as w ith a flame . It requ ire sfue l to fe ed it , mo tion to e xcite it , and itbrightens as it burns (Stanho pe

’

s Life o f

Pitt , vo l . ii i . p . Cp . C ic. Brut . 5 93omnis illa vis e t quasi flamma e x stin

guitur .

3 . m o ti b u s . Th e use o f th e pluralse ems to favo ur Jo hn’

s e xplanation thatth e re fe rence is, in th e case o f e lo quence ,to po litical d isturbance s (cp . i lla pe rturb atio ne

,be low) in th e case o f fi re , it w i l l

b e rathe r to de libe rate stirring and po king,

th an to th e fanning o f fi tful bre eze s . Th e

commentato rs gene rally explain ‘mo tus ’ o fm ental e xcitement, comparing th e Brutusl . c . (o f Galba) de in cum o tio sus ( i . e . in

th e calm that fo llowe d h is o utburst o ffe e l ing) sti l um pre h ende rat mo tusque

omnis animi tanquam ventus hominemde fe ce rat, fl acce sce bat o rat io .

’

c l ar e sc it. This ve rb is mo re commo uly used me tapho rical ly , e g . Ann .

xi . 16,1 3 (o f be coming famo us) : cp.

howeve r Ann. xv. 37 , 13 quantum iux ta

nemo ris . l uminib us cl are sce re . Gudeman would substitute (w ith Mae h l y)ca l escit fo r cl ar escit, o n th e gro und thatth e latte r wo rd is an

‘ into le rable tautolo gy, ’ -o nly ano the r e xpre ssion fo r whatis alre ady co ntaine d in motibus ex citatur

it is fanned into a flame by bre e ze s , andwaxe s warm in th e burning .

’He com

pare s 2 2 . 1 2 tard e commo ve tur, raro iacal e scit, and also th e fre quent co llo cation‘e x citare e t inflammare

’

(e . g . C ic. pro

Pomp. 2 : de Harusp . re sp. 1,

But

this is altoge the r unne ce ssary : Pitt’s ‘ itbrightens as it burns may b e allo w e d tostand .

E ad em r atio ,

‘th e same co nd itio ns.

’

From in nostra quoque civ itate,w e may

infe r that th e spe ake r h as be en tre at ing o fGre e k e loquence ,—pro bably o f th e go ldenage o f Attic o rato ry .

5 . c om p o s i ta r e p u b li ca :‘unde r

a se ttle d , pe ace able , and pro spe ro us co n

stitut io n .

’

Cp . 2 non emendata neque

usque ad vo tum compo sita civitas Ann .

iv . 1 , 2 and passim .

qu ae tr i b u i fas e ra t , i . e . e ve rything that co uld b e legitimate ly acco rdedo r se cure d to them—e ve rything

,the re fo re

,

that co uld b e re asonably lo o ked fo r

co nsistently w ith a se ttle d po litical co ndition .

7 . vi d e b antu r,se . ant iqui o rato re s, as

is e vident from th e antithe sis be twe e nb orum temporum and i l la perturbabatione . The re is an emphasis o n s ibi

,

wh ich go e s w ith adsequ i :‘th e pe rsonal

advantage s which the y saw o pen to themwe re greate r then than no w .

’

8 . omn i bu s , ne ute r, as 19 . 19 pe rvul

gatis iam omn i bus : cp . H ist. i . 68 , 1 3d irutis omnibus. Tr. When in th e

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I B US . 99

Hinc lege s assiduae e t popu la re nom e n , h ine co ntione s magis [ o

tratuum pae ne pe rno ctantium in ro stris, h inc accusatio ne s po

te ntium re o rum e t ads ignatae e t iam domib us inimicitiae , h inc

p roce rum factio ne s e t a s sidua s e na tus adve rsu s p l e b em ce rtamina .

Quae s ingu la e t s i d istrah e b ant re ru pub l ic am , e x e rce b ant tamem

i l l o rum temporum e l o que ntiam e t magnis cumu lare praemiis

v id e b antur, quia quan t o quisque p lus d ice ndo po te rat, tant o

facil ius hon ore s adseque b atur, tan t o magis in ipsis h o no rib us

co l l egas suos ante ib at,tan to p lus apud principe s gra t ia e , p lus

aucto ritatis apu d pa t re s, p lu s no t itiae ac nom inis apud p l e b em

parab at. Hi cl ie nte l is e tiam e x te rarum natio num re dundab ant,

hos i tu ri in p rov incias magis t ra t u s re ve re b antur, hos reve rsi

1 2 . r erum ABHDC , reorum B co rr .[are Come l issen, cp . 37 1 .

gene ral fe rment, witho ut th e strong hando f a single rule r, th e me asure o f e achspe ake r ’s po litical d isce rnment w as h is

powe r o f influencing th e unstable populace , ’ i . e . e ach enjo yed a re putation fo rwisdom in pro po rtion to h is powe rs o f

pe rsuasion . Sape ret must= sape re Videretur , se . sibi et al iis : no t, as Church andBro dribb , exactly adapted h is w isdom to

th e bewilde re d pe o ple’

s capacity o f co nv iction .

’— Jo hn s e xplanat ion is rathe rd iffe rent h e wo uld supply sape re w ithquantum ,

’

contend ing that the re is

no thing anomalo us in a spe ake r’s reputat ion depending o n h is pro ved ability topro duce convictio n in o the rs

,and that

th e re fe rence must b e to th e impre ssionand appearance o f wisdom that h is wo rdspro duce . Th e sense wo u ld then b e Thatspe ake r w as mo st highly tho ught o f w h oc ould be st dazzle and ho o dwink h is

audience .

’

In this case , er ranti wi l l be stb e taken o f ‘

e rro ne o us judgment ’ (Cic.

de Off . 1. 65 qui pende t e x e rro re imperitae mul titudinis) rathe r than, as

I pre fe r to take it, o f unstable equi libriumcp. 40 . 19 no stra quo que civitas, do ne ce rravit. So Andre sen , e rranti ‘ inte rvaria ac saepe d ive rsa iud icia fluctuanti ,mo do h unc mo do il l um admiranti.

’

10 . e t p o p u lar e . Th e conjunction is‘e xplicative ’

: tr. a constant succe ssio no f legislative e nactments and co nsequentpo pularity .

’Th e mo tive , as we ll as th e

re sult , o f such activity w as to gain favo uras a champio n o f po pular rights : cp . plus

nominis apud pl e b em parabat, be low.

1 5 . cumu l are co dd . , cumu l ar i Ore l l i, stima

20 . parabat b Pitho n, pr obabat co dd .

1 1 p ae n e p e rn o ctantium in r o str i s .

So frequently in Cice ro Brut. 305habitan t in ro stris pro Mur. 5 2 1 in fo rohabitant : de Or. i . 5 264 is qui h ab itare tin sub se l l iis.

accu s ati o n e s re o rum , tantol o gical : cp. Ann . xi . 5 , 1 saevus accu

sand is re is. So 3 7 . 14 accede b at splendo rre o rum e t magnitudo causar am .

1 2 . ad s i gn atae attri butae , attachingto tr. in which who le fami lie s be came

invo lved, ’ o r which be came he red itary inwho le familie s ’

(Ge rm . xxi . Fo r

paral le l instance s o f adszgnare in

this sense o f ‘ mak ing a thing one ’s o w n ,

’

Jo hn cite s Quint . iv . 6 , 6 2 ; xii . 10 , 4 1 ;ix. 4 , 29 .

1 3 . p r o ce rum facti o n e s , sch isms in

th e party o f th e aristo cracy,’—some o f th e

no bile s taking up th e cause o f th e

pe o ple .

1 5 . cumu l ar e . So Ve rg. Aen . v . 5 3 2

Ace sten mune ribus cumul at magnis : cp .

Hist . i i . 5 7, 9 ; i i i . 36, 1 3 .

1 8 . an te i b at Hist . i i i . 65 , 5 .

p r in c ip e s , ‘th e lead ing m en.

’

19 . n o t i t iae ac n om in is,as at 11. 1 1 .

Fo r n otitia , cp . o n 5 . 1 9 .

20 . c l i e n te l i s r e d un d ab ant.

The re may b e a re fe rence , with th e View o f

glo rifying th e e loquence o f fo rme r days ,to th e wo rds which Ape r h ad used (3 . ad

fin ) in addre ssing Mate rnus : cum te to t

co l o niarum e tmunicipio rum cl iente l ae

in fo rum vo cent. Tr. ‘ The se we re th e

men who se pro te ction w as e age rly so ughtafte r e ven by who le natio ns o f fo re igne rs ’

I S

20

00 CORNEL [ 1 TACI TI

co l e b ant, hos e t prae turae e t co nsu l atus v oca re u l tro v ide b antur,

h i ne p riva t i qu idem s ine pote s t a te e rant, cum e t popu lum e t

s enatum consil io e t aucto ritate rege re nt. Qu in immo s ib i

2 5 pe rsuase rant neminem s ine e l o que ntia au t adse qui posse in

civ i t a t e au t t u e ri conspicuum e t em ine n tem locum : ne c mirum ,

cum e t iam inv it i ad popu lum pro duce re ntur, cum pa rum e s se t in

senatu b rev ite r ce nse re , nisi qu is inge n io e t e l o que ntia se nte ntiam

s uam tu e re tur, cum in al iquam inv id iam aut c rime n vocati su a

30 vo ce re spond e ndum h ab e re nt, cum te stimon ia quoque in iudici is

24 . sib i persuaserant B, sibi ipsi pe rsuaser ant ce tt. co dd. Pe rhaps Qu in immo

omnes sibi : omnes (a ) may have dro pped o ut be twe en immo and s ibi . 2 8 .

[brev ite r] Scho e ll .ingen ia tuerentur No vak) .

qu is Lipsius, qu i co dd .

30 . iudici ispubl icis Agrico la,publ icis co dd . ,

29 . tue r etur ADCH,tuerentur B (n isi

publ icis cansis Bae h rens, iudici i s Heumann, Halm.

the ir nume ro us cl iente l l e included e ve nfo re ign state s . H i re fe rs

,o f course , to

qui pl urimum dicendo p o te rant.

’

2 2 . v o car e n l tr o . Office and emo l u

ment b e cko ne d them,

’ witho ut any so l icitatio n o n the ir part .

24 . c o n s i l io e t au cto ri tate . Simi larlyGe rm . xii . 10 centeni singul is e x plebecomite s consi lium simu l et aucto ritasadsunt.

Qu in imm o . Nay mo re , e lo que ncew as co nside re d (v idebantur , l l. 7 and

16 ) no t o n ly se rvice able and pro fi tableb ut e ven indispensable to public men

cp . be low ‘

nece ssitas accede b at.’—With

o ut ipsi , th e subj e ct to persuaserant isno t th e pro fe ssio nal o rato rs alone , b utth e antiqu i gene rally, as also in whatfo llows . Th e inse rt i o n o f ipsi (pro bablydue to some so rt o f d i tto graphy ) se ems to

cre ate a false antithe sis be twe en th e

gene ra l o pinio n o f th e antiqu i and th e

views attributed to tho se w h o re cognizedin th e pro fe ssio n o f o rato ry th e be st passpo rt to o ffice .

26 . tu e ri l o cum ,o f ho lding o ne ’s

gro und cp . ho no re s tue ri, 37 . 4 .

2 7 . p r o du ce r e n tu r , Viz. o n th e ro strain th e fo rum . Th e me aning is, it w asquite natural and inte l ligible that e l oque nce sho uld come to b e regarded as

indispensable fo r th e cursus hono rume ven in le ss o ffi cial situat ions th e ne ed fo r

i t w as o ften f e lt . Then fo l lows a regularsequence o f ( 1) public assemblie s (adp o pulum) , (2 ) me e tings o f senate( in senatu) , and ( 3) co urts o f l aw ,

e ithe r (a) as de fendant (invidiamcrime n) , o r (b ) as a w itne ss (te st imoniaquoque}

p arum e ss e t : cp . 23. 15 .

28 . ce n s e r e . F o r this abso lute use ,

cp . Ann . i . 74 , 19‘

quo’inquit

‘ lo cocenseb is, Cae sar l

’

; x i i . 9 , 6 : Hist . iv.8 , 2 . Fo r th e thought, op . 41. 1 3 Quide nim o pus e st longis in senatu sententiis,cum o ptimi cito consentiant?

n i s i qu i s , & c . This do e s duty fo ra co o rdinate adve rsative clause : tr . No ,

o ne h ad to suppo rt o ne ’s o pinion ,

’— thatis to say, if o ne h ad any pre tensions torank as a state sman . A simi lar re dundancy o f expre ssion h as be en no ted o n

3 4. 1 1 ub i nemo impune quominus, &c .

In such case s (e spe cially common withnon satis habe re ,’ ‘

non satis e st’

) th etendency is to expre ss th e tho ught bo thpo sitive ly and negative ly, fo r emphasis :amo ng many o the r e xample s givenby Vahle n, cp . Cic . pro Ro sc. Am . 49 ut

parum mise riae sit quo d al iis co l uit, no n

s ibi,nisi e tiam quo d omnino co l uit crimini

fue rit : Te r. Ph o rmio , 7 24 no n satis e st

tuum te o fficium fe cisse , id si non fama

adpro b at : to which Binde adds Sen . Ep.

89 , 20 ; Quint . v . 10, 1 2 and Jo hn, fromth e Gre e k , Hom. Od . xi . 1 5 8 r r

‘

maii’

musZorn

w epfio at m Q’

OV é bwr’

, 7115 7 1? 3X9 e i’

zep‘

ye'

a

w’

ia : ib . xvi . 196 : So ph. An’

tig. 308

Xen . Cyro p . V11. 5 . 75 .

29 . inv i d iam aut cr im e n . Cp . H ist .i ii . 7 5 . 1 5 invidiam crimenque , whe rehowe ve r the re ismo re o f a hend iadys th e

o d ium and th e charge which incurred i the re rathe r de famation (unpo pularity) o rsome de finite charge .

’

su a v o ce r e sp o n d e nd um h ab e r e n t,‘ to surrende r pe rso nally ,’ to appe ar inpe rson in answe r to a legal summons .

Fo r th e constr. se e on 8 . 1 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

102 CORNELI I TACI TI

o pino r, Acto rum l ib ris e t trib us Epistu l arum compos it a e t edita

sunt. Ex h is inte l l egi po t e st Cri . Pompe ium e t M . Crassum non

10 v irib us modo e t a rmis , se d inge nio quoque e t o ratio ne val u isse ;

Le ntul o s e t M e te l l o s e t Lucu l l o s e t Curio ne s e t ce te ram pro

ce rum manum mu ltum in h is stud iis ope rae curae que po suisse ,

ne c quemquam i l lis tempo rib u s magnam po te ntiam sine a l iqua

e l o que ntia co nse cutum . His acce d e b at sp lend o r re o rum e t magni

1 5 tudo causarum, quae e t ip s a p lurimum e l o que ntiae prae stant.

Nam mu l tum int e re st utrumne d e fu rto au t fo rmu la e t in te rdic t o

dicendum hab e a s, an d e amb itu comitio rum,

e x pil atis soens

1 1 . Al ete l l os et CADH b, M ete l l os sed et ABEV2. 14 . accedebat ABEV2H,

accedat CAD . 15 . causarum EVZCADH (pe r compend .) b ,curarum AB . 1 7 .

e xpi l atis ABEV2H, de expil atis CAD , aut expi l atis Gudeman (v . Am . Jo urn . Phil .1111. pp . 454

po int to th e et et construction the seo l d re co rds are no t o n ly to b e fo und inl ibrarie s in the ir o riginal fo rm and e xtent ,b ut the y are e ven now be ing ed ited

,as

Ecl ogarii, Ele cta, o r Exce rpta (Cic . ad

Att. x v i . 2 , 6 Pl in. Ep . iii. 5 , 1 7 Front .e d . Nabe r, p .

8 . A cto rum , Transactions .

’ Liketh e acta senatus

,

’ the se may also havecon tained Spe e che s . Se e Furne aux , Intro d .

to Annals, ch . i i i . p . 14 .

comp o s i ta o rdinata, arranged .

’

10 . v i r i b u s e t armi s , gene rally takenas a h end iadys, fo rce o f arms tr .‘ prowe ss in th e fie ld .

’

So H ist . iv. 2 3, 568 , 6 . Fo r th e o rato rical abi lity o f Pomp ey and Crassus

,se e Cic . Brut . 239

and 233.

1 1 . L e ntu l o s . Cu . Co rne lius LentulusC l o dianus (co nsu l B . c . 7 2 , censo r 70)and P . C o rne lius Le ntulus Sura

,th e con

spirato r, are frequentlymentioned to ge the rin th e B rutus : 230, 234

—5 , 308 , 3 1 1 .

The re w as also P . Co rne lius LentulusSpinth er, w h o as consul in B . C . 5 7 mo vedfo r Cice ro ’

s re call from exile : Cn . Come

l ius Lentulus Marce llinus, consul B . C . 56

and L. Co rne lius Lentulus Crus, consul

B . C . 49 : se e Brut . 268 , 247 .

M e te l l o s . Cp . Brut . 247 Duo

e tiamM ete l l i , Ce le r etNepo s th e fo rme rw as consul in B . C . 60, th e latte r attackedC ice ro o n th e expiry o f h is consulship inB . C . 63, and w as consul himse l f in 5 7 .

The ir fathe r w as Q . Cae ci l ius Me te llusNe po s, grandson o f th e famo us Me te llusMace do nicus.

Lucu l l o s . Th e great Lucul lus wro te

a h isto ry o f th e So cial War in Gre e k . H e

is mentioned along with h is bro the rMarcus in Brut . 2 2 2 .

Cu r i o n e s . Th e Curio s, fathe r and son(as also th e grandso n, Cae sar

’

s al ly) , arefrequently re fe rre d to in th e Brutus : cp.

also de Or. ii . 5 98 .

14 . sp l en d o r r e o rum . So 36 . 1 1

accusatione s po tentium re o rum .

15 . qu ae e t ip sa . Se e o n 80. 1 in

quibus e t ipsis.p l ur imum e l o qu e nti ae p rae stan t,

‘are in th e highe st degre e conducive to

e lo quence ,’do ve ry much to promo te its

deve lo pment . E l oquentiae is dat ivecp . nec h o c i l l i s prae stat, 8 . 6.

16 . utrumn e ,

“

as at 3 5 . 6 .

f o rmu la . Se e o n 20. 3 .

i n te r di cto , se . prae to ris. Th e prae to r’sinte rd ict w as a pro visio nal o rde r, issuedgene rally in conne xion with d ispute sabo ut pro pe rty , fo rbidding inte rfe rencew ith o r de rangem ent o f an e xisting po sitio n

,and in some case s (as whe re fo rce

h ad alre ady be en emplo yed) d ire ct ingimmed iate re stitution . This w as th e

interd ictum r estitutor ium, recuperandae

possession is causa , Gaius iv . 140—1 .

1 7 . di ce n d um h ab e as . Se e o n

8 . 1 1 .

d e amb itu comiti o rum ,as in th e pro

Mu rena . Tr . co rrupt practice s at e le ct ions.

’Fo r th e genitive , op. 34 . 26.

Andre sen compare s Ann. i i . 34 , 1 amb itumfo ri : C ic . ad Qu . Fr . i . 1

,25 itine rum

atque agro rum furta.

e x p i l ati s s o c ii s,as in C ice ro ’

s im

peachment o f Ve rre s Cic. de Off. ii . 75

DIALOGUS DE ORATORIEUS . 103

e t c iv ib us trucidatis . Quae ma la sicut non accide re me l iu s e st

isque op t imus civ i ta t is s t a t us h ab e ndus in quo n ih il t a le patimur,

ita cum accide re nt ingentem e l o quentiae mate riam subminis t ra 20

b ant. Cre scit e n im cum ampl i tud ine re rum v is inge n i i , ne c

quisquam c laram e t inl ustrem o ratio nem e fl‘ice re pote st n isi qui

c ausam parem inv e n i t . No n,o pino r, Demo sth e nem o ratio ne s

in l ustrant qu as adv e rsu s tu tore s suo s compo suit, ne c Cice ro nem

magnum o rato rem P . Qu int ius de fe nsus aut L ic in ius A rch ia s 2 5

faciunt : Cati l ina e t M i lo e tVe rre s e t Antoniu s hanc il l i famam

c ircumdede runt, non qu ia tanti fue rit re i pub l icae ma los fe rre

cive s ut ub e rem ad d ice ndum mate riam o rato re s h ab e re nt, se d , ut

sub inde admo ne o , quae stio nis memine rimus sciamusque nos d e

e a re l o qui quae facil ius turb idis e t inquie tis t emporib us e x istit. 30

Qu is ignorar util ius ac me lius e s se fru i pace quam b e l lo v e x ari ?

18 . civ ibus Put. , comitibus co dd . cp. 31. 3 1 . 19 . b abendus EVzCA , b abendus

est ABH, est b abendus D (H give s b abendus est quo , which he lps to pro ve that est

aro se o ut o f in ) . 25 . Arcb ias poeta H and al l e dd . t ill Lipsius. 2 7. f uer itMadvigf u it co dd . r e i pub l icae Heumann

,rempubl icam codd. (r . p . H) . 30.

ex istit Lipsius, ex titit codd .

e x pil atio direptioque so cio rum pro Leg.

Mani l . 5 5 7 . Th e wo rd is fo und in

Tacitus only he re , and do e s no t o ccur inQuintilian o r Sene ca.

1 8 . s i e u t ita : Agr. xliv. 13 . Thisco nstruction is no t so common as ut

ita . D r. 1 73 . Cp . no te on Quint . x .

1 , 1 .

25 . Qui ntius d e f e nsu s . F o r thisfrequent use o f th e pe rfe ct participle , cp .

29 . 1 1 So also Cice ro , Pis . 5 8 5 , Pl anc .

45 . Th e spe e ch pro Qu intio w as

de live red in B . C . 8 1 .

26 . faciunt : fo r th e plural cp. 25 . 8

adfe rant.

h an c i l l i famam ,se . magni o rato ris.

This is be tte r than to e xplain th e pro no unas = th e h igh reputatio n which h e enjo yswith us to -day. Fo rj amam circumdederunt

, cp . Agric. xx . 2 egregiam famampaci circumde dit : Hist. iv. 1 1, 14 .

2 7 . n o n qu ia , ‘not that.’ Th e con

struction shows that th e speake r is guarding against m isinte rpre tatio n h e will no thave any o ne imagine that h e thinks thatth e republic did no t payto o de arly fo r itsrenown in e loquence : h e is no t praisingpo litical unre st in itse lf (cp . 3 6 . 6 and 14 ;3 7 18 ) no r tre ating it as th e le sse r o f tw oe vils’

. Th e phrase is really e lliptical fo r

‘non putem fuisse

’: I do no t say this

be cause , ’ in saying this I do no tmean to

imply that , &c. Cp. Agr . xlvi . 1 1 Hist.i . 15 , 13 ; 29 , 13 : Ann . x iv. 43, 3 : Sen .

Dial . vii i . 3, 1 Quint . vi ii . 5 , 10,and se e

Intro d. to Bo o k x . p . liv. Th e classicalnon quo (o r quod) w ith th e subjunctive ,negat iving a suppo se d o r a po ssible View(Cic. Phi l . ix . 1

,I ) is nct fo und in Tacitus.

On th e o the r hand, w e have non qu ia w ithindicative

,9 . 1 2 non quia po e ta e s Hist .

i ii . 4 , 1 1 Ann. xiii . 1 , 3 ; xv. 60, 8 , whe re‘th e fact is taken to b e true , tho ugh deniedto have pro duced th e re su lt ’ (Fum e aux ) .-Fo r th e tho ught cp. 40. ad fin .

‘sed ne c

tant i re i publicae Gracch o rum e l o quentia

fuit,

’&c .

tan t i fu e ri t : Ro by, 1 19 2 , 1 193 .

f e rr e , to pro duce ,’ no t (as C . and B. )to endure .

’

So fe runt,’

in“ line 3 2,

be low.

2 8 . u b e r em mate r i am . So H ist .11. 30, 18 ; i . 1

,19 : Quint. iii . 1

, 3

7 1 3 1 1 25 . Cp . ingentem mate riam ,

line 20, abo ve .

29 . su b in d e , from time to t ime ,’ re

pe atedly,’ as in Ho r. Sat. i i . 5 , 103 Liv .

ix. 16, 4 : Pl in. Ep. i . 1 3 , 2 ; i i .7 , 6 : Quint . xi . 2

, 34 : Sen. Dial . x ii .

20, 1 .

104 CORNELI I TACI TI

pl ure s tame n b ono s pro e l iato re s b e l la quam pax ferunt. S im il is

e l oquentiae co nd icio . Nam quo sae pius ste te rit t amquam in acie

quoque p l ure s e t intul e rit ictus e t e x cepe rit quoque maio re s

a dv e rs a rios acrio re sque pugna s sib i ips a d e sumpse rit, t an t o a l tio r

e t e x ce l sior e t i l lis nob ilita t a d iscriminib us in o re h ominum agit,

quorum e a natura e st ut se cu ra ve l l icent.

33 . quo qu is saepius Michae lis (saepius qu is Buchho l z) . 34 . quoque B , Halm ,

and e dd . , quo ADCH ,maior es adve rsar ios acr ior esque pugnas sibi ipsa B

'

cittich e r,Halm,

and edd . : maior adversar ius co (co EV2CADH, ci A , et BA?

) acr ior qu i

pugnas sibi ipsas (cpsc B , aspe ras HV e dd . co dd . ,et acr iores pugnas Ore l l i. Re taining

‘

quo maio r adve rsarius e t acrio r,’ Michae lis co ntinue s ‘

quicum (qu i ABDEH per C )pugnas sib i istas de sumpse rit.

’

36 . nobi l itata Latinius, nobi l itatus AHG and co rr. B ,nobi l itati s B, nobi l itate D . discr imin ibus Lipsius, cr imin ibus co dd . 37 . ut secura

ve l l icent is my conj . , ut secura ve l int co dd . (no l int Rh enanus, e l event F . Walte r), ut

secura ve l int M iil l e r, ut dub ia l audent secura no l int Agrico la, ut secura

oder int incerta (pe ricu l osa) ve l int G o e l ze r, ut secura ve l int per icu l osa ex to l l ant (o rl audent) Jo hn, ut ancipitia n on secura ve l int Scho pen ,

ut secura sibi a l i is dura ve l int

He lle r, &c . , &c . Re ading secur i ipsi (wi th B aeh rens) Ha lm fo llows Vahlen : u i

secur i ipsi spectare a l iena pericu l a ve l in i . But Jo hn rightly ho lds that th is wo u ld b efar mo re appro priate o f th e spe ctato rs o f a gl adiato rial s how in th e amphithe atre .

3 2 . p r o e l i ato re s , a rare wo rd, fo undhowe ve r again in Ann . i i . 7 3 , 8 Va l . Max .

i i i . 2,24. Dr

. 2,6 re fe rs also to Liv .

i i i . 2 , 24 and Justin .

33 . ste te r i t, se . e l oquentia . Fo r th e

figure , cp . Quint . x . 1 , 29 no s ve ro (w eadvo cate s ) armato s stare in acie et summis

de re bus de ce rne re e t ad victo riam nit i .El oquentia is pe rsonified in th e same w ayin al so by Cice ro , Brut . 330

cp . d ictio , de Or. i . 5 1 5 7 (e ducenda de indedictio e st . . ln aciem fo rensem) .—Onth e o the r hand, th e subj e ct might we l le no ugh b e o rato r,

’

to b e supplied o ut o f

th e conte xt, as o ften : w e sho uld thenhave to re ad ipse in 35 and nobi l itatus in

36 . In th e same se nse N o vak re adssteter is, i ntu l eris, ex ceper is, tibi ipse desumpser is, ages .

34 . in tu l e r it i ctu s : Ann . v. 8 , 9 . So

vulne ra infe rte . E x cipe re ictus o ccursagain A

pri . xiii. 2 5 , 6 : as

‘accipe re ictus,

’

Ann . ii 1 1 , whe re w e have alsoinfe rre

l

ictus.

’

m a i o re s adv e r sar i o s . Cp. H ist . 11.

5 3 , 5 ut no vus adh uc e t in senatum nupe r

adscitus magnis inimicitiis c l are sce re t.

35 . d e sump se r i t. Liv .

'

v ii . 20, 5 po

pulum Romanum sibi de sume rentbo stem.

36 . n o b i l i tata . H ist . i . 2, 7 no bil itatus cl adibus mutuis Dacus : Ge rm. XI. 1

Lango bardo s panciras no b i l itat. Fo r th e

tendency to pass from comparative s to

a po sitive in th e se co nd o r third i tem o f

a se rie s cp . Ann. i i i . 43 , 2 quanto c ivi taso pul entio r et comprimendi pro enl praesid ium ; ii. 5 , 4 quanto acrio ra in eumstudia mi l itum et ave rsa patrum vo luntas.

Se e Fum eaux , Intro d. Annals, pp . 50—1 .

in o r e h om inum ag it. Th e sense is

rathe r unce rtain ,as th e phrase may me an

e ithe r ‘ is be fo re men’

s e ye s, ’ o r‘ is on

men’

s lips.

’F o r th e fo rme r

,w ith which

th e comparative s a l tio r,’

& c .,se em ,

on

th e w ho le , mo re appro priate , cp . Hist .i ii . 36, 4 non in o re vulgi age re in con

spe ctu : opp. to umb racul is ab ditus’

)i h . 7 7 , 14 in o re Vite l l ii iugul atur : Ann .

i i i . 74, 9 : Sallust , Hist . i . 90 ; ii . 4 1 , 4 .

Fo r th e o the r rende ring cp . Hist . i i . 73 , 4e rat tamen in o re famaque Ve spasianus ;ib . 78 , 2 1 ne c quidquam magis in o re

vulgi (‘ it w as th e theme o f gene ral conAnn . xiv. 56, 9 .

3 7 . s e cu ra v e l l i c e n t, to be litt l e whatinvo lve s no risk .

’

Secura give s an ant ithesis to discr imin ibus, abo ve . Ve l l icent

is ado pted o n th e the o ry that a contract io nin th e arche type may have be en (as o ften)misunde rsto o d cp. f ugi tet 22. 23 .

—Jo hne xplains h is secura ve l int, pe ricul o sa e x

to l l ant o r l aedant as meaning thatwhile men (practical ly) acquie sce in whatis safe , the y re se rve the ir applause and

admiration fo r what invo l ve s dange r.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 06 CORNELI I TACI TI

Pompe ius adstrinx it impo suitque v e l uti frenos e l o quentiae , ita

t amem ut omn ia in foro , omnia l egib us , omn ia apud prae to re s

ge re re ntur : apud quos quanto ma l ora neg’

o tia o l im e x e rce ri

I o s o l ita sint, quod maiu s a rgume n tum e st quam quod cau s ae

ce ntumviral e s , qu ae nunc primum o b tine nt locum , ad e o sp le ndore

a l io rum iudicio rum o b rue b antur utn eque Cice ro nis ne que Cae saris

n e qu e B ru ti ne que Cae l ii neque Ca lv i, non d e nique u l l ius magn i

o rato ris l ib e r apud centumviro s d ictus l egatur, e x ceptis o ratio ni

1 5 b us As in ii quae pro h e red ib us Urb iniae inscrib untur,ab ip so

tame n Po l l io ne me d11s d iv i Augus t i temporib us h ab itae , pos t

quam l onga temporum quie s e t con t inuum popu li o t ium e t

1 2 . a l iorum EVzCADH,a l iquorum AB, i l l orum H . Meye r. 1 5 . Ur bin iae

Lipsius, ur binae B , Uru ie A, Ur inae DC (iron iae HVSp .)

o f fo rensic ple ading, it w as th e practicefo r a patronus to conduct th e who le case

e ntrusted to h im single-hande d ,’ Ramsay,Rom. Ant. p . 3 1 2 . Afte rw ards the remight b e '

se ve ral patron i ; Murena w as

de fended, fo r e xample,by Cice ro , Ho r

tensius, and Crassus, and in late r case sw e he ar o f thre e , fo ur, six , and e ventwe lve advo cate s6 . P r imu s P omp e ius . This w as in

B . C . 5 2 , when Pompe y w as fo r five mo nthsso le co nsul , ‘

co rrigendis mo ribus de le ctus.

’

H is enactment l imited th e spe e ch fo r th epro secution to tw o ho urs, and that o f th ede fende r to thre e : cp .C ic. Brut . 5 3 24 legePompe ia te rnis ho ri s ad dicendum dat is :ib . 5 243 i llins iudicial is anni se ve ritatemde Fin iv . 1

,1 . Even be fo re Pompey’s

legislation, some th ing se ems to have be endo ne towards curtai l ing th e length o f th espe e che s. In h is impe achment o f Ve rre s ,Cice ro speaks o f th e time acco rded to

h im by l aw l egitimae ho rae ,’

ii . 1 , 9 , 2 5)whi le in th e pro F l acco h e mentions six

ho urs as th e t ime al lowed fo r th e pro secution (se x ho ras l e x omnino dedit , 5I t w as pro bably th e negle ct o f the se enactments that pro vo ke d Pompe y’s statu te .

Unde r th e Empire th e time allo tted to

counse l se ems to have varied at d iffe rentpe rio ds. At th e trial o f Marius Priscus,Pliny spoke fo r fi ve hours (dixi ho ris paenequinque , Ep. ii. 1 1

, On ano the ro ccasio n six ho urs we re allowed to th e

accuse r and nine to th e accused : cum e

lege accusato r se x ho ras no vem reus ac

cepisse t, Ep . iv. 9 , 9 : while in vi . 2 , 5w e he ar o f so few as tw o clepsydrae , oneclepsydra, and e ven half a o ne be ing

asked fo r and granted. That the se re

strictions we re fe lt to b e irksome w e mayinfe r from what Pliny says e lsewhe re si

mo do iustum e t de bitum tempus accipiat,

quo d si negetur nulla o rato ris maximaindicis culpa e st

,

’Ep . i . 20, 10 .

7 . ad str in x it co artavit. Cp. ad

strictus, 25 . 1 7 : 31. 2 1 : Ann . 111. 55 , 1 5 .

8 . in f o r o , and no t in th e impe rialpalace o r in auditor ia and tabu l ar ia

, 39 . 5 .

l e g ib u s , and no t at th e caprice o f prince so r judge s (cp. 19 . 2 apu d p rae

to r e s , and no t be fo re th e empe ro r.9 . n e g o tia, o f actions-at-l aw : cp. 9 .

1 1 : fo rensibus nego tiis, 14 . 14 ; 19 . 2 5Ann . ii. 2 7, 2 ; x i . 6, 7 ; xiii . 4 , 8 ; xvi .2 2

, 9 .

10 . cau sae ce ntumv i ral e s . Se e o n 7 . 6.

1 2 . o b ru e b an tur , we re o ve rshadowe d ,e clipsed . So Agr. xvii. 8 Ce rial is alterius succe sso ris curam famamque o bruisse t : cp. C ic . Brut . 5 1 7 2 .

14 . l i b e r o f a spe e ch, written downand published : so 12. 24 ; 20. 3 ; 21. 6

and 26 ; 25 . 2 1 ; 26. 16 ; 39 . 24 . Tr.the re is no t a spe e ch, de live red b e

fo re th e centumviri, that wo uld b e re adnowadays. ’

1 5 . p r o _h e r e d ib u s U rb in i ae . This

w as a case in which an adventure r call edC l usinius Figu l us alleged that h e w as th e

so n o f th e de ceased Urb inia, and laidclaim to h e r e state . Quint . v ii . 2 , 4-5 .

ab i p s o tame n P o l l i o n e ,‘and e ven

the se Po l lio de live red,’ & c . Th e po int isthat it w as o nly when po litical passionsh ad subsided that o rato rs o f stand ingco uld affo rd to inte rest themse l ve s inprivate case s.

DIAL OGUS DE ORATOKI B US . 107

a ssidua se na tu s tranquil l itas e t max ima principis discip lina ipsam

quoqu e e l o quentiam sicut omn ia de pacav e rat.

3 9 . Pa rvum e t ridicu l um fo rtasse v ide b itur quod d icturus

s um,dicam t am em

, v e l id e o ut ride atur. Quantum h umil itatis

putamus e l o que ntiae attu l isse pae nu la s istas, qu ib us adstricti e t

v e l ut in c lu s i cum iud icib us fab ul amur ? Quan tum v irium de

trax isse o ratio ni aud i toria e t t ab u laria cre dimus, in qu ib us iam 5

fe re pl urimae cau sae e x p l icantur ? Nam quo modo nob ile s e quo s

18 . max ima AB, max imi DCH (Baeh rens) , max ime Haase , Halm, and edd . C o n

c innitas’se ems to b e in favo ur o f max ima . 19 . omn ia depacave ratA , (depara

verat B) , omn i a a l ia pacaverat H and mo st co dd . (Michae lis, Halm , Mulle r) , a l iaomn ia pacaverat E.

3 9 . 1 . v ide bitur Ursinus, v idetu r co dd . , v ideatur Ore l l i , Halm,and edd . 2 . r idea

tu r EVzCADH, r idear AB . 5 . tabu l ar ia ABDH,tabu l ar iae V2C (tabu l ar i; E) ,

1 8 . di sc ip l ina, o f th e ‘

gre at impe rial

system ,

’

o r‘constitutio n ’

cp . 40. 1 3

quarum civ itatum seve rissima d isciplinaHist . iv. 74 , 1 8 o ctingento rum anno rumfo rtuna discipl inaque compages hae cco al uit

, whe re G . and G . rende r Staatso rdnung,’ Regie rungsw e ish e it.

’

So Cic .

de O r . i i . 5 6 7 d isciplina c ivitatis : i . 5 1 59disciplina re i publicae : i . 5 3 pe rturbationem d iscipl inae ve te ris ,—th e o ve rthrowo f th e o l d po litical system .

1 9 . s i e u t omn ia . A l ia is adde d inmany MSS . (cp . 21. but its omissionmay b e justified by a compariso n o f Hist .i i . 80

, 5 Cae sarem,Augustum, e t omnia

principis vo cabu l a : iv. 3 , 14 IudaeamSuriamque e t omne s pro vincias.

d e p acav e rat, & c. , h ad bro ught pe aceand quie tne ss into a !i n . e ip. fo rmed o n

th e analo gy o f de l in ir e , demitzgare . Livyh as ‘

pe rpacare .

’ John po ints o ut that th ere ading ‘ depacave i at’

i s suppo rted by th epre fe rence wh ich th e autho r shows in th e

Dialo gue fo r compound fo rms,e spe cially

ve rbs compo unded w ith de and con in

a we akened s ignificat ion : e . g. 7 . 1 7d emonstrare = m o nstrare : 22. 2 5 de te rm inare = te rminare (16 . 1 7 is d iffe rent)37 . 35 de sume re z sume re (10. Cp .

a lso 10. 1 1 denegavit, de te rream : 6. 15co nsurge re = surge re : 15 . 1 2 co nquire re

quae re re .

3 9 . 1 . v i d e b itur se ems th e be tte rre ading— ce rtainly with r ideatur fo l lowing . Videatur is, howe ve r, suppo rte d by16 . 26 .

2 . v e l, e ven if only

,

’— e ven if I ach ie veno o the r re sult than to raise a laugh ,tho ugh th e matte r is really one abo ut

w hich w e o ught to fe e l shame and humil iation. Cp . Quint . iv . 1 , 33 no n tamen

omittenda ve l ide o ne o ccupentur : ih . x .

1,86, 13 1 (ve l ide o quo d ) . Similarly

Hist . iv . 49, 3 1 ve l fo rte : Agr. ii i . 16 ve l

inco ndita ac rud i vo ce , whe re ve l = ‘e ven

if o nly .

’

Qu antum h umi l itati s , & c . Tr. How

much have w e do ne to abase e loquenceby

,

’&c .

3 . p ae nu las . Th e paenula w as pro

pe rly a rough sle e ve le ss clo ak , o f wo o lo r le athe r, wo rn in rainy weathe r. Se e

Mayo r’s no te o n J uv . V. 79 . It fi ttedclo se ly to th e bo dy, whence adstr icti cl

ve l ut i incl usz Th e d ignity o f th e legalpro fe ssion must have be en in dange rwhen co unse l to o k to appearing in thisclo ak instead o f th e to ga . A mo de rnbarriste r might as we l l addre ss th e benchin an

"ul .ste r

4 . fab u l amur : ep . 23 . 1 1 .

5 . tabu lar ia , ‘o tfi ce s,

’ pro pe rly ‘re

co rd o ffice s,—chambe rs which , l ike th e

auditor ia, wo uld have be en co nside redin e arlie r days unsuited to th e maje sty o f

th e l aw . Th e ‘ basilicae ’ we re fo und

inadequate fo r th e rush o f busine ss whichfo llowe d th e late d isturbance s : Sue t.Ve sp . 10 .

6 . f e r e . I t is some t ime s diffi cult tose e whe the r fi r e is me ant to attach i tse lfto a single wo rd (Re id o n Lae l . 5 2) o rto a who le sentence . He re i t m ight b ejo ined to pl ur imae ,

‘ pre tty we ll mo st ’

cp . Cic. Tuso . . 5 73‘ fe re p l e rique .

’

This is , howe ve r, much mo re common

w ith ‘ fe re omne s and it is safe r to takef er e he re as mo difying th e who le state

108 CORNELI I TACI TI

cursu s e t spatia prob ant, sic e st a l iquis o rato rum campu s , pe r

quem n is i l ib e ri e t s o lut i fe rantur d e b il itatur ac frangitur

e l o que ntia . Ipsam qu in immo curam e t d il ige ntis s t i l i anx ie

10 ta t em con t ra riam e x pe rimur, qu ia saepe inte rrogat iud e x

quando incipias, e t e x inte rro gatio ne e ius incipie ndum e st.

Fre que nt e r pro b atio nib us e t te stib us aud iend is s ile ntium patro nis

ind icit. Unu s inte r h a e c d ice nti aut a lte r adsistit, e t re s v e l ut in

‘l quam s . cam .

1 1 . quando H, quando AB, quam quando AD , quam quando C , quam EV2, causam

quando Be kke r, Bae h rens. 1 2 . testibu s audiendis si l entiumpatron is is my co nj . ,testibu s s i l . patrona s co dd . (e xcept that H h as a blank be twe en testibus and patr onus ) .F o r patronas Haupt sugge sted impatiens (Halm ) , Ore l l i praetor , We issenb om im

portunus, Halmprotinus o r u l tro , Me ise r testibuspatron i si l entium.

ment : cp. a'

zs é’

rro s e iu e iv , (its ciu ci’

u : tr.‘ mo s t case s are nowadays ge ne ral lyunfo lded .

’At 20. 2 and 3 1. 7 it= pl e

rumque .—F er e h as a tendency to co nne ct

i tse lf with iam : b ut th e te xt is diffe rentfrom C ic . Ve rr. v . 5 94 ( ‘ l uce b at iam

o r pro Tul l . 5 2 1 ( ‘ iam fe re cuml ux appro pinquaret

6 . qu o m o d o s i c : cp. 25 . 10

7 . cur sus e t sp atia . A ‘spacio us,

ro omy race-co urse ’

is required to put a

race r o n h is me ttle .

’Fo r th e hend iadys

op . G e rm . xxxvi i . 3 castra ac spatia :Ve rg . Ge o rg . iii . 202 H ic ve l ad Ele ime tas e t max uma campi Sudab it spatia.

o rato rum camp u s . Fo r th e figure ,cp. Cic . Acad. i i . 5 1 1 2 cum sit enimcampus in quo e x sul tare po ssit o ratio , cure arn tantas in angustias e t Sto ico rum in

dume ta compe l l imus : de Or. iii . 5 7 1 e xingenti quo dam o rato rem immenso que

campo in e x ig uum sane gyrum compe ll itis .

—A l zqu zs is unusual , fo r qu idamJo hn cite s Cic. pro Arch . 5 18 quaside o rum al iquo dono atque mune re : cp.

Ge rm . xlvi . 1 7 .8 . l i b e r i e t s o l u ti . The se wo rds are

ve ry frequently conjo ine d : Cic . Ve rr. i i . 2 ,5 185 animo so luto l ib e ro que : ih . 5 19 2

l ibe ri ad causas so l utique venie b ant : d e

D iv . i . 5 4 mo tu so luto e t libe ro : pro

Plane . 5 7 2 : ad Att. i . 13, 2 : pro Rab .

Po st. 5 1 2 : Sall . Cat. v i . 1 : Sen. de

B en. 11. 18 , 5 .

9 . I p sam qu in imm o,&c. , Mo re o ve r

w e know by e xpe ri ence that e ven preparat io n and so licitude abo ut th e e labo rationo f what w e write do mo re harm thango o d fo r th e judge inte rrupts, and thenit is al l o ve r w ith us. In itse lf, excessive

pre paration may l ead to failure , if itmake s th e speake r th e bond-slave o f whath e h as pre pared (se e Quint. x . 7 , 14and 3 2 : xii . 9 , 16 sq. : xi . 2 , 48 sq . )it is wo rse i f th e judge is impatie nt o ro ut o f tempe r. F o r di l igentis sti l i cp .

Quint . x . 3 , 5 sit primo ve l tardus dumdi l igens st ilus : and fo r contrar iam

,se e

o n 35 . 1 2 .

10 . sae p e and fr e qu e nte r co rre spo nd ,l ike ‘ mo do mo do .

’ Jo hn compare ssaepe no nnumquam ,

Ve ll . 11. 90 , 2 .

1 1 . qu and o in c ip ias‘ when are yo u

com ing to th e po int i Cp. 19 . ad fin .

e x in te rr o gati o n e , no t with th e po intindicate d in h is que st ion (as Wo lff )tr. when h e puts this que stio n .

’

1 2 . p r o b ati o n i b u s is gene ral ly takenas re fe rring to th e th ird co nstituent part o fa judicial spe e ch : afte r th e ‘ intro ductio nand th e narrat ive came th e pro o f,’ th ere futatio n,

’

and th e clo sing appe al ’

(Quint . ii i . 9 . Tho se w h o ado pt th isviewde le tepatronas,w ithNo vak

,w h o says,addidit l i b rarius patronus, sub ie ctum de

side rans .

’—But I ve nture to re ad patron is ,and to supply audi endis in th e text : th eme aning may b e that when th e judge do e sno t reque st co unse l to ‘

get to busine ss ,’

h e do e s e ven wo rse , —cuts h im sho rt, andpro ce eds to

_he ar‘ pro o f ’

and e vidence .

This se ems to acco unt be tte r fo r th e

plural ‘

pro b atio nibus’

: th e e xaminationo f witne sse s gene rally fo llowe d th e mainspe e ches fo r th e pro se cution and de fence

(Cic. in Ve rr . i . 1 5 F o r Tacitus’

s

use o f th e ge rundive as equivalent to a

final clause , afte r a ve rb, se e Dr. 206 B .

13 . unus aut al te r : se e on 21. 6 . Fo r

inter b acc, cp . Ann . xi . 35 . I inter quae ,i . 1 2

,1,and frequently.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 10 CORNEL I ] TACI TI

4 0. I am ve ro co ntio ne s assiduae e t da t um ius po te ntiss imum

quemque ve x andi a tque ip s a inimicitiarum g loria, cum se p lurimi

dise rto rum ne a P ub lio qu id em S cipione aut L . Su l la au t Cn .

Pompe io ab stine re nt, e t a d ince sse ndo s p rin cipe s v iros,ut e st

5 natura inv id iae , popu li quoque ut b istr iones aurib us ute re ntur,

quantum ardo rem inge niis , qua s o rato rib us face s admo ve b ant !

No n d e o tio sa e t qu ie t a re l o quimur e t qua e pro b itate e tmode s t ia

gaude at, se d e st magna i l la e t no tab il is e l o quentia a lumna

4 9 . 3 . L . add . Ritte r . Syl l a ABEV2H , S i l la V and edd . ve tt., S i l a CAD . 5 . ut

b istr iones Halm and edd . , et b istr iones co dd . aur ibus co dd .

, p l ausibus Haase , popu l iqu oque pron is , ut b istr iones , aur ibus Wo lff (afte r We issenbo rn, Ha lm and He lmre ich ) ,b istr iones quoque popu l i au r i bus Acidal ius, popu l i poetae quoque et b istr iones au r ibus

Vah len , popu l i quoque u t b i stri one s cl amori bus ex citar entur N o vak (cp . co dd . Liv.xxvii . 13 , 7 . N on en im Muretus .

Gramm . 10 Erato sthene s multiplici variaque do ctrina cense b atur : cp . Sen . Ep .

76 , 8 : Mart . i . 6 1 , 3 : ix. 16, 5 : Va l .Max . v . 3 , 3 .

4 0. 2 . ip sa in im i citi arum g lo r ia .

Cp . Hist . i i . 53 , 5 ut maga is inimicitiisc l are sce re t. So also ch . 3 7 . abo ve , ad fin .

3 . d i se r to rum . F o r th e partitive genitive afte r p l ur imi , cp . Ann . iv . 5 7 , 5v i. 2 2 , 1 5 .

4 . u t e st na tu ra in v id ias . Thissho uld b e taken alo ng w ith ad incessendospr inc ipes viros : H o r . Car. i i . 10, 5

—1 2 .

5 . p o pul i qu o qu e u t h i s t r io n e sau r i b u s u te r e n tu r . This re ad ing invo lve s o nly th e change o f th e MS . et to

ut,fo r wh ich cp . 22. 20 . Th e po int o f

re semblance be twe en th e demago gue s andth e acto rs is that th e fo rme r se ize d o n

such Oppo rtunitie s as the y co uld get o f

wo rking up th e passions and prejud ice so f th e who le bo dy o f th e pe o ple , in ste ado f co nfining the ir a ttacks to de libe rat iveassemblie s such as th e senate

, o r to th e

still mo re fo rmal pro cedure o f th e co urtso f l aw . F o r th e licence o f acto rs se e

Val . Max . vi . 2 , 9 : C ic. pro Se st. lvi—lvi i .But I canno t he lp think ing that et b istr iones may b e a glo ss . Th e true readingmay b e simply ‘ po pul i quo que auri bus

ute rentur’

: op . Enn . ap . No n. 306 mo reantiquo andih o atque aure s tibi contrautendas dabo .

-Th e co nje cture ‘

pronis

auribus’is suppo rted by Hist . i . 1 , 10

o b tre ctatio e t livo r pro nis auribus ac

cipiuntur.

6 . ar d o r em . C ic. Br ut . 5 93 ardo ranimi no n sempe r ade st isque cum co n

sed it omnis i l la v is et quasi fl ammao rato ris e x stinguitur.

face s adm o v e b ant : so face s adde re ,’

Hist . i . 24 , 1 facem prae fe rre , ib . i i . 8 6 ,20 . Fo r th e figure cp. Quint . i . 1 , 2 5 id

no bis acrio re s ad studia d ice ndi face s subdidisse : Cic . de Or. i ii . 5 4 h ic cum

Ph i l ippo quasi quasdam ve rb o rum face s

admo v isse t : ii . 5 205 h ae d icendi face s .

So o f th e fie ry furnace o f afflictio n, C ic .

de Off. ii. 5 3 7 do l o rum cum admo ventur

face s .

7 . N o n d e , & c. Fo r th e the o ry thatMate rnus

’s spe e ch o nly begins he re , afte r

a lacuna in which th e first part o f it islo st as we l l as th e last part o f th e Spe e cho f th e pre vio us spe ake r (Secundus ? Me s

salla ? l ) , se e Intro d . p. x l i .o ti o sa e t qu i e ta, ‘

qu ie t and peaceable cp. 38 . ad fin. quie s e t o tium . So

Cic . Leg . Agr. i i. 5 102 e t iam isto s qu ibuso dio e st o tium quie tissimo s atque o tio sis

simo s reddam : ih . 5 7 7 : de Sen . 5 8 2o tio sam e t quie tam aetatem.

8 . a lumn a l i c e n ti a e . C ice ro o n th e

o the r hand says pacis e st come s o tiique

so cia e t iam bene co nstitutae c ivitatisquas i alumna quaedam e l oque ntia,

’ Brut .5 45 : cp . de Or. i i . 5 30 in omni pacatae t l ib e ra civitate dominatur : ih . i . 5 30hae c una re s in omn i libe ro po pulomax imeque in pacatis tranqui l l isque civitatibus prae cipue sempe r fl o ruit sempe rque do minata e st. Th e antagonism is to b ee xplained by re co gnising th e d iffe rent po into f Vie w from which Cice ro write s . Ma

te rnus is think ing o f th e po litical d ivi sionsatAthens, o ut o f wh ich some gain came

to o rato ry , and also , no doubt, o f such

an incident as th e G racch an re vo lut io nat Rome ; Cice ro is stating th e gene ralprinciple that e loquence , like th e o the r

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR IB US . 1 1 1

l ice ntiae , quam stul ti l ib e rtatem vo cab ant, come s sed itio num ,

e ffre na t i popu l i inci t ame ntum , s ine ob se qu io , S in e ver itate,con 10

tumax , teme raria , adro gans , quae in b e ne co nstitutis civ itatib us

non ori t u r . Quem e n im o rato rem Lace daemo nium, quem

Cre te nsem accepimus ? quarum civ itatum se v e riss ima d is cip lina

e t sev e rissimae lege s traduntur. N e Mace do num r

q uidem ac

Pe rs a rum aut ul l ius ge n t is quae ce r t o impe rio cont e n t a fu e ri t 1 5

e l o quentiam no v imus . Rh o d ii qu id am , p lurim i Ath e nie nse s

o rato re s e x tite runt, apud quos omnia popu lu s , omn ia impe ri t i,omn ia , ut s ic d ix e rim , omn e s po te rant. Nos t ra quoqu e c iv i t a s

d one c e rrav it, d one c se pa r t ib u s e t d isse nsio nib us e t d isco rd i i s

co nfe cit, done c nu l la fu it in foro pax , nu l la in s ema tu conco rd ia , 20

nu l l a in iudicus mo de ratio,nu l la supe riorum re v e re ntia , nu l lus

magistratuum modu s , t u l it sine dub io val entio rem e l o que ntiam ,

9 . vocabant co dd .,vacant Heumann , vocitant He ss , Bae h rens : op . 23 . 5 . 10 .

ver itate Ste ine r, ser vitute co dd sever itate Pith ou . Qy. r eve rentia ? 1 3 . acce

p imus DC , accip imus ABHEVZ. san ctiss ima discipl ina Ore l l i, sanctissimae

l eges Sch e l e . 14 . N e D,nec cett. codd . 15 . u l l ins AHE, i l l ins BCDV2 .

2 2 . metus Ore l l i .

arts o f peace,

flo urishe s be st whe re the reis an e stablished o rde r. That Cice ro w as

aware that gre at e loquence o ften w o rksm isch ie f is cle ar from de Inv . i . 5 I : deOr . 1. 5 38 .

9 . l i ce ntiae l i b e rtatem . So

Hist . i i . 10,2 : Cic. in Ve rr. ii i . 5 3 .

Cp . th e frequent iux tapo sitio n o f l icentia

and l ibido , l i be rtas and l ibido .

v o cab an t se ems quite appro priate to

th e co nte xt, wh ich consists o f a re view o f

th e past.10. in c i tam e ntum . A favo urite wo rd

w ith Tacitus. It is no t ice able that itdo e s no t o ccur in Qu intilian .

v e r i ta t e , ‘ re ality, ’ as 35 . I 7 . H e lle rsuppo rts this re ad ing by a re fe rence to

Plato,Go rgias 5 25 A ,

whe re c’

t’

ue v (11 17.

Od d ; is fo llowe d by 13115 é f o va ia s ica l

r pucpfis [ca l iJ'

Bpecus ica l o’

ucpaaia s 7 63V npd

f ewu, o n which sine o bsequio co ntumax ,teme raria , adrogans

’se ems to have be en

mo de lled . Tac1tus w as familiar w ith th eGo rgias : Cp. Ann. Vi . 6 with 5 24 E,

and Agr . iv . 13 (o f th e study o f philoso phy) w ith 484 D . Se e Phi lo logus, 11.P 35°

1 2 . L ace d aem o n ium . So Cic . Brut .5 50 Lacedaemo nium ve ro (sc . o rato rem)usque ad h o c tempus aud ivi fuisse ne

minem : cp . Quint . i i . 16, 4 .

1 3 . acc e p imu s . Cp . 12. 19 .

qu arum c iv i tatum , &c . , i . e . histo ryco ntains no e xample o f a mo re rigo ro usco nst itution o r mo re stringen t legislatio n .

14 . N e qu id em . Se e o n 29 . 14 .

1 8 . u t s i c d i x e r im . Se e o n 3 4. 7 .

The re is a remin iscence o f Ve rgil ’s ‘non

omn ia po ssumus omne s,’

e xcept that he reomnes rath e r= o i weir/ r es

, as Ge rm . xi . 2 ;i i . 20 .

19 . e rr av it. So lo ng as it swayedh ithe r and thithe r, w as unse ttled cp . e r

rant i po pulo, 36 . 9 . Th e o ppo site wo uld b e

‘ce rto impe rio usus e st

’

: cp. abo ve ce rtoimpe rio co ntenta So 10. 19 cum naturate tua in arcem fe rat, e rrare mavis .

2 1 . n u l l u s m ag i stratuum m o du s is

gene ral ly taken as‘no se nse o f pro

prie ty (o r‘ re straint o n th e part o f th e

magistrate s cp . mo de rat i ind ice s , ’5 . 2 and ‘ mo dus e t tempe ramentum,

’

41. 23 . G re e f,howe ve r

,says tha t th e

phrase is equivalent to ‘nul lus magis

tratuum mo dus oratorum,

’

and re allyme ans a magistratibus e ff renata o rato ruml icentia no n co e rce b atur.

’

2 2 . s in e d u b io s e d . So Ann . 11.

5 1 , 7 sine dubio tamen,Agr. xlv. 2 2

ce te rum,Ann. i . 6 , 6 : rursus ,Ann xi. 28,

7 . In al l the se case s th e statement made

in th e sine dubio c l ause is me ant to b e

1 1 2 CORNELI I TACI TI

s icut indomitus age r h ab et quasdam herb as l aetio re s : sed nec

tan t i re i pub licae Gracch o rum e l o que ntia fu it ut pate re tur e t

25 lege s , ne c b e ne famam e l o quentiae Cice ro ta l i e x itu pe nsav it.

4 1, S ic quoque quod supe re st an t iqu i o rato rib us fori non

eme ndatae ne c u squ e ad votum compos i t ae c iv it a t is a rgum e ntum

e st. Qu is e nim nos adv o cat n is i aut no ce ns aut m ise r ? Quod

mun ic ipium in cl iente l am no stram v e n it, n is i quod aut v icinus

s po pu l us aut dome stica d is cord ia agitat ? Quam pro v inciam

tuemur n isi spo l iatam v e x atamque ? Atqui m e liu s fuisse t non

23 . sicut indomitus Al dine 1 534 , sicuti domitus co dd . l aetio r es Rh enanus, l atior esbene

co dd . 24 . tanti Rh enanus, tuta co dd . 25 . bene BDC ,bonae Hb

,bone A .

j amam Mure tas, f ormam co dd .

4 1 . 1 . antiqu i o rator ibusf o r i Spenge l , antiqu is orato r i bus f orum (ABDH ,b or um

EV2CA) co dd. , antiqu i orator ibus b o rum tempor um Bae h re ns. 2 . emendatae

Lipsius , emendare co dd . 3 . Qu is en im EVQCA , Qu idem quod n emo AH ( in A

qu is en im is wri tte n abo ve th e line ) , Qu id en im quod nemo B, Qu is en im qu idem qu od

n emo D . Th e varian ts must have re su lted from a glo ss on Quis e nim (‘ idem quod

nemo 4 . cl iente l am Pitho n, civ itatem co dd .

le ss emphatic than that in th e clausefo llowing : cp . Quint . i . 6 , 1 2 ; V. 7 , 28 ;V . 10, 5 3 ; v i 1i . 3, 67 ; x . 1 , 5 7 : Intro d.

to Bo o k x . p . li ii . I have alte red th e

t radit ional punctuatio n (which make s Se dne c tanti, ’ & c. an inde pe nde nt sentence ) ino rde r to bring o ut th e connexion be twe ensine dub io and sed .

2 3 . in d omi tu s ag e r : cp. 6 . ad fin.

So Cic . O r. 5 48 ut sege te s fe cundae e t

ub e re s non so lum fruge s ve rum he rbaswe eds ’

) e tiam e ffundunt.

l ae ti o r e s . Laetus is o ften used in

Ve rgil o f rich ve ge tation : Ge o rg. i . 339l ae tis o pe ratus in h e rb is

,and i i . 48 lacta

e t fo rtia surgunt : in i i i . 385 (fuge pab u l alacta) and 494 (lactis mo riuntur in h e rb is )th e wo rd me ans

‘ luxuriant, ’ in th e se nse

o f rankne ss rathe r than richne ss . Cp .

no te s on Quint . x . 3, 1 5 and 1, 5 46 .

n e c tan t i fu i t . So 3 7 . 2 7 Lucan,Phars . i i i . 5 1 ne c vince re tanti ut be llumd iffe rret e rat . Cp . Cice ro ’

s unfavo urablere fe rence s to th e legislation o f th e Gracchi,e . g. de Or. i . 5 38 ista prae cl ara gub e rnatrice civitatum e l oquentia rempub l icam

d issipave runt.

25 . n e c b e n e p e n sav i t : C ice ro ’

s

o rato rical renown w as a po o r compensat ion fo r h is tragic end h is de ath w as a

‘ big price ’

to pay fo r h is fame as an

o rato r . So o ften compensare in Cice ro ,tho ugh such an e xpre ssio n as

‘e x itum

fama pensavit wo uld b e le ss uncommon :

Hist. 111. 26 ad fin. : iv . 74 , 9 : Agr . x x n .

1 1 (damna ae statis h ib e rnis e ventibus

pe nsare ) Liv . xxvii . 40 adve rsa se cundis

pensando .

4 1 . 1 . S i c qu o qu e , & c .

‘ Even as it

is , th e survivals tha t o ur speake rs havele ft them o f th e fo rum o f o l d go to Showa civil conditio n wh ich is no t faul tle ss, o rwe ll-o rde red as he art co uld ow ish .

’

S ic

quoque is e xplained by ‘ done c e rravit,’

& c . , abo ve : fo r th e meaning ‘e ven as

th ings are at pre sent, ’ se e Ann . iv. 40, 14and cp . xv. 1 7 , 7 : Quin t . x . 1

,13 1 : Sen .

de Ben . i ii . 3 1 , 1 : Ep . 94 . 3 1 .

n o n em e n d atae , i . e . when judged byan ide al standard . Cp . compo sita e t

quie ta e t beata re publica,’ 36 . 6, whe reth e speake r is emphasizing th e co ntrastbe twe en impe rial and re publican time s .

2 . ad V0tum = na 7’

e bx iju, as Quint .De cl . iii . 1 2 ad omne vo tum fluente fo r

tuna . Cp. o n 5 . 23 .

4 . c l i e nte l am . Cic. Ro so . Am . 5 106se in Ch rysog o ni fidem e t c l iente l am co n

tul e runt'

. Cp . 3 . ad fi n. to t co l o niarum e t

municipio rum c l iente l ae .

’

6 . tu emu r,

appe ar fo r.

’ This me an

ing is frequent in Quintilian . Cp o n 7 . 8 .

F o r th e wro ngs o f th e pro vincials , se e

J uv . Sat. viii . 8 7 , 1 1 2 .

A tqu i m e l iu s . But to have no complaint to make w o uld have be en be tte rthan having to se ek redre ss, ’—lit . than tob e avenged . N on queri = to bring no

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CORNELI I TA CI TI

p e ric l itantib us e at ? Credite , o ptimi e t in quantum opu s e st

2 0 dise rtissimi v iri, Si autvo s prio rib us sae cul is aut il li quos m iramur

h is nat i e sse nt, ac deu s al iqu is vitas ac [ve s t ra] tempora repe ntemutasse t

,ne c v ob is summa il l a laus e t g loria in e l o que ntia neque

i l lis modus e t tempe ramentum de fuisse t : nunc, quon iam nemo

e o dem tempo re adsequ i pote st magnam famam e t magnam

25'

qu ie tem , b ono sae cu l i sui quisque citra o b tre ctatio nem a l te rius

utaturfi

4 2 . Finie ratMate rnus,cum M e ssal la : Erant qu ib u s contra

dice rem, e rant d e qu ib us p l ura d ici ve l l em,nisi iam die s e s se t

e x actus’

° ‘ Fiet inquit Mate rnus‘

pos t e a arb itratu tuo,e t 51 qua tib i

5 ob scura in h o c me o se rmone v is a sunt , de il s rursus co nfe remus .

’

20 . i l l i Halm , isti co dd . 2 1 . ac deus co dd . , Halm : aut deus Baeh rens.

[vestra] Halm,Bae h rens, tempora vestra Haase , v itas vestras ac tempora Bekke r.

Qy. v itas vestras et vetera tempora ? E give s et fo r ac. 25 . bono codd . : b u ius

HVSp.

regentis, abo ve , prae cipi entium 28 . 6 :

dicentium 6 . 18 . So o ften discens,audie ns ,

do cens , &c. Cognoscer e o ccurs in th e

same sense at 19 . 2 3 , whe re se e no te .

19 . in quan tum o p u s e st, i . e . co n

side ring th e limited fie ld now o pen to

e lo quence . Cp. 1 . 1 1 dise rtissimo rum,ut

no stris tempo ribus, h ominum.

2 1 . ac d e us a l iqu i s , & c . Baeh rens

and , o n d iff e rent gro unds, John pre fe r tore ad ‘

aut deus al iquis,’

&c .

,and the re is

pe rhaps a ce rtain want o f lo gical precision in th e w ay in wh ich th e write rpre sents Wha t is re ally intende d as a dua lal te rnative . Th e first hypo the sis is,

‘

ac

co rding to Jo hn, th e transpo rtation o f

one o f th e tw o part ie s (aut vos aut

i l l i ) into th e age o f th e o the r : th e se cond

th e simultane ous re cipro cal e xchange o f

e po chs (deus repente mutasset) . But

it is po ssible to b e to o e xact ing in th e

w ay o f pre cision o f statement : th e ac

deus mutasset clause se ems rathe r tohave be en adde d in th e w ay o f an afte rtho ught : No vak inde ed, fo llowing M ii lle r’s sugge stion , reje cts i t altoge th e r, as

having be en added by some o ne w h o

remembe re d th e we l l-known passage inH o race (Sat. i . I ,ve s tra is rightly reje cted by many

e dito rs as supe rfluous : its po sition alsorende rs it o pen to suspicion . It co uld

o nlymean ‘ yo urs and tho se o f th e antiqu i,’

whe re as, imme diate ly be fo re and afte r, vosis used o f tho se whom th e spe ake r isaddre ssing alone .

2 5 . c itra . Se e o n 27 . 9 . Maternus

co nclude s with an attempt to re conci leth e confl icting views o f Ape r andMe ssa l l a,while justifying himse lf, in th e alte re dcond it ions o f th e time , fo r pre fe rringpo e try to rhe to ric.

a l te r iu s invo l ve s a b rach yo l ogy. Tr.Le t e ve ry one enj o y th e ble ssings o f h is

ow n age , witho ut d isparaging tho se o f

any o the r. ’4 2 . 3 . e xac tu s

,

‘ far-spent ’ : so Agr .

xxxviii. 1 2 e xacta iam ae state : i b . iii . 5e x actae ae tatis : Hist . i ii . 33 , 4 : iv. 84 , 5 .

F o r th e same idea o f ‘c omple ting ’

a

thing, cp . also Lucan , Phars . ii . 5 7 7Ante b is e x actum quam Cynthia conde ret

o rb em : ib . viii . 3 76 .

4 . ar b itratu tu o . C ic . Brut . 5 42 Atil le ridens Tuo ve ro inquit arb itratu

d e Am. 5 3 arb itratu me o . So to o fre

quently in Livy. Th e nominat ive and ac

cusative singular are fo und o n lyin Plautus .

5 . d e 118 c o n fe r emu s . This isan unusual construction . Cice ro o ftenuse s

‘ inte r se confe rre ,’

b ut always withth e ace . o r w i th a dependent clause : adAtt. i . 20, 1 Si quid re s fe re t, co ram inte rno s confe remus, de Fin . iv. 5 4 . Cp .

DIALOGUS DE ORATOR I B US . 1 15

Ac simu l adsurge ns e t Aprum comp le x u s Ego inqu it te

poe t is , Me ssal l a au tem antiquari i s criminab imur.

’

At ego vo s rh e to rib us e t sch o l asticis inquit.

Cum adrisisse nt, d isce ssimus .

4 2 . 7 . autem We issenbo rn, cum codd . Pe rhaps it sho ul d b e omitted, with th ePute o l anus. Or is it po ssible that cum conce als omn ibu s ? cp . 2. 14, and 13 . 14 .

Agr . xv. 2‘confe rre iniurias,

’ though 9 . Cum ad ri si sse nt. F o r th e endingth e re th e wo rd may e comparare . cp . th e clo se o f th e First Bo o k o f th e

7 . cr im inab imur , Fo r th e pl ural , de Or ator e , also th e de Natura Deorum,

cp . adf erant, 35 . 8 ; DP. 5 29 . i i i .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 1 8

Mate rnus,.

2. 1 sqq. : Intro d .

p . x x x vr.

Menenii , 21. 30.

M enenius Agrippa, 17 . 1 .

M e ssal l a C o rvinus, 12 . 24 :

17 . 4 : 18 . 1 1 : 20. 2 :

21. 36 .

M e ssal l a, Vipstanus, 14 .

2 ,sqq. : Intro d . p. xxxiv.Mete l l i , 3 7 . 1 1 .

Me tro do rus . 3 1. 28 .

Milo , 3 7 . 26 : 3 9 . 20.

Mucianus , 3 7 . 7 .

Mucius Scae vo la , 30. 14.

Mytil enae , 15 . 16.

Ne ro , 11. 9 : 17 . 1 2 .

N e sto r, 16 . 19 .

Nicete s Sace rdo s, 15 . I 5 .

N ico stratus , 10. 2 2 .

INDEX OF NAMES .

So ph o cle s, 12. 2 2 .

S to ici,3 1. 3 1 .

Sul la,L . Co rne l ius, 40. 3 .

Tibe rius, 17 . 1 1 .

Tiro,17 . 7 .

Tullius, M . ,20. 4 .

Ulixes, 16 . 1 9 .

Urb inia, 3 8 . I 5 .

Xeno phon , 3 1. 28 .

Pacuvius, 20. 18 : 21. 30.

Pansa , 17 . 6 .

Pe dius,17 . 9 .

Pe ripate tici, 3 1. 26.

Pe rsae , 40. 14 .

Phi lippus,16 . 2 1 .

Ph i lo,30. 1 5 .

Plato , 3 1. 2 7 : 32 . 25 .

Po ll io , 12 . 24 : 34 . 33 .

Pompe ius, 3 7 . 9 3 8 . 740. 4 .

Pompo nius Se cundus , 13 . 9 . Varius,12 . 2 5 .

Varro , 23 . 9 .

Quintius, P. Vatinius,11. 10 : 21. 10

Rh Odl l,40. 16. Ve rgil ius, 12. 24 : 13 . 4 ,

Ro scius,20. 1 1 . 1 7 : 20. 19 : 23 . 7 .

Ve rre s, 20. 3 : 3 7 . 26 .

Sal e ius Bassus, 5 . 6 : 9 . 8 , Ve spasianus, 8 . 20 : 9 . 251 3 : 17 . 14 .

Scaurus, M . Aemil ius, 39 . Vib ius Crispus, 8 . 2 : 13 .

20. 10 .

Scipi o , P. Co rne lius, 40. 3. Vite l l ius, 17 . 1 3 .

Servi l ius Nonianus,23 . 8 .

Sisenna, L. Co rne lius, 23 . 9 .

INDEX OF WORDS AND PHRASES .

(Th e first re fe rence is to th e chapte r and l ine o f th e text ; th e se cond to th e pageand co lumn o f th e e xpl anato ry no te s . Re fe rence s to th e Intro duction are givenseparate ly. )

accinctus, 5 . 32 1 2 b .

acto r, 26 . 7 : 70 b .

ad in regard to 5 . 16

1 1 a .

ade o,3 . 1 5 : 7 b .

ad ice quo d , 9 . 29 2 2 b .

Adj ectives asNo uns Intro d .

p . lv.adl igatus, 13 . I 4 : 3 2 a .

adstrictus, 25 . 1 7 68 a.

adve rsus, 3 3 . 5 90 a .

advo cati, 1 . 5 : 1 b .

aequalis, 3 1. 24 : 84 b .

age re paenitentiam,15 . 8

3 7 a .

age re et fe rre , 8 . 18 : 19 a .

aliud age re,32. 5 8 7 a .

a l te rcatio ne s,34 . 6 : 9 2 a .

a l titudo , 21. 16 : 57 b .

alumna l icentiae e l o quentia ,40. 8 1 10 b .

Anapi wm ,Intro d . p . lix .

Anastropfze, Intro d . p . 1x .

animus ingenium ,1 .

16 : 3 a .

antiquarias, 21 . 18 58 a .

tiqui, 16 . 16 : 39 a .

antiquitas, 30. 3 . 79 a.apte , 22. 1 2 6 1 b .

arcana semo tae dictio nis,

2 . 9 5 a .

arripe re , 28 . 2 5 : 76 b .

ars me dentis,41. 10 1 1 3 a.

Atticus, 18 . 2 1 48 a.

attritus, 18 . 23 : 48 a .

aucto r, 30. 2 79 a .

audire hear 7 . 18 :1 7 b . i lle

aure s, 34 . 29 : 94 b . l x x x vu .

aure s re spuunt, 9 . 6 : 20 b . imagine s,8 . 25 : 19 b .

auspicari , 11. 8 : 26 b . imbutus,19 . 2 1 5 2 a .

impeditus, 19 . 9 50 b.cal amrs l rr

,26 . 3 . impe x us, 20. 10 : 54 a.

cantare , 26 . 10 : 70 a.

causidici , 1 . 5 1 b .

censeri, 39 . 25 .

centumviri , 7 . 7 16 a .

C/zz'

asmus , Intro d . p. lx .

c irca,3 . 16 : 7 b .

circumstare : 8 . 13 : 1 8 b .

c itra, 27 . 9 74 a .

clausula,22. 25 63 a .

cl ientul us, 3 7 . 2 101 b .

co gitare , 2 . 3 : 4 a .

co l l e ctus , 3 1. 2 2 84 a .

co l l ige re , 24 . 15 66

co lo r sententiarum,20. 6

ss h

commentarius, 23 . 10 : 64 b.commune s sensus, 3 1. 24 :

84 b .

compo sitio ,21. 1 7 5 7 b .

co ncentus, 15 . 16 : 37 b .

confe rre , 42 . 5 : 1 14 b .

congiarium : 17 . 2 2 43 a .

co ntra an imum, 13 . 18

3 2 b .

contrah e re,3 7 . 7 10 1 b .

contrarius, 35 . 1 2 96 a .

co ntro ve rsiae , 35 . 1 3 96 a .

co nve rsatio , 9 . 30 : 2 2 b .

co ram, 3 6 . 3 1 : 101 a .

co rtina, 19 . 19 : 5 1 b .

cum maxime , 16 . 29 : 40 b .

cupidus, 3 1 . 1 7 8 3 b .

cura, 3 . 1 3 7 a .

de ie ctus , 26 . 19 7 2 b .

depacare , 3 8 . 19 : 107 a .

dicacitas , 29 . 7 : 7 7 b .

dictio , 2. 9 : 5 a .

diiunctus,18 . 24 : 48 b .

discipl ina ,3 8 . 1 8 107 a .

d istinctus,18 . 10 : 46 a.

domi nasci , 9 . 13 : 2 1 a.

e l oquentia, 4 . 10 9 a .

e lucubrare , 9 . 16 2 1 a.

e lude re , 5 . 33 1 2 b .

e l umb is, 18 . 26 : 49 a.

e rrare , 40. 1 9 : 1 1 1 b .

e xceptio , 20. 3 : 5 3 a .

e x ce ssus , 22. 1 2 6 1 b .

e x c l amatio , 3 1. 29 : 8 5 b .

e x cude re , 9 . 15 2 1 a .

e x ime re d iem ,19 . 10 50 b .

e x sanguis , 18 . 23 48 a .

e x spe ctare , 20. 3 : 53 a .

e x su l tans , 18 . 20 : 47 b .fab ul ari, 23 . 1 1 64 b .

face s admo ve re , 40. 6

1 10 a .

fatal is d ie s,13 . 24 : 34 a .

fate ri , 17 . 1 7 : 43 a .

favo rab il is, 7 . 3 : 15 b .

fe rre , 3 7 . 2 7 103 b .

F igu r es , Intro d . p . l x i .

fle cto , 19 . 4 : 49 b .

fo rmula,20. 3 : 53 a .

habe re (with ge rund) , 8 .

1 1 1 8 a.

Hendz'

adys, Intro d . p . 1x .

he rcule , Intro d. p . l ix .

h iare , 21. 1 7 : 5 7 b .h ic , Intro d. p . l vi .

h istriona l e s mo d i, 26 . 8

7 1 a .

h istrional is favo r, 29 . 10 :

7 8 a.

ho d ie quo que , 34 . 34 : 95 a .

ho rridus, 18 . 4 : 4 5 a .

h ucusque , 11. 16 : 2 7 b .

iste , Intro d . p .

1 20

incipit,16 . 3 1 40 b .

incompo situs, 26 . 19 7 2 a .

incond it i sensus, 21. 1 7

58 a.

increpare , 5 . 26 : 1 2 a.

indue re , 6 . 1 8 : 14 a .

infructuo sus, 9 . 4 20 b .

ingenium ale re , 14 . 16 :

35 b .inge re re , 7 . 15 1 7 a.

ino pia, 28 . 5 : 74 b .

in o re h ominum age re,3 7 .

36 104 b .

in publicum, in commune ,

26 . 28 : 7 2 a .

in quantum, 2. 1 3 5 b .

insanum fo rum,13 . 20

33 a .

inte rd ictum,3 7 . 16 : 102 b .

indicia. de l ib e ratione s

laudatione s,31. 7

83 a .

ius ve rrinum , 23 . 1 63 a .

lae titia , 20. 9 54 a .

lascivia, 26 . 7 7 1 a .

latus clavus, 7 . 2 1 5 b .

l eno cinari , 6 . 24 : 1 5 a .

l ibare , 3 1. 3 2 86 a .

l ibe lli , 9 . 1 8 : 2 1 b .

l ibe r,12. 24 : 30 a .

l ibe rt i , 7 . 7 16 a .

lo ci , 31. 2 7 8 5 a .

l o cupl e s re us, 5 . 7 9 b.l o cus, 19 . 1 5 : 5 1 b .

l udicrae arte s,10. 2 1 24 b .

lumen, 22. 13 : 6 1 b .

manife stus e st, 16 . 1 1 38 b .

mansurus,9 . 2 2 2 2 a .

maturare,3 . 1 2 7 a

maturitas, 26 . 3 70 a .

meditatio , 33 . 1 8 : 9 1 a .

me re ri , 3 1. 23 84 b .

mo s antiquus, 28 . 7 75 a .

mo x,10. 35 2 5 b.

narratio , 19 . 1 1 5 1 a .

ne ce ssitudo , 10. 30 : 25 a.

nedum ut,10. 5 : 23 a.

nego tia (o f act io ns at l aw ) ,3 8 . 9 : 106 b.

nego tium sibi impo rtare , 3 .

20 : 8 a .

nempe enim ,35 . 1 2 : 96 a.

non quia, 3 7 . 2 7 : 103 a .

no titia,5 . 19 : 1 1 a .

nume ri , 1 . 1 7 : 3 a .

nume ro sus,25 . 18 68 b .

quandoque , 13 . 24 : 33 b .

quatenus, 5 . 1 1 10 a .

quominus, 34 . 1 2 : 9 3 a .

quoque (fo r e tiam) , 6 . 1914 b.

recitatione s, 10. 4 : 23 a.

THE END.

INDEX OF WORDS AND PHRASES .

rh e to re s, 30. 4 79 b.ro ta F o rtunae , 23 . 1 63 a,rubo r, 3 7 . 1 101 a.

tabularia, 39 . 5 .

tamquam,2. 2 : 4 a .

te po r, 21. 26 : 59 a .

t innitus, 26 . 4 70 a .

to gat i , 6 . 14 : 1 3 b .

tunicatus po pulus, 7 . 16

1 7 a.

unifo rmis, 32. 2 : 86 b .

unus de po pulo , 21. 3 : 56 a .

unus e t alte r , 20. 6 : 56 b .

uti auribus, 40. 5 1 10 a .

utique , 18 . 2 1 48 a .

utrumne , 35 . 6 : 96 a.

vate s,9 . 9 : 20 b .

ve ritas, 40. 10 : 1 1 1 a .

Zeugma , Intro d . p . 1x .

o b l ectare o tium,10. 1 2

2 3 b .

o do rati,19 . 1 5 5 1 b .

o ffi cium ,6 . 7 13 a.

o pinio , 10. I 2 2 b .

o pus e sse ut, 31. 2

8 2 a .

o rato r , 1 . 4 : 1 a .

o rbitas,6 . 6 1 3 a.

o tio sus , 18 . 24 : 48 b .

paenula, 39 . 3 : 107 b .

pal l ens fama, 13 . 20 33 a .

pe ctus impl e re , 3 1. 4 : 8 2 b .

pensare,40. 25

~1 1 2 a .

pensi habe re , 29 . 5 7 7 b .

pe ric l itari , 5 . 2 2 1 1 b.pe ro rare

,3 8 . 4 : 105 b .

pe rquam, 16 . 2 7 : 40 a .

pe rstringe re , 27 . 8 74 a.

pl anitas, 23 . 24 : 65 b .

P l eonasm,Intro d . p . lx.

p l e rique , 2. 10 : 5 b .

pl e rumque , 6 . 8 1 3 b.po rro

,5 . 7 9 b .

po tente s , 2. 2 4 a.

pre ssus, 18 . 20 : 47 b .

principe s l ibe ri, 28 . 24 :

76 b .

pro e l iato r, 3 7 . 3 2 .

sal tare,26 . 10 : 7 1 a.

sal utante s, 11 . 1 3 : 2 7 b .

sanguinans , 12. 9 2 8 b.sangu is, 21. 34 : 59 b .

sanitas , 25 . 20 : 69 b .

sch o l astici , 26 . 30 : 7 2 a .

scurri l itas, 21. 24 : 63 a .

sensus, sententia,20. 16

54 b

src quasi , 13 . 8 : 3 1 a.

sic quoque , 41. 1 1 1 2 b .

sine dubio ,40. 2 2 : 1 1 1 b .

so lutus,18 . 25 : 48 b .

so rde s ve rb o rum , 21. 16

5 7 b .

statim , 18 . 15 : 4 7 a.

statio,17 . 14 : 4 2 a.

statum tue ri, 11. 16 : 27 b .

stude re , 21. 30 : 59 b .

suaso riae , 35 . 13 : 96 a .

substantia facu l tatum,8 .

1 5 19 a .

Synonyms, Introd . p . l i.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

QUIN TILIAN X : PRESS N OTI CES (continued) .

‘ A we lcome b o ok fo r th e advance d stude nt o f Latin th e wo rko f an industrio us sch o lar and a man o f se nse — Speaker .

Im allgeme inen kann man von den e rkl arenden Anme rkunge nruhmen, dass sie in sprachliche r und sach lich e r Be ziehung al l e s

b ie ten,w as zur He rb e ifiih rung e ine s griindl ich en Ve rstandnisse s von

Quintilians x . Buch e fOrde rl ich se in kann . Es kann dah e r d ie seAusgab e auch den de utsch e n Ph ilo loge n b e ste ns empfo h len we rdens ie we rden manch e s darin finde n, w as in den de u t sch en Ausgab enn ich t e nth alte n ist.

’— (Pro fe sso r MOR IZ KIDERLIN, Munich .) N eue

P izi l o l og isclze Runa’

sclzau .

‘ D ie Ausgab e e rfi i l l t alle Anfo rde rungen, d ie man b illige rwe ise an

F'

ah igke it und F le iss e ine s H e rausge b e rs ste llen kann.

’—(Dr. FERD .

BECHER .) D eu i sc/ze Liti eraturze itung .

We h eartily we lcome th is e lab o rate and scho larly e d ition o f th e mo stinte re sting po rtion o f a mo st inte re sting and strange ly n egle cte d auth o r.

Th e space at o ur dispo sal is wh o lly inadequate to do justice to th emultifarious le arn ing, th e critical acume n, and th e so und lite rary judgment o f th e e dito r.’—j o urna l of Education .

Dr. Pe te rson h as rende re d an impo rtant se rvice to c lassical scho l arsh ip by th is maste rly vo lume .

’— S co i s 7nan .

Th e e dito r h as de vo te d ve ry spe cial a ttention to th e structure o f th ete xt, and in th is department o f h is wo rk h e sh o ws h imse lf e ntitle d to

take rank as o ne Of o ur v e ry fo remo st scho lars .

’ G l asg ow H era l d.

‘ A go od e xamp le o f patient and lab o rio us scho larsh ip.

’— Sco i i is l i

Leader .

Th e wo rk w ill e asily take a place among th e b e st o f its kind?Duna

’e e Advertiser .

‘ An e x ample o f th e b e st edito rsh ip.

’ —Duna’e e Courier and Arg us .

Eine e nglisch e Ausgab e we lch e sich an die b ishe r e rschiene ne nw iirdig anre iht . M it gro ssem F le isse h at Pe te rson das ganze re ichh al tige Mate rial , we lch e s v ie lfach in de utschen Ze itsch riften und

Programme s ze rstre ut ist, zusamme nge tragen und m it de r gro ssten

G e w issenh aftigke it b enutzt . So rgfal tig wagt e r die ve rsch ie dene nAnsich ten de r G e lehrten ab und e ntsche ide t s ich

,h i ufig unte r se h r

e inge h ende r B egriindung, fiir dasje nige w as ihm das R ichtige re zu

se in sche int.— (Pro f. FERDINAND MEISTER .) B er l iner P /zi l o l og isclze

Woclzensclzrift.

(M i cro

AT THE CLARENDON PRE S S

LONDON : HENRY FROWDE

OXFORD UN IVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.c.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Tac i tus , Co rne l i us

Di a l ogus de o r ato r i b us

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

ERINDALE COLLEGE LIBRARY