Roman Education - Forgotten Books

R O M A N

E D U C A T I O N

FROM CICERO TO

QUINTILIAN

AUBREY GWYNN

O X F O R D

AT TH E C LA RE N D O N P RE S S

1926

P rinted in Engla ndAt the OXFORD UN IVERSITY PRESS

By John j ohnsonP ri nter to the Un fvorsity

PREFACE

THIS book is , though indirectly, the result of work

begun ten yea rs ago for the degree of M.A. in the

Nationa l University of Ireland. At the suggestion

of Rev. Dr . T. Corcoran, SJ Professor of Education

at University College, Dublin, I chose as a subj ect for

research work the history of Roman education under

the Empire and presented a thesis on tha t subject

in the autumn of 19 15 . Thanks to a TravellingStudentship awa rded me by the National University

in that year, I was able to continue my studies for

two years at Oxford,and I have since given what

time I could spa re from other work—part of it asstudent, part of it a s teacher—to reading whatevermight throw light on the general history of Gra eco

Roman education . In the summer of 19 19 I was

awarded the degree of B .Litt. by the University of

Oxford for a thesis entitled Roma n Educa tion under

the Empire, in which I developed the ideas already

s et forth in my ea rlier thesis, adding a considerab le

body of new materia l . Since then I have worked

ma inly on the genera l principles which underlie a ll

Greek and Roman theories of education, and have

thought it best to publish separately the results of

3 PREFACE

my inquiry into this more theoretical aspect of my

sub j ect, reserving for a later volume the history of

the Roman schools under the Empire.

My thanks are due to the many kind friends who

have helped me in one way or another ; to my

professors at University College, Dublin, without

whose help and encoura gement this book would

never have been written ; to Dr . L. C. Purser of

Trinity College, Dublin, who gave me welcome advice

at the beginning of my studies ; to my tutors a t

Oxford, especially to Mr. J. G. C . Anderson of

Christ Church and to theDelega tes of the Cla rendon

Press for undertaking the publication of this book.

A . G.

Ma rch 1925 .

NOTE

A lis t of the modern works which I ha ve consulted will b eic imd a t the end of this volume . For convenience of referenceI ha ve quoted works included in this Bib liography b y the name

of the a uthor only, with the addition of a short title where thereis more than one work b y the s ame a uthor . As a rule I havequoted the ancient authorities a ccording to the Teubner editionsmos t of the authors whom I have used a re not ea sily a cces sib le inany other edition .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prefa ce

Ea rly Roman Tra ditions

Greek a nd Roman Educa tiona l Idea ls

Firs t Greek Tea chers a t Rome

The N ew Gra eco -Roman Cu lture

Under Ma rius a nd Sulla

l . Plotius Ga llus a nd the La tini rhetores

2 . Cicero ’

s student~y ea rs

The do On: tore

1 . Purpose of the do Ora tore

2. The a rtes libera-les

The schools of litera ture a nd rhetoric

His tory , law, a nd philos ophysa

w

5 . Cicero ’

s theory of the dorms ora tor

6 . Ciceronian human ita s

Rea ction a nd its Ca use s

1 . Decline of the Roman a ristocra cv

2. N ew elements in Roma n s ociety3. Educa tion of the lower cla s ses

VIII . The N ew Rhetoric1 . Virgil a nd Hora ce in the s chools

2 . The new s chools of rhetoric3. Rhetoric a nd philosophy

B

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Quintilia nl . The Instz

’

tntio ora torz’

a

2 . Prelimina ry s tudies3. Rhetoric the Declama tz

’

onos

4. Supplementa ry s tudies5 . Vir bonus dicendi p eritus

X . Conclusion

Bib liography

Index

EARLY ROMAN TRADITIONS

Moribus antiquis res s ta t Romana v irisque .

’

ENNIUS .

CICERO ha s devoted the fourth book of his ole Re

pnblica to an ela borate contrast between Greek a nd

Roman politica l idea ls . Most of the book is now

lost, but wha t rema ins i s of ca pita l importance .

After a brief enumera tion of some cha ra cteris tic

Roma n institutions,Scipio

,who is Cicero’s mouth

piece in the dia logue , begins his pra ise of the Roma n

state.

Let us now turn our a ttention to other wise provisions ma de

with a view to ma inta ining the prosperity a nd virtue of thecommonwea lth . For tha t is the prima ry purpose of a ll civils ociety towa rds which the s ta te should help men , pa rtly b y itsins titutions , pa rtly b y its laws . Now firs t a s to the educa tion offree -b orn citizens . This is a prob lem on which the Greeks ha vewa s ted much endeavour b ut our institutions a re opposed to anydeta iled univers a l system of pub lic educa tion , ob liga tory b y law.

In fa ct my guest , Polyb ius , ma inta ins tha t this is the one pointon which our institutions can b e a ccused of negligence .

’ 1

Here the fragment breaks off, a nd the pa ssage in

Polybius to which Cicero refers—most probablya portion of the Greek historia n’s a ccount of Roma n

institutions in his sixth book—is no longer extant.But the allusion thus made to a judgement passed by

1 Cic . de Rep . iv . 3.

12 EARLY ROMAN TRADITIONS

the most competent Greek cr itic of Roman history,a nd the fact tha t Cicero , the most competent Roman

interpreter of Greek civiliza tion, expressly rejects

tha t judgement , indica te a suggestive line of inquiry .

Why should Polybiu s ha ve s ingled out this neglect

of public educa tion a s the one fa ult in Roman institu

tions ‘

2 And why should Cicero ha ve been a t pains

(for Scipio wa s evidently ma de to a nswer the criticism

which he quotes) not merely to refute the Greek

historia n’s opinion , b ut even to select Roman

methods of educa tion a s the s ta rting-point for his

eulogy of Roma n institutions ? Were both men

awa re of a n essentia l difference between Greek a nd

Roman educa tiona l idea ls

Little is known of ea rly Roma n educa tion ,but one

fa ct is certa in . As in every other depa rtment of

Roman socia l life , the centre round which a ll turned

wa s the family a nd in pa rticula r tha t most Roma n

institution , the pa triot potes ta s . The r ight of

dominion says Ga ius , which we ha ve over our

children is peculia r to the citizens of Rome, nor is

there a ny ra ce of men who have a dominion over

their children simila r to ours .

’ 1 Roman law a llowed

the fa ther a dominion over his children ha rdly less

a bsolute tha n the dominion exercised over slaves .

When the child wa s born the fa ther wa s free to

a ccept him a s a member of the familia or to rej ect

him as unfit in poorer circles, a t lea st, the pra ctice

of exposing infa nts wa s common and the foundling

that survived could be picked up by the first-comer,

1 Ga ius , i . 55 Inst. i . 9 , 2 Digest, i . 6 , 3.

EARLY ROMAN TRADITIONS 13

retained a s his s la ve or sold to the highest bidder.

Nor was this the only possibility of sla very for the

Roman child. In theory, a t lea st , a Roma n father

could sell a n unma rried child into sla very a t will ,as he could a lso punish him by condemning him to

work on his fields among the farm-hands .

How far these rights were put into practice is

disputed 1 their lega lity is certa in. And a Roma n

fa ther ha d the supreme right of condemning his son

to dea th , subj ect only to the mora l obligation of

holding a family council before pa ssing this fina l

sentence. More pra ctica l were the laws which

governed the holding of property. Here a gain the

pa tria rcha l system wa s in fu ll force . The s on had

no persona l property a s distinct from his fa ther, a nd

whatever goods he a cquired during his fa ther’s life

time were lega lly the property of the pa terfamilia s

money a llowed him for his pers ona l use cou ld be

revoked by the fa ther a t will . The one lega l differ

ence between the son a nd the s la ve wa s the right to

inherit. When the fa ther died, the s on,hitherto

rega rded in law a s c c -proprietor, b ut without use, of

his fa ther s property, entered upon rights which ha d

b eén in a beya nce during his fa ther’s lifetime. Finally,apa rt from a privilege gra nted to the holders of

certain priestly offices , this pa tria potesta s wa s

extinguished only by dea th : neither ma rria ge nor

high offi ce in the sta te ma de the s on independent of

his father within the Sphere of priva te life. Adoption

1 Bliimner , p . 302 ; Bea uchot in Da remb erg-Saglio , iv ,

pp . 344 foll .


was merely the tra nsference of pa tria potes ta s from

one parent to the other.

As might be expected in a society which held

paternal a uthority in such honour, a Roma n boy’s

education consisted a lmost entirely in da ily familia r

intercourse with his pa rents a nd in the close imitation

of his fa ther ’s conduct . Ta citus ha s left a picture

of this tra ditiona l home-educa tion which, though

idea lized by the historian’s ima gina tion , is no doubt

true to its e s s entia l spirit.

Of old our children were b orn of cha ste pa rents and wererea red , not in the chamb er of some hired nurse , b ut in the lap

or a t the b rea st of their mother , whose chief glory wa s thus tos ta y a t home and b e the s ervant of her children . Choice wa sma de of s ome ma tron from among the family’s rela tives , to whomwere entrus ted a ll the children of the s ame household . Of well

proved virtue , her influence wa s such tha t none da red utterb efore her a n unseemly word or venture on an unb ecominga ction . Her presence , comma nding awe and reverence , wa sthere to check the childr en not merely a t their less ons and seriousduties , b ut even durin g their games and recrea tions . Thus ,tra dition tells us , did Cor nelia tra in the Gra cchi Aure lia ,

Julius Ca es a r Atia , Augustus for future empire . And the a im

of a ll this s tern forma tion wa s tha t whilst the child ’

s cha ra cterwa s s till fresh and open and unspoiled b y wrong , he should b etaught to emb ra ce the pra ctice of virtue with a ll his hea rt ;a nd tha t whether destined to b e soldier , jurist or ora tor , hiswhole energies should b e solely devoted to duty .

’ 1

Once the firs t yea r s of childhood were pa st, the

mother’s pla ce in the boy’s educa tion wa s taken by

her hu sba nd, a nd a compa nionship bega n between

fa ther and son for which it is ha rd to find a pa ra llel

outs ide Roman society. School-life was reduced to

1 Ta o. Dia l. 28 see a ls o Pliny , Epp . v 11 . 24.


a minimum,where it existed at a ll. Frequently the

fa ther took over in person the responsibility of

giving his son wha tever little book-lea rning was

required for ordina ry Roma n life. Every child had

his fa ther for schoolma ster says Pliny of these ea rly

times ; 1 a nd the pra ctice is expressly a ffirmed by

Pluta rch of the elder Ca to and Aemiliu s Pa ulus .

2

But these elementary lessons were the least part of

the boy’s education . Constantly at his fa ther’s side

a nd with few other companions, he lea rnt to see in

his parent the living representative of Roma n

tra dition, the pers onifica tion of Roma n a uthority.

At home he worked with his fa ther on the farm,like

the Sa bine soldier-peasants of Hora ce’s ode 3or

like the elder Ca to who spent all his youth in ha bits

of frugality a nd ha rdship a nd industry,tilling the

fields, ploughing up Sabine rocks and stones,or

sowing the land for ha rvest On festival days he

acted as a colyte to his fa ther in a ll the religious

ceremonies which centred round the Roman hea rth

or a ccompanied him a s guest a t the house of friends,

s erving his elders a t table a nd singing with others

of his own age the ballads of early Roma n litera ture .5

When there wa s a meeting of the a ssembly in the

forum,he wa s there to listen to the public deba tes

a nd , if his fa ther wa s a sena tor, he wa s a llowed by

specia l privilege—a t least in the early da ys of the

1 Pliny, Epp . viii. 14, 6 .

2 P lut . Ca to ma ior,20 Aemil. 6 .

3 Hor . Ca rin . iii . 6 , 37 fell.4 Ca to apnd Fes t . 281 a , 21 .

5 Plut . Qu . Rom. 33; Va rro apnd N on . 77 , 3 ( = i , p . 107 ,

Linds ay) .


Republic —to go with him to the senate-house,sitting near the door, and learning both from What

he heard and wha t he saw

According to primitive Roman custom this strictly

parental tra ining was continued until the b oy was

sixteen or seventeen yea rs old .

2 It was ended only

by the formal a ssumption of the toga virilis , when

the b oy , now recognized as a Roman citizen, entered

upon his first experiences of a ctive military service.

Later a custom wa s introduced which served as a

prolonga tion of this parenta l tra ining. Once the

home-education was judged to have been sufficient ,the boy la id a s ide his pra etexta for the toga virilis ,

often when he wa s only thirteen or fourteen yea rs old .

Hewa s then taken by his fa ther to some distinguished

citizen and bidden lea rn from him the lessons of

political ora tory and sta tecra ft which the home-circle

was too limited to give.3 As Cicero puts it, speaking

of hi s own experience, I wa s taken by my fa ther to

Sca evola, a nd bidden as fa r a s possible never lea ve

his s ide This sort of a pprenticeship to public life

tirooininni fori , a s it wa s ca lled by the Roma ns them

selves—lasted for a yea r, a nd wa s rega rded a s a

trans itional sta ge between the strict discipline of the

home-circle a nd the freedom of public life a s a Roma n

citizen.

5 Those who intended to devote thems elves

to a milita ry career passed through a simila r appren

1 Pliny , Epp . viii . 14, 4 Gell . i . 23, 4 .

2 Ma rqua rdt , i , pp . 123—34.

3 Ta c . Dia l . 34 Wa rde Fowler , Socia l Life, pp . 19 1 £0 11.4 Cic . de Am . 1 see b elow, p . 64 .

5 Cic . p ro Ga el. l l .


ticeship to active service (tirocinium militia e) , under

the care of some experienced officer ; 1 for these

customs belong to a period when military service was

no longer compulsory. And even when this year

of a pprenticeship was over, a nd the young citizen or

officer had begun to play his pa rt in the service of the

state, his priva te life wa s still subj ect to pa rental

authority. For the Roman pa tria potes ta s ended only

with the parent’s death, a nd citizens of the highest

sta nding owed their pa rents an obedience which

dis concerts our modern Opinions , as of old it dis

concerted Greek critics of Roman institutions .2

Moriba s a ntiqnis res s ta t Roma na vir'

isqne : the

extent of a Roman parent’s influence on the edu

cation of his children gives fuller meaning to

this reverence for the living traditions of Roman

greatness.

Early Roman education was thus little concerned

with the development of intellectual attainments.

Its ma in obj ect was to form that spirit of s elf

restraint and filial submission which Roman feeling

demanded of the young ; 3 its chief merit was that

it fostered a reverence for childhood which made

every boy a nd girl a n object of almost religious

veneration.

4 But it would be a mistake to remain

blind to the fa ults of the system . Judged by intellec

tual standards,Roman education was essentially

1 Cic . ap a d Serv . in Aen . v . 546 Ma rquardt , i, p‘

. 133.

2 Dion . Ha l . Ant. Rom . ii . 26 , 2 27, 1 .

3 Cic . de 017. ii . 46 .

See Wa rde Fowler’s a rticle in Roman Essa ys , pp . 42 £0 11.

3029o


u tilitarian. Cicero notes a chara cteristic e xample.

Greek thinkers had always taken a keen interest in

theoretica l geometry ; but the Romans never

t roubled to lea rn more of the science tha n wa s

necessary for the pra ctica l work of la nd-mea sure

ment .1 And Hora ce’s sa tire on the utilita ria n a im

of Roman ma thematics is too familia r to need

quota tion.

2 The same Spirit of conserva tive utili

tarianism is ma nifest in the whole cha ra cter of ea rly

Roma n educa tion it influenced the tra ining of both

body a nd mind. Athletics, if we take the word in

the sense of a ll hea lthy physica l exercise, played

a large pa rt in the da ily life of a Roma n boy. Run

ning,riding

,boxing , wrestling, swimming, hunting,

the use of a rms a nd ha rd work in the fields : 3 a ll

these formed pa rt of his regula r education, a nd

Roman conserva tives like Virgil a nd Hora ce were

s ta unch upholders of the na tiona l tra dition.

4 Va rro ,who believed in letting boys rough itwhen they wereyoung,

"

5 has left a n interesting description of his oWn

b oyhood. He ha d only one tunic a nd toga,wore

s anda ls without any covering for his legs,rode his

horse ba re-ba cked, wa s s eldom a llowed a ba th,a nd

even les s frequently a good dinner. 6 But the

scientific tra ining of a n idea l ha rmony of mind a nd

body a s pra ctised by the Greeks was unknown to1 Cic . Tusc . i . 5 .

2 Hor . Ars p oet. 325 foll .3 Plut . Ca to ma ior , 20 Blumner , p . 329 .

‘1 Virg . Aen . v ii . 160 £0 11. ix . 603 foll . ; Hor . Ca rm. i . 8 ;

iii . 6 ; 24 .

5 Va rro apnd N on . 520, 246 Va rro apnd N on . 108 , 24

iii, p . 837, Linds ay) Gell . iv . 19 .

i, p . 155,Linds ay) .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join


to many b oys . But Ca to , to use his own words , would not havea s lave a buse his son nor perhaps pull his ea rs for b eing s low a t

his lessons nor would he have his b oy owe a s lave s o preciousa

"

gift a s lea rning . So he ma de hims elf the b oy’s s choolma ster ,jus t a s he taught him the laws of Rome and b odily exercis es not

merely to throw the j avelin , to fight in a rmour or to ride , b uta lso to use hi s fis ts in b oxing , to b ea r hea t and cold , and to swima ga ins t the currents and eddies of a river . And he tells us himselftha t he wrote b ooks of history with his own hand and in la rgecha ra cters , s o tha t his s on might b e a b le even a t home to b ecome

a cqua inted with hi s coun try’s pa st tha t he wa s a s ca reful toavoid a ll indecent convers a tion in his son ’

s presence a s he wouldhave b een in presence of the Vesta l virgins and tha t he neverb a thed with him . This la st point seems to ha ve b een a Roman

cus tom , for even fa thers -in -law were ca reful not to b a the withtheir sons -in -law to avoid the necessi ty of s tripping naked b eforethem but la ter , when the Romans had lea rnt from the Greeksthe cus tom of appea ring naked , they a ctua lly taught the Greeksto do so b efore women . When Ca to ha d thus taken every pa insto fa shion his s on , like an excellent work , to virtue , finding tha this good will wa s b eyond reproa ch and tha t he wa s na tura llydocile and ob edient , b ut tha t his b ody wa s too delica te forha rdship ,

he rela xed the exces sive rigour and austerity of thisregime . And in spite of weak hea lth the la d proved himselfa true man in the field , winning grea t distinction in the b a ttlewhich Aemilius Paulus fought a ga inst Perseus . It wa s heretha t he los t his sword , which wa s s truck from his gra sp b y a b lowor s imply s lipped owing to the mois ture of his hand . Grieveda t this los s the b oy turned to s ome of his comrades who werea b out him , took them with him , and a ga in cha rged the enemy .

Much ha rd fighting wa s needed to clea r the spot , b ut a t la st hefound his sword amid a heap of a rms and dea d b odies , friend and

foe piled up together . Hi s genera l P aulus wa s delighted withthe b oy when he hea rd of the deed , and Ca to himself wrote hiss on a letter whi ch is s till extant, giving him high pra ise for thehonourab le zea l he had shown in thus winning b a ck his sword .

La ter the young man ma rried Tertia , the daughter of Paulus andScipio

’

s sis ter , and his a dmission to this nob le family wa s duea s much to his own merits a s to the merits of his fa ther . So tha tCa to’s ca re for his son had its fitting rewa rd .

’


Comment on such a passage is unneces sary. How

ever rigid its ethica l s tanda rd, however na rrow its

intellectual horizon, the a ustere mora lity which Ca to

here personifies compels a dmira tion. Ennius was

right : these tra ditions a nd thes e men were the

gua ra ntee of Roman greatness.

II

GREEK AND ROMAN EDUCATIONAL IDEALS

Considera te nunc disciplinam puerilem ingenuis in qua

Gra eci multum frustra la b ora v erunt.

’

Cic . de Rep . iv . 3.

PLUTARCH wa s not the first Greek to feel the

impressive gra ndeur of Roman educa tiona l idea ls.

Polybius—in spite of the criticism which Cicero

quotes—renders generous homa ge to the ethical

value of Roma n family traditions. Na tiona l custom

required tha t a t the funeral of a Roma n citizen life

size sta tues of former members of the family should

be carried in solemn procession through the forum ,

a dorned with all the ins ignia of their rank. After the

procession a panegyric wa s pronounced on the dead

man’s virtues a nd a chievements, a nd the glories of

his a ncestors. Polybius, who describes the scene a t

one of these public ceremonies, interrupts his

narrative to note the effect of a ll this pa gea ntry on

an impress iona ble b oy .

It would not b e ea sy he says , to offer a fa irer specta cle toan amb itious and generous b oy . For who would not b e movedto see the s ta tues of men famous for their va lour grouped togethera s though they were a live Wha t fa irer specta cle could thereb e than this And , b es t of a ll, the young a re thus s timula tedto b ea r a ll manner of ha rdship for the common wea l , hopingthereb y to ga in the glory which is given to b rave men .

Roman tra dition—the mos ma iornm, so prominent

in Latin litera ture—ha s seldom been more justlypraised.

1 Polyb . v i. 53, 9—54, 3(ed . Buttner-Wob st) .

GREEK AND ROMAN EDUCATIONAL IDEALS 23

Why then did Polybius find fault with Roma n

methods of education His compla int that Roma ns

neglected the problem of public education reca lls an

observa tion made by Aristotle two centuries earlier

It is only in the Spa rtan community , with a few other exceptions , tha t the lawgiver ha s pa id a ttention to the prob lem ofeduca tion . In mos t s ta tes s uch ques tions a re ignored every onelives the lord of his wi fe and children , like the Cyclops of old .

’ 1

Pos sibly Aristotle would ha ve been too shrewd an

observer of mora l forces to include Roma n traditions

in a criticism a imed directly a t the customs of fourth

century Greece but Polybius was les s wa ry. Greek

politica l theory of the second century demanded

that education should be controlled by public laws,

and Polybius , though persona l experience shouldhave taught him better, missed the a pplication of

a theory in which he had been taught to believe.

R oman sta tesmen"

sought a solution of these pro

b lems according to the genius of their ra ce. Where

Greek theorists put their fa ith in systematic law

making,the Romans obta ined more permanent

results by the slow development of custom : a s

Polybiu s puts"

it, they learnt from experience,

choosing a lways the best ’, and thereby built up

institutions which Polybius himself prefers to the

institutions of a ny other state, because of their more

perfect conformity with nature. 2 And the success

achieved by this practical wisdom in general wa s

notable in the sphere of education . The Roman

1 Ar . Eth. N ic . x . 1 180 a , 25 P ol. viii . 1337 a , 30 .

2 Polyb . , v i . 10, 14 4, 13 9 , 12 (ed . Biittner-Wob st) .

24 GREEK AND ROMAN EDUCATIONAL IDEALS

father was free to educate his children a s he pleased.

Like the Cyclops of old he wa s their lord,and the

state made no attempt to restrict his freedom . But

each family had its own tradition of family pride,its own record of public service a nd the atmosphere

of conserva tive custom thus created wa s for centuries

a sufficient guarantee a ga inst novel experiments .

Towa rds the end of the second century when

individua list tendencies were making themselves felt,conserva tive s ta tesmen a ppea led to the va lue of these

tra ditions . Suetonius has preserved the text of a n

edict is sued by the censors of 92 B .C . , in Oppos ition

to the new tendencies .1 One of its sentences runs as

follows " Our a ncestors were ca reful to determine

wha t lessons their children were to lea rn, what

schools they were to attend.

’ N0 one familiar with

the Spirit of early Roman educa tion ca n doubt the

truth of this statement. Yet no l aws were in exist

ence,pres cribing this or that form of educa tion, and

Cicero’s statement holds true Our institutions are

opposed to a ny deta iled universal system of public

education, obligatory by law.

’ 2

By way of contrast with these early Roman tradi

tions it ma y be helpful to quote in full a well-known

pa ssage of Pla to’s P rota gora s , which expresses more

clea rly tha n any other passa ge in Greek literature

certa in fundamenta l ideas common to all Greek

theories of education.

Educa tion and a dmonition s ays Prota gora s , commence inthe firs t yea rs of childhood , and la st to the very end of life .

1 Suet . Rhet. 1 .



Mother and nurse and fa ther a nd tutor a re qua rrelling a b out theimprovement of the chi ld a s s oon a s ever he is a b le to unders tandthem he ca nnot s a y or do anything without their setting forth

to him tha t this is just and tha t is unjus t‘ this is honoura b le and

tha t is dishonoura b le this is holy, tha t is unholy do this and

a b sta in from tha t . And if he ob eys , we ll a nd good if not, he

is s tra ightened b y threa ts a nd b lows , like a piece of wa rped Wood .

At a la ter s ta ge they send him to tea chers , and enj oin them to s eeto his manners even more than to hi s re ading and music and

the tea chers do a s they a re desired . And when the b oy ha s

lea rned hi s letters and is b eginning to unders tand wha t is wri tten ,

a s b efore he unders tood only wha t wa s spoken , they put intohis hands the works of grea t poets which he rea ds a t s chool ;in these a re conta ined many a dmonitions and many ta les , a nd

pra ises , and encomia of ancient famous men which he is requiredto lea rn b y hea rt , in order tha t he ma y imita te or emula te themand desire to b ecome like them . Then , a ga in , the tea chers ofthe lyre take simila r ca re tha t their young dis ciple is tempera teand gets into no mis chief and when they ha ve taught him the

use of the lyre , they introduce him to the poems of other excellent

poets , who a re the lyric poets and these they set to music , and

mak e their ha rmonies and rhythms quite familia r to the children’

s

s oul s , in order tha t they may lea rn to b e more gentle , and

ha rmonious , and rhythmica l , and s o more fitted for speech and

a ction ; for the life of man in every pa rt ha s need of ha rmonyand rhythm . Then they s end them to the ma ster of gymna stic ,in order tha t their b odies ma y b etter minister to the virtuou smind , and tha t they may not b e compelled through b odilyweaknes s to play the cowa rd in wa r or on a ny other occa sion .

This is wha t is done b y thos e who have the means , and thos ewho have the means a re the rich their children b egin educa tions oonest and leave off la tes t . When they have done with ma s ters ,the s ta te a ga in compels them to lea rn the laws and live a fter the

pa ttern which they furnish , and not a fter their own fanciesand jus t a s in learning to write , the writing-ma s ter firs t dr awslines with a s tyle for the use of the young b eginner , and giveshim the tab let and makes him follow the lines , s o the city drawsthe laws , which were the invention of good lawgivers who wereof old time these a re given to the young man in order to guide3029

D


him in his conduct , whether a s ruler or ruled a nd he whotransgres ses them is to b e corrected or , in other words , ca lled toa ccount, which is a term used not only in your country, b ut a ls oin many others . N ow when there is a ll thi s ca re a b out virtue

priva te and pub lic , why , Socra te s , do you s till wonder and doub twhether virtue can b e taught ‘

2 Cea se to wonder , for the oppos itewould b e fa r more surprising .

’ 1

Here is ethica l idea lism a s noble a s tha t which

Pluta rch a ttributes to the elder Ca to yet how

different a re the two pictures On the one hand, an

educa tion which depends a lmost entirely on the silent

forces of tradition, home-life , a nd example ; on the

other,a systema tic tra ining in this a rt followed by

tha t art, until the child’s menta l a nd mora l education

is completed by enforced submiss ion to the city’s

laws . And the history of Greek educa tion, whether

Athenian or Spa rtan , illustra tes in deta il this genera l

contra st between Greek a nd Roma n idea ls. At

Spa rta boys were left in their mother’s charge during

the yea rs of infancy but from the a ge of sev en'

they

cea s ed by law to belong to their homes , a nd were

incorporated in one or other of the famous divisions

a nd pa cks cha ra cteristic of the Spartan sys tem .

2

Here the boys were grouped together in companies

of varying a ge, subj ected to a n iron discipline, ma de

to feed together, play together, sleep together and

though they were a lso requ ired from time to time to

a ttend the men’s clubs, where they s a t a t their

fa ther’s feet a nd listened to the ta lk of their elders,it is plain tha t these well-organi zed and systematic

1 Pla te , P rota gora s , 325—6 (tr . Jowett) .2 Plut . I/ycurg. 16 ; Freeman , pp . 11—34.


citizen wa s thus always a ble to rea d a nd write, tocount a nd sing a nd pla y the lyre. But this wa s the

lea st cha ra cteristic result of Athenian educa tion.

Even in Spa rta ,a s Pluta rch tells u s ,1 every citizen

ha d thes e necessa ry elements of educa tion, a nd a t

Rome, where the sta te ma de no a ttempt to regula te

s chool-a ttenda nce, the number of illitera tes wa s

proba bly very sma ll. 2 More cha ra cteristic of Athe

nian life wa s the genera l opinion tha t educa tion—1

culture, or mu Sa’

a to use the regula r Athenia n

phra se—wa s a n a rt, to be lea rnt in turn by ea ch

individua l, a nd ca pa ble of ra ising him , a ccording to

the va rying degree of his capa city a nd industry,a bove the common herd of men.

The most striking illustra tion of this fundamenta l

difference between Greek a nd Roma n ha bits o f

thought is to b e found in the ea rly history of schools

in Greece a nd Rome . As fa r ba ck a s we ca n trace

the history of Greek culture, s choolma sters a ppear

a s a regula r fea ture of Greek s ocia l life . Achilles , the

idea l type of heroic Acha ea n youth , is the pupil of

Phoenix in the I lia d, of Chiron in la ter Greek tr a di

tion a nd the rela tion of tutor a nd pupil is evidently

cha ra cteristic of ea rly Greek feuda lism .

3 The precis e

da te a t which regula r public schools were formed in

Ionia a nd on the Greek ma inla nd ca nnot be deter

mined ; b ut Athenian tra dition a ttributed school

laws to Dra co a nd Solon , a nd it is certa in tha t schools

were common in Athen s a t least a s ea rly a s the s ixth

1 Plut . Lycnrg. 16 .

2 Jullien , pp . 21 fell.3 Iwan -Miiller , p . 155 .


cen tury At Spa rta they can be tra ced ba ck to

a n ea rlier da te . For the Spa rta n system of education ,

a s known to u s from la ter a uthorities, forms an

es sentia l pa rt of the Ly curgean constitution ; a nd

there is nothing to distingu ish this sys tem Of life, in

common,with its divisions prefects a nd regula r

duties, from the principle of modern boa rding schools .

In Rome, na tiona l legends—a t lea st in their la ter

hellenized form—sugges t tha t schools were commonfrom the firs t days Of the city’s history. Pluta rch

s ends Romu lus a nd Remu s to s chool a t Ga b ii,2 a nd

there a re frequent a llus ion s of this kind to s chools

in other s tories of primitive Rome , most famou s of a ll

be ing the episode of Verginia .

3 Do the s e legenda ry

ta les represent a ny mea sure of his torica l truth , or do

they s imply reflect the socia l condition s of a la ter

a ge‘

2 It is impos s ible to tell but there is a pa s s a ge

in one of Pluta rch’s Qua es tiones Roma na e which

requires notice .

4 The Roma ns he sa ys ,‘

.were late

in beginning to tea ch for pa yment, a nd the firs t of

them to Open a school Of letters wa s Spurius

Ca rv ilius , a freedman of tha t Ca rv ilius who wa s the

firs t Roman to divorce his wif e . ’ Ca rv ilius wa s consul

in 235 so tha t his freedma n’s school belongs to

the middle of the third century, a nd (if Pluta rch’s

sta tement is litera lly true ) s chools were thus Of

compara tively recent origin in Rome . There a re ,

1 Aesch . loo. cit. Plut . Solon, 1 Gira rd , pp . 38 foll .2 Plut . Rom . 6 .

3 Livy , iii . 44, 6 ; v . 27 , 1 v i. 25 , 9 ; Dion . Ha l. , Ant. Rom.

xi. 28 , 3.

‘1 Plut . Qu . Rom. 59 cf. Gell . iv . 3, 2 xvn . 21, 44.


however, good rea sons for not taking Pluta rch’s

s ta tement litera lly. The knowledge of rea ding or

writing wa s certa inly common a t a much earlier

da te in Roma n history, 1 a nd Cicero mentions a

custom which requ ired that every Roman child

should know the Twelve Ta bles by hea rt. 2 These

fa cts sugges t, though they do not prove , the exist

ence of regula r schools where children could b e taught

to rea d a nd write. Moreover, Pla utus a lludes more

tha n , once to scenes from school-life in pa ssa ges

which seem to be the reflection of ordina ry Roman

customs, not mere tra ns cripts from his Greek

origina ls .3 Could s chools ha ve been so familiar a

specta cle in the Roma n s ociety of his da y if their

origin wa s of such recent da te a s the pa ssa ge a lready

quoted suggests ‘

Z

It is not ea sy to reconcile the conflicting evidence

of these authorities. One or two schola rs have solved

the problem by the s imple rej ection of P luta rch’s

s tatement.4 But Pluta rch is usually good authority,a nd the curiously precise nature of his informa tion

suggests tha t he is here following some well-informed

source. A more probable interpretation has been

put forward by a French scholar.5 Many of our

a ncient a uthorities mention a custom a ccording to

which Roma n schoolboys brought their ma sters

presents on certa in festiva l-days throughout the1 Mommsen , His tory , i , p . 281 11 , pp . 1 15 foll . (Eng . tr .

2

Cic . de Leg. ii . 59 .

3 Plant . Ba och. 420 foll . More. 303 P ers . 173.

4 Bliimner , p . 314.

5 Jullien , pp . 26 foil. Wilkins , p . 23.


yea r, in particular on the feast of Minerva .

1 Assum

ing , as is na tura l enough, tha t this custom da tes ba ck

to the origins of school life in Rome, Plutarch’s words

ca n be expla ined a s due to a misunderstanding of the

sta tement in his source. Spurius Ca rv ilius ma y ha ve

been the fir st schoolma ster to cha rge a regula r fee

for his cla sses . This would imply tha t before his d a yschoolmasters were dependent on the generosity of

their pupils’ parents, ju st a s Roma n advocates under

theRepublic were a lwa ys, in theory a t lea st,depen

dent for their income on the generosity of their clients .

One of the professors of literature mentioned by

Suetonius in his cle Cramma ticis reta ined this method

of payment by volunta ry contr ibutions until well on

in the first centur y 2a nd the history Of Irish

hedge-Schools is a reminder that a sound tradition of"

na tional educa tion ca n exis t for centuries without

any form‘

of permanent endowment or state-control .

But the whole status of the tea ching cla ss wa slower in Rome tha n in any part of Greece. Alcibia des

might b ox his schoolmaster’s ea rs, but Greeks as a

rule were a lmost subservient in their respect for the

wise man who could teach others how to be

virtuous and clever. In Rome tea chers were less

fortuna te, a nd the Greek tradition wa s slow in

penetrating Roma n s ociety. Mos t Of the illustrious

professors of litera ture a nd rhetoric , whose - names

ha ve been recorded by Su etonius , were either s laves

or freedmen. Their names, too (names now long

1 Va rro . de Re rus t. iii . 3, 18 ; Ovid , Fa st. iii . 815 foll . - Tert .

de Idol. 10 .

2 Suct. _Gram. 7 .


since forgotten, with the exception Of Orbilius)usua lly betra y Greek origin, a nd the genera l reputa

tion of Greek sla ves in Rome ca n ha ve done little to

increa se the respect of their pupils . One of them is

sa id to ha ve sta rted life a s a porter, cha ined to his

ma ster’s door.1 Another, Luta tius Daphnis , wa s

sold for s es terces , a record price on the

Roma n sla ve-ma rket .2 Tha t wa s in the hey-da y Of

Greek influence,when prices were running high , a nd

Suetonius rema rks tha t the figures these lea rned

s la ves comma nded in the ma rket were a s high a s the

fees which their ma sters cha rged for their cla ss es .

3

The inevita ble consequence of this curious boom wa s

a tra de in the buy ing a nd selling Of educa ted slaves .

The pra ctice wa s , of course,degra ding for both

pupils a nd professors , though we hea r of some

fortunate exceptions . Sulla, Pompey, Atticus, a nd

Julius Ca esar ha d each a professor among his clients ,4

and Curtius Nicia s fi gures a s a friend in Cicero’s

correspondence.5 Another of these gramma tici could

boa st tha t he ha d given Sa llust the matter for his

history a nd Pollio his style. 6 But that wa s la ter in

the history of Roman educa tion. Ca to’s a ttitude

towa rds his sla ve Chilon wa s cha ra cteristic of thes econd century and even the professors who

were not sla ves had no adequate socia l standing.

Orbilius wa s a free m an , and exceptiona lly lea rned

1 Suet . Rhet. 3.

2 Suet . Cram . 3 Pliny , N . H . v n . 128 .

3 Suet . Cram. 3.

4 ibid . 12 15 16 ; 7 .

5 Cic . a d Fam. ix . 10 Suet . gram. 14 .

6 Suet . Gram. 10 .


a nd Hora ce ma de his name proverbia l within a

genera tion Of his dea th. But he worked in extreme

poverty a ll his life, a nd wrote a book on the way in

which pa rents neglect to pa y money due for the

education of their sons .

1

1 ibid . 9 .

III

FIRST GREEK TEACHERS IN ROME

At vero nos , docti scilicet a Gra ecia , ha ec et a pueritia

legimus et dis cimus hanc eruditionem lib era lem et doctrinam

putamus .

’

Cic . Tusc. ii . 27 .

THE contra st is extreme between the Older tra dition

of Roman educa tion a nd the new Gracco-Roma n

culture which wa s so soon to take its pla ce. On the

one Side a tradition of family life and na tiona l

custom , with no higher form of litera ry educa tion

tha n the elementary instruction necessa ry for life ’s

work. On the other, a n ideal of culture which

included Greek litera ture, rhetoric , and philosophy,a nd wa s necessa rily dependent on school instruction

for the a cquisition of this knowledge. The change

wa s inevita ble once Rome, hitherto the centre of

a sma ll group of Italian towns, became the metro

polis of a world-empire. But the circumsta nces of

the cha nge were due to the influence of ha lf a dozen

di stinguished Greeks who came to Rome during the

second a nd third centuries

Livius Andronicus, the firs t Greek to write in

La tin, a nd thereby the founder of Latin litera ture,

came to Rome from Ta rentum , proba bly in the yea r

272 and wa s active a s teacher a nd writer until

the end of the century.

1 Employed by his patrons

1 Schanz , i . 1 , pp . 56 foll .

36 FIRST GREEK TEACHERS IN ROME

Ma llos, the most distinguished scholar of the Perga

mene school , famous a s a gramma rian a nd a brillia nt

lecturer, came to Rome on a n emba ssy from the roya l

family of Pergamon, most probably in 168 An

a ccident (he fell into one of the Roman dra ins and

broke his leg) kept him for some weeks in Rome, a nd

the amba ssa dor turned his conva lescence to good

a ccount by giving public lectures on Greek litera ture

a nd gramma r to any who might ca re to come. The

effect of these lectures wa s enormous. Hitherto it

had been possible for Romans interested in Greek

litera ture to attend the cla sses of tea chers like Livius

Andr onicus and Ennius, perha ps a lso Spurius Ca rvi

liu s. But the lessons Of thes e ea rly schoolma sters

had been confined to a few texts , a nd were of a n

elementa ry cha ra cter. Now for the first time they

hea rd the lectures of a cu ltiva ted s chola r, a nd could

form some idea of the erudi tion a nd discernment

peculia r to Hellenistic litera ry cr iticism . There was

a lso a persona l interest in the lectures of Cra tes,owing to his lifelong controversy with the more

famou s Ar ista rchus of Alexandr ia . Arista rchus ha d

formula ted s tr ict laws of lingu istic formation, which

were cha llenged by Cra tes a nd his school a nd di s

cus s ion wa s pa rticula rly hot a s to the correct

interpreta tion Of certa in Homeric forms . The fol

lowers Of Arista rchus were known a s the Ana logists ;Cra tes wa s the lea der of the Anoma lists, and his

criticisms were a s erudite as they were lively.

2 The

1 Suet . Cram . 2 Schanz , i . 1 , p . 329 .

2 Susemihl , ii, pp . 5 foll Sandys , 1, pp . 156 foll .

FIRST GREEK TEACHERS IN ROME 37

controversy, then at its height, was undoubtedly

di scussed by Crates at Rome, a nd the double interest

which he wa s thus a ble to give his teaching is plain

from the hi story Of early Roman scholarship . Greek

methods of criticism a re now for the first time

a pplied to La tin litera ture. Critica l editions of

Na ev ius , Pla utus , a nd Ennius begin to a ppea r,1a nd

the controversy between Analogists a nd Anoma

lists is hotly deba ted. L. Aelius Stilo , the first

Roman grammarian , seems to ha ve followed Cra tes

in his Anomalist theory : la ter Julius Ca esa r

himself wrote a famous trea tise on beha lf of the

Ana logists .

2

Suetonius da tes Roma n interest in litera ry criticism

a nd gramma r from this vis it of Cra tes to Rome the

year 168 is thus a n important la ndma rk in the

history of Roman erudition. But a more importa nt

innovation in educa tional method belongs to the

same period, though its da te ca nnot be exa ctly deter

mined. In 161 the sena te pa s sed a decree

empowering the pra etor to expel a ll tea chers of

philosophy and rhetoric from the city.

3 This is the

first mention in Roma n history of tea chers who were

la ter to di spute between themselves the cla im to a

monopoly of Roma n higher educa tion. How long

they ha d been in Rome before the sena te’s decree is

uncerta in. A fra gment of Ennius conta in s a casua l

reference to students of rhetoric but the poem from

whi ch it is taken wa s Oopied from a Greek origina l,and it would be unsa fe to infer tha t Ennius had in

1 Schanz , i . 1 , p . 329 .

2 ibid . , p . 333.

3 Suet . Rhet. 1 .


mind Roman s tudents of rhetoric .1 There is a lso

a reference to the study Of philosophy in one of his

tra gedies

Philos 0pha ndum es t, s ed p a ucis nam omnino hand p la cet.2

The verse,which is quoted by Cicero a nd Gellius ,

suggests tha t Roman a udiences were a lrea dy familiar

with Greek theories of higher education. Certa in it

is, at least, tha t the decree of 161 wa s without

effect. As fa r a s the tea ching of rhetoric is concerned,the failure of the decree is pla in from the whole

history of ea rly Roman ora tory. Cicero’s Brutus

describes a development which is ma rked by a con

sta nt and increa sing endea vour to model Roma n

pros e a ccording to the laws of Greek rhetoric a nd

pros e -rhythm a sufficient proof of the existence and

influence of Greek teachers . Sempronius Gra cchu s ,fa ther of the Gra cchi, wa s a ble to deliver a Greek

ora tion before a highly critica l a udience a t Rhodes,

proba bly in 164 ;3

a nd his contempora ry ,Aemilius Pa ulus , fa ther Of the younger Scipio , was

a nother a ccomplished or a tor. Pa u lus wa s a lso

noted for the ca re he took to give his s ons a Greek

educa tion.

‘1 Sempron iu s Gra cchu s died before he

could ta ke pa rt in the educa tion of his two sons,but

his wife—the famous Cornelia, daughter of the elderScipio, a nd mother-in-law Of Scipio Aemilianus

1 Frag . P oet. Rom , p . 131 (Ba ehrens ) from the Sota .

2 Quoted from the N eop tolemus b y Cicero (Tus c. ii. 1 ) andGollins (v . 15 ,3 Cic . Brut. 79 .

4 ibid . 80 ; Plut . Aem . P a ul. 6 .


kept up the family tra dition by providing her boys

with the best Gr eek tutors of the d a y . She wa s

rewa rded by seeing her younger son ,Ca ius Gra cchus ,

accla imed as the most brilliant ora tor of his

genera tion .

1

We have thus continuous evidence for the study Of

Greek rhetoric during the second century

The study of Greek philosophy is even better

a ttested. Six yea rs a fter the decree issued by the

senate, three well-known philosophers came a s

amba ssadors from Athens to Rome Ca rnea des ,founder of the new Academy ; Critola us , hea d of the

Peripa tetic School ; a nd Diogenes, a Stoic .2 Following

the example of Cra tes , they ga ve public lectures as

well a s their officia l address to the sena te, and the

enthus ia sm which ha d been shown for Greek litera

ture some years before wa s now renewed. Carnea des,

in pa rticula r, a master Of dia lectics a nd the most

origina l mind in contempora ry Greek philosophy,

wa s especia lly a dmired. The young flocked to his

lectures Pluta rch tells us, a nd the rumour went

a broad that a ma gicia n had come to the city,ca pable

of winning the youth of Rome awa y from a ll other

pleasures in their enthusiasm for philosophy.

’ Ca to

was up in arms a t once, and proposed that the sena te

should send the amba ssadors about their business as

soon a s politeness would admit. And his opposition

found support for next yea r two Epicurean philoso

phers were convicted Of tea ching their doctrines to

1 Cic . Brut. 104 ; 126 ; Plut . C . Gra cchus , 19 .

2 P lut . Ca to ma ior, 22 Gell . v i (v ii) . 14, 8 .


the, young, a nd were ba nished from the city.

1 But

reactionary mea sures were in va in Greek philosophy

had come to stay. The younger Scipio’s friendship

with the Stoic philosopher, P an a etius , begins a bout

this time, and is symbolic of the cha nge in Roman

ideals. 2 Even more significa nt is the a ttitude adopted

by Ca to in his old a ge . Never weary of denouncing

the peril of too grea t familia rity with Greek idea s

Greek litera ture will be the ruin of Rome he wa s

fend Of sa ying to his son ) ,3he was bent upon keeping

La tin literature free from contamina tion. Grasp

your matter, a nd the words will come of themselves

was the counsel which he Opposed to a ll the lessons

of Greek rhetoric ‘1a nd his famous definition of an

orator as a good ma n a ble to spea k wa s designedly

opposed to Greek idea ls.5 Yet even he, in his Old

age, began to realize tha t, to make Rome independent

of Greek litera ture, it was necessa ry to learn from the

Greeks ; and his last years were spent in a closer

study of Greek literature. 6 There is something

pa thetic in this spectacle Of the Old man, who in his

youth ha d’

b rought Ennius to Rome, lea rning from

his a dversaries a trick he despised.

The fa cts just quoted Show that the Hellenistic

idea l of a culture based on the study of literature,

1 Athen, x11 , 547 A ; Aelian , Va r . Hist. 9 , 12 ; Schanz , i .'

1,

p . 243.

2 Schmek el, pp . 4 foll .2 P lut . Ca to ma ior , 23 Pliny, N H . xxix . 14 .

4 Rem tene , verb a sequentur in Rhet. La t. Min , p . 374

(Ha lm) .5 Sen . Contr . 1 , p ra ef. 9 ; Quint . xi l . 1 , 1 .

5 Cic . de S en. 3 Plut . Ca to ma ior, 2 .


rhetoric , a nd philosophy wa s fu lly a ccepted in Rome

by the middle of the second century A concrete

example will illustrate the spirit in which Roma n

young men of the period entered upon the study of

Greek litera ture a nd philosophy. Some years before

the younger Scipio met P a na etiu s , he had come

under the influence Of a nother distinguished Greek,the historia n Polybiu s. The origin of their friend

ship, a s described by Polybius, is one of the most

persona l episodes in the history of Gracco-Roman

education. Scipio Aemilianus came of a family tha t

ha d been strongly influenced by the new Greek

culture. His fa ther, Aemilius Pa u lus, the conqueror

of Ma cedonia , ha d done a ll tha t he could to provide

his sons with the best Greek tea chers of the da y .

Tea chers Of literature, rhetoric , a nd philos ophy,

teachers of sculpture a nd drawing, tea chers Of the

art Of hunting : a ll these ha d been brought over

from Greece for the benefit of his boys .1 Pydna wa s

fought in 168 a nd Perseus, the Ma cedonia n king ,wa s ca ptured by the Roma ns . Aemiliu s

, a s victor,ha d the right to dispose Of his ca ptive’s property, a nd

the roya l libra ry wa s set a side a s his children’s share

in the booty.

2 Scipio’s personal ta stes bore witness

to these ea rly influences . After Pydna he spent his

time in hunting through the roya l pa rk which had

been let run wild during the four yea rs Of the war 3

a nd throughout life his fa vourite author wa s

1 Plut . Aom. P aul. 6 Cic . de Rep . i . 36 .

2 P lut . Aom . P aul. 28 .

3 Polyb . xxxi . 29 , 3—6 (ed . Buttner -Wob s t) .


Xenophon— a na tural ta ste for one who ha d been

taught to hunt a s well a s to eru'

oy Greek litera ture.1

But Polybius gives the truest ins ight into his

cha ra cter. The following pa ssage refers to the year

167 or Shortly a fterwa rds , the yea r in which the

Acha ea n hosta ges were first brought to Rome and

then distr ibuted among the different towns Of Ita ly.

Fa bius and Scipio are the two sons Of L. Aemilius

Paulus ; the former having been a dopted by the

grandson of Q . Fa bius Ma ximus Cunctator, the la tter

by the son of P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the victor

of Zama . The elder boy wa s at this time about

twenty years old, the younger in his nineteenth yea r.

The b eginning of my companionship with the two b oys wa sdue to the loan of b ook s , and to convers a tion on tha t sub ject .Our friendship s oon b ecame clos er , and when the hostages weres ent to the Ita lian cities , Fa bius and Scipio b egged their fa therto let me rema in in Rome . This wa s granted , and our intima cywa s a lrea dy fa r a dvanced when the following incident occurred .

One day ,a fter we ha d left the house of Fa b ius together , Fa b ius

turned down towa rds the forum , whi ls t Scipio went with me in

another direction . After a little Pub lius s a id to me b lushingand in a low quiet tone Tell me , Polyb ius , why IS it tha t ,though there a re two of us , y ou a lways a ddress your convers a tionto my b rother , putting him your que s tions , and giving him yourreplies , whils t y ou leave me a lone ? I suppose you sha re theopinion of my fellow-citizens . They a ll b elieve , s o I am told ,tha t I am too ea sy-going and la zy, the very Oppos ite to a Romanin my way Of life , b ecaus e I do not ca re to plea d in the courts .

They s ay too (and this is wha t pa ins me mos t) tha t the familyto which I b elong needs a very different man a t its hea d fromwha t I am likely to b e .

” I wa s puzzled a t the b oy’s way of

1 Cic . Tuso. 11 . 62 ad Q. fr . 1. l , 23.

2 To a void Ob scurity , I have used the firs t pers on s ingula rthroughout .


of decadent Greek society had swept in on Rome,with the a dvent Of the new culture ; a nd Polybiu s

quotes one of Ca to’s sayings , tha t to ca lcula te the

decline of public mora lity, one ha d only to compare

the price of good-looking sla ves on the ma rket with

the price of la nd or the price of a team Of horses fo r

ploughing .

1 But the importa nt fa ct is, not tha t such

inevita ble a buses existed (they ha ve a lwa ys existed

a t the end of a grea t na tiona l effort) , but tha t Roman

idea lism found its na tura l expres s ion in Scipio’s

enthus ia sm for Greek cu lture a nd Roma n tra ditions .

The spir it of companionship between Greek a nd

Roma n revea led in this friendship between Scipio a nd

Polybius— a compa nionship which ignores the fa cts

of milita ry defea t a nd politica l inferiority—is indeedthe keynote of the new culture. Ca to’s contempt for

a ll things Greek s eemed na rrow a nd illibera l to

Scipio a nd his friends , just a s a mere sla vish surrender

to Greek intellectua l superiority would ha ve seemed

to them unworthy Of Roman dignity.

Nothing is more instructive in this connexion than

the contempt which Polybiu s express es for a

contempora ry Roma n noble , A. Postumius Albinus,

a uthor Of one Of the Roman histories written in

Greek,then a litera ry fa shion.

Aulus Postumius he wr ite s , merits our a ttention for a

moment . Though b orn Of a nob le family , he wa s b y na ture a

va in and idle b a b b ler , ea ger to lea rn Greek cus toms and the Greeklanguage , and devoting s o much a ttention to thes e tha t he fe llinto extrava gances , a nd b y his conduct b rought the whole ofGreek culture into di s credit in the eyes of older and more respect

1 Polyh . xxxi . 25, 5 (ed . Buttner-Wob st) .


a b le Roman citizens . He even went s o fa r a s to write a poem and

a his tory in Greek ; and in his prefa ce to the la tter work heexcused hims elf to his rea ders for b e ing a Roma n , and thus nothaving a full ma stery of Greek idiom and Greek methods ofcompos ition . Ca to’s retort wa s much to the point I cannotunders tand the motive for such an a pology . If the Amphictyoniccouncil ha d ordered him to write hi s hi s tory , thes e excuses would

perhaps have b een necess a ry . But a man who takes it on himse lfto write a hi s tory under no compulsion , and then makes an

apology for hi s b lun ders , is a thorough fool . He is a s much a foola s though he had ente red his name a t the pub lic games for the

b oxing-ma tch or the P a nkra tion , and then , when it wa s time

for the ma tch , came down into the s tadium , plea ding tha t he wa suna b le to s tand the fa tigue and the b lows . Such a man wouldvery prope rly b e laughed a t and b ea ten for his pa ins , a nd thes ewriters of his tory should get the s ame trea tment for venturingto compete a ga ins t properly tra in ed men .

”Nor wa s this the

only wa y in which Postumius imita ted the wors t fe a tures ofGreek civil iza tion . He wa s a lover of plea sure and a ha ter ofwork a s wa s proved b y the event . For in the Phocian campa ign ,

though the firs t to a rrive in Greece , he plea ded ill-hea lth and

rema ined in Theb es to avoid the danger ; b ut, the campa ignonce over , he wa s the firs t to send home an a ccount Of the victory ,going into a ll the deta ils a s though he had fought the b a ttleshims elf . ’ 1

It is a Greek historian who is writing ; yet Ca to

himself could ha rdly be more contemptuous.

1 Polyb . xxxix . 1 (ed . Buttner -Wob st) .

IV

THE NEW GRAECO-ROMAN CULTURE

Quid P . Scipione , quid C. Laelio , quid L . Phi lo perfectiuscogita ri pote st qui, ne quid pra etermitterent quod ad summam

la udem cla rorum v irorum pertineret, a d domesticum ma iorumque

morem etiam hanc a Socra te adv entitiam doctrinam a dhib uerunt.

’

Cic . de Rep . iii . 5 .

WHAT wa s the new Greek educa tion which

Aemilius Pa ulus was SO ea ger to Obta in for his sons,and which wa s henceforth domina nt in the schools

of Rome ‘

2 Out of the turmoil created by the

Sophistic movement of the fifth century two

typ es of educationa l theory ha d been evolved : the

scientific philosophy of Pla to a nd Aristotle, a nd the

rhetorica l cu lture best express ed in the writings of

Isocra tes . The former of these two theories is

familia r to a ll s tudents of Greek philos ophy. Its full

development in the educa tional theory a nd pra ctice

ofAr istotle is the type of a philosophica l programme

ca rried out in a rigorous ly s cientific spirit . But the

educa tiona l programme of Isocra tes demands closer

a ttention : pa rtly for its intrins ic interest, pa rtly

beca u s e of its immense a nd a biding influence on

Gra cco-Roman educa tion. For Isocra tes was more

than a successful tea cher of rhetoric . In his writings

on education he loves to ca ll himself a philosopher

a nd—in Spite of Plato’s irony—the cla im is ju stified.

1 Isocr . Antid . 50 270 285 Gira rd , p . 312 .

THE NEW GRAECO-ROMAN CULTURE 47

For Isocrates was, quite genuinely, a n educa tiona l

idea list. In his theory, education is no mere prepa ra

tion for lifelong scientific research : still less is it

a method of learning a bsolute virtue or absolute

truth. Let no ma n imagine he writes in his first

educationa l manifesto, that I hold justice can be

ta ught. On the contrary I am convinced that there

is no a rt ca pable of implanting justice a nd. tempera nce

in the”hearts of those who a re not na turally inclined

to virtue. But I do believe tha t nothing helps s o

much towa rds the practice of virtue a s the study of

political wisdom and eloquence.’ 1

These words,which are re-echoed in his la st public

utterance,2 ma de when Isocrates wa s eighty-two

years Old and had seen a brilli a nt company of orators

and historians pass through his school , are chara cter

istic of his whole teaching. Never a philosopher in

the Platonic sense of the word nor a mere teacher of

forma l rhetoric , his a im wa s to tra in citizens for

success in their own priva te life and in public a ffairs .

Proudly conscious of this aim , he criticizes the rival

theories of education proposed by contempora ry

teachers . For Plato’s Academy and its ela borate

scientific programme he has a half-tolerant contempt,

somewhat embittered by a sense Of injured personal

vanity. There are some who ha ve much skill in

dialectics and who give all their time to astronomy,

geometry and other such sciences. I do not think

these men do ha rm to their pupils on the contrary

they do them good—less good tha n they themselves1 Isocr . c. Soph. 21 .

2 Isocr . Antid. 274.

48 THE NEW GRAECO-ROMAN CULTURE

profess,but more good tha n most people think.

’

And he ends by recommending young men to spend

some time a t such s tudies , but not to give their whole

lives to them making shipwreck among the

quibbles Of the Sophists ’

.

1 For tea chers of rhetoric

who ca red on ly for pra ctica l succes s in life (the

a llus ion is to Tisia s a nd Cora x , a nd others who ha d

written short manua ls of the a rt Of rhetoric ) he ha s

a s corn which reca lls the fiery invective Of Aristo

phanes , a nd which we sha ll meet a ga in in Cicero’s

de Ora tore. Tea chers of hustling, grasping a v a rice

they would persu a de the young tha t rhetoric is a

mere tr ick which m a y be lea rnt like a ny a lphabet . 2

For hims elf rhetoric is the noblest Of a ll sciences ,requ iring from the s tudent long effort and much

sa crifice , but giving him in return knowledge a nd

pra ctica l wisdom tha t a re indispensable for civic

virtue 3 This opinion , expres sed in langua ge which

is a lways eloquent, s ometimes a lmost meta physica l

in its phra seology, 4 lifts Isocra tes high a bove other

teachers of rhetoric , giving him a n important place

in the history of educa tiona l theory.

There is , of cours e , a ra dica l contra st between the

idea ls of Pla to a nd Aristotle, a nd the idea l expressed

by Isocra tes in thes e pa ssages . It is the Old contrast

between the Sophists Of the fifth century—Protagoras

,Gorgias

,Hippia s, Prodicu s , a nd the rest—on

1 Is ocr . Antid . 261—8 cf. Bus iris , 23.

2 Is ocr . c . S oph. 9—13 Antid . 42 .

3 Is ocr . c . Soph. 16—18 Antid , p a s s im P a na th. 30—4.

4 Cf. the use of iBs’a in c . S aph. 16 .


the one side a nd Socra tes on the other only now the

contes t,which ha d begun a s a struggle for a n ethica l

principle, ha s become in the ma in a riva lry between

two intellectua l theories . The story Of tha t r iva lry

is familia r Pla to’s rej ection Of rhetoric in the

Gorgia s a nd , to a lesser degree, in the P ha edrus ;his expu lsion of poets a nd a rtis ts from the idea l state

in his Republic the a ustere mathema tica l a nd

meta phys ica l programme outlined in the seventh

book of that di a logue, and carried into practice in

his own tea ching a t the Aca demy fina lly the more

concilia tory a ttitude a dopted by Aristotle, who

a dmitted rhetoric a s a forma l science,

a kin to

dia lectics in its pra ctical value,but less directly

useful for philosophica l inquiry.

1

The stand thus ma de by Plato a nd Aristotle for

the intrinsic va lue of meta phys ical studies is Of

la sting importa nce in the history of ancient educa tion.

Modern terminology, which owes its present form to

the cla ssica l definitions Of Aristotle,distinguishes so

sharply between philosopher and sophis t tha t the

confusion appa rent in the thought of Isocrates seems

inexcusa ble. But his contempora ries ha d a different

perspective. Again and a ga in in the literature of the

fourth century the philosopher or lover of

wisdom (dil do whose mission is the study of

truth for truth’s sake, is confused with the Sophist

or teacher ofwisdom whose function is the

work Of pra ctical educa tion .

2

1 Ar . Rhet. i . 1 v on Arnim , pp . 64 foll .2v on Arnim, pp . 11 foll .

G


Pla to a nd Aristotle between them ma de the con

fusion fina lly impos s ible : henceforwa rd philoso

pher a nd sophist a re terms of clea rly distinct

meaning, a nd the study of meta physica l a nd ethical

truth is recogn ized in every s chool of the Greek world

as the highest form Of human intellectua l a ctivity.

But this newer a nd clea rer terminology, directly due

to the tea ching of Pla to a nd Aristotle, is a lso due in

la rge mea sure , though indirectly, to the educa tiona l

idea lism Of Isocra tes . For the Isocra tea n programme

expres sed in the formula we ha ve quoted, the study

of politica l wisdom and eloquence (Tfjv r a’

iv hdywv

r a'

Jv n oxtrm a

’

iv ha d a n immense influence

on contempora ry thought : to it is due the la ter

Hellenistic notion of culture or educa tion

(n a cSa’

a ) a s a necess a ry complement to free birth and

intellectua l a tta inments .

Pla to a nd Aristotle themselves came under the

influence Of this tea ching. In the Laws , his la st

a ttempt to win Athenia n Opin ion for his socia l a ndpolitica l theories , Pla to outlines a programme of

educa tiona l stud ies very different from the ea rlier

programme of the Republic. Meta phys ics a re no

longer mentioned a nd the study of mathema tics is

reduced to that elementa ry a cqua intance with

a bstra ct rea soning which even Isocra tes would have

considered desira ble .

1 This is a direct concession to

public opin ion, ma de by the most ha ughtily a risto

cra tic Of a ll Athenian philosophers : a conces sion,

too , which must ha ve been la rgely due to the success1 P la to , Laws , 817 E foll . Wilamowitz , P la ton , i , pp . 673foll .


thence. But Aeschines wa s a shrewd plea der, a nd he

proba bly wa s right in ca lcula ting tha t a n Athenia n

jury would be flattered by an a ppea l to the la test

intellectua l catchword. The va se-pa intings of thi s

period reproduce the same a llegorical personifica tion—a sure proof Of its popula rity 1

a nd it is worth

nothing that four centuries later Lucia n was to

introduce Pa ideia as a deity into a famous s cene,probably reminiscent of Aeschines andDemosthenes . 2

N O better type Of this la ter Greek culture could be

found tha n Polybius, the man whom destiny ha d

ma rked out a s the chief intellectua l link between

Greece a nd Rome. A scientist in the most rigorous

sense of the word, an his torian whose critica l fa culty

ha s ra rely been surpa ssed, a true pa triot, a nd a t the

same time a n enthusia stic a dmirer of Roma n politica l

grea tness , he is the symbol of those intellectual a nd

mora l forces, still la tent in Hellenistic Greece, which

were to co -Operate with Roman na tiona l tradition

in forming the new Gra cco-Roma n culture. Polybiu s

wrote no a utobiogra phy ; b ut persona l a llusions

a bound in his history, a nd the story of his ea rly

education can be deduced from the cha ra cter or

qua lity of his work . He wa s evidently a m a n ofwide

rea ding, not merely in his own specia l s cience,but

a lso in Greek poetry a nd prose. Homer a nd Euri

pides seem to ha ve been his fa vourite poets among

prose writers the historia ns natura lly occupy a fore

most pla ce, a nd in pa rticula r Timaeus, the Obj ect of

1 Roscher , Lexikon der Mythologie, iii . 1 , 1251 .

2 Lucian , Somn . 9 , 14 P isc. 16 .


so ma ny of his criticisms, Ephorus, Theopompus , and

Ca llisthenes .

1 The study of rhetoric is a lso pla in.

Not tha t Polybius wa s a ca refu l s tylist ; but only

a student of rhetoric could have criticized Tima eus

a s he does for his use of rhetorica l technique .2 The

influence of philosophy is even more pla in : for

Polyb ius is as much a politica l philosopher a s an

historian . And it is here that he is most typica l Of

his age. If a sked to define his philosophica l position,Polybius would almost certa inly ha ve replied tha t

he wa s a Stoic . Stoic influence is pla in in a ll his

work : most of a ll in the famous Sixth book where

he sums up the merits of the Roma n sta te. His

friendship with Scipio ha d brought him into persona l

conta ct with P a na etius , a nd the two thinkers ha d

di s cuss ed together a ll the main problems of political

theory.

3 But Polybius wa s fa r from being exclusive

in his Stoicism . As might be expected from so

scientific a mind, the influence of Aristotle on his

thought is particularly strong 4a nd his a dmira tion

for Philopoemen , the Achaean na tiona l hero, who had

s tudied philos ophy under two pupils of Arcesilaus,ma de him a n a dmirer of the Middle Aca demy.

5 Yet,

for a ll his interest in philosophy, Polybius was no

metaphysicia n a nd had little time for dia lectical

subtleties . Carneades, whose lectures had set all

Rome ta lking, was too destructive in his scepticism1 Sca la , pp . 63—86 .

2 Polyb . xii . 25 a , 5 26 , 9 (ed . Buttner -Wob st) Sca la , p . 19 .

3 Cic . de Rep . i . 34 Sca la , pp . 222 foll .4 Sca la , pp . 126 foll .5 Polyb . x . 22 , 2 (ed . Buttner -Wob s t) .


for the historian’s pra ctica l sense, and Polybius holds

him responsible for the Aca demy’s decline .

1 Intellec

tua l s cepticism ha s never built a n empire ; and

Polybius was a n a dmirer of empire -bu ilders .

This distrus t Of philosophy apart from pra ctica l

experience is a link between Roma n traditions and

the culture Of Hellenistic Greece : philosopha ndum

es t, s ed pa ucis nam omnino b a ud pla cet. With his

u sua l instinct for drama tic truth , Cicero represents

Scipio a nd La elius a s ever ea ger to reca ll P ana etius

from metaphys ics a nd physics ba ck to the problems

of ordina ry life ; 2 a nd Polyb ius would certa inly

ha ve a ppla uded their good sense . It wa s the s ame

with his own fa vourite s tudy. History, so he says

in the prefa ce to his grea t work , is only interesting

a s a n Obj ect-les son in politica l theory a nd mora l

conduct : 3 a nd Scipio , who ma de history instea d

of writing it , would ha ve a greed.

The practica l bent Of both tutor a nd pupil is even

more curiously evident in their a ttitude towa rds

mus ic a nd a thletics . Scipio,with a ll his a dmira tion

for Greek traditions of culture, could never wholly

reconcile himself to the ma nners of the pa la es tra .

Cicero puts a dia tribe a ga inst Greek athletics into

his mouth in the de Re publica ,

4a nd Ma crobius ha s

preserved a n interesting fra gment on a Simila r topic

from Scipio’s speech a ga inst the Lea: Indicia ria of

Tiberius Gra cchus

1 Polyb . x11 . 26 c (ed . Buttner -Wob st) .2 Cic . de Rep . 1. 15 19 .

3 Polyb . i . 1 .


5 Ma crob . S a t. iii . 14, 7 .


Our free -b orn b oys and girls a re going with lute a nd ps a lteryto the tra ining-s chools of profess iona l a ctors . There theyminglewith lewd companions , a re taught unseemly a ntics , a nd lea rnto s ing s ongs which our ancestors he ld di shonoura b le for a ll whowere not s laves . When I wa s firs t told this , I could not b elievetha t men of nob le b irth were giving their chi ldr en such les s ons .

But I wa s taken to one of thes e da ncing-s chools and there , b yHea ven , I s aw more than fifty b oys and gir ls , among them one

whose presence ma de me grieve for my country more than a ll

the others a s ena tor’s s on , the s on Of a candida te for Office , notless than twelve yea rs old , with ca s tanets , d ancing a d ance whichno shameless s lave -b oy could d ance without dishonour .

’

In his eulogy of Scipio Polybius s ingles out this

stern a ttitude towards the plea sures of deca dent

Greece a s one of the finest tra its in his hero’s

chara cter.1 And Polybius himself, though evidently

familiar with a ll the cu stoms a nd technica lities Of

Greek athletics , 2 wa s more of a Xenophon tha n a

Pla to in his preferences for out-door sport . Riding,hunting

,the u s e of arms, a ll tha t concerns milita ry

a nd na va l ta ctics these a re the topics on which he

loves to dwell, a nd he tells u s himself tha t a common

interest in hunting was one of the ma in ca u ses Of his

early friendship with Scipio .

3 There is only one

exception to this community of ta stes . In the fourth

book Of his His tories , Polybius tells the story of

Cyna etha , a villa ge in Arca dia . The villa ge had won

a n evil name amongs t its neighbours for brutal

cruelty. Polybius , a n Ar ca dia n by birth , is a nxious

to clea r his na tive la nd from a sha re in the discredit,

1 Polyb . xxxi . 25 , 8 (ed . Buttner -Wob st) .2 Sca la , p . 22, n . 1 .

3 Polyh . xxxi . 29 , 8 (ed . Buttner -Wob st) .


a nd expla ins tha t the people of Ar ca dia , knowing the

rugged, ba rren na ture Of their country a nd fea ring

the mora l effect of such surroundings, ha d given

specia l a ttention to the development Of dance and

s ong in every villa ge they ha d even pa ss ed a law

making mus ica l exercises obliga tory on every citizen

Of Arca dia until the a ge of thirty. The people of

Cyna etha ha d fa iled to enforce this law hence their

infer ior civiliza tion with its tra ditions Of bruta lity,which Polybius condemns .1 The chapter is wholly

cha ra cteristic of Greek, and especia lly Hellen istic ,thought : reca lling the newly dis covered Hellenistic

inscriptions,which provide for the endowment a nd

upkeep of loca l schools of music , athletics a nd

litera ture.2 Polybius wa s a true Greek in his feeling

for these refining influences but neither Scipio nor

La elius could ha ve written that chapter.

It is not ea sy to define the new Gra cco-Roma n

culture which resu lted from this fusion of Hellenistic

civiliza tion a nd Roman na tiona l traditions. Cicero,

a s usu a l , ha s the surest instinct ; and he makes

Scipio prefa ce his view on the merits and demerits

of the Roman state with these words

I give you my Opinion , not a s one wholly ignorant Of Greekcus toms , nor a s though I were anxious to see them preferred toour own b ut a s a Roman citizen who , thanks to hi s fa ther’s ca re ,ha s received a good educa tion and ha s b een fond of s tudy s inceb oyhood and who , none the les s , owes more to experience and

the les sons of home -life than to the s tudy of b ooks .

’ 3

Usu tamen et domesticis pra eceptis mu lto ma gis

1 Polyh iv . 20—1 (ed . Buttner -Wob s t) .2 Zieb arth, pp . 65 foll . 123foll . 3 Cic . de Rep . i . 36 .


eruditum quam litteris the words might be ta ken

a s a motto for a ll Roman educa tion of the republica n

period.

The new conta ct with Hellenistic culture a dded

something which Cicero does not here express in

words, though it underlies his whole philosophy.

If the earlier tra ditions of Roman educa tion a re bes t

summed up in the consecra ted phra se mos ma iorum ,

Cicero himself supplies elsewhere the term which bes t

expresses the Gracco-Roma n idea l of culture not

mos ma iorum which stresses too hea vily the va lue of

family-tradition, nor n a tSet’

a , which suggests sys te

ma tic in struction in the art Of civiliza tion, but

huma nita s a word which can be, a nd ha s Often been ,tra nsla ted by such va rying equ iva lents as cu lture

sympa thy cour tesy a nd human kindl ines s

The word’s significa nce can hardly be gra sped without

an a na lysis of Cicero’s whole theory of educa tion

its meaning wa s in doubt a s ea rly as the second

century A .D .

1 When first the Roma ns bega n to use

it a s their equ iva lent for the Greek wa cSa’

a , its

derivation from homo ma de pla in a fundamenta l

di fference of outlook . For the Greeks educa tion wa s

ess entia lly a n a rt, a nd n a rSeia mea ns education a s

well as cu lture For the Roma n s edu ca tion wa s

something quite di s tinct from instru ction in a ny

a rt : ins titutio is their word for su ch instruction,

whilst educa tio express es ra ther the result of home

life a nd family tra ditions . So, too, huma nita s br ings

into the Roman idea l of culture a note that is lacking1 Gell . xiii . 16 .

H


in the more intellectua l Greek idea l : the note of

huma n dignity a nd human sympa thy. Cicero him

self uses the word ma inly to expres s the intellectual

a nd mora l refinement of a n educa ted man ;1 but the

notion Of huma n kindl iness is never fa r a bsent from

his thought . Homo sum humani nil a me a lienum

puto it is ha rdly an a ccidenta l coincidence tha t

the famous phra se wa s first minted by a poet who

wa s himself a member of the Scipionic circle. Its

pregnant thought expresses much of that culture

which Scipio and La elius learnt from Polybius andPa na etius , and which Cicero in turn lea rnt from the

la st surviving members Of the Scipionic circle.

1 See the full ana lysis in Schneidewin , pp . 28—40 .

60 UNDER MARIUS AND SULLA

brought up in Cicero’

s own town, Arpinum , a nd had

gone stra ight into the a rmy a t a n a ge when Cicero

wa s only beginn ing his studies . He pra ctised

n either Greek eloquence nor the manners of town

life says Sa llust, who wa s a democra t in politics ;a nd so his genius, being wholly devoted to a n

honoura ble profession, came ra pidly to ma turity.

’ 1

Pluta rch tells the same story a fter his own fa shion.

It is sa id of him tha t he never lea rnt to rea d Greek ,nor ever used the Greek la ngua ge for a ny civilized

purpos e , thinking it foolish to lea rn a la ngua ge

which wa s ta ught by men who were themselves

s la ves a nd he a dds tha t Ma rius might ha ve had

a ha ppier end, if he ha d lea rnt to worship a t the

shr ine of the Greek Muses a nd Gra ces . 2 Cicero, too,ha s a j oke a t the expense of one of the grea t dema

gogue’

s rela tives You ca re so little for a ll things

Greek tha t y ou would not even take the Via Gra eca

to get home to your villa.

’ 3

This studied Oppos ition to Greek culture, a nd in

pa rticula r to the s tudy of Greek rhetoric, led to a

curious episode in the history Of Roma n educa tion.

By wa y Of prefa ce to his de Cla ris rhetoribus , Sueto

niu s inserts the text Of two laws directed a ga inst the

new s chools of Greek rhetoric a nd philosophy. The

ea rlier of the two is the s ena tus consultam of 161ba n ishing a ll tea chers of philos ophy a nd rhetoric

from Rome .

4 The s econd mus t b e quoted in

full : it is a n edict issued by the two censors Of

1 Sa ll . Bell. l ug . 63, 3 cf. 85, 32 .

2 Plut . Ma r . 2,2 .

3 Cic . ad Fam . v ii . l , 3.

4 See a b ove , p . 37 .

UNDER MARIUS AND SULLA 61

92 Cn . Domitius Aenob a rb us and L. Licinius

Cra ssus.

A report ha s been ma de to us tha t certa in men have b eguna new ki nd of tea ching , and tha t young men a re going regula rlyto their s chool tha t they have taken the name of tea chers ofLa tin rhetoric (La tini rhetores ) and tha t our young men a re

wa s ting their whole days with them . Our a nces tors orda inedwha t les sons their chi ldren were to lea rn , and wha t s chools theywere to frequent . Thes e new s chools a re contra ry to our customs

and a nces tra l tra di tions (mos ma iorum) , and we consider themundesira b le and imprope r . Wherefore we ha ve decided topub lish , b oth to thos e who keep these s chools and to thos e whoa re a ccus tomed to go there , our judgement tha t we consider themundesira b le .

’ 1

The schola r who ha s done most to reconstruct the

history Of this edict cons iders the text a s given by

Suetoniu s a forgery 2 his main a rgument being tha t

the sta tement conta ined in the s econd sentence is

inconsistent with Cicero’s cla im tha t Roma n tra dition

wa s Opposed to a ny deta iled univers a l system of

public educa tion, obliga tory by law But the two

statements a re pla inly not inconsistent indeed they

a re ra ther complementa ry. And there is no sound

reason for doubting the a uthenticity of a text which

Suetonius ha d no conceiva ble motive for inventing .

Moreover, the text itself is confirmed by two

independent witnesses, both ea rlier tha n Suetonius .

In the de Ora tore Cicero makes Crassus defen d his

a ction in clos ing these new schools of Latin rhetoric

1 Suet . Rhet. 1 cf. Gell . xv . 1 1, where the term La tini rhetores

is wrongly ins erted in the decree of 161 Thi s ha s led

Wilkin s (pp . 25 foll .) into error .

2 Ma rx, p . 144 .

3 Cic . de Rep . iv . 3 a b ove , p . 24.


the novelty of their name is ins isted upon, a s in the

text Of the edict . 1 And Ta citus gives a somewhat

ina ccura te vers ion of the s ame story, confusing these

La tini rhetores with tea chers of rhetoric in genera l,in his Dia logue on ora tors .

2 Ta citu s is pla inly copying

Cicero , whom he a ctua lly quotes, for most of his

s tory b ut he ha s one a ccura te deta il not to b e found

in Cicero’s dr ama tized na rra tive. Proba bly for the

sa ke of litera ry effect Cicero makes Cra ssus the sole

a uthor of the edi ct . I a bolished these new tea chers

by my edict Cra s su s s ays in the dia logue ; a nd

a little la ter I thought it my duty a s censor to put

a s top to this danger.’ 3 Suetonius, on the other hand,gives the edict a s is sued j ointly by the two censors ,Cn . Domitius Aenob a rb us a nd L . Licinius Cra s sus

a nd his sta tement is confirmed by Ta citus .

4 Both

m en must ha ve ha d some common, tru stworthy

source of informa tion a nd the most proba ble

source,to which both wou ld ha ve ha d ea sy a cces s

,

wa s the a uthentic text of the edict its elf.

Whether the text, a s we ha ve it, b e genuine or not,the fa ct tha t Cra s sus a nd Domitius , a cting con

j ointly,closed a t lea st one s chool of La tin Rhetoric

in 92 cannot be disputed : a nd the fa ct ra ises

two or three curiou s questions . In the firs t pla ce,the censorship of Cra ssus a nd Domitiu s is notor ious

in Roma n history for consta nt qua rrels between the

1 Cic . de Or . iii . 93—5 .

2 Ta c . Dia l. 35 .

3 Cic . loo. cit. 93 94 .

4[M. ] Cra s s o et Domitio censorib us .

’

The M. is a lmos tcerta inly a copyis t

’

s insertion see Gudeman a d loo.


two censors, which culmina ted in a famous a lterca tio .

1

Wha t brought these two men together in 92 a nd

on s o curious a n issue Then a ga in, the censor on

whom Cicero throws the whole respons ibility for the

edi ct, L. Licinius Cra ssus,was the mos t distinguished

ora tor of his da y , a nd ha d done more tha n a ny man

a live to a pply the principles of Greek rhetoric to

Roma n ora tory. Why shou ld he close a s chool Of

La tin rhetoric La stly, who were these La tini

rhetores , and wha t was their Offence a gainst Roman

law or custom

The la st question ma y be answered firs t. Suetonius

himself quotes from one of Cicero’s letters to a certain

M. Titin ius, the statement tha t L . P lotiu s Ga llu s wa s

the first to teach rhetoric in La tin at Rome 2a nd

the elder Seneca a nd Quintilia n both repeat Cicero’s

sta tement .3 Now P lotius Ga llus is known to us in

another connexion for Cicero refers to a poet,L. Plotins, a n admirer a nd client Of Ma rius , in his

pro Archia ,

4a nd the identity Of this poet with the

teacher of Latin rhetoric is a sserted by an ea rly a nd

well- informed scholia st .5 This makes Plotins Ga llu s

a democrat in politics, and fits in well with the only

other item Of informa tion to be glea ned from our

scanty sources . In 56 a year before Cicero pub

lished his de Ora tore, Plotius was still a live a s a very

Old man , and composed a speech for an unknown

1 Pliny , N . H . xv11 . 1—6 ; Cic . de Or . ii . 45 ; 230 ; Munzer inPauly-Wiss owa , v . 1326 .

2 Suet . Rhet. 2.

3 Sen . Contr . ii, p ra ef. 5 Quint . 11 . 4 ,42 .

4 Cic . p ro Arch. 9 , 20 .

5 Schol . Bob . ad loo.


Atra tinus who ha d prosecuted Cicero’s fr iend a nd

correspondent, M. Coelius , for a ssault.1 Coeline wa s

a ga y young a ristocra t, a nd the name Atra tinus ha s

a plebeia n ring a bout it. Proba bly Plotins Ga llus

was still loya l to his ea rly politica l connexions .

At this point Cicero hims elf comes into the s tory.

In the letter to Titinius which Suetonius quotes ,Cicero gives us the following bit of a utobiogra phy.

When } wa s a b oy , I rememb er tha t a certa in Plotius wa s thefirs t to tea ch rhetoric in La tin . Everyb ody wa s crowding to hiss chool : the keenest s tudents Of ora tory were getting les sonsfrom him, and I wa s dis appointed a t not b eing let go there myself .But I s tayed away on the a dvice of friends who were very highlyeduca ted ,

and who held tha t pra ctice in Greek declama tion wa sa b etter tra ining for ta lent .’ 2

The da te must ha ve been 93or 92 when Cicero

wa s just thirteen or fourteen yea rs old for the

ima gina ry da te of the de Ora tore is 9 1 a nd

Cra s su s there spea ks of the whole episode a s having

taken pla ce a yea r or two previou sly.

3 The distin

guished friends who a dvised the young boy not to

a ttend the cla sses of Plotins Ga llus can have been

no other than Cra ssus himself a nd his rela tives , the

two Sca ev ola e . For Cicero’s fa ther, though of

obscure origin, ha d influentia l connexions in Rome.

Either a t Arpinum or Rome,he ha d sent his son to

a s chool where he wa s a cla ssma te of the younger

Ma riu s a nd Atticus 4a nd once the boy ha d taken the

toga virilis—which wou ld norma lly ha ve ha ppenedin 93 or 92 for Cicero wa s born in 106

1 Suet . Rhet. 2 .

2 ib id .

3 Cic . de Or . iii. 93.

4 N ep . vit. Att. 1 , 4 cf. Cic . de Leg . i . 13 Brut. 307 .


his fa ther put him under the direct protection a nd

pa tronage of Q. Mucius Sca evola the Augur.1

Shortly afterwa rds, Sca evola died ; a nd Cicero then

transferred his allegia nce to the Augur’s rela tive a nd

namesake, Q . Mucius Scaevola Pontifex. Licinius

Crassus was son-in -law to Sca evola Augur, a nd the

whole family wa s closely connected with the Scipionic

tra dition .

2 Cicero’s fragment of autobiography thus

appears in a new light when set in its social a nd

political ba ckground.

Tha t P lotius Ga llus was forbidden to teach Latin

rhetoric on politica l grounds, seems plain enough.

Cras sus a nd Domitius were personal enemies,but

they were both a ristocra ts and conserva tive in

politics. Nor can the plea that a school of Latin

rhetoric was a novelty have been more than a

pretence. Severa l other Roma ns were teaching

rhetoric in or a bout this time 3a nd though we know

nothing of the language in which they taught , it

seems ha rdly credible that all their teaching was

done in Greek. And M. Antonius, whom Cicero names

a s the grea t riva l Of Cra ssus in the Hellenized style of

ora tory, had written a Latin text-book of rhetoric

before 9 1 3. In the de Ora tore, Cicero makes

Cr a ssus defend his action on the grounds given in

the edict a s preserved by Suetonius, with the a dded

qualification that when competent Latin teachers

could be found, they Should be preferred to the

1 Cic . de Am . 1 Brut. 306 .

2 Zielinski , p . 341 .

3 Suet . Cram . 6 Cic . Brut. 102, 207 Schanz , i . 2, p . 452 .

4 Cic . de Or . 1. 94 ; Or . 18 ; Brut. 163.

3029 I


Greeks. Nothing less could be expected in a di a logue

written to present Greek theories of rhetoric in

a La tin form . But this plea of incompetent tea ching

does not explain the dra stic and a lmost unpre

cedented action of the censors . Their edict is only

intelligible in the light Of contemporary politics.

Were there other La tini rhetores besides Plotius

Gallus And did the movement survive the edict of

92 3. 0 . N O satisfactory answer can be given to the

former question . All our a uthorities speak of

teachers in the plura l but they are a ll influenced,

directly or indirectly, by the langua ge of the edict,and the censors ha d excellent motives for making

a personal politica l manoeuvr e a ppear as impersona l

as Official language could make it. Plotins Gallus

is the only La tinus rhetor whose name has come down

to us, a nd there ma y well- ha ve been no other. And,since Plotins Gallus lived until well on into the

fifties, his school of Latin rhetoric probably outlived

the years Of a ristocratic supremacy in Rome. Va rro

mentions him as a well-known teacher of rhetoric 1

a nd tha t is all we know of his persona l history.

But his school has left its ma rk in Latin litera

ture .

Somewhere between the yea rs 86 a nd 82 an

unknown student Of rhetoric wrote in La tin for the

benefit of his friend C . Herennius a text-book of

rhetoric,closely modelled on the best Greek authors .

1 Va rro , Sa t. 257 3 (perhaps a lso 379 3 Ma rx, p .

2 Ma rx, p . 153 Wa rde Fowler in Roma n Essays , pp . 96 foll . ,who gives good rea sons for pla cing the da te b etween 84 and 82 3. 0 .


allus ions to contempora ry history : for ma ny of his

exemp la a re ta ken s tra ight from the controversies

of his own da y . Should Scipio be exempted from

the lega l a ge for accepting Office a s consul ? ’

Scipio Nasica is impea ched before the tribunes of

the people for the murder of Tiberius Gra cchus .’

Ca epio is impeached- before the tribunes Of the

people for the loss of his a rmy .

’

Ca epio is impea ched

for illega l a ction a ga inst Sa turninu s .

’ Should the

Ita lia ns receive the rights of citizenship ? ’ The

murderer of Sulpicius is put on tria l .’ 1 These a re

a ll subj ects on which a ny democrat wou ld have been

willing to declaim , a nd the excitement must ha ve

been intens e if such subj ects were actua lly deba ted

in the cla s srooms Of P lotius Ga llus . But s ide by

side with these revolutiona ry themes a re others of

the most orthodox conserva tism . In one the sla ughter

Of the Optima tes is reckoned a public di sa ster ; in

a nother the reviva l of public prosperity is due to the

Optima tes ; in two others Ca epio’

s a tta ck on

Sa turninu s is pra ised a s the a ction of a pa triot .

2

These exemp la were proba bly borrowed by the a uthor

from his own s chool-notes . Appa rently Plotins

Ga llus a llowed both sides a hea ring in his school

perha ps he thought it sa fer to ha ve both sides equally

represented . In any ca se, there is plenty of ma teria l

in the a d Herennium to justify Cicero’s gua rdia ns in

keeping him from such da ngerou s surroundings . It

would never do for the conserva tives to los e the

1a d Her . iii. 2 ; iv . 68 ; i . 21 , 24, 25 .

2 ibid . iv . 12, 45 i . 21 ii. 17 Ma rx, p . 152.

UNDER MARIUS AN D SULLA 69

gifted young student ; for stories of Cicero’s preco

cions ta lent were still told in the da ys of Pluta rch .

1

2 . Cicero’

s S tudent-gea rs .

Turned awa y from the school of Plotins Ga llus ,Cicero did not lose hi s zea l for the study of rhetoric .

In the Brutus he tells the story of those ea rly student

da ys . Cr a ssu s wa s still a domina nt persona lity in

the forum , a nd the other ora tors of the period

Antonius , Sulpiciu s , Cotta ,the young Hortensius

were a t the height of their fame . I went to hea r

them a ll’

, he s a ys , a nd wa s kept ha rd a t work .

Every da y I composed something mys elf, rea ding

a lso a nd ta king notes for I wa s not content with the

mere pra ctice of declama tion .

’ 2 Nor wa s rhetoric

more tha n one of ma ny enthu sia sms . Cicero mus t

ha ve studied Greek litera ture a t school, a nd Pluta rch

ha s a story tha t the ora tor’s ea rlies t dr eam wa s to

become a grea t poet : 3 la ter he s tudied under the

poet Archia s.4 More importa nt wa s the influence of

L . Aelius Stilo , Rome’

s first grea t s chola r a nd the

ma ster of Cicero’s contempora ry, Va rro .

5 From him

Cicero lea rnt tha t love of his couhtry’

s litera ture

a nd history which rema ined a life -long pos session

possibly a lso his rema rka ble familia rity with Enniu s

a nd the older Roma n poets . Philosophy wa s first

ta ught him by Pha edrus, a n Epicurea n ; but these

ea rly lessons ma de little impression. Pha edrus is

mentioned a ffectiona tely in Cicero’s correspondence,6

1 P lut . Cic. 2 .

2 Brut. 305 .

3 P lut . Cic . 2 .

4p ro Arch . 1 .

5 Brut. 207 .

5ad Fam. xiii . 1 , 2 ; de Fin . i . 16 .


but his name is omitted in the two passages which

give Cicero’s intellectua l a utobiogra phy.

1

In the de Ora tore Cicero cla ims tha t j urisprudence

is the Roma n counterpart to Greek philosophy ; 2

his early friendship with the Sca ev ola e is thus Of

peculiar importa nce. By good fortune this friendship

developed into a sort of priva te tuition. Sca evola

Augur ha d the habit Of bringing his young clients

together when a bout to give a decision in his work

a s jurisconsult, a nd Cicero sha red this privilege .

3

Like many a nother brillia nt a dvoca te, Cicero was no

juris t ; but these informa l lessons in the house of

Sca evola left their mark. Cicero never lost his

respect for the greatness of Roma n law, and for the

people who had ma de tha t law. And his own

a cquaintance with the pra ctica l working of Roma n

law in the courts wa s a lways a va lua ble ass et .

The Brutu s tells how desola te Cicero found the

yea rs Of Ma ria n supremacy in,

Rome.4 Books were

his refuge from the consta nt pressure of public

a nxieties . And now for the first time he becomes

awa re Of Greek philosophy. Pha edrus had been

repla ced by a Stoic tutor, Diodotus , who rema ined

Cicero’s companion until his dea th in 59 But

it wa s from a nother qua rter tha t the decisive impulse

came. Mithrida tes ha d ju st occupied Athens : the

schools there ha d been broken up , a nd severa l

Athenian philosophers were seeking refuge in Rome.

1 Brut. 305 foll . de N a t. deor . i . 6 .

2 de Or . i . 195 .

3 Brut. 306 de Am. 1 de Leg. 1. 13.

4 Brut. 305 foll .5 Brut. 309 ad Att. ii. 20, 6 Tuso. v . 113 Aca d . ii . 1 15 .


Prominent amongst them was Philo of La rissa ,

recently elected head of the Academy, a nd in every

wa y a brilliant personality. Philo lectured on

rhetoric as well a s on philosophy,1 a nd Cicero went

to hea r his lectures . I felt a wonderful enthusiasm

for philosophy he writes,

a nd ga ve myself up

entirely to Philo’s teaching.

’ 2 A brief digression is

needed to expla in the character Of this teaching, and

the true reason of Cicero’s enthusia sm .

Ar istotle was the first Greek philosopher to teach

rhetoric in his school,and his action plea sed neither

the disciples of Isocrates nor the disciples of Plato .

3

The controversy was continued during the next two

centuries , and modern resea rch has established the

positions taken up by the four grea t schools .4

Ar istotle’s practice was mainta ined by the later

Peripa tetics, a nd was also accepted by the Stoics,

who held tha t the wise man can alone possess and

impart a ll forms of knowledge. But the Stoics,

unlike the Peripa tetics, were interested only in the

formal side of rhetorica l theory,a nd Cicero complains

tha t they neglected the pra ctical work Of developing

the subj ect-matter (inventio) in fa vour of a bstract

definitions a nd sub -distinctions .5 An exa ctly inverse

relation existed between the schools of Plato and

Epicurus, who a greed in their practice,but dis

agreed in theory. Pla to had taught that rhetoric wa s

1 Tusc. 11 . 9 , 26 ; de Or . iii . 110 .

2 Brut. 306 ; Aoa d. i . 13.

3 Biog . Laert . v . 1 , 3; Ar . Rhet. i . l355a 21 .

4 See in genera l v on Arnim, pp . 73foll .5 de Or . ii . 157- 9 de Fin. iv . 6 ; Top . 6 .


ha rmful , a nd forba de it in his s chool . Epicurus

a dmitted rhetoric a s a true science,

u s efu l for

politica l purpos es but his system a imed a t making

men indifferent to a ll forms of politica l a ctivity, and

rhetoric wa s thereby excluded. The controversy

ga ve ris e to a whole litera ture of polemica l essays .

One of these essays written by a n Epicurean named

Philodemu s was recovered during the la st century,and it is from Philodemus that modern schola rs ha ve

reconstructed this sequel to the controversy between

Pla to a nd Isocra tes .

During the Hellenistic a ge Greek philosophy began

to decline. Stoic tea ching, with its pantheistic

cosmopolitanism a nd its interest in scientific res ea rch ,was best suited to the spirit Of the a ge ; and its

a ustere mora lity won the respect even of such Roman

conserva tives a s Scipio and Aelius Stilo . In the

growing indiflerence to meta physica l inqu iry,all four

schools began to conciliate public Opinion by a more

popula r programme of studies ; and, by a strange

irony of fa te, Pla to’s school , with its memories of the

Gorgia s and the Republic, wa s the first to ca pitulate.

Rhetoric wa s not a t first forma lly a dmitted a s a part

of the curriculum ta ught in the Aca demy but, a bout

the middle Of the third century 3. Arcesilaus,

founder of wha t is known a s the Middle Aca demy,

introduced a new method of tea ching philosophy.

He wa s the first says Diogenes La ertiu s , to

debate both sides of a disputed question.

’ 1 Cicero

gives a more detailed a ccount : Arces ilaus intro1 Diog . Laert . iv . 6 , 28 v on Arnim , p . 85 .


duced the custom tha t his pupils Should not a sk him

questions,but should themselves expose their own

Opinion. When they ha d spoken, he replied ; and

his pupils then defended their opinion as best they

could. In other schools the pupils put their question

and then rema ined silent : a pra ctice which is now

Observed even in the Academy.

’ 1 It wa s , a s Cicero

notes, a reversion to the Socratic method ; but it

came at a time when scepticism ha d ta ken the place

of Pla to’s metaphysica l certitude, and its aim was

to give dialectical skill rather than serious scientific

knowledge.

Arcesila us did not go without a successor for the

most famous teacher of the la ter Academy—a nd at

the same time the most da ringly sceptical of later

Greek philosophers—was tra ined in the school

under this new system . Carneades was, beyond

question, an original a nd powerful thinker ; but his

fame wa s mainly due to the ama zing brilliance Of his

di a lectics, and his influence went fa r beyond the

tea ching of philosophy properly SO ca lled. Students

of rhetoric flocked to hea r his lectures , a nd to study

his oratorical technique ; 2 and it is cha ra cteristic

that the lectures which he delivered in Rome during

the embassy Of 155 3. 0 . were remembered chiefly for

their brilliant oratorica l style.3 The comparison with

Hume’s influence on modern philosophy is irresistible.

Just as the Scotch philosopher’s agreeably litera ry

scepticism wa s a powerful factor in the thought of

1 de Fin . 11 . 2 de Or . iii . 80 .

2 Biog . Laert . iv . 9 , 62 .

3 Gell . v i (v ii) , 14, 8—10 .

3029


the eighteenth century, so Ca rnea des exercised a n

a biding influence on the new Gra ecO-Roma n culture

which developed dur ing his lifetime .

Philo of La rissa wa s a philosopher a fter the

manner of Ca rnea des where pos sible, he pushed the

new tendencies to their logica l conclus ion.

1 An open

sceptic in his metaphysica l tea ching, he ba sed wha t

ever certitude he a dmitted on the testimony of mora l

conscience ; a nd his a ction in teaching rhetoric a s

well a s philosophy wa s a further brea k with the

tra ditions of his school . Cicero, who ha d no meta

physica l scruples, soon came under the spell of

Philo’s persua s ive eloquence . Philo wa s indeed ju st

the man to impress the young Roman student.

Eager,quick-witted, impressiona ble, with a pa ssion

for study, Cicero wa s a bove a ll els e a lover Of the

bea uties of s ound a nd langua ge a nd Philo wa s both

a n ora tor a nd a philosopher . N ew horizons bega n

to Open before the b oy . Greek litera ture , Greek

rhetoric , Greek philosophy ; a ll thes e were seen to

be necess a ry, if he wa s to a chieve his youthful idea l

and become the Roma n Demosthenes . The brief

narrative of the Brutus reca lls those early days

During a ll this time [he is speaking of the yea rs 86—83B .

I spent my d ays and nights in the s tudy of a ll forms of s cience .

Diodotus the Stoic wa s my tutor , and he gave me les s ons in othersub jects , b ut a b ove a ll in dia lectics these I lea rnt to know a s

a form of eloquence , clos ely-knit and compa ct . I wa s hea rt a nds oul a t my work under this ma s ter , and hi s programme of s tudywa s wide and va ried yet I let no d ay pa ss without s ome pra cticein ora tory . Every da y I decla imed a piece writh M. Piso or

1 Zeller , iii . I , pp . 609 foll . Susemihl, 11 , pp . 279 foll .


From Rome Cicero went to Athens, where he spent

six months . Here he studied philosophy in the

lecture-halls of the Aca demy ; but Philo wa s no

longer there to welcome his former pupil . Antiochus

of Asca lon, the new hea d of the s chool, ha d been

Philo’s grea t rival during the la tter’s lifetime, and,though a n eclectic himself, wa s a declared opponent

of Philo’s scepticism .

1 His own sys tem wa s la rgely

influenced by Stoic thought, a nd Cicero, who speaks

of Antiochus with grea t respect,2 mu st ha ve found

his lectures congenia l to his own temperament a nd

ea rly tra ining . Antiochus, who ma de much of the

Pla tonic tra dition, taught only philosophy in his

school, and Cicero ha d to go elsewhere for his lessons

in rhetoric . At Athens he studied rhetoric under

Demetrius Of Syria b ut the Six months of his sta y

there were given ma inly to philosophy . Then came

a tour through the province of Asia , a nd Cicero gives

the names of three or four professors of rhetoric

whose lectures he a ttended .

3 But Rhodes wa s the

culmina ting point in Cicero’s experience . Here he

met,though not for the firs t time

,two men whose

influence on his career a s a n ora tor a nd philosophic

writer wa s only equa lled by tha t Of Cra ssus and

Philo . Molo of Rhodes became Cicero’s tutor in

rhetoric , a nd helped more than a ny one els e to

correct the redunda ncies a nd looseness of Cicero’s

ea rly style a debt which Cicero never forgot .

4 And

1 Zeller , iii . 1 , pp . 618 foll .2 Aca d . i . 13; ii . 1 13; de Leg. 1. 54 ; Brut. 315 .

3 ibid . 315—16 .

4 ibid . 312, 316 ; Plut . Cic. 4.


it must have been at Rhodes, though Cicero omits

this deta il in his Brutus , that he studied under

Posidonius, the famous Stoic philosopher a nd uni

v ers a list, whom Cicero elsewhere names a s one of the

few men who did most for his educa tion .

1 Posidonius ,though nominally a Stoic a nd a di sciple Of Pa na etius ,was as eclectic in his theory as either Philo or

Antiochus and a brilliant literary stylist into the

ba rga in . But it was his univers al knowledge which

most impressed his contempora ries ; and it is no

small claim for one man that he opened up new

horizons of thought and learning for both Cicero a nd

Julius Ca esa r .

2

Cicero came back from his tour, a s he himself puts

it, not merely with a dded experience, but almost

another ma n’

.

3 His student years were over, and

Roman literatur e was henceforth to be enriched by

the full harvest of his maturity . But one perma nent

memoria l of his student yea rs still survives . In the

prefa ce to his de Ora tore Cicero speaks of some

s chool-b oy notes which I published, rough and in

complete though they were,when I wa s still little

more than a boy These school-boy notes a re

the de Inuentione, which Cicero published when he

wa s still a student of rhetoric , most probably between

the yea rs 85 a nd 80 As a text-book of rhetoric

the work is a fa ilure . Cicero wa s not yet sufficiently

master of his subject to do more than translate into

1 de N a t. deor . i . 6 de Fa to, 5 Tusc. . ii . 61 .

2 See in genera l Zeller , iii . 1 , p . 588 Susemihl , ii, p . 284.

3 Brut. 316 .

4 de Or . i . 5 .

5 Schanz , i . 2, p . 467.


La tin the precepts of his Greek tea chers, a nd his

work suffers from comparison with the a d Herennium

which seems to ha ve b een published a bout the same

time . The a uthor of the a nonymous trea tis e , who

ever he wa s , ha d a clea rer bra in tha n Cicero ha d y et

developed, a nd his text-book, a pa rt from questions

of s tyle, is in every way superior to Cicero’s youthful

effort . But the de Inventione is interesting a s a

promis e of the futur e . Its preface, which Cicero

seems to ha ve borrowed from Posidonius,1 dea ls with

the time-honoured controversy between philosophy

a nd rhetoric . Thirty yea rs later Cicero published

a dia logue which more tha n atones for the fa ults of

his ea rlier es s ay, a nd sta tes in eloquent langua ge the

solution to which his own experience a nd persona l

study ha d led him .

1 Ge rhaus ser , p . 29 ; Philippson in Fleckeisen’

s Ja hrbuoh,

vol . cxxxiii pp . 417 foll .

VI

THE DE ORATORE

Mea quidem s ententia nemo poterit ess e omni la ude cumu

la tus ora tor , nisi erit omnium rerum magna ru‘

m a tque a rtiums cientiam consecutus .

’

Cic . de Or . i . 20.

1 . P urpos e of the de Ora tore

IN a dedica tory letter to his brother Qu intus Cicero

a lleges a s a n excuse for publishing the de Ora tore

his anxiety to effa ce the memory of his youthfu l

do Inuentione .

1 The motive wa s na tura l enough

for Cicero wa s now a t the height of his fame , a nd the

ea rlier work wa s unworthy of his reputa tion a s

lea der of the Roman forum . But there were other

persona l motives , to which he is ca reful not to a llude .

The de Ora tore wa s published in 55 two yea r s

a fter his specta cula r return from exile .

2 Cicero wa s

a t the height of his intellectua l powers, a nd his

ambition wa s a s restless a s ever . But politics were

not going a s the ora tor ha d hoped . His enemies were

numerous a nd strong enough to keep his persona l

influence behind the ba rrier of the ir Opposition a nd

the triumphs of his consula te were a lrea dy remote .

Ten yea rs la ter Cicero found a refuge from simila r

troubles in the study of philosophy . Now he turn s

to the study of rhetoric and his old interest in the

1 de Or . 1. 5 .

2a d Att. iv . 13, 2 a d Fam . i . 9 , 23 Schanz , i . 2 , p . 297 .

80 THE DE ORATORE

problems of educa tion . But the de Ora tore is more

tha n a manua l of rhetoric or a n ess ay on higher

educa tion . It is full of Cicero’s politica l and intellec

tu a l idea lism ; and its dr amatic ba ckground is

deliberately chos en to empha size the ora tor’s con

nexion with the tra ditions Of Scipionic Rome . Cicero

wa s a lready planning the de Republica with its

Scipionic reminiscences1

a nd the two dia logues

were meant to convey, a t a critica l period in the

ora tor’s ca reer, his ma ture views on Gracco-Roman

litera ture, philos ophy , a nd politics .

Less powerful, perhaps , a s a stimulus to publica

tion, but none the less important in the psychology

of so human a cha ra cter, were the domestic rea sons

which in 55 helped to renew Cicero’s interest in

the problem of educa tion . Cicero’s young son

Marcus wa s a t this time ten years Old , his nephew

Quintus a yea r older ; and the orator ha d made

himself responsible for the educa tion Of the two boys.

There had been diffi culties a bout a suita ble tutor,

2

a nd in 54 Cicero ta lks"

Of supplementing the

tutor’s class es with les sons Of his own .

3 The P a rti

tiones ora toria e, published in tha t yea r or a little

la ter, are a sort of rhetorica l catechism for the two

boys, a nd Show how pra ctica l the orator could be in

his theory of educa tion . The de Ora tore, written

a yea r earlier, shows the same preoccupation with the

studies which young Marcus a nd Quintus were just

1a d Q. fr . ii . 12 1 iii . 5 , l Schanz , i . 2 , p . 342 .

2a d Att. iv . 15 , 10 ; v i . 1 , 12 viii . 4, l a d Q . fr . iii. 1 , 14.

3 ibid . iii. 3, 4.

THE DE ORATORE 8 1

beginning . Cicero hims elf owed much to his fa ther,a nd it is plea sant to think tha t the two boys were

in his mind when he began work on the dia logue

which wa s his fa vourite to the end .

1 N or did his

interest in the educa tion of his son end with thes e

cla sses in rhetoric . Ten yea rs a fter the publica tion

Of the de Ora tore he dedicated his de Ofiiciis to

Ma rcus,then a student of philos ophy a t Athens .

2

Pla nned a s an essay on the art of ora tory, Cicero’s

dialogue is na turally more concerned with rhetoric

tha n with a ny other subj ect . But the de Ora tore is

fa r more tha n a mere manua l of rhetoric . With

ama zing litera ry skill Cicero ha s contrived to weave

into the stru ctur e of his dia logue a ll tha t he ha d

lea rnt from his ea rly Roma n patrons , from Diodotus ,Philo

,a nd Antiochus , and from the experience of

thirty yea rs in the forum . The result is a ma sterpiece

which ma y not unfa irly be ca lled the ora tor’s pro

gramme of educa tiona l reform an a ppeal to the

younger genera tion to imita te the example which he

ha d set them , a nd to a im a t a wider a nd nobler

culture than was usua l in contemporary Roma n

society . La ter Cicero developed his programme in

the Brutus , the Ora tor , a nd the lost Hortens ia s b ut

the de Ora tore conta ins the substa nce of the ir

doctrine, a nd is the fullest statement Of Cicero’s

educa tiona l theory . Nor ha s any other of his dia

logues ha d such perma nent influence on the history

of Gra cco-Roman and European culture .

1ad Att. xiii . 19 , 4 .

2 de Off. 1. 1.

82 THE DE ORATORE

2 . The a rtes libera les

In his prefa ce to the s econd book of the de Ora tore

Cicero sums up the education usua lly given in the

Roman s chools ofhis da y under a convenient formula :

puerilis ins titutio .

1 His own theory Of educa tion

includes a supplementa ry course of higher studies,which he elsewhere terms politior huma nita s .

2 The

division is clea r a nd logica l, a nd it will be us efu l to

a na lyse these two portions of his programme s epa

ra tely . But in pra ctice there wa s no ha rd a nd fa st

division for the recent brea k with tra dition ha dthrown a ll Roman educa tion into confusion .

3 Ma ny

of the ora tors whom Cicero criticizes in the Brutus

ha d received no better educa tion than the puerilis

ins titutio a s a prepara tion for public life . Others,

like Cicero himself, ha d completed their studies inthe interv a ls Of work in the forum . It wa s only the

few who pa s s ed regula rly from one school to another,

and completed their ea rly educa tion by higher

studies s imila r to those which Cicero recommends .

The de Ora tore ha s nothing to s a y a bout elementary

schools a nd the omis s ion is chara cteristic . A Greek

theorist would ha ve deta iled an ela bora te scheme of

educa tion for the young, very much on the lines of

Quintilian’s programme in the Ins titutio ora toria .

But Cicero wa s too much of a Roma n to believe in

such minutia e . In theory, a t least, he would ha ve

a greed with Ca to tha t the educa tion of a child is

prima rily the pa rent’s duty ; a nd in the Tuscula n

Disputa tions the pa rent is named a fter the nurse a nd1 de Or . ii. 1 iii 48 , 125 .

2ibid . 11 . 72 .

3 ibid . i . 3.

84 THE DE ORATORE

work usua lly done in the schools Of litera ture a nd

rhetor ic a nd here terminology is important . Roma n

usa ge distinguished clea r ly between the elementa ry

schoolma ster (ludi ma gis ter or littera tor , in Greek

ypa jupta r ta r rjs ) ,wh0 ga v e les sons in rea ding a ndwriting,a nd the tea cher of literature (gramma ticus , a term

borrowed directly from the Greek ypauua n xés ) who

taught prose-composition a nd poetry a s well a s

gramma r .

1 The Greek name shows tha t thes e

tea chers of literature a nd their schools were foreign

to Roma n tra dition, a nd Suetonius da tes the first

schools of litera ture in Rome from the middle of the

second century But the de Ora tore ma kes it

pla in tha t litera ture wa s only one of many subj ects

taught at Rome on the model of Greek school-pro

grammes . In his prefa ce to the first book Cicero

enumera tes the va riou s a rtes taught in the schools Of

his da y philosophy, mathema tics , mus ic , litera ture,a nd rhetoric .

3 Els ewhere geometry a nd a stronomy

a re expres s ly mentioned a s pa rt of the ma thema tica l

programme,4 thus completing the s even a rtes libera les

Of the Middle Ages . Simila r lists of the a rtes a re to

be found in contempora ry Gra cco-Roma n litera ture .

Va rro included nine in his Dis cip lina e gramma r (or

litera ture , for the term covers both subj ects ) ,dia lectics, rhetoric , geometry, a rithmetic , a stronomy,mu sic , medicine, a rchitecture .

5 Vitruvius, writing

for a rchitects, gives litera ture, drawing, geometry,

1 Suet . Cram . 4 Sandys , 1, pp . 6—11 Gira rd , p . 224.

2 Suet . Cram. 2 .

3 de Or . 1. 8—12 .

4 ibid . i . 187 iii . 127 .

5 Schanz , i . 2 , p . 438 .

THE DE ORATORE 85

optics, a rithmetic , history, philos ophy, music , medi

cine, law, a nd a stronomy—a s tra nge medley"1

Seneca , who us es the term a rtes libera les , give s only

litera tur e, music , geometry, a rithmetic , a nd a stro

momy b ut he ha s his’

own rea sons for omitting

rhetoric a nd philosophy from the list .

2 And Ga len ,writing for doctors in the second century A .D ., gives

medicine , rhetoric , mus ic , geometry, a rithmetic ,dia lectics , a stronomy, litera ture, a nd law .

3 Ga len

a dds , a s Optiona l subj ects , sculpture a nd drawing ; but

Seneca expres s ly excludes these two a rtes from his list .

4

These lists,coming from such va rious s ources ,

prove the existence of a regula r curricu lum of studies ,not yet clea rly defined in a ll its parts , but certa inly

including litera ture , rhetoric , dia lectics , a rithmetic ,geometry, a stronomy, a nd music . Seneca tells us

tha t these subj ects were ca lled a rtes libera les in

La tin, a nd G’

y KilKALOL in Greek .

5 Cicero does not

mention the Greek term , b ut frequently spea ks of

a rtes libera les or libera lis discip lina5

a nd once , in

a cha ra cteristica lly Roma n phra s e, of bona e a rtes .

7

Vitruvius uses a curious phra se, ha lf Greek, ha lf

La tin enogclios dis cip lina5

and Quintilia n gives

the proper Greek form , which is a lso found in Stra bo

a nd Pluta rch e’

y kuxhtos n a LOeia .

9

The la ter history Of these a rtes libera les is well

1 Vitruv . i . 1 , 3.

2 Sen . Epp . 88 , 1—20 ; see b e low, p . 179 .

3 Ga len , P rotr . 14, 39 .

4 Sen . Epp . 88 , 18 .

5 ibid . 23.

5 de Or . 1. 72 ; ii . 162 ; iii . 127 .

7 ibid . i . 158 .

5 Vitruv . i . 1 , 1 1 vi . p ra ef. 4 .

9 Quint . i . 10, 1 ; Stra b o , i , p . 13; Plut . de Mus . 1 135 D ;

Ps .-P lut . deLib . ed . 7 c s ee a lso Colson’

s note on Quint . i . 10, 1 .

86 THE DE ORATORE

known . Ma rtia nus Ca pella ca st Va rro’s Discip lina e

into a llegorica l form , a nd this curious text-book wa s

the main source from which the Middl e Ages derived

their theory Of a rtes libera les .

1 But the ea rlier

history of the a rtes is more Obscure, and takes us

ba ck once more to Aristotle . In cla ssica l Greek

e’

ymiKhto s means ordina ry or of everyday occur

rence a s well a s cyclic 2 Aristotle frequently uses

the word in this sense 3 but once or twice we find

the phra se r d e’

yminhta or rd e’

ymixhta (tili o a ocbn'

ua r a ,

where we Should expect the more usua l phra se Ta

e’

fwr epmoi .

4 According to Gollins,5 Aristotle’s ‘

exo

teric programme Of studies wa s des igned for men Of

ordina ry educa tion, a nd included dia lectics, rhetoric ,a nd politica l theory : roughly speaking, the ma tter

included by Ar istotle in his Orga non , Rhetoric,

P oetics , P olitics , a nd Economics . This programme

differs considera bly from the e’

ymlk htos u a cSet’

a

described by Cicero , Va rro , a nd la ter Roman

writers ; b ut the expla na tion is s imple . Evidence

for the work done in the schools of Hellenistic Greece

is unu sua lly a bunda nt, a nd we know tha t a child’s

educa tion wa s divided among a whole s eries Of6tea chers . First came the elementa ry schoolma ster

1 Sandys , i, pp . 241 fell .2 See Stephanus , s .v . , and (less fully) Liddell a nd Scott , s .v .

3 Ar . P ol. i . 1255b 25 ii . l 263a 21 1269b 35 cf. Is ocr . 176 c .

4 Ar . Eth. N io. i . 1096a 3 de Ca elo, i . 279a 30 Bonitz , IndexAristotelicus , p . 105a 27 .

5 Gell . xx . 5 Willmann , pp . 50 fe ll .5 See in genera l [Pla to] , Axioohus , 366 D—367 A Gira rd ,

pp . 100 fell. Wa lden , pp . 18 fell.

THE DE ORATORE 87

who ta ught the Child to rea d, wr ite ,and count, perhaps a ls o to draw . Side by s ide with

these les sons went cla sses in mus ic , given by a specia l

music -ma ster a nd gymna stic cla sses given

by a professiona l tea cher Somewha t

la ter, a bout the age of twelve, the boy went to a

school of litera ture, where he wa s ta ught his Homer

a nd poetry in genera l by the tea cher of literature

(Kptr ucdg or ypa p jua rmds ) a nd a t the same time he

began the study of more a dva nced mathema tics

under a Specia l mathematical ma ster

The connexion between these sepa ra te schools a nd

the la ter e’

y xéxlu os u a tSet’

a is plain . The latter

programme of studies is simply a combina tion of

the ordinary educa tion given to Greek school-boys

with the more elementary portion of Aristotle’s

exoteric programme ; a nd the Greek word e’

m KMo s

a ccura tely describes an educa tion which wa s Specia lly

designed for the ma n in the street . When a nd where

the va rious a rtes enumera ted by Cicero , Va rro, Vitru

vins, and Seneca came to be recognized a s pa rts of the

e’

yKllKhLO? u a cBeia must rema in uncerta in ; but the name

or its equiva lent (Ta e’

ymixhta ua dfiua r a ) is common

in Hellenistic litera ture . Diogenes La ertius , for

example, tells us tha t the Cynics rej ected 7 d e’

ymixla a

na drjua r a , a nd tha t Zeno considered the e’

ymik hto s

wa rheia u seless Chr ysippus, on the other ha nd, sa id

tha t rd e’ymixhta ua drjua r a were very useful .1 Similarly

Athena eus quotes two Hellenistic historians for the

sta tement tha t Alexandria ha d educa ted both Greeks1 Diog . Laert . v i . 103 v ii . 32, 129 .

88 THE DE ORATORE

a nd ba rba r ia n s (this proba bly means the Romans )when the e

’

yKfiKMog fl a LSeL'

a wa s on the decline .

‘

Seneca gives u s the connecting link for he tells u s

tha t Posidonius cla s sified the a rts under four hea ds .First pla ce wa s given to the a rts which tea ch virtue

s econd pla ce to the a rts which the Greeks ca ll

e’

ymhcxtoc a nd the Roma ns libera les third pla ce

to the frivolous a rts of da ncing, s inging, pa inting,a nd s culpture a nd fourth pla ce to a ll the a rts tha t

involve ma nua l la bour .

2 This cla ss ifica tion proves

tha t the encyclic programme wa s well es ta blished

by the end of the s econd century B . c . , a nd throws

a cur iou s light on the clas sica l use of the word a rt

(a rs or f e’

xvn) As Cicero dea ls with the va rious a rtes

throughout his dc Ora tore, one la st digression mus t

be pa rdoned by wa y of prefa ce to his educa tiona l

theory .

Modern educa tion is so a pt to mea sure knowledge

by the mere a ccumu la tion of fa cts tha t we ha ve

ceased to rega rd the pr inciple of specia liza tion,even

in s chools, a s a nything a bnorma l . Greek principles

of educa tion were very different . Even in the most

strictly scientific period of Hellenis tic s chola rship,

specia liza tion wa s unknown in the schools of Greece

knowledge, far from being a n a ccumu la tion of fa cts,

wa s es s entia lly a n a rt,first studied in its genera l pr in

ciples and then a pplied in deta il . Cicero’s theory of

s cientific knowledge is borrowed directly from Greek

sources for him no true knowledge , whether of

1 Athen . iv , p . 184 B .

2 Sen . Epp . 88 , 21—3 Gerha uss er , pp . 45 foll .

THE DE ORATORE 89

music , literature, rhetoric , or philosophy, is possible

unless directed by the principles of a n a rt1 Ea ch

science ha s its own a rt framed by human rea son

a nd binding together the deta ils of knowledge in

a single, coherent system a nd the different arts

a re thems elves pa rts of a single, va s t system of huma n

knowledge which the philosophic mind can s tudy in

its first principles .2 An example will ma ke this

concept more clear . Cicero compla ins tha t Roma n

law is not yet a n a rt because it la cks systema tic

form he himself was in fa vour of reducing its

endless deta ils to a few genera l principles , ea sily

lea rnt and ea sily a pplied .

3 So , too , ancient text

books of a pa rticula r s cience a re usu a lly ca lled a rtes

or r e’

Xva e. Livy speaks of a n am for the gu idance of

priests in their sa crificia l rites 4am gramma tica a nd

am rhetérica a re both familia r terms ;5

a nd Cicero

even compares the writings of Ar istotle to a sys

tema tic am of philosophy 6 This use of the wordfre

’

xmy is a good example of the instinct for order a nd

harmony which guided the Greeks in their intellectual

a ctivities as well a s in their art . For the aim of the

e’

ymiKMo s mu SeL'

a was not to give every student a

specia list’s knowledge of detail (though d etail

abounds in the ancient text-books) , but rather to

put him in possession of such genera l principles as

would la ter help him to a proper use of the knowledge

1 dc Or . i . 92 Brut. 152 dc Off. 11 . 6 Schneidewin , p . 309 .

2 dc Or . i . 186—8 iii . 21 dc N a t. dear . i . 9 .

3 de Or . i . 190 de Leg. ii . 47 .

4 Livy , xxv . 1 , 12 .

5a d Her . iv . 17 Quint . i, P ra ef. 23 5 , 54 ; ii . 17 , 2 iii . 1 , 1

Borner , pp . 12 foll . 6 Aca d . i . 17 .

3029

90 THE DE ORATORE

he ha d a cquired . As Cicero puts it in his de Ora tore

It is one thing to b e a Specia list (a rtifex) in a ny

branch of s cience (a rs ) ; qu ite a nother to know

enough for the ordina ry purposes of life .

’ 1

Cicero’s puerilis ins titutio ma y be roughly identified

with the Greek e’

ymiKMo s wa tgefa with the exception

of philosophy he himself treats the term a s synony

mous with a libera l edu ca tion .

2 But Rome a lways

modified wha t She borrowed, a nd the Roma n

doctrina libera lis ha s some s ignificant omis s ions .Cicero himself remarks that his fellow-countrymen

ha d little time for poetry a nd mu sic , a nd confined

ma thema tics to the pra ctica l work of counting a nd

mea surement .

3 Horace says the s ame of Roma n

ma thema tics 4a nd Cornelius Nepos

,one of Cicero’s

pers ona l friends a nd himself a most cultured ma n ,

tells u s tha t mu sic wa s a lwa ys considered benea th

the dignity of a Roman citizen,whilst da ncing wa s

looked on a s a disgra ce .

5 Here a nd there we find

mention of Romans interested in ma thema tica l

theory ; but they a re noted a s exceptions to the

genera l rule 6 And the name Fa bius Pictor proves

tha t a Roman with a ta ste for pa inting wa s a n

eccentric , who des erved specia l notice a nd even a

Specia l name .

7 Sulla liked mus ic a nd could Sing

well— a n oddity which is duly noted by Pluta rch and

1 de Or . i . 248 iii. 86 .

2 ibid . iii . 125 .

3 Tus c. i . 3—5 .

4 Hor . Ars p oet. 323foll .5 Corn . N ep . Ep am . 1

,2 cf. Ma crob . S a t. iii . 14, 7 .

6 de Off. i . 19 Brut. 175 ; de S en . 49 a d Att. xiv . 12, 3.

7 Tw o. i . 4 P liny, N .H xxxv . 19—23.

92 THE DE; 0RATORE’

and geometria these were evidently considered too

Greek to be Romanized . On the other hand, a ll the

terms for elementa ry schools a re purely La tin . Ludi

ma gis ter is the ordina ry word for a n elementary

schoolma ster, though Gellius a nd Apuleius both use

littera tor , the word given by Suetonius .

1 And the

term ca lcula tor wa s inva ria bly used for the tea cher

of elementa ry arithmetic ? This la st word ha s a

curiou s his tory . In the time of the Empire, it wa s

accepted a s a Greek word, at lea s t in legal termino

logy . Modestinus , a Greek jur ist of the third century

A .D ., uses Ka xxovkoim p in the Digest,3 and the same

ba rba rous form is found in the Greek version of

Diocletian’s Edi ct .

4 Hora ce wa s not so fa r wrong

when he cla imed simple a ddition a nd subtra ction a s

a peculia rly Roman a rt .

3. The s chools of litera ture a nd rhetoric .

Apa rt from a superficia l knowledge of music and

ma thema tics, Roman education wa s given almos t

entir ely in the schools of litera ture a nd rhetoric , and

here Cicero’s theory is of specia l importance . In the

de Ora tore Crassus defines the duties of a gramma ticus

a s follows to comment on the poets, to teach

history,to expla in the meaning of words, to impart

a correct a ccent a nd delivery ’

.

5 These s ame duties

a re described by Quintilia n in grea ter deta il ,6a nd

1 Gell . xv i . 6 , 1 ; xviii. 9 , 2 ; Apul . Flor . 20 .

2 Ma rt . x . 62, 4 ; Isidor . orig . i . 3, 1 ; Diges t, xxxviii. 1 , 7, 5 ;L . 13, l , 6 Cod . Just. x . 53 4 .

3 Diges t, xxvii. 1 , 15, 5 .

4 Edict. Diocl. 7, 67 (Mommsen ) . 5 de Or . i . 187 .

6 Quint . i . 4, 2 ; 9 , 1 .

THE DE ORATORE 93

for the mos t pa rt they require no comment . But two

ques tions need to be discuss ed more fully . Wha t

a uthors were rea d in thes e s chools of literature ?

And in wha t langua ge were the lectures given

Cicero makes neither point pla in in his de Ora tore

b ut the evidence of contempora ry litera tur e shows

tha t Greek was still prepondera nt in the schools of

Rome . Of the Latin gramma tici mentioned by

Suetoniu s many a re not professiona l schoolma sters

a t a ll, b ut s imply distingu ished s cholars who gave

priva te lectures to their friends .

1 Orbilius a nd

Va lerius Ca to a re the only two professiona l tea chers

whose La tin origin is certa in ? Another,M , Antonius

Gnipho , wa s born in Ga u l ; but he knew Greek a s

perfectly a s Latin, a nd wa s probably a na tive of one

of the Greek-spea king towns in the Rhone va lley ?

All the other names mentioned by Suetonius a s

ha ving flourished under the Republic a re pla inly

Greek and Cicero speaks of none but Greek tutors

for his son .

4 Even more s ignifica nt is the fa ct that

when Cicero bega n to g1v e his son a nd nephew clas ses

in rhetoric , he preferred Greek to La tin a s a medium

for instruction ? La ter on, he writes to his son a t

Athens a nd ca utions him a ga ins t neglecting his La tin

exercises ;6 the caution shows which langua ge wa s

predominant in ordina ry cla ss-work . And a ll con

tempora ry litera ture makes it pla in that a knowledge

of Greek wa s univers a l in the Roman society of

1 Suet . Gram. 2, 3.

2 ibid . 9 , 1 1 .

3 ibid . 7 .

4a d Q . fr . ii . 4 , 2 iii . 3, 4 a d Att. iv . 15, 10 .

5 P a rt. or . 1—2 .

6 de i . 1 of. a d Fam . xv i . 21 , 5 .

94 THE DE ORATORE

Cicero’s da y . Cicero’s letters a re full of Greek, and

a Whole s ection of his correspondence wa s a ctua lly

written in Greek .

1 Roman orators were expected

on occa s ion to deliver ora tions in Greek,2a nd Cicero’s

tutor, Molo of Rhodes, wa s a llowed to a ddres s the

s ena te in Greek without a n interpreter ? Greek wa s

the fa shiona ble litera ry la ngua ge, and more tha n one

of Cicero’s friends published works in Greek a s well

a s in La tin .

4

This preference for Greek a s a literary langua ge

wa s not due to a ny la ck of Roma n pa triotism . Cicero

himself is never wea ry of repea ting his admira tion

for Roma n genius , a nd his conviction tha t La tin

litera ture wou ld eventu a lly equa l, perhaps even

surpa s s , Greek litera ture? But Greek, with its

wea lth of litera ture in pros e a nd vers e a nd its tra di

tion of s cientific criticism , wa s the inevita ble langu a ge

for u s e in s chools . Orbilius , it is true, made his

pupils lea rn their Livius Andronicu s by hea rt ,6a nd

Cicero lea rnt his Twelve Ta bles a s a boy 7 b ut Wha t

were Liviu s , Enn iu s, Acciu s , Pla utus , Terence , a nd

Luciliu s when compa red with Homer, Hes iod, the

Attic tra gedia ns , a nd Mena nder ? And the contra s t

wa s even more a ppa rent in pros e litera ture . Ma tters

1 P lut . Cic . 24 ; cf. Fr . Riihi in Rhein . Mus ., vol . lxx

pp . 315—25 .

2 Cic . in Verr . iv . 147 Quint . xi . 2, 50 .

3 P lut . Cic. 4 ; Cic . Brut. 312 .

4a d All . i . 19 , 10 Plut . I/ucull. 1 of. R . Da eb ritz in Philo

logus , vol . xxiv pp . 267—73.

5 de Or . i . 13—15 iii . 95 Or . 22—3 Tusc. i . 1—6 .

6 Hor . Epp . 11 . 1 , 69 .

7 de Leg. 11 . 59 .

THE DE ORATORE 95

were different fifty yea rs la ter when a cla s sica l La tin

litera ture ha d been crea ted by Cicero hims elf a nd the

writers of the Augus ta n a ge . But a ll the enthus ia sm

a nd energy of Orbilius could not make ea rly La tin

litera ture a ttra ctive to schoolboys, a nd it ha s been

well sa id that Horace’s s a tire on Ennius , N a ev ius ,

a nd the res t expres ses his pa rting shot a t the

criticisms he ha d been made to swa llow in his boy

hood 1 For good or for ill, Cicero’s words a re true

We Roma ns ha ve gone to s chool in Greece ; we

rea d their poets a nd lea rn them by hea rt , a nd then

we think ours elves schola rs a nd men of cu lture .

In a ddition to the study of litera ture a nd gramma r,Cicero a ssigns to the gramma ticu s the ta sk of giving

his pupils a correct a ccent a nd delivery 3 The

phra s e refer s prima rily to lessons in rea ding a loud a nd

declama tion but Cicero may a lso ha ve had in mind

some e lementa ry lessons in rhetoric . For in the

ea rly days of Gra eco -Roman education rhetoric wa s

ta ught by the professor of litera ture, a nd the custom

wa s still occa s iona lly observed in Rome a s la te a s the

first century A . D .

4 Even when the two profess ion s

ha d been sepa ra ted by custom , it wa s qu ite a common

pra ctice for the gramma ticus to end his course of

litera ture with a n informa l introduction to the study

of rhetoric 5 Cicero himself regula rly speaks of

gramma tici a nd rhetores as distinct profess ions but

the division between their schools was not so clea rly

1 Nettleship , Es sa ys (Second Series ) , p . 52 .

2 Tus c . ii . 27 .

3 de Or . i . 187 .

4 Suet . Gram. 4.

5 Quint . ii . 1, 3—6 .

96 THE DE ORATORE

marked a s modern a uthors a re a pt to a ssume .

1 No

exa ct a ge ca n be fixed for the change from one school

to a nother . Cicero himself thought of going to hea r

Plotius Ga llus when he wa s only thirteen or fourteen

yea rs old ,2a nd he got a tutor in rhetoric for his son

when the boy wa s only eleven ?

These facts speak for themselves, a nd the de

Ora tore makes it qu ite pla in tha t Cicero rega rded

rhetoric a s pa rt of the puerilis iri s titutio .

4 Indeed

Cicero’s ma in purpose in writing the dia logue was to

persua de his contempora ries tha t the instruction

usua lly given in the s chools of rhetoric was ina dequate

as a prepa ra tion for true ora tory . Crassus is here the

spokesman of Cicero’s own experience .

Thanks to my fa ther’

s ca re he s ays , I wa s well educa teda s a b oy ; b ut I cann ot s a y tha t I wa s ta ught everything tha tI am now telling you should b e ta ught in our s chools . For Ib egan my ca reer a s an a dvoca te a t an unusua lly ea rly a ge , and

wa s only twenty-one yea rs old when I a rra igned one of our

foremost citizens and ora tors . The forum Wa s thus my cla s sroom ,

and my tea cher wa s none other than the customs , laws ,institutions and tra di tions of the Roman people .

’ 5

And he a dds that once his school-days were over,he

ha d no time for study sa ve in the interva ls of public

bus iness ? Antonius,who s erves a s a foil to Cra ssus

in the dia logue, ins ists even more strongly on the

difficulty of a dding a nything to the s chool-curricu

lum . Before we ha ve time to begin our studies

he says , we a re ca ught in the s tream of ambition

1 Jullien , p . 340 Wilkin s , p . 77 Blumner , p . 332 .

2 Suet . Rhet. 2 s ee ab ove , p . 64.

3a d Q . fr . 11 . 4, 2 .

4 de Or . i . 163, 244 ii . 100 iii . 38 .

5 ibid . iii . 74—5 .

6 ibid . iii . 85 .

THE DE ORATORE 97

a nd public life . Cicero himself might ha ve re

echoed those words, were it not for a lucky brea k

down in his hea lth ; many of his contempora ries

mus t ha ve been les s fortuna te .

According to Cicero , the existing schools of rhetoric

did more ha rm than good . The cla sses were given by

some Greek professor who ha d never been to the

forum in his life, a nd who ta ught oratory by rule of

thumb? At bes t, he could tea ch you to deny the

cha rge brought a gainst you in the court, or , if tha t

trick fa iled, to a ccuse your a dversary of some mis

demea nour ; a s a la st resort he might help y ou to

ju stify your conduct by one or other of his stock

excuses ? The irony is severe ; but Cicero’s own

de Inventione a nd the pa ra llel trea tis e a d Herennium

a re there to prove how fa r Greek rhetoric ha d gone onthe pa th of forma l and ba rren scholastici

’

sm . Both

works a re ba sed ma inly on a famou s text-book,now

lost the Rhetoric ofHerma gora s . Quintiliannames

the a uthor of this text-book a s a n outsta nding figure

in the history of rhetoric ,4a nd his influence on la ter

Greek a nd Roma n wr iters ca n ha rdly b e ov eresti

ma ted . A brief a ccount of his theory will illustra te

the type of teaching which Cicero is criticizing in the

de Ora tore .

Herm a gora s flourished a bout the middle of the

second century B .o .

5 Stoic influence wa s at the time

predominant in Greek thought, a nd Herma gora s

1 ibid . i . 94 ; ii . 1—4.

2 ibid . 11 . 75 Laurand , pp . 5 foll .3 ibid . iii . 70, 75 .

4 Quint . iii . 1 , 16 .

5 Thiele , p . 177 Susemihl , 11 , p . 472, n . 83.

3029 N

98 THE DE ORATORE

mus t ha ve studied under some tea cher of that school .

Stoic terminology is a ma rked featur e of a ll his

theory, a nd the Stoic ha bit of division a nd sub

division wa s a pplied by him in a ll its logica l com

pletenes s to the study of rhetoric . Cicero’s compla int

that Stoic theory neglected the practica l a spects of

ora tory in fa vour of a bstra ct definitions a nd sub

distinctions 1 is doubly true of Herma gora s . Aristotle

ha d ba sed his theory of rhetoric on a ca refu l induc

tion of wha t ha d been found u sefu l in the pra ctica l

work of ora tory . Herma gora s deduces his theory

from a n a bstra ct definition of the subject-ma tter

(Cn'

r rma )2 ca lcula tes with a lmost ma thema tica l

accura cy the exa ct pla ce for ea ch portion of the

speech ; can tell you where to put in a digression ,a nd where to make a n emotiona l a ppea l ; a nd has

little or nothing to s a y a bout the various types of

ora torica l style ?

The natural consequence of this theory wa s a

cha nge in the va lue set upon different kinds of

ora tory . Aristotle ha d divided ora tory into three

genera l types speeches in fa vour of or a ga inst

a future a ction (ov o eva v ) , Speeches in fa vour

of or a ga inst a past a ction (Saxa vcxév) , a nd Speeches

composed a s a display of ora tor ica l power (e’

m Seum

Epideictic ora tory is a s signed the lowest

pla ce, a nd Aristotle’s preferences are for the fir st of

the three types , with its grea ter opportunities for

1 de Or . ii . 159 Top . 6 .

2 Thiele , pp . 33foll .3 ibid . , pp . 84 foll . , 140 £0 11.4 Ar . Rhet. i . 3 Volkmann , pp . 16 £011.

100 THE DE ORATORE

the Ora tor , he is writing on the theory of litera ry

style, a nd Cicero well knew tha t he wa s the grea test

living ma ster of the a rt—pos s ibly the grea test tha t

ha s ever lived . Yet,stra nge to s a y , the Greek

technica lities which he so dis liked did more tha n his

litera ry style to sa ve his es says on rhetor ic from the

fa te of so much else tha t he wrote . A modern s chola r 1

has ca lculated tha t we ha ve lost in a ll nea rly fifty of

Cicero’s speeches,whole collections of his corre

Spondence , and such famous dia logues a s theHorten

s ius,the de Gloria , a nd , with the exception of a few

fra gments,the de Re publica . But the es s a ys on

rhetoric ha ve been preserved in their entirety : not

merely the de Ora tore, the Ora tor , a nd the Brutus ,b ut the youthful de Irwentione a nd such minor works

a s the Top ica , the P a rtitiones ora toria e, a nd the de

Op tima genere ora torum . And of them a ll none wa s

more rea d a nd commented tha n the s chool-boy

notes for which Cicero felt it neces sa ry to a pologize 2

precisely beca u se they reflected more fa ithfully tha n

a ny other of his trea tises the despised Texvoixoy ia of

the Greeks . Litera ture ha s her ironies a s well a s life .

4 . His tory , Law, a nd P hilosophy .

The les s on of my dia logue says Cicero in the de

Ora tore,‘

is tha t no m an ha s ever become a grea t

ora tor unless he ha s combined a tra ining in rhetoric

with a ll other bra nches of knowledge 3a nd a ga in,

even more clea rly In my opinion no one ca n hOpe

1 Zielinski , p . 131 .

2 Schanz , i .'

2, p . 402 Zielinski, p . 321 .

3 de Or. ii . 5 .

THE DE ORATORE 10 1

to be a n ora tor in the true sense of the word unles s

he ha s a cqu ired knowledge of a ll the science s a nd a ll

the great problems of life .

’ 1 Rhetoric is only a

subordina te pa rt of this univers a l programme, a nd

Cicero expres sly a pproves the a ttitude of Cr a ssus

in his di a logue,who neither wholly devoted himself

to the study of rhetoric a s do those who mea sure a ll

eloquence by its a rt, nor wholly rej ected it, a s s o

ma ny philosophers have done Cicero hims elf

rema ined a student of rhetoric a ll his life . As la te

a s 66 B .c ., when he held the cflice of pra etor, he wa s

still a pupil of M . Antonius Gnipho3a nd twenty

three yea rs la ter he ga ve priva te cla s ses in rhetoric

to the two con su ls of the yea r, Hirtiu s a nd Pansa ?

Rhetoric belongs thus to the politior huma nita s a s

well as to the puerilis institutio but of all the higher

studies recommended in the de Ora tore it is the lea st

important .

Since Cicero cla ims the whole field of knowledge

for his idea l ora tor,no precise definition of his

educa tiona l theory is possible . In the ea rly chapter

of his di a logu e he argues that,since a n orator must

be rea dy to spea k with knowledge a nd persuasive

power on every subj ect , he mu st be familia r with

rhetoric,ethics

,psychology, history, jur isprudence,

milita ry a nd na va l science, medicine and phys ical

sciences such a s geogra phy a nd a stronomy? The

ca ta logue is interrupted by a la ugh from one of the

bystanders, and Cicero pla inly feels the need of a n

1 ibid . i . 20, 72 .

2 ibid. i . 110 .

3 Suet . Gram . 7 Rhet. 1 .

4 Suet . Rhet. 1 .

5 de Or . i . 45- 73.

102 THE DE ORATORE

a pology : Hellenistic idea s of universa l culture look

well on paper, b ut the line must b e drawn somewhere

in pra ctica l life . And so, with a plea for the busy

Roma n who has to govern the world a s well a s write

speeches, he a nnounces his intention of dea ling only

with the subj ects which a re of pra ctica l importance

for judicia l a nd delibera tive ora tory? The course

of the dia logue ma kes it plain tha t these subj ects

a re principa lly three in number : history, juris

prudence, a nd philosophy . But the a rgument

as sumes throughout the dia logue tha t the future

ora tor ha s a lrea dy received the ‘ libera l educa tion

of a n ordina ry Roma n school-boy . Were I to tra in

a n ora tor sa ys Antoniu s in the second book, I

should begin by finding out the extent of his powers .

He wou ld need to ha ve studied litera ture for a while ,to ha ve been to s ome school a nd done some rea d

ing, and been ta ught the rules of rhetoric 2 Tha t is

a n excellent colloqu ia l definition of the puerilis

ins titutio .

Cicero was,

not the first Roma n to empha size the

educa tional va lue of history, a nd in pa rticula r of

na tiona l history . Ca to , who wrote out a history

with his own ha nd a nd in la rge cha ra cters for his

son’s use, spent the la st yea rs of his life writing

a history of Rome 3a nd the Roma n Republic

never la cked historians . Yet history wa s never

ta ught a s a s epa ra te subj ect in the Roma n schools .

This curious a noma ly is expla ined by the methods of

1 de Or . i . 21 .

2 ibid . ii . 85 .

3 P lut . Ca to ma ior , 20 Corn . N ep . Ca to , 3, 3.

104 THE DE ORATORE

mythology takes the pla ce of nationa l history in

ordina ry cla ss-work a t school , a nd the change

a ccounts in pa rt for the general dullness of la ter

La tin literature .

But the schools of litera ture were not wholly to

blame for this neglect of history . Wha t wa s la cking

in their curriculum might very well have been

supplied by the teachers of rhetoric , a nd P lotius

Ga llu s proved tha t interest in na tiona l history, even

in contempora ry politics, could be stimula ted by the

selection of good subj ects for declama tion . Here

a ga in the Greeks ha d given the lea d . Many of the

declama tions commonly in use a s school exercises

dea lt with incidents of Greek history, nota bly those

described by the grea t cla ssica l historia ns . The

overthrow of the tyra nts, the Persian wa rs, Cleon,Pericles a nd Alcibia des, Aeschines a nd Demosthenes,Alexa nder the Grea t : these were the fa vourite

topics a nd persona ges , a nd it wa s obvious ly easy to

combine such exercises with a n intell igent study of

Greek history ? But Roma n tea chers found it

ea sier to borrow tha n to imita te, a nd the preference

for Greek subj ects becomes more ma rked a s time

goes on . Cicero’s de Inventione, written a t a time

when the influence of Plotius Ga llus wa s still strong,shows both tendencies a t work . Many of his exemp la

a re borrowed dir ectly from Greek legend a nd history

Epaminonda s and Al exa nder a ppea r in compa ny

with Ajax, Cly temnestra, a nd Orestes ? But the

1 Kohl , pp . 8—89 .

2 de Inv . i . 11 , 18, 31 , 55, 69 , 93.

THE DE ORATORE 105

number of Roman subjects is even la rger . The

legend of the three Hora tii, the Samnite and Punic

wa rs , the wa r with Philip ofMa cedon, the destruction

of Carthage and Corinth , two incidents from the

Cimbric wa rs, the revolt of Fregella e , and a minor

campaign conducted by Cicero’s own pa tron ,L . Licinius Crassus, in 94 these a re typical

exemp la from his ea rlywork,1a nd the same principle of

selection is a pplied in the P a rtitiones ora toria e, written

in 54 or 53B . 0? Unfortuna tely Cicero’s example was

not followed by la ter tea chers of rhetoric : the tra di

tion of the La tini rhetores ends with Plotins Ga llus .

Cicero’s own interest in the study of history, and

his theory of historica l criticism , illustrate both the

merits a nd defects of Gra eco -Roman education .

To be ignorant of wha t ha ppened before you were

born he wr ites in the Ora tor , is to live the life of

a child for ever . For what is ma n’s life, unless woven

into the life of our a ncestors by the memory of past

deeds 3 And his pra ise of history in the de Ora tore

ha s become a commonpla ce witness of the ages,light of truth , life of tra dition

,teacher of life

messenger of a ntiqu ity so runs his litany of praise .

But his tory ha s a double va lue in his eyes it links

u s with the pa st, a nd it is invalu a ble as a store-house

of rhetorica l illu stra tions . An ora tor must know

a ll the countless lessons of antiquity he says in the

De ora tore5a nd in the Ora tor , the Brutus , and the

1 ibid . i . 1 1 , 17 ; ii . 52 , 72, 78 , 9 1 , 1 1 1 , 124, 171 .

2 P a rt. or . 104—6 .

3 Or . 120 ; 4 de Or . ii . 36 .

5 ibid . i . 18 , 201 .

3029

106 THE DE ORATORE

Hortens ius he stresses the va lue of na tiona l history

for the same purpose ?

Cicero ha s often been criticized for this pra gmatic

view of history, a nd ha s been made responsible for

the rhetorica l Sins of la ter Roma n historians? A s en

tence from the Brutus is sometimes quoted a s proof

conclu s ive of the cha rge . Cicero ha s just quoted the

dea th of Coriola nus a s a n example of na tiona l

ingratitude , a nd then hesitates because Atticus is

present, a nd he is not sure of his fa cts . No ma tter

s a ys Atticus a nd in a ny ca se there is no obj ection

to fa ls ifying history in rhetoric , for the s ake of a nea t

point .

’ 3 The words a re spoken ha lf jestingly in the

di a logue b ut Cicero’s critics have not a lways been

noted for their sense of humour a nd the ora tor’s

lea st words , even those spoken in a drama tic di a logue ,must be brought in judgement a ga inst him . Yet

Cicero’s theory of historical criticism is not fa r to

seek . The first rule of history he tells us in the

de Ora tore,‘ is to s a y nothing wilq y fa lse ; the

second,wilfu lly to suppress no truth a nd on these

founda tions he builds a theory of scientific criticism

which wou ld do credit to any modern University

profess or . An a ccura te knowledge of chronology and

geogra phy, due a ttention to the causes which under

lie superficia l phenomena , the laws of human

psychology,the sta nda rds of public mora lity a nd the

mora l influence of grea t persona lities all these

1 Or . 120 Brut. 322 Hortens . fr . 26 (Miiller ) .2 Peter , i, pp . 12 foll . ; Norden, pp . 81 foll . ; Schanz, i . 2,

p . 388 .

3 Brut. 42 .

108 THE DE ORATORE

historia ns with which he ha s prefa ced his de Legibus .

Even Ca to is too j ejune for his ta ste , a nd Coelius

Antipa ter too clumsy . We ha ve no historia n in

La tin litera ture is his fina l verdict ; a nd he ends

with a hint tha t he hims elf might yet live to wr ite

the cla ssica l history of Rome ? More tha n one of his

contempora ries sha red this hope , a nd Cornelius Nepos

mourned Cicero’s dea th a s the loss of a grea t

historian ? But the ora tor’s idea l historia n came

a genera tion la ter . Liv y’

s sta tely prefa ce , with its

cla im tha t Roman history is grea ter tha n the

history of a ny other Sta te, more venera ble a nd richer

in examples of huma n virtue exa ctly expres ses

Cicero’s thought : a nd Liv y’

s sober judgement ,brea dth of historica l per spective

,a nd highly-tra ined

litera ry sense a re dura ble proof tha t history ca n be

nea rly a llied to ora tory a nd yet rema in true to its

proper functions . After a ll, how many modern

historians a re a s well worth rea ding a s Livy

Cicero’s interest in Roma n jurisprudence is very

closely connected with his interes t in Roma n history.

In the de Ora tore this connexion is expres s ly s ta ted,a nd is linked with the names of Cicero’s ea rly pa trons ,L . Aeliu s Stilo a nd Q . Mucius Sca evola 4 in the

de Legibus , which begins with a digres sion on Roman

history, Sca evola is named a s the m an to whom

Cicero ma inly owed his interest in Roman law 5

Na tiona l pride is the inspiring motive of this double

interest .

1 de Leg . i . 5—8 .

2 Corn . N ep . ,fr . 26 (Ha lm) P lut . C'ic . 41 .

3 Livy , p ra ef. 11 .

4 de Or . i . 193.

5 de Leg. i . 13.

THE DE ORATORE 109

Let the philosophers ra ge a s they will s ays Cra s sus in thede Ora tore ; I give my opinion in spite of them . When due

a ttention is pa id to the origins and principles of our laws , a s inglecopy of the Twelve Ta b les ha s grea ter weight and a uthority th anthe lib ra ries of a ll the philosophers in the world . If a ll men ta kepride in their country , a s is their first duty , wha t mus t b e our

love and enthusia sm for a coun try which is the sole home ofva lour , empire , and true nob ility ? We a re a ll children of ourcountry . Tha t is rea son enough for b eing familia r with its

genius , its tra ditions , its civi liza tion b ut we may a lso feel suretha t our ances tors were a s wise in the framing of their laws a s inthe winning of this va s t Empire with a ll its resources .

’

And he goes on to compare the Twelve Ta bles with

the constitution s of Lycurgus,Dra co

, a nd Solon

bidding his rea ders rej oice in the contra st between

Roma n law a nd the confu s ed a nd a lmost laugha ble

a ttempts of other na tions ?

Ca n a n or a tor b e a ls o a jurist The question is

importa nt for Cicero’s educa tion a l theory, b ut no

very sa tis fa ctory a nswer ca n be found in the de

Ora tore . Two speeches of the dia logue dea l with this

problem one by Cra s sus , who fa vours a n extensive

s tudy of Roma n public a nd pr iva te law ,the other by

Anton ius , who ma inta ins tha t ora tory a nd juris

prudence a re s epa ra te s ciences, ea ch dema nding the

s tudy of a lifetime ? N o forma l solution is given to

the problem,but the whole structure of the de Ora tore

shows tha t Cicero’s sympa thies were with the

idea lism of Cra s sus . Antonius a ppea rs consistently

in the dia logue a s the type of a su cces sfu l a dvoca te

who owes his success entirely to na tura l ta lent he

a ffects a contempt for Greek cu lture , a nd boa sts

1 de Or . i . 195—7 .

2 ibid . i . 166—203, 234—55 .

1 10 THE DE ORATORE

openly tha t he ha s never ma de a serious study of

Roma n law ? Cra s sus, on the other ha nd, is repre

sented a s an a ccomplished lawyer, under the influence

of his fa ther-in-law,Sca evola Augur? The name a t

once suggests Cicero’s own experience, a nd there is

more tha n one hint in the de Ora tore tha t Cra s sus is

a n idea lized portra it of Cicero hims e lf? Ten yea rs

la ter, in the Brutus , Cicero ela bora ted the compa rison

in deta il,compa ring himself with Cra ssus a nd his

friend Servius Sulpicius with Scaevola Pontifex 4

a double compa rison which must ha ve been in

Cicero’s mind when wr iting the ea rlier dia logue , for

he there makes Cra ssus na rra te a n anecdote of

himself a nd Sca evola exa ctly pa rallel to his own

ha ndling of Su lpiciu s in the pro Murena ?

But Cra s sus is not a llowed to ha ve it a ll his own

wa y in the a rgument a bout lega l studi es, a nd it is

a fa ir conclus ion tha t Cicero himself a dmitted a

compromise a s poss ible . In his speech on the subj ect

Cra ssus pours s corn on the Greek cu stom of hiring

lega l advisers (wpa yna-rmo i) to do the research-work

neces s a ry for a sound lega l Opinion .

6 Antoniu s ta kes

him up on this point in hi s reply,and ha s no difficulty

in showing tha t the Roma n pra ctice of consu lting

eminent jur ists wa s based on t he s ame principle,differing only in the greater honour a ccorded to

profes s iona l lawyers by Roma n tradition? Cicero

1 de Or . 11 . 1—4 i . 172, 248 .

2 ibid . i . 40, 234 Brut. 145 .

3 Cf. for example de Or. i . 255 with de Leg. i . 1 1 4 Brut. 150 .

5 de Or . i . 242—3 Brut. 194—7 p roMa r. 23—9 .

6 ibid . i . 198 .

7 ibid. i . 250-3.

1 12 THE DE ORATORE

a s both ora tor a nd jurist, a nd the dis tinction between

the two profess ions becomes more a nd more ma rked

with the ever - increa sing complexity of Roman civil

a nd crimina l law .

5 . Cicero’

s theory of the doctus ora tor

Cicero’s plea tha t the true orator must a ls o be

a grea t jurist needs to b e qu a lified in the light of his

per sona l experience a nd the s ame is true of his

a rgument tha t grea t ora tory is imposs ible without

a study of philos ophy . Tha t a rgument is the

culmina ting point of his educa tiona l theory, a nd is

s ta ted by Cra ssu s in the third book of the de Ora tore ?

Ea rly in the dia logue Cra s sus ha d a lrea dy sta ted the

a rgument in br ief outline , a nd ha d stres sed in

pa rticula r the need for a ca reful study of psychology,ethics

,a nd politics phys ics a nd even dia lectics

could s a fely be neglected a s les s directly us eful for a n

ora tor ? Antonius makes a simila r cla im in the

s econd book, once more stres s ing ethics a nd politics

a s e s sentia l for the work of public ora tory? And

now in the third book Cra s sus re - sta tes the ca se for

philosophy with a ll the eloquence a t his comma nd .

The pith of the a rgument a s sta ted by Cra s sus in

his grea t speech m a y be summed up in a S ingle

phra s e . Ca to ha d given a famous counsel of perfec

tion to his s on Gra sp your ma tter, and the words

will come of themselves .

’ 4 Cicero’s a dvice is founded

on the s ame principle , b ut its wording illustra tes a ll

1 de Or . iii. 52—143.

2 ibid . i . 53—7 .

3 ibid . 11 . 65—70.

4 Ca to , apud Jul . Vict . in Rhet. La t. Min . , p . 374 (Ha lm) .

THE DE ORATORE 1 13

the difference between his theory of eloquence a nd

Ca to’s more primitive sta nda rds . Abunda nce of

ma tter wil l give a bunda nce of words 1 tha t prin

ciple is a t the root of a ll his educa tiona l theory,both in the de Ora tore a nd in the la ter dia logu es .

Psychology, ethics , politics , dia lectics, even phys ics

a ll these must be s tudied, not for their own worth ,b ut beca use without them an orator ma y often fa il

in the knowledge required for his pra ctica l work .

The choice of words , their proper pla ce, a nd rhythm

is ea sily lea rnt , or can be picked up without a ny

teaching . But the ma tter of oratory presents a va st

field, which the Greeks ha ve neglected a nd ha ve

thereby been the cause of ma king our young men

ignora nt even in their kn owledge2 Crassus main

ta ins that the proper function of philosophy is to

remedy this defect in an ora tor’s tra ining a nd the

wise men whom he chooses a s his ideal types of

culture are not Pla to , Aristotle, a nd Chrysippus, but

(stra nge a s sortment Themistocles,Pericles

,Thera

menes, Gorgia s , Thra syma chu s , a nd Isocra tes ?

This list of Greek names sugges ts tha t Cicero ,a ccordin g to his usual pra ctice, is borrowing from

some Greek source a nd a little la ter in the dia logue

Cra ssus a ctua lly uses a Greek term (noxm xot dimo oqboc) to describe these philosophic sta tesmen for

we ca n ha rdly ca ll them philosophers ? From wha t

Greek source is Cicero borrowing ‘

2 The question is

of pecu lia r interest, beca use this speech of Cra ssus

1 de Or . iii . 125 .

2 ibid . iii. 93.

3 ibid . iii . 59 .

4 ibid . iii . 109 .

3029

1 14 THE DE ORATORE

ma rks the culmina ting point of the de Ora tore and of

Cicero’s whole educa tiona l theory . Two German

schola rs have attempted a n answer, a nd the result

of their research appea rs to be solidly established ?

The whole trend of Cicero’s thought in the de Ora tore,his insistence on the idea l of a cultured ora tor (doctus

ora tor )2 who sha ll combine the excellences of both

ora tor a nd philosopher, suggests at once the influence

of the New Aca demy a s it had been recrea ted by

Arces ilau s a nd Ca rnea des . In the Ora tor , Cicero

ma kes the famous confession that his eloquence wa s

due to the groves of the Academy,not to those

workshops,the schools of rhetor ic 3

a nd in his

de Fa to he stresses the kinship between his idea l of

ora tory a nd the tea ching of the Academy ? These

confessions give point to a pa ssa ge in the de Ora tore

where Cotta , one of the minor persona ges in the

dia logue, brea ks the silence which ha s followed the

grea t speech of Cra ssus with the rema rk I do not

know wha t influence y ou have ha d on the others,but

you ha ve won me heart a nd sou l for the Aca demy .

’ 5

Can we go fa rther, and loca te more precisely the

Greek philosopher whom Cicero is following Cicero

ha d studied under two hea ds of the New Academy,Philo a nd Antiochus, and it is tempting to cla im one

or other a s the real a uthor of the theories which

Cicero a ttributes to Crassu s . But the evidence is not

conclus ive for either philosopher . One pa ssa ge in

1v on Arnim , pp . 102 foll . ; Kroll in Rhein . Mus ,

vol . lvi iipp . 552 foil . 2 de Or . iii. 143 Kroll , loc . cit.

3 Or . 12 .

4 de Fa to. 3.

5 de Or . iii. 145 .

116 THE DE ORATORE

supply us with ma teria l for our eloquence an ora tor others may

prefer to ca ll the ora tor whom I have defin ed a s uniting wisdomwith eloquence a philosopher . To me the name ma tters little ,provided it b e granted tha t pra ise is due neither to the man whoknows his ma tter b ut cannot give it expres sion for la ck of thea b ility to speak, nor to the man who is never a t a loss for wordsb ut ha s no informa tion to give . Certa inly, were I forced tochoose ,

I would prefer to b e wise and un ab le to speak than to b ea ta lka tive fool b ut when I am a sked wha t is the highes texcellence of a ll, I give the pa lm to the cultured ora tor (doctusora tor) . Grant me tha t such a man is a ls o a philosopher , and thecontroversy is a t an end . But if the dis tinction b e ma inta ined ,

then , s ince the perfect ora tor ha s a ll the philosopher’

s lea rning ,whilst knowledge of phi losophy does not a lways imply eloquence ,our a dvers a ries must a dmit a certa in inferiority . They re ject oure loquence , of cours e ; b ut it s eems to me b eyond di spute tha tora tory is capab le of a dding a certa in perfection to their s cience .

’ 1

A deta il of method to which Cra ssus refers in this

Speech is interesting in the light of Cicero’s own

practice . Ever since the da ys of Herma gora s , who

ha d divided the subj ect-matter of declama tion into

topics of a n a bstra ct na ture or theses and

topics of a more persona l chara cter (twodécrets)? the

former cla ss of topics ha d formed a sort of disputed

territory between the schools of rhetoric a nd the

schools of philosophy . Cicero gives us examples of

thes e theses in his de Inuentione : Is there a nygood save upr ight conduct Are the senses true

or fa lse Wha t is the sha pe of the world and the

s ize of the sun ‘

3 3 Hermagora s had cla imed for the

schools of rhetoric the right to teach such a bstra ct

subj ects a nd his claim had been resented by the

philosophers a s a n infringement of their tra ditiona l

1 de Or . iii . 142—3.

2 Thiele , pp . 27 foil. 3 de Inv . i . 8 .

THE DE ORATORE 1 17

rights ? In his de Inventione Cicero rej ects the cla im

of Herma gora s a s pretentious . He understa nds

neither the meaning of his own words nor the full

extent of his cla im a nd he a dds tha t he wou ld

sooner ta ke awa y from Herma gora s the right to

tea ch rhetoric tha n grant him the right to teach

philosophy?

Yet in the de Ora tore Crassus express ly includes the

practice of declaiming such abstra ct theses in his

programme of higher studies . At present he says,it is in use only among the Peripa tetics a nd in the

Aca demy, but the ancients , from whom we borrow

a ll our theory of ora tory a nd a ll our eloquence, us ed

it regula rly a nd he specia lly commends Philo for

his reviva l of the old pra ctice? There is here no rea l

cha nge from Cicero’s ea rlier teaching in the de

Inventione . Herma gora s is there condemned, not

beca use his abstra ct theses a re a b a d tra ining for

the future orator,but expressly beca us e of his own

la ck of culture and genera l educa tion . In the

de Ora tore Crassus a ssumes tha t theses will be

pra ctised under the guida nce of a philosopher like

Philo , or a t lea st of one who ha s studied philosophy.

Cicero is plainly thinking of his own pra ctice. In

a letter written to his brother only a yea r after the

publication of the de Ora tore he compares his method

of teaching with the methods of his nephew’s tutor,P a eonius ; and the epithet with whi ch he qua lifies

his own method (Herm air epov) is reminiscent of this

1 Plut . P omp . 42 ; Arnim, pp . 93£0 11. 2 de Inv. i . 8 .

3 de Or. iii . 107—8 , 110.

1 18 THE DE ORATORE

controversy ? It is amusing to note tha t Cicero’s

nephew found his uncle’s less ons dull , a nd preferred

the tutor’s livelier classes. The ora tor consoles him

s elf with the thought tha t he himself ha d passed

through the same sta ge,and tha t the young boy will

one da y b e a s good a philosopher a s his uncle. In the

mea ntime pra ctice in thes e semi-philosophica l theses

would b e us efu l a s a link between the study of

rhetoric and the study of philosophy ; a nd tha t is

precisely the purpose they serve in Cicero’s whole

educa tiona l theory. Cicero dr ives home this lesson,not only in the de Ora tore, but also in the Brutus ,the Topica , a nd the Tus cula n Disputa tions?

6 . Ciceronia n Hurna nita s

Litera ture, rhetor ic , history, law,philosophy

thes e a re the five studies without which Cicero’s idea l

of the doctus ora tor wou ld be incomplete. Later in

life , under the s tress of public calamities , Cicero

tended to la y grea ter empha sis on philosophy a s the

s ole mora l a nd intellectual gu ide for men a nd the

Hortens ius , in which Cicero himself ta kes the pla ce

held by Cra s su s in the de Ora tore, whilst Hortensiu s

pla ys the pa rt of Antonius, wa s wr itten to convey

this lesson. But the contra st between Cicero a nd

Hortensiu s is not the contra st suggested to our

modern thought by the words philosopher and

ora tor it is ra ther the contra st between a n ora tor

who lacks Cicero’s politior huma nita s a nd a man—ca ll

1ad Q. fr . iii . 3, 4.

2 Brut. 322 Top . 79—86 Tuso. i . 7 ii . 9 .

120 THE DE ORATORE

through a ll the dis cussions and digressions of the

de Ora tore, taking on countless sha des of mea ning

under the pla y of Cicero’s thought, b ut a lways

reca lling in its va rying use the fundamenta l idea of

huma n excellence which Cra ssus here expresses . To

b e a m an in a ll that is most human, a nd to be huma n

in one’s rela tions with a ll other men tha t is Cicero’s

ethical a nd socia l idea l, a nd his educa tiona l theory is

ba sed on the same principle . A phra se from a la ter

portion of the de Ora tore shows why this ideal

inevita bly led Cicero to formula te a programme of

studies which is as Greek a s it is Roma n We mu st

borrow our virtues from Rome a nd our cu lture from

Greece 1 those few words express in brief form the

whole of Cicero’s educational theory .

But the word huma nita s ha s a double interes t for

rea ders of the de Ora tore . Severa l modern critics

ha ve fa iled to find unity of thought or dr ama tic

con struction in the grea t ora tor’s fa vourite dia logue 2

a fa ilure which a rise s from their wr ong interpreta tion

of Cicero’s purpose in composing the dia logue . Some

ha ve interpreted the de Ora tore a s a n a tta ck on the

La tini rhetores 3 others a s a n a tta ck on Greek

tea chers of rhetoric 4 others a s a criticism of a ll

forms of rhetoric a s taught in Greek a nd Roman

schools? This la st view comes nea rest to the truth ,b ut is incomplete as an interpreta tion of the dialogue

1 de Or . iii . 137 .

2 Schanz , i . 2, p . 298 .

3 Ma rx, p . 141 Norden , i, p . 222 .

4 La urand , p . 1 1 , n . 1 , gives names .

5 ibid . pp . 1—12 Kroll in Teuflel (ed . i, p . 394.

THE DE ORATORE 121

a s a whole . Cicero’s obj ect is pos itive,not nega tive

he ha s a n idea l of his own to put forward, and tha t

idea l is best expres sed by the word huma na s . Once

this centra l thought is gra sped, the dramatic unity

of the dia logue becomes a ppa rent . The three books

of which it is composed represent three distinct

conversa tions held in the course of two da ys . During

the first conversa tion Crassus is represented a s the

idea l type of huma nita s , illustra ting the dua l meaning

of tha t elus ive word a s much by the courtesy of his

manner a s by the intellectua l refinement of his ta lk

his huma nita s in this double a spect is especia lly noted

by Cotta , the ima gina ry reporter of the conversa

tions ? Antonius , on the other ha nd, a ppea rs a s a

foil to Cra ssus in a ll this pa rt of the dia logue . He

boa sts openly of his la ck of educa tion, a nd is never

wea ry of insisting on the practica l needs of life. 2

Next morning a ll is cha nged. Antonius Opens his

discourse on rhetoric with a pra ise of oratory almost

identica l in its phra seology with the ea rlier speech

of Cra ssu s 3a nd his theory of rhetoric is in perfect

ha rmony with the principles expounded by Cra ssus

in the first a nd third books . Since Antonius is here

the principa l exponent of Cicero’s theory, the change

of front could ha rdly ha ve been a voided but Cicero

is too good a n a rtist to let it pa s s unnoticed. In a n

a dmira bly vivid prefa ce to the second book he

expla ins tha t Antonius a ffected in public a contempt

for all litera ry studies which he did not rea lly feel 4

1 de Or . i . 27 .

2 ibid . i . 80 9 5, 208 , 260—4.

3 ibid . ii . 33—8 = i . 30—4 .

4ibid . ii. 1—4.

3029

122 THE DE ORATORE

a nd a further explana tion is inserted in the dia logue

itself. Cra ssus, who has been listening to the Opening

Speech of Antonius, interrupts him with a gesture

of surpr ise : You ha ve been civilized over-night,Anton ius , a nd a re now a m a n (N ox te nobis , Antoni ,

expolivit hominemgue reddidit) a nd he goes on to

contra st his new a ttitude with the la ck of culture

(huma nita s ) which he ha d shown on the preceding

d a y? Cicero could hardly ha ve given a pla iner hint

a s to the inner mea ning of his dia logue. It is true

tha t Cra ssu s is represented throughout a s a n a dmirer

of a ll Greek studies,whilst Antonius is more con

cerned with the pra ctica l problem of success in the

forum a nd there is no forma l reconcilia tion of the

two views a t the end of the dia logue . But both men

a re un ited in their Opinion tha t cu lture—huma nita s

is essentia l to a ll grea t ora tory a nd to a ll proper

civic virtue. Both would ha ve a greed with the words

which Cicero puts into the mouth of Scipio in tha t

other dia logue which he planned a s the companion

piece to his de Ora tore We a re a ll ca lled men, but

only thos e of us a re men who ha ve been civilized by

the studies proper to culture (App ella ri ceteros

homines , es s e solos eos qui es sent politi propriis

huma nita tis a rtibus ) .2 All the tea ching of the de

Ora tore is conta ined in tha t phrase.1 de Or . ii . 40 .

2 de Rep . i . 28 .

124 REACTION AND ITS CAUSES

among whom Cicero wa s a nd knew himself to be

a nouus homo , reca lls the essentia lly Roma n cha ra cter

of their huma nita s .

Outs ide this exclu s ive Roma n a ristocra cy the

influence of Greek philosophy a nd Greek litera ture

wa s less potent the days of Ma r ius a nd his imita tor s

were definitely a t a n end . Ca es a r wa s now the

acknowledged head of the democra tic pa rty, a nd the

young men whom he ga thered round him—Ma rk

Antony, Dola b ella , Curio , Ca elius , a nd Sa llust , for

example—were very different from the men whose

interests ha d been ca tered for by Plotiu s Ga llus .

Nor wa s rhetoric the Only Greek study which ha d

increa sed its popula rity since the days of Ma r ius .

The first La tin text-books of philosophy were being

produced about this time, a nd it is worth noting

tha t the Epicurea ns were here firs t in the field ?

Cicero compla ins more than once of the ha rm which

their text-books were doing in ha lf-educa ted circles

but Lucretius , Virgil , a nd Hora ce, a ll of them ple

b eia ns by birth , a re no b a d specimens of Epicurean

tea ching?

The genera tiOn of Cicero a nd his contempora ries

merges a lmost imperceptibly into the Augustan a ge ,

and the culture of the grea t Augustans is in a sense the

a utumn of Ciceronia n huma nita s . Livy is perha ps the

best type of this new Ciceronia nism,with his reve

rence for Roman tra ditions and his quick responsive

1 Tusc. iv . 6 Aca d . i . 5 Schanz , i . 2, p . 339 .

2 Frank , pp . 48 foll . ; Norden in N eue Ja hrb . fur da s kla ss .

Altertum , v ol. vii, 1 p . 270.

REACTION AND ITS CAUSES 125

nes s to the Greek idea l. For Livy wa s not merely

a historia n. A keen student of both rhetoric a nd

philosophy, he wrote philosophica l dia logues which

Seneca describes a s more historica l tha n philo

Sophica l 1 and he dedica ted a n ess a y on rhetoric

to his son,with the advice tha t he should rema in

fa ithfu l to the tra ditions of Demosthenes a nd

Cicero? But the contra st between Liv y’

s ela bora te

periods a nd the more vigorous energy of Cicero’s

style is chara cteristic of a subtle cha nge in the mora l

atmosphere of Rome. For whilst Livy a nd Cicero

ha ve in common their love for Greek thought a nd

litera ture a nd their reverence for the glories of

a ncient Rome, the historian ha s learnt to look ba ck

on thes e glories a s a n achievement which ca n never be

repea ted ; turning more a nd more from the pres ent

to the pa st , a nd looking forwa rd to the future with

something more tha n the a pprehension of Cicero’s

la ter days . The same ha lf-conscious pessimism

is present even in the most confidently Optimis tic

pa ssa ges of Virgil’s Aeneid . Cicero died without

leaving a successor, a nd it wa s to be the same with

both Virgil a nd Livy.

Meanwhile a grea ter tha n Livy wa s using his

influence to ma inta in the traditions of Ciceronia n

huma nita s . In his life of Cicero , Plutarch tells a story

of the emperor Augustus which illustra tes the dea d

orator’s influence on the Augusta n a ge? Many years

1 Sen . Epp . 100 , 9 Hirzel , 11 , p . 21 .

2 Quint . x . 1 , 39 viii. 2, 18 .

3 Plut . C'ic . 49 Zielinski, pp . 9 foll .


a fter Cicero’s dea th one of the emperor’s gr ands ons

wa s reading a work by Cicero, possibly one of the

P hilipp ics . Augu stus entered unexpectedly and the

boy, sta rtled a t his a pproa ch, hid the book in the

folds of his tunic . Augustus ha d seen the movement

ta king the book from his grandson, he opened it and

stood reading for some time. Then he ha nded it ba ck

with the words : A great intellect, my child ; a

grea t intellect a nd a true pa triot. ’ The story ma y

be a n invention ; or , if true, m a y well ha ve been

circula ted by the emperor himself to make men

forget the manner of Cicero’s dea th . It is none the

less significant . Cicero’s influence could not be

ignored,lea st of a ll by the man responsible for his

murder.

And, a pa rt from memories of persona l a nta gonism,

the emperor’s Ciceroniani sm wa s no pose : his cul

ture wa s the true Ciceronia n huma nita s . A literary

purist in his style,he proba bly ha d studied in the

school of some Alexandr ia n gramma ticus a ll the

more so beca use his great-uncle, Ju lius Caesa r, wa s

a champion of the Ana logists ? His tea chers of

rhetoric , Suetoniu s tells us, were M. Epidius a nd

Apollodorus of Pergamon, one a Roma n, the other

a Greek ;2 and, ju st a s Cicero had made Diodotu s

his consta nt compa nion a nd a dviser,so Augu stus

kept his tutor Arius Didymus a nd his two sons

Dionysius a nd Nica nor, a s members of the imperia l

household ? Nor does the para llelism with Cicero end

1 Suet . Jul. 56 Oct. 8 .

2 ibid . Oct. 84, 89 Rhet. 1 , 4.

3 ibid. Oct. 89 Ga rdthausen , i . 1 , p . 50 ; iii. 1 , p . 1313.


ora torica l style, a nd must somehow or a nother ha ve

wounded Cicero’s vanity : for the mos t biting s a r

ca sm s in the Ora tor a re directed a ga inst the two

Atticist historia ns ? Pollio retorted by a n unspa ring

a tta ck on Cicero’s memory in his his tory of the civil

wa r s? a nd the feud wa s ca rried on by his son who

wrote a book on the subj ect ? A delightful scene

des cribed by the elder Seneca puts the whole episode

in its proper light . Mes s a lla , one of Pollio’

s riva ls

in the forum a nd hims elf a distinguished ora tor of

Cicero’s s chool, ha d invited Pollio to a recita tion in

his house. A Spa nish poet from Corduba wa s to rea d

a poem on Cicero’s dea th, a nd bega n his recita tion

with the pompou s hexameter

Oonticuit La tia e tristis fa cundia lingua e .

Pollio a t once got up from his s ea t a nd left the room .

You ma y do wha t you like in your own hous e ,Mes s a lla ,

’

he s a id , b ut I am not prepa red to listen

to a ma n who thinks me dumb .

’ 4

Pollio wa s a n influentia l persona ge in litera ry

circles , a nd his a nti-Ciceronia n a ttitude ma y ha ve

helped to turn the younger genera tion away from

Ciceronia n tra ditions ;5b ut the ca uses of rea ction

la y deeper . The fa ll of the Republic a nd the con se

quent loss of freedom in public life brought a bout

a sudden drop in Roma n tra ditions of citizen ship

which ca nnot be ignored , a nd new s ta nda rds a re

a ppa rent in Roma n educa tion a s in everything else.1 Or . 30—2 Zielinski, p . 33.

2 Sen . Sua s . 6 , 14, 24—5 .

3 Plin . Epp . v ii . 4, 3 Suet . Cla ud . 41 .

4Sen . Sua s . 6 , 27 .

5 Zielinski, pp . 33£011.


Our young men have grown s lothfu l s ays the e lder Seneca ,

writing a t the end of the Augustan age their ta lents a re leftidle , and there is not a single honoura b le occupa tion for whichthey will toil day and night . Slumb er and languor , and an

interest in evil which is wors e than s lumb er and languor , haveentered into men’

s hea rts . They s ing and dance and groweffemina te , and cur l their ha ir , and lea rn womanish tricks ofspeech : they a re a s languid a s women , and deck themselveswith un b ecoming ornaments . Which Of your contempora ries[he is a ddressing his three sons ] ha s any ta lent , any industryWhich of them is in any way a man Without strength , withou tenergy, they a dd nothing during life to the gifts with which theywere b orn , and then they compla in of their lot . God forb id tha tthe gift of eloquence should b e given to their like 1 1

The passa ge is rhetorica l, but Seneca is wr iting of

wha t he ha d s een a nd there is other evidence of the

same sort. It is perha ps forcing a point to ta ke the

contrast between Cicero’s student-da ys a nd the

student-da ys of his son a s typica l of the genera l

cha nge but the experience of father a nd son is so

curious ly modern tha t some a t least of the deta ils

mus t be quoted. They belong to a period more tha n

ha lf a century ea rlier than the da te of Seneca ’s

Controvers ia e.

Two yea rs before his dea th Cicero sent his son for

a couple of yea rs to Athens, there to study rhetoric

a nd philosophy, a s he himself had done. We still

ha ve the letters in which he a rra nges with Atticus

for a proper fina ncia l allowa nce to be paid his son

a t regu la r interva ls? See tha t he has everything he

wants the orator writes. I rega rd it as a question

1 Sen . Contr . i , p ra ef. 8—9 .

2a d Att. xii. 24 xiv . 7 , 2 ; 11 , 2 ; 17 , 5 ; xv . 15 , 4 ; xvi . l , 5 .

3029R


of our good name a nd dignity a s well a s a duty

y ou will a gree, I am sure. ’ 1 Then there is a n interva l

without news . The boy is not writing home, a nd

one of his tutors ha s s ent a n unsa tis fa ctory report

Cicero begins to think tha t he ha d better go over to

Athens himself ? The politica l situ a tion here cha nges

suddenly Cicero is ca lled to Rome, a nd the j ourney

is off? But his protests ha ve had their effect.

Young Ma rcus writes a t la s t to his fa ther such a n

a ffectiona te a nd elega ntly worded letter tha t his

fa ther is sure a ll must be well ? And Trebon ius,

a friend who ha s been to Athens , writes tha t Cicero’s

son is ha rd a t work , is the most pleasant young man

in a ll Athens , a nd is very anxious to make a trip to

As ia in compa ny with Trebonius a nd his tutor

Cra tippu s? Cicero’s correspondence wa s edited by

Tiro a fter the ora tor’s dea th , a nd Tire must ha ve

chuckled a s he a dded to the collection a letter which

he himself ha d received from Ma rcu s a few months

la ter. After a few words of tha nks for letters

rece ived by the last post , it continues a s follows

I am sure , my dea res t Tiro , tha t the reports a b out me whichrea ch you answer your b es t wishes a nd hopes . I will make themgood , and will do my b est tha t this b eginning of a good reportmay b e da ily repea ted . So you may with perfect confidencefulfil your promis e of b eing the trumpe te r Ofmy reputa tion . For

the errors of my youth have ca used me s o much remorse and

suffering tha t it is not only my hea rt tha t shrinks from wha t Idid—my very ea rs a b hor the mention of it. I know for a fa cttha t you have sha red my troub le and s orrow, and I don

’t wonder

1a d Att. xiv . 7 , 2 .

2 ibid . xiv . 16 , 3.

3 ibid. xv i . 7 , l .

4 ibid . xv . 16 17 , 2 .

5a d Fam. xii . 16 .

132 REACTION AND ITS‘

CAUSES

cla ss for which Cicero had written his de Ora tore

the idea l of the doctus ora tor lost ha lf its meaning

when public ora tory cea s ed to be a ma in fa ctor in

Roman politica l life . One symptom of the loss to

Roma n educa tion ca used by these cha nged circum

sta nces ha s often been overlooked. The old custom

of the tirocinium fori wa s a va lua ble element in

Roman education , even a s la te a s the end of the

Republic . Cicero himse lf ga ve others the benefit of

his experience in this wa y , a nd young Ca eliu s wa s

one of those who got their first lessons in politica l

life from the grea t ora tor ? But the fa ll of the

Republic made the tirocinium for i a n idle pretence,

for the forum wa s now no longer the centre ofRoma n

life . Its pla ce wa s ta ken by a ceremon ia l entry on

public life,a ppa rently connected with the putting

on of the toga virilis . Augustu s, a cons erva tive in a ll

externa ls , ma de much of this ceremony, a nd ha d

himself nomina ted consu l for the two yea rs in which

he introduced his grandsons , Ga iu s a nd Lu cius , to

the forum ? Tiberiu s went through the s ame cere

mony for his son Dru sus,3 a nd Cla udius ma de Nero’s

tirocinium fori the occa sion of a la rgess to the

people and the a rmy ? Nor wa s the ceremony con

fined to the imperia l family, for Seneca mentions it

a s a regu la r fea ture of Roman life .

5But it wa s

a ceremony, a nd no more. In his Dia logue on

Ora tors Ta citus spea ks of the Old cu stom a s a thing

of the pa st.

1 Cic . p ro a l. 9 .

2 Suet . Oct. 26 Mon . Anc. 3, 3.

3 ibid . Tib . 15 .

4 ibid . N ero, 7 .

5 Sen . Epp . 4,2 .


In the days of our ancestors he s ays , if a young man wa s

b eing prepa red for the forum and pub lic ora tory , once he ha db een given the ordina ry home -educa tion and had ma stered a ll

the lib era l a rts (honesta studia ) , he wa s b rought b y his fa ther or

his rela tives to the mos t distinguished ora tor in Rome . By

following him a b out and mixing with his company the young man

ha d an opportunity of listening to a ll his speeches in the lawcourts or a t a pub lic meeting ; and b y hea ring his pa tron ina deb a te or fighting a lega l ca se he lea rnt how to b ear himself inthe fray .

’ 1

Tacitus goes on to expla in a ll the advantages such

a system ha d for a young man who wished to be a n

ora tor there was the a dded advanta ge of associa tion

with some of Rome’s lea ding c itizens . The new

tirocinium fori la cked this element Of personal con

tact. In the a llusion which Seneca ma kes to the

custom , he talks of the young ma n’s pride in his new

sta te, but there is not a word a bout the pa tron who

performed the ceremony of introduction 2a s ignifi

cant contrast with Cicero’s remini scences of the

Sca ev ola e .

3 Those who wa nted to learn from the

lea ding Spea kers in the forum were thus thrown back

on the ir own resources , a nd it became a custom for

students of rhetoric to go down themselves to the

forum a nd listen to whatever speech attra cted their

a ttention . Quintilia n commends this pra ctice in his

Ins titutio ora toria4

a nd Tacitus has a vivid

description of these young s tudents, note-book in

ha nd, ea ger to s cribble down a ny particularly

brilliant s ententia or point out to foreign vis itors their

fa vourite orator ? Ta citu s himself listened as a

1 Ta c . Dia l. 34.

2 Sen . Epp . 4, 2 .

3 Cic . de Am . 1 .

4 Quint . x . 5 , 19 .

5 Ta c . Dia l. 20, 7 , 10 .


s tudent to Aper, whom he was la ter to immorta lize

in his Dia logue, and visited him in his home1a nd

Pliny was among the young men who crowded to

hea r the s ta tely ora tory of Tacitus? But neither

Ta citus nor Pliny received tha t intima te persona l

gu ida nce which Cicero owed to the two Sca ev ola e .

2. N ew E lements in Roma n S ociety .

The students whom Tacitus describes in his

Dia logue were ma inly visitors from the provinces ,most of them from Ga ul and Spain 3

a nd the fa ct

is Significant of a va st cha nge tha t wa s taking pla ce

in Roma n society under the ea rly Empire. In a

famous pa ssage of his Anna ls Ta citus ha s a na lysed

this socia l change , a nd ha s described the variou s

elements which were ra pidly repla cing the Old Roman

a ristocratic families in the sena te a nd a s officers of

the imperia l admin istra tion ? Two ma in types ca n

be distinguished, ea ch with its own pa rticula r needs

in the sphere of educa tion the members Of obs cure

Roman or Ita lian families who by good luck or by

ha rd work a s Ta citus phra ses it—ha d won a n

honoura ble pla ce in the new régime ; a nd a n ih

crea s ingly la rge body of ta lented provincia ls, to

whom the imperia l policy ga ve opportunities of

public s ervice which ha d been denied by the more

cons erva tive sta tesmen of the Republic . Both types

a re best studied in concrete examples .

1 Ta c . Dia l. 2 .

2 Plin . Epp . vn . 20, 4 11 . 1 1 , 17 .

3 Ta o . Dia l. 10, 20 .

4 Ta c . Ann . iii . 55 .

136 REACTION AN D ITS CAUSES

tha t to the end of his life Vespasian never got rid of

his country accent ? Yet somewhere or other he ha d

been to school with a Greek gramma ticus , for later in

life he surprised his courtiers by the readiness with

which he could quote Homer a nd Menander?

Poss ibly his mother’s relatives ha d sent him to

school at Rome : j ust as Hora ce’s freedma n father

brought his boy up to the city from Venusia and sent

him to a school where he lea rnt lessons which any

Roma n knight or sena tor might tea ch his children

Tha t is all we know but the regula r age for taking

a commission as tribuna s militum wa s eighteen? a nd

once begun Vespasian’s Official career wa s never

interrupted.

Good luck and hard work were both conspicuous in

Vespa sia n’s career, but he is the type of hundr eds of

other civil servants a nd military men whose names

have perished, or have survived only on some officia l

inscription. The younger Pliny’s correspondents ,with their endless ta lk of culture and litera ry

criticism,were the sons a nd grandsons of men like

Vespa sia n some of them , like Terentius Junior

whom Pliny visited a t his fa rm one day a nd found

full of interest in Greek literature? were themselves

retir ed civil serva nts with records not unlike

Vespa s ian’s before the yea r of the four emperors .

And it is Pliny who makes the rema rk How ma ny

well-rea d men are forgotten by the world, thanks to

1 Suet. Vesp . 22.

2 ibid . 23.

3 Hor . Serm. i . 6 , 77 .

4 Cagna t in Da remb erg-Saglio , iii. 2, p . 1053.

5 Pliny , Epp . v ii . 25 .


their modesty and retiring life"1 One other

sentence from Pliny’s correspondence is worth

quoting for the experience which it reflects . My

young friend he writes in a letter of introduction,

‘ is of a n excellent family and ha s a ll the talents

needed for success : he is fond of s tudy, like most

poor men.

’ 2 Cicero’s fa ther might have introdu ced

his son to Sca evola with the same words.

The imperia l civil service, which usua lly implied

s ervice a s an officer in the army, wa s perha ps the

surest road to success under the ea rly Empire .

Nowa da ys we Should na turally a dd the lea rned

profes sions,but Roma n society looked down on

doctors a nd schoolmasters a s semi-servile profess ions .

Greek opinion was much the same. If there were

no doctors said a witty Greek proverb , there

would b e no grea ter fool than a schoolma ster 3a nd

the two profes sions were for the most pa rt left to

Greek freedmen . Make your son an a uctioneer or

a n a rchitect ra ther than a schoolma ster says

Ma rtia l to a Roman pa rent 4a nd Juv ena l a ssocia te s

doctors a nd schoolmasters with pa inters , attenda nts

a t the public ba ths, fortune-tellers, a nd tight-rope

da ncers ? There remained the lega l profession with

its va rious branches ; the a dvocate (pa tronus ,a dvoca tus , or ca us idicus ) , the nota ry (nota rius ) , the

lawyer (pra gma ticus ) who got up the lega l fa cts for

the a dvocate, and the a ssista nt-ma gistrate (a s s es sor )

1 ibid . v 11 . 25 , 1 .

2 ibid . v u. 22 , 2 .

3 Athena eus , xv . 666 A Blumner , p . 476 .

4 Ma rt . v . 56 .

5 Juv . iii. 76 .

9 029


who s a t with the praetor or governor in the courts ?

Under the Empire this wa s the fa vourite , a s well a s

the most specia lized, lea rned profess ion ; a nd a

conventional declama tio in the schools of rhetoric ,ha rdly less trite tha n the compa rison between town

life a nd country-life , was the choice between life

a s a lawyer or soldier ?

Those who wished to devote their lives to a s erious

study of law a ttended a regular cours e of lectures

given in public by s ome distinguished iurisperitus ?

Under the Empire recognized schools of law came

into existence, not only in Rome but a lso in the

provinces, notably a t Berytus in Phoenicia . At

Rome the two most famous schools were the Sa b iniani

a nd the Proculiani, and the Digest gives a list of the

succes sive hea ds of ea ch school, beginning with

Ateius Ca pito a ndAntistius La beo .

4 But these schools

were a ttended for themost part by students who hoped

to become in turn e ither a s ses sores or iurisperiti, both

of them highly specia lized professions . The more

ambitiou s preferred the career of a dvocate in the

courts, where reputa tions were more easily made.

N O special studies were needed for this career, no

ta lent sa ve the artificial eloquence of the period for

the pragma ticus was a lways a t ha nd with his lega l

notes on the case, a nd the universa l ha bit of bribing

both judge a nd a dvoca te made the profession

1 Friedla ender , i , pp . 185 foll . (i, p .

2 Quint . ii . 4, 24 .

3 Bremer , pp . 7 foll .4 Dig. ii . 1 , 2, 47 foll . Bremer , pp , 68 £0 11.


but a reviva l of the Obsolete sa nction would pla ce an

unj ust premium on the posses s ion of priva te means .

Claudius took the democra tic s ide, and contented

himself with pla cing a rea sona ble limit on the fees a n

a dvoca te might receive a nd in Spite of a n attempt

ma de by Nero to revive the less Oincia in the firs t

yea r of his reign, this compromis e rema ined a

permanent pa rt of Roman law ? A generation la ter

Qu intilian boa sts tha t no more honoura ble profession

tha n the a dvoca te’s is to be found in Rome .2

This professiona l cla ss of which Ta citus a nd

Qu intilia n spea k wa s not the only new element in

Roma n society under the ea rly Empire . So fanta stic

a re the s tories told by Ta citus , Suetoniu s, Ma rtia l,a nd Juv ena l of the freedmen who ma de their fortunes

under Tiber ius , Cla udius , a nd Nero tha t one hesita tes

before counting thes e men a s a norma l element of a nys ociety. Yet the evidence of such ins criptions a s

ha ve been collected a nd cla s s ified shows tha t the

despis ed freedma n, usu a lly of Ea stern des cent, wa s

stea dily coming to the front in Roman society,even

a s ea rly a s the firs t century A . D .

3 And no a ccount

of Roman life under the early Empire is complete

without the evidence of Petroniu s. One of Trima l

chio’s boon-companions a irs his views on educa tion

in a speech which deserves to be quoted in full .

Atea cher Of rhetoric is present a t the famou s banquet,

1 Ta c . Ann . xiii . 5 Plin . Epp . v . 9 4 ; Dig. i . 13, 1 , 10

13 xviii . 1 , 7 .

2 Quint . xii . 7 , 10 .

3 See a n a b le a rticle b y Prof. Tenney Frank on Ra ce Mixturein the Roman Empire (Amer . Hist. Review pp . 689


a nd the speaker has been irrita ted by the s chool

master’s sneers at the bad Latin he wa s hearing a ll

round him ?

You think I’m an old cha tterb ox , Agamemnon b ut whydon’t you answer me , you who

’ve b een taught to make speechesYou ’

re not one of us , and tha t’

s why y ou la ugh a t us poor folkwhen we open our mouths . We a ll know you ’

re ma d on b ooks .

But come over to my fa rm s ome day , and I’ll Show you my little

cottage . You ’ll get s omething to ea t there chickens , eggs , s ome

thing worth ea ting , even though the wea ther ha s turned everything topsy-turvy this yea r . And I

’

v e got a young b oy whowould make a good pupil for you . He ha s lea rnt s imple divisiona lrea dy, and you may ha ve him a s a servant-b oy yet, if he lives .

For he never ha s his hea d out of a b ook, if y ou give him a minuteto spa re . He

’

s clever a nd a good la d , b ut he’

s cra zy on b ird s .

I’

v e k illed three of his goldfinches a lrea dy, and told him it wa s

the wea sel tha t a te them . But now he’

s got a new fa d and willdo nothing b ut pa int . However , he ha s b egun hi s Greek a t la st ,a nd is b eginning to like his La tin , though his ma ster is a conceitedfellow who is never quiet a t a ny job I give him , b ut comes and

a sks for s omething to copy , and then won ’t do his own work .

I’

v e got a nother b oy too , b ut he’

s no s chola r . He’

s anxious tolea rn ,

however , and is getting a long fa s ter than he thinks . He

comes home every holida y a nd take s wha tever y ou give him .

SO I’

v e b ought the la d s ome of those red -letter b ooks , for I wa nthim to lea rn s ome law and b e a b le to keep hims elf. Tha t ’

s

the job tha t pays . For he’

s got educa tion enough for hi s a ge .

If he cries Off, I’

v e ma de up my mind to tea ch him a tra de .

We’ll make him a b a rb er or an a uctioneer , or a t the wors t an

a dvoca te . Then he ’

s s a fe for life . So I keep te lling him everyd ay Believe me , my b oy , wha tever you lea rn is a ll for the good .

Look a t the a dvoca te Phileros . If he ha dn ’t lea rnt his lessons ,he

’

d go hungry tod ay . It ’s not so long Since he wa s ca rryings a cks to ma rket on his b a ck, and now he

’

s a b le to hold hi s owna ga inst Norb anus . Educa tion is a gold -mine , my b oy , and a tra des ticks to y ou for life .

’

The la st phra se deserves to be quoted in the origina l

1 Petron . S a t. 46 .


Littera e thes a urum est, et a rtificium nunquam

moritur. ’ It is a fitting counterpa rt to Trima lchio’

s

self-chosen epitaph He bega n life a s a poor man ,died a millionaire, a nd never listened to a lecture on

philosophy.

’ 1

None of thes e new elements in Roma n society wa s

likely to find Cicero’s politior huma nita s a pra ctica ble

idea l. But the a dmission of men from the provinces

to a full sha re in the politica l a nd socia l life of Rome

ha d a n even more decis ive influence on the future

cha ra cter of Roman educa tion. The term pro

v incia l is not very easy to define, for it covers

citizens from the older Roma n colonies in the

provinces a s well a s Ga uls and Spania rds whose

fa thers or grandfa thers ha d fought a ga inst Rome.

As a rule we know no more of a provincia l ’ than

the town at which he wa s born . The Seneca s, for

example , a nd Porcius La tro came from Corduba ,Qu intilian from Ca la gurr is , Ma rtial from Bilb ilis , a nd

Domitius Afer from N em a usu s ; b ut tha t is a ll we

know. Sometimes we know even less M . Aper,for

example , wa s a Ga ul , but his birthpla ce is unknown .

Genera liza tions where so little is certa in a re not very

trustworthy, but Ta citu s expressly names the new

men (noui homines ) from the municipa lities a nd

colon ies a nd even the provinces a s a chief fa ctor in

the new s ocia l life of Rome they brought with

them he says , the fruga l habits of their homes, a nd

kept the old spirit even when, by good luck or ha rd

work , they ha d a cquired wea lth for their Old a ge .

’ 2


2 Ta c . Ann . iii . 55 .


Spa in ha s an even more distinguished list, a nd it

is interesting to note the Roma n menta lity of thes e

Spanish a uthors . Quintilian, for example, who

wa s born in Spa in a nd had begun his work a s teacher

a nd a dvoca te there, quotes a Latin word—gurda swith the remark I am told that this word, which

is vulga rly used instead of s tolidus , is of Spa ni sh

origin.

’ 1 And Ma rtia l’s pra ise of Bilb ilis shows tha t

his birthpla ce wa s a n entirely Latin town ;2 whilst

the verses he sends to a lady-friend, Ma rcella , who

ha d presented him with a comforta ble esta te in

Bilb ilis , a re delightfu l in their snobbery. Who

would think tha t you live in a Spanish town he

writes to her, or that you were born in su ch sur

roundings ‘

2 Your taste is so ra re, SO exquisite, tha t

no la dy born in the Suburra or on the Ca pitoline is

your riva l.’ 3 Poor Ma rcella must ha ve worked ha rd

to earn tha t praise, if it wa s her due : for Cicero

pokes fun a t the Latin of Corduba ,4 a nd Porciu s

La tro , a na tive of tha t town , could never get rid of

his Spa nish s tyle ? But Seneca , Qu intili an , a nd

Ma rtia l a ll write La tin a s to the manner born, a nd

many of their countrymen must ha ve envied them

their os La tinum, to use Pliny’s phra se ? For no

province wa s more ea ger than Spa in to a cquire

Roman habits ; a nd Pliny notes the Spani sh reputa

tion for a peculia rly Roman qua lity, gra vita s .

7

1 Quint . i . 5 , 57 s ee a ls o , i . 5 , 8 .

2 Ma rt . i , 61 xii. 18 .

3 ibid. xii . 21 , 31 .

4 Cic . p ro Arch . 26 .

5 Sen . Sua s . 6 , 27 Contr . i , p ra ef. 16 .

6 Pliny, Epp . v i . 11 , 2 .

7 ibid ii . 13, 4 .


The other tendency which cha ra cterizes a lmost a ll

these provincia l writers is a pa s sion for rhetor ic and

here the phenomenon is less ea sily expla ined.

Possibly it was their la ck of ma stery over the finer

ca dences of La tin vers e a nd prose ; for rhetoric is

the most obvious of litera ry forms , a nd the most

ea sily acqu ired. But , wha tever the ca u se, there ca n

be no mista king the genera l drift of La tin litera ture

a t this period. Seneca, Lucan, Persius, Statius ,Porciu s La tro, a nd the whole tribe of rhetores these

a re the outsta nding names, a nd they a re one a nd a ll

monotonous in their declama tory vehemence. The

greatest of them a re Spania rds, a nd a genera liza tion

is ea s ily ma de. But there were other decla imers as

well a s they, a nd one name is sufficient to redeem the

province’s reputa tion. Quintilian wa s a Spa nia rd ,a nd his Ins titutio ora toria conta ins the sa nest

criticism ever wr itten of a ll this new-fangled rhetoric .

3. Educa tion of the Lower Cla s s es .

Modern experience would suggest that a genera tion

which s aw the transition from a conserva tive

aristocracy to a society ma inly composed of the

profes siona l middle-cla ss wou ld be noted for its

pra ctica l sta nda rds of education. Yet Cicero’s

politior huma nita s is less academic tha n the e’

y xtm o s

wa cBeia of Vitruvius a nd Qu intilia n, a nd there is no

tra ce of a s truggle between wha t we Should now ca ll

the Huma nist tra dition a nd any more s cientific

type of school studies . Even in Hellenistic Greece,3029

T


where the scientific Spirit wa s incompa ra bly more

vigorous tha n it ever wa s under the Roma n Empire ,Greek instincts for order a nd ha rmony kept the mere

thirst for knowledge in check ; a nd the e’

ymiKAcog

n a cSeia described by Qu intilia n is essentia lly Hel

lenistic in its origin a nd spirit. In Rome the

scientific Spirit wa s never strong. Gramma r a nd

jurisprudence a re the only two s ciences in which

Roman s chola rs did origina l work, a nd even here

their work wa s directly inspired by Helleni stic

s chola rship a nd Hellenistic philosophy. As for the

ma thema tica l a nd a pplied sciences, Pliny’s N a tura l

His tory a nd Seneca ’s Qua es tiones na tura les Show how

fa r the Roma ns were from origina l research-work in

thes e fields . N0 Roma n writer ever thought of

giving his public more tha n a popu la r a ccount of

Greek scientific theories a nd dis coveries the Roma n

Empire never produced a s cientific discovery tha t

ha s been of perma nent u s e to mankind. Architecture

is the one branch of a pplied ma thema tics in which

they Showed rea l genius y et Roma n a rchitects were

a lwa ys dependent on Greek theory for their pra ctica l

work . Vitruvius , whos e own work is merely a n

inte lligent compila tion from ea rlier Greek s ources,compla ins tha t the Roma ns ha d produced no tech

nica l litera ture of their profes sion compa ra ble in bulk

or qu a lity with the text-books of Greek specia lists .

1

Vitruviu s tells u s in his prefa ce tha t he is writing

as a n a rchitect for a rchitects? a nd the statement1 Vitruv . v u , p ra ef. 14 Schanz , 11 . 1 , p . 539 .

3 Vitruv . i . 1 , 18 .


he says , is composed of two elements , pra ctice (opus )a nd theory (ra tiocina tio) . The former is peculia r to

tra ined Specia lists in ea ch s cience ; the latter is

common to a ll educa ted men 1 This is the

pr inciple which underlies Cicero’s theory of the

doctus ora tor , and it is no chance coincidence tha t

Vitruviu s repea ts in this context a nother of Cicero’s

fa vour ite theories, that a ll the s ciences (a rtes ) a re

linked together in one va st system? Cicero wa s

a specia list in his own profession a s well a s a ma n of

un iversal cu lture a nd tha t is precisely wha t Vitru

v ius means by his encyclios dis cip lina . He hims elf

wa s no mere theorist, b ut a pra ctica l bus iness ma n ,

who ha d received a good technical tra ining in his

profession a nd ha d Since then a cqu ired considera ble

pers ona l exper ience ? The conclus ion would seem

to b e obvious tha t the theory of educa tion which he

propounds wa s common to men of his type. Not

tha t a ll a rchitects were a s well educa ted a s Vitruvius ,a ny more tha n a ll ora tors were a s well educa ted a s

Cicero . But the e’

ymixxtog n a cSeia wa s pla in ly a n

a ccepted s ta nda rd Of educa tion a purely profes

sioua l educa tion would ha ve been considered

illibera l

In his de Ofiiciis Cicero ranks a rchitecture (which

for the Roma ns included engineering) together with

medicine a nd school-ma stering a s benea th the libera l

professions, b ut a bove such s ordid tra des a s

1 Vitruv . i . 1 , 15 .

2 Ibid . i . 1 , 12 Cic . de Or . iii . 21 s ee a b ove , p . 89 .

3 Vitruv . i . 1, 2 ; iv . 3, 3; v i , p ra ef. 4 ; x . 1 1 , 2 .


cooking, da ncing, shopkeeping, a nd a ll forms of

manua l la bour.1 Thi s cla ssifica tion helps to define

the va rious gra des into which the new Roma n

s ociety wa s divided by socia l convention . The grea t

ma ss of the Roma n people were enga ged in one or

other of the sordid trades which Cicero despised

for most of them the elementary schools of reading

writing, a nd a rithmetic were more tha n sufficient .

My pa rents were poor,ignora nt folk says a

cobbler in one of Ma rtia l’s epigrams who ta ught

me the A B C themselves. Wha t ha ve I to do with

s chools of litera ture a nd rhetoric 2 And one of

the guests a t Trima lchio’

s ta ble boa sts tha t he ha s

not lea rnt geometry a nd litera ture a nd a ll the rest

of that sort of nonsense, b ut ca n rea d the letters on

a n ins cription , knows his weights a nd mea sures , a nd

ca n a dd up a ny sum Seneca ca lls such a n educa

tion s ervile b utmany a free-born citizen proba bly

got no further.

The more reputa ble professions mentioned by

Cicero—medicine,engineering

, a nd a rchitecture

dema nded a higher sta nda rd of educa tion. The

ency clics discip lina deta iled by Vitruvius is too va gue

to b e a sur e gu ide but some form of genera l

educa tion wa s pla inly considered essentia l . Vitruviu s

includes philosophy and law in his list, a nd omits

rhetoric . The omis sion is curiou s, though Vitruvius

s ays nothing to expla in it. Possibly the course of

rhetoric which Cicero includes in his norma l puerilis

1 Cic . de Ofi . i . 151 .

2 Ma rt . ix . 73, 7 .

3 Petron . Sa t. 58 .

4 Sen . de Tran . a n . 9 , 5 .


ins titutio wa s not thought necess a ry for a pra ctica l

profess ion such a s a rchitecture ; b ut tha t is only

a guess. Most architects a nd doctors proba bly went

a t lea st to the s chools of the gramma ticus a nd the

geometres . When Vitruvius says tha t some of his

profession were illitera te (s ine litteris ) ,1 he must

mea n tha t they ha d not been to a school of litera ture

a nd Ga len compla ins a century la ter tha t medica l

qua cks were going a bout the country who cou ld

ba rely read a nd wr ite ?

Cicero ends his cla ssifica tion of the sordid and

libera l professions with the rema rk : Of money

ma king professions none is better, more fru itfu l,more plea sant a nd more worthy of a free ma n than

a griculture .

’ 3 This praise of agriculture,coming

from such a lover of the city, sounds somewha t

conventiona l. Columella , who wa s a fa rmer by

profession a s well a s by choice, ha s a different story

to tell, a nd his comment bea rs directly on the history

of Roman educa tion . He ha s been speaking of the

stea dy decline in a griculture during the preceding

hundred yea rs , a nd this is his a na lys is of its cause.

We should b lame ours elves for our mi sfortunes , not na tureor the clima te . Our forefa thers gave their b es t men a nd theirb es t energies to the work of a griculture , b ut we lea ve it a ll to ourwors t s laves , a s though it were work fit only for the pub licexecutioner . We a re men of s trange ha b its . When we want tolea rn ora tory, we a re ca reful to imita te the b es t ora tor . We goto s chool to lea rn our weights and mea sures . We s tudy music ,

1 Vitruv . i . 1 , 2 .

2 Ga len , de P rop r . libr . 9 Friedla ender , i , p . 192 (i, p .

3 Cic . de Off. i . 151 .


best, such tena nts must ha ve been without that pride

in work done on their own fa rm which is so pla in in

the writings of Ca to and Va rro . The Roman sta te

ha d definitely pa s sed from the days of citizen

fa rmers a nd farmer-soldiers to the specia liza tion and

centra liza tion inevita ble in a more a dva nced sta ge

of s ocia l development . Rome was now the centre of

a grea t Empire and Roma n society had perforce to

a dapt its elf to cha nged conditions . Columella ’s is

the only voice ra ised in protest a ga inst the litera ry

educa tion which this new society ha d a dopted a nd

his protest is not a gainst the éymixk ios wa cSei’

a a s

such , but a ga inst the exclusion of agriculture from

the cycle of a rtes libera les .

VIII

THE NEW RHETORIC

N on vita e , s ed s chola e dis cimus .

’

Sen . Epp . 106 , 12 .

1 . Virgil a nd Hora ce in the S chools .

THE list of a rtes libera les given by Vitruvius shows

tha t the encyclic programme wa s as indefinite in

his da y a s in the days of Cicero a nd Va rro . Optics

certa inly a nd drawing most proba bly were a dded by

the a rchitect for professiona l rea sons his tory shou ld

be counted a s pa rt of litera ture. This reduces the

list to eight, a nd the a ddition of rhetoric , universa lly

recognized as a n a rs and pa rt of the encyclic

programme, brings the number to the nine mentioned

by Cicero and Varro . But the a bsence of allusions

to the work done by teachers of mus ic and mathe

maties shows that litera ture, rhetoric , and philosophy

were still the most important items of the programme.

And here the evidence is abundant .

In theory a t lea st the s chools of litera ture con

tinued to do the work des cribed by Cicero in his

de Ora tore.

1 Seneca’s description of the work done

by a gramma ticus is a lmost identica l with Cicero’s

The gramma ticus is concerned with correctness of

speech with history, too , if he wishes to extend his

doma in ; and , a t the very furthes t,with poetry.

’ 2

1 Cic . de Or . i . 187 .

2 Son . Epp . 88 , 3.

3029

154 THE NEW RHETORIC

Allowing for the contempt which Seneca a ffects here

and ‘ els ewhere 1 when speaking of the gramma tici ,these a re the very functions a scribed by Cicero to the

teacher of literature. But litera ture is more depen

dent tha n a ny other subject Ou the medium in which

it is taught and the text-books used ; and the genera

tion which ha d lived since Cicero’s dea th ha d changed

the whole cha ra cter of Roma n litera ry education.

Suetonius sa ys tha t it was Q . Ca ecilius Epirota, a

freedman of Cicero’s friend Atticus and an intima te

friend of the poet Cornelius Ga llus, who first com

mented in cla ss on the works of Virgil a nd the other

Augustan poets ? It would be hard to exa ggera te the

importa nce of this step . Hitherto the Roman schools

of litera ture ha d taken their sta nda rds of excellence

from Greek a uthors , even when the a ctua l texts rea d

a t school were La tin. Now the Latin gramma ticus

was a ble to draw on a litera ture which wa s genuinely

compa ra ble with the cla ssica l litera ture of Greece,a nd which ha d the a dded a dvanta ge of being tho

roughly na tiona l in its Spirit . Virgil was a ccepted

immedia tely as the na tiona l poet of Rome Petro

nius ca lls him simply Roman Virgil Horace’s

Odes were ha rdly les s na tional , and they must ha ve

been the j oy of schoolmasters from the first . But

wha t wa s wa nted wa s a poem which shou ld tell the

story of Roma n grea tness for Roman boys , and tha t

is precisely the theme of Virgil’s Aeneid . As Serviu s

puts it in his commenta ry on the s ixth book : An

1 Sen . Epp . 58, 5 108 , 24 foll . 2 Suet . Gram . 16 .

3 Petron . Sa t. 1 18 .


Ta citus take it for granted that Virgil will be the first

poet rea d in every Roma n school, just as Homer wa s

in Greece 1a nd Juv ena l ha s associa ted the names

ofVirgil a nd Hora ce with the Oil and smoke ofRoman

class-rooms in verses tha t would ha ve ma de Hora ce

shudder to hea r his worst forebodings trumpeted

a broa d a s a n a ccomplished fact ?

Virgil a nd Horace were not the only modern poets

rea d in the schools of the early Empire. Suetonius

expressly s ays tha t Ca ecilius lectured on Virgil a nd

the other modern poets The phra se proba bly

includes Horace a nd the elegiac poets. Ovid wa s

ha rdly famous enough for thi s honour during the

lifetime of Ca eciliu s but somewhat la ter a teacher

of rhetoric , Cestius Pius, had to rebuke his pupils for

their imitation Of Ovid’s style ? Lucan wa s a school

a uthor almost within his lifetime : Suetoniu s rea d

him at school, and Ta citus ra nks him a s a cla ss ic

with Virgil a nd Hora ce.4 Statius wa s even a ble to

boa st that his poems became school-texts imme

dia tely after they were published ;5a nd this tribute

to the reputa tion of a living author must ha ve been

common enough , for both Persius a nd Ma rtia l refer

to it as the fina l test of popula rity?

The s chools of literature were thus in close touch

with the litera ry fashions of the da y , and more than

1 Quint . i . 8 , 5 ; x . 1 , 86 ; Ta o. Dia l. 12.

2 Juv . v ii . 225 foll . Ma rt . v . 56 names Cicero and Virgil a stypica l school-texts .

3 Sen . Contr . iii . Exe . 7 .

4 Vita I/ucani Ta c . Dia l. 20.

5 Sta t . Theb . xii . 815 .

6 Pers . Sa t. i . 29 ; Ma rt . viii . 3, 15 .

THE NEW RHETORIC 157

one gramma ticus made his mark in literary circles .

Most famous of them a ll wa s Remmius Pa la emon,a uthor of the first La tin gramma r ever published a nd

tea cher of both Persius a nd Quintilia n.

1 His

schola rship is only known to u s by guesswork, but

Suetonius gives us a good dea l of unsa voury gossip

a bout his persona lity? He had started life a s a sla ve,

but won such a reputation for litera ry talent a nd

erudition tha t in spite of gross personal immora lity

his cla ss-room was the most fa shiona ble in Rome .

His Ars Gramma tica wa s almost certainly the first of

its kind, being a text-book of La tin gramma r for

us e in s chools, a ppa rently modelled on the sta nda rd

Greek gr amma r of Dionysius Thra x ? Its success

wa s immediate, for Juv ena l refers to it as a cla ssic

of his school-days, a nd it was much us ed by the la ter

Latin gramma rians .

4 N or wa s Pa la emon the man to

underestimate the value of his wa res . La tin

schola rship wa s born with me, a nd will die with me

he wa s fond of saying a nd he never ca lled Varro ,the grea test of Roman schola rs, by a ny other name

than The Pig Virgil was his fa vour ite poet,

largely for persona l rea sons. Pa la emon appears a s

a rbiter between two poets in one of the Eclogues ;a pla in prophecy tha t Pa la emon would one da y be

the judge of all poets and poetry ?

1 Vita P ers i t s chol . a d Juv . v i . 451 b ut s ee b elow, p . 181 .

2 Suet . Gram . 23; see a ls o P liny, N .H . xiv . 49—50 for a curiousanecdote a b out Pa la emon a s a land -owner .

3 Nettleship , Essa ys (Second Series ) , pp . 163foll .4 Juv . vi . 452 Schanz , ii . 2, p . 431 .

5 Suet . Gram. 23.


2 . The N ew S chools of Rhetoric.

Suetonius tells u s tha t both Tiberiu s and Claudius

u sed their persona l influence a ga inst the popula rity

of this amazing schoolma ster a nd fa iled. Other

gramma tici of the period—Verrius Fla ccus , for

example, Julius Hyginus a nd C . Melis sus 1 —werehigh in the imperia l favour, a nd it is pla in that the

tea chers of litera ture were a cquiring a new socia l

sta nding in Rome . But the gramma tici were fa r less

popula r than the contemporary tea chers of rhetoric ,a nd their cla ss-rooms fa r less fashiona ble . Thos e

who know the Augusta n a ge only from the works of

Virgil, Hora ce, Ovid, a nd Livy can form no true

judgement of the literary society in which these

sta tely Augusta ns moved. Fortuna tely Seneca ’s

fa ther, who wa s a s tudent of rhetoric a ll his life a nd

lived to the a ge of seventy, wr ote down his persona l

reminiscences of the rhetores a nd their art for the

benefit of his sons . These reminiscences conta in a n

endless number of s ententia e, divis iones , a nd colores

which the old man had either lea rnt by hea rt or j otted

down in his note-book ? They make dull reading

enough ; but they a re seasoned by criticisms and

personal a necdotes, told for the most pa rt in a con

v ers a tiona l ma nner, a nd thrown into the form of

a prefa ce to ea ch book of the collection. N0 student

of the Augusta n age Should lea ve those prefaces

unrea d.

Da tes are here important,for without Seneca’s

1 Suet . Gram . 17 , 20, 21 .

2 Sen . Contr . i , p ra ef. 1—5 .


them doub le if they will cut off his s on’

s hands . The s on is

relea sed b y the pira tes , and refuses to support his fa ther .

’

Another tells the story of a well-known roma nce 1

A husb and and wife have sworn tha t neither sha ll survive theother . The husb and goes on a j ourney, and sends a messengerto his wife with news of his dea th . The wife leaps from a cliff ,b ut is rescued and restored to hea lth . She is ordered b y herfa ther to desert her husb and , b ut refuses . She is di sinherited .

’

And another

A youn g man is captured b y pira te s and writes to his fa therfor the rans om . N O ransom is s ent . The daughter of the pira tecapta in makes him swea r tha t he will ma rry her if he is relea sed .

She elope s wi th him , a nd they return to the young man’

s homewhere they a re ma rried . A rich heires s cros ses their pa th . The

fa ther b ids the young man fors ake his wife a nd ma rry the heiress .

He refuses a nd is dis inherited .

’

And another 3

During a civil wa r a woman follows her husb and ,though her

fa ther and b rother a re on the other s ide . Her husb and ’

s side is

defea ted and her husb and killed . She returns to her fa ther whowill not receive her . She a sks how She can win hi s favour , andhe replies By dying .

”She hangs herself b efore his door .

The fa ther is a ccused of madn ess b y his s on .

’

The subj ects of the Sua soria e were more historica l,a nd for that rea son were less popula r. Seneca gives

u s only seven examples : two a bout Alexa nder the

Grea t, who deliberates whether he shou ld cros s the

ocea n tha t bounded the world, a nd whether he

Shou ld enter Ba bylon in spite of omens a nd a uguries

two others a bout the Spa rta ns a t Thermopyla e

a nd the Athenia ns a fter Sa lamis a nother a bout

Agamemnon a nd Iphigeneia a nd two a bout Cicero’s

1 Sen . Contr . 11 . 2 .

2 ibid . i . 6 .

3 ibid . x . 3.


last hours. These la st two are interesting for

the light they throw on Cicero’s persona l influence

a generation a fter his dea th . In both Cicero

figures a s the ma r tyr of his eloquence. Should

he a sk Mark Antony for mercy ? ’ Should he

burn his writings a s the price of safety ‘

2 1 These

are the questions di scussed, and their development is

Obvious . But Cicero’s name was not always held in

such high honour by the rhetores and their pupils . It

wa s a ppa rently a common practice to compose

declamations in a nswer to Cicero’s speeches. Mes s a lla

a nd Pollio , for example, wrote speeches in defence

of Ca tiline 2 the rhetor Cestiu s Piuswrote an answer

to Cicero’s pro Milone3a nd Brutus wrote a pro

Milone of his own as a school exercise ? Sometimes

these speeches were a ttributed to some well-known

ora tor of Cicero’s da y : Asconius quotes two such

speeches in a nswer to Cicero’s in Toga ca ndida , one

a ttributed to Catiline, the other to C. Antonius ?

One such ima gina ry speech ha s survived as the work

of Sa llust. 6 It is a short, bitter, invective on Cicero’s

private life fu ll of historical a llus ions to the years

after Cicero s return from exile, and so well informed

tha t it would seem to ha ve been ba sed on some con

tempora ry political pamphlet,pos sibly the work of

1 ibid . Sua s . 6 , 7 .

2 Quint . x . l , 24.

3 Sen . Contr . iii , p ra ef. 15 Quint . x . 5 , 20 .

4 Quint . x . 1 , 23 5 , 20.

5 As con ., p . 93(Cla rk) .

6 It ha s recently b een edi ted b y A. Kurfess in the Teub ner

series . I hold the a rguments a dvanced b y Kurfess (inMnemosyne

pp . 364—80) to b e decisive a ga inst Sa llust’s authorship.

See a ls o Kroll in Teuffel, i , p . 486 .

3029 X


L . Ca lpurnius Piso .

1 This short invective has a

curious history. Dio Ca ss ius gives a n ima ginary

a ccount Of a meeting in the sena te-hous e shortly

before Cicero’s dea th . Cicero’s speech is merely a

wea k reproduction of his second P hilippic2 b ut

Ca lenu s replies in a long speech , which follows the

ea rlier Invectiue point by point, entering into a ll the

deta ils of Cicero’s priva te life , a nd distorting every

cha rge into a n extra va ga nt ca r ica ture ? Appa rently

Dio knew the Invective itself, or some la ter rhetorica l

amplification of the same theme ; a nd we a re thus

a ble to tra ce the history of this school-declama tion

for over three centuries ?

There is no need to point the contra st between

1 Schwa rtz in Hermes , vol . xxxiii p . 106 who quotesCic . a d Q.fr . iii . 1 , 1 1 . I do not a ccept Schwa rtz

’

s mam contentiontha t Piso wrote the Invectiue a s we now have it.

2 Dio , xlv . 18—47 Schwa rtz in P a uly-Wissowa , iii . 1719 .

3 Dio , xlvi , 1—28 Zielinski, pp . 280 fol] .4 This is not the pla ce to discus s the interesting prob lems

connected with four P seudo-Sa llustiana to b e found in our

MSS . b ut I should like to s a y tha t I rega rd the two Invectives(S a llusti in Ciceronem a nd Oiceronis in S a llustium) a s productsof the s chools of rhetoric the la tter is a typica lly dull piece ofwork . The speech a d a sa rem s enem de re publica is a ls o ,I b elieve , a sua soria of some unknown rhetor b ut its companion

piece , which come s s econd in our MS ,is very prob a b ly a genuine

politica l pamphlet written b y Sa llust in the winter of 50—49See P ohlmann

’

s a b le a rticle in S itzb . d . k . ba y . Ah. d . Wis s . eu

Mitnchen , ph .-hist . Kl . pp . 3—79 [since reprinted in his

Aus Altertum und Gegenwa rt, N eue Folge (Miinchen , Beck ,pp . 184 P ohlmann a rgues for the a uthenticity of b othpieces b ut I cann ot a gree with him a s to the former of the two .

P ohlmann’

s a rguments a re criticized b y Kroll in Teuffel, i , p . 485 ,

and b y Schanz (i . 2, p .


free to invent, a nd these a dditions to the traditiona l

plot were known a s colores a new color wa s a s

loudly a pplauded a s a brillia nt s ententia . The result

was inevita ble. No serious a rgument was possible

on such fa nta stic themes , and declama tion became

a mere competition in extra va gance . The Greek a nd

La tin schools of rhetoric under the Empire helped

to crea te a new literary form , the romance .1 Their

influence on Roma n educa tion was wholly disa strous .

The contra st between this new type of rhetoric a nd

the declama tions which Cicero knew is ma rked by

a change in the terminology of the schools, which the

elder Seneca describes a s follows

Cicero never decla imed wha t we ca ll controvers ia e, not eventhose which were in u se b efore his time and which were ca lledthes es . For this new type of plot which we use in our exercisesis s o recent tha t its very name is new . We speak of controvers ia eCicero ca lled them ca usa e. Another word which we use , s chola s tica

—properly a Greek word , b ut it ha s b ecome estab lished a s a La tinword—is much more recent than controvers ia jus t a s the worddeclama tio is found in no author ea rlier than Cicero or Ca lvu s .

Ca lvus defin es the meaning of declama tio a s follows To decla imis to speak in priva te with more than ordina ry ca re . He is rightin considering declama tion a priva te exercise , different from trueora tory . The word is quite new, just a s the fa shi on itself is ofrecent origin .

’ 2

This a ttempt a t technica l lexicogra phy is instruo

tive : but it needs to be checked by a ctua l fa cts .

Seneca is right in his ma in contention tha t the

terminology of the schools ha d cha nged since Cicero’s

da y . But his dogma tic sta tements la y down a ha rd

a nd fa st rule where none existed, and more tha n one1 Rohde , pp . 361 foll . 2 Sen . Contr . i, p ra ef. 12 .


modern s chola r ha s a llowed them to lea d him a s tra y?

Declama tio, for example, wa s not firs t used by Cicero

it is found in the a d Herennium? a nd there is no

rea son for thinking that the anonymous author

invented the word or used it for the first time in its

familia r s ens e of a school-declama tion. And Seneca

is wrong in his sta tement tha t Cicero spoke of ca us a e,not thes es or controvers ia e. Cicero was faced with the

problem of tra nslating Greek terminology into Latin,and the Greeks regularly used the terms 96m g a nd

677625 0 19 for the two ma in typ es of declamation.

3

The La tin words ca usa and controvers ia might be

used to tra nsla te either of these words, a nd Cicero’s

usa ge va ries . In his de Inventione, controvers ia mea ns

a ny subject for declama tion, whilst tnéfiem s is

tra nsla ted by ca us a and by qua es tio? In his

de Ora tore both ca usa and controvers ia a re used for

1577696 0 19 , whilst 06m g is transla ted by qua es tio?

And in his la test works 1577606 0 19 is translated b yca us a , 060 19 by propos itum.

6

It follows tha t Cicero decla imed both thes es and

controvers ia e he even prided himself on his interest

in the former. 7 Yet for pra ctica l purposes Seneca is

right in s a ying tha t both controvers ia a nd declama tio

are new words, for their meaning is now fixed for the

1 Bois sier , Ta cite, p . 205 ; Wilk ins , p . 84 ; Bornecque ,

pp . 39—48 . These s chola rs wrote b efore the full evidence wa sb rought together in the Thes a urus I/ingua e La tina e (iii . 689 ;iv .

2ad Her . iii . 20 .

3 See a b ove , p . 1 16 .

4 de Inv . i . 8 , 16 11 . 11 , 16 .

5 de Or . ii . 65 iii . 109 .

6 P a rt. or. 6 1 Top . 78 .

7 See a b ove , p . 117 .


first time, and tha t meaning is new. Declama tio is

now the regula r word for a ny school-exercis e , whilst

controvers ia is used for the ima gina ry law- suits which

had become so popu la r in the schools of rhetoric .

Ima gina ry delibera tions on some more genera l topic ,roughly corresponding to the He’o-ets of Herm a gora s ,

are now ca lled sua soria e Cicero occa siona lly ca lled

them sua s iones ? And this terminology rema ins

fixed for a considera ble period. Quintilian a nd

Ta citus both Speak regula rly of controvers ia e and

sua soria e ?

The la st word mentioned by Seneca , s chola s tica ,

ha s a more significant history. Quintilia n occa s ion

a lly uses it in the sens e given by Seneca 3 b ut

s chola s ticus is more commonly used to denote either

a student or professor of rhetoric ? The word, with

its Greek deriva tion , empha sizes the growing sepa ra

tion between the new rhetoric of the schools a nd the

Old tra ditions ofRoma n ora tory. Cicero would ha ve

ca lled the new s tyle a n umbra tilis doctrina , with the

true ora tor’s contempt for a n a rt tha t wa s a fra id of

the open a ir a nd the forum ;5

a nd Pliny a ctually

couples the two words s chola s ticus a nd umbra ticu s .

6

One of thes e ‘ indoor ora tors is ca rica tured by

Petronius in his S a tire 7 but the stories told by the

elder Seneca of the rhetores whom he knew in a ctua l

1 de Or . 11 . 333 Or . 37 .

2 Quint . p a ss im Ta c . Dia l. 14.

3 Quint . v ii . 1 , 14 ; xi . 1 , 82 .

4 Sen . Contr . iii , p ra ef. 16 ; Petron . S a t. 6 , 10 ; Pliny, Epp .

11 . 3, 5 Ta c . Dia l. 15 , 42.

5 de Or. i . 157 Or . 64 .

6 Plin . Epp . ix . 2, 3.



held that Roman oratory died with Cicero ? Cestius

pushed his contempt for Cicero to extremes He

was an ignora nt fellow the rhetor wou ld tell his

pupils ; a nd they took his word for it , skimming

through Cicero’s Speeches whilst they learnt by

hea rt the declama tions which Cestius wr ote in

a nswer to the ora tor ? The pose did not go un

punished : for Cicero’s drunken young son , Marcus,once ordered Cestius to be whipped by his slaves at

a dinner in his hou se ? But Cicero’s honour wa s more

worthily a venged by Cass ius Severus, a lea ding

orator of the Augusta n a ge whom Ta citus mentions

as one of the first to u se the new style of rhetoric in

his oratory ? Cassius wa s one da y present at a

lecture given by Cestius , when the rhetor began to

bra g a bout his success . If I were a gladiator he

sa id, I would be Fusius if I were a dancer,I would

be Ba thyllus ; if I were a ra cehorse, I would b e

Melis sio .

’ The a llusions were to fa vourites of the

day : b ut the retort wa s unexpected. Yes,

’ cried

Ca ss ius from the ba ck of the ha ll,

3a nd if you were

a town-dra in, you would be the cloa ca ma xima .

’ 5

And on a nother occa sion Ca ss iu s exposed the rhetor’s

helplessness by dra gging him from one court in the

forum to another a ccus ing him first of felony, then

of ingratitude, then of ma dnes s, beca us e he thought

himself more eloquent tha n Cicero . Poor Cestius wa s

1 Sen . Contr . i , p ra ef. 6 .

2 ibid . iii , p ra ef. 15 ix . 3, 12 Quint . x . 5 , 20 .

3 Sen . Sua s . 7 , 13.

4 Ta c . Dia l. 19 .

5 Sen . Contr. iii, p ra ef. 16 (Ca ss ius is b eing quoted b y Seneca ) .


unable to silence his persecutor, and at last had to be

forcibly rescued by his friends ?

A story like that brings home the point of a

criticism made by the younger Seneca in one of his

Letters to Lucilius We educate ourselves for the

class-room , not for life : hence the extrava gances

with which we are troubled, in litera ture as in every

thing else .’ 2 Yet these new schools oi rhetoric , with

all their artificial brillia nce and indoor ora tory

were pa tronized by the lea ders of Augusta n cu lture.

Augu stus himself wa s a frequent visitor a t the

public declama tions given in the schools, a nd he was

sometimes accompa nied by Tiberius ? Maecenas ,whose own litera ry style was modelled on the new

rhetoric,

4 Mes sa lla ,Agrippa, a nd As iniu s Polli o a re

all mentioned by the elder Seneca as regula r visitors ?

Pollio’

s criticisms were considered a uthoritative,and

he even declaimed himself before a carefully selected

a udience ? And Suetonius tells us that the fashion

for declamation increased steadily under the reign

of Tiberius , rea ching its height under Nero , who was

himse lf a keen student of rhetoric . 7

But the most characteristic figure in a ll this

literary history is Ovid, the poet whose verses were

the model for declaimers as well as for poets? and

1 ibid . iii, p ra ef. 17 .

2 Sen . Epp . 106 , 12 .

3 Sen . Contr . ii . 4, 12—13 iv , p ra ef. 7 x . 5 , 21 Sua s . 3, 6—7 .

4 Suet . Oct. 86 ; Sen . Epp . 1 14, 4—8 ; Quint . ix . 4 , 28 ; Tao.

Dia l. 26 .

5 Sen . Contr . 11 . 4, 12 Sua s . 3, 6 .

6 Sen . Contr . iv , pra ef. 2—5 Bornecque , p . 155 .

7 Suet . Rhet. 1 N ero, 10 .

3 Sen . Contr . iii . , Exo. 7 ix . 5 , 17 x . 4, 25 Vergil wa s a lso3029 Y


whose rhetoric wa s a s elegant a s his verse. Ovid

tells us himself tha t his fa ther ha d ma de him study

rhetoric under the best profes sors in Rome,1 a nd

Seneca mentions La tro, Ga llio, a nd Arellius Fus cus

a s his ma ster s ? Here is Seneca’s description of the

poet’s performance, sketched from life

His s tyle wa s elegant , appropria te and a greea b le ; even thenhi s ora tory wa s unmis taka b ly poetry in prose . He wa s so keena s tudent of La tro’

s declama tions tha t he inserted ma ny of La tro ’

s

sententia e in his poems . He ra rely decla imed controvers ia s , and

only when the s ub ject had s ome p sychologica l interest : his

preference wa s for sua soria e. All a rgument wa s dista steful tohim . His choice of words wa s never extrava gant , except in his

poems there he knew his fa ult , b ut loved it .

’ 3

That la st phra se might be applied to a ll these

rhetores . Cestiu s Pius , for example , once ma de the

following fra nk a dmis sion to his cla ss Here I know

tha t I am ta lking nonsense but I s a y ma ny things

to plea se my a udience, not to plea s e myself.’ 4 And

a nother rhetor , Votienu s Monta nus, was even more

fra nk in a priva te convers a tion with the elder

Seneca . A man who composes a declama tion he

sa id, does not write to convince , but to plea se.

That is why he seeks out tricks of style, and leaves

a rgument a lone , beca u se it is troublesome and gives

little scope for rhetori c . He is content to beguile

his audience with his s ententia e and digressions

much a dmired b y the rhetores (Sen . Sua s . 3, 4—7 Compa retti,pp . 34 1 Ovid . Trist. iv . 10, 15 .

2 Sen . Contr . 11 . 2, 8 Sua s . 3, 7 .

3 Sen . Contr . ii . 2 , 8—12 .

4 ibid . ix . 6,12 .


But what of the exemp la from Roma n hi story

which Cicero a nd Qu intilian both recommend to their

s tudents How could they be a ptly used without

a thorough knowledge of Greek a nd Roma n history

Roma n publishers a sked thems elves the question ,a nd the demandwa s not long in producing the supply.

The Memora ble S a yings a nd Doings of Va lerius

Ma ximus is a book which few students of La tin

litera ture take the trouble to rea d ; a nd they do

well. But the book is importa nt in the history of

Roma n educa tion for it wa s written to sa ve students

of rhetoric the la bour of studying Greek a nd Roman

history. Va leriu s Ma ximu s makes this quite pla in

in his prefa ce. He ha s written the book, he tells us ,to spa re those who want to lea rn the lessons of

his tory the trouble of prolonged resea rches 1a nd

this politely va gue formu la indicates the tea chers a nd

s tudents of rhetoric . The book i s planned exactly

a ccording to their needs , and is best—

des cribed as

a dictiona ry of rhetorica l exemp la . No a ttempt is

ma de a t chronologica l order or connected na rrative.

Ea ch incident is a n isola ted episode, designed to

illustra te a particula r virtu e or vice, a nd grouped

under some convenient hea ding. The first book, for

example, trea ts of religion, a nd is subdivided into

chapters on superstition, omens , prodigies, dreams ,a nd mira cles . The second book treats of various

na tiona l ins titutions the third of huma n cha ra cter,a nd is subdivided into cha pters on fortitude,patience, and so forth. As a manua l for use in

1 Va l . Max . p ra ef. 1 N orden , i, p . 303.


schools of rhetoric,the work is a dmira bly pla nned

as a text-book of Roma n history it is a tell- ta le

document . Cicero had very different idea s when he

ba de his ora tor study Roma n history for its lessons

of wisdom and virtue.

The elder Seneca spent most of his life in the schools

of rhetoric , a nd only wea ried Of the a rt in his old age ?

But his judgement on the va lue of these artificia l

performa nces is sound, a nd ma y be taken a s summing

up the tendencies described in this a nd the preceding

cha pter. Addr essing his three sons in the prefa ce to

his Controvers ia e he sa ys

0

You a re right , my b oys , not to b e contented with the modelsof your own genera tion , b ut to want to hea r a b out ea rlier d ays .

The more models you s tudy, the grea ter will b e your progre ss inora tory . And you will lea rn a lso to judge the decline which ha sset in a nd the deca dence into which , b y s ome perversion ofna ture , our ora tory ha s fa llen . For a ll the grea t Roman ora torswho can b e compa red with the glories of Greece , or even preferredto them , lived in the days of Cicero a ll the men of genius whohave shed lustre on our s chools were b orn in tha t genera tion .

Since then things have gone from b a d to wors e pa rtly b ecauseof our increa sing luxury, for luxury is a lways fa ta l to genius

pa rtly b ecause there is no prize left for the nob les t of a rts , a nda ll our energies a re given to the vices which now win honour andwea lth pa rtly b eca use na ture

’

s s tern law requires tha t a ll higha chievement sha ll end in a fa ll , svvifter than our a scent to theheights .

’ 2

3. Rhetoric a nd P hilosophy .

By a perversion of na ture to use Seneca ’s own

phra se, one of the boys to whom these words were

addressed wa s to become the greatest persona l1 Sen . Contr . x , p ra ef. 1 Suas . 2, 23 6 , 16 .

2 Sen . Contr . i, p ra ef. 6—7 .


factor in the rea ction a ga inst Ciceronian idea ls. The

younger Seneca ’s life presents a curiously close

para llelism with Cicero’s persona l history. Both

were noui homines , who owed their socia l position to

their ta lent and the cha rm of their persona lity both

were students ra ther tha n men of a ction, by tem

perament litera ry a rtists, not s ta tesmen or politicia ns .

Yet both were ca lled upon to ta ke a lea ding part in

contempora ry politics a nd both died—not ignobly—the victims of their politica l fa ilure. Both men ,too

,felt the fa scina tion of Greek philosophy, a nd

ga ve much of their energies to popula rizing Greek

thought in Rome ; a nd both showed a n amazingly

va ried fa cility of production. But there the likenes s

ends . Cicero wa s a n ora tor who found in philosophy

the mea ns of s a tisfying his intellectua l curiosity ;Seneca wa s a philosopher, su spicious of everything

tha t might distra ct him from his ha bits of intro

spection a nd his interest in mora l principles . Yet the

Letters to Lucilius a re a s typica l of their a ge a s are

the de Ora tore a nd the Hortens ius .

For philosophy,like rhetoric , ha d changed its

cha ra cter under the stress of a socia l revolution.

Jus t a s Ca esa r’s dicta torship forced Cicero to ques tion

the ethica l founda tions on which his philosophy

rested a nd led him to write the Hortens ius , the

Tus cula n Disputa tions , a nd the de Ofi‘iciis , so the

permanent esta blishment of the Empire under

Augustus a nd his immedi a te successors forced

thoughtfu l men ba ck upon themselves a nd gave

their philosophy a new purpose. Two figures a re


because it involved a break with his former litera ry

style. As a rhetor Fa bianus ha d indulged in every

extra va ga nce of the new ma nner : a s a philosopher

he continued his study Of rhetoric , but aimed at

a Simpler s tyle a nd achieved rea l eloquence, so we

a re told, in spite of occa sional Obscurity.

1

A genera tion la ter Persius went through a similar

intellectua l cris is a t the a ge of sixteen : from being

a pupil of Remmius Pa la emon a nd a keen student of

rhetoric he became the disciple of Anna eus Cornutus

and gave himself wholly to the study of Stoic

philosophy ? But the most famous of all these

youthful conversions is described by Seneca in his

Letters to Lucilius ? The philosopher’s fa ther ha d set

his hea rt on seeing his three sons become great

ora tors . The eldest, N ov a tus , was adopted by the

rhetor Junius Ga llic , a nd figures a s the proconsul

Ga llio in the Acts of the Apostles. The youngest,Mela , became a professor of rhetoric himself and

wa s the fa ther of Luca n . Seneca himself was the

fa vourite son, a nd wa s urged by his fa ther to become

a n a dvoca te. But hi s rea l ta ste wa s for philos ophy,which he ha d studied under Fa bianu s

,Atta lu s, a nd

Sotion , all of them philosophers of the new a ustere

type ? A struggle wa s inevita ble, for his fa ther

dis liked philosophy, a nd ha d a lrea dy prevented

Seneca ’s mother Helvia from interesting herself in it.

s

1 Sen . Contr . ii , p ra ef. 5 Sen . Epp . 100 .

2 Vit. P ers . 4—5 .

3 Sen . Epp . 108 , 13—22 Wa ltz , pp . 31 foll .4 Sen . Epp . 49 , 2 52, 1 1 100, 12 ;5 Sen . a d Helv . ma tr . 17, 4 .


The crisis came when Seneca bega n to a dopt a

vegeta ria n diet. He ha d a lrea dy lea rnt to live

poorly, to dr ink no wine, to sleep on a ha rd couch ,to refu se oysters a nd mushrooms a t ta ble a nd so

forth : this la st extra va ga nce wa s too much . The

lioy’

s hea lth wa s beginning to suffer, a nd his fa ther

insisted on a more norma l diet . Seneca yielded, but

the cha nge wa s only externa l . As a n old m a n he

boasts tha t , wha tever els e might be s a id of him , he

ha d a lwa ys been fa ithful to his hard couch 1 no b a d

test of pra ctical Stoicism .

Seneca wa s not the only young man of his time

to make these experiments in diet, a nd the change

from Cicero’s idea l of philosophy is evident. The

da ys were pa st when a n ora tor could plunge into the

study of philosophy a nd y et los e none of his interest

in rhetoric . Under the Empire philosophy becomes

a definite profes sion,involving defin ite mora l obliga

tions a nd s epa ra ting the philosopher,even in

externa ls , from the ordina ry life of Rome : an

isola tion which makes philosophy more than ever

suspect in the eyes of Roma n conserva tives a s well

a s the imperia l government . And this isola tion

tended to force philos ophy out of the ordinary

encyclic programme of studies : for the e’

ymiKAio s

wa i‘o’

ec’

a was by its very name a n educa tion for the

ordinary ma n . One of Seneca ’s Letters to Lucilius

makes the point clea r. Posidonius ha d divided the

a rts into two cla s ses : the truly ‘ libera l ’ a rts

which teach virtue a nd nothing else, and the childish1 Sen . Epp . 108 , 23.

Z


arts (pueriles ) , which the Greeks ca ll e’

ym hLOL

and the Roma ns libera les Seneca a pproves of the

distinction, a nd justifies it in a n elabora te criticism

of a ll the a rtes libera les . One by one they a re

ana lysed in turn and Shown to be inca p a ble Of

tea ching mora l excellence . Are they of a ny us e

Seneca a sks hims elf, a nd the a nswer is cha ra cteristic

of his a ttitude They a re useful for everything else,but not for virtue . Like the ma nual a rts which a re

a dmittedly vu lga r, they a re of grea t pra ctical utility,b ut ha ve no rela tion to virtue. Then why do we

tea ch our childr en the liberal arts ? N ot because

they ca n give virtue, b ut beca use they prepare the

mind to receive virtue. ’ 2 Or a s he ha d a lrea dy put

it in a cha ra cteristic epigram Our duty is not to

study them , but to ha ve studied them .

’ 3

Pla inly this idea l of a philosophic life di ffers

widely from Cicero’s politior huma nita s , and it is no

mere a ccident tha t this very letter from Seneca to

Lu cilius conta ins a definition of huma nita s which

limits tha t virtue to the pra ctice of kindlines s a nd

na tura l a ffection ? Seneca ’s definition la cks Cicero’s

intellectua l brea dth of view, a nd his more na rrow

idea l of huma n excellence ma rks a fa lling-off from the

ea rlier Gra eco -Roman idea l. But it would be wrong

to take Seneca ’s a tta ck on the a rtes libera les too

seriously. In a n es s ay On Consola tion ,written when

he wa s in exile a nd dedica ted to his mother,he bids

her ta ke refuge from her grief in the study of the

1 Sen . Epp . 88 , 21—3.

2 ibid . 88, 20 .

3 ibid . 88 , 2 .

4 ibid. 88 , 30 ; cf. Epp . 4, 10 ; 81 , 26 116 , 5 .

IX

QUINTILIAN

Quintiliane , v aga e modera tor summe iuv enta e ,

Gloria , Romana e , Quintiliane , toga e . Ma rt . 11 . 90.

1 . The Ins titutio Ora toria

QU IN TILIAN wa s a Spania rd a nd a professiona l

man ,who owed his fortune wholly to

?

the Empire .

N O better type of the new society could be desired,a nd the Ins titutio Ora toria Should be rea d in the light

of its a uthor’s a ntecedents. For Qu intilia n is a

Ciceronian but his Ciceronia nism is something new

and persona l , the product pa rtly of his own study

a nd enthu sia sm , pa rtly of his surroundings .

According to Ausonius a nd St . Jerome ,1 who a re

both most proba bly dependent for their informa tion

on a lost cha pter of the de Cla ris rhetoribus? Qu inti

lian wa s a na tive of Ca la gurris in Northern Spa in

(Ta rra conensis ) . Of his ea rly life we know nothing,though his birth must be da ted somewhere between

A . D . 30 a nd As a young m a n (a du les centu lus ) he

wa s in Rome a nd a n a dmirer of Domitiu s Afer, the

famous ora tor from N emau su s in Ga llia Na rbonensis ?

1 Auson . p rof. Burd . I , 7 St. Jerome , Citron , A .D . 88 .

2 See the index to the los t chapters in Reifferscheid’

s text,p . 99 .

3 Schanz , 11 . 2, p . 453 Colson , p . ix .

4 Quint . v . 7, 7 ; v i. x . 1 , 86 ; X11 . 11 , 3.

QUINTILIAN 181

Possibly Qu intilia n ha d gone from Ca la gurris to

Rome a s a school-b oy a t a ny ra te he wa s a student

of rhetoric there before A . D . 58 , the da te of Afer’

s

death . An unknown scholiast on Juv ena l’s sixth

sa tire names Quintilian as a pupil of Remmius

Pa la emon, 1 a nd there is nothing in the chronology

to ma ke us doubt this sta tement ; but Quintilia n

himself, who quotes Pa la emon? does not spea k of

him a s his ma ster, a nd it is poss ible that the scholia st

is wrong. Once his studies were completed, Qu inti

lian went ba ck to Spa in, proba bly a s a n a dvoca te a s

well a s a tea cher of rhetoric . The combina tion of the

two profes sions wa s not unu sua l? and Qu intilia n

practis ed them both later in life a t Rome.4

Quintilia n returned to Rome in A . D . 68 a s a client

of the Emperor Ga lba,5 and rema ined there for the

rest of his life. Ga lba wa s murdered a few months

a fter his a rriva l, but Qu intilia n soon found a more

powerful pa tron. Vespa sian , the self-ma de Emperor,took a n interest in the succes s ful schoolma ster, a nd

ma de him the first public professor of La tin rhetoric

in Rome . The a ppointment ma rks a definite sta ge

in the history of Roma n educa tiona l policy, a nd needs

a word of explanation. Our information is derived

ultima tely from Suetonius , but the most importa nt

deta il ha s got confused by St. Jerome in his Chronicle

for the yea r A . D . 88 .

1 Schol . a d Juv . vi . 452.

2 Quint . i . 4, 20 Cols on , p . x .

3Ma rt . ii . 64 Friedla ender , i , p . 1 80 (i, p .

4 Quint . iv . 2, 86 vii. 2, 5 2, 24 ix . 2, 73.

5 St. Jerome , Chron . , A. D . 68 .

182 QUINTILIAN

Suetonius tells us tha t Vespa s ian wa s the first to

establish a fixed sa la ry sesterces a yea r) for

tea chers of Latin a nd Greek rhetoric 1 The words

a re va gue, a nd might mean a general subsidy for

distinguished profes sors but we can supplement

this sta tement from a nother source. In his Lives ofthe S ophis ts Philo stra tu s frequently mentions a

public cha ir of Greek rhetoric at Rome? a nd dis

tinguishes it from a s imilar cha ir which the Emperor

Ha dria n ha d founded a t Athens , by the title of the

upper cha ir (6 66m Hpévog)? This is pla inly the kind

of cha ir to which St. Jerome a lludes in his entry for

the yea r A . D . 88 Qu intilia n, a na tive of Ca la gurris

in Spa in, wa s the first to get a public cha ir (publicam

s cholam) at Rome a nd a sa la ry from the fis cu s , a nd

wa s famous .

’ 4 The fis cu s wa s the imperia l trea sury,a nd Vespa sian’s endowment wa s a n imperia l a ct

s o tha t our a uthorities confirm one another on this

point . Furthermore a sa la ry of sesterces

ha d been pa id by Augustus to Verriu s Fla ccu s a s

the tutor of his two grandsons? a nd wa s equiva lent

to a post in the second division of the imperia l civil

service. 6

One difficu lty remains : Vespa sian died in A . D . 79

a nd St . Jerome da tes the entry in his Chronicle to

1 Suet . Vesp . 18 .

2 Philost . Vit. S oph. (ed . Kays er) , 580, 589 , 594, 596, 627 .

3 ibid . 623.

4 There is no need to change the wording of St. Jerome ’s text ,a s ha s b een done b y modern critics without a ny manus cripta uthority.

5 Suet . Gram. 17.

6 Ba rb aga llo , p . 89 .

184 QUINTILIAN

Quintilian’s position a s public professor of La tin

rhetoric ma rked him out a s the hea d of his profession ,a nd a ll the a llusions to his name in the litera ture of

the per iod show tha t Quintilia n wa s a man of high

socia l standing. Juv ena l, who wa s himself a teacher

of rhetoric a nd knew the seamy Side of his profession ,cites Quintilia n a s the one conspicuous exception to

his genera l compla int tha t schoolma sters a re ill-pa id

a nd over-worked 1 Ma rtia l a ddr esses flattering

vers es to his di stinguished compa triot 2a nd Pliny

is Obvious ly proud of the fa ct tha t Quintilia n wa s his

ma s ter ? Fortune follows the fortuna te , a nd Qu inti

lian’s record a s public profes sor ea rned him towa rds

the end of his life a second a ppointment a s tutor to

the two sons of Fla vius Clemens ? The boys ha d

j ust been a dopted by Domitian a s heirs to his throne,a nd the a ppointment s eems to ha ve ca rried with it

the consula r ins ignia an honour whi ch Quintilia n

owed,so Ausoniu s tells us , to the influence of Flavius

Clemens ? From first to la st Quintilia n’s record is

thus the type of a successful ca reer a nd his educa

tiona l theory repres ents the experience of a highly

fa voured a nd fa shiona ble profess or, not of a n

ordina ry Roma n s choolma ster. Ma ny of the counsels

given in the Ins titutio Ora toria need to be rea d in the

light of these fa cts .

The Ins titutio Ora toria wa s written some time a fter

Quintilian’s retirement. Two yea rs were needed to

1 Juv . vi . 75,280 v n. 186 foll . 2 Ma rt . 11 . 90 .

3 Pliny, Epp . ii . 14, 10 ; v i . 6 , 3.

4Quint . iv , p rooem. 2 .

5 Anson . Gra t. a ct. 7 , 31 .

QUINTILIAN 185

complete it,1 and the date of publication should

probably be fixed between A .D . 93and 95. It wa s not

Quintilian’s first a ttempt a t literary work . As a

young man he ha d published a speech (a ctio) for

which he a pologizes in his old a ge2and three yea rs

or so before he began work on the In s titutio he

published an ess ay On the Deca y of Ora tory and its

Ca us es?which must ha ve covered some of the ground

la ter gone over more thoroughly in the longer work .

For the Institutio ora toria is more than a text-book

of rhetoric . Its very title ma rks it off a s something

distinct from the ordinary ma nu a l (Ars rhetorica,or

de Arte dicendi )? Quintilian himself mentions the

title of his work in his prefa tory letter to the book

se ller Trypho? a nd expla ins in his prefa ce to the first

book why he chose this unusua l form .

All others who have written on the a rt of ora tory b egin b ypresupposing an ordina ry genera l educa tion , a nd a ssume tha ttheir ta sk is to give the finishing touch of eloquence .

6 Perhapsthey despised the prepa ra tory s tudies a s less important ; or

perhaps they considered them to b e outside their proper work ,now tha t the profes sions a re divided ; or , mos t prob a b ly, theys aw no prospect of popula rity for good work on a sub ject whichis very neces s a ry , b ut unostenta tious men usua lly a dmi re the

roof of a b uilding , and forget the founda tions . In my opinion ,

nothing tha t is necess a ry for the tra ining of an ora tor is foreign

1 Quint . p ra ef. a d Tryph . 1 .

2 ibid . VB . 2, 24.

3 ibid . v i , p rooem . 3 Schanz , ii . 2 , p . 454 .

Quint . ii . 17 , 2 Borner , pp . 11 £011.

5 Ins titutio Ora toria is the title given in the b es t manus criptthe others a re divided b etween Ins titutiones ora toria e and de

Ins titutione ora toria (Schanz , ii . 2, p .

6 See Cols on’

s note ad loc

186 QUINTILIAN

to the a rt of ora tory : you never can get to the top withoutb eginning s omewhere . Therefore , I sha ll not disda in those lessimportant sub j ects wi thout which the more important have no

pla ce , b ut sha ll b egin my ora tor’

s educa tion just a s though he hadb een given me to b ring up from infancy .

’ 1

The Educa tion of an Ora tor would thus be the

mos t accurate transla tion of Qu intilian’s title ? But

wha t did Quintilian mean by a n ora tor ‘

2 Here aga in

the a nswer can be given in his own words

The ora tor whom we a re educa ting is the perfect ora tor , whocan only b e a good man and therefore we demand of him , not

merely an excellent power of speech , b ut a ll the mora l virtuesa s well . N or am I prepa red to a dmit (a s some have held ) tha tthe s cience of a righteous and honourab le life should b e left to the

philosophers : for the man who is a true citizen , fit for the

a dminis tra tion of priva te and pub lic busines s , and capa b le ofguiding cities b y his counsels , estab lishing them b y his laws andreforming them b y

‘

his judgements , is none other than the ora tor .

’ 3

There is no need to ‘

a sk where Quintilian got thi s

idea l of the perfect orator Every pa ge of the

Ins titutio ora toria is reminiscent of Cicero’s tea ching ,but here the borrowing is more than usua lly evident .

Quintilian ha s gone back to the de Ora tore for his

definition, a nd the perfect ora tor whose educa tion

he describes is none other than the doctus ora tor Of

Cicero’s dia logue ? Nor does Quintilia n make a ny

attempt to concea l his indebtedness . The de Ora tore

is expressly quoted a few lines further on? and the

1 Quint . i , p rooem. 4—5 .

2 Borner , p . 17 , who a na lyses Quintilian’

s use of the wordsins tituere and institutio .

3 Quint . i , p rooem. 9—10 .

4 See a b ove , p . 112.5 Quint . i, prooem. 13.

188 QUINTILIAN

between his u se of the words rhetoricus a nd ora torius .

Cicero’s great dialogues on ora tory— the de Ora tore,Ora tor, and Brutus— a re described a s libri ora torii

but the two books of the de Inventione, a mere

text-book of rhetoric , a re ca lled libri rhetorici ?

In the light of these fa cts it is interesting to note

how frequently Quintilia n uses the word ora tor a nd

its cogna te forms in the opening pa ges of hi s Ins titutio.

His pupils , he says , ha d a sked him to write a trea tise

on rhetoric ; a nd their suggestion is described in a

conventiona l phra se (ut a liquid de ra tione dicendi

comp onerem)? But once Quintili a n begins to spea k

of his own purpose his la ngua ge a lters . Ars ora ndi ,

a rs ora toria , ora tor , ora tor p erfectus the very words

ha ve a s ta tely sound, a nd the frequency with which

they recur 3 shows tha t Quintilian is consciously

recalling Ciceronian memories . To his readers the

whole prefa ce must have sounded like a direct

cha llenge. Politica l oratory wa s dea d, and every one

in Rome knew tha t it wa s dea d ; but Quintilian

deliberately chooses the oratory of a past genera tion

a s his educa tiona l idea l .

The whole structure of Quintilian’s work illustra tes

the significance of its title. Of the twelve books into

which it is divided, only nine, s o Quintilian tells us

himself? would usua lly be included in a text-book

of rhetoric . Book I dea ls with the education of a boy

before he begins the study of rhetoric . Book II gives

genera l a dvice a bout the studies which are proper to

1 Quint . iii . 1 , 20 .

2 ibid . i, p rooem. 1 .

3 ibid . i, p rooem. 4—6 , 9—10 .

4 ibid . ii. 11 , 1 iii . 1 , 1 .

QUINTILIAN 189

the school of rhetoric , a nd discusses the na ture of

rhetoric a s a science. The theory of rhetoric proper

begins only in Book III, a nd is continued fl with

a famous digress ion in Book X— to the end of

Book XI. Book XII gives adv ice to the ora tor who

ha s left school, a nd wishes to carry hi s art to perfec

tion in the ordina ry work of his profession ; a nd

Quintilia n inserts here his theory of the higher

studies which should be ma de a fter lea ving the school

of rhetoric . Thi s divis ion of his subj ect-ma tter

implies a contra s t with the de Ora tore a s well a s with

the contemporary text-books Of rhetoric . In Cicero’s

phra seology,only portions of Books X a nd X 11 dea l

with the p olitior humanita s . By fa r the largest pa rt

of Quintilian’s work is concerned with the ordina ry

p uerilis ins titutio a nd this difference of proportion

is significa nt . Cicero wa s a man of the world a nd

a great orator, writing for men of his own kind.

Quintilian wa s a succes sfu l a nd experienced school

ma ster, a ccustomed to think in terms of the cla ss

room that is why he gives us our best insight into

the practical work of Gra cco-Roman education.

2. P relimina ry S tudies .

True to his promise,Quintilian begins hi s theory of

education with the child’s first les sons ; a nd it is

plain from the outset tha t he is writing for the

childr en of the rich . Not a word is said a bout the

elementary schoolmaster (ludi magister) and his

cla sses. The children who came to Quintilian’s

school ha d got their first lessons a t home , and his

190 QUINTILIAN

a dvice concerns the choice of a nurse, the need of

proper companions for the boy, a nd the duties of the

p a eda gogus (who wa s a sort of companion and mentor,frequently a lso a tutor) . The ma in point is tha t they

should be honest, relia ble folk, with good a ccents 1

the p a eda gogus is not to b e a llowed to tea ch the child

unless he is unusua lly well educated ? Lessons a re

to begin a s soon a s the child can speak, and here

Chrysippus is quoted a s a ga inst Era tosthenes ? But

the langua ge in which the child spea ks ra ises a

difficulty : is it to be Greek or La tin Quintilian

a dmits tha t the child is bound to pick up La tin

from those a round him , b ut he wants the first lessons

to be given in Greek partly because he will be

soaked in La tin whether we like it or not, pa rtly

beca us e a t school he will have to begin with Greek

for our whole educa tiona l system is derived from

Greek .

’ 4 These first Greek lessons a re not to be

pushed too fa r correct La tin is the prima ry

requirement, a nd it would be ea sy to spoil the child’s

a ccent a nd gramma r. The rest of the cha pter gives

minute instructions as to the best wa y of tea ching

the a lpha bet a nd giving the first lessons in rea ding

a nd wr iting, with some very sensible rema rks a s to

the va lue of good handwriting ? Qu intilian’s pra ctica l

sense shows itself a ga in a t the end of the chapter.

Memory-lessons are to be given, but the ma tter to be

memorized should be ca refully chosen. Good pro

verbs a nd counsels of great men should be learnt by

1 Quint . i . 1 , 4, 7—8 .

2 ibid. s .

3 ibid. 15- 19 .

4 ibid. 12 ; s ee Colson’

s note .

5 Quint . i. 1 , 28 .

192 QUINTILIAN

month, when the competition was renewedf a

dev ice .which Quintilian commends ?

One of the a rguments urged by Quintilian as a n

obj ection a ga inst school education is of specia l

interest. Wha t a bout the boy’s mora ls Will he

not be sa fer a t home Quintilian meets the ob jec

tion by a somewha t rhetorica l a tta ck on pa rents who

spoil their children a t home, a nd on the dangers of

compa nionship with the sla ves of the household ?

His compla ints a re borne out by other writers of the

period : Petronius, the elder Pliny, Seneca , and

Ta citus ? But the rea lly s ignificant fact is that

Quintilian, speaking from experience, freely a dmits

the dangers of school-life . There is , of course, the

danger of loose convers a tion with one’s school

fellows? b ut Qu intilia n is thinking of a graver evil.

Wha t if the ma ster himself should be the cause Of

trouble Quintilian wa s most proba bly the pupil of

Remm ius Pa la emon in a ny ca se he mu st have

known a ll the scanda l connected with Pa la emon’s

name, a nd he m a y well have been thinking of

Pa la emon when he insists on the need of ca re in

choosing a trustworthy tea cher especia lly in the

later sta ges of a boy’s schooling ?

Al l thes e ea rly cha pters of the Ins titutio make very

interesting rea ding. Qu intilia n discusses , for example,the a ge a t which a child shou ld be sent to school.

1 Quint . i . 2 , 23- 5 s ee Colson’

s note .

2 ibid . 6—8 .

3 Pe tron . S a t. 4 P liny, N . H . xxxiii . 26—7 Sen . Epp . 60, 1

94, 54 1 15, 1 1 Ta c . Dia l. 28—9 .

4 Quint . i . 2, 4.

5 ibid . i . 2,5 3, 17 ii . 2, 1

—4, 15 .

QUINTILIAN 193

Seven wa s evidently the u sua l a ge for beginning

lessons but Quintilian a grees with Chrysippus tha t

lessons ha d better begin mu ch ea rlier, with the nurs e

a s teacher ? His own phra s e for describing the age

at which he would have a boy go to school is vague

when he begins to grow up a nd lea ve the nursery,a nd can do serious study ’ 2 Any lessons tha t ma y

ha ve been given before tha t a ge should be made a s

a ttra ctive as possible : the child is not yet Old

enough to enjoy study , b ut a t lea st he shou ld not

lea rn to ha te it.

3 Simila rly Qu intilia n ha s a good

word for games and does not want to see children

overworked ? His condemna tion of corpora l punish

ment is well known : here a ga in Chrysippus is

quoted, this time in disagreement?

Quintilian’s system requ ires tha t the va rious

subjects of the e’

ymiKAtoq n a cSeia should be studied

concurrently, not one after the other. Ma thema tics

a nd music a re to be lea rnt whilst the boy is still

a ttending the school of litera ture ; 6 a nd the first

lessons in rhetor ic ma y be taken before he ha s fina lly

left the gramma ticus for the rhetor .

7 Quintilia n is

here trying to concilia te public Opinion , which was

a pt to give the gramma ticus a la rger sha re in the

boy’s education than Quintilian thought proper .

The fa u lt la y ma inly with the tea chers of rhetoric .

Declama tion ha d come to play so la rge a pa rt in the

1 ibid . i . 1 , 15- 17 .

2 ibid . i . 2, 1 . His own s on , who died a t the a ge of ten ,ha d

s tudied b oth Greek and La tin litera ture (v i, p rooem . 93 ibid . i . 1 , 20 .

g

4 ibid . 1 . 3, 8—13.

5 ibid . i . 3, 13—17 .

6 ibid . i . 10, 1 12, 1—7 .

7 ib id . ii . 1 , 13.

9029

194 QUINTILIAN

course of rhetoric tha t a fa shiona ble rhetor seldom

condescended to tea ch the prepa ra tory exercises in

rhetorica l composition ? This neglect led to two

a bu ses . Either the gramma ticus took upon himself

work which properly belonged to a rhetor , thus

keeping his boys for an a dditiona l yea r or two or

the first cla sses in rhetoric were given by some

s econd-ra te ma ster whose qualifications did not

permit him to tea ch the more a dva nced s ta ges of the

course . Quintilia n c ondemns both pra ctices . It

is a bsurd he says , to keep a boy from the school

of declama tion until he is a ble to decla im .

’ Let ea ch

profess ion respect its neighbour’s limits . Some few

gramma tici a re , of course, quite competent to tea ch

rhetoric , but this is not their proper work ? Suetonius

quotes an extreme example. When he was a boy,a certa in Princeps used to tea ch litera ture a nd

rhetoric on a lterna te days— sometimes even litera

ture in the morning , rhetoric in the a fternoon ?

Quintilian would ha ve condemned such presumption

less so, however, than the va nity which led many

rhetores to neglect the elementa ry pa rt of their course .

A ma n is no tea cher he s ays , if he is unwilling to

take the lower cla ss es a nd he goes on to argue that

the more a m a n knows a bout his subject , the better

his qua lifica tions for taking a cla ss of beginners ?

Here , a s els ewhere , Quintilian is speaking from

persona l experience ; for in the following chapter,which describes in deta il these preliminary exercises ,

1 Quint . 11 . 1 , 1—3.

2 ibid . ii . 3, l .3 ibid . ii. 1 , 3—6 .

4 Suet . Cram . 4.

5 Quint . ii . 3, 5 .

196 QUINTILIAN

rhetoric a re usua lly in the yea rs of a dolescence

(a dulti fere) , a nd tha t they often s tay on a s pupils

when they a re grown men (iuvenes fa cti)? Allowing

for southern s ta nda rds , this proba bly mea ns a ny

thing between the a ges oi fourteen a nd nineteen so

tha t Quintilia n’s experience wa s ma in ly of the Older

type of school-boy. But his words of encoura gement

for p ueri who a re unused to criticism a nd ea s ily

frightened by ha rsh correction , Show tha t he ha d

himself lea rnt from persona l experience the va lue of

kindnes s when dea ling with younger boys ? Such

p a eri were presuma bly ta ught in a s epa ra te cla ss , for

the exercises which Quintilian prescribes for them

a re distinct from the more a dva nced forms of

rhetorica l compos ition . The wa rning tha t p ueri

Should not sit bes ide a dules centes refers most probably

to Older a nd younger members of the same cla ss , not

to specia l occa sions when the whole school wa s

brought together for a public declama tion ?

Apa rt from these practica l deta ils of s chool work

Quintilia n’s a ccount of the éy xtxxi o s n a tSeia is on

conventiona l lines . Music a nd geometry are to be

studied during the cours e of litera ture , but Qu intilia n

trea ts both a s subordina te to the s tudy of litera ture

a nd rhetoric 4 In the chapter 0 11 gramma r, for

example, we a re told tha t a good gramma ticus mus t

ha ve studied mus ic otherwise he will not be a ble

1 Quint . 11 . 2, 3; see a lso x . 5 , 14 ; xi 1 . 1 1 , 13.

2 ibid . ii . 4, 8 .

3 ib id . ii. 2, 9—10 x . 5 , 21 (where the cla s s es a re mentioned a s

sepa ra te ) .4 ibid . i . 10, l 12, 1—19 .

QUINTILIAN 197

to expla in the metres of his a uthors ? And in the

cha pter specially devoted to mus ic a t the end of the

first book, a fter s ome genera lities borrowed from

Greek educa tiona l theor ists—with quota tions from

Pytha gora s, Lycurgu s , Pla to , Archyta s , a nd Aristo

xenu s2—Quintilia n comes to the pra ctica l ques tion

how will music benefit the ora tor ‘

Z The a nswer is

severely pra ctica l it will tea ch him to control a nd

modula te his voice, a nd make ha rmonious gestures

?

Simila rly, geometry is to b e studied partly for the

excellent menta l tra ining tha t it gives , pa rtly for its

pra ctica l utility when the ora tor ha s to spea k of such

subj ects a s land-mea surement or more intrica te

ma thema tica l problems it would never do for him

to hes ita te in public over his figures ? But neither

music nor geometry is to b e studied with a specia list’s

care ;5

a nd the same pr inciple is a pplied to the

lessons in elocution which Qui ntilia n expects the boy

to get from some profess ional a ctor ?

Quintilian’s ma in interest is, of cour se, in the

schools of litera ture a nd rhetoric , Greek a nd La tin

The b oy should go first to the Greek gramma ticus

b ut both litera tures a re ta ught concurrently, a nd in

the s ame wa y . There a re les sons in the spoken

langua ge (recte loguendi s cientia ) , which include

di cta tion a nd composition a s well a s gramma r, a nd

lessons in the litera ture of both langua ges (poeta rum

1 ibid . i . 4, 4 10, 28—9 .

2 ibid . i . 10, 9—21 .

3 ibid . i . 10, 22—30 see a lso xi . 3, 14—65 .

4 ibid . i . 10, 34—49 .

5 ibid . i . 12 , 14.

6 ibid . i . 1 1 , 1—14 ; xi . 3, 88—9 1, 181 .

7 ibid . i . 4, I .

198 QUINTILIAN

ena rra tio) .1 A more deta iled definition of the work

done by the gramma ticus is given ca sua lly in an

ea rlier cha pter : he tea ches his pupil how to spea k

correctly,expla ins gramma tica l difficulties in the

a uthors rea d , interprets historica l a llus ions a nd com

ments on his a uthor? Quintilian’s enthus ia sm for

the study of gramma r is well known? a nd wa s

proba bly due to the influence ofRemmius Pa la emon.

His cha pter on the a uthors to b e rea d a t school is

shorter, proba bly in view of the la ter digression on

the same subject which fills ha lf of the tenth book.

Homer a nd Virgil a re in a cla s s by themselves but

the tra gedia ns , comedia ns , a nd lyric poets a re a ll

mentioned a s suita ble s chool -texts .

4 Quintilia n is ,of cour se, severe ly cla s s ica l in his ta stes , but

does not exclude the older La tin poets from his

lis t, proba bly out of respect for Cicero’s known

preferences? Elsewhere , however, he is ha rd on the

ea rly La tin pros e-writers . 6 And his mora l standa rds

a re no les s exa cting . Mena nder can be rea d s a fely by

boys , but the other comedians a re mentioned with

res erve : even Horace shou ld not be rea d in class

unexpurga ted.

7

The s tudy of prose -a uthors ra ises once more the

interesting question how much history wa s rea d a t

school ? Qu intili a n expects the gramma ticus to

expla in such hi storica l a nd mythologica l a llusions a s

occur in his text 6 b ut experience ha d ta ught him

1 Quint . i . 4, 2 .

2 ibid . i . 2 , 14.

3 ibid . i . 4, 5- 6 .

4 ibid . i . 8 , 5—7 .

5 ibid . i . 8 , 8—12.

6 ibid . ii . 5 , 21—3.

7 ibid . i. 8, 6 , 7 .

3 ibid . i . 2, 14 ; 4, 4 ; 8 . 18—21 .

200 QUINTILIAN

the wrong kind of pupil wa s showing interest in the

work. For these rea sons he ha d a ba ndoned the

system,but lea ves the experiment on record for the

benefit of future tea chers ?

3. Rhetoric the Declama tiones

The trans ition from litera ture to rhetoric wa s

ma rked by a series of prepa ra tory exercises in com

position,which Qu intilia n describes in some deta il .

The Greek term for a ll these exercises wa s p rogymna s

ma ta , a nd text-books for this portion of the e’

m KAio s

mu Seia still survive nota bly the P rogymna sma ta

of Theon . Qu intilia n a s s igns some of these exercises

to the gramma ticu s , others to the rhetor? Even qu ite

young boys cou ld ea sily do the ea rliest a nd simplest .

One of Aesop’s fa bles wa s rea d a loud, and the b oywa s then a sked to tell the story hims elf in simple ,correct la ngua ge? La ter he wa s ma de write the

s tory down in the same s imple style ; a nd a nother

fa vourite exercise wa s the free pa ra phra se in prose

of a pa ss a ge taken from some poet rea d in cla ss ?

Greek tea chers pa ssed directly from these simpler

forms of composition to the na rra tio , ta king their

subject-ma tter either from poetry or history ? Qu inti

lian res erve s the na rra tio for a la ter sta ge , a nd pa sses

from the fa ble a nd pa ra phr a se to the s ententia a nd

chria . These were short compos itions on some

proverb or s aying of a grea t m a n, the s ententia being

impersona l , the chria connected with some his torica l

1 Quint . 11 . 5 , 2.

2 ibid . i . 9 , 1—6 ; ii . 4, 1—40 .

3 ibid . i . 9 2 .

4 ib id . Cols on on Quint . i . 9,6 .

QUINTILIAN 201

personality ? Sunt la crima e rerum is a n obvious

example . A chria on this verse would begin by

paraphra sing the meaning , then give the reasons for

a nd against, illustra te the verse from its context in

the Aeneid and from other historica l examples ,confirm it by quotations from the poets, and end with

a forma l ep ilogue.

Qu intilia n assigns a ll these p rogymna sma ta to the

gramma ticus : those which he enumera tes in the

second book belong properly to the rhetor , though in

practice they were Often ta ught by the gramma ticus .

For Quintilian compla ins tha t , in the La tin schools

a t lea st, tea chers of rhetoric had a llowed the gram

ma tici to usurp this pa rt of their course ? The

que stion is of some importance a s these la ter exercises

include pra ctice in historica l composition . Quinti

lian, who rea d the historia ns in cla ss with his pupils ,pla ces historical na rra tio first on the list of p ro

gymna sma ta reserved for the teacher of rhetoric?His purpose, it should be noted, is not primarily to

impa rt knowledge of history ; a nd his suggestions

dea l ma inly with questions of style. But historical

compos itions can easily be made to follow a definite

plan of rea ding , a nd Quintilia n does not need to be

told tha t exercises in style a re doubly useful when

connected with the a uthors rea d in cla ss ? Indeed

some offithe subj ects which he suggests for exercises

akin to na rra tio a re taken stra ight from Livy?

1 ibid . i . 9 , 3with Colson’

s va luab le notes .

2 ibid . i . 9 , 6 ii . 1 , 1—2 .

3 ibid . 11 . 4, 1 - 19 .

4 ibid . i . 9 , 3 ii . 5 , 14—17 5 ibid . ii . 4, 18 , 19 .

9 029

202 QUINTILIAN

A natural sequel to these na rra tiones were com

pos itions in praise of grea t men or in condemna tion

of the wicked, a nd forma l compa risons between two

or more famous persona ges an exercis e which ga ve

Pluta rch the idea for his P a ra llel Lives 1 These

exercis es border on wha t wa s technica lly cons idered

rhetor ic , a nd Qu intilian follows them up with loci

communes a nd thes es ; the former being ess ays on

this or tha t type of cha ra cter, the latter morea bstra ct themes su ch a s Country- life a nd Town

life or a compa r ison between the work of a lawyer

a nd a soldier? La stly he names a type of composition

even more directly useful to the ora tor set pass a ges

(loci ) on the va lue of evidence, the justice or injustice

of laws, their opportuneness a nd so forth? The

student who ha s ma stered this type of composition

is rea dy for either sua soria e or controvers ia e ?

This well-ordered sequence of p rogymna sma ta gives

a fa ir idea of a ncient rhetoric a t its best. Wha tever

its fa u lts , Greek rhetoric a s it ha d been ela bora ted by

Aristotle, Hermagora s a nd their succes sors wa s a

ca refully planned , logica l system of educa tion a nd

its minutest deta ils ha d been thought out by tea chers

who formed their theor ies for thems elves in the

cla s s -room . No a ttempt can be ma de here to

describe the system a s a whole : there is no short

cut thr ough it a nd Qu intilia n is still the best a uthor

on the subject. Indeed, the ma in portion of the

Ins titutio ora toria wa s pla nned by Quintilia n a s a

1 Quint . 11 . 4, 20—1 .

2 ibid . 11 . 4, 22—5 x . 5 , 11—13.

3 ibid . ii . 4, 27—40 .

4 ibid . ii . 4, 33.

204 QUINTILIAN

a uthorities dis a greed among themselves : common

sense, pa instaking a ccura cy in the sta tement of

received opinions a nd rema rka ble clea rness in the

expos ition of his own views a re perhaps the chief

merits of his work

I sha ll not b e a fra id he s ays himse lf, to give my own

opinion wheg needed , though s o many have written well on thissub ject . N or ha ve I s la vishly followed the tea ching of any one

school , b ut have left my rea ders free to choose wha t view theythink b es t , my ta sk b eing ra ther to ga ther into a Single volumethe re sults of many workers . Where there wa s no room left forfurther discovery , 1 have b een content with the reputa tion ofwork thoroughly done .

’ 1

Quintilian pr efa ces his trea tis e on rhetoric with a n

introductory cha pter on the va lue of declama tion.

So many loose sta tements ha ve been ma de a bout this

portion of his educationa l theory tha t his views a re

better quoted in ful l .

Declama tion he s a ys , 13 the mos t modern of a ll our

exercises , and a lso b y fa r the mos t u seful . For it conta ins initself a ll thos e prepa ra tory exercis es which I ha ve de scrib ed , and

comes a s nea r to rea l life a s a representa tion can . Tha t is why itha s b ecome s o popula r , and is now commonly thought sufficientof itself to make an ora tor ; for no qua lity of susta ined ora toryis a b s ent from this systema tic exercise in speaking . Unfortu

ma tely—thank s to b a d tea ching—ma tters have b een let go s o fa rtha t the ignorance a nd extra va ga nce of our decla imers is now

a ma in cause of our deca dent ora tory b ut it is permis s ib le tomake good u se of wha t is b y na ture good . The sub jects s et fordevelopment Should , I hold , b e modelled closely on rea l life , a nd

declama tion , which wa s invented a s an exercise for pub licspeaking , should imita te pub lic speaking a s fa r a s pos sib le .

’ 2

Like most of what Quintilia n ha s written, this is

pla in common sense ; a nd he goes on to develop1 Quint . iii . 1 , 22 .

2 ibid . ii . 10, 1—4.

QUINTILIAN 205

certa in Obvious lessons. School-declamations dea lt

ma inly with fictitious a nd romantic S itua tions

witches , ora cles, pla gues , cruel stepmothers , and so

forth were pa rt of the ordina ry s tock-in-trade .

Quintilia n does not b a r thes e fictions a bsolutely , b ut

he wants them kept within rea sona ble limits . A

certa in amount of roma nce is no bad thing for boys

who will let thems e lves go more ea sily when the

subject is roma ntic ; but the fiction should never

become ridiculous, a nd there should a lways be close

contact with rea l life? Quintilia n never wearies of

insisting on this point declama tion tha t has cea sed

to be a tra ining for the forum is like a theatrica l

display or the ra vings Of a luna tic . What is the

use he a sks , of concilia ting the judge when there

is no judge ; of na rra ting wha t is pla inly fa lse ; of

proving a ca s e which will never come up for de

cision 2 And he ha s more tha n negative criticism

to offer—though his suggestions a re put forwa rd

tenta tively with the feeling tha t custom is a gainst

him . He would like, for example, to see the de

clama tions ma de more concrete : proper names

should be used , a s ha d once been the rule ? Then

the plots Should be ma de more complica ted, less

crudely obvious ; a nd the language Should be les s

a rtificia l, more akin to the speech of everyday life?

S ententia e a re a ll very well and there is no lack of

them in the Ins titutio ora toria but Quintilia n knows

the da nger of a buse, and more tha n once spea ks out

1 ibid . ii. 10 , 5—6 v . 12, 17—23.

2 ibid . ii . 10 , 8 .

3 ibid . ii. 10, 9 Suet . rhet. 1 .

4 ibid . 11 . 10, 9 viii . 3, 23.

206 QUINTILIAN

openly on the subj ect ? Nor wa s this the only fa ult

in these a rtificia l declama tions . A joke would s eem

out of pla ce in most of the controvers ia e described by

the elder Seneca , a nd j okes a re none too plentiful

in the Ins titutio ora toria which is tru ly Spanish in

its gra vita s . But Quintilian is ca reful to remind us

tha t no lawyer ca n do without a n occa s ional j est, and

he ha s a Specia l cha pter de Bisu? Some of thes e

fa u lts were of course inherent in the system of

school-declama tion , but Quintilian insists that good

teaching will cure most of them ; and he ends his

cha pter with a n ingenious compa rison . On the sta ge

a ctors a void the tone of ordina ry conversa tion, but

their a rt cons ists in remaining na tura l whils t a dopting

a convention . Similarly declama tion , which is

prima rily intended to be a reproduction of public

ora tory, should imita te rea l life without losing tha t

epideictic qua lity which ma rks it Off from ordinary

Speech .

3

Quintilian’s attitude towa rds declamation can b e

illustrated from every portion of his work. In the

first cha pter of the second book, for example , the

tea cher of rhetor ic is ca lled ma gis ter declama ndi

from his most important cla s s ? The next cha pter

dea ls with the duties of a tea cher, a nd stress is la id

on the need for a uthority, ta ct , pa tience, a nd kindness

in the difficu lt work of controlling a cla s s of excita ble

a nd s ens itive boys , who a re apt to have their hea ds

turned by a succes sfu l declama tion ? The need for1 Quint . 11 . 4, 31 viii. 5 , 34.

2 ibid . 11 . 10 , 9 v i . 3, 1 .

3 ibid . ii. 10, 10- 13.

4 ibid. 11 . l , 3.

5 ibid . ii. 2, 4—13.

208 QUINTILIAN

who think that school-declamations are enough of

themselves to make a n ora tor ?

Ca n we go further, a nd illu stra te Quintilian’s

precepts from his own example Once a t lea st in

the Ins titutio ora toria Qu intilia n interrupts the

technica l exposition of his theory to develop in deta il

the plot of a s chool-declama tion ? The plot itself

is of some interest a s Showing the type of controvers ia

which Quintilian wa s a ccustomed to decla im . Some

young men,who ha d the habit of dining together,

a rranged for a supper on the s ea - shore . One of them

mis ses the supper, a nd the others inscribe his n ame

on a tomb which they ha ve bu ilt for him . His

fa ther, who has been tra velling over s ea s , lands on

tha t part of the shore, rea ds his son’s name a nd hangs

himself. The young men a re a ccused of ha ving

caused his dea th .

’ Fanta s tic though it m a y sound,that is a typica l controvers ia ; a nd Qu intilia n dis

cusses it qu ite ser iou sly. There is firs t a n a n a lys is

(finitio) of the ca se for prosecution , then of the ca se

for defence : then a brief development of the ma in

arguments to b e urged 0 11 e ither S ide with due rega rd

for the proba bilities of the ca se . Nobody ha s ever

questioned the a uthenticity of this pa s s a ge from the

Ins titutio ora toria yet it has a n important bea ring

on a question which ha s much vexed modern s tudents

of Quintilia n’s theory. Did Qu intilia n write a ll or

a ny of the Declama tiones which ha ve come down to

u s under his name A brief sta tement of the ma in

facts at issue will help to explain the problem , a nd

1 Quint . x . 5 , 17- 2l ; see ab ove , p . 167 .

2 ibid . v ii .3, 30—4.

QUINTILIAN 209

ma y throw further light on the work done in the

schools of Latin rhetor ic .

Two sets of declama tions a scribed to Quintilian

ha ve survived,ea ch with its s epa ra te ma nuscript

tra dition. One is complete a nd is known a s the

Declama tiones ma iores it cons ists of nineteen school

declama tions , worked out in ful l a s models of the

genre. Some of the titles are suggestive of the con

tents The Wa ll with the Fingermarks (P a ries

pa lma tus ) , The Blind Ma n at the Door,’ A Soldier

of Ma rius ,’ The Astrologer,

’

a nd so forth. As it

stands, the collection mus t ha ve been put together

before the end of the fourth century A . D . for the

manu script tra dition can be tra ced back to an a rche

type Oi tha t period, and there a re numerous quota

tions from these declama tions in wr iters of the fourth

a nd fifth centuries ? Most of these a uthors quote

the Declama tiones as the work of Quintilian , and

there are a lso quotations from two other declamations

by Quintilia n, not included in our collection : the

Fa na ticus and the Ca put involutum? Nevertheless,

Quintilian is almost certa inly not the author of the

Declama tiones ma iores . The style is unlike his

careful moderation ; the themes chosen are just

those against which he wa rns young students a nd

they a re made even more extra va gant by the

author’s taste for the fantastic . Those who have

studied the Declama tiones ma iores in detail are

a greed that they belong most probably to the second

1 Ritter , pp . 204 foll . Schanz , ii . 2, p . 464, 467.

2 La ct . Div . inst. i . 21 v . 7 .

D d

210 QUINTILIAN

century A . D . Apule ius seems to have known them 1

a nd Treb elliu s Pollio, writing towa rds the end of the

third century,refers to declama tions by Quintilian

which ra nked a s the best of their kind ?

SO fa r there is little difficulty. The Declama tiones

ma iores were proba bly produced in the La tin schools

of rhetoric some time a fter Qu intilian’s dea th , and

were a ttributed to the famous rhetor as a guarantee

of their excellence tha t seems a fa ir hypothesis , a nd

most scholars accept it a s the most probable explana

tion of the fa cts. But a different theory is needed to

expla in the origin of a second collection of declama

tions a ttributed to Quintilia n, the Declama tiones

minores . To begin with , more than half of this

collection— and tha t the first half—is missing in allour ma nuscripts . There is no title-pa ge, though

numerous s ubs criptiones testify to Quintilian’s

a uthorship ; a nd the preface, if there was one , is

a lso missing. The loss is s erious, for theDeclama tiones

minores certa inly need some kind of a prefa ce.

Unlike the Declama tiones ma iores they a re not

worked out in fu ll nor a re they mere extra cts from

complete declama tions , like the elder Seneca ’s

S ententia e et Colores . For the most pa rt they give

no more tha n an outline of the plan to be developed,

with an occas iona l more ela bora te specimen . Some

times this outline or specimen is given without

further comment more frequently the declama tio is

interrupted by a n oral commenta ry—hea ded S ermo

1 Weyman in S itzber . d . ba y . Ala , ph .-his t . Kl . 11 . p . 287 .

2Treb ell . P ollio , Vit. P ost. j un . 4

, 2 .

212 QUINTILIAN

For the Declama tiones minores give the critic

a twofold problem to solve. On the one hand,the ma tter of both s ermones a nd declama tiones is

excellent, a nd the ca re spent on the arrangement and

a na lysis of the plot (divis io a nd finitio) is in strict

a ccorda nce with Quintilia n’s principles ? The lan

guage, too , is correct ; a nd the style—when notdis j ointed by the peculia r form of the text—is verymuch in Quintilian’s ma nner. But no rea der can

resist the impression tha t Quintilian would never

have passed these notes for publica tion. There is

no a ttempt a t bringing the materia l into a ny sort ofsystema tic order, and the unevenness of the s tyle is

sometime s inexcusa ble ? The Simplest solution of the

difficulty is to suppose that thes e are the class -notes

of one of Quintilia n’s pupils , published either without

his consent during his lifetime or a fter his death.

Quintilia n himself compla in s tha t two sets of cla ss

notes ha d a lrea dy been published before the a ppea r

ance of the Ins titutio ora toria ? The ea rlier ha d been

taken down hurriedly during two days by some of

his younger pupils : a des cription which could not

possibly suit the Declama tiones minores , origina lly

388 in number. But Qu intilia n’s des cription of the

second s et, whether it refers to our exta nt collection

or not, exactly describes its cha ra cter. The second

he says , wa s ta ken down a s fully a s poss ible in

shorthand during several da ys , and wa s then

1 Quint . ii . 6 v ii. 3; 4 Ritter , pp . 225 fe ll .2 Leo , p . 1 17 (quoting Decl. 247 , 268 , 270, 306 a s specimens ) .3 Quint . i, p rooem . 7 .

QUINTILIAN 213

published in a hurry by young s tudents who

mea nt well,but were over-ea ger in their loyalty

to me. ’

Gra nted that the Declama tiones minores may well

be a product of Qu intilian’s cla ss-room , it is interest

ing to see wha t light they throw on his methods of

teaching. One or two coincidences are worth noting.

Quintilian twice refers to a declama tio on the following

topic A man ha s three sons an ora tor, a philoso

pher, a nd a doctor . He divides his property into

four parts, lea ving one to ea ch a nd the fourth to the

one who ha s proved himself most useful to the sta te .

The sons dispute for the property 1 This declamatio

is included in the Declama tiones minores , a nd the

doctor is made to sta te his ca se a ga inst the two

others it is an interesting specimen of a very conv en

tiona l theme? Two other plots a re common to the

Declama tiones in their present incomplete form and

the Ins titutio ora toria . One is entitled Adulter

s a cerdos a nd is a s follows Priests ha ve the right

of freeing one m a n from sentence of dea th a dultery

is to be punished by dea th . A priest is ta ken in

a dultery a nd cla ims immunity for hims e lf by reason

of his privilege. He is killed , a nd his Sla yer is accused

of murder.’ 3 The other is even more fa nta stic

The law requires tha t he who viola tes a woma n

should die within thirty days, unless he obtain

pa rdon from his oWn a nd the woman’s fa ther. Aman

ha s sinned, a nd obta ins pa rdon from the woman’s

1 ibid . v 1i . 1 , 38 4, 39 .

2 Decl. 268 .

3 Quint . v . 10 , 104 decl.

214 QUINTILIAN

fa ther, but is refused by his own parent. He a ccuses

his fa ther of madness .’ 1

These coincidences between the Institutio and the

Declama tiones a re ma inly interesting for the light

they throw on Quintilia n’s a ttitude towa rds the

conventiona l school-declama tions he does not rej ect

them , but seeks to use them in a ra tiona l wa y . And

certa inly no reader of the Declama tiones minores ca n

fa il to detect a note of sincerity in a ll tha t is said by

this a nonymous schoolmaster. Many of the s ermones

a re a dmira ble in their own wa y? a nd the declama

tiones , however extrava ga nt the subj ects proposed,are nota ble examples of restra int, well-ordered

a rrangement of the a rgument, a nd sound psychology.

Quota tion from the declama tiones is impossible, but

here is a typical s ermo the subj ect proposed is one

which must ha ve ma de a specia l a ppea l to Quintilia n.

3

The law a llows a man to demand an a dvoca te . In gra titudeis a crimina l Offence . A rich man ha s s ent a poor young man toAthens a t hi s own expens e : he returns an ora tor . A dela tor

a ccuses the rich man of trea son , and demands a s hi s a dvoca te the

poor s tudent whom the rich man had educa ted . The poor man

plea ds in court, and loses the ca se . The rich man sues him for

ingra titude .

’

S ermo .

You unders tand tha t thi s young man mus t show the grea testrespect for his rich p a tron tha t is the way to make it pla in tha the is a cting under necess ity, should any compla int b e ma de a b outhis conduct . And this rule should b e genera lly ob served in a ll

controvers ia e which dea l with cha rges of ingra titude : we mus tb e ca reful not to make the a ccused appea r ungra teful in his

speech . Only very s eldom will you meet with a controvers ia in

1 Quint . ix . 2, 90 ( = Decl.2 See esp . Decl. 270, 316 , 338 , 349 , 351—9 .

3 ibid . 333.

216 QUINTILIAN

a nother gives a comparison between the exordium and

ep ilogue of a declama tio which is well worth comparing

with Qu intilian’s cha pter on the need for a n exordium

in p ublic ora tory ; 1 and elsewhere the s chola stica

ma teria of a school declama tion is contra sted with

the forens e opus of a public ora tor? a contrast which

underlies a ll Quintilia n’s theory of rhetoric .

Whoever their a uthor,these Declama tiones minores

a re va lua ble a s evidence of the wa y in which a ncient

rhetoric wa s ta ught . In a ll the Ins titutio ora toria

there is only one direct reference to the declamations

which Qu intilian must ha ve given every da y a t

s chool . As a n insta nce of wha t a good memory ca n

do , Quintilia n mentions the fa ct tha t when some

distingu ished visitors entered his cla s s -room—a com

mon occurrence in the La tin s chools of rhetoric 3

he wa s a lways a ble to repea t word for word the

extempora ry declama tion which ha d been inter

rupted by their a rriva l? The Declama tiones ta ke us

s traight into such a cla ss -room a nd Show us how

rhetoric wa s ta ught by men like Quintilian . I must

Show y ou the wa y the anonymous tea cher s ays in

one of the s ermones firs t find out wha t ea ch pa rty

is a iming a t, wha t their arguments a re then state

the se a rguments a s briefly a nd a s clea rly a s poss ible

a nd he follows up his precept with a pra ctica l

illustra tion of how it Should b e done ? This is in

s trict a ccordance with Quintilian’s a dvice

1 Decl. 338 Quint . iv . 1 esp . 3 2 ibid . 325 , 338 .

3 P liny , Epp . ii. 18 v i . 6 , 3 Bom ecque , p . 55 .

4 Quint . xi . 2, 39 .

5 Decl. 247 .

QUINTILIAN 217

‘

The tea cher should every d ay s a y s omething—or ra thermany things—which his pupils may reta in in their memories .

For,though rea ding will supply them with a ny numb er of models

to imita te , nevertheles s the tea cher’

s own words—his " livingvoice a s the phra se goes—give s them more sub s tantia l nouri shment : a b ove a ll, if the tea cher b e a man whom well-educa ted

pupils will love a nd venera te . It is ama zing how much morewilling we a re to imita te thos e for whom we have a liking .

’ 1

Indeed , it wou ld be ha rd not to ha ve a liking both

for Quintilia n and for the a uthor of theDeclama tiones .

Here is the la tter ’s a pology for what might seem

unnecess a ry repetition

If I s ometimes repea t the s ame thing severa l times over in myana lysis of thes e controvers ia e, rememb er tha t I do s o pa rtly forthe s ake of the new-comers , pa rtly b eca us e the a na lys is involvesrepetition . For those who were not a t the ea rlier cla s s es mus t b eta ught the genera l principles which a re a pplica b le to a ll contro

vers ia e, a nd a na lysis (divis io) is especia lly important in‘

the kindof controvers ia which we a re now doing .

’ 2

A little later there is a nother a pology, equa lly

reminiscent of Qu intilian’s ma nner

I do not want any one to compla in tha t I am not giving youa n opportunity for purple pa tches (loci) . You ca n develop thisdeclama tion if you like a nd Show Off your ta lent b ut you willb e making a speech tha t ma y perhaps b e plea s ing to the ea r , b utwill certa inly have nothing to do wi th the sub ject s et .

’ 3

The subject set wa s the following . A fa ther insists

on following his prodiga l son through the public

streets in tea rs he is charged with madness. ’ Were

a ncient tea chers of rhetoric altogether wrong in

setting such subj ects for their students Ma y it not

well be a fine a chievement of educa tion to tea ch a boy

1 Quint . 11 . 2 , 8 .

2 Decl. 314.

3 ibid . 316 (p . 244 , Ritter) compa re Quint . x . 5 ,22 .

E e

218 QUINTILIAN

tha t even the most dramatic situation loses none of

its effectiveness by being stated clea rly in simple,dignified language

4. Supplementa ry S tudies .

Quintilia n’s theory of rhetoric occupies seven books

(III—IX) of his Ins titutio ora toria . There is no use in

pretending that these seven books make light reading,though the grea t rhetor’s pupils seem to have prized

them more highly tha n any other pa rt of their

master’s work. To the modern reader they are as

uninviting as an ordinary text-book of Forma l Logic

a bare sta tement of rules as Quintilian hims elf

warns his readers with a ta ctful quotation from

Lucretius ? Here and there, of course, pa ssages ca n

be found which have more than a technica l interest

the chapter on j oking as a fine a rt is worth compa ring

with Cicero’s digression on the s ame subj ect? a nd

those who enjoy the unravelling of complicated word

puzzles should s ee wha t they ca n ma ke of Quintilia n’s

s ection on prose-rhythm ? But it is on ly in the tenth

book tha t Quintilian rega ins the ea sy conversational

manner which is his when he is a t his best. None

but a pedant cou ld feel that the a rid ques tions of

deta il and rhetorica l technique which ma ke so much

Of the Ins titutio ora toria difficult rea ding,conta in

the rea l stuff of oratory. Quintilia n knows better

than tha t his ninth book ends with a hurr ied

paragra ph, a nd the opening words of his next chapter

1 Quint . iii . 1 , 2—4 .

3 ibid . v i . 3 Cic . dc Or . 11 . 235—89 .

3Quint . ix . 4, 45- 111 .

220 QUINTILIAN

higher studies is no more than a continua tion of the

litera ry course alrea dy given by the gramma ticus and

rhetor .

Genera tions of cla s sica l scholars ha ve turned with

plea sure to the tenth book of the Ins titutio ora toria

a nd there is no denying tha t Quintilian is a t his best,or a lmost a t his best, a s a litera ry critic . The famous

series of pa ra llels between Greek a nd La tin litera ture

ma y not be a lways origina l in the criticisms which

they conta in but those criticisms a re a lways

discerning a nd a lwa ys a greea bly phra sed. Yet to one

who rea ds the Ins titutio ora toria a s a whole this

tenth book comes a s a dis a ppointment. Compared

with those portions of the dc Ora tore in which Cicero

describes his politior huma nita s , the litera ry counsels

of the grea t s choolma ster a re too obvious ly reminis

cent of the cla s s -room . Yea r a fter yea r Qu intilian’s

pupil ha s s a t on the benches , lis tening to the lectures

of gramma ticus , rhetor , a nd every other professor of

the e’

m KMo s wa LSec’

a . Now tha t his freedom is in

s ight , he is bidden take up his books a ga in ta blet

in ha nd—for Quintilia n does not neglect even tha t

deta il 1 —he is to re-rea d his cla ss ics , note their

individua l excellences , criticize a nd compa re one with

a nother, a bove a ll bu sy himself with the imita tion of

their style. S tudendum vero s emp er et ubique.

2 Tha t

is Qu intilia n’s fina l word of a dvice , a nd he promises

to the student who ha s been fa ithful to tha t golden

rule a n a chievement which he des cribes a s the most

precious fru it of a ll our studies and the noble rewa rd1 Quint . x . 1 , 20 ; 3, 31- 3.

2 ibid . x . 7, 27 .

QUINTILIAN 221

of our yea rs of la bour the power of delivering

a well-ba la nced, well-phra sed, fluent speech on a nyordina ry subject with a minimum of prepa ration.

‘

All of this could, of course, be pa ra lleled, from the

de Ora tore, or indeed from a ny a ncient a uthor who

discusses the question of litera ry composition . But

the empha sis is different in Cicero’s dialogue : his

p olitior humanita s connotes something more tha n

refinement of litera ry ta ste. And the contrast is ma de

more striking by wha t ha s a ll the a ppearance of a n

afterthought in Quintilian’s twelfth book. Towa rds

the end of his prefa ce to the first book Quintilian

outlines the plan of his work .

The fir s t b ook he tells us , will conta in those s tudies which

precede the' work of the rhetor ; in the s econd we sha ll trea t

of the first elementa ry ins truction given in the school of rhetoricand of the questions which concern the s ub stance of rhetoric .

The next fiv e b ooks will b e given to inventio , to which I havea dded the proper ordering of one

’

s ma tter (dispos itio) . Fourmore will b e devoted to s tyle , memory and delivery . Fina llyone will b e a dded in which we sha ll perfect the ora tor himse lf,d is cus s ing to the b es t of our powers his mora l cha ra cter ; themethod to b e ob served in undertaking , s tudying a nd de fendinga lega l ca se the right type of e loquence the mos t suita b le time

for ending a pub lic ca reer the s tudies b es t suited for the end

of life .

’ 2

With one exception , this is an exact description of

the ma tter contained in the Ins titutio ora toria : the

greater detail given concerning the ma tter'

of the

1 ibid . X . 7, 1—4, 12 .

2 ibid . i, p rooem. 21—2 . My a ttention wa s firs t drawn to this

pa s s a ge b y Beltrami’

s a rticle in S tudi ita lia ni difilologia cla ssica ,

xix pp . 63—72 .

222 QUINTILIAN

twelfth book is explained by the novelty which

Quintilian himself cla ims for this portion of his

programme .1 But the exception is worth noting.

After the first chapter of the twelfth book , in which

Qu intilian discuss es the mora l cha ra cter of his

perfect ora tor, three cha pters a re inserted on the

a dvanta ges to be derived from a study of philosophy,jurisprudence, and history.

2 These a re , he tells u s ,the ora tor’s instruments , the wea pons which he must

ha ve ever rea dy to hand for use in the fra y a lways

presuppos ing tha t rea dy comma nd of voca bula ry a nd

meta phor, tha t knowledge of inventio a nd disp ositio,

that power of memory and gra ceful delivery which

ha ve been scientifica lly provided for in the firs t

eleven books of the Ins titutz’

o ora toria .

3 The res t of

the twelfth book then follows in deta il the plan

a lrea dy outlined, a nd ends with a br ief a ccount of the

occupa tions su itable for a n ora tor who ha s retired

from public life .

4

N ow why should Quintilia n ha ve ma de this curious

insertion a t the very end of his work Why begin

a ll over a ga in a programme of higher s tudies which

ha s appa rently a lrea dy been completed An answer

to thes e questions m a y be found in the short

P rooemium to the twelfth book . Here Qu in tilian

a ffects a momenta ry a la rm a t the horizon which is

opening before him . Ca elum undique ct undique

1 Quint . xii, p rooem. 3—4 .

2 ibid . x11 . 2 ; 3; 4.

3 ibid . xii. 5 , 1 .

4 ibid . xii. 1 1 , 1—7 . The res t of the chapter is a forma lEpilogue to the whole work .

224 QUINTILIAN

but they a re in fact cla ssed with the study of philo

sophy, history, a nd law a s ins trumenta non a rtis ,

s ed ora toria 1 Even a skilled a rtist cannot a lways

concea l his incons istencies

No rea der of these pa renthetica l chapters can fa il

to note the difference between Cicero’s enthus iastic

plea for his three fa vourite s tudies and Qu intilian’s

brief dis cus s ion of their merits . The chapter on

philosophy ha d best be reserved for compa rison with

Quintilia n’s theory of the idea l ora tor : it is full of

ha lf-grudging a dmis s ions , a nd gives one the impres

s ion of a n ungra teful ta sk got through a s best may

b e . The cha pter which urges the necess ity of lega l

knowledge for a pra ctis ing lawyer develops a

commonpla ce theme with Qu intilian’s usua l com

mon sense, b ut there is no touch of persona l

enthus ia sm : those who turn awa y from ora tory to

law a re trea ted a s cowa rds who ha ve despa ired of

success in the nobler profes s ion .

2 And the s tudy of

history is dismissed in three brief sentences , with the

tra ditiona l comment tha t ora tory is a lways more

effective when illustra ted by examples from the pa st.3

This from a n a uthor who ha d a lrea dy found spa ce

for an excursus on the study of gramma r which covers

more than twenty pa ges of his fir st book And it is

no mere a ccident of persona l ta ste tha t Cicero should

ha ve been a n enthus ia st for history, Quintilia n for

grammar. It is the old contra st between the student

1 Quint . x11 . 5 , l .

2 ibid . xii . 3, 9 . The whole chapter should b e compa red withCic . , de Or . i . 166—203, 234—55 .

3 Quint . xii. 4 .

QUINTILIAN 225

who is a lso a m an of the world a nd the student who

knows and loves only his books . A love for letters

(gramma tics ) and the ha bit of rea ding do not end

with our school-days , but a re lifelong possess ions

the phrase , which occurs in the first book of the

Ins titutio ora toria ,

1 sums up Qu intilian’s intellectua l

a spira tions.

It is in the tenth book , then , that Qu intilia n’s

p olitior huma nita s is best express ed, a nd for tha t very

rea son the book ha s never la cked rea ders among

those who love the cla ssics . For Qu intilia n is the

typica l cla ssicist : once gra nt his canons of litera ry

excellence , a nd his judgement is unerring . Cicero wa s ,of cours e, more ca tholic in his ta stes he could enjoy

Na ev ius a nd Ennius and Pla utus a nd their like, a nd

he felt himself the immedia te heir of tha t stra ight

forwa rd, virile speech which Ca to ha d preferred to the

schola stic refinements of Greek rhetoric . Compa red

with this whole-hea rted a dm ira tion for everything

Roman, Qu intili a n’s ra nge is limited. For him

Cicero a nd the grea t Augustans a re supreme Virgil

is his Homer,Livy his Herodotus , Sa llust his

Thucydides , Cicero his Demosthenes and Pla to . It is

a good choice , b ut a student’s choice ; a nd it ha s

become tra ditiona l among students . Greek cla ssi

cism ,it ha s been s a id, won its fina l victory in the

s chools of Greek litera ture during the reign of

Augustus. 2 Quintilia n is the firs t of the La tin

cla ssicists : he looks ba ck to a pa st generation and

1 ibid . i . 8 , 12.

2 VVilamowitz in Hermes , vol . xxxv pp . 41 foll .F f

226 QUINTILIAN

is content with their a chievement. He is a student

writing for students a nd it is cha ra cteristic of his

theory tha t whilst Cicero recognizes the approva l of

a t ypica l Roma n crowd a s the fina l test of good

ora tory,1 Quintilia n contra sts the judgement of the

uneduca ted crowd with the ca nons of his own more

litera ry criticism .

2 Ora tory h a s become a doctrina

s chola s tica , to be relished by the cu ltured few : the

younger Pliny , writing to Ta citu s, justifies his own

long-winded ora tory by an a ppea l to the same rule .

A short speech he writes ,‘ is more popula r with

the many. Gra nted but the many a re la zy and it

would be absurd to count their idle whims a s a

serious judgement. ’ 3 Wa s Ta citu s wrong when he

contended tha t ora tory wa s dea d in Rome

Student though he wa s , Qu intilian wa s a less well

rea d man than Cicero a nd here a ga in he is typica l

of his genera tion . No rea der of the younger Pliny’s

correspondence, with its a rtificia l Ciceronianism ,can

fail to notice tha t the litera ry culture which Pliny

a ffects is less humane (in the La tin s ense of the word)than Cicero’s Spontaneous enthusia sm for philosophy

and letters , for politics a nd the society of cu ltiva ted

men. There is less of the old Roman vigour ; a nd

there is les s of the new wine of Greek thought. It is

the same with Quintilian . The Institutio ora toria is

less vigorous tha n the de Ora tore, a nd it is a lso less

Greek. In theory, of cours e, Quintilian expects his

idea l orator to be familia r with the best of both

1 Cic . de Or . ii. 159 Brut. 184 ; Or . 24.

2 Quint . x . l,43 see a lso ii . 12.

3 Pliny , Epp . i . 20, 22.

228 QUINTILIAN

Hes iod, Aes chylus, and Sophocles do not a ppea r a t

a ll even Euripides, most quota ble of a ll Greek

poets , a ppea rs only twice, a nd one of the two pa ss a ges

quoted is certa inly borrowed from Cicero’s dc

Ora tore.

1 Mena nder, whom Quintilian names a fter

Homer a s a poet to be rea d in the s chool of litera ture,a nd who is s ingled out for specia l pra is e in the tenth

book,2a ppea rs twice.3 Eupolis a nd Aristophanes a re

quoted in the chapter on mus ic , which is a ga in

certa inly dependent on some Greek source.4 Pinda r’s

a uthority is a ppea led to twice, a nd Quintilian s eems

to ha ve known his poems well. 5 But no other Greek

poet is quoted, a nd the figures for Greek prose

litera ture a re even more surprising. The de Corona of

Demosthenes a nd its companion-piece by Aeschines

a re , of course, frequently cited a s standa rd a uthori

ties ,6a nd there a re ha lf- a -dozen pa s s a ges from other

speeches of Demosthenes .

7 But the other Greek

ora tors do not a ppea r a t a ll, with the pos s ible

exception of Isocra tes , two of whose pa negyrics a re

cited in one pa s s a ge a s conventiona l types . 8 Pla to’s

dia logu es a re well repres ented ;9

a nd there is a n

interesting cha pter in which Qu intilia n shows deta iled

1 Quint . i . 12,18 ( =Cic . de Or . 11 . 187) v . 10 , 31 .

ibid . i . 8 , 7 x . 1 , 69—71 .

3 ibid . iii. 1 1 , 27 ix . 3, 89 .

ibid . i . 10 , 18 cf. xii . 10, 65 (a commonpla ce of the s chools ) .ibid . viii . 6 , 71 x . l , 109 ; of. x . 1 , 61 .

ibid . iii . 6 , 3 iv . 2, 131 v . 13, 42 et s a epe .

ibid . iii . 8 , 5 , 65 ; v . 14, 4 ; v i . 1 , 17 5, 7 ; ix . 4

, 63.

ibid . iii . 8 , 9 .

ibid . i . 10 , 13; ii . 16 , 3; 21, 4 ; iii . 1 , 10—12 ; 4, 10 ; viii.4,23 6 , 64 ; ix . 4, 77 ; xi. 2, 9 .

Q

W

Q

O

M

Q

N

QUINTILIAN 229

knowledge of the Gorgia s a nd Phaedrus , though he

compla ins tha t these two dia logues a re usua lly quoted

a t second-ha nd by writers who ha ve the reputa tion

of being well informed.

1 The historians ha rdly

a ppea r a t a ll. A s entence is quoted from Thucydides

to illustra te the da nger of fa lling into poetic rhythm ,

in the middle of pros e 2 b ut the pa ssa ge ma y well

ha ve been a stock example in Greek text-books of

style . And there is one reference to Xenophon’s

Memora bilia nothing from the Ana ba s is or from

Herodotus . Even within the strictest limits of

cla s sica l selection the la cuna e a re numerous .

Sta tistics a re seldom good evidence for a nything

so inta ngible as litera ry educa tion b ut it shou ld be

remembered tha t Quintilia n’s subj ect-ma tter ga ve

him endl ess opportunities for quota tion, a nd tha t the

Ins tita tio ora toria fa irly br is tles with quotations

from Cicero a nd Virgil. The conclusion is obvious .

Qu intilia n’s own rea ding wa s a lmost exclusively in

La tin litera ture the Greek poets a nd ora tors whom

he quotes a re those whom he ha d rea d a nd lea rnt by

hea rt a t s chool . Pla to is the one pros e a uthor whom

he seems to have rea d for the sheer delight of his

litera ry style. Demosthenes a nd Aeschines were

familia r from the ordina ry routine of his cla sswork 4

—a nd the a bsence of quota tions from the other Attic

ora tors is thus doubly significa nt. With the exception of Demosthenes, Cicero ha s definitely displa ced

the Attic ora tors in the schools of La tin rhetoric

1 ibid . 11 . 15 , 5 , 10, 24—31 .

2 ibid . ix . 4, 78 .

3 ibid . ix . 2, 36 .

4 ibid . x . 1 , 22, 105 .

230 QUINTILIAN

Qu intilian even boa sts of the change .

1 As public

profes sor of La tin rhetoric he could perhaps ha rdly

ha ve sa id less ; but the contra st with Cicero’

s

huma nita s rema ins.

5 . Vir bonus dicendi peritus .

It is the fa shion nowa da ys to expla in every

theory put forwa rd by a Roma n writer a s the a da pta

tion, or more often the misrepresenta tion, of some

Greek idea l . Qu intilia n ha s a theory to put forwa rd,a n idea l in which he believes . For him only a good

ma n ca n b e a n ora tor perfect ora tory implies a high

mora l sta nda rd a s well a s complete ma stery over

every form of speech . The ora tor whom we a re

educa ting he s ays in his prefa ce to the first book,‘

is the perfect ora tor who ca n be no other tha n a

good ma n tha t is why we requ ire of him not merely

eminence in the a rt of spea king, b ut a ls o every mora l

virtue .

’ 2 And a ga in in the s econd book The a rt

which we a re trying to tea ch a nd which we cherish

a s a n idea l is a virtue , beca us e it is tha t true rhetor ic

which belongs to the good ma n .

’ 3 And the twelfth

book opens with these words Let u s a s sume tha t

our ora tor is the ma n defined by Ca to a s a good

ma n a ble to Spea k b ut a bove a ll tha t he is wha t

Ca to puts firs t in his definition a s being essentia lly

the more importa nt a nd noble, a good ma n .

La ngua ge cou ld not b e pla iner. Quintilia n lays it

down a s a first principle of his whole educa tiona l

1 Quint . x . 1 , 105—12.

2 ibid . i , p rooem. 9 , 18 .

3 ibid . ii . 20, 4 .

4 ibid . xii. l , l .

232 QUINTILIAN

of speaking so a s to persua de In one form or

another that definition wa s taught in most of the

Greek schools , a nd Qu intilian quotes in support of it

a long list of a uthor ities : Pla to (in the Gorgia s ) ,Ar istotle, 2 Apollodorus , Herma gora s , Theodoru s, a nd

Corneliu s Celsu s. The la st named, he compla ins,makes no secret of his view tha t eloquence is in no

sense a virtue, ha ving for its proper rewa rd, not a

good conscience, but victory in deba te.3 Qu intilian

protests a ga inst this cynica l a ttitude. We have

undertaken to educa te the perfect ora tor, whom we

wish to be a bove a ll a good man . Let u s then turn

rather to thos e who have a higher opin ion of our

la bours. ’ And he ends by a dopting the Stoic

definition of rhetoric , the s cience of speaking well

Does this mean tha t Qu intilian borrowed his idea l

of the a ir bonus dicendi p eritus from Stoic sources

Severa l recent critics have been tempted by this

a ppa rently s imple solution .

5 One ha s even gone so

fa r a s to argue tha t Ca to’s famous definition could

not pos s ibly be or igina l , b ut mu st b e borrowed from

the Stoa . Wha t cou ld have given the old man the

idea of insisting so strongly on mora l worth ? ’ 3

1 Quint . 11 . 15 , 5 Appe l , pp . 31 foll .2 For Quintilian ’

s a ccount of the definition given b y Aristotlein his Rhetoric , see Angerma nn , p . 29 .

3 Quint . ii . 15 , 32 .

4 ib id . 11 . 15 , 33—8 .

5 Ra ub enheimer , pp . 68 foll . ; Appel , pp . 9 foll . ; Schanz ,11 . 2 , p . 462 .

3 Raderma chcr in Rhein . Mus . liv pp . 285 foll .,who

there puts forwa rd the view tha t the whole of Quintilian’

s twelfthb ook wa s a n a fterthought la te r he mod ified thes e views ( ibid . lvii

pp .

QUINTILIAN 233

This is Quellenkritik run wild with a vengeance but

it is not the worst of its kind. Once allow that

Quintilia n has used Greek Stoic sour ces, a nd the

Quellenforscher takes the bit between his teeth.

Among the minor works a ttr ibuted to Pluta rch is a

short essay On the Educa tion of Children , which h a s

often been compa red with Qu intilia n’s first book .

1

The two writings na turally ha ve much in common ,since both conta in matter which wa s pa rt of the

ordina ry stock-in-tra de a t the service of every

essa yis t on the subject a nd there were es sayists in

plenty under the ea rly Empir e . But the modern

Quellenforscher sees pa ra llels everywhere, and the

following gem deserves to be preserved.

2 Quintilian ,writing for La tin-speaking pa rents, holds tha t a

Roman boy shou ld lea rn Greek before he ca n speak

La tin a s ermone Gra eca p uerum incip ere rud lo.

s

Pseudo-Pluta rch to give a dull writer an ugly

name , ins ists tha t Greek boys should b e taught to

spea k Greek correctly : {777 717 60 12 gm p e’

v ro z

t

EAR’

rjvmc‘

i Ka i n epfrp a v a ha hefv f Why bother a bout

the context ‘

2 Down go the two pa ra llels in the

Quellenfors cher’

s note-book, a nd we ha ve the proof

tha t Quintilia n a nd Pseudo-Pluta rch a re both

copying from some lost Greek sour ce . S ince Quinti

lian quotes Chrysippus five times in his first book,5

the deduction is obvious Quintilian a nd Ps eudo

Pluta rch a re both copying from Chrysippus , or

1 Especia lly b y Gudeman in his P rolegomena to the Dia logueof Ta citus .

2 R-a ub enheimer , p . 56 .

3 Quint . i . 1 , 12 .

4 P s .-P lut .

, p . 4 A .

3 Quint . i . 1 , 4 ;3029 G g

234 QUINTILIAN

(better still) from some Stoic essayist who happens

to quote Chrys ippus in support of his own views.

Qu intilia n’s own a ccount of the debt which he

owes to the writings of Greek philosophers is not

quite so s imple . Sta rting from his fir st a ssumption

tha t only the good m an ca n be an ora tor, he com

pla in s more than once in his Institu tio ora toria tha t

the philosophers ha ve la id cla im to more than their

fa ir sha re in the work of educa tion. Quintilia n

des cribes the history of this gra dua l usurpa tion in

his prefa ce to the first book, a nd the expres s mention

of Cicero’s name reminds u s tha t he is here borrowing

lib era lly from the de Ora tore.

1 The s ame thought is

repea ted in the s econd book. Some ma inta in he

says, tha t it is the function of philosophy to discuss

questions of ethica l conduct a nd I do not disa gree

with them . For by the word " philosopher they

mea n a good m an a nd there is nothing surpris

ing for u s in the fa ct tha t an ora tor shou ld a lso

discuss thes e ma tters , s ince we do not distinguish

between the ora tor a nd the good m a n . In the

tenth book Qu intili a n includes the philosopher s in

his list of a uthors whom the young ora tor shou ld

rea d we should not have to rea d them he a dds ,if the ora tors ha d not a bandoned to them the bes t

part of their own work 3 And the twelfth book

expresses the hope tha t some d a y a perfect ora tor

may be given us who sha ll win ba ck for eloquence

1 Quint . i , p rooem. 1 1—17 Cic . de Or . iii . 56—62.

2 Quint . ii . 21 , 12 Appel , pp . 9 foll .3 ibid . x . 1 , 35 x11 . 2, 6—8 .

236 QUINTILIAN

Seneca ’s influence in the Ins titutio ora toria most

nota ble of all, the following persona l reminiscence,which occurs in the tenth book.

So fa r [we a re a t the end of Quintilian’

s lis t of La tin authorsworth rea ding for their s tyle] , I have delib era te ly made no men

tion of Seneca , b eca us e of the fa lse idea whi ch people commonlyha ve a b out me , tha t I condemn him and even ha te him . The

idea fir s t ga ined currency when I wa s doing my b e st to reca llour deca dent , outwom , wilful s tyle of ora tory b a ck to moreexa cting s tanda rd s . Seneca wa s then a lmos t the only a uthorwhom young men would rea d . It wa s never my intention tothrow him a side complete ly , b ut I could not a llow him to b epreferred to b etter men whom he himself wa s never wea ry ofa tta cking ; for he knew tha t his own style wa s different , andfe lt tha t it could never plea se those who found plea sure in his

predeces s ors . As for the younger genera tion , they enj oyed himb ut could not imita te him they were a s fa r b ehind him a s he

wa s b ehind the ancients . For I could wish tha t they Were hisequa ls or a t lea s t hi s nea r riva ls . But they liked him for hi s

fa ults , a nd ma de a point of a ffecting wha t they found ea sies tto imita te thus they wronged Seneca b y b oa s ting tha t they ha dma s tered his s tyle .

’ 1

And Qu intilian ends with the a dvice tha t Seneca

should b e rea d only by those who a re old enough to

distinguish between his virtues and his fa ults : for

there is much to a dmire in him, much tha t can be

a pproved, provided you take the trouble to choose.

If only he ha d done this himself For a na ture tha t

so a chieved its a im deserved to a im a t better things. ’ _

2

There is a warmth of feeling in these regrets which

suggests tha t Quintilian ha d once found himself

under the cha rmer’s spell . Seneca wa s a t the height

of his fame when Quintilian wa s a student in Rome,

1 Quint . x . 1 . 125—7 .

2 Ibid . x . 1 , 131 .

QUINTILIAN 237

and the young Spania rd must have read the Dia logues

and the Letters to Lucilius when they were fir st given

to the public. Did he owe them his interest in the

psychology of educa tion ? I hardly think so ; for

Quintilia n wa s born serious. Still he must have rea d

hi s fellow-countryman’s brilliant essays with a young

man’s enthusia sm, a nd the tone of the Institutio

ora toria suggests tha t Quintilia n owed more to these

es s ays than to Cicero’s philosophica l dia logues.

Indeed it is surpr is ing how seldom Quintilia n, who

never misses a n opportunity of quoting Cicero, ta kes

a quota tion from his hero’s strictly philosophica l

work.

1 Seneca , on the other hand, is never quoted

and the omission is s ignifica nt. The Institutio

ora toria wa s written a s a n a ppea l from Seneca to

Cicero, a nd Quintilian could ha rdly a fford to make

public his debt to the ma n whos e influ ence he ha d

been comba ting for the pa st twenty years.

Qu intilia n names the other La tin philos ophers

whom he thinks most worth rea ding : Brutus,Cornelius Celsus (a di s ciple of the Sextii) , a Stoic

writer by the name of Plautus , a nd Ca tius , a n

Epicurean .

2 But it is pla in tha t none of these ca n be

compa red with either Cicero or Seneca . Pla to wa s

certa inly Quintilian’s fa vourite among the Greeks 2

a nd he ha d a lso rea d Chrysippu s.4 These were, no

doubt, the veteres whom he pra is es in his prefa ce to

the first book, but we ha ve his own word for it that

he had rea d others a nd did not consider himself

1 See Bonnell’s Index .

2 Quint . x . 1 , 123—4.

3 ibid . i . 12, 15 x . 1 , 81 .

4 See a b ove , p . 193.

238 QUINTILIAN

bound by the tea ching of any particula r school.l

Further than this we can ha rdly go, a nd it is a lways

a risky thing to deny the use of a ny individua l

writer. But Quintilian’s genera l a ttitude towa rds

the study of philosophy is pla in enough. Granted

the unhappy division between rhetoric a nd the

theory of mora l conduct, no ora tor ca n a fford to

neglect the works of the philosophers b ut he should

rea d them with a view to ora tory, not a ccepting the

philosophic idea l. Quintilia n would never ha ve

advised his young men to become pupils in the s chool

of a philosopher. And it is interesting to note how

ca refully he absta ins from giving this a dvice in the

chapter of his twelfth book which dea ls expres sly

with the study of philosophy.

Virtue can b e ta ught, so his a rgument begins. N o

man ca n hope to b e just or bra ve or tempera te who

ha s not tra ined himself to a cqu ire thes e virtues a nd

his tra ining will not be intelligent unles s he makes

a study of them .

2 But if a ll men must study the

science of virtue , Cicero tells u s tha t the ora tor ha s

a peculia r need of this knowledge and must, therefore ,study philos ophy.

3 Cicero is a ga in quoted a s entence

or two further on , out of deference to his authority

a nd then Quintilia n ’

s na tura l instinct a ss erts its elf.

It is not my purpose in giving this a dvice to persuade theora tor to b ecome a phi los opher ; for no other profes s ion ha s

fa iled s o conspicuous ly in the duties of a citizen a nd in every work

proper to an ora tor . Wha t philosopher wa s ever succes s ful in the

1 Quint . i, p rooem . 1 1 iii . l , 22 xii . 2 , 26 .

2 ibid . xii . 2 , 1—4.

3 ibid . xii . 2, 5 Cic . de Or . iii. 74, 104.

240 QUINTILIAN

they lack style and fluency, are supreme in a rgu

ment. 1

But the ora tor owes a llegiance to no s chool . For the work towhich he ha s s et himself is nob ler and more sub lime it is his

a im to b e recognized a s perfect b oth in his ora tory and in his

life . The models which he mus t imita te a re in speech those whoa re mos t eloquent and in mora l conduct those who hold the

s trictes t rule of honour and who point the s tra ightest pa th tovirtue .

’ 2

The chapter ends with a cha racteristic phrase. All

this study of philosophy is good and useful, but it is

better and more useful to know the noble deeds of

the past ; the examples of coura ge, justice, good

fa ith, tempera nce, and constancy left u s by Fabricius,Regulus ,’ Mucius , and their like. For the Greeks

may excel in precept, but the Romans excel in what

is greater, example.’ 3

It is tempting to go on quoting from this twelfth

book,for it is full of cha ra cteristic sayings . Enough

ha s been s a id, however, to show wha t Quin tilian

meant by his idea l of the vir bonus dicendi p eritus and

to define his a ttitude towa rds the schools of philo

sophy then fa shionable in Rome. No hard a nd fa st

line can be drawn between Quintilia n a nd Seneca

both were men of their time ; b ut Qu intilian’s

idea lism wa s persona l to himself. Dur ing his long

ca reer a s tea cher he ha d come to the conclu s ion tha t

the deca dence which a ll men recogn ized in Roman

ora tory wa s due a s much to mora l a s to intellectua l

ca uses ; and he set himself to the work of creating

1 Quint . xii. 2, 24—5 .

2 ibid . x11 . 2, 26—7 .

3 ibid . xii . 2, 30 .

QUINTILIAN 241

a hea lthy reaction. He ha d fine gifts of litera ry

apprecia tion , a nd he must have been a wonderful

tea cher he wa s a lso a thoroughly good man . Tha t

he fa iled to revive the eloquence of a pa st genera tion

is lamentably true : Pliny wa s his pupil, and tha t

is evidence enough. But hi s criticisms of La tin

poetry a nd pros e a re still rea da ble a nd helpful a nd

his influence for good on the genera tion tha t knew

him must have been very great. Pliny himself is a s

good a m an a s Qu intilia n, and there were no doubt

others among his pupils . One name ha s a curious

associa tion . It wa s Juv ena l who wrote : Ma xirna

debela r p uero reverentia 1 —words which cover a ll the

teaching of Qu intilian’s first book, a nd reca ll Qu inti

lian’s ins istence tha t a t school the ma ster holds the

pa rent’s pla ce and should remember his respon s ib ili

ties. Juv ena l speaks of Qu intilian with respect a nd

( so fa r a s da tes go ) ma y well have been his pupil.

Was his s a eva indigna tio sometimes tempered by

memor ies of one whose spirit wa s kindlier a nd more

human in its sympa thies ‘

2

1 Juv . xiv . 47 .

X

CONCLUSION

QU IN TILIAN ’

S Ins titutio ora toria is a landma rk in

the history of Roman educa tion it is the culmina

tion of a long development, a nd it h a d no su cces s or.

The la ter schools of the Roman Empire produced

text-books of gramma r and rhetoric in abun

dance ; but no tea cher wa s found who could speak

with Qu intilia n ’

s a uthority, no ora tor sufficiently

interested in the theory of his a rt to produce a s econd

de Ora tore. There is only one pos s ib le exception.

So much ink h a s been spilt in the discus s ion a bout

the da te a nd purpose of the Dia logue on Ora tors tha t

one hesita tes to name Ta citu s a s a critic of the

Ins titutio ora toria . The two works a re certa inly

conn ected in s ome wa y or other no one who h a s

rea d them both can doubt the fa ct . But what is the

conn exion ‘P Wa s Ta citu s a pupil of Quintilian,writing a criticism of his ma ster’s tea ching yea rs

before the Ins titutio ora toria wa s published Or is

the Dia logue on Ora tors a polemica l work, published

shortly a fter the Institutio , in a nswer to Qu intilia n’s

defence of Ciceron ianism ? The question belongs

properly to the history of La tin litera tur e ,1 but a

1 See especia lly Gudeman’

s P rolegomena to his s econd edition ,

where he defend s the e a rlier da te a ga ins t most recent German

s chola rs Scha nz , ii . 2 , p . 294 , who takes the opposite view and

Dieme l in Wiener S tudien ,vol . xxxvii pp . 239—71 .

44 CONCLUSION

spea k a bout justice a nd honour a nd virtue a nd mercy

unless he ha s studied philosophy How can he build

a n a rgument unless he ha s studied dia lectics How

can he discus s a lega l ca se unles s he ha s studied

law‘

21

At this point Mes s a lla is interrupted for a moment

a nd a sked to expla in in grea ter deta il the kind of

e duca tion he thinks su itable for a n ora tor. In reply,he begin s by des cribing the old Roman tirocinium

fori, and the pra ctica l experience of a n ora tor’s work

which it gave the student. In proof of his point he

cites the names of four grea t ora tor s—Cra ssus,Ca es a r, Pollio, a nd Ca lvus—who h a d won fame for

themselves when ba rely twenty yea rs old.

2 But

nowa days he goes on, us ing a phra se borrowed from

the ceremonia l tirocinium fori our young men a re

brought (deducuntur ) to the schools of rhetoric ,which existed shortly before Cicero’s da y , but were

closed by the censors Domitius a nd Cra s sus , in

Cicero’s phra se, a s schools of impudence They

a re brought, I s a y , to thes e schools , where it would

b e ha rd to s a y whether the pla ce itself or the students

they meet or the kind of les s ons they lea rn do them

more ha rm.

’ 3 And he then la unches out in a genera l

a tta ck on the schools of rhetoric, which breaks off

suddenly in our mutila ted text. Wha t follows is an

unsolved problem of litera ry criticism . There . is

a pa ss a ge on the connexion between politica l dis

turb a nces and politica l ora tory ;4

a nother on the

1 Ta c . Dia l. 31—2.

2 ibid . 34.

3 ibid . 35 .

4 ibid . 36- 7 .

CONCLUSION 245

contra st -between the forum in Cicero’s da y a nd the

forum under the Empire 1a nd a fina l pa ssa ge on

the changew hich good government ha s ma de in the

Roman world.

2 There a re now no ora tors, such is

the conclus ion to which Ta citus comes, beca use

univer s a l pea ce h a s made men happy, and ha s

deprived the ora tors of their voca tion .

Mu ch of wha t Ta citu s s a ys is too rhetorica l to be

useful a s evidence : b ut he is pla inly right in his

ma in contention . Politica l ora tory a s Cicero knew

it wa s dea d , a nd the Empire wa s respons ible for its

dis a ppea rance . But Mes s a lla’

s speech ra ises a

further question . How fa r wa s it pos sible to reconcile

the idea ls of Cicero’s de Ora tore with the changed

conditions of Roman s ociety Qu intilia n’s Ins titutio

ora toria wa s a delibera te a ttempt to rev 1v e the

Ciceronian idea l , in spite of a ll obsta cles a nd in the

fa ce of dis coura gement . Let us strive a fter the

best such is Qu intilian’s la st word of a dvice , a nd

so doing we sha ll either rea ch the heights or a t lea st

see ma ny benea th us.’ 3 Ta citu s ends his Dia logue on

Ora tors with a pa rting shot, which ha s a ll the appea r

a nce of being written in answer to this idea lism .

Believe me , my good and (a s fa r a s we need it nowadays )eloquent friends , if you ha d b een b orn in the good old days andthey whom we a dmire had b een b orn in thi s genera tion , or if

s ome God ha d changed your lives and a ges , you would havela cked none of their fame and glory a s ora tors and they wouldhave la cked none of your good s ense a nd modera tion . But s ince

no man can have a t one and the s ame time grea t fame and grea t

1 ibid . 38—40 .

2 ibid . 40 -1 .

3 Quint . xii. l l , 30 .

246 CONCLUSION

pea ce , let ea ch man enj oy the good things of his age withoutreproa ch to the other .

’ 1

Whether written before or a fter the Ins titutio

ora toria , these words hint pretty pla inly what

Ta citus rea lly thought of Quintilian’s Ciceronianism .

Which of the two wa s right, the historia n or thes choolma ster ‘

2 That is a problem which no student

of Roma n history can a fford to ignore.

For the type of educa tion which Quintilian

describes in his Institutio ora toria rema ined for

centuries the sole educa tion known to the Gra eco

Roman world. Poor men continued to send their

children to the elementa ry schools of the ludi

magister and the ca lcula tor ; but the rich, the

well-to-do a nd the profess iona l cla s s es s ent their s ons

to the schools of litera ture a nd rhetoric , and were

content with the ‘ libera l a rts of the je’

m KMos‘

n a i8et’

a . The educa tion of the ordina ry man

tha t is wha t the phra s e ha d origina lly meant, a nd

its history shows tha t the encyclic programme of

studies wa s well adapted for its purpose. From the

days of Is ocra tes and Ar istotle to the fa ll of the

Roman Empire no other form of educa tion wa s

known to Europe a nd when the Church became the

inheritor of Gra eco-Roma n civiliza tion, she used the

a rtes libera les a s a convenient framework for the new

Christian educa tion ta ught in her s chools. So long

lived a system of educa tion must have beensubstantia lly good.

Yet the defects of the e’

ym t to s n a cSefa a re pla in

1 Ta c . Dia l. 41 .

248 CONCLUSION

Now the audience wa s a s often a s not a n a rtificia l

ga thering of friends a nd critics, and the purpose of

the new rhetoric wa s no longer to persua de, b ut to

plea s e. In other words the culture of Qu intilian’s

contempora ries wa s a litera ry product, ca refully

formed on the best litera ry models, and content to be

judged by litera ry standa rds : Cicero’s doctus ora tor

ha s become a schola sticus .

This na rrownes s -of the e’

ym t tog wa tSei’

a is shown

in another a spect of Roman educa tion. Greek

tra dition h a d a lways rega rded the educa tion of mind

and body a s two pa rts of one whole : p ov a tmj and

y vp va O'

n K'

rj a re cc -rela tive terms. Romenever adopted

this chara cteristica lly Greek idea l the a rtes libera les

had no connexion with bodily hea lth. The old

Roman tra dition of hea lthy open-a ir exercise and of

work on the fa rm was a thing of the pa st long before

the advent of the Empire. Varro contra sts his own

open -a ir life in the fields with more modern fashions , 1

a nd Hora ce’s ela bora te pra is es of Roman vigour and

manhood a re defin itely an a ttempt to revive a

forgotten pa st. Augustu s wa s anxious to encoura ge

Roman tra ditions of sport and phys ica l exercis e .

He revived the lusus Troia e, in which young boys

of noble family gave a public display of horseman

ship and milita ry prowes s 2and he encoura ged

Virgil to descr ibe in his Aeneid the sports and con

tests of ea rly Ita lian tradition .

3 But the current of1 Va rro , apud N on . 108 , 24 s ee a b ove , p . 18 .

2 Suet . Oct. 43 Ba rb a ga llo , p . 26 .

3 Virg . Aen . v . 548—603; v n. l fiM ; ix . 603—20 ; Norden inN eue Jahrb . fur d . kl. Alt. vol . v ii p . 263.

CONCLUSION 249

fa shion proved too strong for such a rtificia l reviva ls

of the pa st. The lusus Troia e came to a n un dignified

end a fter ten or fifteen yea rs, owing to the protests

of Asiniu s Pollio, whose grandson h a d broken his leg

in one of the manoeuvres 1and ha lf a century la ter

Seneca speaks of the old Ita lia n tra dition a s definitely

belonging to the pa st. 2

In Rome, a t lea st, Greek a thletics became fa shion

a ble under the Empir e. Va rro compla ins tha t every

Roma n villa must nowa days have its gymna s ium 3

and Stra bo descr ibes Greek a thletics on the Campus

Ma rtius a s one of the sights of Rome.4 But the

p a la es tra never got public recognition in Rome a s

pa rt of a libera l ’ educa tion when we hea r of it

a t a ll , it is usua lly in terms of reproa ch a nd even

disgust. Cicero wa s openly contemptuou s of Greek

a thletics 5 Seneca and Lucan sha red his contempt 6

a nd the elder Pliny ha ted Greek a thletes a lmost a s

mu ch a s he ha ted Greek doctors . 7 Ta citus even goes

so fa r a s to make Nero’s interest in the p a la es tra

a ma in charge in his a tta ck on tha t Emperor’s

Government ; 3 a nd it is s ignificant tha t Ca ligula ,Nero

,and Domitia n were the three Emperors most

fa voura ble to the new fa shion .

9 Nerva reverted to

1 Suet . Oct. 43. Sen . Epp . 88 , 19 .

3 Va rro , de Re rust. ii . 1 , 1 Friedl a ender , ii , p . 150 (ii , p .

4 Stra b o , v , p . 236 .

5 Cic . de Rep . iv . 4 Tuso. iv . 70 de Or . ii . 21 de Off. i . 130.

6 Sen . Epp . 15 , 1—4 88 , 18 Lucan , P ha rs . v ii . 270 .

7 P liny, N . H . xxix . 1- 28 xxxv . 168 .

3 Ta c . Ann . xiv . 15 , 20, 21 .

9 Friedla ender , ii , pp . 145 foll . (ii, p .

3029 I i

250 CONCLUSION

Roman tra ditions on this point, a nd a story told by

the younger Pliny is cha ra cteristic of Roman Opinion.

Some unnamed benefa ctor ha d bequ ea thed a sum of

money to the town of Vienn e in Gaul to found a n

a nnua l contest in Greek a thletics. Trebon ius Rufus,one of N erv a

’

s friends , a bolished the institution a s

a public nu is a nce, and a n a ppea l wa s ma de to the

Emperor a ga inst hi s a ction . Nerva upheld his

friend’s decis ion, a nd Pliny a dds tha t one of the

Emperor’s most influentia l counsellors ma de the

rema rk I wish we could a bolish the public games

here in Rome.’ 1

Such un animity of public opinion ca n only be

expla ined by the existence of very rea l abuses. All

the writers under the Empir e point to the p a la es tra

a s the cause of grave mora l scanda ls , a nd Pluta rch ,lover of a ll things Greek though he wa s , a dmits the

cha rge. 2 And he a dds a second cr iticism which is

worth noting for the light it throws on Gra eco-Roman

civiliza tion. The cur s e of profess iona lism h a d long

since come upon Greek a thletics, a nd Roman theorists

were proba bly right in ma inta ining tha t the type of

a thletics ta ught in the p a la es tra developed the

qu a lities of a profes s iona l a thlete, b ut did not tra in

the body for ha rd work.

3 Tha t is a criticism which

might a ls o b e ma de of the Greek s chools of rhetoric .

They taught men to decla im , b ut did not make them

ora tors : or , a s Seneca puts it, they educa ted‘ for

the cla s s-room ,not for life Rome wa s the inheritor

1 Plin . Epp . iv . 22 . P lut . Qua est. Born . 40 .

3 P lut . loc. cit. 4 Sen . Epp . 106 , 12 .

252 CONCLUSION

The old Roma n tra ditions of civic virtue ha d once

proved strong enough to put new life into Greek

civiliza tion, but the society which crea ted and

fostered those tra ditions ha d long since pa ssed away.

Much the s ame ha d happened in the Greek world,

when Alexa nder’s Empire broke down t he ba rriers

of the city-sta te. Greek Stoicism with its a u stere

conception of philosophy h a d then s upplied the need

it crea ted a new idea l of mora l excellence when the

tra dition of civic vir tue fa iled. Rome produced no

philosophy of her own, and wa s to the end distrustful

of Greek philosophy. Ma rcus Aur elius is a lonely

figure in Roman history, beca use he h a d the coura ge

to believe whole-hea rtedly in the Greek Stoic idea l ,a nd found in tha t idea l a n inspira tion which the

a rtes libera les could never have given him . Yet the

philosopher-Emperor h a s rema ined a lonely figure

ever since. For a new world wa s growing up a round

him of which he wa s a lmost unawa re, and tha t world

found in the Christian fa ith a more sa tisfying idea l .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(NOTE .—All works included in this Bib liography a re quoted

only b y the a uthor ’s name in the foot-notes , with the a dditionof a short title where there a re two or more works b y the s ame

author . )

ANGER MAN N , 0 . De Aristotele rhetorum a uctore, Dis s . , Le ipzig ,1904.

AP PEL , B . Da s Bildungs und Erz iehungs idea l Quintilia ns na ch

der Ins titutio Ora toria , Dona uworth , Auer , 19 14.

ARNIM , H . v on . Leben und Werke des Dio con P ra sa , Berlin ,

Weidmann , 1898 .

BARBAGALLO , C. Lo s ta to e l’

is truz ione pubblica nell’

Imp ero

Roma no, Ca tania ,Ba ttia to , 19 11 .

BELTRAMI A. La composizione del lib ro duodecimo di Quintiliano in S tudi ita lia ni di fil. cla s s ica , vol . xix

pp . 63—72 .

BLUMN ER ,H . Die romis chen Priv a ta ltertumer (Ha ndbuch

Iwa n-Muller , iv . 2, Miin chen , Beck , 19 1 1 .

BOISSIER , G. Comment les Rema ins ont connu l’humanite in

Revue des deux mondes (Dec . 1906—Jan .

Ta cite (3rd edition ) , P a ris , Ha chette , 1908 .

La Fin da P a ga nisme, 2 vols . , P a ris , Ha chette , 1894.

BORNER , J . De Qu intilia ni Ins titutionis Ora toria e Disp os itione

(P a rs Prior ) , 1 Dis s ., Leipzig , 19 11 .

BORN ECQUE,H . Les Declama tion-3 et les déclama teurs d

’

ap re’

s

Senegue le P ére, Lille , Siege de l’

Univ ers ité, 1902 .

BREMEB , F . Die Rechts lehrer und Rechts schulen im rom ischen

Ka is erreich, Ber lin , Guttenta g , 1868 .

BROOK ,D . S tudies in Fronto a nd his Age, Camb ridge , Univers ity

Pre s s , 19 11 .

CHR IST, W. Geschichte der griechischen Litera tur, 2 vols . (Hand

buch [ wa n-Muller , v ii, 6th edition ) , Miinchen , Beck , 19 12 - 13.

COLSON , F . H . M . Fa bii Quintilia ni Ins titutionis Ora toria e,Lib er I . Edited with Introduction and Commenta ry

,Cam

b ridge , Univers ity Press , 1924.

1 The s econd pa rt wa s never pub lished .

254 BIBLIOGRAPHY

COMPARETTI , D . Vergil in the Middle Ages (Eng . London ,

Swan Sonnens chein , 1895 .

DAREMBERG-SAGLIO. Dictionna ire des Antiquités grecques et

roma ines , 10 vols . , Pa ris , Ha chette , 1887—19 19 .

DIENEL , R . Quintilian und der Rednerdi a log des Ta citus in

Wiener Studien , vol . xxxvii pp . 239—71 .

DILL, S . Roman S ociety from N ero to M. Aurelius , London,

Ma cmillan ,1904.

FIERVILLE , C. M. F . Quintiliani de Ins titutione Ora toria liber

p rimus (with Prolegomena ) , P aris , Firmin-Didot , 1890 .

FRANK , TENNEY . Vergil a Biography , Oxford ,Blackwell,

1922 .

FREEMAN , K . Schools of Hella s from 600 to 300 B. London ,

Ma cmi llan , 1907 .

FRIEDLAENDER, L. Da rstellungen a us der S ittengeschichte Roms1

(9th edition , revis ed b y Georg Wis sowa ) , 4 vols . , Leipzig ,Hirzel , 19 19 .

GARDTHAU SEN , V. Augustus und s eine Zeit, 3 vols . , Leipzig ,Teub ner , 1891—1904.

GERHAUSSER , W . Der P rotrep tikos des P os eidonios , Diss ,Heidelb erg , 19 12 .

GIRARD , P . L’

duca tion a thénienne a u V2 at an IV2 s ie‘

cle a va nt

J -C. (2nd edition ) , Pa ris , Ha chette , 1891 .

GBASBERGER , L . Erz iehung und Unterricht im kla s s ischen

Altertum, 4 vols . , Wiirz b urg , Sta b el , 1864—81 .

GUDEMAN , A. P . Cornelii Ta citi Dia logus de Ora toribus mit

Prolegomena , &c . (2nd edition , in German) , Im pz ig,

Teub ner , 19 14 .

HIRZEL , R . Der Dia log : ein litera rhistorischer Versuch, 2 vols . ,

Leipzig, Hirzel, 1895 .

JULLIEN , E . Les P rofes s eurs de littéra ture cla ns l’

a ncienne Rome

et leur ens eignement dep uis l’

origine j usqu’

a la mortd’

Augus te,

Pa ris , Leroux , 1885 .

KOHL , R . De schola s tica rum declama tionum a rgumentis ex

historia p etitis , Dis s . , P a derb orn , 19 15 .

KROLL, W . Stud ien iib er Ciceros Schrift de Ora tore in Rhein.

Ma s . , vol . lviii pp . 552—97 .

1 I have added (in b ra ckets ) the references a ccording to theeighth edition

256 BIBLIOGRAPHY

SCHANZ, M. Ges chichte der romis chen Litera tur , 6 vols . (Ha ndbuch

Iwa n-Mtiller , viii, 3rd edition ) , Miin chen , Beck , 1907—19 .

SCHMEKEL , A. Die P hilosophie der mittleren S toa in ihrem

ges chichtlichen Zus ammenha nge, Berlin , Weidmann , 1892.

SCHN EIDEWIN ,M. Diea ntikeHuma nitc’

it,Berlin ,Weidmann , 1897 .

SEHLMEYER , FR . Bez iehungen zwis chen Quintilia ns Ins titutiones

Ora toria e und Ciceros rhetorischen S chriften , Diss . , Miinsteri-VV. , 19 12 .

SPRENGER , J . Qua es tiones in rhetorum Romanorum declama tiones

iuridica e, Dis s . , Ha lle , 1911 .

SU SEMIHL , FR . Ges chichte der griechischen Litera tur in der

Alexandrinerz eit, 2 vols . ,Leipzig , Teubner , 189 1 .

TEUFFEL ,W . Ceschichte der romischen Litera tur, 3 vols . (6th

edition ) , Le ipzig , Teubner , 1910—16 .

THIELE , G. Herma gora s ein Beitra g zur Ges chichte der Rhetorilc,

Stra s sb urg , Triib ner , 1893.

VOLKMANN , R . Die Rhetorik der Griechen und der Romer (Ha nd

buch Iwa n -Miiller , ii . 3, 3rd edition ) , Miin chen , Beck , 1901 .

WALDEN, J . The Univers ities of Ancient Greece, London , Routledge , 19 13.

WALTZ , R . Vie de Se’

negue, Pa ris , Perrin ,1909 .

WARDE FOWLER , W . S ocia l Life a t Rome in the Age of Cicero ,London ,Ma cmillan , 1909 .

Roma n Es s a ys and Interp reta tions , Oxford , Cla rendon Pre s s ,

1920 .

WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF , U . v on . Asianismus und Atticis

mus in Hermes , vol . xxxv pp . 1—52 .

P la ton Leben a nd Werke, Berlin , Weidmann , 19 19 .

WILKINS , A. Roma n Education , Camb ridge , University Press ,1905 .

WILLMANN , O.

‘

Aris toteles a ls Pa d agog und Did aktiker ’

(Die

gros sen Erz ieher , vol . ii) , Berlin , Reuther -Reich a rd , 1909 .

WORMSER , G. Le Dia logue des Ora teurs et l’Institutio Ora toriain Revue de P hilologie, vol . xxxvi pp . 179—89 .

ZELLER, E . D ie P hilosOphie der Griechen ,

vol . iii, 1 , 2 (4thedition ) , Leipzig , Reisland , 1903—9 .

ZIEBARTH, E . Aus dem griechischen S chulwes en Eudemos von

Milet a nd Verwa ndtes (2nd edi tion ) , Leipz ig , Teubner , 1914.

ZIELINSKI , TH . Cicero im Wa ndel der Ja hrhunderte (3rd edition) ,Leipzig , Teub ner , 19 12 .

I . INDEX RERUM

Age for s chool-a ttendance , 25 f. , 64,80 , 96 , 143, 180 f. , 190 , 192, 195 f. ,207.

Ana logist theory of criticism, 36 f. ,126.

a rs , 84 , 88 f. , 147, 153, 157, 185 .

a rtes libera les , 84 f. , 1 19 , 152 f. ,178 f. , 246 f.

As tronomy, 84, 147, 179 .

Athletics , 18, 20, 25 f., 41, 54 f. , 87,179, 248 f.

ca lcula tor , 92, 246.

ca us a e, 99 , 164 f.ca us idicus , 137, 187.

chria , 200 fcolores , 158 i 164.

controvers ia e, 99 , 163 f 202, 206,208.

Da ncing, 55 , 88, 151

declama tio, 138, 164 f 208 fDeclama tion, 64, 74, 83, 164 f 20418.

Dia lectics , 39 , 47 f. , 53f. , 72 f. , 84 f. ,112 f. , 239 , 244 .

divis io , 212, 217.

doctus , 1 12 f. , 1 19 , 132, 139 , 148,186 , 248.

Drawing, 84, 147.

e’

ym’

mhcos‘ n o tbeia , 85 f., 145 f. , 152,177 f. , 193, 220 , 246 f.

Elocution , 95 , 197.

Ethics , 47, 50 , 54 , 101 , 106 , 112 f. ,174 f. , 230—4 1 , 25 1 f.

exemp la , 67, 104 f. , 172.

finitio, 208, 212, 215 .

geometres , 91 .

Geometry, 18 , 84, 147, 149, 196 f.Gramma r , 36 , 92, 146 , 198, 224.

gramma tice, 9 1 , 225

gramma ticus , 31 f 84, 87 92 f 103,126 , 132, 143, 150, 153f 1 93f.,220.

ypa pp a n o r rjs‘ , 84, 87Greek la nguage, 22 f 59 f. , 93, 141 ,190 f. , 197 f. , 227, 233.

Greek litera ture , 34 f. , 69, 93f 136 ,154, 197 f. , 219 , 225 f.Greek theories of educa tion , 1 1 ,18 f. , 22—33, 46—58 , 71 f. , 84—92,1 13 f. , 145 f. , 193, 199 , 202 f. ,232 f. , 246 f.

yup va o rmb, 25 , 248.

gymna s ion, 19 , 239 .

History, 20, 44 f 67 f. , 92 102- 8,125 , 127, 153, 171 f. , 198 i 201 ,222 f.

huma nita s , 57 f. , 82, 101 1 18 f. ,1231 , 142, 145, 178 f 189 , 219 ,225 1.

ins titutio, 57, 186 (v. puerilis ).inventio, 71 , 221 f.iurisp eritus , 70, 138.

xpm xds‘ , 87.

La tini rhetores , 61 f. , 105.

Law, 20 , 23f. , 70 , 108 f. , 137 f 147,163, 222 f.

lea: Cincia , 139 f.libera tis , 85, 88 , 178.

Lite ra ture , 25 , 34 f. , 69 , 84 f 92 f. ,103f. , 126, 136 , 153f. , 197 f. , 220,225 f.

littera tor , 84, 92.

littera tura , 9 1 .

littera tus , 9 1 .

loci communes , 202, 217.

Logic (v. Dia lectics ).lud i ma gis ter, 84 , 92, 189 .

Ma thema tics , 18, 50, 84, 90 f 147,149 , 193.

ma thes is , 9 1 .

Medicine, 84, 137, 147, 149 , 249 .

Metaphys ics , 48 f. , 53f. , 72 f.mos ma iorum, 22, 57, 61.

p ovmxdr, 87, 248.

258 I . INDEX RERUM

Music, 25, 55 f. , 87 f. , 90, 147, 193, Religion, 15, 17, 251 f.196 f. rhetor, 91, 95, 145, 158—79 , 193f

mus ice, 9 1. 199 f. , 220.

Rhetoric , 37 f., 46 f., 53, 59- 78,na rra tio, 200 f. 97 f., 104 f. , 124—34, 140 f., 145,

149 , 158—79 , 197- 218, 243f.ora tor, 112 f 119, 132, 139, 186 f. rhetorice, 9 1 , 188.

fifi wszs

}19

52 schola sticus , 164, 166 , 226,1 » 248.

wa tdorpiflqr, 87~ Schools 28 f 36 f 19 1 f

£3332322824

1

9

s 17s ententia , 133, 158 f. , 164,205 f.

Sla v es , 19 1 f. , 137, 140 1 ,Philos ophy, 37, 39 f. , 46 f. , 53 f. , 149 157 192 24369—77, 1 12—18 , 124, 126 f. , 129 ,

sua s io, 166.

142, 147, 151 , 173- 9 , 222, 232- 40 . 9

Phys ics , 90, 101 , 112 1 , 146 f..”4

533442 2 99’ 160’ 16" 166» 170 f»

197, 239 .

Poetry, 25 , 52, 69 , 90, 92, 94 f. ,153f. , 197 f. 88 f.

p ragma ticus , 110, 137, 138.Texuohoy ia , 99 f.

p rogymna sma ta , 200 f. thes is , 116 f. , 163, 165, 239 .

Prose -authors , 52, 198 f. , 201 . tirociniumfori, 16 , 64 f. , 132 f 244.

Psychology, 101 , 106, 1 12 f. , 170, toga v irilis , 16, 64, 132.

1941

1

2

14

543

1y§31

12

§g40

é13290, 96' 101 ,

1177656 0 15 116, 165.

qua es tio, 99 , 165 . ( 157 q , 98.

II . INDEX

Aca demy, 39, 47 f 54, 72 f 76,1 14 f. , 1 17, 239 .

Aelius Stilo, 37, 69 , 72, 108.

Aemilius Paulus , 15 , 38, 41 , 46 , 83.

Aes chines , 51 , 228 f.Aeschylus , 103, 228.

Albucius Silo, 167.

Anna eus Cornutus , 175 f.Antiochus (of Asca lon ), 76 f. , 81,1 14 f.

Antonius (the ora tor ), 65 , 69 , 96 ,102, 109 f. , 112, 1 18, 121 f.

Antonius Gnipho , 93, 101 .

Aper 134, 142 f. , 243f.Apollodorus (of Pergamon), 126 f203.

Apuleius , 92, 210Arces ila us , 53, 72 f 114.

Archia s , 69 .

Arellius Fuscus , 167, 170 , 175 .

NOMINUM

Arista rchus , 36.

Aristophanes , 48, 228.

Ar istotle , 23, 46 , 48 f. , 53, 86 f. , 89 ,98 f. , 1 13, 202 f. , 246 .

As ia Minor , 75 f. , 135 .

Athens , 26 f 76, 81 , 93, 129 f 182.

Atticus , 32, 64, 106 , 123, 154.

Augus tus , 14, 125 f. , 132, 139 , 169,182, 225 .

Ausonius , 180, 184, 251 .

Brutus , 123, 127, 161 .

Ca ecilius Epirota , 154 f.Ca rnea des , 39 f., 53, 73, 114 f.Ca s s ius Severus , 168 .

Ca to (the elder ), 15 , 19 f. , 26 , 35,39 f. , 44 f. , 82 f. , 102, 108, 111 f. ,151 , 230 f.Ca to (the younger), 123.

260 II . INDEX NOMINUM

Pliny (the younger ) , 15 , 134, 136 f. ,144 , 151 , 166, 184, 226 , 241 .

Plotius Ga llus , 63f. , 96, 104 f. , 124,159 , 163.

Pluta rch (see foot-notes )Pollio (As inius ), 32, 127 f 139 , 161 ,169 , 244, 249 .

Polybius , I , 22 f. , 41 f. , 52 f. , 58.

Porcius La tro , 142, 144, 167 , 170,207.

Pos idon iu s , 77, 78, 88, 127, 177.

Postumiu s Albinus , 44 f.

Quintilian, pa s s im.

Rhodes , 76, 127.

Sa llust, 32, 60, 123f. , 127, 161 f225 .

Sca evola Augur , 16, 64 f. , 70, 108 f. ,133, 137.

Sca evola Pontifex , 64 f. , 1 10 fScipio the younger , I , 19 , 40 f. , 53f58 , 68 , 72, 80 , 9 1 , 122.

Seneca (the elder ), 63, 128 f. , 142,158—73, 176 , 206 .

Seneca (the philosopher ), 85, 87 f125 , 142 f. , 146, 153f. , 169 , 173f. ,192, 235 f. , 240, 247 f.

Serv ius Sulpicius , 1 10 f. , 123.

Sextius 175 , 237. X enophon, 42, 55, 229 .

Sophists , 48 f.Sophocles , 228 .

Spa in , 128, 142 f. , 167, 180 f. , 237.

Spa rta , 23, 26 f.Spurius Ca rvi lius , 29 f 36.

Sta tius , 145 .

Stoics , 39 , 53, 70 f. , 97 f. , 175 f. ,232 f. , 237, 239 f. , 251 f.

Stra bo , 85 , 249 .

Suetonius (s ee foot-notes ).Sulla , 32, 59 , 75, 90, 123.

Sulpicius (the ora tor), 59 , 68, 69 .

Ta c itus , 14, 62, 132 f 139 f. , 156,166 , 168, 187, 192, 226, 242 f. ,249 .

Terence , 55, 94.

Thucydides , 225, 229 .

Tiberius , 132, 158, 169 .

Va lerius Ca to , 93.

Va lerius Ma ximus , 172 f.Va lerius Probus , 155 .

Va rro , 18, 66, 69 , 84 f. , 123, 151,153, 248 f.Verrins Fla cons , 158, 175 , 182, 19 1.Vespa s ia n, 135 f 181 f.Virgil, 18, 124 f 143, 154 f 198,225 , 248.

Vitruvius , 84 f. , 145 f. , 153.

Roman Education - Forgotten Books

Documents

Transcript of Roman Education - Forgotten Books