La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
Télécharger Lire

M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus

24 pages
Publié par :
Ajouté le : 08 décembre 2010
Lecture(s) : 22
Signaler un abus
The Project Gutenberg EBook of M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: M. Fabi Quintiliani institutionis oratoriae liber decimus Author: Marcus Fabius Quintilianus Editor: William Peterson Release Date: June 14, 2007 [EBook #21827] Language: Latin Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUINTILIAN ***  
Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Connal and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr)
This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding, including accented Greek and some letters with uncommon diacritics: τῶν  δὲ  κω μῳδῶν  μιμητέον ạḍ (under-dots, here representing expunctuation) āō (macrons) If any of these characters do not display properly—in particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above or below the letter—or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your browser’s default font. A few typographical errors have been corrected. They have been marked in the text with mouse-hover popups. All Greek has been similarly transliterated ᾧς . Institutiones Oratoriae, Liber Decimus : text only Contents , with explanation of e-text arrangement
Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung Hildesheim
Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1891 Mit Genehmigung der Clarendon Press, Oxford Printed in Germany Herstellung: fotokop, Reprografischer Betrieb GmbH, Darmstadt Best.-Nr. 5101664
 T HIS volume has grown in my hands during the last eighteen months. If I had contented myself with a short commentary, it might have appeared sooner and in a slighter form. But in addition to the full and careful illustration required for the matter of Quintilian’s Tenth Book, the criticism of the text has become so important as to call for separate treatment. It has engaged, within recent years, a large share of the attention of some of the foremost scholars on the Continent. Even while this volume was passing through the press, fresh evidence of their continued activity was received in the shape of two valuable papers—an article by Moriz Kiderlin in one of the current numbers of the Rheinisches Museum , and Becher’s ‘Zum zehnten Buch des Quintilianus’ in the Programm des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich for Easter, 1891. The latter I have found especially interesting, as confirming many of the conclusions at which, with the help of one of the manuscripts in the British Museum (Harl. 4995), I had arrived in regard to textual difficulties. The im ortance ascribed to another En lish codex Harl. 2664 will I venture to
E v
existingdifficulf erhsl githo  nm herothliw lett .eus fI emot fo con theutiostit eih nht yfotsro b achea ongrieaht ,seit evah yeema ccuo,eb  yos completrable to demisedti dees xttean; ofn he tiutnfoQ tp scsirManuthe  of tionpircsed etarobaleeth, emthf  ontP ,saetu,sun327 an1 76d ),96nd atrnaPtrasim nasucripts (Pratensit ot sA rehto ehesicod c Ichhi w ofoa slpSnat ehSalmish nus.antionrslyalinatpeg on leb tti ,liw en at th have beoe focll ertuolbor fenbeas htemalav rieht fo demat ad thgine imaseitek nsiatynm toy nl oftfie thyratnemmsdnetxe he fof t chairsttx h-yisoi nestcveharo ptefibyd retp I ,surt I tcholarly thorougt ehe axpmelo sfrap eht ni em te sheh icwhs eshnelt sabaehw ci hk wh wor thet ofsah sla lanAsisy. kes Hiovo taeroF rocvnloolew.dargely fo been l nigliaiybM ev nervi. Fiin hlle tsetalsi.emulov refereA  ttoe ncehl si tfoa tuohrities consultedliw hs lt woe ehenxtoft he tliobrredincuons gatitiro rdetoeht  o Ks.icitcrd ans de driht sregurs beenesition hau esuf.lepiclaylh ugofPrnd Aho troyoc sosseaM rhaps Pertes.l NoitacC irt eh dniteesggsue ars erhto dna ,txetehtsert in ed to in erpsemusnI h vandmeioaturct ealc nwejno fo o ymrppeee no  nrade as dentng bhaviekirts duts yna luvoy  mulho smeecera  t 72§.9fI for the MS. iniitnais sid cereche tos mimt rtpolaH fo taht morferstei Mofd anm ih sfot xe thtteers diffion edit sahneebalp  secwhn h icdd a iedfor fereneeicn etable ofence, a ot nvehaadn ee bnO.detpoowt ro egardn rewhic to mrna heGohsdm teo  te thttma oerup futcnoitai ,n. Special attentoi nahbsee napdithf Ine tee  oxt ehtlohweuss fo W. ..Ptstituoihey man ioaticblup sti spahreP .nalia fifor way ht eae r olcplt n geeltcai nsia , for whedauthorh gnb san moihton  iisthn eenedoa s aretaloboteot ittrus, I caleebmemer eb lliw ilntui Qatthd reion of the TenthB oo)ks niect eheg bniin onghefterp tnesnec yrutntry couth t (wicxpeehe o Pfitnoorssferosoray Mlpmocni tide ete
D UNDEE , 26th June , 1891.
The Table of Contents shows the original arrangement of the book. Entries in italics were added by the transcriber. Note that the Introduction begins again at page i, duplicating the Preface page numbers.
tila oonitf as wm rolesya ,floc ad examined it fcuitno .fAet rhIthn  ienodtrIne o tnuoccvig ti fied stifhe aby tle debh  eujotb iht  ,kn           gnm  eih soclltaion of four impo ua écyLhC eelragnma fe, sordieniFrehC .,eC ivllur denseudesesétI .sknahedni ma ls aedbt.  Mtoo ty ofrenpportuni yebtst edirgnm  tn,who  De,liubht eo siI mokat r, ourseC. P.L. llge yoCniti frT matt puy dlin krM yb lasopsid y
I. Life of Quintilian II. The Institutio Oratoria III. Quintilian’s Literary Criticism IV. Style and Language V. Manuscripts A NALYSIS  OF  THE A RGUMENT T EXT Chapter I Chapters II-VII C RITICAL N OTES I NDEX  OF N AMES I NDEX  OF M ATTERS
 i xiii xxii xxxix lxviii  1 11 11 122 185 223 225
For this e-text some changes have been made; in all cases, the original page numbers will be seen in the right margin. The “Analysis of the Argument,” originally printed between the Introduction and the Text, is given below, with links to the named sections. The two Indexes, originally printed at the end of the book, follow the “Analysis” in this file. In addition, the files for Chapter I and Chapters II-VII each have their own Index, containing only internal references. All links lead to chapters and sections; page numbers are not used except for Index links to the Introduction.
H ARLEIAN MS. 2664. 149 V . (See Introd. p. lxiv .)
C H A P T E R How to acquire a command of Diction.
§§ 1-4. The question whether a ready command of speech is best acquired by writing, or by reading, or by speaking, is of little practical importance, all three being indispensable. But what is theoretically most indispensable does not necessarily take first rank for the purpose of practical oratory. Speaking comes first: then imitation (§8 and ch. ii), including reading and hearing: lastly, writing (chs. iii-v). That is the order of development—not necessarily the order of importance. The earl trainin of the orator has been overtaken in the first two books. We have now
               to deal, not with the theory of rhetoric, but with the best methods of applying theory to practice. §§ 5-15. The necessary store of things and words can be obtained only by reading and hearing. We ought to read the best writings and hear the best orators. And much reading and hearing will not only furnish a stock of words: it will stimulate independent thought, and will show the student actual examples of the theoretical principles taught in the schools. §§ 16-19. The comparative advantages of hearing and reading: the former more ‘catching,’ the latter more independent. §§ 20-26. The best writers should be read first. Reading ought to be slow and searching, with careful attention (especially in the case of speeches) to details, followed by a review of the whole. We should also acquaint ourselves with the facts of the cases to which the speeches relate, and read those delivered on both sides. Other speeches on the same side should be read, if accessible. But even in studying a masterpiece our admiration must always be tempered with judgment: we cannot assume the perfection of every part. It is safer, however, to err on the side of appreciation: uncritical approbation is preferable to continual fault-finding. §§ 27-30. The study of Poetry is important for the orator, as conferring a greater elevation of spirit and diction, besides serving as a pleasurable recreation. But poetry is not restrained by the practical aims of the orator, whose stage is a battle-field where he must ever strive for the mastery. §§ 31-34. History, too, will furnish a rich and genial aliment, which should be used, however, with caution: its very excellences are often defects in the orator. It tells its story, and recalls the past; whereas the orator must address himself to immediate proof. Considered as a mine of ancient precedents, history is very useful; but this point of view is rather outside the scope of the present chapter. §§ 35-36. Philosophy will give familiarity with the principles of ethics and dialectics, as well as skill in controversy. But here also we must bear in mind that the atmosphere of the lecture-room differs from that of the law-court. §§ 37-42. In laying down a plan of reading it would be impossible to notice individually all the writers in both languages, though it may be said generally that almost all, whether old or new, are worth reading,—at least in part. There may be much that is valuable in relation to some branch of knowledge, but outside my present object, which is to recommend what is profitable for the formation of style. §§ 43-46. Before proceeding to give a list of typical authors, a word must be said about the different opinions and tastes of orators and critics regarding the various schools and styles of eloquence. Some are prejudiced in favour of the old writers; others admire the affectation and refinement which characterise those of our own day. And even those who desire to follow the true standard of style differ among each other. The list now to be given contains only a selection of the best models: it does not profess to be exhaustive.
§§ 46-84. GREEK LITERATURE. §§ 46-72. G REEK P OETRY . §§ 46-61.  Epic, didactic, pastoral, elegiac, iambic, and lyric poetry proper. The praise of Homer, §§46-51: ‘it is much to understand, impossible to rival, his greatness.’ Hesiod is rich in moral maxims, and a master of the ‘middle style’: Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus, Theocritus, and others, §§52-57. A word in passing about the elegiac poets, represented by Callimachus and Philetas, §58. Of iambographi the typical writer is Archilochus, §§59-60. The chief lyric poets are Pindar (§61), Stesichorus (§62), Alcaeus (§63), and Simonides (§64).
§§ 65-72.  Dramatic poetry. The Old Comedy (§§65-66) with its pure Attic diction and freedom of political criticism is more akin to oratory and more fitted to form the orator than any other class of poetry,—always excepting Homer. Tragedy (§§67-68) is represented by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: of the latter two Euripides is more useful for the orator. He was imitated by Menander (§§69-72), the ‘mirror of life,’ who might alone suffice to form the orator. Menander’s superiority to all other comic dramatists. §§ 73-75. G REEK H ISTORIANS . The pregnant brevity of Thucydides, the charm and transparency of Herodotus. Theopompus: Philistus (‘the little Thucydides’): Ephorus, and others. §§ 76-80. G REEK O RATORS . Demosthenes the standard of eloquence, in whom there is nothing either too much or too little. Aeschines more diffuse: ‘more flesh, less muscle.’ Hyperides is pleasing, but more at home in less important causes. Lysias resembles a clear spring rather than a full river. Isocrates belongs to the gymnasium rather than to the field of battle: in arrangement punctilious to a fault. Demetrius of Phalerum the last Athenian worthy of the name of orator. §§ 81-84. G REEK P HILOSOPHERS . Both in respect of reasoning power and for beauty of style, Plato holds the first place. Of Xenophon’s artless charm it might be said that ‘Persuasion herself perched upon his lips.’ Aristotle is famous alike for knowledge, productiveness, grace of style, invention, and versatility. Theophrastus owed even his name to the divine splendour of his language. The Stoics were the champions of virtue, and showed their strength in defending their tenets: the grand style they did not affect. §§85-131. ROMAN LITERATURE. §§ 85-100. R OMAN P OETRY . §§ 85-92.  Epic Poets. Vergil must head the list, ranking nearer to Homer than any third poet does to him. For consistent and uniform excellence he may surpass even Homer, however little he may rival Homer’s best passages. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, but not for style. Varro Atacinus has some merit as a translator, but will not add to an orator’s resources. Ennius is like some venerable grove, whose trees have more sanctity than beauty: there are others nearer our own day, and more useful for our special purpose. Ovid is uncontrolled even in his hexameters, and lets his fancy run away with him: yet admirable in parts. Cornelius Severus fell away from the standard of his first book. The youthful works of Serranus display great talent and a correct taste in style. We lately lost much in Valerius Flaccus. The inspiration of Saleius Bassus also failed to take on the mellowness of age. Rabirius and Pedo are worth reading in spare moments. Lucan has fire and point, and is a model for orators rather than for poets. Domitian I would name had not the care of the world prevented him from becoming our greatest poet. Even the compositions of his earlier days, after he had handed over the empire, are lofty, learned, and of surpassing excellence: ‘the poet’s ivy is entwined with the conquering bay.’ §§ 93-96.  Elegy, Satire, iambic and lyric poetry. In Elegy we can challenge the Greeks. The most polished and refined is, in my opinion, Tibullus; some prefer Propertius. Ovid is more uncontrolled than either, Gallus harsher. Satire is all our own. Lucilius is by some still preferred to all poets whatsoever. I deprecate such extravagant eulogy, as I disagree with the censure of Horace. Lucilius has learnin , boldness, causticit , wit. Horace is the rince of
            satirists. Persius earned renown by a single book. Others still alive will have a name hereafter. Terentius Varro wrote saturae of the earlier kind. A profound scholar, antiquarian, and historian, he has made greater contributions to knowledge than to oratory. As a separate form of composition, iambic poetry is not much in vogue. Horace is our great lyric poet,—everywhere pleasing and graceful, and very happy in his language. Caesius Bassus too may be added: but there are living authors of greater merit. §§ 97-100.  Dramatic Poetry. Of Tragedians, Attius and Pacuvius are most renowned for weight of thought and style, and for the dignity of their characters; but they lack finish. Attius has more strength, Pacuvius more learning. Varius’s Thyestes may be set beside any Greek play. Ovid’s Medea shows what he might have done if he could have kept within bounds. Pomponius Secundus is by far the greatest of all whom I have myself seen. Comedy is not our strong point. Notwithstanding Plautus, Caecilius, and Terence, we scarcely reproduce a faint shadow of our originals: perhaps our language is incapable of the grace and charm which, even in Greek, is peculiar to the Attic. Afranius is the best writer of togatae , but his is not a pure art. §§ 101-104. R OMAN H ISTORIANS . In history we hold our own. Sallust may be pitted against Thucydides, Livy against Herodotus. Livy is remarkable for the charm and transparency of his narrative style, as well as for the eloquence and appropriateness of his speeches; and in the presentation of passion, especially on its softer side, he is unsurpassed. Sallust is different but not inferior. Servilius Nonianus wants conciseness. Aufidius Bassus did more to maintain the dignity of history. There is also the glory of our own age, the historian who is still with us, and whom I do not mention by name. Cremutius Cordus is appreciated for his independent spirit, which still survives in his works in spite of the revision and expurgation they have been subjected to. There are others, but I am only giving samples of classes, not ransacking libraries. §§ 105-122. R OMAN O RATORS . Cicero can stand against Demosthenes. I do not propose, however, to make a detailed comparison between them, and I admit that Demosthenes is worthy of being learnt by heart. In invention they resemble each other: in style they differ, Demosthenes being more concise, Cicero more diffuse; the one always pierces with the point of his weapon, the other often lets you feel the weight of it; the one has more art, the other a greater natural gift. In wit and pathos Cicero excels. Demosthenes was perhaps debarred from glowing perorations; but on the other hand the genius of the Latin language denies to us a full measure of the peculiar ‘Attic charm.’ Still Demosthenes came first, and Cicero owes much to him. He is  however no mere imitator,—‘no cistern of rain-water, but a living source.’ Instructive, affecting, pleasing, he carries his audience away with him. He wins conviction not by the zeal of a partisan, but by the impartiality of a judge: everything he does is natural and easy. He was king of the bar in his own day, and with us his name is a synonym for eloquence: it is a mark of progress to have a high appreciation of Cicero. Pollio, with all his good points, is so far behind Cicero in charm and polish that it might be thought he lived a century earlier. Messalla is lucid and distinguished, but wants force. Caesar might have disputed the palm with Cicero; his speeches breathe his warlike ardour, and yet he is above all things ‘elegans.’ Caelius has genius and wit: he deserved a longer life. Calvus is by some preferred to all others; but Cicero thought that by too rigorous self-criticism he lost the very life-blood of style. He is moral, weighty, chastened, and often vigorous withal. He was a strict Atticist; and it is a pity that he died so young, if there was a likelihood of his enriching his style. Servius Sulpicius made a name by three speeches. Cassius Severus wants tone and dignity: he has genius, causticity, and wit; but his an er outruns his ud ment. Of those whom I have seen, Afer and
              Africanus rank highest: the former might be classed with the orators of former days, the latter is more vigorous, but careless, wordy, and over-bold in metaphor. Trachalus has elevation; he had great personal advantages as well. Vibius Crispus is delightful, but more fitted for private than for public cases. Iulius Secundus did not live long enough to secure his due share of fame. He is too much of an artist and too little of a fighting-man: yet he has fluency, lucidity, and other good qualities. Our own era will furnish the future historian with many subjects of eulogy. §§ 123-131. R OMAN P HILOSOPHERS . Though we are not strong in philosophy, yet here the universal Tully is a match for Plato. Brutus, too, is greater here than in oratory: he speaks from the heart. Celsus has written a considerable number of works. Among the Stoics, Plautus will be of service to the inquirer. Catius the Epicurean has no great weight, but is pleasant withal. I might have mentioned Seneca before, and in every department, but have purposely kept him waiting: I am accused of disliking him. The fact is that at a time when he alone was studied I strove to introduce a purer taste. He disparaged the ‘ancients,’ and his imitators aggravated his defects. He possessed wide learning, though on special subjects he was sometimes misled by others. His versatility is shown in oratory, poetry, letters, and dialogues. A stern moralist, but a vicious, yet seductive, stylist. His defects endear him to the young, but rob him of the praise of those of riper years. Yet these too may find profit in him, if they use their judgment. Would that he had had nobler aims! Yet he realised the aims he had.
C H A P T E R I I . Of Imitation. §§ 1-3. While the command of words, figures, and arrangement is to be acquired by the study of the best authors, as recommended in the foregoing chapter, the mind must also be exercised in the imitation of all the good qualities which such authors exemplify. The place of imitation in art: a natural and universal instinct. The very ease of imitation has its dangers. §§ 4-13. Only a dull and sluggish spirit will be content to do nothing but imitate, without inventing anything new. With our advantages of training, we are even more bound than our predecessors to progress. We ought even to surpass our models: if we confine ourselves to imitation alone, shall we ever realise the ideal in oratory? Nature herself does not achieve exact resemblance in reproduction. Moreover, there is much in oratory that is characteristic of individual speakers, and due to natural gifts: this cannot be made matter of imitation. You may imitate the language and rhythmical arrangement of a great speech; but the fashion of words changes, and as for arrangement, there must always be an adaptation of sound to sense. §§ 14-18. Imitation is therefore a part of study in regard to which great circumspection must be used,—first in the choice of models, and, secondly, in determining the good points we would seek to reproduce; for even good authors have their defects. Again, we must know the difference between superficial imitation and that in which the inner spirit is represented. In cases where only the outward manner is caught elevation becomes bombast, and simplicity carelessness; roughness of form and insipidity in substance pass for antique plainness; want of polish and point, for Attic restraint; artificial obscurity claims to rank above Sallust and Thucydides; the dull and spiritless challenge comparison with Pollio; easy-going drawlers call their diffuse periods Ciceronian, delighted if they can finish off a sentence with Esse videatur . §§ 19-21. The student must consider which models his own gifts qualify him to imitate. A bold ru ed st le, for exam le, is a ro riate to the form of enius which would