Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Harold Edgeworth Butler (Translator), 1.5

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Section

← Previous Next →

[1] Style has three kinds of excellence, correctness, lucidity and elegance (for many include the all-important quality of appropriateness under the heading of elegance). Its faults are likewise threefold, namely the opposites of these excellences. The teacher of literature therefore must study the rules for correctness of speech, these constituting the first part of his art.

[2] The observance of these rules is concerned with either one or more words. I must now be understood to use verbum in its most general sense. It has of course two meanings; the one covers all the parts of which language is composed, as in the line of Horace:

Once supply the thought,

And words will follow swift as soon as sought

Ars Poetica, 311.

the other restricts it to a part of speech such as lego and scribo. To avoid this ambiguity, some authorities prefer the terms voces, locutiones, dictiones.

[3] Individual words will either be native or imported, simple or compound, literal or metaphorical, in current use or newly-coined. A single word is more likely to be faulty than to possess any intrinsic merit. For though we may speak of a word as appropriate, distinguished or sublime, it can possess none of these properties save in relation to connected and consecutive speech; since when we praise words, we do so because they suit the matter.

[4] There is only one excellence that can be isolated for consideration, namely euphony, the Greek term for our uocalitas: that is to say that, when we are confronted with making a choice between two exact synonyms, we must select that which sounds best.

[5] In the first place barbarisms and solecisms must not be allowed to intrude their offensive presence. These blemishes are however pardoned at times, because we have become accustomed to them or because they have age or authority in their favour or are near akin to positive excellences, since it is often difficult to distinguish such blemishes from figures of speech.1 The teacher therefore, that such slippery customers may not elude detection, must seek to acquire a delicate discrimination; but of this I will speak later when I come to discuss figures of speech. ¹

[6] For the present I will define barbarism as an offence occurring in connexion with single words. Some of my readers may object that such a topic is beneath the dignity of so ambitious a work. But who does not know that some barbarisms occur in writing, others in speaking? For although what is incorrect in writing will also be incorrect in speech, the converse is not necessarily true, inasmuch as mistakes in writing are caused by addition or omission, substitution or transposition, while mistakes in speaking are due to separation or combination of syllables, to aspiration or other errors of sound.

[7] Trivial as these points may seem, our boys are still at school and I am reminding their instructors of their duty. And if one of our teachers is lacking in education and has done no more than set foot in the outer courts of his art, he will have to confine himself to the rules published in the elementary text-books: the more learned teacher on the other hand will be in a position to go much further: first of all, for example, he will point out that there are many different kinds of barbarism.

[8] One kind is due to race, such as the insertion of a Spanish or African term; for instance the iron tire of a wheel is called cantus,² though Persius uses it as established in the Latin language; Catullus picked up ploxenum³ (a box) in the valley of the Po, while the author of the in Pollionem, be he Labienus or Cornelius Gallus, imported casamo from Gaul in the sense of

follower.

As for mastruca,⁴ which is Sardinian for a

rough coat,

it is introduced by Cicero merely as an object of derision.

[9] Another kind of barbarism proceeds from the speaker's temper: for instance, we regard it as barbarous if a speaker use cruel or brutal language.

[10] A third and very common kind, of which anyone may fashion examples for himself, consists in the addition or omission of a letter or syllable, or in the substitution of one for another or in placing one where it has no right to be.

[11] Some teachers however, to display their learning, are in the habit of picking out examples of barbarism from the poets and attacking the authors whom they are expounding for using such words. A boy should however realize that in poets such peculiarities are pardonable or even praiseworthy, and should therefore be taught less common instances.

[12] For Tinga of Placentia, if we may believe Hortensius who takes him to task for it, committed two barbarisms in one word by saying precula for pergula: that is to say he substituted c for g, and transposed r and e. On the other hand when Ennius writes Mettocoque Fufetioeo,⁵ where the barbarism is twice repeated, he is defended on the plea of poetic licence.

[13] Substitution is however sometimes admitted even in prose, as for instance when Cicero speaks of the army of Canopus which is locally styled Canobus, while the number of authors who have been guilty of transposition in writing Trasumennus for Tarsumennus has succeeded in standardising the error. Similar instances may be quoted. If adsentior be regarded as the correct form, we must remember that Sisenna said adsentio, and that many have followed him on the ground of analogy: on the other hand, if adsentio is the correct form, we must remember that adsentior has the support of current usage.

[14] And yet our fat fool, the fashionable schoolmaster, will regard one of these forms as an example of omission or the other as an instance of addition. Again there are words which when used separately are undoubtedly incorrect, but when used in conjunction excite no unfavourable comment.

[15] For instance dua and tre are barbarisms and differ in gender, but the words duapondo and trepondo⁶ have persisted in common parlance down to our own day, and Messala shows that the practice is correct.

[16] It may perhaps seem absurd to say that a barbarism, which is an error in a single word, may be made, like a solecism, by errors in connexion with number or gender. But take on the one hand scala (stairs) and scopa (which literally means a twig, but is used in the sense of broom) and on the other hand hordea (barley) and mulsa (mead): here we have substitution, omission and addition of letters, but the blemish consists in the former case merely in the use of singular for plural, in the latter of plural for singular. Those on the other hand who have used the word gladia are guilty of a mistake in gender.

[17] I merely mention these as instances: I do not wish anyone to think that I have added a fresh problem to a subject into which the obstinacy of pedants has already introduced confusion. The faults which arise in the course of actual speaking require greater penetration on the part of the critic, since it is impossible to cite examples from writing, except in cases where they occur in poetry, as when the diphthong is divided into two syllables in Europai and Asiai⁷ ; or when the opposite fault occurs, called synaeresis or synaloephe by the Greeks and complexio by ourselves: as an example I may quote the line of Publius Varro:

turn te flagranti deiectum fulmine Plaethon. ⁸

[18] If this were prose, it would be possible to give the letters their true syllabic value. I may mention as further anomalies peculiar to poetry the lengthening of a short syllable as in Italiam fato profugus,⁹ or the shortening of a long such as unĭius ob noxam et furias;¹⁰ but in poetry we cannot label these as actual faults.

[19] Errors in sound on the other hand can be detected by the ear alone; although in Latin, as regards the addition or omission of the aspirate, the question may be raised whether this is an error when it occurs in writing; for there is some doubt whether h is a letter or merely a breathing, practice having frequently varied in different ages.

[20] Older authors used it but rarely even before vowels, saying aedus or ircus, while its conjunction with consonants was for a long time avoided, as in words such as Graccus or triumpus. Then for a short time it broke out into excessive use, witness such spelling as chorona, chenturia or praecho, which may still be read in certain inscriptions: the well-known epigram of Catullus ¹¹ will be remembered in this connexion.

[21] The spellings vehementer, comprehendere and mihi have lasted to our own day: and among early writers, especially of tragedy, we actually find mehe for me in the older MSS.

[22] It is still more difficult to detect errors of tenor or tone (I note that old writers spell the word tonor, as derived from the Greek τόνος ), or of accent, styled prosody by the Greeks, such as the substitution of the acute accent for the grave or the grave for the acute: such an example would be the placing of the acute accent on the first syllable of Camillus,

[23] or the substitution of the grave for the circumflex in Cethegus, an error which results in the alteration of the quantity of the middle syllable, since it means making the first syllable acute; or again the substitution of the circumflex for the grave on the second syllable of Appi, where the contraction of two syllables into one circumflexed syllable involves a double error.

[24] This, however, occurs far more frequently in Greek words such as Atrei, which in our young days was pronounced by the most learned of our elders with an acute accent on the first syllable, necessitating a grave accent on the second; the same remark applies to Nerei and Terei. Such has been the tradition as regards accents. ¹²

[25] Still I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:

quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,

Aen. iv. 254.

[26] where they make the last syllable of circum acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant circus not circuitus.¹³ Similarly when quale is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage.

[27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say circum litora I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word. The same thing occurs in the phrase Troiae qui primus ab oris.¹⁴

[28] It sometimes happens that the accent is altered by the metre as in pecudes pictaeque volucres ¹⁵ ; for I shall read volucres with the acute on the middle syllable, because, although that syllable is short by nature, it is long by position: else the last two syllables would form an iambus, which its position in the hexameter does not allow.

[29] But these same words, if separated, will form no exception to the rule: or if the custom under discussion prevails, the old law of the language will disappear. (This law is more difficult for the Greeks to observe, because they have several dialects, as they call them, and what is wrong in one may be right in another.) But with us the rule is simplicity itself.

[30] For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate.

[31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.

[32] There are also faults of sound, which we cannot reproduce in writing, as they spring from defects of the voice and tongue. The Greeks who are happier in inventing names than we are call them iotacisms, lambdacisms, ¹⁶ ἰσχνότητες (attenuations) and πλατειασμοί (broadenings); they also use the term κοιλοστομία, when the voice seems to proceed from the depths of the mouth.

[33] There are also certain peculiar and indescribable sounds for which we sometimes take whole nations to fault. To sum up then, if all the faults of which we have just spoken be avoided, we shall be in possession of the Greek ὀρθοέπεια, that is to say, an exact and pleasing articulation; for that is what we mean when we speak of correct pronunciation.

[34] All other faults in speaking are concerned with more words than one; among this class of faults is the solecism, although there have been controversies about this as well. For even those who acknowledge that it occurs in connected speech, argue that, since it can be corrected by the alteration of one word, the fault lies in the word and not in the phrase or sentence.

[35] For example whether amarae corticis¹⁷ or medio cortice¹⁸ contains a solecism in gender (and personally I object to neither, as Vergil is the author of both; however, for the sake of argument let us assume that one of the two is incorrect), still whichever phrase is incorrect, it can be set right by the alteration of the word in which the fault lies: that is to say we can emend either to amari corticis or media cortice. But it is obvious that these critics misrepresent the case. For neither word is faulty in itself; the error arises from its association with another word. The fault therefore lies in the phrase.

[36] Those who raise the question as to whether a solecism can arise in a single word show greater intelligence. Is it for instance a solecism if a man when calling a single person to him says uenite, or in dismissing several persons says abi or discede? Or again if the answer does not correspond to the question: suppose, for example, when someone said to you

Whom do I see?

, you were to reply

Some too think it a solecism if the spoken word is contradicted by the motion of hand or head.

[37] I do not entirely concur with this view nor yet do I wholly dissent. I admit that a solecism may occur in a single word, but with this proviso: there must be something else equivalent to another word, to which the word, in which the error lies, can be referred, so that the solecism arises from the faulty connexion of those symbols by which facts are expressed and purpose indicated.

[38] To avoid all suspicion of quibbling, I will say that a solecism may occur in one word, but never in a word in isolation. There is, however, some controversy as to the number and nature of the different kinds of solecism. Those who have dealt with the subject most fully make a fourfold division, identical with that which is made in the case of barbarisms: solecisms are brought about by addition, for instance in phrases such as nam enim, de susum, in Alexandriam;

[39] by omission, in phrases such as ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, or ne hoc fecit: and by transposition as in quoque ego, enim hoc voluit, aulem non habuit.¹⁹ Under this last head comes the question whether igitur can be placed first in a sentence: for I note that authors of the first rank disagree on this point, some of them frequently placing it in that position, others never.

[40] Some distinguish these three classes of error from the solecism, styling addition a pleonasm, omission an ellipse, and transposition anastrophe: and they assert that if anastrophe is a solecism, hyperbaton might also be so called.

[41] About substitution, that is when one word is used instead of another, there is no dispute. It is an error which we may detect in connexion with all the parts of speech, but most frequently in the verb, because it has greater variety than any other: consequently in connexion with the verb we get solecisms of gender, tense, person and mood (or

states

qualities

if you prefer either of these terms), be these types of error six in number, as some assert, or eight as is insisted by others (for the number of the forms of solecism will depend on the number of subdivisions which you assign to the parts of speech of which we have just spoken). Further there are solecisms of number;

[42] now Latin has two numbers, singular and plural, while Greek possesses a third, namely the dual. There have however been some who have given us a dual as well in words such as scripsere and legere, in which as a matter of fact the final syllable has been softened to avoid harshness, just as in old writers we find male merere for male mereris. Consequently what they assert to be a dual is concerned solely with this one class of termination, whereas in Greek it is found throughout the whole structure of the verb and in nouns as well, though even then it is but rarely used.

[43] But we find not a trace of such a usage in any Latin author. On the contrary phrases such as devenere locos,²⁰ conticuere omnes²¹ and consedere duces²² clearly prove that they have nothing to do with the dual. Moreover dixere,²³ although Antonius Rufus cites it as proof to the contrary, is often used by the usher in the courts to denote more than two advocates.

[44] Again, does not Livy near the beginning of his first book write tenuere arcem Sabini²⁴ and later in adversum Romani subiere? But I can produce still better authority. For Cicero in his Orator says,

I have no objection to the form scripsere, though I regard scripserunt as the more correct.

²⁵

[45] Similarly in vocables and nouns solecisms occur in connexion with gender, number and more especially case, by substitution of one for another. To these may be added solecisms in the use of comparatives and superlatives, or the employment of patronymics instead of possessives and vice versa.

[46] As for solecisms connected with expressions of quantity, there are some who will regard phrases such as magnum peculiolum²⁶ as a solecism, because the diminutive is used instead of the ordinary noun, which implies no diminution. I think I should call it a misuse of the diminutive rather than a solecism; for it is an error of sense, whereas solecisms are not errors of sense, but rather faulty combinations of words.

[47] As regards participles, solecisms occur in case and gender as with nouns, in tense as with verbs, and in number as in both. The pronoun admits of solecisms in gender, number and case.

[48] Solecisms also occur with great frequency in connexion with parts of speech: but a bare statement on this point is not sufficient, as it may lead a boy to think that such error consists only in the substitution of one part of speech for another, as for instance if a verb is placed where we require a noun, or an adverb takes the place of a pronoun and so on.

[49] For there are some nouns which are cognate, that is to say of the same genus, and he who uses the wrong species²⁷ in connexion with one of these will be guilty of the same offence as if he were to change the genus. Thus an and aut are conjunctions, but it would be bad Latin to say in a question hic and ille sit²⁸ ;

[50] ne and non are adverbs: but he who says non feceris in lieu of ne feceris, is guilty of a similar mistake, since one negative denies, while the other forbids. Further intro and intus are adverbs of place, but eo intus and intro sum are solecisms.

[51] Similar errors may be committed in connexion with the various kinds of pronouns, interjections and prepositions. It is also a solecism²⁹ if there is a disagreement between what precedes and what follows within the limits of a single clause.

[52] Some phrases have all the appearance of a solecism and yet cannot be called faulty; take for instance phrases such as tragoedia Thyestes or ludi Floralia and Megalensia³⁰ : although these are never found in later times, they are the rule in ancient writers. We will therefore style them figures and, though their use is more frequent in poets, will not deny their employment even to orators.

[53] Figures however will generally have some justification, as I shall show in a later portion of this work, which I promised you a little while back. ³¹ I must however point out that a figure, if used unwittingly, will be a solecism.

[54] In the same class, though they cannot be called figures, come errors such as the use of masculine names with a female termination and feminine names with a neuter termination. I have said enough about solecisms; for I did not set out to write a treatise on grammar, but was unwilling to slight the science by passing it by without salutation, when it met me in the course of my journey.

[55] I therefore resume the path which I prescribed for myself and point out that words are either native or foreign. Foreign words, like our population and our institutions, have come to us from practically every nation upon earth.

[56] I pass by words of Tuscan, Sabine and Praenestine origin; for though Lucilius attacks Vettius for using them, and Pollio reproves Livy for his lapses into the dialect of Padua, I may be allowed to regard all such words as of native origin. Many Gallic words have become current coin,

[57] such as raeda (chariot) and petorritim (four-wheeled wagon) of which Cicero uses the former and Horace the latter. Mappa (napkin) again, a word familiar in connexion with the circus, is claimed by the Carthaginians, while I have heard that gurdus, which is colloquially used in the sense of

stupid,

is derived from Spain.

[58] But this distinction between native and foreign words has reference chiefly to Greek. For Latin is largely derived from that language, and we use words which are admittedly Greek to express things for which we have no Latin equivalent. Similiarly they at tines borrow words from us. In this connexion the problem arises whether foreign words should be declined according to their language or our own.

[59] If you come across an archaistic grammarian, he will insist on absolute conformity to Latin practice, because, since we have an ablative and the Greeks have not, it would be absurd in declining a word to use five Greek cases and one Latin.

[60] He will also praise the patriotism of those who aimed at strengthening the Latin language and asserted that we had no need of foreign practices. They, therefore, pronounced Castorem with the second syllable long to bring it into conformity with all those Latin nouns which have the same termination in the nominative as Castor. They also insisted on the forms Palaemo, Telamo, and Plato (the last being adopted by Cicero), because they could not find any Latin nouns ending in -on.

[61] They were reluctant even to permit masculine Greek nouns to end in -as in the nominative case, and consequently in Caelius we find Pelia cincinnatus and in Messala bene fecit Euthia, and in Cicero Hermagora.³² So we need not be surprised that the majority of early writers said Aenea and Anchisa.

[62] For, it was urged, if such words are spelt like Maecenas, Sufenas and Asprenas, the genitive should terminate in -is not in -e. On the same principle they placed an acute accent on the middle syllable of Olympus and tyrannus, because Latin does not allow an acute accent on the first syllable if it is short and is followed by two long syllables.

[63] So too we get the Latinised genitives Ulixi and Achilli together with many other analogous forms. More recent scholars have instituted the practice of giving Greek nouns their Greek declension, although this is not always possible. Personally I prefer to follow the Latin method, so far as grace of diction will permit. For I should not like to say Calypsonem on the analogy of Iunonem, although Gaius Caesar in deference to antiquity does adopt this way of declining it. Current practice has however prevailed over his authority.

[64] In other words which can be declined in either way without impropriety, those who prefer it can employ the Greek form: they will not be speaking Latin, but will not on the other hand deserve censure. Simple words are what they are in the nominative, that is, their essential nature.

[65] Compound words are formed by the prefix of a preposition as in innocens, though care must be taken that two conflicting prepositions are not prefixed as in imperterritus:³³ if this be avoided they may in certain cases have a double prefix as in incompositus or reconditus or the Ciceronian subabsurdtim. They may also be formed by what I might term the combination of two independent units, as in maleficus.

[66] For I will not admit that the combination of three is possible at any rate in Latin, although Cicero asserts that capsis³⁴ is compounded of cape si vis, and there are to be found scholars who contend that Lupercalia likewise is a compound of three parts of speech, namely luere per caprum.

[67] As for Solitaurilia it is by now universally believed to stand for Suovelaurilia, a derivation which corresponds to the actual sacrifice, which has its counterpart in Homer ³⁵ as well. But these compounds are formed not so much from three words as from the fragments of three. On the other hand Pacuvius seems to have formed compounds of a preposition and two vocables ( i.e. nouns) as in

Nerei repandirostrum incurvticervicum pecs:

The flock

Of Nereus snout-uplifted, neck-inarched

the effect is unpleasing.

[68] Compounds are however formed from two complete Latin words, as for instance supefui and subterfui; though in this case there is some question as to whether the words from which they are formed are complete. ³⁶ They may also be formed of one complete and one incomplete word, as in the case of malevolus, or of one incomplete and one complete, such as noctivagus, or of two incomplete words as in pedisecus (footman), or from one Latin and one foreign word as in biclinium (a dining-couch for two), or in the reverse order as in epitogium (an upper garment) or Anticato, and sometimes even from two foreign words as in epiraedium (a thong attaching the horse to the raeda). For in this last case the preposition is Greek, while raeda is Gallic, while the compound is employed neither by Greek nor Gaul, but has been appropriated by Rome from the two foreign tongues.

[69] In the case of prepositions they are frequently changed by the act of compounding: as a result we get abstulit, aufugit, amisit, though the preposition is ab, and coil, though the preposition is con. The same is true of ignauus and erepublica.³⁷ But compounds are better suited to Greek than to Latin,

[70] though I do not think that this is due to the nature of our language: the reason rather is that we have a preference for foreign goods, and therefore receive κυρταύχην with applause, whereas we can scarce defend incurvicervicus from derisive laughter. Words are proper when they bear their original meaning;

[71] metaphorical, when they are used in a sense different from their natural meaning. Current words are safest to use: there is a spice of danger in coining new. For if they are adopted, our style wins but small glory from them; while if they are rejected, they become a subject for jest.

[72] Still we must make the venture; for as Cicero ³⁸ says, use softens even these words which at first seemed harsh. On the other hand the power of onomatopoeia is denied us. Who would tolerate an attempt to imitate phrases like the much praised λίγξε βιός,³⁹

the bow twanged,

and σῖζεν ὀφθαλμός⁴⁰

the eye hissed

? We should even feel some qualms about using balare

to baa,

and hinntre,

to whinny,

if we had not the sanction of antiquity to support us.

Institutio Oratoria. Quintilian. Harold Edgeworth Butler (Translator). Cambridge, Mass.. 1920-1922.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by Tufts University.

Current edition Perseus

Institutio Oratoria (English) (Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, translator. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.)

Editions (1)

Institutio Oratoria Perseus (Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, editor. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.) — 1.5 focus

[1] iam cum omnis oratio tris habeat virtutes, ut emendata, ut dilucida, ut ornata sit (quia dicere apte, quod est praecipuum, plerique ornatui subiiciunt), totidem vitia, quae sunt supra dictis contraria, emendate loquendi regulam, quae grammatices prior pars est, examinet.

[2] haec exigitur verbis aut singulis aut pluribus. verba nunc generaliter accipi volo, nam duplex eorum intellectus est; alter, qui omnia per quae sermo nectitur significat, ut apud Horatium: verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur; alter, in quo est una pars orationis, lego, scribo. quam vitantes ambiguitatem quidam dicere maluerunt voces, locutiones, dictiones.

[3] singula sunt aut nostra aut peregrina, aut simplicia aut composita, aut propria aut translata, aut usitata aut ficta. uni verbo vitium saepius quam virtus inest. licet enim dicamus aliquod proprium, speciosum, sublime: nihil tamen horum nisi in complexu loquendi serieque contingit; laudamus enim verba rebus bene accommodata.

[4] sola est, quae notari possit velut vocalitas, quae εὐφωνία dicitur; cuius in eo delectus est, ut inter duo, quae idem significant ac tantundem valent, quod melius sonet malis.

[5] prima barbarismi ac soloecismi foeditas absit. sed quia interim excusantur haec vitia aut consuetudine aut auctoritate aut vetustate aut denique vicinitate virtutum (nam saepe a figuris ea separare difficile est), ne qua tam lubrica observatio fallat, acriter se in illud tenue discrimen grammaticus intendat, de quo nos latius ibi loquemur, ubi de figuris orationis tractandum erit.

[6] interim vitium, quod fit in singulis verbis, sit barbarismus. occurrat mihi forsan aliquis, quid hic promisso tanti operis dignum? aut quis hoc nescit, alios barbarismos scribendo fieri alios loquendo;—quia, quod male scribitur, male etiam dici necesse est; quae vitiose dixeris, non utique et scripto peccant—illud prius adiectione, detractione, immutatione, transmutatione, hoc secundum divisione, complexione, aspiratione, sono contineri?

[7] sed ut parva sint haec, pueri docentur adhuc, et grammaticos officii sui commonemus. ex quibus si quis erit plane impolitus et vestibulum modo artis huius ingressus, intra haec, quae profitentium commentariolis vulgata sunt, consistet, doctiores multa adiicient, vel hoc primum, quod barbarismum pluribus modis accipimus.

[8] unum gente, quale est, si quis Afrum vel Hispanum Latinae orationi nomen inserat, ut ferrum, quo rotae vinciuntur, dici solet cantus, quanquam eo tanquam recepto utitur Persius; sicut Catullus ploxenum circa Padum invenit, et in oratione Labieni (sive illa Cornelii Galli est) in Pollionem casamo adsectator e Gallia ductum est; nam mastrucam, quod Sardum est, irridens Cicero ex industria dixit.

[9] alterum genus barbarismi accipimus, quod fit animi natura, ut is, a quo insolenter quid aut minaciter aut crudeliter dictum sit, barbare locutus existimatur.

[10] tertium est illud vitium barbarismi, cuius exempla vulgo sunt plurima, sibi etiam quisque fingere potest, ut verbo, cui libebit, adiiciat litteram syllabamve vel detrahat, aut aliam pro alia aut eandem alio quam rectum est loco ponat.

[11] sed quidam fere in iactationem eruditionis sumere illa ex poetis solent et auctores quos praelegunt criminantur. scire autem debet puer, haec apud scriptores carminum aut venia digna aut etiam laude duci, potiusque illa docendi erunt minus vulgata.

[12] nam duos in uno nomine faciebat barbarismos Tinga Placentinus (si reprehendenti Hortensio credimus) preculam pro pergula dicens, et immutatione cum c pro g uteretur, et transmutatione cum r praeponeret e antecedenti. at in eiusdem vitii geminatione Mettoeoque Fufetioeo ¹ dicens Ennius poetico iure defenditur.

[13] sed in prosa quoque est quaedam iam recepta immutatio. nam Cicero Canopitarum exercitum dicit, ipsi Canobon vocant; et Trasumennum pro Tarsumenno multi auctores, etiamsi est in eo transmutatio, vindicaverunt. similiter alia; nam sive est adsentior, Sisenna dixit adsentio multique et hunc et analogian secuti, sive illud verum est, haec quoque pars consensu defenditur.

[14] at ille pexus pinguisque doctor aut illic detractionem aut hic adiectionem putabit. quid quod quaedam, quae singula procul dubio vitiosa sunt, iuncta sine reprehensione dicuntur?

[15] nam et dua et tre et pondo diversorum generum sunt barbarismi; at duapondo et trepondo usque ad nostram aetatem ab omnibus dictum est, et recte dici Messala confirmat.

[16] absurdum forsitan videatur dicere, barbarismum, quod est unius verbi vitium, fieri per numeros aut genera sicut soloecismum: scala tamen et scopa contraque hordea et mulsa, licet litterarum mutationem, detractionem, adiectionem habeant, non alio vitiosa sunt, quam quod pluralia singulariter et singularia pluraliter efferuntur; et gladia qui dixerunt, genere exciderunt.

[17] sed hoc quoque notare contentus sum, ne arti culpa quorundam pervicacium perplexae videar et ipse quaestionem addidisse. plus exigunt subtilitatis quae accidunt in dicendo vitia, quia exempla eorum tradi scripto non possunt, nisi cum in versus inciderunt, ut divisio Europaï Asiaï et ei contrarium vitium, quod συναίρεσιν et συναλοιφὴν Graeci vocant, nos complexionem dicamus, qualis est apud P. Varronem tum te flagrant deiectum fulmine Phaethon.

[18] nam si esset prosa oratio, easdem litteras enuntiare veris syllabis licebat. praeterea quae fiunt spatio, sive cum syllaba correpta producitur, ut Italiam fato profugus, seu longa corripitur, ut unius ob noxam et furias, extra carmen non deprehendas; sed nec in carmine vitia dicenda sunt.

[19] illa vero non nisi aure exiguntur, quae fiunt per sonos; quanquam per aspirationem, sive adiicitur vitiose sive detrahitur, apud nos potest quaeri an in scripto sit vitium, si h littera est, non nota. cuius quidem ratio mutata cum temporibus est saepius.

[20] parcissime ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum aedos ircosque dicebant; diu deinde servatum, ne consonantibus aspirarent, ut in Graccis et in triumpis; erupit brevi tempore nimius usus, ut choronae, chenturiones, praechones adhuc quibusdam in inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re Catulli nobile epigramma est.

[21] inde durat ad nos usque vehementer et comprehendere et mihi, nam mehe quoque pro me apud antiquos tragoediarum praecipue scriptores in veteribus libris invenimus.

[22] adhuc difficilior observatio est per tenores (quos quidem ab antiquis dictos tonores comperi videlicet declinato a Graecis verbo, qui τόνους dicunt), vel adcentus, quas Graeci προσῳδίας vocant, cum acuta et gravis alia pro alia ponuntur, ut in hoc Camillus, si acuitur prima:

[23] aut gravis pro flexa, ut Cethegus , et hic prima acuta (nam sic media mutatur); aut flexa pro gravi, ut Appi² circumducta sequenti, quam ex duabus syllabis in unam cogentes et deinde flectentes dupliciter peccant.

[24] sed id saepius in Graecis nominibus accidit, ut Atreus, quem nobis iuvenibus doctissimi senes acuta prima dicere solebant, ut necessario secunda gravis esset, item Nerei Tereique. haec de accentibus tradita.

[25] ceterum scio iam quosdam eruditos, nonnullos etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui, ut propter quaedam vocum discrimina verbum interim acuto sono finiant,

[26] ut in illis quae circum littora, circum piscosos scopulos, ne, si gravem posuerint secundam, circus dici videatur non circuitus. itemque cum quale interrogantes gravi, comparantes acuto tenore concludunt; quod tamen in adverbiis fere solis ac pronominibus vindicant, in ceteris veterem legem sequuntur.

[27] mihi videtur condicionem mutare, quod his locis verba coniungimus. nam cum dico circum litora, tanquam unum enuntio dissimulata distinctione, itaque tanquam in una voce una est acuta, quod idem accidit in illo Troiae qui primus ab oris.

[28] evenit , ut metri quoque condicio mutet accentum, ut pecudes pictaeque volucres; nam volucres media acuta legam, quia, etsi natura brevis, tamen positione longa est, ne faciat iambum, quem non recipit versus herous.

[29] separata vero haec a praecepto non recedent, aut si consuetudo vicerit, vetus lex sermonis abolebitur; cuius difficilior apud Graecos observatio est, quia plura illis loquendi genera, quas διαλέκτους vocant, et quod alia vitiosum interim alia rectum est; apud nos vero brevissima ratio.

[30] namque in omni voce acuta intra numerum trium syllabarum continetur, sive eae sunt in verbo sole sive ultimae, et in iis aut proxima extremae aut ab ea tertia. trium porro, de quibus loquor, media longa aut acuta aut flexa erit; eodem loco brevis utique gravem habebit sonum, ideoque positam ante se id est ab ultima tertiam acuet.

[31] est autem in omni voce utique acuta sed nunquam plus una nec unquam ultima ideoque in disyllabis prior. praeterea nunquam in eadem flexa et acuta, quoniam est in flexa et acuta, itaque neutra claudet vocem Latinam. ea vero, quae sunt syllabae unius, erunt acuta aut flexa, ne sit aliqua vox sine acuta.

[32] et illa per sonos accidunt, quae demonstrari scripto non possunt, vitia oris et linguae: ἰωτακισμοὺς et λαμβδακισμοὺς et ἰσχνότητας et πλατειασμοὺς feliciores fingendis nominibus Graeci vocant, sicut κοιλοστομίαν, cum vox quasi in recessu oris auditor.

[33] sunt etiam proprii quidam et inenarrabiles soni, quibus nonnunquam nationes reprehendimus. remotis igitur omnibus, de quibus supra dixi, vitiis erit illa quae vocatur ὀρθοέπεια, id est emendata cum suavitate vocum explanatio: nam sic accipi potest recta.

[34] cetera vitia omnia ex pluribus vocibus sunt, quorum est soloecismus, quanquam circa hoc quoque disputatum est. nam etiam qui complexu orationis accidere eum confitentur, quia tamen unius emendatione verbi corrigi possit, in verbo esse vitium non in sermone contendunt;

[35] cum, sive amarae corticis seu medio cortice per genus facit soloecismum (quorum neutrum quidem reprehendo, cum sit utriusque Vergilius auctor; sed fingamus utrumlibet non recte dictum), mutatio vocis alterius, in qua vitium erat, rectam loquendi rationem sit redditura, ut amari corticis fiat vel media cortice. quod manifestae calumniae est; neutrum enim vitiosum est separatum, sed compositione peccatur, quae iam sermonis est.

[36] illud eruditius quaeritur, an in singulis quoque verbis possit fieri soloecismus, uti si unum quis ad se vocans dicat venite, aut si plures a se dimittens ita loquatur abi aut discede. nec non cum responsum ab interrogante dissentit, ut si dicenti quem video? ita occurras ego . in gestu etiam nonnulli putant idem vitium inesse, cum aliud voce aliud nutu vel manu demonstratur.

[37] huic opinioni neque omnino accedo neque plane dissentio. nam id fateor accidere voce una non tamen aliter, quam si sit aliquid, quod vim alterius vocis obtineat, ad quod vox illa referatur, ut soloecismus ex complexu fiat eorum, quibus res significantur et voluntas ostenditur.

[38] atque ut omnem effugiam cavillationem, sit aliquando in uno verbo nunquam in solo verbo. per quot autem et per quas accidat species, non satis convenit. qui plenissime, quadripertitam volunt esse rationem nec aliam quam barbarismi, ut fiat adiectione nam enim, de susum, in Alexandriam; detractione ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, ne hoc fecit;

[39] transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur, quoque ego, enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit. ex quo genere an sit igitur initio sermonis positum, dubitari potest, quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios nunquam reperiatur.

[40] haec tria genera quidam deducunt a soloecismo, et adiectionis vitium πλεονασμόν, detractionis ἔλλειψιν, inversionis ἀναστροφήν vocant, quae si in speciem soloecismi cadat, ὑπερβατόν quoque eodem appellari modo posse.

[41] immutatio sine controversia est, cum aliud pro alio ponitur. id per omnes orationis partes deprehendimus, frequentissime in verbo, quia plurima huic accidunt; ideoque in eo fiunt soloecismi per genera, tempora, personas, modos, sive cui status eos dici seu qualitates placet, vel sex vel, ut alii volunt, octo;—nam totidem vitiorum erunt formae, in quot species eorum quidque, de quibus supra dictum est, diviseris praeterea numeros,

[42] in quibus nos singularem ac pluralem habemus Graeci et δυϊκόν. quanquam fuerunt, qui nobis quoque adiicerent dualem scripsere, legere; quod evitandae asperitatis gratia mollitum est, ut apud veteres pro male mereris, male merere. ideoque quod vocant dualem, in illo solo genere consistit, cum apud Graecos et in verbi tota fere ratione et in nominibus deprehendatur, et sic quoque rarissimus eius sit usus,

[43] apud nostrorum vero neminem haec observatio reperiatur, quin e contrario devenere locos et conticuere omnes et consedere duces aperte nos doceant, nihil horum ad duos pertinere; dixere quoque, quamquam id Antonius Rufus ex diverso ponit exemplum, de pluribus patronis praeco pronuntiet.

[44] quid ? non Livius circa initia statim primi libri, tenuere , inquit, arcem Sabini? et mox, in adversum Romani subiere? sed quem potius ego quam M. Tullium sequar? qui in Oratore, non reprehendo, inquit, scripsere; scripserunt esse verius sentio.

[45] similiter in vocabulis et nominibus fit soloecismus genere, numero, proprie autem casibus, quidquid horum alteri succedet. huic parti subiungatur licet per comparationes et superlationes, itemque in quibus patrium pro possessivo dicitur vel contra.

[46] nam vitium, quod fit per quantitatem ut magnum peculiolum, erunt qui soloecismum putent quia pro nomine integro positum sit deminutum. ego dubito, an id improprium potius appellem, significatione enim deerrat; soloecismi porro uitium non est in sensu sed in complexu.

[47] in participio per genus et casum, ut in vocabulo, per tempora, ut in verbo, per numerum, ut in utroque, peccatur. pronomen quoque genus, numerum, casus habet, quae omnia recipiunt huiusmodi errorem.

[48] fiunt soloecismi et quidem plurimi per partes orationis; sed id tradere satis non est, ne ita demum vitium esse credat puer, si pro alia ponatur alia, ut verbum, ubi nomen esse debuerit, vel adverbium, ubi pronomen, et similia.

[49] nam sunt quaedam cognata, ut dicunt, id est eiusdem generis, in quibus, qui alia specie quam oportet utetur, non minus quam ipso genere permutato deliquerit.

[50] nam et an et aut coniunctiones sunt, male tamen interroges, hic aut ille sit; et ne ac non adverbia; qui tamen dicat pro illo

ne feceris

non feceris,

in idem incidat vitium, quia alterum negandi est alterum vetandi. hoc amplius intro et intus loci adverbia, eo tamen intus et intro sum soloecismi sunt.

[51] eadem in diversitate pronominum, interiectionum, praepositionum accident; est etiam soloecismus in oratione comprehensionis unius sequentium ac priorum inter se inconveniens position.

[52] quaedam tamen et faciem soloecismi habent et dici vitiosa non possunt, ut tragoedia Thyestes et ludi Floralia ac Megalensia, quanquam haec sequenti tempore interciderunt numquam aliter a veteribus dicta. schemata igitur nominabuntur, frequentiora quidem apud poetas sed oratoribus quoque permissa.

[53] verum schema fere habebit aliquam rationem, ut docebimus eo, quem paulo ante promisimus, loco. sed id quoque, quod schema vocatur, si ab aliquo per imprudentiam factum erit, soloecismi vitio non carebit.

[54] in eadem specie sunt sed schemate carent, ut supra dixi, nomina feminina, quibus mares utuntur, et neutralia, quibus feminae. hactenus de soloecismo. neque enim artem grammaticam componere aggressi sumus, sed cum in ordinem incurreret, inhonoratam transire noluimus.

[55] hoc amplius, ut institutum ordinem sequar, verba aut Latina aut peregrina sunt. peregrina porro ex omnibus prope dixerim gentibus ut homines, ut instituta etiam multa venerunt.

[56] taceo de Tuscis et Sabinis et Praenestinis quoque; nam ut eorum sermone utentem Vettium Lucilius insectatur, quemadmodum Pollio reprehendit in Livio Patavinitatem, licet omnia Italica pro Romanis habeam.

[57] plurima gallica evaluerunt ut raeda ac petorritum, quorum altero tamen Cicero altero Horatius utitur. et mappam circo quoque usitatum nomen Poeni sibi vindicant, et gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi.

[58] sed haec divisio mea ad Graecum sermonem praecipue pertinet, nam et maxima ex parte Romanus inde conversus est et confessis quoque Graecis utimur verbis, ubi nostra desunt, sicut illi a nobis nonnunquam mutuantur. inde illa quaestio exoritur, an eadem ratione per casus duci externa qua nostra conveniat.

[59] ac si reperias grammaticum veterum amatorem, neget quidquam ex Latina ratione mutandum, quia, cum sit apud nos casus ablativus, quem illi non habent, parum conveniat uno casu nostro quinque Graecis uti;

[60] quin etiam laudet virtutem eorum, qui potentiorem facere linguam Latinam studebant, nec alienis egere institutis fatebantur. inde Castorem media syllaba producta pronuntiarunt, quia hoc omnibus nostris nominibus accidebat, quorum prima positio in easdem quas Castor litteras exit; et ut Palaemo ac Telamo et Plato (nam sic eum Cicero quoque appellat) dicerentur, retinuerunt, quia Latinum, quod o et n litteris finiretur, non reperiebant.

[61] ne in a quidem atque s litteras exire temere masculina Graeca nomina recto casu patiebantur, ideoque et apud Caelium legimus Pelia cincinnatus et apud Messalam bene fecit Euthia et apud Ciceronem Hermagora , ne miremur, quod ab antiquorum plerisque Aenea ut Anchisa sit dictus.

[62] nam si ut Maecenas, Sufenas, Asprenas dicerentur, genitivo casu non e littera, sed tis syllaba terminarentur. inde Olympo et tyranno acutam syllabam mediam dederunt, quia duabus longis insequentibus primam brevem acui noster sermo non patitur.

[63] sic genitivus Ulixi et Achilli fecit, sic alia plurima. nunc recentiores instituerunt Graecis nominibus Graecas declinationes potius dare, quod tamen ipsum non semper fieri potest. mihi autem placet Latinam rationem sequi, quousque patitur decor. neque enim iam Calypsonem dixerim ut Iunonem, quanquam secutus antiquos, C. Caesar utitur hac ratione declinandi. sed auctoritatem consuetudo superavit.

[64] in ceteris, quae poterunt utroque modo non indecenter efferri, qui Graecam figuram sequi malet, non Latine quidem sed tamen citra reprehensionem loquetur.

[65] simplices voces prima positione id est natura sua constant, compositae aut praepositionibus subiunguntur ut innocens (dum ne pugnantibus inter se duabus, quale est inperterritus; alioqui possunt aliquando continuari duae ut incompositus, reconditus et quo Cicero utitur subabsurdum ), aut e duobus quasi corporibus coalescunt, ut maleficus.

[66] nam ex tribus nostrae utique linguae non concesserim; quamvis capsis Cicero dicat compositum esse ex cape si vis, et inveniantur qui Lupercalia aeque tres partes orationis esse contendant,

[67] quasi luere per caprum; nam solitaurilia iam persuasum est esse suouetaurilia , et sane ita se habet sacrum, quale apud Homerum quoque est. sed haec non tam ex tribus quam ex particulis trium coeunt. ceterum etiam ex praepositione et duobus vocabulis dure videtur struxisse Pacuvius Nerei repandirostrum, incuruiceruicum pecus.

[68] iunguntur autem aut ex duobus Latinis integris ut superfui, subterfugi (quanquam ex integris an composita sint quaeritur), aut ex integro et corrupto ut malevolus, aut ex corrupto et integro ut noctivagus, aut ex duobus corruptis ut pedisecus, aut ex nostro et peregrino ut biclinium, aut contra ut epitogium et Anticato, aliquando et ex duobus peregrinis ut epiraedium. nam cum sit praepositio Graeca, raeda Gallicum: neque Graecus tamen neque Gallus utitur composito; Romani suum ex alieno utroque fecerunt.

[69] frequenter autem praepositiones quoque compositio ista corrumpit: inde abstulit, aufugit, amisit, cum praepositio sit ab sola; et coit, cum sit praepositio con; sic ignaui et erepublica et similia.

[70] sed res tota magis Graecos decet, nobis minus succedit, nec id fieri natura puto, sed alienis favemus; ideoque cum κυρταύχενα mirati simus, incurvicervicum vix a risu defendimus.

[71] propria sunt verba, cum id significant, in quod primo denominata sunt; translata, cum alium natura intellectum alium loco praebent. usitatis tutius utimur, nova non sine quodam periculo fingimus. nam si recepta sunt, modicam laudem adferunt orationi, repudiata etiam in iocos exeunt.

[72] audendum tamen; namque, ut Cicero ait, etiam quae primo dura visa sunt, usu molliuntur. sed minime nobis concessa est ὀνοματοποιία quis enim ferat, si quid simile illis merito laudatis λίγξε βιός et σίζ ὀφθαλμός fingere audeamus? nam ne balare quidem aut hinnire fortiter diceremus, nisi iudicio vetustatis niterentur.

Notes on the current edition

Institutio Oratoria

1. cp. § 40.

2. Pers. v. 71. Usually, though wrongly, spelt oanthus.

3. Cat. xcvii. 6.

4. In Or. pro Scauro.

5. The barbarism lies in the use of the old Greek terminationoeo in the genitive.

6. Two and three pounds in weight.

7. The archaic genitive as used by epic poets.

8. Ph oe thon for Phaëthon.

9. Aen. i. 6.

10. Aen. i. 45.

11. Cat. Ixxxi.

12. The Roman accent was a stress, while the Greek was a pitch accent, though by the Christian era tending to change into stress. Roman grammarians borrow the Greek terminology and speak of accents in terms of pitch. The explanation of this is probably that the Roman stress accent was accompanied by an elevation of the pitch. Here the acute accent certainly implies stress; the grave implies a drop in pitch and the absence of stress. The circumflex means that the voice rises slightly and then falls slightly, but implies stress. See Lindsay, Latin Language, pp. 148–153.

13. i.e. that circum is the ace. of circus, and not the adverb indicating circuit.

14. Aen. i. l: qui coalesces with primus, ab with oris.

15. Georg. iii. 243.

16. Iotacism = doubling the i sound, e.g. Troiia for Troia; lambdacism = doubling the l.

17. Ecl. vi. 62.

18. Georg. ii. 74.

19. i.e. nam cannot he coupled with enim; de being a preposition cannot govern an adverb (

from above

); in is not required with Alexandriam, which is the name of a town. Quoque, enim and autem cannot come first in a sentence Ambulo per viam, ab Aegypto venio, ne hoc quidem fecit would be the correct Latin.

20. Aen. i. 369:

They came to the places.

21. Aen. ii. l:

All were silent.

22. Ovid, Met. xiii. l:

The chiefs sat them down.

23. Dixere,

they have spoken,

was said when the advocates had finished their pleading.

24. Liv. I. xii.:

The Sabines held the citadel.

The Romans marched up the slope against them.

25. Orat. xlvii. 157.

26. Lit.

A great little fortune.

27. e.g. intus for intro, the genus being adverbs of place.

28. For hic an ille sit?

29. The meaning of this passage is uncertain, but the solecism in question is probably an anacoluthon.

30. Where strict grammar would require tragoedia Thyestis, ludi Florales, Megalenses. The normal usage would be simply to say Thyestes, Floralia, Megalensia.

31. I. iv. 24. The promise is fulfilled in Book IX.

32. This form does not actually occur in Cicero, MSS. evidently wrongly giving Hermagaras.

33. Quintilian regards the negative in as a preposition. His objection to imperterritus (which is used by Vergil) seems to lie in the fact that while interritus is a natural way of expressing

unterrified,

it is unreasonable to negative perterritus, which means

thoroughly terrified.

The presence of the intensifying per conflicts with the force of the negative in.

34. Orat. xlv. 154.

35. As in Od. xi. 130. The word means sacrifices of a pig, sheep and bull.

36. i.e. if both elements are complete in themselves is the word a true compound?

37. Sometimes written as one word.

38. de Nat. deorum, I. xxxiv. 95.

39. Homer, Il. iv. 125.

40. 2 Od. ix. 394.

Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 1.5

Harold Edgeworth Butler (Translator)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers