Chapter XIII: Book II: , much of which is quoted above, Quintilian has many incidental

references and allusions. At IV. ii. 29, he defines _declamatio_ as _forensium actionum meditatio_, “exercise in pleading”, and he implies the same definition in _ad declamandum ficta materia_ (I. x. 33) and in _fictas ad imitationem fori consiliorumque materias_ (i.e., _controversias suasoriasque_, II. iv. 41). Steadfastly ignoring its use as a form of public speaking, he consistently treats it as a school exercise. He implies that _declamatio_ embraced a large part of actual teaching when he complains (II. i. 8) that it is forecast by _grammaticus_, and calls _rhetor_ (II. i. 3) _declamandi magister_. He says repeatedly that it depends largely on imaginative realization of character and emotion (VI. i. 25-27; X. i. 71; and the passage on _prosopopœiæ_ quoted above). He admits the use of it as an exhibition of virtuosity (_in ostentationem_, II. x. 10), but satirizes this (II. xx. 3) by the anecdote commemorating the futile skill of a man who could throw grains through the eye of a needle. Though he regards it as a gymnastic profitable for mature speakers in providing variety and relief (X. v. 17), he has no patience with the common practise of keeping up indefinitely what is properly a school exercise (XII. xi. 15). Finally he repeats explicitly and implicitly his warning that _declamatio_ should be kept close to actuality; and in a long passage (V. xii. 17-22) concluding his discussion of the _sedes argumentorum_, he indignantly condemns its perversion into prettiness as an emasculation of oratory.

Lucian, whose satire does not spare rhetors, makes specific mention now and then of _declamatio_, using the term μελέτη or μελετᾶν: _Demonax_, 33, 36; _Rhetorum præceptor_, 17. One passage is very like Quintilian’s in the text above: “But the chief exercise and the aim of the art of dancing, as I said, is acting, which is practised in the same way by rhetors, especially by those who cultivate the so-called _declamationes_. Their art is the more applauded for its adaptation to the assigned characters and for its consonance with the persons introduced, whether princes, tyrannicides, poor men, or farmers.” _De saltatione_, 65. Some of his satires, e.g., _Tyrannicida_, _Abdicatus_, and some of the _encomia_, sound like mock _declamationes_.

[11] Watson’s (Bohn) translation quotes (foot-notes to pages 212-13 of volume I) Capperonier’s tabular summary of the doctrine of _status_ found in Quintilian, Cicero, the treatise _Ad Herennium_, and Hermogenes. For Cicero see also pages 49-51 above.

Jæneke’s Leipzig dissertation (1904) _De statuum doctrina ab Hermogene tradita_ compares by tabular view (pages 23-4, 120-1) the system of Hermagoras, as it is inferred from Cicero, Quintilian, and St. Augustine, with that of Hermogenes.

[12] The maxim was _reddere auditores benevolos, attentos, dociles_. The classical lore on the third of these functions is surveyed by F. P. Donnelly, S. J., in _A function of the classical exordium_, Classical Weekly, V. 204-7, New York, May 11, 1912.

[13] Curam ergo verborum rerum volo esse solicitudinem. VIII, proem, 20. The passage goes on: “For generally the best words are inseparable from their things, and are discerned by their own light. But we look for them as if they were always lurking and hiding. So, forgetting that they must be near the subject-matter, we seek them elsewhere and, when we have found them, lay hold of them by force. A higher spirit is needed for essaying eloquence; for if she is in sound health throughout her frame, she will not think her care should be spent on manicuring and hairdressing.” Fronto, on the contrary, praises the young Marcus Aurelius for digging up words, “ut verbum ex alto eruas et ad significandum adcommodes,” ed., Haines, I. 6.

[14] For Aristotle’s treatment see above page 24; for Cicero’s, pages 53, 57; for those of Dionysius and “Longinus,” Chapter V.

[15] in rebus spiritus et in verbis sublimitas et in affectibus motus omnis et in personis decor. X. i. 27.

[16] For an interesting note on dictation as practised by a professional orator, see H. von Arnim, _Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa_, page 140.

[17] via, X. vii. 5; intendendus animus ... usque ad ultimum, X. vii. 16.

[18] imagines, X. vii. 15.

[19] The interpretation is substantially that of Luigi Valmaggi: “Insomma il precetto di Quintiliano è questo, che occorre o recitare a memoria o improvvisare sia pure su appunti presi meditando il discorso, ma è d’uopo evitare assolutamente una miscela dei due sistemi.” _Osservazioni sul libro x di Quintiliano_, in Atti della reale accademia delle scienze di Torino, 37:228.

[20] Our modern habits of writing and reading hinder our comprehension of the speaking and listening ancient world. Especially are we liable to misinterpretation of the idea of writing in the ancient rhetoric. This contemplated primarily general training in style. It also included some written preparation for a particular speech, and finally the writing out of some speeches, especially speeches on occasion, in full. But that this last was the general ancient practise has never been sufficiently supported and is _a priori_ improbable. The writing out of speeches after they had been spoken, and the common ancient practise of writing speeches for other men to learn and deliver, are not in point, and must be kept apart from the question of written preparation. The traditional quarrel between the ancient oratory which relied more and that which relied less on writing is admirably summed up by Van Hook, _Alcidamas versus Isocrates; the spoken versus the written word_, in the introduction to his translation of the attack of Alcidamas _On those who write written speeches_, Classical Weekly, XII, 89-94, New York, Jan. 20, 1919. Though there is ground for difference of opinion in interpreting what we can learn of the habit of Demosthenes or of Cicero, there is no ground for assuming that the ancient counsels of care in preparation generally imply writing out. Quintilian, who leans toward written preparation, is by himself almost sufficient testimony to the contrary.

[21] _Cogitatis_, with obvious reference to _cogitatio_ in X. vi. vii.

[22] Note that _memoria_ is vigor of mind, and that it is first, as often, applied to extempore speaking.

[23] For Aristotle on this aspect of the period (_Rhetoric_, iii, 1409 b), see 27 above.

[24] See the tabular view above (page 63, with foot-note 3) and Quintilian’s own review and forecast in the proem to Book VIII.

[25] How deliberate and consistent is his order appears, for instance, at the opening of II. xi, where the definitions begin: Iam hic ergo nobis inchoanda est ea pars artis ex qua capere initium solent qui priora omiserunt.

[26] See Chapter III, pages 38, 46.

[27] The best edition is _Sénèque le rhéteur, controverses et suasoires_, traduction nouvelle (with expository introduction), texte revu (in fine print at the bottom of each page), Henri Bornecque (Lille), 2 volumes, Paris (Garnier), 1902.

The best discussion is also by Bornecque, _Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le père_, Travaux et mémoires de l’Université de Lille, nouvelle série, I. Droit, Lettres—fascicule 1, Lille, au siège de l’Université, 1902 (bibliography, index of authors cited other than Seneca, catalogue raisonné of _declamatores_).

Incidental and more general discussion will be found in standard treatises on Roman literature of the Empire, in G. Boissier’s _La fin du paganisme_, and in his _Tacite_, pages 200-240.

Peterson’s translation of the _Dialogus_ of Tacitus is published in the Loeb Classical Library.

[28] For a summary of the earlier Greek history see Bornecque, _Déclam._, 40.

[29] E.g. _De orat._ I. 140.

[30] Commentabar declamitans—sic enim nunc loquuntur. _Brutus_, 310. On this point Seneca has no doubt:—Declamabat autem Cicero non quales nunc controversias dicimus, ne tales quidem quales ante Ciceronem dicebantur, quas thesis vocabant. Hoc enim genus maxime, quo nos exercemur, adeo novum est, ut nomen quoque ejus novum sit. Seneca, _Controversiæ_, I. præf. 12.

[31] See above, pages 70-73 and foot-note 10. The objection of Petronius, _Satyricon_ i. 2, is less specific.

[32] Seneca the Elder (sometimes called the Rhetor, circ. 56 B.C.-39 A.D.) made the collection in his last years.

[33] Bornecque, _Déclam._ 25, thinks that the _Controversiæ_ may be taken as substantial reproductions.

[34] _Controv._ II, præf. 3. J. W. H. Walden quotes a similar counsel from Libanius, _Ep._ 248: καὶ σύ τοι τὸ ἄρχειν ἔχεις ἀπὸ τοῦ δύνασθαι λέγειν. _The Universities of Ancient Greece_, page 78, foot-note.

Bornecque, _Déclam._ 135, sums up the situation as follows: “la rhétorique, devenue l’étude unique, perd, du même coup, le contact avec la réalité ... et elle dépouille à peu près toute valeur comme moyen d’éducation oratoire et général.”

[35] Tacitus, _Dial._ 35-5, quoted above, page 88. Quintilian, II. iv. 25.

[36] C. T. Cruttwell translates the second of these at page 335 of his _History of Roman Literature_.

The subjects mentioned incidentally by Quintilian are similar:—Deliberant Patres conscripti an stipendium militi constituant. III. viii. 18. Deliberant Patres conscripti an Fabios dedant Gallis bellum minitantibus. 19. Deliberat C. Cæsar an perseveret in Germaniam ire, cum milites passim testamenta facerent. 19.

Pompeius deliberavit Parthos, an Africam, an Ægyptum peteret. 33. Deliberat Cæsar an Britanniam impugnet. VII. iv. 2.

[37] _Dial._ 35. 5, quoted above, page 88.

[38] Deinde res ipsa diversa est: totum aliud est pugnare, aliud ventilare. Hoc ita semper habitum est, scholam quasi ludum esse, forum arenam. III. præf. 13.

The same point of view is taken by Pliny in the letter (_Epist._ II. 3) quoted below.

The following _controversia_ was assigned to the young Marcus Aurelius by his master Fronto: “I have sent you an outline; the case is serious. A consul of the Roman people, laying aside his robes, has donned a coat of mail and among the young men at the feast of Minerva has slain a lion in the sight of the Roman people. He is denounced before the Censors. Put into shape and develop.” _Correspondence of Fronto_, ed., with a translation, C. R. Haines, London and New York (Loeb Classical Library), 1919, vol. I, page 210 (see the further correspondence on this theme, pages 212, 214).

[39] See above, page 69.

[40] For all its informality, Pliny’s letter runs, as it were inevitably, into the traditional channels of the formal parts of a speech (_proœmiatur_, _narrat_, _pugnat_) and the three ends of oratory (_docet_, _delectat_, _afficit_). Indeed, it shows throughout a familiarity with rhetorical technic, and assumes a like familiarity on the part of its recipient.

[41] H. Keil’s editio maior of Pliny’s Letters (Leipzig, 1870) dates the second book A.D. 97-100, within a few years of Quintilian’s _Institutio_. For Isæus see Philostratus, _Vit. Soph._ i. 20, and Juvenal’s satirical phrase “Isæo torrentior” (I. iii. 74).

[42] “Rhetoricati sumus, et in morem declamatorum paululum lusimus,” quoted by Labriolle, _Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne_, Paris, 1920, page 470. _Lusimus_ corresponds to Seneca’s description of _declamatio_ as _ludus_ (foot-note 38 above).

[43] The history of _declamatio_ as a direct and an indirect influence is reserved for a later volume. It is summarized suggestively by Bornecque in both the introduction to his edition of Seneca and his treatise cited in foot-note 27. Walden’s ample summaries of the work of Libanius (4th century) in his _Universities of Ancient Greece_ corroborate what Bornecque says of St. Augustine.

[44] See Pliny’s letter on Isæus above.

[45] E.g., I. præf. 21; II. iii. 11. See also Bornecque, _Déclam._ 51. For _status_ see above, page 74.

[46] The long and intricate history of _colores_, extending, with that of its Romance cognates, through the middle ages, must be postponed; but its interest may be divined by merely glancing at the successive uses recorded in a few dictionaries. The importance of exploring the term has been urged again by Fletcher in his _“True Meaning” of Dante’s Vita Nuova_, Romanic Review, XI. 119.

[47] For the literary influence of this habit of oral fiction see Bornecque, _Décl._

[48] See above, page 71.

[49] Seneca, _Controversiæ_, IV. iii. 3. Doubtless Quintilian had such perversion of _narratio_ in mind when he wrote: “[_The narratio_] should be neither dry and starved ... nor again winding and seductive with far-fetched descriptions, into which many are led by imitation of the license of poetry.” II. iv. 3.

[50] See the section on Ovid in Chapter VII below. Bornecque sums up the tendency acutely as “pénétration réciproque de la poésie et de la déclamation,” _Déclam._ 115.

[51] The development of this history is reserved to a later volume.