[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
mail:
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]
Italiano

[Link to a series of help pages]
Help
[Link to the next level up]
Up
[Link to my homepage]
Home
[image ALT: a blank space]

This webpage reproduces the Introduction to the
Rhetorica ad Herennium

published in the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1954

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!

[image ALT: a blank space]

p. vii Introduction

The Greek art of rhetoric was first naturalized at Rome in the time of the younger Scipio, and Latin treatises on the subject were in circulation from the time of the Gracchi. But the books by Cato, Antonius, and the other Roman writers have not come down to us, and it is from the second decade of the first century B.C. that we have, in the treatise addressed to Gaius Herennius, the oldest Latin Art preserved entire. Like Cicero's incomplete De Inventione, which belongs close to it in time, this work reflects Hellenistic rhetorical teaching. Our author, however, gives us a Greek art in Latin dress, combining a Roman spirit with Greek doctrine. It is a technical manual, systematic and formal in arrangement; its exposition is bald, but in greatest part clear and precise. Indeed the writer's specific aims are to achieve clarity and conciseness, and to complete the exposition of his subject with reasonable speed. He seeks clarity through the use of Roman terms, and of specially selected examples; he seeks conciseness by keeping practical needs always in view, by scrupulously avoiding irrelevant matter, and by presenting methods and principles, not a host of particular illustrations of a given point.1

The fact that the treatise appeared, from Jerome's p. viiitime on, as a work by Cicero2 gave it a prestige which it enjoyed for over a thousand years. Because of its position in the MSS. following De Inventione it was in the twelfth century called Rhetorica Secunda; perhaps because of a belief that Cicero wrote the treatise to replace his juvenile De Inventione, it was later called Rhetorica Nova.3 But Cicero never refers to any work of his which might be identified with our treatise; the disparaging reference in De Oratore 1.2.5 to those "crude and incomplete" essays of his youth is obviously to the two books De Inventione. The picture we draw of our author does not fit the early Cicero, and his doctrines in many crucial instances, as will be seen later, are in sharp contrast with those of De Inventione. Furthermore, the thought and style of the work are unworthy of the mature Cicero. Finally Quintilian4 (who often cites De Inventione),5 p. ixand similarly Gellius,6 Marius Victorinus, Servius, and Cassiodorus show no acquaintance with any Ciceronian work of this nature. Although the belief in Ciceronian authorship has still not entirely disappeared, all the recent editors agree that the attribution is erroneous.

The first to doubt that the treatise was worthy of Ciceronian authorship was Lorenzo Valla (middle saec. XV). Then Raphael Regius in 1491 positively divorced the work from Cicero's name. The question of authorship has occupied the attention of scholars at intervals ever since, but has never been settled to the satisfaction of all. It is wisest, I believe, to ascribe the work to an unknown author, although a good many reputable scholars have made out a case, at first glance attractive, for assigning it to a rhetorician named Cornificius.7 These rely on citations in Quintilian which correspond with passages in Book 4 of our treatise. Cornificius is mentioned, and always with disapproval, in the following places:

In 5.10.2 Quintilian, discussing arguments, criticizes Cornificius for calling a Conclusion from Incompatibles contrarium; contrarium appears in our treatise as a figure (of diction).

In 9.2.27 Quintilian tells us that oratio libera — which he would allow to be called a figure only if it is p. xsimulated and artfully designed — is by Cornificius called licentia; licentia is the term used by our author (4.xxxvi.48) for a figure which, in one form, fulfils Quintilian's requirements.

In 9.3.69‑71 Quintilian, dealing with adnominatio, gives three examples of flat punning to be avoided, not imitated; Cornificius, he says, calls this word-play traductio. Two of these examples are used by our author, one to illustrate traductio (4.xiv.21), but the other to illustrate adnominatio (4.xxi.29). To meet this real difficulty, the advocates of Cornifician authorship maintain that adnominatio and traductio are brought together by Quintilian because they are indeed kindred figures, but these scholars are forced also to blame Quintilian for casual excerpting at this point, or for drawing upon his memory — a charge had to prove against so careful a workman.

In 9.3.91 Quintilian criticizes Cornificius and Rutilius for regarding finitio, which is no figure at all, as a figure of diction; definitio, somewhat differently characterized, appears as a figure of diction in our treatise (4.xxv.35).

In 9.3.98 Quintilian tells us that Cornificius lists ten figures of diction of which the first five must be regarded as figures of thought: interrogatio (cf. 4.xv.22), ratiocinatio (4.xvi.23), subiectio (4.xxiii.33), transitio (4.xxvi.35), occultatio (4.xxvii.37), and the other five as not figures at all: sententia (4.xvii.24), membrum (4.xix.26), articuli (articulus4.xix.26), interpretatio (4.xxviii.38), conclusio (4.xxx.41).8 These all appear in our treatise, in the places indicated in parentheses.

p. xi Quintilian mentions Cornificius in two other places. In  3.1.21, sketching the history of writers on rhetoric, he says: "Cornificius wrote a great deal (non pauca) on the same subject (rhetoric), Stertinius something, and the elder Gallio9 a little. But the predecessors of Gallio, Celsus and Laenas,10 and in our day Verginius,11 Pliny,12 and Tutilius wrote with greater care. And even today there are distinguished authors. . . ." To this passage may be joined 9.3.89, where Cornificius appears in a list of authors who devoted whole books (non partem operis . . . sed proprie libros) to the discussion of figures: "Caecilius, Dionysius,13 Rutilius,14 Cornificius, Visellius, and a number of others, although there are living authors whose glory will match theirs."15

p. xii An examination of these passages, especially in their context, leads us to several conclusions. First, Cornificius lived after the time of Cicero and near (but before) Quintilian's own day. In 3.1.8 ff. Quintilian is obviously preserving a chronological order: Cornificius appears after Cicero (rather than immediately after Antonius) and before the writers aetatis nostrae. Again, in 9.3.91 and 9.3.98‑9 Cornificius, Caecilius, and Rutilius are mentioned following discussions of Cicero. Finally, in 9.3.89 Cornificius is listed with writers of the Augustan age, and we assume that he was contemporary with them or flourished soon after them.16 It would seem preposterous to place a writer of Marian times in this group.

We further conclude that Cornificius was the author of a special book on figures,17 and that this is p. xiiithe source from which Quintilian makes his citations in Book 9. That Cornificius produced additional work in the field of rhetoric is possible;18 the phrase non pauca in 3.1.21, however, does not permit us to be certain whether this was in the form of a complete Art of rhetoric,19 or of several works on single parts of the subject.

p. xiv Cornificius, then, lived in a later period than our author, and so cannot have written the Rhetorica ad Herennium. The book by Cornificius which Quintilian cites is not the Rhetorica ad Herennium, and there is no evidence that Quintilian knew or made use of our treatise.20 The agreements between Cornificius' work and our author's we explain by assuming a common source,21 and we should remember, too, that some of the matter, especially some of the examples, shared by both can be classed among the commonplaces of the subject.

Who, finally, was the real author? We have no evidence to determine that when, and so must assign the work to an auctor incertus.22

p. xv The original title is as unknown to us as the name of the author. Marx, on the basis of the introductory remarks in Book 1, suggests, with plausibility, that this might have been De Ratione Dicendi, which was also the title of Antonius' treatise on rhetoric.

Our author dedicates his work to Gaius Herennius; we know several Herennii23 of this period, but no one definitely identifiable with the addressee. Marx, influenced by the apparent fact that the work remained unnoticed for five hundred years, believed that it was intended only for private use, and not for publication, but this hypothesis does not receive universal acceptance.

As we have said, the treatise is altogether Greek in doctrine. The Rhodian24 rhetor who represents its original source sought to bind rhetoric to philosophy, and the book as it stands is a synthesis of various teachings: pre-Aristotelian (Isocratean and "Anaximenean"), Aristotelian and Peripatetic, Stoic, Hermagorean, and possibly Epicurean. Hellenistic theorists selected from all schools what they needed, and indeed some of the precepts were by then a common possession.25 We must remark, too, in our p. xviauthor's case thoroughly practical motives to which he constantly gives expression. The notes in the present volume attempt in many instances to indicate the ties by which he is bound to the traditions of different schools. To illustrate briefly, and almost at random: the threefold purpose of the Direct Opening is pre-Aristotelian doctrine; the concept of the officia oratoris is Aristotelian; the "virtues" of Style go back to Theophrastus; the detailed treatment of Delivery belongs probably to post-Theophrastan theory; the discussion of Solecism and Barbarism shows a debt to Stoicism; the definition of rhetoric is Hermagorean, and so too, though in modified form, is our author's status system — indeed every art which had a status system was beholden to Hermagoras; the opposition to amphibolies may be Epicurean; and in the case of some principles the Sophists and Plato play an originating or participating rôle.

The precepts are often illustrated by excellent examples, many of them allusions to the recent and the contemporary political scene, especially the Marsic and Marian Wars, and many bringing back to life the older Roman eloquence. Of the older Latin orators, our author shows special admiration for Gaius Gracchus and Crassus (4.i.2, 4.ii.2), but he tells us that Cato, Tiberius Gracchus, Laelius, Scipio, Porcina, and Antonius also commonly serve as models in the field of style. Poets and historians, too, may be models (4.v.7); he has praise for Ennius and Pacuvius (4.iv.7), but he does not p. xvii hesitate to use these poets and Plautus26 and the historian Coelius Antipater in illustration of faults of argumentation or of style. Examples of figures of speech (whose sources he does not name) are drawn from Greek authors as well; the speeches of Demosthenes (especially De Corona) and Aeschines are special favourites, but sayings originated by Homer, Simonides, Pythagoras, Isocrates, Socrates, Theophrastus, Aristarchus, Apollonius ὁ μαλακός, and others also appear, as do references to Greek mythology. The author's experience and mastery of Greek literature, however, do not seem to have been great; this Greek lore was transmitted to him from the schools.

The schools emphasized declamation and the study of models, and the treatise is in this respect an image of school practice. Declamatory exercises — the author again and again stresses the importance of exercise27 — are represented in the form of progymnasmata of various types (including training in epideictic), of deliberative question (deliberationes, suasoriae), and of judicial cases (causae, controversiae). The deliberative questions are all taken from events of Roman history, none of them antedating the war with Hannibal.28 Of the judicial cases drawn from Roman history, almost all date from the end of the Jugurthine War to the end of the Marian War; a number are also Greek in origin, and occasionally are p. xviiialtered to fit Roman conditions. Our author doubtless used collections of declamations current in his day. The organization of the treatise is rather complicated.29 The author is heir to two structural schemes — the pre-Aristotelian, based on the partes of the discourse (μόρια λόγου), and the Peripatetic, based on the five officia (ἔργα) of rhetoric. In his discussion of judicial oratory — which held the foreground in Hellenistic rhetoric, and claims most of his attention — both schemes are fused, "in order to make the subject easier to understand" (1.iii.4), and with interesting results. The partes are treated under Invention, and not, as in the Peripatetic system, under Disposition. Disposition, which is therefore narrow in scope and rather sterile, becomes an adjunct of Invention30 (3.ix.16), and is treated directly after it, where in the Peripatetic structure we should expect a discussion of Style. The Types of Issue are subjoined to Proof, which is one of the partes, and not as in Aristotle a primary and central function of the whole art. The discussion of the deliberative and epideictic kinds, on the other hand, is more in line with the Peripatetic method: in both cases p. xixInvention receives first consideration, and then comes the Development of the cause based on the parts of the discourse.

Each book has a Preface and a Conclusion, which, by brief summaries and transitions characteristic of lecture or text-book style, serve to tie the parts together, and to keep the plan of the work clear in the reader's mind.

The first two books deal with Invention in judicial causes; Invention in deliberative and epideictic speaking is discussed much more briefly in a part of Book 3. Disposition is also accorded little space for the reasons set forth above. But the treatment of Delivery, Memory, and Style is of special interest and importance.

The doctrine of Delivery had been developed in post-Aristotelian times, and our author is familiar with books on the subject. He is dissatisfied with these and wishes to treat the subject with greater care and completeness than had characterized the work of his predecessors (3.xi.19). In the section which he devotes to Delivery two observations will present themselves to the modern student of public speaking. The rules are for the most part prescriptive; the speaker is told precisely what use of voice, pause, and gesture he ought consciously to make in a variety of situations. And secondly, the doctrine represents a salutary reaction against Asianism; piercing exclamations and the continual use of the full voice are more than once reprehended (3.xii.21 ff.), and the speaker is more than once warned against imitating the delivery of the stage-actor (3.xiv.24, xv.26).

The section on Memory is our oldest surviving p. xxtreatment of the subject. Based on visual images and "backgrounds," the mnemotechnical system which it presents exerted an influence traceable to modern times. Here too the author refers to previous writers on the subject in order to combat their theory; he specifies that these are Greek, but he does not mention any of them by name.

In Book 4 we have the oldest systematic treatment of Style in Latin, indeed the oldest extant inquiry into the subject after Aristotle. It offers, furthermore, the oldest extant division of the kinds of Style into three, and the oldest extant formal study of figures. Our author gives more space to Style than to any other of the departments of rhetoric, and much more to ornatus — which is limited to the figures — than to the other aspects of Style. The exceptionally large enumeration of figures is of course more in accord with Isocratean than with Aristotelian doctrine; our author, together with the younger Gorgias (through the translation by Rutilius), provides us with an important source for our knowledge of Hellenistic theory in this field. The treatment of the figures is not always bald and jejune, despite their formal array. Occasionally our author writes good literary criticism; read for example the advice, anti-Asian in character, which he gives on the use of the Gorgianic figures (4.xxi.32). He is often sensitive to the effect which a figure of speech, well-used, can work upon the hearer. He never advocates the tricky cunning which would have justified the scorn that Longinus (De Sublim., ch. 17) expressed for the "petty figures (σχημάτια) of the rhetorical craftsman." His counsel is for moderation and the consideration of propriety — in the use of Apostrophe p. xxi(4.xv.22), Maxims (4.xvvi.25), Disjunction (4.xxvii.38), Onomatopoeia (4.xxxi.42), Metaphor (4.xxxiv.45), and Comparison (4.xlviii.61). The author is not always at ease among technical terms (see 4.vii.10, and also 4.x.15 and 4.xi.16), since not all of these had yet become stable in Latin. Inasmuch as a like difficulty attends the translation of his terms into English, I have thought it my duty to readers to use the terms most familiar to them; accordingly in rendering the names for the figures I have, abandoning strict consistency, used the English derivatives of the author's terms wherever possible, or the accepted English equivalents, and have employed terms of Greek origin where their use was indicated.

A number of questions concerning the treatise are vigorously debated. How old was the author when the work was composed? Is the treatise nothing but the notes of lectures delivered by his Latin teacher? Does our author favour the populares? What is his philosophical bias, if any? And most baffling, what relation does the treatise bear to Cicero's De Inventione?

Whereas in the 19c it was customary to praise our author for "manly independence of thought," it is now, especially since Marx' work31 appeared, common to make him out an uncritical and very young man, or a boy, who copied down, virtually word for word, the lectures of his Latin teacher, and worked these up with only slight additions, mostly represented by the Introductions and Conclusions to the several Books. The style does show puerilities, and signs of immaturity are sought and found here and there in the thought. But not p. xxiieverything labelled as puerile by some critics justifies the label, and in some degree the charge would have to be shared by the teacher. The confusion between student and teacher arises necessarily from the theory that we have here only a student's notebook.32 Actually our author seems old enough to have spent (consuevimus, 1.i.1) time in philosophical studies,33 older enough than his kinsman Herennius to have composed the book for his use, and to encourage him in industry (1.i.1; 2.xxxi.50; 3.xxxiv.40; 4.lvi.69), and to make plans for the future — he expects to write on Grammar (4.xii.17), on Military Science and State Administration (3.ii.3), on Memory (3.xvi.28), and (if encouraged) against the dialecticians (2.xi.16). We have no reason to believe that when he speaks of the pressure of private affairs (1.i.1) and the demands of his occupations (1.xvii.27) he is merely following a literary convention or indulging in rhetorical fiction. He charges Greek writers with childish argumentation in respect to the use of examples (4.iii.4), warns against puerilities in the use of Isocolon and Paronomasia (4.xx.27, xxx.32), and finds recourse to amphibolies silly (2.xi.16). His apologies for slow progress and references to the magnitude of his task and the care he has devoted to it (e.g. 1.xvii.27; 2.xxxi.50) are inconsistent with the picture of one who is merely working over dictated material. He p. xxiiiprofesses to have taken pains in assembling his material (conquisite conscripsimus, 1.xxxi.50, and studiose collegimus, 4.69), and this seems to imply the use of sources, although we cannot know how wide this use or how comprehensive his study of them may have been.

Lecture notes doubtless form the core of the treatise, but the author probably made use of other sources as well, and worked the matter over with some degree of independence. Some of the very incongruities that we find in the treatise may derive precisely from this weaving together of material drawn from a number of places. Dependence on his teacher is explicit only in connection with a disputed point, on the number of Types of Issue34 (1.x.1). We go too far if we assume that the precepts all belong to the teacher and very little more than the Introductions and Conclusions to the author. And one wonders how the teacher would have regarded the release of his own work, even if only for private use, as the work of his pupil.35

Does our author favour the Popular party? It is believed that his teacher may have belonged to the school of L. Plotius Gallus and the rhetores Latini. These teachers of public speaking, whose identity and innovations remain obscure to us, apparently as a matter of principle taught their subject in Latin, rigidly suppressing the Greek language; they probably p. xxivwere Marian in sympathy and had as students only the sons of the populares.36 Our author can indeed in his examples praise or sympathize with the Gracchi, Saturninus, Drusus, and Sulpicius (2.xxviii.45; 4.xxii.31; 4.lv.68; 4.xv.22), and advise us to bring our adversaries into contempt by revealing their high birth (1.v.8), but he can likewise accuse Gaius Gracchus of promoting panics (4.xxviii.38), praise Caepio's attack on Saturninus as patriotic conduct (1.xii.21; 2.xii.17), warn Saturninus against the excesses of the popular mob (4.liv.67), attribute the future revival of prosperity to the Conservatives (4.xxxiv.45), and regard their slaughter as a disaster (4.viii.12). The themes of the causae are variously Popular and Conservative in spirit, and we must infer that our author took his material where he found it and used it to suit his primary purpose — technical instruction in the art of rhetoric. If he really belonged to the Popular party, then he still must have believed in giving the Conservative cause a hearing.

Nor again should our author's attitude to the Greeks be represented as an antagonism approaching hatred. True, he deliberately takes most of his historical exempla from Roman history, repeatedly finds fault with the methods of Greek rhetoricians (1.i.1; 3.xxiii.38; 4.i.1), and suppresses the names of Greek writers whose examples he uses in Book 4. But he also omits the names of Roman authors whose examples he uses in that Book. Furthermore, he professes to know Greek books, occasionally uses Greek technical terms and other p. xxvGreek words, and praises the Greeks for their invention of the art of rhetoric (4.vii.10).

A few traces of Epicureanism in the work have given rise to the notion that our author was an adherent of that school of philosophy. A maxim of Epicurus, in altered form, is quoted without attribution (4.xvii.24); in another example, religion and the fear of death are listed among the motives that impel men to crime (2.xxi.34); and the dialecticians are censured for their love of ambiguities (2.xi.16). But, as the notes in the present volume illustrate, the examples are drawn from the literature of various philosophical schools — a condition one would expect, inasmuch as manuals of rhetoric reflecting diverse schools were then extant, and these manuals may well have had much material in common.

But the most vexing problem — and, as Norden37 says, one of the most interesting in the history of Roman literature — concerns the relations between our treatise and De Inventione.38 We are not even sure of the respective dates of composition. The reference in De Oratore 1.2.5 to the "essays . . . which slipped out of the notebooks of my boyhood, or rather of my youth"39 does not enable us to fix upon a particular year for the composition of De Inventione, but internal evidence points to c. 91 B.C. By this we mean only that the work contains no reference to any event that took place during or after the Marsic War.40 Cicero may, of course, have p. xxvi worked the material into its final form later. When he published the book remains uncertain; allowing even for the possibility that in the passage above Cicero understated his years with ironic intent, we may not suppose a date much after 86 B.C. Likewise on internal evidence we assign our treatise to c. 86‑82 B.C. The reference in 1.xv.25 to the death of Sulpicius, which took place in the year 88, supplies us with a terminus post quem for the composition of Book 1.41 4.liv.68 contains a reference to Marius' seventh consulship, which he held in the year 86. And since nothing in the work mirrors the conditions which obtained in the state under Sulla — for instance, the first illustration in 4.xxxv.47 reflects a jury system still comprising both senators and equites — we may set the year 82 as the terminus ante quem.a But again these dates regard only the contents; our author could have collected his examples by the year 82 and have composed the treatise later — not much later, probably, for he is eager to complete the work and send it to Herennius. It seems then likely, though not certain, that De Inventione was composed before our treatise.

Agreements are so frequent that obviously there is a close tie between the two works. Some precepts are set forth in virtually the same language, and some of the illustrations are identical. This is not the place to enumerate these likenesses, nor the differences,42 which are even more striking; the treatises p. xxvii have been compared in several studies, but the last word on the subject has not yet been said. I may here only review recent opinion.43 No one now believes that our author used De Inventione. On the other hand, the belief that Cicero used the Rhetorica ad Herennium still finds adherents; but since it is probable that Cicero's work antedates our treatise, we hesitate to accept this notion. Other critics postulate a common source. That both authors had a single Greek original in common is not acceptable, for it would be unbelievable that two independent translators should have rendered their text in precisely the same words; furthermore, the illustrations from Roman writers shared by both make such a solution impossible.44

Or did both make direct use of the same Latin source? This view is popular, and takes two forms: (1) that both had the same Latin teacher, the differences being explained by the assumption that they heard this teacher at different times — our author later, and when the teacher had changed his mind on a number of points; and that Cicero used p. xxviiiother sources in addition;45 (2) that both used the same Latin manual,46 our author only this manual, and without many changes — except for certain transposition and abridgements, some omission of examples, and slight additions (e.g., the Introductions and Conclusions) — and Cicero with greater alterations; and that Cicero further used Hermagoras.47 Marx, on the other hand, finds that the contrast between the two works is too sharp to permit a theory either of direct dependence or of a single immediate common source, whether teacher or manual; he posits two Latin teachers, and behind these, two Rhodian masters who advocated opposing doctrines, our author inheriting the older theory and Cicero a fuller and more recent system.

Without accepting Marx' thesis that the treatise is entirely a set of lecture notes — for I would assign more of the work to the author than Marx allows — I believe that something like his hypothesis is required. The differences between the two works seem to rule out a single immediate common source; the likenesses we may best refer to the use by both authors (or by their teachers) of Latin treatises like the De ratione Dicendi of Antonius.48 We cannot appraise the p. xxix influence of these older Latin arts of rhetoric which are lost to us, but it may well have been considerable.

Our main difficulty when we compare the two works is in explaining the following coincidence. In 1.vi.9 our author distinguishes three occasions (tempora) for the use of the Subtle Approach, and in 1.ix.16 maintains that this is his own innovation; in De Inventione 1.xvii.23, however, a like threefold classification occurs, but instead of occasions we have "motives" (causae). Again diverse explanations are offered, but in the end we are, I believe, forced either to accept Marx' view that the classification is of Greek origin or to take the author's words at their face value. Marx finds the context here thoroughly Greek, even though we do not know any specific Greek source for the threefold classification, and hurls the charge of fraud and impudence at our author; the principle, he is sure, originated with the Rhodian rhetor whose doctrines our author followed, and Cicero in his turn received it from his own teacher in a modified form. Some of those who, like Marx, consider our treatise merely lecture notes, and yet wish to absolve the writer of the charge of fraud, make the point that he may not have known that his teacher had borrowed the precept from a Greek source; but the notion that the author did not know Greek well enough for his purposes would require proof. Schanz and others believe that Cicero borrowed the principle from our treatise, but that hypothesis would be more acceptable if we could be certain that the Rhetorica ad Herennium was actually published and available to Cicero before his publication of De Inventione. As a matter of fact, the precept appears in a somewhat different setting in De p. xxxInventione, where its use is confined to the admirabile kind of cause. Our author doubtless depends on a Greek source for his general treatment of the doctrine of the Subtle Approach. Yet he always writes with practical motives, and on this particular point specifically says that his purpose is to provide a sure and lucid theory. When, therefore, he claims as an innovation the slight distinction between tempora and causae, we find him guilty, not of fraud, but of the exaggerated self-esteem which is also elsewhere characteristic of him.49

The chief basis of Marx' charge of deceit is provided by the Introduction to Book 4, considered in relation to the examples used in that Book. This Proem, organized and developed like a chria50 according to the rules of the classroom, is rather graceful and learned; in language, too, it is smoother than the purely technical parts of the treatise; and its contents are Greek in character. Marx and others contend that it did not belong in this place originally, but was in its main outlines taken from a Greek source, inserted here, and made over to seem a Latin product. In this Preface our author presents a long argument against a theory, which he labels as Greek, of using borrowed examples, and promises to give only those of his own creation (except in the case of faulty ones). But the execution does not fulfil the promise, for he then proceeds actually to use borrowed p. xxxi examples, and without naming his sources, many of which are Greek. The author (or rather his teacher) thus got into trouble when, having used a Greek art which employed borrowed examples, he tried to adjust to it the contrary precepts of another Greek author who created his own examples. This is the person, say his critics, who in 1.i.1 accuses Greek writers of futile self-assertion.

According to another interpretation, which is intended to save the honour of both student and teacher, the young student here put down the notes of a lecture once delivered by his teacher, thinking this to be an appropriate place, but being no master of Greek, he was unaware that his teacher had in the rest of what comprises his Book 4 taken so many examples from Greek sources.

It seems best, however, to grant the author some degree of literary individuality, and to regard his claim to the use of his "own" examples as at least an honest one. The notion that he did not know Greek well enough for his purpose is gratuitous. To be sure, one cannot deny the contradiction between promise and fulfilment, nor assign to the author more than a relatively small share in the fashioning of the Proem, the Greek origin of which is obvious. But he made good use of this Proem, which as it stands coheres well enough with the text that follows it he would naturally use material that he had heard or read, perhaps not always knowing where he had picked it up;51 and what is more likely, he may have p. xxxiiconsidered his free translation of the Greek examples and alteration of the Latin a large enough task to justify his feeling that they were now his own. He is sometimes adroit in transposing the original examples and adjusting them to Roman conditions.52 The claim to originality becomes then a pardonable, or at least an understandable, exaggeration, rather than evidence of misrepresentation.

Since the treatise stands near the beginnings of Latin prose,53 its style has been the subject of close study. The faults have received special attention, especially those resulting from the author's quest for variety and for refinements in forms and constructions — for example, abundantia, artificially balanced clauses, the love of synonyms, of word-play, hyperbata, and asyndeta, the inflated language of the Conclusions to each Book, and other extravagances of rhetorical style; also the awkward transitions and the author's tendency merely to reiterate, under the guise of remarks concluding the treatment of a precept, what he has already said. Further peculiarities are the arbitrary use of pronouns, the omission of subjects of verbs in the infinitive, the mixture of present and future in the sequence of tenses, the frequent employment of the first person future active indicative, of substantives in ‑io, of the ut . . . ne construction, and of the indicative in indirect questions. The dry style of the precepts usually contrasts with the lively and smooth style of the p. xxxiiiexamples. Although the style is in general not highly developed nor fluent, and there are several passages of which the meaning is obscure, our author in greatest part achieves, as I have said, his aim of clarity. It would not be fair to class his treatise with the crude textbooks (libri agrestes) disparaged in De Oratore 2.3.10. The language is up to a point "plebeian" and there are puerilities, but some of the qualities thus designated are rather to be assigned to what we may call the schoolmaster's manner and to the nature of technical, textbook style. Some of the irregularities perhaps also derive from the author's desire to make haste and to be brief, and from the process of translation; here and there the language betrays a Greek origin.

Our author is fond of periods formed with rhythmic clausulae. It is another echo of the school practice of his time that the dichoree, favourite of Asianic style, plays the chief rôle,54 but other cadences are also frequent. In the examples illustrating the three types of style in Book 4, rhythms are chosen with a fair degree of taste so as to correspond to the character of the different types.

We may say that the style is within limits archaic, and sometimes reminiscent of Roman comedy; yet today it is no longer set in such sharp contrast as formerly to Ciceronian style. Kroll55 looks upon it as having been formed on the same principles as those of the Roman orators whom Cicero regarded as his own forerunners.

In the present century it has been customary to undervalue the treatise because of its shortcomings — p. xxxivwhich in large part are those inherent in the nature of a textbook — even as its virtues were often exaggerated in the nineteenth century, when more than one critic (e.g., Chaignet) held the work up as superior to Quintilian's Training of an Orator. Regarded from a historical point of view, the treatise presents no strikingly novel system; for us, however, it has literary importance because it is our only complete representative of the system it teaches. We may further readily admit that the work lacks the larger philosophical insight of Aristotle's Rhetoric, but that is not to deny its excellence as a practical treatise of the kind doubtless used by Roman orators. It is, moreover, itself not without usefulness for the modern student of the art. We ought now to redress the balance, to recognize that, though Greek in origin and inspiration, it marks a significant stage in Roman rhetorical theory, to assign due value especially to Book 4, and to bear in mind that the work exerted a beneficent influence for hundreds of years. One of the distinguished modern students of rhetoric, Spengel, called it "a book more precious than gold."

Later History

Interpreting a subscriptio in MS. H, Marx assumed that the book first came to light in Africa in the middle of the fourth century and was soon thereafter brought to Lombardy.56 Therefore the first references to it appear late — in Jerome (in works written in the years A.D. 395 and 402), Rufinus (late fifth p. xxxvcentury), Grillius57 (late fifth century), and Priscian (early sixth century). MSS. of the M class were known to Servatus Lupus, as we learn from a letter he wrote in 829 or 830, and indeed our oldest extant MSS., which belong to that class, date from the ninth and tenth centuries. Later the treatise was much used, abstracted, annotated, and interpolated; it shared favour with Cicero's De Inventione, which, as against modern taste, seems to have been preferred to his De Oratore. The great number of MSS. of the Ad Herennium — we have more than a hundred — is in itself an index of its popularity. Complete commentaries began to appear as early, perhaps, as the twelfth century, translations as early as the thirteenth. The full story, however, of the influence which the treatise enjoyed in education and in the poetry and prose of the Middle Ages and Renaissance has yet to be worked out.

Translations

The MSS. containing mediaeval translations of the treatise have not yet been adequately studied; several versions in Western vernaculars doubtless remain to be brought to light. We may, however, mention the compendium in Italian that is associated with the names of both Guidotto da Bologna and Bono Giamboni (Fiore di rettorica or Rettorica nuova di Tullio), which in its original form was composed before 1266, and the French rendering (of both our treatise and Cicero's De Inventione) made by Jean d'Antioche de Harens in 1282. Enrique de Villena translated the work into Castilian in 1427. And the Greek version p. xxxviof the section on Memory in Book 3 (reprinted in Marx, ed. maior, pp54‑59) has been assigned, without strong evidence in either case, to Maximus Planudes (early saec. 14) or Theodore Gaza (saec. 15).

The following translations belong to modern times:

French:

Paul Jacob, Paris 1652, 1670 (Les Oeuvres de Cicéron, tr. by Pierre du Ryer et al., vol. 1).

J. N. Demeunier, Paris 1783 (Oeuvres de Cicéron, trad. nouvelle, vol. 1).

J. B. Levée, Paris 1816 (Oeuvres Complètes de Cicéron, trad. en Français, vol. 1).

J. V. LeClerc, Paris 1821, 1827 (Oeuvres Complètes de Cicéron, vol. 1 Pt. 2, 2nd ed.), and later eds.

L. Delcasso, Paris 1826 (in Bibliothèque Latine-Française, ed. C. L. Panckoucke, vol. 1), and later eds.

Thibaut, Paris 1881 (Oeuvres Complètes de Cicéron, ed. J. M. N. D. Nisard, vol. 1).

Henri Bornecque, Paris [1932].

German:

Christian Walz, Stuttgart 1842 (in Römische Prosaiker in neuen Übersetzungen 22.3354‑3532).

Karl Kuchtner, Munich 1911.

So far as the present translator knows, the treatise has not hitherto been completely translated into English; a rendering of Ray Nadeau of Book 1, based on Kayser's edition of 1854, appears in Speech Monographs 16 (1949), 57‑68.

p. xxxvii Editions

The editio princeps was issued in Venice in 1470 by Nicolaus Jenson, under the editorship of Omnibonus Leonicenus. At least twenty-eight other editions appeared in the fifteenth century, several with commentaries. For the long list of editions that followed until the year 1834 the reader may be referred to J. C. Orelli's Onomasticon Tullianum in the Orelli-Baiter edition of Cicero's Works (Zurich 1836), vol. 6, pp197, 215, 218, and 223. Of the nineteenth-century editions that appeared thereafter, we must list C. L. Kayser's separate edition, Leipzig (Teubner) 1854, and his Tauchnitz edition (among Cicero's Works), Leipzig 1860; G. F. Friedrich's edition, Leipzig (Teubner) 1884; and especially the excellent editio maior by Friedrich Marx, Leipzig (Teubner) 1894. This last, together with Marx' editio minor, Leipzig (Teubner) 1923, forms the basis of the text used by the present translator, who acknowledges also the profit derived from the critical notes in both editions and from the Prolegomena and Index in the editio maior — a debt which will be obvious in many places. Marx' work represents a great advance in the study of our treatise, and on it all students, even when they reject his conclusions on certain points, now base their investigations.

The Text

The text depends on two groups of MSS. — an older group, M(utili), whose archetype contained lacunae and corruptions, and a younger, E(xpleti). The lacunae in M are filled out in E in part from another p. xxxviiitradition. The Expleti derive from an archetype of perhaps the twelfth century; for that recension three aids were used: a MS. of class M, a lost integer,58 and the recensionist's own conjectures and emendations.

In a number of places the text cannot be restored with certainty. At times the readings of M, especially when the text is corrupt and cannot otherwise be filled out, must give way to those of E. Neither M nor E can be followed alone throughout, and often the decision between the two is hard to make. As Marx says, each reading must be examined in accordance with the editor's conception of the author's habits of writing. To be sure E, which contains many conjectures made in the Middle Ages, must be used with caution, but even Marx, an editor of praiseworthy conservatism, adopts many of its readings. I have found it advisable to follow M in a number of cases where Marx followed E, but most of my changes from Marx have favoured E. The text in the present edition rests on that of Marx, editio minor; an apparatus is supplied only for those places where I deviate from the text of that edition.

In the apparatus Mx stands for Marx, ed. minor, 1923; Mx ed. mai. for his edition of 1894.

Marx constructed his text on the basis of the following MSS.:

p. xxxix M(utili): lacking Bk. I, chaps. 1‑5

H Herbipolitanus (saec. 9/10)
P Parisinus 7714 (9)
B Bernensis (9.10)
C Corbiensis (or Leninopolitanus) (9.10)
Π Parisinus 7231 (12)
M consensus of H P B C Π

E(xpleti)

b Bambergensis (12/13)
l Leidensis (12)
d Darmstadiensis (12/13)
v Vossianus (12/13)
p Parisinus 7696 (12)
E consensus of b l d

The reader is referred to Marx, ed. maior, pp10 ff., and the Preface to the ed. minor, for a description of the MSS. The stemma that appears on the next page is taken from p. xxiv of the ed. minor.

The spelling in the present text differs in a number of places from that of Marx' editions. As some critics have charged, Marx at times went out of his way to set up archaic or unusual spellings (some of which he formed from corruptelae). My changes — not as a rule noted in the apparatus — have, I believe, sound support in the MSS.; and in several instances — which are noted — I have felt that the MSS. should not be allowed to determine forms regarded as incorrect. A completely uniform orthography, for example in the assimilation of prepositions, has not been sought.

p. xl

[image ALT: A schematic tree diagram showing the filiation of various manuscripts.]

In closing this Introduction, I wish to express the thanks I owe to a number of friends at Cornell University for generous assistance. To Professor Ernst Levy of the University of Washington I am indebted for his kindness in answering several questions on Roman Law.

p. xli Bibliography

Georg Ammon, rev. of Marx, ed. maior, Blätter für das Bayer. Gymn.-Schulwesen 33 (1897), 407‑415.

Georg Ammon, rev. of Marx, ed. minor, Bursians Jahresbericht 204 (1925), 10‑16.

Otto Angermann, De Aristotele rhetorum auctore, Leipzig, 1904.

Karl Aulitzky, "Apsines περὶ ἐλέου," Wiener Studien 39 (1917), 26‑49.

C. Bione, I piu antichi trattati di arte retorica in lingua latina, Pisa, 1910.

H. E. Bochmann, De Cornifici auctoris ad Herennium qui vocatur rerum Romanarum scientia, Zwickau, 1875.

J. Brzoska, art. "Cornificius," in P.‑W. 4.1605‑1623.

Georg Golla, Sprachliche Beobachtungen zum auctor ad Herennium, Breslau, 1935.

Georg Herbolzheimer, "Ciceros rhetorici libri und die Lehrschrift des Auctor ad Herennium," Philologus 81 (1926), 391‑426.

Carolus Hoffmann, De verborum transpositionibus in Cornifici rhetoricorum ad Herennium libris, Munich, 1879.

Curtius Koehler, De rhetoricis ad Herennium, Berlin, 1909.

Rudolfus Kroehnert, De rhetoricis ad Herennium, diss. Koenigsberg, 1873.

p. xlii Wilhelm Kroll, "Die Entwicklung der lateinischen Sprache," Glotta 22 (1934), 24‑27.

Wilhelm Kroll, "Cornificianum," Mélanges Bidez 2.555‑561, Brussels, 1934.

Wilhelm Kroll, "Der Text des Cornificius," Philologus 89 (1934), 63‑84.

Wilhelm Kroll, "Rhetorica V," Philologus 90 (1935), 206‑215.

Wilhelm Kroll, "Rhetorik," in P.‑W., Suppl. VII (1940), 1039‑1138.

Friedrich Marx, Prolegomena in editio maior.

Claus Peters, De rationibus inter artem rhetoricam quarti et primi saeculi intercedentibus, Kiel, 1907.

Robert Philippson, rev. of Marx, ed. minor, Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift 44 (1924), 1181‑1186.

Schanz-Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, Part 1, pp586‑90, Munich, 1927; Martin Schanz, ed. 1909, Part 1, pp466‑473.

Eduard Stroebel, "Cornificiana," Blätter für das Bayer. Gymn.-Schulwesen 38 (1902), 71‑83.

Eduard Stroebel, Tulliana, Munich, 1908.

W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 6th ed., Berlin, 1916, 1.305‑309 (revised by Wilhelm Kroll).

Georg Thiele, Quaestiones de Cornifici et Ciceronis artibus rhetoricis, Greifswald, 1889.

Georg Thiele, rev. of Marx, ed. maior, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1895 (2), 717‑735.

Georg Thiele, Hermagoras, Strassburg, 1893.

Philippus Thielmann, De sermonis proprietatibus quae leguntur apud Cornificium et in primis Ciceronis libris, Strassburg, 1879.

Heinrich Weber, Über die Quellen der Rhetorica ad Herennium des Cornificius, Zurich, 1886.

p. xliii Richard Weidner, Ciceros Verhältnis zur griechischen und römischen Schulrhetorik seiner Zeit, Erlangen, 1925.

Julius Werner, Zur Frage nach dem Verfasser der Herenniusrhetorik, Bielitz, 1906.

References in the Notes to the following works, and to a number of those in the Bibliography above, appear in abbreviated form:

Halm: Carolus Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, Leipzig, 1863.

Mommsen: Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, Leipzig, 1899.

Otto: A. Otto, Die Sprichtwörter . . . der Römer, Leipzig, 1890.

P.‑W.: Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1894 ff.

Ribbeck: Otto Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, vol. 1: Tragicorum Fragmenta, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1897; vol. 2: Comicorum Fragmenta, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1898.

Sav. Zeitschr.: Zeitschrift, Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistiche Abteilung, Weimar, 1880 ff.

Schmalz-Hofmann: J. H. Schmalz and J. B. Hofmann, Syntax und Stilistik, in Stolz-Schmalz, Lat. Grammatik, 5th ed., Munich, 1928 (revised by Manu Leumann and J. B. Hofmann).

Spengel: Leonardus Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vols. 2 and 3, Leipzig, 1854 and 1856.

Spengel-Hammer: L. Spengel and C. Hammer, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 1, Part 2, Leipzig, 1894.

p. xliv Vahlen: Iohannes Vahlen, Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1903.

Volkmann: Richard Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885.

Walz: Christianus Walz, Rhetores Graeci, Stuttgart, Tübingen, London, and Paris, 1832‑6. 9 vols.

Warmington: E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1935‑8. 4 vols., Loeb Classical Library.

Thayer's Note: The following paragraph remains under copyright (© Harvard University Press 1981). It is so brief as surely to fall under fair use.

Addendum (1981)

G. M. A. Grube, The Greek and Roman Critics, Toronto, 1965.

G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B.C.A.D. 300, Princeton, 1972.


The Author's Notes:

1 See Schanz, ed. 1909, p466.

2 The uncritical editor who, before Jerome's time, made this ascription may also have been responsible for the division of the work into six books. He may have thought the untitled work Cicero's because of its resemblance to De Inventione, and may have interpreted the inchoata ac rudia of De Oratore 1.2.5 as referring to two distinct works. An interesting interpolation, based on the belief in Ciceronian authorship, appears in the MSS. at 1.xii.20: [Tullius] heres meus [Terentiae] uxori meae.

3 For like parallel designations of literary works in the Middle Ages, see E. R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern, 1948, p161.

4 It is argued, for example, that if Quintilian at 4.5.3 where he considers the view that the propositions in a Partition should not exceed three (cf. the like principle for the Enumeration in our treatise, 1.x.17), or at 3.6.45 where he deals with the three Types of issue (cf. our treatise, 1.x.18), had known that these were identical with, or akin to, Ciceronian notions, he would not have kept silent on the point.

5 Usually under the title Libri Rhetorici.

6 Gellius, 13.6.4, says that he has been unable to discover whether the term barbarismus was used before the Augustan age; cf. our treatise, 4.xii.17.

7 The first to ascribe the work with assurance to Cornificius was Petrus Victorius in 1582; Regius had vacillated, assigning it variously to Cornificius, Verginius Flavus, and Timolaüs. Recent scholars who have upheld the theory of Cornifician authorship are Johannes Tolkiehn, Jahresb. des philol. Vereins zu Berlin 45 (1919), 73, and Wilhelm Kroll, Glotta 22 (1934), 24, and Philologus 89 (1934), 63.

8 Georg Thiele, Gött. gel. Anz., 1892 (2), 725 ff., compares the order of the figures in this passage with that which they follow in our treatise, and sees in the comparison an argument for Cornifician authorship; Curtius Koehler, De Rhetoricis ad Herennium, Berlin, 1909, precipitate ff., presents the refutation.

9 Long survived the elder Seneca, who died c. A.D. 39.

10 Both A. Cornelius Celsus and Popilius Laenas fl. under Tiberius.

11 Verginius Flavus fl. under Nero.

12 The Elder (A.D. 23/4‑79).

13 Both Caecilius and Dionysius fl. under Augustus.

14 P. Rutilius Lupus fl. in the late Augustan period.

15 In five other places Quintilian gives examples which, with greater or less completeness, appear also in our treatise: 9.3.31 (complexio, 4.xiv.20); 9.3.56 (gradatio, 4.xxv.34); two examples in 9.3.72 (adnominatio, 4.xxii.30 and 4.xxi.29), the wording of one differing slightly, that of the other a great deal, from that in our treatise; 9.3.85 (ἀντιμεταβολήcommutatio, 4.xxviii.39); 9.3.88 (dubitatio, 4.xxix.40). None of these examples is assigned by Quintilian to Cornificius or to any other author; whether they appeared in Cornificius' book and were from there borrowed by Quintilian we cannot know. Some or all of these examples may have been common to a number of manuals. The well-known remark attributed to Socrates ("I do not live to eat, but eat to live"), which Quintilian uses as an example in 9.3.85, he may have found in a Greek source.

16 The efforts that have been made to identify Cornificius with any one of that name who lived at this time have come to nought. Nor have the many scholars who have ascribed our treatise to a Cornificius, and so sought to identify him with an earlier bearer of that name, agreed in their identification. C. L. Kayser's choice, the Q. Cornificius who with Cicero was candidate for the consulship in 64 B.C. was favoured for a time.

17 It is likely that this work did not contain a section on tropes. Quintilian (8.6.1 ff.) never cites Cornificius on this subject, nor refers to any of the several resemblances, in rules and examples, that exist between his treatment and our author's. In large part, however, his treatment differs from our author's. If Cornificius had discussed tropes, it is perhaps safe to assume that passages from his book would have been excerpted by Quintilian. Again, in 9.1.2 Quintilian mentions Proculus as among the writers who call tropes "figures"; our author, too, attaches the tropes to the figures in this way (4.xxxi.42), but Quintilian does not name Cornificius along with Proculus.

The separation of tropes from figures was first made, we think, in the Augustan age. If Cornificius dealt only with figures, that fact, too, might be evidence for placing him at a time not earlier than that period.

18 Marx, however, believes that Cornificius wrote only the special work on figures.

19 Thiele (Gött. gel. Anz.) and Ammon believe that it was such a complete Art of rhetoric. Thiele identifies it with our treatise; the special book on figures was a portion (= Bk. 4) of this Art. Ammon (Blätter, pp409 ff.) argues as follows: The division, in the MSS., of Book 4 (which is especially large) into three books indicates that we have in our treatise a contamination of Cornificius' complete Art and his special work on figures. The "Art" extends to 4.xiii.18, at the end of which there is a lacuna; 4.i.1 to 4.xiii.18 corresponds to "Book iv" of the MSS. The special book on figures also perhaps included two books; "Book v," dealing with figures of diction, extends from 4.xiii.19 to 4.xxxiv.46, and "Book vi," treating figures of thought, extends from 4.xxxv.47 to the end. In the union a portion of the complete Art of rhetoric was lost — a short exposition of the two types of figures, and the beginning of their treatment. That Cornificius' attitude towards the use of one's own examples differed in the two works Ammon thinks is not significant. But Ammon's hypothesis is not acceptable, since the division into four books follows from the author's own words; the lacuna at 4.xiii.18 is brief (only a transition is indicated); neither are the first three books of uniform length; and the author's special interest in ornatus justifies the length of Book 4, which in any event may as it stands lay claim to unity.

20 Further arguments (see Koehler) rest frankly on the argumentum e silentio. For example, Quintilian often refers to Cicero's De Inventione but never mentions the agreements between that work and "Cornificius." Again, in 9.2.54 he lists four terms used for the figure Aposiopesis, but not the term used by our author (praecisio, 4.xxx.41); this silence leads some to question whether, had he known our treatise, he would not in such cases as this have referred to the terms our author employs. Or again, in 9.3.99 ἠθοποιία and χαρακτηρισμός are cited from Rutilius among figures supplementary to those found in other authors. Since Cornificius has just been mentioned, it is inferred that his book lacked these figures; but they appear in our treatise as notatio (4.l.63); and effictio (4.xlix.63).º Or again, in 3.6.45, where Verginius Flavus is referred to as favouring the Antonian classification of the Types of Issue (cf. our treatise 1.x.18), Cornificius is not mentioned — but as I should remind the reader, the advocates of Cornifician authorship believe that Quintilian was not interested in the first three books of our work, or in 4.i.1‑xii.18, because on the subjects there treated he had recourse to better material elsewhere.

21 Teuffel-Kroll and others, however, believe that Cornificius probably used our treatise directly.

22 Other attributions, none of them seriously pressed to‑day, have in the course of time since the fifteenth century been made to: Verginius Flavus (time of Nero), Timolaüs (time of Aurelian), M. Tullius Tiro and M. Tullius Laurea (freedmen of Cicero), the rhetor Junius Gallio (friend of the elder Seneca), M. Antonius Gnipho and L. Aelius Stilo (teachers of Cicero), M. T. Cicero (son of the great orator), L. Ateius Praetextatus (d. after 29 B.C.), and Papirius Flavianus (time of Tiberius).

23 They were of plebeian stock, and were allied to the family of Marius.

24 Many Romans came to Rhodes, a great centre of rhetorical studies, and in 87 B.C. Apollonius Molo visited Rome. The notes indicate a number of echoes of Rhodian life and thought.

25 Cf. Cicero, De Inv. 2.iii.8: "[Isocratean theory and Aristotelian theory] were fused into one by their successors." Interdependence is often hard to trace definitely even in the earlier periods.

26 And probably also Accius; see 2.xxvi.42.

27 But never a word about declaiming in Greek; cf. on the other hand the custom followed by Cicero (Brutus 90.310).

28 For events connected with the Hannibalic war Coelius Antipater may have served as a source, for the subsequent period the orators, and perhaps also Cato's Origines; see Bochmann.

29 See Karl Barwick, Hermes 57 (1922), 1 ff.; Thiele, Quaestiones, pp96 ff.; Ioannes Radtke, Observationes crit. in Cornifici libros de arte rhetorica, Koenigsberg, 1892, pp22 ff.; Friedrich Solmsen, Amer. Journ. Philol. 62 (1941), 35‑50, 169‑190.

30 The conflation results in certain inconsistencies; see, e.g., the reference to Invention at 1.x.16, and the note on 3.x.17. Certain other inconsistencies in the order are, however, not the result of conflation; the author at times in his treatment transposes his original order of topics (e.g., in 1.xiv.24 and 2.xvi.23; and cf. 1.xiv.24 ff. with 2.xiv.21 ff.).

31 See p. xxxvii.

32 Cf. Quintilian, 3.6.59, on Cicero, De Inv.: "Such faults as [this collection of school-notes] has are assignable to his teacher."

33 Which he thinks conduce more to the good life than does the study of rhetoric; he is not a professional rhetorician.

34 Who the teacher (noster doctor) here referred to was we do not know.

35 See Schanz, ed. 1909, p470. Quintilian, 1. Pr. 7, regrets that two books of lecture notes, taken down by pupils, and by them published under his name, but without his consent, are in circulation. Marx, of course, maintains that our treatise was never intended for circulation.

36 See Marx, Proleg., pp141 ff., and Aubrey Gwynn, Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian, Oxford 1926, pp58‑69.

37 Gercke-Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, Leipzig-Berlin, 1910, 1.471.

38 Relevant passages of De Inventione have been indicated in the notes.

39 Cf. Quintilian, 3.6.59 and 3.1.20.

40 See Marx, Proleg., pp76 ff.

41 In 3.i.1 it is implied that separate books were sent to Herennius.

42 See Marx, Proleg., pp129 ff. Our author differs from Cicero in the method of presenting his material, in organization, and in spirit; for example, in many technical terms; in the doctrine of Proof, of the Types of Issue, of the sources of Law; in the number of genera causarum; in his emphasis upon the judicial kind of discourse as against Cicero's full treatment of all three kinds; in his much briefer discussion of many topics; in his less accurate quotations; in the more limited scope of his historical references (Cicero uses events in Roman history that antedate Hannibal); in his thoroughly Latin spirit — Marx' analogy is telling: our author is to the togata as Cicero, who is much more learned in Greek literature, is to the palliata.

43 I have not seen M. Medved, Das Verhältnis von Ciceros libri rhetorici zum Auctor ad Herennium, unpublished Vienna dissertation, 1940.

44 See William Ramsay in Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (London, 1880), 1.727.º

45 In De Inv. 2.ii.4 he professes an eclectic method of excerpting from his sources.

46 This second view is that of Herbolzheimer.

47 Whether directly or through an intermediate source; the point is debated.

48 Most now believe that the influence of Antonius' book (cf. Cicero, Brutus 44.163, De Oratore 1.21.94, Quintilian, 3.1.19) is apparent in our treatise; see Kroehnert, pp23 ff. (but he thinks that Antonius was our author's Latin teacher), Marx, Proleg., p131, and Koehler, pp35‑8, but also Weber, pp22 ff., and Thiele, Quaest., p94. Antonius' book appeared sometime before 91 B.C.

49 He has not been moved to write by hope of gain or glory, "as others have been" (1.i.1); "no one else" has written with sufficient care on Delivery (3.xi.19); he "alone, in contrast with all other writers," has distinguished three occasions for the use of the Subtle Approach (1.ix.16); cf. also 1.vi.10, 3.vii.14, 3.xxiv.40, and 4.lvi.69.

50 See the figure, Refining, 4.xlii.54 ff.

51 Crassus in Cicero, De Oratore 1.34.154, tells how in his practice declamations, trying to choose diction different from that of the poetic passage by Ennius or speech by Gracchus on which he was practising, he would discover that the best words had already been used by his author.

52 See, e.g., in 4.xxix.40, how the example of the figure Indecision from Demosthenes, De Corona 20, receives a Roman character.

53 Of extant complete prose works only Cato's De Agri Cultura is older.

54 See notes on 4.viii.12, 4.xix.26, and 4.xxxii.44.

55 Glotta, 22 (1934), 24 ff.

56 See Proleg., pp1 ff. Not all believe that the work could have lain so long in oblivion; some think that it used by Cornificius (see p. xi, note b, and p. xv above).

57 See Josef Martin, Grillius: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rhetorik, Paderborn 1927, p156 (48.15).

58MS. of a fourth or fifth century edition of five works of Cicero (including our treatise) was found again in the twelfth century, and was used in forming the archetype of E. The Laudensis, discovered in Lodi by Landriani in 1421, and again lost some four years later without any copies of our treatise having been made from it, stems from this old edition of Cicero's works.


Thayer's Note:

a And at 4.liv.68, see especially note 95.


[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 6 Oct 09