Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

And yet at a slightly earlier date iussi which we write with a double s was spelt with only one. Further optimnus maximus, which older writers spelt with a u, appear for the first time with an i (such at any rate is the tradition) in an inscription of Gaius Caesar. [*](Caligula, the first of the Caesars to adopt this title.)

We now write here, but I still find in manuscripts of the old comic poets phrases such as heri ad me uenit, [*]( Ter. Phorm. 36. ) and the same spelling is found in letters of Augustus written or corrected by his own hand.

Again did not Cato the censor spell dicam and faciam as dicem

v1-3 p.143
and faciem and observe the same practice in words of similar termination? This is clear from old manuscripts of his works and is recorded by Messala in his treatise on the letter s. Sibe and quase are found in many books, but I cannot say whether the authors wished them to be spelt thus:

I learn from Pedianus that Livy, whose precedent he himself adopted, used this spelling: to-day we make these words end with an i.

What shall I say of uorlices, uorsus and the like, which Scipio Africanus is said to have been the first to spell with an e?

My own teachers spelt seruus and ceruus with a uo, in order that the repetition of the vowel might not lead to the coalescence and confusion of the two sounds: to-day however we write these words with a double u on the principle which I have already stated: neither spelling however exactly expresses the pronunciation. It was not without reason that Claudius introduced the Aeolic digamma to represent this sound. [*](cp. I. iv. 8.) It is a distinct improvement that to-day we spell cui as I have written it:

when I was a boy it used to be spelt quoi, giving it a very full sound, merely to distinguish it from qui.

Again, what of words whose spelling is at variance with their pronunciation? For instance C is used as an abbreviation for Gaius, and when inverted stands for a woman, for as we know from the words of the marriage service women used to be called Gaiae, just as men were called Gaii. [*]( The bride used the formula ubi tu Gaius, ibi ego Gaia. ) Gnaeus

too in the abbreviation indicating the praenomen is spelt in a manner which does not agree with its pronunciation. We also find columnas [*](columa is mentioned by the grammarian Pompeius as a barbarism in the fifth century. cp. dimin. columella. Consul is abbreviated cos. ) and consul spelt without an n,

v1-3 p.145
while Subura when indicated by three letters is spelt Suc. [*]( The original name was Sucusa. ) I could quote many other examples of this, but I fear that I have already said too much on so trivial a theme.

On all such subjects the teacher must use his own judgment; for in such matters it should be the supreme authority. For my own part, I think that, within the limits prescribed by usage, words should be spelt as they are pronounced.

For the use of letters is to preserve the sound of words and to deliver them to readers as a sacred trust: consequently they ought to represent the pronunciation which we are to use.

These are the more important points in connexion with writing and speaking correctly. I do not go so far as to deny to the teacher of literature all part in the two remaining departments of speaking and writing with elegance and significance, but I reserve these for a more important portion of this work, as I have still to deal with the duties of the teacher of rhetoric.

I am however haunted by the thought that some readers will regard what I have said as trivial details which are only likely to prove a hindrance to those who are intent upon a greater task; and I myself do not think that we should go so far as to lose our sleep of nights or quibble like fools over such minutiae; for such studies make mincemeat of the mind. But it is only the superfluities of grammar that do any harm.

I ask you, is Cicero a less great orator for having given this science his diligent attention or for having, as his letters show, demanded rigid correctness of speech from his son? Or was the vigour of Gaius Caesar's eloquence impaired by the publication of a treatise on Analogy?

Or the polish

v1-3 p.147
of Messala dimmed by the fact that he devoted whole books to the discussion not merely of single words, but of single letters? Such studies do no harm to those who but pass through them: it is only the pedantic stickler who suffers.