Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

But I should like to ask whether Isocrates spoke in the Attic style. For there is no author less like Lysias. They will answer in the negative. And yet it is to the school of Isocrates that we owe the greatest orators. Let us look for something closer. Is Hyperides Attic? Yes, they reply, but of an over-sensuous character. I pass by a number of orators, such as Lyucrgus and Aristogeiton and their predecessors

v10-12 p.463
Isaeus and Antiphon; for though they have a certain generic resemblance, they may be said to differ in species.

But what of Aesehines, whom I mentioned just now? Is not his style ampler and holder and more lofty than theirs? And what of Demosthenes himself? Did not he surpass all those simple and circumspect orators in force, loftiness, energy, polish and rhythm? Does he not rise to great heights in his commonplaces Does he not rejoice in the employment of figures? Does he not make brilliant use of metaphor? Does he not lend a voice, a fictitious utterance to speechless things?

Does not his famous oath by the warriors who fell fighting for their country at Salamis and Marathon show that Plato was his master? And shall we call Plato an Asiatic, Plato who as a rule deserves comparison with poets instinct with the divine fire of inspiration? What of Pericles? Can we believe that his style was like the slender stream of Lysias' eloquence, when the comedians, even while they revile him, compare his oratory to the bolts and thunder of the skies?

What is the reason, then, why these critics regard that style which flows in a slender trickle and babbles among the pebbles as having the true Attic flavour and the true scent of Attic thyme? I really think that, if they were to discover a soil of exceptional richness and a crop of unusual abundance within the boundaries of Attica, they would deny it to be Attic, on the ground that it has produced more seed than it received: for you will remember the mocking comments passed by Menander [*](Georg. 35 sqq. (Koerte); ἀπέδωκεν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, οὐ πλέον, ι ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ μέτρον. ) on the exact fidelity with which the soil of Attica repays its deposits.

Well, then, if any man should, in addition to the actual virtues which the great orator Demosthenes

v10-12 p.465
possessed, show himself to be the possessor of others, that either owing to his own temperament or the laws of Athens [*]( See II. xvi. 4. Quintilian alludes to an alleged law forbidding Athenian oratos, to appeal to the emotions in the law courts. ) Demosthenes is thought to have lacked, and should reveal in himself the power of strongly stirring the emotions, shall I hear one of these critics protesting that Demosthenes never did this? And if he produces something rhythmically superior (an impossible feat, perhaps, but let us assume it to be so), are we to be told that it is not Attic? These critics would show finer feeling and better judgement, if they took the view that Attic eloquence meant perfect eloquence.

Still I should find this attitude less intolerable if it were only the Greeks that insisted on it. For Latin eloquence, although in my opinion it closely resembles the Greek as far as invention, arrangement, judgement and the like are concerned, and may indeed be regarded as its disciple, cannot aspire to imitate it in point of elocution. For, in the first place, it is harsher in sound, since our alphabet does not contain the most euphonious of the Greek letters, one a vowel and the other a consonant, [*](φ alio γ . ) than which there are none that fall more sweetly on the ear, and which we are forced to borrow whenever we use Greek words.

The result of such borrowing is, for some reason or other, the immediate accession to our language of a certain liveliness and charm. Take, for example, words such as sephyri and zophori: [*](Friezes.) if they were spelt according to the Latin alphabet, they would produce a heavy and barbarous sound. For we replace these letters by others of a harsh and unpleasant character, [*]( F and U; zefuri and zofori. ) from which Greece is happily immune.

For the sixth letter in our alphabet is represented by a sound which can scarcely be

v10-12 p.467
called human or even articulate, being produced by forcing the air through the interstices of the teeth. Such a sound, even when followed by a vowel, is harsh enough and, as often as it clashes ( frangit ) with a consonant, [*](cp. I. iv. 11. ) as it does in this very word frangit, becomes harsher still. Then there is the Aeolic digamma whose sound occurs in words such as our servus and cervus; for even though we have rejected the actual form of the letter, we cannot get rid of that which it represents. [*](A sound approximating to our W.)

Similarly the letter Q, which is superfluous and useless save for the purpose of attaching to itself the vowels by which it is followed, results in the formation of harsh syllables, as, for example, when we write equos and aequum, more especially since these two vowels together produce a sound for which Greek has no equivalent and which cannot therefore be expressed in Greek letters. [*]( The sound of Q in itself does not differ from C. It would therefore be useless, save as an indication that U and another vowel are to follow. The U in this combination following Q was, as Donatus later pointed out, neither a vowel nor a consonant, i.e. it was something between U and V. )