Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

Even the dactyl ought not to precede a final spondee, since we condemn verse-endings at the period's close. The bacchius is employed at the conclusion, sometimes in conjunction with itself as in venenum timerss [*](pro Cael. xiv. 33. That you should fear poison. ) while it is also effective when a choreus and spondee are placed before it as in ut venenum timeres. Its opposite, the palimbacchius, is also employed as a conclusion (unless, of course, we insist that the last syllable of a sentence is always long), and is best preceded by a molossus, as in civis Romanus sum, [*](Verr. v. lxii. 162. ) or by a bacchius, as in quod hie potest, nos possemus. [*](pro Lig. iv. 10. )

It would, however, be truer to say that in such cases the conclusion consists of a choreus preceded by a spondee, for the rhythm is concentrated in nos possemus and Romanus sum. The dichoreus, which is the repetition of one and the same foot, may also form the conclusion, and was much beloved by the Asiatic school: Cicero illustrates it by Patris dictum sapiens temeritasfilii comprobavit. [*](Orat. Ixiii. 214. The wise temerity of the son confirmed the statement of the father. )

The choreus may also be preceded by a pyrrhic, as in omnes prope cives virtute, gloria, digitiate superabat. [*](pro Cael. xiv. 34. He surpassed almost all other citizens in virtue, glory and honour. ) The dactyl also may come at the close, unless indeed it be held that, when it forms the final foot, it is transformed into a cretic: e.g. muliercula nixus in litore. [*](Verr. v. xxxiii. 86. Leaning on a worthless woman on the shore. ) The effect will be good if it is preceded by a cretic or an iambus, but unsatisfactory if it is preceded by a

v7-9 p.567
spondee, and worse still if by a choreus. The amphibrachys may close the cadence, as in Q. Ligarium in Africa fuisse, [*](pro Lig. i. 1.) although in that case some will prefer to call it a bacchius. The trochee [*]( It must be remembered that for Quintilian a trochee is the same as a tribrach (u u u). See § 82. ) is one of the less good endings, if any final syllable is to be regarded as short, as it undoubtedly must be. Otherwise how can we end with the dichoreus, so dear to many orators? Of course, if it be insisted that the final syllable is long, the trochee becomes an anapaest.

If preceded by a long syllable, the trochee becomes a paean, as is the case with phrases such as sipotero, or dirit hoc Cicero, or obstat invidia. But this form of paean is specially allotted to the beginnings of sentences. The pyrrhic may close a sentence if preceded by a choreus, thereby forming a paean. [*]( As he has in the preceding clause stated that this form of paean is regarded as specially adapted to the opening of a sentence, it cannot be supposed that he commends this employment of the pyrrhic. He mentions it only to illustrate another method of forming the paean (e.g. multa bene ) by two words, the first a chores, the second a pyrrhic. His view about the employment of this form of paean is that it is sometimes used at the end, but that such a position is not advisable. ) But all these feet which end in short syllables will lack the stability required for the cadence, and should as a rule only be employed in cases where speed is required and there is no marked pause at the ends of the sentences.

The cretic is excellent, both at the beginning (e.g. quod precatus a diis immortalibus sum [*](pro Muren. i. 1. ) ) and at the close (e.g. in conspeclu populi Romani vomere postridie ). [*](Phil. II. xxv. 63. ) The last example makes it clear what a good effect is produced when it is preceded by an anapaest or by that form of paean which is regarded as best suited to the end of a sentence. But the cretic may be preceded by a cretic, as in servare quam plurinos. [*](pro Lig. xii. 38. ) It is better thus than when it is preceded by a chores, as in quis non turpe duceret? [*](Phil. II. xxv. 63. ) assuming that we treat the final short syllable as long. However, for the sake of argument, let us substitute duceres for duceret.

Here, however,

v7-9 p.569
we get the rest of which I spoke: [*](§51.) for we make a short pause between the last word and the last but one, thus slightly lengthening the final syllable of turpe; otherwise quis non turpe duceret? will give us a jerky rhythm resembling the end of an iambic trimeter. So, too, if you pronounce ore excipere liceret [*](Verr. v. xlv. 118. The licentious metre is Sotadean. ) without a pause, you will reproduce the rhythm of a licentious metre, whereas if triply punctuated and thus provided with what are practically three separate beginnings, the phrase is full of dignity.

In specifying the feet above-mentioned, I do not mean to lay it down as an absolute law that no others can be used, but merely wish to indicate the usual practice and the principles that are best suited for present needs. I may add that two consecutive anapaests should be avoided, since they form the conclusion of a pentameter or reproduce the rhythm of the anapaestic metre, as in the passage, nam ubi libido dominatur, innocentiae leve praesidinun est, [*]( Crassus in Cic. Or. lxv. 219. For where lust holds sway, there is but small protection for innocence. ) where elision makes the last two syllables sound as one.

The anapaest should preferably be preceded by a spondee or a bacchius, as, for instance, if you alter the order of words in the passage just quoted to leve innocentiae praesidium est. Personally, although I know that in this I am in disagreement with great writers, I am not attracted by the paean consisting of three shorts followed by a long: for it is no more than an anapaest with the addition of another short syllable (e.g. facilitas, agilitas ). Why it should have been so popular, I cannot see, unless it be that those who gave it their approval were students of the language of common life rather than of oratory. It is preferably preceded by short syllables,

such as are provided by the pyrrhic or the choreus (e.g.

v7-9 p.571
mea facilitas, nostra facilitas); on the other hand, if it be preceded by a spondee, we have the conclusion of an iambic trimeter, as indeed we have in the paean considered alone. The opposite form of paean is deservedly commended as an opening: for the first syllable gives it stability and the next three speed. None the less I think that there are other feet which are better suited for this purpose than even this paean.

My purpose in discussing this topic at length is not to lead the orator to enfeeble his style by pedantic measurement of feet and weighing of syllables: for oratory should possess a vigorous flow, and such solicitude is worthy only of a wretched pedant, absorbed in trivial detail:

since the man who exhausts himself by such painful diligence will have no time for more important considerations; for he will disregard the weight of his subject matter, despise true beauty of style and, as Lucilius says, will construct a tesselated pavement of phrases nicely dovetailed together in intricate patterns. [*]( In Or. xliv. 149, the lines are actually quoted quam lepide lexeis compostae Ut tesserulae oinnes arte pavimnento atque emblemate verniculato. How neatly his phrases are put together, like a cunningly tesselated pavement with intricate inlay. ) The inevitable result will be that his passions will cool and his energy be wasted, just as our dandies destroy their horses' capacity for speed by training them to shorten their paces.

Prose-structure, of course, existed before rhythms were discovered in it, just as poetry was originally the outcome of a natural impulse and was created by the instinctive feeling of the ear for quantity and the observation of time and rhythm, while the discovery of feet came later. Consequently assiduous practice in writing will be sufficient to enable us to produce similar rhythmical effects when speaking extempore.

Further it is not so important for us to consider the actual feet as the

v7-9 p.573
general rhythmical effect of the period, just as the poet in writing a verse considers the metre as a whole, and does not concentrate his attention on the six or five individual feet that constitute the verse. For poetry originated before the laws which govern it, a fact which explains Ennius' statement [*]( Enn. Ann. 213. ) that Fauns and prophets sang.

Therefore rhythmical structure will hold the same place in prose that is held by versification in poetry. The best judge as to rhythm is the ear, which appreciates fullness of rhythm or feels the lack of it, is offended by harshness, soothed by smooth and excited by impetuous movement, and approves stability, while it detects limping measures and rejects those that are excessive and extravagant. It is for this reason that those who have received a thorough training understand the theory of artistic structure, while even the untrained derive pleasure from it.

There are some points, it is true, which are beyond the power of art to inculcate. For example if the case, tense or mood with which we have begun, produces a harsh rhythm, it must be changed. But is it possible to lay down any definite rule as to what the change of case, tense or mood should be? It is often possible to help out the rhythm when it is in difficulties by introducing variety through the agency of a figure. But what is this figure to be? A figure of speech or a figure of thought? Can we give any general ruling on the subject? In such cases opportunism is our only salvation, and we must be guided by consideration of the special circumstances.

Further with regard to the time-lengths, which are of such importance where rhythm is concerned, what standard is there by which they can be

v7-9 p.575
regulated save that of the ear? Why do some sentences produce a full rhythmical effect, although the words which they contain are few, whereas others containing a greater number are abrupt and short in rhythm? Why again in periods do we get an impression of incompleteness, despite the fact that the sense is complete?

Consider the following example: neminem vestrum ignorare arbitror, iudices, hunc per hosce dies sermonem vulgi atque hanc opinionem populi Romani fiisse. [*](Verr. I. i. 1. I think that none of you, gentlemen, are igroraint that during these days such has been the talk of the common folk and such the opinion of the Roman people. ) Why is hosce preferable to hos, although the latter presents no harshness? I am not sure that I can give the reason, but none the less I feel that hosce is better. Why is it not enough to say sermonem vulgifuisse, which would have satisfied the bare demands of rhythm? I cannot tell, and yet my ear tells me that the rhythm would have lacked fullness without the reduplication of the phrase.

The answer is that in such cases we must rely on feeling. It is possible to have an inadequate understanding of what it is precisely that makes for severity or charm, but yet to produce the required effect better by taking nature for our guide in place of art: none the less there will always be some principle of art underlying the promptings of nature.

It is, however, the special duty of the orator to realise when to employ the different kinds of rhythm. There are two points which call for consideration if he is to do this with success. The one is concerned with feet, the other with the general rhythm of the period which is produced by their combination. I will deal with the latter first. We speak of commata, cola and periods.

A comma, in my opinion, may be defined as the expression of a thought lacking rhythmical

v7-9 p.577
completeness; on the other hand, most writers regard it merely as a portion of the colon. As an example I may cite the following from Cicero: Domus tibi deerat? at habebas: pecunia superabat? at egebas. [*](Or. lxvii. 223. See IX. ii. 15. ) But a comma may also consist of a single word, as in the following instance where diximnus is a comma: Diximus, testes dare volumus.