Quintilian and the Vir Bonus

Author(s): Michael Winterbottom

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 54, Parts 1 and 2 (1964), pp. 90-97
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298654 .
Accessed: 17/04/2013 07:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 QUINTILIAN AND THE VIR BONUS *

By MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM

'Sit ergo nobis orator quem constituimus is qui a M. Catone finitur, vir bonus dicendi
peritus, verum, id quod et ille posuit prius et ipsa natura potius ac maius est, utique vir
bonus.' (Inst. xii, i, i). Why did Quintilian insist so strongly on the moral qualities of the
orator ? The question has not been persistently enough asked. Austin, for example, thinks
that it is only ' a steadfast sincerity of purpose throughout ' that redeems the first chapter of
Book Twelve from' mere moralizing'. 1 And it only takes the problem a stage further back
to say that this is a matter of Stoic influence. 2 Even if Posidonius did formulate in con-
nexion with rhetorica maxim on the lines of Strabo's ov'Xolov TE ayae6v yEvEYeat UOiTT)-V
pn -rpOTEpOV yEvT)eEvTra a'v5pa ayaeov, 3 we must still ask why Quintilian troubled to give
this Stoic view such new prominence. After all, ' oratori . .. nihil est necesse in cuiusquam
iurare leges ' (xii, 2, 26). And it is clear that Quintilian realized that he was innovating.
Cicero, he writes, despite the width of his conception, thought it enough to discuss merely
the type of oratory that should be used by the perfect orator: ' at nostra temeritas etiam
mores ei conabitur dare et adsignabit officia.' (XII, pr. 4). This is perhaps to schematize the
contrast a little over-dramatically. Cicero had certainly written in the De Oratore:
' Quarum virtutum expertibus si dicendi copiam tradiderimus, non eos quidem oratores
effecerimus, sed furentibus quaedam arma dederimus.' (III, 55). But there is no doubt
that Cicero was not primarily concerned with the moral aspect. As the leading orator of his
day, he may have thought it indelicate or superfluous to stress that the perfect orator must be
a good man. Moreover, it was not clear that the troubles of Cicero's day were the result
of morally bad orators: one had to look back to Saturninus and Glaucia for examples of the
evils caused by unscrupulous use of words.4
This paper will suggest that there was a very good reason for Quintilian's newly moralis-
tic approach: and that this was a matter of historical fact, not of rhetorical theory.

Tacitus in the Dialogus set himself to explain why ' nostra potissimum aetas deserta et
laude eloquentiae orbata vix nomen ipsum oratoris retineat '. Aper denies that oratorical
glory is, in fact, dead. His main examples are Eprius Marcellus and Vibius Crispus (8, i).
The choice is significant. For the outstanding fact about first-century oratory is that the
only orators to achieve any prominence or influence by means of their oratory are the
delatores.6 The rest were decorative but impotent: the Dialogus tells us why-education
lacked touch with reality, and political conditions took away all scope. Hence one delator,
Publius Suillius Rufus, who had been ' terribilis ac venalis ' under Claudius, could contrast
himself tellingly with Seneca.7 Seneca was used to academic inertia and the callowness of
youth; he was jealous of those such as Suillius who used in the defence of their fellow-
citizens an eloquence that was bright, alive and untarnished-' vividam et incorruptam
eloquentiam tuendis civibus exercerent'.
Tacitus' archetypal delator 8 ' dedit exemplum quod secuti ex pauperibus divites, ex
contemptis metuendi perniciem aliis ac postremum sibi invenere '. The history of delation
in the first century shows that this summary remained true; but the delator gradually added
to these qualities something approaching an official position, and (in some cases) something
approaching a theory of oratory.
We may start with an Augustan orator, who was not a delator in the strict sense at all:

* An earlier draft of this paper has been read to 5 I, I. I use sub-sections as in the Oxford
the Oxford Branch of the Classical Association and Classical Text.
to the London Classical Society. 6 The eloquence of the delatores is discussed by
1 Quintiliani . . . Liber xii, ed. R. G. Austin, T. Froment, Ann. de la Soc. des Lettres de Bordeaux
Introduction, xiv (Austin's italics). ii (i88o), 35.
2 ibid. xix f. Also the notes on XII, i, I. Austin 7 Tacitus Ann. XIII, 42. If Tacitus invents, his
is rightly cautious. invention is of archetypal significance. See also
3 I, 2, 5. J. Morr, Wiener Studien XLV (I926-7), 47. R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 331-2. It will be obvious
4 Brut. 224. The Gracchi are also mentioned. how much I owe to this book.
Quintilian takes over these examples (ii, I6, 5). 8 Ann.
I, 74. Syme, o.c. (n. 7), 326, n. 5.

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 QUINTILIAN AND THE VIR BONUS 9I

Cassius Severus.9 Quintilian'skey-wordfor him is acerbitas(x, I, I I7 ; xii, io, i i). He was

finally banished for the libido with which ' viros feminasque inlustris procacibus scriptis
diffamaverat ' (Tac., Ann. I, 72). He was a professional satirist rather than a professional
accuser. All the same, Quintilian reproves him for a remark that betrayed ' quaedam
accusandi voluptas ' (XI, I, 57). And we are told by Seneca the Elder that he specialized in
accusation (Controv. III, pr. 5). In view of this, and because of interesting parallels between
Cassius and some later delatores, he deserves discussion here. The evidence does not lie in
the Institutio, where, though Cassius is often mentioned, it is almost always to stress his biting
wit and his hatred of pomposity. Turn, however, to the Dialogus: here, in the big speech of
Aper, an attack is developed on those who habitually reckon Cicero, Caesar and other
Republican orators superior to the orators of Aper's own day (i6, 4). Aper quibbles about the
exact meaning of ar&tiqui in this context, and then asserts that new circumstances breed new
styles of oratory. It was all very well for the ' admirers of antiquity ' to draw a sharp line and
to proclaim that with Cassius came the deluge (I9, i). They might say that Cassius was the
one who had first diverged from the straight and narrow path; but in fact Cassius knew very
well what he was doing. Times had changed. Under the Republic audiences were still
impressed by a smattering of philosophy and by rhetorical subtleties prescribed in the dry-
as-dust handbooks of Hermagoras and Apollodorus. Once this excitement wore off, there
was need for new methods, a vigorous attempt to stave off boredom and monotony. It was on
purpose-and for cogent reasons-that Cassius had taken a new course.
What exactly had Cassius put in the place of the old techniques ? Messalla's reply to
Aper in the Dialogus is significant here. Messalla doesn't deny that Cassius was a notable
orator, though his speeches had ' plus bilis quam sanguinis '. This is much what Quintilian
said in his brief notice of Cassius (x, i, II6-7 ; cf. Dial. 26, 4). But, Messalla goes on,
Cassius was the first to despise organization, and cast aside modesty of language (26, 5 ; cf.
Quintilian, loc. cit.-Cassius lacked gravitas and consilium); he was so eager to strike that
he often fell over in the process: a brawler, no true fighter. We may add the evidence of
the elder Seneca. Everything in Cassius' oratory had a direct purpose-' omnia intenta,
aliquo petentia, ' (Controv. iII, pr. 2). It was strong stuff, elegant, ' ingentibus plena
sententiis.' Cassius relied rather on his native wit than on his education (? 4: ' maioris
ingenii quam studii'; cf. Quintilian's 'ingenii plurimum '.) He declaimed occasionally,
but he was under no illusions about the value of declamation. 'In scholastica quid non
supervacuum est, cum ipsa supervacua sit ? ' (? I2).
It is not impossible that in the Dialogus Tacitus is replying to Quintilian on the topic of
Cassius Severus.10 Admittedly, Quintilian did not, in the Institutio, assert that Cassius
started the decline of Roman oratory. The orators mentioned in x, I, II3 f. are treated
atomically, analysed for the virtues they may illustrate rather than fitted into trends and
patterns. But there is a good chance that in the earlier De causis corruptae eloquentiae
Quintilian did take a more historical line. From II, 4, 4I-2 we know that he discussed there
whether or not suasoriae and controversiae were invented by Demetrius of Phaleron. Now
Cicero (Brut. 37-8) remarks on the agreeable but academic virtues of Demetrius. He it
was who 'primus inflexit orationem et eam mollem teneramque reddidit.' Quintilian
himself recalls this (x, i, 8o): Demetrius ' primus inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur.' It is not
then impossible that Quintilian's De causis gave a historical sketch of both Greek and Roman
oratory; in both there was a clear point where decay started-the time of Demetrius and
the time of Cassius: equally, in both, new educational techniques, centred upon declama-
tion, played a leading part in causing this decay.1'
If this is correct, Aper's speech in the Dialogus takes on a further significance. Admirers
of the ancients, such as Quintilian, he implies, are irrevocably stuck in the past: they don't
see that Cassius Severus was not an end but a new and hopeful start. They think you can

9 Sources -for him are gathered in H. Meyer,
Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2 (I842), 545 f.;
Schanz-Hosius, Gesch.d.rom.Lit. TI, 345 f.
10 I have no new argume. s with which to
rejuvenate the hoary topic of the date of the Dialogus.
This article proceeds on the assumption that it
post-dates Quintilian's De Causis. See Syme,
o.c. (n. 7), 112 f.
"I This conclusion is approached in E. Norden,
Antike Kunstprosa (1958), 248. cf. also A. Reuter,
De Quintiliani libro .. . de causis corruptae eloquentiae
(Bratislava, 1887), 8. But I visualize a sketch of the
history of oratory, not merely of declamation.

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM

get by, as in the old days, with a little philosophy and a lot of rhetorical rules. They think.
that audiences will put up with speakers who spend all day on their feet.'2 No more per-
tinent criticism of Quintilian's general position could be imagined. In reply, Messalla is
allowed to say, as Quintilian would have said, that Cassius fell below his predecessors but
excelled his successors (Dial. 26, 4). But even he cannot explain why the old days should
be thought relevant, even if they were indisputably better.
If Quintilian was one of those who attributed to Cassius Severus the drastic change in
the direction of oratory in the first century, it becomes necessary to make it quite clear what.
Cassius was being blamed for. Messalla tells us at Dial. 26, 5: ' primus enim contempto
ordine rerum, omissa modestia ac pudore verborum ... non pugnat sed rixatur.' And
we may recall Aper's speech (I9, 3), where the new style started by Cassius is connected with
the abandonment of rhetorical subtleties and pedantic rules-' quidquid . . . aridissimis.
Hermagorae et Apollodori libris praecipitur.' Cassius relied on his ingenium rather than on
training, and he despised declamation. Quintilian's De Causis, it may be conjectured,
defended training, asserted that declamation, properly carried out, was advantageous (as in
Inst. ii, io, and in v, I2, I7-23 where the De Causis is actually referred to), and demanded a.
return to the Ciceronian virtues of respect for education and for rhetorical dogma. The
De Causis, in this light, paved the way for the Institutio, where the despised ' longa princi-
piorum praeparatio et narrationis alte repetita series et multarum divisionum ostentatio et
mille argumentorum gradus' were painstakingly recapitulated. It was a plea too for the
wider education that people such as Aper so scorned.

We may next examine the case of Domitius Afer. The interest here lies in the contrast
between the impression given of this orator by Tacitus and by Quintilian. If we relied on the
Annals alone, we should be hard put to it to see Afer as more than an earlier and more evil
Suillius Rufus. He was a tool in the campaigns against Agrippina in 26 and 27 (Ann. iv,
52 and 66): later, almost a victim of Caligula, then consul under him (Dio Cassius LIX, I9).
Tacitus describes his motives as unsparingly as those of any other delator. He was in a
hurry to be famous, at any price: in defence and prosecution alike he was more eloquent
than principled-and in old age not even eloquent. He had never been rich; he misspent
the rewards of delation, and was lured on to further crimes. Little of all this appears in the
pages of Quintilian; senility alone finds a place (xii, II, 3). Instead, Afer is a summus
orator, as good as the old-timers, witty and ripe (xii, IO, II ; x, I, I I8.) We hear of many
of his cases but almost always of his defences: the only accusation mentioned is that of a
libertus of Claudius (VI, 3, 8i), and that would be to his credit. Afer had been Quintilian's
boyhood hero (v, 7, 7)-but by then Afer was an old man, author of books on the examina-
tion of witnesses (ibid.), respectable as never before. Quintilian, then, was disposed to the
most favourable judgement possible. Only once does the Tacitean Afer peep out (by
accident) in the Institutio. A clever saying of his is quoted, for its cleverness. ' Ego accusavi,
vos damnastis.' (v, IO, 79). One can imagine a context, imagine too the cynical smile that
this would have aroused in Tacitus. Suillius used his eloquence to defend citizens. Afer was
accuser, not judge. How then could we blame either ?
I now move on to Flavian delation, and examine the careers of a pair closely linked in the
Dialogus, Eprius Marcellus and Vibius Crispus (flourishing, it may be remembered, during
Quintilian's professorship in Rome). Tacitus describes them as ' potentissimi civitatis '
under Vespasian (8, 3), and it is on their public fame that I shall concentrate. For as long as
it pleased them, they had been foremost in the forum: now they were foremost in the
friendship of Caesar-and indeed the object of his respectful regard. Others might depend
on Vespasian's goodwill: Marcellus and Crispus brought to their amicitia something that
they had not received from Vespasian. By this, Aper means that the oratory of these two
was their making; and we soon learn from Maternus what sort of oratory it was, ' lucrosae
huius et sanguinantis eloquentiae usus . . . ex malis moribus natus atque ... in locum
teli repertus.' (I2, 2). This weapon had already under Nero been at the service of the
emperor, when Marcellus had been the accuser of Thrasea Paetus, 'torvus ac minax, voce
vultu oculis [ardescens] ' (Ann. XVI, 29). The reward-five million sesterces (XVI,33). For

12 Such as Quintilian's pupil, Pliny: ' . . . perstitit ... horis septem. Nam tam diu dixi' (iv, i6, 2-3).

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 QUINTILIAN AND THE VIR BONUS 93
Thrasea, death. Crispus had done nothing so spectacular, but by Nero's death he was rich,
powerful, 'inter claros magis quam inter bonos.' (Hist. II, io): and men remembered that
he too had been a delator.
In the fourth book of the Histories (4I f.) Tacitus gives a brilliant picture of the attack on
Marcellus and Crispus in the senate during the early days of Vespasian's reign. After a
well-received speech by the fierce Curtius Montanus, Helvidius Priscus took up the attack,
the Senators approving. ' Quod ubi sensit Marcellus, velut excedens curia, " Imus, "
inquit, " Prisce, et relinquimus tibi senatum tuum. Regna praesente Caesare." Sequebatur
Vibius Crispus, ambo infensi, vultu diverso, Marcellus minacibus oculis, Crispus
renidens . . . ' (43). Crispus, that agreeable man (' delectationi natus ': Quintilian x, I,
II9), might well smile: perhaps he knew what was going to happen-Mucianus' long
speech in favour of the delators next day, and the sudden melting of senatorial free-speech
(44). It is clear that the new regime had put its shield over Marcellus and Crispus. But, as
Tacitus half-tells us in the Dialogus (8, 3), the deal was not merely one-sided. Rich, power-
ful and eloquent delatores were essential to the running of the new Flavian administration.
Vespasian could only trust a limited circle, especially if the senate proved hostile. He could
use his relations-appoint Titus to the Jewish command, Domitian praetor (Hist. IV, 3),
give military posts to Arrecinus Clemens, Caesennius Paetus and Petilius Cerealis.13 But
this was not enough. The delatores were a ready-made answer. They could be thrown to
their enemies in the senate if they caused trouble. Meanwhile, they could work. Marcellus
became proconsul of Asia, for three years, then, for a second time, consul, in 74. Vibius
Crispus governed Africa and Tarraconensis, besides his cura aquarum. Another proconsul
of Africa was Paccius Africanus, accuser of the Scribonii under Nero, who like Marcellus
and Crispus had come under fire in the senate in 70 (Hist. IV, 4I). Silius Italicus passed on
from Neronian delation to a Flavian proconsulship of Asia (Plin., Ep. III, 7, 3). The
.delatores were now not merely powerful-they had long been that. Now they were positively
members of the Establishment. It was not so much that they were ' eager to repair their
credit' (R. Syme, Tacitus, 594): rather that Vespasian both needed them and had a hold
over them.
This was not merely a passing phase of Vespasian's reign. Admittedly, Eprius Marcellus
came to a sudden end in 79, after involvement, real or apparent, in a conspiracy against the
throne (significant, this, of the heights to which delatores could by now aspire: and of the
basic insecurity of their position.) But Vibius Crispus was still making his elegant jokes
under Domitian (Suet., Dom. 3), and the emperor's pronouncement' Princeps qui delatores
non castigat, irritat ' (Suet., Dom. 9) affected petty accusers rather than the mighty. A new
generation of delatores flourished-Fabricius Veiento, notably, and Catullus Messallinus,
linked in Juvenal's concilium satire and again in Pliny, who witnesses that Veiento was
favoured even by Nerva-and that Catullus no doubt would have been had he lived.14 It is
not surprising that Trajan's ruthless stamping out of delatores was the subject of some
sections in Pliny's Panegyricus (34 f.) Yet even under Trajan one of the most important
accusers of all lived on, and had influence-Marcus Aquillius Regulus, spanning dynasties
and generations, still factious, feared and courted after the death of Domitian (Plin, Ep. I, 5,
i 5). He had ruined noble families under Nero, while still unknown. Attacked in the unruly
senate of early 70, he, like Marcellus and Crispus, survived: perhaps for the same reason,
perhaps thanks to the efforts of his brother, the Messalla who appears in the Dialogus.
'His subsequent conduct,' writes Syme (Tacitus, 77) ' though highly objectionable, [did
not involve] him in the prosecution of any notable members of the senatorial opposition.'
But he launched savage attacks on the memories of Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius
Senecio, two Stoic victims of Domitian's last years: and Regulus' hand may have been at
work in their actual ruin. ' Periculum foverat ', says Pliny (Ep. I, 5, 2) in connection with
Rusticus; and he remarks that Regulus' crimes under Domitian were no less heinous than
those under Nero-merely better concealed (? i). We do not have details of Regulus'
official career, though he was consul at some time unknown; no doubt he was more

13 Syme, o.c. (n. 7), 594-5, where the references 14 Ep. IV, 22: cf. Syme, o.c. (n. 7), 4-6.
for Marcellus and Crispus, and for other delatores,
also appear.

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM

prominent in the forum, less in the palace, than Marcellus and Crispus. And, corres-
pondingly, we hear far more of his oratory. Martial, a diligent admirer, praises his elo-
quence, remarks on his ingenium,and emphasizes his celebrity as a defender. 15 One remembers
Suillius' claim to use his oratory ' tuendis civibus': and one is sceptical. More
illuminating are the letters of Pliny, which draw Regulus with bold impressionistic strokes.
He emerges as a new version of Cassius Severus. Let us recall Severus-his anger, his
enthusiasm for accusation and abuse, the oratory that had ' omnia intenta, aliquo petentia ',
but lacked order, brawling instead of fighting: a man who despised rhetorical doctrine,
' maioris ingenii quam studii.' Compare with him Regulus, as we see him through the eyes of
Pliny (and Pliny, we remember, was a pupil of Quintilian) : ' Imbecillum latus, os con-
fusum, haesitans lingua, tardissima inventio, memoria nulla,16 nihil denique praeter
ingenium insanum . . . ' (IV, 7, 4). Relevant to Quintilian also the next words-' et tamen
eo impudentia ipsoque illo furore pervenit ut orator habeatur. ' What would Quintilian
have thought of this prostitution of ' oratoris illud sacrum nomen ' (xii, I, 24) ? We may add
the violence of Regulus' language-he called Rusticus 'that Stoic ape', Vitelliana cicatrice
stigmosum(Plin., Ep. I, 5, 2). ' You recognize the style of Regulus,' commented Pliny wryly.
And, what is more, Regulus himself knew what his oratory was like. He enjoyed con-
trasting himself with Pliny. ' Tu omnia quae sunt in causa putas exsequenda; ego iugulum
statim video, hunc premo' (ibid. I, 20, I4). There, uniquely and memorably, speaks the
violent oratory of the delatores. On another occasion Regulus contrasted Pliny with Satrius
Rufus, ' cui non est cum Cicerone aemulatio et qui contentus est eloquentia saeculi nostri '
(I, 5, II). Regulus, in fact, was not just a violent and unscrupulous orator. He could see
himself in a wide literary context, and recognize that he, and orators like him for nearly a
hundred years, were for good reasons quite unlike Cicero. It was not that Cicero was a bad
orator: but merely that times had changed. Pliny was going the wrong way-towards a
dead past.
All this of course reminds us irresistibly of the Dialogus. ' To defend the modern style
in oratory, the author introduces, as it were, a purified and sympathetic Regulus, namely
Marcus Aper,' (Syme, Tacitus, I09 with n.4). But there is no need to narrow the case down
so much. Aper stands for all the orators of his type that the century produced. Aper,
Tacitus tells us, had attained fame in eloquence ' ingenio et vi naturae ' (2, I), rather than
by education (institutio is the word, perhaps significantly). But he was learned enough in his
way-he despised literature rather than was ignorant of it (2, 2). Now this is almost exactly
what Aper later says of Cassius Severus-' non infirmitate ingenii nec inscitia litterarum
transtulisse se ad aliud dicendi genus . .. sed iudicio et intellectu ' (I9, I). And even
Regulus' habebat studiis honorem,' (Plin., Ep. VI, 2, 2). All were purposeful and intelligent
men: and it is impossible to be sure that Tacitus felt no sympathy for the case they put up.17

How did Quintilian react to all this ? I have suggested above that the Institutio in
general is an answer to the Apers of the day who thought rhetorical doctrine outdated: and
it can now be seen that Regulus was one important contemporary representative of this view.
Regulus, however, as still living is not mentioned by name in the Institutio. What must
now be noticed is that Quintilian equally omits to connect with any of the names he mentions
the characteristics common to Regulus and, it might seem, many of his delator predeces-
sors-contempt for rhetorical rules, violence of language, increasing political influence,
moral failings of the first order. When it is remembered that the delatores were the most
important oratorical phenomenon of the century, it becomes clear that Quintilian is glossing
over the extent to which he himself is swimming against the tide in proclaiming a new
Ciceronianism. Of the Flavian orators, for instance, Eprius Marcellus does not appear at all,
even to be criticized. Perhaps he was better left out, in view of the ambiguities of his end
(Syme, Tacitus, IO9, n. I). His rival Vibius Crispus is given a whitewashed picture, much
like that of Domitius Afer. For Quintilian (x, I, I I9 ; cf. xii, IO, II ; V, I3, 48), Crispus

15 For his eloquence e.g. v, 28, 6; his ingenium
V, 63, 4; his abilities in defence e.g. iv, i6, 6.
16 Clear references to at least three of the rhetorical
partes listed by Quintilian at III, 3, I: 'inventione,
dispositione, elocutione, memoria, pronuntiatione.'
17 Note also how Aper spoke ' acrius, ut solebat
(Dial. i i, i)-the pale reflexion of Regulus' savage
style ?

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 QUINTILIAN AND THE VIR BONUS 95
was iocundus: so too for Juvenal (Iv, 8i). He was only recently dead, and Domitian was still
alive. Quintilian might have said much more, but he could hardly have said less. Crispus,
he noted, was better (x, i, i I9: melior) in private than in public cases: we could if we liked
see this as the faintest of hints that Vibius Crispus was not exactly the most fitting example of
the' vir bonus dicendi peritus '. Other first-century orators mentioned by Quintilian are not
delatores.
But we should be wrong to say that Quintilian ignores the tendencies he found
flourishing around him, even if he did not name their most notorious exponents, or, naming
them, did not connect them with those tendencies. We may first remark on his criticism of
' naturalists' (my word)-people who relied on their ingenium alone. In the second book,
before starting on the Ars as such, Quintilian pauses to observe that ' quosdam in ipso
statim limine obstaturos mihi, qui nihil egere eius modi praeceptis eloquentiam putent, sed
natura sua et vulgari modo scholarum exercitatione contenti rideant etiam diligentiam
nostram' (II, II, I).18 Quintilian immediately makes it appear as though these objectors
are merely professional declaimers who feel that one could declaim without any detailed
technical instruction. They rely on their ingenium alone, and boast that they speak impetu
by inspiration,19 claiming that there is no need for dispositio or proof in cases that in any case
are imaginary: what is wanted is rather grandes sententiae (?? 2-3). All this is uncannily
reminiscent of what we know of Cassius Severus ;20 and it could be that Quintilian wants
us to recognize more important figures behind those foolish declaimers ; at any rate, these
declaimers have much in common with the attitudes of Regulus.
In the next chapter, however, Quintilian moves away from the declamation school.
The transition is imperceptible, but the change is clear: there is mention of the litigant
(? 4), and of audience reaction in court (? 6). We now have, parallel with the naturalist
declaimer, the naturalist orator. He is compared with a gladiator rushing without training
in rixam.2' We shall remember that Messalla in the Dialogus (26, 5: 'non pugnat sed
rixatur') makes exactly the same criticism of Cassius Severus. Moreover, the naturalist
orator, ineruditus as he is, is overprone to abusiveness (? 4): so too Cassius Severus ('plus
bilis quam sanguinis '), so too Regulus (' agnoscis eloquentiam Reguli). ' And so, says
Quintilian, ' let them be called ingeniosi so long as it is understood that this is not a word we
could use in praise of anyone who was truly eloquent.'22 Here then Quintilian comes to
grips with his real adversaries: those who thought there was no point in rhetorical rules.
' Let us congratulate them', he concludes ironically. ' They are eloquent without work,
without method and without discipline.' These three qualities were what Quintilian
proposed to put into the Institutio-and they constituted a good deal of what he
recommended in it. We can now see whom he is criticizing-the spiritual descendants of
Cassius Severus: and among these, at least by implication, may be numbered the delatores,
and in particular Regulus himself.23

20 'maioris ingenii quam studii ... ingentibus

18 I discuss the text of this passage in Philologus,
cvii (I964), I20 if.
19 Quintilian is never loath to use insanity to
explain or abuse the excesses of contemporary
rhetoric. cf. II, I2, 9 'iactatione gestus, motu
capitis furentes,' and often elsewhere. So even
the sage Chilon, according to Diogenes Laertius
I, 70, MyOVTa p1 KiVEiV T1V pa
X?pE lavi6v
V y&p.
We have seen Pliny, echoing his master, talk of
Regulus' furor. Madness, now as always, was
connected closely with inspiration, and if the
' naturalists ' boasted that they were speaking
impetu, they were perhaps taking up the criticism of
their opponents and making a virtue of it (for
impetus of inspiration cf. e.g. Ovid, Ex Ponto IV, 2,
25: 'impetus ille sacer qui vatum pectora nutrit.'
See too Quintilian X, 7, I4, where Cicero is quoted as
saying that according to old orators a god is present
in successful extemporary effusion.) Behind Quin-
tilian's use of ratio to mean method at ii, iI, 4 (cf. 7)
may lurk the implication that the Institutio offered
reason in place of the madness that now prevailed
(Ovid, Met. XIV, 701: 'postquam ratione furorem/
vincere non potuit.')
plena sententiis [oratio] ' (Seneca, Controv. III, pr. 4,
and 2); contempto ordine rerum' (Tacitus, Dial.
26, 5).
21 No need to search, as Spalding searched, for
cases of rixa used of gladiatorial combat-Quintilian
is saying that a contest between untrained gladiators
is a brawl, not a fight. (Not dissimilarly, Seneca,
De brev. vit. I2, 2 talks of 'puerorum rixantium' :
they were wrestling, Seneca was being scornful.)
22 So at much the same time Martial vii, 9:
'Cum sexaginta numeret Cascellius annos/In-
geniosus homo est: quando disertus erit ? '
23 For naturalists of a rather different kind see
Inst. XII, IO, 40 f. More relevantly,Ix, 4, 3 ' neque
ignoro quosdam esse, qui curam omnem com-
positionis excludant, atque illum horridum ser-
monem, ut forte fluxerit, modo magis naturalem
modo etiam magis virilem esse contendant.' cf.
Suillius on his 'vividam et incorruptam eloquen-
tiam.' (Tacitus, Ann. XIII, 42). See also XI, 3. IO-rI,
whose tone can instructively be compared with that
of II, 12, 12.

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
96 MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM

But more generally than this, the whole background of delator eloquence that has been
sketched above throws light on much that might seem irrelevant or academic in the
Institutio. Half of the second book, for example, consists of quaestiones about the status of
rhetoric. Is it an art ? (c. I7). If so, what kind of art-a good one, or merely a neutral one:
is it a virtus ? (c. 20). Is it utilis ? (c. i6). Does nature or education contribute more to the
great speaker ? (c. I9). All these questions, of course, had for long been discussed by
writers on rhetoric. But Quintilian goes over them again, and at length, because they were
topics of the moment. People were actually saying, and had for years been saying, that
rhetoric was a mere knack, to be picked up by experience in the courts, a matter of ingenium
schooled only by practice. Quintilian had at least to make a show of disproving these
contentions : because otherwise the whole mass of his doctrine fell to the ground.
But there is more to it than that. It is my contention that the same background answers
my opening question also-why did Quintilian insist that the orator should be a good man ?
Orators are still famous, says Aper (Dial. 7, 4): ' quos saepius vulgus . . . transeuntis
nomine vocat et digito demonstrat ? ' His examples are delatores-Marcellus and Crispus,
representatives of a class who in this century ' agerent verterent cuncta odio et terrore '
(Hist. I, 2). Thus, as Miaternus rejoins, this fame was bought at a price; it, like the elo-
quence that produced it, was' ex malis moribus natus '(I 2, 2). In the light of this, I suggest,
we do not need to look further for the reason for Quintilian's emphasis on the moral
qualities of the perfect orator.
There could be no question, of course, of open condemnation of the malpractices of the
day. Domitian was still alive; so, no less importantly, was the dangerous Regulus. What
is more, Quintilian was in all probability writing during the final Domitianic reign of terror,
when Carus Mettius' victoriae were increasing in number, and ' sententia Messallini
strepebat' beyond the four walls of the Alban villa (Tacitus, Agric. 45, I). Moreover, there
was a matter of propriety. Quintilian was a Flavian office-holder, appointed by Vespasian,
and, under Domitian, tutor for a while of royal children. Along with kind words about
Domitian's poetic prowess had to go a discreet silence about the less agreeable aspects of
Flavian power. Indeed it is striking that Quintilian says as much as he does. In Book ii he
says that he thinks ' et fuisse multos et esse nonnullos . . . qui facultatem dicendi ad hominum
perniciem converterint' (II, 20, 2). Later, ' nam et minari et deferre etiam non orator
[even a non-orator] potest ' (Iv, I, 22). In Book Twelve, most openly of all, ' accusatoriam
vitam vivere et ad deferendos reos praemio duci proximum latrocinio est' (XII, 7, 3).24
Indeed, it is surprising that this should have been written, or at least published, under
Domitian at all.25 We find the same tone of voice under Trajan: Pliny in the Panegyric
calls delatorslatrones(34, I).26
I suggest then that Quintilian was, like Plato, led to a moralistic view of the function of
rhetoric by what he saw going on around him. He found himself disgusted by the way
rhetoric was being misapplied: and we should not forget that this was a matter of emotion
to the academic Quintilian. Eloquence for him was ' honesta ac rerum pulcherrima'
(I, 12, i6). Nature ' non parens sed noverca fuerit si facultatem dicendi sociam scelerum,
adversam innocentiae, hostem veritatis invenit ' (XII, I, 2). It was on these convictions that
Quintilian based his assertions that the orator must be a good man, skilled in speaking. And
it will be no coincidence that Herennius Senecio drew the moral when he described a
contemporary orator as 'vir malus dicendi imperitus' (Plin., Ep. IV, 7, 5). That contem-
porary was Marcus Aquillius Regulus.

A postscript may be added. Quintilian thought his age rich in rhetorical talent ;27 there
could be great orators once again, if the lessons of the Institutio were thoroughly learnt. In

24
Also in Book xii, note the emphasis on 26 So, it is true, did Columella (I, pr. 9).
' pecuniariae quaestiones ' in which veritas had to be 27 X, I, IZZ. Quintilianis less defensive here than
defended against calumnia by the good orator. at II, 5, 23-4 (' . . . novos, quibus et ipsis multa
2s The Institutio was' presumably published before virtus adest. Neque enim nos tarditatis natura
Domitian's death in 96. At least it seems unlikely damnavit') with which compare Plin., Ep. vi, 2I, I:
that if the murder had taken place before publication ' Neque enim quasi lassa et effeta natura nihil iam
the complimentary passages would have been allowed laudabile parit.' The period had no great literary
to remain ' (Colson in his edition of Book I, p. xvi self-confidence.
with n. 5).

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 QUINTILIAN AND THE VIR BONUS 97
a way he was wrong; ironically, with the crushing of the delatores, Trajan seemed to kill
oratory also. When Regulus died Pliny found himself writing with a conscious paradox
that he missed the man, despite everything (VI, 2, I). In the same mood, Tacitus wrote in the
Agricola (3, i) of stagnation under the first years of Trajan-the numbness and inertia
of the new peace. There was room only for panegyric now, and the driest of legal advocacy:
only occasionally the spice of a trial for misdemeanours in the provinces.28 There was,
basically, nothing to do in the senate. ' Sunt quidem cuncta sub unius arbitrio, qui pro
utilitate communi solus omnium curas laboresque suscepit' (Pliny, Ep. III, 20, I2). And
this is exactly the wistful note of Maternus' last speech in the Dialogus: ' Quid enim opus
est longis in senatu sententiis, cum optimi cito consentiant ? Quid multis apud populum
contionibus, cum de republica non imperiti et multi deliberent, sed sapientissimus et
unus ?' (4I, 4).29 In these circumstances Quintilian's view of the orator as one whose
primary task it was to ' guide the counsels of the senate and bring the errant people back to
better courses ' (xii, I, 26) was absurdly out-of-date. Oratory could no longer have its
traditional30 political justification.
But perhaps in the long run Quintilian was more successful. Cicero was remembered,
and Regulus forgotten.31 And the view of the orator as ' vir bonus dicendi peritus ' echoes,
at intervals, down the centuries.32
University College, London

28 Note especially Pliny on his lack of subjects for
letters (Ep. IX, 2); contrast the long letter about the
Priscus trial (ii, i i).
29 This suggests a clue to the varying tones of the
Dialogus. Aper's bright and brash optimism reflects
Tacitus' youth under Vespasian, when the visitor
from, say, the north of Italy would look out for
Eprius Marcellus in the streets of Rome. Messalla
speaks for the Quintilian view, formulated rather
later in the century. Maternus' final speech, filled
with the vague nostalgia of the early Trajanic period,
dispels the different optimisms of Aper and Messalla.
30 Cic., De or. II, 55: ' nemo enim studet eloquen-
tiae nostrorum hominum nisi ut in causis et in foro
eluceat '.
31 Except, apparently, by Martianus Capella
(Rhetores Latini Minores, p. 453).
32 So Fortunatianus (Rhet.Lat.Min., p. 8i);
Cassiodorus (ibid. p. 495); Isidore (ibid. p. 507).

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.145 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions