Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/744

 from the subject having been entirely passed over in the two preceding treatises. For it must be borne in mind that the De Oratore, the Brutus, and the Orator were intended to constitute a connected and continuous series, forming a complete system of the rhetorical art. In the first are expounded the principles and rules of oratory. and the qualifications natural and acquired requisite for success; in the second the importance of these qualifications, and the use and application of the principles and rules are illustrated by a critical examination of the leading merits and defects of the greatest public speakers; while in the third is delineated that ideal perfection to which the possession of all the requisite qualifications and a strict adherence to all the principles and rules would lead.

The Editio Princeps of the Orator is that mentioned above, under the Brutus, printed at Rome in 1469. The best is that by Meyer, Lips. 1827, 8vo.; to which we may add the school edition of Billerbeck, Hannover, 1829, 8vo.

Literature: — P. Ramus, Brutinae Quaestiones in Oratorem Cic., Paris. 1547, 4to., 1549, 8vo. ; J. Perionius, ''Oratio pro Cic. Oratore contra P. Ramum'', Paris. 1547, 8vo.; A. Maioragius, ''In Oratorem Cic. Commentarius'', Basil. 1552; M. Junius, ''In Oratorem Cic. Scholia'', Argent. 1585, 8vo.; H. A. Burchardus, ''Animadversiones ad Cic. Oratorem'', Berolin. 1815, 8vo.

6. De Optimo Genere Oratorum.

We have already noticed in the remarks on the Orator the opinion advocated by several of the most distinguished speakers of this epoch, such as Brutus and Calvus, that the essence of the true Attic style consisted in employing the smallest possible number of words, and concentrating the meaning of the speaker into subtle, terse, pointed sentences, which, however, from being totally devoid of all ornament and amplitude of expression, were for the most part stiff, lean, and dry, the very reverse of Cicero's style. In order to refute practically this prevalent delusion, Cicero resolved to render into Latin the two most perfect specimens of Grecian eloquence, the orations of Acschines and Demosthenes in the case of Ctesiphon. The translation itself has been lost; but a short preface, in which the origin and object of the undertaking is explained, is still extant, and bears the title given above, De Optimo Genere Oratorum.

The Editio Princeps of this tract, in an independent form, is that published with the commentary of Achilles Statius, Paris, 1551, 4to., and 1552, 8vo. We have also " De Optimo Genere Oratorum, ad Trebatium Topica, Oratoriae Partitiones, cum Commentario, ed. G. H. Saalfrank, vol. i. Ratisbon, 1823, 8vo."

7. Topica ad C. Trebaium.

C. Trebatius, the celebrated jurisconsult, having found himself unable to comprehend the Topics of Aristotle, which treat of the Invention of Arguments, and having failed in procuring any explanation from a celebrated rhetorician, whose aid he sought, had frequently applied to Cicero for information and assistance. Cicero's incessant occupations prevented him for a long time from attending to these solicitations; but when he was sailing towards Greece, the summer after Caesar's death, lie was reminded of Trebatius by the sight of Velia, a city with which the lawyer was closely connected, and accordingly, while on board of the ship, drew up from recollection the work before us, and disspatched it to his friend from Rhegium on the 27th of July, в. с. 44.

We are here presented with an abstract of the original, expressed in plain, familiar terms, illustrated by examples derived chiefly from Roman law instead of from Greek philosophy, accompanied by a promise to expound orally, at a future period, any points which might still appear confused or obscure. We cannot, of course, expect to find in such a book any originality of matter; but when we consider the circumstances under which it was composed, and the nature of the subject itself, we cannot fail to admire the clear head and the wonderful memory which could produce at once a full and accurate representation of a hard, complicated, and technical disquisition on the theory of rhetoric.

The Editio Princeps is without place, date, or printer's name, but is believed to have been published at Venice about 1472. The commentaries upon this work are very numerous. The most celebrated are those by Boethius, G. Valla, Melancthon, J. Visorius, Hegendorphinus, Latomus, Goveanus, Talaeus, Curio, Achilles Statius, &c., which are contained in the editions printed at Paris by Tiletanus in 1543, 4to., by David in 1550, 4to., by Vascosanus in 1554, 4to., and by Richardus in 1557 and 1561, 4to.

8. Communes Loci.

All that we know regarding this work is comprised in a single sentence of Quintilian (ii. 1. § 11): " Communes loci, sive qui sunt in vitia directi, quales legimus a Cicerone composites; seu quibus quaestiones generaliter tractantur, quales sunt editi a Quinto quoque Hortensio." Orelli supposes, that the Paradoxa are here spoken of ; but this opinion is scarcely borne out by the expression in the preface to which he refers.

9. Rhetoricorum ad C. Herennizium Libri IV.

A general view of the whole art of Rhetoric, including a number of precepts and rules for the guidance of the student. Passages from this treatise are quoted by St. Jerome (adv. Rufin. lib. i. p. 204, ed. Basil.), by Priscian, by Rufinus (de Comp. et Metr. Orat. pp. 315, 321 of the Rhetores Antiq. ed. Pith.), and by other ancient grammarians, who speak of it as the work of Cicero, and as such it was generally received by the most distinguished scholars of the fifteenth century, Leonardus Arretinus, Angelus Politianus, and Laurentius Valla. At a very early period, however, its authenticity was called in question by Raphael Rhegius and Angelus Decembrius, and the controversy has been renewed at intervals down to the present day. Almost all the best editors agree in pronouncing it spurious, but the utmost diversity of opinion has existed with regard to the real author. Regius propounded no less than three hypotheses, assigning it at one time to Q. Corniticius, who was quaestor в. с. 81, and an unsuccessful candidate for the consulship in в. с. 64; at another, to Virginius, a rhetorician contemporary with Nero; and lastly, to Timolaus, son of queen Zenobia, who had an elder brother Herennianus. Paulus and Aldus Manutius, Sigonius, Muretus, Barthius, and many of less note, all adopted the first supposition of Regius. G. J. Vossius began by deeiding in fiavour of the younger Q. Cornificius, the colleague 