Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/745

 of Cicero in the augurate (ad Fam. xii. 17-30), but afterwards changed his mind and fixed upon Tullius Tiro; Julius Caesar Scaliger upon M. Gallio ; Nascimbaenius upon Laureas Tullius; while more recently Schütz has laboured hard to bring home the paternity to M. Antonius Gnipho, and Van Heusde to Aelius Stilo. The arguments which seem to prove that the piece in question is not the production of Cicero are briefly as follows: 1. It could not have been composed before the De Oratore, for Cicero there (i. 2) speaks of his juvenile efforts in this department as rough and never brought to a conclusion,—a description which corresponds perfectly with the two books De Inventione, whereas the Ad Herennium is entire and complete in all its parts; moreover, the author of the Ad Herennium complains at the outset that he was so oppressed with family affairs and business, that he could scarcely find any leisure for his favourite pursuits—a statement totally inapplicable to the early career of Cicero. 2. It could not have deen written after the De Oratore, for not only does Cicero never make any allusion to such a performance among the numerous labours of his later years, but it would have been quite unworthy of his mature age, cultivated taste, and extensive experience : it is in reality in every way inferior to the De Inventione, that boyish essay which he treats so contemptuously. We shall not lay any stress here upon the names of Terentia and young Tullius which occur in bk. i. c. 12, since these words are manifest interpolations. 3. Quintilian repeatedly quotes from the De Inventione and other acknowledged rhetorical pieces of Cicero, but never notices the Ad Herennium. 4. Marius Victorinus in his commentary on the De Inventione, makes no allusion to the existence of the Ad Herenniun; it is little probable that he would have carefully discussed the imperfect manual, and altogether passed over that which was complete. 5. Servius refers three times (ad Virg. Aen. viii. 321, ix. 481, 614) to the " Rhetorica" and Cassiodorus (Rhetor. comp. pp. 339, 341, ed. Pith.) to the "Ars Rhetorica" of Cicero; but these citations are all from the De Inventione and not one from the Ad Herennium.

The most embarrassing circumstance connected with these two works is the extraordinary resemblance which exists between them—a resemblance so strong that it is impossible to doubt that there is some bond of union. For although there are numerous and striking discrepancies, not only is the general arrangement the same, but in very many divisions the same precepts are conveyed in nearly if not exactly the same phraseology, and illustrated by the same examples. Any one who will compare Ad Herenn. i. 2, ii. 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, with De Invent. i. 7, 42, 45, 48, 49, 51, will at once be convinced that these coincidences cannot be accidental; but the single instance to be found Ad Herenn. ii. 23, and De Invent. i. 50 would alone be sufficient, for in both we find the same four lines extracted for the same purpose from the Trinummus, and Plautus censured for a fault of which he is not guilty, the force of his expression having been misunderstood by his critics. We cannot suppose that the author of the Ad Herennium copied from the De Inventione, since the former embraces a much wider compass than the latter; still less can we believe that Cicero would be guilty of a shameless plagiarism, which must have been open to such easy detection. Both parties cannot have derived their matter from a common Greek original, for not only is it incredible that two persons translating independently of each other should have rendered so many phrases in words almost identical, but the illustrations from Roman writers common to both at once destroy such an explanation. Only two solutions of the enigma suggest themselves. Either we have in the Ad Herennium and the De Inventione the notes taken down by two pupils from the lectures of the same Latin rhetorician, which were drawn out at full length by the one, and thrown aside in an unfinished state by the other after some alterations and corrections had been introduced; or we have in the Ad Herennium the original lectures, published subsequently by the professor himself. This last idea is certainly at variance with the tone assumed in the preliminary remarks, but may receive some support from the claim put forth (i. 9) to originality in certain divisions of insinuationes, which are adopted without observation in the De Inventione. Whatever conclusion we may adopt upon this head, it is clear that we possess no evidence to determine the real author. The case made out in favour of Cornificius (we cannot tell which Cornificius) is at first sight plausible. Quintilian (iii. 1. § 21, comp. ix. 3. § 89) frequently mentions a certain Cornificius as a writer upon rhetoric, and in one place especially (ix. 3. § 98) enumerates his classification of figures, which corresponds exactly with the Ad Herennium (iv. 15, &c.); and a second point of agreement has been detected in a citation by Julius Rufinianus. (De Fig. Sent. p. 29.) But, on the other hand, many things are ascribed by Quintilian to Cornificius which nowhere occur in the Ad Herennium; and, still more fatal, we perceive, upon examining the words referred to above (ix. 3. § 93), that the remarks of Cornificius on figures must have been taken from a separate and distinct tract confined to that subject. We can accord to Schütz the merit of having demonstrated that M. Antonius Gnipho may be the compiler, and that there is no testimony, external or internal, to render this position untenable; but we cannot go further. There are several historical allusions dispersed up and down reaching from the consulship of L. Cassius Longinus, в. с. 107, to the death of Sulpicius in в. с. 88; and if Burmann and others are correct in believing that the second consulship of Sulla is distinctly indicated (iv. 54, 68), the fact will be established, that these books were not published before в. с. 80.

The materials for arriving at a correct judgment with regard to the merits of this controversy, will be found in the preface of the younger Burmann, to his edition of the Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Inventione, printed at Leyden in 1761, 8vo., and republished with additional notes by Lindemann, Leipzig, 1828, 8vo.; in the prooemium of Schütz to his edition of the rhetorical works of Cicero, Leipzig, 1804, 3 vols. 8vo., enlarged and corrected in his edition of the whole works of Cicero, Leipzig, 1814; and in the disquisition of J. van Heusde, De Aelio Stilone, Utrecht, 1839; to which we may add, as one of the earliest authorities, Utrum Ars Rhetorica ad Herennium Ciceroni falso inscribatur, appended to the ''Problemata in Quintil. Instit. Orat.'' by Raphael Regius, published at Venice in 1492.

The Editio Princeps of the Rhetorica ad Herennium