Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

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.

A colon, on the other hand, is the expression of a thought which is rhythmically complete, but is meaningless if detached from the whole body of the sentence. For example O callidos homines [*]( From the lost pro Cornelio. O the cunning of those men! O what careful forethought! I ask you did one of us fail to note that such would be your action? ) is complete in itself, but is useless if removed from the rest of the sentence, as the hand, foot or head if separated from the body. He goes on, O rein excogitatam. At what point do the members begin to form a body? Only when the conclusion is added: quem, quaeso, nostrum fefellit, id vos ita esse facturos? a sentence which Cicero regards as unusually concise. Thus as a rule commata and cola are fragmentary and require a conclusion.

The period is given a number of different names by Cicero, [*]( Orat. lxi. 204. ) who calls it ambitus, circuitus, comprehensio, continuatio and circumscriptio. It has two forms. The one is simple, and consists of one thought expressed in a number of words, duly rounded to a close. The other consists of commata and cola, comprising a number of different thoughts: for example, aderat ianitor carceris, carnriex praetoris [*](Verr. v. xlv. 118. There stood the jailer, the praetor's executioner. ) and the rest.