The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.


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. Gal-lio ; Nascimbaenius upon Laureas Tullius; while more recently Schlitz 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. Harms Victorinus in his commentary on the De Inventione^ makes no allusion to the existence of the Ad Herennium; 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 par-



ties 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 Plerennium 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 D& 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 ivMch Corrrificius) 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 Schiitz 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. Cassiua Longinus, b.c. 107, to the death of Sulpicius in b. c. 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 b. c. 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 Ley den in 1761, 8vo., and republished with additional notes by Linde-mann, Leipzig. 1828, 8vo.; in the prooemium of Schiitz 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 /also inscribatur, appended to the Problemata in Quintil. Instit. Orat. by Raphael Regius, published at Venice in 1492.

The Editio Princeps of the Rhetorica ad Heren*

About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of