10. Among the other rhetoricians from whom Seneca the Elder quotes extracts and who partly belonged to the period of Tiberius, those who are most frequently mentioned are Argentarius (above n. 6), P. (Nonius) Asprenas (§ 267,2), Bruttedius Brutus, (Fabius?) Buteo, Capito (SEN. contr. 10, praef. 12), Clodius Sabinus (cf. § 211, 5) and Turrinus (see n. 3), Cornelius Hispanus, Fulvius Sparsus (an imitator of Latro, SEN. contr. 10, praef. 11; homo inter scholasticos sanus, inter sanos scholasticus, ib. 1, 7, 15), Gavius Sabinus and Silo (10 praef. 14), Julius Bassus (cf. § 254, 2), Licinius Nepos, Marullus (praeceptor noster, SEN. contr. 7, 17, 11; cf. above n. 2), Murredius (very slightingly treated by Seneca, see KÖRBER p. 64), Musa (SEN. contr. 10, praef. 9), Pompeius Silo (sedens et facundus et litteratus est et haberetur disertus si a praelocutione dimitteret; declamat male, ib. 3, praef. 11; homo qui iudicio censebatur, ib. 9, 25, 22; a contemporary of Porcius Latro, see ib. 7, 23, 10. 9, 28, 10. Extensive specimens are given suas. 7, 5 and 10 sq. contr. 1, 2, 20. 1, 5, 3. 1, 7, 13. 2, 9, 16 and 20 sq. 9, 25, 17 sq. 9, 29, 14 sq. 10, 32, 11; cf. also § 276, 7); the delator Romanius His po (erat natura qui asperiorem dicendi viam sequeretur, ib. 9, 26, 11; cf. 7, 17, 13. Tac. a. 1, 74. 14, 65. QUINT. 6, 3, 100), Sepullius Bassus, Triarius (compositione verborum belle cadentium multos scholasticos delectabat, SEN. contr. 7, 19, 10; a contemporary of Asinius Pollio, Latro and Cestius, ib. 2, 11, 19. 7, 19, 10. 9, 29, 11; long specimens suas. 7, 6. contr. 1, 2, 21. 2, 12, 8. 7, 20, 1 sq. 9, 25, 20 sq. 9, 29, 9 and 11. 10, 33, 4. 10, 34, 5); Vallius Syriacus, Vibius Gallus (fuit tam magnae olim eloquentiae quam postea insaniae, a contemporary of Papirius Fabianus SEN. Contr. 2, 9, 25 sq.; specimens ib. 2, 9, 9. 7, 20, 3. 7, 23, 5. 9, 21, 4. 9, 29, 2) and Vibius Rufus (erat qui antiquo genere diceret, ib. 9, 25, 25. Specimens ib. 2, 9, 2. 2, 11,8. 2, 14, 10. 7, 18, 4; but the one quoted by PLIN. NH. ind. auct. on b. 14. 15. 19. 21. 22 is called Vibius Rufinus and is otherwise unknown), L. Vinicius (quo nemo civis rom. in agendis causis praesentius habuit ingenium, SEN. contr. 2, 13, 20; IIIvir monetalis a. 738/16 [COHEN 12, no. 541] and in reference to this eleganter dixit divus Augustus: L. Vinicius ingenium in numerato habet, ib.; a specimen ib. 19), and his cousin (ib. 19), son of the cos. suff. 735/19 (OGRUPPE, quaest. Ann. p. 27, not. 23), P. Vinicius (exactissimi vir ingenii, qui nec dicere res ineptas nec ferre poterat, ib. 7, 20, 11 summus amator Ovidii, ib. 10, 33, 25; a specimen ib. 1, 2, 3; against him see SEN. ep. 40, 9. Consul 755/2 A.D. PRE. 6, 2627, 4 and 5): Votienus Montanus (see § 276, 1).

11. A certain Popilius Lenas is mentioned as a rhetorician and the author of rhetorical works by QUINT. 10, 7, 32; cf. 3, 1, 21. 11, 3, 183. He probably lived as late as Tiberius; cf. § 280, 1.

12. On the rhetoricians of this period who were both Greek by birth and taught in Greek, such as Artemon, Damas, Diokles, Euktemon, Glykon Spyridion (QUINT. 6, 1, 41), Hybreas, Moschos (§ 267, 2; BURSIAN, JB. 1880 2, 142), Niketes Potamon and others, see HBUSCHMANN, Charakteristik der griech. Rhetoren beim Rhetor Sen., Parchim 1878; die enfants terribles unter den Rhett. b. Sen., in the Festschr. f. GCHRaspe, Parch. 1883, 25. BAUMM, de rhetoribus graecis a Sen. in suas. et contr. adhibitis, Kreuzb. 1885.

269. Nearly the whole of the 8th century u.c. was embraced by the life of L. Annaeus Seneca of Corduba. A man of genuine Roman severity, which is, however, frequently tempered with pleasant humour, of sober and refined judgment, and in

to

point of style an admirer of Cicero, he himself does not appear have figured among the florid orators of his time. But, besides an historical work, he composed in his later years a survey of the themes commonly treated in the schools, 10 books of controversiae and one book of suasoriae, under the title: oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisiones, colores, which bears witness to his wonderful memory, and is a rich store-house for the history of rhetoric under Augustus and Tiberius. We possess this work with considerable gaps. Some of them are filled up by a still extant abridgment (Excerpta) made in the 4th or 5th century of the Christian era.

...

1. The praenomen in part of the MSS. (especially the Antverp. and Bruxell.) is Lucius, which may be owing to confusion with the son, but may also be right. Since the time of RVolaterranus the initial M. has been arbitrarily assumed. The family were of equestrian rank (Tac. a. 14, 53) and well-off (SEN. ad. Helv. 14, 3). Their home was Corduba, see MART. 1, 61, 7 duosque Senecas facunda loquitur Corduba. His personal character: SEN. ad Helv. matr. 17, 3 patris mei antiquus rigor. utinam ... pater meus, minus maiorum consuetudini deditus, voluisset te praeceptis sapientiae erudiri potius quam inbui! . . propter istas quae litteris non ad sapientiam utuntur, sed ad luxuriam instruuntur, minus te indulgere studiis passus est. This agrees with such expressions of his father as contr. 1, praef. 6 (insolens Graecia) and 8 sq. (cantandi saltandique obcena studia etc.). 1, 6, 12 (valde levis et graeca sententia). 10, 33, 23 (latinam linguam facultatis non minus habere, licentiae minus than the Greek). Nothing proves Seneca to have himself been a rhetorician; there is not in his works a single example from a declamation composed by himself.

2. His life. Contr. 1, praef. 11 omnes magni in eloquentia nominis excepto Cicerone videor audisse; ne Ciceronem quidem aetas mihi eripuerat, sed bellorum civilium furor, qui tunc orbem totum pervagabatur, intra coloniam meam me continuit ; alioqui in illo atriolo in quo duos grandes praetextatos ait secum declamasse, potui adesse illudque ingenium cognoscere et . . potui vivam vocem audire. He appears, therefore, to have been born a. 700/54 at the very latest. He died c. 792/39 a.d.; see note 5. He certainly was not living when his son was exiled (a. 796/43); see LSEN. ad Helv. 2, 4 sq. He twice stayed at Rome; contr. 4, praef. 3 audivi illum (Asinius Pollio, a. 678/76-758/5) et viridem et postea iam senem. His accurate knowledge of the Roman rhetoricians of that period shows that his sojourn in the city lasted for some time. His masters (see § 268, 2 and 10) and friends (§ 268, 2 and 7) lived there. At a mature age he married at Corduba Helviam, bene in antiqua et severa institutam domo, SEN. ad Helv. 16, 3; cf. ib. 2, 4 carissimum virum, ex quo mater trium liberorum eras, extulisti. The eldest of them was (cf. n. 4) Novatus (see § 268, 7); the second the philosopher L. Seneca (§ 287, 1); for the third, Mela, the father of Lucan (§ 303), see Tac. a. 16, 17; cf. POLYAEN. 8, 62. Cf. § 303, 2.

3. His works. L. Seneca de vita patris (vol. 3, 436 ed. HAASE) si quaecumque composuit pater meus et edi voluit iam in manus populi emisissem, ad claritatem nominis sui satis ipse prospexerat; nam nisi me decipit pietas, inter eos

haberetur qui ingenio meruerunt ut puris scriptorum titulis nobiles essent. quisquis legisset eius historias ab initio bellorum civilium paene usque ad mortis suae diem, magni aestimaret scire quibus natus esset parentibus ille qui (so excellently described) res romanas. This historical work appears not to have been edited at that time. From this work may be taken the statement on the death of Tiberius, SUET. Tib. 73 (Seneca eum scribit, etc., unless his son be meant), and LACTANT. instit. 7, 15, 14 (non inscite Seneca romanae urbis tempora distribuit in aetates), unless LACT. has confused Sen. with 'Annaeus' Florus (SALMASIUS); see § 348. The reference in QUINT. 9, 2, 98 suits neither the existing work of the father nor any one of the son's works. OROSSBACH, de sen. libr. recens. et emend. 161 sqq.

.

...

...

4. His extant work. Contr. 1, praef. Seneca Novato, Senecae, Melae filiis salutem. (1) Exigitis rem magis iocundam mihi quam facilem: iubetis enim quid de his declamatoribus sentiam qui in aetatem meam inciderunt indicare et si qua memoriae meae nondum elapsa sunt ab illis dicta colligere. est, fateor, iocundum mihi redire in antiqua studia melioresque ad annos respicere etc. (2) sed cum multa iam mihi ex meis desideranda senectus fecerit, oculorum aciem retuderit, aurium sensum hebetaverit, nervorum firmitatem fatigaverit, inter ea quae retinui memoria est. hanc aliquando in me floruisse, ut in miraculum usque procederet, non nego: nam et duo milia nominum recitata quo erant ordine dicta reddebam etc. (3). ex parte bene spero (concerning the account desired); nam quaecumque apud illam aut puer aut iuvenis deposui quasi recentia aut modo audita sine cunctatione profert. . . . (4) ita ex memoria quantum vobis satis sit superest. . . . illud necesse est impetrem, ne me quasi certum aliquem ordinem velitis sequi in contrahendis quae mihi occurrunt. (5). necesse est me ad delicias componam memoriae meae. (10) quaecumque a celeberrimis viris facunde dicta teneo, ne ad quemquam privatim pertineant, populo dedicabo (so that it would appear to have been published before his death). (12) facile est mihi ab incunabulis nosse rem post me natam (i.e. declamatio). At the close (10 praef. 1) he has the confession: sinite me ab istis iuvenilibus studiis ad senectutem meam reverti. fatebor vobis, iam res taedio est. primo libenter adsilui, velut optimam vitae meae partem mihi reducturus; deinde me iam pudet, tamquam diu non seriam rem agam. Yet he added the suasoriae to the controversiae; see contr. 2, 12, 8 quae dixerit suo loco reddam, cum ad suasorias venero. He also completed them; suas. 6, 27 si hic desiero, scio futurum ut vos . . . desinatis legere. . . ergo ut librum velitis usque ad umbilicum revolvere adiciam suasoriam proximae similem (n. 7, the last).

5. The work was written in Seneca's senectus (see n. 4), after the fall of Sejanus (a. 784/31 a.d.; suas. 2, 12) and the death of Scaurus (a. 787/34): suas. 2, 22 Tuscus ille qui Scaurum Mamercum, in quo Scaurorum familia extincta est, maiestatis reum fecerat. The latest parts contain traces of events posterior to the death of Tiberius († March 790/37): suas. 3, 7 Tiberius . . . offendebatur Nicetis ingenio, also the statements on the accuser of Scaurus (suas. 2, 22), on the judicial burning of books (contr. 10, praef. 5 sq.), and the quotation from the work of Cremutius Cordus which was burnt under Tiberius, suas. 7, 19 sq.

6. The controversiae are divided into ten books (libelli 2, praef. 5; cf. 4, praef. 1), always marked by prefaces in which one or several rhetoricians are characterised, and which deserve reading both in point of form and subject. The prefaces to books 5, 6 and 8 are lost; that to b. 9 is not complete. In the single themes the writer generally observes the division according to sententiae (the opinions of the rhetoricians concerning the application of a law to a given case), divisio (distribution into single questions), and colores (disguises of a criminal act); yet the

method of the work is free, with numerous digressions. The accounts of the performances of the single rhetoricians are so much alike that they appear to be rendered merely in their general sense (against this see SANDER and KARSTEN 11. 11.). There is a fair sprinkling of anecdotes and witticisms. The criticisms on individuals are sober and severe, sometimes even harsh. The author admires Cicero, see contr. 1, praef. 11. 10, praef. 6. The diction shows in the prefaces but few traces of the silver age, but more in the controversiae and suasoriae themselves.

7. Only one half of the ten books of controversiae, viz., b. 1. 2. 7.9 and 10 (containing 35 themes), have come down to us, partly with gaps, especially when the utterances of Greek rhetoricians had been quoted in the original. A lost controversia is quoted by QUINT. 9, 2, 42. In the 4th or 5th century of the Christian era a rather awkward (see BURSIAN P. VII) abridgment was made by an unknown author for the use of schools which, including all the 10 books of the controversiae, embraces also almost all the lost works (39 themes) and has preserved the complete prefaces to b. 1. 2. 3 and 4. The suasoriarum liber (the beginning incomplete, 7 themes) is in the MSS. placed before the controversiae, this being the gradation adopted in school-instruction. The MSS. of the unabridged original (the best are Bruxell. 9581, Antverp. 411, and Vatic. 3872, all s. X) are derived from one and the same source, which was, however, itself depraved and incomplete. Of the numerous MSS. in which the Excerpta are preserved, the best is the Montepessulanus 126 s. IX/X; see on it MBONNET, rev. de phil. 8, 78. KHOFFMANN, über eine Admonter Hs. (s. XII) der Excerpta des älteren Sen., Graz 1875. The writer of the abridgment had before him a copy of the complete work, which differed from the archetype transmitted to us by ABV. Cf. BURSIAN'S, KIESSLING'S and HJMÜLLER'S prefaces. OGRUPPE (see n. 10), p. 1-24 (de codice archetypo). Its employment in the Gesta Romanorum, LFRIEDLÄNDER, Sittengesch. Roms 35, 423. OESTERLEY in his ed. of the Gesta, Berl. 1872, 714.

8. In the earliest editions the father's work is mixed up with the works of his son; it was not separated before the editions of NFABER (Par. 1587. 1598) and ASCHOTT (Par. 1607. 1613); by JFGRONOVIUS (Leid. 1649) and cum notis varior. ex rec. GRONOVII, Amsterd. 1672. Critical editions; rec. et emend. CBURSIAN, Lips. 1857. Recogn. AKIESSLING, Lips. 1872. Ed. HJMÜLLER, Prague 1887.

9. Criticism: HHÖFIG, de Sen. rhet. IV codd. MSS. Schottianis, Görlitz 1858. JVAHLEN, RhM. 13, 546. AKIESSLING, ib. 16, 50; Beitr. z. Krit. lat. Prosaiker (Basle and Geneva 1864) 32; neue Beitr. zur Kr. des Rh. S., Hamb. 1871. HJMÜLLER, RhM. 21, 405; 24, 636. 25, 451; ZfGW. 22, 81. 715; JJ. 107, 525; JB. 1888 2, 175. CFWMÜLLER, JJ. 93, 483; ZfGW. 22, 490. CLKONITZER, ib. 22, 966; quaest. in Sen. crit., Bresl. 1864; Beitr. z. Krit. des Rh. Sen., Bresl. 1866. RWACHSMUTH, quaest. in Sen., Posen 1867. OREBLING, obss. crit. in S. patrem, Gött. 1868. MHAUPT, Op. 3, 412. 442. 598. CBURSIAN, spicilegium crit. in Sen., Zür. 1869; lit. Centralbl. 1873, 1555; JB. 1880 2, 129. ETHOMAS, Schedae crit. in Sen. rhet., Berl. 1880; Herm. 21, 40. CGERTZ in philol.-hist. samfunds mindeskr. (Kopenh. 1879) 148; JJ. 137, 293. HTKARSTEN, spicil. crit. (Leid. 1881) 33; elocutio rhetorica Sen. rhet., Rotterd. 1881. AOTTO, JJ. 131, 415. ROPITZ, JJ. 137, 273; commentatt. Ribb. 35. SLINDE, emendatt., Lund 1883, 39; Phil. 46, 760. 47, 173. ROPITZ, Phil. 48, 67.

10. JKÖRBER, über den Rhetor Seneca (p. 1-23. 58-66) und die rom. Rhetorik seiner Zeit (p. 23–58), Marb. 1864. OGRUPPE, quaestiones Annaeanae, Stettin 1873,

p. 21-47 (de declamandi ratione et de claris quibusdam declamatoribus).-MSANDER, quaestt. syntact. in Sen. rhet., Greifsw. 1872; d. Sprachgebrauch des Rhet. Sn., Waren 1877-80 II; JJ. 117, 787. AAHLHEIM, de Sen. rhet. usu dicendi, Giessen 1886.

270. Coincident with the latter part of the life of Seneca was probably the rhetorician P. Rutilius Lupus, the author of two extant books of schemata lexeos, being an abridged translation of one of Gorgias' works on the figures of speech, but which seem to have formed only part of the original work.

1. Though Seneca never mentions Rutilius Lupus, this does not prove that he did not know him, but rather may be explained from the design of his work; see contr. 1, praef. 4 neque de his me interrogatis quos ipsi audistis, sed de his qui ad vos usque non pervenerunt. That Rutilius wrote before Celsus, appears from QUINT. 9, 2, 102 praeter illa quae Cicero inter lumina posuit sententiarum multa alia et Rutilius, Gorgian secutus, non illum Leontinum, sed alium sui temporis (who at Athens taught young Cicero, ad fam. 16, 21, 6 of a. 710/44) cuius quattuor libros in unum suum transtulit (which shows that the division into two books is of later origin; HLAHRENS, ZfAW. 1843, 158 conjectures usum instead of unum), et Celsus, videlicet Rutilio accedens, posuerunt schemata. Cf. also ib. 101. 106 (Rutilius sive Gorgias). 9, 3, 36. 81. 89 (qui proprie libros huic operi-i.e. rhetorical figures-dedicaverunt sicut Caecilius, Dionysius, Rutilius, Cornificius, Visellius, see § 276, 11). 91-94. 99. Lupus was perhaps the son of the partisan of Pompey who bore the same name (PRE. 6, 588, 14). Cf. § 252, 8 1. 9.

2. The extant work fully illustrates the unnecessary and puerile multiplication of oratorical figures of the later rhetoric, in which Gorgias seems to have either been independent or to have availed himself of other sources unknown to us, his lists and terms possessing many peculiarities of their own (DZIALAS, 1.1. 15). His small work is valuable chiefly for the numerous and well-translated examples (perhaps from Messalla's translations-§ 222, 3.-see IwMÜLLER, JB. 1879 2, 155), taken from Greek orators now mostly lost. In comparison with these there is a marked inferiority of style in the elucidations of the figures of rhetoric. That the Greek original was abridged in the process of translation appears from 2, 12 quid intersit cognoscere poteris multo diligentius ex graeco Gorgiae libro, ubi pluribus uniuscuiusque ratio redditur.

3. That the work in its present shape is incomplete, appears both from the oratorical figures (σxhuara diavolas) which are quoted by QUINT. 9, 2, 103. 106 (cf. 9, 3, 89. 99) from Rutilius, but are not found in the present work, and from the title of the treatise in the MSS.: P. Rutilii Lupi schemata dianoeas ex Graeco versa Gorgia, the extant part relating only to the figures of speech (σxńμara λéžews). The title may, therefore, originally have been: schemata dianoeas et lexeos ex graecis Gorgiae versa (RUHNKEN). Cf. DZIALAS, quaest. 14. 28. Under these circumstances the conjecture of DZIALAS, that only an epitome of Rutilius is extant (ib. p. 36), and that of DRAHEIM (p. 3. 9. 23), that Rutilius only treated of the schemata dianoeas quite incidentally (perhaps in the prooem) and that his work has come down to us almost unabridged, have little foundation. The author of the carmen de figuris