6. Best edition of the grammatici latini by HKEIL, Lps. 1856-79 VII. As a supplement to this by HHAGEN, anecdota helvetica quae ad grammaticam latinam spectant, Lps. 1870.-EICHENFELD and ENDLICHER, analecta grammatica, Wien 1837.

7. SURINGAR, historia crit. scholiastaram latt., Leid. 1834 sq. III.

LLERSCH,

d. Sprachphilos. der Alten, Bonn 1838-41 III. VAN HEUSDE, de L. Aelio Stilone (1839) p. 17. GRÄFENHAN, Gesch. d. klass. Philologie im Altertum, Bonn 1843 sqq. (esp. b. 4). HSTEINTHAL, Gesch. d. Sprachwissensch. bei d. Gr. u. R., Berl. 1863. EJULLIEN, les professeurs de littérature dans l'ancienne Rome, jusqu'à la mort d'Auguste, Par. 1886.

42. The same deterioration is noticeable in the separate departments. Whereas in Republican times historical research had made progress, especially in subjects of political interest such as the sacred antiquities, in the Imperial period these were left to the jurists, and study was restricted to grammar, including orthography, synonymy, and lexicography, and to prosody; this was chiefly compilation, and rarely done with any systematic thoroughness. The writers on prosody, among whom the most important are Caesius Bassus and Juba, are entirely dependent on their Greek predecessors. After grammatical studies had ceased for more than a hundred years, an effort was made, in the 4th century, to produce comprehensive abridgments, which gradually became more and more meagre, limited and wanting in independence. The old mythology is almost the only subject of technical study. At the end of the 5th century the barbarian element begins to mingle with scholarship.

1. Writers on the augural system, haruspicia and cognate subjects: Varro, Nigidius Figulus, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 100, 54), L. Caesar, Tarquitius Priscus, Caecina, Caesius, Veranius, Granius Flaccus, Aufustius, Clodius Tuscus, Umbricius Melior, Julius Aquila, the grammarian Ennius (§ 159, 13), Cornelius Labeo. RMERKEL's Prolegg. to Ovid's Fasti (1841). OMÜLLER, Etrusk. 22, 19. GSCHMEISSER, de etrusca disciplina, Bresl. 1872; die etr. Disziplin vom Bundesgenossenkrieg bis z. Untergang des Heidentums, Liegn. 1881; Beiträge sur Kenntn. der Techn. der Haruspices, Schwerin a/W. 1884. Cf. below § 77. On Vicellius and Fonteius see § 170, 9.

2. Scriptores latini rei metricae; ed. THGAISFORD, Oxon. 1837, now specially in the sixth volume of KEIL's Grammatici. Division of writers on prosody into two classes, according as, like Varro, they consider the hexameter and iambic trimeter as metra principalia, from which all other metres are to be derived (merely metra derivata, παραγωγά), or divide the metres by the πρωτότυπα. A few others (as in the fragm. bobiense and the centrimetrum) began with the iambus and trochaeus, but the majority (no doubt for practical reasons) with the dactylus. Cf. esp. RWESTPHAL, griech. Metrik 12, 105. 138. 203. 214. HWENTZEL, Symb. crit. ad hist. scriptorum rei metr. lat., Bresl. 1858. HKEIL, quaest. grammaticae, Lps. 1860. JCAESAR, de nonnullis metricorum latt. locis, Marb. 1874. OHENSE, de Iuba artigrapho in Ritschl's acta Lips. 4 (1875), 37.

3. CASSIOD. divin. lect. 30 orthographos antiquos legant Velium Longum Curtium Valerianum, Papirianum, Adamantium Martyrium de v et b, etc. CASSIOD. de orthogr. mentions in addition Annaeus Cornutus, Caesellius Vindex, Eutyches, and Priscianus. Also Flavius Caper and Terentius Scaurus, as well as Auctores anonymi de orthographia IV in HAGEN's anecd. Helvet. 291, cf. p. cxxxv. WBRAMBACH, lat. Orthogr. (1868), 27.

4. Synonymy (differentia sermonum), which had already been treated of incidentally by Varro, Verrius Flaccus, and others, became in the later Imperial period (CHARIS. GL. 1, 205, 16 illi qui de differentiis scribunt) a favourite subject for book-making, and the writings concerning it were attributed to Probus, Suetonius, Fronto, and in the Middle Ages even to Cato, Cicero and Vergil. The collections of this kind, which have been preserved to us, much resemble each other, and are only to a small extent derived from good sources. They may be traced back to an original collection, which was compiled probably in the 5th-6th centuries A.D. from the separate collections then extant. The most important collection of extracts from the Roman synonymic remains is Montepess. H. 306 s. IX; in this, besides smaller collections, such as that of Arevalo in his ISIDOR. 7, 426, Hagen, anecd. Helvet. 275 (cf. JWBECK, de Sulpic. Apollin. p. 51) and FHAND, published in Jena 1848, and also the differentiae of Probus (§ 300, 8, b), Suetonius (§ 347, 3), and Isidorus' diff. spiritales (Montepess. does not give Isidorus' greater profane synonymy, § 496, 1), there is a very voluminous collection ('differentiae similium orationis partium a Cicerone et ab aliis sapientibus viris in sensu et litteratura per alphabetum'); published by BECK, diff. scr. 28. Cicero's name is of course unauthorised and probably borrowed from the collection, otherwise differing entirely as to its contents, which bears the name of Cicero (§ 188, 9). Fragments of a collection of diff. serm. JJ. 127, 649 (on this see JWBECK, JJ. 131, 639. JWBECK, de differentiarum scriptoribus lat., Groningen 1883.

5. FEST. 166, 8 glossematorum scriptores. CHARIS. GL. 1, 229, 31 glossae antiquitatum (old Latin). 242 . . . ut esse in sacris Anagninorum vocum veterum interpretes scribunt. GELL. 18, 7, 8 glosaria namque conligitis et lexidia, res taetras et inanes et frivolas. The sound erudition of the earlier glossographers (e.g. of Aurelius Opilius, below § 159, 4, of Aelius Stilo, § 148, 2, and others) was preserved in a ruinously shattered condition in the glossaria, which have been preserved in great numbers, partly in very old MSS., and contain, besides a preponderating quantity of rubbish, very valuable linguistic material (taken from authorities now lost) especially for old and popular Latin. The glossaria explain rare Latin words (glossae) by comparing with them those in common use, frequently adding quotations and examples.-The explanation is generally in Latin likewise, but sometimes in Greek as well: more rarely the lemma is in Greek, and the explanation in Latin (see n. 7). The significance of these Gr.-Lat. glosses is contained in the Latin portion. The arrangement is generally more or less alphabetical (sometimes displaying wonderful subtlety: see LOEWE's prodr. 129), more rarely according to the subjects.

6. Purely Latin glossaria: the most important is that of Placidus (on this see § 472, 7) especially rich in data for ancient Latin (Plautus). Special glossaria on Plautus (§ 99, 6), Terence (§ 109, 3), Vergil (§ 231, 7), Sidonius (? § 467, 9) etc. Numerous independent and general glossaria, e.g. the Gl. Affatim, so called from the word with which it begins (drawn from good sources, see HUSENER, RhM. 23, 677), Gl. Asbestos (in the Vat. 1469 s. X with curious glosses on Lucilius, see GGOETZ, RhM. 40, 324), Gl. Ab.: absens, Gl. Abavus minor, etc.-The independent glossaria, sometimes abridged, sometimes enlarged by the addition of new material,

were gathered into collections: thus in the gl. Abavus maior (ed. GFHILDEBRAND, Gött. 1854; cf. HRÖNSCH, RhM. 30, 449. GLOEWE, gl. nom. 158; Mélanges Graux =gl. nom. 101). On other collections see n. 8. 9.-Very important MSS. for the purely Latin glossaria are SGallen, 912, s. VII/VIII (published by MWARREN, transact. of the Americ. philol. assoc. 1884, Cambr. 1885) and Vat. 3321 s. VII (from this and seven other MSS. AMAI, class. auct. 6, 501 compiled his glossarium vetus, AWILMANNS, RhM. 24, 381).-The so-called glossae Isidori (7, 443 Arev.) first published by VULCANIUS, Thes. utriusque ling. (Leid. 1600) p. 667, are (like the excerpta Pithoeana in Gothofredi auctores ling. lat., S. Gervasii 1602) not independent collections of glossae, but represent a compilation prepared by JSCALIGER ex variis glossariis: see LOEWE, prodr. 23.-On the so-called glossae Petronii see § 305, 2.

7. The Latin-Greek glosses of Par. 7651 s. VIII/IX, attributed without foundation to Flavius Theodorus Philoxenus cos. a. 525 (see also MOMMSEN CIL. 5, 8120, 4), rank above all glossae on account of their high value. On the information concerning authorities contained in them see FOSANN, gloss. lat. spec. Giss. 1826. JKLEIN, RhM. 24, 289. Traces of a similar collection in Martyrius (§ 472, 6): FBÜCHELER, RhM. 35, 69. The collection quite groundlessly called glossae Cyrilli (in the Laudun. s. IX, Harl. 5792 s. VII/VIII) is Graeco-Latin; in this there are many originally Lat.-Gr. glosses (see LOEWE, prodr. 216).-Cyrilli Philoxeni aliorumque vett. glossaria latinogr. et graecolat. a CLABBAEO collecta, Par. 1679 (to be used with caution: see RhM. 17, 159. 18, 253; particularly because the Onomasticon vocum latino-graecarum, which JSPIEGEL prefixed to his edition of Calepini lexicon (Strassb. 1537), is here regarded as ancient, and incorporated among the early glosses; see LOEWE, prodr. 194).—New critical edition of the Philox. and Cyrill. gl. in the Corp. glossar. lat. vol. 2, Lpz. 1887. AFRUDORFF, d. Gl. d. Philox. u. Cyr., Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1865, 182.-To the bilingual glossaria belong also the so-called glossae Servii (§ 431, 4 in fin.) and the Latin glossae nominum, which were translated (about the 8th century) from biligual ones (published from Erfurt and other MSS. by GLOEWE, Lpz. 1884, see n. 9 ad fin.) and others. On the Pseudo-Dositheana see § 431, 8.-Graeco-Latin are also the medico-botanical glossaria, which are of material, though not of linguistic importance: such are to be found at Siena (MS. s. X/XI published by JSCHMIDT, Herm. 18, 521) and in the Vatic. Reg. 1260 s. X: to these belong also the sinonima Bartholomei and Gl. Alphita (in Oxford, published by JLGMOWAT, anecd. Oxon. 1, 1. 2). Cf. § 487, 4 ad fin.

8. A series of lesser glossaria, together with other material, was collected in the 7./8. cent. (perhaps by the still enigmatical Ansileubus? see n. 9 and OMÜLLER, praef. Festi p. XXXIII. LOEWE, prodr. 224. EBÄHRENS, JenLZ. 1877, 155), together with a statement of the sources of the several glosses (e.g. Placidi, de glosis, that is, out of anonymous collections such as Affatim, see n. 6), into a sort of Encyclopaedia, the once much used liber glossarum (e.g. in the cod. Paris. 11529. 30. s. VIII). See on this WILMANNS RhM. 24, 364. USENER ib. 24, 382. Examples in MAI, class. auct. 7, 550. 589. 6, 554. 576. Also in GTHOMAS, SBer. d. Münch. Ak. 1868 2, 370 (cf. CHALM and CHOFMANN, ib. 1869 2, 1. AMILLER, Bl. f. d. Bayr. Gymn. 6, 295). FICKERT, Naumb. 1843. CPETER, Zeitz. 1850. SBERGER (n. 9) 6.

9. From the liber glossarum were derived, with the addition of other materials, the glossae Salomonis (Bishop of Constance † 919), printed at Augsb. 1483 (cf. USENER, RhM. 24, 389), Papiae elementarium doctrinae rudimentum about 1050 (often reprinted), also Osberni (a monk at Gloucester about 1150),

Panormia (ed. AMAI, class auct. vol. 8. See WMEYER, RhM. 29, 179), Hugotionis liber derivationum about 1190, the so-called breviloquus Benthemianus (s. XV; on this see KHAMANN, Hamb. 1879–80 II; weitere Mitteil. aus d. brevil. Benth. nebst Anhang: Abschnitte aus dem lib. derivat. des Ugutio, Hamb. 1882). Here belongs the Phillipps glossary 4626 in Cheltenham (see MWARREN, Amer. journ. of philol. 6, 451. RELLIS, journ. of phil. 1885, 81). A Turin glossary in PFLUGKHARTTUNG'S Iter italicum 341 (on this GLOEWE's commentary ib. 821) etc. SBERGER, de glossariis quibusdam medii aevi sive de libris Ansileubi, Papiae,

Hugotionis etc., Par. 1879.

Chief work on Lat. gl.: GLOEWE, prodromus corporis glossariorum lat., Lps. 1876. In addition: glossae nominum, ed. GLOEWE; accedunt eius opuscula glossographica, Lps. 1884. In preparation: Corpus glossariorum latin. editum auctoritate soc. litt. reg. Saxon., Lps. 1887 sqq. (published in accordance with LOEWE's preparatory work by GGOETZ and others); see n. 7.

10. Among the scriptores mythographi latini are comprehended Hyginus (§ 262), Fulgentius (§ 480), Lutatius Placidus (? cf. § 249, 2), Albericus philosophus (see below), published together by THMUNCKER (Amst. 1681, subsequently by AVSTAVEREN, Leid. 1742). Cf. CLANGE, de nexu Hyg. fabb. 11. Three new mythographi vaticani, first published by AMAI, class. auct. Vol. 3 (Rome 1831), subsequently by GHBODE, Scriptt. rerum myth. lat. tres (Celle 1834 II). The first of these (mythographus vaticanus I) is the earliest; it makes great use of Servius' commentary on Vergil and other scholia on poets (e.g. on Statius) and of Fulgentius, Orosius, Isidorus and others. Correspondences with Ps.-Acro: AKIESSLING, de person. horat. 7. This mythol. I is preserved in Vatic. Reg. 1401, s. X./XI. In it the subscriptio: expl. liber secundus centum hñf (=habens) fabulas sicut et primus. Cf. OROSSBACH, JJ. 131, 408. AMai misread the subscription (hnƒ =hni, etc.) and hence gave as the title of the work C. Hygini libri fabularum. The mythogr. vat. II borrows much word for word from the first; lastly mythogr. vat. III (de diis gentium et illorum allegoriis), in which are quoted e.g. Johannes Scotus († about 875) and Remigius of Auxerre († a. 908), belongs according to the cod. Goth. (poetarium Alberici) to Albericus (living s. XIII), the same who composed the work de deorum imaginibus, included in the corp. mythogr. (see above). Cf. EKLUSSMANN, de Alberici mythogr. cod. Goth. II (s. XIII), Rudolst. 1868. SCHNEIDER, de mythographis lat., Bresl. 1834. FOSANN, Haller Lit.-Ztg. 1834. Erg. Bl. 12. FJACOBS, ZAW. 1834, 1057. SURINGAR, de mythographo astronomico, Lugd. 1842. MZINK, der Mytholog Fulgentius (1867) 13. RFÖRSTER, d. Raub der Persephone (Stuttg. 1874), 291.

43. The Romans were naturally well qualified for oratory by their acute intellect, their love of order and their Italian vivacity, tempered with Roman gravity. The influence of habit and rule, the publicity of all transactions, the numerous occasions where good speaking was required, before the people, the senate, a jury or magistrates, the army, or at a funeral, made fluent speaking an indispensable requirement in the state and the possession of eloquence a means to the attainment of political distinction, especially when the privileges of rank disappeared one after the other, and political party-strife became more frequent

and ardent. In consequence of this oratory took from the beginning a practical direction, and practice in public speaking became an essential part of the education of a young Roman, so much so that Cato the Elder already composed a manual of it, and in several families, as in that of the Scribonii, eloquence became hereditary through several generations. To this must be attributed the large number of orators among the Romans, the early commencement of oratory and the great perfection to which it attained, its rise and decay with the various phases of the political constitution.

1. Cic. off. 2, 66 eloquentiae a maioribus nostris est in toga dignitatis principatus datus. Cf. or. 141. Brut. 182 .. in tanta et tam vetere republica maximis praemiis eloquentiae propositis omnes cupisse dicere, non plurumos ausos esse, potuisse paucos. Liv. 39, 40 ad summos honores alios scientia iuris, alios eloquentia, alios gloria militaris provexit. QUINT. 2, 16, 8 pop. rom., apud quem summa semper oratoribus dignitas fuit; see also Tac. dial. 37.

2. Cic. de or. 2, 55 nemo studet eloquentiae nostrorum hominum nisi ut in causis atque in foro eluceat: apud Graecos etc. (eloquence was an end in itself). Morality even suffered by the regard paid to the practical side: the forensic orator was scarcely expected to adhere to truth. Cicero's words about M. Antonius (Brut. 207), that he was facilis in causis recipiendis, apply also to himself, and in more than one passage he teaches that for an orator not the verum is the aim, but the verisimile; see de or. 2, 241. off. 2, 51. In a similar manner QUINT. 2, 15, 32. 3, 8, 13. 12, 1, 33 sqq. 6, 2, 5 ubi animis iudicum vis afferenda est et ab ipsa veri contemplatione abducenda mens, ibi proprium oratoris opus est. On the other hand 12, 7, 7 non convenit ei quem oratorem esse volumus iniusta tueri scientem; cf. 4, 2, 93.

3. They commenced in early youth. Africanus minor says, at the age of eighteen, in PoLYB. 32, 9 δοκῶ εἶναι πᾶσιν ἡσύχιος τις καὶ πολὺ κεχωρισμένος τῆς ρωμαϊκῆς αἱρέσεως καὶ πράξεως ὅτι κρίσεις οὐχ αἱροῦμαι λέγειν. PLIN. ep. 5, 8, 8 undevicesimo aetatis anno dicere in foro coepi. Very frequently their début was a speech in praise of a recently departed relative. Again, Tiberius novem natus annos defunctum patrem pro rostris laudavit (SUET. Tib. 6). The youthful character of such laudationes funebres was, therefore, perhaps a reason for their rarely being published, EHÜBNER, Hermes 1, 441. It was also very common to commence the career of orator by prosecutions; see POLYB. 32, 15 in fin. Cic. off. 2, 49. SUET. Iul. 4. VAL. MAX. 5, 4, 4. QUINT. 12, 6, 1. TAC. dial. 34 in f. APULEI. apol. 66.

4. The speeches attributed by later historians to the regal period do not, of course, prove anything as to the oratory of that time; but even then the constitution necessitated a certain amount of political speaking. Meyer's collection from Appius Claudius to Symmachus (n. 5) amounts to 158 orators, without counting those whose speeches were never written down or of whose speeches, if written, we have no record. Cf. § 44, 12.

5. The principal sources are Cicero's Brutus, Seneca the rhetor, Tacitus' dialogus, Suetonius' viri ill., Quintilian 10, 1, 105–122 and 12, 10, 10-12, also Pliny's letters. Oratorum romanorum fragmenta coll. HMEYER, Zür. 1832. (Paris reprint 1837.) 21842.-AWESTERMANN, Gesch. d. röm. Beredsamk. Lpz. 1835. FELLENDT, brevis eloquentiae rom. ad Caesares hist. in his edition of Brutus 1844. FBLASS

R. L.

F