If I am right then in supposing that these sections of Quintilian are no more than a literary adaptation of the principal parts of Palaemon's Ars Grammatica, I may proceed to state what seem to have been the main characteristics of that work, and to make a few observations on its influence upon the later writers of Artes Grammaticae. The first part consisted of a dissertation on the alphabet and the combination and changes of letters. As almost all of this coincides closely with the treatises on Orthographia of Velius Longus and Terentius Scaurus on the one hand, and with notes in Festus or Paulus on the other, it is highly probable that it was taken by Palaemon from Verrius Flaccus De Orthographia: a work which as we have seen was, in all likelihood, partly transcribed by Quintilian in his seventh chapter. After letters came syllables: Quint. 1. 4. 17. Palaemon (after Dionysius Thrax) made eight parts of speech, not distinguishing appellatio or vocabulum from nomen1. He divided substantives according to their genders, not omitting to inquire into the etymology of such substantives as had passed into cognomina. He in all probability distinguished the uses of the ablative proper from those of the same form used instrumentally or otherwise the septimus casus. He discussed the half verbal half nominal nature of the participle, the impersonal use of the passive, and the passive after nouns of cognate signification. The supines he called participial, while remarking that the form of the passive supine resembled that of some adverbs. Finally he gave a very full treatment to the various kinds of barbarismus and soloecismus. Whether or no it be admitted that Palaemon was the author of the treatise which Quintilian was consulting, there can be no doubt that that treatise was the foundation of large parts of the later Artes. All the later grammarians adopt Palaemon's eight parts of speech. Many are kindly disposed to the seventh case: the discussions on participles and impersonal passives and supines recur in fuller or shorter forms; 1 The distinction is given from Scaurus by Diomedes, 320. and the doctrine of barbarismus and soloecismus is expounded on the same principles, but with differing degrees of fulness, in many Artes. Quintilian's authority may, on this point, be best studied in Pompeius and Consentius1. The sum of my conclusions with regard to the grammatical chapters of Quintilian's first book is, then, as follows. The fourth chapter, and the fifth as far as § 54, is a rough literary adaptation of the Ars Grammatica of Remmius Palaemon. Chapter 5. § 54 to 56. § 27 is probably from Pliny's Dubii Sermonis. §§ 28-38 of the same chapter, on etymology, is partly directed against Varro, partly against etymological writers and their science in general. It is impossible to point out any particular authority for these sections, which may well represent no more than the general recollections which Quintilian had carried away from lectures and from his own reading. The seventh chapter, on orthography, from § 1 to § 28, is taken or adapted from the De Orthographia of Verrius Flaccus. Of the Silva Observationum Sermonis Antiqui2 written by 1 Pompeius, p. 284, foll., Consentius, Keil 5. p. 386, foll. 2 The main contentions of Dr. Beck's excellent essay (see p. 146n` on Probus are as follows: (1) That the Silva Observationum Sermonis Antiqui, attributed by Suetonius to Valerius Probus, was not a work composed by that scholar, but a collection of the notes taken home by the young men who had conversed with him. (2) That Probus was not the author of any regular grammatical treatise, but only left behind him a few obiter dicta on grammatical points. (3) That in several places where Priscian professes, and has hitherto been supposed, to be quoting Valerius Probus, he is really quoting Diomedes: and that this is sometimes true also of other grammarians. (4) That, in consequence, the grammatical observations usually attributed to Valerius Probus must be assigned to other scholars, and, in particular, to Pliny. Dr. Beck's second proposition will probably not be disputed: but I am not so sceptical as he is as to the Silva Observationum, and the relics of this work generally supposed to have been preserved by Diomedes and Priscian. It may be, of course, that Probus did not himself entitle his book Silva Observationum Sermonis Antiqui, though it has been generally assumed that he did. Gellius, it is true, never mentions such a book when he quotes Probus; but Gellius's method of quotation is so unsatisfactory that little can be made of his evidence one way or the other. On the whole, there seems to me to be nothing in the evidence to disprove the existence of Valerius Probus little can be said positively except that it was the work of a pure scholar, untinctured by any philosophical theories perfectly or imperfectly apprehended. It was a collection of apparently irregular usages taken from ancient authors: and undoubtedly it must have covered much the same ground as Pliny's Dubii Sermonis. Its general character can be inferred from what remains of it in the grammatical books of Nonius Marcellus, which I hope I have shown (in my essays prefixed to the first volume of Conington's Virgil) are based upon Pliny and Probus. It may indeed be said that these two authors are responsible for most of the notes on irregularities in conjugation or declension which meet us in the later grammarians. The conclusion to which my argument points is that the main outlines of the traditional Latin grammar, such as we find it in the numerous, but often identical, expositions which bear the various names of the later grammarians-Charisius, Diomedes, Pompeius, Donatus, Cledonius and others, were drawn in the first century A.D. The rules and arrangement such a work, whatever its title. Suetonius's words, reliquit autem non mediocrem silvam, &c., seem to point to more than a mere collection of notes. I am unable to agree with Dr. Beck as to the quotations in Priscian and Diomedes. I grant, of course, that the Probus of Priscian is, in a great many cases, not Valerius, but the Probus of the Instituta Artium. I still think, however, that when Priscian quotes, with the name of Probus, specimens of really ancient Latin usage, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they come from Valerius: especially as those quotations are exactly what one would have expected from a miscellaneous collection of ancient usages. Nor do I see any sufficient reason for supposing that Probus, in Priscian, is ever a mistake for Diomedes. Not only does Priscian quote Diomedes more than once by name, but in the important section on verbs (Diomedes, p. 347, foll. Keil) where the two grammarians go over the same ground, and partly with the same instances, Priscian is fuller than Diomedes, and adopts a different method of arrangement. The impression left on my mind is that both authors are, very likely at second or third hand, consulting the same authority, very probably Caper, who was himself using the collections of Probus and Pliny. A comparison of Diomedes and Priscian with Nonius will, I think, be found to bear out this conclusion. of the conventional Ars Grammatica, such as was used and taught during the later empire by the professors in the large cities, were in all probability, in most cases, those of Remmius Palaemon. The instances were mostly supplied by scholars of the age of Hadrian and the Antonines, who drew their information largely from Pliny and Valerius Probus. The grammatical studies of the first century A.D., when compared with those of the last century of the republic, exhibit, in some respects, the same character as the other literary work of the same period. There is more system, more effort after compilation and arrangement, but less freedom, less grasp, and altogether a narrower sphere of ideas. Pliny's researches are inspired by a philosophy more hasty and commonplace than that which Varro had adopted from the Stoics, and Verrius, Palaemon, and Probus write without any philosophy at all. Again, the scientific impulse is checked by the requirements of practical necessity. The passion for correct speaking and writing is strong in the upper class, and is instilled into the boy from his earliest school-days; just as it is the fashion in literature, whether in prose or verse, to hunt for choice expressions and telling points. With the increase of wealth and population at Rome the demand for education increases. A boxer like Pomponius Marcellus, a weaver like Remmius Palaemon, find teaching grammar a profitable occupation. Scholarship is one of the dozen accomplishments of the Graeculus esuriens, and Juvenal's complaint that the schoolmaster is badly paid shows only that the market was overstocked The modern scholar may lament this degeneracy, and bitterly regret the loss of Varro's encyclopaedic treatises; but he must remember that but for the educationists and scholars of this period he might have lost much even of what he seems to have, and have been left ignorant of the very existence of the Latin studies in philology, one of the most remarkable and interesting intellectual efforts of the ancient world. VII. ON THE PRESENT RELATIONS BETWEEN CLASSICAL RESEARCH AND CLASSICAL EDUCATION IN ENGLAND1. No acquisition of modern times is more remarkable than the nearer realization of the unity of spirit which pervades all research. Among a multitude of labourers in various fields of knowledge, there is a consciousness of a common aim, a common method, a common inspiration. This consciousness is no mere abstraction, but a living reality; the active pursuit of truth is a bond as strong as the bond of charity. And, while the widely-spreading love of truth is forming a new element of union among men, the objects of knowledge themselves are discovering more and more of their inner harmonies as their laws are read and verified by fresh experiNo branch of knowledge can now be seriously studied in isolation, or without a view to its actual or possible connexion with other branches, and the ultimate discovery of the simple principles underlying them all. This fact is obvious in the sphere of the humanities as well as in that of the natural sciences. Histories are studied for the sake of knowing history, languages for the sake of knowing language; and the studies of language and history are seen to be ence. [ Originally printed in Essays on the Endowment of Research by various writers (London, 1876): essay X, pp. 244-268. Some of Mr. Nettleship's criticisms are naturally less true now than in 1876.] |