Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria Book 2. Edited by TOBIAS REINHARDT and 
MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 
Pp. lii + 435. Cloth, €85.00 ISBN 0–19–926265–9.

Order this text for $175.00 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit 
CAMWS and the Classical Journal: 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20

Print Version: CJ 103.4 (2008): 337–9

My brother-in-law, a skilled mechanic, has a special rate for 
do-it-themselfers who bring him the jobs that defeated them. The policy is 
hardly new: the musician Timotheus charged new students double if they had 
previously studied with another teacher. That gem is but one of the many 
pithy, practical bits of educational lore and psychological insight to be 
gleaned from the second book of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, which has 
at its core important discussions of the preliminary exercises called 
progymnasmata, of declamation, and of their roles in the curriculum. All 
that is not nothing, but from a practical point of view, is it enough to 
justify so much attention (360 pages of commentary on 34 pages of Latin 
text) at such a price ($160.00) for just one of Quintilian’s twelve books? 
It is indeed, but a few caveats are in order.

The volume presents an uncompromisingly professional combination of 
introduction, text and commentary. The text is a modified version of 
Winterbottom’s 1970 OCT, including 32 changes (some noteworthy) in wording, 
and rather more, often quite helpful, changes in punctuation and 
paragraphing. The annotation begins each chapter with a brief synopsis and 
analysis, followed by detailed linear commentary running the gamut from 
textual to factual to interpretive problems. There is no translation. 
Readers are referred instead to D.R. Russell’s excellent Loeb, which would 
be fair enough except that the commentary includes much additional, largely 
technical Latin (and Greek) that also goes untranslated. Many notes consist 
almost entirely of such passages, offered by way of explanation or 
comparison. Technical terms—the simultaneous bane and glory of the 
rhetorical tradition—are not explained. Thus, for example, readers learn 
that Quintilian’s remark about Timotheus “has the tone of a chria” (p. 66 
on 3.3), but not what a chria is. A helpful hint lies elsewhere (p. 106, 
quoting a summary in Lausberg’s Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: “an 
instructive, short anecdote”), but it takes serious digging through the 
General Index, not the Latin or Greek one, to find it. That’s 
uncompromising. There are also references of the sort (p. 165 on 10.5), 
“see the sensible remarks of G. Fleiter, De minoribus quae sub nomine 
Quintiliani feruntur declamationibus (diss. Münster, 1890), 12.” That’s 
uncompromising, too; Fleiter’s comment on the practical value of fantastic 
themes in declamation is indeed sensible, but those dependent on 
interlibrary loans to pursue such references might appreciate a clearer 
indication that the search will be worth the trouble. Getting the most out 
of this volume requires serious effort.

Nor is that inappropriate: serious effort went into producing it. The 
commentary began as Winterbottom’s (W.) 1970 doctoral thesis. The 
partnership with Reinhardt (R.) adds to W.’s profound understanding of 
Roman rhetoric and education new technical interests in the Greek 
underpinnings of Quintilian’s knowledge. This perspective proves helpful 
not just for examining specific matters, such as how Quintilian’s 
discussion of the progymnasmata shows him modifying Greek doctrine to suit 
his requirements, but because it raises much larger issues. Thus it soon 
becomes clear that Book 2 cannot be fully understood without considering 
the master plan behind the whole of the Institutio oratoria. The editors’ 
Introduction observes that the book falls into two parts, Chapters 1–13 
treating the teaching of rhetoric in the schools, and Chapters 14–21 
introducing the grand survey of rhetorical knowledge that continues through 
Book 11. This latter section therefore forms a pair with section 12.1–2 to 
frame the technical survey, highlighting its purpose and justification. 
Analysis of Book 2 therefore cannot be self-contained: it necessarily looks 
both backward and forward.

To bring this out, the Introduction itself also falls into two parts. The 
first half (largely W.’s work) surveys the procedures and principles that 
characterize Quintilian’s school, a valuable discussion even for readers 
who already know what a chria is. The second half (owing most to R.), 
supplemented by an appendix of parallel passages, discusses Quintilian’s 
relationship to his sources (Theon and Hermo¬genes, or writers much like 
them), the definition of rhetoric, and its presentation in the Institutio. 
The overview here sets up the detailed discussions that follow in the 
course of elucidating Quintilian’s text.

Some of the topics treated are controversial, and the editors’ handling of 
controversy is itself noteworthy. The moral underpinnings and even urgency 
of Quintilian’s approach to the training of orators, for example, are 
inextricably bound to larger issues the Introduction treats as “Historical 
Background” (pp. xxxiv–xxxvii). The most significant of these is oratory’s 
putative “decline” under the Principate and Quintilian’s commitment to 
restoring its respectability. W. first discussed this problem years ago in 
a seminal article entitled “Quintilian and the vir bonus” (JRS 54 (1964) 
90–7). Much has been written since, including significant challenges to the 
views advanced there, especially concerning the delatores and their style 
of oratory; the editors now take the opportunity to review the discussion 
to date. It is clear from their summary that W. has not himself changed his 
mind, but he does something better: this palmary discussion gives readers 
the wherewithal to understand the issues for themselves and to amend the 
views championed here if and as they think appropriate. Such intellectual 
honesty is another kind of uncompromising professionalism, this one in the 
very best tradition of the profession.

One final quibble. The Introduction notes Quintilian’s ability to write on 
two levels: “At times he may be found to be working on what one might call 
the principle of calculated unintelligibility, employing a notion or a 
tenet which would be lost on a reader who is just seeking basic instruction 
on a particular problem but which adds an integral step to a broader 
argument once a reader brings a somewhat wider expertise to the text” (p. 
xlix). Much the same could be said of this work. I am not sure that the 
editors’ calculation of the two levels is right—unintelligibility is rarely 
a virtue, calculated or otherwise—but there is much to be gained here by 
readers at every level. They only need the patience and commitment to seek 
it out.

SANDER M. GOLDBERG
University of California, Los Angeles

				
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serve by sending an email 
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first 
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE