C.'s monumental work, which brings together the scholarly genres of the critical edition (Prolegomena and critical text with apparatus, in Latin) and of the commentary (in Italian), is the result of a sixty-year long devotion to the study of Rhetorica ad C. Herennium (Rhet. Her.). C. had already published two commented editions of this rhetorical treatise: the first (1969) included critical text, introduction and commentary, complemented by an Italian translation in a separate volume; the second (1993) was a reprint of the former, with some additions and corrections. In the introductory note to the 1993 edition, he revealed he was preparing a new critical text and expanded commentary of the same work: 27 years later, it is hot off the press. A reader acquainted with C.'s former studies on Rhet. Her. will not be surprised by the opinions expressed therein, which do not diverge substantially from those defended in earlier articles, chapters and monographs. Nonetheless, this work provides C. with the opportunity to engage extensively with post-1969 editions (in particular G. Achard 1989, occasionally taken into account in Calboli 1993; T. Nüßlein 1994; F.L. Müller 1994), propose a new critical text and update his arguments in the light of recent publications and his own research.
The first volume contains Prolegomena, a schematic summary of Rhet. Her. and the critical edition followed by the Italian translation. The Prolegomena, divided into eleven chapters, introduce Rhet. Her. and the scholarly debate surrounding it. At the beginning of each chapter the most important publications on the subject are listed, which helps to contextualise C.'s voice in the modern conversation. Because the same topic is often discussed in different chapters, my review of the Prolegomena will not follow the complex structure of C.'s argument: first, I will summarise the discussion about the identity of the Auctor and the dating of Rhet. Her.; second, about the Auctor's political and theoretical background; last, I will recapitulate C.'s reconstruction of the reception of Rhet. Her. The manuscript tradition will be considered along with the critical text. As is clear from the title (Cornifici seu Incerti Auctoris etc.), C. has not shelved his views about the much-debated authorship of Rhet. Her., notwithstanding the opposition of all modern editors to the identification of the Auctor with Cornificius (Calboli, MAIB 1963–4), which had already been contested by A.E. Douglas in the pages of this journal (CR 17 [1967], review of C., Cornificiana 2, 1965). The main reasons for this identification come from Quintilian's Institutio oratoria: Cornificius is mentioned before Stertinius and after Cicero, considered as the author of De inventione, in a chronological list of writers of rhetorical handbooks (3.1.19–21); moreover, the definition of traductio, which Quintilian ascribes to Cornificius (9.3.68–71), is matched only by Rhet. Her. 4.14.20–1. Clearly, this argument presupposes that Cicero's De inventione was published before Rhet. Her., which is precisely what C. assumes: although admitting that the only certain terminus ante quem is 70 bce (neither Hortensius nor Cicero are named in the treatise), he claims that Rhet. Her. was written in 86–82 bce, after Cicero's De inventione, with which it shares theoretical and ad verbum similarities; however, he notes that the Auctor, in the footsteps of his doctor, strives for simplicity more than Cicero (e.g. he simplifies the treatment of insinuatio in Rhet. Her. 1.6.9 and reduces the number of rhetorical status from four to three in 1.11.18–17.27). Unfortunately, C. does not discuss thoroughly the dating of Rhet. Her., for which he refers to his Italian editions, but limits himself to refuting the views of Achard, Nüßlein, Douglas (CQ 1960) and W. Stroh (in B.-J. Schröder and J.-P. Schröder [edd.], Studium declamatorium [2003], pp. 5–34). If De inventione was completed before 87 bce, as C. assumes, this explains why Cicero says that he was a puer when writing it (De or. 1.5) and, therefore, why he is named before Cornificius in Inst. or. 3.1.19–21. At that time, moreover, Apollonius Molon was teaching in Rome, which might explain why Rhet. Her. and De inventione show clear traces of Rhodian rhetorical doctrine. Their affinity can be explained in two ways: either they share a common Latin source or De inventione is among the sources of Rhet. Her. up to 3.9.16, whereas the following discussion is based on other Greek (Rhodian) or lost Latin works.
C. reconstructs carefully the political implications of Rhet. Her. and, in general, of rhetoric at the beginning of the first century bce. In the footsteps of F. Marx (1894, pp. 141–53), he argues that the Auctor was a popularis and a partisan of Marius, who, remarkably, was a client of the Herennia gens: if this is true, the hostility of Sulla, whose takeover in 82 bce works as a terminus ante quem, might explain the ‘disappearance’ of Rhet. Her. until Quintilian's time at least. This reconstruction presupposes that rhetoric played a key role in the fight between optimates and populares, who considered judicial courts an important battlefield: C., in fact, argues against E.S. Gruen (Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy [1990], pp. 187–91) that L. Licinius Crassus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, along with disagreement about rhetorical training, had political reasons to shut the schools of the Rhetores Latini and, in particular, of Plotius Gallus (the doctor of the Auctor?), whom Marius held in great esteem (Cic. Arch. 20). C.'s best efforts, however, are directed towards the reconstruction of the theories underpinning the Auctor's approach to grammar, rhetoric and, in general, to the study of language. Despite admitting that the Auctor shared Marcus Antonius’ sympathy for the Neo-Academy and aversion for dialectics, C. prefers to explain his declared interest for philosophy in the light of the ongoing debate about the Bildungsideal, which opposed philosophers and rhetoricians: according to the Auctor, philosophy, though not part of rhetorical training, is worth the interest and enables one to achieve a ‘perfect life’ (1.1.1; 4.56.69). As for grammar, C. thinks that the Auctor embraced Peripatetic theory, since, unlike the Stoics, he considers proper and common names as two species of the same genus; as for rhetoric, he highlights the importance of Rhodes and Apollonius Molon, who brought to Rome the τέχνη ῥητορική which, translated into Latin, served as a source for Cicero (Inv. rhet.) and the Auctor, whether or not the Auctor depended on Cicero. Furthermore, C. has recognised the Peripatetic origin of the section about figurae and tropi (4.13.19–55.68), whose content, despite some innovations, is presented in the same order as in Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics.
Analysing the rhetorical theories expounded in Rhet. Her., C. attributes a crucial role to the Auctor's polemic against Hermagoras, which contributes to explaining his appreciation for philosophy, the modification of the doctrine of status and the importance attributed to the elaboration of original examples for the treatment of elocutio (Book 4). According to C., this importance has nothing to do with carmina convivalia (contra A. Corbeill in Y. Lee Too [ed.], Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity [2001], pp. 261–87; in J.M. May [ed.], Brill's Companion to Cicero, Oratory and Rhetoric [2002], pp. 23–48), and the objection that the Auctor's examples are taken from Greek sources (Marx [1894], p. 114) is refuted on the ground that he could consider them original because the translation was his own. The chapter on the Auctor's language (9) is of great interest: C. dismisses the claim that his prose is unkempt, proving that the abundance of names in -io is typical of handbook-language, not of unsophisticated Latin, and that the discrepancies from Ciceronian Latin (e.g. accusative in place of dative, creation of new words, the expressions totae rei and matribus familiis, the passive meaning of deponent verbs when coordinated with a passive ‘standard’ verb) are founded on the adoption of analogy as a linguistic theory. However, C. is aware that analogy cannot explain all deviations from standard Latin, for instance the use of genitivus relationis with a final connotation (1.16.26), which was adapted from Greek, and the type praesente multis (4.11.16), which served as an example of uncultivated speech. Anyway, the adoption of analogy fits well into C.'s portrayal of the Auctor, since it was the linguistic theory preferred by the populares.
The history of the reception of Rhet. Her. is also the story of its long-standing attribution to Cicero, founded on the auctoritas of Jerome (in Abd., PL 25,1098). C. discusses in detail the origin of the doubts about Ciceronian authorship, denying that it is possible to infer from Puteolanus’ Epist. ad Jac. Antiquarium (in Fortunatiani Ars Rhetorica) that the attribution to Cornificius had already spread before 1484 (contra F. Cancelli, La Retorica a Gaio Erennio [1992]). The reception of Rhet. Her. from antiquity to the Renaissance is the subject of Chapter 10, which provides an excellent overview of its fortune, with interesting observations about its use as a school text: by the end of the twelfth century not only was it more read than De inventione, but its study had become a prerequisite for training in the Ars dictaminis. The diffusion of Rhet. Her. in universities is at the roots of a rich commentary tradition, which in Italy had its centre in Bologna, where C. is Professor Emeritus: an ideal thread links him and the fourteenth-century commentator Bartolinus de Benincasa de Canulo. However, C.'s most fascinating (and contested) views concern the circulation of Rhet. Her. in antiquity: besides thinking that it was known to Quintilian, he also detects possible traces of its diffusion in Apuleius’ works, which, along with the subscription of the codex Herbipolitanus, demonstrate the circulation of the treatise in North Africa. C., who shows evident affinities with A. Hafner (Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Rhetorik ad Herennium [1989]), dismisses the reconstruction by Marx ([1894], pp. 1–4), who thought that Romanianus, a friend of Augustinus, brought an ancestor of the Herbipolitanus to Italy: in his opinion, copies of Rhet. Her. travelled form North Africa to Spain at the time of the Vandalic invasion; then the manuscript tradition migrated to France, where codices were copied by Spanish émigrés in Lyon, in the scriptorium of the bishop Laudradus, and from there to Germany and Italy. Whereas this is the route of the mutili-family (most notably characterised by the lacuna at 1.1.1–1.6.9), to which the Herbipolitanus belongs, the codices integri followed a different path, as they travelled from Britain to continental Europe and from Germany to Italy, where copies were made in Monte Cassino (cf. the Laurentiani 51.10 and 50.10).
As is clear, C. accepts the common subdivision of the manuscripts in three families, i.e. mutili (M), integri (I), expleti (E). Despite admitting the existence of a lost E-hyparchetype, he dismisses P.R. Taylor's claim (RHT 25 [1995]) that 20 conjunctive errors characterise the E-family: according to C., only the manuscript Bernensis 433 is surely expletus (but, being more ancient than the expleti, it is counted among the mutili), and the difference between the E-manuscripts and the I-manuscripts is often uncertain. Because hyparchetypes are unknown, contaminatio predominant and relations between the manuscripts are hard to establish, C. does not dismiss as descriptus any of the codices taken into account. Despite confessing that he could not peruse all the integri listed by Taylor (RHT 23 [1993]), no other edition is based on such a high number of manuscripts. Furthermore, he provides the description of two codices Bononienses not used by earlier editors, which show affinities with the I-family and (e), hyparchetype of E (Bibl. Uniu. Bonon. 2516 and 2461). A most welcome feature of C.'s edition is the positive apparatus, rich and easy to read, which makes it possible to understand the editor's choices (sometimes explained in longer footnotes) and, potentially, to criticise them. The lectiones of all the manuscripts considered are always transcribed: in fact, besides being an accurate reconstruction of the original text, this edition was conceived as a tool for future research, which could serve as a basis for new textual solutions and reconsideration of the manuscript tradition. The Italian translation is an improved version of the one originally published in 1969: overall, it is accurate and smooth, and most of J. Cousin's critical remarks (Latomus 30 [1971]) do not apply any more. Notwithstanding the good typographic quality of the volume, misprints are a bit too frequent, especially in the Prolegomena.
The second volume contains commentary, bibliography, an appendix (the description of a copy of Rhet. Her.; M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera Rhetorica printed by A. Manuzio in 1514, from the University Library of Bologna) and analytical indexes. Despite the ad verbum correspondences with C.'s earlier editions, the quality of the notes, which guide the reader through Rhet. Her. and contextualise it in the history of ancient rhetoric, surpasses by far all existing commentaries. Besides reconstructing the origin of the theories contained in Rhet. Her., C. carefully analyses similarities and differences with other ancient rhetorical theorisations, so that his commentary can be read as a handbook of ancient rhetoric with a focus on Rhet. Her. All paragraphs are analysed in detail, and the bibliography is complete. The third volume consists in a lexicon omnium verborum which, for each word contained in Rhet. Her., lists all the passages where it is found, reporting full extracts of the Latin text instead of giving only the paragraph number. This lexicon, much more readable than Marx's Index Verborum, is an excellent tool for research on the Auctor's vocabulary; however, C.'s reasons for choosing a paper format, explained in the introduction (vol. 3, pp. 997–1002), are not entirely consistent with his wish for a digital turn in the preparation of philological editions (cf. vol. 1, pp. 129–31).
C.'s commented edition is an exceptional scholarly achievement, and it will be an indispensable point of reference for future study of Rhet. Her. His learned analyses, however, address predominantly a specialist audience, composed of scholars in Classics/History of Rhetoric and fluent readers of Latin (for Prolegomena and critical edition) and/or Italian (for translation and commentary). In fact, not only is some acquaintance with ancient rhetoric a prerequisite for understanding C.'s work, but his dense prose assumes a good deal of linguistic knowledge on the reader's part: for instance, in the Latin Prolegomena it is common to find quotations in a modern language (English, French, German, Italian) enclosing other Latin/modern quotations. The Italian translation, which follows the Latin text, is difficult to read along with the Latin original, which makes the full appreciation of the critical edition complicated for non-fluent readers of Latin: but do critical editions have such an audience? Considering the quality of C.'s work, his readership will be glad to deal with these difficulties.
