This new edition of Book 7, previously commented on only by Jean Cousin (1975–80), provides insights into the manuscript tradition, which, while not calling into question Winterbottom’s authoritative OCT edition (1970), offers details about individual codices that Winterbottom could not include in order to avoid overloading the apparatus. Fabian Fedder lists many variants. Admittedly, Book 7 has only been preserved through the tradition of Ambrosianus E 153 and Bambergensis M 4.14 (=Bg-G), to which Turicensis C74a also belongs, which was either the codex found by Poggio in 1416 or a close relative. Later copies are transcriptions of this or a related complete text witness from the fifteenth century; F. takes only a handful of these into account, justifying this selection on the basis of earlier editors, Winterbottom and Radermacher.
The edition and commentary are preceded by an introduction (1–64), which discusses the doctrine of status in the context of the divisio, against the background of Greek rhetoricians and their reception in Rome, and also asks how Inst. 7 fits into the work as a whole (especially in relation to 3.6). While the dispositio as rhetorices pars determines how the orationis partes should be structured (or even omitted), the divisio is concerned only with argumentatio, in that the ‘useful distribution of subjects and parts in the appropriate places’ (7.1.1) is based on the main question of the procedure. Dispositio and divisio are therefore to be kept separate (8–24). After clarifying the concepts of dispositio, ordo and divisio, Inst. 7 deals with divisio, which is carried out with the help of status by asking those questions that offer the best opportunities for attack and defence. The prosecutor must carefully consider how the defendant will respond to the accusation and what status will then result from this initial exchange of blows. Quintilian emphasises that status arises first and foremost from the initial confrontation between plaintiff and defence, and is not the confrontation itself (3.6.5; see 39–41). The background to this modification of Cicero (Inv. rhet. 1.10) is Quintilian’s insight that the determination of status serves to find the ‘status category’, which in turn guides the topic of the argument. This is the central task of divisio (48–9). The introduction concludes with a brief survey of Quintilian’s possible sources and a presentation of the manuscript tradition with an (admittedly too brief and incomplete) description of the editorial principles.
The edition lists the primary manuscripts and a selection of later ones. F. obviously lists all variants, even those that do not make sense; he does not assign a separate siglum to the consensus codicum of six manuscripts. He re-inserts chapter headings, which Winterbottom had omitted with good reason (cf. Classen MH 22 (1965), 182), in square brackets. On 68.3, the apparatus has ‘•l• nego t (ad. s.s.)’; does the manus correctrix of T offer nego, but delete infitias? What do ‘•l•’ and ‘(ad. s.s.)’ mean? — ‘*’ apparently denotes an illegible letter, so ‘***’ then denotes three? In the apparatus, lemmata are set recte and explanatory notes in italics; but the abbreviations and philologists are also given recte, which repeatedly leads to ambiguities, e.g. 81, ad 8 ‘Pyrrhus a P’. The famous marginal commentary by Raphael Regius is not resolved as an abbreviation, but only mentioned in 2, note 16. 68.11 ‘ctesifontis G/g (c- s.l.)’: if g corrects G, how can G be recorded for the minuscule written supra linea? Regarding the heading DE CONIECTURA (7.2) we find in the apparatus: ‘om. A G (C. 2 g in marg.) FT’, which I understand to mean: ‘G omits the title, but the correctrix notes in a margin (what I resolve as) “C.[apitulum] 2”’. Similarly, ad 108,9; 110,15; 112,15; 114,10 and the following chapters. Ad 80,6: Halm, with reference to Cassiodorus, has conjectured after quae non continentur ‘personis et quae continentur’, so this information should be placed in angle brackets (see Winterbottom); et quae non continentur (AGHFT) is the first part of the bicolon but is confusingly placed after the second in the apparatus; P has both colons, but without personis they remain meaningless. In the commentary, F. explains that the tradition (except P) must be incomplete because of et pendens; but I miss et pendens in the text! The whole argumentation for Halm’s conjecture is superfluous. It would have been more important to explain what the distinction between de re and de animo means in terms of rhetorical theory.
The commentary is clearly divided into individual chapters and begins with an overview, followed by a structure and then a commentary on specific passages. Numerous clear diagrams greatly facilitate overview and understanding, and F. provides a wealth of important information. Given a commentary ratio of over 11:1 (commentary:text), lemmata are often repeated in parts, for reasons that are not always clear. The commentary emphasises parallels within the Inst. or the declamations, while other aspects of rhetorical theory are hardly mentioned. In the case of coniectura, for example, one misses, instead of the far-fetched references and a too-general reference to Arist., Rh. 1.2, publications such as ‘Indiz’ by Kraus & Spengler in HWRh 4 (1998), 333–51. Rapp’s commentary on Arist., Rh. (2002) also discusses probability conclusions in depth. F. often consults older literature rather than more recent works, as for e.g. Demosthenes (145–6), where a short reference to Der Neue Pauly would have sufficed.
F. has produced a remarkable edition with commentary that reopens the difficult topic of Book 7. Whether it was necessary to diligently collect all manuscript variants from this selection of manuscripts, which contribute little or nothing to the stemma, is an open question. In any case, one is often amazed at the nonsense to be found there — and all the more pleased with the reliable and concise OCT. There is no question that this book belongs in every specialist library.
