Natalie Imbruglia - Torn - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read Natalie Imbruglia - Torn sheet music [GDR - ITA] Kata Kumbas Manuale Base. Natalie Imbruglia - Torn. Uploaded by. dago79 · Clubbed to Death - By Rob Dougan. Uploaded by. wam_wambo · Waltz in CSharp Minor Op 64 No 2. See details and download book: Ebook Ita Free Download War Torn Tales Literature Film And Gender In The Aftermath Of World War Ii Pdb.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
The program, which operates in connection with the Ita Nia Rai (Our Land) land claim Reports/LLP_Mediation%20Report/chartrolywfunccard.cf Online Ockwell Diz Italiana pdf, Free Ockwell Diz Italiana Ebook Download, Free a higher call an incredible true story of combat and chivalry in the war torn . of African Studies, Northwestern University, now chartrolywfunccard.cf africanstudies/ working%20 papers/wp chartrolywfunccard.cf (accessed January ).
Besides the normal process of deterioration with use, banknotes can be damaged or mutilated for various reasons e. A banknote is said to be damaged when it is dirty, stained or discoloured as a result of accidental events. A banknote is said to be mutilated when part of it is missing. As a general rule, a mutilated banknote can be exchanged if the part presented for replacement is more than 50 per cent of the original note or, otherwise, if it can be proved that the missing part was destroyed accidentally.
Mutilated banknotes should be placed between transparent or plasticized sheets, preserving even the smallest fragments so as to avoid any further damage. What to do if you have damaged or mutilated notes Persons who have damaged or mutilated notes can ask to have them exchanged by new notes at any branch of the Bank of Italy.
The notes will be examined and, if they meet the exchange requirements, exchanged immediately for new ones. Damaged and mutilated notes that cannot be exchanged immediately at a branch, because there are doubts about their being exchangeable, are sent to the Bank's Head Office, where they are examined by a special committee that decides whether they are exchangeable.
Notes that the committee judges to be exchangeable are kept at the Bank's Head Office for destruction and the persons who submitted them reimbursed their value at the branch that sent them for examination. Notes that the committee judges not to be exchangeable are returned to the persons who submitted them, in the case of mutilated notes to allow them to make a new request for exchange if the missing parts are found. If the state the notes are in or the place they come from suggest they could be infectious, the person submitting them may be asked to produce a certificate indicating that they have been sterilized or disinfected.
Reimbursement of damaged or mutilated notes Generally, notes are reimbursed free of charge. A fee is charged only if the applicants have requested the exchange of euro banknotes accidentally damaged by anti-theft devices.
Banknotes that have been damaged or mutilated intentionally Generally, intentionally damaged or mutilated banknotes are not replaced but withheld with no reimbursement. Banknotes that have been damaged as a result of a criminal act Banknotes damaged or mutilated following a criminal act are sent to the Provincial Headquarters of the Guardia di Finanza.
If the competent authority returns the banknotes because there is no criminal element to the damage, the banknotes are treated as ordinarily damaged or mutilated banknotes and therefore reimbursed or returned to the applicant following the procedure described above. Ink stained banknotes If you receive a banknote like these ones, do not accept them as they are probably stolen banknotes. These banknotes have been stained with a security ink by anti-theft devices, also known as Intelligent Banknote Neutralisation Systems IBNS , when criminals opened a protected cash container, either used in an ATM or for transportation.
These systems make stolen banknotes unusable thus reducing the risk for retailers, banks and other professional cash handlers to becoming the victims of crime. How do IBNS work? When a banknote is stained by the intelligent banknote neutralisation system IBNS , the security ink soaks into the banknote and leaves traces which are normally more pronounced on the edges of the banknote, as the ink usually flows from the edges towards the centre of the banknotes.
The colours of the most commonly used security inks are violet, green, blue, red or black. Sometimes, criminals try to wash the banknotes in order to remove the ink and the chemicals used in this process may change the colour of the security ink. As a result, the banknotes' original colours could also be altered, and some security features may be damaged, or may even disappear. Glue is another means used in anti-theft devices for the protection of cash. Glue fuses all banknotes inside an ATM cassette together into a solid brick.
If anyone tries to peel off single banknotes, they will tear into pieces. Banknotes that have probably been stolen and which should not be accepted: Does that mean all ink-stained banknotes are stolen?
If there are one or two small marks on the banknote and the edges are intact, then the marks are most likely accidental. Also very light stains are usually not from an anti-theft device. These banknotes are not likely to be stolen and can be accepted. Refuse to accept it and simply ask for another one. The obvious ink-staining of the banknote leads you to believe that the person offering you the banknote is not the rightful owner.
Also refuse bleached or discoloured banknotes, as criminals have most likely tried to remove the IBNS ink-stains by washing or bleaching. If you have accepted an IBNS-ink stained banknote, you should take it to your local bank or the national central bank, and give them information about the origin of the banknote.
Your bank will submit the note to Bank of Italy, who in turn may involve the police, because the banknote could be useful for further criminal investigations. There is no preface, but a short epilogue in which homage is paid to Gelon for his learned interests. The first way was of course always open, but it was seldom chosen by Archimedes. The second is the normal one for him, and he constantly uses it to address a work to a distant colleague.
The third way he evidently considered more appropriate when addressing the tyrant of his home-town. If this was because he regarded it as absurd to send letters within the town,25 or whether there was some other reason, is hard to say. There are two important novelties in the prefaces of Archimedes. As to form, they are the first instances of a hitherto unknown type, the epistolary preface.
As to content, we hear for the first time of a request from the dedicatee to the author. Both phenomena become exceedingly common in later prefaces. The further development of prefaces in Hellenistic scientific literature can be briefly sketched.
Even so, it seems fitting to use the term "rhetorical" for this type of writing. Sykutris, RE Suppl. The prefaces of Books 1 and 2 are addressed to Eudemus, one of Apollonius' friends at Pergamon. Originally, however, they had been composed at the wish of a certain Naucrates, to whom the first edition was dedicated. The third book has no preface, but the fourth has one addressed to king Attalus. In this the author reports that Eudemus is dead and that he has decided to dedicate the rest of the books to the king, who is evidently eager to know the results of the author's research.
After a survey of the content and a discussion of the earlier writings on the subject, the preface ends with some talk about the justification and usefulness of the treatise. The subsequent books have no introductions. Hypsicles, the author of the so-called fourteenth book of Euclid, and who flourished during the second century B.
The author tells a colleague, Protarchus, about the man who first excited his interest in the subject. Then he explains the dedication by referring to Protarchus' great knowledge and his benevolence.
The remarkable thing about this short preface is that it is not—like those of a similar content treated hitherto—an epistolary preface but a rhetorical one. That is to say, it does not begin with an epistolary formula, but invokes Protarchus in the first sentence. The astronomer Hipparchus from Nicea c. The mechanician Biton second or third century B. Though the bulk of Hellenistic scientific literature is lost, we have been able to demonstrate in the remainder a type of preface peculiar to this literature.
The prefaces of this kind are characterized in the first place by being addressed to a certain person, to whom the work is thereby dedicated. The prefaces are written in a personal tone, and it is customary for the author to speak among other things of his reasons for treating the subject. There is often some praise of the man receiving the work. In several cases we learn that this man or someone else has requested the work of the author. These prefaces may be formed either as letters or as the beginnings of speeches.
The latter is without interest here. As to rhetorical theory, this influenced prose prefaces along with everything else in ancient literature. Roman higher education was rhetorical education, and it is safe to suppose that Latin authors from classical times and up to at least the fifth century were, as a rule, quite thoroughly trained in the art of speaking.
As is known, the main outlines of rhetorical doctrine were formed as early as in the fifth and fourth centuries B. It was developed and completed in the Hellenistic period and was taken over with small modifications by Latin authors. The great independent works on the art of the speaker, Cicero's De Oratore and Quintiliano Institutio Oratoria, are also firmly founded on the same common doctrinal base.
In rhetorical doctrine the preface, exordium or principium, was treated together with the other sections of the speech under the heading inuentioy the finding of appropriate themes. The exposition concentrated on the theory of judicial speeches. The other kinds of speech, the political and epideictic, were not usually considered to require any detailed treatment.
The content of the section on exordium was briefly as follows. The purpose of a prooemium was to make the listener beneuolum, docilem, attentum. Here the possibilities are classified under four conceivable starting points: In order to arouse sympathy for himself, the speaker might discreetly commend himself, or he might point out how he has undergone undeserved calamities, etc. The ways of attracting attention were to promise to speak about something new or important, to announce brevity, or to declare that what follows is especially relevant to the audience.
The same means were used to make the listener docile. To this end it also helped, however, to enumerate the points to be dealt with in the next part of the speech, the narratio. The idea was to gain attention and goodwill through some surprising turn and then gradually pass over to the real subject of the speech. This is quite natural, since they are meant to be applied in very various situations. However, the more universal the direction, the less precise it will be for the particular case.
Most of the themes mentioned may be varied almost infinitely. Consequently it is frequently difficult or even impossible for a reader to decide if a writer has obeyed such a general direction or not. On the other hand, in such cases it does not matter very much if he has. Let me give an example. As will be noted later on, many Latin authors use expressions of the 2 The subject has been fully treated in Volkmann, pp.
Est enim naturalis fauor pro laborantibus. Leeman, in Orationis Ratio, pp. I regret that I have not been able to take Lee-man's work into account except in some notes, as it appeared when this book was almost ready for the press.
His book seems to be the most important on Latin prose for many years. Do they do this because they have learnt that the speaker may make the listener beneno- lum through pointing out his own weakness? Such a question is quite misleading.
Of course the rhetorical precept may have had an influence, but it is altogether insufficient to explain such a specific example as this simply or mainly by reference to a direction of universal application. Consequently, it has proved fruitless to refer to the rules of rhetoric to any great extent when trying to explain phenomena of prose prefaces, not in spite of but precisely because of the universality of these rules. Certainly I do refer to the rules now and then, but more to hint starting points and parallels than to state causal connexions.
Another question is that of the remaining Latin speeches. From classical times there are only the fifty or so by Cicero.
These have not been treated in the present inquiry, for several reasons. For one thing, they contain but few parallels to the phenomena in the prefaces treated. Further, a study of them would amount to a monograph on part of the rhetorical technique of Cicero, hardly feasible without substantial basic research into the style and composition of the speeches.
Even if it were done, such a study on the works of one speaker would say little about common practice in prefaces to speeches. The other extant speeches of interest are twelve panegyric orations dating from Pliny the Younger and up to the end of the fourth century; most of them around the year The evident parallels between their prefaces and those of the prose writings from the same period make it natural to treat them in the last part of this book.
N o doubt the rhetorical influence over late Latin prefaces came to a great extent from panegyric, the last dying branch of ancient oratory. The author is not known. I t seems that it was not read at all before the fourth century A. From Carolingian times and up to the Renaissance it enjoyed great authority and was widely studied.
From our point of view the work deserves close attention. Since it lay unread so long it cannot have exercised much direct influence until late; but in this work we have the only pre-Ciceronian2 instance of the type of preface that received its classic form in Orator and came to be used later on in almost every kind of writing.
The preface of the first book is the essential one to this inquiry and will be thoroughly analysed. The first sentence runs as follows: The author begins by declaring his personal reason for writing. The theme, however, is given more weight here than in the Greek authors cited. Indeed, it serves several important purposes. First, it provides a natural motive for the dedication, which is addressed to a person who has played a decisive part in the genesis of the work.
Secondly, the dedicatee is given the great compliment of having the work written entirely for his sake. Third, and most important, the author is able to motivate his having written the work by a reference to his friend's request. This third point should be seen against the background of the author's general situation. Under such circumstances the authors had no need to give any reason for writing.
They might wish to explain, for instance, why they wrote history as Diodorus or why they did not write epic as Callimachus in Epistula ad Telchinos , but that they wrote was too natural to need any comment. At the time of our author, conditions in Rome were quite different from this. To understand why, we must take a short look at the historical development. In Rome, literary activity had been pursued from the beginning by men of low social standing or by foreigners; before the time of Cato it seems that no work of any importance was published in Latin by a noble Roman.
I t might behove a Roman to admire literature, but hardly to devote himself to creating it. The first true writer of senatorial rank was a homo nouns, Marcus Cato, a sworn enemy of the Scipios and also of the aristocratic philhellenism represented by them.
Cato did not hesitate to publish his writings, but he was totally foreign to the Greek conception of art for art's sake. His purposes were primarily the spread of knowledge and opinions in the didactic treatises and in the speeches and secondly the promotion of the Latin language and Roman values in opposition to Greece above all through the writing of history in Latin.
I t thus became acceptable for senators to write and publish, but only about such things as could be said to further, directly or indirectly, the interests of the community. Now, the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium was no doubt eligible for a career as a politician or an advocate, since for one thing he had studied rhetoric for practical use.
Further he regards Herennius, who came from a well-known plebeian family, as a fellow-student, not a pupil, and evidently he neither is nor has the least thought of becoming a teacher of rhetoric.
And opinions might be divided on whether his subject was useful in this sense. Consequently, he needed an excuse for having written the work, acceptable even to severe old senators. This he found in the request from a friend.
What an excellent motive this was at the time will be discussed later on. For, he says, his first concern is his negotia familiaria, as befits a noble Roman. Secondly, he wants to devote what leisure time he has to philosophy. I t is easy to see how this turn serves the interests of the author. This impression is strengthened when the author says that 6 Cf. Clarke p. Caplan pp. I t is as if he wanted to mark a distance between himself and the treatise, in order to divest himself of some of the responsibility for it.
So the first sentence of the preface contains a short presentation of the author, and hints at his relation to the dedicatee and to the work: As he is a kind and industrious man he has complied with this request. But the implication is that he naturally regards the writer's task as an incidental, spare-time occupation by way of doing a service for a friend. The author then proceeds to comment on his subject: I t is only natural that an author should esteem his subject highly.
There is enthusiastic praise of the matter to be found in prefaces from all times and in every kind of writing. The extraordinary thing here is that the author expresses himself so extremely carefully. This is immediately modified by the remark that a condition is that the art be used with sense and moderation.
To understand this attitude, it is necessary to consider the position of rhetoric at Rome in the Eighties B. Theoretical education in rhetoric, however, was given only by Greeks and was regarded with the utmost suspicion.
In the year the rhetoricians, together with the philosophers, were expelled from Rome Suetonius, Rhet. After that, they had a monopoly on rhetorical education for a long time, in spite of Cato's trying to create with his book on the subject an independent Latin tradition. These Greeks were mostly teaching members of the higher aristocracy, which was on the whole the most philhellenic stratum of Roman society.
In 93 B. H e soon met with resistance, for already a year later, the censor 10 The following exposition is based mainly on Clarke, Kroll, Marrou, Gwynn. In any case the wording of the decree makes it quite clear that instruction in the art of oratory, in Latin at least, was still regarded by many people with great suspicion. Consequently it was necessary for an author on the subject to be careful not to challenge public opinion by thoughtlessly glorifying rhetoric. Circumspect and cautious phrases were required.
In the next sentence the author speaks about his Greek predecessors. His judgement on them is well-known: Nam illi, ne parum multa scisse uiderentur, ea conquisierunt quae nihil adtinebant, ut ars difficilior cognitu putaretur.
Here the author has chosen the simplest way of relating his own work to that of his predecessors and asserting its intrinsic value. H e simply declares that earlier writers were incompetent.
Yet his own work is clearly little more than a translation of the Greek doctrine on oratory. Perhaps not very attractive, but one understands why he does not acknowledge his debt or even show any appreciation of his masters.
For one thing, he wishes to avoid displaying his dependence on the Greeks in this way. For another, he evidently stands for a rhetorical school that maintained the value of practical instruction in Latin by Romans, and is therefore opposed to both the Greek teachers and their manuals, with their complicated theoretical constructions. The preface continues: Nos autem ea quae uidebantur ad rationem dicendi pertinere sumpsimus.
N o n enim spe quaestus aut gloria commoti uenimus ad scribendum quemad- modum ceteri, sed ut industria nostra tuae morem geramus uoluntati. Though attractive, this hypothesis cannot be proved.
The theme from the first sentence recurs. The author has no secret self-interest in writing. Money and author's glory are of no concern to him. His only aim is to instruct his friend, Herennius, in the best way possible. This general type is not unusual in Greek literature, though the actual content has only limited parallels in extant Greek prefaces.
To what extent this preface may depend on now lost predecessors will be discussed after an analysis of the similar prefaces by Cicero. That the details of this preface were shaped by the author himself seems evident from the fact that the whole is so well fitted to the situation in which he must have been.
The prefaces to the other books of Rhetorica ad Herennium can be passed over briefly. In Books 2 and 3 they deal with problems of arrangement. The author has evidently written the books in the order they stand and has concluded the composition of each one by writing its preface. The starting point for 14 Cf.
The terminus ante quern is provided by Cicero's wellknown words on the treatise in De Oratore, 1. So it seems probable that he composed it before, say, 85 B. The problem of the doctrinal similarities of the works is extremely complicated. Latest treatment of the issue by Matthes, pp. Cicero, however, does not speak about himself but writes on precisely the uses and dangers of rhetoric. His position turns out to be much the same as that of the author of Ad Herennium.
Notwithstanding the title, Ruch deals with all the dialogues of Cicero except Partitiones Oratoriae, i. Nevertheless I should like to treat these prefaces again, as Ruch has starting points quite different from mine. Besides, I hold a different opinion on one particular point. In works provided with prefaces to several of the books, the preface to Book One is nearly always the most important.
I t normally contains both the dedication and a presentation of the entire work. Even when the following prefaces are of about the same size and type as the first one, as they are in De Oratore, there are seldom any completely new themes in the later ones.
I t is only natural that authors should prefer to touch on the essential facts concerning their approach already at the very beginning of the work. If they return to problems of the same kind later on, it is often just to expand and vary the themes already dealt with. Here, then, is a summary of the first preface in De Oratore: To me, my brother Quintus, it has always seemed that those men were exceptionally happy who after a successful career in public life have 17 On the preface to the second book see Barwick, who is of the opinion that Cicero has modelled it upon Hermagoras.
It pictures the author's importance in a way that would no doubt fit Hermagoras better than it fits Cicero, the author of De Inuentione. Unfortunately, I have not been able to study Giuffrida's bulky essay on the proems of both books of the work.
Cicero himself never classifies his works in this way. To me, however, no peace has been granted; on the contrary, the time which ought to have carried with it peace has thrown me into the most severe storms. And in spite of our ardent wish we have not had any time for cultivating the arts that we have loved from childhood.
For from early youth we have been dragged by the whirl of events. And I shall fulfil your wish, brother; for you want me to write a work on the art of speaking more worthy of my position than that immature one from my youth, and to discuss afresh our permanent point of dispute, that of the worth of general culture for an orator.
After this Cicero goes on to ponder the question why there are so few good speakers compared with the number of successful practitioners of the other arts. In the discussion on this topic, several pages long, Cicero puts forward his view of the art of speaking as being the most difficult and the most exacting one of all.
But he proceeds: Still I put, perhaps, too great a burden upon those wanting to be trained as orators, through this demand. And I shall not deal with the usual stuff of the manuals, but relate a conversation on the subject between the most eloquent men of Rome, a conversation which I heard about when I was young. I do this not because I despise the achievements of the Greeks in this sphere but because I am able to put forward a new point of view in this way.
And so the preface is concluded. Evidently this is a preface of the same type as that to Rhetorica ad Herennium. The characteristics are that a dedicatee is directly addressed and that there is talk about the author's relations to dedicatee, subject, work, and predecessors.
Notwithstanding the enormous difference in size as well as in stylistic quality there are remarkable resemblances of 19 Concerning this part of the preface see Dahlmann, Studien, pp.
This scholar writes a very interesting discussion pp. Dahl- mann's main attempt, however, is a reconstruction of Varro's De Poetis. H e has earlier proposed similar views when discussing Varro's De Poematis. I t is necessary to point out in detail the line of thought in De Oratore in order to show what resembles and what is different from Rhetorica ad Herennium.
This serves as an introduction to the first main section of the preface 1. First Cicero hints at which class of society he belongs to. H e then sketches his already long and varied career as a statesman, and he complains that because of more important business he has never had sufficient time for literary occupations. Then he states the subject on which his brother has asked him to write. As will be seen, the sequence of thought in this preface is so far exactly the same as in the first phrases of the Ad Herennium.
Then in both it is stated that the dedicatee has requested the work, and stress is placed on the links of friendship and loyalty between author and dedicatee. Cicero then proceeds, like his predecessor, to his subject. In this second section 2. In giving his explanation he puts forward his opinions about the worth of general culture, on which he differs from his brother.
This is the first major difference from Rhetorica ad Herennium. Cicero, who in his early work had adopted much the same attitude of reserve towards oratory as the author of Ad Herennium, in De Oratore takes for granted the justification of rhetoric. H e compares it without apology with acknowledged arts such as strategy. And he goes further still. The art of speaking is exalted as the most useful, the most desirable and the most difficult of all. I t is evident that the intellectual climate of Rome had undergone a considerable change in the three decades between De Inuentione and De Oratore.
In the Fifties B. Apart from this general change of climate there is another palpable reason for Cicero's opinion, viz. De Inuen- tione was written, as was Ad Herennium, by a quite young man without much practical experience, either in oratory or in politics.
The position maintained was that of the interested student who tries to justify his studies to a practical public. H e ran no risk of not being taken seriously when speaking about the art of which he was the acknowledged master. H e had no need to waste words justifying oratory: On the one hand this means that the Greek tradition is acknowledged more explicitly than in the earlier work.
On the other, Cicero, precisely by detaching Graeci as a group, puts himself to a certain extent outside their tradition. But he does not mention that all the cited predecessors are Greek, a fact he evidently regarded as either irrelevant or self- evident. His attitude is that of an international scholar, and as a matter of course he assigns himself a place in the ranks of his Greek predeces- 20 Compare Cicero's own words 1.
This first limitation of the contents of the works is followed by a statement of its formal arrangement: Here Cicero clearly dissociates himself from writing about rhetoric as a theory out of touch with reality. Using his authority as a public figure Cicero could justly claim to be able to produce something more important than a schematic manual. Thereby he is once again, and this time more explicitly, contrasting himself with the Greeks: Cicero acknowledges anew the Graeci and the doctrine they created, but at the same time he neatly assembles everything Greek and puts it aside as being not so essential as the practical experience of the best Roman speakers and statesmen.
I t is interesting to note the difference of outlook here and in the corresponding passage of Rhetorica ad Heren- nium. Cicero stresses, as does the earlier author, his independence of Greek predecessors, but while the latter was in fact quite dependent on them, in spite of his arrogant words, Cicero is as independent as he claims.
So sure is he of his own authority that he can afford to admit unreservedly the merits of the Greeks and at the same time propose his own program. It is worth noting here what Cicero had as his program. They had to be confronted with and adapted to Roman mores and Roman experience. Cicero now regarded it as his task, in rhetoric, to demonstrate how Roman practice gives substance to the skeleton of Greek theory.
So while he too maintains the value of Roman practice, as did the author of Ad Herennium, in reality Cicero has much higher aspirations and is also able to realize them throughout in his work. So not only does the preface of the first book of De Oratore have a content similar to that of the first preface of Rhetorica ad Herennium but even the same basic arrangement. In both, we have the following sequence of thought.
First, the author has too little time for writing. Then there is the request from the dedicatee. And finally he speaks about his predecessors and stresses the qualities of his own exposition. The resemblances between the two prefaces are so great as to exclude the possibility of accidental parallels.
On the other hand it is easy to realize that Cicero has not imitated Rhetorica ad Herennium. Not only is this rather obvious from what we know about these works and their authors, but the resemblances are not of such a kind as to suggest a direct influence. What the two prefaces have in common is not any specific opinions or points of view but simply a scheme, or a skeleton, for the preface.
Nearly all of the first chapter is devoted to this problem, the conclusion being that both Crassus and Antonius enjoyed a high level of education. In this context, Cicero again expounds his idea that a real orator has to be abreast of the culture of his time. H e further explains that he intends his work also as a memorial to these two famous men, who published hardly anything themselves. At the end of the preface he addresses his brother and compliments him on his ability as a speaker.
At the same time he declares that his work is not just a few meagre rhetorical precepts but reflects the full experience of Crassus and Antonius. The preface then concludes with a phrase to the effect that it is time to pass on to the subject, i.
Cicero's main aim in this preface is thus to present his own views on the persons figuring as main characters in the dialogue. As his opinion of them obviously differed considerably from that of his contemporaries, it is not surprising that he should want to justify his views.
That he has done this in the preface to the second book rather than the first may be explained partly by the fact that the first preface was rather long anyway, and partly by this problem not arising for the reader before he has started the dialogue. After an elaborate picture of the last days of Crassus, Cicero deplores his death, but immediately corrects himself by saying that Crassus ought to be considered fortunate for having been spared the disasters that occurred after his death.
H e then proceeds to describe these calamities, and especially the afflictions that had fallen upon the other interlocutors. The main theme of this preface, the death of Crassus, serves a double purpose. First, it forms part of the author's presentation of the main character; secondly it provides a convenient background to Cicero's reflections on his own situation.
As has been pointed out by Ruch pp. I t is not only the fate of Crassus, however, that serves this comparison, but also the misfortunes of the other persons: Finally, a few words about Ruch's investigation. In them the author inspects his work from different angles, treats the same themes e. But in my opinion Ruch has gone a little too far in trying to show that the three prefaces constitute a closed unit of composition.
It seems im- 22 P. I feel this is unlike Cicero. The three prefaces are for me variations on similar themes, but not forced into a rigid pattern. The grounds for this view is, if I have interpreted him correctly, that in the second preface the theoretical, dramatical, and personal aspects of the work converge in the discussion of the educational status of Crassus and Antonius. It seems probable, indeed, that he thinks so simply because the second preface is in the natural position to constitute " a centre of gravity".
As I see it, Cicero in the first preface deals with all the essential themes and presents his views in a most thorough and well-considered way.
Further, the later prefaces discuss matters that have already been mentioned briefly in the first introduction. So the first preface is augmented by the other two: Orator We have now to deal with another important preface by Cicero, that to Orator.
It begins thus: Nam et negare ei quem unice diligerem cuique me carissimum esse sentirem, praesertim et iusta petenti et praeclara cupienti, durum admodum mihi uidebatur, et suscipere tantam rem, quantam non modo facultate consequi difficile esset sed etiam cogitatione complecti, uix arbitrabar esse eius qui uereretur reprehensionem doctorum atque prudentium.
There is also a request from the dedicatee, here of even greater importance than in the prefaces to Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Oratore. Cicero pretends that he has been put in a dilemma by being asked for this. Here the theme of a request is for the first time exploited in the way that later became so enormously popular. With this theme, the author can emphasize as much as he wants both the difficulty of the task and his dependence on the dedicatee. I t is worth while considering Cicero's reasons for giving this form to the preface of Orator.
Naturally Cicero wishes everyone to regard his subject as important. Every author does. In his case, however, there were special reasons for dwelling unusually much on the weightiness of the things he will treat. His book is a treatise on the accomplished speaker, and in it Cicero pronounces on the central problems of oratory, a sphere in which his word of course carries great weight.
As has been said before, he was the uncontested master of speaking in Rome, with the most brilliant oratorical career behind him.
In the year 46, when Orator was written, he was especially interested in safeguarding his position as a speaker. His political career seemed to have come to an end, and quite an inglorious end at that. In his compulsory leisure he must have felt it was by no means certain that he would be regarded by posterity as a great statesman. Consequently, he was all the more anxious to appear really great in the sphere of oratory at least. Hence his insistance on the importance of his task: But Cicero is also considering the direct relation between himself and his work.
The greater the task is made to seem, the more natural it is that Cicero should hesitate before undertaking it: Quod quoniam me saepius rogas, aggrediar non tam perficiendi spe quam experiendi uoluntate.
The author is here being modest about his own capacity, yet it is hardly likely that Cicero entertained such a fear of his subject as he pretends. What, then, do these statements of Cicero really amount to? First he emphasizes as strongly as possible the importance and the difficulty of his subject.
Then he expresses a modest doubt as to whether he is capable of complying with the request. This doubt must not be interpreted to mean that the author is not sure of his own importance as a writer. Cicero never questions his greatness in that respect, least of all in Orator. The real import of these sentences, therefore, is approximately this: The great Cicero has set about an unusually difficult task: According to the rules of rhetoric, the reader's attention may be excited by laying stress on the importance of the subject.
So Cicero's pretended diffidence aims in reality at pointing out to the reader how well the author has succeeded. The two themes of the preface hitherto dealt with, elevation of the subject and doubts about the author's ability to treat it, are intimately connected with each other.
But for logical reasons they cannot form a closed unit. For if the subject is so difficult that the author does not believe that he will accomplish it, why should he grapple with it?
Even if the modesty is affected and not real, it will seem ridiculous unless the author adds something to make his action seem reasonable. Consequently these two themes have to be modified by a statement to the effect that the author is compelled to write the work.
This compulsion, for Cicero as for his innumerable successors, is embodied in the request from the dedicatee. The preface ends as follows: This solves the dilemma we talked about in connexion with the first words of the preface.
The author declares himself willing to be guided by the wish of his friend and not by his own doubts as to the possibility of performing the task. So Cicero, like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, makes his friendship a reason for writing. To appreciate this theme one has to consider the importance of friendship in Roman society by this time.
Over the past fifty years there has been a great deal of research into the unique social and political structure of late republican Rome.
Later research into friendship is surveyed in a recent book by Lossman, where the friendship between Cicero and Caesar is studied in the light of research into friendship in general. Another survey, from a different point of view, is made by Neuhauser especially pp. Wistrand Chapter 2 has made a most interesting exposition of the subject, unfortunately available in Swedish only.
Here I can only give a short account of the Roman concept of friendship according to modern research. These connexions were of paramount importance in the life of society.
Among other things, their number and their strength decided the success of every politician; for every Roman citizen was bound to one or more of the important men of the state. In the elections he voted for the men he was bound to, and also supported them in other ways as required. So the politician who had tied to him the greatest number of citizens had the greatest chance of being elected to the offices he wanted.
The groups of interconnected persons tended to be very large, and their heads were the very great men, like Pompeius, Crassus and Caesar. Of course the great politicians might also become connected to each other by ties of the same sort, whereupon their large bands of supporters co-operated.
Such an agreement, on the highest level, was the first triumvirate. In the first case the parties may be called cliens and patronus, respectively, or they case. In both cases the fundamental mechanism is the same. The prerequisite for the origination and function of this system is that there was in society a deeply rooted conception of every man's duty to repay the services he had received, or in other words to show his gratitude through action. In this way he can count on every Roman accepting that he writes in spite of his scruples, as he is fulfilling the duty of repaying a friend—an obligation for every citizen.
I t must be pointed out that this conception of friendship differs considerably from the usual notion of friendship as an emotional tie.
So Cicero appeals to one of the fundamental moral concepts of the Romans, the duty of showing gratia to and doing officia for an amicus. At the same time, however, his relationship to Brutus, his dedicatee, was in fact a friendship also in the more emotional sense. Cicero was very capable of making real friends, and his friendship with Brutus was no doubt the most profound one of his later years. So there was in this case not only the general reasons for talking about a friend's demand, but also really sincere friendship between author and dedicatee.
Finally the subject matter of the book is such that it was natural that Brutus should be interested in getting Cicero to treat it. For the friends had quite different opinions about what constituted the accomplished speaker. Unlike Cicero, Brutus stood for a severe atticism, and there was a great dispute on this matter between, primarily, Brutus and Calvus on one side and Cicero on the other. Orator was a contribution to this discussion. In spite of these controversies it is mainly the friend Brutus who is addressed in the book, whereas the opponent Brutus is attacked 26 Beneuolentia was the word used by Cicero to denote the affection for an amicus.
Lossman p. The preface to Orator enables the author to stress how great and difficult his subject is, how he has hesitated to tackle it, and how amicably disposed and ready to render service he is.
Cicero, as we have seen, had special reasons for emphasizing all this. On the other hand, practically every author presenting himself in a personal preface wishes to lay stress upon the same things. Consequently it is not astonishing that the line of thought in this preface has been repeated, with small changes, in so many later works.
In Orator, Cicero has on the whole used the same skeleton of content as in De Oratore, though with changes to suit his aims and his situation. On the one hand there is nothing about predecessors, and the value of his own work is not emphasized in the same way as before. On the other, he clearly expresses his unwillingness to treat the subject, and in this connexion mentions the dilemma in which he is put through the request.
These modifications result in the preface of Orator being more logically coherent than the introductions of the earlier works. Even if this preface is adapted to the actual situation of the author, it also seems to me to have more of a fixed scheme in it than have its predecessors. We can say that they belong to the same group, or are of the same type. We shall meet a similar content in, for instance, epistolary prefaces.
The function and content of this type 28 Cf. A " t y p e " for Wimmel is a chain of thought or line of argument that reoccurs in the same order and with the same internal relationships several times in the literature and in different authors. Its further development will be illustrated in part of the following study. I t remains to say something of its origins. In that this work was, so far as we can see, unknown to Cicero it cannot have exercised any direct influence.
But it would seem impossible to indicate any widely known but now lost work, written between Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Oratore, which could have acted as a link in this way.
The preface to the Ad Herennium can thus hardly have been the earliest or the type preface for this particular group. We are thus obliged to assume the existence of one or more prefaces older than the Ad Herennium and of the same type as those we have discussed. This gives rise to a couple of questions on which we can do little more than speculate. In the first place, should we assume Greek or Latin models, or both?
In reply to the first question, there seems to be no sufficient reason for excluding either Greek or Roman models. On the one hand, the Roman rhetorical writers before the Ad Herennium were hardly of such importance that we can expect great influence from them see below.
On the other, we have. What is relatively certain is that they were writers on rhetoric. There is no reason to suppose that three of the earliest Latin works on this subject should all have borrowed the same theme for their prefaces from a work in a different genre. We can 29 Cf. Of Latin writers on rhetoric we know only two by name who published their works before the Ad Herennium, namely the censor Cato and the great orator of the Nineties, Antonius. That Cato should have written anything of the same nature as the prefaces in question seems improbable from every point of view.
Antonius, on the other hand, could well have published a preface of the type we are concerned with, particularly as there is some reason to suppose that he used the theme of "own unwillingness"30 that is such an important aspect of the type we have studied.
But Antonius' book cannot have had a much greater or more enduring influence than the Ad Herennium. I t was thin and probably mediocre,31 apart from having remained incomplete Quint.
There remains the possibility of an entirely unknown Latin work on rhetoric. That such existed is in itself highly probable, for two reasons. The first is that the terminology in the earliest rhetorical handbooks we know of is so rich and stabilized.
The other is that in order to explain the internal relationship between the Ad Herennium and Cicero's De Inuentione it would seem necessary to postulate at least one and preferably several Latin writers. Otherwise they would very probably have been recorded in the extant literature. Antonius' work, on whose lack of importance the sources are unanimous, is mentioned both by Quintilian and—repeatedly—by Cicero.
What can and should have existed in this genre before Antonius is compendium s, schematic 30 Cicero makes Antonius say that it was with reluctance that he let his works be published De Orat. This sounds like an echo of an "unwillingness" theme that can have existed in Antonius' preface. Bardon 1. Matthes pp.
Note, however, that it is not entirely impossible that Antonius' book was the only rhetorical work prior to those preserved, and that it was the common source of both. I t is of course not impossible that in works of this nature there were prefaces of the type we are studying and that both Cicero and the author of the Ad Herennium found in them their common starting point in respect of their prefaces, just as they did in the case of rhetorical theory.
But if this was the case we must ask how these authors came to employ such prefaces. And the answer must be that if they had a special type of preface then this must in all probability have been taken from the Greeks, who provided the rest of the material used by these authors.
In other words we must turn to a study of the Greek authors. We find that here too the number of authors to be considered is very small. We admittedly know by name a number of Greek rhetorical writers from the end of the Hellenistic period e. Pamphilus, Apollonius Molon. But the indisputably most influential and important work, and the only one of which we have more than the briefest of mentions, is that by Hermagoras of Temnos.
We know a fair amount about the teachings of this pioneer of rhetorical doctrine via our knowledge of several of his successors, among whom we must count the authors of the Ad Herennium and De InuentioneP Of his person we know nothing beyond that the lived about the middle of the second century B. The results of this study of possible lost sources to the type of preface described are thus very meagre.
We can say with certainty little more than that there should have existed at least one preface earlier than the Rhetorica ad Herennium and containing the themes common to that author and Cicero, namely praise of the subject, the unwillingness of the author, and a request on the part of the recipient.
The most important, that to Book i , is addressed to the author's three sons and begins as follows: Exigitis rem magis iocundam mihi quam facilem: Seneca is the first of the rhetorical writers to clothe his preface in epistolary form. As already demonstrated, the epistolary form and what I have called the rhetorical form were interchangeable variants for late Hellenistic scholars.
Seneca then goes on to speak of his memory and its alleged inadequacy, and then of the history of declamationes. The preface ends with a presentation of the speaker whose declamations are contained in Book i , Porcius Latro.
All the other extant books are also introduced by prefaces in letter form to the author's sons, their main content being a presentation of the orator or orators dealt with in the book concerned. These lines, with 35 See pp. They also show that the dedication to his sons was made not only from formal convenience but reflected a real contact between father and sons.
Institutio Oratoria Book i of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria is preceded in the traditional text by a letter, the Epistula ad Tryphonem, from the author to his publisher. This contains mainly an account of the publisher's request that the completed work should be published and the writer's doubt over this request, i. Following this letter, the first book commences with a prooemium that also contains familiar themes, a request this time from certain persons unnamed, quidam and the author's hesitation when faced with the immensity of the subject.
The way in which the writer thus preludes his work with both an epistolary preface and an introduction in rhetorical form, is very striking. A conceivable explanation is that the writer never intended the letter to Trypho to be published. Nothing in its form or content excludes the possibility of its being intended as a private letter.
The publisher can have included it on his own initiative. This explanation, however, is less than probable. The Institutio was published, so far as we know, while the author was alive and in the best of health. I t is not likely that he would have allowed the letter to be published against his will.
We must therefore assume that the text has been handed down to us in the form that the author intended.
In order to understand his reasons for the double introduction we must be quite clear as to what he had to say to the reader in this section. I thought myself that it had not matured sufficiently, as it was written in only two years, which was insufficient for stylistic polishing. So I had thought to follow the advice of Horace and let it rest for some years before working over it again.
Here, then, we have a variation on the "request" theme. The publisher has asked Quintilian to publish a work that is already written. I t is easy to see what reasons the author had for using this theme.
H e therefore produces the publisher's request as an explanation for the work appearing earlier than he had intended and before it had been given its final polish. The uncertainty that the author here expresses as regards the stylistic quality of his own work is an important element in the attitude of many Roman writers. We should note the difference between this uncertainty as regards style and the writer's hesitation as to his mastery of the subject.
It is true that the two can in some authors be united as a single theme, but they are often independent. A writer, in other words, can express doubt as to his stylistic competence without doubting his mastery of the subject and vice versa. This rather self-evident distinction will be of some use to us later on.
Quintilian is by no means the first Roman writer to express doubt as to the formal quality of his work.
Quintilian's situation, however, is different from the authors considered there. The reason given by Quintilian is a lack of time. But it was only the prayers of his publisher and the impatience of the presumptive reader that forced him to release it. Quintilian has thus employed a theme that hardly reflects his true situation. In order to understand better why Quintilian even so used this theme, we should first consider its general attraction for any writer, even if it truly belongs only to the stylistically uncertain.
In actual fact even a writer who is stylistically very assured can have reasons for speaking hesitantly or even disparagingly of his own literary ability. H e will always win one of two things. If the reader should find anything to criticize, then he will already have encountered an apology for this and is likely to judge the fault less harshly.
In this way an apology for an inadequate style can sometimes convey the exact opposite, namely an exhortation to the reader to note particularly how elegantly the author writes. Any author not entirely convinced that he has succeeded to perfection in his formal presentation—and what author ever is?
This is what we can call the psychological background to the theme. I t explains why this theme, once it had appeared in prefaces, became so remarkably general. Quintilian is only one of many Latin writers to use it without apparent cause. To apologize for one's poor style soon became a conventional phrase in prefaces. We need read only a very few pages of this writer to notice that his is a very agreeable nature. Although he is both independent and quite frequently critical of other authors, he is strikingly free from any form of self-assertion or arrogance.
There is a quiet objectiveness in his judgement that makes him an outstanding literary critic, but which can have hampered his own production. I t is natural that a man of this type should see his own faults and admit them.
H e may therefore actually have needed some mild pressure from his publisher to overcome what may have been a hypercritical attitude to his own work. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the author really published the work too soon, before he had had enough time to polish it. Austin's reasoning is therefore in my opinion at fault when he p.
I t seems quite improbable that Quintilian should have left the last book half-finished and published it because his publisher had told him that the public was waiting impatiently.
Nor is anything of this sort related in the letter. What it does say is that the author, obviously after completing the work, had thought of putting it on ice so as to give it a final polish after some years, refrigerato innen- 38 Cf.
Norden p. There is no suggestion that the last book had not been finished. If Quintilian really had been forced to hurry so much that he had not yet finished Book 12, then it is very probable that he would have pointed this out in the letter.
The letter is thus strong evidence against Austin's theory, which without it would have seemed quite plausible. Let us turn now to the preface proper to the first book. I t is rather long, but may be summarized as follows: The author begins by explaining that he has been requested by certain persons q u i d a m to write on the art of oratory, and he gives his reasons for consenting to this request. H e stresses that, unlike previous writers, he will be treating of the entire training of the orator.
There follows a dedication, and a reference to a previous work which has been falsely attributed to him. Then comes a long discussion in a very Ciceronian spirit on the ideal orator and the properties that must be combined in him.
This is followed by a brief survey of the contents of the different books and, finally, a short passage on the vanity of trying to teach those who lack all talent. The greater part of the proem thus prepares the way for the handling of the subject, and is of no relevance to this comparative study.
I will therefore restrict myself to commenting on the introductory section—the request and the author's reaction to it—and the dedication proem Quintilian starts by relating how, after concluding his work as a teacher he was asked by friends to write on the art of oratory. H e long resisted their demands, knowing how many great authors before him had treated this subject. But they beseeched him all the more earnestly that he should help them judge the opposed views of his predecessors.
H e finally allowed himself to be persuaded: This phrase, which indicates that the author's resistance has been broken down, reminds us of that used by Cicero in a corresponding passage in t h e Orator: Quintilian motivates his unwillingness to comply 40 Eranos This theme has already been discussed. Quintilian, however, combines it with another and states that his negative attitude was caused by the thought of his famous predecessors. N o previous writer had dealt with the entire schooling of the orator, and this was the task he therefore took upon himself.
There is a striking similarity between Quintilian's way of mentioning his predecessors and Cicero's approach in the De Oratore. Both writers refer to the previous authorities with great respect.
The main reason given for writing a new work is in both cases that they are treating of an aspect not previously dealt with. The difference in attitude lies mainly in Quintilian's much greater reverence for his predecessors. Quintilian then tries to explain why a work like his had not previously been written, indicating that the subject left little play for brilliance of treatment.
Then in the sixth paragraph comes the dedication: The reason why the work is dedicated to Marcellus, says the author, is not only their friendship but the fact that Marcellus has a young and gifted son, in whose education the book may conceivably be of assistance.
Purely formally, it is remarkable that the request for publication mentioned is not presented as coming from Marcellus. I t is after all the rule that the person or persons referred to as having requested the work also have it dedicated to them. But Quintilian chooses to dedicate his work not to those who have asked him to write but to Marcellus, who so far as we can see never expressed any such desire.