THE FIGURE OF INTERROGATION AND ITS USE IN 
 CICERO’S PHILIPPICS 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN FRANK CHERF, O. S. B., 
 
 A. B., St. Procopius College, 1915 
 
 THESIS 
 
 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
 
 Degree of 
 
 MASTER OF ARTS 
 IN CLASSICS 
 
 IN 
 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 1921 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/figureofinterrogOOcher 
 
1 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The Philippic orations of Cicero were chosen as a basis for this 
 study on the figure of interrogation, because they are replete with rhet- 
 orical questions and are the product of his mature years. Clark’s text 
 (Oxford, 2 ^50) has been used. Whenever reference is made to the 
 
 Philippics, book, chapter and paragraph are cited without naming the work. 
 Reference to other works is made tv author, title and paragraph, unless 
 otherwise stated. An exception is Spengel’s, Phetores Cr3eci and Pain's, 
 Phetores Latini Minores. With them I have followed the accepted usage of 
 referring to page and line. 
 
 As to questions, the number treated under the figure of interrogation 
 is in sum total about one hundred sixty in excess of the actual number of 
 question marks found in the text. This is due to the separation into their 
 several members of such questions as, "Quid viderss, quid senseras, quid 
 audieras?" 1 and”Cur armatoruro corona senatus saeptus est, cur me tui sa- 
 tellites cum gladiis auaiunt, cur valvae Ccncordiae non patent, cur homi- 
 nes omnium gentium maxims barbaros, Ituraeos, cum sagittis deducis in 
 forum?” It will be noticed that, although only one question mark is used 
 in either instance, both citations contain several distinct questions. 
 
 Each member of such series was counted as a separate question. 
 
 i.33.83. 
 
 ********** ******************** 
 r 
 4 . 
 
 5.44.112. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have examined all available texts of the orations under consider- 
 
 ation and have found that all of then have not only more subdivisions of 
 
 . -jt A-*-w. A 
 
 lon^ questions, but that a lar^e number of sentences are punctuated as 
 Questions, which Clara does not treat ss such* 
 
 The assistence, which I have received from works listed in the bib- 
 liography is not acknowledged in each particular instance. 
 
TAFIE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter • ' Pa2e 
 
 preface. . 
 
 I. Ancient Discussion on the Fhetorical Question. ... 3 
 
 II. Fhetorical Question Defined .10 
 
 III. Woods in Rhetorical Questions Q9 
 
 IV. Types of Questions 39 
 
 'Word Questions .40 
 
 Sentence Questions. ... . . . 34 
 
 Questions without Particles 71 
 
 V. Questions with Etpbasis 79 
 
 VI. Conclusion ............ 38 
 
 Pitlio^raphy 90 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 I. ANCIENT DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 Eefore entering on 3 discussion of the ter® "rhetorical Question" and 
 its application, it will not be irrelevant to state the usage among the 
 ancients of such tens ss ax^uaTx xr\t; XeEew^ f\ xou Xoyou and t r]c, 
 
 Siavofac, meaning tropes and figures respectively. The word axrj'iaTji ori- 
 ginally meant "form", "appearance", a mere "outside" line the Latin "bati- 
 
 1 2 
 tus" , then by analogy an "assumed character", the Latin "persona" » Con- 
 sequently its application to denote a figurative expression was easy and 
 appropriate. It is, however, impossible for us to trace its history tack 
 
 to the one who first used it in combination with X£Ei<; ana Sixvoia ho de- 
 
 \ 
 
 signate tropes and figures. Ccrax of Sicily, who flourished about 4^0 ?.C., 
 
 2 
 
 is thought to be the first to write a treatise on Fnetorie . Whether he 
 
 treated of figures and tropes cannot be accertained. From the time of 
 
 4 
 
 Theophrastus of Fresus { r _ 2 B.C. ) cn t the subdivision of ornaments of 
 
 ************* ***************** 
 
 Cf.jxrjH 01 tIkvojv , Furip., Wed., 1072; cuSev jtXXc rrXrjv... ax^ixa, I dem. 
 Frag* ^2*. 
 
 Cf. Plat. , Ale. , 1. 13 p D, fiaiJcSaXelv to ox^a • lh was also used to de- 
 note metrical form, as jxrjjia T UC XsEew^... epiaeTpov, Arist.,Rhet., 3.91; and 
 grammatical form, Idem, Soph. Flench., 4.1. 
 
 'Cf. Cic* , Prutus, 12.4*; Cic*, De Orat. , 1. 20.91; 3. 51. 31; Quint. , Inst. 
 
 Orat. , 2. 17. 7; 9. 1. 8. 
 
 4 
 
 Cf. Vol&mann, Die Rhetorik der Gr. and Rflm. , p. 394; Schmidt , Comment stio 
 de Theopbrasto Rhetore,p*37 ff.;Rabe,De Theophrasti Lifcris n e pi AlEsooc. 
 

4 
 
 style began to assume a more definite shape. Still it is not certain whe- 
 ther he used the technical terms for such a subdivision.^ His wor« nsp\ 
 u)^ is too fragmentary to afford any definite prcc . 7e do, however, 
 find the expression jx^ioitoi The XIEew; and oxuuaTjc iqc 5 1 cxv o t cx ^ in the 
 
 sense of tropes and figures in the writings of his pupil, Eemetrius of 
 phaleruiB. He either embodied in his work the teaching of his master, which 
 the master himself did not commit to writing or if he did it perished, or 
 he was the originator of those expressions. In his treatise on style he 
 
 3 
 
 speaas of the "forms and figures of thought"" and of the "figures of lan- 
 4 
 
 guage". Prom about the time of Theophrastus on, greater interest was 
 taken in the field of rhetoric, especially at Pergamus by the Stoics and 
 at Rhodes, whither Aeschines had betaken himself and founded a school of 
 Rhetoric, after his defeat in an oratorical contest with Eemosthenes. It 
 is then that the expressions JXUH»To( trjc XfFe co c xal Siavota; appear more 
 
 ***********. ******************** 
 
 1 
 
 Vayer: Theophrast us, p. note 1, maintains that in the age of Theo- 
 phrastus the terms Xli-ew^ an( ^ JX^fxaxoi irj<; 5tavbfot; were not in 
 
 vogue and furthermore, that the second class was utterly unknown. He says 
 ibid. , I [ [. 1, "Initium capiamus a Caeeilii Calsctitae nepl axwifidtxwv doctri- 
 na, cuius jxn.udtTwv divisio h.aec est: ’Una est species f ig urarum, quae in 
 uno t ant am verfco locum hafce't; alterum genus est earum f igurarum, quae ad 
 totam vertcrum comprehensionem pertinet 1 ". Caecilius lived in the second 
 half of the first century F.C. Jefcfc, Attic Orators, Vcl. 1, pp. 28-29, holds 
 the same view. Of. Cic.,Ee Orat. , 1. 13. Quint. , Inst. Orat. , 7 . 1. 1*. 
 
 ^Eemetrius ruled over Athens during the years 21 7 -?07 F.C. and died 
 in 23^ P.C., but four years after the death of his teacher. 
 
 On Style, 2^7, lot ,usv Eton 5ixvofot<; xal ax^notta.. . . 
 
 4 
 
 Itid.,26 7 , tx 5s ttk X£Eswg ax^jiarx TooaXcTepov IxXlyovta Ijti 5 e t — 
 v$teoov notslv tov Xoyov... Cf. also ifcid.,59> to< 51 Trj$ 
 
 and 271. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and more frequently in the writings of rhetoricians, as Hermagoras of 
 Temnus (about 150 F.C. ), Apollonius of Fhodes (150 F.C. ), Volon of Fhodes 
 (30 F.C. ), Caecilius of Calacte and Dionysius of Hal icarnassus, and espe- 
 cially when the art of rhetoric reached its climax at Foire in the writings 
 of Cicero and Quintilian. It is interesting to note how the Romans, who 
 had no word to convey exactly the idea of ax^uaTa, used various expressions 
 supplementing them with the explanat ion, "quae Graeci vocant axqiuotTot • ” Thus 
 Cicero says: "... illam autem coneinnitat em, quae verborum col locat ionem 
 
 illurainat eis luminibus, quae Graeci ouesi aliquos gestus orationis ax^uot- 
 2 
 
 xa appellant.” "... orationis auasi formae et lumina, quae ut dixi, Graeci 
 
 4 
 
 vocant jx^M»tx"; and a^ain: "At cum de ornamentis verborum sentent i arurrve 
 
 p 
 
 praecipitur, quae vocant axquata, non fit idem.” Quintilian is the first 
 to translate axquaia by "figura", when he says: "Schemata utraque, id est 
 fiAuras, quae X £?£<*) c » quaeque Stavofju; vocantur. " From then on, "figure” is 
 the regular word for axq.ua. From Cicero’s time on, the Romans rendered axq- 
 fxaTa t rj ^ Xltswc and ax^uaxa tqc 8iotvofot£ by "figurae verborum et sen- 
 tent iarum" or "figurae elocutionum et sentent iarum. Fesides the expressions 
 
 ****************************** 
 
 ^Cicero is here considered as the author of the Rhetorics ad Heren- 
 ni urn, though Cornificius is sometimes thought to have written it about SO 
 F.C. Cicero’s other rhetorical works are: De Invent ione, Orator, De Oratore, 
 Frutus,De Optimo Genere Oratorum,Part it iones Oratoriae,Topica, Epis. ad 
 Frutuge, 2 . 2 , ad Att., 9*4; 9.9. 
 
 Institutio Orstoria. 
 
 Orat. , 56* 3 2 . 
 
 ^ Ibid. , p 4. 131. 
 
 Topics, 3.34. Fesides concinnitas, 5estus, forma the following words 
 are ueed by Cicero to mean ax^uatoc lumina, De Orat., 5. 57. 119; Ac8d.Fr. , 8.43» 
 insignia, ibid. ,5.9. 3*; ornaments, Orat. ,54.31; exornatio,Ad Her. , 5. I 2 . IS; 
 flores,De Orst. , 3. 5^.9^. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
 
 of the writers mentioned^, Cicero used the following: "ornamentis et ver- 
 
 i 2 2 
 
 fcorum et senten'fcisrum”, ”verborum et sentent iarum. • • luirina” , "in verto- 
 
 4 
 
 rum et in sentent iarum exornat lone® ” . Quintilian uses the same terns: ”f i- 
 
 5 
 
 gura sententiae plures habere verborum figures potest” , end "ouaeda® ver- 
 
 * 
 
 borum figurae paulum fi^uris sentent i3ru* decl inantur Lster writers fol- 
 low. So Aquila Fomanus: ”fiAuraru® aliae sunt sent ent iarum, quae Siavofa^ 
 
 7 
 
 ax^jiotta appellant, aliae elocutionis, quae XeEe <*>c jy^fiotTot vocantur” ; and 
 
 Donatus: Schemata lexeos sunt et dianoeas, id est fi^urae verborum et sen- 
 
 tentiaru®, sed schemata dianoeas ad cratores pertinent, ad grammat icos 
 8 
 
 lexeos. " 
 
 The difficulty of drawing a strict dividing line between tropes and 
 figures was already recognized by Quintilian', who nevertheless complains 
 
 ^Aquila Fomanus, H.L.M. , 22. 2 , nomina fi^urarum; 22 . f i£ uras sententi- 
 arum atque elocut ionutc; 2 2 . p :, 7 ,8; 2*? .11 et passim. Foethius, Comment at io, 
 Orel. , Vol.5, pt. 1, p. 334. 33, f i^uras loquendi; Donat., Ars Gram., 2 . 4 (Keil,4. 
 397.7), f i5urae verborum et sentent i arum. 
 
 ^Orat. , 24.81. 
 
 Frut., 79.273. 
 
 ^ Ad Her. ,4.17. 18. 
 
 ,9.1.1*. 
 
 ^9. 7.38. Cf. also,7. 1.40;9. 2. 1;9.3. *2;9. ?.9 7 ; 11. ^.4^11.^. 17?. 
 
 P.L. V. , 23.5. 
 
 '"Ars Gram., 2 . 4 (Kei 1 , 4. 2 9 7 . p ). 
 
 9 
 
 Inst. Orat.; ”Cuin adec similitudo manifests est,ut ea discernere 
 non sit in promptu,nam quo modo quaedam in his species plane distant, ®a- 
 nente tamen generaliter ilia societat e, quod utraque res de recta et simpli- 
 ci ratione cum aliqua dicendi virtute deflectitur: ita quaedam perquam te- 
 nui limite dividuntur, ut cure ironia tarn inter fi^uras sententiae qua® in- 
 ter propos reperiatur",9. 1. 2 ; ”• . . circa ouem (tropum) inexplicabilis et 
 ^rammaticis inter ipsos et philosophis puAna est ”, idem, 3. 6. 1; ”Est sutem 
 non mediocris inter auctores dissensio... quid accipere debeamus fi^uram", 
 idem, 9. 1.10. Cf. Kleutgen, Ars Dicendi, p. 89 f. ;Foethius, Commentatic,Orel. 
 Vol.f , pt. 1, p. 22 4; Hermann, Opus. Acad., 1. 10 2 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 
 
 
 : „ 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 of the carelessness of some of his contemporaries . It is likewise in 
 
 Quintilian that we obtain the first clear cut distinction between tropes, 
 
 verbal figures, and figures of thought. He says: "Enimvero iam maiore cura 
 
 doceat tropes orrines, quibus praecipue non poema modo sed etiam oratio or- 
 
 natur, schemata utraque, id est figuras, quaeque ouaeaue 6 i avo fac 
 
 2 
 
 voeantur. " Later writers incorporate it into their works. So Fortunanti- 
 anus: "Genera figurarum auot sunt? trie: XiBeux;, X<5 you, 6 tavoTocc . Quae eo- 
 ruui differentia est? quod Xl^eco; in singulis verbis fiunt, ut nuda genu, 
 ... X<5you vero in elocutionis composit ionibus, auae plnribus modis fiunt; 
 5t xvofou; autem in sensibus: quibus etia* sive locutione® mutaveris aut 
 verborum ordinem inverteris, eaedem tairen figurae permaneant, verum utra- 
 aue Xll-ewc et Xoyou non its.” Victorious: "Omnia enim ornaments elocuti- 
 onis, id est, figurse, quae sunt aut 5t cxvofotc sut 
 
 4 
 
 aut axwonot X<5you.” This became the accepted division down to our own 
 time. And so throughout these pages a trope will t* 3 considered "an expres- 
 sion turned from its natural and principal signification to another, for 
 
 R 
 
 the purpose of adorning style" , as distinguished from a figure of speech, 
 
 + *****!([*** + ******#. ******************** 
 
 Inst.0rat.,9. 1. 2, "... nec desunt qui tropis figurarum nomen impc- 
 
 nant . " 
 
 2 
 
 Inst.Orat. , 1. 9. 1^. Cf. also ibid. , 7. 3. 40: "Cuomodo inveniemus illas 
 occultiones quaestiones? scilicet quomodo sententias verba, f i guras colo- 
 res." Ibid. , 10. 1. *50: "Quid? in verbis, sententiis, f iguris, dispositione tc- 
 tius operis, nonne humani ingenii mcdum excedit?" Ibid. , 9. 7 . 2: "Verum 
 schemata XlSewc duorum sunt generum: alterum loquendi rationem voeant,al- 
 teruic maxime collocatiore exquisitum est. Quorum tametsi utrumque conveni’t 
 orat ioni, t amen possis illud gratcmat icum, hoe rhetoricum magis dicere." 
 
 R. L. V. , 15*. 24. 
 
 ^P.L.V.,271.22 ff. 
 
 Quint. , Inst. Orat. , 9. 1.4. Cf. also ifcid.,”ut plerique grammat ici fi- 
 niunt,dietio ab eo loco, in quo propria est, translate sd eum,in auo propria 
 non est." Ven.Eede,R.L. V. , ^07. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 * • * . 
 
 *> * 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 Which will be considered an artificial arrangement of words or clauses for 
 Greater effect, while a figure of thought will be considered a "form of 
 speech differing from the common and ordinary mode of expression".^ Conse- 
 quently tropes and figures of speech concern themselves only with words and 
 their arrangement, while figures cf thought are affairs of whole clauses 
 and sentences. 
 
 There will not be any need of mentioning the purpose of figures. They 
 are as old as mankind. Tbst is the test proof that their purpose was well 
 understood and their effect well known. Still let us quote but one passage 
 froai Cicero. He says: "Sx^paxot enim auae vocant Graeci, ea maxime ornant 
 
 oratorem eaque non tarn in verbis pingendis hateot pondus auam in illumi- 
 nandis sentent i is. " 
 
 Let us now pass on to the terms used to express the idea conveyed by 
 
 55 4 
 
 Cicero’s definition "appetitio ccgnit ioni s". They are respectively : epo?- 
 interrogat io, interrogat ura, interrogation, and 7Tua;jt(X,7reuai c 
 
 ***#*****#***********;************ 
 
 ^Quint. , Inst.Orst., 9. 1. 4; ibid. ,9. 1. 10: ".. . proprie schema dicitur in 
 sensu vel sermone aliqua a vulgari et simplici specie cum ratione mirbatis"; 
 ibid. ,9. 1. 14, "Ergo figura sit arte aliqua novata forma dicendi." Cf.?umpt, 
 Gram. ^821. 2*, and Ven. Pede, F.L.V. , *07. 2 . 
 
 ^Frut . , 87. 141. Cf. also ibid. , 17. <9; Cuint. ,9. 8. 27;9. ?. 100; Ven. Pede, 
 
 B.L.Uj,,*07.8-9. 
 
 ' Acad.pr. ,8. 2*. 
 
 4 
 
 Cf. Lexicons of Suidas and Has.ychius, also modern Greek and Latin lex- 
 icons. and Dtfderlain, Latin Synonyms. 
 
 * Epc^x rja c c and n suaic, as a rule, mean the "act of questioning", an 
 
 V^k'irig", yet they are also used to denote the figure cf interrogat ion. Thus 
 Longinus, te Sutl irritate, 18. 1: "Tl 6' IxeTva qtw|j£v,Ta.C rceuaetc Te xal Ipwxin- 
 oeic."Cf. ^eiske, Longinus, Ce Sub. , p. 8?9: "A 7iu<j'io!Ti autem 71*001 c non differt 
 nisi forma, secundum ouarr proprie quaerendi actionem signifieat, non ut hoc- 
 loco, quaesit urn ipsum.Sic et Ipa'xrpii; hie est IpwTriijta. " Dior. Hal., Te Derr,., 
 p 4:""[5iov 51 5f| tiou ax^uoi Tieuaewc. . . " 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 • . . • » , 
 
 . . t 
 
 ' ‘ . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 1 
 
 qusestio, quaesitum, percontat io, question. These terms can be inter- 
 
 2 
 
 changed without doing then any violence as to their meaning. They have 
 
 teen considered synonymous both by ancient and modern rhetoricians and lex- 
 
 ? 
 
 icograpbere s Though the Greek rhetoricians made a distinction between 
 £pwT7)|iO( and nvo\io , the distinction is tut a technical one. 
 
 Now, when thr terms mentioned in the preceding paragraph are used in 
 those sentences of ordinary conversation, whose "finis" is "invent io ,f , they 
 are pure and simple questions, hut when applied to the same kina of senten- 
 ces used ty an orator, they lose their purpose and become lpwT%iaTa and 
 ttuajiaTa j$7)Topixa, i.e. rhetorical questions. Fut this is to be discussed 
 in the following chapter. 
 
 *Just as the term "quest ion ", so also quaestic, interrogat io, 7 iujfia and 
 IpwTpfia can have many other meani Igs besides that of "interrogation The 
 most common of these 8re inquiry, argument , point of dif f iculty, syl logism, 
 investigation, and such like. Cf. Greek and Latin Lexicons; Cic. , Fe Nat. Tecs, 
 1.1. 1: "Perdifficilis... et perotscura quaestic est de nature decrum idem, 
 Acad. Pr. , 2^.8*: "... de quo haec tota quaestic"; idem, Fe Invent., 1.6.8: "... 
 oratoris materiam in causarn et in quaestionem dividat... cuaestionem autem 
 earn appellet , quae h8teat in se eontroversi an in dicendo positam sine cer- 
 taruri) personarum int erposit ione"; Sen. , Epi s. , 87. 11: "Nunc vole paueissimas 
 adbuc interrogat iones nbstrorum tibi reddere, " then he continues with this 
 syllogism as an exam-pie: "Quod tonum est, f acit; ram et in arte musics quod 
 benum est, fecit musicum: fortuits bonum non f aciunt: ergo non sunt bona"; 
 Cic., Pro Cl uent . , p 3. l p 9: "res ir quaestione versetur." Cf. also idem, Acad. 
 Post. ^2. p ; Acad.Pr. , *6. 1 17; De Fato, l 2 . 29* 
 
 “Cf. Quint., Inst. Orat. ,9. 2.6: "Quid enim tarn commune quam interrogsre 
 vel percent arij ham utroque utimur indif f erent er, quamquam alterum noscen- 
 di, alterum srguendi gratis videtur adhiteri. At es res, ut rccumcue dicitur 
 modo, etiam multiplex babetur schema." 
 
 v See notes * and 4 on p.8, and the definitions of spwTrjua and ttuctuoi 
 in the following chapter. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 II. RHETORICAL OUFSTION EFFI NEC. 
 
 If we turn to the grammars for information concerning rhetorical 
 questions the following are some of the definitions found: Pale end Puck: J 
 "Questions that really do not 8sk for information, but are only stronger 
 ways of declaring something are celled Rhetorical Quest ions; quis dutitet? 
 who would doubt? ( = nobody would doubt); quid prodest? what is the use? 
 
 ( = there is no use);" Parkness : "A question used for rhetorical effect 
 in place of an assertion is called a Rhetorical Question; as num potest? 
 can he? = non potest, he can not"; Bennett : "Questions are sometimes such 
 
 merely in form, being employed to express emphatic assertion; as quis 
 
 4 
 
 dubitet? who doubts? (no one doubts);" Adair-Gould : "Interrogation (Greek 
 Eretesis) is a figure whereby we do net simply ask a question, but express 
 some strong feeling or affection of the mind in that form; Quid ergo? su- 
 dacissimus ego ex omnibus?; Andrews and Gtoddard : Ep^irp i q is an earnest 
 
 question, and often implies s strong affirmation of the contrary, as ere- 
 ditis avectos b.ostes?"; Sloman ; "Fhetorieal Questions expect no answer 
 and are only statements in disguise; quid est levius aut turpius? what is 
 
 ***************************** 
 
 1 
 
 ^Latin Granu,2 2p . 
 
 * A Latin Gram. , p ,5 2 . 1 1. £. footnote 5. 
 
 7 
 
 'A New Latin Gran n ar, 1*2. 2 . 
 
 4 
 
 Lat. Gram. , Appendix to Synt ax, p . 2 . 
 
 R 
 
 .A Grammar of the Latin Language, R54. 2 1. 
 
 A Grammar of Classical Latin, p 4?.fc. 
 
11 
 
 rtore unprincipled or shameful? ( = nihil est levius, etc.). Lane\vadvig\ 
 
 1 1 
 
 Roby , and 7uirpt jo not so much as give a definition of a rhetorical ques- 
 
 2 
 
 tion. Gil dersl eeve-Lodge in a footnote remarks that "the form of question 
 is often used to imply a negative opinion on the part of the speaker: Quid 
 interest inter periurum et mendac-em? Mat is the difference between a per- 
 jured man and a liar?” Of course Lane, Vadvig, Roby, Zumpt, and Gilder- 
 sleevr-Lodge in treating of the noods end their subdivisions do mention in 
 some instances, either directly or indirectly, if questions that come un- 
 
 7 
 
 der such subdivisions are also used rhetorically. Schmalz in the chapter 
 cn questions says: "Many questions ere such only in form, but in reality 
 they contain an assertion, an exhortation, a wish or a command. These are 
 usually called rhetorical questions." KQhner’s "Ausf flbrliche Grammatik der 
 Lateinischen Sprache", which undoubtedly ranks among the test, does not 
 offer a definition of rhetorical question. 
 
 In examining the foregoing definitions we notice that all of then 
 agree more or less distinctly that a rhetorical question is in reality 
 something else than a question, preferably a statement in the guise of s 
 question. With such brief remarks the subject, is disnissed. Nothing or 
 very little is said as to the use of the rhetorical questions in the vari- 
 ous departments of literature and whether a Question that is rhetorical in 
 
 ***************** *************** # * * * 
 
 *The work of each is entitled Latin Grammar. 
 
 2 
 
 _ Latin Gramn ar, 4 R 1. b.P. 2. 
 
 Syntax und St i 1 i st ic, 210: Manche Fragesgtze sind. nur der Form nach 
 Fragen, enthalten aber tstsgchlich eine Fefcauptung, eine Auffcrderung, ei ce 
 Wunsch,einen Fefetl. Seiche FragesStze nennt man in allgeneir.en rhetcris- 
 che Frage. 
 
i: 
 
 One department is also rhetorical in any other department.* 
 
 Let us then turn to 1 he ancient rhetoricians. We find that they al- 
 ways aake a distinction between a question, which csn be answered by a 
 simple affirmation or negation and one that requires an extended explana- 
 tory answer. The former they call spwxrpua and the latter ntfaua. So Alexan- 
 der distinguishes them: * EjduIt r^ju it loti, n pb-c 6 avdtyxr] anoxp Ivxabou xax’ 
 andyaa tv fj vaT^'j/aaiv ouxv, vcxi r) oC f olov ! ErjX&ec Ini xljv u5y v iqv r) ou; ... 
 
 &vayxr) Y®P xal ttoo <; xouxo rj val f ( ou aTiOxp f\aa0a i . Iluaua 51 Ian, npo; o 
 5 1 elEoS i -kwc anavTriacxt Set xal 5 la nXsidvot-v, wc e'xe-i to xoiouxov, eue of, <T> 
 TpiToywvtaTa, x6 xfvo; <pp<5vr|ua XaSovxa xouxota a uiiSouXedetv e5si; Ivxau^a 
 yap oux sax t v anoxp f vaaBai val rjou, aXXa 5ia nXatdvwv avayxr] J.navxav x<5 
 toi ouxdv Ipouvn. A similar distinction is made by GonsEue., '.EpwTrjjaa, ob 
 auvxo.uop r, ano'xptatc, 5i« tou val f) too ou npoywoouj , * c to c’ ~ f st 
 natSsfav, ou 5f5wp xf; xaxfqi x^P^v; Iluapa, ou rj anoxpuip paxpa xal 5 ieEo- 
 
 * ' * ' ‘ ,v 
 
 6 t x^T‘ c Xeyouevr], to Ini no to $ xot yap. ixiov; xal xfvap qpuXaxxf ov; Joan- 
 
 nes Pjhiloponus says: Aiaqpfpei fj 5ta Xe,xxx 7) Ipwxrjaic xrjc nuauax t x~|p , ox i 
 
 1 • 1 
 
 It may be objected that the treatment of rhetorical figures does net 
 belong to grammar but to .rhetoric. Put if we bear it uind that the ancient 
 political orators, both. Greek and Rod an, were exceedingly more fena of 
 figures than orators of our tine and that 8 treatise on modern rhetoric- 
 does net touch upon their notion of then, we night rightly expect a fuller 
 treatment of them in our Latin Grammars. 
 
 r 
 
 ^Spengel, Rbetores Graeci, ?. 24.511 ff. 
 
 "Ibid. , ff. 
 
 'Ibid., 2 .1*G.S4 ff. Cf. Perodian, lb id. , 9*. 24 ff. ’EpcAxriatc H 
 
 lax t Xoyoc lv unoxpfaEt Xeyoysvac Ini x£ aaqpeaxepov yvwvat ' x't xGv Ifutfj- 
 T.ouiisvwv , wc 7i a. pa ’insofar;, SoxeTc yap .auxov slnstv; 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / ■*' ' ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • i s 
 
 
 
 
 ^ -t 
 
 
 
 
 
13 
 
 Tip o i uIvt'jv 5 i uXext i kljv Ipkt 7 ]aiv apx.Et fj to vaf fj to ou inonp (vnobai , oTov 
 n <5 T Epov f) ^uyf] &9 <Sv<xtoc; npbc touto Ixavov fj to vat fj to ou. 17 pb c Ta ; 
 
 TiuajjLOiT t xa; nXefovoc Set Xdyov, oTov; (Odyss., a.' 170) Ttc; nd0£v eJ<; a v 5 piv, 
 nd&t toi TidXi<; riot Toxrjs^; au TruauaTixf] f) IpooTrjai <;, -7i p o c Hv 7iXe tdvuv 5 e 7 
 X<5ywv Tuj 5moxp t vojil vu), l 7 t<Sye t youv (Odyss., i\ 39 ) 'lXtd 6 ev us cpgpuv 5ve- 
 JJLO C K IX dvECTO l 7 I£X 3 <aO£V. 
 
 The Roman rhetoricians nake the sane distinction as the Greeks. Aquila 
 Poiranus explains and exemplifies them thus: * Epu>TT]ua f i nt errogatun . He 
 utimur, ufci exacertande aliauid interred an us et augeaus eius invidian, hoc 
 modo: Fuistine i 1 1 0 in loco? dixistine, haec its gesta esse? rer.unt iastne 
 68, quitirs decepti sumus? Haec enim si sine interred at ione dicantur ad 
 • hunc modun: ’hie fuit i 3 1 0 in loco et its gesta esse dixit et falsa renun- 
 
 r 
 
 tiardo nos decepit, * sic prclsta minus invidiose proferentur. Huaua , auae- 
 situn. Hoc genus a superiore to differt, auod ad int errogatun ura vcce 
 tantuni responderi potest, vel a confitente: ouaesito auten oecurri nisi 
 
 1 
 
 In Friora Analytics, p.7. Cf . alsc Sextus Empiricus, ed. Fstricius, 
 Vol.l,pp.89 and 90; Aimonius, F3; Anon., Spengel,Bbet. Orsec-i, 7 . 179. 2C ff.; 
 Phoefcan.mcn, Spengel, Fbet • Graeei, 3. 53 * A ff* Theon says: fitaqpips iSSItou thjj- 
 (xcxto; ft IpdSTrjjt q, oti 7ipb ^ plv tt]v ipo5T7)aiv <ruyxo(Ta0la0o< t 5 e T udvov fj 
 &pvifyjota0o<i, oTov avav£ucra 1 fj xaTaveuaoa , fj 5ia ye tou va \ fj ou liTroxpfva- 
 a0ou., to 5b nuaua uaxpoTlpav ot7tcx t t e T Tf)v oaroxptatv. Spengel, Phet. Grseci, 
 2. 97. 2* ff. Diog.Leert ius: ' EpwTTyua 5£ lent Tip5y.ua 0 (utotsX£<; ulv, uq xal 
 to aPfwua, aWrjTtxbv 5b omoxp fasw^, oTov "A pa ye fulpa EJTf; touto 51 oute 
 aXrjBep Ijtiv outs i})£u8oc, waTe to ubv *Hueoa Ijtiv affwua Ijti,to 5b *Apa 
 y£ fjulpa laTtv; IpcoTriua. Huoua 51 Ijt 1 Tipayiia -no b c 0 ouuSoXtxu; oux Iotiv 
 otTtoxp fv£j0at , d)c !tt\ t ou " s pwT /yuaT 0 ( , Fa.f, aXXa. e’itisTv, oiXeT Iv t<£6£ toth*. 
 
 2 
 
 Ec figuris Sententiae et Elocutionis, P;L. tt; , 25, 19 ff« 
 
14 
 
 plurifcus non pctest, ut hoc modo si dices: Cue igitur ratione tellun gere- 
 (tus? ouae suxili8 nobis paret8 erur:t? quis erit aui subvenire velit, cun 
 tare acerbe socio? tract averin us? The definitions of Vertianus Capelle of- 
 fer no difference. *Ep(2Trj|iot est interrogate, oua figure utimur, cue inter- 
 rogandc aliauid aeertanus et exaggerauus eios invidiam. II ucrjuia est quaesi- 
 tum, quae figura a superiore eo differt, ouod interrogate una voce tantun 
 responderi potest, ouaesito autei nisi pluribus responderi non potent, ut 
 cum dicinus: Qua igitur ratione bellu* gerenus? auae auxilia, etc. ut 
 
 , C' 
 
 supra. Quintilian, too, favored such s distinction in theory at least if 
 not, in practice. He says: "Quid enim tarn commune quan interregare vel ( er- 
 
 7 
 
 contari? nam utroque utimur indifferenter, quanouan alterum noscendi, al- 
 terum arguendi gratia videtur sdhiberi. 
 
 These, then, are some of the definitions and examples of rhetorical 
 Questions handed down to us by the early rhetoricians. Vcre citations 
 would not add anything new to these already quoted. Fere again we are con- 
 fronted by a difficulty, for the nature and use of the figure, is hardly 
 made any clearer by stating that the expected answer is either long or 
 
 short. Fhet, then, is a rhetorical Question? Is the term to be used in a 
 
 ****** ************************ 
 
 *Itid.,P.L.M., 2 P .2* ff. 
 
 Pe Rhetorics, R.L.W. ,478. 11 ff. For sone unknown reason the author of 
 the Schemata Piaroess reverses the accepted distinction. ‘Epdvrj^a est in- 
 terrogate, ut i eliquid interrogando exscertamus et sngemus rei invidian, 
 hoc modo: Fuisti spud Laec8n - dixisti.auo quemque proficisci plsceret? 
 
 Haec si sine interrogations dicantur, mi .,s invidiose proferentur. 
 est percental io, ubi tantun una voce vel a negante vel a ccnfitente re- 
 spondetur, ut Terentius: QLuid meritu's? crucem. In superiors vero figure 
 pluritus respondents. R.L-H. , 7^. 27 ff, 
 
 "'Interrogat urn and percontatum are the Latin for ipu>Tr (i ucx and nujua. 
 "Inst. Orat. , 9 - 2 , *. . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 >■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ' . . : • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •* i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 • % • • • " t 
 
 ■ 
 
 . . ' > ' ’ ; 
 
 • ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ , • 
 
 
 
 
 ui 
 
 >■ i 
 
 
 
 
 
1 * 
 
 narrow sense end fce applicable only to those questions, which ere virtu- 
 ally equivalent to 8 sweeping negation, of which "Cue quid potest e.sse 
 1 , 
 
 gracius?" "What (testimony) can be nore weighty than that?" ( = "Mo testi- 
 mony can have greater weight."), is a typical example? Or is its applica- 
 tion to be so extended as to include all questions, that evidently do not 
 expect an answer or in other words do not ask for information? Either of 
 these two interpretations is acceptable. Adherence to the one or the other 
 is simply a matter of personal taste. Kter studying several times the 
 questions in the Philippics, I was induced to follow the broader interpre- 
 tation. The reasons that led me to this conclusion will be explained later, 
 If one should accept the term in its narrow meaning he could easily select 
 the questions that are rhetorical and were meant to be such by Cicero. fit 
 
 the sao;e time he would find that almost all of them would be cf the "Cuo 
 
 1 
 
 quid potest esse gravius?" type or closely akin to it, in the indicative 
 
 r* 
 
 and of the "Cuid enim aliud dicam?"^ type in the subjunctive. Following 
 this view I found that there are in the Philippics only two hundred forty- 
 seven rhetorical questions in the indicative and ei*hty-eight in the sub- 
 junctive. 
 
 The narrow interpretation of the figure cf interrogation 'woul d be the 
 easier way of disposing cf the difficulty. Fut after a .careful study cf 
 the questions we cannot but suspect that the nsrrow interpretation has 
 its difficulties and the question arises in our mind, why did Cicero use 
 the other six hundred one questions? Tihat is their purpose? Tie know the 
 purpose of a ra3l auestion is to ask for information; "auaestio est sppe- 
 titic ccgnitionis, quaest ionisque finis inventio. " £nd no elaborate argu- 
 
 1 
 
 1 . 4 . 10 . 
 
 Cic. , ^cad.Fr. , 3. 2*. 
 
 2 . 21 . 77 . 
 

 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 < v 
 
 
 
 - -1 
 
 
 
 
 
ments are necessary to convince as that the orator in his speech proper 
 does not and ought rot ask for information. Such a procedure would do 
 hern to his position. Then it is too late to search for material on which 
 to base his arguments. Pe faces the audience with the intention of in- 
 structing it or convincing it of the truth and justice of the cause he ad- 
 vocates. Pe must always have the 8ir of one who has a firm grasp of his 
 subject 8nd is master of the situation. Pow can Questioning for informa- 
 tion be consistent with an orator’s position? 
 
 Let us suppose that the orator does ask for information, of whom can 
 he ask it? Since the assembly is divided into two, the speaker and the 
 hearers, the questions are necessarily directed to one of them. According 
 to the Athenian law the speaker addressing the court might interrogate the 
 edversary and demand a reply, while be himself could net be interrupted by 
 
 r 
 
 him. "Such interrogations, ” writes Sandys, "judging from the few speci- 
 mens that have come down to as, were of the simplest kind; and owing to 
 the large number and th natural impatience cf the audience present, any- 
 thing approaching an elaborate cross-examination was quite out of the 
 z 
 
 Question." These cross-examinations as a whole cannot be considered rhet- 
 orical questions and I cannot say for certain whether there is sc much as 
 
 one instance in Roman oratory, where the interrogation and answer, if at 
 
 **#***•*********:*********♦***** 
 
 1 
 
 Cf. luint.,Inst. Orat.,5.7.7, Is verissime praecepit primum esse in 
 hac parte officium oratoris, ut totau causam familiariter norit, quod sine 
 dutic^ad omnia pertinet. 
 
 Cf. Kennedy, Demosthenes, Vol. 4, Appendix 7, On Interrogatories. 
 
 "Cope, Aristotle’s Phetoric, ed. Ssndys, Vol. 3, p. 711. For Aristotle’s 
 testiment of such interrogation see his Rhetoric, 13. 1. For instances see 
 Isaeus, 10 . 4- p ; Lysias, 22. 3; 13. 7 C-3 7 ; 10. 2 P . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = , 
 
17 
 
 all enployed, was incorporated into the oration. In the Philippics there 
 
 8re no indications that Cicero Questioned sone one with the intention of 
 
 b til & 
 
 obtaining a reply, and if he did A not consider it a part of his oration. 
 Since we do not find any of such instances we nay dismiss this pert of the 
 quest ion. 
 
 The other person to when the questions can be directed is the orator 
 
 hiuself.*" Cicero does this in sorre instances. Fut infornation is not sough 
 for he could net answer what he did not know. Fe only pretended ignorance 
 
 A 
 
 in order to heighten the effect or to anticipate the difficulties that 
 flight arise in the ninds of the audience, as 
 
 7 
 
 Guos e^o ornc? Nenope eos qui ipsi sunt ornament a rei publicse. 
 
 Cur igitur pacerc nolo? Quia turpis est, auia periculcsa, ouis 
 
 4 
 
 esse non potest. 
 
 r Cf. Volknann, Rhet.,pp. 189 and 190. 
 
 Quint., Inst. Orat. ,9.2. 14, ...Ceteruc et interrog andi se ip sua et 
 respondendi sibi sclent esse non ingratae vices. Cf. Cic. , Orat • , 40. .1*7; 
 Longinus, on the Subline, 17C. The figure cf Question and answer is called 
 u7iocpop $ t subiectio. Cf.' Tiberius, Spengel, Fhet .Or. , 3.77. p , urroc(/opj( 5 i 
 Ijitv otoiv ql] i^r\Q 7t p o3 ot f v rj 6 Xoyop dt X X * vnobsiQ tt rj ti olo\ tPu ivxt- 
 Sfxou r, uq ex tou 7ip:xy;aaTog a7ioxp f vrpta t npop autov, ubnep 8uo &vt t Xeyutis vot 
 Tiodjcona fiiuouiievcp. £d Her. ,4.1?. 33* subiectio est, cun interrogsn us ad- 
 versaries aut auaeriaus ipsi a nobis. Quid sb illis aut quid contra nos 
 dici possit, aeinde subiciflus id, auod oportet dici, etc. See also Ibid., 
 9.16.23; Quint., Inst. Orat., 9. 2.12; ,.5.15; 9. 2.40; -Herniog., Spengel, Rhet. 
 3r. , 2. 4*4. 2*. Fort unantianus, R.L.M.:, 18. 3; Ernest , Lexicon Technologist 
 Latinorua Fbetor icae, p. z 77 under subiectio; Cic., De Orat., 3.53; Longinus 
 On the Sutline, 13. 
 
 "11. 14. 3^. 
 
 4 7 ^ o 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ') ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -T. 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 ‘ " «, ' . • 
 
 
 
 . ; : , ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !' . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18 
 
 Since the question together withjtbe answer ferns the figure^he Question 
 itself cannc't properly be considered rhetorical. Their number is snail 
 and they have not teen counted with the rhetorical Questions. Thus far we 
 have seen that inform at ion, the reel object of questions, is not sought by 
 the Questions in the Philippics, which only tends to stow that the broader 
 interpretation of the term rhetorical question is the better. 
 
 Secondly we know that there is an essential difference in purpose be- 
 tween an ofation and a dialogue or conversation. Consequently there is 
 also a difference between the purpose of a auestion used in an oration and 
 one used in a dialogue or ordinary conversation. In an oration the ques- 
 tion has not the "appetitic cognitionis " and hence it loses its purpose, 
 for "qusesticnis finis inventio." £s was ssid before, the time of delivery 
 of an oration is not the occasion to ask for information cr to hold a con- 
 versation. This consideration, applicable to nearly all questions in the 
 Philippics, induces us strongly to adopt the rhetorical question as under- 
 stood in its wider sense. 
 
 Lastly the purpose of a question is the fundamental reason for the 
 distinction between a real and a rhetorical question. P rhetorical ques- 
 tion is susceptible of many varieties, as Quintilian states: "at es res, 
 
 r 
 
 / 
 
 utrocum.que dicitur modo, etianr, multiplex hsbet schema." Then he goes on 
 
 to mention a variety of purposes for which a rhetorical question can be 
 
 2 
 
 employed. $e cannot do better than to quote the entire passage. "It is a 
 
 ****************************** 
 
 *Cf. Straub, Ee Tropis et Figuri s, p. 94. 
 
 r 
 
 ^Inst.Orat. ,9. 
 
 'Translated by Batson. 
 

 -***- 
 
 - 
 
 
19 
 
 simple interrogation to ssy: 
 
 'Sed vos aui tandem? quibus eat venistis at oris?'^ 
 
 Put it is an interrogation with a figure, when it is adopted, not for the 
 sane of seeking information tut in order to attack the person interrogated. 
 ...We sometimes ask coacerning what cannot, be denied; as 'Has Caius Fidi- 
 
 answer is difficult, as we say in conversation, ’Row? Row is it possible?' 
 Or to threw odium on the person to whom we address ourselves, as Vede 3 says 
 in Seneca, ’Ouss peti terras iubes?' Or to excite pity, as Sinon in Vergil, 
 
 Or to press our opponent, and deprive hir» of all Ground for pretending not 
 to understand us, as Asinius Follio said, ’Do you hear? We are attacking 
 
 the will of a madman, I say, not of a person who merely failed in his duty. 
 It assists to express indignation: 
 
 4 
 
 ...Ft Quisquam rumen Junonis adoret? 
 
 and wonder 
 
 ...Quid non mortal is pectora cog is 
 
 d- 
 
 culanius Falcula, I pray, been brought to judgment?' Or when to find an 
 
 'Feu ouae me tellus, inquit, quae me aequera possunt 
 
 2 
 
 Accipere? 
 
 Auri sacra fames? 
 
 Sometimes it is a more spirited form of command, as 
 
 Ron arms expedient, teteque ex urbe sequentur? 
 
 Sometimes we ask ourselves, as in Terence; 
 
 ***************** ************* 
 
 4 
 
 pAen. , 1. 40. 
 ' Aen. . 2. 
 

 
 
 
 
 Mi' 
 
 
 ■ V 
 
 M - ; 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;•) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *■ « * 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ . 
 
 
 
 • • f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 - . ' .... 
 
 
 
 - • V- 
 
 
 
 * ♦ • 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
 Quid igitur faciam? 
 
 Interrogation is also made by comparison, as 'Which of the two, then, will 
 
 r 
 
 more easily give a reason for his opinion?* " So far Quintilian, After 
 
 mentioning these eleven usages of the rhetorical ouestion, he distinctly 
 
 states that its purposes are not thereby exhausted: "Et aliis modis turn 
 
 2 
 
 brevius turn latius, turn de uns re turn de pluribus. " 
 
 If we bear in mind that Quintilian makes figures less numerous and 
 narrower in their application than Cicero and some other writers, end 
 ag8in if we bear in mind the many purposes and possibilities of the figure 
 of interrogation he mentions, we cannot but accept that the figure of in- 
 terrogation was very common and its application broad, Quintilian himself 
 
 F 
 
 says it is the most common of figures. Other rhetoricians, also, assign 
 
 many purposes to this figure, Longinus says: "Put what are we next to ssy 
 
 of questions and interrogations? Is it not precisely by the visualizing 
 
 dualities of these figures that Demosthenes strives to make his speeches 
 
 far more effective and impressive? ... *let us sail against Vacedonia. 
 
 Where shall we find a landing place? some one asks. The war itself will 
 
 7 
 
 discover the weak places in Philip's position, * £11 this, if stated plain- 
 
 ly and directly, would have been altogether weaker, As it is, the excite- 
 
 ******#**************:([****#*** 
 
 Hun,, 1.1.1. 
 
 ^T-ro Cloent,, 38.10*. 
 
 'Inst.0ret.,9. 2. 1*. 
 
 Ilnst.Orst., 9. 1.10-14; 9. 2. 1- 15 ; 9.3.100. 
 
 8 
 
 Q 2 * 
 
 * ' 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus confirms this,”... et, cum interrogat ione, 
 quo modo Lysius minime loauitur Demosthenes autem, aui at illc causas ac- 
 cepit^ creberrirre, " De Isaeo Iudicium,13. 
 
 Demos. , Phil, , 1.44, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21 
 
 merit, and the rapid play of question and answer, and the plan of meeting 
 his own objections as though they were ur^ed by another, have by help of 
 the- figure made the language used not only more elevated but also more con- 
 vincing. For an exhibition of passion has a greater effect when it seems 
 not to be studied by the speaker himself but inspired by the occasion;, and 
 questions asked and answered by oneself simulate a natural outburst of pas- 
 sion. For just as those who are interrogated by others experience a sudden 
 excitement and answer the inauiry incisively and with the utmost candor, so 
 the figure of question and answer leads the hearer to suppose that each 
 deliberate thought is struck out and uttered on the spur of the moment, and 
 so fcegui'es his reason.” Demetrius says: ”[n speaking it is sometimes 
 forcible to address questions to the audience without disclosing one’s own 
 view... The orator forces his hearer into a sort of corner, so that he 
 seems to be brought to task and to have no answer. If the positive state- 
 ment were substituted, tbs effect would be that of precise information 
 
 2 
 
 rather than of interrogation.” Caussin, speaking of the figure of inter- 
 rogation says: ” Saepe utitur hac figura, dum vult aliouid insinuare men- 
 
 z 
 
 tibus, et interrogate se, et suspendit animos, deinde respondit. Scbmalz, 
 also, ascribes various purposes to the rhetorical question: "Vanche Frage- 
 sStze sind. nur der Form nach Fragen, enthalten aber tatsSchlich eine Be- 
 hauptung, ei.ne Auf f orderung, einen Hunch, einen Bef ehl. . . Auch der Ausdruck 
 des Unwillens Oder der Viszfcilligung gegendfcer einer Behauptung, einer At- 
 
 sicht, einer Aufforderung, auch einer Totsache kann in die Form einer Fra- 
 
 ************ ********* ******** 
 
 ^On the Sublime, 18. 1-2, tr. Roberts. He should have had iccfv informa- 
 tion £rom Longinus had not two pages of the MS been lost at this point. 
 
 ^On style, 279, tr. Roberts. 
 
 'De Eloquent ia, 44?. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
ge gekleidet warden." -1 Moczynski in his work on Livy’s style says of the 
 rhetorical question: "... quas cur scriptcr adhibeat, multae eaeque non 
 pares ubique causae extant.” 
 
 The preceding pages together with e careful study of the questions in 
 the Philippics throw sufficient light on the nature of the figure, 'fie can 
 now by a process of elimination arrive at a conclusion as to the extent of 
 its use in the Philippics . Fy this process indirect questions have been 
 eliminated, even if the .text has an interrogation point after them. A typi- 
 cal example of them is the following 
 
 Cuaero deinceps, num hodiernus dies qui sit ignores? 
 
 Also questions dependent on dicat quispiam. Though Longinus classifies suet 
 
 4 
 
 questions as rhetorical , the weight of authority is on the other side. 
 
 They bring forth a difficulty, which requires an answer or an explanation 
 from the orator, as 
 
 Tu i?itur ipse de te? dixerit quispiam. 
 
 Furthermore direct quotations have not been counted, as 
 
 £ 
 
 lanitor, ”0uis tu?" "A Marco tabellarius. " 
 
 Sometimes such quotations are rhetorical questions, but inasmuch as they 
 are not Cicero’s they have been omitted fro® the count, as 
 
 7 
 
 "Quas tu mihi, " inquit, "intercessiones, quas religiones?" 
 
 **************** t*********** 
 
 ^Syntax and St i 1 i st i k, 210. 
 
 De Titi Livi in libris... quaest iones, p. 24. Cf • also Victor inus, Ars 
 Phet.,in Orelli’s Ciceronis Opera, Vol. 2 , pt . 1, p. 2 P2 ; Cic.Orat . , 40. I 2 ?; Tib. , 
 Spengel, Cr.Orat. , 2 . *4. 29 f f • ; Anon., [bid., 2 . 124.5; Herjuog. , Ibi cl. , 2. 484. 2 s ; if. 
 
 2 2.4 2 . 110. 
 
 4 
 
 _0n the Sublime, 18.1. 
 
 ^14.5.1?. 
 
 2. 81.77. 
 
 'l.l0.2 p . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lastly those questions have net been counted, which are answered directly 
 by the orator himself* fis was stated above, they form the so-called figure 
 of question and answer, but they can hardly be classed with rhetorical 
 quest ions. 
 
 After deducting thes.e four types of questions from the sura total, the 
 eight hundred fifty-one that remain are rhetorical. E’Ooge in his chapter 
 on indirect discourse holds that a question in the subjunctive is rhetori- 
 cal. He says: "If the mood is subjunctive, the question is rhetorical and 
 the subjunctive is retained in the indirect discourse. If the mood in di- 
 rect discourse be the indicative, it is sometimes difficult to determine 
 whether the question is real and to be expressed in indirect discourse by 
 the subjunctive, or rhetorical and t,o be expressed by the infinitive. Of- 
 ten it depends merely on the writer’s point of view. Similarly the re- 
 maining questions in the indicative are rhetorical. This conclusion was 
 arrived at after a careful study of the Philippics, which resulted in what 
 was said in the foregoing pages. And now recalling the many varieties and 
 purposes of the rhetorical question, as stated above, we find that it is 
 impossible to formulate a definition broad enough to embrace it in all its 
 applications. The following definitions represent ray notion of the figure, 
 though in an imperfect way, as gathered from the orations under considera- 
 tion. A question, which has lest its interrogative character. A question 
 that does not seek information and is accompanied by strong emotion. A 
 question that suggests its own answer. 
 
 ********************************* 
 
 "Lat. Corap., parts 2 and 7 , p. 2^0. 
 
 

 . 
 
 
 m. 
 
 'ft? 
 
24 
 
 nr. THE PHILIPPIC ORATIONS. 
 
 The Philippics, the latest orations of Cicero, were delivered daring 
 his life and death duel with Antony, who had been Caesar's colleague. in 
 the consulship. Many were the causes of Cicero's secret and growing ani- 
 mosity towards the consuls. He was afraid of Caesar and courted his favcr 
 in his correspondence with him and especially in the panegyric Ve Provin- 
 ces Consularib us. Put the hated dictator net his fate on the Ides of 
 March, 44 P.C. Cicero was not privy to the plot, because the conspirators 
 did not trust him. He was present, however, at the murder and delighted 
 at the siAht.^He further discloses his feelings towards Antony when he 
 says that "we should have had nc leavings, had I teen invited to the noble 
 festival of the Ides of March ; instead cf "playing only one act, I shoulu 
 have finished tho whole play." 'In other words, he would have killed Anto- 
 ny also. The events that followed were such as to give no credit to Foiran 
 reputation for administration, law and order. Might ana treachery were a 
 law unto themselves. Cicero decided to leave Italy and made the attempt to 
 do so. Upon being driven back by contrary winds and hearing that affairs 
 at Rome assumed a brighter outlook, he returned to the city cn the last 
 
 J d Att. , 14. 14.4. 
 
 _Ad Fam. , 10. 23. 1. 
 
 Phil. ,2. 11. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
day of August; The following day Antony convoked the senate. Cicero did 
 not attend on the ground that he was too tired and ill frou. the .journey. 
 Antony was piqued and even threatened Cicero for not appearing. On the 
 second of September the senate convened again and Cicero delivered his 
 first ovation against Antony, who in turn was absent. Fy way of introduc- 
 tion he gave the reasons for. his departure from Italy and his sudden re- 
 turn to the capital; also for his absence from the senate on the preceding 
 day. In the body of the oration he complained > in moderate terms of the 
 conduct of Antony and expressed his hope that all might be settled quiet- 
 ly. This oration elicited an outburst of anger on the part of Antony and 
 the two became declared and irreconcilable enemies. Thereupon Cicero pro- 
 ceeded to compose his second Philippic. Upon it he- lavished all his rhet- 
 orical charms; and .it is this oration that .marks the zenith of his ability 
 as an orator. In it he gave Antony the worst verbal lashing ever given to 
 a man. He presented Antony’s life and conduct, bis cruelty and lawlessness 
 in a full and glaring picture that makes human nature shudder. It is so 
 severe, so titter and so complete a diatribe expressed in terms of the 
 most unqualified contempt and open detestation, that a perusal of it Bakes 
 one feel that there was not a moment, net an act in Antony’s life that was 
 worthy of a man. In this tone the struggle continued. The union of young 
 Octavius with the senatorial party and the defection of two legions forced 
 Antony to a hurried departure from the city. Cicero, new in his sixtieth 
 year, once more came forth, as in the crisis twenty years before, the 
 prime ministei cf Force, the champion of the republic which he cherished 
 as the apple cf his eyeland which was the object of his sollicitude and 
 painstaking care. He animated the government in the third Philippic and 
 roused the populace to his cause in the fourth. Sc singular was his sue- 
 

5 3 or the latter occasion that he exclaims: "Quo quidem tempore, etiamai 
 ille dies vitae fiinem ir> i h i allaturus.esset, satis magnum ceperam fructum, 
 quum vos universi ana mente atque voce iterum a me conservstam esse re a 
 putlicem conclamast is. " The fifth, sixth, seventh Philippics represent 
 Cicero’s efforts to persuade the senate to declare Antony an enemy of the 
 state and to defeat the measure thereby an embassy was to be sent to bin. 
 he deprecated negotiations with a rebel in arms, arguing that such a peace 
 would be dangerous and disgraceful and urged the senate to act with firm- 
 ness and resolution. His efforts would have been successful had not one of 
 the tribunes interposed his veto. Meanwhile the .embassy returned with the 
 report that Antony remained obstinate in his opposition to the senatorial 
 party. Thereupon the senate declared a "tumult urn" instead of a "bellurr” , 
 as Cicero had urged. Hence in the eighth Philippic he expostulates with 
 the senators on their unmanly and unwise action. The ninth oration is tai - 
 en up with the proposal of voting honors to Sulpicius, who died on the 
 embassy to Antony. 
 
 In the meantime the scene of the contest shifted to the East, to 
 Macedonia and Syria. A long time elapsed before news of the successes of 
 Brutus reached Rome. When they were communicated to the senate, Calenus, 
 a creature of Antony, moved that Prutus should be deprived of his command 
 on the ground that he was acting- without lawful authority. It was against 
 this motion that Cicero gave vent to his patriotic indignation in the 
 tenth Philippic and succeeded from obtaining from the senate a confirma- 
 tion of Prutus’ position and an acknowledgment of his services. The ele- 
 

venth oration is in favor of appointing Cassias to the command of the arxy 
 of Trebonius, who had been treacherously murdered ky Eolakella. In the 
 twelfth and thirteenth orations he again strenacusly and succe&sf ally op- 
 posed the sending of a second embassy to Antony. In the thirteenth he also 
 criticized in scathing terra a letter of Antony to the senate. Soon re- 
 ports reached Pome, announcing a total defeat of Antcn.y. This soundeo the 
 signal of Cicero's victory. The occasion furnished bin with topics cf tri- 
 umph, panegyric, and pathos. Never before had he such an opportunity to 
 display the powers of his charming eloquence and he availed himself of it 
 in a glorious manner in the fourteenth and last Philippic. 
 
 Throughout the period in which the Philippics were delivered Cicero 
 
 felt that he was fighting only "with words against words", for the real 
 
 1 
 
 power was in the hands of Antony and his soldiers. This incensed Cicero 
 all the more. The occasion was a great one, hut Cicero was equal to it. 
 
 Pis Philippics 3re an example of the most eloquent and patriotic indigna- 
 tion,- of a forcible, florid style of oratory that have cone down to us. 
 They are replete with ornaments of style particularly the figure cf inter- 
 rogation. It is for this reason that they have keen selected for this stu- 
 dy. 
 
 The origin of the name Philippics, as applied to Cicero's orations 
 against Antony, is not definitely known. In a letter to Brutus, Cicero 
 
 himself in a .jest names them so and Prutus adopts the name. Juvenal 
 writes: 
 
 Guam te conspieuae, divine Philippics fsmae, 
 Volveris a prima quae proxima." 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 Z 
 
 Ad Prut., 5.4-"/ 'Sat , , 4. 10. 12 K f. 
 
 2.4.9. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 
 
 Plutarch says: '’Cicero entitled his own orations on which he bestowed most 
 
 7 
 
 labor, those against Antony, Philippics.” In whatever way it came stoat, 
 their resemblance to the orations of Demosthenes against King Thilip, 
 which were greatly admired by Cicero, justifies the name. 
 
 ********************************** 
 
 Cicero, 24. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rrr. mood? in fhetoficjl questions. 
 
 
 25 
 
 Indicative. 
 
 Of the total ntm<fcer of nine hundred forty-seven questions in the 
 Philippics, eight hundred fifty-one sre used rhetorically, of which sever 
 hundred ten are in the indicative, one hundred forty in the subjunctive 
 and one ir the infinitive. The indicative prevails over the subjunctive in 
 the proportion of about five to 6ne\ This preponderance is characteristic 
 not only of the Philippics tut also of the other orations of Cicerc. The 
 character of an orator, the circun stances and the purpose under which 
 orations are usually delivered explain such a preponderance. The orator’s 
 position is that of one who is striving to instruct, persuade, snd con- 
 vince; hence no other mood is so well adapted for the attainment of his 
 end as is the indicative. It reveals his plans, bis motives, his ideals, 
 and his own firm convictions in the form of questions, which are virtually 
 eooivalent to statements and those emphatic cnes. 
 
 The answer expected by the rhetorical question in the indicative is, 
 
 r 
 
 as a rule, a negative one ,as 
 
 Quid enim ille unquan arbitrio suo fecit? 
 
 ************************************ 
 
 1 Cf. statistics for Livy, Canter, Elements ir Livy’s Direct Speeches, 
 J.I>, *8, p. 1 2 7, footnote. 
 
 Gildersleeve-Lodge, Gram., 4^4. 
 
 2 -ft 
 
 *. 2 , 4 . 
 
2 C 
 
 The anticipated or implied answer is "Nothing”. Likewise when Cicero asks 
 8 1 o u t the exiles who, all knew, have not teen restored to their former 
 position: 
 
 N'urn cui exsules restituti? 1 
 
 Here nonne is employed a negative answer is anticipated to a negative and 
 
 r 
 
 consequently becomes affirmative, as 
 Nonne sic disputant? 
 
 The answer is "Yes, they do," In double questions tie negative answer is 
 
 4 
 
 anticipated by one of the alternatives . Khich one it is depends upon a 
 knowledge of the circumstances, as 
 
 Salusne aberair, an non saepe minus frequentes fuistis, an ea res 
 agebatur, ut etiam aegrotos deferri oporteret? 
 
 On the contrary the subjunctive sets forth the argument in less dog- 
 matic terms by presenting the case to the judgment of the orator’s hearers 
 and courting their approval. The skillful orator, by an appropriate and 
 timely use of the subjunctive in rhetorical questions, can achieve nearly 
 as much and at times even more than by the indicative. £fter he has 
 brought his hearers to a stage where he feels that they are in complete 
 harmony with himself, he can without risk put a question to them for solu- 
 tion, for he knows that they will approve the solution bis question sug- 
 gests. Us experience shows, a crowd in such circumstances imagines that it 
 
 ****************************** 
 
 *11 2 
 £ 1 • L - • 
 
 3 ildersleev e— Lc d g e , Gran., 4*4 Rem. 
 
 "7 1 2 
 4 
 
 Canter, Elements in Livy's Direct Speeches, A, J.P. 38, p. 1?7, footnote. 
 
 *1 .5.11. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 - .* . V. 
 
 
 if - 
 
 
 • . 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JS : : 
 
 
*1 
 
 is acting independently of the speaker. Accordingly me nr e y conclude that 
 Cicero employs the indicative in rhetorical questions in the Philippics, 
 unless soDie particular reason exists for the use of the subjunctive. 
 
 Fut. little need be said here of the use of the tenses of the indica- 
 tive in rhetorical questions. Their distribution is ss follows: four hun- 
 dred eight instances in the present, thirty-four in the imperfect, eighty- 
 five in the future, one hundred seventy-seven ir the perfect, five in the 
 pluperfect, end one in the future perfect. The greater number of occur- 
 rences of the present is largely due to the fact that most questions raise 
 in categoric form the existence or ron-existence, truth or non-truth as to 
 actions, phenomena, persons, or things, yoreover they implicitly challenge 
 the audience to gainsay the statements which the orator makes in the fora 
 of questions. Many of them begin with such stock expressions as "quis" or 
 ’’quid est" or "quis (or quid) potest esse", which in many instances close 
 with a clause of characteristic. The clause of characteristic points out 
 the kind of actions, phenomena, persons, or thirrgs as the case may be, of 
 whose non-existence or non-truth the orator is firmly convinced. Examples 
 of this kind are: 
 
 ...ouis enim id quidem pctest?^ 
 
 r 
 
 ^ £ 
 
 Cuis est enim hodie cuius intersit ist am legem manere? 
 
 Cuae potest esse turpitudinis tantae defensic? 
 
 Wutatis mutandis the reason for the majority of the presents holds good 
 for the majority of the perfects. Thus 
 
 Cuitus rebus tantis talibus gestis quid fuit causae cur in Afri- 
 ******************************* 
 
 ^ 1 . 9 . 21 . 
 

 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 *• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
can Caessren non sequerere, cum praesertim belli pars tants resteret? 
 
 r 
 
 Cuis enin miles fuit oui Frundisi illam non viderit? 
 
 Also of the pluperfect, as 
 
 Quid enim unfair, domus ilia viderat nisi pudicum, quid nisi ex 
 
 2 
 
 optimc iiiore et sanctissina discipline? 
 
 The instances cf the future are well divided among the several kinds of 
 introductions. Some are introduced by pronouns or adverbs, as 
 
 4 
 
 ...retinere quis poterit clerissimo domino restitute? 
 
 Others without any interrogative particle are usually accompanied by the 
 ides of indignation or surprise or the two combined, as 
 
 p 
 
 Tu, ... ut me convincas, ipse pessime senties?" 
 
 or by an, as 
 
 * 
 
 An vero quisquam dubitatit appellere Caesaren imperatcrem? 
 
 The sole instance of the future perfect is: 
 
 7 
 
 Cur non inauguraris? 
 
 Only one instance is found in the Philippics where the present indicative 
 is used instead of, or (and perhaps more correctly) with the force cf the 
 
 p 
 
 present subjunctive of the deliberative type: 
 
 9 
 
 Sed quid plura de lege dispute? 
 
 Evidently Cicero’s meaning is "Fut why should l say more about this law?” 
 ( = "There is no need of saying more about, this law.”) 
 
 . 2 . 79 . 71 . 
 
 5 . 28 . * 9 . 
 
 13. p .12. 
 
 14 . 7 . 18 . 
 
 14.10.58. 
 
 • 5 . 4 *. 110 . 
 Lane, Oran., 
 
 } 
 
 a r\ r- r 
 
 1. r . 44 . 
 
 1 * 2 7 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22 
 
 Sub junct i ve. 
 
 The subjunctive mood, as was said, usually represents a concession 
 trade to the audience and allows it to decide for itself. The question, how- 
 ever, is put to it at a tine, when there is little likelihood that it will 
 disagree with the speaker. The answer suggested by the speaker and elicited 
 by the question tray be of a dubitative or potential character, Sometimes 
 the speaker does not suggest an answer, hence no answer is elicited by the 
 question. Accordingly rhetorical questions in the subjunctive are diviied 
 into three classes^: those that expect a) no answer, b) an imperative ans- 
 wer cr its equivalent, c) a potential answer in the negative. 
 
 Subjunctive questions anticipating no answer. 
 
 Of this type I found only twenty-two instances in the Philippics. 
 Eleven ate in the present, seven in the inperfect, two in the perfect and 
 two in the pluperfect. They usually present a supposed case - what would 
 be likely to happen under a giver, condition. Thus Cicero, referring to 
 Antony’s accusing bin- of complicity in the murder of Cledius, suggests the 
 sit uat ion: 
 
 Guidnam homines putarent, si turn occisus esset cum tu ilium in 
 foro inspectante populo Fomano gladio insecutus es negotiumque tran- 
 segisses, nisi se ille in scales tabernse libraries coniecisset eis- 
 
 r 
 
 £ 
 
 que oppilstis impetum tuum eompressisset? 
 
 In another place, picturing the state of affairs if Ant-cny had control of 
 Caul, he exclaims: 
 
 1 • 
 ^Schmalz, Syntax und Stilistik, p. 47£ f no, 211, 
 
 2 
 
 r ^ r 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*4 
 
 Nam si V. Antonio patuisset Gallia si oppreseis nunicipiis et 
 
 colcniis imparatis in illem ultiaan Galliam penetrare potuisset, 
 
 1 
 
 quantus rei publicae terror inpenderet? 
 and the following with anaphora: 
 
 Medico tria milia iugerun: quid, si te sanaeset? rhetori duo: 
 
 r 
 
 quid, si te disertum facere potuisset? 
 
 In each instance it is clear that the absurdity of the supposed situation 
 is shown. 
 
 Subjunctive questions anticipating an imperative answer. 
 
 Questions of this type are the most numerous of the three types ir, 
 the subjunctive. Seventy instances are found, which with the exception of 
 one in the perfect and six in the imperfect, are all in the present terse. 
 Imperative answers, or their logical equivalents, elicited from the ora- 
 tor’s hearers contain the ne+ic.. of duty, propriety, or fitness of a pre- 
 sent or past action or situation. They are elicited by questions of the 
 
 2 4 
 
 deliberative type of subjunctive in its broader meaning . 
 
 1 
 
 
 J* :***************************** 
 
 2 2 
 
 2.59.101. Giidersleeve-Lodge, Gram. , 4^5, 2*5 and Ren. 
 
 The deliberative subjunctive is net taken here in its narrow neanin 
 for in that case it can be applied only to questions designated by the 
 term "dubit alive", in which the speaker appears to te actually deliberat- 
 ing with himself. Fere it is taken in the wider sense as we find it ex- 
 plained in our grammars. Cf. Fennett, Gram. 277, Syntax, pp. 177-18*. lulius 
 Pufinianus writes: Apcria, eaderr est et dia^oresis, addubitatic quaedam, 
 cum simulanus quaerere ncs, unde ineipiendue , quid potissimum dicendum, ?.n 
 omnino dicendum; cumaue art if icialiter simu^amus non siti res invenire non 
 paratos venisse. Cic. ir. Verren: Quern? Guen, quam? Recte sdn ones, Pel ycl it un 
 esse dicebant. Ft de dome sua spud pontifices: Tibi litter8s ille misit? 
 quas? aut numiquarc misit, aut si misit, in concione recitari noluit. Itaoue 
 sive misit, sive tu protulisti: certe consilium tuum de honore Catonis 
 nudatum est. R.L. M. ; 40. 52; Caussin, Ee Eloquentia, p.451, ad Cic. Ee Orat. 
 
 » 
 
Nearly all questions of this type 8re of the first person. In some 
 cases Cicero addresses his auditors and asks their opinion as if he wished 
 to conform himself to it. In reality, however, the form of question serves 
 tut as a cover for a direct statement of the justification or feasibility 
 of his own procedure. The questions imply that what he did was natural and 
 human, in fact the best that any human being could do under the given cir- 
 cumstances. Hence the force of the questions is derived from the general 
 consensus and good judgment of mankind, of which the hearers are a part. 
 
 In appealing to this good judgment of his hearers the orator attains a 
 closer harmony between then and himself. Thereby he rids the questions of 
 the purely personal element and does not expose himself greatly to the 
 danger cf disapproval, which might be the result of a direct statement. 
 Appealing to the good sense of the audience Cicero asks: 
 
 Hune igitur egc consulem, hunc civem Fomanum, hune liberum, tunc 
 denique bominem putem, oui foedo illo et flagiticso die et quid pati 
 
 C.Caesare vivo posset et quid eo mortuo consequi ipse euperet csten- 
 1 
 
 dit? 
 
 And the logical answer spontaneously springs up in the minds of the hear- 
 ers, ’’No, do not!" Further examples of this type are: 
 
 VeruB praeterita craitt amus: etismne hanc moram, dum profieis- 
 cantur legati, dum revert ant ur? quorum expectatio dubit at ionem belli 
 
 r r 
 
 adf ert? z 
 
 *************** ************* 
 
 T. £14, Aporia, dubitatic nobiscum per dialogismum. Unum pro mult is erit 
 exemplum quo ipsis inimicis lacrymas excussit C.Cracchus. Cue me nisei 
 eonferam? Cuo vertam? In Capitol iurnne? At fratris sanguine redundat: an 
 
 domum? matremne ut miseran lament ant ernque videam et abjectam? 
 
 1 
 
Quid enim ire int erponerem audaciae tuae, cuem neaue auctcritas 
 huius ordinis neque existiaatio populi Romani neque leges ullae pos- 
 sent coercere? 
 
 Postea vero quam se totum Pompeius Caesari tradidit, quid ego 
 
 r 
 
 Z 
 
 ilium efc eo distrahere conarer? 
 
 Quod ergo ipse tremini putavi dandum, ne a senatu quidem, id ego 
 anius iudieio delatum comprobem? ' 
 
 Sometimes they are purely deliberative, as 
 
 4 
 
 Guid putem? contempt utrne me? 
 
 p 
 
 Quid duos Servilios - Caseas dicam an £halas? 
 
 In other instances besides being deliberative in character they nark a 
 
 transition, as 
 
 Quid ego istius decrete, quid rapines, quid hereditatum posses- 
 
 f' 
 
 siones dates, quid ereptas proferam? 
 
 Guid ego de L.Cinna loqusr? cuius spectata multis magnisque re- 
 bus singularis integritas minus admiral i lent fscit. buius honestissimi 
 
 facti gloriam, aui omnino provinciam neglexit, ouas item megno sniac 
 
 7 
 
 et constsnti G.Cestius repudiavit. 
 
 Questions anticipating a potential answer ir the negative. 
 
 This is the third and last type of questions in the subjunctive to be 
 considered. There are forty-eight instances in the Philippics, distributed 
 among the tenses as follows: fifteen in the present, twenty-two in the im- 
 
 0 4 0 
 
 • > • 
 
 _ 2 . 10 . 2 2 . 
 
 "ll.10.2T. 
 
 ****************************** 
 
 4 7 
 
 R 2.1.2. 5.10.20 
 
 ^ I. 11.27. 
 
 2 . 2 *. * 2 . 
 

 
*7 
 
 perfect end eleven in the pluperfect. The perfect dees not occur.* The 
 rhetorical character of these questions is very pronounced. They are equi 
 
 r 
 
 valent to emphatic negations , as 
 
 Cuis enin audeat luci, quis in n. ilitari via, ouis tene comitatum 
 quis inlustrem sg^redi? 
 
 The answer is an emphatic "No one would". All of these questions are of 
 the shoul d-woul d type and irore than three-fourths are in the third person, 
 as 
 
 Ouae non esset lon^ior quam hac vita, ouis esset tan. amens oui 
 maximis labcribus et periculis ad summen lauden gloriamque conten- 
 
 4 
 
 deret? 
 
 Honests cratic, sed ite, si boros et utilis et e re publica 
 
 civis: sin eos qui natura cives sunt, voluntate hostes, salvos velis, 
 
 p 
 
 quid tandem irtersit inter te et illcs? 
 
 Few questions are of the second person, as 
 
 Sed quid opponas tandam, si neqem me umquam ad te istas iitteras 
 * 
 
 mississe? 
 
 Ouem ipse victor, oui tibi ut tute ilorisri scletss, detulerat 
 
 ex lstronibus suis principal urn, salvum esse volaisset, in Italian ire 
 
 7 
 
 iussisset, eum tu oceideres? 
 
 Infinitive of Exclamation. 
 
 There is one question in the Philippics that contains no definite 
 declaration, no notation of time, number, or person, but simply intinates 
 
 - *•*•***, ******** 
 
 1 . 
 
 There are but three perfect subjunctives in.ajl the questions in the 
 Philippics. 
 
 ^(5il lersIeeve-Lodge, 3ran . , 2 P 9, 4^* 
 
 12.10.2% 
 
 14.12.32. 
 
 C d 2 
 
 7 * - * ' " 
 
 f r 7 c: 
 
 ** * • < 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i . 
 
 
 
the action. It may te explained as an accusative cf exclarration in excited 
 question coupled with an infinitive of intimation. The mhole question is 
 very passionate and indignant. 
 
 0 admiratilero in pudent isiij, sudaciam, teneritatem! in eun edules- 
 centen hoc scrifcere audere, ouen e£o et frster meus propter eius sua- 
 vissimos atque cptin.cs mores praestsnt issirtun que ingenium certetim 
 
 ,r 
 
 8n>srrus omnifcusque horis oculis, aurifcus, complexu tenemus? 
 
 ***************************** 
 ^Cf. Lane, Gram., 1150, 1535, 1533. 
 
 ^3.7.13. 
 
IV. TYPES OF QUESTIONS. 
 
 Questions are usually divided into two kinds, word questions and 
 
 sentence questions. The forner are introduced by interrogative pronouns 
 
 J 1 
 
 (used substantively or adject ively), words of pronoun origin and adverts; 
 the latter (also cslled Yes or No questions) are introduced by various 
 particles. A third kind »ay be added here for convenience of treatment. Un- 
 der this latter head will be classified all questions in which nc interro- 
 gative introductory word is found. Fe shall now proceed to consider these 
 types of questions used with a rhetorical force in the Philippics, and in 
 so doing subdivide each type according to the words that introduce the 
 questions. As to the third type, no such subdivision is possible. They 
 will, therefore, be considered in one. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WORD QUESTIONS. 
 
 Pronoun Questions* 
 
 If we put int(e one class all the questions th8t are introduced by pro- 
 nouns and words of pronoun origin (there are tut nine of the latter), we 
 find that they fortu by far the greatest group. There are three hundred six- 
 ty-three instances in the Philippics, about three-sevenths of all the ques- 
 tions. In the majority of instances they refer not to a particular person 
 or thing, but to the class of which the person or thing is a part, the ob- 
 ject , about which the question turns, may be either real or supposed. For 
 more detailed treatment we shall divide the questions into three classes: 
 a) those introduced by interrogative pornouns used substantively, t) by 
 interrogative pronouns used adject ively, c) by words of pronoun origin.- 
 
 Questions introduced by interrogative pronouns 
 used substantively. 
 
 This group, again, is the largest of the type of Questions introduced 
 by pronouns, there being two hundred fifty-three instances. Its preponder- 
 ance is due in large part, as was said in connection with moods, to the 
 predominance of ouestions introduced by stock forms like "quis cr ouid est" 
 which deny in a rhetorical and forcible way the existence of some one or 
 something, whose acts or characteristics do not harmonize with the sten:.~ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ards defended by the speaker. Should the actions of the prosecuted person 
 be out of harmony with such e natural sna sensible standard, bis deeds 
 would consequently appear irore flagrant and nore worthy of condemnation. 
 Thus Cicero, whose illness trade it impossible for bin to be present at the 
 assembly of the senate convoked by Antony on the first of September, and 
 who notwithstanding was several tines impertinently summoned, asks with 
 indignant censure of Antony’s unreasonableness: 
 
 1 
 
 Ouis autem unique® tanto damno senetoren coegit? 
 
 Similarly: 
 
 Cuis eniu eut sccusator tam amens reperitur qui reo condemnato 
 
 obici se multitudini conductae velit, aut iudex qui reum damnare au- 
 
 2 
 
 deat, ut ipse ad operae mercennarias statin protrahatur? 
 
 2 
 
 Quis umquam apparitor tarn humilis, tam abiectus? 
 
 4 
 
 Guam: severitate® ouis potest non laudare? 
 
 Tt was noticed that neuters are far more numerous than masculines (one 
 hundred fifty-four against ninety-nine) and that no instances of the fem- 
 inine occur. On the whole neuters are employed with a purpose similar to 
 that of the masculines, as 
 
 Ouid tandem erst causae cur in senatum hesterno die tam acerbe 
 cogerer? 
 
 Quid enim turpius auam oui maiestatem populi Romani minuerit per 
 
 vim, eum damnatum iudicic ad earn ipsan vim reverti propter quern sit 
 * 
 
 lure damnstus? 
 
 *************************** 
 
 1 4 
 
 „1.*.12. ^11. 6.15. 
 
 ^1.9.22. *l.*.ll. 
 
 2.52.82. 1.9.21. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " • 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 - - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -• . * - '■ 
 
 
Cuid autem hoc iniustius quam nos inscient it us eis qui bellum 
 
 1 
 
 gerunt de pace decernere? 
 
 Fesides "quis or quid est", which occurs most frequently, the introductory 
 words used commonly are "quis ignorat", "quis potest", auid interest", 
 "quis sudivit", quis dubitat", and 8 variety of others, 
 
 r 
 
 Cuid enim interest inter suesorem facti et probatorem? 
 
 3 
 
 ... etsi in rebus iniquissimis quid potest esse aequi? 
 
 "Ouis ignorst", as a rule, appears at the end of the question, as 
 
 Cuamouam ilia auspicia non egent interpret at ione augurum; love 
 
 enirn tonante cum populo a5i non esse fas ouis ignorat? 
 
 Alterius consilium, ingenium, bum an it stem, innicentiam, magnitu- 
 
 <5 
 
 direm animi in patris liberanda quis ignorat? 
 
 In some instances the perfect is accompanied and strengthened by uflnouam,as 
 
 Cuis enim unquam qui paul urn mode bonorum consuetudinem nosset, 
 
 litteras ad se ab amico missas offensione aliqua interposita in me- 
 
 dium pretulit palamque recitavit? 
 
 Cuis vero audivit umquam - nullius autem salus curae pluribus 
 
 7 
 
 fuit- de fortunis Varronis res ullam esse detractam? 
 
 There are twenty-five instances, where the question contains a comparative 
 idea closely united with the interrogative pronoun and which resolves it- 
 self into the equivalent of a superlative, as 
 
 Cuid enim plenius, quid uberius quam mihi 
 
 3 
 
 Antonium dicere? 
 
 * 12 . 4 . 9 . 
 
 , 2 . 15 . 29 . 
 
 ‘ 1 . * 0 . 75 . 
 
 4 
 
 / • y • l 0 
 
 ***************************** 
 
 % 1 . 4 . 9 . 
 
 • 2 . 4 . 7 . 
 
 ? 2 . 40 . 104 . 
 
 Q 
 
 i r\ 
 
 1. 
 
 et pro me contra 
 

 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 .* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 * 
 
 Quid eni'o est deientius qua®, cam rei publicae perniciosa sffma 
 ipse ceperis, obicere alteri salutaria?^ 
 
 Quid hoc turpius, quid foedius, quid suppliciis omnibus dia- 
 
 2 
 
 nius? 
 
 The seme number of instances (twenty-five) is found, where th3< questions 
 are Introduced by "quis est qui" or "quid est quod". These are schemes to 
 amplify and strengthen the question and to make its interrogative character 
 more pronounced. 
 
 Quis enim miles fait, oui Brundisi illam non viderit? quis qui 
 
 nescierit venisse earn tibi tot dierum viam gratu.latum? ouis qui non 
 
 indoluerit tarn sero se quam nequam hominem secutus esset cognoscere? 
 
 Ouis erat qui hunc non casu existimet rect.e fecisse, nequitia 
 4 
 
 scelest e? 
 
 Quid erat in terris ubi in tuo pederc poneres praeter unum Wise- 
 num quod cum sociis tanquam Bisaponer tenebas? 
 
 In eleven instances Cicero introduces the Question by "quid est aliud" to 
 prove the similarity of two things or actions b.y pointing out that there 
 exists no difference between them. 
 
 Quid est aliud tollere ex vita societ atem, tollere amieorum 
 conloquia absent ium? 
 
 7 
 
 Quid est aliud lifcrarium Bruti laudere, Don Brutuai? 
 
 Quid est aliud non pacem facers, sea differre bell urn, nec solum 
 
 a 
 
 propagare bellum, sed concedere etiam victoriam? 
 
 4 
 
 -*. 4 . 11 . 
 
 ' 2 . 19 . 43 . 
 
 V VI 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ' " . ■ 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y<t 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44 
 
 [n three instances quid refers to a person, as 
 
 1 
 
 Cuid est enirc aliud Antonias? 
 
 Sometimes to add force to sn expression, which is already emphatic, Cicero 
 
 uses an adjective modified by tam to characterize and render still more 
 
 improbable the existence of a certain kind of people, as 
 
 Guis enim aut accusator tarn amens reperitur qui reo condemnato 
 
 obici se mult it ndini conductae velit, aut index qui ream damnare au- 
 
 2 
 
 deat at ipse ad operas mercennar ias statin protrahatar? 
 
 Guis gate.ii rex arqua® fait tarn insignite impudens at haberet o®- 
 
 nia commode, beneficia, iura regni venalia? 
 
 Once such a question is used of an inanimate object: 
 
 Huic tanto merito Eruti, patres conscripti, tsntoque in rem 
 
 , . 4 
 
 publics® beneficio quis est tantus honos qui non debeatur? 
 
 There are two questions introduced by "quis oui" and two by "aaid quod" 
 
 Guis out nescierit venisse earn tibi tot dieru® via® gratula- 
 
 t urn? 
 
 • •• cuid, quod a senatu dantar mandata legatis ut D.Brutum mi- 
 
 lit esque eius adeant eisque demonstrent summa in re® publics® merit a 
 
 benefieiacue eoru® grata esse senatai populoaae Romano eisque earn 
 
 * 
 
 re® magnae laudi tnagnoque honori fore? 
 
 These are best explained by the oeission of some such word as "dicas" or 
 "est" after the first pronoun, "Quid est causae", which makes the question 
 more emphatic than the simpler "quid" or "cur" occurs twice. 
 
 **********************♦*****+ 
 
 * 2 . 23 . 70 . * 3 . 13 . 37 . 
 
 * 1 . 9 . 22 . ^ 2 . 2 «.* 1 . 
 
 " 3 . 4 . 10 . 
 

 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cuibus rebus tantis taliturs testis quid fuit causae cur in Afri- 
 can Caesarens non sequerere, cum praesertim belli pars tanta resta- 
 
 1 
 
 ret? 
 
 Questions introduced by interrogative pronouns 
 used adjectively. 
 
 In the main there is very little or no difference between this and the 
 preceding class of questions as to their rhetorical use. Their force is the 
 same, i.e. they are equivalent to an emphatic negation or its equivalent. 
 Yet, while the former are very general, like "quis mortal iura? " ,,T Jti gen- 
 tium?'’ for instance, the latter on the other hand narrow the limits of 
 their application, as "Quo iure?" "Qua lege?" One hundred one instances 
 are found in the philippics. They usually refer to a smaller and well de- 
 fined class, as 
 
 Quae vobis potest cum hoc ^ladiatore, coodicionis, aecuitst is, Le- 
 
 r 
 
 5ationis esse communitas? 
 
 Quae pax potest esse maior? 
 
 4 
 
 Postea ouod scelus, quod facinus parricids non edidit? 
 
 In some eases it is difficult to decide whether the interrogative pronoun 
 is to be translated by "what?" or "what kind of?" as 
 
 Quo enirn aspeetu videre potero - omitto hostem patriae, ex quo 
 mi hi odium in ilium commune vobiscum est - mi hi uni crudel issimum 
 hostem? ' 
 
 £ 
 
 Quod est tibi cum Frutis bellun? 
 
 1 
 
 5.59.71. 
 
 '*.2.3. 
 
 9 . 5 . 
 
 Ht***************** ************* 
 
 4 
 
 k 1 ?. 9 . 51 . 
 
 ^15. Q. 17. 
 
 10.5.4. 
 

 
 ** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 * 
 
 Cum hoc Quae pax potest esse? 
 
 Questions introduced by interrogative v»ords 
 of pronoun origin, 
 
 Ey words of pronoun origin are meant words like quantus, qualis, etc. 
 They are used adject ively and occur in tut a few instances of rhetorical 
 questions, since they are by nature better adapted for introducing excla- 
 mations, Cicero found use in the Philippics for three, namely Quantus, cua- 
 lis, and quotas, Quantus is employed five times and even in these instan- 
 ces it is very much like an exclamatory remark, as 
 
 Esto; sit in verbis tuis hie stupor: quanto in rebus sententiis- 
 2 
 
 aue maior? 
 
 Ft en ire si abhinc annos prope viginti hoc ipso in templo ne^avi 
 posse asortum immat ura® esse consulari, auanto verius nunc negate 
 seni? ' 
 
 Nam si V. Antonio patuisset Gallia, si oppressis municipiis et 
 
 coloniis imparatis in ilia® ultima® Gallia® penetrare potuisset, 
 
 4 
 
 auantus rei publicae terror impenderet? 
 
 Quanto eninr honore laetitia, gratul3tione in hoc templum ingredi 
 detent illi ipsi huius urbis iiberatores, cum hesterno die propter 
 eorum res gestas we ovantem et prope triumphentem populus Romanes in 
 Capitoliu® domo tulerit, dorrutr inde reduxerit? 
 
 It is noteworthy that in the first three instances quantus appears at the 
 close of the sentence; a fact which indicates clearly that it shares the 
 
 ^ 15 . 3 . 5 . " 2 . 4 *. 119 . 
 
 ^ 2 . 12 . 30 . * 5 . 
 
 14 . 5 . 12 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
47 
 
 nature of an exclamation. Guslis occurs three times, as 
 
 Cuale autem benefioium est, quod te abstinueris nefario scelere?^ 
 
 Cualis igitur hostis hsfcendus est is, a quo victore si cruciatus 
 
 r 
 
 atsit, mors in beneficii parte numeretur? 
 
 The last of this class is quotus, which is used but once and in a disparag- 
 ing sense, as 
 
 Although usa2e has in sene instances reduced these interrogative pro- 
 nouns to colorless interrogative-indefinites and ecquid even to the level 
 of the enclitic -ne, they retain their pronominal force (with one possible 
 
 exception) wherever they are employed in the Philippics. Upon examination 
 
 4 
 
 we can well call them strengthened interrogatives . Ecouid is used three 
 
 times, ecquis twice, ecquo (adverbially) once and ecquodnam ( adject ively) 
 
 once. Their rhetorical force is closely related to that of quis-quest ions 
 
 and is easily noticeable in the following examples: 
 
 Ecquid est quod tarn proprie diei possit actum eius aui togatus 
 
 in re publics cum potestate impericqae vsrsatus sit ouam lex? 
 
 Ecquid reperies ex tarn longa orations mea cui te respondere posse 
 £ 
 
 corjf i das? 
 
 Ecquis est igitur exceptis eis oui ilium regnare gaudetant qui 
 
 7 
 
 illdd eut fieri noluerint aut factum improfcavit? 
 
 Videte quam despiciamur omnes, qui sumus e municipiis, id est. 
 
 2 
 
 omnes plene: ouot.us eniic cuisque nostrum non est? 
 
 Ecquis, ecquid, ecquo. 
 
 ******* t************* ♦*•*♦*♦*** 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
1 
 
 Ecquo te toe virtur provexisset, ecquo genus? 
 
 Omnis est aisera*servitus; sed fuerit quaejair necessaria: ccqucj- 
 
 In the following instance, which seems to be an exception to the com- 
 mon usage of these interrogative pronouns, ecquid can possibly be consid- 
 ered as having lost its pronominal character and being equivalent to the 
 enclitic -ne. Yet the opposite interpretation is also acceptable, for re- 
 ferre is used in its technical meaning and does not reouire an object. The 
 question reads: 
 
 Fuius ego alienus consiliis consul usus sum: tu, sororis filiis, 
 ecquid ad eun umquaai de re publics rettulisti? 
 
 It is noteworthy that in every esse the anticipated answer is nega- 
 tive. That, however, is not due to the introductory interrogative but to 
 the circumstances which admit only a negative answer. 
 
 Phetorleei questions introduced by interrogative adverbs serve a pur- 
 pose similar to that of questions introduced by interrogative pronouns. F.y 
 pronouns reference is made to a class of persons or things, which the ora- 
 tor strongly asserts are not to te found, while the adverbs with a similar 
 force introduce circumstances with reference to cause, place, time, or 
 manner. They are equivalent either to an emphatic denial of a particular 
 circumstance or to an emphatic assertion of its unfairness, unreasonable- 
 ness, inadmissibility, insolence, injustice, etc. In the Philippics tnere 
 
 Questions introduced by interrogative adverts 
 
 1 
 
 l z . 31.24 
 
 10.9.19 
 
 r 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
49 
 
 are one hundred thirteen instances of rhetorical questions introduced fcy 
 interrogative adverbs, distributed ss follows: 
 
 Cur in Questions (forty-one tines), especially when a si-clause pre- 
 cedes or follows, points out the illegality of an action, as 
 
 ... cur J/.Prutus referente te legibus est solutus, si at urte 
 J , 1 
 
 plus quan decern dies afuisset? 
 
 Nan si mors legat: sine caede ataue ferro nulluu honored oesi- 
 derat, cur decernit honorem sepulturae, qui rr s x i ;n □ s hafceri potest 
 
 r 
 
 mcrtuo? 
 
 
 2 
 
 ... si accipiendair (pace®), cur non rogamur? 
 or to its inconsistency, as 
 
 Si sunt falsa, cur probantur? si vera, cur. venerunt? 
 
 F 
 
 Sed cum tarn atroci edicto nos concitavisset , cur ipse non adfuit? 
 
 4 
 
 Si severus, cur non in oaais, si miser icors, cur non in sues? 
 A^ain, in connection with the utter insolence and injustice of Antony’s 
 treatment of the senate: 
 
 Cur armatoruii corona senatus saeptus est, cur me tui satellites 
 cum gladiis audiunt, cur valvae Concordias non patent, cur homines 
 omnium gentium maxime barbaros, Ituraeos, cum sagittis deducis in 
 
 7 
 
 forum? 
 
 In most cases these rhetorical questions imply censure and indignation on 
 the part of the orator and are equivalent to impassioned statements begin- 
 ning with ”It is impossible, unjust, wrong, etc.” 
 
 ******************************* 
 
 * 9 .*. 14 . 
 , 12 . 7 . 1 *. 
 2 . 39 . 100 . 
 
 , 3 . 8 . 20 . 
 
 '2 2P FA 
 
 • • • 
 
 2 . 44 . 112 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / .1 
 
 
 
 
 
Ouii (thirty-one times), very common in all authors, is employe:! in 
 the sense of "cur", as 
 
 Cuid enim gladiatoritus clamores? aaid populi versus? auid I c;r- 
 pei statuse plausus infiniti? auid duobus tribunis plebis, aui votis 
 adversant ur? 3 
 
 Cuid igitur profectus est vir fort issimus, me us conlega et f a : i 
 liaris, £.Hirtius consul? at aua iiifceci 11 itate, oua macie? f 
 Its office is frequently to introduce rhetorical questions in the deliter 
 stive subjunctive implying disgust, as 
 
 Cuid ego istius decreta, quid rapinas, quid hereditatem poeses- 
 
 i 
 
 siones datas, auid ereptas proferam? 
 
 Cuid prandiorum apparatus, auid furiosam vinolent iam tua.-u pro- 
 
 f eram? 4 
 
 Cuid reliquos clar i ssittos vires eo mm e mores)? 
 
 So in short expressions to mark a transition, as 
 
 6 3 .3 
 
 Quid multa? Sed quid plura? Quid iilud? 
 
 In strengthening his ovsn position, as 
 
 
 Sed quid singulos commemoro? 
 
 To indicate censure as in cur-questions, 
 
 Si ut in Syrian, patetat via et certe neaue lon^a, sin at ad 
 
 10 
 
 Trebonium, quid opus fuit cum legione? 
 
 Quid ergo opus est novo consilio, si in re nihil omnino ncvi 
 
 11 
 
 est? 
 
 1.1*. 3*. 
 
 y 13. 14. 2 Q. 
 / 
 
 11.2.4. 
 
 7.4.12. 
 
 13.14.30 and 2.45.116. 
 
 2. 2*5- *2. 
 
 
 31 12.1.3. 
 
 2.39.101. 
 
 3. 11. 27. 
 
 

 
 $ r“i - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 I L il I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• « « 
 
 1 
 
 si postulandarc (pacerr), quid timemus? 
 
 Oui (nine times) in the sense of "how" snows surprise, displeasure at 
 or censures severely a course of action, which the speaker considers high- 
 ly improbable, imprudent or altogether cur of harmony aitb -Roman ideals, as 
 
 eodem materno genere soleas gloriari? 
 
 Naoi concordiam civiun aui habere potest, nullam cum habeat civi- 
 
 Cui autem tifci venit in mentem redigere in memorial nostram te 
 
 4 
 
 aomi P.Lentuli esse educatum? 
 
 Oh i (eight times) anticipates the answer "nowhere". Cicero uses it 
 once in an expression equivalent tc his famous "0 tempera, o mores!" 
 
 At other times he employs it to make the absence of something very promi- 
 nent. 
 
 £ 
 
 Ubi enim tu in pace consistes? 
 
 Obi lex Caecilia et Eidia, ubi promulgate trinum nundinum, ubi 
 
 7 
 
 poena recent! lege Iunia et Licinia? 
 
 Cuo modo (five times) in eacn instance introduces rhetorical ques- 
 tions in the deliberative subjunctive, as 
 
 J 3 
 
 ... quo modo aceedat? 
 
 ... quo modo aspiciam mihi uni crudel issinum hostem, ut decls- 
 
 9 
 
 rant eius de me acerfcissimae eontiones? 
 
 Gui autem evenit ut tibi Julia natus ignobilis videatur, cum tu 
 
 2 
 
 tat em? 
 
 pro di immort ales! uti est ille mes virtusque iraiorum? 
 
 * 12 . 7 . 1 *. 
 
 2.7. 18. 
 
 * 8 . 8 . 2 ?. 
 
 ^ 2 . 2 4 . 07 . 
 
 4 
 
 Q ym ' 
 
 " 12 . 8. 19 
 
 X*. 14. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
£ 
 
 4 
 
 Quo usaue (five tirr.es) is employed in outbursts of an^er and implies 
 a sort of helplessness, as 
 
 Quo eniai usque tantum helium, tam crudele, tan nefariurr privatis 
 consiliis propul sah it ur? 
 
 r 
 
 Quo usoue enim dices pace® te velle? 
 
 Quo usque i^itur is qui omnis hostis scelere superevit nomine 
 2 
 
 hostis csre’cit? 
 
 Quart (three times), "how", to denote intensity, is used in questions 
 expressive of bitter sarcasm. 
 
 Quart veri simile porro est m tot hcminihus partial ofcscuris, 
 
 parti® adulescent ibus neminem occult antibus o-eum nonien latere pctuis- 
 4 
 
 se? 
 
 Atque hoc quidem detsstabiie omen avertat luppiter! ouam atsur- 
 
 p 
 
 dum autern, oui praeter fieri non potuerit, petere eum consulatum? 
 
 Quando (three times) anticipates an emphatic '’never”. 
 
 Quando enim obliviscetur ulla posteritas cuius scelere in hac 
 
 * 
 
 vestitus foeditate fuerimus? 
 
 Quern ad modum (twice) is translated by "ho#" and in questions in 
 which it appears it refers not to the manner in which the action was per- 
 formed, but rather to its results, as 
 
 Quern ad modurn nostrum hoc consilium Cspua probabit, quae tempo- 
 
 7 
 
 ribus his Roma altera est? 
 
 g 
 
 Quern ad modum ad nunc reus adleget? 
 
 , ? 
 
 r • • 
 
 ., 8 . 2 . 17 . 
 
 14 . 2 . 
 
 4 2 . 11 . 2 *. 
 
 , 11 .^. 11 . 
 
 15 . 12 . 
 
 ? 12 . 3 . 7 . 
 " 5 . 5 . 14 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 . 
 
 

 P 2 
 
 Cuotiens (twice), "bow often” is used so that it can hardly he dis- 
 tinguished from an exclamation. 
 
 Cuotiens te pater eius domu sua eiecit, quotiens custodes posuit 
 
 1 
 
 ne linen intrares? 
 
 Ouatenus (once), ”how long”, with reference to tine, is used in a 
 question that emphasizes the point that, had he become a second Catiline, 
 he could not have retrained in power as long as he did. 
 
 Cuatenus (fasces) haberem? ^ 
 
 Cuo (once), ’’whither”, "wherfi”. Cicero drawing a comparison between the 
 embassy sent to warn Hannibal and the one the senate intended to send to 
 remonstrate with Antony, shows the futility of the latter procedure by 
 asking: 
 
 Non enim ad Hannibaie® mittimus ut a Sagunto recedat, ed quern 
 miserat olinc senatus [-.Valeri urn ^laccum et C.Saebium Tampilum qui, si 
 Hannibal non pareret, Carthaginem iussi sunt: nostros quo iubemus ire, 
 si non paruerit Antomus? - ad nostrum civem mittimus, ne imperatorem, 
 ne coloniam populi Tomani oppugnet. 
 
 Cuorsum (once), ’’wither”, inquires he purpose or aim of Antony’s 
 speech. 
 
 Ouorsum hsec otiinis spectat oratio? quid enim legsti egerint non- 
 4 
 
 dum seimus. 
 
 Indirectly tut very forcibly Cicero brands the speech as untimely and non- 
 sensical as the concluding remark* shows. 
 
 Unde (occe;^ ”wheoce", "from what source”, as 
 
 p 
 
 Unde est adhuc helium tractum nisi ex retariaticne et more? 
 
 ****************************** 
 
 ^2. 19.45. 10. 27. P *.11. 2 0. 
 
 ^ 14 . 5 . 14 . 4 7 . 9 . 2 ^. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 • • . - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 <=4 
 
 SENTENCE' QUESTIONS. 
 
 le now come to the second train subdivision of oar subject, namely 
 sentence-questions. These are introduced by the interrogative particles 
 -ne, nonne, or nurr. While the pronoun and adverb questions inquire about 
 sotre particular person thing, or circumstance, the inauiry of the sentence- 
 question, as the name suggests, applies ordinarily to the sentence as a 
 whole, and turns upon the action or fact expressed by it. Nearly all ques- 
 tions of this type are used rhetorically, emphatically asserting or deny- 
 ing something, or at least showing inclination toward a positive or a 
 negative answer. Sometimes they elicit no answer at all, but simply serve 
 as an introduction to the inquiry contained in the dependent clause. In 
 all there are one hundred and twelve instances. 
 
 -Me. 
 
 The interrogative enclitic -ne occurs in rhetorical questions fifty 
 times. Such questions are said to be impartial, i.e., they do not antici- 
 pate either a positive or a negative answer. Yet there are numerous exam- 
 ples in which there is a decided leaning toward one or the other. This 
 tendency is not to be explained as due to something inherent in the tence 
 or word with which -ne combines, or in the particle itself, but it is to 
 be attributed rather to the nature of the circumstances of each particular 
 
 r y 
 
 case. Thus Videsne?can mean "do you see?" or "don’t ycu see?" but the na- 
 
ture of its response is dependent entirely on circumst ancee. In the Philip- 
 pics the psrticle -ne is appended to verbs, adverbs, pronouns, and adjec- 
 tives, 
 
 -Ne with verbs (eighteen times). In the majority of these instances 
 (ten) the verb is in the present indicative; three tines in the first per- 
 son, four tines in the second, and three tines in the third. Those of the 
 first person incline toward a negative answer and are virtually- equiva- 
 lent to a negation, as 
 
 Possumne igitur satis videri cautus, satis providus, si me huic 
 
 itineri tan iDfesto tamque periculosc eoimisero? * 
 
 r 
 
 Possuncusne igitur in Antoni latrocinio aeque esse tuti? 
 
 This is easy of explanation. The speaker knows his own situation well and 
 after pointing to the obvious dangers of the journey, he appeals to the 
 good sense of the audience by asking, ’’Can I be considered sufficiently 
 careful and cautious, if I set out on this journey, which is so beset with 
 dangers?” Hence we must admit that in such instances the circumstances 
 divest the question of its impartial character. In some of the rhetorical 
 questions of the second person the orator draws attention to some evident 
 and significant circumstance and then to make its existence more apparent 
 asks concerning it, as 
 
 Videtisne refertum forum, populumaue Pomanu* ad spem recuperan- 
 
 2 
 
 dae libertatis ereetum? J 
 
 ******* ******************** 
 
 3l2. 10. 
 
 ^ 1 2 . 12 . 27 , 
 
 *. 1 *.* 2 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This Question postulates 8 positive answer, and so does the following one, 
 which may be rendered in English by, "Don’t you know that I am speaking 
 about matters very well known to me?” 
 
 Scisne me de rebus mihi notissimis dicere?^ 
 
 In one instance where -ne is appended to a verb of thinking in the second 
 person the anticipated answer is negative, Fy it the speaker points out 
 the mistaken opinion of the person addressed, while the idea he rejects is 
 in the accompanying infinitive. 
 
 Putasne ilium immortal it at em mereri voluisse, ut propter armoru® 
 hahendorum licentiam metueretur? 
 
 In two of the three instances of the third person the "nun" effect is very 
 prominent. The fulfilment of the supposition in the case renders only a 
 negative answer possible. 
 
 7 
 
 Hac lege sublata videnturne vobis posse Caesaris acta servare? 
 
 4 
 
 Possuntne hae leges esse rat3e sine interitu legum reliquarum? 
 The third instance, on the contrary, is definitely inclined toward the 
 positive. 
 
 f; 
 
 Quid? de reliquis rei publicse malis licetne dicere? 
 
 The imperfect indicative is used tut once, and denotes recurrence of an 
 
 action. It is expressed with some degree of indignation. 
 
 Poteratne fieri ut non prcinde homines de quooue ut quisque 
 £ 
 
 mereretur iudicarent? 
 
 1 
 
 r\ 
 
 4 
 
 5.18.45. 
 
 1.15.54. 
 
 Cf. 
 
 ***************************** 
 Allen and Greenough, 5*5, c. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
p 7 
 
 The future is employed in four instances. They are or the whole of the 
 S8noe rhetorical character as the ouestions in the present with only the 
 shift in time. 
 
 Possum Cassism vitare, tenere Flaminiam: quid, si Anconam, ut di- 
 cit ur, Ventidius venerit, poterone Ariminum tuto accedere?^ 
 
 Ut omittam mult itudinem, L.Visidio, equiii Fomano, bomini in 
 primis ornato atque honesto civique semper egregio, cuius ego excu- 
 bias et custodies mei capitis eognovi in consulatu tr.eo; oui vicinos 
 suos non cohortatus est solum ut milites fierent sed etiam facultati- 
 bus suis sublevavit: huic, inqua®, tali viro, quern nos senatus con- 
 
 r 
 
 sulto eonlaudare debemus, poteritne esse pacatus Antonius? 
 
 The perfect is used once in a -ne rhetorical ouestion, which is expressed 
 with considerable sarcasm. 
 
 Sed fee id te dedisse mihi ouod non ademisti, meoue a te habere 
 
 vita®, quia non a te sit erepta: licuitne mihi per tuas contumelies 
 
 hoc tuum beneficium sic tueri ut tuebar, praesertim cum te hsec audi- 
 2 
 
 turum videres? J 
 
 Only one instance is found of -ne with the verb in the subjunctive. It, is 
 of the deliberative type and anticipates a potential answer in the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 Quid? Caesarem, deorum beneficio rei publicae procreat urn, dubi- 
 
 temne appellare imperatorem? oui primus Antoni immanem et foedam 
 
 crudelitatem non solum a iugulis nostris sed etiam a irembris et vi- 
 
 4 
 
 sceribus avert it? ****************************** 
 
 * 12 . 9 . 23 . 
 
 2 7 . 3 . 24 . 
 
 * 2 . 24 . * 0 . 
 
 4 14 . 9 . 2 P . 
 

 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Ne with adverbs. Cicero appends -ne to adverts in rhetorical ques- 
 tions in eighteen instances; to etiam five tiroes, to paruro three tiroes, to 
 idcirco two tiroes, to its two tiroes, to nihil two tiro.es, and once each to 
 adeo, ideo, numquaro, and satis. The interrogative force is soroetiroes cen- 
 tered on the advert, soroetiroes on the sentence as a whole. 
 
 Etiam is used in its ordinary meaning ''also*'. All the instances are 
 expressed with indignation and censure pointing out the i ropcssibi 1 it y or 
 audacity of an action. In each case the expected answer is an emphatic 
 "no". 
 
 Vulta quae in libera civitste ferenda non essent tulirous et per- 
 pessi s on us, alii spe fcrsitan recuperandae libertatis, alii vivendi 
 nimia cupiditate; sed, si ilia tulirous quae nos necessitas ferre coe- 
 git, ouae vis quaedam paene fatal is - ouae taroen ipsa non tulirous - 
 etiarone buius iropuri latronis fererous taet errirouro cr udelissirouroaue 
 doroinat uro? ^ 
 
 Etiarone ab hoc royrroillone Asiatico senatus roandata, legatorum 
 
 r 
 
 £ 
 
 verba audientur? 
 
 ...et si eius pueritia pertulerat libidines ecruro aui erant In 
 euro, tyranni, etiarone in nostros liberos doroinuro et tyrannuro coropara- 
 bat? 
 
 Farum, which is logically a negative, produces an effect very closely 
 akin to that of nonne, as 
 
 Parurone videtur oroniuro facinoruro sibi euro Colabella soeietatero 
 **♦♦********************•***.*** 
 
 S. 11. 29. 
 
 ^. 4 . 10 . 
 
 'l 2 .3.17. 
 

59 
 
 initam confiteri? 
 
 ...parumne haec significant incred ibi 1 iter consent ientem populi 
 
 Porcani universi voluntaterr? 
 
 Idcirco appears in such Questions where the circumstances reauire a 
 negative answer. The accompanying ut-clause points out that the course of 
 action followed was not the intended one, thereby making the real purpose 
 more outstanding. 
 
 Idcircone nos populus Pomanus consoles fecit ut in altissiio 
 
 gradu dignitatis locati rem publican) pro nihilo bateremus? 
 
 Idcircone saga sumpsimus, arms cepimus, iuventute® otunem ex tota 
 
 Italia excussimus, ut exercitu f lorent issitno et maximo legati ad 
 
 4 
 
 pacem m itterent ur? 
 
 Itane in *.5.15 looks backward and sums up what is said in the pre- 
 ceding sentence and emphasizes its truth, "Is it not so?" The answer is 
 "Yes". In the other of the two instances in which itane is employed the 
 Question is very sarcastic. 
 
 Itane vero? hoc per legatos roge^ dum est? 
 
 Nihil in the following auestion is used adverbially. Its meaning is 
 "in no respects," "no£ at all." 
 
 Quid? auod cum eo conlega tulit auem ipse fecit sua nuntiatione 
 
 £ 
 
 vitiosuns, nihilne ad auspicia bonus augur pertinere arbitratus est? 
 
 ll*. 17.36. 
 
 ^l.l p .5*. 
 
 1 . *. 14 . 
 
 ^ 12 . 7 . 1 *. 
 
 ,5.10.27. 
 
 5.5.9. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adeo looks forward and puts special emphasis on the decree of Antony's 
 hardihood. 
 
 Adeone pudorem cum pudicitia perdidisti ut hoc in eo teneplo di- 
 cere ausus sis in auo ego senatum ilium qui quondam florens orbi ter- 
 raruir, praesidebat consulebam, tu homines perditi3simos cum gladiis 
 conlocavisti? 
 
 Ideo also looks forward. The contents of the Question elicit a nega- 
 tive answer. Htb bitter sarcasm Cicero asks: 
 
 [deone L.Tarquinius exactus, Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius, M. Manlius 
 
 necati ut mult is post, saeculis a M.Antonii, quod fas non est, rex 
 
 2 
 
 Pomac const itueretur? 
 
 Numauam and satis are employed in questions which center their force 
 on the decree of the advert. 
 
 rem gesserunt homicidaene sint an vindices libertatis? 
 
 Haec oucnue tanta pericula si effugerc, satisne tutum reditum 
 4 
 
 put at is fore? 
 
 ->je with adjectives (eight times). The three instances of -ne ap- 
 pended to a participle are counted with adjectives. In these ouestions the 
 characteristic cr quality expressed by the adjective is the point about 
 which the force cf the interrogation centers. Fact of the two examples 
 cited tend strongly toward a negative answer. 
 
 Numauamne intelleges statuendum tibi esse utruw illi aui istam 
 
 Quid? illi tot immanes quaestus ferendine quos V. Antoni exhausit 
 
 domus? 
 
 * 
 
 • Pj z c 
 
 • « V • 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 if 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ■ 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*1 
 
 Verecundioremne cctsd putemus in postulando fore quern fuerit turn 
 cum nisit mandata ad eenatum?'* 
 
 -Ne with pronouns (six times). The emphasis is on the pronoun. In four 
 cases the pronoun is demonstrative (is, three times, hoc, once), in two in- 
 definite ( qui squam ) : 
 
 r 
 
 ... isne qui exclusus est? 
 has a ridiculous effect. 
 
 7 , 
 
 ... eorumne cui r.Frutum ofcsidione cupiunt libersre? 
 
 The answer to this is negative, demanded by circunst ances, known to hearers 
 as well as to the speaker. 
 
 Cuisquaiine divinare potest quid viti in auspiciis futurum sit, 
 
 4 
 
 nisi qui de caelo servare const.ituit? 
 
 Here the force of quisquam is very nearly th8t of the interrogative cuis. 
 The answer is "Nobody" or "No”. 
 
 R 
 
 ... hocine e maioribus accepimus ius ro^andi? 
 
 This question admits only a positive answer. Nonne hoc? etc. would have 
 
 produced the same general effect, but Cicero wished tc put special emphasis 
 
 on the fact that it is the law he had just mentioned that is in question. 
 
 To bring out the full force of hocine we should say,' ( Ig this not the law... 
 
 Nonne. 
 
 Questions introduced ty nonne anticipate a positive answer. Its posi- 
 tive character is contained in nonne itself, for with it we ask in a nega- 
 tive way about 8 negative. Another noteworthy factor is that these ques- 
 
 ^1. 1C. 5^. 
 
 4 11 . 15 .? 8 . 
 
 5 . 82 . 81 . 
 
 ° 1 . 10 . 5 *. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*5 
 
 tions pertain to matters concerning which there is a harnonious under- 
 standing between the orator and bis bearers. Consecuently the bearers can- 
 not gainsay bis stateoents without at the same time gainsaying their own 
 principles and knowledge. A nonne question, then, in such ci rcunst ances is 
 much more vivid and effectivs than a -ne question would be, for it brings 
 forward not arguments to gsin the hearers’ assent tut the assent itself. 
 Sixteen instances of this type are found in the Philippics. The vert in 
 each case is in the indicative. Thus Cicero voicing the principle of every 
 sensible man asks: 
 
 1 
 
 Nonne satius est multum esse auam ouod nemo intellegat dicere? 
 Other especially noteworthy instances are: 
 
 Quid? Mecedo Alexander, cum at ineunte aetate res naximas gerere 
 
 r 
 
 . ^ 
 
 coepisset, nonne tertio et tricesimo anno ncrtem obiit? 
 
 2 
 
 Quid? C.Prutum nonne omnibus sententiis semper ornavi? 
 
 Nonne satis est ab hominitus virtutis ignsris gratiam bene meren- 
 
 4 
 
 tibus non referi? 
 
 Quid? ills cestroru? V. Antoni lumina, nonne ante oculcs proponi- 
 
 tis?^ 
 
 Num. 
 
 Vest grammarians agree that num (except in early Latin), whether by 
 its own nature or by force of attendant circumstances, elicits a negative 
 
 X 17.48. 
 2 
 
 11 . 14 . 2 *. 
 
 11 .*.!?. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *> C . 
 
 ■# • . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
answer. Questions introduced by it (forty-six instances) in a truly rhetor- 
 ical way challenge the audience to contradict what the questions deny. The 
 challenge, however, is not made when there might, rightly be any fear that 
 it will be taken up. Accordingly the Question is put about the absent ex- 
 iles: 
 
 1 
 
 Nurri oui exules restituti? 
 
 These further questions can be cited as exemplifying its force: 
 
 Sed fee non esse: num Lstine scit? nuns est ex iudicum genere et 
 forma? rum, quod maximum est, leges nostras moresve novit? num deni- 
 
 populua rec plebem teneri: nut* eas restitui posse censetis? 
 
 In fifteen instances, where the verb is ir the second person, Cicero 
 expresses either his surprise or displeasure at the actions and proceeding 
 of those addressed. 
 
 Sin haec levior8 vebis videntur quae sunt gravissima, num etiam 
 hoc eontemnitis ouod sensistis tarn, caram populc Fomano vitam A.Hirti 
 
 Quid? D.Fruti iudieium, Quirites, quod ex bodierno eius edicto 
 
 perspicere potuistis, num cui tandem eontemnendum videtur? 
 
 2 
 
 cue homines? 
 
 Num ouisquam est vestrutr cui tritum non h8beat? 
 
 6 
 
 Leges statuimus per vim et contra auspicia latas eisoue nee 
 
 f uisse? 
 
 Qui si legatis pa merit Fomarrque redierit, num umousm perditis 
 
 7 
 
 civitus vexillum quo concurrent defuturum p ut at i s r 
 
 7 
 
*4 
 
 Ergo i 1 1 e avunculus: nurr> etian vcs avunculi oui illi estis ad- 
 sensi? 1 
 
 Nuti' etian hoc ( adsignabis) , homo audacissirte, ex Csesaris con- 
 
 r 
 
 ncentariis? 
 
 Only one example of this kind is found inhere the verb after nun is in 
 the subjunctive. 
 
 Nutr i£itur eum, si tun esses, t errerariuir civeir aut crudelem pu- 
 tares, aut Q.Vetellum, cuius ouattuor filii consulares, P.Lentulum, 
 principem senat.us, conpluris alios summcs viros oui cum Opimio con- 
 
 7 
 
 sule armati Gtacchun in ^ventinum persecuti sunt? 
 
 Quin is used only in one instance to introduce a Question. It is vir- 
 
 4 
 
 tually equivalent to an imperative , being in substance a curse. 
 
 p 
 
 Quin tu abis in nialam pestem nsalunique cruciatum? 
 
 *************** ************ 
 
 * 8 . 1 . 2 . 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 2 . 17 . 43 . 
 
 *8.4.14. 
 
 4 Cf. Lane, 1327 and 1531; Gildersleeve-Lcdge, 27*. 
 '13.21.48. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISJUNCTIVE QUESTIONS. 
 
 Disjunctive questions sre introduced by utrun - an, -ne - an, an 
 (where the particle with the first member is not used) or an (where there 
 is no first n'ember). They can be divided into direct or complete disjunc- 
 tive and incomplete disjunctive questions. In the former the two alterna- 
 tives (or more members) appear, in the latter the first member is to be 
 supplied from the context or circumstances. Only eleven couplete disjunc- 
 tive questions sre employed in the Philippics. £11 of them' are used rhet- 
 orically. 
 
 Complete Disjunctive Questions. 
 
 Utrun: - an. 
 
 Six questions of this type are found, one of which is doubtful. Though 
 disjunctive questions sre of themselves neutral, yet in each case that 
 appears in the Philippics the first member by force of circumstances an- 
 ticipates a negative answer, while the alternative is emphatic in its ex- 
 pectation of assent. The alternative conveys the crater's view. Thus when 
 Cicero, who was bitterly averse to the idea of sending envoys to £ntcny, 
 then master of the situation, had proven by many and conclusive arguments 
 that £ntony was dangerous to the welfare of the Republic ana was virtu- 
 ally adjudged a public enemy by the provisions of the senate and people, 
 he puts this question to the senators: 
 

 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ad hunc utrua legates an legiones ire oportebat? 
 Other noteworthy instances are: 
 
 1 
 
 Haec utrun tanden lex est an legun onniuir dissolutio? 
 
 r 
 
 Utruir hoc bellum non est, an est tantuo tellur quantua, nurrouaa 
 
 2 
 
 fuit? 
 
 The doubtful exanple referred to above reads: 
 
 Utrua. igitur aequins, utruBt aielius rei publicae fuit Cn.Ponpeiurr 
 
 4 
 
 an sectorea Cn.Poaipei vivere Antoniui? 
 
 Here utruir seen s to retain Biore of its original force and to stand in 
 apposition , as it were, with the following disjunctive Cn.Poa'peiuir an.,. 
 AntoniuB:, the enclitic -ne being omitted with Fonjpeiutr. Of course it can 
 also be looked upon as an ordinary disjunctive Question. 
 
 These questions (three instances) have the same rhetorical effect as 
 
 the preceding. They do not, however, exclude mere possibilities, as utrum 
 
 p 
 
 - an questions usually do . In the following instance Cicero’s stress in 
 branding Antony a direptor et vexator urbis is unmistakable. 
 
 7 
 
 Custosne urbis an direptor et vexator esset Antonios? 
 
 Another similar instance is: 
 
 Cued si ipsa res publics iudicaret aut si omne ius decretis eius 
 
 0 
 
 st at ueret ur, Antonione an Fruto legiones populi Romani 8diudicaret? 
 
 -Ne - an. 
 
 '8.2.7. 
 
 S?.14.*0. 
 
 n 
 
 .Utrum from uter, which of two. 
 Vadvig, 4*2, obs. 2. 
 
-7 
 
 One Question is found where a third member with an is introduced, 
 
 Solusne aberan, an non saepe irirus freauentes fuistis, an ea res 
 agebatur ut etiam aegrotos deferri oporteret?^ 
 
 The circumstances of this incident compel a negative answer to he given 
 to the first member, a positive to the second, and a negative to the third, 
 This is the only instance in Cicero’s orations where -ne is followed by 
 
 r 
 
 more than one sn. The third member is so unrelated to the preceding ones 
 
 7 
 
 that Long was induced to put a Question mark after fuistis and consider 
 the last member a separate Question, It possesses a strong sarcastic ele- 
 ment, so prevalent in an questions. 
 
 — - - an 
 
 4 
 
 Only in two instances 1? the interrogative particle in the first al 
 ternative omitted by Cicero. 
 
 Ncs sustulimus an contra lege ccnitiis centuriatis lat.a sanxi- 
 
 <= 
 
 mus? 
 
 Cascas dican) an Ahalas? 
 
 These questions imply that the orator stamps zs impossible or absurd the 
 the first member, which, like many simple questions without an interroga- 
 tive particle, is uttered with vehement exasperation. It is especially 
 true of the second Question, where Cicero speaking for the entire senate 
 resents the idea of being accused of unconstitutional legislation. 
 
 Ji.s.n. 
 
 Several instances of it occur in his philosophical works. 
 Ciceronis Oraticnes Vcl. 4, p. 4^4. 
 
 See last Question under utrum - sr (above). 
 
 ,1?. I*. 51. 
 
 ~ 5 . 11 . 57 . 
 
*3 
 
 Incomplete Disjunctive Cuestions. 
 
 An, 
 
 The interrogative particle sn always stands at the beginning of a 
 Question. Questions introduced by it sre commonly called disjunctive, but 
 they cannot be considered complete dis jonct ives. Whatever disjunctive 
 force they have is necassarily weak or else the first member would be ex- 
 pressed. The effect of the suppressed member can be felt, but the diffi- 
 culty of formulating it in actual words is not recognized till the etteapt 
 is made. It can be felt from the circumstances that the speaker emphasizes 
 as true or false, possible or impossible, etc. all other imaginable alter- 
 natives to the one he mentions, as 
 
 An ut tu Narbone mensas hospitum convomeres Dolabella pro te in 
 
 . * J 
 
 Pispania dimiearet? 
 
 An potest cognatio proprior ulla esse ouao patriae in Qua paren- 
 
 2 
 
 tes etiam cent inentur? 
 
 An ille id faciat auod paulo ante decretum est, ut exercitum 
 
 citra f lumen Pubiccnem, oui finis est Galliae, educeret, durn ne pro- 
 
 2 
 
 pius u'rbem Pornsm CC milia admoveret? 
 
 In many instances very little need, if any at all, is felt for the 
 so-called suppressed member. The sn question sinply strengthens what was 
 said in the previous sentence, by showing the weakness, unsoundness, ab- 
 surdity, or impossibility of any opinion that might possibly suggest it- 
 self. The contrast between the views the orator supports and those ex- 
 pressed in the an question is very marked and the latter are shown to be 
 wholly untenable, as 
 
 ' 5 . 50 . 7 *. 
 
 
 - tz 
 
 > • J • 
 
 * * * * 
 
.... ii - - 
 
1 
 
 />n C.Tretonio ego persuasi? cui re suadere auiderr ansus sui. 
 
 /n ire censetis, petres conscripti, ouod vcs inviti secuti estis, 
 decreturum fuisse, ut perentalia cum supplicat ior.itus miscerent ur, ut 
 inexpiabiles reli^iones in rem publican inducerentur , ut decerneren- 
 
 r 
 
 £ 
 
 tur suppl icaticnee aortuo? 
 
 /in in senatu facilliae de ire distrahi posse credidit? oui ordc 
 
 clarissitnis civikus bere gestae rei publicae t est iacnium rrultis, tr 1 1 i 
 
 z 
 
 uni eonservatae dedit. 
 
 [n the fore^oin^ Questions the anticipated answer is negative, while in 
 others where the orator’s opinion is contained in the an question the re- 
 
 verse is true, as 
 
 An de interitu rei pufclicae queri non debui, ne in te in £r at us 
 4 
 
 v iderer? 
 
 £n tu ilia in vestibule rostrs cum aspexisti, domum tuano te in- 
 troire put as? 
 
 /in e£o non provideem civibus meis? 
 
 The majority of an Questions reveal more or less intense feelings of 
 
 surprise, indignation, sarcasm, ridicule and the like. See those of the 
 
 preceding class, tc which the following may be added. 
 
 /n faces admovendae sunt quae excitent tantae causae irdermi- 
 7 
 
 enteir? 
 
 A n equites Romanos smpleetetur ? 
 
 1 
 
 2 . 11 . 57 . 
 
 ’l.*.l*. 
 
 \ 
 
 r *1 r 
 
 j. 
 
 r 2 £ 
 
 * * : 
 
 q qq 4s 
 
 5 . 15 . 50 . 
 
 ' 7 . 8 . 51 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V ’ .> > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7Q 
 
 An Antorias potius ornaren, non node susrun familiarun sed Po- 
 
 1 
 
 Irani nominis probra etque dedecora? 
 
 Special emphasis is obtained by "an auisouam". 
 
 r 
 
 . ^ 
 
 An vero quisquam dutitafcit appellare Caesaren lmperatorem? 
 
 111 . 14 . 8 *. 
 'l4.10. 28. 
 

 * ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS WITHOUT PARTICLES. 
 
 After we have discussed word Questions and sentence ouestions, we 
 cone to the third type (if it tray be called so), namely questiors without 
 introductory particles. Strictly speaking they are sentence Questions, as 
 accepted teaching classifies then., yet the fact that no particle appears 
 in then and the ease of considering then apart from the ethers recommends 
 such a division* Moreover there is something in their nature that distin- 
 guishes most of then from the ordinary sentence question. The absence of 
 the particles is supplied by proper inflection of the voice. They are con- 
 iron in those departments of literature where the dramatic element finds 
 place, as orations, tragedies, comedies, dialogues, etc. Perhaps it is not 
 an exaggeration to say that their use is common to all languages. Cicero 
 employs them to the number of one hundred sixty in the Philippics^. As in 
 questions introduced by an the word, about which the inquiry centers, fol- 
 lows immediately after the particle, sc here the emphatic word is usually 
 first, but in long sentences, whose first member only prepares the way for 
 the Question at the close, it is frequently last. We need not, thee, try 
 to subdivide these questions but simply examine the use Cicero makes of 
 
 r 
 
 them. ^ 
 
 ****** ************************ 
 
 1 
 
 ^One hundred eighty-six, if those after Quid? are counted. 
 
 There has not as yet been found an adequate basis for classifying 
 these questions. No elements are so prominent in them as to make any clear 
 cut subdivision of them. Morris ( A. J.p. vol. 11, p. 14 P ff. ) classifies them, 
 according to the position of the verfc;whetfcer it stands first or towards 
 the end of the auest ion; Grabenst eir, p. p ? ff.by the presence or absence of 
 non; and Wolff, p. PI f f. according to the purpose the author had in view. 
 

 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ' ■*' ■ 
 
 
 ■ • _J . " • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y -- • 
 
 
 
 
 
 j ■■ ~ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 ■ •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 . • • . • - ■ • •• 
 
 ■» 
 
 ■t. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 It aay be said at the start that in many instances it is impossible 
 to decide with any satisfactory degree of accuracy whether these sentences 
 are questions, exclamations, or declaration in an ironical sense*, f. few 
 of them will illustrate the point. 
 
 In huius me tu consili societatem tamquarr in equurr Troianurr cum 
 principitus includis?^ 
 
 0 audacian immanent tu etiair ingredi illarr. donum ausus es,tu illjd 
 
 sanctissimum limeri intrare, tu illarum aedium dis penatitus os ia— 
 
 2 
 
 purissinum ostendere?’ 
 
 4 
 
 Et tu in Caessris menoria diligens, tu ilium amas mcrtuum? 
 Ad hunc, di honi! legates mitti placet? 
 
 Cuius igitur singularen prudentiam admiramsur eius stultitian 
 
 £ 
 
 t in: emus? 
 
 7 
 
 Servituten pacem vocas? 
 
 Closely akin to the foregoing are questions in which the orator re- 
 peats the thought of a preceding sentence, whether it contains his own 
 opinion or that of another. TJ e thereby draws attention to a view, which he 
 considers incorrect, and which the audience has already sensed to be un- 
 sound. Fy the repetition he makes its falseness more apparent and conse- 
 quently it ftiust be rejected as impossible. 
 
 p 
 
 Occultatum dico?'’ 
 
 9 
 
 Charyfcdim dico? quae si fuit animal unum fuit? 
 
 *Cf .Lane, 1502; Rale and Fuck, £23,?; Harkness, 35^ , rote 1; Allen and 
 Creenpugh, ??2, a. 
 
 
 2. 27. *8. 
 
 , 5 . 9 . 2 p . 
 7 P . 18. P G. 
 3.4.12. 
 
 
 OP 
 
 
 2 . 4?. 3 10 
 

 
Leg atos decernis? 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Ego 1 arista? 
 
 z 
 
 These Questions are frecuently very passionate , especially those in the 
 second person. In then the orator upbraids the person addressed in stirr- 
 ing, sarcastic terns, as 
 
 4 ’ 
 
 Et vos acta Caesaris defenditis oui leges eius evertistis? 
 
 Ergo, ut te cat am it un, nec cpinato cun, te osten di sses, praeter 
 spent irulier aspiceret, idcirco urben terrore nocturno, Italian n.ul- 
 
 torun dieruir n,etu perturbasti? 
 
 Eaveas tu hosti? ille litteras ad te rrittat de sua spe rerun 
 
 secundarum; eas tu laetus proferas, recites, describendes etiair des 
 
 inprobis civitus, ecrun augess anincs, bonorun. spen virtutenoue de- 
 
 bilites, et te consularen aut senatoren, denique civeaj putes? 
 
 Haec tu nandata, L.Piso, et tu, L. Philippe, principes civitatis 
 
 7 
 
 non dice aninjc feme verunt auribus accipere potuistis? 
 
 Soniet imes the speaker is carried off by indignation and even stoops 
 to abusive language, especially when he is conscious that his earnest ap- 
 peals and sincere injunctions retrain unheeded, as 
 
 Tu auten, onniun st ult issime, non intelligis, si, id quod ire 
 arguis, voluisse interfici Caesarea crinen sit, etien laetatua esse 
 
 rrorte Caesaris crinen esse? 
 
 Haec ut conligeres, bono sntent issin e, tot dies in aliens villa 
 
 9 
 
 declamsst i? 
 
 a 
 
 ******** 
 
 3-9. V. 
 
 'l 7 . 39.^0. 
 
 3 ilder sleeve -Ledge, 4 P3 . 
 
 5 . 2 1 . 77 . 
 
 9 
 
 d 1.8. 39. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 74 
 
 Tu mentis compos, tu non constringendus? 
 
 Vany of these questions are trade up of two parts, the first usually 
 leading up to the second, in which the inquiry is embodied. Meng the most 
 common of this type are those beginning with a demonstrative or a relative 
 pronoun. They are used in expressing surprise, astonishment , conplaint, 
 rebuke, anger, end such like feelings, es 
 
 Et eius viri nomine me insectari audes cuius me amicum, te sec- 
 
 r 
 
 tore® esse fateare? 
 
 Qua® lege® igitur se augur dicit- tulisse non node tonante love 
 sed prope caelesti clanore prohibente, hsne dubitsbit contra auspi- 
 cis lata® eonfitrei? 
 
 Cuius igitur singularum prudentia® admiramur, eius stultiaa 
 4 
 
 1 1 ®emu s? 
 
 Qui frequent issimi in gradibus Concordise steterunt, qui nos ed 
 libertate® recuperandan excitaverunt , arms, saga, bellu® flagitave- 
 runt, ace une cutr populo Fcmanc in conticne®, vocaverunt, hi £ nt or i u® 
 diligent et cu® his pace® servafcit Antonios?' 
 
 In eighteen instances a conditional clause either precedes cr fellows 
 
 the ®e®ber which contain? the inquiry. 
 
 Si te q unici pioru® non pudebat, ne veterani ouide® exercitus? 
 
 Sed si te laus adlicere ad recte faciendum non potest, ne netus 
 
 7 
 
 quide® a fcedissinis factis potest avccare? 
 
 At nos conantis servitutis vincla rumpere impediet si ouis ve- 
 
 3 
 
 ter a nos nolle dixerit? 
 
 **************************** 
 
 1 4 7 
 
 2 Q7 6.1?. F C. 2. 4. 11^. 
 
 >.1K.*9. >.3.21. '10.9.15. 
 
 >. 2 .s. ^2. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 ^ 
 
 Frequently questions in the first person (when Cicero includes hiir- 
 self with the senate) are exclamatory in character snd criticize severely 
 some proposed measure. 
 
 Ergo haec urc, verum optino auctore done prolata defend irrue: eas 
 leges quas ipse nobis inspectantitus recitevit, pronunt iavit, tulit, 
 quitus latis gloriebatur eiscue legibue rem publican! contineri puta- 
 bat, de provinciis, de iudiciis, eas, inquam, Caesaris leges nos oui 
 defendimus acta Caessris evertendas putan‘us?^ 
 
 Nos ad civern mittimus re imperatorem populi Romani, ne exerci- 
 turn, ne colonies circumsedeat , ne oppu.gnet, ne agres depopuletur. 
 
 ne sit host is? 
 
 Ft ad eum legates de pace mitten us qui pacis nuntics repudiavit 
 Especially forceful are questions accompanied by non, which nega- 
 tives the principle word. They have the effect of nonne, but non is rot a 
 part of nonne with -ne emitted. Twenty-seven instances are fouhd in the 
 Phi 1 i ppics. 
 
 Cn.PomitiuD non patris interims, clarissimi viri, non evunculi 
 
 mers, non spoliatio dignitatis ad recuperandam libertatem, sed mea 
 
 4 
 
 auctorit.8S excitavit? 
 
 p 
 
 L.Frutus regem superbum non tulit? 
 
 V. vero ^ntonius non is erit ad quern omni mctu concursus fiat 
 * 
 
 civiun perditorurr? 
 
 Non recordamini, per deos immortelesl quas ir. eos sententias 
 7 
 
 dixerit is? 
 
 1 
 
 1 . 10 . 24 . 
 
 10 . 27 . 
 
 12 . 11 . 
 
 ‘ 2 . 11 . 27 . 
 
 '2 4 0 
 7 . 4 . 13 . 
 
 l z . 7 . p . 
 
 O Vi 
 

 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 * 
 
 Questions with Quid? 
 
 Tie nay here consider questions before which we find quid? indicating 
 a rhetorical rise. Quid? does not, like other interrogati ves, introduce 
 
 the question that follows upon it. It is strictly a question by itself, 
 whose English equivalent is "Trbat?". [n all instances quid? can be ex- 
 plained as an interrogative pronoun (sonetirr.es as an adverb aeaning w Why? *9 
 
 independent of the following question with scire such verb as dicere, cen- 
 
 1 
 
 sere, or seqni understood. In translation, however, the two questions nay 
 be united into one proposition. Quid? is expressed with apparent surprise 
 and frequently with indignation. It serves to make the audience rcore at- 
 tentive to what the orator is about to say and implies the iapossibi 1 ity 
 of accepting a previous or following opinion. In this sense it can be said 
 to introduce a question. Vie shall divide the fifty instances into two 
 classes, according as the question that follows is or is not introduced by 
 an interrogative. 
 
 Quid? followed by interrogative pronoun (five tines). 
 
 Quid? Poirpeii tertius consulatus in ouibus ectis constitit? 
 
 r 
 
 Quid? si etipir scripsi*. ad te Caesar ut redderes, quid satis po 
 
 test dici de tanta irnpadent ia? 
 
 Quid? cuno decrevistis at consules, alter atrbove, ad belluir pro- 
 
 4 
 
 f iciscerentur, quod erat bellu.t, si hosiis Antonias non erat? 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
77 
 
 Quid fcllowed by -ne Question (five tiroes). 
 
 Quid? de reliquis rei pufclicae aalis licetne dicere?^ 
 
 Cuid? illi tot iroroanes quaestus ferendine quos V. Antoni exhausit 
 
 esse rationed? 
 
 Cuid? followed fc.y nonne quest ion( nine tiroes). 
 
 4 
 
 Cuid? turn nonne cesserunt? 
 
 Cuid? ilia castrcruro V. Antoni luiina, nonne ante oculos propo- 
 
 (■ 
 
 Cuid? legionuro nostrarum nervos nonne his consiliis incidirous? 
 
 Quid? followed by nuro question (four tiroes). 
 
 Cuid? D.Fruti iudiciuro, Quirites, quod ex hodiernc eius edieto 
 
 7 
 
 perspicere potuistis, nuro cui tandero cont eronsnduro videtur? 
 
 3 
 
 Quid? nos a patnfcus nuro aliter accepirous? 
 
 Cuid? followed by a cur question. 
 
 . 9 
 
 Cuid? legio toartia: cuid? ouarta, cur laudantur? 
 
 It will be noticed that all the questions cited imply intense feelings on 
 
 the part of the orator, who clearly perceives the right or wrong, of the 
 
 issue before hit, and with all his powers either defends or opposes it. The 
 
 quid? portion of the question shows that he dees not agree with the views 
 
 expressed. This is likewise true of cases where the question following 
 
 quid? has no interrogative word to introduce it. Of the latter type there 
 
 don us? 
 
 Quid? vitae censetisne, patres conscripti, hafcendam m i h i aliquam 
 
 2 
 
 nit is? 
 
 1 „ • 
 
 14 . 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 
 15 . 3.21 
 

 
 
 
 / ’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 - 
 
 ♦ 
 
73 
 
 are twenty-six instances, as 
 
 Quid? isti ordini iudicatus lege lulia, etiam ante Fompeia, 
 
 1 
 
 Aurelia non patefcat? 
 
 r 
 
 £ 
 
 Quid tua? quod ita erit gestun:, id lex erit? 
 
 Quid? c uk Prut urn online quodain illius generis et ncneinis nstun ad 
 
 real publics® literandaai exercit unique eius pro libertate populi Fomani 
 
 bellurr ^erente® cun* Antonio prov inciamque fidelissi tque optimum, 
 
 Pallia®, laudibus ampl issimis adfecistis, tut non hosten iudicastis 
 2 
 
 Antoniutu? 
 
 Quid? cum dilectus haberi tota Italia iussistis, cum vacationes 
 
 4 
 
 omnis sustulistis, turn ille host is non est iudieatus? 
 
 * * * * + * ' 
 
 ******* t*** 
 
 * 1 . 3 . 20 . 
 
 * 1 . 10 . 2 *. 
 
 * 7 . 4 . 11 . 
 
 4 
 
 7.4. I 2 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
79 
 
 V. QUESTIONS WITH EMPHASIS. 
 
 the various means the Romans employed for rendering a question 
 more, forcit le are the strengthening words tandem and the interrogative en- 
 
 Rence they are by their nature well fitted to stand in questions expressed 
 
 rests cn the word that- precedes them, and yet effects the question as a 
 whole. Frequently they carrot be rendered in the English question. Tandem 
 is used fourteen times. In his titter opposition to Antony’s proposal, 
 whereby any future criminals would secure indemnity, for "id fertur re 
 quis omn i no umquam istis leg i bus reus List”, Cicero exclaims *i.i. im p a— 
 t ience: 
 
 Other in stances of this kind are: 
 
 Rac ille crudelitate imtutus, cum multo bonis omnibus venirst 
 iraticr quam iliis fuerat quos trucidarat, cui tandem nostrum aut cui 
 
 clitic -nam*. Tandem means "at length”, "finally” and -nam "pray", "then". 
 
 with eagerness and impatience . The emphasis gained by these words usually 
 
 Paec utrum tandem lex an leg urn omnium dissolutio? 
 
 4 
 
 omnino tono pepercisset? 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (f ■ 
 
Honesta oratio, sed its si bonos et utilis et e re publics 
 
 civis: sin eos qui nstura cives sunt, voluntste hostes, salves velis, 
 
 1 
 
 Quid tandem intersit inter te et illos? 
 
 ged si principatus a^eretur, quern n.umquam expet ivi, oui i tandem 
 
 mihi esset optatius? 
 
 The interrogative enclitic -nan is weaker than tandem and is appended 
 to pronouns in three instances, 
 
 Guonam meo fsto, patres conscripti, fieri diesis ut nemo his an- 
 nis vi^intirei publicae fuerit hostis oui non bellun eoden tempore 
 
 mi hi quooue indixerit? 
 
 4 
 
 Ouinsai locus capietur? 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31 
 
 CUFST rOMS WITH [PONY. 
 
 Trcny as a figure of thought is s sort of humor or light sarcasm in 
 
 which the implication is the opposite of the literal sense of the words. 
 
 Scheller writes: "Porsan ironie its licet, breviter definire, ut in eo con- 
 
 sislat, si aliud cogitamus, aliud dicimus, ita tamer, ut, ouid proprie 
 
 1 
 
 cogitemus, coritextu alicque mode dec 1 aret ur. " Quintilian makes clear the 
 
 distinction between irony, the trope and irony, the figure of thought: 
 
 I n duobus demum verbis est ironia, ergo etiam brevior est tropus. /t in 
 
 figura totius voluntatis fictic est, apparens iragis auam confessa, ut il- 
 
 lic verba sint verbis diverse, hie sensus sermoni el voci et teta interim 
 
 causae conformatio, cum etiam vita uriversa ironiam habere videatur, ous- 
 
 5 
 
 lis est vit8 Socratis. " That the figure of irony might produce the de- 
 sired effect Scheller instructs us that "Non omnes res ironice exprimi 
 possunt, sed tartans eae, quarum ratio, magnitude, utilitas ita ncta est, 
 ut lectori vel auditori statim contrarians in nsentem venire debeat." Of 
 
 its nature Quintilian says: "Quid ironia? nenne etiam quae severissime fit 
 
 4 
 
 ioei prope 5enus est?" The joke, however, is frequently cutting, Cicero 
 ^Pr^cepta St i 1 i bene Latini, p. l zp . 
 
 ‘‘[nst.Orat. ,9, 2, 4*. Cf. also ibid 44 and 4T.Cicero, Zcad.2,5, 15, says of 
 the Socratic irony: "Ita cum aliud diceret ataue sent iret , libent er ut i so- 
 litus est ea dissimul at ione, quam Craeci vocant elowvs fotv. 
 
 Op.cit. , p, 135. 
 
 ' [nst.Orar. , 5. *3. 
 

 
 
uses irony in questions eight times. 
 
 Quid babes quod iriihi opponas, homo disserte, ut Vustelae taiien 
 
 1 
 
 Seio et Tironi Numisio videris? 
 
 ec t u f bo m o sepiens, non sclui eloquens, spud eos quorum con- 
 
 r\ 
 
 ■ 
 
 silio sapientiaque gests sunt ausus es vituperare? 
 
 Quid? quod cum eo conlegs tulit querr ipse fecit sua nuntistione 
 
 2 
 
 vitiosuiE, nihilne ad suspieia bonus augur pertinere arbitrates est? 
 
 1 
 
 2 . 4 . 8 . 
 
 2 . 5 . 11 . 
 
 2 
 
 . 9 . 
 
QUEST TONS H SFFI ES. 
 
 Special emphasis is gained by several rhetorical questions in a ser- 
 ies. Frequently all of them center their force upon one point, with the 
 result that the standpoint taken by the orator is made irrefutable. On two 
 occasions Cicero uses a series of twelve questions. Once be employs this 
 device in his opposition to the proposed sending of envoys to Antony. Fe 
 argues that such a mission would not only be futile but even harmful and 
 contrary to Roman common law.' In the other instance he urges the annul- 
 ment of various measures passed by Antony, on the Ground that they were 
 illegally carried. Though some of thei were salutary and favored by Cicero, 
 as abolition of dictatorship, others, as the lex iudicii, were detrimental 
 to public welfare. Fe wished to have all of them annulled and then to re- 
 uses the desirable ones in a legal manner, in order to free himself and 
 the senate from the odium of takihg part in illegal and injurious legisla- 
 tion. This series is worth quoting. 
 
 Senatus consulta falsa delata at eo iudicavimus: num ea vera 
 possumus iudicare? Leges statuimus per vim et contra auspicia Mas eis« 
 que nee populate nec plebem teneri: num eas restitui pcese censetis? 
 Sestertium septiens miliens avertisse Antonium pecuniae publicae iu- 
 dicavistis: num fraude poterit carere peculatus? Imaunitates ab eo 
 
 1 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34 
 
 civitatibus, sacerdotia, regna venierunt: nun- fijgentur rursus eae 
 tabulae quas vos decretis vestris refixistis? Cuod si ea quae deeT*e- 
 vi.Tus obruere volurtus, runs etiaro jt e ?t- oriano rerun delere possurous? 
 Cuando enirr obi ivi ecet ar ulla posteritas cuius scelere in bac vesti- 
 tus foeditate Fuerimus? Ut cent urionun legionis Vartiae Frundisi pro- 
 lusjs sanguis eluatur, run elui praedicetio crudelitatis potest? Ut 
 '! e i L j praetercan, ouae vetustas toilet operun circus) Vutinan taetra 
 nonunenta, sceleris indicia 1 atrocini que vestigia? Huic igitur iuf^ertu 
 no atque itrpuro parricldae quid bsbemus, per ddos i amort ales! quod 
 
 reirittanus? An Gs 1 1 i s-e ultinan et exercitua? Quid est aliud non pace® 
 facere, sed diferre tellun, nec solun propagare fcellun sed concedere 
 
 etian Victorian? An ille non vicerit, si quacunoue condicione in banc 
 
 1 
 
 urben cun suis venerit? 
 
 Further passages where several questions Follow in immediate series 
 are as Follows: nine in 3. 3. 7-3; eight in 7 .*. 1*; 7 .3.21; seven in 5. 1 7 . 
 31; *.4.17; 14. *.14; six in 1.10.2*; l.l*. 7 *; 2.4 7 .11Q (twice); 7.2.*; 11, 
 3.10-11; Five in 2.2.2*; 2. 1 7 . 72 ; 7 .9.22; 3.3.21-22; *.4-3.11-12; 7.*. 17; 
 3.2.*; 3.9.27; 11.3.11; 11. 14. 7 *; 12.7,1*; 13. *.14; Four in 1.3.19; 1.9. 
 22-23; 2.4.a ; 2.11. 2 P ; 2.11.27; 2.12.29; 2.2*.*1; 2.27.*3; 2. 7 C. 7 *; 2. 7 3. 
 3*; 2.39.100 (twice); 2.44.112; 3 2 .7 ; p . 7 .l 7 ; 3.3.14; 3. *.17; 3.9. 2*; 3. 
 10-11. 27-23; *. 7 .3-9; *.4.11; 8.4.11-12; 10.3.17; 11.4.9; 11. 12. 27-23; 11, 
 1*. 33; 12.2.*; 12.4.9; 13.10.22; l 7 . 10. 23; 13.11.2 P ; l 7 . 19.42-4*. Instan- 
 ces where Fswer than Four questions appear in a series are toe luaerous 
 to be recorded. A series oF three Questions is Found Forty-nine times, oF 
 
 12.*-*. 12-13. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
two questions one hundred four tiroes. 
 
 Especially notable in arrangeroent and effectiveness are the series in 
 which the interrogative is repeated anaphorically or the general arran^e- 
 roent of the questions is the sarce, as the nurc-quest ions in the series of 
 twelve quoted above. Cur is repeated six tiroes in the following instance: 
 Tu horoo sapiens et considerate, quid dici3? si parricidas cur 
 honoris causa a te sunt et in hoc ordine et apud populuu Foroanuro sero- 
 per appellati? cur V.Frutus referente te legibus est solutus, si at 
 urbe plus qua® decero dies afuisset? cur ludi ^pollinares incredibili 
 V.Fruti honore celebrati? cur provinciae Brute, Cassio datae, cur 
 quaestores additi, cur le^atoru® numerus auctus?^ 
 
 Seven interrogat ives, pronouns and adverbs occur in the following short 
 question: 
 
 Quae de illo viro Sulle, ouae Vurena, quae Servilius, quae Lu- 
 cullus, qua® ornate, qua® honorifice, qua® graviter saepe in senatu 
 
 r 
 
 praedicaverunt? 
 
 The following series of this kind are also worthy of note: quis oc- 
 curs five tiroes in ironediate succession in 14.4.10; five pronouns in 7.8. 
 21; four in 1.3.22-2*; 1.1^.**; quid four tiroes in l.l^.**; 2.2 F .*2; three 
 pronouns in 3.5.12; 1.102*; 2.7.1*; 2.12.29; 2.25. *1; 2.29.71; 2. **.3*; 
 2.39*100; nuns four tiroes in 5.5.13; cur four tiroes in 2.44.112; an three 
 tiroes in 11 . 14 . 3 *; quid? three tiroes in 5.3.7; 12.3.7; questions without 
 particles, six in 7.5. p ; four in 2.27. *8; 5.9. 2 P ; and three in 7. A. 13 . 
 
 * 2 . 13 . 11 . 
 
 'll. I 2 .”. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 . .. - 1 
 
 
 
Observe the force and anaphoric arrangement in the following question. 
 
 Tantus igitur te stupor oppressit vel, ut verius dicam, tar.tus 
 
 furor ut prim urn, cun' sector sis isto loco natus, deinde cure Pompei 
 
 sector, non te exsecratum populo Romano, non detestsbilem, non omnis 
 
 1 
 
 tibi deos, non oinis homines et esse inimieos et futures scias? 
 
 Nctahie, too, is the question in which a long series of relative 
 
 clauses bear forcibly upon the point Cicero wishes to make emphatic. 
 
 Guid hie faciet, si poterit, iratus qui, cum suscensere nemini 
 
 posset, omnibus bonis fuerit inimicus? quid hie victor non audebit 
 
 qui nullam adeptus victoriam tants scelera post Caesaris interitum 
 
 fecerit, refertam eius donum exhauserit, hortos compilsverit, ad se 
 
 ex eis omnia ornaments t ranst ulerit , caedis et incendiorum caus.an 
 
 quaesisrit ex funere, duobus aut tribus senatus consultis bene et e 
 
 re publics factis reliquas res ad lucrum praedamque revocaverit, ven- 
 
 diderit immunit ates, civitates liberaverit, provincias universes ex 
 
 imperi populi Pomani iure sustulerit exsules reduxerit, falsas leges 
 
 C. Caesaris nomine et falsa decreta in aes incidenda et in Capitclio 
 
 figenda curaverit, earumque rerum omnium domesticum merc8tum insti- 
 
 tuerit, populo Romano leges imposuerit, armis et praesidiis populum 
 
 et magistratus foro excluserit, senatum stiparit armatis, armatos in 
 
 cells Concordiae, cum senatum haberet, incluserit, ad le^iones Prun- 
 
 disium cucurrerit, ex eis optima sentientis centuriones iugulaverit, 
 
 cum exercitu Pomam sit ad interitum nostrum et sa dispertitionem 
 
 £ 
 
 urtis venire conatus? 
 
 ***************************** 
 
 1 
 
 r 2. 2 ^. ^ 5 * 
 
 ^ 5 . 13 . 30 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
= 
 
 = 
 
 .Distribution of Questions in the Philippics. 
 
 Orat. 
 
 Lines 
 
 Quest. 
 
 Total 
 
 Pbet . 
 Quest. 
 
 Ind. 
 
 Sub. 
 
 Question 
 per Lines 
 
 1 
 
 4ZP 
 
 *1 
 
 P * 
 
 66 
 
 1 
 
 7 V3 
 
 2 
 
 1 2 *2 
 
 267 
 
 22 2 
 
 186 
 
 ' 93 
 
 P 9 
 
 3 
 
 47P 
 
 *1 
 
 P3 
 
 > y 
 
 4* 
 
 7 
 
 7 4 /6 
 
 4 
 
 174 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 1 
 
 11 ? /6 
 
 c 
 
 *38 
 
 39 
 
 31 
 
 72 
 
 9 
 
 7 2 /6 
 
 * 
 
 220 
 
 42 
 
 96 
 
 2 2 
 
 * 
 
 6 j /4 
 
 7 
 
 • 277 
 
 F7 
 
 6* 
 
 43 
 
 p 
 
 4 ? /9 
 
 p 
 
 3*1 
 
 p£ 
 
 62 
 
 44 
 
 8 
 
 * Vs 
 
 9 
 
 200 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 - 
 
 60 
 
 10 
 
 2 29 
 
 99 
 
 2 4 
 
 90 
 
 4 
 
 8 2 /6 
 
 11 
 
 *512 
 
 *4 
 
 PG 
 
 j 
 
 41 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 *79 
 
 74 
 
 70 
 
 *0 
 
 10 
 
 6 Vs 
 
 1? 
 
 4*5 
 
 89 
 
 73 
 
 PQ 
 
 - y 
 
 19 
 
 7 1 /6 
 
 14 
 
 42* 
 
 3P 
 
 92 
 
 21 
 
 11 
 
 12 V* 
 
 Total 
 
 *440 
 
 9 Z * 
 
 861 
 
 710 
 
 140 
 
 * ^/ 2 
 
 Note.- One question is in the infinitive of exclarcat ion. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 The foregoing table speaks for Itself. It will be noticed that, with 
 the exception of the ninth, the Philippics abound in rhetorical questions. 
 This is due to the character of the orations and to the nature of the 
 rhetorical question. The latter is beyond doubt one of the aost forcible 
 of the figures of thought and hence most effective in political oratory, 
 as this was understood in the dsys of Cicero. In our day political oratory, 
 i.e. oratory in a legislative assembly, does not allow or at least does 
 not favor the bringing of emotions into play in the manner in which it is 
 done by Cicero in the Philippics . For the sske of comparison I have ex- 
 amined some of the speeches of reputed orators of our own day and 8 few 
 
 2 
 
 of the world-renowned orators of the past two centuries . The figures 
 represent the number of lines and questions respectively. 
 
 z 
 
 Bancroft, George, "The Political Career of Andrew Jackson", 427 - 57 ; 
 
 ********************************* 
 
 ^Recall the arguments in the Catilinarian orations and the legal, 
 rather illegal, condemnation of Catiline by the senate at the instigation 
 of Cicero. 
 
 ^These orations are printed in the "Library of the World’s Pest Ora- 
 tions" and in the "Modern Floqoenee" series. The lines are somewhat long- 
 er than those in the Oxford text of the Philippics. 
 
 Delivered at Washington, June 27, 1645. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 * ■ 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 > . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f T-9 
 
 
 
 
 i- M , / 
 
- 9 
 
 Rayard, Thos.T. , "A Plea For Conciliation in 187*"/ 8** - 2*; 
 
 2 
 
 Furke, Edmund, "Conci 1 i at ion with America", 2 P 2C -3*; 
 
 7 
 
 Calhoun, John C. , "Denouncing Andrew Jackson", 92 - 7; 
 
 4 
 
 Chamberlain, Jos. , "The True Conception of Empire", 188 - 1; 
 
 8 
 
 Clark, Champ, "The Annexation of Hawaii", *72 - 88; 
 
 " " , "The Courage of Leadership", 124 -1; 
 
 7 
 
 Clay, Henry, "Dictators in American Politics", 873 - 17; 
 
 8 
 
 Cochran, Wm.E. , "Answer to William Jennings Frysn", 8*^ - 1; 
 
 9 
 
 Webster, Daniel, "Reply to Fayne", 1148 - 49. 
 
 Instances of this kind could easily be multiplied. The few noted are fair- 
 ly representative of Questions and occasions similar to the Philippics and 
 offer ample opportunity for the use of the figure of interrogation. And 
 yet we notice that the nearer we come down to our own time the greater is 
 the tendency to neglect the figure of interrogation. In ancient times, on 
 the contrary, any emotion could be brought into play in political speeches 
 
 ***#*. ***********:**■**#**. ******* 
 
 ^"Counting of Electoral Votes", delivered in the United States Senate, 
 Jan. 2r, 1877. This speech was delivered when the country was in imminent 
 danger of the renewal of civil war, as a result of the contested presiden- 
 tial election. The nesses of the people were greatly excited. Fayard took 
 the lead in the Senate as peacemaker and though he met with the reproaches 
 sure be visited in such cases, he won his plea. 
 
 ^Delivered in the House of Commons, Mar. 22,1778. 
 
 Delivered in the U-nited States Senate ir. Jan. 18 2 7. 
 
 4 
 
 Delivered in London, Mar. 81,1397. 
 
 .Delivered in the House of Representatives, June 11, 1898. 
 
 A 
 
 Delivered Feb. 4,1899. 
 
 7 
 
 Delivered in the United States Senate, Apr. 2 0,18*4. 
 
 Delivered in Madison Square Garden, N.Y. , Aug. 13,139** 
 
 c 
 
 Delivered in the United States Senate, Jan. 2*, 13 2 C. 
 

 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and its most appropriate vehicle was the rhetorical ouestion. 
 
 It was remarked above that the ninth Philippic has but few Questions. 
 Its average is one to each fifty lines. hi explanation for this disparity 
 can be found in the oration itself. It is not a phillipic in character. 
 Pervius Sulpicius, a man highly reputed for his eminence as a statesman 
 and integrity of life, had been sent by the senate on an embassy to Antony 
 and had died on the way. Pis death was 8 severe blow to the senate. The 
 senate assembled shortly after the delivery of tte eighth Philippic ora- 
 tion to consider what honors should be paid to the memory of Pulpicius. 
 Pansa, the consul, proposed th3t he should be granted a public funeral and 
 a bronze statue placed in the Fostra. P.Cervilius opposed the latter part 
 of the motion; and it was in support of Pansa’s decree that Cicero deliv- 
 ered the oration, which is now called the ninth Philippic, He had not in- 
 tended to make a speech, much less a Philippic, but only to express bis 
 support of the motion, 3s he itimself tells us in the opening chapter: 
 "quitus a te (Pansa) dictis nihil praeter sentential! dicerem, nisi P.Fer- 
 
 vilio, clarissimo viro, respondendum puterem, oui hunc honorem statuae ne- 
 
 1 
 
 mini trituendu® censuit nisi ei oui ferro asset in legatione interfectus. " 
 The unprepared yet most, genial speech that follows displays the. genuine 
 feelings of the man for the loss of a friend and shuts out, for a time at 
 least, his bitter snio.'osity towards Antony. Considering the situation as 
 a whole, it was solemn. Fence told, emphatic, fiery figures of interroga- 
 tion would have, teen very inappropriate. 
 
 ****** ************************* 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
91 
 
 The seventh Philippic, in which the rhetorical ouestions ere most 
 numerous (one to each four end seven-eightB lines), wss delivered in the 
 senate before the return of ttoe envoys who had teen sent to Antony. The 
 friends of Antony urged the senate to make peace with birr, Cicero opposed 
 them with all his powers and most urgently appealed to the senators not to 
 give ear to then. Pe argued that such a peace was incompatible with free- 
 dom, safety snd honor. He showed that it was impossible, tecause of the 
 mutual hatred between Antony and all loyal Forcers, the letter’s eagerness 
 for liberty, the siege of Mutiny, and other factors, all of which only 
 widened the breech between the two parties. Pe proved that it was prompted 
 nore by self-interest than by devotedness to the state. It is ir, this ora- 
 tion that Cicero makes the utmost attempt to have Antony declared a public 
 enemy and to bring on a state of war against him. The entire oration is 
 replete with Questions which display well the impatient, indignant, and 
 embittered feelings of Cicero. 
 
 The fourteenth philippic was the last oration against Antony and the 
 last Cicero was destined to deliver. Sith this outpour of triumph, panegy- 
 ric, and pathos he closed bis princely career of oratory. Fut his triumph 
 was shortlived. Antony and Oc-tavics united. The power cf the senate was 
 crushed. The Philippics of Cicero, like those of Demo sthenes, had forged a 
 sword of deadly hatred, which now sought vengeance. Cicero fell a victim 
 of that indignant and patriotic eloquence with which he had so mercilessly 
 and so untiringly lashed the enemies of his country. Juvenal writes of him: 
 
 "Flcquio sed uterque periit orator; utrurcque 
 
 Largus et exunaans letho dedit ingenii fons. 
 
 Ingerio nanus est et cervix caesa, nec umquaii 
 
 1 
 
 Sanguine causidici irarijerunt rcstra pusilli." 
 ************************************ 
 
 1 Sat. 10. P. 118. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . • 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
FIFLIOGPAPHY. 
 
 
 Adam-Gould, Latin Grammar, Northampton, 1349. 
 
 Amrronius, Ee Differentia Adfinium Vocafc ulorum, Valckeneer, Leipzig, 1322. 
 Anaximenes, Ars Fhetorics, ed. Spengel, Leipzi g, 1880. 
 
 Andrews and Stoddard, A Grammar of the Latin Language,^ ed. , Boston, 13 p 7. 
 Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry, ed. and tr. , Fywater, Oxford, 19G§. 
 
 Rhetoric, Cope-Sandys, Cambridge, 1877. 
 
 Fennett, A New Latin Grammar, Foston, 1918. 
 
 Syntax of ^arly Latin: The Verb, Poston, 1910. 
 
 Foethius, Commentarii in Ciceronis Topics, ed. Orslli, Turin, 1533. 
 
 Canter, Rhetorical Elements in Livy’s Direct Speeches, A. J.P. , 38, pp. 12 P - K 1. 
 Caussin, De Eloquentia, Cologne, 1^81. 
 
 Cicero, Ad V.Erutum Orator, ed. Sandys, Cambridge, 1383. 
 
 (or Cornif icius), Ad Herennium Libri IV, ed. Marx, Leipzig, 1894. 
 
 De Oratore, ed. Wilkins, Oxford, 1392. 
 
 The Philippic Orations, ed. King, Oxford, 1373. 
 
 Opera, ed. Orelii, Turin, 13 7 3. 
 
 Scripts Cuae Vanserunt Omnia, ed. Vflller, Leipzig, 139 7 . 
 
 Cope, Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Cambridge, 1847. 
 
 Demetrius, On Style, tr. Roberts, Cambridge, 1902. 
 
 Demosthenes, Orations, tr. Kenedy, London, 1901. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius, De Vitis, Dogmatis et Apophtegmst is Cleroru* Fhiloso- 
 
 phorum Libri Decern, ed. Huebner, Leipzig, 18 2 1. 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Literary Composition, tr. Roberts, London, 
 
 1910. 
 
 Dtfderlein, Handbook of Latin Synonyms, tr. Arnold / Andover, 1834. 
 
 Drseger, Historiscfce Syntax der Lateinisehen Spracbe, 2 ed., Leipzig, 1878. 
 Ernesti, Clavis Ciceroniana, p ed., Ferlin, 1313. 
 
 Gerber, Die Spracbe als Kunst, Fromberg, 1871. 
 
 Gi 1 dersl eeve-Lodge, Latin Grammar, 3 ed., Foston, 1394. 
 
 Grabenstein, De Interrcgat ionum Enunt i at i varum Usu Horatiano, Halle, 138 7 . 
 Hale and Fuck, Latin Grammar, Foston, 19G 7 . 
 
 Halm, Fhetores Latini Vinores, Leipzig, 1043. 
 
9 7 
 
 Hand, Tursellinus, Leipzig, 1 3 4 ^ • 
 
 Harkness, A Latin Grammar, New York, 1392. 
 
 Herrle, Cuaestiones Rhetoricae ad Elocutionem Pert inent es, Leipzig, 1912. 
 Einze, Ce An Particula spud priscos Scriptores Latinos Vi et Usu f Halle, 
 1397. 
 
 Eoltze, Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum Latinorum, Leipzig, 13*1. 
 
 Jett, Attic Orators, London, 1S9 7 . 
 
 Key, Latin Grammar, London, 1371. 
 
 Kleutgen, Ars Dicendi, Turin, 187*. 
 
 Kling, De Eilario Fictaviensi Artis Rhetoricae Ipsiusaue ut Fertur Insti- 
 tutionis Oratoriae Quint iiianeae Studioso, Freit urA, 1909. 
 Krdfhnert, Pie Anf Bnge der Rhetoric tei den Rflmern, Memel, 1837. 
 
 Kffhner, Ausf flhrl iche Lateinische Grammat ik, ^anover, 1912. 
 
 Lane, A Latin Grammar, revised. New York, 19C9. 
 
 Laurand, De V.Tulli Ciceronis Studiis Phetoricis, Paris, 1907. 
 
 Longinus, On the Sublime, ed.and tr. Foberts, Cambridge, 1399* 
 
 De Subl imitate, ed.and.tr. Weiske, Leipzig, 1909. 
 
 Madvig, A Latin Grammar, tr. fcoods and Thacker, p ed., Poston, 187 7 . 
 
 Opuscula Academica, 2 ed. , Copenhagen, 1337. 
 
 Mayer, Theophrasti Peri Lexeos Libri Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1910. 
 
 Monse, Veterum Rhetorum de Sententiarum Figuris Doctrins, Vratislav, 13^9. 
 Vorawski, De Rhetoritus Latinis Observat iones, Cracow, 1392. 
 
 Morris, On the Sentence-question in Plautus and Terence, A.J.P., 10,pp.997- 
 4 ^; 11, pp. l*-54; 145-131. 
 
 Voczynski, De Titi Livi ... Flccutione Quaestiones, Deutch Krone, 1901. 
 Naegler, De part icularum Usu apud L. Annaeua Senecam Philosophum, Ealle,1339 
 
 Oltricht, De Interrogationitus Disiunetivis et An &artic Usu apud Taci- 
 
 turn, Rails, 1333. 
 
 Plato, Alcibiades, ed. Purnet, Oxford, 19C P . 
 
 Quintilian, Inst itut iones Oratoriae, ed. Meister, Prague, 1837. 
 
 Roby, A Grammar of the Latin Language, 2 ed. London, 137 P . 
 
 Scheller, Praecepts Still Fene Latini, Leipzig, 1 ^ 34 , 
 
 Schnalz, Lateinische Syntax and Stilistik, in Mueller's Randtuch, Vol.2 
 pt.2, 4 ed. Munich, 1910. 
 
 Schmidt, Commentatio de Tkeopfcrasto Fhetore, 
 
 Schrader, De Particulis -Ne, Anne, Nonne apud Flautum Frosodia, StrassturA, 
 188 r . 
 
 Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrboniarua Inst it ut ior urn Libri III. ed. Fabric-ins, 
 
 Leipzig, 1940. 
 
 Sloman, A Grammar of Classical Latin, Cambridge, 190*. 
 
— — — 
 
 9 * 
 
 Fonnenscbein, £ Latin Greair.ar, 2 ed. Oxford, 1914. 
 
 Spengel, Fbetores Graeci, Leipzig, 13 p 3. 
 
 Otraut, De Tropis et Figuris, ouae inveniurtur in Orationitus Derrest leni s 
 et Cicercnis, Wtfr 2 burg, 1393. 
 
 Ftriller, Ee Stoicorui* Studiis Fbetoricis, Vratislsv, 198*. 
 
 Volkoann, Die Fhetorik der Griecben und FiJmer, 2 ed., Leipzig, 188 p . 
 
 ’Aalz, Fbetores Graeei, Tfltingen, 13*2. 
 
 Warren, On the Enclitic -ne in Early Latin, J.J.F., 2, pp. "9-32. 
 
 Wolff, De Fnuntiatis Interrogat ivis apud Catullus, Tibullun;, Properties, 
 Halle, 1833. 
 
 7u!ipt, £ Gramrar of the Latin Language, tr. Sebnit 2 , 9 ed. ”e» York, 1377.