Quintilian was far from being the only writer whom Roman booksell-
ers attempted to recruit. Martial refers to marketing arrangements he had
with four separate shops, including Trypho’s.^34 Pliny writes that he at
least discussed the circulation of his books with booksellers (Epist. 1.2.6).
Horace evidently consigned the manuscript ofEpistles Ito the Sosius
brothers for publication. And Ovid entreated his bookseller to keep his
work in circulation while he was in exile.^35
However, booksellers on the lookout for fresh material were also pre-
pared to bypass authors if they could. According to Quintilian, the un-
authorized editions of his speeches were the work of stenographers who
transcribed them, as he says, ‘‘for profit’’ (‘‘in quaestum,’’Inst. 7.2.24). He
does not stipulate that booksellers were responsible, but the production of
books for profit indicates the activity of booksellers more often than not.
And the recording of Quintilian’s speeches is only one example of a
widespread practice. When Julius Caesar was praetor in 62B.C., he deliv-
ered a controversial address of which a flawed text was subsequently put
into circulation. Suetonius attributed it to stenographers unable to keep
pace with Caesar’s words (Suet.Jul. 55.3). A decade later, a text of the
stumbling, unsuccessful speech that Cicero actually gave in defense of
Milo came into circulation before the improved version that Cicero pub-
lished himself (Asc. in Cic.Mil. 42.2–4 Clark).
What these episodes have in common is a well-known personality, a
speech given in a public venue, and an utterance recorded on the spot
rather than a written text released by the speaker. There are signs that
other speeches circulated similarly, although the agency of stenographers
is not expressly mentioned.^36 In late December of the year 50, during the
- Mart.Epigr. 1.2 (Secundus), 1.113 (Pollius Valerianus), 1.117 (Atrectus), and 4.72
and 13.3 (Trypho). - The anonymous addressee ofTr. 3.14 is hailed as ‘‘cultor et antistes doctorum sancte
virorum’’ (1) and ‘‘vatum studiose novorum’’ (7), and is exhorted to ‘‘produce’’ (conficere)5)
Ovid’s oeuvre and to ensure that it remains publicly available (sit palam, 18). As Haenny
1885, 58, recognized, the addressee must be the man who published Ovid’s poems. - Marshall 1987 gathered most of the references cited in this and the preceding para
graph, but resisted the conclusion that the speeches must have been taken down in shorthand.
He believed that in the late Republic, at least, Roman shorthand was not yet developed enough
for the recording of speeches, and he preferred to think that what circulated were summaries
drawn from theacta diurna. Butthishypothesisseems dubious onseveralcounts.Toinvoke the
acta diurnais to seek a solution in an institution about which we know even less than we do
about Roman shorthand. Nor does Marshall elaborate on the recording process by which he
thinks detailed summaries of speeches containing verbatim quotations, but not full transcripts,
wereobtainedfortheacta diurna.Butthemostimportantcounter considerationisthis:ifinthe
year 63, Cicero could relyon foursenators who wereexpert recorders toproduce a transcriptof
the Catilinarian hearing (Sull. 41 44), we can hardly suppose that the professionallibrarii
who normally assisted magistrates were incapable of recording speeches. Thatlibrariiof the
Republic were capable of capturing live utterances in shorthand also seems implied by a notice
preserved in Isidore of Seville,Etym. 1.22.1: ‘‘notarum usus erat ut, quidquid pro contione aut
in iudiciis diceretur, librarii scriberent conplures simul astantes, divisis inter se partibus, quot
quisque verba et quo ordine exciperet.’’
Bookshops in the Literary Culture of Rome 279