M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations 9783666251788, 3525251785, 9783525251782

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 80

HYPOMNEMATA UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR ANTIKE UND ZU IHREM NACHLEBEN

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle/Hartmut Erbse/Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones/Günther Patzig/Bruno Snell

H E F T 80

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

JANE W. CRAWFORD

M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G O T T I N G E N

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen Bibliothek

Crawford, Jane W.: M. Tullius Cicero: The lost and unpublished orations / Jane W. Crawford. - Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984. (Hypomnemata ; H. 80) ISBN 3-525-25178-5 NE: Cicero, Marcus Tullius: The lost and unpublished orations; GT

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen 1984 - Printed in Germany. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechanischem Wege zu vervielfältigen. Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

CONTENTS PREFACE

ix

INTRODUCTION Purpose of This Study 1 Why the Speeches Are Not Preserved 1 Reasons for Publication 3 Reasons for Nonpublication (1) 7 Patterns of Publication and Nonpublication 10 Reasons for Nonpublication (2) 14 An Excursus on the Meaning of Sententia 16 Reasons for Nonpublication (3) 19 Previous Research on Cicero's "Lost" Speeches 21 Protocol of the Edition of Testimonia and of the Commentary

1

TESTIMONIA AND COMMENTARIES 1 : Pro m uliere Arret ina 2: Pro Titinia Cottae 3 : Pro adulescentibus Romanis in Sicilia 4: Pro Scamandro liberto 5: Pro C. Must io 6: Pro Sthenio Thermitano 7: Pro M.Tullio I 8: Oratio in Syracusanorum senatu habita in C. Verrem 9: Ad cives Hennae 10: Pro M. Fonteio I 11 : Pro D. Matrinio 12: De Fausto Sulla 13: De C.Manilio 14: In Oligarchos 15: Pro C. Orchivio v

30

. . . .

33 33 35 37 39 43 44 47 51 53 55 58 61 64 70 73

16: Pro Q. Mudo Orestino 17: Pro C. Calpurnio Pisone 18: De lege agraria IV 19: Cum provinciam in contione deposuit 20: Pro Q. Caecilio Metello Celeri 21: De coniuratione Catilinae in senatu 22-23: De supplicationibus decern dierum 24: In P. Autronium Paetum 25: Cum Q. Caecilio Metello Nepote disputatio 26: Pro C. Antonio collega in senatu 27: Testimonium in P. Clodium Pulchrum 28: De suo consulatu in senatu 29: In P. Clodium Pulchrum contiones 30: Altercatio cum P. Clodio Pulchro in senatu 31 : De eis, qui ob iudicandum accepissent, quaerendis 32-33: De locatione Asiatica inducenda 34: Pro Q. Caecilio Metello Pio Scipione (Nasica) 35: De lege Flavia 36: In P. Clodium Pulchrum tribunatum pi. petentem 37: Pro C. Antonio collega 38-39: Pro A. (?) Minucio Thermo 40-41: De potestate rei frumentariae Pompeio danda 42: In P. Clodium Pulchrum 43: ProP.Asicio 44: Pro T. Annio Milone 45-48: Pro L. Calpurnio Bestia 49-50: Pro L. Calpurnio Bestia 51-52: De rege Ptolemaeo Aulete 53: De agro Campano referendo 54: Pro Caesare in senatu 55: In P. Clodium Pulchrum 56: In petitionem Votini 57: ProM.Cispio 58: Pro L. Caninio Gallo 59: Pro T. Ampio Balbo 60: De Reatinorum causa 61: Pro C. Messio 62: Pro M. Livio Druso (Claudiano) 63: ProM. Valerio Messalla Rufo 64: Testimonium in A. Gabinium vi

75 77 79 82 85 88 90 92 95 97 99 102 106 106 Ill 113 115 118 121 124 132 134 136 138 141 143 150 152 158 163 167 170 173 175 178 180 182 184 188

65: Pro A. Gabinio 66: Pro M. Aemilio Scauro (de ambitu) 67: Pro M. Licinio Crasso 68: De Antiocho II, rege Commagenes 69: Pro liberiate Tenediorum 70-71 : Pro Crasso and In Crassum 72: Pro T. Annio Milone 73-74: Pro M. Saufeio 75: Pro P. Sestio (de ambitu) 76-77: Pro P. Cornelio Dolabella 78: Pro T. Munatio Planco Bursa 79: In T. Munatium Plancum Bursam 80: In concilio ad Ariobarzanem III, regem Cappadociae 81 : Pro C. Popillio Laenate 82: Pro Q. Ligario Caesaris domi 83: De pace ad senatum 84: De pace ad popuium 85: De imperatore adversus Dolabellam deligendo 86: De Q. Cornificio in senatu 87-88: Pro M./M'Acilio Glabrione/Canino/Caniniano

. . . .

188 198 202 205 208 209 210 219 222 225 228 230 235 238 241 244 248 250 252 254

APPENDIX

I: POSSIBLE SPEECHES

257

APPENDIX

II: SPURIOUS SPEECHES

260

APPENDIX

III: CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM

269

BIBLIOGRAPHY I.A. I.B. II.

293

Primary literature: editions used for the testimonia Primary literature: editions and commentaries cited Secondary literature

. . . . . . . .

293 296 297

INDEX LOCORUM

309

INDEX NOMINUM

315

CONCORDANCE

319

TABLE: Statistics of Cicero's Publication and Nonpublication of Speeches

vii

12

Preface The need for an edition with commentary of Cicero's lost and unpublished speeches has long been felt. This has been a neglected area of Ciceronian studies—perhaps not surprisingly in view of the huge extant corpus of orations (many of which are themselves still in need of much critical and interpretative work). Despite their neglect, these speeches are important for the light they can shed on Cicero's oratorical and political career. Of course, what we know about Cicero's career and the history of his age can, and must, also be brought to bear on the illumination of the lost and unpublished speeches. This necessarily entails consideration of the enormous modern scholarship on late-Republican literature, politics, law, and prosopography. In this task, no scholar would wish to claim that she has achieved thoroughness—or, perhaps, that thoroughness is what her potential readers require. In writing this book I have defined my purpose as being twofold: to provide an initial orientation to recent and authoritative older scholarly discussions of the issues raised by the speeches; and to keep the emphasis in the commentaries on the matrices of personal, political, and legal issues informing the speeches without involving the reader in lengthy excurses on peripheral matters (tempting as that might sometimes have been). I have, however, also thought it worthwhile to discuss the speeches as a whole in the introduction and, in particular, to raise the questions of why we d o not have them and what their nature and number (especially as compared to the preserved speeches) tell us about the role of speech-making and speechpublishing in Cicero's career. This book would not have been possible without the help of many people. I would especially like to single out for thanks here P r o f s . Erich Gruen, Andrew Dyck, and D. R. Shackleton Bailey, all of whom were kind enough to send me extensive notes on earlier drafts. Of course, they should not be considered to be in complete agreement with what I have written. IX

I am also very grateful to the American Academy in Rome for giving me a Rome Prize Fellowship, which gave me the luxury of having a year in which I could not only revise, but also rethink much of what I had earlier written. My parents, Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Webb, and my uncle, P r o f . Franklin Miller, Jr., helped to underwrite the costs of printing, for which I am very grateful. Thanks are also due to Loyola Marymount University for a faculty development grant used to prepare the final draft of the typescript. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Bernard Frischer, whose help and encouragement during the writing of this book have been invaluable. Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, 13 November 1982

x

INTRODUCTION Purpose

of This

Study

Cicero did not publish every speech he gave, nor are all of the speeches that he did publish preserved in toto or in part. This work is a study of what are generally, but somewhat imprecisely, referred to as Cicero's orationes deperditae cum testimoniis, i.e. the speeches n o t preserved at all either because they were never published or because they were lost in transmission. 1 Our knowledge of them is based entirely on references to them in testimonia provided by Cicero and other ancient authors. Thus, the subject of this book might most accurately be termed orationes vel deperditae vel ineditae ex testimoniis cognitae. My purpose is to provide, for the first time, a commentary for each speech along with a critical edition of the testimonia.

Why the Speeches

Are Not

Preserved

The speeches under consideration are not preserved at all but are known only through testimonia. We must therefore ask why they are not preserved. Is it possible that they were all published by Cicero and subsequently Although it is possible that some of these speeches were published and lost, many of them must never have been published and so must be considered ineditae. This is the view of many scholars, including F. Luterbacher, "Ciceros Reden," Sokrates N.F. 10 (1922), 89-91; M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, vol. VIII. 1 (fourth edition, Munich, 1927), 446; H. Bardon, La littérature latine inconnue, 2 vols. (Paris, 1952), vol.1, 211; and H. J. Schweizer in Maia 18 (1966), 86-92 (on p.90). It should be noted that I do not include in the category of speeches to be studied in this book the orations Cicero wrote for others and Cicero's laudationes.

1

lost in antiquity or the Middle Ages? Or, were none of them ever published in the first place, as most scholars believe? 2 The most probable answer is a combination of the two extreme views. Some of the speeches undoubtedly were published and lost; others—probably the great majority—were never published to begin with. Before continuing this discussion, it will be helpful to define what we mean by "publication" in Cicero's age. This question has recently been treated by J. Phillips in his dissertation The Publication of Books at Rome in the Classical Period (Yale, 1981). Phillips has shown that for the ancient author, "publication meant circulation, by some means . . . How a book got into circulation and how it continued to be copied has nothing to do with the fact of publication; once a book left its author's sole possession, it was published. . . ." 3 Therefore, if Cicero wished not to publish a speech, he simply did not circulate a written copy of it, not even to close friends; conversely, to publish meant to see to it that copies reached the public, either private individuals, friends and colleagues, or the public at large. 4 In other words, as Phillips states, " t o effect publication all an author had to do was to give someone a single copy of his work, with stated or implied permission to let it be known [through copying it and circulating it] to others." 5 In discussing the speeches in the commentary, I will use as a working hypothesis the admittedly unprovable assumption that most of these speeches are orationes ineditae. Although this cannot be demonstrated to be true, it can be shown to be plausible.

2

Luterbacher, Sokrates 1922, 89, and Schweizer, Maia 1966, 90. J. J. Phillips, The Publication of Books at Rome in the Classical Period (Diss. Yale, 1981), 16-17. See also F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), 22. For earlier treatments of publication in the Ciceronian period see T. Kleberg, Bokhandel och bokforlag i antiken (Stockholm, 1962), 13-83 (translated into Italian by E. Livrea in G. Cavallo [ed.], Libri, editori epubblico nel mondo antico, [Rome, Bari, 1975], 27-80). "For Atticus as Cicero's publisher see A. H. Byrne, Titus Pomponius Atticus, Chapters of a Biography (Diss. Bryn Mawr, 1920), 15-19, and Phillips, Publication of Books, 45-75. For Tiro's publishing activities, see W. C. McDermott, "M. Cicero and M. Tiro," Historia 21 (1972), 259-86. McDermott notes (p.280) that "Tiro also published some of Cicero's notes (commentarii) for cases where he did not write out the speeches in full." These commentarii are mentioned by Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.69 and 10.7.30-31; they were also known to Jerome. 3

'Phillips, Publication of Books, mission, see below, pp.9-10.

19. For publication without an author's per-

2

Reasons

for

Publication

Cicero was a novus homo,6 and as such had to rely heavily on the reputation that oratory could win for him in order to build his career. This was the only avenue open to him. He was not wealthy. He was not willing, or perhaps able, to gain an important military command that could bring glory and fame. He did not have a famous family name, by means of which he could launch a career by the comfortable route of becoming a moneyer or priest, as did many well-born men in the period in which Cicero was active. 7 Cicero had to win fame as an orator if he wanted to make progress in the cursus honorum leading to the consulship. That Cicero's contemporaries, and Cicero himself, recognized how important oratory was in furthering the political career of a novus homo is clear from several texts. In the Commentariolum petitionis (whose authorship is disputed, but whose date is generally agreed to be late-Republican), 8 Cicero is told: "nominis novitatem dicendi gloria maxime sublevabis. Semper ea res plurimum dignitatis habuit" (2). In a later passage in the same work, the point is repeated: "qua re etiam atque etiam perge tenere istam 6

For the term novus homo see J. Vogt, Homo novus, Ein Typus der römischen Republik (Stuttgart, 1926), and W. Schur, "Homo novus, Ein Beitrag zur sozialgeschichte der sinkenden Republik," JVA 134 (1929), 54-66; and most recently, M. Dondin-Payre, " H o m o novus: Un slogan de Catón à César?" Historia 30 (1981), 22-81. Dondin-Payre reviews the literature on the subject, especially with respect to definitions of the term: she concludes, contra T. P. Wiseman (New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C. to A.D. 14 [Oxford, 1971]), that the number of novi homines certi is very small (p.70) and that the phrase novus homo was not used as a political slogan. For nobilitas see M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility, trans. R. Seager (Oxford, 1969); for équités, see C. Nicolet, L'ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine (312-43 av. J.C.), 2 vols. (Paris, 1966), and T. P. Wiseman, "The Definition of 'Egues Romanus' in the Late Republic and Early Empire," Historia 19 (1970), 67-83. 7 See Charles D. Hamilton, "The Tresviri Monetales and the Republican Cursus Honorum," TAPA 100 (1969), 181-99, especially p. 196. Hamilton states that the increasing prominence of holders of this office is due to a realization of the value of coinage as political propaganda. On the political value of the priesthoods see, e.g., D . E . Hahm, "The Roman Nobility and the Three Major Priesthoods, 218-167 B . C . , " TAPA 94 (1963), 73-85; G. J. Szemler, The Priests of the Roman Republic, Coll. Latomus 127 (1972). 8 See J. S. Richardson, "The 'Commentariolum Petitionis'," Historia 20 (1971), 436-42, and J. M. David, S. Demougin, E. Deniaux, D. Ferey, J. M. Flambard, and C. Nicolet, "Le 'Commentariolum Petitionis' de Quintus Cicéron, État de la question et étude prosopographique," ANRW 1.3 (Berlin, 1973), 239-77. 3

viam quam institisti, excelle dicendo; hoc et tenentur Romae homines et adliciuntur" (55). In De officiis, Book II, Cicero himself discusses how a young man can most successfully launch a political career, and after mentioning military service (2.45) and training with a wise, famous, and patriotic elder statesman (2.46), he speaks about the fame that comes from eloquence (2.47-51) displayed in the law courts, assemblies, and senate. At the end of this section, he claims that the greatest reputation can be won by defending an innocent victim of oppression in a legal proceeding, and he cites the example of his own defense of Sextus Roscius (2.51). 9 To be sure, Cicero is not speaking specifically about a novus homo in this passage, but there is no reason for supposing that he would not have agreed with the author of the Commentariolum petitionis in holding forensic activity particularly effective for a new man. 1 0 Merely giving speeches, political or forensic, was not enough. Although successful oratory could enhance the reputation of a novus homo like Cicero and help him retain his influence even after the consulship, this benefit had to be consolidated and amplified by the publication of the orations. As A. Michel has pointed out, " u n plaidoyer n'est pas un pamphlet. Le premier s'adresse aux juges, et doit les ménager. Le second vise le grand public, et cherche plus ou moins à exciter ses passions."" By publishing his speeches, the orator could ensure the dissemination of his views and, if possible, his success in court or government to a much larger audience than the one he originally addressed. 12 It would be futile to speculate on the size of

'See the discussion in Gelzer, Roman Nobility, 70-86, especially p.81, for the politics of forensic activity. 10 The connection between forensic activity and novitas has been made, e.g., by E. Gruen in "Pompey, Metellus Pius, and the Trials of 70-69 B.C.: The Perils of Schematism," AJP 92 (1971), 1: "to a Roman orator the criminal trial was often more than a judicial event; it could be a political opportunity. The prospect was especially inviting for young novi homines seeking to inaugurate or accelerate a political career." See also R. Till, "Ciceros Bewerbung ums Konsulat: Ein Beitrag zum commentariolum petitionis," Historia 11 (1962), 315-38, especially p.318. ' ' A. Michel, Rhétorique et philosophie chez Cicéron: Essai sur les fondements philosophiques de l'art de persuader (Paris, 1960), 386. Cf. on the similar case of Cato the literature cited by A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford, 1978), 155n.52. 12 That Cicero could have a particular audience in mind is shown by A. E. Douglas' comment on the "bizarre nature of much of the subject matter" of the speech De haruspicum responsis: "Cicero can have thought such a speech worth making and publishing [Douglas' emphasis] only if there was some meaning . . . for at least some late Republican Romans, in the activities of Etruscan soothsayers" (JRS 62 [1972], 216).

4

the Roman readership for Cicero's speeches: our evidence is simply too slender to permit even an intelligent guess. 1 3 We may, however, conclude from Cicero's behavior (if not from his surviving written views) that he was well aware of the additional benefits accruing from the publication of his orations. Whatever the numbers of his readers, the composition of his audience was probably dominated by the members of Rome's socio-economic elite, since it is likely that literacy at Rome was confined to that small percentage 1 4 of the population constituting this politically active and influential group. 1 5 We may gain a precious glimpse into the politics of publication and into Cicero's own mind by looking at an interesting passage in Cicero's letter to Quintus of September, 54. Cicero, referring to L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 58) as Calventius Marius, writes: "alterum est de Calventi Mari oratione: quod scribis tibi placere me ad earn rescribere, miror, praesertim cum illam nemo lecturus sit si ego nihil rescripsero, meam in ilium pueri omnes tamquam dictata perdiscant" {Ad Q. Fr. 3.1.11). From this passage we can see how quickly a speech could be published" after delivery and in response to an

13 For speculation as to the size of the literate population of Rome in Cicero's time see Phillips, Publication of Books, 92-96. As T. F. Carney, in The Shape of Antiquity: Models and Antiquity (Lawrence, Kansas, 1975), 110-11, has pointed out: "mass literacy did not exist [scil., in the Roman world]; indeed probably only the elite and local subelite, a tiny fraction of the total population, could read and write. . . . The tiny ruling class and its closely connected subelite spoke the same language, that of literary gentlemen educated within the one Great Tradition comprising their cultural heritage." " I f groups other than this one read the speeches, Cicero would no doubt have been pleased, but it was not to the masses that his published orations were addressed. That the "man in the street" in Rome was more politically aware and better informed than in most ancient states has been noted by Carney (The Shape of Antiquity, 111), but Carney rightly maintains that the communications systems of traditional societies such as Rome "along with its political institutions, process and culture, all interact to perpetuate its authoritarian familial, educational and ethical value systems." See also D. Mack, Senatsreden und Volksreden bei Cicero (Wiirzburg, 1937; Hildesheim, 1967), 11-12, for the point about the small size of Cicero's readership. " O n the circulation of senate speeches see Ad Fam. 5.4.2 (mid-January, 57) in which Cicero, writing from Dyrrachium to Metellus Nepos (cos.57), refers to the text of Nepos' "inaugural" speech in the senate (Jan. 1, 57): "Nunc mihi Quintus fratermeusmitissimamtuamorationem,quaminsenatuhabuisses,perscripsit. . . ." Obviously, Quintus had immediately sent a copy of the speech to his brother in exile, and Cicero's letter to Metellus clearly reflects his awareness of the "moderation" of Metellus' speech. The text reached Cicero remarkably quickly. Further evidence for speedy publication is found at Ad Att. 7.8.5, written at Formiae to Atticus on 25 or

5

opponent's publication on the same theme (Piso's speech is undoubtedly a response to Cicero's In Pisonem of 55, as Shackleton Bailey speculates). Piso's act of publishing his anti-Ciceronian speech shows that he, too, recognized the propagandistic value of publishing orations. Finally, we gain a sense of the size of the Roman audience for such pieces. In the case of Piso, who was probably not a master of invective, the readership was apparently quite small; in the case of Cicero, the audience was so wide that it even extended into the schools, where schoolchildren were already being made to memorize it (as Cicero tells us with some pride and, undoubtedly, with some exaggeration). We will return to this passage in a moment in considering the question of why Cicero sometimes—as in this case—decided not to respond himself with the publication of a counterattack. W. Stroh has recently disputed that political considerations were foremost in Cicero's mind in deciding to publish his speeches. Stroh states, "aber das eine ist mit Entschiedenheit zu bestreiten: Der Einfluss auf die (politische) Meinungsbildung ist nicht das Hauptmotiv der Redenpublikation. Dem widersprechen alle Zeugnisse Ciceros.'" 7 Although Stroh concedes that Cicero used his published speeches to justify a political stance or to make propaganda, 18 he feels that Cicero's main purpose in publishing was didactic, and he uses an argumentum ex silentio based on Cicero's Brutus to support his position. Because, Stroh argues, the published speeches of Cicero or of older Roman orators are nowhere called political pamphlets in the Brutus, they must therefore serve as one thing alone— exempla, masterpieces of oratory aimed not so much at the general public as at the young men studying rhetoric in school. 19 Thus, Stroh attributes to Cicero the desire to ensure an adequate supply of suitable exempla for use in the schools as Cicero's prime motive in publishing his works. In fact, Stroh suggests, one might even call the published speeches "textbooks". 2 0

26 December 50. The text reads: "habebamus autem in manibus Antoni contionem habitam X Kal. Ian. . . . " So, the written version of Antonius' speech reached Cicero in under a week. For a discussion of the speed of the publication of Cicero's own speeches, see W. C. McDermott, "Cicero's Publication of his Consular Orations," Philologus 116 (1972), 277-84. " W. Stroh, Taxis und Taktik (Stuttgart, 1975), 51. "Stroh, 50. 19 Stroh, 52. This is also Phillips' view (Publication of Books, 45 and 80), who notes "Cicero's wish to satisfy a longing for fame" by the publication of his speeches. The idea may be traced back to O. Plasberg, Cicero in seinen Werken und Reden (Leipzig, 1926), 4. 20 Stroh, 52.

6

Stroh has taken what Cicero says about publishing speeches in the Brutus and has claimed that this is what Cicero thought the sole purpose of publishing speeches can be. It is, however, clear that Cicero's "purpose" was influenced by what his purpose was in the Brutus generally, which was to explain not the political uses of oratory, but simply how to be a good orator. Moreover, as K. Hopkins has recently reminded us, 21 the conscious motives of the ancients are not necessarily as interesting, or valid, as their unconscious motives, and we must, of course, also wonder whether the conscious motives of the ancients were always as noble and disinterested as they themselves (self-servingly, or with mock modesty) claimed in their writings. Should we really expect that an intelligent and decorous man would have somewhere informed his readership that he had ulterior motives in presenting them with copies of his speeches? In all probability, a combination of didacticism and political considerations was responsible for Cicero's publication of his speeches. 22 In emphasizing didactic reasons at the expense of political motives by looking only at the evidence of Cicero's written statements, Stroh has failed to take into account the equally eloquent testimony of Cicero's actual behavior—and, in particular, his practice of sometimes choosing not to publish a speech. If didacticism were Cicero's main goal, could this not have been served just as well by the publication of all the speeches, and could it not have been better served by the publication of only those speeches which (unlike the published Pro Milone) were successful? Stroh seems to be unaware that Cicero sometimes chose not to publish speeches; he accordingly fails to realize that any theory of publication must also imply a theory of nonpublication, and vice versa. For Cicero, this means that the best approach to solving the vexed question of why he published certain speeches is a study like the present one that concentrates on his reasons for not publishing others. Once we understand Cicero's decisions not to publish some speeches, we will have a better basis for determining why he did decide to publish the speeches we still have. Reasons for Nonpublication

(1)

In the remainder of this part of the introduction (pp. 7-21), I will present an overview of the many reasons Cicero apparently had for foregoing 21 K. Hopkins, "Rules of Evidence. Review of F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World," in JRS 68 (1978), 181. 22 See Stroh, 52n.93, for a list of scholars who have seen the purpose of publication as both political and didactic, to which add D. Mack, Senatsreden und Volksreden, pp.11-12.

7

publication. I may begin by stating the general principle that emerges from the detailed consideration of all the cases in the commentary that follows, namely that Cicero usually decides against publication when he calculates that more is to be lost than gained through disseminating a speech. The testimonium that comes closest to enunciating this principle is the passage from Cicero's letter to Quintus cited above (3.1.11). There, we recall, Cicero rejects Quintus' advice that he write a new speech against Piso in response to Piso's publication answering the In Pisonem. Cicero tells Quintus: "praesertim cum illam [5c//. orationem] nemo lecturus sit si ego nihil rescripsero, meam in ilium pueri omnes tamquam dictata perdiscant." If Cicero ignores Piso's pitiful effort, so will everyone else. His own published attack is already in everyone's hands; dignifying Piso's speech with a reply would only arouse curiosity about what Piso had to say that so irritated Cicero. So, Cicero decides that the best course of action is silence. This letter cannot be said to attest exactly the sort of situation we will normally be studying in this book, for Cicero was, apparently, not contemplating the publication of a speech he actually delivered but that of a fictitious oration written in response to Piso's. Nevertheless, the letter is of interest for letting us catch a glimpse of Cicero's mind at work considering whether or not to disseminate a political oration, even if the occasion of that speech was purely imaginary. There are several general reasons for the nonpublication, or suppression, of speeches that can be directly related to political pressures (actual examples of these reasons will be discussed presently). Just as, after the introduction of publication of the acta senatus by Caesar in 59, senators were more restrained in their remarks in the senate, 23 so, too, the major reason for not publishing the complete text of a speech (forensic or political) seems to be the desire to avoid offending a powerful person, such as Pompey or Caesar, or an influential group. Indeed, in the Commentariolum petitionis (53), Cicero is urged to remember during an electoral campaign that he should not deal with controversial political issues either in the senate or before the people lest any group—senators, knights, or the people—should have some reason to doubt his loyalty to their cause. Of course, desire to please an individual or group could result in suppression of a speech unfavorable to him 23

L. R. Taylor, "The Dating of Major Legislation and Elections in Caesar's First Consulship," Historia 17 (1968), 173-93, especially p.181. Bardon, Littérature inconnue, 211, thinks that the acta were responsible for preserving "a good number" of speeches that were not published; however, as Phillips points out (Publication of Books, 89), "even after the Caesarian reform it is unlikely that entire speeches were made public except by private initiative." 8

or them. Even from a published speech Cicero might remove direct attacks on individuals, as seems to have happened in the Verrines; Cicero did not name the six jurors he had challenged in the beginning of Verres' trial because, although their rejection was well-received, "he was unwilling to pillory the men in the published speeches." 24 A politician might also wish to avoid identifying himself too firmly with an unpopular issue or personality; the latter consideration may explain why a successful forensic speech was suppressed. 25 By suppressing a speech for an unpopular issue or client, Cicero could have it both ways: he could gain the support of a minority while not further, and perhaps unnecessarily, alienating the majority by advertising his patrocinium and putting it on the public record. 26 Discretion, too, would sometimes influence the disposition of a speech, as would a conflict of interest. That Cicero was very concerned about the power of a published speech to cause trouble for himself is clear from his agitation over the unauthorized publication of his remarks In Clodium et Curiomm made in the senate in 61. 27 A written version of this speech leaked out in 58 when Cicero was in exile. Upon hearing of this, Cicero wrote to Atticus (3.12.2) "percussisti autem me etiam de oratione prolata. Cui vulneri, ut scribis, medere, si quid potes. Scripsi equidem olim iratus quod ille prior scripserat, sed ita compresseram ut numquam emanaturam putarem. Quo modo exciderit nescio. Sed quia numquam accidit ut cum eo [scil. Curione] verbo uno concertarem et quia scripta mihi videtur neglegentius quam ceterae puto ex se probari non esse meam. Id, si putas me posse sanari, cures velim; sin plane perii, minus laboro." 2 8 This letter was written on 17 July 58; a month later, 24

W. C. McDermott, "The Verrine Jury," RhM 120 (1977), 64-75, on p.74. W. C. McDermott, in "Curio 'Pater' and Cicero," AJP 93 (1972), 381-411, may be oversimplifying the case for suppression when he states (p.399) that "the only reason for Cicero to refrain from publishing a speech which had pleased him was to avoid future enmity," but this was certainly an important factor in many instances. 26 In choosing for whom or what to plead, an orator tried to avoid "burning bridges", i.e., alienating potential supporters. Given the wider dissemination and greater permanence of the published verson of a speech, this principle applies a fortiori to the publication of speeches. See E. Gruen in AJP 92 (1971), 16. 27 On Cicero's nonpublication of this speech in 61, see Schanz-Hosius, Geschichte, VIII. 1, 445f. Gelzer, Cicero: Ein biographischer Versuch (Wiesbaden, 1969), 112-113, says that the In Clodium et Curionem was not published by Cicero, but was also not able to be kept completely secret. 28 D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1965-68), vol.2 (1965), 24. 25

9

Cicero is still concerned. As he writes to Atticus (3.15.3): "sed quid Curio? An illam orationem non legit? Quae unde sit prolata nescio. Sed Axius eiusdem diei scribens ad me acta non ita laudat Curionem. At potest ille aliquid praetermittere; tu, nisi quod erat, protecto non scripsisti." 29 I have quoted these passages in full because they are illustrative of several points. First, it is abundantly clear that Cicero could and did suppress a speech that he thought would offend someone influential. It is interesting that the remarks in question were originally made three years before the " l e a k " of the written version. This version was presumably suppressed because Cicero respected Curio, not because he feared Clodius. By 58 the propriety of this discretion can be seen in the reflection of the calamity that Cicero feared would result from Curio's anger at reading the speech which never ought to have been published. Curio could be helpful in bringing about Cicero's recall, but not, of course, if he were angered by a reminder of intemperate remarks against him in the past. That is why Cicero was so upset and why he urged Atticus to say that the speech was a forgery. The fact that Cicero could even suggest such a course of action shows us that forgery must have been fairly common 3 0 —common enough, at any rate, to be believed in the case at hand—and that politicians feared the subsequent distortion of their positions that a clever forgery could promote. The power of the published speech for help or harm to Cicero, or any politician, is plainly seen here. The issue, of course, is one of control. An anecdote related by Suetonius (Div. Aug. 27.3) concerning Octavian is equally revealing: "in eadem hac potestate multiplici flagravit invidia. Nam et Pinarium equitem R., cum contionante se admissa turba paganorum apud milites subscribere quaedam animadvertisset, curiosum ac speculatorem ratus coram confodi imperavit." 3 ' This episode represents one politician's extreme reaction to the loss of control over the dissemination of his words. It also shows how serious spuriae were taken and how potentially damaging they were thought to be.

Patterns of Publication and

Nonpublication

It is clear that publication of speeches was taken seriously and that published speeches had at least as much potential for political impact as did 29

Ibid., pp.30 and 32. H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, fourth edition (Turin, 1976), 318n.ix, thinks that Hortensius' defense speech for Verres, cited by Quintilian 10.1.22-23, is a forgery. However, see M. Alexander in "Hortensius' Speech in Defense of Verres," Phoenix 30 (1971), 46-53. 31 Suetonius, Vita Aug. 27.3 (vol.1, p.61 Ihm). 30

10

their orally delivered originals. Suppression was just as important, or more so in some cases. Cicero's extant speeches number 58, and there are 17 fragmentary speeches that must have been published but damaged in transmission; five speeches 32 were very likely published and lost. The number of unpublished speeches is 83. Thus, it is clear that Cicero decided against publication more than half the time, and the reasons for these decisions are of great interest for an understanding of Cicero's political and oratorical career. Further refinement of our picture of the politics of Cicero's decisions to publish or not may be gained from a study of the changing pattern of these decisions over time. A chronological table (Table I) of the extant, fragmentary, and unpublished speeches of Cicero illustrates the pattern of Cicero's activities. The pattern that emerges reflects the principles of selection that Cicero employed in choosing some speeches for publication while suppressing others. In the first decade of Cicero's activity—a period that may be called "proto-political"—there are fourteen published speeches (11 extant, 1 probably published and lost, 2 fragmentary); thirteen are forensic and only one (Cum quaestor Lilybaeo decederat) may be termed political. Of the nonpublished works, six are forensic and two are political. 34 Two conclusions may be drawn from this information. The first, and not surprising, is that Cicero was clearly more involved in forensic activity than in politics; the proportion of political speeches is only 13.6%. Secondly, we can see that Cicero published more speeches (14) than we know that he suppressed (8), and this shows his willingness to go on the record to a degree not matched until late in his career. Again, this is hardly surprising since giving and publishing speeches was the best way available to the novus homo for gaining a reputation and having an impact—Cicero's main concerns in this period. In the second decade, during which Cicero sought and attained the consulship, there was a marked change. We have twenty-two forensic speeches (7 extant, 6 fragmentary, 1 probably published, and 8 not published) and thirty-two political speeches (8 extant, 6 fragmentary, 3 probably published, 32 They are: Pro Tullio I; Pro M. Fonteio I; De lege agraria IV; Cum provinciam in contione deposuif, and De consulatu suo. 33 In this table the distinction between forensic and political speeches is purely formal and legal, and should not be taken to imply that forensic speeches do not, in some instances, involve important political issues. However, this should not be taken to invalidate the utility of the distinction, which obviously connotes a difference of emphasis if not of kind. 34 It must be pointed out, however, that the two political speeches were made in Sicily in connection with preparations for Verres' trial.

11

— •oOl s je Z .2 8=1 0-

JS o fe6- fe- w6feON vq VO •

o vil m

Z S

e Z

0 > V) 2! o-

S 3vi o fc

-B en 'S S

e a * H

s

V a H

S 2 o ë o b 0H H

•a e

O I o

t>

a.

00

'S

5 g 2 o O o b eu H

'3 g S Pu

o ve i

O •o I 0\ m

CT\

o

12

S 2 ô O CL, H

O

O oo

o oo

voi r— oo Vi

cn -J

í O H

06

fi I o\

oo

O

TOig 6 Kuc^pcov ¿nupavrag Kai TtepteTroiriaev. [(NU =) N (A B C E = )Y] 3 dvayKaiJoi^voig U: dvayica^ncvoi; NY

4 2

and the literature cited. The speech Pro adulescentibus Romanis in Sicilia is not mentioned. 4 E. J. Phillips, in "Asconius' magni homines," RhM 116 (1973), 353-57, suggests that one of these young men may have been L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was in Sicily during Verres' governorship (73-71) and who might have been there earlier as well, serving a longer than usual tour of military duty to erase any doubts raised about his courage in 75. Phillips calls this idea " a shot in the dark," and I am inclined to agree. There simply is no supporting evidence. 5 A. Holm, Geschichte Siciliens im Alterthum, vol.3 (Leipzig, 1898), 125. See also Ward, Latomus 29 (1970), 58. Ward states that Cicero's defense of these patrician youths is "an attempt to gain political support from the nobility."

38

4 Pro Scamandro liberto (74, Fl) In an early but important case, Cicero unsuccessfully defended Scamander, a freedman of his client Fabricius. The charges were brought by P. Cannutius and A. Cluentius Habitus (whom Cicero later defended in the published oration Pro Cluentio) under the provisions of the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis.' Cicero was induced to take the case by a delegation of neighbors from Alatrium, near Arpinum, who asked him to come to the aid of Fabricius and his freedman. Scamander was caught with poison, allegedly supplied by Fabricius to use on Cluentius, and with the pay-off in the form of a money packet. The evidence was overwhelming and Scamander was condemned. 2 Our knowledge of the events surrounding this trial comes from Cicero's explanations of it in the Pro Cluentio. The orator was in an uncomfortable position as Cluentius' defense counsel in 66, since he had earlier, in the trial of Scamander, opposed Cluentius. In the relevant passages of the Pro Cluentio (47,49-55 = A), Cicero goes to great lengths to explain away the conviction of Scamander, claiming that that conviction represented a condemnation of Oppianicus, Cicero's present opponent. It seems clear from this lengthy and detailed explanation of the earlier trial that Cicero had not published his speech Pro Scamandro; otherwise, why would he paraphrase those portions of it when it would have been more convincing to read from the record? After the trial of the freedman 1

Other participants in the trial were: the iudex quaestionis, C. Iunius; the iudex, C. Aelius Staienus, noted as the only juryman who voted for acquittal; and testes M. Baebius and P. Quinctilius Varus (see Alexander, Forensic Advocacy, 242-43). Cannutius was an outstanding orator (Brut. 205). 2 Cicero implies that, had he known the extent of the damaging evidence against his client, Scamander, he might have declined the defense (Pro Clu. 49-50).

39

Scamander was held in 74, Cicero probably thought it too embarrassing to publish his unsuccessful defense speech. This decision proved helpful later, when Cicero was able to argue selectively about a trial of which there was no published record from his own hand that could be used against his new client.

PRO SCAM ANDRO

LIBERTO

A. Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 47, 49-55: Oppianicus applicarat. Itaque turn sic statuii, per C. Fabri- 47 cium—nam L. erat mortuus—insidias Habito comparare. Erat ilio tempore infirma valetudine Habitus. Utebatur autem medico non ignobili sed spectato homine, Cleophanto; cuius servum Diogenem Fabricius ad venenum Habito dandum spe et pretio sollicitare 5 coepit. Servus non incallidus et, ut res ipsa declaravit, frugi atque integer sermonem Fabrici non est aspernatus; rem ad dominum detulit; Cleophantus autem cum Habito est conlocutus. Habitus statim cum M. Baebio senatore, familiarissimo suo, communicavit; qui qua fide, qua prudentia, qua diligentia fuerit meminisse 10 vos arbitror. Ei placuit ut Diogenem Habitus emeret a Cleophanto, quo facilius aut comprehenderetur res eius indicio aut falsa esse cognosceretur. Ne multa, Diogenes emitur, venenum diebus paucis comparatur; multi viri boni cum ex occulto intervenissent, pecunia obsignata quae ob earn rem dabatur in manibus Scamandri, liberti 15 Fabriciorum, deprehenditur. Nam Cluentius, iudices, primum nomen eius detulit cuius in [49] manibus venenum deprenderat. Is erat libertus Fabriciorum, Scamander. Integrum consilium, iudici corrupti nulla suspicio; simplex in iudicium causa, certa res, unum crimen adlatum est. Hic 20 tum C. Fabricius, is de quo ante dixi, qui liberto damnato sibi illud impendere periculum videret, quod mihi cum Aletrinatibus vicinitatem et cum plerisque eorum magnum usum esse sciebat, frequentis eos ad me domum adduxit. Qui quamquam de homine sic ut necesse erat existimabant, tarnen quod erat ex eodem municipio, 25 suae diginitatis esse arbitrabantur eum quibus rebus possent defendere, idque a me ut facerem et ut causam Scamandri susciperem petebant, in qua causa patroni omne periculum continebatur. Ego, 50 qui neque illis talibus viris ac tam amantibus mei rem possem ullam negare neque illud crimen tantum ac tam manifestum esse arbi- 30 40

trarer, sicut ne illi ipsi quidem qui mihi tum illam causam commendabant arbitrabantur, pollicitus eis sum me omnia quae vellent esse facturum. Res agi coepta est; citatus est Scamander reus. Accusabat P. Cannutius, homo in primis ingeniosus et in dicendo exercitatus; accusabat autem ille quidem Scamandrum verbis tribus, venenum esse deprensum. Omnia tela totius accusationis in Oppianicum coniciebantur, aperiebatur causa insidiarum, Fabriciorum familiaritas commemorabatur, hominis vita et audacia proferebatur, denique omnis accusatio varie graviterque tractata ad extremum manifesta veneni deprehensione conclusa est. Hie ego tum ad respondendum surrexi qua cura, di immortales! qua sollicitudine animi, quo timore! Semper equidem magno cum metu incipio dicere; quotienscumque dico, totiens mihi videor in judicium venire non ingeni solum sed etiam virtutis atque offici, ne aut id profiteri videar quod non possim, quod est impudentiae, aut non id efficere quod possim, quod est aut perfidiae aut neglegentiae. Tum vero ita sum perturbatus ut omnia timerem, si nihil dixissem ne infantissimus, si multa in eius modi causa dixissem ne impudentissimus existimarer. Conlegi me aliquando et ita constitui, fortiter esse agendum; illi aetati qua tum eram solere laudi dari, etiam si in minus firmis causis hominum periculis non defuissem. Itaque feci; sic pugnavi, sic omni ratione contendi, sic ad omnia coniugi, quantum ego adsequi potui, remedia ac perfugia causarum ut hoc quod timide dicam consecutus sim, ne quis illi causae patronum defuisse arbitraretur. Sed ut quidquid ego apprehenderam, statim accusator extorquebat e manibus. Si quaesiveram quae inimicitiae Seaman dro cum Habito, fatebatur nullas fuisse, sed Oppianiacum cuius ille minister fuisset huic inimicissimum fuisse atque esse dicebat. Sin autem illud egeram, nullum ad Scamandrum morte Habiti venturum emolumentum fuisse, concedebat, sed ad uxorem Oppianici, hominis in uxoribus necandis exercitati, omnia bona Habiti ventura fuisse dicebat. Cum ilia defensione usus essem quae in libertinorum causis honestissima semper existimata est, Scamandrum patrono esse probatum, fatebatur, sed quaerebat cui probatus esset ipse patronus.

35

40 51

45

50

55 52

60

65

Cum ego pluribus verbis in eo commoratus essem, Scamandro 53 insidias factas esse per Diogenem constitutumque inter eos alia de re fuisse ut medicamentum, non venenum Diogenes adferret; hoc 41

cuivis usu venire posse: quaerebat cur in eius modi locum tarn abditum, cur solus, cur cum obsignata pecunia venisset. Denique hoc loco causa testibus honestissimis hominibus premebatur. M. Baebius de suo Consilio Diogenem emptum, se praesente Scamandrum cum veneno pecuniaque deprehensum esse dicebat. P. Quintilius Varus, homo summa religione et summa auctoritate praeditus, de insidiis quae fierent Habito et de sollicitatione Diogenis recenti re secum Cleophantum locutum esse dicebat. Atque in ilio iudicio cum Scamandrum nos defendere videremur, verbo ille reus erat, re quidem vera et periculo tota accusatione Oppianicus. Neque id obscure ferebat nec dissimulare ullo modo poterat; aderat frequens, advocabat, omni studio gratiaque pugnabat; postremo—id quod maximo malo illi causae fuit—hoc ipso in loco, quasi reus ipse esset, sedebat. Oculi omnium iudicum non in Scamandrum sed in Oppianicum coniciebantur; timor eius, perturbatio, suspensus incertusque voltus, crebra coloris mutatio, quae erant antea suspiciosa, haec aperta et manifesta faciebant. Cum in consilium iri oporteret, quaesivit ab reo C . Iunius quaesitor ex lege ilia Cornelia quae tum erat clam an palam de se sententiam ferri vellet. De Oppianici sententia responsum est, quod is Habiti familiarem Iunium esse dicebat, clam velie ferri. Itum est in consilium. Omnibus sententiis praeter unam quam suam Staienus esse dicebat Scamander prima actione condemnatus est. 3 non a a : om. M\i 4 sed de!. Müller 6 et ut Z*|/ 2 a: sed ut M\i ipsa res a declarat B 8 collocutus Z a : locutus M\I 9 Baebio (Be-)oa: Bebrio M\L 10 diligentia a a : dignitate M\i 14 comparatur a a : om. M\i pecunia a: pecuniaque M\i 20 unum] verum Angelius 21 tum C . Bailer: cum C . y l s : cum causa Z : cum causa C. /: tum M: tarnen ba 22 cum Larinatibus b 2y 2a 26possint Za 31 ipsi quidem Za: quidem ipsi M\i 32 sum me Z a : his sum me (sum me his b) Mp 37-38 coniciebantur M\i: constituebantur Z a 41 tum Z M s : cum b 2ay: tamen b' 46 possim ofia: possim implere M\I imprudentiae Z B ö ' a non id Zfia: id non M\i 51 laudi dari Mb 2a: laudari (-e b') 'Lb V a 56 quidquid] quidque Ascens. (i), cf. Madvig. Fin. v. 24 apprehenderam M\Ì: reprehenderam as 57 quaesiveram Za: quaesieram M\i 63 fuisse Za: esse M\i 65-66 sed . . patronus om. a 68 insidias factas Z a : factas insidias A ^ alia de Za: de alia M\i 70 cuivis usu (-us 5) M\xs: quo visus Z : quovis usus ( posse M]i: posset aa 74 Quintilius C. Stephanus: Quintius M\i& 77 secum Cleophantum M\i: se cum Cleophanto a ( ? Z ) locutum M\it: collocutum b 2s 79 tota Z a : et tota M\i 86 et Z a : ac M\i 87 C. Iunius] Q . Iunius 6 f y 2 a : qui vuius Z

42

70

75 54

80

85 55

90

5 Pro C. Mustio (73, Fl) Practically nothing is known about this case,1 except that the oration given by Cicero on behalf of C. Mustius was "non edita" (cf. B). The issue seems to have been money. According to Alexander, the case was a civil matter, possibly condictio; the defendant was a Roman eques,2 Condictio is a civil procedure for "the recovery of a definite sum of money," certa pecunia.3 Cicero never bothered to publish his remarks, even though he won the case. Perhaps the matter was not very important. PRO C. MUSTIO A. Cicero, In Verrem 1, 139: (etenim iudicium, quod prope omnium fortunarum suarum C. Mustius habuit, me uno defendente vicit) . . . B. PseudoAsconius, In Verr. 1, 139, 252 St.: (§139.) E t e n i m i u d i c i u m , q u o d p r o p e o m n i u m f o r t u n a r u m . Causam Mustius pecuniariam habuit Tullio defendente, cuius oratio non est edita. 1 iudic. olim Cic. edd. iudic. Ds

2 Mustius M a v i X i t p x a u i a (jf]

10

Ttapacrxeiv fj ? èv xfj M u a i p noificrat;

10

FLTT^tìri d8eX axpaxriyoCvxi 2 ¿jreM)6vxo nati simus cogites. Plus tibi virtus tua dedit q u a m f o r t u n a abstulit, p r o p t e r e a q u o d a d e p t u s es q u o d non multi homines novi, amisisti q u a e plurimi homines nobilissimi. Ea denique videtur condicio impendere legum, iudiciorum, t e m p o r u m ut o p t i m e a c t u m cum eo videatur esse qui q u a m levissima p o e n a ab hac re publica discesserit. Tu vero, qui et f o r t u n a s et liberos habeas et nos ceterosque necessitudine et benevolentia tecum coniunctissimos, q u i q u e m a g n a m facultatem sis h a b i t u r u s nobiscum et cum o m n i b u s tuis vivendi, et cuius u n u m sit iudicium ex tam multis q u o d r e p r e h e n d a t u r , ut q u o d u n a sententia e a q u e d u b i a potentiae alicuius c o n d o n a t u m existimetur, o m n i b u s his de causis debes istam molestiam q u a m lenissime ferre. Meus a n i m u s erit in te liberosque tuos semper q u e m tu esse vis et qui esse debet.

1

5

2 11

15

i l = MGR] 2 iam diu tuli i: t-iamdiutuli M: t- iam diu GR 4 praebeas M: te pr- GR 5 nos nati Rosi: notati M: nati GR 12 quique quamque MR: -mquam G: cumque (quom-) i , vulg. 13 sis GR: si M 14 cuius (cui') unum Shackleton Bailey: cum unum fi: cum unum tuum (t- u-Wesenberg) MartyitiLaguna 15 potentiae s1: -ia fi 17 animus Baiter 4

In the first part of 49, Cicero was still obligated to Fadius; see Ad Fam. 7.27. Gruen, Last Generation, 349. ® Puccioni, Ciceroniana, 107, speaks of Fadius as Cicero's "client." This interpretation cannot stand on the evidence; the text nowhere has the word cliens. 5

268

APPENDIX III Conspectus Siglorum ASCONIUS Orationum Ciceronis Quinqué Enarratio ed. A. C. Clark, Oxford, 1907. S = Pistoriensis, Forteguerri 37, a Sozomeno scriptus P = Matritensis x. 81 a Poggio scriptus M = Laur. liv. 15 ex apographo Bartolomaei de Montepolitiano descriptus £ = codd. SPM consensus it = correctiones a m. 2 vel 3 in P factae q = coniecturae in recentioribus libris (vel libro) inventae KS = Kiessling-Schoell CASSIUS DIO ed. U. P. Boissevain, Berlin, vol. 1, 1895, vol. 2, 1898. L = cod. Laurentianus 70 n. 8 (vol. 1 p. LXI sqq.) M = cod. Marcianus n. 395 (vol. 1 p. LXVIII sqq.) V = cod. Vaticanus n. 144 (vol. 1 p. LXV sqq.) CICERO Brutus ed. A. E. Douglas, Oxford, 1966. F B O G H M

= = = = = =

codex Florentinus Magliabecchianus cod. Ottobonianus 1592 cod. Ottobonianus 2057 O 2 = vetus corrector cod. Neapolitanus iv B 43 cod. Neapolitanus iv B 36 cod. Mutinensis vi D 6 269

L N D codd. dett. vulg.

= = = = =

consensus codicum FBOGHM Venetus prior (Ellendt) Nannianus Parisinus 7704 codiees inferioris notae, sive omnes sive plures vulgata lectio

Epistulae ad Atticum ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cambridge, vols. I and II (1965); vols. Ill and IV (1968) (= Books I-X). E = G = H = TV = V = O = R = P = Ant. = F = codd. Mai. = E = M b d m

= = = =

s = 8 = A = ii = C = c = Z = X =

Ambrosianus E 14 inf. (saec. xiv) Parisinus 'Nouv. Fonds' 16248 (saec. xiv-xv) Landianus 8 (saec. xiv-xv) Laurentianus (ex Conv. Suppr.) 49 (saec. xiv-xv) Palatinus Lat. 1510 (saec. xv) Taurinensis Lat. 495 (saec. xv) Parisinus Lat. 8538 (anno 1419 scriptus) Parisinus Lat. 8536 (saec. xv) Antonianus a Malaespina citatus Faèrni codex a Malaespina vel Vrsino citatus Malaespinae codices ab ipso generatim citati consensus codicum EGNVR vel omnium vel eorum qui quoque loco praesto sunt Mediceus 49.18 (anno 1393 scriptus) Berolinensis (ex bibl. Hamiltoniana) 168 (saec. xv) Laurentianus (ex bibl. aedilium) 217 (saec. xv) Berolinensis (ex bibl. Hamiltoniana) 166 (anno 1408 scriptus) Vrbinas 322 (saec. xv) consensus codicum bdms consensus codicis M cum codicibus bdms, aut omnibus aut tribus consensus codicum Z et M = archetypum omnium quos supra Shackleton Bailey nominavit codicum lectiones margini editionis Cratandrinae (an. 1528) adscriptae lectiones in textu eiusdem editionis primum prolatae Tornesianus (de Z1, Z(,), Z?,Z(b), Z9, Z®, Z', Z0) ) lectiones in margine alterius editionis Lambinianae (an. 1572-3) veteri codici (v.c.) adtributae 270

Lamb, (marg.) = lectiones ibidem quibus littera 'L.' praefixa est < = lectiones ex codicibus deterioribus, ut videntur, hie illic citatae vel in editionibus ante Cratandrinam primum inventae hP.O1, etc. = codicum M, O, etc. secundae manus

vols. V and VI (1967) ( = Books XI-XVI). E O R P Ant. F codd. Mai. X M b d m

= = = = = = = = = = = =

s = 8 = A = Q =

C = c = Z = A. = Lamb, (marg.) = > OoQs utn

00

•3

On «1

00

o NO

«vi v^ /I VI«

< v-?>N

NO

o NC

N "O v~t NO inO vi

c>u

X X

?,ShS « 3 > > -X1

e

Z

S o 8P

cd « B " •> o mB B •o e u c u .S ßcd o B C cMd cM dN •c S D t ) »i) O o «f W5 o X> 60 "o o ~ o o b « ®M s 3 1-1 a So S u ecd O •r! y •S O s X B C O C Ü ¡3 C -2 C C S «5 -O C-O obòHr_¡ fi cd < ¿ cd O O X l* U. Oh ix a a,2 Q cl, a, *

B .2 fi ¡o 3B T3 U 3 Ucd Oa S 13

a c E o 3 'S

E E 3 3 ^ O 4» _o ''S ¿J O U

Cu c

2

3

I OU « _ u £ Q

U

CL. >

0. >

X

+

X

X

E G) u s Q B ' S S J •a 4¿ S es

s

° Ü Q o U 4> £ eu Q Q a .

•f + o

3 5

>

X X

X X X + X MX X X

> X

5 X

X X ~ X X

s >

S x **

X X X X

3

X

li a, X s Xt a« , + a, >£ fl. X X X

> X

< (N N

O Ë Ë i — u § J HIII 1 ° o0 t.>E CaOO O « § S 3 J3 y_-a -ac ^ o • Cd ^O cd . O U C L , m S s o SCXu a > u u c3 . u o -*->5ou a sa c d c d .2?U 'I Ü Ü 2 S ü c u o . a o. e ' S u-SO WO O ô o o a o o U V 3 tM tri L-l bH H C « Ü c (V h a. Q Qü eu cu U O Q CU Cu cu 322

£ ü « v. o b

> X

X X X

X

X X

r^ m

X X X

o .i -c

e l i g t a ft> u 4» j : « J3 "•Cu 2 >. « g i n .S -C « •o a •£ " u . "3 Q. vi S f s = s « -s ë

«c —S E o a c S .9 ^ «

£ •o o M C — " u 7 °-g £ o Z ^ ïS M vi C 5 « « S i • x: W oî. > p^ f/j

•a s

X X

u n

3 D¿

ä

ê

i ü

I fe

X) (4

•So t/í rti c

«» £ CU O M CU

S3 CQ V) CO 0> s M o 22 CS vi

O « U O cu

3 e/) o s .s 0 00 > O G 2 ë 1 rt^ w o i•S E g1 e £ i •S o b. C X ¡S 00 S " •a S C u S 3 i 8 . s S ~ S c >. a- > y « M ü > 35> g .s -a a -c >. S M M - E S o fe S E 5 -o "S « E « S. 2 g> • c Z -o o "S "O 60 O ì E 3 t C u u « E « ^ « JaC M U 3 u N U ^ C £ -s ' S o "g « "S 2 « u Ô. cO au °.2 S5 CU 113 .t; « "O ^ C vi - c

>, — VI JJ V- C

s .§

"

O

ïï

S O -s r

?

«su

-a ü

^ H 0>« : » C0

B S CO U 0 E "v X)

-B ^

-a u (/> c (/) CO 3 •a O

O O

.

4

x:

a V u a (/)

u

§

«

c i

8

E

5

.

C

a O

s

«

»

£f

s

2

s

° CA 3 O

g

.3

"

S

o

- a ï 8

i

co ; "O

-S

a> u

o c o

.

VO o C

!

£

a

è

t

.

co

u

5 co T3 c

CO c CO

§

a

V u

O. . -

c u

Os > ~

ïT>

V

í»

C V • > u r- • a i

J= ; h O 1/3 -o

Ö g

00 f so .

c S >

2

»

c

xi «

et

o» •a s .

C0 - o 3 i— C C0

m 3

™

s

U

o

£ 4>> ~ u < 3 O a O ' g - a C 3 5 s -¡ a.

S

'

"

O "

g

S

c o 5

E

V

.S

f o "

u

c 2

.


U ^ V u. " C O a» a. .

O o

xi S s » . í

w

CO ' S

2

"o

§

S Jï a* o •5 S

s l " CO —

2 §

i 1

-s

r-

.2 ZI S s: g

-S ^ C0

• S e » «

-a c

>'C

^ tu

.Ì-

3

.

s

tco 2

E

—

C

1 • O u "

3

• =1 •S

I s

uT o u « > "co ü ™

m

ON 3 N

•s s r

§••§

u ,

• a>

o

^

; -J -

ê i o Xi i/j i

G J - Í 2

u

= J 0 & : SË " 2 " > co 3 i

IS) ¡s M

à

T3

.J C C5J3 u O rT cl

C o

0 o

i. > 0> co o o CO M ¡4 . 2

•S 2 iJ ¡ C0

0

S C S O

1

00.^

I g . g o 3 , ° o o jü a ,• 3 - 5 3

C o

s

"8

t/i • —

le H

"

2 •

"•> TJ « J=

XI

g. .2

.5

.a

0 £ "O

O

C

c ^

e

ç --.E

C

2

« C c/5 O I a> M

c

l

>D. ! i

=

J3 . O o 3 C/3 TJ

«

« I Ë - S g 8 k. 0> P • X) M o H

e o.

e 0

Ü

c

§ 3 3

0

•o O S c '0 u O 0 •si( 3X 0 ia .5