So, for us who believe that the Aóyoç was made flesh, and that we live discerning

"A mystic heaven and earth, behind

The earth and sea and sky,"

the wise old pagan lives again in the better words and deeper mysteries of a writer that was even wiser than he. We cannot bind Christianity to Platonism, Realism, Universalism; that would be "the marriage of an Immortal with a Mortal." But this does not in the least affect the evidence for either our writer's use of Aristotelian Logic, or his belief in Platonic Ontology. These points must be judged from the Epistle itself. And if our writer teaches us that reality belongs to a brighter world than its manifestation, and is true before it is manifested-if he uses Plato's terms, and works on Plato's lines-if he leads us to the thought that the true mysteries of the Incarnation and the Atonement lie in that real kingdom of the Heavens, and not among the glimmerings and fadings of the sensible shadow of that kingdom-he surely melted Plato's elements in the crucible from which he brought forth his gold.

ALEXANDER R. EAGAR.

“”ATAKTA” ON CICERO'S LETTERS.

Fam. 1, 6.

PROFESSOR PURSER (HERMATHENA, No. XXVI.

(1900), p. 53) accepts the date given for this epistle by Rauschen, who places it after the Quirinalia (February 17) in 56 B.C. The reason is drawn from a comparison with Q. Fr. 2, 3, 4. "Cicero appears to have lost the hope that effective resistance to the proposals which were detrimental to Lentulus could be made on the Quirinalia." Assuming for the moment that, in the two passages which are compared, the subject-matter is exactly the same, does the language which is used in them justify this conclusion? The tone in Fam. 1, 6 is only slightly less confident than in Q. Fr. 1.1.; it is merely the difference between ualde suspicor fore ut infringatur hominum improbitas and in ea (sc. Quirinalia or in eo in ea re) multo sumus superiores; the latter phrase is rather less emphatic than Catoni profecto resistemus (Fam. 1, 5a, 2) and facile resistemus (Fam. 1, 5b, 2). But does Q. Fr. 2, 3, 4 refer to precisely the same. matters as Fam. 1, 6? Let us compare § 1 of the latter with § 4.

=

§ 1. C. Cato legem promulgauit de imperio Lentulo abrogando. Vestitum filius mutauit.

§4. operas suas Clodius confirmat, manus ad Quirinalia paratur. In ea (or in eo) multo sumus superiores ipsius copiis; sed magna manus ex Piceno et Gallia expectatur, ut etiam Catonis rogationibus de Milone et Lentulo resistamus.

The comparison makes one thing clear; the language (cf. especially etiam) implies that the voting about Lentulus

was expected to take place later than the Quirinalia. And when we look to the whole context we see that Pompeius was the man especially concerned with the business on that day. We find from § 2 that the trial of Milo before the comitia on the prosecution of Clodius had been adjourned to the Quirinalia, and from § 3 that Pompeius feared violence on that occasion. He had been seriously threatened with it at a previous hearing of the case. The fact that a

state trial had been fixed for the Quirinalia made legislation on that day impossible. And, even had it been otherwise, why should C. Cato have interfered with the trial of Milo? He was making common cause with Clodius against Milo, and his proposal to establish a special court to take cognisance of Milo's offence was an engine of attack intended for use only if the prosecution by Clodius failed. These reasons, taken by themselves, forbid us to suppose that Lentulus had any special concern with the Quirinalia. There are, however, others which compel us to the same conclusion. The dates mentioned in Q. Fr. 2, 3 seem to show that the bill directed against Lentulus by Cato was not "promulgated" before a. d. IV. Non., i.e. not sufficiently early to allow a vote to be taken on the Quirinalia, in accordance with the provision of the lex Caecilia Didia, which required the trinum nundinum to intervene between the promulgatio and the comitia. And again Cicero can hardly have expected a very early vote to be taken on propositions to which so strenuous a resistance was to be offered. This is shown by some words in Fam. 1, 6, where he says that he hopes the attacks of the enemies of Lentulus will be frustrated by mere "lapse of time" (ipsa die). And the measures taken by Lentulus the consul, of which we read in Q. Fr. 2, 4, 4 (2, 6, 4) must have been adopted immediately on the promulgation of C. Cato's projects; yet we hear of them first in this letter, which was written, probably, before the end of February (see

1). How long the struggle over C. Cato's proposals lasted, we cannot estimate with exactness. The consul succeeded in rendering all "comitial" days useless for a considerable period (Q. Fr. 2, 4, §§ 4, 6). To all appearance Fam. 1, 6 was written some time after the obstructive process began, and Fam. 1, 5a earlier; very soon after the promulgatio (§ 2).

I desire to touch briefly on a few other points connected with these letters. In Q. Fr. 2, 3, 1 Cicero writes: "a Kal. Febr. legationes in Idus Febr. reiciebantur. Eo die res confecta non est." These words were written on prid. Id. Febr. before dawn (§ 7), and that perhaps accounts for the imperfect reiciebantur. Therefore eo die is not, as Prof. Tyrrell thinks, the Ides. Rather is it the Kalends. Prof. Tyrrell points out that res is the business touching the “Alexandrine King," as is shown by words in the letter which immediately precedes: "Sine dubio res a Lentulo remota uidetur esse." And we may fairly conclude from Fam. 1, 4, I that the reception of embassies was postponed for the purpose of allowing the affairs of Egypt to be considered on Feb. 1. Writing to Lentulus about Egypt, Cicero there says:-"Senatus haberi ante Kal. Febr. per legern Pupiam, id quod scis, non potest, neque mense Februario toto nisi perfectis aut reiectis legationibus." It is surprising that Cicero tells his brother nothing about the course which the discussion took on Feb. 1, and that we hear nothing about it in the letters addressed to Lentulus himself. This led me formerly to suspect that the words eo die res confecta non est are a gloss concocted from 3 of the letter: eo die nihil perfectum est. But the debate on Feb. I probably proved futile, and not worth describing. Hence in Fam. 1, 56, 1, it is included among the things which Cicero passes by, of which Lentulus is presumed to have heard from other sources.

In Fam. 1, 4, 1, speaking of a discussion in the

senate on a.d. xvi. Kal. Febr. concerning Ptolemy Auletes, Cicero says:-"Caninius et Cato negarunt se legem ullam ante comitia esse laturos." Prof. Tyrrell supposes this to indicate that Caninius and Cato had combined to propose a law stripping Lentulus of his governorship; the law in fact which C. Cato did afterwards bring forward; and that they undertook not to take a vote till the elections for 55 should be past, i.e. about August. These tribunes cannot have undertaken to suspend their animosity for so long a time; and in fact the meeting of the comitia is the one fixed for a.d. xi. Kal. Febr., as we learn from Q. Fr. 2, 2, 2, which letter was written on a.d. xiv. Kal. Febr. It was at this assembly that Clodius was elected aedile. But what are the comitia mentioned in Q. Fr. 2, 4, 6:—“ C. Cato contionatus est comitia haberi non siturum, si sibi cum populo dies agendi essent exempti"? The letter was written in March, not long after a.d. v. Id. A threat to obstruct the ordinary elections in July or August seems a little premature. Possibly, although the aedilician elections for 56 B.C. were carried out on a.d. xi. Kal. Febr. the quaestorian were still pending. Turning again to Fam. 1, 4, 1, I would raise the question whether the words legem ullam have any reference to the proposal to divest Lentulus of his imperium. We may at once dismiss Caninius. His lex must have been the one mentioned in Q. Fr. 2, 2, 3 (already promulgated before a.d. xiv. Kal. Febr.) allowing Pompeius to restore Ptolemy to his throne. Now if it was known before the middle of January that C. Cato intended to adopt the most extreme and unusual course of proposing to remove Lentulus from office, why does Cicero take the matter so quietly? Whenever that project is definitely mentioned elsewhere, it is keenly deplored. Moreover we have seen above that the promulgatio, in all probability, did not take place till after a.d. iv. Non. Febr. I conclude therefore that at the time when Fam. 1, 4, I was written, C. Cato had not disclosed