SOME NOTES ON CICERO'S EPISTLES FROM 57 TO 54 B.C.

Att. iv. 2. 7. Tusculanum proscripsi: suburbano facile careo.

Editors usually add <non> before facile with M2; and O. E. Schmidt ("Cicero's Villen," p. 35, note 7) reads Tusculanum proscripsi (sc. reficiendum), suburbano non facile careo. I think this is an error, and that those editors, who follow Manutius in supposing that Cicero tried to sell his Tusculanum at this time, are right: cp. Q. Fr. ii. 2. 1 (written four months later), Tusculano emptor nemo fuit. Si condicio valde bona fuerit, fortassis non amittam.

Q. Fr. ii. 1. 2. Racilius surrexit, et de iudiciis referre coepit. Marcellinum quidem primum rogavit. Is cum graviter de Clodianis incendiis, trucidationibus, lapidationibus questus esset, sententiam dixit, ut ipse iudices per praetorem urbanum sortiretur; iudicum sortitione facta, comitia haberentur; qui iudicia impedisset, eum contra rempublicam esse facturum.

The question as regards this passage is, who is ipse? Not Clodius, as Drumann, Schütz, and Billerbeck say, for it was a magistrate who allotted the panels. The natural view to take is that it was Marcellinus. As he was consul elect, he was virtually a magistrate. The panels were usually allotted by the quaestors: cp. Dio Cass. xxxix. 7. 4, οὔτε γὰρ οἱ ταμίαι, δι ̓ ὧν τὴν ἀποκλήρωσιν τῶν δικαστῶν γενέσθαι ἐχρῆν, ᾕρηντο, καὶ ὁ Νέπως ἀπεῖπε τῷ στρατηγῷ μηδέμιαν πρὸ τῆς κληρώσεως αὐτῶν δίκην προσέσθαι. Though this is somewhat out of chronological order where it occurs in

Dio Cassius (who places it before the recall of Cicero), it would seem to have reference to the case we are considering: cp. Mommsen, St. R. ii. 572. 1. The aim was that the trials for vis should be held before the elections of aediles, so that Clodius, who was accused by Milo of vis, but was also a candidate for aedileship, might not, if elected, escape in virtue of his magistracy. But the election of aediles preceded that for quaestors, so that there were no quaestors,' and a difficulty arose as to who was to allot the panels for the trials. Naturally it should have been the praetor (cp. Att. i. 14. 3) who was to preside at the trial, and who also had the selection of the Album iudicum each year (Cluent. 121). According to Dio, Nepos, the consul, forbade the praetor to make this allotment (cp. Mommsen, op. cit., i. 248. 4); while Cicero says that Marcellinus, the consul designate (the consuls, as the year was just at a close, may have departed for their provinc es) moved that permission be granted him to put the praetor urbanus in motion to have the panels allotted. We should certainly have expected the proposal of a simple motion, directing the praetor to proceed to allotment without the intervention of Marcellinus, so that the suggestion of Manutius, approved by Lambinus and Drumann, ii. 320, ut ipse iudices praetor urbanus sortiretur (where ipse without the assistance of the quaestors), would deserve adoption were it not so far from the manuscript tradition. The action of Marcellinus would be merely formal, and the possible reason why he asked to have a part in the business was that it might be put in hands without undue delay.

1 The late quaestors had, according to rule, vacated their office on Decem

ber 5.

2 It is adopted by Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 319, who assigns the alteration to Eigenbrod. It is possible that a ditto

=

graphy may have arisen from the similarity of the contractions of per and prae: and once per appeared in the text, the nominative praetor urbanus would soon be changed into the accusative.

Q. Fr. ii. 1. 3. Tum Clodius rogatus diem dicendo eximere coepit. Furebat a Racilio se contumaciter inurbaneque vexatum.

Nothing is more common in the manuscripts of Cicero's Epistles than the omission, or improper insertion, of in : see C. F. W. Müller's note on Fam. i. 9. 21, <in> praestanibus (= p. 25. 22). But the insertion of it here seems gratuitous. Cicero might say that his good friend Racilius had been insolent to Clodius; but he would hardly say that he had been rude, or uncultivated. And what made Clodius angry was that Racilius treated him with that polished insolence, TEπαidεvμévn üßois, which is, of all treatment, the most cutting and exasperating.

Fam. i. 2. 2. Multi rogabantur, atque id ipsum consulibus invitis: nam ei Bibuli sententiam valere cupierant.

I fail to see how Mendelssohn and C. F. W. Müller explain this passage. The consuls evidently wanted no motion passed (diem consumi volebant), as the proposal of Bibulus, which they favoured, had been rejected. The longer the debate on the matter of procedure raised by Lupus was protracted, the better chance that no decision on the Egyptian question would be arrived at, and the better pleased the consuls would be. Wesenberg (Em. 13) inserted <non> before invitis, and this addition is rightly adopted by Professor Tyrrell, Mr. Jeans, Dr. Reid, and Mr. Shuckburgh; or, perhaps, neque for atque.

Att. iv. 46. 1. Offendes designationem Tyrannionis mirificam in librorum meorum bibliotheca.

So M'; but Ns have bibliothecam, while those MSS. which Lehmann calls OHP omit the word (cp. "De Epp. ad Att. recensendis," p. 174). He thinks that we should omit the word, and also in. It would be simpler to suppose that in has got out of place, and that we should read

mirificam librorum meorum in bibliotheca. Possibly the omission of the word bibliotheca arose from its having been written in Greek letters, or in the form bibliothecen, as in Fam. xiii. 77. 3.

Fam. i. 6.

This letter, as Rauschen shows ("Ephemerides Tullianae," Bonn, 1888, p. 39), was written after the Quirinalia (Feb. 17), for Cicero appears to have lost the hope, which he expressed to Quintus (ii. 3. 4 fin.), that effective resistance to the proposals which were detrimental to Lentulus could be made on the Quirinalia.

Q. Fr. ii. 4 (4. + 6.3-7).

This letter, which, according to the Mommsenian arrangement, consists of 4. + 6. 3-7, is resolved by Rauschen, p. 39 f., into fragments of two letters, the conclusion of one (= §§ 1, 2) and the beginning of the other ($$ 3-7) being lost. His arguments are weighty-(1) The acquittal of Sext. Clodius, § 6, occurred a few days before the delivery of the Pro Caelio, and that speech was delivered (Cael. 1) during the Megalesia (April 4 to 10), and before the Nones, therefore on the 4th. It was delivered before the Nones, because no mention is made of that speech in Q. Fr. ii. 5, which relates the events after the Nones, up to Cicero's departure on the 8th.1 (2) But again the acquittal of Sestius, which occurred on March 11, is mentioned in § 1, in such a way that it is plainly the first information given to Quintus of that event.

1 It would be certainly curious if Cicero made no mention to his brother of the speech Pro Caelio. But he seems to have written a letter to Quintus on the 4th: cp. Q. Fr. ii. 5 init., Dederam ad te litteras antea quibus erat scriptum

Are we to suppose that

Tulliam nostram Crassipedi pr. Non April. esse desponsam ceteraque de republica privataque perscripseram. In that, he doubtless gave some information about that speech.

Cicero let a whole fortnight at the very least elapse from the acquittal of Sestius before he informed his brother about it? I confess I do not see why this may not have been the case. Letter-carriers cannot have been very frequently going to Sardinia, and possibly they went very irregularly. So there is no reason why we may not suppose that §§ 1-2 were written shortly after the acquittal of Sestius, and 3 to 7 added afterwards to the letter before it was despatched. That will account for the second mention of his building operations (§ 3: cp. § 2), and his second allusion to public affairs (§ 4: cp. § 1). See what is said below (p. 69) with regard to Q. Fr. iii. 1. Mommsen's arrangement of these letters fits so well, that one is loth to disturb it except under compulsion.

Q. Fr. ii. 5.

This letter was written not at Anagnia, as Baiter and Müller say, but at Rome, early in the morning of the 8th April, just when Cicero was starting for Anagnia : cp. § 4, a.d. vi. Id. Apr. ante lucem hanc epistulam conscripsi er amque in itinere ut eo die apud T. Titium in Anagnino

manerem.

§3. Erat autem iturus [sc. Pompeius] (ut aiebat) a. d. III. Id. Apr., ut aut Labrone, aut Pisis conscenderet.

Labro is unknown. Wesseling suggests <Sa>lebrone, a town mentioned in the Itin. Ant., p. 292, between Cosa and Populonium. Possibly under aut Labrone (Lavrone) is concealed aut <Te>lamone which was an important harbour in Etruria (Polyb. ii. 27. 2; Plin. H. N. iii. 50; Plut. Mar. 41: cf. C. I. L., xi., p. 416).

Att. iv. 6.

The date as given by C. F. W. Müller, “m. Apr. aut Mai.," is probably wrong. Cicero had written, and was