Att. iv. 13.

This letter, despatched on November 15, was plainly written after an absence of some time when Cicero was returning to Rome. Doubtless he had been spending his holiday at Cumae or Pompeii, composing the De Oratore, just as he composed the De Republica in the next spring in the same villas. His mind had not been occupied with politics, and accordingly he wanted immediately a short résumé of public affairs, "ne istuc hospes veniam."

Q. Fr. ii. 8.

There is hardly a letter in Cicero's correspondence which is more difficult than Q. Fr. ii. 8. Its date even is uncertain. Körner (p. 31) attributes it to May 55 B.C.: and this is the ordinary view, and, in my opinion, the correct one. But O. E. Schmidt ("Ciceros Villen," p. 44 note) thinks it belongs to 56 B.C., when Cicero made a short run through his villas, from about April 9 to May 6 (Q. Fr. ii. 5. 4). In that passage he states that he intended to be at Arpinum from April 11 to 16, then to go to Pompeii, and on his return to have a look at his Cumanum. But during this visit, Cicero must have been constantly moving about: he does not appear to have settled down for work. Now, from Q. Fr. ii. 8, it seems that Quintus expressed a fear that he would interrupt his brother: that presupposes that Marcus was hard at work. He was so in April, 55 B.C. (Att. iv. 10: 11). The journey of 56 was one of inspection of his villas: that of 55 was straight down to the Cumanum for study. There is no difficulty in supposing that Cicero did not begin to get his Cumanum, his most fashionable villa, elegantly fitted up until 55. Some part of it was evidently habitable in that year, though many workmen were engaged throughout the mansion; and it was doubtless in that habitable

portion that Cicero received the visit of Pompey (Att. iv. 9. 1), which seems to have been a mere morning call. Körner (p. 31) doubts if this letter (Q. Fr. ii. 8) was written from the Cumanum, and asks "cur ille cum fabris mansit in ea villa cum aliae non longe abessent quo se conferret?" We may perhaps reply that the use of the library of Faustus (Att. iv. 10. 1) counterbalanced the disadvantage of living in the midst of workmen. Madvig (A. C. iii. 195) supposes that this letter was written from Antium, as he wishes to read Antiates for Ante a te is of M, in § 1. So, too, O. E. Schmidt (op. cit. 38. 5) and C. F. W. Müller. The vulg. is An te Ateius? and it is supposed that Ateius was a bore who constantly interrupted Quintus, at the same time apologizing, like Paul Pry, for just dropping in; with Ateius the commentators say docuit is supplied. This appears to me forced; and I cannot help believing that interpellat should be supplied, and that we should read An te Statius, as Lambinus suggested. And Madvig is in error, in speaking of the "officiosa molestia " of the Antiates. He must have been thinking of the Formiani (Att. ii. 14. 2: 15. 3). It was quite the contrary at Antium: cp. Att. ii. 6. 2 esse locum tam prope Romam ubi me interpellet nemo, diligant omnes. only once hear of Cicero's being at Antium in 55 B.C. (Att. iv. 12. 1): possibly he went down there to dispose of his house, which he could not afford to keep up, now that he was preparing a more splendid residence at fashionable Cumae. Cicero's house at Antium was in the possession of Lepidus in 45 B.C. (Att. xiii. 47a. 1).

We

Nor do I think that Quintus was in Italy during April and May, 56 B.C. For Pompey appears to have had an interview with Quintus during the latter part of April in Sardinia, when he came to that province after the conference at Luca (Fam. i. 9. 9). This conference was held about April 18, B.C. 56. Pompey left Rome for Sardinia and

Africa on April 11 (Q. Fr. ii. 3. 5), but first went to Luca. That town is about 220 miles from Rome, and Pompey doubtless took about 5 or 6 days on the journey. Somewhere about the 23rd or 24th, Pompey was in Sardinia, and complained to Quintus about his brother's motion that Caesar's laws concerning the Campanian land should be reconsidered on the Ides of May. Probably Quintus wrote at once to Marcus, and sent the letter referred to in Q. Fr. ii. 6. quas tuus nauta attulit Olbia datas. Quintus had hoped to leave his province some time towards the end of April, as we may gather from Q. Fr. ii. 5. 3, 4: but doubtless the arrival of Pompey, who naturally required the services of his lieutenant in his inquiries about the supply of corn to be got from Sardinia, prevented his departure, and he sent the letter by the captain of the vessel in which he had hoped to sail. Certainly, in the middle of May Quintus was not in Rome, but was expected (sed cetera, ut scribis, praesenti sermoni reserventur Q. Fr. ii. 6. 1). I think he came back from Sardinia some time in the summer of 56, and did not return there. Cicero, in 54 B.C., says (Pro Scauro, § 39), cum frater meus ab his (sc. Sardis) nuper discesserit, but that is a mere general expression; and the residence of Quintus in Sardinia was certainly “recent” as compared with that of Albucius (circ. 103 B.C.), who is mentioned in close proximity.

In § 2 C. F. W. Müller reads portaret, and says that this is the alteration of the MS. portarem proposed by Bücheler. It is not clear what is the nominative to portaret. In Rh. Mus. xxv. (1870), p. 170, where Bücheler discusses the passage, he reads portarent, and supposes I presume that the subject is indefinite. The defence of the MS. Asicianam by Bücheler is convincing: cp. Cic. Cael. 23, 24: Tac. Dial. 21.

As regards taraxira, I know nothing better than area Cyrea or Cyri (Ernesti). Since his restoration Cicero had

so many building projects on hands, in which he availed himself of the services of the architect Cyrus, that it was no wonder that he had become used to studying in the midst of workmen.

Fam. v. 8.

Lange (iii. p. 354) and Körner (pp. 51-52) hold an opinion as to the date of this letter which is at variance with that held by all previous scholars. They put it in August, B.C. 54. This is probably wrong as it would appear, from § 2, that Publius and Marcus Crassus the younger were in Rome, yet Marcus was serving with Caesar in the summer of 54 (B. G. v. 24. 2) and Publius also appears to have been with Caesar during the same summer: cp. Plut. Crass. 17. 4, dežóμevos avtółɩ (in Syria), τὸν υἱὸν ἥκοντα παρὰ Καίσαρος ἐκ Γαλατίας. Körner seems to be influenced by the fact that, in Fam. i. 9. 19, 20, Cicero defends himself against the strictures of Lentulus for having spoken in behalf of Vatinius and Crassus. Now Vatinius was acquitted of sodalicia at the end of August (Q. Fr. ii. 15. 3). Accordingly Körner thinks that the attack on Crassus which Cicero repelled was made about the same time. He cannot say what the nature of that attack was; but he rejects Lange's view, that Gabinius refused to give up the province of Syria to a legatus sent by Crassus; for it is unlikely that Crassus would have delayed to send a legatus until the summer. Far more probable is the view of Rauschen (p. 51), that the letter was written early in January. Cicero had become reconciled to Crassus at the end of the previous year, and they had parted the best of friends (Fam. i. 9. 20 fin.). But the ill-omened departure of Crassus stimulated his enemies to attack him; they may have moved a curtailment of his powers, and perhaps voted very scanty supplies. Cicero would seem to have urged that the powers and resources of Crassus, so far from

being diminished, should be increased (§ 1). As the reconciliation was recent, the warmth of Cicero's zeal was the greater.

Q. Fr. ii. 9. 3. Lucreti poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt, non multis luminibus ingenii, multae tamen artis : sed cum veneris. Virum te putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.

That Munro's view of this passage, which is supported by Prof. Tyrrell, is right, I have no doubt. For the ellipse cp. Q. Fr. ii. 6. 2, sed plura, quam constitueram; coram enim (sc. de his rebus loquemur)——a very common form of ellipse. For tamen, Lehmann, in his valuable, but not quite convincing, discussion on that word (De Epp. ad Att., p. 195), quotes Att. ii. 20. 6, Poeta ineptus et tamen scit nihil, sed est non inutilis. The poet alluded to is Alexander of Ephesus. In 22. 7, Cicero says of him, Libros Alexandri, neglegentis hominis et non boni poetae, sed tamen non inutilis. What Cicero required in one of these scientific poets was poetical talent, and knowledge of the subject of which he was treating. Alexander was a poor poet, and ignorant besides, though in a poor poet you might naturally expect, at least, much learning. And, perhaps, it is something of this idea which Cicero meant by artis in the case of Lucretius. It will embrace not only the workmanship of the versification, but also the exposition and orderly arrangement of the philosophical thought-in fact, the whole sphere of the didakтòv, as opposed to quá, to speak in Pindaric language. Lucretius has fine flashes of genius, and what you would hardly expect from a poet of genius, and an Epicurean poet too, evidence of systematic arrangement and careful workmanship. When Ovid