66 valuable paper as Sjögren's "Xápires presented to Fr. Leo on his 60th birthday" (1911), until after the first part of the Commentary had been printed off. If I had known of his discussions of 340 a. 1 (quo eum for quod eum) and 345. 2 (ignaviae delectus for ignaviae delictum), and of Sternkopf's et Campana for Campana et in 304. 5, I should have adopted these readings in the text. Reference has been made to them in the Adn. Crit. All this convinces me that much else must have failed to come to my knowledge; but I have done my best, and can only beg for any indulgence that readers can bring themselves to show to these and the other shortcomings and errors which will be found throughout the volume. My friend, Professor Ridgeway, of Caius College, Cambridge, has kindly allowed me to make use of a paper I wrote on Att. xi for the volume of Essays presented to him in 1913, for which permission I thank him most cordially. The influence of another Cambridge friend, Dr. J. S. Reid, Professor of Ancient History in that University, pervades almost every book on Cicero issued in the United Kingdom. To his published works and some private correspondence my obligations are great; and though acknowledged in the several passages in which his learning has specifically helped me, they well deserve a general expression of most sincere gratitude. My thanks are also due to my learned colleague Dr. W. A. Goligher, Professor of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology in Dublin University, who has been good enough to read the proofs of the first half of the Commentary, and give me the benefit of his vigorous and acute criticism; and also to Mr. J. T. Gibbs, Manager of the University Press, whose care and watchfulness have saved me from many errors both of statement and expression. L. C. P. TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, December, 1917. 1 Compare also Adn. Crit. 329. 4; 337.7; 352. 1; 464. 6: 466; 499 a. 2, for other instances of second thoughts.' Page 67, line 11, for 71, 5, for 80, 83, 90, 107, 6 CORRIGENDA attulit et mandata' readet mandata attulit'. 9, for ad Pompeium misi' readmisi ad Pompeium'. • 10, for 117, col. a, line ignaviae delictum' read ignaviae delectus': 'and see Adn. Crit 18, for avonμepòv' read 'av¤ýμeрov'. 6 121, line 16, for ut deo' read ad eum': and see Adn. Crit. 126, col. a, line 17, transpose (as it is below, § 3)' to follow certe scio' (1. 19). ,, 164, line 15, for pro sua' (roman) read ‘pro sua' (italics): and see Adn. Cri ,, 201, col. b, line 2, after (dat. incomm.)' add We have found after the proofs were passed that this interpretation has been already given by Junius and Graevius.' ,, 203, col. b, line 21, for words of Cicero' read words of Curio'. ,, 266, line 2,) 267, 11,5 for '705' read· 706'. 2, for '46' read '48'. 6, for adin opiam' read ad inopiam '. line 11, add malueram] See Adn. Crit.' 386, line 3, for bibliotheca' read bybliotheca': and see Adn. Crit. 408, 3, add TUSCULUM' before 'JULY'. 6, delete 'te'. ,, 477, col. b, line 40, for Professor Clarke' read Professor Clark'. INTRODUCTION. I. CICERO AND THE CIVIL WAR. § 1. CICERO, POMPEY, AND CAESAR. WITH five cohorts against the world, as Livy said,1 Caesar crossed the Rubicon on the night of January 10-11, and on the 11th occupied Ariminum. News of such a step flew fast, and we may well suppose that it traversed the 230 Roman miles of road to the capital in three days; so that early on the 14th the knowledge of Caesar's decisive step was known at Rome. Even though the Senate had already begun to make preparations for war, and had apparently decreed a tumultus,' they were astounded at the suddenness of the news. Caesar pushed on with his wonted rapidity,3 Occupied Pisaurum, Fanum, and Ancona with separate cohorts during the next few days, and sent Antony, with five cohorts, across the mountains to seize Arretium,' and Curio with three to 1 Orosius vi. 15. 3, Caesar Rubicone flumine transmeato, mox ut Ariminum venit, quinque cohortes quas tunc solas habebat, cum quibus (ut ait Livius) orbem terrarum adortus est, quid facto opus esset edocuit: cp. Appian, B. C. ii. 34 fin., μerà TŴv πεντακισχιλίων ἔγνω προεπιχειρεῖν τοσῷδε πολέμῳ καὶ φθάσαι τὰ εὔκαιρα τῆς Ιταλίας. 2 312. 3; and cp. Groebe ap. Drumann iii.2 726. Holzapfel follows Plutarch, Pomp. 61; Caes. 33, in supposing the tumultus was decreed on the 17th, just before the evacuation of Rome. Cicero makes no mention of the decreeing of a tumultus. 3 Caesariana celeritas, Att. xvi. 10. 1 (801). Caesar (B. C. i. 11. 4) represents these operations as having been effected after the failure of the negotiations between him and Pompey which were conducted by L. Caesar. Cicero says expressly on the 27th of January (cp. 312. 2) that the senators left the city, cum Caesar Ariminum Pisaurum Anconam Arretium occupavisset. Caesar (i. 10. 3) appears to wish his readers to believe that for a considerable time Ariminum was the only one of the towns outside his province occupied by him. VOL. IV. b occupy Iguvium, so that, by possession of the coast-road and of the fortress of Arretium, the march on Rome might be rendered possible. When news either of the actual occupation of these towns, or of Caesar's advance on them, which meant their certain capitulation, was known at Rome on the 17th, a meeting of the Senate was held in the Curia Pompei, which was of a very excited nature. The senators assailed Pompey for having misled them as to the forces at his disposal. Volcatius Tullus was foremost 2 among these, and urged that negotiations be opened with Caesar.1 Cato proposed that Pompey should be made commander-in-chief, as it was the business of a man who caused great evils to put an end to them. Favonius, with cynical sarcasm, asked him to stamp his foot, and produce the soldiers he had said would arise if he did so. Assailed with such criticism, to which he was never accustomed, he said little, but was plainly bewildered and distracted; and, after declaring that he was unable to hold the city," 1 Appian, B. C. ii. 36, says that it was Cicero who moved that ambassadors be sent to Caesar. Possibly he found Tullus in his authorities, and assumed it was Tullius (Cicero). A good account of the meeting is to be found in Plut. Pomp. 60 f. 2 Plut. Cat. min. 52. It is doubtful if this motion was regularly passed. We rather think that Pompey had not any such formal authority until he had actually left Italy (cp. Caes. B. C. iii. 16. 4, de consili sententia summam belli rerumque omnium Pompeio permiserint; Lucan v. 46-49; Velleius ii. 49. 2, consules senatusque causae, non Pompeio summam imperii detulerunt-a not very lucid statement, but apparently it means much the same as Lucan's antithesis (v. 14), docuit venerabilis ordo | non Magni partes sed Magnum in partibus esse), though, no doubt, Pompey was de facto the most important of the senatorial commanders. He writes to Domitius and to the consuls, advising (e.g. hortor, 329. 2; 331. 4), not ordering, them to take certain measures, in the tone of one who had a par, not a maius imperium. Cp. below, p. xix, notes. The consuls, on receiving an order to return to Rome and take away the treasure there, only consented to do so conditionally on Pompey's going to Picenum (319. 2). Pompey said that he could not have a discussion about peace at Brundisium, as the consuls were not at hand (Caes. i. 26. 5: cp. 364. 2). See also Addenda to Comm. iii. 3 Mr. Heitland (The Roman Republic, iii, p. 311) severely, but with much justice, says:-"The Civil War pitilessly exposed his [Pompey's] weakness, As leader of the Roman aristocrats he was ridiculous, for he was neither their master nor their hero. As champion of the Republic he was equally ridiculous, for sincere republicans like Cato had no trust in his patriotism and self-denial. Mere military skill was not enough for civil war." 4 Cp. 365. 2, Vidi hominem xiii K. Febr. plenum timoris, and note to 303. 5 It was feared that Caesar would march on Rome; but he could not venture on such a step with his few cohorts, especially as the Pompeians had considerable forces in Picenum, which could cut off his reinforcements coming from Gaul. Pompey |