Marcus

(e). Qui posteaquam illo ut conati erant Hispaniensi pugiunculo nervos incidere civium Romanorum non poterant; duas uno tempore conantur in rempublicam sicas destringere. (Or. in Tog. Cand.)

In addition to these remarkable coincidences of expression, we find a marked coincidence of treatment; we learn from Asconius that, in denouncing Catiline, Marcus dwelt on his having put to death certain Roman knights, especially Q. Caecilius; adverted to his profligacies, his malversation of Africa, the depositions at the trial, and the verdict; and we learn that he upbraided Antonius with the public sale of his goods: now all these topics find place, and in the same order, in the Commentariolum. But, of course, coincidences of treatment might be accidental; not so the remarkable coincidences of expression just adduced. We may observe, too, how Marcus, in adopting the topic or the expression of his brother, adds some additional force or point to the words adopted. This is especially observable in (b) and (e), while in (d) the same subject is treated by each writer exactly as befits the case of each. The allusion in the passage is to the case of Fabia, a Vestal, who was accused of an intrigue with Catiline, tried for unchastity, and acquitted. This Fabia was the sister of Terentia, the wife of Marcus, and Terentia took refuge with her afterwards in the Temple of Vesta when Cicero fled from Rome (Fam. xiv. 2, 2). It is this connexion with his own family that makes Marcus careful to add etiam cum culpa nulla subesset; Quintus, in the words etiam si alia culpa non esset, does not quite so emphatically acquit Fabia.

In the face of these remarkable coincidences, it is strange that Eussner should persuade himself that he has made out his case that the pseudoQuintus had availed himself of the Orat. pro Murena and pro Plancio.

It would occupy too much space were I to give in full the supposed plagiarisms from the Orat. pro Mur. and from Q. Fr. i. 1. There are fifteen imputed coincidences between the Commentariolum and the pro Mur., and seventeen between the Comment. and Q. Fr. i. 1. If anyone desires to see the whole list set out in full, he may consult Hermathena, No. v., pp. 53-57, where there is a Paper by me, of which the above remarks are an abstract. The reader who does not feel disposed to take this step must take my word for it, when I say, that between the Comm. and the pro Mur. there is not a single real coincidence but one; and in this case it seems to me very probable that Marcus in his speech availed himself of a reminiscence of his brother's Essay which he had perhaps been editing very recently. It is this:-pro Mur. 43, nescio quo pacto semper hoc fit, neque in uno aut altero animadversum est, sed iam in pluribus; simul atque

candidatus accusationem meditari visus est, ut honorem desperasse videatur ; Comm. 56, atque haec ita volo te illis proponere non ut videare accusationem iam meditari. Even here we have not a very striking coincidence. But what is to be said of this:-pro Mur. 48, cum tu populum Romanum in eum metum adduxisti; Comm. 23, adducenda amicitia in spem? Surely it is an insult to the understanding of his readers, when Eussner quotes a sentence as a plagiarism because it has a word or a construction in common with another sentence. And here are some of the plagiarisms which prove that the Comment. was patched up out of bits of Q. Fr. i. 1:— Ep. 7, cuius natura talis est ut videatur moderata esse potuisse; Comm. 9, quum semper natura tum etiam aetate iam quietum. Ep. 10, quid ego de Gratidio dicam; Comm. 10, quid ego nunc dicam? Ep. 37, praetermittendum esse non puto; Comm. 10, mihi non praetermittendum videtur. Ep. 38, nihil te fieri posse iucundius. Comm. 16, carum et iucundum esse maxime prodest.

The Orat. pro Plancio Eussner omits to examine in detail, 'cum non ita multi loci cum Commentariolo consentiant.' I fancy it would be easy to construct a large list of coincidences as close as those cited from Q. Fr. i. 1, and the Orat. pro Murena.

So much for Eussner's attempt to disprove the authorship of Quintus. If coincidences such as those which he adduces were really sufficient basis for such a theory, I should have very little hesitation in undertaking to prove that Macaulay's History was the work (let us say) of Mr. Gladstone. But what would be a sufficient ground on which to base the disproof of the authorship of Quintus? It would be sufficient to point to some event mentioned in the Essay which occurred after the death of Quintus, or to show that ignorance is betrayed of some fact of which Quintus must have been cognizant. No attempt has been made to allege the existence of any allusion in the letter to any event subsequent to the time of Quintus. On one point, however, Eussner has attempted to fix an inaccuracy on the author of the Commentariolum. It is this-Nam hoe biennio (says Quintus), quattuor sodalitates hominum ad ambitionem gratiosissimorum tibi obligasti, C. Fundanii, Q. Gallii, C. Cornelii, C. Orchivi (Comm. 19). On the words of Cicero, alter induxit eum quem potuit ut repente gladiatores populo non debitos polliceretur (Orat. in Tog. Cand.), Asconius has this note: Q. Gallium, quem postea reum ambitus defendit, significare videtur. Hic enim, cum esset preturae candidatus, quod in aedilitate quam ante annum gesserat, bestias non habuerat, dedit gladiatorium sub titulo patri se id dare. Asconius, therefore, places the trial of Q. Gallius subsequent (postea) to the Oratio in Toga Candida, therefore in 690 (b. c. 64), at the earliest on the other hand, the author of the Commen

tariolum (as understood by Bücheler and Eussner) places the trial two years back, that is, in 688 (b. c. 66). Now be it remarked, in the first place, that it is by no means necessary that we should understand hoc biennio to mean two years ago: the words might as well mean that all those trials by which Marcus had won so much influence had occurred in the course of the last two years.* But even granting that hoc biennio should be understood to mean two years ago, there is not the least ground for charging Quintus with inaccuracy. Quintus is probably right, and Asconius wrong. Such is the view of Bücheler, who shows that, in the matter of the gladiators at least, Asconius has blundered, in ascribing to Gallius what was the act of Catiline, as we know from the distinct testimony of Cicero himself. If, then, Asconius erred about the gladiators, may he not have erred about the date of the trial of Gallius? Bücheler says yes; Eussner says no; however, Eussner offers no reason for his belief, but will not give up the only inaccuracy which he has been able to allege against his fancied compiler, who, writing at least ten years after the time of Cicero's candidature, has not (if this allegation be abandoned) incurred even the suspicion of a mistake.

In

my opinion, therefore, the Commentariolum petitionis was written about the beginning of 690 (b. c. 64); the author was Q. Cicero; it was intended primarily to be of practical service to M. Cicero in his candidature, but the author hoped that after it had undergone the revisien of his eminent brother, it might be deemed to have a substantive value as a manual of electioneering tactics. Whether Marcus ever actually did undertake the work of revising his brother's Essay we cannot be certain. We know that in the case of the Annales Marcus promptly complied with a like request, ego te libenter, ut rogas, quibus rebus vis adiuvabo, et tibi versus quos rogas, yλaûk' eis 'A0ývas, mittam (Q. Fr. ii. 16, 4). On the other hand, we see that the Essay still labours under that incompleteness which its author owns, ita sunt scripta ut non ad omnes qui honores petant, sed ad te proprie et ad petitionem hanc valeant (Comm. 58). Marcus, however, would hardly have employed his editorial authority in divesting the letter of its primary and special application to his glorious consulship. The letter did not, probably, find its way into the earliest collections of the correspondence of Cicero made immediately after his death, for Asconius seems to have been ignorant of the existence of the Commentariolum.

For other examples, see Roby, § 1182.