Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Cicero, as is distinctly proved by Fam. vii. 32, 1, quod sine praenomine familiariter, ut debebas, ad me epistolam misisti, primum addubitari num a Volumnio senatore esset, quocum mihi est magnus usus. Compare also Fam xvi. 18, 1, where Cicero addresses a letter to Tiro with the greeting Tullius Tironi Sal., and Tiro seems to have taken exception to the form as unsuited to their respective positions. Words which indicated close familiarity were scarcely suitable between Cicero and a manumitted slave. Cicero in reply suggests even a more familiar form of address-Quid etiam? non sic oportet? equidem censeo sic: addendum etiam Suo? But he adds, sed si placet invidia vitetur. The omission of the praenomen would have provoked unfavourable comment.* S. V. B. E. (si rales bene est), as well as S. V. B. E. E. Q. V. (si vales bene est, ego quoque valeo), seems to have been a formal mode of address used only to distant acquaintances, dignitaries, and women.†

The earliest letter of the correspondence is written in 686 (b. c. 68); the latest in 711 (b. c. 43). I have already expressed my opinion of the great historical value of these letters, especially the private letters. Indeed, if we except Caesar and the epitome of the lost Books of Livy, they are the only basis for the history of the period of which they treat. If Sallust be looked on as a political pamphleteer, we have no better authorities than Velleius Paterculus, and Suetonius, who cannot be trusted unless they give their authority; save Appian, Plutarch, Dio Cassius, who lived two centuries after Cicero, and wrote without any critical spirit.

Cicero himself never edited or collected his letters. But even

* This is probably the real interpretation of Hor. Sat. ii. 5, 32:-Quinte, puta, aut Publi, gaudent praenomine molles Auriculae. Fastidious Romans wished to be addressed with distant and formal respect. The places which Orelli cites in support of his view, which is the contradictory of mine (as he holds, without evidence, that the use of the praenomen was a mark of intimacy), are not relevant. The passage from the De pet cons. (Ep. xii. of this ed.) has no reference to the praenomen as distinguished from the nomen or cognomen; and that quoted from Fam. i. 9, 19 is utterly irrelevant, for Cicero does not even hint that it was by calling Clodius Publius that the senators sought to flatter the point of the passage is wholly and solely that Clodius and Vatinius both had the praenomen Publius. Again, it seems to be very far-fetched to explain the Horatian passage by supposing that the poet is thinking especially of the freedman Dama, who would be proud of the praenomen which he received on his manumission. The context does not warrant this supposition. Now my explanation is very simple, and is quite in keeping with the passages in Cicero.

him;

† See note on Att. ii. 9, 1 (Ep. xxxvi.)

E

in his lifetime there was some such project formed. The wellknown locus classicus on the subject is Att. xvi. 5, 5, mearum epistolarum nulla est ovvaywyn, sed habet Tiro instar septuaginta. Et quidem sunt a te quaedam sumendae. Eas ego oportet perspiciam, corrigam; tum denique edentur. Two years before this he had written to Tiro a letter (Fam. xvi. 17), in which he jestingly condemns his use of the adverb fideliter in the phrase valetudini fideliter inserviendo, and says that he ought to be more careful if he wishes his letters to be included in the volume.* But it is universally agreed that no collection of the letters was published during the life of Cicero. The Epistolae ad Familiarest and ad Atticum were probably published at the same time, and edited by the same editor; this has been inferred from the fact that there is evidence of the strict observance of the rule to exclude from one collection letters published in the other. This rule is only twice violated. We find enclosed to Atticus (Att. x. 9a) a letter from Caelius to Cicero which appears as Fam. viii. 16; and in the same way a letter from Cicero to Dolabella (Fam. ix. 14) is published again among the letters to Atticus (Att. xiv. 17a). That the letters to Atticus did not appear before the death of Atticus (722, b. c. 32) is probable from the testimony of Corn. Nepos. The letters to Quintus and Brutus were published with the letters to Atticus.

The Books of the ad Fam. are entitled according to the person to whom the earlier letters in each Book are addressed. Thus the first is ad Lentulum, the second ad Curionem, the third ad Appium Claudium Pulchrum. The eighth consists solely of letters from Caelius to Cicero. It is probable that the editor first published twelve books, and subsequently added four others, the thirteenth and fifteenth being addenda to the first edition, the fourteenth consisting solely of letters to his family, and the sixteenth of letters

*The words are tuas quoque epistolas vis referri in volumina. It is to be observed that these words do not imply that any collection of Cicero's letters existed at that time, but only that Cicero desired that such a collection should be made. The words might merely mean, ‘are you, too (like myself), set on a collection of your letters?' or 'do you want to make a collection of your letters as well as mine?'

This title has no classical authority, and the name is not free from objections, for some of Cicero's correspondents were in no sense his familiares. However, the correspondence may conveniently be so named, as most of his correspondents were familiares. Ad Diversos is bad Latin. Suetonius calls such a series amicorum epp. See note on Att. ii. 13, 1.

to Tiro, who, as we shall see, was probably the editor of the collection. Subsequent to the extant collections we have evidence of the existence of much larger volumes of which only scanty fragments remain. These were probably made in the Augustan period, and perhaps from them were gleaned materials for the books of addenda (Fam. xiii. xv.) But the original xii. books were not remodelled on the basis of the later collection, for from the four books ad Pompeium, and the three ad Caesarem, which the now lost edition is said on good authority to have contained, we should doubtless have had copious extracts. Now the Epp. ad Fam. contain only one letter to Pompeius (Fam. v. 7) and three to Caesar (Fam. vii. 5; xiii. 15, 16).

That Books xiii. and xv. are Addenda to the first xii. is plain from the following table :-*

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

It is, however, more than likely that the Epp. ad Fam., as we have them, were issued in fire separate parts.

(1). The first xii. books, the letters in which are on various subjects, such as politics, art, domestic life, letters of introduction, &c.; the collection being in no way based on any considerations about the nature or subjects of the letters.

(2). Lib. xiii. consisting solely of letters of introduction,† based, therefore, on the very principle neglected in libb. i.-xii.

(3). Letters to Terentia and his family.

(4). Lib. xv. constructed exactly like libb. i.-xii.

(5). Lib. xvi. consisting of letters to Tiro.

A close inspection of the above table will show that lib. xiii. may be looked on as a book of Addenda to libb. i.-x., as it contains no letters to any of the persons addressed in libb. xi., xii., while

*See Nake, Hist. Crit. Epistolarum, pp. 2, 3.

† Ep. 68 is not strictly speaking an epistola commendaticia, but it is a reply on the part of Cicero to a letter from Servilius which plainly was of that character.

lib. xv. stands in the same relation to libb. i.-xii. It might therefore, perhaps, be inferred that libb. i.-xii. did not appear altogether, but first libb. i.-x., and immediately after libb. xi., xii.

The Epp. ad Fam. (and therefore the whole correspondence) were probably edited by Tiro, because-(1) we know that he had formed such a design; (2) ad Fam. xvi. contains many letters addressed to him (some even not by Cicero) which would hardly have found their way into the volume had it not been edited by Tiro; (3) there are no letters from Tiro, just as in the other volume there are no letters from Atticus, though Tiro's letters were carefully preserved by Cicero, as we are told in Att. ix. 10, 4, evolvi volumen epistolarum tuarum quod ego sub signo habeo servoque diligentissime; (4) To these arguments for the editorship of Tiro may be added one drawn from a passage in Att. ii. 1, 3:— 'Fuit enim mihi commodum, quod in eis orationibus, quae Philippicae nominantur, enituerat civis ille tuus Demosthenes, et quod se ab hoc refractariolo iudiciali dicendi genere abiunxerat, ut oμἀότερός τις καὶ πολιτικώτερος videretur, curare ut meae quoque essent orationes, quae consulares nominarentur. Quarum una est in senatu Kal. Ian., altera ad populum de lege agraria, tertia de Othone, quarta pro Rabirio, quinta de proscriptorum filiis, sexta, quum provinciam in contione deposui, septima, qua Catilinam emisi, octava, quam habui ad populum postridie quam Catilina profugit, nona in contione, quo die Allobroges invulgarunt, decima in senatu, Nonis Decembr. Sunt praeterea duae breves, quasi αποσπασμάτια legis agrariae. Hoe totum σῶμα curabo ut habeas. Et quoniam te cum scripta tum res meae delectant, iisdem ex libris perspicies et quae gesserim et quae dixerim, aut ne poposcisses: ego enim tibi me non offerebam.' If, as seems probable (see notes on Att. ii. 1, 3), this passage is spurious, there is much reason for accepting the theory of Orelli, that it was inserted by Tiro to vouch for the authenticity of the three last speeches against Catiline, which (according to Orelli) were not written by Cicero, but probably by Tiro. It would certainly have been an attractive subject for one who wished to foist his own work on posterity as a speech written by the great orator, and his position as Editor of the letters would have given him an opportunity to almost ensure the success of his forgery.

Nake believes that Atticus was the editor, because we know

from the letters that he often bought and sold whole libraries,* that he kept a large establishment of copyists,† that he in various ways assisted Cicero's literary pursuits, suggesting to him subjects on which to employ his pen, replying carefully to questions of Cicero on literary points, and correcting and criticising his work. Thus Cicero in one place says that in his work de Gloria Atticus had selected for praise the very best bits, which were now enhanced in his own estimation by the approval of his friend; 'for,' he writes, "I was in great dread of those bits of red wax of yours' which pointed out defects. The most important testimony in support of Nake's view is a passage in Att. ii. 1, 2, tu si tibi placuerit liber curabis ut et Athenis sit et in ceteris oppidis Graeciae, which shows clearly that Atticus was in the habit of actually publishing works of Cicero, the book here referred to being a memoir of his consulship, written in Greek. However, all these arguments do not in my opinion counterbalance the evidence for the editorship of Tiro, given above, and to it may be added a passage in Fam. xvi. 23, 2, where Cicero writing to Tiro says, Atticus noster, quia quondam me commoveri πaviкoïç intellexit, idem semper putat, nec videt quibus praesidiis philosophiae saeptus sim, et hercle quod timidus ipse est, OopußоTOLET. Surely this contemptuous judgment on himself would not have been permitted. by Atticus to survive in his edition. Moreover, the only objection against the theory that Tiro was the editor is the defective arrangement of the books above referred to; but this is completely explained by the theory of a plurality of editions, which, as we have seen, is more than probable. Nor can we accept the view of Nake that the collection which we now have was posterior to the much fuller collection, of which there is undoubted evidence. The paucity of letters to such remarkable personages as Caesar and Pompeius is fatal to such a supposition; for we know that the large collection contained books of such letters: how, then, can we

* Att. i. 4, 3; ii. 4, 1.

† Att. xii. 40, 1.

Att. xvi. 11, 1, cerulas enim tuas miniatulas extimescebam. It was the habit of the ancients to stick pieces of coloured wax on the margin of books to mark exceptionable passages. Cerula could not mean 'a kind of crayon,' as Lewis and Short explain it. The Greeks called these cerulae παραπλάσματα. For other testimonies to the editorship of Atticus, see Att. i. 19, 10; 20, 6; xiii. 37, 3; xiii. 43, 3; xvi. 6, 4; vi. 2, 3, Phliasios dici sciebam, et ita fuc ut hubeas. Cp. also Fronto, Ep. 7, 20 (Naber).

« AnteriorContinuar »