« AnteriorContinuar »
cula, Tulliola, and (if I am right in my view of Att. ii. 1, 8) Romula.*
To these must be added the following adjectival diminutives :argutulus, hilarulus, integellus, lentulus, ligneolus, limatulus, longulus, maiusculus, minusculus, miniatulus, misellus, pulchellus, putidiusculus, rabiosulus, refractariolus subturpiculus, teniculus, and the adverbial diminutive meliuscule.
(3). There are many árač cipnuéva in the letters which we may hold to be due to chance, that is, we feel that, had we larger remains from antiquity, we should probably have other instances of their employment. It would be uninstructive to supply any list of such words (not elsewhere found in classical Latin) as peregrinator, adiunctor,t corruptrix, aberratio, remigatio, consolabilis, petasatus, candidatorius, sanguinarius; but the following adverbs, though to many of them what I have just said is applicable, may be set down :-assentatorie, desperanter, furenter, immortaliter (gaudeo), impendio, inhumaniter, pervesperi, turbulenter, vulgariter, and utique, which occurs about twenty times in the letters, and only thrice in all the other works of Cicero.
(4). Moreover, nearly every adjective and adverb in the language is intensified by the prefix per- I and mitigated by the prefix sub-. This is to be expected, owing to the need arising in letters for conveying delicate shades of meaning. This need demands also that minute graduation of the force of a word which the use of the comparative and superlative can so well supply in Latin. Hence the extraordinary richness of the letters in comparative and superlative forms both in adjectives and adverbs, for which, see Stinner, Pp. 12–15. These prefixes are rarer in the case of verbs, but we have the following : pergaudere, perplacere, pertaedet, pervincere, subdiffidere, subdocere, subdubitare, subinvidere, subinritare, subnegare, suboffendere, subringi (= diauvlaivelv), subvereri, suppaenitet, suppudet. Of other verbs the most strange are cenitare, flaccere, fruticari, itare, muginari, pigrari, suppetiari, tricari, edolare, repungere, restillare, oblanguescere. Cicero in his letters also affects rare compositions with e, ex, as : eblandiri, effligere, elugere, emonere, exhilarare.
* This list and the following are chiefly taken from A. Stinner De eo quo Cicero in Epistolis usus est sermone. Oppeln, Franck. 1879. The classification is my own.
† Cicero in his letter affects words in -tor. We have beside those already quoted the following rare examples :-approbator, convector, ioculator (?), expilator, propagator ; to which add corruptrix.
| Tmesis of per with adjectives and verbs is found only in the comic poets and the letters and dialogues of Cicero.
(5). The following very rare words cannot be brought under any of the above classes. They are simply due to the caprice of the moment: combibo, “a boon companion' (though we have compotor in Phil. ii. 42); obiratio; involatus (of a bird); itus (for abitus) ; reflatus (* a contrary wind'); sponsus (gen. -us for sponsum); noctuabundus, involgare (?). In all these cases there were other terms quite as suitable to express the exact shade of meaning; it was merely a whim to use these very rare words.
(6). There is nothing more characteristic of the style of the letters than the extremely bold use of ellipse. Some commentators strain this figure in the most violent manner, and understand words which it would require not an Atticus or Caelius, but an Oedipus or Teiresias to supply. The following, however, are undoubtedly instances of ellipse, and are in some cases very bold indeed :
De illo domestico scrupulum quem non ignoras (sc. tolle): Att. v. 13, 3. Illa fefellerunt, facilem quod putaramus (sc. fore), Att. ix. 18, 1. At ille adiurans nusquam se unquam libentius (sc. fuisse), Fam.ix. 19,1. De Caesaris adrentu, scripsit ad me Balbus non ante Kalendas Sertiles (sc. futurum), Att. xiii. 21, 6. Quintus enim altero die se aiebat (sc. perventurum Romam esse), Att. xvi. 4, l. Quod Tullia te non putabat hoc tempore ex Italia (sc. abiturum esse), Att. x. 8, 10. Atticam doleo tamdiu (sc. aegrotare), Att. xii. 6. 4. De tertio pollicetur se deinceps (sc. scripturum), Att. xvi. 11, 4. Natio me hominis impulit, ut ei recte putarem (sc. me commendare), Fam. xv. 20, 1. Miror te nihildum cum Tigellio (sc. locutum esse), Att. xiii. 50, 3. Illud accuso, non te, sed illam, ne salutem quidem (sc. adscripsisse), Att. xii. 22, 5. Quintus filius mihi pollicetur se Catonem (sc. futurum), Att. xvi. 1, 6. Nec mirabamur nihil a te litterarum (sc. ad nos missum esse), Fam. xvi. 7, 1. Video te bona perdidisse ; spero idem istuc familiares tuos (sc. passos esse), Fam. ix. 18, 4.
(7). Esse with adverbs is justly pointed to as a characteristic feature in the style of the letters by Paul Meyer, p. 161. The following are examples : sic esse ut sumus, Fam. xvi. 12, 4; tamquam si tu esses ita fuerunt, Q. Fr. ii. 2, 9; Lucreti poemata ita sunt, Q. Fr. ii. 11, 4.
So we find esse with recte, Att. vii. 17, 1; commodissime, Fam. xiv. 7, 2; tuto, Att. xiv. 20, 3; honeste, Fam. xiv. 14, 1; flagitiose -t turpiter, Att. vi. 3, 9; hilare et libenter, Fam. xvi. 10, 2; libenter et sat diu, Att. xv. 3, 2.
A stranger use of esse with adverbs is where the adverb is predicative, and takes the place, as it were, of an adj.: e.g., haec tam esse quam audio non puto, Q. Fr. i. 2, 9; utinam tam (sc. integra), in periculo fuisset, Att. iii. 13, 2. See also Q. Fr. i. 13 (154), 4, quemadmodum me censes oportere esse . . . ita et esse et fore, auricula infima scito molliorem.
In treating of the style of the letters of Cicero, I have in nearly every case taken my examples from the letters of Cicero himself, but the same views are broadly applicable to the ninety letters of his correspondents. I have already pointed out how inferior they are, as a rule, in style to the great master with whom it was their privilege to correspond. But even in syntax and in the use of words—in dealing with the raw material of literature—they show themselves not to be by any means so careful or exact as Cicero himself. Subjoined are examples of words and phrases not to be found in Cicero, but occurring in the letters of his correspondents :-*
(1). In the undoubtedly genuine letter of Brutus, Fam. xi. 2, We find xi. 2, 2, aliud libertate, different from (other than) liberty.' This abl. of comparison is found only in Varro, R. R. iii. 16, 23, aliud melle ; Hor. Sat. ï. 3, 208, alias veris ; id. Ep. i. 16, 20, alium sapiente; and in Phaedrus and Apuleius.
Ibid. facultatem decipiendi nos ; cf. spatium confirmandi sese, Asinius Pollio, Fam. x. 33, 5.
(2). Balbus, Att. viii. 15a, 1, writes dignissimam tuae virtutis ; for dignus with gen. (which is un-Ciceronian) cf: Pl. Trin. v. 2, 29.
(3). Bithynicus, Fam. vi. 16, uses intermoriturum; no part of intermori, but intermortuus is found in Cicero.
(4). Caelius, Fam. viii. 2, 1, has the cognate acc. so common in comedy in suum gaudium gauderemus; and Fam. viii. 10, 3, the remarkable Graecism nosti Marcellum quam tardus et parum efficax sit. (5). Galba, Fam. ix. 30, 3, 4, has dexterius and sinisterius.
* I do not take into account the letter of Quintus, de petitione consulatus, as being really rather a rhetorical treatise than a letter; nor the Brutine correspondence, as involving a still unsettled question.
(6). Plancus, Fam. x. 8, 4, has diffiteri; Fam. x. 15, 4, praecognoscere ; Fam. x. 18, 3, sollicitiorem ; and in Fam. x. 11, 1, ut .. me civem dignum ... praestem; whereas Cicero uses se praestare with a predicative accusative only in the case of a pronoun or adjective.
(7). Quintus Cicero, Fam. xvi. 27, 2, has dissuaviabor.
(8). Servius Sulpicius, Fam. iv. 5, 2, has existimare with gonitive of price; Fam. iv. 5, 5, perfunctum esse.
The examples which I have adduced may seem hardly to warrant the assertion that the letters of Cicero's correspondents display a laxity as compared with those of Cicero. Yet when we remember what a large body of literature Cicero's extant works afford,* it is strange that Brutus, for instance, in one of the two extant letters which are certainly genuine, should twice hit on an un-Ciceronian usage, and that in one of these violations there should be associated with him another of Cicero's correspondents, Asinius Pollio. Again, Cicero, we may suppose, must have had some reason for not using dignus with the genitive, or existimare with the genitive of price; this reason must have been unknown to Balbus and Sulpicius, or else deliberately rejected by them. Finally, we may be surprised not to find in the seven hundred and fifty letters of Cicero more words araç siçnuéva in classical Latin, when in the two letters of Quintus Cicero we find one, and in the twelve letters of Plancus three.
The conclusion seems to be that the correspondents of Cicero are even less careful than he is to avoid the vulgarisms and laxities which beset the speech of daily life. A confirmation of this is to be found in their respective usage (pointed out by Lieberkühn) with regard to a phrase which occurs repeatedly in the letters. Cicero always (except in two places, Att. v. 10, 1; viii. 14, 1), writes mihi crede. On the other hand, crede mihi is the phrase of Brutus, Fam. xi. 26; Cassius, Fam. xii. 12, 4; Caelius, Fam. viii. 17, 1. According to Böckel (Epistulae selectae, 8th ed., p. 323), crede mihi is a vulgarism, or, at least, belongs especially to familiar speech. Such distinctions, however, are perhaps too fine-drawn to find favour out of Germany. Among such may
* I suppose three-fourths of our Latin Dictionaries are extracts from Cice
be classed the acute observation of Wölfflin (Philol. xxxiv. p. 134), that, while in his earliest speeches and letters Cicero greatly prefers abs te, he gradually seems to show a growing preference for the form a te, which is the only form found after the year 700 (b. o. 54).
§ 1. SOURCES OF THE TEXT. For the letters ad Familiares our mss authorities are the following:
(1). M, the Medicean. This ms is of the eleventh century. It has always been held until quite lately that we owe all our knowledge of the letters of Cicero to Petrarch. It is certain that about the year 1345 he found (at Verona probably) the letters to Atticus, Q. Cicero, and Brutus. It has been generally supposed that a few years later he found at Vercelli the letters ad Familiares. The Vercelli ms still exists, together with a copy ascribed to Petrarch. The Verona ms is lost, and a copy of it (also ascribed to Petrarch) is our chief authority for the letters to Atticus, Quintus, and Brutus.
This opinion, which has been held since the revival of learning, has recently been vigorously and successfully (as it seems to me) assailed by Dr. Anton Viertel. He leaves untouched the belief that Petrarch was the discoverer of the ms containing the letters to Atticus, Quintus, and Brutus. This is plain from the famous letter of Petrarch to Cicero in the other world, dated ' apud superos Verona, June 16th, 1345’; that the place of finding the ms was Verona has been inferred (not on sufficient grounds) from the fact that Petrarch's letter is dated Verona. The extant copy of this ms, according to Dr. Viertel, is not by Petrarch.
* This is in effect the Introduction to the Adnotatio Critica, p. 275. I have written the Adn. Crit. in Latin, because for the treatment of critical matters one has a ready-made and very compendius conventional vocabulary. It is much shorter to write '' in animo M; corr. Lambinus,” than to say “inanimo is the reading of M, which was corrected by Lambinus to the reading given in the text.” The Adn. Crit. is followed by a full list of the mss and edd. therein referred to.
+ Die Wiederauffindung von Cicero's Briefen durch Petrarcha (Königsberg, Hartung, 1879).