« AnteriorContinuar »
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
In preparing the present edition I have gone carefully over the whole book, paying special attention to the kind and instructive remarks of the critics of the first edition. Several notes have been re-written, and most of my statements examined anew. In the work of examination and verification I have received much assistance from my friend Mr. Purser.
Since the appearance of my first volume, the criticism of the Epp. ad Fam. has passed into quite a new phase. The admirable monograph of Thurot on the codex Turonensis has proved its independence of M; and the paper of Fr. Rühl in the Rheinisches Museum has called attention to the value of the Harleian codices in the British Museum. These Harleian codices Mr. Purser has collated. I have introduced into the Adnotatio Critica of this volume a complete account of the tradition of H and T (which are described in Introd. üi. $ 1).
It will be observed, however, that this volume contains very few of the letters ad Familiares. The succeeding volumes will present a full account of the readings of these important mss, which have not yet been used by any editors of the letters. The Introduction to vol. ii. will also, I trust, contain a full description of the Harleian codices.
When I wrote the Praefatio to the Adnotatio Critica, it had been my intention to correct some of the quite trivial errors in Rühl's paper* in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. xxx., which I had followed in the Introduction; also to say a few words confirmatory of the theory that Rühl had advocated as to the value of the Harleian mss, and especially of the small one that contains the first half of the Epp. ad Fam. This I had intended to do on the basis of Mr. Purser's collation of these mss which he made for me a few months ago, at a time when, unfortunately, the Introduction was already printed. But pereant qui ante nos! Within the last few days there has come into my hands vol. iii. of the Commentationes Philologae Ienenses (Leipzig: Teubner, 1884), in which (pp. 99– 214) there is a masterly article by Oscar Streicher, ‘De Ciceronis Epistolis ad Familiares emendandis,' treating fully of the smaller Harleian ms (a collation of which he obtained from Rühl), and of its relation to M and T. No one who has studied the Harleian ms right through, with Baiter's collation of M and Thurot's collation of T beside him, could come to a different conclusion from that which Streicher has arrived at; but few indeed could treat the problem in such an exhaustive and patient manner as he has done, so as to confirm his theory absolutely and beyond all question. Streicher's treatise is one of those complete and thoroughgoing works which uphold and extend the high renown that justly attaches to the learning of the great German nation. And, moreover, it forms an epoch: for Orelli's theory, which was put forward with all that profound scholar's vigour as the voice of truth ( sed vioit veritas', Hist. Crit. p. xvi), but which, from the very beginning, was subjected to powerful attacks, has now been finally demolished. I shall accordingly do no more than state the conclusion at which Streicher has arrived as regards the relation of the mss independent of M, viz., H, T, P (a Paris ms collated by Rühl). He supposes an original (lost) archetype (X), from which M and another lost ms (Y) were copied. From Y were copied H and another lost ms (Z). From Z were copied T and P. That H and T are independent can be felt from the fact that in three passages (iv. 6,3; 12, 2; vi. 1, 6) they both preserve the correct readings, which M has disfigured, passages on which Thurot (p. 7) lays especial stress; and that H is independent of T is proved by the fact that the extraordinary displacement in i. 9 which is found in T (see Thurot, p. 25) is not found in H. Of course these are only samples of a vast number of similar arguments. For the full discussion of the question let the reader turn to Streicher, * and he will be amply rewarded.
* At p. 4. 33, Orelli, H reads idēq' est factum. Is not this idemque est factum ? Rühl says H reads id ē q' factum. In 15, 18, H reads mirificus et, not mirificus senatus. (Rühl saw this: see Streicher, p. 114). When Rühl says that at 16, 43, H reads ordatum ; at 153, 12, pergratum; at 185, 9, ultra ; at 196, 17, initiat ; these are, no doubt, mere errors of the printer for ortatum, pergratam, ultro, and initiata, which are the readings of H. In the list of books in the larger Harleian ms, Rühl has omitted 1159, invectiva Ciceronis in Catilinam (= the orations against Catiline); 1256, Paradoxa Stoicorum ; 159a, anonymous fragment concerning Mile's case. The copy of the speech for Deiotarus at 134a only goes down as far as aetate, $ 27: that at 1425, is complete. There are only a few fragments of the 4th Verrine at 1594. There is the whole of Book i., and Book ii. down to intellegentiae, $ 34 of the De Officiis. At 180a is a letter of Alexander the Great to Aristotle; and at 185« some legends on the birth of Alexander. The speeches in Sallustium mean the so-called invective of Cicero against Sallust, and of Sallust against Cicero. I was wrong in stating that each book of the Epp. ad Fam. in Ha has a separate index. Books x., xi. have no index. Further, in H”, there are indices to Books iii., iv., v., vi., viii. (first nine letters).
As regards the larger Harleian ms, there is little to be said beyond what Rühl has already told us, until (should the hope I
* Among Streicher's original remarks there are, I think, only five on the letters in this volume. In Fam. v. 2, 7, he thinks animo of M and I arose from a repetition iniurianemounquamanimo. But still, as he does not approve of aliquo of Z, for an opposition is wanted to consulatus, he leaves the passage unsettled. Perhaps clio quo would get over the difficulty. In v. 1, 1 he defends (with Thurot) quo quidem of Z against quibus of M, H, as the former expresses more bitterness. In v. 2, 7 he wishes to expunge the second magna voce. In v. 7, 3 he justly defends terebare of H T, as having mss authority against vererere, obtained from verere of M. Either would suit grammatically. In Att. iii. 15, 6 he reads id quod for idque as the latter, he thinks, cannot be used in a parenthesis, and such is the regular usage of id quod. (See his great store of examples, p. 139.) This improvement had already been made by Klotz, and was adopted in the first edition of this work.
have expressed in Pref. to Adn. Crit. not be disappointed) I may be able to treat of it at length in the Introduction to Volume ii. I may, however, just mention a very few passages which will add some confirmation to Rühl's theory of the independence of H and M:-X. 21, 6, p. 178, 18 (Orelli) H inserts ut before exercitum (conjectured by Ern.); xi. 14, 18, p. 199, 18 after me H adds litteris (a conjecture of Kleyn's); xiii. 15, 1, p. 239, 13 H adds before νεφέλη the words oν φοτο τον δακεος for ως φάτο τον δ' άχεος, Odyss. 24, 314; xiii. 28, 3, p. 246, 12 H reads tibi confirmo in meque recipio ; xiv. 4, 5, p. 268, 26 H adds non after ferenda ; XV. 8, p. 283, 22 for suesti H reads consuesti (a conj. of Cratander); xvi. 17, p. 299, 36 for scis etueum H reads scite tu cum (a conjecture of Wesenberg); xvi. 21, 1, p. 301, 1 for adoptatissimus H reads exoptatissimus.
When I quote Lange, I refer to the third edition of his Römische Alterthümer (Berlin, 1876). When I quote Marquardt, to the second edition of his Römische Staatsverwaltung (Leipzig, 1881). Whenever · Marquardt, iv.' is referred to, the reference is to his volume entitled Das Privatleben der Römer (1879). "Mommsen St. R.' refers to the second edition of his Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1876).
I have acted in accordance with the suggestion of a very kindly reviewer in the Quarterly Review, in adding to each page a headline giving the reference to the letter printed on that page, and in appending the date B. c. to the date A. v. C. wherever it is given. I have surveyed, in an Appendix to the Introduction, the relations of Cicero with Caesar and Pompeius before the outbreak of the Civil War, with special reference to the views put forward by a brilliant reviewer of the first edition of this volume, in the Times (Aug. 16, 1880). I have relegated to the same part of the volume a discussion about the relations between Cicero and Tiro, and an essay on the authorship of the Commentariolum Petitionis. The Addenda to the Commentary, dealing with certain difficult points