Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum 0521230535, 9780521230537

Table of contents :
Title page
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
I
II
III
IV
TEXT
Index siglorum
Ad Q. fratrem
Ad M. Brutum
COMMENTARY
Ad Q. fratrem
Ad M. Brutum
Addenda
Ad Atticum
Ad familiares
Ad Q. fratrem
Concordance
Indices
I. Index nominum (i)
A. Ad Q. fratrem
B. Ad M. Brutum
II. Index nominum (ii)
III. Index verborum
A. Latinorum
B. Graecorum
IV. Index rerum
V. Index Graecitatis

Citation preview

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS AND COMMENTARIES EDITORS

C. O. BRINK

J. DIGGLE ADVISORY

W. BUHLER

F. H. SANDBACH

BOARD

SIR KENNETH DOVER

F. R. D. GOODYEAR H. D. JOCELYN

E. J. KENNEY

22

CICERO: EPISTULAE AD QUINTUM FRATREM ET M. BRUTUM

o o

EPISTULAE A UINTUM FRATREM ET M. BRUTU EDITED BY

D. R. SHAGKLETON BAILEY

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE LONDON

NEW YORK MELBOURNE

NEW ROCHELLE SYDNEY

- A3,

nfo

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2

irp

32 East 57th Street, New York, ny 10022, USA 296 Beaconsheld Parade, Middle Park, Melbourne 3206, Australia

© Cambridge University Press 1980 First published 1980 Printed in Great Britain at The Alden Press, Oxford

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Cicero, Marcus Tullius Cicero.—(Cambridge classical texts and commentaries). 1. Cicero, Marcus Tullius—Correspondence I. Bailey, David Roy Shackleton II. Series 876'.oi PA6297.A2

80-40390

ISBN o 521 23053 5

CONTENTS Preface

page vii

Abbreviations

ix

INTRODUCTION

i

EPISTULAE AD QUINTUM FRATREM

17

EPISTULAE AD MARCUM BRUTUM

ioi

COMMENTARY

145

Addenda

255

Concordances

259

Indices

261

I

INDEX NOMINUM (i)

26l

II

INDEX NOMINUM (ii)

269

III INDEX VERBORUM

270

IV INDEX RERUM

2^2

V

274

INDEX GRAECITATIS

V

PREFACE

A translation of these letters has been published in the Penguin Classics series (Cicero's letters to friends, vol. n, 1978). Unlike my translations of the the rest of the correspondence, this was made before I began work on the edition. Discrep¬ ancies are mostly due to second thoughts. Once again I have to thank Professor C. O. Brink for reading and helpfully commenting on the work in type¬ script and the Cambridge University Press for devoted labour lavished on this volume and its nine predecessors. Also I am again indebted to the Department of the Classics in Harvard for some financial support. Cambridge, Mass.

D.R.S.B.

July 1980

Vll

ABBREVIATIONS The following may be noted: A. = D.

R.

Shackleton

Bailey,

Cicero's

letters to Atticus

(Cambridge, 1964-70) Botermann, Soldaten = H. Botermann, Die Soldaten und die romische Politik, etc. (Zetemata 46, 1968) Broughton = T. R. S. Broughton,

The magistrates of the

Roman Republic (New York, 1951-60). References, unless otherwise stated, are to vol. n Brunt, Manpower = P. A. Brunt, Italian manpower (Oxford, I971) Cicero — D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero (London, 1971) Constans = Cicer on, correspondance, vols. 1-111 (Bude, 1934-50) F. = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero. Epistulae ad familiares (Cambridge, 1977) Gruen, Last generation = E. S. Gruen, The last generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974) How = W. W. How, Cicero, select letters (Oxford, 1926) Kasten = H. Kasten, Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem, etc., (Munich, 1976) Kiihner-Holzweissig = R.

Kiihner

and

F.

Holzweissig,

AusfUhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre2 (Hanover, 1912) K. -S. = R. Kiihner and C. Stegmann, AusfUhrliche Gram¬ matik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre3 (Leverkusen, 1955) L. -S.-J. = Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon9 Magie = D. Magie, Roman rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,

I95) Mommsen,

St.

= T.

Mommsen,

Romisches

StaatsrechC

(Leipzig, 1887-8) Mommsen,

Str.

= T.

Mommsen,

(Leipzig, 1899) IX

Romisches

Strafrecht

ABBREVIATIONS

Moricca = U.

Moricca,

Cicero.

Epistularum

ad

Quintum

fratrem libri tres (Paravia, 1954); Epistularum ad M. Brutum liber nonus (Paravia, 1955) Muller = C. F. W. Mulier, Ciceronis scripta, m. (Teubner, 1896-8) Miinzer, Adelsparteien = F.

Miinzer, Romische Adelsparteien

und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920) Neue-Wagener = F. Neue and C. Wagener, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache3 (Leipzig, 1902-5) Otto, Sprichwbrter = A. Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwdrtlichen Redensarten der Romer (Leipzig, 1890) Propertiana — D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana (Cam¬ bridge, 1956) RE = Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie Rostovtzeff, Hellenistic world = M. RostovtzefF, Social and economic history of the Hellenistic world2 (Oxford, 1957) SB1 = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, ‘Notes on Cicero, Ad fratrem’, Journ. Rom. Stud. 45 (1955), 34-8 SB2 = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, ‘Emendations of Cicero, Ad Quintum fratrem and Ad Brutum’, Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 7 (1961), 1-7 Schulze, Eigennamen — W. Schulze, fur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Gbtt. Abh., phil.-hist. Kl. v, 6 (1904) Shuckburgh = E.

S.

Shuckburgh,

The

letters

of Cicero

(London, 1899-1900) Sternkopf, Entersuchungen = W. Sternkopf, ‘Untersuchungen zu den Briefen Ciceros Ad Qidntum fratrem’, Hermes 39

(i904), 383-418 Stockton = D. Stockton, Thirty-five letters of Cicero (Oxford, 1969) Studies = D. R. Shackleton Bailey,

Two Studies in Roman

Nomenclature (American Classical Studies no. 3, 1976) x

ABBREVIATIONS

Sumner, Orators — G. V. Sumner,

The orators in Cicero's

Brutus (Toronto, 1973) Thes. — Thesaurus linguae Latinae Treggiari, Freedmen = S. Treggiari, Roman freedmen during the late Republic (Oxford, 1969) T.-P. = R. Y. Tyrrell and L. G. Purser, The correspondence of Cicero213 (Dublin, 1904-33) Watt = W. S. Watt, Ciceronis epistulae ad Quintum fratrem, etc. (Oxford Classical Text, 1958)

xi

INTRODUCTION

I Born in the family home at Arpinum between 105 and 102,1 2 Q. Tullius Cicero shared his brother’s education and kept him company on his travels in Greece and Asia

(79-77). No

more is heard of Quintus until 70 or thereabouts, when he married a lady several years older than himself, the sister of his brother’s life-long friend T. Pomponius (Atticus). Marcus is said to have made the match. It was not a success for the principals, but it lasted about twenty-five years and in 67 produced its only known child, Q. Cicero junior. Though no orator, Quintus had political ambitions. He will have begun his cursus honorum as Quaestor, perhaps in 692 and doubtless with Marcus’ encouragement and support, which could have been in part a reward for his amenability in his choice of a wife. The next step was the Plebeian Aedileship in 65, the office held by his brother four years previously. The Praetorship duly followed in 62. As Consul in 63, Marcus may have presided over the elections. This turned out to be the final stage of Quintus’ political career. Any hopes of a Consulship were doomed by the decline in Marcus’ political fortunes and the Civil War. Quintus’ proconsular province was Asia, an important and attractive post. He governed there for the unusually long period of three years, longer than he himself desired. On his brother’s showing his administration was a model of probity and beneficence, marred by chronic irascibility and undue reliance on a confidential slave, Statius, whom he manu¬ mitted in defiance of Marcus’ wishes. His return to Rome in 58 was overclouded by Marcus’ exile and abortive threats of 1 For source-references see Miinzer’s article on Q. Cicero in RE. 2 Miinzer (RE viia. 1287.58) seems to put the Quaestorship in 68 (cf. Broughton, 139). But if Quintus was expected back from a quaestorian province in November of that year, he will have gone out as Quaestor in the spring of the previous one.

3

INTRODUCTION

a prosecution, presumably de repetundis. But he took a leading part in the campaign for Marcus’ restoration, sometimes at great personal risk. Shortly after that event, in 56, Pompey as Director of Corn Supplies made Quintus his Legate and stationed him for several months in Sardinia. A longer absence began in the spring of 54, when he joined Caesar, a friend of his early years, as Legate in Gaul, in time to take part in the second British expedition. In the winter of 54-53 he held an independent command in modern Belgium. Caesar in his Commentaries does ample justice to Quintus’ epic defence of his headquarters against the insurgent Nervii, qualified, however, by criticism of a subsequent piece of negligence which

nearly

ended

in

a

military

disaster.

Quintus was probably glad to leave Gaul in 52 in order to take yet another Legateship under his brother in Cilicia. His service had not brought him the riches he had expected nor yet the favour of his commander-in-chief and

brother

officers; so at least one of them told Marcus several years later (Att. 220 (xi.g).2). Quintus’ ferocious comments on Hirtius and Pansa in Fam. 352 (xvi.27).2, though characteristic of his style, fit in with this chance piece of information. Contributing

military

and

administrative

experience

which Marcus conspicuously lacked, Quintus gave valuable help in Cilicia, which does not seem to have been too generously acknowledged. The brothers returned to Italy in the autumn of 50 and left again some six months later to join Pompey’s forces in Greece. After the republican defeat at Pharsalia, a violent quarrel broke out between them, and they went separate ways,

Marcus back to

Italy while

Quintus remained in the East. In the autumn of 47 both returned to Rome by Caesar’s permission. The quarrel was nominally reconciled.

The rest of Quintus’

career was

uneventful, until it ended in the Proscriptions of 43. Quintus shared his brother’s cultural and literary interests, specializing in poetry, a sphere in which Marcus acknow¬ ledged his superiority ((L/r. 24 (ni-4).4). He worked both in 4

INTRODUCTION

epic and tragedy, adapting in the latter from Greek originals; the quality may be judged from the rapidity of their com¬ position {Q_.fr. 25

(hi.5).7).

He is found contemplating a

history in Q_.fr. 16 (11.12)4, but his only known prose work, if its authenticity be granted, is the Commentariolum petitionis. The Annales of Att. 36 (11.16)4 maY well have been verse. As traditionally represented, the relationship between the two Ciceros was one of life-long affection and harmony, broken only by occasional fits of irritability on the part of the younger and by one serious but temporary falling-out. The truth, to be deduced from the elder’s correspondence with Atticus (sometimes interlinearly), was otherwise. The quarrel in 48 had origins reaching far back into the past, and the reconciliation was only superficial. For details I must refer to my biography, from which I quote this summary: ‘The deplorable marriage, which Marcus Cicero had made and striven to keep in being for his own reasons, friction over Statius, disappointments in Gaul, untoward incidents in Cilicia, Quintus’ strange passivity in the early months of the Civil War-all this and much more of which we are not informed may have gone to nourish an ulcer in Quintus’ mind: the mind of a small man, irritable, querulous, and weak; a severe magistrate, who spoiled his son and let him¬ self be run by a slave; a good man in a battle or a riot, but a rabbit in front of his wife; ambitious, but inhibited by a distrust of his talents, which were not of the first order, and handicapped by the unlucky accident of birth, which had made him a bigger man’s younger brother.’1 Nothing of this comes out in the extant ‘Letters to Brother Quintus’, except in 2 (1.2), which reveals friction and dis¬ satisfaction with some aspects of Quintus’ record in Asia. This letter and its precursor, which is not really a private letter at all, belong to 60-59. They are followed by two letters from exile, the first particularly lacrimose. The rest of the series date from the end of 57 to the end of 54, during 1

Cicero,

5

184.

INTRODUCTION

which period the two were on uniformly excellent terms. Cicero’s tone is generally relaxed and cheerful, and he writes with a freedom he could use to no other correspondent except Atticus.

II The friendship between Cicero and M. Brutus (Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus), which began in the late fifties with Atticus’ encouragement, may make the subject of a separate study. The interest of their extant correspondence is historical rather than personal. Apart from a few letters of recommen¬ dation in the Ad familiares collection, it falls within a period of four months, March/April-July 43, when both writers were heavily preoccupied with public concerns. Such private items as crop

up

are self-explanatory,

lacking ulterior

implications. In August 44 Brutus and his brother-in-law Cassius sailed for the East, leaving the tripartite power-struggle between Antony, Octavian, and the Senate to work itself out in their absence. They may ostensibly have been proceeding to their allotted provinces of Crete and Cyrene, but their departure looked more like a retirement into

exile

(cf.

Att.

372

(xiv.ig).i; 373 (xiv. 18).4). If any of the sequel was already in their minds, they do not seem to have spoken of it to Cicero.

By the following spring,

however,

Cassius had

won control over the entire armies of the East, taking the Caesarian Dolabella and the anti-Caesarian Caecilius Bassus in easy stride. Brutus for his part spent some time in Athens, but in December the outgoing governor of Macedonia, Q,. Hortensius, who happened to be his cousin by adoption handed the province over to him instead of to the lawful successor, Antony’s brother Gaius - lawful insofar as the decree of an intimidated Senate conferred legality. Joined 6

INTRODUCTION

by a number of distinguished young republicans on the spot, including Cicero’s son, Brutus soon made himself master of the province and the troops in the area, capturing C. Antonius himself in Apollonia. Meanwhile the war in Italy was nearing its crisis. Antony’s forces besieging D. Brutus in Mutina were threatened by three republican armies under the two Consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, and Octavian. So matters stood when the extant correspondence began about the end of March1 with a letter from Cicero (Letter i). Its opening words (‘the crisis is thought to be upon us’) set the tone. Letter 2, from Brutus, written from Dyrrachium on 1 April, covers a variety of topics, including his perplexity as to what should be done with C. Antonius and a request for reinforcements in men and money. Cicero’s next letter (3) of 11 April reflects continuing anxiety about the military outcome, but is mainly taken up with a senatorial wrangle between the writer and P. Servilius Isauricus. Letter 4 of 12 April is Cicero’s answer to Letter 2, written in haste during his morning levee. The most important item (§4) is an unequivocal rejection of Brutus’ request for reinforce¬ ments. This letter is followed by another (5), written after a meeting of the Senate on 13 April at which a communication from Brutus and another from C. Antonius (brought by Atticus’

brother (?)-in-law,

the

former

Caesarian

Pilius

Celer) were read out. Antonius’ assumption of the title ‘pro consule’, despite the Senate’s cancellation of his appointment on 20 December 44, and the mildness of Brutus’ language with respect to his prisoner so outraged Cicero and likeminded Senators that they professed to think Brutus’ letter a forgery, though that was clearly not Cicero’s real opinion. Hence a lengthy remonstrance. The beginning of Letter 6 of 20 April, in reply to a lost letter of Brutus, has disappeared. Most of what remains presses home the message, salutaris severitas vincit inanem speciem clementiae. Shortly afterwards the ' On the dates of this and other letters see the introductory notes in the Commentary.

7

INTRODUCTION

news of the republican victory at Forum Gallorum reached Rome, making a greater day for Cicero than the Immortal Nones.

His solemn exultation is movingly expressed in

Letter 7, which ends with another admonition: the three brothers Antonii are all in the same galley. Further tidings from the scene of battle - the second victory at Mutina, the death of both Consuls, Antony’s flight - produced the brief Letter 8. Letter 9 of 5 May reports a Senate meeting on 27 April. The first half concerns the question (already out of date, had Cicero known it) whether Brutus should follow Dolabella into Asia, the second envisages a Pontificate for Cicero’s son, now one of Brutus’ most distinguished officers. Letter 10 of c. 7 May is Brutus’ reply to Letter 7. From defence of his conduct towards C. Antpnius it passes to a counter-offensive, reproving Cicero for unwise and excessive advancement of Octavian. The end is missing. Within a few days of despatching it Brutus and his army set out eastwards from Dyrrachium along the via Egnatia towards the Cher¬ sonese. Letter 11 of 15 May, despatched from camp en route, also lacks its opening. What remains is an outspoken develop¬ ment of the view put forward in Letter 10, taking Cicero to task for the honours granted Octavian and warning him that the young man’s ambition might extend even to one of the vacant Consulships. Presumably the writer thought that after the rout of Antony Octavian could and should have been cut down to size - perhaps he said so in the missing part of the letter. Another letter (12) from Brutus, written in camp ad imam Candaviam, deals with private matters, including Cicero junior’s priesthood (answering Letter 9); and Letter 13 from Cicero is commendaticia. The extant part of Letter 14, generally dated c. 20 May but probably written about ten days earlier, replies to a lost letter of Brutus’, ending with a reference to a mutiny in Brutus’ army. It had been drastically put down, and the soldiers in the zeal of recovered loyalty had tried to do away not only with their ringleaders but with the alleged instigator, C. Antonius - for 8

INTRODUCTION

which Cicero commends them. Letters 15 and 16 from Cicero and Brutus respectively are commendaticiae. In an important letter (17) of mid June Cicero writes of his anxiety about the situation in Rome and his doubts about Octavian. For the first time he appeals to Brutus to return to Italy and to urge Cassius to do the same. The conclusion of Letter 18, a condolence on the death of Brutus’ wife Porcia, returns to the point: ‘We are waiting for you and your army, failing which it seems hardly likely that we shall preserve our liberties, even if all else goes as we desire’ (i.e. militarily). A letter from Brutus (19) about vacancies in the priestly colleges is followed by another (20) of 1 July, an appeal for Cicero’s good offices in protecting the children of M. Lepidus and the writer’s half-sister Junia from the consequences of their father’s anticipated junction with Antony, which had in fact already taken place. Letter 21 from Cicero, written about the same time or shortly afterwards, might have been a rejoinder. Lepidus had been declared an enemy of Rome on 30 June and Cicero, who had been approached by Junia and her mother on behalf of the children, defends his refusal of their plea, winding up with yet another appeal to Brutus to come to Italy at the earliest possible moment. Letter 22 of 14 July, largely concerned with priesthoods, is even more urgent: ‘Come to our aid in the Gods’ name, and lose no time.’ In a long letter (23) a little later in the same month, after an opening section on the virtues and talents of young Messalla Corvinus, Cicero sets himself to answer the criticism levelled at him in Letter 11. Then follows the usual appeal for a speedy return to Italy. The last paragraph is an assurance that after all and at whatever cost in consistency he is doing all he can for Brutus’ young nephews. Last in the authentic series is Letter 24 of 27 July. The themes are mostly familiar: the urgent need for Brutus’ presence, gloomy prognostications about Octavian, stringency in the public finances, care for Lepidus’ children: ‘For there shall never be any matter on which I shall not speak and act in accord-

9

INTRODUCTION

ance with what I take to be your wish and concern, even at the hazard of my life.’

Ill The Cicero-Brutus collection as a whole, first impugned by a Cambridge scholar, John Tunstall, in 1741 and for a long while generally believed to be spurious, is now universally accepted as genuine. During the last century controversy has mainly been limited to the two long letters of similar content, 25 (24 (1.16): Brutus to Cicero) and 26 (25 (1.17): Brutus to Atticus),

arraigning

Cicero

for

his

encouragement

of

Octavian’s ambition - rhetorical ‘blow-ups’, so to speak, of the view expressed in 11 (12) and 12 (14) (they are therefore of little historical importance, apart from the poor impression they give of Brutus’ intellect and personality). In recent decades little has been heard of the problem of their authenti¬ city, but there is a prevailing disposition to take it for granted.1 Plutarch refers to them in his lives of Cicero (45) and Brutus (22).2 Elsewhere, however, he implies that some extant letters attributed to Brutus were forgeries, and in one instance at least he was himself in doubt: Brut. 53 T1S

ETnaroAf)

yvqcncov

BpOUTOU TTpOS TOUS tplAoUS

ecttIv.

. . .

ElTTEp

cpepgTod

CtpCC

TCOV

In two MSS one or both of them are found

apart from the rest of the collection: Bodleianus Canonicus Lat. 244 and Bodleianus 197. The former has them after Ad 1 As by Moricca in his preface, referring to the entire series: ‘Quare nunc igitur tam solido fundamento rationes nituntur eorum qui veras esse epistulas docent, ut, si quis adhuc in contrariam partem disputaturus prodiret, is quidem stultus, immo sanitate vacans, merito atque optimo iure putaretur.’ Less aggressively Kasten (p. 166): ‘Heute bezweifelt niemand mehr ihre Echtheit.’ 2 See note on 26 (25).4. IO

INTRODUCTION

familiares, the latter has 26 (25 (1.16)) only, between Somnium Scipionis and an ars metrica. O. E. Schmidt1 produced six reasons for declaring them apocryphal: (1) the use of the name ‘Octavius’ for Caesar’s heir;2 (2)

poverty of thought;

(3)

the impossibility, as

he contended, of fitting them chronologically into the series; (4)

their

Octavian;

political (5)

tendency

as

‘Schmahbriefe’

against

linguistic grounds: most of the linguistic

objections raised against the collection refer to these two letters; and their periodic style is in contrast to the style of Brutus’ genuine letters; (6) their separate appearances in the two Oxford MSS. Some of these arguments are more substantial than others, but their total force has been found insufficient to establish the case in an unfavourable climate of sentiment. It would serve no good purpose to go over this ground afresh. Attention should rather be directed to a different sort of evidence, which Schmidt left unnoticed. In the letter to Atticus the first paragraph gives the forger away. Cicero is said by ‘Brutus’ to have vilified Brutus’ friend Casca for participating in Caesar’s murder. He implies that Cicero had called Casca an assassin [sicarius), thus reprobating the glorious deed (pulcherrimum factum vituperabit). Nothing is heard elsewhere of a quarrel between Cicero and Casca. In November 44 Atticus had written to the former that Casca’s forthcoming entry into office as Tribune would test Octavian’s attitude to the ‘liberators’, and Cicero made the same point to Oppius.3 Casca reappears in the following year, when on 25 July Brutus’ mother invited Cicero to her house for a conference. He found Casca and two other friends of Brutus’ already there.4 The quarrel, if there was one, had presumably been made up. ‘Mirari autem satis non possum,

Ciceronem Caesaris

necem obiecisse Cascae; et id tamen Bruti verba declarant.’ ■ Neue Jahrb. 129 (1884), 63088

2 See note on 25 (24).6.

3 Att. 426 (xvi.i5).3-

4 Ad Brut. 24 (26).1.

11

INTRODUCTION

Manutius’ words were recalled by P. Meyer,i but the point he made never had its proper impact on the controversy. For it is frankly unbelievable that Cicero ever used the language ascribed to him. All his many public and private references to the Ides of March strike the same note of admiration for the glorious deed

(pulcherrimum factuml)2 and its heroic

authors (heroes, divini viri). His only criticisms are that Antony was allowed to survive and that the conspirators failed to follow up their achievement. He was no more capable of applying the opprobrious term sicarius to one of that noble company than was John Milton of flinging ‘regicide’ at a fellow-Cromwellian who had voted for the King’s execution. It would be almost if not quite as implausible to suggest that the story was a fabrication. Brutus knew Cicero better than that. On the other hand, the author of a rhetorical exercise, with only a superficial knowledge of sources, might well fail to realize that he was giving himself away. A pseudo-Sallust hit upon a similar motif in the Invectiva in Tullium', qui tibi ante optimates videbantur,

eosdem

dementes ac furiosos vocas.

Vatinii causam agis, de Sestio male existimas, Bibulum petulantissimis verbis laedis (4.7). Once it had occurred to our forger, the choice of Casca, known from 24 (26). 1 as a friend of Brutus in Rome at the time, was easily made. The term sicarius would naturally suggest itself. The forger had doubtless read the Second Philippic, in which Cicero admits that if Caesar’s slayers were not liberators and saviours they were worse than assassins.3 He may have known that Antony applied the word to Trebonius,4 and have read it in a letter of Cicero to Cassius, Fam. 345 (xii.3).i. Nothing else in the document is quite so damning as this, but further suspicious phenomena are not lacking. In the passage I have been dealing with ‘Brutus’ takes occasion to remark that he and his associates do not boast every hour 1 Untersuchung iiber die Frage der Echtheit des Briefwechsels Cicero ad Brutum (Stuttgart, 1881), 103. 2 Fam. 345

(xii.3).i.

3 Phil.

11.31 12

plus quam sicarios.

4 Phil,

xm.23.

INTRODUCTION

about the Ides of March as Cicero does about the Nones of December. Any Roman in the first century

a.d.

would have

learned in school that Cicero lauded his Consulship to excess; cf. Plut. Cic. 24, Quint. Inst, xi.1.24, and, again significantly, ps.-Sall. Invect. 6f. For the forger then, an obvious way to go. But it is highly improbable that in 43 Cicero was trying his friends’ patience in this fashion. His letters of the period do nothing to suggest it and even in the Philippics the Catilinarian affair gets only a few passing allusions. The charge in §2 that Cicero appeared to be afraid, not of tyranny, but of Antony (cf. 25 (24).7 non dominum fugisse sed amiciorem dominum quaesisse videberis) is inconsistent with the admission in §1 that Cicero’s opposition to Antony was offered voluntarily and did not arise out of any previous ill-will between them (cf. 25 Antonio privatim odium? . . .

(24) .4 quod autem tibi cum

bono

domino potuimus Antonio

tolerare nostram fortunam). Of course, this could be put down to Brutus’ excited state of mind. §3 alludes to the unsuccessful attempt made by Flavius to get Atticus’ support for a republican party fund!1 A forger would know of this from Cornelius Nepos’ biography of Atticus, an obvious source, and be sure to drag it in. The forger has left two more tracks in §5. ego vero iam iis artibus nihil tribuo quibus Ciceronem scio instructissimum esse. By artibus, as the next sentence shows, is meant philosophy. Brutus was a devoted student of the subject, like his uncle Cato, and his works on Virtue and other such themes were highly commended by Cicero.2 But for this writer philosophy is Cicero’s department, not his own, and Cicero’s unsatis¬ factory political performance lets him dismiss it out of hand as void of value. The real Brutus needed more than that to disenchant him, but it may be that the forger had his last words in mind: d> xArjliov dpeTrj, Aoyos ap’ fjcrQa

k.t.A.

quanto autem magis illo callere videtur Philippus, qui privigno 1 A. 1, 53.

2 Acad. 1.12, with Reid’s note.

13

INTRODUCTION

minus tribuit quam Cicero, qui alieno tribuat! Brutus would surely have known and remembered that in the same session of the Senate at which Cicero proposed imperium for Octavian, Philippus had proposed a statue.1 His impersonator over¬ looked this, but knew what was well known, that Philippus at first mistrusted his stepson, advised him not to accept his inheritance, and declined to call him Caesar; but that was a year or so before.2 The companion piece, 25

(24 (1.16)), offers no such

handles, apart from the inconsistency noticed above. But the two productions are so much alike that they stand and fall together.

IV Apart from the general likelihood that Cicero’s letters other than those to Atticus were published in their several collec¬ tions by Tiro,3 evidence as to when and how these two first appeared is lacking. A citation in Diomedes from Q_.fr. Book 11 (381.26 epistularum secundo ad fratrem) indicates the existence of the collection in the late fourth century, probably in its present form. A number of fragments of lost letters to Brutus are quoted by Quintilian (and two by Isidore) without book-reference (on Plutarch in this connexion see above); but the size of the collection in antiquity is known from citations in Servius and Nonius from its first, seventh, eighth, and ninth Books, the last coming from our ‘Book 1’.4 The first five letters of our Brutus series, formerly known as 11.1-5, survive only in Cratander’s edition of 1528. The remainder and the whole correspondence with Quintus have 1 Ad Brut. 23 (23).7. 2 Att. 366 (xiv. 12).2, 390 (xv. 12).2, 415 (xvi.i4).2; Nic. Damasc. Vit. Caes. 18 etc. (RE x.280.46). 3 See F. 1, 23k

4 See Watt pp. i64ff.

14

INTRODUCTION

come down in the same MSS as the letters to Atticus.1 They were also in Gratander’s codex,2 but not in the Tornesianus

Z)-3

(

In both collections the letters are arranged in chronological sequence, generally correct. What has already been said of their editors need not be repeated here. The most recent edition of any importance, W. S. Watt’s Oxford Text of 1958, made a notable advance. It unites

meticulous

scholarship

with

balanced

critical

judgement, and I owe it much.

1 On these see A. 1, yyfT. 3 Ibid. 1,

93ff.

2 Ibid. 1, 85ff.

'

,

TEXT

INDEX SIGLORUM E = Ambrosian us E 14 inf. (saec. xiv) G = Parisinus ‘Nouv. Fonds’ 16248 (saec. xiv-xv) H = Landianus 8 (saec. xiv-xv); raro (numquam ubi cum G consentit) citatus N = Laurentianus (ex Conv. Suppr.) 49 (saec. xiv-xv) V = Palatinus Lat. 1510 (saec. xv)

0

= Taurinensis Lat. 495 (saec. xv); raro (numquam ubi cum V consentit) citatus

R = Parisinus Lat. 8538 (anno 1419 scriptus) P = Parisinus Lat. 8536 (saec. xv); raro (numquam ubi cum R consentit) citatus Z = consensus codicum EGNVR, aut omnium aut plurimorum M = Mediceus 49.18 (anno 1393 scriptus)

b d

= Berolinensis (ex bibi. Hamiltoniana) 168 (saec. xv) = Laurentianus (ex bibi, aedilium) 217 (saec. xv)

m = Berolinensis (ex bibi. Hamiltoniana) 166 (anno 1408 scriptus) s = Urbinas 322 (saec. xv) 8 = consensus codicum bdms A = consensus codicis M cum bdms, aut omnibus aut tribus Q = consensus Z et codicis M = archetypum omnium quos supra sunt codicum C = lectiones margini editionis Cratandrinae (1528) adscriptae Crat. = lectiones in textu eiusdem editionis primum prolatae Lamb. marg. = lectiones margini alterius editionis Lambinianae (1572-3) adscriptae S' = lectiones hic illic citatae sive ex codicibus deterioribus, ut vid., sive ex editionibus Cratandrina antiquioribus sive originis incertae De codicis M correctionibus vide A. 1, 80. A Salutato et Nicolo illatarum (M2 et M3) paucissimas, Bruni coniecturas (M4) ubi visum est citavi

18

M. TULLI CICERONIS EPISTULAE AD QUINTUM FRATREM i

(i.i)

Scr. Romae (?) ex. an. 60 aut in. an. gg MARCUS QUINTO FRATRI SALUTEM

1 Etsi non dubitabam quin hanc epistulam multi nuntii, fama denique esset ipsa sua celeritate superatura tuque ante ab aliis auditurus esses annum tertium accessisse desiderio nostro et labori tuo, tamen existimavi a me quoque tibi huius molestiae

nuntium

perferri

oportere,

nam

superioribus 5

litteris non unis sed pluribus, cum iam ab aliis desperata res esset, tamen tibi ego spem maturae decessionis adferebam, non solum ut quam diutissime te iucunda opinione oblec¬ tarem sed etiam quia tanta adhibebatur et a nobis et a praetoribus contentio ut rem posse confici non diffiderem. 2

I0

Nunc, quoniam ita accidit ut neque praetores suis opibus neque nos nostro studio quicquam proficere possemus, est omnino difficile non graviter id ferre, sed tamen nostros animos maximis in rebus et gerendis et sustinendis exercitatos frangi et debilitari molestia non oportet. 3 et removit Faernus GJVA: solum EVRb est 2: est t- PA om. Q

12 putem VRbs: om. EGNMdm 44, 2 etiam illud GNM: i- e- £F/?8

6 qua] quo Face io!ati

45; 3 quae] fort, quod

14 solis 5 tibi

7 non scripsi: non solum s:

6 quamquam HVRbd: quam EGNMms

35

I

(i.l) 46

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

Asia sicuti uni cuique sua domus nota esse debeat, cum ad tuam summam prudentiam tantus usus accesserit, nihil esse quod ad laudem attineat quod non tu optime perspicias et tibi

non sine cuiusquam hortatione in

mentem veniat 10

cottidie. sed ego quia, cum tua lego, te audire, et quia, cum ad te scribo, tecum loqui videor, idcirco et tua longissima quaque epistula maxime delector et ipse in scribendo sum saepe longior. Illud te ad extremum et oro et hortor ut, tamquam poetae

46

boni et actores industrii solent, sic tu in extrema parte et conclusione muneris ac negoti tui diligentissimus sis, ut hic tertius annus imperi tui ftamquam tertiusf perfectissimus atque ornatissimus fuisse videatur, id facillime facies si me, 5 cui semper uni magis quam universis placere voluisti, tecum semper esse putabis et omnibus iis rebus quas dices et facies interesse. Reliquum est ut te orem ut valetudini tuae, si me et tuos omnis valere vis, diligentissime servias.

2

10

(1.2)

Scr. Romae inter viii Kal. JVov. et iv Id. Dec. an. gg MARCUS

QUINTO

i Statius ad me venit a.d.

viii

FRATRI

SALUTEM

Kal. Nov.

eius adventus, quod

ita scripsisti, direptum iri te a tuis dum is abesset, molestus mihi fuit; quod autem exspectationem sui concursumque eum qui erat futurus si una tecum decederet neque antea visus esset sustulit, id mihi non incommode visum est 5 accidisse, exhaustus est enim sermo hominum et multae emissae iam eius modi voces, ‘ocAA’ ocie! xiva epeoxa pEyav’; quae te absente confecta esse laetor. 11

ego quia

Wesenberg:

ego

qui

Q

et

46, 4 tertius] t- actus s': anne ultimus actus ? Ep. 2] 1,

2

iri te Victorius: iri Mcorr.: te N: erit Q

36

quia

Q:

et

qui

Hbs

10 seruias. uale M1dms 3 sui Schiitz: tui Q

AD

2

QUINTUM

FRATREM

2 (l.2) 2

Quod autem idcirco a te missus est mihi ut se purgaret, id necesse minime fuit, primum enim numquam ille mihi fuit suspectus, neque ego quae ad te de illo scripsi scripsi meo iudicio; sed cum ratio salusque omnium nostrum qui ad rem publicam accedimus non veritate solum sed etiam fama 5 niteretur, sermones ad te aliorum semper, non mea iudicia perscripsi, qui quidem quam frequentes essent et quam graves adventu suo Statius ipse cognovit, etenim intervenit non nullorum querelis quae apud me de illo ipso habebantur et sentire potuit sermones iniquorum in suum potissimum 10 nomen erumpere.

3

Quod autem me maxime movere solebat, cum audiebam illum plus apud te posse quam gravitas istius aetatis, imperi, prudentiae postularet - quam multos enim mecum egisse putas ut se Statio commendarem, quam multa autem ipsum &9sA6os mecum in sermone ita posuisse, ‘id mihi non placuit’, 5 ‘monui’, ‘suasi’, ‘deterrui’ ? quibus in rebus etiam si fidelitas summa est (quod prorsus credo, quoniam tu ita iudicas), tamen species ipsa tam gratiosi liberti aut servi dignitatem habere nullam potest, atque hoc sic habeto (nihil enim nec temere dicere nec astute reticere debeo), materiam omnem 10 sermonum eorum qui de te detrahere velint Statium dedisse; antea tantum intellegi potuisse iratos tuae (se)veritati esse non nullos, hoc manumisso iratis quod loquerentur non defuisse.

4

Nunc respondebo ad eas epistulas quas mihi reddidit L. Caesius, cui, quoniam ita te velle intellego, nullo loco deero; quarum altera est de Blaundeno Zeuxide, quem scribis certissimum matricidam tibi a me intime commendari, qua de re et de hoc genere toto, ne forte me in Graecos tam 5

3, 2 istius Victorius: illius fi EHJVV

5 dcpeAcos Victorius: aacpcxAcos GRA: om.

posuisse Wesenberg: potu- fi: protulisse Victorius

M4: tamen fi

12 severitati s': uer- fi

9 enim

4, 2 cui bs: qui fi

3

Blaundeno Tyrrell: blain- vel blayn- vel sim. S: blainde A: Planindeno C: Blaudeno Manutius

37

2 (l.2) 5

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

ambitiosum factum esse mirere, pauca cognosce, ego cum Graecorum querelas nimium valere sentirem propter homi¬ num ingenia ad fallendum parata, quoscumque de te queri audivi quacumque potui ratione placavi, primum Dionys prope 5 aequalem, obsequio filium, consilio parentem, quid mihi sine te umquam aut tibi sine me iucundum fuit? quid quod eodem tempore desidero filiam? qua pietate, qua modestia, quo ingenio! effigiem oris, sermonis, animi mei. quod filium venustissimum mihique dulcissimum? quem ego ferus ac 10 ferreus e complexu dimisi meo, sapientiorem puerum quam vellem; sentiebat enim miser iam quid ageretur, quid vero (quod) tuum filium, [quid] imaginem tuam, quem meus Cicero et amabat ut fratrem et iam ut maiorem fratrem verebatur? quid quod mulierem miserrimam, fidelissimam 15 coniugem, me prosequi non sum passus, ut esset quae reliquias communis calamitatis, communis liberos tueretur? Sed tamen, quoquo modo potui, scripsi et dedi litteras ad

4

te Philogono, liberto tuo, quas credo tibi postea redditas esse; in quibus idem te hortor et rogo quod pueri tibi verbis meis nuntiarunt, ut Romam protinus pergas et properes, primum enim te

(in) praesidio esse volui, si qui essent 5

inimici quorum crudelitas nondum esset nostra calamitate satiata; deinde congressus nostri lamentationem pertimui, 6 uiuo me (prius)

2:

me u- A

10 iracundiam Lambimus

-sa A: in causa Larnb. marg. (melius causae)

£2

3, 2 certo GJV: -te EVRLs

fratrem

fi

9 quod

causam

2:

11 dolorum EPS: dolor

5 fratrem aetate Lambimus: prope

Wesemberg: quid fi: quid quod Lamb marg.

12-13 quid vero quod Watt im app.: quod u- fi: quid v- Wesemberg 13 quid removit Schiitz 14 et iam Em: etiam fi

tuam Mamutius: meam fi 4, 5 in add. Madvig

45

quem P: quam fi

3 (L3) 5

AD

ftUINTUM

FRATREM

digressum vero non tulissem atque etiam id ipsum quod tu scribis metuebam, ne a me distrahi non posses, his de causis hoc maximum malum quod te non vidi, quo nihil amantis- io simis et coniunctissimis fratribus acerbius ac miserius videtur accidere potuisse, minus acerbum, minus miserum fuit quam fuisset cum congressio tum vero digressio nostra. 5

Nunc, si potes, id quod ego qui tibi semper fortis videbar non possum, erige te et confirma, si qua subeunda dimicatio erit, spero, si quid mea spes habet auctoritatis, tibi et integritatem tuam et amorem in te civitatis et aliquid etiam misericordiam nostri praesidi laturum,

sin

eris

ab isto 5

periculo vacuus, ages scilicet si quid agere posse de nobis putabis, de quo scribunt ad me quidem multi multa et se sperare demonstrant, sed ego quid sperem non dispicio, cum inimici plurimum valeant, amici partim deseruerint me, partim etiam prodiderint; qui in meo reditu fortasse repre- 10 hensionem sui sceleris pertimescunt, sed ista qualia sint tu velim perspicias mihique declares, ego tamen, quam diu tibi opus erit, si quid periculi subeundum videbis, vivam; diutius in hac vita esse non possum, neque enim tantum virium habet ulla aut prudentia aut doctrina ut tantum dolorem 15 6 possit sustinere, scio fuisse et honestius moriendi tempus et utilius, sed non hoc solum, multa alia praetermisi; quae si queri velim praeterita, nihil agam nisi ut augeam dolorem tuum, indicem stultitiam meam, illud quidem nec faciendum est nec fieri potest, me diutius quam aut tuum tempus aut 5 firma spes postulabit in tam misera tamque turpi vita com¬ morari, ut, qui modo fratre fuerim, liberis, coniuge, copiis, genere ipso pecuniae beatissimus, dignitate,

auctoritate,

existimatione, gratia non inferior quam qui umquam fuerunt amplissimi, is nunc in hac tam adflicta perditaque fortuna 10 neque me neque meos lugere diutius possim.

11 ac miserius EVRms: mis- GNMbd: miseriusve Buecheler GNVA:

agi ER:

sperent Koch

agere te

Wesenberg

dispicio Em: des- Q

46

8 quid EVR:

5, 6 agere quod GNA

11 pertimescunt HNP: -cant Q

AD

7

QUINTUM

FRATREM

3 (1.3) 7

Qua re quid ad me scripsisti de permutatione? quasi vero nunc me non tuae facultates sustineant; qua in re ipsa video miser et sentio quid sceleris admiserim, cum de visceribus tuis et fili tui satis facturus sis quibus debes, ego acceptam ex aerario pecuniam tuo nomine frustra dissiparim, sed tamen 5 et M. Antonio quantum tu scripseras (et) Caepioni tantundem solutum est. mihi ad id quod cogito fioc quod habeo satis

est.

sive

enim

restituimur sive

desperamur,

nihil

amplius opus est. Tu, si forte quid erit molestiae, te ad Crassum et ad 10 8 Calidium conferas censeo, quantum Hortensio credendum sit

nescio,

me

summa

simulatione

amoris

summaque

adsiduitate cottidiana sceleratissime insidiosissimeque tracta¬ vit

adiuncto

Q. Arrio.

quorum ego consiliis, promissis,

praeceptis destitutus in hanc calamitatem incidi, sed haec 5 occultabis, ne quid obsint; illud caveto (et eo puto per Pomponium fovendum tibi esse ipsum Hortensium), ne ille versus, qui in te erat collatus cum aedilitatem petebas, de lege Aurelia, falso testimonio confirmetur, nihil enim tam timeo quam ne, cum intellegant homines quantum miseri- 10 cordiae nobis tuae preces et tua salus adlatura sit, oppugnent 9

te vehementius.

Messallam

tui studiosum esse arbitror.

Pompeium etiam simulatorem puto, sed haec utinam (ne) experiare!

quod precarer deos nisi meas preces audire

desissent. verum tamen precor ut his infinitis nostris malis contenti sint, in quibus non modo tamen nullius inest peccati 5 infamia sed omnis dolor est quod optime factis poena maxima est constituta. IO Filiam

meam et tuam Ciceronemque nostrum quid ego,

mi frater, tibi commendem? quin illud maereo quod tibi non minorem dolorem illorum orbitas adferet quam mihi, sed te 7, 1 quid s: quod Q

3 cum (tu) Wesenberg

6-7 tantundem Pbd: -tidem Q 10 anne intellegent

?

9,

2

simulaturum Pluygers

5 tamen non modo Lamb. marg.

6 et add. Lambinus

8, 4 Q,. Lamb, rnarg.: quoque Q ne add. Baiter: non

s'

10, 3 afferet EHV: -erret GJVRMdm:

-ert bs

47

4

(l-4)

1

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

incolumi orbi non erunt, reliqua ita mihi salus aliqua detur potestasque in patria moriendi ut me lacrimae non sinunt 5 scribere! etiam Terentiam velim tueare mihique de omnibus rebus rescribas, sis fortis quoad rei natura patiatur. Id. Iun. Thessalonicae.

4

(i-4)

Scr. Thessalonicae c. Non. Sext. an. 58 MARCUS

QUINTO

FRATRI

SALUTEM

1 Amabo te, mi frater, ne, si uno meo facto et tu et omnes mei corruistis, improbitati et sceleri meo potius quam impru¬ dentiae miseriaeque adsignes. nullum est meum peccatum nisi quod iis credidi a quibus nefas putarem esse me decipi aut etiam quibus ne id expedire quidem arbitrabar, intimus, 5 proximus, familiarissimus quisque aut sibi pertimuit aut mihi invidit, ita mihi nihil misero praeter fidem amicorum, cautum meum consilium, (de)fuit. 2

Quod si te satis innocentia tua et misericordia hominum vindicat hoc tempore a molestia, perspicis profecto ecquaenam nobis spes salutis relinquatur, nam me Pomponius et Sestius et Piso noster adhuc Thessalonicae retinuerunt, cum longius discedere propter nescio quos motus vetarent, verum 5 ego magis exitum illorum litteris quam spe certa exspecta¬ bam. nam quid sperem potentissimo inimico, dominatione

3 obtrectatorum, infidelibus amicis, plurimis invidis? de novis 7

8

rebus om. HV

Thessalonica Orelli

Ep. 4] 1, 1 ne si AT: nisi Vs: nisi si QC miseriaeque putaram

cod.

Faerni:

mieq;

V\ -abam Ernesti

Malaespina: fuit Q et q- Q, ut solent

EJVR:

2

3

GVA

4

facto RA: fato

misericordiaeque

8 (aut) cautum Frederking

2, 2 perspicies Frederking 5 verum] quorum Watt in app.

denot(i)us EHJVRA

48

defuit

2-3 ecquaenam s': 3, 1 de nouis GV:

AD

QUINTUM FRATREM

4 (1.4) 4

autem tribunis pl. est ille quidem in me officiosissimus Sestius et (spero) Curtius, Milo, Fadius, Atilius, sed valde adversante Clodio, qui etiam privatus eadem manu poterit contiones concitare, deinde etiam intercessor parabitur.

4

5

Haec mihi proficiscenti non proponebantur, sed saepe triduo summa cum gloria dicebar esse rediturus, ‘quid tu igitur?’ inquies, quid? multa convenerunt quae mentem exturbarent consulum,

meam:

subita

etiam praetorum,

defectio

Pompei,

alienatio

timor publicanorum,

(ser- 5

vorum) arma, lacrimae meorum me ad mortem ire pro¬ hibuerunt, quod certe et ad honestatem (tuendam) et ad effugiendos intolerabilis dolores fuit aptissimum, sed de hoc scripsi ad te in ea epistula quam Phaethonti dedi. Nunc

tu,

quoniam

in tantum luctum

(et) laborem 10

detrusus es quantum nemo umquam [a], si levare potest communem causam misericordia hominum, scilicet incredi¬ bile quiddam adsequeris; sin plane occidimus, me miserum! ego omnibus meis exitio fuero, quibus ante dedecori non eram. 15

5

Sed tu, ut ante ad te scripsi, perspice rem et pertempta et ad me, ut tempora nostra non ut amor tuus fert, vere perscribe, ego vitam, quoad aut putabo tua interesse aut ad spem

servandam

esse,

retinebo,

tu

nobis

amicissimum

Sestium cognosces, credo tua causa velle Lentulum, qui erit 5 consul, quamquam sunt facta verbis difficiliora, tu et quid opus sit et quid sit videbis. Omnino si tuam solitudinem communemque calamitatem

3 (ut) spero s'

Atilius scripsi:

gratidius

Q: Fabricius Manutius

4, 5-6 servorum addidi, Clodi {post arma) Buecheler, latronum (post arma)

T.-P.

7 tuendam exempli causa addidi

phet(h)onti vel sim. Q

11

a removit

s':

10 laboremque VPbs: et laborem cod. Faerni

anne antea ?

cordia E: -i(a)e Q quoad P: quo autem N Constans, removit Watt sed non GNM: om. R

9 Phaethonti s':

si s': se Q

5, 2 uera C

releuare ER

putabo aut Lambinus 5 uelle GVbd: uel ENRMms quid ENR: quod GVA

49

12

miseri¬

3 quoad aut Hs: quo aut Q: ad removere voluit 6 sunt EVPb:

5 (ii. I) I

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

nemo despexerit, aut per te aliquid confici aut nullo modo poterit; sin te quoque inimici vexare coeperint, ne cessaris, io non enim gladiis tecum sed litibus agetur, verum haec absint velim, te oro ut ad me de omnibus (rebus) rescribas et in me animi aut potius consili minus putes esse quam antea, amoris vero et offici non minus.

5 (n.i)

Scr. Romae paulo ante xvi Kal. Ian. an. MARCUS

QUINTO

FRATRI

57

SALUTEM

I Epistulam quam legisti mane dederam; sed fecit humaniter Licinius quod ad me misso senatu vesperi venit, ut si quid esset actum ad te, si mihi videretur, perscriberem. Senatus fuit frequentior quam putabamus esse posse mense Decembri sub dies festos, consulares nos fuimus et duo con- 5 sules designati, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus, Lepidus, Volcacius, Glabrio; praetorii sane frequentes, fuimus omnino ad cc. commorat exspectationem Lupus; egit causam agri Campani sane accurate, auditus est magno silentio, materiam rei non ignoras, nihil ex nostris actionibus praetermisit; fuerunt non 10 nulli aculei in Caesarem, contumeliae in Gellium, expostu¬ lationes cum absente Pompeio, causa sero perorata sententias se rogaturum negavit, ne quod onus simultatis nobis impone¬ ret; ex superiorum temporum conviciis et ex praesenti silentio quid senatus sentiret se intellegere dixit, senatum 15

9 dispexerit G test. Constans et Moricca Q: ut m- Schiltz

11 tecum Manutius: mecum

agetur s': ageretur Q

12 rebus add. Orelli

13 aut potius Gulielmius: p- aut Q Ep. 5] 1, 2 fort. Licinus

4 putaramus Wesenberg

6-7 et duo consules

designati (et omisso) post Glabrio ponere voluit Schiltz -tor

A

12 sero

A:

om.

Z

15

senatum Watt: -us

7 praetori (i)

Z:

om.

A

Z: rem

satis involutam ita enucleate exposuit Watt: ‘permutatione foliorum in archetypo factum est ut post dixit (senatus) haec sequantur: 1. omnes [Ep. 6.3, v. 11]

50

AD

QUINTUM

5 (ii. I) 2

FRATREM

I[coepit dimittere, tum Marcellinus ‘noli’ inquit ‘ex taciturni¬ tate nostra, Lupe, quid aut probemus hoc tempore aut improbemus iudicare. ego, quod ad me attinet, itemque arbitror ceteros, idcirco taceo quod non existimo, cum 2 Pompeius absit, causam agri Campani agi convenire.’ tum

20

ille se senatum negavit tenere. Racilius surrexit et de iudiciis referre coepit; Marcellinum quidem primum rogavit, is cum graviter de Clodianis incendiis, trucidationibus, lapidationi¬ bus questus esset, sententiam dixit ut ipse iudices [per]

5

praetor urbanus sortiretur, iudicum sortitione facta comitia haberentur; qui iudicia impedisset, eum contra rem publi¬ cam esse facturum,

approbata valde sententia C.

Cato

contra dixit et Cassius maxima acclamatione senatus, cum comitia iudiciis

anteferrent.

Philippus

adsensit Lentulo. 10

3 postea Racilius de privatis me primum sententiam rogavit,

multa feci verba de toto furore latrocinioque P. Clodi. tamquam reum accusavi multis et secundis admurmurationi¬ bus cuncti senatus, orationem meam collaudavit satis multis verbis

non

mehercule

indiserte

Vetus

Antistius,

isque

iudiciorum causam suscepit antiquissimamque se habiturum dixit, ibatur in eam sententiam, tum Clodius rogatus diem dicendo eximere coepit, furebat a Racilio se contumaciter

. . .ipsius Milo [Ep. 7.4, v. 11]; 2. coepit [Ep. 5.1, v. 16]. . .cupiant \Ep. 6.3, v. 11]; 3. &(JuptAoc(piav [Ep. 9.1, v. 1]. . .iacentem [Ep. 10.2, v. 4] 4. copiis [Ep. 7.4, v. 11]. . .exiturus [Ep. 8.2, v. 8]; 5. a.d. viii e.q.s. [Ep. 10.2, v. 5]; verum ordinem 2, 1,4, 3, 5 restituit [ed.] Rom[ana] nisi quod 3 post revertamur [Ep. 13.2, v. 17] conlocavit; hunc errorem parum feliciter corrigere conatus est Man[utius]

(quem secuti sunt edd. usque ad Or[elli]* 2), correxit

Mommsen [Zeitschr. f. die Altertumswiss. 2 (1844), 593 sqq., 3 779 sq.

(= Ges. Schr. vii.

[Untersuchungen, 384 sqq.]’

(1845),

13 sqq.)]; denique pauca emendavit Slernkopf 16 noli FS: nobili GJVM: nob(i)lis RP

2, 6 praetor urbanus (i.e. pr. urb.) Manutius: per praetorem urbanum fi: per se praetor urbanus Sternkopf anteferrent Orelli: -rret

fi

Diomedes (G.L.K. i.381.26)

9 Cassius] Caninius conieci

Philippus adsentit

(sic)

10

Lentulo citat

3, 5 Vetus Anton. Augustinus-, seuerus fi

8 dicendo s: -di fiC: calumnia dicendi vel d- c- Sjogren

51

5

6

(ii.2)

I

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

urbaneque vexatum, deinde eius operae repente a Graeco¬ stasi et gradibus clamorem satis magnum sustulerunt, opinor, io in Q. Sextilium et amicos Milonis incitatae, eo metu iniecto repente magna querimonia omnium discessimus. Habes acta unius diei; reliqua, ut arbitror, in mensem Ianuarium

reicientur.

de

tribunis

pl.

longe

optimum

Racilium habemus; videtur etiam Antistius amicus nobis 15 fore, nam Plancius totus noster est. Fac, si me amas, ut considerate diligenterque naviges de mense Decembri.

6

(11.2)

Scr. Romae xiv Kal. Febr. an. 56 MARCUS

QUINTO

FRATRI

SALUTEM

I Non occupatione, qua eram sane impeditus, sed parvula lippitudine adductus sum ut dictarem hanc epistulam et non, ut ad te soleo, ipse scriberem, et primum me tibi excuso in eo ipso in quo te accuso, me enim nemo adhuc rogavit num quid in Sardiniam velim, te puto saepe habere qui num quid 5 Romam velis quaerant. Quod ad me (de) Lentuli et Sesti nomine scripsisti, locutus sum cum Cincio, quo modo res se habet, non est facillima, sed habet profecto quiddam Sardinia appositum ad

recordationem

praeteritae

memoriae,

nam

ut

ille 10

Gracchus augur, postea quam in istam provinciam venit, recordatus est quid sibi in campo Martio comitia consulum habenti contra auspicia accidisset, sic tu mihi videris in Sardinia de forma Numisiana et de nominibus Pomponianis 9 inurbaneque

0,

cod. Faerni

9-10 Graecostasi s': -co statio fi

Ep. 6] 1, 1 qua fi: quanquam C

4-5 num (nun s) quid Al2s: nunc

inquit

VR:

fi

Manutius

5 vellem s'

num

nunc

GNM

7

de

12-13 consulum habenti Victorius-, -libus -tibus fi

pompeianis 8

52

add. 14

AD

QUINTUM

FRATREM

6 (ll.2)

2

in otio recogitasse, sed ego adhuc emi nihil. Gulleonis auctio 15 facta est; Tusculano emptor nemo fuit, si condicio valde 2 bona fuerit, fortassis non amittam, de aedificatione tua Gyrum urgere non cesso, spero eum in officio fore, sed omnia sunt tardiora propter furiosae aedilitatis exspectationem, nam comitia sine mora futura videntur; edicta sunt