PA 
 
 6371 
 
 C^D^Zh 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 : 
 
 3 : 
 
 1 ; 
 
 2 ; 
 
 i 
 7 i 
 
 ■ 
 
 i o 
 
 ; o 
 
 : O 
 
 :0 
 
 ON THE AUTHF.NTICITY OF THE 
 
 COmiEITTA'SLIOLm.i PETITIOTTIS OF 
 Q. CIGEHO 
 
 G. L. Hendrickson, 
 
 -\ 
 
 •\ 
 
 '^''M 
 
 V^Ss..... 
 
 v^; 
 
 > k 
 
 -1^' 
 
 ::;^*' 
 
 •■"^?%
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 JAN - ^ iiJ.:i 
 
 Southern Branch 
 of the 
 
 University of California 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 Form L 1 
 
 
 8061 '12 Kvr ivd ; 
 
 japuiQ j 
 
 junouioqin ]
 
 r^ /Yi^p^ .<r2.x,, Ac^tA^ 
 
 
 ^^^/c^a 
 
 ■5-DS AWGrrX"ii;a, GALIR 
 
 ¥
 
 [Reprinted from the American Journal op Philology, Vol. XIII, No. 2.] - f^ 
 
 III.— ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE COMMENTA- 
 RIOLUM PETITIONIS OF QUINTUS CICERO. 
 
 The question of the authenticity of the Com. seems first to have 
 been raised by the late Adam Eussner. After giving utterance at 
 various times to doubt concerning its genuineness, he finally set 
 forth his reasons in detail in a dissertation published in 1872.^ 
 That the question might be raised seems to have already occurred 
 to Biicheler,'- on account of the similarity of several passages to 
 fragments of the oration in toga Candida. But while granting 
 that they were more than accidental resemblances, he held that 
 they were borrowed from Quintus by his brother in his speech of 
 a few months later. Biicheler also pointed out the general simi- 
 larity of the Com. to the first letter ad Q. Fratrem, remarking 
 (p. 10) Marcus par pari quodam modo rettulit missa ad fratrem 
 . . . epistula praeclara I i. In addition to the points of resem- 
 blance between the oration in tog. cand. and the first letter ad Q. 
 Fratrem, Eussner adduced a number of parallel ideas and expres- 
 sions from the oration pro Murena, some of which were striking, 
 while others revealed nothing more than the chance occurrence 
 of the same word. Indeed, I have no doubt that by indiscrimi- 
 nate citation of accidental resemblances, which would occur in 
 any two documents treating of a similar subject, he really dam- 
 aged a pretty good case and withdrew attention from a few 
 striking parallels. Eussner further made many trivial objections, 
 such as the unseemliness of a younger and obscure man like 
 Quintus venturing to give advice to his older brother on a subject 
 in which the experience of the adviser was as nothing to that of 
 the advised, and others of the same sort, which drew down upon 
 him the wrath of R. Y. Tyrrell, in Hermathena V (1877), p. 40, 
 who seems to have seen nothing in the dissertation worthy of 
 consideration. A calmer and more sensible rejoinder had already 
 been made by R. Wirz (Phil. Anzeiger V (1873), p. 498), and he 
 seems to have successfully answered the chief objections made by 
 
 ' Commentariolum petitionis examinatum et emendatum. Wiirzburg, 1872. 
 •'Quinti Ciceronis reliquiae recognovit F. Biicheler. Lips. 1869. 
 
 61512
 
 ■7/ 
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 20I 
 
 Eussner. Tyrrell again, in the first volume of his edition^ of 
 Cicero's letters, devotes some space to a refutation of Eussner's 
 arguments, though they seem to have convinced no one of the 
 spuriousness of the work. After this the question was not again 
 ' raised until the year 1887, when Mommsen, in the long looked- 
 for third volume of his Staatsrecht, expressed his belief that the 
 Com. is not from the hand of Ouintus Cicero. On page 484 (III), 
 where the terms ordo equesier and equites Romarii are under dis- 
 cussion, he says: "In der Regel aber wird ordo eqiceste?', eben 
 wie equites Romani, gesetzt flir die Gesammtheit sowohl der das 
 Ritterpferd besitzenden wie audi der zu dessen Besitz befahigten 
 Personen. . . Ein terminologisch fester Gegensatz zwischen den 
 Staatspferdinhabern und den Expectanten hat audi hier sich 
 nicht entwickelt." In a note to this passage he says : " In diesem 
 allgemeinen Sinn wird diese Bezeichnung schon von Cicero ganz 
 gewohnlich verwendet. Gegensiitzlich und also incorrect findet 
 sie sich in der in friiher Zeit deni Q. Cicero untergeschobenen 
 Bewerbungsschrift ; hier werden die in den centuriae eqzciiuvt 
 stehenden jungen Leute bestimmt durch die atictoritas des ordo 
 equester, wahrend doch eigentlich jene den ordo equester bilden." 
 Compare also page 497, n. 3.^ The passage quoted does not, of 
 course, contain all or probably any considerable part of Momm- 
 sen's reasons for considering the work spurious, but it is the only 
 utterance so far as I know that he has made on the question. It 
 is not my purpose to discuss the point which Mommsen here 
 raises f but'since the authority of so great a scholar has arrayed 
 itself against the genuineness of the Com., a reconsideration of the 
 question has seemed to me desirable. 
 
 The MSS are practically* unanimous in attributing the work to 
 Quintus Cicero, nor can any important argument for its spurious- 
 ness be drawn, I believe, from a consideration of historical facts 
 and conditions as set forth in it." 
 
 ^His answer is substantially the same as his earlier paper on the subject in 
 Hermathena. 
 
 ^ On page 1 14, n. 5, 'Q. Cicero de pet. cons^ is cited with no intimation that 
 it is looked upon as spurious. 
 
 3 Cf. Willems, B. Ph. W. 661, 1889. 
 
 *The fact that some of the Lagomarsittiani attribute it to Marcus Cicero is, 
 of course, of no significance. See Biicheler, ap. crit. p. 25. 
 
 ^ In the case of Q. Gallius (spoken of Com. 19 as already defended by 
 Cicero, while Asconius, p. 78, says that he defended him after the oration in 
 tog. cand.), it is more probable that Asconius is in error, as is assumed by 
 Drumann V, 374 and n. 97, and maintained also by Biicheler ad loc.
 
 202 A ME RICA N JO URN A L OF PHIL OLOGY. 
 
 The striking contrast, however, between the upright, outspoken 
 and rashly impoUtic character^ of Quintus and the compromising,^ 
 or even dishonorable, exhortations of some parts of the Com. has 
 been sufficiently emphasized by Eussner (p. 20). 
 
 The dryness of the style of the Com., with its tedious iteration 
 of the same or similar forms of transition, etc., is well set forth and 
 illustrated by Bucheler, p. 7. But of all the rhetorical machinery 
 which it displays, nothing is more tiresome or more characteristic 
 of the pedantic school rhetoric than the wonderful fondness which 
 the author betrays for the distribiUio (to use his own word). 
 Indeed, a careful analysis of the work might almost convince one 
 that it was nothing but an exercise in that subject. He begins by 
 dividing the whole petitio into three subjects for Cicero's medita- 
 tion : novus sum, consulatum peto, Roma est. Let us take for 
 example the second member, conmlaiuvi peto. This is divided 
 in 16 as follows : Petitio autem magistratus divisa est in duarum 
 rationum diligentiam, quarum altera in amicorum studiis, altera 
 in popular! voluntate ponenda est. Of this double division, let us 
 again take the second member, — ratio papillaris : (41) Dicendum 
 est de ilia altera parte petitionis quae in populari ratione versatur. 
 Ea desiderat nomenclationem, blanditiam, assiduitatem, benigni- 
 tatem, rumorem, spem in republica. Each one of these six 
 divisions is carried out in detail, with more or less subdivision 
 (e. g. rumor, in 50 and 51 ; sed — iam. — eiiam — postremo). That 
 this minuteness of division and subdivision, which might be 
 equally shown by other examples, is a part of the writer's 
 conscious rhetorical devices, is clear from the following : (49) ac 
 ne videar aberrasse a distributione mea, qui haec in hac populari 
 parte petitionis disputem, hoc sequor, etc. That in so much 
 division he sometimes runs short of material will not cause sur- 
 prise, as for example in 40, where the rationes et genera obtre- 
 ctatorvm et adversarionim— -who are divided into three classes ! — 
 are to be met and won over, in the first class, by spes — studiurn — 
 officium; in the second class by beneficium — spes — studiwn, and 
 
 ^ On the character of Quintus see the letters ad Q. Fratrem passim ; Dru- 
 niann VI, 719 ff. Cf. ib. 729. " Uas Meiste welches Cicero an ihm tadelt, 
 weil es nicht zu den Regeln der Klugheit stimmte, gereicht seiner Gesinnung 
 zur Ehre." 
 
 ^Com. 5, together with 14, must, in case of publication, which was mani- 
 festly contemplated {58), have put an end to friendly relations between Cicero 
 and Pompey. Cf. also the shameless exhortation to mendacity in 46, and to 
 injure the character of his competitors in 52.
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 2O3 
 
 in the third class — eadem ratione qua superior es ! But this is not 
 all. These very resources by which the raiio?ies obtrectatorum 
 are to be met are identical with the means by which his devoted 
 friends (quos devinctos tenet — 20) are to be further cultivated, 
 viz. (21) beneficio, spe, adiunctione animi ac voluntate (= studio). 
 That Quintus was a prolific writer of dramatic poetry, contem- 
 plated, at least, an epic poem on the deeds of Caesar, was some- 
 what of an historian, and could write " in a manner almost Aris- 
 tophanic," we learn from his brother's works ; but that he could 
 write in the barren, mechanical manner above illustrated it is 
 difficult to believe, especially in view of the following significant 
 characterization of his literary tastes by his brother : De Orat. II 
 3. 10 (cited by Drumann) : Nee vero te, carissime frater atque 
 optime, rhetoricis nunc quibusdam libris, quos hi as;restis putas, 
 insequor ut erudiam — quid enim tua potest oratione aut subtilius 
 aut ornatius esse ? We find, therefore, between the style of the 
 Com. and the literary activity and tastes of Quintus, as his brother 
 reports them, a contrast not less striking than the contrast between 
 his character as portrayed to us by other sources and as revealed 
 in this work. 
 
 But such considerations can do nothing more than arouse sus- 
 picion ; in themselves they prove nothing. There remain, how- 
 ever, two points of view from which the subject may be discussed : 
 (i)the language of the Com. in its relation to the history of 
 Latin words and constructions, and (2) resemblances to other 
 (later) works of Latin literature. The first of these contains 
 material for an interesting study in itself; but, as bearing upon 
 the question of authenticity, nothing of much significance can be 
 drawn from it. It may be observed, however, that the word 
 fabula (54), in the sense of " talk of the town," is met with here for 
 the first time, if we may trust the dictionaries, which cite Hon' Ep. 
 II. 8 as the earliest example. Cicero ns^sfama, as in pro Caelio 
 16. 38, or sermo {sermones') or sermunmli. It is also worthy of 
 note that nedum after a positive sentence is first found in Com. 
 21 : Minimis beneficiis homines adducuntur ut satis causae putent 
 esse ad studium sufifragationis, nedum i quibus saluti* fuisti . . . 
 non intellegant etc. In Cicero and all other writers before Livy 
 nedum only follows a negative. Cf. Draeger, Syntax und Stil d. 
 Tacitus, p. 80, and Schmalz in Muller's Handbuch, IP, p. 510. 
 
 i See p. 210, citation from Horace and note.
 
 204 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 It remains, therefore, for us to consider the resemblances 
 between the Com. and other works of Roman literature. Biicheler 
 has done this for the fragments of the oration in tog. cand., and 
 concludes that in two places Cicero borrowed consciously from 
 the recent letter of his brother — (i) in speaking of the incest of 
 Catiline and the Vestal Fabia/ and (2) in using the phrase duas in 
 re?7i publicavi sicas destrhigere? The former, a guarded utterance 
 on a delicate subject, since Fabia was a sister of Terentia ; the latter, 
 a striking phrase which might easily have been remembered and 
 reproduced almost unconsciously.^ Two other passages are quoted 
 by Biicheler from the oration in tog. cand. and compared with the 
 Com. 
 
 Of Antonius we read : 
 
 Com. 8: vocem audivimus Asc, p. 74: in sua civitate 
 
 iurantis se Romae iudicio aequo cum peregrino negavit se iudi- 
 cum homine Graeco certare non cio aequo certare posse, 
 posse. 
 
 With reference to the murder of Marius Gratidianus, a near 
 relative of the Ciceros, by Catiline : 
 
 Com. 10: Quid ego nunc di- Asc, p. 78: Populum vero, 
 
 cam petere eum consulatum,qui cum inspectante populo collum 
 hominem carissimum populo secuithominismaximepopularis 
 Romano Marcum Marium in- quanti faceret, ostendit. P. 80 : 
 spectante populo Romano . . . caput etiam tum plenum animae 
 ceciderit, . . . vivo stanti collum et spiritus ad Syllam manibus 
 gladio secuerit, caput sua manu ipse suis detulit. 
 tulerit.* 
 
 ^Ascon. (Kiessl. et Scholl), p. 82: cum.ita vixisti ut non esset locus tarn 
 sanctus quo non adventus tuus etiam cum culpa nulla subesset, crimen afferret 
 (from Com. 10). 
 
 '■^Ascon., p. 83, from Com. 12. It is noteworthy that the phrase seems to 
 have occurred in both places in the same connection, for Ascon. says 1. 1. dicit 
 de malis civiius, and the Com. has quis . . . tarn improbus fm.y qui velit . . . duas 
 in r. p. sicas destringere. 
 
 •'It should be observed that this is the only remarkable metaphorical phrase 
 in the whole work. There are but three others ! Biicheler, p. 8. 
 
 * The treatment of this case in the Com. is peculiar in that no allusion is 
 made to the intimate relationship existing between Gratidianus and the Ciceros 
 (Asc, p. 75: fuerat hie Gratidianus arta necessitudine Ciceroni coniunctus). 
 His name is introduced in a rhetorical style natural enough in a public speech, 
 but really very surprising in a letter to a brother. Indeed, the whole of this 
 part of the Com. is written in a strained oratorical tone, which is easily 
 explained if it had the fierce invective of Cicero for its source.
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 205 
 
 Of these two passages and other similarities between the two 
 works, Biicheler says: "et haec quidem aliaque de Antonii prae- 
 diis proscriptis, de Catihnae stupris, de Africa provincia, de testium 
 dictis ac iudicio etiamsi pariter uterque vel tractavit vel elocutus 
 est, tamen quod temporum rerumque aut necessitate id factum est 
 aut opportunitate, mutuatum esse alterum non liquet." The extent 
 of the resemblances in subject-matter is here indicated by Biicheler, 
 but it can only be fully realized by a comparison, sentence for 
 sentence, of the description of the characters of Catiline and 
 Antonius (Com. 8-13) with the fragments of the oration in tog. 
 cand. It will be found that scarcely half a dozen statements 
 concerning them in the Com. are not also made or clearly implied 
 in the speech.^ The verbal resemblances were perhaps exhausted 
 by the quotations of Biicheler, but I would call attention to the 
 following sentences, which betray a remarkable similarity of 
 structure as well as of subject-matter : 
 
 Com. 10: Quid ego nunc de Asc, p. 77 : Quid ego ut vio- 
 
 Africa, quid de testium dictis laveris provinciam praedicem ? 
 scribam ? 
 
 The oration for Murena is the next work of Cicero in which 
 resemblances of thought and language to the Com. appear, and 
 among many more than doubtful examples of such likeness which 
 Eussner quotes, the following are really remarkable : 
 
 Com. 56: atque haec ita nolo Mur. 43: primum accusandi 
 
 te illis proponere ut videare ac- terrores et minae . . . et populi 
 cusationem meditari, sed ut hoc opinionem a spe adipiscendi 
 terrore facilius hoc ipsum quod avertunt et amicorum studia de- 
 agis consequare. bilitant. nescio quo pacto hoc 
 
 fit, . . . simul atque candidatus 
 accusationem meditari visus est, 
 ut honorem desperasse videatur. 
 
 This passage from the pro Murena has a further significance not 
 noticed by Eussner. For the words populi opinionem . . . et ami- 
 
 ^ In the enumeration of those whom Catiline had put to death at the command 
 of Sulla, the names of Titinius, Manlius (conj. Biicheler) and Tanusius are 
 given in Com. 9. Asconius, p. 75, says: Catilinam cum in Syllanis partibus 
 fuisset, crudeliter fecisse. Nominatim etiam postea Cicero dicit quos occiderit, 
 Q. Caecilium (Com. g), M. Volumnium, L. Tanusium. The fact tliat tiie names 
 Titinius and Manlius are not here given by Asconius, and hence were not 
 probably in the oration in tog. cand., points to the independence of the two 
 documents, and might therefore be used as an argument for the genuineness of 
 the Com.
 
 206 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 corum studia make just such a division of the constituency of a 
 candidate as is set forth and carried out with much detail in the 
 second part of the Com. (i6): Petitio autem magistratus divisa 
 est in duarum rationum dihgentiam, quarum altera in amicorum 
 studiis, altera in populi voluntate ponenda est. 
 
 Com. 34: et quoniam assecta- Mur. 44; petitorem ego, prae- 
 
 tionis mentio facta est, id quoque sertim consulatus, magna spe, 
 curandum est, ut cotidiana cu- magno animo, magnis copiis, et 
 iusque generis et ordinis et aeta- in forum et in campum deduci 
 tis utare, nam ex ea ipsa copia volo . . . praesertim cum ... ex 
 coniectura fieri poterit quantum vultucandidatorumconiecturam 
 sis in ipso campo virium ac fa- faciant, quantum quisque animi 
 cultatis habiturus. et facultatis habere videatur. 
 
 Of the other resemblances which Eussner cites, that between 
 Com. 37 and Mur. 70 is quite striking; while Com. 21, Mur. 71 ; 
 Com. 28, Mur. 77 are worthy of note. Observe also the following 
 examples which Eussner seems to have overlooked. Speaking 
 of the value to a candidate of presence in Rome {assiduitas), 
 Cicero says : 
 
 Mur. 21: primum ista nostra Com. 43: iam assiduitatis nul- 
 
 assiduitas . . . nescis quantum lum est praeceptum, verbum 
 adferat hominibusfastidii. mihi ipsum docet quae res sit. pro- 
 qziidem vehejnenter expediit po- dest guidon vehementer nus- 
 sitam in oculis esse gratiam. quant discedere} 
 
 And of the morning saluiatio: 
 
 Mur. 44: placet mihi . . . Com. 35: in salutatoribus qui 
 
 persalutatio, praesertim cum iam magis vulgares sunt et hac con- 
 hoc novo more omnes fere domos suetudine qtiae nunc est piuris"^ 
 omnium concursent. veniunt. 
 
 There is, further, an astonishingly large number of small verbal 
 
 ^ With this compare also pro Plancio 67: (Plancius) numquam ex urbe afuit 
 nisi sorte, lege, necessitate . . . valuit assiduitate. The oration pro Plancio 
 presents a good many interesting resemblances to parts of the Com., but none 
 are so striking as those from the pro Murena. E. g. 67: (Plancius) ea est usus 
 ratione vitae qua minima invidia novi homines plurimi sunt eosdem honores 
 consecuti. Com. 14: Iam in populo quam multi invidi sint, quam consuetu- 
 dine horum annorum ab hominibus novis alienati, venire tibi in mentem scio. 
 
 ^ The obscurity of this awkward paraphrase has caused //«m (preserved by 
 the Erfurtensis and a few other MSS) to be changed in almost all MSS and 
 editions \.o plures. The reading of the Erfurtensis is completely confirmed by 
 the above comparison, showing that qiiae nunc est pluris [quam erat apud anti- 
 ques] = nova.
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 207 
 
 resemblances between the Com. and the oration pro Murena, 
 which are of no significance in attempting to prove that it is one 
 of the sources of the Com., though, if that were established by 
 other considerations, they might fairly be adduced as confirmatory 
 evidence. As stated above, many of Eussner's examples are of 
 this kind. Here is one not given by him : 
 
 Com. I : mihi . . . dies ac no- Mur. 78 : consulem . . . dies 
 
 ctes de tua petitione cogitanti. atque noctes de re publica cogi- 
 
 tantem. 
 
 Not only the generic resemblance of the Com. to the first letter 
 of Marcus ad Q. Fratrem has been pointed out by Biicheler,^ but 
 also the close relationship between certain parts of the two, e. g.; 
 
 Com. 39; Non est huius tem- Ad Q. Fr. I i. 37 ; non susci- 
 
 porisperpetua ilia de hoc genere piam ut quae de iracundia dici 
 disputatio, quibus rebus benivo- solent a doctissimis hominibus 
 lus et simulator diiudicari possit. ea nunc tibi exponam. 
 
 Eussner pointed out many other cases of resemblance, but here 
 also he erred in giving much which proves nothing except that 
 both works are written in Latin. Several of his examples are, 
 however, noteworthy, as, for instance, the opening of the two 
 letters : 
 
 Com.; Etsi tibi omnia suppe- Ad Q. Fr. 1 1 ; Etsi' non dubi- 
 
 tant . . . tamen sum arbitratus. tabam . . . tamen existimavi. 
 
 Com. I : ad te perscribere . . . Ad Q. Fr. I i. 36 : at ea qui- 
 
 non ut aliquid ex his novi addis- dem . . . non ut te instituerem 
 ceres. scripsi. 
 
 Worthy of comparison are also Com. 58 and ad Q. Fr. I i. 18. 
 To these I would add : 
 
 Com. 54: Roma est . . . in Ad Q. Fr. I i. 22: Romae est, 
 
 qua multae insidiae, multa falla- ubi tanta adrogantia est, tarn 
 cia, multa in omni genere vitia immoderatalibertas,tam infinita 
 versantur,multorum adrogantia, licentia, etc.'* 
 etc. 
 
 Biicheler, while thinking it possible that Ouintus may have 
 made use of Greek sources in parts of the Com., "velut de ami- 
 
 ^ Introd., p. 10 ; ad loc, p. 5i- 
 
 ^ The formula etsi — tafuen is exceedingly common, however, at the beginning 
 of letters. 
 
 ^The occurrence of adrogantia in both passages is, of course, of mucli less 
 significance than the similar structure of the two sentences upon the same 
 subject.
 
 208 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 corum atque adversariorum generibus,"' notes that there are but 
 few traces of Greek in the work, as would be natural enough " cum 
 totum commentariolum ex vita Romana sumptum Romanoque 
 negotio aptatum sit." The examples he cites are the verse of 
 Epicharmus in 39 — nervos atque artus esse sapientiae non temere 
 credere — and the admonition in 2 to call to mind often what 
 Demetrius had written de Demosthenis studio et exercitatione. 
 He suggests, further, that the disputatio, quibus rebus benivolus 
 et simulator diiudicari possit, alluded to in 39, refers to some 
 Greek treatise on this subject, such as the one preserved in the 
 Moralia of Plutarch.^ Of these examples it is to be observed that 
 the verse of Epicharmus is given in the original by Cicero in a 
 letter to Atticus,^ while Demetrius' life* of Demosthenes is spoken 
 of in the de Divinatione.^ For the disputatio giiibus, etc., it is 
 not necessary, of course, to assume a Greek source, for this theme 
 was a very common rhetorical exercise, as appears from numerous 
 references to it elsewhere. E. g. Cicero, Topica 85 : ex altero 
 autem genere, quod erat bipertitum, unum est de eodem et alio : 
 quid inter sit inter atnicum et adse7itatorem, regem et tyrannum. 
 Cf. also Cic. Lael. 95, and Horace, A. P. 425. To these traces of 
 Greek pointed out by Biicheler should be added Com. 55 : Et 
 quoniam in hoc vel maxime est vitiosa civitas, quod largitione 
 interposita virtutis ac dignitatis oblivisci solet, in hoc fac ut te bene 
 noris, id est ut intelligas eum esse te qui iudicii ac piericuli metum 
 maximum competitoribus afferre possis. That te bene noris = 
 yvoiQi (jtavTov no ouc, I think, will doubt, nor that the triteness of 
 the saying is at once indicated and apologized for by the particular 
 application given it in the words following. The same phrase with 
 
 ^ P. 7. In that connection he calls attention to the fact that, according to 
 ad Att. II 3. 3, Quintus had in his library a work of Theophrastus, TTfpi ^^Ao- 
 Tijuaq. 
 
 ^ Plut. Mor. 49 : Trwf hv tic, Sianpivoi. rov KoXaica rov (p'lTiov. 
 
 ^ Att. I 19. S : va^E nal fiqtvaa'' aizLGTElv, apdpa ravra rdv (fipEvuv. Cf. also Att. 
 II 20. I. 
 
 * So Biicheler ad loc, but on wliat authority I do not know. No life of 
 Demosthenes is contained in the catalogue of the works of Demetrius in Diog. 
 Laert. V 5. 80. All that is given in the de Div. might have been contained in 
 the nepl pi/rupiK?/^ or the rrepl enirr/dEVfidTuv of Demetrius. 
 
 ^Div. II96: Multi etiam naturae vitium meditatione atque exercitatione 
 sustulerunt, ut Demosthenem scribit Phalereus, cum RHO dicere nequiret, 
 exercitatione fecisse ut planissume diceret. It may not be without significance 
 that the exercitatio Demosthenis is here emphasized as in the Com.
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 20g 
 
 a particular application similar to this is found ad Q. Fratrem, III 
 6. 7 ; Cessator esse noli et illud -yvw^t aeavrov noli putare ad adro- 
 gantiam minuendam solum esse dictum, verum etiam ut bona 
 nostra norimus. In both cases yvSidi. aeavrov is made the text for 
 admonition to know one's own gifts and use them. 
 
 Somewhat analogous to this is the following. In Com. 9 we 
 read : quod Antonius umbram suam metuit, hie (Catilina) ne 
 leges quidem. The phrase mnbravi suavi viehiere is natural 
 enough, and we are not surprised to find it in Latin; yet that it 
 occurs elsewhere I have not been able to discover. The only 
 thing like it that I have found is the following in ad Att. XV 
 20. 4 : equidem etsi mihi videtur iste, qzii tivibras thnet, ad 
 caedem spectare, tamen nisi explicata solutione non sum disces- 
 surus. It would be rash to affirm that there is any connection 
 between these two (apparently isolated) occurrences of similar 
 phrases, but it stimulates one's curiosity to learn that iste, qui 
 umbras timet is Antonius here also — nephew of the Antonius of 
 the Com. and triumvir. Were the Com. a forgery of later date 
 than the letter of Cicero, it would not be difficult to believe that 
 the phrase there used of Mark Antony had been applied to the 
 competitor of Cicero of the same name. 
 
 The same section (q) presents perhaps a similar case. The 
 author of the Com. says of Catiline that he was educatus in sororis 
 stupris : where it is uncertain whether he charges Catiline with 
 incest or whether he refers to "stupra quae Sergia fecit cum aliis" 
 (Biicheler). The former is the more natural interpretation, and 
 undoubtedly the meaning which the author meant to convey,^ 
 although Biicheler, in the absence of any other evidence to this 
 charge, chooses the latter. However that may be, a comparison 
 with the description of the early career and incest of Clodius in 
 the oration de haruspicum response would suggest the thouoht 
 that we have what is there said of Clodius applied here to Catiline. 
 
 Com. 9: alter vero, dii boni, De har. resp. 42: hie vero, 
 
 quo splendore est? ... natus . . . pro diimmortales, quid est? 
 in patris egestate, educatus in . , . qui post patris mortem . , . 
 sororis stupris, corroboratus in in domesticis est germanitatis 
 
 ^Drumann, V 387, n. 66: "Educatus in sororis stupris; zweideutig und 
 gesucht ; man kann erklaren, der Brudcr buhlte mit der Schwester, aber auch 
 er war Zeuge ihres unsitllichen Lebens, und wurde dadurch verdorben. Der 
 Vf. will ihn anklagen, nicki entschuldigen, und dachte daher ohne Zweifel an 
 das Er.«te ; Andere und selbst Cicero schweigen von dieser Blutschande."
 
 2IO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 caede civium, cuius primus ad stupris volutatus; deinde robu- 
 rem publicam aditus equitibus stus . . . se rei militari dedit . . . 
 Romanis occidendis fuit. pupillos necavit . . . divisores 
 
 macta(vit). exorta est . . . quaes- 
 
 tura. Atque hie ... P. Clodio 
 
 gradus ad rem publicam, hie 
 
 primus est aditus ad popularem 
 
 iactationem. 
 
 The resemblances to the Com. thus far cited have been taken 
 
 exclusively from works of Cicero, later, by intervals varying from 
 
 a few months to ten years, than the assumed date of the work. 
 
 In all of these passages, the possibility that the orator borrowed 
 
 from the letter of his brother or retained in memory for a long 
 
 time and so unconsciously reproduced his words and thoughts, 
 
 may be admitted, though the probability of its occurring so often 
 
 and at such intervals of time is certainly to be denied. But the 
 
 ease would manifestly be very different if resemblances to other 
 
 writers should be shown ; though if the work could have furnished 
 
 Cicero with so many of his ideas and expressions, there is perhaps 
 
 no absolute barrier (unless chronological) to extending its influence 
 
 to other writers. Compare the following passages : 
 
 Com. 54 : video esse magni Hor. Sat. I 3. 58 ff.: [Bene 
 
 consilii atque artis in tot homi- sanus ac non incautus (61)] hie 
 num cuiusque modi vitiis tantis- fugit omnis|| insidias nullique 
 que versantem vitare offensio- malolatusobdit^ apertum,|| cum 
 nem, vitare fabulam, vitare genus hoc inter vitae versetur, 
 insidias. ubi acris|| invidia atque vigent 
 
 ubi crimina. 
 Whether the resemblance here is sufficient to consider one the 
 source of the other may perhaps be doubted ; but this at least is 
 certain, that if there is any direct relation, it can only be one of 
 imitation and paraphrase of the words of Horace on the part of 
 the author of the Com., and that seems to me very credible. The 
 other alternative, aside from the a priori improbability of Horace's 
 resorting to so barren a work as the Com. for material, meets with 
 the chronological difficulty that we thereby assume imitation of a 
 
 ^ How accurately the meaning of the words nullique vtalo latus obdit apertum 
 is expressed by vitare fabulam is well shown by the Schol. Cruq. ad loc: nuUi 
 dat sese irridendum idque agit ne lingua malevola laceretur.
 
 COMMENT. PETIT. OF QUINTUS CICERO. 211 
 
 work which, even if genuine, was not, in all probability, published 
 
 at the time of the writing and publication of this satire/ 
 
 The same chronological considerations apply to the relation 
 
 between the following passages : 
 
 Com, 45 ; illud difficilius (est) . . . quod facere non possis, ut id 
 iucunde negcs . . . Cum zd petittir quod . . . promittere non 
 possumus . . . belle negandum est . . . Audivi hoc dicere 
 quendam de quibusdam oratoribus ad quos causam suam 
 A^\.w\\'S,'&qX., gratiorem sibi orationetn eius fuisse qui negasset, 
 quam illius qui recepisset. 
 
 With this compare Publilius Syrus,' Sententiae 357 (Ribbeck) : 
 
 pars benefici est quod petitur si belle neges. 
 
 It seems to me that there can be no doubt that the passage of the 
 Com. quoted presents an elaborate paraphrase of the sententia of 
 Publilius, in which the original saying is cloaked at first under the 
 form iucunde neges, but betrayed a moment later by belle negan- 
 dum ; while it will not escape notice that pars benefici of Publilius is 
 paraphrased hy gratior em sibi orationem, etc. Here, then, the Com. 
 presents perhaps the most direct relation to other literature that we 
 have observed, with the exception of the oration in tog. cand., and 
 we need not therefore hesitate longer to pronounce the conclusion 
 to which the rest of our investigation has led us, viz. that the Com. 
 is the work of some first-century rhetorician or rhetorical student 
 who, perhaps in imitation of similar works,^ wrote the Com. in the 
 name of Quintus Cicero, and, modelling the general form of his 
 composition on the first letter ad Q. Fratrem (on the duties of a 
 
 ^According to the usual view (e. g. Tyrrell), the letters ad Q. Fratrem, to 
 which there is every reason to believe the Com. would have been appended 
 (Biicheler, p. 11), were published along with the letters to Atticus, after the 
 death of the latter (32 B. C). Gurlitt (de M. Ciceronis epistulis, etc., Gott. 
 1879) holds (p. 47) that they were a part of a single collection, including all the 
 extant letters except the letters ad Att., and that this original collection was 
 not published before the death of Anlonius, but at some time in the decade 
 following Actium. Hor. Sat., bk. I, not later than 35 B. C. 
 
 * To be sure we do not know how long the activity of Publilius continued, 
 but Jerome puts his Jioniit in the year 43 B. C, and we may well doubt whether 
 he was writing still at the time of the publication of the letters ad Q. Fratrem. 
 
 *See Biicheler, p. 6, Aul. Gel. XIV 7. 2: (consulatum) Pompeius cum initurus 
 foret, quoniam per mililiae tempora senatus habendi consulendique, rerum 
 expers urbanarum fuit, M. Varronem, familiarem suum rogavit ut commentarium 
 faceret elanyuyiKov — sic enim Varro ipse appellat — ex quo disceret, quid facere 
 dicereque deberet, cum senatum consuleret.
 
 212 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 provincial governor, etc.), made use especially of the orations of 
 the period of Cicero's consulship bearing upon the subject, viz. 
 the orations in tog. cand. and pro Murena, and incidentally also 
 of other works of Cicero, as has been pointed out. This will 
 explain adequately the historical correctness and faithfulness of 
 his descriptions, and in a measure also the purity of the style and 
 vocabulary. That he should have betrayed familiarity with a 
 well-known passage of Horace or a saying of Publilius is by no 
 means surprising, for, as is well known, much spurious literature 
 owes its origm to no intentional deceit,^ and no special pains were 
 therefore used to avoid anachronism in the use of sources. How 
 early the Sententiae of Publilius had gained currency apart from 
 his plays, and how familiar they were to the young men of Rome, is 
 well shown by Seneca Rhet. controv. VH i8. 8 : Memini Moschum, 
 cum loqueretur de hoc genere sententiarum, quo infecta iam erant 
 adulescentulorum omnium ingenia, queri de Publilio, quasi ille 
 [iam] hanc insaniam introduxisset. 
 
 Concerning the date of the composition of the Com., we can 
 only say that its language and style admonish us to put it as early 
 as possible. If we may assume that the letters to Atticus were 
 already published" at the beginning of our era, I should not wish 
 to place the Com. very much later. 
 
 Madison, Wis. GeORGE L. HeNDRICKSON. 
 
 ^ Blass in Midler's Handbuch, I, p. 246. 
 
 ^Biicheler, Rhein. Mus. 34 (1879), p. 353, notes that Asconius (p. 76) does 
 not make use of a passage from a letter to Atticus (I 2. i) supporting a point 
 which he is attempting to prove, and concludes from this that the letters were 
 not then published (ca. 55 A. D.). The evidence, however, scarcely seems 
 sufficient for a conclusion so hard to believe" (cf. Hofmann, Ausgew. Briefe, 
 P- 13)- 
 
 vJ J. 
 
 L«Ji 
 
 9
 
 SOUTHERN BRANCH, 
 
 UNIVERSITY GF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 LIBRARY,
 
 L 007 625 561 1 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 431 207 

 
 M 
 
 \ ::■■■:. 
 
 .-.•>::."= -v X 
 
 m 
 
 ■":6: . -V, 
 
 _\I 
 
 -:^ 
 
 ..*^ 
 
 -A' 
 
 S// 
 
 .•*-^ 
 
 ,'^* 
 
 
 
 
 . •i'^. 
 
 "^J*!-^ 
 
 ■••■■.-<..: 
 
 '-^-. .^^ 
 
 v-ir' 
 
 n: 
 
 
 "> v" 
 
 
 ■ >-• .^/ 
 
 ,.<^