THE COEEESPONDENCE

OF

M. TULLIUS CICERO

DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PRESS SERIES.

THE CORRESPONDENCE

OF

M. TULLIUS CICERO,

ARRANGED ACCORDING TO ITS CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

A KEYISION OF THE TEXT, A COMMENTARY,

IN TROD UCTOR Y ESS A YS.

BY

ROBERT YELVERTON TYRRELL, LITT.D.,

HON. LITT.D. (CANTAB.), D.C.L. (OxoN.), LL.D. (EDEN.) ;

Late Senior Fellow of Trinity College, and sometime Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Dublin ;

AND

LOUIS CLAUDE PURSER, LITT.D.,

HON. LL.D. (GLASG.);

Senior follow of Trinity College, and sometime Professor of Latin in the University of Dublin.

VOL. V.

SECOND EDITION.

DUBLIN : HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO., LTD., GRAFTON STREET. LONDON : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW.

1915.

PKINTK1) AT THE

'HY VONSONBY & GIBBS.

PREFACE.

WHEN in February of last year the publishers informed me that the fifth volume of our CORRESPONDENCE OF CICERO was out of print, and that a second edition had been asked for, and was desirable in order to render possible a continuous sale for the work as a whole, I felt considerably perplexed. For I knew that Dr. Tyrrell was in such precarious health that he could no longer act as the guiding and commanding spirit in any continuance of the work ; and I was fully conscious that my own powers were not equal to the task of producing a new edition such as would meet even remotely the exacting require- ments of modern scholarship, or provide the many-sided erudition now expected of a commentator. But Dr. Tyrrell was so pressing in his desire that the new edition should be produced (and in the circumstances he could hardly be refused), and the authorities of the College so readily approved of the proposal, that, though with considerable misgiving, I undertook the task. Only three sheets of the Commentary were even glanced at by Dr. Tyrrell before his death : we did not think that he was so soon to be lost to us and to scholarship.1 In those three sheets the familiar * we ' had been used, and I continued it throughout, not only for the sake of consistency, but also because I am faiu to hope that there would not have been much diversity of opinion between us in most of the views advanced. But I may well be mistaken ; and I must take on myself full respon- sibility for whatever is said. The dates of some of the letters as given in the first edition seem to be wrong ; but, as in re-editions of the first three volumes, the order has been left unchanged, lest references in the succeeding volumes and in the Index should prove untrustworthy. This defect is remedied to some extent by the table given on pp. 460-465. A chapter has been added to the Introduction under the title " Antony succeeds Caesar," dealing with the history of the five and a-half months from March 15 to August 31 of the year 44 B.C.

1 It was only after Dr. Tyrrell' s death (Sept. 19, 1914) that Dr. Sihler's volume,- Cicero of Arpinum, dedicated to him, reached this country.

vi PREFACE.

As this volume in its revision has not had the advantage of Dr. TvrrelPs scholarship, it asks for every indulgence that the reader can bring himself to grant it. It makes no claim to anything even approaching a full treatment of the subject. Neither this nor any other volume of our work is to be regarded as other than a mere transitory contribution to the study of Cicero's Correspondence ; the best that our edition can hope for is that it may prove a sort of scaffolding, by the aid of which some of the very learned and acute young scholars of to-day may erect a permanent building " four-square, a work without flaw." Even with this limited aim the present volume can claim but little. Though it has been in great part re-written, I am only too conscious of what even indulgent criticism must regard as grievous short- comings ; and I feel little doubt that there is a great quantity of literature on the subject which has wholly escaped my notice. But I have done my best to render it here and there a little less inadequate than it was in its original form. That little, I fear, would have been hardly attained (if it has been attained at all) were it not for the invaluable assistance given me by my friend, Dr. J. S. Reid, Fellow of Caius College, and Professor of Ancient History in the University of Cambridge, not only from his published works, but from a great number of learned manuscript notes which he was good enough to put at my disposal. Of this, as of nearly every other work on Cicero issued by British scholars, Professor Reid pars magna fuit. I desire here to render him my warmest thanks. The last two-thirds of the Commentary, and the whole of the Introduction, have been read by another friend, Dr. W. A. Groligher, Professor of Ancient, History and Classical Archaeology in the University of Dublin, whose trenchant and acute criticisms have been of the greatest service, and to whom I am very grateful. I am also deeply indebted to Mr. J. T. GKbbs, Manager of the Dublin University Press, who has devoted no little time to reading through the several sheets before they went to press, and, by his accurate knowledge of English, has saved me from many errors of expression.

L. C. P.

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, August, 1915.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE, v

INTRODUCTION :

I. CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR, .... ix

II. ANTONY SUCCEEDS CAESAR, xlviii

III. CICERO'S CORRESPONDENTS :

1. PUBLIUS VATINIUS, xciv

2. MARCUS CICERO THE YOUNGER, ... cii

IV. ADDENDUM TO FAM. iv. 5 (555), ... ex

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF CICERO. PART VIII, . . 1

» IX, 237

ADNOTATIO CRITICA, 421

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, 457

ORDER OF LETTERS, '460

CORRIGENDA.

Page 26, lines 1, 2, for ' 21 ' read < 12 '.

,, 27, line 1, for '21' read '12'.

,, 67, ,, 13, for 'March' read 'May'.

,, 84, ,, 10, for ' Tusculanum ' read 'Tusculum'.

,, 93, col. b, line 9, omit 'this'.

,, 117, line 8, for 'Rome' read 'Tusculum'.

,, 128, col. a, line 1 , omit ' aliquid'.

130, line 6, for 'tuest' read 'tues'.

,, 141, col. a, line 8 from end, after ' tenere}' add " see Introd., p. xvi, note 2 '.

,, 172, ,, bt ,, 5 from end, before ' commulcium* add 'as 0. E. Schmidt has suggested and Sjogren (Comm. Tull., p. 56) approved ' .

191, line 3, for ' August 25 ' read « August 24 '.

,, 211, ,, 5, omit ' 17 (about)'.

,, 275, ,, 15, for ' mi hi ' (italics) read 'mihi' (roman). See Adn. Crit.

,, 291, ,, 17, for ' reddendas quod' read ' reddendas : quod'.

,, 291, col. b, lines 26-28, for ' the conjunction . . . Atticus would ' read 'quod, taking it as a conjunction. But Lehmann (p. 80), in a learned discussion, shows that it is not necessary. We may take quod as a relative pronoun with idem (cf. Acad. i. 35, quod vides idem significare Pomponium], Atticus would '.

,, 295, line 11, for ' pudentem' read 'impudentem '. See Adn. Crit.

300, col. a, line 6, for ' 728 ' read ' 727 '.

314, 7, for 'Klotz' read ' Orelli '.

,, 349, line 17, for ' Haec ' read 'Hanc'; and for ' scribenda ' read ' scri- bendam '. See Adn. Crit.

,, 353, col. b, line 4, after ' praebere ' add ' also in 660. 1 (bene de nostro) '.

,, 356, ,, a, lines 1-6, This interpretation is incorrect. See Introd., p. Ixxxi, note 4.

,, 365, line 10, Perhaps we should put a comma after 'velim', and govern

'memineris' (line 11) by that word, as is done by Miiller and Baiter. But it is possible with other editors, e.g. Wesenberg and Klotz, to put a full stop. We can then take ' memineris ' as a case of the future used for the imperative (cp. Madvig, 384 obs. : Robyr 1589).

,, 365, line 12, for 'sum' read 'swm'.

376, 7, for « vi Idus ' read « vn Idus '.

382, ,, 14, for 'aBruti' read 'aBruti'.

,, 383, ,, 13, for 'quo' read 'quo*.

,, 385, 13, 14, for ' te exspectare ' read ' exspectare te'. See Adn. Crit.

,, 387> ,, 15, for 'cumeo' read 'cum eo'.

,, 396, 3, for *huius modi videtur ' read ' huius modi mihi videtur '„

,, 406, ,, 4, for 'quod praesens ', read ' ut praesens ' . See Adn. Crit.

INTRODUCTION.

I.— CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR1

IN September of the year B.C. 46, Cicero delivered in the Senate a very fine speech, which has come down to us, the pro Marcello. This Marcus Marcellus had been Consul in the year 51, and had taken a very active part against Caesar. Among his enemies exiled after Pharsalia, there was not one whom Caesar had greater reason to regard with feelings of vindictive indignation. Knowing that one of the strongest of Caesar's political principles was the enfranchisement of the Transpadane Grauls nay, more, that he had always treated them as actually of right full Roman burgesses2 Marcellus in his consulship seized the opportunity of wounding him in his most sensitive part. A distinguished

1 This section of the Introduction, which, with some additions, originally appeared as an article in the Quarterly Review (No. 368, October, 1896, pp. 395-422), is here republished by the kind permission of the proprietor and editor. A few notes have been added, and some corrections made.

2 It was inevitable that sooner or later Roman citizenship must be extended to the Transpadanes, once it had been conceded to all Italians up to the Po by the legislation which followed the Social War : the Alps, and not the Po, are the natural boundaries of Italy. And in 89 the first step in that direction was taken by giving the Transpa- danes Latin rights. The full enfranchisement of the Transpadanes became a plank in the democratic platform, and one which Caesar was especially solicitous to strengthen in every possible way since his tour of agitation in that district in 68. Caesar always treated the Transpadane soldiers in his army as full Roman citizens ; and Hirtius, B. G. viii. 24. 3, speaks of the colonies in that region as colonia* civium Romanorum. Further, Novum Comum was a colony founded by Caesar and treated by him as a citizen-colony : cp. Suet. lul. 28, Marcellus . . . rettulit etiam ut colonis, quos rogatione Vatinia Novum Comum, deduxisset, civitas adimeretur, quod per ambit ionem et ultra praescriptum data, esset ; but citizenship had not been formally granted by the government at Rome, and therefore the inhabitants of Novum Comum and the Transpadane towns might, according to the strictest law, be regarded as not possessing Roman citizenship. We find that it was one of Caesar's first acts, when he got possession of Rome in 49, to pass a Lex lulia de Transpadanis, formally granting them full Roman citizenship : Dio Cass. xli. 36. 3.

x INTRODUCTION.

citizen of Novum Comum, one of the towns recently founded by Caesar as a burgess-colony, was staying in Rome. In the view of Caesar this man should have been regarded as a full burgess of Rome, and as such have enjoyed as complete an immunity from corporal punishment as the Consul himself. Marcellus had him publicly scourged. So much for Caesar and his Transpadane ! After Pharsalia, Marcellus retired to Mitylene. Cicero, who was at this time leading a somewhat subdued but not unpleasant life in Rome,1 on terms of the closest intimacy with leading Caesarians, such as Dolabella, Hirtius, and Pansa, to whom he was teaching declamation in return for their instruction in the art of dining,2 no doubt felt that there was an invidious contrast between his own lot and that of the exiled Optimate. He felt that while a great patrician, a consular and a devotee of re- publicanism, was living in obscurity and loneliness in Mitylene, it looked awkward (ajuiopQov or <roAoticoi> he himself would have called it) that he should pass a gay existence among the leading men of Rome.3 It was almost essential to his dignity, even to his comfort, that Marcellus should be restored. But a very obstinate resistance was encountered from the staunch republican himself, who much preferred the freedom of Mitylene to an enslaved life in the metropolis. But at last the consent of Marcellus to accept pardon if tendered to him was obtained. The friends of Marcellus probably had not much hope of success; but, to their infinite delight, they found Caesar, ready to offer to his enemy a full pardon.4 This striking act of

1 Cp. Fam. ix. 26 (479). 2 Fam. ix. 16. 7 (472) ; 18. 3 (473) : cp. vol. iv. p.li.

3 Cp. vol. iv, p. li. Ferrero (ii. 303) says : " "Worn out by the burden of his years and misfortunes, Cicero accepted these invitations just for the pleasure of society, though from time to time he felt a sting of remorse when something happened to recall the miserable catastrophe which had cost him so many of his friends." Such passages as Fam. ix. 16. 5 (472), where he defends his conduct, show that his conscience was far from easy.

4 We have a cordial letter of thanks from Marcellus to Cicero, Fam. iv. 11 (406), in reply to a letter from Cicero (unfortunately lost but a letter to Servius Sulpicius, Fam. iv. 4 (495), supplies the deficiency), which told him of the scene in the Senate on the occasion that he delivered the pro Marcello. The letters of Cicero to Marcellus (Fam. iv. 7 to 10) are all earnest appeals to him to consent to take steps to obtain his recall. Marcellus said that Cicero's advice finally decided him to permit efforts to be made to secure his pardon. But when the pardon was granted, Marcellus did not make any haste to return: cp. Fam. iv. 10(536). He was not at Athens on his journey home until May 45 : cp. Ep. 613.

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xi

magnanimity broke down Cicero's resolution to hold his peace. Carried away by his enthusiasm in his first speech since Pharsalia, he gave a loose rein to his unbounded powers of panegyric in the oration pro Mar cello. It is on this speech that Froude has based his fiercest attack on the character and motives of Cicero. The whole indictment is a farrago of misstatement and misapprehension.

' Such,' he writes, ' was the speech delivered by Cicero in the Senate in Caesar's presence within a few weeks of his murder.'

The speech was delivered in September, 46, more than a year and a half before the deed, which was done on the Ides of March in the year 44. The sentiments of admiration for Caesar, and con- fidence in his patriotism, which Froude so scathingly contrasts with the language of the Second Philippic, written two years afterwards, were sincerely felt by Cicero when he delivered the speech. In his private correspondence, which he never intended to meet the eyes of anyone except his correspondent, the sentiment is in spirit the same, though of course the tone is that of a private letter, not of a public speech. Writing to his friend Servius Sulpicius immediately after the incident, he relates how Caesar, after dwelling severely on the * bitter spirit ' (acerbitate) shown by Marcellus, declared that he would not allow * his opinion about an individual to bring him into opposition to the declared will of the Senate.' Was it any wonder that Cicero interpreted such a statement as an official declaration that Caesar intended to restore the republic, and had abandoned all thoughts of establishing a monarchy ?

' You need not askjrae,' he proceeds, ' what I thought of it. I saw in my mind's eye the Republic coining back to life. 1 had determined to hold my peace for ever ; not, God knows, through apathy, but because I felt my former status in the House was lost beyond recall. But Caesar' s magnanimity and the Senate's loyalty swept away the barriers of my reserve.'1

1 Fam. iv. 4. 3, 4 (495) ita mihi pulcher hie dies visus est ut speciem aliquam viderer videre quasi reviviscentis rei publicae ... Statueram non mehercule inertia sed desiderio pristinae dignitatis in perpetuum tacere. Fregit hoc meum fonsilium et Caesaris magni- tude animi et senatus officium.

b2

xii INTRODUCTION.

Froude gives copious extracts from this speech, which he repre- sents as being at best a cowardly effort to curry favour with a conqueror, and which he hints was designed to lull Caesar into a false security, and thus facilitate the assassination, which he sup- poses to have taken place in a few weeks, but which really was perpetrated more than a year and a half afterwards. It is for- tunately quite possible, chiefly by means of Cicero's correspon- dence, especially since the fruitful labours of Schmidt and others have arranged it so accurately in its chronological order, to trace the steps by which the sincere admiration of Caesar's character, expressed throughout the speech for Marcellus, was converted into cordial sympathy with the conspiracy, though Cicero was denied actual participation in the deed. It may be premised that in making this attempt we shall have sometimes to advert to incidents and expressions which, to a careless reader of the corre- spondence, might seem trivial. If we are right in thinking that the untrammelled utterances of a great thinker and an unrivalled litterateur on events passing under his eyes, and in which he took an important part, at a most critical period of the world's history, will always have a deep interest for English students of the past,, we feel that no apology is needed for details, and that no reader will suggest, as Horatio did to Hamlet, that ' 'Twere to consider too curiously to consider so.' And let it not be forgotten that in nearly every other case in literary history, to see an author's mind in his letters as in a mirror would be to meet a reflection far too flattering. In Cicero's letters no effort was made to produce an impression more favourable that the facts would warrant. Cicero'a letters express nearly always his actual feelings at the moment of writing. He was conscious that his actions had been on th& whole guided by right motives, and he had the greatness of mind not to be ashamed of confessing that he had at times been imprudent and even weak. Hence it is that we can regard his correspondence as historical material of a most valuable kind.

The speech of Cicero does not appear to have been regarded at the time as overstrained. Paetus, in a letter to Cicero, refers to an attempt which he had made to imitate the pro Marcello, and quotes-

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xiii

a verse from Trabea about the fate of him who tries to wield the levin-bolt of Jove. Cicero politely answers :

' You have surpassed me ; it is I who have, in comparison, made a

fiasco

Even the uncompromising Marcellus himself, in thanking Cicero for his services to him, has not a word to say about any reports having reached him of Cicero having unduly praised Caesar. In the letter already quoted, in which he describes the scene in the Senate to Servius Sulpicius, Cicero attributes the stringent repres- sion exercised at Kome ' not to the victor nothing could surpass his moderation but to the fact that there has been a victory, which, in civil warfare, cannot but be outrageous/8 Writing to Cornificius, probably about the same time,3 Cicero referred to the celebrated incident of the humiliation of Laberius by Caesar, which produced the protest of Laberius, preserved by Macrobius, and containing the words :

' Certes, I've lived a day too long.'4

The passage is interesting, because it puts the part which Caesar took in a more amiable light than that in which we are accustomed to regard it. In recording the presence of Munatius Plancus Bursa at the games, and the enforced appearance of Laberius as an actor in competition with Publilius Syrus, his comment is :

' Peace prevails here, but one marked with incidents which would give you no pleasure if you were here, which indeed give no pleasure to Caesar.

1 Fam. ix. 21. 1 (497).

2 Fam. iv. 4. 2 (495) nee id Victoria vitio quo nihil moderating sed ipsius victoriae quae civilibus bellis semper est insolens.

3 Ep. 670 (Fam. xii. 18) is often placed much later, in the autumn of 45. In our original arrangement of the letters we placed it there, and considerations of the numbering of the letters for the Index have compelled us to leave it at that place But it is more probable that the games at which Laberius was compelled by Caesar to. appear were the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris, which began about September 23 in 46. We do not know how many days they lasted at first. Before the death of Augustus they lasted ten days. In subsequent years, when the Calendar was reformed, they began on July 20, which day corresponded to September 23 of the unreformed Calendar. In 45 Caesar did not return to Rome until the middle of September. It is not likely that Caesar would insist on Laberius appearing on the stage at games at which he was not himself present; and according to the story (Macrobius ii. 7. 5) he was present.

4 Nimirum hoc die TJno plus vixi quam mihi vivendum f uit.*

xiv INTRODUCTION.

That is the worst of civil wars. When they are over, the victor must not consult his own wishes merely, but must humour those to whom he owes his victory. But,' Cicero continues, ' for my own part 1 have grown so callous that at Caesar's games I saw without a pang (ammo aequmimo) T. Plancus, and heard the verses of Laberius and Publilius.'

This shows how soon Cicero began to lose confidence in his hope that Caesar would restore the free State.

In a letter to Caecina,1 he dwells on the ' kind and clement nature ' of Caesar, his sympathy with literary excellence, and his willingness to give ear to * expressions of feeling which have justice and the fervour of sincerity to support them rather than those which are hollow or dictated by self-interest.' All his letters to exiled Pompeians during this autumn express a favourable opinion of Caesar, and it was about this time that Cicero made a mot which is recorded by Plutarch. Caesar had ordered the restora- tion of statues of Pompey which had been thrown down. ' By this act of generosity,' said Cicero, ' he is setting up the statues of Pompeius, but firmly planting his own/2 Indeed, we have to turn to the speech for Marcellus, which, according to Froude,

* most certainly did not express his real feelings, whatever may have been the purpose which they concealed/ to find anything approaching a criticism of Caesar, anything pointing to an obliga- tion still resting on him, a solemn duty still unfulfilled. This we have in the most unambiguous language in the speech itself. The whole eighth chapter is devoted to the consideration of what Caesar has yet to do, and the speech continues with the words,

* This then is what still remains, this is the act necessary to com- plete the drama, this the crowning feat, the restoration of the Republic.'* The reader of 'Caesar, a Sketch,' will look in vain

1 Fam. vi. 6. 8 (488). In Caesare haec sunt, mitts clemensque natura. (This recalls the words of Laberius, Viri excellent™ tnente clemenle edita Summissa placidg blandi- loquent oratio) . . . Aecedit quod mirifice \ngen\is excelkntibus delectatur (cp. Fam. iv. 8. 2 (485) ; vi. 6. 3 fin. (533)) . . . Praeterea cedit multorum ittstis et officio incensis, turn \nan\bu9 aut ambitiosis voluntatibus : cp. Fam. vi. 12. 2 (490).

roii Miy noMmrfow T<TTTj<rt TO&J 8* a&rov ^yvvffiv foSpiarras (Plut. Cic. 40). It must, however, be noticed that Plutarch here quotes this remark as an example of flattery on the part of Cicero—unjustly, as we think. He would also in all probability hare regarded as flattery the fine praise of Caesar in the pro Marcello : cp. vol. ir, p. liii, note.

» 27. Hate iyitur tibi reliqua pan *st : hie rettat actus, in hoc elaborandum est ut

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xv

for any allusion to these words in the pages in which Froude gives * in compressed form, for necessary brevity, the speech delivered by Cicero in the Senate in Caesar's presence within a few weeks of his murder.'

Caesar obviously had despotic power within his grasp. His actions seemed to show that he was not about to seize it. Why should not Cicero, who saw as clearly as Mommsen that the soul of Caesar had room in it for much beside the statesman, foster the thought of which his ardent wish was father, that Caesar might rise to the act of self-renunciation which surely elevates to dignity the somewhat narrow character of Pompey, who, however, return- ing victor from the Mithridatic War, scorned to hurl his victorious legions on defenceless Home ? It is surprising that an historian of a people,

* Where freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.'

has nothing to say about this crisis in Roman history. When we turn to Mommsen, we are prepared for the censure directed against the * coward/ who, when the Kepublic, the goddess of Cicero's idolatry, was in his grasp, refused to throttle her. Nearly a year after this time Brutus cherished the same fond dream. ' So Brutus thinks Caesar is being converted to constitutionalism,' writes Cicero (Ep. 660) in August, 45. He had himself been disillusioned considerably before that time.

About two months and a half after the pro Marcello, Cicero delivered the pro Ligario, of which Plutarch gives us such a lively account.1 He tells us that when Ligarius was put on his trial, and it became known that Cicero would be his advocate,

rempublicam constitttas, eaque tu in primis summa tranquillitate et otio perfruare : turn te, si voles, cum et patriae quod debes solveris et naturam ipsam expleveris satietate vivendi, satis diu vixisse dicito.

1 The speech pro Ligario was delivered in the First Intercalary month. Caesar inserted two intercalary months and ten days between November and December, 46. Cicero seems on November 26 to have gone on a sort of deputation to Caesar on behalf of Ligarius : cp. Fam. vi. 14 (498), and vol. iv, p. Ixxii. Caesar would appear at this time to have surrounded himself with something of the ceremony of monarchy : cp. Fam. iv. 7. 6 (486) ius adeundi . . . non habemus ; vi. 13. 3 (489) aditus ad eum difflciliores ; vi. 14. 2 (498) cum . . . omnetn adeundi et conveniendi illius indignitatem et mokstiam pertulissem.

xvi INTRODUCTION.

Caesar said, * Of course it is well known that he is a villain and a traitor, but why should we not have the pleasure of a speech from Cicero P ' The trial, accordingly, proceeded. Cicero at once made an impression ; as he went on, by his appeals to the feelings on every side, and by his amazing charm of style,1 he so strongly moved Caesar that his colour was seen to come and go. When the orator touched on Pharsalia, Caesar was quite transported, his whole frame shook (' 'Tis true this god did shake/ as Cassius says), and he let fall from his hands some papers which he was holding (probably proofs of Ligarius' treachery). Finally he was coerced by the orator into an acquittal.2 The speech for Ligarius is not pitched in so high a key as that for Marcellus, delivered more than two months before, but it shows no suspicion of Caesar.

Tracing the growth of Cicero's feelings about Caesar, in the Second Intercalary month we find him receiving, with expressed reluctance, his son's desire to join Caesar in Spain:

' He wants to join Caesar in Spain, and he wants a liberal allowance. I told him I would give him an abundant allowance, as much as Publilius or the Flamen Lentulus allowed their sons. But as to Spain, I urged first, that people would say, Was it not enough to abandon Pompey's cause ? must they even embrace Caesar's ? Secondly, I urged that it would be galling to him to be distanced in the race for Caesar's favour by his cousin Quintus.'3

J x«/)tTt 9avu.affr6s (Plut. Cic. 39). 2 avt\vfft Qffraff/jLfvos. In the difficult passage in Att. xiii. 20. 4 (634) Schiche (Zu Ciceros Briefen, Berlin Programm, No. 59 (1905), p. 27) for toto conjectures isto, and supposes (if we understand him rightly) that it refers to one of the Ligarii who had criticized Cicero to Atticus on the ground that his present behaviour towards the Caesareans was not consistent with the outspokenness displayed in the speech pro Ligario, which he had published shortly before the letter was written (beginning of July, 45) : and that Cicero in reply says that his defence of Ligarius was not made in order to evince his supremacy as an advocate, but simply not to fail a friend in need. This is possible, but it involves the assumption that a Ligarius did criticize Cicero on the ground alleged, which seems unlikely. We rather think that Cicero is defending himself against Atticus alone, and would add <negotio> after in toto. Atticus would readily understand that it was Quintus Ligarius whom he meant by <?». Schiche goes on to suggest that for ^ 7ekp avro?s we should read & ykp aS0<y, ' Never again,' i.e. may I never again undertake pleadings in the courts as an advocate. This is ingenious and probable : but in the absence of knowledge as to the exact quotation Cicero was making, it cannot be regarded as certain. In defence of iudicia tenere Schiche adds Brut. 106 Hie (Carbo) optimus illis temporibus est patronus habitus, eoque forum ttnente plura fieri iudicia coeperunt. We regret that this learned Programm of Schiche's did not come under our notice until the commentary had been printed off. «Att. xii. 7. 1 (500).

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xvii

As a matter of fact, the boy did not join Caesar, but went to the University of Athens, where his father allowed him about £800 a year. But the first definite sign of distrust is given in a letter to Atticus, written a little later, about a month after he had pleaded the cause of Ligarius. Caesar had left for Spain in the Second Intercalary month, having assumed for the third time the Dictatorship, and having appointed Lepidus (though the latter was Consul) Master of the Horse. He had given directions to Lepidus to procure his election as sole Consul for 45. * As Dictator, and at the same time Consul,' says Ferrero ii. 319, * without a colleague, he was for all practical purposes an autocratic ruler.' He postponed the election of tlie other magistrates. This wound to republican feelings, which rankled sorely afterwards, drew from Cicero his first definite expression of mistrust since Caesar's clemency towards Marcellus had given him hopes that he might apply to Caesar, whom he loved and admired, the affectionate noster which he had always reserved for the cold and unsympathetic Pompey. Cicero is not certain if the report is true. He asks Atticus to find out from his father-in-law, Will the master proceed to the Plain of the Fennel- bed or the Plain of Mars for the purposes of the election ? ?1 that is, will Caesar nominate the magistrates in Spain, or leave the election to the people in Eome ? As a matter of fact, Caesar did not trouble himself about the Field of Fennel or the Field of Mars. He elected no magistrates, but left the administration in the hands of eight (or six) praefecti* nominally subject to Lepidus. The real power was held by Balbus and Oppius, as we learn from a letter to Aulus Caecina, written in December, 46 : * I have come to see that all the acts of Balbus and Oppius during the absence of Caesar are usually upheld by him/ 3 When

INTRODUCTION.

Cicero wrote those words, he must have almost begun to fear thai Caesar had abandoned, if he had ever entertained, the thought of restoring the Republic. In the remaining letters of 46 and the beginning of 45 up to February, when Cicero was afflicted so severely by the death of his beloved daughter Tullia, we have occasional allusions to the clemency of Caesar, alternating with gloomy comments on public affairs, as, for instance, when he comforts his friend Titius for the loss of his children by the reflection

* The best source of consolation is the state of public affairs . . . Those who are in your case now are far less to be pitied than such as lost their children when there was a good, or indeed any, form of free consti- tution.' !

Early in January, 45, he tells Cassius that his best chance of happiness will lie in keeping clear of trifling things (aiavoo-TrouSoe), in avoiding vain pursuits such as the restoration of the free State.2 Cassius, in reply, writes :

' Let me know what is going on in Spain. 1 declare I am nervous about this young Cn. Pompeius, and 1 prefer the clemency of our present master to the possible ferocity of a new one. You know what a dullard he is, and how he mistakes cruelty for firmness. He fancies we are always making fun of him. I fear his repartee will be an unpolished one a slit weasand.'3

In the end of March, 45, shortly after the news reached Rome that Caesar had been saluted as Imperator on the capture of Ategua, we find Cicero attempting a literary tour de force, an experiment whether originality could be achieved in a letter of introduction. The whole composition (Ep. 571), recommending one Precilius to Caesar, is stilted studded with not very apt

1 Fam. v. 10. 3 (529), Neque hae neque ceterae consolationes . . . tantum videntur pro/icere debert quantum status ipse nostrae civitatis et haec perturbatio tern for urn perditorumt cum beatissimi sint qui liberos non susceperunt, minus autem miseri qui his temporibus amiserunt quam si eosdem bona aut den ique aliqua republic n perdidissent.

' Fam. xv. 17. 4 (541). For iuctroffwovSos, cp. Marcus Aurelius i. 6.

lFam. XT. 19. 4 (542), Scis Cn. quam sit fatuuif.ids quomodo crudelitatem virtutem putet; scis quam se semper a nobis derisum putet; vereor ne nos rustic* ylndio velit '

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xix

quotations, four from Homer and one from Euripides. It has a strained and unnatural tone of gaiety, such as might well have been assumed by a writer with an aching heart Tullia had been about six weeks dead. But he is still appreciative of Caesar's personal courtesy. In the middle of April,1 in a letter to Servius Sulpicius, he speaks of 'that leisure which his kind permission allows us.' But he is in deep depression. He says to Lucceius | in May : ' Your love is acceptable and desirable : I would say pleasant, were it not that I have lost that word for ever."

After he has recovered from the first agony of his grief for the death of Tullia,3 which occurred in February, 45, we trace in his

xx INTRODUCTION.

letters a growing antipathy towards Caesar. A statue of Caesar, with the inscription Deo Invietof- was erected now in the Temple i

years before to dedicate some important treatise to Cicero, but was a ' slow -coach,' and he had not made much progress (626. 3). Taking all these matters into con* sideration, Cicero determined, after the suggestion of Atticus, to make the first stepi himself, and dedicate the 'Academica' to Varro. Atticus had, indeed, as far back as 54 urged Cicero to find a place for Varro in the De Republiea or some other dialogue; but Cicero gave reasons why he did not do so, chiefly (1) the unsuitability of Varro for any previous treatise; (2) the principle he had adopted not to introduce any living) person into his dialogues ; and (3) that Varro could not be introduced into the Le Republiea, as he was not contemporary with Africanus (Att. iv. 16. 2 (144) : cp. 626. 3 ; 631. 3, 4). On receipt, then, of the letter from Atticus on June 23, Cicero at once proceeded to remodel the treatise so as to give Varro the part which Lucullus and Brutus had held in his previous arrangements. The transference of speakers was effected by June 25, and the treatise altered from two to four books, the work! enlarged, and the points put more concisely. Cicero did not hesitate to make the alteration, even though Atticus had already had the former edition copied out (627. 1). It is possible that Atticus sold both editions : hence, probably, both got into extensive circulation, and it became well known that both had been madei by Cicero (Quintil. iii. 6. 64). We enjoy the good fortune of having the « Lucullus * extant which Plutarch mentions (Lucull. 42). Besides Varro, Cicero was the othen principal speaker defending the New Academy : and Atticus was introduced as a third.1 Cicero says he introduced Atticus « with the greatest pleasure ' (afffifvairaTa, 635. 1 i cp. 628. 3). This edition, in four books, with Varro as the principal character, is known as the Academica Posteriora ; and we have still extant portion of the first booki of it. Yet immediately after this re -arrangement of speakers, on June 26 Cicero wasi still beset with misgiving as to the advisability of dedicating the treatise to VarrOI (628. 3). But he did not give up the idea, and on June 30 sent the work to Rome to bej copied out on fine large paper (macrocolla) for Varro (632. 4 ; 642. 3). Varro was not a genial man, and Cicero did not welcome a visit Varro paid him on July 9 (636. 1) at Tusculum, turning up like the lupus in fabula, just as the company were talking on him (or does loqucbamur mean * you and I have been talking so much about himJ recently ' ?) The final corrections were being made in the work on July 10 (637. 2)3 and about July 12 Cicero's letter (641), which was to be sent with the work to VarroJ was composed with scrupulous care, ' syllable by syllable,' as he says himself (642. 3).l Cicero thought a great deal both of the book (627. 1 ; 630 [18]; 631. 3, 5) and of the letter (642. 3) ; but still he was for a considerable time in no little uncertainty as] to how the austere and cross-grained Varro would receive the book. Atticus did] not seem to be quite certain as to the ground of Cicero's hesitation, and asks him! f he feared that people would regard him as a 'tuft-hunter' (0tA.ej/5o£oj, 631. 3: cp. 640. 2) if he were to dedicate a work to such a great man as Varro without having I first received a dedication from him. Cicero says that was not the case (631. 3). The! real reason is that stated in 642. 3 (cp. 640. 2). Varro he fears may grumble that] hw own part was not so ably put as Cicero's ; and so Cicero laid the final responsibility I of the presentation to Varro on Atticus (642. 3 : cp. 640. 2 ; 643. 2). He could always I (he said) fall back on the intermediate edition of the work which introduced Brutus i Cato (642. 3). But about July 20 the work was at last presented to Varro. We iave no definite indication how he received it, but probably with satisfaction, as he edicated later a portion of his De Lingua Latina to Cicero (Gell. xvi. 8. 6). Cass. xliii. 45. 3).

CICERO'S CASE AGAINST CAESAR. xxi

I of Quirinus, near the house of Atticus, on the Quirinal Hill, a& |well as another in the Capitol among those of the kings.

' I see,' Cicero writes, on May 17, 45, ' that your house will rise in value now that you have Caesar for a neighbour. Well, I would rather see him share the honours of Quirinus than be enshrined with Sains in the same Hill,' that is (Cicero means), < 1 should not care to see him in Safety ; I should rather see him in the situation of Romulus, who was torn to pieces just before he was acknowledged as a god.' ( Hipp. 594, 595. )

We have here a sentiment which goes far to prepare us for Cicero's I exultation over the death of Caesar, and his expressed regret that [he was not an active participator in the deed.1 A little more than

a week after, May 25, writing to Atticus concerning a projected ! letter of political counsel to Caesar, like the erv/ufiov Actmica of

Aristotle and Theopompus to Alexander, he says :

* Yes, I always was for submitting the letter to those friends of yours and his, Hirtius, Oppius, and Halbus. I am glad they did not conceal their real opinion, and gladder still that they suggest so many changes as to give me a good reason for dropping the whole thing. Although as regards the Parthian war, what view should 1 have taken except that which I thought he wished? What, indeed, was the tenor of the whole letter but kotowing (woAa/ce/a) ? If I advised him what I really thought he should do, should I have lacked words ? The whole thing was uncalled for. When I cannot make a coup (CTT IT 61/7^0), and a coup manque (a7roT€u7Aia) would be painful, what is the use of putting it to the hazard (TrapaKivtivveveiv} ? Besides, he might suppose that I had waited till the war was completely over before writing, or might even think I wanted to gild the pill of my Cato ' (quasi Catonis ^i\iyna esse, 603. I).2

1 Cp. Fam. xii. 4. 1 (818). Vellem Idibus Martiis me ad eenam invitasses : reliqui- arum nihil fuisset.

2 The first notice we have of Cicero's intention to write this letter is on May 9 (584. 2). Cicero says he has beside him the letters addressed by Aristotle and Theopompus to Alexander, but that the circumstances in their case and in his are not similar, and accordingly he does not know what to say. " What they wrote was honourable to themselves and pleasing to Alexander. Can you think of anything of the kind in my case ? " However, he took the matter in hand and had the letter completed by May 13 (591. 2). If we accept the reading of lenson's edition in 597. 2 Epistulam ad Caesar em (Ciceronem codd.) tibi misi, the letter was sent on the 19th. It really looks as if we should accept this reading : for otherwise, though Cicero was writing to Atticus every day, we should have no express mention of his having sent