Shakazahn Preparations for the Consulship, B. Greek and Roman Materials. You are seeking the consulship, an office of which no one thinks you unworthy, but of which there are many who will be jealous. It is a point in your favour that you should be thought worthy of this position and rank by the very men to whose position and rank you are wishing to attain. Let them know that they are watched and scrutinized by you: Consider what the state is: They are well known—read them commenatriolum and again yourself. The essay does not provide any information that a man of politics such as Cicero would not already know, and is written in a highly rhetorical fashion.
|Published (Last):||4 October 2005|
|PDF File Size:||20.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You are on page 1of 40 Search inside document This book made available by the Internet Archive. XIII, pp. Its authenticity had already been called into question on quite inadequate evidence by A. Eussner in a Wiirzburg Program of , while Mommsen in the third volume of his Sfaatsrecht of the year p.
I of his edition of the letters. XXV, p. XXVI, p. Most recently Dr. GeselUchaft d. Wissenschaften Serichte d, freien deutschcn Hockstiftes zu Frankfurt zu Gdttinrjen, phil.
I am indebted to Dr. Ziehen himself for hat seine Vertheidigung gefahrt ohne, wie mir scheint, den a copy of his valuable paper, with the general tendency Kern der Sache zu treffen. The considerations advanced by Wolf, and especially by his German and Dutch emulators, against any of these orations were never more than of a most general character — suspicions of the presence of bombast, declamatory rhetoric, and the magister umbraticus.
Of definite relations to other works of literature, which would reveal the pillager, examples were not shown. Now in regard to the Commentariolum I would carefully eliminate so far as possible all considerations of a vague or general character, and so throw over voluntarily much, or rather most, that Eussner advanced.
I would let the question rest upon a comparison of resemblances with literature of a time subsequent to the date at which the treatise purports to have been written, that is, subsequent to the middle of the year 64, the earliest date which can be assigned to it, if genuine.
Confirmation of this result I shall then endeavor to point out from a study of the rhetorical form and style of the treatise. Although all scholars who have discussed this question concede the relationship of certain passages of the Commentariolum to the oration in Toga Candida delivered just before the consular election of 64 , and assume that Marcus Cicero borrowed from the recent campaign document of Quintus, yet I will reproduce them here for the sake of affording a complete list of the most essential parallels.
Of Antonius we read. And in a fragment of the oration in Tog. Concerning the death of M. Marius at the hands of Catiline, Com. Murium, inspectante populo Romano secuerit, inspectante populo collum secuit hominis maxime pojiularis, quanti faceret ostendit: and ibid. In Tog. It is, I suppose, the cautious phraseology etiam si aliis culpa non esset which Bticheler means that Marcus found worth reproducing with etiam cum si culpa nulla subesset.
As for the rest, Cicero had already used a similar phrase of Verres I, 62 : ecquo in oppido pedem posuit ubi non plura [stuprorum flagitiorumque suorum] adventus sui vestigia reliquerit?
It is perhaps worth noting, but scarcely of any significance for our question, that these four passages of most striking resemblance between the Commentariolum and the oration in Toga Candida occur in the same sequence in both works. Concerning this last example a significant point has been overlooked.
In the Commentariolum the metaphor is launched abruptly, in trivial antithesis to iino suffragio, with rather frigid effect; in the fragment of the in Toga Candida the whole phrase duas in rem publicam sicas distringere is the natural outgrowth of and antithesis to the preceding metaphor Hispaniensi pugiunculo nervos incidere.
That is, once given this metaphor, the second is an outgrowth of the historical relationships, and not a random shot of rhetorical pyrotechnics as in the Commentariolum. But it will hardly be questioned, I imagine, that looked at per se, the place where the metaphor is most natural and in most organic relation to the context is most likely to be the original place of its occurrence.
Some of the most essential parallels were pointed out by Eussner, along with many examples of very doubtful character, which only served to cast discredit upon his method. That there is in them such closeness of resemblance as would point decisively to a relationship between the two documents has been denied by Tyrrell and Schanz.
Leo, however, recognizes them along with the passages of the oration in Toga Candida as genuine reminiscences from the work of Quintus. Pro Murena, petitorem ego, praesertim consu- latus, magna spe magno animo magnis copiis et in forum et in campum deduci volo [Com.
In Com. The admonition concludes with a qualification as follows: atque haec ita nolo te illis proponere ut videare accusationem iam meditari, sed ut hoc terrore facilius hoc ipsum quod agis consequare. The words are not likely to strike one as obscure; but it is nevertheless not easy to see why Cicero is advised to show his teeth and yet not seem to be on the ut point of bringing them together.
It is rather a subtle balance which the words with some ineptitude enjoin. Indictments of candidates by each other during the petitio on charges of bribery were not unusual, and in this very canvass of 64, had not the tribune of the people, Q. Mucins Orestinus, intervened to prevent the passage of a lex ambitus aucta etiam cum poena Asconius in the argument of the oration in Tog. As it was, Cicero used the opportunity of a protest against the intercessio of Orestinus to deliver himself of an invective against his competitors which could not have differed greatly in moral significance from an accusatio.
But for some reason, the author of the Commentariolum admonishes, Cicero must not seem accusationem iam meditari. The explanation of this statement is afforded by pro Murena, 43 ff. The question at issue here among the critics is whether ne shall be kept or omitted. Those who look upon the text as sound e. Bllcheler combats this interpretation vigorously, and with Palermus and Gulielmius thinks that ne is inappropriate. He sees in it a corruption of nova, and would read accordingly id si qua possit nova competitoribus existat infamia.
The presence of the admonition here is closely connected with the position which these words occupy as the conclusion of the partitio outlined in 41 — speciem in publico. We have already seen that Cicero tells Sulpicius that he revealed his ignorance of the art of campaigning by prosecuting a competitor in the course of his canvass. People demand, he says 44 , of their candidate an appearance of confidence, a brilliant display of resources, etc.
In the light of this description it becomes clear why the author of the Commentariolum urges in this connection: id si qua possit possisf ne competitoribus tuis existat infamia. I pointed out the verbal resemblance in my former article, though at that time I did not discern the eOn the reading for epem in republica of the MSS. In his own case, he continues, presence had been of advantage, but only by diligent effort had he overcome its disadvantages: mihi quideni vchementer expediit positam in oculis esse gratiam; sed tamen ego mei satietatem magno meo labore superavi.
With unmistakable reminiscence of the same phraseology, the author of the Commentariolum says under the caption assiduitas 43 : prodest quidem vehementer nusquam discedere; sed tamen hie fructus est assiduitatis, non solum esse Romae otque inforo, sed assidue petere, etc.
The author has generalized for the purpose of his argument the exception which Cicero makes in his own case mihi quideni. The adversative idea introduced by sed tamen, which is perfectly clear in the light of the pro Murena, has caused difficulty, and was transposed by Eussner to the end of the section after rogatum.
The resemblances of the Commentariolum to the long first letter of Marcus ad Quintum fratrem are of a somewhat different character from those thus far considered. For it is obvious that the totally different subject-matter would not afford to the author precepts de petitione consulatus. The resemblance is generic rather than specific.
But in any theory of the spuriousness of the Commentariolum it must be the most natural hypothesis to assume that the letter of Marcus furnished the later rhetorician or rhetorical student with the suggestion of an epistolary suasoria of similar kind.
No one can read the two works side by side without feeling a certain relationship between them, and yet in the matter of detailed resemblances there is nothing of a decisive character which can be adduced.
In making this statement I should fear that I might seem merely to reflect the impression of a prejudiced mind if I could not appeal to the words of Bucheler on this point, written before the question of authenticity had been raised p.
Ciceronis de pet. And a little further on: neque ego nunc hoc contendo animum iwrpetua ilia de hoc genere disputatio, quibus rebus benivolus et simulator diiudicaripossit; tanium est huius temporis admonere. Compare Com. After pointing out that the term amicus is of wider application in the petitio than in the rest of life, he says we must nevertheless remember that the friendships which depend upon natural ties of blood and affinity, or any relationship, are of first importance.
The situation, it will be seen, is analogous to that Bet forth in the passage of the oration pro Caelio, cited above. The concluding words of both passages are here set side by side. Pro Cael. The similarity of the two passages in relation to the general argument of both works, the identity in thought, and such verbal resemblances as famam, forensis, dimanavit [emanat , lead me to believe that we have here a genuine reminiscence of Cicero.
I revert to them again for the sake of making my list of significant resemblances complete, and to add a further consideration which was overlooked before. Horace, Serm. That esse magni consilii atque artis is the essential equivalent of bene 8Tho resemblances between Com.
Ill, 60; 42,1 have not repeated from my former article, because the IV, I suspect that I would add here another parallel to which, however, the oration in Torja Cand. With this compare de Or. Cicero has many quotiensenijndicim. Cicero sa7ius ac non inccmtus may perhaps appear more plainly from the Horatian designation of the names which malice gives to discretion [ibid.
But it is not only the fact of parallelism which leads me to think that this is a conscious reminiscence of Horace:.
COMMENTARIOLUM PETITIONIS PDF
Scarica in PDF - Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia