Notes on Cicero's Four Post Reditum Orations Author(s): Tadeusz Maslowski Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol.

101, No. 4 (Winter, 1980), pp. 404-420 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293666 . Accessed: 18/10/2013 06:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES ON CICERO'S FOUR POST REDITUM ORATIONS* The text of Cicero's four Post Reditum orations, the Post Reditum in Senatu (Cum Senatui Gratias Egit), Post Reditum ad Quirites (Cum Populo Gratias Egit), De Domo Sua, De Haruspicum Responsis, continues to fluctuate and its difficulties at times present a serious challenge to the editor. In this paper I submit for consideration a discussion of some textual problems of the orations which confronted me in the course of preparing a new Teubner edition. I preface my remarks with a brief survey of the manuscripts.' The main tradition of the orations is contained in four manuscripts which derive from a common ancestor (A). These are Paris, B.N., MS lat. 7794 (P), s. ix"med,Brussels, Bibl. Royale, MS lat. 5345 (G), s. xi', and its sister copy Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibl., MS lat. fol. 252 (E), s. xiil, and London, British Library, MS Harley 4927 (H), s. xii'. The manuscripts, therefore, form three independent lines of transmission from the archetype. Since in E the greater part of Red. Quir. (from 6 movere to the end) and the whole of Dom. is no longer extant, to stabilize the evidence of G, some benefit is derived from Erlangen, Universitatsbibl., MS lat. 847 (e), a. 1466, and its sister copy Vatican, MS Palat. lat. 1525 (V), a. 1467, for Red. Quir., and from V and Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur., MS Laur. xlviii. 8 (M), s. xv, for Dom. To these I have added Troyes, Bibl. Municipale 552 (T), s. xiv, which is of use for Red. Quir. All manuscripts whose ultimate source is (A) may be conveniently referred to as the Paris family. For the text of Red. Sen., important evidence is derived from the z-family which, I believe, constitutes another edition of the oration published in antiquity. This family consists of the
* I am grateful to Professors D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Georg Luck and Wendell Clausen for their help. For evidence of this presentation see M. T. Ciceronis Scripta quae manserunt omnia, Fasc. 21, ed. T. Maslowski (Lepizig. Forthcoming), "Praefatio."
American Journal of Philology Vol. 101 Pp, 404-420 0002-9475/80/1014-0404 $01.00 ? 1980 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

405

variant readings entered into the text of the oration by the twelfth-century corrector of E, termed E2, the two fifteenthcentury witnesses eV and a manuscript owned by P. Pithou (1539-96), no longer extant, the readings of which (F) appear in the margin of Pithou's copy of Lambinus' edition of Cicero's speeches, Strasbourg 1581. A new important witness to the z-family is the excerpts from the oration in Paris, B.N., MS lat. 18104 (X), s. xii-xiii.2 The z-family preserved a substantial number of readings which are indispensable for the constitution of the text. Two major problems arise in handling the available manuscript evidence: 1. the authenticity of H for all orations, 2. the authenticity of the z-family for Red. Sen. Editors of the standard editions of the orations are divided precisely on those two points. Thus Peterson (O.C.T.),3 while showing a fair amount of trust in H, was inclined to disregard as much as possible the testimony of the z-family. Klotz (Teubner),4 while totally devoted to the z-family, was adamantly opposed to H (he did not see it). Wuilleumier and Tupet (Budd),5 while recognizing the merits of the z-family, adopted practically all characteristic features of H. My own position on the two questions is, first, a good amount of respect for the z-family, in which I am influenced to some extent by the discovery of X, and, second, a great deal of scepticism regarding the testimony of H. With this clarification at our disposal, I propose to discuss the following textual difficulties.
2 Some excerpts X have already been published. See. T. Maslowski and R. H. Rouse, "Twelfth-Century Extracts from Cicero's Pro Archia and Pro Cluentio in Paris, B.N., MS lat. 18104," Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 22 (1979) 97-122. The excerpts X from Red. Sen. have been partly dealt with in the "Praefatio" of my edition. They have also been included in a study of the manuscript tradition of all Cicero's post-exile orations, soon to be completed (coauthor R. H. Rouse). 3 M. T. Ciceronis Orationes: Cum sen. gr. egit, Cum pop. gr. egit, De domo sua, De har. resp., al., ed. G. Peterson (Oxford 1911). 4 M. T. Ciceronis Scripta quae manserunt omnia 7: Orationes: Cum sen. gr. egit, Cum pop. gr. egit, De domo sua, De har. resp., al., ed. A. Klotz (Lepizig 1919). 5 Ciceron, Discours 13: Au sMnat, Au peuple, Sur sa maison, ed. and tr. P. Wuilleumier, Collection Bude (Paris 1952); Cicdron, Discours 13.2: Sur la reponse des haruspices, ed. and tr. P. Wuilleumier and A.-M. Tupet, Collection Bude (Paris 1966).

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

406

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI POST REDITUM IN SENATU

3 potestas facta non est eVF: potestas non est P1GEH1: potestas non est permissa H2P3. After Peterson, Wuilleumier once more adopted the reading of H2P3. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with potestatem permittere for which thirteen examples of its use can be found in Cicero's orations.6 But the same can be said ofpotestatem facere which enjoys the support of twenty-seven other examples.7 Thus all things being equal, the choice between the two readings depends on the value one attaches to the manuscripts which transmit them. There is nothing in H2 to warrant trust in potestatem permittere. Its only contribution to the text is Dom. 77 quis me H2: qui me PGHIMV which, incidentally, escaped the notice of all editors, and Dom. 85 quis in H2: qui in PGH'MV. For the rest H2 offers nothing but conjecture. So unless some other evidence is produced, the testimony of the z-family must stand as genuine. reposcebat. According to Cicero's usage8 both reposco aliquem aliquid, e.g. Verr. 4, 113 ut eum (Verrem) simulacrum Cereris et Victoriae reposcerent, and reposco aliquid ab aliquo, e.g. Verr. 3,1 qui ab altero rationem vitae reposcunt, are acceptable. The manuscripts in Red. Sen. are divided as follows: a P2GEHXeV: om. P'. Editors, too, vacillate between the two readings without being able to justify their choice. Yet the dilemma is not insoluble. The testimony of P1, on which Klotz, Wuilleumier, and Kasten9 rely, is in this case not at all trustworthy. P (= P') is notorious for omitting single letters, and the disappearance of the preposition a falls into this category of its errors. Just as here, it is left out in Red. Sen. 29 a 10 alter a me Catilinam ...

6 See H. Merguet, Lexikon zu den Reden des Cicero, 4 vols. (Jena 1877-84) 3, s.v. permitto. 7 See Merguet, Lexikon 2, s.v. facio. 8 See Merguet, Lexikon 4, s.v. reposco; cf. R. Kuhner and C. Stegmann, Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre, 2 vols. (Hannover 1966) 2.1, 300. Henceforward referred to as K.-S. 9 Cicero, Staatsreden 2, ed. and tr. H. Kasten (Berlin 1969). Henceforward this edition is quoted without further reference.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

407

superioribus tribunis; Dom. 1 a maioribus nostris, 29 a quo, 97 a tot; Har. Resp. 42 a Catilina, 43 a gravitate, 50 a vobis. There is hardly any doubt that the evidence of P2GEHXeV should be given preference. 12 in contionem escendit P: in contionem ascendit (ascedit H1) GEH2eV. Klotz in his apparatus insists on ascendit. But it is by no means certain whether this is the better form,10 and therefore the reading of P should be retained. 12 inrisit (Gabinius) squalorem vestrum et luctum gratissimae civitatis fecitque quod nemo umquam tyrannus, ut quo minus occulte vestrum malum gemeretis nihil in (ter)cederet, ne aperte incommoda patriae lugeretis ediceret. in(ter)cederet is my adaptation of Madvig's emendationT' for the manuscripts reading indiceret eV : diceret PGEH. Busche's in(ter)diceret12 (cf. Har. Resp. 11 interdiceretur P2GEH: indiceretur P1) and Mueller's (not Klotz's, as Wuilleumier would have it in his apparatus) impediret'3 have the same force. I opt, however, for in(ter)cederet because the verb, alluding as it does to a magistrate's right of intercessio, offers an excellent counterpart to ediceret. The manuscripts'

10See Thes. L.L. 5.2, 857,24. Cf. also M. T. Ciceronis In Lucium Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio, ed. R. G. M. Nisbet (Oxford 1961) 125 (ad 61). 11See J. N. Madvig, Adversaria Critica, 3 vols. (Copenhagen 1871-84), 2,212. Madvig read: . . . fecitque ... ut quo minus occulte vestrum malum gemeretis nihil (se intercedere e)diceret. [ne . . . ediceret]. For the omission of ne . . . ediceret he relied on P1, unmoved by the evidence of P2 and the remaining manuscripts which contain the words. The view that the supplements of P2 were spurious was put forward by C. Halm in "Interpolationen in Ciceronischen Reden aus dem Codex Parisinus Nro. 7794 nachgewiesen," RhM 9 (1854) 321-50. At the time Madvig proposed his emendation he must have depended on Halm's assessment of the manuscripts (see Madvig's Opuscula Academica (Copenhagen 1887) 338-40. This edition of the Opuscula is not to be confused with the one of Copenhagen 1834, 1, 411-38). P2 is now acknowledged as a reliable witness (see e.g. the "Praefatio" to my edition). 12 K. Busche, BPhW 37 (1917) 1356-57. 13 M. T. Ciceronis Scripta quae manserunt omnia 2.2, ed. C. F. W. Mueller (Leipzig 1896) cxv.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

408

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

indiceret and diceret, although grammatically not impossible,14 are inappropriate for this context. Apart from this corruption the text seems genuine. The antithesis occulte-aperte, spurned by Madvig (see n. 11), looks authentic in the light of such references to the incident as Planc. 87 edictoque suo non luctum patribus conscriptis, sed indicia luctus ademerint (Piso and Gabinius) and Pis. 18 maerorem relinquis (Piso), maeroris aufers insignia. More problematic is the interpretation of the passage. But if Gabinius' inrisio is still kept in mind when reading ut ... nihil in (ter)cederet, then the whole is meaningful: . . .: he did not interfere with your lamenting your calamity in private (inrisio, because Gabinius had no control over this in the first place),15 but he published an edict forbidding you to bewail the misfortunes of your country in public (cruelty16)". Thus Gabinius' action is represented as cruel mockery. Klotz17 achieved the same effect, but at the expense of clarity and with an additional adjustment of the manuscripts reading: .. .fecitque ... .lt quominus occulte vestrum malum gemeretis, nihil (inpedire) [diceret], ne aperte incommoda patriae lugeretis ediceret-- '. .: he proclaimed that nothing stood in your way to keep you from lamenting your calamity in private, on condition that you do not bewail the misfortunes of your country in public." On this interpretation ne is to be
14With regard to indiceret, it should be pointed out that Cicero uses the quo minus clauses after a variety of negative expressions, e.g. Dom. 82 nihil de me tulisti quo minus essem ... in civium numero; Har. Resp. 27 nihil te ... permovit quo minus ... pollueres. As for diceret, a parallel may be quoted from Fin. 3,38 quid autem dici poterit . . . quo minus homines . . . nullo dedecore se abstineant (cf. K.-S. 2.2, 260). What, therefore, Wolf said of the "forger" of the oration: "adeo nemo videre potuit verba nihil diceret apud hunc scriptorem (the "forger") valere non prohiberet, indocte concinnitatis causa," is grammatically at least possible also for Cicero (see M. T. Ciceronis Orationes quatuor: Post. red. in sen., Ad Quir. post red., Pro domo sua ad pontif., De har. resp., ed. F. A. Wolf (Berlin 1801). Wolf thought the four Post Reditum orations were not Cicero's). 15 This is also how Madvig, Adversaria 2, 212, understands the clause: "in hoc ipso irrisio erat, quod Gabinius id negabat se vetare, quod vetari non poterat." 16 For this sense of tyrannus see J. P. Krebs (and J. H. Schmalz), Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache, 2 vols. (Basel 19057) 2, s.v. tyrannis etc. 17 A. Klotz, "Zur Kritik einiger ciceronischer Reden II (Cum sen. gr. egit, Cum pop. gr. egit, De domo)," RhM 68 (1913) 498-99.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

409

taken as introducing what Bennett termed the stipulative subjunctive.18 17 Capuaene te putabas, in qua urbe domicilium quondam superbiae fuit, consulem esse. Klotz, believing that eV read consulem te esse, devoted much space to the discussion of this sentence.19 The repetition of te, apparently caused by the interruption of the main thought by the intervening clause, would be a mark of popular speech.20 Accordingly, in his apparatus he suggested te esse e fort. recte. But there is no redundancy here. Klotz did not know that the reason for consulem te esse in eV is their omission of the first te. Thus the second te is the only subject accusative they have. 17 te semper PGEH :semper te eV : te Schol. Bob. Since the Scholiasta Bobiensis omits semper, Klotz feels the issue here is between the Paris family and the z-family, and rather arbitrarily gives sanction to semper te.21 It should be pointed out, however, that, all merits of the z-family aside, eV are not reliable so far as the word order is concerned. And simply because the reading of EV is not inferior to that of the Paris family ("zum mindestens nicht schlechter ist") creates no criterion for judgment. Interestingly, in the same paragraph against tuam praedam PGEH one finds praedam tuam eV. Such examples could be multiplied. Again, to follow this line of argument, we can easily do without Red. Sen. 19 bonis metum E2eVF, which Klotz vigorously defended,22 as opposed to metum bonis PGH (Klotz thought PGH read cum instead of metum) : cum bonis E1. 25 cuius quondam de patria discessus honestus omnibus sane, luctuosus tamen visus est. This is essentially the reading of the Paris family, its indi18 See C. E. Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin 1 (Boston 1910) 263-67.

19A. Klotz, "Zur Kritik II," 501. This is true of e.g. Plane. 86 ego vero fateor me, quod viderim mihi auxilium non deesse, idcirco me illi auxilio pepercisse. Cf. also Clu. 66; Verr. 5,73; Phil. 3,7. 21 Klotz, "Zur Kritik II," 501. 22 Klotz, "Zur Kritik II," 486.
20

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

vidual members differing as follows: honestus E1 : honestis PGE I sane GE : ne P': in P2 : om. H I tamen Halm: tandem PGE'H. The z-family transmitted: cuius quondam de patria discessus molestus omnibus, ipsi ne luctuosus quidem est visus, but E2 did not change visus est of El. The two versions have been exhaustively discussed by Klotz who greatly favored the z-family.23 Yet Klotz either misunderstood or underestimated the objections of Madvig:24 "molestus omnibus, ipsi ne luctuosus quidem visus est, ridicule interpolatum est, quasi minus sit luctuosus quam molestus." Herein lies the difficulty with E2eVF. One would expect a weaker expression with ne ... quidem to satisfy the logic of the sentence. "Metellus' departure from his country was irksome to the community, though to himself not even disastrous" makes little sense. "Id quod contra esse ne pueri quidem nesciunt," was already Wolfs comment.25 Recently Courtney26 once more discussed the passage, pointing out that even the examples Klotz adduced27 in support of the z-family show little appreciation of the difficulties involved. Despite all this, Kasten still follows the z-family. My own decision to favor the Paris family rests to some extent on a study of similar examples in which words with ne . . . quidem strike a proper balance with the corresponding expressions; e.g. Verr. 5,166 apud te praetorem si non effugium, ne moram quidem mortis . . adsequi potuit; Clu. 185 de furto si non eo loco quo debuit, ne in extrema quidem alut media aut aliqua denique parte quaestionis verbum fecit ullum?; Prov. Cons. 39 per quem ordinem ipse amplissimam sit gloriam consecutus, ei ne libertatem quidem relinquat (cf. also Caecin. 58; Mil. 99). As for the choice of individual words in the proposed version, although omnibus may evoke an objection on the ground that Metellus Numidicus' self-exile could win favorable recognition only on the part of the boni (hence omnibus (bonis)
Klotz, "Zur Kritik II," 486-88. Madvig, Adversaria 2, 213. 25 Cicero, Orationes, ed. Wolf. 26 E. Courtney, "Notes on Ciceronian Manuscripts and Textual Criticism," Univ. of London. Institute of Class. St. 10 (1963) 15. 27 Cicero, Scripta 7, ed. Klotz, xxx.
23 24

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

411

Halm28), it is hardly necessary to point out that Cicero may have exaggerated here. Besides, there exists no paleographical inducement to insert boni, and omnibus alone can easily withstand criticism (cf. also the z-family). With regard to sane, Courtney may be right that it is genuine.29 36 cuius ipsam calamitatem non modo nullius delicti, sed etiam duorum in rem publicam beneficiorum testem esse videatis? nam et importata est quia defenderam civitatem, et mea voluntate suscepta est, ne ... res publica ... extremum in discrimen vocaretur. Nothing can be added to what Klotz30 said about the merits of this rendition attested to by the z-family, its controversial elements being duorum E2eVF: divinorum PGE1H and nam et E2EV:nam PGE1H. Clearly if we follow the z-family, Cicero's exile (calamitas) is the result not of any wrong-doing on his part, but quite the contrary, of two benefits he bestowed on the state: 1. his suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy (quia defenderam civitatem) and 2. his subsequent avoidance of armed conflict and withdrawal from Rome whereby the state has been saved by him for the second time (ne a me defensa res publica per eundem me extremum in discrimen vocaretur). Thus duorum finds full confirmation in et . . . et. If we choose the rendition of the Paris family as Kasten has done, then obviously divinorum does not require the enumeration through et . . . et. This deserves mention in view of Wuilleumier's cross-breeding of the two families, whereby divinorum of the Paris family is followed by et ... et of the z-family.
POST REDITUM AD QUIRITES

12 *** noctemque Klotz : noctemque PGTeV : noctem H.

M. T. Ciceronis Opera quae supersunt omrnia 2.2, ed. I. C. Orelli, I. G. Baiter, C. Halm (Zurich 1856). 29 Shackleton Bailey suggested to me a more elegant solution: "With the Paris reading cuius . . . visus est seems to me to lack point. The z reading is clearly impossible as it stands, but I suspect that molestus and luctuosus should change places." 30 Klotz, "Zur Kritik II," 489-90.
28

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412

7ADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

This is a good example illustrating the unreliability of H. All manuscripts transmit the following: atque eo die confecta res esset, nisi is tribunus plebis quem ego maximis beneficiis quaestorem consul ornaram, cum et cunctus ordo et multi eum summi viri orarent et Cn. Oppius socer, optimus vir, ad pedes flens iaceret, noctemque sibi ad deliberandum postulasset. H, however, perceiving some difficulty, renders the text more '"readable" by changing noctemque to noctem and transposing the whole last part of the sentence noctem . . . postulasset immediately after ornaram. Clearly no authority should be attached to H's noctem, which is the result of the transposition, and Klotz's indication of a lacuna before noctemque need not be questioned. Nevertheless Wuilleumier, as other editors before Klotz, reverted to the reading of H.31 13 cum omnium provinciarum pactiones, cum omnia cum omnibus foedera (in) reconciliatione gratiarum sanguine meo sancirentur. Instead of (in) reconciliatione which seems to me a likely conjecture, the manuscripts read: reconciliatione PGTeV: reconciliationes H. This has been variously emended. The reading of H, however, appears to be a correction influenced by pactiones andfoedera, with the effect that those three nouns now function as subjects of sancirentur. Such being the case, the emendations based on H, e.g. (ac) reconciliationes R. Klotz,32 Madvig,33 reconciliationes (que) Koch,34 should be rejected. Much better is Mommsen's35 foedera (de) reconciliatione, inasmuch as it preserves the reading of the more reliable witnesses and, at the same time, offers an explanation for the disappearance of the preposition, i.e. foe-de-ra de. However, another possibility is that Cicero did not speak here of "agreements about reconciliation" at all, but indicated the
31 In his apparatus Wuilleumier ascribes noctem to the recentiores. This is negligence. H was of course the source for many of them (see Cicero, Orationes, ed. Peterson, x-xii; M. T. Ciceronis Oratio cum sen. gr. egit, ed. I. Guillen [Florence 1967] 28). 32 M. T. Ciceronis Scripta quae manserunt omnia 2.2, ed. R. Klotz (Leipzig 18662). 33 Madvig, Adversaria 3, 138. 34 H. A. Koch, Conjectanea Tulliana (Naumburg 1868) 12. 35 See Cicero, Opera 2.2, ed. Orelli, Baiter, Halm.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

413

circumstance in which pactiones andfoedera were forged. Accordingly, not de but in is the missing preposition, which in the combination FOEDERA IN could have easily been dropped. Cf. Pis. 28 tu scilicet homo religiosus et sanctus foedus quod meo sanguine in pactione provinciarum iceras frangere noluisti. 19 id et manet et permanebit G2 : ideo manet et permanebit PG1TeV: id mihi manet et permanebit H: id manet et permanebit g Klotz. A number of emendations have been proposed for the untenable ideo, each of them having its distinct merits; e.g. Kasten, taking a hint from H, writes id ei, Halm36id vero, Sydow37 id (est) et, thereby balancing the force of the three preceding verbs eripuit, abstulit, dissipavit, Busche38 adeo. Nevertheless the simplest and quite Ciceronian39 is the correction of G2. 20 ille qua re plurimum potuit ea ipsa re inimicos suos ultus est, armis, ego qua consuevi utar, (verbis). The manuscripts here are deficient, PGTeV reporting utar alone; H, having caught the omission, offers a conjecture pietate utar. But a number of the recentiores, codd. S. Marci 255, Paris. 7779, Oxon. Canonicianus 226, no doubt influenced by the position of armis, improved the idea of H by inverting the word order, utar pietate. It is also clear that of the numerous guesses regarding the supplement itself, e.g. arte, facultate, lenitate, vi and venia, Peterson's oratione and Sydow's verbis40 (cf. Phil. 5,26 non est verbis rogandus, cogendus est armis; Phil. 8,14 senatus haec verbis, Opimius armis) are the only ones which should be taken seriously. Furthermore I prefer Sydow's verbis because of its resemblance, when executed in the capitals, to utar.
36 See Cicero, Opera 2.2, ed. Orelli, Baiter, Halm. 37 R. Sydow, "Kritische Beitrage zu Ciceros vier Reden nach seiner Rueckkehr," RhM 90 (1941) 172. 38 Busche, BPhW, 1357. 39 For examples see Merguet, Lexikon 2, 233, s.v. et; K.-S. 2.2, 34; cf. also P. Parzinger, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Entwicklung des ciceronischen Stils (Landshut 1910) 26-37. 40 R. Sydow, "Kritische Beitrage zu Ciceros Reden," Philologus 92 (1937) 227.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

414

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

Finally, although Sydow feels that the word could have fallen out more easily after consue-vi, it seems that since both places could accommodate the loss (e.g. as a repetition of utar), the overriding principle should be the more emphatic position of the word after utar. 23 postremo qui in ulciscendo remissior fuit bono rumore certe utitur. Instead of bono rumore etc. the manuscripts record in eorum (meorum eV) aperte (apperte P1) utitur (-etur T) PGTeV: in os (mox most s) aperte laudatur H. Problems of Red. Quir. 23 have been discussed by Courtney41 with whom I am essentially in agreement. With regard to the error of the manuscripts quoted here, however, I prefer to follow Jeep who proposed in eo rumore certe utitur.42 That the context requires an expression of praise has been recognized by H, and is indeed confirmed by what follows: at gravissime vituperatur . . . Nevertheless Jeep was rightly criticized already by Koch43 for the absolute use of rumor, because of its vagueness. Thereupon Sydow, assuming that a line of the archetype had perished, offered in eo rum (or populi summis laudibus) aperte utitur.44 But perhaps it is better to assume with Wuilleumier that the corruption is to be looked for in in eo- which he emended to secundo. My solution is a compromise based on paleographical considerations. The bono is a more suitable substitute for in eo-, and in order to fit in rumore I agree with Jeep on certe. For the expression bono rumore, see Leg. 1,50 innocentes ergo et verecundi sunt, ut bene audiant, et ut rumorem bonum colligant, erubescunt.

DE DOMO SUA

5 in senatum venire in Capitolium PGMV: in senatum venire in Capitolium intrare H.

41

Courtney, "Notes," 14-15. See M. T. Ciceronis Opera quae supersunt omnia 4, ed. J. G. Baiter, C. L. Kayser: Orationes 2, ed. C. L. Kayser (Leipzig 1862) xxxvii. 43 Koch, Conjectanea, 12. 44 R. Sydow, "Kritische Beitrage zu Cicero," RhM 92 (1943) 186.
42

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

415

The reading of H has once more reappeared in Wuilleumier's edition. To what extent the editor's decision has been influenced by his false assumption that G also has intrare (see his apparatus) is difficult to say. For the rest, the reading of PGMV is a common construction with verbs of motion: e.g. Verr. 4,61 in Syriam in regnum patrium profecti sunt; Ligar. 27 in Macedoniam ad Cn. Pompei castra venit; Verr. 1,126 domum ad eum venit. H's intrare is superfluous. 8 primum dico senatoris esse boni semper in senatum venire, nec cum iis sentio qui statuunt minus bonis temporibus in senatum (non esse veniendum. qui) ipsi, (cum) non venerint, intellegunt . .. Much guesswork is involved in this reconstruction and perhaps Cicero's actual words will never be recovered. As for the corrupted part, the manuscripts offer the following: qui statuunt ... in senatum ipsi non venirent intellegent P1GMV: qui statuunt ... in senatum ipsi non venire ni intellegent P2: qui statuunt ... in senatum ut ipsi non venirent non intelligentes H Thus it is quite evident that the text of the archetype, however faulty, has undergone gradual transformation, first by p2, then with greater freedom by H. Perhaps the chief feature of the version printed above is the elimination of non before intellegunt. All other editors, except Kasten, believed in its existence, and sought to emend the text accordingly. To Kasten then goes the credit for divining what my examination of the manuscripts has proved to be the case. The supplement non esse veniendum belongs to Halm.45 The interpretation (qui) ipsi, (cum) non venerint, intellegunt, taken as a whole, is mine, but most of its constituant elements have been advanced by others (see below). In effect, Cicero makes the following statement in reply to Clodius' reproach of his presence at the meeting of the senate on 7 or 6 September: "I maintain, in the first place, that it is always the duty of a good senator to attend the senate, nor do I agree with those
45

Cicero, Opera 2.2, ed. Orelli, Baiter, Halm.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

416

7ADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

who hold that under adverse circumstances one must not attend the senate. They themselves (now) realize, since they did not come (on that day), that .. Originally I thought of printing Kasten's rendition qui statuunt . . . in senatum (non esse veniendum); ipsi, (si) non venient,46 intellegent. But, as Shackleton Bailey rightly reminded me, Cicero is not making a general statement here, but rather referring to the particular incident. Shackleton Bailey in turn "suspects that non venirent is really the remains of non esse veniendum and the original was qui statuerunt (?) ... in senatum (non esse veniendum. qui) ipsi [non venirent] intellegunt . . . Other emendations fall into two categories: 1. those which, while following the evidence of P1GMV, suffer from the misunderstanding that intellegent is negated, e.g. qui statuunt . . in senatum (non esse veniendum. qui cum tur in senatum)
ipsi non venerint, non intellegunt Busche;47 qui statuunt . . . in

senatum (non esse veniendum. an cum) ipsi non venerint, non intellegunt Klotz,48 and 2. those which are heavily indebted to H. Here belongs Lange's49 qui statuerunt . . . in senatum ipsi non venire, non intellegentes, open to criticism for the unintelligible ipsi ("they themselves" as opposed to whom?),50 which Peterson adjusted by returning to statuunt (in this way the general nature of the statement is emphasized), and by writing in senatum ipsurn,51 and Wuilleumier's wholesale adoption of the main features of H, qui statuunt ... in senatum ipsi non venire, non intellegentes. Not much better is Sydow's52 compromise version: qui statuunt . . . in senatum (mihi veniendum nonfuisse, cum) ipsi non venirent, non intellegentes. 14 videte nunc fuerintne partes meae paene praecipuae.
For the tense itself cf. K.-S. 2.2, 392. Busche, BPhW.. 1357. 48 Cicero, Scripta 7, ed. Klotz, xiv. 49 L. Lange, Spicilegium criticum in Ciceronis orationem de domo (Leipzig 1881) 15. 50 See C. Rueck, De M. T. Ciceronis oratione de domo sua ad pontifices (Munich 1881) 14; cf. K.-S. 2.1, 628ff. 51 Cf. M. T. Ciceronis De domo sua ad pontifices oratio, ed. R. G. M. Nisbet (Oxford 1937) 73. 52 Sydow, "Kritische Beitrage." Philologus, 227-28.
47 46

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

417

paene in this sentence begs a comment. The manuscripts testify: p(a)ene PGMV: om. H. But even before H came to prominence, Kayser53 and R. Klotz54 expunged the adverb from the text, and others sought to emend it. Thus Lahmeyerss proposed in its place in ea re, on the analogy to Dom. 10 in ea causa, Sydow56 personae. Recently Wuilleumier, fortified by the authority of H returned to the solution of Kayser and R. Klotz. What is the nature of the problem? Lahmeyer speaks of "das storende paene," but Sydow sees the difficulty more clearly: "es widerspricht dem Selbstbewusstsein, mit dem Cicero sonst von seinem Wirken und seinen Erfolgen prahlt." Thereupon after quoting Verr. 1.98 defensorem in mea persona, non accusatorem maxime laudari volo (cf. also Phil. 12,17) he offers his emendation. The point is that videte nunc fuerintne partes meae paene praecipuae goes back to Dom. 10 where Cicero commences the defense of his proposal to put Pompey over corn-supply: sed quaero in ipsa sententia ... quid reprendatur. utrum causa novi consili capiendi non fuit, an meae partes in ea causa non praecipuae fuerunt, an alio potius confugiendum fuit [vis]? Since some editors misunderstood an meae partes in ea causa non praecipuae fuerunt, it is no wonder that paene praecipuae of Dom. 14 makes no sense to them. The misinterpretation can be seen from translations of the relevant text in Dom. 10: "mon r61e en cette affaire n'6tait-il pas primordial?"-Wuilleumier; "was my role upon that occasion not that of a protagonist?"-Watts.57 In other words the
53 Cicero, Opera 4, ed. Baiter, Kayser.

Cicero, Scripta 2.2, ed. R. Klotz. G. Lahmeyer, "Zu Cicero de domo sua," Philologus 22 (1865) 504. 56 Sydow, "Kritische Beitrage," Philologus, 228. 57 Cicero, The Speeches: Pro Archia poeta, Post red. in sen., Post red. ad Quir., De domo sua, al., ed. and tr. N. H. Watts, The Loeb Class. Lib. (Cambridge, Mass.-London 19655). I should warn the reader to keep on guard against this edition. The editor seems to have drawn the text from one source and the translation from another and did not even manage to match the two; e.g. he translates Dom. 14 videte nunc .. .: "consider now whether mine was not the role almost of a protagonist." Here "almost" would correspond to paene, which does not appear in his text. Numerous examples of this kind can be found especially in Red. Sen.
55

54

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

418

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

translation is such as if non negatedfuerunt, whereas in fact it negates praecipuae. 8 This has been well understood by Kasten: "oder hatte ich mich bei dieser Sache nicht vordrangen diirfen." A literal translation would be: "Was my part in this affair not especially mine?" (=not my business), which is picked up in Dom. 14 by "Consider now whether my part was (in fact) somewhat especially mine." (=somewhat my business). 22 et quod eidem (Catoni) in posterum de extraordinariis potestatibus libertatem ademisses (sc. Clodius). I think with the correction by Ursinus (Orsini) of idem co to eidem the text can stand. Most editors, however, feel libertatem must be qualified. The beginnings of this controversy are outlined in Wolfs commentary,59 where Markland is quoted as saying: "Aperta est stribligo, nata ex studio imitandi loci Ciceroniani Pro Sestio 60, unde apparet huius modi esse sententiam: Qui idem (vel eidem) in posterum contra extraordinarias potestates dicendi libertatem ademisses." Heeding Markland's admonition, critics attempted the following solutions: ei dicendi Halm60: dicendi Madvig61: eidem Ursini probato querendi vel dicendi ante libertatem add. Lange,62 linguae Wuilleumier, alii alia. The text as printed above, however, found supporters too. The first to accept it was J. M. Gesner (ap. Wolf): "Vitium unius litterulae adiectione sanari posse, si legamus eidem, qui considerare locum voluerit, facile, spero, concedet." Recently Ernout63 and Simon64 expressed the same opinion. I was unable to find a passage exactly parallel to Dom. 22, but it seems quite clear from Sest. 69 cum consules provinciarum pactione libertatem omnem perdidissent and eos (amicos) voluntatem semper eandem, libertatem non eandem semper habuisse that libertas can mean "freedom of action."
58

59
60 61 62 63 64

For this position and function of non see K.-S. 2.1, 818. Cicero, Orationes, ed. Wolf, 160. See Rueck, De domo, 19. Madvig, Adversaria 2, 216. Lange, Spicilegium, 13. A. Ernout, RPh 28 (1954) 145. J. H. Simon, 'The Bude Cicero," CR 69 (1955) 72.

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CICERO'S POST REDITUM ORATIONS

419

Thus in Dom. 22 Clodius, by sending Cato to Cyprus, deprived him of "freedom of action with regard to extraordinary commissions." 87 ... nihil est iam ad laudem inlustrius .... iam meminisset . . . quis enim

The evidence of the manuscripts, est tam PHV: extat G: tam M, must be taken into account here, and perhaps R. Klotz' conjecture, est iam,65 is the answer despite the immediately following iam meminisset.66 Most editors, however, do not even bother to give the reading of the manuscripts at this point, and when they do, they think the testimony of M supports est; e.g. Wuilleumier: est M : est tam PH: extat G. 132 nemone horum tibi idoneus visus est ... dedicationem communicares? cum quo

Here cum quo Mueller67:cum eo PG: cum eos M : cum in eo V : ut cum eo H merits a brief discussion in view of Wuilleumier's acceptance of the reading of H. But before we do so, it should be pointed out that G2 also made an attempt at correcting the transmitted text by changing communicares to communicare ( no editor has taken notice of this). The use of the infinitive to complete the sense of idoneus is not impossible.68 Nevertheless, since, with the exception of Catullus 68,131 concedere digna and Lucretius 5,123 quae sint indigna videri69 (dignus, indignus fall into the same category of adjectives as idoneus), this construction belongs to the postclassical period and for the most part is confined to poetry, the suggestion of G2 can hardly be given serious consideration. Besides, its arbitrary nature is revealed by the other elements of the sentence. This is not the case with the reading of H. In fact nothing has to be changed if ut is admitted into the text as genuine. Yet the authority of H for Cicero's use of idoneus ut
Cicero, Scripta 2.2, ed. R. Klotz. For repetitions in Cicero see G. Landgraf, Kommentar zu Ciceros Rede pro Sex. Roscio Amerino (Leipzig-Berlin 1914) 196 (ad 99); Cicero, In Pisonem, ed. Nisbet, 90 (ad 26); M. T. Ciceronis Pro T. Annio Milone ad iudices oratio, ed. A. C. Clark (Oxford 1895) 34 (ad 37). 67 Cicero, Scripta 2.2, ed. Mueller. 68 Cf. K.-S. 2.1, 685. 69 The reference to Lucretius has been graciously pointed out to me by Professor Philip Levine.
66

65

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

420

TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI

instead of idoneus qui must remain highly suspect. There is one other instance of it in his works, Verr. 2,121, which may be open to debate. But for the rest, neither Cicero nor any other classical writer has this construction. In the pre-classical period it appears once in Plautus. Mil. 1140 with dignus: non sum dignus ... ut figam, and then gains some currency in the post-Ciceronian period.70 It is best then to treat the evidence of H with the same degree of confidence as that of G2.

DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS

26 ne hoc quidem tibi in mentem veniebat. Instead of ne Klotz, without stating any reasons for the change, introduced into the text nec. The innovation has found favor with Kasten and Wuilleumier-Tupet, the latter stating in the apparatus nec PHG : ne E. But in fact there is no variation in the testimony of the manuscripts, all of them, PGEH, reporting ne. 31 quod is ... mea domo pontificum iudicio liberata secundum fratrem suum iudicatum esse dicebat. Here mea domo Mommsen71: meam domum PGEH and liberata PGE : liberatam H seem to cause some difficulty. Guaglianone,72 confident that liberatam of H is genuine, adopted Gruter's emendation iudicatam,73 thereby reshaping the whole sentence along the lines suggested by H. It is easy, however, to see that liberatam, in view of H's preservation of iudicatum, is a correction and should be abandoned. By the way, the error of PGEH meam domum is not difficult to explain. It is possible that the original reading was mea domu and this perhaps should be allowed to appear in the text (cf. Verr. 5,125; Phil. 2,45).
TADEUSZ MASLOWSKI Los ANGELES, CALIF.
70 7' 72

Cf. K.-S. 2.2, 303.

See Cicero, Opera 2.2, ed. Orelli, Baiter, Halm. M. T. Ciceronis De haruspicum responsis oratio, ed. A. Guaglianone (Florence 1968). 73 M. T. Ciceronis Opera omnia, ed. J. Gruter (Amsterdam 1661).

This content downloaded from 83.212.12.3 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:44:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions