The Classical Quarterly Volume 3 Issue 1-2 1953 [Doi 10.2307%2F637163] P. a. Brunt -- Cicero- Ad Atticum 2. 24

7/23/2019 The Classical Quarterly Volume 3 Issue 1-2 1953 [Doi 10.2307%2F637163] P. a. Brunt -- Cicero- Ad Atticum 2. 24

1/4

Cicero: Ad Atticum 2. 24

Author(s): P. A. BruntSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1953), pp. 62-64Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637163.

Accessed: 20/06/2014 13:12

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.85 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:12:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/637163?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/637163?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/4

CICERO:

AD

ATTICUM 2.

24

IN

a recent article on

the

Vettius

affair

(Historia,

i.

45-51)

Professor

Lily

Ross

Taylor

has

tried

to

show that this

letter

should be dated

to

mid-July

59,

and

that

it is therefore antecedent

to

2.

20o,

21,

and

22.

According

to

the hitherto

accepted

view the

letters

2.

18-25

are

given

by

the

manuscripts

in the

right

chronological

order,

and since 21

is

certainly

later

than

Pompey s

contio

on

25

July

(21.

3),

23

and

24

must

fall later

in the

year;

a terminus nte

quem

or

the

description

of the

Vettius

affair

in

24

is

to be

found

in in

Vat.

25,

which

shows

that

L.

Lentulus,

one

of the

persons

Vettius

implicated,

was then

a

candidate

for the

consulship

and

that the

letter is therefore

antecedent

to

the consular

elections, postponed by Bibulus edict to 18 October (cf. ad Att. 2.20. 6). The

purpose

of

this note

is

to defend

this view and

show that

Professor

Taylor s

new

dating

is

wrong.

First a

word

may

be said about

the

general

sequence

of

the

letters

2.

18-25,

the series

that Cicero

wrote

to

Atticus

in

Epirus

after

his

own return to

Rome

in

the summer

of

59.

The two which

are most

certainly

dated are

19

and

21.

The first

of these alludes

to demonstrations

against

the

triumvirs

at the ludi

Apollinares,

celebrated between

6 and

12

July,

and was

presumably

written

just

afterwards.

The second

may

be

assumed to have

been

written soon

after the

contio of

Pompey

on

25

July

which

it

mentions. Now

in

19.

5

Cicero

says

that

owing to lack of reliable couriers he will refer to himself as Laelius and Atticus

as

Furius;

cetera

erunt

dv

lwtyowtsE

But

in

20.

5

he

says

that there

is no

need

for

him to use Furius

as a

pseudonym

for

Atticus. It

is

evident

then

that

20

was written

after

19.

Since

in

20.

4

he

speaks

of

the effect

of Bibulus

edicts,

as

indeed

in

19.

2

and

5,

but

not

of the

counter-action

taken

by

the

triumvirs

which

he

only

describes

in

21,

it

may

further

be

regarded

as certain

that

20

precedes

21

in

time.

Turning

back

to

18,

we

find that

though

it

mentions

in

a

general

way

demonstrations

against

the

triumvirs,

it does

not

allude

to those

at the ludi

Apollinares;

it

may

then be inferred

that

it is

earlier than

19

and

should be dated

before

6-12

July.

But more than this

cannot be

said of its

date. It is unjustified to connect, as Professor Taylor does, the consalutatio

forensis

perhonorifica

accorded

to Curio

(18.

I)

with

a

demonstration

at

the

gladiatorial

show

of

Gabinius

just

before

the

ludi

Apollinares ,

or to

argue

from

the

fact

that Laterensis

gave up

his

candidature

for the

tribunate,

rather

than

swear

to observe

the

agrarian

laws

(18. 2),

that

the

letter

belongs

to

the time

of the

professio

of

tribunitial candidates

and

therefore

to

about

2-6

July.

All

that Cicero

need mean

is

that Laterensis

has

already

given

up

canvassing-a

process

which

would

start

long

before

the date

ofprofessio-while

his words

non

dubitant

iurare ceteri

do not

imply

that the other

candidates

have

already

taken

the

oath,

but

only

that

they

have

no

doubts

about

the

propriety

of

doing

so.

As for 22 and

23,

their subject-matter is much the same as that of the preceding

letters-the

danger

from

Clodius,

the

promises

of

Pompey,

the

unpopularity

of

the triumvirs-but

the

growing

gravity

of the

tone

suggests

that

they

are

later,

and for

22

this is confirmed

by

two

small

points.

In

20.

I

Cicero

says

Varro satis

facit nobis

and

in

21.

6

he uses

a similar

phrase;

but

in

22.

4

he

speaks

of

Varronem

nostrum ,

which

may

be

thought

to

imply

a

previous

reference.

Again,

22.

7

contains

a warmer

reference to

a

person

called

Numestius,

whom

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

CICERO:

AD

ATTICUM

2.

24 63

Atticus had recommended

to

Cicero,

than we find in

20.

I

;

it looks as if

Cicero

had

in

the

interim come

to know

him

better.

Now these references

to Numestius

make

a

difficulty

for Professor

Taylor,

which she has indeed seen, but without perceiving its full gravity. She writes

that

2.

24

follows

immediately

upon

23.

Now

24 begins

with

the

words:

quas

Numestio litteras

dedi,

sic

te

iis

evocabam ut nihil acrius

neque

incitatius

fieri

posset.

If

Professor

Taylor

is

right,

Numestius was the bearer

of

23.

Since

she

dates

23

before

20

and

22,

it

follows that

Numestius

had

already

left Rome

when

Cicero wrote

(20.

I)

Numestium

ex

litteris tuis

studiose

scriptis

libenter

in

amicitiam

recepi

and

(22. 7)

Numestium

libenter

accepi

in

amicitiam et

hominem

gravem

et

prudentem

et

dignum

tua

commendatione

cognovi .

Professor

Taylor argues

that

because

Cicero uses the

perfect

tense,

there is

nothing

to show that

Numestius

was

still with

Cicero.

But

this

is

a

most

unnatural reading of the passages; the perfect is, of course, an epistolary

perfect.

And

surely

we cannot

believe

that

if

Numestius

was the bearer

of

23

there would have been no reference to

him in

that

letter,

especially

as he had

instructions to

plead

personally

with

Atticus for

his

immediate return. More-

over,

since Cicero and Atticus

were on

intimate

terms,

the

words of com-

mendation that

they

use to

each other

mean more

than

they

might

in

other

correspondence;

we

are

entitled

to assume that Atticus

really

did think well

of

Numestius

and that

Cicero

found reason

to endorse

his

judgement.

In

that case

Numestius would have been a

reliable

courier,

and

we

might

have

expected

23

to be a more

than

usually

outspoken

letter. But this is not

the

case.

23

is

written in riddles; Pompey is Sampsiceramus and Clodius Boopis. The inferences

to be drawn are that

Numestius

did not leave

Rome

till

after

22,

and

that the

letter

which he

took

to Atticus

is

not

preserved.

If

Miss

Taylor

were

right

in

dating

24

before

20-22

and

25,

we

should

surely

expect

some further allusions

to the

Vettius affair

in one at

least of those

letters,

even

though

the

death

of

the

informer

in

prison,

which,

according

to

Dio

38.

9,

occurred not

long

after

his

appearance

before the

people,

may

have

been

concealed for the time.

But

24

contains the first and last reference

to

the

incident in

the

extant

correspondence.

Not,

however,

necessarily

the

first reference Cicero had made

to

it

in

his

letters to Atticus. 24 begins with an urgent appeal to Atticus to hasten his

coming

to Rome. Professor

Taylor

connects

this

with the similar

appeal

in

23.

5.

There

Cicero

is

calling

for Atticus

aid

against

Clodius. But it is

by

no means

clear

that the

ground

for his

appeal

in

24.

I

is

the

same.

After

beseeching

him

to

hurry,

he adds:

ac ne

sis

perturbatus

...

sed

res

est,

ut

spero,

non tam exitu

molesta

quam

auditu. The res

in

question

is

certainly

the

Vettius

affair,

which

he at once

proceeds

to relate at

length.

The sentence would have been far

more

intelligible

to Atticus

if

he had

already

had some brief

report

of it.

I

conjecture

that

as

soon as Cicero had word of

Vettius

delation

(cf. auditu ),

as he

surely

must have

done before

the

formal

meeting

of the

Senate,

he wrote a

hasty

line

to Atticus: Come at

once;

new

perils

are

impending,

apart

from Clodius

threats .

After

the scenes

in

the Senate and

the

contio,

he

found that the new

danger

was non tam

exitu

molesta ;

he

writes to reassure

Atticus,

but

adds

(24.

5)

that

he

still

needs Atticus

just

as

strongly.

I

therefore assume a

gap

in the

correspondence

between

23

and

24.

This

assumption

is warranted

by

other facts.

In

24.4

he

refers

to the

oratio

fortissimi

senis,

Q.

Considi ;

we

know what

this

was,

thanks to

Plut.

Caes.

14;

but Atticus



4/4

64

P. A.

BRUNT

could not have

known

except

from

a

missing

letter,

or

from

some

other

corre-

spondent;

and

surely

Cicero

reckoned

to

give

him

at

least

all the

more

piquant

and

important

news.

Again

we hear

in

these

letters

nothing

of

Vatinius

attempt

to imprison Bibulus (in Vat. 2 I. 24; Dio 38. 6), nothing of the lex lulia repetun-

darum,

which

may

indeed

have been

passed

in

the

spring.

It

may

be

that

letters

after as well as before

24

are

missing;

it is

certainly

curious

that

the

only

allu-

sion

to the

trial of Flaccus should be to

Hortensius

and

not to

Cicero s

own

part

in his

defence

(25.

I).

Professor

Taylor

has tried

to

date

25

to

late

August,

on

the

ground

that when he wrote

it Cicero

had

received

a

reply

to

20o

and

perhaps

21

and

22.

The reason is

inadequate;

but

as

an

argumentum

d hominem

t

may

be

pointed

out

that

on her own

view there

is a

period

of a

month

for which

there is

no

extant

letter,

as

compared

with

seven in

July,

and

that this

suggests

that

some letters

are

missing.

To conclude, the letters 18-25 represent a chronological

sequence,

of which

it

can

only

be said that

19

belongs

to

the second

week in

July,

that

21

was

written soon after

25 July,

and

that

22-25

are

subsequent

to that

date and

earlier

than

the consular

elections

on

18

October,

with

gaps

between

23

and

24

and

probably

24

and

25.

It

may

be

added that these conclusions

do

not

impugn

the rest

of

Professor

Taylor s

paper.

She holds

that

Vettius

was

an

agent

of Caesar who was

trying

to

bring

Curio

into

bad

repute

and

thus

put

an

end

to

his

campaign

for the election of

magistrates

unfriendly

to

Caesar .

This

might

still

be

true,

even

if

24

is

dated

as

late

as

October

(or

as

early

as

August)

;

for

electoral

activity

must

obviously

have continued

through

the

whole

period

from the

original

date fixed for the elections in

July

to the

postponed

date on

18

October.

It

is

not, however,

my purpose

to

examine this

hypothesis,

which

in

my

judgement

can

neither

be

proved

nor

refuted.

Oriel

College,

Oxford

P.

A.

BRUNT

I

It is not a

necessary

assumption

that

Atticus

commented

at

once

on

Cicero s

remarks

on Varro in

those letters.


Documents

The Classical Quarterly Volume 3 Issue 1-2 1953 [Doi 10.2307%2F637163] P. a. Brunt -- Cicero- Ad Atticum 2. 24