Marcus Tullius Cicero: Brutus PDF
Preview Marcus Tullius Cicero: Brutus
Μ. TVLLI CICERONIS BRVTVS Μ. TVLLI CICERONIS B R V T V S EDITED BY A. E. DOUGLAS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1966 Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. i GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON CAPE TOWN SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBI LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA KUALA LUMPUR HONG KONG © Oxford University Press iq66 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN PREFACE Cicero’s Brutus is in many ways the most approachable of his three major rhetorical writings. It is remarkable that, despite the appearance towards the end of the nineteenth century of Sandys’s edition of Orator and Wilkins’s of De Oratore, no one has hitherto essayed to fill the gap with any considerable English commentary on Brutus. In the interval, the editor’s tasks and resources have changed so much that I can acknowledge my debt to those notable works without having to appear to invite comparison with them. The editor of Brutus now has available four major sources of enlightenment without which his task would be both harder and less stimulating. My debt to the prosopographi- cal articles by Münzer and his school in R.-E. and to Malco- vati’s Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta I have made explicit on many pages. Not less real are my debts to Broughton’s Magistrates of the Roman Republic and to the vivacious writings of Professor E. Badian. I also owe much to many friends. I am especially indebted to Professor R. G. Austin for encouragement and helpful advice in the earlier stages of my work, to Messrs. R. G. M. Nisbet and J. Briscoe who devoted time and learning to a detailed criticism of a draft of my commentary with a generosity beyond anything I had any right to hope or expect, and to Mr. D. A. Russell for his painstaking reading of the proofs and perceptive comments thereon. I must also express my thanks to the University of Southampton for assistance with travelling expenses, and to the staff of the Clarendon Press for much courtesy and helpfulness. For the faults that remain in a work to which so many VI PREFACE have thus contributed—and in particular for any uneven ness that has resulted from the length of time that I have been engaged on my task—I accept the responsibility. A. E. D. Southampton December 1965 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. The date of Brutus ix II. Cicero’s reasons for writing Brutus x hi. The dialogue form in Brutus xvii IV. Rhetorical theory and its place in Brutus xxv V. Historical sources of Brutus xliv Vi. The text of Brutus liv ABBREVIATIONS lix TEXT COMMENTARY i APPENDIXES A. A selection of fragments 235 B. A conspectus of textual points > 245 c. The Lex Thoria 247 INDEXES 251 INTRODUCTION I. THE DATE OF BRUTUS i. Brutus, a history of Roman oratory presented in dialogue form, was Cicero’s first published work after De Re Publica (54-51 B.c.) (cf. § 19). The date of its composition and publication falls in the early months of 46 b.c. For it men tions events of the autumn of 47, e.g. Brutus’ defence of Deiotarus before Caesar (§ 21), and his appointment as governor of Cisalpine Gaul (§171, Plut. Brut. 6), as well as implying, in the word domi (§ 10), Cicero’s return to Rome which took place at about this time (fam. xiv. 20)—a hint which, though part of the setting of the dialogue, is probably not pure fiction. The reference to expected bad news (ibid.) suggests that Cicero was at work on the dialogue during Caesar’s African campaign, i.e. after December 47. It has usually been held that it was completed before the news of Cato’s death at Utica reached Rome, about the end of April 46. This view rests chiefly on the fact that Cicero explicitly avoids dealing with living orators in his own per son in the dialogue, preferring to describe some of them, e.g. Caesar, M. Marcellus, Metellus Scipio, through the mouths of the other characters. Cato seems to belong in this cate gory. He is mentioned only in passing, out of chronological position, and is described mainly by Brutus (§ 118). There fore he was still alive, or not known to be dead, when Cicero composed the dialogue. Further P. Groebe1 has argued that Brutus is referred to in the proem to Paradoxa Stoicorum, a work addressed to M. Brutus, in the words (pr. 5) ‘illud maiorum vigiliarum munus in tuo nomine (i.e. in Brutus) 1 ‘Die Abfassungszeit des Brutus und der Paradoxa Ciceros’ {Hermes lv (1920) 105-7). INTRODUCTION apparuit’, Paradoxa itself being 'parvum opusculum lucu bratum his iam contractioribus noctibus’. As Paradoxa was written before the news of Cato’s death reached Rome (cf. par ad. 2), this seems to imply the period end of February—intercalary month—March 46 for the composi tion of Brutus. But there are difficulties. Barwick has pointed out (Barw. Intr. 6) that L. Manlius Torquatus, who was killed at Thapsus, is referred to as dead in § 265, and the fact that Lentulus Spinther, who was probably put to death after the battle, is described (§ 268) implies that he was dead at the time when this part of Brutus was composed. Barwick sug gests that the work was first privately circulated and then revised for more general publication, when the above pas sages were added and other alterations made. The double account relating to Molon (§§ 307 and 312, cf. nn.) might be due to this revision. It seems to me also possible that the news of Thapsus and its sequels reached Rome after Cicero had written much, but not all, of his dialogue. He then added the allusions to certain orators whom he now knew to be dead, but saw no need to alter or transfer the account of Cato which he had already written. Perhaps he was already planning the separate eulogy of Cato which he produced shortly afterwards.1 II. CICERO’S REASONS FOR WRITING BRUTUS (i) The letters from Brutus and Atticus 2. Cicero explains at the outset of the dialogue the occasion of its composition. After a prologue concerning the death 1 E. A. Robinson (TAPA lxxx (1949) 368-74) would set the renewal of Cicero’s literary activities, and therewith the composition of Brutus, in October 47 b.c. and the months immediately following. In fact we have no idea how long the composition of Brutus occupied Cicero so that no arguments can show conclusively when he began the work, or studies in preparation for it.
The list of books you might like
