The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

Anna A. Novokhatko The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero ≥ Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts Edited o...

Author: Anna A. Novokhatko

192 downloads 869 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Anna A. Novokhatko The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero

≥

Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts Edited on behalf of the Herculaneum Society by Alessandro Barchiesi, Robert Fowler, Dirk Obbink and Nigel Wilson Vol. 6

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Anna A. Novokhatko

The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Invectiva in M. Tullium Ciceronem. English & Latin. The invectives of Sallust and Cicero : critical edition with introduction, translation, and commentary / Anna A. Novokhatko. p. cm. ⫺ (Sozomena. Studies in the recovery of ancient texts ; v. 6) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-021325-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Rome ⫺ History ⫺ Conspiracy of Catiline, 65⫺62 B.C. 2. Sallust, 86⫺34 B.C. ⫺ Authorship. 3. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. ⫺ Authorship. 4. Invective. I. Novokhatko, Anna A., 1978⫺ II. Responsio ad orationem C. Sallustii Crispi. English & Latin III. Title. PA6654.E5N68 2009 9371.05⫺dc22 2009005668

ISBN 978-3-11-021325-6 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen.

V

To my parents, my constant support

VI

VII

Preface The study is a revised and expanded version of my Ph.D. dissertation, which was defended at Moscow Lomonossov University in December 2003. In the course of this work I have received much help and advice. I would like to thank Hans-Christian Günther for his guidance during the course of this project. I am grateful to Paul Gerhard Schmidt and the late Josef Delz for their challenging and instructive comments. I am also in debt to Mario Geymonat, to Nigel W ilson and to Dirk Obbink for their intellectual as well as practical help. In Russia Alexander Evgenjevich Kuznetsov , Dmitrij Evgenjevich Afinogenov, and Michael Michaelovich Pozdnev have all been extremely knowledgeable and supportive advisers throughout. My tremendous gratitude is due to Andrej Vinogradov. Without his help this work could not have been completed. I also thank Elton Barker for his comments and kind support. I am grateful to Susan Reynolds who kindly allowed me to use the manuscript archive of the late Leighton Durham Reynolds. My warm and sincere thanks go further to the Faculty of Letters (and especially to the Department of Classical Philology) of the Moscow Lomonossov University where I studied, and to the Institute of Classics at the Albert-Ludwigs-University in Freiburg im Breisgau, and its director Bernhard Zimmermann, where this book was written. I cannot thank John Carras enough for his outstanding patience correcting the English version of my manuscript, in addition to the invaluable guidance he provided along the way . Finally, I thank my sister Catherine, my loveliest friend and warmest supporter. This book was written with the financial support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Freiburg im Breisgau, October 2008

Anna Novokhatko

VIII

IX

Contents

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations

VII

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Chapter 1 What are the invectives against Cicero and against Sallust? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Declamatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Suasoria and Controversia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 The Schools of Rhetoric in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 The importance of imitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Generic features of invective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The invectives of Sallust as a part of the rhetorical tradition 1.4 The historical context of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The content of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 The content of the invective against Cicero . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 The content of the invective against Sallust . . . . . . . .

3 4 4 6 8 10 12 15 17 18 18 21

Chapter 2 The history of the text known as Sallust’s invectives based on collated medieval manuscripts (10th – early 14th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Archetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Families and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Family (AFK+N, T GBX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . 2.3 Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX) . . . 2.3.1 Hyparchetype (AFK+N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Hyparchetype (T GBX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Hyparchetypes of the family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Hyparchetype (CD+I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

27 30 35 36 38 40 40 49

. . . . . .

56 56 64

X

Contents

Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Authorship of the invectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Authorship of the invectives in antiquity . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Question of the authorship of the invectives in the 15th and 16th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the 17th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the 18th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.5 Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the 19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.6 Henrich Jordan and further polemics on the authorship of the invectives from 1876 up until today . . . . . . . . 3.2 The history of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Textual transmission of the invectives in incunabula . . 3.2.2 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 16th century 3.2.3 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 17th century 3.2.4 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 18th century 3.2.5 Textual transmission of the invectives in the 19th century 3.2.6 Henrich Jordan and new editions of the invectives from 1876 up until today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

111 111 111

.

114

.

119

.

121

.

122

.

123

. . . . . .

129 129 132 139 141 144

.

145

Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust’s invectives with a new apparatus criticus, a translation, and a commentary . . . . . . . .

150

Appendix. List of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

193

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205

Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

217

Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

218

Index vocabulorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221

Abbreviations

XI

Abbreviations Cic. Sall.

In M. Tullium Ciceronem Oratio In C. Sallustium Crispum Oratio

In this book the following abbreviations for collated editions are used: Ald Ald1

Ald 2 Bas Cortius

Crisp

Ernout Grut

secondary references toAldinae in other editions, e.g.:Ald in marg. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium… Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repurgata sunt, ac quo quaeque ordine optime digesta. V enetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri [1522]. C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum … Fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi … ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. collecta … Antverpiae, 1564. C. Crispi Salustii et Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi Opera, quae quidem exstant, omnia. Basileae, per Henricum Petri, 1564. Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Republica ordinanda, declamatio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis in Sallustium … recensuit diligentissime et adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius. Lipsiae [1724]. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Crispini, diligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Parisiis, apud Fredericum Leonard Typographum Regis, Serenissimi Delphini, et Cleri Gallicani. MDCLXXIV. Cum privilegio Regis [1674]. Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César , Invectives. T exte établie, traduit et commenté par A. Ernout. Paris, Société d’ Édition “Les Belles Lettres”, 1962 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri accedunt. Francofurti. E Collegio Paltheniano, Sumptibus Ionae Rhodii MDCVII. [1607]

XII Inc Jordan

Kurfess Lugd

Reynolds

Rom SB

TT Ven

Abbreviations

omnium incunabulorum consensus C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum reliquiae potiores incerti rhetoris suasoriae ad Caesarem senem de Re Publica Henricus Jordan iterum recognovit, accedunt incerti rhetoris invectivae Tullii et Sallustii personis tributae. Berolini apud Weidmannos MDCCCLXXVI. [1876] Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Recensuit Alphonsus Kurfess. Lipsiae in aedibus B. G. T eubneri MCMXIV [11914], 51970. C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, ac Bello Iugurthino historiae; eiusdem in M. T . Ciceronem M. T. Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio … Apud Seb. Gryphium, Lugduni, 1551. C. Sallusti Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta, Appendix Sallustiana. Recognovit breviore adnotatione critica instruxit L. D. Reynolds, collegii Aenei Nasi apud Oxonienses Socius. Oxonii e T ypographeo Clarendoniano, 1991. C. Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant. Superiorum permissu. Romae. Ex of ficina Sforziniana, et Pippia MDCIX. Apud Iacobum Mascardum [1609]. Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey . Harvard, 2002. Texts and Transmission. A survey of Latin Classics, by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford, 1983. C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae. In M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio… Venetiis, Apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum M.D.LV. [1555].

1

Introduction “For the most part affairs of state evolve through private quarrels, where no citizen can conceal what kind of man he is”. 1 The comment comes from ‘Cicero’ s’ invective against ‘Sallust’, part of his rebuttal of the latter’s accusations. Rhetoric both was and remains important, helping individuals get ahead, while at the same time constituting the public discourse that in turn moulds society. This work covers the history of the text of the invectives of ‘Sallust’ against ‘Cicero’ and of ‘Cicero’ against ‘Sallust’. The text itself with an appatarus criticus and also a translation resulting from the study of the history of the text can be found in chapter 4 from page 150 to page 189. Six previously unused manuscripts have been consulted for this edition in order to add to the edition made by L. D. Reynolds in 1991. Previously used manuscripts have also been re-examined, as have those manuscripts which have not up till now been incorporated into editions of the text, though they have been referred to elsewhere. The second chapter of the work, the original scope of this study, presents the manuscript tradition of the text and also the history of the changes which arose during its transmission. The history of the printed text and, closely linked to it, the history of the attribution of authorship is considered in the third chapter. The question of the authenticity of both invectives has long troubled scholars, commencing with Quintilian’s quotation from the text as though it were authentic, through the considerations of a number of humanist commentators. This dispute continues in our own time. This first chapter is not intended as an original work of scholarship but serves as an introduction and includes general background information on invective and the rhetorical schools of Rome, with particular attention to the invectives of pseudo-Sallust and pseudo-Cicero as a product of these schools. Students at such schools might have been set the task of writing a speech against Cicero imitating Sallust, or indeed of responding to Sallust in the style of Cicero. 1

Sall. 3. See below p. 22, 167.

2

Introduction

“Will you burden our ears with your hatred; will you harass us with revolting words?” cries a Sallust. 2 Through the invectives, the dispute between these two orators has been transferred down to us in a multitude of forms, quite possibly without Cicero or Sallust being in the least aware of the literary creations let alone commentaries they have engendered. Even if not directly attributed to Cicero and Sallust, these “revolting words” shed valuable light on rhetorical training and practice in the ancient Roman world.

2

Cic. 6. See below p. 159.

3

Chapter 1 What are the invectives against Cicero and against Sallust? The role of rhetoric in the education of students in the ancient world had been widely discussed at that time, and has also proved a topic of considerable interest in more recent scholarship. Though this work will not concentrate on the subject of the role of rhetoric in ancient education, it is important to point to a number of the features of the ancient system of education that permitted the creation and attribution of speeches such as these invectives. It is for this reason that the following pages provide a brief resume of rhetorical education and in particular of the rhetorical schools of ancient Rome, based as they were on the earlier example of the ancient Greek world.3 Students at these rhetorical schools were given the task of composing speeches or declamations in the voice of another – in most cases widely known – figure, Cicero and Sallust being obvious examples. 4 Imitation was seen in a very different light in ancient as opposed to modern literature. Thus, in the ancient world, imitation of a literary model’s style was widely praised. Students would learn to imitate these models, imitation providing a sound training for their future careers. Ever since antiquity , the invective against Sallust was commonly regarded as non-Ciceronian, a rhetorical exercise, the product of the environment described above.5 The invective against Cicero on the other hand has produced a furious discussion spanning centuries as will be discussed in the third chapter of this work.6 Without delving deeper into the question of authenticity at this point, it should be noted that most present-day scholars do not regard the invective to be Sallustian, but rather a typical example of the type of rhetorical exercise in which the Roman educational system excelled. 3 4 5 6

Morgan 1998, 195 ar gues that the content of education in Greece and Rome did not differ significantly. See Kaster 1998, 248 ff.; Winterbottom 1982, 239 ff. See further on the subject ch. 3, p. 112 ff. See further ch. 3, p. 111–129.

4

Chapter 1

1.1

What are the invectives against Cicero and against Sallust?

Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education 1.1.1

Declamatio

Rhetoric came to Rome from the Greek world. Following on from Alexander’s conquests at the end of the 4 th century BC, Greek culture spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek became the lingua franca of trade, politics and scholarship. Schools of rhetoric sprouted up with the remarkable regularity of ancient theatres, wherever Greek inf luence established itself. As the standard form of further education these rhetorical schools trained orators and writers; indeed, their inf luence was witnessed precisely in such theatres, in Greek and also particularly in Roman literature.7 There were forms of practical rhetorical training in Rome even before the extensive influence of Greek rhetorical theory there. 8 However already by the time of the death of Cato the Elder in 149BC, with Greek rhetoric laying down roots in Rome, conservatives felt the threat of this potentially revolutionary tool that could weaken aristocratic control over the organs of state. Thus there was a conservative backlash against rhetorical theory and also against those teachers who brought it to Rome from the Greek world. Partly as a result of these negative sentiments the main teachers of rhetoric in Rome remained Greeks for quite some time. Even though the first Roman who broke the trend was Lucius Plotius Gallus, 9 who was active when Cicero was young, the profession would seem to have acquired an air of respectability only later.10 Cicero and Quintilian were the two Latin authors whose judgment of the place of rhetoric in education had the greatest influence in the Roman world. Cicero’s De oratore includes a section on the education of the orator. With Cicero being a major source for Quintilian’ s work, it is not surprising that the Institutio deals extensively with the issue of education, adding a description of the polished orator, end-product of a wellrounded rhetorical training. Quintilian proposed that the student study philosophy, music, even astronomy, and also emphasised the need for ex7 See Kennedy 1994, 81 ff.; Corbeill 2007, 70. 8 See Sussman 1978, 4. 9 In ca. 92 BC. Cf. Cic. Fragm epist. 1, 1; Quint. 2, 4, 42; Sen. Contr. 2, praef. 5;

Suet. De gram. et rhet. 26, 1–2. See also Sussman 1978, 4.

10 Cf. Quint. 2, 4, 42; Sen. Contr. 2, praef. 5; Suet. De gram. et rhet. 26, 2.

1.1

Rhetoric as a central part of Roman education

5

tensive reading. 11 The focal point of his educational ideas was however rhetoric.12 The most important task in the classroom was to deliver a declamatory speech. Students acquired practical experience by declaiming in the classroom and this trained them for speaking in public. This exercise was called , or declamatio. The instructor selected a topic, discussed different ways of approaching it and then declaimed a model speech. 13 The use of the termdeclamatio to describe rhetorical exercises seems to have been first applied to a type of vocal exercise, the word making its initial appearance in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, in other words in the early 80s BC, in exactly such a context.14 The term ‘declamare’ as it first appeared in Cicero’s Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (80 BC), signified a rhetorical exercise stressing delivery.15 Declamare and declamatio at the beginning were not used to describe school exercises, but rather described an ineffective style of speech in contrast to the more eloquent orating (orare).16 In Cicero’ s time all the topics for declamatory practice were either taken from real historical events or were adapted from real legal situations or on occasion referred to daily life; by the time of the Empire the themes had become much less real; however, they still helped the student to prepare for a career in court. 17 The teaching of rhetoric in Rome was given further impetus by imperial regulations that granted rhetorical schools various privileges.18

11 Quint. 1, 4, 1–5; 1, 8, 12; 10, 1 ff.; 12, 2, 11. 12 Cf. Mart. Cap. De nupt. Phil. et Merc. 5, 426–427. See Morgan 1998, 195–197. 13 See the study of the word declamatio in G. François 1963, 513ff. See also Stroh 14 15 16 17 18

2003, 5 ff.; Winterbottom 1996, 436 f. Cf. Her. 3, 20. See Sussman 1978, 5. Cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer. 82. Cf. Cic. Planc. 83. See Corbeill 2007, 72; Fairweather 1981, 127 ff. Parks 1945, 62. See also Speyer 1971, 135. For examples of Roman declamation see Sen. Orat. et r het. sent., divis., col ., Ps.-Quint. Declam. (14 maiores and 145 minores) and Calp. Flacci 51 excerptae decem rhetorum minorum. Cf. Corbeill 2007, 71; Parks 1945, 67–68. On the history of declamation see Fairweather 1981, 104–131; Gunderson 2003, 29 ff.; Bloomer 1997, 110 ff.

6

Chapter 1


1.1.2

Suasoria and Controversia

The subject matter chosen by the teacher for declamatory exercises was known either as suasoriae, these being declamatory exercises on an imaginary deliberative theme, or as controversiae, these being declamatory exercises on an imaginary legal theme. The suasoriae were practiced in school before the controversiae, as they were considered the easier of the two forms.19 The invectives against Cicero and against Sallust belong to the second type, the controversiae, which means that they were declamations in imitation of speeches in the Senate. The roots of the controversia are usually traced back to Aeschines, who founded a school of rhetoric on Rhodes in 330BC and seems to have assigned the practice of judicial speeches to his students. 20 Quintilian transmits the standard view of his time in claiming that controversiae were first introduced into schools at the time of Demetrius of Phalerum (c. 350–280 BC).21 As G. A. Kennedy 22 shows, the rhetorical exercises could take the form of prosopopoeia.23 In the prosopopoeia the speaker impersonated a specific individual and either provided some form of advice to another individual or engaged in a debate with himself in order to determine the required action for any given situation. The prosopopoeia frequently addressed a given individual in the second person. Orators often neglected argumentation and relied on ethos, pathos and hyperbole in the place of logic and proof. This definition suits the invectives studied here. Both the invective against Cicero and that against Sallust represent examples of prosopopoeiae. Though there were many standard controversiae, the speaker aiming for a fresh approach to traditional themes, new subjects were also constantly being invented, many involving sex and violence. 24 One explanation for such subject matter was the desire to augment adolescent boys’ interest in their studies and also no doubt to entertain audience, though it is important not to impose our conceptions of proper behaviour on the rhetors we are trying to understand. According to Suetonius, these 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cf. Tac. Dial. 35, 4. See also Sussman 1978, 11. See Sussman 1978, 2. Quint. 2, 4, 41–42. Kennedy 1994, 166 ff. Cf. Demetr. Eloc. 265, 266. Cf. Cic. 2; 2; Sall. 9; 13–15; 15–16. See Imber 2001, 201f.; Corbeill 2007, 75ff.

1.1


7

original controversiae were drawn from two types of subject matter , ex historiis, by which he means from fantastic, mythological or romantic tales and ex veritate ac re, which were based on real facts with the names of the localities also added.25 In all probability, the invectives studied here belong to the Augustan period.26 It was at around this time that Seneca the Elder wrote down his own recollections of the rhetores and their art for his sons, recollections that include sententiae, divisiones, and colores, consisting for the most 27 He also adds part of quotations from speakers he had heard in his youth. prefaces that elaborate on the practice of declamation and refers to the major declaimers of the time. Students of the Augustan age would have read such prefaces. Seneca states that the declamations he discusses, most dating from some twenty to thirty years after the death of Cicero, were a novelty – rem post me natam ;28 new in both subject-matter and style.29 Without delving further into what exactly Seneca meant by the term declamation, it is worth noting that rhetorical exercises had been practised in schools from 5 th century BC Greece, 30 and in Rome since Lucius Plotius Gallus had established his school of rhetoric in Rome. 31 Roman declamation had transformed from the thesis (before the time of Cicero) to the causa (contemporary with Cicero), and finally to a newer exercise, the controversia (also called by the Greek name scholastica) which arose after Seneca’ s birth. 32 Cicero’s criticism of rhetors whose declamations became displays of verbose virtuosity also points to the change from the old to the new style.33 The older controversia was a relatively simple treatment of a legal case, not necessarily dependent on reality for its subject-matter; intended primarily for practical training. It was usually delivered privately or at school, and probably balanced the need for vocal f ine-tuning, rhetorical flourishes, and sound argumentation. The newer forms of the controverCf. Suet. Gram. et Rhet. 25. See also Sussman 1978, 4 f. See Pelling 1996; 1349; CHCL II 1982; 269. Sen. Contr. 1, pr. 1–5. See Gwynn 1964, 158 ff. Ibid. 12. Gwynn 1964, 159. Corbeill 2007, 71 f.; Fairweather 1981, 102 ff.; Russell 1983, 1 ff. See above p. 4. Cf. Quint. 2, 1, 9; 3, 5, 5; 8; Cic.Inv. 1, 8; De or. 1, 138; 3, 109;Top. 79; Part. Or. 4; 61; Or. 46, 125; Sen.Contr. 1 praef. 12; Suet.Rhet. 1, 5. See also Clarke 1951, 159 ff. 33 Cic. De or. 1, 149–150. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

8

Chapter 1


siae arose from the introduction of audiences and the status of these performances as a means of entertainment. In an effort to entertain the audience, which was often composed of men with similar oratorical pretensions, the declaimers flaunted their rhetorical talents, delighting in the flamboyance of their delivery; thus embellishment and exaggeration characterised the new controversia and differentiated it from the somewhat more staple fare of the old.34 They also declaimed in such a way as to prepare themselves for the rebuttal of their opponents, ‘occasionally translating Greek texts and composing eulogies or invectives on famous men’, as Suetonius puts it.35 1.1.3

The Schools of Rhetoric in Rome

The schools of rhetoric were the final stage in the educational process of a student at Rome.36 Having previously studied in the school of a litterator where the pupil was given the rudiments of an education, and then under a grammaticus who focused on the study of Greek and Latin poets and historians, the student was ready for the more advanced approaches of the rhetor. A distinction was thus drawn between the teaching of a grammarian and the instruction of the rhetorician to whom boys might be sent from the age of twelve.37 The rhetorical schools concentrated on the study of prose writers and the techniques of argumentation and presentation including rhetorical techniques; in practice however the advanced stages of a grammatical education often overlapped with the introductory stages of an education in rhetoric. Furthermore, grammarians introduced their students to the first stages of written composition, a task that could well be continued in the rhetorical schools. As rhetorical sessions or competitions grew in popularity there was a steady transformation from the late Republic, when adults declaimed pri38 marily in private gatherings of close friends as was the case with Cicero, 34 Sussman 1978, 10. Cf. Quint. 1, 2, 30–31. 35 interdum Graecorum scripta convertere ac viros illustres laudare vel vituperare,

Suet. Gram. et r het. 25, 4. Cf. Quint. 2, 4, 20; 3, 7; Theon. 2, 109f f; Aphth. 2, 35 ff. Cf. Cic. Phil. 5, 19. 36 Apul. Flor. 4, 20. For further on this theme, see Parks 1945; Kennedy 1972; Morgan 1998, 190–239. 37 Corbeill 2007, 70; Kennedy 1994, 81 ff., cf. Parks 1945, 61. 38 Cf. Cic. Brut. 310; Fam. 9, 16, 7; Sen.Contr. 1 pr. 11; Suet. Rhet. 1. See Sussman 1978, 15, Bonner 1969, 39–42.

1.1


9

to larger competitive gatherings of adult rhetors declaiming on the same subjects, sometimes lasting several days. 39 Thus the rhetors competed with theatrical performances, mimes and even the delights of the arena as a source of entertainment for the Roman populace. Despite its entertainment value, the primary factor in the popularity of declamation was its importance in Roman education, 40 something recognised even by Seneca the Elder with his somewhat condescending attitude.41 Though there are references to consuls, praetors, and even some senators attending the halls of the rhetors,42 these seem to have been exceptions to the norm as the schools were attended primarily by pueri and iuvenes.43 The atmosphere in such schools with their strict discipline, their institutionalised use of examples, and their varied exercises is preserved in the writings of Quintillian. T. Morgan, who studied rhetorical exercises preserved on papyrus, has argued that rhetorical exercises werefrequently employed as a means of improving oral and written skills, not necessarily only as a tool for high oratory; these surviving papyral fragments reveal that students learnt not so much the art of persuasion but rather studied various methods of articulation. 44 Thus students were trained to rewrite or re-narrate the received passive education, only later becoming active users of it. Rhetoric was it seems the vehicle for the transformation of the pupil from a passive recipient into an active user and transmitter of knowledge. Although oratory and its importance declined with the demise of the Republic, training in this skill was still considered important and comprised the fundamental element in Roman education. A thorough knowledge of rhetoric and a modicum of eloquence therefore remained indispensable for any political or even professional career under the Empire.45

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Cf. Sen Contr. 1, 7, 13; 2, 1, 25. Cf. Quint. 10, 5, 14. See Sussman 1978, 17; Bornecque 1902, 88. Cf. Sen Contr. 2, pr. 3. Sen. Contr. 9, 4, 18; 1, 2, 22; 1, 3, 11. See Parks 1945, 64. Ibid. 1, 3, 10; 1 pr. 24; 1, 1, 22; 2, pr. 1. See Morgan 1998, 197 ff. Cf. Tac. Dial. 36; see Sussman 1978, 17; Parks 1945, 15 ff.

10

Chapter 1


1.1.4

The importance of imitation

Imitation was a basic feature of rhetoric, a fundamental principle of literary composition. A Latin canon, which included the poets Catullus, Virgil, Horace, and Ovid and the prose-writers Cicero, Sallust, and Livy steadily emer ged and later writing was richly allusive to such earlier texts. Imitatio ( «) had as its goal the determination of the features that were characteristic of some canonical author and their use as a tool in one’s own text. 46 Although Plato in his P and Aristotle in his P λ « often employed the concept of «, by which they meant the representation of objects through language and art,47 the more common usage of the term was rhetorical, revealing the dependence of one author upon another one. Memory has been known as the mother of the Muses, 48 and thus it should come as no surprise that talented poets have always been in a dialogue with the poetical tradition up until their time.49 In the Greco-Roman literary tradition, almost every author acknowledged his antecedents. 50 Thus imitatio did not have its modern negative connotation, but was rather a positive feature of any writer’s work. The thorough study and imitation of selected specimens of speech started however in the 5 th century with the sophists. Beginning in the 4 th century when regular schools of rhetoric became common and in particular with Isocrates, the most outstanding of Gor gias’ students, it was thought that a student who had some natural capacity could be educated further through imitation and practice. Isocrates himself provides examples for imitation. His students wrote speeches, which he corrected 46 Conte-Most 1996, 749. See also Clark 1951, 1 1–22; Clark 1957, 144–176; De

Rentiis 1998, 235–303; Cizek 1994 passim etc.

47 See Koller 1954, 15–21; 63–68; 104–119. 48 Cf. Hes. Theog. 53–55; Alcm. 8, 9; Eumel. 16; Solon

1, 1; h. Herm . 429. Memory for the oral poets was always of great importance (cf.Il. 2, 488ff.), but Memory can be a kind of Muse herself and be directly invoked as such (cf. Plat. Euthyd. 275CD, h. Herm . 425–433). See Hesiod Theogony , ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford, 1966; 174. 49 See Eliot T. S. Tradition and the Individual Talent / Eliot T. S. Selected Essays. London, 1999 (=1972); 14 ff. 50 See a collection of articles devoted to literary imitation in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. Ed. by D. W est and T. Woodman. Cambridge, 1979, and especially an introductory survey there by Russell 1979, 1–16.

1.1


11

and improved. A success ful imitation was for Isocrates more important than thematic originality.51 In ancient schools pupils used to exercise with canonical texts which they learnt by heart or paraphrased or translated, selecting interesting excerpts and writing commentaries on them or comparing them with other texts. They would frequently rewrite such texts in the style of other authors. And all these techniques would be employed not only with prose writers but also with poetry.52 Ancient rhetoricians and pedagogues discussed the methods and also the dangers of imitatio; one of the most interesting surviving treatments of the subject is by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived and worked in Rome during the Augustan period. Dionysius challenged the stylistic standards of his immediate predecessors and instead proposed a return to the Attic style of the 5 th and 4 th century BC from Thucydides to Demosthenes. Imitating these super-models thus became an essential element in the teaching of rhetoric. The corpus of acceptable paradigms was referred to as , the books;53 a pagan parallel to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, as D. A. Russell points out.54 The rhetorical culture of the first four centuries AD was indeed a civilization of ‘the books’. Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote three books on the subject: the f irst discussed the character of the process, the second listed desired models and the third described how imitation should be carried out (« ).55 Other ancient works written on the theme of literary and rhetorical imitation were Rhetorica ad Her ennium,56 Cicero’s rhetorical essays, 57 the Controversiae of Seneca the Elder, the letters of Seneca the Younger,58 ‘On the Sublime’ ,59 and Quintilian. 60 Quintilian made a detailed list of useful authors and added his own considerations on the topic. Dionysius and Quintilian were concerned with the use of imitation as a means to teaching rhetoric, and particularly as a means towards acquiring verbal

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Cf. Isocr. 4 (Panegyr.), 10. See Sen. Suas. 3, 7 on Ovid. Dion. Ars rhet. 298, 1. Russell 1979, 3. See further on the topic Hidber 1996, 67 ff. Her. 1, 4; 4, 2. Cic. De orat. 2, 90–93. Sen. Ep. 114. Subl. 13–14. Quint. 10, 1–2.

12

Chapter 1


aptitude; indeed the theories developed by these scholars come close to modern theories on intertextuality. Allusion played a leading role in these early literary theories; via allusions later authors could demonstrate that they belonged to the same genre as an earlier one. Parody was however neglected as ancient imitation always involved admiration.61 Ancient discussions of imitation understand the term to mean emulation combined with rivalry ( «, aemulatio), not simple dependence; they recommended the critical study of a variety of models in order to help the student or author embody the prototype into his own writings. Before aemulatio became a theoretic term in 1 st century AD, rhetoricians used imitari and aemulari as synonyms.62 Thus the respect for and imitation of predecessors was a basic element in ancient education, and the invectives against Cicero and Sallust, which imitate the stylistic features of both writers, can be regarded in this context as typical and necessary products of the educational tradition of their time.

1.2

Generic features of invective

“Invective” (invectiva, from oratio invectiva, from invehor) means abusive speech, or refers to an abusive written text. The word appeared in this form remarkably late, no earlier than the 4 th century AD.63 Rhetoricians, grammarians and scholiasts used the adjective invectivus, but as a noun the word invectiva was first fixed in its modern meaning in Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia 64 (ca. AD 345–410), and in the grammarian Diomedes 65 (2nd half of the 4 th century AD) and Cledonius 66 (5 th century AD).67 61 It is important to bear in mind that while mimesis was praised, plagiarism, termed or furta, was considered abhorrent. Cf. Russell 1979, 11. 62 See Bauer 1992, 141 ff. 63 For a thorough and detailed analysis of invective in Ancient literature, see: 64 65 66 67

Koster 1980. See also Nisbet 1989, 192–193. Rufin. Apol. adv. Hier. II 33, II 43. Diom. Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil ) I 330, 1. Cledon. Art. Gram. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil ) V 77, 6. Cf. Powell 2007, 1, who argues that the word invectiva occurred first in Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. AD 330–ca. 395). Ammianus used the expression oratio invectica in RG 21, 10, 7, volumen invectivum in RG 22, 14, 2, the neuter plural invectiva in RG 28, 1, 20. It is difficult to prove who was in fact irst, f but it would seem that the word used as a term in this sense appeared around the middle of the 4th century AD.

1.2

Generic features of invective

13

Though the late appearance of oratio invectiva as a term is interesting in itself, the practice long pre-existed its characterisation, as can be seen in the other terms used for this form of attacking speech. Invective is a literary form that aims to humiliate its object in public by any possible means and which addresses the object by name. 68 The concept of invective was of course broader than just a form of speech as it stemmed from the ur ge to disparage, termed « in Greek and vituperatio in Latin. 69 A vituperatio was supposed to be the opposite of a speech of praise ( laus), rather than stressing virtues, like prudence, justice, courage etc., it was their absence that was emphasized. 70 There are a whole range of terms linked to this process both in Greek and Latin, each with its own specific associations, examples being: , «, , «, , contumelia, convicium, detrectatio, exprobatio, infamatio, iniuria, maledictio, oppr obrium, reprehensio etc. Quintilian refers to Aristotle and Theophrastus who claim that laus and vituperatio are not relevant to the world of practice (parte negotiali) and belong only to the epideictic. However, Roman custom, says Quintilian, had found a place for them in the practical field (negotiis).71 Roman invective was built on Greek rhetorical rules. Though it is sometimes possible to outline the component parts of an invective speech, in practice we see that there are a number of dif ferent potential variations on this rhetorical prototype. 72 Two almost contemporary textbooks, Rhetorica ad Her ennium and Cicero’ s De inventione, both provide a list of sorts with topics for speeches of praise or of reproach. These topics can be gathered into three groups: 1) external elements, such as birth, education, citizenship etc.; 2) physical attributes like strength, weakness etc.; and, 3) the virtutes animi and their opposites.73 The headings numerated by the grammarian and rhetorician Aelius Festus Aphthonius (3 rd century AD) can also serve as markers of the

68 Quint. 3, 7, 4 ff. See Koster 1980, 38–39. See also Arena 2007, 149 ff. 69 Detailed theoretical information on abusive speech in Greek rhetoric is to be 70 71 72 73

found in Rhet. ad Alex . 3; 35; for Roman rhetoric see Her. 3, 6–8. Cf. Powell 2007, 4. Her. 3, 10–15; Cic. Inv. 1, 34–36; 2, 177–178. See also Craig 2004, 188 ff. Quint. 3, 7, 1f. Powell points out that this is “a useful starting-point for consideration of the role of praise and vituperation in Roman oratory”. See Powell 2007, 4. See Levy 1946, 58. Craig 2004, 188 f.

14

Chapter 1


traditional patterns of invective. 74 Six invective are outlined in Aphthonius:

, or Prologue; then Narration ( «) follows, including: «, or Race and Genealogy; $ φ, or Nurture and Education; !" «, or Deeds; # «, or Comparison; and, f inally, % «, or Epilogue, which concludes the invective. 75 However, from the standard six in Aphthonius the number of conventional themes of invective has increased to seventeen following the thorough analysis of a number of modern scholars. 76 The latest list of , compiled by Ch. Craig, includes: 1) embarrassing family origins; 2) being unworthy of one’s family; 3) physical appearance; 4) eccentricity of dress; 5) gluttony and drunkenness, possibly leading to acts of crudelitas and libido; 6) hypocrisy for appearing virtuous; 7) avarice, possibly linked with prodigality; 8) taking bribes; 9) pretentiousness; 10) sexual misconduct; 11) hostility to family; 12) cowardice in war; 13) squandering of one’ s patrimony or financial embarrassment; 14) aspiring toregnum or tyranny, associated with vis, libido, superbia , and crudelitas; 15) cruelty to citizens and allies; 16) plunder of private and public property; 17) oratorical ineptitude. Each of these could be employed in any of the possible literary forms of invective and did not necessarily follow a set order. Thus they could be used in a Senate speech, in the Forum, in an iambic poem, a politic pamphlet, an epigram, or even an essay. The first and main task of any invective was to convince the audience, in other words to make the accusation (or should we say slander?) stick. All too often, convincing was more important than the truth of the accusations. At the same time though, the orator wished to elicit pleasure and to amuse his audience. These same factors underlie the personal attacks of Old Comedy , insulting songs at weddings (called Fescennini from the Etruscan town of Fescennia near Falerii),77 political caricatures, and also the origin and existence of the iambic genre itself, which was originally based on the urge to rebuke and scold. Finally, two further features, concerning Roman invective in general, and the invectives studied here in particular , should be noted. First, it seems to have been considerably more ef ficient to attack the character 74 RG 2.36.7–19 (Aphthonius; cf. 2.40.14–17). 75 See also Cizek 1994, 294 ff. 76 Nisbet (1961, 192ff.) offered a list of such loci, partly based on the register that

Süss (1910, 245 ff.) had compiled for the Greek orators. Later Merrill (1975, 203 f.) collected Cicero’ s loci, with their antecedents in Latin rhetoric. Craig combined all these lists, see Craig 2004, 190 f.; see also Arena 2007, 150. 77 Cf. Catull. 61, 119–148.

1.3

The invectives of Sallust as a part of the rhetorical tradition

15

of one’s political opponent, rather than his political principles; that is why political deeds, touched in both invectives, serve as evidence of the quality of their doer .78 Secondly, Roman invective had a conventional character and did not pay much attention to historical truth. 79 As will be shown in the commentary to the invectives, oratorical flourishes are frequently preferred to the preservation of a sense of reality. The existence of repeated legislation against « reveals how important invective was in both Greece and Rome.80

1.3 The invectives of Sallust as a part of the rhetorical tradition It is important to bear in mind that the attribution of texts to specif ic authors was frequently bona fide in the ancient world, without this being considered a deceit. A novice to the world of literature would credit his works to his teacher ’s name rather than to his own, especially if he adopted themes, composition or style from his instructor . Composing a speech according to the style of some famous orator was standard practice. An example of such exercises may be seen in Seneca’ s Suasoriae. Seneca gives seven examples of Suasoriae, and two of these concern Cicero’s last hours. 81 Historical accuracy was not considered to be significant; in the seventh suasoria Cicero is imagined deliberating whether to burn his writings when he is told that he could save his life by doing so. There is however no reason to believe he was in reality given such a choice. This absence of historical accuracy in Seneca mirrors the absence of historical accuracy in the invectives against Cicero and Sallust we are considering here. Seneca’s Suasoriae reveal Cicero’s influence on the generation after his death, Cicero being presented as a martyr. But Cicero was not always held in such esteem;82 it was also apparently common practice to compose declamations in answer to Cicero’s speeches; the rhetoricians Messala and 78 See especially Dunkle 1967, 171. 79 Cf. Nisbet 1961, 192 ff.; Arena 2007, 157 f. This does not mean however that

when a case was heard in court the advocates did not deliver speeches in order to negate false accusations. See Powell 2007, 7f. For a discussion of the credibility of Roman invectives, see Powell 2007, 19 f. 80 Watson, 1996, 762. 81 Sen. Suas. 6–7. 82 See Gwynn 1964, 160 f.

16

Chapter 1


Asinius Pollio, for example, writing speeches in defence of Catiline,83 and the rhetorician Cestius Pius writing a response to Cicero’ s Pro Milone. 84 Brutus wrote a Pro Milone of his own as a school exercise. 85 Sometimes these speeches were attributed to some well-known orator of Cicero’ s day: Asconius Pedianus referred to two such speeches in answer to Cicero’s In toga candida, one attributed to Catiline, the other to Gaius Antonius.86 The invectives examined here are, in all probability , examples of such imaginary speeches, created in the context of the rhetorical schools of Rome; they are exercises or declamations of rhetoricians in a rhetorical school, probably during the Augustan period when the taste for the Ciceronian was at a low ebb. 87 They exhibit all the features of canonical invective as indicated by the scholars:88 the invective against Cicero contains exordium (1, 1), narratio (or tractatio) (1, 2 – 3, 6), and peroratio (4, 7). At the end of the exordium and inside the narratio we have references to genealogy and education (1, 1–2; 3, 4) and to deeds (1, 2– 4, 7). The invective against Sallust contains exordium (1, 1 – 1, 3), narratio (2, 4 – 8, 22), andperoratio (8, 22). In theexordium and on two occasions in the narratio there are references to genealogy and childhood (1, 1; 2,4; 5, 13) and to deeds (5, 13 – 8, 21). The invective against Sallust is presented as a response by Cicero to Sallust’ s invective against Cicero, 89 which is why it includes Cicero’s apologies, a denial of Sallust’s claims (2, 5 – 4, 12) followed by an attack on Sallust himself (5, 13 – 8, 22). 90 It is worth noting here also that Sallust’ s invectives were not always termed invectives even in the manuscripts as they survive today . Some manuscripts use the term declamatio, others oratio in, yet others, more simply, Sallustius in Ciceronem et invicem. The term invectiva for both speeches was however fixed in one of the oldest manuscripts H (10th century).91 83 Quint. 10, 1, 24. On Republican speeches of doubtful authenticity see Clift 1945,

92 ff.

84 Sen. Contr. 3, praef. 15; Quint. 10, 5, 20. 85 Quint. 10, 1, 23; 5, 20. 86 Ascon. 84: Huic orationi Cicer onis et Catilina et Antonius contumeliose 87 88 89 90 91

responderunt, quod solum poterant, invecti in novitatem eius. Cf. Kennedy 1972, 297. See above p. 13 f. Cf. Sall. 2. See below p. 18 ff. See ch. 2, p. 90 ff.

1.4

1.4

The historical context of the invectives

17

The historical context of the invectives

The invectives were meant to represent speeches in the Senate, the f irst by Sallust against Cicero, the second Cicero’s reply to Sallust. The invective against Cicero is a short, bitter attack on his private life, full of allusions to the years after his return from exile. It depicts the political situation in Rome in the autumn of 54 BC.92 The invective against Sallust on the other hand does not limit itself to the same time-scale but rather covers the entire life of Sallust. Cicero returned from his exile in Macedonia in 57 BC with Pompey’s support and with the support of the tribune T itus Annius Milo. He was warmly welcomed on his return both in Italy and in Rome. In 56 Caesar , Pompey and Crassus renewed their political union, 93 and Cicero had to speak on a public platform in favour of Caesar,94 as seen in the De provinciis consularibus. In 54 he even defended supporters of the Three, who had previously been his enemies, in court: Publius Vatinius (praetor in 55) successfully and Aulus Gabinius (consul in 58), who had incurred Cicero’ s hatred for scorning his appeals for help when he was sent into exile in 58, unsuccessfully. The invective against Cicero reflects the situation after Cicero’s defence of Vatinius, but before he had become the advocate for Gabinius, since the case involving Gabinius is not mentioned.95 Cicero was intimidated by the fiasco of his failed defence of Milo in a court filled to the brim with Pompey’s troops. Milo, a candidate of the Senate, was impeached for the murder of Clodius in the via Appia in January of 52 BC. This was the year that Sallust’s political career begins.96 Sallust’s family was of plebeian origin and he held the office of Tribune of the Commons in 52 BC. The consular elections were not held that year as Clodius was killed on Milo’s orders. While Cicero defended Milo, Sallust took sides 92 For a detailed analysis of the historical background, see Bolaf fi 1949, Büchner

93 94 95 96

1960, Clift 1945, Olivieri Sangiacomo 1954, Paladini 1948, Schmid 1993, Seel 1966, Syme 1964, V retska 1961, and also Gabba 1957, Hejnic 1956, Oertel 1951, Reitzenstein 1898. See also Ernout’s preface to his edition of Sallust: Ernout, 1989 (11941); 7–15 and Schanz – Hosius, Geschichte der Römischen Literatur I, 370–373. For a bibliography of Sallust’s time, see Leeman 1965. See also Massa 2006, 416 ff. Suet. Iul. 24, et passim. Cf. Cic. Att. 4, 5; Fam. 1, 9. Cf. also Sall. 12. Cf. Powell 2007, 3. Sall. Cat. 3, 3.

18

Chapter 1


against Cicero and Milo. 97 Sallust was in Rome when his somewhat undistinguished political career culminated in his expulsion from the Senate in 51 BC by the censors Appius Claudius Pulcher and Calpurnius Piso.98 In 49 BC Sallust was reappointed by Caesar to a quaestorship, and became once more a member of the Senate. In 48BC he commanded one of Caesar’s legions in Illyricum and was defeated. 99 In 47 he was again unsuccessful in Campania,100 but in 46 as a praetor he succeeded in completing his mission on the island of Circina 101 and was rewarded with a posting as governor of Numidia and Africa.102 After returning to Rome he was accused of extortion, but acquitted, perhaps, as the author of the invective against Sallust would have it, having bribed Caesar .103 It is certain, however, that Sallust became very wealthy indeed. The invective against Sallust refers to all these events.104

1.5 1.5.1

The content of the invectives

The content of the invective against Cicero

Sallust’s invective against Cicero begins with the seemingly reserved but actually supercilious statement that he would endure Cicero’s abuse if he believed that it stemmed from considered opinion rather than a diseased mind.105 Turning to the Senate, Sallust broadens his attack, for the problem, as he expostulates it, is not Cicero in and of himself, but the Roman state, people and the senators,106 who provide sustenance for such men as Cicero. The following sentence (Ubiubi M. Tullius leges iudicia rem publicam defendit) offers a none-too-subtle ironic paradox, a manoeuvre that 97 See Ascon. Pro Mil. 33, 37, 45, 49. 98 Dio Cass. 40, 63, 4. Shackleton Bailey argues, that both the censors are referred

to in Sall. 16. Cf. SB 385; see ch. 4 p. 183. Oros. 6, 15, 8. Dio Cass. 42, 52. Bell. Afr. 8; 34. Bell. Afr. 97. Sall. 19. Sall. 15–20. Cf. Cic. Pis. Fr. 4; see Koster 1980, 177. On the content of the invectives, see also Becker 1973, 742–754; Ernout80–84; Koster 1980, 177–200; Vretska 1961, II 9–62. Cf. Hands 1959, 59 f.; Nisbet 1989, 197 f., and Süss 1910, 260–263. 106 See Koster 1980, 178. 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

1.5


19

was probably supposed to bear witness to the author ’s rhetorical dexterity; as he argues, if the state must be protected from this Cicero, it surely cannot be the case that Cicero should himself be the defender of its laws, of legal proceedings and indeed the state itself. There follows a traditional « on Cicero’ s origins, 107 a man who, pace Sallust, presents himself as if he were a relative of Scipio’s rather than a “neophyte” and a “city novice”. With this, the introductory exordium, in which Sallust declares Cicero to be not only his enemy but also the enemy of the Roman Senate, comes to a close. There follows in the second paragraph (2) another « of invective, a reference to Cicero’s youthful sexual perversity in his relations with his teacher Marcus Piso. W ith an epic grandiloquent formula from Lucretius,108 used as parody in the current invective context, Sallust proceeds to reproach the opulence of Cicero’s house, his sacrilegious wife and his incestuous daughter.109 The house had been built on the proceeds of violence and stolen booty. We have here a comparison of the homo flagitiosissimus, Cicero, with the previous owner of the house, vir clarissimus, Publius Crassus. The next passage (3) is as corrupted in its transmission, as Cicero, if we are to believe Sallust, was corrupt in his conduct of state affairs; Cicero pretends to be the guardian of the city while he is in fact its executioner.110 A further line of attack commences, this time targeting those state activities Cicero planned in conjunction with his wife T erentia; Cicero and Terentia had decided affairs of state from their home and censured conspirators with fines in reverse proportion to the favours they had rendered him in the past. It is very easy to prove whether Cicero took bribes, the attack continues, all that is needed is to calculate how much money he inherited from his father , how much he received from his trials, and with what funds he built his villas in Tusculum and Pompeii. The conclusion according to Sallust, is clear: the bulk of Cicero’s money came from the blood and deprivations of the citizens of Rome.

107 See above p. 13 f. 108 Cf. verum ut opinor Lucr. 1, 684; 5, 330. Also Cic.Rosc. Amer. 49; Verr. 2, 1, 26;

Caec. 21. See Koster 1980, 180.

109 Again a device used in rhetorical schools, cf. Sen. Contr. Exc. 5, 2, 1; 6, 6. 110 Cf. Liv. 2, 56, 7; 2, 35,1. On this passage see Koster 1980, 181.

20

Chapter 1


The next passage again displays the use of irony (4). 111 It too seemingly starts as a laudation until, reading on – or rather hearing on as the original audience must have done – we find the phrase “on the contrary”, a phrase that reverses the meaning of the preceding words. The language gains considerable force through the use of a list of strong nouns without verbs, creating the effect of a battering of hail on a wintry day. A tool frequently used in invective involves the cancelling of the meaning of the noun through the use of a derogatory adjective; 112 thus, levissimus senator, mercennarius patronus (“a most unreliable senator, patron for a fee”).113 To convince his listeners, Sallust quotes ironically from Cicero’s poem “On the consulship”, trying in this way to depict a Cicero deluded, convinced of his own greatness, against all the facts. Sallust again (5) denies Cicero’s words with that same “on the contrary” (immo vero). Another quotation from the Cicero’ s poem follows, but the final word laudi is changed to linguae. Thus his “conceited tongue” 114 Cicero is stressed, no doubt to a good chuckle from the audience. is depicted as a deceitful poet who grabbed power through arms. The harangue continues, rounding of f the narratio, with a striking comparison of Cicero to the dictator Sulla. Finally Sallust prepares the conclusion to his invective (7). He paraphrases and parodies Cicero’s poems on his consulship even employing Cicero’s hexametrical rhythm: Minerva omnis artis edocuit .115 Jupiter, the kindest and the greatest of the gods, admitted Cicero to the divine 116 Ancouncil, and Italy brought him back from exile upon her shoulders. other ironic, or, rather, sarcastic, sentence follows: it starts in the form of an address, oro te Romule Arpinas , resembling the formal solemnity of a prayer and continues with the somewhat grandiose words egregia tua 111 See Koster 1980, 183, who argues that verum ut opinor, homo novus Arpinas were

a hexameter, appropriate for a panegyric to Cicero; see also to virtus est animi.

112 Koster 1980, 184. 113 This rhetorical device may be discussed in greater detail through a comparison

of the whole passage with the second letter to Caesar of Pseudo-Sallust, and also with a Latin translation of a lost passage by Lycurgus, quoted by Rutilius Lupus (cf. below ch. 3, p. 113 f.). 114 “In any dissection of Cicero the venomous and hated tongue could not easily be forgotten”, see Nisbet 1958, 31. Cf. V retska 1961, II 52 ff.; Koster 1980, 185. 115 See Koster 1980, 186. 116 Cf. Cic. 7. See p. 158–159.

1.5


21

virtute. Exposing the huge gap between what Cicero purported himself to be and what he was in fact, Sallust addresses Cicero and asks him his position in society, his role in the state and f inally to declare his friends and his enemies. The invective thus achieves its aim through the frequently repeated idea that Cicero changed his political stance “for a fee”. Cicero is presented as a political nobody, a “totally unreliable renegade”, loyal neither the one side nor to the other.117 How then can Cicero respond to these accusations? 1.5.2

The content of the invective against Sallust

Cicero’ invective against Sallust is a more or less exact answer to the invective against Cicero. 118 It includes clear refutation of all the claims made in the first invective, and also, not to be outdone, a thorough attack on Sallust himself. The f irst paragraph (1) with its circuitous assault on his enemy has a fully Ciceronian feel. If Cicero were to deny all Sallust’ s slanders, he would have to relate his own life and deeds, thus revealing his own glory and provoking the envy of his opponents. If, on the other hand, he were to relate Sallust’ life and deeds, he would inevitably and of necessity descend to Sallust’s base level. The second paragraph (2) continues with the same theme: Cicero claims that he, in contrast to Sallust, would cause as little vexation to his audience as possible and would not stoop to “giving a false account”. Even more: he would say nothing new; all is already well known to the senators. The aim of this opening is clear: to turn Sallust’s words on himself and differentiate between Cicero’s defence and Sallust’s base attack. Cicero is now free to denigrate Sallust, while claiming not to be in the least bit interested in attacking him. Since Cicero is addressing the senators in the second paragraph he speaks about Sallust in the third person, and thus Sallust is presented as an isolated lone f igure, a fact that is stressed by the use of the pronoun unus quisque nostrum (each of us) which is opposed to Sallust himself (3).119 Sallust’s life, Cicero continues, should be judged not from his 117 Cf. Cic. 5. 118 For the question as to whether the author of the two invectives was the same per-

son, see ch. 3, p. 117 f., 121, 123 f.

119 See Koster 1980, 191.

22

Chapter 1


words but from his character . The exordium ends with the promise to be short and a reference to Aeschines’ ‘Against Timarchus’, where it is claimed that affairs of state evolve through private disputes where no private citizen can conceal his character.120 The exordium is more extensive than that of the first invective (which again could be an imitation of Cicero’s extensiveness); in this way Cicero aimed to draw the senators’ attention and render them well disposed to his ar guments, according to the rules of rhetoric.121 The first part of thenarratio (4), again following the rules of rhetoric, examines Sallust’s origins, his «.122 Cicero asks Sallust: who were the Scipios and the Metelli before they obtained glory through their deeds and their impeccable life? And then follows up: ‘As if you were a descendent of theirs, Sallust!’ The main characteristic of the f ifth paragraph is another «, the # «,123 a canonical comparison: ego meis maioribus virtute mea praeluxi … tu tuis … magnas offudisti tenebras [With my merit I have outshone my ancestors … Whereas you … have enveloped your ancestors in utter darkness]. Cicero boasts that for his own part he prefers to live with his own actions, and not to rest contented with his ancestors’ glory; he wants to be a model for posterity in his own right. In any case these ar guments are supposed to turn Sallust’ s accusations concerning Cicero’s low birth on their head. Cicero turns to the question of his poem on his consulship (7), parrying the inferences Sallust had made in his invective. Togatus, a diplomat, he outwitted those who were armed. Rome was fortunate to have him as a consul, since he managed to put an end to the civil war . He further reminds Sallust, that on a previous occasion he had praised Cicero’s consulship in his writings.124 He then adds, transforming Sallust’s words, that he is as far from impudicitia, as Sallust himself is to pudicitia. The 8th paragraph opens with the rhetorical question, “But why should I further complain about you?” Why indeed? There follows another 120 121 122 123 124

Cf. Aeschin. Tim. 2. Cf. Rhet. Her. 1, 6; 3, 11. See Koster 1980, 192. See above p. 13 f. See above p. 14. See below p. 170–171.

1.5


23

attack on Sallust’ s education, or rather , the lack thereof, this man who does not understand that there can be no civis egr egius who is not his artibus et disciplinis eruditus ! This does not however surprise Cicero, since Sallust was, as he puts it, “slothful in the extreme and decadent”. Turning to the standard accusations concerning his wife and daughter (9), 125 Cicero parries brief ly and offensively: Sallust leads much the more irrepressible sex life. There is no need, then, to refer to his relatives, as Sallust himself provides suf ficient material for the disgrace of any man. With suchlike brevity does Cicero dispatch the accusations concerning his property: because I am worth it, or, in his own words, “I possess considerably less, than I am worth”,126 he claims. The following section (10) commences with a question addressing Cicero’s opponent: ego fugax, C. Sallusti? Cicero describes his exile as a burden he preferred to endure rather than provoking “civil disagreement for the whole of the Roman people”. He overturns Sallust’s accusation: “all of you and the Roman people came out in crowds and congratulated me on my return, with all the other days of my life, it would, when I consider it, be the best. So highly did they value me, the renegade, the patron for a fee!” 127 Cicero’s replies to Sallust’s barbs continue unabated: not “at the beck and call of any private person”, Cicero wished only for peace and “was not afraid of anything, apart from the laws”.128 In the twelfth paragraph he rounds of f his of fensive self-defence and from the thirteenth he turns openly on Sallust himself: “And now to you, Sallust”. After this dramatic moment, the first open attack returns to the commonplace of the origin. He would not bother talking about Sallust’ s father, as he could not have done anything worse for the state than to have spawned such a good-for-nothing son. There is therefore no sense in talking about Sallust’s pueritia; far better to turn directly to his adolescentia.129 Sallust procured his riches through prostituting himself, but when he became older and could not satisfy his clients any more, he was “carried away with incessant cravings wishing to try on others all those 125 126 127 128 129

Cf. Cic. 2. Cf. Cic. 3–4. Cf. Cic. 5; 7. Cf. Cic. 7. See Koster 1980, 195 f.

24

Chapter 1


things he did not consider disgusting for his own body”. Cicero proceeds through Sallust’s career (14). He was twice hauled before a judge, but having managed to scrape his way out of his predicament, he obtained the quaestorship and became infamous for his adulteries. 130 “Your audacity outfoxes our diligence”, declares Cicero in mock-triumph (15). It was due to this immorality that Sallust was expelled from the Senate and “we saw you no more, except perhaps in those military camps where all the dregs of the state flowed”, in other words he joined up with Caesar (16). After arms overwhelmed the state, Sallust was reinstated into the Senate and there became a paradigm of corruption (17). Having completed his quaestorship, Sallust found himself one of the gang described as coetus omnium vitiorum (18). His praetorship followed, and Cicero’s audience is reminded that he plundered Inner Africa; Rome’s allies had never suffered as heavily in war as they suffered during his governorship in time of peace (19). His arbitrariness knew no limits; he exhausit quantum potuit … quantum voluit . To avoid judicial proceedings he even went so far as to bribe Caesar . Here Cicero employs the same device as Sallust had done in the earlier invective: should any of these accusations be false, Sallust can refute them in front of the senators. And then, with all the grace of a boomerang in reverse swing, he retorts: “How is it that you, who could not even pawn back your father’s house, suddenly, as if in a dream became wealthy and procured very precious gardens, 131 the T iburtine country house of Caius Caesar and the rest of your properties?” 132 This « is again a # «, Cicero blaming Sallust for those very faults, which Sallust f irst hurled against him, while at the same time defending himself from the earlier attacks (19–20). In full sarcastic swing Cicero ponders whether Sallust’s high offices have rendered him unbearably arrogant, only to continue by comparing Sallust’s relatively unimportant of ficial positions to his own more substantial achievements: “Do you, Caius Sallust, think, that it is the same to be twice a senator and twice a quaestor, as to be twice a consular and twice a triumphator?” (21). Sallust, Cicero superciliously concludes in a crescendo of self-righteousness, may not speak against anybody else,

130 See Koster 1980, 196. 131 Cf. Tac. Ann. 13, 47; Hist. 3, 82. 132 See below p. 184–185.

1.5


25

since he has so many faults of his own.133 “You”, he says, “the parasite of all others’ hospitality, the poacher in your youth of all others’ bedrooms, and later their adulterous defiler, you are a disgrace to all ordered society and an evocation of the civil war .” These few lines are a succinct summary of the whole of Cicero’s invective. The last paragraph (22) commences with a tricolon with anaphora, the thrice repeated desine; an appeal to Sallust to cease slandering people, rein in his unbridled behaviour, and discontinue weighing up all others in terms of his own ways-of-being. The invective here reaches its culmination. In the peroratio Cicero adds a brieffinis dicendi. The finis mirrors the opening, thus framing the speech. All in all, the first invective possesses a clearly defined structure according to the prototypes of the time; some , such as that of «, are mentioned in various contexts, rather than being developed in one paragraph; thus, for example, Cicero was a reperticius, accitus ac paulo ante insitus huic urbi civis, had no patrimonium and came from Lucius Crassus’ family. Nonetheless, the quotations from Cicero’s poem on his consulship and numerous parallels with Sallust’s and Cicero’s works reveal the author’s acquaintance with these texts and also his efforts to imitate, one of the basic features of the educational programmes in the rhetorical schools of the time. The second invective is much the better structured of the two.134 All of Sallust’ s accusations are countered, the introduction mirrors the conclusion framing the speech, and the sarcastic-supercilious-abusive tone, disguised as defence, is maintained from the first word to the last. Both invectives are characterised by the canonical rules of the school rhetorical tradition, where the of vituperatio are clearly recognised. No elements seem alien to this tradition; as a result these two invectives offer an important insight into the nature of rhetoric at that time. Irrespective of their authenticity , it is not irrelevant that a Quintillian, no less, could attribute such a speech to Sallust. Despite the fact that the content of the invectives seems puerile to our ears, it is important to remember that whether originally written by Cicero and Sallust or not, they

133 See Koster 1980, 198. 134 Ibid. 199.

26

Chapter 1


could be received by a Roman writer, and no doubt by a Roman audience, as original. In all probability however the invectives werecontroversiae, written as declamatory exercises on an imaginary legal theme set in an earlier historical context.

Chapter 2

The history of the text known as Sallust's invectives

27

Chapter 2 The history of the text known as Sallust’s invectives based on collated medieval manuscripts (10th – early 14th centuries) For medieval manuscripts, the text can be represented using a stemma as in p. 29. This stemma, f irst created by Jordan, 1 then amplified by Kurfess2 and Reynolds,3 is born out by the collation of new medieval manuscripts. This chapter deals both with important previously examined manuscripts but also and indeed for the most part with newly examined manuscripts (N, I, L, Q, Z, and Mp). The mistakes of the archetype, hyparchetypes, and also in some of the individual manuscripts, especially in those cases when they are not enrolled in the stemma, i. e. are contaminated or conjectured, are analysed here on the basis of the completed stemma.4 SIGLA: consensus codicum AFKNTGBX consensus codicum CDISLHbQREZMpHOPM consensus codicum SLHbQREZMpHOPM consensus codicum REZMpHOPM consensus codicum HOPM consensus codicum REZ consensus codicum SLHbQ consensus codicum AFKN « correctiones vel coniecturae in uno vel pluribus codicibus recentioribus inventae 1 2 3 4

Jordan added three manuscripts H, K and Hb to A, T, and B, which were known from previous editions. See ch. 3, p. 145. Kurfess added four manuscripts M, E, P and V to Jordan’ s stemma. See ch. 3, p. 145 f. Reynolds made two stemmata. See ch. 3, p. 146 ff. See also the list of Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts containing the invectives in Novokhatko 2002, 273–286.

28

A B C D E F G H Hb I K L M Mp N O P Q R S T V X Z

5

Chapter 2


consensus codicum TGBX consensus codicum CDI omnium codicum consensus Gudianus lat. 335, s. X/XI Monacensis lat. 4611, s. XII Parisinus lat. 11127, c.1000 Bodleianus Dorvillianus 77, s. X Monacensis lat. 14714, s. XII Laurentianus 50.45, s. XI Vaticanus lat. 3251, s. XI/XII Harleianus 2716, s. X Harleianus 3859, s. XII1 Harleianus 4927, s. XII2 Harleianus 2682, s. XI2 Laurentianus 45.2, s. XII1 Monacensis lat. 4611, s. XII Montpellier, 413, s. XII/XIII Brit. Mus. Add. 21242, s. XIII Bodleianus Rawl. G.43, s. XI Admontensis 363, s. XII Cantabrigiensis, Trinity Col., Ms. 1381 (O. 8.6), s. XII Remensis 1329, s. XI2 Edinburgensis Adv. 18.7.8. s. XI/XII Monacensis lat. 19472, s. XII Vaticanus lat. 17475, s. XIV Sanctae Crucis 228, s. XII Sélestat 93, 7 (anc. 98), s. XIII

Manuscript V is late and contaminated, but, as will be shown further on, its readings play an important role in some specif ic places. It has therefore been included in the list here.

Chapter 2

29


STEMMA (on the basis of Reynolds’ stemma):

saec. X saec. XI1

C A

H

D

O

F

saec. XI2

K

saec. XI/XII

R G

saec. XII saec. XIII

T N

S B

X

I

L Q Hb E

P M Z MP

30

Chapter 2


2.1

Archetype &:

This archetype was seriously damaged. There are two signif icant omissions and also numerous mainly insignificant mistakes by the scribe (for example the damage of a word border in Sall. 21).6 The text was also interpolated, mainly in order to improve it. Several attempts were also made by the scribe to embellish it (Cic. 4; Sall. 3). Despite the high level of damage there are novoces nihili in the text. In one instance we ifnd interlinear scholia apparently included in the text. The interpolation in Sall. 22 7 and the readings mentioned below in the hyparchetype 8 reveal that the archetype included explanations and/or variants in the text. The fact that both families ( and ) have numerous variants9 reveals the presence of some of them in the archetype as well. Interpolation: Cic. 1 praedae Eussner] perfidiae : locum M: perfidiae locum V1, locum del. V2 Cic. 2 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LO: dubitata P: delibitata P2 Cic. 2 habites ] habitares rell.: habitatores O Cic. 4 esse opulentiam H] esse quin opulentiam Reynolds Kurfess might well be right in following the reading of H, where quin is absent. Thus parasti in Cic. 4 could be retained, as in the archetype. Furthermore, the lack of the conjunction after dubium … esse seems to be highly plausible. It is not likely that a subjunctivepararis as proposed by Jordan (or a variant without contraction paraveris, proposed by the first edition, and present, as can be seen in the collation results, in other manuscripts,10 and indeed accepted into the text by Reynolds in order to reinstate the grammatical correspondence with quin) could have been transformed in the manuscript into the contracted infinite parasti. Cic. 4 L. Crassi Rawson] M. Crassi : Marci Crassi OMp L. Crassi – Reynolds, Rawson 6 7 8 9 10

For example, res publica in the archetype always has the abbreviation r. p. See below p. 33 and 40. See below p. 75 ff. See p. 35 ff. See manuscript L p. 74 f.

2.1

Archetype &

31

M. Crassi – , Kurfess C. Marii – Glarean, Gruter, Vretska, Shackleton Bailey Glarean proposed C. Marii in the place of the manuscript tradition, which reads M. Crassi. This reading was accepted by Jachmann, Vretska, and Shackleton Bailey as Cicero never belonged to the Crassus family.11 Cicero’s grandmother was aunt or sister to Marius Gratidianus’ grandmother. He in turn was the adopted son of Marius’ brother, whom Cicero refers to as propinquus noster (Off. 3, 67). 12 Jachmann points out that Cicero and Marius chose to avow their common brotherhood. Marius was from the same region as Cicero (cf. homo Arpinas ) and his background was relatively humble (cf. contemnit simultatem hominum nobilium). However , the above considerations seem somewhat irrelevant because Marius does not seem to have been a role model for Cicero. The actual manuscript reading M. Crassi refers to Marcus Licinius Crassus (115/114 – 53 BC, consul 70 and 55, triumvir) from whom Cicero bought back his own father’s old house in 62BC (Fam. 5, 6, 2). These economic relations however would not explain any allusion to some kind of a kinship relationship between Cicero and his counterpart, nor indeed would this reading add an ironic tone to the invective. 13 Taking these considerations into account, Rawson14 suggested the reading L. Crassi, and Reynolds also accepted this reading into his text. Cicero’ s uncle V iselius Aculio was one of Lucius Crassus’ best friends. Cicero and Lucius Crassus were not related, but Lucius Crassus is mentioned seven times by Cicero followed by the epithet sapientissimus. Lucius Crassus was indeed a role model for Cicero, and this reading suits the ironic context of the invective.

11 Jordan 316 refers to Corrado for whom familia means kin or clan. Jordan dis-

agrees with Kurfess’ preferred translation of familia as sort or category in other words the same kind of person asMarcus Crassus. See Jachmann 1950, 274–275; SB 367. 12 Vretska 1961, II 40. 13 Marcus’ father, Publius Licinius Crassus, consul in 97, may be mentioned here. Cf. He was widely appreciated as a military man and as a politician. He is referred to three times in the Sallustian invectives ( Cic. 2, Sall. 14, Sall. 20), on each occasion as P. Crassus. 14 Rawson 1991, 223–226.

32

Chapter 2


Cic. 4 removetur a vero ( Reitzenstein), amicitia … animi: movetur ed. Ven.: removetur. aliud vero amicitia … animi : removetur [aliud vero amicitia … animi] del. Jordan Aliud ver o, which comes from the archetype, is hardly plausible and so Reitzenstein replaced it witha vero. In this way removetur receives its necessary object. A!liud" can be explained as an interpolation caused by a mistake and related to the following sentence. 15 As amicitia tantum ac virtus est animi sounds stylistically awkward, and as amicitia does not suit the context, the elimination of the whole passage aliud … animi by Jordan looks correct. The verb removetur needs an object and this would seem to be the reason why the form in the f irst edition was altered to movetur. The whole passage does not change much contextually, so Jordan’s conjecture seems probable. Shackleton Bailey proposediustitia instead of amicitia, translating the passage as “loves only justice and virtue”.16 This passage might however imitate Sallust’ s famous abstract sentences. This could be the intention either of the interpolator or of the author of the invective. Cic. 7 auctore WirzKurfessReynoldsShackletonBailey] iure !cum"17 Sall. 2 scio «] sciatis : atis del., o s.l. K Sall. 3 de eo … obiectat del. Jordan Jordan’s decision to eliminate de eo qui falsum crimen bonis obiectat is correct. The passage beginning with de is not stylistically sound. Most probably it was an explicative interlinear scholium, explaining “calumniam ferre”. Cf. Cic. Fam. 8, 8, 1: … nihil quod magis gavisurum te putem habeo quam hoc: scito C. Sempr onium Rufum … calumniam maximo plausu tulisse . However, Shackleton Bailey decided to follow the manuscript reading here, with qui instead of quod. The sense implied then is: ‘if any of us brings a false char ge against the innocent, his own conscience will convict him’.18 Sall. 3 illam] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit l 15 The suggestion of Vretska (II 41) ab iud!icio" looks paleographically plausible,

but his ar gumentation against Reitzenstein’ s variant is baseless and unnecessarily complicates the text. 16 SB 366–367. 17 See below p. 33. 18 SB 374–375.

2.1

Archetype &

33

Sall. 6 si del. Cortius Sall. 13 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem Hb Sall. 17 !et" idem Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantundem M: tantidem I: tantum HPO Totidem, a senseless and grammatically incorrect interpolation, appeared because of the numerals bis which follow further on in the text. Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (consert–BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari Hb: petulantissima sectari lingua I lingua is considered by Kurfess to be an interpolation. The interpolation was located supra lineam in the archetype as is revealed by the reading of .19 Omission: Cic. 3 lac. inter custodem et absque Cic. 4 unam (Jachmann) om.20 Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb] eum sequeris Following on from quo auctore in the place of iure cum21 the word insequeris is necessary, and we find the correct reading already in H b. It might have occurred by chance in Hb as a dittography after eum. Sall. 6 magistratibus !tam severus " aut … tam saevus (severus codd.) Eussner Eussner’s conjecture is mentioned in both Kurfess’ and Reynolds’ apparatus. It is not sufficiently plausible to be accepted into the text but it might nonetheless be right. His conjecture is probably based on the omission of an adjective after magistratibus. Thus, Eussner ’s reading is based on a similar mistake to that which would have appeared in the archetype at Cic. 1, where audiendo was replaced with the second dicendo. In the same way here tam saevus (or any other adjective) could be replaced by tam severus; in later manuscripts such a reduplication might be eliminated through the omission of the first tam severus. Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.22 Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I 19 See below p. 40. 20 Jachmann’s conjecture is not mentioned in Reynolds’ apparatus. It can easily be

explained palaeographically (omission after nobilium) and indeed improves the passage to such an extent that it would seem to be correct. 21 See p. 32. 22 See below p. 75.

34

Chapter 2


Sall. 17 a victore] victores T1 : victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV23 Sall. 21 et om. (habent BX) Dittography: Cic. 1 audiendo «] dicendo Mistakes: Cic. 3 tusculanam EM] –um rell.24 Cic. 6 interfuerit V] interfuit Cic. 7 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares R Sall. 1 oratio V«] ratio Sall. 1 consequetur A1N] –atur rell. Sall. 1 suscensere FTD] succ– rell.: succurrere Q: succendere V Sall. 1 debetis K2M2] debeatis Sall. 2 debetis K] debebitis rell.: debitis Q Sall. 3 illam] aliam Sall. 4 fuerit] fuerint Sall. 5 vita ed. princ.] vitae : om. K1 Sall. 5 per te] certe Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erudimenta rell. Sall. 12 vatinio Hb] vatino Sall. 12 reprehendetur «] –atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur QHbMp Sall. 12 disserendum M] discernendum rell. Sall. 13 qui IM2] si rell. Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur LIV : intelligitur REQHbMpM Sall. 15 viris recte VK 2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestris, corr. vobis I2 Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AF : et pro K1, et quid VK2 Sall. 16 dilectum BX ] delectum rell. Sall. 17 per] post Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: quae K2: qua BX Sall. 18 tamquam X] tanquam BHb: tantam rell. Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N 23 See below p. 42 and 53. 24 See p. 82 and 86.

2.2

Families and

35

Sall. 18 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V Sall. 19 nonne «] non : quid Q: quin Hb: non enim P: del. K2 Sall. 19 reluere «] relinire : relinquere I Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti Sall. 20 eius] vetus Sall. 20 comesto] comeso AFXCEPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV Sall. 21 parat. Is Jordan: paratus est. is iam SLV: parat EPMp: paratus Hb Sall. 16 aperte ABXEM] apte rell.25 Division in the text transmission: Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NERMMpV1: et tam I It seems obvious that –ne was abbreviated in the archetype . The contamination of the family with the hyparchetype and manuscripts H and O may be the result of an interlinear interpolation or an explanation in (a comment in the mar gin to molestissimis verbis ); it could also however be a simple dittography before or after m. Sall. 4 his Schmidt] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Schmidt’s conjecture provides commendavit with a necessary object in the dative. hos in occurred by analogy with the following quos. The omission of s from hi in the family can be explained by the position of commendavit in the sentence. The scribe neither connected it with the pronoun nor put the pronoun in the dative,commendavit being too distant. Sall. 18 debitorum «] dedit– : ledit– I The archetype probably read deditorum.

2.2

Families and

The text, as transmitted by the medieval tradition, is divided in two branches (families and ), and the latter ( ) is much lar ger that the former (). Eight manuscripts belong to family, fifteen – to . The division of different manuscripts into hyparchetypes in family is more or less clear, as all the manuscripts, give or take a few inaccuracies, with the 25 See below p. 38, 82 f. and 97 for examples of a correct reading in and EM.

36

Chapter 2


exception of B, X and N, transmit the text correctly . The interaction of manuscripts in family is less clear, partly due to contamination, partly because of arbitrary alteration to the text in some manuscripts. 2.2.1

Family (AFK+ N, T GBX)

The main defining features of family are the omission of whole words. Thus the extensive omission of a number of words in Sall. 11 is remarkable. The omission was however present in the manuscript as a marginal or interlinear scholium. In Sall. 15 the second variant of secutus to adeptus was probably originally written supra lineam. The interpolation of the predicate est can be explained by the damage to the word despectus.26 In Sall. 17 and Sall. 20 we are in all likelihood dealing with a varia lectio written supra lineam. Omission: Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O 27 Sall. 5 ego ] om. Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N Mp] tuendam r.p. Hb: r. p. Sall. 7 armatos N] om. MMp Sall. 9 invasisti om. : evasisti Mp Sall. 9 vero om. : enim M Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T: habet N: marg. add. K2 This sentence, omitted because of haplography (the previous sentence ends with aestimaverunt), had to be included in the text both in and in , either supra lineam or in margine. The manuscripts of and T reproduce the text of the archetype , ignoring this variant, while B and X include it in the text. Sall. 12 ego om. E Sall. 13 enim om. Sall. 14 turpissime om. , habet N Sall. 16 umquam N ] om. : usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp

26 On despectui habuit see above p. 33. On Cic. 6 see above p 35. On Sall. 22 see

above p. 33 and below p. 40.

27 See below p. 82.

2.2

Families and

37

Transposition: Cic. 2, 3 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s. l. R28 Cic. 2, 3 se cicero ] cicero se : se cicero dicit I Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2 RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A29 Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp Transposition in conjunction with omission: Sall. 17 nihil in eo non BX ] nihil non in eo FK: non in eo nihil ANV : nihil non in eo non T In all probability, in eo, which fell out of archetype , was written supra lineam in the text.In eo is found in the right place in archetype, while in it is transposed after non. As a result we f ind the reduplication nihil non, which led to the transposition of nihil in manuscripts A and N. In hyparchetype however it led to the transposition of non, which corresponds to the correct reading of archetype (as in manuscripts B and X). In any case, in f non had to be present in the text, and afterwards was eliminated after eo. The manuscript T through an oversight retained both non. Interpolation: Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in 30 H: etiam im- O: etiam ERMMpV: et tam I Cic. 7 quem2 ] et quem AFN : et K Et quem was present in archetype . Only K omitted quem. Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod A : quae O Quod served as an explanation in archetype (and in as a variant); this explanation was included into the text in manuscript A and hyparchetype . Sall. 15 adeptus] adeptus !secutus est" (est om. T) V: adeptus sequitus est Mp

28 See below p. 79. 29 See below p. 41. 30 See above p. 35.

38

Chapter 2


Mistakes: Cic. 1 iudicia] audacia : ac iudicia N31 Sall. 8 ducis AN ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 12 egregii] egregiae F1K Mp Sall. 14 non queat ] nequeat P: non querat V Sall. 20 fuerat N] fuerit (nisi fuit A) Sall. 20 tui N] tibi HbAF : tibi vel tui K In all probablity the correct reading tui was marked as a varia lectio vel tui in archetype and supra lineam in . Thus in manuscript K it appears in the text next to tibi. In manuscript Hb it is a mistake. 2.2.2

Family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)

Archetype is characterised for the most part by certain important interpolations. There are also two simple transpositions.Sall. 7; Sall. 10; Sall. 13; Sall. 17 as well as the correct readings in the manuscripts EM or in EM, discussed below ,32 clearly show that archetype included numerous variants in the text. Transposition: Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I] ac (an E) dicta tua: facta tua ac dicta tua N Cic. 4 dubium potest esse ] potest dubium esse : potest esse dubium I Interpolation: Cic. 4 et O] ac : om. V33 The correct reading of O is a consequence of an accidental “correct” interpretation of the abbreviation, which in other manuscripts of family was read as ac. Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDH1PMp Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERVAld in mar g., LugdBasVen: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQHbO: s. l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp 31 On the contamination of N see below p. 44 f. 32 See below p. 82 ff. and 97 ff. 33 et seems to be preferable for acoustic reasons; ac probably was an interpolation

after et which fell out of the text (after sanguine).

2.2

Families and

39

Loquar had to be written supra lineam or in mar gine in archetype . In this way it is possible to explain the fact that some manuscripts stemming from various hyparchetypes include it in the text, whereas others ignore it. Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V The reading of hyparchetype , or alternatively only some manuscripts of hyparchetype , coincides with the correct reading of family in Sall. 7 and Sall. 13. This could be explained by the suggestion that the reading of family was included in the text as a variant in family and accordingly, hyparchetypes and . Manuscripts E and M included the correct reading in the text (sumptus was written as a supra lineam explanation). Hyparchtype omitted this explanation, while and included it in the text.34 Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A2 : vetuit BX: vetavit T Archetype probably included the corrected variant vixit following on from –av–, which fell out of the text. The correct reading in E shows that it was present as a variant in archetype, and also in and . (On the hyparchetype see below). Sall. 18 erat ] erat exemplar 35 Omission: Sall. 20 sis om. : recte Mp36 Mistakes: Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi : hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 37 Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid ERHP: numquid : nunquid LI: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 8 ullum ERMMp] illum HO38 Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –averunt BX: –avarint : –arent P 34 See below p. 58, 67, 81, 96 104, 109. 35 Exemplar, used with the genitive eius partis, simplifies the general syntax of the

phrase.

36 On the contamination of the manuscript Mp see below p. 110. 37 See p. 35, 44, 83, 94, 99, 110. 38 The same reading in ERMMp and could occur by chance. However , taking into consideration Sall. 13, the variant present in archetype can be posited.

40

Chapter 2

2.3


Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX) 2.3.1

Hyparchetype (AFK+N)

Four manuscripts belong to hyparchetype . This hyparchetype was established by Reynolds in his edition of Sallust and in TT,39 where he indicated manuscripts A, F and K. A later manuscript N should be added to the group.40 Among the fundamental errors of hyparchetype are a number of transpositions, but there are several interpolations also. On two occasions hyparchetype contains the correct reading in contrast to the rest of the tradition: Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I It is probable that amicitiae was written in the archetype. This reading is not however relevant and it would seem to be based on a mistake. Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.:41 petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I Here there are no reasons for mechanical omission of the interpolated lingua in Sall. 22. Its absence in the reading of suggests that both in and, originally, in the word lingua was not included in the text, but in the margin or between the lines. Omission: Cic. 1 hoc om. , habet N Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: in m., in c., in I. t. B Interpolation: Cic. 4 aedificaveris] exaedificaveris p Cic. 7 quem 2 ] et quem AFN CV: et K (this interpolation is relevant for ) Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FK2N Sall. 9 ego] mihi FK1: del. K2, om. A

39 TT 350–351. 40 See below p. 42 ff. 41 See above on the interpolation of archetype p. 33.

2.3

Hyparchetypes of the family (AFK+N, T GBX)

41

It would seem that in mihi was written instead of ego. This word was then omitted in A. Transposition: Cic. 5 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (–ulere K1) Sall. 5 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I Sall. 10 omniaque quae K2 SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A (this transposition is relevant for ) Sall. 12 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M bMp (this transposition is relevant Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANH for manuscripts of ) Mistakes: Sall. 5 praeluxi] proluxi AFK Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M: om. P Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1: aut N Sall. 20 comesto] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV Among the manuscripts belonging to group , manuscript K, 42 written in the 2 nd half of 1 1th century in Cologne, is particularly important. In a number of readings it is strikingly dif ferent compared to other manuscripts of : Cic. 1 ubiubi] ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed ubi 2 s. l. K2V2, del. M) est add. Reynolds Cic. 7 quem2 ] et quem AFN : et K Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FNK2 Sall. 2 debetis K] debebitis rell. These three readings seem to be omissions of K.

42 London, British Library , Harl. 2682, 2 nd half 1 1th cent. (Cologne); parchment,

347x250 (263x195), 192ff. (36 lines). A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. II (London 1808), 707; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 21 1 ff. K – Reynolds; Ha – TT 351; Kurfess; h – Clark, in cat., marc., ligar., deiot., philipp.; H – Clark, marc., ligar., deiot., de imp., pro mil. ff. 113r–114v.

42

Chapter 2


Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: huic AFV Sall. 20 tui N] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K These examples show K’ s individuality. It is the only manuscript that reproduces the reading of hyparchetype . A and F include the reading tibi in the text, while N correctly reads tui. th cenBoth manuscripts A43 and F44 were written either at the end of the 10 tury or early on in the 1 1th century, F supposedly in Germany , A – in South-Western Germany . N, 45 published here for the f irst time, was written later, in the 13th century, and is more complicated.46 It is worth noting that only groups AF and FK include the same errors, something that is not the case for AK. As far as N is concerned, it definitely belongs to the same hyparchetype. It cannot however be considered as belonging to any group, sharing common readings sometimes with one manuscript and at other times with another. Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod AN : quae O Sall. 9 ego] mihi FK1: del. K2, om. A Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2 RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A Sall. 12 egregii] egregiae F1K Mp Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANHbMp Sall. 17 nihil in eo non XB] nihil non in eo NFK: non in eo nihil A: nihil non in eo non T47 Sall. 22 aperte ANXBEM] apte rell.

43 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Gud. lat. 335 (4642), 10

44

45 46 47

–11th cent. (South-Western Germany); parchment, 140x1 15, 85 ff.; Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel beschr. v. O. v. Heinemann, Vierte Abt.: Die Gudischen Handschriften, Bd. IX (W olfenbüttel 1913), 251ff.; B.Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 316. A – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 351; g – Clark, marc., ligar., deiot. ff. 43r–54r. Firenze, Bibliotheca Laurentiana, Laur . 50.45, 10 th –11th cent. (Germany?); parchment, 325x245, 120ff.; Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, t.1 (Firenze 1774), 523f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 177. F – Reynolds; TT 351; x – Clark, in cat. ff. 106v–108v. London, British Library, Add. 21 242, 13th cent.; parchment, 217x141 (175x96), 49 ff. (32 lines); Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1854–1860 (London 1965, 11875), 346. ff. 37v–41r. See below p. 44 ff. See above p. 37. th

2.3


43

Only once, at a point where F includes a simple error , with the abbreviation for r!e" rendered as et, do manuscripts A, K and N stand closer to each other than usual: Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsa populi romani NIMp: ipsam r. p. V The division between the four manuscripts is due to the dif ferent interpretation of variants in hyparchetype, something that is clear from what follows, where K includes both readings in the text: Sall. 20 tui N] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K Almost all the common errors of manuscripts A, F and N are based on the interpolation. In K various readings were retained in textu, probably intentionally, while A, F and N include a variant written supra lineam or in the margin. The common readings F and K can be explained by the fact that A and N included ever more variants in their texts. The readings AN against FK only twice offer the right text (Sall. 12 and Sall. 22). In other places the reading of A is closer to the correct text than the readings of FK. Other correct readings of A are not signif icant and occur simply by chance: Sall. 1 consequetur A1N] –atur rell. Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erud– rell. In manuscript A there are some individual interpolations: Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. H b: iudicia p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V Sall. 8 homo] homo levissimus A Sall. 9 te opinor] te ut opinor A: ut opinor te I: te opinio Hb« Sall. 14 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R Sall. 22 velle] malle A An extensive omission in A should be pointed out: Sall. 14 neque–paterna domo om. A An individual interpolation in K is relevant: Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid VK2: qui post et quod B

44

Chapter 2


The manuscript N has some contaminated readings. In all probability , the scribe used several manuscripts and among them those of hyparchetype were clearly important. There are also some common readings with family : Cic. 1 iudicia ] audacia : ac iudicia N This is a palaeographical error . In this way the scribe (or his source) wanted to explain why in the manuscripts of family the word iudicia was read wrongly. He may have thought that ac iudicia became audacia. Doubtless, he had access to manuscripts of family , which he used in this place. Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I ] ac (an E) dicta tua : facta tua ac dicta tua N This provides further evidence of the scribe’ s access to several manuscripts of both families, and . He combines the variants of and . Cic. 2 res sit TG ] res sit p. B: res p. sit N: sit res p. XSHPOVMp: sit r. p. QLHbEMRZ Cic. 2 p. crassi viri clarissimi fuit]48 p. crassi v. c. fuit AKTGD: p. crassi ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLHbMpAldLugdBasGrutRomCrisp: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v . fuit R: publii crassi viri consularis fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H2: publii c. viri fuit P: publii c. fuit viri clarissimi M: viri clarissimi om. I The resprective scribes of manuscript N and manuscript F read the abbreviation v. c . (as it appeared in the archetype) dif ferently. N followed the manuscripts of family , while F read the abbreviation correctly. Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven. ] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NRMpEMV1: et tam I Cic. 6 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis N Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N Mp] tuendam r. p. Hb: r. p. Sall. 7 armatos N] om. MMp Sall. 8 ullum ERMPMp] illum N HO Sall. 9 vero te] vero om. : enim te M: te vero N Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2 Sall. 12 sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R Sall. 14 turpissime om. , habet N 48 See below p. 60 f., 66 ff.

2.3


45

Sall. 16 umquam N ] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. Sall. 17 qui] quos N Sall. 19 rerum novarum] novarum rerum NHM Sall. 20 fuerat N] fuerit FK : fuit A Sall. 20 tui N] tibi HbAF : tibi vel tui K Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO Sall. 21 quod KXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Sall. 21 decet] debet NILHb Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I As evident from the above list, the scribe of N used mainly manuscripts of hyparchetypes and . Sometimes he includes readings from the manuscripts of . At one point N has a correct reading, as does the manuscript Hb, whereas the rest of the tradition does not: Sall. 12 vatinio NHb«] vatino : vectivo V There are also conjectures in the manuscript: Cic. 1 venales habeat] venales habebat N: habeat venales Z Cic. 5 eam] illam N: om. : civium «: ea V Cic. 5 libertate] libidine N Cic. 6 te] ne T1, corr. T2: om. Mp: se N Sall. 3 istius] ipsius E: illius N Sall. 6 ac] aut N49 Sall. 9 eorum] illorum N Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1 ad s. l. c K: ad s. l. ac V: aut N50 Sall. 20 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IHb Sall. 20 ac] sive N51 Interpolation: Cic. 7 nunc post eorum N, s. l. V Sall. 6 cuius primos ordines] cuius me primos ordines N: cuius me principem primos dies ordines, postea corr. Q 49 Cf. Sall. 17 (ac] ad A1FK1 ad s. l. c K: ads. l. ac V: aut N) andSall. 20 (ac] sive N). 50 Cf. Sall. 6 and Sall. 20. 51 Cf. Sall. 6 and Sall. 17.

46

Chapter 2


Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NVI«Reynolds: historiae s. l. is Hb Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp The manuscript N apparently interpreted the abbreviation of hyparchetype p. r. as populi romani. Omission: Cic. 2 itaque] ita N Cic. 5 atque] at qui B: at N Sall. 1 dicendi] om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo Hb Sall. 1 de om. N Sall. 9 abstinuerunt quam tu vir a viris om. N: s. l., in mar g. iter. H1, postea del. H2 Sall. 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q: suo aio Hb Sall. 10 vos om. N Sall. 14 corporis om. N Sall. 15 egeris – volueris om. N Sall. 19 contrudi] trudi N Sall. 20 quem ne] qui me E: ne om. N Sall. 21 c.] gai K: crispe O: om. N Transposition in N: Cic. 1 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLAldLugdBasGrutRomCrisp This reading occurred by chance rather than being corrected against the run of the rest of the textual tradition. Cic. 3 gloriam suam] suam gloriam N Cic. 4 sanguine et miseriis civium] sanguine civium ac miseriis ZN (here the scribe is also engaged in conjecture) Cic. 6 oblivisci his K 2CH2MZIMp] his oblivisci N: oblivisci piis : oblivisci is O Cic. 7 umeris suis] suis humeris N Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. VMp Sall. 1 vitium incidam procacitatis] incidam procacitatis vitium N Sall. 10 reliqua vita] vita reliqua N Sall. 11 volui quicquam] quicquam volui M: volui ante quicquam om., post vobis suppl. N Sall. 14 sodalicium sacrilegi] sacrilegi sodalicium N Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N

2.3


47

Sall. 15 sordidissimo homini] homini sordidissimo N Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb Sall. 18 similitudine vitae se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine vitae N: se similitudine, vitae om. I The scribe of manuscript N wrote his text, interpreting it as he went along. There are some mistakes, which can be regarded as conjectures. Mistakes: Cic. 1 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp: deripi N Cic. 1 accitus] accito N This reading was inferred by analogy with paulo, which follows. Cic. 2 putares] patares N Cic. 2 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LP1O: delibitata P2 Cic. 3 concilio] consilio NQV Cic. 3 compertum] comperto N Cic. 4 hominum] omnium N Cic. 5 supplex] duplex N Cic. 7 dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii Hb Cic. 7 causam] causas N Sall. 1 ac parem] atque parem I: om. E: aut parem N Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar«QHbVK2: mentitum esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N Sall. 2 respondendo] respondebo N Sall. 2 aucdituros, c del. N Sall. 4 maiores] mores N: maiorum Hb Sall. 4 turpitudinis] turpitu O: turpidinis N Sall. 5 satius est enim] satis est enim NQ: sanctius etenim est :Vsacrus?.. R Sall. 5 posteris] in posteris K1 (in del. K2): poposteris N Sall. 5 conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ Sall. 6 r. p.] r. r. N Sall. 9 non] nam N Sall. 10 perbacchatus] perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N Sall. 10 aestimaverunt] existimaverunt QHbMp: estimarent N: extimaverunt V Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N Sall. 11 vos] vobis N

48

Chapter 2


This error was inferred by analogy with the previousvobis, which occurs in the same sentence. Sall. 12 insolentiam] insolempniam N Sall. 12 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KHbE: ne NO Sall. 13 tempore] tui N Sall. 13 tui] cui N Sall. 13 sed sed qualem N Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV : intelligitur REQHbMpM Sall. 15 nobis] vobis N Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N Sall. 19 ne causam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N Sall. 20 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N Sall. 20 villae] millae N1 Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule NLV Sall. 22 offendere] offenfi N Sall. 22 sallustius] abistius N: salustius tuus O Sall. 22 ego honeste] honeste ego KEHb: ego honestius N: ego om. G Manuscript K includes thorough corrections by a second hand. Some readings are influenced by the other manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 1 actibus] actibus nostris A1FK2N The scribe also used correct readings from family.52 In some places K2 offers a correct reading: 52 Cic. 5 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (–ulere K1) Cic. 6 his NK2CZIH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod AN : quae O Sall. 5 vita ed. princ.] vitae : om. K1 Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp

Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M: om. P Sall. 9 ego] mihi FK1: del. K2, om. A Sall. 10 omniaque quae K2 SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, marg. add. K2 Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle RH: hercul N Sall. 14 hercules E] hercule F2V: mehercules K2: hercle Mp: herculis pedesR Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdBat] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid K 2V: qui post et quod B Sall. 6, 16 aut dictum I?K2] auditum NFK1T1 : et dictum L: auditu AT2XB

2.3


49

Sall. 1 debetis K2M2] debeatis Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp:om. QBasGrut: vestris I1, corr. vobis I2 This reading probably did not occur by chance. It could be a conscious conjecture. 2.3.2

Hyparchetype (T GBX)

Hyparchetype is mentioned by Reynolds f irst in TT,53 and then in his edition of Sallust. InTT Reynolds mentions three manuscripts of the hyparchetype: T, G and B. Manuscript X was found by Reynolds later and first mentioned in his edition of Sallust in 1991. He did not however use all four manuscripts in this edition, but only two of them – T and X. Hyparchetype is not the oldest one. Its oldest manuscript G was written around 11th –12th cent. The hyparchetype would seem to be from Southern Germany, Austria or Northern Italy. Hyparchetype shows few individual errors. Its main def ining features are two transpositions and an interpolation. There are some irrelevant mistakes. Transposition: Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. VMp Sall. 1 mea vita] vita mea Interpolation: Cic. 3 aut1] autem M Mistakes: Cic. 7 male dicis Tpc et rell.] maledictis A2 : malidicis M Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod AN : quae O Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1 : vetuit XBG?54: vetavit T Sall. 16 posset ] possit K2: possis HbV1: possim V2 Sall. 17 ac] ad A1FK1: ad s. l. c K2: ad s. l. ac V: aut N Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua XB Sall. 19 somnio AFK2TC2D] somno K1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sono MMp: sonno O: somnium C1: sompno V 53 TT 350–352. 54 Manuscript G was collated from a photocopy of the original, and the reading is unclear at this point.

50

Chapter 2


Sall. 18 in fretis] infreti : infrae s. l. fretis E: insertis V Sall. 19 sint] sunt O Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –arint : –arent P: –averunt XB Within the hyparchtype a sub-group, gemelli B and G, is evident. The manuscript B55 was written in the 12th century in a Benedictine Abbey in Southern Bavaria, while the manuscript G56 was written on the boundary between the 11th and 12th centuries in Northern Italy. Each has individual readings but often they reveal errors common to hyparchetype . It is also worth noting that common errors within BG occur only in the invective against Cicero. Omission: Cic. 1 viri om. BG Cic. 5 tu om. BGHb Cic. 7 parte om. BG Transposition: Cic. 4 si tibi] sit A: tibi si BG Cic. 5 audet dicere] dicere audeat BG It is worth noting the error audeat, which is used instead of audet. This probably occurred by analogy with the previous subjunctive sit. This individual interpolation is relevant because it could be aconjecture: Cic. 4 litibus] laudibus BG Mistakes: Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGZEH: oppugnatum oppug, postea corr. Q

55 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 461 1 (1236), 12 th cent. (Benedict-

beuern); parchment, 213x156, 198ff. (f. 1 and 198 later bound, content on f. 2); Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. I, p. II (München 1894), 216; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 228f. B – Kurfess, TT 63, 351; b – Clark, in cat. ff. 192v–197v. 56 Vatican, Bibliotheca V aticana, Vat. lat. 3251, 1 1th –12th cent. (Northern Italy); parchment, 350x230, III+178 +1 ff. M. Passalaqua, I codici di Prisciano (Rom 1978), 341 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XIIe siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 788 f. G – TT 351; ff. 37r–39v.

2.3


51

Cic. 4 acceperis] acceperas BG Cic. 5 patronus] patronis BG Cic. 6 quidlibet] quodlibet BGHbBasGrutRom The manuscripts of hyparchetype contain a number of individual readings. Manuscript B has some striking individual readings. These are mainly interpolations and omissions. Omission: Cic. 3 te om. B Cic. 5 tu om. ABE: tui, i del. V1 Cic. 5 revocaveras] revocaras B Cic. 6 quod om. B Cic. 6 confeceris] feceris B: confeceris om. K1: perfeceris Hb Cic. 6 atque om. B Cic. 7 appellabas] appellas BV Cic. 7 odisti ei maxime om. B Cic. 7 in hac neque om. B Sall. 2 et om. BO Sall. 3 itaque] ita B Sall. 4 quoniam] quo B Sall. 5 initium et virtutis om. B Sall. 7 et om. BE: del. T Sall. 8 incunabula] cunabula BV Sall. 10 in om. B Sall. 15 a om. B Sall. 19 aut om. B Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp Interpolation: Cic. 7 redisti] cecidisti B: redidisti Q: redires Hb Sall. 1 non] non in B: om. QHb Sall. 1 praevertam] praevertamur B: praevio V: vertam AldLugdBasVenRom Sall. 1 sumam] summam KN: sumamus B Sall. 5 noti] menti B Sall. 5 accipiant] incipiant BHbO: incipiunt Q Sall. 5 me – quam] mihi meis nobilitatis quam B: me om. Q Sall. 7 pace] in pace B: pace om. E Sall. 7 illud] aliud B: illut O

52

Chapter 2


Sall. 15 omnibus] hominibus B Sall. 15 ut libet] ut lubet et B Sall. 15 noli] noli esse B Sall. 16 ecquod Glarean] et quod AFN : et pro K 1, et quid VK 2: qui post et quod B Sall. 18 municipiis coloniis Italia tota] in m., in c., in I. t. B Sall. 20 quidem] quod est B Sall. 21 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea etate O Sall. 22 ratio] est ratio B Transposition: Sall. 7 te tui] tui te BI Sall. 18 similitudine vitae se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I Some of the changes, which resulted in mistakes, seem to have been made consciously: Cic. 2 minime] enim me B: non Hb: om. QL Cic. 2 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M Cic. 3 habebat] habeat BP1: habuit Z Cic. 4 quid] quod B: quantum O Cic. 4 miseriis] miserias B: miserorum V Cic. 4 habet] habeo B Cic. 5 atque] at qui B: at N Cic. 7 quid] quod B Sall. 1 quod] quae B: illud V Sall. 2 habere] habet B Sall. 3 vero] g? BE: quidem R The scribe of manuscript B might have wrongly interpreted the abbreviation for vero here.57 Sall. 4 quam] quamquam B Sall. 4 nonnullos] non nullus B: nonne illos Hb Sall. 6 quod] qui B Sall. 7 quod] qui B: quodquod Q: quo E Sall. 7 tu] te BMp Sall. 8 an ullum] ahilla B Sall. 9 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb 57 See Cappelli 1954, 124, 388.

2.3


53

Sall. 12 quid] quod PB Sall. 13 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO Sall. 14 exputare] expectare AE: et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R Sall. 14 K (caput) post domo habent AFK1T : R (rubrica) habet B Sall. 17 at] ad B: ut V Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV Sall. 18 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M Sall. 19 provinciam] pronuntiam B Sall. 19 c.] g. BE: gaii OMp Sall. 21 dicere] edicere B Sall. 21 potest] post B: pote, corr. A1 Sall. 22 potes] potens B: ex potest H1 Manuscript T 58 was written in the 1 1th century in Southern Germany . It includes a correct reading in one place in contrast to the rest of the manuscript tradition. In all probability this occurred by chance. Some other errors in T common to manuscripts of family and manuscripts of hyparchetype also occurred by chance. Correct reading: Cic. 2 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LP1O: delibitata P2 The reading of T, first selected in Aldinae and subsequently preferred by most old and new editions could be both a mistake and a conjecture of .TIn any case, “stained, blemished by the vices” as a description of Cicero’ s wife fits better into the context than “weakened by her vices”. These correct readings, common to manuscripts of family and hyparchetype , seem to have occurred by chance: Sall. 1 suscensere FTD] succ– rell.: succurrere Q: succendere V Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV : intelligitur REQHbMpM 58 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19472 (1978), 1 1th cent. (T egern-

see); parchment, 202x132 (140x80, then 150x80), 145ff., 21 lines, by the end 26 lines. Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I (München 1874), 248; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 237. T – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 63, 351; t – Clark, in cat. ff. 1v–10v.

54

Chapter 2


Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –arint : –arent P: –averunt XB Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Transposition: Cic. 3 domum tuam oppugnatum] oppugnatum domum tuam T Cic. 7 plura de tua insolentia] de tua insolentia plura T Omission: Sall. 7 tantum – pudicitia om. T Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2 Manuscript T again has an error common to manuscripts of hyparchetype . Sall. 18 in] om. TDMp An error, common to manuscripts of family archetype : Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua XB

or manuscripts of hyp-

Manuscript X59 was written in the 2 nd half of the 12 th century in Austria. This includes a number of readings in common with manuscript B. These readings emphasize the individuality of T . Thus, on several occasions, manuscripts X and B include correct common readings in contrast to other manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 16 dilectum XB ] de– rell.: deletum I1 Sall. 18 tamquam X] tanquam BHb: tantam rell. A mistake in manuscript B stems from the original reading in its archetype and also reveals a clear link to manuscript X. Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Sall. 21 et BX] om. rell. Sall. 22 aperte ANBXEM] apte rell.

59 Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, Sanctae Crucis 228, 2nd half 12th cent. (Austria);

parchment, 265x160, 130 ff. B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 188. X– Reynolds; ff. 124v–130v.

2.3


55

Manuscripts B and X consciously include the correct readings of family in the text. In the archetypes and these were written supra lineam or in the margin: Sall. 11 neque hercules … aestimavi] om. T, habet N: marg. add. K2 60 Sall. 17 nihil in eo non BX ] nihil non in eo NFK: non in eo nihil A V: nihil non in eo non T61 This is similar to the reading in Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: in m., in c., in I. t. B whereas other manuscripts of hyparchetype do not have such an omission. The group BX also includes some common errors: Cic. 2 res sit TG ] res sit p. B: res p. sit N: sit res p. XSHPOVMp, sitr. p. QLHbEMRZ The abbreviation p. could be written in the text supra lineam. The manuscripts B and X include it in the text, while T and G follow a correct reading. Sall. 3 post latere habent K (caput) AFT E, R (rubrica) K1BX Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N62 Sall. 16 aut dictum IK 2] auditum NFK 1T1G? : et dictum L: auditu AT2XB Hyparchetype read auditum. B and X omitted the abbrevation. Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1 : vetuit BXG?: vetavit T Sall. 18 quo A2] quod T: qui K2: qua BX Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –arint : –arent P: –averunt XB Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A:

60 See above p. 36. 61 See above p. 37. 62 In this passage manuscript T has an omission, see above p. 54.

56

Chapter 2


bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H lingua I

b

: petulantissima sectari

There are two places where B and T have an error in common. This may however have occurred by chance: Cic. 1 cepisti] accepisti K, ac– del. K1: coepisti BTDR Sall. 1 vos] om. BTE It is thus clear that the subdivisions within hyparchetype , as marked by Reynolds in TT 63, are correct. Manuscript T has for the most part errors common to the rest of the manuscripts of the hyparchetype, but also at the same time a considerable number of individual readings, sometimes in contrast to the rest. Manuscript G is related to B, as shown in the f irst stemma in TT. X, found later and thus not included in the first stemma, is also related to B. At the same time, both G and X have a number of individual readings in contrast to B. Might we therefore posit an unknown archetype that served as a source for B, G and X?

2.4 Hyparchetypes of family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) 2.4.1

Hyparchetype (CD+I)

In both Reynolds’ stemmas, hyparchetype is represented by two manuscripts – C and D. C and D are the oldest surviving manuscripts. C 64 was written around 1000 in the Benedictine Abbey of Echternach in Luxembourg, while D65 was written in the early 11th century in Southern Germany. 63 TT 350. 64 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. lat. 11127 (suppl. lat. 1331 A), around 1000

(Echternach); parchment, 170x240 (130x180), 215 ff. Schröder 1977, 57 ff.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 25. C – Reynolds; TT 351; ff. 58v–62r. 65 Oxford, Bodleian Library , Bodl. D’Orville 77, early 1 1th cent. (Southern Germany); parchment, 242x173 (188x1 18), 1 14 ff. (30 lines), f. 52: 242x142 (188x103). A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford by F. Madan, vol. IV (Oxford 1897), 57; B. Munk Olsen, ’Létude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 246 f.; B. Barker-Benfield, 1976, 160 f. D – Reynolds; Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; TT 351. Faks.: Paecht & Alexander; ff. 48r–52v.

2.4

Hyparchetypes of family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)

57

A later manuscript I 66 should be added to the same group. This was written in the 2 nd half of the 12 th century in Central France. It does not easily fit Reynolds’ stemma as it is extensively contaminated.67 For the most part hyparchetype remains close to the archetype, with only few errors that are significant. The reading Sall. 16 dilectum BXCD] de– rell.: deletum I1, where hyparchetype has a correct reading in common with the group BX, may be considered to have occurred by chance. There are other cases where hyparchetype has a correct reading in common with certain manuscript groups and also individual manuscripts: Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N Mp] tuendam r. p. Hb: r. p. Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N Sall. 14 hercules E] hercule F2V: hercle Mp: mehercules K2: herculis pedes R Omission: Sall. 20 domum emissem ] emissem : emissem domum Interpolation: Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven.] etiam in H: etiam im- O: et tam I: etiam NRMpEMV1 At this point manuscript I stems from the same source as hyparchetype . All the errors have a palaeographical character. Cic. 7 quem2 ] et quem AFN V: et K Sall. 5 enim] etenim

Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDH1PMp 66 London, British Library, Harl. 4927, 2 nd half 12 th cent. (Central France); parch-

ment, 320x235 (243x172), 120ff. (2 col. à 33 lines). A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. III (London 1808), 221 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 215f.; Ullman, 1955; 124; TT 64; h – Clark, cael.; H – Peterson, de prov., pro Corn. Balbo, harusp. resp., de domo sua, post red. ad quirites, in senatu; a – Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; ff .18r–21r. This manuscript belonged to Petrarch. 67 See below p. 58 ff.

58

Chapter 2


Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERV: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestus stipendia sumptus I: quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V At this point manuscript I includes an individual interpolation, not found anywhere else. This interpolation was probably an interlinear or mar ginal scholium from another manuscript.68 Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1 : vetuit XBG?: vetavit T Transposition: Sall. 3 breve ut ] ut breve : breve : brevem Hb Sall. 12 esset mihi LQRV Sall. 15 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum VMp: uxorem nostram K1 Mistakes: Cic. 6 insectabere] inspectabere CD1 Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 8 ullum MPMp] nullum K1: illum N HO Sall. 18 debitorum «] dedit– : ledit– : dediciciorum K Sall. 21 parat. IsJordan] paratus Hb: paratus est. is LSV: parat EPMp As can be seen from the list above, manuscript I includes, with just a few exceptions, almost all the errors common to hyparchetype . These exceptions may be explained by the evident access of the scribe to several manuscripts at the same time, probably from various hyparchetypes. The manuscript exhibits an individual character, as revealed by a number of conjectures and unique interpolations. There are some omissions and transpositions, as well. This is the correct reading of manuscript I in common with certain manuscripts of family : Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –averunt XB: –arint : –arent P

68 See above p. 39 and below p. 67, 81, 96, 104, 109.

2.4


59

Conjecture: Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb«] eum sequeris Grut: tua consequeris I Sall. 1 ac] quam I Sall. 3 studet] quaerit I Sall. 3 debebitis] debetis KHbEROMpV: habetis I Sall. 4 aut opinionis] aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius opinionis I: opiniones N1, e del., i s. l. N2 Sall. 5 noti non] menti non B: non noti L: tamen I Sall. 11 uni] vi A: in I1, ras., in marg. I2 Sall. 11 nutriverunt] nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I Sall. 13 sufficere] efficere I: om. H1: s. l. H2: facere PO Sall. 15 ordinem] honorem I Sall. 15 sit] est I Sall. 15 experrecti] experti IV: perrecti, ex s. l. H2 Sall. 16 nihil] non I1 Sall. 19 reluere «] relinire : relinquere I: relinere, e del., s. l. i H b: reluere, elu in ras. V Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Interpolation: Cic. 1 iudicio animi ratione magis quam morbo animi procacitate (tatein ras.) petulantia I Cic. 3 inde] exinde Z: inde te I Cic. 3 erat] fuerat I Cic. 4 infinito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I Cic. 5 crudelissimam exheditationem et proscriptionem I Sall. 1 ac parem] atque parem I: om. E: aut parem N Sall. 2 ego dabo] ego vero dabo I Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I Sall. 3 illam Ald in mg.] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt I: decessere Sall. 9 te opinor] te ut opinor A: ut opinor te I:69 te opinio Hb« Sall. 14 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I Sall. 14 extrema] in extrema I: externa O

69 The repeated interpolation ut in manuscripts A and I is noteworthy (cf. Cic. 3

edificabat AIM; Sall. 16 vidimus te AI).

60

Chapter 2


Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden]70 despectus : despectum fecit I: desserptus V Sall. 15 obprobrio vestris suspectus I Sall. 15 c. salusti I Sall. 17 manserat] remanserat I Sall. 20 cum tu paulo ante dominus villae cuius vetus fuerat Cesar I Omission: Cic. 2 p. crassi viri clarissimi fuit]71 p. crassi v. c. fuit AKTGD: p. crassi ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLH bMp: viri clarissimi om. I: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v. fuit R: publii crassi viri consularis fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H 2: publii c. viri fuit P: publii c. fuit viri clarissimi M v. c . was written as an abbreviation in the text, thus explaining both its interpretation in various manuscripts and also its omission in I. Cic. 3 in om. I Cic. 3 exaedificabat] edificabat AIM: hedificabat V Cic. 4 removetur a vero] removetur. aliud vero : a vero om. I Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I Cic. 4 ac om. I Cic. 7 laedis om. I Sall. 2 cum om. I Sall. 2 sed om. I Sall. 2 iam om. I Sall. 3 enim om. IMp Sall. 5 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I Sall. 5 p. c. om. I Sall. 10 fugax] quidem A: om. I Sall. 10 superet – meo om. I1, in marg. I2 Sall. 13 in aliis om. I Sall. 16 p. c. om. I Sall. 16 et om. I Sall. 17 magistratum om. I Sall. 18 vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I Sall. 19 exhausit2] hausit I: om. Hb Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHPO Sall. 20 tui om. I 70 See p. 33, cf. 133. 71 See above p. 44.

2.4


61

Sall. 21 fieri om. I Sall. 22 bonos petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.: bonos petulantissima sectari lingua I: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari Hb Sall. 22 tuis om. I1E Transposition: Cic. 4 dubium potest esse ] potest dubium esse : potest esse dubium I Sall. 4 initium illis I Sall. 5 cum iis conferri] conferri cum his I Sall. 7 tui te BI Sall. 8 patrocinio eguisti I Sall. 8 egregium civem IP Sall. 10 pace et otio] odio et pace I: pace et odio HOPMp Sall. 13 vita sua] sua vita I: sua s. l. V Sall. 14 postea se correxit] postea correxit se I: se correxit postea V Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N Sall. 15 ora vestra] vestra ora I: hora vestra V Sall. 16 factum aut dictum turpe ante hunc I Sall. 16 vidimus te AI Sall. 17 a victore qui] qui victores I (victores NT1 Mp) Sall. 18 vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I Sall. 18 in urbe fuit I Sall. 18 homines perditi] perditi nominis I (nominis ) Sall. 19 tantum hic] hic tantum I: hic om. Mp It is worth noting certain interesting mistakes in I. A number are individual while a few are common to other manuscripts: Cic. 2 flagitiose hic rasura venditas I Cic. 6 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R Cic. 6 onerabis] honorabis I1OV, e s. l. I2 Cic. 7 umeris] humeris NBIQHbE Cic. 7 Scipiones] cipiones I1, s s. l. I2 Sall. 1 potest] non potest, non del. I Sall. 1 invidia gloriam] invidiam gloria I Sall. 1 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z: onus imponitur dicendi O Sall. 3 sordes] sortes I

62

Chapter 2


Sall. 4 g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R: crispus sallustius I Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «: metello I: metelli Hb Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis « Reynolds Sall. 5 of fudisti] obfuidisti ex of fendisti K: obfudisti B: of fendisti I: effudisti REHbV: effudi Q Sall. 5 niti et] niti r. p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2 Sall. 7 o homo, o ras. I Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NIV«Reynolds: historiae s. l. is Hb Sall. 7 aetatem] aetate KI: etatem meam Hb: mea aetate V Sall. 8 aluntur] alantur IV Sall. 8 inusitata1 rabie petulanter, r. p. del. I Sall. 9 ista] ita I Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2 RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae Ad Sall. 10 otio] odio IMp Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV : intelligitur REQHbMpM Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque om. O Sall. 16 dilectum XB ] de– rell.: deletum I1 Sall. 16 umquam N ] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. Sall. 16 quo] qua Q: quos I Sall. 18 chilonum] cynonum N: cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV Sall. 19 fide] a ante fide s. l. K: fidi I: a fide NHb Sall. 19 nomini I Sall. 20 ducit] duxit I Some readings reveal the link between I and hyparchetype , and also in particular to manuscript H b. On one occasion I shares a correct reading with hyparchetype : Sall. 13 qui IM2] si rell. There are a number of errors common to I and Hb: Cic. 1 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb Cic. 3 tempore] tempore erat I: tempore est Hb Sall. 5 eis] his I: iis BasGrut Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQHbO: s. l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp Sall. 9 sum] sim IL

2.4


63

This is probably a chance coincidence due to a mistake. Sall. 12 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici Hb Sall. 19 reliquas] et reliquas IHb Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp Sall. 20 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IHb Sall. 21 decet] debet NILHb Some errors in common with manuscript R72 are significant: Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ Cic. 5 eius] huius IRV Sall. 1 vitium incidam procacitatis] vitium procacitatis incidam IR: incidam procacitatis vitium N Sall. 9 me sperasti] sperasti me K2IER Sall. 10 duxi] om. RI1, in marg. I2: dixi Mp Thus it would seem that manuscript I was inf luenced by several manuscripts, some of them from family. The main source was still hyparchetype as revealed by the lists above. Manuscript D is very close to the archetype (though it should be noted that a close relation to the archetype is a characterictic feature of hyparchetype in general). Manuscipt D contains only a few insignif icant errors. Correct readings on two occasions in contrast to the rest of the manuscripts of hyparchetype seem to have occured by chance: Sall. 1 suscensere FTD] succ– rell.: succurrere Q: succendere V Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Mistakes in manuscript D: Cic. 1 cepisti] accepisti K, ac– del. K1: coepisti BTDR Cic. 2 flagitiosissime] flagitiosissimo D Cic. 4 Arpinas] harpinas D Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut Cic. 7 de sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV: l del. D 72 See below p. 77 ff.

64

Chapter 2


Sall. 7 exstinxi] extinxi KNBIRE MpHPM: extincxi D: exstinsi V : extinxit O Sall. 9 fallit] falsit D: falli V Sall. 9 viverent] viverunt, u del., s. l. e D: om. R Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp Sall. 15 exprobrare] exprobare KBDV Sall. 18 quicquid] quidquid D Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: quater B Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHP: cum sestertiorum duodecies O Sall. 19 hortos] ortos DIHbMpMEHP Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp: tirburtii V (r1 del.) Sall. 20 comesto] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV Sall. 21 assecula A TE] adsecla rell.: asseda V : ascla KND: asecla L: assecla BMpHb, in ras. I Sall., 22 vidimus, e s. l. D 2.4.2

Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM)

Hyparchetype is the largest group of manuscripts (12 manuscripts) with a complicated transmission history , especially as far as hyparchetype is concerned (manuscripts RE+Z, Mp, HOPM).73 Hyparchetype , as shown in the stemma, is represented by two minor groups (hyparchetypes and ). In hyparchetype a number of interpolations, transpositions and omissions are significant. On two occasions hyparchetype provides a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the manuscripts: Cic. 7 quem2 ] et quem AFN V: et K Sall. 16 aut dictum IK 2] auditum NFK 1T1 : et dictum L: auditu A T2XB Interpolation: Cic. 2 res sit TG ] res sit p. B: res p. sit NLugdBas: sit res p. XSVMp AldGrutRomCrisp, sit r. p. M Cic. 4 illius] eius BasGrut 73 See below p. 75 ff.

2.4


65

Transposition: Cic. 1 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista 1 del.) V: ista tua petulantia in marg. AldLugdBasVen Sall. 5 rebus gestis] gestis rebus Omission: Sall. 3 breve ut Inc] ut breve : breve : brevem H b: ut id PAldLugdGrutBasRom, s. l. K2V Mistake: Sall. 16 posset ] possit K2: possis HbV1: possim V2 In the following three places the same error occurs. A word, or a part of the word, was probably omitted in hyparchetype and added supra lineam. Hyparchetypes and (or some manuscripts of the hyparchetypes) accepted the word into the text in a wrong form: Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Z ed. ven. ] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NREMpMV1: et tam I Sall. 3 suo om. QHbRMH Sall. 4 et om. 2.4.2.1

Hyparchetype (S+QHb+L)

Four manuscripts belong to hyparchetype . Reynolds pointed to the existence of this hyparchetype in TT 74, mentioning, however , only two manuscripts, S and Hb. Two manuscripts more, L and Q, should be added to the hyparchetype. The whole group is characterised by striking individual errors. These are conscious conjectures, an attempt to recreate the authentic text. At several points the reading of the hyparchetype is correct in contrast to the rest of the transmission: Cic. 2 habites ] habitares rell.: habitatores O Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2 RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp 74 TT 350–352.

66

Chapter 2


Sall. 12 disserendum SHbM] discern– rell. Sall. 13 qui IM2] si rell. Sall. 15 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum VMp: uxorem nostram K1 Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1 : vetuit XBG?: vetavit T Sall. 18 debitorum QLHb«] dedit– : ledit– : dediciciorum K Sall. 20 domum emissem ] emissem : emissem domum The hyparchetype is also characterised by some interesting errors. There are omissions, transpositions and interpolations. The interpolations sometimes seem to be logical and reveal an understanding of the text. Omission: Cic. 2 minime] enim me B: non Hb: om. QL It is evident that minime was omitted in hyparchetype . The scribe of manuscript H b having a general tenedency to many individual interpolations75 saw the absent negation and inserted non. Cic. 5 eam] illam N: om. Bas: civium «Grut: ea V Cic. 6 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis N Cic. 7 omnis artis] artis om. QLHb: omnes artes NIMOV Sall. 4 iam] om. QLHb: et iam O Transposition: Sall. 3 calumpnia quaedam QLHb Sall. 3 sit vir] vir om. Mp: vir sit QLHb Sall. 4 quoniam omnium] omnium quoniam QLHb Sall. 9 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente RQLHb: me om. O Sall. 14 bis iudicis] bis del., s.l. post iudicis M 2: ad bis ad iudicis H b: is iussu R: bis ad iudicis QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi QLH bVR: quoque om. O Interpolation: Cic. 2 p. crassi viri clarissimi fuit]76 p. crassi v. c. fuit AKTGD: p. crassi ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLHbMpAldLugdBasGrut75 See below p. 71 ff. 76 See above p. 44, 60.

2.4


67

RomCrisp: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v . fuit R: publii crassi viri consularis fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H2: publii c. viri fuit P: publii c. fuit viri clarissimi M: viri clarissimi om. I Cic. 3 domo ] domi QLHb«: dono B In manuscript S the reading is the same as in the archetype. 77 In hyparchetype domi was written and so the reading of S seems to have been correct, though by chance. Cic. 4 pompeianum] pompeianum agrum QHbL Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut Sall. 5 odio] studio QLHb: hodio V Sall. 5 eis] his I Sall. 6 urbe] urbem PH Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDPMpH1 Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Numquid was written in hyparchetype and so the mistake in L occured by chance. Sall. 7 est] om. R: est p. c. QLHbV1 (p. c. del. V2) Sall. 13 accusare] culpare QLHb Sall. 13 habuit] habebat QLHb Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V Quaestuosi sumptus was written in hyparchetype , but the manuscripts Hb and Q read the abbreviation differently.78 Sall. 21 parat. IsJordan] paratus Hb: paratus est. is LSV: parat EPMp Mistakes: Sall. 1 inloto] in loco BO: illoto NIEMMp Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt I: decessere Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB 77 See Reynolds’ edition of Sallust ad loc. 78 See above p. 39, 58, and below p. 81, 96, 104, 109.

68

Chapter 2


Sall. 9 in2 om. RLHbMp Sall. 9 facilius mulieres se] facilius se mulieres QLOV : se facilius mulieres Hb In hyparchtype the word se was probably omitted and then written supra lineam. The manuscripts interpreted its place in the sentence differently. Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL Sall. 14 hercules E] hercule F2V: hercle Mp: mehercules K2: herculis pedes R Sall. 16 umquam N ] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Manuscript S79 is the oldest in this group. It includes no interesting invidual readings. On one occasion S contains the correct reading together with some other manuscripts in contrast to the rest of the tradition, something that probably occurred by chance: Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur LIV : intelligitur REQHbMpM There are some mistakes in manuscript S: Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB Within hyparchetype there are a number of manuscript subdivisions. There is a clear group gemelli Q80 and Hb.81 They have a common origin, both being written in England or France (?). 79 Edinburgh, National Library , Adv. 18.7.8, 1 1th –12th cent. (England, Thorney);

palimpsest, 201x125, 34 ff.; The Manuscripts of Early Norman England c.1066–1130 by R. Gameson (The British Academy 1999), 88; I. C. Cunningham, “Latin classical manuscripts in the National Library of Scotland”, Scriptorium 1973, 64–90, 88–89; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 167. S– Reynolds; TT 351. Faks.: CLA Suppl. 1689, 1690, 1691. ff. 28r–33v. 80 Cambridge, Trinity College, Ms. 1381 (O. 8.6), 12th cent. (England or France?); parchment, 210x130 (153x90), II+59ff. (33 lines, f.59v – 11 lines); The Western

2.4


69

On one occasion the group QH b together with manuscript A from family has a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the transmission: Sall. 8 rudimenta AQHb] erud– rell. The group QH b contains a number of common errors. It is worth noting that the errors reveal a knowledge of Latin by the scribe, whilst even the mistakes do not seem to be haphazard but rather thought through. Interpolation: Cic. 2 pueritia] puero QHb: pueritia tua EMp Cic. 3 carnificis] add. fuisse QHb Cic. 7 laudas] ce laudas, ce del. Q: collaudas Hb Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar«QHbVK2: mentitum esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZ: non cum (cum del.) minimis V Sall. 3 vita istius] ista vita Hb: vita ista Q Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQHbO: s. l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp Sall. 8 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es fio Q: sic ausus es Hb Sall. 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q: suo aio Hb In the source manuscript for Hb and Q suum annum was probably written unclearly. Thus the two manuscripts interpreted it differently. Sall. 10 aestimaverunt] existimaverunt QHbMp: estimarent N: extimaverunt V Sall. 11 aestimavi] existimavi QHb: extimavi V Sall. 17 idem] ille QHb Sall. 18 dederat] dedisset QHb Sall. 19 nonne «] non : quid Q: quin Hb: non enim P: del. K2

Manuscripts in the Library of T rinity College, Cambridge, a Descriptive Catalogue by M. Rhodes James, v . III (Cambridge 1902), 393 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 160; TT 351. ff. 56r–59v. 81 London, British Library, Harl. 3859, early 12th cent. (France or England); parchment, 265x150 (180x103), 365 ff.; A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. III (London 1808), 87 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 215; The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c.1066–1130) by R. Gameson (The British Academy 1999), 108. Hb – Kurfess, TT 351. ff. 169r–173r.

70

Chapter 2


Transposition: Sall. 1 incidam in idem vitium procacitatis QHb Sall. 3 potest latere] latere potest QHb Sall. 4 hoc fuit] fuit hoc QHb Sall. 9 materiae habens] habens materiae QHb Sall. 13 maiorem iniuriam] iniuriam maiorem QHb Sall. 16 per me nihil] nihil per me QHb Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NH Sall. 19 est factus] factus est QHbM

b

Omission: Cic. 2 vi om. QHb Cic. 7 Romule om. QHb Sall. 1 non] non in B: om. QHb Sall. 2 omnino] omnio B: om. QHb: omni V Sall. 4 ad unum om. QHb Sall. 9 me om. K1QHb Sall. 9 mutuam] om. QHb: metuam P Sall. 11 me om. QHb Sall. 11 ego–voluerunt om. QHb Sall. 13 tu om. QHb Sall. 14 an amiserit] an miserit QHb Sall. 16 nonne] non QHb Mistakes: Cic. 7 Optimus] om. R: optumus QHb Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NMO: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Sall. 1 dicendi] om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo Hb Sall. 2 praeterire] praeteriit QHb Sall. 3 testante animo] restante animo Q: animo restante Hb In all probability, restante, used instead of testante, is a mistake and not an interpolation. The letter t was read wrongly. Sall. 6 petendis] petundis QHb Sall. 12 reprehendetur «] –atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur QHbMp Sall. 12 adsunt] assunt EQHb

2.4


71

Manuscript H b is in many ways special; its scribe had a rich imagination and a creative approach to writing. The manuscript includes a large number of individual readings, some of them interpolations and other reconstructions of the archetype’s omissions: Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] R. P. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. Hb: iudicia p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V Cic. 3 tempore] tempore erat I: tempore est Hb Cic. 6 perpessos] nos perpessos Hb Sall. 1 tua respondeat] tua non respondeat Hb Sall. 1 dicendi] om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo Hb Sall. 7 aetatem] aetate KI: etatem meam Hb: mea aetate V Sall. 8 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es fio Q: sic ausus es Hb Sall. 13 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem Hb Sall. 14 P. Crassi domo habitet] p. c. crassi habitet domo Hb Sall. 18 nisi] nisi in Hb Sall. 19 fide] a ante fide s. l. K: fidi I: a fide NHb Sall. 22 non] non ut Hb: om. M Conjectures: Cic. 1 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb Cic. 2 quod] si Hb Cic. 6 confeceris] feceris B: om. K1: perfeceris Hb Cic. 7 redisti] cecidisti B: redidisti Q: redires Hb Cic. 7 eum insequeris Hb«] eum sequeris : tua consequeris I Cic. 7 illa] hac HbR Sall. 1 atque] aut HbZ: adque V Sall. 9 opinor] ut opinor A: opinio Hb« Sall. 12 Vatinio NHb«]82 vatino : vectivo V Sall. 13 habebat sed si quali adolescentia fueris si demonstravero Hb This is a rare example of the distortion of a large part of the text. Sall. 14 exputare] expectare AE: et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R Sall. 14 vendidit om. Hb«: del. JordanEussnerKurfessReynoldsSB Sall. 14 sacrilegi Nigidiani] sacrilegii nigidiani Q: sacrilegium nigidianum Hb Sall. 14 discessit] stetit Hb Sall. 15 matrum] matribus HbV: om. Q 82 Note the logic of the scribe of H b, cf. in Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii H bAld-

LugdBasGrut.

72

Chapter 2


Sall. 16 confluxerat ex coniecat Hb Sall. 17 est reductus] receptus est Hb: reductus est M Sall. 17 ipsi] illi HbE Sall. 18 excesserat] excesserit B: confluxerat Hb Sall. 18 parricidarum] parricidalium Hb: patricidarum V Sall. 19 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s. l. N: trahi B: tercii Hb Sall. 20 tui N] tibi HbAF : tibi vel tui K Sall. 22 petulantissime consectari FK] petulantissima consectari (consert– BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I Transposition: Cic. 1 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb Cic. 1 viri clarissimi] clarissimi viri KHb Sall. 1 aetatem omnem Hb Sall. 1 id forte si vos Hb: suffortem Q: vos om. BTE Sall. 3 testante animo] restante animo Q: animo restante Hb Sall. 3 bonis obiectat] bonis obiectas Q: obiectat bonis Hb Sall. 3 vita istius] ista vita Hb: vita ista Q Sall. 4 dignitatis et nominis Hb Sall. 8 de te plura] plura de te Hb Sall. 8 cupiditatem gloriae Hb Sall. 9 se facilius mulieres Hb Sall. 11 volui plus Hb Sall. 11 viribus suis Hb Sall. 12 si tunc vitia mihi obicis Hb Sall. 13 filium talem Hb Sall. 14 P. Crassi domo habitet] p.c. crassi habitet domo Hb Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb Sall. 17 est reductus] receptus est Hb Sall. 19 cum cesare duodecies Hb Sall. 22 ego honeste] honeste ego KEHb: ego honestius N: ego om. G Omission: Cic. 2 scilicet om. Hb Cic. 5 tu om. BGHb Sall. 3 patres concsripti2] om. Hb Sall. 9 neque] nec Hb Sall. 9 parare-mihi om. OHb Sall. 10 in re publica] in r. b. O: p. s. l. H2: om. Hb

2.4


73

Sall. 12 p. c. om. Hb Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANHbMp Sall. 13 praeteream] praeterea RQ: om. Hb Sall. 17 ne om. Hb1, s. l. Hb2: non V Sall. 19 exhausit2] hausit I: om. Hb Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp Sall. 20 repente om. Hb: repente rationibus O Sall. 20 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IHb Sall. 22 quid–videmus om. Hb1, in mg. add. Hb2 Mistakes in Hb often seem to be conjectures: Cic. 4 simultatem] simultantem Hb: simultans E Cic. 5 perculsos] percussos IHbV: perculsus R Cic. 6 quidlibet] quodlibet BGHb Cic. 7 vatini] vanii N: vatinii Hb83 Sall. 2 sallustium] salustio Hb Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp Sall. 3 breve ut ] ut breve : breve : brevem Hb: ut id P, s. l. K2V Sall. 3 vobis] nobis Hb Sall. 4 maiores] mores N: maiorum Hb Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «Ven. in mg .: metello I: metelli HbBasGrut Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N Mp] tuendam r. p. Hb: r. p. Sall. 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q: suo aio Hb Sall. 12 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici Hb Sall. 15 nimium] nimirum Hb Sall. 19 in naves] inquam A: in aves Hb: ignavos E Bearing in mind the large number of interpolations in manuscript Hb and the rich fantasy of the scribe involved, it would perhaps not be inappropriate to consider this mistake to be a witty joke on the scribe’s part. Sall. 19 quippiam] quicquam Hb Sall. 19 tamquam] tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L Sall. 21 triumphalem] triumfalem Hb Sall. 22 dicendi] dicendic, c del E: dicundi Hb 83 See above p. 71, footnote.

74

Chapter 2


Manuscript L84 includes fewer interpolations. Though it has a number of individual readings, it is still characterised by very few deviations from the archetype. Conjecture: Cic. 4 parasti] paraveris Led. princ. Reynolds: parasses V: pararisJordan The reading paraveris is probably not a conjecture of editio princeps, 85 but an earlier conjecture. While it is unlikely that this is a correct reading running against the rest of tradition, this possibility can not be completely excluded.86 Sall. 6 popularem] pluralem L Sall. 14 P.] publii Mp: m. L This conjecture may have been based onM. Crassi mentioned in the text above in Cic. 4.87 Omissions occurring by chance (probably because of abbreviations) are not significant: Sall. 1 mihi om. L Sall. 19 tamquam] tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L Sall. 21 consularem] consulerem T e eras.: consulem L A transposition occurred probably by chance: Sall. 5 noti non] non noti L: menti non B: tamen I Mistakes: Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius LAld in mg. Cic. 2 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LP1O: delibitata P2 Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO

84 Florenz, Bibliotheca Laurentiana; Laur. 45.2, 1 st half 12 th cent. (France or Eng-

land?); parchment, 197x135, 100 ff.; Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, t.1 (Florenz 1774), 335 ff.; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 323. a – Clark, in cat., TT 62. ff. 82r–84?. 85 Cf. Reynolds 227. 86 See above p. 30 and below p. 130. 87 See above p. 30 f.

2.4


75

Sall. 1 conviciatori] convitiatori L Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L Sall. 7 an] ac L Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule NLV Sall. 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non quam, m del. H: non quem P: quam M There are two occasions when L has a common transposition and a common omission with manuscript Q: Sall. 12 esset mihi R LQV Sall. 13 egeris–enim om. QL There are also two occasions when L has a common transposition and a common mistake with manuscript Hb: Cic. 1 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLHbR Sall. 21 decet] debet NILHb 2.4.2.2

Hyparchetype (RE+Z, HOPM, Mp)

Hyparchetype is one of the most complicated hyparchetypes. The transmission of this group of manuscripts belonging to the hyparchetype is unclear and the manuscripts are partly contaminated. Manuscript M, as shown by Kurfess and Reynolds, has some common readings with the manuscripts of family in contrast to other manuscripts of family . Manuscript Mp, published here for the f irst time, belongs to hyparchetype but to none of its groups. It represents an individual part of the tradition. It has a strikingly contaminated character with access to both families and . There are omissions, transpositions and one significant interpolation in hyparchetype . On two occasions hyparchetype has a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the manuscripts of the archetype: Sall. 11 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL This word had to be written supra lineam, as it had been accepted into the text in most manuscripts of hyparchetype . Sall. 8 ullum MPMp] nullum K1: illum N HO In all probability, ullum was written in hyparchtype. Manuscripts H and O mistakenly wrote illum.

76

Chapter 2


Interpolation: Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp88 Sall. 11 adversarius] inimicus : om. O Omission: Sall. 9 meam om. Sall. 10 omniaque quae K 2 RV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A Transposition: Sall. 19 p. c. exhausit2 89 Sall. 20 domum emissem ] emissem : emissem domum Mistakes: Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NMO: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb The abbreviation was interpreted wrongly by hyparchetype in this place. Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non quam, m del. H: non quem P: quam M 2.4.2.2.1

Hyparchetype (RE+Z)

Reynolds mentions a group of manuscripts called RE inTT.90 R is not included in his edition of Sallust, possibly because it is corrupted (not ended). Manuscript Z also belongs to hyparchetype .

88 In my opinion, a conjecture made by Justus Lipsius is preferable in this place

(see below p. 138). Cf. Reynolds 230.

89 There is a mistake in Reynolds’ apparatus at this point. 90 TT 350–352.

2.4


77

Manuscript R91 is the oldest in the group. It has some common readings with manuscript E, all errors of and none of . It should be pointed out that the manuscript was interrupted and has not been preserved in full. 92 Some important readings are therefore absent. Manuscript E 93 mentioned by Kurfess and Reynolds includes some individual readings.94 Manuscript Z,95 published here for the first time, was damaged seriously and containes only part of the text of the invectives.96 Errors of hyparchetype : Cic. 7 omnis artis] artis om. QLHb: omnes artes NIOMV Cic. 7 omnis2] omnes KTHbMV Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp97 Sall. 4 et om. The group ER includes some common transpositions: Cic. 7 sentis de re publica] de re p. sentis R: de r. p. sentis E Sall. 9 sperasti me K2IER And some common mistakes: Cic. 2 comparasti] parasti, con s. l. R: parasti E 91 Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale, Reims 1329, 2nd half 11th cent. (France); parch-

92 93

94 95

96 97

ment, 185x135, 1 15 ff.; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Départements t.39, Reims t.2 (Paris 1904), 475f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 345; R – TT 351; ff. 107r–109r. The text of R ends with Sall. 15 et soporem nimium exprobrare. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14714 (1683), 1 st half 12 th cent. (St. Emmeram, Regensbur g); parchment, 197x140, 138+1 ff., blind lining with prickings; Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I (München 1874), 221f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 234f.; E – Reynolds; Kurfess;TT 351; ff. 4r–7v. See below p. 82 ff. Sélestat, Humanistenbibliothek, Ms. 93, 7 (anc. 98), 13 th cent. (France); parchment, 248x190, 126ff.; 7 different parts, 7th part: ff. 105–126, 260x195 (195x133), 32 lines, blind lining with prickings; seriously damaged; Catalogue sommaire des manuscrits de la bibliotheque de Sélestat, ch. 12: Medicine, sciences naturelles; 121 f.; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements, t. 3 (Paris 1861), 548; ff.125–126. The text of Z ends with Sall. 6 maleficiis tam severus aut in. This passage is damaged in Z. From its position and its surroundings it may be considered that the text read sus.

78

Chapter 2


Sall. 3 debebitis] debetis KHbEROMpV: habetis I Sall. 5 of fudisti] obfudisti B: ef fudisti H bERV: ef fudi Q: obfuidisti ex offendisti K: offendisti I Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid ERHP: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB Sall. 9 domi] domui AERMMpV Sall. 13 intellegetur T S] –itur rell.: intelligetur NIL V: intelligitur QHbREMMp Sall. 14 tirocinio] tyrocinio KBQERMP: arocinio O It should be pointed out that many readings common to ER coincide with readings of the manuscripts Hb and M98. Manuscripts R and Z share an interpolation: Cic. 3 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ They also share a conjecture: Sall. 5 obiectare] obicere RZ The only error common to the group ZE probably occurred by chance: Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGZEH: oppugnatum oppug, postea corr. Q On one occasion manuscript R includes a correct reading within hyparchetype , in contrast to other readings of hyparchetype : Sall. 10 omniaque quae K2 RV: omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A Manuscript R is characterized by a number of omissions, transpositions and conjectures. Omission: Cic. 1 affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O Cic. 2 delibuta T] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LOP1 98 Concerning manuscript H b, see above p. 71 ff. For manuscript M, see below

p. 97 ff. It is seriously contaminated, and has a so-called “horizontal” tradition, i.e. the scribe had access to several contemporary manuscripts.

2.4


79

Cic. 2 comparasti] parasti, con s. l. R: parasti E Cic. 3 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s. l. R This omission occurred at the point where two families and diverge and have a split reading. Presumably haec was written supra lineam in the archetype, and so family accepted the variant haec cum, and family accepted the variant cum haec. It may also be relevant here that Hb has a reading in common with family . Cic. 3 is aut domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut venerat aut R Cic. 6 te om. R Cic. 6 tuo om. R Cic. 7 Optimus] om. R: optumus QHb Cic. 7 in1 om. R Sall. 6 perniciosam] om. R Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: incolumes in hac urbe AldLugdBasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E Sall. 7 est] om. R: est p. c. QLHbV, p. c. del. V2 Sall. 9 in1 om. R Sall. 9 in2 om. RLHbMp Sall. 9 tibi om. RMp Sall. 9 viverent] viverunt, u del., s. l. e D: om. R Sall. 11 quisque om. R Sall. 12 Caesaris om. R Sall. 14 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R Sall. 14 exputare] expectare AE: et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R Sall. 15 aditus] additus T: om. R Transposition: Cic. 1 iudicia rem publicam] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. H b: iudicia p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V Cic. 2 mirandum est minime R Cic. 3 causa coniurationis R Cic. 3 is aut domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut venerat aut R Cic. 3 denique de eo] de eo denique R Cic. 6 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R Sall. 3 nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R Sall. 3 res publica] p. res R Sall. 4 suae res gestae R

80

Chapter 2


Sall. 5 gestis florere in mg. V: rebus florere gestis R Sall. 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q: suo aio Hb Sall. 11 ego nihil timui nisi leges post inimicus R Sall. 14 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R Conjecture: Cic. 5 me] se R Cic. 6 nostras] tuas R Sall. 3 vero] g BE: quidem R Sall. 5 niti et] niti r. p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2 Sall. 5 me] enim R Sall. 5 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt I: decessere Sall. 13 qua] quid R: tu add. O Sall. 13 eo] ergo R Sall. 14 cuiquam] cui nam R Sall. 14 sodalicium] solilitium R Sall. 14 bis iudicis ad subsellia] bis del., s. l. post iudicis M 2: ad bis ad iudicis ad subsellia Hb: is iussu ad subsellia R: bis ad iudicis ad subsellia QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N. Interpolation: Sall. 3 nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: incolumes in hac urbeAldLugdBasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E Sall. 10 gratulatus] congratulatus R Sall. 14 hercules E] hercule F2V: hercle Mp: mehercules K2: herculis pedes R Mistakes: Cic. 1 reliquus] ereliquis R: reliqus M Cic. 3 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E: planciae VR Cic. 5 perculsos] percussos IHbV: perculsus R Cic. 6 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp: sillamque BIH Cic. 7 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares R Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 de Sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D

2.4


81

Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV: l del. D Sall. 4 C. Sallustius] g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R: crispus sallustius I Sall. 5 conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ Sall. 8 cupiditatem] cupidinem R Sall. 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R Sall. 13 summam] summo R: summama E Sall. 13 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae H Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestries I1, corr. vobis I2 On three occasions manuscript R includes errors in common with hyparchetype : Sall. 13 quaestus aEMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus Ry: quaestuosus sumptus Hb: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V Sall. 14 K (caput) post domo habent AFK1TR : R (rubrica) habet B Sall. 12 esset mihi R LQV Manuscript R includes a number of errors common to some separate manuscripts of hyparchetype . An omission is shared by manuscript R and manuscript I: Sall. 10 duxi] om. RI1, in marg. I2: dixi Mp A conjecture: Cic. 5 eius] huius IRV A mistake, in common with two other manuscripts of family : Cic. 1 cepisti] accepisti K, ac– del. K1: coepisti BTDR Manuscript R is close to certain manuscripts from hyparchetypes and . Thus manuscript R includes a conjecture common to manuscript H b of hyparchetype : Cic. 7 illa] hac HbR Omission common to manuscripts of hyparchetypes and : Cic. 5 o om. RHM Sall. 3 suo om. QHbRMH Sall. 9 in2 om. RLHbMp

82

Chapter 2


Interpolation: Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ Transposition: Sall. 5 in oblivionem venerint RM Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente R: me om. O Sall. 12 esset mihi LQRV Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi RV: quoque om. O Mistakes: Sall. 7 quantum] quam QR Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N Sall. 12 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H Sall. 13 praeteream] praeterea RQ: om. Hb Sall. 13 experireris] expirireris B experiebaris E: experieris RO Manuscript R includes some errors in common with family : Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O Reynolds accepted here the reading of and considered the reading of to be an omission. This might however be an interpolation in the manuscripts of family , written supra lineam, and thus omitted in manuscript R. Cic. 1 e familia] e om. A: effamilia B: ex familia KR Sall. 13 efferebaris] efferebatis s. l. r K2: efferaberis RB: efferebans T Sall. 14 attractus] actractus T: adtractus KR: atractus B Manuscript E is marked by numerous individual readings, especially by omissions and conjectures. The correct readings of manuscript E, whether individual or common to other manuscripts, seem to have occurred by chance: Cic. 3 Tusculanam EM] –um rell. Cic. 7 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares R Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK HMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp Sall. 15 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum VMp: uxorem nostram K1 Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1 : vetuit XBG?: vetavit T Sall. 22 aperte ANXBEM] apte rell.

2.4


83

As seen above, there are a number of correct readings of E in common with manuscripts of family and hyparchetype . E includes errors in common with these manuscripts as well.99 Manuscript E is characterized by the frequency of its omissions. The scribe was also inattentive and there are a large number of transpositions and duplications. Omission in manuscript E: Cic. 1 paterer om. E Cic. 1 atque om. E: s. l. V Cic. 1 turpissimo om. E Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O Cic. 3 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp Cic. 6 ea quae] eamque K1: ea om. E Cic. 7 qui om. E Cic. 7 tua om. E Sall. 1 ac parem] atque parem I: om. E: aut parem N Sall. 1 enim] eo V: om. E Sall. 2 quidem om. E Sall. 3 vitae s. l. E2 Sall. 3 neque] nec E Sall. 3 haec] om. E: s. l. K2: enim Mp Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Sall. 5 meis maioribus] maioribus meis : meis om. E Sall. 5 publica om. E Sall. 7 pace] in pace B: pace om. E Sall. 7 quod] qui B: quodquod Q: quo E Sall. 8 nocens eguisti om. E1, in mg. E2 Sall. 9 mihi multo] multo mihi KN: post multo s. l. mihi sim V : mihi om. E Sall. 13 cupiditatibus om. E Sall. 13 infinitis] infiniti E Sall. 16 palam om. E Sall. 16 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb Sall. 17 nihil om. E Sall. 19 postea quam] postquam E Sall. 22 ut om. E: sed et ut O 99 See below p. 86 f.

84

Chapter 2


Interpolation: Sall. 1 ita] vita E Sall. 2 magis] magius E Sall. 3 obiectant E Sall. 4 aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius opinionis I: opiniones, e del. N1, i s. l. N2 Sall. 12 civis] civis sunt E Sall. 14 domum] domam T: domum tuam E1, tuam del., paternam s. l. E2 Sall. 22 amicum] te amicum E Conjecture: Cic. 1 se ipse] se ipsum EV: sese MpAldLugdBasGrutRom Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta I] ac (an E) dicta tua BasGrut: facta tua ac dicta tua N Cic. 2 pueritia] puero QHb: pueritia tua EMp Cic. 3 faciebatis s. l. s (=faciebas) E: faciebas Mp Cic. 3 condemnabas] condempnabas NIHbMH: condempnabatis, s s. l. E: condonabas V Cic. 4 simultatem] simultantem Hb: simultans E Sall. 3 istius] ipsius E: illius N Sall. 6 aut1 om. B1, s. l. B2: ut E Sall. 13 iam] non E: om. O Sall. 13 experireris] expirireris B experiebaris E: experieris RO Sall. 19 praetor] rector E: praetorem O Sall. 19 voluit] potuit E1, del., s. l. voluit E2 Sall. 21 altero] alio E Transposition: Cic. 5 infelicem vero E Cic. 5 parere crudelitati tuae] crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere crudelitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t. H1, e corr. H2 Cic. 7 videbantur optimates E Sall. 1 aequalem vitam verbis agere E: vitam verbis V Sall. 7 mihi historiis E Sall. 9 invidiam putasti E Sall. 9 familiari re E Sall. 11 iustas omnium semper E Sall. 14 potest dubium esse E Sall. 15 conscium esse E Sall. 16 hunc possit p. c. movere E

2.4


85

Sall. 20 sibi quisquam E Sall. 22 hoc enim E: enim s. l. A Mistakes: Cic. 3 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E: planciae VR Cic. 4 pecunia] pugna E: peccunia Mp Cic. 5 imo E: inmo Q Cic. 6 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris HbVZ: profeciris E Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 eosdem] eos deo E Cic. 7 de Sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D Sall. 1 C. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV: l del. D Sall. 3 procicitate E Sall. 4 et] ad E Sall. 5 initium ante exemplum iter., sed del. E100 Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: in colomes in urbe E Sall. 6 staret] starent, n del. E Sall. 7 pudicitia] pudiccia E Sall. 9 unus es enim satis es E Sall. 10 C. sallusti] g. salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp: crispe salusti O Sall. 10 universo populo romano] universae p. r . E: re universo p. r ., re del. I Sall. 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R Sall. 13 te quod te E Sall. 13 summam] summo R: summama E Sall. 14 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I Sall. 14 existimarentur] –retur n s. l. E: extimarentur V Sall. 16 eluere] elucere E: eludere HPO Sall. 16 umquam N ] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. Sall. 19 in naves] inquam A: in aves Hb: ignavos E Sall. 19 pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur B: pascitur E Sall. 20 quem ne] qui me E: ne om. N Sall. 22 his] hic E: hiis V 100 Cf. Sall. 9; 13.

86

Chapter 2


Manuscript E includes many errors in common with manuscripts from family . An omission is common to all the manuscripts of family : Sall. 12 ego om. E Manuscript E frequently includes errors in common with manuscript B: Cic. 5 tu om. ABE: tui, i del. V1 Sall. 1 vos om. TBE Sall. 3 vero] g BE: quidem R Sall. 7 et om. BE: del. T Sall. 19 c.] g. BE: gaii OMp A number of errors are common to manuscript A and manuscript K, both of hyparchtype : Sall. 12 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M Sall. 14 exputare] expectare AE: et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV Too many common errors are found here for this to be considered chance. Manuscript E was probably contaminated. Furthermore contamination seems especially likely given that E has many common readings with the manuscripts of hyparchetype , especially with the manuscript M, which was also contaminated. 101 A correct reading common to E and M probably occurred by chance: Cic. 3 Tusculanam EM] –um rell. Other errors common to E and the manuscripts of hyparchetype : Cic. 7 umeris] humeris NBIQHbE Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 16 L.] lucii EMp Sall. 17 exsules] exules LEM Sall. 19 ne causam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N Sall. 19 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNHbE Sall. 19 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 20 comesto] comeso AFNXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV 101 See below p. 97 ff.

2.4


87

Sall. 21 parat. IsJordan] paratus Hb: paratus est. is LSV: parat EPMp This error probably occurred by chance. Manuscripts E, P and Mp read the abbreviation parat!us" wrongly. Finally, manuscript E has some common errors with the manuscripts of hyparchetype , mainly with manuscript Hb: Sall. 7 a] ab HbE Sall. 12 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KHbE: ne NO Sall. 12 adsunt] assunt QHbE Sall. 17 ipsi] illi HbE Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum Ne Sall. 22 ego honeste] honeste ego KEHb: ego honestius N: ego om. G Two errors in common with manuscript I seem to have occurred by chance: Cic. 2 ipsam tuam] tuam ipsam IE Sall. 22 tuis om. I1E Manuscript Z, the third manuscript of hyparchetype , is seriously damaged and though it contains the whole text of the invective against Cicero, the second invective is only partly preserved.102 Within hyparchetype , manuscript Z has common readings with manuscript R: Cic. 3 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ Sall. 5 obiectare] obicere RZ Sall. 5conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ On two occasions manuscript Z has an individual correct reading in contrast to the rest of tradition: Cic. 6 etiamne2 Zed. ven.] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiamERMMpV: et tam I This reading may have occurred by chance, through repetition of the prtevious etiamne. Manuscript Z may however have had the same source as the late manuscripts used by Venetian editors.103 Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut

102 See above p. 77. 103 See above p. 35.

88

Chapter 2


Z correctly includes his in the text in common with other manuscripts of hyparchetype , whilst E and R omit it. Manuscript Z has few individual errors. There are some interpolations, three conjectures, a few transpositions and a number of omissions. Conjecture: Cic. 1 clarissimi] audacissimi Z Cic. 3 habebat] habeat BP1: habuit Z Cic. 6 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp: sillamque BIH Interpolation: Cic. 1 ac si non sit Z Cic. 3 inde] exinde Z: inde te I Cic. 3 et idcirco] non idcirco V: et non idcirco Z: et iccirco Hb Cic. 6 parum ] parum est ZI«BasGrut As this is the only place where manuscripts Z and I share a common error , this may have occurred by chance. Sall. 4 acta] et acta Z Transposition: Cic. 1 venales habeat] habeat venales Z: venales habebat N Cic. 1 viri Scipionis audacissimi Z Cic. 7 virtute tua Z Cic. 7 Caesarem laudas Z Sall. 1 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z Sall. 2 magnam non habere Z Omission: Cic. 1 largitionibus om. Z Cic. 3 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri Cic. 5 pars corporis] corporis pars A: pars, corporis s. l. Z Cic. 7 edocuit] educuit B: docuit Z Sall. 2 hominem om. Z(?)V Sall. 3 bonis om. Z Sall. 4 suae om. Z Sall. 5 mea om. Z, s. l. V1

2.4


89

Mistakes: Cic. 3 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp Cic. 4 falsa] falsum Z Cic. 4 qua] quam Z Cic. 5 a turpitudine] turpitudinis Z This mistake occurred by analogy with the previous corporis. Cic. 7 superasti] superastis Z Cic. 7 fecisti] fecistis Z Sall. 5 una] unam Z As is the case with the rest of the manuscripts of hyparchetype , manuscript Z shares errors in common with manuscripts H b and Q from hyparchetype : Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ Cic. 6 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris HbZV: profeciris E Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio QH bZ: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. VMp Sall. 1 atque] aut HbZ: adque V Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZ: non cum (cum del.) minimis V Sall. 5 fuerunt] fuerint BQMV2: fuerant HbZ Two errors manuscript Z shares in common with manuscript N from family probably occurred by chance: Cic. 4 sanguine civium ac miseriis ZN Sall. 5 conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ Some errors of Z in common with the manuscripts of hyparchetype : Cic. 5 natam om. ZMH Cic. 7 Iupiter DIHbZMOMp Cic. 7 ante om. ZHMO Sall. 1 respondero] respondeo KNZH1O, corr. s. l. H2

90

Chapter 2

2.4.2.2.2


Hyparchetype (HOPM)

Hyparchetype is the most complicated group of the stemma. As mentioned by Reynolds in TT,104 the hyparchetype consists of four manuscripts – H, O, P and M. Only two of these manuscripts are included in his apparatus, manuscripts H and M. Manuscript P is in a poor state of preservation.105 Hyparchetype is characterised by f ive important interpolations. It includes a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the tradition, though this seems to have occurred by chance.106 Some readings in common with the manuscripts of family reveal the contaminated character of this hyparchetype. Manuscript M has striking individual readings.107 A correct reading of hyparchetype : Sall. 13 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem Hb Interpolation: Sall. 6 at quanto] atque quanto NMPO: atque H1 (que eras. H2) Sall. 17 qui] quos N This variant in the manuscripts of hyparchetype and in manuscript N probably occurred by analogy with the following accusative exsules. Sall. 21 idem] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Hyparchetype (and linked to it manuscript N 108) has here a conscious individual interpolation tantum – quantum which occurred because of the repeated numeral bis. Sall. 21 verum] veritatem Omission: Cic. 2 immoderatam] moderatam , im s. l. M2 Cic. 7 ante om. ZHMO109 Sall. 8 turpe] te

104 105 106 107 108 109

TT 350–352. See below p. 94 f. See Sall. 13. See below p. 97 ff. See above p. 44 ff. Manuscript P is not clear at this point.

2.4


91

Mistakes: Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NOM: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb Cic. 7 tyrannos] tirannos HOMMp: tyranno B Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHOM Sall. 6 tuenda re p. N Mp] tuendam r. p. Hb: r. p. Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB Sall. 10 otio] odio IHOPMp Sall. 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R Sall. 16 eluere] elucere E: eludere HOP Sall. 18 pignora] pignera Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHOP: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V : optinente NI In the hyparchetype con was probably written supra lineam. Manuscripts H and M included con into the text, P exludedob and included con while O kept the correct reading. Readings of hyparchetype held in common with some manuscripts of family : Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F2 V: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 The oldest manuscript H110 was written in the 10th century in the region of Cologne. Other manuscripts of hyparchetype were familiar with it to a greater or lesser degree. The manuscript includes few individual readings, most of them omissions. 111 There are many mistakes revealing the scribe’s carelessness but also, at the same time, the closeness of its source to the archetype.

110 Harl. 2716, 10th cent. (Rhineland?); parchment, 255x213 (185x150), (ff. 74–77:

255x200) 77ff. (24 lines); A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. II (London 1808), 709; B. Munk Olsen, L ’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 213. H – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 63, 351; L – Winterbottom, de off.; Clark, marc., ligar., deiot.; l – Clark, in cat.; ff. 24r – 29r. 111 Manuscript H contains corrections in a second hand revealing access to good readings from family .

92

Chapter 2


Omission: Cic. 1 tua s. l. H2 Cic. 3 quasi vero] vero om., s. l . H 1: quasi vero, s. l. sed ita loqu … M 2 Cic. 4 acreverit, c s. l. H2 Cic. 4 esse opulentiam H]112 esse quin opulentiam Reynolds This reading is probably an omission of manuscript H, rather than a correct reading, in contrast to the rest of the tradition. Cic. 5 possunt inhonestissima] possunt inhonestima K: sunt post inhonestissima s. l. V, ne om. H1, s. l. H2 Cic. 5 omnium – potestatem om. H1, s. l. H2 Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NMO: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb Sall. 2 pro om. H1, s. l. H2 Sall. 5 quam om. H1, s. l. H2 Sall. 6 omnes] omnis B: om. H1, s. l. H2 Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERV: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 Sall. 9 abstinuerunt quam tu vir [a viris] om. N: s. l., in mg. iter., postea del. H2 Sall. 9 es om., s. l. H2 Sall. 10 in re publica] in r. b. O: p. s. l. H2: om. Hb Sall. 11 enim om. H1, s. l. H2 Sall. 13 sufficere] om. H1, s. l. H2: facere PO: efficere I Sall. 15 experrecti] perrecti H1, ex s. l. H2: experti IV Sall. 21 omnis om. H Interpolation: Sall. 6 hanc] in hanc (in del. H2) H1 Sall. 18 coniunxerat] convinxerat K: s. l. n H Conjecture: Sall. 8 minime] inpune H Dittography is characteristic of the errors in manuscript H, pointing to the scribe’s carelessness. 112 See above p. 30.

2.4


93

Mistakes: Cic. 1 scirem] s. l. … ret H Cic. 1 animi ex animo T: animi ex animus H2 Cic. 1 paulo ex paulus H Cic. 3 oppugnatum d. t. T : obpugnatum BGEZH: oppugnatum oppug, postea corr. Q Cic. 4 virtus] virtutis H1 (corr. H2)V The genetive at this point may have occured by analogy with the following animi after amicitia. Cic. 5 inmensa H Cic. 6 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp: sillamque BIH Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Sall. 1 inponitur H Sall. 1 nitior H1, corr. H2 Sall. 4 Scipiones] scipione H Sall. 6 similis] similes H1 Sall. 7 togatus] togatos Q: tegatus H1 Sall. 7 me me H Sall. 7 impudicitia] inpudicitia H Sall. 8 ut] in H1, s. l. ut H2 Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp: rabiae H Sall. 9 compellarem] compellarer O: compellerem, s. l. a H2 Sall. 9 parare] parere, s. l. a H2 Sall. 10 unus ex uno K, ex unam H Sall. 11 hercules K 2 E] hercule BX PMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: her cul N Sall. 11 si ego si ego, postea corr. H Sall. 11 abusi in ras. H Sall. 12 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia postea corr. H113 Sall. 12 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H Sall. 13 numquam] num Q: nusquam H Sall. 13 in. m ante impudicus del. K2: inpudicus H Sall. 13 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae H Sall. 16 hunc] hinc H Sall. 22 istos, s del. H1 113 Cf. Sall. 7; 11.

94

Chapter 2


Sall. 22 potes] potens B: ex potest H1 Sall. 22 commiserunt] commiserant H Manuscripts H and O have some insignif icant errors in common within hyparchetype : Cic. 5 levissimus] letissumus H: leti sumus O Cic. 6 impune] inpugne Mp: inpune HO Cic. 6 etiamne 2 Zed. ven. ] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NERMMpV1: et tam I Sall. 1 respondero] respondeo KNZH1O, corr. s. l. H2 Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L Sall. 3 velitari Lipsius] volutari rell.: voluptari K 1HOV: volutari possit I Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Sall. 8 ullum MPMp] nullum K1: illum N HO Sall. 14 quis] quasi HO Manuscripts P114 and M115 belong to a later period. There is no clear relationship between manuscripts H and P , though they probably share a common source within hyparchetype . These manuscripts share a number of striking errors, many of them interpolations: Cic. 1 apud om. K1, s. l. K2: aput H: ne aput P: an apud GrutRom Sall. 6 in urbe] in urbem HP Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDH1PMp Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid HP: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 10 quamvis] quamquis HP Sall. 12 verbis] vobis K1HP Sall. 19 est his] est quae dico his P: est hiis V Sall. 19 refelle unde qui modo ne] refelle qui dico unde quomodo ne H: referte unde qui modo ne K1

114 Admont 363-I (Kurfess 383), 12 th cent. (Bavaria?); parchment, 264x190, 33 ff.;

B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 135–136; P – Kurfess, TT 351; ff. 29v–31r. 115 Clm 19474 (1980), 12 th cent. (Tegernsee); parchment, 149x1 12, 39 ff. (numeration in 78 pages, blind lination with prickings); Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. II, p. I (Muenchen 1874), 248 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), 238; M – Reynolds; Kurfess; TT 65, 351; ff. 1–8 (pages).

2.4


95

Qui (quae) dico was probably written in the margin of the source H and P share in common. Thus both manuscripts included the scholium in the text, though in a slightly different way in each case. Manuscript P is only partly preserved.116 It includes a number of individual errors. Omission: Cic. 1 et om. P Cic. 3 deorum om. P Cic. 3 habebat] habeat BP1: habuit Z Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M: om. P Sall. 14 quis in (in in ras.) H: in om. B: om. P Sall. 21 putas om. P Interpolation: Sall. 19 nonne «] non : quid Q: quin Hb: non enim P: del. K2 Transposition: Cic. 3 custodem te P Sall. 8 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es fio Q: sic ausus es Hb Sall. 8 egregium civem IP Mistakes: Sall. 9 mutuam om. QHb: metuam P Sall. 12 apud] aput P Sall. 12 apud] aput P Sall. 13 pueriticia P Sall. 13 ne] nec K1O: nix P Sall. 14 partibus] artibus P Sall. 19 exspectaverint TI] –arint : –arent P: –averunt XB Sall. 19 tanquam NMpMHb: tamque K: tanque P: om. L P shares two errors in common with certain manuscripts of family These seem to have occurred by chance: Sall. 12 quid] quod PB Sall. 14 non queat] nequeat P: non querat V

.

116 The text of manuscript P is interrupted at Cic. 3 cum legis Plautiae, and recom-

mences with Sall. 6. tui similes incolumes.

96

Chapter 2


Manuscript H shares readings in common with manuscript M, the latter being particularly contaminated. T ranspositions and interpolations are typical of the errors shared by the two manuscripts. There are also a number of omissions and a few mistakes. On one occasion, manuscripts H and M share a correct reading in contrast to the rest of the manuscripts of hyparchetype . Both do not accept a word written supra lineam into the text: Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V Transposition: Cic. 1 ludibrio est] est ludibrio M: est ludibrio est H Est was probably written supra lineam in the archetype and so H mistakenly included it twice. M, using manuscript H or another one related to it as its source, wrongly deleted one est. Sall. 5 opinione maiorum HM Sall. 10 ipsa r. p. C? EP] ipsa p. r. DK RHM: ipsa p. et F: ipso p. r. A: ipsam r. p. V: ipsa populi romani NIMp Sall. 18 novarum rerum NHM Interpolation: Sall. 1 qui] quam H: quem M Omission: Cic. 5 o om. RHM Cic. 5 natam om. ZHM Sall. 3 suo om. QHbRMH Mistakes: Cic. 3 condemnabas] condempnabas NIHbMH: condempnabatis, tis del., s s. l. EBas: condonabas V Cic. 4 cui] qui HM1: cui s. l. M2 Cic. 4 contempnit NIHM Cic. 5 modi] modo H1M, i corr. H2 Sall. 10 perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N Sall. 15 soporem] saporem HM Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V : optinente NI

2.4


97

Manuscript M, with its strongly individual character , includes some traces of contamination. There are two omissions, corresponding to the readings of manuscripts of family : Sall. 7 armatos N] om. MMp Sall. 12 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M Note the following interpolation: Sall. 9 vero te] vero om. : enim te M: te vero N The scribe of M had access to the manuscripts of family , where the word vero was omitted. With both readings ( and ) before him, he interpolated enim. On three occasions M includes a correct reading in contrast to the other manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 11 in MMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb Sall. 12 disserendum SHbM] discern– rell. Sall. 22 aperte ANXBEM] apte rell. Interpolation: Cic. 3 terentia] terentiana M1: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O Cic. 3 aut1] autem M Cic. 5 miseram] miseriam B: miseram ita, ita del. M Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp Sall. 3 quovis] quolibet M Sall. 5 niti et] niti r. p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2 Sall. 7 piget] pigeat M Sall. 16 rei publicae] romani populi M Sall. 20 rationibus] orationibus M1, corr. M2 Sall. 22 desine2] de ordine M M includes a number of individual interpolations that were later accepted in other manuscripts: Cic. 1 praedae Eussner] perfidiae : locum M: perfidiae locum V1, locum del. V2 Omission: Cic. 1 reliquus] ereliquis R: reliqus M Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L Cic. 3 consuluisti] consuisti M

98

Chapter 2


Cic. 3 exaedificabat] edificabat AIM: hedificabat V Cic. 3 insidias] sidias, in s. l. M Sall. 1 ea] a M: eam V The scribe of M obviously did not recognise the capital letter E, which was probably in the form of an ornamented opening letter. Sall. 6 vindicandis] vidicandis B: iudicandisex vindicandis Hb: vincandis M: iudicantis V Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid HP: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Hyparchetype probably read nec quid. In manuscript M the letter c was omitted. Sall. 10 cessi] cesi O: om. M1, s. l. M2 Sall. 12 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia postea corr. H Sall. 15 cuius om. M1, s. l. M2 Sall. 22 hoc2 om. BM Sall. 22 tibi om. BM Sall., 22 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non quam, m del. H: non quem P: quam M Transposition: Sall. 2 omnino se M Sall. 5 in oblivionem venerint RM Sall. 8 mentiri turpe] mentiri te : te mentiri M Sall. 11 quicquam volui M: voluiante quicquam om., post vobis suppl. N Sall. 13 turpia ipse corpori tuo M Sall. 17 per quaesturam est reductus] reductus est post quaesturam M Sall. 19 factus est QHbM Mistakes: Cic. 2 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M Cic. 6 dictatorem] oictatorem M Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 optimates] obtimates M Cic. 7 male dicis] maledictis A2 : malidicis M Sall. 2 qui] quam HO: quod M:117 quia L 117 Cf. Sall. 9.

2.4


99

Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Sall. 9 qui] quae AFK1: quod K2M:118 om. P Sall. 9 locrupletior M Sall. 10 dissensionis] dissenssionis B: dissentionis M Sall. 17 exsules] exules LEM Sall. 18 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N Sall. 18 subsederant] om. A: subsederat M: n s. l. E Sall. 19 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s. l. N: trahi B: tercii Hb Sall. 19 tanquam NHbMpM: tamque K: tanque P: om. L Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 20 eius Baiter] vetus : netus M Sall. 20 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IHb Sall. 21 ut opinor] hopinor, h del. M1 Manuscript O 119 is one of the oldest in the stemma. It was written in South-Eastern France, in the 11th century. Reynolds did not however include it in his stemma probably because of its numerous errors and individual interpolations. The scribe of manuscript O seems to have had access to various sources. On one occasion O has a correct reading in contrast to the other manuscripts of family : Cic. 4 et O] ac : om. V On two occasions O has a correct reading in contrast to the other manuscripts of hyparchetype : Cic. 2 ipsam] istam HPM Sall. 19 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V : optinente NI120

118 Cf. Sall. 2. 119 Bodl. Rawl. G. 43, 1 1th cent. (South-Eastern France); parchment, 182x125

(135x90), I +56 ff.; A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford by F . Madan, vol. III (Oxford 1895), 349 f.; B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles, t. 2 (Paris 1985), 338; Smalley 169. O – TT 351; ff. 52v–56r. 120 See above p. 91.

100

Chapter 2


An error of manuscript O is close to the correct reading of family : Sall. 7 neque ] necque O: ne quid M: nec quid HP: numquid : nunquid IL: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Omission: Cic. 1 magis om. O Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O Cic. 2 istam om. O Cic. 5 cum om., s. l. O Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut Cic. 7 admisit] amisit O Cic. 7 de om. O Sall. 1 iustius] istius TQ: iustis O Sall. 2 et om. BO Sall. 2 verum om. O Sall. 3 ut ] om. O« Sall. 3 debebitis] debetis KHbEROMpV: habetis I Sall. 5 est om. O Sall. 5 omnique … invidia om. O Sall. 8 sit om. O Sall. 9 est om. O Sall. 9 parare … mihi om. OHb Sall. 10 cessi] cesi O: om. M1, s. l. M2 Sall. 10 retrahente me] me retrahente R: me om. O Sall. 11 aut om. K1O Sall. 11 adversarius] inimicus : om. O Sall. 12 et om. O Sall. 13 peccasti om. O Sall. 13 iam] non E: om. O Sall. 13 experireris] expirireris B experiebaris E: experieris RO Sall. 15 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque om. O Sall. 15 esset … neque om. O Sall. 17 facere om. O Sall. 19 modeste … vastavit om. O Sall. 20 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N Sall. 21 tu om. O Sall. 22 in eos Mp: eos om. O

2.4

Hyparchetypes of family (CD+I, S+QHb+L, RE+Z, Mp, HOPM) 101

Interpolation: Cic. 1 M.] marce IROMp: m. t. QZ: Cic. 1 respondebo tibi] respondebo breviter tibi O Cic. 1 marcus IOMp Cic. 2 eam] iam T: ita O Cic. 2 habites ] habitares rell.: habitatores O Cic. 2 p. crassi viri clarissimi fuit]121 p. crassi v. c. fuit AKTGD: p. crassi ut c. fuit B: p. crassi viri consularis fuit NQLHbMpAldLugdBasGrutRomCrisp: publii c. v. c. fuit E: publii c. v . fuit R: publii crassi viri consularis fuit ZO: publii c. vir con- fuit H2: publii c. viri fuit P: publii c. fuit viri clarissimi M: viri clarissimi om. I Manuscript O is the only one from hyparchetype which read the abbreviation c. as consularis together with manuscripts N, Mp, Z, and the manuscripts from hyparchetype . Cic. 4 quid] quod B: quantum O Manuscript O probably repeated the previous quantum. Cic. 6 aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV: l del. D Sall. 1 omni] in omni O Sall. 4 gestae ante fuerint, a. f. del. O Sall. 4 iam] om. QLHb: et iam O Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQHbO: s. l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp Sall. 8 vitium] injicium O: vinum E1, s. l. vicium E2 Sall. 8 non sit his O Sall. 10 c. sallusti] g. salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp: crispe salusti O Sall. 11 rei publicae] romano populo O Sall. 13 ne] nec K1O: nix P Sall. 19 praetor] rector E: praetorem O Sall. 19 Africam] affricam KIEHMpHb: in affricam O Sall. 19 sestertio duodeciens cum] duodeciens om. I: cum sestertiorum duodecies O Sall. 19 c.] g. BE: gaii OMp Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp Sall. 21 c.] gai K: crispe O: om. N 121 See above p. 44, 60, 66 f.

102

Chapter 2


Sall. 21 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea etate O Sall. 22 vidi] vidimus O Sall. 22 salustius tuus O: abistius N Sall. 22 ut] om. E: et ut O Conjecture: Cic. 6 onerabis] honorabis I1OV, e s. l. I2 Cic. 6 quicquam] quicquid KO: non ante quicquam in mg. V Sall. 5 accipiant] incipiant HbBO: incipiunt Q Sall. 7 tunc] om. Hb: te Q: nunc O Sall. 8 patrocinio] patrimonio O Sall. 14 abiit] habuit K1O: habiit TV Sall. 14 extrema] externa O: in extrema I Sall. 15 quae] ut O Sall. 18 quaestura] quaestio O Sall. 18 quam] cum O Transposition: Cic. 1 esse praedae] perfidiae esse O Cic. 4 novus homo O Cic. 6 aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O Sall. 1 dicendi onus imponitur] onus imponitur dicendi O Sall. 2 iam et ipsius] et etiam ipsius Hb: et ipsius iam O Sall. 3 inimicitiis crescit O Sall. 4 ortus salusti O Sall. 9 se mulieres QLOV122 Sall. 19 reliquas possessiones] reliquas possessionis B: possesiones reliquis O Sall. 20 repente om. Hb: repente rationibus O Sall. 20 tuorum maiorum O Sall. 22 uti isto O Sall. 22 inimicum velle O Mistakes: Cic. 1 quam] que O Cic. 1 deffendit O Cic. 1 affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O Cic. 2 funestram O 122 See above p. 68.

2.4


Cic. 3 Terentia] terentiana M1: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O Cic. 3 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp Cic. 4 obicio redde] obtio rede O Cic. 4 infinito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I: infinito sumpto O Cic. 5 immo] inimo O Cic. 5 pertubata O Cic. 5 erant] erat Q: erunt O Cic. 5 lege] lego O Cic. 6 cicero] c. O Cic. 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 faves] funes O Sall. 1 inloto] in loco BO: illoto NIEMMp Sall. 1 incidem O Sall. 3 qui K2] quia FK1: quod AN : quae O Sall. 4 nominis] hominis O Sall. 4 turpitu O: turpidinis N Sall. 6 confiteor] fateor O Sall. 7 obpressi O Sall. 7 illud] aliud B: illut O Sall. 7 tui] an O Sall. 8 ducis AK2 ] dicis FK1 EOMp Sall. 9 compellarem] compellarer O: compellerem s. l. a H2 Sall. 10 furore O Sall. 10 in re publica] in r. b. O: p. s. l. H2: om. Hb Sall. 10 reverti] revera O Sall. 10 conferantur O Sall. 11 privatum O Sall. 11 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O: quantumc Mp Sall. 11 nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I Sall. 11 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui numquam Mp Sall. 12 petenti] petendi O: paenitenti? Mp Sall. 12 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KHbE: ne NO Sall. 12 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H Sall. 12 eseset O Sall. 12 habuit O: semper habui V Sall. 13 opotuit O Sall. 13 tu si qua tu in O

104

Chapter 2


Sall. 13 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO Sall. 13 dixisses O: non duxisses in ras. I Sall. 14 tirocinio] tyrocinio KBEMPRQ: arocinio O Sall. 14 discessit] stetit Hb: dissecit O: discescit P Sall. 14 innoceres O Sall. 16 illut O Sall. 16 recitate O Sall. 16 reliquas O This mistake occurred by analogy with quas. Sall. 18 colomiis O Sall. 19 sint] sunt fO Sall. 19 ne causam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N Sall. 19 quod] quos O Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2D] somno K 1BXEHP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 21 senitorem i del., s. l. a O Sall. 21 beli O Manuscripts O and P probably had the same source, as suggested by at least two readings: Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus Hb: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OPH 2: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V It seems clear that idem sumptus was an interlinear explanation or a marginal scholium, accepted by O and P into the text without changes.123 Sall. 13 sufficere] om. H1: s. l. H2: facere OP: efficere I Manuscripts O and P include another common mistake: Cic.3 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LOP1: delibitata P2 These four manuscripts, non gemelli, stem from hyparchetype . Manuscript H includes readings in common with the rest of the group, but cannot be a protograph as it also includes numerous individual readings. 123 See above p. 39, 58, 67, 81, 96.

2.4


P and O share readings in common. As shown in Reynolds’ stemma, M is furtherst from the others. It shares common readings only with manuscript H. 2.4.2.2.3

Manuscript Mp (belongs to hyparchetype )

Manuscript Mp124 (written in the late 12th century or early in the 13th) has been published here for the f irst time. It belongs to hyparchetype , but does not belong either to hyparchetype or to hyparchetype . It includes a number of errors common to other manuscripts from hyparchetype . It is seriously contaminated. In some significant places where families and split, manuscript Mp accepted the readings of family . Manuscript Mp includes omissions, transpositions, interpolations and conjectures. Some of the conjectures are signif icant as they show new readings of the text. Interpolation: Cic. 1 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp: deripi N Cic. 6 verbis tuis molestissimis insectabere Mp Cic. 7 hac] hac parte, parte del. Mp: hoc V1, corr. in mg. V2 Sall. 1 verbis] turpissimis verbis Mp Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «Reynolds Sall. 9 abstinuerunt] non abstinuerunt Mp Sall. 14 p.] publii Mp: m. L Sall. 19 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B Sall. 22 eos1] in eos Mp Sall. 22 eos2] in eos Mp: eos om. O Conjecture: Cic. 1 se ipse] se ipsum EV: sese MpAldLugdBasGrutRomVen Cic. 7 placent] parent, in mg. placent Mp The scholium was written in the same hand as varia lectio. Sall. 1 in] tum Mp Sall. 1 id] huic Mp 124 Montpellier, École de Médecine de Montpellier, Ms. 413, 12th –13th cent.; parch-

ment, 2 colomns à 40 lines; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements, t. 1 (Paris 1849), 449 f.; ff. 5r–7r.

106

Chapter 2


Sall. 2 quis] quibus MpV Sall. 3 haec] om. E: s. l. K2: enim Mp Sall. 3 qualis] quot Mp Sall. 5 meis] nostris Mp Sall. 9 inuasisti om. : evasisti Mp Sall. 13 rei publicae] p. r. Q: romano populo Mp Sall. 13 tui potestatem] tuae potestatis Mp Sall. 14 ipsius] illius Mp Sall. 15 viris VK2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. Q: vestries I1, corr. vobis I2 Sall. 16 viderem internas Mp Sall. 22 quidem] quicquam Mp Omission: Cic. 2 videlicet] videt Mp Cic. 4 tantum om. Mp Cic. 6 te] ne T1, corr. T2: om. Mp: se N Cic. 6 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp: sillamque BIH Cic. 7 suis om. Mp Sall. 1 aut si] si aut NA2 HbZ: aut om. MpV Sall. 1 huic om. Mp Sall. 3 vir om. Mp Sall. 8 est s. l. T: om. Mp Sall. 11 neque] ne, que s. l. Mp Sall. 12 neque] ne, que s. l. Mp These last two examples reveal a certain consistency in the errors in manuscript Mp. Sall. 13 facere om. Mp Sall. 16 tibi om. Mp Sall. 19 neque1 om. Mp Sall. 19 tantum hic] hic om. Mp: hic tantum I Sall. 19 quidem om. Mp Transposition: Cic. 2 paelex matrix Mp Cic. 5 parere crudelitati tuae] crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere crudelitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t. H1, e corr. H2 Sall. 1 dicendi mihi Mp

2.4


Sall. 2 aures et ipsius Mp Sall. 9 inusitata ista Mp Sall. 10 unus fortunam Mp Sall. 11 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui numquam Mp Sall. 16 confiteri adulterium Mp Sall. 17 quidem ne senator Mp Sall. 22 tuis moribus Mp Mistakes: Cic. 3 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp Cic. 4 pecunia] pugna E: peccunia Mp Cic. 5 mercenarius Mp Cic. 7 concilio] concilium NMO: cilium H1, corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb Cic. 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O Sall. 1 initium] iniciam Mp Sall. 2 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar QHbVK2«: mentitum esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N Sall. 3 illam Ald in mg.,LugdBasVen] aliam GrutRom, Ven in mg.: aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I Sall. 4 omnium] omnes VMp Sall. 4 commendavit] commendaverunt V: commendarit Mp Sall. 6 gerundis] gerendis Mp Sall. 7 culpas] culpas s. l. e V: culpes Mp Sall. 10 c. sallusti] g.salustii EK 1, s. l. crispe K 2: c. s. H b: crispe s. Mp: crispe salusti O Sall. 10 duxi] om. RI1, in marg. I2: dixi Mp Sall. 10 tanti] tanta Mp Sall. 10 mercenarium KMp Sall. 11 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O: quantumc Mp Sall. 11 volui] valui, o s. l. Mp Sall. 12 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KHbE: ne NO Sall. 13 crispe s. Mp125 Sall. 14 at] ab Mp Sall. 14 hercules E] hercule F2V: hercle Mp: mehercules K2: herculis pedes R 125 Cf. Sall. 10.

108

Chapter 2


Sall. 16 valuissem Mp Sall. 18 vitiorum] vitiosorum B: viciciorum Mp Sall. 18 chilonum] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N Sall. 19 at] ast Mp Sall. 19 pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur B: pascitur E Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp: tirburtii V (r1 del.) Within hyparchetype , manuscript Mp tends to hyparchetype and to hyparchetype . Manuscript Mp includes a number of errors common to manuscripts R and E: Cic. 2 pueritia] puero QHb: pueritia tua EMp Cic. 2 M.] marcum RMp Cic. 3 faciebatis s. l. s (=faciebas) E: faciebas Mp Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum X L: illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB Sall. 9 in2 om. RLHbMp Sall. 9 tibi om. RMp Sall. 9 domi] domui AERMMpV Hyparchetype is represented by a greater number of manuscripts than the other hyparchetypes. As a result there are more errors common to the various manuscripts of this hyparchetype: Cic. 1 M.] marce IRMpO: m. t. QZ: Cic. 1 marcus IMpO Cic. 2 perdidicisti] prodidisti Hb: perdidisti QPMp Cic. 3 Terentia] terentiana M1Mp: na del. M2Mp: otrencia O Cic. 3 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp Cic. 4 L.] M. : Marci OMp Cic. 7 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO Cic. 7 tyrannos] tirannos Mp: tyranno B Sall. 1 c. sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV: l del. D Sall. 6 vixissent] venissent CDMpH1P Sall. 8 querar] loquar IQH bO: s. l. et loquar H 2P2: loquar querar Mp

2.4


Loquar was probably written supra lineam in the archetype. Mp accepted both readings into the text.126 Sall. 10 otio] odio IHOPMp Sall. 11 hercules K2 E] hercule BXPMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N Sall. 15 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum MpV: uxorem nostram K1 Sall. 16 umquam N ] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. Sall. 17 a victore] victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV Sall. 19 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C1: sompno V Sall. 19 c.] g. BE: gaii OMp Sall. 20 P. om. BIHb: publii OMp Sall. 21 parat. is] paratus Hb: paratus est. is LSV: parat EPMp The following are correct readings of Mp shared with other manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERV: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 Sall. 11 in MMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL Sall. 13 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b: quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH 2P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptus add. sed postea del. V127 Several readings show that the scribe of manuscript Mp had access to certain manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 8 an ulla] annulla QMp Sall. 10 aestimaverunt] existimaverunt QHbMp: estimarent N: extimaverunt V Sall. 12 reprehendetur «] –atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur QHbMp Sall. 13 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANHbMp

126 See above p. 38, 62, 69, 101. 127 See above p. 39, 58, 67, 81, 96, 104.

110

Chapter 2


The “horizontal” influence of some manuscripts of family is evident on a number of occasions. Manuscript Mp includes two correct readings common to manuscripts of : Sall. 20 sis] om. : recte Mp Sall. 21 quod KBXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N Manuscript Mp includes errors common to manuscripts of , especially to manuscripts of hyparchetype : Sall. 4 his] hos Mp: hi N: hii MV: om. E: quos s. l. K2 Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHMO Sall. 7 armatos N] om. MMp Sall. 7 tu] te BMp Sall. 9 rabie] rabies AFKMp: rabiae H Sall. 12 egregii] egregiae F1K Mp Sall. 15 vos s. l. bis K2: vobis Mp Sall. 16 non om. AMp Sall. 18 in om. TDMp: quater B Sall. 20 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A, es in ras.: hercule NLV In the following two readings Mp does not follow the text of manuscripts of , but their influence still remains a possibility: Sall. 7 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid HP: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V: neque quid Mp Sall. 15 post adeptus add. secutus est (estom. T) V: adeptus sequitus est Mp In conclusion, the collation of these 23 medieval manuscripts conf irms Reynolds’ stemma with a number of corrections and additions. The new manuscripts, added to the stemma here, are significant as they not only reveal a broader transmission field, but also anticipate a number of important conjectures made by the editors of the later editions (see chapter 3).

3.1

Authorship of the invectives

111

Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) 3.1 3.1.1


Authorship of the invectives in antiquity

The question of the attribution of the invectives is a complicated one; it is important therefore at the outset to note that the signif icance of the invectives is not diminished if they are not attributed to Sallust and Cicero. On the contrary, if they can be shown to be standard rhetorical exercises for their time, their importance for the historian and philologist attempting to understand the role and forms of rhetoric in ancient Rome may be even greater. Quintilian provides the researcher with external evidence. He twice quotes from the invective against Cicero: Quid? Non Sallustius derecto ad Ciceronem, in quem ipsum dicebat, usus est principio, et quidem protinus: ‘graviter et iniquo animo maledicta tua paterer, M.Tulli’, sicut Cicero fecerat in Catilinam: ‘quo usque tandem abutere’?1 How’s that? Did Sallust not commence his speech against Cicero by stating directly “It would be hard for me to put up with your abuse, Marcus Tullius, and it would bother me”, as Cicero had done against Catilina, declaring, “until when will you mistreat”? … Etiam in personae fictione accidere quidam idem putaverunt, ut… apud Sallustium in Ciceronem ‘o Romule Arpinas’ …2 Some people thought the same device could occur infictio personae, as … Sallust does against Cicero “Oh Romulus of Arpinum” …

1 2

Quint. 4, 1, 68. Quoted from Cic. 1. Quint. 9, 3, 89. Quoted from Cic. 7. Quintilian proceeds to quote from the same fragments of Cicero’s poetry as we find in the invectives, cf. Quint. 9, 4, 41 and 11, 1, 24. Cf. also Iuv. Sat. X 122. Cf. also Quint. 11, 1, 24 and Cic. 7 concerning Cicero’s relationship to Minerva and Jupiter. See p. 158–159.

112 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives In Servius’ transmission of his commentary to V irgil’s Aeneas, one manuscript3 also quotes from the invective against Cicero: Nefas esse credi dictum est de T ullio, [quod convicium a Sallustio Ciceronis inimico natum est, qui de illo inquit: “filia matris paelex”].4 It is – so they say – outrageous to believe about Cicero [that the “daughter was a rival to her mother”. This was Sallust’ s slander, following on from the start of his quarrel with his enemy Cicero.]

The ancient tradition thus attributed the invective against Cicero to Sallust, something that is important in itself for our understanding of ancient rhetoric. For later scribes and editors, Quintilian’ s opinion proved to be one of the main ar guments for the attribution of the invective to Sallust. The second invective however was never attributed to Cicero – perhaps considered below him – and so the question of its authenticity has rarely been discussed as will be seen below. The grammarian Diomedes attributed the invective against Sallust to a certain Didius: In passivo autem declinatur edor ederis estur; participium praeteritum esus. Item ambedor et comedor … de cuius perfecto ambigitur apud veteres, comestus an comesus et comesurus. Sed Didius ait de Sallustio ‘comesto patrimonio’ …5 In the passive voice edor is declined edor – ederis – estur and its past participle is esus. The same is true of ambedor and comedor … the perfect form of this last verb is ambiguous in the Ancients, rendered comestus, or comesus and comesurus. But as Didius said concerning Sallust: “inheritance consumed” …

This attribution has not however been generally accepted. 6 For the most part, the text of the second invective was transmitted along with the ifrst, and so, in the earliest manuscripts, we find it referred to as “the invective of Cicero against Sallust”. 3

4 5 6

Manuscript D (Paris. Bibl. Nat. 7965, see Servius ed. by G. Thilo and H. Hagen, v. I, 1881, XCIff.). Cf. Serv. In Aen. VI, 623 (ed. by G. Thilo and H. Hagen, .vII, 1884, 88). In his first two editions of the invectives ( 11914, 21950) the passage from Servius in testimonia is given by Kurfess in quadrate brackets, while in the folowing editions (31958, 41962, 51970) the same passage is given without quadrate brackets. It should however in any case be clear that as this is a doubtful passage in Servius, it cannot be used as evidence of a reference to the text of the invective. Cf. Ernout 53, Pasoli 1989 (see App. Ed. p. 203), 23 f., Pasoli 1974, 169. Quoted from Cic. 2. Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) I 387, 6. Quoted from Sall. 20. There are some exceptions though. Thus see e.g. Schmidt 1972, 1517.

3.1


113

Also of interest as far as the question of authorship of the invectives is concerned is the fact that a passage from the invective against Cicero is clearly similar to a passage from the second letter to Caesar and to a passage from the rhetorician of the late Augustan period Rutilius Lupus, who gives a Latin translation of a lost passage by Lycurgus:7 Cic. 5: immo vero homo levissimus, supplex inimicis, amicis contumeliosus, modo harum, modo illarum partium, f idus nemini, levissimus senator, mercennarius patronus, cuius nulla pars corporis a turpitudine vacat, lingua vana, manus rapacissimae, gula immensa, pedes fugaces: quae honeste nominari non possunt, inhonestissima. But on the contrary this man is totally unreliable, deferential with his enemies, abusive to his friends, one moment he supports one side, at the next the other, loyal to nobody, a thoroughly undependable senator, a patron for a fee; there is no part of his body that does not cause distaste: his conceited tongue, his rapacious hands, his elephantine gullet, his scampering feet; those parts which cannot gracefully be referred to, are in his case most especially disgraceful. Epist. ad Caes. ii 9, 2: An L. Domiti magna vis est,quoius nullum membrum a flagitio aut facinore vacat? Lingua vana, manus cruentae, pedes fugaces, quae honeste nominari nequeunt inhonestissima. Does Lucius Domitius have great power? He has no member that does not cause shame or offence: his conceited tongue, his bloody hands, his scampering feet; that or gan which cannot be considered respectable, is in his case most extraordinarily disgraceful. Rutil. Schemata lexeos i 18: M «. Hoc schema singulas res separatim disponendo et suum cuique proprium tribuendo magnam efficere utilitatem et inlustrem consuevit. L ycurgi: ‘Cuius omnes corporis partes ad nequitiam sunt appositissimae: oculi ad petulantem lasciviam, manus ad rapinam, venter ad aviditatem, membra, quae non possumus honeste appellare, ad omne genus corruptelae, pedes ad fugam, prorsus ut aut ex hoc vitia aut ipse ex vitiis ortus videatur.’ M « (Dividing). The device used to considerable gain and merit for the distribution of separate things and the allotting of each to its own. As in Lycurgus: ‘all parts of his body are most suited for wrongdoing: his eyes for impertinent wantonness, his hands for grabbing, his belly for greed, his members, which cannot be considered respectable are suitable for all forms of corruption, his feet for scampering, indeed it is difficult to ascertain whether the faults were born from him or he from his faults.’

Thus both the invective and the letter incorporate this passage from Rutilius, all be it in a modif ied form. In all probability the passage from Rutilius was used as an exemplum in the rhetorical schools from the 7

See Nisbet 1958; Vretska 1961, II 43–46; Schindel 1980b, 86–92.

114 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives Augustan period. The passage in the invective would seem to be a quotation by memory of this text, learnt by heart at some earlier stage. It is therefore evident that the author of the invective against Cicero had access to this particular letter to Caesar, or on the contrary, as suggested by Syme, the author of Epist. II copied the invective.8 It is also clear that the author of the invective (whether he be the same as the author of Epist. II or not) had access to Rutilius’ (or even to L ycurgus’) text. As Nisbet argues, it cannot be excluded that even Sallust himself might imitate Lycurgus or employ a commonplace turn of phrase. 9 In any case both these ‘Sallustian’ passages must be derived from the lost speech of Lycurgus. There is no further evidence in antiquity concerning the authorship of the invectives. 3.1.2

Question of the authorship of the invectives in the 15th and 16th centuries

The first reference to the invectives in modern times seems to be in the research of a humanist from Padua, Sicco Polenton. 10 In 1413 he added both invectives to his collection of fourteen of Cicero’ s speeches. 11 Twenty-five years later he issued an essay on Famous Latin Authors, 12 the earliest history of Roman literature in modern times, where he considered the relationship between Sallust and Cicero. Both invectives were considered by Sicco to be authentic.13 In all the earliest editions of Sallust the invectives are regarded as clearly authentic; whenever any kind of analysis was attempted, it was in order Cf. Syme 1964, 349. Nisbet 1958, 32. See Schindel 1980a, 90 f.; Ullman 1955, 56 ff. Asconius Pedianus: Commentarii in orationes Ciceronis, ed. Hieronymus Squarzaficus. Venezia, ca. 1477; appendix: Sicconis Polentoni Super decem orationes Ciceronis, super quattuor invectivas in Catilinam, super invectivas inter Sallustium et Ciceronem. Patavii ex aedibus solitae habitationis 1413. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 102. 12 Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIII, ed. by B. L. Ullman, Rome, 1928 (edited in 1437, cf. Introduction XXXI–XXXIV). 13 Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIII, ed. by B. L. Ullman, Rome, 1928; 368 f., 449 f. See Schindel 1980a, 90. 8 9 10 11

3.1


115

to place the content of the invectives into the context of Cicero’ s and Sallust’s lives and in particular in the context of their private enmity.14 In the biography of Sallust written by the Florentine humanist Pietro Crinito and published alongside the edition by Aldus in Venice in 1509,15 we find the first attempts at criticism of the authorship of the work.16 However, Crinito concluded that the invectives were indeed written by Sallust and Cicero. The edition of Sallust, printed in Venice in 1513, 17 came out with a new commentary, that of Josse Bade. This commentary to the whole Sallust’s corpus, written in 1504, was widely acclaimed and was reprinted several times in Venice, Paris, Lion, and Basel up until the end of the 16 th century.18 It does not refer however to the problem of authenticity , unlike a later edition which come out slightly later , also by Bade. This new separate edition of the invectives which was published in Paris in 1532, with a historical commentary by François Du Bois,19 added an argumentum to the invective against Cicero, where François Du Bois tries to explain the difficulties due to the ambiguities in both the speeches. He ar gues that both these speeches were declaimed spontaneously in the Senate, without any written preparation. The invective against Sallust was not written by Cicero himself according to Bade, but rather by his secretary , thus explaining its imperfections, at least compared to his other speeches. In 1535 the invectives were printed in Paris with a commentary by Jammetius Textor,20 who considered both invectives authentic and referred this mutual abusing to the time of the trial of Clodius in 52 BC, where Sallust was Cicero’s opponent.21 14 Cf. Hier. Adv. Jovin. 1, 48. See Schindel 1980a, 91. 15 See App. p. 196. On this edition see also below p. 132. 16 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eius-

17 18 19 20 21

dem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T . Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium … Venetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri mense Aprili MDIX. [1509]; 7. See also Schindel 1980a, 92 f. C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio; utcunque explanatis; hic suum capit finem diligenti recognitione. Venetiis [1513]. See Renouard, 11908; v. I, 152; v. III, 227–242, 472. C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem Oratio: et Ciceronis in eundem Responsio: cum F. Sylvii Ambiani Commentariis. Apud Iodocum Badium Ascensium. Parisiis, [1532]. See Renouard, 11908; v. III, 243. See App. p. 197. See above p. 17 f.

116 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives 22 that included, In Venice in 1546 there appeared a further edition of Sallust in addition to the works of Sallust, Cicero’ s speeches against Catilina, Catilina’s purported responses to Cicero and a speech by Catilina against Porcius Latro. The edition also included thorough and detailed commentaries to the invectives written by François Du Bois and Heinrich Glarean (the latter’s commentary having been composed in 1538). Glarean argues that the only firm basis for considering the invective to be genuine is the authority of Quintilian, adding, however , that it would appear most unlikely that such a speech might have been delivered in the Senate.

In 1553 the Florentine Hellenist Pietro Vettori decisively refuted Sallust’s authorship of the invective against Cicero. 23 His edition of Sallust in 1576 does not include invectives.24 Shortly thereafter in 1555 the Italian humanist Sebastiano Corrado25 posed the question of the authorship of the invectives. Corrado accepted the ancient view that the invective against Sallust was not by Cicero, and also denied Sallust’ s authorship of the invective against Cicero. 26 Corrado wrote a work on Cicero where he commented and explained dubious and dif ficult passages from Cicero’ s texts. 27 Quaestura is 22 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in

23

24 25 26 27

M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis, [1546]. Petri Victorii Variarum Lectionum Libri XXV, Florence, 1553. Lib. XV, cap. III, pp. 370–373: Orationes duas pugnantes inter se quae nunc Sallustio et M. T ullio tribuuntur videri eorum auctorum non esse (quoted from Strasbour g edition in 1609). Cf. Schindel, 1980a, 94, Schindel 1980b, 3. Sallustii Crispi coniuratio Catilinae et bellum Iugurthinum. Florentiae apud Iunctas [1576]. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 94. We do not know much about Corrado. He founded a cathedra of Ancient Literature in Bologna in 1545, died in 1556 in Reggio, where he lived out the last year of his life. He edited Cicero’s Brutus and Ad Familiares. Cf. Baur 1829. Justus Lipsius and Gerhard Johann Vossius were of the same opinion, see below p. 118 and 120. Corradi S. Quaestura partes duae quarum altera de Ciceronis vita et libris item de ceteris Ciceronibus agit, altera Ciceronis Libros permultis locis, emendat numquam antea extra Italiam … Sax. Lipsiae apud Joannem W endlerum A. MDCCLIIII. [ 41754]; 85. ‘Quaestura sive Egnatius’ was edited f irst in 1555 in Bologna, later in 1566 in Basel, and in 1667 in Leyden. On the confusion with another work of Corrado ‘In M. T. Ciceronem quaestura’, issued in 1537, which included some critical proposals on Cicero’ s works, see Schindel,1980a, 103, f. 25.

3.1


117

written as a dialogue with three participants: Egnatius (in all probability Corrado’ s teacher from V enice), Pierius V alerianus and Corradus himself. This discussion on the authorship of Sallust’ s invectives involved Egnatius and Corradus. Egnatius ar gued that Sallust declaimed a speech in the Senate against Cicero, which was followed by Cicero’ s reply, his invective against Sallust. Corradus on the other hand doubted the genuineness of both these texts. Egnatius in turn agreed that the Latin style was less impressive than might be expected, but he defended the traditional point of view , appealing to those authorities that considered it to be genuine. Corradus then rallies his ar guments with an extensive monologue on the question of authorship. 28 Quintilian, he retorts, was either mistaken or engaged in f lattering some friend of his, most probably an orator.29 He referred to Seneca the Elder, who provides evidence that in the f irst century of our era there were many orators who wrote speeches pro and contra Cicero.30 His final judgment is categorical: Ut enim mihi videntur alicuius declamatoris et unius, et eiusdem fortasse Latronis dictionem, ita nihil minus, quam Sallustii, vel Ciceronis genus dicendi referre, vel etiam redolere … [In my opinion these speeches were written by one and the same orator , possibly by Latro, as there is nothing here that could refer to or even remind one of Sallust’s or indeed of Cicero’s turn of phrase …]

Corradus sums up his ar guments: the speech against Cicero could not have been written by Sallust as (1) some phrases do not suit Sallust’ s style, including words and turns of phrase that would have been completely alien to Sallust, or others that would never have been used in the Senate and so on; (2) the text’s rhythm feels raw, with insufficient finesse, something that can not be considered the case with Sallust’ s standard somewhat archaising style; (3) the text does not seem to begin in a reasonable way, commencing with the rhetorically weak respondebo tibi , but nor does it continue as might logically be expected.31

28 Corrado, Op. cit. 85–87. 29 “et Quintilianus mihi vel deceptus, vel alicui declamatori amico, qui scripsisset

orationes illas, assentatus esse videatur”.

30 Cf. Contr. 1 pr. 11; 3 pr. 13–15; 7, 2; Suas. 6; 7. 31 Corrado, Op. cit. 88–89.

118 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives Later, in a full edition of Sallust with a commentary ,32 printed in Christophe Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp in 1564, the editor refers to Quintilian as proof of the authenticity of the text.33 The seventh of the eight lectures given by Justus Lipsius at the University of Jena between 1572 and 1574 considered the topic of authorship of the invectives.34 An orator not without wit (rabula haud plane ineptus) wrote them as an exercise in style, he claimed. 35 Lipsius did not want to reproduce either Vettori’s or Corrado’s arguments and thus proposed his own which might be summarised as follows: (1) the tonality of the speeches was not appropriate either for the Senate or for the Roman Court, and thus they could not have been delivered there; (2) there are no other references in Cicero’s works to his enmity with Sallust apart from these invectives; (3) Quintilian could be mistaken exactly as Priscianus was mistaken in his attribution of the Rhetorica ad Herennium to Cicero; (4) as far as the manuscript attribution is concerned, on many occasions false attributions had been presented as authentic. 36 His conclusion is that neither of the speeches could have been written by their purported authors. Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp issued a commentary to Sallust by Louis Carrion in 1579.37 The commentary included two books of critical notes by Johannes Rivius, conjectures by Aldus Manutius, corrections and notes by Cyprian Popma, and scholia by Carrion. Cyprian Popma commented on both invectives, considering both of them to be spurious (commentary of 1572). Carrion in his preface to the letters addressed to Caesar , which was prepared for this edition, refers to the authorship of both invectives. Neither the letters, nor the invective against Cicero should, in his opinion, be attributed to Sallust.

32 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum 33 34 35 36 37

… Fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi… ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. Collecta … Antverpiae, 1564. See Voet v. 5, 1982, 2019–2021. Quint. 4, 1, 68. See above p. 111 f. Lipsius J. Orationes Octo. Jena, 1726, Oratio VII, 105. Cf. Schindel, 1980a, , 95f. Lipsius, Op. cit. 105. Ibid. 106 f. In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, in Historiarum lib. VI a Ludovico Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Antverpiae, 1579. See: Voet v. 5, 1982, 2021–2023.

3.1


119

A new edition appeared in Basel in 1590. 38 A full commentary by Glarean and new scholia by Jacobus from Bonn were added to the invective against Cicero. Jacobus’ scholia were made with reference to previously unused manuscripts, as is noted on the cover page:Omnia haec, ad authentica exemplaria collata, et variis lectionibus expolita . None of the scholia to the invective seem however to be of particular importance. It would seem then that from early on the authenticity of both the invectives was called into question. Though V ettori’s and Corrado’ s ar guments did not influence Sallust’s editors in the short term, increasingly editors had to consider the implications of the question of authenticity . In cases where the authenticity of both the invectives was called into question, commentators, such as Lipsius, relied on ar guments from the historical context and also from style. It is hard, however , to avoid the conclusion that they objected to the content of the invectives also. How could a Sallust, or , even more so, a Cicero, use such trivial ar gumentation? 3.1.3

Polemics on the authorship of the invectives in the 17th century

Helias Putsch’ s Leiden edition of 1602 39 and Jan Gruter ’s Frankfurt edition of 1607 40 were the most widely respected up until the middle of 18 th century. They seem to have been cautious and conservative on the question of authenticity . They include commentaries on the authorship of the invectives, but do not themselves express any doubt as to the genuineness of the invective against Cicero, placing Quintilian’ s quotation immediately after the title. They do however consider the other invective ( quae Cicer oni falso tribuitur ) and the letters to Caesar to be spurious. This same view is held by John Philipp Pareus in his posthumous Frankfurt edition of Sallust in 1649 (reprinted in 1676), 41 then later by 38 C. Crispi Salustii Historiae, De coniuratione Catilinae. Ad haec Salustii oratio in

M.Tullium Ciceronem. Basileae, 1590.

39 See App. p. 200. 40 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri acce-

dunt; Francofurti, 1607.

41 See App. p. 200 f. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105.

120 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives Daniel Crispinus in his Paris edition of 167442 and by Samuel Grosser in his Dresden and Leipzig edition of 1699.43 In the edition of Sallust with fragments from ancient historians which appeared in Leiden in Elzevir publishing house in 163444 there are no commentaries, and the question of authenticity is resolved as in Putsch and Gruter,45 i.e. the invectives are considered to have been written by Sallust and Cicero46 whilst the letters to Caesar are considered spurious.47 A further edition of Sallust was prepared by Claude Saumaise in Leiden in 1645. 48 Saumaise followed the traditional attribution of the invective against Cicero to Sallust, considering the other invective and the letters to be spurious.49 50 revised and A new edition of Sallust appeared in Leiden in 1649, 51 emended by Anthony Thysius. The invective against Sallust was not included. Following on from Pietro Crinito’ s biography of Sallust 52 another text about Sallust excerpted from Gerhard Johann V ossius’ work ‘De Historicis Latinis’, written in 1627 and containing some arguments against the authenticity of the invectives,53 is presented in the preface to the book.

The editions of 1649 and 1677 in Leiden against Sallust to be spurious.

54

also consider the invective

42 See App. p. 201. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105. 43 See App. p. 201. Cf. Schindel 1980a, 96 and 105. 44 C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Lugduni Batavo45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

rum, 1634. See above p. 119. Op. cit. 205. Op. cit. 188. Caius Sallustius Crispus. Ad D. Claudium Salmasium. Lugduni Batavorum, 1645. Ibid. 199. C. Sallustii Crispi opera, quae exstant omnia … Accurata recensione Antonii Thysii … Lugduni Batavorum, 1659. Cf. the first edition of 1643. As a part of Aldus’ edition of Sallust published in V enice in 1509. See above p.115. Cf. Schindel 1980b, 3. See App. p. 200 f.

3.1

3.1.4


121


One of the first English editions of Sallust was that of Joseph Wasse55 printed in Cambridge in 1710. 56 Wasse did not publish any new commentary but he referred to those of Popma, Bade, Glarean, and also to a scholium by Thysius. It is worth noting the biography of Sallust written by Jean Leclerk also published in this edition.57 Jean Leclerk claimed that there was no longer any doubt that both invectives were written by an orator no later than the time of Tiberius, and not by Sallust and Cicero themselves.58 In the preface to his edition in Leipzig in 1724 59 Gottlieb Kortte considered the question of the authenticity of the invectives, ar guing that both were written by the same author , an author who succeeded in recreating both Sallust’s brevitas and Cicero’s copia.60 There follows a separate preface to the invective against Cicero, which explains that not only the text but even the title “Sallust against Cicero” were spurious, the title having probably been selected at a later date to denote the content of the text.61 This title at first noted in margine was later wrongly accepted into the manuscripts as a part of the text. The edition of 1772 was printed in Halle62 without any changes. Concerning attribution, the editor followed the view that the invective against Cicero was genuine 63 whereas the second one and the letters to Caesar were spurious. 64 At times however both invectives were considered spurious. Thus, in the edition of Sallust printed in 1779 in Zweibrücken65 55 C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant… Recensuit Josephus Wasse, Cantabrigiae, 1710. 56 The only edition, issued in London in 1697, was a reprint of Crispinus’ Paris edi-

tion of 1674.

57 Cf. Schindel 1980a, 105. 58 “De eius oratione in Cicer onem et Ciceronis in Sallustium, nihil addam; quia, 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

licet antiquae sint, nec infra aevum T iberianum, animi causa, a Rhetor e quopiam confictas nemo amplius dubitat” (Ibid. XV). Cf. Nisbet 1958, 30. Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, Lipsiae, 1724. This was the edition Jordan used as a base for his edition of Sallust. Ibid. XIX–XX. Ibid. 1048. C. Sallustii Crispi opera cum declamationibus una in Ciceronem in Sallustium altera. Halae, 1772. Ibid. 197. Ibid. 176. Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita. Biponti, 1779.

122 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives the editor considered both invectives to be spurious, whereas the letters to Caesar were considered to be genuine. 3.1.5


During the 19 th century the invectives were generally regarded to be spurious.66 Thus a number of editions appeared in France, and not only in France, but also in the Russian Empire, in the Ukrainian university town of Charkov; these included the letters to Caesar , but excluded the invectives.67 The problem of the authenticity of the invectives still remained an important one for these editions even if it frequently went unmentioned. An edition of Sallust with an Italian translation and commentaries was printed in Brescia in 1806–1808. 68 The edition contains all the works of Sallust including the letters to Caesar but does not contain the invectives. In 1821 in Paris J. L. Burnouf edited Sallust’s works adding a new commentary.69 In this edition, which followed Kortte’s earlier argumentation, both the invectives were regarded as spurious. Burnouf suggested that some later erudite reader , or perhaps even the author of the invectives himself, might have added the gloss “Sallustius in Ciceronem” to Quintilian. Another possibility, also offered by Burnouf, involves the anonymous author taking a passage ascribed to Sallust as quoted by Quintilian and placing it into his text. 70 Both these hypotheses display a certain charm. 66 See the opinion of the signif icant German poet, translator and editor Christoph

67 68 69 70

Martin Wieland (1733–1813) on the invectives in order to understand the mood and philological methods of the époque, especially the introduction to his translation of Horace’s Satires (Leipzig, 1786; 66). Caii Crispi Sallustii Iugurtha, Parisiis, apud Ant. Aug. Renouard, 1795; Oevres de Salluste … A Paris, chez Giguet et Michaud, 1808; Caii Crispi Sallustii, quae extant, opera, Charcoviae, 1814. Opere di C. C. Salustio in italiano recate dall’ abate Bartolommeo Nardini. Col testo a fronte e con note. Brescia, V. I 1806, v. II 1806, v. III 1808. Caius Crispus Sallustius ad codices parisinos recensitus curante J. L. Burnouf, Parisiis, 1821. Ibid. 496.

3.1


123

Over a twenty-f ive year period Friedrich Kritz edited all of Sallust’ s works publishing them in Leipzig between 1828–1853 in three volumes. The edition includes neither the letters nor the invectives.71 In his preface Kritz states that his text is based on Kortte’ s edition, but that he chose to include only such texts as were in fact written by Sallust, i.e.Catilina, Iugurtha, and Historiae. Rudolf Dietsch in his edition of Sallust with commentary, published in Leipzig in 1859, followed the same approach.72 A volume of Roman historians was edited in 1840 73 in V enice by the Paris Academy. The volume included Caesar, Sallust, Florus, and Lucius Ampelius with a commentary to each author . Sallust was edited by Th. Burette, and all his works were included except for the invectives. The editor quotes from Quintilian in the preface, but believes that the evidence remains unconvincing and that the invectives do not belong to Sallust’s corpus. The commentary-less Bassano edition of 1851 74 included Sallust’ s invectives in the corpus. The text was printed as in Gruter ’s earlier edition, without any changes. 3.1.6

Henrich Jordan and further polemics on the authorship of the invectives from 1876 up until today

Henrich Jordan published an article “Die Invectiven des Sallust und Cicero”75 which analysed the syntactical, morphological and rhetorical aspect of both the controversiae, as he calls them. 76 He ar gued that the speeches could not have been written prior to T rajan (AD 98–1 17) nor

71 C. Sallustii Crispi opera quae supersunt, edidit et indicem accuratum adjecit Fri-

dericus Kritzius; Lipsiae, vol. I, 1828; vol. II, 1834; vol. III, 1853.

72 C. Sallustii Crispi quae supersunt. Recensuit Rudolfus Dietsch. I, II, Lipsiae 1859. 73 Nova Scriptorum Latinorum Bibliotheca ad optimas editiones recensita accur-

antubus Parisiensis Academiae Professoribus edita a C. L. F . Panckoucke. Editio prima Veneta. Venetiis, [1840]. 74 Caius Crispus Sallustius cum veterum historicorum fragmentis. Bassani, suis typis Remondini edidit, 1851. 75 Jordan 1876. 76 Ibid. 305.

124 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives later than Antoninus (AD 137–161), and that they were the work of the same orator. F. Vogel77 concurred. R. Reitzenstein 78 however disagreed with Jordan. He ar gued that the invective was written in 54, the date when the actions it describes unfolded. He also claimed that the invectives were written by different authors, and that the second one imitated the style of the f irst, borrowing words and syntactical constructions, thus explaining the similarities between the two texts. He attributed the authorship of the invective against Cicero to Sallust as the enmity between Cicero and Sallust was widely known, indeed already much discussed in Seneca’s time. E. Schwartz 79 contributed the claim that the invective against Cicero was written by Lucius Calpurnius Piso. Piso had refused to support Cicero against Clodius Pulcher, and as a reward he had been granted, through a law by Clodius, the administration of the province of Macedonia. His activities there were later attacked in two speeches by Cicero. 80 Schwartz found numerous parallels to Cicero’ s speech against Piso of 55 BC, and also to the invective against Cicero written as a response to Cicero in 54 BC. “The Piso hypotheses” was subsequently broadly discussed. 81 E. Norden, 82 and E. Meyer 83 came out in favour of Schwartz’ s position, against were F. Schöll,84 B. Maurenbrecher,85 and Th. Zielinski.86 Zielinski87 coined the phrase Cicerokarikatur, in other words, the numerous imitations of Cicero. He considers Pseudo-Sallust to have been one of these imitators, similar to Quintus Fuf ius Calenus in the work by the historian Cassius Dio (circa AD 164 – after 229).88

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Vogel F. Sallustiana, Acta seminari philologici Erlangensis I 1878; 325 ff. Reitzenstein 1898. Schwartz 1898. Schwartz quotes Cic. Ad Q. fr. III 1, 11. De provinciis consularibus, and, after Piso’s return, In Pisonem. See Syme 1964, 315, f. 3. Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft (hrsg. von A. Gercke und E. Norden), 1. Band, Leipzig und Berlin, 1910; 548. Meyer 31922, 164 f. Schöll 1902, 159 ff. Maurenbrecher 1899, 299. Zielinski, 31912, 281 f. Concerning this issue see also Nisbet 1961, 197–198. Zielinski, 31912, 280 ff. Dio Cass. 46, 1–28. Cf. Süss 1910, 260–263; Zielinski 31912, 281 ff.; Kurfess 1913c.

3.1


125

Dio gave an imaginary account of a meeting in the Senate not long before Cicero’s death. Although Cicero’ speech is a weak reproduction of his second Philippic,89 Calenus replied in a long speech, which followed the invective against Cicero point by point, entering into all the details of Cicero’s private life, and making a funny caricature out of it. Apparently Dio knew the invective itself, or a later rhetorical amplification on the same theme; and it is thus possible to trace the history of this school declamation for over three centuries. Like Corrado previously ,90 Zielinski compared the invective with Calenus’ speech against Cicero. G. Peiser91 analysed the problem thoroughly and reached the conclusion that the invectives were written by the same author , who imitated Sallust’s and Cicero’s manner of writing and used a number of documents that do not belong later than 54 BC. Thus Milo’s trial of 52 BC, where both Sallust and Cicero participated, goes unmentioned in the invectives. Peiser’s commentary to both invectives is also worth noting. R. Wirtz92 on the other hand ar gued that the invective belonged to Sallust, but was written after Cicero’ s death as a response to Cicero’ s abuses in De consiliis suis.93 A. Kurfess advanced a number of ar guments94 against Sallust’s authorship, arguments that were later supported by A. Gwynn. 95 In 1922 however Kurfess appears to have been converted, abandoning his earlier denials.96 Thus Kurfess proceeded to publish a number of articles ar guing for Sallust’s authorship.97 In his editions of the invectives Kurfess comes out against Sallustian authorship as can be seen in the preface to the 2 nd edition of 1948, and especially in the preface to the 3rd edition of 1958. In his preface to the 4th edition, written in 1961, he does not take a firm line on the issue, while noting the significance of the arguments put forward by scholars (Kurfess refers to Büchner, Eisenhut and Vretska) who do in fact consider the invective against Cicero to be Sallustian. 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Dio Cass. 45, 18–47. Corrado, op. cit.; 93. Peiser 1903. Wirtz 1910. See also Vretska 1961, I 14. Kurfess 1912. Gwynn 11926, 161 f. Kurfess 1922, 66 ff. See Leeman 1965, 586, 591, 592, 593, 594, 602.

126 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives G. Funaioli in 1920 says that the texts might well be genuine, he suggested Quintilian had read this speech in its full form while we possess only excerpts from it.98 Later in 1948 he argued that the invective against Cicero was indeed by Sallust.99 By the mid-century a number of scholars were swayed in this direction, believing the invective against Cicero to be Sallustian.100 J. C. Rolfe edited Sallust in 1921. In his preface he comments on the fact that the invective had generally been regarded as spurious, a specimen of the pamphleteer literature which followed the period after Caesar ’s death.101 A thorough and detailed analysis on the history of the authorship of the invective against Cicero was made by O. Seel in 1943. 102 He compared the text with both Cicero’s and Sallust’s texts. Seel’s argument was that Cicero’s Phillipicae were used as a source for the writing of the invective. According to Seel, Cicero’ s speeches were used as a base. The author then incorporated a number of Sallust’s works, and added phrases in Sallust’s style for example from the speech by Memmius. 103 Seel argues against the “Piso hypothesis”. He believes the invective was written not earlier than 44/43 BC.104 Thus the author might well have been a rhetorician of Augustus’ time in the thirties BC. E. H. Clift published in 1945 an expanded version of her dissertation devoted to Latin literature of doubtful authenticity. She argued that the invective against Cicero was composed in 54 BC by Sallust.105 The invective against Sallust, however, was composed by some unknown author, in her opinion, prior to the 3rd century AD as a direct answer to Sallust’s invective against Cicero, and it came to be attributed to Cicero because of its content.106 98 Funaioli 1920, 1035, and 1932 ff. 99 Funaioli 1948, 56. 100 M. Gelzer , K. Buechner , E. Clift, L. Ross-T aylor, E. Cesareo, V . Paladini,

E. Bolaffi, L. Olivieri Sangiacomo (see Vretska 1961, I 14).

101 Sallust with an English T ranslation by J. C. Rolfe, Harvard, 102 103 104 105 106

XX. Seel 1966 (11943). Sall. Iug. 31. See Seel 1966, 83 ff. Seel 1966, 130. Clift 1945, 93 ff.; 121. Clift 1945, 97 f.; 122.

1921; XIX–

1

3.1


127

G. Jachmann dated the invective against Cicero to the post-republican period and considered it to be a rhetorical exercise “as if it were composed by Piso”. 107 P. G. M. Nisbet 108 in 1961 concurred, attributing the invective to a rhetorician who wished to write an invective in Sallust’s style. Nisbet believed that the invective might have been written about the time of T iberius,109 which would mean between 14 and 37 AD. J. Hejnic110 dated the invective against Cicero to 54 or 53BC. He offers a new version of its authorship ar guing that the invective belonged to Clodius Pulcher,111 an opponent of Cicero. In a number of his speeches and letters112 Cicero referred to Clodius as someone who had slandered him, and thus, pace Hejnic, this could have been one of Clodius’ speeches against Cicero. The similarity with Sallust’s texts is explained by the fact that they were both tribunes of the commons in 53BC. Thus Sallust may have heard Clodius orate, later using Clodius’ style in his works. E. Gabba considered the invective against Cicero to be a product of the anticiceronian rhetorical tradition of various schools of rhetoric. One possible attribution is to the school of Asinius Pollio who retired from politics after the triumph over the Parthini of Illyria in 39BC and devoted himself to literature, organizing the first public recitations.113 K. Büchner114 considered the invective against Cicero to be a genuine but early work of Sallust. Büchner’s terminus ante quem is 53BC, the date of Crassus’ death, since the invective was written by a supporter of Crassus, a fact which corresponds to Sallust position during this period. In 1961 in Heidelberg K. Vretska edited the invective against Cicero and the letters to Caesar with a German translation and an extensive commen107 Jachmann 1950, 235ff. See also Oertel 1951, 46–68, who did not believe the in108 109 110 111 112 113 114

vective was genuine. Nisbet 1961, 197–198. Nisbet 1958, 30. Cf. Leclerk above p. 121. Hejnic 1956, 260–268. See above p. 124 in Schwartz’s argumentation. Cf. Cic. Dom. 92; 93; Sest. 109; Phil. 2, 11; Att. 1, 14, 5; 1, 16, 10; etc. Gabba 1957. Cf. also Zielinski 31912, 285; Kurfess 1954, 234. Büchner 1960 (21982).

128 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives tary. Vretska argued for Sallustian authorship of the invective, believing however that Sallust had never actually delivered this speech and also that he had never published it. It was probably therefore an essay by the young writer, a training in eloquence. In A. Ernout’s 1962 edition the text of the invectives is considered to be Pseudo-Sallustian. R. Syme 115 considered the invective to be an Augustan rhetorical exercise, in imitation of Sallust. He referred to Nisbet, arguing that the author failed to maintain the desired color Sallustianus throughout the text.116 C. Becker considering the problem of the authenticity of Sallust’s Invective and the Letters to Caesar believes them to be spurious.117 In 1967 Büchner published a further work 118 where he criticized Syme’s position. He was convinced of the genuineness of the invective and also of the letters to Caesar, which he argued were linked to the invective stylistically. In the article on Sallust in the Kleine Pauly, P. L. Schmidt 119 considered the invective to be the earliest work by Sallust, though he acknowledged that the authorship of the invective was still a being discussed. The invectives are considered by L. D. Reynolds to be spurious in his edition of Sallust in 1991. In 1993 W. Schmid published a work on early Sallust. 120 In it, he argues that the invective against Cicero and the letters to Caesar belong to Sallust, something that can be proved through the connections between these texts and the rest of Sallust’ s works. He also believes that Bellum Africum, a record of Caesar’s war in Africa in the winter 47–46 BC, was in fact written by Sallust.121

115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Syme 1964, 317. Cf. Maurenbrecher 1899, 301. Cf. Nisbet 1961, App. VII. See above p. 127. Becker 1973, 742 ff. Büchner 1967. Cf. also Speyer 1971, 7. Schmidt 1972, 1514. Schmid 1993. Schmid 1993, 139 ff.

3.2

The History of the edited invectives

129

F. R. D. Goodyear in CHCL II122 and C. B. R. Pelling in OCD123 mention the question of the authenticity of the invectives in passing, attributing them to the rhetorical schools of the Augustan period.124 D. R. Shackleton Bailey published a new edition and translation of the invectives in 2002. In the introductory note he considers both invectives to be “spurious beyond any reasonable doubt”.125 Thus, whereas during the 19th century most commentators believed both invectives to have been the product of the rhetorical schools, during the 20th century a number of nay-sayers 126 have argued that on the contrary Sallust’s invective against Cicero was genuinely written by its purported author. It is however a cause for concern that time and again scholars make value judgements about Ciceronian style and morality: too often, the question of the authenticity of ancient texts is raised because we believe that such invectives would not be appropriate to a Cicero, whereas, in fact, invective was an essential part of Roman political and literary life. Nonetheless, bearing in mind our own cultural baggage and the danger of basing our judgements on a Cicero or a Sallust constructed according to our own limited preconceptions, arguments contra seem to be the more convincing. It remains unlikely that the authors of the two invectives were actually Sallust and Cicero.

3.2 The history of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) 3.2.1

Textual transmission of the invectives in incunabula

Whereas the latest manuscripts of Sallust’s text are dated to the 16th century, the editio princeps was already in print by the end of the 15 th century, first printed in 1471. Both invectives were for the most part transCHCL II 1982, 269. Pelling 1996, 1349. Cf. Conte 1994, 243. Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Ed. and transl. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Harvard 2002; 361. 126 See above p. 126. 122 123 124 125

130 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives mitted as part of the Sallustian corpus and only rarely alongside Cicero’s speeches. Some editions contain conjectures, signif icant in themselves for the history of the text. Other editions do not include conjectures and simply transmit the readings of any given manuscript. There are two editiones principes for the invectives. One of them, as referred to by Reynolds,127 was published in Cologne in 1471.128 This edition is important as the invectives were published without the rest of Sallust’s works. It is therefore the first “individual edition”. Two conjectures, of fered by the Cologne edition, are accepted by Reynolds into the text: Cic. 4 parasti ]129 paraveris L ed. princ. Reynolds: parasses V : pararis JordanSB Sall. 5 vita ed. princ.] vitae : om. K1 This conjecture of the Cologne edition does not seem to be convincing despite the fact that it was accepted by a number of other editions: Cic. 7 habens «LugdBas] habes ed. princ. IncAldGrutRom The other edition was published in V enice in 1471. 130 This edition includes Sallust’s works alongside the text of invectives, as is usual in the manuscript transmission. From 1471 on the text of the invectives was transmitted alongside Sallust’s works, as in the manuscript tradition. However , even when the edition included all of Sallust’ s works, it often also included Cicero’ s speeches against Catilina, a spurious response by Catalina to Cicero and Porcius Latro’ s speech against Catilina. In these editions Sallust’ s biography, the so-called vita Sallustii, preceded his works.

127 See TT 350 and in Reynolds’ edition of Sallust. 128 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. Invectiva in Ciceronem. Ps.-Cicero, Responsio in Sal-

lustium; Pius II, Epistola contra V ernandum de recommendatione poesis ad Guillelmum de Lapide; Epitaphium Leonardi [Bruni] Aretini. [Colonia, c. 1471 (1472?)]. See App. p. 193. 129 Regarding this point, see above p. 30 and 74. 130 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino. Venezia, Vindelino da Spira, 1471. Inc. V. 564 (1471), ff. 66r–70v. In the catalogue of Incunabula the edition in Cologne is dated to 1472 (see App. p. 193 f.).

3.2


131

The next edition of invectives also appeared in Venice131 in 1474, and yet another in Milan 132 in 1476. There followed two V enetian editions 133 of 1478 and 1490 where Martial’s epigrams are included alongside the Sallustian corpus. Pomponio Leto’s letter to Augustine Mathaeus is added to editions of 1491.134 Incunabula transmit the same text without essential changes and so it is possible to ascertain the manuscripts or in some cases the manuscript traditions the editors used. Some correct readings coincide with correct readings from family in contrast to family : Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dictaIInc] ac (an E) dicta tua BasGrut: facta tua ac dicta tua N Sall. 3 breve ut Inc] ut breve : breve : brevem Hb There are transpositions, which the incunabula have in common with manuscripts of family : Cic. 3 haec cum ] cum haec HbInc: haec om., s. l. R Cic. 3 se cicero dicit ] cicero se dicit IncAldLugdBasGrut: se cicero dicit I 131 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invec-

tiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, 1474. 132 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, 1476. 133 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, 1478. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] V ita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. Curavit Justinianus Romanus. [Venezia, c. 1490]. 134 Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, 1491. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, 1492. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maffeum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, 1493.

132 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives There is an omission in incunabula common to family : Cic. 1 et sceleratissimo] om. RInc: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O On one occasion a correct reading of is selected in contrast to the reading of : Cic. 1 iudicia Inc] audacia : ac iudicia N There is an interpolation common to manuscripts of : Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom Thus, the editors used late contaminated manuscripts, for the most part reliant on readings from family . 3.2.2

Textual transmission of the invectives in the 16th century

Aldus Manutius’ edition appeared in 1509.135 His manuscripts include no new readings or conjectures. The editor did however use one, or perhaps several, contaminated manuscripts. The text of the invectives in the V enetian edition of 1511136 is not substantially different from the text in incunabula. Most of the errors coincide with errors of the manuscripts of family . The editor had access to a number of late manuscripts. On occasions he chose the manuscript reading, as in Cic. 7, where instead of habes (ed. princ. IncAldGrutRomCrisp) he chose habens («).137 The following edition, printed in Venice in 1513 138 preserved the text as in Aldus’ edition while a new commentary is added, that of Bade.139 135 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eius-

136 137 138 139

dem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T . Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Venetiis [1509]. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maffeum; Venezia, [1511]. See above p. 130. C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio; utcunque explanatis; hic suum capit finem diligenti recognitione. Venetiis [1513]. On Bade’s commentary on the authorship of the invectives and his edition of the invectives see above p. 115.

3.2


133

In the Venetian edition of 1521140 the text of the invectives was printed as in incunabula but with Bade’s commentary. A new revised edition of Sallust was printed in Aldus’ publishing house in 1522.141 This edition offered a new conjecture, accepted by many later editors: Cic. 1 cum] quoniam142 Ald1Grut RomVen The editor of this edition used for the most part readings of manuscripts V and Mp, but also of later contaminated manuscripts. It is worth noting a number of conjectures proposed by the editor as marginal scholia. The influence of manuscripts of hyparchetype is significant: Cic. 1 hoc om. : habet N: Ald1 in marg. In this edition there are a number of new readings from later corrected manuscripts. Thus there are three interpolations in the text, which were later accepted in some other editions: Cic. 7 eosdem] eos deo E: eosdem nunc Ald1LugdBasGrut Sall. 6 incolumes in urbe] incolumes in hac urbe R Ald1LugdBasGrut: in colomes in urbe E Sall. 15 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I: desserptus V: despectum Bas: despectum reddidit Ald1LugdGrutRom As is clear from the transmission, many editors tried to correct the text, interpolating an absent verb into the text (the scribe of I, Aldina 1522 etc.). This explained Norden’ s interpolation, which was later accepted by Reynolds also.

140 Caii Crispi Sallustii Historiographi Opus una cum infrascriptis commentaries

videlicet: Laurentii V allae: Omniboni Leoniceni: et Iodoci Badio Ascensii in eiusdem bello Catilinario. In bello vero Iugurthino fratris Ioannis Chrisostomi Soldi Brixiani, eiusdem Ascensii. Philippi Beroaldi invectivarum Ciceronis comendatione. Eiusdem Sallustii in Ciceronem invectiva, Ciceronis in eundem responsive. Venetiis, [1521]. 141 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T . Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repur gata sunt, ac quo quaeque ordine optime digesta. Venetiis [1522]. 142 Reynolds following Jordan and Orelli-Baiter-Halm attributed this conjecture to Halm.

134 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives In two further editions – a Venetian one in 1526 and a Florentine one in 1527143 – the text of Aldus’ editions and incunabula is reprinted without changes. In the Florentine edition Sallust’ s text is printed together with Apuleius’ one. There is no commentary in this edition. The Venetian edition of 1536 144 was a reprint of the text of 1521 together with the commentary by Bade. Shortly thereafter the edition of 1541 was a reprint of the 1536 edition. In Venice in 1546 there appeared a further edition of Sallust, 145 that included, in addition to the works of Sallust, Cicero’ s speeches against Catilina, Catilina’s purported responses to Cicero and a speech by Catilina against Porcius Latro. There is a conjecture in this edition, accepted also by many later editions: Sall. 16 ecquod GlareanLugdGrut]146 et quod AFN , Ald1 in marg.: et pro K1, et quid VK2: qui post et quod B

143 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino; or-

ationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. T ullii Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orationes quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repur gata sunt, ac suo quaeque ordine optime digesta. V enetiis [1526]. L. Apuleii Madaurensis Opera; C.Crispi Sallustii Opera. Florentiae [1527]. 144 Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Reverendo D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri Criniti de historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T. Ciceronis oratio in L. Catilinam. C. Crispi Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum interpretationibus Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascensii; bellum Iugurthinum cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eiusdem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes duae ad Caesarem senem de Republica. Venetiis [1536]. 145 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. V enetiis, [1546]. 146 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to the Flamish humanist Louis Carrion (1547–1595), though it appeared in some editions before Carrion’s commentary. In Carrion’s commentary on the invectives this conjecture is in point of fact absent. Cf. p. 118 above.

3.2


135

The Venetian edition of 1547147 reprinted the text of the previous edition of 1546 but this time with the commentary by Bade added, as in the edition of 1521. A further edition appeared in Lyon in 1551. 148 This was for all practical purposes a re-edition of Aldus’ edition of 1522, though at times the editor accepted mar ginal scholia that had not appeared in the f irst edition, examples being: Cic. 1 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista 1 del.)V: ista tua petulantia in marg. Ald, LugdBas Cic. 1 praedae] perfidiae AldGrut: locum M: perfidiae locum V 1Ald in marg., LugdBasRom, locum del. V2 Cic. 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L Ald in marg.: reptitius AldBasGrutRom: irreptitius Ald in marg., Lugd Cic. 4 rem publicam caram] rem publicam charam Ald in marg., Lugd: populi romani curam BasGrutRom The Lyon editor followed the same principle as all the previous editors. His text is based on late contaminated manuscripts with a number of new interpolations and conjectures. The readings sometimes coincide with those from family and sometimes with those of family . A further edition of Sallust appeared in V enice in 1555. 149 This edition includes a selection of Aldus’ conjectures written as mar ginal scholia. A number of conjectures are significant for the later transmission of the text: Sall. 3 illam Ald in mar g., LugdVenBas]150 aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I 147 C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in

M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes V . Lucii Catilinae in M. T . Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis, [1547]. 148 C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, ac Bello Iugurthino historiae; eiusdem in M. T . Ciceronem M. T . Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio … Lugduni, 1551. 149 C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae … Cum Iodoci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus… Venetiis, 1555. 150 Reynolds attributed the conjecture to Gottlieb Kortte (see the edition of 1724; see below p. 142), so did Shackleton Bailey. In fact this conjecture had already been proposed in the Lyon edition of 1551 and then reprinted in the Venice and Basel editions (see App. p. 198 f.).

136 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives It is worth noting that the Venetian editor accepted Aldina’s scholia into his text at two disputed points: Sall. 3 illam Ald in marg., LugdBasVen] aliam : aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I Sall. 7 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERVAld in mar g., LugdBasVen: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2 The following interpolation, stemming probably from the later manuscripts, was also accepted into the text: Sall. 4 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «Ven in marg.: metello I: metelli HbBasGrut: Paulos Ven This now settled text was printed again without any signif icant changes in 1557, 1560, and 1567 in Venice and in 1563 in Padua.151 The influence of late contaminated manuscripts and of Aldina’ editions is evident. A full edition of Sallust with a commentary was printed in Christophe Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp in 1564. Paulus Manutius revised this edition, which included a number of scholia by Aldus Manutius the Younger.152 In this edition there is no commentary to the invectives but only the scholia of Aldus Manutius the Younger. The editor enjoyed access to various manuscripts and we can trace his selection of readings. He relies for the most part on family , and, within that family, on the readings of hyparchetype , examples being: Cic. 2 tua ac (aut BX) dicta IInc] ac (an E) dicta tua Ald2Bas: facta tua ac dicta tua N Cic. 4 illius] eius Ald2BasGrut Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut153 Variae lectiones are for the most part explicable through a recognition of the fact that Aldus Manutius the Y ounger relied on Renaissance manuscripts adding new interpolations, something that was not the case with medieval manuscripts. Only rarely did the editor chose the reading of archetype in contrast to later manuscripts, for example: 151 See App. p. 198. 152 C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum

… Fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi… ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. Collecta … Antverpiae, 1564. See Voet v. V., 1982, 2019–2021. 153 This passage is mistakenly referred to in Reynolds’ apparatus. Cf. Reynolds 228.

3.2


137

Sall. 2 scio «] sciatis Ald2BasGrutRom: atis del., o s. l. K2 This conjecture, accepted by almost all the later editors, is worth noting: Cic. 2 alicui]154 alteri Ald2LugdBasGrutRomOrelli In all probability Aldus inserted this conjecture by analogy with Sall. 13. Two conjectures are made on the invective against Sallust: Sall. 18 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V The manuscript text read nominis perditi ac notissimi, as in archetype . The conjecture homines is offered by Aldus Manutius the Younger: “Quid si legas: h o m i n e s p e r d i t i a c n o t i s s i m i ?”155 The second conjecture suggested by Aldus reads: Sall. 17 vexavit E] vixit A1I Ald2: vetuit XBG?: vetavit T The text read vexavit. Aldus however preferred the reading vixit. His notes also reveal his acquaintance with variants:“Nihil muto. Vi x i t tamen pro v e x a v i t magis placer et.” [I change nothing. But I would prefer vixit instead of vexavit.]156 The Venetian edition of 1567157 noted these scholia by Aldus in the margin. A full edition of Sallust appeared in Basel in 1564. 158 In addition to the invectives it reprinted the commentaries by Bade and Glarean. A new reading included in this edition allows us to infer the inf luence of manuscripts on this text, with hyparchetype as a source: Cic. 6 his NK2CIZH2MMp: iis AF D1: hiis K1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1 Ald2LugdGrut 154 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to Orelli whereas Orelli was simply follow-

ing the reading that already existed.

155 Reynolds attributed this conjecture to Johann Wilhelm Berger (see Kortte’s edi-

tion). So did Shackleton Bailey. Berger was professor of rhetoric in the University of Wittenberg (see Kortte’s edition of 1724 (=1737), preface p. VIII). Kortte used Berger’s manuscripts of Sallust ( nihilo minus Ber gerianas vocavimus, ut ipso nomine, quo in Germania nostra vix aliud illustrius est, illustriores essent, [ibid. VIII]), and he sometimes included Berger’s conjectures. However, in this particular case the conjecture by Ber ger was in fact originally made by Aldus Manutius the Younger. 156 Cf. p. 39 above. 157 See App. p. 199. 158 C. Crispi Salustii et Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi Opera, quae quidem exstant, omnia … Basileae, 1564.

138 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives Justus Lipsius in his work Variae Lectiones159 considered a passage from the invective against Sallust. He offered to correct the text in Sall. 3: Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] luculenter Hb: lutulentus rell.: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. ERZ(?)MMp Sall. 3 velitariLipsiusGrut] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I As a connoisseur of vintage ciceronian style, Lipsius found fault with the style of the text of the invective and indeed felt uncomfortable that someone with such mediocre skills might presume to subscribe the text to so worthy a name. Considering the passage Sall. 3, he pointed out that, in the manuscript he used, the wordsus, which followed on fromlutulentus, was absent. He thus reread the passage and made an important conjecture: that sus should be excluded. In his opinion it was originally included due to a dittography , a duplication of the last syllable of the previous word. Further, Lipsius believed the passage would make better sense, if volutari was replaced with velitari: itaque nihil aliud studet nisi ut luculentus cum quovis velitari. longe vero fallitur opinione; non enim procacitate linguae vitae sordes eluuntur, sed est quaedam calumnia, quam unus quisque nostrum testante animo suo fert … Id est, ita procax effectus est Sallustius, ut nihil aliud studeat, nisi tamquam homo festivus et luculentus cum quovis velitari, et quemvis calumniis ac improba lingua incessere. Quae quidem lectio sequentibus statim verbis manifeste comprobatur. [he therefore bothers himself with nothing more, fine fellow that he is, than with attacking whomever he wants. In this however he errs seriously , for life’s blemishes are not purified through the looseness of a fellow’s tongue. Yet there is a kind of ver dict of false accusation, which each of us in his judgement bears witness to … That means, Sallust is so licentious, that he concerns himself with noting more, than attacking whomever he wants, like some droll and f ine fellow, and than assailing whomever he wishes with false accusations and foul language. This reading is indeed plainly confirmed immediately by the following words.]

Plantin’s publishing house in Antwerp issued a commentary to Sallust by Louis Carrion in 1579.160 The commentary contains an apparatus criticus with variae lectiones based on Aldus’ conjectures, and also a number of historical references and notes by Cyprian Popma. 159 Lipsius 1637, 55 ff. See also above p. 118. 160 See above p. 118. In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, in Historiarum lib.

VI a Ludovico Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Antverpiae, 1579. See: Voet v. 5, 1982, 2021–2023.

3.2


139

Cyprian Popma thus agrees with Lipsius’ s reading of Sall. 3. 161 He does not accept sus in the text, following in this regard the reading of the greater part of the medieval manuscripts162 and also the considerations of Justus Lipsius ad loc. The Venice edition of 1584163 represents a contamination of Aldinae and previous Venetian editions. The conjectures, of fered by Aldus, are accepted in the text. The text however also includes a new reading, probably based on a late manuscript: Sall. 4 illis ] illis viris IncAldLugdBasGrutRom: illi viris Ven 1584 The last edition of Sallust by Plantin was issued in Antwerp (though it was printed in Leiden) in 1587. 164 This practical pocket size edition includes no comments and no changes. 3.2.3


There are no comments and no conjectures in Plantin’s next edition, that of 1602.165 The editor rejects even previously accepted conjectures. Thus Plantin reverts to archetype ’s reading aliam: Sall. 3 illam Ald in marg., LugdBasVen] aliam ed1602GrutRom, in mg. Ven: aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I Jan Gruter’s Frankfurt edition of 1607166 does not add any new comments, including these by Glarean, Popma and Carrion without any changes,

161 In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham … in Historiarum lib. VI a Ludovico

Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos … Antverpiae, 1579; 183.

162 The collation results show that in the majority of the manuscripts sus is absent. 163 C. Crispi Salustii De L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino his-

toriae, cum reliquis orationibus, quas index sequentis paginae docebit. Venetiis, [1584]. 164 Caii Sallustii Crispi opera quae exstant, una cum fragmentis. Antverpiae, [1587]. See: Voet v. 5, 1982, 2023. 165 C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Helias Putschius ex fide vetustiss. Cod. Correxit, et Notas addidit; idem Fragmenta centum locis auxit et interpolavit. Adiecta v . c. Petri Ciacconii T oletani Notae. Ex Of ficina Plantiniana, Raphelengii, [1602]. 166 See above p. 119 f. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri accedunt; Francofurti, 1607.

140 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives alongside the two scholia by Aldus. 167 The text of the invectives in Gruter’s edition differs from that in previous ones. It is based on late contaminated manuscripts as well as the earlier editions. W e find readings from family and also readings from family . Apart from the following individual interpolation: Cic. 1 apud om. K1, s. l. K2: apud r. p. T: apud populum r. Z: aput H: ne aput P: an apud Grut Rom, Gruter tends to keep the conjectures by Aldus Manutius in his text. Gruter seems to have accepted the conjecture of Lipsius:168 Sall. 3 velitariLipsiusGrut] volutarirell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I In 1609 there appeared in Rome a full edition of Sallust.169 It did not contain any commentary to the invectives. The text itself mainly represents a contamination of Aldus’ and Gruter’s editions. The Venetian edition of 1610 170 included no new readings. Gruter ’s edition was not taken into account and Aldina’s text was reprinted with Aldus Manutius the Younger’s scholia. An edition of Sallust with fragments from ancient historians appeared in Leiden in 1634171 and was emendated by Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn.172 The text of the invectives is reprinted as in Gruter’s without changes. The same edition was then reprinted in Amsterdam in 1658.173 In the edition prepared by Saumaise in Leiden in 1645, 174 the text of the invectives was reprinted according to Gruter, without commentary or apparatus. 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

See above p. 136. See above p. 138 f. C.Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant, Omnia, Romae, 1609. C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta eiusdem historiarum, et scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Paulli F . collecta. Scholia Aldi Manutii. Venetiis, [1610]. See above p. 120. C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Lugduni Batavorum, 1634. See Willems 1880, 101. C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Amstelodami, 1658. See Willems 1980, 315–316. See above p. 120. Caius Sallustius Crispus. Ad D. Claudium Salmasium. Lugduni Batavorum, 1645.

3.2


141

A new edition of Sallust appeared in Leiden in 1649 (reprinted in 1659).175 This edition was revised and emendated by Anthony Thysius.176 Thysius included shortened commentaries to the invective against Cicero by Bade, Glarean, Popma and Carrion. The invective against Sallust is not included. Thysius also added his own commentary (for example to the passage Cic. 7).177 Johann Friedrich Gronovius’ edition of Sallust printed in Leiden in 1665178 was a reprint of Thysius’ edition. The same text was then reprinted in Leiden in 1677179 and in Amsterdam in 1690.180 An edition by Daniel Crispinus appeared in Paris in 1674. 181 The commentary is taken from Thysius’ edition, the text itself is printed as it had been previously in Gruter’s and Aldus’ editions. 3.2.4


The edition of Joseph Wasse182 was printed in Cambridge in 1710. In the preface to his edition Wasse mentioned the main preceding editions and he also referred to earlier editions in his apparatus criticus. In general Wasse’s edition would seem to be a contamination of the earlier editions by Aldus, Putsch, Gruter and Thysius.

175 See above p. 120. Cf. App. p. 200 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

f. C. Sallustii Crispi opera, quae exstant omnia … Accurata recensione Antonii Thysii … Lugduni Batavorum, 1659. Cf. the first edition of 1643. (Thysius) Op. cit. 534. C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant … Ex recensione J. F. Gronovii. Lugduni Batavorum et Roterodami, 1665. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant … Editio novissima. Lugduni Batavorum, 1677. C. Crispi Sallustii opera quae exstant … Amstelodami, 1690. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Crispini, diligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Parisiis [1674]. See above p. 121. C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant … Recensuit Josephus Wasse, Cantabrigiae, 1710.

142 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives In Padua in 1722 183 Caietanus Vulpius emended a further edition of Sallust. In the preface to his edition he explained that he gathered and collated new manuscripts of Sallust. There are however no new readings for the invectives. The edition is based on two editions, that of Elzevir published in 1634 and of that of W asse. Vulpius even quotes from W asse’s reference to Gruter’s edition of 1607. A new edition with apparatus criticus was completed by Gottlieb Kortte in Leipzig in 1724. 184 Kortte used new manuscripts from Gudius’ collection (Wolfenbüttel), the major part of which were late, corrected and contaminated. Kortte referred to one old manuscript A, 185 and also to two manuscripts from Reims: Rem. 1111186 (early 15th century) and Rem. 1329187 (second half of the 11th century). Reynolds includes five of Kortte’s conjectures in his apparatus. Some of them should indeed be accepted into the text:188 Sall. 6 si delendum coni. Cortius Sall. 19 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp: tirburtii V (r1 del.) Another conjecture was mentioned by Reynolds in his apparatus but he did not accept it into the text: Cic. 2 aut] at X: del. Cortius: an IncRom: om. Crisp Kortte’s edition is the f irst edition of the invectives with an apparatus criticus which conforms, more or less, to our contemporary expectations. Jordan’s edition is based on Kortte’s edition.189 The Venetian edition of 1737 is a reprint of Kortte’s edition. 183 C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Ex optimis codd. accuratissime castigata. Acce-

184 185 186 187 188 189

dunt Julius Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et fragmenta historicorum veterum. In quibus quid praestitum nunc primum sit, et quae adiuncta his fuerint, indicat Epistola ad Lectorem. Patavii, [1722]. See above p. 121. Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, Lipsiae, 1724. This was the edition Jordan used as a base for his edition of Sallust. See ch. 2 p. 42. Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 277. See above ch. 2 p.77. Even if Kortte collated manuscript R as he claimed, he did not use its readings in his text. Reynolds accepted three conjectures, but only two are referred to here, since the third was not in fact made by Kortte. See above p. 136. See p. 145 below.

3.2


143

Siegbert Havercamp 190 published an extensive edition of Sallust in Amsterdam in 1742. The f irst volume contained Catilina and Jugurtha with numerous commentaries, the second volume contained dedications, prefaces and biographies of Sallust by Crinito, 191 Vossius,192 and Leclerk,193 a number of ancient references to Sallust, fragments from the Historiae, the letters to Caesar and also both invectives. Variae lectiones and the commentaries by Glarean, Popma, W asse, Bade, Carrion and Thysius were added to the invectives. In the preface Havercamp points out that he used three editions – Gruter ’s, Wasse’s and Kortte’s – and that he collated new manuscripts from the library of Leiden. These manuscripts are late, contaminated and corrected. 194 The apparatus to the invectives was made with the collation of only one manuscript, which is termed C by the editor.195 On several occasions Havercamp referred to collations of manuscripts by Franciscus Oudendorpius which were prepared for this edition. For all practical purposes however Gruter’s text was printed without changes. In the V enetian edition of 1761 196 the text was again printed without changes. Guido Ferrari’s commentary to Catilina and Iugurtha was included in the edition. The text of invectives followed Gruter ’s and Kortte’s editions. Epitome Rerum Romanarum by Florus was printed alongside Sallust in the one volume Birmingham edition of 1773. 197 The text was printed without any changes, with neither preface nor commentary.

C. Crispi Sallusii quae exstant, cura Sigeberti Havercampi, Amstelaedami, 1742. See above p. 115, 120. See above p. 120. See above p. 121. Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 281. Leyden, B. P. L. 63, 1467–1471; Paper , 195 x130, 88 ff.; Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Latini (Lugduni Batavorum 1912), 31 f.; f f. 38–41; scribe: Nicolaus Gruter de Scoerl. 196 C. Crispi Sallustii Catilinarium et Jugurthinum Bellum P . Guidonis Ferrarii S. J. diligentia illustratum ad usum Universitatis Braydensis. In hac novissima editione. Accedunt reliqua Sallustii quae extant omnia una cum Porcii Latronis in Catilinam Declamatione, et V eterum Historicorum Fragmentis. V enetiis [1761]. 197 C. Crispus Sallustius et L. Annaeus Florus. Birminghamiae, 1773. 190 191 192 193 194 195

144 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives A further edition of Sallust was printed in 1779 in Zweibrücken.198 In the preface the editor referred to Kortte and then to all the previous editions and commentaries of the text from Aldus on, including Rivius, Glarean, Carrion, Popma, Gruter and Wasse. The text is printed without changes. The biography of Sallust by Jean Leclerk, though not that of Crinito or Soldus, was included as a preface to Sallust’s works. There were no changes made for the V enetian edition of 1786, 199 which followed Gruter’s text. The Parisian edition of Crispinus dating to 1674 was reprinted in 1790.200 3.2.5


In 1801 in Paris in Didot’s publishing house a “standard edition” of Sallust was printed.201 All Sallust’s works, including the invectives, were printed without either changes or commentary. The edition contained no preface. The first edition of the invectives in Orelli’s edition of Cicero was issued in 1826 in Zurich. The second edition was edited by Orelli-Baiter -Halm in 1856. 202 The text of the invectives was prepared by Johann Geor g Baiter based on Fleckeisen’ s collation of manuscript A, Halm’ s collation of manuscripts T and B,203 and on Orelli’s 1826 edition. Baiter’s apparatus criticus contains readings of four manuscripts (A, T, B and a later manuscript of 15 th century), and also several conjectures. An interpolation made by Halm is worth noting. This attempt to explain “alios” was accepted by later editors, though the interpolation seems to be an unnecessary attempt to improve the text: Cic. 3 exilio alios suppl. Halm: morte alios priores 198 Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita. Biponti, 1779. 199 C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant opera ex optimis codicibus accuratissime casti-

gata. Cum notis selectioribus. Venetiis, [1786].

200 C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, diligenter

recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Bassani, [1790]. Cf. p. above 139.

201 C. C. Sallustii Catilinaria et Iugurthina bella. P. Didot natu majoris, et F. Didot.

1801.

202 M. Tullii Ciceronis opera quae supersunt omnia ex recensione Io. Casp. Orellii.

Editio altera emendatior . Opus morte Orellii interruptum continuaverunt I. G. Baiterus et C. Halmius. Voluminis II. Pars II. Turici, [1856]. 203 See above ch. 2, p. 49 ff.

3.2


145

Two other conjectures provided by Baiter and Orelli do not convince: Sall. 8 sit] est Baiter Sall. 15 eius] sua Orelli 3.2.6

Henrich Jordan and new editions of the invectives from 1876 up until today

Henrich Jordan’s Berlin edition of 1876204 was influenced by Lachmann’s methodology and includes the f irst stemma of the manuscripts of the invectives. During the same year Jordan published an article which analysed the syntactical, morphological and rhetorical aspect of both the controversiae, as he calls them.205 The 1876 edition was Jordan’ s second edition of Sallust, the f irst one having excluded the invectives. The apparatus criticus provides a compilation of Kortte, Orelli-Baiter -Halm and a number of new medieval manuscripts. Jordan adds three manuscripts H, K and Hb, all from British Museum, to A, T, and B, 206 which were known from previous editions. Jordan divided the manuscripts into two families, then into groups, and created a first variant of stemma, very simple in form, but fundamentally correct. H. Wirz made a new edition of the invective against Cicero in 1898. 207 He did not use any new manuscripts, but emended the edition of Jordan with seventeen conjectures. Reynolds accepted three of these into his text.208 A new edition with apparatus criticus was made by A. Kurfess in 1914.209 Kurfess used ten manuscripts altogether, adding the four manuscripts M, E, P and V210 to Jordan’s stemma.

204 C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Henricus Jordan iterum recognovit; Bero-

lini, 1876. Jordan 1876, 305 ff. See stemma on p. 29. Wirz 1898, 91 ff. See a critical review of Maurenbrecher 1899, especially 302 f. See Reynolds 226, l. 25; 228, l. 15, 16. See below p. 146 ff. 209 Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. RecensuitAlphonsus Kurfess. Lipsiae [11914], 51970. 210 See above p. 27 ff. 205 206 207 208

146 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives An important conjecture made by Kurfess, which should be accepted into the text, is worth noting: Cic. 3 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri 211 J. C. Rolfe edited Sallust in 1921 using Kurfess’ text with a new English translation and commentary.212 Both invectives are included. In 1961 in Heidelberg K. Vretska edited the invective against Cicero and the letters to Caesar basically following Kurfess’ edition with a German translation and an extensive commentary.213 In A. Ernout’ s 1962 edition the text of the invectives follows Kurfess’ with a commentary and a French translation.214 L. D. Reynolds worked extensively on the textual tradition of the Sallustian corpus.215 Reynolds used sixteen manuscripts for his stemma,216 published in 1983 in TT, adding manuscripts F, G, C, D, S, R, and O to Kurfess’ edition and excluding V .217 The principle of his stemma is that of Jordan and Kurfess. A new edition of Sallust was published by Reynolds in 1991.218 In this edition Reynolds worked with eleven manuscripts A, ,F K, T, X, C, D, S, E, H, and M. Thus, for the stemma of 1991 Reynolds added manuscript X to the stemma of 1983, and excluded manuscripts G, B, Hb, R, O, and P. Reynolds is very conservative in his handling of the text of the invectives. He hardly ever changes the text of the manuscript transmission, though he does sometimes accept new conjectures proposed by other scholars. On one occasion he proposes his own interpolation:

211 Cf. Halm’s conjecture p. 144. 212 See above p. 126. 213 Vretska 1961. See Kurfess’ 4th edition of 1962 where on the last page (p. 31) he 214 215 216 217 218

places a list of discrepancies between his and Vretska’s readings in the invective against Cicero. Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César, Invectives; par A. Ernout. Paris, 1962. See TT 341–352. TT 350. V is a late manuscript. It contains traces of contamination and is not a palimpsest. Cf. Novokhatko 2002, 285. C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha… ed. by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford, 1991.

3.2


147

Cic. 1 ubiubi] est add. Reynolds : ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed ubi2 s. l. K2V2, del. M) On some other occasions he accepts other scholars conjectures or notes that they might be right: Cic. 3 quo] quod Baiter, fort. recte susp. Reynolds Cic. 3 calumniae] caluminiae, mi del. B: Catilinae WirzReynoldsSB Cic. 4 esse opulentiam … parasti] esse quin opulentiam … paraveris L ed. princ.Reynolds The manuscript L included the reading paraveris before this conjecture of the editio princeps, but Reynolds mentioned it as a reading of the editio princeps.219 Cic. 4 L. RawsonReynolds] M. Bas: Marci MpO: C. Marii GlareanGrutVenSB Reynolds accepted Rawson’s witty conjecture into his text.220 Cic. 5 Romam] Romam alt. add. WinterbottomReynoldsSB Cic. 6 his NK 2CIZH2MMpKurfess: iis AF D1: hiis K 1D2: piis : is O: om. ERH1: del. Ald2LugdGrutF.SchmidtReynolds Following the conjecture of Schmidt, Reynolds excludes iis (his) from the text. In fact, this conjecture appeared in the Antwerp edition of 1564 as proposed by Aldus Manutius the Y ounger and was then accepted by some later editions.221 Cic. 6 fecisti] ei add. WirzReynoldsSB Sall. 2 sciatis AldLugdBasGrutRom] atis del., o s.l. K2: scio «Reynolds: sciam Jordan Following the reading of later manuscripts, Reynolds alters the text from sciatis to scio. Jordan had already tried to change the 1st person here from plural to singular. Whilst Jordan’s singular is definitely stylistically finer, I find any conjecture unnecessary at this point. Sall. 3 luculentus TLipsius] lutulentus rell.: luculenter Hb: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. EMRZ(?)MpReynoldsSB

219 Cf. ch. 2, p. 30 and 74 above. 220 Cf. ch. 2, 31 above. 221 See above p. 136.

148 Chapter 3 The problem of authorship and the history of edited invectives Reynolds followed the interpolation of manuscripts E and M (sic in his apparatus!) and included sus into his text. I prefer Lipsius conjecture here.222 Sall. 3 velitari LipsiusGrut]223 volutari rell.: voluptari K 1 HOV: volutari possit I Sall. 4 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «JordanReynoldsSB Sall. 5 per te van der HoevenReynolds] certe : per te certe V Sall. 7 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NIV «ReynoldsSB: historiae s.l. is Hb Sall. 7 vel NordenKurfess] illum XL : illam T: illic QHb: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB Sall. 9 a viris del. Holford-StrevensReynoldsSB: iuraris s.l. vir a viris K 2 Sall. 17 et del. JordanKurfessReynoldsSB Sall. 18 chilonum MaurenbrecherReynolds] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QH b: cillonum MpV : cynonum N Sall. 18 homines Ald2GulielmiusReynoldsSB] nominis Kurfess: nominis in mg. V Following Ber ger’s reading homines, which was in fact proposed by Aldus Manutius the Younger, Reynolds alters the text in a plausible way .224 The latest edition of the invectives is part of the Loeb edition of Cicero prepared by D. R. Shackleton Bailey.225 Shackleton Bailey slightly alters Reynolds’ text, with some fine and witty conjectures, which sometimes even happen to follow other manuscripts readings: Cic. 4 amicitia T2] –iae : om. I: iustitia SB Sall. 1 tua] sua SB Sall. 1 nostrum] quid add. SB Sall. 2 minimis] in minimis QHbZSB: non cum (cum del.) minimis V Sall. 2 omnino] omnio B: om. QHb: omni VSB: omnino se M Sall. 3 de eo … obiectat secl. JordanReynolds: habent KurfessSB 226 Sall. 4 non nullos … pigeret] nullos … non pigeret SB Sall. 6 aut om. K: del. SB See above p. 138. Ibidem. Cf. above p. 137. Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Harvard 2002; pp. 359–391. See also p. 129 above. 226 See above ch. 2, p. 32. 222 223 224 225

3.2


149

Sall. 6 duxit] dixit s. l. u KMp: dixit NHMO: add. quis fuit SB Sall. 6 magistratibus] tam diligens add. SB Sall. 7 palam] in add. SB Sall. 9 habens] del. SB Sall. 11 studuit] aut inimicus fuit add. SB Sall. 16 quo usus est quisque eorum pro lege, palam universis recitarem SB227 Sall. 19 refelle] dic add. SB Sall. 21 altero] alio E: male add. SB On some other occasions he prefers the readings of Kurfess or Jordan to those of Reynolds. He does not use any new manuscript relying on the standard text of Reynolds. His edition also includes a new English translation of the invectives. Finally, the present edition builds on the work by Reynolds that of 1983 and that of 1991. The conjectures proposed by Shackleton Bailey are also considered. In addition to the manuscripts used by Reynolds, the present edition examines six further manuscripts.228 Most manuscripts were also re-examined and the conclusions were incorporated into the new edition of the text. Here too a full textual history of these texts is presented for the first time.229

227 See p. 180–181 below. 228 See above ch. 2, p. 27 ff. 229 I have already published the new version of the text of the invectives with an ap-

paratus criticus and a brief introduction and translation in Russian in the V estnik Drevnej Istorii (Journal of Ancient History) 249 and 250, cf.Novohatцko 2004. However, the Russian version did not take in to account Shackleton Bailey’s latest edition (2002), and there were some inaccuracies in the apparatus which now have been corrected. Thus, the text appears for the first time in its present form.

150

Chapter 4

Text known as Sallust's invectives

Chapter 4 Text known as Sallust’s invectives with a new apparatus criticus, a translation, and a commentary IN M. TVLLIVM CICERONEM INVECTIVA

5

10

1. Graviter et iniquo animo maledicta tua paterer, M. T ulli, si te scirem iudicio magis quam morbo animi petulantia ista uti. sed cum in te neque modum neque modestiam ullam animadverto, respondebo tibi, ut si quam male dicendo voluptatem cepisti, eam male audiendo amittas. Ubi querar, quos implorem, patres conscripti, diripi rem publicam atque audacissimo cuique esse praedae? apud populum Romanum? qui ita largitionibus corruptus est ut se ipse ac fortunas suas venales habeat. an apud vos, patres conscripti? quorum auctoritas turpissimo cuique et sceleratissimo ludibrio est. ubiubi M. Tullius leges iudicia rem publicam defendit atque in hoc ordine ita moreratur, quasi unus reliquus e familia 2 et] om. P 2 tua] s.l. H2 2 paterer] om. E 2 scirem] s.l. … ret H 3 magis] om. O 3 animi] animi ex animo T : animi ex animus H 2 3 animi] iudicio animi ratione magis quam morbo animi procacitate (tate in ras.) petulantia I 3 petulantia ista] ista petulantia : ista p. ista (ista1 del.) V: ista tua petulantia in mg. AldLugdBas 3 cum] in mg. Ald : quoniam AldGrutRomVen 4 modestiam] moderantiam I 4 respondebo tibi] respondebo breviter tibi O 5 quam] que O 5 cepisti] accepisti K, ac- del. K1: coepisti BTDR 5 audiendo] dicendo 5 amittas] ammittas T 6 quos implorem] del. Wölfflin 6 diripi] ab eo diripi Mp: deripi N 7 atque] om. E: s.l. V 7 praedae Eussner] perfidiae AldGrut: locum M: perfidiae locum V 1Ald in mg. , LugdBasRom, locum del. V2 7 apud] om., s.l. K2: aput H: ne aput P: an apudGrutRom 7 populum Romanum] r. p. T: populum r. Z 8 largitionibus] om. Z 8 se ipse] se ipsum EV : sese Mp AldLugdBasGrutRomVen 8 ac fortunas suas] fortunasque suas I: suasque fortunas Hb 8 venales habeat] habeat venales Z: venales habebat N 9 turpissimo] om. E 10 et sceleratissimo] om. R: et celeratissimo E: et sceratissimo O 10 ludibrio est] est ludibrio M: est ludibrio est H 10 ubiubi] ubi K 1HbV1«BasGrutRomVenSB (sed ubi2 s.l. K2V2, del. M) est add. Reynolds 10 iudiciarem] r. p. audacia A: iudiciaque p. r. H b: iudicia p. r. R: iuditiaque rei p. V 10 iudicia ] audacia : ac iudicia N 10 rem publicam] r. p. : rei p. P: p. r. NLAldLugdBasGrutRom 11 hoc] om. : Ald in mg. 11 ita moderatur] moderatur ita T 11 ita] om., in mg. V 11 reliquus] ereliquis R: reliqus M 11 e familia] e om. A: effamilia B: ex familia KR

Chapter 4


151

INVECTIVE AGAINST MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO 1. It would be hard for me to put up with your abuse, Marcus T ullius, and 1 it would bother me, if I believed your lack of restraint to be more a matter of considered opinion than a disease of your mind. However since I note neither measure nor modesty in your words, 2 I shall respond in kind, so that if you felt any pleasure in issuing abuse,3 you may banish it by paying attention to similarly foul words. To whom, Fathers of the Senate, shall I complain, to whom appeal 4 that our state is being torn asunder and turned into plunder for each and every impudent taker?5 To the Roman people who are so corrupted with bribery that they offer their wealth and indeed their very selves for sale?6 Or to you, Fathers of the Senate, whose reputation every disgraceful, criminal layabout ridicules? Where so ever Marcus Tullius may find himself, he sticks up for laws, legal processes and state,7 manipulating them here in this establishment, as though he were the last remaining

1 Quoted by Quint. 4, 1, 68. See ch. 3, p.111. Cf. In Vat. 1, 1.The author obviously

imitates Sallust here, cf. aequo animo paterer in Sall. Iug. 31, 21.

2 Another Sallustian phrase, cf. Sall. Cat. 11, 4; 38, 4. 3 On maledicta see Powell 2007, 10. 4 Cf. Flacc. 4; Verr. 2, 5, 126; Mur. 88; De or. 3, 214; Sall. Iug. 14, 17. The re-

moval from the text of quos implorem as suggested by E. Wölf flin might be plausible (there is a clear incongruity with the construction that follows, which is an AcI). However, this expression is probably used as a frequently repeated ciceronian formula. Cf. Eussner 1879, 204; Vretska, 1961, II 12. 5 Cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 10, 18. 6 Another attempt to imitate Sallust, cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 25; Cat.10, 4. 7 Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 20, 2; Cic. Phil. 8, 8; Sest. 98; Sen.Suas. 6, 26, 14; Hor. Ep. 1, 16, 40.

152

5

10

Chapter 4


viri clarissimi, Scipionis Africani, ac non reperticius, accitus ac paulo ante insitus huic urbi civis. 2. An vero, M. T ulli, facta tua ac dicta obscura sunt? an non ita a pueritia vixisti, ut nihil flagitiosum corpori tuo putares, quod alicui collibuisset? aut scilicet istam immoderatam eloquentiam apud M. Pisonem non pudicitiae iactura perdidicisti? itaque minime mirandum est, quod eam flagitiose venditas, quam turpissime parasti. verum, ut opinor, splendor domesticus tibi animos tollit, uxor sacrilega ac periuriis delibuta,ilia f matris paelex, tibi iucundior atque obsequentior quam parenti par est. domum ipsam tuam vi et rapinis funestam tibi ac tuis comparasti: videlicet, ut nos commonefacias, quam conversa res sit, cum in ea domo habites, homo flagitiosissime, quae P. Crassi, viri clarissimi fuit.

1 viri clarissimi] viri om. BG: viri Scipionis audacissimi Z: clarissimi viri KH b 1 Africani] affricani NKBILHbZEMpHP: om. R: affricam O 1 ac non] ac si non sit Z 1 reperticius] repertius M: repertitius L Ald in mg. : reptitius AldBasGrutRom: irreptitius Ald in mg., Lugd 1 accitus] accito N: a(d)scitus SB 3 facta tua ac dicta] facta tua ac dicta tua N 3 tua ac dicta] tua ac (aut BX) dicta I: ac (an E) dicta tua BasGrut 3 ita] ita om. Mp 5 istam] istam om. O 5 immoderatam] moderatam HOPM1, im s.l. M2 6 pudicitiae] puditiae Q 6 perdidicisti] prodidisti H b: perdidisti QPMp 6 itaque] ita N 6 minime] enim me B: non Hb: om. QL 6 mirandum est] mirandum est minime R 7 eam] iam T: ita O 7 flagitiose] flagitiose hic rasura venditas I 7 venditas] uti dicas B 8 tollit] attolit BasGrut, at s.l. V 8 periuriis] periurans B: pervariis M 8 delibuta TAld] debilitata rell.: debilitate N: debelitata B: dedita R: debitata LPO: delibitata P 9 filia matris] filia per matris Q 9 paelex] seplex K 9 matris paelex] paelex matrix Mp 9 obsequentior quam] om. G 10 ipsam] istam HPM 10 vi] om. QHb 10 funestam] funestram O 10 tuis] tuis in ras. I2 10 comparasti] parasti, con s.l. R: parasti E 1 1 videlicet] videt Mp 1 1 conversa] servata V 1 1 res sit] TG: res sit p. B: res p. sit N LugdBas: sit res p. XSHPOVMpAldGrutRom, sit r. p. QLHbEMRZ 11 in ea] mea Q 12 habites ] habitares rell. Bas: habitatores O: habitas AldGrutRom 12 flagitiosissime] flagitiosissimo D 12 P.] publii ERZOH 2PM 12 Crassi, viri clarissimi] c. v . R 12 Crassi] c. ERH 2PM 12 viri clarissimi] v. c. AKTGDE: vir con- H 2: ut c. B: om. I 12 clarissimi] consularis ZONQLH bMpAldLugdBasGrutRom: om. P 12 viri clarissimi fuit] fuit viri clarissimi M

Chapter 4


153

relative of illustrious Scipio Africanus8 rather than the debutant, the neophyte, the city novice he in fact is.9 2. Perhaps, Marcus Tullius, you suppose that your words and deeds remain concealed? 10 Have you not perchance conducted yourself from your very childhood in such a way as to consider nothing too sordid for your own body so long as it provided gratif ication for someone else? 11 Aye, without a doubt, it was without forfeiting your chastity 12 that you acquired this familiarity with uninhibited eloquence from Marcus Piso!13 In this context it should come as no surprise that you so scandalously market that which you procured at such discredit. Nay, I assume rather that the lustre of your home moulded your finecharacter, what with your sacrilegious wife, blemished by her transgressions,14 and your daughter, rival to her mother,15 more delectable and more compliant to you, than a daughter should be to her father. It was with violence and loot that you even acquired your house, with dire consequences for you and your family. It would seem that you wish to remind us how far the state has fallen, with you, a most degenerate man, living in the home that had belonged to the distinguished Publius Crassus.16

8 Meant ironically, because Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236–183 B.C.), 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16

politician, was very often mentioned by Cicero in his speeches. Cf. Verr. 2, 4, 79 ff. and Vretska 1961, II 17–18. Cf. Sall. Cat. 31, 7; Cic. Sull. 23. Cf. Sall. Iug. 64, 5; Hist. 1, 44, 5. Cf. Cic. Cat. 1, 13; Phil. 14, 5, 14; 4, 6, 15; Sall.Cat. 51, 9. See also Sall. 13; 17. Cf. Sall. 7. Cf. Pis. 68–70; Phil. 2, 3; Brut. 310; Cass. Dio 46, 5, 1. Marcus Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus), consul in 61 BC, was in his youth a promising orator and Cicero’s friend. See alsoVretska 1961, II 21f.; Ernout 52; SB 364. Such a charge of sexual misconduct was a rhetorical commonplace, cf. Adams 1982, 195 f.; Craig 2004, 191, 202. See ch. 2, p.53. See also Ernout53. Terentia’s half-sister was a Vestal Virgin and was accused of having sexual relation with Catiline in 73BC (cf. Asc. 91). Here this case is transferred by the author to Terentia herself. Quoted in a manuscript, containing Serv. In Aen. VI, 623. See ch. 3, p. 112. Cf. Cic. Cluent. 70, 199; Or. 30, 108; Verr. 2, 1, 122; In Sall. 21. See also Zielinski 31912, 15; Becker 1973, 745; Ernout 53; Opelt 1965, 48. Cicero bought a house from Marcus Licinius Crassus the ‘triumvir ’, a son of Publius Licinius Crassus, consul in 97 BC. See Vretska 1961, II 27, Ernout 53.

154

5

10

Chapter 4


3. atque haec cum ita sint, tamen se Cicero dicit in concilio deorum immortalium fuisse, inde missum huic urbi civibusque custodem *** absque carnif icis nomine, qui civitatis incommodum in gloriam suam ponit. quasi vero non illius coniurationis causa fuerit consulatus tuus et idcirco res publica disiecta eo tempore, quo te custodem habebat. Sed, ut opinor, illa te magis extollunt, quae post consulatum cum T erentia uxore de re publica consuluisti, cum legis Plautiae iudicia domo faciebatis, ex coniuratis aliquos pecunia condemnabas, cum tibi alius Tusculanam, alius Pompeianam villam exaedificabat, alius domum emebat: qui vero nihil poterat, is erat calumniae proximus, is aut domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut insidias senatui fecerat, denique de eo tibi compertum erat.

1 haec cum ] cum haec Hb: haec om., s.l. R 1 ita] om. Q 1 tamen] in ras. I2 1 se Cicero dicit ] cicero se dicit AldLugdBasGrut 1 concilio] consilio NQV 1 deorum] om. P 2 inde] exinde Z: inde te I 2 missum] immissum V 2 civibusque custodem] custodem civibusque Hb: post custodem lacunam latere susp. Reitzenstein 3 carnificis] add. fuisse QH b 3 civitatis] civitates B: vitans del., s.l. civitatis K 2 3 in gloriam suam] in suam gloriam N 3 in] om. I 4 vero] om., s.l. H1: quasi vero, s.l. sed ita loqu … M 2 4 coniurationis causa] causa coniurationis R 4 tuus] om., in mg. V 5 et idcirco] non idcirco V: et non idcirco Z: et iccirco H b 5 disiecta eo] disiecta est eo RZ 5 tempore] tempore erat I: tempore est H b 5 quo] quod Baiter Reynolds fort. r ecte susp. 5 te] om. B 5 custodem] custodem te P 5 habebat] habeat BP 1: habuit Z 6 extollunt] extolluit Z: exextollunt Mp 7 Terentia] terentiana M 1: na del. M2 Mp: otrencia O 7 consuluisti] consuisti M 7 Plautiae] placiae K: plauticae E: planciae VR 7 domo ] domi QLHb«Bas: dono B 8 faciebatis] s.l. s (=faciebas) E: faciebas Mp 8 aliquos Kurfess] alio Z: alios ceteri: exilio alios suppl. Halm 8 pecunia] om. E: peccunia GOMp 8 condemnabas] condempnabas NIHbMH: condempnabatis, tis del., s s.l. EBas: condonabas V 9 Tusculanam EM] -um rell. 9 villam] om. K1 9 exaedificabat] edificabat AIMBas: hedificabat V 10 erat calumniae proximus] calumniae proximus erat A 10 erat] fuerat V 10 calumniae] caluminiae, mi del. B: Catilinae WirzReynoldsSB 10 aut] autem M 11 domum tuam oppugnatum venerat aut] is domum tuam aut venerat aut R 11 denique de eo] de eo denique R 12 tibi compertum] compertum tibi K 12 compertum] comperto N 12 erat] fuerat I

Chapter 4


155

3. And yet, despite all this,17 Cicero asserts that he was himself present at the council of the immortal gods, 18 whence he was dispatched to the city and its citizens as a guardian (***not being named an executioner),19 who caused the state injury to augment his own glory . As 20 though your consulship were not the cause of that conspiracy! That is the reason the state was torn apart at that time with you as its guardian! And yet, so I assume, 21 it was those state decisions that you made together with your wife Terentia22 after your consulship that elevated you to a higher status; then holding judicial proceedings following the Plautian law,23 at your own home no less, you censured some of the plotters to pay fines,24 one of them constructing a villa for you at Tusculum, another a villa at Pompeii,25 yet another buying you your residence. Such a man however as could bestow nothing on you, such a man was most liable to your false accusations,26 either accused of having attacked your house or of plotting against the Senate. Of such a person’ s guilt, you were, in sum, most certain.27

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

Cass. Dio 46, 12, 1. See Kurfess 1913c, 150. Cf. Cic. In Cat. 2, 13, 29; Dom. 141; Phil. 3, 34. See Koster 1980, 181 f. On the carnifex see Nisbet 1961, 196. In 63 BC Cicero was elected consul and managed to convince the Senate of the seriousness of the conspiracy led by Catilina, who otherwise might have been a candidate. (Cf. Sull. 67; Planc. 85; Fam. 5, 7.) See ch. 1, p. 19. Terentia was said to have had considerable inf luence over Cicero, inciting him against the followers of Catiline. T erentia is often mentioned in the Letters to Atticus and in Letters to Friends 14. Cf. also Plut.Cic. 41. See Koster 1980, 182. Cf. Cat. 31, 4; Cael. 70 and Vretska 1961, II 33. Lex Plautia was proposed in 89 BC by the tribune Marcus Plautius Silvanus. Its purpose was to punish transgressors of the public order severely. Here again it is used as a common anticiceronian locus, not necessarily corresponding to the historical truth. See SB 366. On a conjecture by Halm here, see ch. 3, p. 144. See also Schelle 1967, 193 f. Cf. Cic. Att. II, 1, 11; IV, 2,5; VII, 5, 3; Gell. N. A. XII, 12. Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 4, 1. See Kurfess 1913c, 150. Sall. Cat. 30, 4. Cf. Liv . U. C. 38, 45, 9. See also Cicero’ s letter to his ex-colleague, proconsul in Macedonia, C. Antonius (Fam. 5 (V.5), 2): nam comperisse me non audeo dicere, ne forte id ipsum verbum ponam quod abs te aiunt falso in me solere conferri, and Shackleton Bailey’s commentary: “The verb comperire had become a catchword with Cicero’ s enemies, in reference to his espionage upon the Catilinarians” (Cicero:Epistulae ad familiares, ed. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, v. 1. Cambridge 1977; 284).

156

5

10

15

Chapter 4


4. quae si tibi falsa obicio redde rationem quantum patrimonii acceperis, quid tibi litibus accreverit, qua ex pecunia domum paraveris, T usculanum et Pompeianum infinito sumptu aedificaveris, aut, si retices, cui dubium potest esse: opulentiam istam ex sanguine et miseriis civium parasti? Verum, ut opinor , homo novus Arpinas, ex L. Crassi familia, illius virtutem imitatur , contemnit simultatem hominum nobilium, rem publicam caram habet, neque terrore neque gratia removetur a vero, amicitia tantum ac virtus est animi. 5. immo vero homo levissimus, supplex inimicis, amicis contumeliosus, modo harum, modo illarum partium, fidus nemini, levissimus senator, mercennarius patronus, cuius nulla pars corporis a turpitudine vacat, lingua vana, manus rapacissimae, gula immensa, pedes fugaces, quae honeste nominari non possunt inhonestissima. atque is cum eius modi sit, tamen audet dicere: ‘o fortunatam natam me consule Romam!’ te consule fortunatam, Cicero?

1 si tibi] sit A: tibi si BG 1 falsa] falsum Z 1 obicio redde] obtio rede O 1 patrimonii] patrimonium V 1 acceperis] acceperas BG 2 quid] quod B: quantum O 2 litibus] laudibus BG 2 qua] quam Z 2 pecunia] pugna E: peccunia Mp 3 et] aut V 3 Pompeianum] pompeianum agrum QH bL 3infinito sumptu] quo sumptu infinito I 3 sumptu] sumpto O 3 aedificaveris] exaedificaveris 3 cui] qui HM 1 cui s.l. M 4 dubium potest esse ] potest dubium esse : cui potest esse dubium I: quin add. (praeter H) JordanReynoldsSB 4 et miseriis civium] civium ac miseriis ZN 4 et O] ac : om. V 4 miseriis] miserias B: miserorum V: visceribus AldLugdBasGrut 5 parasti Kurfess] paraveris L ed.princ.Reynolds: parasses V : pararis JordanSB 6 homo novus] novus homo O 6 Arpinas] harpinas D 6 L. Rawson] M. Bas: Marci MpO: C. Marii GlareanGrutVenSB 6 familia] familias G 6 illius] eius BasGrut 7 virtutem] virtutes I 7 simultatem] simultantem H b: simultans E 7 hominum] omnium N 7 nobilium] unam add. Jachmann 8 rem publicam caram] rem publicam charam Ald in mg., Lugd: populi Romani curamBasGrutRom 8 habet] habeo B 8 removetur a Reitzenstein] removetur. aliud : com movetur. Illud BasGrut 3 a … animi del. Jordan 8 a vero] om. I 9 amicitia T2] amicitiae BasGrut: om. I: iustitia SB 9 ac] om. I 9 virtus] virtutis H 1 (corr. H2)VBasGrut 9 immo] imo E: inmo Q 9 levissimus] letissumus H: leti sumus O 10 supplex] duplex N 1 1 mercennarius] mercenarius Mp 1 1 patronus] patronis BG 12 pars corporis] corporis pars A 12 corporis] s.l. Z 12 a turpitudine] turpitudinis Z 14 possunt inhonestissima] possunt inhonestima K: sunt post inhonestissima s.l. V, n e om. H1 s.l. H2 14 atque] at qui B: at N 14 is] ras. ex his K: his QMp 14 eius] huius VRI 14 modi] modo MH, i corr. H2 14 audet dicere] dicere audeat BG 14 o] om. RHM 14 natam] om. ZHM 15 me] se R 15 consule] consulem B 15 Romam] Romam alt. add. W interbottomReynoldsSB 15 consule fortunatam] fortunatam consule (-ulere K1)

Chapter 4


157

4. If you consider my charges misplaced, feel free to provide an explanation: how much did you inherit, 28 what is your added wealth from lawsuits, with what funds did you obtain your residence and, at such extraordinary expense, construct villas at Tusculum and Pompeii?29 Or else, if you choose to keep your silence, who could query that you acquired this opulence of yours from the blood and deprivations of our citizens?30 31 Nay, I would assume rather that a new man from Arpinum, a man from 32 the family of Lucius Crassus would imitate the excellence of that man’ s character, would shun feuds with those of noble rank, and would hold the state alone dear.33 Neither fear nor favours would distance him from the path of truth.34 Friendship and integrity alone would characterise his mentality.35 5. But on the contrary this man is totally unreliable, deferential with his enemies, abusive to his friends, one moment he supports one side, at the next the other,36 loyal to nobody, a thoroughly undependable senator, a patron for a fee; 37 there is no part of his body that does not cause distaste: his conceited tongue, his rapacious hands, his elephantine gullet, his scampering feet; those parts which cannot gracefully be referred to, are in his case most especially disgraceful.38 And despite the fact that he is such as he is, he has the audacity to say:39 ‘Oh Rome born fortunate to have me as a consul!’40 Fortunate in your consulship, Cicero? 28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Cf. Plut. Cic. 8, 3. Cf. Cic. Att. 13 (I.3), 6. Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 5, 3. See Kurfess 1913c, 150. Cf. Iuv. 8, 236–244. See below p.158–159. See Ippoliti, L. Il luogo di nascita di Marco T ullio Cicer one, Roma, 1936; see especially the bibliography to this book. See also above ch. 1, p.20. On homo novus as a commonplace in abuse of one’s origin, see Opelt 1965, 148 f. Cf. Craig 2004, 190 f. See above ch. 2, p. 31. Cf. Cic. Phil. 13, 7. Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 16, 4; Plut. Crass. 7. This might be an imitation of sallustian irony, cf. Sall. Cat. 49, 1. See also Schmid 1993, 47. See ch. 2, p. 32. See Ernout 55. Cf. Sall. 10. See Opelt 1965, 148. Cf. Epist. ad Caes. II, 9, 2; Rutil. 1, 18 (Rhet. Lat. Min., ed. Halm, p.11). See ch. 3, p. 113 f. See also Nisbet 1958, 30ff.; Syme 1964, 348ff.; Koster 1980, 184. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 47; Fam. 9, 22, 3; Sen. Contr. 2, 4, 6. Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 5, 1. See Kurfess 1913c, 150. A line from Cicero’ poem De consulatu, fr. 17 Morel. Quoted by Quintilian, cf. 9, 4, 41 and 11, 1, 24; also by Juvenal, cf. Sat. 10, 114–126, and Diomedes, cf. Art. Gram. I. In: Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) II 466, 1. See V retska 1961, I 17 ff.; II 30 ff. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7. See also Ewbank 1933, 28, 77, 124. Usually the line

158

5

10

Chapter 4


immo vero infelicem et miseram, quae crudelissimam proscriptionem eam perpessa est, cum tu perturbata re publica metu perculsos omnes bonos parere crudelitati tuae cogebas, cum omnia iudicia, omnes leges in tua libidine erant, cum tu sublata lege Porcia, erepta libertate omnium nostrum vitae necisque potestatem ad te unum revocaveras. 6.atque parum quod impune fecisti, verum etiam commemorando exprobras neque licet oblivisci his servitutis suae. egeris, oro te, Cicero, profeceris quidlibet: satis est perpessos esse: etiamne aures nostras odio tuo onerabis, etiamne molestissimis verbis insectabere? ‘cedant arma togae, concedat laurea linguae.’ quasi vero togatus

1 immo] inimo O 1 vero infelicem] infelicem vero E 1 miseram] miseriam B: miseram ita, ita del. M 2 crudelissimam proscriptionem] crudelissimam exheditationem et proscriptionem I 2 eam] illam N: om. Bas: civium «Grut: ea V 2 tu] om. BGH b 2 perculsos] percussos IH bV: perculsus R 3 parere crudelitati tuae] crudelitate tua parere E: tuae parere crudelitati I: parere tuae crudelitati Mp: parare c. t. H1, e corr. H2 3 cum] om., s.l. O 4 leges] lege B: bo leges, del. bo R: bono del., s.l. leges M 4 erant] erat Q: erunt O 4 tu] om. ABE: tui, i del. V 4 sublata] subblata B 4 lege] lego O 4 Porcia] Portio B 4 libertate] libidine N 5 omnium nostrum vitae necisque potestatem] om. H1, s.l. H2 5 revocaveras] revocaras B 6 parum ] aut qui inpune parum quid fecisti verum O: parum est ZI«BasGrut 6 quod] om. B 6 impune] inpugne Mp: inpune HO 6 exprobras] exprobas KV 7 oblivisci his] his oblivisci N 7 his NK2CH2MZIMp] iis AFD1: is O: hiis K1D2V: piis Bas: om. ERH1: del. AldLugdGrutF.SchmidtReynoldsSB: civibus Paiser: nobis Kuznetsov 7 servitutis suae] servitutis tuae I: suae servitutis R 7 te] om. R 7 profeceris] profeceras B: perfeceris H bZVBasGrut: profeciris E 8 quidlibet] quodlibet BGH bBasGrutRom 8 perpessos] nos perpessos H b 8 nostras] tuas R 8 odio] hodio V 8 tuo] om. R 9 onerabis] honorabis IOV, e s.l. I2 9 etiamne2ZVen.Crisp] etiam in H: etiam im- O: etiam NRMpEMV1: et tam I 9 molestissimis] immodestissimis I: molestis NQLH b 9 insectabere] inspectabere CD 1: verbis tuis molestissimis insectabere Mp 10 linguae] lingua Q

Chapter 4


159

On the contrary, miserable and hapless, Rome endured that totally pitiless proscription;41 then you, the state in disarray, forced all honest fearstricken people to obey your maliciousness!42 Then all the legal proceedings, all the laws, were at your beck and call;43 then, having annulled the Porcian law 44 and arrogated all our liberty, you usurped the power of life and death over us all.45 6. It is not enough that you got away with this unpunished! 46 Yo u even affront the people reminding them of your actions, and they are not permitted to forget their slavery. I implore you, Cicero, having acted and having achieved what you wanted: it is enough that the people have suffered. Will you burden our ears with your hatred; will you harass us with revolting words:47 ‘Let arms give way to the toga, and the military laurel-wreath to the power of speech’?48 As if you were a man of the toga and

41 42

43

44

45 46 47 48

was translated as “Oh fortunate Rome, born in my consulship”, but I think “born fortunate to have me as a consul” makes more sense. (Cf.Sall. 7, where natam is omitted). The arrangement of words is not successful in this line, and it was a well-known target for Cicero’ critics in Antiquity (cf. Fourteen satires of Juvenal, ed. by J. D. Duff, Cambridge, 1966, 342). Cf. Sall. 6. The sentence is overloaded by standard invective terms.Crudelissimam and crudelitati within one phrase underline the author’s wish to show his knowledge of rhetorical vocabulary. Crudelis is a standard epithet for political despotism in Cicero (cf. Verr. 2, 1, 82; 2, 4, 73; 2, 5, 143; 145; Cat. 2, 14; Dom. 75, 94; Phil. 13, 18; Rep. 1, 44; Fam. 12, 12, 2; Att. 9, 10, 3, etc.). See also Dunkle 1967, 165, 169 f.; Craig 2004, 202. Libido as another term of political invective represented everything that was opposed to lex (cf. Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 82; 117; Sall. Iug. 31, 7; Ps.-Sall. Ep. ad Caes. 1, 3, 6; Liv. 2, 3, 1–5). See Dunkle 1967, 161 f., 166, 168 f. Here the author makes the opposition of lex and libido especially transparent: omnes leges in tua libidine erant. As a description of criminal capriciousness and despotism this term can be traced as far back as the time of Cato the Elder. Cf. C. Gracch. ORF2 49; Cic. Sen. 49; Liv. 39, 42, 6–7. Cf. Sall. Cat. 51, 21 and Cic. Rep. 2, 54. Lex Porcia, which forbade scourging and the death penalty for Roman citizens was proposed in 198BC by the tribune of the commons Publius Porcius Laeca and passed at the insistence of Cato the Elder who was then praetor. Cf. Liv. U. C. X, 9. See also Morstein-Marx 2004, 109 ff. Cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 9. Another attempt to imitate Sallust’s style, cf. Sall. Iug. 31, 22: parum est impune male fecisse. Cf. Cass. Dio 46, 21, 3. See Kurfess 1913c, 151. Cf. Sall. 7. A line from Cicero’ s poem De consulatu, fr. 16 Morel. Quoted by Quint., 11, 1, 24. Cf.Laus Calp. Pis. 34f.; Plin. N. H. 7, 117; Plut. Dem. et Cic. 2; Cic. Pis. 74; Phil. 2, 15ff.; 2, 17; 2, 19;Off. 1, 77. Cf. also Vretska 1961, II 52ff.

160

5

10

Chapter 4


et non armatus ea quae gloriaris confeceris, atque inter te Sullamque dictatorem praeter nomen imperii quicquam interfuerit. 7. Sed quid ego plura de tua insolentia commemorem, quem Minerva omnis artis edocuit, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in concilio deorum admisit, Italia exulem umeris suis reportavit? oro te, Romule Arpinas, qui egregia tua virtute omnis Paulos, Fabios, Scipiones superasti, quem tandem locum in hac civitate obtines? Quae tibi partes rei publicae placent? quem amicum, quem inimicum habes? cui in civitate insidias fecisti, ancillaris. quo auctore de exilio tuo Dyrrhachio redisti, eum insequeris. quos tyrannos appellabas, eorum potentiae faves.

1 ea quae] eamque K 1: ea om. E 1 gloriaris] gloris, aris s.l. I2 1 confeceris] feceris B: confeceris om. K1: perfeceris H b 1 atque] om. B 1 te] ne T 1 corr. T2: om. Mp: se N 1 Sullamque] scillamque R: et sillam Z: syllamque KNE: sillam Mp: sillamque BIHQLH b 2 dictatorem] oictatorem M 2 quicquam] quicquid KO: non ante quicquam in mg. ins . V 2 interfuerit V «] interfuit 3 quid] quod B 3 plura de tua insolentia] de tua insolentia plura T 4 omnis artis] artis om. QLH b: omnes artes NERMVZOI 4 edocuit] educuit B: docuit Z 4 Optimus Maximus] optimus et maximus V 4 Optimus] om. R: optumus QH b 4 1 concilio] concilium NERZMO: cilium H , corr. H2: –ia F: conciliorum Mp: consilio QHb 5 admisit] amisit O 5 umeris] humeris NBIQH bEMHO 5 suis] suis humeris N: suis om. Mp 5 Romule] om. QHb 5 Arpinas] Arpinos V 5 qui] om. E 6 tua] om. E 6 virtute] virtute tua Z 6 Scipiones] cipiones, s s.l. I2 6 superasti] superastis Z 7 tandem] titandem Mp: tandem locum tandem O 7 obtines? quae tibi] omnes paulos fabios, sed in mg. corr. V 7 obtines] optines NKDIHMp 7 placent] parent in mg. placent Mp 8 quem2 ] et quem AFNV: et K 8 habes] habens K1 8 cui] cum A 8 in] s.l. V 8 fecisti] fecistis Z 8 fecisti] ei add. WirzReynoldsSB 9 ancillaris E] –es rell.: ancilares R 9 auctore WirzKurfessReynoldsSB] iure cum BasGrut 9 de] om. O 9 Dyrrhachio] diracho R: dirachio ZQH b: diratio I: dirratio HMp: dyrachio L: dyrracio DE: dyrratio B: diracio M: dirrachio NO: Dyrrachio SB 9 redisti] cecidisti B: redidisti Q: redires H b 9 eum insequeris Hb«]: eum sequeris Grut: tua consequeris I 10 appellabas] appellas BV 10 eorum] nunc post eorum N, s.l. V 10 faves] funes O

Chapter 4


161

not a bearer of arms when you did all that you take pride in! As if there were some other dif ference, apart from your of ficial title, between you and the dictator Sulla! 7. But why should I speak further of your arrogance, to whom Minerva taught all art; 49 who Jupiter , the Most Excellent and the Greatest, admitted to the council of the gods; 50 whom Italy bore back from exile upon her shoulders? 51 I beseech you, oh Romulus of Arpinum,52 who surpassed by outstanding merit all the Pauli, the Fabii, the Scipiones,53 tell us what place do you hold in this society? On which sides do you want to take your stand in the state? Who is your friend and who your enemy? You, busy sucking up to the very person you had been plotting against in this polity! 54 You busy harassing the man 55 through whose influence56 you came back from your exile at Dyrrhachium!57 You are now positively disposed to the power of people whom you used to call tyrants.58

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57

58

See also Ewbank 1933, 77, 123f. The manuscripts read ‘laurea laudi’ instead of ‘laurea linguae’. Because of the preferable alliteration Cicero himself perhaps preferred ‘laudi’ to ‘linguae’, and the variant linguae is in all probability satirical. Cic. Pis. 74 and Off. 1, 77 read also ‘laudi’. See also A. Dyck, A Commentary on Cicero, De officiis. Ann Arbor 1996, 208 f. Cf. Cic. Dom. 144. Cf. Cic. Cat. 1, 11; 33; 3, 21; 22; Sull. 40; Dom. 92. Cf. Vretska 1961, II 55 and on Cicero’s relationship with the gods see J. V ogt, Ciceros Glaube an Rom , Stuttgart, 11935 (=1963); 79. See also Quint. 11, 1, 24 and ch. 3, p. 111. Cf. Cic. In sen. 39; Dom. 40; 72. See Hejnic 1956, 260. Quoted by Quint. 9, 3, 89. See ch. 3, p. 111. On Cicero’ s image of Romulus as a beloved father of his country see Cic.Rep. 1, 64; 2, 15, 23; 5, 1. On Cicero’s identifying with Romulus cf. Sen. Contr. 7, 2, 5–6; Iuv . 8, 236–244; Cic. Pis. 6. Cf. also Cat. 49, 1. See Lavery 1973, 86–89. Cf. above p. 156–157. Cf. Cic. Vat. 28; Pis. 14, 58; Verr. 2, 5, 14. Pompey is meant. See Meyer 31922, 164; Ernout 81 f. Shackleton Bailey suspects here a travesty of Sall. Cat. 49, 1. See ch. 2, p.33. Pompey is meant here again; historical truth is not taken into account for rhetorical reasons. Cf. Cic. Pis. 35. See also Ernout 82. Originally the name of the headland under which the city of Epidamnus was situated. Cf. Cic. Planc. 97, 98; De div. I, 68; Pis. 92, 93, 96; Ad fam. XIV, 1, 7; 3, 4; Att. I, 17, 2; III, 8, 1; 22, 4; IV , 1, 4; VIII, 12a, 3;Brut. 3, 6; 4, 1; 7, 2; 14, 4; Paus. 6, 10. See also Schöll 1902, 160 f. The accusation of political despotism was a rhetorical commonplace, most preferred especially by Cicero. Cf. Cic.Verr. 2, 1, 82; 2, 3, 25, 31, 1 5; 2, 4, 51; 2, 5, 21, 103, 117; Leg. Agr. 2, 32; 3, 5; Cat. 2, 14; Red. Sen. 12; Dom. 75, 94, 110; Sest. 32, 109; Vat. 23; Pis. 18, 24; Mil. 35, 80; Deiot. 33, 34; Phil. 2, 90, 96, 110,

162

5

Chapter 4


qui tibi ante optimates videbantur, eosdem dementes ac furiosos vocas. Vatini causam agis, de Sestio male existimas. Bibulum petulantissimis verbis laedis, laudas Caesarem. quem maxime odisti ei maxime obsequeris. aliud stans, aliud sedens sentis de re publica. his male dicis, illos odisti, levissime transfuga, neque in hac neque in illa parte f idem habens.

1 ante] om. HMOZ 1 optimates] obtimates M 1 videbantur] videbantur optimates E 1 eosdem] eos deo E: eosdem nunc LugdBasGrut 2 Vatini] vanii N: vatinii HbAldLugdBasGrut 2 causam] causas N 2 de Sestio] de sectio E: disertio R: de sestuo D 2 existimas] estimas B 3 verbis] om., in mg. V lae3 dis] om. I 3 laudas Caesarem] Caesarem laudas Z: ce laudas, cedel. Q: collaudas Hb 3 odisti ei maxime] om. B 4 sentis de re publica] de re p. sentis RBasGrut: de r. p. sentis E 4 his] hiis V 4 male dicis] maledictis A 2TacXBG: malidicis M 5 odisti] om., in mg. V 5 in hac neque] om. B 5 hac] hac parte, parte del. Mp: hoc corr. in mg. V 5 in] om. R 5 illa] hac H bR 5 parte] om. BG 5 habens «LugdBas] habes ed.princ.IncAldGrutRom

Chapter 4


163

Those who had previously seemed to you the best of citizens, you now dub mad and frenzied. 59 You plead for Vatinius but look down on Sestius.60 You maim Bibulus with most impudent words and you praise Caesar.61 Those whom you hated the most, you thoroughly toady up to now. When standing you have one view of the state, when sitting the opposite. Y ou abuse some; detest others; you, a totally unreliable renegade,62 faithful neither to one side, nor to the other!

59 60 61 62

117; 13, 17–18; 14, 15. On the charge of tyrannis in Roman political invective, see Dunkle 1967, 151 ff. Cf. Cic. Sest. 97; Fam. 20 (I. 9), 17. Cf. Cic. Quint. 8 (II, 4), 1. See also Ernout 82; SB 371. On Vatinius, Sestius, Bibulus and Caesar see the historical context in ch. 1, p. 17 f. Cf. Sall. 12; Cic. Fam. 117 (II, 17), 6–7. See also SB 371. Cf. Cass. Dio 36, 44, 2; 39, 63, 5; 46, 3, 4, who had « as an epithet for Cicero. See Meyer 31922, 165; Opelt 1965, 148. Cf. Kurfess 1913c, 149 f.

164

Chapter 4


IN C. SALLVSTIVM CRISPVM INVECTIVA

5

10

1. Ea demum magna voluptas est, C. Sallusti, aequalem ac parem verbis vitam agere, neque quicquam tam obscaenum dicere, cui non ab initio pueritiae omni genere facinoris aetas tua respondeat, ut omnis oratio moribus consonet. neque enim qui ita vivit ut tu aliter ac tu loqui potest, neque qui tam inloto sermone utitur, vita honestior est. Quo me praevertam, patres conscripti, unde initium sumam? maius enim mihi dicendi onus imponitur, quo notior est uterque nostrum, quod aut si de mea vita atque actibus huic conviciatori respondero, invidia gloriam consequetur, aut si huius facta mores omnem aetatem nudavero, in idem vitium incidam procacitatis, quod huic obicio. id vos si forte offendimini, iustius huic quam mihi suscensere debetis, qui initium introduxit. 2. ego dabo operam ut et pro me minimo cum fastidio respondeam et in hunc minime mentitum esse videatur. scio me, patres conscripti, in 2 Ea] a M: eam V 2 magna] magna tibi V 2 C. Sallusti] sallusti K: G. S. B: g. Salusti E: crispe s. R: crispe salusti IOMpV : l del. D 2 ac parem] atque parem I: om. E: aut parem N 2 verbis vitam] vitam verbis EV 2 verbis] turpissimis verbis Mp 3 non ab] non in ab B: nonom. QHb 4 omni] in omni O 4 tua respondeat] tua non respondeat H b 4 tua] sua SB 4 oratio V«] ratio 5 ta] i vita E 5 ac] quam I 5 potest] non potest, non del. I 6 inloto] in loco BO: illoto NIEMMpQLH b 6 vita] in vita V 6 honestior] honestiore B 7 praevertam] praevertamur B: praevio V : vertam AldLugdBasVenRom 7 initium] iniciam Mp 7 sumam] summam KN: sumamus B 8 enim] eo V : om. E 8 dicendi onus] dicendi honus I: onus dicendi Z: onus imponitur dicendi O: dicendi om. N: dicendo Q: in dicendo H b: dicendi mihi Mp: mihi om. L 8 imponitur] inponitur H 8 notior] nitior H1, corr. H2 8 nostrum] quid add. SB 9 uat i] s si aut NA2HbZ LugdBas: aut om. VMp 9 de] de om. N 9 mea vita] vita mea 9 atque] aut H bZ: adque V 9 actibus] actibus nostris AldLugdBasGrutRom 9 conviciatori] convitiatori L 9 respondero] respondeo KNH 1OZ corr. s.l. H2 10 invidia gloriam] invidiam gloria I 10 consequetur A] -atur rell. 10 omnem aetatem] aetatem omnem H b 10 nudavero] denudavero A 11 in] tum Mp 11 idem] incidem O 11 incidam procacitatis] incidam in idem vitium procacitatis QHb: procacitatis incidam RI: incidam procacitatis vitium N 11 quod] quae B: illud V 11 id] huic Mp 1111 si forte] suffortem Q: id forte si vos Hb: vos om. BTE 12 offendimini] ostendimini Q 12 iustius] istius TQ: iustis O 12 huic quam mihi] mihi quam huic quam mihi,postea corr. Q 12 huic] om. Mp 12 suscensere FTD] succ- rell.AldLugdBasGrutRom: succurrere Q: succendere V 12 debetis K2M2] debeatis : debebitis bi del. V1 12 qui] quam H: quem M 12 initium] idem initium Q 13 ego dabo] ego vero dabo I 13 et] om. BO 13 pro] om. H1, s.l. H2 13 cum] om. I 14 in hunc] hunc K 1 (n in ras. ) in s.l. K2 14 mentitum esse videatur] mentitus esse videar QH bVK2«AldLugdBasGrutRom: mentitum esse videar Mp: m. e. videantur, n del. N

Chapter 4


165

INVECTIVE AGAINST CAIUS SALLUSTIUS CRISPUS 1. It is at the very least, Caius Sallust, a considerable source of gratification that you lead a life that matches and corresponds to your words; you say nothing so coarse that it would not fully tally, in all manner of activities, with your conduct from early childhood, in such a way as to render your speech fully concordant with your character. For a person that lives as you do, is incapable of speaking in any manner other than the way you speak; nor can any person who uses such foul language, prove to be more honourable in his life. Whither, Fathers of the Senate, shall I turn my attention? Where shall I commence?1 The more eminent the both of us are, the bigger the burden of speaking placed on my shoulders.2 You see, if I respond to this contemptible fellow with reference to my way of life and my activities, envy will result from my brilliance,3 whereas if I expose his conduct, character and manner of living, I shall fall into the very same fault of effrontery, which I protest in him. If this offends you, let your anger more appropriately be directed against him than against me, since he set the insults rolling. 2. I shall do my best to answer in defence of myself, with the least possible contempt, rather than giving a false account of him. I do not – I recognise – expect much from this my response, Fathers of the Senate;

1 2 3

Cf. Cic. De or. 3, 214. Cf. Cic. Vat. 33. Cf. Sall. Iug. 55, 3.

166

5

10

Chapter 4


respondendo non habere magnam exspectationem, quod nullum vos sciatis novum crimen in Sallustium audituros, sed omnia vetera recognituros, quis et meae et vestrae iam et ipsius aures calent. verum eo magis odisse debetis hominem, qui ne incipiens quidem peccare minimis rebus posuit rudimentum, sed ita ingressus est, ut neque ab alio vinci possit neque ipse se omnino reliqua aetate praeterire. 3. itaque nihil aliud studet nisi ut luculentus cum quovis velitari. longe vero fallitur opinione; non enim procacitate linguae vitae sordes eluuntur , sed est quaedam calumnia, quam unus quisque nostrum testante animo suo fert [de eo qui falsum crimen bonis obiectat]. quod si vita istius memoriam vicerit, illam, patres conscripti, non ex oratione sed ex moribus suis spectare debebitis. iam dabo operam, quam maxime potuero, breve ut faciam. neque haec altercatio nostra vobis inutilis erit, patres conscripti; plerumque enim res publica privatis crescit inimicitiis, ubi nemo civis qualis sit vir potest latere.

1 respondendo] respondebo N 1 non habere magnam] habet B: magnam non habere Z 1 sciatis AldLugdBasGrutRomKurfess] atis del., o s.l. K2: scio «Reynolds 2 Sallustium] salustio H b 2 audituros] aucdituros, c del. N 2 sed] sed om. I 3 quis] quibus VMp 3 iam et ipsius] iam om. I: et etiam ipsius Hb: et ipsius iam O 3 aures] aures et ipsius Mp 3 verum] om. O 3 eo] ego (?) H b 3 magis] magius E 4 debetis K ] debebitis rell.: debitis Q 4 hominem] om. VZ (?) 4 qui] quam HO: quod M: quia L 4 quidem] om. E 4 minimis] in minimis QH bZSB: non cum (cum del.) minimis V 4 posuit] imposuit (im s.l.) V 6 omnino] omnio B: om. QH b: omni VSB: omnino se M 6 praeterire] praeteriit QHb 6 itaque] ita B 6 aliud] ali ut V 6 studet] quaerit I 6 ut ] om. O« 7 luculentus T Lipsius] lutulentus rell.: luculenter H b: lutulentum Q: lutulentus sa, sa del. Mp: sus add. EMRZ(?)MpReynoldsSB 7 quovis] quolibet M 7 velitari LipsiusGrut] volutari rell.: voluptari K1HOV: volutari possit I 7 vero] g BE: quidem R 7 fallitur] falitur B 8 procacitate] procicitate E 8 vitae] om. E 1 s.l. E2 8 sordes] sortes I 8 calumnia] calumpnia quaedam QLHb 9 testante animo] restante animo Q: animo restante H b 9 suo] om. RQHbMH 9 de eo … obiectat] del. Jor danReynolds: habent KurfessSB 9 qui K 2] quia FK 1: quod ANSB: quae O 9 bonis obiectat] bonis obiectas Q: obiectat bonis Hb: bonis om. Z: obiectant E 10 vita istius] vita ista Q: ista vita Hb 10 istius] ipsius E: illius N 10 memoriam] memoria V 10 illam Ald in mg.,LugdBasVen] aliam GrutRom, in mg. Ven: aliorum Mp: sed vitam aliam I 11 debebitis] debetis KH bEVROMpBas: habetis I 12 breve ut ] ut breve : breve : brevem H b: ut id PAldLugdBasGrutRom, s.l. K2V 12 neque] nec E 12 haec] om. E: s.l. K2: enim Mp 13 nostra] nostro B: nostra p. c. inutilis nobis erit R 13 vobis] nobis Hb 13 erit] est ri s.l. B 13 patres conscripti] om. Hb 13 enim] om. MpI 14 res publica] p. res R 14 crescit inimicitiis] inimicitiis crescit O 14 qualis] quot Mp 14 sit vir] vir om. Mp: vir sit QLH b 14 potest latere] latere potest QHb

Chapter 4


167

for you know 4 that you will not hear any new accusation against Sallust here, but you will recognise all those of old; accusations that have already been smouldering in my , and your, and even his own ears. Y ou however should all the more detest this man, who from the outset transgressed not in the minutiae, but entered the scene all guns blazing, so that no-one else could outdo him till the end of his days, nor could he entirely outdo himself. 3. He therefore bothers himself with nothing more, fine fellow that he is, than with attacking whomever he wants. 5 In this however he errs seriously, for life’s blemishes are not purified6 through the looseness of a fellow’s tongue. Yet there is a kind of verdict of false accusation, which each of us in his judgment bears witness to7 [about a person who brings false accusations against the virtuous]. 8 And if the life of this man overchar ges your memory, Fathers of the Senate, you must examine it not on the basis of his speech but of his behaviour. I shall attempt as best I can to be as brief as possible. This our disagreement will be of some use to you, Fathers of the Senate; since for the most part af fairs of state evolve through private quarrels, where no citizen can conceal what kind of man he is.9

4 On sciatis and scio here see SB 372–373. 5 See the interpretation of this passage by J. Lipsius ch. 3, p.138 . Cf. Cic. Verr. 4,

53.

6 Cf. Cic. Phil. 1, 20. 7 Quoted and interpreted by Justus Lipsius see ch. 3, p. 138. Calumniam ferre is

‘to be convicted on a charge of false accusation’, a charge of calumnia was heard by the same court exactly after the malfunction of the original char ge, cf. Cf. Cic. Fam. 84 (VIII, 8), 1; Cluent. 163; Dom. 49; Sen. Contr. 9, 4, 18. Cf. Shackleton Bailey’s commentary in Cicero:Epistulae ad familiares, ed. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, v. 1. Cambridge 1977; 397. See also SB, 374–375, who does not seclude de eo … obiectat. See ch. 2, p. 32. 8 See above ch. 2, p. 32. 9 Cf. Aeschin. Tim. 2. See above ch. 1, p. 22.

168

5

10

Chapter 4


4. Primum igitur, quoniam omnium maiores C. Sallustius ad unum exemplum et regulam quaerit, velim mihi respondeat num quid his quos protulit Scipiones et Metellos ante fuerit aut opinionis aut gloriae quam eos res suae gestae et vita innocentissime acta commendavit. quod si hoc fuit illis initium nominis et dignitatis, cur non aeque nobis existimetur , cuius et res gestae illustres et vita integerrime acta? quasi vero tu sis ab illis, Sallusti, ortus! quod si esses, nonnullos iam tuae turpitudinis pigeret. 5. ego meis maioribus virtute mea praeluxi, ut, si prius noti non fuerunt, a me accipiant initium memoriae suae: tu tuis vita quam turpiter egisti magnas of fudisti tenebras, ut, etiamsi fuerint egregii cives, per te venerint in oblivionem. quare noli mihi antiquos viros obiectare. satius est enim me meis rebus restis f lorere quam maiorum opinione niti et ita 1 quoniam] quo B 1 omnium] omnium quoniam QLH b: omnes VMp 1 maiores] mores N: maiorum H b 1 C. Sallustius] g. Sallustius B: crispus s. R: crispus sallustius I 1 ad unum] ad unum om. QH b 2 et] ad E 2 num quid] numquam V 2 his F.Schmidt] hos Mp: hi N HOR: hii MV: om. E: quos s.l. K2 3 Scipiones] scipione H 3 et] om. 3 Metellos ] Metellos vel Fabios «Ven in mg.: metello I: metelli HbBasGrut: Paulos Ven 3 fuerit F.Schmidt] fuerint : fuerunt V 3 aut opinionis] aut scipiones opinionis, scipiones del. E: aut huius opinionis I: opiniones, edel., i s.l. N2 3 quam] quamquam B 4 res suae gestae] gestae illustres V, del. illustres V: suae res gestae R: gestae ante fuerint, a. f. del. O: suae om. Z: res gestae suae SB 4 vita] vitae s.l. a EV 4 commendavit] commendaverunt V : commendarit Mp 5 hoc fuit] fuit hoc QH b 5 illis initium] initium illis I 5 nominis et dignitatis] dignitatis et nominis H b: hominis O 5 nobis] a nobis Mp: vobis I: de nobis «JordanReynoldsSB 6 et res] res et Q: et om. Hb 6 illustres] illustres sunt (sunt s.l.) VBasGrut 6 acta] et acta Z 7 illis ] illis viris AldLugdBasGrutRom 7 Sallusti, ortus] ortus salusti O 7 si] sa V 7 nonnullos iam tuae turpitudinis] nullos … non SB 7 nonnullos] non nullus B: nonne illos H b 7 iam] om. QLH b: et iam O 7 tuae turpitudinis] tuae turpitu O: tuae turpidinis N 8 meis maioribus] maioribus meis : meis om. E 8 mea] om. Z, s.l. V 8 praeluxi] proluxi 8 noti non] menti non B: non noti L: tamen I 9 fuerunt] fuerint BQMV : fuerant H bZ 9 accipiant] incipiant HbBO: incipiunt Q 9 vita] vitae NBI MpHEO: om. K1 9 quam] om. H1, s.l. H2 10 offudisti] obfudisti B: ef fudisti REH bV: effudi Q: obfuidisti ex offendisti K: of fendisti I 10 etiamsi fuerint] etsi fuerunt V 10 egregii] egregi B 10 per te van der Hoeven] certe : per te certe V 11 venerint in oblivionem] in oblivionem venerint MR 1 1 noli mihi] mihi noli : mihi om. I 1 1 antiquos viros] viros antiquos A: viros in mg. V 11 obiectare] obicere RZ 12 satius est enim] satis est enim NQ: sanctius etenim est V : sacrus R: est om. O: etenim 12 me … quam] mihi meis nobilitatis quam B 12 me] om. Q 12 rebus gestis florere] rebus f lorere gestis R 12 rebus gestis] gestis rebus 12 rebus f lorere] gestis f lorere in mg. V 12 opinione] opinionem B: opinione maiorum HM 12 niti et] niti r.p. M: niti ut R: nati et I1, corr. I2

Chapter 4


169

4. To begin with, in view of the fact that Caius Sallust holds every person’s ancestors to the same benchmark and yardstick, 10 I would request he respond: did those Scipios and Metelli 11 he conjures up for us, have any particular renown or honourable standing previous to the actions they accomplished and the irreproachable conduct of their lives? 12 If these were the origins of their good name and dignity , why am I not similarly esteemed, aye, illustrious in my deeds, having led a life unblemished? As though you were a descendent of theirs, Sallust! 13 Had you been, a good many would now feel sore displeased at your disgrace. 5. With my merit I have outshone my ancestors, so that even if they were not previously well known, their commemoration would commence thanks to me. Whereas you, given the disgraceful life you have led, have enveloped your ancestors in utter darkness;14 even if they were illustrious citizens, because of you they have been conf ined to oblivion. 15 For this reason do not extol men of yore to me. I prefer to f lourish through my own deeds rather than rely on my ancestors’ reputation;

Cf. Cic. 2; 4; 7. Cf. Cic. 1; 7. Cf. Cic. Fam. 71 (III, 7), 5. See SB, 376–377. Cf. Cic. 3; 6. Cf. Rosc. Amer. 91; Dom. 137; Pis. 3; Luc. 61; Fin. 3, 45; Tusc. Disp. 5, 6; Nat. 1, 6. 15 Cf. Verr. 2, 79. 10 11 12 13 14

170

5

10

Chapter 4


vivere, ut ego sim posteris meis nobilitatis initium et virtutis exemplum. neque me cum iis conferri decet, patres conscripti, qui iam decesserunt omnique odio carent et invidia, sed cum eis, qui mecum una in re publica versati sunt. 6. sed [si] fuerim aut in honoribus petendis nimis ambitiosus – non hanc dico popularem ambitionem, cuius me principem conf iteor, sed illam perniciosam contra leges, cuius primos ordines Sallustius duxit – aut in gerundis magistratibus aut in vindicandis malef iciis tam severus aut in tuenda re publica tam vigilans, quam tu proscriptionem vocas, credo, quod non omnes tui similes incolumes in urbe vixissent: at quanto meliore loco res publica staret, si tu par ac similis scelestorum civium una cum illis adnumeratus esses? 7.an ego tunc falso scripsi ‘cedant arma togae’, qui togatus armatos et pace bellum oppressi? an illud mentitus sum ‘fortunatam me consule Romam’,

1 ego ] om. 1 posteris] in posteris K 1 (in del. K2): poposteris N 1 meis] nostris Mp 1 initium] initium ante exemplum iter., sed del. E 1 et virtutis] initium et virtutis om. B 2 me] enim R 2 iis] his : hiis V 2 conferri decet] conferre debet R: conferre decet NZ 2 conferri] conferri cum his I 2 patres conscripti] om. I 2 decesserunt] discesserunt K: concesserunt R: omnino decesserunt I: decessere QLH b 3 omnique … invidia] om. O 3 odio] studio QLHb: hodio V 3 eis] his IQLHb: iis BasGrutSB 3 una] unam Z 3 publica] om. E 4 si] del. CortiusJordanKurfessReynoldsSB 4 fuerim] fuerim ex fuerint K: fuerim ex fuerit V 4 aut] om. K: del. SB 4 petendis] petundis QHb 5 hanc] in hanc (in del.) H 5 popularem] pluralem L 5 me principem] me principem me Q 6 confiteor] fateor O 6 perniciosam] om. R 6 cuius primos ordines] cuius me principem primos dies ordines, postea corr. Q: me primos N 7 duxit] dixit s.l. u KMp: dixit NHMO: quis fuit add. SB 7 gerundis] gerendis Mp 7 aut] om. B1, s.l. B2: ut E: tam diligens add. SB 7 vindicandis] vidicandis B: iudicandis ex vindicandis H b: vincandis M: iudicantis V : iudicandis Grut, in mg. Bas 8 tuenda re p. N SEMp] tuendam r .p. H b: r .p. 8 quam] quod K 8 proscriptionem] perscriptionem AK 9 vocas] vocans n del. B 9 quod] qui B 9 omnes] omnis B: om. H1, s.l. H2 9 incolumes in urbe] in hac urbe R: incolumes in hac urbe AldLugdBasGrutRom: in colomes in urbe E: in urbem QLHbPH 9 vixissent] venissent CD PMpH 10 at quanto] atque quanto NMPO: atque H 1 (que eras. H2) 10 meliore] meliores Q 10 res publica] r. r. N: r . p. tuenda Grut 10 staret] starent, n del. E 10 ac] aut N 10 similis] similes H1 10 scelestorum] celestronum K: sceleratorum BV (scelestorum in mg. V) 11 adnumeratus] annumeratus QMO 11 an] ac L 11 tunc] om. Hb: te Q: nunc O 12 togatus] togatos Q: tegatus H 1 12 armatos N ] om. MMp 12 et] et om. BE: del. T 12 pace] in pace B: pace om. E 12 oppressi] obpressi O 12 illud] aliud B: illut O 13 fortunatam Mp] fortunatam natam F 2 ERVAld in mg., LugdBasVen: fortunam natam L: fortunam H1, corr. H2

Chapter 4


171

I prefer to live in such a way as to become a fount of dignity and a paradigm of virtue for those who come after me. It is not appropriate to compare me with those who have already passed and have no part in contemporary hatreds and jealousies but, rather , Fathers of the Senate, with those who are active alongside me now in this very polity. 6. And yet had I been excessively ambitious in my pursuit of honours – and I am not referring to the pursuit of popular approval, to which I plead guilty as charged, but to that ruinous ambition that undermines the laws, in which Sallust excelled – had I proved excessively severe in my administrative functions or in the punishment of transgressions, or indeed so vigilant – as you would say proscriptively so16 – in my defence of the state, not all those of your ilk would, so I deem it, remain in the city unscathed. Yet would the condition of the polity not have been much improved if you, who are similar to, in fact on a par with, criminal citizens, had been numbered among them? 7. Did I write ‘Let arms give way to the toga’, 17 mistakenly, then, when I, clothed in the toga, overwhelmed armed men and won the war through peace? Did I lie when I stated: ‘Oh Rome, fortunate to have me as a consul’,18

16 Cf. Cic. 5. 17 Cf. Cic. 6. 18 Cf. Cic. 5. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7.

172

5

10

Chapter 4


qui tantum intestinum bellum ac domesticum urbis incendium exstinxi? neque te tui piget, homo levissime, cum ea culpas, quae historiis mihi gloriae ducis? an turpius est scribentem mentiri quam vel palam hoc ordine dicentem? nam quod in aetatem increpuisti, tantum me abesse puto ab impudicitia, quantum tu a pudicitia. 8. Sed quid ego de te plura querar? quid enim mentiri turpe ducis, qui mihi ausus sis eloquentiam ut vitium obicere, cuius semper nocens eguisti patrocinio? an ullum existimas posse fieri civem egregium qui non his artibus et disciplinis sit eruditus? an ulla alia putas esse rudimenta et incunabula virtutis, quibus animi ad gloriae cupiditatem aluntur? sed minime mirum est, patres conscripti, si homo qui desidiae ac luxuriae plenus sit, haec ut nova atque inusitata miratur . 9. nam quod ista inusitata rabie petulanter in uxorem et in f iliam meam invasisti, quae facilius mulieres

1 tantum] tantam, n s.l. B 1 bellum] liberum K 1, s.l. bellum K 2 1 exstinxi] extinxi KNBIREQLHbMpHPM: extincxi D: exstinsi V: extinxit O 2 neque ] ne quid M: nec quid EHPR: numquid : nunquid IL: necque O: neque quidem V : neque quid Mp 2 tui] an O: tui te BI 2 piget] pigeat M 2 homo] o homo, o ras. I 2 culpas] culpas s.l. e V: culpes Mp 2 historiis] istoriis B: in historiis NVI«ReynoldsSB: historiae s.l. is H b: mihi historiis E: mihi om. Hb 3 an] num B 3 est] om. R: est p. c. QLH bV (p. c. del. V) 3 quam] quia K 1 3 vel NordenKurfess] illum XL: illam T: illic QH b: illinc S: illud ERMp: ullum N: del. HeraeusReynoldsSB 3 palam] in add. SB 3 hoc] hac? M: om. K1 4 quod] qui B: quodquod Q: quo E 4 in aetatem] in aetate KI: in etatem meam H b: in mea aetate V 4 tantum] tantum s.l. dem V 4 me] me me H 4 abesse] esse, ab s.l. Q 5 quantum] quam QR 5 tu] te BMp 5 a] ab EH b: om. SB 5 pudicitia] inpudicitia H: tantum … pudicitia om. T: quantum tu a pudicitia in mg. V 6 de te plura] plura de te Hb 6 querar] loquar IQHbO: s.l. et loquar H2P2: loquar querar Mp 6 mentiri turpe] te mentiri M 6 turpe] te 6 ducis AK 2 ] dicis FK 1EOMp 7 ausus sis] sis ausus P: ausus es f io Q: sic ausus es H b 7 ut] in H 1, s.l. ut H 2 7 vitium] injicium O: vinum s.l. vicium E 2 7 nocens eguisti] nocens eguisti om. E1 in mg. E2 8 patrocinio] patrimonio O: patrocinio eguisti I 8 an ullum] ahilla B 8 ullum ERMPMp] nullum K 1: illum N HO 8 existimas] existumas T 8 civem egregium] egregium civem IP 8 non his] non sit his O: hiis V 9 sit] om. O 9 an ulla] annulla QMp 9 rudimenta] erud … rell. 10 incunabula] cunabula BV 10 cupiditatem] cupidinem R: cupiditatem gloriae H b 10 aluntur] alantur IV 10 minime] inpune H 11 est] s.l. T: om. Mp 11 si] om., s.l. Hb 11 homo] homo levissimus A 11 qui] om. Hb 11 desidiae ac luxuriae] luxuriae aut desidiae A 12 haec] hoc V 12 atque] ac V 12 rabie petulanter] del. I 12 petulanter] om. SB 12 quod] que B quam s.l. quem K 2 12 ista] ita I 12 inusitata] inusitata ista Mp 12 rabie] rabies Mp: rabiae H 13 in] om. R 31 in] om. RLHbMp 13 meam] om. 13 invasisti] om. : evasisti Mp

Chapter 4


173

when I quenched such civil strife, such a f ire consuming the recesses of our city?19 And are you not troubled, defective fellow that you are, in chastising me for those very deeds for which you praise me in your own Histories?20 Do you then consider it more disgraceful to perjure yourself in writing than in plain speaking before this body? Turning to your complaint about my youth, it seems to me that lack of chastity has been quite as alien to me,21 as chastity to you. 8. But why should I further complain about you? For what falsehood do you consider below you, who dared criticise my eloquence, that very eloquence whose protection you always found indispensable when you were guilty? Or do you believe that any person, even one not trained in these arts and disciplines, can become an illustrious citizen? Do you on the contrary believe that there are other ways to sow the seed of virtue, to be swaddled in it, ways that nourish the mindset that longs for glory? But, Fathers of the Senate, it should be no surprise 22 that slothful in the extreme and decadent, such a man is astonished, as if he were faced by something novel and unusual. 9. Turning to the bizarre frenzy with which you audaciously harassed my wife and daughter23 – who

19 Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 13, 28; Sest. 51. 20 See Ernout 61, Koster 1980, 193, f. 641. Sallust’ s Histories covered the years

78–67 BC, and in all probability did not mention Cicero’ s consulship, but he deals with this theme in hisCatiline, and hardly praised Cicero. Cf. Sall.Cat. 23, 6; 26, 2–4 where Cicero indeed gets some praise, but on the other hand see Sall. Cat. 43, 1, where consul optumus is obviously meant satirically. 21 Cf. Cic. 2. 22 Cf. Cic. 2. 23 Cf. Cic. 2.

174

5

10

Chapter 4


se a viris abstinuerunt quam tu vir [a viris], satis docte ac perite fecisti. non enim me sperasti mutuam tibi gratiam relaturum, ut vicissim tuos compellarem; unus enim satis es materiae habens: neque quicquam domi tuae turpius est quam tu. multum vero te, opinor, fallit, qui mihi parare putasti invidiam ex mea re familiari, quae mihi multo minor est quam habere dignus sum. atque utinam ne tanta quidem esset quanta est, ut potius amici mei viverent quam ego testamentis eorum locupletior essem! 10. ego fugax, C. Sallusti? furori tribuni plebis cessi: utilius duxi quamvis fortunam unus experiri, quam universo populo Romano civilis essem dissensionis causa. qui postea quam ille suum annum in re publica perbacchatus est omniaque quae commoverat pace et otio resederunt, hoc ordine revocante atque ipsa re publica manu retrahente me reverti. qui mihi dies, si cum omni reliqua vita conferatur, animo quidem meo 1 facilius mulieres se] se facilius mulieres a H b: se mulieres QLOV 1 abstinuerunt quam tu vir] om. N: s.l., in mg. iter ., postea del. H2 1 abstinuerunt] non abstinuerunt Mp 1 a viris del. Holford-StrevensReynoldsSB: iuraris s.l. vir a viris K2 2 non] nam N 2 me sperasti] sperasti me K 2IER 2 me] om. K1QHb 2 mutuam] om. QH b: metuam P 2 tibi] om. RMp 3 compellarem] compellarer O: compellerem s.l. a H2 3 satis es] satis est B: es satis AQLHb: es om., s.l. H2: unus es enim satis es E 3 materiae habens] habens materiae QH b 3 habens] del. SB 3 neque] nec H b 3 domi] domui AEMR VMp 4 est] om. O 4 vero te] enim te M: te vero N 4 vero] om. 4 te opinor] te ut opinor A: ut opinor te I: te opinio Hb« 4 fallit] falsit D: falli V 4 qui] quae : quod K2M: om. P 4 parare … mihi] om. OH b 4 parare putasti] putasti parare V 4 parare] parere s.l. a H 2 4 putasi invidiam] invidiam putasi E 4 re familiari] familiari re E 5 mihi multo] multo mihi KN: post multo s.l. mihi sim V : mihi om. E 6 sum] sim LI 7 viverent] viverunt, u del., s.l. e D: om. R ego] mihi FK1, del. K2: om. A 7 eorum] illorum N 7 locupletior] locrupletior M 8 fugax] quidem A: om. I 8 C. Sallusti] g. salustii EK 1 s.l. crispe K 2: c.s. Hb: crispe s. Mp: crispe salusti O 8 furori] furore O 8 cessi] cesi O: om. M1, s.l. M2 8 duxi] om. RI1, in mg. I2: dixi Mp 9 quamvis] quamquis HP 9 fortunam unus] unus fortunam Mp: unus ex uno K: ex unam H 9 universo populo Romano] universae p.r. E: re universo p.r., re del. I 9 civilis] civiles B 10 dissensionis] dissenssionis B: dissentionis M 10 causa] causamus, mus del. K2 10 ille] illa B 10 suum annum] annum om. N: animum suum R: suum amicum Q: suo aio H b 10 in] om. B 10 re publica] in r .b. O: p. s.l. H2: om. Hb 11 perbacchatus] perbachatus BIQHM: debachatus N 1 1 omniaque quae K2SHbRV] omnia quaeque NF : omniamquamque K 1: omnia quaque I: omnia quae A 11 otio] odio IHOPMp: odio et pace I 11 resederunt] residerint B 12 atque] adque V 12 ipsa r.p. C? EP] ipsa p.r. DKHMR: ipsa p. et F: ipso p.r. A: ipsam r .p. V : ipsa populi romani NIMp 12 retrahente me] me retrahente RQLHb: me om. O 12 reverti] revera O 13 reliqua vita] vita reliqua N 13 conferatur] conferantur O 13 meo] om. K1

7

Chapter 4


175

found it easier , though women, to keep themselves from men than you did,24 despite the fact that you are a man – your attack was dexterous enough and craftily planned; for you did not expect me to return the favour by insulting your family in turn, since you alone provide suf ficient material, and nothing in your home is more disgusting than you yourself. But you were greatly mistaken, it seems to me, when you thought that you could breed envy against me over the question of my property ,25 of which I possess considerably less than I am worth. In any case, even if it were less than it in fact is, I would prefer that my friends were alive rather than becoming wealthier myself through their wills!26 10. Am I renegade then, Caius Sallust?27 It was I who yielded before the fury of the tribune of the commons. 28 I thought it more useful to experience whatever fortune came my way rather than to be a cause of civil disagreement for the whole of the Roman people. And after he had wasted away his year in of fice in debauchery,29 and after all that he had messed up had settled down again into peace and tranquillity, I returned, summoned by this very body; and the state herself led me by the hand. Were I to compare that day, when all of you and the Roman

24 Cf. Gaius’s defence of his mother Cornelia $’ $ µ«

σ ν ξ µ Ν in Plut. CG 25, 6. Cf. also Sall. 15. Here Sallust cannot

25 26 27 28 29

refrain from men while further in the 15th chapter all husbands are angry at Sallust’s inducing their wives to adultery . There are a number of examples when men are depicted parallelly engaged in both dominant and subservient sexual roles (see Corbeill 1996, 150, and 128 ff. for more on the oratorical accusations pertaining to moral conduct). Cf. Cic. 2, 3–4. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 40. See Koster 1980, 194. Cf. Cic. 7. Clodius is meant. See above ch. 1, p. 17 f. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 104.

176

5

10

Chapter 4


superet, cum universi vos populusque Romanus frequens adventu meo gratulatus est: tanti me, fugacem, mercennarium patronum, hi aestimaverunt! 11. neque hercules mirum est, si ego semper iustas omnium amicitias aestimavi; non enim uni privatim ancillatus sum neque me addixi, sed quantum quisque rei publicae studuit, tantum mihi fuit aut amicus aut adversarius. ego nihil plus volui valere quam pacem: multi privatorum audacias nutriverunt. ego nihil timui nisi leges: multi arma sua timeri voluerunt. ego numquam volui quicquam posse nisi pro vobis: multi ex vobis potentia freti in vos suis viribus abusi sunt. itaque non est mirum, si nullius amicitia usus sum qui non perpetuo rei publicae amicus fuit. 12. neque me paenitet, si aut petenti V atinio reo patrocinium pollicitus sum aut Sesti insolentiam repressi aut Bibuli patientiam culpavi aut virtutibus Caesaris favi. hae enim laudes egregii civis et unicae sunt; quae si tu mihi ut vitia obicis, temeritas tua reprehendetur, non mea vitia culpa-

1 superet … meo] om., in mg. I2 1 universi] universe (e eras.) T 1 vos] vos om. N 2 gratulatus] congratulatus R 3 est … aestimaverunt] om., post aestimavi transp. B: existimaverunt QH bMp: estimarent N: extimaverunt V 2 tanti] tanta Mp 2 fugacem] fagacem B 2 mercennarium] mercenarium KMp 2 hi] hii V 3 neque … aestimavi] om. T, in mg. add. K2 3 hercules K 2E] hercule BX PMpV: ercule M: hercle HR: hercul N 4 si ego] si ego si ego, postea corr. H 4 iustas] iusta B: iustas omnium semper E: iustas semper V 4 aestimavi] existimavi QH b: extimavi V 4 enim] s.l. H2 4 uni] vi A: in I 1, ras., in mg. I2 4 privatim] privatum O 4 neque] ne, que s.l. Mp 4 me] om. QH b 4 addixi] abduxi A: adduxi B 5 quantum] quaquantum T: quantum quantum O: quantumc Mp 5 quisque] om. R 5 studuit] aut inimicus fuit add. SB 5 aut] om. K1: om. O 6 adversarius] inimicus : om. O 6 ego] ego … leges post inimicus R 6 plus volui] volui plus Hb: valui, o s.l. Mp 6 quam] quam ex quia K 2 7 nutriverunt] nutrivererunt O: timuerunt I 8 ego … voluerunt] om. QHb 8 numquam volui] nunquam volui P: numqui volui O: volui numquam Mp 8 volui quicquam] quicquam volui M: volui ante quicquam om., post vobis suppl. N 9 freti] in ras. I 9 in ERMMpV] om. rell.: in vos om. Hb: nos QL 9 vos] vobis N 9 suis viribus] viribus suis H b 9 abusi] in ras. H 9 non] nichil V 10 amicitia] amiticia B: amicitie V 10 perpetuo] perpetua B 10 rei publicae] romano populo O 11 neque] ne, que s.l. Mp 11 petenti] petendi O: paenitenti Mp 11 vatinio NH b«] vatino : vectivo V 11 pollicitus] sollicitus Q 12 Sesti] festi AV: sexti E: sestii NBIHb: resti R 12 insolentiam] insolempniam N 12 repressi] repressi sunt Q 13 Caesaris] om. R 13 hae] haec Mp: c eras. KH bE: ne NO 13 egregii] egregiae F 1KMp 13 civis] civis sunt E 13 et] om. O 13 unicae] ae del., i corr. I: unici H b 14 si tu mihi ut vitia obicis] si tunc vitia mihi obicis H b 14 tua] om. K1 14 reprehendetur «] … atur : reprehendantur B: reprehenditur QH bMp 14 vitia] om. M: vicia vicia postea corr. H

Chapter 4


177

people came out in crowds and congratulated me on my return, with all the other days of my life, it would, when I consider it, be the best. So highly did they value me, the renegade, the patron for a fee!30 11. And by Heaven it is nothing to wonder at if I always valued the impartial friendship of all. 31 For I was not at the beck and call 32 of any private person, was never a lackey , but determined who was my friend and who my enemy according to the level of his devotion to the state. There is nothing I appreciated more than the value of peace, 33 whereas many others supported the imprudence of individuals. 34 I was not afraid of anything apart from the laws, 35 whereas many others wished to be feared for their strength in arms. I never wanted to be powerful, except for your benef it, whereas many others, relying on the power they had from you, have misused their strength against you. And so it should not be surprising that I did not draw on the friendship of anyone who was not constant in his support of the state.36 12. I do not regret it, if, when Vatinius was accused and requested my protection, I promised it to him; nor if I restrained Sestius’ insolence; nor if I blamed Bibulus for his submissiveness; nor if I expressed admiration for Caesar ’s virtues. 37 These were praises for an illustrious citizen, and they were made but once.38 Should you lay them against me as a fault, it is your irresponsibility that will be rebuked, and not my fault that will be

30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38

Cf. Cic. 7; 5. See Opelt 1965, 148. See ch. 2, p. 36. Cf. Cic. 7. Cf. Ernout 63. One of the typical examples of working in ciceronian style. The author perhaps tries to imitate well-known ciceronian f igures, of anaphora and parallelism (ego … multi …; ego … multi …; ego … multi …). Cf. Kirby, 1997; 19ff.; Kaster 1998, 248 ff. Cf. Cic. Dom. 71. Cf. Cic. 7. Cf. Cic. 7; see p. 160–161 above. See also Ernout 64. Cf. Cic. Prov. Cons. passim, esp. 47. See also ch. 1, p. 17 f.

178

5

10

Chapter 4


buntur. plura dicerem, si apud alios mihi esset disserendum, patres conscripti, non apud vos, quos ego habui omnium mearum actionum monitores. sed ubi rerum testimonia adsunt, quid opus est verbis? 13. Nunc ut ad te revertar , Sallusti, patrem tuum praeteream, qui si numquam in vita sua peccavit, tamen maiorem iniuriam rei publicae facere non potuit quam quod te talem iflium genuit; neque tu si qua in pueritia peccasti, exsequar, ne parentem tuum videar accusare, qui eo tempore summam tui potestatem habuit, sed qualem adolescentiam egeris; hac enim demonstrata facile intellegetur quam petulanti pueritia tam impudicus et procax adoleveris. postea quam immensae gulae impudicissimi corporis quaestus sufficere non potuit et aetas tua iam ad ea patienda quae alteri facere collibuisset exoleverat, cupiditatibus infinitis efferebaris, ut

1 culpabuntur] culpantur RO: culpabantur H 1 apud] aput P 1 esset] eseset O: esset mihi RIDLQV 1 disserendum M] discern … rell. 2 patres conscripti] om. Hb 2 apud] aput P 2 ego] om. E 2 habui] habuit O: semper habui V 2 mearum actionum] actionum mearum E: actionum om. M 3 monitores] munitores B: memores V 3 testimonia] testimonium B 3 adsunt] assunt EQH b 3 quid] quod PB 3 opus] in mg. V 3 verbis] vobis K 1HP 4 Nunc] non Q 4 ut ad te] ad te ut FK: ad te ANH bMp 4 Sallusti] crispe s. Mp 4 patrem ] patremque rell.: et ad patrem H b 4 praeteream] praeterea RQ: om. Hb 4 qui si] quasi Q 5 numquam] num Q: nusquam H 5 sua] sua s.l. V: in sua vita I 5 maiorem iniuriam] iniuriam maiorem QHb 5 rei publicae] p.r. Q: romano populo Mp 6 non] no B 6 potuit] opotuit O 6 quod te] te quod te E 6 talem filium] filium talem Hb 6 tu] om. QHb 6 qua] quid R: in add. O 7 pueritia] pueriticia P 7 peccasti] om. O 7 exsequar] exequar KNIREQLHbHPMMp 7 ne] nec K1O: nix P 7 parentem] parentum T 7 accusare] culpare LQH b 7 qui I M2] si rell. 7 eo] ergo R 7 tempore] tui N 8 summam] summo R: summama E 8 tui potestatem] tuae potestatis Mp 8 tui] cui N 8 habuit] habebat QLH b 8 sed qualem] sed sed qualem N 8 adolescentiam] adholescentiam Q: habebat sed si quali adolescentia fueris si demonstravero H b 9 enim] om. : egeris … enim om. QL 9 demonstrata] demonstratam Q: monstrata V 9 intellegetur TS] … itur rell.: intelligetur NLIV: intelligitur REQH bMpM 9 quam] qua K 10 impudicus] in.m ante impudicus del. K2: inpudicus H 10 quam] om. K1 10 immensae] inmerissae R: inmensae H 1 1 quaestus EMH1Mp] quaestus sumptus R : quaestuosus sumptus H b: 2 quaestuosi sumptus LS: quaestiosius sumptus Q: quaestus idem sumptus OH P: quaestus stipendia sumptus I: ad sumptusadd. sed postea del. V 11 sufficere] om. H1: s.l. H2: facere PO: ef ficere I 11 iam ad ea] ad ea iam A 11 iam] non E: om. O 11 patienda] patientia N1: facienda BO 12 facere] om. Mp 12 collibuisset] collibuerat isset Q 12 cupiditatibus] om. E 12 infinitis] infiniti E 12 efferebaris] efferebatis s.l. r K2: efferaberis BR: efferebans T

Chapter 4


179

blamed.39 I would speak on, if I had to explain these things to others, rather than to you, Fathers of the Senate, who were my counsellors in all 40 my acts. But when the facts are witnesses, what need is there for words? 13. And now to you, Sallust. I shall say nothing of your father; even if he did no wrong in his life, he could not have done greater damage to the state that to bring forth such a son. Nor shall I inquire after your childhood transgressions, in order not to appear to censure your father , who had full power over you at that time. But what a youth you did in fact lead! By revealing your disreputable early years it becomes easy indeed to understand how you grew up into one so debauch and insolent. Once the operations 41 of your extraordinarily debauch body could no longer satisfy your immense appetite, once your age had already become too mature to submit to someone else’s desires, you were carried away with incessant cravings42 wishing to try

39 Cf. Cic. Dom. 88. 40 Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 11. 41 There is a common use ofquaestus for prostituting, cf. Plaut.Poen. 5, 3, 21; Liv.

26, 33, 8; Tac. Anm. 2, 85; Val. Max. 6, 1, 6; 10; Ter. Heaut. 4, 1, 27; And. 1, 1, 52; Ad. 2, 1, 52; Plaut. Capt. 1, 1, 30. 42 Cf. Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 184.

180

5

10

Chapter 4


quae ipse corpori tuo turpia non duxisses in aliis experireris. 14. ita non est facile exputare, patres conscripti, utrum inhonestioribus corporis partibus rem quaesierit an amiserit. domum paternam vivo patre turpissime venalem habuit [vendidit]; et cuiquam dubium potest esse, quin mori coegerit eum, quo hic nondum mortuo pro herede gesserit omnia? neque pudet eum a me quaerere quis in P. Crassi domo habitet cum ipse respondere non queat quis in ipsius habitet paterna domo. ‘at hercules lapsus aetatis tirocinio postea se correxit!’ non ita est, sed abiit in sodalicium sacrilegi Nigidiani; bis iudicis ad subsellia attractus extrema fortuna stetit et ita discessit, ut non hic innocens esse sed iudices peierasse existimarentur. 15. primum honorem in quaestura adeptus hunc locum et hunc ordinem despectui !habuit", cuius aditus sibi quoque sordidissimo homini 1 ipse corpori tuo turpia] turpia ipse corpori tuo M 1 duxisses] dixisses O: non duxisses in ras. I 1 in aliis] om. I 1 experireris] expirireris B: experiebaris E: experieris RO 2 ita non est facile] ita difficile est A: non facile est R 2 exputare] expectare AE: K (ex exputare): et putare B: disputare Hb: putare R 2 inhonestioribus] in inhonestioribus (in s.l.) K 2 corporis] corporis om. N 3 partibus] artibus P 3 quaesierit] quesiverit E: quaesierint, n del. D: adquisierit I 3 an amiserit] an miserit QHb 3 domum] domam T: domum tuam E, tuam del., paternam s.l. E 3 turpissime] om. 4 vendidit om. «Hb: del. JordanEussnerKurfessReynoldsSB 4 cuiquam] cui nam R 4 dubium potest esse] potest dubium esse E 4 quin] qui non Q 5 herede] heredem Q 5 neque … paterna domo] om. A 5 neque] ne? non? Mp 6 a me] om. K1 6 quaerere] quaererem V 6 quis] quasi HO 6 in] in ras. H 6 P. Crassi domo habitet] p. c. crassi habitet domo H b 6 P.] publii Mp: m. L 7 non queat] nequeat P: non querat V 7 quis in] quis in, in in ras. H: in om. B: om. P 7 ipsius] illius Mp 7 habitet] habitet s.l. V: habtet B 7 at] ab Mp 7 hercules E] hercule F 2 V: hercle Mp: mehercules K 2: herculis pedes R 8 aetatis] eatis T 8 tirocinio] tyrocinio KBEMPRQ: arocinio O 8 postea se correxit] postea correxit se I: se correxit postea V 8 postea se] se postea Hb 8 abiit] habuit K1O: habiit TV 8 sodalicium sacrilegi] sacrilegi sodalicium N 8 sodalicium] solilitium R 9 sacrilegi Nigidiani] sacrilegii nigidiani Q: sacrilegium nigidianum H b 9 nigidiani bis] nigidianibus B 9 bis iudicis] bis del., s.l. post iudicis M2: ad bis ad iudicis H b: is iussu R: bis ad iudicis QL: bis ad subsellia iudicis I: bis ad subsellia iudiciis N 9 subsellia] subsella B 9 attractus] actractus T: adtractus KR: atractus B 9 extrema] externa O: in extrema I 9 stetit] stetit ex stant K 10 discessit] stetit Hb: dissecit O: discescit P 10 non hic] hic non A, corr. A 10 innocens] innoceres O 10 esse] esset BQ 10 peierasse] pierasse A: peiurasse K: pererrasse B 11 existimarentur] … retur n s.l. E: extimarentur V 1 1 adeptus] post adeptus add. secutus est (est om. T) V: adeptus sequitus est Mp 12 ordinem] honorem I 12 despectui habuit Norden] despectus : despectum fecit I: desserptus V: despectum Bas: despectum reddidit AldLugdGrutRom 12 cuius] om., s.l. M 12 aditus] additus T: om. R 12 sibi quoque] sibi quaeque I: quoque sibi VR: quoque om. O 12 sordidissimo homini] homini sordidissimo N: sordissimo B

Chapter 4


181

on others all those things you did not consider disgusting for your own body.43 14. It is not easy to determine then, Fathers of the Senate, which parts of his body were the more shameful, those for which he was remunerated or those for which he remunerated others.44 He offered his father’s house for sale 45 [sold] 46 while his father was still alive. And can there be any doubt that he caused the death of that person, when he behaved in every way as an inheritor while his father was still alive?47 Yet he does not feel humiliated when he poses me the question, who is living in Publius Crassus’ house,48 while he himself cannot answer the question, who is living in his very father ’s house. “But, by Heaven, having fallen due to his youth and inexperience he later set himself to rights”.49 No, this is not the case. He fell in with the company of the sacrilege of Nigidius. 50 Twice hauled before a judge, he was all but condemned, yet slipped out in such a way that he was not considered innocent, but rather the judges were thought to have committed perjury. 15. When he obtained his f irst office, the quaestorship, he held this institution and this body in disdain,51 despite he himself

43 Cf. Cic. 5. For impudicus and impudicissimi see Opelt 1965, 156; Adams 1982,

55, 132.

44 Cf. Cic. Pis. 22; Har. Resp. 42, 59. See Koster 1980, 196. On the char 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

ge of homosexual prostitution as a commonplace of invective see Arena 2007, 157f.; Craig 2004, 202. Cf. Cic. Verr. 3, 144; Cic. 1. See apparatus criticus p. 157. Cf. Ullman 1955, 370. Another attempt to imitate Cicero. A char ge of parricide was used by Cicero, probably as a literary convention, rather than for historical truth. See Nisbet 1961, 193; Opelt 1965, 200 f.; Arena 2007, 158. Cf. Cic. 2. See Koster 1980, 196. Publius Nigidius Figulus (praetor 58 BC), scholar, astrologer and mystic, was interested in the occult. Cf. Cic. Vat. 14; Tim. 1, 1; Fam. 4, 13, 3; Plin. H. N. 9, 185; 29, 69, 138; Suet. Aug. 94, 5; Hieron. Euseb. Chron. 152 (ed. Scal.). See also Kurfess 1913b, 23–25; Ernout 65; SB 384. See ch. 3, p. 133.

182

5

10

Chapter 4


patuisset. itaque timens, ne facinora eius clam vos essent, cum omnibus matrum familiarum viris opprobrio esset, confessus est vobis audientibus adulterium neque erubuit ora vestra. vixeris, ut libet, Sallusti, egeris, quae volueris: satis sit unum te tuorum scelerum esse conscium. noli nobis languorem et soporem nimium exprobrare: sumus diligentes in tuenda pudicitia uxorum nostrarum, sed ita experrecti non sumus, ut a te cavere possimus; audacia tua vincit studia nostra. 16. ecquod hunc movere possit, patres conscripti, factum aut dictum turpe, quem non puduerit palam vobis audientibus adulterium confiteri? quod si tibi per me nihil respondere voluissem, sed illud censorium eloquium Appii Claudii et L. Pisonis, integerrimorum virorum, quo usus est quisque eorum, pro lege palam universis recitarem, nonne tibi viderer aeternas inurere maculas, quas reliqua vita tua eluere non posset? neque post illum dilectum senatus umquam te vidimus,

1 vos] s.l. bis K 2: vobis Mp 1 omnibus] hominibus B 2 matrum] matribus HbVBasGrut: om. Q 2 viris VK 2] vestris : uris R: nostris Mp: om. QBasGrut: vestris, corr. vobis I 2 2 opprobrio] obprobrio KBILH bP: obprobrio vestris suspectus I 3 esset … neque] om. O 3 ora vestra] vestra ora I: hora vestra V 3 ut libet] ut lubet et B 3 Sallusti] c. salusti I 4 egeris, quae volueris] om. N 4 quae] ut O 4 sit] est I 4 esse conscium] conscium esse E 4 noli] noli esse B 5 nobis] vobis N 5 soporem] saporem HM 5 nimium] nimirum Hb 5 exprobrare] exprobare KBDV 5 diligentes] dilentis Q 6 uxorum nostrarum E] nostrarum uxorum VMp: uxorem nostram K 1 6 experrecti] perrecti, ex s.l. H2: experti IV 6 a] om. B 7 tua vincit studia] in mg. V ec-7 quod GlareanLugdGrut] et quod AFN , Ald in mg. : et pro K 1, et quid VK 2: qui post et quod B 7 hunc movere possit, patres conscripti] hunc possit p. c. movere E 7 hunc] hinc H 8 movere] vovere B 8 patres conscripti] om. I 8 factum aut dictum turpe] ante hunc I 8 aut dictum K2I] auditum NFK1T1: et dictum L: auditu A T2XB 8 non] om. AMp 9 puduerit] puderit, u s.l. N 9 palam] om. E 9 adulterium confiteri] confiteri adulterium Mp 9 per] pro K 9 nihil] non I1: nihil per me QHb 10 voluissem] valuissem Mp 10 illud] illut O 10 Appii] Apii B 10 et] om. I 10 L.] lucii EPHMMp 11 integerrimorum] integerrumorum Q 11 virorum] vivorum T 11 est quisque] et quisque E: est quisque est Q: quisque est NHb 12 recitarem] recitate O 12 nonne] non QHb 12 tibi] om. Mp 12 viderer aeternas] viderem internas Mp 13 reliqua] reliquas O 13 tua] om. Hb: tua inu, inu del. Mp 13 eluere] elucere E: eludere HPO 13 posset ] possit K 2: possis H bV1: possim V 2 13 dilectum XB] de … rell.: deletum I1 14 umquam N] usquam : usque Q: numquam E: unquam IPMp: om. 14 te vidimus] vidimus te AI

Chapter 4


183

gaining access to it, debauch man. In fact, fearing that his crimes would remain secret from you, he confessed before you to his adultery , unabashed, in open hearing, even though he was a source of scandal to all the husbands of respectable women.52 You have lived as you liked, Sallust, and you have acted as you wished. It is enough that you alone are conscious of your crimes. Do not reproach us with indolence and excessive sloth. W e are attentive in defending the chastity of our wives but not so vigilant to be able to guard against you. Your audacity outfoxes our diligence. 16. And what disgraceful word or deed can impinge on him, who, Fathers of the Senate, was not ashamed to confess openly before you to adultery? Suppose I were to select not to respond to you in my own words but rather recite to you publicly , in the name of the law ,53 the censorial speeches delivered by Appius Claudius and Lucius Piso, 54 upright men both, even then would you not be of the opinion that I had branded you with everlasting stains, which you could not wash away till the end of your days? 55 And then after that selection of the Senate we saw you no more,

52 See Funaioli 1920, 1916 f. Cf. Gell. N. A. 17, 18; Porph. Hor. Serm. 1, 2, 41;

Serv. Aen. 6, 612. See Ernout 66, 83; SB 384–385. Cf. Sall. 9 and Corbeill 1996, 150 on the absence of logic on the part of the accuser. 53 Shackleton Bailey refers pro lege to Appius Claudius, and not to ‘Cicero’, i.e. for eloquium … quo usus est quisque eorum pr o lege , he translated: “a pronouncement which each one of them has treated as a law”. Cf. SB 385–387. 54 Appius Claudius Caecus, consul in 307 and 296BC, and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, consul in 133 BC, had both served as censors. Appius Claudius Caecus as censor in 312 before holding other offices was renowned for the strictness of his conduct. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, censor in 120 BC, earned his agnomen, which became hereditary, though his probity. So thought Ernout and Reynolds. Shackleton Bailey, however, argued that here Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus is meant, consul in 58 BC. He argued also, that here Appius Claudius and Lucius Piso Caesoninus are meant, who as censors expelled Sallust from the Senate in 51 BC. Cf. SB 385. 55 Cf. Cic. Verr. 5, 121.

184

5

10

Chapter 4


nisi forte in ea te castra coniecisti quo omnis sentina rei publicae confluxerat. 17. at idem Sallustius, qui in pace ne senator quidem manserat, postea quam res publica armis oppressa est, [et] idem a victore qui exsules reduxit in senatum per quaesturam est reductus. quem honorem ita gessit ut nihil in eo non venale habuerit cuius aliquis emptor fuerit, ita egit ut nihil non aequum ac verum duxerit, quod ipsi facere collibuisset, neque aliter vexavit ac debuit, si quis praedae loco magistratum accepisset. 18. peracta quaestura postea quam magna pignora eis dederat, cum quibus similitudine vitae se coniunxerat, unus iam ex illo grege videbatur. eius enim partis erat Sallustius, quo tamquam in unam voraginem coetus omnium vitiorum excesserat: quicquid inpudicorum, chilonum, parricidarum, sacrilegorum, debitorum fuit in urbe, municipiis, coloniis, Italia tota, sicut in fretis subsederant, homines perditi ac notissimi, nulla in parte castris apti 1 ea te] acte K 1: mea te A: ea s.l. te om. V 1 castra] acta ante castra del. K 1 quo] qua Q: quos I 1 sentina] sententia K 1 1 rei publicae] romani populi M 2 confluxerat] confluxerat ex coniecat H b 2 at] ad B: ut V 2 idem] ille QHb 2 ne senator quidem] quidem ne senator Mp 2 ne] ne om. Hb s.l. Hb: non V 2 manserat] remanserat I 3 confluxerat … res publica] om. A res3 publica] quam in r.p. Q 3 armis] armas B 3 idem] eidem V: [et] del. JordanKurfessReynoldsSB 3 a victore Jordan] qui victores I: victores NT1 Mp: victor KE: victore T 2: auctore X: auctorem B: huic AFV 3 qui] quos N 4 exsules] exules ELM 4 per Mommsen] post 4 est reductus] reductus est post quaesturam M: receptus est Hb 5 nihil in eo non BX] nihil non in eo NFK: non in eo nihil AV: nihil non in eo non T 5 aliquis] aliqui KT 5 fuerit] fuit V: et add. Kurfess 6 nihil] om. E 6 ac] ad A1FK1: ad s.l. c K2: ad s.l. ac V: aut N 6 ipsi] illi H bE 6 facere] om. O 7 neque] enim add. K 7 aliter] taliter B 7 vexavit E] vixit A 2 upshape: vetuit XB: vetavit T 7 ac] quam I 7 praedae loco] loco praedae V 7 magistratum] om. I 8 quaestura] quaestio O 8 quam] cum O 8 pignora] pignera 8 dederat] dedisset QH b 9 similitudine vitae se] vitae similitudine se B: se similitudine NI, vitae om. I: suae Q 9 coniunxerat] convinxerat K: s.l. n H 9 illo grege] illorum grege B: illo gregi M 10 partis] partis iam V 10 erat ] erat exemplar : exemplar erat V 10 quo A 2] quod T: qui K2: qua XB 10 tamquam X] tantam rell.: tanquam HbB 11 vitiorum] vitiosorum B: viciciorum Mp 1 1 excesserat] excesserit B: conf luxerat H b 11 quicquid] quidquid D 1 1 inpudicorum] impudicorum IH bP 1 1 chilonum Maurenbrecher] cilonum ISM: cylonum AF LEHPO: cylonium K: ciclonum QHb: cillonum MpV: cynonum N 12 parricidarum] parricidalium H b: patricidarum V 12 debitorum QLHb«] dedit … : ledit … : dediciciorum K 12 fuit in urbe] in urbe fuit I 12 in] om. TDMp 12 municipiis, coloniis, Italia tota] in m., in c., in I. t. B 12 municipiis] munipiis T 12 coloniis] colomiis O 13 Italia tota] Italiam totam K 13 in fretis] infreti : infrae s.l. fretis E: inserti 13 subsederant] om. A: subsederat M: n s.l. E 13 homines perditi] perditi nominis I 13 homines Ald2] nominis : nominis in mg. V 14 apti] apta AV1, corr. V 2

Chapter 4


185

except perhaps in those military camps where all the dregs of the state flowed.56 17. But this same Sallust, who could not even stay senator in time of peace, was thereafter, the state overcome by military force, recalled by the victor – when he summoned back the exiles – to the rank of quaestor and thus to the senate.57 He so administered this office that there was nothing for which a buyer could be found, that he did not in fact put up for sale.58 He behaved as if he considered correct and just all that he himself yearned for, creating turmoil and accruing debts as if he were a man who had received his office as plunder. 18. Having completed his quaestorship and having made grandiose promises59 to those with whom he was attached by the similarity of their way of living, he now gave the impression of being one of that faction. Sallust, you see, belonged to that grouping where all the imperfections gushed, like a deluge into drainage. The debauch, the hangers-on, 60 the murderers, the sacrilegious, the debtors, 61 whether from the city , or the municipalities, from the colonies, or from all of Italy , these were swallowed up there as if into the sea, all of them degenerate and infamous, 62 people in no way fit for the

56 Here Sallust’s immorality is alleged, but the real grounds of his expulsion from

57 58 59 60 61 62

the Senate were in all probability his actions in 52BC, when as a tribune he acted against Cicero and Titus Annius Milo (cf. Asc. Mil. 37, 45, 49, 51). See Koster 1980, 197. See also the historical context in ch. 1, p. 17 f. Cf. Cic. Cat. 2, 4, 7. Shackleton Bailey ar gued that forte here is awkward from the author ’s side, since it is a well-known fact, that Sallust fought on Caesar ’s side in the Civil War. Cf. SB 386. See ch. 1, p. 17 ff. This might refer to Sallust’ s second quaestorship in 49 BC. See also Ernout 67; SB 387. Cf. Sall. Iug. 35, 10. Cf. Ullman 1955; 370. Cf. Cic. Phil. 1, 4. See Ernout 83. See Ernout 83–84. Cf. Sall. Cat. 14, 2–3. See ch. 3, p. 137.

186

5

10

Chapter 4


nisi licentia vitiorum et cupiditate rerum novarum. 19. ‘at postea quam praetor est factus, modeste se gessit et abstinenter’. nonne ita provinciam vastavit, ut nihil neque passi sint neque exspectaverint gravius in bello socii nostri, quam experti sunt in pace hoc Africam interiorem obtinente? unde tantum hic exhausit, quantum potuit aut fide nominum traici aut in naves contrudi: tantum, 1inquam, exhausit, patres conscripti, quantum voluit. ne causam diceret, sestertio duodeciens cum Caesare paciscitur. quod si quippiam eorum falsum est, his palam refelle unde, qui modo ne paternam quidem domum reluere potueris, repente tamquam somnio beatus hortos pretiosissi-mos, villam T iburtem C. Caesaris, reliquas possessiones paraveris. 20. neque piguit quaerere, cur ego P. Crassi domum emissem, cum tu eius 1 nisi] nisi in H b 1 rerum novarum] novarum rerum NHM 1 at] ast Mp 1 postea quam] postquam E 2 praetor] rector E: praetorem O 2 est factus] factus est QHbM 2 modeste … vastavit] om. O 2 et] et ex ut K 2 nonne «] non : quid Q: quin H b: non enim P: del. K2 2 provinciam] pronuntiam B 3 vastavit] devastavit de… del. V 3 ut nihil] del. V 3 neque passi sint] om. V: sunt O 3 neque] om. Mp 3 exspectaverint TI] … arint : … arent P: … averunt XB 4 nostri] vestri Q 4 hoc Africam] hoc affricam KIEHMpHb: hoc in affricam O 4 interiorem] inferiorem Jordan 4 obtinente] oriente K: obcontinente HM: continente P: tentante V : optinente NI 5 unde] utinam Q 5 hic] om. Mp: hic tantum I 5 exhausit] exhausit p. c. L: exhaussit B: exausit V 5 quantum … exhausit] in mg. V 5 fide] a ante fide s.l. K: f idi I: a f ide NH b 5 nominum] nomini I 5 traici] trahici KM: traci, i s.l. N: trahi B: tercii H b 5 aut] om. B 6 in naves] inquam A: in aves H b: ignavos E 6 contrudi] trudi N 6 exhausit, patres conscripti] p. c. exhausit : patres conscripti exhausit Mp 6 exhausit] hausit I: om. Hb 7 voluit] potuit E 1, del., s.l. voluit E 2 7 ne causam] nec causam KEO: ne causas N 7 diceret] dicere V 7 sestertio duodeciens cum] cum sestertiorum duodecies O 7 sestertio] sestercia B: sextertio V : sestertia MpI 2 7 duodeciens] om. I: n del. D: duodecies KNEHP 7 duodecies cum Caesare] cum cesare duodecies H b 7 paciscitur] pascicitur Mp: pasciscitur B: pascitur E 8 quod] quos O 8 quippiam] quicquam H b 8 est, his] est quae dico his P: hiis V 8 refelle] referte K1: refelle qui dico unde quomodo ne H: dic add. SB 8 qui modo] quo modo NEP: quidem modo Mp: quommodo B 9 quidem] om. Mp 9 reluere «] relinire : relinere, e del., s.l. i Hb: reluere elu in ras. V: relinquere I 9 tamquam] tanquam NMpMH b: tamque K: tanque P: om. L 9 somnio AFK 2TC2DS] somno K 1XEHBP: sonnio NI: sonno O: sono MMp: somnium C 1: sompno V 10 hortos] ortos DIH bMpMEHP 10 Tiburtem Cortius] tiburti : tyburti AK: in tiburti D: tiburtii Mp: tirburtii V (r del.) 10 C.] g. BE: gaii OMp 10 reliquas] et reliquas IHb 11 reliquas possessiones] reliquas possessionis B: possesiones reliquis O 11 neque piguit] que piguit om. O: pinguit N 11 P.] om. BIHb: publii OMp 12 domum emissem ] emissem : emissem domum 12 eius … Caesar] paulo ante dominus villae cuius vetus fuerat Cesar I 12 eius Baiter] vetus : netus M

Chapter 4


187

military-camp except in the excess of their faults and their cravings for rebellion.63 19. “But after he became praetor, he conducted himself with modesty and self-restraint”. 64 Ha! Perhaps then 65 he did not plunder his province to such an extent that never did our allies suffer nor even imagine anything more grievous in war than they endured in peace, while he was governor of Inner Africa? 66 From there he drained as much as he could carry off in financial transactions or could be thrust into ships. I would say , Fathers of the Senate, that he impounded as much he desired. He reached an agreement with Caesar for twelve hundred thousand sesterces in order not to be brought to trial. If these be at all false, disprove them here, in front of these people! 67 How is it that you, who could not even pawn back your father ’s house, suddenly, as if in a dream became wealthy and procured very precious gardens, 68 the Tiburtine country house of Caius Caesar 69 and the rest of your properties?70 20. And you are not ashamed to ask me why I bought the house of Publius Crassus,71 while you own the very72 house, which

Cf. Sall. Cat. 14; Cic. Cat. 2, 8–10; Att. 187 (IX, 18), 2. See Koster 1980, 197. See Ernout 84. Cf. Reynolds 236; Sall. Iug. 18, 12. Cf. Cic. 4. Cf. Tac. Ann. 13, 47; Hist. 3, 82. Since no other evidence that Sallust possessed the house in T ibur survives, this might have been a rhetorical parry to counter Sallust’s accusations concerning Cicero’s ‘house in Tusculum’ (cf. Cic. 3, 4). Tusculum and Tibur (Tivoli) were both fashionable resorts for the wealthy, not too far from Rome. In Tusculum Cicero composed his philosophical works, Catullus owned a new villa near Tibur. Augustus, Hadrian and perhaps Horace also all had villas here. Cf. Sen. De benef. 4, 12, 3. 70 Cf. Ullman 1955, 370 f. 71 Cf. Cic. 2. See also p. 152–153. 72 See apparatus criticus p. 184. Cf. Ernout 69. 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

188

5

10

Chapter 4


villae dominus sis cuius paulo ante fuerat Caesar . modo, inquam, patrimonio non comesto sed devorato quibus rationibus repente factus es tam adfluens et tam beatus? nam quis te faceret heredem, quem ne amicum quidem suum satis honestum quisquam sibi ducit nisi similis ac par tui? at hercules egregia facta maiorum tuorum te extollunt: quorum sive tu similis es sive illi tui, nihil ad omnium scelus ac nequitiam addi potest. verum, ut opinor, honores tui te faciunt insolentem. 21. tu, C. Sallusti, idem putas esse bis senatorem et bis quaestorem f ieri quod bis consularem et bis triumphalem? carere decet omni vitio, qui in alterum dicere parat. is demum male dicit, qui non potest verum ab altero audire. sed tu, omnium mensarum assecula, omnium cubiculorum in aetate paelex et idem postea adulter, omnis ordinis turpitudo es et civilis belli memoria. 22. quid enim hoc gravius pati potuimus, quam quod te incolumem in hoc ordine videmus? desine bonos petulantissime consectari, desine morbo

1 villae] millae N 1 1 sis] om. : recte Mp 1 fuerat ] fuerit FK : fuit A 1 non] om. K1 2 comesto Diomedes] comeso NAFXC EPMp, in ras. D: commeso KTB: commesso MO: commisso H: comesso IV 2 rationibus] orationibus M1, corr. M2 2 repente] om. Hb: repente rationibus O 3 adfluens] affluens KNEDIHbHPMMp 3 te faceret] faceret te V 3 quem ne] qui me E: ne om. N 4 quidem] quod est B 4 suum] sui K 4 quisquam sibi] sibi quisquam E 4 quisquam] quispiam NM: om. IH b 4 ducit] duxit I 4 ac par tui] apartui K 1, recte s.l. K2 5 hercules] hercle KMp: hercules A es in ras.: hercule NLV 5 egregia] et egregia I 5 maiorum tuorum] tuorum maiorum O 6 similis] similses A 6 illi] ille A 6 tui N ] tibi AF Hb: tibi vel tui K 6 ac] sive N 6 addi] adde B 7 ut opinor] hopinor, h del. M1 7 tui] om. I 7 C.] gai K: crispe O: om. N 8 idem Jordan] totidem E: tantidem I: tantundem M: tantum NHPO 8 putas] om. P 8 fieri] om. I 8 quod KXMp] quot AFT E: quam I: quantum N 9 consularem] consulerem T e eras.: consulem L 9 bis] bis esse O 9 triumphalem] triumfalem Hb 9 carere] carcere T c eras.: care E 9 decet] debet NILHb 9 dicere] edicere B 10 parat. is Jordan] paratus Hb: paratus est. is LSV : parat EPMp 10 male dicit] maledixit K 10 qui] qui in ras. K: quod A 10 potest] pote A, corr. A: post B 10 verum] veritatem 10 altero] alio E: male add. SB 10 tu] om. O 1 1 assecula ATE] adsecla rell.: asseda V: ascla KND: asecla L: assecla BMpHOPMH b, in ras. I 11 cubiculorum] cubilorum Hb1 cu s.l. Hb2 11 in aetate] in prima aetate B: in ea etate O 12 omnis] omnis om. H 12 ordinis] om. A 12 et BX] om. rell. 12 belli] beli O 12 quid … videmus] om. Hb1 in mg. add. Hb2: quod B: vidimus, e s.l. D 13 enim hoc] hoc enim E: enim s.l. A 13 quod] qui KB 13 incolumem] incolomen KBEP 13 hoc] om. BM 14 petulantissime consectari ] petulantissima consectari (consert … BX) lingua rell.: petulantissime consectari bonos A: bonos petulantissimis verbis consectari H b: petulantissima sectari lingua I 14 desine … unumquemque] in mg. V 14 desine] de ordine M

Chapter 4


189

recently belonged to Caesar. Let me just add, once you had not so much consumed as gulped down your inheritance, 73 by what means did you suddenly become so swish and opulent? For who would make you his heir, you, whom nobody would consider honest enough to count as a friend, unless he were such-like, such a fellow as you? But, by Heaven, the illustrious deeds of your ancestors extol you! 74 Whether you resemble them, or they resemble you, nothing can be added to the wickedness and worthlessness of you all. 21. Nay, I assume 75 rather that it is your of ficial positions that make you conceited. 76 Do you, Caius Sallust, think, that it is the same to be twice a senator and twice a quaestor, as to be twice a consular and twice to have had the honours of a triumph? 77 One should be free from any blemish, when one gets up to denounce somebody else. He who cannot bear to hear the truth from another , is in the end the one who wrongly abuses others. You, the parasite of all others’ hospitality , the poacher in your youth of all others’ bedrooms, and later their adulterous defiler, you are a disgrace to all ordered society and an evocation of the civil war .78 22. For what worse could we endure than to see you safe and sound in this assembly? Cease your vile haranguing of good men, 79 put a halt to your malady of impudence, cease

73 Quoted by Diom. Art. Gram. I // Gram. Lat. (ed. Keil) I 387, 6. See ch. 3, p.112.

74 75 76 77 78 79

Cf. Cic. Sest. 111; Phil. 2, 67; Verr. 2, 3, 177; Cat. 29, 22; Quint. 8, 6, 25; Macr. Sat. 3, 13, 6. For the Latin vocabulary of bankruptcy derived from words that describe indulgence in food, see Corbeill 1996, 131 ff. Cf. Cic. 2. Cf. Cic. 2; 4. See ch. 1, p. 24 f. See Koster 1980, 198. See Ernout 69. Cf. Opelt 1965, 48, 154f. for paelex as a common abuse in the invective rhetoric. Cf. Cic. 2. For turpitudo see Adams 1982, 201. See above ch. 2, p. 33 and 40. Cf. Cic. Sest. 110; Cic. 1; 7.

190

5

Chapter 4


procacitatis isto uti, desine unumquemque moribus tuis aestimare. His moribus amicum tibi ef ficere non potes: videris velle inimicum habere. Finem dicendi faciam, patres conscripti; saepe enim vidi gravius offendere animos auditorum eos qui aliena f lagitia aperte dixerunt quam eos qui commiserunt. Mihi quidem ratio habenda est, non quae Sallustius merito debeat audire, sed ut ea dicam, si qua ego honeste ef fari possim.

1 isto uti] uti isto O 1 isto] istos, s del. H1 1 tuis] om. EI 1: tuis moribus Mp 1 aestimare] extimare V 1 His] hic E: hiis V 2 moribus] te add. E 2 amicum tibi] tibi amicum Hb: tibi om. BM 2 potes] potens B: ex potest H1 2 velle inimicum] inimicum velle O 2 velle] malle A 3 dicendi] dicendic, c del. E: dicundi Hb 3 vidi] vidimus O 3 gravius] gravi … s.l. ter A 4 offendere] offenfi N 4 animos] animum H b 4 eos] in eos Mp 4 aperte AXBEM] apte rell. 5 eos] in eos Mp: eos om. O 5 commiserunt] commiserant H 5 Mihi] multi T1 in mg. corr. T2 5 quidem] quicquam Mp 5 ratio] est ratio B 5 non quae] neque T: non ex nam K: non quia L: numquam E: non quam, m del. H: non quem P: quam M 5 non] non ut Hb: om. M 5 Sallustius] tuus add. O: abistius N 6 audire] audire in ras. H 6 ut] om. E: sed et ut O 6 ego honeste] honeste ego KEH b: ego honestius N: honeste G 6 effari] affari V, e s.l. V pos6 sim] possum VBasGrut

Chapter 4


191

evaluating everybody with reference to your own character-traits.80 With such traits, a friend you cannot make; and so you seem to want to have an enemy. I bring my speech to a close, Fathers of the Senate; I note that all too often those people who speak openly about other peoples’ crimes cause greater offence to listeners that those who actually committed the crimes. I must therefore bear in mind, not the things Sallust deserves to hear , but rather what I can say, while still expressing myself in an honourable manner.81

80 See Koster 1980, 198. See also ch. 1, p. 25 above. 81 See Ernout 70. Cf. Cic. Phil. 2, 47.

192

List of edited invectives

193

Appendix List of edited invectives (incunabula and 16th–20th centuries) In this appendix the following abbreviations for collated editions are used: Copinger IGI ISTC GKW H

Copinger W. A. Supplement to Hain’ s Repertorium Bibliographicum or Collections towards a new edition of that work. Milano, 1950. Indice generale degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d’Italia, v. V, compilato da E. V alenziani, E. Cerulli e P . Veneziani. Roma, 1972. The Illustrated Incunabula Short-T itle Catalogue on CDRom, Primary Source Media in association with the British Library. 11997, 21998. Gesamtkatalog der W iegendrucke. Hsg. von der Kommission für den Gesamtkatalog der W iegendrucke, Band VI, Leipzig, 1934. Hain L. Repertorium Bibliographicum, in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. Stuttgartiae et Tubingae, [1826–1891].

The editions, containing the invective against Cicero only , are marked with an asterix (*); the editions, containing the invective against Sallust only, are marked with two asterices (**). At the end of each description follow folia or pages containing the invectives. Where this is not the case, I have not seen the edition personally. EDITIO PRINCEPS? Sallustius Crispus, Caius. Invectiva in Ciceronem. Ps.Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Pius II, Epistola contra V ernandum de recommendatione poesis ad Guillelmum de Lapide; Epitaphium Leonardi [Bruni] Aretini. [Colonia, typ. Dares (Johannes Solidi (Schilling)), c. 1471]. The copies are presented in: Belgium – Bruxelles BR; France – Paris BN; Germany – Heidelberg UB; Mainz PriesterSem; Great Britain – Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; Manchester JRL 18491; Oxford Bodley; Italy – Firenze Laur; Roma Cas; Netherlands – The Hague MMW II 461; Leiden UB 454; Utrecht UB 673. H 14236; IGI 8564 (1472!).

194

Appendix

EDITIO PRINCEPS? Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino. Venezia, Vindelino da Spira, 1471. Inc. V. 564 (1471), ff. 66 r–70v. The copies are presented in: Italy – Bergamo C; Firenze Laur; Milano Triv.; Ravenna C; Roma Cors; Torino N; Venezia N. H 14198; IGI 8528, p. 10. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. [Fivizzano, Jacopo da Fivizzano], 1474; IGI 8531. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Giovanni da Colonia e Johann Manthen, 23 III 1474. H 14201; IGI 8532. Cicero, Marcus T ullius. In Catilinam orationes. [Cum:] Ps.-Cicero, In Catilinam invectiva V; Ps.-Catilina, In Ciceronem responsiva oratio; Sallustius, In Ciceronem et invicem. Paris, Louis Simonel, c. 1475. H 14190, Copinger 1611, GKW 6779. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Filippo da Lavagna, V kal. dec. [27 XI] 1476. H 14204; IGI 8535. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Jacopo Marliano, XXII kal. dec. [22 XII?] 1477. H 14205; IGI 8536. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Filippo di Pietro, 22 VI 1478. H 14207; IGI 8538. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. [Vicenza, Giovanni Leonardo Longo, post 22 VI 1478]. Inc. 485, ff. 49r–52r. H 14187; IGI 8539. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. [Milano, typ. Riccius, c. 1480]. IGI 8541. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, [Nicolò Girardengo], 1480. H 14210; IGI 8542. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. In Catilinam orationes. [Cum:] Ps.-Cicero, In Catilinam invectiva V; Ps.-Catilina, In Ciceronem responsiva oratio; Felicius Durantinus: De coniuratione Catilinae; Sallustius, In Ciceronem et invicem. Paris, Louis Simonel, c. 1480. Hain-Copinger 14208, GKW 6781. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Battista Torti, 23 XII 1481. H 14211; IGI 8543.


195

Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Roma, [Eucharius Silber], 17 IV 1482. H 14213; IGI 8545. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Venezia, Bernardino Benali e soci, 23 IV 1485. H 14216; IGI 8546. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, [Gaspare da Cantone], 4 V 1485. H 14215; IGI 8547. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Martialis, Distichon; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. Curavit Justinianus Romanus. [Venezia], Giovanni Rosso e Francesco de’ Madi, [c. 1490]. H 14193?; IGI 8548, 8549. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Filippo Pinzi, II V 1491. H 14222; IGI 8551. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Teodoro Ragazzoni, 9 VII 1492. H 14223; IGI 8552. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Milano, Ulrich Scinzenzeler , 31 I 1493. H 14225; IGI 8553. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. V enezia, Giovanni T acuino 5 VIII 1493. H 14226; IGI 8554. * Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem; Excerpta ex libris historiarum. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Vita Sallustii. Venezia, Bernardino Benali, [1493?]. H 14221; IGI 8555. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus; Excerpta ex libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Castigavit Pomponius Laetus. Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maffeum; Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus, Epistolae duo ad Barthlomaeum fratrem; Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Epistola responsiva in Ciceronem. Brescia, Ber-

196

Appendix

nardino Misinta, ed. Angelo e Jacopo de’ Britannici, id. ian. [13 I] 1495. H 14230; IGI 8557. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius Valla; De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus; Excerpta ex libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Castigavit Pomponius Laetus. Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus, Epistolae duo ad Barthlomaeum fratrem; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. [V enezia, Cristoforo de’ Pensi, post 1496]. Inc. 312, ff. 105r–107r. H 14228, 14229; IGI 8558, 8559. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione, comm. Laurentius V alla, Omnibonus Leonicenus; De bello iugurthino, comm. Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus; Excerpta ex libris historiarum; Invectiva in Ciceronem. Castigavit Pomponius Laetus. Revisit Johannes Britannicus. [Cum:] Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; Johannes Chrysostomus Soldus, Epistolae duo ad Barthlomaeum fratrem; V ita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium; Catilina, Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem. Venezia, Giovanni Tacuino, 20 VII 1500. H 14233; IGI 8560. C. Crispi Sallustii Liber de coniuratione Catilinae. De Bello Iugurthino. In M. T. Ciceronem invectiva. M. T. Ciceronis in Crispum Sallustium responsio. Florentia. Giunta. 1503. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. V enetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri mense Aprili MDIX. [1509] pp. 149–159. Sallustius Crispus, Caius. De Catilinae coniuratione; De bello iugurthino; Invectiva in Ciceronem. [Cum:] Vita Sallustii; Cicero, Responsio in Sallustium. Pomponius Laetus, Epistola ad Augustinum Maf feum; V enezia, Giovanni Tacuino, die XIX Maii MDXI. [1511]; ff. 126r–129r. C. Crispi Sallustii Catilina et Jugurthina cum reliquis collectaneis ab Ascensio; utcunque explanatis; hic suum capit f inem diligenti recognitione. Impressum V enetiis per Bartholomeum de Zannis de Portesio. Anno Domini MDXIII. Die tertio mensis Februarii. [1513]; ff. 30r–33r. C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino historiae. Cum aliis quibusdam, quae sequens indicabit pagella. Ioan. Gryphius excudebat Venetiis 15 . . ?; pp. 142–152. Caii Crispi Sallustii Historiographi Opus una cum infrascriptis commentaries videlicet: Laurentii Vallae: Omniboni Leoniceni: et Iodoci Badio Ascensii in eiusdem bello Catilinario. In bello vero Iugurthino fratris Ioannis Chrisostomi Soldi Brixiani, eiusdem Ascensii. Philippi Beroaldi invectivarum Ciceronis comendatione. Eiusdem Sallustii in Ciceronem invectiva, Ciceronis in eundem responsive. Venetiis, per Bernardinum de Vianis de Lexona Vercellensem. Anno domini MDXXI. Die XV Novembris. [1521]; f f. 146 v–149r. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Oratio contra


197

M. T. Ciceronem. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orationes quatuor contra Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra L. Catilinam. Basileae, 1521. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae. Eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T . Ciceronem. M. T. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orations quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Porcii Latronis declamatio contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repurgata sunt, ac quo quaeque ordine optime digesta. Venetiis in Aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani soceri mense Ianuario MDXXI. [1522]; ff. 93v–99r. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, eiusdem de Bello Iugurthino; orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Eiusdem oratio contra M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem orationes quatuor contra Lucium Catilinam. Quae omnia solerti nuper cura repur gata sunt, ac suo quaeque ordine optime digesta. Venetiis per Franciscum Garonum. Anno domini MCCCCCXXVI, Idibus Ianuarii. [1526]; ff. 81v–86r. L. Apuleii Madaurensis Opera; C.Crispi Sallustii Opera. Florentiae per haeredes Philippi Iuntae Anno Domini. MDXXVII, Mense Iunii [1527]; ff. 97v–102v. C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem Oratio: et Ciceronis in eundem Responsio: cum F. Sylvii Ambiani Commentariis. Apud Iodocum Badium Ascensium. Cum privilegio. Parisiis, mense Maio Anno MDXXXII [1532]. C. Crispi Sallusti in M. T . Ciceronem Oratio. Ciceronis … Responsio. Cum scholiis rhetoricis F. Iammetii Textoris. – Parisiis apud Hieronym. Gormotum 1535. Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Reverendo D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri Criniti de historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T . Ciceronis oratio in L. Catilinam. C. Crispi Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum interpretationibus Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascensii; bellum Iugurthinum cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eiusdem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes duae ad Caesarem senem de Republica. Venetiis in aedibus Ioannis Tacuini de Tridino. Anno MDXXXVI, Die XXI Ianu. [1536]; ff. 142r–144r. C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione ac Bello Iugurthino historiae. Ciceronis oratio contra C. Crispum Sallustium. Eiusdem quatuor orationes contra Lucium Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex lib. Historiarum C. Cr. Sallustii. Lugduni, Sebast. Gryphius. 1540. Hoc in volumine C. Crispi Sallustii haec omnia continentur. Epistola Pomponii ad Augustinum Mapfeum; Epistola Io. Badii Ascensii nobiliss. ac Reverendo D. Francisco Rouhan Lugdunensium Archipraesuli; Ex libris Petri Criniti de historicis, ac oratoribus latinis. M. T . Ciceronis oratio in L. Catilinam. C. Crispi Sallustii vita; C. Crispi Sallustii bellum Catilinarium cum interpretationibus Laurentii Vall., Omniboni Leoniceni, et Io. Badii Ascensii; bellum Iugurthinum cum comm. Io. Chry. Soldi Brixiani, necno et eius-

198

Appendix

dem Ascensii; M. T. Ciceronis in Catilinam invectivae quinque; Orationes duae ad Caesarem senem de Republica. Venetiis in aedibus Ioannis Tacuini de Tridino. Anno MDXLI, Die I Augu. [1541]; ff. 142r–144r. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in M. T. Ciceronem oratio. M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes IIII. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. V enetiis, apud Hieronymum Scotum. MDXLVI [1546]; ff. 110v–116r. C. Crispi Sallustii de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino historiae; in M. T . Ciceronem oratio. M. T ullii Ciceronis ad Sallustium Responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes V . Lucii Catilinae in M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis Declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Sallustii. Venetiis, MDXLVII [1547]; ff. 128r–132r. C. Crispi Sallustii de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, ac Bello Iugurthino historiae; eiusdem in M. T. Ciceronem. M. T. Cic. in Sallustium Recriminatio. Porcii Latronis Declamatio contra L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum C. Crispi Sallustii. Apud Seb. Gryphium, Lugduni, 1551; pp. 181–194. C. Crispi Sallustii in M. T. Ciceronem invectiva oratio et Ciceronis in eundem responsio. Parisii Richardus, 1554. C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae. In M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L. Catilinam orationes quinque, Lucii Catilinae in M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Salustii. Cum Iodoci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus, et aliorum doctissimorum virorum commentariis et annotationibus sparsim appositis, quibus dif ficillima quaeque Salustii loca explicantur , et explanantur. Viri autem illi qui praeter iam dictum Ascensium, Salustianum hoc opus interpretantur, hi sunt Laurentius Valla, Ioan. Chrysostomus Soldus, Bartholomaeus Marlianus, Franciscus Sylvius Ambianus, Iacobus Crucius Bononiensis. Adiectis praeterea duobus locupletissimis indicibus, quorum alter histiriarum Salustii memorabilia: alter ea, quae ab interpretibus annotata sunt, plane demostrat. V enetiis, Apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum. MDLXV. [1555]; ff. 119v–120r, 121r–122r. C. Sallustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et Bello Iugurthino historiae; eiusdem orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum. Orationes contrariae, quarum altera Salustio tribuitur, altera Ciceroni. Venetiis, in Aedibus Aldi MDLVII [1557]; ff. 133v–140v. C. Sallustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de Bello Iugurthino; eiusdem orationes quaedam ex libris historiarum. Orationes contrariae, quarum altera Salustio tribuitur , altera Ciceroni. V enetiis, in Aedibus Aldi MDLX [1560]; ff. 122r–128r. Caii Sallustii Crispi de L. Sergii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino historiae; cum aliis quibusdam, quae sequens indicabit pagella. Patavii, Ioan. Gryphius excudebat, MDLXIII. [1563]; pp. 142–152.


199

C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum; eiusdem nonnulla ex libris historiarum; oratio Sallustii in Ciceronem, et altera in Sallustium Ciceroni falso attributa; omnia nunc primum post Aldi Manutii editionem ex antiquitatis fontibus quamaccuratissime correcta: necnon variis lectionibus, doctisque annotationibus illustrata. His accessit Liber singularis, qui inscribitur; fragmenta Historiarum C. Sallustii Crispi e scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. collecta. Scholia eiusdem. Index rerum et verborum memorabilium. Antverpiae; ex of ficina Christophori Plantini. M.D.LXIIII. [1564] Cum privilegio ad VI. annos; pp. 211–222. C. Crispi Salustii Latinorum historicorum praestantissimi, opera, quae quidem extant, omnia: videlicet, L. Sergii Caqtilinae contra Senatum Rom. Coniuratio, seu Bellum Catilinum item Bellum Iugurthinum. Una cum doctissimorum tam superioris quam nostri seculi virorum commentariis, castigationibus, scholiis, longe quam antehac emendationibus: nempe Laurentii Vallae, Iod. Badii Ascensii, Ioan. Chrisost. Soldi, Iacobi Bononiensis, Omniboni Leoniceni, Bartholomaei Zanchi, V incent. Castilionei, Ioannis Rivii, Henrici Glareani, quibus accesserunt, praeter eiusdem et M. T. Ciceronis orationes contrarias, item Ciceronis et Porcii Latronis in Catilinam invectivas, et fragmehta quaedam ex libris Historiarum Salustii; etiam Constantii Felicii Durantini historia coniurationis Catilinae, non pauca a Salustio praetermissa continens; item rerum et verborum toto opere memorabilium index copiosus. Cum Caesereae Maiest. Gratia et privilegio Basileae, per Henricum Petri. 1564; pp. 1021–1032. C. Salustii Crispi de coniuratione Catilinae, et de bello Iugurthino Historiae. In M. Tullium Ciceronem oratio, M. Tullii Ciceronis ad Salustium responsio. Eiusdem Ciceronis in L Catilinam orationes quinque, Lucii Catilinae in M. T. Ciceronem orationes responsivae duae. Porcii Latronis declamatio in L. Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam ex libris historiarum Salustii. Cum Iodoci Badii Ascensii in haec omnia familiaribus explanationibus, et aliorum doctissimorum virorum commentariis et annotationibus sparsim appositis, quibus difficillima quaeque Salustii loca explicantur , et explanantur . Viri autem illi qui praeter iam dictum Ascensium, Salustianum hoc opus interpretantur, hi sunt Laurentius V alla, Ioan. Chrysostomus Soldus, Bartholomaeus Marlianus, Franciscus Sylvius Ambianus, Iacobus Crucius Bononiensis. Adiectis praeterea duobus locupletissimis indicibus, quorum alter histiriarum Salustii memorabilia: alter ea, quae ab MDLXV . [1565]; ff. 119v–120r, 121r–122r. C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta interpretibus annotata sunt, plane demostrat. V enetiis, Apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum eiusdem historiarum, e scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Paulli F . collecta. Scholia Aldi Manutii. V enetiis, in Aedibus Aldi MDLXVII [1567]; ff. 122v–128v. In Sallustii Crispi Catilinam, et Iugurtham, Ioannis Rivii Castigationum lib. II Aldi Manutii Paulli F. Scholia Cypriani a Popma Emendationes in Historiarum lib. VI a Ludovico Carrione collectos, auctos, et restitutos. Eiusdem Lud. Carrionis Scholia. Antverpiae. Ex of ficina Christophori Plantini Architypographi Regii. MDLXXIX. [1579]

200

Appendix

C. Crispi Salustii De L. Ser gii Catilinae coniuratione, et Bello Iugurthino historiae, cum reliquis orationibus, quas index sequentis paginae docebit. Venetiis, apud Ioan. Gryphium, MDLXXXIIII [1584]; pp. 142–152. Caii Sallustii Crispi opera quae exstant, una cum fragmentis. Antverpiae, Apud Christophorum Plantinum. MDLXXXVII [1587]; pp. 132–141. C. Crispi Salustii Historiae, De coniuratione L. Catilinae, De bello Iugurthino, Ad haec Salustii oratio in M. Tullium Ciceronem. Ciceronis responsio ad Salustium. Orationes quatuor in Catilinam, etiam Ciceronis. Fragmentum orationis Cic. De moribus Catilinae. Portii Latronis declamatio in Catilinam. Fragmenta quaedam, ex libris historiarum Salustii. Omnia haec, ad authentica exemplaria collata: et variis lectionibus expolita: addito quoq; auctoris elogio, necnon Chronico, pro ratione temporis una cum Henrici Glareani annotationibus. Et Coelii Secundi Curionis, nunc primum editis. Iacobi Bononiensis scholiis. Huldrichi Hutteni stosculis. Rerum ac verborum Indice copiosissimo Basileae, per Sebastianum Henricpetri. Anno 1590; pp.167–179. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Helias Putschius ex ifde vetustiss. Cod. Correxit, et Notas addidit; idem Fragmenta centum locis auxit et interpolavit. Adiecta v.c. Petri Ciacconii Toletani Notae. Ex Officina Plantiniana Raphelengii, [Leiden], MDCII. [1602]; pp. 215–226. C.Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant ex recognitione Iani Gruteri accedunt. Castigg. Annotat. Notae as Scholia Glareani, Popmae, Aldi nepotis, Palmerii, Coleri, Rivii, Carrionis, Ursini, Dousae, Putschii. Francofurti. E Collegio Paltheniano, Sumptibus Ionae Rhodii MDCVII. [1607]; pp. 129–135. C. Crispi Sallustii Opera Quae exstant, Omnia variarum Lectionum, ac libellorum quos pagina sequens indicat, accessione aucta: atque accuratius emendata. Superiorum permissu. Romae. Ex of ficina Sforziniana, et Pippia MDCIX. [1609] Apud Iacobum Mascardum; pp. 217–228. C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae, et Bellum Iugurthinum. Fragmenta eiusdem historiarum, et scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Paulli F . collecta. Scholia Aldi Manutii. Venetiis, MDCX. [1610]; pp. 208–218. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant. Ad Petri Ciacconii, Heliae Putschii, aliorumque notas et observations recognita. Raphelengii. Plantinus. 1612. C. Crispus Sallustius. Amstelredami, apud Guil. Ianssonium, 1621; pp.170–176. C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Lugduni Batavorum. Ex officina Elzeviriana. Anno 1634; pp. 205–216. Caius Sallustius Crispus, primus in historia cum fragmentis veterum historicorum huic Editioni accesserunt Monita Politica, Ethica, Militaria & alia ex Sallustio; Ciceronis Orat. invectivae in Catilinam, Porcii Latronis Declamatio in eundem. Ad Illustrem, nobilissimum ac magnif icum D. Claudium Salmasium. Lugd. Batavorum ex Of ficina Typographica Justi Livii MDCXLV. [1645]; pp. 199–209. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. Ed. J. Ph. Pareus. Frankfurt, 1649. * C. Sallustii Crispi Opera, quae extant, omnia: cum selectissimis V ariorum observationibus et accurata recensione Antonii Thysii. Editio secunda Auctior et Emendatior Lugduni Batavorum. Apud Franciscum Hackium. 1649; pp. 543–546.


201

C. Sallustius Crispus cum veterum Historicorum fragmentis. Amstelodami. Ex officina Elzeviriana. Anno 1658; pp. 205–216. * C. Sallustii Crispi Opera, quae extant, omnia: cum selectissimis V ariorum observationibus et accurata recensione Antonii Thysii. Editio secunda Auctior et Emendatior Lugduni Batavorum. Apud Franciscum Hackium. 1659; pp. 543–546. * C. Sallustii Crispi Quae exstant. Ex recensione I. F. Gronovii cum Variorum Observationibus ab Ant. Thysio collectis. Lugd. Batav. Et Roterod. Ex Officina Hackiana. 1665; pp. 543–546. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, diligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Parisiis, apud Fredericum Leonard T ypographum Regis, Serenissimi Delphini, et Cleri Gallicani. MDCLXXIV. Cum privilegio Regis [1674]; pp. 225–234. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. Ed. J. Ph. Pareus. Frankfurt, 1676. * C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant cum commentariis integris Ioh. Rivii, Aldi Manutii, Petri Ciacconii, Fulvii Ursini et Heliae Putschii, et selectis Iani Gruteri, H. Glareani, Cypr. a Popma, Ludov. Carrionis, Iani Douzae, et aliorum. Accedunt huic Editioni Iani Melleri Palmerii spicilegia in eundem Auctorem. Cum Indice Rerum et Verborum locupletissimo. Editio novissima Lugd. Batav . Ex Of ficina Hackiana, a. MDCLXXVII. [1677]; pp. 569–573. * C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia quae exstant cum commentariis integris Ioh. Rivii, Aldi Manutii, Petri Ciacconii, Fulvii Ursini et Heliae Putschii, et selectis Iani Gruteri, H. Glareani, Cypr. a Popma, Ludov. Carrionis, Iani Douzae, et aliorum. Accedunt huic Editioni Iani Melleri Palmerii spicilegia in eundem Auctorem. Cum Indice Rerum et V erborum locupletissimo. Editio novissima Amstelodami. Ex Of ficina Henrici et V iduae Theodori Boom, MDLXXXX. [1690]; pp. 569–573. C. Crispi Sallustii opera omnia cum Historicorum veterum fragmentis: quae variis variorum in eum, quin [et] suis observationibus, dilucidavit, nec minus adjecta Chrestomathia philologici-oratoria auxit M. Samuel Grosser. Dresdae; Lipsiae. Joh. Christ. Mithius [et] Joh. Christ. Zimmermannus. 1699. * C. Crispi Sallustii Quae exstant; cum Notis Integris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacconii, Gruteri, Carrionis, Manutii, Putschii, Dousae, Selectis Castilionei, C. et A. Popmae, Palmerii, Ursini, J. Fr. Cronovii, Victorii etc. Accedunt Julius Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et Fragmenta historicorum vett. Cum Notis A. Popmae. Recensuit, Notas perpetuas, et Indices adiecit Josephus Wasse, Coll. Regin. apud Cantab. Socius; et Nobiliss. Marchoni de Kent a Sacris Domesticis. Praemittitur Sallustii V ita, Auctore, V .Cl. Joanne Clerico. Cantabrigiae, Typis Academicis, apud Cornelium Crownf ield, Celeberrimae Academiae Typographum MDCCX. [1710]; pp. 139–143. C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Ex optimis codd. accuratissime castigata. Accedunt Julius Exsuperantius, Porcius Latro; et fragmenta historicorum veterum. In quibus quid praestitum nunc primum sit, et quae adiuncta his fuerint, indicat Epistola ad Lectorem. Patavii, CDCCXXII. Excudebat Josephus Cominus superiorum permissu. [1722]; pp. 203–213.

202

Appendix

Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Republica ordinanda, declamatio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis in Sallustium nec non Jul. Exsuperantius de bellis civilibus ac Porcius Latro in Catilinam recensuit diligentissime et adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, accedunt fragmenta veterum historicorum Constantius Felicius Durantinus de Coniuratione Catilinae et Index necessarius. Lipsiae. Apud Joh. Frid. Gleditschii B. Filium. MDCCXXIV. [1724]; pp. 1048–1069. Caii Crispi Sallustii quae exstant item Epistolae de Republica ordinanda, declamatio in Ciceronem et Pseudociceronis in Sallustium nec non Jul. Exsuperantius de bellis civilibus ac Porcius Latro in Catilinam recensuit diligentissime et adnotationibus illustravit Gottlieb Cortius, accedunt fragmenta veterum historicorum Constantius Felicius Durantinus de Coniuratione Catilinae et Index necessarius. V enetiis, excudit Jo. Baptista Paschalius. MDCCXXXVII. Superiorum permissu, ac privilegio. [1737]; pp. 893–912. C. Crispi Sallustii quae exstant. Cum notis integris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacconii, Ursini, Carrionis, Manutii, Coleri, C. et A. Popmae, Palmerii, Putschii, Douzae, Gruteri, Ruperti, Graswinckelii, et Josephi W asse; atque selectis Castilionei, Zanchii, J. Fr. Gronovii, Jani Broukhusii etc. Accedunt Julius Exsuperantius et Porcius Latro, ut et Fragmenta Historicorum, cum notis integris A. Popmae, Coleri, Ruperti, Wasse, Broukhusii, etc. Cura Sigeberti Havercampi cum Indicibus copiosissimis. Tomus primus, tomus secundus. Amstelaedami, apud F. Chaguion, J, Catuffe, H. Uytwerf. Hagae Comitis, apud P. Gosse, J. Neaulme, A. Moetjens, A. V an Dole. Ultrajecti, apud Steph. Neaulme. M.DCCXLII. [1742]; v. II, pp. 206–220. C. Crispi Sallustii Catilinarium et Jugurthinum Bellum P . Guidonis Ferrarii S. J. diligentia illustratum ad usum Universitatis Braydensis. In hac novissima editione. Accedunt reliqua Sallustii quae extant omnia una cum Porcii Latronis in Catilinam Declamatione, et Veterum Historicorum Fragmentis. Venetiis, MDCCLXI. Ex Typographia Remondiniana. Superiorum permissu, ac privilegio. [1761]; pp. 183–190. C. Sallustii Crispi Opera cum duabus orationibus ad C. Caesarem et Declamationibus una in Ciceronem in Sallustium altera. Halae, Impensis Orphanotrophei anno MDCCLXXII. [1772]; pp. 197–208. C. Crispus Sallustius et L. Annaeus Florus. Birminghamiae: Typis Joannis Baskerville. M.D.CCLXXIII. [1773]; pp. 196–198. Caii Crispi Sallustii Opera novissime recognita emendata et illustrata, praemittuntur vita a Io. Clerico scripta et notitia literaria studiis societatis bipontiae. Editio II accuratior et auctior . Biponti apud Petrum Hallanzy MDCCLXXX. [1780]; pp. 315–326. C. Crispi Sallustii quae extant opera ex optimis codicibus accuratissime castigata. Cum notis selectioribus. V enetiis MDCCLXXXVI. Apud Thomam Bettinelli. Cum Facultate, ac Privilegio. [1786]; pp. 276–290. C. Sallustii Crispi quae exstant. In usum serenissimi Galliarum Delphini, diligenter recensuit, notulas addidit Daniel Crispinus. Bassani, MDCCXC. Prostant Venetiis apud Remondini. Superiorum Permissu ac Privilegio. [1790]; pp. 225–234.


203

C. Crispi Sallustii Opera omnia. T omus I et II. Parmae in Aedibus Palatinis typis Bodonianis MDCCIC [1799]. C. C. Sallustii Catilinaria et Iugurthina bella, editio stereotypa. Parisiis, ex officina stereotypa P. Didot natu majoris, et F. Didot. Anno 1801. C. Crispi Sallustii opera cum historiarum fragmentis, duabus epistolis as C. Caesarem et declamationibus, una in Ciceronem, in Sallustium altera. Editio emendatior. Halae, Berolini. 1817. Caius Crispus Sallustius ad codices parisinos recensitus cum varietate lectionum et novis commentariis item Iulius Exsuperantius e codice nondum explorato emendatus curante J. L. Burnouf. Rhetorices in collegio Ludovici Magni, et eloquentiae Latinae in Regio Franciae Collegio professore. Parisiis. Colligebat Nicolaus Eligius Lemaire Poeseos Latinae Professor MDCCCXXI. [1821] Caius Crispus Sallustius cum veterum historicorum fragmentis. Bassani, suis typis Remondini edidit, 1851; pp. 165–173. M. Tullii Ciceronis opera quae supersunt omnia ex recensione Io. Casp. Orellii. Editio altera emendatior. Opus morte Orellii interruptum continuaverunt I. G. Baiterus et C. Halmius. Voluminis II. Pars II. Turici, sumptibus ac typis Orellii Füsslini et sociorum. Londinii, Williams et Norgate. Amstelodami, Io. Müller. MDCCCLVI. [1856]; pp. 1424–1430. C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum reliquiae potiores incerti rhetoris suasoriae ad Caesarem senem de Re Publica Henricus Jordaniterum recognovit, accedunt incerti rhetoris invectivae T ullii et Sallustii personis tributae. Berolini apud Weidmannos MDCCCLXXVI. [1876]; pp. 145–156. Wirz H., Sallustius in Ciceronem, ein klassisches Stück Anticicero. In: Festschrift M. Büdingers, Innsbruck, 1898: 91–116. Sallusti in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Recensuit Alphonsus Kurfess. Lipsiae in aedibus B. G. Teubneri MCMXIV [11914], 51970. Kurfess A. Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero. Ein Pamphlet aus dem Jahre 54 v. Chr., Selbstverlag des Verfassers. (‘Sonderausgabe’) Sallust with an English T ranslation by J. C. Rolfe, Professor of Latin in the University of Pennsylvania. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, London William Heinemann LTD, 11921, 21931; pp. 492–521. Sallustio Minore. Invectivae in Ciceronem, Epistolae ad Caesarem. Studio introduttivo e commento di D. Romano. 1948. Sallust, Werke und Schriften, hsg. und übersetzt von W. Schöne unter Mitwirkung von W. Eisenhut. München, 21960, 31965. * C. Sallustius Crispus. Invektive und Episteln. Hsg., übersetzt und kommentiert von Karl Vretska. B. I, Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung. B. II. Kommentar, Wortindex zur Invektive. Heidelberg, 1961. Pseudo-Sallust. Lettres à César, Invectives. Texte établie, traduit et commenté par A. Ernout. Paris, Société d’ Édition “Les Belles Lettres”, 1962. * Appendix Sallustiana. Invectiva in M. T ullium Ciceronem. Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione e commento a cura di E. Pasoli. Bologna, 1989 (11965). * Opere di Caio Sallustio Crispo a cura di Paolo Frassinetti e Lucia di Salvo. Torino, 1991 (11963); pp. 574–581.

204

Appendix

C. Sallusti Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta, Appendix Sallustiana. Recognovit breviore adnotatione critica instruxit L. D. Reynolds, collegii Aenei Nasi apud Oxonienses Socius. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1991; pp. 223–237. Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, London, England 2002; pp. 359–391.

Bibliography

205

Bibliography Editions C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha … Ed. by H. Jordan. Berlin, 1876. Sallustii in Ciceronem et Invicem Invectivae. Ed. by A. Kurfess. Leipzig,11914, 21950, 31958, 41962, 51970. C. Sallustii Crispi Catilina, Iugurtha … Ed. by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford, 1991.

Catalogues of Manuscripts A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. II, III (London 1808). A Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, I 2 (Cambridge 1856), II 2 (Cambridge 1857). A Descriptive Catalogue of the Additional Illuminated Manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam Museum, by Fr . Wormald & Ph. M. Giles, v . 1 (Cambridge 1982). A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, by M. Rhodes James, v . 2 (Cambridge 1908). A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge, by M. Rhodes James (Cambridge 1905). A Summary Catalogue of Microfilms of One Thousand Scientific Manuscripts in the Ambrosiana Library, Milan, by A. L. Gabriel (Notre Dame, Indiana USA 1968). A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford by F. Madan, vol. III (Oxford 1895), vol. IV (Oxford 1897), vol. V (Oxford 1905). Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu T rier, 9. Heft, Die juristischen Handschriften von Dr . G. Kentenich (T rier 1919). Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci V enetiarum a G. V alentinelli, t. IV Codices mss. latini (Venetiis 1871). Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis14, Codices Vossiani Latini descripsit K. A. De Meyier, pars II, codices in quarto (Leiden 1975). Biblioteche e Archivi, v. 5, Manoscritti medievali della Toscana, v. 2, I manoscritti medievali della Provincia di Prato a cura di S. Bianchi ecc. (Firenze 1999). Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae pars III, conf. H. O. Coxe (Oxford 1854). Catalogo dei codici latini della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia, a P. Zorzanello, v. 1 (Trezzano 1980), v. 2 (Trezzano 1981), v. 3 (Trezzano 1985).

206

Bibliography

Catálogo de los Códices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial por el P.Guillermo Antolín, vol. II (Madrid 1911), vol. III (Madrid 1913). Catalogo de Manuscritos de la Biblioteca de Santa Cruz por M. de las Nieves Alonso-Cortés (Valladolid 1976). Catalogo descrittivo dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Comunale di Verona, a G. Biadego (Verona 1892). Catalogo sommario dei manoscritti del fondo Rossi, sezione Corsiniana, di A. Petrucci (Roma 1977). Catalogue des Manuscrits de classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Royale de Bruxelles par P. Thomas (Gand 1896). Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques Publiques de France, Départements, t. 1 (Paris 1849), t. 2 (Paris 1855), t. 3 (Paris 1861), t. 7 (Paris 1885), t. 13 (Paris 1891), t. 37 (Paris 1900), t. 39, Reims t. 2 (Paris 1904). Catalogue methodique et raisonne des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de la ville et de l’ Universitè de Gand, par le Baron J. De Saint-Genois (Gand 1849–1852). Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1841–1845 (London 1964, 11850). Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1846–1847 (London 1964, 11864). Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1854–1860 (London 1965, 11875). Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum 1876–1881 (London 1968, 11882). Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. New Series, v . 1, p. 1 The Arundel Manuscripts (London 1834). Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. New Series, v . 1, p. 2 The Burney Manuscripts (London 1834). Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Library Yale University, v. 1 (New York 1984), v. 3 Marston Manuscripts by B. A. Shailor (New York 1992). Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections in the British Museum by G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, v. III (Oxford 1921). Catalogue sommaire des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Sélestat, ch. 12: Medicine, sciences naturelles. Catalogus Bibliothecae Latinae veteris et classicae manuscriptae quae in Regio Neapolitano Museo Borbonico adservatur descriptus a C. Iannellio (Napoli 1827). Catalogus codicum Bernensium (bibliotheca Bongarsiana) ed. H. Hagen (Bern 1875). Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, t.1 (Firenze 1774). Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, t. I, p. I (München 1892), p. II (München 1894), t. II, p. I (München 1874), p. III (München 1878), p. IV (München 1881). Catalogus codicum latinorum classicorum qui in Bibliotheca Urbica W ratislaviensi adservantur, comp. a K. Ziegler (Bratislava 1915). Catalogus codicum mss. bibliothecae Bernensis cur . J. R. Sinner , t. 1 (Bern 1760).

Bibliography

207

Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae pars III t. III, t. IV (Paris 1744). Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum, qui in bibliotheca Canonicorum regularium S. Augustini Claustroneobur gi asservantur; auct. H. Pfeif fer, t. 1 (Wien 1922). Catalogus codicum philologicorum latinorum Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis von St. Endlicher (Wien 1836). Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada by S. de Ricci with the assistance of W . J. W ilson, t. 1 (New Y ork 1935), t. 2 (New York 1937). Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Latini (Lugduni Batavorum 1912). Cunningham I. C. “Latin classical manuscripts in the National Library of Scotland”, Scriptorium 27, n. 1, 1973; 64–90. Derolez A. Corpus catalogorum Belgii, The medieval Booklists of the Southern Low Countries. Brussel, 1994–2001. Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel beschr. v. O. v. Heinemann, Vierte Abt.: Die Gudischen Handschriften, Bd. IX (W olfenbüttel 1913). Die Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg, B. IV Die lateinische Mittelalterlichen Handschriften bearb. von I. Neske (Wiesbaden 1997). Die Handschriften der Württember gischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, 1. Reihe, 2. Band, Codices Poetici et Philologici von W . Irtenkauf und I. Krekler (Wiesbaden 1981). Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, Die Handschriften aus der Folioreihe, zweite Hälfte; beschrieben von N. Daniel, G. Schott, P. Zahn (Wiesbaden 1979). Die lateinischen mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München, Die Handschriften aus der Oktavreihe; beschrieben von N. Daniel (Wiesbaden 1989). Die lateinischen Papierhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen beschr. von H. Fischer (Erlangen 1936). Gameson R. The Manuscripts of Early Norman England c.1066–1 130 (The British Academy 1999). Handschriftencensus Rheinland, hsg. von G. Gattermann (Wiesbaden 1993). Handschriften-Katalog der Königlichen Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Erlangen bearbeitet von J. C. Irmischer (Frankfurt a. M. und Erlangen 1852). Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia, v. 3, a cura di G. Mazzatinti (Forlì 1893), v. 11, a cura di G. Mazzatinti e F . Pintor (Forlì 1901) v. 12, a cura di G. Mazzatinti e F. Pintor (Forlì 1902–1903), v. 88, a cura di G. Garosi (Firenze 1972). Inventaris van de Handschriften in de Universiteitsbibliotheck te Gent door Dr. A. Derolez (Gent 1977). Katalog der Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg bearb. von Dr. Fr. Leitschuh, 1. Band, 2. Abteilung (Bamberg 1895). La biblioteca Napoletana dei Re d’Aragona di T . de Marinis, (Milano 1947). Manoscritti datati d ’Italia, v . 2, I manoscritti datati della Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze, v. 1 a cura di T. De Robertis e R. Miriello (Firenze 1997).

208

Bibliography

Manuscrits Classiques Latins de la Bibliothèque V aticane, t. I (Vaticane-Paris 1975), t. II, pars 1 (Vaticane-Paris 1978), t. II, pars 2 (Vaticane-Paris 1982), t. III, pars 1 (Vaticane-Paris 1991). Munk Olsen B. L’étude des Auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, t. 1 (Paris 1982), t. 2 (Paris 1985). Passalaqua M. I codici di Prisciano. Roma, 1978. Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada origin.by C. U. Faye, contin. and edited by W.H. Bond (New York 1962). The Western Manuscripts in the Library of T rinity College, Cambridge, a Descriptive Catalogue by M. Rhodes James v. III (Cambridge 1902). Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina V indobonensi Asservatorum, ed. Academia Caesarea V indobonensis, v. I (Wien 1864), v. II (Wien 1868), v. III (Wien 1869). Vatasso e Carusi, codices V aticani Latini. Codices 10301–10700, Roma 1920.

Studies Adams, J. N. 1982, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London. Ahlberg, A. W. 1911, Prolegomena in Sallustium, Göteborg. Albrecht, M. von 2003,Cicero’s Style. A Synopsis followed by selected analytic studies, Leiden. Annibaldis, G. 1977, ‘Invectiva in Ciceronem 4, 7’, Prometheus, 3: 221–224. Arena, V. 2007, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, in: W . Dominik and J. Hall (eds.), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Oxford, 149–160. Badalì, R. 1968, ‘Sui codici dei Paradoxa di Cicerone’, RCCM, 10: 27–58. Balsdon, J. P. and Grif fin, M. T. 1996, ‘T ullius Cicero Marcus’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 1558–1560. Barker-Benfield, B. Ch. 1976, ‘A Ninth-century Manuscript from Fleury: Cato de senectute cum Macrobio’, in: J. J. G. Alexander and M. .TGibson (eds.), Medieval learning and Literature, Oxford, 145–165. Bateson, M. 1898, Catalogue of the Library of Syon Monastery Isleworth , Cambridge. Bauer, B. 1992, ‘Aemulatio’, in: G. Ueding (ed.),Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 1, Darmstadt, 141–187. Baur, S. 1829, ‘Corrado, Sebastian und Qiunto Mario’, in: J. S. Ersch and. J. G. Gruber (eds.), Allgemeine Encyclopädie der W issenschaften und Künste , vol. 19, Leipzig, 370. Beard, M. 1993, ‘Looking (harder) for Roman Myth: Dumézil, declamation and problems of def inition’, in: F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft. Das Paradigma Roms, Stuttgart und Leipzig, 44–64. Becker, C. 1973, ‘Sallust’, in: ANRW, vol. I, 3, Berlin-New York, 720–754. Becker, G. 1885, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, Bonn.

Bibliography

209

Bédier, J. 1928, ‘La T radition manuscrite du ’Lai de l’ombre‘. Réf lexions sur l’art d’éditer les anciens textes’, Romania, 54: 321–356. Berry, D. H. and Heath, M. 1997, ‘Oratory and Declamation’, in: S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC–AD 400, Leiden, 393–420. Bischoff, B. 1979, Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters, Berlin. Bloomer, W. M. 1997a, Latinity and Literary Society at Rome , Philadelphia. Bloomer, W. M. 1997b, ‘Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education’, ClAnt, 16: 57–78. Boissier, G. 1906, Tacitus and other Roman studies, London. Bolaffi, E. 1949, Sallustio e la sua fortuna nei secoli, Roma. Bonner, S.F. 1969, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (1. edn. 1949), Liverpool. Bonner, S.F. 1977, Education in Ancient Rome: Fr om the elder Cato to the younger Pliny, London. Bornecque, H. 1902, Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le Père, Lille. Büchner, K. 1967, Sallustinterpretationen; in Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sallustbuch von Ronald Syme, Stuttgart. Büchner, K. 1982, Sallust (2. edn., 1.edn. 1960), Heidelberg. Canfora, L. 1984, ‘Altri riferimenti ai poemi ciceroniani nell’“Invectiva in Ciceronem”’, Ciceroniana, 5: 101–109. Cappelli, A. 1985,Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane (6. edn., 1.edn.: 1912), Milano. Chiesa, P. 2002, Elementi di critica testuale, Bologna. Chouet, M. 1950, Les Lettres de Salluste à César, Paris. Cizek, A. N. 1994, Imitatio et tractatio. Die literarisch-r hetorischen Grundlagen der Nachahmung in Antike und Mittelalter, Tübingen. Clark, D. L. 1949, ‘Some Values of Roman Declamatio: the Controversia as a School Exercise in Rhetoric’, QJS, 35: 280–283. Clark, D. L. 1950, ‘The Place of Rhetoric in Liberal Education’, QJS, 36: 291–299. Clark, D.L. 1951, ‘Imitation: Theory and Practice in Roman Rhetoric’, QJS, 37: 11–22. Clark, D.L. 1957, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, New York. Clark, M. L. 1971, Higher Education in the Ancient World, London. Clark, M. L. 1951, ‘The thesis in the Roman rhetorical schools of the republic’, CQ, 45: 159–166. Clark, M. L. 1996, Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey (1.edn. 1953), London. Clift, E. H. 1945, Latin Pseudepigrapha. A Study in Literary Attributions, Baltimore. Conte, G. B. 1986,The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, trans. C. Segal, New York. Conte, G. B. 1994, Latin Literature. A History, trans. J. B. Solodow, Baltimore and London.

210

Bibliography

Conte, G. B. and Most, G. W . 1996, ‘Imitatio’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 749. Copinger, W. A. 1895–1902, Supplement to Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographicum or Collections Towards a New Edition of that Work, London. Corbeill, A. 1996, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic, Princeton. Corbeill, A. 2001, ‘Education in the Roman Republic: creating traditions’, in: Y. L. Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden-Boston, 261–287. Corbeill, A. 2002, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, in: J. M. May (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, 197–217. Corbeill, A. 2007, ‘Rhetorical Education and Social Reproduction in the Republic and Early Empire’, in: W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds.),A Companiion to Roman Rhetoric, Malden, MA-Oxford-Carlton, Victoria, 69–82. Corrado, S. 1754, Quaestura: partes duae, quarum altera de Ciceronis vita et libris, item de ceteris Cicer onibus agit; altera Cicer onis libros permultis locis emendat (4. edn.), Sax. Lipsiae. Craig, Ch. 2004, ‘Audience Expectations, Invective, and Proof ’, in: J. Powell and J. Paterson (eds.), Cicero the Advocate, Oxford, 187–213. Dain, A. 1975, Les manuscrits (1.edn. 1949), Paris. Davies, M. 1995, Aldus Manutius: printer and publisher of Renaissance V enice, London. De Rentiis, D. 1998, ‘Imitatio’, in: G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 4, Darmstadt, 235–303. Delz, J. 1997, ‘Textkritik und Editionstechnik’, in: F. Graf (ed.), Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie, Stuttgart und Leipzig, 51–73. Douglas, A. E. 1972, ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric and Roman Oratory’, in: D. Daiches and A. Thorbly (eds.),Literature and Western Civilization, London, 341–354. Dunkle, J. P. 1967, ‘The Greek T yrant and Roman Political Invective of the Late Republic’, TAPA, 98: 151–171. Eisenhut, W. 1965, ‘Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Invectiva in Ciceronem’, Hermes, 93: 467–477. Emonds, H. 1941, Zweite Auflage im Altertum: Kultur geschichtliche Studien zur Überlieferung der antiken Literatur, Leipzig. Eussner, A. 1879, ‘Bericht über die neueste Literatur zu den römischen Historiker (ausser T acitus) bis zum Schlüsse des Jahres 1877’, in: C. Bursian (ed.), Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft: Fünfter Jahrgang, 1877, Berlin, 105–224. Ewbank, W.W. 1933, The Poems of Cicero, London. Fairweather, J. 1981, Seneca the Elder, Cambridge. Fairweather, J. 1984, ‘The Elder Seneca and Declamation’, in: ANRW, vol. II, 32, 1, 514–556. Fantham, E. 1978, ‘Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical Theory and Practice in the First Century after Christ’, CPh, 73: 101–117. Fantham, E. 1997, ‘The contexts and occasions of Roman public rhetoric’, in: W. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literatur e, London-New York, 111–128.

Bibliography

211

Fantham, E. 2004, The Roman World of Cicero’s ‘De Oratore’, Oxford. Farber, W. 1934, Sallust gegen Cicero. Eine sprachliche Untersuchung, Diss., Tübingen. François, G. 1963, ‘Declamatio et disputatio’, AC, 32: 513–540. Funaioli, G. 1920, ‘C. Sallustius Crispus’, in: RE, vol. I, A, 2, 1913–1955. Funaioli, G. 1948, Studi di Letteratura Antica. Spiriti e forme, igure f e problemi delle letterature classiche, vol. II, 1, Bologna. Gabba, E. 1957, ‘Note sulla polemica anticiceroniana di Asinio Pollione’,RSI, 69: 317–339. Gagnér, A. 1936, Florilegium Gallicum. Untersuchungen und T exte zur Geschichte der mittellateinischen Florilegienliteratur, Lund. Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 1934, vol. 6, Leipzig. Goodyear, F. R .D. 1982, ‘Sallust’, in: E. J. Kenney and W . V. Clausen (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literatur e, vol. 2, Latin Literature, Cambridge, 268–280. Grant, M.A. and Fiske, G.C. 1924, ‘Cicero’ s ‘Orator ’ and Horace’ s ‘Ars poetica’’, HSPh, 35: 1–74. Gunderson, E. 2003, Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity . Authority and the Rhetorical Self, Cambridge. Gwynn, A. 1964, Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian (1. edn. 1926), New York. Hafner, A. 1989, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Rhetorik ad Herennium, Bern. Hain, L. 1826–1891, Repertorium bibliographicum, in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD, Stuttgartiae et Tubingae. Hands, A.R. 1959, ‘Sallust and Dissimulatio’, JRS, 49: 56–60. Harrison, J.A. 1978, Roman Education, London. Havet, L. 1911, Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins , Paris. Hejnic, J. 1956, ‘Clodius auctor’, RhM, 99: 255–277. Herzog, CH. G. 1833, Salustii orationis invectivae in M. T ullium Ciceronem denuo castigatae et emendatae specimen, Gera. Hidber, T. 1996, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass: die Praefatio zu ‘De oratoribus veteribus’, Stuttgart und Leipzig. Höhne, E. 1927, Die Geschichte des Sallusttextes im Altertum gezeigt an den beiden Monographien, Diss., München. Housman, A.E. 1989, ‘The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism’, in: C. Ricks (ed.), Collected Poems and Selected Prose, London, 325–339. Imber, M. 2001, ‘Practised Speech: Oral and W ritten Conventions in Roman Declamation’, in: J. Watson (ed.), Speaking volumes: orality and literacy in the Greek and Roman world, Leiden-Boston-Köln. Indice generale degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d’ Italia (IGI) 1972, Roma. Jachmann, G. 1950, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero’,Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia, II, 1: 235–275. Jenkinson, E.M. 1955, ‘Further Studies in the Curriculum of the Roman Schools of Rhetoric in the Republican Period’, SO, 31: 122–130. Jordan, H. 1876, ‘Die Invektiven des Sallust und Cicero’, Hermes, 11 : 305–331.

212

Bibliography

Kaeppeli, T. 1962, Inventari di libri di San Domenico di Perugia (1430–80) , Roma. Kaster, R.A. 1998, ‘Becoming CICERO’, in: P. Knox and C. Foss (eds.), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 248–263. Kaster, R.A. 2001, ‘Controlling Reason: Declamation in Rhetorical Education in Rome’, in: Y . L. T oo (ed.), Education in Gr eek and Roman Antiquity , Leiden-Boston, 317–337. Kennedy, G.A. 1972,The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman W orld: 300 BC–AD 300, Princeton. Kennedy, G.A. 1994, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton. Kennedy, G.A. 1999, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular T radition from Ancient to Modern Times (2. edn.), Chapel Hill. Kirby, J.T. 1997, ‘Ciceronian Rhetoric: Theory and Practice’, in: W . J. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, London-New York, 13–31. Koller, H. 1954, Die Mimesis in der Antike. Nachahmung, Darstellung, Ausdruck, Bern. Koster, S. 1980, Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur , Meisenheim am Glan. Krebs, J. Ph. 1905–1907, Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache (Auf l. 7, genau durchgesehene und vielfach umgearb. von J.H. Schmalz. edn.). Kristeller, P. O., Iter Italicum: Accedunt Alia Itinera. On CD-ROM. A Database of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and other Libraries , consultant ed. L. Floridi, Leiden. Kroll, W. 1927, ‘Die Sprache des Sallust’, Glotta, 15: 280–304. Kurfess, A. 1912, ‘De invectivis quae tamquam Sallustii et Ciceronis traditae sunt’, Mnemosyne, 40: 364–380. Kurfess, A. 1913a, De Sallustii in Cicer onem et invicem invectivis , Diss., Berlin. Kurfess, A. 1913b, ‘Ad Ciceronis in Sallustium quae fertur invectivam’, Mnemosyne, 41: 23–25. Kurfess, A. 1913c, ‘Varia III: Ad Sallustii in Ciceronem quae fertur invectivam. Varia IV : De Fuf ii Caleni in Ciceronem oratione’, Mnemosyne, 41: 145–152. Kurfess, A. 1914a, ‘V aria VIII: Ad Ps.-Cic. in Sall. inv .’, Mnemosyne, 42: 401–403. Kurfess, A. 1914b, ‘Invektiven der Kaiserzeit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Invektive’, Sokrates. Zeitschrift für Gymnasialwesen, 68: 512–524. Kurfess, A. 1915a, ‘Die Anfänge der Invektive in Rom’, Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 103–112. Kurfess, A. 1915b, Die Invektivenpoesie der sullanisch-cäsarischen, augusteischen und nachaugusteischen Zeit: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Invektive, Wohlau. Kurfess, A. 1916, ‘Invektivenpoesie des römischen Altertums’, Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 184–202.

Bibliography

213

Kurfess, A. 1922, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero: ein echtes Stück Sallusts’, Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin, 66–72. Kurfess, A. 1954, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero’, Aevum, 38: 230–238. Latte, K. 1962, Sallust (2. edn., 1. edn. 1935), Darmstadt. Lausberg, H. 1998, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Study. (Germ. orig. 1.edn.1960 München), Leiden-Boston-Köln. Lavery, G.B. 1973, ‘O Romule Arpinas’, CB, 49: 86–89. Leeman, A. D. 1965,A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust (1879–1964), Leiden. Lehman-Haupt, C.F . 1923, ‘Zu Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, Klio, 19: 104–106. Levy, H. L. 1946, ‘Claudian’s ‘In Rufinum’ and the rhetorical «’, TAPA, 77: 57–65. Lipsius, J. 1637, Opera omnia, postremum ab ipso aucta et r ecensita, vol. 1, Antwerpen. Lipsius, J. 1726, Orationes octo, Jena. Maas, P. 1960, Textkritik (4. edn., 1.edn. 1927), Leipzig. Martin, J. 1974, Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode, München. Massa, G. 2006, ‘Sallustio contro Cicerone? I falsi d’autore e la polemica anticiceroniana di Asinio Pollione’, Athenaeum, 94: 415–466. Maurenbrecher, B. 1899, ‘Hans Wirz, Sallustius in Ciceronem’, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 19: 298–303. McKeon, R. 1936, ‘Literary Criticism and the Concept of Imitation in Antiquity’, Modern Philology, 34: 1–35. Merrill, N. W. 1975, Cicero and Early Roman Invective, Diss., Cincinnati. Meyer, E. 1922, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus (3. edn.), Stuttgart-Berlin. Morgan, T. 1998, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman W orlds, Cambridge. Morstein-Marx, R. 2004, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge. Mout, N. (ed.) 1998, Die Kultur des Humanismus: Reden, Briefe, T raktate, Gespräche von Petrarca bis Kepler, München. Murphy, J. J. 1998, ‘The key role of habit in Roman rhetoric and education, as described by Quintilian’, in: T. Albaladejo, E. D. Río, and J. A. Caballero (eds.), Quintiliano: Historia y Actualidad de la Retórica (1), Logroño, 141–150. Nisbet, R. G. M. 1958, ‘The Invectiva in Ciceronem and Epistula Secunda of Pseudo-Sallust’, JRS, 48: 30–32. Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961, Cicero, ‘In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio’ (=1989), Oxford. Novokhatko, A. A. 2002, ‘Eine Liste der Handschriften der im Sallust- und Cicerocorpus überlieferten Invektiven (Sallustii in Ciceronem et invicem Invectivae)’, Eikasmos, 13: 273–286. Oertel, F. 1951, ‘Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, RhM, 94: 46–68. Olivieri Sangiacomo, L. 1954, Sallustio, Firenze. Opelt, I. 1965, Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie, Heidelberg.

214

Bibliography

Paanen, U. 1972, Sallust’s Politico-Social Terminology. It’s Use and Biographical Significance, Helsinki. Paanen, U. 1975, ‘Die Echtheit der ‘pseudosallustischen’ Schriften’, Archivum Historicum, 68: 22–68. Pabón, J. M. 1933, ‘Sobre la tradición del texto de Salustio’, Emerita, 1: 18–101. Pabón, J. M. 1934, ‘Sobre la tradición del texto de Salustio’, Emerita, 2: 1–14. Paladini, V. 1948, Sallustio, Milano. Paratore, E. 1950, ‘Rassegna di studi sallustiani’, ASNP, 19: 155–175. Parks, E.P. 1945, The Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Pr eparation for the Courts underthe Early Empire, Baltimore. Parzinger, P. 1910, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Entwicklung des Cicer onischen Stils, Diss., Erlangen. Pasoli, E. 1965, ‘L’invectiva in Ciceronem e l’evoluzione linguistica di Sallustio’, Helicon, 5: 242–247. Pasoli, E. 1974, Le Historiae e le opere minori di Sallustio (1.edn. 1965), Bologna. Pasquali, G. 1971, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (1.edn. 1934), Firenze. Paterson, J. 1985, ‘Politics in the Late Republic’, in: T . P. W iseman (ed.), Roman Political Life 90 B.C.–A.D. 69, Exeter, 21–43. Peiser, G. 1903, De invectivis, quae Sallustii et Cicer onis nominibus feruntur, Posen. Pelling, C. B. R. 1996, ‘Sallust’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 1348–1349. Perl, G. 1959, ‘Probleme der Sallust-Überlieferung’, F&F, 33: 56–60. Powell, J. G. F. 2007, ‘Invective and the Orator: Ciceronian Theory and Practice’, in: J. Booth (ed.), Cicero on the Attack; Invective in the orations and beyond, Swansea, 1–23. Quentin, H. 1926, Essais de Critique Textuelle (Ecdotique), Paris. Rawson, E. 1976, ‘Homo Novus Arpinas ex M. Crassi Familia, [Sallust], Cic. 3’, LCM, 1: 93–95. Rawson, E. 1985, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, London. Reiff, A. 1959, Interpretatio, imitatio, aemulatio: Begriff und Vorstellung literarischer Abhängigkeit bei den Römern, Diss., Köln. Reitzenstein, R. 1898, ‘Pseudo-Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero’, Hermes, 33: 87–101. Renouard, A. A. 1834, Annales de l’imprimerie des Aldes, ou histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs éditions (3. edn.), Paris. Renouard, Ph. 1908, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de Josse Badius Ascensius: imprimeur et humaniste, 1462–1535, Paris. Reynolds, L. D. (ed.) 1983, Texts and transmission: a survey of the Latin classics, Oxford. Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N.G. 1991, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (3. edn.), Oxford. Russell, D. A. 1979, ‘De imitatione’, in: D. West and T. Woodman (eds.), Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, Cambridge, 1–16.

Bibliography

215

Russell, D. A. 1983, Greek Declamation, Cambridge. Ryan, F. X. 1997, ‘The Quaestor † Canini Salustius’, RhM, 140: 281–285. Schelle, J. 1967, ‘Zu Sallust, Invektive gegen Cicero2, 3’, RhM, 110: 193–194. Schindel, U. 1980a, ‘Die Rezeption Sallusts in Deutschland in Humanismus und Aufklärung’, in: R. Toellner (ed.), Aufklärung und Humanismus, Heidelberg, 89–106. Schindel, U. 1980b, Die Invektive gegen Cicero, Göttingen. Schmid, W. 1963, ‘Die Komposition der Invektive gegen Cicero’, Hermes, 91: 159–178. Schmid, W. 1993, Frühschriften Sallusts im Horizont des Gesamtwerks, Neustadt. Schmidt, P. L. 1974, Die Überlieferung von Ciceros Schrift ‘De legibus’ in Mittelalter und Renaissance, München. Schmidt, P. L. 2001, ‘Sallustius’, in: DNP, vol. 10, 1254–1258. Schöll, F. 1902, ‘Zu Pseudo-Sallusts Invectiva’, RhM, 57: 159–163. Schroeder, J. 1977, Bibliothek und Schule der Abtei Echternach um die Jahrtausendwende, Luxembourg. Schwartz, ED. 1898, ‘Nachschrift zu Reitzenstein’, Hermes, 33: 101–108. Seel, O. 1961, Die Invektive gegen Cicero (1.edn. Leipzig 1943), Aalen. Seel, O. 1966, Sallusts Briefe und die pseudosallustische Invektive, Nürnberg. Sicco, Polenton 1477, ‘Super decem orationes Ciceronis, super quattuor invectivas in Catilinam, super invectivas inter Sallustium et Ciceronem. Patavii ex aedibus solitae habitationis 1413’, in: H. Squarzaf icus (ed.), Asconius Pedianus: Commentarii in orationes Ciceronis, Venezia. Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum illustrium Latinae linguae libri XVIII 1928, Rome. Smalley, B. 1971, ‘Sallust in the Middle Ages’, in: R. R. Bolgar (ed.),Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 500–1500, Cambridge, 165–175. Speyer, W. 1971, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, München. Stählin, O. 1914, Editionstechnik: Ratschläge für die Anlage textkritischer Ausgaben (2. edn.), Leipzig-Berlin. Stroh, W. 2003, ‘Declamatio’, in: B.-J. Schröder and J.-P. Schröder (eds.), Studium declamatorium: Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkr eden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, München, 5–34. Süss, W . 1910, Ethos: Studien zur älter en griechischen Rhetorik (= 1975, Aalen), Leipzig. Sussman, L.A. 1972, ‘The Elder Seneca’s Discussion of the Decline of Roman Eloquence’, CSCA, 5: 195–210. Sussman, L.A. 1978, The Elder Seneca (Mnemosyne suppl. 51), Leiden. Sussman, L.A. 1984, ‘A Critical Bibliography on The Elder Seneca and Declamation Since 1900’, in: ANRW, vol. II, 32, 1, 557–577. Syme, R. 1958, ‘Pseudo-Sallust’, MH, 15: 46–55. Syme, R. 1964, Sallust, Berkeley-Los Angeles. The illustrated incunabula short-title catalogue on CD-ROM (IISTC) , L. Hellinga and M. Davies (eds.), 2.edn., Reading. Timpanaro, S. 1963, La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, Firenze.

216

Bibliography

Ullman, B. L. 1955, Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Roma. Victorius, P. 1553, Variarum Lectionum Libri XXV, Florence. Voet, L. 1980–1983, The Plantin Pr ess (1555–1589): a bibliography of the works printed and published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden, Amsterdam. Volkmann, R. 1963, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer: in systematischer Übersicht (=2. edn. Leipzig 1885), Hildesheim. Vretska, K. 1957, ‘Zur Methodik der Echtheitskritik (Epistulae ad Caesarem senem)’, WS, 70: 306–321. Vretska, K. 1961, C. Sallustius Crispus: Invektive und Episteln. Einleitung. Text und Übersetzung. Kommentar, Heidelberg. Watson, L. C. 1996, ‘Invective’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 762. West, M. 1973, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique, Stuttgart. Wilkins, A. S. 1905, Roman Education, Cambridge. Willems, A. 1880, Les Elzevier: histoire et annales typographiques, Bruxelles. Willis, J. 1972, Latin Textual Criticism, Urbana. Winterbottom, M. 1982, ‘Cicero and the Silver Age’, Éloquence et rhétorique chez Cicéron, Geneva, 235–266. Winterbottom, M. 1996, ‘Declamation’, in: S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford, 436–437. Wirtz, R. 1910, Beiträge zur Catilinarischen V erschwörung, Diss. Bonn, Aachen. Wirz, H. 1898, ‘Sallustius in Ciceronem, ein klassisches Stück Anticicero’, Festgaben zu Ehr en Max Büdinger ’s von seinen Fr eunden und Schülern , Innsbruck, 91–116. Zetzel, J. E. G. 1981, Latin textual criticism in antiquity, Salem, NH. Zielinski, Th. 1912, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte (3. edn.), Leipzig-Berlin. Zimmermann, R. 1929, Der Sallusttext im Altertum, München. Egunov, A. N. 1997, ‘ Atribuciѕ i ateteza v klassiљesko“ filologii’, in: A. K. Гavrilov (ed.), Drevni“ mir i m«. Klassiљeskoe nasledie v Evrope i Rossii, St-Petersburg, 83–138. Novohatцko, A. A. 2004, ‘Invektiv« Sallїstiѕ. Vstupitelцnaѕ statцѕ, izdanie latinskogo teksta, perevod i kommentarii’, Vestnik drevnej istorii (=Journal of Ancient History), 249: 240–252; 250: 233–250.

217

Index rerum aemulatio, « 12 attribution (of authorship) 1 ff., 15f., 25, 111 ff., 118 ff., 124, 127, 129, 133, 135 ff. controversia 6 ff., 11, 26, 123, 145, declamatio, 3 ff., 9, 15 f., 26, 116 f., 121, 125, 132 ff., 143 dittography 33 ff., 92, 138 education in Greece 3 ff. in Rome 3 ff., 8 ff., 12 f., 16, 22, 25 exordium, 16, 19, 21 f. imitatio, « 1, 3, 6, 10 ff., 22, 25, 32, 114, 124 f., 128, 151, 156 f., 159, 177, 181 incunabula 51, 111, 129ff., 172, 193ff. interpolation 30, 32 f., 35 ff., 40 f., 43 f., 46, 49 ff., 57 ff., 64 ff., 69, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88, 90, 93 ff., 101, 105, 132 ff., 140, 144

invective 12 ff. et passim loci ( ) of the invective 13 f., 19 ff. narratio, « 14, 16, 20, 22 peroratio, « 16, 25 prosopopoeia 6 rhetoric 4 ff. et passim rhetorical schools 3 ff., 8 ff., 19 ff., 113, 127 ff. rhetorical exercises 3 ff., 6 ff., 15 ff., 111 f., 127 ff. Rhetorica ad Herennium 5, 11, 13, 22, 118 stemma 27 ff., 56, 64, 90, 99, 105, 110, 145 ff. suasoria 6, 15 vituperatio, « 8, 13, 25

218

Index nominum

Index nominum Aeschines 6, 22 Africa 18, 24, 101, 128, 184 f. (Sall. 19) Aldus Manutius the Elder (ca. 1449–1515) 30, 38, 44, 46f., 51, 53, 59, 64, 65, 71, 74, 79 f., 84, 101, 104 f., 107, 115, 118, 120, 130 ff., 144, 147, 150, 152, 154, 158, 162, 164, 166, 170, 180, 182 Aldus Manutius the Younger (1547–1597) 35, 63, 67, 87, 92, 100, 136 f., 147 f., 184 Ammianus Marcellinus 12 Ampelius, Lucius 123 Aphthonius, Aelius Festus 13 f. Aristotle 10, 13 Arpinum 20, 31, 63, 111, 156 f., 160 f. (Cic. 4, 7) Asconius Pedianus 16, 18, 114 Asinius Pollio 16, 127 Bade, Josse (Jodocus Badius Ascensius) (1462–1535) 115, 121, 132 ff., 137, 141, 143 Baiter, Johann Georg (1801–1877) 99, 133, 144 f., 154, 184 Berger, Johann Wilhelm von (Guilelmus) (*1672–1751) 137, 148 Bibulus, Marcus Calpurnius 162 f., 176 f. (Cic. 7; Sall. 12) Boxhorn, Marcus Zuerius van (1612–1653) (Marcus Zuerius Boxhornii) 140 Burette, Théodose 123 Burnouf, Jean Louis 122 Caesar, Caius Iulius 17 f., 20, 24, 79, 88, 113 f., 118 ff., 126 ff., 134, 143, 146, 162 f., 176 f., 186 ff. (Cic. 7; Sall. 12, 19 bis, 20) Calenus, Quintus Fufius 124 f.

Carrion, Louis (Ludovicus Carrio) (1547–1595) 118, 134, 138 f., 141, 143 f. Catilina, Lucius Sergius 16, 111, 116, 123, 130, 134, 143, 147, 154 ff. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and pseudoCicero Cic. 1 bis, 2, 3, 5, 6 et passim Claudius, Appius Caecus 182 f. (Sall. 16) Claudius, Appius Pulcher 18, 183 Cledonius 12 Clodius, Pulcher Publius 17, 115, 124, 127, 175 Corrado, Sebastiano (Corradus) 31, 116 ff., 125 Crassus Lucius Licinius 25, 30 f., 156 f. (Cic. 4) Crassus Marcus Licinius 17, 31, 74, 128, 153, 157 Crassus Publius Licinius 19, 44, 60, 66, 71, 73 f., 101, 152 f., 180 f., 186 f. (Cic. 2; Sall. 14, 20) Crinito, Pietro (Crinitus, or Pietro Del Riccio Baldi) (1475–1507) 115, 120, 143 f. Crispinus, Daniel 44, 46, 64, 66 f., 101, 120 f., 132, 141 f., 144, 158 Demetrius of Phalerum 6 Didius (unknown) 112 Dio Cassius 18, 124f., 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 163 Diomedes 12, 112, 157, 188 f. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 11 Du Bois, François (Franciscus Sylvius Ambiani) (1581–1648) 115 f. Dyrrhachium 47, 70, 74, 80, 85, 89, 93, 98, 103, 108, 160 f. (Cic. 7) Elzevir (House of Elzevir) 120, 142 Florus 123, 143

Index nominum

Gallus, Lucius Plotius 4, 7 Glarean, Heinrich (1488–1563) 31, 34, 44, 49, 52, 116, 119, 121, 135, 138, 139, 141, 143 f., 147, 156, 182 Gronovius, Johann Friedrich (1611–1671) 141 Grosser, Samuel (1664–1736) 120 Gruter, Jan (1560–1627) 34, 38, 44, 46, 49, 51, 59, 63ff., 71, 73, 79f., 84, 88, 92, 94, 100 f., 105, 107, 119 f., 123, 130, 132ff., 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 180, 182, 190 Halm, Karl Felix (1809–1882) 133, 144 ff., 154 f. Havercamp, Siegbert (1684–1742) 143 Isocrates 10 f. Jordan, Heinrich 27, 30 ff., 35, 58, 67, 71, 74, 87, 121, 123 f., 130, 133, 142, 145 ff., 156, 166, 168, 170, 180, 184, 186, 188 Jupiter (Iuppiter) 20, 89, 111, 160 f. (Cic. 7) Juvenal, Decimus Iunius 111, 157, 161 Kortte, Gottlieb (Cortius, or Corte) (1698–1730) 33, 35, 64, 108, 121 ff., 135, 137, 142 ff., 170, 186 Kritz, Friedrich 123 Kurfess, Alfons 27, 30 ff., 41 f., 50, 53, 68 f., 71, 75, 77 f., 88, 91, 94, 108, 112, 125, 127, 145 ff., 154 ff., 159 ff., 163, 166, 170, 172, 180 f.,184 Latro, Marcus Porcius 116 f., 130, 132 ff., 142 f. Leclerk Jean (Iohannes Clericus) (1657–1736) 121, 127, 143 f. Lipsius, Justus (Joost Lips or Josse Lips) (1547–1606) 59, 73, 76 f., 94, 97, 108, 116, 118 f., 138 ff., 166 f. Lucretius 19 Lycurgus 20, 113 f.

219

Metelli Caecilii 22, 62, 73, 136, 168 f., 176 (Sall. 4) Milo, Titus Annius 16 ff., 125, 185 Minerva 20, 111, 160 ff. (Cic. 7) Nigidius, Publius Figulus 71, 180 f. (Sall. 14) Orelli, Johann Caspar von (1787–1849) 133, 137, 144 f. Pareus, John Philipp (Jean-Philippe Wängler) (1576–1648) 119 Paulus Manutius (1512–1574) 136 Pauli Aemilii 136, 160f,, 168 (Cic. 7) Piso, Lucius Calpurnius Caesonius (90) 18, 124, 126 ff., 183 Piso M. Pupius Frugi (10) 19, 152f., 156 (Cic. 2) Piso L. Calpurnius Frugi (96) 182 f. (Sall. 16) Plantin, Christophe (c.1520–1589) 118, 136, 139 f. Plato 10 Pompeii (villa Pompeiana) 19, 67, 154 ff. (Cic. 3, 4) Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) 17, 161 Pomponio Leto (Pomponius Laetus Julius) (1428–1498) 131 f., 134 Popma, Cyprian (1550–1582) 118, 121, 138 f., 141, 143 f. Porcian law (lex Porcia) 158 f. (Cic. 5) Plautian law (lex Plautia) 80, 85, 95, 154 f. (Cic. 3) Putsch, Helias (1580–1606) 119 f., 139, 141 Quintilian, Marcus Fabius 1, 4, 6 ff., 11, 13, 16, 25, 111 f., 116 ff., 122, 126, 151, 157, 159, 161, 189 Reynolds, Leighton Durham (1930–1999) 1, 27, 29 ff., 40 ff., 46, 49, 53f., 56f., 62, 65, 67f., 71, 74 ff., 82, 90ff., 94, 99, 105, 108, 110, 128, 130, 133ff., 142, 145f., 150, 154, 156, 158, 160, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 180, 183 f., 187 Rivius, Johannes (1500–1553) 118, 144

220

Index nominum

Romulus 20, 70, 111, 160 f. (Cic. 7) Rufinus, Tyrannius (Rufinus Aquileiensis) 12 Rutilius Lupus, Publius 20, 113 f., 157 Sallust (Caius Crispus Sallustius), and pseudo-Sallust Sall. 1, 2, 4 bis, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22et passim Saumaise, Claude (Claudius Salmasius) (1588–1653) 120, 140 Scipio, Publius Cornelius Africanus 19, 88, 152 f. (Cic. 1) Scipiones Cornelii 22, 61, 93, 160f., 168 f.(Cic. 7; Sall. 4) Seneca the Elder 4 f., 7ff., 11, 15, 19, 117, 124, 151, 157, 161, 167 Seneca the Younger 11, 187 Servius (Maurus Servius Honoratus) 112, 153, 183 Sicco Polenton (1375–1447) 114

Suetonius 4, 6 ff., 17, 181 Sulla, Lucius Cornelius 20, 80, 88, 93, 106, 160 ff. (Cic. 6) Terentia (Cicero’s wife) 19, 97, 103, 108, 154 f. (Cic. 3) Textor, Franciscus Jammetius 115 Theophrastus 13 Thysius, Anthony (1603–1665) 120 f., 141, 143 Tibur (Tivoli) 24, 35, 64, 108, 142, 186 f. (Sall. 19) Tusculum (villa Tusculana) 19, 34, 82, 86, 154 ff., 187 (Cic. 3, 4) Vatinius, Publius 17, 34, 45, 47, 71, 73, 154, 160, 176 f. (Cic. 7, Sall. 12) Vettori, Pietro (Petrus Victorius) (1499–1584) 116, 118 f. Vossius, Gerhard Johann (1577–1649) 116, 120, 143 Wasse, Joseph 121, 141

Index nominum

221

Index vocabulorum potiorum quae in apparatu critico commemorantur In Ciceronem aliquos 88, 144, 146, 154 (Cic. 3) audiendo 33 f., 150 (Cic. 1) calumniae 147, 154 (Cic. 3) delibuta 30, 47, 53, 74, 78, 104, 152 (Cic. 2) etiamne 35, 37, 44, 57, 65, 87, 94, 158 (Cic. 6) fecisti ancillaris 147, 160 (Cic. 7) habites 30, 65, 101, 152 (Cic. 2) his 48, 63, 67, 87 f., 92, 100, 137, 147, 158 (Cic. 6) insequeris 33, 59, 71, 160 (Cic. 7) L. Crassi 30 f., 108, 147, 156 (Cic. 4) parasti 30, 74, 130, 147, 156 (Cic. 4) praedae 30, 97, 102, 135, 150 (Cic. 1) quo auctore 32 f., 160 (Cic. 7) removetur a vero 32, 60, 156 (Cic. 4) Romam 147, 156 (Cic. 5) ubiubi 18, 41, 146 f., 150 (Cic. 1) unam 33, 156 (Cic. 4) In Sallustium adversarius 76, 100, 176 (Sall. 11) a victore 34, 42, 53, 55, 61, 86, 109, 184 (Sall. 17) a viris 46, 92, 148, 174 (Sall. 9) chilonum 34, 48, 62, 68, 91, 99, 108, 148, 184 (Sall. 18) de eo qui falsum … 32, 148, 166 f. (Sall. 3) despectui habuit 33, 36, 60, 133, 180 (Sall.15)

domum emissem 57, 66, 76, 186 (Sall. 20) eius 35, 99, 186 (Sall. 20) et 148, 184 (Sall. 17) et 34, 54, 188 (Sall. 21) ecquod 34, 43, 48, 52, 134, 182 (Sall. 16) his 35, 39, 44, 83, 94, 99, 110, 168 (Sall. 4) historiis 46, 62, 84, 148, 172 (Sall. 7) homines 35, 61, 137, 148, 184 (Sall. 18) idem 33, 45, 59, 68, 87, 90, 188 (Sall. 21) illis 38, 132, 139, 168 (Sall. 4) in 33, 68, 75, 97, 109, 176 (Sall. 11) luculentus 73, 76, 77, 97, 108, 138f., 147 f., 166 (Sall. 3) nihil in eo non 37, 42, 55, 184 (Sall. 17) nobis 62, 105, 148, 168 (Sall. 4) patrem 33, 71, 90, 178 (Sall. 13) per 34, 98, 184 (Sall. 17) per te 34, 148, 168 (Sall. 5) petulantissime consectari 33, 40, 45, 55 f., 61, 72, 188 (Sall. 22) quaestus 39, 58, 67, 81, 96, 104, 109, 178 (Sall. 13) sciatis 32, 137, 147, 166 f. (Sall. 2) vel 68, 78, 91, 108, 148, 172 (Sall. 7) velitari 59, 94, 138 ff., 148, 166 (Sall. 3) vendidit 71, 180 (Sall. 14)

The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 6)

Prolepsis and Ennoia in the Early Stoa (Sozomena: Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts 5)

Sefer Yeṣira: Edition, Translation and Text-critical Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 104)

Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 7)

Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 3)

Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

Prolepsis and Ennoia in the Early Stoa (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 5)

The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary

Aristophanes' Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes (Sozomena: Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

Aristophanes' Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes (Sozomena: Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary

The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary

Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

The Poetics of Philosophical Language: Plato, Poets and Presocratics in the ''Republic'' (Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)

Genesis: Translation and Commentary

Genesis: Translation and Commentary

Plato's examination of pleasure;: A translation of the Philebus, with introduction and commentary by R. Hackforth

The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 1)

Isaiah 40-55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

Noble Qur'an, The English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary

Early Yiddish Texts 1100-1750: With Introduction and Commentary

Noble Qur'an, The English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary

The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

The Elements of Theology: A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (Clarendon Paperbacks)

The Elements of Theology: A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (Clarendon Paperbacks)

The Chʼu silk manuscript: translation and commentary

The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary

Philo's Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series, Vol. 2)

Aristophanes' Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes (Sozomena: Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts - Vol. 8)

Philo of Alexandria On Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary)

The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Sozomena Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts)