¹ Comm. 58: ‘volo hoc commentariolum petition is haberi.’

² On all problems of text and style Bücheler, Q. Ciceronis Reliquiae (1869) has not been superseded.

³ Mommsen did not question the document in his work De Collegiis et Sodaliciis (1843) nor in the earlier editions of his RG, up to Hist. of Rome IV (1895), 470 n.; but dismissed it in two footnotes to SR III (1887), 484, n. 3, and 497, n. 3—not, however, as is commonly said, because Comm. 33 conflicts with his own theories on the Republican equester ordo (cf. his note to Hist, of Rome, above). Comm. 33 can be variously interpreted, and is irrelevant to the question of authenticity so far as this problem of equites goes, as its data might be true or false of the Gracchan period, whatever the document's date (cf. the cautious treatment of Last, H. M., CAH IX, 894Google Scholar-5).

⁴ Commentariolum Petitionis examinatum atque emendatum (Würzburg, 1872), concluding that the document is a cento of the last years of the Republic.

⁵ AJP 1892, 203 ff.; Dec. Publ. Univ. Chicago VI, 71 ff., adding further arguments from reminiscence, with an analysis of the document's literary form. Against these conclusions, see Sternkopf, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1904, 265 ff. and 296 ff.; Bruhn, N. Jahrb. 1908 (concluding that the work was a foolish indiscretion of Q. Cicero's in 64).

⁶ Leo, in Nachr. K. Ges. d. Wissenschaft zu Göttingen 1895, 448–9 (a brief note); Tyrrell, in The Correspondence of Cicero I³, 116 ff., and more fully in Hermathena V, 53 ff. See also Klek, Sermo Symbuleuticus (1919).

⁷ This, however, is the view of L. R. Taylor, or of her publisher (Roman Politics in the Age of Cicero, dust-flap), and is found in many popular works. J. Carcopino (César ³, 660) supposes that Cicero helped to edit his brother's work after the election, improving it with extracts from In toga Candida, but does not explain the presence of Comm. 19, which he admits to be damaging to Cicero (Les Secrets de la Corresp. de Cicéron 1, 150 ff.). R. Syme finds the work revealing (Roman Revolution 11, n. 5), and describes it as ‘admirable’, though not necessarily by Q. Cicero (JRS 1947, 200).

⁸ Op. cit. (n. 6). Two of the cases are cited below (pp. 9 and 10). The others are Comm. 9: ‘quid … secuerit’ (cf. Cic. ap. Asc. 78: ‘populum … ostendit’); Comm. 10, ‘vivo … tulerit’ (cf. ib. 80: ‘quod … detulit’); Comm. 12: ‘quis … destringere’ (cf. ib. 83: ‘qui … destringere’), with further material correspondences occurring in the same order in both works.

⁹ With Comm. 56 cf. Cic. Pro Mur. 43. Ad Q.f. I, I, has the same opening construction as Comm. I, some verbal echoes (e.g. Comm. 46 and Ad Q. f. I, I, xv) and a more general resemblance which, however, would not by itself prove anything. All this is quite compatible with Quintus' authorship, although, if the document were shown to be secondary, it would indicate the use of Cic. Pro Mur. and Ad Q. f. I, I, as sources.

¹⁰ H. M. Last's article (CQ 1923) should have been decisive for the Second Suasoria, but was not universally accepted. On the problem of the Ad Herennium see Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. lit. I (2)³, 466 ff., with bibliography: whether or not the conclusions are correct, they are based on nugatory arguments, eked out by the hypothesis of an interpolation.

¹¹ Cf. Strachan-Davidson, , Problems of the Roman Criminal Law II, 32Google Scholar.

¹² An imperial writer could more easily misuse the term proscribere, since publicare was then preferred, but this point need not be pressed: the mistake seems a simple anachronism. Whether or not Antonius was tried under the Lex Julia of 59 (cf. Sherwin-White, ‘Poena Legis Repetundarum,’ PBSR 1949, 5 ff.), any proscriptio bonorum must surely be related to his criminal trial and exile.

¹³ It has a joke against noble pedigrees (proselem) which suggests Cicero's popularis period.

¹⁴ As Bücheler already saw, the accounts do not tally, and there may be some underlying prosopographical confusion. P-W, in the article on Q. Gallius, accepts the sole authority of Comm. 19 without mentioning the divergence of Asconius or the elements of the problem, which cannot be so lightly dismissed.

^14a Cic. Brut. 277-8; Ad fam. VIII 4, 1.

¹⁵ De Collegiis et Sodaliciis 41. Accame (BMIR 12–14, in Bull. Comm, Arch. Roma, 1942) perceives the relation of the collegia suspended in 64 to the vici, but does not explain the appearance after 58 of the term sodalitas, which implies an ostensibly different kind of body.

¹⁶ In particular, by Carcopino, (Les Secrets de la Corresp. de Cicéron 1, 150Google Scholar ff.), treating the deal as a violation of the spirit of the Lex Cincia (the letter of the leges de ambitu is more pertinent). L. R. Taylor (o.c. n. 7) takes it all as perfectly normal; so, it may be said, does the writer of the Commentariolum.

¹⁷ On the contribution of Cicero to the development of the idea of humanitas, see Heinemann, art. ‘Humanitas’ in P-W, Suppl. V, 282–310; but the point here is the association of humanitas with the idea of Cicero following this contribution.

¹⁸ From a different source—presumably a biography—which Suetonius finds it unnecessary to cite. The story of DJ 9, being novel and unfamiliar, is defended by reference to authorities.

¹⁹ For the deduction of early Caesarian biographies from Velleius, Plutarch and Suetonius, see Strasburger, Caesars Eintritt in d. Geschichte (1938).

²⁰ Sallust's version is such as any serious historian might have constructed from early and not obviously tendencious sources, especially Cicero's speeches. The view that he wrote to defend Caesar is based largely on inadequate study of the tradition: he and Livy were decisive against mere scandal because they used historical judgment, and Suetonius impressed serious history no more than Robert Graves. Similarly (see below, p. 19) Sallust found the Caesar-Cato debate already a topic, and took its outlines, but purged it of polemic.

²¹ Strachan-Davidson explains its absence from a document of 64 by saying that the myth had not yet developed. Not the Caesar-myth, but Cic. ap. Asc. 82 shows some very flourishing rumours current in 64, openly naming Catiline. His own allusion is rapid and oblique, but implies the gossip among his hearers.

²² Typically, L. R. Taylor, o.c. (n. 7), 185–6, on the Second Sallustian Suasoria: ‘How could [a late rhetor] have thought of putting L. Postumius into the factio of nobiles? … cf. Cic. Ad Att. VIII, 15, for this little-known adherent of Cato?’From Cic. Ad Att. VIII, 15, perhaps. The instance is absurd, but it is not seldom assumed that imperial Romans could not read.

²³ An ancient ‘spurious’ work might, of course, be as good authority as any secondary work, especially when quoting words and facts, but is often careless in interpretation and application.

²⁴ Hardly later: Cassiodorus knew the speeches from Victorinus' excerpts (Courcelle, Rev. ét. anc. 1945, 65 ff.). So late a date will not fit the strong political and historical interest of the Commentariolum, but the sources were not lacking.

²⁵ Comm. 4 (‘nobilium voluntates’); 5, 51 (Pompeius); 31 (outside voters—but here Pan-Italian, not Transpadane).

²⁶ Bruhn (o.c. n. 5) compares the alleged self-reminder of Pericles: ὄρα Περικλεἴσ ἐλευθἐρων ἄρχεισ, Έλλήνων ἄρχεισ, Άθηναίων ἄρχεισ (Plut., Quaest. Conv. 620 c).

²⁷ Comm. 5: Cicero is advised to tell this to the consulares. Whether this would be necessary or sensible advice at the time is a matter of opinion; but what other conception could posterity derive from Cicero's own language—especially when referred to the situation of the sixties, with the speeches? That Cicero was popularis only for Pompeius' sake may be a shallow view, but was doubtless held at many periods, since he gave the impression that he acted and spoke for the advantage of Pompeius (on the posthumous conception of their relations, see, e.g., Plut. Cic. 8). It is not quite clear why some modern scholars regard this item as an indication of contemporary date.

²⁸ P-W Suppl. V, 202—3, art. ‘Epistolographie’.

²⁹ See above, p. 9, n. 9.

³⁰ e.g. Quint, III, 8, 22-48; cf. Klek, o.c. (n. 6): these are the terms in which an ancient rhetor would have distinguished the two letters.

³¹ Soc. & Ec. Hist. of the Hellenistic World II, ch. VII, 955-974. R. asks for further study of the Ciceronian material; which should be accompanied by study of Cicero's conception of the central and political bearings of the problem, not here to R's point.

³² e.g. Cic. De off. II, 48 (cf. his many references to Greek artificial letters, in the Tusculans and elsewhere. Sallust, notably, shared his liking for Ep. Plat. VII).

³³ There is no continuous tradition: Pliny is re-creating a Ciceronian epistolary art and, at the same time, a society for it.

³⁴ e.g. Cic. De oratore or the ‘Isocratean Letters’. Sykutris regards this vocative as an indication against deliberate forgery (o.c. 188).

³⁵ Gell. XIV, 2, xx; Bremer, Jurispr. Antehadr. index, s.v. ‘officium’. For Q. Tubero's age, Quint. XI, 1, 80 (referring to 46 B.C.; cf. Pro Ligario).

³⁶ Hermes 1905, 481 ff.

³⁷ It is not unlikely that Cicero was the first to discuss concrete particulars of political history and behaviour under theory de officiis—as opposed to the hypothetical dilemmas of Stoic συμβουλευτικά. This seems to be the purpose and effect of the two new divisiones which he added to fill a gap in existing (i.e. Greek) theory περι τοῦ καθήκοντοσ (cf. Cic. De off. I, 9–10, 152–161, together with his whole treatment). But it is not proved a posteriori.

³⁸ Caesar's speech ‘tam severa’; Cato eclipsing other figures; Cicero politely but unemphatically painted. Sallust takes the outlines ready drawn, though he changes the content.

³⁹ o. c. (n. 28).

⁴⁰ Maddalena, , Platone: Lettere (Bari 1948Google Scholar).

⁴¹ Theon 115, XII; Cassiodorus, Var. XI Praef. 2: cf. Reichel, , Quaestiones progymnasmaticae (Diss. Leipzig, 1910Google Scholar).

⁴² And are artificial, whether Sallustian or no. Cf. Latte, JRS XXVII, 1937, 301.

⁴³ Recently, Clift, E., Latin Pseudepigrapha (Baltimore, 1945Google Scholar).

⁴⁴ J. Carcopino's general view of the date of publication, though partly based on perverse arguments and used to fantastic purposes, seems to the present writer correct (cf. Les Secrets de la Corresp. de Cicéron I, 30-62). It may be supported by the mention of the Quintus letters in connection with the biography of C. Octavius divi pater (Suet., DA 3), for Suetonius probably derived this not from independent research but from an Augustan Life (cf. ILS 47).