« AnteriorContinuar »
The last three words are generally disjoined from the preceding, and excidat is changed to exedar, the conjecture of Bosius; lepidum quo exedar is then made to refer to the next sentences which describe the disgrace incurred by the consuls on the publication of their infamous bargain with Memmius and Domitius. It would be hard to frame words more unlikely to have been used by Cicero, or a context more inappropriate to them. Connect the disputed words closely with the preceding, and insert between lepidum and quo
in the MS. the words quid ne. The sentence will then run: ut 'eas ne librariis quidem fere committamus, lepidum QUID NE quo excidat.' 'Lest some joke of mine should get wind anywhere' (literally, in any direction, motion being implied in the verb excidat). The copyist saw that lepidum was followed by a word beginning with qu, perhaps raised his eyes for a moment, and on resuming his task went on at the wrong one of the two closely resembling words quid and quo. This is perhaps the error oftenest made by the ancient copyists, except the omission of one of two similar letter or syllables standing in juxtaposition. For the meaning of excidat cf. de Or. I. 94, libello qui me imprudente et invito excidit, et pervenit in manus hominum.
VI. 1. 2.
“Quod meam Balúnta in Appio tibi libertatem (liberalitatem Med., correctum in Victoriana) etiam in Bruto probo vehementer gaudeo.”
It seems to me that in should be omitted before Appio. The sentence would then mean 'I am very glad to find that Appius gives me credit for my self-restraint, and that I have your approval of my independence even in the case of your friend Brutus.' For he goes on to say, “ac putaram secus. Appius enim ad me ex itinere bis terve útroueuVqolpous litteras miserat
Sed modo succenset, modo gratias agit; nihil enim a me fit cum ulla illius contumelia
. Sin Appius, ut Bruti litterae quas ad te misit significabant, gratias nobis agit, non moleste fero."
Cicero would hardly say that he was rejoiced to find that he had the approval of Atticus for the self-restraint and dignified courtesy with which in reversing many of the acts of Appius, he completely refrained from any token of disrespect for his predecessor, whom he might have offended with impunity, and whose administration must have been strongly condemned by the writer of the Sex Libri de Republica. On the other hand it is naturally satisfactory to Cicero to find that the courtesy of his bearing was recognised by Appius, even though the latter could not regard with satisfaction the rescinding of his measures by his successor. Cicero knew well that his conduct must meet the approbation of Atticus, but he congratulated himself that he now saw reason to infer from the letter of Brutus that the querulousness of Appius' letters to him was only the querulousness of the physician who sees with jealousy the changed regimen prescribed by his successor. Appius had employed depletion on the province, and he did not like to see the patient fed up (προσανατρεφομένην) by his successor. “But,” says Cicero, “if Appius expresses his obligation to me for refraining from any disrespect to him (nihil enim a me fit cum ulla illius contumelia) then I am quite satisfied.” Ac putaram secus; Appius ENIM, &c., is hard to understand, if the vulg. be retained.
VI. 1. 17.
“ De statua Africani . . . . ain'tu? Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse ? Atqui nihil habuit aliud inscriptum nisi CENS. ea statua qua ad Opis † per te posita in excelso est. In illa autem quae est ad lolukléovs Herculem inscriptum est Cos-, quam esse eiusdem status amictus annulus imago ipsa declarat.”
I may premise that I am not about to comment on the words which I have obelised. I accept the reading of I, the Venetian Editio princeps called Editio Iensoniana. It seems to have been copied from the Med., but generally to have accepted the marginal or interlinear correction of the same. For ad Opis per te I has ab Opis parte, and perhaps we should with Orelli add dextra or sinistra before parte.
We have it on the authority of Macrobius, Saturn. 1. 4., that in the De Rep. Cicero makes Laelius regret that there was no public statue of Scipio Nasica Serapion, the slayer of Tib. Gracchus. Now Q. Caecilius Metellus Scipio, the great-grandson of Serapion, had placed in the Capitol, near the Temple of Ops, a statue of his great-grandfather, as he supposed ; and accordingly he drew Atticus' attention to what he regarded as an error made by Cicero. But, argues Cicero, it was Metellus Scipio himself who made the mistake, for the statue which he had placed in the Capitol, supposing it to be a statue of his great-grandfather Serapion, was really a statue of another person, which he might have known, had he remembered that Serapion had never been a Censor.
So far all is plain; but it is evident that for the argument it is essential that Cicero should go on to prove that the statue erroneously supposed by Scipio Metellus to be the statue of his ancestor, was really the statue of a man who had been a Censor. Now, according to the Med., as given above, Cicero does indeed go on to state that the statue placed in the Capitol by Scipio Metellus was the statue of one who had been a Censor, for it bore the inscription CENS. ; but why does he say this statue had no other inscription but CENS., and why does he introduce at all the mention of the other statue near the Hercules of Polycles ! The solution of the difficulty is, in my mind, this:–CENS. and Cos. should change places. The copyist of Med. saw that the argument required that the statue supposed by Scipio Metellus to be that of his ancestor should be shown to be that of one who had been Censor, and so was in a hurry to introduce CENS., not much troubling himself about the logic analysis of the whole sentence. Copyists do not, as a rule, go beyond the first step in any process of thought. If, therefore, Cos. be put in the place of CENS., and CENS. in the place of Cos., the whole argument may be thus paraphrased : “Is it possible that Scipio Metellus is not aware that his great-grandfather was never Censor? It is true, indeed, that the statue placed by him near the temple of Ops, and supposed by him to be the statue of his ancestor, had no inscription on it but Cos., showing that it was the statue of a person who had been Consul. (This indeed would not have shown the statue not to have been the statue of Serapion, who was Consul.] But another statue standing near the Hercules of Polycles had the inscription CENS.; and it can be proved that it commemorates the same person as the statue placed by Metellus near the temple of Ops. That the two statues are
tues of the same man is proved by the pose, the dress, the ring, in fine, the whole work.”
Both are statues of the same man; therefore, as the statue near Polycles' Hercules had the inscription CENS., the man commemorated by the two statues must have been a Censor, but Scipio Nasica Serapion had never been a Censor; therefore Scipio Metellus has made a mistake about his own great-grand-father, and the remark put by Cicero into the mouth of Laelius has not been shown to be incorrect.
Both are, in Cicero's opinion, statues of Scipio Africanus Minor, who was not only consul, but Censor with Mummius in 612 (see xvi. 13. 2, videor mihi audiisse P. Africano L. Mummio Censoribus.)
Cicero then goes on to say that when he saw the statue of Africanus with the name of Serapion written under it, he thought it was a mistake on the part of the sculptor, but he now sees it was Metellus Scipio who made the error.
Orelli was not aware that X and Y are figments of Bosius. He is not, therefore, conscious that in introducing the readings of X and Y-Cos in both places, and item for autem—he has foisted on Cicero the (in this case) stupid conjecture of the generally clever but never very scrupulous Frenchman.
Boot reads CENS. in both places, and gives item for autem. This is (1) a greater change than that which I propose, (2) it renders otiose the statement that the first-mentioned statue had inscribed on it nothing else but CENS., (3) the establishing of the identity of the person commemorated by the two statues, a point much dwelt on by Cicero, is in this case superfluous, for if the statue placed in the Capitol by Metellus Scipio had the inscription CENS., the proof was already complete, that it could not be a statue of Serapion, who never was Censor.
VI. 2. 7.
“ Numerabantur nummi. Noluit Scaptius. Tu, qui ais Brutum cupere aliquid perdere.”
Orelli again accepts the reading of X. Boot gives ubi tu qui ais.' I propose tu quid qui ais.' What have you (to say) now, you who always say that Brutus wishes to submit to a loss.'
VI. 4. 3.
είς δήπου τούτο δή περισκεψάμενος, τα λοιπά εξασφάλισαι.” Orelli conjectures εν for είς, Valcknaer Οιδίπου for είς annou. But eis onnov is surely right, for in vi. 9. 2, Cicero says, παραφύλαξον, si me amas, την του φυρατού φιλοτιμίαν αυτότατο, where αυτότατα means exactly the same as είς δήπoυ here. .
VI. 6. 4.
“At Caelius, non dico equidem, quod (quid Edd. Romana et Iensoniana) egerit, sed tamen multo minus laboro."
If NON were inserted before quid egerit, the ellipse of laboro would not be too harsh ; 'non dico equidem non (sc. laboro) quid egerit, sed tamen multo minus laboro.' Non might have fallen out, coming so soon after ano
VI. 8. 5.
“Bibulus, qui, dum unus hostis in Syria fuit, pedem non plus extulit quam domo sua.”