Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T00:08:22.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dream of Cicero

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Robert Coleman
Robert Coleman
Affiliation:
Emmanuel College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before Angelo Mai's publication of the Vatican Palimpsest in 1822 the de Re Publica was known to modern scholars only from the tantalizing fragments and paraphrases scattered about in Late Latin authors, ranging in extent from the Somnium Scipionis, the famous definition of uera lex preserved by Lactantius and the portion of Cicero's preface to Book v quoted by St Augustine to the incomplete sentences gleaned from Nonius, Priscian, and Isidore. Although the Palimpsest enabled men to form a better picture of the plan and scope of the whole treatise, it has nevertheless remained fragmented, and this for several reasons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 10 , 1964 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 For the Somnium see most recently the edition with commentary by Alessandro Ronconi (Florence, 1961) and the translation, with notes, of Macrobius' Commentary by R. Stahl (New York, 1952).

page 1 note 2 Lactantius, , Inst. Div. VI, 8, 6–9Google Scholar; Augustine, , de Civ. Dei, II, 21Google Scholar.

page 1 note 3 A. S. Pease's recent commentary on the De Natura Deorum, though invaluable to all students of the work, exemplifies both the merits and the defects of this Quellenforschung.

page 1 note 4 A comparison between, say, Boyancé, P.'s Études sur le Songe de Scipion (Bordeaux–Paris, 1936)Google Scholar and Lepore, E.'s Il Princeps Ciceroniano e gli ideali politici della tarda repubblica (Naples, 1954)Google Scholar is instructive in this respect.

page 1 note 5 Krarup, Even P., whose Rector Rei Publicae (Gyldendal, 1956)Google Scholar treats the work as a unity, still largely ignores the implications of this unification.

page 2 note 1 For the dates and progress of the work see ad Q. fr. II, 13 (12), 1Google Scholar; ad Att. IV, 14, 1Google Scholar; ad Q. fr. III, 5, 1Google Scholar; ad Fam. VIII, 1, 4Google Scholar; ad Att. V, 12, 2Google Scholar; VI, 1, 8 and 2, 3. The coincidence of publication with the start of Cicero's proconsulship may account for the otherwise quaint remark in de Div. II, 1, 3Google Scholar:tum scripsimus (sc. libros de Re Publica) cum gubernacula rei publicae tenebamus.

page 2 note 2 As e.g. III, 27 (Plato, , Rep. II, 361–2Google Scholar), VI, 27–8 (Plato, , Phaedr. 245 C–EGoogle Scholar), and the initial gathering at the villa of Scipio (I, 14 ff.), which recalls the setting of Plato's Protagoras. Too much should not be made specifically of the parallel between the occasion of the discourse, on the eve of Scipio's death, and the setting of the Phaedo, since the swan-song idea is also a feature of the de Oratore, set just before the death of Crassus, and the de Senectute, set just before the death of Cato.

page 2 note 3 As is done, e.g. by Pöschl, V., Römischer Staat und griechisches Staatsdenken bei Cicero (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar.

page 2 note 4 For the former see II, 22, where the originality of treatment is stressed, for the latter IV, 4 and 5. In both passages the disagreement with Plato is explicitly remarked.

page 2 note 5 That the Resurrection of Er was something of an embarrassment for later Platonists is shown by Proclus' attempt (Rep. II, 129Google Scholar, 26) to explain the passage as a dream (cf. perhaps VI, 4). The Pythagorean features of the Myth of Er are detailed in J. Adam's commentary (Cambridge, 1902).

page 3 note 1 For which see Lucr., de Rer. Nat. I, 117f.Google Scholar: Cic. Ac. Prior, II, 51Google Scholar.

page 3 note 3 Cleanthes: Cic., Ac. Prior. II, 126Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. VII, 130; Oinopides: Macrob., Sat. I, 17, 31Google Scholar. It should be added that, while a belief in the divinity of the sun is attributed to the early Pythagoreans by Diog., Laert. VIII, 24Google Scholar, the evidence for their belief in solar hegemony, adduced by Boyancé and Ronconi, is only inferential.

page 3 note 3 Hymn VIII, 9Google Scholar; Hymn XXXIV, 16–23Google Scholar.

page 3 note 4 Met. IV, 1018bGoogle Scholar; Probl. 19, 33; cf. Plut., de Musica, II, 112Google Scholar.

page 3 note 5 See Arist., , de Caelo, II, 291a 10Google Scholar; Porphyry, , Vita Pythag. 30Google Scholar; Arist., Meteor. I, 345a 13Google Scholar; Pliny, , N.H. 2.84Google Scholar; Theon Smyrn. p. 138, 11; DK (Oinopides), 41, 7–10.

page 4 note 1 This doctrine incidentally makes the diuinus paene uir of I, 45 something more than mere hyperbole.

page 4 note 2 See Symp. 209 A; Phaedo, 82 A; Rep. X, 613 AGoogle Scholar.

page 4 note 3 T.D. V, 27–8Google Scholar; de N.D. I, 38Google Scholar; II, 62.

page 5 note 1 See Livy, XLIV, 37.

page 5 note 2 That the parhelia were so interpreted in Cicero's day is proved by de Div. I, 97Google Scholar and de N.D. II, 14Google Scholar.

page 6 note 1 E.g. Plato, , Republic 473c ff.Google Scholar, etc., Politicus 259 ff. and 292Bff.; Theophrastus: Hal, Dion.. Antiq. Rom. V, 73Google Scholar; Persaeus: Diog. Laert. VII, 36.

page 6 note 2 E.g. Stob., Flor. 43, 132–4Google Scholar (Archytas), 47, 61–2 (Diotogenes), 63 (Sthenidas), 48, 64–6 (Ecphantus). See Goodenough, E. R., ‘The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship’, Y.C.S. (1928), pp. 55–104Google Scholar.

page 6 note 3 Sabine, G. H. and Smith, S. B. in the introduction to their translation of the de Re Publica (Columbus, 1929)Google Scholar note some of the parallels (pp. 95–6), but merely as part of the Quellenforschung, not as contributing to the understanding of Cicero's purpose.

page 6 note 4 Sen., de Ira, I, 15, 3Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. III, 39; Cic., T.D. IV, 78Google Scholar. Val. Max. IV, 1 also tells it of Archytas, perhaps following Cicero.

page 7 note 1 The distinction between the mixed constitution which is imposed by a single constitutional reformer, like Lycurgus at Sparta, and that which results from natural evolution, like the Roman republic, is already made by Polyb. VI, 9–11, 18, 50 (on the superiority of the latter), 57 (on the natural process of decay in all constitutions).

page 7 note 2 Thuc. VIII, 97; Plato, , Laws, III, 691 D ff.Google Scholar, and VI, 754D–757A; Arist. Pol. 1266 a 5–7 and 1293b 33 ff.; Diog. Laert. VII, I, 66, 131.

page 7 note 3 In Philolaus DK 44 B 10 the wording of the definition of ἁρμονία as πολυμιγέων ἔνωσις καὶ δίχα φρονεόντων συμφρόνησις suggests socio-political implications; cf. Pythagoras' description of justice as τῶν ἀριθμῶν πάθος in DK 58B4. For the school's promotion of ὁμόνοια see Porphyry, , Vita Pythag. 21Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1 C.Q. (1942), pp. 111–20Google Scholar: ‘Camillus and Concord.’

page 8 note 2 In thus rejecting the tradition about Numa, Cicero is followed by Livy, I, 18, 2 and XL, 29, but Plutarch, , Numa IGoogle Scholar, shows that the matter continued to be debated.

page 8 note 3 See Strasburger, H., Concordia Ordinum (Leipzig, 1931)Google Scholar; Lepore, op. cit., especially chapters 2 and 3.

page 9 note 1 Cf. Stob., Flor. 47, 61–2Google Scholar; 48, 66.

page 9 note 2 The only passage that could possibly give us pause here is I, 45: quos cum cognosse…magni cuiusdam ciuis et diuini paene est uiri, where the man of political genius seems to belong to the context of the simple types of constitution, since Cicero continues itaque quartum quoddam genus…, presumably implying that any form of constitution which makes the predictable course of events solely dependent on the accident of such a statesman must be rejected. Although the wording here admittedly seems to suggest the rector, it is unlikely that Cicero would have devoted so much attention to discussing his character and role elsewhere in the treatise if he were redundant in the ideal mixtum genus.

page 10 note 1 In Hermes (1924), pp. 73–94Google Scholar: ‘Ciceros Staat als politische Tendenzschrift.’

page 10 note 2 Diog. Laert. VIII, 79.

page 10 note 3 The demand for Pompey as dictator, mentioned in ad Q. fr. III, 8Google Scholar, 4, led eventually to his appointment as sole consul for 52 B.C., the year before the de Re Publica appeared.

page 10 note 4 As Meyer, E. did in Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pompejus (Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 174 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 11 note 1 Cf. ad Fam. V, 7, 3Google Scholar; ad Att. I, 16, 11Google Scholar; 19, 7; 20, 2 with ad Att. VIII, 11, 2Google Scholar. Cicero significantly avoids using princeps ciuitatis (applied to Pompey in e.g. ad Fam. I, 9, 11Google Scholar; ad Att. VIII, 9, 4Google Scholar) of the rector rei publicae. The exceptions, in V, 9, are probably paraphrases of Cicero's actual words.

page 11 note 2 See de Re Pub. I, 6 and 13Google Scholar, but especially de Leg. III, 14Google Scholarad fin. and ad Att. VII, 3, 2Google Scholar.

page 11 note 3 See Boyancé, op. cit. pp. 65 ff. on the Milky Way, pp. 78ff. on the Solar Hegemony, pp. 104 ff. on the Harmony of the Spheres.

page 11 note 4 See de N.D. I, 3, 6Google Scholar; T.D. V, 113Google Scholar; ad Att. II, 20, 6Google Scholar.

page 12 note 1 See Diog. Laert. V, 6, 1–3, 86–8. Relevant to the de Re Pub. are, e.g., Proclus' assertion that Heraclides' prefaces were sometimes irrelevant to the rest of the work (!) and Iamblichus' attribution to him of the belief that immortal souls inhabit the Milky Way. See Voss, O., De Heraclidis Pontici Vita et Scriptis (Rostock, 1896), pp. 23 and 59Google Scholar.

page 12 note 2 See Porphyry, , Vita Pythag. 56Google Scholar; for Dicaearchus' use of Sparta as a model of the mixed constitution in the Τριπολιτικός see Wehrli, F., Dikaiarchos (Basel, 1944), pp. 28ff., 64 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 12 note 3 The de Re Pub. is a dialogue in the Heraclidean form (ad Q. fr. III, 5, 1Google Scholar; ad Att. XIII, 19, 4Google Scholar) which was also adopted by Varro, (ad Att. XVI, 12)Google Scholar. Heraclides and Dicaearchus are mentioned as important writers in the tradition of Greek political theory (Leg. III, 14), and at least one passage in de Re Pub. (part of II, 7–9) is borrowed directly from Dicaearchus, (ad Att. VI, 2, 3)Google Scholar.

page 12 note 4 For the Pythagorean influence on Plato's Republic see Morrison, J. S., C.Q. (1958), pp. 198–218Google Scholar, ‘The Origins of Plato's Philosopher-Statesman’; and for Cicero's awareness of Plato's predecessors see I, 16 and e.g. de Sen. 73, where the Platonic teaching on suicide (Phaedo 62 B) is attributed to Pythagoras.

page 12 note 5 Whatever we may think of this part of the argument, the eagerness to equate Roman practice with Pythagorean doctrine is surely significant. Incidentally one is tempted to conjecture that behind the corrupt rescriptos (or descriptos) uocum sonis at the end of 3 there may lie some reference to a tradition that the Pythagorean system of tuning was already used in early Roman music.

page 12 note 6 E.g. Q.R. 2, 25Google Scholar, and with explicit mention of the Pythagoreans 72, 95, 102 and 112. The plausibility of the connection, which in most instances is given as one of a number of alternative explanations, is almost less important than the fact that any attempt is made to establish it at all. In Questions 10 and 76 Plutarch refers to Castor of Rhodes, τὰ 'Ρωμαϊκὰ τοῑς Πυθαγορικοῑς συνοικειѽν. As a contemporary of Cicero and a celebrated Romanophile it is probable that Cicero knew him personally and certain that he knew his work; so here we have another direct source of Pythagorean ideas for the de Re Pub.

page 13 note 1 Their first period of ascendancy, based on Croton, ended in 509, when there were uprisings in many of the cities controlled by them (Polyb. II, 39, 1–4). More serious revolutions in 450–440 resulted in their expulsion arid the destruction of their meeting-places, though ninety years later Archytas was still the leading politician at Tarentum and was influential in shaping a common policy among the cities of Magna Graecia. See further von Fritz, K., Early Pythagorean Politics in South Italy (New York, 1940)Google Scholar, and Guthrie, W. K. C., History of Greek Philosophy, vol. I (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 173–81Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 See Schinekel, A., Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa (Berlin, 1892), pp. 439 ffGoogle Scholar. Interest in Pythagoreanism had of course been stimulated by the discovery on the Janiculum in 181 B.C. of the Greek documents relating to Numa (see Livy XL, 29) and perhaps too bv the view of men like the astronomer-statesman Sulpicius Gallus (see I, 21–2), the friend of Scipio's father.

page 13 note 3 Tyrannical aims are attributed to Ti. Gracchus in I, 6 and VI, 2, and to his disturbance of concordia in I, 31.

page 14 note 1 Though not a member of the Circle, he is highly praised by Scipio in II, 1 and by Cicero directly in I, 1; in pro Archia 7 he is coupled with Scipio as devoted to literature and the pursuit of virtue.