Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:31:45.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CICERO, LEG. 1.6: ‘PLEASURABLE’ ANNALS?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2015

John Marincola
John Marincola*
Affiliation:
The Florida State University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

quamobrem aggredere, quaesumus, et sume ad hanc rem tempus, quae est a nostris hominibus adhuc aut ignorata aut relicta. nam post annales pontificum maximorum, quibus nihil potest esse iucundius, si aut ad Fabium aut ad eum qui tibi semper in ore est, Catonem, aut ad Pisonem aut ad Fannium aut ad Vennonium uenias, quamquam ex his alius alio plus habet uirium, tamen quid tam exile quam isti omnes?

3 iucundius ω : <in > iucundius Davies : ieiunius Ursinus : nudius Rob. Steph.

The manuscript reading iucundius has had a few defenders, but nearly all editors have chosen to emend, and of the several emendations proposed, the favourite has been Orsini's ieiunius, adopted recently in Jonathan Powell's Oxford Classical Text, in Andrew Dyck's magisterial commentary, and in the new edition of the fragments of the Roman historians. Although the emendation can now be considered canonical, it is nevertheless worthwhile to restate and augment the arguments for retaining the manuscript reading.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 401 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South. I am grateful to the audience there and to the anonymous reader for CQ for helpful comments.

References

1 Powell, J.G.F., M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato Maior De senectute, Laelius De amicitia (Oxford, 2006)Google Scholar, 160; Dyck, A.R., A Commentary on Cicero, De legibus (Ann Arbor, 2004)Google Scholar, 75; FRHist, Annales Maximi T 4 (2.12).

2 Dyck (n. 1), 5–7 summarizes the arguments for the dating of the work.

3 A.J. Woodman, ‘Poetry and history: Cicero, De legibus 1.1–5’, in id., From Poetry to History: Selected Papers (Oxford, 2012), 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 6 n. 15 believes that acceperis here does not refer to tradition, but rather means only something like ‘Did you believe that this oak was the one from which the portent appeared?’. The difference, while important, does not affect my argument.

4 Leg. 1.1–5. This introduction has been much admired for its artfulness; for two recent treatments see Krebs, C.B., ‘A seemingly artless conversation: Cicero's De legibus (1.1–5)’, CPh 104 (2009), 90–106Google Scholar; Woodman (n. 3).

5 Cf. the imperfect, teneo quam optabam occasionem (1.5), and iam diu in his next sentence.

6 On this aspect of Atticus, Münzer, F., ‘Atticus als Historiker’, Hermes 40 (1905), 50–100Google Scholar is fundamental. For the fragments of his historical work, see now FRHist 33 (2.718–29).

7 Brut. 44 = FRHist 33 T 5 (quoted below), where religiosissumum suggests conscientiousness and scrupulousness (OLD s.v. 8); cf. the younger Pliny on his uncle: auunculus meus ... historias et quidem religiosissime scripsit (Ep. 5.8.5 = FRHist 80 T 2).

8 Cic. Brut. 15 = FRHist 33 T 3: mihi quidem multa et eam utilitatem quam requirebam, ut explicatis ordinibus temporum uno in conspectu omnia uiderem.

9 Nep. Att. 18.2 = FRHist 33 T 1: nulla enim lex neque pax neque bellum neque res illustris est populi Romani, quae non in eo suo tempore sit notata, et, quod difficillimum fuit, sic familiarum originem subtexuit, ut ex eo clarorum uirorum propagines possimus cognoscere.

10 On these books, see FRHist 1.350–3 with references to earlier scholarship.

11 Nep. Att. 18.4 = FRHist 33 T 1: quibus libris nihil potest esse dulcius iis qui aliquam cupiditatem habent notitiae clarorum uirorum.

12 de Plinval, G., ‘Autour de de Legibus’, REL 47 (1969), 294–309Google Scholar, at 300–1; id., Cicéron: Traité des lois (Budé; Paris, 1959)Google Scholar, ad loc.: ‘facete dicit Atticus’; cf. ibid., 111, ‘Plaisanterie d'Atticus, qui etait féru d’érudition'.

13 Already in the fifth century, Hippias of Elis speaks of the pleasure that the Spartans felt when they listened to genealogies (FGrHist 6 T 3 = Plato, Hipp. Mai. 285d). For Roman interest, Wiseman, T.P., ‘Legendary Genealogies in Late Republican Rome’, G&R 21 (1974), 153–64Google Scholar; repr. in id., Roman Studies: Literary and Historical (Liverpool, 1987), 207–18Google Scholar with addenda, p. 381; H.J. Bäumerich, Über die Bedeutung der Genealogie in der römischen Literatur (Diss. Cologne, 1964). For an example of the Roman love of genealogy in reverse, so to say, see Anchises' enumeration to Aeneas of his descendants, Verg. Aen. 6.756–847.

14 Horsfall, N., Cornelius Nepos: A Selection, including the Lives of Cato and Atticus (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar, 99 says of Atticus' Liber Annalis that Broughton is ‘its ultimate descendant’.

15 Cic. Div. 2.4 mentions it as a future work, placing it between the De oratore (55) and Orator (46); on its dating, probably spring 46, see Jahn, O. and Kroll, W., Brutus (Zurich, 1964 7), vii–viiiGoogle Scholar; Douglas, A.E., Cicero: Brutus (Oxford, 1966), ix–x.Google Scholar

16 Brut. 42–4 = FRHist 33 F 5; the commentary on this fragment (2.459–60) has nothing on the historiographical points of interest here.

17 For the ‘open’ nature of Ciceronian dialogues, see Fox, M., Cicero's Philosophy of History (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim.

18 Dyck (n. 1), 23–8.

19 See now FRHist 1.144–8 (on the character of the work) and 151–6 (on the 80-book version); for an excellent recent treatment of the Annales Maximi, see Walter, U., Memoria und Res Publica: Zur Geschichtskultur im republikanischen Rom (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), 196–204Google Scholar, where earlier scholarship is cited. There is also much of value in Oakley, S.P., A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1997–2005), 1.24–7Google Scholar and 4.479–84.

20 Cicero's references to the Annales Maximi: Rep. 1.25; 2.28; Leg. 1.6; De or. 2.52–3. See D'Anna, G., ‘La testimonianza di Cicerone sugli Annales Maximi’, Ciceroniana 7 (1990), 223–30.Google Scholar

21 Cic. De or. 2.52–4 = FRHist GT 1 (2.10): erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio ... hanc similitudinem scribendi multi secuti sunt, qui sine ullis ornamentis monumenta solum temporum, hominum, locorum, gestarumque rerum reliquerunt ... non exornatores rerum, sed tantum modo narratores fuerunt.

22 Even chronicles have a narrative structure: see White, H., The Content of the Form (Baltimore and London, 1987), 1–25.Google Scholar

23 Cf. De or. 2.53 = FRHist, Annales Maximi T 1: hanc similitudinem scribendi multi secuti sunt. On the early annalists' use of the Pontifical Chronicle, see FRHist 1.156–8.

24 Although we ought, at least, to note that Cicero, unless he was being heavily ironic, could praise Caesar's commentarii for their lack of adornment, and could say (Brut. 262) that ‘in history, nothing is sweeter’ – dulcius again as with Nepos on Atticus – ‘than clear and correct brevity’ (nihil est enim in historia pura et illustri breuitate dulcius).