17

20

21

23

25

26

28

29

30

31

33

artibus. The use of causa as a qualitative abl. is noticeable, since causa cannot by any stretch be regarded as a quality residing in a man. Stuerenburg quotes a number of passages, among them Tusc. 1 85 Metellus ille honoratis quattuor filiis, but none so unusual as this of ours. Beneficio legis: "the favour conferred by the law"; so II Phil. 56 (where Halm misinterprets the phrase), In Vat. 27 ut homo consularis spoliaretur beneficio et aequitate legis tuae, De Leg. Agr. 11 61, Acad. III legis praemio. For the allusion see 7, for auctoritate municipi 8, for testimonium Luculli 8, for tabulis Metelli 9.

Divina: see 18, 1. 9.

Debet esse: with this collocation the emphasis is on esse; with the other collocation esse debet, it is on debet. The same rule holds with esse potest and potest esse. Kühner is wrong when he says (on Tusc. II I10) that esse potest is of excessive rarity in Cic., and assigns as a reason Cic.'s desire to avoid the rhythm of the pentameter ending. I have marked every passage in the letters to Atticus in which either esse potest or potest esse or similar phrases occur, and I find that the two collocations are about equally common. Hence a n. of mine on Acad. II 22 needs correction.

Periculis: really=nobis vobisque qui sumus periclitati. For a similar dat. cf. Pro Planc. 50 quorum dignitati populus Romanus testimonium dedit.

Ex eo numero qui: so Cic. nearly always for ex eorum numero qui, which according to Stuerenburg only occurs in De Or. II 56. Cf. In Vat. 41 in illorum numero. Cic. seems to say esse ex numero and esse in numero indifferently.

Itaque:= et ita; common in Cic.

Causa: here the bare facts of a case, and the technical legal arguments founded on them; the more remote considerations arising out of a case are said in the technical phrase of Rhetoric to be extra causam (Pro Caec. 94).

Confido esse: so spero esse below. Halm and Richter seem to think esse for fore inexplicable. The approval or disapproval itself is already passed in the minds of the jury; to this fact the past infinitive testifies. The announcement of the approval is, however, still in the future, and it is to this that spero strictly refers. So Ad Att. vIII 3, 7 est quaedam spes Afranium cum Trebonio pugnasse.

Quae: all that is extra causam; for fere cf. prope in 3, 1. 15.

A mea: aliena a mea, as in the phrase ab re away from the matter. So from is used in Shakespeare, as Hamlet III 2, 22 anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing. For the reading see Appendix B p. 79.

Iudiciali: n. on 3, 1. 6. Cf. Brut. 120 consuetudo iudiciorum.

Communiter := generally about literature, which is Archias' pursuit. The contrast to com. is proprie, which is unexpressed.

Exercet: n. on 3, 1. 12.

APPENDIX A.

ON SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF THE SPEECH PRO ARCHIA.

The speech has been attacked on two sides, the aesthetic side and the linguistic side. The first line of attack I have noticed, so far as I think necessary, in the Introduction. I now deal with those rare or unique words or phrases which many scholars have asserted not to be from Cicero's hand. Before approaching this subject directly, it is well to observe that the external evidence in favour of the speech is unusually strong. It is quite certain that Cicero did deliver a speech for Archias; it is also certain that the speech we possess passed for the original speech at least as early as the middle of the first century A.D., and was never questioned till recent times. Moreover, no one can point to a trace of the existence of any other speech, which might be the one Cicero really wrote. The task of proving on internal grounds the oration for Archias to be spurious is therefore far harder than that of demolishing other Ciceronian forgeries, such for example, as the invective against Sallust, which has not a tittle of external evidence in its favour. The reasons founded on the language of this speech must be strong and clear to lead us to reject it.

The expressions in the Pro Archia on which suspicion has been cast are either such as do not occur at all excepting in the speech itself, or such as are not used by Cicero elsewhere, though they occur in other writers of the classical period of Latin literature. Now arguments against the genuineness of a speech based on the rare occurrence of phrases in it are useless unless it can be shewn that the phrases are in their own nature foreign to the genius of the Latin language, or are in themselves such as there is strong reason for believing that the author would not use. The mere rarity of the expressions may be the result of accident. There are numerous araş λeybueva in Cicero, and some at least in every other author, which

no scholar thinks of suspecting. When the De Republica was recovered, within the present century, it was found that Cicero had actually used many expressions which till then were thought not to be Ciceronian. We must therefore look narrowly into the rare usages in the Pro Archia to see whether they are in themselves objectionable, as well as rare. In the following notes I have omitted all expressions which have been attacked in ignorance by scholars like Schroeter. I shall leave the reader to draw his own conclusions about the amount of suspicion which the language of the Pro Archia casts on its genuineness.

§ 1.

Quoad longissime. In the n. it was pointed out that quoad is joined with longissime in one passage of Livy, where it is still allowed to stand in the best texts. Undoubtedly quoad is elsewhere not defined by an adverb, but in no case is further definition so natural as when the extreme limit of mental or natural vision is to be indicated, and both in Cicero and in Livy (quoad longissime conspectum oculi ferebant) this is the case. Stuerenburg points out that we have close parallels in ut maxime, and quantus joined with maximus, as it is frequently in Livy, e. g. XXX 25 quanto maximo impetu possent. If however the expression quoad longissime be still objected to, it would be easy to suppose quoad a corruption for quo, as it frequently is in MSS.

Vel in primis. Found according to Stuer. in Tusc. III 12 and nowhere else in Latin. Yet vel so constantly goes with maxime and other superlative adverbs, and in primis is so nearly equivalent to a superlative adverb, that no objection can be made to the phrase.

Prope suo iure. These phrases, suo, meo, tuo, iure, are probably used elsewhere without any qualifying word such as prope. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the nature of the phrase to justify suspicion; its non-occurrence elsewhere must be a mere accident. The meaning is the same as if Cic. had said prope or paene dixerim.

Inde usque. This is also, by accident, a äraş λeyóμevov, as are the phrases usque istim in Ad Att. I 14, 4 and usque adhuc in Rep. II 36.

Hortatu. This is found only once elsewhere in Cic., viz. Ad Fam. XIII 29, 7, but the word is of perfectly good formation. If it had occurred in any case but the abl. sing., it would have been possible to say at once that Cic. did not write it. Not till Tacitus (Ann. I 70) is any other case found.

Ex pueris excessit. This phrase certainly cannot be exactly paralleled in Latin, but see n. It is perfectly permissible as an imitation of ex Taldwv, since Cic. is speaking of a Greek.

Ad humanitatem informari. The passages quoted in my n. amply justify the phrase.

Condidicit. MSS contigit, which would introduce an unparalleled construction. See n. in Appendix B. p. 82.

§ 9.

Tabularum fidem resignasset. Literally "had unsealed (or broken open the seal on) the credit of the records ". The question here is this; is this metaphor of a kind which Cic. could not have used? Now the opposite of resignare is consignare, which is a favourite word with Cic. and certainly such a phrase as consignare fidem tabulis is permissible. Again, solvere, exsolvere, which are synonymous in meaning with resignare here, are frequently used in Latin with fidem, as in Ovid Fasti 1 462 voti solverat ille fidem, Liv. III 19, 1; XXVII 5, 6. Further dissolvere, oblitterare, words similar in literal meaning to resignare, are (as Stuerenburg points out) used freely in metaphorical applications by Cic. So is oblinere.

§ 11.

Revincetur. Found here only in Cic., but there is no reason to suppose that this is otherwise than accidental.

§ 12.

Litteris abdiderunt: here only in Cic. is abdere found with a simple ablative, but enough has been already said about the passage in the n.

§ 14.

Suasissem followed by infinitive, also obicere followed by in with acc. instead of dative. The comments in the nn. sufficiently justify these phrases.

§ 18.

Inflari. This is in meaning but little different from excitari which precedes, as a reference to any good Dict. will shew. The fact that inflare is only in this passage used of divine inspiration for afflare is clearly accidental. Stuerenburg aptly quotes De Div. I 12 instinctu inflatuque divino, as the MSS have it. Cogitate: here only in Cic. who, however, has very many adverbs of the kind scarcely found elsewhere.

$ 19.

Suum vindicant: this is unique (see n.) but evidently genuine, as the context shews. It may well be justified as a natural though exceptional variation from sibi or pro suo.

§ 23.

Incitamentum. See n. Invitamentum is an easy correction if incitamentum be thought objectionable.

§ 31.

Homo causa eius modi. This is certainly unusual (see n.). In all probability Cic. would not have written it had not pudore eo, ingenio tanto, preceded. Vetustate amicorum: see n.

APPENDIX B.

ON THE TEXT OF THE PRO ARCHIA.

Any discussion of the relative value of MSS and any full enumeration of readings would be foreign to the purpose of this edition. My intention is not to present a critical apparatus but to use textual discussions so as to promote the exact knowledge of Latin among those junior students for whom the work is designed.

I. Orthography.

1. Compound words. Most editors of Latin texts err by running together words which ought to be kept distinct. Unless the evidence is clear that the Latins of Cicero's time habitually spoke and wrote two words so as to form one, these words should be kept asunder, and it is better to do so when the practice of the Latins was not uniform. Most of the evidence attainable comes from inscriptions or from the Latin Grammarians, with Priscian at their head. The latter kind of evidence is notoriously untrustworthy, and where it does not receive support from other sources, cannot be valued highly.

a. About adeo (§ 13), quoad (§ 1), nisi, etenim (§ 2) no doubt exists.

b. In the following instances it can be shewn from inscriptions that Latin usage varied-si or ne followed by quis and other cases of the indefinite relative, tantum modo (§ 25), non nullus (§ 1), in primis (§ 1). With regard to in primis, it may be mentioned that in all ages of Latin prepositions were often run together with the cases they governed, so as to form compounds, but in the Latin of the Republican period at least, the preposition was generally kept distinct.

C. The evidence of the Grammarians in favour of quemadmodum (§ 3), eiusmodi (§ 3), iamtum (§ 11), etiamtum (§ 5), quodsi (§ 1), verumtamen (§ 28) being unsupported, I prefer to write quem ad modum etc.

d. If cur is really derived from qua re, these two words were at one time pronounced so as to form a single compound. But the con