« PreviousContinue »
JAMES S. REID, M.L., M.A.,
CLASSICAL LECTURER AT CHRIST'S AND PEMBROKE COLLEGES;
EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
BIBLIO THE CE
London: CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, 17, PATERNOSTER ROW.
[All Rights reserved.]
TEACHERS in Germany and in England have recently much discussed the question how ancient authors ought to be edited for the use of Junior Students. Through most of the discussions there runs the fallacy that it is possible to lay down one ideal mode of editing. The same fallacy underlies a good deal of the criticism which editions of the Classics receive in English reviews. In my opinion there are many different styles of editing which are severally indispensable if young students are to be fairly started on the road to fine and high scholarship. In the notes to this edition of the Pro Archia the special purpose I have kept in view is the training of the student's eye to detect not only the more obvious but the slighter and finer matters of scholarship. The selection of points for comment by editors of Classical texts naturally depends a good deal on individual taste; what one scholar thinks important another will not notice. I trust that at least a brief note has been given in the present edition to every point in language and subject-matter which any practised scholar would be likely to deem worthy of remark. Particular pains have been taken to point out the special characteristics of Cicero's Latinity and such distinctive differences
between Latin and English modes of expression as can be appropriately illustrated from this speech.
Most difficulties connected with the subject-matter have been treated in the Introduction, which is fuller than in preceding editions, and fuller than some scholars would think necessary. I have thought it best to treat the speech as illustrating certain phases of Roman life which are more important than the particular case with which it deals.
In an appendix I have given briefly the reasons for and against different readings, and have also dealt with questions of orthography. It has always seemed to me that, if rightly handled, textual criticism, which is scarcely ever touched upon by ordinary School and College students, may be made a useful instrament of education. Another appendix is devoted to certain questions of language affecting the authenticity of the speech.
I purposely worked out the first rough draft of my edition before consulting preceding editions. The only editor to whom I am much indebted is Stuerenburg, who had a very great knowledge of Cicero's Latin, though his judgment was not always sound. Here and there I have gleaned good hints from the editions of Benecke, Halm, and Richter.
Few references to modern books have been given, as I desired to make the notes self-explaining as much as possible.
CHRIST'S COLLege, Cambridge,
§1. The defendant Archias.
CICERO'S client Archias was a Greek, born about the year 119 B. C.1, at Antioch, the chief city of Syria. His family held high rank, and in the schools of Antioch, which was at that time a home of learning and culture, he received a liberal education. In those days, both in Greek and Roman communi ties, the study of poetry formed the most important part of education, Like Pope, Archias seems when a child to have “lisped in numbers,” and his natural cleverness was so cultivated that before he had arrived at manhood his fame as a poet was widely known beyond the bounds of his native city. He was especially skilful as an improvisatore3, and ranked with the famous Antipater of Sidon, who, as Cicero tells us, could pour forth verses in any metre on any subject at a moment's notice. The written poems of Archias were thought by his contemporaries worthy to be placed side by side with the works of the old Greek Classic poets®. Some poor epigrams in the Greek Anthology' are
1 See n. on § 5 praetextatus.
2 $4 $ 18.
4 Quintilian, X. 7. 19.
5 Cic. De Or. III. 194. (Some of Antipater's epigrams are in the Greek Anthology.) Cf. Pro Arch. § 18.
6 § 18.
7 Four epigrams are ascribed to
an ̓Αρχίας Μιτυλήναιος, two to an ̓Αρχίας νεώτερος, one to an A. Βυζάντιος, one to an ̓Α. Μακεδὼν, thirty-three (ten doubtfully) to an Archias who is not defined. These last poems, which are probably not all the work of one hand, contain more than a hundred lines. Cic. speaks of an epigram by Archias Le Div. 1. § 79.