« PreviousContinue »
p. 11. Greek sources of the dialogue. Since my work first appeared (1879) I have read two pamphlets bearing on the Greek sources of the Laelius. The first is by Braxator, entitled 'Quid in conscribendo Ciceronis Laelio valuerint Aristotelis Ethicon Nicomachorum (sic) de amicitia libri' (Halle 1871). Its object is to shew that Cicero directly imitated Eth. Nic. 8, 9 throughout the Laelius. Braxator points out a number of verbal resemblances between the two works, nearly all of which are quoted in my notes. But he neglects to notice the great divergence between the two treatises in subject-matter and arrangement. If Eth. Nic. 8, 9 had been the basis of the Laelius, we should have had striking correspondence in the treatment of the theme. Altogether Braxator does not much advance the problem towards a solution. His work is hasty, as a sign of which it may be stated that the pamphlet contains perhaps more misprints than were ever before crowded together in the same space.
The second essay, that of Heylbut 'De Theophrasti libris tepi pillas' (Bonn 1876), is a more careful production. Heylbut seeks to prove that Theophrastus copied Aristotle in the main, and that Cicero and Plutarch (in his writings on friendship) drew ultimately upon Theophrastus. The verbal resemblances between the Laelius and the Eth. Nic. would thus be explained. Heylbut believes that Cicero had before him only excerpts from Theophrastus contained in a work by some other author, and he suspects the same may be the case with Plutarch.
My own investigations lead me to think that the statements about friendship in the Laelius and those in De Finibus 2, 4, 5 go back to a common source, and that possibly Plutarch also used this source. The matter however is too intricate for argument here. If Hirzel's views of the sources of the De Finibus be correct, we shall thus be led back to Antiochus of Ascalon, the philosopher from whom Cicero drew so much elsewhere. But while many of Hirzel's arguments carry me with them, there are difficulties which for the present prevent me from giving a confident opinion.
p. 61, n. on § 1, l. 2. nec dubitare: the construction of non dubitare with accusative and infinitive is regular in Livy; see Kühnast, Livian. Synt. p. 20. For the constructions with dubito in Cicero and other authors see my n. on Cato maior $ 16.
n. on § 1, 1. 4. ita eram deductus etc.: formerly I took ita...ut as with the result that... Prof. Iwan Müller, in one of his well known able and courteous reviews in Bursian's Jahresbericht, objected that this interpretation would require poteram...licebat. Surely not so; dependent clauses in Latin continually follow the syntax of the principal clause. My only ground for changing my view is that the interpretation now adopted seems to suit somewhat better the whole context.
p. 62, n. on § 1, 1. 5. a senis latere: cf. Catul. 21, 6 haerens ad latus with Ellis' n.
p. 63, n. on $ 2, 1. 14. tum fere: Prof. Iwan Müller objects to my view (which agreed with that of C. F. W. Müller in his edition of Seyffert's Laelius) on the ground that the time is precisely indicated in the following sentence. I fail to see why Cic. should not say that certain talk prevailed "about' a certain time, even though he is able to define the time exactly. Iwan Müller seems to favour omnibus for multis. C. F. W. Müller now reads (in his Teubner text) tum forte.
p. 64, n. on § 3, 1. 2. ne'inquam' etc.: cf. also Tusc. 2, 9 and Diog. Laert. 9, III, where he contrasts the aútodihintos épunvela with that εν διαλόγου σχήματι.
p. 65, n. on 4, 1. 7. feci ut prodessem: this is not quite the same as profui ; it rather lays stress on the exertion which it cost Cic. to write the book.
$ 4, 1. 10. aptior quae : Draeger, hist. synt. 2, 534 ed. 2 says that this construction can only be paralleled from Ovid, Her. 3, 70. I have been unable to find any other example. The ordinary constructions of aptus are the dat., or acc. with ad (or in poets with in). Aptior is probably substituted here for the comparative of idoneus, which was not in use (cf. idonea in l. 13).
n. on § 4, 1. 10. loqueretur: Iwan Müller quotes for dicere, used with the abstract or personified subject, Fat. i; Cato, Orig. 5, 5 ed. Jordan; for inquit Cic. Leg. 2, 58; add Att. 2, 5, i quid historiae de nobis praedicarint ?
p. 69, n. on § 7, 1. 13. omnia tua etc.: the younger Seneca has many expressions like this, as in Epist. 66, 22 hominem habentem in se omnia; he also mentions the saying of Stilbo, also attributed to Bias of Priene, omnia mea mecum porto' (Ep. 9, 19), or 'omnia mea mecum sunt' (Dial. 2, 5,6). Cf. also Cic. Tusc. 5 $8 30, 36, 42 ; ib. 4 SS 57, 61.
p. 70, n. on § 7, 1. 14. credo ex hoc item : cf. Madvig on Fin.
§ 7, 1. 17. ut assolet: differs from ut solet, in being used only of some fixed and stated usage or ceremonial (Madv. on Fin. 5, I).
p. 71, n. on 8 8, 1. 29. incommodo: cf. Tusc. 5, 36, where it is said the sapiens will be unmoved, et nascentibus et cadentibus cum reliquis commodis, tum maxime liberis'.
p. 72, n. on $ 9, 1. 3. sed hi in pueris: cf. Fin. 5, 62 sed haec in pueris; Sen. dial. 11, 3, 5 luget Polybius, in uno fratre quid de reliquis possit metuere, admonitus.
p. 80, n. on § 14, 1. 1. sensu enim amisso: the notion is Epicurean; see Lucr. 3, 830–869; Fin. 1, 49; ib. 2, 100; the words in Eur. Tro. 636, 7 are precisely similar.
p. 82, n. on § 16, 1. 19. pergratum etc.: for pergratum used as substantive, cf. Hor. Od. 3, 3, 17 gratum elocuta; Plaut. Most. 211 (ed. Lorenz).
p. 83, n. on § 17, 1. 32. censeo petatis : Iwan Müller objects to the assumption that ut is omitted, saying these usages come from the popular talk, where parataxis for syntaxis is beloved. But abbreviations and omissions are also beloved ; and there are many verbs which take the subjunctive, sometimes with and sometimes without ut, to which the assumption of parataxis will not apply. My view is unchanged, but the matter would take too much space to discuss here.
p. 86, n. on § 20, 1. 31. ex infinita etc.; so Aristotle says (Eth. Ν. 9, 10, 6) αι υμνούμεναι φιλίαι εν δυσί λέγονται.
p. 94, n. on § 26, 1. 15. vim...afferre: cf. Plaut. Mil. 454 vi me cogis, quisquis es; Captiv. 750 vis haec quidem hercle est; Cic. Fin. 2, 16 hoc est vim afferre sensibus. p. 107, n. on § 39, 1. 2.
minime...acerrimus : of course the superlative adverb cannot qualify the superlative adjective. The mss readings in Fam. 3, 10, 10 ornatissimum amplissime and Att. 12, 38, 3 maxime liberalissima are now rejected.
p. 111, n. on § 44, l. 10. verum : Iwan Müller quotes against me a futile remark of Gernhard, that every man's advice seems to him true. The assumption is in itself large: but if the argument were worth anything, it would logically prevent the use of any good epithet with consilium. Thus it might be said that every man considers his advice wise ; yet we have sapiens consilium in Ovid, Met. 13, 433 and elsewhere. Müller denies that verum consilium could mean sincere or faithful advice. Nothing seems to me more natural; cf. Cic. Att. 9, 7 A, (Balbus and Oppius) quod verissimum nobis videbitur, de eo quod ad nos scripsisti, tibi consilium dabimus, quod si non fuerit prudens, at certe ab optima fide proficiscetur; Hor. Sat. 2, 3, 16 di te, Damasippe, deaeque verum ob consilium donent tonsore; Curtius 6, 10, 26 fides amicitiae, veri consilii periculosa libertas. Similarly Verg. Aen. I, 409 veras audire et reddere voces. [Allen quotes Off. 1, 52 to illustrate, not to condemn the expression verum consilium, as Müller thinks.]
p. 114, n. on $ 46, 1. 30. haberet: cf. Madv. on Fin. 3, 67.
p. 117, n. on § 50, l. 9. bonis inter bonos: the reading here has been recently attacked; cf. however N. D. 1, 121 sapientes sapientibus amicos; Off. 1, 22 hominum inter homines societas.
p. 122, n. on $ 56, 1. 30: other exx. of the attraction: Att. 7, 17, 4; ib. 8, 12, 4; De Or. 2, 132; De Leg. 1, 4; ib. 2, 48 (where quaeruntur has been wrongly altered by Madvig and others); Leg. agr. 2, 102; Cn. Pomp. 34; and in the mss of Livy 6, 14, 2, where it
is wrongly altered by Weissenborn. For termini cf. Ar. Eth. 9, 4, 1, οίς αι φιλίαι ορίζονται.
p. 144, n. on § 90, l. 19. quod contra: see Madv. Fin. 5,76; Munro on Lucr. 1, 82.
p. 164, Appendix on the Text. Since this edition was first issued (1879) a valuable recension of the text has appeared by C. F. W. Müller in the series of Teubner texts). It contains much fuller information concerning the Paris MS than was given by Mommsen. On a careful consideration of all its readings, I am not inclined to allow to it a preponderant influence in the constitution of the text, though I admit it is of very high value*.
p. 156, § 8, l. 20. multum : so PL; G multam; edd. generally multi.
p. 157, n. on § 20. nil unquam. Formerly I read nil quicquam, but the phrase is not Ciceronian. It occurs in Mss of De Or. 1, 134, where quisquam is now read by edd.
p. 158, n. on § 32, 1. 24. concertatio: Iwan Müller objects that this word has always a bad or not good' sense. But the same is true of certatio ; in either case we have oxymoron, similar to that in Ligar. 16 honesto mendacio.
p. 159, nn, on § 41. Many corrections of the words deinde and quae have been proposed. C. F. W. M. marks the passage as corrupt.
$ 49, 1. 30. inanibus: C. F. W. M. inanimis (an old em.), needlessly.
n. on $ 50, l. 4. et tam trahat: in favour of trahat, cf. Hor. Sat. 2, 6, 75 quidve ad amicitias, usus rectumne, trahat nos ? Sen. Ep. 6, 3 cum animos in societatem honesta cupiendi par voluntas trakit ; Rep. 6, 25 suis te oportet illecebris ipsa virtus trahat ad verum decus. The last passage may help to defend illiciat, the reading of the best MSS, rejected by C. F. W. M. Cic. has just been mentioning (8 49) the allurements of ordinary life, and now says that even these cannot allure like similarity of character. The observation of Gernhard (quoted by Iwan Müller in his review of this edition) that illiciat is a vox indigna amicitia, is quite beside the mark. Against Brieger's omission of ad before amicitiam cf. Plin. Ep. 4, 15, 2 cum sit ad conectendas amicitias tenacissimum vinculum morum similitudo.
p. 160, n. on $ 65, l. 27. quem: the preceding and succeeding sentences, if attentively read, confirm my em. (which Iwan Müller condemns). The whole passage relates to the ideal friend. For quem quaerimus cf. Fin. 2, 37; Tusc. 4, 37; ib. 5, 42 and 110.
p. 161, n. on § 96. cooptatio : unfortunately in the index to Vol. I of the Corp. Inscr. coptato is given for coaptato (as in the transcript of the inscription). For coptato cf. Lucr. 5, 342 coperuisse with Munro's n.
* An examination of the Paris ms which I was enabled to make by the courtesy of its present possessor (Mr Quaritch) has confirmed me in my view. Unfortunately my examination came too late for use in the present edition. I hope to publish the results of it elsewhere.
TO THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE INTRODUCTION,
NOTES AND APPENDIX.
N.B. In references to the notes two figures are given. The first indicates
abest (tantum abest ut) 118 19
of respect 75 33
juxtaposed 73 13
99 4; 121 12
77 10; 77 18; 82 29
of Greek names in -es 160
superlative of, in -bilis
used as substantives 66
adjectives with adverbial force 109
cum populo 147 26
(dicere aiunt) 114 26
619; 88 18; 94 10;
13; 112 19; 134 3; 134 1 ; 135 22
10; 146 12
superlative 107 2
several nouns 137 23