No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cicero, ad Att. 1.14.5
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Constans, who defends the unanimous reading of the manuscripts, explains ‘tertium’ as a reference to two previous senatus consulta which Fufius did not veto (ad Att. 1.13.3). The problem with this interpretation is that Fufius is not even mentioned in the passage Constans cites; in fact, this letter marks Fufius' first appearance in the correspondence. On the basis of what is preserved it is difficult to see how Atticus could have divined such a meaning in Cicero's ‘tertium’. Scholars have preferred to emend. The proposals of Graevius and Manutius have been criticized by Shackleton Bailey on the grounds that ‘concessit’ cannot mean ‘non intercessit’ in the absence of any mention of previous intercessory action on Fufius' part. However, in view of Cicero's description of the tribune in ad Att. 1.14.1, Atticus would have been no less puzzled if Fufius' failure to veto went unexplained. No earlier allusion to Fufius is necessary. Both ‘territus’ and ‘tum’ provide an explanatory context for Fufius' behaviour which makes the word play in ‘concessit’ understandable and perfectly acceptable.
Shackleton Bailey's own suggestion does not suit the context of the letter, as Ph. Moreau demonstrates in some detail. In addition to the arguments (chiefly historical) adduced by Moreau, it is important to notice that Shackleton Bailey's reading fails to conform to the confident and victorious mood of the letter or to the plot of the relevant paragraph (1.14.5): once Cato's intrusion has focused the resentment of the Senate against Clodius' supporters and his tactics, Cicero depicts Clodhis 'position as increasingly abject.
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1986
References
1 Q. Fufius Calenus (cos. 47), who was tr. pi. in 61; for his career see Broughton, T. R. S., MRR ii.567Google Scholar.
2 Constans, L.-A., Cicéron. Correspondance (Paris, 1962), i.283Google Scholar.
3 Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1965), i.311Google Scholar.
4 Shackleton Bailey's reading is based on a much older, though long neglected, emendation: ‘trib. pi. intercessit’ (‘Pantagathus ap. Ursinum’ in Watt, 's apparatus, M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae, vol. ii, Epistulae ad Atticum [Oxford, 1965], ad loc.)Google Scholar.
5 Moreau, Ph., Clodiana religio. Vn proces politique en 61 av. J.-C. (Paris, 1982), 117–18Google Scholar.
6 This is easily the most popular reading, found e.g. in the Oxford text of W. S. Watt (op. cit.). It is accepted and defended by Tyrrell, R. Y. and Purser, L. C., The Correspondence of Cicero 3 (Dublin, 1904), i., ad loc.Google Scholar, who provide Munro's palaeographical explanation.
7 Tyrrell and Purser (op. cit.), 202.
8 In fact, Cicero failed to take Fufius' veto entirely seriously in July, as ad Att. 1.16.2 demonstrates. He disdainfully ascribes the fear of Fufius' veto to Hortensius.
9 This is not to suggest that Fufius in fact had no plans to exercise his veto at another time. What is relevant is not what he actually intended, but what Cicero believed had been achieved during that particular meeting of the Senate and what Cicero wished Atticus to believe was the situation at Rome.
10 Graevius' ‘territus’ meets these requirements, but has not found a receptive audience.
11 ‘Tribunus plebis’ is far more common in Cicero's correspondence than simply ‘tribunus’, though the latter does occur, e.g. ad Fam. 8.5.3; ad Att. 4.18.4. The frequency of ‘tr. pl.’ and its previous occurrence in ad Att. 1.14.1, also in reference to Fufius, may help explain the corruption, if a scribe, not finding ‘pi.’, confused ‘tr.’ with what follows it. I am grateful to Mr A. Kershaw for this suggestion.
12 Although ‘etiam’ usually precedes its noun in such instances, it can follow for special effect, particularly ‘in eis quae c. admiratione vel indignatione commemorantur’ (TLL s.v. etiam, col. 925). In Cicero's correspondence this usage is frequent with pronouns; parallels with proper nouns include ad Att. 6.1.4 (‘Deiotarus etiam’); 11.16.2 (‘Achaici etiam’); 12.7.2 (‘Dolabella etiam’). When ‘etiam’ is used with phrases it most commonly intervenes, e.g. Brutus 95; Pis. 56; Mil. 3. But this is by no means invariable, and among the passages which support my suggestion are ad Fam. 2.15.5 (‘trans montem Taurum etiam’); Brutus 135 (‘flamen Albinus etiam’); De Oratore 1.206 (‘nam Antonio dicente etiam’).