Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:59:49.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Elizabeth Rawson
Elizabeth Rawson
Affiliation:
New Hall, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cicero's views on history and historians, and his general conceptions of the past, have received a good deal of attention—some, most recently, in Rambaud's short book Cicéron et l' Histoire Romaine; but his historical practice has had less consideration. True, practically every passage in which he refers to an event of the past has been somewhere thoroughly elucidated, and the sources to which he turned in any particular work have been investigated by a crowd of commentators. But the general accounts of Cicero's knowledge of and relation to the historiographical tradition of his time are either antiquated or disappointing, and estimates of Cicero's scholarship range from the enthusiastic admiration displayed, but hardly justified, by most recent writers, to the contempt of older ones, most extravagantly Münzer, who stigmatized the De senectute as a historical fantasy, or Zingler, who even accused Cicero of inventing his exempla. The subject is important both for Cicero's own sake, and in order to throw light on the historiographical standards and activities of his time. Advance can perhaps be made by distinguishing more carefully than has usually been done between the kinds of approach that he made to different types of historical subject at different stages in his career and in different literary genres.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 62 , November 1972 , pp. 33 - 45
Copyright
Copyright ©Elizabeth Rawson 1972. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

References

1 Rambaud, M., Cicéron et l'Histoire Romaine (1953), esp. 25 ff.Google Scholar; Fromm, K., Ciceros Geschichtlicher Sinn (Diss. Freiburg, 1954)Google Scholar—this analyses De re pub. II and Brutus well for their general views of historical development and historical epochs, but is superficial on their sources and does not consider other works of Cicero. Cf. also Schütz, R., Ciceros Historische Kenntnisse (1913)Google Scholar; Poschl, V., Römischer Staat und griechisches Staatsdenken bei Cicero (1936)Google Scholar; Paladini, V., ‘Sul pensiero storiografico di Cicerone’, Rend. Acc. Lincei II (1947), 511Google Scholar; Boyancé, P., ‘Sur Cicéron et l'Histoire’, REA XLII (1940), 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Münzer, F., ‘Atticus als Geschichtsschreiber’, Hermes XL (1905), 50Google Scholar; however Laurand, L., ‘L'Histoire dans les discours de Cicéron’, Mus. Belg. (1911)Google Scholar; Henze, H., Quomodo Cicero de historia eiusque auctoribus iudicaverit (1899)Google Scholar; and Hallward, B. L., ‘Cicero Historicus’, Camb. Hist. Journ. III (1931), 22Google Scholar, grant him a limited knowledge suitable for an orator.

3 Zingler, J., De Cicerone Historico Quaestiones (1900)Google Scholar.

4 See especially Schönberger, H., Beispiele aus der Geschichte, ein rhetorisches Kunstmittel in Ciceros Reden (1910)Google Scholar. Rambaud, op. cit. 27, lists references by subject. Cicero's Greek exempla are equally moralizing and inaccurate: note De re pub. I, 5 on Miltiades, and that in De Amic. 42 Cicero still lets Laelius talk of the suicides of Themistocles and Coriolanus, in spite of the sophisticated Quellenkritik of Brutus 41–3. See Bréguet, E., ‘Quelques exemples historiques dans le ‘de republica’ de Cicéron’, Latomus XXVI (1967), 597Google Scholar, and Berthold, H., ‘Die Gestalt des Themistocles bei M. Tullius Cicero’, Klio XLIII (1965), 38.Google Scholar

5 Cicero is apparently ignorant of the interpretation of early members of the patrician Claudii as rigid reactionaries (esp. Pro Cael.); Horatius, as in Polybius, is unaccompanied on the bridge; Pro Mur. 15 seems to speak of the Secession to the Aventine—a rare version, according to Livy, 11, 32, found in the early writer Piso. References to the Hannibalic and Eastern Wars follow the strongly moralizing Roman tradition, not Polybius. It is inaccurately stated that Cato and Scipio took part together in the war against Antiochus, Pro Mur. 32; Cicero is probably also inaccurate on the date of the trial of Cotta, ib. 58.

6 The fragments of his most popularis speech, the Pro Cornelio, seem to have dealt in some detail with the Struggle of the Orders, perhaps from an early annalist; the account of the restoration of the tribunate is most unlike that of Livy and Dionysius, and apparently omits all reference to Valerius and Horatius, whose roles were elaborated in all probability by Valerius Antias and his contemporaries.

7 They come ‘ex rebus palam per magistrates actis ad conlegiumque delatis, ex senatus consulto, ex lege’. (138).

8 Planc. 48, ‘neque fuisse qui id nobis narraret, praesertim mortuo Congo’ (Congo is corr. Roth).

9 Brutus 207.

10 Ad Att. 11, 2, 2. Cicero is reading Dicaearchus' Πελληναίων Πολιτεία, so whether or not Procilius wrote a periegetic work on Rome, as Münzer conjectured on the basis of the fragments, he must surely have produced a book of political theory or political and legal antiquarianism. If he was related to or identical with the tribune of 56 it may have had popularis leanings.

11 Ad Att. I, 20, 7.

12 Suetonius, De gramm. 3.

13 Ad Att. I, 20, 7.

14 See Boyancé, P., ‘Les Méthodes de l'histoire littéraire: Cicéron et son œuvre philosophique’, REL XIV (1936), 288.Google Scholar

15 De fin. v, 2–6;. cf. De leg. 11, 6.

16 Verrines II, IV, 123.

17 Nepos, Atticus 25, 13, 2.

18 Ad Att. II, 2, 2; XII, 30, 2.

19 Varro, RR I, 2, 16.

20 De oratore I, 193 (Aeliana Madvig; aliena codd.).

21 ib. I, 197.

22 Ad fam. v, 12, 5.

23 De or. II, 52–3.

24 Ad Att. II, 4, 2; 6, 1; 7, 1.

25 ib. IV, 16, 2; cf. Ad Q. fr. II, 12, 2.

26 Acad. 1, 8.

27 De re pub. I, 1–13.

28 Brutus 19.

29 ib. 267.

30 Catullus I.

31 De fin. v, 6.

32 De re pub. II, 30.

33 ib. II, 58; cf. De leg. III, 46.

34 Valerius Antias has been suggested, but though it is true that Valerius and his provocatio law bulk larger than they did in the pro Cornelio (while the leges Porciae, in striking contrast to that speech, have become three but insignificant), it might be wiser to suggest Macer's name. We know he was read about now, and his account was probably close to that of Antias (their contributions are hard to disentangle in Livy and Dionysius).

35 De re pub. II, 28–9.

36 ib. II, 33.

37 D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, ad loc, suggests that ‘Varro's books’ were books purchased by him, but this seems less likely.

38 De re pub. I, 25.

39 ‘Prodigy Lists and the use of the Annales Maximi’, CQ XXI (1971), 158.

40 Ruch, M., ‘Météorologie, astronomie et astrologie chez Cicéron’, REL XXXII (1954), 200.Google Scholar

41 De re pub. II, 40; II, 9; Bk. IV, frags.

42 Brutus 205.

43 Ad Att. II, 6, 1; Ad Q. Fr. II, 4, 2.

44 Macrobius, Sat. III, 12, 1.

45 A. Mentz, De L. Aelio Stilone (1900).

46 III, 62. Dietrich, P., De Ciceronis ratione etymologica (1911)Google Scholar, derives most of the etymologies in the de n.d. from Stilo; Cicero wanted to avoid an open attack on Varro? (Varro in fact avoided the worst excesses and could profess ignorance: Collart, J., Varron Grammarien Latin (1954), 251.)Google Scholar Mere imitations of Greek derivations, like Dis-Dives based on πλούτων-πλοῦτος belong to the pre-Varronian period; and Vesta-Hestia also appears in De leg. 29, for which book we know Stilo was used.

47 cf. Varro, L.L. VIII, 141.

48 De off. I, 23.

49 De sen. 45; 56.

50 VII, 1, 1–4. Note ‘non reprehendendum igitur in illis qui in scrutando verbo litteram adiciunt aut demunt, quo facilius quid sub ea voce subsit videri possit’.

51 De legibus II, 59; III, 49.

52 ib. II, 37.

53 Ad Att. XIII, 30, 2; 32, 3.

54 ib. XII, 23, 2.

55 See n. 53, and Ad Att. XIII, 33, 3; 6, 4; 4, 1.

56 ib. XIII, 12, 2.

57 op. cit. 90.

58 There is still no sign that any of the so-called Sullan annalists is being employed. The presence of Castor and Pollux at the battle of Lake Regillus (11, 6) has been thought to indicate a late annalist; but a Postumius probably refers to this feature of his ancestor's victory on a coin of about 90 B.C. (Sydenham no. 612) and in fact it seems that Dionysius VI, 13 added the story to his account from a non-annalistic source. The story of P. Vatinius' vision of the Dioscuri after Pydna is not in Livy and may be non-annalistic; it involves action that would be recorded in senatus consulta (II, 6 and III, 11); or Cicero might know it from family tradition—he describes the hero as ‘avus huius adulescentis’. Finally, the detailed account of the elder Ti. Gracchus' augural mistake (II, 10–11), which is said to come from oral tradition, may really be taken from the libri augurales or a writer on augury; the technical lore is rather detailed for an annalist.

59 op. cit. (n. 3), also tracing its use in the De div. and tentatively identifying it with Ap. Claudius Pulcher. But much of what is ascribed to it surely comes from Cicero's own knowledge; we can have little doubt that he knew Caelius.

60 The most recent discussion, by Ruch, M., Le Préambule dans les œuvres philosophiques de Cicéron (1958), 379 ffGoogle Scholar. is unfortunately confused and some times inaccurate Strasburger, H., ‘Der “Scipionenkreiss”’, Hermes (1966), 60Google Scholar, and A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (1967) Appendix VI, accuse Cicero of artificially expanding the Scipionic circle, but not of factual misstatement

61 See esp. Zoll, G., Cicero Platonis Aemulus (1962), 75.Google Scholar

62 See Kammer, U., Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Bild von Cato Censorius (Diss. Frankfurt 1964)Google Scholar. Compare De sen. II with De or. II, 273 where Cato is certainly being used (see ib.281); but also 55 and other passages on Fabius with De re pub. III, 38 ‘ex ipso Catone audiebam’ 7, two consulars whom it would be pointless to mention if Cato had not done so. Cicero also uses material he has checked before (children who died before their fathers) and other well-tried stuff. True, he does not follow Cato as quoted by Livy, XXXIV, 42, 3 on the shocking act of L. Flamininus. But here Cato's partisan version was perhaps too scandalous to be true, and Cicero may think he has a better source and be willing to let a mellowed Cato follow it.

See Padberg, F., Cicero und Cato Censorius (Diss. Münster 1933)Google Scholar and Gnauk, R., Die Bedeutung des Marius und Cato Maior für Cicero (Diss. Leipzig 1935). 70 ff.Google Scholar Recent editors of the work, P. Wuilleumier (1961), esp. 17–19, and H. Herter (1966) take a cautious middle line.

63 Ad Att. XIII, 30, 2; 32, 3; 33, 3; 6, 4; 4, 1; 5, 1. Badian, E., ‘Cicero and the Commission of 146’, Hommages à Marcel Renard (1969), 1, 54Google Scholar, makes the point that in research Cicero and Atticus were ‘logical and scholarly to an extent which moderns only too often deny to the ancients’.

64 Verrines II, iv, 123 ‘quae delectabant … commemoratione hominum et cognitione formarum’.

65 De re pub. VI, 10: Aemilianus can recognize his grandfather from his imago.

66 Rambaud, op. cit. 19.

67 Hirzel, R., Der Dialog (1895) I, 475Google Scholar; G. Zoll, M. Ruch, opp. citt. (contra, of course, U. Kammer, op. cit.); Jones, R. E., ‘Cicero's Accuracy of Characterisation in his Dialogues’, AJP LX (1939), 307Google Scholar, only finds that views formed late in life are attributed to persons in their youth, and that Brutus in Brutus has had his Atticism and Caesarism toned down. For this last point, cf. also Douglas, A. E., Brutus (ed. 1966), xviii.Google Scholar

68 Varro's Logistorici were probably in dialogue form. They all centre on a contemporary figure.

69 Cicero also insists on verisimilitude, e.g. dividing a long conversation into several days, unlike Plato.

70 De orat. III, 16 and 60; De re pub. I, 10, 6.

71 Ad Att. XIII, 12, 3; 16, 1; cf. Ad fam. IX, 8, 1.

72 ib. XII, 20, 2; 22, 2; 24, 2.

73 ib. XIII, 33, 3.

74 Brutus 57.

75 Tusc. Disp. III, 54.

76 De off. I, 90.

77 Ad Att. XIII, 30, 2; XII, 3, 1; XII, 5, 3; XIII, 8, 1.

78 Pace H. Henze, op. cit. (n. 2), who thought Posidonius inspired Cicero's whole idea of historiography—Polybian pragmatism plus the medium style.

79 FGrH II C 156; Strasburger, H., ‘Poseidonios on problems of the Roman Empire’, JRS LV (1965), 40Google Scholar; K. Reinhardt, P-W, Poseidonios, esp. col. 824. Cicero may have used Posidonius' history for information about the Chaldaeans in De div. I.

80 Inst. Or. x, I, 75.

81 A. E. Douglas, op. cit. xxii.

82 Puccioni, G., ‘Il “Brutus” Ciceroniano come fonte biografico e storico-letterario’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani I (1959), 245.Google Scholar

83 Douglas, A. E., ‘Oratorum Aetates’, AJP LXXXVII (1966), 290Google Scholar, and references there. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that there is no reason to follow Fraccaro's suggestion that Cicero took his second-century names in the order in which they occurred in the historian Fannius. Alfonsi, L., ‘Nepote fonte di Cicerone?’, Rh. Mus. XLIII (1950), 59Google Scholar, suggests Nepos, not Atticus, as source for the σύγκρισις of Coriolanus and Themistocles (41–3), as the wording of Cicero suggests that the reference to Themistocles was not apud te (sc. Atticum).

84 op. cit. 121. The view he attacks has been restated, mainly but not solely on grounds of style, by Leeman, A. D., ‘Le genre et le style historique à Rome’, REL XXXIII (1955), 183Google Scholar, and ‘Are we fair to Livy?’, Helikon 1 (1961), 28.

85 Livy, praef 9.

86 Plutarch, Cic. 41: Διανοούμενος δ΄ ὡς λέγεται τὴν πάτριον ἱστορίαν γραφῇ περιλαβῖν καὶ πολλὰ συμμῖξαι τῶν Έλληνικῶν καὶ ὅλως τοὺς συνηγμένους λόγους αὐτῷ καὶ μύθους ἐνταῦθα τρέψαι. The well-known fragment of Nepos on the pity it was that Cicero did not write history does not reveal with what period he was to deal (H.R.F., de ill. vir. frag. 18).

87 At least till he starts using Polybius. It is also improbable that Cicero would have used the conception of destiny as Livy does, though that of biological growth was dear to him.

88 Ad Att. XVI, 13, 2. Fromm, op. cit., is perverse to deny he ever took the idea seriously; the fact he excused himself in the De legibus (1, 5–8) shows this.

89 This conclusion is very different from that of Rambaud, op. cit. 122, who holds that Livy's work represents the victory of the archaeological and annalistic forces of Cicero's day, embodied especially by Antias and Tubero and inspired by Varro. Apart from the fact that few will wish to follow the old view placing Antias' date so low, this ignores the near-divorce between annalistic and antiquarian writing that grew up from the late second century.

90 Deleg. I, 8; cf. Ad Att. XIV, 14, 15, 16, 13.

91 The reference to Plato's Socrates (111, 15) shows that the opportunities for character drawing of the dialogue are in Cicero's mind; but the reference is outside the digression proper and refers to the whole work. The digression may have connections with the laudatio funebris (M. Ruch, op. cit. (above, n. 60) 192); but this had probably been influenced by historiography.

92 cf. Val. Max. VI, 2, 2.

93 Id. ib.; Quintilian, Inst. Or. VII, 3, 89; XI, i, 37.

94 To take an example almost at random, Livy XXII, 60–61, the debate on the question whether to redeem the prisoners in Carthaginian hands, is wholly vague and schematic, with one set speech by Manlius Torquatus.

95 De orat. II, 56; Brutus 287.

96 De orat. II, 58, ‘longe eruditissimus et rerum copia et sententiarum varietate abundantissimus’.