Search

This paper covers three separate topics. All three concern Cicero and his first-century AD commentator Q. Asconius Pedianus. The chief contribution of parts one and two is to identify sources consulted by Asconius that have previously not been revealed or suspected. Part one will show that the multiple errors committed by Asconius in recounting the circumstances of the death of Cicero’s daughter Tullia in 45 BC are to be attributed to a source that misunderstood a letter of Cicero. Prior to publication, the letters to Atticus appear to have been accessible in a private archive, and on at least one, and probably two occasions, Asconius reveals that the historian Fenestella was misled by identifiable letters of Cicero to Atticus. Therefore, it is plausible that Fenestella was the conduit by which the content of yet another letter left its imprint on Asconius. In part two, it will be demonstrated that Asconius is likely to have relied upon, and been misled by, the invective against Cicero that has come down to us under the name of Sallust. This borrowing provides an earlier terminus post quem non for the circulation of that pseud-epigraphic work. At the same time, it demonstrates that Asconius, like Quintilian after him, almost certainly accepted the invective as a genuine work by Sallust. Lastly, part three challenges the communis opinio that a hostile reaction of a theatre crowd to the praetor L. Roscius Otho in 63 was caused by their resentment of his law of 67 which conferred on knights the privilege of occupying the first fourteen rows of seats. According to the prevailing view, Cicero’s no longer extant oration De Othone persuaded the throng to set aside their anger over being barred from the front rows. This paper argues that the angry outburst was triggered instead by the role Otho played as urban praetor in overseeing cases involving the repayment of debts, which in 63 had become a politically charged issue.

The paper examines how Giovanni Pascoli portrays Cicero as both poet and critic in his school-room anthologies Lyra and Epos, published between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. In the foreword to both textbooks, Cicero emerges as an accomplished orator but a poor poet, a versifier who clings to tradition and whose verses show little sensitivity to the innovations of the so called Neoterics. The paper argues that Pascoli’s opinion is to be understood within the context of the ongoing debate in Italy about approaches to classical studies. Such debate took shape in opposition to the stance taken by German scholars of the Altertumswissenschaft, in particular by Theodor Mommsen who, in his Römische Geschichte, harshly criticises Cicero’s political and literary career. As part of the analysis, the paper studies the criteria underpinning Pascoli’s edition, translation and commentary of epichistorical fragments collected in Epos, with a focus on excerpts from De consulato suo (fr. II S = 10 Court).

Riassunto L’articolo prende spunto dal “mito” di Cicerone, le opere, gli insegnamenti, finanche la sua vita, per dimostrare la straordinaria importanza della cultura romana classica nel diritto processuale civile moderno, in tutto il mondo occidentale. In particolare, se da un lato la migliore dottrina, ma anche la giurisprudenza, richiamano spesso l’esperienza giuridica del mondo antico, dall’altro l’articolo sottolinea l’estrema utilità, ancora oggi, della retorica ciceroniana nell’attività forense, sia scritta sia orale. In questo contesto, si affrontano temi fondamentali come la ricerca della verità nel giusto processo e la tensione che esiste tra “fare presto” e “fare bene”, anche in applicazione del principio costituzionale della ragionevole durata previsto dall’art. 111. Da ultimo, in una prospettiva de iure condendo, si auspica un ritorno agli antichi fasti del processo orale, concentrato ed immediato, magari con l’aiuto delle più moderne tecnologie informatiche. Abstract The paper draws inspiration from Cicero’s “legend” (treatises, advices, even his life), to demonstrate the extraordinary importance of classical Roman culture in the modern legal practice of civil procedure, everywhere in the Western world. In particular, the paper argues that the best doctrine, and also jurisprudence, often recall the juridical experience of the ancient Roman world, and it also underlines the tremendous usefulness, even today, of Ciceronian rhetoric in a lawyer’s actions, both written and oral. In this context, this paper deals with fundamental issues such as the uncovering of truth in a fair trial and the tension that exists between “doing quickly” and “doing well”, even in application of the Italian constitutional principle of reasonable delay provided by clause 111. Finally, in a de iure condendo perspective, it hopes for a return to the ancient glories of the condensed, immediate and oral trial, perhaps with the help of the most modern technologies.

The paper questions the assumption that the woman referred to as regina in Cicero’s letters to Atticus of 44 BC is Cleopatra VII. The paper argues that there are historical grounds for doubting that Cleopatra and her son were in Rome in 44 BC, and it suggests that the term regina is more likely to be a pseudonym than a title. By consideration of other nicknames used by Cicero, the paper posits Clodia Metelli as the regina. The paper then analyses Cicero’s comments about the regina in the light of this new identification and concludes that Cicero, having struggled in 45 BC to find a suitable property near Rome to serve as a personal retreat and to house a shrine to his recently deceased daughter Tullia, engaged in negotiations to buy Clodia’s Transtiberine horti in early 44, but withdrew his offer after a personal disagreement with Clodia. In addition, Cicero’s reference to Caesar ille (Att. 14, 20, 2), previously identified as Cleopatra’s son, should be understood as mocking Octavius’ recent adoption of Caesar’s name. L’article remet en question l’hypothèse selon laquelle la femme appelée regina dans les lettres de Cicéron à Atticus de 44 av. J.-C. serait Cléopâtre VII. L’article revendique qu’il y a des raisons historiques de douter de la présence de Cléopâtre et de son fils à Rome en 44 av. J.-C., et suggère que le terme regina a plus de chances d’être un pseudonyme qu’un titre. En prenant en considération d’autres surnoms utilisés par Cicéron, l’article propose Clodia Metelli comme étant la regina. L’article analyse ensuite les commentaires de Cicéron au sujet de la regina à la lumière de cette nouvelle identification et conclut que Cicéron, ayant lutté en 45 avant J.-C. pour trouver une propriété convenable près de Rome pouvant servir de lieu de retraite personnel et abriter un sanctuaire pour sa fille Tullia récemment décédée, s’engagea dans des négociations en vue d’acheter les horti de Clodia dans la région Transtibérine au début de 44, mais retira son offre après un différend personnel avec elle. De plus, la référence de Cicéron à Caesar ille (Att. 14, 20, 2), précédemment identifié comme le fils de Cléopâtre, doit être comprise comme se moquant de l’adoption récente du nom de César par Octave.

Schlüsselwörter: Cicero; patronus; orator; emotions. Zusammenfassung: Warum überzeugten Tränen vor Gericht, obwohl jeder wusste, dass es sich dabei um eine Strategie handelte? Der Beitrag nimmt Ciceros Pro Plancio als Ausgangspunkt, um dessen Habitus als patronus zu diskutieren. Cicero betonte immer wieder, wie eng er mit seinen Klienten und Freunden verbunden sei. Bei seinen Auftritten bekannte er sich zum allgemein geteilten Ethos, das bei Patron-Klient-Verhältnissen und Freundschaften wahre Hingabe verlangte. Da amicitia und Patronage auf geteilten Werten beruhten, die letztlich auf das Ethos der republikanischen Elite verwiesen, musste jeder, der sich diesen Werten verpflichtet fühlte, Ciceros Argumentation folgen. Zumindest war es das, was seine rhetorischen Fähigkeiten auf rationaler und emotionaler Ebene forderten. Aber wie verhält es sich mit der Annahme, dass Redner selbst emotional bewegt sein mussten, wenn sie ihr Publikum überzeugen wollten? Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass Ciceros lebenslanger Einsatz als patronus ihn letztlich selbst glauben ließ, dass er der emotional aufgewühlte, hingebungsvolle patronus war, der er zu sein vorgab und der er wirklich war, wenn er vor Gericht trat. Abstract: Why did tears in Roman courts convince though everybody knew them to be a strategy? By departing from the case of Pro Plancio, the paper discusses Cicero’s habits as a patronus. Cicero continued stressing his close personal links to his clients and friends. In his performances, he subscribed to the shared ethos of patronage and friendship demanding true dedication. As amicitia, and patronage, were rooted in shared values that ultimately referred to the ethos of the republican elite, everybody addicted to these values also had to follow Cicero’s argumentation. At least this is what his rhetorical skills demanded on a rational, and an emotional, level. But what about the assumption that orators had to be emotionally moved themselves when wanting to convince their audience? The paper argues that Cicero s lifelong acting as a patronus ultimately made himself believe that he indeed was the emotionally moved, truly dedicated patronus he pretended to be, and he really was when performing in court.

With a view to exploring the concept and practice of friendship in Cicero’s work, the paper conducts a systematic review of the epistolary corpus with a focus on the portrayal of social relations, namely Cicero’s relationship with his friends, with political figures, and the more intimate connection with Atticus. One of the paper’s claims is that affectivity is not only a constitutive element of friendship but that it is present across representations of all social relations, albeit to different degree in different specific relations. Cicero is personally invested and deploys emotive language even in relationships with individuals who exist outside of his private sphere. Dictating Cicero’s behaviour across these engagements is his concern with a general code of ethical conduct, the specific parameters of amicitia established in the Laelius, or the responsibility Cicero feels towards the res publica. Allo scopo di definire il significato dell’amicizia in Cicerone si esaminano, attraverso un’indagine sistematica dell’epistolario, le sue varie relazioni sociali: il rapporto con i familiari, quello intimo con Attico, i rapporti politici. L’affettività, che deve essere considerata elemento essenziale nell’amicizia, risulta presente, in gradi molto diversi, nei diversi casi. Anche quando le persone qualificate con la terminologia dell’amicizia siano le più esterne al suo mondo privato, nel rapporto con esse Cicerone impegna la propria personalità e la propria affettività, confrontandosi ogni volta sia con un codice di comportamento morale di valore generale sia con lo specifico codice etico dell’amicizia quale viene descritto nel Laelius, sia ancora, costantemente, con le responsabilità che egli sente di avere nei confronti della res publica. Afin de définir le sens de l amitié chez Cicéron, à travers un examen systématique de ses lettres, on examine ses différentes relations sociales : le rapport à la famille, l intimité avec Attique, les relations politiques. L affectivité, qui doit être considérée comme un élément essentiel de l amitié, est présente à des degrés très différents dans les différents cas. Même lorsque les personnes qualifiées avec la terminologie de l amitié sont les plus extérieures à son monde privé, dans sa relation avec eux, Cicéron s engage sur sa personnalité et son affection, confrontant constamment à la fois un code de comportement moral de valeur générale, le code d éthique spécifique à l amitié décrit dans le Laelius, et enfin les responsabilités qu il estime avoir vis-à-vis de la res publica.

If our knowledge of Epicurean philosophy depended exclusively upon the information conveyed by their adversaries, we would be practically unaware of the political component of the Epicurean study of nature (φυσιολογία), and of the political considerations that grounded the Epicurean way of life. This paper shows how Cicero omits some elements of Epicureanism that are crucial to understanding how political reflection was integrated into Epicurean philosophy. We argue that Cicero consciously omits important details of Epicurean arguments regarding ethics and politics and includes some silences that can be described as «clamorous». By bypassing the crucial interconnection between political theory and the Epicurean study of nature, Cicero includes passing reference to Epicurean contractualism and he does not set out the Epicurean theoretical framework in which it was originally inscribed.

Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580), Rector of the Gymnasium at Augsburg, was one of the most prominent Classicists of the 16th century. Cicero’s De officiis was regarded at Wolf’s time as the best Latin book on moral philosophy. Wolf read that text with his students, commented on it, and published an edition with commentary at Basel 1563. The great commentary differs essentially from the usual philological commentaries: not only does it offer literary and structural explanations, but it also analyzes the morality of Cicero’s statements, and instructs its readers to act accordingly. Thus, it is a revealing document of humanist school instruction. The paper shows this commentary’s context and peculiarities in general, and also by a catalogue of specific examples.

For many of us this congress was the last such event before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in February 2020. Our meeting concluded with an optimistic message of hope, but this was not the kind of hope that would make us nimis creduli postero. Studies of Cicero’s turbulent life and the stormy biographies of our Ciceronian Mentors in many parts of the world, who – like Morawski, Zieliński, and Kumaniecki – for various reasons could not enjoy negotium sine periculo et otium cum dignitate, fortify a hope that is not vain but results from the steadfast commitment to share artes liberales as actual tools of dialogue and integration. In the upcoming months of 2020 it was, and still is, a precious source of strength for our community. May the readers of this volume, who also belong to this millenia-old community linked by the ties of artes liberales, truly feel the hope that emanates from between the lines of the research papers and discussions gathered here, just as we found it emanating from the works of Cicero.

In the Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, Galileo states that he has a more authoritative book than those of Aristotle, one which is capable of representing a unified theory of nature; he calls it the alphabet. Galileo’s metaphor of the alphabet is adapted from Lucretius’ De rerum natura and indicates Galileo’s turning towards the primary constituents of the material world, ahead of the study of texts; he also compares the scientist to a painter capable of imitating the finest details of the physical world. Both these images emphasize the aesthetic nature of the scientist’s work. This paper argues that Galileo is responding to a series of aesthetic works on poetic imitation, while both metaphors link the activities of the scientist with that of the artist, where discovering and making tangible the underlying order of matter is fundamentally a creative activity, and where the scientist not only reveals, but invents the profound beauty in nature.

In April 1564 the Prince Andrej Michajlovič Kurbskij, one of the Tsar’s generals engaged in the Livonian war (1558-1583), defected to Lithuania and entered the service of King Sigismund II. Immediately afterwards there ensued a polemical correspondence between him and Ivan the Terrible, in which the deserter tried to defend his behavior, claiming to be a victim in exile rather than a traitor to his country. Within the exchange of accusations and offenses, an important part is played without any doubt by Ciceronian textual material: Kurbskij inserted the Slavonic translation of Paradoxa Stoicorum II and IV into his third and last letter to the Tsar. In this way he strove to assert his cultural superiority over his less educated rival and at the same time to show that he was suffering from the same tragic destiny as his literary and philosophica-lrhetorical model. The present paper deals with some historical and cultural aspects of Cicero’s reception in the sixteenth century, with particular attention to the currently less known Paradoxa Stoicorum and its major influence on Renaissance epistolography.

This paper studies the significance of humour in Roman oratory, a theme dear to Cicero, who claimed expertise in it, and central to book 2 of the De oratore. In a long passage of the work (§§ 216-290), Cicero offers a detailed and systematic account of inventio that fleshes out the sketch presented in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. I argue that Cicero treats this controversial topic in Roman oratory with a sensitivity to the broad range of differing viewpoints held by established orators (including his own teachers). He does so by expertly managing the fine distinction between innovation and tradition, between Greek theoretical works and anthologies of Latin jokes (some of which were compiled by members of illustrious gentes), between utilitas and humanitas. Il contributo intende approfondire l’importanza dell’umorismo nell’oratoria romana, un tema caro a Cicerone, che ne era esperto, e centrale nel II libro del De oratore. In un’ampia sezione dell’opera (§§ 216-290) l’autore offre un’esposizione dettagliata e sistematica a conclusione dell’inventio, superando largamente gli scarni spunti presenti nella Rhetorica ad Herennium. L’argomento, singolarmente controverso sul piano retorico nel mondo romano per questioni tecniche (ars) e di decorum, viene affrontato da Cicerone con abile dialettica tra diverse e mutevoli opinioni, attribuite ad autorevoli e arguti oratori e ai suoi maestri, ricercando un prudente equilibrio tra innovazione e tradizione, tra trattati greci teorici e raccolte di facezie latine (risalenti anche a membri delle gentes più illustri), tra utilitas e humanitas. La contribution vise à approfondir l’importance de l’humour dans l’art oratoire romain, un thème cher à Cicéron, qui en était un expert, et au centre du deuxième livre du De oratore. Dans une grande partie de l’ouvrage (§§ 216-290), l’auteur propose une exposition détaillée et systématique à la conclusion de l’inventio, dépassant de loin les maigres indices présents dans la Rhetorica ad Herennium. Le sujet, singulièrement controversé sur le plan rhétorique dans le monde romain pour les questions techniques (ars) et de decorum, est abordé par Cicéron avec une dialectique intelligente entre des opinions différentes et changeantes, attribuées aux orateurs influents et pleins d’esprit et à ses maîtres, à la recherche d’un équilibre prudent entre innovation et tradition, entre traités théoriques grecs et recueils de facéties latines (remontant aussi aux membres des plus illustres gentes), entre utilitas et humanitas.

The paper analyses one of the last voices of the Ciceronian oratory, the Pro Ligario. After a reconstruction of the context in which the oration was produced, the attention is focused on the reception of the text by Quintilian, who on several occasions in the Institutio oratoria shows particular interest for the multiple problems connected to it, identifying the peculiar characteristics. L’articolo prende in esame una delle ultime espressioni dell’oratoria di Cicerone, la Pro Ligario. Dopo aver ricostruito il contesto in cui l’orazione fu tenuta, l’attenzione si concentra sulla ricezione del testo da parte di Quintiliano, che in più passi dell’Institutio oratoria mostra un interesse particolare per i molteplici problemi connessi con l’orazione, identificandone i caratteri specifici.

The paper argues that, as the evidence currently stands, the text that most closely approximates the original at in Asconius 32.24 C is compluresque noti homines elisi sunt, inter quos †C. vibiennius† senator. L’articolo si propone di dimostrare che, allo stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze, in Asconio 32, 24 C la sistemazione del testo che si avvicina il più possibile all’originale è compluresque noti homines elisi sunt, inter quos †C. vibiennius† senator. L’article vise à démontrer que, dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances, dans Asc. 32, 24 C, la disposition du texte qui se rapproche le plus possible de l’original est compluresque noti homines elisi sunt, inter quos †C. vibiennius† senator.

The paper explores the different approaches taken by 20th and 21st century scholars to Cicero’s extant political speeches before the Roman people (contiones). These speeches offer a resource for Cicero’s views on the role of this political body in the Roman res publica of his time. This study focuses on accounting for the reasons for those differences and how these readings of the contiones underpin diverse portraits of Cicero as an orator and politician. This bibliographic review of contrasting interpretations of the body of contiones helps shed light on why different generations of Cicero scholars and historians of the Roman Republic have judged Cicero as a “consistent” or “inconsistent” orator and politician. This focused bibliographic evaluation leads to a more rounded understanding of Cicero’s personality as portrayed in recent scholarly history and the dimensions this personality has taken on over the period. L’article étudie les approches opposées adoptées par les chercheurs du 20e siècle et du début du 21e siècle, quant aux discours politiques de Cicéron devant le peuples romain (contiones). Ils contiennent les vues de Cicéron sur le rôle de ce corps politique dans la res publica de son temps. Je me concentre sur les raisons mêmes de ces différences et sur la description de Cicéron en tant qu’orateur et homme politique. L’étude bibliographique que j’offre pour les points de vue contrastés clarifie les facteurs qui ont contribué à ces points de vue et éclairent la question de la cohérence ou de l’incohérence de Cicéron en tant qu’orateur et homme politique romain. Tout cela nous mène finalement à une meilleure compréhension de la personnalité de Cicéron et de ses divers impacts dans diverses circonstances historiques.

The paper conducts a reading of Petrarch’s letters 24, 3 and 4 in which the author addresses Cicero as an ideal correspondent and which contain two contrasting portraits of the Latin orator in the wake of the discovery of a great part of Cicero’s epistolary corpus. I study the development of Petrarch’s moral and literary views on Cicero with a focus on the decidedly modern spirit with which Petrarch rediscovers and critiques this classical model – a model with which Petrarch engages with a novel awareness of its limits and its brilliance and through a dialogue, at once cultural and sentimentally loaded, with a past that is rich in reflections of universal significance, in the spirit of emulation, and autobiographical references. L’articolo analizza le epistole 24, 3 e 4 delle Familiari di Petrarca indirizzate idealmente a Cicerone e contenenti due ritratti contrastanti dell’oratore latino dopo la scoperta di gran parte del suo epistolario. L’evolversi di giudizi, morali e letterari, espressi da Petrarca è oggetto di indagine con attenzione al suo acuto spirito moderno nella critica e riscoperta del modello classico con nuova consapevolezza dei suoi limiti e della sua eccellenza, in un dialogo culturale e sentimentale con il passato ricco di riflessioni di validità universale, spirito di emulazione, riferimenti autobiografici. L’article analyse les épîtres 24, 3 et 4 des Familiares de Pétrarque, idéalement adressées à Cicéron et contenant deux portraits contrastés de l’orateur latin après la découverte d’une grande partie de sa correspondance. L’évolution des jugements, moraux et littéraires, exprimés par Pétrarque, fait l’objet d’une enquête attentive à son esprit moderne et aigu dans la critique et la redécouverte du modèle classique avec une nouvelle prise de conscience de ses limites et de son excellence, dans un dialogue culturel et sentimental avec le passé riche en réflexions de valeur universelle, esprit d’émulation, références autobiographiques.

Il saggio ricostruisce il pensiero di quattro Epicurei romani sulla medicina: Senocle di Delfi, Alessandro e Zopiro, che figurano nei libri 2-3 delle Questioni conviviali di Plutarco, e Lucrezio. La tesi generale che si sostiene è che questi personaggi hanno in comune il fatto di essere esperti conoscitori di medicina e, nello stesso tempo, filosofi che usano questo sapere con il fine etico di condurre gli esseri umani alla felicità e alla salute. Senocle ricorre forse alla dottrina medica di Asclepiade di Bitinia per spiegare il fenomeno dell’appetito e indirizzare alla sazietà. Alessandro guarda forse alla medicina per razionalizzare e confutare il comando orfico-pitagorico di astenersi dalle fave. Zopiro e Lucrezio presentano, infine, la riflessione di Epicuro sui piaceri sessuali, invitando a coltivarli con temperanza e una prassi igienica. The paper reconstructs the thought of four Roman Epicureans on the medicine: Xenocles of Delphi, Alexander, Zopyrus, who appear in books 2 and 3 of Plutarch’s Table Talk, and Lucretius. I argue that these characters are not only experts in medicine, but also share the common aim of making ethical use of this knowledge to lead humans towards happiness and good health. In turn, I explore the possibility that Xenocles draws on the medical doctrines of Asclepiades of Bithynia in order both to explain appetite and to exhort us to seek satiety; that Alexander uses medicine to explain and then reject the Orphic-Pythagorean injunction to abstain from beans; finally, that Zopyrus and Lucretius give an account of Epicurus’ reflection on sexual pleasure with the goal of encouraging the youth to seek it with moderation and with an hygienic regime.

Lo studio della tradizione del poema di Lucrezio ha sempre presentato difficoltà oggettive, dato il silenzio intorno alla sua opera. Ciò nonostante, com’è noto, sono molti i contributi che esaminano la storia dell’opera dal momento del suo ritrovamento nel Quattrocento e che si concentrano sul suo ruolo nella costruzione della Modernità. L’oggetto di questo contributo riguarda, invece, la prima influenza del De rerum natura all’interno della visione linguistico-filosofica di Cicerone e Orazio e vuole mettere in luce come, anche grazie alla trasmissione delle tematiche linguistiche da parte di questi ultimi, sia possibile ricostruire la diffusione e lo sviluppo, dalla prima Modernità in poi, del naturalismo linguistico epicureo-lucreziano. Per rintracciare tale dimensione, ancora poco studiata dalla critica, vengono indagate le opere retoriche di Cicerone (analisi preceduta da una necessaria introduzione sui rapporti tra l’Arpinate e la filosofia del Kepos) e parte della produzione poetica di Orazio, individuando due fondamentali motivi che dipendono dagli insegnamenti del Giardino: i) il problema del significato in relazione alla conoscenza della realtà e ii) la preminenza della natura sull’ars nei fatti di lingua. Attraverso lo studio della ricezione e della rielaborazione di tali tematiche è possibile aggiungere nuovi importanti tasselli, non solo alla storia delle idee linguistiche, ma anche al mosaico che ricostruisce la tradizione del poema di Lucrezio e della filosofia epicurea. Critical studies about the tradition of Lucretius’ poem have always been problematic, because of the silence around his work. Nonetheless, researchers have shown an increased interest in the history of the De rerum natura – right from its discovery in the Fifteenth century – as well as in its role in the making of Modernity. This paper focuses on the first influence of the De rerum natura in both Cicero’s and Horace’s linguistic-philosophical views, while attempting to show that it is indeed possible to retrace the circulation and the development of the Epicurean-Lucretian linguistic naturalism, thanks to the transmission of linguistic themes by these authors. This essay seeks to investigate this paradigm by analysing both the rhetorical works of Cicero and part of the poetic production of Horace. We point out two fundamental patterns of epicurean teachings: i) the problem of meaning in relation to the knowledge of reality and ii) the primacy of natura over ars in language facts. Through the study of the reception and re-elaboration of these themes, it is possible to gain some insight not only into the history of linguistic ideas, but also into the tradition of Lucretius’s poem and Epicurean philosophy.

Riassunto Questo lavoro si propone di valutare l’impatto dell’emotività sulla decisione politica di Cicerone nel 49: seguire Pompeo a Brindisi dopo aver ripetutamente mediato tra lui e Cesare. A tal fine si è scelto di percorrere la pista di indagine lessicale, utilizzando come parole-scandaglio amor e temeritas, data la loro interrelazione, piuttosto significativa, nella lettera ad Attico 9, 10. Dopo un breve excursus sulla loro base semantica, all’interno della più ampia riflessione filosofica sulle emozioni, si conduce un confronto tra i sospetti di manipolazione nella pratica ciceroniana dell’amicizia e alcune tracce di autenticità nell’amor erga Pompeium che lo stesso lessico rivela. Abstract This paper aims to evaluate the impact of emotionality on the political decision taken by Cicero in 49: follow Pompey at Brundisium after having repeatedly mediated between him and Caesar. To this end, it was decided to follow the lexical investigation path, using as key-words amor and temeritas which are closely connected in the letter to Atticus 9, 10. After a brief excursus on their semantic base, within the broader philosophical reflection on emotions, a comparison is made between the suspicions of manipulation in Cicero’s practice of friendship and some traces of authenticity in amor erga Pompeium that the same lexicon reveals.

The tituli present in Cicero’s oration on behalf of Marcus Fonteius (Font. 20) indicate the omission, in the text of the published oration, of the refutation of three charges. The present article analyses questions raised by the presence of these tituli, arguing in favour of the hypothesis that they were later additions by a copyist and not attributable to Cicero. Among the key elements of the oration I investigate in the paper are: the extremely fragmentary state in which the text of the Pro Fonteio has been handed down; the interruption of the refutation of the crimen vinarium; the abrupt opening of the speech immediately after the tituli. I extend my reading also to elements external to the text, to inclde: Pliny’s letter 1,20, 6-7 and recent studies on the credibility of that testimony; the tituli in the Pro Murena; the general practice of the omission of refutation of charges in Ciceronian orations; and, lastly, a passage in Ammianus Marcellinus (15.2.4) relating to the crimen vinarium, one of the charges identified by the titulus in Font. 20. I tituli presenti nell’orazione di Cicerone in difesa di Marco Fonteio (Font. 20) indicano l’omissione, nel testo dell’orazione pubblicata, della confutazione di tre capi d’accusa. Il presente articolo si propone di analizzare la questione relativa alla natura di questi tituli, con l’obiettivo di mostrare la maggiore plausibilità dell’ipotesi di un’aggiunta posteriore dei tituli da parte di un copista, rispetto all’ipotesi della loro attribuzione allo stesso Cicerone; la prima presuppone l’assunzione di una lacuna nel testo che precede i tituli. A questo proposito, vengono analizzati, nel contributo, alcuni elementi interni all’orazione: lo stato estremamente frammentario e lacunoso in cui il testo della Pro Fonteio ci è stato tramandato; l’interruzione della confutazione relativa al crimen vinarium; la brusca apertura del testo immediatamente successivo ai tituli. Inoltre, vengono considerati alcuni aspetti esterni al testo: il contenuto dell’epistola pliniana 1, 20, 6-7 e i recenti studi sulla credibilità di questa testimonianza; i tituli presenti nella Pro Murena; la pratica generale dell’omissione della confutazione delle accuse nelle orazioni ciceroniane; infine, un passo di Ammiano Marcellino (15, 12, 4) relativo al crimen vinarium, uno dei capi d’imputazione indicato sotto forma di titulus in Font. 20. Les tituli présents dans la plaidoirie de Cicéron en défense de Marcus Fonteius (Font. 20) indiquent l’omission, dans le texte publié du discours, de la réfutation de trois chefs d’accusation. L’article se propose donc d’analyser la question de la nature de ces tituli, dans le but de démontrer l’hypothèse la plus probable: l’ajout ultérieur des tituli par un copiste, par rapport à l’hypothèse de l’attribution des tituli à Cicéron lui-même. La première hypothèse présuppose l’existence d’une lacune dans le texte qui précède les tituli. De ce point de vue sont alors analysés, dans l’article, certains éléments internes à la plaidoirie: l’état extrêmement fragmentaire et incomplet de la transmission du texte du Pro Fonteio; l’interruption de la réfutation liée au crimen vinarium; l’ouverture brusque du texte qui suit immédiatement les tituli. Certains aspects extérieurs au texte sont de plus pris en compte: le contenu de la lettre de Pline 1, 20, 6-7 et les études récentes sur la crédibilité de ce témoignage; les tituli présents dans le Pro Murena; la pratique générale de l’omission de la réfutation des accusations dans les discours cicéroniens; enfin, un passage d’Ammien Marcellin (15, 12, 4) concernant le crimen vinarium, l’un des motifs d’accusation indiqués sous la forme de titulus dans Font. 20.

This paper seeks to examine the existential significance of the description of place in Cicero’s works. Descriptions of the locations in which philosophical dialogues are set serve more than an ornamental function, adding an essential element to the discourse. The presence of loci amoeni in the dialogues’ frames constitutes a generic sphragis for the philosophical dialogue, as these loci are imbued with an atmosphere that identifies them as lived spaces. In view of the lack of ancient perspectives on the perception of space, my reading draws on recent phenomenological theories to investigate this theme. The possibility of deploying this modern lens to interpret the ancient material is granted by the transhistorical nature of the object of our study, as characterised in the phenomenological literature: place is not a cultural product, subject to the change, but something universal that concerns an essential aspect of human life. Il contributo mira a mettere in luce il valore esistenziale che può assumere la descrizione di un luogo nell’opera ciceroniana. Le descrizioni dei luoghi in cui sono ambientati i dialoghi filosofici non sono meramente ornamentali, ma aggiungono qualcosa di essenziale al discorso. La presenza dei loci amoeni nelle cornici non solo costituisce una sphragis di genere per il dialogo filosofico, poiché essi possiedono anche un’atmosfera che li connota come spazi vissuti. Pur nell’assenza di una riflessione antica sulla percezione dello spazio, tale aspetto può essere indagato attraverso l’apporto di riflessioni recenti di stampo fenomenologico. La possibilità di impiegare strumenti moderni per leggere l’antico è data dal carattere stesso dell’oggetto di indagine: non un prodotto culturale, soggetto al mutamento del tempo, ma un universale che concerne un aspetto essenziale della vita umana. Cet article vise à mettre en lumière la valeur existentielle qui peut prendre la description d’un lieu dans l’oeuvre cicéronienne. Les descriptions des lieux où se déroulent les dialogues philosophiques n’ont pas une valeur simplement ornementale, mais elles apportent quelque chose d’essentiel au discours: le locus amoenus n’est pas employé seulement comme une vraie sphragis pour le genre du dialogue philosophique, mais il est aussi porteur d’une atmosphère qui lui confère un caractère d’espace vécu. En dépit de l’absence d’une réflexion antique sur la perception de l’espace, cet aspect peut être analysé grâce aux modernes réflexions nées de la phénoménologie. L’emploi de catégories modernes pour lire les classiques est justifié par l’objet même de la recherche: non pas un produit culturel, sujet à l’évolution, mais un universel qui concerne un aspect essentiel de la vie humaine.

There is little doubt that Cicero’s suasoria in book 7 of Lucan’s Bellum Civile, performed to encourage Pompey to attack, is a fiction. Historical sources tell us that Cicero was not in Thessaly on the eve of the battle for health reasons; these sources also indicate a certain ambivalence felt by Cicero towards Pompey. This feeling was underscored by Cicero’s refusal to take command of the remnants of the army after defeat, construed by some contemporaries as an insult to the Pompeian faction. The paper explores the fictional speech that Lucan scripted for Cicero, presenting him, not without a veil of irony, as Romani maximus auctor / [...] eloquii (7, 62-63; cf. Catull. 49). È senza dubbio un “falso storico” quello commesso da Lucano nel VII libro del Bellum Civile, in cui fa pronunciare a Cicerone una suasoria per convincere Pompeo ad attaccare battaglia. Da un esame delle fonti storiche risulta certa l’assenza dell’Arpinate dalla Tessaglia, per addotte motivazioni di salute, così come appare ambiguo il comportamento tenuto dall’oratore nei confronti di Pompeo, a tacere dell’affronto verso la fazione pompeiana compiuto da Cicerone che, dopo Farsàlo, avrebbe rifiutato di prendere il comando delle forze repubblicane. Lucano, dunque, avrebbe volutamente messo in bocca a Cicerone, presentandolo come Romani maximus auctor / [...] eloquii (7, 62-63) – espressione probabilmente ironica se confrontata con Catull. 49 – un discorso palesemente falso, in quanto vi si esorta il Grande ad affrettare l’attacco in virtù di una presunta protezione della Fortuna e degli dèi, laddove è lo stesso Pompeo a mostrarsi consapevole dell’esatto contrario (Lucan. 7, 85-86). C’est sans aucun doute un « faux historique » celui commis par Lucain dans le livre VII du Bellum Civile, dans lequel il donne à Cicéron un discours pour convaincre Pompée d’engager le combat. À partir d’un examen des sources historiques, il résulte que l’absence de l’Arpinate de Thessalie est certaine, pour des raisons présumées de santé, tout comme le comportement tenu par l’orateur à l’égard de Pompée semble ambigu, au silence de la confrontation avec la faction pompéienne menée par Cicéron qui, après Pharsale, aurait refusé de prendre le commandement des forces républicaines. Lucain aurait donc délibérément mis cela dans la bouche de Cicéron, en le présentant comme Romani maximus auctor / [...] eloquii (7, 62-63) – expression probablement ironique par rapport à Catulle 49 – un discours qui est manifestement faux, dans la mesure où le Grand est pressé d’accélérer l’attaque en vertu d’une prétendue protection de la Fortune et des dieux, alors que le même Pompée de se montrer conscient du contraire (Lucain, 7, 85-86).

Riassunto Il tema (di antica tradizione) della senectus trova nel Cato Maior ciceroniano una compiuta trattazione di significativa ricaduta, a livello di topica ideologica, nei dibattiti successivi e nella memoria letteraria degli scrittori in prosa e in poesia. In questo lavoro si definiscono il significato e l’ideologia del Cato Maior in rapporto alla vicenda biografica e politica di Cicerone, si chiarisce il contesto storico e culturale di Massimiano, si compara la topica de senectute del Cato Maior con quella (di segno opposto) di Massimiano. Ci si sofferma infine sulla caratterizzazione dell’esilio quale esperienza di morte in vita presente nell’epistolario ciceroniano e nelle descrizione massimianea del senex, l’esule dalla vita. Abstract Cicero’s discussion of senectus – a long-standing theme in the ancient tradition – in the Cato Maior significantly influenced subsequent debates with its ideological topoi, and persisted in the literary memory of both poets and prose writers. This study (a) defines the meaning and ideology of the Cato Maior against the background of Cicero’s life and political career; (b) casts light on the historical and cultural context of Maximian; (c) compares the topoi de senectute in the Cato Maior with those of Maximian, which are radically different. Lastly, this paper examines the characterization of exile as a death-in-life experience in Cicero’s letters and in Maximian’s description of the senex as an exile from life.

This paper examines several aspects of the complex relationship between Seneca philosophus and Cicero. In the first place, I review a selection of Seneca’s Letters (in particular, 21; 40; 100; 107; 114; 118), drawing a focus around Seneca’s judgments of Cicero’s style and corpus. I then analyse the portrait of Cicero sketched in Brev. Vit. 5, where Seneca develops a concept of libertas that differs significantly from that set out in the letters and that in turn underscores Seneca’s inability to comprehend the republican political reality. An appendix is dedicated to the examination of the epithet gradarius used to describe Cicero in Ep. 40, 11, in context of equine metaphors applied to his literary style. Nel saggio vengono affrontati alcuni aspetti del complesso rapporto tra Seneca filosofo e Cicerone; sono presi in esame alcuni passi delle Epistulae senecane (in particolare 21; 40; 100; 107; 114; 118) soprattutto in relazione ai giudizi senecani sull’opera e lo stile ciceroniano. Viene poi approfondito l’ampio ritratto critico dell’Arpinate offerto in brev. vit. 5 dove emerge una concezione molto diversa della libertas e una sostanziale incapacità di Seneca di comprendere la realtà politica repubblicana. Un’Appendice è dedicata ad esaminare l’epiteto gradarius riferito a Cicerone in ep. 40, 11 in rapporto all’uso di metafore equine applicate allo stile letterario. L’essai traite de certains aspects de la relation complexe entre Sénèque le philosophe et Cicéron; quelques passages des Epistulae sénéquiennes sont examinés (en particulier 21; 40; 100; 107; 114; 118) surtout par rapport aux jugements de Sénèque sur le travail et le style cicéronien. À cela s’ajoute le large portrait critique de l’Arpinate donné dans le brev. vit. 5 où se dégagent une conception très différente de la libertas et une incapacité substantielle de Sénèque à comprendre la réalité politique de la République. Une annexe est consacrée à l’examen de l’épithète gradarius se référant à Cicéron dans ep. 40, 11 par rapport à l’utilisation des métaphores équines appliquées au style littéraire.

Key Words: Cicero; friendship; late republic; aristocracy; social history; cultural history; letters; social practices. Abstract: While amicitia in both Cicero s philosophical works and the Letters has been the subject of intense scholarly interest, it is only recently that the significance of amicitia for Roman society at large has warranted critical-historical studies. In rejecting outdated notions of amicitiae as political factions, modern scholarship has left a key question unanswered: if amicitia was not, in fact, instrumental in shaping policies and voting majorities, then what was its importance? This paper attempts to show the importance and function of amicitia in Roman aristocratic society by analyzing its influence on a variety of individual sectors of private and public day-to-day life. The rules of amicitia, as propounded by Cicero in his philosophical works, can be observed in action in his letters, where considerations of amity and friendship govern his interactions with aristocrats and non-aristocrats alike. From a close reading of his Letters (among other sources), the article draws up a catalogue of amical orthopraxy within the Roman aristocracy. What were the rules that governed friendships? In which areas of social life did they operate and how? What, precisely, were the actual benefits that Roman nobles could and did gain from them? In compiling the ample evidence for these benefits, the article contends that we can arrive at a new appreciation of amicitia and the fundamental role it played in generating and maintaining aristocratic social consensus. The amici of a Roman noble were not (only) important because of their value as political allies. They were important because almost every aspect of aristocratic life was governed by amicitiae, and vital parts of it could only function because of them. Zusammenfassung: Die Frage nach der Natur und den Erfordernissen der Freundschaft beschäftigte Cicero zu jedem Zeitpunkt seines Lebens und in vielerlei Hinsicht. Die Frage nach Ciceros genauen Vorstellungen, wie denn ein echter amicus auszusehen habe, beschäftigt aber auch die Nachwelt quasi schon seit Urzeiten. Wo die philosophischen und philologischen Disziplinen sich vor allem mit der reinen Lehre Ciceros, beziehungsweise mit dem Auseinanderklaffen von Anspruch und Wirklichkeit ciceronianischer Freundschaft beschäftigten, näherten sich die Althistoriker der römischen amicitia vor allem unter einem gänzlich anderen Aspekt, nämlich demjenigen der Politik an. Die Behauptung, amicitiae seien im Grunde nur euphemistisch so bezeichnete politische Gruppierungen gewesen, ist von der Forschung mittlerweile längst revidiert worden. Erst in den letzten Jahren haben sich aber vermehrt Forscher anderer Fragen angenommen, obwohl dies eigentlich ein dringendes Anliegen gewesen wäre und auch immer noch ist: Denn wenn amicitia nicht fundamental für das Funktionieren der spätrepublikanischen Politik war, wo lag denn stattdessen ihre Bedeutung? Der Beitrag soll die Bedeutung und vielfachen Funktionen von amicitia innerhalb der römischen Aristokratie und im täglichen Auskommen ihrer Mitglieder betrachten. Ein Regelwerk der Freundschaft lässt sich dabei nicht nur in den philosophischen Schriften Ciceros nachlesen, sondern ebenfalls in seiner Korrespondenz in täglichem Gebrauch verfolgen. Was beinhalteten diese Regeln? Welche Bereiche des gesellschaftlichen Lebens waren Davon berührt? Was waren die Vorteile, die die Ideologie der Freundschaft für Mitglieder der Oberschicht bereit hielt? In einer Zusammenschau der verfügbaren Evidenz wird deutlich, dass amicitia ein fundamentaler Aspekt römischaristokratischer Nahbeziehungen war. Da so gut wie alle tagtäglichen Interaktionen der Oberschicht als Auswirkungen oder Elemente von amicitia (oder aber ihres Gegenteils, der inimicitia) konzeptualisiert wurden, musste dem Regelwerk der Freundschaft, dem richtigen und den Normen entsprechenden Handeln, kurz: der Orthopraxie, eine wichtige Rolle zukommen. So trug amicitia viel zur sozialen Kohäsion gerade der römischen Elite bei.

Key Words: Cicero; dependency; friendship; love; parental affection; virtue. Abstract: This paper explores a tension within Cicero’s De amicitia between the love for friends, which is ideally predicated on an appreciation of the friend’s virtue, and the natural or instinctive affection of parents for offspring, which is evident in non-human animals as well as in human beings. It is argued that friendship may be regarded as a special instance of an innate disposition to support those who depend on us, extending the range of this natural sentiment to include not just offspring and parents but also those who earn our affection by virtue of their character or behavior. Riassunto: Con questo studio l’A. esplora una tensione interna al De amicitia ciceroniano tra l’affetto per gli amici, da una parte, teoricamente impostato sull’apprezzamento della virtù degli amici medesimi, e, dall’altra, l’affezione naturale o istintiva per la figliolanza da parte dei genitori, che è manifesta tanto negli animali quanto negli esseri umani. L’A. sostiene che l’amicizia deve essere vista come un caso speciale di una disposizione ingenita ad aiutare coloro che dipendono da noi, estendendone il raggio d azione così da includere non solo la progenie e i genitori, ma anche coloro che si sono guadagnati il nostro affetto tramite la virtù che risalta dal loro carattere o dal loro comportamento.

A long-standing debate surrounds Varro’s structure of etymology in four progressive levels in ling. 5, 8, whereby each level is connected to a different kind of analysis and applies to a different class of words. A cryptic and elliptic expression, in an almost certainly corrupted passage in the manuscript of the text, covers the fourth level in uncertainty and ambiguity. While some scholars have retained the transmitted Quartus, ubi est aditus et initia regis (“The fourth level is where lies the entrance and the origins of the king”), the majority of modern interpretation rather advocates the emendation of aditus in adytum (“sanctuary”) and reads the passage as a reference to diverse kinds of mysteric cults, embedding the fourth level of etymology in an esoteric frame. This paper brings forward the proposal that the passage at issue contains no allusion to the mysteries, but a reference to the partly historical, partly legendary episode of Romulus’ foundation of a “sanctuary” on the Capitoline Hill, open to all beseechers coming from all peoples and social statuses. This institution led to the formation of the first core of the Roman inhabitants and, subsequently, of the vernacular substrate at the basis of the Latin language; as such, this episode agrees with Varro’s interest and ideas. The hypothesis that the quartus gradus etymologiae is to be connected to Romulus’ asylum may be defended either by reading the word adytum with a brand-new meaning, or by proposing to emend the text (aditus > asylum), thus obtaining: Quartus, ubi est asylum et initia regis. Molto si è discusso sui quattro livelli progressivi secondo i quali Varrone struttura l’etimologia in ling. 5, 8; a ogni livello è associato un diverso tipo di analisi e si applica a una diversa categoria di parole. Una formulazione criptica ed ellittica, in un passo che nel manoscritto del testo è quasi certamente corrotto, avvolgono il quarto livello in una nube di incertezza e ambiguità. Se alcuni filologi hanno difeso il mantenimento del tradito Quartus, ubi est aditus et initia regis (“Il quarto livello è dove è l’ingresso e le origini del re”), la maggior parte delle interpretazioni moderne opta piuttosto per l’emendazione di aditus in adytum (“santuario”) e legge il passo come un riferimento a vari tipi di culti misterici, collocando il quarto livello etimologico in un quadro di esoterismo. Nel presente contributo, si avanza la proposta che nel passo in questione non vi sia alcuna allusione ai misteri, ma un riferimento all’episodio storico-leggendario della fondazione, da parte di Romolo, di un “santuario” sul Campidoglio, destinato all’accoglienza di supplici provenienti da ogni popolo ed estrazione sociale. Questa istituzione portò alla formazione del primo nucleo abitativo di Roma e anche, di conseguenza, del sostrato vernacolare alle origini della lingua latina; come tale, tale episodio converge con gli interessi e le idee di Varrone. L’ipotesi che il quartus gradus etymologiae alluda al santuario di Romolo può essere difesa o dando una nuova interpretazione al termine adytum, o proponendo un’emendazione testuale (aditus > asylum), che produca il testo Quartus, ubi est asylum et initia regis.

The case of Cicero’s de inventione is interesting for many reasons. First, the work is an early example of the construction of cultural memory in the field of Roman rhetoric. Second, this work shows a strong connection between rhetorical theory, the Ciceronian interest in other disciplines (especially philosophy) and the oratorical formation of a young Roman in the person of its author. Third, in the de inventione, through the organisation of rhetoric, Cicero collects a significant amount of information about history, literature and law, and, in this way, he preserves these notions for the following decades. Finally, although Cicero rejected the work later in his life, the de inventione was an important moment for the dissemination of rhetoric in Rome and has been remembered as a fundamental work for the study of this discipline in Latin. In order to develop these topics, the paper intends to investigate how Cicero uses the examples derived from myth, history and legal practice, and how philosophy fits for his explanation of rhetoric. Il de inventione ciceroniano presenta un caso interessante nell’ambito della tradizione retorica latina. In primo luogo, quest’opera è uno dei primi esempi della costruzione di una memoria romana in ambito retorico. In secondo luogo, essa mostra uno stretto legame fra la teoria retorica, l’interesse per altre discipline (in particolare per la filosofia) e la formazione oratoria di un giovane romano nella persona stessa del suo autore. In terzo luogo, Cicerone, attraverso la struttura dell’insegnamento retorico, raccoglie nel de inventione una grande quantità di informazioni che riguardano la storia, la letteratura, il diritto, e, in questo modo, tramanda tali nozioni nei tempi seguenti. Infine, anche se l’autore stesso disconoscerà questo scritto, il de inventione costituisce un momento importante per la diffusione della retorica a Roma e sarà ricordato come un’opera fondamentale per lo studio della disciplina in ambito latino. All’interno di questo quadro contenutistico e metodologico, nel presente contributo si approfondisce, in particolare, come Cicerone utilizzi gli esempi che deriva dal mito, dalla storia, dalla pratica giuridica, e come inserisca la filosofia nella sua spiegazione retorica.