-
AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT OF CICEROS LAELIUS DE AMICITIA,
CATO MAIOR DE SENECTUTE AND PARADOXA STOICORUM
By
DUSTIN RYAN HEINEN
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
-
Copyright 2006
by
DUSTIN RYAN HEINEN
-
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Wagman for giving the
opportunity to take on this
rather large task. I also appreciate the comments and notes from
my other committee
members, Professor Kapparis and Professor Johnson. In addition,
I would especially like
to thank Dina Benson for her assistance during my research of
the manuscript. I am also
eternally grateful to my friends and family, who have been a
constant source of joy and
comfort. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my wife Erin for
always being there for
me.
-
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
.................................................................................................
iii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER
1 THE
MANUSCRIPT....................................................................................................1
2 MANUSCRIPT
TRADITION......................................................................................9
Part Ia: The Tradition of Laelius de Amicitia
.............................................................10
Textual Tradition:
.......................................................................................................11
Part Ib: The de Amicitia Text of UF 871.C7i.x
..........................................................12 List
of variant readings in de
Amicitia........................................................................13
Part IIa: History of Cato Maior de Senectute
.............................................................16
Part IIb: The de Senectute Text of UF 871.C7i.x
.......................................................18 List of
Variant Readings in de
Senectute....................................................................18
Part IIIa: History of Paradoxa Stoicorum
..................................................................21
Part IIIb: The Paradoxa Stoicorum text of UF 871.C7i.x
.........................................23 List of Variant
Readings in Paradoxa:
.......................................................................24
3 TEXT OF UF
871.C7I................................................................................................27
Laelius de Amicitia
.....................................................................................................27
Cato Maior de Senectute
............................................................................................48
Paradoxa Stoicorum
...................................................................................................67
Notes
...........................................................................................................................77
APPENDIX PLATES OF UF
871.C7I.X..........................................................................95
LIST OF
REFERENCES.................................................................................................100
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
...........................................................................................103
-
v
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT OF CICEROS LAELIUS DE AMICITIA, CATO
MAIOR DE SENECTUTE AND PARADOXA STOICORUM
By
Dustin Ryan Heinen
May 2006
Chair: Robert Wagman Major Department: Classics
For fifty years, a fifteenth century manuscript of Cicero,
containing De Amicitia,
De Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum, has occupied a spot on the
shelf of the Special
Collections Room of the University of Floridas Smathers Library.
This thesis will
hopefully not just provide the first complete study of the
little known Cicero manuscript,
but will open the way to further paleographical work in the
University Library.
In the first chapter, I will provide a thorough history of this
history of this
particular manuscript, and the events surrounding its eventual
move to the Smathers
Library at the University of Florida. Analysis will include the
type of script and
abbreviations used, the physical construction of the manuscript,
and the importance of
these three works during the early fifteenth century in
Florence.
The second chapter will concentrate on the manuscript tradition
of the collection,
tracing manuscripts from the ninth century through the
fifteenth. A particular difficulty
falls to tracing the formation of this collection, as the three
works, De Amicitia, De
-
vi
Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum, all come from separate
traditions. Only four major
manuscripts from the eleventh and twelfth centuries also contain
De Amicitia (B:
Benedictoburanus-Monac. cod. Lat. 4611 (12th cent.), E:
Erfurtensis-Berol. Lat. fol. 252,
S: Monacensis cod. Lat. 15964 (11th cent.), and a: Admontensis
383 (12th cent.)). While
Amicita and Senectute originally appear individually in the
manuscript tradition, and are
only occasionally combined into anthologies, Paradoxa was
generally united with 7 other
philosophical works (De Natura Deorum, De Devinatione, Timaeus,
De Fato, Topica,
Academia and De Legibus) (Ronnick, 51). This philisophical
octet, known as the
Leiden corpus, was broken into a smaller group containing De
Natura Deorum, parts of
De Divinatione, and De Legibus (Ronnick, 56). Eventually
Petrarch named it one of his
libri peculiares (Ullman 26), and in the mid 14th century he
combined Paradoxa with
De Senectute, De Amicitia, and De Officiis. The combination of
these works became the
new vulgate text of Cicero, and their history together will
serve as the basis for the
history of the University of Floridas copy.
The final chapter will include a complete transcription of the
manuscript, which
will then be compared to the different families of the Cicero
tradition. Identifying the
common mistakes will only help to give a general placement of
this work within the
tradition. A unique section of the manuscript comes between the
first and second
dialogue. A short listing of the seven sages of ancient Greece
appears. This is a
characteristic shared only with a handful of other manuscripts,
all composed coevally and
all containing the de Amicitia.
-
1
CHAPTER 1 THE MANUSCRIPT
UF 871.C7i.x, housed in the Smathers Library East, is an early
fifteenth century
manuscript containing the works Laelius de Amicitia, Cato Maior
de Senectute, and
Paradoxa Stoicorum, hereafter referred to as s (lest it be
confused with S, the Mnich
manuscript Latinus 15964 manuscript containing de Amicitia).
Notes by the correcting
hand of s will be denoted as s1. The front inside cover of the
modern eighteenth century
binding contains an ex libris card of E.H.W. Meyerstein. The
well-known author of The
Life of Thomas Chatterton was also the head of the manuscript
collection at the British
museum. Rowland Watson relates the anecdote that he bought only
the cheapest of
fruitsone evening saving half a penny by purchasing a cheap
orange, when that
morning he spent 250 on a Propertius manuscript.1 Though the
University of Floridas
library does not have record of the purchase of the manuscript,
its arrival in the United
States is certainly some time in the 1950s. Meyersteins estate
was auctioned by
Sothebys 15 December, 1952. Sothebys is not able to locate any
of their catalogues
from that time period, but the Schoenberg Database does list the
manuscript as being
sold in the auction. On this previous year, the special
collections division of Smathers
Library at the University of Florida was founded. The book is
listed in a 1962 inventory
by the head of special collections librarian John Buechler.
Written in pencil, in faint
graphite that cannot be deciphered without digital manipulation,
is XV Century
1 Some Letters of EHW Meyerstein, 11
-
2
Manuscript. It is difficult to tell whether the writing is of
Meyerstein or another owner
of the manuscript, but was probably at least visible when the
manuscript was purchased
by the University of Florida.
How s itself came to Britain, as well as any of its history from
the fifteenth to the
early twentieth century, is unknown, but the collection of the
three works was certainly
widespread. R.M. Wilson notes that the only non-historical prose
writers guaranteed to
be found in an English library are Seneca and Cicero.2 For
Cicero, only the works De
Officiis, Rhetorica, Tusculanae, and the triad de Amicitia, de
Senectute and Paradoxa
were certain to be present during the Middle Ages.3
The manuscript is written on paper and is made of six quires of
six bifolia. The
third quire has only eleven folios, but the page was presumably
lost before the text was
copied, as no apparent gaps in the text emerge. Further pages
were removed from the last
quire when the book was re-bound in eighteenth century
marble-board. Most likely
vellum originally bound the manuscript, as it did the majority
of paper manuscripts
during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Today the
manuscript consists of 61 folios
with writing on front and back, plus two cover pages added with
the binding. Each folio
measures 205 mm by 145 mm. Paper was introduced to Europe in the
late thirteenth
century, but was not common until the mid-fourteenth century. By
1340, Fabiano, Italy,
was a major paper production center.4 By the mid-fifteenth
century, most paper
produced in Italy contained watermarks, which s is lacking.
2 The Contents of the Mediaeval Library 98.
3 A catalogue inventory of major European libraries that have of
copy of Paradoxa is given by Ronnick (1991) 147.
4 Bischoff (1990) 12.
-
3
The manuscript is written by three separate hands.5 Folios 1-34v
are by the first
hand, 35r-42r is the second, 42v-45v is the third, from 46r to
61r the first hand returns,
and 61v-63 are left blank. Each of the three hands supplies
corrections for the other
scribes, undoubtedly from the same source as the original.
Corrections and occasional
glosses are written above words. Where the original scribe omits
a larger amount of text,
the correcting hand adds the text in the margin, marking its
insertion point with a % sign,
or a more horizontal () form. The only additional marginalia are
in pencil, probably by
Mr. Meyerstein himself, and occasionally provide glosses above
words, as well as nota
bene signs in the shape of a hand pointing its finger at
specific passages. The same hand
has also numbered the folios, in sets of ten and at the
beginning of each text. The most
common scribal error is transposition, the primary scribe being
the most susceptible.
Quite often adjoining words within a sentence are reversed, even
though no other
manuscripts have similar readings. The second and third scribes
seem to be much more
careful, but not immune to this error. Occasionally, the scribes
also transpose a be-verb
in the sentence, placing it next to its subject nominative.
The hands, while varying slightly, are all of a late Gothic
Hybrid. In many cases
the evolving humanistic text is beginning to show. The Gothic
script is not nearly as
pronounced as that of Northern Europe, and the Carolingian
influence still lends a better
readability to the script. The Humanistic form of Carolingian
script is not fully present,
however, as the style is not strictly a book-hand, but the
Bastard hybrid of book-hand
5 Bischoff (41-42) notes that the practice of dividing up copy
work was quite common. Two different methods were most often
employed: either an assembly line process, where multiple scribes
copied the same section repeatedly, or scribes rotated on one
manuscript. The latter seems more probable in the case of s, since
one scribe has written over 80 percent of the manuscript, and his
hand appears at the beginning and end of the text.
-
4
and cursive script.6 The majuscule U is occasionally written as
a V, which started during
humanism and became common during the Elizabethan and Jacobean
times.7 Rounded
vowels are closed, though the a varies from scribe to scribe.
The first and second
scribe keep a fully rounded a while the third scribe added an
ascender a. There is a
conscious effort to maintain a space between the lines by
restricting the ascenders and
descenders, typical of most Italian and Carolingian scripts.
Minims are generally
straight, but sometimes have a slight lean to the right, and
most have slight serifs at their
feet. Other characteristic letters are a forked r common with
the Gothic Bastard, and a
non-ascending t, which is usually a right-curving main line with
a bar extending to the
right. Occasionally the scribes slip to a 2-form r (see plate
6), which was common until
around 1420. Depending on the height of the bar, the t often
looks quite similar to the
scribes c. The three scribes have quite similar traits, except
for a few notable exceptions.
The first scribe has a very heavy and dark stroke, though
completely natural. The second
scribe uses a much lighter touch and has slightly rounded, more
widely spaced letters.
And the third has quite slender letters and an affinity for
majuscule uncials at the
beginning of words. He quite often uses a rotund uncial E: . The
scribe also uses a
noticeably inferior ink, which has cracked and worn away more
than the ink of the other
two scribes.
6 Many of Petrarchs concerns are still present in the
manuscript: acervans omnia et coartans atque hinc spatio, hinc
literarum super literas velut equitantium aggestione confundens,
que scriptor ipse brevi post tempore rediens vix legat, emptor vero
non tam librum quam libro c(a)ecitatem emat (Sen. 6.5) Petrarch
sought to remove excessive abbreviations and poorly written text,
and thus gave re-birth to the thin, very readable adaptation of the
Carolingian script. Petrarch was 62 when made this comment, and
understandably sought a more readable script (Ullman, 1960,
13).
7 Tannenbaum (1930) 115.
-
5
Titles of the three works, as well as the titles of the six
paradoxes, are written in
red half-uncials. The amount of decoration seems to increase
through the work, as the
initial title is quite plain, with basic lettering. By the last
half of Paradoxa, initial letters
are decorated in a very heavy red oil paint, with additional
flourishes covering the
margins. Names of speakers in the two dialogues are given in a
red ink without flourish.
At the completion of each work, in red rustic capitals is the
name of the work and explicit
feliciter. The scribes of early Carolingian minuscule, and by
association the Humanistic
scribes developed a very detailed hierarchy of scripts,8 and the
use of rustic capitals as
titles shows only a familiarity with this hierarchy, but the
lack of special script for names
and subtitles shows that this scribe has not arrived at the
precise hierarchy of the mid-
fifteenth century.
Many abbreviations appear in the text, and the primary scribe
often switches
abbreviations at will throughout the text. The most common are
est: and , h[a]ec: ,
qui: q with a line through the descender, and with a line above
the letter for quae, per: p
with a line through the descender, pro: p with a flourish
extending to the left of the letter
from the bottom of the curve, terminal us: , and cum or con--:
#, enim: , and a
suspension bar for the letters m, n, l, and r. All these
abbreviations are quite common
even by the thirteenth century. The scribes use abbreviations
quite commonly at the
beginning and within words as well. The ae and oe diphthong does
not appear in the
manuscript, being replaced by an e. From the ninth century until
the late fifteenth
century, most manuscripts adopt this practice. A correcting hand
(most likely the second
main scribe) has added a loop on an e which was naturally part
of a diphthong, creating a
8 Brown (1990) 68
-
6
cedilla. He must have done this somewhat hastily, however, as he
transformed a number
of simple vowels into a cedilla (sin[a]e), and many pages are
without this correction. The
fact that the cedilla was not originally used, but at least
familiar to the scribes, indicates
that the manuscript was probably written contemporaneously with
the spread of this
ligature, which was 1410 to 1430. The most peculiar of the
abbreviations, however, is
the shorthand for et. Both scribes alternate between writing the
word and a shorthand
form. The Tironian shorthand 7, quite common in Italy, is never
used (though as noted
above, the Tironian forms , #, and are used frequently). The
second scribe uses a
standard & symbol, but the other two scribes use a three
stroke symbol similar to that
used by Poggio in the early fifteenth century. The mixed symbol
helps fix a fairly narrow
date, since the three stroke ampersand begins to spread around
1410, but completely
disappears by 1460, giving way again to the standard & form.
The final prominent
ligature is a non-discreet bar in the ct combination. By 1430,
the ligature bar was much
more pronounced.
An additional possibility remains on the history of s. The
heterogonous scribal
qualities may point to a foreign scribe who is not familiar with
the intricacies of the
developing Humanistic hand. From the early fourteenth century,
English scribes such as
John Gunthorpe began ascending on Florence to learn the new,
more legible hand.9
While there is no proof that an Englishman produced this text,
the possibility is not at all
unlikely, and additionally provides an explanation as to how it
came to London.
9 Thomson (1969) plate 107.
-
7
The three works de Amicitia, de Senectute and Paradoxa began
appearing
together as a part of a larger body known as the Leiden
Corpus,10 and the three works
eventually became the vulgate text of Cicero. When Poggio
brought a copy of the three
philosophical treatises to Italy in the early fourteenth
century,11 most of the scriptoria in
Northern Italy devoted considerable time to copying them. In
1465, Johannes Fust and
Peter Schoeffer, former associates of Gutenberg, produced the
book in Italy. The three
works printed on a combination of vellum and paper were de
Officiis, Paradoxa
Stoicorum and Horace 4.7.12 Paradoxa contained a newly
manufactured Greek type-set
of the letters , , , , , , and , combining Latin letters with
the Greek (letters such
as a and x were retained).13 By the development of a new set of
letters for the printing
press, and not just writing them by hand as early German
editions did,14 Fust and
Schoeffer show that they were quite devoted to reproducing
Paradoxa accurately,
elucidating the importance of that work in Northern Italy.
Furthermore, the complex
nature of the manuscript tradition becomes apparent in the fact
that five different editions
were published in 1465 alone.15 While manuscripts were written
coevally with the
earliest editions, texts of de Amicitia, de Senectute and
Paradoxa quickly cease to be
transmitted by hand, due to their immense popularity in early
editions. Ronnick lists16
10 For the complete history of the tradition, see below, Chapter
2.
11 Ronnick (1991) 55.
12 Moss (1825) 301
13 ibid.
14 e.g. Heinrich Eggesteyns 1472 edition (Ronnick 78).
15 ibid.
16 (1991) appendix 3: 170-174)
-
8
over sixty presses that had produced a copy of Paradoxa from its
first printing to 1500
over seventy per cent also containing the two dialoguesand that
rate more than doubles
in the 16th century. Further, Badali and Ronnick combine to
count 576 extant
manuscripts from the fifteenth century containing these works,
and 38 from the following
century.17
While the corruption of the manuscript tradition of de Amicitia
and de Senectute
by the time s was written and the lack of any dating or
composition references on the
manuscript itself make dating difficult, enough information
about the manuscript can be
gathered to confidently assign a date to its composition. The
history of Paradoxa
Stoicorum in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century
give a terminus post quem of
1400. The invention of the printing press and subsequent decline
of manuscripts in 1465
gives a terminus ante quem of approximately 1470. Additionally,
the handwriting style
in Florence and Bologna region, where virtually all of these
manuscripts were produced
after the thirteenth century, is identical to the merging Gothic
Bastard and Humanistic
book-hand style found from 1410-1430.
17 Badali (1968) 45-58 and Ronnick (1991) 204.
-
9
CHAPTER 2 MANUSCRIPT TRADITION
Although Cicero's philosophical works de Amicitia, de Senectute,
and Paradoxa
Stoicorum occasionally appear in the tradition as individual
books, for the most part they
were transmitted as a collection. By the Renaissance they had
become inseparable. The
two dialogues are sometimes reunited in early manuscripts.
Paradoxa Stoicorum was
joined to de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, Timaeum, de Fato,
Topica, Lucullum, and
de Legibus in a collection known as the 'Leiden Corpus' (after
their chief manuscript,
Leidensis Voss. Lat. 86).
Powell, in discussing the recentiores of de Amicitia, does not
even attempt to
cypher their relationship, since given the extent of corruption
and contamination in
them, the value of such an attempt would be very dubious. 1 In
light of this
consideration, an attempt to sort out a fifteenth century
manuscript would prove not just
dubious, but impossible. In their readings, however, the texts
of the de Amicitia, de
Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum contained in s tend to follow
certain trends from the
major manuscripts. In particular, Paradoxa Stoicorum contains
readings very close to
those of major manuscripts, which can help identify the date and
origin of our book. This
chapter contains a history of each text's manuscript tradition,
with an abbreviated analysis
of variant readings and errors appearing in S. Rather than
examine every variant reading
(over 500 in de Amicitia alone), a full account of variants in
the first five sections, plus
1 (1998) 516
-
10
major variants in the tradition, will sufficiently establish the
level of corruption, as well
as identify s's general place in the three manuscript families.
For a complete list of
variant readings, see the text transcription at pp. 25ff
below.
Part Ia: The Tradition of Laelius de Amicitia
List of Manuscripts2 PKrakw, Berol. lat 4 404, formerly
Parisinus Didotianus (s. ix): This manuscript was first published
in Reinisches Museum in 1863 by Mommsen, who discovered it in the
private library of the Parisian Firmin Didot. Used by Mller for his
Teubner edition (1898), the manuscript was then lost for several
decades. Beeson (1926) reports it at the Royal Library in Berlin,
where it was sold after the death of Didot, and gives a new
collation of the manuscript. Venini (on information from the Berlin
library) claims that the manuscript was destroyed in World War II
(Finch 1964, Powell 1983 and 1998) Powell corrects this statement
in his 1990 edition, following Olsen (1987), who is the first to
cite the manuscript as Krakw Berol lat 4 404. Since its discovery,
all editors have considered Krakw Berol lat 4 404 the most
important and reliable manuscript of the de Amicitia. KVatican
Libary, Reg. lat. 1762 (s. ix): Contains readings from Hadoard, the
librarian at Corbie (T&T 118), which would place its date at
ca. 865. Used in all editions since Simbeck. OOxford, Bodl.
DOrville 77 (s. x): Also comes from Hadoards copy3 and has many
readings in common with K. MMunich Clm 15514-II (s. ix): contains
44-end of Laelius. First used by Baiter. AVat. lat. 5207 (s. ix or
x): contains Laelius 1-29, first published by Finch (TAPA 95, 1964
66-76). The text of s typically disagrees with A when it agrees
with H. HBritish Library, Harleianus 2682 (s. xi): Most important
of the post-tenth century manuscripts. It was collated by Clark and
first used in Laurands edition. Harley 2682 was probably an early
relative of the s, and is at the very least of the same family.
BBenedictoburanus-Monac. cod. Lat 4611 (s. xii).
2 Here and in the other lists I mention only the major
manuscripts, especially the ones closely related to the UF copy.
For a complete list, see Munk Olsen, 114-115 (Laelius), 113 (Cato)
and 116-117 (Paradoxa). Powell (1998) also provides a list of major
manuscripts before the twelfth century (506-7)
3 Powell (1983) 122.
-
11
VVindobonensis 275 (s. xi): Simbeck puts this manuscript in the
family with B, Clark states that it comes from H. SMonacensis cod.
Lat. 15964 (s. xi or xii): shares many readings in common with B,
probably from the same ancestor. EErfurtensis-Berol. Lat. fol. 252
(s. x or xii). DVindobonensis 3115 U 658 (s. xv). Deutsche
Staatsbibliotheck, Diez C. oct. 12 (s. xii): Contains Laelius and
Cato. Between the two, it has Hec sunt nomina septem sapientium:
Thales Milesius . . . Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 76.23 (s. xii):
Written in Italy, contains Laelius only. After Laelius, has Hec
sunt nomina VII sapientium . . . British Library, Harleianus 4927
(s. xii): contains many of Ciceros philosophical works, including
de Am., de Sen., and Paradoxa, as well as some orations. Petrarch
later owned this copy, and its works are among his Libri Peculiares
(Powell, T&T, p 124). Grflich Schnbornshe Bibliothek 29
(2756)-I (s. xii): Written in Germany and collated in Bernard
Wirtgens dissertation, Die Handschriften des Klosters St. Peter und
Paul zu Erfurt, (Grfenhainichen 1936). A relatively late and
unimportant manuscript, but contains a list of the Seven Sages
after de Amicitia.
Textual Tradition
Even the relationship between the earliest manuscripts of
Laelius is disputed,4 and
after the twelfth century, little effort is made to cipher the
tradition. While a precise
stemma may be difficult to produce, certain manuscripts
undoubtedly belong in well-
delineated families. The two major branches are PAKOM (x) and
BSVH (y). Powell
also discusses Florence, L-Laur. 50, 45, (s. x) and Q-Paris lat
544-II (s. xi), which
probably belong to the y family, but are disregarded by most
editors as not containing
much editorial value. Within the x family, 5 P and A
consistently contain similar
readings, and are certainly from a common source; PA and KOM all
derive, through an 4 See Powell (1987), 121f for a discussion on
the early history of Laelius. Writers who have sought to create a
rescension are Orelli, Baiter, Halm (1861), Mueller (1876), Simbeck
(1917), Laurand (1928), Combs (1971), and Powell (1987 and
1998).
5 (1998): 510
-
12
unknown number of copies, from the lost x manuscript. Simbeck
reports that E, which
has many readings in common with the UF copy, is a descendant of
M. In the y family,
all major manuscripts are very closely related. Though not all
of them derive from one
ancestor, there are over fifty errors which each of them share
in the de Amicitia alone.6
Contamination between the two families appears early, as A
already shows contamination
from the y family.7
Part Ib: The de Amicitia Text of UF 871.C7i.x
The extraordinarily complex web of manuscripts containing one or
all the works
Laelius de Amicitia, Cato Maior de Senectute, and Paradoxa
Stoicorum forces most
scholars to abandon their detangling efforts after the twelfth
or thirteenth centuries. By
the late fourteenth/early fifteenth century, when s was written
(see above, p 2), the
amount of contamination becomes impossible to work through. The
difficulty in
assigning a family to s lies especially in the fact that it
contains a number of readings
from P and E of the x family, and H of the y family. The text of
s also follows the
readings of O, but not the readings of O1. It shows the same
spelling mistakes as H, but
rarely takes its readings from H.
In the following chart, the positive readings are listed first,
while the negative
variant readings of the major manuscripts are noted only when
necessary. Due to the
different nature of the traditions, the first two manuscripts
will be examined with a
positive and negative analysis, which will show where they agree
and disagree with the
same families. For Paradoxa Stoicorum, a mostly positive
analysis will show how s is
6 ibid. 508.
7 Powell (1987) 123.
-
13
very closely related to two specific manuscripts, and that it
does depart from both due
only to an occasional inadvertent error.
Unless otherwise noted, the UF copy of de Amicitia is being
compared to the P
manuscript, Parisinus Didotianus in editions before 1940, now
Berolinensis Lat. qu. 404
(s. IX-X). Most editors base their text on P; Mller even with
agreement among all of the
others.
List of Variant Readings in de Amicitia
1 M.T.C. L(iber) DE AMICITIA INCIPIT E augur Scevola ElH2: augur
iocunde (etc.) H: iucunde dubitabat: dubitare apatre: a patre
asenis: a senis multa ab eo: ab eo multa SBVHD mandabam y: mandavi
x commendabam E 2 narraret: dixisset suprascr. H hemiciclio:
hemicyclio tum fere omnibus: tum fere multis Cum et ego P HLBSVEp:
cum ego GDl o Attice: Attice utebare multum x: multum utebare pL 3
cumiunctissime: coniunctissime Affricani H: Africani genero: om. L
4 Lelii H: Laelii (et c.) 5 ad senem senex de senectute PL: ad
senem senex attice E ad te o attice senem senex LG ad te seneum
senex BSV and A 9 graecum: Galum A Gaium y nec hi quidem
comparentur Marco Catoni maximo et spectato viro: hi in pueris,
Cato in perfecto et spectato viro (this reading first cited by
Langius (powell 509) iniveris . . . P hij niversis . . . A hi
quidem nec Catoni comparantur BSVH sed cave hos praeponas Catoni
maximo et expectato viro Laurentianus 45, 28
11 facillimis H: facillumis 12 cum: quam PAO: quo FE habundant
H: abundant 13 his H: iis
8 Save for Laurand, most editors avoid using this manuscript
except for its text of in Catilinam. See Laurand 1926 for a
collation of the manuscript.
-
14
14 visum PAO1R: per visum sin autem illa vereor : veriora H:
verior aut P1 vereor aut P2, vereor ut yE 21 magnificentia
metiamur: magnificentiam etiam PAO1 22 colare: colere PAK 23
cumque: quamque PK quamquam l ex dissensionibus adque ex
discordiis: ex dissensionibus atque discordiis y ex
dissensionibus id et excordiis PAO1K 25 o Fanni H: Fanni ortis
H: hortis 26 recipiendisque: reciperandisque PA princeps est ad:
princeps et ad PA 27 lumen aliquod: lumen aliquid PAO1K 49 animo
autem: animante PO1KM and R1 54 miror: minor P1O1M 59 dixero PO1M:
edixero 75 quod POKM: eo quod 87: aliquis: aliqui PO1KM abundantiam
et copiam: abundantia et copia PO1KM ferre posset: ferre possit
PO1KM and RF1 97 ut is: ut si PO1KM 100 accipit: accepit PO1KM 101
pervenire: pervenires PO1M End M.T.C. DE AMICITIA EXPLICIT
FELICITER: The level of cross-contamination in this manuscript is
instantly obvious. Certain
tendencies, however, help clarify the picture to a moderate
extent. The text of s agrees
with H in many spelling tendencies: Lelius, iocundus,
facillimis, his, habundo.
Harleianus 2682, among its 21 works contains all twelve of
Ciceros philosophical
treatises canonized in Petrarchs Libri Peculiares. This canon
was later reduced to the
three works found in the UF copy.9 While the manuscript does
show occasional readings
from the x family (PAKOM), it is certainly more closely related
to the y family
(BSVHZG and LQ10). One of the most important issues in the
relationship is 9. The
reading graecum for Galum (which Powell assumes to be correct,
although it appears
9 Ronnick (1991) 67.
10 See Powell, 1998 511-13 for discussion of where LQ belongs in
the tradition.
-
15
only onceperhaps accidentallyin the tradition11 or Gaium (the
most commonly
attested reading), is obviously wrong. Graecum does not appear
in any of the collated
manuscripts, and could be a local interpolation. Nec hi quidem
was probably the answer
of the x family for a difficult to read archetype. The reading
inivervis of P is closer to the
probable reading: in pueris. In this reading more than any
other, is the relationship
between BSVH and s shown. The corruption which began with the
archetype is
differently attested in all branches of the manuscript, and
further interpolations draw the
manuscripts apart rather than pollute them. P, which reads: hij
niversis, is evidence of
this separation, being a further corruption of the x family.
Though no one has yet attempted to untangle the web of
manuscripts from the
three centuries preceding this copy, it is fairly safe to say
that s most closely identifies
with Powells y3 family, and, though corrupted, can conceivably
be called a descendant
of H, with strong influence from B and S.
A peculiar passage is inserted between de Amicitia and de
Senectute, which lists
names of Seven Wise Men in Greek history. This practice is quite
rare, and of the 739
listings of Cicero manuscripts in Olsen, only manuscripts
containing Laelius have the
same insert. The manuscripts that contain the list are Deutsche
Staatsbibliotheck, Diez C.
oct. 12; Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 76.23; and Grflich
Schnbornshe Bibliothek 29
(2756) Iall twelfth century manuscripts from Northern Italy and
France. A search of
the Ciceronian manuscripts in the Vatican catalogues does not
show any additional
mention of the list.12 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19473-I,
which also includes the
11 Powell (1998) 509.
12 Les Manuscrits Classiques (1975).
-
16
text of de Amicitia, has the names of the nine muses. In an
unpublished Cicero
manuscript at the Bryn Mawr Library (Gordan MS 3, s. xv), a
second scribe has added
the list in the margin of a page of de Amicitia. Although the
names of the Sages vary even
in the Greek tradition, the names in s remain quite
peculiar.
The list of Sages is: Pitacus Miletemis (Pittacus of Mytilene),
Solon Atheniensis,
Plimon Stixpacus, Cleodolus (Cleobolus) lectio, Tales Milesius
(Thales of Miletus),
Penarder (Periander), Corinthius, and Hiaspieneus. The names in
this list differ greatly
from the names usually given to the Seven Sagesthough, as
mentioned above, there is
variance even among the ancient sources. Pittacus, Solon,
Cleobolus, Thales and
Pariander are the only names commonly mentioned by the ancient
authors.13
Part IIa: History of Cato Maior de Senectute
The tradition of de Senectute presents its own difficulties.
Like de Amicitia, there is no
shortage of manuscripts in this tradition.14 By the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, the
two dialogues were usually combined and were exceedingly
popular. The two works
originally come through history quite separate of each other,
however. Not until the tenth
century Harleianus 2682 manuscript do they appear together.
List of manuscripts:
PParisinus 6332 (s. ix): considered the primary text for Cato by
most editors, but does carry errors which the archetype contained,
main member of family. VVossianus O. 79 (s. ix): primary witness of
family, but corrected by member of family.
13 cf. Diogenes Laertius, 1.13, 1.40ff; Plato Protagoras 343a;
Pausanias 10.24; Plutarch, Moralia 146; Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis 1.14.59.
14 Les Manuscrits Classiques (1975).
-
17
bBruxellensis 9591 (s. ix): also contains Seneca the Elder,
Augustine, Alcuin, and Cassiodorus. LVossianus fol. 12 (s. ix):
closely related to several manuscripts within the family (D and A).
DVaticanus Reg. lat. 1587 (s. ix): the Daniel codex, discovered by
Barriera (de Senectute Liber, Turin, 1921), is considered by this
editor to be the best witness, and free of the corruption of the
rest of the tradition. Others, including Vogel (1936) Powell (1987)
and Wuilleumier (1969), believe that Barriera was too enamored with
his discovery of the codex, and overvalued its place in the
tradition. AParisinus Lat. 454, formerly Ashburnhamensis, both A
and D were corrected using a source of L. KVaticanus Reg. Suec.
1762 (s. ix): copied from A after being corrected; disregarded by
most editors (T&T, 118). OOxford, Bodleianus DOrville 77 (s.
x): also comes from the same family as A HHarleianus 2682 (s. xi):
see above. EBerolinensis 252 (s. xii): before the discovery of P, E
was considered the primary witness to the tradition of de
Senectute. Recentiores: the following manuscripts are not important
to the tradition, but have many readings which appear in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Most come from Italy and are
probably related to s. Palatinus Parmensis 2144 (s. xiv) Chisianus
106 (s. xiv) Neapolitanus bibl. na. IV G 7 (s. xiv) Vaticanus 4516
(s. xiv) Casanatensis 1090 (s. xiii) Laurentinus 50, 45 (s. xiv)
Neapolitanus bibl. nat. IV B 16 (s. xiv) Catos tradition, like that
of Laelius is typically divided into two major families,
known as and . According to Simbecks 1912 Teubner edition, the
family contains
P, H and V. E is a later descendant of this family, but less
relevant to the establishment
of the text. The other side of the tradition () contained bLA,
which all came from a
-
18
descendant of the archetype.15 All of the manuscripts,
regardless of family, have major
corruptions. Considering that most proper names have multiple
variants and that major
textual issues have no obvious sources, both families must
derive from a moderately
corrupt archetype.
Part IIb: The de Senectute Text of UF 871.C7i.x
True to form, s contains many readings from both sides of the
tradition. As in de
Amicitia, spelling is quite similar to that found in H:
prepositions are assimilated in
suffixes (assequitur, etc.), adulescens is spelled adolescens in
all of its forms, the first
vowel of a diphthong is omitted and many proper names often
agree between the two
manuscripts (1 Attice for Tite, 3 thithono for Tithono, 14
Olimpia for Olympia, but
not 10 Tuditano, Annibalem, 13 Isocratisall these and similar
readings were
corrected in most MSS by the time s was written).
List of Variant Readings in de Senectute
1 M.T.CI. Liber de senectute feliciter incipit levasso PV:
levabo H levavero bL levasero AD quae deprimeris en (ecce ss.) quid
erit pretii mihi?: ec quid erit pretii V1 ec quid
erit premii V2 om. P1 corr en H2P2 hec (ecce ss.)A2 quid erit
premii bALP2 (Barriera talks about this extensively, p 43f)
hisdem etc. DALH: isdem bVP o Attice: Attice Flaminium (the
reading of E and most later manuscripts): flamininum D ex
flaminimum AL Attice (erased) H: Tite
15 As noted above, Barriera published a new edition in 1921 and
proposed a new stemma. Barriera marks his recently found D codex as
the first and direct descendant of the family, he then states that
AL descended from a sibling of D, b from a sibling of AL, V from a
sibling of b, and P a further generation down (see Barrieras
Praefatio for his explanations) He further considered V and a few
recentiores to belong to his a family, but found all of them
unimportant. Vogel (1936) disagrees with Barriera, and places D in
the family with bLA. She acknowledges Ds importance in the
tradition, but believes it has many errors which Barriera accepts
(p5). Wuilleumier (1969) and Powell (1988) use the same basic
structure as Vogel in their editions.
-
19
non cognomen: cognomen non HE intelligo: intellego tamen
suspicor eisdem rebus te quibus: tamen te suspicor eisdem rebus
quibus Qui et: other MSS om. honere LP: onere AbVHD urgentis bVP:
surgentis ALD 2 etiam deest VP: in D expunctum est ferre: fere
iocunda DH: iucunda, etc. pareat VPHD: paret b parat AL satis
laurdari digne: digne satis laudari su(a)e: other manuscripts om. 3
Thithono HD: Tithono Aristo Chius DALbE: Aristoteles V aristo P aut
aristo H Aristo Cius recentiores. admirantis: admirantes in suis
libris H: in libris suis PE attribuito VP: id tribuito DL id
tribuiter A id tribulato b attribuiter E 4 Lelio DALbVH: Laelio P
ethna HD: Aetna potest malum P: malum potest 7 Salinator PHV:
salintor b intor LAD essem ignobilis PL2H: essem VbL1A 10 cumque
ego (eo ss. VL) PLA Unus homo L2: homo qui PH 11 dicere ausus est:
ausus est dicere H magisque atque magis: postque magisque 13
quorsum b: cursum DAL quorsus VPD2 Isocratis: Socratis
Panatheinaicus: panathenaicus V panatheniacus DAb
panathenicus L 14 Olimpia D Flamininus D2P: Flaminus DALV 18
inferatur: not in most MSS, but appears in Palatinus Parmensis 2144
(s. XIV),
Chisianus 106 (s. XIV) Neapolitanus bibl. na. IV G 7 (s. XIV) 27
decet uti et: D2VP: decet uti es b docet tutius D decet tutius A 30
Xenophontem V 32 Thermopilas V quin Palatinus Parmensis 2144 (s.
XIV) Vaticanus 4516 (s. XIV): cui R cum
DALbE 37 vigebat in illa domo mos patrius et disciplina
Palatinus Parmensis 2144,
Vaticanus 4516: See Throop16 42 dampnati bE 48 magis delectatur
qui in prima cavea aspectat delectatur tamen etiam qui in
ultima;
qui in . . . delectatur omit. added in margin by same hand:
reading preserved by 16 (1911) 484.
-
20
R, Casanatensis 1090, Laurentinus 50, 45 qui . . . etiam omtn.
DALP; qui . . . tamen omt. V
52 effici ut exfici tantulo: effici tantulo DAVPE ex fici
tantulo b 55 et studio rerum rusticarum E At haec ut vobis
preciosum malarum cogitationumque munus refertem et
memintote acie me vinci ac pecuniam corrumpi non posse: not
found in any major mss, but cf. Vaticanus 1720 (s. XV),
Neapolitanus bibl. nat. IV B 16 (s. XIV), margins of Vaticanus 4516
(s. XIV)atque haec ut vobis pretiosum malarum cogitationum munus
referte et mementote acie me vinci posse at pecunia corrumpi non
posse.
59 Xenofontis DAL 61 virium D2VP: virum DALb 65 contempni A:
contemni 74 recordor: recorder PVL2A2 recordarer bL1A1 The effects
of the clearly corrupt archetype have made the placement of
this
manuscript even more difficult. The manuscript certainly derives
most of its readings
from the bLAD family. When the text does agree with PHV, it
consistently agrees with
AD as well, not with bL. (11 collega for colliga (L) and
colliega (b); 13 preclarum for
pleclarum; 31 vera for vere and quin for qui in; 40 censebat for
sensebat). Vogel17
explains this phenomenon in the tradition by showing that the bL
variants probably came
from an early archetype, and the tradition was later corrected
before A and D were
produced.
One of the most interesting readings of this manuscript appears
in 55. The rather
large insertion is attested only in late manuscripts, being the
product of marginalia by a
thirteenth or fourteenth century scribe. Vaticanus 4516, which
contains the sentence in
its margins, is the earliest known attestation. This reading,
plus the quin in 32 show a
close relationship between Vaticanus 4516 and s. Vaticanus 4516
is probably not a
source of the UF copy, as they still have several important
variations (1 fixa forma, 3
aristoceus). In addition, every time the two manuscripts agree,
at least one other 17 (1936) 26
-
21
manuscript is also in agreement (5 frugibus Rhenaugiensis 127,
Chisianus 106; 8 ne
sapienti P, Mediolanensis E 15). Another manuscript in the
family of s is Palatinus
Parmensis 2144. Though it does not have the large interpolation
at the end of section 55,
it contains the corrected reading of domo mos in section 37, and
also has inferatur in
section eighteen, the only other collated manuscript to have
this reading aside from s.
Part IIIa: History of Paradoxa Stoicorum
List of manuscripts:
BLeiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 86 (s. ix): considered by Rouse18 to
be the best witness of a family of manuscripts containing some of
Ciceros philosophical treatises: de natura deorum, de divinatione,
Timaeus, de fato, Topica, Paradoxa, Lucullus, and de legibus.19
ALeiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 84 (s. ix or x): written at
Montecassino, A is the head of the secondary family of the Leiden
corpus. The AVH tradition appears independently of B, but was later
corrected by an emended B.20 Badali notes in his Teubner21 edition
that a hand quite similar and possibly identical (eorum manus a
librarii correctionibus vix discernere possimus), corrected the
manuscript. No further corrections appear until the fifteenth
century. VVindobonensis Palatina codex Lat. 189 (s. ix or x): This
is the first manuscript to omit Topica, and later de legibus was
removed; these actions show the move towards a smaller canon than
the original octet. Leiden B.P.L 118 (s. xi):22 The final member of
the Leiden corpus does not actually contain Paradoxa, only
incomplete texts of de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, and de
Legibus, but is mentioned here as evidence of the breakdown of the
Leiden corpus. ELeiden Periz 25 (s. xi): The dialogues de Senectute
and de Amictia were added to this manuscript after its composition,
and the manuscript omits Timaeus, Topica, or De
18 (1987) 125
19 Schwenke (1890) 347
20 Rouse (1987) 125.
21 (1968) 9.
22 Badali does not mention this manuscript, Rouse (p 127) names
it H, and Schwenke (p 348) names it C. Rather than adopt a siglum
to avoid confusion with Harleianus 2682which is usually named H and
appears in the tradition of Paradoxa (Badali names it E, and Rouse
mentions it, but does not give it a name)I will always refer to
Harleianus 2682 as H, and give the complete name of Leiden B.P.L.
118.
-
22
Fato. Like Leiden B.P.L. 118, E shows the continued break-up of
the Leiden corpus by the eleventh century. HHarleianus 2682 (s.
xi): the first text to combine the octet with a number of other
Ciceronian philosophical works, including de Amicitia and de
Senectute. The manuscript itself probably descends from the Leiden
corpus, and the additional works were added from another tradition.
FFlorentinus, Bibiothecae Laurentianae Marcianus 257 (s. x):
Descendant of A, and contains the entire octet of the Leiden
corpus. F was the source for K, and a source for M. MMnchen,
Universittsbibliothek, cod. Lat. 528 (s. xi): Contains all of the
books of the octet except Topica. Corrected in the twelfth
century.23 KVaticanus Reg. Lat. 1762 (s. x): Contains a number of
different authors, from Cicero it contains only excerpts of
Paradoxa. The tradition of the Leiden corpus, like that of de
Amicitia and de Senectute,
contains two families emerging in the ninth century from a
common archetype. The first
family, attested chiefly by B, comes from the area around
Ferrires. The second family,
further removed from the archetype, contains manuscripts mostly
written at
Montecassino. Richard Mollweide (1911), in trying to reconcile
the fluctuating order of
manuscripts containing Paradoxa and other works, proposed that
two major sources for
the Leiden corpus existed in the fifth century, one with the
usual octet, and a larger
source with twelve works which Mollweide dubbed K,, the Corpus
Tullianum,
descended from L,the source of the Leiden Corpus and Z, which
had the readings
of K that were not in L. Beeson,24 rejects the notion of such a
massive manuscript,
noting that of all these corpora, the only one which had any
existence outside
Mollweides imagination is the Le[i]den group. Such a work,
Beeson continues, would
23 Schwenke (1890) 349.
24 Beeson (The collectaneum of Hadoard, CP 40 1945, 201-222)
203-210 notes that Timaeus and de Fato are often interpolated into
one another, and parts of de Officiis are moved around.
-
23
be unparalleled in size. The single source, then, produced the
two families: B directly
and AV through one or two additional unknown sources. Common
errors in A and V25
show that they definitely come from a common ancestor. From A,
descends the
manuscript labelled F. F is of great importance to the tradition
of Paradoxa, though less
so to s. K was a direct descendant of F, and M comes from F
through a series of
intermediate manuscripts.26 In the fifteenth century, Poggio
took F to Florence, where it
became the primary text in northern Italy. UF 871.C7i.x is not a
descendant of F, but
contains several readings in common with other recentiores.
Part IIIb: The Paradoxa Stoicorum text of UF 871.C7i.x
The difficulties surrounding the source of de Amicitia and de
Senectute do not
despoil the reading of Paradoxa Stoicorum in the UF manuscript,
but provide the clearest
picture of the manuscripts date and place of composition. The
primary sources for this
copy are M and V, both archetypes of many recentiores. The
manuscript retains all of
the emendations of V3 and V4 when the two correcting hands
agree, and V4 when they do
not. Certain readings found in other late manuscripts appear in
s, which do not appear in
V4 so s cannot be a direct copy of V. Furthermore, readings from
V5 do not appear in s
(see below, 11 delicitas, 36 actu par and inquiunt) so its
archetype must have been
copied before the fifth and final scribal changes to the V
manuscript. Schwenke27 reads
the correcting hands differently, identifying only three
correcting hands. Schwenke and
Badali agree that the first correcting hand (V2) was
approximately from the same date as
25 For a complete listing of the errors, see Badali (1968)
10-12
26 ibid. 30
27 (1890) 349
-
24
that of the original composition (ninth to tenth century). Where
Badali reads a second
and third hand of around the same date (ca. twelfth century),
Schwenke reads only one
hand. The final hand comes from the fifteenth century; Badali
names this hand V5, but
Schwenke, reading only one twelfth century hand, names it V4. In
the readings below, I
have adopted Badalis system, but for dating this manuscript the
number of editors
matters much less than their dates. Since no readings from the
final editor of V appear in
s, either a source or s itself was copied from V between the
thirteenth and fifteenth
centuries. Since V does not contain the two dialogues, it is
probably not the primary
source of UF 871.C7i.x, but it must be very closely related.
Readings not in V also come
from the second hand of M, but not consistently (M2 has libero
in 40, a reading not
shared by s). Harleianus 2682 continues to influence the
spelling and a limited number of
readings of this manuscript, but to a much lesser extent than
the previous two works. The
six Greek Paradoxa have all been translated into Latin. To the
second and sixth titles has
been added poorly written Greek titles: ) and
.
List of Variant Readings in Paradoxa
Title: Mar. Tu. Ci. Paradoxa feliciter incipit: INCIPIT
FELICITER V PARADOXA STOICORUM FELICTER B 2 sed minutis
interrogatiunculis: sed minutis interrogati unculis A1VB 3 loquor
BV1: loquimur V locor A nullis oratoriis : oratoriis ego vero :
vero 4 paradoxa AVB: B2 and many paradoxa appellantur: paradoxa
AVB2 appelantur (deest in most MSS) 5 hoc genus: genus hoc quiddam
mearum V1 V in possessiva quiddam arce A1FV3B1: arca V arte B ut ex
eadem officina exisse appareat V
-
25
6 Quod honestum sit id solum bonum esse ABV1: other MSS have the
Greek title ex Stoycorum: ex Stoicorum V1 exoticorum AVB ex
atticorum B2 dicam quod sentio tamen: dicam tamen quod sentio 7
circumfluentes : circumfluentibus AVB 11 regum A1FVB: rerum A
Vultis a Romulo incipere: Vultis incipere a romulo F2M2 Vultis a
romulo AVB Quibus tandem gradibus Romulus escendit in caelum
delicitas: F1: felicitas AVB1, changed in the margin of V2 to
delicitas, changed
back to felicitas by V5 Saliorum certain : aliorum AVB 15 In quo
virtus sit ei nihil deesse ad bene vivendum: Latin subtitle (ad
beate
vivendum) added by B2 17 nactus A1FV1B1: nanctis B 19 debet 20
eventu: V3M2 nascuntur V4H: nascantur: ACB 21 temperato
temperatiorem AV4B1 22 quoniam a virtutibus . . . debent: quoniam
V3, text written in margin by original
hand, but probably individual error of this scribe, not omitted
in any other MSS 25 is, qui alliud, is qui nutruit: is qui aluit,
the reading of s is not mentioned in any
apparatus, but quite probably aluit became alliud, and nutruit
was later added to correct the meaning
26 Omnis stultos insanire AV2B1 27 sed dementem et insanum rebus
addicam necessariis M2 and in intercolumnio V 29 animi mei
consciantiam meas curas, vigilias, consilia in re publica 31
appellatur M2: appeletur V4 32 Omnis Sapientes esse liberos stultos
vero servos AV2B 36 actu pari M2: actuparii V1 acto pari V5
inquiunt HM2: e summis inquiunt sumus princibus civitatis V5 38
barbatulos V4 39 numeratur V4M2 41 debilitas V : s1 Quod solus
sapiens sit dives ABV2 44 Danay: Danaum AVB; no major manuscript
has Danay (a corruption of Danai),
but the word is erased or changed in all major manuscripts: ut
aiunt danai M 46 intercisas V2 51 in vi (not in V)
-
26
UF 871.C7i.x agrees with V3 and V4 more often than any other
hand. The
manuscript also consistently agrees with F, which was the parent
of most of the fifteenth
century Italian recentiores.28
28 Badali (26): Qua re, ubi codicis F in apparatu nulla fit
mentio, codicum A1 et F easdem esse lectiones intellegatur.
-
27
CHAPTER 3 TEXT OF UF 871.C7I
Below is the transcription of the text of s. The section
divisions are those of
Orelli, Baiter, Halms.1 The page divisions of s are marked in
parentheses. Textual
variants are listed after the texts. Common spelling differences
between P and s need not
be noted every time. For the following terms, s consistently
uses different spellings than
the major manuscript (spellings of s in parentheses): iis (his),
ii (hi), -ae-, or oe (e),
abundo (habundo), iucunda (iocunda), adolescens (adulescens),
eis (iis), volgus (vulgus)
and aestimo (existimo). The writer of s also invariably
assimilates prefixes into
compound words (appellari for adpellari, etc). In addition, the
archaic u for superlatives
and lubido are never employed and s consistently uses an i.
Unless otherwise noted, the
texts are being compared to the major manuscripts of their
tradition: for de Amicitia:
Krakw, Berol. lat 4 404 (P), for de Senectute: Parisinus 6332
(P), and for Paradoxa:
Leiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 86 (B).
Laelius de Amicitia
M. T. C. L DE AMICITIA INCIPIT
1(1) Quintus Mucius augur Scevola multa narrare de C. Lelio
socero suo memoriter et iocunde solebat nec dubitabat illum in omni
sermone appellare sapientem; ego autem apatre ita eram ad Scevolam
deductus sumpta virili toga, ut, quoad possem et liceret, asenis
latere numquam discederem; itaque multa ab eo prudenter disputata,
multa etiam breviter et commode dicta memorie mandabam fierique
studebam eius prudentia doctior. Quo mortuo me ad pontificem
Scevolam contuli, quem unum nostre civitatis et ingenio et
industria prestantissimum audeo dicere. Sed de hoc alias; nunc
redeo ad augurem.
1 Orelli, 1861
-
28
2 Cum sepe multa narraret, tum memini in hemiciclo domi
sedentem, ut solebat, cum et ego essem una et pauci ad modum
familiares, in eum ipsum sermonem incidere, qui tum fere omnibus
erat in ore. Meministi enim profecto, o Attice, et eo magis, quod
P. Sulpicio utebare multum, cum is tribunus plebis capitali odio a
Q. Pompeio, qui tum erat consul, discideret, qui cum cumiunctissime
et amantissime vixerat, quanta esset hominum vel admiratio vel
querella.
3 Itaque tum Scevola cum in eam ipsam mentionem incidisset,
exposuit nobis sermonem Lelii de amicitia habitum ab illo secum et
cum altero genero, C. Fannio Marci filio, paucis diebus (2) post
mortem Affricani. Eius disputationis sententias memorie mandavi,
quas hoc libro exposui arbitratu meo; quasi enim introduxi eos
loquentes, ne 'inquam' et 'inquit' sepius interponeretur, atque
ideo feci ut tamquam apresentibus coram haberi sermo videretur.
4 Cum enim sepe mecum ageres, de amicitia ut scriberem tibi
aliquid, digna mihi res visa est cum omnium cognitione, tum nostra
familiaritate. Itaque feci non invitus, ut multis prodessem rogatu
tuo. Sed ut in Catone Maiore, feci qui est scriptus ad te de
senectute, Catonem introduxi senem disputantem de Senectute, quia
nulla videbatur aptior persona, que de ea etate loqueretur, quam
eius, qui et diutissime senex fuisset et ipsa in etate preter
ceteros floruisset, sic, cum accepissemus apatribus maxime
memorabilem C. Lelii et P. Scipionis familiaritatem fuisse, ydonea
mihi persona C visa Lelii, que de amicitia ea ipsa dissereret, que
disputata ab eo meminisset Scevola. Genus autem hoc sermonum
positum in hominum veterum auctoritate, et eorum illustrium, plus
nescio quo pacto videtur habere gravitatis; itaque mea ipse legens
scripta sic adficior interdum, ut Catonem, non me loqui
existimem.
5 Sed ut tum ad senem senex de senectute, sic in hoc libro ad
amicum amicissimus scripsit de amicitia. Tum est Cato locutus, quo
erat (3) nemo fere senior temporibus illis, nemo prudentior; nunc
Lelius et sapiens (sic enim habitus est) et amicitie gloria
excellens de amicitia loquetur. Tu velim paulisper ad me animum
advertas. Lelium ipsum loqui putes C. Fannius et Q. Mucius ad
socerum post mortem Africani veniunt; ab his sermo oritur,
respondet Lelius, cuius tota disputatio est de amicitia, quam tu
legens ipse cognosces.
6 Fannius. Sunt ista vera, o Leli; nec enim melior vir fuit
Africano quisquam nec clarior. Sed existimare debes oculos omnium
in te esse coniectos unum; te sapientem et appellant et existimant.
Tribuebatur hoc modo Marco Catoni, scimus L. Acilium apud patres
nostros appellatum esse sapientem, sed uterque alio quodam modo,
Acilius, quia pudens in civili iure putabatur, Cato, quia multarum
rerum usum habebat; multa eius et in senatu et in foro vel provisa
prudenter vel acta constanter vel responsa acute ferebantur;
propterea quasi cognomen iam habebat in senectute sapientis. Te
autem alio quodam modo non solum natura et moribus, verum etiam
studio et doctrina esse sapientem, nec sicut vulgus, sed ut eruditi
solent appellare sapientem, qualem neminem reliqua in Grecia
-
29
7 (nam qui septem appellantur, eos, qui ista subtilius in
querunt, in numero sapientium non habent), Athenis unum accepimus,
et eum quidem etiam Apollinis oraculo sapientissimum iudicatum;
hanc (4) esse sapientiam existimant in te, ut omnia tua in te
posita esse ducas humanosque casus virtute inferiores putes. Itaque
ex me querunt, credo ex hoc item Scevola, quonam pacto mortem
Africani feras, eoque magis, quod in his proximis Nonis cum in
ortos D Bruti auguris commentandi, ut assolet, causa venissemus, tu
non affuisti, qui diligentissime semper illum diem illudque munus
solitus esses obire.
8 Scevola. Querunt quidem, C. Leli, multi, ut a Fanio dictum
est, sed ego id respondeo, quod animadverti, te dolorem, quem
acceperis cum summi viri, tum amicissimi morte, ferre moderate nec
potuisse non comoveri nec fuisse id humanitatis tue; quod autem his
proximis Nonis in colegio nostro non adfuisses, valitudinem
respondeo causam, non mestitiam fuisse.
Lelius. Recte tu quidem, Scevola, et vere; nec enim ab isto
officio, quod semper usurpavi, cum valerem, abduci incommodo meo
debui, nec ullo casu arbitror hoc constanti homini posse
contingere, ut ulla intermissio fiat officii.
9 Tu autem, Fani, quod mihi tantum atribui dicis, quantum ego
nec agnosco nec postulo, facis amice; sed, ut mihi videris, non
recte iudicas de Catone; aut enim nemo, quod quidem magis credo,
aut, si quisquam, sapiens ille fuit. Quo modo, ut alia omittam, (5)
mortem filii tulit! memineram Paulum, videram grecum, sed nec hi
quidem comparentur.
10 Marco Catoni maximo et spectato viro. Quam ob rem cave Catoni
anteponas ne istum quidem ipsum, quem Apollo, ut ais,
sapientissimum iudicavit; huius enim facta, illius dicta laudantur.
De me autem, ut iam cum utroque loquar, sic habetote: Ego si
Scipionis desiderio me moveri negem, quam id recte faciam, viderint
sapientes; sed certe mentiar. Moveor enim tali amico orbatus,
qualis, ut arbitror, nemo umquam erit, ut confirmare possum, nemo
unquam erit; sed non egeo medicina, me ipse consolor, et maxime
illo solacio, quod eo errore careo, quo amicorum decessu plerique
angi solent. Nihil enim mali accidisse puto Scipioni, mihi accidit,
si quid accidit; suis autem incommodis graviter angi non amicum,
sed se ipsum amantis est.
11 Cum illo vero quis neget actum esse preclare? Nisi enim, quod
ille minime putabat, inmortalitatem optare vellet, quid non adeptus
est, quod homini fas esset optare? qui summam spem civium, quam de
eo iam puero habuerant, continuo adulescens incredibili virtute
superavit, qui consulatum petivit numquam, factus consul est bis,
primum ante tempus, iterum sibi suo tempore, rei publice pene sero,
qui duabus urbibus eversis inimicissimis nostro imperio non modo
presentia, (6) verum etiam et futura bella delevit. Quid dicam de
moribus facillimis, de pietate in matrem, liberalitatem in sorores,
bonitate in suos, iustitia in omnes? nota sunt vobis. Quam autem
civitati carus fuerit, merore funerias indicatum est. Quid igitur
hunc paucorum annorum accessio iuvare potuisset? Senectus enim
quamvis non sit
-
30
gravis, ut memini Catonem uno anno antequam esset mortuus, mecum
et cum Scipione disserere. Aufert tamen eam viriditatem, in qua
etiam nunc erat Scipio.
12 Quam ob rem vita quidem homines talis fuit vel fortuna vel
gloria, ut nihil posset accedere, moriendi autem sensum celeritas
abstulit; quo de genere mortis difficile dictu est, quid homines
suspicentur, videtis; hoc vere tamen licet dicere, P. Scipioni ex
multis diebus, quos in vita sua celeberrimos letissimosque viderit,
illum diem fuisse clarissimum, cum senatu dimisso domum reductus
est ad vesperum a patribus conscriptis, populo Romano, sociis et
Latinis, pridie quam excessit e vita, ut ex tam alto dignitatis
gradu ad superos videatur deos potius quam ad inferos
pervenisse.
13 Neque enim adsentior his, qui hoc nuper disserere coeperunt,
cum corporibus animos simul interire atque omnia morte deleri; plus
apud me valet auctoritas antiquorum, vel nostrorum maiorum, qui
mortuis tam religiosa iura tribuerunt, quod non profecto fecissent,
si nihil ad eos pertinere arbitrarentur, (7) vel eorum, qui in hac
terra fuerunt magnamque Greciam, que nunc quidem deleta est, tum
florebat, institutis et preceptis suis erudierunt, vel eius, qui
Apollinis oraculo sapientissimus iudicatus est, qui non tum hoc,
tum illud, ut in plerisque, sed idem semper, animos hominum esse
divinos, hisque, cum ex corpore excessissent, reditum in celum
patere, optimoque et iustissimo cuique expeditissimum.
14 Quod idem Scipioni videbatur, qui quidem, quasi presagiret,
perpaucis ante mortem diebus, cum et Philus et Manilius adessent et
alii plures, tuque etiam, Scevola, etiam mecum fuisses, triduum
disseruit de re publica; cuius disputationis fere extremum de
inmortalitate animorum, que se in quiete per visum ex Africano
audisse dicebat. Id si ita est, ut optumi cuiusque animus in morte
evolet facillime tamquam ex custodia vinclisque corporis, cui
censemus cursum ad deos faciliorem quam fuisse Scipioni? Quocirca
merere hoc eius eventu vereor ne invidi magis quam amici sit. Sin
autem illa vereor ut idem interitus sit animorum et corporum nec
ullus sensus maneat, ut nihil boni est in morte, sic certe nihil
mali; sensu enim amisso fit idem, quasi natus non esset omnino,
quem tamen esse natum et nos gaudemus et hec civitas, dum erit,
letabitur.
15 Quam ob rem, ut pre dixi, cum illo quidem actum est preclare
mecum incommodius, quem fuerat equius, (8) ut prius introieram, sic
pruis exire de vita. Sed tamen recordatione nostre amicitie sic
fruor, ut beate vixisse videar, quia cum Scipione vixerim, quocum
mihi coniuncta cura fuit de re p. et privata, quocum et domus fuit
et militia communis et, id in quo omnis est amicitie vis,
voluntatum, studiorum, sententiarumque summa consentio. Itaque non
tam ista me sapientie, quam modo Fannius commemoravit, fama
delectat, presertim falsa, quam quod amicitie nostre spero memoriam
fore sempiternam, idque eo magis mihi est cordi, quod ex omnibus
seculis vix tria aut quattuor paria nominantur amicorum; quo in
genere sperare Scipionis et Leli videor amicitiam posteritati notam
fore.
16 Fannius. Istud quidem, Leli, ita necesse est. Sed quoniam
amicitie mentionem fecisti et sumus otiosi, pergratum mihi feceris,
spero item Scevole, si, quem ad
-
31
modum soles de ceteris rebus, cum ex te queruntur, sic de
amicitia disputaveris quid sentias, qualem existumes, que precepta
des. Scevola. Mihi vero erit gratum; atque id ipsum cum tecum agere
conarer, Fannius antevortit. Quam ob rem utrique nostrum gratum
admodum feceris.
17 Lelius. Ego vero non gravarer, si ipse confiderem mihi; nam
et preclara res visa est et sumus, ut dixit Fannius, occiosi. Sed
quis sum ego? aut que est in me facultas? doctorum est ista
consuetudo, eaque Grecorum, ut his ponatur, de quo (9) disputent
quamvis subito; magnum opus est egetque exercitatione non parva.
Quam ob rem, que disputari de amicitia possunt, ab eis censeo
petatis, qui ista profitentur; ego vos hortari tantum possum, ut
amicitiam anteponatur omnibus humanis rebus; nihil est enim tam
nature aptum, tam conveniens ad secundas res vel adversas.
18 Sed hoc primum sentio, nisi in bonis amicitiam esse non
posse; neque id ad vivum reseco, ut illi, qui hoc suptilius
disserunt, fortasse vere, sed ad communem utilitatem parum; negant
enim quemquam esse virum bonum nisi sapientem. Sit ita sane; sed
eam sapientiam interpretantur, quam adhuc mortalis nemo est
consecutus, nos autem ea, que sunt in usu vitaque communi, non ea,
que finguntur aut optantur, spectare debemus. Numquam ego dicam C.
Fabricium, M'. Curium, Ti. Coruncanum, quos nostri maiores
sapientes iudicabant, ad istorum normam sapientes fuisse. Quare
sibi habeant sapientie nomen et invidiosum et obscurum, concedant,
ut hi viri boni fuerint. Ne id quidem facient, negabunt id nisi
sapienti posse concedi.
19 Agamus ergo, ut aiunt, pingui Minerva. Qui ita gerunt se, ita
vivunt, ut eorum probetur fides, integritas, equalitas,
liberalitas, nec sit in eis nulla cupiditas, vel libido, vel
audacia, sitque magna constantia, ut hi fuerunt, quos modo
nominavi, hos viros bonos, ut habiti sunt, sic etiam (10)
appellandos putemus etiam, quia sequantur, quantum homines consequi
possunt, naturam optimam bene vivendi ducem. Sic enim perspicere
videor mihi, ita esse nos natos, ut inter omnes esset societas
quedam, maior autem, ut quisque proxime accederet. Itaque potiores
cives quam peregrini, propinqui quam alieni; cum his enim natura
ipsa peperit amicitiam; sed ea non satis habet firmitatis. Namque
hoc prestat amicitia propinquitati, quod ex propinquitate
benivolentia tolli potest, ex amicitia non potest; sublata enim
benivolentia amicitie nomen tollitur, propinquitatis manet.
20 Quanta et vis amicitie sit, ex hoc maxime potest intellegi,
quod ex infinita humani generis societate, quam conciliavit ipsa
natura, ita contracta est res et adducta in angustum, ut omnis
caritas aut inter duos aut inter paucos iungeretur. Est enim
amicitia nihil aliud nisi omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum cum
benivolentia et caritate consensio; qua quidem haud scio an excepta
sapientia nihil melius homini sit a diis inmortalibus datum.
Divitias alii preponunt, alii bonam valitudinem, alii potentiam,
alii honores, multi etiam voluptates. Beluarum est hoc quidem
extremum, illa autem sunt superiora et caduca et incerta, non tam
in consiliis nostris posita quam in temeritate fortune. Qui autem
in virtute summum bonum ponunt, preclare illi quidem, sed hec ipsa
virtus amicitiam et gignit et continet, nec sine (11) virtute
amicitia esse ullo pacto potest.
-
32
21 Iam virtutem ex vite consuetudine sermonisque nostri
interpretemur nec eam, ut quidam docti, verborum magnificentia
metiamur virosque bonos eos, qui habentur, numeremus, Paulos,
Catones, Galos, Scipiones, Philos; his communis vita contenta est;
eos autem omittamus, qui omnino nusquam reperiuntur.
22 Talis igitur inter viros amicitia tantas oportunitates habet,
quantas vix queo dicere. Principio qui potest esse vita 'vitalis',
ut ait Ennius, que non in amico mutua benivolentia conquiescat?
Quid dulcius quam habere, quicum omnia audeas sic loqui ut tecum?
Qui fructus etiam in rebus esset prosperis tantus, nisi haberes,
qui illis eque ac tu ipse gauderet? adversas vero ferre difficile
est sine eo, qui illas gravius etiam quam tu feret. Denique cetere
res, que expetuntur, oportune sunt singule singule singulis fere,
divitie, ut utare, opes, ut colare, honores, ut laudere,
voluptates, ut gaudeas, valitudo, ut dolore careas et muneribus
fungare corporis; amicitia res plurimas continet; quoquo verteris
te, presto est, nullo loco excluditur, numquam est intempestiva,
numquam molesta est; itaque non aqua, non igne, ut aiunt, locis
pluribus utimur quam amicitia. Neque ego nunc de vulgari aut de
mediocri, que tamen ipsa et delectat et prodest, sed de vera et
perfecta loquor amici tua. qualis eorum, qui pauci nominantur,
fuit. (12) Nam et secundas res splendidiores facit amicitia et
adversas partiens communicansque leviores.
23 Cumque plurimas et maximas commoditates amicitia contineat,
tum illa nimirum prestat omnibus, quodque bona spe prelucet in
posterum nec debilitari animos aut cadere patitur. Verum etiam
amicum qui intuetur, tamquam exemplar aliquod sui intuetur.
Quocirca et absentes adsunt et egentes habundant et inbecilles
valent et, quod difficilius dictu est, mortui vivunt; tantus eos
honos, memoria, desiderium amicorum prosequitur. Ex quo illorum
mors beata videtur, horum vita laudabilis. Quodsi exemeris ex rerum
natura benivolentiem mentionem, nec domus ulla nec urbs stare
poterit, ne agri quidem cultus permanebit. Id si minus
intellegitur, quanta vis concordie amicitieque sit, ex
dissensionibus adque ex discordiis perspici potest. Que enim tam
stabilis domus, que tam firma civitas est, que non odiis et
discidiis funditus possit averti? Ex quo, quantum boni sit in
amicitia, potest iudicari.
24 Agrigentinum quidem doctum quendam virum carminibus Grecis
vaticinatum ferunt, que in rerum natura totoque mundo constarent,
queque moverentur, ea contrahere amicitiam, dissipare discordiam.
Atque hoc quidem omnes mortales et intellegunt et re probant.
Itaque, si quando aliquod officium extitit in amici periculis aut
adeundis aut communicandis, quis est, qui id maximis non efferat
laudibus? Qui clamores tota cavea nuper in hospitis et amici mei
Marci. (13) Pacuvi nova fabula! cum ignorante rege, quis esset
horestes pilades se horestem dicent ut pro eo necaretur, Horestes
autem, ita ut erat, Horestem se esse perseveraret. Stantes autem
plaudebant in re ficta; quid arbitramur in re vera facturos fuisse?
Facile indicabat ipsa natura vim suam, cum homines, quod ipsi
facere non possent, id recte fieri in altero iudicarent. Hactenus
mihi videor de amicitia quid sentirem potuisse dicere; si que
preterea sunt (credo autem esse multa), ab his, si videbitur, qui
ista disputant, queritote.
-
33
25 Fannius. Nos autem a te querimus potius; quamquam etiam ab
istis sepe quesivi et audivi non equidem invitus; sed aliud quoddam
filum orationis tue expectamus.
Scevola. Tu magis id diceres, o Fanni, si nuper in ortis
Scipionis, cum est de re publica disputatum, adfuisses. Qualis tum
patronus iustitie fuit contra accuratam orationem Phili!
Fannius. Facile id quidem fuit, iustitiam iustissimo viro
defendere.
Scevola. Quid? amicitiam nonne facile ei est, qui ob eam summa
fide, constantia iustitiaque servatam maximam gloriam ceperit?
26 Lelius. Vim hoc quidem est adferre. Quid enim refert, qua me
ratione cogatis? cogitis certe. Studiis autem generorum, presertim
in re bona, cum difficile est, tum nec equum quidem obsistere.
Sepissime igitur mihi de amicitia cogitanti maxime illud
congitandum videri solet, utrum propter inbecillitatem atque
inopiam desiderada sit amicitia, ut dandis recipiendisque (14)
meritis quod quisque minus per se ipse posse, id acciperet ab alio
vicissimque redderet, an esset hoc quidem proprium amicitie, sed
antiquior et pulchrior et magis a natura ipsa profecta est alia
causa. Amor enim, ex quo amicitia nominata est, princeps est ad
benivolentiam coniungendam. Nam utilitates quidem etiam ab his
percipiuntur sepe, qui simulatione amicitie coluntur et observantur
temporis causa, in amicitia autem nihil fictum est, nihil simulatum
et, quidquid est, id est verum et voluntarium.
27 Quapropter a natura mihi videtur potius quam ab indigentia
orta amicitia, adplicatione magis animi cum quodam sensu amandi
quam cogitatione, quantum illa res utilitatis esset habitura. Quod
quidem quale sit, etiam in bestiis quibusdam animadverti potest,
que ex se natos ita amant ad quoddam tempus et ab eis ita amantur,
ut facile earum sensus appareat. Quod in homine multo est
evidenius, primum ex ea caritate, que est inter natos et parentes,
que dirimi nisi detestabili scelere non potest; deinde cum similis
sensus amoris extitit, si aliquem nacti sumus, cuius cum moribus et
nature congruamus, quod in eo quasi lumen aliquod probitatis et
virtutis perspicere videamur.
28 Nihil est enim virtute amabilius, nihil, quod magis ad
diligendum alliciat, quippe cum propter virtutem et probitatem et
eos, quos numquam vidimus, quodam modo dilligamus. Quis enim est,
qui C. Fabrici, (15) M'. Curii non cum caritate aliqua
benivolentiaque memoriam usurpet, quos numquam viderit? quis autem
est, qui Tarquinium Superbum, qui Publius Cassium, Sp. Melium non
oderit? Cum duobus ducibus de imperio in Ithalia est decertatum,
Pirro et Anibale; ab altero propter probitatem eius nominis non
nimis alienos animos habemus, alterum propter crudelitatem semper
hec civitas oderit.
29 Quodsi tanta vis probitatis est, in hoste etiam dilligamus,
quid mirum est, ut eam vel in eis, quos numquam vidimus, vel, quod
maius est, in hoste etiam diligmus, quid mirum est, si animi
hominum moveantur, cum eorum, quibuscum
-
34
usu coniuncti esse possunt, virtutem et probitatem perspicere
videantur? Quamquam confirmatur amor et beneficio accepto et studio
perspecto et consuetudine adiuncta, quibus rebus ad illum primum
motum animi et amoris adhibitis admirabilis quedam exardescit
benivolentie magnitudo. Quam si qui putant ab imbecilitate
proficisci, ut sit, per quam assequatur, quod quisque desideret,
humilem sane relinquunt et minime generosum, ut ita dicam, ortum
amicitie, quam ex inopia et indigentia natam volunt. Quod si ita
esset, ut quisque minimum esse in se arbitraretur, ita ad amicitiam
esset aptissimus; quod longe secus est.
30 Ut enim quisque sibi plurimum (16) confidit, et ut quisque
maxime virtute et sapientia sic munitus est, ut nullo egeat suaque
omnia in se ipso posita iudicet, ita in amicitiis expetendis
colendisque maxime excellit. Quid enim? Affricanus erat indigens
mei? Minime hercule! ac ne ego quidem illius; sed ego admiratione
quadam virtutis eius, ille vicissim opinione non nulla, quam de
meis moribus habebat fortasse me dilexit; auxit benivolentiam
consuetudo. Sed quamquam utilitates magne et multe consecute sunt,
non sunt tamen ab earum spe cause dilligendi profecte.
31 Ut enim benefici liberalesque sumus, non ut exigamus gratiam
(neque enim beneficium feneramur, sed natura propensi ad
liberalitatem sumus), sic amicitiam non spe mercedis adducti, sed
quod eius omnis fructus in ipso amore inest, expetendam
putamus.
32 Ab his, qui pecudum ritu ad voluptatem omnia referunt, longe
dissentimus, nec mirum; nihil enim altum, nihil magnificum nihil
divinum suspicere possunt, qui suas omnes cogitationes abiecerunt
in rem tuam humilem tamque contemptam. Quam ob rem hos quidem ab
hoc sermone removeamus, ipsi autem intellegamus a natura gigni
sensum diligendi et benivolentie caritatem facta significatione
probitatis. Quam qui appetiverunt, applicant se et propius
admovent, ut et usu eius, quem dilligere c[o]eperunt, fruantur et
moribus sintque pares in amore et equales (17) propensioresque ad
bene merendum quam ad reposcendum, atque hec inter eos sit honesta
certatio. Sic et utilitates ex amicitia maxime capientur, et erit
eius ortus a natura quam ab imbecilitate et gravior et verior. Nam
si utilitas amicitias conglutinaret, eadem commutata dissolveret;
sed quia natura mutari non potest, idcirco vere amicitie sempiterne
sunt. Ortum quidem amicitie videtis, nisi quid ad hec forte vultis.
Fannius. Tu vero perge, Leli; pro hoc enim, qui minor est natu, meo
iure respondeo.
33 Scevola. Recte tu quidem. Quam ob rem audiamus. Lelius.
Audite vero, optumi viri, ea, que sepissime inter me et Scipionem
de amicitia disserebantur. Quamquam ille quidem nihil difficilius
esse dicebat, quam amicitiam usque ad extremum vite diem permanere.
Nam, vel ut non idem expediret, incidere sepe, vel ut de re publica
non idem sentiretur; mutari etiam mores hominum sepe dicebat, alios
adversis rebus, alios etate ingravescente. Atque earum rerum
exemplum ex similitudine capiebat ineuntis etatis, quod summi
puerorum amores sepe una cum pretexta toga deponerentur;
-
35
34 sin autem ad adulescentiam perduxissent, dirimi tamen
interdum contentione vel luxurie vel condicionis vel commodi
alicuius, quod idem adipisci uterque non posset. Quodsi qui longius
in amicitia provecti essent, tamen labefactari sepe, si in honoris
contentionem incidissent; pestem enim maiorem in amicitiis nulla
quam in plerisque pecunie cupiditatem, in optimis quibusque honoris
certamen et glorie; (18) ex quo immicitias maximas sepe inter
amicissimos exstitisse.
35 Etiam magna discidia et plerumque iusta nasci, cum aliquid ab
amicis, quod rectum non esset, postularetur, ut aut libidinis
ministri aut adiutores essent ad iniuriam; quod qui recusarent,
quamvis honeste id facerent, ius tamen amicitie deserere
arguerentur ab his, quibus obsequi nollent. Illos autem, qui
quidvis ab amico auderent postulare, postulatione ipsa profiteri
omnia se se amici causa esse facturos. Eorum querela inveterata non
modo familiaritates exstingui solere, sed etiam odia gigni
sempiterna. Hec ita multa quasi fata inpendere amicitiis, ut omnia
subterfugere non modo sapientie, sed etiam felicitatis diceret sibi
videri.
36 Quam ob rem id primum videamus, si vobis placet, quatenus
amor in amicitia progredi debeat. Num, si Coriolanus habuit amicos,
ferre contra patriam arma illi cum Coriolano debuerunt? num
becilinum amici regnum appetentem, num Melium debuerunt iuvare?
37 Tib. quidem Gracchum rem publicam vexantem a Q. Tiberione
equalibusque amicis derelictum videbamus. At C. Blosius Cumanus,
hospes vestre familie, Scevola, cum ad me, quod aderam Lenate et
Ruptilio consulibus in consilio, deprecatum venisset, hanc, ut sibi
ignoscerem, rem tamen efferebat qui tanti sibi Gracum fecisset ut
quidquid ille vellet, sibi faciundum putaret. Tum ego: 'Etiamne, si
te in Capitolium ferre faces vellet?' (19) 'Numquam', inquit,
'voluisset id quidem; sed si voluisset, paruissem.' Videtis, quam
nefaria vox! Et hercule ita fecit vel plus etiam, quam dixit; non
enim paruit ille Ti. Gracchi temeritati, sed prefuit, nec se
comitem illius furoris, sed ducem prebuit. Itaque hac amentia et
questione nova perterritus in Asiam profugit, ad hostes se
contulit, poenas rei publice graves iustasque persolvit. Nulla est
igitur excusatio peccati, si amici causa peccaveris; nam cum
conciliatrix amicitie virtutis opinio fuerit, difficile est
amicitiam remanere, si a virtute defeceris.
38 Quodsi rectum statuerimus vel concedere amicis, quidquid
velint, vel inpetrare ab his, quidquid velimus, perfecta quidem
sapientia simus, si nihil habeat res vitii; sed loquimur de his
amicis, qui ante oculos sunt, quos vidimus aut de quibus memoria
accepimus, quos novit vita communis. Ex hoc numero nobis exempla
sumenda sunt, et eorum quidem maxime, qui ad sapientiam proxume
accedunt.
39 Videmus Pau. emilium Luscinio familiarem fuisse (sic a
patribus accepimus), bis una consules et collegas in censura; tum
et cum his et inter se coniunctissimos fuisse viros M'. Curium, Ti.
Coruncanum memorie traditum est. Igitur ne suspicari quidem
possumus quemquam horum ab amico quippiam contendisse, quod contra
fidem, contra ius iurandum, contra rem publicam esset. Nam hoc
quidem in talibus viris quid attinet dicere, si enim contendisset,
scio impetraturum (20) non fuisse?
-
36
cum illi sanctissimi viri fuerint, eque autem nefas sit tale
aliquid et facere rogatum et rogare. At vero Tib. Gracchum
sequebantur C. Carbo, C. Cato, et minime tunc quidem C. frater nunc
idem hostis acerrimus.
40 Hec igitur lex in amicitia sanciatur, ut neque rogemus res
turpes nec faciamus rogati. Turpis enim excusatio est et minime
accipienda cum in ceteris peccatis, tum si quis contra rem publicam
se amici causa fecisse fateatur. Etenim eo loco, Fani et Scevola,
locati sumus, ut nos longe prospicere oporteat futuros casus rei
publice. Deflexit enim iam aliquantulum de spatio curriculoque
consuetudo maiorum.
41 Tib. Gracchus regnum occupare conatus est, vel regnavit is
quidem paucos menses. Num quid populus simile Romanus audierat aut
viderat? Hunc etiam post mortem secuti amici et propinqui quid in
P. Scipione et fecerint, sine lacrimis nequeo dicere. Nam Carbonem,
quoque quem modo potuimus, propter recentem poenam Tib. Gracchi
sustinuimus; de C. Gracchi autem tribunatu quid expectem, non iuvat
augurari. Serpit deinde res, que proclivis cum semel ad perniciem,
coepit, labitur. Videtis, in tabella iam ante quanta sit facta
labes, primo Gabinia lege, biennio autem post Cassia. Videre iam
videor populum a senatu disiunctum, multitudinisque arbitrio res
maximas agi. Plures enim quem ad modum hec fiant, discent, quam
quem ad modum his resistatur. 42 (21) Quorsum hec? Quia sine sociis
nemo quicquam tale conatur. Precipiendum est igitur bonis, ut, si
in huius modi amicitias ignari casu aliquo inciderint, ne
existiment ita se aligatos, ut ab amicis in magna aliqua rem
p[ublicam] peccantibus non discedant; inprobis autem p[o]ena
statuenda est, nec vero minor his, qui secuti erunt alterum, quam
his, qui ipsius fuerint impietatis duces. Quis clarior in Grecia
est Themistocle, quis potentior? qui cum imperator bello Perscico
servitute Greciam liberavisset propterque invidiam in exilium
expulsus esset, ingrate patrie iniuriam non tulit, quam ferre
debuit, fecit idem, quod xx annos ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus.
His adiutor contra patriam inventus est nemo; itaque uterque sibi
mortem accivit.
43 Quare talis inproborum consensio non modo excusatione
amicitie est regenda non, sed potius supplicio omni vindicanda est,
ut ne quis concessum putet amicum vel bellum patrie inferentem
sequi; quod quidem, ut res ire coepit, haud scio an aliquando
futurum sit. Mihi autem non minori cure est, qualis res publica
post mortem meam futura sit, quam qualis hodie sit.
44 Hec igitur prima lex amicitie sanciatur, ut ab amicis honesta
petamus, amicorum causa honesta faciamus, nec quidem expectemus,
dum rogemur; studium semper adsit, cunctatio absit; consilium verum
gaudeamus libere dare. Plurimum in amicitia amicorum bene
suadentium valeat auctoritas, eaque et adhibeatur ad monendum non
modo aperte, sed etiam (22) acriter, si res postulabit, et adhibite
pareatur.
45 Nam quibusdam, quos audio sapientes habitos in Grecia,
placuisse opinor mirabilia quedam (sed nihil est, quod illi non
persequantur argumtiis): partim fugiendas esse amicitias nimias, ne
necesse sit unum solicitum esse pro pluribus;
-
37
satis superque esse sibi suarum cuique rerum, alienis rebus
nimis implicari molestum esse; commodissimum esse quam laxissimas
habenas habere amicitie, quas vel adducas, cum velis, vel remittas;
caput enim esse ad beate vivendum securitatem, qua frui non possit
animus, si tamquam parturiat unus pro pluribus.
46 Alios autem dicere aiunt etiam multo inhumanius (quem locum
breviter perstrinsxi paulo ante) presidii adiumentique causa, non
benivolentie neque caritatis amicitias esse expetendas; itaque, ut
quisque minimum firmitatis haberet minimumque virium, ita amicitias
appeteret maxime; et ex eo fieri, puto ut muliercule magis
amicitiarum presidia querant quam viri et inopes quam opulenti et
calamitosi quam hi, qui putantur beati.
47 O preclaram sapientiam! Solem enim e mundo tollere videntur,
qui amicitiam e vita tollunt, quem a diis immortalibus nihil melius
habemus, nihil iocundius. Que est ii ista securitas? Specie quidem
blanda, sed re ipsa multis locis e