Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/746

 was printed along with the De Inventione, under the title " Ciceronis Rhetorica Nova et Vetus," by Nicol. Jenson, in 4to., Venice, 1470; and bibliographers have enumerated fourteen more belonging to the fifteenth century. The best edition in a separate form is that of Burmann, or the reprint of Lindemann, mentioned above.

B..

1. De Republica Libri VI.

This work on the best form of government and the duty of the citizen, was one of the earliest of Cicero's philosophical treatises, drawn up at a period when, from his intimacy with Pompey, Caesar and Crassus being both at a distance, he fancied, or at least wished to persuade others, that he was actually grasping the helm of the Roman commonwealth (de Div. ii. 1). Deeply impressed with the arduous nature of his task, he changed again and again not only various minute details but the whole general plan, and when at length completed, it was received with the greatest favour by his contemporaries, and is referred to by himself repeatedly with evident satisfaction and pride. It was commenced in the spring of в. с. 54 (ad Att. iv. 14, comp. 16), and occupied much of his attention during the summer months of that year, while he was residing at his villas in the vicinity of Cumae and of Pompeii. (Ad Q. Fr. ii. 14.) It was in the first instance divided into two books (ad Q. Fr. iii. 5), then expanded into nine (ad Q. Fr. l. c.), and finally reduced to six (de Leg. i. 6, ii. 10, de Div. ii. 1). The form selected was that of Dialogue, in imitation of Plato, whom he kept constantly in view. The epoch at which the several conferences, extending over a space of three days, were supposed to have been held, was the Latinae feriae, in the consulship of C. Sempronius Tuditanus and M.' Aquillius, в. с. 129; the dramatis personae consisted of the younger Africanus, in whose suburban gardens the scene is laid, and to whom the principal part is assigned; his bosom friend C. Laelius the Wise; L. Furius Philus, consul в. с. 136, celebrated in the annals of the Numantine war, and bearing the reputation of an eloquent and cultivated speaker (Brut. 28); M.' Manilius, consul в. с. 149, under whom Scipio served as military tribune at the outbreak of the third Punic war, probably the same person as Manilius the famous jurisconsult; Sp. Mummius, the brother of him who sacked Corinth, a man of moderate acquirements, addicted to the discipline of the Porch; Q. Aelius Tubero, son of Aemilia, sister of Africanus, a prominent opponent of the Gracchi, well skilled in law and logic, but no orator; P. Rutilius Rufus, consul в. с. 105, the most worthy citizen, according to Velleius, not merely of his own day, but of all time, who having been condemned in a criminal trial (в. с. 92), although innocent, by a conspiracy among the equites, retired to Smyrna, where he passed the remainder of his life in honourable exile; Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur, consul в. с. 117, the first preceptor of Cicero in jurisprudence; and lastly, C. Fannius, the historian, who was absent, however, on the second day of the conference, as we learn from the remarks of his father-in-law Laelius, and of Scaevola, in the De Amicitia (4, 7). In order to give an air of probability to the action of the piece, Rutilius is supposed to have been visited at Smyrna by Cicero during his Asiatic tour, and on that occasion to have spent some days in recounting the particulars of this memorable conversation, in which he had taken a part, to his young friend who afterwards dedicated the De Republica to the person who was his travelling companion on this occasion. It is hard to discover who this may have been, but historical considerations go far to prove that either Q. Cicero or Atticus was the individual in question. (De Rep. i. 8, Brut. 22; Mai, Praef. § iv.) The precise date at which the De Republica was given to the world is unknown; it could scarcely have been before the end of в. с. 54, for the work was still in an unfinished state at the end of September in that year (ad Att. iv. 16), and during the month of October scarcely a day passed in which the author was not called upon to plead for some client (ad Q. Fr. iii. 3); on the other hand, it appears from an expression in the correspondence of Caelius with Cicero, while the latter was in Cilicia (ad Fam. viii. 1), that the " politici libri" were in general circulation in the early part of в. с. 51, while the language used is such as would scarcely have been employed except with reference to a new publication.

The greater number of the above particulars are gleaned from incidental notices dispersed over the writings of Cicero. The dialogues themselves, although known to have been in existence during the tenth century, and perhaps considerably later, had ever since the revival of literature eluded the most earnest search, and were believed to have been irrecoverably lost with the exception of the episode of the Somnium Scipionis, extracted entire from the sixth book by Macrobius, and sundry fragments quoted by grammarians and ecclesiastics, especially by Lactantius and St. Augustin. But in the year 1822, Angelo Mai detected among the Palimpsests in the Vatican a portion of the longsought-for treasure, which had been partially obliterated to make way for a commentary of St. Augustin on the Psalms. A full history of this volume, which seems to have been brought front the monastery of Bobio during the pontificate of Paulus V., about the beginning of the 7th century, is contained in the first edition, printed at Rome in 1822, and will be found in most subsequent editions. Although what has been thus unexpectedly restored to light is in itself most valuable, yet, considered as a whole, the work presents a sadly deformed and mutilated aspect. These imperfections arise from various causes. In the first place, the commentary of Augustin reaches from the 119th to the 140th psalm, but the remainder, down to the 150th psalm, written, as may be fairly inferred, over sheets of the same MS., has disappeared, and gaps occur in what is left to the extent of 64 pages, leaving exactly 302 pages entire in double columns, each consisting of fifteen lines. In the second place, it must be remembered that to prepare an ancient MS. for the reception of a new writing, it must have been taken to pieces in order to wash or scrape every page separately, and that, no attention being paid to the arrangement of these disjecta membra, they would, when rebound, be shuffled together in utter disorder, and whole leaves would be frequently rejected altogether, either from being decayed or from some failure in the cleaning process. Accordingly, in the palimpsest in question the different parts of the original were in the utmost confusion, and great care was required not only in deciphering the faint characters, but in restoring