No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Date of Cicero's Pro Archia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
The Bobiensian scholiast tells us that the speech Pro Archia was delivered by Cicero in a court presided over by his brother Quintus as praetor, who held this office in 62 B.C. The scholiast makes two clear references to Quintus (ad Pro Archia 3):
(a) Archias presented this case, dealing with the Papian law on Roman citizenship, in the court of Quintus Cicero, the brother of this Marcus Tullius …
(b) It is significant that he makes mention of the praetor himself, that is of his brother Quintus Cicero, who was in charge of the trial. Indeed, it is most appropriate that he speaks in praise of a fine poet in the court of someone who takes pleasure in pursuits of this kind, for Quintus Cicero was a writer not only of epic, but also of tragedy.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2002
References
1 Scholia Bobiensia, ed. T. Stangl (Wien 1912), p. 174, ad Pro Archia 3: ‘Hanc enim causam lege Papia de civitate Romana aput Q. Ciceronem dixit Archias, huius M. Tulli fratrem’, and further: ‘Non vacat quod mentionem facit praetoris ipsius, id est fratris sui Q. Ciceronis, qui iudicio praeerat. Opportunissimum quippe ait de laudibus poetae boni aput eum dicere qui studiis huiusmodi delectetur. Fuit enim Q. Tullius non solum epici, verum etiam tragici carminis scribtor.’
2 Badian, E., ‘Marius' Villas: The Testimony of the Slave and the Knave’, JRS 83 (1973) 125-9Google Scholar.
3 MacKendrick, P., Speeches of Cicero (London 1995) 112Google Scholar, dates the speech to 61 B.C. without providing any argument. On the date, 62, see for example, Gotoff, H.C., Cicero's Elegant Style: an Analysis of the Pro Archia (Urbana 1979), passimGoogle Scholar, although Gotoff points to a jarring note on Cicero's reference to Quintas in Pro Archia 32 (p. 211)Google Scholar; as typical of the acceptance of 62, see more recently Cerutti, S.M., Cicero Pro Archia Poeta Oratio (Illinois 1998, revised reprint 1999) xiii, xvii, 9, 79Google Scholar.
4 For example, in Flacc. 85, Cicero names Vettius; in Sest. 101, 116, Aemilius Scaurus; in Cael. 32, Domitius Calvinus; in Plane. 43, 104, Alfius Flavus, all of whom seem to have been presiding at the trials taking place. We should note that in the Pro Balbo, a case perhaps linked to the Pro Archia in time and perhaps even convened by the same praetor, Cicero does not name this presiding officer either, although he repeatedly recalls the presence of the attending indices.
5 Cerutti (n.2) ad loc. suggests that lectissimus means that the praetor concerned headed the polling for that office, but Cicero never uses the word in this sense, and it seems that Quintus did not head the polling. Cicero has used the term here to mean ‘specially selected’ (e.g Cael. 5, Verr. 2.1.15).
6 Although lectissimus is occasionally used for general flattery (e.g. Flacc. 2), the term is often associated with adolescents (e.g. Div. Caec. 29) and women (Verr. 2.1.94, Font. 46, Cat. 4.13Google Scholar, De Invent. 1.52Google Scholar; cf. Ait. 10.8a.1Google Scholar).
7 Terms used by Marcus publicly for his brother include: carissimus and cognates (Font. 47, Cat. 4.3Google Scholar, Mur. 10; Plane. 69; Oral. 2.10Google Scholar); iucundus (Red. Quir. 3, 8); optatissimus, amantissimus, fortissimus (Red. Sen. 1, Dom. 96, Sest. 49, 76); Marcus claims that Quintus shows aequitas, prudentia and humanitas (Flacc. 49, 78), and also pietas (Red. Quir. 5, Red. Sen. 37).
8 That the presiding officer could influence the outcome of a trial, see Plutarch, Cicero 9.1–2Google Scholar, where it is claimed that Cicero, when praetor, won a reputation for his careful presidency of his court. Plutarch, however, adds a further story that impugns Cicero's impartiality and suggests that Cicero, in presiding over the trial of Manilius, had a great deal of recognisable influence (Plut, . Cic. 9.4–6Google Scholar; cf. Cicero, Q.Com. Pet. 51Google Scholar; Dio Cassius 36.44.1-2). Plutarch attributes a similar influence to Antistius who allegedly presided as praetor over some action against Pompey, but, because he was secretly soon to be Pompey's father-in-law, was believed to have manipulated the trial in Pompey's favour (Pomp. 4.2-3; see Alexander, M.C., Trials in the Late Roman Republic 149 BC to 50 BC (Toronto 1990) no. 190)Google Scholar. Long-standing laws against collusion are suggested, for example, by the care expressed in the lex de repetendarum, lines 20-6, to prevent strong relationships between the adversarial parties and jurors (Crawford, M., Roman Statutes [London 1996] 67-8, 87-8, 100)Google Scholar.
9 In Balb. 4, Cicero claims that he has spoken recently in a case also before the same jurors, obviously for a client on the same charge. This may be a reference to Cicero's defence of Archias, where he recalled Pompey's awarding of citizenship to Theophanes in his capacity as a general on campaign (Arch. 24), as Pompey argued similarly as having occurred for Balbus. If the two trials were linked in this way, this would place the trial of Archias just before that of Balbus, although the latter trial cannot be dated more securely than to be placed in summer 56 (M.C. Alexander, Trials [n.8] no.276).
10 Monaco, F. Lo, ‘“In codicibus … qui Bobienses inscribuntur”: scoperte e studio di palinsesti bobbiesi in Ambrosiana dalla fine del Settecento ad Angelo Mai (1819)“, Aevum 70 (1996) 701-5Google Scholar. Lo Monaco accepts and re-enforces Mai's early dating of the ‘Ciceronian’ palimpsest to the 4th c. on mainly palaeographical grounds, particularly since Mai argued that the manuscript was overwritten by material relevant to, and therefore in, the 5th c. Hildebrandt, P., Scholia in Ciceronis Orationes Bobiensia (Stuttgart 1907) xxiii–ivGoogle Scholar, argues for the 3rd to 4th c.
11 Marshall, B., A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia 1985) 45–6Google Scholar. Tiro, Cicero's freedman, wrote works on Cicero, but McDermott, W.C., ‘M. Cicero and M. Tiro’, Historia 21 (1972) 277-84Google Scholar, argues against any detailed commentary on Cicero's speeches, and suggests that Tiro issued only an edition of the Verrine Orations and a summary of those speeches not published by Cicero himself (perhaps excluding the Pro Archia).
12 In his comments on Pro Sestio 11, the scholiast reports information otherwise unique to Plutarch, the name of the two tribunes who blocked Caesar's consular, valedictory speech (Plut, . Cic. 23.1–2Google Scholar), and on Pro Sestio 62 he reveals dependence on Plut, . Cato min. 26.1–29.4Google Scholar, where Cato is noted as having thwarted the legislative aims of Metellus Nepos and Caesar. Elsewhere, on Pro Sestio 47, the scholiast reveals a knowledge of Plato's Phaedo, and in his comments on Cicero's speech Cum populo gratias egit 4 he mentions Plato again.
13 Consider, for example, the comments he makes on Scipio Africanus' tomb (ad Pro Archia 22): Sepulchrum fiiisse traditum extra portam Capenam… (‘They say that the tomb was outside the Porta Capena…’), which suggests that the scholiast was not familiar with the environs of Rome. On problems with the reliability of scholiasts in general, see Badián, E., ‘Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 125-9Google Scholar, and ‘The Death of Saturninus’, Chiron 14 (1984) 134Google Scholar; Syme, R., History in Ovid (Oxford 1978) 201Google Scholar.
14 On Asconius, see Badian, E., ‘Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 125-6, 128-9Google Scholar. Although the scholiast claims the authority of Tiro for his commentary ad Pro Sestio 135, this is an allusion not to a commentary but to a collection of Cicero's witticisms, an opus doubtfully attributable to Tiro, on the provenance of which both Quintilian (IO 6.3.5Google Scholar) and Macrobius (Sat. 2.1.12Google Scholar) cast grave doubts.
15 No biography of the type found in Suetonius De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus is known, and Tacitus, Dialogus 37.6Google Scholar in fact implies that no work on Archias was to be found. Archias wrote in Greek, which may have limited his biographical appeal.
16 There are only a few instances where Quintus' life impinged on the historical record: his role in the debate in the senate on the Catilinarian conspirators in 63 (Suet, . Caes. 14.2Google Scholar); his military actions as praetor in 62 when he crushed Catilinarian insurgents in southern Italy (Orosius, Hist. 6.6.7Google Scholar); his legateship in Gaul under Caesar (e.g Caes, . BG 5.24Google Scholar); and most prominently, his death, when he was proscribed, hunted down and killed along with his brother Marcus in 43 B.C. (e.g. Livy, Per. 120Google Scholar; Appian, BC 4.19–20Google Scholar, Dio 47.10.6-7). Few biographical details of Quintus are known. Nepos mentions Quintus only as relevant to Atticus (Att. 5.3, 6.4, 7.3Google Scholar; cf. Nepos, Frag. 58Google Scholar), and Plutarch hardly at all. Although Plut, . Cic. 4.1Google Scholar records Cicero's attendance at the Athenian lectures of Antiochus of Ascalon, Plutarch does not note that Marcus' company included his brother, a fact established by Cicero himself (De Fin. 5.1Google Scholar).
17 The scholiast, however, later comments on the testimony (testimonium) of the Heraclienses.
18 ‘Et deficitiur quidem multis probationibus, testimonio tarnen Heracliensium et vel maxime, quibus tota occupatur oration, poeticae facultatis et doctrinae iucundissimae gratia nititur.’ See Badian, E., ‘Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 129Google Scholar.
19 Badian, E., “Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 128-9Google Scholar.
20 ‘Tunc Silvanus et Carbo cos. legem tulerunt ut omnes qui essent ex foederatis populis civitatem Romanum consequerentur…’. (‘At that time, Silvanus and Carbo as consuls brought a law that all who were from allied peoples should gain Roman citizenship…’). See Broughton, T.R.S., Magistrates of the Roman Republic (Cleveland 1952) 2.34Google Scholar; Badian, E., ‘Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 129Google Scholar.
21 He could have consulted Livy, or viewed Atticus' list of magistrates (Nep, Corn.. Att. 18.1–2Google Scholar, Hann. 13.1Google Scholar).
22 The scholiast may have known that there was a Papirius Carbo who held the consulship at about this time.
23 Badian, E., ‘Marius' Villas’ (n.2) 129Google Scholar.
24 The scholiast reports: ‘Aulus Gabinius damnatus fuerat de pecuniis repetundis, quod acceptis decern millibus talentum ab rege Ptolemaeo induxisse Romanum exercitum in Aegyptum diceretur.’ (‘Aulus Gabinius had been condemned for provincial peculation, in that he was said to have led an army into Egypt, after having received 10,000 talents from King Ptolemy.’)
25 Badian, E., ‘The Early Career of A. Gabinius (cos. 58 B.C.)’, Philologus 103 (1959) 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the trial of P. Gabinius for maladministration in Achaea, see M.C. Alexander, Trials (n.8) no. 174.
26 Pro Rabirio Postumo and perhaps Cicero's letters to Quintus.
27 There is perhaps a similar instance in Arch. 6, where the scholiast ‘offers gibberish’ on Metellus Pius (E. Badián, ‘The Death of Saturninus’ [n.14] 134-7).
28 The scholiast tells us about Quintus information that we already know from Cicero's works, except for the detail on Quintus' presiding at the trial of Archias.
29 Cicero refers to Archias in a letter to Atticus of 61 (Att. 1.16.15Google Scholar), but the Scholiast has not noted this, suggesting that his research was limited.
30 Mention is made of Quintus' literary output in letters of Marcus from 54 (Cic, . Q.f. 3.1.13Google Scholar; 3.5(6).7; 3.7(9).6; cf. 2.16(15).4; 3.4.4; 3.5.4; cf. Cic, . De Leg. 3.1Google Scholar). Note the manuscript variant in Q.f. 3.5.7Google Scholar concerning the title of Quintus' putative epic, although Troadas is the reading accepted by Bailey, D.R.S., Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge 1980) 94, 220Google Scholar. The scholiast's reading of the title of Quintus' work as an epic on Troy suggests that any variant on Troadas perhaps appeared after the scholiast's time.
31 Cic, . Q.f. 1.1.3, 21,25, 27Google Scholar (twice), 29, 37,38,39.
32 Objectively, the remarks made by Cicero about the praetor, intended as some sort of flattery, could well be associated with many senators of this period who dabbled in literature.
33 On unfounded risk-taking by the scholiast, see Badian, E., ‘Manus' Villas’ (n.2) 129Google Scholar.
34 On the fact that Pompey claimed world-wide conquests for his third triumph, see Bellemore, J., ‘Pompey's triumph over the Arabs’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History X(2000) 110-2Google Scholar.
35 Pompey seems to have been using this cognomen unofficially for many years. Cicero, however, uses the name ‘magnus’ rarely for Pompey before the triumph (an uncertain allusion in Leg. Man. 67; and one firm reference in Leg. Agr. 2.53Google Scholar). The former speech was published in any case after December 61 (Att. 1.17.10Google Scholar; cf. 2.19.3, 59), the latter, after June 60 (Att. 2.1Google Scholar), so both after the triumphal acclamation by the people. In April 62, Cicero addresses a letter to ‘Cn. Pompeius Cn f. Magnus Imperator’ (Cic, . Fam. 5.7.1Google Scholar), but perhaps this is in flattering anticipation of Pompey's official title. Generally, Cicero calls Pompey ‘magnus’ or ‘noster magnus’, when he is cross with him (Att. 1.16.11, 12Google Scholar,), or utterly dismissive (Att. 2.13.2, 1.20.5Google Scholar).
36 Livy tells us that Pompey was acclaimed ‘magnus’ by an assembly in Rome, clearly at the time of his triumph in 61 (Epit. 103), confirmed by Appian, Mith. 118 (582), 121 (599-600)Google Scholar.
37 Hic forms a literary contrast both with Alexander the Great mentioned just previously (magnus ille Alexander) and perhaps also with Pompey's own soldiers (nostri illi fortes viri), later. See Cerarti (n.2) and Gotoff (n.2.) ad loc. Hic, however, may have been intended literally, since Cicero needed only noster to contrast Pompey to Alexander.
38 In Pro Balbo, where Pompey is named as a co-defender by Cicero and clearly present in court, he is referred to by the demonstrative pronoun hic several times, although he is by no means the focus of this speech (Balb. 5, 9 twice, 10, 13 twice, 16, cf. 40 [hunc praesentem Cn.Pompeium]). By contrast, in the speech de lege Manilio, which refers to Pompey in almost every paragraph (29 times explicitly named), Pompey is comparatively rarely alluded to by the term hic, etc., and usually only adjectivally (18 times), although his presence in Asia is stressed through this word (Leg. Man. 13, 45). On this basis, it is generally the case that when Cicero uses hic, the man in question is likely to be present.
39 … qui [Pompeius] cum virtute fortunam adaequavit … Compare this with the comparatively lavish praise given to Lucullus in Arch. 21 (… fortissimum et clarissimum virum), accompanied by a lengthy description of Lucullus' achievements in Asia Minor.
40 These sentiments were allegedly reciprocated by Pompey (Cic, . Att. 1.19.7)Google Scholar.
41 Cic, . Fam. 1.14.3Google Scholar; see also Cic, . Att. 1.16.11, 1.17.10, 1.18.6, 1.19.7,2.1.6Google Scholar.
42 Lucullus' military record is recalled in comparatively glowing terms (Arch. 21), although these achievements were even more of a distant memory than those of Pompey.
43 Further on this issue, we should stress that Cicero was publicly on favourable terms with Pompey until 60, then again from September 57 until the conference of Luca in May 56.
44 In Arch. 21, Cicero says that Archias has written about the campaigns of Lucius Licinius Lucullus, one of the poet's patrons, and in the speech Cicero seems to be making literary allusions to features from Archias' poem. Despite the fact that Lucullus’ campaigns terminated in 66 and Lucullus held a triumph for these in 63 B.C., in the letter of 61 Cicero suggests that Archias has seemingly only just completed his work on Lucullus (Att. 1.16.15Google Scholar). For Cicero's allusions to Archias' poem to have any resonance with his audience or even to have credibility, the Pro Archia must have followed the publication of Archias' poem, the latter finished perhaps only in 61.
45 In Dom. 15, Cicero notes the daily fear of sedition in the context of his coming exile (cotidianus seditionis timor); in Har. Resp. 46, and Sest. 89, Clodius is dubbed homo profligatus (cf. Sest. 47); and the safety of the state is brought to the fore by Cicero many times, in particular in Post Red. ad Quir. 1.
46 See this same combination of mors and exilium in Cic, . Sest. 47Google Scholar.
47 Cicero associates exile only with others, particularly with Catilina (Cat. 1.13, 20, 22, 23Google Scholar; 2.12, 13, 14, 15, 16). In Rab. Perd. 16, a speech of 63, Cicero has noted the potential misery of exile, but he has not related this experience to himself.
48 E.g. Cic. Cat. 4.2; cf. Sull. 4,27,29, 41.
49 It perhaps seems unusual that Cicero makes only the one seemingly oblique reference to his exile, but Pro Balbo may prove a good comparison on this count. Cicero does not openly describe his exile, but simply recalls it ruinae, and further notes me absente (Balb. 58, cf. 59, 60-1).
50 Gabinius and Appius are contrasted with Metellus Pius, who brought his father back from an exile similar to that suffered by Cicero (Gotoff [n.2] 138-9).
51 Note that Cicero ascribes levitas to Aulus Gabinius in 57 (Sest. 20). It is true that Cicero could have entertained hostility towards the Gabinian gens before 58 because of the difference between his own conservative brand of politics and the more popularis approach of Gabinius, expressed most forcefully in the tribunate of 67, but Cicero was reconciled to Gabinius in the 60's through their joint relationship with Pompey, and even in late 59/early 58, Cicero perhaps believed that Gabinius would not act against him.
52 Cicero fell out with Clodius after the trial over the bona dea affair, which concluded in the middle of 61. Only after then would Cicero have attacked any of the Claudian family as having failed in his public capacity, but such comments would have been most apt at the time after Clodius had had his wings clipped, after late 57.
53 Keaveney, A., Lucullus: A Life (London 1992) 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar believes that Lucullus was in court with Archias, but there is no evidence for this. It is possible that Lucullus was in court but said nothing, but this raises the question of why he said nothing.
54 Plut, . Cic. 31.4Google Scholar; cf. Keaveney, A., Lucullus (n.52) 162-4Google Scholar.
55 Val. Max. 7.8.5.
56 There is a possiblity that Cicero does not mention the death of Lucullus because he has already done so in De Provinciis Consularibus, which would place the Pro Archia after this speech.
57 Public antipathy towards Pompey in 56 B.C. is evident in an anecdote recorded by Val. Max. 6.2.6. In this year the consul Marcellinus allegedly complained in a public meeting about Pompey, and he won the full support of the populace. On the general unpopularity of Pompey in 56, see Rawson, B., Politics of Friendship (Sydney 1978) 123-4Google Scholar.