The Letters of Cicero, Volume 1: The Whole Extant Correspodence in Chronological OrderCicero, Marcus Tullius
History
The Letters of Cicero, Volume 1: The Whole Extant Correspodence in Chronological Order
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
Authors, Latin -- Correspondence; Cicero, Marcus Tullius -- Correspondence; Statesmen -- Rome -- Correspondence
[Footnote 332: Or, as Prof. Tyrrell suggests, "does not quote Curio to
that effect." I think, however, that Cicero does not use _laudo_ in this
sense except in connexion with _auctorem_, _auctores_, and even then
generally with a subsense, at least, of commendation. The speech was
composed to be delivered against the elder Curio and Clodius (see p.
155), but was never delivered. Its personal tone made it dangerous now.]
[Footnote 333: Cicero means that Atticus acted with the emotion
spontaneously arising from his affection, but not with the caution which
he would have shewn in doing a thing which he was under some obligation
to do.]
[Footnote 334: The ancient "colleges" or "clubs" had been gradually
increasing, and a decree of the senate in B.C. 64 had declared certain
of them unlawful. But Clodius had overridden this decree by a _lex_
early in B.C. 58, and many new ones were formed, which he used for his
political purposes (_pro Sest._ § 55; Dio, xxxviii. 13).]
[Footnote 335: That he could do nothing against the wishes of Cæsar
(_Att._ x. 4, § 3; cp. _in Pis._ § 77). According to Plutarch, Pompey
avoided a personal interview (_Cic._ 31).]
[Footnote 336: The kindness has been all on the side of Atticus, who
will therefore be attached to the object of it--for the benefactor loves
more than the benefited.]
[Footnote 337: A _privilegium_ was a law referring to a particular
person, which was forbidden by the twelve tables, and if it was shewn to
be unconstitutional a decree of the senate could declare it void. But
Cicero seems to think that such a proceeding of the senate would give a
possibility of raising the question afresh.]
[Footnote 338: The first bill named no one, but enacted that "anyone who
had put a citizen to death uncondemned should be forbidden fire and
water." The second, "that M. Tullius be forbidden fire and water."
Cicero says that the former did not touch him, I suppose, because it
could not be retrospective. This is in accordance with the view of
Cæsar, who approved of the law, but said that old sores ought not to be
ripped up--οὐ μὴν καὶ προσήκειν ἐπὶ παρεληλυθόσι τοιοῦτόν τινα νόμον
συγγράφεσθει (Dio, xxxviii. 17).]
[Footnote 339: Because it shewed that he considered himself as coming
under the new law.]
[Footnote 340: Letter LXVIII, p. 154.]
[Footnote 341: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was a prætor this year.]
[Footnote 342: Though Cicero uses _tantum ... quantum_ here, he does not
mean that Atticus failed to love him enough--that would have been too
unreasonable. In a certain way he means that he loved him too much. He
allowed his spontaneous feelings full vent, without acting with the cool
wisdom which he would have shewn in fulfilling a duty or moral
obligation. It is more fully expressed above. Still, it was a difficult
thing to say, and he doesn't succeed in making it very clear.]
LXXIII (A III, 16)
TO ATTICUS (AT ROME)
THESSALONICA, 19 AUGUST
[Sidenote: B.C. 58, ÆT. 48]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account