CICERO, the name of two families of ancient Rome. It may perhaps be derived from titer (pulse), in which case it would be analogous to such names as Lentulus, Tubero, Piso. Of one family, of the plebeian Claudian Bens, only a single member, Gaius Claudius Cicero, tribune in 454 B.C., is known. The other family was a branch of the Tullii, settled from an ancient period at Arpinum. This family, four of whose members are noticed specially below, did not achieve more than municipal eminence until the time of M. Tullius Cicero, the great orator.
(I) MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO (106-43 B.C. ), Roman orator and politician, was born at Arpinum on Jan. 3, 1o6 B.C. His mother, Helvia, is said to have been of good family. His father was by some said to have been descended from Attius Tullius, the Volscian host of Coriolanus, while spiteful persons declared him to have been a fuller; in any case he was a Roman knight with property at Arpinum and a house in Rome. His health was weak, and he generally lived at Arpinum, where he devoted him self to literary pursuits. Cicero spent his boyhood partly in his native town and partly at Rome. The poet Archias, he says, first inspired him with the love of literature. He was much im pressed by the teaching of Phaedrus, the Epicurean, at a period before he assumed the toga virilis; he studied dialectic under Diodotus the Stoic, and in 88 B.C. attended the lectures of Philo, the head of the Academic school, whose devoted pupil he became.
He studied rhetoric under Molo (Molon) of Rhodes, and law under the guidance of Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur and juris consult. After the death of the augur, he transferred himself to the care of Q. Mucius Scaevola, the ponti f ex maximus, a still more famous jurisconsult, nephew of the augur. His literary education at this period consisted largely of verse-writing and making translations from Greek authors. We hear of an early poem named Pontius Glaucus the subject of which is uncertain, and of translations of Xenophon's Oeconomica and the Pheno mena of Aratus. Considerable fragments of the latter work are still extant. To this period also belongs his de Inventione rhe torica, of which he afterwards spoke lightly (de Orat. i. 5) , but which enjoyed a great vogue in the middle ages. Cicero also, according to Roman practice, received military training. At the age of i 7 he served in the social war successively under Pompeius Strabo and Sulla (89 B.c.). In the war between Marius and Sulla his sympathies were with Sulla, but he did not take up arms (Sext. Rosc. 136, 142).
His forensic life begins in 81 B.C., at the age of 25. A speech delivered in this year, pro Quinctio, is still extant ; it is con cerned with a technical point of law and has little literary merit. In the following year he made his celebrated defence of Sextus Roscius on a charge of parricide. He subsequently defended a woman of Arretium, whose freedom was impugned on the ground that Sulla had confiscated the territory of that town. He then left Rome on account of his health, and travelled for two years in the East. He studied philosophy at Athens under various teachers, notably Antiochus of Ascalon, founder of the Old Academy, a combination of Stoicism, Platonism and Peripateti cism. In Asia he attended the courses of Xenocles, Dionysius and Menippus, and in Rhodes those of Posidonius, the famous Stoic. In Rhodes also he studied rhetoric once more under Molo, to whom he ascribes a decisive influence upon the development of his literary style. He had previously affected the florid, or Asiatic, style of oratory then current in Rome. The chief faults of this were excess of ornament, antithesis, alliteration and assonance, monotony of rhythm, and the insertion of words purely for rhythmical effect. Molo, he says, rebuked his youthful extrava gance and he came back "a changed man." He returned to Rome in 77 B.C., and appears to have mar ried at this time Terentia, a rich woman with a domineering temper, to whom many of his subsequent embarrassments were due.' He engaged at once in forensic and political life. He was quaestor in 75, and was sent to Lilybaeum to supervise the corn supply. His connection with Sicily let him to come forward in 7o B.C., when curule-aedile elect, to prosecute Gaius Verres, who had oppressed the island for three years. Cicero seldom prose cuted, but it was the custom at Rome for a rising politician to win his spurs by attacking a notable offender (pro Caelio, 73) . In the following year he defended Marcus Fonteius on a charge of extortion in Gaul, using various arguments which might equally well have been advanced on behalf of Verres himself.
In 68 B.C. his letters begin, from which (and especially those to T. Pomponius Atticus, his "second self") we obtain wholly unique knowledge of Roman life and history. In 66 B.C. he was praetor, and was called upon to hear cases of extortion. In the same year he spoke on behalf of the proposal of Gaius Manilius to transfer the command against Mithridates from Lucullus to Pompey (de Lege Manilla), and delivered his clever but dis ingenuous defence of Aulus Cluentius (pro Cluentio) . At this time he was a prospective candidate for the consulship, and was obliged by the hostility of the nobles towards "new men" to look for help wherever it was to be found. In 65 B.c. he even thought of defending Catiline on a charge of extortion, and de livered two speeches on behalf of Gaius Cornelius, tribune in 67 B.C., a leader of the democratic party. In 64 B.C. he lost his father and his son Marcus was born. The optimates finally de cided to support him for the consulship in order to keep out 'According to Plutarch she urged her husband to take vigorous action against Catiline, who had compromised her half-sister Fabia, a vestal virgin ; also to give evidence against Clodius, being jealous of his sister Clodia.
Catiline, and he eagerly embraced the "good cause," his affec tion for which from this time onward never varied, though his actions were not always consistent.
The public career of Cicero henceforth is largely covered by the general article on ROME : History. The year of his consul ship (63) was one of amazing activity, both administrative and oratorical. Besides the three speeches against Publius Rullus and the four against Catiline, he delivered a number of others, among which that on behalf of Gaius Rabirius is especially not able. The charge was that Rabirius (q.v.) had killed Saturninus in 'co B.C., and by bringing it the democrats challenged the right of the senate to declare a man a public enemy. Cicero, therefore, was fully aware of the danger which would threaten himself from his execution of the Catilinarian conspirators. He trusted, however, to receive the support of the nobles. In this he was disappointed. They never forgot that he was a "new man," and were jealous of the great house upon the Palatine which he acquired at this time. Caesar had made every possible effort to conciliate Cicero,' but, when all overtures failed, allowed Publius Clodius to attack him. Cicero found himself deserted, and on the advice of Cato went into exile to avoid bloodshed. He left Rome at the end of March 58, and arrived on May 23 at Thessalonica where he remained in the deepest dejection until the end of November, when he went to Dyrrhachium (Durazzo) awaiting his recall. He left for Italy on Aug. 4, 57, and on arriving at Brundisium (Brindisi) found that he had been recalled by a law passed by the comitia on the very day of his de parture. On his arrival at Rome he was received with enthusiasm by all classes, but did not find the nobles at all eager to give him compensation for the loss of his house and villas, which had been destroyed by Clodius. He was soon encouraged by the growing coolness between Pompey and Caesar to attack the acts of Caesar during his consulship, and after his successful defence of Publius Sestius on March io he proposed on April 5 that the senate should on May 15 discuss Caesar's distribution of the Campanian land. This brought about the conference of Luca (Lucca). Cicero was again deserted by his supporters and threatened with fresh exile. He was forced to publish a "recantation," probably the speech de Provinciis Consularibus, and in a private letter says frankly, "I know that I have been a regular ass." His conduct for the next three years teems with inconsistencies which we may deplore but cannot pass over. He was obliged to defend in S4 Publius Vatinius whom he had fiercely attacked during the trial of Sestius; also Aulus Gabinius, one of the consuls to whom his exile was due; and Rabirius Postumus, an agent of Gabinius. On the other hand, he made a violent speech in the senate in 55 against Lucius Piso, the colleague of Gabinius in 58. We know from his letters that he accepted financial aid from Caesar, but that he repaid the loan before the outbreak of the civil war. There is no doubt that he was easily deceived. He was always an optimist, and thought that he was bringing good influence to bear upon Caesar as afterwards upon Octavian. His actions, however, when Caesar's projects became manifest, sufficiently vindicated his honesty. During these unhappy years he took refuge in literature. The de Oratore was written in 55 B.C., the de Republica in 54, and the de Legibus at any rate begun in 52. The latter year is famous for the murder of Clo dius by T. Annius Milo on the Appian Way (on Jan. 18), which brought about the appointment of Pompey as sole consul and the passing of special laws dealing with rioting and bribery. Cicero took an active part in the trials which followed both as a defender of Milo and his adherents and as a prosecutor of the opposite faction. At the close of the year, greatly to his an noyance, he was sent to govern Cilicia under the provisions of Pompey's law (see POMPEY and ROME : History) . His reluctance to leave Rome, already shown by his refusal to take a province, after his praetorship and consulship, was increased by the in clination of his daughter Tullia, then a widow, to marry again.
During his absence she married the profligate spendthrift, P. Cornelius Dolabella.
The province of Cilicia was a large one. It included, in addi tion to Cilicia proper, Isauria, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Pamphylia and Cyprus, as well as a protectorate over the client kingdoms of Cappadocia and Galatia. There was also danger of a Parthian inroad. Cicero's legate was his brother Quintus Cicero (below), an experienced soldier who had gained great distinction under Caesar in Gaul. The fears of Parthian invasion were not real ized, but Cicero, after suppressing a revolt in Cappadocia, undertook military operations against the hill-tribes of the Am anus and captured the town of Pindenissus after a siege of 46 days. A supplicatio in his honour was voted by the senate. The early months of 5o were occupied by the administration of justice, chiefly at Laodicea, and by various attempts to alleviate the distress in the province caused by the exactions of his pred ecessor, Appius Claudius. He had to withstand pressure from influential persons (e.g., M. Brutus, who had business interests in his province), and refused to provide his friends with wild beasts for their games in Rome. Leaving his province on the earliest opportunity, he reached Brundisium on Nov. 24, and found civil war inevitable. He went to Rome on Jan. 4, but did not enter the city, since he aspired to a triumph for his suc cesses. After the outbreak of war he was placed by Pompey in charge of the Campanian coast. After much irresolution he refused Caesar's invitations and resolved to join Pompey's forces in Greece. He was shocked by the ferocious language of his party, and himself gave offence by his bitter jests (Plut. Cic. 38). Through illness he was not present at the battle of Phar salus, but afterwards was offered the command by Cato the Younger at Corcyra, and was threatened with death by the young Cn. Pompeius when he refused to accept it. Thinking it useless to continue the struggle, he sailed to Brundisium, where he re mained until Aug. 12, 47, when, after receiving a kind letter from Caesar, he went to Rome. Under Caesar's dictatorship Cicero abstained from .politics. His voice was raised on three occasions only : once in the senate in 46 to praise Caesar's clemency to M. Claudius Marcellus (pro Marcello) , to plead in the same year before Caesar for Quintus Ligarius, and in 45 on behalf of Deiotarus, tetrarch of Galatia, also before Caesar. He suffered greatly from family troubles at this period. In 46, he divorced Terentia, and married his young and wealthy ward, Publilia. Then came the greatest grief of his life, the death of Tullia, his beloved daughter. He shortly afterwards divorced Publilia, who had been jealous of Tullia's influence and proved unsympa thetic. To solace his troubles he devoted himself wholly to litera ture. To this period belong several famous rhetorical and philo sophical works, the Brutus, Orator, Partitiones Oratoriae, Para doxa, Academica, de Finibus, Tusculan Disputations, together with other works now lost, such as his Laus Catonis, Consolatio and Hortensius.
His repose was broken by Caesar's murder on March 44, to which he was not a party. On March 17 he delivered a speech in the senate urging a general amnesty like that declared in Athens after the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants. When it be came apparent that the conspirators had removed only the des pot and left the despotism, he again devoted himself to philosophy, and in an incredibly short space of time produced the de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, de Fato, Cato maior (or de Senectute), Laelius (or de Amicitia), and began his treatise de Officiis. To this period also belongs his lost work de Gloria. He then pro jected a journey to Greece in order to see his son Marcus, then studying at Athens, of whose behaviour he had heard unfavour able reports. He reached Syracuse on Aug. 1, having during the voyage written from memory a translation of Aristotle's Topica. He was driven back by unfavourable winds to Leucopetra, and then, hearing better news, returned to Rome on Aug. 21. He was bitterly attacked by Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) in the senate on Sept. 1 for not being present there, and on the next day replied in his First Philippic. He then left Rome and devoted himself to the completion of the de Officiis, and to the composition of his famous Second Philippic, which was never delivered, but was circulated, at first privately, after Antony had made his departure from Rome on the way to Cisalpine Gaul on Nov. 28.
Cicero returned to Rome on Dec. 9, and from that time forward led the republican party in the senate. His policy, stated briefly, was to make use of Octavian, whose name was all-power ful with the veterans, until new legions had been raised which would follow the republican commanders. Cicero pledged his credit for the loyalty of Octavian, who styled him "father" and affected to take his advice on all occasions. Cicero, an incurable optimist in politics, may have convinced himself of Octavian's sincerity. The breach, however, was bound to come, and the saying, maliciously attributed to Cicero, that Octavian was an "excellent youth who must be praised and—sent to another place," neatly expresses the popular view of the situation. Cicero was sharply criticized by M. Junius Brutus for truckling to Octavian while showing irreconcilable enmity to Antony and Lepidus (ad Brut. i. 16. 4, i. 15. 9) ; but Brutus was safe in his province, and it is difficult to see what other course was open to a politician in Rome. Whether Cicero was right or wrong, none can question his amazing energy. He delivered his long series of Philippics at Rome, and kept up a correspondence with the various provincial governors and commanders, all short sighted and selfish, and several of them half-hearted, endeavour ing to keep each man in his place and to elaborate a common plan of operations. He was naturally included in the list of the proscribed, though it is said that Octavian fought long on his behalf, and was slain near Formiae on Dec. 7, 43. He had a ship near in which he had previously attempted to flee, but being cast back by unfavourable winds he returned to his villa, saying, "Let me die in the country which I have often saved." His head and hands were sent to Rome and nailed to the rostra, after Fulvia, wife of Antony and widow of Clodius, had thrust a hairpin through the tongue.
Works.—The literary works of Cicero may be classed as (i.) rhetorical; (ii.) oratorical; (iii.) philosophical and political; (iv.) epistolary.
(i.) Rhetorical.—His chief works of this kind are : (a) de Oratore, a treatise in three books dedicated to his brother Quin tus. The discussion is conducted in the form of a dialogue which is supposed to have occurred in 91 B.C. chiefly between the two orators L. Crassus and M. Antonius. The first book deals with the studies necessary for an orator; the second with the treatment of the subject matter; the third with the form and delivery of a speech. Cicero says of this work in a letter (Fam. i. 9. 23) that it "does not deal in hackneyed rules and embraces the whole theory of oratory as laid down by Isocrates and Aristotle." (b) Brutus, or de Claris oratoribus, a history of Roman eloquence containing much valuable information about his predecessors, drawn largely from the Chronicle (liber annalis) of Atticus. (c) Orator, dedicated to M. Brutus, sketching a portrait of the per fect and ideal orator, Cicero's last word on oratory. The sum of his conclusion is that the perfect orator must also be a perfect man. Cicero says of this work that he has "concentrated in it all his taste" (Fam. vi. 18. 4). The three treatises are intended to form a continuous series containing a complete system of rhe torical training.
It will be convenient to mention here a feature of Ciceronian prose on which singular light has been thrown by recent inquiry. In the de Oratore, iii. 173 sqq., he considers the element of rhythm or metre in prose, and in the Orator (174-226) he returns to the subject and discusses it at length. His main point is that prose should be metrical in character, though it should not be entirely metrical, since this would be poetry (Orator, 22o). Greek writers relied for metrical effect in prose on those feet which were not much used in poetry. Aristotle recommended the paean Cicero preferred the cretic - -, which he says is the metrical equivalent of the paean. Demosthenes was especially fond of the cretic. Rhythm pervades the whole sentence but is most important at the end or clausula, where the swell of the period sinks to rest. The ears of the Romans were almost in credibly sensitive to such points. We are told that an assembly was stirred to wild applause by a double trochee – If the order were changed, Cicero says, the effect would be lost. The same rhythm should be found in the membra which compose the sentence. He quotes a passage from one of his own speeches in which any change in the order would destroy the rhythm. Cicero gives various clausulae which his ears told him to be good or bad, but his remarks are desultory as also are those of Quintil ian, whose examples were largely drawn from Cicero's writings. It was left for modern research to discover rules of harmony which the Romans obeyed unconsciously. Other investigators had shown that Cicero's clausulae are generally variations of some three or four forms in which the rhythm is trochaic. Dr. Thaddaeus Zielinski of Warsaw, after examining all the clausulae in Cicero's speeches, finds that they are governed by a law. In every clausula there is a basis followed by a cadence. The basis con sists of a cretic or its metrical equivalent.' This is followed by a cadence trochaic in character, but varying in length. The three favourite forms are (i.) – – (ii.) – – – (iii.) – ..._ _ _ These he styles verse (V) . Other frequent clausulae, which he terms licitae (L), are those in which a long syllable is resolved, as in verse, into two shorts, e.g., esse videatur. These two classes, V and L, include 86% of the clausulae in the orations. Some rarer clausulae which he terms M (=malae) introduce no new prin ciple. There remain two interesting forms, viz., S (=selectae), in which a spondee is substituted for a trochee in the cadence, e.g., – – – – – this being done for special emphasis, and P ( _ pessimae), where a dactyl is so used, e.g., ' – – this being the heroica clausula condemned by Quintilian. Similar rules apply to the membra of the sentence, though in these the S and P forms are more frequent, harmony being restored in the clausula.
These results apply not only to the speeches but also to the philosophical writings and the more elaborate letters, and with modifications to other rhythmical prose, e.g., that of Pliny and Seneca. Rhythm was avoided by Caesar who was an Atticist, and by Sallust, who was an archaist. Livy's practice is exactly opposite to that of Cicero, since he has a marked preference for the S forms, thereby exemplifying Cicero's saying that long syllables are more appropriate to history than to oratory (Orator, § 212).
(ii.) Speeches.—These were generally delivered before the senate or people, if political in character, and before jurors sitting in a quaestio, if judicial. The speech against Vatinius was an attack upon a witness under examination; that de Domo was made before the Pontifices ; that pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo in the course of a provocatio to the people; and those pro Ligario and pro rege Deiotaro before Caesar. The five orations compos ing the Actio Secunda in Verrem were never spoken, but written after Verres had gone into exile. The Second Philippic also was not delivered but issued as a pamphlet. Cicero's speech for Milo at his trial was not a success, though, as Quintilian (ix. 2. 54) quotes from it, as taken down by shorthand reporters, an example of a rhetorical figure well used, it cannot have been such a failure as is alleged by later writers. The extant speech was written by Cicero at his leisure. None of the other speeches is in the exact form in which it was delivered. Cicero's method was to construct a commentaries or skeleton of his speech, which he used when speaking. If he was pleased with a speech he then wrote it out for publication. Sometimes he omitted in the written speech a subject on which he had spoken. A record of this is sometimes preserved: e.g., "de Postumi criminibus" (Mur. 51), "de teste Fufio" (Gael. 19). These commentarii were published by his freedman Tiro and are quoted by Asconius (ad Orat. in Toga Candida, p. 87).
Cicero in his speeches must be given all the privileges of an 'Orator, § 214: " `patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit' hoc dichoreo tantus clamor contionis excitatus est ut admirabile esset. Quaero, nonne id numerus efficerit ? Verborum ordinem immuta, fac sic: `Comprobavit fili temeritas' jam nihil erit." 'This theory is partly anticipated by Terentianus Maurus (c. A.D. 290), who says of the cretic (v. 1440 sqq.) : "Plurimum orantes decebit quando paene in ultimo Obtinet sedem beatam, terminet si clausulam Dactylus spondeus imam, nec trochaeum respuo Plenius tractatur istud arte prosa rhetorum." advocate. Sometimes he had a bad client ; he naively confesses the straits to which he was put when defending Scamander (Clu. 51; cf. Phil. xiii. 26) . He thought of defending Catiline, though he says that his guilt is clear as noon-day (Att. i. 1-2 and ii. I) . Sometimes the brief which he held at the moment compelled him to take a view of facts contrary to that which he had previously advocated. Thus in the pro Caecina he alleges judicial corrup tion against a witness, Falcula, while in the pro Cluentio he con tends that the offence was not proved (Caec. 28, Clu. 103). He says quite openly that "it is a great mistake to suppose that statements in his speeches express his real opinions" (Clu. 139). It is therefore idle to reproach him with inconsistencies, though these are sometimes very singular. Thus in the pro Cornelio he speaks with praise of Gabinius, who, when a colleague vetoed his proposal, proceeded to depose him after the precedent set by Tiberius Gracchus (Asconius in Cornel. p. 71) . In the pro Cluentio, III, he contends that nothing is easier than for a new man to rise at Rome. In the pro Caelio he says that Catiline had in him undeveloped germs of the greatest virtues, and that it was the good in him that made him so dangerous (Cael. 12-14) . He sometimes deliberately puts the case upon a wrong issue. In the pro Milone he says that either Milo must have lain in wait for Clodius or Clodius for Milo, leaving out of sight the truth, that the encounter was due to chance. He used to boast that he had cast dust into the eyes of the jury in the case of Cluentius (Quintil. ii. 17-21) .
Cicero had a perfect mastery of all weapons wielded by a pleader in Rome. He was specially famous for his pathos, and for this reason, when several counsel were employed, always spoke last (Orat. 130). A splendid specimen of pathos is to be found in his account of the condemnation and execution of the Sicilian captains (V err. [Act. ii.] v. 106-122). Much exaggera tion was permitted to a Roman orator. Thus Cicero frequently speaks as if his client were to be put to death, though a criminal could always evade capital consequences by going into exile. His enemies scoffed at his "tear-drops." He indulged in the most violent invective, which, though shocking to a modern reader, e.g., in his speeches against Vatinius and Piso, was not offensive to Roman taste (de Orat. ii. 216-29o), He was much criticized for his jokes, and even Quintilian (ii. 17-21) regrets that he made so many in his speeches. He could never resist the temp tation to make a pun. It must be remembered, however, that he was the great wit of the period. Caesar used to have a collection of Cicero's bons mots brought to him. Cicero complains that all the jokes of the day were attributed to himself, including those made by very sorry jesters (Fate. vii. 32. 1). A fine specimen of sustained humour is to be found in his speech pro Murena, where he rallies the jurisconsults and the Stoics. He was also criticized for his vanity and perpetual references to his own achievements. His vanity, however, as has been admirably remarked, is essen tially that of "the peacock, not of the gander," and is redeemed by his willingness to raise a laugh at his own expense (Strachan Davidson, p. 192) . Some critics have impugned his legal knowl edge, but probably without justice. It is true that he does not claim to be a great expert, though a pupil of the Scaevolas, and when in doubt would consult a jurisconsult ; also, that he fre quently passes lightly over important points of law, but this was probably because he was conscious of a flaw in his case.
(iii.) Political and Philosophical Treatises.—These are gener ally written in the form of dialogues, in which the speakers some times belong to bygone times and sometimes to the present. The first method was known as that of Heracleides, the second as that of Aristotle (Att. xiii. 19. 4). There is no reason to suppose that the speakers held the views with which Cicero credits them, or had such literary powers as would make them able to express such views (ib., xiii. 12. 3). The political works are de Republica and de Legibus. The first was a dialogue in six books concerning the best form of constitution, in which the speakers are Scipio Africanus Minor and members of his circle. He tells us that he drew largely from Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus and writings of the- Peripatetics. The famous "Dream of Scipio" recalls the "Vision of Er" in Plato's Republic (Book x. ad fin.). The de Legibus, a sequel to this work in imitation of Plato's Laws, is drawn largely from Chrysippus.
Cicero as a philosopher belonged to the New Academy. The followers of this school were free to hear all arguments for and against, and to accept the conclusion which for the moment ap peared most probable (Acad. ii. 131). Thus in the Tusculan Disputations v. he expresses views which conflict with de Finibus iv., and defends himself on the ground that as an Academic he is free to change his mind. He was much fascinated by the Stoic morality, and it has been noticed that the Tusculan Disputations and de Officiis are largely Stoic in tone. He has nothing but con tempt for the Epicureans, and cannot forgive their neglect of literary style. As Cicero's philosophical writings have been se verely attacked for want of originality, it is only fair to recollect that he resorted to philosophy as an anodyne when suffering from mental anguish, and that he wrote incredibly fast. He issued two editions of his Academics. The first consisted of two books, in which Catulus and Lucullus were the chief speakers. He then rewrote his treatise in four books, making himself, Varro and Atticus the speakers. His works are confessedly in the main translations and compilations (Att. xii. 52. 3) ; all that he does is to turn the discussion into the form of a dialogue, to adapt it to Roman readers by illustrations from Roman history, and to in vent equivalents for Greek technical terms. This is equally true of the political treatises. Thus, when Atticus criticized a strange statement in de Republ. ii. 8, that all the cities of the Peloponnese had access to the sea, he excuses himself by saying that he found it in Dicaearchus and copied it word for word (Att. vi. 2. 3). In the same passage he used an incorrect adjective, Phliuntii for Phliasii; he says that he had already corrected his own copy, but the mistake survives in the single palimpsest in which this work has been preserved. The only merits, therefore, which can be claimed for Cicero are that he invented a philosophical terminol ogy for the Romans, and that he produced a series of manuals which from their beauty of style have had enduring influence upon mankind.
The most famous of these treatises are the following: De Finibus, on the Supreme Good. In Book i. L. Manlius Tor quatus explains the Epicurean doctrine, which is refuted in ii. by Cicero. In iii. and iv. M. Porcius Cato sets forth the doctrine of the Stoics which is shown by Cicero to agree with that of Antiochus of Ascalon; in v. M. Pupius Piso explains the views of the Aca demics and Peripatetics.
Tusculanae Disputationes, so called from Cicero's villa at Tus culum in which the discussion is supposed to have taken place. The subjects treated are :—in Book i., the nature of death and the reasons for despising it ; Book ii., the endurance of pain; pain is not an evil; Book iii., wisdom makes a man insensible to sorrow ; Book iv., wisdom banishes all mental disquietude ; Book v., virtue is sufficient to secure happiness. The materials are drawn largely from works of Dicaearchus.
De Deorum Natura.—The dialogue is placed in 77 B.C. In Book i. Velleius attacks other philosophies and explains the sys tem of Epicurus. He is then refuted by Cotta. In Book ii. Balbus, speaking as a Stoic, discusses the existence of the gods, nature, the government of the world and providence. In Book iii. Cotta criticizes the views of Balbus. The statement of the Epicurean doctrine is drawn from the work of Phaedrus, irepi 6EWv the criticism of this from Posidonius. The Stoic teaching is de rived from Cleanthes, Chrysippus and Zeno, and is criticized from the writings of Carneades and Clitomachus.
De Officiis, addressed to his son Marcus. In this the form of dialogue was not employed. The material is chiefly drawn from Stoic sources, e.g., works of Panaetius in Books i. and of Posidonius and Hecato in Book iii.
The Academica, as they have come down to us, are a con flation from the two editions of this work. They consist of the second book from the first edition, and a portion of the first book from the second edition.
Cato maior, or de Senectute, a dialogue placed in i so B.C., in which Cato, addressing Scipio and Laelius, set forth the praises of old age. The idea is drawn from Aristo of Chios, and the materials largely derived from Xenophon and Plato.
Laelius, or de Amicitia, a dialogue between Laelius and his sons-in-law, in which he sets forth the theory of friendship, speak ing with special reference to the recent death of Scipio. Cicero here draws from a work of Theophrastus on the same subject and from Aristotle.
(iv.) Letters.—Those preserved are (1) ad Familiares, i.–xvi. ; (2) ad Atticum, i.–xvi. ; (3) ad Quintum, i.–iii., ad Brutum, Some 35 other books of letters were known to antiquity, e.g., to Caesar, to Pompey, to Octavian and to his son Marcus.
The collection includes nearly zoo letters written by othe_ per sons. Thus, the eighth Book ad Fam. consists entirely of letters from Caelius to Cicero when in Cilicia. When writing to Atticus Cicero frequently sent copies of letters which he had received. There is a great variety in the style not only of Cicero's corre spondents, but also of Cicero himself. Caelius writes in a breezy, school-boy style ; the Latinity of Plancus is Ciceronian in char acter; the letter of Sulpicius to Cicero on the death of Tullia is a masterpiece of style ; Matius writes a most dignified letter justifying his affectionate regard for Caesar's memory. Several of his correspondents are indifferent stylists. Cato labours to express himself in an awkward and laconic epistle, apologizing for its length. Metellus Celer is very rude, but gives himself away in every word. Antony writes bad Latin, while Cicero himself writes in various styles. We have such a cri de coeur as his few words to one of the conspirators after Caesar's murder, "I con gratulate you. I rejoice for myself. I love you. I watch your interest; I wish for your love and to be informed what you are doing and what is being done" (Fam. vi. . When writing to Atticus he eschews all ornamentation, uses short sentences, col loquial idioms, rare diminutives and continually quotes Greek. This use of Greek tags and quotations is also found in letters to other intimate friends, e.g., Paetus and Caelius; also in letters written by other persons, e.g., Cassius to Cicero; Quintus to Tiro, and subsequently in those of Augustus to Tiberius. It is a feature of the colloquial style and often corresponds to the modern use of "slang." Other letters of Cicero, especially those written to persons with whom he was not quite at his ease or those meant for circulation, are composed in his elaborate style with long periods, parentheses and other devices for obscuring thought. These are throughout rhythmical in character, like his speeches and philosophical works.
We know from Cicero's own statement (Att. xvi. 5. 5) that he thought of publishing some of his letters during his lifetime. On another occasion he jestingly charges Tiro with wishing to have his own letters included in the "volumes" (Fam. xvi. 17. 1). It is obvious that Cicero could not have meant to publish his private letters to Atticus in which he makes confessions about himself, or those to Quintus in which he sometimes outsteps the limits of brotherly criticism, but was thinking of polished pro ductions such as the letters to Lentulus Spinther or that to Lucceius which he describes as "very pretty" (Att. iv. 6. 4).
It is universally agreed that the letters ad Familiares were pub lished by Tiro, whose hand is revealed by the fact that he sup presses all letters written by himself, and modestly puts at the end those written to him. That Cicero kept copies of his letters, or of many of them, we know from a passage in which, when addressing a friend who had inadvertently torn up a letter from him, he says that there is nothing to grieve about ; he has himself a copy at home and can replace the loss (Fam. vii. 25. 1). Tiro may have obtained from Terentia copies of letters written to her. It has been suggested that he may also have edited the letters to Quintus, as he could obtain them from members of the family. The letters ad Familiares were generally quoted in antiquity by books, the title being taken from the first letter, e.g., Cicero ad Varronem epistula Paeti.
While the letters ad Familiares were circulated at once, those to Atticus appear to have been suppressed for a considerable time. Cornelius Nepos (Att. 16) knew of their existence but distin guishes them from the published letters. Asconius (p. 87), writ ing under Claudius, never quotes them, though, when discussing Cicero's projected defence of Catiline, he could hardly have failed to do so, if he had known them. The first author who quotes them is Seneca. It is, therefore, probable that they were not published by Atticus himself, who died 32 B.C., though his hand may be seen in the suppression of all letters written by himself, but that they remained in the possession of his family and were not published until about A.D. 6o. At that date they could be published without expurgation of any kind, whereas in the letters ad Familiares the editor's hand is on one occasion (iii. ro. II) manifest. Cicero is telling Appius, his predecessor in Cilicia, of the measures which he is taking on his behalf. There then follows a lacuna. It is obvious that Tiro thought the passage compromising and struck it out. In the letters to Atticus, on the other hand, we have Cicero's private journal, his confessions to the director of his conscience, the record of his moods from day to day, without alterations of any kind.
Cicero's letters are the chief and most reliable source of in formation for the period. It is due to them that the Romans of the day are living figures to us, and that Cicero, in spite of, or rather in virtue of his frailties, is intensely human and sym pathetic. The letters to Atticus abound in the frankest self revelation, though even in the presence of his confessor his in stinct as a pleader makes him try to justify himself. The his torical value of the letters, therefore, completely transcends that of Cicero's other works. It is true that these are full of informa tion. Thus we learn much from the de Legibus regarding the constitutional history of Rome, and much from the Brutus con cerning the earlier orators. The speeches abound in details which may be accepted as authentic, either because there is no reason for misrepresentation or on account of their circumstantiality. Thus the V errines are our chief source of information for the government of the provinces, the system of taxation, the powers of the governor. They tell us of the monstrous system by which the governor could fix upon a remote place for the delivery of corn, and so compel the farmer to compound by a payment in money which the orator does not blame, on the ground that it is only proper to allow magistrates to receive corn wherever they wish (iii. 19o). From the speech pro Cluentio (i45-154) we gain unique information concerning the condition of society in a country town, the extraordinary exemption of equites from prose cution for judicial corruption, the administration of domestic justice in the case of slaves examined by their owner (ib., r 76 r 87) . But we have always to be on our guard against misrepre sentation, exaggeration and falsehood. The value of the letters lies in the fact that in them we get behind Cicero and are face to face with the other dramatis personae; also that we are admitted behind the scenes and read the secret history of the times. One of the most interesting documents in the correspondence is a despatch of Caesar to his agent Oppius, written in great haste and in disjointed sentences. It runs as follows: "On the 9th I came to Brundisium. Pompey is at Brundisium. He sent Magius to me to treat of peace. I gave him a suitable answer" (Att. ix. 13, A). In the de Bello civili, on the other hand, Caesar who wishes to show that he did his best to make peace, after stating that he sent his captive Magius to negotiate, expresses mild surprise at the fact that Pompey did not send him back (Bell. Civ. i. 26). We hear of the extraordinary agreement made by two candidates for the consulship in Caesar's interest with the sitting consuls of 54 B.C., which Cicero says he hardly ventures to put on paper. Under the terms of this the consuls, who were optimates, bound themselves to betray their party by securing, apparently fraudu lently, the election of the candidates while they in turn bound themselves to procure two ex-consuls who would swear that they were present in the senate when supplies were voted for the consular provinces, though no meeting of the senate had been held, and three augurs who would swear that a lex curiata had been passed, though the comitia curiata had not been convened (Att. iv. 18. 2) . But perhaps the most singular scene is the council of three great ladies presided over by Servilia at Antium, which de cides the movements of Brutus and Cassius in June 44 B.c., when Cassius "looking very fierce—you would say that he was breath ing fire and sword"—blustered concerning what he considered an insult, viz., a commission which had been laid upon him to supply corn. Servilia calmly remarks she will have the commission removed from the decree of the senate (Att. xv. I I. 2) .
(vi.) Authenticity. The genuineness of certain works of Cicero has been attacked. It was for a long time usual to doubt the authenticity of the speeches post reditum and pro Marcello. Recent scholars consider them genuine. As their rhythmical structure corresponds more or less exactly with the canon of authenticity formed by Zielinski from the other speeches, the question may now be considered closed. Absurd suspicion has been cast upon the later speeches in Catilinam and that pro Archia. An oration pridie quam in exsiliurn iret is certainly a forgery, as also a letter to Octavian. There is a "controversy" between Cicero and Sallust which is palpably a forgery, though a quotation from it occurs in Quintilian (iv. i. 68). Suspicion has been attached to the letters to Brutus, which in the case of two letters (i. 16 and i 7) is not unreasonable since they some what resemble the style of suasoriae, or rhetorical exercises, but the latest editors, Tyrrell and Purser, regard these also as genuine.
After Cicero's death his character was attacked by various de tractors, such as the author of the spurious Controversia put into the mouth of Sallust, and the calumniator from whom Dio Cassius (xlvi. 1-28) draws the libellous statements which he inserts into the speech of Q. Fufius Calenus in the senate. Of such critics, Asconius (in Tog. Cand. p. 95) well says that it is best to ignore them. His prose style was attacked by Pollio as Asiatic, also by his son, Asinius Gallus, who was answered by the emperor Claudius (Suet. 41). The writers of the silver age found fault with his prolixity, want of sparkle and epigram and monotony of his clausulae. A certain Largius Licinius gained notoriety by attacking his Latinity in a work styled Ciceroma.stix. His most devoted admirers were the younger Pliny, who reproduced his oratorical style with considerable success, and Quintilian (x. r. I r 2 ), who regarded him as the perfect orator, and draws most of his illustrations from his works. At a later period his style fasci nated Christian writers, notably Lactantius, the "Christian Cicero," Jerome and St. Augustine, who drew freely from his rhetorical writings.