Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Cicero 5.

5. M. Tullius Cicero, the orator, eldest son of No. 2. In what follows we do not intend to enter deeply into the complicated political transactions of the era during which this great man flourished, except in so far as he was directly and personally interested and concerned in the events. The complete history of the momentous crisis must be obtained by comparing this article with the biographies of Antonius, Augustus, Brutus, Caesar, Catilina, Cato, Clodius Pulcher [Claudius], Crassus, Lepidus, Pompeius, and the other characters of the day.

Biography of Cicero.

M. Tullius Cicero was born on the 3rd of January, b. c. 106, according to the Roman calendar, at that epoch nearly three months in advance of the true time, at the family residence in the vicinity of Arpinum. No trustworthy anecdotes have been preserved with regards to his childhood, for little faith can be reposed in the gossiping stories collected by Plutarch of the crowds who were wont to flock to the school where he received the first rudiments of knowledge, for the purpose of seeing and hearing the young prodigy ; but we cannot doubt that the aptitude for learning displayed by himself and his brother Quintus induced their father to remove to Rome, where he conducted their elementary education according to the advice of L. Crassus, who pointed out both the subjects to which their attention ought chiefly to be devoted, and also the teachers by whom the information sought might be best imparted. These instructors were, with the exception perhaps of Q. Aelius, the grammarian (Brut. 56), all Greeks, and among the number was the renowned Archias of Antioch, who had been living in Rome under the protection of Lucullus ever since b. c. 102, and seems to have communicated a temporary enthusiasm for his own pursuits to his pupil, most of whose poetical attempts belong to his early youth. In his sixteenth year (b. c. 91) Cicero received the manly gown, and entered the forum, where he listened with the greatest avidity to the speakers at the bar and from the rostra, dedicating however a large portion of his time to reading, writing, and oratorical exercises. At this period he was committed by his father to the care of the venerable Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur, whose side he scarcely ever quitted, acquiring from his lips that acquaintance with the constitution his country and the principles of jurisprudence, and those lessons of practical wisdom which proved of inestimable value in his future career. During b. c. 89, in accordance with the ancient practice not yet entirely obsolete which required every citizen to be soldier, he served his first and only campaign under Cn. Pompeius Strabo (father of Pompeius Magnus), then engaged in prosecuting with vigour the Social war, and was present at the conference between his commander and P. Vettius Scato, general of the Marsi, by whom the Romans had been signally defeated, a few months before, and the consul P. Rutilius Lupus slain.

For upwards of six years from the date of his brief military career Cicero made no appearance as a public man. During the whole of the fierce struggle between Marius and Sulla he identified himself with neither party, but appears to have carefully kept aloof from the scenes of strife and bloodshed by which he was surrounded, and to have given himself up with indefatigable perseverance to those studies which were essential to his success as a lawyer and orator, that being the only path open to distinction in the absence of all taste or talent for martial achievements. Accordingly, during the above period he first imbibed a love for philosophy from the discourses of Phaedrus the Epicurean, whose lectures, however, he soon deserted for the more congenial doctrines instilled by Philo, the chief of the New Academy, who with several men of learning had fled from Athens when Greece was invaded by the troops of Mithridates. From Diodotus the Stoic, who lived and died in his house, he acquired a scientific knowledge of logic. The principles of rhetoric were deeply impressed upon his mind by Molo the Rhodian, whose reputation as a forensic speaker was not inferior to his skill as a teacher; while not a day passed in which he did not apply the precepts inculcated by these various masters in declaiming with his friends and companions, sometimes in Latin, sometimes in Greek, but more frequently in the latter language. Nor did he omit to practise composition, for he drew up the treatise commonly entitled De Inventione Rhetorica, wrote his poem Marius and translated Aratus together with the Oeconomics of Xenophon.

But when tranquillity was restored by the final discomfiture of the Marian party, and the business of the forum had resumed, in outward appearance at least, its wonted course, the season seemed to have arrived for displaying those abilities which had been cultivated with so much assiduity, and accordingly at the age of twenty-five Cicero came forward as a pleader. The first of his extant speeches, in a civil suit, is that for P. Quinctius (в. с. 81), in which, however, he refers to some previous efforts; the first delivered upon a criminal trial was that in defence of Sex. Roscius of Ameria, charged with parricide by Chrysogonus, a freed-man of Sulla, supported, as it was understood, by the influence of his patron. No one being disposed to brave the wrath of the all-powerful dictator by openly advocating the cause of one to whom he was supposed to be hostile, Cicero, moved partly by compassion and partly by perceiving that this was a noble opportunity for commencing his career as a protector of the oppressed (see de Off. ii. 14), and establishing at considerable apparent but little real risk his character as a fearless champion of innocence, boldly came forward, pronounced a most animating and powerful address, in which he did not scruple to animadvert distinctly in the strongest terms upon the cruel and unjust measures of the favourite, and by implication on the tyranny of those by whom he was upheld, and succeeded in procuring the acquittal of his client. Soon after (в. с. 79) he again came indirectly into collision with Sulla; for having undertaken to defend the interests of a woman of Arretium, a preliminary objection was taken against her title to appear in court, inasmuch as she belonged to a town the inhabitants of which in the recent troubles had been deprived of the rights of citizenship. But Cicero denounced the act by which she and her fellow-citizens had been stripped of their privileges as utterly unconstitutional and therefore in itself null and void, and carried his point although opposed by the eloquence and experience of Cotta. It does not appear probable, notwithstanding the assertion of Plutarch to the contrary, that Cicero experienced or dreaded any evil consequences from the displeasure of Sulla, whose power was far too firmly fixed to be shaken by the fiery harangues of a young lawyer, although other circumstances compelled him for a while to abandon the field upon which he had entered so auspiciously. He had now attained the age of twenty-seven, but his constitution was far from being vigorous or his health robust. Thin almost to emaciation, with a long scraggy neck, his general appearance and habit of body were such as to excite serious alarm among his relations, especially since in addition to his close application to business, he was wont to exert his voice, when pleading, to the uttermost without remission, and employed incessantly the most violent action. Persuaded in some degree by the earnest representations of friends and physicians, but influenced still more strongly by the conviction that there was great room for improvement in his style of composition and in his mode of delivery, both of which required to be softened and tempered, he determined to quit Italy for a season, and to visit the great fountains of arts and eloquence. Accordingly (в. с. 79) he repaired in the first instance to Athens, where he remained for six months, diligently revising and extending his acquaintance with philosophy by listening to the famous Antiochus of Ascalon, studying rhetoric under the distinguished and experienced Demetrius Syrus, attending occasionally the lectures of Zeno the Epicurean, and enjoying the society of his brother Quintus, of his cousin Lucius, and of Pomponius Atticus, with whom he now cemented that close friendship which proved one of the chief comforts of his life, and which having endured unshaken the fiercest trials, was dissolved only by death. After quitting Athens he made a complete tour of Asia Minor, holding fellowship during the whole of his journey with the most illustrious orators and rhetoricians of the East, — Menippus of Stratoniceia, Dionysius of Magnesia, Aeschylus of Cnidus, and Xenocles of Adramyttium, — carefully treasuring up the advice which they bestowed and profiting by the examples which they afforded. Not satisfied even with this discipline and these advantages, he passed over to Rhodes (в. с. 78), where he became acquainted with Posidonius, and once more placed himself under the care of Molo, who took great pains to restrain and confine within proper limits the tendency to diffuse and redundant copiousness which he remarked in his disciple.

At length, after an absence of two years, Cicero returned to Rome (в. с. 77), not only more deeply skilled in the theory of his art and improved by practice, but almost entirely changed. His general health was now firmly established, his lungs had acquired strength, the habit of straining his voice to the highest pitch had been conquered, his excessive and unvarying vehemence had evaporated, the whole form and character of his oratory both in matter and delivery had assumed a steady, subdued, composed, and well-regulated tone. Transcendant natural talents, developed by such elaborate and judicious training under the most celebrated masters, stimulated by burning zeal and sustained by indomitable perseverance, could scarcely fail to command success. His merits were soon discerned and appreciated, the prejudice at first entertained that he was a mere Greekling, an indolent man of letters, was quickly dissipated ; shyness and reserve were speedily dispelled by the warmth of public applause; he forthwith took his station in the foremost rank of judicial orators, and ere long stood alone in acknowledged pre-eminence ; his most formidable rivals, Hortensias, eight years his senior, and C. Aurelius Cotta, now (в. с. 76) canvassing for the consulship, who had long been kings of the bar, having been forced, after a short but sharp contest for supremacy, to yield.

Cicero had now reached the age (of 30) at which the laws permitted him to become candidate for the lowest of the great offices of state, and although comparatively speaking a stranger, and certainly unsupported by any powerful family interest, his reputation and popularity already stood so high, that he was elected (в. с. 76) quaestor by the votes of all the tribes. The lot decided that lie should serve in Sicily under Sex. Peducaeus, praetor of Lilybaeum. During his tenure of office (в. с. 75) he executed with great skill the difficult and delicate task of procuring large additional supplies of corn for the relief of the metropolis, then suffering from a severe dearth, and at the same time displayed so much liberality towards the farmers of the revenue and such courtesy towards private traders, that he excited no jealousy or discontent, while he maintained such strict integrity, rigid impartiality, and disinterested self-denial, in all branches of his administration, that the delighted provincials, little accustomed to the exhibition of these virtues in the person of a Roman magistrate, devised unheard-of honours to testify their gratitude. Some of the leading weaknesses in the character of Cicero, inordinate vanity and a propensity to exaggerate extravagantly the importance of his services, now began to shew themselves, but they had not yet acquired such a mastery over his mind as to prevent him from laughing at the disappointments he encountered. Thus we find him describing with considerable humour in one of his speeches (pro Planc. 26) the exalted idea lie had formed at this period of his own extraordinary merits, of the position which he occupied, and of the profound sensation which his proceedings must have caused at Rome. He imagined that the scene of his duties was, as it were, the stage of the world, and that the gaze of all mankind had been watching his performances ready to condemn or to applaud. Full of the consciousness of this celebrity he landed at Puteoli (в. с. 74), and intense was his mortification when he discovered that even his own acquaintances among the luxurious crowd who thronged that gay coast were absolutely ignorant, not only of what he had been doing, but even of where he had been, a lesson, he tells us, which though severe was most valuable, since it taught him that, while the eyes of his countrymen were bright and acute their ears were dull, and pointed out the necessity of mingling with the people and keeping constantly in their view, of frequenting assiduously all places of general resort, and of admitting visitors and clients to his presence, under any circumstances, and at all hours, however inconvenient or unseasonable.

For upwards of four years after his return to Rome in the beginning of в. с. 74, the life of Cicero presents an entire blank. That he was actively engaged in the courts of law is certain, for he himself informs us, that he was employed in a multitude of causes (Brut. 92), and that his powers had now attained to the full vigour of maturity ; but we know not even the name of one of these orations, except perhaps that, " Pro M. Tullio." some important fragments of which have been recently brought to light. Meanwhile, Lucullus had been pressing the war in the East against Mithridates with great energy and the happiest results; the power of Pompey and of Crassus at home had been steadily increasing, although a bad feeling had sprung up between them in consequence of the events connected with the final suppression of the servile war of Spartacus. They, however, discharged harmoniously the duties of their joint consulship (в. с. 70), and seem to have felt that it was necessary for their interests to control the high aristocratical faction, for by their united exertions the plebeian tribunes recovered the vital privileges of which they had been deprived by Sulla, and the equites were once more admitted to serve as judices on criminal trials, sharing this distinction with the senate and the tribuni aerarii. In this year Cicero became candidate for the aedileship, and the issue of the contest was if possible more triumphant than when he had formerly solicited the suffrage of the people, for he was chosen not only by a majority in every tribe, but carried a greater number of votes than any one of his competitors. A little while before this gratifying demonstration of public approbation, he undertook the management of the most important trial in which he had hitherto been engaged — the impeachment preferred against Verres, for misgovernment and complicated oppression, by the Sicilians, whom he had ruled as praetor of Syracuse for the space of three years. (73-71.) Cicero, who always felt much more inclined to appear in the character of a defender than in the invidious position of an accuser, was prevailed upon to conduct this cause by the earnest entreaties of his provincial friends, who reposed the most perfect confidence in his integrity and good-will, and at the same time were fully alive to the advantage that would be secured to their suit from the local knowledge of their advocate. The most strenuous exertions were now made by Verres, backed by all the interest of the Metelli and other powerful families, to wrest the case out of the hands of Cicero, who, however, defeated the attempt; and, having demanded and been allowed 110 days for the purpose of collecting evidence, instantly set out, accompanied by his cousin Lucius, for Sicily, where he exerted himself so vigorously, that he traversed the whole island in less than two months, and returned attended by all the necessary witnesses and loaded with documents. Another desperate effort was made by Hortensius, now consul-elect, who was counsel for the defendant, to raise up obstacles which might have the effect of delaying the trial until the commencement of the following year, when he counted upon a more favourable judge, a more corrupt jury, and the protection of the chief magistrates; but here again he was defeated by the promptitude and decision of his opponent, who opened the case very briefly upon the fifth of August, proceeded at once to the examination of the witnesses, and the production of the depositions and other papers, which taken together constituted a mass of testimony so decisive, that Verres gave up the contest as hopeless, and retired at once into exile without attempting any defence. The full pleadings, however, which were to have been delivered had the trial been permitted to run its ordinary course were subsequently published by Cicero, and form, perhaps, the proudest monument of his oratorical powers, exhibiting that extraordinary combination of surpassing genius with almost inconceivable industry, of brilliant oratory with minute accuracy of inquiry and detail, which rendered him irresistible in a good cause and often victorious in a bad one.

The most important business of his new office (в. с. 69) were the preparations for the celebration of the Floralia, of the Liberalia, and of the Ludi Romani in honour of the three divinities of the Capitol. It had become a common custom for the aediles to lavish enormous sums on these shows, in the hope of propitiating the favour of the multitude and securing their support. Cicero, whose fortune was very moderate, at once perceiving that, even if he were to ruin himself, it would be impossible for him to vie in splendour with many of those who were likely to be his rivals in his upward course, with very correct judgment resolved, while he did nothing which could give reasonable offence, to found his claims to future distinction solely on those talents which had already won for him his present elevation, and accordingly, although he avoided everything like meanness or parsimony in the games presented under his auspices, was equally careful to shun ostentation and profuse expenditure.

For nearly three years the history of Cicero is again a blank, that is, until the close of в. с. 67, when he was elected first praetor by the suffrages of all the centuries, and this on three several occasions, the comitia having been twice broken off in consequence of the disturbances connected with the passing of the Cornelian law. The duties of this magistracy, on which he entered in January, в. с. 66, were two-fold. He was called upon to preside in the highest civil court, and was also required to act as commissioner (quaestor) in trials for extortion, while in addition to his judicial functions he continued to practise at the bar, and carried through single-handed the defence of Cluentius, in the most singular and interesting cause célèbre bequeathed to us by antiquity. But the most important event of the year was his first appearance as a political speaker from the rostra, when he delivered his celebrated address to the people in favour of the Manilian law, maintaining the cause of Pompey against the hearty opposition of the senate and the optimates. That his conduct on this occasion was the result of mature deliberation we cannot doubt. Nor will it be difficult to discern his real motives, which were perhaps not quite so pure and patriotic as his panegyrists would have us believe. Hitherto his progress, in so far as any external obstacles were concerned, had been smooth and uninterrupted; the ascent had been neither steep nor rough; the quaestorship, the aedileship, the praetorship, had been gained almost without a struggle but the great prize of the consulship, on which every ambitious hope and desire had long been fixed, was yet to be won, and he had every reason to anticipate the most determined resistance on the part of the nobles (we use the word in the technical Roman sense), who guarded the avenues to this the highest honour of the state with watchful jealousy against the approach of any new man, and were likely to strain every nerve to secure the exclusion of the son of an obscure municipal knight. Well aware that any attempt to remove or soften the inveterate prejudices of these men would be met, if not by open hostility and insult, most surely by secret treachery, he resolved to throw himself into the arms of the popular faction, whose principles he detested in his heart, and to rivet their favour by casting into the scale of their idol the weight of his own influence with the middle classes, his proper and peculiar party. The popularity of the orator rose higher than ever; the friendship of Pompey, now certainly the most important individual in the commonwealth, was secured, and the success which attended the operations in the East smothered if it did not extinguish the indignation of the senatorial leaders. Perhaps we ought not here to omit adding one more to the almost innumerable examples of the incredible industry of Cicero. It is recorded, that, during his praetorship, notwithstanding his complicated engagements as judge, pleader, and politician, he found time to attend the rhetorical school of Antonius Gnipho, which was now rising to great eminence. (Suet. de Illustr. Gramm. 7; Macrob. Sat. iii. 12.)

During the eighteen months which followed (65-64), Cicero having declined to accept a province, kept his eye steadily fixed upon one great object, and employed himself unceasingly in watching every event which could in any way bear upon the consular elections. It appears from his letters, which now begin to open their treasures to us, that he had six competitors, of whom the most formidable were C. Antonius, a nephew of the great orator, who perished during the Marian proscription, and the notorious Catiline. The latter was threatened with a criminal prosecution, and it is amusing to observe the lawyer-like coolness with which Cicero speaks of his guilt being as clear as the noon-day sun, at the same time indicating a wish to defend him, should such a course be for his own interest, and expressing great pleasure at the perfidy of the accuser who was ready to betray the cause, and the probable corruption of the judices, a majority of whom it was believed might be bought over. Catiline was, however, acquitted without the aid of his rival, and formed a coalition with Antonius, receiving strenuous assistance from Crassus and Caesar, both of whom now began to regard with an evil eye the partizan of Pompey, whose splendid exploits filled them with increasing jealousy and alarm. That Cicero viewed this union with the most lively apprehensions is evident from the fragments of his address, In Toga candida, in which he appears to have dissected and exposed the vices and crimes of his two opponents with the most merciless severity. But his fears proved groundless. His star was still in the ascendant; he was returned by all the centuries, while his colleague Antonius obtained a small majority only over Catiline. The attention of the new consul immediately after entering upon office (в. с. 63) was occupied with the agrarian law of Rullus, with regard to which we shall speak more fully hereafter; in quelling the tumults excited by the enactment of Otho; in reconciling the descendants of those proscribed by Sulla to the civil disabilities under which they laboured; in defending C. Rabirius, charged with having been concerned in the death of Saturninus; in bringing forward a measure to render the punishment of bribery more stringent; in checking the abuses connected with the nominations to a legatio libera; and in remedyingvarious defects in the administration of justice. But his whole thoughts were soon absorbed by the precautions required to baffle the treason of Catiline. The origin and progress of that famous plot, the consummate courage, prudence, caution, and decision manifested throughout by Cicero under circumstances the most delicate and embarrassing, are fully detailed elsewhere. [Catilina.] For once the nation did not prove thankless to their benefactor. Honours were showered down upon him such as no citizen of Rome had ever enjoyed. Men of all ranks and all parties hailed him as the saviour of his country; Catulus in the senate, and Cato in the forum, addressed him as " parens patriae," father of his father-land; thanksgiving in his name were voted to the gods, a distinction heretofore bestowed only on those who had achieved a victory in a field of battle; and all Italy joined in testifying enthusiastic admiration and gratitude. But in addition to the open and instant peril from which the consul had preserved the commonwealth, he had made a grand stroke of policy, which, had it been firmly and honestly followed out by those most deeply interested, might have saved the constitution from dangers more remote but not less formidable. The equites or monied men had for half a century been rapidly rising in importance as a distinct order, and now held the balance between the optimates or aristocratic faction, the members of which, although exclusive, selfish, and corrupt, were for their own sakes steadfast supporters of the laws and ancient institutions, and felt no inclination for a second Sulla, even had he been one of themselves; and the populares or democratic faction, which had degenerated into a venal rabble, ever ready to follow any revolutionary scheme promoted by those who could stimulate their passions or buy their votes. Although in such a state of affairs the equites were the natural allies of the senate, from being deeply interested in the preservation of order and tranquillity, yet unfortunately the long-protracted struggle for the right of acting as judices in criminal trials had given rise to the most bitter animosity. But when all alike were threatened with immediate destruction this hostility was forgotten; Cicero persuaded the knights, who always placed confidence in him as one of themselves, to act heartily with the senate, and the senate were only too glad to obtain their co-operation in such an emergency. Could this fair fellowship have been maintained, it must have produced the happiest consequences; but the kindly feelings passed away with the crisis which called them forth; a dispute soon after arose with the farmers of the Asiatic revenues, who desired to be relieved from a disadvantageous contract; neither side shewed any spirit of fair mutual concession; the whole body of the equities making common cause with their brethren became violent and unreasonable; the senate remained obstinate, the frail bond was rudely snapped asunder, and Caesar, who had viewed this alliance with no small dissatisfaction, contrived to paralyze the hands of the only individual by whom the league could have been renewed.

Meanwhile, Cicero could boast of having accomplished an exploit for which no precedent could be found in the history of Rome. Of ignoble birth, of small fortune, without family or connexions, without military renown, by the force of his intellectual powers alone, he had struggled upwards, had been chosen to fill in succession all the high offices of the state, as soon as the laws permitted him to become a candidate, without once sustaining a repulse; in the garb of peace he had gained a victory of which the greatest among his predecessors would have been proud, and had received tributes of applause of which few triumphant generals could boast. His fortune, after mounting steadily though swiftly, had now reached its culminating point of prosperity and glory; for a brief space it remained stationary, and then rapidly declined and sunk. The honours so lavishly heaped upon him, instead of invigorating and elevating, weakened and debased his mind, and the most splendid achievement of his life contained the germ of his humiliation and downfal. The punishment inflicted by order of the senate upon Lentulus, Cethegus, and their associates, although perhaps morally justified by the emergency, was a palpable violation of the fundamental principles of the Roman constitution, which solemnly declared, that no citizen could be put to death until sentenced by the whole body of the people assembled in their comitia; and for this act Cicero, as the presiding magistrate, was held responsible. It was in vain to urge, that the consuls had been armed with dictatorial authority ; for, although even a dictator was always liable to be called to account, there was in the present instance no semblance of an exertion of such power, but the senate, formally assuming to themselves judicial functions which they had no right to exercise, formally gave orders for the execution of a sentence which they had no right to pronounce. The argument, pressed again and again by Cicero, that the conspirators by their guilt had forfeited all their privileges, while it is virtually an admission of the principle stated above, is in itself a mere flimsy sophism, since it takes for granted the guilt of the victims — the very fact which no tribunal except the comitia or commissioners nominated by the comitia could decide. Nor were his enemies, and those who secretly favoured the traitors, long in discovering and assailing this vulnerable point. On the last day of the year, when, according to established custom, he ascended the rostra to give an account to the people of the events of his consulship, Metellus Celer, one of the new tribunes, forbad him to speak, exclaiming, that the man who had put Roman citizens to death without granting them a hearing was himself unworthy of being heard. But this attack was premature. The audience had not yet forgotten their obligations and their recent escape; so that when Cicero, instead of simply taking the common oath to which he was restricted by the interposition of the tribune, swore with a loud voice that he had saved the republic and the city from ruin, the crowd with one voice responded, that he had sworn truly, and escorted him in a body to his house with every demonstration of respect and affection.

Having again refused to accept the government of a province, an employment for which he felt no vocation, Cicero returned to the senate as a private individual (в. с. 62), and engaged in several angry contests with the obnoxious tribune. But after the excitement occasioned by these disputes, and by the destruction of Catiline with his army which followed soon after, had subsided, the eyes of men were turned away for a while in another direction, all looking forward eagerly to the arrival of Pompey, who at length reached Rome in the autumn, loaded with the trophies of his Asiatic campaigns. But, although every one was engrossed with the hero and his conquests, to the exclusion of almost every other object, we must not pass over an event which occurred towards the end of the year, and which, although at first sight of small importance, not only gave rise to the greatest scandal in the city, but was indirectly the source of misfortune and bitter suffering to Cicero. While the wife of Caesar was celebrating in the house of her husband, then praetor and pontifex maximus, the rites of the Bona Dea, from which male creatures were excluded with the most scrupulous superstition, it was discovered that P. Clodius Pulcher, son of Appius (consul в. с. 79), had found his way into the mansion disguised in woman's apparel, and, having been detected, had made his escape by the help of a female slave. Instantly all Rome was in an uproar. The matter was laid before the senate, and by them referred to the members of the pontifical college, who passed a resolution that sacrilege had been committed. Caesar forthwith divorced his wife. Clodius, although the most powerful interest was exerted by his numerous relations and connexions to hush up the affair, and attempts were even made to stop the proceedings by violence, was impeached and brought to trial. In defence he pleaded an alibi, offering to prove that he was at Interamna at the very time when the crime was said to have been committed; but Cicero came forward as a witness, and swore that he had met and spoken to Clodius in Rome on the day in question. In spite of this decisive testimony, and the evident guilt of the accused, the judices, with that corruption which formed one of the most fatal symptoms of the rottenness of the whole social fabric, pronounced him innocent by a majority of voices. (в. с. 61.) Clodius, whose popular talents and utter recklessness rendered him no insignificant enemy, now vowed deadly vengeance against Cicero, whose destruction from thenceforward was the chief aim of his life. To accomplish this purpose more readily, he determined to become a candidate for the tribuneship; but to effect this it was necessary in the first place that he should be adopted into a plebeian family by means of a special law. This, after protracted opposition, was at length accomplished (в. с. 60), although irregularly, through the interference of Caesar and Pompey, and he was elected tribune in the course of в. с. 59.

While this underplot was working, the path of Cicero had been far more thorny than heretofore. Intoxicated by his rapid elevation, and dazzled by the brilliant termination of his consulship, his selfconceit had become overweening, his vanity uncontrollable and insatiable. He imagined that the authority which he had acquired during the late perilous conjuncture would be permanently maintained after the danger was past, and that he would be invited to grasp the helm and steer single-handed the vessel of the state. But he slowly and painfully discovered that, although addressed with courtesy, and listened to with respect, he was in reality powerless when seeking to resist the encroachments of such men as Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar; and hence he viewed with the utmost alarm the disposition now manifested by these three chiefs to bury their former jealousies, and to make common cause against the aristocratic leaders, who, suspicious of their ulterior projects, were using every art to baffle and outmanoeuvre them. Hence Cicero also, at this epoch perceiving how fatal such a coalition must prove to the cause of freedom, earnestly laboured to detach Pompey, with whom he kept up a close but somewhat cold intimacy, from Caesar; but having failed, with that unsteadiness and want of sound principle by which his political life was from this time forward disgraced, began to testify a strong inclination to join the triumvirs, and in a letter to Atticus (ii. 5), в. с. 59, actually names the price at which they could purchase his adherence — the seat in the college of augurs just vacant by the death of Metellus Celer. Finding himself unable to conclude any satisfactory arrangement, like a spoiled child, he expresses his disgust with public life, and longs for an opportunity to retire from the world, and devote himself to study and philosophic contemplation. But while in the letters written during the stormy consulship of Caesar (в. с. 59) he takes a most desponding view of the state of the commonwealth, and seems to consider slavery as inevitable, he does not appear to have foreseen the storm impending over himself individually; and when at length, after the election of Clodius to the tribuneship, he began to entertain serious alarm, he was quieted by positive assurances of friendship and support from Pompey conveyed in the strongest terms. One of the first acts of his enemy, after entering upon office, notwithstanding the solemn pledge he was said to have given to Pompey that he would not use his power to the injury of Cicero, was to propose a bill interdicting from fire and water any one who should be found to have put a Roman citizen to death untried. Here Cicero committed a fatal mistake. Instead of assuming the bold front of conscious innocence, he at once took guilt to himself, and, without awaiting the progress of events, changed his attire, and assuming the garb of one accused, went round the forum, soliciting the compassion of all whom he met. For a brief period public sympathy was awakened. A large number of the senate and the equites appeared also in mourning, and the better portion of the citizens seemed resolved to espouse his cause. But all demonstrations of such feelings were promptly repressed by the new consuls, Piso and Gabinius, who from the first displayed steady hostility, having been bought by the promises of Clodius, who undertook to procure for them what provinces they pleased. The rabble were infuriated by the incessant harangues of their tribune; nothing was to be hoped from Crassus; the good offices of Caesar had been already rejected; and Pompey, the last and only safeguard, contrary to all expectations, and in violation of the most solemn engagements, kept aloof, and from real or pretended fear of some outbreak refused to interpose. Upon this, Cicero, giving way to despair, resolved to yield to the storm, and quitting Rome at the beginning of April, (в. с. 58), reached Brundisium about the middle of the month. From thence he crossed over to Greece, and taking up his residence at Thessalonica, where he was hospitably received by Plancius, quaestor of Macedonia, remained at that place until the end of November, when he removed to Dyrrachium. His correspondence during the whole of this period presents the melancholy picture of a mind crushed and paralyzed by a sudden reverse of fortune. Never did divine philosophy fail more signally in procuring comfort or consolation to her votary. The letters addressed to Terentia, to Atticus, and others, are filled with unmanly wailing, groans, sobs, and tears. He evinces all the desire but wants the physical courage necessary to become a suicide. Even when brighter prospects begin to dawn, when his friends were straining every nerve in his behalf, we find them receiving no judicious counsel from the object of their solicitude, nought save renewed complaints, captious and querulous repinings. For a time indeed his prospects were sufficiently gloomy. Clodius felt no compassion for his fallen foe. The instant that the departure of Cicero became known, a law was presented to and accepted by the tribes, formally pronouncing the banishment of the fugitive, forbidding any one to entertain or harbour him, and denouncing as a public enemy whosoever should take any steps towards procuring his recall. His magnificent mansion on the Palatine, and his elaborately decorated villas at Tusculum and Formiae were at the same time given over to plunder and destruction. But the extravagant and outrageous violence of these measures tended quickly to produce a strong reaction. As early as the beginning of June, in defiance of the laws of Clodius, a movement was made in the senate for the restoration of the exile; and, although this and other subsequent efforts in the same year were frustrated by the unfriendly tribunes, still the party of the good waxed daily stronger, and the general feeling became more decided. The new consuls (в. с. 57) and the whole of the new college of tribunes, led on by Milo, took up the cause; but great delay was occasioned by formidable riots attended with fearful loss of life, until at length the senate, with the full approbation of Pompey, who, to give greater weight to his words, read a speech which he had prepared and written out for the occasion, determined to invite the voters from the different parts of Italy to repair to Rome and assist in carrying a law for the recall of him who had saved his country from ruin, passing at the same time the strongest resolutions against those who should venture under any pretext to interrupt or embarrass the holding of the assembly. Accordingly, on the 4th of August, the bill was submitted to the comitia centuriata, and carried by an overwhelming majority. On the same day Cicero quitted Dyrrachium, and crossed over to Brundisium, where he was met by his wife and daughter. Travelling slowly, he received deputations and congratulatory addresses from all the towns on the line of the Appian way, and having arrived at the city on the 4th of September, a vast multitude poured forth to meet and escort him, forming a sort of triumphal procession as he entered the gates, while the crowd collected in groups on the steps of the temples rent the air with acclamations when he passed through the forum and ascended the capitol, there to render homage and thanks to Jupiter Maximus.

Nothing at first sight can appear more strange and inexplicable than the abrupt downfal of Cicero, when suddenly hurled from a commanding cminence he found himself a helpless and almost friendless outcast; and again, on the other hand, the boundless enthusiasm with which he was greeted on his return by the selfsame populace who had exulted so furiously in his disgrace. A little consideration will enable us, however, to fathom the mystery. From the moment that Cicero laid down his consulship he began to lose ground with all parties. The senate were disgusted by the arrogant assumption of superiority in an upstart stranger ; the equites were displeased because he would not cordially assent to their most unreasonable and unjust demands; the people, whom he had never attempted to flatter or cajole, were by degrees lashed into fury against one who was unceasingly held up before their eyes as the violator of their most sacred privileges. Moreover, the triumvirs, who were the active though secret movers in the whole affair, considered it essential to their designs that he should be humbled and taught the risk and folly of playing an independent part, of seeking to mediate between the conflicting factions, and thus in his own person regulating and controlling all. They therefore gladly availed themselves of the energetic malignity of Clodius, each dealing with their common victim in a manner highly characteristic of the individual. Caesar, who at all times, even under the greatest provocation, entertained a warm regard and even respect for Cicero, with his natural goodness of heart endeavored to withdraw him from the scene of danger, and at the same time to lay him under personal obligations; with this intent he pressed him to become one of his legates: this being declined, he then urged him to accept the post of commissioner for dividing the public lands in Campania; and it was not until he found all his proposals steadfastly rejected that he consented to leave him to his fate. Crassus gave him up at once, without compunction or regret: they had never been cordial friends, had repeatedly quarrelled openly, and their reconciliations had been utterly hollow. The conduct of Pompey, as might have been expected, was a tissue of selfish, cautious, calculating, cold-blooded dissimulation; in spite of the affection and unwavering confidence ever exhibited towards him by Cicero, in spite of the most unequivocal assurances both in public and private of protection and assistance, he quietly deserted him, without a pang, in the moment of greatest need, because it suited his own plans and his own convenience. But soon after the departure of Cicero matters assumed a very different aspect; his value began once more to be felt and his absence to be deplored. The senate could ill afford to lose the most able champion of the aristocracy, who possessed the greater weight from not properly belongings to the order; the knights were touched with remorse on account of their ingratitude towards one whom they identified with themselves, who had often served them well, and might again be often useful; the populace, when the first fervour of angry passion had passed away, began to long for that oratory to which they had been wont to listen with such delight, and to remember the debt they owed to him who had saved their temples, dwellings, and property from destruction; while the triumviri, trusting that the high tone of their adversary would be brought low by this severe lesson, and that he would henceforth be passive, if not a subservient tool, were either to check and overawe Clodius, who was now no longer disposed to be a mere instrument in their hands, but, breaking loose from all restraint, had already given symptoms of open rebellion. Their original purpose was fully accomplished. Although the return of Cicero was glorious, so glorious that he and others may for a moment have dreamed that he was once more all that he had ever been, yet he himself and those around him soon became sensible that his position was entirely changed, that his spirit was broken, and his self-respect destroyed. After a few feeble ineffectual struggles, he was forced quietly to yield to a power which he no longer dared to resist, and was unable to modify or guide. Nor were his masters content with simple acquiescence in their transactions; they demanded positive demonstrations on their behalf. To this degradation he was weak enough to submit, consenting to praise in his writings those proceedings which he had once openly and loudly condemned (ad Att. iv. 5), uttering sentiments in public totally inconsistent with his principles (ad Att. iv. 6), professing friendship for those whom he hated and despised (ad Fam. i. 9), and defending in the senate and at the bar men who had not only distinguished themselves as his bitter foes, but on whom he had previously lavished every term of abuse which an imagination fertile in invective could suggest. (Ad Fam. vii. 1, v. 8.)

Such was the course of his life for five years (в. с. 57-52), a period during the whole of which he kept up warm social intercourse with the members of the triumvirate, especially Pompey, who remained constantly at Rome, and received all outward marks of high consideration. A large portion of his time was occupied by the business of pleading; but being latterly in a great measure released from all concern or anxiety regarding public affairs, he lived much in the country, and found leisure to compose his two great political works, the De Republica and the De Legibus.

After the death of Crassus (в. с. 53) he was admitted a member of the college of augurs, and towards the end of в. с. 52, at the very moment when his presence might have been of importance in preventing an open rupture between Pompey and Caesar, he was withdrawn altogether from Italy, and a new field opened up for the exercise of his talents, an office having been thrust upon him which he had hitherto earnestly avoided. In order to put a stop in some degree to the bribery, intrigues, and corruption of every description, for which the Roman magistrates had become so notorious in their anxiety to procure some wealthy government, a law was enacted during the third consulship of Pompey (в. с. 52) ordaining, that no consul or praetor should be permitted to hold a province until five years should have elapsed from the expiration of his office, and that in the meantime governors should be selected by lot from those persons of consular and praetorian rank who had never held any foreign command. To this number Cicero belonged: his name was thrown into the urn, and fortune assigned to him Cilicia, to which were annexed Pisidia, Pamphylia, some districts (of Cappadocia) to the north of mount Taurus, and the island of Cyprus. His feelings and conduct on this occasion present a most striking contrast to those exhibited by his countrymen under like circumstances. Never was an honourable and lucrative appointment bestowed on one less willing to accept it. His appetite for praise seems to have become more craving just in proportion as his real merits had become less and the dignity of his position lowered; but Rome was the only theatre on which he desired to perform a part. From the moment that he quitted the metropolis, his letters are filled with expressions of regret for what he had left behind, and of disgust with the occupations in which he was engaged; every friend and acquaintance is solicited and importuned in turn to use every exertion to prevent the period of his absence from being extended beyond the regular and ordinary space of a single year. It must be confessed that, in addition to the vexatious interruption of all his pursuits and pleasures, the condition of the East was by no means encouraging to a man of peace. The Parthians, emboldened by their signal triumph over Crassus, had invaded Syria; their cavalry was scouring the country up to the very walls of Antioch, and it was generally believed that they intended to force the passes of mount Amanus, and to burst into Asia through Cilicia, which was defended by two weak legions only, a force utterly inadequate to meet the emergency. Happily, the apprehensions thus excited were not realized: the Parthians received a check from Cassius which compelled them in the mean time to retire beyond the Euphrates, and Cicero was left at liberty to make the circuit of his province, and to follow out that system of impartiality, moderation, and self-control which he was resolved should regulate not only his own conduct but that of every member of his retinue. And nobly did he redeem the pledge which he had voluntarily given to his friend Atticus on this head — strictly did he realise in practice the precepts which he had so well laid down in former years for the guidance of his brother. Nothing could be more pure and upright than his administration in every department; and his staff, who at first murmured loudly at a style of procedure which most grievously curtailed their emoluments, were at length shamed into silence. The astonished Greeks, finding themselves listened to with kindness, and justice dispensed with an even hand, breathed nothing but love and gratitude, while the confidence thus inspired enabled Cicero to keep the publicans in good-humour by settling to their satisfaction many complicated disputes, and redressing many grievances which had sprung out of the wretched and oppressive arrangements for the collection of the revenue. Not content with the fame thus acquired in cultivating the arts of peace, Cicero began to thirst after military renown, and, turning to account the preparations made against the Parthians, undertook an expedition against the lawless robber tribes who, dwelling among the mountain fastnesses of the Syrian frontier, were wont to descend whenever an opportunity offered and plunder the surrounding districts. The operations, which were carried on chiefly by his brother Quintus, who was an experienced soldier and one of his legati, were attended with complete success. The barbarians, taken by surprise, could neither escape nor offer any effectual resistance; various clans were forced to submit; many villages of the more obstinate were destroyed; Pindenissus, a strong hill fort of the Eleutherocilices, was stormed on the Saturnalia (в. с. 51), after a protracted siege; many prisoners and much plunder were secured; the general was saluted as imperator by his troops; a despatch was transmitted to the senate, in which these achievements were detailed with great pomp; every engine was set to work to procure a flattering decree and supplications in honour of the victory; and Cicero had now the weakness to set his whole heart upon a triumph — a vision which he long cherished with a degree of childish obstinacy which must have exposed him to the mingled pity and derision of all who were spectators of his folly. The following spring (в. с. 50) he again made a progress through the different towns of his province, and as soon as the year of his command was concluded, having received no orders to the contrary, delegated his authority to his quaestor, C. Caelius, and quitted Laodicea on the 30th of July (в. с. 50), having arrived in that city on the 31st of the same month in the preceding year. Returning homewards by Ephesus and Athens, he reached Brundisium in the last week of November, and arrived in the neighbourhood of Rome on the fourth of January (в. с. 49), at the very moment when the civil strife, which had been smouldering so long, burst forth into a blaze of war, but did not enter the city because he still cherished sanguine hopes of being allowed a triumph.

From the middle of December (в. с. 50) to the end of June (в. с. 49) he wrote almost daily to Atticus. The letters which form this series exhibit a most painful and humiliating spectacle of doubt, vacillation, and timidity, together with the utter absence of all singleness of purpose, and an utter want of firmness, either moral or physical. At first, although from habit, prejudice, and conviction disposed to follow Pompey, he seriously debated whether he would not be justified in submitting quietly to Caesar, but soon afterwards accepted from the former the post of inspector of tile Campanian coast, and the task of preparing for its defence, duties which he soon abandoned in disgust. Having quitted the vicinity of Rome on the 17th of January, he spent the greater portion of the two following months at Formiae in a state of miserable restlessness and hesitation; murmuring at the inactivity of the consuls; railing at the policy of Pompey, which he pronounced to be a tissue of blunders; oscillating first to one side and then to the other, according to the passing rumours of the hour; and keeping up an active correspondence all the while with the leaders of both parties, to an extent which caused the circulation of reports little favourable to his honour. Nor were the suspicions thus excited altogether without foundation, for it is perfectly evident that he more than once was on the point of becoming a deserter, and in one epistle (ad Att. viii. 1) he explicitly confesses, that he had embarked in the aristocratical cause sorely against his will, and that he would at once join the crowd who were flocking back to Rome, were it not for the incumbrance of his lictors, thus clinging to the last with pitiable tenacity to the faint and fading prospect of a military pageant, which must in his case have been a mockery. His distress was if possible augmented when Pompey, accompanied by a large number of senators, abandoned Italy; for now arose the question fraught with perplexity, whether he could or ought to stay behind, or was bound to join his friends; and this is debated over and over again in a thousand different shapes, his inteliect being all the while obscured by irresolution and fear. These tortures were raised to a climax by a persenal interview with Caesar, who urged him to return to Rome and act as a mediator, a proposal to which Cicero, who appears, if we can trust his own account, to have comported himself for the moment with considerable boldness and dignity, refused to accede, unless he were permitted to use his own discretion and enjoy full freedom of speech — a stipulation which at once put an end to the conference. At last, after many lingering delays and often renewed procrastination, influenced not so much by any overpowering sense of rectitude or consistency as by his sensitiveness to public opinion, to the " sermo hominum" whose censure he dreaded far more than the reproaches of his own conscience, and impressed also with a strong belief that Caesar must be overwhelmed by the enemies who were closing around him, he finally decided to pass over to Greece, and embarked at Brundisium on the 7th of June (в. с. 49). For the space of nearly a year we know little of his movements; one or two notes only have been preserved, which, combined with an anecdote given by Macrobius (Sat. ii. 3), prove that, during his residence in the camp of Pompey he was in bad health, low spirits, embarrassed by pecuniary difficulties, in the habit of inveighing against everything he heard and saw around him, and of giving way to the deepest despondency. After the battle of Pharsalia (August 9, в. с. 48), at which he was not present, Cato, who had a fleet and a strong body of troops at Dyrrachium, offered them to Cicero as the person best entitled by his rank to assume the command; and upon his refusing to have any further concern with warlike operations, young Pompey and some others of the nobility drew their swords, and, denouncing him as a traitor, were with difficulty restrained from slaying him on the spot. It is impossible to tell whether this narrative, which rests upon the authority of Plutarch, is altogether correct; but it is certain that Cicero regarded the victory of Caesar as absolutely conclusive, and felt persuaded that farther resistance was hopeless. While, therefore, some of his companions in arms retired to Achaia, there to watch the progress of events, and others passed over to Africa and Spain determined to renew the struggle, Cicero chose rather to throw himself at once upon the mercy of the conqueror, and, retracing his steps, landed at Brundisium about the end of November. Here he narrowly escaped being put to death by the legions which arrived from Pharsalia under the orders of M. Antonius, who, although disposed to treat the fugitive with kindness, was with the greatest difficulty prevailed upon to allow him to continue in Italy, having received positive instructions to exclude all the retainers of Pompey except such as had received special permission to return. At Brundisium Cicero remained for ten months until the pleasure of the conqueror could be known, who was busily engaged with the wars which sprung up in Egypt, Pontus, and Africa. During the whole of this time his mind was in a most agitated and unhappy condition. He was conpossible stantly tormented with unavailing remorse on account of the filly of his past conduct in having identified himself with the Pompeians when he might have remained unmolested at home; he was filled with apprehensions as to the manner in which he might be treated by Caesar, whom he had so often offended and so lately deceived; he moreover was visited by secret shame and compunction for having at once given up his associates upon the first turn of fortune; above all, he was haunted by the foreboding that they might after all prove victorious, in which event his fate would have been desperate; and the cup of bitterness was filled by the unnatural treachery of his brother and nephew, who were seeking to recommend themselves to those in power by casting the foulest calumnies and vilest aspersions upon their relative, whom they represented as having seduced them from their duty. This load of misery was, however, lightened by a letter received on the 12th of August (в. с. 47) from Caesar, in which he promised to forget the past, and be the same as he had ever been — a promise which he amply redeemed, for on his arrival in Italy in September, he greeted Cicero with frank cordiality, and treated him ever after with the utmost respect and kindness.

Cicero was now at liberty to follow his own pursuits without interruption, and, accordingly, until the death of Caesar, devoted himself with exclusive assiduity to literary labours, finding consolation in study, but not contentment, for public display and popular applause had long been almost necessary to his existence; and now that the senate, the forum, and the courts of law were silent, or, at all events, no longer presented an arena for free and open discussion, the calm delights of speculative research, for which he was wont to sigh amid the din and hurry of incessant business, seemed monotonous and dull. Posterity, however, has good cause to rejoice that he was driven to seek this relief from distracting recollections; for, during the years в. с. 46, 45, and 44, nearly the whole of his most important works on rhetoric and philosophy, with the exception of the two political treatises named above, were arranged and published. In addition to the pain produced by wounded vanity, mixed with more honourable sorrow arising from the degradation of his country, he was harassed by a succession of domestic annoyances and griefs. Towards the close of в. с. 46, in consequence, it would appear, of some disputes connected with pecuniary transactions, he divorced his wife Terentia, to whom he had been united for upwards of thirty years, and soon after married a young and wealthy maiden, Publilia, his ward, but, as might have been anticipated, found little comfort in this new alliance, which was speedily dissolved. But his great and overpowering affliction was the death of his beloved daughter, Tullia (early in в. с. 45), towards whom he cherished the fondest attachment. Now, as formerly, philosophy afforded no support in the hour of trial; grief for a time seems to have been so violent as almost to affect his intellects, and it was long before he recovered sufficient tranquillity to derive any enjoyment from society or engage with zest in his ordinary occupations. He withdrew to the small wooded island of Astura, on the coast near Antium, where, hiding himself in the thickest groves, he could give way to melancholy thoughts without restraint; gradually he so far recovered as to be able to draw up a treatise on Consolation, in imitation of a piece by Crantor on the same topic, and found relief in devising a variety of plans for a monument in honour of the deceased.

The tumults excited by Antony after the murder of Caesar (в. с. 44) having compelled the leading conspirators to disperse in different directions, Cicero, feeling that his own position was not free from danger, set out upon a journey to Greece with the intention of being absent until the new consuls should have entered upon office, from whose vigour and patriotism he anticipated a happy change. While in the neighbourhood of Rhegium (August 2, в. с. 44), whither he had been driven from the Sicilian coast by a contrary wind, he was persuaded to return in consequence of intelligence that matters were likely to be arranged amicably between Antony and the senate. How bitterly this anticipation was disappointed is sufficiently proved by the tone and contents of the first two Philippics; but the jealousy which had sprung up in Antony towards Octavianus soon induced the former to quit the city, while the latter, commencing that career of dissimulation which he maintained throughout a long and most prosperous life, affected the warmest attachment to the senate, and especially to the person of their leader, who was completely duped by these professions. From the beginning of the year в. с. 43 until the end of April, Cicero was in the height of his glory; within this space the last twelve Philippics were all delivered and listened to with rapturous applause; his activity was unceasing, at one moment encouraging the senate, at another stimulating the people, he hurried from place to place the admired of all, the very hero of the scene; and when at length he announced the result of the battles under the walls of Mutina, he was escorted by crowds to the Capitol, thence to the Rostra, and thence to his own house, with enthusiasm not less eager than was displayed when he had detected and crushed the associates of Catiline. But when the fatal news arrived of the union of Lepidus with Antony (29th May), quickly followed by the defection of Octavianus, and when the latter, marching upon Rome at the head of an armed force, compelled the comitia to elect him consul at the age of 19, it was but too evident that all was lost. The league between the three usurpers was finally concluded on the 27th of November, and the lists of the proscribed finally arranged, among whom Cicero and sixteen others were marked for immediate destruction, and agents forthwith despatched to perpetrate the murders before the victims should take alarm. Although much care had been taken to conceal these proceedings, Cicero was warned of his danger while at his Tusculan villa, instantly set forth for the coast with the purpose of escaping by sea, and actually embarked at Antium, but was driven by stress of weather to Circeii, from whence he coasted along to Formiae, where he landed at his villa, diseased in body and sick at heart, resolving no longer to fly from his fate. The soldiers sent in quest of him were now known to be close at hand, upon which his attendants forced him to enter a litter, and hurried him through the woods towards the shore, distant about a mile from the house. As they were pressing onwards, they were overtaken by their pursuers, and were preparing to defend their master with their lives, but Cicero commanded them to desist, and stretching forward called upon his executioners to strike. They instantly cut off his head and hands, which were conveyed to Rome, and, by the orders of Antony, nailed to the Rostra.

A glance at the various events which form the subject of the above narrative will sufficiently demonstrate, that Cicero was totally destitute of the qualifications which alone could have fitted him to sustain the character of a great independent statesman amidst those scenes of turbulence and revolutionary violence in which his lot was cast. So long as he was contented in his struggle upwards to play a subordinate part, his progress was marked by extraordinary, well-merited, and most honourable success. But when he attempted to secure the highest place, he was rudely thrust down by bolder, more adventurous, and more commanding spirits; when he sought to act as a mediator, he became the tool of each of the rivals in turn; and when, after much and protracted hesitation, he had finally espoused the interests of one, he threw an air of gloom and distrust over the cause by timid despondency and too evident repentance. His want of. firmness in the hour of trial amounted to cowardice; his numerous and glaring inconsistencies destroyed all confidence in his discretion and judgment; his irresolution not unfrequently assumed the aspect of awkward duplicity, and his restless craving vanity exposed him constantly to the snares of insidious flattery, while it covered him with ridicule and contempt. Even his boasted patriotism was of a very doubtful, we might say of a spurious stamp, for his love of country was so mixed up with petty feelings of personal importance, and his hatred of tyranny so inseparably connected in his mind with his own loss of power and consideration, that we can hardly persuade ourselves that the former was the disinterested impulse of a noble heart so much as the prompting of selfishness and vain glory, or that the latter proceeded from a generous devotion to the rights and liberties of his fellow-citizens so much as from the bitter consciousness of being individually depressed and overshadowed by the superior weight and eminence of another. It is vain to undertake the defence of his conduct by ingenious and elaborate reasonings. The whole case is placed clearly before our eyes, and all the common sources of fallacy and unjust judgment in regard to public men are removed. We are not called upon to weigh and scrutinize the evidence of partial or hostile witnesses, whose testimony may be coloured or perverted by the keenness of party spirit. Cicero is his own accuser, and is convicted by his own depositions. The strange confessions contained in his correspondence call for a sentence more severe than we have ventured to pronounce, presenting a most marvellous, memorable, and instructive spectacle of the greatest intellectual strength linked indissolubly to the greatest moral weakness.

Upon his social and domestic relations we can dwell with unmixed pleasure. In the midst of almost universal profligacy he remained uncontaminated; surrounded by corruption, not even malice ever ventured to impeach his integrity. To his dependents he was indulgent and warm-hearted, to his friends affectionate and true, ever ready to assist them in the hour of need with counsel, influence, or purse; somewhat touchy, perhaps, and loud in expressing resentment when offended, but easily appeased, and free from all rancour. In his intercourse with his contemporaries he rose completely above that paltry jealousy by which literary men are so often disgraced, fully and freely acknowledging the merits of his most formidable rivals, — Hortensius and Licinius Calvus, for the former of whom he cherished the warmest regard. Towards the members of his own family he uniformly displayed the deepest attachment. Nothing could be more amiable than the readiness with which he extended his forgiveness to his unworthy nephew and to his brother Quintus, after they had been guilty of the basest and most unnatural treachery and ingratitude; his devotion through life to his daughter Tullia, and his despair upon her death, have already called forth some remarks, and when his son, as he advanced in years, did not fulfil the hopes and expectations of his father, he was notwithstanding treated with the utmost forbearance and liberality. One passage only in the private life of Cicero is obscured by a shade of doubt. The simple fact, that when he became embarrassed by pecuniary difficulties he divorced the mother of his children, to whom he had been united for upwards of thirty years, and soon after married a rich heiress, his own ward, appears at first sight suspicious, if not positively discreditable. But it must be remembered that we are altogether ignorant of the circumstances connected with this transaction. From a series of obscure hints contained in letters to Atticus, we infer that Terentia had been extravagant during the absence of her husband in the camp of Pompey, and that she had made some arrangements with regard to her will which he looked upon as unfair and almost dishonest; in addition to which, we know from other sources that she was a woman of imperious and unyielding temper. On the other hand, the connexion with Publilia could not have been contemplated at the period of the divorce, for we find that his friends were busily employed for some time in looking out for a suitable match, and that, among others, a daughter of Pompey was suggested. Moreover, if the new alliance had been dictated by motives of a purely mercenary nature, more anxiety would have been manifested to retain the advantages which it procured, while on the contrarary we find that it was dissolved very quickly in consequence of the bride having incautiously testified satisfaction at the death of Tullia, of whose influence she may have been jealous, and that Cicero steadily refused to listen to any overtures, although a reconciliation was earnestly desired on the part of the lady.

(Our great authority for the life of Cicero is his own writings, and especially his letters and orations. The most important passages will be found collected in Meierotto, "Ciceronis Vita ex ipsius scriptis excerpta," Berolin. 1783, and in the "Onomasticon Tullianum," which forms an appendix to Orelli's Cicero, Zurich, 1826-1838. Much that is curious and valuable may be collected from the biographies of the orator and his contemporaries by Plutarch, whose statements, however, must always be received with caution. Something may be gleaned from Velleius Paterculus also, and from the books of Appian and of Dion Cassius which belong to this period. These and other ancient testimonies have been diligently arranged in chronological order in the "Historia M. Tullii Ciceronis," by F. Fabricius. Of modern works that of Middleton has attained great celebrity, although it must be regarded as a blind and extravagant panegyric ; some good strictures on his occasional inaccuracies and constant partiality will be found in Tunstall's "Epistola ad Middletonum," Cantab. 1741. and in Colley Cibber's "Character and Conduct of Cicero, London, 1747; but by far the most complete and critical examination of all points relating to Cicero and his times, down to the end of в. с. 56, is contained in the fifth volume of Drumann's "Geschichte Roms," a work not yet brought to a conclusion.)

II. Writings of Cicero.

The works of Cicero are so numerous and diversified, that it is necessary for the sake of distinctness to separate them into classes, and accordingly they may be conveniently arranged under five heads: — 1. Philosophical works. 2. Speeches. 3. Correspondence. 4. Poems. 5. Historical and Miscellaneous works. The last may appear too vague and comprehensive, but nothing of importance belonging to this section has been preserved.

1. Philosophical works.

Several of the topics handled in this department are so intimately connected and shade into each other by such fine and almost imperceptible gradations, that the boundaries by which they are separated cannot in all cases be sharply defined, and consequently some of the subdivisions may appear arbitrary or inaccurate; for practical purposes, however, the following distribution will be found sufficiently precise: —

A. Philosophy of Taste or Rhetoric. B. Political Philosophy. C. Philosophy of Morals. D. Speculative Philosophy. E. Theology.

In the table given below, those works to which an asterisk is prefixed have descended to us in a very imperfect and mutilated condition, enough, however, still remaining to convey a clear conception of the general plan, tone, and spirit; of those to which a double asterisk is prefixed, only a few fragments, or even a few words, survive; those printed in Italics are totally lost; those included within brackets are believed to be spurious: —

A. Philosophy of Taste.		Rhetoricorum s. De Inventione Rhetorica libri II.
		De Partitione Oratoria.
		De Oratore libri III.
		Brutus s. De Claris Oratoribus.
		Orator s. De Optimo Genere dicendi.
		De Optimo Genere Oratorum.
		Topica
		Communes Loci.
		[Rhetoricorum ad C. Herennium libri IV.]
B. Political Philosophy		* De Republica libri VI.
		* De Legibus libri (VI.?)
		* * De Jure Civili.
		Epistola ad Caesarem de Ordinanda Republica.
C. Philosophy of Morals.		De Officiis libri III.
		* * De Virtutibus.
		Cato Major s. De Senectute.
		Laelius s. De Amicitia.
		* * De Gloria libri II.
		* * De Consolatione s. De Luctu minuendo.
D. Speculative Philosophy.		* Academicorum libri IV.
		De Finibus libri V.
		Tusculanarum Disputationum libri V.
		Paradoxa Stoicorum sex.
		* * Hortensius s. De Philosophia.
		* Timnaeus ex Platone.
		* *Protagoras ex Platone.
E. Theology.		De Natura Deorum libri III.
		De Divinatione libri II.
		* De Fato.
		* * De Auguriis-Auguralia.

The Editio Princeps of the collected philosophical works of Cicero was printed at Rome in 1471, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, 2 vols. folio, and is a work of excessive rarity. The first volume contains De Natura Deorum, De Divinatione, De Officiis, Paradoxa, Laelius, Cato Major, Versus duodecim Sapientium; the second volume, Quaestiones Tusculanae, De Finibus, De Fato, Q. Cicero de Petitione Consulatus, Fragments of the Hortensius, Timaeus, Academicae Quaestiones, De Legibus.

We have belonging to the same period, De Officiis, De Amicitia, De Senectute, Somnium Scipionis, Paradoxa, Tusculanae Quaestiones, in 2 vols. folio, without place or date, but known to have been published at Paris about 1471, by Gering, Crantz, and Friburger.

Also, the De Natura Deorum, De Divinatione, De Fato, De Legibus, Hortensius, (Modestus,) De Disciplina Militari, appeared in 1 vol. 4to., 1471, at Venice, from the press of Vindelin de Spira.

An excellent edition, intended to embrace the whole philosophical works of Cicero, was commenced by J. A. Goerenz, and carried to the extent of three volumes, 8vo., which contain the De Legibus, Academica, De Finibus, Leipz. 1809-1813.

Before entering upon an examination of Cicero's philosophic writings in detail, we must consider very briefly the inducements which first prompted Cicero to devote his attention to the study of philosophy, the extent to which his original views were subsequently altered and enlarged, the circumstances under which his various treatises were composed, the end which they were intended to accomplish, the degree of importance to be attached to these works, the form in which they are presented to the reader, and the opinions really entertained by the author himself.

Cicero dedicated his attention to philosophy in the first instance not merely as a branch of general education, but as that particular branch which was likely to prove peculiarly serviceable to him in attaining the great object of his youthful aspirations — oratorical fame. (See Paradox. praef., De Off. prooem.) He must have discerned from a very early period that the subtle and astute, though often sophistical, arguments advanced by rival sects in supporting their own tenets and assailing the positions of their adversaries, and the habitual quickness of objection and readiness of reply which distinguished the oral controversies of the more skilful disputants could be turned to admirable account in the wordy combats of the courts; and hence the method pursued by the later Academy of probing the weak points and detecting the filllacies of all systems in succession, possessed the strongest attractions for one who to insure success must be able to regard each cause submitted to his judgment under many different aspects, and be prepared to anticipate and repel exceptions, of whatever nature, proceeding from whatever quarter. We have already seen, in the biographical portion of this article, that Cicero allowed no opportunity to escape of gaining an intimate acquaintance with the doctrines of the most popular sects, without resigning himself exclusively to one; and he was fully sensible that he owed much of the signal success which attended his efforts, after his return from Greece, to this training in philosophy, which he emphatically denominates "the fountain-head of all perfect eloquence, the mother of all good deeds and good words." (Brut. 93.) During his residence at Athens and at Rhodes he appears to have imbibed a deep and earnest attachment for the pursuit which he henceforward viewed as something better and nobler than a mere instrument for acquiring dialectic skill. Accordingly, every moment that could be snatched from his multifarious avocations was employed with exemplary zeal in accumulating stores of philosophic lore, which were carefully treasured up in his memory. But the incessant demands of business long prevented him from arranging and displaying the wealth thus acquired; and had not the disorders of the times compelled him upon two occasions to retire for a brief space from public life, he would probably never have communicated to the world the fruits of his scientific researches. The first of the two periods alluded to above was when after his recall from exile he found himself virtually deprived of all political influence, and consequently, although busily engaged in discharging the duties of a pleader, found leisure to compose his De Oratore, De Republica, and De Legibus. The second period reached from his return to Italy after the battle of Pharsalia until the autumn after the death of Caesar, during the greater portion of which he lived in retirement and produced the rest of his philosophical works, some of them being published even subsequent to his re-appearance on the stage of public affairs. But, although these were all finished and sent abroad between the end of в. с. 46 and the middle of в. с. 44, it would be absurd to suppose that the varied information required for such a task could have been brought together and distributed into a series of elaborate treatises in the course of sixteen or eighteen months. It seems much more probable, as indicated above, that the materials were gradually collected during a long course of reading and inquiry, and carefully digested by reflection and frequent discussion, so that when a convenient season had arrived, the design already traced out was completed in all its details. Thus we find in the dialogue upon Laws (i. 20) a reference to the debates which had taken place among the wise on the nature of the Supreme Good, the doubts and difficulties with which the question was still encumbered, and the importance of arriving at some correct decision; after which the speaker proceeds briefly to express the same sentiments which nine years afterwards were expanded and formally maintained in the De Finibus. (Comp. Acad. i. 3.)

In order to understand clearly the nature of these works and the end which they were intended to serve, we must bear in mind the important fact, that they were almost the first specimens of this kind of literature ever presented to the Romans in their own language. With the exception of the poems of Lucretius and some other publications on the doctrines of Epicurus by an Amafinius and a Rabirius, so obscure that Cicero seems to have thought them not worth the trouble of perusal, there was absolutely nothing. Hence Cicero was led to form the scheme of drawing up a series of elementary treatises which should furnish his countrymen with an easy introduction to the knowledge of the tenets professed by the leading sects of Greece on the most important branches of politics, morals, metaphysics, and theology. We must if we desire to form a fair judgment, never forget that the design proposed was to communicate in a correct and precise but familiar and attractive form the results at which others had arrived, not to expound new conceptions — to present a sharp and striking outline of the majestic structures reared by the labours of successive schools, not to claim distinction as the architect of a new edifice. The execution of this project demanded extensive research, a skilful selection of the best portions of the best authors, the accurate adjustment and harmonious combination of these loose fragments, a choice of familiar examples and apt illustrations to shed light on much that would necessarily appear dark and incomprehensible to the inexperienced, and, most difficult of all, the creation of terms and phraseology capable of expressing with clearness and exactitude a class of ideas altogether new. If then we find upon examination that this difficult undertaking, requiring the union of talents the most opposite, of unwearying application, delicate discrimination, refined taste, practical skill in composition, and an absolute command over a stubborn and inflexible dialect, has been executed with consummate ability, we have no right to complain that many of the topics are handled somewhat superficially, that there is an absence of all originality of thought, and that no effort is made to enlarge the boundaries of the science. Nor have we any reason to regret the resolution thus formed and consistently carried out. We are put in possession of a prodigious mass of most curious and interesting information bearing upon the history of philosophy, conveyed in the richest and most winning language. Antiquity produced no works which could rival these as manuals of instruction ; as such they were employed until the downfal of the Roman empire; they stood their ground and kept alive a taste for literature during the middle ages; they were still zealously studied for a long period after the revival of learning; they even now command respect from the purity of the moral principles which they inculcate, and serve as models of perfect style and diction. We arrive at the conclusion, that Cicero is fully entitled to the praise of having accomplished with brilliant success all that he engaged to perform. In philosophy he must be regarded as the prince of popular compilers, but nothing more. It is certain that he could not have put forth his powers in a manner better calculated to promote the interests and extend the influence of his favourite pursuit.

The greater number of these essays, in imitation of the writings of many of the Greek philosophers, are thrown into dialogue — a form extremely well suited for the purposes of instruction, since it affords facility for familiar explanation and for the introduction of those elucidations and digressions so necessary to communicate clearness and animation to abstract propositions, which, if simply enunciated in a purely scientific shape, must unavoidably appear to the learner dull and spiritless. In a dialogue, also, the teacher is not compelled to disclose his own opinions, but may give full scope to his ingenuity and eloquence in expounding and contrasting the views of others. The execution is, upon the whole, no less happy than the design. One cannot fail to be impressed with the dexterity exhibited in contriving the machinery of the different conversations, the tact with which the most appropriate personages are selected, the scrupulous accuracy with which their respective characters are distinguished and preserved throughout, and the air of calm dignity which pervades each separate piece. At the same time, we must confess, that there is throughout a want of that life and reality which lends such a charm to the dialogues of Plato. We feel that most of the colloquies reported by the Athenian might actually have been held; but there is a stiffness and formality about the actors of Cicero, and a tendency to lecture rather than to converse, which materially injures the dramatic effect, and in fact in some degree neutralizes the benefit to be derived from this method of imparting knowledge. He has also rather abused the opportunities presented for excursions into the attractive regions which lie out of the direct path, and so much space is sometimes occupied by enthusiastic declamations, that the main subject is for a time thrown out of sight and forgotten.

The speculative opinions entertained by Cicero himself are of little importance, except as a mere matter of curiosity, and cannot be ascertained with certainty. In all controversies the chief arguments of the contending parties are drawn out with the strictest impartiality, marshalled in strong relief over against each other, and the decision then left to the reader. The habit of stating and comparing a multitude of conflicting theories, each of which could number a long array of great names among its supporters, would naturally confirm that disposition to deny the certainty of human knowledge which must have been imbibed in early life by the pupil of Philo of Larissa; while the multitude of beautiful and profound reflections scattered over the writings of the Greek sages would lead an unbiassed mind, honest in its search after truth, to select what was best in each without binding himself exclusively to one.

(Those who desire to follow out this subject may consult Brucker, Historia Critica Philosophiae, vol. ii. pp. 1-70; Gaultier de Sibert, Examen de la Philosophie de Ciceron, in the Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vols. xlii. and xliii.; Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iv. pp. 76-168; G. Waldin, De Philosoph. Cic. Platonica, Jena, 1753; J. G. Zierlein, De Philosoph. Cic. Hal. 1770; J. C. Brieglieb, Progr. de Philosoph. Cic. Cob. 1784; M. Fremling, Philosoph. Cic. Lund. 1795; H. C. F. Hulsemann, De Indole Philosoph. Cic. Luneb. 1799; D. F. Gedicke, Historia Philosoph. antiquae ex Cic. Scriptis, Berol. 1815; J. A. C. Van Heusde, M. Tull. Cic. Φιλοπλάτων, Traj. ad Rhen. 1836; R. Kühner, M. Tull. Cic. in Philosophiam ejusque Partes Merita, Hamburg, 1825. The last mentioned work contains a great quantity of information, distinctly conveyed, and within a moderate compass.)

A. Philosophy of Taste or Rhetoric.

The rhetorical works of Cicero may be considered as a sort of triple compound formed by combining the information derived from the lectures and disquisitions of the teachers under whom he studied, and from the writings of the Greeks, especially Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Isocrates, with his own speculative researches into the nature and theory of the art, corrected in his later years by the results of extensive experience. Rhetoric, considered as a science depending upon abstract principles which might be investigated philosophically and developed in formal precepts, had hitherto attracted but little attention in Rome except among the select few who were capable of comprehending the instructions of foreign professors delivered in a foreign tongue; for the Latin rhetoricians were long regarded, and perhaps justly, as ignorant pretenders, who brought such discredit on the study by their presumptuous quackery, that so late as в. с. 92, L. Crassus, who was not likely to be an unjust or illiberal judge in such matters, when censor was desirous of expelling the whole crew from the city. Thus Cicero had the honour of opening up to the masses of his countrymen a new field of inquiry and mental exercise, and of importing for general national use one of the most attractive productions of Athenian genius and industry.

The Editio Princeps of the collected rhetorical works of Cicero was printed at Venice by Alexandrinus and Asulanus, fol. 1485, containing the De Oratore, the Orator, the Topica, the Partitiones Oratoriae, and the De Optimo Genere Oratorum, and was reprinted at Venice in 1488 and 1495, both in fol. The first complete edition, including, in addition to the above, the Brutus, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, and the De Inventione, was published at Venice by Aldus in 1514, 4to., edited in part by Naugerius. Of modern editions the most notable are the following: that by Schütz, which contains the whole, Lips. 1804, 3 vols. 8vo.; the "Opera Rhetorica Minora," by Wetzel, Lignitz, 1807, containing all with the exceptions of the De Oratore, the Brutus, and the Orator; and the Orator, Brutus, Topica, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, with the notes of Beier and Orelli, Zurich, 1830, 8vo.

1. Rhetoricorum s. De Inventione Rhetorica Libri II.

This appears to have been the earliest of the efforts of Cicero in prose composition. It was intended to exhibit in a compendious systematic form all that was most valuable and worthy of note in the works of the Greek rhetoricians. Aristotle had already performed this task in so far as his own predecessors were concerned; and hence his writings, together with those of his disciples and of the followers of Isocrates, would supply all the necessary materials for selection and combination. According to the original plan, this treatise was to have embraced the whole subject; but there is no reason to fix upon the exact number of four books as the extent contemplated, and it certainly never was completed. The author, after finishing the two which have descended to us, seems to have thrown them aside, and speaks of them at a later period perhaps too slightingly (de Orat. i. 2) as a crude and imperfect performance. After a short preface regarding the origin, rise, progress, use and abuse of eloquence, we find an enumeration and classification of the different branches of the subject. The whole art must be considered under five distinct heads: — 1. Its general character and the position which it occupies among the sciences (genus.) 2. The duty which it is called upon to perform (officism.) 3. The end which it seeks to attain (finis.) 4. The subject matter of a speech (materia.) 5. The constituent elements of which a speech is made up (partes rhetoricae.) After remarking cursorily, with regard to the lenus, that the art of rhetoric is a branch of civil knowledge (civilis scientiae), that its officium is, to use all the methods most suitable for persuasion by oratory, and its finis to achieve this persuasion, Cicero confines himself for the present to the materia and partes. Now the materia, subject-matter, or form of a speech, may belong to one of three classes, according to the nature of the audience. (Comp. Partit. Orat. 3.) 1. The genus demonstrativum (γένος ἐπιδεικτικόν), addressed to mere listeners who study the oratory as an exhibition of art. 2. The genus deliberativum (γένος συμβουλευτικόν) addressed to those who judge of the future as in legislative and political assemblies. 3. The genus judiciale (γένος δικανικόν), addressed to those who judge of the past as in courts of law. Again, the partes rhetoricae or constituent elements of a speech are five. 1. The invention of arguments (inventio). 2. The arrangement of these arguments (dispositio). 3. The diction in which these arguments are expressed (eloquutio). 4. The clear and distinct perception in the mind of the things and words which compose the arguments and the power of producing them at the fitting season (memoria). 5. The delivery, comprehending the modulation of the voice, and the action of the body (pronuntiatio). These points being premised, it is proposed to treat of inventio generally and independently, and then to apply the principles established to each of the three classes under which the materia may be ranged, according to the following method:

Every case which gives rise to debate or difference of opinion (controversia) involves a question, and this question is termed the constitution (constitutio) of the case. The constitution may be fourfold. 1. When the question is one of fact (controversia facti), it is a constitution conjecturalis. 2. When both parties are agreed as to the fact, but differ as to the name by which the fact ought to be distinguished (controversia nominis), it is a constitutio definitiva. 3. When the question relates to the quality of the fact (generis controversia), it is a constitutio generalis. 4. When the question concerns the fitness or propriety of the fact (quum aut quem, aut quicum, aut quomodo, aut apud quos, aut quo jure, aut quo tempore agere oporteat quaeretur), it is a constitutio translativa. Again, the constitutio generalis admits of being divided into — a. The constitutio juridicialis, in which right and wrong, reward and punishment, are viewed in the abstract; and b. The constitutio negotialis, where they are considered in reference to existing laws and usages; and finally, the constitutio juridicialis is subdivided into α. The constitutio absolute, in which the question of right or wrong is viewed with reference to the fact itself; and β. The constitutio assumptiva, in which the question of right and wrong is viewed not with reference to the fact itself, but to the external circumstances under which the fact took place. The constitutio assumptiva is itself fourfold — (1) concessio. when the accused confesses the deed with which he is charged, and does not justify it but seeks forgiveness, which may be done in two ways, (α) by purgatio, when the deed is admitted but moral guilt is denied in consequence of its having been done unwittingly (imprudentia), or by accident (casu), or unavoidably (necessitate), (β) by deprecatio when the misdeed is admitted to have been done, and to have been done wilfully, but notwithstanding forgiveness is sought — a very rare contingency; (2) remotio criminiis, when the accused defends himself by casting the blame on anotner; (3) relatio criminis, when the deed is justified by previous provocation; (4) comparatio, when the deed is justified by pleading a praiseworthy motive.

The constitution of the case being determined, we must next examine whether the case be simple (simplex) or compound (conjuncta), that is, whether it involves a single question or several, and whether the reasonings do or do not depend upon some written document (in ratione, an in scripto sit controversia). We must then consider the exact point upon which the dispute turns (quaestio), the plea in justification (ratio), the debate which will arise from the reply to the plea of justification (judicatio), and the additional arguments by which the defendant seeks to confirm his plea of justification after it had been attacked by his opponent (firmamentum), which will convert the judicatio into a disceptatio (comp. Part. Orat. 30), and so lead more directly to a decision.

These matters being duty weighed, the orator must proceed to arrange the different divisions of his speech (partes orationis), which are six in number.

1. The Exordium or introduction, which is divided into a. the Principium or opening, and b. the Insinuatio, of which the great object is to awaken the attention and secure the goodwill of the audience. 2. The Narratio or statement of the case. 3. The Partitio or explanation of the manner in which the speaker intends to handle the case, indicating at the same time those points on which both parties are agreed, and those on which they differ. 4. The Confirmatio or array of arguments by which the speaker supports his case. 5. The Reprehensio or confutation of the arguments employed by the antagonist. 6. The Conclusio or peroration, consisting of a. the Enumeratio or brief impressive summary of the whole; b. the Indignatio, which seeks to enlist the passions of the audience, and, c. the Conquestio or appeal to their sympathies.

Each of these six divisions is discussed separately, and numerous rules and precepts are laid down for the guidance of the orator.

In the second book the fifth and sixth of the above divisions, the Confirmatio and Reprehensio are considered at large with direct reference to cases belonging to the Genus Judiciale, and to each of the four constitutions and their subdivisions, after which the two remaining classes, the Genus Deliberatirum and the Genus Demonstrativum, are very briefly noticed, and the dissertation upon Rhetorical invention closes somewhat abruptly.

We have no means of deciding with certainty the exact time at which these books were composed and published. The expressions employed in the De Oratore (i. 2), "quoniam quae pueris aut adolescentulis nobis ex commentariolis nostris inchloata ac rudia exciderunt, vix hac aetate digna et hoc usu quem ex causis, quas diximus, tot tantisque consecuti sumus" (comp. i. 6), point unquestionably to the early youth of Cicero, but without enabling us to fix upon any particular year. They formed, very probably, a portion of the fruits of that study continued incessantly during the period of tranquillity which prevailed in the city while Sulla was engaged in prosecuting the Mithridatic war (в. с. 87—84), and bear the appearance of notes taken down from the lectures of some instructor, arranged, simplified, and expanded by reference to the original sources. The work is repeatedly quoted by Quintilian, sometimes under the title Libri Rhetorici, sometimes as Libri Artis Rhetoricae, generally as Rhetorica (comp. Serv. ad Virg. Aen. viii. 321, ix. 481), and we might infer from a passage in Quintilian (ii. 14. § 5), that De Rhetorice was the appellation selected by the author; at all events, the addition De Inventione Rhetorica rests upon no ancient authority.

An account of the most important editions of the De Inventione is given below, after the remarks upon the Rhetorica ad Herennium.

2. De Partitione Oratoria Dialogus.

This has been correctly described as a catechism of Rhetoric, according to the method of the middle Academy, by way of question and answer, drawn up by Cicero for the instruction of his son Marcus, in which the whole art is comprised under three heads. 1. The Vis Oratoris, in which the subject is treated with reference to the speaker; 2. the Oratio, which treats of the speech; 3. the Quaestio, which treats of the case.

The precepts with regard to the speaker are ranged under five heads. 1. Inventio. 2. Collocatio. 3. Eloquutio. 4. Actio. 5. Memoria.

The precepts with regard to the speech are also under five heads. 1. Exordium. 2. Narratio. 3. Confirmatio. 4. Reprehensio. 5. Peroratio.

The case may be a. Infinita, in which neither persons nor times are defined, and then it is called propositum or consultatio, or it may be b. Finita, in which the persons are defined, and then it is called causa; this in reality is included in the former.

The precepts with regard to the quaestio infinita or consultatio are ranged under 1. Cognitio, by which the existence, the nature, and the quality of the case are determined; 2. Actio, which discusses the means and manner in which any object may be obtained.

The precepts with regard to the quaestio finita or causa are ranged under three heads, according as the case belongs to 1. the Genus Demonstrativum; 2. the Genus Deliberativum; 3. the Genus Judiciale.

The different constitutiones are next passed under review, and the conversation concludes with an exhortation to the study of philosophy.

These partitiones, a term which corresponds to the Greek διαιρέσεις, may be considered as the most purely scientific of all the rhetorical works of Cicero, and form a useful companion to the treatise De Inventione; but from their strictly technical character the tract appears dry and uninteresting, and from the paucity of illustrations is not unfrequently somewhat obscure. From the circumstance that Cicero makes no mention of this work in his other writings, some critics have called in question its authenticity, but there seems to be no evidence either internal or external to justify such a suspicion, and it is repeatedly quoted by Quintilian without any expression of doubt. Another debate has arisen as to the period when it was composed. We are told at the commencement that it was drawn up during a period when the author was completely at leisure in consequence of having been at length enabled to quit Rome, and this expression has been generally believed to indicate the close of the year в. с. 46 or the beginning of в. с. 45, shortly before the death of Tullia and the departure of Marcus for Athens, when, as we know from his correspondence, he was devoting himself with the greatest diligence to literary pursuits. (Ad Fam. vii. 28, ix. 26.) Hand has, however, endeavoured to prove (Ersch and Grüber's Encyclopädie, art. Cicero), that we may with greater probability fix upon the year в. с. 49, when Cicero after his return from Cilicia suddenly withdrew from Rome about the middle of January (ad Att. vii. 10), and having spent a considerable time at Formiae, and visited various parts of Campania, proceeded to Arpinum at the end of March, invested his son with the manly gown, and afterwards made him the companion of his flight. But this critic seems to have forgotten that Cicero never entered the city from the spring of в. с. 51 until late in the autumn of в. с. 47, and therefore could certainly never have employed the phrase "quoniam aliquando Roma exeundi potestas data est," and still less could he ever have talked of enjoying "summum otium" at an epoch perhaps the most painful and agitating in his whole life.

The earliest edition of the Partitiones Oratoriae, in a separate form, which bears a date, is that by Gabr. Fontana, printed in 1472, 4to., probably at Venice. There are, however, two editions, supposed by bibliographers to be older. Neither of them has place, date, nor printer's name, but one is known to be from the press of Moravus at Naples. The commentaries of G. Valla and L. Strebaeus, with the argument of Latomius, are found in the edition of Seb. Gryphius, Leyden, 1541 and 1545, 8vo., often reprinted. We have also the editions of Camerarius, Lips. 1549; of Sturnius,Strasburg, 1565 ; of Minos, Paris, 1582; of Maioragius and Marcellinus, Venice, 1587; of Hauptmann, Leipzig, 1741. In illustration, the disquisition of Erhard. Reuschius, " De Ciceronis Partitionibus Oratoriis," Helmstaedt, 1723, will be found useful.

3. De Oratore ad Quintum Fratrem Libri III.

Cicero having been urged by his brother Quintus to compose a systematic work on the art of Oratory, the dialogues which bear the above title were drawn up in compliance with this request. They were completed towards the end of в. с. 55 (ad Att. iv. 13), about two years after the return of their author from banishment, and had occupied much of his time during a period in which he had in a great measure withdrawn from public life, and had sought consolation for his political degradation by an earnest devotion to literary pursuits. All his thoughts and exertions were thus directed in one channel, and consequently, as might be expected, the production before us is one of his most brilliant efforts, and will be found to be so accurately finished in its most minute parts, that it may be regarded as a master-piece of skill in all that relates to the graces of style and composition. The object in view, as explained by himself, was to furnish a treatise which should comprehend all that was valuable in the theories of Aristotle, Isocrates, and other ancient rhetoricians, and at the same time present their precepts in an agreeable and attractive form, disembarrassed of the formal stiffness and dry technicalities of the schools. (Ad Fam. i. 9, ad Att. iv. 16.)

The conversations, which form the medium through which instruction is conveyed, are supposed to have taken place in в. с. 91, immediately before the breaking out of the Social war, at the moment when the city was violently agitated by the proposal of the tribune M. Livius Drusus, to grant to the senators the right of acting in common with the equites as judices on criminal trials. The measure was vehemently opposed by the consul Philippus, who was in consequence regarded as a traitor to his order, and supported by all the influence and talent of L. Licinius Crassus, the most celebrated orator of that epoch, who had filled the preceding year the office of censor. This venerable statesman is represented as having retired to his villa at Tusculum during the celebration of the Roman games, in order that he might collect his thoughts and brace up his energies for the grand struggle which was soon to decide the contest. He was accompanied to his retirement by two youths of high promise, C. Amelius Cotta (consul в. с. 75) and P. Sulpicius Rufus, and there joined by his father-in-law and former colleague in the consulship (в. с. 95), Q. Mucius Scaevola, renowned for his profound knowledge of civil law, and by his friend and political ally, M. Antonius (consul в. с. 99), whose fame as a public speaker was little if at all inferior to that of Crassus himself. The three consular sages having spent the first day in reflections upon politics and the aspect of public affairs, unbend themselves on the second by the introduction of literary topics. The whole party being stretched at ease under the shadow of a spreading plane, the elders, at the earnest solicitation of Cotta and Sulpicius, commence a discourse upon oratory, which is renewed the following morning and brought to a close in the afternoon. At the end of the first dialogue, Scaevola, in order that strict dramatic propriety may be observed (see ad Att. iv. 16), retires, and his place, in the two remaining colloquies, is supplied by Q. Lutatius Catulus, and his half-brother, C. Julius Caesar Strabo, both distinguished as public speakers, the former celebrated for the extreme purity of his diction, the latter for the pungency of his wit.

An animated debate first arises on the qualifications essential for pre-eminence in oratory. Crassus, who throughout must be regarded as expressing the sentiments of Cicero, after enlarging upon the importance, the dignity, and the universal utility of eloquence, proceeds to describe the deep learning, the varied accomplishments, and the theoretical skill which must enter into the combination which shall form a perfect orator, while Antonius, although he allows that universal knowledge, if attainable, would mightily increase the power of those who possessed it, is contented to pitch the standard much lower, and seeks to prove that the orator is more likely to be embarrassed .than benefited by aiming at what is beyond his reach, and that, by attempting to master the whole circle of the liberal arts, he will but waste the time that might be more profitably employed, since the natural gifts of quick talents, a good voice, and a pleasing delivery, when improved by practice, self-training, and experience, are in themselves amply sufficient to produce the result sought. This preliminary controversy, in which, however, both parties agree in reality, as to what is desirable, although they differ as to what is practicable, being terminated, Antonius and Crassus enter jointly upon the τεχνολογία (ad Att. iv. 16) of the subject, and expound the principles and rules upon which success in the rhetorical art depends and by the observance of which it may be achieved. The former discusses at large in the second book, the invention and arrangement of arguments, and winds up with a dissertation on memory, the continuous flow of his discourse being broken and relieved by an essay, placed in the mouth of Caesar, upon the nature and use of humour, a digression, both amusing in itself, and interesting generally, as evincing the miserable bad taste of the Romans in this department. In the third book, Crassus devotes himself to an exposition of the ornaments of rhetoric, comprising all the graces of diction, to which are added a few remarks upon delivery, that is, upon the voice, pronunciation, and action of the speaker.

The MSS. of the De Oratore known up to the early part of the 15th century, were all imperfect. There were blanks extending in Bk. i. from c. 28. § 128 to c. 34. § 157, and from c. 43. § 193 to Bk. ii. c. 59. § 19, although in the Erfurt MS. only as far as Bk. ii. c. 3. § 13; in Bk. ii. from c. 12. § 50 to c. 14. § 60; and in Bk. iii. from c. 5. § 17 to c. 28. § 110. These gaps were first supplied by Gasparinus of Barziza, from a MS. found at Lodi, and hence called Codex Laudensis, 1419, which in addition to the Rhetorica ad Herennium, the De Inventione, the Brutus and the Orator contained the three books De Oratore entire. This MS., which is now lost, was repeatedly copied, and its contents soon became known all over Italy; but it is uncertain whether the whole was transcribed, or merely those passages which were required to fill up existing deficiencies.

The Editio Princeps of the De Oratore was printed at the monastery of Subiaco, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, in 4to. between 1465 and 1467. The most useful editions are those by Pearce, Camb. 1716, 1732, and Lond. 1746,1771, 1795, 8vo.; by J. F. Wetzel, Brunswick, 1794, 8vo.; by Harles, with the notes of Pearce and others, Leipzig, 1816, 8vo.; by O. M. Müller, Leipzig, 1819, 8vo.; by Heinichsen, Copenhagen, 1830, 8vo.

Literature : — J. A. Ernesti, De Praestantia Librorum Cic. de Oratore Prolusio, Lips. 1736, 4to. ; C. F. Matthiae, Prolegomenen zu Cic. Gesprächlen vom Redner, Worms, 1791, and Frankfort, 1812, 8vo.; H. A. Schott, Comment. qua Cic. de Fine Eloquentiae Sententia examinatur, Lips. 1801; G. E. Gierig, Von dem ästhetischen Werthe der Bücher des Cic. vom Redner, Fulda, 1807; J. F. Schaarschmidt, De Proposito Libri Cic. de Oratore, Schneeberg, 8vo.; 1804; E. L. Trompheller, Versuch einer Charakteristik der Ciceronischen Bücher vom Redner, Coburg, 1830, 4to.

4. Brutus s. de Claris Oratoribus.

This work is in the form of a dialogue, the speakers being Cicero himself, Atticus, and M. Brutus; the scene a grass plot, in front of a colonnade, attached to the house of Cicero at Rome, with a statue of Plato close at hand. It contains a complete critical history of Roman eloquence, from the earliest epochs, commencing with L. Junius Brutus, Appius Claudius, M. Curius, and sundry sages of the olden time, whose fame rested upon obscure tradition alone, passing on to those with regard to whose talents more certain information could be obtained, such as Cornelius Cethegus and Cato, the censor, advancing gradually till it reached such men as Catulus, Licinius Crassus, and M. Antonius, whose glory was bright in the recollection of many yet alive, and ending with those whom Cicero himself had heard with admiration as a youth, and rivalled as a man, the greatest of whom was Hortensius, and with him the list closes, living orators being excluded. Prefixed, are some short, but graphic sketches, of the most renowned Grecian models; the whole discourse being interspersed with clever observations on the speculative principles of the art, and many important historical details connected with the public life and services of the individuals enumerated. Great taste and discrimination are displayed in pointing out the characteristic merits, and exposing the defects, of the various styles of composition reviewed in turn, and the work is most valuable as a contribution to the history of literature. But, from the desire to render it absolutely complete, and, at the same time, to confine it within moderate limits, the author is compelled to hurry from one individual to another, without dwelling upon any for a sufficient period to leave a distinct impression on the mind of the reader; and, while we complain of the space occupied by a mere catalogue of uninteresting names, by which we are wearied, we regret that our curiosity should have been excited, without being gratified, in regard to many of the shining lights which shed such a lustre over the last century of the commonwealth.

The Brutus was composed next in order, although at a long interval, after the De Republica, at a period when Caesar was already master of the state, it was written before the Cato, the Cato itself coming immediately before the Orator, a combination of circumstances which fixes it down to the year в. с. 46. (Brut. 1, 2, 5, 6, Orat. 7, de Divin. ii. 1.)

The Brutus was unknown until the discovery of the Codex Laudensis described above. Hence all the MSS. being confessedly derived from this source do not admit of being divided into families, although the text might probably be improved if the transcripts existing in various European libraries were more carefully examined and compared.

The Editio Princeps of the Brutus was that printed at Rome, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, 1469, 4to., in the same volume with the De Oratore and the Orator. The best edition is that by Ellendt, with very copious and useful prolegomena, Königsberg, 1826, 8vo., to which we may add an useful school edition by Billerbeck, Hannover, 1828.

5. Ad M. Brutum Orator.

Cicero having been frequently requested by M. Brutus to explain his views with regard to what constituted a faultless orator, this term being understood to denote a public speaker in the senate or in the forum, but to exclude the eloquence displayed by philosophers in their discourses, and by poets and historians in their writings, endeavours in the present essay to perform the task imposed on him. We must not, therefore, expect to find here a series of precepts, the result of observation and induction, capable of being readily applied in practice, or a description of anything actually existing in nature, but rather a fancy picture, in which the artist represents an object of ideal beauty, such as would spring from the union of all the prominent characteristic excellences of the most gifted individuals, fused together and concentrated into one harmonious whole.

He first points out that perfection must consist in absolute propriety of expression, and that this could be obtained only by occasional judicious transitions from one style to another, by assuming, according to the nature of the subject, at one time a plain, familiar, unpretending tone; by rising at another into lofty, impassioned, and highly ornamented declamation; and by observing in general a graceful medium between the two extremes; by ascending, as the Greeks expressed it, from the ἰσχνόν to the ἀδρόν, and falling back from the ἀδρόν to the μέσον, — instead of adhering steadfastly, after the fashion of most great orators, to one particular form. He next passes on to combat an error very prevalent among his countrymen, who, admitting that Athenian eloquence was the purest model for imitation, imagined that its essence consisted in avoiding with scrupulous care all copious, flowing, decorated periods, and in expressing every idea in highly polished, terse, epigrammatic sentences — a system which, however interesting as an effort of intellect, must necessarily produce results which will fall dull and cold upon the ear of an ordinary listener, and, if carried out to its full extent, degenerate into offensive mannerism. After dwelling upon these dangers and insisting upon the folly of neglecting the practice of Aeschines and Demosthenes and setting up such a standard as Thucydides, Cicero proceeds to shew that the orator must direct his chief attention to three points, which in fact comprehend the soul of the art, the what, the where, and the how ; the matter of his speech, the arrangement of that matter, the expression and enunciation of that matter each of which is in turn examined and discussed. The perfect orator being defined to be one who clearly demonstrates to his hearers the truth of the position he maintains, delights them by the beauty and fitness of his language, and wins them over to his cause (" is, qui in foro, causisque civilibus, ita dicet, ut probet, ut delectet, ut flectat"), we are led to consider the means by which these ends are reached. The groundwork and foundation of the whole is true wisdom, but true wisdom can be gained only by the union of all the highest natural endowments with a knowledge of philosophy and all the chief departments of literature and science; and thus Cicero brings us round to the conclusion, which is in fact the pervading idea of this and the two preceding works, that he who would be a perfect orator must be a perfect man. What follows (from c. 40 to the end) is devoted to a dissertation on the harmonious arrangement of words and the importance of rhythmical cadence in prose composition--a curious topic, which attracted much attention in ancient times, as may be seen from the elaborately minute dulness of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but possesses comparatively little interest for the modern reader.

The Orator was composed about the beginning of в. с. 45, having been undertaken immediately after the completion of the Cato. Cicero declares, that he was willing to stake his reputation for knowledge and taste in his own art upon the merits of this work: " Mihi quidem sic persuadeo, me quidquid habuerim judicii de dicendo in illum librum contulisse ;" and every one must be charmed by the faultless purity of the diction, the dexterity manifested in the choice of appropriate phraseology, and the sonorous flow with which the periods roll gracefully onwards. There is now and then perhaps a little difficulty in tracing the connexion of the different divisions; and while some of the most weighty themes are touched upon very slightly, disproportionate space is assigned to the remarks upon the music of prose; but this probably arose from the subject having been entirely passed over in the two preceding treatises. For it must be borne in mind that the De Oratore, the Brutus, and the Orator were intended to constitute a connected and continuous series, forming a complete system of the rhetorical art. In the first are expounded the principles and rules of oratory. and the qualifications natural and acquired requisite for success; in the second the importance of these qualifications, and the use and application of the principles and rules are illustrated by a critical examination of the leading merits and defects of the greatest public speakers; while in the third is delineated that ideal perfection to which the possession of all the requisite qualifications and a strict adherence to all the principles and rules would lead.

The Editio Princeps of the Orator is that mentioned above, under the Brutus, printed at Rome in 1469. The best is that by Meyer, Lips. 1827, 8vo.; to which we may add the school edition of Billerbeck, Hannover, 1829, 8vo.

Literature: — P. Ramus, Brutinae Quaestiones in Oratorem Cic., Paris. 1547, 4to., 1549, 8vo. ; J. Perionius, Oratio pro Cic. Oratore contra P. Ramum, Paris. 1547, 8vo.; A. Maioragius, In Oratorem Cic. Commentarius, Basil. 1552; M. Junius, In Oratorem Cic. Scholia, Argent. 1585, 8vo.; H. A. Burchardus, Animadversiones ad Cic. Oratorem, Berolin. 1815, 8vo.

6. De Optimo Genere Oratorum.

We have already noticed in the remarks on the Orator the opinion advocated by several of the most distinguished speakers of this epoch, such as Brutus and Calvus, that the essence of the true Attic style consisted in employing the smallest possible number of words, and concentrating the meaning of the speaker into subtle, terse, pointed sentences, which, however, from being totally devoid of all ornament and amplitude of expression, were for the most part stiff, lean, and dry, the very reverse of Cicero's style. In order to refute practically this prevalent delusion, Cicero resolved to render into Latin the two most perfect specimens of Grecian eloquence, the orations of Acschines and Demosthenes in the case of Ctesiphon. The translation itself has been lost; but a short preface, in which the origin and object of the undertaking is explained, is still extant, and bears the title given above, De Optimo Genere Oratorum.

The Editio Princeps of this tract, in an independent form, is that published with the commentary of Achilles Statius, Paris, 1551, 4to., and 1552, 8vo. We have also " De Optimo Genere Oratorum, ad Trebatium Topica, Oratoriae Partitiones, cum Commentario, ed. G. H. Saalfrank, vol. i. Ratisbon, 1823, 8vo."

7. Topica ad C. Trebaium.

C. Trebatius, the celebrated jurisconsult, having found himself unable to comprehend the Topics of Aristotle, which treat of the Invention of Arguments, and having failed in procuring any explanation from a celebrated rhetorician, whose aid he sought, had frequently applied to Cicero for information and assistance. Cicero's incessant occupations prevented him for a long time from attending to these solicitations; but when he was sailing towards Greece, the summer after Caesar's death, lie was reminded of Trebatius by the sight of Velia, a city with which the lawyer was closely connected, and accordingly, while on board of the ship, drew up from recollection the work before us, and disspatched it to his friend from Rhegium on the 27th of July, в. с. 44.

We are here presented with an abstract of the original, expressed in plain, familiar terms, illustrated by examples derived chiefly from Roman law instead of from Greek philosophy, accompanied by a promise to expound orally, at a future period, any points which might still appear confused or obscure. We cannot, of course, expect to find in such a book any originality of matter; but when we consider the circumstances under which it was composed, and the nature of the subject itself, we cannot fail to admire the clear head and the wonderful memory which could produce at once a full and accurate representation of a hard, complicated, and technical disquisition on the theory of rhetoric.

The Editio Princeps is without place, date, or printer's name, but is believed to have been published at Venice about 1472. The commentaries upon this work are very numerous. The most celebrated are those by Boethius, G. Valla, Melancthon, J. Visorius, Hegendorphinus, Latomus, Goveanus, Talaeus, Curio, Achilles Statius, &c., which are contained in the editions printed at Paris by Tiletanus in 1543, 4to., by David in 1550, 4to., by Vascosanus in 1554, 4to., and by Richardus in 1557 and 1561, 4to.

8. Communes Loci.

All that we know regarding this work is comprised in a single sentence of Quintilian (ii. 1. § 11): " Communes loci, sive qui sunt in vitia directi, quales legimus a Cicerone composites; seu quibus quaestiones generaliter tractantur, quales sunt editi a Quinto quoque Hortensio." Orelli supposes, that the Paradoxa are here spoken of ; but this opinion is scarcely borne out by the expression in the preface to which he refers.

9. Rhetoricorum ad C. Herennizium Libri IV.

A general view of the whole art of Rhetoric, including a number of precepts and rules for the guidance of the student. Passages from this treatise are quoted by St. Jerome (adv. Rufin. lib. i. p. 204, ed. Basil.), by Priscian, by Rufinus (de Comp. et Metr. Orat. pp. 315, 321 of the Rhetores Antiq. ed. Pith.), and by other ancient grammarians, who speak of it as the work of Cicero, and as such it was generally received by the most distinguished scholars of the fifteenth century, Leonardus Arretinus, Angelus Politianus, and Laurentius Valla. At a very early period, however, its authenticity was called in question by Raphael Rhegius and Angelus Decembrius, and the controversy has been renewed at intervals down to the present day. Almost all the best editors agree in pronouncing it spurious, but the utmost diversity of opinion has existed with regard to the real author. Regius propounded no less than three hypotheses, assigning it at one time to Q. Corniticius, who was quaestor в. с. 81, and an unsuccessful candidate for the consulship in в. с. 64; at another, to Virginius, a rhetorician contemporary with Nero; and lastly, to Timolaus, son of queen Zenobia, who had an elder brother Herennianus. Paulus and Aldus Manutius, Sigonius, Muretus, Barthius, and many of less note, all adopted the first supposition of Regius. G. J. Vossius began by deeiding in fiavour of the younger Q. Cornificius, the colleague of Cicero in the augurate (ad Fam. xii. 17-30), but afterwards changed his mind and fixed upon Tullius Tiro; Julius Caesar Scaliger upon M. Gallio ; Nascimbaenius upon Laureas Tullius; while more recently Schütz has laboured hard to bring home the paternity to M. Antonius Gnipho, and Van Heusde to Aelius Stilo. The arguments which seem to prove that the piece in question is not the production of Cicero are briefly as follows: 1. It could not have been composed before the De Oratore, for Cicero there (i. 2) speaks of his juvenile efforts in this department as rough and never brought to a conclusion,—a description which corresponds perfectly with the two books De Inventione, whereas the Ad Herennium is entire and complete in all its parts; moreover, the author of the Ad Herennium complains at the outset that he was so oppressed with family affairs and business, that he could scarcely find any leisure for his favourite pursuits—a statement totally inapplicable to the early career of Cicero. 2. It could not have deen written after the De Oratore, for not only does Cicero never make any allusion to such a performance among the numerous labours of his later years, but it would have been quite unworthy of his mature age, cultivated taste, and extensive experience : it is in reality in every way inferior to the De Inventione, that boyish essay which he treats so contemptuously. We shall not lay any stress here upon the names of Terentia and young Tullius which occur in bk. i. c. 12, since these words are manifest interpolations. 3. Quintilian repeatedly quotes from the De Inventione and other acknowledged rhetorical pieces of Cicero, but never notices the Ad Herennium. 4. Marius Victorinus in his commentary on the De Inventione, makes no allusion to the existence of the Ad Herenniun; it is little probable that he would have carefully discussed the imperfect manual, and altogether passed over that which was complete. 5. Servius refers three times (ad Virg. Aen. viii. 321, ix. 481, 614) to the " Rhetorica" and Cassiodorus (Rhetor. comp. pp. 339, 341, ed. Pith.) to the "Ars Rhetorica" of Cicero; but these citations are all from the De Inventione and not one from the Ad Herennium.

The most embarrassing circumstance connected with these two works is the extraordinary resemblance which exists between them—a resemblance so strong that it is impossible to doubt that there is some bond of union. For although there are numerous and striking discrepancies, not only is the general arrangement the same, but in very many divisions the same precepts are conveyed in nearly if not exactly the same phraseology, and illustrated by the same examples. Any one who will compare Ad Herenn. i. 2, ii. 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, with De Invent. i. 7, 42, 45, 48, 49, 51, will at once be convinced that these coincidences cannot be accidental; but the single instance to be found Ad Herenn. ii. 23, and De Invent. i. 50 would alone be sufficient, for in both we find the same four lines extracted for the same purpose from the Trinummus, and Plautus censured for a fault of which he is not guilty, the force of his expression having been misunderstood by his critics. We cannot suppose that the author of the Ad Herennium copied from the De Inventione, since the former embraces a much wider compass than the latter; still less can we believe that Cicero would be guilty of a shameless plagiarism, which must have been open to such easy detection. Both parties cannot have derived their matter from a common Greek original, for not only is it incredible that two persons translating independently of each other should have rendered so many phrases in words almost identical, but the illustrations from Roman writers common to both at once destroy such an explanation. Only two solutions of the enigma suggest themselves. Either we have in the Ad Herennium and the De Inventione the notes taken down by two pupils from the lectures of the same Latin rhetorician, which were drawn out at full length by the one, and thrown aside in an unfinished state by the other after some alterations and corrections had been introduced; or we have in the Ad Herennium the original lectures, published subsequently by the professor himself. This last idea is certainly at variance with the tone assumed in the preliminary remarks, but may receive some support from the claim put forth (i. 9) to originality in certain divisions of insinuationes, which are adopted without observation in the De Inventione. Whatever conclusion we may adopt upon this head, it is clear that we possess no evidence to determine the real author. The case made out in favour of Cornificius (we cannot tell which Cornificius) is at first sight plausible. Quintilian (iii. 1. § 21, comp. ix. 3. § 89) frequently mentions a certain Cornificius as a writer upon rhetoric, and in one place especially (ix. 3. § 98) enumerates his classification of figures, which corresponds exactly with the Ad Herennium (iv. 15, &c.); and a second point of agreement has been detected in a citation by Julius Rufinianus. (De Fig. Sent. p. 29.) But, on the other hand, many things are ascribed by Quintilian to Cornificius which nowhere occur in the Ad Herennium; and, still more fatal, we perceive, upon examining the words referred to above (ix. 3. § 93), that the remarks of Cornificius on figures must have been taken from a separate and distinct tract confined to that subject. We can accord to Schütz the merit of having demonstrated that M. Antonius Gnipho may be the compiler, and that there is no testimony, external or internal, to render this position untenable; but we cannot go further. There are several historical allusions dispersed up and down reaching from the consulship of L. Cassius Longinus, в. с. 107, to the death of Sulpicius in в. с. 88; and if Burmann and others are correct in believing that the second consulship of Sulla is distinctly indicated (iv. 54, 68), the fact will be established, that these books were not published before в. с. 80.

The materials for arriving at a correct judgment with regard to the merits of this controversy, will be found in the preface of the younger Burmann, to his edition of the Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Inventione, printed at Leyden in 1761, 8vo., and republished with additional notes by Lindemann, Leipzig, 1828, 8vo.; in the prooemium of Schütz to his edition of the rhetorical works of Cicero, Leipzig, 1804, 3 vols. 8vo., enlarged and corrected in his edition of the whole works of Cicero, Leipzig, 1814; and in the disquisition of J. van Heusde, De Aelio Stilone, Utrecht, 1839; to which we may add, as one of the earliest authorities, Utrum Ars Rhetorica ad Herennium Ciceroni falso inscribatur, appended to the Problemata in Quintil. Instit. Orat. by Raphael Regius, published at Venice in 1492.

The Editio Princeps of the Rhetorica ad Herennium 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. Political Philosophy.

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 the proper sequence of the sheets. Altogether, after a minute calculation, we may estimate that by the palimpsest we have regained about one-fourth of the whole, and if the fragments collected from other sources be added, they will increase the proportion to one-third. The MS. is written in very large well-formed capitals, and from the splendour of its appearance those best skilled in palaeography have pronounced it to be the oldest MS. of a classic in existence, some being disposed to carry it back as far as the second or third century, the superinduced MS. being probably earlier than the tenth century. In the first book, the first 33 pages are wanting, and there are fourteen smaller blanks scattered up and down, amounting to 38 pages more. A few words are wanting at the beginning of the second book, which runs on with occasional blanks, amounting in all to 50 pages, until we approach the close, which is very defective. The third book is a mere collection of disjointed scraps; of the fourth the MS. contains but a few lines, the same is the case with the fifth, and the sixth is totally wanting.

The object of the work was to determine the best form of government, to define the duties of all the members of the body politic, and to investigate those principles of justice and morality which must form the basis of every system under which a nation can expect to enjoy permanent prosperity and happiness. We cannot doubt that Cicero was stimulated to this undertaking by perceiving the destruction which threatened the liberties of his country; and, in the vain hope of awakening those around him to some sense of their danger, he resolved to place before their eyes a lively representation of that constitution by which their forefathers had become masters of the world.

The materials of which this production was formed appear, for we can speak with little certainty of the last four books, to have been distributed in the following manner:—

The greater part of the prologue to the first book is lost, but we gather that it asserted the superiority of an active over a purely contemplative career. After a digression on the uncertainty and worthlessness of physical pursuits, the real business of the piece is opened, the meaning of the word republic is defined, and the three chief forms of government, the monarchical, the aristocratical, and the democratical, are analyzed and compared, Scipio awarding the preference to the first, although, since all in their simple shape are open to corruption and degeneracy, and contain within themselves the seeds of dissolution, the ideal of a perfect constitution would be a compound of all these three elements mixed in due proportions—a combination to which the Roman constitution at one time closely approximated.

The subject being pursued in the second book leads to a history of the origin and progress of the Roman state; and, passing from the particular to the general, the remainder of the book is occupied by an examination of the great moral obligations which serve as the foundation of all political union.

The third book, as we glean from Lactantius and St. Augustin, contained a protracted discussion on the famous paradox of Carneades, that justice was a visionary delusion.

The fourth book entered upon the duties of citizens in public and private life, and enlarged upon general education and moral training.

In the prologue to the fifth book, of which we know less than of any of the preceding, Cicero indulged in lamentations on the general depravity of morals which were becoming rapidly more corrupt. The main topic in what followed was the administration of laws, including a review of the practice of the Roman courts, beginning with the paternal jurisdiction of the kings, who were the sole judges in the infancy of the city.

We can hardly hazard a conjecture on the contents of the sixth book, with the exception of the well-known Somnium Scipionis, in which Scipio relates that he saw in a dream, when, in early youth, he visited Masinissa, in Africa, the form of the first Africanus, which dimly revealed to him his future destiny, and urged him to press steadily forward in the path of virtue and of true renown, by announcing the reward prepared in a future state for those who have served their country in this life with good faith.

The authorities chiefly consulted by Cicero, in composing the De Republica, are concisely enumerated in the first chapter of the second book de Divinatione. "Sex de Republica libros scripsimus—Magnus locus philosophiaeque proprius, a Platone, Aristotele, Theophrasto totaque Peripateticorum familia tractus uberrime." To these we must add Polybius, from whom many of the most important opinions are directly derived (e. g. comp. Polyb. vi. 3, 6, 7).

The Editio Princeps of the recovered De Republica was printed, as we have seen above, at Rome, in 1822, with copious prolegomena and notes by Mai; this was followed by the edition of Creuzer and Moser, Frankf. 1826, 8vo., which is the most complete that has hitherto appeared. The following also contains useful matter, " La République de Ciceron, d'après la texte inedit, recemment découvert et commenté par M. Mai, bibliothécaire de Vatican, avec une traduction française, un discours préliminaire et des dissertations historiques, par M. Villemain, de l' Académie française, ii tomes, Paris, Michaud, 1823."

Literature : — F. C. Wolf, Observ. Crit. in M. Tull. Cic. Orat. pro Scauro, et pro Tullio, et librorum De Rep. Fragm. 1824; Zacharia, Staatswissenschaftliche Betrachtungen über Ciceros neu aufgefundenes Werk vom Stadte, Heidelberg, 1823.

The fragments known before the discovery of Mai are included in all the chief editions of the collected works, and were published with a French translation by Bernardi, ii tomes, Paris, 1807.

2. De Legibus Libri III.

Three dialogues, in a somewhat mutilated condition, on the nature, the origin, and the perfection of laws. These have given rise to a series of controversies respecting the real author of the work, the time at which it was written, its extent when entire, its proper title, the date of publication, the existence of a prologue, or preface, the sources from which the author derived his materials, and the design which he proposed to accomplish. On each of these points it is necessary to say a few words.

1. The opinion that Cicero was not the author, rests solely upon the fact that, contrary to his usual practice in such matters, he nowhere makes mention of these books; no notice of them is taken in the catalogue of his philosophical writings, inserted in the De Divinatione (ii. 1), nor in any part of his correspondence with Atticus, which generally contains some account of the literary labours in which he was from time to time engaged, nor in any of those passages where a reference might very naturally have been expected (e. g. Tusc. iv. 1, Brut. v. 19), while the expressions which have been adduced as containing indirect allusions, will be found upon examination to be so indistinct, or to have been so unfairly interpreted, that they throw no light whatever on the question. (e. g. de Orat. i. 42, ad Att. xiv. 17.) On the other hand, " M. Tullius . . . in libro de legibus primo," and "Cicero in quinto de legibus," are the words with which Lactantius (De Opif. Dei, i.) and Macrobius (vi. 4) introduce quotations, and all the best scholars agree in pronouncing that not only is there no internal evidence against the authenticity of the treatise, but that the diction, style, and matter, are in every respect worthy of Cicero, presenting no trace of a late or interior hand, of interpolation, or of forgery. Even if we do not feel quite certain that the sentence in Quintilian (xii. 3), " M. Tullius non modo inter agendum numquam est destitutus scientia juris, sed etiam componere aliquat de eo coeperat," was intended to indicate the work before us, yet the word coeperat may be allowed at least to suggest a solution of the difficulty. Taking into account the actual state of these dialogues as they have descended to us, remarking tile circumstance, which becomes palpable upon close examination, that some portions are complete, full, and highly polished, while others are imperfect, meagre, and rough, we are led to the conclusion, that the plan was traced out and partially executed; that, while the undertaking was advancing, some serious interruption occurred, possibly the journey to Cilicia ; that being thus thrown aside for a time, the natural disinclination always felt by Cicero to resume a train of thought once broken off Comp. de Leg. i. 3) combined with a conviction that the disorders of his country were now beyond the aid of philosophic remedies, prevented him from ever following out his original project, and giving the last touches to the unfinished sketch. This supposition will account in a satisfactory manner for the silence observed regarding it in the De Divinatione, the Brutus, and elsewhere; and if it was in progress, as we shall see is very probable, towards the close of в. с. 52, we can be at no loss to explain why it makes no figure in the epistles to Atticus, for no letters between the friends are extant for that year, in consequence, perhaps, of both being together at Rome. Chapman, in his Chronological Dissertation, avoids the objection altogether by supposing, that the de Legibus was not written until after the de Divinatione, but from what is said below, it will appear that this hypothesis is probably erroneous, and, according to the view we have given, it is certainly unnecessary.

2. Since we find in the work allusions to the elevation of Cicero to the augurate (ii. 12, iii. 19), an event which did not take place until the vacancy caused by the death of Crassus (в. с. 53) was known at Rome, and also to the death of Clodius (ii. 17, в. с. 52), and since Cato and Pompey are both named as alive (iii. 18, i. 3, iii. 9), it is manifest that the action of the drama belongs to some epoch between the beginning of the year, в. с. 52, and the battle of Pharsalia, в. с. 48; but on the other hand this evidence will only enable us to decide that the drama was composed after the 18th of January, в. с. 52, the day when Clodius perished, without defining any second limit before which it must have been composed. When, however, we remark the evident bitterness of spirit displayed towards Clodius and his friends, together with the suppressed, but not concealed, dissatisfaction, with the conduct of Pompey (ii. 16, 41, iii. 9, 21), we are led to suppose that these paragraphs were penned under the influence of feelings recently excited, such as might have been roused by the proceedings which distinguished the trial of Milo. We are inclined, therefore, to think that the date of the action of the drama, and the date of composition, are nearly identical, and that both may be assigned to the middle or end of в. с. 52.

3. With regard to the number of books at one time in existence, we are certain that there were more than three, for Macrobius (l. c.) quotes the but how many there may have been is purely a matter of conjecture. Fabricius, Hülsemann, and Wagner, decide that there were just five; Goerenz argues very ingeniously that there must have been six; Davis fixes that there were eight.

4. The title De Legibus rests on the authority of nearly all the MSS. One alone exhibits De Jure Civili et Legibus, which doubtless arose from a desire to include the supposed contents of the later books. (See de Leg. iii. 5 fin.; Gell. i. 22.)

5. If we are correct in our position, that Cicero never finished his work, it follows that it was not published during his life, and, therefore, remained unknown to his contemporaries.

6. As to the existence of a prologue, we should naturally have imagined that this was a question of fact, affording no scope for reasoning. Nevertheless the point also has been keenly debated. Turnebus, in one commentary, considers that the first few chapters constitute a regular introduction, but he afterwards changed his mind, and, startled by the abruptness with which the conversation opens, maintained that the exordium had been lost. Goerenz and Moser, the most judicious editors, adopt the first conclusion of Turnebus.

7. In all that relates to external form and decoration Plato is evidently the model, and the imitation throughout is most close and accurate. But the resemblance extends no farther than the surface: the definitions, the propositions, the arguments, and the whole substance, except what is immediately connected with Roman law, can be traced to the labours of the Stoics, especially to the φυσίκαι θέσεις, the πὲρι καλοῦ, the πὲρι δικαίοσυνης, and above all the πὲρι νόμου of Chrysippus; for the few fragments which have been preserved of these tracts are still sufficient to shew that not only did Cicero draw his materials from their stores, but in some instances did little more than translate their words. Even in the passages on magistrates the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus are presented with the modifications introduced by Dion (Diogenes?) and Panaetius. (De Leg. iii. 6.)

8. The general plan of the work is distinctly traced in one of the opening chapters (i. 5, 17). It was intended to comprehend an exposition of the nature of justice and its connexion with the nature of man, an examination of the laws by which states ought to be governed, and a review of the different systems of legislation which had been adopted by different nations.

Accordingly, in the first book we have an investigation into the sources of justice and virtue. It is laid down (1), That the Gods are the ultimate source of justice; (2) That men, being bound together by a community of faculties, feelings, and desires, are led to cultivate social union--and hence justice, without which social union could not exist. Thus human nature is a second source of justice. But since human nature is intimately connected with God by reason and virtue, it follows that God and the moral nature of man are the joint sources of justice, law being the practical exposition of its principles. Much more stress is, however, laid upon the second of these two sources than upon the first, which is quickly dismissed and kept out of sight.

In the second book the author explains his views of a Model Code, illustrated by constant references to the ancient institutions of Rome. Attention is first called to the laws which relate to religion and sacred observances, which are considered under the different heads of divine worship in general, including the solemnities to be observed in the performance of ordinances, and the classification of the Gods according to the degrees of homage to which they are severally entitled; the celebration of festivals ; the duties of the various orders of priests ; the exhibition of public games; the maintenance of ancient rites; the punishment of perjury and impurity; the consecration of holy places and things; and the respect to be paid to the spirits of the departed.

The third book treated of Magistrates, commencing with a short exposition of the nature and importance of their functions as interpreters and enforcers of the laws. This is followed by a dissertation on the expediency of having one magistrate in a state to whom all the rest shall be subordinate, which leads to certain reflections on the authority of the consuls, as controlled by the tribunes. Here, however, there is a great blank, the part which is lost having contained, it would appear, an inquiry into the functions of all the chief officers of the Roman republic. What remains consists of three discussions, one on the power exercised by tribunes of the plebeians, a second on the propriety of supplying the vacancies in the senate from the number of those who had held certain appointments, and, thirdly, on the advantages and drawbacks of voting by ballot.

The scene of these dialogues is laid in the villa of Cicero, in the neighbourhood of his native Arpinum, near the point where the Fibrenus joins the Liris. The Editio Princeps forms part of the edition of the philosophical works printed at Rome in 2 vols. fol. by Sweynheym and Pannartz, 1471; see above, p. 719, b. The editions of Davis, Camb. 1727-8, containing the notes of the old commentators, and an improved text, were long held in high estimation, and frequently reprinted, but is now superseded by those of Goerenz, Leip. 1809, 8vo., forming the first volume of the collected philosophical works ; of Moser and Creuzer, Frankf. 1824, 8vo., containing everything that the scholar can desire; and of Bake, Leyden, 1842, 8vo., which is the most recent.

3. De Jure Civili in Artem redigendo.

A. Gellius quotes a sentence from a work of Cicero which he says bore the above title. The subject of civil law was also discussed in one of the last books De Legibus, but the words of Gellius can apply only to an independent treatise. See Orelli's Cicero vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 478. (Gell. i. 22; Quintil. xii. 3. § 10; Macrob. vi. 4; Cic. de Leg. iii. 20.)

4. Epistolae ad Caesarem de Republica ordinanda.

Cicero, in a letter to Atticus, (xii. 40,) written in June, в. с. 45, tells his friend, that he had made several attempts to compose an address to Caesar, in imitation of those of Aristotle and Theopompus to Alexander, but had hitherto failed (Συμϐουλευτικόν saepe conor : nihil reperio). A few days later, however, it appears to have been finished (ad Att. xiii. 26), and was soon after sent to Atticus (ad Att. xii. 49), but never forwarded to the dictator; for, having been previously submitted to his friends for their approbation, they made so many objections, and suggested so many alterations, that Cicero threw it aside in disgust. (Ad Att. xii. 51, 52, xiii. 1, 27, 28, 31.)

C. Philosophy of Morals.

1. De Officiis Libri III.

A treatise on moral obligations, viewed not so much with reference to a metaphysical investigation of the basis on which they rest, as to the practical business of the world and the intercourse of social and political life. It was composed and published late in the year в. с. 44, certainly after the end of August (iii. sub fin.), and is addressed to young Marcus, at that time residing at Athens under the care of Cratippus the Peripatetic. This being a work professedly intended for the purposes of instruction, Cicero does not dwell upon the conflicting doctrines of rival sects, but endeavours rather to inculcate directly those views which he regarded as the most correct; and, rejecting the form of dialogue, enunciates the different precepts with the authority of a teacher addressing his pupil. The discipline of the Stoics is principally followed. In the first two books, the peri kathêkontos of Panaetius served as a guide, and not a little was borrowed from Diogenes of Babylon, Antipater of Tarsus, Hecato, Posidonius, Antipater of Tyre, and others enumerated in the commentary of Beier and the tract of Lynden on Panaetius. Notwithstanding the express declaration of Cicero to the contrary, we cannot, from internal evidence, avoid the conclusion, that the Greek authorities have in not a few passages been translated verbatim, and translated not very happily, for the unyielding character of the Latin language rendered it impossible to express accurately those nice gradations of thought and delicate distinctions which can be conveyed with so much clearness and precision by the copious vocabulary and graceful flexibility of the sister tongue. (See the essay of Garve named at the end of the article.) The third book, which is occupied with questions in casuistry, although it lays claim to greater originality than those which precede it, was certainly formed upon the model of the περὶ καθηκοντός of the Stoic Hecato. But while the skeleton of the whole work is unquestionably of foreign origin, the examples and illustrations are taken almost exclusively from Roman history and Roman literature, and are for the most part selected with great judgment and clothed in the most felicitous diction.

In the first book, after a few preliminary remarks, we find a threefold division of the subject. When called upon to perform any action we must inquire, 1. Whether it is honestum, that is, good in itself, absolutely and abstractedly good; 2. Whether it is utile, that is, good when considered with reference to external objects; 3. What course we must pursue when the honestum and the utile are at variance. Moreover, the honestum and the utile each admit of degrees which also fall to be examined in order that we may make choice of the highest. The general plan being thus sketched, it is followed out by a discussion of the four constituent elements into which the honestum may be resolved: a. Sapientia, the power of discerning truth; b. Justitia et Beneficentia, which consist in studying the welfare of those around us, in rendering to every one his own, and in preserving contracts inviolate; c. Fortitudo, greatness and strength of mind; d. Temperantia, the faculty of doing and saying everything in a becoming manner, in the proper place, and to the proper extent. Each of these is explained at length, and the book closes with a debate on the degrees of the honestum, that is, the method of deciding, when each of two lines of conduct is honestum, which is to be preferred as superior (honestius) to the other.

The second book is devoted to the utile, and considers how we may best conciliate the favour of our fellow-men, apply it to our own advancement, and thus arrive at wealth and public distinction, enlarging peculiarly on the most pure and judicious mode of displaying liberality, whether by pecuniary gifts or by aid of any other description. This is succeeded by a short notice of two utilitates passed over by Panaetius-the care of the health and the care of the purse, after which a few words are added on the comparison of things expedient with each other.

In the third book it is demonstrated that there never can be any real collision between the honestum and the utile ; but that when an action is viewed through a proper medium the honestum will invariably be found to be inseparable from the utile and the utile from the honestum, a proposition which had been briefly enunciated at the beginning of book second, but is here fully developed and largely illustrated. A number of difficult cases are then stated, which serve as exercises in the application of the rules laid down, among which a prominent place is assigned to the story of Regulus.

The Editio Princeps of the De Officiis is one of the oldest specimens of classical typography in existence, having been printed along with the Paradoxa by Fust and Schöffer at Mayence in 1465 and again in 1466, both in small 4to. These are not of excessive rarity, and occur more frequently upon vellum than upon paper. Next copies an edition in 4to., without date or name of place or of printer, but generally recognised as from the press of Ulric Zell, at Cologne, about 1467, which were followed by that of Ulric Hann, fol., Rome, 1468-9, also without name or date, that of Sweynheym and Pannartz, Rome, fol., 1469, of Vindelin de Spira, Venice, fol., 1470, and of Eggesteyn, Strasburg, 4to., 1770. Many of these have given rise to lengthened controversies among bibliographers, the substance of which will be found in Dibdin's "Introduction to the Classics," Lond. 1827. Among the almost countless editions which have appeared since the end of the 15th century, it is sufficient to specify those of Heusinger, Brunswick, 8vo., 1783, which first presented a really pure text and has been repeatedly reprinted; of Gernhard, Leipzig, 8vo., 1811; and of Beier, 2 vols. 8vo., Leipzig, 1820-21, which may be considered as the best.

Literature : — A. Buscher, Ethicae Ciceronianae Libri II., Hamb. 1610; R. G. Rath, Cicero de Officiis in brevi conspectu, Hall. 1803; Thorbecke, Princip. phil. mor. e Ciceronis Op., Leyden, 1817 ; and the remarks which accompany the translation of Garve, of which a sixth edition was published at Breslau in 1819.

2. De Virtutibus.

This work, if it ever existed, which is far from being certain, must have been intended as a sort of supplement to the De Officiis, just as Aristotle added a tract, περὶ ἀρετῶν, to his Ethics. (Hieron. in Zachar. Prophet. Comment. i. 2; Charisius, ii. p. 186.)

3. Cato Major s. De Senectute.

This little tract, drawn up at the end of в. с. 45 or the commencement of в. с. 44, for the purpose of pointing out how the burden of old age may be most easily supported, is addressed to Atticus, who was now in his sixty-eighth year, while Cicero himself was in his sixty-second or sixty-third. It is first mentioned in a letter written from Puteoli on the 11th of May, в. с. 44 (ad Att. xiv. 21, comp. xvii. 11), and is there spoken of as already in the hands of his friend. In the short introductory dialogue, Scipio Aemilianus and Laelius are supposed to have paid a visit during the consulship of T. Quinctius Flamininus and M.' Acilius Balbus (в. с. 150; see c. 5 and 10) to Cato the censor, at that time 84 years old. Beholding with admiration the activity of body and cheerfulness of mind which he displayed, they request him to point out by what means the weight of increasing years may be most easily borne. Cato willingly complies, and commences a dissertation in which he seeks to demonstrate how unreasonable are the complaints usually urged regarding the miseries which attend the close of a protracted life. The four principal objections are stated and refuted in regular succession. It is held that old age is wretched, 1. Because it incapacitates men for active business; 2. Because it renders the body feeble; 3. Because it deprives them of the enjoyment of almost all pleasures ; 4. Because it heralds the near approach of death. The first three are met by producing examples of many illustrious personages in whom old age was not attended by any of these evils, by arguing that such privations are not real but imaginary misfortunes, and that if the relish for some pleasures is lost, other delights of a more desirable and substantial character are substituted. The fourth objection is encountered still more boldly, by an eloquent declaration that the chief happiness of old age in the eyes of the philosopher arises from the conviction, that it indicates the near approach of death, that is, the near approach of the period when the soul shall be released from its debasing connexion with the body, and enter unfettered upon the paths of immortality.

This piece has always been deservedly esteemed as one of the most graceful moral essays bequeathed to us by antiquity. The purity of the language, the liveliness of the illustrations, the dignity of the sentiments, and the tact with which the character of the strong-minded but self-satisfied and garrulous old man is maintained, have excited universal applause. But however pleasing the picture here presented to us, every one must perceive that it is a fancy sketch, not the faithful copy of a scene from nature. In fact the whole treatise is a tissue of special pleading on a question which is discussed in the same tone of extravagance on the opposite side by Juvenal in his tenth satire. The logic also is bad, for in several instances general propositions are attacked by a few specious particular cases which are mere exceptions to the rule. No one can doubt the truth of the assertions, that old age does incapacitate us for active business, that it does render the body feeble, and that it does blunt the keenness of our senses ; but while it is a perfectly fair style of argument to maintain that these are imaginary and not real ills, it is utterly absurd to deny their existence, because history affords a few instances of favoured individuals who have bееn exempted from their influence.

Cicero appears to have been indebted for the idea, if not for the plan, of this work to Aristo of Chios, a Stoic philosopher (c. 1 ) ; much has been translated almost literally from the Republic of Plato (see cc. 2, 3, 14), and more freely from the Oeconomics and Cyropaedeia of Xenophon. The passage with regard to the immortality of the soul is derived from the Timaeus, the Phaedon, the Phaedrus, and the Menon (see Kühner, p. 116), and some editors have traced the observations upon the diseases of young men (c. 19) to Hippocrates. It must be remarked, that although Cato was a rigid follower of the Porch, the doctrines here propounded have little of the austerity of that sect, but savour more of the gentle and easy discipline of the Peripatetics. (Kühner, l. с.)

The five earliest editions of the Cato Major were all printed at Cologne, the first three by Ulric Zell, the fourth by Winter de Homborch, the fifth by Arnold Therhoernen, not one of which bears a date, but some of them are certainly older than the edition of the collected philosophical works printed at Rome, in 2 vols, fol., by Sweynheym and Pannartz, which contains the De Senectute. [See above, p. 719, b.] The best modern editions arc those of Gernhard, which include the Paradoxa also, Leipzig, 8vo., 1819, and of Otto, Leipzig, 1830.

4. Laelius s. De Amicitia.

This dialogue was written after the preceding, to which it may be considered as forming a companion. Just as the dissertation upon old age was placed in the mouth of Cato because he had been distinguished for energy of mind and body preserved entire to the very close of a long life, so the steadfast attachment which existed between Scipio and Laelius pointed out the latter as a person peculiarly fitted to enlarge upon the advantages of friendship and the mode in which it might best be cultivated. To no one could Cicero dedicate such a treatise with more propriety than to Atticus, the only individual among his contemporaries to whom he gave his whole heart.

The imaginary conversation is supposed to have taken place between Laelius and his two sons-in- law, C. Fannius and Q. Mucius Scaevola, a few days after the death of Africanus (в. с. 129), and to have been repeated, in after times, by Scaevola to Cicero. Laelius begins by a panegyric on his friend. Then, at the request of the young men, he explains his own sentiments with regard to the origin, nature, limits, and value of friendship ; traces its connexion with the higher moral virtues, and lays down the rules which ought to be observed in order to render it permanent and mutually advantageous. The most pleasing feature in this essay is the simple sincerity with which it is impressed. The author casts aside the affectation of learning, and the reader feels convinced throughout that he is speaking from his heart. In giving full expression to the most amiable feelings, his experience, knowledge of human nature, and sound sense, enabled him to avoid all fantastic exaggeration, and, without sacrificing his dignified tone, or pitching bis standard too low, he brings down the subject to the level of ordinary comprehension, and sets before us a model which all may imitate.

The exordium is taken from the Theaetetus, and in the 8th chapter we detect a correspondence with a passage in the Lysis of Plato ; the Ethics of Aristotle, and the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon afforded some suggestions ; a strong resemblance can be traced in the fragments of Theo- phrastus περὶ φιλίας, and some hints are supposed to have been taken from Chrysippus περὶ φιλίας and περὶ τοῦ δικάζειν. (Kühner, p. 118.)

The Editio Princeps was printed at Cologne by Joh. Guldenschaff, the second, which includes the Paradoxa, at the same place by Ulric Zell ; neither bears any date, but both are older than the collection of the philosophical works printed at Rome in 2 vols. fol. by Sweynheym and Pannartz, 1471, which contains the Laelius. The best modern editions are those of Gernhard, Leipzig, 8vo. 1825, and of Beier, Leipzig, 12mo. 1828

5. De Gloria Libri II.

Cicero completed a work under the above title, in two books dedicated to Atticus, on the 4th of July, в. c. 44. A few words only having been preserved, we have no means of determining the manner or tone in which the subject was handled. Petrarch was in possession of a MS. of the De Gloria, which afterwards passed into the hands of Bernardo Giustiniani, a Venetian, and then disappeared. Paulus Manutius and Jovius circulated a story that it had been destroyed by Petrus Alcyonius, who had stolen numerous passages and inserted them in his own treatise De Exilio; but this calumny has been refuted by Tiraboschi in his history of Italian literature. (See Orelli's Cicero, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 487: Cic. de Off. ii. 9, ad Att. xv. 27, xvi. 2.)

6. De Consolatione s. De Luctu minuendo.

This treatise was written в. c. 45, soon after the death of his beloved daughter, Tullia, when seeking distraction and relief in literary pursuits. We learn from Pliny (praef. H.N.), that the work of Crantor the Academician was closely followed. A few inconsiderable fragments have been preserved chiefly by Lactantius, and will be found in Orelli's Cicero, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 489. The tract published at Venice in 1583 under the title Consolatio Ciceronis is a notorious forgery, executed, as is generally believed, by Sigonius or Vianellus. (Cic. ad Att. xii. 20, 23, Tuscul. iii. 28, 31 ; Augustin, de Civ. Dei, xix. 4 ; Hieran. Epitaph. Nepot.)

D. Speculative Philosophy.

1. Academicorum Libri II.

The history of this work before it finally quitted the hands of its author is exceedingly curious and somewhat obscure, but must be clearly understood before we can explain the relative position of those portions of it which have been transmitted to modern times. By comparing carefully a series of letters written to Atticus in the course of в. с. 45 (ad Att. xiii. 32,12—14, 16, 18, 19, 21—23, 25, 35, 44), we find that Cicero had drawn up a treatise upon the Academic Philosophy in the form of a dialogue between Catulus, Lucullus, and Hortensius, and that it was comprised in two books, the first bearing the name of Catulus, the second that of Lucullus. A copy was sent to Atticus, and soon after it had reached him, two new introductions were composed, the one in praise of Catulus, the other in praise of Lucullus. Scarcely had this been done, when Cicero, from a conviction that Catulus, Lucullus, and Hortensius, although men of highly cultivated minds, and well acquainted with general literature, were known to have been little conversant with the subtle arguments of abstruse philosophy, determined to withdraw them altogether, and accordingly substituted Cato and Brutus in their place. (Ad. Att. xiiii. 16.) Immediately after this change had been introduced, he received a communication from Atticus representing that Varro was much offended by being passed over in the discussion of topics in which he was deeply versed. Thereupon, Cicero, catching eagerly at the idea thus suggested, resolved to recast the whole piece, and quickly produced, under the old title, a new and highly improved edition, divided into four books instead of two, dedicating the whole to Varro, to whom was assigned the task of defending the tenets of Antiochus of Ascalon, while the author himself undertook to support the views of Philo, Atticus also taking a share in the conversation. But although these alterations were effected with great rapidity, the copy originally sent to Atticus had in the meantime been repeatedly transcribed : hence both editions passed into circulation, and a part of each has been preserved. One section, containing 12 chapters, is a short fragment of the first book of the second or Varronian edition ; the other, containing 49 chapters, is the entire second book of the first edition, to which is prefixed the new introduction noticed above (ad Att. xiii. 32), together with the proper title of Lucullus. Thus it appears that the first book of the first edition has been altogether lost, and the whole of the second edition, with the exception of the fragment of the first book already mentioned and a few scraps quoted by Lactantius, Augustin, and the grammarians. Upon examining the dates of the letters referred to, it will be seen that the first edition had been despatched to Atticus about the middle of June, for the new introductions were written by the 27th (ad Att. xiii. 32) ; that the second edition, which is spoken of with great complacency—" Libri quidem ita exierunt (nisi forte me communis φιλαυτία decipit), ut in tali genere ne apud Graecos quidem simile quidquam"—was fully completed towards the close of July (ad Att. xiii. 15), a few days before the last touches had been given to the De Finibus (xiii. 19) ; and that it was actually in the possession of Varro before the ides of August. (xiii. 35, 44.) Goerenz has taken great pains to prove that these books were published under the title of Academica, and that the appellation Academicae Quaestiones, or Academicае Disputationes, by which they are frequently distinguished, are without authority and altogether inappropriate.

The object proposed was, to give an accurate narrative of the rise and progress of the Academic Philosophy, to point out the various modifications introduced by successive professors, and to demonstrate the superiority of the principles of the New Academy, as taught by Philo, over those of the Old Academy, as advocated by Antiochus of Ascalon. It is manifestly impossible, under existing circumstances, to determine with certainty the amount of difference between the two editions. That there was a considerable difference is certain, for, although Cicero was in the first instance induced to depart from his plan merely because be considered the topics discussed out of keeping with the character of the individuals who were represented as discussing them, still the division of the two books into four necessarily implies some important change in the arrangement if not in the substance of the subject-matter. We are, moreover, expressly informed, that many things were omitted, and that the four books of the second edition, although more concise than the two of the first, were at the same time better and more brilliant (splendidiora, breviora, meliora). It is probable that the first book of the first edition, after giving a sketch of the leading principles of the different branches of the Academy as they grew out of each other in succession, was occupied with a detailed investigation of the speculations of Carneades, just as those of Philo, which were adopted to a certain extent by Cicero himself, form the leading theme of the second. What remains of the first book of the second edition enables us to discover that it was devoted to the history of Academic opinions from the time of Socrates and Plato, who were regarded as the fathers of the sect, down to Antiochus, from whom Cicero himself had in his youth received instruction while residing at Athens. The second book may have been set apart for an inquiry into the theories of Arcesilas, who, although the real founder of the New Academy, appears to have been alluded to in the former edition only in an incidental and cursory manner; while the third and fourth books would embrace the full and clear development and illustration of his pregnant though obscure doctrines, as explained in the eloquent disquisitions of Carneades and Philo. Such is the opinion of Goerenz, and although it does not admit of strict proof, yet it is highly plausible in itself, and is fully corroborated by the hints and indications which appear in those portions of the dialogue now extant.

The scene of the Catulus was the villa of that statesman at Cumae, while the Lucullus is supposed to have been held at the mansion of Hortensius near Bauli. The dialogues of the second edition commence at the Cumanum of Varro ; but, as we learn from a fragment of the third book quoted by Nonius Marcellus, the parties repaired during the course of the conference to the shores of the Lucrine lake.

The Editio Princeps is included in the collection of Cicero's philosophical works printed in 2 vols, fol. by Sweynheym and Pannartz, Rome, 1471, see above, p. 719, b. The edition of Davis, Camb. 8vo. 1725, was frequently reprinted, and for along period remained the standard, but is now superseded by those of Goerenz, Leipzig, 8vo. 1810, forming the first volume of his edition of the philosophical works of Cicero ; and of Orelli, Zurich, 8vo. 1827

2. De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum Libri V.

A series of dialogues dedicated to M. Brutus, in which the opinions of the Grecian schools, especially of the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics, on the Supreme Good, that is, the finis, object, or end, towards which all our thoughts, desires, and actions are or ought to be directed,—the kernel, as it were, of practical wisdom,—are expounded, compared, and discussed. The style is throughout perspicuous and highly polished, the doctrines of the different sects are stated with accurate impartiality according to the representations contained in accredited authorities; but, from the abstruse nature of many of the points investigated, and the subtilty of the arguments by which the different positions are defended, this treatise must be regarded as the most difficult, while it is the most perfect and finished, of all the philosophical performances of Cicero.

These conversations are not supposed to have been all held at the same period, nor in the same place, nor between the same parties. They agree in this, that, after the fashion of Aristotle (ad Att. xiii. 19), the author throughout assumes the most prominent place, and that the rest of the actors, at least those to whom important parts are assigned, were dead at the time of publication—a precaution taken to avoid giving umbrage to living men by exciting jealousy in reference to the characters which they are respectively represented as supporting (azêlotupêton, id fore putram, ad Att. l. c.), but the time, the scene, and the performers are twice changed. In the third and fourth books they are different from those in the first and second, and in the fifth from those in any of the preceding.

The first book opens with an apology for the study of philosophy; after which Cicero relates, for the information of Brutus, a debate which took place at his Cumanum, in the presence of C. Valerius Triarius, between Cicero himself and L. Manlius Torquatus, who is represented as being praetor elect and just about to enter upon his office—a circumstance which fixes this imaginary colloquy to the close of the year в. с. 50, a date agreeing perfectly with the allusion (ii. 18) to the excessive power then wielded by Pompey. Cicero, being challenged by Torquatus to state his objections to the discipline of Epicurus, briefly impugns in general terms his system of physics, his imperfect logic, and, above all, the dogma that the Supreme Good is Pleasure, and the Supreme Evil, Pain. This elicits from Torquatus a lengthened explanation of the sentiments really entertained by Epicurus and the worthiest of his followers respecting hêdonê, sentiments which he contends had been misunderstood and misrepresented, but whose truth he undertakes to demonstrate in a series of propositions ; in opposition to which Cicero, in the second book, sets in array the reasonings by which the Stoics assailed the whole system. In the third book we find ourselves in the library of young Lucullus in his Tusculan villa, to which Cicero had repaired for the purpose of consulting a work of Aristotle, and there meets Cato, immersed in study and surrounded by the books of the Stoics. In this way a controversy arises, in which Cicero maintains, that there was no real discordance between the ethics of the Porch and those previously promulgated by the Old Academy and the Peripatetics ; that the differences were merely verbal, and that Zeno had no excuse for breaking off from Plato and Aristotle, and establishing a new school, which presented the same truths in a worse form. These assertions are vigorously combated by Cato, who argues, that the principles of his sect were essentially distinct, and descants with great energy on the superior purity and majesty of their ideas concerning the Supreme Good; in reply to which Cicero, in the fourth book, employs the weapons with which the New Academy attacked the Stoics. The second discourse is supposed to have been held in в. с. 52, for we find a reference (iv. 1) to the famous provision for limiting the length of speeches at tile bar contained in a law passed by Pompey against bribery in his second consulship, an enactment here spoken of as having recently come into force. This was the year also in which L. Lucullus the elder died and left his son under the guardianship of Cato.

In the fifth book we are carried hack to в. с. 79 and transported from Italy to Athens, where Cicero was at that time prosecuting his studies. [See above, p. 709, b.] The dramatis personae are Cicero himself, his brother Quintus, his cousin Lucius, Pomponius Atticus, and M. Pupius Piso. These friends having met in the Academia, the genius of the place calls up the recollection of the mighty spirits who had once trod that holy ground, and Piso, at the request of his companion, enters into a full exposition of the precepts inculcated by Aristotle and his successors on the Summum Bonum, the whole being wound up by a statement on the part of Cicero of the objections of the Stoics, and a reply from Piso. The reason which induced Cicero to carry this last dialogue back to his youthful days was the difficulty he experienced in finding a fitting advocate for the Peripatetic doctrines, which had made but little progress among his countrymen. M. Brutus and Terentius Varro were both alive, and therefore excluded by his plan; L. Lucullus, although dead, was not of sufficient weight to be introduced with propriety on such an occasion ; Piso alone remained, but in consequence of the quarrel between Cicero and himself arising out of his support of Clodius, it was necessary to choose an epoch when their friendship was as yet unshaken. (See Goerenz, introd. xix.) It will be observed that throughout, the author abstains entirely from pronouncing any judgment of his own. The opinions of the Epicureans are first distinctly explained, then follows the refutation by the Stoics ; the opinions of the Stoics are next explained, then follows the refutation by the New Academy; in the third place, the opinions of the Peripatetics are explained, then follows the refutation by the Stoics. In setting forth the opinions of Epicurus, in addition to the writings of that sage enumerated by Diogenes Laërtius, much use seems to have been made of his epistle to Menoeceus and his περὶ κυριῶν δοξῶν, and not unfrequently the very words of the original Greek have been literally translated ; while the lectures of Phaedrus and Zeno [see above, p. 709] would supply accurate information as to the changes and additions introduced by the successive disciples of the Garden after the death of their master. The Stoical refutation of Epicurus, in book second, was probably derived from Chrysippus περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ τῆς ἡδονῆς and from the writings and oral communications of Posidonius [see above, p. 709, b.]; the Stoical doctrines in book third were taken from Zeno, from Diogenes, and from Chrysippus περὶ τελῶν; the refutation of the Stoics in book fourth probably proceeds from Carneades. The Peripatetical doctrines in book fifth are from Aristotle and Theophrastus, as explained and enlarged by Antiochus of Ascalon; while the Stoical objections are in all probability due to Diodotus [see above p. 709, a.], who, we are told elsewhere, was strongly opposed to Antiochus. (Acad. ii. 36.)

In determining the precise date at which the work before us was completed and published, we cannot agree with Goerenz, that the expression "duo magna suntagmata absolvi" (ad Att. xii. 45, 11th June, в. с. 45) can with certainty be made to comprehend both the De Finibus and the Academica. No distinct notice of the former occurs until the 27th of June, when, in a letter to Atticus, (xiii. 32,) we find "Torquatus Romae est. Misi ut tibi daretur," where Torquatus denotes the first book. On the 24th of July (ad Att. xiii. 12), the treatise is spoken of as finished. " Nunc illam περὶ τελῶν σύνταξιν, sane mihi probatam, Bruto, ut tibi placuit, despondimus." Again, on the 30th of the same month, " Ita confeci quinque libros περὶ τελῶν, ut Epicurea L. Torquato, Stoica M. Catoni, περιπατητικά M. Pisoni darem. Ὰζηλοτύπητον id fore putaram, quod oranes illi decesserant" (ad Att. xiii. 19); and we learn from an epistle, despatched only two days afterwards (ad Att. xiii. 21, comp. 22), that it had been for some time in the hands of Atticus, through whom Balbus had obtained a copy of the fifth book, while the widow Caerellia, in her philosophic zeal, had contrived by some means to get possession of the whole. Cicero complains of this for two reasons ; first, because it was but fitting that since the work was dedicated to Brutus it should be presented to him before it became trite and stale, and in the second place, because he had made some changes in the last book; which he was desirous to insert before finally dismissing it from his hands. It is not unlikely that the formal presentation to Brutus took place about the middle of August, when he paid a visit to Cicero at his Tusculanum (ad Att. xiii. 44), and that two editions of the fifth book, differing in some respects from each other, may have gone abroad, which will account for some singular variations and interpolations which have long exercised the ingenuity of editors. (See Goerenz. praef. p. xiv.)

The Editio Princeps in 4to. is without date, name of place or printer, but is believed to have appeared at Cologne, from the press of Ulric Zell, about 1467, and was followed by the edition of Joannes ex Colonia, 4to., Venice, 1471. The edition of Davis, 8vo., Cambridge, 1728, was long held in high estimation, and frequently reprinted, but is now superseded by those of Rath, Hal. Sax. 8vo., 1804; of Goerenz, Leipz. 1813, 8vo., forming the third volume of the collected philosophical works; of Otto, Leipz. 8vo., 1831; and, last and best of all, of Madvig, Copenhagen, 1839, 8vo.

3. Tusculanarum Disputationem Libri V.

This work, addressed to M. Brutus, is a series of discussions on various important points of practical philosophy supposed to have been held in the Tusculanum of Cicero, who, on a certain occasion, soon after the departure of Brutus for the government of Gaul (B. C. 46), requested one of the numerous circle of friends and visitors by whom he was surrounded, to propose some subject for debate which he then proceeded to examine as he sat or walked about. These exercises were continued for five days, a new topic being started and exhausted at each successive conference. There is an utter want of dramatic effect in this collection of dialogues, for the antagonist is throughout anonymous, and is not invested with any life or individuality, but is a sort of a man of straw who brings forward a succession of propositions which are bowled down by Cicero as fast as they are set up. This personage is usually designated in MSS. by the letter A, and editors have amused themselves by quarrelling about the import of the symbol which they have variously interpreted to mean Atticus, Adolescens, Auditor, and so forth. There is little room for doubt as to the period when this work was actually composed, since it abounds in allusions to historical events and to former treatises which enable us, when taken in connexion with other circumstances, to determine the question within very narrow limits. Thus, in the eleventh chapter of the fifth book, we have a reference to the De Finibus which was not published until the month of August, в. с. 45, while the dissertations before us were familiarly known before the middle of May in the following year (ad Att. xv. 24), and must consequently have been given to the world early in в. с. 44, since the task appears to have been undertaken just at the time when the Academica were completed (ad Att. xiii. 32). Schütz (Proleg.) has satisfactorily proved that Tusculanae Disputationes is the true title, and not Tusculanae Quaestiones as a few MSS. have it.

The first book treats of the wisdom of despising death which, it is maintained, cannot be considered as an evil either to the living or to the dead, whether the soul be mortal or immortal. This leads to an investigation of the real nature of death, and a review of the opinions entertained by different philosophers with regard to the soul. The arguments for its immortality are derived chiefly from the writings of the Stoics and of Plato, especially from the Phaedon.

The second book is on the endurance of pain, in which it is demonstrated, after Zeno, Aristo, and Pyrrho, that pain is not an evil, in opposition to Aristippus and Epicurus, who held it to be the greatest evil, to Hieronymus of Rhodes, who placed the chief good in the absence of pain, and to the numerous band of philosophers, belonging to different schools, who agreed that pain was an evil, although not the greatest of evils. Here everything is taken from the Stoics.

In the third book it is proved that a wise man is insensible to sorrow; and the doctrines of the Peripatetics, of Epicurus, of the Cyrenaics, and of Crantor, being examined in turn, and weighed against the tenets of Zeno, are found wanting. The authorities chiefly consulted appear to have been Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Cleitomachus, Antiochus of Ascalon, Carneades, and Epicurus περὶ τέλους.

The thesis supported in the fourth book, which forms a continuation to the preceding, is, that the wise man is absolutely free from all mental disquietude (animi perturbatione). We have first a curious classification of perturbations in which the terms sorrow, joy, fear, pity, and a host of others, are carefully analysed and defined according to the discipline of the Porch; and, after a few remarks upon the main proposition, we find a long essay on the best means of tranquillising the heart, and fortifying it against the attacks of all those passions and desires which must be regarded as diseases of the mind. Here again the Stoics, and especially Zeno and Chrysippus, are chiefly followed, although several hints can be traced to Aristotle, Plato, and even to the Pythagoreans.

The fifth book contains a reply in theaffirmative to the question, whether virtue is in itself sufficient to insure happiness, thus carrying out to its full extent the grand moral dogma of the Stoics in opposition to the more qualified views of the Peripatetics and Academics. The materials for this section were supplied by Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Xenocrates, Speusippus, Polemo, Carneades, and the Stoics. (v. 12, 13, 18, 27.)

Although each of these five books is complete within itself and independent of the rest, yet we feel inclined to adopt the hypothesis of Olivet, that they were drawn up and digested according to a regular and well-imagined plan, and ought to be taken in connexion with each other as forming one harmonious whole. In fact, all the reasonings converge to one point. They all act in unison to defend one position—that man possesses within himself the means of securing his own happiness. To make this evident it was necessary to expose the folly of those alarms, and the weakness of those assailants by which tranquillity is scared away from the human bosom. Hence, the fear of death, and the fear of pain, are shewn to be the result of ignorance and error, while joy, sorrow, love, hatred, with the whole array of desires and passions which excite such tumults, are treated as mere visionary unsubstantial forms which the sage can dissipate by a vigorous exertion of his will.

The Tusculan Disputations are certainly inferior in recondite learning, in subtle reasoning, and in elaborately finished composition, to the Academica, the De Finibus, and the De Officiis ; yet no one among the philosophical essays of Cicero is more deservedly popular, or forms a better introduction to such studies, on account of the easy, familiar, and perspicuous language in which the ideas are expressed, and the liveliness imparted to each of the discourses by the numerous entertaining and apt illustrations, many of which being poetical quotations from the earlier bards, are in themselves highly interesting to the grammarian and the historian of literature. Certainly no work has ever been more enthusiastically, perhaps extravagantly, admired. Erasmus, after ascribing to it every conceivable excellence both in matter and manner, declares his conviction, that the author was directly inspired from heaven, while another worthy deems that his faith must have been of the same quality with that of Abraham.

The Editio Princeps was printed at Rome by Ulric Han, 4to., 1469; the second by Gering, Crantz, and Friburg, fol., Paris, about 1471, followed by several others in the 15th century. Of modern editions, that of Davis, 8vo., Camb. 1709, containing the emendations of Bentley, was long highly valued and was frequently reprinted, but is now superseded by those of Rath, Hal. 8vo., 1805 ; of Orelli, including the Paradoxa, and enriched with a collection of the best commentaries, Zurich, 8vo., 1829; of Kühner, Jenae, 8vo. 1829, second edition, 1835; and of Moser, Hannov., 3 vols. 8vo., 1836-37, which is the most complete of any,

4. Paradoxa.

Six favourite Paradoxes of the Stoics explained in familiar language, defended by popular arguments, and illustrated occasionally by examples derived from contemporary history, by which means they are made the vehicles for covert attacks upon Crassus, Hortensius, and Lucullus, and for vehement declamation against Clodius. This must not be viewed as a serious work, or one which the author viewed in any other light than that of a mere jeu d'esprit (" Ego vero, illa ipsa, quae vix in gymnasiis et in otio Stoici probant, ludens conjeci in communes locos, praef.), for the propositions are mere philosophical quibbles, and the arguments by which they are supported are palpably unsatisfactory and illogical, resolving themselves into a juggle with words, or into induction resting upon one or two particular cases. The theorems enunciated for demonstration are, 1. That which is morally fair (τὸ καλόν) is alone good (ἁγαθὸν). 2. Virtue alone is requisite to secure happiness. 3. Good and evil deeds admit of no degrees, i. e. all crimes are equally heinous, all virtuous actions equally meritorious. 4. Every fool is a madman. 5. The wise man alone is free, and therefore every man not wise is a slave. 6. The wise man alone is rich.

The preface, which is addressed to M. Brutus, must have been written early in в. с. 46, for Cato is spoken of in such terms that we cannot doubt that he was still alive, or at all events that intelligence of his fate had not yet reached Italy, and there is also a distinct allusion to the De Claris Oratoribus as already published. But although the offering now presented is called a " parvum opusculum," the result of studies prosecuted during the shorter nights which followed the long watchings in which the Brutus had been prepared, it is equally certain that the fourth paradox bears decisive evidence of having been composed before the death of Clodius (в. с. 52), and the sixth before the death of Crassus (в. с. 53). Hence we must conclude that Cicero, soon after his arrival at Rome from Brundusium, amused himself by adding to a series of rhetorical trifles commenced some years before, and then despatched the entire collection to his friend.

The Editio Princeps of the Paradoxa was printed along with the De Officiis, by Fust and Schöffer, at Mayence, 4to., 1465, and reprinted at the same place by Fust and Gernshem, fol., 1466. They were published along with the De Officiis, De Amicitia, and De Senectute, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, 4to., Rome, 1469; and the same, with the addition of the Somnium Scipionis, by Vindelin de Spira, Venice, 4to., 1470; besides which there are a very great number of other editions belonging to the 15th century. The most useful editions are those of Wetzel, 8vo., Lignitz, 1808, and of Gernhard, 8vo., Leipz. 1819, the former containing also the De Senectute and the De Amicitia, the latter the De Senectute. The Paradoxa were published separately by Borgers, 8vo., Leyden, 1826.

5. Hortensius s. De Philosophia.

A dialogue in praise of philosophy, drawn up for the purpose of recommending such pursuits to the Romans. Hortensius was represented as depreciating the study and asserting the superior claims of eloquence; his arguments were combated by Q. Lutatius Catulus, L. Licinius Lucullus, Balbus the Stoic, Cicero himself, and perhaps other personages. The work was composed and published в. с. 45, immediately before the Academica, but the imaginary conversation must have been supposed to have been held at some period earlier than в. с. 60, the year in which Catulus died. A considerable number of unimportant fragments have been preserved by St. Augustin, whose admiration is expressed in language profanely hyperbolical, and by the grammarians. These have been carefully collected and arranged by Nobbe, and are given in Orelli's Cicero, vol. iv. pt. ii. pp. 479-486. (Cic. de Divin. ii. 1, Tuscul. ii. 2.)

6. Timaeus s. De Universo.

We possess a fragment of a translation of Plato's Timaeus, executed after the completion of the Academica, as we learn from the prooemium. It extends from p. 22, ed. Bekker, with occasional blanks as far as p. 54, and affords a curious specimen of the careless and inaccurate style in which Cicero was wont to represent the meaning of his Greek originals. It was first printed in the edition of Sweynheym and Pannartz, 1471, and with a commentary by G. Valla, at Venice, in 1485. It is given in Orelli's Cicero, vol. iv. pt. ii. pp. 495—513.

7. Protagoras ex Platone.

A translation of the Protagoras of Plato into Latin. At what period this was executed we cannot determine, but it is generally believed to have been an exercise undertaken in early youth. A few words seem to have been preserved by Priscian on Donatus, which will be found in Orelli's Cicero, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 477. (Comp. Cic. de Off. ii. 24 ; Quintil. x. 5. § 2.)

E. Theology.

1. De Natura Deorum Libri III.

Three dialogues dedicated to M. Brutus, in which the speculations of the Epicureans and the Stoics on the existence, attributes, and providence of a Divine Being are fully stated and discussed at length, the debate being illustrated and diversified by frequent references to the opinions entertained upon these topics by the most celebrated philosophers. The number of sects and of individuals enumerated is so great, and the field of philosophic research thrown open is so wide, that we can scarcely believe that Cicero could have had recourse to original sources for the whole mass of information which he lavishes so profusely on his subject, but must conclude that he made use of some useful manual or summary, such as were doubtless compiled by the preceptors of those days for the use of their pupils, containing a view of the tenets of different schools presented in a condensed form. Be that as it may, in no production do we more admire the vigorous understanding and varied learning of the author, in none does he display a greater command over appropriate language, in none are liveliness and grace more happily blended with lucid arrangement and brilliant eloquence. Although the materials may have been collected by degrees, they were certainly moulded into shape with extraordinary rapidity, for we know that this work was published immediately after the Tusculan Disputations, and immediately before the De Divinatione (de Div. ii. 1), and that the whole three appeared in the early part of в. с. 44. The imaginary conversation is supposed to have been held in the presence of Cicero, somewhere about the year B. C. 76, at the house of C. Aurelius Cotta, the pontifex maximus (consul в. с. 75), who well sustains the part of a New Academician, attacking and overthrowing the doctrines of others without advancing any dogma of his own, while the discipline of the Porch, mixed up however with much that belongs rather to Plato and Aristotle, is developed with great earnestness and power by Q. Lucilius Balbus, the pupil of Panaetius, and the doctrines of the Garden are playfully supported by Velleius (trib. pleb. в. с. 90), who occupies himself more in ridiculing the speculations of different schools than in any laboured defence of those espoused by himself. Accordingly, in the first book he opens with an attack upon Plato and the Stoics; he then adverts briefly to the theories of no less than 27 of the most famous philosophers, commencing with Thales of Miletus and ending with Diogenes of Babylon, characterizing them, in many cases not unjustly, as little superior to the dreams of madmen, the fables of poets, or the superstitions of the vulgar. Passing on from this motley crew to Epicurus, he pronounces him worthy of all praise, first, because he alone placed the argument for the existence of gods upon its proper and only firm basis,—the belief implanted by nature in the hearts of all mankind; secondly, because he assigned to them their real attributes, happiness, immortality, apathy; representing them as dwelling within themselves, susceptible of neither pleasure nor pain from without, bestowing no benefits and inflicting no evils on men, but fit objects of honour and worship on account of their essential excellence, a series of propositions which are carefully elucidated by an inquiry into the form, the mode of existence, and the mental constitution of divine beings. Cotta now comes forward, takes up each point in succession, and overturns the whole fabric piecemeal. He first proves that the reasons assigned by Epicurus for the existence of gods are utterly inadequate; secondly, that, granting their existence, nothing can be less dignified than the form and attributes ascribed to them ; and thirdly, granting these forms and qualities, nothing more absurd than that men should render homage or feel gratitude to those from whom they have not received and do not hope to receive any benefits.

The second book contains an investigation of the question by Balbus, according to the principles of the Stoics, who divided the subject into four heads. 1. The existence of gods. 2. Their nature. 3. Their government of the world. 4. Their watchful care of human affairs (providence), which is in reality included under the third head. The existence of gods is advocated chiefly a. From the universal belief of mankind; b. From the well-authenticated accounts of their appearances upon earth; c. From prophesies, presentiments, omens, and auguries; d. From the evident proofs of design, and of the adaptation of means to a beneficent end, everywhere visible in the arrangements of the material world; e. From the nature of man himself and his mental constitution; f. From certain physical considerations which tend clearly and unequivocally to the establishment of a system of pantheism, the introduction of which is somewhat curious in this place, since, if admitted, it would at once destroy all the preceding arguments; g. From the gradual upward progression in the works of creation, from plants to animals and from the lower animals to man, which leads us to infer that the series ascends from mall to beings absolutely perfect. In treating of the nature of the gods, the pantheistic principle is again broadly asserted,—God is the Universe and the Universe is God,— whence is derived the conclusion that the Deity must be spherical in form, because the sphere is the most perfect of figures. But while the Universe is God as a whole, it contains within its parts many gods, among the number of whom are the heavenly bodies. Then follows a curious digression on the origin of the Greek and Roman Pantheon, and on the causes which led men to commit the folly of picturing to themselves gods differing in shape, in age, and in apparel; of assigning to them the relationships of domestic life, and of ascribing to them the desires and passions by which mortals are agitated. Lastly, the government and providence of the gods is deduced from three considerations: (α) From their existence, which being granted, it necessarily follows, that they must rule the world. (β) From the admitted truth, that all things are subject to the laws of Nature; but Nature, when properly defined and understood, is another name for God. (γ) From the beauty, harmony, wisdom, and benevolence, manifested in the works of creation. This last section is handled with great skill and effect; the absurdity of the doctrine which taught that the world was produced by a fortuitous concourse of atoms is forcibly exposed, while the arguments derived from astronomy, from the structure of plants, of fishes, of terrestial animals, and of the human frame, form a most interesting essay on natural theology. The whole is wound up by demonstrating that all things serviceable to man were made for his use, and that the Deity watches over the safety and welfare, not only of the whole human race collectively, but of every individual member of the family.

In the third book Cotta resumes the discourse for the purpose not of absolutely demolishing what has been advanced by Balbus, but of setting forth, after the fashion of the Sceptics, that the reasonings employed by the last speaker were unsatisfactory and not calculated to produce conviction. In following his course over the different divisions in order, we find two remarkable blanks in the text. By the first we lose the criticism upon the evidence for the visible appearances of the gods on earth; the second leaves us in ignorance of the doubts cast upon the belief of a general ruling Providence. We have no means of discovering how these deficiencies arose; but it has been conjectured, that the chapters were omitted by some early Christian transcriber, who conceived that they might be quoted for a special purpose by the enemies of revealed religion.

The authorities followed in these books, in so far as they can be ascertained, appear to have been, for the Epicurean doctrines, the numerous works of Epicurus himself, whose very words are sometimes quoted, and the lectures of his distinguished follower Zeno, which Cicero had attended while residing at Athens; in the development of the Stoic principles much was derived from Cleanthes, from Chrysippus, from Antipater of Tarsus, and from Posidonius περὶ θεῶν, while in the dexterous and subtle logic of Cotta we may unquestionably trace the master-spirit of Carneades as represented in the writings of his disciple Cleitomachus. (Kühner, p. 98.)

The Editio Princeps is included in the collection of the philosophical works of Cicero printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz, in 2 vols. fol., Rome, 1471. [See above, p. 719, b.] The edition of Davis, Camb. 8vo., 1718, long held the first place, and has been often reprinted; but that of Moser and Creuzer, 8vo., Leipz. 1818, must now be regarded as the best. The pretended 4th book published by Seraphinus at Bologna, 8vo., 1811, is an absurd forgery, if indeed the author ever intended or hoped to deceive, which seems doubtful.

2. De Divinatione Libri II.

This is intended as a continuation of the preceding work, out of which the inquiry naturally springs. We are here presented with an exposition of the conflicting opinions of the Porch and the Academy upon the reality of the science of divination, and the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in its professors. In the first book the doctrines of the Stoics are defended by Q. Cicero, who begins by dividing divination into two branches. 1. The divination of Nature. 2. The divination of Art. To the first belong dreams, inward presages, and presentiments, and the ecstatic phrenzy, during which the mind inspired by a god discerns the secrets of the future, and pours forth its conceptions in prophetic words; in the second are comprehended the indications yielded by the entrails of the slaughtered victim, by the flight, the cries, and the feeding of birds, by thunder and lightning, by lots, by astrology, and by all those strange sights and sounds which were regarded as the shadows cast before by coming events. A cloud of examples is brought to establish the certainty of each of the various methods, cases of failure being explained away by supposing an error in the interpretation of the sign, while the truth of the general principles is confirmed by an appeal to the concurring belief of philosophers, poets, and mankind at large. Silence Quintus maintains, that we are justified in concluding that the future is revealed to us both from within and from without, and that the information proceeds from the Gods, from Fate, or from Nature; having, however, previously insisted that he was not bound to explain how each circumstance came to pass, it being sufficient for his purpose if he could prove that it actually did come to pass.

In the second book Cicero himself brings forward the arguments of Carneades, who held that. divination was altogether a delusion, and that the knowledge which it pretends to convey, if real, would be a curse rather than a blessing to men. lie then proceeds to confute each of the propositions enunciated by his antagonist, and winds up by urging the necessity of upholding and extending the influence of true religion, and of waging a vigorous war in every quarter against superstition under every form.

Although many modern writers may be and probably are quite correct in their assertion, that the whole religious system of the Romans was a mere engine of government, that it was a deliberate cheat, in which men of education were the deceivers and the ignorant populace the dupes, yet we have no right in the present instance, and the same remark extends to all the philosophical writings, to pronounce that the reasonings employed by Cicero are to be taken as the expression of his own views. Here and elsewhere he always carefully guards himself against such an imputation ; his avowed object in every matter of controversy was merely to assist the judgment of the reader by stating fairly the strong points upon both sides of the question, scrupulously leaving the inference to be drawn by each individual, according to the impression produced. In the piece before us whatever may have been the private convictions of the author, it would have been little seemly in a member of that august college whose duty to the state consisted in presiding over and regulating augury to declare openly, that the whole of the discipline which he was required to enforce was a tissue of fraud and imposture; and Cicero above all others was the last man to be guilty of such a breach of public decency.

The scene of the conversation is the Lyceum in the Tusculanum of Cicero. The tract was composed after the death of Caesar, for that event is spoken of in the course of the debate.

Cicero appears to have consulted Chrysippus, who wrote several works upon this subject, especially a book entitled περὶ χρησμῶν, to have availed himself of the labours of Posidonius and Diogenes of Babylon περὶ μαντικῆς, and to have derived some assistance from Cratippus, Antipater, Plato, and Aristotle. In the second book he avowedly followed Carneades, and there is a reference (ii. 47) to Panaetius also. (See Kühner, p. 100.)

The Editio Princeps is included in the collection of Cicero's philosophical works, printed in 2 vols. fol., by Sweynheym and Pannartz, Rome, 1471. The edition of Davis, Camb. 8vo., 1721, containing the De Fato also, was for a long period the standard, but has now given way to that of Rath, Hal. 8vo., 1807, and especially to that superintended by Creuzer, Kayser, and Moser, 8vo., Frankf. 1828, which is superior to every other.

3. De Fato Liber Singularis.

A dialogue to complete the series upon speculative theology, of which the De Natura Deorum and the De Divinatione form the first two parts. (De Divin. ii. 1.) It is a confused and mutilated fragment on the subject of all others the most perplexing to unaided reason, the doctrine of predestination and its compatibility with free-will. The beginning and the end are wanting, and one if not more chasms break the continuity of what remains. We find it generally stated that the work consisted of two books, and that the whole or the greater portion of what has been preserved belongs to the second; but there is no evidence whatever to prove in what manner it was originally divided, nor do we know whether it was ever finished, although, judging from the careless style of the composition, we are led to infer that the author left his task incomplete. It would appear to have contained, or to have been intended to contain, a review of the opinions held by the chief philosophic sects upon Fate, or Destiny, the most prominent place being assigned to the Stoics—who maintained that Fate, or Destiny, was the great ruling power of the Universe, the λόγος or anima mundi, in other words, the Divine Essence from which all impulses were derived—and to the Academics, who conceived that the movements of the mind were voluntary, and independent of, or at least not necessarily subject to, external controul. The scene of conversation is the Puteolanum of Cicero, where he spent the months of April and May after the death of Caesar, the speakers being Cicero himself, and Hirtius, at that time consul-elect.

The De Fato has generally been published along with the De Divinatione ; all the editions of the latter, mentioned above contain it, and the same remarks apply.

4. De Auguriis — Auguralia.

Charisius quotes three words from a work of Cicero under the former title, Servius refers apparently to the same under the latter designation. We know nothing more upon the subject. (Charisius, i. p. 98, comp. p. 112; Serv. ad Virg. Aen. v. 737.)

2. Speeches.

In oratory Cicero held a position very different from that which he occupied in relation to philosophy, whether we consider the amount of exertion and toil bestowed on each pursuit respectively, or the obstacles external and internal which impeded his advancement. Philosophy was originally viewed by him merely as an instrument which might prove useful in fabricating weapons for the strife of the bar, and in bestowing a more graceful form on his compositions. Even after he had learned to prize more fully the study of mental science, it was regarded simply as an intellectual pastime. But the cultivation of eloquence constituted the main business of his whole life. It was by the aid of eloquence alone that he could hope to emerge from obscurity, and to rise to wealth and honour. Upon eloquence, therefore, all his energies were concentrated, and eloquence must be held as the most perfect fruit of his talents.

Cicero was peculiarly fortunate in flourishing during the only epoch in the history of his country which could have witnessed the full development of his intellectual strength; had he lived fifty years earlier public taste would not have been sufficiently refined to appreciate his accomplishments, fifty years later the motive for exertion would have ceased to exist. In estimating the degree of excellence to which Cicero attained, we must by no means confine ourselves, as in the case of the philosophical works, to a critical examination of the speeches in reference to the matter which they contain, and the style in which they are expressed, for in an art so eminently practical the result gained is a most important element in the computation. Even had the orations which have come down to us appeared poor and spiritless, we should nevertheless have been justified in concluding, that the man who unquestionably obtained a mastery over the minds of his hearers, and who worked his way to the first offices of state by the aid of eloquence alone, must have been a great orator; while, on the other hand, we could not have pronounced such an opinion with confidence from a mere perusal of his orations, however perfect they may appear as writings, unless we possessed the assurance, that they were always suited to the ears of those who listened to them, and generally produced the effect desired. This being premised, we may very briefly glance at the merits of these works as literary compositions, and then consider their characteristics with reference to the class to which they severally belong, and the audiences to whom they were addressed ; as deliberative or judicial; delivered in the senate, from the rostra, or before the tribunal of a judge.

Every one must at once be struck by the absolute command which Cicero had over the resources of his native tongue. His words seem to gush forth without an effort in an ample stream; and the sustained dignity of his phraseology is preserved from pompous stiffness by the lively sallies of a ready wit and a vivid imagination, while the happy variety which he communicated to his cadences prevents the music of his carefullymeasured periods from filling on the ear with cloying monotony. It is a style which attracts without startling, which fixes without fatiguing the attention. It presents a happy medium between the florid exuberance of the Asiatic school and the meagre dryness which Calvus, Brutus, and their followers mistook for Attic terseness and vigour. But this beauty, although admirably calculated to produce a powerful impression for the moment, loses somewhat of its charm as soon as the eye is able to look steadily upon its fascinations. It is too evidently a work of art, the straining after effect is too manifest, solidity is too often sacrificed to show, melody too often substituted for rough strength; the orator, passing into a rhetorician, seles rather to please the fancy than to convince the understanding; the declaimer usurps the place of the practical man of business.

If the skill of Cicero in composition is surpassing, not less remarkable was his tact and judgment. No one ever knew human nature better, or saw more clearly into the recesses of the heart. No one was ever more thoroughly familiar with the national feelings and prejudices of the Romans, or could avail himself more fully of such knowledge. But although prompt to detect the weaknesses of others, he either did not perceive or could not master his own. The same wretched vanity which proved such a fruitful source of misery in his political career, introduced a most serious vice into his oratory,—a vice which, had it not been palliated by a multitude of virtues, might have proved fatal to his reputation. On no occasion in his speeches can he ever forget himself. We perpetually discover that he is no less eager to recommend the advocate than the cause to his judges.

The audiences which Cicero addressed were either the senate, the persons entrusted with the administration of the laws, or the whole body of the people convoked in their public meetings.

In the senate, during the last days of the Republic, eloquence was for the most part thrown away. The spirit of faction was so strong that in all important questions the final issue was altogether independent of the real bearing of the case or of the arguments employed in the debate. Of the extant orations of Cicero, nineteen were addressed to the Senate viz. the first against Rullus, the first and fourth against Catiline, twelve of the Philippics, including the second, which was never delivered, the fragments of the In Toga Candida and of the In Clodium et Curionem, the In Pisonem, and the De Provinciis Consularibus. Each of these is examined separately; it is enough to remark at present, that the first fifteen were called forth by great emergencies, at periods when Cicero for a brief space was regarded as the leader of the state, and would, therefore, exert himself with spirit and conscious dignity; that the three following contain the outpourings of strongly-excited personal feelings, that against Piso especially, being a singular specimen of the coarsest invective, while the De Provinciis, which alone is of a strictly deliberative character, is a lame attempt to give a false colouring to a bad cause.

Occasional failures in the courts of justice would be no indication of want of ability in the advocate, for corruption was carried to such a frightful extent, that the issue of a trial was frequently determined before a syllable had been spoken, or a witness examined ; but it would appear that Cicero was generally remarkably fortunate in procuring the acquittal of those whose cause he supported, and, except in the instance of Verres, he scarcely ever appeared as an accuser. The courts of justice were the scene of all his earliest triumphs; his devotion to his clients alone won for him that popularity to which he owed his elevation; he never was seen upon the rostra until he had attained the rank of praetor, and there is no record of any harangue in the senate until two years later. We have some difficulty in deciding the precise amount of praise to be awarded to him in this branch of his profession, because we are in no instance in possession of both sides of the case. We know not how much is a masterly elucidation, how much a clever perversion of the truth. The evidence is not before us; we see points which were placed in prominent relief, but we are unable to discover the facts which were quietly kept out of view, and which may have been all-important. What we chiefly admire in these pleadings is the well-concealed art with which he tells his story. There is a sort of graceful simplicity which lulls suspicion to sleep; the circumstances appear so plain, and so natural, that we are induced to follow with confidence the guidance of the orator, who is probably all the while leading us aside from the truth.

Although the criterion of success must be applied with caution to the two classes of oratory we have just reviewed, it may be employed without hesitation to all dealings with popular assemblies. We must admit that that man must be one of the greatest of orators who will boldly oppose the prejudices and passions of the vulgar, and, by the force of his eloquence, will induce them to abandon their most cherished projects. This Cicero frequently did. We pass over his oration for the Manilian law, for here he had the people completely on his side; but when, two years afterwards, he came forward to oppose the Agrarian law of the tribune Rullus, he had to struggle with the prejudices, interests, and passions of the people. The two speeches delivered on this occasion have come down to us, and are triumphs of art. Nothing can be more dexterous than the tact with which he identifies himself with his hearers, reminds them that he was the creature of their bounty, then lulls all suspicion to sleep by a warm eulogy on the Gracchi, declares that he was far from being opposed to the principle of such measures, although strongly opposed to the present enactment, which was in fact a disguised plot against their liberties, and then cunningly taking advantage of some inadvertence in the wording of the law, contrives to kindle their indignation by representing it as a studied insult to their favourite Pompey, and through him to themselves. Not less remarkable is the ingenuity with which, in the second address, he turns the tables upon his adversary, who had sought to excite the multitude by accusing Cicero of being a supporter of Sulla, and demonstrates that Rullus was the real partizan of the late dictator, since certain clauses in the new rogation would have the effect of ratifying some of his most obnoxious acts. The defenders of the scheme were forced to abandon their design, and left the consul master of the field, who boasted not unreasonably, that no one had ever carried a popular assembly more completely with him when arguing in favour of an Agrarian law, than he had done when declaiming against it. His next exhibition was, if possible, still more marvellous. The love of public amusements which has always formed a strong feature in the Italian character, had gradually become an engrossing passion with the Romans. At first the spectators in the theatres occupied the seats without distinction of rank or fortune. The elder Scipio, however, introduced an ordinance by which the front benches in the orchestra were reserved for the senate; but, notwithstanding the immense influence of Africanus, the innovation gave a heavy blow to his popularity. Accordingly, when Roscius Otho carried a law by which places immediately behind the senators were set apart for the equestrian order, the populace were rendered furious; and when Otho, not long after the new regulation was put in force, entered the theatre, he was greeted with a perfect storm of disapprobation. The knights on the other hand, shewed every inclination to support their benefactor, both parties grew more violent, and a riot seemed inevitable, when Cicero entered, called upon the spectators to follow him to the area of a neighbouring temple, and there so wrought upon their feelings that they returned and joined heartily in doing honour to Otho. Such a victory needs no comment. The address is unhappily lost.

In order to avoid repetition, an account of each oration is given separately with the biography of the individual principally concerned. The following table presents a view of all the speeches whose titles have been preserved. As before, those which have totally perished are printed in italics; those to which two asterisks are prefixed survive only in a few mutilated fragments; those with one asterisk are imperfect, but enough is left to convey a clear idea of the work.

Pro P. Quinctio, в. с. 81. [Quinctius.]

Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino, в. с. 80. [Roscius.]

Pro Muliere Arretina. Before his journey to Athens. (See above, p. 709, and pro Caecin. 33.)

Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo, в. с. 76. [Roscius.]

Pro Adolescentibus Siculis, в. с. 75. (See Plut. Cic. 6.)

- Quum Quaestor Lilybaeo decederet, в. с. 74.

Pro Scamandro, в. с. 74. (See pro Cluent. 17.) [Cluentius.]

- Pro L. Vareno, в. с. 71, probably. [Varenus.]

Pro M. Tullio, в. с. 71. [M. Tullius.]

Pro C. Mustio. Before в. с. 70. (See Ver. Act. ii. 53. Never published, according to Pseud-Ascon. in 53.)

In Q. Caecilium, в. с. 70. [Verres.]

In Verrem Actio prima, 5th August, в. с. 70. [Verres.]

In Verrem Actio secunda. Not delivered. [Verres.]

Pro M. Fonteio, в. с. 69. [Fonteius.]

Pro A. Caecina, в. с. 69, probably. [Caecina.]

- Pro P. Oppio, в. с. 67. [Oppius.]

Pro Lege Manilia, в. с. 66. [Manilius.]

- Pro C. Fundanio, в. с. 66. [Fundanius.]

Pro A. Cluentio Avito, в. с. 66. [Cluentius.]

- Pro C. Manilio, в. с. 65. [Manilius.]

Pro L. Corvino, в. с. 65. (See Q. Cic. de petit cons. 5.)

- Pro C. Cornelio. Two orations в. с. 65. [Cornelius.]

Pro C. Calpurnio Risone, в. с. 64. [Piso.]

- Oratio in Toga Candida, в. с. 64. See above, p. 711, b. [Catilina.]

- Pro Q. Gallio, в. с. 64. [Gallius.]

Orationes Consulares. (Ad Att. ii. 1; в. с. 63.)

	1.	In Senatu, 1st January.	[Rullus.]
*	2.	De Lege Agraria, Oratio prima, in senatu.
		De Lege Agraria, Oratio secunda, ad populum.
		De Lege Agraria, Oratio tertia, ad populum.
**	3.	De L. Roscio Othone. [Otho.]
*	4.	Pro C. Rabirio. [Rabirius.]
**	5.	De Proscriptorum Liberis.
	6.	In deponenda Provincia. [Catilina, p. 680.]
	7.	In Catilinam prima Oratio, 8th Nov.	[Catilina.]
	8.	" secunda, 9th Nov.
	9.	" tertia,
	10.	" quarta, 5th Dec.

Pro Murena. Towards the end of в. с. 63, but before 10th Dec. [Murena.]

** Contra Concionem Q. Metelli, 3rd Jan., в. с. 62. [Metellus.]

Pro P. Cornelio Sulla, в. с. 62. [Sulla.]

** ''In Clodium et Curionem'', в. с. 61. [See M. Tullius.]

[Pro A. Licinio Archia. Generally assigned to в. с. 61. [Archias.] ]

Pro Scipione Nasica, в. с. 60. (Ad Att. ii. 1.)

Pro L. Valerio Flacco, в. с. 59. [L. Flaccus.]

Pro A. Minucio Thermo. Twice defended in в. с. 59. [Thermus.]

Pro Ascitio. Before в. с. 56. (Pro Cael. 10.) [Rufus.]

Pro M. Cispio. After в. с. 57. (Pro Planc. 31.)

[Post Reditum in Senatu, 5th Sept., в. с. 57.]

[Post Reditum ad Quirites, 6th or 7th Sept., в. с. 57.]

[Pro Domo sua ad Pontifices, 29th Sept., в. с. 57.]

[De Haruspicum Responsis, в. с. 56.]

Pro L. Calpurnio Pisone Bestia, 11th Feb., в. с. 56. (Ad Q. Fr. ii. 13. § 6.)

Pro P. Sextio. Early in March, в. с. 56. [Sextius.]

In Vatinium Interrogatio. Same date. [Vatinius.]

Pro M. Caelio Rufo. [Rufus.]

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo, в. с. 56. [Balbus.]

De Provinciis Consularibus, в. с. 56. [A. Gabinius.]

** ''De Rege Alexandrino'', в. с. 56. [A. Gabinius ; Ptolemaeus Auletes.]

In L. Pisonem, в. с. 55. [Piso.]

** In A. Gabinium. (Quintil. xi. 1. § 73.)

Pro Cn. Plancio, в. с. 55. [Plancius.]

Pro Caninio Gallo, в. с. 55. [Gallus.]

Pro C. Rabirio Postumo, B. C. 54. [Rabirius Postumus.]

* * Pro Vatinio, в. с. 54. [Vatinius.] * Pro M. Aemilio Scauro, в. с. 54. [Scaurus.]

Pro Crasso in Senatu, в. с. 54. (Ad Fam. i. 9. § 7.)

Pro Druso, в. с. 54. (Ad Att. iv. 15.) [Drusus.]

Pro C. Messio, в. с. 54. (Ad Att. iv. 15.) [Messius.]

De Reatinorum Causa contra Interamnates. (Ad Att. iv. 15.)

* * ''De Aere alieno Milonis Interrogatio'', в. с. 53. [Milo.]

Pro T. Annio Milone, в. с. 52 [Milo.]

Pro Saufeio. Two orations. в. с. 52. [Saufeius.]

Contra T. Munatium Plancum. In Dec. b. c. 52. (See Ad Fam. viii. 2, Philipp. vi. 4; Dion Cass. xl. 55.)

Pro Cornelio Dolabella, в. с. 50. (Ad Fam. iii. 10.)

[Pro M. Marcello, в. с. 47. [M. Marcellus.] ]

Pro Q. Ligario, в. с. 46. [Q. Ligarius.]

Pro Rege Deiotaro, B. C. 45. [Deiotarus.]

De Pace, in Senatu, 17 March, в. с. 44. (Dion Cass. xliv. 63.)

It will be seen from the marks attached to the Orations in the above lists that doubts are entertained with regard to the genuineness of those Pro Archia, Post Reditum in Senatu, Pro Domo sua ad Pontifices, De Haruspicum Responsis, Pro M. Marcello. An account of the controversy with regard to these is given under M. Marcellus.

The following are universally allowed to be spurious, and therefore have not been admitted into the catalogue:

[“Responsio ad Orationem C. Sallustii Crispi.”
[Sallustius.]

Oratio ad Populum et ad Equites antequam iret in exilium.

Epistola s. Declamatio ad Octavianum.

Oratio adversus Valerium.

Oratio de Pace.]

The Editio Princeps of the Orations is probably that printed in 1471 at Rome by Sweynheym and Pannartz, fol., under the inspection of Andrew, bishop of Aleria. Another edition was printed in the same year at Venice, by Valdarfer; and a third at Venice, in 1472, by Ambergau, both in folio; besides which there is a fourth, in very ancient characters, without date, name of place or printer, which many bibliographers believe to be the earliest of all. The most useful editions are those of Jo. Roigny, fol., Paris, 1536, containing a complete collection of all the commentaries which had appeared up to that date; of Graevius, 3 vols. in 6 parts, Amsterdam, 1695—1699, forming part of the series of Variorum Classics in 8vo., and comprising among other aids the notes of Manutins and Lambinus entire; to which we may add that of Klotz, Leipzig, 1835, 3 vols. 8vo., with excellent introductions and annotations in the German language. The best edition of each speech will be noticed when discussing the speech itself.

3. Correspondence.

Cicero during the most important period of his life maintained a close correspondence with Atticus, and with a wide circle of literary and political friends and connexions. Copies of these letters do not seem to have been systematically preserved, and so late as в. с. 44 no regular collection had been formed, although Tiro was at that time in possession of about seventy, which he is supposed to have published with large additions after the death of his patron. (Ad Att. xvi. 5, comp. ad Fam. xvi. 17.) We now have in all upwards of eight hundred, undoubtedly genuine, extending over a space of 26 years, and commonly arranged in the following manner:

1. "Epistolarum ad Familiares s. Epistolarum ad Diversos Libri XVI," titles which have been permitted to keep their ground, although the former conveys an inaccurate idea of the contents, and the latter is bad Latin. The volume contains a series of 426 epistles, commencing with a formal congratulation to Pompey on his success in the Mithridatic war, written in the course of в. с. 62, and terminating with a note to Cassius, despatched about the beginning of July, в. с. 43, announcing that Lepidus had been declared a public enemy by the senate, in consequence of having gone over to Antony. They are not placed in chronological order, but those addressed to the same individuals, with their replies, where these exist, are grouped together without reference to the date of the rest. Thus the whole of those in the third book are addressed to Appius Pulcher, his predecessor in the government of Cilicia; those of the fourteenth to Terentia; those of the fifteenth to Tiro; those of the fourth to Sulpicius, Marcellus, and Figulus, with replies from the two former; while the whole of those in the eighth are from M. Caelius Rufus, most of them transmitted to Cicero while in his province, containing full particulars of all the political and social gossip of the metropolis.

2. " Epistolarum ad T. Pomponium Atticum Libri XVI." A series of 396 epistles addressed to Atticus, of which eleven were written in the years в. с. 68, 67, 65, and 62, the remainder after the end of в. с. 62, and the last in Nov. в. с. 44. (Ad Att. xvi. 15.) They are for the most part in chronological order, although dislocations occur here and there. Occasionally, copies of letters received from or sent to others--from Caesar, Antony, Balbus, Hirtius, Oppius, to Dolabella, Plancus, &c;., are included; and to the 16th of the last book no less than six are subjoined, to Plancus, Capito, and Cupiennius.

3. "Epistolarum ad Q. Fratrem Libri III." A series of 29 epistles addressed to his brother, the first written in в. с. 59, while Quintus was still propraetor of Asia, containing an admirable summary of the duties and obligations of a provincial governor; the last towards the end of в. с. 54.

4. We find in most editions "Epistolarum ad Brutum Liber," a series of eighteen epistles all written after the death of Caesar, eleven from Cicero to Brutus, six from Brutus to Cicero, and one from Brutus to Atticus. To these are added eight more, first published by Cratander, five from Cicero to Brutus, three from Brutus to Cicero. The genuineness of these two books has proved a fruitful source of controversy, and the question cannot be said to be even now fully decided, although the majority of scholars incline to believe them spurious. [Brutus, No. 21.]

5. In addition to the above, collections of letters by Cicero are quoted by various authors and grammarians, but little has been preserved except the names. Thus we can trace that there must have once existed two books to Cornelius Nepos, three books to Caesar, three books to Pansa, nine books to Hirtius, eight books to M. Brutus, two books to young M. Cicero, more than one book to Calvus, more than one book to Q. Axius, single letters to M. Titinius, to Cato, to Caerellia, and, under the title of "Epistola ad Pompeium," a lengthened narrative of the events of his consulship. (Ascon. ad Orat. pro Planc. c. 34, pro Sull. c. 24.)

Notwithstanding the manifold attractions offered by the other works of Cicero, we believe that the man of taste, the historian, the antiquary, and the student of human nature, would willingly resign them all rather than be deprived of the Epistles. Greece can furnish us with more profound philosophy, and with superior oratory; but the ancient world has left us nothing that could supply the place of these letters. Whether we regard them as mere specimens of style, at one time reflecting the conversational tone of familiar every-day life in its most graceful form, at another sparkling with wit, at another claiming applause as works of art belonging to the highest class, at another couched in all the stiff courtesy of diplomatic reserve; or whether we consider the ample materials, derived from the purest and most inaccessible sources, which they supply for a history of the Roman constitution during its last struggles, affording a deep insight into the personal dispositions and motives of the chief leaders,--or, finally, seek and find in them a complete key to the character of Cicero himself, unlocking as they do the most hidden secrets of his thoughts, revealing the whole man in all his greatness and all his meanness,--their value is altogether inestimable. To attempt to give any idea of their contents would be to analyze each individually.

The Editio Princeps of the Epistolae ad Familliares was printed in 1467, 4to., being the first work which issued from the press of Sweynheym and Pannartz at Rome. A second edition of it was published by these typographers in 1469, fol., under the inspection of Andrew of Aleria, and two others were produced in the same year at Venice by Jo. de Spira.

Editions of the Epistolae ad Atticum, ad M. Brutum, ad Q. Fratrem, were printed in 1470 at Rome by Sweynheym and Pannartz, and at Venice by Nicol. Jenson, both in folio; they are taken from different MSS., and bibliographers cannot decide to which precedence is due. The first which exhibited a tolerable text was that of P. Victorius, Florence, 1571, which follows the MS. copy made by Petrarch. The commentaries of P. Manutius attached to the Aldine of 1548, and frequently reprinted, are very valuable.

The most useful edition is that of Schütz, 6 vols. 8vo., Hal. 1809-12, containing the whole of the Epistles, except those to Brutus, arranged in chronological order and illustrated with explanatory notes. The student may add to these the translation into French of the letters to Atticus by Mongault, Paris, 1738, and into German of all the letters by Wieland, Zurich, 1808-1821, 7 vols. 8vo., and the work of Abeken, Cicero in seinen Brieftn, Hanov. 1835.

4. Poetical works.

Cicero appears to have acquired a taste for poetical composition while prosecuting his studies under Archias. Most of his essays in this department belong to his earlier years; they must be regarded as exercises undertaken for improvement or amusement, and they certainly in no way increased his reputation.

1. ** Versus Homerici. Translations from Homer. (See de Fin. v. 18.) The lines which are found de Divin. ii. 30, Tusculan. iii. 26, 9, de Fin. v. 18; Augustin, de Civ. Dei, v. 8, amounting in all to 44 hexameters, may be held as specimens.

2. * Arati Phaenomena.

3. ** Arati Prognostica.

About two-thirds of the former, amounting to upwards of five hundred hexameter lines, of which 470 are nearly continuous, have been preserved, while twenty-seven only of the latter remain. The translation is for the most part very close-- the dull copy of a dull original. Both pieces were juveline efforts, although subsequently corrected and embellished. (De Nat. Deor. ii. 41, comp. ad Att. ii. 1.) [Aratus, Avienus, Germanicus.]

4. * Alcyones. Capitolinus (Gordian. 3) mentions a poem under this name ascribed to Cicero, of which nearly two lines are quoted by Nonius. (s. v. Praevius.)

5. Uxorius.		See Capitolin. l.c.
6. Nilus.

7. * Limon. Four hexameter lines in praise of Terence from this poem, the general subject of which is unknown, are quoted by Suetonius. (Vit. Terent. 5.)

8. ** Marius. Written before the year в. с. 82. (De Leg. i. 1; Vell. Pat. ii. 26.) A spirited fragment of thirteen hexameter lines, describing a prodigy witnessed by Marius and interpreted by him as an omen of success, is'quoted in de Divinatione (i. 47), a single line in the de Legibus (i. 1), and another by Isidorus. (Orig. xix. 1.)

9. * De Rebus in Consulatu gestis. Cicero wrote a history of his own consulship, first in Greek prose, which he finished before the month of June, в. с. 60 (ad Att. ii. 1), and soon afterwards a Latin poem on the same subject, divided, it would seem, into three parts. A fragment consisting of seventyeight hexameters, is quoted from the second book in the de Divinatione (i. 11-13), three lines from the third in a letter to Atticus (ii. 3), and one verse by Nonius. (s. v. Eventus.)

10. * * De meis Temporibus. We are informed by Cicero in a letter belonging to в. с. 54 (ad Fam. i. 9), that he had written three books in verse upon his own times, including, as we gather from his words, an account of his exile, his sufferings, and his recall—the whole being probably a continuation of the piece last mentioned. Four disjointed lines only remain (Quintil. xi. 1. § 24, ix. 4. § 41), one of which is, " Cedant arma togae concedat laurea linguae," and the other, the unlucky jingle so well known to us from Juvenal (x. 122), " O fortunatam natam me console Romam."

11. * * Tamelastis. An elegy upon some unknown theme. One line and a word are found in the commentary of Servius on Virgil. (Ecl. i. 58.)

12. * * Libellus Jocularis. Our acquaintance with this is derived solely from Quintilian (viii. 6. § 73), who quotes a punning couplet as the words of Cicero "in quodam joculari libello."

13. Pontius Glaucus. Plutarch tells us that Cicero, while yet a boy, wrote a little poem in tetrameters with the above title. The subject is unknown. (Plut. Cic. 2.)

14. Epigramma in Tironem. Mentioned by Pliny. (Ep. vii. 4.)

The poetical and other fragments of Cicero are given in their most accurate form, with useful introductory notices, in the edition of the whole works by Nobbe, 1 vol. 4to., Leipz. 1827, and again with some improvements by Orelli, vol. iv. pt. ii., 1828.

5. Historical and Miscellaneous works.

1. * * De meis Consiliis s. Meorum Consiliorum Epositio. We find from Asconius and St. Augustin that Cicero published a work under some such title, in justification of his own policy, at the period when he feared that he might lose his election for the consulship, in consequence of the opposition and intrigues of Crassus and Caesar. A few sentences only remain. (Ascon. ad Orat. in Tog. Cand.; Augustin. c. Julian. Pelag. v. 5; Fronto, Exc. Elocut.)

2. De Consulatu (περὶ τῆς ὑπατείας). The only purely historical work of Cicero was a commentary on his own consulship, written in Greek and finished before the month of June, в. с. 60, not one word of which has been saved. (Ad Att. ii. 1; Plut. Caes. 8; Dion Cass. xlvi. 21; comp. ad Fam. v. 12.)

3. De Laude Caesaris. It is clear from the commencement of a letter to Atticus (iv. 5; 10th April, в. с. 56), that Cicero had written a book or pamphlet in praise of Caesar. He does not give the title, and was evidently not a little ashamed of his performance.

4. * * M. Cato s. Laus M. Catonis. A panegyric upon Cato, composed after his death at Utica in B. C. 46, to which Caesar replied in a work entitled Anticato. [Caesar, p. 555, a.] A few words only remain. (Ad Att. xii. 40; Gell. xiii. 19; Macrob. vi. 2; Priscian. x. 3, p. 485, ed. Krehl.)

5. Laus Porciae. A panegyric on Porcia, the sister of M. Cato and wife of L. Domitus Ahenobarbus, written in B. C. 45, soon after her death. (Ad Att. xiii. 37, 48.)

6. * * Oeconomica ex Xenophonte. Probably not so much a close translation as an adaptation of the treatise of Xenophon to the wants and habits of the Romans. It was composed in the year B. C. 80, or in 79, and was divided into three books, the arguments of which have been preserved by Servius. The first detailed the duties of the mistress of a household at home, the second the duties of the master of a household out of doors, the third was upon agriculture. The most important fragments are contained in the eleventh and twelfth books of Columella, which together with those derived from other sources have been carefully collected by Nobbe (Ciceronis Opera, Leipzig, 1827), and will be found in Orelli's Cicero, vol. iv. pt. 2. p. 472. (Serv. ad Virg. Georg. i. 43; Cic. de Off. ii. 24.)

7. Chorographia. Priscian, according to the text usually received (xvi. 16), mentions "Chorographiam Ciceronianam," but the most recent editor, Krehl, supposes "orthographiam" to to the true reading, while others substitute "chronographiam." If "chorographia" be correct, it may refer to the geographical work in which Cicero was engaged B. C. 59, as we read in letters to Atticus. (ii. 4, 6, 7.)

8. Admiranda. A sort of commonplace book or register of curious facts referred to by the elder Pliny. (H. N. xxxi. 8, 28, comp. xxix. 16, vii. 2, 21.)

It is doubtful whether works under the following titles were ever written by Cicero:—

1. De Orthographia. 2. De Re Militari. 3. Synonyma. 4. De Numerosa Oratione ad Tironem. 5. Orpheus s. de Adolescente Studioso. 6. De Memoria. Any tracts which have been published from time to time under the above titles as works of Cicero, such as the De Re Militari attached to many of the older editions, are unquestionably spurious. (See Angelo Mai, Catalog. Cod. Ambros. cl.; Bandini, Catalog. Bibl. Laurent. iii. p. 465, and Suppl. ii. p. 381; Fabric. Bibl. Lat. i. p. 211; Orelli, Ciceronis Opera, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 584.)

The Editio Princeps of the collected works of Cicero was printed at Milan by Alexander Minutianus, 4 vols. fol., 1498, and reprinted with a few changes due to Budaeus by Badius Ascensius, Paris, 4 vols. fol., 1511. Aldus Manutius and Naugerius published a complete edition in 9 vols. fol., Venet., 1519-1523, which served as the model for the second of Ascensius, Paris, 1522, 2 or 4 vols. fol. None of the above were derived from MS. authorities, but were merely copies of various earlier impressions. A gradual progress towards a pure text is exhibited in those which follow:—Cratander, Basil. 1528, 2 vols. fol., corrected by Bentinus after certain Heidelberg MSS.; Hervagius, Basil. 1534, 4 vols. fol.; Junta, Ven. 1534—1537, 4 vols. fol., an entirely new recension by Petrus Victorius, who devoted his attention especially to the correction of the Epistles from the Medicean MSS.; Car. Stephanus, Paris, 1555, 4 vols. fol., containing many new readings from MSS. in France; Dionysius Lambinus, Lutet. ap. Bernardum Turrisanum, 1566, 4 vols. fol., with an ample commentary,—in every respect more worthy of praise than any of the foregoing, and of the greatest importance to the critic; Gruter, Hamburg, Froben. 1618, 4 vols. fol., including the collations of sundry German, Belgian, and French MSS., followed in a great measure by Jac. Gronovius, Lug. Bat. 1691, 4 vols. 4to., and by Verburgius, Amst. Wetstein. 1724, 2 vols. fol., or 4 vols. 4to., or 12 vols. 8vo., which comprehends also a large collection of notes by earlier scholars; Olivet, Genev. 1743—1749, 9 vols. 4to., with a commentary "in usum Delphini," very frequently reprinted; Ernesti, Hal. Sax. 1774—1777, 5 vols. 8vo., in 7 parts, immeasurably superior, with all its defects, to any of its predecessors, and still held by some as the standard; Schütz, Lips. 1814—1823, 20 vols., small 8vo., in 28 parts, with useful prolegomena and summaries prefixed to the various works. The small editions printed by Elzevir, Amst. 1684—1699, 11 vols. 12mo., by Foulis, Glasg. 1749, 20 vols. 16mo., and by Barbou, Paris, 1768, 14 vols. 12mo., are much esteemed on account of their neatness and accuracy.

All others must now, however, give place to that of Orelli, Turic. 1826—1837, 9 vols. 8vo., in 13 parts. The text has been revised with great industry and judgment, and is as pure as our present resources can render it, while the valuable and well-arranged selection of readings placed at the bottom of each page enable the scholar to form an opinion for himself. There is unfortunately no commentary, but this want is in some degree supplied by an admirable "Onomasticon Tullianum," drawn up by Orelli and Baiter jointly, which forms the three concluding volumes.

The seventh volume contains the Scholiasts upon Cicero, C. Marius Victorinus, Rufinus, C. Julius Victor, Boëthius, Favonius Eulogius, Asconius Pedianus, Scholia Bobiensia, Scholiasta Gronovianus.