r-J
IB
I
V-**
s
3>
^BNIVERS/A. ^v
OS", m*m.*>i !S
I
O u_
I -z "-
l l -
, *Y\E UNIVERS//,.
REMARKS
ON THE
EPISTLES
O F
CICERO to BRUTUS,
AND OF
BRUTUS to CICERO;
In a LETTER to a FRIEND.
WITH A
DISSERT AT JON upon FOUR ORATIONS
afcribed to M. TULLIUS CICERO: viz.
1. AD QUIRITES POST
REDITUM.
2. POST REDITUM IN
SENATU.
3. PRO DOMO SUA, AD
PONTIFICES.
4. DE HARUSPICUM
RESPONSIS.
To which are added,
Some EXTRACTS out of the NOTES of Learned
Men upon thofe ORATIONS j
And OBSERVATIONS on them.
By JER. MARKLAND,
Fellow of St. Peters College, Cambridge.
LONDON,
Printed, and Sold by M. COOPER at the Globe in
Pater-no/ler- Row. M D c c x L v.
x f
StacK
Annex
017*
CONTENT S
O F T H E
REMARKS upon the EPIS-
TLE s 5 etc.
only way of fuccefifully imitating Cicero's
Epiftles. Peg- 2. g.
40e Qualifications necejfary for thisPurpofe. 3. 10. 13.
No difficult Matter to have done it five or fix hundred
Years ago, or in any higher Age fince the Latin
Tongue has ceas'd to be fpoken. 3, II, 12, 13.
Nor 'at prefent. 1 3.
There were in every Age Perfonsfo qualified, IO } II,I2
Above one half of the Language and Matter of thefe
Epijlles taken cut of the True Cicero. 5.
The Author's Mi/lakes in the remaining part, in Lan-
guage, Fa&s, and Reafoning. ibid.
So that if thefe Epijlles be ejleemed genuine, // will be
impojjible for us Moderns to prove any Piece^ which
has for fome Centuries loin the Character cfanAn-
tient, to be fpuricus. 7, 8.
Latin not the Mother-Tongue of the Author of the
Epijlles. 9.
IVkence it follow 'j, that he livd after the Vlth Century.
10.
The Firft Epijllc allowed to be genuine, from the Tefli*
many of Nonius Marcellus, and its Unexcepiion-
ablemfs. 15, 1 6.
Lucius Clodius, the Subjeff cfit, who he was. 1 7 . The
Branches of the Clodian Family, ibid. An Overfiglt
of the Author of the Oration De Harufpicum Re-
fponfis. j8.
A The
Ij
H CONTENTS.
The Vllth Epiftle very like Cicero' s manner, jg, 2d.
An eafy matter to forge fuch an EpijUe. } ibid*
^TkeXVthfeems to have the air of Antiquity. 20.
Brutus'* famous Epijlle (the XXII d ) very faulty, ibid.
probably the EJJay of fame young Perfon. 21.
Our Ignorance in the Hijiory of the Writings of the
Ancients. 22.
7 'he Char after of the Author of the Epiftles. 23. Whence
he had his Materials, ibid. His great defic /Vwy,Want
of Judgment. 24. The Power of Prejudice. 24-, 25.
The- Method and Defign of the Author of thefe Papers.
25, 26.
Remarks on the LANGUAGE. 27 130.
The Author of the Epijlles ufes perfuadere in/lead tf
fuadere. 27 $y.
A like Mi/Jake in the Author of the Oration pro Domo
fua, in the word excogitavit for cogitavit. 30. Note.
Hs writes^ in praefentibus malis prohibendis, which is
an Inconfiftency : injlead of eohibendis or inhibendis.
3034-
O&avius is eft, QUI expeftetPop. Romanus, etc. in-
Jlcadof, A QUO : probably through forgetfulnefs. /*
Jlances of the fame kind in other Moderns. 3438.
REVOCARI in integrum in/feadofREsrirvi in inte-
grum. Perhaps from mijlaking a Pajfage in Livy.
38 41.
Idem Cicero^ fi fiexerit advetfus alias judicium fuum$
quod tanta firmitate ^-magnitudine direxit in extur-
bando Antonio, unintelligible. 4 \ 44.
OB ejufdem MORTEM deterritus, for ejufdem MOR-
TE: and^ fuijurisac MANciPiirefpublica. 4447.
Nihil TANTI ruit QJIO venderemus fidem noftram,
for UT venderemus: not Latin. Several ways in
which he might rightly have exprejl this fentence.
4749.
Scd ita multi LABEFACTANT, neutMOVEATUR
interdum extimefcam, prepojforoujjy, in/lead of, fed
itamulti MOVENT, ut ne LABEFACTETUR inter-
dum extimefcam. 49 52,
Aetas enim, mores, liberi s EON EM efficiunt, for,
averfe to public Bufinels. 52 55.
Corruptum
CONTENTS; iii
Cdrruptum LARGITIONIBUS animum,/0r honorum
largitionibus. 55 59.
Liceat injudicioufly put for poffit or foleat. 59 61.
In Panfae locum PETERE conftituit, in/lead of, inPan-
fae AUGURIS, PONTIFICIS, &c. locum petere
conftituit. 6 1 66
'The [Serb petere, abfolutely, for honores petere, very
fcarce : petitio, the Subjlantive, for honorum pe-
titio, very c ommon. 03
Domitius IN fua epiftola CELEBRABITUR; hard to
know what is meant by it. 66 69.
Cujufve ratio habebitur, for, cujufve ABSENTIS ra-
tio habebitur. , 69 73*.
Qui M. Antonii fectam fecuti funt, negligently tran-
fcrib'd out 0/"Livy as the form of a Senatus confultum,
injlead of, Qui M. Antonium fectamque ejus fecu-
ti funt : and ignorantly put y injlead of, Qui cum M.
Antonio fuerunt : which ^uas a Form in Cicero's
time. 73 j6.
Again, he puts, ad FIDEM et ad DIGNITATEM tuam
pertinet, as part of a Decree of the Senate: injlead
of, ad REMPUBLICAM FiDEMque tuam pertinet,
which was the Style infuch Decrees. 76 78.
Once more, HONOsDiisimmortalibus DECRETUseflet,
. . injtead of HA SITUS efTet. 78 81.
ExacJ Knowledge of any Language the lower part of
CRITICISM : but absolutely necejfary in order to the
higher. 82.
Joan. Fred. Gronovius, his great Skill in the Latin
Tongue. 83.
A curious Remark of his. 83, 84.
Some others of the like kind. 85 89.
Authority, and prefent Ufe, the Rules 0/Ypeaking. 89.
Cicero's ^uejlion, Quis fie loquitur ? ibid.
Authority, unaccountable, ibid. The Antients frequently
could give no Account of their own Language. An In-
Jlance out o/"Gellius. 90.
The Writing of True Latin a very uncertain Thing to us
Moderns 91. The fame holds good in all Languages
that are learnt by Books only. 92.
A 2 ^Perfon
iv CONTENTS.
A Perfon who fucceeds another in bis Pojl, is never /aid
RE PON i in ejus locum, but, fubftitui, fuffici, fubro-
gari, etc. reponi is applied to Things, not to Perfons - y
except in the fenfe 0/"reftoring or replacing them in
theftatlon they formerly were; 93 96*
Ut SOLERESJ for ut SOLEBAS, bad or ajfeRed Wrlt-
i*g : 96, 97.
Habui in mea FOTESTATE,y^r in mea CUSTODIA.
97 iooi
QUOEXPLERI polTit eorum meritum, for exolvi, or
remunerari. Sever a I ways ofexprejjing the Sentence.
100 105.
Vindici quidem alienae dominationis, NON vieario, ec-
quis fupplicat, etc? For, NE vindici quidem, NE-
DUM vicario, nemo fupplicat, &c. This likewife ex-
pr eft many different ways by the Ant tents. 105 HO.
In vERissi-MOgeneredicendi, /<?>"> in opTiMO,ivbicb
was the ufual and fettled Form of Writing, no, 1 1 1 ^
He puts texdzreNeutrflfy, contrary to the Ufe oftheWordt
In the Age ofClc ero. ill 114,
Cicero probably the firft who wrote PLURES uno, more
than one : which before, and in his time, was expre/f
by PLUS (or amplius) uno. 114 116.
Infideliter, not a Latin Word. 1 1 6, 1 20.
Quatefeci, an unheard of Verb ^ form d contrary t& Ana-
logy. 1 20 123.-
Recapitulation of the foregoing Particulars ; and the Au-
thor 's Reafons for proceeding to the Two following
Heads, the Fa6ls> and the Argumentation in the E-
pijtles. 123 129.
Remarks on the FACTS, from p. 1 30 to p. 175.
The Author of the Eplftles makes Cicero call Solon the-
wifeft of the Seven Wife-men, agalnft the exprefs tcf-
timony of the true Cicero in other places, p. 1 30 1 32
Slips of Memory In the true Cicero. 132, 133.
Cicero tells Brutus, that he does not think It necejfary to
fend him an account of Two Letters ivhich had been
read in the Senate : And aftcnvards, in the fame E-
plftle, fends him a particular Account of the Two
Letters. 133 135. Another of the fume kind ob-
firv'd by Mr. Tunftall. 134 Note.
Brutus
CONTENTS. v
Brutus makes an Apology to Cicero for calling fame Per-
lens Citizens, when Cicero himfelf bad called tbofe
veryperfotis Citizens, and in that very Letter which
Brutus is then anfwerlng. I 35^ I 3^ > -
Jnconfijlently rejoices at the Death of his bejl friends,
the Confuls, while he is vindicating his Humanity to
C. Antonius one of his greaieji Enemies : obferv d by
Mr. Tunftall. 136.
The Author makes Cicero tell Brutus, that Panfa did
fugere,cr runaway out of the Field of Battle. Jffiicb
is Falfe, atul Impoffibleyir Cicero to have written.
.
Hit various Blunders and Inconfiftcncles in the ufe of
the words fugere and ccdere. 138 143.
He ignorantly mentions two or more Edifis^ whereas
there was but one : and makes Cicero fay, that the
FAME or REPORT of the Edicts of Brutus and Caf-
fius cans' d him to return to Rome ; whereas Cicero
h imf elf fays ^ that it was the Edict IT SELF (not the
fame or report of it) which he receivd and read.
H3' H4-
Lepidus In his Revolt is fald to be carrying on a molt
fharp war by Land and by s E A : of which iaji Cir-
cumftance there is not the leaft mention or hint In Hi-
pry. 145 _ I47 .
The probable Caufe of the Blunder. 149, 150.
<A remarkable Ml/lake of Ignorance in the Author of
tbeQraticn Poft reditum iuSenatu./*. 145. 146. Note.
Vakrius Antias the Hijhrlan^ often reproved by Livy.
147 149.
Brutus tells Cicero that Antifh'us Vetus had fuelled him
with a Sum of Money tfhls (Vetus's) OWN : where-
as It was /^PUBLIC MONEY- Ifl 15^.
Marcus Apuleius, a much greater Friend to Brutus than
Vetus was. 1 54, Why not mention d In thefe Lpijllcs.
1 55-
The Author reprefents Vetus as going to Rome to h a
Candidate for the Practorfliip., when probably he was
of no higher Rank than Quaeftor. 155 158.
He mentions a Letter received from Lentulus April 'qth,
A iu!ricly
vi CONTENT S.
which a genuine Letter of Cicero mentions as re-
ceiv'd May 2gtb. 1 5816 1
Cicero tells Brutus, that Lepidus was -ALWAYS an
ENEMY to the Common- wealth : the true Cicero,
in an Oration fpoken about three months before the date
of this Letter , fays that Lepidus was ALWAYS a
FRIEND to the Common-wealth. 162164.
In this Letter of April 1 1//;, he mentions Marcus Lepi-
dus'j Hatred of his Brother Paulus as a thing ive-ll
known at that time : whenas the Caufe of this Hatred
probably was not in Being till the ^Qth of June , and the
Effect of it did not appear till thci*] th ofNovemb. 165.
Brutus fpwfa of Salv'id'ienus as a Senator. But Salvi-
dienus was not a Senator till two Tears after the
Death of Brutus. 166 168.
' A notable Blunder a/^Thufcus a Declaimer, 1 68, 1 69.
Marius is faid to have been made Augur in his abfence,
by tbeDom\tia.n Latv. but it feems probable^ that a per-
fon could not be made Augur in his Abfence ; and
that Marius was Augur before the Domitian Law
was made. 169 173-
Remarks on the REASONING and Sentiments, from
p. 176. tozif.
This part more difficult than either of the two former.
176.
The Qualifications neeefliiry to it. 177, 178.
Two Infianc cs of Immaturity of Judgment in Cicero.
178 181.
The Author makes Cicero fay to Brutus, Tuam fcnten-
tiam defendam, non relinquam mcam : which is
/tb'furd, and Impoffibte. in nature. 181 183.
The Author' 's beautiful Imitation, of a Pajfifae of one of
Cicero' s EpytL's. i8-j.
He makes Cicero reafcn falfly^ by jhifting the Terms ,
and flipping in falutaris ie\ eritas in the room ofira-
cundia. 184 186.
Cicero Makes a Comparifon between- the feverity of
Brutus, which was none at all, and That of his Sol-
fefrs^which was a real Severity : M AGIS mihi pro-
l:atur miiitum feveritas ,<VUAM TUA .- inftead of
<;.uun tua LENJTAS or dementia. 1 87, 188.
Brutus
CONTENTS. vii
JJrutus d// wCicero to proteft bis (Brutus'*) Nephews ;
and gives Two Rcafons why he ought to do it : the
Firjl^ a good one ; the Second^ either not to his pur-
pofe, or againft it. 1 8 8 , 189.
He fays it is acerbum, or a cruel thing, that Children
jhould fuffer for the Faults of their Parents : and yet
adds, thai it is WISELY (praeclare) contriv'd by the
\r j j .
Laws. 190.
Brutus tells Atticus that he cannot be letter ajfured of
any thing than of the honeft Intentions of Cicero to-
wards the Republic : and yet in the fame Letter
charges Cicero with a Dejign of fetting up young
Caefar/0r Lord and Mailer of the Republic in the
room of Antony : and more to the fame purport.
190 192.
Cicero makes ufe of the word facile when it is nothing
to the purpofe, and when difficile or difficulter would
have been equally true. 192 195.
The Caufe of the Mijlake. 194.
Says that Fidelity, Vigilance, and the Love of one's
Country, are the ONLY things that are to be re*
quired of Man : and yet adds his opinion, that
{he Leaders in State-Affairs ought to be anfwerable
for PRUDENCE TOO. 196, 197.
A. Jf range piece of Reafoning in the Author of the Ora-
tion Pro Domo fua. 198 200.
Cicero tells Brutus, that he has fei free the Republic b)f
Virtue and greatnefs of M.'md rather than in reality:
injlead of, in intention rather than in reality. 200,
20 1.
A remarkable Abfurdlty in the Author of the Oration
Ad Quirites poft rcditum. 201 203 .
Cicero puts tecumque adducas/w/fo?^o/*et ipfevenias :
and by that means makes the Safely of the State de-
pend upon his Son's coming into Italy injieadoffavt-
tus's coming. 203 206.
Abfurd Reafoning in the Author of the Orat. De Ha-
rufpicum Refponfis. 204, 205. Note.
Diligenter metuere, abfurd. 206.
An unintelligible pajfage. 207 209,
A 4 Ano-
viii CONTENTS.
Anvllier, Quia never put in the beginning of a Sen-
tence without ideo, cither expreft or underjiood^ to an-<
fiver to it in the Claufe. In quo judicii ratio exftat,
in/lead of ^ cui aequabilitatis ratio conftat, 209 an.
Brutus argues thus : I will NOT CALL my felf a De-
liverer of the World : FOR I take a pride IN CAL-
LING my felf fo. The Mijlake owing to his Igno-
ranee of good Compofition^ and to his putting non di-
czmfor nedum. 211,212.
In/ianccs of this Author's ufe of the Rational enim :
which fmgle word fan dif covers a Good or a Bad
Writer. 213.
Skips from the Genus to the Species: and in the Ccn-
clujion of his Argument flips in dignitate injlead of
falute. 213, 215.
fiis proof cf this Propofition ) That there is no fuch
Thing as a Brave and Free Mind, without Con-
ftancy and Equability, is this : BECAUSE I confefs
that the Cafe of tryed Virtue is harder than That
of untryed. 215, 216.
He brings a Proof, and has omitted the Proportion
ivhich was to be proved, 2 1 6, 217,
'The Conclufion, 217, 2 1 8.
CONTENTS of the DISSERTATION
upon Four ORATIONS, etc.
ty HE S E Pieces never yet doubled of . 221,
T: One of them quoted as genuine by Afconius Pedia-
nus, alluded to by Qumtilhn, fame paj/ages in it to be
found in Val. Maximus, and another in Arnobius.
222.
Ammianus Marcellmus is thought to quote a pajfage
out of the Oral. Ad Qiiirit. poft reditum. ibid.
We are not .obliged to receive as genuine whatever is
quoted as fuch by an Aniicnt JVriter. 223.
The necejfary Qualifications in order to judge rightly
concerning tbife Pieces ^ viz, fomc SkiH and Ufe in
the
CONTENTS. ix
the Ancient Latin Writers, particularly in Cicero;
and. Freedom from all PrepofTeflion. 224. 230.
Some Injiances of this Author s Jlrange Turn of Writ-
ing. . 225 227.
Reafons ivbicb might induce the Learned Men^ who
have commented upon tbefe Orations, not to fufpeft
them, cr not to declare their Sufpicibns. 228,
The Authority of great Names in Learning, ibid.
which ought not to have the leajl weight in thcfe mat-
ter s, without -fi'tis factory Reafons. 231.
The Orations Ancient, and written not long after the
time of Cicero. 2 3 2
Reafons to think that they were not written by an Inha-
bitant of Rome, but by fame Provincial. 233.
The Order of the Two frj\ as they now Jland in the
Editions, ought to be inverted. ibid.
The three firft, and part cf the Fourth, are formed up-
on, and taken from Cicero 1 / Orations pro P. Sextio,
and In L. Pifonem. itid. flnjf 287.
The Injudicioufnefs of the Author in this matter. 234,
2 35-
Tlie mojt obvious Failure in tbefe Orations, Want of
Strength. An Injlance or two. 23^ 239.
Another thing obfervable in this Author, and other Imi-
tators, viz. A tjj|ro frequent repetition of fome par-
ticular Words or Expreflions. Injiances out of the
Epijlles of Cicero to Brutus. 239, .240. -And out of
tbefe Orations. 241, 242.
REMARKS on the Oration Poft reditum in
Senatu, 243 260.
Cicero's genuine Speech written with great Care, and
pronounced de Scripto. 2 43
This Oration as good, at leaf}, as any of the Four, ibid,
Interfeftor reipublicae, a very harjh Metaphor. 244.
Ne pedibus iret, infiead ofr.c IN SENTENTIAM pe-
dibus iret. Which looks like the Writing of a Pro-
vincial. Other miftakx. 244 246.
He writes as if he was ignorant of the Roman Confti-
tution, and did not know that all Praetors and Aediles
were of courfe Senators. 246, 247,
He fays that L. Pifo was Conful of Capua at the fame
time
* CONTENTS.
time &at he was Conful o/"Rome : a mtflake
could fcarce pojftbly be made by one who liv'd at Rome,
(Did. pretended to any knowledge 0/"Hiftory or ofC'ice-.
fo's Writings. 24.7,248. Seep. 145. Note.
Makes Cicero fay childijhly. That he was brought
home from banifhment in a gilt Chariot drawn by
fine horfes. . 248.
Seems to put divinitusyir divine. 249. a fentence of du-
bious Latin. ibid.
Cicero fays, that in his memory, or time, Senators
were not wont to change their Drefs in their own
Dangers : which is manifejlly Falfe. 249, 250. The
probable caufe of the Mi/lake. ibid.
$ays> that plenty of Corn is rejlored to the City upon
his return. Whereas the true Cicero acquaints us,
that on the day on which this Oration is fuppofed to
have been fpoken^ Sept. $th, there was a very great
Dearnefs and fear city^ Corn. 251.
The fame thing affirmed m the Or at. Ad Quirit. poft
reditum, fuppsfed to have been fpoken on the 6th of
September, equally falfe. 251,252. The occafion
of the Falfity. ibid.
fie makes Cicero mention his Title of Imperator fix
years before he obtained it. 254. did not know the dif-
ference between Imperator and cum imperio. 256.
Who were Imperatores. 257. He ought to have put
Practori or Confuli in/had of Imperatori. 258.
This looks like the Writing of a Foreigner. 259.
R E M A R K S on the Orat. Ad Quirites poft re-
ditum, from 260 2^4.
Nothing in the true Cicero fo intricate and involved a$
thefirjl Sentence of this Oration. 260.
// is little more than an Abridgment or Repetition of the.
fcrmer. 261. the Sentiments, Examples^ and Expnf-
JionS) the fame. Inftanccs. 261 263. But it is infc-,
ricr to the Former. 264. dn injlance. ibid.
Laetitiae voluptate, for Letitia et voluptate. 266.
JJe fpeaks of the recovery of his fortunes on the 6th of
September: When we know from the true Cicero,
that be did not recover them till near a month aft er.
266.,
CONTENTS. xi
266, 267. he contradiffs Hlmfelf in this matter.
268, 269.
Senatus perfecit, ut memoria rerum geftarum perfice-
retur, unintelligible. 269, 270.
Makes nobifmetipfis nos reddidiftis tofignifie, ye have
reftored me for mine own fake : contrary to the. ufe
of the Expreffion. 270,271.
Puts efflagitati for flagitati : and feveral other com-
pound Verbs inftead of Simple ones which have a quite
different fignificat'ion. 271 273.
Makes a mijiake of Four years, at leaft, in point of
Time, in faying that Cicero defended Gabinius in a
Capital Caufe before the year U. C. 695 : whereas
it is notorious, that That Defence c/'Gabinjus. was
not made till the year 699. 273 2/6. An Objec-
tion anfwered. 274, 275. The fame mijiake made
by the French Author o/"The Exil of Cicero, ob-
fervd by Dr. Middleton. 276.
A very obfcure Double Signification of the word mer-
cede. 277.
The Tricks of the Declaimers. 278. The Liberties they
took in the ufe of a Figure or Term which they called
a color, ibid, and in Fiction, ibid. The ill confequence
of this lajl to Hiftory, exemplified by an Inflame. 279,
280.
A very Impious Sentence of the Author^ who tells the
Quirites, That he mall always look upon their Nit-
men, or Deity, as EQUAL TO That of the Immor-
tal Gods. 280282.
SUPERIOREM efle CONTRA improbos, DoubtfuILz-
tia. 282.
The pajjage which Ammian. Marcellinus is thought to
have taken frtanfbii Oration. 282 284.
REMARKS on the Or at. Pro Domo fua,
284. 318.
The Infcription of this Oration Jhould be, DE Domo fua,
rather than PRO : and perhaps APUD Pontifices, not
AD. 284, 285.
Tiie true Cicero'j Oratisn De Domo (ua a very diffe-
rent one from th:j. 285.
Taken
xii CONTENTS.
He confeffes the firji Twelve chapters to be extra cauf-
fam, or, not to the purpofe. 286.'
Taken almojl intirely from the Orations Pro. P. Sextio
and In L. Pifonem. 287. 233.
An Inflance of his great weaknefs /wReafoning. 287,288.
Jubeo, with the Conjunction ut following it, not an unu-
fual manner of Writing in the Golden Age of the
LztinTongue. 288 291,
His Quibble upon the difference between interdicatur
and interdi&um fit. 291 293.
Tangere aliquam partem legis PRAEDA, and quo-
cumque venit, unintelligible. 2 93 2 94
A Majler-piece of Blunder. 294, 295.
Ferrecurationemtibi,yir ferre (legem or rogationem)
DE curatione tibi mandanda, not Latin. 295, 296.
Graevius'j explication of the Words^ ut in Ana Cifto-
phorum flagitaret. 296.
The Author makes Pompey the Great afraid of a Pow-
er which was extinct. And yet, with unaccountable
Stupidity, in the very word which goes before^ calls
the fame Power only diftrata or divided from another
Part of it. 297, 298.
Confounds a Letter of Recommendation with a Letter
of Thanks : and does not do jujiice to Cicero.
298 301.
Pulcherrimi/rf#z quod gejjtffem^ not Latin. 301, 302 .
Spoils his oivn Thought by the Omijfion of a H ord. 302,
33-
Writes widely out of Charatler^ in making Cicero give
the fcandaious name of FUR to App. Claudius, a man
of Character and Power, andcf the Firjl Duality in
Rome. 303, 304,
Hominem fua virtute egentem, a man who is in want
upon account of his Worth. 304. Scato the Mar-
fian, taken out o/"Philipp. XII, 11. ibid.
He puts quanta for quantacumque or quanta quanta :
and advances a Pofition which is net True. 305,
306.
Speaks of the Dedication of a Temple as a thing done
in private j which was a Public Ceremony, 306,307.
Reafens '
CONTENTS. xiii.
fceafons why the Author ofthefe Orations feetns to have
been a Provincial. 308 314.
The Montani, apart of the plebs urbana, never heard
of but in this Author. 308.
The Scribes at Rome, no very creditable order of men.
309312.
He fays that a tribunus plebis had it in his power ts
compel the College of Priefts to be prefent at the Dt-
dication of a Temple. 312 314.
Two Injlances of inconclu/ive Rcafoning. 314-
Makes a Diftinttion, unknown in the Latin Tongue y
between te 6ra and dornus. 315, 316.
Puts MODERATIO rei familiaris in the fenfe of MO-
DUS. 316.
^/Wper viMreligionis/tfr per sPECiEMtfrobtentum.
317.
REMARKS on the Orat. De Harufpicum
Refponfis, 318 358.
Cicero no -where gives the leaji hint thai he ever fpake
er wrote an Oration upon this Subjett. 318.
Afconius Pedianus the firjlwbo quotes itasCicero*s.ibicl.
The reafon for which he qttctes zV, is a ftrong Argument
6f its being fpurious. 320. His Solution of diffe-
rent Accounts^ by <uri)at be calls oratoria calliditas.
321. Note.
He contradicts himfelf, ibid.
Quinti-lian'f Tejlimony of this Oration examined.
321324.
AfconiusV Age^ and the Time when probably he wrote
his Comme'ntationes upon Cicero's Orations, 325
,
1 A Mijlakf 0/Lipfius. 325. Note.
A ConjeSlure at the Time when thefe Orations were
forged and publijhed. 328, 329. 339^
The main ^uejlhn not offered by it, if this Conjetiure
befalfe.^ 330-
An Objection anfwered. 33~~33 2 *'
Duobus INCEPTIS verbis, for duobus PRIM is .ver-
bis. 332.
The Author acquitted from a Contradiction. 333'
xvi CONTENTS.
priety cf the Latin Tongue. 367
A feeming Miftake or Fiction of the Author , concern-
ing the broken Fafces of one of the Confuls, P. Len-
tulus or Q_ Metellus. 370 372. The occafion of
it. 371, 372.
He fays that Cicero was Quaeftor to the F ather of
Manius Curius : when it is well known that Cicero?
was Quaeftor to Sex. Peducaeus. 372. Pighius'^
Solution of the Difficulty ; and an Objection to the
Solution. 372, 373.
Lambin bad no reafon to doubt of the Exprejfion habere
inconfilio: proved. 373)374*
Hunc cedere eurafti, for coegifti, or curaui ut hie
cederet, an unufual w ay of Writing. 374, 375.
Varietas venditorum, a very obfcure exprejfion. 375.
Libertatem de extraordinariis poteftattbus, for liberta-
tem ejus contra extraordinarias poteftates. 375, 376.
Bellum pacatiflimis gentibus, for poteftatem bellum
inferendi pacatiilimis gentibus : Barbarous Lan-
guage, ibid.
Quis fenatuidixit,y07', apud Senatum : not Latin. 377.
Hottoman'i Objection to a paj/age in the Or at. Pro Do-
mo fua not removed by his Solution. ibid.
IPhether a Magi/Irate is ever faid to accufe (injiead of
cite) a criminal. 378 , 379.
Other difficulties and obfcure pajfeges. 379, 380. Our
Author explained. 380, 381.
Mihi/ir in me : retinebat/tfr tenebat, not Latin. 382.
Nimis fuperftitiofus, contrary to Common Senfe 9 and
the cuftom of all other Writers. 383, 384.
Poflidere forum armatis catervis, %/&W0/ r tenere, not
the writing of an Author who under/load the Latin
Tongue 384 386.
d flip of Memory in tit Author. 387. improper Latin*
ibid.
A mijlake in Point of Time. The common Punctuation
vindicated. 387 389.
Several ether feeming Mijlakcs. 389, 392.
REMARKS
REMARKS
UPON THE
E P I S T L E S
O F
CICERO to BRUTUS,
A N D O F
BRUTUS to CICERO.
SIR,
I Here fend you a few Remarks, out of
many which I have made, upon read-
ing the Epiftles of Cicero to Brutus
and of Brutus to Cicero : the Authority of
which having been lately doubted of by the
Reverend and Learned Mr. 'Tunftall *, fe-
veral of whofe Arguments feemed to me
either to overthrow, or greatly to (hake, the
credit of thefe Letters ; I was defirous to
get what further information I could in this
matter, and to try whether fomething could
not be found in them of a different kind
* Epijlola ad Virum Erud. C. Middkton. Cantabr.
1741.
B which
2 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
which might make it equally fatisfadtory, at
leaft to myfelf, that thefe Epiftles could not
be the Writings of the great Authors whofe
Names they bear. Give me leave jufl to
mention the Grounds I went upon, and the
Method I took in making this Search ; be-
caufe the fame Rules, or fomething like
them, may perhaps be of Ufe in enquiring
into the Authority of other Remains of An-
tiquity : perhaps too there may be found,
even among the fuppofed Works of Cicero
himfelf, fome other Pieces^ as well as thefe
Epiftles, which it might not be amifs to try
by the fame Criticifm.
In the firft place, I knew very well that
Cicero's Language , Strength of Rea/dnmg,
Ingenuity , and T^urn of Writing^ could not
eafily, and for any confiderable length, be
carried on by any one out of his own private
Jtock, unlefs he were matter of a Style, Ge-
nius, and Capacity, equal to thofe of Cicero :
and where to look for fuch an one I could
not tell. I was perfuaded in the next place,
that the only way of perfonating him with
Jfuccefs would be, to make ufe of no other
Words and Exprej/ions than fuch as are to
be found in Cicero ; no other accounts of
Fafts but what appear either in his Wri-
tings,
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 3
tings, or in undoubted Hiftorics ; and no
other Reajonings but fuch as are either con-
tained in his Works, or in the opinion of
good judges might not be thought unworthy
to be there, by reafon of their own Jufinefs
and Accuracy. It farther appeared to me,
that if any Man of Sound Judgement, In-
dujlry, and of a competent knowledge in the
Language of Cicero, under thefe Reflriclions
and with thefe Rules always before him,
Should have fet about fuch an undertaking
o
Five or Six Hundred Years ago, or in any
higher Age fince Latin has ceafcd to be a
Living Language j it would have been no
difficult matter to have compiled out of C/-*
cero's Works a fliort Sett of Letters in fuch
a manner as to have rendered it almoft im-
poffible for us, at this time, to have difco-
vered the Impofture ; efpecially had it come
recommended to us, as thefe Epiftles have
done, with Pretenfions to Genuine Anti-
quity from the Suffrages, Commentaries,
and Admiration of many very Learned and
Ingenious Men. On the other hand, if in
an attempt of this kind an Imitator (hould
deviate from the above-mentioned Rules,
and forfake his Original ; fuch an one I did
Hot doubt would leave us fomething which
B 2 we
4 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
we might, as Cicero expreffes it, manupren^
dere ; fome fuch traces and marks either of
Ignorance in Language, Unskiljulnefs in Hi-
jlory and Antiquity, Want of Accuracy in
Reajbning, or, in ihort, Miftakes of one kind
or other, as that we might fafely and with-
out any fufpicion of Prejudice pronounce it
impoffible to be the work of Cicero. And
as to Brutus, tho' from the Remains of his
Works we know but little of his Style and
Manner of Writing, yet there was noreafon
to imagine but that if Letters mould be
written in his Name, at the fame time, and
in the fame manner with the former, they
would be liable to fome or olher of the fame
Objections.
With thefe notions and apprehenfions of
this matter, I apply'd myfelf to the reading
over thefe Epiftles, till fuch time as I thought
my felf pretty well mafter of the Contents of
them j and all along marked every thing of
every kind concerning which I doubted, in
order to compare them with Cicero himfelf,
with the Latin Writers of the beft Ages,
and with the Hi/lorians who have given an
account of the Times in which the Letters
are fuppofed to have been written. This I
did with all the care and caution I could .
and
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 5
and the Refult of the Whole (part of which
I here fend you) gave me reafon to think,
that the Rules which I had laid down to be
obferved by one who would perjbnate Cicero
fuccefsfully, had not deceived me ; being
further confirmed in this opinion by the
Neglect and Want of them which was ap-
parent in thefe Epiftles. for upon balancing
the whole Account between Cicero and this
Writer, whom I now plainly perceived to
be no more than an Imitator, and upon af-
figning to each his Share, I found, that at
leaji one Half "of the Language and Contents
of thefe Letters were undoubtedly Cicero'*,
as being taken out of his genuine Works :
but in the Remainder, which was properly
the Imitator's own, and of which I could
not find any trace in Cicero, there appeared,
in the Firft place, feveral Expreffiom which
feemed to be Falje Latin : others Inconfijlcnt,
or Contrary to the Nature of Language :
fometimes one Word, feemingly through
Miftake or Failure of Memory, put injlead
of another to which it had fome Refem-
blance : at other times a Word, abfolutely
neceflary to the Senfe, omitted : often a great
Ignorance in the Propriety and Signification,
of the Latin Tongue : fome Words ufed
B 3 in
6 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
in a manner quite different from the con-
ftant pra-ftice of Cicero in all his other Wri-
tings : and laftly, One New Word^ not to
be found in any other part of Cicero^ or in
any other Latin Author j and moreover fuch
an one as feemed to be contrary to Analogy^
and the Formation of Latin Words. Thus
much for the Language.
And having, as I thought, got this hold
of him, I proceeded, in the Second place,
to examine his Faffs and Hijiory. For if he
were once detected in writing; Bad Latin.
>^j *
it would be certain that this could not be the
Hand of Cicero or Brutus, but mufl be
That of an Impojlor : and confequently,
that all his Faffs which were not warranted
by good Authorities, might very juftly be
liable to the Sujpicion of Forgery. And the
event proved as I expected it would. For
in fome places he feems to deal in Fiffion,
and to make Faffs of great Importance
which are not elfewhere to be met with in
Hiftory : in others, he makes Cicero diredtly
contradict Himfelf : then he miftakes the
Senfe of the Author from whom he bor-
rows, and thereupon gives a Falfe account :
next, he commits AnachrQnifms^ and relates
things as done at one time which were done
at another. Thirdly ^
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 7
'Thirdly, in his Reafoning he feems to be
as deficient, and as Unlike and Inferior to
Cicero p , as in any part whatever. For fome-
times he argues in fuch a loofe and wild
manner, that his Proofs feem to have no
relation at all to the Proposition which was
to be proved : another time he retains (enim)
the Rea/on, but drops the Thing of which
the Reafon was to be given ; fo that the Proof
of Something appears j but what That Some-
thing is, you are left to feek : fometimes he
throws into his Argument fome Ufelefs and
Idle Word and Circumftance, the QmiJJion of
which, or the Change into its Contrary ,
would have been equally to the purpofe.
Thefe Difficulties remaining inexplicable
after all the Search I could make, I thought
I might reafonably conclude, that thefe
Epiftles could not be the Writings of Cicero
and Brutus. And indeed who could judge
otherwife upon the fame Evidence ? for if
Bad Latin, FalJ'e Hiftory, and Bad Reafon*
ing, can be thought confident with the Cha-
racters of thofe Great Men, becaufe thefe
Epiftles have their Names prefixed to thorn j
it will be impoffible that any Piece which
has borne the Name and Infcription of an
Antient Writer for fome Centuries , can now
B 4 be
8 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
be proved to be a Forgery, be it never fo
Abfurd : fo that if the infipid and blunder-
ing Exercifes and Declamations of a School-
Boy written Five or Six Hundred years ago,
fhould now be brought to light out of a
MS of that Age, with the Title of Cicero's
Orations for M. Scaurus, C. Cornelius, or
any other loft Piece j they muft, upon this
principle, be received as the genuine Works
of the Orator.
But becaufe the QuefHon in Difpute will
ftill remain, and will turn upon this point,
Whether what I look upon as Bad Latin,
Falje Hiftory, and Bad Rea/daing, be in
reality fuch -, it will be neceflary that fome
Inftances of each kind mould be produced :
which mail be done in the Order juft now
mentioned ; to the intent that thofe who
are better skilled in thefe matters, may from
their own Reading and Remarks (if what
is here offered appears doubtful) be induced
either to confirm thefe Obfervations or to
confute them, if they confirm the Truth of
them, Mr. Tiunftall ought to receive the
Honour due to the Difcovery, which is en-
tirely His : if they confute them, I (hall
have the pleafure of being freed from an
Error from which as yet I am not able to
difengage myfelf. For
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 9
For at prefent I confefs I am fo far from
believing Cicero and Brutus to have been the
Authors of thefe Epiflles, as on the contrary
to be firmly perfuaded, that they were writ-
ten many Centuries after their Deaths, by
fome Perfon (or rather Perjom) of no great
Skill in the Latin ^Tongue, and of a very
weak 'Judgement^ notwithftanding his Viva-
city and Ingenuity^ which in fome places I
readily allow him. His Injudicioujnefs ap-
pears in many Inftances, but in none more
than in what concerns the Language of thefe
Epiftles. for whereas he had it in his power
to have executed this part of his Attempt
with fuccefs, and had gone above halfway
towards it by the only Way that could lead
him to it, namely, by making ufe of none
but Cicero's own Words and Exprejflons col-
lected out of different parts of his Works ;
on a fudden he leaves the direct Road and
a fure Guide, to follow his own fancy, and
truft to his own Style : by which means he
has left us fufficient room to trace him out
in his deviations, and, from his Miftakes in
this kind, has enabled us to difcover, that
Latin was not his Mother -T'ongue^ and that
he had learnt it only from Books, (and that
too with no Accuracy, and to no great
Depth)
io REMARKS on the EPISTLES
Depth) becaufe almoft every one of his
Blunders on this head appear to be fuch as
could not poffibly be committed by one who
fpake Latin from his Childhood, and to
whom the Latin tongue was a Living-Lan-
guage. Confequently, it feems evident to
me, that he lived fome time after the Vlth
Century, towards the end of which it is
generally thought the Latin 'Tongue ceas'd
to be /poken. how much lower he is to be
placed, I cannot pretend to fay : but when-
foever he lived, he feems to have been one
of thofe Writers whofe Pieces, as Petrarch
informs us, p. 396. were in his time to be
found in great abundance, bearing the Ti-
tles of the Works of Cicero : under which
Name thefe very Letters impofed upon Pe-
trarch himfelf.
If now it mould be asked, Who, from
the end of the vi th Century to the middle
of the xiv th , that is to the time of Petrarch,
was able to write fuch Letters as thefe, and
at What Time : I anfwer, Any Body, at Any
Time, might do it, provided he had, ift,
a competent Skill in Latin ; that is, enough
to enable him to read and underftand Cicero,
no difficult Author : 2dly, a Good Judge-
ment : and 3dly, Indujlry. Thefe are no
extraordinary
^CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. n
extraordinary and unufual Qualifications ;
and there could never fail of being feveral
Perfons fo qualified in moil Countries of
Chriftendom (but efpecially in Italy y and at
Rome) even during thofe Dark Ages. The
frft of thefe Qualifications we are certain
fubfifted in every ^ge in the Courts of the
Popes, and of all or moft of the Chriftian
Princes, and in many Religions Houfes, and
elfewhere ; as might eafily be made appear
from the Records and Remains of each Age :
and the two others are always Common to
every Age and every Country. So that in
reality there is no fuch Difficulty in this
matter as perhaps is generally fuppofed.
The Chief thing is Good Judgement : this
would lay a conflant check upon the Imi-
tator, and would never permit him to de-
part from the Language of Cicero : it would
likewife guard him from Fiction, and would
hinder him from introducing any Circum-
ftances in his Faffs and Hijtory which were
Falfe or Uncertain and not well attefted :
and laftly, it would direct him in his Rea-
foning, and would not fuffer him to argue
k>ofely and at random, by ^giving Reafons
which are No Reafons and/prove nothing.
Now where lies the Difficulty in this, if
Language
ja REMARKS on the EPISTLES
Language for all neceflary occaiions (and
fuch is in Cicero) may be had, if you will
be at the pains of feeking for itj and Good
Judgement prefides over the Ufe of it, and
over every other part of your Work ? Let
us fuppofe our Countrymen, Bede in the
vm th Century, or Joannes Sarisburienfis
in the xi I th , with thefe Qualifications y and
with thefe Rules before them, had fet about
fuch an undertaking : the confequence would
certainly have been fuch Epiftles as We at
this time, if the Original forged MSS mould
now be produced, could not have denied to
be the genuine Writings of Cicero j or y at leaft,
whatever Sufpicions we might have had,
could not have proved them to be fpurious :
becaufe there would be nothing to which
we could object, for, it might very juilly
be faid, The MSS are undoubtedly Antient,
and carry the Title of Cicero's Epiftles to
Brutus : the Language is entirely and in
every Word Ciceronian : every Circumflance
in the Hiflory is true ; and the Reafoning is
ftrictly juft : what more could you have
from Cicero Himfelf ? This would have
been the cafe in Letters of the ordinary kind
and upon common Subjects, forged in thofe
Ages by men thus qualified : but then, if to
the
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 13
the Three above-mentioned Qualifications
of fome Skill in Cicero's Language, a Good
Judgement, and Indujtry, you add a Fourth,
Ingenuity j nothing would feem wanting to
compleat the Character of ^perfett Imitator
of Cicero in the Epijlolary kind : and then
you would have a Sett not only of Sound
and Judicious, but alfo of Elegant and En-
tertaining Letters, formed and compiled
out of Tully himfelf. Now view this mat-
ter on the other fide, and in proportion as
any of the Three former Qualifications were
wanting, you would find him either Bar-
barons or Negligent in his Language, Falfe
or Uncertain in his accounts of Fafts, or In-
conclufive in his Arguments, and in thofe
refpecls like the Writer of thefe Letters :
for as to the Fourth, Ingenuity, our Author
is often far from being deficient. After
having kid thus much concerning the nc-
difficulty of fuch an undertaking, it may
be thought but a fmall Compliment to the
Learned and Ingenious Gentlemen who are
engaged in this Controverfy, if I profefs my
felf fully fatisfied, That had they intended
it, and thought it worth the pains, either
of them would have been able to have given
the World a Sett of Epiflies, in the Cha-
racters
14 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
rafters of Cicero and Brutus, equal to thefe
on every account, and in many refpects much
fiiperior, and lefs liable to Objections.
If it be further enquired, To what End
any man (hould forge fuch Letters ? it may
be anfwered, To the fame End that any
other Forgery was ever made ; there being
in the cafe of thefe Letters nothing Jingular
and particular, and which has not happened
a Thoufand times before : fo that the Que-
ftion will become general, To what End
any Forgeries were ever made ? an anfwer
to which would lead us too far from the
prefent Purpofe and Subject : only it may
be worth while to obferve, that there fcarce
ever was any Eminent Writer, in any kind 3
who has not fuffered from this fort of Mi-
micry : of which moft of the great Au-
thors of Antiquity, whofe Works are flill
extant, are a manifeft Proof : for there are
few of them who after their Deaths, and
fometimes before, had not Fictitious Pieces
affign'd to them, and published under their
Names : and in many of them We to this
day find feveral fuch fpurious Tracts in the
Body of their Works, and frequently read
them as the genuine productions of the Au-
thors themfelves.
It
of CICERO to BRUTUS, fc. 15
It may ftill be faid perhaps, That thefe
Epi flies were extant in the time of Plutarch,
and that he quotes or alludes to fome pafiages
of them, which are ft ill found here. To this
it may be replyed, That the Epiftles which
patted between Cicero and Brutus were un-
doubtedly extant in Plutarch's time : but
that Plutarch ever faw thefe very Epiftles,
will be a moft difficult point to prove : on
the other hand, it will be an eafy matter to
{how that the Writer of thefe Epiftles had
feen Plutarch ; which in effect comes to the
fame thing as if Plutarch had feen thefe
Epiftles : only there is this material differ-
ence in the circumftances, that Plutarch
took his teftimonies from the Original Let"
ten themfelves j but our Author took his
from Plutarch, who, I do not doubt, had
been many hundred years in his Grave before
thefe Epiftles were ever thought of.
The teftimony of Nonius Marcellus the
Antient Grammarian, who quotes the Firft
Epiftle of this Collection out of the Ninth
Book of Cicero's Letters to Brutus (as it is
now reftored from MSS by Mr. ^unjtall,
Obfervat. p. 65.) feems to me fo ftrong a
Proof of That Epiftle's being genuine, that
I do not fee how it can be eluded but by
proving,
16 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
proving, that Nonius actually was imposd
upon (for that he might be y does not leem
fufficientj by kjpurious Piece : now this I
fhould think cannot be proved unlefs either
from the Language, or from the Matter and
Contents of the Epiftle ; both which ap-
pear to be unexceptionable. Nor am I in
the leaft afraid of making this Conceffion,
that the Firft Epiftle is genuine : for even
the Defenders of thefe Letters allow that
One fpurious one, the Epiftle to O5la<uius y
has been foifted in among the genuine. Now
if One forged Letter, which no body can
tell whence or how it came hither, may be
found among Twenty Three which are ge-
nuine y I would afk, on the other hand,
why One that is genuine , which in like man-
ner no body can tell whence or how it came
hither, may not be found among Twenty
Three jorged ones ? But the Strength of the
Argument againft the genuinenefs of thefe
Letters does not reft upon a Poffibility, or
the Authority and Opinion of any Man, or
Number of Men , but upon evident Mat-
ter of Fact, founded upon fuch Rules of
Judging, as in the prefent cafe can fcarce
deceive us, viz. Bad Latin, Miftakes in
Faffs, and Bad Reajoning : fo that we may
from
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 17
from Nonius's Teftimony readily admit the
Firft Epiftle to be Cicero 's without any dan-
ger to this Caufe, becaufe I think it may
be fairly proved that the reft (I fpeak of
much the greatefl part of them) cannot be
Gcero'Sj or Brufus's.
The Lucius Clodius, who is the Sub-
ject of this Firft Epiftle, is, in all proba-
bility, the fame who was jrrafe&us Fa-
brum to dpp. Claudius Pulcher, Cicero's
PredeceiTor in the Government of the Pro-
vince of Cilicia, feven or eight Years before
the writing of this Letter. This Lucius is
mentioned Four times in the Epift. ad Fa-
miliar. Lib. iii. epift. 4, 5, 6, 8. His
cognomen was Marcel/us, and he was of the
Plebeian Branch of the Claudian Family, as
appears not only from his being ^Tribune of
the People Elect, but likewife from his/>r^-
nomen of Lucius : for whereas there were
Two Branches of the Claudii or Clodii,
namely, the Pulchrl or Nerones^ and the
Marcelli ; the former Patricians, the latter
Plebeians ; the Patrician Branch had, for
fome time before this, by general confent,
difclaimed and difufed the fraenomen o Lu-
cius, becaufe there had been Two Lucius
Claudius Pitlcbers who were notorious Vil-
C lains,
i8 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
lains, and a fcandal to their Family, as Sue-
tonius in Tiber, c. i. relates : A limilar In-
fiance to which, in the prasnomen of Mar-
cus in the Manlian Family, is recorded by
Livy vi, 20. and Cicero Philipp. i, 13. So
that whenever we meet with a Lucius of the
Claudian Family, about thefe times, we
may conclude that he was a Marcellus, and
a Plebeian : whence likewife we may ga-
ther, that the Lucius Clodius y pharmacopeia
circumforancus, - who is mentioned in the
Orat. pro A. Cluent. c. 14," was a Freedntan,
or the Descendant of a Freedman, of fome
or other of the Plebeian Branch of the Clodii :
for as to Sex. Chdius Phormio, mentioned in
the Orat. pro A. Caecina c. 10. tho* he was
of the fame Condition with the former, yet
it is uncertain to which of the Two Branches
he was obliged for his Liberty. Had the
Author of the Oration De Harufpicum Re-
Jponfis known this little piece of Hiftory con-
cerning the prasnomen of Lucius in the
Claudian Family, he would not have intro-
duc'd, as he does cap. vi, a Lucius Clau-
dius with the Title of Rex Sacrorum, which
Office he himfelf affirms, Orat. pro Domo
C. 14. (if that Oration was written by the
fame hand with the other) to have belonged
to
of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 19
to the Patricians. But this is a Miftake
into which tho' Cicero could not fall, yet a
Declaimed eafily might; and it is a pardon-
able one in companion of many others
which are to be found in that Oration*
The fame Judgement with the i ft I ihould
make no doubt to pafs upon the vii th Epiftlpj
which begins} Multos tibi commendavi y etc.
were it fupported by the Authority of
Nonius, or any other Ancient Writer. For
it is very like Cicero s Hand, nor can I find
any Thing material to object to it. The
only Scruple is in the Phrafe aliquid autfori-
tatis qfliimere, by which he feems to mean, to
take or obtain fome Commifjion or Command:
whereas Cacjar De Bell. Gall, ii, 4. and
Vegetius )e Re milit. i, 8. make ufe of the
fame Expredion in a bad fenfe, to lignify an
GJuming and taking upon one's felf too much j
thro' Arrogance : which Cicero in Brut. c.
53. calls potential ajjumcre: and fufcipere
au5iontatem^ in Verr. V, 58. But I fhould
not think this alone a fufficient reafon for
rejecting the Epiille as a Forgery, notwith-
ftanding the Bad Compan}Mt is fallen into :
becaufe it is well known that there are very
many Expreffions in the Latin Tongue which
in different Situations have a different Senfe,
Ca If
20 , REMARKS on the EPISTLES
If it be a Forgery, it feems to be the bcft
executed of any of them : tho' at the fame
time it mu ft be allowed that there would be
no difficulty in Forging fuch a Letter as this,
to one who was accuftomed to Cicero, in
whofe Recommendatory Epiftles, almoft every
Sentence of this may be found. There are
likewife two or three more of thefe Epiftles,
to which, tho' I am very well fatisfied, for
my own Part, that they are not genuine ;
yet I can find but little that can be objected
in order fully and effectually to convince an-
other, to whom perhaps they may not ap-
pear in the fame Light. Of all of them,
except the firft and vii th , the xv th , which
begins, Scribis mihr mirari Ciccronem, etc.
feems to me to bid the faireft for Antiquity.
For tho' there are fome objections to the
Language of it, and more to the Matter and
Contents - y yet I think it comes nearer to
the Style and Manner of the Age of the De-
claimerSj which fucceeded that of Cicero,
than any other of them : tho' in reality, the
Miftakes are fuch as could fcarce have been
made by one of that Age. For as to Brutus 's
other famous Epiftle, the twenty fecond,
which begins, Particulam Utter arum tuarum,
etc. there are fo many and fuch ftrong Ob-
jections
of CICERO to BRuTus,'fc. 21
jedions to it, that I think it mufl needs be
the Performance of one who had but a very
moderate Knowledge of the Latin Tongue,
and as fmall a (hare of found Judgement :
tho' it muft be confefl that the Sentiments
are Great and Generous, and worthy of an
Antient Roman. It feems to have been the
EfTay of fome lively, high-fpirited, inge-
nious young Man.
But allowing \hejirjl to be (as I verily be-
lieve it is) and fuppofing thefeventb to beg^-
nuine; a Queftion will arife, How came they
hither ? To this no fatisfaclory Anfwer can
poffibly be given, becaufe we are ignorant
of the Hiftory and Fate of the Books of
Cicero's Epiftles to Brutus after that the
Collection had been once broken and dif-
iblved. That they were thus broken and
difperfed, is evident from Fact. For Five
of them are ft ill extant, and are got out of
their proper volumes into the EpiJJolae Fa-
miliar es, Lib. xiii. Epiil. 10, n, 12, 13,
14. Can any Body in our Age inform us by
what Accident, by whom, and at what time
thofe Five Epiftles were brought thither?
if he can, his Anfwer may perhaps help us
to a folution of the Queftion before us. but
Jf it cannot be done, we muft reft contented
C 3 under
22 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
under our Ignorance in this as well as in a
thoufand other Circumftances of the like
kind relating to the Works of the Antients,
and of Cicero himfelf. It is poiTible that the
Forger of thefe Letters might in fome Mafiu-
fcript or other pick up this ftragling genuine
Epiftle concerning Lucius Clodius, and
might place it as a Frontifpiece to his own
Work, being willing tofet out right, what-
ever might befall him afterwards. This,
I fay, is po/Jible: and that is all I would
J J i *x/
choofe to fay of it. However, thofe who
are curious will perhaps obferve further, that
whereas all the other twenty two Letters are
fuppofed to have been written within the
compafs of four Months, April, May,
June, and July, in the Year U. C. 710;
thisjir/t was in all probability written fome
time in the Year 709. which looks as if it
was brought hither from fome other place,
and as if the Architect thro' Inadvertency had
plac'd his Houfe at too great a Diflance
from the Porch which he found ready built
to his Hand, for if this was not the Cafe,
how happened it, that in this active Seafon,
there mould be a Chafm of at leafl four
Months, and perhaps many more, between
the frft and the fecond of thefe Epiftles,
and
of CICERO to BRUTUS, Gfc. 23
and afterwards the Correfpondence carried
on regularly and at proper Dif lances through-
out all the reft of them, as they are dif-
pofed by the laft learned Editor ?
As to the Character of the Author of the
Letters, (fuppofmg all of them to have come
from the fame Hand) he feems to have been
a Perfon of quick Parts and Ingenuity^ and
of a (hare of Learning not very common in
the Age in which he lived. He certainly
had read part of Plutarch in the Original,
which in thofe times was no vulgar attain-
o
ment for an Inhabitant of the Wejlern Parts.
He quotes Plaittus y takes an Incident out
of Corn. Nepos, another out of Suetonius, and
from fome Expreffions one might very pro-
bably conjecture that he had read Liiy y and
Tacitus. There is likewife a palTage Epifl.
xxi. p. 152. concerning Larentia, which
feems to be taken out of Varro De Ling.
Lat. lib. V. p. m. 48. The Pieces of 'Cicero
to which he is chiefly obliged, are Three :
firft, the Orations^ and in thefe the Philippics
principally, fecondly, the Epijlolae ad Fa-
miliar es -, and herein efpecially the tenth,
eleventh, and twelfth Books, thirdly, the
Epiftolae ad Atticum. Out of all thefe he
has borrowed pretty largely ; fometimes o-
C 4 penly
24 REMARKS on the EPISTLES
penly and without difguife, almoft Word
for Word: at other times covertly, and
with fome change of Words ; which change
he has fometimes managed in fuch a manner
as thereby to violate the Latin and the Scnfe.
Thefe three Pieces cxcepted, I do not find
that he often borrows out of the reft of
Cicero's Works; fome of which it feems
probable that he had either never read, or
h&& forgotten ; as will appear from a manifeft
Contraction to Cicero in a matter of Fact.
His great deficiency lay in the Article of
'Judgement, had he been Mafcer of this, it
(joined to his other Qualifications) would
have enabled him to perfonate Cicero fo art-
fully, that he could never have been found
out by us at this Diftance of Time.
It will perhaps be difficult to produce a
ftronger Inftance, (for I think there is as
ftrong an one in fome other Pieces which
have hitherto been univerfally received as
written by Cicero] of the Power of Prejudice ',
and what a Biafs a great Name is able to lay
upon '^Judgment of Mankind, than thefe
Letters afford us. For the Title of Cicero's
Epiftles, and the beauty of his Language^
which was fo confpicuous, and fo plentifully
Jntermix'd in thefe Letters., did fo power-
fully
of CICERO to BRUTUS, Gfc. 25
fully fix the Attention of Men otherwife
remarkable for their great Learning and Saga-
city, as to make them (tho' they could not
help having fome Sujpicions and Mifgivings)
overlook Barbarifms and Blunders which I
am perfuaded would have appeared to them
upon the firft reading had this Work been
published in the Name of any of their Con-
temporaries. And fo again on Brutus 's part :
his Noble and Generous Sentiments,, which
in thefe Letters are frequently very well con-
ceiv'd, attracted all their Regards, and took
them off from his Language and his Reafi-
ning. had they attended to thefe, they
would certainly have concluded, that bad
Latin and falfe Argumentation are much
ftronger Proofs ott\\efpurioujhefs of Brutus' s
Epiflles, than Brave and Great Sentiments
are of their being genuine : becaufe Men in
any Age may poffiby Think as ftrongly as
Brutus did; but it is almoft impojible that
Brutus mould write bad Latin^ and very
improbable that he mould argue fo 'weakly as
he does in thefe Letters.
But it is time to enter upon the Examina-
tion of them : which I (hall undertake in the
Order abovementioned, firft, the Language :
fecondly, the Faffs : thirdly, the Reafoning
and
2.6 REMARKS on the EPISTLES, etc.
and Sentiments. From the firft of thefe I
propofe to make it appear, That thefe E-
piftles could not POSSIBLY be the Writings of
Cicero and Brutus : From the Second and
Third, that (fetting afide the Language for
a while) there are fo many Miflakes under
thefe two Heads, as to make it next to an
JmpoJJibility ^ according to the common Judge-
ment of Mankind, that thofe great Men
could be the Authors of them.
This I mall do as the Examples under
each Head may happen to occurr to me,
without any regard to the order and feries
of the Epiftles themfelves, or to any other
confideration than Truth and Perfpicuity.
I follow the Edition of Dr. Middleton, (Lond.
1743. 8 V0 . in Latin and Englijh) which 1
fuppofe is in the Hands of more
Readers than any one other Edition,
REMARKS
REMARKS
A NG U AG E
O F T H E
EPISTLES, etc.
SECT. I.
IN the fixth Epiftle p. 42. Brutus writes
thus concerning C. Antijlius Fetus:
HutC PERSUADERE COEPIMUS, Ut
impcrator in caftris remaneret^ remque publi-
cam defenderet : jlatuit eundumfibi, qiioniam
exercitum dimijiffet. He certainly meant
Juadere coepimus ; but did not know, or had
forgot, the difference between fuadere and
perfuadere ; that Juadere eft FACIENTIS;
perjuadere, PERFICIENTIS, as the Ancients
tell us. The former is to exhort or ad-
vt/e : the latter, to perfuade, that is, to
ejf'eft or accompli/Jo that which you pro-
pofed in exhorting or ad*uifing. So Cicero
Philippic, ii, 1 1. An C. Trebonio PERSUASI?
cut
28 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
ad ne s u A D E R E quidem aiifus effem . A uo
tor ad Herennium iii, 3. Aut ft SUADE-
BIMUS quidpiam facile id quod velimu*
exemplo allato PERSUADERE pofftmus. Se-
neca Epift. Ixxi. SUADEO adhuc mihiifta-,
nondum PERSUADEO. Apuleius Met. iv.
p. 71. Cumque nulli nojlrum^ fpontale parri-
cidium SUADENS, PERSUADERE pojjet, etc.
and lib. vii. p. 135. eique SUASISSE, ac
denique PERSUASISSE. I need not tranfcribe
any more Inftances. So then perfuadere
coepimus^ is, /BEGAN my advice <with the
END of it. Nor can it be here objected,
that coepi and incipio with another Verb join-
ed to them are frequently mere Expletives,
and an elegance of the Latin Tongue bor-
rowed from the Greeks^ who often put
awopw -sroieiv, or A7y, &c. for-are^, orxgy.
fo fatter -e incipias for f alias ^ Terence Andr.
iii, 2. Cicero ad Attic, i, 4. Cajetam, fi quando
abundarc coepero, ornabo : i. e. abundavere.
nay Horace Serm. i, i. fays, FINIRE labo-
rem INCIPIAS; which he might have ex-
prefs'd by labor em Jinias. This, I fay, tho' it
be very true, cannot be objected here, becaufe
in thut Qzfeperfuadere coepimus muft be per-
fuajimus ; which would be falfe : for Brutus
did not perfuade Fetus to ft ay with him, as
of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 29
you fee from what follows, jlatult eundum
Jibi. A true Antient Roman writer would
have faid fuadere coepimus. thus Cicero Fa-
mil, vii, 3. Qua cum vidiffem, dejperans
vision am, primum COEPI su ADERE pacem
cujus fueram femper auffor. Seneca Epift.
Ixviii . Nunc ad illud revert or quod s u A D E R E
tibi COEPERAM, ut otium tuum igno turn Jit.
Curtius vii, 11. Copkas admijjus SUADERE
COEPIT Arimazi pet ram traders. Jujlin
ii, 7. in/olitis fibi ver/ibus SUADERE populo
COEPIT quod vetabatur. On the other
Hand, when they make ufe of pfrftuafere,
they join with it fome Verb which exprefles
endeavour or defire. Corn. Nepos in Eumen.
c. 2. per fuadere STUDUIT. in Attico c. 4.
perfuadere TENTARET. Ltiy xltt^i.perjita-
dere CONARETUR. Cicero pro Cluent. c.
10. perfuadere VELIM. Horace Serm. i, 5.
per/uadere CUP IT. Any of thefe would
have anfwered our Author's purpofe, and he
might have written, Huic perfuadere ftu-
duimus, or tentavimus, conati fumus, vo-
luimus, cupivimus, ut imperator in caflris
remaneret, etc. but, I believe, you will never
find perfuadere coepimus in any genuine An-
tient Author, for if he intended to fay, 1
ran to PREVAIL upon him+ a Latin Wri-
ter
36 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
ter would have exprefs'd it in a differed
manner, and not have join'd coepimus with
perjuadere ; which looks more like the Blun-
der of a modern School-Boy than the writ-
ing of an Antient.
So again in Brutus's celebrated Epiftle p.
176. you have thefe Words: Semper in
a There is an Inftance fomewhat like to this in the
Oration pro domo fua, c. 44* the Author of which by
putting excogitavit inftead ofcagitavit, (hows that he did
not know the meaning of, and the difference between^
thofe two Words. He is fpeaking of P. Clodius^ and
and upbraiding him for pulling down the Portico or
Monument of ^u. Catulus in order to build his own
Houfe upon part of the Area of it : At videte hsminis
intolerabilem audaciam, cum project a quadam et effrenata.
fupiditate. Monumentum ijle nunquam, aut re-
ligionem ullam excogitavit : habitare laxe et magnifice
voluit. he never thought of (had no regard to, never
confider'd) any Monument? or any Religion : his only
view was to have a f pa clous and magnificent Habitation^
This is what the Author meant, but Cicero would
have taught him better Latin^ and mow'd him the
. difference between excogitare and cogitare, Famil. V,
2O. cum rem, a me non inftpienter excogitatamj ne co-
gitatam quidem putes; tuhenas you imagine, that a
thing not ill contriv'd by me^ has not fo much as been
thought of by me. and fo Ad Attic, ix, 6. Forcoci-
TARE quidpiam is to think of any thing: as Philip.-
V, 5. ft ullam fpeciem Reipublicae cogitaviflet? if he
had thought of any Jhoiv or appearance of a Common-
PRAE-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 31
PRAESENTIBUS malis PROHIBENDIS,^-
tura quoque, nift ante Jit occurj'um, explores^
ne fe infmuent. This is the fame Inconfift-
ency in Language and Senfe as if you were
to fay procul adjacet, or knge adejl : for
praefentibus fuppofes the Evils he is (peaking
of to be actually upon us, and prohibendis
implies at the fame time that they are to be
kept at a dtftance from us. fo that he is pul-
ling you forward with one Hand, and pufhing
you back with the other. Prohibtre malum
\sproculhabere, to keep ojfzn Evil, to keep
it at a dijlancej to binder it from being
prcfent to us. So in 'Terence Hecyr. ii, i.
Dii mala prohibeant ! may the Gods keep off*
wealth? -but EXCOGITARE quidpiam is to contrive^
devife, or invent any thing : as in the next Chapter
of the fame Oration, bane tertiam decuriam excogi-
tavit : be contrived, or found out, this third Decury.
Kence Tufculan. Difp. i, 25. Quid? ilia vis quae
tandem /?, quae inveftigat occulta ; quae inventio
aique excogitatio (he could not here have written
cogitatio) dicitur ? Inftead of exco&itavit, in the above-
mentioned paflage, Lambin reads cogitavit, but Grae-
vius obfen r es that there is no variation in the Manu-
fcripts : and I am fo well acquainted with this Author's
Hand, upon the like and other Occafions, as not to
have the leaft doubt but the reading of all the Manu-
fcripts in this place is his writing.
misjor-
32 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
misfortunes ! not prejent but future ones *
fee what goes before. Cicero pro leg. Ma--
nil. c. 7. erlt Igitur humanitath veftrae mag-
num eorum civium numerum calamitate pro-
hibere : to preferve or keep off from calamity ;
not yet prejent , but future and in Expecta-
tion. Had 'Terence faid, mala praejentia pro-
bibeant, or Cicero, calamitate praefenti pro-
hibere, they would have fallen into the fame
abfurdity our Author has here done, but
they knew very well that prohibere when it
is ufed concerning 'Time, always implies
fbmethingy#/#r<? and not yet prejent; when
of Place, fomething at a diftance. hence
Cicero in Verr. iv, 64. adds procul to this
Verb, to denote ftill a greater diftance:
quod praedones procul ab injula Sicilia pro-
hibuiflet Verres. infert the word praefentes
here, quod praefentes praedones > prohi-
buiflet, as it is in our Letter- Writer, inprae-
fentibus malis prohibendis -, and you will
have the Pirates got into Sicily, and at the
fame time kept off at a great diftance from
it. Livy xxii, 42. Dii prope ipfi eo die ma-
gis dijiulere quam prohibuere IMMINEN-
T-EM pejlem Romanis. he is fpeaking of the
Battle of Cannae, fee .what follows, immi-
nent em peftem, the impending or approaching
cala-
of the EPISTLES) &c. 33
calamity, not praejentem : for when it is
praefens malum or peftis, it is upon us t and
we are in if; and a Latin Writer would
not then advife us prohibere, (for it would
be too late) butdepellere, orabjicere, orexu-
ere, or fomething to the purpofe of throw-
ing it off 'and getting out of it. fo that praejen-
tia mala prohi here is to keep at a diflance evils
that cannot now be kept at a dijlance. Had
he written in praefentibus malts inhibendis,
(which word, or cohibendisjt is not impoffible
he might mean) in retraining theprejent evils-*
inftead of prohibendis ; there would have been
nothing blameable in this fentence : or had he
added latins ferpere after prohibendis, fo as to
make it, in hindering the prefent evils from
(preading farther, the Senfe and the Latin
would have been good, but as it ftands at pre-
fent, it is an Error of Ignorance in the Lan-
guage in which he wrote. He feems to have
been partly drawn into this miftake by the
w&dfutura, which he thought would ap-
pear more elegant if it had its Oppofite. tho
indeed had he left out praefentibus, ftill it
would not have been good Senfe : to effect
which, the fentence muft have been
changed and put into fome other Form, as
sny one may perceive who (hail think it'
D worth
'34 REMARKS .* the LANGUAGE
worth while toconlider it. for all evils that
are (prohibendd) to be kept off] are of courfe
and in the nature of the thing future ones,
fo that you cannot rightly fay in prohibendis
mails , FUTURA QjJoQjJE explores-, becaufe
fat futurity of them is already implied in
in the word prohibendis. He might more
juftly have faid, in keeping off ONE KIND
of evils, take care that ANOTHER does not
fteal upon you before you are aware.
In the fame Epiftle p. 174. O&avius is eft,
qui quidde nobisjudicaturusftt, expeffet popu-
lus Romanus? If you will follow the Lan-
guage and Conftruction of this fentence, you
may fay of it what Pjeudolus does mPlatttus,
Haec qiiidempol, credo, nifi Sibylla leger it,
Intcrpretari alium poteff'e neminem.
For you can get no further than the foul"
firfl words, OcJavius is eft, qui Go on
if you can. the Relative qui is left deftitute,
and finds nothing to reft upon, and yet the
fentence of the fame kind, which follows
iaft after, is rightly formed : Ego vero, ut
ijluc r ever tar, is Jum ojJi non modo non
SUPPLICEM, fed etiam coerceam pojlulan-
tcs ut fibi /iipplicetur. This is as it mould
l:c, ego is Jum qui fufplicem ; and as the
other
of the EPISTLES, Gff. 35
Other ought to have been, Off'avius is eft
qui dicat, or faciat, or any other Verb,
what the Author pleas'd, provided it were
fome Verb or other. The cafe feems to
have been this : As the latter part of the
Sentence now (lands, he ought to have
written, Otfavius is eft, A QJJO, quid de
nobis judicature Jit, EXPECTET populu-s
Romanics, but when he wrote the firft part
of it, Otfavius is eft, qui he intended to
have drawn it up in a different Form, and
to have added a Verb which fhould anfwer
to qut, as is always done in this form of ex-
preffion, by all writers, and in Cicero per-
haps fifty times : but his Memory feems to
have fail'd him before he got. to the end of
the Sentence : fo that he has left the former
part of it, as he Originally deiign'd it, with
qui ; and the latter, as if he had written in
the former part a quo. But is it poffible,
you may lay, that a perfon's Memory
mould be fo very Unfaithful as to forfake
him in the compafs of one fhort Sentence ?
It is very poilible, where a man either writes
' ha/lily i or where the Language in which
he writes is not his Mother Tongue, and the
Ideas rife in the Mind only at fecbnd-hand,
and .do not neeeffarily go along with the
>' * La-ngaage
e-'
36 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
Language : for, I believe, you will find no
errors of this kind in any Antient Writer, to
whom the bare reading it over would at firfl
fight have discovered the fault. Now to
mow how ealily the Moderns may fall into
fuch miftakes, I will give you an Inftance
or two. The firft fhall be in an Acquain-
tance of yours, who a few years ago pub-
limed fome Annotations upon Max. T'yrius:
;in which you have thefe words p. 667. col.
i. " Vox enim JCO^TJ, fola, non fignirkare
" puto montis jugum vel verticem." This
is exactly a parallel cafe, the Author fet out
with the intent of writing, non fgnificat,
puto y montis jugum &c. but before he had
written half a dozen words, he had forgot
the Vox and Jbla \ and wrote Jignificare puto
as if Vocem and Jblam had gone before. An
.other Inftance mall be in a Man of much
greater Knowledge and Ufe of the Latin
Tongue than either the Writer of thefe Epi-
flles, or the Annotator upon Max. tyrim : I
mean the late learned Mr. Eurman of Ley-
den j who in his Note upon thofe words of
Quintilian (Infiitut. viii. 6. p. 742. col i.)
centaurum Chirona, obferves that in one of
Vojfiuss MSS, inftead of Cbirona, it is hoc
under which word he does not dc-'.ht
but
of the EPISTLES, &c. 37
but the true reading is conceal'd. this he ex-
prefles thus: "nullus vero dubito, QJJIN
" in ilia voce hoc cona LATE RE aliam ap-
" pellationem, quaeconflituatmetalepfim."
He intended at firft to have written, nul-
lus dubito QJJIN LATEAT alia appellate.
but, his Pen going on, and his Thoughts
ftraying, he forgot that he had put quin- t
and fo ended the fentence as he would have
done had the word quin been away ; or as
if in (lead of nullus dubito quin he had writ-
ten opinor or ptito. I mention this without the
leaft Malignity towards the Memory and
Reputation of that Excellent and Ufeful
Scholar ; and with no other view than to
{how, how eafy it is for us, who are Foreig-
ners to the Ancient Language of Rome, to
fall into mistakes of this kind j which mif-
takes, it is probable, we mould have avoid-
ed, had we written in the Tongue of the
Countries in which we were born and lived.
Nor fliouW I have thought it worth while to
mention fuch a flip of Memory in any Mo-
dern Writer of Latin, or in the Author of
thefe Letters, had he publifhed this Epiftle
in his own Name, and not endeavoured to
pafs it upon us as the Writing of Brutus. If
it be faid, that the pafTage which I have
D 3 been
38 REMARKS en. the LANGUAGE
been fpeaking of ought to be corre&edj an4
read A QUO expeffef, inftead of QJJI cx-
peclet : It may be anfwered, That this is beg-
ging the Queftion in Difpute, and proving
one uncertainty by another. Let the Epiftle,
which. is now fujpefted to be a Forgery, be
firft proved to be the genuine Work of Bru-
tus, by confuting all the Rea{bns and Ob-
jections that can be brought againft it; and
then no Difficulty will be made in admitting
the Correction, in the mean time, the pre-
fent Reading of all the Copies as far as we
know, is an Argument on the other fide of
the Queftion, and greatly ftrengthens the
Proof that this Epiftle is not the writing of
Brutus. And the fame may with great
appearance of Truth be faid of feveral other
paflages in thefe Letters, which learned Men
have altered contrary to all the Copies ; and
which, in all probability, are not the miftakes
of Tranfcribers, but of the Author him-
felf.
The words which immediately go before
the paffage I have been fpeaking of ^(Epift,
xxii. p. 174) are thefe: DC Caefare vero f
quod fieri potuit ac dcbuit, tranfaffium ejl ;
neque jam REVOCARI in integrum potcft.
Ore would imagine that this expreflion re-
vocari
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 39
in integrum was borrowed from Livv ;
but that through failure of Memory one
word was put in inftead of another, revocari
inftead of rejlitui : as it frequently happens
to us when we remember the Senfe and
perhaps fome of the Words of any paf-
iage in an antient Writer, and either fup-
ply the reft of ourfelves, or endeavour to
put together thofe which we do remember :
in which laft cafe, if we have but little
fkill in the Language, it is great odds but
we are led into fome fuch Miftake as feems
to have befallen our Author here. The
place of Ltvy is Lib. xxxi. 3 2. in the Speech
of Damocritus the Praetor of the Aetoliam :
celerem enim paenitentiam, fed eandem jeram
atque inutllem (d\xit)Jequz ; quum praecipi-
tata raptirn con/ilia neque REVOCARI, neque
IN INTEGRUM REST iTUi poffint. Whe-
ther our Author took the expreffion from
this Place, and confounded revocari in in-
tegrum with rejlitui in 'integrum^ I cannot
fay : but, whence foever it came hither, I
believe we may fafely affirm that rewcari
in integrum is not to be found in any good
Latin Writer, notwithftanding that rejlitui
and rewcari may be ufed indifferently upon
other occafions; See/-W. Maxi^msiv. i. 4,
P 4 extern.
40 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
extern, compared with V. i. g. and V. 2. 6.
He might better have put the contrary to
in integrum, namely, in irritum; as in
Marcus Seneca Controverf. iv. 26. placet
mihi in irritum revocari quae gejla Jimt.
Rejlituere in integrum is a very common
expreffion, borrowed originally from the
Civil Law. it fignifies, T'o rejlore a Perfon
or Thing into the condition in which it for-
merly was : id enim eft INTEGRUM quod
ita effet ut futffet, as it is defined in the
Auftor de Bell. Alexandrino, c. 35. I need
not tranfcribe Inftances of a Phrafe fo ob-
vious : but, if any body is defirous to fee
fome of them, he may look into (befides
thofe mentioned by Faber in his Thejaurus)
Cicero Orat. pro Cluentio c. 36. pro L.
Flacco c. 32. Philippic, ii. 23. Caejar Bell.
Civ. iii. i. Aucior. De Bell. Alexandrine c.
70. Lucius Seneca Confol. ad Marciam c.
22. De Benef. iii. 14. Epift. xlviii, Ixvi,
and xcviii. Suetonius in Jul. c. 16. 'Jufan
xxxi, i. In the lower Age of the Latin
Tongue I find it changed into reddere in in-
tegrum in Lampridius in Alexandro c. 7.
and in Fiavius Vopifcus in Aureliano c. 17.
and in Caro c. 2. tho' Lampridius in Com-
modo c. 6. retains the antient Latin Form, a?
does
of the EPISTLES, &c. 41
does a lower Writer, Ammianus Marcellinus,
four times ; and Macrobius Saturn, vii. 5.
Philoxenus has retain'd it in his Gloffary : In
integrum rejlituet : i\q dxiyttav '&m < K. l a<?r l <T*t.
Gruter takes notice that in the antient Edi-
tions and in fome MSS, inftead of rewcari
is found provocari, neither of which feems
to him the true reading.
In the fame Epiille, p. 178. Idem Cicero,
fifexerit adverjits alios judicium fuum y quod
tanta jirmitate ac magnitudine direxit in ex-
turbando Antonio, non modb reliqui temporis
gloriam eripuerit fibi, fed etiam etc. By
magnitudine in all probability he meant mag-
nitudine animi^ greatnejs of 'mind r , as Epift.
ii. p. 10. and xix. p. 130. But magnitudine,
by itfelf, no more fignifies greatne/s of mind,
than it does greatnefs of riches or of wicked-
nefe : and he might every whit as properly
have written tanta jirmitate ac CRASSI-
TUDTNE. But to do Him juflice, the
words are capable of another Conftrudion,
if you join quod tanta jirmitate ac magni-
tudine with judicium^ fo as to make it the
fame thing as if he had faid, judicium quod
tamfirmum ac magnum : and then the quef-
tion will be what he means by judicium di-
rexit. for the expreffion dirigere judicium t
to
42 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
to guide or direct the Judgement or Faculty
of judging, (I cannot find that it has any o-
ther fignification) betides that it is not at all
to the purpofe here, has ufually join'd with
it the Thing BY which the Judgement is
guided <x directed: as De Fin. Bon. et Mai.
i. 19. regula AD QJJAM cnmia judicia re-
rum DIRIGANTUR. Iii Orator. 0.71. fed
ne in maximis quidem rebus quidquam adhuc
invent fir mi us quod tenerem, aut QUO judi-
cium meum DIRIGEREM, quam id &c.
Quintilian Inftit. vi. 5. ideoque 120$, quid in
quaque re Jequendum ccsocndumque Jit, doce-
bimus, ut AD EA judicium DIRIGATUR.
According to this, he fhould have written,
judicium fuum quod direxit AD exturba-
tionem (or exturBattone] Antonii^ not, In
exturbando Antonio. Let us try it another
way, by putting a flop after direxit, and
taking in exturbando Antonio apart, in the
fenfe of, when he expel!' d or routed Antony.
Still there will recur the fame difficulty
concerning judicium direxit when left to it
felf. What is the Senfe and Meaning of it ?
or how can it be explained and illuftrated
by proper and fimilar examples from Cicero
and other good Writers ? He feems to have
wrfilium (not judicium] juum quod
direxit
of the EPISTLES, &c. 43
direxit ad extitrbandum Antonhim: as in
Quintilian x, i. AD EA fe quifque dirigebat
EFFINGENDA quac potcrat. The whole
Sentence looks like the crude conception of
a young or injudicious Writer, who, not
understanding the Language in which he
wrote, aimed at fomething which he was
not able to expreis, and has left it to
us to make what we can of it.
The expreffion in exturbando Antonio is
one of thofe from whence I imagine that
this Author had read facituf, from whom
he feems to have taken it, Annal. ii. 2. Ubi
illam gloriam trucidantium Craflum, EX-
TURBANTIUM ANTON I UM ; ft mancipium
Caejaris, tot per annos fervitutem perpeffitm->
Par this imperitet ? not Ib much becaufe thefe
two words are joined together, as becaufe I
do not find that Cicero ever ufes the Verb
cxturbare, in the Senie here required, with-
out an Ablative Cafe, according to which,
if this Author had imitated Cicero, he would
have written In exturbando e civitate Antonio,
or fomething to that effect. See the Orat.
pro P. Quinciio c. 15, and 31. pro Mu-
racna c. 22. pro Sulla c. 25. pro P. Sexfio
c. 30. Hence it was that, Ad Attic, viii.
j 6. itaque quaero, quifmt illi optimates, qui
me
44 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
me exturbent, cum ip/i domi maneant ; in-
ftead of cum, Viftonus read, exturbent Cu-
mis, ipfi etc. But there was no need of this,
for the word domo is to be repeated from
the latter part of the Sentence : which is
very ufual, and better than if it had been
exprefs'd : qui me [ e domo ] exturbent y cum
ipfi domi maneant. And fo it is to be under-
ftood in the Orat. pro A. Cluentio c. 5.
ieffum genialem in eadem domo Jibi or-
nari et fterni^ expuhd atque exturbatd [ ex
domo] filid jubet. I know that the Author
of the Oration pro Domo fua ufes the word
exturbare abfolutely, c. 42. where Cicero is
fpeaking of his own Expulfion by Clodius :
cum indemnatum exturbares, privilegiis ty-
rannicis irrogatis. but the true Cicero never
writes in that manner, concerning Place.
Again, in the fame Epiffcle, p. 168. ne-
que magis irritatus cfjet Antonius regno
Caefaris, quam OB ejufdem MORTEM de-
ter r it us. He mould have faid, quam ejuf-
dem MORTE deterritus: not ob mortem, and
fo this fame Brutus writes Epift. vi. nulla
RE deterreri a propojito potejl : and Epift.
xv, p. i oo. nulla erit tarn bona conditio fer-
viendi oji A deterrear. So Cicero de Fin.
V. 1 8. verberibus deterreri. Livyn. 54. dam-
nations
of the EPISTLES, &c. 45
natione^ periculo deterriti . x. 30. non deter ri-
tus iniquitate loci. Hirtius Bell. Gall.viii. 44.
exemplo Jupplicii deterreri. Seneca Ep. Ixxvi.
nulla re deterreri. Corn. Nepos Dion. c. 8.
religion? non deterritus. Nor can I ever find
it other wife in any Author. The expreffion
at the bottom of the fame page, ut effet fui
juris ac MANCIPII reJpubUca, feems to be
very low and improper. What Antient Au-
thor ever writes in this manner ? He meant
what b Hirtius Bell. Gall, viii, 52. and
Pliny Nat. Hift. vi, 26. exprefs much bet-
b The whole Paflage of Hirtius is this : Nam C-
Curio, tribunus plebis^ quum Caefaris caujfam dignita-
temque defendendam fufcepijjet^ faepe erat fenatui pol-
'UcituS) fi quern timer armorum Caefaris laederet^ et quo-
mam Pompeii dominatio^ atque arma, non minimum
terrorem F O R O inferrent j difcederet uterque ab ar-
miSy exercitufque dimitterent : fore eo paflo liber am et
fui juris civitatem. It feems ftrange that the great
Power and Arms of Pompey fliould be faid to occafion
terror to the forum only, one might have expedted
that he would have faid, to the whole State; as Caefar
does, concerning this very Matter, Bell. Civ. i. 9.
met us eciviTATE tollatur : and a little higher, omnem
Italiam metu liberare. The word foro does not there-
fore exprefs enough ; becaufe, tho' Pompey might free
the forum from the terror of his Power and Arms y
yet it would not follow that therefore the Civitas or
State would be libera et fui juris. The place is faulty,
and I think ought to be read thus : non minimum terra-
ter
46 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
ter, LIBER AM et Jui juris civitatem. So
animus sui JURIS ^ARBITRII, in Seneca
rem PO. RO. inferrent, that is, populo Romano:
for that in Manuscripts is frequently the manner of
exprefiing thofe two words ; and when once the Points
were omitted by any Tranfcriber, it was natural for
the next, inftead of P O R O, which he could make
nothing of, to write F O R O. And in fact this has
been the occafion of fevefal miftakes of the fame kind:
So in Caefar Bell. Civ. i. 9. inftead of populi Romani
benefaiunii in almoft all the Manufcripts and antient
Editions it is PRO beneficio\ which was, P. RO.
beneficium : but when the Stops after P and R O were
dropt, the two words became one, namely the Pre-
pofition pro ; and that requiring an Ablative Cafe, it
was neceffary that benefclum fhould be changed into
beneficio. of which laft fort of depravations there are
very many in Caefar. Again, in Cicero in Verr. iii.
12. affeclae iftius nona PATftEW traditi t fed a
meretricula commendati^ inftead of Patre^ which is
quite impertinent, Francius's Manufcript has populo
Romano? which in all probability is Cicero's Hand.
See Graeviits. Here too P O R O or P R O not being
underftood, feems to have given occafion to the inter-
polated word P A T R E. Once more, in a fragment
of Cicero's fecond Oration for C. Cornelius p. 974.
T. vi. ed. Graev. nullo inter ceffore comparato 9 prodcrit.
inftead of the laft word Manutius reads populo R. dedit.
His Note is this: lfrferiV ] Conjecturam, et fimuJ
' hiftoriam fecutus, repofui, populo R. dedit: mu-
'' tatione fere nulla, curri, ut opinor, ita icnptum
" fuerk in antique libro, P. Ro. dedit. quod imperiti-
" poftea depravarunt, u ejufmodi mults. "
ConfoL
of the EPISTLES, &c. 47
Confol. ad Polyb. c. 27. Cicero in Verr.
ii, 7. sui JURIS SENTENTIAE^. ,/-
yy xxiv, 37. W ^#2 mitterent legatos, cujus
JURIS clique ARBiTRii ejfet. xxv, 7. Afor-
<://.$, /W#rc JURISTS POTESTATIS SUAE
effe, dixit. xxxviii, 47. nondum in JURE ac
DITIONE veftra Graecia atque AJia erat.
Spar ti anus in Adrian, c. 18. Ji fuae AUC-
TORITATIS effent. Vulcatius Gallic anw in
Avid. CaJ/io c. 7. Si POT EST AT is fuaey^-
iffet. From this Variety of expreffion you
fee, that there was no want of a proper
phrafe, could our Author have been content-
ed to write like other people. Seneca de Be-
nef. V, 19. applies the expreffion to ajlave :
et qui agrum meutn colit^ non ilium , Jed me
demereri *uult. idem de fervo dicam : MEI
MANCIPII res ejl y mibi /'ervatur. he is MY
PROPERTY.
Once more, in the fame Epiftle, p. 170,
Sed nibil TA.NTifuit, Qj; o vender emus fi-
dem nojlram et libcrtatem. This I prefume is
not Latin, it ought to have been TANTI
fuit UT vender emus. For tho' quo is often
ufed for ut y yet I believe it never is, nor can
be, where tanti goes before. Cicero ad Attic,
xi, 1 6. Sed ego non adducor, quemquam bo-
num ullam jahttem put are mi hi TA.NTI
48 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
fuifle, UT ab eo peter em. xii, 5. nihil tamen
TANTI, u T a te abeffem y fuit. Tibullus
ii. 7. 24.
Non ego fum TANTI plore t u T ilia femeL
Pliny Epift. viii. 9. Nulla enim jludia TAN-
TI funt^ UT officium amicitiae defer atur.
Examples are every where to be met with,
and not one, I believe, of the other kind.
Had he left out tatiti, the paflage would
have been right as it now flands : or had
he written t ant urn; as in Marcus Seneca
Suafor. i. nihil tantum eft, quod ego Alex-
andrl periculo petam. Cicero Fam. xii, 8.
Nihil eft tantum, quod ncn Pop. Romanus
a teperfici atque obt inert pofje judicet. Or,
nitllarestantafuit UT, or QJJA vender emus.
So Cicero pro S. Rofcio c. xi. nulla res tan-
ta exiftat judices y u T pojjit vim mihi majo-
rem adhibere metus quam Jides. Ad Attic.
iv, 2. Nulla ejje poteft (occupatio) tanta, UT
interrumpat iter amort s noftri et officii. and
fo De Fin. iii, 13. Terence Heauton. iv,
3;
Nulla mihi res pofthac poteft intervenire tanta,
Qu A E mihi aegritudinem adferat.
Cicero in Verr. i, 18. ne nunc quidem recor-
daris, nullum ejje tantum malum, QJJOD
mm.
of the EPISTLES, &d 49
non tibi pro fceleribus tuts jamdiu debcatur^
See in Verr. iii, 24. pro Cn. Plancio c. 32.
Auctor. ad Herennium iv, 42. Here are
Four ways of being in the right, with very
little variation j and our Author choofes to
be in the wrong in a Fifth.
Epift. xix. p. 132. Sed it a multi LABE-
FACTANT, &/, ne MOVEATUR, interdum
extimeJcam.Thdt is, but there are Jo many 'who
MAKE HIMTQTTER, that Iqmjometimes
afraid left he flwuld be MOVED. Which
is as if you fhould fay of a bad Writer, That
he makes Miftakes not only in every LINE,
but even in every PAGE. He ought rather to
have tranfpofed the words, and to have
written, Jed it a multi MOVE NT, ut y ne
L AB E F ACT ET u R interdum extimefcam,
for movere is much lefs than labejafiare.
a perfon who puihes another from him
with his hand, tho' ever fo gently, does
MOVERE ilium: but if he does it ib
violently as to caufe the other to ftagger^
and to be near falling down, he does LA-
BE FACT ARE (i. e. facer e labare) ilium.
and therefore movere always goes before
labefaffiare or labare in the order of Nature.
Cicero De Fin. iii, 22. quid non fie aliud ex
alio netfitur, tit non y fi ullam (1. imam) lit-
E teram
50 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
teram moveris, labent omnia? which he
repeats Lib. iv, 19. Et ais y Ji una Utter a
commota fit, fore y tota lit labet dijciplina.
He expreffes all the three Degrees (woven ,
labejaffari) concidere or mere) in the Orat.
pro Leg- ManiL c. 7. H ace fides atque haec
'ratio pecuniar urn , quae Romae, quac in for o
uerjatur, implicit a eft cum illis pecuniis A-
fiaticis, et cohaeret. ruere ilia non poffunt^
utbaecnoneodemLAEEFACTATA MOTU
CONCIDANT. and Liny xxxv, 20. Saxum
ingens, five imbribm^ five MOTU terrae
leviore quam ut alioqui jentiretur^ L ABE-
FACT A T u M , in vicum Jugarium ex Capi-
tolio P ROC i BIT, et multcs opprejjit. The
firft ftep is motus, which does labefaftafe
the things fpoken of ; the confequence of
which is concidunt and procidit. but Cicero
was fo great a Pedant, and unlike our Au-
thor in thefe matters, that you would never
have prevail'd upon him to change the or-
der, and to write, ut haec non eddem labe-
fadlione mota concidant ; or, ut haec non
eodem labefacJata cafii moveantur. Columellaj
tho' an excellent writer, was not perhaps
. fo great a Critic in the Latin Tongue as
. Cicero was : yet he knew enough of it to
fay,
of the EPISTLES, &c. $i
lay, ne vento Jure it Ins MOTUS LABEFAC-
TETUR, aut explantetur tener pampinus,
De Re Ruft. iv, 29. and fo did Tacitus,
Annal. iv, 13. faftaque^ aucJore eo, fena-
tus confulta, ut civitati Clbyraticae apud
AJiam, Aegirenfi apud Achalam, MOTU
terrae LABEFACTIS, fubveniretur remijjione
tributi in triennium. Ovid puts the two
laft parts only, Met. ii, 402.
nequid LABEFACTUM viri&us ignis
CORRUAT, explorat.
and in like manner Met. viii, 774. and
Faftor. ii, 59. and Cicero De Fin. iii, 21.
LABEFACTARE atque PERVERTERE.
Our author, inflead of m moveatur, (hould
have written, ne funditus evertatur : as in
Verr. iii, 18. LABEFACTARAT enim ve-
hement er aratores jam j'uperior annus : prox-
imus verbj FUNDITUS EVERTERAT. or,
ne demoveatur et depellatur de loco, as pro
Caecina c. 17. which Cicero elfewhere of-
ten exprefTes limply by movere loco : others
by Jlatu or de ftatu mover e. Bat does not
Virgil Georg. ii, 264. write,
E/LABEFACTA MovENS robuftusjugera
fo/or?
E 2 He
52 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
He does, and confirms the Truth of what
I have been faying, for this was fo contrary
to the natural Order of Writing, that Servius
thought it worth while to advertife the Rea-
der, that Virgil here writes Poetically and
Figuratively. Hypallage: MOVENS et LA-
BEFACIENS. If Virgil had written in the
Ordinary manner, there would have been
no need of Servius's Note.
Epift. xv. p. 96. Aetas enim^ mores ,
liberL s E G N E M effichmt. If Brutus wrote
* **/
in this manner, it (hows the Truth of what
Cicero fays concerning him, Ad Attic, vi,
3. that Brutus does not in the leaft confider
WHAT he writes, nor To WHOM. For here
in a Friendly Letter to Atticus^ without
any provocation, and at the fame time that
he fays y nee mehercule te, Attice^ reprchendo y
and below p. 100. declares, that he loves
him ; he is ahifing him to his face : and
that too in a Circumftance which did not at
all belong to the Character of Atticus^ who
was the furtheft of any Man in the World
from the fufpicion of being fegnis. Our
Author undoubtedly meant by that Word>
averfe to public k Bufinefs^ not caring to con-
cern himfelf in State- Affairs, otii quietifque
cupidus, as Veil, Pajercuhts. (i, 7.) exprefles
it,
ef the EPISTLES, Gfc. 53
it ; a lover of that otium honeftum which
Cicero (Ad Attic, i, 17.) lays Atticus's in-
clinations always led him to, who non
INERTIA, fed judicio, jugit reipnblicae
procurationem., as Corn. Nepos relates of him
in his Life, c. i l 5 : one of thofe who, remoti
ajludiis ambit ionis, otium ac tranquillitatem
vitaefecuti/imt, proMuraenac. 27. But this
Writer did not know that fegnis, when ap-
ply 'd to the Mind, as here it rnuft be, (for
if he meant it vfjlownefs of Body, the pro-
pofition &Jalfe- t and not to the piirpofe] is a
Fit ions Character, and fignifies a Slothful
Perfon, one who thro* Lazinefs and a bla-
meable Indolence, or unreafonable Fear, or,
at lead, through a natural Incapacity and
and want of Parts, is deficient in his Duty.
The Antients would have taught him this,
had he read them with any Attention. 6V-
fero pro P. Sextio c, 23. ne, Jiqua vos ali-
quando necejjitas ad rempublicam contra im-
probos ernes defendendam vocabit, SEG-
NIORES fois, et recordatione mei casus, a
confiliis fortioribus rejugiatis. Livy xxii,
12. where he is fpeaking of Minucius and
his reviling Fabius the Cunclator, becaufe
he would not come to a Battle with An-
nibali primo inter paucos, delude propalam
E 3 in
54 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
in vulgus, pro cunftatore SEGNEM, et cau*
to timidum, adfingem vicina virtutibus vi-
TIA, compsllabat. Cap. 44. quum Varro
jpeciojiim timidis ^^SEGNIBUS ducibus exem-
plum Fabii objiceret. xxiv, i $.fortifljmus quif-
que pugnator effe defierat : s E G N I B u s ac ti-
midis tradita pugna crat. Tibullus i, i.
Non ego laudari euro, mea Delia : tecum
Dummodo Jim, quaefo SEGNIS inerfque
wcer.
See Seneca de Ira i, 13. Pliny Nat. Hift.
iii, 5. Tacitus Annal. xvi, 25. SEGNES et
pavidos fupremis fins jecretum circumdare :
ajpiceret populus virum morti obvium etc.
Hift. ii, 82. IpfeVefpafianusadire^ hortari^
bonos laudc, SEGNES exempk, incitarejae-
pius quam coercere -, v i T i A magis amicorum r
quam virtutes, dijjimulans. Quintilian In-
ftit. i, 3 . fpeaking of the Parts and Difpo-
Jitions of Youth: PR OB us autem ab Ufa
SEGNI et jacente plurimum abcnt. If
therefore our Author took fegnis in a Good
or Indifferent Senfe, he miftook the figni-
jfication of the Word ; but if he took it in a
Bad one, what he fays is Falfe, and Inju-
rious to the Chara&er of Atticus. Inftead
ofjegpem he might have put cautum. The
\vord llberi is frequently ufed when only one
Child
of the EPISTLES, Gf<r. 55
Child is fpoken of, as here : fee Cicero in
Verr. i, 30. (where by liberorum he means
Pbilodamus\ Daughter) Gellius N. A. ii, 13.
and Mr. Duker's Note upon Florus iv, 3,
Neverthelefs the Author in this place per-
haps might leave libri.
The lame Unikilfulnefs in the Ufe of the
Latin Tongue appears likevvife Epifl. xi. p.
72. Quaji rion lice at traduci ad mala con/ilia.
corru ptu m LARGITIONIBUS animum. By
largitiombus he means concejjlons of Honours
and Command which were conferr'd upon
Q&ffvianus by the Senate ; in the promoting
of which, Cicero had a great mare. But
this ought to have been honor urn ef imperil
largitienibus , -not fimply largitionibw
which word has a meaning very different
from what our Author here intended to ex-
prefs, not only in Cicero, but in all good
Writers. For tho' the Verb largior fignifies
to grant or be/low^ in any manner-, and lar-
giri konores is to confer or grant honours
in Horace Epifl. ii, i. lacitus Annal. xi c
i ?.. Suetonius in Claud, c. 29. and Aujbnitft
Grat. Adt. c. 31: yet largitio or largitiones.,
the Subftantive, when ufed alone, has a
peculiar Senfe, more confin'd ; and figni-
es., Firft, thofe donations of Money, Lands,,
E 4
56 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
Corn, Entertainments, Plunder of con-
quered Cities, Games, Plays, Gladiators^
etc. which were made by the Tribunes and
others to. the Populace ; by Generals to their
Soldiers j by Candidates for Pods of Honour
and Profit to thole whofe Favour and Intereft
they flood in need of j by Magiftrates to
the People, upon their entrance into Office :
or any other In fiances of the like kind^
which are many. Hence in the Gloflary
the word largitio is rendred ^r/o^j}, a doal,
or diftribution; as if that were the only
fignihcation of it. This Sen fe of the word,
which I have been mentioning, is the indif-
ferent and innocent one.
ones were commonly made with a view to
Ambitious purpofes, thence the word beganto
have, Secondly, a Bad fenfe put upon it,
and frequently to imply Bribery : fee the
Orat.pi'o Muraenac. 3. and proCtf. Plancio
c. 2. 6. and throughout the whole Oration.
Hence Cicero De Orator, ii, 25. joins ambit u
atque largitione as almoft Synonymous
Terms ; and in the fame place diftinguimes
between liberalitas and largitio as different
things, when he fays, that in Caufes de Am-
bit u^ raro illud datitr ut poj/is LIBERALI-
TATEM ac benignitatem ab ambitu atque
LARGJ-
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 57
JLARGITIONE fejungere. and fo Ad Attic.
vi, 6. and again Orat. pro Muraena c. 36.
quare nee pkbi Roma?iae eripiendi fntffus
ifli funt ludorum, gladiatorum, convivio-
rum ; (quae omnia majores nojlri comparave-
runt) nee candidates ijla bcnignitas adimenda
eft^ quae LIBERALITATEM tnagis Jigni-
Jicat qudm LARGITIONEM: liberality ra-
ther than bribery. Thefe laft mention'd lar-
gitiones are thofe which he calls improbae y
Orat. pro P. Sulla c. 23. and perniciof'a
largitio^ pro Muraen. c. 37. diftmguifh-
ing them from the former which were
Legal and allowed. And thefe two notions
of the word largitio run through all the An-
tient and heft Latin Writers, and occur e-
very where, fo as to make it unnecellary to
produce Inftances. If you would throw it
out of one or other of thefe two ilgnifica-
tions, you muft add another Subftantive to
it: as Orat. pro Muraena c. 20. AEOJJI-
TATIS largitio: pro L. Ealbo c. 13. lar-
gitio CJVITATIS: Seneca De Benef. i, 2.
largitio BENEFICIORUM: VaL Maximus
ix, 12. BON i largitio. But if you join the
word corruptus to it, and omit the Subftan-
tive, as our Author does here, you fix it
down to Bribery. Cicero pro Cn. Plancio
.51.
58 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
c, 15. Hoc igitur fcnfimus : cujujcumque tri-
bus largitor effet, etperhanc conjenfionem, quae^
honefte, magis quam vere, Sodahtas nominare-
tur^ quam quifque tribum tu rpi L A R G i T i o N E
CORRUMPERET, eum maxime its hominibus,
qui ejus tribus effent, efje notum. and cap. 16.
dubitatis, qitin eas tribus judicarit'officiis ab
hoc obfervatas, non LARGITIONE CORRU-
PT AS ? De Legg. iii, 17. Itaque ut omittam
LARGITIONE coRRUPTA /iiffragia, non
uidesji quando ambitus fikat^ quacri in juffra-
giis quid opt imi vin Jentiant ? Thus in DC
petit. Conjul. c. 14. comitia INQ.UINATA
largitione ; to which is oppofed gratis juft af-
ter ; zsgratuita comitia Ad Attic, iv. 15. and
in the Oration or Declamation againft Cicero^
which goes under the name of Salujl^ cap.
i. apud Pop. Romanum, qui it a LARGI-
TIONIBUS CORRUPTUS eft, ut fe ipfe^ ac
fortunas Juas venales babeat? Florus i, 26.
inter que haec omnia, nullius acrior cujlos quam
iibertatis juit -, nulldque in pretium ejus po^
tuit LARGITIONE CORRUMPI. Here
therefore our Author fliould have written
largitionibus honorum, or, honoribus nojlris,
corruptum: otherwife he will confound a
perfon of Otfavi anus's Condition and Figure
with the meaneft of the Populace, who,
being
of the EPISTLES etc. 59
largttionibus corrupt^ corrupted by
bribes^ for the fake perhaps of a few Sejler-
ces would give their Suffrages to any body
or to any thing. I believe any Antient Ro-
man, who h ;d read this Sentence, would
have taken it in this latter fenfe, and could
have taken it in no other : unlefs it can be
made appear by Inflances, that Honours con-
ferr'd by the Senate (as well as Bribes) may
be called fimply largitiones. What our
Author means, Cicero expreffes much more
clearly by honor i bus noftris elatus, Philipp. V,
j 8. never cndum quidem eftuttenereje (Caefar)
pofjit^ut modcrari^ ne HONORIBUS noftris E-
LATUS intemperantius Juis opibus utatur.
Nor is his Judgment better in the ufe of
the word liceat in this place : quafinon L ICE-
AT traduci ad mala con fill a corr upturn largi-
tionibus animum. For tho' licet and pot eft may
be, and often are put indifferently ; yet not
always. LICE RE dicimus (fays Cicero ,
Philipp. xiiij 6.) quod legibus, quod more
Majorum injlitutoque conceditur. and fb it is
to be taken in that paflage of the Orat. pro
Rabir. Poflumo c. 5. where he is ipeaking
to the Judges : quid deceat vos, non quantum
LICEAT votis, jpeftare debetis. fi enim
quod L i<3 EAT, yuaeritis, pot eft is t oiler e e cz-
vitatc
60 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
vitate quern <vultis. by liceat he means the
power that is allowed you, as Judges, by
the Laws. Thus Epift. x. of this Collection,
p. 6 8 . Sed quamvis LICEAT Objiritis ratio-
nem haberi y tamenomnia j'unt praefentibus ja-
ciliora.. here LICEAT is right, and he might
have written POSSIT ratio haberi^ as
he did a little before. But if you were to
translate into Latin this fentence, As if a
Man could not kill his Father ! you would
not fay, Quafi non LICE RET cuipiam pa-
trem Juum interficere ! but rather, Quaft
non POSSET qitijpiam etc. When it is faid
Act. i. in Verr. c. 2 . Nibil ejje tarn fane-
turn ^ quod non violari -, nihil tarn muni turn,
quod non expugnari pecunia POSSIT j it
would be ill-judged if any body mould put
liceat in the room of pojfit. for what need
is there of this Ambiguity which borders
upon and leads into Falfoood, when the
thing may be expreft directly, and without
any poffibility of caufmg the Reader to mif-
take ? Cicero indeed himfelf once fell into
the fame error of expreffion in this very
word licet, but he immediately corrects
himfelf, and owns that it is a Vitious Form
of Speech, Tufcul. Difp. V, 19. where he
is fpeaking of Cinna, who put to death fo
many
of the EPISTLES, &c. 61
many famous Men : Beatujhe igitur^ quia
bos interfecit ? mihi contra, non jblum eo vi-
de tur mijer quod ea fecit; fed etiam quod it a
fe gejfit, ut e a facer e ei L i c E R E T : etfi pec-
care nemini LICET: fed SERMONIS ER-
ROR E labimur *, id enim LI CERE dicimus
quod cui conceditur. Now tho it cannot be
denied that this ufe of the Verb licet which
Cicero here finds fault with, is often to be met
with in Latin Writers, efpecially Poets and
Orators, in the fenfe of power , howfoever
applied, lawfully or unlawfully ; yet even
then the Conftrudion and Form of the
Compofition is different in the Antients (fee
M. Seneca Suafor. vi. p. 30. ed. Gronov.
^ Curtius vi, 10. Virgil Aen. vi, 502.
Lucan viii, 537. Martial iv, 18.) from this
of our Author, who would have done bet-
ter had he taken Cicero's hint concerning
this word, and inftead of it had put POSSIT
or SOL EAT corruptus animus ; according to
that diftindlion in Verr. iii, 81. Jcio quid
SOLE AT Jieri ; Jcio quid LICE AT.
Again, Epift. xii. p. 78. in Panfae locum
PET ERE conjlituit. be rejbhes to jue in
Panfa's place. To fue for What? Pan/a
was in the Confulfoip when he died, but That
cannot be meant here for feveral reafons ;
4 as
62 REMARKS en the LANGUAGE
as is well known to thofe who are acquainted
with the Hiftory of that Time. If Panfa
died poffeft of any other Poft for which
Bibulus intended to be a Candidate, that par-
ticular Poft ought to have been mentioned
with pet ere : other wife the meaning will be
unintelligible. So Philipp. xi, 5. <%uid Bef-
tiam ? qui fe co N s u L AT u M in Bruti locum
PETE RE profit "etur. Auffor ad Herenn. i,
u. Alt era lex jubet, AUGUREM, in de-
mortui locum qui PET AT, in condone nomi-
nare. Coelius in Cicero Famil. viii, 4. Illud
te non arbitror miration, Servium, dejigna-
tum TRIBUNUM PLEBIS, condemnatum :
cujus locum (f. in cujus locum^ C. Curio
PETIIT. Thus it is always: and Reafon
fhows that it cannot be otherwife, when-
ever any particular Office or Poft is fpoken
of. for it is impoffible to know from the
iingle word petere y to be a candidate^ whe-
ther you mean that the perfon intends to be
a candidate for the Office of 0$uaeftor, Tri-
bune, Aedile^ Praetor^ Conful; or Flamen,
{^uindecemvir, or any other Priefthood. But
whenever the Verb pete re, or petitio, or pe-
tit or, occur without any mention of a
particular Poft, they are to be taken in a
general Senfe 3 and fignify the fame as, pe-
tere
of the EPISTLES, &c. 63
fere honores or inagiftratus, petitio andpeti-
tor honor urn or magijlratuum. Inftances of
the Verb in this general Senfe, without the
addition of honor es^ or Qttatftnram, Praetu-
ram^ Confulatum, etc. are very fcarce. there
is one in the Orat. pro P. Sextio c. 64. qui
legem earn contemnat quae dilucide vetaty
gladiatores biennio^ quo quis petierit, aut pe-
titurus fit, dare ? which words are repeated
in the Interrogatio in Vatinium c. j 5. But
the Subftantive petitio for petitio honor um is
very common. Thus in our Author Epift.
xxi. p. 152. Statuam Philippus decrepit-,
celeritatem petitionis primo Servius j poft
majorem etiam^ Servi/ius. where celeritatem
petitionis fignifies, the privilege oj Juingfor
Offices (in general) before the legal time^ as
Dr. Middleton rightly tranflates it. So Cicero
Philipp. V, 17. Itaque Majores noftri^ ve-
teres t/li, admodum ant i qui, leges annales non
habebant ; quas mult is poft annis attulit ambi-
tio y ut gradus cjfjent PETITIONIS inter ae-
quales. See Quintilian Inftit. iv, 2. ad PE-
TIT i o N E M defcenderit : and Horace Carm.
iii, i. Dejcendat in campum PETITOR.
Here therefore our Brutus difcovers great
ignorance in the Latin Tongue, and writes
(I will venture to affirm) as no Antient Ro-
man
64 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
man Author ever did, when he fays that
Bibulus in tends (pet ere) to be a candidate for
Panjas Place, without any mention or hint
What it was that he intended to be a Candi-
date for. Dr Middleton is of opinion that it
was a place in the College of Pontifices, or
minor Priefts, that Bibulus was now fuing
for: Not. in Loc. n. 2. I cannot tell whether
there be any exprefs Proof from Antiquity
that Panja was Pont if ex when he died, if
there be not, it mould rather feem, that
the Favour and Credit in which he had for
a long time been with Julius Caefar, who
had in his power the difpofal of almoft every
thing, would require fomething of greater
Dignity and Authority than a minor Prieft-
hood', viz. the Augur ate & . Now that Pan/a
was Augur at the time of his death, may be
collected from Cicero himfelf, in a Letter to
H^Cornificius, Famil. xii, 25. Hirtiumqui-
* Unlefs he was both Augur and Pontifex^ as jj\
Pabius Maximus was, Livy xxx, 26. and C. Servi-
Ilu3 Geminus was Pontifex mqximus and Decemvir fa-
crorum, xl, 42. Galba had faccrdotium triplex at the
fame time, Suet. Galb. c. 8. Vefpafian had duplex^
Vefpaf. c. 4. But Commodus was a Member of all
the Colleges of the Priefts, Lamprid, in Commod.
C. 12.
of the EPISTLES, &c. 65
dem et Panfam, COLLEGAS noftros, homi-
nes in conjulatu reipublicae falutares, alieno
Jane tempore, amijimus. and that Cicero was
Augur at that time is certain from Philipp.
ii, 33. xiii, 5. xiv, 5. and many other pla-
ces, and from Pliny Epift. iv, 8. which
paffage I mall quote below. The word
nominationem too, which our Author here
makes ufe of, is proper in this matter of the
Augurs: See Cicero Philipp. ii, 2. xiii, 5.
Livyx, 8. Pliny Epift. iv, 8. fpeaking of the
Augurate, into which he had been chofen :
Mihi vero etiam illud gratulatione dignwn
videtur, quod fuccejfi yulio Front ino, prin-
cipi viro : qui me nominations die per hos
continues annos inter facer dotes NOMINA-
E AT, tanquam in locum fuiim cooptaret. and
a little lower : e qui dem, utfcribis, ob hoc
maxime deleftat Auguratus meus, quod
MARCUS TULLTUS AUGUR fuit. But
whichfoever (if either) of thefe our Author
meant, whether the Augur ate or Pontifi-
cate, he ought to have expreft himfelf, in
Panfae AUGURIS (or PONTIFICIS) locum
petere conftituit : or, in another Form,
AUGURATUM (or PONTIFIC ATUM) in
Panfae locum petere conftituit. and in the
fame manner in any other Priefthood, in
F Panfae
66 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
Panfae FLAMINISDIALIS locum, in Pan/he
QUINDECEMVIRI locum etc. examples of
which are frequent. If it be faid, that the
Augur ate was too high and unufual a Dig-
nity (as indeed ordinarily it was) for fo
young a perfon as L. Bibulus ; our Author
muft aniwer for that as well as he can, if
he meant the. Augur ate. tho' perhaps he
himfelf did not well know what Poft he
defigned for his Candidate, and therefore
made ufe of the general word peter e, which,
when put alone, comprehends All as pro-
perly as Any One of the Offices which Pan-
fa died polled: of. at leaft it is impoffible
for us to know his meaning : and it is no
great matter whether we do or not. How-
ever, there is a pafTage in the Epift. Fami-
liar, ii, 17. from whence perhaps the hint
of the Subject of this Letter might be taken :
ilk (M. Bibulus) autem cum ad Tiber mum de
Parthico hello fcri beret, ad me litter am nun-
quam mi/it, ad quern intelligebat ejus belli pe-
riculum per finer e : tantum de AUGURATU
filii tmjcripjft ad me.
In the fame Epiftle p. 80. there is a paf-
fage which it is difficult to underfland:
Apuleium verb tu tua auftoritate fuflinere
debes: Jed Domitius IN fua Epift o la CELE-
BRA-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 67
BRABITUR. The difficulty lies in the
Verb celebrabitur. Would he fay, That
Domitius ivill be celebrated or made famous
BY his EpijHe, which he has written upon
this Occafion, and which, as being perhaps
an ingenious one, will fufficiently recom-
mend him? But then he mould have writ-
ten fud Epiftold, or OB or PROPTER fuam
Epijlolam, not IN fua. for IN fua Epijhla
celebrari, is, to be celebrated i N his own Let-
ter : which one would think mould be no
great Recommendation of him ; at leaft,
not of his Modefly. Ovid indeed Faftor.
vi, 55. has, centum celebramur IN aris.
but that is SUPER aras, or PER aras,
or centum aris : none of which fenfes will
be proper here. Celebrare has very many
figuifieations in Antient Writers : but I can-
not meet with one which will make tolerable
Senfe in this place j and fhould be obliged to
any body who would explain it, and confirm
the Latin of it by a proper In (lance or two :
for I confefs I do not underfland it. In the
mean time I will fet down out of Cicero
two paffages which may partly mow what
a Latitude of fignification this word is ca-
pable of, if that will be of any Service to
our Author. De provinc. Confular. c. 9.
F 2 he
68 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
he is Ipeaking of Caefar and his exploits in
Gaul. An ego pojjum huic effe inimicus, cujus
litter is, Jama, nunciis, CELEBRAKTUR
AURES quotidte meae novis nominibus gen-
tium, nationum, locorum? where CELE-
BRANT u R aures meae feems to fignifie, my
ears are FILLED; the notion of 'multitude or
frequency being included in the word cele-
brantur, equivalent to frequentantur. A-
gain, Orat. pro Muraena c. 41. Quanta au-
tem pcrturbatio fortunae^ atque fermonis,
quod qui bus IN \oas,paucis ante diebus, fac-
tum effe confukm Muraenam nuncii litterae-
que CELEBRASSENT, repente eo ac-
cedat ipje nuncius Juae calami tail 3 ! Here ce-
lebraffent fcems to iignifie sclebre reddidijjent :
me/fingers and letter* had made it a ivell known
thing^ that Muraena 'was created Conjul.
Ovid unites both thefe fignifications, Faii.
iii, 656.
Ef celebrant largo sEque DiEMque men.
' Give me leave to add Tibullus, for the fake
of correcting him, Lib. i. El. viii, 49.
Hue ades, et GENIUM ludis Geni umque
choreis
Concelebra, et multo tempora funde mero.
S So
of the EPISTLES, &c. 69
So the paflage is to be read, inftead of the
idle word, et CENTUM ludis Gcniumque
chords. Tibullus is fond of this Repetition of
the fame word. So Lib. i, 4: 82.
Defkiunt artes, deficiuntque doli.
\, 5: 100.
feftas exftruet ake
Cefpitibus menfas, cefpitibufque tonm.
ii, 6: 9.
Caftra peto : valeatque Venus, valeant-
que puellae.
and fo elfewhere.
But to return to our Author. In the
Two foregoing Remarks we have feen In-
ftances of Brutus' s Unfkilfulnefs in the La-
tin Tongue, in omitting a word abfolutely
neceflary to the Senfe j as largitionibus for
honorum largitionibus s and petere inftead of
pontificatum or augur at um petere. Now,
take one of Cicero's, ftill more remarkable,
Epift. x. p. 66. Eft ctlam in lege Julia,
quae lex eft de Sacerdotiis proximo^ his t ver-
bis, QUI PETIT, CUJUSVE RATIO HA-
BEBITUR. aperte indicat, pojje rationem
baberi, etiam non praefentis. He fays, that
F 3 thefe
70 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
th-jie words, $ui petit, cujufve ratio habs-
b't'ir, plainly Jhow, that a Man maybe con-?
fdered as a Candidate^ tho' he be NOT PRE-
SENT. .On the contrary, I maintain that
thefe. 'words are ib far from mowing it plain-
ly, that they do not mow it at all. For in
which of the words cujufve ratio babcbitur^
finale, or taken together, does the fignifi-
cution of a perlon's being not prefent lie ?
Rationem habere a/icujus, when you are
jfpeaking of one whojiands for any Pofl t is,
to look upon a per Jon as a candidate ; which
implies his being qualified, this is the whole
meaning of the Expreffion. if you would
Jay any thing further, concerning his being
confidered as qualified tho he be NOT PRE-
SENT, or ABSENT j it can be done no other-
wife than by adding the word which (hall
fignifie fuch ab fence: cujufve ABSENTisnz//o
babebitur. If this be not fo, and if there be no
difference between cujujve ratio habebitur^
and cuju/ve ABSENTIS ratio babebitur^ I
would af]-: this Author, what is the reafoi;
why the Antients, whenever they would ex -
prefs what he here intended, do conftantly
add the word abfentis ? which (hows, that
the expreffion cujufve ratio habebitur, quite
contrary to our Author's plain Proof of the
of the EPISTLES,- &c. 71
abfence, rather fuppofes the perfon fpoken of
to beprefent-, becaufe other wife the word
abfentis would have been added, as will be
feen in the following Inftances. Cicero
Famil. vi, 6. Rationem haberi ABSENT is
non tampugnavi ut liceret^ quam ut, quwn,
ip/b conjule pugnanfe, populus jufferat, habe-
retur. Ad Attic, vii, i. ne ratio ABSEN-
T i s habeatur. Epift. iii d of the fame Book :
cur tantopere pugnatum eft, ut de ejus AB-
SENT is ratione habenda dec em tribuni ple~>
bis Jerrent? See likewife Ad Attic, vii,
6, 7. and viii, 3. and Philippic, ii, 10. in
all which places you have the fame Ex-
preffion. Caefar Bell. Civ. i, 9. cujus AB-
SENT is rationem haberi proximis comitiis
populus jujjiffet . cap. 32. latum ab decern tri*
bunis plebis ut jui ratio A BSE NT is ha-
bcretur, ipfo conjule Pompeio. and fo Lib.
iii, 82. See Suetonius in Jul. c. 2^. Epitome
Li-vian. Lib. cvii. From thefe Inftances (and
many more might be brought) it is evi-
dent, that whenever mention is made of
the Qualification of a perfon who is abj'ent^
to fland for public Offices, his abjence muft
be expreft, cujujve ABSENTIS ratio habe-
bitur : otherwife he will be fuppofed of
courfe to bs prefent ; as in Liiy xxv, 2.
F 4 Suetonius
72 REMARK? on the LANGUAGE
Suetonius Jul. c. 18. Vol. Maximus iv, i:
14. where he is fpeaking of Cato Uticenfis ;
Cypriacam pecuniam maxima cum diligentia
et janttitate IN URBEM devexerat. cujus
minijlerii gratia fanatus relationem interponi
jubebat, ut Praeforiis comitiis extra ordmem
ratio ejus haberetur. Cato was then at
Rome, had he been abfent> the Form would
have been, ut ratio ejus ABSENT is habere-
tur. Thefe things being fo evident and fo
obvious, one might be inclined to think
that this could not be the miftake of the
Author himfelf, but that the omiiTion of
the word abj'entis is to be imputed to the
Tranfcribers : efpecially as He himfelf a lit-
tle lower feems to allude to, or quote, the ve-
ry words of the foregoing Law : Sed quam-
visliceat ABSENT is rationem haberi, tamen
omnia Junt praefentibus faciliora. Beildes,
the word PETIT which our Author here
ufes to fignifie one who /lies upon the J'pot^
does not imply any fuch thing unlefs abfen-
tis be oppofed in the other part of the Sen-
tence: as in this paffage of Livy viii, 22.
tribunatumque plebei proximis comitiis abfens
PETENTIBUS praefertur. Where pet en-
tibus is, to thofe who Jited upon tbejpot, thofe
who flood Candidates in per fin : which it
could
of the EPISTLES, &c. 71
could not have fignified, had not abjeiu
gone before it. whence Cicero Famil. xvi,
j 2. fpeaking ofCaefar, fays, with the fame
Oppofition, and the addition of the word
prae/ens : neque fe jam velle, ABSENTED,
rationem haberijui :/?PRAESENTEM trims
nundinis PETITURUM. according to
which, our Author might have written,
%ui PRAESENS petit, cujufve ABSENT is
ratio habebitur* But then if by qui petit
he means one ivho DOEsfae in per Jon y he had
much better have omitted thefe two words,
as making againft, or, at leaft, not to his
purpofe, which was to fpeak of one who
DOES NOT fue inperfon. He might have
avoided thele objections had he written thus :
IJlud etiam in kge Julia, (quae eft De Sacer-
dotiisprvxitna) bisverbis, CUJUSVE ABSEN-
Tis RATIOHABEBITUR, aperte indicat
poffe rationem haberi filii mei . But, I believe,
Learned Men may fpare themfelves any
further trouble in fearching after this Lex
Julia De Sacerdotiis. The Compofition
difcovers the Author of it, and mows that
it is to be found no where but in thefe E-
piflles.
If our Author is fo Unfkilfull in matters
that are common and obvious, we ought
not
74 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
not toexpect that he fhould be more knowing
and accurate in thofe which require a more
diligent obfervation. Accordingly Epifl. ix.
p. 58. he writes thus : Hoftes autem omnes
judicati qui M. Antonii feclam fecuti funt.
itaqnf id Senatus confultum, etc. The Form
of a Senatus confultum upon this occafion
would not have been, qui M. Antonii Jeff am
fecuti funt ; but, qui M. Antonium fecJam-
que ejus fecuti funt : which, whether it
were more full and comprehensive than the
other, or not, was however the Antient
Form. Liiy, from whom our Cicero feems
to have tranfcribed it with his ufual Neg-
ligence and Inaccuracy, has preferved it in
feveral places, Lib. xlii, 31. SENATUS
CONSULT UM indefaftum eft, ut confutes in-
ter fe provincias Italiam et Macedoniam
compararentfortirenturve. cui Macedonia ob-
venij/et, ut is regem PERSE A, QJJIQJJE E-
jus SECTAM SECUTI ESSENT, hello per-
fequeretur. Lib. xxxvi, i. PAT RES roga-
tionem ad populum Jerri jufferunt, Vellent
juberentne cum ANTIOCHO rege, QJJIQJJE
EJUS SECTAM SECUTI ESSENT, bellum
iniri. To the fame Form he alludes Lib.
viii, 1 9. Ingredicnti Jines Senatus Fundano-
rum occur r it. negant fe pro VITRUVIQ,
SE-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 75
SECTAMQJJE EJUS sECUTis, precatum
venij'e, Jed pro populo Fundano. and Lib.
xxix, 27. where Scipio in his Prayer for
the good Succefs of the Expedition againft
Carthage, inftead of, qui me, meamque fcc-
tam jequuntur, modeftly puts, qui POPULI
ROM AN I, MEAMQJJE SECT AM SEQJJUN-
TUR. Tacitus too feems to have had the
fame Formula in view Annal. vi, 22. quippe
SAPIENTISSIMOS 'veterum, QJJIQJLJE SEC-
TAM EORUM aemulantur, diverjos reperies.
Our Author you fee had fome faint Notion
of the Antient Form made ufe of upon this
Occafion, and remembred that in his read-
ing he had met with fometbing like it:
which was enough for him. Had he imi-
tated Cicero, he would have written, Hojles
autem omnes judicati, 0411 CUM M. AN-
TONIO FUERUNT. which laft in Cicero's
time was the Form of a Senatus confultum, as
you may fee in Philippic, viii, at the end.
So that our Author here has committed two
Miftakes. the firft of Negligence, in imper-
fectly tranfcribing from Liiy the Form of a
Senatus confitltum : and the feconl of Igno-
rance, in not knowing that in Cicero's time
that other Form was antiquated, and not in
life. See another Philipp. V, 1 1 . Us, qui
in
j6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
in exercttu Antonii funt. and a third FamiL
2di, I o. Lepidus hoftis a Senatu judicatus eft,
ceterique qui una cum illo a rep. dejecerunt.
And this again is the cafe Epift. x. p. 64.
Equidem fa fentio : ft manum habet y Ji caf-
tra^ Ji ubi conjljlat ufpiam Dolabella ; ad fi-
dem et ad dignitatem tuam pertinere, eum
perfequi. From the Sentence immediate-
ly going before this it appears, that by a De-
cree of the Senate it was left to Brutus 's dif-
cretion to at as he faw moft conducive to
the Service of the Republic : nihil honorifi-
centius potuit facer e Senatus, quam ut tuum
efjet judicium, quid maxime conducere rei-
publicae tibi videretur. Now the Form of
a Senatus confultum to this purpofe, was,
That the Perfon mention'd in it, Brutus
fuppofe, Jkould aft> uti E REPUBLIC A
FIDEQJJE SUA videretur. in which there
were two Parts, or Parties concern'd ; firft,
the Republic , the Advantage of which was
in the firjt place to be confulted: and,
fecondly, the Perfon to whom the Com-
million was given, who was hereby directed
to a& with that Honour or Faith and Fide-
lity which is due from a Citizen to his
Country. But this Writer, even where he
ought to urge his Argument from the Words
of
of the EPISTLES, &c. 77
of the Decree of the Senate, drops the chief
thing, the rejpublica, or public good, and
confines the Reafon of his opinion or advice
to the Fides and Dignitas of Brutus ; as if
the other part, the Republic, were not at
all concerned in the Matter. A more
fkilfull and judicious imitator of Antiquity
would have faid, not, ad FID EM et ad
DIGNITATEM tiiam pcrtincre ; but, ad
REMPUBLICAM FiDEMQjJE tuam perti-
nere. for this, as I faid before, was the
Style of the Senatus conjulta upon thefe Oc-
cafions. Cicero Philip, iii. at the end :
Senatui placere, Uti C. Panfa, A. Hirtius,
confutes dejignati de his rebus ad hunc
ordinem refer ant, it a uti E REPUBLIC A
FIDEQJJE SUA cenfuerint. To this Form
he alludes Ad Attic, ix, 1 1 . in the Epiftle
to Caefar: fed, ut arbitror, AD TUAM
FIDEM et AD REMPUBLICAM pertinet,
me < confervari. Li<vy xxv, 7. Si M.
Claudio proconfuli alitcr videretur, faceret
quod E REPUBLICA FIDEQJJE SUA duce-
ret : which is part of a Decree of the Senate.
xxix, i o. ea confuli a Patribus facienda, ut
E REPUBLICA FiDEQ^JE SUA duceret,
permifja. xxxiii, 3 1 . d? his tribus urbibus le-
gati, quod temporareipublicae pojlufajjent, id
E RE-
78 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
E REPUBLICA FIDEQ^JE SU AJaCtreJi
ere juflierant. See Lib. viii, 4. xxvi, 31.
Gellius xv, ii. de ea re ita cen/uerunt, Uti
M. Pomponius praetor animadverteret cura-
retque, uti ei E REPUBLICA FIDEQUE
SUA videretur. The other expreffion , ad
jidem et ad dignitatem tuam pertinere, is good
(fee Livy xxxvi, 26.) in its proper Place.
Our Author himfelf Epift. xvii. p. 118.
does not omit the Republic : cum ad REI-
PUBLICAE fummam, turn ad gloriam et
dignitatem tuam t vehementer pertinet, etc.
and again Epift. xiv. fads ex tua dignitate
et E REPUBLICA. fo likewife a little lower
in the fame Epiftle p. 90. et id valde per-
tinuit^ ut ego turn intelligebam, ad R EM-
PUBLIC AM; ut nunc judiciOy ad dignita-
tem tuam. where the laft part of the Sen-
tence ut NUNC judico, (hows that Cicero had
quite forgot that he had written the very
fame thing formerly, concerning the digni-
tas of Brutus, in the paflage of the x th E-
piftle (as it is placed in this Edition) of which
I have been juft now fpeaking. Either
therefore the xiv th Epiftle is not placed
where it ought to be ; or, if it be, Cicero
has forgot what he wrote in the x tb .
In the fame clafs may be ranked this,
Epift.
of the EPISTLES, &c. 79
Epift. V. p. 34. ^uod Ji tuis placuijjet de
bis litteris rejerri^ et nifi in tempus turbu-
lentiflimum^ poji difcefjum Panfae confulis y
incidijfent ; HONOS quoque jujlus et debitu*
Diis immor tali bus DECRETUS effet. I can-
not find that the Anticnts ever exprefs'd
themfelves in this manner, bonos Diis im-
mortalibus DECRETUS eflef, but always,
horns Diis immortalibm HABITUS effet. U-
vy y who is of excellent fervice in preferving
the Purity of the Antient and Legitimate
Forms of the Latin Tongue, never writes
otherwife. Lib. xxxvii, 59. merito ergo et
Diis immor talibus quant us maximus poterat^
HABITUS eft HONOS, et imperatori
triumphus eft DECRETUS. Lib. xxxix, 4.
petiit a Patriots, ut aequum cenferent y ob
rempublicam bene ac feliciter geftam^ et Diis
immortalibus HONOREM HABERI jubere,
et Jibi triumpbum DECERNERE. Which
paflages are remarkably to my purpofe. for
if he could rightly have faid, Diis HONO-
REM et Jibi ' triumphum DECERNERE, the
words haberi and habitus eft would have
been fupernuous. but by applying haberi to
honorem, and decernere to triumphum y he
has mown us the Propriety of each of the
Expreffions. Lib. xxxviii, 44. Pojl conjii-
lum
So REMARKS ew //^LANGUAGE
lum profeftionem, Cn. Manlius proconful
Romam venit : cui t quum ab Ser. Sulpicio
praetore Senatus ad aedem Bellonae datus
effef, et ipfe, commemoratis rebus ab fe geftts,
poftulaffet, ut ob eas Diis immortalibus HO-
NOS HABERETUR, contradixerunt
pars major decem legatorum qui cum eo fue-
rant. Cap. 45. T^u vero retfe, ut Diis im-
mortalibus HONOS HABEATUR, pofiulat.
Cap. 48. quod tantam nationem fine ulla
militiim jaftura devicimus, poftularem, ut
Diis immortalibus HONOS HABERETUR,
et ipfe triumpham in Capitolium afcenderem.
xxxix, 38. poftularunt fimul^ ut pro rebus
tarn profpere geftis, Diis immortalibus HA-
BERETUR HONOS. And fo (to omit
tranfcribing any more Inftances out of Livy)
Lib. xxvi, 21. xxviii, 9. xxxiii, 22.
xxxv, 8. xl, 35. xli, 6. 17. xlii, 9. So
like wife Cicero Philipp. xiv, 8. ex litter is
enim C. Pan/ae, A. Hirtii confulum, C. Cae-
faris propraetoris, de HONOR E Diis immor-
talibus HABENDO fententias diximus.
which De Nat. Deor. i, 2. he calls AD-
HIBERE uouoREsDiisimmortaltbus. And
now obferve the Negligence and Inconfide-
ratenefs of this Author. Thefe words,
HONOS quoque JUSTUS et DEBITUS
DIIS
of ^PISTLES, &c. 81
IMMORTAL i BUS decretus effef, are taken
almoft verbatim from the third Oration In
Catilin. cap. x. nam multi Jhepe HONORES
DlIS IMMORTALIBUS JUSTI HABITI
funt ac DEB IT i. where you fee Cicero re-
tains the true Latin Form, honor es HABITI
funt Diis immortalibus. but our Author,
either that he might conceal his obligation
to that PafTage of Cicero, or becaufe he
knew no better, and thought it was the
fame thing, inftead of &?&/#* puts decretus.
tie feems to have had but little notion of
this matter, and acts as if he thought that
to -write Latin is nothing more than to put
together Latin words. And indeed this is
the very cafe with the generality of us Mo-
derns in our Reading, if a piece bears the
Title of an Antient Writer j and the Senfe
feems tolerable, and the Expreffion intelli-
gible to us, we feldom concern ourfelves
any further, but give the Author an unli-
mited Credit in his Language and Compo-
fition. The truth is, we are unwilling to
take the pains that is neceflary to this lower
part of Criticifm, which requires a long
and accurate obfervation, and without
which, we in vain attempt to arrive at
the Higher and more Noble part, a True
G judgment
82 REMARKS en the LANGUAGE
judgment in the Works of the Antients,
for, in order to this, an exact Knowledge
3 < O
of their Language is the Foundation which
mufl neceiTarily, and in the firft place,
be laid : and Cicero** remark is certainly
true in thefe Matters, Orator, c. 43. om-
nium magnarum artium, ficut arborum, al-
titudo nos deleffiat : radices ftirpesque non /-
tern: fed effe ILL A SINE HIS non pot eft.
It were an eafy matter to give many Inftan-
ces from among the Moderns, of men
otherwife of great Learning and Abilities,
who have made ftrange Miftakes in their
explications of the Antients, from the want
of this Inferior part, which bears the fame
Relation to the Higher ones as the Letters
of the Alphabet do to Reading. Now as
no man was ever able to read unlefs he had
firft- learnt his Letters ; fo no man ever was,
or ever will be able to underftand and judge
truly, and as ought to be done, of the
Senie of the Antient Writers of Greece and
Rome or any other Country, unlefs he hath
previoufly taken pains to make himfelf
mafter of the Language of thofe Writers.
Whether the pains be now worth while or
not in the Latin Tongue, (for in the He-
brew and Greek Languages I think it unde-
niably
of the Episf LES, &c. 83
hiably is, Were it only upon the account of
the Writings of the Old and New Teftament,
the true Senfe of which depends upon the
different Significations and Conftructions
of Words and ExprefTions, more than per-
haps any other Books in the world) every
man mud be left to determine for himfelf.
But the Delicacy of the Antients oh this
hea'd was greater than we generally imagine :
and it was a much more frequent thing with
them to make miftakes in Senfe than in
Language. Joan. Fred. Gfonovius (who
1 believe knew at leaft as much of the
nicety of the Latin Tongue as any one Man
has done fmce That Language has ceas'd to
be a living one) in his Notes upon Marcus
Seneca Controverf. ii, n. p. 412. has a
very curious Remark to this purpofe, where
he obferves that the Expreffions caput meum
(he might have added vita mea) agitur,
fortunae or facilitates meae aguntur, farna
mea agitur, are very common, and fignifiej
my Life, Fortune, or Reputation are at
flake, or in danger : and yet a Latin Wrhei'
could not be induc'd to fay anima mea agi-
tur, tho r it may feem to be the fame in
Senfe, and is exactly the fame in Form'
with caput meum (or vita mea') agitur ; and
G 2 tho'
84 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
tho' he would make no fcruple to fay eg?
animam ago, in the fame fignification. Now
turn the Tables, and obferve the unac-
countable nature of Language. Ego ani-
mam ago, I am at the laft gafp, in the ex-
tremity cf Danger, is a good Latin expref-
fion : anima mea agitur, is not. on the other
hand, fama mea agitur, is right : ego fa-
mam ago, would be thought abfurd. The
cafe feems partly the fame in the words
habere and decernere, of which we have
been fpeaking. HABITAE funt SUPPLI-
CATIONES Diis ifnmortalibus, and DECRE-
TAE funt SUPPLICATIONES Diis immor-
talibus, are frequently to be met with.
HABiTiy&w/ HONORES Caefari, and DE-
CRETI funt HONORES Caejari, are ufual.
HABIT i funt HONORES Diis immortalibus
is right, as we have feen; and therefore,
you may fay, why not DECRETI funt
HONORES Diis immortalibus? I anfwer,
becaufe it does not appear from any Inftance,
that the Romans made ufe of that Expref-
fion upon this Occafion : and on the other
hand, it looks as if there was fome reafon
why they could not, or would not, becaufe
we fee that Liiy, in whofe way this ex-
preffion fo often came, not only never ufes
of the EPISTLES, &c. 85
it, but ftudioufly avoids it, and goes out of
the way in order to fhun it. A Latin
Writer would fay, in eo proelio multum s AN-
GUINIS fattum eft, in that Battle a great
deal of Blood was fpilt. but if from thence
any one fhould now inferr that he might
write, in eo convivio multum VJNI faftum
eft, in that Entertainment a great deal of
Wine 'was jpilt ; he would proceed upon a
very wrong fuppofition : unlefs he could
give an Inftance of the Expreflion. Take an-
other example, for the fake of explaining a
feemingly difficult paflage in Ovid He-
roid. xxi, 57. where Cydippe fays to A-
contius,
Si laedis quod amas, hojlem fapienter a-
mabis.
Me, precor, ut ferves, perdere
VELLE VELIS.
This is the Reading of all the MSS, with-
out any Variation. The Conftrudion of
the laft Verfe is, ut ferves me^ precor ut
VELIS VELLE perdere me. the Senfe : If it
be your 'way to hurt 'what you love, you
would do well to love your Enemies, in order
therefore to preferve me, I beg of you that
yQU WOUld BE WILLING TO BE WILLING
G 3 (ut
86 REMARK? m ^LANGUAGE
(lit w/zV yelle) to deftroy me. The word
velle feems to be quite fuperftuous. O&rfr.
. Dauwiifs. takes iW/j iW/ to be a /><?-
or vulgar manner of fpeaking, as ne-
gat negare in Catullus, carm. 4. It may be
ib; but to Infta.nce is not parallel; an4
you cannot omit negare there a& you may
velle here., for the Conftruclion is, negat
SE negare \ and fg-a/ in that place is to. be
refolv'd into, and is the fame with, dicit
non ; which is very ufual in the Verb nego :
and then dicit SE w;2 negare y or even ;z^^
SE negan\ has nothing remarkable in it,
(no more than^w TEfcirefcit, \\\P.lautus
P^oftell. V, 2. or a^w hoc fcirct L. Domi-
tius ME fcire^ in C/'r^ro Verr. i, 53.) nor
will velis velk admit of the fame procedure,
Mr, Eurman thinks it may be defended by
another paffage, Amor. iii ? 1150.
Quicquid eris, ftie&Jemper eris. tu Jebgz
tantum,
Me qiioque VE.LLE VELIS, anns
amem.
Nekhgf . is this appofite* foe the. Coaftru-
ct-ion is very different : tu tantum Jeh'ge.
(i. e. ellge] an velis, ME qiwque VELLE amare
(ie.. ultro; et fponte mea, e vdtutfamtm
amare)
of tie EPISTLES, &c. 87
amare) an coacrus amem. only do you choofe^
'whether you would have me love you by choice ,
or ly conftraint. it is not an tu velis velle y
as in the former pafTage j but an tu veils
ME velle : in which there is nothing extra-
ordinary, or like the fconftrufiion of the
former pafTage: nor can vette be left out
here. N. iTeinfins lays the place is mani-
feftly faulty : that velle is a blunder of the
Tranfcriber, partly owing to the following
velis, and partly to the omiffion of t! e
word dure, which was lunk and loft in the
two laft Syllables of ^dere which goes be^
fore : Me, precor, ut ferves, fter&re, du-
re, veils. This is ingenious, and like Hem-
fius. but there is no need of it, for ve/is velle
+J
tho' it may feem to' us a ftrange manner of
fpeaking, is right ; as appears from the fol-
lowing in fiances of nolite velle p , that is, ne
velitis velle. Cicero Philipp. vii, 9. NO-
LITE igitur id VELLE quod jieri non potcjl.
Orat. pro Balbo c. 28. NOLITE, per Decs
immortales, judices, hum illl nuntium acer-
bum VELLE perjerfl, ut juum pr aefettum
fabrum venris opprcjjum Jententiis cii-
dlat. Pro M. Coelio c. 32. NOLITE, ju-
dices, aut hum^ jam natural ip/'d occidentem,
YELLE iiiaturius extingui vulncr? veftro
G 4
$8 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
quam fato fuo. Pro L. Muraena c. 25,
NOLITE a me commoneri VELLE. In like
manner writes the Author of the Oration
fro Domo Jua c. 57. which place I mall
have occafion to quote elfewhere. Livy
vii, 41. cujus aufpicia pro <vobis expert^
NOLITE adverfus vos VELLE experiri. Of
the fame kind are thefe paflages of Plautus,
Captiv. Adi. i, Sc. i. at the end of the
Scene : te oro M E M i N i ss E ut memi-
mineris^ I bej'eecb you to remember TO RE-
MEMBER, or, not to forget to remember.
Bacchid. V, 2. 34. Facito UT FACIAS,
Pfeudol .V, 1.4. pergitin PERGERE?
and fo again in Poenulo i, 3. 24. Rudent,
iii, 6. 8.
Etiamne in ara tune (edebant mulieres
v/
Cum ad me profeclu's IRE ?
So I think it mould be written inftead of
profeffus ire: as $ 33. naftus for na5lu$
es, and often in like manner in Plautus and
others. I have mark'd in Capitals the
words that feem fuperfluous, which are
undeniable inflances of the fame kind with
velis VELLE. Now to apply this to my
purpofe. If becaufe the Antients fay, fre-
cor 1e ut VEHS VELLE (or, ut NOLIS
VELLE)
of the EPISTLES, Cfc. 80
e * x
VELLE) facer e hoc, a Modern mould
write, precor te ut NOLIS NOLLE facer e
hoc ; we indeed at this diftance cannot fee
any reafon why this laft mould not be as
good and allowable as the other : and yet,
if we propofe to write in the Style of the
Antients, and to make that our Model,
we may not ufe it now without an Inftance;
which perhaps is not to be found. Now if
we could afk Livy why the abovementioned
decernere konores Diis immortalibus, or Gro-
novius, why anima mea agltur, might not
be ufed as well as habere honores, or wta
mea agitur ; perhaps they could give no o-
ther reafon than that which Cicero gives
Philipp. iii, 9. upon a like occafion, quis
fie hquitur? The Antients themfelves could
frequently go no further than either the Au-
thority of thofe who were more antient than
they, or preient Uje, Quern penes arbitrium
ejl^ et jus, et norma loquendi. They often
ventured indeed upon new Words and Ex-
preffions, which fometimes fucceeded, and
fometimes were laugh'd at and rejected, but
Authority, which generally fpeaking is un-
accountable, was a fafe Rule to go by,
tho' often they could not tell upon what
R.eafon that Authority was originally
founded
$6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
founded" 3 , thus GeJlius Nod. Attic, ki,
6. obferves, That the 'Romtin Women never
fwafe by Hercules , nor the Men by Caftor :
but that both Women and Men fware indif-
ferently by Pollux 5 that is, in their Oaths
made ufe of the Word Aedep'd or Ed'epbl.
Fot the firfl of thefe, viz. why Wofoen
did not fWear by Hercules^ he thinks he
Catt eafily account i for the fecond he can-
not, but tho' he cannot give the Reafori,
he* is fatisfied in the truth of the Thing,
becaufe he could not find that any Ahticnt
and approved Latin Writer ever confound-
ed this ufe of the two words. If Gellius,
himfelf one of the Antients with refpecl to
us, thought this a fufficient reafon in the
life or Difufe of Words and Expreffions ;
much more may we, who know nothing
of thefe matters but what we learn from
Gettius and his Brethren, the Antients.
When therefore an Author, otherwife Jitf-
* biomedes Lib. ii. p. 434. ed. rutfch. AUCTORIT AS,
in fegula loquendi^ liovijfima eft. namqueubi omnia defc-
cermtj fie ad nlam^ quemadmodum ad fa cram ancyram y
decurritur. non enini qi-t'tdquam ant rationis, aut natu-
rae, aut confuetudinis habet, cum tantum op'miom fc-
cundum Veterum leftionem recepta fit\ nee ip forum tamen
ft inter fogentur^ cur idfecutifintj fcientium,
fetted
9f the EPISTLES, &c, 91
makes ufe of an Exprcffion (as DE-?
eRETUs h&nos Dii$ immortal'ibus^ infteacf
of HA KIT us tows) contrary to the man-
per of all Antiquity j he thereby adds great
weight to the fufpicion of his being &
Counterfeit Antient.
tarn the longer upon this Article, becaufe
f would have it carefully obferved, how un-
certain a thing the Writing of true Latin is
to us Moderns : under which Term may be
comprehended all who have written fincer
the &atin Tongue has ceas'd to be fpcken-j
and I have not the leaft doubt of this Au-
thor's- being in that Number. We cannot
now ftir a ftep, nor join v fcarce Twff
Words together fo as to be fecure from error,
unlefs we have a precedent from the Wri-
tings of the Antients; and I make nor
queftion but that if Cicero were to read any
of our mod fpruce -Latin Compositions uporr
which we value ourfelves mofr, he wouU
frequently be forc'd to guefs at what we
mean, and would find innumerable miftakes
and faults- which a Roman would not, ant?
indeed could not, have made. Nor is;thk
peculiar to the Latin Tongue only : the cafe
is the fame in all Languages whielv arc?
learnt, as we learn Latjn, <^ Books only:
I have
92 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
I have feen Englifli Letters written by a
Foreign Gentleman who had taken great
pains by reading to make himfelf Mailer of
our Language. The performance was as
good as could be expected from one who
had nothing but Books to direft him : but
an illiterate Englijhman, if he could but
read, would have difcovered miftakes of one
kind or other in every Line. What Englifa
was to this Gentleman, Latin is to Us.
Now tho' the Ordinary Latin that we
write, ferves us to all intents and purpofes
as well, or perhaps better, than if we were
to write in the exquifite Style of Plautus or
Varro, in which we often mould not be un-
derftood j and tho' a man of Candor would
be very fparing and cautious in his Cenfures
of a Modern who mould write Bad Latin,
when we all do the fame, and perhaps can-
not poflibly do otherwiie j yet if a Modern
(fuppofe Petrarch, or Sigonius, or any other)
mould take upon him to write and publifh
Pieces with the intent that they mould pals
for the Writings of Cicero, the cafe would
be quite different, for then what was very
pardonable in Petrarch or Sigonius, would
become infufferable in Cicero, then all Lo-
vers of Antiquity, who thought it worth
their
of the EPISTLES, &c. 93
their while, and to whom it was not an
Indifferent thing whether they were imposed
upon or not, would be equally concern'd to
detect the Impofture, and to expofe the
Vanity of the man, who thro' Self-conceit,
and a falfe Opinion either of his own Skill,
or of the Ignorance of the reft of Mankind,
had undertaken a thing much fuperior to
his Ability or his Judgment -, however
Learned in other refpecls he might be. We
mould then have a right to examine e-
very Word, and to call him to an ac-
count for every Expreffion concerning
which we had any reafon to doubt. Thus
Epift. xxii. p. 1 6 8. Scilicet, ut t ilh prohibito,
rogaremus alterum, qui Je in ejus locum
RE PON i patcretur : we might defire him
to fhow us, from Cicero or fome other good
Writer, where he finds that a Per/on, who
Jucceeds another in any Poft, is faid RE-
PON i in ejus locum, for this word is not ap-
ply 'd to Perfons in this fenfe, but to Ibirtgs
(a Diftindion heceffary to be obferved in
the Latin Tongue, and in other Languages ;
ilnce what is rightly faid of the One, is
often very improper if you transfer it to the
Other) which are put in the room of others
taken away. Thus Liiy lib. xxxiii, 5.
5 fpeaking
94 REMARKS en the
fpeaking of the valli or Jlakes which the
Romans made ufe of in their Entrench-
ments, fays, that if one of them happen to
be puird out, nee loci mult urn apeHt, et d*
Hum REPONERfc perfacile eft ; it makes nb
great gap^ and it if a very mfy matter to
fat another in its plctct. fee too- xrx, 1 9.
and xx-xix, 7. Plauius ufes the word f{)eak^
mg of Money borrowed and repafff^ Perfa,
1, i. j%tWfcr/Kf, 220. tneliora et plura; RE-
PON IT Per/tcus, arbonim fautijftmus .
tonius]u\. c. 75. fed et ffotuzs L.
tpe Pompeii, a pie be disjctfas,
in which laft manner it k likewife ufed of
Perjms y in the fenfe of reftorittg dr repla-
cing them in the ftation \hty formerly were ;
as in Florus i, i. patruum Amulitwt a-b arce
deturbat^ aVum RE PON IT : he Rfi^foREg
or RE PL AC ES his grandfather in theThrone
and fo in the Orat. Poft Redit. #d ^uirit.
c. 7. But when a Perfon is fpoken of as
Jueceeding another in his place, he is never
faid RE PON i inejus loc-urn^ but SVBSTITUJ,
SUFPICI, s^JBaoGARi, etc. Ckero in
Verr. iv. 41 , If ague riune Siculoruw Mar-
celli noii junt patrvni : Ferres' iri- ednim lo-
Ctim s u BS T i r. u T us e?ft . Liiy xsciii -, 3 . z^
ipjius poenitere homines afparcrety querfi au^
tern
of the EPISTLES eft.,
t,em in ejus SUBSTITUEREIJI.T locum,
ejfe. fee xl, u. 56. M\ Seneca Contrcw.,
iii, 22. voluifje occidi.filium^ tit, in ejus la.-*
cum suB&TiTUERETUR; ipje. fee L. Se->
neca Epift. ix. "Jujlln xi, 2. dux, in, locum,
ejus SUB&TITUITUR. and fb xlii, 2. iS#f-
/jO/w Tiber, c. iv. pontijtx. in IOCUQ^ F-.^Q^
pipnis. SUBSTITUTES. In like mannsc
SUCCEDKRE in ejus locum, Liny xj^ \i-.
m.eorumjpcum SUBDITOS, Cicero in Verr.
i, 5. CODPTARE in patf.is/w; locun?, Sup-
ton. in Ner. c. 2. S.UEFECTIS in, loca, eo-
rum wow regibus, Jtfffifi xi, 10. xxxix, 4,.
r^ in locum fraris CONS-T,ITUT^), Fhruz
iii, 16. SUBHOGARE conatus eft in ejus lo-
cum C. Gracchum. Cicero in Verr, V, 28.
^ to;o nefarius in eoruin locum 4 ^ww do-*
mymjuamdepiratis abduxerqt-^ suB^T r i,T.u.-t
E.RE et S.UPPON..ERE coepif civcs. RgmanQSj
Perhaps our Author here miftook one word,
for another (which is no new tiling with
him) and put rep.oni. in (lead of jitpponi :
\yhich in fome refpects would be as if we
mould fay in Englifi, to PROCEED another
in-his poft> inftead of, to. SUCCEED him.:
tfro-' I know that the : word Jupponsre in the
laft quoted paflage of Cicero, isjhere.ufed.
in_a fenfe : which would, noi.be .proper here.
But
g6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE:
But why could not this Author write as
others do, qui je in ejus locum SUBSTITUI
pateretur ? for furely, if he knew any thing
of Latin, he could not be ignorant of this
expreffion.
We might like wife beg of him to give
an inftance of any other Author who writes
as He does Epift. V. p. 36. Labeo vero no-
Jler nee Jignum tuum in epijlola, nee diem ap-
pojitum^ nee te fcripfijje ad tuos y ut SOLE-
RES: inftead of, ut SOLEBAS. for fuppo-
fing that the Latinity of it can be defended j
yet in this, and many other expreffions^
there is a fettled way of writing, from which
no body but this Author, as far as I can
find, ever deviates. Cicero De Fin. iii, 2.
ueni in ejus villam, ut cos (libros) ipfe y ut
SOLE BAM, promerem. De Oratore i, 9.
3um Scaevola comiter, ut SOLEBAT, cae-
fera, inquit^ affentior Craflb. In Catilin.
ii, 13. qui jam non procul, ut quondam SO-
LE BANT, ab extero hojle y etc. See prd
Cluent. c. 59. Philippic, ii, 13. OwWMet.
ii, 4.48. Pliny Epift. i, 3. F/orusm y 3. Ca-
pitolinus in Macrin. c. 3. fci/citante prccon-
fule de ft at it, ut SOLEBAT, publico. Now
let him {hew me one Author, befides Him-
felf, who writes ut SOLE RES, when the
expreffion
of the EPISTLES, &c. 97
Expreflion is Abfolute^ as it is here, and in
all the Inftances juft now quoted and re-
ferr'd to. which Exception I mention left
any body (hould be deceived by a PafTage
in De Oratore i, 24. quod neque it a amplec-
teretur artcm^ ut/V SOLE RENT qui omnem
vim dicendi in arte ponerent j neque rurfum
etc. and another in De Offic. iii, 22. cum
illis fie agere ut cum colonis nojtris SOLERE-
MUS. For the reafbn is very different, as
may eafily be feen hence, That this place
of the Epiftle I am now fpeaking of, and
all the Examples I produc'd, are indepen-
dent, and may be placed in a Parenthefis,
or omitted if you pleafe, without any de-
triment to the Senfe. but the fame cannot
be done in thefe two lafl Inftances, becaufe
they are connected with, and depend upon
other parts of the Sentence : confequently,
they have a different Conftrudion and Re-
lation : and I prefume that ut Jolebant and
ut folebamus would have been as improper
Latin in thofe two places, as utfoleres is in
this.
Epiftle xi h p. 72.- Brutus is fpeaking of
C. dintonius> concerning whom he fays,
habuique in mea POT ESTATE quoad helium
fuit ; and I had him in my POWER as long
H as
98 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
as the war continued. From which words
Two things are to be collected : Firft,
That at the writing of this Letter, May
15 th , C. Antonlus was NOT in the power
of Brutus: and Secondly, That the war
was now at at end. Thefe are both Falfe.
but the laft perhaps is excufable in Brutus 3
becaufe, as Dr Middleton hath obferved,
he might conclude from M. Antonys de-
feat at Modena, and Flight out of Italy ;
that it was fo j tho' it prov'd afterwards
that he was miftaken. But how fhall we
cxcufe the Firft, That C. Antonius was not
in the power of Brutus > May 15 th . A.U.C.
710? for it is univerfally agreed upon by
the Hiftorians, that he was in the power of
Brutus not only at That time, but all his
life afterwards, and was at laft put to death
by him, feveral Months after the 1 5 th of
May, feeing Plutarch (in Brut. p. 996.)
relates, that Brutus put him to death as a
Sacrifice or Expiation to the Manes of his
Kinfman D. Brutus and his Friend Cicero ;
which laft was not killed till the Decem-
ber of That Year. From a nearer view how
the Cafe flood between Brutus and C. An-
tonius we may come at fome Light in this
matter. It was thus : After Brutus had
made
of the EPISTLES, &c. 99
made him prifoner of War, he had him
in his own Cuflody t and treated him with
great Civility and Refpedt, till Antony be-
gan to play tricks with Brutus's Soldiers,
and to excite them to Sedition and a Re-
volt, then Brutus found it neceflary to a-
bate fome degrees of his Indulgence to-
Xvards him : but ftill he ufed him better
than he defer ved, and kept him with him e
tho' like a Prifoner at large. Hitherto Brutus
had him in his own cuflody. But afterwards
having occalion to go into the Upper Macedo-
nia, he did not think it proper to \2keAntony
with him, but left him at Apollonia y com-
mitting him to the Care of C Clodius.
Henceforward he was out of the Cuflody of
Brutus ; but ftill in his Power as much
* as he was the day that Brutus took him
Prifoner. We need not go any further in
the account of this matter from Hiftory ;
for the Diftindlion I juft now mentioned
will mow what our Author meant, and
his Ignorance in Latin, or his Inaccuracy,
or Overlight. He meant, habuique in mea
CUSTODIA quoad helium fuit : and I had
him in my own CUSTODY (or keeping) while
the War continued. The difference be-
tween in Jita cujtodia and in Jua poteftate,
H 2 which
ioo REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
which our Author has here confounded,
is fo obvious, that it is unneceffary to prove
it by inftances from Antient Writers. He
who keeps any thing at his own houfe, has
it both infua cujlodia and in fua pot eft ate.
he who has it in other hands fo as that he
can call it in whenever he pleafes, has it
in fua poteftate, but not in fua cujlodia. in
either cafe, he is equally Mate of it. and
Ib was Brutus of C. Antonius : as is plain
from the Event.
Epift. xxii. p. 174. it's, qiti malum
illud exciderint, cujus ijlae reliquiae jitnt,
nihilj quo EXPLERI pojjit eorum meritum,
tributurum unquam populum Romanum, Jl
omnia fimul conge fler int. There can be no
./ O ^L/
doubt of what the Author intended by
EXPLERI pojjit eorum meritum: namely,
their merit or goodfervice can be REWARD-
ED or REQJJITED. But the Meaning
looks one way and the words another, for
explere meritum, or (which is the fame
thing) beneficium, is not to requite merit or
good fervice, but to Jill it up y or compleat
that which before was deficient^ and want-
ed fomething to be added to it, in order to
make it perfect, for this is the fignification
of explere j viz. to fulfill, fill up, or com-
pleat
of the EPISTLES, G?r. 101
pleat any thing that was imperjeft : as in
Seneca Here. Fur. $ 500.
DEEST una numero Dana is : EXPLEBO
nefas.
So cupiditates explere, Cicero De Fin. i, 16.
to fulfill one's defires, or to gratify one's ap-
petites - 3 viz. by adding or giving them fome-
thing which they had not, and which they
wanted, fpem explere, Livy xxxv, 44.
wluptatem explere, Terence Hecyr. i, i.
jusjurandum explore, to fulfill an Oath, M.
Seneca Controv. i, 6. by accompUJhing and
perjefting what was wanting to be per-
formed. J 'ujt l in has a feemingly unufaal
fignification of this word (as of feveral
others) where he is fpeaking of the Athe-
nians recalling and conferring honours upon
Alclbiades after his Baniihment and Dif-
grace, Lib. V, c. 4. EXPLENT contumelias
honoribus, detrijnenta mitneribus, exjecra-
tiones precibus : that is, penfcint^ they re-
compenfe or make amends jor, as appears from
the Senfe ; for it is fomewhat difficult to
account for the reafon of it from the
Word, he calls it corrigere lib. xxxv. 2. *
a Cicero Philipp. ix, 4. farcire : nulla duUtatw rc~.
linquetur, quin honore mortui^ quam vivo iniuriam fe~
cimus, farciamus. whence perhaps the paffage of ju->
Jlin may be explained.
H 3 It
102 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
It is more intelligible Lib. ix, 2. where
Atbeas King of Scythia anfwers to the
Ambafladors of Philip of Macedonia : nullas
Jibi opes efle quibus tantum re gem EX PLE-
AT : wherewith to SATISFIED great a
King, tfrebell. Polliom Gallien. c. i. qui
privatis poj/et fortunis public a EXPLERE
dijpendia. Incerti Panegyr. Conftantin.
c. 32. mijjum ejufdem tyranni (Maxentii)
ad permulcendam AJricam caput j ut quam
maxime vivus afflixerat. laceratus EXPLE-
t/ '
RET. where expleret is oppofed to afflixe-
rat. This laft inftance is odd enough i
which is not to be wondred at in a Writer
of that low Age a . All thefe Inftances
feem to agree in the notion of jilling up by
the addition of fomething that was wanting
to compleat or fatisfie the thing fpokcn of.
now this will ill fuit with the intention of
our Author, who cannot here mean, that
the merit of Brutus and his Companions in
killing Caefar was deficient, and wanted
fomething to make it compleat : for on the
* It is to be underftood as if it had been written
lactratione or morte expleret : and the reafon is the
fame with that of Cicero pro P. Sulla c. 32. Te ip-
fumjam, Torquate, expletum efle bujus miferiis par
erat. to bejatisfied or contented.
contrary,
of the EPISTLES, &c. 103
contrary, he would fay, that it was ib
per f eft and full, that, if the Roman people
'were to heap upon them all they could be/low,
they could never fujficiently REWARD THIS
piece of SERVICE to the State. This
ftrange life of the word expleri may be ac-
counted for thus : He might remember
that explere libidinem, tram, cupiditatem,
defiderium, animum, odium, etc. are fre-
quently to be met with in the fenfe of
fatiare or fatisfacere, to fatisfie one's lufl>
dejire, anger, longing, etc. in which ex-
preffions the Pajjwns and Appetites or De-
Jires are confidered as Animals that are_
hungry and crave, and want to be filled ;
and when they are filled, are \hznfatisfied.
Hence he feems to have concluded, that
as explere iram or dejiderium, fignifie fa-
tiare, to fatisfie one's anger or longing ; fo
explere meritum eorum may fignifie to /a-?
tisfie their merit : not confidering that the
Things, and the Reafons of them, are of
a quite different Nature ; and that the
Merit of Brutus and his Friends cannot by
any Metaphor, confidently with the Senfe
of the place and the Author's meaning and
intention, be faid to crave (as the PaJ/ions
and Appetites may) and want to be filed or
H 4 Jatisfed,
104 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
fatisfied. There is the fame fentiment in
a paflage parallel to this in another Epiftle
of Brutes, Ep. xviii. p. 122. nihil ego
poffum in jbroris meae liberis facere, quo
po/Jit EXPLERI voluntas mea aut officium.
Here expleri, to be fatisfied, happens to be
right, becaufe the nature of the words vo-
luntas and officium. and the fenfe of the
*x/ *
place ? will admit of that fignification. but
the former pafTage I am perfuaded is not
Latin in the fenfe which Brutus deiign'd
to exprefs. Inftead of expleri he might
have written exjbfoi, out of Livy ii, 29.
or remunerari c. 12. of the fame Book.
Cicero exprefTes it by meritam gratiam per-
Jolvere, Orat. pro Cn. Plancio c. 33. and
meritam gratiam referre, Pe Orat. iii, 4.
Caejar Bell. Gall, v, 27. Caefari pro ejus.
mentis gratiam referre. Plautus Amphitr.
merito referre gratias : and Captiv. V, i ;
15. beneficium merito munerare : and $ 20,
benefaffih pretium reddere. JLiiy xxxix,
1 3 . referre meriti gratiam. Seneca Epift.
cviii. pro fatiis reddere ofrae pretium 3
out of Ennius. Tacitus Hift. iv, 3. bene-
ficio vicem ex/ofoere. tfrebellius Pollio in
Claud, c. 7. vicem reddere mentis. Any
pf thefe might have fatisfied our Author,
had
of the EPISTLES, &c. 105
had he been contented to follow the An-
tients, and not to affect Singularity and
Quaintnefs ; in which he always fuccceds
as he deferves, and the event proves fuit-
able to the attempt. If it be faid that
meritum may here fignifie merces, (fee Pri-
caeus upon Apulelm Met. viii. p. 468.)
it muft be prov'd by Inflances that it was
fo ufed in the time of Brutus.
In the foregoing Remark we have feen
that our Author, by miftaking the figni-
fication of a word, leads us into a bad and
falfe Senfe : in the following one we (hall
fee that by a miftake of the fame kind he
has thought fit to lead us into no Senfe at
all. The pafTage is in the fame Epiflle,
p. 1 6 6. Vindici quidem alienae domina-
tionis, NON vicarw, ecquis Jupplicat, ut op-
time mentis de republica liccat efje fafois ?
It is impofilble to give a Verfion of the
Context as it now ilands, fo as to make
any fenfe of it. but it is no difficult matter
to perceive where the miftake of the Wri-
ter lies; namely, in the word NON, which
he unfkillfully puts inftead of nan modo, or
nedum^ much le/s. To give him his due,
the Sentiment, had he been enough Ma-
fter of the Latin Tongue to have expreft
it
io6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
it as he ought and intended, would have
been a good one. The underftanding it
depends upon a paflage at the top of the
fame page, where Brutus objects to Cicero
very warmly, (and, by the by, in the Lan-
guage of an Accufer to a Criminal, and as
Cicero treats Verres, M. Antony > and Ca-
tiline, rather than in That of an Inferior
to his Superior j aude negare, deny it, if you
dare) that he had written to Otfavius in a
mean and fuppliant manner, T'hat he would
allow thofe Citizens to live in Safety, of
whom honeft Men, and the people of Rome,
bad a good opinion : meaning Brutus and
his Accomplices, then, after fome reflec-
tions upon this part of Cicero's Letter to
Q&avius, he adds, alluding to Cicero 's own
words, Vindici quidem alienae dominati-
cnis, NON MODO (or nedum) vicario, ec-
quis fupplicat, etc. that is, " If Otfavifs
<l had even kilFd Caefar, as we did, and
<{ been the avenger of Tyranny and Ufur-
" pation, and a Patron of Liberty ; would
" any man in his Senfes have written to
<f him in a fuppliant manner, to beg that
" he would of his great goodnefs be plea-
" fed tofave worthy and deferving Citi-
" zens ? could any thing have been more
5 <^
of the EPISTLES, f3c, 107
** abfurd, or more abject, than to have
** written in fuch a manner in fuch a
* c caufe ? MUCH LESS ought you to have
? { written fo to That OcJavius who in rea-
" lity is the SucceJJbr and Subflitute, not
* c the Avenger, of Caefar's Ufurpation."
This is the Senfe of the paflage ; which
may be tranflated thus : Does any man
humbly befeech even the Avenger, MUCH
I, ESS the Subflitute, of another's unjufl
vfurpation, that thofe men who have defer-
<ued well of the Republic may be permitted
fo be infafety ? Thus far I think we may
be certain of the meaning of the paflage,
and of the Authors intent to write non
tnodb, or nedum : the latter of which is
ufed partly in the fame manner by Livy
xxxviii, 50. QUID autem tutb cuiquam^
NEDUM Jummam rempublicam^ permitti^
Ji ratio non Jit reddenda ? and by Tacitus
Annal. iv, n. Qu.is enim mediocri pru-
dentia y NEDUM Tiberius tantis rebus exer~
citus, inaudito filio exitium ojferret, etc.
the former by Pliny Nat. Hift. xv, 9. vix
Jpecie Jigurdve, NON Mopo (i.e. nedum)
Japoribus enumerari queunt. and xvii,
20. terramque defixa vix tolerant, NON
140 DO humorem, Put ftill there remains
another
io8 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
another miftake in the Language of this
paffage. for the Latins never ufe quidem, in
the manner here done, without ne before
it : and this will exclude ecquis, and will
oblige us to change the Interrogative into
an AJpryiatwe, thus : NE vindici QJJIDEM
alienae dominations, NEDUM (or non modb)
vicario, NEMoJappficat, utetc. Examples
are everywhere to be met with, and there-
fore I will fet down only one of each kind.
Cicero De Divinat. ii, 55. numquam NE
mediocri QJJIDEM cuiquarn, NON MODO
prudenti^ probata funf. Laftantius Inftit.
I, 6. M. Varro, quo nemo unquam doftior,
N E apud Graecos Q.UIDEM, NEDUM apud
Latinos, vixit. There are feveral ways of
exprefUng this Sentence, it may not per-
haps be unacceptable to thofe who are cu-
rious in thefe matters, if I fet down two or
three of them. Inftead of quidem he might
have put etiam, in this manner: ETIAM
vindici alienae dominations, NEDUM uica-
rio, NEMO fupplicat 3 etc. as in Suetonius,
Claud, c. 40. multaque talia ETJAM/T/-
uatis dejormia y NEDUM principi. and in
this Form he might have retain 'd ecquis
the Interrogative (inftead of nemo] which
frequently has the power of a Negative.
Caejar
of the EPISTLES, &c. 109
Caefar would have written thus : NON
M o D o wforip, SED N E vindici QUID EM.
alienae. dominations, NEMO Jupp/icaf, etc.
as Bell. Gall.' v, 43. NON MODO [demi-
grandi caufla] de val/o decederet NEMO,
SED pene NE rejpiceret QJIIDEM quifquam.
See lib. u, 17. 111,4. viu, 33. and the
Notes there. I have feparated the words
demigrandi caufla from die reft, becaufe I
think there is great reafon to fufpedl that
they are not Caefar 's. Cicero in this man-
ner: NEDUM vicario, SED ETIAM w-
did alienae domination s, NEMO fupplicat^
etc. as Ad Attic, x, 1 6. 7#, quoniam quar-
tand cares, et NEDUM morbum removtfti,
SED ETIAM gravedinem, te vegefum nobis
in Graeciafifle. where nedum is nonfoliim,
non modo a . Tacitus thus : NE vindici QJJI-
DEM alienae domination! s y ADEO t uica-
rio, KEMO Jufpticat etc. So Annal. vi,
Or thus : NE vindici qyiDEM alienae domlna-
.tionis, NE vicario, nemo fupplicat &c. as Famil. ix.
26. Me vero nihil ijlorum NE juvenem quiDEM mo-
vlt unquam, NE nunc fenem. In another place, Pa-
radox v. he ufes non inftead of ne quidem : NON
MODO tmperator, fed liber habendus omnino NON trit :
that is, NE liber qyiDEM, as he cxprefles it at the
end of the Paradox.
no REMARKS on the
15. NE tefta QJJIDEM urbis y ADEO cons,
fuium publicum, NUMQUAM adiit. where
numquam adiit is to be refolv'd into NON
umquam adiit ; for it is adeo non that fig-
Tnfa&nedum. See Annal. iii, 34: and Veil.
Paterculus ii, 67. But it is time to return
to our Author ; who, as we fee, while he
is expreffing noble Sentiments, and fuch as
are not unworthy of the True Brutus^
forgets the Language of Brutus, as he does
That of Cicero in the following PafTage :
Epift. xxi. p. i^b.itagravijudiciomul-
taque arte fe exercuit in VERISSIMO genere
dicendi. The Adjedtive verum is often put
for aequum, or jujlum, as every body knows*
But who befides this Author ever faid VE-
RISSIMUM genus dicendi'? What Spirit of
Affe&ation could make him write in this
manner, when OPTIMUM genus dicendi
was become the fettled Form upon this
occafion ? Cicero Fam. xii, 17. fed proxime
fcripji de OPTIMO genere dicendi. De Clar.
Orator* c. 54. quod dicendi genus OPTI-
MUM^/. Oratore, c. i. Quid eft enim
majus y quam, cum tantajlt inter oratores
bonos dijjimilitudo y judicare, quae Jit OPTI-
MA fpecies, et quafijigura, dicendi ? which
a little lower he calls fummum et perfec-
tijjimum.
of the EPISTLES, &c. m
tiflimum genus eloquentiae. Ad Attic, xiv,
20. Cum ipfim precibus pern adduttus fcri-
pfjjem ad eum de OPTIMO genere dicendi
etc. and xv, i . quod judicium habet de OP-
TIMO genere dicendi, id ita confecutus eft
ea oratione, ut elegantius efle nihil poj/it.
See likewife Cicero's Preface to his Tranf-
lation of the Orations of Aefchines and De-
mofthenes, which Piece has the Title, De
OPTIMO genere orator urn, cap. 1,2. Auttor
de CauiT. corrupt. Eloq. c. 22. poftqiiam
magis profecerat, ufuque et expcrimentis di-
dicer at, quod OPTIMUM dicendi genus effef.
This is a Peculiarity of our Author of the
fame kind with lit filer es, which I took
notice of above ; and he fometimes fcems
to leave the common and approved way of
writing out of Wantonnefs and by Choice ;
tho' more frequently, I believe, out of Ig-
norance. I cannot well tell to whether of
thefe two caufes is to be affign'd this which
follows :
Epift. xxiii. p. 182. At ilia retulit^
quaefmitque, quidnam mihi videretur ; ar-
cefleremujne te, atque id tibi conducere pu-
taremus ; an TARDARE et commorari te
melius ejjet. The Sentence is formed from
the xi th Epift. of the xv th Book to Atticus.
But
ii2 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
But the word tardare is here ufed as a
Verb Neuter , to wait, to tarry, to delay,
contrary to the conftant Practice of Cicero
hiinfelf, (who once indeed ufes retardando,
the Gerund of the compound Verb, in a
Neutral manner, De Nat. Dear, ii, 20.)
or of any good Writer before him^ as far
as I can find, who always make it a Tran-
Jjtive, and join to it an Accusative Cafe*
Lib. iii. in Verr. c. 57. cum ejus animum
ad perfequendum non negligentia TAR DA-
RET. Pro P. Sextio c. 61. cum frequent
Jenatus nonnullorum fcelus audaciamque T AR-
DASSET. Ad Attic, vii, 12. nee eum re-
rum prolatio, nee fenatus magijlratuumque
difceJJuSy nee aerarium claujum TARDA^
BIT. See in Verr. ii, 69. pro Caecin. c. 27*
and in many other places. So likewife
Caefar, Livy, Horace, T^ibullus, Proper-*
tius y Ovid y conftantly. whence Virgil
Aen. xi, 550. would not fay, infantis amo-
re TARDAT, but TARDATUR. Caejar
Bell. Civ. ii, 43. reliqui hoc timore propius
adire TARDARENTUR. where one an-
tient MS has tardarent : which is probably
owing to the manner of writing Latin in
the Age in which that MS was copyed.
When this ufe of the Word was firfl in-
troduced
of the EPISTLES, &c. 113
troduced into the Latin Tongue, I cannot
tell. The fir ft clear example that I have
obferved of it is in the Hift. Aug. Scripto-
m, in Vukatim Gallicanus's Life of jfoi*
dius Caffius cap. x. where Fauftina in a
Letter to the Emperor M. Antoninus, fays,
Signatas mihi lift eras Calpburnius dedit ;
ad quas rtferifam, ji TARDAVERO, per
Caecilium fenem Jpadonem, bominem> ut jcis,
fidelem. Si tardavero> is, if I tarry longer
than I intend, (fee the foregoing part of the
Letter) and anfwers to St. Paul's lav /fya-
$uou t i Tim. iii, 15. which the Antient
Latin Vulgate in like manner renders fi
tardavero. fo again 2 Pet. iii, 9. 'Ou QoaSiujsi
Kw^*- 7?? iffrty/iX/*^ which he tranflates,
Non TARDAT Dominus promiffi : i. e. nan
M. Us
tardus eft quod ad promijjum attlnet, 'ivtw
rjf 69ray/sA/rtf * Tlw Lord is not Jlack (as fo 9
or) concerning his promife : as it is very
well render'd in our Englijh Tranflation.
From thefe places of the Latin Pulgate
it is likely our Author took his ufe of the
Verb tardare\ as did perhaps Philoxenus
in his Gloffary : tardat> fyaSuuti. Here
then, in all probability, is an Inftance of a
Word not ufed in that manner and Signi-
fication in the time of Cicero, which how-
I ever
H4 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
ever I look upon only as a Secondary Argu-
ment againft the genuinenefs of thefe Epi-
flles, becaufe I believe it will be found
that moft of the Inftances I have already
mentioned are fuch as never were, nor in-
deed could be, in Ufe in any Age of the
Latin Tongue, in the manner this Author
applies them.
Give me leave to add, as a matter of
Curiofity rather than of Objection, the fol-
lowing Remark. In the xv th Epiftle he
writes thus: quod et PL u RES occidit uno,
etc. and fo does Cicero, as to the word
plures, De Legg. ii, 15. Jiquidem ilia fe-
ver a Lacedaemcn nervos juffit, quod p LU-
RES quam feptem haberet, in tfimothei fi-
dibus deml. and in Orator, cap. 64. quod
p L u R E s habeat fyllabas quam tres. Thefe
expreffions are, I believe, the only Inftances
of their kind in all Antiquity from the
time of Ennius to that of Livy, between
whom and Cicero there were feveral
years, in which great Innovations were
made in the Latin Tongue, for before
Cicero, and in his time, whenever they
had occafion to exprefs a Numeral after
the Comparative more, as in this place,
be hath kiWd MORE than ONE ; they did
not
of the EPISTLES, &c. 115
not write p L u R E s occidit uno^ but
PLUS (or amplius) occidit uno, or quam
unum, or plus unum^ by an Ellipfis of the
Conjunction quam. the full expreffion would
have been, occidit plus hominum uno ho-
mine, or quam unum hominem, etc. Ex-
amples of this are to be found in Ennius,
Plautus^ CafOj (quoted by Varro De R. R.
ii, 3. by Gcllius vii, 3. by Pliny N. H.
xvii, 1 8.) Tfrenct, Scipio Aemilianus (in
Macrobius Saturnal. ii, 10.) Caffius Hcmina
(in Gellius xvii, 21.) Valerius Antias (in
Livy xxxviii, 23.) Varro , Hirtius, Auftor.
De Bell. Africano, and in Cicero in very
many places ; and not once otherwife in the
abovementioned, or any other, as far as I
can find, or in Cicero himfelf, except in
thefe two places. It feems as if he was the
firfl who made this alteration in the Latin
Phrafe. Lroy followed him in it : but, as if
he were fenfible that it was an Innovation
and an Expreffion upon trial^ he ufes it very
fparingly. for, if I am right in my account,
it is to be found only Four times in Livy '>
whereas the other manner, byp/tis, is ufed
by him above Eighty times. But the ex-
preffion had the good fortune to pleafe. for
after Livy, in Tiberius's time and after-
I 2 wards
n6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
wards, it was brought into more common
Ufe by Veil. Paterculus, Ajcon. Pedianus y
Columella, Lucius Seneca, 'Tacitus, Sueto-
nius, Gellius, Cen/brinus, Sotinits, and Fefl.
Pompeius. tho' even then, moil of thefe
whom I have mentioned do more frequent-
ly ufe plus or amplius than plures-, and
many whom I have not mentioned, as the
Auttor ad Herennium, Petronius Arbiter,
^ Curtius, Pliny the younger, Quintilian,
and Frontinus, never ufe the Plural before
the Numeral y but always plus or amplius.
But to return from this digreffion.
Epift. viii. p. 5*2. nee me minus pu-
tarim reprehendcndum,fiinutiliter aliquidje-
natui fuaferim, quam Ji INFIDELITER.
Several Learned men who have been very
curious in their Searches into the Latin
Tongue, have declared again ft the Lati-
nity of the word infideliter j for which
they fay the True Expreffion is malajide,
as is obferved by Ger. Joan. VoJJlus, De
Vitiis Sermonis, Lib. iv. cap. 33. p. 782.
who adds however, that tc he will not
" greatly contend concerning it, becaufe
" Cicero ufes the fimple word fide liter, and
< therefore Hen. Stepbanus acknowledgeth
** the compound, infdcliter, as Latin, in
" his
of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 117
11 his Expojlulatio de Latinitate fujpefta
" cap. vi." Qlaus Borrichius, who with
great Skill and Accuracy examined the a-
bovementioned Treatife of Voffius, in his
Cogitationes de variis Linguae Latinae ae-
tatibus^ etc. p. 30. retains infideliter in the
Catalogue of vitiofa vocabula : nor does
Scioppius, Animadverf. in Voffium De Vi-
tiis Serm. quoted by Borrichius p. 209, etc.
prove it by any Inftance to be Latin : and
CelJarhis in Cur. Pojlerior. places it in the
chapter De Latinitate Barbara aut Incerta,
cap. x. p. 359. If the Remark of thefe
Learned men be true, it decides at once
againil the genuinenejs of this Epiftle. but,
which is very ftrange, it feems as if all of
them had overlook'd the word infideliter in
this paiTage : for they neither mention it,
nor bring any other Inftance of the word.
What therefore they would have deter-
mined concerning it, had they remembred
this place, no body can fay. but thus much
we may fafely fay, that this word affords
juft grounds of Sufpicion j becaufe if Ci-
cero had ever ufed it, tho' once only, it
would, in all probability, have been men-
tioned at lead, by fome or other of the
Antients. In the mean time nothing can
1 3 te
n8 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
be more Infirm than the Argument of"
Voffius and Stephanus, if they allow infi-
deliter to be a good Latin word, pnly from
Analogy^ and becaufe Cicero makes ufe of
fdeliter. They cannot be better confuted
than from that very page of Vojjius^ who
there obferves, that " inenodabi liter is a
" Barbarous .word, and yet inenodabile is
<c Cicero's in the Book De Fato. So inex-
" plicabilis is ufed by Cicero ; and yet I
" imagine he would not have faid inexpli-
? c cabiliter" Again, " infirmiter, for in*
<e firme^ I do not find in good Writers."
and yet any Lexicon will inform us that
Jir miter is a word of the pureft Age of the
Latin Tongue. Once more : "I would
" not choofe to fay inhojpitaliter. I
" mould not indeed greatly oppofeany one
" who made ufe of this word ; not fo
" much upon the account of what Hen.
" Stepbanus fays for it, as becaufe Horace
" has inbcfpitalis, and ho/pi taliter is in
" Lroy lib. i, and vi." Now that thefe
words, infideliter, inenodabiliter^ inexplica-
biliter^ inhojpitaliter^ and innumerable o-
thers of the fame Analogical Formation,
wight have been Latin, had the Antients
thought fit, no body can doubt : but the
quefiion
of tbe EPISTLES, &c> ng
queftion is, whether they actually were
fuch ; which cannot now be proved by us
unlefs from Examples fetch'd out of Antient
Writers : in default of which, all fuch
Words are to be look'd upon as Barbarous^
and to be avoided as fuch by thofe who
propofe to write like the Antients. I fpeak
of Language only, for as to Modern Wri-
ters of Latin who regard nothing but the
Matter and Perjpicuity in their Works,
infideliter^ inexplicabiliter> inhojpitalitcr^ or
any other Barbarous Words form'd from
Analogy, may perhaps ferve their purpoie
as well as the moft Claffical ones. But
this was not Cicero's manner: and there-
fore it ought to have been avoided by one
whofe purpofe was to write Epiftles in the
Name and Manner of Cicero. Excellent is
the judgment of Borrichius in this matter,
p. 213. " Ego minus peccaturos exifti-
11 mabo, qui hie religioni propiores a fola
" non pendent Analogia, fed credunt,
" quod Au&oribus bonis ufurpatum vident.
" Prudenter jam olim Prifcianus : Etfi
" regula Jic concedat dicer e y tamen nifi in
" ufu inveniamus auttorum, non debemus
" imitari. Periere, fateor, fcriptores plu-
tc rimi 3 fed quaenam cum ipfis perierint
14 " vocabula,
120 REMARKS on /& LANGUAGE
" vocabula, ignoramus omnes. Qiiin ;nv
f ' mo, fi Analogiae indulgendum liberalius,
< c et defo&wa brevi forent pauca, et cali-
** ganti barbariei feneftra aperiretur paten-
** tiffima. quis enim non futis doctum fe
" putaret, ad novas ex Similitudine voces
* c confingendas ? Horatii iftud, licuit fem-
<{ perque lice bit ; et ^uintiliani^ quando de-
" Jiit licere y intelligendum de lingua adhuc
<f vulgo florente, et totis urbibus provin-
< ciifque communi : nee enim crediderat
<f vel Horatius vel ^uintilianus fore, ut
^ lingua Latina in urbibus obmutefceret,
^ et in folis viveret eruditorum libris." etc.
But what is this which we meet with
Epift. xix. p. 130 ? nulloque praefidio <iyA-
TEFECI Antonium. The word quatefeci
is pei feclly New : and not only New,
but alfo upon feveral accounts contrary to
Analogy, and the Method of Compound-
ing this kind of Verbs. For, Firft, it does
not appear that/<za'0 is ever found in Com-
pofition with another Verb that ends in to,
as it is here with quatio. and, Secondly, if
it were, it would not make quatefacio, but
either quatifado or quatiefacio^ the laft Syl-
lable or Letter o being either omitted, or
changed into?; as in pavefacio, feruefa-
ef the EPISTLES, &c. 121
do, jlupefado, frigefactff, madefacio> ole-
facio or olfacio, calefacio or calfacio, (ac-
cording to which it is very well that he did
not make it quatfacio) labefacio, tremefa-
cio, (in which two the o is changed into e)
languefacio, liquefacio, arefacio, pinguefa-
cio, candejacio, tumefacio, etc. which are
formed from paveo, ferueo, ftupeo, frigeo,
etc. and which, Thirdly, it is to be ob-
ferved, are Neuters^ not T'ranpti'ves^ as
quatio is. but we never find parefacio, ca-
pefacio^ fugefacio^ jacefacio, or any thing
like them, from the Tr an/it ives, pario^ ca-
pio, fugio, jacio. not but that f fraaptv / oet
are fometimes compounded with facto ; as
moneo, doceo, terreo : but then they have a
Prepofition fet before them : fo that you
will not meet with monefacio, docefacio, or
terrefacw ; but commonefacio or admonefa-
cio^ condoccfacio < y perterrefacio. But this is
Grammatical and Pedantic, and below the
Genius of a Writer who
pundet opes, Latiumque beabii divlte lingua.
Certain it is, that neither Cicero, nor any
Writer before him, or in his time, or after
him, as far as I can yet find, have made
ufe of this word, nor is it mentioned by
any
122 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
any of the Antients, Grammarians or
others, as an <*5ra teyoptvov, or word only
once to be found, which it is almoft im-
poffible {hould have efcaped their notice,
if Cicero had ever made ufe of it. Per-
haps the Sound of the word patefacio might
lead him into this miftake. unlefs he chofe
to coin a New Word pro libltu ; as did an
antient Commentator upon the Canon-
Law, (whom I have feen quoted, but have
forgotten his Name) who reproving the
Clergy of his time for riding upon flately
Horfes, ufes this Argument : Servator no-
fter I'emcl tantum ASINAVIT : nunquam
equitavit, neque PALFREDAVIT, neque
DROMEDARIAVIT. For if equito figni-
fies to ride upon an hor/e, why may not
afino and palfredo and dromedario fignifie to
ride upon an afs, palfrey., or dromedary ?
I {hould be glad to fee what account any
one who thinks thefe Letters to be the ge-
nuine Writing of Cicero and Brutus, will
give of this Verb quate facto : with which
Word I (hall conclude this Head of the
Language of our Author ; being perfuaded
that this Single Inftance would be fuffi-
cient to ruin the Credit of a much better
perform-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 123
performance than thefe Epiflles appear to
be.
I mall now pafs on to the Second Part,
after having premifed, that whoever in Vin-
dication of thefe Epiftles, (hall think it
worth while to take notice of thefe Objec-
tions which I have made to the Lan-
guage of them, will be obliged (if he will
anfwer them to any purpofe) to prove by
diredt and clear Inftances out of Cicero or
other good and approved Writers, That
REVOCARE in integrum, inilead of RE-
STITUERE, is a Latin expreffion : That
prohibere PRAESENTIA mala, and coepi-
mus per juader e> are any where ufed, or can
be, confidently with the nature of Lan-
guage and Senfe : That nibil TANTI/W//
QJJO vender emus fidem^ inftead of UT ven-
deremus y is Latin : That it a multi L ABE-
FACT ANT nt ne MOVEATUR inter dum
extimefcam, is not prepofterous in a Profe-
Writer : That^/V, when applied to the
mind, may be ufed without the fignifica-
tion of Reproach : That in the expreffion
corruptus largitionibus ^ the laft word can be
taken in a good fenfe, for Honours : That
petere ever fignifies to be a Candidate for a
particular Poll or Office, without any men-
tion
124 REMARKS on the FACTS
tion or hint of *That Particular : That
fujufue ratio habebitur^ is the fame as cu-
jujve ABSENTIS ratio habebitur : That
DECRETUsf/? hcnos diis immor tali bus, may
be put for HABITUS eft honos Diis immor-
talibus : That REPONERE aliquem in ali-
cujus locum can be faid of a Per/on, inftead
of fubftituere^ jufficere^ (ubrogare : That
ut SOLERES is good Writing, inftead of ut
SOLEBAS: That non may be put for non
modo or nedum ; and quidem without ?ie, in
the mafiner it is done by this Writer : That
EXPLERE meritum fignifies to REWARD
merit : That quatefeci is a Latin word.
If all thefe, and feveral others which I
have already mentioned, can be defended
by proper Examples out of the beft Wri-
ters of Antiquity, (for without fuch Ex-
amples, the bare Opinions and Reafonings
of all the Learned Men in the World are
no manner of Defence to a Piece againft
which there lie fuch Strong and Juft Ob-
jections and Arguments) I would then beg
leave to propofe another Sett of the fame
kind out of thefe Epiflles, to be accounted
for and explained in the like manner ; be-
ing of opinion that he who can do this
truly
of the EPISTLES, &c. 125
truly and effectually, will deferve very well
of the Latin Tongue, and at the fame
time will {how great Skill in that Lan-
guage, and if any body thinks that fome
of thefe here taken notice of, are inconfi-
derable, and fuch as may eafily be excufed
in any Writer ; he mould be told (and it
cannot be too often repeated) that in a
Modern Writer of Latin it is reafonable
and we ought to overlook an hundred
Miftakes of this kind, provided we fuffi-
ciently underftand what it is that he intends
to exprefs : re enim intelleSla^ in verborum
ufufaciles effe debctnus, is Cicero's own Pre-
cept, but in an Antient (as this Author
pretends to be) the caie is much otherwife.
for we cannot fuppofe or imagine that a
True Antient Roman Writer, efpecially
Cicero or Brutus, could be ignorant in the
Language in which he wrote and which he
jpake every day of his life : and that it
would be as impoffible for either of them
to write deliberately, nihil tanti/#/V QJJO
venderemus fidem nojlram^ inftead of UT
venderemus, as it would be to have written
QJUORUM venderemus. And this little In-
ftance of Bad Latin (if it be fuch, as I
fhall believe it to be till I fee reafon to the
contrary
126 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE
contrary) feems to be as certain a Proof of
the Forgery of thefe Letters, as coepimus
perfuadere, prohtbcre praefentla mala, qua-
tefeci y or any of the above-mentioned which
have a more glaring appearance of Igno-
rance in the Latin Tongue. And if this
be the cafe in All, or Several, or Any of
the Inftances I have objected to, I imagine
it may be allowed that I have proved my
Ftrft Point, That Cicero and Brutus could
not POSSIBLY be the Authors of thefe Let-
ters.
But if fo, what need is there, you will
fay, of giving Me or your felf any further
trouble ? My reafon for it is this : Becaufe,
tho' I am fatisfied, for my own part, that
there cannot be ftronger Arguments againft
the genulnenefs of thefe Epiftles than the
Inftances in the "Language which have been
already brought ; yet I am aware that it
may be faid, That all Arguments from
Language are now very uncertain, becaufe
we know fo little of the Latin Tongue, of
its Nature, Extent, or the Liberties which
may, or may not, be taken in its Com-
pofitions, as having comparatively fo few
Remains of the Antient Authors who
wrote in That Language, and no body
now
Remarks on the FACTS, etc. 127
now Alive who can pretend to inform ns
what is, or what is not, allowable in it :
tfhat nothing is more common than for
Men of Letters to pronounce concerning
"Latin Expreflions as Faulty, which have
been proved afterwards from undoubted
Authorities to be otherwife : 'That even in
thefe Epiftles, Men of very great Learn-
ing have fometimes done the fame thing,
when as it were eafy to (how that the Mif-
take lay in Themfelves, not in the Writer
of the Epiftles : That, at the beft, Argu-
ments of this kind are fuitable to the Judg-
ments of a Few only, and Thofe too Men
of Reading and Leifure j and even They
ought to have time allowed them to con-
fider and fearch whether thefe things be fo,
not to take the bare Word of every Ob-
jector : tfhat therefore Arguments of a dif-
ferent kind lye more level to all apprehen-
fions and capacities : as for Inflance, If a
Writer mould take upon him the Name
of Cicero, and in his Writings mould fre-
quently contradict Cicero and all Hiftory in
Matters of Fact ; and in a Short Work
fhould often contradift even Himfelftoo,
ana forget in one part what he had faid a
little before in another: Further, If the
5 fame
128 REMARKS on the FACTS
fame Writer fhould aflame the Characters
of Cicero and Brutus, two Perfons who are
univerfally allowed to have been Men of
the ftrongeft Parts, cleared Reafon, and
foundeft Judgment ; and under thofe Cha-
racters mould introduce Cicero and Brutus
trifling in their Correfpondence, and rea-
Jonlng weakly and incoherently : if thofe
points could be proved, fuch Arguments
would be more convincing to the Genera-
lity of Readers, becaufe, in the former
cafe, Cicero would be reprefented as carelefs
and indolent even to Stupidity j in the lat-
ter, Cicero and Brutus as not having com-
mon Senfe and Under/landing : both which
reprefentations would be very contrary to
the notions which all Mankind have juftly
formed of thofe two Great Men, of whofe
Language and Style they are not perhaps fo
competent Judges.
Let us therefore fet afide the Language
for a while, and try our Author upon thefe
Two Indictments, Firft, his Fatts, under
which we will place his FalfeJIijlory, and
his Forgetting y and Contradicting Himfelf,
which is relating the fame Fact different
ways: and, Secondly, his Reajoning and
Sentiments. A$ to the Firjft of thefe, I am
already
of the EPISTLES, &c. 129
already in a great meafure happily prevent-
ed by an excellent Piece lately publifhed
by my Learned Friend Mr. Tun/lall, \0b-
fervatiom on the prefent Collection of Epiftles
between Cicero and M. Brutus, etc. Lon-
don. 1744. 8 ] who in a multitude of In-
ftances has fliewn the Ignorance and Blun-
ders of the Sophifl upon this head fo effec-
tually, as that, in my opinion, his Argu-
ments can never be fairly anfwered. All
therefore that can be added upon this ar-
ticle, is no more than afium agere ; which,
notwithstanding that the old Proverb for-
bids it, I (hall Venture to do, fo far as to
produce Two or Three Examples of the
fame kind, which I do not find mentioned
in the aforefaid Piece : and I will anfwer
for it, that thofe who come after us both,
will find feveral more of the fame fort, if
they (hall think it worth their while to
look for them*
REMARKS
[ '3 I
REMARKS
ON THE
FACTS
SECT. II.
EP i ST. xxi. p. 146. Cicero writes thus:
neque jolum ut SOLONIS diSlum ufur-
pem, qui ^sApiENTissiMusy^// EX SEP-
TEM, et legum jcriptor folus exfeptem^ic.
If the true Cicero wrote this, he muft
have flrangely forgot himfelf. for in his
Treatife De Legibus (which probably was
written towards the end of the year U. C.
709, as this Letter is fuppofed to have been
written in July the next year : See Dr.
Chapman's DifTert. de Aetat. Libb. Cic.
De LegibuS) p. 32.) Lib. ii, u. he fays :
THALES (not Solon) qui SAPIENTISSIMUS
INTER SEFTEMfutf. And again, Aca-
demic, ii, 37. princefs THALES, units e
jeptem>
REMARKS on the FACTS, &c. 131
^ cuifex reliquos CONCESSISSE PRI-
MA$({c.f6rtes)Jerunf 3 ex aqua dixit con-
Jlare omnia : c Tba/es ) one of the Seven Wife
men, to whom it is faid the other Six yielded
the precedency in Wifdom, was thefirftwho
held that Water is the Firfl principle of all
things. The Contradiction is fo manifeftj
that One of the Two Cicero's muft here be
under a great miftake. The truth is, this
Author ought to have read all the Works
of the Real Cicero more carefully, or at
leaft to have confined his Pen and Imagi-
nation to thofe parts of him which he had
read, before he attempted to write Letters
for him. but as he has now managed this
matter, he has made good the Remark of
Latfantius upon another occafion, Injlitut.
Lib. ii, 8. nee enim ab ullo poterit Cicero
quam a Cicerone vehementius refutari. Solon
was without doubt a very Wife man, and a
Writer of Laws : both which circum-
flances are mentioned together in the Orat.
pro Sex. Rofcio Amerino^ c. 25. pruden-
tiffima civitas Athenienjium, dum ea rerum
potita cftjuifle traditur. ejus porro civitatis
SAPIENT ISSIMUM SoLONEM dicitnt fuijje^
eitm, qui LEGES, quibus hodie quoque utun-
K 2 fur,
132 REMARKS on the FACTS
tur y SCRIPSER1T. Gellius xvii, 21. sc*~
LONEM ergo accepimus, UNUM ex illonobili'
numero Sapientum, LEGES SCRIPSISSE A-
thenienfium, ^arquinio Prifco Romae reg-
nante, anno regni ejus tricefimo tertio. but
whence our Author took his information that
Solon was the Wifefl of the Seven, unlefs he
miftook it from the paffage of the Oration
juft now quoted, I have not yet found. It is
very plain that he did not take it from Cice-
ro, who de Fin. iii, 22. gives Solon the bare
title of units efeptem Sapicntibus, and So-
lonisfapientis, De Senect. c. 20. Dr. Bent--
ley in his Pref. to the Differt. upon the
Epift. ofPhalaris, etc. p. 77. ed. Lond. 1699.
perhaps from this paffage of this Epiftle^
calls Solon the ivifeft of the famous Seven.
I will not pretend to affirm that the fame
is not to be found in fome other Antient
Greek or Latin Writer, but be that as it
will, it does not excufe the Contradiction
in Cicero.
It may be faid perhaps, tfhat a miftake
of this kind is no new thing in Cicero :
for in another of his pieces he had put
Eupolis (De clar. Orator, c. 9. and 15.) in-
ftead of jfriftophanes ^ which he afterwards
found out, and defired Attic us (Epift. xir.
6.)
of the EPISTLES, &c. 133
/) to order his Scribes to correct in his
Copies : See likewife another Ad Attic, xiii,
42. which he there acknowledges: And in
the fecond book De Gloria, as is obferved
by Gellius xv, 6. he had put Ajax inftead
-of Heffor. T'hat fuch a failure of Memory
might more eafily happen in Different
Works, written at fome diftance of Time
from each other. Be it fo : tho' I believe
Cicero would not think himfelf much
obliged to any body who mould defend
him in this manner, but what (hall we fay
to the following Inftance of Forgetfiilnefs
in 0;z?and the fame Letter, written, it may
be fcppofed, at one Sitting, and in the
Spac% of an Hour or two ? I mean the V tlx
Epiiue : which he begins with acquainting
Brutus, " That on the 13 th of April (ID.
<c APRIL.) Two Letters had been read in
" the Senate ; One, as from Him (Bru-
" tus) ; the Other, from his Prifoner, C.
" Antonius : That he forbears to give him
il any account of them, becaufe he takes it
" for granted that his other Friends at
" Rome had already done itj and there
' was no neceflny that He and they too
<c flioald write the fame thing." This is
8-eafonable and Satisfadory, if we can but
K 3 hold
134 REMARKS en the FACTS
hold him to it. But fee the Inconftancy
of the Man ! for a little lower, in this very
Letter, p. 34. he gives Brutus a particular
account, from the beginning to the end, of
the whole affair of the Two Letters, the
omiflion of which he had but jufh before
fb well excufed a . Ecce tibi, I D i B . A P R i L .
advolat mane celer Pilus ! Hie epiftolas
adfert DUAS ; unam xuo NOMINE, alte-
ram ANTON n. etc. The Antient Cri-
tics obferve that the word Ecce implies
fomething Strange and Unexpected, it never
was more properly ufed than in the begin-
ning of this Narration, rfantamne fuijfe
oblivionem, in SCR IP TO pracfertim^ ut ne
legens quidem unquam fenjerit quantum fa-
gitii commififfct ! as this fame Brutus (De
clar. Orator, c. 6 1 .) fays upon another, not
very different, occafion. When P. Servi-
lius Ridlus the Tribune, in his Agrarian
Law, thro* inadvertency had made one
part of it contradict another, Cicero (de
Leg. Agrar. ii, 10.) makes the following
Reflection upon him : Et is orbem terra-
rum conjlrlnglt novis Lcgibus, qui, quid in
fecundo capite SCRIPTUM EST, non mcminit
a See another Liftance of the like kind taken no-
tice of by Mr Turmoil? Obfervat. p. 366.
in
ef the EPISTLES, &c.
in tertio ? which, with a little alteration,
is applicable to the prefent cafe : And does
this Man pretend to write Epiftksjor Ci-
cero and Brutus , 'who in the middle of a
Letter forgets what he had written in the
\s O
beginning of it ?
Nor is Brutus behind-hand in this qua*
lity of Forgetfulnefs. For Epift. xi. p. 70.
he writes thus to Cicero : jlatuo nihil niji
hoc, Senatus ant Pop. Romani judicium ejje de
its civibus qui pugnantes non interierint. At
hoc iplum, inquies, iniquejacis, qui hoftilis
animi in rempublicam homines, GIVES ap-
pelles. I determine nothing but this, 'That
it is the Right of the Senate or People of
Rome to pafs judgment on thoje Citizens who
were not Jlain in battle. But I am to blame,
you will Jay, for giving tie title of CITI-
ZEN s to tkoj'e <who bear an ho ft He difpofction
to the Republic. Be not in any concern,
Brutus : Cicero can never make this Ob-
jedtion, nor blame you for calling thefe
men Citizens ; becaufe He him/elf, and in
the very Letter which you are now anfwer-
ing, has already called thefe veryjame per-
fons, Citizens, Epift. ix. p. 56. Sic fentit
Senatus, Jic Pop. Romania ; nullos umquam
koftes digniores omni fupplicio fui[je , quam eos
K 4 CIVES
138 REMARKS on the FACTS
GIVES, qui hoc hello contra patriam arma
ceperunt. This might feem to be an ex-
traordinary inftance of Negligence or For-
getfulnefs in another Writer : Bat in Bru-
tus it is not fo. For in the beginning of
this Epiftle he has forgot even That Hu-,
inanity which was fo remarkable a part of
his Character. Cicero had told him in his
laft (Epiil. ix. to which this xi th is the An-
fwer) that both the Confuls were kittd. To
this he replies : Quanta Jim LAETITIA
flffeffus, etc. How great JOY it gave me
to hear of the circumftances of our Friend
Brutus and THE CONSULS, it is eajierjor
you to imagine than for me to exprefs. Can
men of Senfe bear with fuch an Idle and
Inconfiftent Scribler as this, who is rejoi-
cing at the Death of his Friends in the fame
Letter in which he is fetting off and vin-
dicating his Humanity to C. Antcnius one
of the greateft of his Enemies ? This lad
was taken notice of by Mr. *unjlall before
me, Obfervat. p. 227.
But thefe Blunders concern Themfelves
only, and their own Characters j and there-
fore are almolr. pardonable in comparifon of
what we meet with in the fame Epift. ix.
p, 58. Hir tilts quidem in ip/a victoria oc-
cidit
of the EPISTLES, &c. 139
cidit, cum paucis diebus magno proelio ante
viciffet. nam Pan/a FUGERAT, vulneribus
accept is quae ferre non poter at. For Pan/a
FLED, having received wounds which he
could not bear. It is impoffible that Cicero
could write this, or that he could be either
fo ignorant of the hiftory of the Battle of
Modem, as to fay that Panja did fugere,
flee, or rim away ; or fo fhamefully negli-
gent, as to exprefs Panfas being carried
out of the field upon the account of his
Wounds, by fo ignominious a word as
Jugere ; this, I fay, is impoffible, becaufe
he Himfelf, in an Oration fpoken the day
before the fuppofed Writing of this Letter,
after having done juftice to Panja 's Valour,
had laid of him (Philipp. xiv. 9.) T^hat he
was, duobus pencuhjis vulneribus acceptis,
SUBLATUS E PROELIO, carried out oj the
battle ; (which Appian calls tfaQipTo, Bell.
Civ. Lib. iii, p. 926. ed. T'ollii) and on the
other hand, concerning Antony, cap. x. of
the fame Oration : O Jolem ipjum beatij/i-
wum, q:ii antequam ft abderet, Jlratis cada-
veribus parrlcidarum, cum paucis F u G I E N-
TEM r cidit AN TON i UM ! So Epift. ad Fa-
mil, x, 14. FUGISSE enlm ex proelio Mu-
tincnfi dicuntur notijjimi LATRONUM
DU-
138 REMARKS on the FACTS
DUCES . Nay this very Author Epift. xiv,
mentions the FUG A Antonit : and Epift.
xxiii. FUGIENTEM HOST EM perfcqui no-
luerunt. I know very well that the Sol-
diers under the command of Pan/a were
routed in the firjl Battle, but that was not
what our Author meant here : for he is
Ipeaking of the Perfcns of the Two Con-
fuls only : CONSULES due s ami/imus . H i R -
TIUS quldem in ip/a vitforia occidlt
nam PANS A fugerat^ "oulneribus acceptis y
etc. Nothing can excufe this Faliity, or
Negligence of Expreiiion, in a circum-
flance where the Charader of a Brave Man
was concerned, and in a Word concerning
which he was fo fcrupulous upon another
occafion, Epift. xxi. p. 150. CEDEBAS
enirn, Brute, CEDEBAS ; quoniam Sto'ici
noftri negant F u c E R E Sapientis. Had he
followed the fame Diftinction here, nam
PanJ'a CESS E RAT, tho' the Senle would
not have been fully expreft, yet it had been
more tolerable and more to the purpofe
than it is in that paffage, where for the
* Macrcbius Saturn, ii, 2. pojl Mut'tnenfem fugam
(f. pugnam) quaerentibus quid ageret /fatonitts, refpon-
diffe familiar is cjw fertbattur y >uod ca::ls in degypto :
fabit et FUGIT.
fake
of the EPISTLES, &c. 139
fake of fhowing his Erudition, he ufes
Brutus in a manner very Uncivil and Dif-
obliging, and very unlike Cicero, for he
would infmuate, that Brutus did in reality
run away, however he might cover his
Flight under the fpecious name of ivith-
dr awing : which latter is much lefs than
the former, becatife he who doesfagere,
does of courfe at the fame time cedere, ex-
cedere, or difcedere -, but not vice verfa.
agreeably to which known Diftinclion, the
true Cicero fays, Philippic. V, 1 1 . ut pri-
mum poft DISCESSUM latronis (Antonii), *uel
potius dcjperatam FUG AM, liber e JenatuS
haberi potuit, femper fagitavi ut convocare-
mur. and fo again ad Attic, viii, 3. This
being fo, it is worth while to obferve the
Inconfiftency of this Writer, for he who
in the xxi Epiftle fbows that he knew the
difference between cedere andfagere, and
who is there fo cautious of giving offence to
Brutus by ufing this latter word, does in
another Letter to him without any fcruple
or apology make ufe of the very fame word,
Epift. xix. p. 130. Incitavifti ' vcro tu me,
Brute i Veliae. quamquam enim dolebam in
earn me urbem ire quam tu FUGERES qui
earn fiberwpfles j (quod mihi quoque quondam
acciderat
140 REMARKS on the FACTS
acciderat etc.) pcrrexi tamen etc. Here
then Brutus did fugcre. But this is not
all that is obfervable in this paffage. he is
not fatisfied with contradicting Himfelf,
but he is willing to make the moil of it,
and to do it in Doubtful Latin too. for by
earn urbem QJJAM tu fugeres, he mult
mean, that city F R o M (or o u T OF) wh ich
you fed, or were forced to fee, as is evi-
dent from the parallel which follows, quod
MI HI QJJOQJLJE quondam acciderat, 'which
tbing had formerly befallen ME TOO j name-
ly, when I was expel? d or banifjed by
C/odius's means, but this ought not in this
place to have been expreft by cam urbem
QJJAM tu fugeres, but, earn urbem EX
QJI A tu fugeres, for the fake of perfpi-
cuity, and becaufe there is frequently a
wide difference of Senfe between the two
Expreffions. for F u G E R E u R B EM may fig-
nine to AVOID the city, by an adl of Choice ;
which was not Cicero's cafe. So Horace
Epift. ii, 2.
Scriptorum chorus omnis amat nemtts, et
FUGIT URBES :
and Cicero Ad Attic, xii, 27. circiter Ka-
Jendas adfuturus videtur. vellejn tardius :
vahie
of the EPISTLES, Gfc.
oalde enlm URBEM FUGIO mult as ob cau-
Jas. See too Proper tins ii, 23: 52. but to
fee FROM (or OUT OF) the city, upon
CGmpulfion or neceffity, is clearly, fugere EX
(or AB) z/r^ ; which fenfe is required here,
becaufe this, as every body knows, was
the cafe of Cicero, concerning whom Corn.
Nepos in Attic, c. 4. fays, cut EX PATRIA
FUGIENTI, HS. ducenta et quinquaginta
mlllia (Atticus) donaverat : and the cafe of
Antony ', Pliilipp. iii, I. EX urbe FUGIT
Antonius. Tufculan. Difput. i, 3 5. concern-
ing Pompey : non EX Italia FUGISSET,
Ovid Pontic. i, 5: 84.
Famaque cum domino FUGIT ABUrbey&0.
In like manner fugere proelium is to avoid
fighting or coming to a battle > as in Sil. Ita-
I'cus ix, 175. FUGE PROELIA, Varro. but
fugere EX proelio is to run away out of the
battle ',asCtcero Fam.xiv. DeDivinat. ii, 37.
and Suetonius in Othon. c. x. fugere EX
acie. So then after all, and notwithfland-
ing the Stoical Diftindion between fugere
and cedere, Cicero, we fee, affirms that Bru-
tus did fugere. No, but that is not certain
yet. for again in the abovementioned Epift.
xxi. p. 148. lie fays, fpeaking of the fame
thing :
142 REMARKS on the FACTS
thing : Vos (Brutus and Caffius), fortajft
fapientius, EXCESSISTIS urbe ea quam libe-
raratis : which is the very fenfe and defign
of the above mention'd pafiage in the xix th
Epiftle, eamurbem quam tu FUGERES
qui earn liberaviffes. What can bs done with
fuch a Proteus, or in what bands can you
hold him, who in one place inilfts upon
the distinction between cedere and jitgere^
and foon after fhows that he did not know
any difference between them ? Cicero him-
felf indeed often calls his own banijbment
by the name of difceflus. but then he only
does it when it is to the purpofe of fetting
off his Love to his Country by reprefenting
that matter as a thing voluntarily under-
taken in order to prevent greater mifchiefs
to the Republic, for at other times he
ipeaks of it as a matter of violence and com-
fulfion, as it certainly was : me patria ex-
pulerat, as he fays of Clodius, Orat. pro
Mikne c. 32. and he calls ilfuga^ Ad At-
tic, iii, 3. See de Divinat. i, 28. But our
Author has not yet done puzzling, and
contradi&ing himfelf upon this head, for
iii the fame xxi Epiftle, p. 148. Cicero
writes thus concerning himfelf : Jtaque cum
tcneri urbcm a parricidh viderem, nee te in
ea
of the EPISTLES, &c. 143
fa nee CaJJium tuto ejje pojje j mibi quoque
ipfi ejj'e EXCEDENDUM putavi. This is
very true : for Cicero is fpeaking of his in-
tended Voyage into Greece in the Summer
of the year in which Cae/'ar was killed,
A. U. 709. which he calls profeffio, Phi-
lippic, i, i. and cap. 2. a mente DISCESSI
ut adejjem Kakndis yanuariis. whence it is
plain that it was a voluntary undertaking.
But Epift. xix. p. 130. fpeaking of this very
Voyage , he fays, Hacc ego multo ante pro-
fpiciem, FUGIEBAM EX Italia, turn cum
me veftrorum ediftorum Jama revocavif.
Here he undoes all again : for had he been
banifoedy or compelled to go out of Italy, he
could not have expreft it more ftrongly
than by fugiebam ex Italia, not to mention
Two other inftances of Negligence in this
Sentence, in the words FAMA and veftro-
rum EDICTORUM. for, Firft, it was but
One edict, publifhed jointly in the names
of Brutus and Coffins (in like manner as
their Letter to Antony, Ad Famil. xi, 3.)
at that time Praeton. Cicero Philip, i, 3.
nee multo poft, E D i c T UM Bruti affertur et
Caffii : and again ad Attic, xvi, 7. giving
the fame account : Haec afferebant, E DI-
CTUM Bruti et Caffii. but this Author,
\ know-
144 REMARKS on the FACTS
knowing perhaps that both Brutus and
CaJJius were at that time Praetors, thought
that there muft of courfe be at leaft Iwo
Edicts. Nor, Secondly, was it t\\zfame
or report of the Edict, which contributed
to the bringing back of Cicero, but the
Edict it Je/f, which he received, and read
there, and thought it a very reafonable one.
Philippic, i, 3. quoted before: nee multo
poft, edictum Bruti AFFERTUR et CAS-
sii : QJTOD quidem mihi plenum aequi-
tatis videbatur. Thefe miftakes, how-
ever fmall they may feem, are fuch as
Cicero himfelf could not have made.
But to proceed. Seneca in his Nat.
^uaejl. vii, 16. has a fevere reflection upon
Hiftoriam in general, in which this Letter-
Writer may perhaps be concerned, as he
is a relater of Hiftorical matters : Quidam
(hiftorici) creduli, fays he, am dam NEGLI-
GE N T E s : funt quibuf'dam MENDACIUM
9brepit, quibufdam placet. We have feen
Two or Three inftances of our Author's
Negligence : let us examine whether he
Hands clear of the other part of Seneca's
Charge. In the xvii th Epiftle, p. 118. he
gives this account of Lepidus : repente non
folum recepit reHquias bojliitm, Jed bdlurn
acerri-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 145
acerrimum terra MARique gerit : on a
Judden he hath not only received the broken
remains of our Enemies, but is carrying on
a mojl vigorous war by Land and by SEA.
Cicero Famil. xii, 10. was contented to fay,
Bellum quidem, cum haec fcribebam, fane
MAGNUM erat y feeler e et levitate Lepidi.
but this Writer ieems to have thought that
it could not be a great War unlefs it was
carried on by Sea as well as Land: and
therefore he has improved upon Cicero,
and converted Lepidus's Legionary Soldiers
into Sailors *. May we be permitted to alk
him
* Such another improvement up'on Cicero has been
made by a near Relation of this Writer, viz. the
Author of the Oration Poft redltum in Senatu cap. 7.
The true Cicero in the Orat; pro P. Sextia c; 8. ac-
quaints us, that L. Pifo, who was his enemy, and
Conful in the year in which he was banimed^ was at
the fame time Duumvir in the Colony of Capua :
Capua, in qua ipfe (Pifo) turn, Imaginis ornandae
caitfa, duumviratum gerebat : and in the Orat; in
Pifon. c. Xi. he fneers at him Upon the account of
this paultry Duumvirate^ and calls him in mockery
Campaxum confulem^ the Campanian Conful^ or Conful
cf Capua. The Author of the abovementioned Ora-
tion, pcj} reditum in Senatu^ rerhembred this laft
circumftance, and took it in earneft ; and according-
ly, inflead of Duumvir^ he very innocently intro-
k duees
146 REMARKS on tie FACTS
him concerning this Sea-War of Lepidus,
as Cicero does Ferres Lib. V, 2. concerning
his Fugitives : ubi ? quando ? qua ex par-
te ? cum aut navibus ant ratibus conarentur
accedere ? nos enim nihil unquam prorfus au-
divimus. Produce out of Cicero, Plutarch,
Appian, Dio, or any other unfufpeded
Greek or Roman Writer, any one lefli-
mony, or the leaft Hint, tho' never fo re-
mote and obfcure, of a fingle Ship or
Barque employ'd by Lepidus's order in any
Sea- Action during the Time here fpoken
of; and I will not difpute the Truth of
the Fad:. But there does not appear in
the Hiftorians the leaft mention or trace of
any engagement by Sea, or of any Prepa-
duces Pifo as a&ually Conful of Capua at the fame
time that he was Conful of Rome^ cap. vii. Capnaene
te putabas, in qua urbe domlcillum quondam fuperbiae
fuit, confulem ejje, ficut eras eo tempore j an Ro-
?nac, in qua civitate omnes ante vos conjulcs Jenaiui pa-
rucrunt ? A Conful of Capua at that time, is near as
great an abfurdity in Hiflory, as a King at Rome ;
and the one would have been almoft aflbon born by
the Roman people as the other, as this Declaimer
might have known from Cicero's Orations againft
Rullus, De Leg Agrar. i, 6. and ii, 34, 35. Sc e
t oo Livy xxiii, 6. The Learned Hotioman was fo
puzzled with this paflage, that he confcfies he could
not tell what to make of it.
rations
<?/ the EPISTLES, fr. 147
rations of Ships and Sea-Forces, during
this Revolt of Lepidus. had there been any
fuch thing, and efpecially ACERRIMUM
helium i a mojl SHARP ivar by Sea, it muft
of neceffity have affected the State of pub-
lick Affairs on one fide or other : and then
we fhould certainly have heard of it, ei-
ther from Cicero, or from fome of the
Hiflorians ; unlefs fome reafon can be
given why the mention of important Ac-
tions by Sea mould be fupprefTed, and only
thofe by Land mentioned. An omiffion
of fuch confequence, in an Hiftory of
which there are feveral Writers extant, is
fo impoffible or improbable a thing, that I
believe we may fafely pronounce this Sea-
War of Lepidus to have been unknown to
the Antients, and a mere Fiction of our
Author, to be rank'd in the fame Clafs
with the Battle-Accounts of Valerius An-
tias the Hiftorian, whom Livy fo often
calls upon. This Valerius had a ftrange
propenfity to Slaughter and Blood-JJjed in
War : which humour he indulged fo in-
temperately, as frequently to add Fifteen
or twenty 'Thoitfand, fometimes more, to
the number of the Slain in Battle. It hap-
pened, when Annibal was recalled out of
L 2 Italy
148 REMARKS on the FACTS
Italy to defend Carthage^ which was about
to be attacked by the Romans under the
Command of Scipio, that jufl before his
departure, the Conful C. Servilius and He
came to a Battle near Crotvna ; in which
the Con/id feems, by what follows, to have
had the better : but the Advantage was fo
inconfiderable, that former Hiftorians had
taken little or no notice of it. Here was
a fine opportunity for Valerius ! But what
could he do ? to lay about him in his wont-
ed manner, and to Slay by T'en T^houjandsy
would have been too Impudent and Out-
ragious in a cafe wherein the Hiftorians
who had written before him had been
almoft filent : and on the other hand,
he could not find in his heart to let dn-
nibal go off without a Par ting- Blow. Pie
therefore thought it beft to compound the
matter between 'Truth and his own Fa-
vourite Paffion, and let Anmbal come off
with the lofs of only Five ^IbouJ'and. This
was very Reafonable and Model!, confider-
ing the Man. and yet even this Number
feem'd fo extravagant to Livy, that he
could not forbear obferving upon it, (for
the fake of which Obferv.ition, and the
Application of it to our Author, I mention
the
of the EPISTLES, &c. 149
the thing) Lib. xxx, 19. Valerius Antias
quinque mi Hi a hoftium caefa ait. quae TAN-
TA RES eft, lit aut IMPUDENTER FIC-
TA///, aut NEGLIGENTER praetermijfe.
Valerius of Antium fays that Five T^houfand
of the enemy were /lam. which is a matter
of SUCH MOMENT, that either it miift be
an IMPUDENT FICTION of Valerius, or
a NEGLIGENT OMISSION of the other
Hiftorians. Whether of the Two Livy
took it to be, we may judge from feveral
paflages where he mentions this Valerius
upon the fame account : but efpecially
Lib. xxxiii, 10. Si Valeria quis credat^ om-
nium rerum immodice numerum augenti t
quadraginta millia hojlium eodem die caeja- t
capta^ ubi MODESTIUS MENDACIUM eft,
quinque millia feptingenti^ etc. Livy y who
follows Pofyfaus, fets down here Eight
"Thou/and flain, and Five Thoufand taken
Prifbners. but Claudius , another Hiftorian,
makes the flain to be Thirty-two < fboufand.
no wonder then '^Valerius took the advan-
tage of the higher account, and mounted the
O O '
number to Forty Thou/and. Pardon this di-
greflion, and I return to our Author; who
poffibly may have been drawn into thisFalfify
(whether Lie or Miftake) by the Expref-
L iion,
150 REMARKS on the FACTS
fion, bellum terra marique, which occurs
frequently in Cicero and other Writers in
the fenfe of a general war. So in the Orat.
pro Lege Manil. c. iv. a binis hojlium copiis
bellum terra MARique gererefur. pro Ar-
chia c. ix. Mithridaticum vero bellum,
magnum atque difficile, et in multa varie-
fafe, terra MARique, ver/atum, totum ab
hoc exprejjum eft. Ad Attic, ix, i. bdlum
Italiae terra MARique infer amus. x, 4.
bellum terra et MARI comparat. Philippic.
xi, 12. bello P.Dolabellam terra MARique
profequi. and fo in other places, and other
Writers, which I need not tranfcribe. Our
Author perhaps might have obferved this,
and might make ufe of the ExprefTion
without considering whether it were as
here as in the places juft now quoted.
I confefs this Sufpicion would feem hard,
nor durfl I have mentioned it, were I not
thoroughly convinced of the great Want of
judgment and Attention which is to be
found in this Writer, or had I not met
with an Inftance parallel to this ; which
will more properly come under the Head
of his Reafoning, for which place I re-
ferve it.
But
of the EPISTLES, &c. 151
But let us go on to other Inftances.
Brutus in his Epifile to Cicero, p. 421.18
fpeaking of Antijlius Veins : is nobis ultro
et pollicitus eft et dedit H-S xx. ex suApe-
citnia : et, quod multo carius eft, feip/um
obtulit, et conjunxit. ke did both voluntarily
promife, and hath a ft u ally green me two
millions of Sefterces out of HIS OWN money:
etc. The Facl, and the Sum, are taken
out of Plutarch in Brut. p. 995. But I
fear our Author hath fallen into a miftake
by not attending more carefully to Plu-
tarch's account of this matter, for suApe-
cunia is without doubt a man's own money,
his private Property : as in Verr. V, 18.
de TU A pecunia conftare aediftcatam e//e earn
navim : and SUA pecunia extruxit, fteri
curavit, and the like, in Antient Infcrip-
tions frequently. See Dr. Bent ley's Notes
upon Horace Serm. ii, 3: 129. But the
money which Fetus gave to Brutus was not
SUA but PUELICA pecunia, as appears by
the pafTage from whence this is taken ; where
Plutarch tells us, That ajjoon as Brutus
engaged in thefe matters openly, having heard
that fome Roman Ships, jull of money, were
coming thither (to Athens) out of Afia
and that a Praetor, a man of character, and
L 4 one
i c2 REMARKS on the PACTS
j
one with whom he was acquainted, was on
board-, he met him near Gary ftps : and after
fome confer J'ation with him, prevailed upon
him, and received the Ships, etc. then fol-
lows, a little lower : Afterwards Antiftius
gave him jive millions of AfTes (i. e. two
mt '//ions of Sefterces) out of the money which
HE LIKEWISE was conveying to Italy:
<p' uv Yfyt KAI V 'ATTO'S s 'iTaxtw ^q-
ftocTtav. This account, and the Circum-
ftances of it, put it beyond all doubt, that
the money which this Praetor had on
board the Roman Ships, was Public money,
viz. the Taxes of dpa (as we (hall fee be-
Jow out of Appian) which he had gatheiv
ed, and intended to convey to Rome, after
he had touch'd at Athens in his paflage :
and alfo that the money which Fetus (who
had been Quaeftor in Syria) was carrying
to Italy, was of the fame kind, is equally
clear from the Narration, and efpecially
from the words KAl' 'ATTO'S we, HE
ALSO was carrying, i.e. he as we// as the
Praetor before-mentioned : whereas had it
been his own money, Plutarch mufl have
faid, a,7T 'lAl'HN &>v. ( or 4) ^w e*ff 'iraA/ai/
putting in i$iuy, and omitting
Vetteius Paterculus alludes, in
all
of the EPISTLES, fcfc. 153
all probability, to this very action of Fetus,
Lib. ii, 62. where he is fpeaking of Brutus
and CaJJius : pecunias etiam, quae ex tranf-
marinis P ROV i N c 1 1 s ROM AM a QU^AESTO-
R i B u s depQrtabantur^a VOLENTIBUS accepe-
rant. He fays a Quaefloribus^ in the Plural^
becaufe Fetus the ^uaejlor affifled Brutus
with money, and P. Lentulus the ^uaeftor
affifted CaJfiuS) as appears from Lentulufs
Letter to Cicero, Famil. xii, 14. But that
which determines this matter at once #-
gainft our Author, is the Decree of the
Senate upon the Authority whereof Brutus
received this money from Fetus; part of
which Decree runs thus, as it was pro-
pofed by Cicero himfclf Philipp. x. at the
end: PECUNiAque ad rem militarem, Ji
qua opus fit, quae PUBLIC A Jit et exigi
poffit, utatur^ extgat, fcil. Brutus : and if
he (Brutus)y^<7// want money for thejervice
of the war, let him have power to make ufe
of and colleft all fuch moneys as are PUB-
LICK and may be collected. Our Author
therefore is guilty of a great Miflake when
he fays that Fetus gave Brutus this Sum ex
su A pecunia : a Miftake which I prefume
Brutus himjelf would not have made, had
he been the Author of this Letter. Give
me
154 REMARKS on the FACTS
me leave to add, that this <^^x.iviylg or
Praetor, whofe Name Plutarch does not
mention, and to whom Brutus w,as much
more obliged than to Fetus, was (Marcus)
Apuleius; as we learn from Appian Bell.
Civ. iii. p. 921. and iv. p. 1013. where he
tells us, that (befides the Ships which Plu~
tarch mentions) Brutus received of him
what Soldiers he (Apuleius) had, andfixteen
tfhoujand Ikfenft, which had been collected
out of the Taxes of AJia. And hence is to-
be explained a paflage in Philippic, x, 1 1.
nam de M. Apuleio feparatim cenjeo refe-
rendum : cui teftis eft per lift eras Brutus,
eum PRiwciPEMfutffe ad conatum exerci-
tus comparandi. Now both Plutarch and
Appian agree, that thefe Soldiers and Mo-
ney were given by Apuleius to Brutus at
hisjirft fetting out and openly entring into
the Civil War. So that Apuleius might
juftly be faid to have been PRINCE PS ad
conatum exercitus comparandi, whether you
takeprincepsasihejir/tm order ofTVw^who
contributed Soldiers and Money towards rai-
fmg an Army for Brutus, which I think is
the true Interpretation ; or as the chief Mover
and Promoter of it : for without Apuleius's
Money Brutus could not have made his
Levies,
of the EPISTLES, &c. 155
Levies, nor paid his Soldiers, whence An-
tony objected this to Hirtius and young
Caefhr, in his Letter, Philipp. xiii, 16.
Apuleiana pecunia Brutum fubornajiis. to
which Cicero anfwers fmartly, nee enimfme
pecunia exercitum alere, nee Jine exercitu
fratrem tuum caper e potuifjet. It is likely
that our Author did not know, or had not
obferved, thefe particulars concerning Apu-
leius : otherwife, he would have been as
fond of him perhaps as he feems to be of
Fetus, but his Name was not mentioned
in Plutarch, nor the Particulars of his
Merit in Cicero, hence this Silence con-
cerning him in thefe Epiftles. The Ex-
preffion, feipfum obtulit, may be added (if
any body thinks thefe Letters to be of fuffi-
cient Antiquity and Authority) to thofe of
the like kind which Learned Men have
noted upon 2 Cor. viii. 5. iatvTxs tfoxgr,
they gave themjehes : from which place of
St. Paul this perhaps might be copied, tho*
indeed there is Something like it in Seneca.
de Benef. i. 5, and in Livy xxii, 32. in the
Speech of the Neapolitans : and in De-
mofthenes De Corona.
Under the Article of Vetus we might
afk this Author, whence it happens that
he
156 REMARKS on the FACTS
he introduces Vetus^ who at- that time
feems to have been of no higher rank than
Quaeftor^ as going to 'Rome to be a Candi -
date for the Praetor/hip? For during the
Free State ', and often afterwards, the ufual
Order in thefe Honours was, Quaeftor^
Aedile, or Tribune of the Commonalty if the
Perfon was of a Plebeian Family j and
then Praetor, and tho' this order was
fometimes interrupted, as in the cafe of
M. Valerius Corvus who was made Conful
(the next Degree above the Praetorjhip]
before he had born any other Magiftracy ;
and in like manner the Elder Scipio Afri-
canus, and Pompey the Great ; and P. Sul-
picius Galba before he had been in any
Curule Magiftracy : yet thefe were Extra-
ordinary Favours, granted upon the ac-
count of Extraordinary Merit, but it does
not appear from Authentic Hiftory that
Vetus had any fuch Plea : nor had he yet
been "at Rome after his ^uaejlorjhip to re-
commend himfelf to the knowledge and
favour of the People, and to beg their
Connivance and Concurrence with him in
this Unufual Step : and Dio Lib. xlvii.
mentioning him a little before this time,
calls him, C. Antiftius QJJIDAM, one C.
Antiftius ;
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 157
Antiftius ; which is a manner of fpeaking
concerning an obfcure perfon and one who
is not much known. Cicero himfelf was
forc'd to go through the Office of Aedile
before he arriv'd at the Praetorjhip : and
he obferves (De Offic. ii, 17.) that Mamer-
cus, for Jkipping over the Aedilejhip^ met
with a Repulje 'when he flood for the Conful-
foip. So in Liiy xxxii, 7. the Tribunes
objedled to T". ^uintius Flamininus, a Can-
didate for the Conjuljhip after he had been
^uaejlor only, that he had not pafs'd thro'
the intermediate Offices of Aedile and
Praetor j and would have fet him afide
upon that account, had not the Senate in-
terpos'd. Ferres indeed was made Praetor
without palling thro' the Aedilefhip. but
look into cap. 39. Lib. i. in Verr. and
you will find whence this happened :
emta apertijjime praetura. where fee more
to this purpofe. Now tho' I do not deny
that what is here related of Vetus might
o
poffibly be true, and I know that other
Instances may be brought ; yet as we
know no reafon from Hiftory why he
mould be exempted from the Ordinary
Forms j and as this Author may be juftly
upon feveral other accounts j it is.
not
158 REMARKS on the FACTS
not impoffible but that here too he may
have been guilty of an Overfight.
The Letter of P. Lentulus to Cicero,
Famil. xii, 14. which I mentioned jutt
now, puts me in mind of a paflage Epift.
iii. p. 1 8. Atque in bac content lone ipfa,
quum maxime res ageretur, a. d. V. id. A-
pril. Htterae mi hi in Senatu redditae funt a
Lentulo noftro, dc Caffio, de Legionibus,
de Syria, etc. In the midfi of this conten-
tion, and in the very heat of the debate , on
the ninth of April, a Letter 'was delivered
to me in the Senate from our friend Lentu-
lus, giving an account of Caffius, the Le-
gions, and Syria, etc. P. Lentulus's ge-
nuine Letter, Famil. xii, 14. makes fre-
quent mention of Caffius, his Army, and
Syria, but it is unfortunately dated, not in
February or March, (fo as that Cicero
might be fuppofed to receive it on the ninth
of April) but iv. Kal. Jim. on the Twen-
ty-ninth of May, from Perga in Pamphylta.
Here our Author would be fairly caught,
(and indeed I believe this to be the cafe)
might it not be objected, That Lentulus
might write another Letter to Cicero, tho'
it be not now extant, concerning CaJJius,
the Legions, and Syria j which Letter
might
of the EPISTLES, &c. 159
might be written fome time in March, (not
before, becaufe about the beginning of
March Caffius feems to have taken poffcf-
iion of Syria and the Legions there : fee
his Letter to Cicero, Famil. xii, 1 1 . dated
on the vii th of March} and receiv'd by Ci-
cero on the ix th of dpril, as this iii d Epiflle
affirms. To this I anfwer : That it feems
very probable from a pafTage in Lentu/us's
genuine epiftle, that he wrote no other
Letter to Cicero concerning CaJJius, the
Legions, etc. nor indeed upon any other
account, neither in March, nor for Two
Months at lead before. The pafTage is
this, at the end of the Epiflle : Filium tuum,
ad Brutum cum veni, <uidere non potui, ideo
quod jam IN HIBERNA cum equitibus erat
profecJus. fed, mediusfdius, ea efle eum opi-
nione, et tua, et ipjius, et in primis mea
caufja, gaudeo. When I met Brutus 1 could
not fee your Sen, becaufe h& was then gone
into WINTER - QUARTERS 'with the
Horfe. but in truth I rejoice both upon your
account, and his, and ejpe dally my own, that
he bears fo good a Character. Suppofe young
Cicero went into Winter-Quarters in De-
cember, fome ihort time before Lentulus
met Brutus, if between that time and the
I 29 th
160 REMARKS on the FACTS
2g th of May Lentulus had written another
Letter to Cicero the Father, which was
receiv'd on the ninth of April ; it is incre-
dible that he fhould have been fo Negli-
gent or Forgetful as in it not to have lent
Cicero this agreeable account of his Son.
but if he did fend fuch an account in That
intermediate Letter which Cicero receiv'd
on the ninth of dpril, what need was there
of repeating it in 'This which is dated ort
the 29 th of May ? It cannot indeed be de-
nied that either cafe, viz. the Omiffion of
young Cicero's good Character in a Former
Letter, or the Repetition, of it in a Second^
might pojpbly happen, but, befides that
neither of thefe cafes is ufual in matters of
this nature, whoever will call his eye upon
ientulufs Letter, will more eafily perceive
from the Beginning of it, and the Manner
of its being drawn up, than from any Ar-
gument without reading the Original, that
this Letter of the 29 th of May> was the
Jirjl which he wrote to Cicero after the
time of his meeting with Brutus in the
Winter : and confequently, that he did not
in March fend Cicero an account of Cqffim\
taking poffeffion of Syria and the Legions y
in a Letter which Cicero received on the
ninth
of the EPISTLES, &c. 161
ninth of April. In reality, this Author
often runs himfelf into inch improbable
and dubious Circum fiances, as to leave
himfelf no room to efcape but by a bare
Pojpbility.
Of which kind alfo is That in this fame
iii d Epiftle : Lepidi tut neceflarii, qui fecun-
dum FR ATREM affines habet quos ODERIT
proximoSy levitatem et inconftantiam^ ani-
mitmque SEMPER inimicum reipublicae, jam
Credo tibi ex tuorum litter h eJJ'e perjpetfum.
He mould have fuid vos affines, viz. Bru-
tus and Caffius : which word Dr. Middle-
ton hath rightly exprefl in his Verfion.
without vos the Senfe is too general, and
reaches further than the Author intended
it mould, or at lead, than it ought to do ;
becaufe Lepidus might have, and without
doubt had, many AFFINES whom he did
not hate. So in another place fpeaking of
the fame Lepidus, Epift. xxiii. p. 182. e&
in quo (bello) incolumh imperator, honori-
bus ampliffimis fortuni/que maximis, con-
juge, liberis, VOBIS affinibus ornatus, etc.
which defcription of Lepidus is form'd out
of Philippic, xiii, 4. By vos affines, you
ivho are related to him by marriage (for that
is the fignification of affinis) he means
M chiefly
162 REMARKS on the FACTS
chiefly Brutus and Caffius. for Lepidus
married one of Brutus's Sifters, and CaJJius
another, Junta tfertia ; concerning whom
fee 'Tacitus at the end of the 3 d Annal.
Hence Cicero writing to Cajfius y calls Le-
pidus , AFFINIS tuus, in the Epiftle from
whence our Author took this whole Paf-
fage, Famil. xii, 8. Scelus AFFINIS tui 9
Lepidi, fummamque levitatem et inconftan-
tiam, ex affils, quae ad te mitti certofcio^
cognoffe te arbitror. You fee how he en-
deavours to difguife the Theft, by putting
ex tuorum litteris inflead of Cicero's ex
affis; and credo ejje perfpe&um inflead of
his cognoffe te arbitror. But the new Sen-
tence which he adds out of his own Stock,
animumque SEMPER INIMICUM reipub-
llcae^ is directly contrary to what Cicero
himfelf fays of Lepidus in another place,
Philipp. V, 14. Atque etlam M. Lepido
pro ejus egregiis in remp. mentis decernendos
honor es quam ampliffimos cenfeo. SEMPER
ille populum Romanum LI BE RUM vo/uif,
etc. that is, SEMPER AMicusfutfretpub-
licae -, the fame who here is SEMPER INI-
MICUS. I know what regard is to be had
to thefe Occafional Characters of Men which
are fometimes given by Cicero in his Ora-
tions -,
of the EPISTLES, fc. 163
tioris ; concerning which he Himfelf fays,
Orat. pro A. Cluentio c. 50. errat vebemen-
ter Ji quis in Orationibus noftris, quas in
judiciis habuimus y aufforitates noftras con-
Jignatas fe habere arbitratur. omnes enim
illae Or at tones, cauffarum, et temporum
Jitnf, etc. but then I know too, that Cicero
could not have had fo little regard to Com-
mon Senfe, as to have drawn Two fuch
Inconfiftent and Contradictory Characters
of One Man as never were rue, nor can
be, of any One Man in the- World. For
it is impojjible in Nature, that the fame
Perfon^ of whom it is faici on the Firfl of
January (when the V th Philippic was fpo-
ken) SEMPER pop. Horn. LIBERUM (effe)
voluzf, mould on the xi th of April follow-
ing, (about which time this Letter is fup-
pofed to have been written) or indeed at
any other time, be faid to have had ani~
mum SEMPER INIMICUM re'ipiiblicae^ let
him have chang'd his Principles or Prac-
tice ever fo much in the mean time, for
if the Laft fentence were true, the Firfl
could not be fo j and vice verja : as >um-
////tftf juftly obferves, Lib. xii, i. cogitare
optima Jimul ac deter rima non magis ejl mi us
animi, quam ejufdem bomiris bonum effe ac
M 2 malum.
164 REMARKS on the FACTS
malum. Either of the two contrary Pro-
pofitions may be true j but it is imporfible
that both of them mould be fo in a Matter
of Fat. If Cicero had publimed a Piece in
which he had faid that Scipio Nafica, or any
other Perfon, *was ALWAYS amofl EXCEL-
LENT Citizen-, and four Months after had
publimed another, in which he mould fay,
that the fame Scipio Nafica was ALWAYS a
moft PERNICIOUS Citizen j we might juftly
look upon him as a very Idle and Frivo-
lous, or rather a Mifchievous Writer, not
worthy to be regarded in any thing he faid,
tho' he mould in a *Tbird piece declare
that he did not intend that the Firft Cha-
racter of Nafica mould be look'd upon as
True. Into fuch an Abfurdity hath this
Author fallen by putting in unneceflarily
the word femper here, and overlooking it
In That pafllige of the v th Philippic : which
is the more mameful in him, becaufe the
Philippics arc one of his chief Magazines
from whence he draws the Materials and
Supplies of his Forgeries. But I have
ftray'd from my main purpofe of quoting
this paiTage of the iii d Epiflle j which was,
to take notice (as Mr. Tunftall has done
before me, Epift. p, 230.) of the Figure
of the EPISTLES, Cfr. 165
rfioreay, or Anticipation of 'Time,
which this Author frequently makes ufe
of ; but remarkably here, where in a Let-
ter written on the xi th of April he men-
tions Marcus Lepiduis Hatred of his Bro-
ther Paulus as a thing well known at that
time, whenas the Cauje of this Hatred
was not in Being, that we know of, till the
3 th of y une, when Paulus was the Firft
who in the Senate voted Marcus to be an
Enemy to his Country ; and the Effeff of it
did not appear till the 27 th of November,
when Marcus being of the Triumvirate,
fet Paulus down (or juffered him to be let
down, M. Seneca Suafor. vi.) the Firft in
the Catalogue of the pro/cribed. This is
writing backwards, cacumen radlcis loco po-
ms. And indeed if this Author at his firft
fetting out had advertifed his Reader, that
in thefe Epiftles he intended frequently to
write as if he began this Year (U. C. 710.)
on the loft day of December, and ended it
on the fir ft of January ; we mould have
been much better able to account for fe-
veral difficulties of this prepofterous and /'-
verted kind, than we are at prefent from
the ordinary way of reckoning. It cannot
Indeed be denied that there might po/Kbly
O L *U *
M 3 be
i66 REMARKS on the FACTS
be a remarkable Hatred between the Two
Brothers at the fuppofed time of the wri-
ting of this Letter : and if there were no
reafon to call in queftion the Author's
Credit, or if the Fad: were confirmed by
any other writer of undoubted Authority,
the thing would be admitted without any
fcruple. but fince both thefe Circumftances
are wanting here, it may reafonably be
fufpe&ed, that the Author of this Epiflle,
knowing that Marcus Lepidus did, Jbme
time or other, hate his Brother Paulus,
might catch at the Faff, without confider-
ing the rfime.
Which I take to be the cafe Epift. xv.
p. 96. Sed redeo addccronem. Quid infer
Salvidienum et eum inter eft ? ^uid autem
amplius ille decerneret ? Our Modern Bru-
tus by his manner of expreffing himfelf in
this place, quid autem amplius ille DECER-
NERET, has betray M his Ignorance either
in the Language of Antiquity, or in the
hifrory of Sahidienus. for decernere (i. e.
decernendum cenfere) is a word which is
properly ufed concerning the Senate, or a
Senator, but it unluckily happens that Sal-
mdienus was not a Senator (and confe-
.quently had nothing to do with decreeing)
4 till
of the EPISTLES, &c. 167
till a confiderable time after the Death of
Brutus, the fuppofed Writer of this Let-
ter, for Dio Lib. xlvii. ipeaking of Salvi-
dienus, fays, that Caejar raifed him to Jo
great honour, as that he was Conful De-
iign'd before he had been a Senator *. now
this Defignation happened tijbree years, at
Jeaft, after the date of this Letter, and
Tivo years after the true Brutus was dead,
but that he muft mean the word decerne-
ret in the fenfe of Senatorial decreeing, is
evident, becaufe he is comparing Sahidie-
nus to Cicero in the very matter of decree-
ing, which, as I faid before, belonged to
Senators : and thefe words, quid autem am-
plius ille DECERNERET, anfwer and are
oppofed to thofe above which relate to Ci-
cero as a Senator, immo triumphus et Jli-
pendium DECERNITUR (fcil. a Cicerone),
et omnibus DECRETIS ornatur : which too
is a curious piece of Latin : tho' indeed
the MSS vary there. The truth is this :
The Sophift knew (for it was impoffible
s Xylander's Verfion (for I have not the Greek
Text by me) is this, p. 378. ed Francofurt. 1592.
eumque (Salvidienum) Caefar ad id dignitath evexe-
rat, ut conful, quum Senator numquam fuijftt, defig-
naretur,
M 4 that
168 REMARKS on the FACTS
that Brutus fhould know it) that Sahidie*
nus was, forne time or other, defign'd or
created Con/ul by Offavianus ; and, as
fuch, had a right to decree or vofe in the
Senate, but at what time^ whether before
or after the Death of the perfon whom he
introduces as fpeaking of Sahidienus y let
Pedants and Chronologers look to that. If
it be faid, that in the abovementioned
pafTage after the word decerneret we are
ito fupply from the fenfe, fi pofiet ; ct what
< more would Salvidienus decree, if it
f ( werg i n fa s power : " I anfwer, that he
mutt be an exceeding Bad Writer who
gives the deicription of a perfon by a word
which plainly and openly denotes him to
be a Senator ; and then leaves it to us to
underfland fomething from which we are
to gather that he was not a Senator.
Seneca De Clement, i, 9. juft mentions this
Sahidienus, but upon no other account
than his being put to death by OffavianUs.
in Appian. Bell. Civ. lib. V. p. 1127. ed.
Toll, you have an account of his crime.
Marcus Seneca Suafor. ii. tells a Story of
one 'Thufcus, a Declaimer of his Age,
whom he calls fatuum bijloricum^ an hir
florical blockhead, from this abfurd con-
found-
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 169
founding of Times. This tfkujcus was to
declaim upon the noted Theme, Whether
the 300 Spartans at the Streights of Ther-
mopylae, mould retire, or wait for Xerxes.
His Side of the Queilion was to exhort
them to flay, and he gives this reafon for
it : Expcffemus, fi nibil aliud, hoc ejfetfuri,
ne infokns Bar barns dicat, Veni, Vidi, Vici:
Let us tarry : for if we gain nothing elfe,
there will be at leafl this advantage in our
Stay, that the infolent Barbarian will not
have it in his power to Jay, Veni, Vidi,
Vici. The whole Audience knew that
this was the expreffion of Julius Caefar
upon his defeat of Pbarnaces King of Pon-
tus, feveral hundred years ajter the time of
Xerxes.
I will mention but one more Inftance,
and then refer the Reader to the above-
mentioned Piece of Mr. ^imftall, where
he will meet with full fatistaction upon
this Head. Epiftle x. p. 64. Cicero is fig-
nifying to Brutus his defire, that his Son >
young Cicero ', who was now abroad, and
fuppos'd to be with Brutus, might be e-
lecled into the College of Priejls at Rome.
this, he tells Brutus, he imagines may be
done., becaufe there is a precedent for it:
Caius
170 REMARKS on the FACTS
Caius enim Marius, cum in Cappadocia
eflet, kge Domitia faffus eft Augur : for
C. Marius 'was made Augur by the Domi-
tian law, while he was in Cappadocia. In
the firft place, the Circumftance of Ma-
riuss being made Augur in his abfence in
Cappadocia^ has of itfelf very much the
look of a Fiction of our Author, becaufe it
does not appear from any Authentic Wri-
ter that Marius was fo made : and, fe-
condiy, Manutius mows from a paffage of
Cicero (ad Attic, ii, 5.) that it was not the
ufual Method, in the Augurate, to elect a
perfon who was abjent : which is a good
Argument till an Inftance can be brought
to the Contrary. But, thirdly, the Fic-
tion feems to be more clearly evinced by
what he adds, lege Domitia, by the Domi-
tian Law. For this Law was made A.U.C.
650. in which year Marius was Conful the
fhird time. Veil. Pater culus ii, 12. fpeak-
ing of Marius : 'Turn multiplicati conjulatus
ejus. tertius in apparatu belli conjumptus :
quo anno, Cn. Domitius *rib. pleb. legem
tulit, ut facer dotes , quos ante a collegae fuffi-
ciebant) populus crearet. But it appears
from an Antient Roman Infcription, cited
by Sigonius in his Fafti Confulares p. 231.
that
of the EPISTLES, &c. 171
that Marius was Augur before his Second
Confulfhip, A. U. C. 649. at which time,
for ought we know to the contrary, he
might have been Augur fome years, con-
fequently, he could not be made by the
Domitian Law. Part of the Infcrip-
tion, as far as relates to our purpofe, is
this: C. Marius Pr. Tr. pi. ^ AUGUR
Tr. Mil. ex. for tern bellum cum lugurtha
regc Numid. vet procof. geffit : eum cepit, et
triumphant in Jovis aedem SECUNDO CON-
SUL A T u ante cur rum fuum ducijuffit. This
might feem decifive againft Marius's being
.created Augur by virtue of the Domitian
Law: efpecially in Giappadocia, v/hitl^r'it
does not appear that he went till after his
Sixth Confulfhip : and it is very impro-
bable that he mould not be created Augur
before that time, not to mention, that at
the time of Marius's going into Cappadocia,
he was out of favour with the Electors in-
to the Augurate, the People ; who, con-
trary to his mod earneft endeavours, were
determined to recall Metellus from that
Banimment of which Marius had been the
Caufe 5 to avoid the fight of whom, was
one great reafon of his undertaking that
yoyage. See Plutarch in Mar. p. 423. and
Epitotn.
172 REMARKS on the FACTS
Epitom. Lilian, lib. Ixix. But this Author
knew from Plutarch that Marius was,
ibme' time or other, in Cappadoda : and
when he had got him at fuch a diftance
from home, he thought he might fafely do
what he pleas'd with him. But if none
of thefe Objections were of any weight,
there is, Fourthly, another circumftance
which would make it very improbable
that Cicero was the writer of this Epiftle.
for it is not likely that Cicero^ in order to
prove the Legality of an abfent perfon's
being elected into a minor Priefthood, mould
inftance in the Augur at e^ one of the high-
eft Dignities, and in^Marius, an inftance
of three/core years ftanding, when, as
Mr. Tun/tall has obferved (Epift. ad C.
Middkton, p. 244. and Obfervat. p, 335.)
out of Veil. Paterculus ii, 43. there was a
precedent adapted precifely to his purpofe,
and in his own knowledge and memory,
viz. "Julius Cae/ar y who was actually e-
lected minor priefl in his abjence : con-
cerning the time of which fee Mr. WeJJe-
ling Obfervat. ii, 18. Nothing can be
more unlike to Cicero than fuch an im-
proper allegation. But what could a poor
Author do in this cafe ? He had not feen
Veil
tf the EPISTLES, &c. 173
Veil. Pater culus, the Copies of whom, at
the time thefe Letters were written, in all
probability were very fcarce j nor could he
meet with in Hiftory an inftance to his
purpofe : and being determined within
himfelf to make young Cicero, then abjent,
a Candidate for a Priefthood, and having
refolved that it mould be fo j if he could
notfwd^Lfrscedfnf, nothing remain'd but
to make one, right or wrong, and in fpite
of Hiftory, Cuicom, Probability, or Poffi-
bility, to create Marius, in Cappadoc'ut^ an
Augur , by the Domitian Law. and if you
provoke him, fince his hand is in, lie will
in the Sentence next to this which I an>
fpeaking of, make a New Law of his own,
namely, the LEX JULIA de Sacerdotiis :
concerning the Words of which Law, Qui
petit, cujufue ratio habebitur^ I have al-
ready fpoken, p. 56, 57, &c.
Let us now fum up the main part of
our Evidence upon this Second Head, The
true Cicero in two places calls Shales the
t mjtft of the Seven Wife men : this Cicero.
gives that Title to Solon. He tells Brutus^
that he does not think it necdTary to fend
him an account of Tiw Letters which
were read in the Senate, becaufe he believes
his
174 REMARKS on the FACTS
his other Friends had already done it : and
neverthelefs, in the fame Epiftle, he gives
Brutus a particular account of the Iwo
Letters. Brutus is appreheniive that Ci-
- cero will blame him for giving the name of
Citizens to certain perfons: whenas Cicero
himfelf, in the very Letter which Brutus is
then anfwering, had given the fame name to
thofe very Perfons. Brutus exprefles his great
joy at the circumftances of his Friends Deci-
mus Brutus and the Two Confuls at the Battle
otModena : whenas the Two Confuls were
kilfd. Cicero in thefe Epiftles fays that
Pan fa didfagere, or run away, at the Bat-
tle of Modena : the true Cicero, and all
Hiftory, fay that he was carried out of the
field upon the account of his Wounds. He
fays that Lepidus, after his junction with
Antony^ was carrying on a moji foarp war
by Land and BY SEA : of which laft cir-
cumftance there is not the lea ft probabi-
lity, nor any mention or hint in Antient
Hiftory. Brutus fays, that Antijlius Fetus
had fupply'd him with about Sixteen Thou-
fand pounds of his (Vetuss) OWN money :
whereas it appears from Plutarch, out of
whom very probably this account was ta-
ken, that it was the PUBLIC money.
Cicero
of the EPISTLES, &c. 175
Cicero tells Brutus that Lepidus had ani-
mum SEMPER INIMICUM reipublicac :
the true Cicero fays of Lepidus, in an Ora-
tion ipoken but a little more than three
Months before the date of this Letter,
SEMPER ille (Lepidus] populum Romanian
LIBERUM voluit j that 1S, SEMPER AMI-
cus Juit reipublicae. Brutus fpeaks of
Sahidienus as a Senator : whereas Sa/vi-
dienus was not in the Senate till two years
after the death of Brutus. Our Author
fays that Marius was made Augur in his
abfence by the Domitian Law : whereas it
feems to appear, that a perfon could not
be made Augur in his abjence ; and, that
Marius was Augur before the Domitian
Law was made.
REMARKS
[ 176 ]
REMARKS
O N T H E
RE AS O NING
O F T H E
EPISTLES.
SECT. III.
WE are now come to the Third Head
which was propos'd, viz* our Au-
thor's Rea fining and Sentiments : which,
in order to a fuccefsful imitation of Cicero,
is a matter of much greater delicacy than
either of the Two former. For a perfon
of an ordinary Capacity, if he has Indujlry
and Patience, may furnifti himfelf out of
Cicero with Language for the occaiions of
forged Epiftles : and if he has common
judgment and underftanding, he may and
will take care, for the fake of his own
Character and Reputation, not to a/Tert
any thing as Fatt and Hiflory y which may
either be proved to be Falje, or may juftly
be
REMARKS 0/z^ REASON ING, &c. i\j
be doubted of whether it be True. But
to Think and to Reajon Ingenioufly and Ju~
dicioufly upon Points of fome Difficulty;
to bring forward every thing that may be
of fervice to the Caufe, and to keep back
every thing that may hurt it 3 to be able to
invent, and to introduce into your Subject
a Thoufand unexpected and furprizing
Thoughts and Incidents either of the lively
or of the grave and folid kind, which may
either entertain or inftrutt the Reader, and
keep him intent and eager to go on ; and
to di/pofe all this with fo much Art as that
there (hall be no Abfurdity, Contradiction,
Inconfequence, or Inconnexion, nor a fin-
gle Word that is Idle and does not make
to the Purpofe : All this is perhaps no
more than a part of what is requiiite to
one who would imitate Cicero's perform-
ances of the Higher kind, in fuch a man-
ner as defer vedly to make his own Wri-
tings pafs upon the World for thofe of
Cicero, that is, in fhort, he ought to have
a very great {hare of that Ingenuity and
Good Judgment in Writing which Cicero
was fo plentifully pofleft of. But Ingenuity
is a wild Gift of Nature, and born with
us : whence it frequently appears in Cbil-
N dren
178 REMARKS on the REASONING
dren and others without any pains of their
own, who are Ingenious as it were by
chance, and becaufe they cannot help it. but
the Good Judgment I am fpeaking of,
which has the direction of 'Thinking and
"Reckoning juftly and accurately, is the ef-
fect and confequence of much Writing
and much Elotting-out ; frequent Compa-
rifon of our Works with the Bcft Models - y
and flridt Qbjervation and Confederation ;
which are feldom the attainments of Young
Perfons, fuch as I mould judge, from his
Performances, our Author to have been.
Even Cicero himfelf, in his Younger years,
was forc'd to fubmit to the Common Con-
dition ; and accordingly has left upon re-
cord Two remarkable Inftances of Imma-
turity of Judgment. Since I have men-
tioned the thing, it may not be amifs to
produce the pafTages. The Firft is in his
Oration pro P. Quintio cap. xv. Etenim
mors honefta Jhepe vitam quoque turpem ex-
crnat : vita turpis m morti quidem honejlae
locum relitiqurt. For oftentimes an honou-
rable Death Jets off even a Jcandalous UJe :
but a Jcandalous Life does not leave roomjor
even an honourable Death. The latter part
flatly contradicts and deftroys what he had
advanc'd
of the EPISTLES, &c. 179
advanc'd in the former, and yet there is
fcarce any thing, tho' ever fo Abfurd, in
the Writings of the Antients, which has
not found thofe who will defend it, efpe-
cially if others have gone before them in
finding fault with it. of which number is
this paffage. But Graevius with better
Judgment allows, that it is a mere Sophi-
ftical Round, and Jingle of Words : in all
probability an Ovcrfight of the young Au-
thor himfelf. The other Inftance is the
celebrated one concerning the Punifhment
of Parricides, which was received with fo
much Applaufe when it was fpoken by
Cicero, in the Firft Public Caufe in which
he appear'd, pro Sex. Rojcio ^merino cap.
xxvi. Etenim quid tarn commune, quam Jpi-
ritus vivis, terra mortuis, mare fiuftuanti^
bus, lifus ejetfis ? Ita (parricidae) vivitnf,
dum poffimf, ut due ere animam de cock non
queant : ita moriuntur, ut eorum ojja ter-
fam non tangant : ita jatfantur fiucJibus,
ut nunquam abluantur : ita pojlremo ejici-^
untur, ut ne ad jaxa quidem conquiefcanf.
For what is fo common, as Breath to thi
Living ; the Earth to the Dead ; the Sea
to thofe <who float in it \ and the Shore to
J \J
thoje who or: cajl up by the waves ? But
N 2 Parri-
180 REMARKS on the REASONING
Parricides (fow'd up in a fack) live, as long
as they can live, infuch a manner, as not to
draw Breath from the common Air : they die
infuch a manner, as that their bones do not
touch the Earth : they are tofsd by the
Waves, fo as to have no benefit of ablution
from the water : and laftly, they are caft
up, fo as that even the Rocks afford them no
refting-place : as being fetch'd back again,
I fuppofe, by the next Tide. But in his
Orator c. 30. he acquaints us, that fome
time after, he perceived this was too hafty
and too Juvenile a Sentiment, which is
very true : and the reafon why it is fo,
tho' Gcero does not mention it, is obvious
enough. For thefe Circumftances which
attend the punimment of Parricides iew'd.
up in a Sack, and which he would repre-
fent as fo very Terrible, and peculiar to
thofe Wretches ; are in reality, with very
fmall difference, no other than would be-
fall the moft Virtuous and Worthy man in
the world, who mould chance to be
drowned in his Clothes : and if M. Mar-
eel/us (grandfon of the great Marcellus who 1
took Syracuje) who had been thrice Con-
Jul, and was a perfon fumma virtute, pie-
tate, gloria militari, as Cicero fays of him,
in
of the EPISTLES, &c. 181
in Pi/on, c. 19 : if he, I fay, when he was
JhifwrecKd and loft his life, perifhed with
his Clothes on j compare the Four Circum-
flances which Cicero appropriates to Par-
ricides, and you will find, that fome of
them with no difference, all of them with
very little, are as applicable to Marcel/us
as to the mod heinous Parricide that ever
was few'd up in a Sack. But now to our
Mock-Cicero.
Epift. V. p. 38. he writes thus to Bru-
tus : rfufi hanc rationem non probas, tuam
fententiam defendant, non relinquam meam*
The occafion of which was this : Brutus
had taken Prifoner Caius Antomus (the
Brother of Marcus Hid Lucius Antomus)
and had treated Ifp with great Clemency ,
contrary to the opinion and advice of Ci-
cero 9 who was for Severity, and defirous
that Brutus would put him to death, for
fays Cicero, (p. 36.) the cafe of the Three
Antonies is the fame with That of Dola-
bella, who has been declared an Enemy to
the State : and if we (how favour to any
of the Antonies, we have certainly dealt
hardly by Dolabella. Thefe too, continues
he, are the fentiments of the Senate and
People, chiefly owing to my advice and
N 3 autho-
1 8.2 REMARKS on the REASONING
authority j tho' indeed the thing fpeaks for
it felf. Then follows the remarkable
Sentence above quoted, Tuft bane ratio-
nem etc. Jf' you do not approve of this man"
ner of 'preceding , I will defend your opinion ,
but 'will not depart from my own. which
feems to be an Abfurdity, and an Impoffi-
bility in the nature of the thing, for Bru-
tus wa on the Side of Pardon and Cle-
mency, Cicero on the directly contrary,
That of Punijhment and Severity. Sup-
pofe then that Cicero in the Senate mould
have been calPd upon by the Conjiil (Dic>
Marce TulliJ to give his opinion again,
(as he fays he had already done) and to
vote or decree upon the Cafe of C. Anto-
nius. what part fhall he now take ? if
That of Brutus and Clemency, what be-
comes of non relinquam meam ? if That
of Severity, which was his own opinion,
what becomes of tuam fententiam def en-
dam ? In truth, this is exactly what Sene-
ca fays, De Benef. vi, 6. jubes me eodem
tempore AMARE ^/ODISSEJ QJJERI et
GRA.TIAS AGERE : quod natura non re-
cipit. and I believe Cicero never had a more
difficult Caufe to manage than he would
{lave found this to be, had Brutus taken
him
of //^EPISTLES, &c. 183
him at his word : for fimul flare Jbrbere que
haudjacik eft, ir Plant us may be credited.
What he meant feems to have been this :
I will defend your opinion [in public], but [in
my private judgement] will not depart from
my own. but he has unfortunately omitted
the very words which mould have fav'd
him from the Abfurdity. The hint of the
Sentence was perhaps taken from this Ad
Attic, vii, 6. Dices, ^uid tit igitur Jenfurus
es ? Cicero anfwers, Non idem quod diffurus.
SENT i AM enim omnia facicnda ne armis
decertetur : DIG AM idem quod Pompeius.
But this Blunder might almoft be forgiven
for the fake of the beautiful paiTage which
follows it : Ciceronem me um, mi Brute, ve-
lim quam plurimum tecum habeas. Vir-
tutis dijciplinam meliore?n reperiet nul-
lam, quam contcmplationcm atque imitatio-
nem tui. which is very well imitated from
Famil. i, 7. at the end of the Epiftle : Lcn-
t ulum noftrum, ' eximia Jpe Jummae virtutis
adolejlentem, cum ceteris artibus, quibus
Jluduljli femper ipft, turn in primis imita-
tione tmfac erudias. null a enim erit hac
praeftantior difciplina. The expreffion
yirtutis dijciplinam is ufed by Cicero De
N 4 Offic,
184 REMARKS on ^REASONING
Offic. ii, 2. and quoted out of him by Lac*
tantim Inftit. iii, 13.
The above mention'd p..flage brings to
my mind another relating to the fame fub-
ject, Epift. xiv. p. 90. where Cicero fays to
Brutu.s : illam diftinSlionem tuam nullo
pacto probo. fcribis enim^ Acrius prohiben-
da bella civilia efle, quam in fuperatos
IRACUNDIAM exercendam . Vehementer a
te, Brute, dijjentio. nee clementiae tuae con-
cedo : Jed falutaris feveritas vmcit inanem
fpeciem clementiae. Brufus's opinion, we fee,
was a very Rational one, tc That we ought
" to be more diligent beforehand in pre-
< venting Civil Wars, than afterwards in.
" exerting iracundia (revenge) upon thofe
<f who are vanquimed in thofe Wars."
But Cicero fays he widely differs from this
opinion, confequently, he muft think, That
we ought to be more diligent in exerting ira-
cundia upon the <va?iquiJJ:ed y than in pre-
venting Civil Wars, which is a moft In-
humane opinion, if he intended what his
Words feem to imply. But if he did not
intend all this, the leaft he can mean mufl
be the latter part, That iracundia is to be
exerted upon the vanquijhed. otherwife, there
will remain nothing in which he dif/ents
of the EPISTLES, &c. 185
from Brutus. Now if this laft be what
he would fay, befides that nothing can be
more unworthy of a Philofopher, or more
unlike to Cicero, he muft have quite for-
got thofe excellent precepts concerning this
matter, which he wrote, not many Months
before, to his Son Marcus, De Offic. i, 25.
Nee vero audiendi, qui graviter irafcendum
inimicis putabunt, idque magnanimi et forth
viri ejje cen/ebunt. 'nibil enim laudabilius^
nihil magno et praeclaro viro dignius placa-
bilitate atque dementia. And a little lower :
Prohibenda autem maxime ejl ira in puni-
endo. nunquam emm iratus qui accedet ad
poenam, mediocritatem illam tenebit quae eft
inter Nimium et Parum ; qua e placet Peri-
pateticis ; et reffe placet , modo ne laudarent
iracundiam, et dicer ent uti liter a Natura
datam. ILLA vero OMNIBUS IN REBUS
REPUDIANDA EST: optandumquc ut ii y
qui praejunt reipublicae, legum fimiles fmt y
quae ad puniendum t non iracundia^ fed ae-
quitate y ducuntur. Thefe are noble Sen-
timents, and fuch as become Cicero. How
happens it then that here he mould vary fo
much from Himfelf and from Reafon ?
The caufe was this : The Sophift's Inad-
vertency or Wrong Head hinder'd him
from
i86 REMARKS on the REASONING
from feeing, that Cicero in declaring his
Diffent from Brutus , has fhifted the Terms
of the Subject, and has flipt infalutaris
Jeveritas in the place of iracundia. for the
fenfe of the latter part of Brutus's pofition
was, infuperatos JRACUNDIA nonejl exer-
cenda : which one would think any Man,
efpecially Cicero^ would allow to be Rea-
fonable. Pardon me, fays Cicero, I wide-
ly differ from you there : for SALUTARIS
SEVERITAS vincit inanem /pec i em clemen-
tiae. as iffalutaris Jeveritas here, were the
fame thing with iracundia there. If our
Author would have made Cicero difTent
Rationally and Logically from Brut us 1 s
Proportion, he fhould have kept to the
fame Terms on both fides ; and either have
made Cicero anfwer, fed IRACUNDIA
(not falutaris feveritas) vmcit inanem fpe-
ciem clementiae ; which would have been
Abfurd, according to the opinion of the
true Cicero juft now quoted : or elfe he
ihould have made Brutus propofe at firft,
eicrius probibenda bella civilia ejfe, quam in
JltperatOS SALUTAREM SEVERITATEM
(not iracundiani) exercendam : which, I ima-
gine, Brutus would never have faid.
Once,
of the EPISTLES, &c. 187
Once more, in the fame Epiftle, and
on the fame Subject, p. 88. Quodfcribis de
Seditione quaefafla eft in legione quarta, de
C. Antonio, (in bonam partem accipies) ma-,
gis mihi probatur mi lit urn SEVERITAS quant
TUA. The Severity of Brutus was none
at all : and the Want of it is the very
thing which Cicero blames in him here,
and in other places. That of his Soldiers,
was a real Severity, for they * killed the
authors of the Sedition here fpoken of, and
demanded the ^uaejlor and Lieutenants of
Antonius to be delivered into their hands :
but Brutus, on pretence of ordering them
to be thrown into the Sea, fent them tq
be kept fafely on Ship-board. Such was
bis Severity. How then can the Severity
of Brutus, which was none, come into any
Comparifon (MAG is mihi probatur
QUAM tud] with 'That of his Soldiers?
The Author evidently meant, magis mihi
probatur militum SEVERITAS quam tna
LENITAS, or tua CLEMENTIA : as in
the pafTage fpoken of in the foregoing Re-
mark, nee clementiae tuae concedo ; Jed
* See Dr Middleton, Note 5 Th p 92.
filtitari*
i88 REMARKS on the REASONING
falutaris SEVERITAS vincif inamm Jpeciem
CLEMENTIAE.
Epift. xviii. p. 122. Brutus writes very
preffingly to Cicero, to beg of him that he
would take into his Protection the Children
of Lepidus, (Nephews to Brutus) if the
report fhould prove true, that Lepidus had
revolted from the Common Interefr, and
join'd himfelf to M. Antony. He gives
"Two Reafons t why Cicero ought to comply
with this his Requeft, p. 124. Quare noli
exfpeffare longas preces : intuere meip/um ;
qui hoc, vet a Cicerone CONJUNCTISSIMO
homine PRIVATIM ; vet a CONSULAR!
tali viro, remota necejjitudine privata, im->
petrare DEBEO. The Firft Reafon is, Be-
caufe of their private Friendship : which is
a very good one. The Second, Becaufe,
fetting afide private Friendihip, Cicero is a
Perfon of Confular Dignity. What Cicero's
Confular Dignity has to do with the De-
fence of a fnafor*k Children, it is difficult
to apprehend. The Argument feems to
me to be of the fame validity as if he had
faid, Becaufe, fetting afide private Friend-
fhip, you are about fix ty three years old, and
were born atArpinum. If indeed it be of any
weight on either fide, I (hould think it
makes
of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 189
makes againji Brutus, rather than for him :
becaufe, it might be faid by an Adverfary
with fome mow of Reafon, That Cicero ',
as being a Perfon of Confular Dignity, and
of fuch Eminence and Confequence in the
Republic, ought not to patronize the Chil-
dren of a Traitor to the State, were it only
on account of the Bad Example. Certain-
ly if the Argument be of any force, it
reaches all the Perfons who at that time
were of Confular Dignity, as much as it does
Cicero ; becaufe private Friend/hip is here
thrown out of the queftion by Brutus's
own pofition, remotd necejfitudine privatd :
and then, there remains nothing but the
Confular Dignity ; which was common to
many others as well as Cicero. If the paf-
fage be diflinguimed thus, vel a Con/ulari y
tali viro (remota necejfitudine private) im-
petrare debeo ; and by tali viro be under-
flood Lepidus, fo as to make Brutus give
this Reafon, That he ought to obtain this
from Cicero, a perfon of Confular Dignity,
for Lcpidus (tall viro) who likewife is a
perfon of the fame Dignity ; flill it will be
very bad and inaccurate Writing, and lia-
ble to many objections.
Epift.
r po REMARKS on the REASONING
Epift. xvii. p. 1 1 8. there is another paf-
fage relating to Lepidus's Children, con-
cerning whom Cicero fays : Nee verb meju-
git quam s i T acerbum, par entium feeler a filt-
er um poems lui. Sed hoc PRAECLARE legibus
comparatum ejl y ut caritas liberorum amid-
ores parentes reipublicae redderet. If it
really I s hard or cruel that Children (hould
fuffer for the Crimes of their Parents, can
it juftly be faid that this is PRAECLARE
legibus comparatum, WISELY contrivd by
the Laws ? One would rather think that it
(hould have been, quam VIDEATUR acer-
bum, how hard it SEEMS to be. at lead our
Author mould have faid fo, becaufe in an-
other place, Epift. xxi. p. 156. I find him
making this Diftinction, and vindicating
the Laws, in this very matter, not only
from the reality of Cruelty, but even from
the femblance of it : in qua (fententia) vi-
DETUR illud ejje crudele, quod ad liberos,
qui nihil meruerunty poena pervenit . Sed id
et antiquum e/t, et omnium dvitafum : Ji-
quidem etiam T'hemiftoclis liberi eguerunt*
He has nothing for it but to fay that there
is no Difference between ejje and widen.
The celebrated xv th Epiftle, (p. 94*)
which contains Brutus's complaint to At-
2 ticus
of the EPISTLES, &c. 191
ticus concerning Cicero's Political Conduct,
fets out unfortunately : Omnia feciffe Cice-
ronem OPTIMO ANIMO fcio : I know that
Cicero has done every thing with the BEST
INTENTION, the Reafon follows : quid
enim mihi exploratius etc. that is, Becaufe
I cannot be better ajfur'dof any thing than I
am of his difpofition towards the Republic.
Say you fo ? whence comes it then, that
below (p. 100.) Cicero is charg'd with a
defign of fetting up Young CaeJ'ar for Lord
and Mafter of the Republic in the room
of Antony ? Quid enim nojlrd^ viflum ejje
Antonium, fi viffus eft ut alii vacaret quod
ille obtinuit ? Is this confident with Cicero's
optimus animus towards the Republic ? Or
this, p. 96. to the fame purpofe : quod hoc
mihi prodeft, Ji merces Antonii oppreji pofci-
tur in Antonii locum fuccej/io ? * A Tyranny
and a Free-State are not more inconfiflent
with
* The next Sentence is this : et fi vindex ijlius
mali, auflcr exftitit alterius^ fundameniwn et radices
babituri alttores, fi patiamur ? Which is fomewhat
like to this Epift. xi. p. 72. Nunc, Cicero, nunc hoc
agendum eft, ne fruftra opprtjjum ejje Arionium gaviji
Jimus ; neu femper priml atjufque mali excidendt cauja
Jit, ut aliud (malum) rcnafcatur illo pejits. I fuppofe
he would huve fuid majus inftead of tjus. for malum
PEJUS
192 REMARKS on the REASONING?
with each other than Cicero'* beft intentions
are with thefe Sentiments, and fome others
in this Epiftle : particularly this, p. 98. et
dum (Cicero) habeat a quibus impetret quae
velif, et a quibus colatur ac laudetur^ fervi-
tutem, honor ificam modo^ non afpernatur.
Think again, Brutus, whether it be pojfi-
bk y that Cicero could have the beft inten-
tions to Freedom^ and at the fame time no
Objection to Slavery.
Epift. xxiii. p. 182. Haec enim (pecunia)
folvi poteft j et ejl rei familiaris jaffiura tole-
rabilis : reipublicae quod Jpoponderis quern-
admodum fohes, nifi is dependi FACILE pa-
titur pro quo Jpoponderis ? The latter part
PEJUS is malum MAGIS MALUM. and tho' it be
found in Seneca's Medea^ yet probably it is faulty
there, becaufe that Author in feveral other places has
majus malum. After the word excldendi^ Dr Mid-
dleton inferts ratio. I fhould rather choofe to fupply
the word omijjto : if it be not an overfight of the Au-
thor himfelf; which is not impoflible. Be that as it
will, the fenfe of the former pafTage, et ft vindex
iftius mali etc. feems to be borrowed from Plutarch^
Compar. of Demojlb. and Cic. p. 888. where he fays,
sy^aipE % B^BTO?, lyKahw etc. Brutus in bis writings,
(probably his Epijlles) accufed Cicero of having nurid
up a greater and more grievous Tyranny than That
which They (Brutus and his accomplices) had put an
end ts,
Of
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 193
of the fentence is partly borrowed from
Epift. ad Famil. i, 9. niji cum Marco fra-
tre diligent er egeris, DEPENDENDUM tibi
eft quod mihi PRO ILLO SPOPONDERIS.
There is fcarce any One expreffion more
frequently to be met with in Cicero than
facile pati. he ufes it perhaps the beft part
of an hundred times in different places in
his Works ; but more efpecially in his
Epiftles. It fignifies, readily or willingly to
confcnt to, or, to acquiefce in, any thing.
I will produce only Two Inftances, which
may illuftrate the expreffion. Ad Attic, xvi,
1 6. in the fecond Epiftle to Plancus : id tu
ws obtinuifje non modb FACILE patiare, fed
ftiam GAUDEAS. And xiii, 33. audire
me FACILE paffus fam: fieri autem, MO-
LEST E FERO. The firft Inftance deter-
mines the Extent of the Phrafe, and fhows
it to-be lefs than gaudere : the latter (hows
its Oppoiite, which is molejle ferre, or mo-
lejle pati, as in the Orat. pro S. Rofcio c. x.
and elfewhere. Let us now fee what our
Author makes of it : For Money, fays he,
may be paid ; and the lofs of it is no great
matter : but bow can you pay what youjland
cngagd for to the Republic , unle/s be, for
pu arc engagd, WILLINGLY fufer
O it
J94 REMARKS on the REASONING
it to be paid ? Yes, you may ; if he fuffer
it to be paid UNWILLINGLY, and there-
fore difficile or difficulter would have done
as well here v&jacile. For what is it to the
purpofe, whether it be paid facile or dijjicul-
ter, willingly or unwillingly, readily or with
reluffance, provided it be but paid? He might
as well have faid, " Unlefs he, for whom
c you are engaged, fiiffer it to be paid before
<c Twelve o'clock, or in the Forum Boarium,
<l or booted and jpurrd" or in any other
Circumftance equally impertinent to the
making good an engagement ; the comple-
tion of which coniifts in the Performance
itfelf, not in the Manner or Temper in
which it is performed : unlefs a man who
has paid you money which was due to
you, may be faid not to have paid it, be-
caufe he paid it with his Hat on, or in a
Bad Humour and unwillingly. Here then
is the Injudicioufnefs of this Author, he
faw that Cicero frequently join'd facile to
the Verb pati- t and therefore he had a
mind to do the fame. And why not ?
Bat he did not confider, that Cicero never
does fo but when it is Proper, and when
his Meaning could not have been rightly
expreft without it : whereas He ufes it
when it is nothing to the Purpofe, and
when
of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 195
when its Contrary would have been equal-
ly 'True : in which, manner it is certain
that Tully would not have Reafoned. and
therefore Dr. Mlddleton rightly takes no
notice of this word in his Verfion. SQ
Cicero exprefles a general War by helium
terra manque ', a "war by Land and Sea ;
but never unlefs when it is as hiftorically
^True of the One as of the Other. Our
Author thought fit to imitate him in the
Expreffion, but unluckily choofes to do it
when, in all probability, Both parts are
not T'rue : fee Sect. ii. p. 145. Whether this
was done with Defign, or happened thro'
Inadvertency, I will not pretend to deter-
mine, perhaps it might be owing to the
Latter only, tho' indeed when a Writer
lets out with the Intention of impofing upon
Mankind, we have but little reafon to
fuppofe that he will be very Scrupulous in a
Circumjlance ; or that he will be fo Squea-
mifh as to flick at making Hiflory and Facts,
fuitably to his Purpofe or Fancy. That
man would be a very Fooliih Knave, and
inconfiftent with himfelf, who after he
had refolv'd to defraud you of your Eftate
by a Forged Will ox Conveyance, mould ftick
O 2 at
96 REMARKS on the REASONING
at procuring Falje Witneffes to back his
Forgery.
But there is fomething very remarkable
Epift. viii. p. 50. nee ilia modo (praeftiti)
quae nimirum SOLA ab komine SUNT poftu-
landa, jidew, vigilantiam, patriae carita-
tern ; (ea funt enim quae nemo eft qui non
praejlare debeat) ego autem ei qui fenten-
tiam dicat in principibus de republica, puto
etiam PRUDENTIAM ejfe praejlandam :
nee me, quum &c. So the fentence fhould
be diftinguifhed. He fays, that Fidelity,
Vigilance, and the Love of one's Country,
are the ONLY things that ARE to be re-
quired of Man : and, notwithstanding this,
he fubjoins it as his opinion, that he who
afts as one of the Leaders in State- Affairs,
ought to be anfwerable for PRUDENCE too,
What, when you faid but juft before, that
Fidelity^ Vigilance, and the Love of one's
Country are the ONLY things that are to be
required of Man ? Are the Leaders in
State- Affairs MORE than MAN, and an r
fyverable for MORE than the ONLY things
which are to be required of Them ? Go,
forgetful Blunderer, once more read over
the places of Cicero, from whence you
took
of the EPISTLES, &c. 197
took the Sentiment, and learn at leaft to
tranfcribe good Senfe when you have it
before your eyes in Faniil. V, 13. praejli-
timiis enim patride^ non minus certe quatn
debiiimus y plus profeSlo quam eft ab ammo
cujujquam dut conjilio hominls pojlulatum :
and Philippic, vii, 7. Equidem non deero ;
monebo, praedicabo^ denuntiabo, et tejlabor
Deos hominefque quid fentiam : nee folum
fidem meam quod fortaffe VID'ETUR SATIS
efle y fed in prihcipe civi NONESTSATIS^
curam, confilium, vigitaritfamq'ue, praeftabo.
You fee how miferably he has miftakeri
this paffage. had he copyed it as [he ought
to have done, he would not have faid,
qiiae fola ab homine SUN(T poftuldnda, but
juft the Contrary, quae fola ab homine
fortaffe VIDENTIJR poftularida, fed NON
SUNT SATIS, fidem, vigzlanfiam, etc. fee
too Ad Attic, ii, 9. for out of thefe pafla-
ges, but efpecially out of that in the vii lh '
Philippic, he has jumbled, together thefe
Abfurdities. One would think that he 1
had borrowed his manner of Reafoning
not from Cicero, but from a Brother-So-
phift (a Writer of his own pitch of Judge-
ment, tho', upon the whole, of a Genius
much inferior, in my opinion, to Our Let-
O 3 ter*
198 REMARKS on the REASONING
ter- Writer) the Author of the Oration
Pro Domo fua : of which take the follow-
ing Jpedmen. Cap. Ivii, he writes thus :
nam nunc quidem, Pontifices^ non Jolum
domo, de qua cognofcitis^ Jed TOT A urbe
c areo^ in quam videor rejlitutus. for at pre-
fent^ O Priejls^ 1 am deprived not only of
my Ifoufe, concerning which you fit as "Judges,
but of the WHOLE City, to which I feem to
be reftored. How of the WHOLE City ?
The Reafon follows : urbis enim cekber-
rimae ac maximae PARTES ad^rjum illud,
non monumentum, Jed vuinus patriae, con-
tuentur. becauje, the moft frequented and
chief PARTS of the city are in full view of
*hat (I will not call it jMonument, but)
Wound of my Country. By the Wound of
his Country he means the Edifice which
Clodius had built in the place of the Monu-
ment of CatuluSj and of Cicero's Houfe ;
both which he had demolished. But how
are the PARTS of the City the WHOLE of
it ? and how does it follow, that becauj'e
the chief PARTS were in figbt of Clodiuss
Building, therefore Cicero was depriv'd
of the WHOLE City ? One would have
thought, after he had laid down this Po-
fition, TOT A urbe careo, the Reafon given
would
of the EPISTLES, &c. 199
would have run in the fame Form and
Extent, TOT A enim urbs (not PARTES
urbis) Monumentum illud adverfum contue-
titr. which even then would have been a
boyim Argument, and unworthy of a to-
lerable Declaimer, much more of Cicero.
But let us fee whether what follows will
clear up this pleafant Reafoning : quern cum
mihi confpeffium morte magis r oitandum fugi-
cndumque ej]e videatis; nolite, quaefo, cum,
cujus reditu rejlitutam rempublicam fore pu-
taftis, nonjolum dignitatis ornamentis, Jed
etiam urbis PART IB us velle effe privation.
now as you are Jenjible that the fight of this
is to be avoided by me more than death ; 1
befeech you do not fuffer him, by whofe re-
turn from banimment you thought the Re-
public would be reftoredy to be deprived not
only of the ornaments of his Dignity, but
al/o of the P A R T s of the City. Of the
PARTS again ? This is either Stupidity,
or the Writing and Reafoning of a De-
claimer in Drink, it is as if a man fliould
complain that he is deprived of the ufe of
the WHOLE City of London, becaufe he
cannot bear the fight of the Royal-Exchange
in Cornhill. Keep out of fight of it then,
we might fay j for there is room enough
O 4 befides
2oo REMARKS on the REASONING
befides in the Whole City of London : and
there was much more in the Whole City of
Rome. What choice Reafoners are thcfe,
and how fit to write Letters and Orations
for Cicero ! But to return to our Author:
Epift. xix. p. 130. Quamobrem advola,
obfecro ; atque earn rempublicam, quam VIR-
TUTE atque ANIMI MAGNITUDINE
magi s quam EVENTIS RERUM liber aft i,
exitu libera. For 'which reafon, fly to us,
I befeech you -, and in faff Jet at liberty T'hat
Republic, which you have freed by your
VIRTUE and GREATNESS OF MIND, ra-
ther than IN REALITY. This is not
good Senfe ; becaufe there is not a right
Oppofition between virtue and grcatne/s of
mind, and, in reality. You have fet free
the Republic, fays he, by Virtue and great -
nefs of mind. Very well: then it is in rea-
lity fet free, is it not ? No, fays he : You
have fet it free by Virtue and greatnefs of
mind, but not in reality. What he would
have faid, is this : and in faff fet at liberty
rfhat Republic which you baveJreediN IN-
TENTION rather than IN REALITY : at-
que earn rempublicam, quam VOLUNTATE
(not virtute atque animi magnititdine) ma-
gis quam EVENTIS RERUM liber ajli, exitn
libera.
of the EPISTLES, &c. 201
libera. or in another way, atque earn rem-
publicam^ quam virtute atque animi magni-
tudine liberare voluifti magis quam
liberafti, exitu libera. What he here calls
eventis rerum^ Cicero exprefles by re et ~
ventis, De Divinat. ii, 47. Concerning the
Thing itfelf, fee Cicero's Letter to Cajjius^
Famil. xii, i. nam^ ut adhuc quidem attum
eft y non regno, Jed rege y liberati videmur.
interfefto enim rege y regios omnes nutus tue-
mur. And a little lower : Adhuc (refpub-
lica) ultafuas injurias eft per vox, interitu
tyranni : nihil amplius. ornamenta vero fua
quae recuperavit ? So Ad Attic, xiv, 6.
Sublato enim tyranno, tyrannida manere vi-
deo. And foon after : content! Idib. Mart.
Jimus j quae quidem noftris amicis, divinis
writ, aditum ad coelum dederuntj liberta-
tem populo Romano non dederunt. Brutus
and the other Confpirators intended to fet
at Liberty the Republic : but in reality
and event it had not yet proved fo. This
is what our Author would or fhould have
faid. With the fame unfkilfulnefs the
Author of the Oration Ad ^uirites poft re-
ditum cap. iv. oppofes fpiritu and re^ where
he is fpeaking of Atilius the tribune ^ who
oppos'd the motion that was made in the
Senate
2oa REMARKS on //^REASONING
Senate by the Conful Lentulus, concerning
the recalling Cicero from Banifhment : cum
is inimicuS) qui ad meam pernidem voceni
fuam communibus hoftibus praebuiffet ', SPI-
RITU duntaxat viveret, RE quidem infra
emnes morfuos amandatus ejjet. Inftead of
Jpiritu, Gcero, or any other good Writer,
would have put nomine , or verbo, Q?fpecie- y
to which re would be rightly oppofed. for
fpiritu vivere is in effect re vivere, and is
as much as can be faid of any living man
whatever. The meaning of the paflage
mould be, in NAME, or SHEW, or AP-
PEARANCE he was alive : in REALITY,
he was more than dead. The expreffion,
infra omnes mortuos amandatus effet y is
borrowed out of the Oration pro P. Quin-
tio cap. xv. where Cicero judicioufly thought
fit to temper the harfhnefs of the Phrafe
and the boldnefs of the Thought : is non
modo ex numero vivorum exturbatur y fed y
si FIERI POTEST, infra etiam mortuos
amandatur. as if he had faid, If there were
any fuch thing as Degrees in Death, and
if it were pojjible that one dead man could
be more dead than another, the perfon be
is there fpeaking of would be placed in the
loweft clafs, and beneath thofe who were
no
of the EPISTLES, &c. 203
no more \hax\fimply dead. But this gal-
lant Adventurer in Oratory, roundly and
without any qualifying claufe afferts, that
dtilius at that time was in reality more
dead than any dead man j and at the lame
time allows that he &\&Jpiritu vzvere, that
is, was as much alive as any man living.
which is too violent in all confcience.
Mr. Hottoman perceiv'd the Abfurdity, and
endeavour'd to remove it. but his Expli-
cation leaves it juft where it was.
Epift. xx. p. 138. Quare omnijludio a te,
mi Brute, contendo, ut Ciceronem meum ne
dimittas, tecumque adducas: QUOD IP-
SUM, firempublicam, cuifujceptus es, refpi-
cis, tibi jam jamque faciendum ejl. Where-
fore I beg of you, my Brutus, 'with the great-
eft earneftnefs^ that you 'would not difmifs my
Son, but bring him with you : WHICH
very THING, (namely, the bringing my
Son with you) if you have any regard to the
Republic, muft be done by you injlantly.
This is the natural Connexion and Interpreta-
tion of the Words : and any one would hence
conclude that Cicero fays, That the Safety
of the Republic depended upon Bruttis's
bringing young Cicero with him into Italy.
and yet he meant nothing like it : only ac-
cording
204 REMARKS on the REASONING
cording to his cuftom of miftaking, he
j>ut one Propolition inftead of another, te-
cumque adducas^ inftead of, et ipfe venias.
The feeming occaiion of which Blunder is
ridiculous enough. He knew that if Bru-
tus brought young Cicero WITH HIM,
Brufusmuft needs comehimfelf: and there-
fore, fmce the Tubing was the fame, it was
all one how it was Expreft, whether by
et ipfe <uemas y or by tecumque adducas ; *
not confidering what he immediately fub-
joins, quod ipjum : which words, if referr'd
to
* Not confiderlng what he immediately fubjoins.]
Which was the cafe in the Oration De Harufpicum
Refponfis, cap. xxvi. where one of the Anf-wers of
the Harufpices was, That care ought to be taken, ne
OCCULTIS confiliis refpublica laedatur : that the
Commonwealth may not be hurt by SECRET defigns.
This was very we/1, if it had ended fo. But fee how
the Reclaimer, whofe bufinefs it was to turn all the
Anfwers of the Harufpices againft Clodius, inter-
prets it : htae (confilia) funt OCCULTIORA, quam
Jus, (fc. Clodii,) qui IN CONCIONE aufus eft di cere,
jujliiium edict oportere, jurisdiftionem intermitti, claudi
aerarium, judicia tolli ? What dcfigm are MORE
SECRET, than thofe of Clodius, who in a PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY had the ajjiirance to fay ', That a juftitium
crNon-Term ought to be ordered by an Edift, etc.
I fhould be glad to be inform'd, how dejjgns, which
are mentioned openly in a conch or public ajjembly of
the
of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 205
fo tecumque Ciceronem meum adducas, evU
dently make the Safety of the State' depend
upon young Cicero's BEING BROUGHT;
which would have been a moft Vain and
Foolifh thing, as well as Falfe, for Cicerq
the Father to have faid. But if the word$
quod ipfum had been referr'd to et ipfe <ue-
nias, they would have put the Safety of
the Republic upon Brutus's COMING ;
the people, can be faid to be occulta, fecret or hidden
ones ; or how fuch defigns, fo mentioned, can be
compared with others, fo as to be occultiora, MORE
hidden than thofe others ? The Blunder was owing to
this : W-hen the Declaimer forg'd the Anfwer of the
fiarufpices, inftead of occultis he ought to have put
fcelejlis, or fomething to that purpofe : Monent enlm
iidem (Dii), NE SCELESTIS CONSILIIS RESPUB-
LICA LAEDATUR. and then his manner of com-
menting upon it would have been right : >uae funt
SCELESTIORA, quam ejus, qui IN CONCIONE aufus
ejl dicere, etc. For thofe defigns, which Clodius
there mentioned openly and in an aj/embly of the peo-
ple, might be fcek/la, wicked ones j but it is impofli-
bje that they could be occulta, fecret or hidden ones.
With fuch Improprieties as this, does That Oration
abound, and yet in all probability it was written very
foon after the time of Cicero. But this will not feem
ftrange to thofe who are acquainted with the ftate
and condition of the Latin Eloquence and Oratory
immediately after the death of the great Perfe&er
of it.
which
206 REMARKS on the REASONING
which is what the Author meant. So
Famil. xii, 18. Nihil mihi tarn deejje fcito,
quam qutcum haec familiariter do&eque ri-
deam. is tu eris, fi quam primum VENE-
Ris. QJCJOD ut FACIAS, non med Jbliim y fed
etiam tua, inter effe arbitror.
Epift. xxii. p. 174. At vide, quanto dili-
gentius homines metuant quam meminerint,
qida Antonius vivaf, atque in armis Jit.
De Caefare verb, quod fieri potuit ac debuit y
tranjadtum eft, neque jam revocari in inte-
grum poteft. If you or I had made ufe of
the expreffion diligenter metuere, we ought
not to have taken it ill if any body had
call'd it Nonfenje. for the Adverb diligenter
can never, confidently with common
Senfe, be join'd to any Verb which does
not imply fomething that is in our own
power, or which depends upon our care ;
as diligenter fcr there, curare, mitt ere, cogi-
tare, meminijje, and a thoufand others,
which exprefs fuch Actions, whether of
the Body or Mind, as we can either perform
or omit, but diligenter metuere, to fear dili-
gently, is as Abfurd as if you were to fay
diligenter pallere, tremere, or aegrotare - y to
TURN PALE diligently, to TREMBLE, or
to BE SICK diligently. The Adverb ma-
of the EPISTLES, &c. 207
gis would have fuited the purpofe here.
Cicero Famil. xvi, 1 7. reproves T'iro for a
feemingly much fmaller Impropriety : Sed
heus tit, qui KWUV ejfe meorum fcriptorum
foles, unde illud tarn awfcv, valetudini fide-
liter inferviendo ? nnde in ijlum kcum FI-
DELITER venit? But this by the By;
for my bufinels here is chiefly with the
Sentiment : But fee how much more [dili-
gently] men fear than they remember, be-
caufe Antony is alive, and in arms. If An-
tony had here been faid to have been dead,
or not in arms, the fentence would have
been juft as intelligible as it is at prefent,
if this be the Whole of it : unlels fome
perfon of a very clear Head can make it
appear, how Antony's being alive, and in
arms, is a Proof that men's Fears are
ftronger or greater than their Memories.
But the words which follow, De Caefare
vero, ieem to mew that there is fome
Relation between them and the foregoing
fentence, and an Oppofition or Compari-
fon of Caejar to Antony j and that the place
fhould be diftinguifhed thus : At vide
quanto diligentius homines metuant quam me-
minerint ; quia Antonius vivat atque in ar-
ms Jit, de Caefare vtro, quod fieri potui-t ac
dcbuit^
208 REMARKS on //fo REASONING
debuit y tranfaffum eft, neque jam revocari
in integrum poteft. And now let us try if
through the Confufion and Jumble of his
Compofition we can get at his meaning ;
which feems to have been this : At vide
quanto magis homines metuant quia Antonius
vivat atque in armis fit y quam meminerint
Caefaris ; de quo, quodferi potuit ac debuit>
a nobis tranfattum eft, neque jam revocari
in integrum poteft. This is connected with
what goes immediately before, where he
had faid, * * That if Offavius was thought
" worthy of fuch Honours, becaufe he
" made war upon Antony ; the Roman
" People, do what they would, could ne-
*' ver fufficiently requite him (Brutus) and
* his Affociates, who had taken off Cae-
" far t the great Evil, of which Antony
* c was only the pityful Reliques. But fee,
<e continues he, how foon the greatefl
4t Public Benefits are forgotten! Peoples
" prefent FEARS becaufe Antony (the con-
" temptible Ape of Caefar's Tyranny) is
" alive and in arms, have got the better
<{ qf their MEMORIES, and caus'd them
* e to forget both Caejar and Thofe wha
<c for ever fet them free from the Tyran-
! e ny of Caefar" This I guefs to have
i been
of the EPISTLES, etc. zog
been his meaning, from the traces of his im-
proper Language and disjointed Compofi-
tion. but by what Rules of Reafoning or
Conftruclion, this, or any other coherent
and rational Senfe can be fetch'd out of the
Words as they ftand at prefent, I confefs I
do not apprehend :
No more than I do this, in the fame E-
piftle, p. 178. Idem Cicero, Jifexerit ad-
versits alios judiciumjuum y quodtantajirmi~
tate ac magnitudine direxit in exturbando
Antonio, non modb reliqui temporis gloriam
eripuerit Jibi , fed etiam praeterita evanefcere
cogef. Nibil enimperje amplum eft } nift in
quojudidi ratio ex tat. ^uia neminem ma-
gis decet, quam te, rempublicam amare, li-
bertatifque dejenforem ej/e 3 vel ingenio et re-
bus ge/tis y velftudio atque efflagitatione omni-
um. The Language of the former part of this
. paflage. I have taken notice of above, p.,4i.
As to the reft of it, we may apply to it that
which Cicero humouroufly fays concerning
Rul/us the Tribune's Oration^ De Leg. A-
grar. ii, 5. explicat orationem verbis valdg
bonis. unum erat, quod mibi vitiofum videba-
tur, quod tnvemri nemopotuit qui intelligere
foffet quid diceret. which feems to be the
I cafe here, for it is hard to guefs from the
P Words
210 REMARKS on the REASONING
Words what it is that he his aiming at.
Whenever we meet with the rational, enim,
as here, Nibil ENIM perje amplum eft etc.
it is generally fuppofed that Something
which went before is to be proved or ex-
flained, by giving a Reafofi why we faid it.
Now What that is, or How, and by what
Medium it is proved, is the prefent difficul-
ty. Then the word Quia, Becauje, put in
the beginning of a Sentence, without ideo,
therefore, either expreft or underftood, to
anfwer to it in the Reddition or Claufe of
the Sentence, I am certain is not to be found
in any Author except This, or fome other
of the fame Size. But this laft difficulty
may perhaps be removed by a different
pointing, thus : fed etiam praeterita wan-
e/cere coget, (nibil enim per fe amplum eft y
nifi in quo judicii ratio extat) quia nemlnem
magi s decet^ quam te, etc. which will re-
ftore fome appearance of Connexion and
Reafoning. But what may be the defign
of the intermediate Sentence, Nibil EH IM
ferfe etc. whether taken in a parenthefis
or out of it, I willingly leave to better Lo-
gicians to explain, for if there be any Con-
nexion between it and what goes before, it
is more fubtile than I am aware of. tho' I
knovr
of the EPISTLES, &c. 21 1
know that an ordinary Rea/oner, and Writer
of Antient and True Latin and Senfe,
would have faid fomething like this, fed
etiam praeterita evanefcere coget^ (nihil enim
amplum ejlnificm. aequabilitatis ratio conftat)
quia neminem tnagis decci y quam te, etc.
There is fuch another paflage in the fame
Epiftle, p. i66j as faulty in the Diftinction,
and feemingly more fo in the Reafoning :
becaufe the laft I have been fpeaking of, is
only Unintelligible j but this I am about to
mention, feems to be Abfurd : Ego, medius
jidius y non exijlimotam omnesDeos averjos eft'e
afalute populi Romani^ ut Otfavzus cra?idt(S
fit pro jalute cujufyuam civls-, non die am pro
liberatoribus orbis terramm. Juvat enim
magnifice loqui ; et certe decet, adverjus ig-
norantes quid pro qucque timendum^ aut a
quoque petendumjit. Hoc tu+ Cicero \ pofle
fateris Offavium, et illi amicus es? The
fentence, Juvat enim ^petendum Jit y ought
to be plac'd in a parenthelis : otherwife,
the Dependence and Connexion between
what goes before it, and what comes after
it, will be broken. The only defign of the
parentbcjis is, to explain or give a Reafon
(as appears from enim) why he call'd him-
felf and his AfTociates liberators orbit terra-
P 2
212 REMARKS on the REASONING
rum ; and to let Cicero know that he glories
in the Name,, and makes ufe of it with plea-
fure, and to choofe : which he intends as
a Reproach to Cicero for his tame Submif-
fion to Octavius s power. But I cannot tell
in what light better Matters of Argument
will look upon this Reafoning, / will NOT
CALL my felfa Deliverer of the world ; FOR
it is a pleafure to me to talk thus magnificent-
ly etc. that is, he firft DENIES that he will
call himfelf fo, and excludes himfelf from
making ufe of that Title j and ; imme-
diately gives a Reafon which ftands- for
Nothing unlefs he DOES call himfelf fo. as
if he had faid : 1 will NOT CALL my felfa
Deliverer of the World; FOR I take a pride
IN CALLING myfelffo. it feemstomeno
better than an Abfurdity or Contradiction.
Inftead of non dicam he mould have faid ne-
dum> much lefs : and I mould think that a
more correct Writer would have put the
Whole thus : ut Oftavius orandusjit pro
Jalute cujufquam civts, nedum pro liberato-
ribus (juvat enim magnifice loqui ; et certs
decet, adverjus ignorantes quid pro quoque
timendum, aut a quoque pet endum Jit) orbis
terrarum. Hoc tu t Cicero^ pofle fateris
' t <u /
Qftawium, et itti amicus es ?
I (hall
of the EPISTLES, etc. 213
I (hall conclude this Section, after having
brought two or three more Inftances of our
Author's Manner of ufmg this Particle enim.
for there is nothing that (hews a fkilful and
good Writer, or difcovers a bad one fooner
than this fingle Word. We need not go
further for an Example than the beginning
of this famous Epiftle I was laft fpeaking
of, p. 1 64. Studium tuum curaque de falu-
te mea y nulla me NOVA voluptate ajfecit.
Tour zeal and concern for my fafety gave me
-no NEW pleafure. Why no NEW plea-
fure? The Realbn follows : non fblum ENIM
r
ufitatum, fed etiam QJJOT i D i A N u M eft ali-
^uid audire etc. Becaufe it is not only my
vfttal, but a l/o my DAILY cuftom to hear of
jmetbing or other which you have faid or done
faithfully and honourably in fupport oj of
what ? of IT ; that is my fafety : for that
was in the premifles, and was the Subjed:
of the Proportion to be prov'd. but in the
Conclufion of his Proof, he has chang'd the
Terms, and inftead of Safety has flipt in
Dignity, nonjolum enim u/itaium^ Jed etiam
quoiidianum eft, aliquid audlre de te y quod
pro noftra DIGNITATE (inftead of, quod
pro EA, fell, jalute) jideliter atque honori-
fice dixeris aut feceris. This is fkippine
> J rr t>
T r
P 3 frorn
214 REMARKS on the REASONING
from the Genus to the Species, for fahis con-
tains a great deal more than dignitas, which
is only apart of the former, and concerns
cheifly a man's honour and authority, and
the rejpeffi and efteem which is due to him,
from others : fee Cicero Delnv. Rhet. ii, 55.
Butfafas comprehends all this, and much
more; namely, a man's Life, Eftate,
Welfare of his Family, etc. And according-
ly they are always diftinguimed as the great-
er and the lefs. Cicero pro Cn. Plancio c.
32. ullum (putas) effe tantum periculum,
tantum laborem, taniam contentionem, quam
ego non modb pro SALUTE tua, fed etiampro
DIGNITATE defugerem? Philippic vii, 2.
non modb SALUTIS, fed etiam DIGN.ITA-
T is meae fuijje fautorem. Orat. pro Domo
fua, c. 28. nullum eji inhac urbe collegium,
nullt pagani aut *montani . qui non am-
pliffime non modo de SALUTE mea, fed etiam
/^DIGNITATE decrewrint . Ad Famil. i,
o. tibi erit eidem, cut SAL us mea fuit,
etiam DIGNITAS curae. I omitt to tranf-
cribe more Instances, which are innume-
* montani] Who thefe montani were, who in Cice-
ro's time are here reckoned as part of thephfrs urbana,
jpr haps no body but the Author of this Oration will
$ver know. This paflage feems to have ftartled
rable
of /&> EPISTLES, &c. 215
rable in Cicero and other Writers, thefe are
fufficient to (how the Falfe Reafoning of
our Author, whofe Argument runs thus:
Tour concern for my GREATER intereft
gave me no new pleafure, becaufe /daily hear
of your concern for my LESS. Change
the places of the two Terms, and put dig-
nit ate in the firft part of the Sentence, and
falute in the laft j and it will make a much
truer Argument, but as it ftands at prefent,
he might as well have written, nonfolum
enim QJJOTIDIANUM, fed etiam USITA^
TUM eft, aliquid audire, etc. It is like to
that of Epift. xix. p. 132. fed ita multi
LABEFACTANT, Ut, ne MOVEATUR,
inter dum extimefcam : which I took notice
of above, in the Firfl Section, p. 49
Again, in the fame Epiftle, p. 178.
Fateor ENIM duriorem ejje conditionem etc.
But firil it will be neceflary to fee the fore-
going Sentence : Fortem et liberum animum,
quo et conful, et nunc confularis, rempublicam
vindicaftt, fine conftantia et aequabilitate
nullum ejje putdris. Fateor ENIM duriorem
Graevius, part of whofe Note upon it is this: qui
zllorum [montanoruni] meminerit^ praeter Tullium hoc
in loco^ non invenio ; nee fatis caujjae video, cur illi
fraecipue commemorentur. Ampliandum itaqite cenfeo.
P 4
ettk
216 REMARKS on /^REASONING
effe conditionem JpeElatae virtutis, quam in-
cognitae. His Proportion is, That there is
no fuch thing as a Brave and Free Mind,
without Conftancy and Equability. Why?
BECAUSE, fays he, / confejs that the cafe
of tryed Virtue is harder than that ofuntryed*
Is this a Proof of the foregoing Proportion?
It is as much a Proof of Tranjub/lantiation.
An Older writer would have faid, Fateor
QJLJIDEM, or Fateor AUTEM.
But the mod extraordinary of this kind is
Epift. ix. p. 34. where Cicero fays to Brutus:
Noftrae res meliore loco videbantur : jcripta
E N i M ad te certofcio quae geftajiint. The
words feem to be taken from a paflage in
Famil. xii, 9. nonfatis occurritquodjcribam\
noftras ENIM res in aftis perferri ad te cer-
to fcio. But our Author has forgot to imir
tate Cicero in the chief thing, the Reafon-
ing. For Cicero there tells Caffius, That he has
no news to fend him. Why fo ? Eecauje %
fays he, I know for certain that you have
already had an account of all our public Afc
fairs fent you in the Journals or jdfts of the
Senate. This is rational and coherent. Sq
again in a Letter to Z). Brutus, Famil. xi,
25. quid fcriberem non habebam ; acJa E-
N i M ad te mitti fciebam* But this Author
#* . ' : * _'.._ - -___'
has
of the EPISTLES. 217
has dropt the Propofition, of which the Rea-
Jon was to be given, and has retain'd the
bare Reafon, without any Propofition at all.
Cicero De Divinat. i, 54. has this fentence :
Permulta colletfa funt ab Antipatro, quae
mirabiliter a Socrate divinata fimt : quae
praetermittam ; tibi ENIM not a /unt y mihi
ad commemorandum non necejjaria. If here
you omitt the words quae praetermittam>
you will make Cicero argue exadtly in the
fame abfurd manner as this Writer does.
On the other hand, infer t thofe two words
into the paflage of the Epiftle, Nojlrae res
meliore loco videbantur : quas praetermittam ;
fcripta E N I M ad te certo fcio quae gejlafunt :
and the Argumentation will be as juft as any
in the real Cicero,
And now it is time that I take leave of
this Author : and I think it may fafely be
left to the Judgment of any Indifferent per-
Ibn, who is acquainted with the Writings
of Cicero, or the Characters of Him and
Brutus, to determine whether it feems pof-
fible or credible ', that thofe great Men could
Reafon or *fhink fo weakly as they do in the
Inftarices here prodac'd, and in feveral others
which might be produc'd, out of thefe E-
piftles. If any one is of opinion that they
could
218 REMARKS on the REASONING, etc.
could, it is but a Reafonable Requeft, that
he would either bring an equal number
of Examples out of an equal number of
Cicero 's other genuine Epiftlesj or, that he
would explain thofe here brought, and
{how that they are free from the Impro-
prieties objected to them.
There remain Two things which I
might have done, had I not already exten-
ded this Piece to too great a Length. The
Firft is, To take two or three of thefe E-
piftles, and to (how out of Cicero's Writings
the many pafTages from whence this Author
has tacitly borrowed his Thoughts and
Expreffiqns ; in order to prove the truth of
what I faid in the beginning of this work,
That at leajl one Half of the Matter and Lan-
guage of thefe Epiftles was taken from Cice-
ro. The Second is, To dojuilice to our Author
where it was due to him, and to vindicate
him from the charge of Bad or Dubious
Latin in fome In fiances which Learned men
have objected to him. But perhaps neither
of thefe is necefTary : and, tq Ipeak the truth,
I am not unwilling to be excus'd having any
thing more to do with this Author. lam, Sir,
Tour moft Obedient,
Humble Servant,
DISSERTATION
UPON
ASCRIBED TO
M. ?. CICERO;
VIZ.
I. Ad Quirites poji
reditum.
II. Poft reditum in Se-
natu.
III. Pro Domofua, ad
Pontifices.
IV. De Harufpicum
Refyonfis.
f 223 )
A
DISSERTATION
UPON
FOUR ORATIONS, etc.
TTT may reafonably be expected that 1 I
JL mould fay fomething more either m
Defence or Explication of the notion which
I have advanced in the foregoing Sheets,
and in which I believe I am hitherto -Sin-
- gular, concerning the Four Orations afcribed
to Cicero, and always publifhed with the
reft of his Works in this Order, i. 'Ad
Quirites poft reditum: 2. Poft reditum in
Senatu: 3. Pro domo fua y ad Pontiftces ;
4. De Harufpicttm rej'ponfn: of which I
have fpoken very freely, as looking upon
them to be Spurious^ after fo many men of
infinitely more Learning, for fo many Ages,
have not only pafled no fuch Cenfare upon
them, but on the other hand, feveral of
the Firft Rank in Letters have written very
Learned Commentaries upon them as the
genuine Works of Cicero, without declaring
any
222 A DISSERTATION upon
any Sufpicion to the contrary, nay, and
what is more confiderable, Ajconim Pedianus t
who is thought to have lived in the time of
Auguftus, or not long after, has quoted a
paflage out of one of them, De Harujpicum
refponfis y which I take to be as bad a Piece
as any, if not the worft, of the Four : and
^uintilian perhaps alludes to another paf-
fage ftill extant in the fame Oration. There
is like wife a Third, which is found almofl
word for word in Vol. Maximus - y and a
Fourth inArnobius: all taken out of this fame
Piece of Cicero, as it is fuppofed : and Am-
tnianus Marcellinus is thought to quote or
allude to another in the Firft of the above-
mentioned Orations. Thefe may feem to
be ftrong Appearances againft my opinion,
and may perhaps for a while occafion fome
Out-cry againft it, and fome Cenfure upon
the Author of it. and yet I am perfuaded
that Truth and Reality will at laft be found
on my Side.
I have already incidentally mentioned
only a Few Inftances of what appeared to
me to be Miftakes in thofe Orations. Had
I thought of it before it was too late, I
vrould have produced a larger Number, an-
2 fwerable
FOUR ORATIONS etc. 223
fwerable to thofe in the Epi files of Cicero to
Brutus, etc. and would have ranged them
under each of the three Heads, Language ',
Hiftory or Facts, and Reajbmng or Senti-
ments : by which means I might have exe-
cuted two Defigns in one and the
fame Piece, and might perhaps have faved
myfelf any further trouble upon this account,
unlefs fomebody mould have thought fit
to undertake the Defence of the Orations ;
which I am of opinion cannot be done, ex-
cept by one who will maintain, That we
are obliged to receive as genuine whatever
is quoted asfacb by an Antient Writer, be
it ever fo contrary to the known Ufc of
the Latin fatigue, to Authentic and Undoub-
ted Hiftory, and to yuft Sentiments and
True Eloquence founded upon Reafon and
Good Senfe, and agreed to by all thofe who
are generally efteemed Judges in thefe mat-
ters. If there be any perfon who is hardy
enough to defend the abovementioned Po-
(ition, what I have to fay does not concern
him : he is ftill at Liberty to enjoy thefe
Four Orations as Cicero's, without Ccntro-
verfy ; and much good may they do him.
But to thofe who are willing to admit of
Reafonable Doubt, and who have feme
Skill
224 A D I SSE R TAT ION Upon
Skill and Ufe in the Latin Tongue, and
fome Difcernment in the Writings of the
Antients, particularly in thofe of Cicero, I
would recommend the confideration of the
Few paflages I have already mentioned, and
the Few others I am about to mention : all
which together will make no great part
of what I think exceptionable in thofe
Pieces.
Now if the frequent and attentive Reading
of any Author's Works will enable a man
(as it certainly will) tp arrive at fome degree
of Difcernment between the Writings of
That Author and thofe of Another j I do
not in the leafl doubt but that any perfon
who is converfant in Cicero's Works, and
reads them with fome Taft and Pleafure> if
he would fit down to thefe Four Orations
with the fame freedom from all Prepofleffion
as if he had never heard, and were to guefs,
who was the Author of them ; would very
foon perceive, that whofe foever they are,
they cannot be Cicero's j and that there is as
great a Difference between Thefe and any of
Cicero's undoubtedly genuine Pieces, as
there is between a perfon in full Health and
Vigour , and another who is ftruck with a
Fit of the Pal/y. I fay, wtb freedom from
aU
FOUR ORAT IONS etc. 225
all PrepojeJ/ion, becaufe this is the Firft
Step, and the moil Neceflary, as well as
the moft Difficult, to be got over. For if
a man who is well vers'd in Cicero, reads
the Oration, for example, Poft reditum in
Senatu, and there meets with this Specimen
of Ciceronian Eloquence cap. vii. Luci Pijo,
tune aufus esifto oculo, non dicam, ijlo ammo - 9
tfla fronte, non vita ; tanto fupercilio, non
enim pojfum dicer e, tantis rebus geftis ; cum
Auk Gabinio con foci are confilia peftis meae?
Lucius Pifo, had you the ajjurance with
that Eye, I will not Jay, with that Mmd;
with fuch a Forehead, I will not fay, with
fuch a Life\ with Jo great an Eye-brow, *for
1 cannot jay, with Jo great Attiom , had
you
* I take fupmitium in the Proper, not Meta-
phorical fignification of the Word, becaufe it feems
to be fo ufed in the Paffage of Cicero from which
this is taken, pro P. Sextio cap viii. where Pifts
Eye, Forehead, and Eye-brow, are mentioned to-
gether, as here: tanta erat g ravitas in OCULO, tan-
ta contraftio FRONTJS, ut ilk SUPER.CILIO ref-
publica, tanquam Atlante caelum, mil videreiiir. and
in Pifon. cap. vi. refpondts, alter o adfrontemfubldto^
altero ad mentum depreffb fupercilio , Crudtlhatem till
non placere. See the fame Orat. cap. i. where he puts
it in the Plural : ocuK, fupercilia, frons } vultus dent-
226 -/^DISSERT AT I ON UpOtt
you the afTurance to unite with Aulus Ga-
binius in dcpgning my deftruttion ? Or thefe
two aukward Similitudes De Hamfp. Re-
Jponf. cap. xxvii. where he his fpeaking of
Clodius's Unnatural Abufe of Himfelf:
>uis minus unquam pcpercit hoftium caflris t
quam ilk omnibus corporisfui partibus? Who
ever Jhowd lefs mercy to the Camp of an Ene-
my, than He has done to every part of his own
Body? and the Comparifon which im-
mediately follows: Quae nsrvis b imquam
que talus infraudem homines impulit. This L. Pifo
feems to have had fome remarkable Blemifh in one of
his Eyes, as Manutius gathered from the Orat. in Pt-
fon. cap. iv. Sex. Clodium non modo facic^ fed etiam
OCULO tuo, digniffimum. Thefe Defers, even when
l hey were Natural, were the allowed Subjects of
Raillery to the Orators in Cicero's time, as appears
from De Orator, lib. ii.
6 This SHIP in a public river ^ fignifies a pajjage-
j)0at^ or ferry boat. By aetas he probably meant youth ;
which Cicero calls fas aetatis, a.ndjbrentaetas t and the
Poets frequently bona aetas j as Old age on the contrary
mala aetas : Seethe the Notes upon Staiius Silvar. i, 4 :
y. ed. Lond 1728. But I have not met with any
inftance of the Simple word in that fignification.
Gafp. Scioppius indeed, Verifimil. ii, 20. fays that
aetas, by itfelf, fignifies adolefcentia. but none of the
Three inftances he brings, out of jffranius y Horace^
and Propertius, prove it.
in
FOUR OR ATI ON s etc. 227
in flumlne publico tarn vidgata omnibus,
quam iftius act as y fuit? What Ship in
a public river was ever Jo common to all,
as his whole life has been ? Or this ftrange
piece of Nonfenfe cap. xvii. of the fame
Oration : An tibi lu minis obeffet caectfas
plus quam libidinis? Would blindnefi of Light
do you more harm than blindnefs of Lujl ? if x
I fay, fuch a Reader meets with thefe ri-
diculous fentences, and confiders them,
and judges of them at all; leave him to
himfelf, and it is impoflible but he muft con-
clude them to be fo very unlike and fomuch
inferior to Cicero ', that even a School-Boy of
Good Senfe and Parts would now be aiham-
ed to own fuch filly and unnatural Stuff,
in whatever Age, Author, or Language
he mould have found it originally written.
But if it chance to occur to the aforefaid
Reader, that thefe paffages, and innume-
rable others of the fame Infipidity and Af-
fectation, which he could not help obferv-
ing in thofe Four Orations, have pafs'd un-
cenfured through the Hands and Revi-
fal (and confequently, he may think,
through the ftric"l Examination and Appro-
bation) of fo many men of much more
Learning than Himfelf, Manutius, Lam-
ton,
228 A D I S S ERT ATION Upon
bin, Hottoman y Grufer, Graevius, etc;
this unlucky Thought will perhaps over-
bear every private Sufpicion, and make him
give up and forego what was Evident to him
oefore : and then the Authority of Names-
will have got the better of the Authority of
Rcafon and Common Senfe, (a thing which
happens to us every day, even to Thofe
who have made fome confiderable Progrefs
in any part of Knowledge) and he will have
forgot, or will not confider, that thefe very
Perfons fummi quidem fuerunt, HOMINES
TAMEN > and that, in all probability,,
they faw and werefenfible of the Objections
to thefe PafTages as well as He, and yet
feemingly made themfelves eafy and got over
them, either in the fame manner he does y
by drifting off the difficulty from Them-
felves, and refting it upon the Authority
of other Learned Men who went before
Them, and who never hadiignified any Su-
picion in the cafe : or y by con tenting them-
felves with the Titles and Infcriptions of
MSS, which afcribe thefe Orations to CV-
cero : or, laflly, by acquiefcing in the
Teftimony of an Antient Author, who
has quoted one of them as Cicero's Writing.
As if Men might not be miftaken in one
Age
FOUR ORATION s etc. 292
Age as well as in another ! Or as if Non-
fenfe and Bad Writing were ever the left
fuch, becaufe found in Copies written per*
haps Seven or Eight Hundred years ago
with Cicero's Name prefix'd to them ! Or
as if the Authority of any Man, or Number
of Men, Antient or Modern, were fuffi-
cient to perfuade us, either that Gcer-o t is
a very dull and mean Writer, low and
ftreightned in his Invention, and ignorant or
aJfecJediK his Rxpreffion j or that trie Author
of thefe Orations is not fuch an one ! For my
own part, I think we cannot be more cer-
tain of any thing, than that the fame per-
fon who compos'd the Orations for Milo 9
M. Coelius, Muraena, P. Sulla, Cn. Plan-
cius t etc. was not capable of writing four
fuch Sentences as thofe I have juft now
mentioned, which are taken from among 3.
great number of the (lime Vitiated Taft,
If Cicero himfelf had any where in his
Works quoted and recommended thefe Paf-
fages as Examples of Jnil Sentiments and
Fine Writing; is there any Modern of
Common Undemanding lo much a Slave
to the Authority even of Cicero, as to make
him this conceffion ? I believe not. For
Good Senfe and True Eloquence being
3 muchwhat
230 AT>I SSERTATION Upon
much what the fame at all Times and in all
Places, Mankind at prefent are furely in
fome meafure Judges of Thefe, tho' per-
haps not fo competent ones as the Antients
were, but if thefe Inftances are Good Wri-
ting^ I think it will either be impofiible for
us Moderns to fay what is Bad; or, we
muft invert the Rules of Judging, and
fetch our Inftances of Bad writing from
the Works of Cicero, as being the very
Reverfe of thefe Four Orations.
I could wifh therefore that thofe who
are matters of fome knowledge in the An-
tient Latin Writers, but more efpecially in
Cicero, would upon this hint read over at-
tentively (if they think it worth while,
and have Patience to do it) thefe Orations,
after having prepared themfelves by reading
tbme of thofe which are undoubtedly Cice-
ro's ; and for the Experiment's fake would ob-
ferve, whether they do not find themfelves
affected in the fame manner aperfon of any
difcernment would be, who mould pafs
immediately from the Writings of Arch-
Bifhop Villotjbn to thofe of John Bunyan t
or from the Effay'on MAN to the Emblems
of Francis Quarks. For tho' much the
greateft part of the Three firft of thefe
Pieces
FOUR ORATIONS etc. 231
Pieces, and a confiderable part of the Fourth,
are Cicero 's own Thoughts and Expre-
ons, taken chiefly out of the Orations pro
P. Sextio and in L. Pifbnem ; yet, through
the Author's Unfkilfulnefs, or want of Ge-
nius, they feem to be fo aukwardly put to-
gether, and fo intermix! with Something of
bis own, as to render the Performance,
upon the whole, very low -and infipid, and
very unequal to any of Cicero's genuine
Competitions. But herein I only fpeak
my own Opinion, with that Liberty to
which every man has a Right at his own
Peril, and without the leaft defireofpre-
poflefling, or prefcribing to, the Judgement
of others ; a Liberty to which no man has
any Right, nor indeed any Power to effect
it, if he has to deal with good Judges j who
know very well, that, as on the one hand,
the Authority and Opinion of no man
whatfoever in thefe matters ought to go a
fingle ftep further than Sattsfa&ory Reafom
go along with him ; fo, on the other, a
ilrong Objection, and found Argument,
accidentally hit upon by a Peribn of the low-
eft Parts and meaneft atr^ptments in Lear-
ning, does in reality, until it be anfwered,
outweigh the bare and unfupported Opinion
232 yf DISSERTATION upon
of all the Scaligers, Cafaubons, Salmafius's,
and other great Critics, that ever liv'd.
Grant but this (or deny it who can) and I
defire no more.
But be pleas'd to obferve, that I do not
deny thefe Orations to be Antient : on the
Contrary, I believe they were written not
many years after Cicero, and therefore I do
not rejedl their Authority in flatters of
Faff, unlefs when they are contradicted by
Cicero himfelf and other good Authorities,
which is frequently the cafe ; nor in point
of 'Language and Sentiment , unlefs where
the Millakes are pretty certain, agreed in by
all the MSS, and fuch as might be expected
from the Character of the Reclaimers qf
that Age, of whofe Ignorance ', Slothjulnefs,
Affectation^ and corrupted Toft, (notwith-
ilanding they might live in the days of Au-
guftus) we have feveral unqueftionable Tefli-
monies from Writers whq liv'd in and
near That Time. But who might be the
Author of thefe Orations, I do not pretend
to fay or to conjefture, not finding any
Marks in them which may enable me with
any Probability to fix them upon any Par-
ticular Perfon. nor is it my Concern. All
I contend for is, That they were not writ-
ten
FOUR ORATIONS etc, 233
ten by Cicero, tho' indeed from feveral Cir-
cumftances in them there feems to me good
reafon to believe, that they were not writ-
ten even by an Inhabitant of Rome, but by
a Foreign or Provincial Author. As I go
along I will mention fome of the paflages
which caufe me to be of this opinion.
The Order of them in the Editions, is, i.
Ad^iritespofl reditum. 2. Poft r edit urn in
Senatu. 3. Pro Domojua ad Po?itifces. 4. De
Harufpicum Re/ponfis. JBut Manutius and
Hottoman have well obferv'd, and the ob-
fervation is confirm'd by good MSS, that
the two firfl ought to change places be-
caufe Cicero mult of courfe give thanks to
the Senate firfl, and afterwards to the feo->
pie : and *Dto affirms that he did fo.
The Plan of the Three firft is manifestly
fbrnVd upon the noble Oration pro P. Sex-
tio t which contains Cicero's Apology for his
Political Conduct in the Affair of P. Ckdius
and his own going into Exile : and there is
fcarce a good Sentiment or Expreffion in
* Lib. xxxix. p. 95. edit. Leunclay. of Xyland-
tr's VerHon : Reverfus igitur eft Romam Cicero ; faia-
quef.li a canfulibus poteftaie^ SEN A TUI in curia, PO-
Jy toque in concione, gratias egit.
any
234 ./f DISSERT ATI ON /#
any of thofe Three, which is not to be
found in That Oration, or in That in L.
Pifonem; except a few paffages here and
there which are taken from three or four
of Cicero's other Orations, or Writings
which relate chiefly to the fame Subject.
And here it is worth while to obferve the
fundamental Injudicioufnefs of the De-
claimer. For thofe Three Orations arc
fuppos'd to have been fpoken by Cicero
within lefs than a Month after his Return
from Banifhment, in the September of the
Year U. C. 696. But the Oration for P.
Sextius, in which, as I faid, the Three are
in great meafure to be found, was not fpo-
ken till the year after y viz. U. C. 697.
So that when Cicero fays, pro P. Sextio c.
#vi. exponam enim HODIERNO DIE, judices,
omncm rationemfaffi et confilii mei\ (which
looks as if he had not hitherto done it pub-
lickly) his Hearers could have told him,
That he mieht lave himielf the trouble :
o
for that they knew it perfectly well, he
having already told them the fame ftory
three times in t\\z foregoing year, if he was
the Author of thofe Three Orations. Ei-
ther therefore Cicero muft borrow the
Three Orations, fpoken in the year 696,
from
FOUR ORATIONS^. 235
from That/ro Sextio, not fpoken till 697;
which is impofjible in nature: or elfe he
muft take the Oration pro Sextio from the
Three which were fpoken, and in all like-
lyhood publifhed (at lead c Two of them)
the year before : than which nothing can
be more improbable that Cicero would do.
The truth is, the Declaimer here was too
inadvertent, in borrowing the Matter for
his Orations adapted to one particular Year,
from an Oration which could not be
thought of till the year following, which is
the fame Inconfiflency or Impoffibility as it
would be for me to take thefe Remarks in
this prefent year 1744, from the Treatife of
another Perfon, which Treatifeis not yet
in being, nor will be, till the year 1745.
The fir ft and moft obvious Failure, and
that which runs through all thefe Orations,
is, if I may be allow'd the expreflion,
Weaknefs of Nerves. In the true Cicero
you will feldom meet with a Single Word
which is Superfluous, and :loes not contri-
c Viz. Pcft redltum In Senalu, and Pro
fua. concerning the former, fee the Orat. pro Co.
Planclo cap. xxx : concerning the latt;er, Ad Attic.
]Lib, iv. Epift. 2.
bute
236 -^DISSERTATION upon
bute to the main Defign, either in the way
of Strength or of Beauty, of Argument or
Ornament. Even when he is playing the
Orator, and endeavouring to throw a little of
his Sophiflical Duft into your Eyes, tho you
plainly fee what he is driving at, you cannot
help being pleas'd with the Livelinefs of his
Tricks, and loving his Ingenuity. But, on
the contrary, in this Writer you will find
J>ut few Sentences which have not feveral
Words, and few Chapters which have not
feveral Sentences, concerning which an
Attentive and Senfible Reader might not be
tempted to afk, What bujlnejs have they
here? He feems frequently to prate with-
out any apparent Defign or Meaning, and
as thofedo who talk merely for talking fake.
This is that feeble, enervate, and unjlable
manner of Writing which the Auftor ad
Jlerennium very well calls the FLUCTUANS
et DISSOLUTUM genus i the WAVERING
and LOOSE kind. His words maybe worth
tranfcribing, Lib. iv. cap. xi. Qui in medio-
cre genus orationisprofetfijuntyfiper'venire ea
non poterunt, errantes perueniunt ad confine
genus ejus generis quod appellamus FLUCTU-
ANS et D i ssot u T u M, eo quod fine nervis et
ajticulis fludtuat hue et illuc, nee pot eft con-
firmate
FOUR OR AT i o N s etc. 237
frmate neque viriliter fefe expedire. He
then adds an Inftance of it : Id eft hujuf-
modi : " Socii noftri y cum belli ger are nobij-
" cum ve/knf, prof eft o ratiocinati effent
'* etiam atque etiam, quid potent Jacer? 9
{ Jiquidem Jua jponte facerent ^ et non habe-
<c rent hie adjutoresmultos^ et mahs homines
'* et audaces. folent enim diu co git are omnes
" qui magna negotia volunt agere" He
immediately fubjoins: Non potejt hujuf-
modi fermo tenere attentum audit or em: dif-
jiuit enim totus, neque quidquam comfrehen-
dem perfeftis verbis amplettitur. The
truth of this laft Remark is no where more
ftrongly or more frequently feen than ia
thefe Orations , to get through which with-
out being attack'd by Drowzinefs, requires
a Reader of a very Wakeful Conftitution :
and to produce all the In&mces of the wa-
tering Eloquence which are to be found ia
them, would be little lefs than to tranfcrifec
the whole Work. I cannot forbear mention-
ing One, as an illuftration or parallel of
the Inftance juft now quoted by the duftvr
ad Herennium. It is in the Orat. pro Domo
Jua cap. xiv. where he is fpeaking of young
Fonteius a Plebeian, who adopted Clodius a
Patrician^ with a view to this latter 's being
made
238 ^DISSERTATION^;/
made tribunus plebis : <%uae major calumnia
eft y quarn venire imberfrem adolefcentulum^ be*
ne valentem, ac maritum : dicer e^ filium fe-
natorem populi Romanijibi vel/e adoptare :
id autemfcire et videre omnes, non ut illefili-*'
us inftituatur, fed ut e patriciis exeat, et
tribunus plebis fieri poffit, idcirco adopt ari^
neque id objcure. nam adoptatum emancipari
Jtatim> nejit ejusjilius qui adoptarit. Have
patience to read one more Inftance of the
fame Sublime Oratory , out of cap. LII.
where he afks Clodius, why, when he dedi-
cated Cicero 's Houfe, he did not confult the
College of the Pontifices, or, at leaft, de-
fire fome particular Perfon, as P. Servi/ius,
or M. Lucullus y to direct and affifl him in
the Ceremony of the Dedication, but, fays
he, you durft not : for, Quid diceres, o ne-
fanda ct pcrniciofa labes civitatis? Ades y
ades^ Luculle^ Servili, dum dedico domum
Ctccroms, ut mihi praeeatis, poftemque tene-
atis. Es tu quidem cum audacia turn impu-
dentiajingulari : fed tibi tamen oculi^ vu/tus,
wrba cecidijjent^ cum te viri, quifua digni-
t ate perfonam populi Romani atque auftorita-
tem fujiinerent ^ verbis gr aviffimis pert err uif-
Jent^ nequejibi fas ejje dixiflent furor i inter-
efle tuo t atque in patriae parricidio, etfcele-
re.
FOUR ORATIONS etc. 239
re. The Sentence quifua dignitatcfujli-
nerent, is Cicero's-, the reft, his own.
Bnjfinius de Formul. Lib. i. p. 126. took
thole words, Ades, ades, Luculle, Servili,
etc. to be an Antient Formula, or Summons
of a Prieft, to be afliftant in the Dedication
of a Temple. But as no other inftance of
this Form is brought by him, it feems ra-
ther to be a boyifh fentence of this Writer
himfelf. To proceed.
There is another thing obfervable in the
Author of thefe Orations, and indeed in all
or moft Authors of the fame Size: which
is, that when they have got hold of a Word
or Exprefiion which the Writer, whom
they defign to perfonate, is fond of j they
do not know when to have done with it,
and never let it go till they have teaz'd it
and worried it to death. Thus Cicero, in
his Philippics and elfewhere, often makes
ufe of the word praefidium, a guard, or
defence, whence the Author of the Epiftles
to Brutus under Cicero's Name, in one page
(Epift. xix. p. 130.) has it Four times:
nuttoque PRAESIDIO quatefeci Antonium.
and in the next line : PRAESIDIA, quiie obla-
tafunt, Caejdris. a little lower : Jatis vi-
demur habituri PRAESIDII. and at the
bottom
240 ^lS SERTATION UpQH
bottom of the Page : Hoc adolefcentis
PRAESIDIUM. Again : Cicero frequently
ufes cum and turn in the different parts
of the fame Sentence. The abovementioned
Author had obferved this, and in one fhort
Epiftle (which is the xvii th in Dr. Middle-
ton^ Edition j in the former Editt. it is the
xii th of the Firfl Book) has it Five times,
pag. 1 1 6 . CUM mult a graviter ferrem y
TUM nihiltuli gravius. p. 118. CUM ho-
noribus ejfet ornatus y TUM etiam
litteras ad Senatum mififfet. towards the
Bottom : CUM ad reipublicae J'ummam t
TUM ad gloriam tuam vehement er per-
tinet in the next Sentence p. 120. eget
enim vehement er CUM viribus tuis, TUM
etiam c onfilio, refpublica. again in the next
fentence: eumque CUM tut, TUM reipubli-
cae ftudiojiffimum cognovi. It may here
perhaps be worth mentioning, that in the
Firft Book of thefe Epiftles, this way of
Writing with cum and turn occurs Je-
venteen times : but in the Second, not
once, which difference of Style as it may
indeed be Accidental, the Second Book
being fo much fhorter than the Firft ; fo
it may be owing to the Two Books having
been written by different Authors, as Mr,
fun/tall
FOUR ORATIONS etc. 241
i I think very probably, is of opinion
they were. 13ut to return to the Orator. The
true Cicero in his Orations when he has oc-
cafion to (peak of the Gods i very often
(and remarkably in the iii Orat. in Ca-
tilinam) adds to the word Z)/Y, in all its
Cufes, tiie Title or Epithet of immor tales j
perhaps as being more proper for Oratory,
and by its Sound adding fomething of Dig-
nity and Majefty to the Competition. The
Author of Ad 0$uirites pcft reditum imi-
tates him in this ; but fb exceffively, as to
render the imitation almoil naufeous. for
he is perpetually ringing the Chimes upon
Dii immortalcS) and Durum immortalium^
etc. infomuch that in the eight firil: chap-
ters of his Performance, you meet with
his Dii immorteles, in one fhape or other,
'Ten times. Thus a2;ain, when Cicero
O '
fpeaks of any thing as very great in its kind,
he frequently expreffes it by the vrar&tntfe-
dibile : and if at the fame time it be of ths
commendable or dcflreable kind, he calls it
divinum-y and fometimes both, incredibile
et divinum : of which many Jnftances may
be found in his Orations, for the thing is
remarkable. This too has been caught by
the fame Author AdQuirites, with whom
R
242 -^ DISSERTATION w/>c#
every thing is divine or incredible. Thus
Cap. i. incredibili quadam ct paene divina
laetitiae iwluptate caruiffem. and a little
before : beneficio divino, immortaliquc vejlro,
Quirita. Cap. 2. neque tarn divino, atque
incredibili genere dicendi : which, and the
reft of the Sentence, is taken out of Pojl red.
in Sen. c. i. quod tarn divinum atque incre-
dibile genus orationis. Soon after in the
fame cap. 2. Jpettatum et incredibili pietate
cognitum. Cap. 3. divina quaedam et inandi-
ta aufloritas. Cap. \\.praejlanti in me bene-
volentia et divino Jludio extiterunt. Once
more : Cicero in his Orations often joins
together, or ufes in the fame fentence,
was, focos, and penates, or Decs penates.
This pleas'd the Author of the Orat. pro
Dcmofua, and therefore he muft do the
fame. Cap. i. vita, liber t as > arae, foci, Dii
penates, bona, fortunae^ etc. Cap.4o. Jus
igitur ftatuetis ej/e, iimufciijufque vcjlrum
Jedes, aras, focos, Deos penates, Jubjedlo^
effe libidtni tribtmitiae ? Cap. 41. hie arae
funt t hie foci, hie Dii penates, hicfacra, reli-
giones etc. Cap. 56. Hie eft cnim reditus, Pon-
tificesjjaec rejlitutio, in domo, in fcdibus,
in aris, in focis, in Diis penatibus recupe-
randis.
But
FOUR ORATIONS etc. 243
to fpeak more particularly to each
Oration, in the Order in which they ought
to have been placed in the Editions.
REMARKS on the O R A T ION
Poft reditum in Senatum.
TH E genuine Speech in which Cicero
immediately after his Return to Rome
gave Thanks to the Senate , was written with
great Care ; and he thought his Reputation
and Character in the point of Gratitude fb
much concerned in the accuracy of this Piece,
that not being willing to truft to Extemporary
Eloquence, or even to his Memory, he
pronounced it (as he informs us in the Orat.
pro Cn. PLincio cap. 30 .) de fcripto : which
was cuftomary in the Senate, when any
thing was to be uttered which was thought
to require exaclnefs : See pro P. Sextio c.
6 1. Philippic, i, i. x, 2. But the Oration
we now read as Cicero's, is far fhort of this
character. For tho' I think it is, in the
main, at leaft as good as any of the Four;
yet there are feveral particulars in it which
difcover it to have been written by an
Hand very different from that of Cicero.
R 2 Thus
244 REMARKS on the ORATION
Thus CAP.!!, bcftes atqtie INTERFECTORES
T&publicae. Interficere rctftpiiblicam, or
tnterfe&Or reipublicae, feems to be almoft as
harfh a Metaphor as that which Cicero
blames De Orator, iii, 41. morte Jijricani
CASTRATA erat rejpublica : and , M. Ca-
tone mcrfuo, Senatus relittus erat PUPIL-
LUS. But indeed the whole Sentence,
quo jaffo utrumqiie confejfus eft, etc. when
the obfcurity of it is got over, is one of the
loweft conceits, as to Invention') and the
moit inaccurately drawn up, of any I ever
met with in a Piece of fo great Antiquity,
and pretending to fo great a Name as That
of Cicero.
CAP. iv. NE (quis) PEDIBUS IRF.T,
etc. Thefe words are a part of Clo-
dins^ Law againft Cicero : and hereby it is
enadted, That the Senators fliould loie the
Ufe of their Legs. For the Latin phrrJe
fignifies, That no one jJxuld WALK, or, GO
ON FOOT. What he meant is obvious
enough, Nc quis IN SENTENTIAM pedi-
bus iret : which was the Form of fpeaking
when the Senate divided upon a Qneflion,
and each Member vent out of his Seat
to join thofe who were of his own Opinion,
and
POST REDITUM IN SEN AT U, 245
and who f ooted on the lame Side. This is
a very common Expreiuon, and is forne-
tirnes called ire in jententiam, fnnply, and
di /cede re in fententiam, concerning which
fee Brifjonius DC Formuli=, Lib. ii. pagg.
2 o i , 203, 2 o | . But the words in ftnten-
tiiiiii are, I believe, always expreti, and
abfolutely necdftry, upon this occafion :
becauie if Cloditts hac^cleiign'd and had actu-
ally made an abfurci Law, Ibat no Senator
jbould go on Foot; it could not have been
put in clearer Terms than is here done by
Ne quis pedibus iret. as, on the other hand,
if you would expreis what the Author evi-
dently intended, you can no more omit
the words in fcntcntiam here, than in the
next Sentence you can lay, Nc quis adeffet,
to %nify, Ne quis SCR IB EN DO adeffet.
This looks like the writing of a Provincial,
one who was unacquainted with an Expref-
fion as well known, in all probability, to
every body at Rome, as dividing upon a
Qyejtion is to thofe who live at London.
But indeed the whole praeclarum caput, as
lie calls it, feems to be overcharg'd and
loaded with feveral Heads or Articles that
never were in the Original Form which
in Cicero Ad Attic, iii, 15. I find to-be
R 3 no
246 REMARKS en the ORATION
no more than this, NE REFERRI, NEVE
DICI, liceret : that it fiould not be lawful
that any motion flould be made, or any thing
faid in the Senate concerning Cicero 's Refti-
tution. Moreover, this Author when he
was pretending to quote C/odius's Law,
ought to have quoted the very Words of
the Law, and not to have put his own N E
LOQ^UERETUR, when th the Original it
was, neve DICI liceret.
CAP. v. cum vos veftem mutandam cen~
fmffetis, cuucTique mutajjetis, il/e, ua-
guentis oblitus, cum toga praetexta^ quam
omnes praetores, aedilefque turn abjecerant,
irrifit fquakrem veftrum, etc. What need
was there of that Idle fentence, quam om-
nes praetores aedilefque turn abjccerant, when
he had but juft before faid, fpeaking to,
and concerning the Senators, CUNCTI^
yeftem mutafjetis ? For if A r. L the Senators
had chang'd their Habits, the Praetors and
Aediles (he might have added the ^uaejlors
too) muft of courfe have done the fame,
as being included in the word cun&i : un-
lefs he can prove that there were Praetors
and Aediles who were not Se?iators. And
indeed from this mention of cuntti Senato-
res
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 247
res fir ft, and afterwards Prae tores Aedilef-
que diftinclly and feparately, it may fairly
be made a Queftion, whether his acquain-
tance with the Roman Conftitution carried
him fo far as to know, that all Praetors
and Aediles were of courie Senators, cer-
tainly if he had not known this, he could
not have written otherwife than he has
done. The Sentence too which follows
this, is worthy of its Author, fecitque quod
nemo unquam tyrannus, ut^ quo minus occul-
te vejirum malum gemeretis, nihil diceret;
m aperte incommoda patriae lugeretis, edice-
ret. which is taken partly out of the Orat.
pro Sextio c. 14. and partly out of in Pijon.
c. 8. with his own favourite addition of
the Oppofites, occulte and aperte ; and the
refreshing Harmony of the Sound in the
words nibil diceret and ediceret.
CAP. vii. Capuaene te put abas confu-
lem efle, ficut eras eo tempore, an Roma?
etc? I have already (p. 145.) mentioned
this pafiage as an Inftance of flrange Igno-
rance in the Roman Hiftory, the Wri-
tings of Cicero^ and the State of Capua
from the time of Annibal. It is incredible
that fuch a Miftake could have been made
R 4 by
248 REMARKS en the ORATION
by an Inhabitant of Rome, who pretended
to Letters.
CAP. xi. non re duel i fumus in pat r I am
Jicut nonnnlli darijjimi cives j Jed cquis in-
fignibus et curru aurato reportat'i. A fober
Reader who is acquainted with Cicero's
j.
Character and Writings, could not be more
O '
furpriz'd and difappointed at feeing the Con-
fular aftride and prancing about upon an
Hobby-Horfe with Tinjcl Harnefs, than he
would be at finding in his Works this
Childifh Sentiment of his being brought
home in a gilt Chariot drawn by fine Horfes,
with which Thought I do not doubt but
the Declaiiner was greatly pleas'd. It were
to be wifhed too that he had explained what
he mean thy eyti INSIGNES. for I believe it
does not appear from any Latin Writer, that
there were any particular Horfes, or made
ufe of upon any particular Occafion, to
whom this Epithet did properly belong.
CAP. xii. inkominibus de me divinitus
mentis, omnis erit aetas mihi ad ccnim crga
me merita praedicanda. Did not he mean
divine mentis, i. e. 5-a? f praeclare, very
greatly? whence divinis meritis, Philipp.
iv.
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 249
iv , 2. But divinitus exprefles a very diffe-
rent thing, viz. &o0gj/, a Deo, from, or by
the afRtlance of. the Gods : as Famil. i, o.
w/ -^ * * * S
quae j'unt apud Platonem nojlrum J'cripta di-
vinitus. as if he had faid, written by the In-
fpiration of the Gods : as Ad Attic, ii, 21.
Pompeius loquitur divinitus. and fo I fuppofe
it is to be taken Pro domo c. i. and De Ha-
rujp. Re/p. c. 9. See Cajanbon upon Ad Attic.
i ; 1 6. p. 109. ed. Graev. The word divinitus
will make Senfe in this place too j but not the
Senfe, I believe, which the Author intend-
ed. In the next place I Qnery, Whether
this manner of Speaking, omnis erit actas
mihi ad hoc agendum, all my Lijeftall be em-
ploy d in doing this, is Latin, and any where
elfe to be found ; or any thing like it.
Ibid. Nojlra memoria fenatores ne in fuis
quidem periculis mutare veftem Jclebant : in
meo pericuh etc. This is fuch a manifeft
Falfity, that if Cicero was awake and in
his Senfes, he could never forget that He
himfelf, a Senator, in the year before (U.
C. 695.) had cbangd bis Habit, in the
time of his own danger, which imprudent
ftep was the occafion of his fubfequent
Calamities, and cut him to the quick
whjenever he reflected upon it. Hence
Ad
250 REMARKS on the ORATION
Ad Attic, iii, 15. he fays, caeci, caeci^ in-
quam, fuimus in VESTITU MUTANDO, in
populo rogando. not to mention the feveral
Inftances of other Senators, who in the
memory of Cicero did the fame thing in their
danger s y viz. Licinius Macer mentioned by
Plutarch in Cic. p. 865. and Lentulus*
ibid. p. 870. Muraena, in Cicero's Oration
for him, cap. 40. and P. Sulla in the Orat.
for him, cap. 31. So far is it from being
true that Senators in hit memory <were NOT
WONT to change their Drefs in their own
dangers. Clear up and account for this paf-
fage who can. In the mean time there
feems reafon to fufpecl, that the Declaimer
had forgot himfelf and his Chronology ;
and that what he makes Cicero here fay,
in the year U. C. 696, concerning Senators
not changing their Habit in the time of their
own dangers^ was taken from what happen-
ed Jive years after, U. C. 701. in the Cafe
of Milo, who (as it is related by Plutarch
in Cic. p. 878. and alluded to by Cicero
Orat. pro Milon. c. 34.) being arraign'd for
the murder of P. Clodius, would neither
fuffer his Beard to grow, nor change bis
DreJ's into that of a Suppliant.
CAP.
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 251
CAP. xiv. fylecum leges, mecum quaef-
tiones, me cum etiam FRUGUM UBER-
TAS, me cum Deorum et hominum fanftita-
tes omnes et religiones abfuerunt. By thefe
things being abjent while He was abfent,
is clearly imply 'd, that now He was return-
ed ', They like wife were returned, and this
is plainly affirmed in the Orat. Ad >uirit.
poft red. c. viii. Diis denique immortalibus
FRUGUM UBERTATE, copia, vilitate,
redltum meum comprobantibus. Pleafe to re-
member that this Oration Poft red. in Sena-
tawas Spoken on Sept. v th . Now it happens,
unluckily for our Author, that Cicero him-
felf has inform 'd us, that on this very day t
the v th of September, and the iv th , (which
were the Two firft days of his being at Rome
upon his Return) there was a very great
D EARN ESS vn&Jcarcity of Corn , as well as
other provifions, at Rome : Ad Attic, iv, i .
EO BIDUO cum effet ANNONAE fumma
c A R i T AS, etc. What can be faid to this ?
Die aliquem^Jbdes., die., Quint iliane^ color em.
Nor is it more true that frugum uber-
tas, copia, vilitas, was reflored on the vi th
of September, upon which day, at fartheft,
it is fuppofed the Oration Ad Quirites wa s
Ipoken
252 REMARKS on the ORATION
fpoken by Cicero. For the immediate caufe
which at that time reftored Plenty at Rome,
was the Law which inverted Pompey with
abfolute power over the res frumentaria for
Five Years ; which Law was firfl proposal
by Cicero himfelf, after his Return : Dio
Lib. xxxix. p. 95. Now it was feveral days
after the vi th of September that That Law
was pafs'd, as is certain not only from the
nature of a Tranfaclion of that Importance,
the fettling of which would require fome
time : but likewife from the Teftimony of
Cicero himfelf in that EpifHe, and from
feveral pafTages in the Orat. Pro Domofua,
if that Authority be allowed to be good :
fee capp. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. of that Oration, and
Life of Cicero vol. 2. 8. from pag. 5. to pag.
10. This Law being pafs'd, " the credit of
c Pompey s name immediately reduc'd the
" price of Victuals in the Markets; and
tc his vigor and diligence in profecuting
** the affair, foon eftablifhed a general
<{ plenty, "as is related by Dr. Middleton y
ibid. p. i o. Here then the Author of thefe
Orations is plainly caught, and the Kind of
the Miftake will probably lead us into the
Caufe of it. For a Declaimer, fitting at
eafe in his Study, and compofing in Cicero's
Name
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 253
Name an Oration of Thanks to the ^uirites
for the Zeal they had fhown in recalling
him from Banimment, remembred that at
Cicero's Return to Rome there was a remark-
able Scarcity of Corn and other Provifions ;
which fcarcity was, in a foort time after,
removed by a Law propofed by Cicero him-
felf. This was a good Topic enough for
Harangue and Flourish, if the Declaimer
had introduced Cicero as fpeaking in the
right I'ime, that is, after the Scarcity was
actually removed by means of that Law.
But here it comes before its Seajbn : and if
the true Cicero on the vi th of September, had
(i;s this Author makes him) told the Quiri-
tes who were at that time in apprehenlion
of being 'Jamtfhed, That the Gods kad
jloivn their approbation of bis Return by
that abundance and cheapnejs of Corn which
was then apparent at Rome ; it is probable
that the People's Applaufe would have been
expreft, and that very defervedly, in a
Shower of Stones or a Volley of Curfes,
levell'd at the Author of fo Impudent a
Lie, and fuch an Infill t upon their prefent
Mifery. In the Orat. Pro Domofua with
better reafon he might fay, as he does cap.
vii, quemadmodum dtfceffu mco friigum ino-
pia,
254 REMARKS on the ORATION
pia, fames, vajiitas, difcordia JuiJJet
Jlc reditu meo ubertas agrorum, FRUGUM
co PI A, mccumfimul redufta videantitr :
becaufe Cicero is there fuppofed to be fpeak-
ing on the laft day of September j by which
time perhaps the Law might be pafs'd, and
Plenty reftored.
Ibid, qui fi mihi Quaeftor Imperatoriy//-
ijet, in jilii loco fuiffet. I think it is impoffi-
blethat Cicero could write this. For a ^uaejl-
cr was never allotted to him as an Imperator,
but as a Governor of a Province. He was Prae-
tor in the Year U. C. 688, Confiil in the year
690, and this Oration is fuppofed to be fpoken
in the year 696, at which time he never yet
had been in any Province as a Governor (for
he would not accept of any after either of
thofe Magistracies) and confequently had
hitherto no pretence to talk of the Title of
Imperator^ which he did not obtain till the
year 702. It is not improbable that a
Province and Quaejlor were aflign'd to him
as Praetor, and we know he had a Pro-
vince (Cifalpine Gaul) and a ^uaejlor (T.
Fadius, mentioned by this Author cap. 8.
and perhaps hinted at by Cicero himfelf
FamilN y i8.j as Conful: but it is very odd
that he mould herefufpofe himfelf poffeft
of
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 255
of a Title (Impcrator) which did not belong
to him till/* years after the time in which
he is fpeaking, and at the fame time fhould
forget thofe Two others, Conful y or Praetor >
either of which did then actually belong to
him, quijimihi CONSUL i or PRAETORI
Qijaeftor juiffet : which like wife would
have been agreeable to the well-known
Humane Saying, often mentioned by Him-
jfelf and others, 'That a Conful or Praetor
ought to look upon his Quaeflor as his o<wn
Son. Som^err. i, 13. Quaeftor ex S. C.
provinciam fbrtitus es. obtigit tibi confularis,
ut cum CONSULE Cn. Car bone effes, eamque
provinciam obtineres. then follows, cap. i .
Tu, cum Quaeftor ad exercitum miffusfo t
cujios nonjblum pecuniae , Jed etiam CONSU-
Lis; particeps omnium rerum confiliorumque
fueris-y habitus Us in liberum loco, ficut mos
majorumferebat', repent erelinquas? defer as?
ad adverfarios tran/eas? Divinat. in ^ Cae-
cilium cap 1 8 . fie enim a majoribus ncftris
accepimus, PRAETOREM Quaeftoriy^o pa-
rentis loco efle oportere. Pro Cn. Plancio cap.
xi. L. c oero Apukim hunc tantifacit, ut mo-
rem ilium major urn ^ qui praejcribit y in pa-
rentum loco Quaeftor ibusfuis PR A E TORES
efle oporterc, ojpciis benevolent! dqtie fuperarit.
And
256 REMARKS orif.be ORATION
And \.\\LS -Relation between a Conful, Pro~
con/ul, or Praetor, and his >uaeftor, is of-
ten expreft by the word necejjitudo. Fa-
mil, xiii, 26. L. Me/cinius ed mecum necef-
fitudine conj unfits eft, quod mi hi Quaeftor
fuit : viz. when Cicero was Proconful of
Cili da. So FamiL V, 18. mentioned before,
writing to T". Fabius who this Author
fays had been Quaeftor to Cicero, (it muft be
either as Praetor or Conful, probably
the latter:) luverb, qui ct for tunas ^ etlibe-
ros habeas, et nos ceterojque neceffitudine et
benevolentia tecum conjunftijjimos ; etc. and
fo in many Places of Cicero and other Wri-
ters. But the feme Expreflions of relation
between an Imperator and his Quaeftor (tho'
the thing might be the fiime)arefcarce to be
met with : or if they were never fo common,,
what is that to Cicero, who at this time
had neither been an Imperator^ nor could
dream of any fucli thing ? The mifiake
feems partly to be owing to the Author's
not knowing the difference between mibi
imperatori and mibi cum imbcrio ; which laft
is the thing he fhould have faid (fince he
did not choofe to put it in the ufual man-
ner, mibi CONSULT, or mibi PRAETORI)
in this place. For every Governor of a
Province
POST REiHTUM IN SENARTU.
Province was cum imperio (fee in Verr.
V, 29); but every Governor was not Im-
perator : only thofe who either purpofely
fet out for their Provinces upon fome Mili-
tary Expedition, with a Commiffion from
the Senate; or thofe who afterwards,
while they were in their Provinces, by
fome accident were engag'd in a War ; or
laftly, thofe who by fome good Succefs in
War obtain *d that Appellation from their
Soldiers, or from the Senate. The cafe of
Cicero himfelf may in great meafure explain
this matter. When he fet out for his
Government oiCilicia as Proconful., he was
cum imperio only. Famil. iii, 2. Cum d con-
tra voluntatem meam, et practer opinionein-
accidiffet, ut mihi CUM I M p R I o in provin-
ciamproficifci neceffeeffet, etc. Here he could
not with truth and propriety have written >
tit mi hi i M P E R A T o R i in provinciam etc.
But afterwards, during his Government,
he had occafion to put himfelf at the head
of his Provincial Forces as a General, then
he became (Philip, xi, 13.) an Iwperator,
or dux cxercitus. and having gain'd a con-
fiderable advantage to the Roman State, by
taking and burning the ftrong Holds of the
wild Inhabitants of mount Amanus, and
S by
258 REMARKS withe ORATIOW
.by killing a great number of Enemies j fie
was hereupon falutcd Imperator by his
Soldiers, after which cafual events, L.
Mfjcinim Rujus y who, before Cicero fet
out, had been appointed Quaeftor to him as
Procon/ul of Cilicia^ and cum imperio only,
became Quaeftor to him now and Imperator
both real and titular too. But this circum-
jftanceof his being an Imperator was merely
an accidental thing, no way affecting the
rfiip. For Me/cinius was as much his
r before it happened as afterwards,
and would have been juft the fame had it
never happened at all. From all which it
appears, that mibi IMPERATOR i in this
place is (to fay the leaft of it) quite imperti-
nent, and no more to the purpofe than any
other Circumftance whkh belong'd to Cice-
ro, or any other Occident (foreign to the
Quaejlorfiip) which befell him, would have
been : and that the Author ought to have
written, either, quiji mihi Quaejlorfuijfet y
or, quiji mihi cum imperio Quaeftorfuiflet,
fimply and indefinitely : or, laftly, qui
Jl mibi Confuli, or Praetori, Quaeftor Juif-
Jet : that is, If he bad been my Quaejlor when
. I ivas Governor of a Province, There is
,. \j
a paflage in Cicero which perhaps might
give
fcEDITUM IN SENATU.
give him the firft hint, or confirm him in
his wrong ufe of the expreffion mi hi Quaef-
tor Imperatori. It is Philip, ii, 29, con-
cerning M. Antony : cujus [Caefaris] tu
Imperatoris Quaeftor jueras. But Anto-
ny was not Quaeftor to Caefar, becaufe Cae-
Jar was an Imperator or General of an
Army, but becaufe he was Proconful of
Gnul, tho' accidentally at the fame time
Imperator. or had he been Quaeftor to Cae-
far as a mere Imperator or dux exercitus
and without any Province, as was fome-
times the cafe; yet that would have been
nothing to Cicero, who at the time this
Oration is fuppofed to be fpoken had not
been an Imperator in any fhape, either
Real or titular t nor could he poffibly
forefee that he ever mould : and when he
had that Title fix years after the time of this
Oration, he had no ^uaejlor as an Impera-
tor-> but as Proconful of Cilicia. Turn it
on which fide you pleafe, either of Ex-
preffion, Hiftory, or Cuftom ; it feems im*
pomble to be the Writing of Cicero^
or indeed of any other than a Foreign
Author.
S 2 REMARKI
260 REMARKS^ the ORATION
R E M ARKS on the O R A T i o N.
Ad Quirites poft reditum.
MY firft Doubt concerning thefe Ora-
tions began with the firft Sentence
of This, and was continued and confirmed
by almoft every following Chapter and
Period from the beginning of This to the
end of the Fourth, De Harufpicum Ref-
ponfis. For in the true Cicero there is no-
thing to be met with fo intricate and in-
volv'd as this Firft Period, Quae precatus a
jfove Optimo Maximo, ceterijque Diis im-
mortalibus, fum, maxime laetor, Quiri-
tes: which even an expert Reader may
perhaps be forc'd to go over more than
once before he can come at the Conftruc-
tion ,of it. tho' he will find afterwards,
that in the Orat. pro domo fua cap. Ivii,.
Nunc te, Capitoline y etc. (which was de-
lign'd as an imitation of Cicero's famous
Epilogue to his Orations in Verrem, lib. v..
cap. 72..) the Author has again made ufe of
the fame Thought, in a Sentence ten tjmes,
if poffible, more intricate and confufed than,
the Firft I have been fpeaking of.
This
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM 261
This Oration feems to be little more than
an Abridgement of the former -, and the
worth of it chiefly confifts in its Refem-
blance to That : for the Thoughts, Ex-
preffions, and Examples are, for the mod
part, the fame. Thus Pojlred. in Senatu
cap. i. immenfum quiddam et injinitum eft
quod iiobis debeamus y qui r oeflro fmgulari
ftudio atque confenfu^ parentum' bencficia y
Deorum immortalium munera^ populi Romam
honores, vejira de me multa judicia^ nobis
vmnia uno tempore reddidlftis : ut cum multa
vobis, magna populo Romano, innumerabilia
parentibus, omnla Diis immortalibus debea-
mus, haec antea fingula per ilfas babuerimus ;
nuncuniverfapervos recuperaverimus. Which
is thus expreft Ad Quiritc* pbft r edit um cap,
2. after having mentioned the Benefits he
had received from his Parents^ and from
the Gods, as in the paffage juft quoted :
veftros denique hoiwres^ quos eramus grada-
timfmgulos affecuti^ nunc a vobis univcrjos
habemus : ut quantum antea parentibus^ quan-
tum Diis immortalibus^ quantum vobi/met-
ipftS) tantum hoc tempore univerfim cunfto
populo Romano debeamus.
Again, in Senat. cap. iii. Quo quidem
fnenfe, quid inter me et meos inimicos interef-
S 3
262 REM A RS on the ORATION
fit, exiflimare potuiftis. EGO, meam falu*
tern dejerui etc. ILLI, meum reditum nou
populi Romani fuffragiis, Jed flumine Jangui-
nis, inter cludenduw, put aver unt . Ad Qui-
rit. cap. v. Hie tantum inierfuit inter me
et inimicos meos. EGO, cum homines etc.
At INIMICI met, menfe ^anuario, cum. de
me ageretur, corporibus civium trucidatis^
flumine fanguinis meum reditum inter cluden-
dum putavcrunt.
In Senat. cap. iv. princeps P. Lentulus,
parens ac Deus noftrae vifae, fortunae y me-
moriae, nomims, etc. Ad Qujnt ? cap. v.
P. Lentulus conful y parens, D.eus,Ja!us no-
jlrae vitae, memoriae, jortunae, nominis,
etc. Tl}e firft ;s taken from the Orat. pro
P. Sextio cap. 69. video P. Lentulum, cujus
ego pair em, Deum ac parent em flatuo Jbr r
tunae ac nominis met.
In Ssnat. ibid, nee enim eguijenj medicinn
con/ulari, nifi confulari where concidiffem.
Ad Quirit cap. vi. jfyi ego dubitarem,
quin is me, confettum confularibus vulneribus^
conjulari medicina adjalutem reducer et ?
In Senat. cap. xv. Nihil unquam fenatus
de P. Popillio decrevit - 3 nunquajn in hoc or di-
ne Q^MeUlli mentio faffa eft. Tribunitiis
illi rogiit'wnibus, interfeffis
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM. 263
denique nulla auttoritate [hiatus, reftituti.
Ad Qmrit. cap. iv. nunquam de P. Popillio
mmqua-n de ^ Metello, infenatu mentio
fatta eft. Tribunitiisjuperiores iUirogationi-
bus, mil la auttoritatefenatus,funtrejiituti.
In Senat. ibid. Nam c. quidem Marius^
qui hac hominum memona tertius ante me
conjularis, tempeflate civili expulfus eft, non
wodo a jenatu non eft rejiitutus, fed reditu
fuojcnatum cunftum paenedekvit. Ad Qui-
rit. cap. iii. Nam C. Marii, qui poft illos
ve feres clariffimos confulares, veftrd patrum-
que memona tertius ante me cwfularis, fob-
iit indigntjimam fortunam, etc. and the
latter part of the paffage In Senat. jufl
quoted, non imdo a Jenatu nm eft reftitutus*
etc. is repeated Ad Quirit. cap. iv. Marius
'verb non modb non a Jenatu, Jed etiam opfrejfo
fmatu, eft reftltutus.
Thefe are not a Sixth part of the Inftances
of Concurrence in the like Thoughts and
Expreffions which are to be found^in thefe
Two Orations; or rather, which are plainly
borrowed and tran (bribed out of the Firft
into the Second. But whoever is defirous
to fee how much Superior the Author of
the Firft was to Himfelf in the Second, let
fcijn carefully compare a paflhge in 'this
5 4 Oration
264 R'EM ARKS on the OR ATI ON
Oration ^d^irites cap. 2. from the words
A parentibm to populo Romano debeamus^
with another, from whence it was copied,
In Senatu cap. i . from >uod ft parentes tq
the end of that Chapter : part of both which
I quoted above in the Firft Inftance of Simi-
litude. He will find this laft mentioned
Sentence not inaccurately drawn up : but
the other to be the poor Performance of an.
Injudicious and Bungling Imitator and
Tranfcriber. 1 have brought thefe few
Inftances, to the Intent that thofe who
have any knowledge of Cicero, may be in T
duced to corifider, how Improbable it is,
that his Invention ^ which was Fruitful al-
inoft to a Prodigy, mould be fo exhausted
in the former Oration, as that he could find
little or nothing to fay to the People but
what he had jufl before faid to the Senate :
efpecially at a time when he muft needs be
in great Spirits upon the Occafion and Cir--
cumftances of his Return from Exile, and
when the Subject itfelf was otherwife fo.
Noble and Copious. Thefe are marks of
a Poverty not at all fuitable to the Genius
of Cicero : nor is it likely that in One fhort
Oration he mould be forced ^to come over
again with the fame Sentence, in {he man-.
AD QJJIRIT S POST REDITUM. 265
ner he does in this Ad Quirites. For
Cap. iii. he fays : At me y nudum a prvpin-
quis> nulla cognatione munitum t quotidianae
lacrymae^ Jbrdejque lugubres^ a vobis depre-
catae jimt. which he repeats Cap. vi. ltd
rne^ nudum a propinquis, nulla cognatione mit-
nitutn, Italia cunfta femper a vobis depre-
cata ejL
Manutius (in Argument. Orat. Poft. red.
In Seriat.) fufpeded that this Oration, Ad
<$uirites y perhaps was never Jpoken, as the
Firfl was, but only written ; becaufe Ci-
cero Ad Attic, iv, i. mentions his giving
thanks to the Se?iate, and fays nothing of
his doing the fame to the People. But
Manutius himfelf feems to have been of a
different Opinion in his Notes upon that
Epiftle to Atticus j and the Teftimony of
Dio Lib. xxxix. which I quoted above, is
exprefs, and proves, that if Cicero Jpake to
the Senate, he did the fame to the People :
tho' I am very well fatisfied that he neither
ivrote nor /pake either of thefe Orations.
Some of the Reafons why I think fo con-
cerning This, Ad >uirites poft r edit urn, are'
contained in the following pafTages.
Cap. i. incrcdibili laetitiae voluptate ca-
ruiflem, Laetitiae iwluptate is much the
fame.
266 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
fame as whtptatis voluptate, or laetitiae
laetitia , and may be added to thofe In-
ftances which Fred. Gronovius (Obfervat.
in Scriptor. EcclefiafL cap. x. p. 106.)
brings out of Paulinus, Julius Firmicus,
and other Authors of the Low Ages, viz.
virus veneni y mercedem pretii, comarum cri-
nes, fapientiae prudent ia y etc. A good Latin
Writer would have faid, incredibili laetitia^
or incredibili voluptate caruiffem. But tho*
I can eafily believe, and do believe, that the
Reading of the Text, as it now ftands, was
the Author's Hand ; yet as the Senfe and
ufual way of writing may be reftored by
the addition of a fingle Letter, in (lead of
lactitlae volupfate, I would read, laetitia
et ixiluptate : as in the Orat. pro P. Sulla
0.32. quam cltb ilia omnia ex laetitia et vo-
luptate ad luftum et lacrimas reciderunt !
Ibid. Res familiaris Jua quemque deleft at :
reliquae meae fortunae RECUPERATAE,
plus mlhi NUNC voluptatis afferunt, quam
tune incolumi afferebant. I follow the EdU
tion of Graevtus in the word incolumi ; in?
ikad of which many MSS and Editions
have incdumitatis. Whatever be the true
Reading, the Senfe of the paflage is plain
enough. He fays, That the reft (fee Ma-*
nutius,
AD QJJIRITES POST REPITUM. 267
nutius) of his Fortunes which he has re-
covered, do now give him more pleafure
than he received from them when he was
in the pofleflion of them entire. It muft
be remembred at what time this Oration is
fuppofed to have been fpoken. Cicero entred
Rome from his Exile, Sept. 4 th , U. C. 696-
On the v th he gave thanks in a Speech to the
Senate : on the vi tjl (if not on the v tb ) he
is thought to have fpoken This AdQuirites :
fee Corradus and Manutius upon Ad Attic.
iv ? i. and Dr Middleton Life of Cic. Vol. 2.
p. 3. 8. But it is fo far from being true
that Cicero on the v th or vi th of September
had recovered his reliquae fartunae, that, on
the contrary, he had not, at that time, re-
covered any thing at all but his Dignity,
Country, and Relations j nor for near a
Month afterwards, as you may fee in the
Epift. Ad Attic, iv, i . 2. and Dr Middle-
ton Life of Cic. Vol. 2. p. 10, etc. If thefe
Authorities are not fufficient to prove, that
Cicero, when he fpake his Oration Ad $ui-
rifes y had not recovered hjs reliquae fort u-
nae ; I will produce one which is, namely,
this Author tymfelf, who cap. viii. has this
Sentence : >uod fi quis exiflimat me aut vo-
fontate ejje mutata. aitf debilitata virtute^
' *T \ ' '
aut
268 R F. M A R K S Ofl tfo O R A T I O N
aut ammo fraffo y vebementer errat. mibi,
quod potuit vis, et injuria y et feeler atorum
hominum furor detrahere y ERIPUIT, AB-
STULIT, DISSIPAVIT : quodviroforti adi-
irri non poteft, id MANET, et permanebit.
The words eripuit^ abftulit, dijjipavit, and
the foregoing Sentence, are not the Lan-
guage of one, who, having been ftript of
his All, has at prefent recovered it again ;
but of one who tells us, that at prefent he
is deprived of all his Fortunes, and that no-
thing now REMAINS with him but his
Virtue : as the Oppofition of the Senfe and
Words plainly fhows. How is this recon-
cileable with the former Sentence reliquae
tneae fortunae reciiperatae^ or the former
Icntence with Truth ? It is likely our Au-
thor tbok this from the Orat. Poft. red. in
Sena? tt cap. I. qui dignitatem, qui ordinem y
qui PORT UN AS, qui denique nobis nojmet-
ip/os REDDIDISTIS. This fpoken in the
Senate on the v th of September , is very
Falie. For it is evident, as I faid before, from
Ad Attic. Lib. iv. Epift. 2. that no reftitu-
tion of his Fortunes was made to Cicero be-
fore the fecond of October following. And
in the fame Epiflle, written after the fe-
cond of Otfober, and in the next, he ftilj
com,
AD QJIIR1TES POST REDITUM. 269
complains of great freights and difficulties in
his Domeftic Affairs. Hence it appears that
our Author likewife in the Orat. Pro Domo
fua, fpoken on the laft day of September,
had forgot himfelf, when he makes Cicero
fay, cap. 58. Non me bonorum direptio, non
tecJorum excifio, non depopulatio praediorum
permovet : etc. etenlm adnoftrum ufumprope-
modum jam eft defimta moderatio rei famili-
aris. For befides that this was Falfe, it
would moreover have been very Improper
and Foolim in Cicero to have talk'd in this
manner, while the Cafe of his Allowance
for his Loffes was depending^ and before the
Senate had decreed what amends mould be
made him for the Damage he had furTered
in Clodius's Riots : which Decree was not
pafs'd before the fecond of October.
Cap. iv. at de me ut r oaleret, femper ft-
natus flagitavit : ut aliquando perfkeretur,
cum primum licuit, freqiientid^ atque aucJo-
ritate, perfecit. The Sentence which goes
before is this : nee rerum geftarum memo-
ria inreditu C. Marii^.fed exercitus^ atque
arma valuer unt. So that memoria rerum
gejferum, muft be the Nominative Cafe to
ualeret and to perficeretur. But what is the
Senfe of this, Jenatus perfecit ut memoria
rerum
270 REMARKS on the ORATION
rerum geftarum perficeretur ? He feems to,
have meant, ut res perficeretur ; and per-
haps took the hint of the words from Pbilipp..
II, 22. cmnia (Antonius) perfecit, quae fena-
tus, fafod republicans fari poffent^ perfece-
rat. A fingle MS inftead of perfceretur has
proficeret in this place.
. A little before in the fame Chapter:
>uare koc majus ejl ve/trum in nos pro-
meritum^ quod non multitudini propinquo-
rum, fed nobifmetipfis nos reddidiftis. The
laft colon is taken from the Orat. In Senat.
cap. i. qui dignitatem^ qui ordinem^ qui
fortunes i qui denique nofmetipfbs nobis
reddidiftis : that is, who have reftored me to
myfelf; as in the Orat. pro M. Marcello
Cap. v. memet mihi reddidit : and Horace
Epift. I, 14.
Villiceftharum, et mihi mereddentis^///.
Which expre^ffion is very common, and
the fenfe of it is underflood by. every
body to iignify, a perfon's being relieved
from any Calamity, Diftrefs, or Uneafmefs
of any kind (du ring which he may be look'd
upon as /0^?.nd abfcnt jrcm, or out ofHim-
Jelj) and being put in a fituation which is
the reverfe of the former difagrecable one,
and
AD QJHRITES POST REDITUM. 2?1
and a kind of folding, replacing^ or reftcra-
tion of the Man to Himjelj. But in the pa-
iage I am now fpeaking of, the phrafe
nobijmetipfis nos reddidijiis^ or the word ?:G-
bifmetipfis^ if you are guided by the Senfe,
ought to have a meaning very different from
the udial one, namely this, ye have rejlvred
me y not on account of the multitude of vty
Relations, but ON MINE OWN ACCOUNT.
So that according to this Writer, rcddere me
mi hi will fignify, not to reft ore me to myjelf t
but, to rejiore me FOR MINE OWN SAKE:
which is certainly falfe in this Expreffion ;
tho' otherwise I know that the Dative
Cafe frequently has that Signification both
in Greek and Latin Writers.
Cap. v. At pro mefuperiores confutes fempcr,
tit rejerrent, eiBagkati^kr/. He meantyfog/-
tati y as above cap. iv. and poft red. in Sen.
c. 2. pro Domo c. 26. and in the paflage from
whence this is taken, Orat. pro P. Sextio
c. xi. Flagitabatur ab his qtiotidie cum que-
relis bonorum omnium^ turn etiam precibm
finatus y itt meant caujjam fufciperent , age-
rent aliqnid\ denique^ ad fenatum refcrrent.
"For flagitart is to demand with importunity :
efflagitare, to obtain what wasyo demanded.
The difference between them is the fame
as
R E M A R K s 0# /&? ORATION
as between pugnare and expugnare, orare
exorare, facere and efficere. See 7r-
upon Zte J[>. Agrar. ii, 2. tew </w-
turnis precibus efflagitatus. It is more likely
that this is the Miftake (if it be one) of the
Author himfelf, becaufe in other places of
thefe Orations inftead of the Simple Verb
he ufes a Compound which has a Signifi-
cation quite different from the Simple. So
fententia referenda cap. x. faferenda. Pro
Domo c. 34. odium retincbat for tenebat.
cap. 44. excogitavif for cogityfuif. De Ha-
rufp. Refp. c. 13. praediftum for dittum.
cap. 1 5. conquirimus for quaerimm. None
of which I believe are Latin in the Senfe
this Author defign'd them. The Writer
of the Two famous Epiftles of Brutus to
Cicero, the xv th and xxii d . Ed. Middl. feems
to have fallen into the fame confufed Ufe
of this word : in the former, p. 94. in the
beginning of the Epiftle ; quoniam efflagi-
tas, coaftu tuo fcribam quae fentio : inftead
of fagitas : tho' I know that fomething
may be faid for it. But admitting the Dif-
tin&ion, nothing can be faid for the latter,
p. 178. if the Author wrote, as it is in the
Editions, Jiudio atque efflagitatione omnium :
inftead ofjlagitatione. So in the Orat. pro
M. Mar-
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM. 273
M. Mar cello c. 5. for pacem ejflagitantium,
Patricius (fee his Note) conjectured that it
ought to be vcz&jlagitantium : and Grae-
vius having found it fo in Five MSS, pu-
blifhed it accordingly. There feems ftill
to be the fame fault in the Orat. pro Milone
cap. 34. and Famil. v, 19. if this Diftinc-
tion between the words be true, as Learned
men think, and it appears probable from
many paflages in Cicero, who generally
writes as if it were fo. The Poets, who
have a Language of their own, are allow'd,
or will take, greater Liberties in the Ufe
of Words. And therefore when Virgil fiLn.
xii, 759. writes, not unique EFFLAGITAT
enfcm, which the Note under the name of
Servius explains by, cum clamore pojcit, that
is, fagitat ; it does not at all affect Cicero's
Diftinclion between the two words, if it be
certain that Cicero obferved that Diftinction j
as it ihould fetm he did.
Ibid, jed yeritifunt, ne gratiae caiiffd fa-
cere viderentur, quod alter [Pifo] mibi affinis
crat, alterius [Gabinii] caujam capitis re-
ceperam. What this Writer fays, at this
time, of Cicero s having defended Gabinius
in a Capital Cau/e, I apprehended to be (to
fpeak in his own manner) a Capital Blunder.
T For
274 R E M A R K s on th e O R A T ION
For this is fuppofed to be fpoken by Cicero
immediately after his Return from Banifh-
ment, in the year U. C. 696, concerning
Pi/o and Gabinius, who were Confuls in
the foregoing year, 695 : before which year
Cicero here fays he had defended Gabinius
in a Capital Caufe. Now it is a very noto-
rious thins; that Cicero's Defence of Gabi-
o
nius was not till Four years after this, (U. C.
699, in the Confulfhip of L. Domitius Aeno-
barbus and App. Claudius Pulcber) Pompey
having brought about a Reconciliation be-
tween them, and prevail'd upon Cicero to
undertake the Defence of Gabinim : See
pro C. Rabirio Poftumo c. 8. 12. Dr
ton Life of Cic. Vol. 2. p. 121. fy
tlus in the Argument of the Orat. pro C
Rabirio Poflunio, and Val. Maximus iv, 2.
If it be faid that Cicero might poffibly de-
fend Gabinius in fome other Capital Caufe >
before the Confulfhip viGabinius : I anfwer,
That it is pojjible he might defend him in
*en fuch Caufes : or it \spoffible that he never
defended him at all : nay it is pojjibk that
there never were any fuch perfons as Gabi-
nius or Cicero. But if you allow that there
was one Aulus Gabinius^ who, after his
being recalled from the Government of
Syria,
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM. 275
Syria, and accufed, was defended by one
Marcus Tullius Cicero in the year U. C.
699, in a Capital Caufe, which cannot be
denied without contradicting all Hiftory ;
you muft allow, that, if Cicero had ever de-
fended him in another Capital Caufe, and
'before the year 695, as it is here faid he
had, it is the moil improbable thing in the
world that no Notice mould have been
taken of it by any Hiftorian, but more
efpecially by Cicero himfelf, who in his fre-
quent Invectives againft this fame Gabinius
between the years 695 and 699, could not
have fciFd, among other Vices and Bad Qua-
lities which he fo plentifully charges him
with, to have mentioned this of his Ingrati-
tude towards the perfon who had been his
Prefcrvcr. This, in a Cafe exactly paral-
lel, feem'd fo good an Argument to Afco-
nius Pedianus, that upon the Strength of
it lie could not believe that Catiline had
been defended by Cicero (as Fenejlella faid he
hut!) when he was accufed of male-admini-
flration in his Government of the Province
vi Africa; becaufe in an Oration fpoken
sgainft Catiline fome time after, nullam
mentionem (fays he) rei habet, cum potuerit
invidiamfacere competitor! y tarn turpiter ad-
T 2 ver/us
276 REMARKS on the ORATION
verjus fe coeunti : he takes no notice of this
Defence ; whereas the mention of it would
have made Catiline, his competitor for the
Confulmip, very odious, on account of his Jo
bafely -plotting again/} his Patron : jijcon.
Pedianus in Orat. Cic. in Toga Candida, p,
m. 145. where fee more to "this purpofe.
But the cafe is very manifeft. The De-
claimer knew that Cicero had, fome time
or other, defended Gabinius in a Capital
Caufe : and the Thing being to his purpofe,
he was fo eager to lay hold of it, that he
overlook'd the Time in which it was done.
Dr Middkton in the Life of Cicero Vol. i.
P-335- 8 0> takes notice of the fame miftake I
have been mentioning, in the French Author
of the Exile of Cicero, who fays, that Gabi-
nius had been defended by Cicero in a Capital
Caufe before the year 695, i. e. before the
ConfuKhip of Gabinius : when, as the Dr.
there obferves, that Defence was not made
till feveral years after that Confuiihip, viz.
in the year 699. I have not the leaft doubt
but that the Remark is true. But if this
Piece be the Genuine Work of Cicero, we
are both miftaken, and the Author of the
Exile is in the right ; tho' I do not appre-
hend that we are in any danger.
Ibid.
AD QUIRITES POST REDITUM. 277
Ibid, quae deliberatio non /reddenda,y^
in augenda M E R c E D E , confumpta eJL This
is a mofl obfcure Double Signification of
mercede. For by in reddenda mercede, is
meant, in returning the KINDNESS, viz. to
me : but by in augenda mercede, he means, in
enhancing the PRICE, viz. which was to be
given to Atilius, for his vefo, or putting a
ftop to the Law, by his Tribunitian Inter-
cejjion. In plain and intelligible Writing it
might have been thus : quod deliberationh
tcmpus^ non in referenda mihi gratia, Jed in
augenda (ibi mercede, confumptum eft. The
Thought is taken, and very unfls.il fully ex-
preft, out of the Orat. pro P. Sex f to cap. 34.
where Cicero is giving an account of this
fame action of Atilim Serranus the Tri-
bune : ////' interea deliberatori merces, longa
interpojita nocle, duplicata eft. Were it not
for this paflage, it would have been impof-
fible for us ever to have underflood the for-
mer, and the meaning of augenda mercede
in that place. The Author knew what he
himfelf meant, but did not coniider that he
ought to have written fo as to make himfelf
underftood by others. The Circumftance
of Cicero's having been a very great friend
in his Confulftip to this Atilius then ^uacjlor^
T 3 is
278 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
is probably the Author's own Invention (for
Cicero himfelf fays nothing of it ; and cer-
tainly he would not have omitted the men-
tion of it, had it been true) in order to get
an opportunity of upbraiding Altlius for his
Ingratitude, and by that means to introduce
in reddcnda mcrcede, the beloved Oppofition
to in augenda mercedc, which he had alrea-
dy fecured out of Cicero's Exprefiion, DU-
PLICATA merces. This was an ufual trick
among the Dec/aimers, who made no Icruple
of difgutfing or adding to the Truth, as was
mod convenient to their own purpofes. In
order to the Firfl of thcfe, they had a
Technical Term called a Color, which
was of infinite feivice to them, and gave
them the liberty of varni/king their Sub-
jects, as fuited befl to their own Imagi-
nations, and to the number of Good Things
they could utter upon any Theme, if it had
been really what they wanted to be. So
that whenever Truth (which is the moft
rigid, and fixt thing in the world) would not
yield, they went to work upon it with their
Color, with which they could frequently
foften the harm and ugly Features of it,
and bring it nearer to the Likenefs which
pleas'd their own Fancy. But if that would
not
AD QJ7IRITES POST REDITUM. 279
not do, they had recourfe to plain and
downright Fiction. Had they confined thefe
liberties to their own Province, and imagi-
nary Perfons, the tyrannicidae, Abdicati^
Raptor -es, etc. no great harm had been
done, but when they made excurfions into
real Hiftory, it was of ill confequence, be-
caufe they mifled thofe who followed them,
and who were not acquainted with their
ways. Of this there is a notable inftance
relating to Cicero himfelf. A notion oh*
tained fome (hort time after his Death, that
Popilius Laenas the Tribune (Livy calls
him no mo re than kgionarius miles , Epitom.
Lib. cxx.) who is thought to have killed
Cicero, had formerly been defended by him
in a Caufe of Parricide. This was fo far
from being entirely true and certain, that
Marcus Seneca, who lived in thofe times,
affures us, That but few of the Hiftorians
had related that Popilius was even the Perfbn
who killed Cicero ; and they all agreed that
Cicero's Defence of him was in a private
Caufe. but the ftory of the Parricide, was
the Invention of the Declaimers : Contro-
verfiar. iii, 17. Popilium pauci ex hiftoricis
tradiderunt interfeftorem Ciceronis : fed hi
quoque non par Heidi i reum a Cicerone dejen-
T 4 fum,
280 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
fum t Jed in private judicio. Dedamatoribus
placuit, parricidam reum fuijje. This Fic-
tion of the Declaimers was greatly to their
purpofe, becaufe it gave them more fcope,
and an opportunity of drawing a Compari-
fon between the Murderer of his own Father
and the Murderer of bis Prejerver and Pa-
tron j and not barely fo, but of Cicero his
Preferver and Patron : upon which they
could fay many Smart and Pointed things ;
a multitude of which you may fee in Seneca.
But mark the confequence of this Fiction.
Plutarch^ a Foreigner, who lived an Hun-
dred years after this time, and either took
up with the common notion, or had the
account from the Writings of thefe men
who were the Authors of the Notion, re-
lates it as an Hiftorical Truth :
rvv-
Popilius a Tribune^ 'whom
Cicero had dejended when be was accufed of
Parricide, in vit. Cic. p. 885.
Cap. viii. NVMENqueveftrum AEQJJE mi-
ni GRAVE et SANCTUM, ac Deorum im-
mortalium, in omni vitafuturum, fc.polliceor
And cap. x. yobis, qui apudme DEORUM im-
mortaliumviM et NUMEN tenetis. In the
Orat./ra C. Rabirio cap. 2, Cicero, after hav-
ing
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM. 281
ing invoked the Gods, next addreffes himfelf
to the Quirttes or Citizens of Rome ; of whom
he lays, quorum pot eft a s PROXIME ad Deo-
rum immortalium numen accedit. But our
Author is not contented with this Compli-
ment, and out-tops it greatly. For he makes
Cicero tell the Quirites here, That he (hall
always look upon their Numen not as next 9
but as EQJJAL TO 'I hat of the Immortal
Gods. This is fuch an Outrage upon Cicero
as is not to be parallel'd : and one would
think that it was written rather in Mockery,
than with any real defign of being pafs'd
upon the world as his Sentiment or Writing.
It is a wonder that this Prophane Declaimer
did not call them Quirites OPTIMI MAX-
IM I : whereas Horace modeflly and pioufly
tells the People of his time, Diis te minorem
quod geris, imperas : and even the ranting
Stoics allowed that Their Wife Man was
minor Jove. In the Oration pro L. Murae-
na cap. i. Cicero fays to the Judges in that
Caufe, omnis Deorum immortalium potejtas
aut tranjlata ejl ad vos, aut certe communi-
cata wbifcum : and pro Cluentio cap. 69.
Fbs, Judices, quos huic A. Cluentio QJJOS-
DAM ALIOS DEOS ad omne vitae tempus
fortuna effe voluit etc, a kind of other Gods.
282 REM A RKS on the OR AT ION
in both places he evidently fpeaks with re-
fpeft to thofe two Caujes, and to the Power
of the Judges, who could either SAVE or RU-
i N Murasna and Clucntius j in which view
there is nothing extravagant or unufual in
the Expreffions. for in many other Authors
we find, that any great "Benefaftor to another
man, is called Deus y (fee Dr Middleton Life
of Cic. Vol. 2. p. 3. 8.) and an Excellent
Man is called Deus quldam mortalis y a kind
of mortal God, by a Metaphorical and Figu-
rative way of fpeaking. But Cicero could
not be the author of fuch a foolifh Thought
and Expreffion as this Writer has here
fathered upon him. The. true Cicero had
more Religion and good Senfe than to utter
any thing fo Impious and Abfurd.
Cap. ix. SUPERIOREM ^CONTRA IM-
PROBos, minus eft negotii, quam bonis ex-
aequari. In the former part of the Sentence,
the Latin is doubtfull ; in the latter, the
Senfe. But how very different from the
lyianlinefs and Perfpicuity of Cicero'?, Writ-
ing, does this enervate and obfcure Stuff,
when with much ado you have found out
the meaning of it, appear to be!
There is a paffage which I had almoft
forgot to mention, cap. i. Etfi homininihit
AD QJJIRITES POST REDITUM. 283
eft magis optandum, quam profpera, aequabilis,
perpetuaque for tuna, fecundo vitae Jine ulla
offcufwne curju \ tamen, fi mihi tranquilla et
placata omnia fuiffent ', incredlbili qua 'dam , et
paene divina, qua nunc veftro benefido fruor y
laetitiae voluptate caruifjem. This is the
Sentence to which Ammianm Marcellinus is
thought by Hottoman to allude, Lib. xv. I
will tranfcribe it from the only Edition I
have by me, That of Boxhcrnius Lugd. Bat.
p. 78. mirabamur illam fententiam
ex Internis veritatis ipjius adytis
promulg.it am ^ quae eft tails : " Et quam-
" quam optatijjimum eft perpetim fortunam
" quam jiorentij/imam pennanere ; ilia tamen
'* qualitas vifae non tantum habet fenfum,
" quantum cum ex faevis et perditis rebus
ad meliorem Jlatum for tuna rcvccaturT
It is not certain that this is the paflage Am-
rnianus means, there being a great difference
both in the ExprefTion and the Senfe, efpe-
cidlly in the latter Part, or if it were cer-
tain, it is equally certain that He, a Greek
Soldier, was very ill qualified to judge of
the Writings of Latin Orators. But Am-
mianms Testimony does not affect the
Queflion on either Side, becaufe I allow
that thefe Orations were read as Ciceros
long
284 REMARK scr^ ORATION
long before His time, and quoted as fuch
by one who may be fuppofed much more
capable of judging concerning thefe matters
than Ammianus was. It may not be im-
proper to oblerve, that in the paflage of the
Oration, Et si bominimbiletc.Jjisput for
etfi or guamvis y with tamen to anfwer to
it : as De Har. Rejp. cap. i, and 4. In
which places I think no alteration fhould be
made, becaufe Cicero himfelf often writes
fo ; twice in one chapter of the Orat. pro
Cn. Plancio, cap. 2. and pro P. Sextio c. 26.
quij si nondum erat ip/e a Senatu foetus appel-
latus, erat tzmenfrafer ejus regts, qui etc.
that is, 041 AM vis nondum erat.
REMARKS on the ORATION
Pro Domo fua.
TH E Oration Pro (rather De) Domo
fua y Ad (or Apud) Pontifices, was
fpoken on the laft day of September, in the
fame year as the former, U. C. 696. Mar-
cus Calidius^ a great Friend of Cicero, and
of whom there is a fine Character in De
Clar. Orator, c. 79. ipake an Oration upon
the fame Subject, mentioned by Quinti-
lian
PRO DOMO su A. 285
lian Inftit . x, i . ^uinetiam^ eafdem caujfas
nt quifque egerit^ utile erit fcire. nam pro
Domo Ciceronis dixit Calidius j etc. where
Mr Eurman notes that feveral Copies in-
ftead of PRO Domo have DE Domo ; which
Reading is confirmed by the following paf-
fage of Cicero, who was fo pleafed with his
own Performance upon this occafion, that
he could not forbear exprefTing his fatif-
faclion in it, in a Letter to Atticus, Lib.
iv, 2. Poft illas datas litter as ^ fecuta eft
fumma content io DE Domo. diximus A PUD
Pontifices pridie Kal. Qttobres. atta res efl
* J
accurate a nobis : etji unquam in dicendo jui-
mus aliquid, aut etiamji unquam alias fuimus,
turn profeffio dolor et magnitude vim quon-
dam nobis dicendi dedit. The advantageous
account which Cicero gives of this piece,
makes the Lois of the Original deferve to
be the more regretted by us : efpecially as
in the room of it we have got fomething
which appears in a Light very different
from what we might have expected from
the abovementioned Character : and if
Cicero could be fatisfied and pleafed with
this Oration, it feems to be a flrong In-
ftance how far the communis (piXavria, ren-
ders a man uncapabls of being a true Judge
of
286 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
of his own Performances, fince a more dull
and tedious Harangue than this, if you ex-
cept the next De Harufpicum Rcjpcnfis^ is
not eafily to be met with. The firft Twelve
Chapters (above a Fifth part of the Oration)
are evidently, and by his own Confeffion,
nothing to the purpofe, and more (as he
Jays, cap. xii.) than ivas agreeable either to his
Opinion , or his WILL. If fo, one might
afk, who fore V him to it, and what need
was there of fpeaking it at all ? Becaufe, fays
he, I was DESIROUS to clear myjdf. How
then was it more than ivas agreeable to his
WILL ? or how does this long and imper-
pertinent Excuriion agree with the true
Cicero's account of His Oration upon this
Subject, afta res eft ACCURATE a nolns?
For it is difficult to apprehend, how a Piece
can be confident with Accuracy when
more than a Fifth part of it is acknow-
/ i
ledged by the Author himfelf to be extra
cauffam : and it were eafy to mow that
more than another Fifth of it is equally
extra caujfam, whether he acknowledged
it or not. For it feems to be drawn up as
if the Author had been obliged to write by
the page, and to eke out his Work to a cer-
tain given Length. It is the Third Part of
i the
PRODOMOSUA. 287
the Old Story concerning the Villany of
Clodius and his Aflbciates, (taken almoft
entirely out of Cicero's Orations for P.
Sexthts and upon L. Pifb) which he had
told Twice before, in the Two foregoing
Orations ; and a good deal of it will be re-
peated in the next, De Harujpicum Re/pon*
Jis : and if this Author had fet himfelf to
write a Speech upon Cicero's Marriage to
Publilia, I do not doubt but fome way or
other he would have contrived to introduce
the fame account of the pranks of Clodius,
Pifo, and Gabinius. There are very many
things to bs obferved in this Oration, but
at prefent I (hall confine myfelf to a few of
them.
Cap. xiv. Ita perturbath facris, conta-
minatis geniibus , et quam deferuijli, et
quam POLLUISTI, facJus cs cjus filiits con-
tra jas, cujus, per aetatem^ pater effe potu-
ifti. This is fpoken of P. Clodius, who left
his own Patrician Family, the Chdii, to
be adopted into a Plebeian, the Fonteii, in
order to be made a Tribune of the People.
But faeReafinfng is remarkable : Thus con-
founding the Sacred Rites, POLLUTING
the Two Families, both That which you for-
Jook, and 'That which you POLLUTED, you
became
288 REMARKS on the ORATION
became the Son of a Perfon, etc. He meant,
both That which you forfook, and That which
you 'were ADOPTED INTO, but his Head
would not carry him thro' one mort Period.
Cap. xviii. Velitis y jubsatis, u T M. Tul-
llo aqua et igni interdicatur. The Verb
jubeo^ with the Conjunction ut following
it, as in this place, has been look'd upon
as an Idioti/m> or peculiar manner of writ-
ing, not often to be met with. Cellaring
Cur. Pofterior. cap. v. which is De Idtotif-
mis et Singular i bus quibufdam etc. p. 180.
writes thus concerning it : " JUBEO, UT,
" Aureo illo et proximo Latinitatis aevo
" notetur ut Idiotifmus, quia ilia aetate
" Infinitivus jubendi Verbum frequentiiii-
" me et elegantiilime fubfequebatur. Kara
" .itaque funt, quae Livius xxxii, 16. fcrip-
<c fit : jujfitque y ut t quae ex fua clajje ve-
" niffent naves, Euboeam peterent : etTaci-
" tus xi, 32. juffit ut Britannicus et OcJa-
" via in complexum patris pergerent. etc.
" Poftrema aetate invaluit haec Syntaxis.
4C Lampridius Elaeagab. c. 13. jujfit^ ut
<c trucidarentur. Capitolinus in Marco c. n.
" jubenSj ut quinos aureos fcenici accipe-
rent" But Terence too writes in the lame
Conftruclion 3
PRO DOMO s u A. 289
Coriftru&ion, Adelph. Aft v. fc. 5. jube
dinumeret viginti minas. and Cellarius him-
felf brings Plautus Amphitruon. I, i.jubet,
lit dicant fententiam. to which he might
have added this in Sticho Adi. ii. fc. 2.
V. 71.
/, / intrOj Dinacium : jube Jamuks rem
divinam mihi apparent.
Tho' he makes an Exception to his Au-
thority, as being a Writer of Comedy \ and
therefore taking greater liberty, in which I
agree with him thus far, that Inftances
brought out of the Poets and Comic Writers
do prove indeed that fuch Inftances axeLaftrt}
but it does not thence follow that they might
or would be ufed upon all occafions by
Writers in ProJ'e. But what can be faid to this
of Cicero in Pijon. c. 29. At hoc nufquam opi-
hor Jcriptum fuiffe in illo elogio, quod, te con-
Jule, in fepulchro reipubticae incifum eft, Veli-
tis, jubeatis, UTI quod M. Ciceroverfumfe-
cerit ; fed quod vindicarit. for the Expli-
cation of which fee Manutius. Cicero does
not here find fault with the Latin of jubea-
tis uti. if he had, he would have forgotten
what Himfelf wrote in Verr. iv, 1 2. Hie tibi
in mcntern non venif, jubere, UT haec quo<-
que referret, H S vi millibus i^fetibiven-
U didi/ef
290 REMARKS on the ORATION
didtfle? So in the Antient Form of an
gatio, a fpecies of Adoption, in Gellius N.
A. V, 19. Velitis jubeatis, g>uirites, UTI
L. Valerius L. 'Titio tarn jure legequejiUus
fiet, quam Ji ex eo pat re matreque familias
ejus natus effet : etc. Liiy xxxviii, 54. Ve-
////V, jubeatis, UTI de ea re Ser. Sulpicius,
praetor urbanus, ad fenatum referat etc,
xxviii, 36. nunciatum ab Carthagine eft,
jubere fenatum, u T clajjem, quam Gadibus
baberef, in Italiam trajiceret. xxxv, 5. equi-
tes earum [legionum] extra aciem in locum
patentem ^ et P. Minucios tribunes militum
educere juffit : mde, quum Jjgnum dediffet^
impetum ex aperto facerent. xxxvi, i . Alter
conful cum Boiis juflus bellum gerere,
utro exercitu mallet ex duobus quos faperiores
confutes habuiffent -, alterum u T mitteret
Romam, etc. xxxviii, 35. comparare inter
fe t aut fortiri juffi, et novas exercitus, bi-
nds legiones fcribere, e t u T fociis Latini no-
minis quina dena millia peditum imperarent,
et mille ducentos equites. Auftor De Eello
Hifpanienfi (who wrote in Caefar's time)
cap. 27. Ucubim Pompeius praejidium quod
reliquit jufllt incenderent, et, deujlo oppido,
in caftra majorafe reciperent. Aucior De
Beth Alexandrino (of the fame Age) cap. 73 .
Hue
PRO DOMO SUA. 291
Hue omnem comportatum aggerem e caftris
fervitia agerent jurTit ; ne quis ab opere miles
difcederet. where juffit ne difcederet, is y ju/~
ft ut non difcederet ; or, ut ne difcederet, as
the Author of this Oration exprefles it above,
cap. 17. Velitis, jubeatis, UT M. Tullius in
cvvitate N E fit, bonaque ejus u T mea fint.
Thefe Inftances I fuppofe (and I could bring
feveral others) may be fufficient to fhew,
that this Conflruction of jubeo with ut, is
not fo very Rare or Singular, even in the
Golden Age of the Latin Tongue, tho' what
Cellarius fays concerning the greater fre-
quency of the other, is veiy true.
Ibid. Non tulit, ut INTERDICATUR.
quid ergo? ut INT ERD'ICTUM SIT. The
Difference which ourOrator here fuggefts be-
tween interdicatur and inte rdittum fit, both
of them the Prefent T'enfe of the Subjunctive
Mood, is none at all ; and the latter is full
as proper in this place as the former. What
then is it that he is aiming at, arid upon
the ftrength of which he would force the
Words of Clodius's Law into an Ab/hrdity ?
I fancy I can let you into the Secret and
Contrivance of it, which is worthy of the
Author. Inter dittum s I f is the prejent
<Tenfe of the Subjunft'rve Mood, and figni-
U 2 fies
292 REMARKS on the ORATION
fies the fame as interdicatur , as I faid be-
fore. But it denotes not only the Pre-
Jent Tenfe, but alfo the PreterperfecJ of
the fame Mood, and is the fame with in-
ter dictum FUERIT, as every School-Boy
knows. Now becaufe it may lignifie inter-
dicJitm fuerit , and it is to the Author's pur-
pofe that \tjhould -, therefore ityM/fignifie
fb. and then Clodiufs Law would have
been propounded to the People in this man-
ner : Velitis, jubeatis, ut M. Tullio aqua et
igni inter diftum FUERIT? Do ye 'will and
command ', O Citizens, that M. Tullius may
HAVE BEEN interdicted the ufe of Water
and Fire? inftead of, that M. Tul/iu
BE interdicted. By which means the
diSlion of Cicero , which was now for the
time propofed to the People by Clo-
as a thing at prefent to be done, will
be fpoken of as a thing already done, which
will make it Abfurd enough, for, as he
fays juft after, can any Law in the world
make a thing that HAS NOT been done^ be-
come a thing that HAS been done ? The
whole Argument evidently depends upon
this Double Signification of inter di&um fit.
and this is one of the miferable Co/ores to
which the Declaimers were often driven.
But
PRO DOMO s u A. 293
But Cicero, I am certain,, would have held
his tongue rather than have had recourfe to
flich a pitiful and precarious Quibble as
this. For if Clodius, who may be fuppofed
to be the beft judge of his own meaning,
had only affirmed that he defigned inter-
dlSlumfit in ihepre/ent Tenfe, the fame as
inter die atur j the Orator could have gone
no farther, and would have had nothin^
Q
left but to beg oiClodius to let it be taken
for interdicium fuerit ; for that other wife,
his Argument would be utterly ruiued.
Cap. xix. De hac igitar lege dicimus quae
jure rogata videatur : cnjus quam quijque
part cm tetigit digito, voce, PRAEDA, /uf-
fragio, quocunque venit, repudiatm con-
viftu/que difcejjit. He is fpeaking of C/c?-
dius's Law for the Banimment of Cicero j
and fays, That whofoever meddled in that
Law, either ((ligito) in penning it 5 or (wee)
in Jpeaking for it, or (fuffragio) in voting
for it, was fure to be caft, during Cicero's
Exile, in every Law-Suit he happened to
be engaged in : fo great and fo general was
the public Refentment againft Cicero's Ene-
mies. This is the Senfe of the paflage.
But who can explain the Language, tangere
a)iquam far tern legis PRAEDA ? or how
U 3 comes
.
294 REMARKS on the ORATION
comes quocumque venit to fignifie ad
cumque tribunal yenit ? for that muft be
the meaning of it, as appears from the words
repudiate convitfufque : fee Manutius's
Note. And now it is worth while to ob-
ferve the Ignorance or Negligence of our
Author in tranfcribing this PafTage out of
the Orat. pro P. Sextio cap. 3 T . uifquis
erat qui aliquam par tern in meo luffiu fceleris
Clodiani attigiffet^ quocumque venerat, quod
judicium cuinque fubierat, damnabatur.
Cicero does not fay, quifquis attigifl'et ali-
quam par tern feeler is Clodiani PRAEDA,
which he knew would have been unintel-
ligible : and being aware that quocumque ve-
nerat t by itfelf, would not neceflarily ex-
prefs his meaning, he therefore adds the
following Claufe, by way of illuftration,
quod judicium cumque fubierat. this too our
Author has got a little higher : qui in judi-
cium itenerant, Jive accufatores erant, Jive
ret, te deprecante, damnabantur. But if
you would fee a M after-piece of Blunder,
read the fentence which goes before this I
am upon : accufare alienae damnationis
fcekrifque focios (1. focius) proffer calutnmae
metum non eft aufus. Aelius LigurjA whom
he is fpeaking, being iet afide and taken no
notice
PRO DOMO SUA. 295
notice of in the laft Will of his Brother
M. Papirius, filed a Bill againft Sex. Pro-
pertius for the Murder of Papirius, but
durft not come to a Trial and accufe Pro-
pertius, becufe he himfelf was an Accom-
plice in the Murder, fo that Ligur was in-
deed Jocius fceleris, a partner in Proper tius's
Dittany ; but how could he be Jocius dam-
nationis, a partner in his condemnation,
when we are told in the fame fentence that
Propertius was fo far from being condemned,
that Ligur durft not fo much as accufe
him ? Such obvious Miftakes as thefe feem
to be, would aimed tempt a Reader to
diftruft himfelf, and to fufpecl: that there is
fome Trick and Defign conceal'd under
them.
Cap. xx. ne id quidem per legem Liciniam,
tit ipje tibi curationem fenes, facer epotuifti.
We may be enabled to judge of this pafTage
by feeing that of Cicero whence it was
taken, De Leg. Agrar. ii, 8. Licinia eft
lex, atque altera Aebutia, quae non modo
eum qui tulerit de aliqua curatione ac po-
teftate, fed etiam collegas ejus, cognatos, aj-
Jines excipit, ne eis eapotejias curatiove man-
detur. Hence it fhould feem that our Au-
U 4 thor
296 R E M A R KS On the O R A T I O N
thor did not underftand the place of Cicero,
in whom ferre de aliquacuratione, \s y jerre
Icgem or rogationem de aliqua curatione, to,
prefer or propound a Law or Bill concerning
any Office or fru/1 : a very ufual Ellipfis,
and in other places not unknown to this
Writer himfelf. But here, what in full
would have been, ferre rogationem de cura-
ttone tibimandanda^ he has cropt and chang'4
into Jerre curationem tibi : which Latin
Purely can never exprefs the Senfe required,
for it feems impQiUble from the Ufe of
Language that/irri confulatum {Lould figni-
fie ferre rogationem de conjulatu ; or that
ferre exercitum tibi y can fland for, ferre
legem de exercitu tibi mqndando. Livy calls
it deferre curationem ad aliquem, Lib. xxvii.
c. 30. Had it not been for that paflage of
Cicero, neither the Meaning nor the Mif-
take of this could have been difcovered. As
ftrange is this in the fame Chapter, \iGrae-
viits's Interpretation of it be true : ut in
Afia Cijiopfarum Jlagitaret. which he ex-
plains thus : " hoc eft ut juberet in vectiga-
<c libus et tributis pendendis non alia pecu-
f< nia uti Afiaticosquam Ciflophoris."! will
not pretend to give a better explication of
it, for I do not underftand it. nor do J
4 mention
PRO Do MO s u A. 297
mention this with the leaft defign or incli-
nation to reflect upon the excellent Grae-
vius, whofe interpretation may be true for
ought I can fay to the contrary. But in the
mean time what is become of the Proprie-
ty and Perfpicuity of Cicero's Expreffion ?
For if this Liberty in writing (where no
Inftance is given of it, nor Reafon for it)
be allowable, I do not fee why Any thing
may not fignjfie Every thing ; and why
Anna <uirwnque cano may not exprefs the
J&me fenfe as Trojae qui primus ab oris.
Cap. 25. ex quo judlcare pot eft is, quanta
ris ilia fuerif orient, et congregata^ cum
baec Cn. Pompeium terruerit jam diftracla, et
EXTINCT A. In the foregoing fentence he
had been giving an account, that after
Clodius had removed Cicero and Cato out of
the way, his next attack was upon Pompey ;
in which at firft he was afniied by both the
Gonfuls, Pifo and Gabinius. afterwards
Gabinius went over to Pompey^ and carried
with him the larger (hare of Clodius *
Party : but Pijo continued firm to Clodius.
This Divifion occasioned fuch Outrages and
Violences, that Pompey was obliged for his
own fafety to (hut himfelf up in his own
Houfe
298 REMARKS on the ORATION
Houfe all the remainder of the year of C/o-
dius's Tribunate. Then follows the paffage
quoted, e x quo judicare pot eft is etc. whence
you may judge, how great, in its rife, and
when at its full, That (united) power muji
needs be, when now divided and EXTINCT */
could frighten Cn. Pompey, What, could
Pompey the Great be frightned by a Power
that was extinft ? Or, fuppofing it poffible,
how could That Power be exftinfta, which,
in the very word that goes before, was only
diftra&a, or divided from another Part of
it ? Is this Stupidity fuitable to the Charac-
ter of Cicero ?
Cap. xxxii. Denique univerfus Senatus,
multo ante quam eft lata lex de me, GRA-
TIAS AGENDAS CCnfuit CIVITATIBUS
iis QUAE M. TULLIUM : tantumne? im*
mo etiam, CIVEM OPTIME DE REPUB-
LICA MERITUM, RECEPISSENT. He
feems to confound the Letter of Recommen-
dation, written by the Authority of the
Senate to the Foreign Cities and States,
that they would receive and entertain Cice-
ro in his Exile, with the Jitter of Thanks
written afterwards. The words which are
put in Capitals are fuppofed to be the words
of the Letter. But I fear the Author makes
a falfe
PRODOMOSUA. 299
a falfe Quotation, and falls very fhort of
doing Juftice to Cicero. For civis optime
meritus de republica is a Character which
belonged to many Hundreds of Romans as
well as to Cicero, but the Title which was
given to him in That Letter of Recommen-
dation, was, civem conjervatorem reipubli-
cae : which furpafles the other infinitely,
and had never been given to any Citizen
before him. It happens fortunately for
Cicero that He himfelf has preferved the very
Words of this Letter, in the Orat. in Pijo-
nem cap. xv. Me idem Senatus exteris na-
tionibus, me legatis magiftratibufque no-
ftri3 auttoritate fua , confularibus litte-
ris, non, ut tu Injuber dicere an/its es, or-
batum patria, Jed> ut Senatus illo ipfo tern-
pore appellavit, CIVEM CONSERVATOREM
REIPUBLICAE, commendavit . So that if
Cicero , in quoting the Original Letter of the
Senate, had put, as this Author makes him,
optime de republica meritum inftead of con-
Jervatorem reipublicae 3 he would not only
have been guilty of Faljification, but would
likewife have been greatly wanting to
Himfelf and to his own due Praife : a De-
fed with which he feldom has been charged,
tho' at the fame time his Adverfaries muft
confefs
300 REMARKS^ the ORATION
confeis that he never faid more of Himfelf
than was really True, nor more than he
really deferved ; and fbmetimes lefs. For
ia Paradox, iv. when he was not under the
fame neceffity of citing thefe words of this
Letter of the Senate, as our Author was
here j inftead of conjervatoris reipublicae y as
he might truly have faid, he only puts ciyh
optimi^ another exprefilon out of the fame
Letter. Ergo ego Jemper civis ; ct turn ma-
xime y cum meant falutem Senatus exteris na-
tionibus, ut CIVISOPTIMI, cornmendabat .
It is certain that a Letter of thanks too was
written by order of the Senate upon Cicero's
account: fee pro P. Sextio c. 60. andP/#-
tarch in Cic. p. 877. But, befides that no
particular paflage of this Letter of Thanks
is mentioned by Cicero, or by any other
Writer -, it is very Improbable that the Se-
nate, who in their Letter oj Recommenda-
tion had given him the glorious Title of Con-
Jervafor republicae^ mould afterwards in their
Letter of Thanks degrade him to the Ordi-
nary Character of only an optime men f us de
republica. This looks either like a Fiction
of the Author, or a Miftake from his con-
founding the Two Letters : tho' I fee the
Subterfuge of a Pojjibility\ I have diftin-
guimed
PRO DOMO s u A. *oi
y
guimed this paflage of the Oration as it
ought to be. in the Editions it is thus, multo
ante t quam eft lata /ex, de me gratias agen-
das etc. by which means lex will fignifie
Chdius's Law concerning Cicero's Banifh-*
nient, which was mentioned in the pre-
ceding fentence, quite contrary to the in-
tention of the Author, who by lex de me,
meant (and indeed, inftead of k mould
have written) lex de reditu mco : as cap. 26.
L. Gotta , qui legem de reditu meojfcraz-
dam non cenjuit. which a little lower in that
Chapter he calls lex de me : rightly there,
becaufe no body could miftake his mean-
ing when he had juft before put lex de re-
ditu meo y and was ftill fpeaking of the fame
thing. So Cicero pro Milon. c. 14. having
faid, cum de reditu meo legem jerr-et ; foon
after expreffes the fame thing by, cum eft
lata lex de me. which latter he would not
have put, had he not expreft it fully juft
before in the former.
Cap. xxxv. illiits pukberrimi fadli, quod
ex auftoritate Senatus gefliflem, etc.
Notwithftanding this might be written in
the time of Auguftus or Tiberitts, yet it cer-
tainly is not Latin. For no Roman Writer
ever
R E M A R K S Oil the O R A T I O N
ever fays fafium gero, but rem gero or nego-
tium gero. becaufe res or negotium may im-
ply a thing now doing, or depending : but
fafium cannot j fork isresfatfa, a thing
already done. So \h.i&.fac3um quod geffiffem,
if there were any fuch phrafe, (as I think
there cannot be) would in effect fignifie;
not, as the Author intended, a thing 'Which
I did; but, a thing already done by me;
which I did-, viz. after it was already done
by me. This is very furprizing in a Wri-
ter fo near the time of Cicero.
Cap. xliii. Jlgnum de bufto meretricis ab-
latum ijll dedit y quod ejjet Jlgnum magis Ijlo-
rum y quampublicae libertatis. ApplusClau-^
dius brought out of Greece the Statue of an
Harlot of T'anagra in Boeotia, which he
took from her Tomb, upon which it was
placed. This he made a prefent of to
his Brother P. Clodius, who turned the
Harlot into a Goddefs, Libertas -> and built
a Temple to her in the area of Cicertfs
Houfe. But how, and in what Senfe, was
this Statue (fignum) to be a fign of their li-
berty rather than of the public liberty ? He
has fpoilt the Conceit by not expreffing it
in the words he would, or fhould, have
done;
PRO DOMO s u A. 303
done: quod ejjet Jignum magis ijlorum LI-
CENTIAE quam pubhcae LIBERT ATIS :
to be ajign of their LICENTIOUSNESS ra-
ther than of the Public LIBERTY. So cap.
5 1 . ftmulacrum non LIBERTATIS publicae,
fed LICENTIAE collocafli. where, after li-
centiae^ the word tuae feems to be wanting,
perhaps loft in the two laft fyllables (tiae)
of the preceding word, which appears more
probable from a fimilar pafTage in Livy iii,
3 7. propalam LICENTIAM fuam matte quam
populi LIBERTATEM. and Lib. xxvii, c.
31. LIBERTATEM quam aliis vanam ojlen-
diflet, tot am in fuam LICENTIAM verier at.
Cicero De Legg. ii, 17. calls this Building
of Chdius, Templum Licentiae.
Ibid, imaginem meretricis a FUREfub-
Jatam, a facrilego colkcatam ? This cannot
with any appearance of probability be im-
puted to Cicero ; who, if he had no more re-
gard to Decency and good Manners, could
not be fo foolim and imprudent as out of
wantonnefs to ftigmatize, by the moft low
and reproachful name of Fur, a perfon of the
Firft Quality in Rome, Appius Claudius, at
that time Praetor, a man of Character, (as
who was Cenfor not long after) and one whom
in feveral places he excufes for taking the
part
RF, M :ARKS on the OR ATI ON
part of his Brother Publius Clodius, by fay-
ing, 'That nothing lefs could be expetfed from
one Brother to-war ds another : one moreover,
with whom, not many years after, he had
a great Intimacy and Friendfhip ; which he
could not with any modefty have hoped ^
or ever brought about, had he fpoken and
publifhed this Oration with that Scandalous
monofyllable in it, never to be forgiven by
the High Spirit of one of the Claudian Fa-
mily. In my opinion, the Declaimer could
not forget himfelf more groily, or write
more widely out of Character, than he has
done here in this tingle Word.
Cap. xliv. po/uit fcilicet Scatonem ilium,
hominem fua virtute egentem ; ut is qui in
Marfis, ubi natus eft y etc. I cannot teil
whence this Author took his expreiTion,
hominem fua virtute egentem, a man ivbo is
in want upon the account of his Worth :
which feems to be entirely his own. But
the Perfon, Scato the Marfian, I believe
was brought hither from Philipp. xii. 11.
Cn. PompeitiSy Sextijilius, conful, me prae-
fenfe, cum ejjem tiro in ejus exercitit, cum
P. Vettio SCATONE, duce Marforum, inter
bina cajlra colhcutus eft.
Cap. xlv.
,
PRO DOMO su A; 305
Cap. xlv. Si auftoritatem quaerimus, etfi
id eft aetatis ut nondum [au&oritatem] con-
fecutus jit -, tamen quanta eft in adokfcente
aufforitas, ea y pr'opter tantam conjuncJionem
affinitatis, minor eft putanda. This, I think,
is not Latin. He fhould have faid, tamen>
quantacumque eft in adolejcente aufforitas :
not quanta. So pro M. Mar cello cap. 2. to-
turn hoc, quantumcumque eft, quod certe ma-
ximum eft , etc. Pro L. Corn. Balbo cap. 25.
pecuniam L. Cornelii, quae neque invidioja
eft> ef, quantacumque ejl^ ejufmodi eft ut
conferva fa magis quam correpta effe videatur.
Or, quanta quanta eft : as Ad Attic, xii, 23.
Sed quanti quanti, bene emitur quod neceffe
eft. and Terence Adelph. iii, 3.
Ttf, quantus quantus, ?iihilnififapientia es.
So quibus quibus Romanis, Livy xli, 8. for
quibufcumque -, from the Nominative qui~
gut, i. e. quicumque : and ubi ubi for ubicum-
que, xlii, 57. as qualis qualis for qualifcum-
que : fee Cellar i us Cur. Pofterior. p. 236.
It is not impoffible but this may have been
the fault of the Tranfcriber, in not repeating
the word quanta ; as, on the other hand,
perhaps it may have been the fault of the
Author himfelf. But why the Authority
of this young Prieft, L. Pinarius Natta,
Brother-
306 REMARKS on the ORATION
Brother-in-Lavv to Clodius, {hould be ever
the lefs, as a Prieft, becaufe of his Affi-
nity to Clodius, muft be left to this Writer
to account for. His tfejlimony as a Wit-
nefs might indeed have been more liable
to Sufpicion upon the account of this Affi-
nity : but his Authority^ as a Prieft, was
affected neither more nor lefs by his Rela-
tion to Clodius, than it would have been
by his Relation to Pompey or Cicero. A
little higher in the fame Chapter, inflead
s&pofuerat and auttoritatem, it mould be
read opus erat and auftoritate^ as appears
from what follows, opus erat etiam fcientid.
tho' ftill the paflage feems to be Defective.
Cap. xlvi. Poftem tencri in dedications
uideor audi/Te templi. In the words which
JJ *
go before thefe, he had owned his igno-
rance in the jus Pontificium : " or, fays
" he, had I been acquainted with it, I
" would have diflembled my knowledge,
" left I mould be troublefome to others, or
" to you feem too prying and curious:
*' tho' indeed, continues he, there are
" many things in your Science which get
ct abroad and come to our hearing :" of
which he gives the Inftance juft quoted,
/ think
PRO Do MO s u A. 307
1 'think I have heard, that in the Dedication
of a Temple it is neceffary that the Pojl of it
fiould be taken hold of. How is it poffible
that Cicero^ who had fo perfeft a know-
ledge of the Cuftoms of his Country, could
talk in this idle manner, and mention, as a
kind of Secret or Hearfay, a thing which
every Boy at Rome did, or might, know ?
For the Dedication of a Temple was a
Public Ceremony, performed before the
People, as appears from this paflage of Plu-
tarch in ihcLifeofPoptico/a p. 104. fpeak-
ing of the Dedication of the Capitol by M.
Horatius Puhillus : ^our^fay UTTCIVTUV
sit; TO KtzfrtTuhiov, o ttyj 'jn^r/^j etc. all
the people being ajjembled at the Capitol, after
Jilence 'was made, Horatius, having per-
formed the other Ceremonies , and taken hold
of the Door, as is cuftomary, pronounced the
Form of words appointed in Dedications. Nay,
the Perfons who were to perform the Of-
fice of the Dedication, both the Prieft and
the Magijlrate, were appointed by the
People, as you may fee in Cicero himfelf
Ad Attic, iv, 2. and Livy ix, 46. and feve-
ral other places, fee too this Oration cap.
49- 5- 53* Jf *^ s be not hofpitem eje and
peregrinari in fua patria, I do not know
X 2 what
308 REMARKS on the ORATION
what is. And indeed this paffage, and
many others in thefe Orations, give juft
reafon to fufpecl, that the Writer of them
was not an Inhabitant of Rome, but a Pro-
vincial, one who never was prefent at the
Dedication of a Temple, and who did not
fpeak of thefe matters from what He, him-
felf knew and had feen. The Montani
whom (cap. 28.) he mentions as a part of
the plebs urbana of Rome, greatly favour
this Sufpicion. For wherefoever he liv'd,
he could not be ignorant that Rome was
built and inhabited upon Seven monies or
bills : whence Septem montibus is put in-
flead of Romae by Statius Silvar. iv, 3. 26.
Hence he might imagine and conclude,
that the plebs or commonalty dwelling upon
thofe hills, might be diftinguiflied from
thofe of the Lower or more Level parts of
Rome y by the appellation of montani ; a
People, in all probability of his own Crea-
tion : for no mention is made of them un-
der that name by any other Writer, as far
as is known, who was acquainted with
Antient Rome. So again, in the fame chap-
ter : Scribae, qui nobijcum in rationibus^
monument ijque publicis verfantur^ non obfcu-
rum de msis in rempublicam benefaiis fuum
judicmm
PRO DOMO SUA. 309
judidum decretumque ejje voluerunt. SigoMs
De Antiq. Jure Civ. Rom. II, 9. had ob-
ferved that the Scribes at Rome were not a
very creditable Order or Body of men.
I have not the Book by me, fo that I can-
not tell what Reafons or Proofs he brings
to confirm his Remark : but Graevius in
his Note here, thinks that Sigonius's Ob-
fervation is confuted by this paflage, be-
caufe the Scribes are mentioned next to the
Equeftrian Order. To this might be ad-
ded in Catilin. iv, 7. (out of which, and
another in Verr. iii, 79. this paflage of our
Author is made up) where the Equites are
mentioned firlt 5 next, the Tributri aerarii ;
and then the Scribae. Nay further, Cicero
in exprefs terms does not deny them to be
or do honeftus, in Verr. iii, 79. where Hor-
tenjius is fuppofed to fay of the Scribes, Eft
or do honeftus. to which Cicero anfwers, Otyit
negat ? And yet all thefe feeming Autho-
rities, with this Writer's tack'd to them,
are but of little weight againft One plain
and exprefs Tedimony which. I fhall quote
below. For, in the firft place, the mention
of the Scribes next to the Equites and 7n-
buni aerariiy in the paflage in Catilin. iv, 7.
was merely an accidental thing, owing to
X 3 their
310 REMARKS on the ORATION
their having met together that day at the
Treajury : Scribas item univerfos j quos
cum CASU hie dies ad aerarium frequentef-
fet, etc. had they not happen' d to have been
there that day, in all likelihood we mould
have heard nothing of the Scribes in parti-
cular, and as diftinguimed from the reft of
the Citizens. Next, as to the pafTage in Verr*
iii, 79. it muft be confider'd, that it was
not the Orator's bufmefs to difoblige a great
Body of men, whom Hortenjius would fpi-
rit up and incenfe againft him for oppofing
the exorbitancy of their Fees, and would
often be objecting to him, Eft or do honeftus.
I do not deny it, fays Cicero : but why is
it ordo honeftus ? becaufe, eorum hominum
Jidei tabulae publicae periculaque magiftra-
tuum committuntur. whence our Author
took his Thought, qui nobifcum in rationi-
bus monument i/que publicis verfantur. But
in reality, Cicero fpeaks very flightingly of
them in general, both in that and the pre-
ceding Chapter, and cap. 66 : tho* he al-
lows that feme of them were very honefl
and worthy men. But as to the Order or
Rank they held in the State, we need no.
other Teftimony than this of a great Friend
and Acquaintance of Cicero, Corn. Nepos,
who
PRODOMOSUA. 311
who, I fuppofe, had no particular reafon (as
Cicero or Horlenfius perhaps might have)
to fpeak of them otherwife than they really
were; and who in Rumen, cap. i. writes
thus concerning them : Itaque eum [Eume-
nem] habuit ad manum, fcribae. loco ; quod
ttiulto apud Gram honorific entius ejl quam
apud Romanes, mm apud nos revera, ficut
funf, mcrcenarii Scribae exijlimantur. And
fo Cicero in Verr. iii, 78. calls a Scribe, ap-
par it 'or , parva merccde populi conduct us : and
cap. 66. he fneers at the Title of Scriba,
which they ufed to give themfelves in their
Letters, L. Papirius SCR IB A ; and would
have the Accenji^ Li Stores, and Fiatores y
the loweft and meaneft Attendants upon
Magistrates, do likewife. The fame ap-
pears too from Lfoy Lib. xxxviii, 51. 55.
where they are joined with the Accenfi and
Viatorcs. fee alfo Lib. ix. cap. 46. where
he gives a ihort account of the famous
Scribe, C. Flavius, who was refufed to be
admitted as a Candidate for the AettilfJBipi
becaufe he did fcriptum facere, or, was a
Scribe, and Suetonius in Vejpafian. cap. 3.
fpeaking of the low condition of Flavins
Liberalis, Father of the Emprefs Flavia
DomitiHa, fays of him that he was nee quid-
X 4 quam
312 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
quam amplius quam Quaeftorio fcriba> of no
higher Jlation than the Scribe of a Quaeftor.
They frequently were Freed-men : Horace
Serm. I, 5. Scriba quod effet ^.Nihtlo deterius
dominae jus efle : and bought their places :
Cicero ibid. c. 79. mirabimur, turpes ali-
quot ibi effe, quo cuivis licet PRECIO perue-
nire ? If therefore this Author placed them
next to the Equites as in a Poft of Rank
and Diftinction, (as Graevms thinks he
did, and very probably he did, being de-
ceived by the pafFage in Catilin. iv, 7.) it
feems to me an evident Proof of his being
an Alien^ and unacquainted with the true
Condition of an Order of men, of whofe
Inferior Station no body who Uvd at Rome
could poffibly be ignorant. Once more a
cap. 45. Non te pudet^ cum apud pontifices res
agafur, pontificem dicer e^ non collegium pon-
tificum^ adfuijfe - y praejertim cum tribunus
plebis, i*?/ denuntiare potueris, vel etiam
COGERE t He fays that a tribunus plebis
had power to compel the priefts to be prefent
at the Dedication of a Temple. I men-
tioned above, that the People appointed the
Prieft who mould perform the Ceremonial
in thofe Dedications, but it may juftly be
doubted whether the Power of fflew, or of
their
PRO DOMO su A. 313
their Reprefentatives, the Tribunes ^ ex-
tended fo far as to force any other Priefl
(for One only was neceffary) againft his
Will to be prefent at this Office j that is,
fo far as to have it in their power to Fine
him upon his refufal : and Dion. Halicar-
naffenfis Antiq. Rom. Lib. II. whofe Autho-
rity is of great weight, fays, as referred to
by Graevius, that the Priefts were dwmu-
Quutoi, a judiciis et multta immune T, as Grae-
vius explains it ; that is, exempted frotn the
Courts of Civil Judicature, and from Multfs :
tho' it is certain that the Priefts, as Juch^
were fubjecl: to Fines laid upon them by
the Pontifcx Maximus : of which fee two
notable Inftances in Livy Lib. xxxvii, 51.
xl, 42. and another in Cicero Philipp. xi,
8. where neverthelefs the Multts inflided
upon the Priefts by the Pontifex Maximus^
were remitted by the People. But why ?
Becaufe in all thofe Three Cafes, the Civil
Government was interefted in the Difpute,
the Subject of which was a Magiftrate or
Officer of the State (fee the paflages) as
well as a Prieft : and therefore the Appeal
was made to the People as a Party concernU
But ordinarily, the Priefts t in Religious
matters, feem to have been under the im-
mediate
314 REMARKS on the ORATION
mediate Power of none but the Pont if ex
Maximus j from whofe Sentence however,
in mixt Cafes, as the abovementioned were,
if they thought themfelves aggrieved, they
could have refort to the People ; .who then,
as Judges, had a Right either to confirm or
invalidate the precedent Sentence of the
Pontijex Maximus. and the Determination
of the People in all the aforefaid Inftances
was, That the Prieft mould obey the Pon-
tijex Maximus. I mention this, that it
may be enquired into more carefully, and
Inftances fought after. For if the Tribune's
Power did not (and I believe it did not)
reach fo far as to force or compel the Priejis,
zsjuch ; the Ignorance of the Author in
this matter will be another ftrong Proof
that he was not an Inhabitant of Rome. But
to return to the paffage I was upon, Poftem
teneri in dedicatione <videor audijje templi :
which is followed by, ibi ENIM poftis eft
ubi templi aditus eft, et vafoae. What
can be the Defign of the Proof in this
Humble Sentence ? The Rational (enim)
feems to fland there juft to as much pur-
pofe as it does above, cap. 32. nihil ENIM
poterat dicere y quare rata non effent, quae
grant afta in ea republica, in qua etc. in
which
PRO DOMO s u A. 315
which places the Matters of Logic would
do a kind thing if they would lay their
heads together, and help us out. He feems
to mean autem in both the paffages.
Cap. Iv'i'ii. non (me) tedtorum exci-
fio permovet : do mo per Jcelus crept d y per
latrocinium occupatd cat ere fine meo dede-
core ac dolore, non poffum. Thefe words,
which I have joined together, are feparated
in the Original by the intervention of feve-
ral others : but they are in the fame Pe-
riod 3 which being a pretty long one, the
Contradiction or Inaccuracy is no more
than might be expected from fuch a For-
getful Writer as this. In the former part
of the Sentence he fays, that the deflrucJion
of his TECTA (houfes) gives him no great
uneafinefs : but in the latter, that be can-
not be deprived of bis DOMUS (houfe) without
the greatejl difgrace and grief . Pray where
lies the difference between tefta and domus,
that the former fhould give him fo little
concern, the latter fo much? Had te&a
fignified country-houfes, and domus an houfe
in the city, (which is the thing he meant)
fome reafon might have been given for what
jie fays, but; as there is no fuch DiftincTion
3i 6 REMARKS on the OR A T ION
in the Latin Tongue, the tettorum excijio,
which gives him fo little uneafinefs, com-
prehends the definition of ALL his boufes-,
confequently, among the reft, the deftruc-
tion of his domus too, which gives himyo
great uneafinefs. and indeed his City-bouje
(damns) upon mount Palatine^ was exci/a,
demolijhedy burnt and plundered, as effec-
tually as any of his other tetfa, his Formi-
amtm> c fufculanum j or Suburbanum : as, on
the other hand, his Country- houfes (tecta)
were per fcelus erepta and per latrocinium
eccupatd, as much as his Houfe at Rome .
The great ovsrfight of the Author lies
in his having omitted ceterorum before te-
fforum y and urband after domo.
Ibid, ad noftrum ufum propemodum jam
eft defnita MODERATIO reifamiliaris. Ci-
cero, I believe, would have written definitus
MODUS rei jatniliaris. For moderatio rei
familiaris feems to be a different .thing,
viz. the government or management of one's
eftate. But if the Language be faultlefs,
the Subject or Matter is certainly faulty, as
I noted above upon cap. j. of the Orat.
Ad ^uirit. poft reditum.
Ibid, domo per religionis VIM feeler atiiis
(flaw aedifcata quam everfa, etc. Per reli-
gionh
PRO Doitfo s u A. 317
gionis VIM, is, by the FORCE or POWER
of religion, but he evidently meant juft the
contrary, viz. under the SHEW or PRE-
TENCE of religion, that is, per SPECIEM(OT
obtentum) religionis ; as thefe words vis and
Jpecies are Oppos'd in Ltiy xxviii, 24, et
ut VIM imperil abftulerant, ita SPEC IBM
*//?0 parentium, ultro fibi imperantes, fer-
vabant. Our Author calls it nomine religi-
onis cap. 42. quae major es noftri religwnibus
tut a nobis etfanffa ejfe voluenmt, ea ifa non
jolum contra religionem, labejatfavit, fed
etiam ipfius religionis nomine evertit. And
from this laft paflage, another, I believe,
may be reflored, which is to the lame pur-
pofe, cap. 53. quod in naujragio reipubU-
cae dirueris y aedificdris, religione vmm
violata, religionis tamen nomine, antami-
naris. Inftead of religionis tamen t in die
Editt. before Graevius it was reip. tantum,
the laft word was changed into tamen by
Manutius from Conjecture, and confirmed
and publimed fo by Grafvtus. and I imagine
that reip. y which is now in all the Editions,
is a miftake of the Copyer inftead of rel,
i. e. religionis.
REMARKS
318 REMARKS on the ORAT IOM
REMARKS on the ORATION
De Harufpicum Refponfis.
ID O not find that Cicero in any part of
his Works gives the leaft hint that he
ever fpake or 'wrote an Oration upon this
Subject. Even Dio Lib. xxxix. the only
Author, I believe, who gives any account
of this affair, tho' he fays that Clodius turn'd
the Anjwer of the Hani/pices (concerning
The Profanation of Sacred and Religious
places) againfl Cicero, for rebuilding his
Houfe upon its former Area, which Clodius
had confecrated to the Goddefs Libert as \
yet he is filent as to any Reply or Speech
made by Cicero upon this head. But Afco-
conim Pedianus, who flourished long be-
fore Dio, clearly and without any Doubt
quotes it as Cicero's, in his Comment upon
this Fragment of the Oration pro C. Cornelio,
p. ,132. Ed.Lugd. Bat. 1675. (in the Edi-
tion of Graevius it is Tom. vi. p. 961.)
P. Africanus ille fuperior, nonjblumafa-
pientiffimis hominibus, qui turn erant, verum
etiam afeipjb, faepe accufatus eft, quod, cunt
Conjul efjet cum Tl Longo, pajfus ejjet turn
primum a populari confejjujenatoriajubfellia
ftp*-
DE IlAausPicuM RESPONSIS. 319
jri. Upon which, after having firft
merilioned, out of Valerius Antias the
Hiftorian, the Year when this affignment
of diftinft Seats for the Senators took place,
he comments thus : " et videtur in hac
" oratione hunc quidem auctorem ( Vale-
" rium Antiateni] fecutus Cicero,dixifre,/><a/-
" fum effe Scipionem fecerni a cetero confeflu
" fpedtacula fenatorum. in ea autem, quam
" port aliquot annos habuit De Arufpicum
" Rejponfo, nonpajjum effe Scipionem, fed
" ipfum auftorem fuiffe dandi eum locutn
" fenatoribus, videtur fignifkare. Verba
<{ ejus haec funt :" Nam quid ego de illis
ludis loquar quos in Palatio noftri major es ante
templum MatrisMagnaeJien celebrarique w-
luerunt? quibus primum ludis ante populi
concejjum (leg. conjejjum) Jenatui locum P.
Africanus II. Cof. et collega ejus Semproniu^
Longus, hoc tributum effe Jenatui fcribit^ fed
JinementioneMegalenfmm. <f Aediles enim
" eos ludos facere fbliti erant. votivis ludis
f fadl;um tradit, quos Scipio et Longus CofT.
'* fecerunt." There are very confiderable
differences between the prefent Text of the
Oration (cap. xii.) as it is in the Editions,
and this of Afconius, which feems to be
Defective, and to want dederunt, and fome-
thin
320 REM A RKS on the OR AT ION
thing betides, after Sempronius Longus :
and the following words, hoc tributum effe
fenatui fcribit, fed Jine mentione Megakn-
Jium y ought not to have been marked as the
words of Cicero ; for they are Afconluss.
laftly, before vottvis ludis the Name of
fome Author or Hiftorian (perhaps Clodius
Licinius : fee Livy xxix, 22.) feems to be
wanting. Thofe who are more curious,
and are defirous to examine further into
this matter than at prefent is to my purpofe,
may look into Livy Lib. xxix, 22. xxxiv,
43, 53. (from which lafl paflage it appears
that inftead of T. Scribonius Libo in Afco-
nius, it fhould be written L. Scribonius
Libo: fee Lib. xxxv, 10.) and xxxvi, 36.
But it is very obfervable, that the Reafon
for which Afconius quotes this paflage of
the Oration De Harufpicum Refponjb, is. a
ftrong Argument againft its being genuine.
for he quotes it to fhew that it contraditfs
another place of Cicero. If you except
manifeft Anachronifms, fuch as, when a
fuppofed Author fpeaks of things which did
not happen till after his Death ; you can
fcarce have a better Proof of the Spuriouf-
nefs of any Piece, than its contradicting the
genuine Writings of the Author whofe
Name
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 321
Name it bears *. And the fame in a lower
degree holds good with refpecl to the tefli-
mony of^uintilian concerning this Oration.
For he, fpeaking of Rhetorical Proofs taken
from Examples, fays, That fome Writers
under this head place the Authority of the
Gods,
* Afconius accounts for the Difference thus :
Non praeterire autem vos volo^ ejje oratoriae callidita-
tis, ut, cum opus Jit, e:fde?n rebus ab utraqne parte 9
i)el a contrariisj utantur. narn cum^ fecundiim Cicero-
ni s opinionem^ aufJore Scipione confide ^ Acdiles fecre-
tunt ante omnes locum fpeflandi fenatoribus dederint;
eodcm illo fafio Scipionis^ in bac quidem oratione?
quid caufa popular is erat y premebaturque fenatus
aufloritate, atque cb id dignitatem cjus ordinis quani
pojjit maxime elevari caufae expediebat y poenituiffe ait
Scipionem quod paffus effet id fieri : in ea oratione DC
Arufyicum Rcfponfo, quia in fenatu habebatur cujus
auribus erat blandiendum, et magnopere ilium laudat^
et non auclorem fuijfe dandi^ narn id erat levins, fed
ipfum ctlam dedijje dicit. This method of reconciling
contrarieties by the help of the cratoria calliditas, as
Afconius calls it, if admitted, will make it almoft an
impoffible thing ever to fix a Contradiction or Falfe-
hood upon an Orator. For if, confiftently with Ora-
tory^ the fame perfon, Scipio for inftance, may in one
place be faid, to have been SORRY that be SUFFER-
ED a thing to be DONE, and in another place of the
fame Author may be faid, to have been the perfon who
DID that very thing ; it will feem to follow, that O-
ratory and Falfebwd are only different Names of the
Y fame
322 REMARKS on the ORATION
Gods, expreft in their Anfwers, either by
Oracles^ or by the Vates ; which thole
Writers look upon as a leading Proof. This,
fays he, is J'carce : neverthelefs, Cicero
makes ufe of it in a Piece Concerning the An-
fame Thing; ?nd that the antient Definition of an
Orator^ Fir BONUS, DICENDI periius^ might as well
have been, Vir MALUS, MENTIENDI peritus. But
it is pleafant toobferve, that Jfconius, while he is
excufmg the Author for contradicting the true dcerc,
has himfelf in that Note fallen into a manifeft Contra-
diction, as you will fee by comparing his words, in
the former part of the Note he writes thus : in ea au-
tem [orations] quani poft aliquot annos habuit De Aruj-
picurn Refponfo) non pajfum ejfe Scipionem^ Jed ipfuni
audtorem fuiffe dandi eum kcum Senataribusy vidttur
fignificare. in the latter, thus : in ea fadd auiem to
the Context, as above J oratione De Arufpicum Ref-
ponfo ft-magnopere ilium [Scipiontm~\ laudai^ et non
audtorem fuifle dandi, (nam id erat leviu*} fed ipj'um
etiatn dedijjedicit. So that according to Jfcc;-ius in this
Note, Cicero in the fame Oration fays, Sdpionetn
auflorem fuijfe dandi ^ and, Sclpionem non auttorem
JuiJJe dandi. both which however may perhaps be true
according to his own Dcclrine of the orat^rla callidi-
tas. This Note was written very haftily. To make
Afconius confiftent with Himfelf, in the former place,
inflead of, fed ipfum au ft or em fuijfe dandi ? he fhould
have written, fed ipfum dedijfe : and in the latter,
inftead of non aufforem fuijje dandi^ it fhould have
been, non pajjiim fitijfe* Examine the places and you
will find it to be fo.
fivers
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 323
Jlvers of the Harujpices : Inftitut. Orat. Lib.
v. cap. xi. Ponititr a quibuj'dam\ et quidem
in parte prima^ Dsorum Aufforitas, quae
eft ex Rejponfis ; ut^ Socratem effe fapi-
entifiimum. Id R ARUM eft : tamen utitur
ed Cicerv in libro De Harufpicum Rejponfis.
The Circumflances, of this kind of Proof
being Jcarce, and no Inftance of it being
brought by Quintilian, except this One, out
of a Piece in Difpute, and liable to Sujpi-
clon y are by no means favourable to the
Oration, and as to Quint iliaris Judgment
and Skill in difcerning and ditlinguiming
between the Genuine and Spurious Works
of Authors, he has left us an Inftance of
it, which, if without Offence we may be
permitted to fpeak the Truth concerning
an Antient fo juilly celebrated and admired
upon other accounts, is fomewhat furprizing
to us Moderns, who are wont to look upon
the great Authors of Antiquity as alrnofl
exempted from thofe Defects to which we
know ourfelves to be fo very liable. For
he quotes as the genuine work of &?/&/?, an
Oration or Invective againft Cicero^ ftill
extant under his Name : in which, I believe,
there is fcarce any Modern of a tolerable
knowledge in the Manner and Writings of
Y 2 Saluft,
324 REMARKS on the ORATION
Saluft, who would not at the firft Read-
ing take the Liberty (as Petr. Vifforius for-
merly did, Var. L,ec~l. xv, 3.) to diiTent
even from Qulntilian. and yet he quotes it
in Three feveral places of his Inftitutiones
Oratoriae (Lib. iv, i. ix, 3. xi, i.) as the
undoubted Work of that Author. Now
if Qumtilian^ who was by Profeffion a
Teacher of Rhetoric and the Rules of Ora-
tory, a great part of whofe Life was fpent
in matters and Searches of this kind, could
once be impos'd upon by a forged Piece ;
for the fame Reafon it is not much to be
wondred at, if the fame thing ihould hap-
pen to him zfecond time : much lefs'is it to
be wondred at, if Afcoiiius mould fall into
the like Miflake, lince it cannot reafonably
be expected that He mould be fo expert in
this part of Criticifm as one whofe main
bufmefs it was to read carefully and examine
the Works of the famous Orators. But in-
deed Qumtitiofis Miftake concerning this
Oration may have been partly owing to the
Authority of Ajconius^ whofe Hearer per-
haps he was, (fee Inftit. Orator, i, 7.) or at
leaft might have met with this pafiage in
Afconim% Writings, and if neither of them
had any particular reafon to make a careful
exami-
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSI. 325
examination of this Piece, which in their
time had got a place among Cicero's Works ;
it is eafy to imagine how it might happen
that they quoted it as fuch. Afconius was
born in the time of Auguftus. He wrote
Comments upon feveral of Cicero's Orations,
for the ufe of his Sons. In a Note upon
this Fragment of the Oration pro M. Scauro,
p. 176. praefertim cum propinquitas et cele-
britas loci fufpicionem defidiae tottat, out
cupiditatis j he has the following words :
" Demonftraffe vobis memini me, hancdo-
" mum in ea parte Palatii eile, quae, cum
" ab Sacra Via defcenderis, et per proxi-
" mum vicum, qui eft ab finiftra parte,
" prodieris, pofita eft. poffidet earn nunc
cc Longus Caecina, qui conlul fuit cum
<c Claudlo -j-." The Emperor Claudius and
C. Licinius Caecina Lcngus (whom Dio
Lib. Ix. calls Largns) were Confals in the
year
f Poffidet earn NUNC Longus Caecina , qui ccnful
FUIT cum Claudia.'] Therefore Caecina was now
<?//-ZA?, and this was written after his Confulfhip. and
yet Lipfms upon Tacitus Anna!, xi, 33. fays, that
Caecina was put to death in his CdK/ul/bip :. and, which
is more ftrange, he quotes this very palTage of Afa-
t'iusy which proves juft the contrary. \Vhat led him
into the miftike concerning Caecina's Deaih y wa s a
Y 3 Falfe
;26 REM AR K s on the OR AT i ON
O
year U. C. 795. which was the fecond
year of the Reign of Claudius , 85 years
after the Death of Cicero. But in this paf-
fage there is a very remarkable Circum-
ftance, viz. that Afconius fets down the
bare Name of Claudius, without the Title
of Imperator, Augujlus^ or Caefar, as he
was at that time of his Confulfhip with
Caecina Longus. Hence it is probable that
when thofe Notes were written, Claudius
was dead ; becaufe, had he been alive, Af-
conius furely would have given him his
Title of Auguftus or Imperator. but Clau-
dius did not die till twelve years after this
Confulihip, viz. U. C. 807. For the ftme
reafon, had A/conius written very foon after
Claudius's Death, he mould have given him
the Title of Divus, as elfewhere he does
to Aitguftus, in a Note upon the Orat. in
'fog. Cand. p. 150. Imp. Caefar, quern mmc
DIVUM Auguftum dicimus. For Claudius
Falfe Reading in DID Lib. Ix. where inftead of ywn
Ksfcb'yy tTrart?, uxor Caecinae confutes ^ it ought be read
KX!V n*Ty, Caecinae Paeti, as had hcen obferved
long before by Joan. Maria Catanaeus upon Pliny
Epift. iii, 1 6. This zw//V mdieclna Paetits was Arrla?
v/ell known by the Epigram at Martial,
Cafta fuo gladlurn cum trader et Arria Pcetc, etc.
imme-
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 327
immediately after his Death was confecrated
by Nero, and had the Appellation of Divus
for fome time, till it was taken away by
the perfon who gave it, and difcontinued
till the Reign of Vejpafian, who reftored it
to him. How long Claudius retained . his
Deification tinder Nero, I have not yet
found : bat we may reafonably fuppofe that
it laded through the 'styinquemium Neronis,
or the Five firft years of Nero's Reign, be-
fore he threw off all regard to every thing
that was decent and commendable j that is,
till about the year U. C. 812. After this
time, it would have been unfafe for any
body to mention Claudius with the honou-
rable Titles of Divus, lmperator y Augujlus^
or Cacfar. and this perhaps may have been
the reafon why he is fimply ftyled Claudius
in the paffage of Afconius. But whether
that be fo or not, it is certain that thefe
Notes of Afaonius, were written after the
year 79^, becaufe he fpeaks of Claudius's
Con ful (hip with Longus as a thing fome
time pa ft : and it is very probable that they
were written after the Death of Claudius ;
which will bring it to about an hundred
years after Cicero : a fpace of Time long
e.nough for the Forgery of thefe Orations.
Y 4
328 REMARKS on the ORATION
But indeed I think there is room to be more
precife in this matter, and to affign the
time of their Forgery to be, between the
Publication of the Works of Valerius Ma-
ximus, towards the latter end of ftberius'S
Reign, about the year 786 ; and the time
otA/conius's writing his Commentations upon
Cicero's Orations, which we know was fome
time after the year 795. The reafon why
I think fo is this. There are two or
three paflages in Valerius that are found
like wife in this Oration which A/coniits
quotes as Cicero''?,, but in Valerius, the
* *
Language is good and proper ; in the Ora-
tion, very improper, if not Barbarous : fee
below upon cap. ix. Now it is a moft in-
credible thing that Valerius mould quote
Cicero^ and correct, and not be content
with, Ills Latin-: but, on the other hand,
it is a very probable thing that an ignorant
Deckiimer mould fleal from Valerius, and
in endeavouring to difguife the Theft,
mould corrupt and fpoil the Propriety of
the Language. The Time too will very well
admit of this Suppofition. For take it at the
lowefi, there muft be *Ten years at the lead
(and there might be many more) between
the Publication of VaL Maximus y and Afcc-
ninus's
DE HARU^PICUM RESPONSIS. 329
nius' s writing his Notes. Now fuppofing
the Orations to be a Forgery, there muft
be fome certain Jeajbn when they were firft
publimed and received as Cicero's, but the
Forgery and Publication of them in the
Time between Val. Maximus and Afconiute
writing his Comments, if admitted, will ac-
count for all difficulties, and will mew, that
the author of the Orations might take and
alter the abovementioned pafiages from Vale-
rius ^ and then publifh his own Pieces under
the name of Cicero, which were looked
upon and quoted as fuch by Afconius, and
afterwards received perhaps byQumtilian and
Arnobius. whereas on the other hand, if you
fuppofe that Valerius took the paflage out of
the Oration which he looked upon as Cice-
ro* $ genuine Writing; what reafon can be
given (unlefs he thought Cicero did not write
good Latin) why he mould change the Lan-
guage, and inrtead of pontificate put his
his own pontificumfcientid, and augur um ob-
Jervatione in Head of augurio? concerning
which, and the other alterations, fee upon
cap. ix. I believe that what I have faid con-
cerning the Time of the Forgery of thefe
Orations, is True, but if it be entirely Falfe,
and nothing but Sarmife ; the Fact or For-
gery
330 R E M A R K s on the O R A T j o N
gery itfelf is not in the leaf! affected by it,
whether it commenced before or after the
time of Valerius Maximus : for in one or
other of the Two Periods, (tho' I think
the latter is true) thefe Orations were cer-
tain \y forged, and while the reft of Cicero's
genuine Works are extant, and thefe Pieces
have fuch an intrinfic and efTential Dijflmi-
litude to Cicero in Expreflion and Senti-
ment ; and while the Copies agree in fo
many grievous Mijiakes of different kinds
which at prefent we find in them, without
any room for Verbal Criticifm upon the
Context, or for Sufpicion of the errors of
tranfcribers ; in fpite of all Testimonies in
their behalf, they will bear a perpetual, and,
I think, unanfwerable Teftimony againil
themfelves. For if it be faid, That they
might originally be written by Cicero, but
that in procefs of time, thro' the Negligence
of Tranfcribers, or the Interpolation of
others, the exceptionable pajjages may have
crept into the Context : It may be anfwered,
That upon this Suppofition, a Falfe In-
fcription too of the Orations may likewife
have crept in ; and that inftead of being the
Writing of Cicero, they might originally
have been the Performance of Tbitjeits, or
Mur-
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 331
MurrhediuS) (two Declaimers of memorable
Stupidity in the time of Auguftus and Mar-
cus Seneca) or of any other Author ; and the
Name of Cicero prefixt to them afterwards.
For if fuch alterations may have happened in
the Body of the Work, can any one affign
a good Reafon why the fame may not
have happened in the Title and Infcription
of it? Bdides, this Objection, if admitted,
will prove too much. For upon the fame
Principle it may be afferted, That the
Epiftle to O&avtttfy the Re/ponjto in Crijpum
Saluftium, and the Oration Ad Populum et
Equites Romano s, antequam in exilium iret t
which I believe every body now looks
upon y&fpurious* (notwithflanding this laft
is quoted, as good Authority, by Two *
great Critics in the Latin Tongue) were
originally Cicero 's. for the MSS agree in
afcribing them to Him; and it may be
faid with equal Reafon, that the paflages
in them which are unworthy of Cicero,
may have come in from a later Hand. So
that, take which Side you will, bdc cams,
hdc lupus^ aiunt. For if you will iniift
* Borricbius Cogitat. De Vanis Latinae Linguae
aetatibus, p. 192. Hafniae. 1675. and VcrjUut De
JLatinitate Selena, p. 63. Bsrolim. 1738.
upon
332 REMARKS on the ORATION
upon it, that great alterations may have
been made in the Body of the Orations ; an
Adverfary, with as much reafon, will in-
fill upon it, that the fame may have hap-
pened in the Infcription of them ; and that
therefore Ciczro's Name may have been
placed before Works not his own original-
ly. But if you chufe the other Side, and
\fay, that the Orations, allowing for the
Common Errors of Tranfcribers which
happen to all other Works, are pretty
much in the fame condition in which they
were left by the Author of them ; an Op-
ponent will defire no more : for then from
the Numerous Miftakes of all kinds he will
be able to prove, that they could not be
written by Cicero. But let us proceed from
Reafonings to FacJs y which perhaps may be
more convincing.
Cap. i. duobus INCEPTIS verbis etc. I
believe no other Latin Author ever ex-
prcfs'd this Senfe in this manner : and I am
iatisfied that Cicero would not, (no more
than he Would have written impudicam im-
pudent iam juft before) but would rather
have faid, duobus PRIM is *oerbh : as Famil.
ix, 19. ego autcm PRIM is tribus verbis,
Quid nofter Pact us ? In the next words of
the
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSES. 333
the Oration, he tells us that Chdius imme-
diately upon this, fe EX CURIA repent*
PRORIPUIT, hurried out of the Senate-
boufe. But cap. iv. he gives a very different
account of the fame thing : wee tantum at-
tlgi legum initium, -CONS ED IT /'//<?, conti-
cuit : he fat down and held his tongue, tho'
I lee that Manufius in his Note (in the
Edition of Graevius) upon the words duo-
bus inceptis verfos, brings this paffage, r:nd
quotes it, CONCIDIT ille y without men-
tioning any Variety in the Copies. If this
Reading were confirmed from MSS, it
would acquit our Author here, and very
probably he might write concidit, and take
it out of Ad. Attic. I, 1 6. concerning this
fame Clodius : magnis clamoribus affli&us
conticuit ac CONCIDIT.
Cap. iii. T". Annio (Miloni) devota et con-
ftituta ilia hoftia effe videtitr. This Ora-
tion is fuppofed to have been fpoken in the
year U. C. 697. But Clodius was not kill'd
by Mi/o till the iQ th of Jan. U. C. 701.
So that he here forefeet, above Three years
before the thing happened, that it would
be fo. for the words hoftia^ devota, conjli-
tuta, and confecratum Miloni (cap. 4),
plainly
334 R EM AR&S on the OR AT 10 N
plainly intimate that Clodius was to be
&7/W, or fall a Sacrifice to M//0. Cicero in-
deed in a Letter to Atticus^ written the
year before this, Lib. iv. Epift. 3. fays,
reum Publium (Clodium), nifi ante occifas
erifj fore a Milone puto. fi fe inter viam
obtulerit^ occifum iri ab ipfo Milone video,
non dubitat facer e j prae fe fert j cafum il-
ium nojlrum non extimejcit. But it mufl
be confidered, that this was written in a
private Letter., ' to an intimate Friend, from
whom he often did not conceal his moft fe-
cret Thoughts and Apprehenfions of things,
whereas had Cicero uttered thofe words of
the Epiftle, or thefe of the Oration, in the
Senate j his Hearers might reafonably have
pronounced him to be either a Fool or a
Madman.
Cap. v. Eaque facra^ quae VIRI oculis,
ne imprudent is quidem, adfpici fas eft, non
Jblum adfpeftit v i R i L i , Jed fagitw jlupro-
que contaminarit . What need was there of
the word virili when he had jufl before
put viri ? was there any danger left a vir
fhould defile the Sacred Rites adfpecJu MU-
LIEBRI, or adjpettu EQJTINO ? He himfelf
wrote better in the Orat. pro Domofua c. 40.
qui
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS, 335
qui non jblwn adfpectu, fed etinm in-
cejio flagitio et Jlupro polluit cenmonias.
You will not find in Cicero^ or any other
good and accurate Writer, any fuch Idle
word as this : or as this cap. xii. videmus
UNIVERSI repent e examina t ant a fervor um
immifla in populum Romanum etc. If inftead
ofuniverfihe had putpauci, it would have
been equally to the purpofe. Or this, cap.
xx. Hie verb, de quo ego i PSE tarn multa
nunc dico^ proh Dii immortales, quid eft ?
There does not appear any manner of occa-
fion for the Emphatical word ipfe in that
place. Or this, pro Domo fua cap. 5 1 .
Si quid deliberares^ tamen y inflituto c E T E -
RORUM vetere, ad pontificem detulijjes. Can
any body tell what ceterorum has to do
there ? Thefe are marks of a Writer of
low Genius, and little obfervation. and
therefore you may be furprizsd perhaps
when you read this fentence cap. 3. con-
cerning Aelius Ligur : qui Ji jenjit quo fe/e
jcelere devinxeritj non dubito quinjit mijer-
rimus. fm autem id non videt, periculum eft
ne j'e Jluporis excufatione defendat. This is
much above his ufual pitch : and it is the
more remarkable here, becaufe it follows
a very Languid fentence, Quid enim hunc
perje-
336 RE M ARKS on the ORATION
perfequ'ar, pecudem ac belluam^ pabulo //'-
micorum meorum et glande corruptum ? But
your wonder will ceafe when you find
the firft part of the fentence borrowed from
Philippic, xiii, 1 7. O mi/er, cum re, turn hoc
*Pfi* 3 u d nm f entl * 3 uam mijerfa / and the
latter from the Orat. pro A. Caecina cap. xi.
Quid hide tu homini facias ? nonne conce-
das interdum, ut excufatione fummae flul-
titiae, fummae improbitatis odium deprece-
tur ? You fee whence he had the Sentiments,
though he ought not to be deprived of the
praife of a good Imitation.
Cap. vi. ne und quidem attigit littera re-
ligionis. Inftead of religionis put de religione,
if you have any regard to Cicero. Orat. pro
Cluentio cap. 65. in quibus tabellh^ D E F UR-
TO littera nulla invenitur : not FLTRTI lit-
tera nulla. So juft after in the fame Ora-
tion : DE EO quod quaerebatur verbum nul-
lum fecit: not, verbum Ejusqttod quereba-
tur. This Author feems to write in the fame
manner proDomo cap. 50. unum ojlende ver-
bum CONSECRATIONIS : for de confecra-
tione.
Ibid.
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 337
Ibid. Z,. Claudius, rex facrorum. See
what is obferved upon this above, p. 17, 18.
Could one who livd at Rome be igno-
rant of a thing fo notorious as this muft
needs be ? I think it is impoffible. tho' one
who liv'd in France, Spain, or any of the
more diftant Provinces, eafily might.
Cap. ix. qui ftatas fotemnefque ceremonias,
pontificatu -, rerum bene gerendarum auclori-
tates, augurlo ; fatorum veteres praediftiones
Apollmis r oatum libris ; portentorum expla-
nations*, Etrujcorum difciplind contineri pu-
tarunt. This is the paflage which VaL
Maximus is fuppofed to have tranfcribed,
Lib. I. cap., i . Major es noflri ft at as folemnef-
que caeremomas, pontificum Jcientia-, bene
gerendarum rerum aufforitatvs, augurum ob-
jervatione j Apollinis praediffiiones, <uatum
libris ; portentorum depulfa, Etrufcd dij'ri-
plind explicari voluerunt. If Valerius bor-
rowed this from Cicero, it mould feem that
he has greatly improv'd the Language of
Cicero, and was by much the better Writer.
For what in the Oration is pontificatu, in
Valerius is pontificum fcientia ; which is
rightly expreft. but pontificate never iigni-
Z fies
338 REM ARKS on the OR ATI ON
fies thefcience, difcipline, or fall of a pon-
tijex ; but his Office only : as auguratus^
tribunatus y confulatus, etc. never iignifie the
Jkill or knowledge of an Augur, Tribune ',
or Conful ; but merely his Poft. Again, in
Valerius we find augur urn obfervatione j in
the Oration, augurio. This may feem to
be fomewhat more tolerable, becaufe this
fignihcation of the word is to be met with
inFirgt'JAsn. ix, 328.
Sed /ion augurio fotuit dcpclkrc pcftem :
where Servius : Augurio hie pro jcientia
augurii. and fo I fuppofe it is to be under-
flood Aen. I, 396.
Nifrujlra auguriumiwft/ docuere parcntes.
But it is a wonder that the Author did not
keep to the fame Form in Both words, and
write auguratu as well as pontifcatu, fince
the Reafon is the fame in Both. Once
more : in Valerius it is well and limply ex
preft, Apollini s praediftiones : in the Ora-
tor, fatorum veteres praediftiones Apcllinis ;
the two firfl words of which feem to be
entirely needlefs. unlefs Apollmis is to be
joined to the following, vatum librh. in
which cafe, veftres and Apollinis will be
but
OE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 339
but of little ufe. If any unikilful hand
had made it his bulinefs to difguife the paf-
fage of Valerius^ and to alter it with a de-
fign to make it pafs for his own ; he could
not have done it more effectually than by
changing it into the Form in which It
flands in the pafTagcs I have mentioned.
And in truth there is reafon to fufpecl: that
this was the very cafe, and that the Author
of the Oration took this Sentence from Va-
lerius > not Valerius from Cicero. For there
was time enough for the Forgery of this
Oration between Val. Maximum and Ajco~
nius Pcdianus, the fir ft Author who quotes
it as Cicero'*. For Valerius wrote towards
the end of Twir&i's Reign, iuppofe about
the year U. C. 786. three years before the
Death of that Emperor, but Ajconius, as I
fa id before, probably did not write thefe
Notes upon Cicero till towards the year
U. C. 812. So that the Forger of this Ora-
tion De Ilaruj'picum Refponfis might bor-
row this Sentence from Valerius, and pub-
lifli this piece under the Name of Cicero ;
and before A/coniiis wrote his Annotations
it might have been received as the Work of
Cicero. For at that time nothing was more
common than this kind of Frauds ; and the
Z 2 Age
340 REMARKS 0/z /&" ORATION
Age was fo far gone in Indolence, and the
neceflary confequence of it, Ignorance, that
the Declaimers impofed upon it juft what
they thought fit, without any Danger of
being detected, as Marcus Seneca, who
lived about that time, complains in Prooem.
Lib. I. Cont rover/jar urn : Scntentias a difer-
tijfimis viris faff as y facile, in tanta homi-
num defidia, pro fuis dicunt. and foon after
he fays, That the moft famous and great
Declaimers (all whom he had heard) either
left nothing behind them in writing ; or,
which was worfe, the Pieces which then
pafs'd under their Names, were forgeries :
Fere enim aut nulli commentarii maximorum
Declamatonim extant -, aut, quod pejus eft,
F ALSI. And what further drengthens the
Sufpicion that this Author had been dab-
bling in Valerius Maximus, is a paflage in
Orat. pro Domo fua cap. 38. Sp. Melii,
regnum *abpetentis, domus eft complanata. Ec-
quidaliud? aequum accidijje Melio populus
Romanus judicavit, nomine ipfo Aequimelii :
Jlultitia pocnd comprobata eft. Val. Maximus
vi, 3. i. in the Chapter De Severitate, after
he had fpoken of the Crime of Sp. Cajjius,
adds his Punilhment : Senatus enim popu-
lufque Romanus, non contentus capitali eum
fupplicio
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 341
fopplicto <ifficere, interemto domum fuper-
jecit ; ut penatium quoque ftrage puniretur.
in folo autem aedem 'Telluris fecit. Then
he comes to Sp. Melius : Radem aufum Sp.
Melt urn, confinrili exitu patria multavit: area
verb domus ejus, quo jujli fupplicii notitia
ad pofteros perveniref, Aequimelii appella-
tionem traxit. The Author of the Oration
makes Aequimelium^ or the area upon
which Meliufs Houfe flood, to be fo call-
ed, becaufe AEO^JUM accidit MELIO, Me-
lius met with a JUST puni foment. This is a
ridiculous and childifh Etymology, and con-
tains nouhing peculiar to Me/ins, fince the
puniQiment that falls upon any Traitor or
Malefactor does AEQJJUM decider -e, or be-
fall him JUSTLY : and the Spot of ground
whereupon Manlius Capitolinus fell when
he was thrown from the farpeian Rock,
or his confifcated Lands, if he left any,
might with as much Propriety have been
called Aequimanlium. of which appellation
if any body mould have enquired the rea-
fon, it would have been but a foolim and
unfatisfaclory Anfwer, to fay, Becaufe a
juft punifhment befell Manltus ; AEQUUM
accidit MANLIO. A better and more true
Etymology is given by Varro De Ling. Lat.
Z 3 Lib.
342 RE M A R K s on the OR A T i o N
Lib. iv. p. m. 37. Aequimeliurn, quod zt-
quata Melii domus public^ quod regnum oc~
cupare vo/uif is : and by Aurel. V iff or cap.
xvii. in L. Quintf. Cincinnatus : Spurium
Mehum, regnum ajfeftantem , a Seruilio
Ahala^ magiflro equitum, occidi juffit. do^
mum ejus Jblo aequavit : unde locus ilk Ae-
quimelium diftus. But the Grammatical
and exad account of the word feems to bs
that of Hot toman, viz. that aequum is pla-
m'cies : and that the area or yotd Space
where Meiius's Houie flood, was at firft
called aequum Me lit, Meimis Level ; and
afterwards Acquimelium in one word. This
is natural and rational. But our Author
feems to have taken the hint of his Deri-
vation of the word from the pafiage of Va-
lerius, quo JL T STI fupplicii notitia ad pofle-
i'GS perveniret > Aequimelii appellationem
traxit ; as itValerius had faid that the place
had its name from thzjuft ^punifliment of
Melius. and then, bccaufe juflum and ae-
quum are often equivalent, hence he took
the opportunity of improving upon Valerius^
and inftead of lusjufii, put his own aequi s
which would come nearer and make a more
plaufible Etymology of Aequimelium. But
Valerius knew very well that this was Falfe,
as
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 343
as appears from his own words. Forjujti
in him has no relation or allufion to the
Etymology and Signification of Aequimclium,
and only exprefles his own private opinion,
as a Narrator, that Metius's punimment
was 2ijujl one : The area of his Houje y fays
he, had the name o/'Aequimelium, whereby
pofierity might be injormed of his punijhment
(viz. his Death, and the levelling of his
Houfe), 'which was a juft one. So above,
in the fame Chapter, fpeaking of the pu-
nifhment of Manlius : cujus juftae ultionh
nimirum haec fuit praefatio. where juftae
in like manner declares the private judge-
ment of Valerius himfelf. It is impoffible
that this account of the word Aequimelhtm,
fo manifeftly Falfe, could come from Ci-
cero, but it is the trifling color of a Declaim-
er, founded, I believe, upon the miftaken
fenfe of Valerius Maximus. Whoever will
compare this Chapter of the Oration with
that Section of Valerius, will find a great
Similitude in the Senfe and Expreflions,
and the fame Examples in both. Thus
what in Valerius is, Par indignatio civita-
tis adversus Sp. Caffium erupit, in the Ora-
tor is, Sp. CaJJii domus. ob eandem caitjjam
ever/a. In the former, in fob autem ae-
j /'
Z 4 dem
344 REMARKS ^ORATION
dem Telluris fecit : in the latter, in eodem
loco aedes pojlta T'eUuris. In the former,
M. Flacci et L. Saturnini corporibus
trucidatis, penates ab imis fundament is eruti
jiint : in the latter, M. Flaccus et Sena-
tus fententid eft inter fectus, et ejus domus
everfa et publicata eft. Then "immediately
follows in the former, Ceterum Flacciana
area, cum diu penatibus vacua manjijjet, a
Q^Catuh Cimbricisjpoliis adornata eft : as it
follows immediately in the latter, in qua
[here his pen nipt -, he meant, and mould
have written, in cujus area] porticum pojl
ahquanto >i{. Catulus de mamibiis Cimbricis
fecit. Here is a manifeft Borrowing on
one fide or the other : and let any body
judge whether it be likely that Cicero could
write this laft mentioned piece of nonfenfe,
and put in qua domo for in cujus domus area.
Cap. xi. An^ fi ludius conjlitit, aut tibicen
repente conticuit^ ant puer ilk patrimus et
matrimus fi terrain non tenuit^ aut thenfam
aut lorum omifit ; aut, ft aedilis verbo, aut
flmpulo aberrant, hidi funt non rite facJi,
eaque errata expiantur, et mentes Deorum
immortalium ludorum inftauratione placan-
tur : etc. Arnobius adv. gentes Lib. iv. p.
148.
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 34^
1 48 . Lugd. Eat. 1651. In ceremoniis ve/trts
rebufque divinis poftulicnibus locus eft y et
piaculi dicltur contratta effe commiflio, fiper
imprudmtiae lap/tun, ant in verbo quifpiam,
aut Jimpuvio deerrdrit^ aut Jl cur fit in Jb-
lennibus htdis^ curriculifque diuinis : corn-
mi fj urn omnes ftatim in religiones clamatis fa-
cras y Ji ludius conftitit, aut tibicen repente
conticuit : aut ft patrimm ille qui vocitatur
puer omifit per ignorantiam lorum^ aut ter-
ram tenere nonpotuit. The paiTage of dr-
nobius is plainly taken from the Oration,
but not quoted by him as Cicero s : and
therefore proves nothing more than that the
Oration was more antient than Arnobius^
which no body denies. But this is no more
a proof of its being written by Cicero p , than
by Hortenflus or Curio, tho' I allow that in
Antobtufs time it might be read as Cicero's,
and very probably he might look upon it
as fuch.
Cap. xii. id cum ipfum s i B I monjlrum
eft, etc. A genuine Roman would have
Written ipfum PER SE monjlrum eft : as this
Author himfelf does cap. 1 7. hoc quid fa,
PER SE ipfum non facile interpreter. Cicero
De Legg. iii, 14. eft magnum hoc PER SE
ipfum
346 REMARKS on the ORATION
ipfum malum. Can this be the writing
of a Native of Rome? For if the Author
thought that fibi might be ufed here as it
is in the noted paflage of 'Terence ', juo SIBI
bunc jugulo gladio , he miflook the matter
widely.
Cap. xiii. ne hoc qiddem tibi in mentem
venicbat, Sibyllino facer dot i, haec J'acra ma-
jor es nojlros ex veftris libris expctijje ? Ji Hit
funt VEST R i, quos tu impia mente conqui-
ris, violatis oculis legis, contaminatis mani"-
bus ctttreffas. Did it never Jo much as en-
ter into the thoughts of Ton who are one of
the Quindecemviri appointed to injpeff the
Writings of the Sibyls, that our Ancejlors
took thefe Sacred Games out cfyour Books?
if thoje are YOUR Books, <which you fearch
into with an impious Mind, (or Intention),
read with defiled Eyes, and handle with
polluted Hands. What can he mean ? Were
the Sibylline Books ever the kfs Sibylline
Books becaufe Clodius the Quindeccmuir
was a very bad man, and fearched into
them with an impious mind etc ? For if the
Books were the fame in themfelves (as they
certainly were) whatever kind of men,
Good or Bad, the Infpe&ors of them (the
Qumdecemviri) were ; the Doubt which is
here
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 347
here raifed, si illi VESTRiJunt etc. ferves
to no purpofe either of Senfe or Reafoning,
and feems to be nothing but Words and
Nonfenfe carried off with an air of Oratory
and the Show of faying Something. In rea-
lity this is the cafe. Nor is the Language,
quos (libros) tit impia mente CONQJJIRIS,
better than the Senfe. The Latin expref-
iion of what he intended, is, AD IRE or
i N s P i c E R E libros Sibyllinos : of which there
are many Instances in Ltiy, Cicero, and
other Writers, but conquirere libros is a very
different thing, viz. to get together books
that are difperfed or hidden. In cap. 1 5.
he has another unufual fignification of this
word : et conquirimus , Dii immortales
quae loca dejiderent, quid fignijiccnt ^ de quo
loquantur? inftead of quaerimus. Laftly,
what is the meaning of VIOL ATI oculi?
violated by whom, or by what ? The Sacred
Rifes of Bona Dea were violated by Clo-
dius's Eyes : but no body, except this
Writer, would have laid that C/odius's Eyes
were violated by the Sacred Rites. When
a perfon breaks or commits violence upon
the Laws of the Land, it is the Laws that
are faid to be violated \ not the perfon who
breaks them, But this Author confounds
the
348 REMARKS 0# /&> ORATION
the ufe of Language, and transfers to the
Agent what belongs to the Patient ; oculi
violatz , inftead of, oculi qui vio/anmf.
Could Cicero return from his Grave, and
fee fuch things as thefe impofed upon the
world for his Writings, what Grief and
Indignation would it occafion him !
Ibid. Sed ut ad haec harufpicum refponfa
rede, am : ex qui bus eft primum de Ludis :
quiz <?/?, qui id non totum in iftius ludos
PRAEDICTUM et refponjum ejje Jateatur ?
Who is there 'who can deny that the whole of
jt is FORETOLD and an/were d concerning
Clodiuis Games ? The Rejponfum or An-
fwer of the Harufpices was, cap. x. Ludos
minus diligentcrjattos^ pollutofque : that the
Games had been negligently exhibited^ and
polluted. Upon this the Author defcants in
the following chapters, and fhows, that
this Anjwer can relate to nothing but the
Megalejian Games, which Clodius, as /Edile,
was obliged to make, and had made in a
manner very dangerous to the Lives and Li-
berties of the Roman People : bos ludos
(c. 12.) fervi fecerunt, fervi fpectaverunt :
iota denique, hoc Aedile, fervorum Mega-
lefia fuerunt. and a little lower: tu inalte-
ram
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 349
ram (caveam ; or rather fcenam) fervos im-
mififti, ex alt era liber o$ ejecifti. itaque qui
antea 'uoce praeconis a liberisjubmovebantur,
tuis ludis non voce, fed ma?ut y liberos aje fe-
gregabant. But is not this prediction of a
thing pafl y very pleafant ? rfirejias, who in
Horace fays he had learnt the art of Divi-
nation from Apollo, and as a fpecimen of
it gives this RefponJ'um,
O La'ertiade, quicquid dicam, aut erif y
aut non-y
was not a greater Conjurer in his way than
our Author's Harufpices are, whojoretel, not
in the Vulgar method, concerning things fu-
ture, but concerning things which are al-
ready done and over. And this is the Author
whom Afconim Pedianus quotes for Cicero.
Inftead of praedittum^ he meant diftum. but
this is his manner of putting a Compound
Verb of a quite different fignification, in-
ftead of its Simple, as I noted above, Ad
>uirit. poft red. cap. v.
Cap. xv. quo puhinari? quod ftupraras.
This I believe is Latin of his own Inven-
tion. For Jluprare, as far as I can find,
is always joined to Perfons (v&Jluprare ma-
tronas > virgines, pueros, etc.) never to
i Things.
350 R E M A R K s on the O R A T I o N
things. He mould liave written, cuijin-
prum intuleras, out of the Orat. / P//3/7. cap.
39. e mi flits etlam ille auclor tints provinciae,
cum ftuprum Bonae Deae pulvinaribus intu-
liflet : as he himfelf writes above, cap. v.
qui pulvinaribus Bonae Deae ftupruni intu-
lerit. and pro Domo cap. 40. ftupro polluit
(not ftupravit) ceremonias.
Cap. xviii. An tibi luminis obefj'et caecitas
plus, quarn libidinis ? I mentioned this be-
fore, as a mafter-piece of nonfenfe. He
Would have faid , Could A B s E N c E (or want)
of Light been more hurtful to you than ab-
ienee of Luft ? i. e. Would it not have
been better for you to have been blind ^ than
out vtLuJl to have been guilty of fuch an
impious action ? But fuppofing caecitas lu-
minh may fignifie (as I am pretty lure it
cannot) abfence oj light y yet I am certain
that caecitas libidinis can no more fignifie
abfence of lujl than caecitas divitiarum can
fignifie poverty or abfence of riches. In the
fentence which goes before, Quis E N i M
ante te J'acra ilia vir fciens viderat, etc. I
fhould be glad to know what may be the
defign of enim y and what is to be proved.
Here is a clear inftance of great Weaknefs
of
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 351
of Head in this Writer, in the foregoing
words, inftead of, ut opinio illius religionis
t/}, he mould have pat, ut FALSA opinio
illius, etc. and then the Reafoning would
have been good, >uis ENIM ante te Jacra.
ilia vir fciens viderat, ut quijquam poenam,
quae fequeretur illud fee/us, fcire pojfet ?
and fo he writes pro Domo cap. 40. con-
cerning this very thing: Ex quo intelligitur,
multa in vita FALSO homines opinari ; cum
ille^ qui nihil viderat fciem quod nefas effef,
lumina ami/it ; etc. rather amiferit y becaufe
of cum ; and^f converja, juft after, inftead-
of eft coK-verfa. In the fentence which fol-
lows this I am upon, fpeaking viApp. Clau-
dius Caecus^ he calls his eyes, connivc?ites
oculos : which is very Improper, or rather
Falfe. For connivenies oculi are thofe which
are fometimesyZv// and fometimes open, now
this Appius was totally blind, and his eyes
were always (hut. but contivvert\ to ivink,
does not fign-ine to be blind. Tliis Author's
-.ip.ce or AfFtdation mifleads him pi-
ly. The latter was ftrongly upon him
i he wrote cap. xx. quod Dii omen
< T ! inftead of avert ant ^ as Cicero
>;s. fee Philipp. iii, 14. pro Mu-
raena
352 REMARKS 072 /^ORATION
raenac. 41. and fo in innumerable other
places.
Ibid. Nam COR FOR is quidem noftri IN-
FIRMITAS mult os fubit cafus per fe : deni-
que ipfum CORPUS tenuijjlma faepe de caujja
de cauffa conficitur. For the infirmity of
our body is of itfelf liable to many accidents :
laftly, our body itfelf often is dif patched by
fome very flight caufe. The fimple quoting
of this paiTage is fufficient to {hew the weak-
nefs of it. For what is the infirmity of our
body, in the firft fentence, but our infirm
body : and what is our infirm body but our
body itfelf, in the fecond ? But according to
this Writer, the Infirmity of our body
(which is only an Accident of it) is to be
confidered as a Being diftincl: from the
Body itfelf. So that Man will confift of
tfhree parts, Infirmity, Body, and Soul.
The fame lize of Skill in Arguing ap-
pears cap. xxii. where he fays, That Clo-
diuss manner of aft ing does not fur prize him
in the kaft : but that he cannot help being
fur prized^ in the firjl place, that men of the
great eft characters for Wifdom and Gravity^
ftould readily fuffer one who has deferred Jo
well
DE HARtfspicuM RESPONSIS. 353
well of the Public as Himfelf hath done, im~
pufiffimi voce hominis VIOLARI, to be
HURT by the language of a moji impure fel-
low : and in the next place ', he wonders how
they can think, that the glory and dignity of
'any man CAN BE HURT y the reviling* of
fitch an abandoned and profligate per/on. But
take it in his own words, and obferve
the polite and nervous repetition of the
word fjomo : illos HOMINES fapientijfimos
gravijflmojque miror 5 primum^ quod quem-
quam clarum H o M I N E M, atque optime
de republica faepe meritum, impuriffimi wee
HOMINIS violari facile patiuntur : deinde y
quod exiflimaht, perditi HOMINIS profliga-
tique malediftis pofle, id quodminime condu-
cit ipjis y cujufquam gloriam dignitatemque
violari. In the firft article of his Wonder,
he fuppofes or allows that himfelf i s hurt
by C/odius's railings : in the fecond, he fays
that he CANNOT BE hurt by them.
Gap. xxiii. turn ille qui omnes an-
gujtias, omnes altitudines,- omnium objetfa
teia, femper vi et virtute perfregit, obfejjus
eft ipfe domi. He is fpeaking of Pompey.
But perf ringer e altitudines and tela 9 is fo far
from the Language of Cicero, that I am
A a perfuaded
3 54 & E M A R K s cn rt je ORATION
perfuaded Cicero would fcarce have under-
flood the meaning of it.
Cap. xxiv. Quid exiftimath eum, fi redi-
tus el gratiae patuerit, effe fotfurum, qui
tarn libenter in opinioncm gratiae irrepat ?
This undoubtedly is Falie Latin, for a
Roman never fays redire gratiae or reditus
gratiae, but redire and reditus in gratiam.
De Prov. Confular. cap. 20 iisji qui meum
cum inimico fuo reditum in gratiam vitupe-
rabunt^ cum ipfi, et cum meo, et cum fuo
inimico in gratiam non dubitarint redire.
Pro Milon. cap. 32. ipfum ilium qui pot e-
rat obftare, novo reditu in gratiam quaji de-
uinftum arbitrabatur . Ad Attic, ii, 3. con-
junctio mihi Jumma cum Pompeio - y Ji placet
etiam cum Caefare ; reditus in gratiam cum
inimicis. But there is no need of proving
reditus in gratiam to be true Latin j and I
believe it 'will be impoffible to prove reditus
gratiae to be fuch.
Gap. xx vi. Quae funt occultiora quam
tjits etc. The Senfe and Reafoning of this
place I have examined above, p. 204.
Cap. xxviL
DE HARUSPICUM RESFONSIS.
Cap. xxvii. far urn templum inflamma'uit
Dearum, quarum ope etiatn aliis inccndiis
fubvenitur. Cicero pro Milon. cap. 27. puts
it fimply, aedem Nympharwn incendit : and
Paradox, iv. aedes Nymph arum manu tua
dejiagrarunt. The addition and Improve-
ment of this Author, quarum ope ctlam aliis
etc. is commendable, if it be certain that
this Temple of the Nymphs, which Clodius
ieton fire, was a Temple of Water-Nymphs ;
there being fo many other Nymphs of dif-
ferent Offices and Denominations.
Ibid, aut tarn eminentibus canibus Scyl-
lam y taniquejejiinis, quibus iftum videtis
roftra ipj'a mandentem. Inftead of eminen-
tibus the true Reading is imminentibus. It
is taken from in Verr. ii, 54. nam ipfum
Verrem^ tanium avaritid femper hiante at-
que imminenti fuifle. The other part too
is an Imitation of in Verr. iii, 11. where
Cicero is content with a modeft Metaphor,
horum canum quos TRIBUNAL ?neum vides
LAM BE RE. But our Author makes Clo-
dius 's Hounds more ravenous by far. for
they do not lick or gnaw, but even E AT the
very ROSTRA. Graevius wasjuftly offend-
ed at this : and therefore inftead omahdeto
A a 2 ' tern
356 REMARKS on the O R AT ION
tern he conjectured lambentem^ as in the
paflage laft quoted. But that very Learned
man does not feem to have had a true appre-
fion of this Writer, whofe Stomach was
ftrong enough to digeft Wood, or any thing
Harder, had it come in his way.
Cap. xxviii. atttforitas principum cecidit :
conjenjus ordinum eft divulfus etc : I believe
this is all Falfe, and nothing but Common-
Place Harangue upon Bad-Times, formed
by the Declaimer to be made ufe of occa-
iionally in any other Oration, but unfuitably
ftuck in here. For Cicero who fpake the
Oration for P. Sextius in the fame year
(U. C. 697.) in which this is fuppofed to
have been fpoken, gives a very different ac-
count of thefe matters, cap. 49. Nunc jam
nibil eji quod populus a deleftis principibus
diffentiat : et dignitate optimi citjuf-
que, et univerfae reipublicae gloria dele-
ftatur. Therefore the Authority of the
principes, or Chief men in the Roman Go-
vernment, 'was not loft, and cap. 50. Nunc,
nifi me fallit *, in eo jlatu civitas eft, ut y
* Upon thefe words Hottomans Note is this :
*' niji me fallif] Alibi fie legifle non memini :
c< fempcr fie : nifi me animus fallit.'" He had for-
gotten Jld dtti<, xiv. 12. fed nos, nifi me fallit, ja-
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 357
jl operas conduffiorum removeris, omnes idem
de republica Jen/uri effe irideantur. therefore
the good agreement of the Jeveral Orders, or
different Ranks of men in the State, was
not broken.
Ibid, cum quibufdam multis, metuendif-
que rebus. This is not an ufual way of
Writing, quibu/dam multis, inftead of aliis
multis ; as above, cap. v. in quo, cum aliis
multis, fcriptum etiarn illud ejl. Neverthe-
leis perhaps it may be defended (that this
Author and I may part in good humour)
by a paffage in the Orat. in Pijbn. cap. iv.
collegia, non ea folum quae Senatus jujiulerat,
rejlituta-, fed innumerabilia quaedam no'va,
ex cmni faece urbis, ac fcrvitio, concitata.
where quaedam mull fignifie alia, becaufe
the Senfe will not admit of a Diftindlion
cebimus. Which expreflion the Author of the Epifllcs
of Cicero to Brutus was not ignorant of, Epift. xxiii,
p. 184. Maximus auttm, nil! me forte fallit, in re-
publica nodus eft, inopia re'i pecuniariae. So pro M.
Coelio cap. .19. fed inerat, nifi me propter bmevolen-
tiam forte fallebat, ratio et bon'n artibus injlituta, et
curd et vigiliis elaborata. And fo it may be taken in
Terence Phorm. I, 4. 42. Ego pleflar pendens, nifi
quid me fefellerit, fcil. animus : if I am not fomewbat
mijlaken,
A a 3 after
358 REMARKS on the ORATION
after innumerabilia. and if innumerabilia
quaedam be right, for the fame reafon per-
haps mult a quaedam may be fo.
THUS far I have ventured upon my
own Bottom, and the Reader may obferve,
that the paflages upon which I have made
thefe Remarks, are of Two kinds ; Firfl^
fuch as all the MSS. are agreed in : and,
Secondly^ fuch as have not been taken notice
of by the Learned men who have written
upon thefe Orations, nor by others, that I
know of. Had I been matter of more
Time, I would have brought a larger num-
ber of Inftances of the fame fort : but I
did not intend to concern myfelf at prefent
with this Latter part, nor did I fet about
it till the Former was almoft printed off.
This I hope will be my excufe for any flips
or Inadvertencies of any kind that may
have efcaped me. But that I may not
feem altogether Singular in finding fo ma-
ny objections to, and Difficulties in, thefe
Four Pieces, (more, I believe, than are to
be found in all the reft of Cicero's Orations
put together) I have here fubjoined fome
Excerpt a out of the Commentators upon
them in Graevius's Edition, Tom. iv. p.
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 359
327, etc. from which it will appear, that
thofe Learned Gentlemen had fufficient
reafon to doubt, at leaft, concerning thefe
Orations, had there not lain in their way
a Prejudice which they could not get over.
For when, upon the Authority perhaps of
Afconius, and the Confent of the Infer ipt ions
of the MSS, they had once admitted this
Pofition as a certain and undoubted Truth,
viz. that " Thefe Orations are Cicero 's;*'
all the Abfurdities and Difficulties they met
with afterwards, could not, and indeed
ought not to hinder them from making
this juft Inference, " Therefore the many
" and great Miftakes we find in thefe Ora-
" tions, agreed in by all the MSS, cannot
" be Cicero's, but muft come from fome
< { other Hand." whereas, had they taken
hold of the Argument by the other End,
and hadreafoned thus, " The miftakes we
" find in thefe Orations are many and
" great, and agreed in by all the MSS :
" Therefore perhaps the Orations may not
" be Cicero's, notwithftanding the Autho-
Ic rity of A/conius, and the Infcriptions of
tc the MSS, but may come from fome
11 other Hand:" Had they, I fay, argued
in this manner, the Premijfes would have
A a 4 been
360 REMARKS /fo ORATION
been much more certain, and the Gonclur
fion equally juft, becaufe it is undeniably
more poffible and probable that ^fconius
might be impofed upon by a Forgery, than
that Cicero mould make fuch Miftakes as
thole which they mention, in which like-
wife the copies all agree : and if the Con-r
fent of MSS be a good Argument in one
Cafe, why fhould it not be fo in another,
when all the Circumftances are the fame ?
See what was faid above, in the Preface to
this Oration. But to come to my prefent
Purpofe : in which I mall mention only or
chiefly fuch paffages out of the Commen-
tators as are agreed in by all the Manu-
fcripts : for where there is any Variety in
the Reading, I will not charge any thing to
this Author, but will fuppofe him to be al-
ways in the right, tho' in reality, even un-
der this head too, there are feveral places
and circumftances that look very ill-favour-
edly againft him. I follow the Order of
the Orations in which I find them in Grae-
vius's Edition.
A D QjJ IRITES POST REDITUM.
CAP. I. odium in me uno deficeret.~\
Deficeref eil menda. Latinos dixifle, odium
in hoc deficit, pro, omne odium conjiimituc.
in
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 36?
in hoc, credat Apella, non ego. Quomo-
do Cicero fcripferit, fine rneliore codice
vix invenies. Sententia poflulat fatiaret,
aut expkret^ aut tale quid. GRAEVIUS. I
fuppofe Graevius wrote fatiarent and ex-
pier -ent. The Explication ofdffcefet which
he finds fault with, was Gniter's. There
can be no doubt but the word deficeret came
from the Author's Pen. but what other
Latin Writer ever ufed it in the fignifica-
tion which the Senfe of this place requires,
has not yet been found out.
IBID, ejus devotiotiis me effe convitfum
laetor^ >uirites.~\ Ita videtur dicere, ejus de-
votionis me compotem eile faclum ; id eft,
quern ilia devotione fruclum petivi, eum
tuluTe me. M AN u T i us. Who partly faw
what the Senfe required, but was forced to
guefs at the meaning of the Words. The
expreliion devotioms convtflum is Latin:
fee the Orat. pro P. Sulla cap. xv. But here
it is quite wide of all Reafoning and Con-
nexion, which ought to have been thus :
Quod precatusjum^ ejus compotem me fa-
ctum effe laetor, >uirites : not, ejus devo-r
tio?iis me e./e conviftum , which is nothing
^o the purppfe.
362 REMARKS on the ORATION
IBID, ludl denique, et diis fefti y quid
baberent wluptatis, carendo magis inteHexi,
quamfruendo.~\ It was very improbably done
of .he Author, to make Cicero mention
the ludl or Public Games, and the diesfefti,
among the things that he found the want
of in his Banimment ; iince he declares in
feveral places of his Works, that he never
took any pleafure in them, fee pro Plancio
cap. 27. pro Archia cap. 6. Famil. vii, i.
Ad Attic, iv, 8. Manutius in excufe for the
Author, fays, " hoc dicit fortaffe temporis
<c caufTa :" and having quoted the two fir ft
mentioned paiTages, which affirm juft the
Contrary to what is faid here, he adds,
" aut haec ipfa quoque tempori tributa
c funto." So that Cicero, by thefe two
different accounts, both might be, and might
not be fpnd of the ludi and diesfefti.
C A P. ii. A parent 'ibus, id quod necefle
erat, PARvusfumprocreatus: a vobis na-
tus fum CONSUL ARIS.] Nunquam in anK
mum inducere pofliim ex Tullii ore inep-
tiffimam hanc vocem (parvus) hoc quidem
in loco profedtam effe, fed ab illis qui non
intelligebant quid effet id quod, necejje erat>
Abefl
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 363
Abed fane in codice Drefdenfi TO parvits^
et debet abefle, quod omnes emundtae nans
homines mecum teftabuntur, qui hunc lo-
cum redte perpendent. etc. GRAEVIUS.
This isaveryjuft Criticifrn upon the foolifli
word parvus in this place. Neverthelefs,
tho' it is certain that this could not come
from Cicero, yet it is far from being cer-
tain that it might not come from the Au-*
thor of this Oration, tempted by the Op~
pofites, aparentibus PARVUS, a wbis CON-
SULARIS,
C A P. v. in tribunali Aurelio centuriari]
Jn Sextiana (c. 14.) hoc fie extulit: pro
tribunali Aurelio decuriari : ex quo intel-
gitur, et pro idem valere quod in y et decu-
riari idem quod centuriari. HOT TOM AN-
NUS. This mould be farther enquired into,
for I think the Authority of this Writer is
not fufficient to prove that decuriari ancj
centuriari are of the lame import, or may
be put indifferently. In the Orat. pro Do-
mo fua cap. v. it is, decuriatos et defcriptos
exercitus.
CAP. viii. turn fe fuifle miferum^ cum
carcrct patrid^ etc.] Hoc quid fit, etquem-
admodum
364 REMARKS on the ORATION
admodum Oratoris inftituto conveniat, fa-
teor me non intelligere etc. HOTTOMAN-
NUS. S. Vi&oris (codex), et Pall, ele&iores,
Ji careret. Et vero quam magis excutio
nexum argument!, tarn minus invenio in
hac vulgata. GR UTERUS. I confefs I can-
not fee how fi inftead of cum mends the
matter. Hotfoman's Conjecture is probable,
that the Negative may have been omitted,
turn je NON///f^fc mijerum,
CAP. ix. malt tneritis, quam optime me-
rit i^ referre quod debeas] Male mentis, et
of time merit is, nefcio quid fcholafticum
prae fe fert, et alienum a majeftate Tul-
liana. GRAEVIUS. Here the Copies vary
ereatjv, and therefore the Author is to be
o w
excufed. See Graeviuis Note.
IBID, neque id reipublicae repetere ut-
cumque necefje ejlj] Hoc quid lit, divinare
nunquam potui. etc . HOTTOMANNUS,
Haec fateor me non intelligere : ficut etiam
n^erito Hottomajwo, Paulh Manutio, haec
vifa funt corrupta. Non improbo Paulli
conjedluram. GRAEVIUS. Manutiufc Con-
jedture is pet ere inftead of repetere. But itill
this is fcare intelligible ; much lefs agree-
able to the Perfpicuity of Cicero. See too
the
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 365
the Notes upon the words which follow fbon
after, moxapertelaudatur. upon which Gr li-
ter obferves, Equidem in hac oratione rnul-
ta fiint mendofa : quae forte MSS librorum
collatione purgari poffent. Sed cui otium
cxcutere novem, decem, undecim mem-
branas? I believe it would have been to
very little purpofe, if Gruter had collated
and examined as many more Copies as thofe
he here mentions, for the Caufe of the ob-
fcurity of thefe Orations was not to be fought
for in the Miftakes of Tranfcribers, and in
Various Le&ions j but in the Head of the
Author himfelf.
CAP. x. dum anima fpirabo mea.] Forte
anima mea eft interpretatio, quae irreplit ex
margine, et Cicero fcripiit, dum Jpirabo,
aut, dum Juperabo. Sic fane Veteres loque-
bantur : non, dum anima fpirabo ; aut ju-
perabo^ med. GRAEVIUS, In whofe edi-
tion this pafTage (and innumerable others)
is badly printed and pointed. Here too is
fome variation in the MSS.
IBID, in fententia fimpliciter referenda.}
Quid fit fententiam referre non intelligo.
HOTTOMA.NNUS. Recte quaerit etiam
366 fefcivf ARK s on the OR AT ION
Manutius, quid fit refcrre fententiam$
GRAB vi us. He and Hot toman read Je-
renda^ from- Conjecture. See what I noted
above upon Cap. v. of this Oration, con-
cerning this Author's Ufe of Compound
Verbs inftead of Simple, whence it is very
probable, that referenda is the true Read-
ing in this place, and repetere above, cap,
ix. and retulijii^ pro Domo cap. 19. in
which places Manutius reads petere and tu-
Itftij as the Latin Tongue feems to require.
POST REDITUM IN SENATU. CAP. 1.
in ampliffimo concilio] Senatu. Quaeri tamen
poffet, cum Senatores non a populo crea-
rentur, fed a Cenforibus legerentur, quid
eft, (^odipopuH bcncficio fe in Senatu col-
latum dicit ? pofTet autem fubtiliter refpon-
deri, nonnullos qui magiftratum adepti ef-
fent, quamvis Senatores non effent, tamen
jus in Senatu dicendae fententiae habuiffe.
HOTTOMANNUS. Hottoman here makes a
Difficulty and raifes a Queftion for which
there does not feem to be any reafon. For
the Right a Roman Senator had to his Seat
in the Senate, was ordinarily from his hav-
ing born the Office of <=>uaeftor y Aedik,
Praetor ; or Con/id : which were called ho-
mres,
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 367
nores. and thefe honores were conferred by
the People, as Electors into thofe Pofts. fo
that a Senator might truly fay that he was
placed in the Senate HONORIBUS POPULI
Romani j fmce his fitting there was the
Confequence of the Honour or Magijlracy
into which he had been cbojen by the
People , not by the Cenfor. For tho' the Cenfir
afterwards allowed or confirmed his Right
by calling over his Name in the Roll or Ca-
talogue of the Senators, which was termed
legere Senatum -, yet the Right itielf of fit-
ting in the Houfe, and the actual taking
his Seat and Voting in it, was antecedent
to that Act of the Cenfor t who could not
deny him this piece of Juftice, nor exclude
him, unlefs he had fomething to object to
him. So that the part the Cenfor acted
herein, feems to have been a Matter of
Form more than of abfolute and eflentiai
Neceffity. and without doubt there were
many perfons who for fome time had been
Senators to all intents and purpofes, and died
fuch, before their Names had ever been call-
ed over by the Cenfor.
C A P. ii. mihi quam patriae malueram effe
fatalem,] Fata/is, et in bona et in mala re
dicitur :-
368 R E M A R K s on the O R A f r o iV
dicitur : quafi fato et certo Dei decreto ye!
falutaris vel exitiojus. Itaque in Catilin. iv.
meus y inquit, confulatus ad falutem reipub-
licae prope fatalisfitit. Sed quomodo Ci-
cero malueram cum illo verbo conjunxit,
cum fatalis et voluntarius contraria fmt, ut
ipfequoque in Philip, oftendit? etc. H OT-
TOMAN N us. This Remark Q{ Hottcman is
a very good one : and had he carried it as
far as he might have done, and as far as it
would go, I think it would have difcovered
to him that this could not be the Writing
of a genuine Roman, much lefs of Cicero.
but when he had once taken it for granted
that Cicero was the Author^ he could do
no more than wonder , and make the beft of
it. I will endeavour to illuftrate his Re-
mark. Fatalis, as is obferved by Him, and
by Servius upon Virgil Aen. ii. 165, is rSv
p'uruv, a word of a middle iignification, and
Originally implies any thing that is appoint-
ed* decreed by the Fates > which, whether
it be Good or Bad> is to be determined by
the Adjuncts, hence in Catilin. iii, 4. fatalem
bunc effe annum ADINTEKITUM hujus nr-
bis atque imperil, and iv, i . fi P. Lentulus
fuum nomen, induftus a vatibus, fatale AD ;
PERNICIEM reipublicae fore putavit -, cur
eg*
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 369
Cgo non laeter meum confulatnm AD s A LU-
TE M reipublicae prope fatalem extitijfe?
The Oppofite to fatalis is voluntarius, or
what is in our (manpower or choice. Philippic.
vi, 7. fu'it aliquis fatalis c afus y ttt ita de-
earn, quern tulimus y quoquo mo do ferendus
fait. nunCj fi quis erif, erit voluntarius.
and x, 9. an, cum ilium neceffarium, et fa-
talem paene cafum non tulerimus t hunc fe-
remus voluntarium ? See too fro Q^Ligario
Gap. vi. So then Jat alem and malueram are
utterly inconfiftent, lince Choice (malueram)
has nothing to do, and has no room in a
matter already (fatalem) dec reed by the Fafes
or Gods. But befides this primitive and in-
different (ignification of fatalis, Ufe has
given it another and more extended one, in
a bad Senfe ; whereby it denotes any thing
decreed by the Fates to the Deftruflion or
Death of the Thing or Perfon fpoken of: the
reafon of which fee in Muretus upon the
Third Orat. in Catilin. cap. i. Thus Li vy
lib. xxxix, 5 1 . Flaminini quoque adventum
uelut fatalem fibi horrtierat. He is fpeaking
of Annibal^ who dreaded the coming of
Flamininus to -the Court of Prufias King of
Bittynia, as a thing decreed by the Pates to
his deJlrucJion. And this (that I may not
B b trouble
370 R E M A R K S On the O R A T I O N
trouble the Reader with Inftances of a
thing every where to be met with) I be-
Heve is always the cafe in the wordfatalis
when it exceeds its Original and Indifferent
Signification, and has the Notion of Dt 7 -
f.ruttion or -Death annexed to it. and it is a
miftake to think that fatalis, in this latter
ufe of the word, is merely the fame as
cxitiofus or /eta/is : for it is always more,
and lignifies any thing that is deftruffive or
deadly, with the addition of, its being decreed
by the Fates or Gods, which Decree leaving
no room for Choice, it mould feem, that
malueram ejfe fatalem, in either Senfe of
the vfordjatalis, is an Abfurdity, or In-
conliftency in Terms ; and confequently,
not the writing of Cicero, or of an Author
who was well acquainted with the Latin
Tongue, which Ignorance, notified in fo
many Inftances, is one Reafon why I think
thefe Four Orations weVe written by a
Provincial.
CAP. iii. clarij/imi conjulisfafcesfrattos\
Apparet P. Lentulum fignificari etc. HOT-
TOMANNUS. clarij/imi confulis] QJVIetelli .
MANUTIUS. I believe the FadT: is not true
either of the one or the other; and that it
is
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 371
is either a FicJion or a MJJlake of the Au-
thor 5 becaufe it is incredible that neither
any Hiftorian, nor Cicero himfelf, who
in the Orat. pro P. Sextio cap. 3?., 33, 34,
etc. is fo Particular and Circumftantial in
recounting each ftep of his recall from Ba-
nimment, and of what befel his Friends or
Adverfaries in that tranfadtion, mould make
mention of fo remarkable an Infult upon
one of the Confuls ; or, if he had men-
tioned it, at the fame time fliould not have
acquainted us whether it was Lentuhis or
Metellus who fufFered this Indignity upon
his account, For in the preceding year,
when the like Outrage was committed
upon the Conful Gab'mius, it is related
both by Cicero in Pifon. cap. xii. and Dio
lib. xxxviii. In the Orat. Ad Qyirit. poft red.
cap. vi. tho' he tranfcribes, according to
cuftom, the reft of the Sentence out of this,
yet in the particular concerning the Conful,
he fpeaksmore cautioufly, coxsuLisfafces
frangerentur> without any Title or Epi-
thet, and ftill leaving it undetermined whe-
ther he meant Lentulus or Metellus. It
feems very probable, that this Oration be-
ing written feveral years after the time of
Cicero t the Author might remember, that
B b 2 in
372 RE M A R x s on the O R A T i O^N
in the Hiftory of thofe Times he had found
that Somebody's Fafces were broken \ and
not having a diftindt notion of the Seafon,
might' transfer to Lentulus or Metellus
what in reality happened to Gabinlus.
which kind of miftake is no new thing in
him, as lean (hew from more Inftances
than one.
.
CAP. vii. Capuaene tc putabas con-
futem .e//e, ficut eras eo tempore^] Hoc quid
fit fateor me non intelli2;ere. alius fortaife
o
acutior videbit. etc. HOT TOM ANN us. This
paffige I mentioned above, p, 145. 247.
CAP. viii. M\ Curius, cujus ego patri
quaejlor jut)~\ Valde hie haereo. huic enim
Curio, neque confuli, qui confulatum nun-
quam geffit, neque provinciam aliquam poll
praeturam adminiftranti quaeflor effe Cicero
potuit, quem fcimus quaeftorem Sex. Pe-
ducaeo in Sicilia fuilTe. MANUTIUS. The
only poffible Solution of this difficulty is,.
that Mdnius Curius might be adopted by Sex.
Peducaeus. Hottman and Pighius have
recourfe to this fuppolition. It remains then
to foe enquired, whether a Per ion who
adopts another for his Son, is ever in Cicero
called fimply pater to the 'adopted, without
' W O 1 T
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. -37^
/If fllfM fllif flf'fr
any mention or hint of the adoption, as
SK, Peducaeus is here- called /#/<?r ' to M'.
Curhts. For in the Orat. pro C. Rabirio
Poftitmo, in a like cafe, fpeaking of an
adopted per ion , the fame C. Rabirius Pojlu-
mus y and having occafion to mention his
Father ) the word pater there iignifies his
Natural^ not Adopting Father : cap. ii. Fuit
enim, pueris nobis, hujus pater C. Curius y
princeps ordinis equejlris, jortijjimus et ma-
ximus public anus, fee too cap. xvii. of the
fame Oration, and the Notes upon thqfe
places.
C A p. x. ut baberet inconfilio et fratrem\
Quid fi dicamus legendum efle, ut adhibe-
beret in conjitium etc. Omnino fie placet ma^
gis. Verum tamen nihil mutare aufim fi-
ne Libris. Nam fi Latine dicere licet, fuit
llle mihi in confilio : cur non etiam licet dicere,
habui ilium in confilio ? L A M B i N u s. Lambin
would not have called in queftion .the Lati-
nity of of our Author here, had he remember M
this pafTage.in the Orat. pro^, Chtentia. cap.
58. Cum baecjunt videnda^ turn verb illud
eft hominis magni y judices^ atque fapientis,
cum illam, judicandi caufsa, tabellam Jum-
Jerit t non Je putqre efle Jolum, neque Jifii,
B b 3 quod*
3 74 R M A R K S 0# //& O R A T I O N
quodcumque cmcuplerit, lie ere -, fed n ABE-
RE IN CONSILIO legeni) religionem, acqui-
tatem^ fidem : Ubidinem autem^ odium, in-
vidiam, metum^ cupiditatefque omnes amo-
vere : maximeque aeftimare confcientiam men-
tis Jtiae, quam ab Diis immortalibus accepi-
mus, quae a nobis diveili non poteft : quaejl
optimorum confiUorum atque jaftorum tefth
in omni vita nobis erit^ fine nlk metu, et
j'umma cum honejlatc^ vivemus. The Reader
will eafily fee why I need not beg pardon
for quoting this Incomparable paflage at
length, tho' the greatefl part of it is not to
my prefent purpofe. Livy too has the
fame expreffion lib. xl, 8. Senior -es duos a~>
micos acccrfit^ quos IN CONSILIO HA-^
BERET. It is likewife to be found in other
places of Liiy t and of other Writers.
PRO DOMO SUA. CAP. iii. bunc domo
et patrid cedere citrafti~\ Pro coegifti. Non
memini me fimileni apud hunc locutionem
animadvertiiTe. HOTTOMANNUS. I fhould
be glad to know whether the like expreffion
is to be met with any where elfe -, at leaft,
in a Profe- Writer. The ufual Latin wav
*
of writing is, curajll nt hie cedcrct. and tlio'
Cicero pro Sex. Rcfch cap. 36. rightly -fays
cum
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 375
aim homitiem Qccidendum (fcil. effe) curavzf,
the fame as, ut is homo occideretttr ; yet
you cannot proceed in the fame manner
here, for, hunc cedendum effe curaflL would
* */ / J
be nonfenfe.
CAP. v, propter varietatem venditorum}
Non capio quid lit varietas venditonwi.
nullis fidiculis ex his verbis poteft extorqueri
fententia quam illis affingit Hottomannm.
Sufpicor Ciceronem fcripfiffe, propter ava-
ritiam <venditorum. GRAEVIUS. The Note
of Hottoman in Graevius's Edition is this :
varietatem e -oenditoruni\ Qui alias merces
ex iis locis quo frumentum miferant, ve-
hendas curabant, quam cujtifmodi Romae
efTent qui aliis in locis negotiabantur. which
is unintelligible. I fuppofe it mould have
been pointed thus, Romae eflent : qui
aliis in locis negotiabantur. and flill it is
obfcure enough.
CAP. ix. quod idem in poflerum de extra-
ordinariis potejlatibus llbertatem ademiffes]
Non intelligo, nifi aut fubaudiatur aut ad-
datur intercedendi. HOTTOMANNUS. It
is an evident Barbarifm of the Author
himfelf, owing to an unikilful imitation
Bb 4 of
376 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
of the Orat. pro P. Sexfio cap. 28. qui in con-
done palam dixerint, linguamfe evelliffe M.
Catoni, quae fcmper contra extraordinarias
pqtcftates liber a juiflct. whence it appears
that the Author meant, qui idem (or eidem)
in pofterum [contra extraordinarias pctcftates
libertatem ejus [fell. Catonis] ademiffes.
IBID, qui s helium pacatiffimis gentibui\
Pro, helium contra pacatijimas gentes. MA-
NUTIUS. The whole Sentence is, quis
(Gabinio) bellum pacatiffimis genttbus dedit ?
who gave Gabinius the power of making war
upon nations who were in a moft profound
flate of peace ? This is what he feems to
mean by this Foreign, and Barbarous Latin.
Inftead of bellum pacatiffimis gentibus, he
fhould have written, potejlatem bellum infer
rendi pacatiffimis gentibus. It is taken out
of pro P. Sexfio cap. 43. bellum inferre
quiefcentibus y ut eorum veteres, illibata/quz
divitias, etc. where he is Ipeaking of the
fame Gabinius.
IBID, eas (provincias) lege Sempronia
per Stnatum decretas res cidifti] Aufitne quis
affirmare Latine dici refcindere provinciam ?
Lex, decretum, teflamentum dicitur re-
fcindi ;
n o i t>i HARUSPICUM RESPONDS.' 377
r> fT J ' /
Jclndl'j non vero provincial. GRAEVIUS.
Here is a very fmall variation in lame of
the MSS : fo that nothing quite certain
ought to be determined againft the Author.
Neverthelefs, the Sufpicion of Bad .Latin
is exceeding ftrong, both here and in the
foregoing Line, conjlitui per Senatum de-
cretdlegefanxit. upon which fee the Notes.
CAP. xi. quis apud populum Romanum,
quis fenatui faepim dixit?] Pro quis apud
fenatum. Simile loquendi genus non memi-
ni. HOT TOM ANN us. It certainly is not
Latin : unlefs when Cicero Ad Attic, iv, 2.
fays, diximus apud Pontijices pridie Kal.
Q&obres, he might as weM have written,
diximus Pontificibus.
CAP. xiii.Jinejudicio fenafiis] Quomodo
fenatus, cum in Verr. vii. (v, 48.) ita fcri-
bat : Quo confugient focii ? ad Senatum de-
venienf, qui deFerre fuppliciumfimmt? Non
eft ufitatum, non Senatorium. Ergo deftipe-
riorum temporum ratione haec intelligenda
funt, cum, ut Polybius vi. fcribit, fenatas
de rebus capitalists cognsfcebat. HOTTO-
MANNUS. When Hottoman fays, that vvhat
is
378 RE MARKS on the O R A T i o N
is here mentioned of the "Judgement of the
Senate is to be underftood of former times j
he is evidently miftaken. For the Author
is here fpeaking of the Rights of the prefent
times , IMC NOB is effe a major i bus traditum :
and of thofe of a Free-State at all times,
hoc effe deniquc proprium liber ae croitatis, ut
nihil de capite civis 3 aut de bonis, fine ju-
diciofenatus detrahi poffit. The Objection
therefore which Hottoman makes to this
pafiage, flands upon the fame footing it
did before his Solution.
CAP. xvii. ut ter ante magiftrattts ac-
cufet quam mulSlam irroget, aut judlcetl\
Inftead of accufet^ Lambin read citct -, be-
caufe it was not the bufmefs of a Magiftratc
to accufi, but to cite the Party accufed. Upon
this Gr uter notes: " Lambinus, magi ft ra-
tc tus cltet\ tanquam id ratio et veritas
< -probet. contra omnes libros, ideoque in-
cc epte." Lambitfs Conjecture was a bold
one, and ought "not by any means to have
been taken into the Context. But then on
the other hand, it was the part of Gruter y
r.fter he had made fo free with Lambin^ to
(hew by an Inftance, that Cicero might
write
DE HARUSPJCUM RES PON sis. 379
write in this manner,' and that a Magi/irate
or Judge is any where faid to accuje the
Criminal.
CAP. xvii. liberis^ Otiofum hoc videtur.
IVI A N u T i us. I think it may be defended by
thispaflage in Verr. iv, 35. ne mine quidtm t
in tanto tito, Kberorumque tuorum pericuk,
perhorrefcis ?
IBID, ne in praedae quidemfocietate man-
cipcm aut praedae focium rcperire potuijli]
Non adhibere (Graevius meant _ rcperire)
potuifti in praedae jbcietate praedae focium ',
abfurde dicitur, non eqviidem ore Tulliano,
GRAB vi us. for focietate He and Pitboeus
read feStione '. inftead of praedae focium ^ Ma-
nutius conjectures, praedem focium.
IBID, neque pontificem adhibere quern
ve/Ies] Pro quemquam velles^ id eft, quem
omnes probarent. adhibuifti enim adolef-
centem imperitum, novum facedotem, etc.
MANUTIUS. Either this Note is very ob-
fcare, or Manutius fure is greatly miftaken
when he explains qucmquam by quem omnes
probarent. I find indeed quem for quem-
quam in De clar. Orator, cap. 4 1 . and elfe-
where. but quemquam for quem omnes pro-
barent,
r. ^
*8b R E M A R K S /<? OR A T I O K
barent, feems as new and unufual as the
conceits of our Author. There is no dif-
ficulty at all in the common acceptation of
the Words, fee cap. 52. Quae cumvideres,
turn te ad tuuni affinem contulifti. which
*U *J
place, with what goes before it,- will fully *
explain this.
...
-
C A P. xx. <$uid operum publicorum . ex-
attio ?] Quid fibi velit operum publicorum
exaftio quaerant docliores, etc. GRAEVIUS.
who reads extruftio for exafiiQ. Manutius
fays, Obfcurum eft quid dicat. See however
his explication, which perhaps is as good an
one as can be given,
CAP. xxi. me praefidio /poHarent : fe-
natum pro me non modb pugnare, amplifli-
mum ordinem,yft/ etiam plorare prohibereni -,
etc.] Similem iterationern nufquam me ani-
madvertiffe memini. HOT TOM ANN us. The
word fenatum he is of opinion was writ*
*/ i
ten in the Margin to explain amplijfimum
ordinem, and from thence came into the
Context. The foregoing Sentence too is
very obfcure, as it now (lands ; cum meam
domum refer tarn viris bonis per amicosfuos
compkrent : profcriptionis metu me Jrequen-
tid
DE HAR^S^JCUM RESPONSIS. ^81
w/
tid nudarcnt wrorum bonorum, me praejidio
fpoliarent : fenatum pro me non modo etc,
Graevius thinks that the word tenure has
been omitted by the Transcribers, per
amicos fuos terrore complerent. By the
change of a Jingle letter in the word Jena~
turn, and by altering the Points, I believe
the paffage may reftored : cum me am do*
mum y rcfertam viris bonis, per amicos fuos
complerent profcriptionis metu - y me frequen-
tid nudarent virorum bonorum - t me praejtdio
Jpoliarent fenatus -, pro me non modo pugnare
ampliffimum ordinem, Jed etiam plorare
probiberent ; ne turn quidem vis erat $ It is
prtly taken out of the Orat. in Pijon. cap.
v. Erat non Jblum domus mea> fed totum
* Palatium, Jenatu, equitibus Romants, civi-
tate omni, ItalidcunSld, refer turn : and part-
ly out of pro Cn. Plancio cap. 3 5. concern-
ing the fame matter : Aderat mecum cun~
ft us equefter or do ; quern quidem in cone ioni bus
faltator ille Catilinae, conjul t profcriptionis
denuntiatione terrebat. From this lait place
he has likewife transferred it into the Orat,
poft red. in Sen. cap. 1 3 . ^uare cum vide-
rem equites Romanos projcriptionis
metu ej/e permotos -, etc.
CAP.
cSz R EM AR K s on the OR AT ION
o
CAP. xxviii. ant montani~\ Qui illi ex
plebe Romana montani^ diftincti a pagans* ?
etc. GRAEVIUS. See above, p. 214.
CAP. xxxii. mihi makdifti locum
cbtinebit ?] Mihi pro in me pofitum vide-
tur. HOTTOMANNUS. I believe it is not
Latin.
CAP. xxxiv. odium retinebat] Fero:
fed tenebat ufitatius. MANUTIUS. See
upon Ad Quir. poft Red. cap. v. p. 272.
and p. 366.
CAP. xxxviii. nomine ipfo Aequimelii
Jlultitia poena comprobata eft.] Mihi videtur
Jlultitia nefcio quo cafu irrepfifle, et Melii^ *
ex veftigiis veterum codicum colligo exci-
diffe. Num Cicero fcelus et flagitium Me--
Hi, regnum afFedlantis, Jiultitiam vocet?
Caecina apud Cic. vi. ad FamiL Epift. 7.
Jiultitiam vocat cum quis contra potentes
fcribit : fed affeftationem tyrannidis
nemo fanae mentis, nedum Tullius, Jiulti-
tiam dixerit. Ciceronis manus fuit, nomine
ipjb Aequimdii poena ejl comprobata. GRAE-
VIUS. This would be an excellent Con-
je&ure on a better Writer. But as it is cer-
tajn
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 383
tain that Cicero in this place would not have
put the word Jlultitia ; fo I think it is as
certain that this Writer would. This paf-
fage was mentioned before, p. 340. where it
is pointed as I believe it came from the Au-
thor's Hand, viz. aequiim accidiffc Melio
populus Romanics judicarvit (or indicavit) no-
mine ipfo dequimelii : Jlultitia poend compro-
bata eft.
CAP. xl. nimium ejje juperjlitiofum mn
oportere.~\ Sufpedhis mihi locus, nam quid
eft hoc, nimium ejje juperjlitiofum ? quale
eft, nimis avarum et nimis intemperantcm
efle, et fimilia. quo modo li quis loquatur,
fignificet, iiitium horum habituum nafci ex
eo quod eft nimium, non ex rebus ipfis;
et eum, qui fit avarus, aut intemperam^
modo non fit nimis avarus aut nimis intern-
peram> non efTe vituperandum. quod ub-
furdum di6hi eft. At, ut avaritia, et in-
temperantia^ "oitiorum funt nomina, ita et
fuperjlitioy vitii nomen eft. Ut igitur ali-
quis reprehendatur, nimis fuperftitiofum efle
non necefTe eft j fed qmtquis fuperftitiofus e/t,
eo ipfo vituperandus eft. LAMBINUS. Haec
ft in fchola Stoica Lambinus difputaret, fii-
ciles ei praeberemus aures. Sed in Oratore
qui
384 R E M A R K S On the O R A T I O N
qui cum vulgo loquitur, nemo haec repre-
hendat. etc. GRAEVIUS. This Criticifm
of Graevius upon Lambin, does not feem
to remove, or indeed at all to affe<fr, the
objection. For fuppoling the word fuper-
Jlitiofus to imply a Vicious Character, as it
certainly does, and Graevius cannot deny
itj the bulinefs was to prove, that the
vulgus, or Cicero t or any other Orator +
or good Writer^ did ever exprefs them-
felves thus, and did allow that a man
might without any jault or blame, befit-
perftitiofus y avarus, or intemperans, pro-
vided he were not NIMIS fuperjlitiofus i
avarus, or intemperam. Till it be proved
that the Antients were wont to fpeak or
write in this manner, the Expreffion /-
mium fuperftitiofum will juftly feem to be
contrary to common Senfe, and the Cuftom
of all other Authors.
CA P. xlii. cum forum armath
perditorum hominum po[jiderei\ Num quis
legit apud ullum fcriptorem probatum, pof-
Jidere urbem^ aut locum > armis aut homini-
nilfus ? - . PoiTes dicere, pojjidere forum
armatis, effe, per armatos, aut cum arma-
tis. -Sed hoc infolens eft, ut puto, Latinis
auribus,
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 385
auribus. GRAEVIUS. He conjectures that
it mould be read ohfideres inflead ofpoflide-
res. I do not doubt but pffffideres, the read-
ing of all the MSS, was the Author's writ-
ing, and I think we may account for his
miftake from the paflage whence, as ufual,
this was taken, Orat. pro P. Sextio, cap. xv.
armatl homines forum et condones tenebant.
He knew that temre and poffidere are fre-
quently fynonymous: and having a mind to
vary a little from Cicero's Words, he feems
to have concluded, that if tenere forum ar-
watis hominibiLS were right, pojfidere Jorum
armath cafervzs could not be wrong. It is
very well that he did not put haberes inflead
of pojjidcres, fince teneo, habeo, and pojjideo^
are often convertible. But it is wonderful
that Graevius, who had true Skill in the
Latin Tongue, and who fojuftly had doubt-
ed of the Latinity here, mould fo eafily
give it up again, and think tha&peffl&res
might be defended by tenere in the Orat.
in Vatiniwn cap. 2. num armatis bominibus
templum tenuerit* For the words are of a
very different fignification ; and tenere there,
and in the abovemention'd paflage of the
Orat. pro Sex f to, and in many others in
Liiy, Caefar, Cicero, and other Writers,
Cc is
386 REMARKS on the OR AT ION
is a military term, and fignifies to keep guard
in, or defend, as is noted upon Virgil Aen.
viii, 653. Capitolia celj'a tenebat. Where
Servius : tenebat} defendebat. et eft militare
verbum etc. and Aeneid. ix. 168.
Haecfuper e vallo pro/pedant Troes, et armis
Alta tenent :
where Servius again, Eona elocutio : id eft,
arm at I tenent alt a, hoc eft, muros. Tenent
autem, cuftodiunt. So in Caefar Bell. Civ. i.
12. Inter ea certior faff us, Iguvium Ther-
mum praetorem cohortibus quinque tenere,
etc. and fo again a little lower in the fame
chapter ; and cap. xv. id oppidum Lentu-
lus Spinther x cohortibus tenebat. Curtius
iv, 5. inde Macedones tranjlere Mitylenen y
quam Chares duorum millium praelidio
tenebat. Now if any body can bring an In-
ftance in which pojjldere is ufed in the fame
military fenfe that tenere is, fuch as, poffi-
dere oppidum cohortibus, praefidio, or armatis
hominibus -, this Author, and others, will be
greatly obliged to him.
C A p.xliv. excogitavit] Fero: fie tamen
ut cogitavit* magis probem. MANUTIUS.
See p. 30.
CAP.
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSJS. 387
CAP. xlvii. avi fut, ^Mefel/e,] Nepo-
tem appellat, non Cderem, qui jam perierat,
ut ex orationdi in Vatihium colligitur. Sed
Nepoti proavus, non avus, Macedonicus fu-
it, etc. Eft igitur pvr,i.wvixw a^e^r^ou M A-
NUTIUS.
CAP. xlviii. recu/ares,] Legendum pu-
to, uti recujares. HOT TOM ANN us. This
was well meant by Hottoman^ who did net
fufpecl the Poverty of this Writer, and the
miierable (hifts he is often driven to in his
Language.
CAP. L. foedera feriebantur provinci-
arum, re gum appellationes venales erant^\
Sic omnes editi, quos infpexi. Sed quid fit,
foedera provinciarum ferire non ego intel-
ligo. Si qui fit, qui me docere velit, erit
mihi Apollo, etc. GRAEVIUS. He then ot-
fer ves, \hatfoederaferiebantur provinciarwr
is Falfe in point of T^ime : for the agree-
ment concerning the Provinces, between
Clodius and the Confuls Pi/b and Gabinius,
was made before the tranfaclions he is now
fpeaking of: and that Cicero's Hand, and
the Senfe, are to be reftored by changing
the Pundtuation, in this manner : fed uno
tempore cautioner fiebant pecuniarum> foede-
Cc 2 ra
388 REMARK s on ^ORATION
raferiebantur, provinciarum, re gum appel-
lationes venaks erant, etc. and fo it is pub-
liftied in his Edition. But this Pointing
ftill leaves as great a Difficulty as That it
was defigned to remove. For tho' any
body may underftand the meaning of re-
gum appellationes, the Titles or Appellations
of King, which were vena/es, or expojed to
jale, and to be bought /or money ; yet who
can explain appellation? sproiiinciarum in the
like manner, or tell what the Appellations
of Provinces were, or how to be bought
and fold ? The common Pointing of this
paffage is undoubtedly the right one. nor
do I fee any difficulty in it. For foedus fe-
rire is a very obvious expreflion, examples
of which may be found in any Lexicon :
and foedus . provinciarum is often ufed in
thefe Orations, and in the true Cicero, to
fignifie the agreement which was made be-
tween ClodiuSj and Pijb and Gabinius the
Confuls, that Pifo mould have the Province
of Macedonia affigned him, and Gabinius
That of Syria, for their fervices to Clodius
in bringing about the Difgrace and Banifh-
ment of Cicero, fee pro P. Sextio cap. x.
So Ad Quint, poji red. cap. v. qui provin-
ciarum foedere irretiti^ totum ilium annum
DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 389
querelas fenatus pertulerunt : which a little
lower he calls provinciarum paftiones. Poft
red. in Sen. cap. vii. ut civis optime mcriti
fortunas provinciarum foedere addiceres. Ci-
cero pro P. Sextio cap. 14. lidem confides
paQojam foedere provinciarum, product: in
Circo Flaminio, etc. cap. xv. cum duo ccn-
fules a republica provinciarum foedere re-
traxijjet. \\~iPifon. cap. xii. foedus quodmeo
fanguine in paclione provinciarum iceras,
franger? noluijli. and fo in feveral other places.
For as to Graevius's obje&ion, that focdera
feriebantur provinciarum is not agreeable to
Hiftory, and does not come in at the right
ftme -, it is very true : and this is to be ad-
ded to the feveral other Blunders of the fame
kind which this Author has committed.
CAP. Iviii. extendendam pTitavi,] This is
the Reading of all the MSS, as Gruter and
Graevtus tedifie. The whole Sentence is
this : 'quorum (munerum cxbonorum) ego non
tamfacultatcm imquam et cctiam extcndcn-
dam putavi, quam et in uicnch rationem, ct
in carendo paiientiam . The FACULTAS c r
COP i A of Riches or the Goods oj Fortune
may perhaps be rightly faid cxtendi, to be
enlarge dm extended : but in what Senfe can
C C 3 RATIO
390 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N
RATIO in utcndo, and PATIENTIA in
carendo^ be &\&extendi? The Author took
care of the firft part of the Sentence, but be-
fore he got through it, Nature returned, and
he has left the latter part to fhift for itfelf,
not feeing that the fame word was not ap-r
plicable to the whole Period. Expetendqm
would have anfwered this purpofe, as Grae-
iiius too obferves ; and therefore it has been
thruft into fome Editions : but contrary to
all the Written Copies.
DE HARUSPICUM RESP. CAP. vi. Q
Metellus] Nepos. quern non efTe ilatim poft
P. Lentulum nominatum, et confulem appel-
latum, equidem miror. MANUTIUS. In the
next chapter the Author writes as he ought
to have done here : P. Lentulo, ^ Mefe/Io,
CoJJ'. refer entibus.
CAP. ix. quijlatasfokmnefque cerimonias,
pontlficatu\ Pontificatu, pro pontificum Jcien-
tid y dixit. MANUTIUS. Seep. 337.
Cap. xvi. ad nojlrum (ut je ipfe appella-
vit) imperatorem\ L. Pifonem fignificat. In
dratione tamen contra ipfum (cap. xvi.)^>-
pellatus eft y inquit, hie vulturius illius pror
vinciae^Ji Diis placet, Imperator. MANU.
TIUS. See too cap. 23. of that Oration.
DE I-TARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 391
CA P. xx. in dome/lids eft germ ani tat is
ftupris volutatus] Quid hoc fibi vult, ger-
manitatis Jluprh ? Scio quid mihi didturus
ilt aliquis, cum Clodia forore, et ceteris foro-
ribus, rem habuifle fignificat. Audio. Itane
vero? his verbis hanc fententiam exprimi
oportuit ? quis unquam hoc modo locutus ell ?
dixiffet potius, in domefticis eft cum germanis
forori bus ftupris, etc. Confiderentigiiurhunc
locum, qui fe Ciceronianos dici volunt, et
videant num potius ita legi debeat, in do-
mefticis, germanifque Jiupris eft volutatus.
LAMBINUS. Graevius fays, that germanitas
is here put for germanae for ores, as matri-
monium for uxor, and /ervitia for fervi.
And this perhaps may be confirmed out of
Livy xl, 8. in the Speech of Philip of Mace-
don to his fons Perjeus and Demetrius, who
were at variance : fed inter dum /pes animwn
fubibat Jubitiiram vobis aliquando germa-
nitatis memoriam. tho' there indeed the
relation, or thing, viz- brotherhood, is fig-
nified, not the Per fons, as in this place of
our Author. He has the lame Sentiment
again cap. 27. Quis unquam nepos tarn libere
eft cumfcortis, quam bic cum jorori bits, wlu-
tatus ?
IBID, cum propinquis fuh decidit, ne reog
C c 3 facerct]
392 REMARKS on the ORATION, etc.
facer ct~\ Sic omnes plane veteres libri. Mihi
nee hiftoria haec nota eft, nee fatis conftat
mendane locus vacet. MANUTIUS.
CAP. xxvi. in mentem fubito ncc cogi-
tanti venire pot Hipe] Omnino fi quis atten-
tius confideret, videtur ridiculum dictu, ve-
nire cuiquam aliquid in mentem nee cogltanti.
nifi quis dicat, ea dici alicui in mentem ve-
nire nee cogltanti^ quae cujufpiam animo
objiciuntur ex tempcre, et aliud agenti, etc.
LAMB IN us. He fays that nee is wanting
in the MSS : whence in (lead of cogitanti,
he reads concionanti. tho* I do not find that
Gruter or Graevius take notice of the o-
rniffion of nee in any of their written Copies.
IBID, tent at as aures veftras] Quomodo
tentatae font fena forum aures, cum ilia Clo-
dius non m/enatu, fed in condone, dixerit?
To which he anfwers, Quia pofTunt ztfena-
toresm concione adefTe. MANUTIUS. What
Manutius fays, is poffible. it is as poffible like-
wife a that the Author might in this place
have forgot what he was about, and if by
this time the Reader is not convinced that it
is as probable too, I believe it will be to little
purpofe to detain Him or myfelf any longer
at prefent.
FINIS.
O F
The moft remarkable PERSONS,
WORDS, and EXPRESSIONS,
APtfentis rationem ha-
*- here. pag. 70.
Accenji. 309.
Adfidem^ dignitatem, per-
tinet. 78.
Ad rempublicam^ fdemque
pertinet. 76.
Ad (or apud) Pontifices.
284.
Adire^ infpicere libros Si-
byllinos. 347.
Aedepol or Edepol. 90
Acquimelium. 340. 382.
Aetas, bonaj mala. 226.
JMr.
Affinis. 16 1
Agitur caputj vita, fortu-
nae, fama. 83
Ago animam. 84.
Amandari infra mortuos
202
AmpliJJimus ordo, fenatus
380
Avwf J0wo pontijices. ^ 1 3
Appellations: provincia
rum y regum. 388
Appius Claudius. 303.
w. 351
j, Marcus. I
^, ZJ /Vwfci
242
. 326.
dftettius Pedianus.
7*0, palfredoj dromeda-
rio. 1 22.
4jjumere auftoritatem, PO-
tentiam. 19.
Auftoritas. 90. ^c/^.
tfuguratus^augurium. 338.
Bellum gentibus, contra.
gentes, 376.
Bellum terra marique. 150.
Bibulus, Lucius, Marcus.
66.
'aecina Longus. 325.
Paetus. 326. JV0/<?.
Caecitas luminis, libidi-
nis. 350.
Capua. 145. .Wote. 247.
Cedere 3 excedere^ difcedere.
139.
Celebrari infua Epijiola.
67.
Centuriari^ decunari. 369.
Cicero's Orat. />ra P. &#-
^. 233.
Claud'n or Clodii^ Patri-
cians and Plebeians. 17,
18.
G^r. 278.
Csnniventes ecttfi. 3<ri.
INDEX.
Conqulyere libros. pag. 347.
Conquirimus for qttaerlmus
ibid.
Confedit, concidlt. 333
Confervator reipublicae.
299.
Conful^ Praetor : a Father
to bis ^uaeftor. 155.
Cum, turn. 2401
Cum imperio. 257.
Curajii cederejoegifti. 3 74.
Cur'iu^ Manius. 372.
J)e Scripto dicere, when
praftifed. 243.
Decernere. 166.
Decuriari) centuriari. 363
Deficeret. 3^0.
Detcrritus ob mortem^ rnor-
te. ^ 44
Devotionis conviffus. 361.
Deus : Deus mor tails. 282.
Dignitas, 214
Z)^V immortales. 241.
Diligent er metuere. 206.
.>/#// fenatuiy apud fena-
tum. 377
Dirigere judldum ad ali-
quidy aliquo. 42.
Divinitus, divine. 248.
Dlvinum. 2.4.1.
Domltla lex. 170.
JDomus and tefTrf. 315
Z)ww animd Jpirabo me a.
365.
Erepublicafidequefoa. j6.
Ecce. 134.
' Efflagitare. 271.
Egentem fud virtute. 3 04.
fminenteS) imminentes ca-
'nes. 355.
Er.im.iio. 213.314. 350.
Exaftio operum publlco-
rum. pag. 380.
Excogitavit) cogitavit. 30.
Note.
Explere mentum^fpem^ vc-
luptatem t contumelias he-
norlbus. 101.
Exfolvere meritum } remu-
nerare. 104.
Extendty expetl. 389.
Exturbare. 43.
Facile pat i. 193.
/tf a'(J 3 and its Compounds.
120.
Facito ut facias. 88.
Fattum gerere. 301.
Fadius, Tttus. 254.
Fallere^finirejincipias. 28.
Fatalis. 368, 9.
/vm? tibl curatlonem. 295.
Fideliter infervire valetu-
dini. 207.
Flagitare. 271. / y^a
Cijlopborum. 296.
Flavius } CaiuSj the Scribe.
.^ TI .-
Fluffuans genus dicendi.
2.^6.
Foedera provlnciarum. 388.
jf^n?, forPo Ro. i. e. />0/>-
/ Romano. 45. A'ij^.
Fugere. 137. urbem, ex
urbe. 140.
Fundltus evertere. 5 1.
jpr. 303.
Germanitas. 391.
Germanltatis'Jluprh. ibid.
Gerere faflum t rem } ntgo-
tium. 39 1.
INDEX.
Habere In conftlio. p. 3 7 3. j
Honos deer et us, habitus.
79- 8 4-
Honcres adhibere* 80.
Honor es. 366.
Ho/lia^ devota, conjlituta.
. 333-
7?z liber urn loco baberi. 255.
Imperatcr. 257.
Inceptisduobusverbis. 332.
Incredible. 241.
Inenodabiliter, inexplicabi-
liter, inbofpitaliter, in-
fo-miter. n 8.
Infideliter, mala fide 116
In mea pote/late, cuJJodia
99-
Injignes equi. 2,84.
Jnjiituto ceterorum vetere.
.3*5-
Interdlcatur^ interdifium
fit. 291.
Inter feflor reipublicae. 244.
, emphatical. 335.
/? ^?, ^o. 34.
a/. 288. w i. e. w/
pag- 54
Libertas de potejiatibus.
375-
Licere. 61.
Licet and Po/^/?. 59.
Licentia and libertas. 302.'
Lift ores. 3 11 *
Littera religionis, de reli-
gone.
Laf m Clodius, a Plebeian.
I7>.i8-
Magiftratus accvfat, citat.
37?-
Magnitndo, magnitude ani-
nimi. 41.
Malueram ejje fatalent
wow. 291.
Junta Tertia. 162.
LabefaElare, movere. 49.
Laetitiae voluptate. 265.
Largitio and Liberalitas.
&
Largitio and Ambitus, ibid.
Largitione corruptus. 57.
LargitioneSy largiri hono-
res. 55.
Legere fenatum. 367.
Sj Marcus, Paulus.
165.
>^ Sacerdotiii.
Mandere tribunal, larriberc.
355-
Marcellus, Marcus. 180.
Melius Spuriui. 341.
MemmiJJe ut meminerh . 88.
Mercede reddcnda, augen-
da. 277.
iniusj L. Rufus. 258.
, /KWtf. 382.
Moderatio rei familiarity
modus. 316.
Molejle ferre^ pail. 193.
Montani. 214. A/ij/^. 308.
Mulium fangiiinisfattum.
85.
Murrbedius. 331.
Muiare vejlem. 249.
NeceJJitudo. 256.
Negat negare. 8^.
Nimis fuperjlitiofus. 3 84.
mefallit, (c. animus,
87.
INDEX.
Nominatio. pag.
Non modb non, non modo y
. nedum, ne quidem, adeo,
adeo nan, ttiam, etc.
108, etc.
Obruere omen, avertere.
35 1 -
Omni-s crit mlbl aetas ad
hoc. 249.
Optimum genus dlccndi.
no.
Oratorio caUiditas. 321.
Note.
Parricidae. 180.
Pater. 373.
Pcdibus ire in Jententlam.
244.
Pejus malum, majus. 191.
. Note.
Perfringere alt'itudine^
tela. . 353.
Pergitin pergcre. 8 8 ?
Perfuadcre cotpimus, fua
dere^ 2.7. : 9.
Perfuadere Jluduit> i. n n-
vit, etc. 29.
Peter e, bonores peter c. 6^.
Petit zo, bcnorum petit io.
ibid.
Pinarius, L. Natta. 506.
P/KJ afl, plure: uno. 1 14.
Pontifex Maximus. 313
Pontificates. 337, 8.
Popilius Laenas. 279.
PoJJldere forum armaiis ca-
tervis. 3 84
Praedd aliquid tangere.
293.
PraediElum^ diftum. 349.
Pracfidium. 239.
Primis tribus vcrbis. 332.
Pro (or
pag. 284.
Pryfefiu's ire. 88.
Probibere praefentia ma-
la. 31.
^yaeftor imperatori. 254.
259.
Quanta quanta^ quanta-
cumque. 305.
Quatefacio. . 120.
>uem velles, quemquam
vettes* 379.
^tt/tf. 210.
Quibus qutbus, quibujcum-
que. 305.
Quibufdam multis, al'ris
mult is. 357.
^K/ f w?w -M Antonio f it-
erant. 75.
^uocumque vcnit. 294.
Rationem habere ahcujus.
70.
Redder e me miht. 270.
Redder e in integrum. 40.
Redderevicem merit is. 104.
Reditus gratiae, in gra-
tiam. 354.
Refer re fententlam^ ferre.
Referre gratiam
merit is, etc. 104.
Reponi in ejus locum. 93.
Refcindere provtnciam ) le-
gem, etc. 376.
Rejiitui in integrum. 38.
Retinebat odium } tenebat.
272.
Reuocari in integrum^ in
irritum. 38.
Sacrorum. 1 8.
INDEX.
Sahidienus, pag. 166
Salus. 214.
Sarcire, explere. lOi.Noie.
Scato^ JMarfus. 304
Scribae. 309.
Scriptum facer e. 311
SeRam fequi. 74
Segnis. 5 2
Seipfum obtulit. 155.
Senatui dixit^ apud Sena-
turn. 377.
Sept em monies for Roma.
308.
/ for ^//7., quanruis. 284.
5/^/ monjlrum^ per fe. 345 .
&>/<?. 130.
Spiriiu and ?v oppoled.
202.
Spiritu vivere. ibid.
Stultitia. 382.
Stuprare puli^inar. 349.
Stuprum infer re . 350.
Suadere coepit } perfuadere.
29.
rt pecunia. 151.
Sub/lituij fufficij fubrogari
in alicujus locum. 94.
/ manicipiiy juris , arbi-
trii, etc. 47.
Superciliwn, 225.
Superior contra improbosl
pag. 282,
Superjlitiofus. 383.
Sufcipere aufloritatem. 15.
Ttf// ya^, ^ 47. 125^.
Tar dare. 112.
7^<?i2 and domus. 315.
Tenere a military word.
385-
manque. 150.
Thales. 130.
Thufcus, the Declaimer.
168. 331.
Valerius Antias. 147.
Valerius Maximus. 339.
Varietal venditorum y 375.
AW/V W/rf. 85.
Verbum confecrationis, de
ccnfecraiione. 3 3 6.
Verijjimum genus dicendi.
no.
Vetus^C. Antijlius. 151.
155-
riatorts. 311.
Violati oculi. 347.
Virtutis difciplina. 183.
^/V and jpecies. 3 1 7.
Voluntarius,
Utfoleres, ut fskbas.
AUTHORS Corrected or Explained.
A SCONIUS PEDIANUS. 319. 320. 322. Notei
** Contradi&s himfelf. 322. Note.
Explained. 327.
AUCTOR Orat. Pro Domo fua. 317. 381. 383-
DeHarufp. Refp. 333. 351. 355.
CAESAR. 109.
CICERO. 46. Note.^g. 62. 273.
Defended. 44.
Explained. 154. 281.
HIRTIUS. 45. Note.
JUSTIN explained. 101. Note.
LIVY explained. 72.
MACROBIUS. 138.
OVID defended and explained. 85, 6, 7.
PLAUTUS. 88.
PLUTARCH miftaken. 280.
TIBULLUS. 69.
VEL.L. PATERCULUS explained. 153.
ERRATA.
Peg-
Jin. inftead of
read
2$.
20. pofliby
poffibly
3-
Note. 6. and upbraiding
upbraiding
78.
17. ju dicta ,
judico,
86.
19. 1150
ii: 50.
144.
f" o E N T E s : funt
' t, quibufdam
G E N T E S _// :
, quibufdam
151.
2. 421.
42.
325.
8. esiflo.
f s ijlo
231.
antep. attaintments
attainments.
240.
15. tinet in the
tinet. in the \
243.
5. Senatum.
Senatu. fu>
253.
1 9. abundance
abundance
256.
8. Fabius
Fadius
258.
7. and Imp e rat or
an Itnperatar \
263.
6. c.
C.
273-
penult, apprehended
apprehend \ ^
278.
2 1 . wanted to be.
wanted it to be\
33-
//-. Tbufeus,
Tbu/cus,
33*-
2 1 . qufrebatur.
quaerebatur.
356.
3. apprefion
apprehenfion
3 6 4-
penult, fcare
fcarce
37-
4. it Original
ii's Original.
1 *Jni B !
CO
^ i
CO
=0
I
I
lWllli
A 000105682 9