UC-NRLF 
 
 B ^ M'^a Dbb 
 
^be xaniversiti? of Cbicago 
 
 FOUNDED BV JOHN D. ROCKKFBLLBR 
 
 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN 
 CONSOLATIO 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (department of latin) 
 
 BY 
 
 EVAN T. SAGE 
 
 UN'IVERSITY 
 
 CHICAGO 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 1910 
 
TTbe "Clniversitp ot CbfcaQo 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN 
 CONSOLATIO 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 and literature in candidacy for the degree 
 of doctor of philosophy 
 
 (department of latin) 
 
 BY 
 
 EVAN T. SAGE 
 
 CHICAGO 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 1910 
 
Copyright 1910 By 
 The University of Chicago 
 
 Published February 1910 
 
 Composed and Printed By 
 
 The University of Chicago Press 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 
 
TO 
 
 L. S. S. L. E. S. 
 
 W. L. S. S. M. S. 
 
 IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SYMPATHY 
 AND ENCOURAGEMENT 
 
 2393G8 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The ultimate origin of this dissertation may be found in the interest 
 in epideictic literature aroused by a seminar study of the Agricola of Tacitus 
 under Professor G. L. Hendrickson, then of Chicago, now of Yale. Added 
 to this was the curiosity which any anonymous document must inspire, 
 especially one of literary, historical, or even merely antiquarian interest. 
 
 I desire to record my gratitude to the Bibliotecario of the Biblioteca 
 Civica, Bergamo, Italy, for ready and courteous assistance given me 
 while a student there, and later; to Dr. B. L. Ulhnan, of the University 
 of Chicago, particularly for material gathered by him while abroad; to 
 Professor G. J. Laing and Dr. C. H. Beeson, of the University of Chicago, 
 for timely assistance and valuable criticism; and especially to Professor 
 Hendrickson, at whose suggestion, and under whose direction, the work 
 was done. It is but just to add that the distance and almost continuous 
 separation between us during the progress of the work have deprived it in 
 no small degree of the benefits of his sound judgment and searching criti- 
 cism, which would have removed many blemishes. 
 
 Evan T. Sage 
 University of Idaho 
 March, 1909 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 I append a brief list of the works to which reference is made most fre- 
 quently, and in most abbreviated form: Schulz De Ciceronis Consolatione, 
 Diss. {Schidz); Schneider De Ciceronis Consolatione, Diss. {Schneider); 
 Buresch " Consolationum a Graecis Roman'sque Scriptarum Historia 
 Critica," in Leipziger Studien zur kl. Phil. IX. 5 ff. (Buresch). For the 
 Consolatio itself, the Nobbe edition was used, chiefly because the text 
 therein is divided into sections. I have used also the editions of Ernesti 
 and Klotz, various older editions, as that in the Opera of Sigonius, ed. 1757, 
 and that in the Gothofredus Cicero of 1 588, and a few of the early editions 
 enumerated on p. 7. Nobbe's text with the exception of some changes 
 in punctuation was followed closely. The sixteenth-century controversial 
 literature was derived mainly from the 1757 edition of Sigonius. The 
 fragments are cited from the Teubner text of Muller. Other bibliographi- 
 cal material will be found in the appropriate places. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction xi 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. The Consolation Down to the Time of Cicero . . i 
 
 II. History of the Pseudo-Ciceronian Consolatio . . 7 
 
 III. Structure of Our Consolatio 10 
 
 IV. Authenticity of Our Consolatio 25 
 
 V. Conjectures as to the Author 47 
 
 Appendix A. Consolations and Laudations in the Renais- 
 sance 59 
 
 Appendix B. Clausulae , 62 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 About the beginnincr of the year 1583 there was published in Venice, 
 by a certain Vianello, under the name of Cicero, the Consolatio we are to 
 study. For a year it was a never-failing topic of discussion, and then it 
 passed from the thoughts of men. Since then references to it have been, 
 with few exceptions, casual and incidental. Despite the magic of the name 
 of Cicero, despite the importance of the consolation in the history of 
 literature, our Consolatio is almost unknown. The assumption of spurious- 
 ness now universally and tacitly made seemed to lack sufficient basis, and 
 a re-examination of the evidence seemed desirable. Ideally, the question 
 of the authenticity of our Consolatio should have been settled at the time 
 of its publication: some scholar in possession of all the necessary facts, 
 and equipped with all the necessary powers of imagination, combination, 
 and divination, would have solved the problem once and for all. When 
 later generations approach such a question, the earlier discussions and 
 assumptions, however futile, inevitably leave a penumbra of unconscious 
 prejudice. Yet these earlier attempts to answer the question are not to 
 be neglected; the illuminating flash may as well come from a scholar of 
 the sixteenth century as from a student of the twentieth. Lacking this 
 ideal condition, the only resource of the student of authenticity is to re- 
 examine, with all possible care, all the evidence it is possible to accumulate, 
 without reference to any assumption of spuriousness, and, if possible, with- 
 out prejudice therefrom. In the present case, to counteract any such 
 prejudice, the makeshift substitute has been adopted of assuming the docu- 
 ment genuine until proved spurious, putting the burden of proof, so to 
 speak, on the prosecution. The resultant attitude of mind is of course 
 only an approximation to the ideal entire impartiality. 
 
 I propose first to inquire into the state and quantity of consolatory 
 literature in Cicero's time, to furnish us with a background for further 
 study; second, to examine the external history of our Consolatio; third, 
 to attempt to make out its structure and relation to other literature; fourth, 
 to investigate the question of its authenticity, and then, if it proves spurious, 
 to try to assign a date for its composition. The principle of work and of 
 presentation has been to consider all the evidence possible, and to present 
 typical specimens when the bulk of material of one sort was prohibitive; 
 to apply all the tests that could be devised; and finally, to submit the evi- 
 dence and the results in such a form that the reader's conclusions may not 
 be unduly influenced by mine. In this way alone, it seems to me, may 
 real progress be made toward the solution of the problem. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 THE CONSOLATION DOWN TO THE TIME OF CICERO 
 
 The student of any Roman literary type is of course interested in the 
 sources, not only of the ideas presented, but also of the form chosen for the 
 presentation. Obviously such a type as the consolation is intimately 
 related to certain other types like the laudation, the threnos, etc., and prop- 
 erly should not be separated from them in a complete study of sources. 
 The connections of any species of literature are so numerous and so wide- 
 spread that a special investigation is necessary for each, and no casual 
 statement can be adequate and complete. We may, however, indicate 
 in a general way the affiliations of the consolation, and so form some idea 
 of the possible sources, though here some other elements must be taken 
 into account. We shall in the present discussion not concern ourselves 
 much with the identification of sources in particular, especially since, as 
 the following vdll bring out, such an identification may easily be, and usually 
 has been, carried too far. It is true that for an occasional distinctive point 
 of view a definite philosophical provenance may be made out, sometimes 
 with certainty, but in a field like that of consolation, the ideas are of such 
 universal character that a high degree of uncertainty with regard to origin 
 is inevitable. 
 
 In connection v^dth the problem of the sources of Cicero's Consolatio, 
 that of the sources of the Tusculans becomes of some interest. The exact 
 relationship between the two it is probably now impossible to determine: 
 the general similarity of subject, the frequent references to the Consolatio 
 in the Tuscidans, and other data compel the universal conclusion that a 
 connection, more or less close, does exist. Yet the question of the sources 
 of the Tusculans is too complicated, and the promised results too meager, 
 to make a full discussion here profitable. The question has been fully 
 debated in well-known articles by Corssen, Heine, Schmekel, Kiihner, 
 Reinhardt, Kayser, Hirzel, Tischer, Rohde, and Buresch. The most recent 
 contribution is that of Rubrichi, in Rivista di Storia Antica, N. S. XI. loo 
 fif., who beUeves that Plato is the direct source for the principal arguments, 
 while Chrysippus, Plutarch (!), Herodotus, Xenophon, and others were 
 drawn upon for illustrative material. The perusal of these conflicting 
 interpretations does not tend toward simpUfying the problem, nor is it pos- 
 sible that new light will be thrown upon it. However, a concrete example 
 of Cicero's method of attacking a philosophical problem may be of some 
 
2 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 interest, both for the Tusculans and for the Consolatio. Pliny {N. H., 
 pref. 22) quotes from Cicero's Consolatio the words, "Crantorem sequor," 
 and the fact is repeated by Hieronymus Ep. Ix. 5 (Migne I. 592). In Phny 
 this has all the characteristics of a direct quotation, and it doubtless is so, as 
 all the editors of the Fragments from Patricius down have believed (Sigonius 
 seems to have omitted it from his collection, though he refers to it in his 
 commentary). This would seem at first to be decisive, and has been con- 
 sidered so, but wrongly, as Buresch, p. 39, Schneider, p. 9, Schulz, pp. 22, 26 
 and n. 2, have hinted on general grounds. The interpretation of the quo- 
 tation comes naturally enough from Cicero himself. Cicero gives us a 
 clear account of his method of work in two letters to Atticus (xii. 21. 5; 
 xii. 14. 3). In the former he writes as follows: "neque tamen progredior 
 longius quam mihi doctissimi homines concedunt, quorum scripta omnia 
 quaecumque sunt in eam sententiam non legi solum, quod ipsum erat 
 fortis aegroti, accipere medicinam, sed in mea etiam scripta transtuU." 
 He says practically the same thing in the second letter: "nihil enim de 
 maerore minuendo scriptum ab ullo est, quod non domi tuae legerim." 
 Cf. Tusc. iii. 31. 76. In this passage Cicero has just related the different 
 methods of different schools, and continues: "Sunt etiam qui haec omnia 
 genera consolandi conhgant — alius enim alio modo movetur — ut fere nos 
 in Consolatione omnia in consolationem unam coniecimus." Whatever 
 we may think of Hieronymus, there is no reason to discredit the statement 
 of Pliny, barring the possibiUty that he used our Consolatio, which contains 
 the words. Crantor's book was so popular that Cicero undoubtedly used 
 it, especially as he tells us that he had read it {Acad. ii. 44. 135). What 
 then does seqiii mean? Let Cicero answer: De off. i. 2. 6: ^'Sequemur 
 igitur hoc quidem tempore et hac in quaestione potissimum Stoicos, non 
 ut interpretes, sed, ut solemus, e fontibus eorum iudicio arbitrioque nostro, 
 quantum quoque modo videbitur, hauriemus." Cf. De off. ii. 17. 60: 
 "Panaetius, quem multum in his libris seciUus sum, non interpretatus," 
 and De off. iii. 2. 7: "Panaetius, quem .... secuti sumus.'^ If we may 
 safely draw conclusions, Cicero in his Consolatio used Crantor only as 
 a general guide, probably adding material of his own at will, particularly 
 examples from Roman history, and modifying from other sources. Is it 
 possible that the method of the Tusculans was essentially the same? 
 Finally let me commend to students of the question Tusc. iv. 4. 7: "Sed 
 defendat quod quisque sentit; sunt enim iudicia libera; nos institutum 
 tenebimus, nullisque unius discipHnae legibus adstricti, quibus in philo- 
 sophia necessario pareamus, quid sit in quaque re maxime probabile, 
 semper requiremus." 
 
THE CONSOLATION TO THE TIME OF CICERO 3 
 
 The history of the consolation has been thoroughly studied from most 
 points of view by Buresch, and no repetition of his work is to be attempted 
 here. We may however inquire into the state of consolatory literature in 
 the time of Cicero, to learn what material was available for him, and what 
 predecessors he had had in this field of activity. A long fine of philosophers 
 had given their names to essays on this and related subjects, among whom 
 the academician Grantor had won the greatest fame. Probably he deserves 
 more than the passing notice he has received. Among his most famous, 
 and perhaps deservedly famous, works, was the De luctu, which won for 
 him high praise in antiquity. See Cicero Acad. ii. 44. 135: "Legimus 
 omnes Crantoris veteris Academici de luctu; est enim non magnus, verum 
 aureolus, et, ut Tuberoni Panaetius praecipit, ad verbmn ediscendus libel- 
 lus;" and Diog. Laert. iv. 27. Crantor would seem to have summed up 
 in this essay all that previous generations of philosophers had accompHshed 
 in the line of consolation, if we may safely reason from a certain eclecticism 
 which seems discernible (cf. Kayser De Crantore Academico, Heidelberg 
 Diss., 1841, p. 3; Martha Etudes morales sur Vantiquite, p. 142). It was 
 therefore well adapted to such a use as that to which Cicero, and doubtless 
 others now unknown, put it, not only from its content, but from the charm 
 of its style. 
 
 But Crantor was only one of a long hne of philosophers who had essayed 
 to console others for their misfortunes. It was not at all strange that the 
 philosophers should have engaged so freely in the work of consolation, 
 considering the part which philosophy played in ancient life. It was to 
 the philosopher that one naturally looked for such spiritual or quasi-spiritual 
 assistance, and he of course tried to meet such a demand. Not many 
 people in all probability would have listened to such advice as that of Car- 
 cinus (frag. 7 Nauck): 
 
 TToXAwv yap a.v6pu)Tr0L(TL (ftdpfJiaKOV KaKwv 
 o"ty>/, p-aXicTTa 8' ecrrt (j<ji<^povo<i Tpoirov. 
 
 It was natural too that the different schools, after the time when schools 
 came into existence, and different philosophers always, should have 
 approached the subject in different ways, to meet the varying needs of their 
 clients, and in accordance with the points of view which their systems 
 imposed upon them. See Cicero Tusc. iii. 31. 76: "Sunt qui unum officium 
 consolantis putent, malum illud omnino non esse, ut Cleanthi placet; 
 sunt qui non magnum malum, ut Peripatetici; sunt qui abducant a malis 
 ad bona, ut Epicurus; sunt qui satis putent ostendere nihil inopinati acci- 
 disse, ut Cyrenaici. Chrysippus autem caput esse censet in consolando 
 
4 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 detrahere illam sententiam maerenti si se officio fungi putet iusto atque 
 debito." It is not our purpose to inquire whether these different styles of 
 arguments deserve the derisive comment of Martha {op. cit., p. 162) : "Cha- 
 que ecole se moquait des arguments de I'autre, et il faut convenir qu'en cela, 
 en cela seulement, elles avaient toutes raison." Nor need we investigate 
 too closely the differences in these methods of treatment, as we are not 
 attempting a definite assignment of sources. The reasons for these varia- 
 tions are easy enough to understand. The range of ideas that are properly 
 consolatory is small, and before the change in the point of view brought 
 about by Christianity, was smaller still, but numerous slight differences in 
 the form or thought were possible for different individual reasons — alius 
 alio modo movetur. Therefore it is entirely natural that there should have 
 been these differences, especially as the formation of independent schools 
 aided in bringing about a difference of alignment. Despite the debate 
 among them, the philosopher was the most valued consoler, though he 
 was not the only professional offerer of consolation. For the rhetoricians 
 at an early date made incursions into this field, as we know of Antiphon 
 from Philostratus Vit. Soph. i. 15. We have other evidence of activity 
 of this sort on the part of the early rhetoricians: cf. Cicero Tusc. i. 48. 116: 
 "Alcidamas quidem rhetor antiquus in primis nobihs, scripsit etiam lauda- 
 tionem mortis, quae constat ex enumeratione humanorum malorum; cui 
 rationes eae, quae exquisitius a philosophis conliguntur, defuerunt, ubertas 
 orationis non defuit." From this it would appear that the rhetoricians 
 were less favored than their rivals. The next sentence in Cicero shows 
 with some clearness their favorite arguments: "clarae vero mortes pro 
 patria oppetitae non solum gloriosae rhetoribus, sed etiam beatae videri 
 Solent." Early rhetorical interest in the forms of encomiastic literature is 
 also amply vouched for by the Euagoras of Isocrates. Possibly consolation 
 and eulogy formed part of the regular courses in encomium in the schools. 
 Certainly some of the consolatory topics did find place. Cf. Cicero Tusc. 
 i. 47. 113: "Deorum immortalium indicia solent in scholis proferre de 
 morte, nee vero ea fingere ipsi, sed Herodoto auctore, aliisque pluribus." 
 Then follow the stock examples, Cleobis and Bito, Trophonius and Aga- 
 medes, etc. This is designated in the preceding section as an epilogus 
 rhetorum. For later times there is abundant evidence in favor of this sug- 
 gestion — the presumption afforded by the Suasoriae, the treatise of Menan- 
 der, the clever praeteritiones of Hieronymus. But not only philosophers 
 and rhetoricians offered consolation, but also an occasional poet, like Anti- 
 machus, who, to console himself for the death of Lyde, wrote an account 
 in two or three books of the calamities of mythical heroes and heroines. 
 
THE CONSOLATION TO THE TIME OF CICERO 5 
 
 See Ps.-Plut. Cons, ad A poll. 9, and Croiset Histoire de la litterature 
 grecque III. 653 flf. This may serve to discredit somewhat Cicero's assump- 
 tion of originality in self-consolation. 
 
 In the nature of things the ideas that are used for consolation find fre- 
 quent expression in literature that is not primarily consolatory. In a litera- 
 ture so intimately connected with death and the thought of death as the 
 Greek, it is inevitable that such thoughts be frequently expressed. On the 
 other hand, the number of consolatory ideas was small, and originality 
 would become more and more difficult as time went on. This paucity of 
 ideas might, and doubtless did, have two sets of consequences: ingenious 
 variation of expression, and a tendency to crystallize into formulae. 
 
 Thucydides has summed up once for all the real motive of eulogy (ii. 45. 
 i): Tov yap ovK ovra uTras etwOev crratveiv. Inseparable from this is the 
 desire to console the living, so we find the origin of these related customs 
 in human nature. As these experiences and desires are older than professed 
 and conscious philosophy and rhetoric, so laudation and consolation doubt- 
 less existed in earlier times, though philosophers and rhetoricians soon made 
 them their province. It may even be questioned whether the character, 
 if not the form, of the ideas was not much the same in the earlier and the 
 later periods, on account of the difficulty of finding new arguments. The 
 soldier consoles the Widow of Ephesus (Petronius iii. 8) with the same 
 arguments that are used in the Tusculan Disputations, and they are suffi- 
 ciently plausible, if not entirely unsophisticated and artless. Therefore 
 the dififerences which mark the different philosophical schools need not 
 disturb us: we are not now attempting a philosophical analysis of ideas, 
 and the great variety of places in which consolatory notions are presented 
 precludes any thoroughgoing and convincing assignment of sources. It is 
 probable that even within a sect complete harmony is not to be looked for; 
 there might always be eclectics like Grantor, and Panaetius is said to have 
 denied the immortality of the soul (Gicero Tusc. i. 32. 79). On the other 
 hand, men without definite philosophical affifiations, and even without 
 conscious philosophical thought, might on single points agree with the 
 teachings of the philosophers. 
 
 Now it is true that Grantor might furnish a convenient source for ready 
 reference, and have the additional virtue of a pleasing style, but it can hardly 
 be true that he made any great innovations in the material or the form of 
 the consolation, and what we know of the character of his work (see above, 
 p. 3) does not create an impression of originafity. If, therefore, the greater 
 part of the material was already accessible, as seems to have been the case, 
 the theory that Grantor was Gicero's only source is built on entirely inade- 
 
6 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 quate grounds. Equally unjustifiable is the attempt to reconstruct Cicero's 
 Consolatio or Grantor's essay by choosing what is common to the Tusctdans 
 and the Consolatio ad Apollonium. We have seen (p. 2, above) that what 
 looked like a direct statement of source required interpretation, and it 
 seems in the highest degree unsafe to assume that any single document is 
 the only source for another. The ideas expressed by Grantor must have 
 been already familiar to educated people, and no Greek authority can with 
 entire safety be regarded as the immediate source of the Roman sepulchral 
 inscriptions. It may well be true that Grantor was Gicero's principal 
 authority: the theory that he was the only authority seems clearly out of 
 harmony with the existing evidence, and should not be used as a foundation 
 for further reasoning. 
 
 As any speculation on the other sources probably employed by Gicero 
 would be mere conjecture in most cases, we shall not attempt to assign 
 particular sources, nor to assert that any given author was or was not used 
 by him. The danger of such theorizing has, I hope, been sufficiently 
 emphasized in the preceding pages. The eclecticism of Gicero in writing 
 his Consolatio is perhaps sufficient warning. 
 
 It is, then, unnecessary, at least, to assume that resemblance in form of 
 expression of a consolatory idea implies a connection. Both may have a 
 common source, or both may draw upon the common stock of philosophy 
 or rhetoric. We shall therefore in the following pages generally avoid 
 statements as to the existence of a relation, by reason of the conviction that 
 such a procedure is not justified by the facts. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 It would be interesting to reproduce in full the discussion of this docu- 
 ment since its publication, but that is manifestly impossible. Whether 
 it existed prior to 1583 it is as yet impossible to say, and for that reason 
 it was ignored in chap. i. The consideration of that and related questions 
 must be left for a later chapter. Our present undertaking is simply to give 
 a brief account of the known history of the book, and the discussion it 
 provoked. 
 
 The exact date of the supposed discovery cannot be ascertained. It 
 is commonly said to have been 1583, though asserted by some (e. g., Scharflf 
 in his Ohservatio) to have been as early as 1581. Riccoboni wrote in his 
 hidicium, dated iv. Kal. Mai. 1583, of its appearance "superiori proximo 
 anno," and Sigonius in his reply (undated but surely not much later) 
 used the expression " superioribus mensibus." That the date was earlier 
 than 1583 may be inferred from the fact that Lipsius had pronounced his 
 opinion as early as January, 1583 (Epistt. cent. I, Misc. 99). Scharff was 
 further confused by his belief that Gulielmus, who, as we shall see later, 
 played an important part in the debate, died in 1 580, but the exact date of 
 the discovery is of consequence mainly in the interpretation of a difficult 
 letter of Sigonius to which reference will be made later (p. 48). The first 
 edition appears to be dated 1 583 ; it was published in Venice by a certain 
 Vianello, an "ignobilis librarius" of whom little else is known. Other 
 editions followed in quick succession, at Paris, Leyden, Strassburg, Frank- 
 fort, and elsewhere, and a French translation by Benoist du Troncy in 
 1584. See Deschamps Essai bibliog. sur Ciceron, p. 104; Scharfif op. cit. 
 An immediate interest was aroused. The scholars of the Renaissance, 
 from Petrarch down, had sought long and earnestly for the Consolatio 
 but without success. The enthusiasm the announcement of the discovery 
 evoked may well be imagined. But soon there were suspicions, and no 
 lack of suspicious circumstances. Letters of Vianello and Sigonius are of 
 interest in this connection. Early in May, 1583, Vianello wrote to ask 
 Sigonius' opinion, and adds "ob eam rem sine uUa Praefatione vel Epistola 
 editus est, ut unicuique Hberum iudicium relinqueretur censendi de eo, 
 quicquid visum fuisset." Sigonius repHed almost immediately, that he 
 believed the book genuine, or at least the work "alicuius praestantissimi 
 alterius." "Quod autem," he continues, "ubi inventus et a quo editus 
 
 7 
 
8 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 sit, non adiectum sit, multi haudquaquam rudes et imperiti, fucum prop- 
 terea factum esse verentur. Quare ad eorum advertendum errorem 
 elegante admodum feceris, si ipse totam huiusce rei historiam comiter 
 hominibus exposueris, quo facto, spero me facillime assecuturum, ut incre- 
 dulorum istorum impetum non solum sustineam, sed etiam felicissime 
 comprimam." (Both letters are in Sigonius Opera, ed. 1757, VI. 883). 
 Cf. another letter from Sigonius to Vianello {0pp. VI. 931): "Reliquum 
 est ut et tu mihi persolvas, quod litteris ad me vemacula lingua scriptis 
 promisisti, te unde hie liber erutus sit, prolaturum, aut eum, a quo haec 
 accepisti, causam suam, quam indigne oppugnari conqueritur, suscepturum, 
 ac iustae omniumque cupiditati satisfacturum." The promise of Vianello 
 seems never to have been kept, and the defense was then harder. Yet if 
 this was the cause of the first suspicions, it was not admitted. The accept- 
 ance seems to have been at first unanimous, and the reasons for the change 
 are not perfectly clear. The failure of Vianello to produce the MS would 
 seem to us suspicious. Riccoboni, however, who appears to have been the 
 first to challenge the document, scarcely mentions this, though Muretus 
 and Orsini insisted on seeing the MS before believing. Motives are hard 
 to find. Professional jealousy seems to have played a part. De Nolhac 
 publishes in La hibliotMque de Ftdvio Orsini, pp. 73 ff., also in "Piero 
 Vettorio et Carolo Sigonio, Correspondance avec Fulvio Orsini " in Sttidi e 
 Documenti di Storia e Diritto X. 147, a letter of Sigonius to Orsini, dated 
 June 25, 1583: "De Gratia ella mi scriva anchora I'opinione Sua sopra la 
 Consolatione, percio che io tengo che sia di Cicerone et odo di ogni parte 
 che si tiene il contrario. Onde sono sforzato a difendere questa opinione 
 per honor della cathedra di Bologna, poi che quella di Padoa ha sententiato 
 il contrario." This somewhat polemic tone may be observed in another 
 letter to Orsini, dated July 28, 1583 (De Nolhac Correspondance, etc., 
 pp. 148 £f.). The discoverer, he says, was willing to make known the cir- 
 cumstances of the find, and adds, "Io aggiungo a V. S. che a me le opposi- 
 tione fatte et da Roma et da Padoa, et da altri luoghi sono parse cosi leggiere 
 che per compassione di questo libro ho preso la sua difesa .... io no 
 conosco persona, a questi di atta a fingere cosi bene, et quando Io vedro, 
 Io credero." How far the discussion spread is unknown, and many details 
 are vague. Sigonius seems to have been rather unfortunate in his advocacy, 
 while Riccoboni was reinforced by Gulielmus, Lipsius, and others. Natu- 
 rally enough, the suggestion was soon made, perhaps first by GuUelmus 
 Assertio adversus C. Sigonium, p. 113, etc., that Sigonius himself was the 
 author, or had helped the author. This charge was answered by the state- 
 ment that the MS was three hundred years old, though nothing was done 
 
THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 9 
 
 with regard to publishing it. The debate grew hotter and hotter, Sigonius' 
 Orator following Riccoboni's ludicumi, Accusator finding a ready answer 
 in Defensor, personalities sometimes finding place, though Riccoboni tact- 
 fully asserted that he had no reference to Sigonius, but to the anonymous 
 author, three centuries earlier. The proprieties of debate were also well 
 observed when Riccoboni, taking up Sigonius' eulogistic characterization 
 of the author, pointed out the appropriateness of the compliments to Sigo- 
 nius himself, adding that he personally believed the book so bad that Sigonius 
 could not possibly have written it. The futiUty of such debate was naively 
 confessed by Riccoboni when, in his Defensor, he makes Sigonius say: "Sen- 
 tias tu quicquid velis: ego quoque idem faciam." The theory of a Sigonian 
 origin found favor. Lipsius {Epistt. cent. I, Misc. 66) could easily recog- 
 nize in it "illam Sigoneitatem," though ten years later he was ready to 
 retract and admit that the authorship was to him still a mystery {Epistt. 
 ad It. et Hisp. 14). The debate was finally terminated by the death of 
 Sigonius in 1584, hastened, some said, by his chagrin at being found out, 
 and a rumor found currency that on his deathbed he had confessed the 
 forgery. See a letter of Latinus Latinius, referred to by Ellis CI. Rev. 
 VII. 197, and quoted by De Nolhac Correspondance, etc., p. 149, n. 5. 
 This theory was the prevailing one as late as i860: cf. Menzinus De litera- 
 torum hominum invidia, Florence, 1675; Renouard Annates de Vimpri- 
 merie des Aides, 3d ed., Paris, 1834; Meier in an address of 1840 {Opusc. 
 II. 266, n. 23); Schulz, p. 5; and has recently been revived by Farrer in 
 his book on Literary Forgeries. He contributes no new arguments, but 
 considers that Tiraboschi proved that Sigonius was the author. The 
 general trend of opinion, however, so far as one may judge, is against this 
 theory. The detailed arguments for and against it, in so far as they can- 
 not be inferred from the preceding sketch, must be left to a later chapter, 
 where will be considered also the other opinions which have been expressed, 
 viz., the ascription to Vianello, the attempt of Ellis toTefer it back to ancient 
 times, and the interesting conjecture to which Schulz devotes a chapter of 
 his dissertation, that the author was Gasparino Barzizza. The assumption 
 of spuriousness thus tacitly made has as yet of course no evidential support, 
 except that afiforded by the suspicious character of the history of the docu- 
 ment. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO 
 
 While provision was made for the consolation in the encomiastic pro- 
 grammes, as we can see from Menander, it happens that our extant speci- 
 mens usually fail to reveal in any clear way the presence of the encomiastic 
 topics, but rather fall into the less formal arrangement which we can infer 
 from Cicero. See Tusc. iii. 31. 75: "Haec igitur officia sunt consolantium, 
 toUere aegritudinem funditus, aut sedare, aut detrahere quam plurimum, 
 aut supprimere, nee pati manare longius, aut ad alia traducere;" and cf. 
 Tusc. iii. 32. 77: "Erit igitur in consolationibus prima medicina, docere 
 aut nullum malum esse, aut admodum parvum; altera, et de communi 
 condicione vitae, et proprie, si quid sit de ipsius qui maereat, disputandum ; 
 tertia, summam esse stultitiam frustra confici maerore, cum intelligas nihil 
 posse profici." Schanz {De incerti poetae consolatione ad Liviam, p. 19) 
 gives a sufl&ciently accurate list of the groups of ideas frequently found 
 associated in consolations: "Patientia et constantia; Consolatio per 
 exempla; Mors mala solvit; Memoriae decus; Funerum magnificentia; 
 Immortalitas." Such a list is, when liberally interpreted, broad enough 
 to cover practically the whole ground. It does not follow, of course, that 
 every idea in a given consolation must or can be referred to one of these 
 categories, or that all of these are to be found in every consolation. 
 
 In this chapter the effort is made to show how thoroughly this Consolatio 
 embodies the usual topics of consolations, not by classifying the ideas accord- 
 ing to the above or any other scheme, but by pointing out the occurrence 
 of ideas, similar in form and content, in other pieces of literature. I should 
 wish at the outset to be understood as denying that a relation necessarily 
 exists between two documents expressing a similar idea in similar language 
 (cf . above, p. 6) : there may be in particular cases a relation, but a general 
 assumption is unsafe. I simply desire to show the prevalence of these 
 ideas in literature, and to indicate some of the sources from which a writer 
 in a later age might have derived inspiration and assistance. No attempt 
 has been made to collect all the examples of the occurrence of a given notion. 
 Such a task would have been almost endless. It is hoped, however, that 
 a sufl&ciently wide range of Hterature has been covered to show the extent 
 to which the consolatory ideas permeate ancient literature. The Roman 
 sepulchral inscriptions, which have been discussed by Lier in a series of 
 articles in Philologus, Vols. LXII and LXIII, by Cagnat Rev. de PhiL 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO II 
 
 XIII. 51 flf., and by Tolman in a contemporaneous publication, are liere, 
 in general, intentionally omitted. The same is true of the Greek inscrip- 
 tions, which are discussed somewhat by Tolman. 
 
 Let us begin the analysis of our Consolatio: 
 
 I. Quamquam recentibus morbis medicinam adhibere vetant sapicntes.' 
 
 Cf. Tusc. iv. 29. 63: "quodque vetat Chrysippus, ad recentes quasi 
 tumores animi remedium adhibere." The passage was used by Riccoboni 
 in his Indicium, to prove the spuriousness of our Consolatio, the indications 
 being the substitution of morbis for tumores, of medicinam for remedium, 
 and by the omission of quasi. For the use of a similar figure, cf. Seneca 
 Cons, ad Marc. 1.3; Ps.-Plut. Cons, ad Apoll. 1. 
 
 The author then proceeds to point out the advantages of having the mind free 
 from care, and so better able to perform its proper functions. Consolation is one 
 means of securing this state of mind. The works of Theophrastus, Xenocrates, 
 and Grantor are mentioned particularly in this connection. 
 
 The third has been discussed sufi&ciently for our purposes in chap. i. 
 All are well known from other sources, and are discussed in Buresch, 
 passim. 
 
 Forced to such a course by the death of his daughter, multa quae ab illis vel 
 acute cogitata, vel eleganter enuntiata sunt, ad dolorem nostrum abstergendum 
 colligemus. 5. Self-consolation is most diflScult, but may this help others too, 
 as all must endure the same fate, according to human nature. Qui enim hominem 
 se esse agnoscit, hominisque sibi nomen vindicat, cur ea, quae hominis maxime 
 propria sunt, recusare ac reicere audeat ? 6. Atque hie locus a Theophrasto 
 egregie tractatus et perpolitus est, itemque a Xenocrate: quorum uterque eos, 
 qui communes casus recusant, imprudentiae atque iniustitiae condemnat; alter 
 etiam dis ipsis adversos non dubitat appellare. 
 
 One of the commonest notions is that all are equal before death, that mis- 
 fortune comes to all alike, and may be escaped by none. Associated with 
 this is the belief in the essential mortality of man, which renders him liable 
 to misfortune, disease, and death. The idea that no one can escape death 
 is especially common. A convenient summary is furnished by Cons, ad 
 Liviam 443: "Sed rigidum ius est, et inevitabile mortis." Cf. Cicero's 
 consolatory letter to Titius {Ad Jam. v. 16. 2): "est autera consolatio per- 
 vulgata .... homines nos ut esse meminerimus ea lege natos, ut omnibus 
 telis fortunae proposita sit vita nostra, neque esse recusandum, quo minus 
 ea, qua nati sumus, condicione vivamus." Cf. Tusc. iii. 33. 79: "Ne ilia 
 
 I English or Latin words or passages in this chapter in reduced type are summaries, 
 paraphrases, or quotations of the text. Comments and illustrations are not so reduced. 
 
12 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 quiclem firmissima consolatio est, quamquam et usitata est et saepe prodest: 
 Non tibi hoc soli." That no one can escape the fate of man is a frequent 
 thought: Ad Jam. iv. 5.4; Hieron. Epistt. 39. 3 (Migne I. 468); Seneca 
 De rem. fort. ii. i; Cons, ad Marc. 9. 5; Cons, ad Polyb. 14. 2; Petron. 
 III. 8; Stat. Silv. ii. i. 208 fif.; Pliny Epistt. i. 12. 2; viii. 5. 3; Cicero Cato 
 Mai. 19. 67; 20. 74; and such expressions in the inscriptions as "tu qui 
 legis memento te esse hominem ; vale" : Biicheler 71 . Somewhat more fanci- 
 fully stated are Catullus' references to Hades: "Illuc unde negant redire 
 quemquam" (3. 12); Cons, ad Liviam 357 fif., with which cf. Petron. 121. 
 117 ff.; and Horace Car. ii. 3. 25 ff. In Greek the idea is equally common. 
 Some specimens follow. Interesting as a favorite quotation of Crantor, 
 and therefore probably in his De luclu, is the following: olfx-oi- rl 8' ot/u.01; 
 Ov-qTOi Toi TTvirovdafxev (Eur. Better., frg. 302 N; cf. Diog. Laert. iv. 26). 
 That this formed a topic in Crantor's book is vouched for by Cons, ad 
 A pott. 6: Tov Br] X^-P'-^ irpaTroixeOa iSevpo; iv elBtirjfiev on Kaivov drvx^'iv 
 ovBev dvdptiiTrw dXXa Travres ravTo TTiTrovdafxev. Cf . an inscription of Amorgos 
 BCH. XV. 574. 27 ff., with which cf. ibid., pp. 577, 586, and 588, and 
 Rohde Psyche, p. 628, n. 3; a quotation from Menander in Cons, ad ApoU. 
 5; Lysias Epitaphios 77, cf. Schneider, p. 29; Theogn. 1187 ff. Bergk; 
 Kaibel Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidihus conlecta 567. i; Eur. Androm. 
 1270 fif.; Phoen. 1763; //icJ vi. 488; Cons, ad Apott. i^; etc. Occasion- 
 ally we may hear a second Solon, 
 
 OvtjtCjv Se fxr)Be.l<; /xr^Sev' oX/Slov ttotc 
 Kpiv-q, rrplv avTov ev reXevTrjaravT^ 187;. 
 
 — Dionysius Leda, frg. 3 N. 
 
 Sometimes the survivor is advised to bear his misfortunes with courage: 
 e. g., in the inscription of Amorgos referred to above, and Cicero's consola- 
 tion to Sittius (Adfam.v.i'j.T,): "communem incertumque casum . . . . 
 sapienter ferres." 
 
 7. This subject has been discussed by many. Sed ego Crantorem sequor, 
 cuius legi brevem ilium quidem, sed aureum et, ut Panaetio placuit, ad verbum 
 ediscendum de luctu librum, quo acute universam doloris medicinam complexus 
 est. 
 
 Cf. Cicero Acad. ii. 44. 135, quoted on p. 3, above. 
 
 Sed humanae naturae incommoda ita diligenter et accurate expressit, ut, 
 quasi luendorum scelerum causa nasci homines et in hanc lucem ingredi, possis 
 agnoscere. 
 
 The last sentence has been universally accepted as a fragment of the 
 genuine Consolatio on the authority of Lactantius Inst. iii. 18. 18: "Quid 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO I3 
 
 Ciceroni faciemus ? qui cum in principio Consolationis suae dixisset 
 luendorum scelerum causa nasci homines, iteravit id ipsum postea quasi 
 obiurgans eum, qui vitam non poenam esse putet." The sentence is 
 repeated in sec. 28, thus fitting in with the statement of Lactantius. For 
 interpretations of the relationship and its bearing on the question of authen- 
 ticity, see below, p. 41. 
 
 8. The author then begins an enumeration of the various misfortunes appro- 
 priate and appertaining to the different aetates, injantia, pueritia, adolescentia, 
 constans aetas, of which the author himself is a fair representative, seneclus. 
 
 A similar arrangement may be seen in the Axiochus 366 D. £f., though 
 less extensive. 
 
 18. Having disposed thus of the aetates, he turns to the genera hominum, 
 beginning with kings. Of these Dionysius is a good example. They have ever 
 the worries of the kingship, and can never find peace of mind. Opposed to this 
 class is the infimum genus, which has the lot its name implies. Sharing the 
 troubles of both the others is the genus mediocre. 23. The condition of women 
 is no better, but perhaps worse, for they have as much trouble as men, and less 
 strength to bear it. They suffer with their parents and husbands, as TuUia did. 
 28. Nostra enim, quae dicitur vita, mors est, nee umquam vivit animus, nisi, 
 compage solutus corporis liber aetemitate potiatur. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 31. 75: "Haec quidem vita mors est;" and Somn. Scip. 
 3. 6. That the body is a prison is an idea of frequent occurrence, e. g., 
 Cicero Tusc. i. 30. 74; Cato Mai. 21. 77; Ambrosius De excessu fratris 
 ii. 20, cf. Schenkl "Zu Ciceros Consolatio " in Wiener Studien XVI. 45. 
 
 29. Then follow the stories of Cleobis and Bito, Trophonius and Agamedes. 
 
 These, as we noted above, p. 4, were part of the rhetorical common 
 stock. The Cleobis story is told by Valerius Maximus v. 4, Ext. 4; 
 Axiochus 367 C; Menander 414, i Spengel; Cons, ad Apoll. 14; Tusc. 
 i. 47. 113. The second story is also widespread: Axioch. loc. cit.; Tusc. 
 loc. cit.; Cons, ad Apoll. loc. cit., etc. 
 
 31. Death is the end of a miserable life, and a means of escape from future 
 ills. 
 
 This also is extremely common. Seev4(//am. v. 16. 4: "Nonmehercule 
 quern quam audivi hoc gravissimo et pestilentissimo anno adulescentulum 
 aut puerum mortuum, qui mihi non a dis immortaUbus ereptus ex his 
 miseriis atque ex iniquissima condicione vitae videretur;" Eur. Antig., 
 frg. 176 N: ^avaros yap dvOpwiroia-t v€tK€wv reAos £;(«. Cf. also Soph. 
 Philoc, frg. 636 N; Aesch. Iket. 802 fif.; Kaibel op. cit. 595. 4; Axioch. 
 367 BC; Anacreon, frg. 51 B; Hieron. Epistt. 60. 17 (Migne I. 601); Stob. 
 Flor. 120, 27 Gaisford; and an anonymous poem attributed to Aesopus 
 
14 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 in Anth. Pal. x. 123. Cf. also Schenkl loc. cit. The following goes one 
 step farther: Xatpet ns, ©eoStopos Itrti ddfov dAAos ctt' avrtS ^aipijatf 
 Oavdrw iravTcs 64>eLX6fxe6a (Simon. i22 B=^»//i. Pal. X. 105). 
 
 32. The Thracian custom of mourning birth is next referred to. 
 This was another of the consolatory commonplaces. Cf. Cons, ad A poll. 
 22; Ambrosius De excessu fmtris ii. 5; Val. Max. ii. 6; 12; 13; Schenkl 
 op. cit., p. 44. 
 
 36. Not to be born is best, but second to that is to die as soon as possible. 
 
 This is illustrated by the story of Silenus and Midas. See also Tusc. 
 i. 48. 114; Cons, ad A poll. 27; Lact. Inst. iii. 19. 13 (here quoted directly 
 as a fragment); Ausonius De ambig. vitae 50; Theogn. 425 B; Stob. 
 Flor. 98. 27; 57 Gaisford; Ambrosius op. cit. ii. 30; Schenkl op. cit., p. 45; 
 Schneider, p. 21. Perhaps the most interesting of these is the passage 
 in Ambrosius, who attributes the sentiment to Solomon. 
 
 38. Although what follows death is not our concern, but that of the gods 
 (for how will they who care for the living forget the dead?), let us consider that 
 question briefly. One of two things must be true: death brings unconsciousness, 
 or it transfers us to some other place. If the former is true, and death is like 
 sleep, it is a blessing; if the latter, what is better or more pleasant than to be 
 forever with our departed friends ? That will be true life. 
 
 Death and sleep are frequently compared, e. g.. Cons, ad Apoll. 12, on 
 the authority of Socrates; Cato Mai. 22. 80; Iliad xiv. 231, etc.; Kaibel 
 op. cit. 559. 7; loi. 4; 202. i; 204. 7, etc.; Gorgias ap. Aelian Var. 
 hist. ii. 35; Anaxagoras ap. Stob. Flor. 120. 19 G; cf. Rohde Psyche 
 80. 1 and 674. 2. The second idea, of association with those who have gone 
 before, suggests much of the ancient thought regarding the life after death : 
 Seneca Cons, ad Marc. 25.1: "deinde ad excelsa sublatus inter felices currit 
 animas, Scipiones Catonesque, interque contemptores vitae et mortis 
 beneficio Hberos." Cf. Stat. Silv. ii. 6. 98 £f.; Cato Mai. 23. 84; Theocr. 
 Epigr. 7. 3 { = Anth. Pal. vii. 659). For a fuller discussion of immortality 
 in our Consolatio, see below, p. 21 (sec. 152). 
 
 41. Quod certe fortis est aegroti, non solum accipere, sed etiam exquirere, 
 medicinam. 
 
 Ci.adAtt. xii. 21.5: "quod ipsum erat fortis aegroti, accipere medi- 
 cinam." 
 
 42. Death is common to mankind, and therefore not to be grieved. Immod- 
 erate grief is base, unjust, and unmanly, and tears accomplish nothing. 
 
 That grief is useless is frequently stated, e. g., by Petronius in. 8; 
 Seneca Cons, ad Polyb. 2. i ; Cons, ad Liviam 427, 428; Propertius iv. 11. 4; 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO 1 5 
 
 Iliad xxiv. 128 fif.; AnacreonUa 34. gff.; Soph. Incert., frg. 865 N; Cons, 
 ad A poll. 19; etc. One may perhaps recognize Stoic influence in the 
 thought that grief is not worthy of a man. The poets sometimes represent 
 the dead themselves as urging the futility of grief, e. g., Propertius iv. ii. i ; 
 Ovid Fasti ii. 505 ff. ; and from such sources, perhaps, the suggestion was 
 adopted by the composers of epitaphs, numerous examples of which are 
 quoted by Lier Phil. LXIII. 55 ff. A single example is manes parcite iam 
 luetic soUicilare nieos, Bilcheler 11 98. Ordinarily the attitude toward the 
 display of grief is that indicated by the references just given, but occasionally 
 a moderate degree of feeUng is applauded, e. g., Cicero Ad Brutum i. 9. 2: 
 "ne id ipsum carere omni sensum doloris sit miserius quam dolere, sed ut 
 modice ceteris utile est, ita tibi necesse est;" and Odyssey iv. 195 ff. Of 
 the same sort is the familiar passage from Solon (frg. 21 B): MT/Se'/xot 
 aKXavcTTOS 6a.vaT0<i fxoXoL, dWa </)t'Aotcnv Tron^a-aifJLL Oavuiv aXyea koI o-rova^as. 
 
 44. Let us be of good courage, for the death of friends is not the first misfor- 
 tune for any of us, and grief is unjust. Natura enim usuram nobis vitae dedit, 
 tamquam pecuniae, nulla praefinita die. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 39. 93: "At ea (sc. natura) quidem dedit usuram vitae 
 tamquam pecuniae, nulla praestituta die;" CIL. VI. 3580: "debitum 
 naturae persolvit;" Seneca De rem. fort. 2. i; 2. 4; 3. 2; Cons, ad Polyb. 
 10.5; Cons, ad Liviarn T^6(),T)']o; Ambrosiuso/). a7. i. 3; 'Lysia.s Epitaphios 
 24; Cons, ad Apoll. 10. 
 
 45. Life is not our home, but a place where we tarry for a brief space. 46. 
 The time of death is uncertain, and death itself is in the hands of the gods. Those 
 who are taken from us are taken for but a short time, and we shall soon be reunited- 
 If any fear that death will be painful, it should be remembered that it usually 
 is attended by little or no pain, sometimes even by pleasure. Whatever it is, it 
 generally lasts but a moment, and when it lasts longer it is less painful, and shows 
 that there is nothing to fear in death. 50. Sed turpe stultumque est homini, 
 tanta tamque varia rerum cognitione instructo, non a se ipso potius mature, quam 
 sero ab usu et cogitatione doloris remedia exspectare. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. iii. 22. 54: "sed id quod ratio debuerat, usus docet;" Plin. 
 Epistt. xvi. 16. 10: "proinde si quas ad eum de dolore tam iusto litteras 
 mittes, memento adhibere solacium, non quasi castigatorium et nimis 
 forte, sed molle et humanum, quod ut facilius admittat multum faciet medii 
 temporis spatium, ut enim crudum adhuc vulnus medentium manus re- 
 formidat, deinde patitur et ultro requirit, sic recens animi dolor conso- 
 lationes reicit ac refugit, mox desiderat et clementer admotis adquiescit;" 
 Epistt. viii. 5. 3; Ad Jam. v. 16. 5; Ovid Ex ponto iv. n. 13 ff.; Eur. Ale. 
 380, 381 ; Cons, ad Apoll. 20. 
 
1 6 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 But philosophy fortifies us against all ills and guides us as we go through 
 life. 54. That her father is still alive is the only thing that can trouble Tullia. 
 She should think rather that he will follow soon. 55. Why should we try to avoid 
 troubles, which nourish courage in us ? Why shun death, which warns us to be 
 better ? 56. We should consider that death is a kindly servant of the gods. 
 
 Amid all the proclamations that death is a blessing, the rebellious outcry 
 of Sappho strikes us with a refreshing sense of independence: rj Sxrirep 
 2a7r</>w, oTi TO aTTo6vT^(TKeiv KaKov • ol Oeoi Kcxpt/cacrii' • aTrWvrjcTKOV yap av {dp. 
 At. Rhet. ii. 23. 12). 
 
 The story of Amphiaraus proves that a speedy death is the gift of the gods. 
 62. What can happen to a man to make him desire to live ? Learning ? But 
 learning breeds jealousy. The fine arts ? The same is true of them. Politics ? 
 The fate of Miltiades, of Ephialtes, of Cimon, of Themistocles, of Aristides, of 
 Metellus, of Scipio Africanus, of Regulus, of Marius, of Brutus, is a sufficient 
 commentary on the political life. 67. The voluntary deaths of Cleomenes and 
 Theagenes show the correct attitude of mind. Even a woman showed this same 
 temper, Hasdrubal's wife: repetamus ex historiis Asdrubalis uxorem illam, quae, 
 Carthagine in hostium potestatem redacta, se ipsam cum tribus filiis in confla- 
 grantis patriae incendium immisit. 
 
 Cf. Val. Max. iii. 2, Ext. 6: "dextra laevaque communes filios mortem 
 non recusantes trahens, incendio se flagrantis patriae obiecit." 
 
 68. Dicaearchus asserts that more people are killed by human cruelty than 
 from any other cause. 
 
 For possible sources from which this statement might have come, and 
 a general discussion of Dicaearchus' consolatory activity, cf . Buresch, p. 35. 
 
 69. Imagine all blessings conferred upon a man: all are perishable, and 
 dependent upon time and chance. 70. Although nature has made man weak 
 and frail, plurimos tamen insevit divinos ingeni iudicique igniculos, quonmi 
 auxilio et cum dolore luctari, et timori obsistere, labores vero omnes nullo negotio 
 vincere ac perferre possemus. 71. If death comes to the old, it brings with it 
 a condition better, or at least no worse. 72. Non enim is ego sum, qui animum 
 simul cum homine interire putem, tantumque mentis lumen, e divina natura 
 dehbatum, posse exstingui, sed potius certo tempore emenso ad immortalitatem 
 redire. 73. A man should be ashamed to grieve like a woman; those who do 
 so are rightly reproached with the words 
 
 Vos etenim iuvenes animum geritis muliebrem, 
 illaque virgo viri. 
 
 The same verses are found in De off. i. 18. 61. The attribution of exces- 
 sive grief to women is frequent, e. g., the passage just cited; Ad Jam. v. 16. 
 6; Archilochus, frg. 9 B. 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO 1 7 
 
 74. Gorgias was glad to die, and his temper is the one that a free man should 
 have. 75. Do we grieve because our dear ones are dead? We should rather 
 imitate those noble men who have borne with fortitude such afflictions. 77. Such 
 a man was Anaxagoras. 
 
 Anaxagoras was a favorite example of the consoler. Cf. e. g., Tusc. iii. 
 24. 58; Val. Max. v. 10, Ext. 3, and for the sentiment cf. also Tusc. iii. 
 13. 28; Ambrosius o/>. cit. i. i; Soph. El. 1171, 1172. 
 
 His words were worthy of a true philosopher. How can that man be free 
 who is a slave to grief? 80. Another example was Xenophon, who performed 
 the duties of a good man and a good citizen. 82. Still another was Pericles, who 
 proved himself a good and wise man. 
 
 Cf. Hieron. Epistt. 60. 5 (M. I. 592): "Proponunt innumerabiles viros, 
 et maxime Periclem et Xenophontem Socraticum " (the sentence is appar- 
 ently vi^ritten vdth the preceding list of consolers in mind); Val. Max. v. 
 10, Ext. I (Pericles) and 2 (Xenophon); Cons, ad Apoll. ^^. 
 
 87. There is no misfortune so great that we ought to grieve — not death nor 
 poverty nor exile, for each of these has, through the grace of the gods, the possi- 
 bility of a greater blessing. Pleni sunt libri philosophorum, refertae argumentis 
 ac rationibus paginae fere omnes, tanta autem exemplorum copia, ut nihil possit 
 esse cumulatius. 91. Nam in tanta vel argumentorum vel exemplorum copia, 
 quibus se legentes paene obrui sentient, ecquis se immobilem aut in dolore inexo- 
 rabilem praebeat ? 
 
 At this point the editions indicate a lacuna. There is certainly an inter- 
 ruption of the argument, but perhaps sufficient w^arning was given by the 
 resumptive sentence just quoted. In the absence of MSS further specula- 
 tion is useless. 
 
 92. There are some who will not be consoled by their friends, and who do not 
 wish to be consoled. Let these have their way, but when time has solaced them 
 a little, they will take pleasure in reading over the precepts of this Consolatio, and 
 will be helped for the future by learning them by heart. For the casual reading 
 of philosophy is not enough to fortify one against misfortune, as the author himself 
 can testify from his own experience. 95. A few important topics remain. Per- 
 haps we grieve because we are deprived of assistance by the death of friends. 
 Grief of this sort is mercenary, and therefore base. 
 
 Cf. Cons, ad Apoll. 19. 
 
 96. Let us turn to Romans who have borne the deaths of sons in a way that 
 may compare with even that of the Greeks mentioned above. 97. One of these 
 was Fabius Maximus, who lost an only son. Neque solum non doluit, quod 
 fortissimi fuit, sed etiam mortuo laudationem in foro dixit, quo nihil fortius aut 
 laudabilius ne ex omni quidem antiquitate recenseri potest. Cuius orationem 
 quis non admiretur, insignem ingeni, iudici, ordinis praestantia? Quo modo 
 
15 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 ille vel ea quae dixit sine luctu dicere, aut quae scripsit sine dolore cogitare potuit ? 
 cum praesertim hoc in ilia laudatione admirari et obstupescere soleamus, quod 
 non, ut alii, de ceterorum fortitudine disputat, ut suum ipse dolorem aliorum 
 exemplo minuat, sed in filio haerens illius maxime virtutes propriasque laudes 
 quae vel acerbiorem efficere doloris sensum poterant, longissimo sermone 
 persequitur. 
 
 Schulz, p. 37, believes that this laudatio was referred to in the Consolatio 
 of Cicero, and there is no reason to dispute his conclusion. Nowhere else 
 is there such a lengthy account of this famous laudatio, which was highly 
 esteemed in antiquity. References to it are not infrequent, e.g., Cato Mai. 
 4. 12; Adfam. iv. 6. i; Plut. Vit. Fab. 24. 
 
 98. Another example is Horatius Pulvillus [of. Val. Max. v. 10. i]. 99. 
 Another is L. Paulus [of. Val. Max. v. 10. 2]. Others are Sulpicius Gallus, 
 Q. Marcius Rex, P. Crassus, and Cn. Caepio. lam quid Pisones, Scaevolas, 
 Brutos, Marcellos, Metellos, Lepidos, Aufidios, enumerem ? 
 
 Cf. Hieron. Epistt. 60. 5 (M. I. 592): "Pulvillus . . . . L. Paulus .... 
 Praetermitto Maximos, Catones, Galos, Pisones, Brutos, Scaevolas, Metel- 
 los, Scauros, Marcios, Crassos, Marcellos atque Aufidios, quorum non 
 minor in luctu quam in bellis virtus fuit, et quorum orbitates in Consola- 
 tionis libro Tullius explicavit." 
 
 103. The author then passes to examples of women who have exhibited the 
 same virtue. For on the stage of life, as Theophrastus calls it, all must play a 
 part, and those who are cowardly will receive the censure of the gods as surely 
 as a gladiator who desires to live at any cost is condemned by the people. 106. 
 Spartan women are said to look whether their sons' wounds are in front, and if 
 so, to receive the bodies, and the story is told that one regarded it as more glorious 
 to die in battle than to win an Olympic victory. Another, hearing that her son 
 had fallen in battle, said, Idcirco genueram, ut mortem pro patria fortiter occum- 
 bere non dubitaret. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 42. 102 : " Idcirco genueram, ut esset, qui pro patria mortem 
 non dubitaret occumbere." 
 
 106. Roman matrons have been as noble, Comeha, Rutilia, Clodia. 
 
 Rutilia and Clodia are the subjects of questions to Atticus {Ad Alt. xii. 
 20. 2; xii. 22. 2), probably for use in the Consolatio, though some have 
 doubted this. Cornelia appears again in Seneca Cons, ad Marc. 16. i flf., 
 Rutilia in Seneca Cons, ad Helv. 16. 7. 
 
 III. To the list of brave men may be added Theramenes. 
 
 See Tusc. i. 40. 96; Cons, ad Apoll. 6; cf. Val. Max. iii. 2, Ext. . 
 
 115. All hope for themselves the fortune of Priam or Metellus, forgetting that 
 their good fortune did not attend them to the end. No one can expect anything 
 better. 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO I9 
 
 The passage has a very marked resemblance to Tusc. i. 35. 85, as will 
 be pointed out in detail below (p. 29). 
 
 118. L. Crassus was saved from misfortune by an opportune death. 
 
 The passage will be compared later (p. 30) with the famous passage 
 in De oratore iii. 2. 8, which may be compared with Seneca Cons, ad Marc. 
 20. 5; Tac. Agr. 45 i ; Ambrosius op. cit. i. 30; and vdth an entirely inde- 
 pendent passage from the Bible, Raptus est, ne malitia mutaret cor eius. 
 That these are not safely to be regarded as imitations of the earliest example 
 given, that from Cicero, was pointed out by Morowski De rhetoribus lat., 
 p. 15 (cited by Hendrickson The Proconsulate of Julius Agricola, p. 33), 
 who showed that the figure is conventional in first-century rhetoric. 
 
 120. Tenemus enim memoria, aut saltem ex patrum scriptis accepimus, 
 crudelissimam omnium caedem illo tempore esse factam, trucidatos bones viros 
 et cives, incisas eorum cervices in rostrisque positas, qui multorum civium salutem 
 ac dignitatem eloquentia peperissent. 123. The one-time prosperity and final 
 fall of Pompey are next discussed. 
 
 This, like the preceding, is reserved for fuller commentary (p. 40). 
 
 Noble Romans, at the price of a moment's pain, won for themselves eternal 
 fame, dying for their fatherland. 127. He then reverts to the nature of death. 
 What death is, can be inferred from sleep and from the condition before birth. 
 132. Mortem igitur, siquidem somno similis est, singulis noctibus induimur, 
 et, cum in somno sensus sit plane nullus, nullum etiam in morte futurum esse 
 
 sensum, verissime statuere debemus Mors enim quemadmodum ad eum, 
 
 qui nondum ortus est, nihil pertinuit, sic ne ad eum quidem, qui mortuus est, 
 ulla ratione pertinebit. Ad morientem vero vel nihil, vel parum certe pertinet. 
 
 The relation of death to sleep in literature has been commented on above 
 (p. 14); for the second of these ideas cf. Tusc. i. 38. 91 : "Natura vero si 
 se sic habet, ut quo modo initium nobis rerum omnium ortus noster adferat, 
 sic exitum mors, ut nihil pertinuit ad nos ante ortum, sic nihil post mortem 
 pertinebit." Cf. Cons, ad Apoll. 15; Anaxagoras ap. Stob. Flor. 120. 19 G. 
 
 133. But some say that the dying are tortured by pain. That is true in some 
 cases, but usually only of those whose lives have not been above reproach, so that 
 it is more likely the work of conscience. Then too, those who have never thought 
 of death are disturbed when it does come. But good men die gladly, and with 
 little or no pain. 137. Such were Q. Fabius, A. Pompeius, and Thalna. 139. 
 Some say that the same day of death is established for all; that is not true. It is 
 true, however, that bounds of life are fixed for us by the gods, which we may not 
 pass. In the former case, why should man practice virtue ? If the end is fixed, 
 it cannot be moved by virtue; if it lies within the power of each to decide, it is 
 not fixed. Sed de his statuat unus quisque ut libet. Quid autem verius sit, deus 
 ipse viderit; hominem quidem scire arbitror neminem. 141. We often wish for 
 
20 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 death as a means of escape from trouble. 142. It is especially in the case of the 
 virtuous that there is great good in death. 144. They return to the place whence 
 they came, and then truly live. 145. Recte igitur dictum est, corpus terram esse, 
 mentem autem ignem de caelo sumptum. This is proved by the virtuous lives 
 of good men. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 25. 60: "Animae sit animus ignisne, nescio, nee me pudet, 
 ut istos, fateri nescire quod nesciam;" and Somn. Scip. 3. 7: "iis {sc. homi- 
 nibus) animus datus est ex illis sempiternis ignibus." 
 
 The body is earth, and returns to earth, but the soul is from heaven, and 
 returns to heaven. 
 
 Cf. Aesch. Choeph. 127, 128. 
 
 146. The same ends of life and rewards of death are not to be assigned to 
 the good and bad. This thought is especially pleasant because Tullia was good 
 and brave. 148. She is undoubtedly in a happier state now than she was in life. 
 
 Here begins almost the only characterization of Tullia we are given. 
 Its method is direct and informal. 
 
 She had no evil thoughts, endured patiently, "and thanked heaven for all. 
 Justice, and not herself, was her care, and honor to the gods. Her natural impulses 
 were toward the right. Her skill in housewifery is praised, and her learning, 
 almost equal to a man's. Bravely, she sought help from herself, even for mental 
 worries. She was distressed at her father's exile, but always hoped for his recall. 
 Ita, quantum ex calamitate doloris, tantundem ex filiae suavitate ac pietate solati 
 capiebamus. 152. What is pleasanter than to think that she is immortal? 
 Animos enim e.sse immortales, ne dubitandum mihi quidem videtur. 
 
 He then proceeds to review the arguments for immortality. 
 
 The quaedam vis veneratione digna in the bodies of the dead does not impress 
 the author as a strong argument. If authority is asked, what better can be pro- 
 cured than that of the man whom Apollo pronounced wisest? The arguments 
 which the Italici devised are hard to refute. The speed of the soul, traversing 
 in a moment the labors of years, indicates its divine origin. So do the power 
 of memory, and the gift of predicting the future. Another reason is the fact that 
 it possesses principium et perpetuitas motus. The soul is the image of god, and 
 comes from heaven: why then, should it not be immortal? No origin for the 
 soul can be found in the earth, for it is unlike any of earth's elements. God can 
 be apprehended by the mind alone, and our progress can be explained only by 
 supposing divine inspiration. The thirst for wealth and power differentiates man 
 from the other living creatures. If wise men thought that the soul died with the 
 body, how could they die so gladly, while fools die so unwiUingly ? The worship 
 of the dead has cause only in the belief that the soul lives on. The strongest 
 proof is that man alone has knowledge of the divine and can appreciate it, the 
 power which rules all things. 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO 21 
 
 This, in brief, is the argument of our Consolatio regarding the immor- 
 tality of the soul. It would be interesting, if space permitted, to compare 
 it in detail with such a line of reasoning as that, for example, of Ambrosius 
 in the second book of the De excessu fratris. There would of course be 
 striking differences. Let us examine in a more detailed way some of the 
 arguments. Celeritas animi was one of the favorite arguments. Cicero 
 uses it in Tusc. i. 19. 43 ff., and in De div. ii. 67. 139. The quaedam vis 
 is expounded at greater length in Tusc. i. 12. 27. For memory as a proof 
 of immortality, cf. Tusc. i. 24. 57; for principium et perpetuitas motus, 
 cf. Tusc. i. 23. 53 ff., for the former only, De div. loc. cit., for the latter only, 
 Somn. Scip. 8. 19. Other proofs of immortality are elsewhere used by 
 Cicero, to whom I have confined the references intentionally. Cicero's belief 
 or doubt regarding the question has been freely discussed, but without 
 entire unanimity of opinion. For literary purposes his belief is clear, his 
 confidence admirable. Such is his feeling in the Tusculan Disputations, 
 the De repiibUca, and the Cato Maior. Very different is the usual temper 
 in the letters. See, e. g., Ad Jam. vi. 4. 4: "deinde quod mihi ad consola- 
 tionem commune tecum est, si iam vocer ad exitum vitae, non ab ea repub- 
 lica avellar, qua carendum esse doleam, praesertim cum id sine uUo sensu 
 futurum sit;" Ad Jam. vi. 21. i: "una ratio videtur, quicquid evenerit, 
 ferre moderate, praesertim cum omnium rerum mors sit extremum;" Ad 
 Att. xii. 18. i: "longumque illud tempus, cum non ero, magis me movet 
 quam hoc exiguum, quod mihi tamen nimis longum videtur." Ad Att. 
 X. 8. 8 seems rather to refer to fame than to immortality: "tempus est nos 
 de ilia perpetua iam, non de hac exigua vita, cogitare." Friedlander 
 {Sittengesch. IIP. 746) takes Cicero as a type of the learned eclectic, but 
 apparently regards the Tusculans as representative of his real views, as in 
 fact they may have been at the particular time. Boissier {La religion 
 romaine'* 59) says: "Ces nobles esperances d'immortalite dont il a rempli 
 ses ouvrages ne lui reviennent jamais a la pensee dans ses malheurs ou dans 
 ses perils." Cf. Rohde's words (Psyche 616. 2): "Die Vorliebe fiir solche 
 Unsterblichkeitshoffnungen blieb bei Cicero (und wohl durchweg bei den 
 Gebildeten seiner Zeit und seiner Gesellschaft) nur eine kiinstlerische. Wo 
 er nicht rhetorisirt oder als Schriftsteller sich in Pose setzt, in seinen Briefen 
 namentlich, zeigt er keine Spur von Ueberzeugungen der sonst mit Pathos 
 vertretenen Richtung." A volume would be required even to sum up all 
 that has been written on the general subject, and it is not our purpose to 
 add to the literature. Some acquaintance with Cicero's attitude, at least, 
 toward the question is necessary to enable us to form an opinion, when the 
 proper time comes, as to the genuineness of our Consolatio. The passage, 
 
22 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 "animorum nulla in terra origo .... motu sempiterno," is quoted in 
 Tusc. i. 27. 66 from the Consolatio. The words, "animorum nulla .... 
 nisi a deo," are found also in Lact. De ira 10. 45; the words "nee vero 
 .... movens" in Lact. Inst. i. 5. 25. 
 
 165. Nature is not always productive, so why should we expect success always ? 
 The end is death, which is common to all men, frees us from error, and leads us 
 to a knowledge of the truth, which all men desire. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 19. 44: "propterea quod et natura inest in mentibus nos- 
 tris insatiabilis quaedam cupiditas veri videndi." 
 
 168. If grief is to be censured, so is he who grieves, but as Grantor says, a 
 moderate degree of grief is proper. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 6. 12, where his censure of indolentia is quoted. 
 
 Both extremes are to be avoided. Pity and sympathy are natural to men, 
 for we are all much alike. 175. When we realize that we must endure whatever 
 comes to us, we shall be nearer the truth, and be better men. Grief is not a thing 
 from which both good and evil may be derived, but only evil. We must, then, 
 bravely resist it. 178. How will our mourning help the dead? All they ask of 
 us is honor and recollection, as the epitaph of Ennius declares. 183. The neglect 
 of virtue and piety brings trouble upon us. 184. The good, on the other hand, 
 are frequently exalted into heaven, not in body, but in spirit. 185. Quod de 
 Romulo, urbis nostrae conditore, memoriae proditum accepimus; quem singulare 
 in genus hominum coUatum munus tam praeclarae urbis condendae in deorum 
 numero coUocavit, idque eo tempore quo, litteris et doctrinis homines exculti facile 
 fictum a germano, verum a falso secernebant, ut credi non possit, quicquam ilhs 
 persuaded potuisse, quod ullam ficti aut falsi imaginem prae se ferret. Hercules, 
 Liber, Gastor and Pollux, and many women have been similarly deemed worthy 
 of divine honors. 
 
 Cf. Tusc. i. 12. 28, where a list is given including Romulus, Hercules, 
 Liber, the Tyndaridae, and Ino (=many women?). 
 
 That they have been received into heaven is proved by the universal agree- 
 ment of wise men, and by the fact that there is no other place worthy of them. 
 They revealed god-like traits of character, and so should be near the gods. Quis 
 enim Hercule fortior? quis prudentior? quis ab omni cupiditate remotior? 
 Others were equally deserving. Their rewards are not statues or crowns, but 
 the more enduring rewards of those who chose a life of virtue. It is right that they 
 be separated from this wicked world. 191. Our wisest men have seen that the 
 good and bad should be dealt with differently after death. Let us choose rather 
 to be with the good. 
 
 Sec. 192 is quoted from the Consolatio by Lactantius Inst. iii. 19. 3. For 
 a similar sentiment, cf. the opinion of Socrates, reported in Tusc. i. 30. 72: 
 
STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSOLATIO 23 
 
 "Ita enim censebat, itaque disseruit, duas esse vias, duplicesque cursus 
 animorum e corpore excedentium," etc. 
 
 194. Those who are striving for glory count as light all the labor it costs. This 
 is especially true in public life. The Spartans and Athenians, honoring as gods 
 their fellow-citizens who have fallen fighting for their country, have shown true 
 wisdom. No better reward can be desired than to be exalted to heaven, there to 
 associate with the great and good men who have gone before. Let us not forget 
 the dignity that comes from temples and public worship. 203. The cause of the 
 deification of mortals has been virtue, which looks toward the public welfare. 
 Men will imitate what has before gained the ends they desire. When we have 
 virtues, why worship beasts or fish, as the Egyptians and the Syrians do ? The 
 Egyptians at least, with all their wisdom, should see the folly of such a course, 
 yet they worship the foulest creatures. 209. Certain natural phenomena were 
 deified by the early Romans, and being established by reason and custom, cannot 
 safely be disturbed. 210. The Greeks in this respect are not so worthy of praise 
 as usual, with their deifications of Cupidines and Amores. Deification should be 
 reserv^ed to be the reward of virtue and of service to humanity. 212. [quoted from 
 the Consolatio by Lactantius Imt. i. 15. 16 ff.]. Let us recognize the wisdom 
 of those who have deified the virtuous, but not restrict the honor to those who are 
 now in possession of it. 213. This plea is made, not on behalf of TuUia alone, 
 but of all who show themselves worthy. TuUia will live on as long as those 
 monumenta which are a tribute of praise to her. When she shall have supremum 
 honorem, and then alone, will her father have done this full duty to her. When 
 the place which he has chosen shall have the nature of a temple, this will be accom- 
 plished. 216. [quoted with sec. 212 by Lactantius loc. cit.]. TuUia is as worthy 
 of deification as any of those who have received the honor. Tu ergo in eo ipso 
 fano, quod ad nominis tui memoriam ac cultum votum dedicatumque est, et 
 laudari te et coli senties. You know, Tullia, how bravely I have always resisted 
 fortune, and how bravely I fought my enemies. But when the last blow fell, 
 in your death, I have nothing to say but "Cedo, et manus toUo." 218. Strength- 
 ened by consolation, and by the certainty that you are in heaven, I seem almost 
 to triumph over my grief. Do not forget me, but lead me where you are, and 
 our meeting will be the pleasanter that our separation has been bitter. 
 
 The deification of Tullia, and the erection of a shrine in her honor 
 was one of the projects nearest to Cicero's heart in the months following her 
 death. The twelfth book of the letters to Atticus is full of it. The location 
 and method of choosing the site are considered in frequent letters. One 
 of the early letters is Ad Alt. xii. 18: "Ego, quantum his temporibus tam 
 eruditis fieri potuerit, profecto illam consecrabo omni genere monumen- 
 torum ab omnium ingeniis sumptorum et Graecorum et Latinorum; quae 
 res forsitan sit refricatura vulnus meum. Sed iam quasi voto quodam et 
 promisso me teneri puto," etc. Attacks on fortune seem to have been a 
 
24 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 regular feature of the consolation: cf. Lact. Inst. iii. 28. 8, 9: "lam qui- 
 cumque aliquos consolati sunt ob interitum amissionemque carorum, 
 fortunae nomen acerrimis accusationibus prosciderunt." This is confirmed 
 by such passages as Seneca Cons, ad Polyh. 16. 4: "Haec ergo puta tibi 
 parentem publicum referre exempla, eundem ostendere, quam nihil sacrum 
 intactumque sit Fortunae;" and Stat. Silv. ii. 6. 8: "quia rerum nomina 
 caeca Sic miscet Fortuna manu." Cf. also Fichon Lactance, p. 257. In 
 the same passage Lactantius refers to the Consolatio of Cicero in this way: 
 "M. Tullius in sua Consolatione pugnasse se semper contra fortunam loqui- 
 tur, eamque a se semper esse superatam, cum fortiter inimicorum impetus 
 rettudisset; ne tum quidem se ab ea fractum, cum domo pulsus patria 
 caruerit; tum autem, cum amiserit carissimam filiam, victum se esse a 
 fortuna turpiter confitetur. Cedo, inquit, et manum tollo." Petrarch 
 (Lettere senile viii. i) quotes this last phrase also. As Petrarch was 
 acquainted with Lactantius, this phrase might have come from there, and 
 not from the Consolatio directly. It can be shown that Petrarch did not 
 know the Consolatio of Cicero, and therefore did not borrow the words 
 directly from Cicero. It has been believed by some that one of the topics 
 which Cicero must have used in his Consolatio was the condition of the 
 state, that he who died in such times as these left behind a situation that 
 was almost intolerable. Such an argument is used in some of the consola- 
 tory letters of Cicero, e. g., Ad Jam. v. 13, 16, 17, 18; and by Sulpicius in 
 his letter to Cicero {Ad Jam. iv. 5. 3). The situation in the Consolatio, 
 however, was somewhat different. Cicero would hardly have allowed 
 himself the same freedom of speech in a more or less formal literary produc- 
 tion Uke his Consolatio as in a letter, even of the semi-pubUc character of a 
 consolation. It seems unsafe, then, to assume that Cicero did make use 
 of such an argument, and to condemn this Consolatio simply because it is 
 here omitted. 
 
 The parallels quoted have been mainly from Cicero, for various reasons: 
 if this is the genuine Consolatio, we should like to know its relation to other 
 works; if it is not, it is desirable to know how small or how large a range 
 of literature the imitator would have to command, i. e., to know from what 
 sources he could have derived most of his material. Then, too, the nature 
 of the subject makes it ine\atable that a large part of the illustrative quota- 
 tions should come from Cicero. The relation to other works of Cicero 
 and of other authors will need to be borne in mind when we come to con- 
 sider the question of the authenticity of our Consolatio. 
 

 CHAPTER IV -^ 
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 
 
 We have examined the method of construction of our Consolatio, with- 
 out being primarily interested in the origin of the document. The prin- 
 cipal question for us is now to be considered, whether or no the work is 
 genuine. Any student of authenticity may have a twofold problem before 
 him, the parts of which may or may not be of equal difficulty and interest. 
 His first desire is to ascertain whether or no the work is genuine, and if it 
 prove to be so, his work is done. If, however, it prove to be a forgery, 
 the second task remains, of attempting to attribute it to a period, or perhaps 
 even to an individual. It may in addition be desirable to find motives for 
 the forgery. Our first concern is then to decide for ourselves the question 
 of the genuineness of our Consolatio. The decision may rest on different 
 sorts of evidence, of perhaps varying value. No certain criteria can be 
 established in advance which will be of universal appHcation, except within 
 very wide limits. There is, then, opportunity for the use of any test that 
 will promise to aid in the solution: relation to other documents, of Cicero 
 and others, language, style, use of clausulae, etc. The relation to other 
 documents would in this case involve the whole question of imitation, of 
 the use of quotations, of the use of the consolatory commonplaces, of the 
 applicability to this Consolatio, of references to it in literature, and of the 
 use in our Consolatio of the known fragments. The evidence of language 
 and style may be based on syntax, vocabulary, phraseology, etc., though 
 this form of evidence may not be of much value. The clausulae may be 
 compared with those of other works of Cicero, and this test may have a 
 certain degree of value. If the document prove to be spurious, this same 
 test may perhaps be appUed to the theories of authorship that have been 
 proposed. Finally, other sorts of evidence in great variety may be found, 
 the presence or absence of possible Christian points of view, the author's 
 method of citation, etc. In a word, anything which may have a bearing on 
 the question is worth examining. 
 
 Let us first review the fragments of Cicero's Consolatio as they are pre- 
 sented by the editors. From Sigonius down to the most recent editors, 
 the collection of fragments has suffered few changes of any consequence. 
 An occasional change of reading has been introduced, but otherwise the 
 Hst remains much the same as it was when it was first put together by Sigo- 
 nius. The order of the fragments has not remained the same. In our Con- 
 
 25 
 
26 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 solatia they are found in the same order in which Sigonius in his edition of 
 Cicero arranged them, a fact which aroused the curiosity and suspicion of 
 Riccoboni. The answer was the obvious one : All that such a state of affairs 
 proves is that the order which Sigonius adopted is the correct one — an 
 answer of unimpeachable logic, if the premises be accepted. Between 
 the time of Sigonius' edition and the publication of this Consolatio, another 
 edition of the fragments had appeared, by Patricius. This collection 
 introduces some slight changes, of possible importance to us. The choice 
 of fragments involves a considerable degree of difficulty and uncertainty; 
 not all editors would classify all fragments in the same way. Muller in the 
 Teubner edition, for example, includes among the fragments the following, 
 from Lact. Ad Stat. Theb. i. 306 : ' ' Hoc iter vitae tam confragosum putamus, 
 tam plenum iniuriarum ac miseriarum atque laborum." Certainly its 
 sentiment might well give it a place in the Consolatio, yet Jahnke, ad loc, 
 regards it as "incertae sedis." Muller includes among the "Fragmenta 
 Librorum Incertorum" the following: "Quoniam utraque earum senten- 
 tiarum [concerning immortality and death] doctissimos habuit auctores 
 nee, quid certi sit, divinari potest" (Lact. Inst. vii. 8. 9), which Schulz, 
 p. 42, n. 2, regards with some probability as a fragment of the Consolatio. 
 Neither of these possible fragments is to be found in our Consolatio. 
 Despite the practical agreement of the editors, the only fragments we are 
 sure of are those quoted by Cicero himself, for those given by Lactantius 
 may be derived from this Consolatio. All the generally accepted fragments 
 do appear here, and in a perfectly natural manner in most cases. What 
 we should most like to know is not, what fragments are received by modern 
 editors, but what were so received by Sigonius in the sixteenth century, 
 and Barzizza in the fifteenth. Of the former, we can be sure; of the latter, 
 we are unfortunately in complete ignorance. Let us consider the fragments 
 in the order in which they appear in our Consolatio. 
 
 7. "Crantorem sequor." The fragment was sufficiently commented 
 on above, p. 2. 
 
 7. "Sed humanae naturae incommoda ita diligenter et accurate expres- 
 sit, ut quasi luendorum scelerum causa nasci homines et in hanc lucem 
 ingredi, possis agnoscere." Cf. Lact. Inst. iii. 18. 18, quoted above, p. 12. 
 I have already indicated that one theory of the date of our Consolatio is 
 that though spurious it is ancient, and perhaps precedes the time of Lactan- 
 tius. EUis CI. Rev. VIL 197 thinks that this is so, that this Consolatio was 
 substituted for the original, and was used as the genuine by Lactantius. 
 The agreement here and elsewhere may be equally well explained on the 
 theory of genuineness, or on that of a later imitation.^,. In the latter case. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 27 
 
 the explanation would be that the forger knew the passage in Lactantius 
 and arranged his work to fit. 
 
 36. "Ex quo intelUgi licet .... proxime accedere." The words are 
 quoted in Lactantius Inst. iii. 19. 13, from the Consolatio. Sigonius, 
 following some of the Lactantius MSS, read at the end "effugere violentiam 
 fortunae;" Patricius, with whom our Consolatio agrees, omits "violentiam." 
 It may be noted that the language of Lactantius is not quite appropriate 
 to our Consolatio. He attributes the words to Silenus directly, whereas in 
 our Consolatio they are put into the general statement which introduces 
 the story, and later only a paraphrase is put into the mouth of Silenus: 
 "Docuit autem regera, numquam nasci optimum esse, sed celeritatem 
 mortis proxime accedere." That Lactantius has the usual form of the 
 story in mind is vouched for by the manner of its occurrence in Tusc. i. 48. 
 114, and in Cons, ad A poll. 27. In the Tusculans the words, "et .... 
 fortunae," are omitted: the Tusculans cannot then be regarded as Lactan- 
 tius' immediate source. It would be of interest to know whether the follow- 
 ing words of Lactantius will apply to our Consolatio: "Credidisse ilium 
 vanissinfio dicto exinde apparet, quod adiecit aliquid de suo, ut ornaret." 
 One more question remains to be asked: our Consolatio apologizes for 
 this story with the words, "si gravioribus ludicra interdum admiscere 
 liceat." What is the relation of these words to the use of "ineptias" in Tusc. 
 i. 40. 95: "contemnamus igitur omnes ineptias (quod enim levius huic 
 levitati nomen imponam?)," a passage which refers to Aristotle's story of 
 creatures in the region of the Pontus that live but a day ? Note also the 
 use of fxaraLovi in a similar connection in Cons, ad A poll. 18. 
 
 55. "Sed qui nos teneat error, aut miserabilis ignoratio veri." Cf. 
 Lact. Inst. iii. 14. 20. 
 
 156. "Animorum nulla .... motu sempitemo." The sources used 
 by the editors were enumerated above, p. 22. Some small differences 
 exist, but their importance is minimized by the fact that there are no known 
 MSS. 
 
 192. "Nee enim omnibus .... pervolare." Cf. Lact. Inst. iii. 19. 
 3. Our Consolatio again agrees with Patricius against Sigonius in reading 
 "castos autem animos," Sigonius omitting the last word. The Lactantius 
 MSS seem to be divided. Lambinus reads "castos autem (aP castos animos 
 et puros) puros" etc. Sigonius alone reads "inde cursum," where others 
 have "eundem cursum." 
 
 212 and 216. "Cumvero .... constitutamque habemus." Cf. Lact. 
 Inst. i. 15, 16 ff., where the division in our Consolatio does not exist, or 
 has not been preserved by the MSS. Again our Consolatio goes against 
 
28 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Sigonius and with Patricius, in reading "assentiamur" where Sigonius 
 has "assentiam." Just above our Consolatio has "eorum in urbibus;" 
 Sigonius, "in eorum urbibus;" Patricius, "eorum in urbibus, al' in eorum 
 ^urbibus," indicating that the differences here, and so probably also else- 
 where, are due to the fact that he and Sigonius used different MSS of Lac- 
 tantius. 
 
 217. "Cedo, et manum toUo." Cf. Lact. Inst. iii. 28. 9. Sigonius 
 and Patricius read "en manum;" Petrarch (if we may trust the quotation 
 in Biinemann's Laclantius, ad loc, the Letter e senile being accessible only 
 in the Italian translation edited by Fracasetti) read "et manus." 
 
 We are now ready to consider resemblances of form. I stated above 
 (p. 6) my behef that resemblance in form does not necessarily imply a 
 relationship, still less the direction of the indebtedness, in case one is shown 
 in other ways to exist. It is hardly worth our while to examine in detail 
 all the passages which exhibit a resemblance in form of expression to admit- 
 tedly genuine works of Cicero. It would take too long to look at each of 
 these passages separately and in the light of all the rest, but perhaps the 
 inspection of certain striking passages will prove of assistance in determining 
 whether or no our Consolatio is genuine. Practically all the most interesting 
 of these were pointed out long ago by Riccoboni, though some rather impor- 
 tant aspects were overlooked by him. The interpretation of such connec- 
 tions is obviously a very delicate matter, and too much confidence should 
 not be placed in any individual's judgment. Lessing's dictum, that an 
 imitator is prone to pass from the great to the monstrous, from the marvel- 
 ous to the impossible {Laocoon, p. 38, n. 2 Bliimner), has here little validity. 
 We must, then, proceed with great caution, and I should say in advance 
 that I personally do not have the highest confidence in deductions made 
 from such evidence alone. While the attitude of a modern investigator 
 would be entirely different from that of a Riccoboni or a Sigonius, there is 
 no better illustration of the possibihty of interpreting evidence in opposite 
 ways. It is almost laughable to note how confidently Riccoboni will point 
 out passages in which our Consolatio and the Tusculans, for example, are 
 similar, .and assert that forgery is thereby proved, while Sigonius will draw 
 the opposite inference, and charge that Cicero in the Tusculans was the 
 imitator. When even sixteenth-century scholars can differ so radically, 
 we should use more care than has sometimes been employed. The difficulty 
 of our task is increased by the skill with which the forger, if it be a forger, 
 has done his work. 
 
 Riccoboni calls attention to the similarity in the use of those stock exam- 
 ples, Cleobis and Bito, Trophonius and Agamedes, Cons. 28; Tusc. i. 57. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 29 
 
 113 flf. A resemblance in form would be almost inevitable: the stories, 
 as we saw above (p. 13), were part of the rhetorical common property, and 
 it would seem unduly subtle to say that one use of them is an imitation of 
 another. The same use is made of the Silenus story, for which see above, 
 p. 14. This story is followed in both our Consolatio and the Tusculans by 
 a reference to Euripides, in the latter case, with a quotation from the Cres- 
 phontes, in the former, without it, "ut," says Riccoboni, "imitatio magis 
 occultaretur." 
 
 Riccoboni points out the similarity in the list oi.exempla in the two works. 
 Note especially Tusc. i. 37. 89, where Lucius Brutus, the three Decii, the 
 Scipios, Paulus, Geminus, Marcellus, Albinus, and Gracchus are mentioned, 
 and Cons. 126 (Lucius Brutus, the two Decii, Scipio, Paulus, Marcellus, 
 Albinus). The treatment of exempla in general is worth a brief considera- 
 tion. Not only is there a resemblance in the names, which would be natural, 
 but other similarities that are more striking may be observed. An example 
 is the following (Cons. 115): "et Priamum non omni orbatum progenie 
 
 summoque dolore confectum hostilis manus interemerit (116) 
 
 Miserabiliter decantata Haec omnia .... turpari Num ei multo 
 
 melius evenisset, si vitam omnino multis ante annis quam haec acciderent 
 amisisset?" Cf. Tusc. i. 35. 85: "Priamum tanta progenie orbatum, cum 
 in aram confugisset, hostilis manus interemit At certe melius evenis- 
 set nee tarn flebiliter ilia canerentur Haec omnia .... turpari." Equally 
 interesting is the use of the fate of Pompey, which follows in both. Cons. 
 123: "Pompeii autem, nostri familiaris, casu quid in civitate notius, 
 quid illustrius, quid omnium oculis ac mentibus perspectius et clarius? 
 
 Hunc, si mature extinctus esset, nihil doloris, nihil invasisset mali 
 
 (124) Sed videamus quantum in rebus humanis fortunae possit iniuria. 
 Nisi malimus ad propriam mortalis vitae nimis asperam miseramque con- 
 dicionem omnia mala revocare. Qui enim amplissimis fortunis usus erat, 
 qui nihil nisi sublime ac beatum nee cogitare nee optare consueverat, cui 
 omnia vel ad usum vel ad voluptatem supererant, bellum cum socero sus- 
 cepit, deseruit domum, profugit ex Italia, et cum antea nihil in ceteris bellis 
 nisi summo consilio prudentiaque gessisset, cum vel maxime ingenio iudi- 
 cioque excellere debuisset, sui paene oblitus est. (125) Itaque imbelles 
 et infirm as copias, tirones coUecticiosque milites cum robustissimis legioni- 
 bus conferre non dubitavit, et amisso exercitu ereptisque castris turpissime 
 
 victus in servorum manus vir summus et clarissimus incidit Beatis- 
 
 simus autem obiisset, si, cum in re publica florebat, cum valebat auctoritate 
 et gratia, cum copiis opibusque aflfluebat, e vita decessisset. Cuius pro- 
 pagatio quantum maeroris et luctus attulerit, non modo scribendo, sed 
 
30 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 vix etiam cogitando, consequi quisquam possit." The passage in the 
 Tusculans is less carefully worked out, and lacks especially the elaborate 
 syncrisis which is so marked a feature of the other. Tusc. i. 35. 86: "Pom- 
 peio nostro familiari, cum graviter aegrotaret Neapoli, melius est factum. 
 .... Utrum igitur, si tum esset extinctus, a bonis rebus an a malis, dis- 
 cessisset ? Certe a miseris. Non enim cum socero bellum gessisset, non 
 imparatus arma sumpsisset, non domum reliquisset, non ex Italia fugisset, 
 non, exercitu amisso, nudus in servorum ferrum et manus incidisset [non 
 liberi defleti, non fortunae omnes a victoribus possiderentur]. Qui si 
 mortem tum obiisset, in amplissimis fortunis occidisset, is propagatione 
 vitae quot, quantas, quam incredibiles hausit calamitates !" The close 
 connection between the two passages is obvious, despite the greater pains 
 bestowed upon the Consolatio. The inference that some relation exists 
 between them can hardly be avoided. Such a similarity can hardly have 
 been a mere accident. Cicero probably nowhere expresses so freely an 
 uncomphmentary opinion of Pompey's conduct in the final scenes of his 
 life as here, but cf. Ad Jam. vii. 3. 2: "vir ille summus nuUus iraperator 
 fuit." Yet we must guard against a premature conclusion. 
 
 Attention was called by Riccoboni to the discrepancy between our 
 Consolatio and the Tusculans in the account of the Decii. In the latter 
 that form of the story is adopted which causes three members of the family 
 to give their lives for their country, in the former apparently only two 
 are mentioned. The accounts of these personages are so contradictory 
 that it is almost impossible to convict anyone of a historical blunder. Else- 
 where Cicero mentions only two, e. g., De off. iii. 4. 16, and Cato Mai. 20. 75. 
 
 So much for the parallelism between our Consolatio and the Tusculans 
 in the matter of exempla. Some resemblances to other works may now be 
 noted. An interesting case is the Crassus passage (Cons. 118 ff.): "Nam, 
 qua in patriam pietate fuit, ex iis malis quae mortem eius consecuta sunt, 
 incredibilem, si vixisset, dolorem accepisset. (119) Flagravit enim bello 
 Italia, exarsit senatus invidia, nihil denique in civitate fuit quod non eius 
 temporis calamitatem luctumque persenserit. Nam quid fugam Marii, 
 quid cetera quae in illius discessu acciderunt, maxime luctuosa summeque 
 miseranda commemorem ? quid reditum ilium sanguinarium, cuius ex 
 recordatione nemo est qui non intimis sensibus exhorrescat." The account 
 of the death of Crassus in De oratore iii. 2. 8 immediately comes to mind: 
 "Non vidit flagrantem bello Italiam, non ardentem invidia senatum, non 
 sceleris nefarii principes civitatis reos, non luctum filiae, non exihum generi, 
 non acerbissimam C. Marii fugam, non illam post reditum eius caedem 
 omnium crudelissimam, non denique in omni genere deformatam earn 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 3I 
 
 civitatem, in qua ipse florentissima multum omnibus [gloria] praestitisset." 
 Sigonius' comment on the passage is worth quoting: "Hoc mihi vere videor 
 esse dicturus, Ciceronem nuUo in loco uberius flumen eloquentiae profudisse 
 quam in prooemiis librorum De oratore, et tamen, cum ibi et hie argumen- 
 tum idem tractavit, hie videri omnia maiore ornatur, ac copia explicuisse, 
 ac nescio quo modo insigniorem verborum florem ac lumen orationis adhi- 
 buisse." 
 
 Let us examine a few more of the many similar passages. A close ver- 
 bal parallel may be seen in Cons. 58: "Itaque Cato sic e vita discessit, 
 ut laetaretur, causam se nactum esse moriendi," and Tiisc. i. 30. 74: "Cato 
 autem sic abiit e vita, ut causam moriendi nactum se esse gauderet." 
 Another is Cons. 72 : " tantumque mentis lumen, e divina natura delibatum, 
 posse exstingui," and Cato Mai. n. 36: "nam haec quoque {sc. vires animi) 
 nisi tamquam lumini oleum instilles, exstinguuntur senectute," and Cato 
 Mai. 21. 78: ^^pliis numquam dubitasse quin ex universa mente divina 
 delibatos animos haberemus." The mixture of figures may be explained 
 on the theory of contamination. Another possible imitation may be seen 
 in "si eorum {sc. deorum) voluntati repugnet, cum dis gigantum more 
 bellare videbitur" {Cons. 6), and "quid est ahud gigantum more bellare 
 cum dis nisi naturae repugnare?" {Cato Mai. 2. 6). The anecdote of 
 Panaetius, told in Cons. 129, is also to be found, though in rather different 
 language, in De off. i. 26. 90. Cf. the very close parallelism between Cons. 
 70 and De repub. iii. i (= August. Contra ltd. Pelag. 4. 12), and between 
 Cons. 184 and De repub. iii. 28. 40 (= August. De civit. Dei xxii. 4). 
 Another example is Cons. 41 and Ad Att. xii. 21. 5. In numerous passages 
 similar ideas are expressed in different language: an example was quoted 
 above (p. 18), Cons. 106 and Tusc. i. 19. 44. 
 
 To these may be added some resemblances to passages in other authors, 
 notably Valerius Maximus. I shall quote at length a single example, 
 Cons. 98: "Quod singularis virtutis exemplum [the reference is to the con- 
 duct of Fabius after the death of his son] fortasse Horatii Pulvilli laudem 
 magna ex parte diminuere videatur; quem tamen summum virum silentio 
 praeterire nefas ducimus, cum in eo ipso, quod filii mortem aequissimo ac 
 fortissimo animo tulit, etiam lovi optimo maximo, cuius aedem dedicabat, 
 gratissimum fecisse videatur. Nam pontifex inter sollemnium verborum 
 nuncupationem postem tenens, ut filium mortuum audivit, neque manum 
 a poste removit, ne sacra dirimeret, nee vultum a populo avertit, ne suum 
 potius dolorem quam populi utilitatem ac salutem cogitare videretur." 
 Then follows the story of Aemilius Paulus. Cf . Val. Max. v. 10. i : " Horatius 
 Pulvillus cum in Capitolio lovi optimo maximo aedem pontifex dedicaret 
 
32 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO ' 
 
 interque nuncupationem soUemnium verborum postern tenens mortuum 
 esse filium audisset, neque manum a poste removit, ne tanti templi 
 dedicationem interrumperet, nee vultum a publica religione ad privatum 
 dolorem deflexit, ne patris magis quam pontificis partes egisse videretur. 
 Clarum exemplum, nee minus tamen illustre quod sequitur." The follow- 
 ing here too is the story of Aemilius Paulus. In addition to the general 
 similarity of language, one may note that nuncupatio is nowhere reported 
 by the lexica to Cicero, though I should not attach too great importance to 
 such a fact. The resemblance between the opening words in the Consolatio 
 and the closing formula of the other is curious and perhaps not without 
 significance. Valerius, from the nature of the case, needed no introduction, 
 while the author of our Consolatio did. The last sentence in Valerius 
 serves as a perfect transition to the following section, and the similar sentence 
 in our Consolatio is equally good as a connecting link between Fabius and 
 Pulvillus. For other examples of close verbal paralleKsm, cf. Cons. 99 
 with Val. Max. v. 10. 2; Cons. 80 with Val. Max. v. 10, Ext. 2; Cons. 82 
 with Val. Max. v. 10, Ext. i. That this Consolatio was not Valerius' only 
 source is proved by the greater detail given by him in such passages as that 
 dealing with Aemilius, as that relating the courage of Theramenes, and 
 by the sUght difference in the accounts of Hasdrubal's wife. This being 
 the case, it is not a necessary assumption that it is a source at all, a possi- 
 bility that must be borne in mind when we come to study the date of the 
 author. One more point in connection with Valerius. References to the 
 consul Thalna are infrequent in Roman literature. In Cons. 137 we read: 
 " item que Thalnae consuli, dis immortalibus sacrificanti." The same inci- 
 dent is related by Valerius ix. 12. 3, though without any obvious verbal relation. 
 
 The whole matter of the use of exempla deserves a word of comment. 
 We have seen a suspicious resemblance in our Consolatio to the Tusculans 
 and to Valerius Maximus. Let us now consider the relation between our 
 Consolatio and the list of Romans mentioned by Hieronymus as included 
 by Cicero in his Consolatio. This list was quoted above, p. 18, in connec- 
 tion with sec. loi. With the exception of the Scauri, all these names are 
 met with in our Consolatio. On the basis of so small a difference one 
 would hardly be justified in drawing conclusions. We may, however, raise 
 the question whether explicavit is the proper word to apply to such a sum- 
 mary enumeration as that in sec. loi. 
 
 In a number of letters to Atticus, Cicero asks for information on certain 
 points; cf. Ad Att. xii. 20. 2: "VeUm me facias certiorem proximis Utteris, 
 Cn. Caepio, Serviliae Claudi pater, vivone patre suo naufragio perierit, 
 an mortuo, item Rutilia vivone C. Cotta, filio suo, mortua sit, an mortuo. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 33 
 
 Pertinent ad eum librum, quern de luctu minuendo scripsimus;" cf. xii. 
 22. 2: "De Rutilia quoniam videris dubitare, scribes ad me cum scies, sed 
 quam primum, et num Clodia D. Bruto consulari, filio suo, mortuo vixerit;" 
 and xii. 24. 2: "Ut ad meas ineptias redeam, velim me certiorem facias, P. 
 Crassus, Venuleiae filius, vivone P. Crasso consulari, patre suo, mortuus 
 sit, ut ego meminisse videor, an post; item quaero de Regillo, Lepidi filio, 
 rectene meminerim patre suo mortuum." Miiller in his Testimonia quotes 
 from Ad Att. xii. 24. 2 a number of questions relating to the embassy of 
 Carneades, probably on account of the words with which they are intro- 
 duced, "ut scias me ita dolere, ut non iaceam." I should hardly consider 
 this sufficient ground for assuming that this information was desired for 
 the Consolatio; it is difficult to see to what use it could have been put in a 
 consolation. It seems better to take it with Tyrrell and Purser, ad loc, 
 as intended for the Academica. If we may trust the first quotation, the 
 Consolatio was already written when the questions were asked (note the 
 last sentence). Were these examples really then in the Consolatio? Ric- 
 coboni argued that they were not, because Hieronymus does not include 
 them in his list; Sigonius argued that they were, for they were afterward 
 used by Seneca. Hieronymus' enumeration, with its indefinite plurals, does 
 not give the impression that he is trying or pretending to make his list com- 
 plete, and in the absence of surer indications it is safer to assume that they 
 were in the Consolatio and that this information was desired simply to check 
 up the statements already made. This may receive some support from the 
 "ut ego meminisse videor" of xii. 24. 2. Caepio and Crassus are mentioned, 
 with greater detail than these letters alone could supply, in sec. 102 of our 
 Consolatio; Regillus may be represented by Lepidi in the same section. 
 Other exempla occur, some probably not found elsewhere in the same use 
 as here, and perhaps in some cases it would be difficult to find a source, 
 if this is a forgery. A noteworthy example is the laudatio of Fabius Maxi- 
 mus, on which see above, p. 17. "Where," triumphantly exclaimed Sigo- 
 nius, "could a forger have found the oration of Fabius Maximus?" It 
 was known, of course, in the days of Cicero {Cato Mai. 4. 12). Some of 
 these exempla formed part of the rhetorical stock in trade, and so can hardly 
 be used in proof of anything. Perhaps some of those mentioned really 
 come under this head. Yet the resemblance in form is so striking that the 
 more plausible explanation seems to be the one I have given. It is a diffi- 
 cult matter to decide what equipment an earlier age had, to know whether 
 a Sigonius, or harder yet, a Barzizza, could have commanded the necessary 
 information. If our Consolatio is ancient, the knowledge would have been 
 easy enough to acquire. 
 
34 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Let US return for a moment to Ad Att. xii. 22. 2: "De Rutilia, quoniam 
 videris dubitare, scribes ad me, cum scies, sed quam primum, et num Clodia, 
 D. Bruto consulari, filio suo, mortuo vixerit. Id de Marcello aut certe de 
 Postumia sciri potest, illud autem de M. Cotta aut de Syro aut de Satyro." 
 Tyrrell and Purser, ad loc, say that in the last sentence quoted de means 
 "from" four times, "concerning" once ("de M. Cotta"). "Syrus and 
 Satyrus," the note continues, "were no doubt literary slaves belonging to 
 Atticus." If this note be correct, M. Cotta is another exemplum, who is 
 not mentioned in our Consolatio. But is their interpretation the true one ? 
 Illud, as Tyrrell and Purser say, clearly refers to the question regarding 
 Rutilia, who was the mother of C. Cotta. It seems strange that Cicero 
 should have allowed de to behave so in shifting its meaning. Klotz, alone 
 among the editions I have consulted, reads "aut de M. Cotta," and this 
 may be the right reading. Here, as in so many cases, one would like to 
 know with precision the reading of the MSS. Paleographically, nothing 
 is easier than the confusion of aut and autem (written with an abbreviation). 
 However, it is unnecessary to make the change. No aut precedes "de 
 Marcello," and there need be none here. An M. Cotta is known from 
 Caesar Bell. civ. i. 30. 2 and Ad Att. x. 16. 3, but we know nothing about 
 his life to lead us to infer that he would be a suitable exemplum. He 
 might have been the nephew of C. Cotta, son of Rutiha. What more 
 natural than that in a matter of family history an appeal for information 
 should be made to a member of that family ? It is easier and more plau- 
 sible to translate this de, "from," like the rest than to make a ne^^ exemplum, 
 M. Cotta, or to emend to read C. Cotta in our passage. We need not then 
 regard this as a proof of spuriousness. 
 
 Some of the poetic quotations in our Consolatio are worth noticing. 
 Among the most interesting are the Ennius epitaph and the verses referring 
 to Telamon. Both are found elsewhere in Cicero, the former in Tusc. i. 15. 
 34 and Cato Mai. 20. 73; the latter in Tusc. i. 18. 39 and Ad Jam. ix. 26. 2. 
 Perhaps the most instructive is the second. In the Tusculans, Cicero uses 
 the words in their reference to Telamon (Ribbeck I. Inc. Fab. 50). In the 
 letter cited, it has humorous reference to Cicero himself. It seems doubt- 
 ful whether Cicero, having used the quotation jokingly in a letter dated 46, 
 would have used it seriously of himself so soon thereafter in the Consolatio, 
 and then seriously of another in the Tusculans. 
 
 It will hardly seem to anyone, I think, that much can be safely inferred 
 from the fact that the consolatory commonplaces are expressed everywhere 
 in very similar language. It is then unsafe to assume, on this basis alone, 
 that one document is the source for another. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 35 
 
 Too much attention has usually been paid, I am convinced, in discus- 
 sions of this kind, to questions of style and language. While it is obvious 
 that such questions cannot be neglected, their evidence cannot always be 
 regarded as decisive. The choice of words in any author will be dictated 
 at different times by different considerations, and the preservation of indi- 
 vidual words from Roman times to ours is conditioned by too many external 
 circumstances. It is true that in the discussion of a document like our 
 Consolatio, the presence of a large number of non-Ciceronian words, so 
 called, would be suspicious. On the other hand, the nature of the subject 
 renders a certain resemblance to other works inevitable, and we must 
 guard against error in either direction. With the proviso that I personally 
 do not attach so much importance to this kind of evidence as to some others, 
 I present for the sake of completeness the results of lexicographical studies 
 in our Consolatio. Riccoboni of course made much of this argument, 
 though he did not cite all the words which the possession of better apparatus 
 enables us to give. For this particular case, the exception made by him 
 needs to be regarded, obvious misprints are not to be considered, but the 
 absence of MSS makes the text largely a matter of conjecture, and makes 
 it impossible to know whether we have the genuine text. I cite first the 
 words which seem not to occur elsewhere in Cicero: (8) "vagitus," used 
 by Pliny, Ovid, Martial, Celsus; (19) "profligatio," not in the sense of 
 "loss" before Ausonius; (19) "captivitas," found in Seneca and Tacitus; 
 of. Madvig on Orelli Cic.fragg., p. 71; (21) "deside," in Livy and Colu- 
 mella; (28) "compage," always in the plural in Cicero, though Lucretius 
 and Lucan use it in the singular; (29) "exanimis," Virgil, Livy, et al.; 
 (31) "immerentes," Nepos, Horace, Suetonius, Lucretius, Valerius Flaccus; 
 {2)2,) "infeliciter," Terence, Livy, Quintilian, Seneca; (45) "indecentms;" 
 (52) "pharmacorum," in Gellius and Nonius; (62) "osor" and "detractor," 
 the former in Plautus and Apuleius, the latter in Tacitus; (74) "putris;" 
 (98) "nuncupatio," Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Valerius Maximus, on 
 which see above, p. 32; (loi) "ultio," Petronius, Seneca, Tacitus; (106) 
 "laetabundus," in Gellius; (107) "confossum," no example in Merguet, 
 though Forcellini cites it from Sidla 11 ; (113) "elucescit," in Lactantius and 
 Augustine, while "eluceo" occurs in Cicero; (124) "sublime" used in Cicero 
 only adverbially, though freely elsewhere as an adjective; (133) "expaves- 
 cere," Pliny, Suetonius; (160) "letalis," Virgil, Statius, Pliny, et al.; (162) 
 "confectrix," which appears only in Lactantius Inst. vii. 11. 5, which how- 
 ever is based on Pro Marc. 6; (164) "socordia," in Plautus, Auctor ad 
 Herennium, Livy, et al.; (175) "immitis," used by Horace, Livy, Virgil; 
 (197) "Lacedaemones," while Cicero has only "Lacedaemonii," according 
 
36 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 to Forcellini and Orelli Onomasticon; (203) "imperitia," Sallust, Taci- 
 tus; (208) "cepas" and "allia," both cited only in the Grammarians; 
 (209) "absurditas," only in Claudianus Mamertinus. In some cases 
 phrases are used in unusual ways, or with infrequent meanings, or seem 
 suggested by other phrases: (i) "adhibere" in the active seems not to 
 govern the dative in Cicero, but instead ad with the accusative, e. g., Tusc. 
 iv. 29. 63; the dative is used regularly with the passive, as Tusc. iv. 27. 59; 
 (i) "subvenire" ("calamitati") may be an imitation of De off. i. 24. 63; 
 (2) " gubernaculum " is never used of the mind, but frequently of the ship 
 of state; (3) "conditam eloquentiam ;" (4) "in ocuHs ferebamus;" (8) 
 "infantia" in Cicero seems always to mean lack of skill in speaking, and 
 is not used of an aetas before Quintilian; (9) "odium confiatum," cf. Pro 
 Cluent. 29. 79, "invidiam confiatam;" (14) "calamitatem contrahere," 
 cf. Ad Jam. ii. 16. 5, "molestias contrahere;" (25) "indagare," never in 
 Cicero with a clause; (26) "conglutinare," never of marriage, but of friend- 
 ship in Lael. 9. 32; (44) "obduruisse ad," the usual phrase being "obd. 
 contra." Sigonius called attention to the use by Petrarch {Lett. sen. x. 4) 
 of "obduruisse" and "occaluisse" in the same sentence. Both are used 
 elsewhere in Cicero, but not used together. It is not a necessary assump- 
 tion from Petrarch's language that he found them together. The meaning 
 and rarity of the words will account sufficiently for their association. It 
 may be noted that Petrarch uses "obd. contra." It can be shown that 
 Petrarch did not know the Consolatio (below, p. 56) ; whether he knew our 
 Consolatio and believed it spurious cannot be ascertained. (60) " Velarunt" 
 always used literally in Cicero, and not figuratively before Seneca and Pliny 
 the Younger; (69) "fortunae temeritate" may be suggested by De nat. 
 deorum iii. 24. 61; (70) "lacrimis temperare," cf. the same phrase in Tac. 
 Ann. V. 16; (85) "callum obducit," cf. the same phrase with apologetic 
 quasi in Tusc. ii. 15. 36; (124) "coUecticios," the same phrase is used in 
 Ad. Jam. vii. 3. 2; (129) "in gyrum fortitudinis ac patientiae," cf. De off. 
 i. 26. 90, "tamquam in gyrum rationis et doctrinae" in the same context; 
 
 (143) "actio" is hardly used in the sense demanded here: cf. Lebreton, 
 La langue de Ciceron, s. v., and Nettleship Contributions to Latin Lexi- 
 cography, s. v.; (144) "corporis admixtione solutus," cf. Cato Mai. 22. 80; 
 
 (144) "gra vitas" is used in an unusual sense; (146) "in mediis doloribus 
 et aerumnis obdormiscere," cf. Tusc. i. 49. 117, "in mediis vitae laboribus 
 obdormiscere ;" (146) "satos et creatos," the same words are used in Tiisc. 
 i. 49. 118; (149) "ficta et adumbrata," the same words in Lael. 26. 97; 
 (152) "pugnare contra" seems to be used in the Orations only; (159) 
 "degenti" is not used without "aetatem," "vitam," etc., though frequently 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 37 
 
 with them; (170) "fibras doloris evellendas," cf. Tusc. iii. 6. 13, "fibras 
 miseriarum evellere;" (175) "cum banc ex animis nostris opinionem veluti 
 immitem quandam et immanem beluam extraxerimus," cf. Acad. ii. 34. 
 108, ''ut feram et immanem beluam, sic ex animis nostris adsensionem 
 .... extraxisset ;" (198) "qui reconditas eorum scrutantur litteras," 
 cf. Tm^c. i. 13. 29, "si veroscrutarivetera .... coner," in the same context. 
 
 In general, then, one would say that the vocabulary was Ciceronian, 
 in some cases suspiciously so, but that the number of words that are not found 
 in extant works of Cicero was rather large. With these are to be included 
 the words and phrases that are used in non-Ciceronian senses. Most of 
 the words that are not found in Cicero come into use during the next cen- 
 tury and a half, or are earlier. Of course the fact that a word does not 
 happen to be found in any extant work of Cicero does not prove that he never 
 used the word. That is a commonplace of criticism. It is only by cumula- 
 tive evidence of that kind that an impression is formed. A study of the 
 syntax does not yield any striking results. Most notable among the verb 
 uses not already mentioned is the fairly frequent use of quamquam with the 
 subjunctive, and the Ciceronian indicative, side by side. Among the case 
 constructions, interesting is the follovidng: "Quid his feminis faciam ?" 
 (108), with which cf. Ad Jam. xiv. 4. 3, "quid Tulhola mea fiet ?" With 
 the active forms the regular construction is de with the ablative. 
 
 Still more unsatisfactory is the evidence of style. The qualities of style 
 are too elusive, the judgment of style too dependent on subjective consid- 
 erations, to render such arguments convincing. I shall therefore waive, 
 all arguments, on whichever side they might be, that are based on style 
 alone. Such discussions too frequently degenerate into mere statement 
 and denial. 
 
 Important results of various kinds have followed the revival of interest 
 in metrical clausidae, one of which has been the discovery of a valuable 
 test for authenticity, as Zielinski ("Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden," 
 Phil. Supplbd. IX. 806 ff.) has suggested. (The present application of 
 the test is, however, independent of Zielinski's suggestion.) The use of 
 a clausule by Cicero in his formal works is so constant that we can hardly 
 suppose it to have been otherwise in his Consolatio. It will be remembered 
 that Cicero himself says that his Consolatio gave no indications of the strain 
 under which it was written {Ad Alt. xii. 21. 5), and this statement is con- 
 firmed by Lactantius {Inst. i. 15. 21 flf.). Lactantius, it is true, might have 
 been unduly influenced by Cicero's own judgment, and might, moreover, 
 be thinking of the document under consideration, but it need hardly be 
 assumed that Cicero's use of a clausule would be materially affected by his 
 
38 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 grief. The surest test would probably be a thorough examination of the 
 Tusculans and other works of the same period. If our Consolatio proves 
 to have clausules closely resembling those of admittedly genuine works 
 of Cicero, the fact will point toward the genuineness of the document, 
 though we must be on our guard against very skilful imitation of Cicero's 
 clausulae. On the contrary, divergence in any considerable degree from 
 Cicero's usage will argue in favor of the spuriousness of the document, and 
 more strongly than the opposite case would for genuineness. 
 
 Let us then examine the text. Despite the unsatisfactory condition 
 of Nobbe's text as regards punctuation, I have followed it closely, to avoid, 
 so far as possible, subjective influences, including, however, only the larger 
 subdivisions.^ In sec. 66 I have read amisimus with Klotz where Nobbe 
 has omisimus; I have made no other changes except that genitives singular 
 of nouns in -ius and -iufn are read with ending -i, not -ii, as printed in 
 Nobbe. It is indisputable that good clausulae do exist. Such are, for 
 example, (4) antea movebamur; (13) sustinet munera; (7) multis tractata 
 sunt; (21) pluribus disputare; (28) heatum^ audent nominare. Metrically 
 equivalent examples without coincidence of word- and group-accent are: 
 (38). diXigMlus relinquatur; (3) \Qg\mus necessario; (16) viventem mortuum; 
 (95) omxiino dolendum fuisse; (23) praesentis instituti. The prevailing 
 forms of clausulae in our Consolatio are these : (a) double trochee, usually 
 without the cretic basis; {h) cretic followed by spondee or trochee; (c) 
 double cretic; {d) cretic preceded by certain combinations; {e) heroic 
 clausule, comment on which will be made later. Forms derived from these 
 by resolution and substitution will be considered with them. I desire to 
 say in advance that I personally do not regard as proper clausulae all the 
 forms that follow. 
 
 a) The type (2) v&lere possis is most common, but the form (i) nobis 
 ipsis is also of frequent occurrence, while the preceding cretic basis is often 
 omitted. Examples of its use have been cited. Few other modifications 
 are found: these are represented by (i) calamitati; (97) cogitare potuit; 
 (47) reiecimus mininie angit, where we must choose between the assumption 
 of hiatus and the admission of another case of the heroic clausule. 
 
 b) More varieties are found of this class. The forms (4) antea ^nove- 
 bamur and (63) essent immissi are most common. The quantitative equiva- 
 lent of the last example is (40) congres5W5 vel complexus, in which the rela- 
 tion of the clausule-accent to the word-accent is not clear, a relation which 
 I do not care to discuss. Frequently one of the long syllables is resolved: 
 
 I The smaller word-groups do not consistently, or even commonly, reveal a metrical 
 form. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 39 
 
 {14) fuerit aerumna; (i) \eviora faciamus; (59) sa.epissim€ cupiat; from 
 resolution of the substituted long comes (87) consuetudine vincetur. Vari- 
 ous other forms occur in which one long syllable is resolved, while from the 
 resolution of two long syllables might result such examples as (19) efficere 
 miser iorem; (146) praemia statnerunl, with resolution of a substituted long; 
 (93) elafti non facile queat, notable for the reason that one of the resolved 
 syllables is represented by parts of two words, -le qu€-, as is also the case 
 in (140) prodiicere liceret, like \eviora faciamus, (81) sustinere queat, of the 
 type of sa,epissim€ ctipiat, and (124) omnia mala revocare, Uke e&cere 
 miseriorem. Various other products of the resolution of two syllables are 
 represented by a few, or by single, examples. From the resolution of three 
 long syllables might be conceived to result (42) hominem^esse meminerit, 
 if such a combination can rightly be called a clausule. 
 
 <:) The regular form (13) sustinet munera is common, while all the three 
 possible forms with substitution are found: (7) multis tr aetata sunt; (69) 
 mutationem possit; (92) extorqueri nolunt. The last two are rare. Reso- 
 lutions of the simple type are not common, the most frequent form being 
 (214) honore decoravero. Two of the original long syllables are resolved 
 in such cases as (18) generibtis hominum loquar, and a few others. Resolu- 
 tions of the type multis tractata sunt are not uncommon: (203) expowVa 
 censeri potest; (15) XdiUdahilis est maxime, in which the substituted long is 
 resolved. Sometimes the form mutationem possit is resolved, as in (21) 
 maxime sollicitat; rarely the form extorqueri nolunt, as in (201) multis 
 afferre solet. Not infrequently in all classes two long syllables are resolved, 
 as in (194) hominibus facile cernitur, while possibly into a form with three 
 long syllables resolved might be brought such a collocation as (186) cogni- 
 tione posita sit. 
 
 d) A large number of examples exhibit the form of (77) elapsus esset 
 fUius; about a dozen the similar ■s>\xorum carnificem vocent (69) ; and a few 
 the form (59) saipientissimi testimonio. 
 
 e) About forty cases are most plausibly to be explained as heroic claus- 
 ules, a very large number as compared with Zielinski's figures for the 
 Orations. Some of these, disregarding the matter of accent, might be put 
 into other classes, e. g., (4) ipsis medeamur; (35) prudentiae documenta. 
 It is hard to explain away such cases as (16) ])dX\enterque tidisse, (204) 
 commemorare, (65) sollicitudo, etc. There remains a score of cases which 
 it is impossible to refer to any type, however generous one be in admit- 
 ting substitutions and resolutions. 
 
 Before passing on, let us comment briefly on the facts presented. No 
 such elaborate classification as that of Zielinski has been attempted: the 
 
40 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 nature of the problem rendered that unnecessary. Yet even with the sim- 
 pler scheme here used, difficulties have arisen. Very troublesome has been 
 the relation of the word- and clausule-accent. The method of procedure 
 and the disposition of individual examples might differ if it were settled 
 whether the Latin accent were one of stress or of pitch, at least for formal 
 Latin, as Abbott has recently argued ("The Accent in Vulgar and Formal 
 Latin," Class. Phil. IL 444 £f.). From ignorance of this relation arises 
 the uncertainty with regard to many cases. Our problem, however, is not 
 to ascertain what clausulae are used, but, first of all, whether they are used. 
 What will be our answer ? Apparently there are clausulae more or less in 
 accordance with Ciceronian usage. It is perhaps questionable whether 
 excessive liberties have not been taken with them. The most serious prob- 
 lem in a study of this kind is the determination of the permissible variants. 
 Substitutions and resolutions undoubtedly do occur in the most formal 
 works of Cicero: the well-known fondness for the esse videatur type is 
 sufl5cient proof. Aggregations of syllables hke (42) hominetn^esse meminerit 
 and (186) cognitione posita sit are quantitative equivalents of good clausulae, 
 yet it is hard to believe that they are clausules in the proper sense of the 
 term. The almost metrical movement of (77) elapsus esset filius (an L- 
 clausule) may be observed in groups of other forms, e. g., (96) anteferre 
 deheamus. 
 
 In ZieUnski's tables, the proportion of V- and L-clausulae is about 86 per 
 cent. ; in our Consolatio, with a most liberal interpretation, the proportion 
 of clausulae of the same types as he includes would not exceed 55 per cent. 
 Such a situation speaks strongly against the Ciceronian authorship of our 
 Consolatio. Can it help us to date the document ? Perhaps. The use 
 of clausulae may prove to conform to their use at some of the periods to 
 which the composition of our Consolatio may be attributed.^ 
 
 A few miscellaneous points remain to be considered. Attention was 
 directed above (p. 30) to the passage which relates to the orator Crassus. 
 In the following section (120), which continues the narrative, occur these 
 words: "Tenemus enim memoria, aut saltem ex patrum scriptis accepimus, 
 crudelissimam omnium caedem illo tempore esse factam," etc. For a 
 commentary I need only refer to Mr. Hendrickson's studies in method of 
 citation {A. J. P. XXVII, No. 2). GuUelmus pointed out long ago that 
 Cicero's own boyhood reached back to the time under consideration, but 
 the technical feature did not present itself to him. 
 
 In some cases there may be observed what seemed to the early critics 
 Christian points of view. Perhaps the most suspicious of these is the fol- 
 lowing (112): "tamen multo maioribus et bonis et opibus, quae nulla 
 
 I The clausulae for chaps, i-xviii are given in full in Appendix B. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 4I 
 
 vetustas absumet, nulla vis eripiet, piorum mentcs assidue potiuntur." 
 The early students of the question were chiefly concerned with the discus- 
 sion of immortality contained in our Consolatio, and in the maze of asser- 
 tion and denial we do not care to follow them far. It does not seem that 
 the author has gone beyond the limits of the philosophers in any notable 
 degree. Philosophy, argues Sigonius, was God's gift to the Greeks, as the 
 Law to the Hebrews, and we must not wonder if their philosophers attained 
 to some of the exalted conceptions usually associated with Christianity. 
 Such a statement as the following may seem at first surprising (38): "qui 
 enim nascentium curam suscipiunt, qui viventes protegunt, alunt, tuentur, 
 fovent, cur morientes deserant ?" Yet even this can find a starting-point 
 in the famous words of Socrates (Plato Apol. 41 CD), thus translated by 
 Cicero {Tusc. i. 41. 99), whence an imitator would most naturally derive 
 them: "nee enim cuiquam bono mali quicquam evenire potest nee vivo 
 nee mortuo, nee umquam eius res a dis immortalibus negliguntur." The 
 statement that fife is but an inn is frequent enough in ancient literature, 
 e. g., Cato Mai. 23. 64 (see Cons. 45). 
 
 Other bits of evidence of various sorts may be deduced from the preced- 
 ing discussions, and the body of evidence presented makes no claim to 
 completeness. It is hoped, however, that a sufficient mass of representa- 
 tive evidence has been offered to allow a decision of our question. Let us 
 then pass in review the material collected, to draw our inferences as the 
 evidence demands. 
 
 The study of the fragments gives little sure evidence either way. Such 
 value as they have for this purpose was shown in the discussion on pp. 25 ff. 
 In some respects, their testimony is against the theory of authenticity. In 
 one case, our Consolatio hardly agrees with the account of the fragment 
 given in Lactantius, which, incidentally, may make against the theory that 
 Lactantius used this as the genuine Consolatio. It may be mentioned in 
 passing that the evidence of the fragments generally is against the theory 
 of a Sigonian origin, as in cases of difference they agree with Patricius and 
 not with Sigonius. In the last fragment discussed, it agrees with neither, 
 but the change is so slight that inference is unsafe. The fact that the frag- 
 ments occur in the order adopted by Sigonius is hardly significant. Sigo- 
 nius or one of his contemporaries might intentionally have followed or 
 altered the order adopted in the printed collection. It is still possible that 
 these fragments might have been arranged in this way independently of 
 Sigonius. The order itself is not unnatural or impossible. The testimony 
 of the fragments, then, cannot be regarded as decisive, though it favors the 
 theory of spuriousness rather than the opposite. 
 
42 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Perhaps we may reach more definite conclusions when we come to con- 
 sider the relation, in language and thought, of our Consolatio to other works 
 of Cicero. I have stated with sufficient fulness my belief that resemblance 
 in form does not necessarily imply relationship, and still less the direction 
 of the indebtedness, in case one is otherwise shown to exist. Yet it would 
 seem that in the case of our Consolatio and the Tuscidans, at least, a relation 
 must be assumed, to account for the striking similarities that were pointed 
 out above. A connection between the genuine Consolatio and the Tuscu- 
 lans is necessary, as was shown above (p. i). If this were the genuine 
 Consolatio, the decisive argument would be the time of completion of the two 
 works. As we are not sure whether or no this is the genuine, we must not 
 consider the time element. Which, then, of the various theories will most 
 plausibly explain what seem to be the facts ? Such large agreements can- 
 not reasonably be explained as coincidences. Shall we say that the simi- 
 larity is due to the fact that both are products of the same mind, that our 
 Consolatio imitates the Tusculans, or the Tusculans our Consolatio ? It 
 is difficult to establish certain standards of imitation. We have already 
 rejected the comparison of style. Yet we must, if possible, render a ver- 
 dict on this point. If we cannot tell with certainty from the passages them- 
 selves, the question of motive would enter into the discussion. Would 
 Cicero, having written the Consolatio early in 45, have allowed himself to 
 repeat the language of the Consolatio to this extent in the Tusculans, written 
 within the next year, at least ? The chances are, it seems to me, that he 
 would not have done so. While it is easy enough to parallel the use by 
 Cicero of the same ideas in different places, never, so far as I am aware, 
 does he repeat his own words so exactly, or his thoughts with such close 
 attention to detail. This would argue either our Consolatio or the Tuscu- 
 lans a forgery. The genuineness of the Tusculans can hardly be challenged 
 successfully. All the evidence is in favor of its authenticity. In addition 
 to the testimony of the MSS, the description of its contents by Cicero in De 
 div. ii. I. 2 has sufficient detail to make it clear that the work is genuine. 
 On the other hand, our Consolatio lacks this external support. The evi- 
 dence of the MSS is, so fan: as we know, wanting, its history incomplete and 
 suspicious. The clear tradition of the Tusculans is absent. The probabil- 
 ity is that the author of our Consolatio is the imitator. Let us see whether 
 this general conclusion can be supported by individual arguments. The 
 variation in the forms of the Silenus story in the two places does not speak 
 eloquently against the agreement in so many other particulars. The 
 similarity in the list of exempla is insignificant as compared with the remark- 
 able resemblance in form, especially in the cases of Pompey and Priam. It 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 43 
 
 is perhaps fanciful to suggest that the statements regarding Priam in the 
 Tuscidans answer almost word for word the rhetorical questions in our 
 Consolatio. The only inference one could safely draw from the differences 
 in the Decii story would be that it is unHkely that Cicero would have used 
 different versions in the Consolatio and the Tusculans, particularly as the 
 former was a source for the latter. I have commented above on the possible 
 relations of the author to Valerius Maximus and to Hieronymus (p. 32). 
 Nothing is settled by this, by reason of the possibiUty that our Consolatio, 
 though a forgery, precedes them, and was used by them as the genuine. 
 The evidence from the requests for information made to Atticus is not con- 
 vincing, on account of the uncertainty as to the use to which some of the 
 information is to be put. Among the quotations the most interesting is 
 the one beginning "cuius ob os." For this an explanation was suggested 
 above (p. 34). The mixture of figures in sec. 72 (above, p. 31) is perhaps 
 not without significance, when one thinks of the possible sources of the 
 ideas, both of which are intelligible by themselves, and are found independ- 
 ently. With regard to the Latinity of the document, the vocabulary is 
 more significant than the syntax. Striking contrasts exist, the startling use 
 of Ciceronian words and phrases in the same form, or nearly the same, as 
 found elsewhere, and the fairly large number of non-Ciceronian words. 
 It is hardly credible that in a genuine work of this character such a situation 
 would exist. Cicero would hardly have ventured such wholesale repetitions 
 so soon in the Tusculans. The syntax, like the vocabulary, would seem 
 to belong to a date not earlier than the first or second century a. d., and 
 possibly much later. The dausulae can scarcely be called Ciceronian. 
 Good clausules certainly are found, but this does not necessarily mean that 
 the author used them as Cicero would have used them. The state of affairs 
 in the Tusculans, where the greatest resemblance might be expected, is 
 quite different. The heroic clausule, which, like other poetic forms, was 
 usually avoided, is here freely used. The number of examples that proved 
 irreconcilable with recognized forms is fairly large, especially if there be 
 added to this list the considerable number of peculiar endings. More 
 than this, the proportion of good dausulae is far less than in genuine works 
 of Cicero, 55 per cent, as compared with 86 per cent, in the Orations. One 
 other point, of considerable interest, remains. Among the large group that 
 are not real clausules there are some that may be reclaimed by adopting 
 another theory and regarding them as rhythmical. Many quantitative 
 dausulae, though not all, will exhibit no clash of word- and group-accent, 
 and so could be either quantitative or rhythmical. Other dausulae which 
 are quantitatively correct will correspond to different rhythmical forms. 
 
44 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Still others which are quantitative failures will be, rhythmically considered, 
 good clausidae. Examples of the first class are (21) pluribus disputare; 
 (216) mortcdium consecrabo; (39) consequentis aetatis, etc. In the case of 
 these, one may not decide whether the clausule has a quantitative or a 
 rhythmical basis; the same is true of the second class, of which I now give 
 examples: (97) se.Ymone persequitur, which if quantitative, belongs to class 
 b) above, if rhythmical, corresponds to the quantitative class c) ; the same 
 is true of (148) dubitatiowe perfruitur. These examples need not then 
 be considered accentual, and the question whether to consider them so 
 can, for our purposes, be answered only when the relation of the word- and 
 clausule-accent is determined. The third class includes a fair number of 
 cases, e. g., {ig^) facile cernitur; (35) quibus expediat; (2) corporis indiget; 
 (150) facile cederent; (94) magis idonea; etc., which have a suspicious 
 resemblance to the mediaeval cursus. The possible bearing of this on the 
 date of our Consolatio will come up later. The presence of such clausulae 
 here in considerable numbers is to my mind almost conclusive proof that 
 our Consolatio is not genuine. Various interesting questions suggest 
 themselves. Is the presence of clausulae here a mere chance? Did the 
 author try consciously to imitate Cicero in the matter of clausulae, as in so 
 many other respects, but meet with only partial success ? Does the work 
 date from a time when the study of clausulae was still in its infancy, and the 
 Ciceronian clausule not well understood? Was the author so at home 
 in Latin that clausules came naturally and unconsciously to him ? Possibly 
 an answer to these questions can be found. 
 
 The single specimen of the author's method of citation revealed a naivet6 
 that is quite un- Ciceronian. The other bits of evidence were not conclusive. 
 Our general conclusion would seem to be that the work is a forgery. Will 
 this assumption explain the facts? An imitator, working with a private 
 or pubHc collection of fragments or with the real Consolatio, might per- 
 fectly well have woven these extracts into the fabric of the narrative so as 
 to make a complete and harmonious whole. The relation to the Tusculans 
 can plausibly be explained only on the theory that the work is a forgery. 
 With the exception of the Tusculans, which would naturally be the main 
 source of an imitator, the relations are in general most close with those 
 authors who were well known at all times. The author's weakness lies in 
 his too great fondness for Ciceronian phraseology, which led him into 
 excesses of imitation. An interesting and perhaps significant example is 
 afforded by Cons. 41 and Ad Alt. xii. 21. 5, quoted above, p. 14. The 
 Cicero of the letter is willing accipere niedicinam, the Cicero of our Con- 
 solatio, not only accipere, sed etiam exquirere, medicinam. This is perhaps . 
 
m 
 AUTHENTICITY OF OUR CONSOLATIO 45 
 
 the clearest expression of a desire on the part of our author to outdo the 
 Cicero we know from other sources in resolute endurance of misfortune, a 
 steadfastness of which the real Cicero, in real misfortune, was not capable. 
 In the case of the "cuius ob os" quotation, his memory or his knowledge 
 failed him, and he committed, as a result, a tactical blunder. The language 
 and syntax are what we might expect from a student of a later age, who 
 had steeped himself in Cicero, perhaps for the purpose of forging this docu- 
 ment. We should compliment the forger on the skill with which he has 
 done his work. Max Miiller is said to have read our Consolatio with no 
 idea that it was spurious, though the impression is not that which one gets 
 from Cicero's philosophical works generally, and Farrer {Literary Forgeries, 
 p. 5) calls it "as well worth reading as many of Cicero's undoubted works." 
 As for the motive for the forgery, it is hard to say what it might have been. 
 A rhetorical exercise of more than usual extent and formality might have 
 been the intention. Conceivably it was a deUberate falsification. In the 
 present state of our knowledge it is impossible to make out the real purpose. 
 
 While it is possible that no one piece of evidence that has been presented 
 will carry with it unreserved conviction that our Consolatio is spurious, 
 the total effect would seem to me to be decisive. We have tried in the 
 consideration of details to keep the point of view of scientific objectivity and 
 impartiality. We can now afford to let our judgment that is based on less 
 tangible evidence confirm, modify, or refute our other conclusions. Despite 
 Max Miiller, I fancy that there will be little objection to the opinion that this 
 impression confirms the belief that our Consolatio is not genuine. 
 
 Assuming our Consolatio to be a forgery, we shall be able to explain the 
 reference to the "fanum" which Cicero proposed to build to the memory 
 of TuUia. Despite the enthusiasm which Cicero felt for the project, there 
 is no evidence that it was ever carried into execution. The reader of the 
 twelfth book of the letters to Atticus would naturally assume, if he depended 
 entirely on that source, that the shrine had been built. Our Consolatio 
 seems to state distinctly that the shrine had been constructed, whereas 
 letters of later date than the composition of the Consolatio show that Cicero 
 was still in doubt as to the best means of carrying out his plans. The lan- 
 guage of our Consolatio seems to demand more than the simple determina- 
 tion to build the fane. 
 
 To sum up: The impression one gets from the reading of our Conso- 
 latio is that it is not a work of Cicero. This impression receives support, 
 in greater or less degree, from various kinds of evidence. Among the most 
 important of these are the following: The text tradition of our Consolatio 
 is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Waiving the internal evidence, external 
 
46 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 considerations must prove that the author of our Consolatio imitated the 
 Tusculans, and not the opposite. Neither the Latinity nor the use of clausu- 
 lae can be regarded as Ciceronian. Furthermore, the theory of spurious- 
 ness enables us to explain the facts more easily and naturally than does the 
 theory of genuineness. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 CONJECTURES AS TO THE AUTHOR 
 
 The second part of our inquiry is now in order — the attempt to discover, 
 if possible, the real author, or at least the era in which he lived. It should 
 be said in advance that the prospects for reaching a satisfactory conclusion 
 on this point are few, for many and obvious reasons. All I shall try to 
 do here is to present the evidence, as far as it can be done, and not attempt 
 to influence the reader's decision. The principal conjectures are five, 
 as follows: (i) The author was Vianello; (2) The author was Sigonius, 
 or someone who depended on Sigonius for information; (3) The author 
 was Gasparino Barzizza; (4) The document is a forgery, but ancient; 
 (5) The document is a forgery, and dates from the Renaissance. 
 
 The first theory is of uncertain origin. As the easiest to dispose of, let 
 us consider it first. It is true that Vianello was the pubUsher of the first 
 edition, that he displayed a singular lack of partisan enthusiasm for our 
 Consolatio that is unusual for a man of his time, and has aroused suspicions, 
 and that he failed to keep his promises to produce the MS. Yet this "igno- 
 biUs Ubrarius" was hardly the man, from what we can learn of him, to 
 undertake and carry to such a successful conclusion a forgery of this magni- 
 tude. The possibility must remain that Vianello was the author, yet the 
 theory has little more than the possibility to recommend it. 
 
 A much more difficult problem meets us when we come to the second 
 proposition. The evidence against Sigonius is striking, and to some may 
 seem convincing, even though we would regret to see a scholar of Sigonius' 
 reputation convicted on such a charge. GuUelmus seems to have been the 
 first to suggest that Sigonius was implicated. See his Assertio adversus C. 
 Sigonium, pp. 113 ff., and above, p. 8. Certainly no scholar of his genera- 
 tion was better equipped than Sigonius. His study of the fragments had 
 given him a control of the material that none of his contemporaries could 
 claim. The task of forging would have been much lighter after the genuine 
 fragments had been pubUshed. It is true that the fragments as they occur 
 in our Consolatio resemble more closely those of Patricius than those of 
 Sigonius. This may easily be explained. The collection may be independ- 
 ent. Sigonius might have hit upon this device to divert suspicion. In that 
 case, the fact that the fragments occur in the Sigonian order might be due 
 to pride, to an oversight, or to intentional ingenuousness. 
 
 I quoted above, p. 8, some letters that show an almost personal inter- 
 
 47 
 
48 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 est in our Consolatio which it is difi&cult to explain on any other theory than 
 this. Schulz, who does not believe that Sigonius is the author, but who 
 desires to prove an existence for the book prior to 1583, quotes from a letter 
 of Sigonius, dated November 12, 1582, in which he speaks of "un mio libro 
 de consolatione." Tiraboschi takes this to be a confession, and such surely 
 would be the first inference. It is questionable whether it is the correct one. 
 All the letters must be explained together, if possible. The question of the 
 actual date of publication here becomes of some importance. Schulz takes 
 the explanation to be that a few copies had been sent out to favored individ- 
 uals as early as the date of this letter, though the edition proper did not 
 appear till the next year. As he believes in the existence of a MS, his 
 explanation seems not altogether necessary. He seems to have overlooked 
 the considerations I adduced above (p. 7) to the effect that the actual date 
 of publication must be eariier than is usually beUeved, or at least the date 
 at which it became known to the learned world. We shall have to go back 
 then to the meaning of "mio." Unquestionably it might and probably 
 naturally would imply more than a purely academic interest. My tables 
 of clausulae of Sigonius are so imperfect that I hesitate to generalize. My 
 collections reveal a mixture of quantitative and accentual clausulae with 
 endings that are impossible from either standpoint, the rhythmical clausules 
 in greater numbers, relatively, than in our Consolatio. On occasion, how- 
 ever, Sigonius used a regular accentual clausule. In a letter to H. Steph- 
 anus (quoted by Krebs Carl Sigonius, 1840, and communicated to me by 
 Professor Hendrickson) we find such clausulae as these : tabulas collegisti; 
 potius admiratus; occasiongm quaesiveris; studium delectaret; MXX&rarum 
 officium; significas provocaris; valde prohavi; impulit multo magis; pro- 
 ficiscuntur; potest contingere, etc. My own lists are mainly from the De 
 dialogo liber and the Oratio in Gymnasia Patavino {Opera VI. 3 fif. and 
 344 ff., ed. 1757), and reveal no such regularity.^ Such clausidae as are 
 found in our Consolatio are, then, not impossible in the time of Sigonius, 
 though the similarity will not alone prove Sigonius the author. Dismissing, 
 with Ellis, and despite Farrer, the rumor of a deathbed confession, which 
 is nothing but a rumor, we still have what must be confessed to be a strong 
 suspicion. Against it may be arrayed some general considerations. The 
 general character and standing of Sigonius are good. I have no desire 
 to repeat the eulogistic characterizations of Schulz and Ellis. Such literary 
 disputes seem to have been quite in keeping with Sigonius' character. He 
 had already indulged in a debate which is now obscure, but evidently at 
 the time enjoyed a certain notoriety, with Robortet. See a letter from 
 
 I For additional material see Appendix B, 
 
CONJECTURES AS TO AUTHOR 49 
 
 Muretus to Gillot, published by De Nolhac Correspondance, etc., p. 149, 
 n. 5; cf. Melanges Graiix, p. 400, a letter rather amusing for its slighting 
 reference to Riccoboni. A remark by De Nolhac is worth our consideration 
 (Correspondance, etc., pp. 94 ff.): "Sigonio, qui a mesure mieux que per- 
 sonne le champ de la science, sait trop le prix de temps pour s'abandonner 
 aux exercices litteraires." The present tendency seems away from the 
 theory of a Sigonian authorship; whether rightly or no is a question I do 
 not care to attempt to decide. 
 
 Equally difficult to defend or to overthrow is the theory that the author 
 was Gasparino Barzizza, a theory propounded by Schulz in his dissertation. 
 Schulz argues ingeniously in defense of his theory, but it must remain 
 nothing more than an interesting conjecture, in the present state of our 
 knowledge. As Barzizza does not enjoy the fame he deserves, a few words 
 regarding him may not be out of place. He was first and foremost a teacher, 
 lecturing in Bergamo, Pavia, Venice, Padua, Ferrara, and finally at the 
 court of the visconti at Milan. Certain things about his career have given 
 rise to false impressions of his scholarship and methods, impressions which 
 it is only just to correct. Schulz (pp. 86 ff.) argues from the well-known 
 Ciceronian studies of Barzizza that he was the author of our Consolatio. 
 It is true that he stood in the front rank of the Ciceronians of his day. 
 The whole story of Ciceronianism remains to be written, though some prog- 
 ress has been made. Sabbadini in his Storia del Ciceronianismo, p. 13, 
 says: "Ma il vero apostolo del Ciceronianismo fu il Barzizza, 'cuius ductu 
 et auspiciis,' scrivea Guarino nel 1422, 'Cicero amatur, legitur, et per 
 Italorum gymnasia summa cum gloria volitat.' " Doubtless some allow- 
 ance must be made for humanistic exaggeration, but it is clear that a sub- 
 stantial residue of truth remains. It was natural enough that Gasparino 
 should have been interested in the still fragmentary rhetorical works of 
 Cicero, yet it is this very interest that has been in part responsible for this 
 charge of forgery. How far, if at all, he influenced the texts of Quintilian 
 and Cicero it is difficult to make out, yet what we know of his methods of 
 study does not lead us to believe that he is responsible for serious corruption. 
 The source of this misapprehension seems to be a statement by Flavio 
 Biondo Italia Illustrata, p. 346, also quoted by Furietti Barz. 0pp., p. xli, 
 and by Schulz, p. 86. Referring to the discovery of a MS of the rhetorical 
 works by Landriani in 1422, he writes: "unde liberatus est bonus ipse vir 
 Gasparinus ingenti, quern assumpserat, labore supplendi, quoad poterat, 
 librorum de Oratore defectus." We are fortunate enough to know a good 
 deal about Gasparino's methods of work on such problems. See Sabbadini 
 Studi di G. B. sii Quintiliano e Cicerone, p. 10, and a MS note quoted in 
 
50 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Bandini Cat. Cod. Laur. II. 492, 493; 499-501 : "Hoc supplet Gasparinus, 
 non tamen, ut proprio ex ore audivi, ea intentione ut textui annecteretur, 
 sed ut esset quaedam postilla in margine quae utrosque textus defec- 
 tuosos coniungeret et cum aliqua continuatione et consonantia saltern intel- 
 lectui legentis satisfaceret aliquantisper." Cf. also a letter from Barzizza 
 to loh. Cornelius, quoted from Cod. Rice. 779, f. 148, by Sabbadini Studi, 
 etc., p. II : "Quaedam etiam cum deficerent supplevi, non ut {om. cod.) in 
 versum cum textu Ciceronis ponerentur, esset enim vehementer temerarium 
 nee ab homine docto ferendum, sed ut ea in margine posita comment ariorum 
 locum tenerent." In the face of such testimony it seems difi&cult to convict 
 Gasparino of any design of forgery. The parallel is of course not perfect, 
 but the almost modern conception of a scholar's responsibilities and obliga- 
 tions is certainly to be put down to his credit. Another argument on which 
 Schulz relies is that Gasparino wrote "Epistulae ad exercitationem accom- 
 modatae." These letters, of which we have a considerable number, are what 
 their name implies, exercises in Latin composition, cast in epistolary form, 
 dealing with a variety of subjects. They would naturally form part of a 
 teacher's equipment. The only argument that can safely be drawn from 
 these is the habit of practicing Ciceronian Latin, for neither in length nor 
 in content is there any resemblance to our Consolatio. All are short. Sab- 
 badini Ciceronianisnio, p. 16, says of them: "Qui difficilmente si incontra 
 una parola, una frase non ciceroniana; non e sempre ciceroniano il sapore, 
 assai di rado ciceroniano il movimento, perche lettere di argomento simu- 
 lato; ma nell' insieme vi e una correttezza, una scrupolosita, di cui prima 
 del Barzizza non si hanno esempi, e ben pochi dopo di lui, finche non si 
 arriva a Paolo Cortesi" — a characterization, by the way, hardly applicable 
 to our Consolatio. Schulz's other arguments are based mainly on the 
 similarity of language in our Consolatio and Barzizza. It is however to 
 be noted that the majority of instances of this kind belong in the general 
 consolatory field, and so are imperfect evidence. It must be admitted, 
 too, that while Barzizza was a Ciceronian, he was not in the sense that the 
 author of our Consolatio was a Ciceronian, an author who did not scruple 
 to quote with astonishing freedom anything which suited his purpose. In 
 the numerous consolatory letters and funeral orations of Barzizza there is 
 little evidence that he was acquainted with the ancient literature of these 
 types, though we know from his own lips that he was (see below, p. 61). 
 They are far less formal, rhetorically, than those of Poggio, for instance. 
 The style of Barzizza is rather that of a man who was well acquainted with 
 Cicero than of one who borrows outright and shamelessly. For a general 
 judgment on his style, see Sabbadini Ciceronianismo, p. 15. We may 
 
CONJECTURES AS TO AUTHOR 5I 
 
 find some evidence by inquiring into Barzizza's character and reputation a 
 little more at length. The whole weight of this testimony falls on the side 
 of his innocence. Something of his fame among his contemporaries we 
 can deduce from what has been already said. His scholarly reputation 
 was deservedly good, his private life praiseworthy. If any pecuniary advan- 
 tage was to be gained by such a composition, it might be attributed with 
 some plausibility to that period of financial depression in the scholar's 
 life before he was received into the favor of the Milanese visconti. It is 
 hard to see what financial benefits could have accrued. A pretended dis- 
 covery by him would hardly have escaped some record, in a time when there 
 was so much enthusiasm for new MSS. In the same connection it may be 
 noted that his reputation brought to him the credit for discoveries he did 
 not make; e. g., the discovery of Cicero's rhetorical works was attributed 
 to him by Raphael Volaterranus Comment urb. xxi. 489 (ed. Basil, 1559), 
 and others. He shared in the neglect which his generation received from 
 their successors. With the advent of a generation of editors like Pomponius 
 Laetus, the discoverers went into temporary obscurity. Barzizza, however, 
 fared better than did some others, as Poggio. The former's reputation 
 grew by accretion, while the fame of Poggio's discoveries, which had been 
 the sensation of the learned world, had so diminished that Sabellicus (Dia- 
 logus de reparatione Latinae linguae, 0pp., pp. 190 S., ed. 1502) was not 
 sure whether Quintilian was discovered by Poggio or by Barzizza. Among 
 the works of Poggio, the Letters and Orations were known to Sabellicus 
 by name only, the Facetiae alone were known to him at first hand, inciden- 
 tally a sad commentary on the moral standards of the age. Barzizza's 
 commentaries also were believed by Sabellicus to have perished. The 
 Dialogus is undated, but probably belongs to the last quarter of the fifteenth 
 century. 
 
 We saw a specimen of Barzizza's ideals as a scholar in his methods of 
 supplying lacunae; his attitude toward the mihi-michi controversy indi- 
 cates his scholarship. The majority of scholars of the early fifteenth cen- 
 tury, led by Lionardo Bruno, favored the spelling michi. Bruno argues 
 with some display of erudition for this spelling, but relies mainly on the 
 fact that Petrarch and Coluccio spelled that way. Gasparino stood out 
 against this spelling, in favor of mihi. See also Sabbadini Oiceronianismo, 
 pp. 99 £f. A further instance of his scholarship may be seen in his pioneer 
 studies of metrical claustdae. The introduction of the study of claiisidae 
 into modern teaching is sometimes attributed to Lorenzo Valla, but errone- 
 ously. This attribution may be found, for example, in Raphael Volater- 
 ranus op. cit., p. 490: "Laurentius Valla primus fere nostro saccule qui 
 
52 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 orationem Latinam nulla observatione fluentem in compedes quasi rede- 
 gerit ac in nervos observationis antiquae constrinxit." But see Barzizza's 
 De compositione, 0pp., p. ii. Here we find a theoretical exposition of 
 the clausule, with later a practical demonstration of its use, based on Mar- 
 tianus Capella, whose account, he says, is clearer than those of Cicero and 
 Quintilian. Cicero's actual usage, he says, is the best guide. It would 
 seem then that to Barzizza belongs the credit for initial studies in this field. 
 Schulz introduces some very ingenious arguments to support his theory, 
 but the burden of proof must rest with him, nor to my mind, has he suc- 
 ceeded in making out a case. Scharfif thought some author of the end of 
 the fifteenth century was responsible, but was unwilling to go farther, and 
 no one has been so daring in the case of the other documents attributed to 
 the Renaissance. Schulz calls attention to the statement of Tiraboschi 
 Storia delta Letteratura Italiana I, p. 315, note, that a MS of our Consolatio 
 was sent to him for examination by a certain Beltramelli of Bergamo. Tira- 
 boschi thinks that this MS was forged by some partisan of Sigonius to give 
 a firmer foundation to his defense, but declares the MS to show manifest 
 signs of being a forgery, being provided with lacunae and other signs of 
 age. This theory of Tiraboschi's is refuted by Schulz, who apparently 
 without knowing that Sigonius asserted the existence of a MS declared 
 that any MS, fragmentary or otherwise, would have been welcomed by 
 Sigonius, had he known of its existence. Certainly we should have expected 
 a higher degree of candor on the part of Sigonius, had he known of this AIS. 
 There is of course nothing essentially impossible, or even improbable, in 
 the supposition that this is the three-hundred-year-old MS to which refer- 
 ence has been made. Paleographical references of this period are notori- 
 ously inexact, and Tiraboschi is perhaps not infallible on such points. 
 This MS, according to Schulz, p. 97, was written by some friend of 
 Barzizza's, and is another copy of the same MS that was published by 
 Vianello. Being incomplete, it escaped detection until it came into the 
 hands of Beltramelli. His argumentation is far from lucid. An incom- 
 plete MS is as liable to discovery as a perfect one, and the existence of the 
 MS at Bergamo in the library of Beltramelli, who was an enthusiastic 
 collector of MSS and rare books, would by no means prove that it had ever 
 been in Bergamo before. The discrepancy in age, in case this was the MS 
 claimed by Vianello to exist, did not concern Schulz, and need not us. 
 There seems little real evidence to connect this MS with either Sigonius 
 or Barzizza. Given a MS, and it would seem that we were far on the way 
 toward a solution of our difficulties. But such is not the case. The library 
 of Beltramelli has been dispersed, and so far it has proved impossible to 
 
CONJECTURES AS TO AUTHOR 53 
 
 locate the MS in question. Part of the collection went to the Capitular 
 Library of Bergamo, part, it appears, to the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan. 
 The recently completed catalogue of the latter library, consulted for me by 
 Dr. B. L. UUman, makes no mention of such a MS as ours. I have been 
 no more successful in the Capitular Library. 
 
 The Venice MS of the Consolatio (Lat. VI. 1 1 ) may be this Beltramelli 
 MS. It presents an interesting and difficult problem. No evidence, from 
 the style or from the content, has so far revealed its true character. It 
 fits vi^ell enough the rather vague description of Tiraboschi, as it breaks 
 ofif abruptly (if my photographs are complete) at the end of a recto page (14), 
 and from 9'' to the end, lacunae, some with and some without erasure, are 
 frequent. In some places erasures have certainly been made and it is 
 possible to read the original, e. g., on 145, where eftaltes has been erased. 
 It is to be noted that in this passage efraltes does not occupy the position 
 in the list of names assigned to it in the editions. In other cases there are 
 apparent erasures, though the underlying reading cannot be made out. 
 In some of these it is quite clear that the original was not the reading of the 
 editions. In other cases spaces are left, in which nothing has been written. 
 To judge from the photographs, these are not the losses which result from 
 age. Furthermore, why should the first quaternion have been spared? 
 The fact that the MS breaks off at the end of a recto page proves that the 
 absence of the greater part of the text is due to non-completion, and not to 
 accident. This MS could not then have been the MS of Vianello. Its 
 relation to that MS cannot even be conjectured. Some readings suggest 
 a difference in tradition, e. g., ex servata civium salute (14), summos et 
 infimos (22), illud Menadri {sic) canticum (61), etc., the editions reading 
 ex parta civium salute, summum et infimum, illud comicum, etc. In most 
 respects it agrees closely with the editions. There are gaps in the external 
 history of the MS. The Marcian library received it from Morelli, a 
 former librarian, who had it as a gift from an Englishman, Edwards. Its 
 earlier history I have not been able to learn, but Valentinelli in his catalogue 
 of the Venice MSS regarded it as Beltramelli's MS, though assigning 
 it to the eighteenth century. If it really was his MS there remains nothing 
 certain to connect it with either Sigonius or Barzizza, and if this date 
 is correct, a connection with either of these men is impossible. The hand, 
 which Valentinelli pronounced an imitation of the fourteenth-century style, 
 is of so peculiar a character, and presents such different forms of individual 
 letters within a few lines that it is very difficult to form an opinion. It is 
 tempting, however, to accept Valentinelli's statement, with perhaps a 
 mental reservation with regard to the date. The conjecture that it imitates 
 
54 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 a fourteenth-century style has some merit, though there is no one style, 
 to my knowledge, comparable to this. Its composite character bears 
 some testimony to its lateness. We cannot, therefore, identify with cer- 
 tainty this MS with that seen by Tiraboschi, nor can we regard it as evi- 
 dence against either Sigonius or Barzizza. Very probably it comes from a 
 time later than either of them. 
 
 The material at hand for the study of Barzizza's use of clausulae is 
 insufficient.^ Rhythmical clausulae seem, so far as I can judge, to pre- 
 vail, as one would expect from the time in which he lived. Despite the 
 assumption of the humanists that Latin was their native tongue, it is hard 
 to believe that the use of clausules by them was not conscious, whatever 
 it may have been with Cicero. Especially in the case of Barzizza, who 
 said that the method of use of clausulae should depend on circumstances, 
 the fact of the non-use or use of clausules in the passages we should happen to 
 pick in any accidental way would have little real bearing. Schulz jauntily 
 proclaims that nothing can be urged against his theory, but equally plausible 
 arguments could doubtless be devised, with a little ingenuity, to attribute 
 the forgery to other scholars of the Renaissance. 
 
 Let us now take up the theory proposed by Ellis, that our Consolatio 
 has come down from antiquity, and that it was used as the genuine by 
 Hieronymus and Lactantius. This theory has much to recommend it. 
 Ellis' brief article (CI. Rev. VII. 197) by no means exhausts the possibilities 
 of argument. He regards the style as too classical to have been possible 
 in Sigonius' time, or in the Renaissance (he does not refer to Schulz's con- 
 jecture), and particularly before 1432. He regards this date as significant 
 because in that year Ambrogio Traversari, general of the monastic order 
 of the Camaldolese, discovered at Perugia a "Consolatio Ignoti Auctoris" 
 {Hodoeporicon, p. 11). Ellis believes that this is our Consolatio, and if so, 
 it must be ancient. The resemblance is surely striking, yet we are hardly 
 justified in identifying them on such slight authority. No further reference 
 to the MS is made by Traversari. It is inconceivable that a document 
 purporting to be Ciceronian would have been passed over without mention 
 of that fact, especially as he stops to characterize it briefly. The age as a 
 whole was not critical, though the De differentiis was recognized by Coluccio 
 as a forgery. Yet the contrast between the title and the pretensions of 
 the work would surely have struck Traversari. It would be in many ways 
 desirable to identify the two. Sigonius' name would be at once freed from 
 possible taint. Barzizza, who died in 1431, might have been the author 
 of the Traversari Consolatio, an argument of which Schulz does not avail 
 
 ■ See Appendix B. 
 
CONJECTURES AS TO AUTHOR 55 
 
 himself. Given a MS of the sixteenth century (Tiraboschi) or of the fif- 
 teenth (Schulz), and a possible one in the fifteenth (the Traversari MS), 
 with the assertion of the existence of a MS by Vianello and Sigonius, it is 
 tempting to identify them. I know of nothing else with which this MS of 
 Traversari could be identified. The Venice MS can hardly have been 
 Traversari's. On the other hand, the reasons for this identification are not 
 strong. Arguments from silence are rarely convincing. Supposing that 
 our Consolatio were the one discovered by Traversari, a chain would be 
 established which would support Ellis' view. The age of the possible 
 Vianellan MS may be left out of account. But the identity of the 
 Traversari MS with that of Vianello is not necessary to the theory, 
 though it would be confirmatory. The language of our Consolatio might 
 perfectly well belong to the first or second century a. d. (I should hesitate 
 to say that it necessarily belonged then). One possibility that must be 
 taken into account is that our Consolatio, while not genuine, used the real 
 Consolatio as a source. In that case, fragments would still be authentic, 
 so far as they are confirmed by other sources. In case this is not true, our 
 whole collection of fragments, save those in the Tusculans, is brought into 
 question. Can we decide whether or no Lactantius and Hieronymus used 
 this Consolatio ? There is some evidence in both cases that they did not. 
 The use of the Silenus story in our Consolatio does not quite agree with 
 what Lactantius demands (cf. above, p. 27); the summary grouping of 
 exempla in Cons. 102 seems suggested by Hieronymus rather than vice versa 
 (p. 32, above). I pointed out that this Consolatio could not be the only 
 source for Valerius Maximus, and therefore need not be regarded as a 
 source at all. Yet the early centuries of the Empire would seem a suitable 
 time for the composition of such an essay. This would agree with the well- 
 known practice of the rhetorical schools. In case the author did not depend 
 on the real Consolatio for the material, could we date our Consolatio more 
 exactly on this theory ? The mass of evidence in Pliny is so slight that it 
 can hardly be taken seriously. I refer to the quotation " Crantorem sequor," 
 which might have been transmitted independently. While the letters to 
 Atticus cannot furnish all the information given in our Consolatio about 
 Caepio, Crassus, and the others, it is probable that their insertion in our 
 Consolatio is due to this suggestion. The composition of our Consolatio 
 would then probably have to be set later than the date of the publication 
 of the letters to Atticus. 
 
 Some light may be thrown upon this theory, and the last as well, by an 
 inquiry into the knowledge of the Consolatio in the Renaissance. Petrarch 
 had sought long but unsuccessfully for it: cf. his letter to Cicero, De reb. 
 
56 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 Jam. xxiv. 4: "tuorum \sc. librorum] sane, quia de iis sermo mihi nunc 
 erat, quorum insignior iactura est, haec sunt nomina: ReipuUicae, Rei 
 familiaris, De lande philosophiae, De consolatione, De gloria," etc. It is 
 of course possible, but not probable, that he knew this Consolatio. The 
 only evidence for this is the uncertain manner of the use of ohduruisse and 
 occaluisse (above, p. 36). The researches of the next generation, Poggio 
 and his untiring coworkers, were no more successful, so far as we know. 
 The discovery of Traversari can hardly be considered. Various scholars 
 do display a knowledge of the Consolatio. Among these is Lionardo Bruno. 
 I quote from his Cicero Novus, preserved, e. g., in Cod. Laur. LII. i : 
 "Scripsit ... . de senectute, de amicitia, de consolatione libros singulos. 
 .... Nee multo post summo ipsum dolore affecit TuUiolae mors quam 
 
 partu laborantem per id tempus amisit Pro linimento huius doloris 
 
 scriptus est ab eo liber in quo se ipsum consolatus est." It is impossible 
 to judge from such statements whether Bruno had a first-hand knowledge 
 of this or any other Consolatio. The same is true of Manetti Dialogus 
 consolatorius de ohitu filii. The most striking of all is the section of 
 Sicco Polento which deals with Cicero. For this I am indebted to Dr. 
 B. L. Ullman, to a forthcoming paper by whom I would refer the reader. 
 Sicco viTrites as follows: "Hos quoque per dies ut scriberet de consolatione 
 Tulliolae mors coegit. Tum quidem ut doloris magnitudinem medicina 
 aliqua mitigaret, librum edidit unum, qui de consolatione inscriptus est," 
 etc. He continues with a comment on and analysis of the Tusculans. 
 Now it is Sicco's method in the De viris illustribus to weave into his charac- 
 terization a quotation or paraphrase, often from the beginning of the work 
 under discussion. This is true of Catullus, for example: "Id lepide scribit 
 ad Cornelium suum, qui nugas eius aliquid esse putare soleret" (cf. CatuU. 
 i. 3-4). This and similar quotations will be discussed in the paper just 
 referred to. The medicina here might be such a quotation. Yet the idea 
 of medicine for grief is so common in consolations in Cicero and elsewhere 
 that it is not quite safe to draw conclusions. Sicco was writing about 
 1430-33, and so would fit in with either the Traversari discovery or the 
 theory that the author was Barzizza. However, it is almost certain that 
 the genuine Consolatio was not known to be extant in 1441. About this 
 time an important discovery of MSS was made at Altobassis. Poggio had 
 by this time retired from active service in the collection of MSS to engage 
 in literary composition, but this discovery aroused all his old enthusiasm. 
 He wrote at once for an inventory. Among the lost works of Cicero that 
 he hopes to find is the Consolatio {Epistt. VIII. 24 Tonelli). It is diflttcult 
 to believe that a discovery of a Consolatio of Cicero in earlier years could 
 
CONJECTURES AS TO AUTHOR 57 
 
 have remained unknown to Poggio. Poggio was in close communications 
 with Traversari, the only scholar who can be identified with the finding 
 of a Consolatio. It seems almost certain that the genuine Consolatio was 
 not known in the early Renaissance. Was our Consolatio known and 
 regarded as spurious ? It is impossible to answer. It seems strange that 
 in the correspondence of the time there should be no reference to any con- 
 troversy. Possibly the large body of unpublished letters contains the whole 
 story. Yet to my mind, the document belongs to the Renaissance. lean- 
 not agree with Ellis when he says that the style is too classical to have been 
 possible in the Renaissance. A scholar of that period, imperfectly trained 
 and supplied with apparatus, would in my opinion have composed Latin 
 very like this. The presence of accentual clausulae would indicate a time 
 when they knew that a quantitative clausule existed, but were not well 
 acquainted with its use. The danger of arguing from silence is well seen 
 in the case of Catullus, to whom really significant references in the Renais- 
 sance are rare. The reference in Sicco looks very like, and may well be, 
 a real reference. In the absence of confirmatory evidence it is hard to be 
 sure. 
 
 The fondness of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries for forging inscrip- 
 tions and literary documents is well known. I need only mention the name 
 of Ligorio on the epigraphical side. Ciriacus of Ancona has had a bad 
 reputation (probably largely undeserved) as a forger. Annius of Viterbo 
 published in 1498 seventeen books of histories, said to be those of Fabius 
 Pictor and others. Even Muretus was charged with forging a fragment 
 of Pacuvius (cf. Ellis Commentary on Catullus, 2d. ed., pp. 66, 67). Madvig 
 thought he discerned Renaissance influence on the De orthographia of 
 Apuleius {Opusc. I). In general, see Symonds Revival of Learning, p. 156, 
 n. 2, and the reference to Tiraboschi there cited. Most interesting of all 
 for our purpose is the forged epitaph of Tullia {CIL. VI. 5, 3593*). While 
 it is not justifiable on such slight evidence to assert a connection, nothing 
 could show with greater clearness Renaissance interest in such subjects 
 as the death of Tullia than this inscription. 
 
 Scharff's view, that the end of the fifteenth century was the date of our 
 Consolatio, must be accounted a strong possibility. I cannot attempt to 
 conjecture the individual. I am acquainted with no scholar of the period 
 who combined the necessary qualifications, in scholarship and character, 
 though forgery was not so serious a crime in the eyes of the world then as 
 now. Despite this, the most reasonable theory is that this Consolatio is 
 the work of an unknown scholar of the Renaissance. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 CONSOLATIONS AND LAUDATIONS IN THE RENAISSANCE 
 
 It would be impossible at this time to relate in full the history of the 
 Renaissance literature of these types; in fact, a separate treatise might be 
 written on this subject. To form an impression of the number of examples 
 of these literary types one need only glance through the indices of such a 
 collection as Muratori's Scriptores rerum Italicarwn, or through any cata- 
 logue of MSS. I shall confine my attention to a few of the most interesting 
 specimens, for the present, reserving the consideration of a wider range of 
 examples for a later paper. Practically all the notable scholars and public 
 men of the Renaissance composed laudations and consolations. I shall 
 confine my examples in general to Poggio, Manetti, and Barzizza, the choice 
 being dictated by especial interest in the form of the work, or in the author. 
 
 Space does not permit the complete reproduction of these specimens, 
 many of which are almost inaccessible to American scholars. Among the 
 most conspicuous figures of the Renaissance are Poggio, the collector of 
 MSS, and his friend, Niccolo Niccoli, text critic, and, one might almost say, 
 editor. The latter died in 1437, and Poggio wrote the funeral oration. This 
 may be found complete in Poggio's works, or, summarized and translated, 
 in Shepherd Life of Poggio, pp. 299 ff. The contents of the oration are in 
 brief as follows: The Muses, if such an act were consistent with their 
 dignity, would have come down to praise this man. My effort is only to 
 point the way for some more eloquent orator, and to perform the service due 
 a friend. After a petitio veniae in familiar form, with more biographical 
 material than an ancient would have admitted, but formally presented, 
 the oration proper begins: his birth, and eulogy of his parents; his studies 
 under Marsilius, his industry and attainments in scholarship, and his 
 generosity. His house was a veritable public library. He was active in 
 bringing new teachers to Florence. Here occurs an interesting and charac- 
 teristic passage. Poggio had had a violent quarrel with Francesco Filelfo, 
 who was one of the teachers summoned to Florence by Niccolo. The 
 author interrupts his narrative for a thrust at Filelfo, but with an apology 
 for Niccolo: " Turn ultimus omnium Nicolai quoque opera ad nos adiit 
 vir scelestissimus omnium atque impurissimus (quem contumeliae causa 
 nomino) Franciscus Philelphus. Verum Nicolaus, qui scientiae utilitatem 
 quaereret, flagitia ignoraret, communi errore bonorum, qui ceteros ex suo 
 ingenio iudicant, .... deceptus," etc. He continues with Niccolo's 
 
 59 
 
6o THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 prudentia, humanitas, gravifas, castitas, etc. Looking forward to being 
 of service in the future, as in the past, he arranged at his death to found a 
 public library. He concludes with an apostrophe to his friend, an appeal 
 to the audience, and a promise to keep alive his memory. The resemblance 
 to the rhetorical fashions of the ancients is sufficiently evident. Of par- 
 ticular interest would be a detailed comparison with Bruno's invective 
 against Niccolo, which Poggio answers, almost detail for detail. See 
 Wotke Wiener Studien XI. 295 ff. Syncrises are frequent. Notable for its 
 rhetorical form is Poggio's oration for Lorenzo de Medici {0pp., pp. 278 ff., 
 ed. Basil). 
 
 The remainder of the half-dozen orations of Poggio we may pass over 
 more briefly. The treatment of virtues is the same throughout. Truly 
 encomiastic in its spirit is the use of the same characteristic in opposite 
 ways: Franciscus, Cardinal of Florence, is praised (Op p., p. 252) for his 
 study of law, while the Cardinal of S. Croce gave up the law for the church. 
 In the former case, law is the most useful study, in the latter, "huius mundi 
 sapientia" is "apud Deum stultitia." The oration for L. Bruno was 
 "dignified, lucid, pathetic, well-proportioned" (Shepherd op. cit., p. 375). 
 This was not delivered, but was written at the request of friends to replace 
 the miserable production of Manetti, the ofiicial orator. This oration of 
 Manetti is summarized in Shepherd op. cit., p. 371, note, and for puerility 
 surpasses anything of the kind known to me. A few quotations will suffice. 
 "If the Muses were in the habit of appearing in public, they would have 
 wept for this man, in Latin or in Greek, but as they are not, I, whose only 
 recommendation is that I am a member of the government, have 
 been selected to deliver the laudatio, and to crown the corpse." The 
 treatment professes to be orderly, but its symmetry is much marred by 
 digressions. Cicero, who translated from the Greek, and Livy, who wrote 
 history, are both inferior to this man, who did each of these things. Pre- 
 paring for the coronation, he relates in great detail, through several pages, 
 the entire history of the subject, describing the eight kinds of military 
 crowns, the circumstances under which they were awarded, etc. Having 
 proved Bruno a poet by the amusing rule, "Itaque si quis poeta esse cuperet, 
 quaedam egregia poemata scribat oportet," he proceeds with the coronation. 
 The oration may be found in full in Cod. Urh. 387 f., 169 £f. 
 
 The productions of Barzizza along this line are partly orations and 
 partly letters, but nowhere is so close an adherence to the rules of rhetoric 
 apparent. The oration for Jacobus de Turre Foroliviensi {0pp., p. 23) 
 is almost without this relation. Extracts follow. "We come here in great 
 numbers, as we did to hear him speak. The literary world grieves most of 
 
APPENDICES 6l 
 
 all. He surpassed all in scriptural knowledge. His attainments in medi- 
 cine are described. He knew the works of Galen as well as their author. 
 He is with the blessed. Gratitude demands that we remember him, as 
 I at least shall do." Equally informal, though using some of the consola- 
 tory commonplaces, is the consolatory letter addressed to Fr. Barbavaria 
 after the death of Zaninus Riccius {0pp., p. 57) : "I have postponed writing 
 because of the difficulty I have found in consoling myself, though, on account 
 of my long life and my study of philosophy, I ought to be able to console 
 myself and others. He showed his greatness especially in despising death. 
 He wished no display of mourning. Let us not seem selfish, or forgetful 
 of the common lot of man. I shall be all the more devoted to you, because 
 you have lost this friend." Of a different sort is the letter to Petrus Mar- 
 cellus {0pp., p. 85), which is not at all concerned with the deceased, but 
 occupies itself entirely with the praise of the living. More formal than 
 these, but especially noteworthy for its naivete, is the laudation of Manuel 
 Chrysoloras delivered by Andreas Julianus, who asserts that he is perform- 
 ing a service that by rights belongs to Guarino (Lenfant Poggiana II. 327). 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 CLAUSULAE 
 
 I print here the dausulae of our Consolatio, sees. 1-18. without comment. 
 I add, for comparison, the clausidae from the first eight sections of the first 
 book of the Tuscidans, with the dausulae indicated, the dausulae of about 
 one folio column of Sigonius De dialogo liber {0pp. VI. 435, ed. 1757), 
 the dausulae of about two pages of Barzizza {Oratio ad pont. Martin 
 V, 0pp., pp. 76 ff.), also without comment. 
 
 Consolatio 
 
 mercede conflatum 
 
 subvenire calamitati 
 
 aliquando nobis ipsis 
 
 leviora faciamus 
 
 efficere miseriorem 
 
 animo vale re possis 
 
 corporis indiget 
 
 parebit imperio 
 
 ante nos scripserunt 
 
 Xenocrate et Crantore 
 
 legimus necessario 
 
 antea movebamur 
 
 abstergendum colligemus 
 
 ipsis medeamur 
 
 maerore abducere 
 
 quandam quasi vim adferemus 
 
 casus patienter ferre 
 
 ideoque levius ferendi 
 
 reicere audeat 
 
 iniustus merito haberetur 
 
 iniustitiae condemnat 
 
 dubitat appellare 
 
 in homine tolerabile 
 
 bellare videbitur 
 
 multis tractata sunt 
 
 ego Crantorem sequor 
 
 medicinam complexus est 
 
 possis agnoscere 
 
 atque incommodorum 
 
 plurimae amplectuntur 
 
 infimos adrogantia 
 
 posterorum non familiae 
 
 incommoda removebit 
 
 seiungi possunt 
 
 cum aliquo conferre 
 
 in uno agnoscuntur 
 
 enumerare 
 
 maxime incurrit 
 
 particeps et socia est 
 
 adversis experitur 
 
 anxia et sollicita 
 
 tueri non posset 
 
 ac deterrere possit 
 
 depulsis contraximus 
 
 libentissime redemissemus 
 
 de me ipso praedicare 
 
 omamento consumpsi 
 
 laudabilis est maxime 
 
 ac miseriis loquar 
 
 ipse senum hominum patefacit 
 
 viventem mortuum 
 
 atque molestiae 
 
 perficere non posse 
 
 iuvare non possit 
 
 inania sint futura 
 
 mihi videor dixisse 
 
 generibus hominum loquar 
 
 esse negare possum 
 
 yoluit experiri 
 
 exitia immineant 
 
 62 
 
APPENDICES 
 
 63 
 
 Tusculans 
 
 eldborarent 
 
 institutis et legibus 
 
 \oquar de re milUari 
 
 plus etiam discipUna 
 
 gente sunt conferenda 
 
 maioribus nostris comparanda 
 
 non repugnantes 
 
 poeticam nos accepimus 
 
 cogniti vel recepti 
 
 hominum virtutibus 
 
 poetas duxisset 
 
 ut scimus Ennium 
 
 gloriae responderunt 
 
 et Parrhasios fuisse 
 
 quae^apud quosque^improbantur 
 
 habitus indoctior 
 
 doctrina putabatur 
 
 terminavimus modum 
 
 omniMO Graecis cederetur 
 si possumus otiosi 
 sed non satis eruditis 
 eloqui non possii 
 otio^et litteris 
 sibi permitti volunt 
 ilia manabant 
 arte versari 
 habere^ auderemus 
 eo genere possem 
 est declamatio 
 ambulans disputabam 
 toiidem libros contuli 
 ego contra dicerem 
 arbitrabatur 
 quasi narretur 
 nascetur exordium 
 
 Sigonius 
 
 explicanda ducamus 
 Aristotelem intelligimus 
 qualis investigetur 
 ac necessariae 
 doctrinam in dialogo 
 disputatione tradendam 
 primus induxerit 
 disciplinae innixa sit 
 primum de prima 
 hae praecipuae duae 
 consuetudine tracta 
 ratiocinandi altera 
 
 facile intelligit 
 memoriae commendata 
 ipsi doctrinae subiret 
 subsidium compararet 
 poeta confugeret 
 figura praestare 
 diligentissime persequi 
 diligenter attenderit 
 facile inveniet 
 maxime possimus 
 (See also above, p. 48) 
 
 Barzizza 
 
 perfectum intuemur 
 diutissime flagravimus 
 fundere solebamus 
 felix nimium aetas 
 gaudia attulisti 
 impares celebrant 
 
 respicere mcepenmus 
 studium opinamur 
 sumptibus pepercit 
 afflictos erigeret 
 aspectum abhorrentes 
 otiosam degerent 
 
64 THE PSEUDO-CICERONIAN CONSOLATIO 
 
 acquiescere fas sit antea diem aspeximus 
 
 interitu cogitarent fluctuabamus 
 
 animarum pepererint versas conspicimus 
 
 discrimen magnifecit ascensus videretur 
 
 esse debemus oves peragravimus 
 
 gaudium attulerit eflfudisse arbitraris 
 
I 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to the 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 
 (510)642-6753 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 im 7 1 ^^9B 
 
 20,000 (4/94) 
 
YD 00124