AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT OF CICEROS LAELIUS DE AMICITIA,

CATO MAIOR DE SENECTUTE AND PARADOXA STOICORUM

By

DUSTIN RYAN HEINEN

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

Copyright 2006

by

DUSTIN RYAN HEINEN

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Professor Wagman for giving the opportunity to take on this

rather large task. I also appreciate the comments and notes from my other committee

members, Professor Kapparis and Professor Johnson. In addition, I would especially like

to thank Dina Benson for her assistance during my research of the manuscript. I am also

eternally grateful to my friends and family, who have been a constant source of joy and

comfort. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my wife Erin for always being there for

me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v

CHAPTER

1 THE MANUSCRIPT....................................................................................................1

2 MANUSCRIPT TRADITION......................................................................................9

Part Ia: The Tradition of Laelius de Amicitia .............................................................10 Textual Tradition: .......................................................................................................11 Part Ib: The de Amicitia Text of UF 871.C7i.x ..........................................................12 List of variant readings in de Amicitia........................................................................13 Part IIa: History of Cato Maior de Senectute .............................................................16 Part IIb: The de Senectute Text of UF 871.C7i.x .......................................................18 List of Variant Readings in de Senectute....................................................................18 Part IIIa: History of Paradoxa Stoicorum ..................................................................21 Part IIIb: The Paradoxa Stoicorum text of UF 871.C7i.x .........................................23 List of Variant Readings in Paradoxa: .......................................................................24

3 TEXT OF UF 871.C7I................................................................................................27

Laelius de Amicitia .....................................................................................................27 Cato Maior de Senectute ............................................................................................48 Paradoxa Stoicorum ...................................................................................................67 Notes ...........................................................................................................................77

APPENDIX PLATES OF UF 871.C7I.X..........................................................................95

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................103

v

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT OF CICEROS LAELIUS DE AMICITIA, CATO MAIOR DE SENECTUTE AND PARADOXA STOICORUM

By

Dustin Ryan Heinen

May 2006

Chair: Robert Wagman Major Department: Classics

For fifty years, a fifteenth century manuscript of Cicero, containing De Amicitia,

De Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum, has occupied a spot on the shelf of the Special

Collections Room of the University of Floridas Smathers Library. This thesis will

hopefully not just provide the first complete study of the little known Cicero manuscript,

but will open the way to further paleographical work in the University Library.

In the first chapter, I will provide a thorough history of this history of this

particular manuscript, and the events surrounding its eventual move to the Smathers

Library at the University of Florida. Analysis will include the type of script and

abbreviations used, the physical construction of the manuscript, and the importance of

these three works during the early fifteenth century in Florence.

The second chapter will concentrate on the manuscript tradition of the collection,

tracing manuscripts from the ninth century through the fifteenth. A particular difficulty

falls to tracing the formation of this collection, as the three works, De Amicitia, De

vi

Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum, all come from separate traditions. Only four major

manuscripts from the eleventh and twelfth centuries also contain De Amicitia (B:

Benedictoburanus-Monac. cod. Lat. 4611 (12th cent.), E: Erfurtensis-Berol. Lat. fol. 252,

S: Monacensis cod. Lat. 15964 (11th cent.), and a: Admontensis 383 (12th cent.)). While

Amicita and Senectute originally appear individually in the manuscript tradition, and are

only occasionally combined into anthologies, Paradoxa was generally united with 7 other

philosophical works (De Natura Deorum, De Devinatione, Timaeus, De Fato, Topica,

Academia and De Legibus) (Ronnick, 51). This philisophical octet, known as the

Leiden corpus, was broken into a smaller group containing De Natura Deorum, parts of

De Divinatione, and De Legibus (Ronnick, 56). Eventually Petrarch named it one of his

libri peculiares (Ullman 26), and in the mid 14th century he combined Paradoxa with

De Senectute, De Amicitia, and De Officiis. The combination of these works became the

new vulgate text of Cicero, and their history together will serve as the basis for the

history of the University of Floridas copy.

The final chapter will include a complete transcription of the manuscript, which

will then be compared to the different families of the Cicero tradition. Identifying the

common mistakes will only help to give a general placement of this work within the

tradition. A unique section of the manuscript comes between the first and second

dialogue. A short listing of the seven sages of ancient Greece appears. This is a

characteristic shared only with a handful of other manuscripts, all composed coevally and

all containing the de Amicitia.

1

CHAPTER 1 THE MANUSCRIPT

UF 871.C7i.x, housed in the Smathers Library East, is an early fifteenth century

manuscript containing the works Laelius de Amicitia, Cato Maior de Senectute, and

Paradoxa Stoicorum, hereafter referred to as s (lest it be confused with S, the Mnich

manuscript Latinus 15964 manuscript containing de Amicitia). Notes by the correcting

hand of s will be denoted as s1. The front inside cover of the modern eighteenth century

binding contains an ex libris card of E.H.W. Meyerstein. The well-known author of The

Life of Thomas Chatterton was also the head of the manuscript collection at the British

museum. Rowland Watson relates the anecdote that he bought only the cheapest of

fruitsone evening saving half a penny by purchasing a cheap orange, when that

morning he spent 250 on a Propertius manuscript.1 Though the University of Floridas

library does not have record of the purchase of the manuscript, its arrival in the United

States is certainly some time in the 1950s. Meyersteins estate was auctioned by

Sothebys 15 December, 1952. Sothebys is not able to locate any of their catalogues

from that time period, but the Schoenberg Database does list the manuscript as being

sold in the auction. On this previous year, the special collections division of Smathers

Library at the University of Florida was founded. The book is listed in a 1962 inventory

by the head of special collections librarian John Buechler. Written in pencil, in faint

graphite that cannot be deciphered without digital manipulation, is XV Century

1 Some Letters of EHW Meyerstein, 11

2

Manuscript. It is difficult to tell whether the writing is of Meyerstein or another owner

of the manuscript, but was probably at least visible when the manuscript was purchased

by the University of Florida.

How s itself came to Britain, as well as any of its history from the fifteenth to the

early twentieth century, is unknown, but the collection of the three works was certainly

widespread. R.M. Wilson notes that the only non-historical prose writers guaranteed to

be found in an English library are Seneca and Cicero.2 For Cicero, only the works De

Officiis, Rhetorica, Tusculanae, and the triad de Amicitia, de Senectute and Paradoxa

were certain to be present during the Middle Ages.3

The manuscript is written on paper and is made of six quires of six bifolia. The

third quire has only eleven folios, but the page was presumably lost before the text was

copied, as no apparent gaps in the text emerge. Further pages were removed from the last

quire when the book was re-bound in eighteenth century marble-board. Most likely

vellum originally bound the manuscript, as it did the majority of paper manuscripts

during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Today the manuscript consists of 61 folios

with writing on front and back, plus two cover pages added with the binding. Each folio

measures 205 mm by 145 mm. Paper was introduced to Europe in the late thirteenth

century, but was not common until the mid-fourteenth century. By 1340, Fabiano, Italy,

was a major paper production center.4 By the mid-fifteenth century, most paper

produced in Italy contained watermarks, which s is lacking.

2 The Contents of the Mediaeval Library 98.

3 A catalogue inventory of major European libraries that have of copy of Paradoxa is given by Ronnick (1991) 147.

4 Bischoff (1990) 12.

3

The manuscript is written by three separate hands.5 Folios 1-34v are by the first

hand, 35r-42r is the second, 42v-45v is the third, from 46r to 61r the first hand returns,

and 61v-63 are left blank. Each of the three hands supplies corrections for the other

scribes, undoubtedly from the same source as the original. Corrections and occasional

glosses are written above words. Where the original scribe omits a larger amount of text,

the correcting hand adds the text in the margin, marking its insertion point with a % sign,

or a more horizontal () form. The only additional marginalia are in pencil, probably by

Mr. Meyerstein himself, and occasionally provide glosses above words, as well as nota

bene signs in the shape of a hand pointing its finger at specific passages. The same hand

has also numbered the folios, in sets of ten and at the beginning of each text. The most

common scribal error is transposition, the primary scribe being the most susceptible.

Quite often adjoining words within a sentence are reversed, even though no other

manuscripts have similar readings. The second and third scribes seem to be much more

careful, but not immune to this error. Occasionally, the scribes also transpose a be-verb

in the sentence, placing it next to its subject nominative.

The hands, while varying slightly, are all of a late Gothic Hybrid. In many cases

the evolving humanistic text is beginning to show. The Gothic script is not nearly as

pronounced as that of Northern Europe, and the Carolingian influence still lends a better

readability to the script. The Humanistic form of Carolingian script is not fully present,

however, as the style is not strictly a book-hand, but the Bastard hybrid of book-hand

5 Bischoff (41-42) notes that the practice of dividing up copy work was quite common. Two different methods were most often employed: either an assembly line process, where multiple scribes copied the same section repeatedly, or scribes rotated on one manuscript. The latter seems more probable in the case of s, since one scribe has written over 80 percent of the manuscript, and his hand appears at the beginning and end of the text.

4

and cursive script.6 The majuscule U is occasionally written as a V, which started during

humanism and became common during the Elizabethan and Jacobean times.7 Rounded

vowels are closed, though the a varies from scribe to scribe. The first and second

scribe keep a fully rounded a while the third scribe added an ascender a. There is a

conscious effort to maintain a space between the lines by restricting the ascenders and

descenders, typical of most Italian and Carolingian scripts. Minims are generally

straight, but sometimes have a slight lean to the right, and most have slight serifs at their

feet. Other characteristic letters are a forked r common with the Gothic Bastard, and a

non-ascending t, which is usually a right-curving main line with a bar extending to the

right. Occasionally the scribes slip to a 2-form r (see plate 6), which was common until

around 1420. Depending on the height of the bar, the t often looks quite similar to the

scribes c. The three scribes have quite similar traits, except for a few notable exceptions.

The first scribe has a very heavy and dark stroke, though completely natural. The second

scribe uses a much lighter touch and has slightly rounded, more widely spaced letters.

And the third has quite slender letters and an affinity for majuscule uncials at the

beginning of words. He quite often uses a rotund uncial E: . The scribe also uses a

noticeably inferior ink, which has cracked and worn away more than the ink of the other

two scribes.

6 Many of Petrarchs concerns are still present in the manuscript: acervans omnia et coartans atque hinc spatio, hinc literarum super literas velut equitantium aggestione confundens, que scriptor ipse brevi post tempore rediens vix legat, emptor vero non tam librum quam libro c(a)ecitatem emat (Sen. 6.5) Petrarch sought to remove excessive abbreviations and poorly written text, and thus gave re-birth to the thin, very readable adaptation of the Carolingian script. Petrarch was 62 when made this comment, and understandably sought a more readable script (Ullman, 1960, 13).

7 Tannenbaum (1930) 115.

5

Titles of the three works, as well as the titles of the six paradoxes, are written in

red half-uncials. The amount of decoration seems to increase through the work, as the

initial title is quite plain, with basic lettering. By the last half of Paradoxa, initial letters

are decorated in a very heavy red oil paint, with additional flourishes covering the

margins. Names of speakers in the two dialogues are given in a red ink without flourish.

At the completion of each work, in red rustic capitals is the name of the work and explicit

feliciter. The scribes of early Carolingian minuscule, and by association the Humanistic

scribes developed a very detailed hierarchy of scripts,8 and the use of rustic capitals as

titles shows only a familiarity with this hierarchy, but the lack of special script for names

and subtitles shows that this scribe has not arrived at the precise hierarchy of the mid-

fifteenth century.

Many abbreviations appear in the text, and the primary scribe often switches

abbreviations at will throughout the text. The most common are est: and , h[a]ec: ,

qui: q with a line through the descender, and with a line above the letter for quae, per: p

with a line through the descender, pro: p with a flourish extending to the left of the letter

from the bottom of the curve, terminal us: , and cum or con--: #, enim: , and a

suspension bar for the letters m, n, l, and r. All these abbreviations are quite common

even by the thirteenth century. The scribes use abbreviations quite commonly at the

beginning and within words as well. The ae and oe diphthong does not appear in the

manuscript, being replaced by an e. From the ninth century until the late fifteenth

century, most manuscripts adopt this practice. A correcting hand (most likely the second

main scribe) has added a loop on an e which was naturally part of a diphthong, creating a

8 Brown (1990) 68

6

cedilla. He must have done this somewhat hastily, however, as he transformed a number

of simple vowels into a cedilla (sin[a]e), and many pages are without this correction. The

fact that the cedilla was not originally used, but at least familiar to the scribes, indicates

that the manuscript was probably written contemporaneously with the spread of this

ligature, which was 1410 to 1430. The most peculiar of the abbreviations, however, is

the shorthand for et. Both scribes alternate between writing the word and a shorthand

form. The Tironian shorthand 7, quite common in Italy, is never used (though as noted

above, the Tironian forms , #, and are used frequently). The second scribe uses a

standard & symbol, but the other two scribes use a three stroke symbol similar to that

used by Poggio in the early fifteenth century. The mixed symbol helps fix a fairly narrow

date, since the three stroke ampersand begins to spread around 1410, but completely

disappears by 1460, giving way again to the standard & form. The final prominent

ligature is a non-discreet bar in the ct combination. By 1430, the ligature bar was much

more pronounced.

An additional possibility remains on the history of s. The heterogonous scribal

qualities may point to a foreign scribe who is not familiar with the intricacies of the

developing Humanistic hand. From the early fourteenth century, English scribes such as

John Gunthorpe began ascending on Florence to learn the new, more legible hand.9

While there is no proof that an Englishman produced this text, the possibility is not at all

unlikely, and additionally provides an explanation as to how it came to London.

9 Thomson (1969) plate 107.

7

The three works de Amicitia, de Senectute and Paradoxa began appearing

together as a part of a larger body known as the Leiden Corpus,10 and the three works

eventually became the vulgate text of Cicero. When Poggio brought a copy of the three

philosophical treatises to Italy in the early fourteenth century,11 most of the scriptoria in

Northern Italy devoted considerable time to copying them. In 1465, Johannes Fust and

Peter Schoeffer, former associates of Gutenberg, produced the book in Italy. The three

works printed on a combination of vellum and paper were de Officiis, Paradoxa

Stoicorum and Horace 4.7.12 Paradoxa contained a newly manufactured Greek type-set

of the letters , , , , , , and , combining Latin letters with the Greek (letters such

as a and x were retained).13 By the development of a new set of letters for the printing

press, and not just writing them by hand as early German editions did,14 Fust and

Schoeffer show that they were quite devoted to reproducing Paradoxa accurately,

elucidating the importance of that work in Northern Italy. Furthermore, the complex

nature of the manuscript tradition becomes apparent in the fact that five different editions

were published in 1465 alone.15 While manuscripts were written coevally with the

earliest editions, texts of de Amicitia, de Senectute and Paradoxa quickly cease to be

transmitted by hand, due to their immense popularity in early editions. Ronnick lists16

10 For the complete history of the tradition, see below, Chapter 2.

11 Ronnick (1991) 55.

12 Moss (1825) 301

13 ibid.

14 e.g. Heinrich Eggesteyns 1472 edition (Ronnick 78).

15 ibid.

16 (1991) appendix 3: 170-174)

8

over sixty presses that had produced a copy of Paradoxa from its first printing to 1500

over seventy per cent also containing the two dialoguesand that rate more than doubles

in the 16th century. Further, Badali and Ronnick combine to count 576 extant

manuscripts from the fifteenth century containing these works, and 38 from the following

century.17

While the corruption of the manuscript tradition of de Amicitia and de Senectute

by the time s was written and the lack of any dating or composition references on the

manuscript itself make dating difficult, enough information about the manuscript can be

gathered to confidently assign a date to its composition. The history of Paradoxa

Stoicorum in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century give a terminus post quem of

1400. The invention of the printing press and subsequent decline of manuscripts in 1465

gives a terminus ante quem of approximately 1470. Additionally, the handwriting style

in Florence and Bologna region, where virtually all of these manuscripts were produced

after the thirteenth century, is identical to the merging Gothic Bastard and Humanistic

book-hand style found from 1410-1430.

17 Badali (1968) 45-58 and Ronnick (1991) 204.

9

CHAPTER 2 MANUSCRIPT TRADITION

Although Cicero's philosophical works de Amicitia, de Senectute, and Paradoxa

Stoicorum occasionally appear in the tradition as individual books, for the most part they

were transmitted as a collection. By the Renaissance they had become inseparable. The

two dialogues are sometimes reunited in early manuscripts. Paradoxa Stoicorum was

joined to de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, Timaeum, de Fato, Topica, Lucullum, and

de Legibus in a collection known as the 'Leiden Corpus' (after their chief manuscript,

Leidensis Voss. Lat. 86).

Powell, in discussing the recentiores of de Amicitia, does not even attempt to

cypher their relationship, since given the extent of corruption and contamination in

them, the value of such an attempt would be very dubious. 1 In light of this

consideration, an attempt to sort out a fifteenth century manuscript would prove not just

dubious, but impossible. In their readings, however, the texts of the de Amicitia, de

Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum contained in s tend to follow certain trends from the

major manuscripts. In particular, Paradoxa Stoicorum contains readings very close to

those of major manuscripts, which can help identify the date and origin of our book. This

chapter contains a history of each text's manuscript tradition, with an abbreviated analysis

of variant readings and errors appearing in S. Rather than examine every variant reading

(over 500 in de Amicitia alone), a full account of variants in the first five sections, plus

1 (1998) 516

10

major variants in the tradition, will sufficiently establish the level of corruption, as well

as identify s's general place in the three manuscript families. For a complete list of

variant readings, see the text transcription at pp. 25ff below.

Part Ia: The Tradition of Laelius de Amicitia

List of Manuscripts2 PKrakw, Berol. lat 4 404, formerly Parisinus Didotianus (s. ix): This manuscript was first published in Reinisches Museum in 1863 by Mommsen, who discovered it in the private library of the Parisian Firmin Didot. Used by Mller for his Teubner edition (1898), the manuscript was then lost for several decades. Beeson (1926) reports it at the Royal Library in Berlin, where it was sold after the death of Didot, and gives a new collation of the manuscript. Venini (on information from the Berlin library) claims that the manuscript was destroyed in World War II (Finch 1964, Powell 1983 and 1998) Powell corrects this statement in his 1990 edition, following Olsen (1987), who is the first to cite the manuscript as Krakw Berol lat 4 404. Since its discovery, all editors have considered Krakw Berol lat 4 404 the most important and reliable manuscript of the de Amicitia. KVatican Libary, Reg. lat. 1762 (s. ix): Contains readings from Hadoard, the librarian at Corbie (T&T 118), which would place its date at ca. 865. Used in all editions since Simbeck. OOxford, Bodl. DOrville 77 (s. x): Also comes from Hadoards copy3 and has many readings in common with K. MMunich Clm 15514-II (s. ix): contains 44-end of Laelius. First used by Baiter. AVat. lat. 5207 (s. ix or x): contains Laelius 1-29, first published by Finch (TAPA 95, 1964 66-76). The text of s typically disagrees with A when it agrees with H. HBritish Library, Harleianus 2682 (s. xi): Most important of the post-tenth century manuscripts. It was collated by Clark and first used in Laurands edition. Harley 2682 was probably an early relative of the s, and is at the very least of the same family. BBenedictoburanus-Monac. cod. Lat 4611 (s. xii).

2 Here and in the other lists I mention only the major manuscripts, especially the ones closely related to the UF copy. For a complete list, see Munk Olsen, 114-115 (Laelius), 113 (Cato) and 116-117 (Paradoxa). Powell (1998) also provides a list of major manuscripts before the twelfth century (506-7)

3 Powell (1983) 122.

11

VVindobonensis 275 (s. xi): Simbeck puts this manuscript in the family with B, Clark states that it comes from H. SMonacensis cod. Lat. 15964 (s. xi or xii): shares many readings in common with B, probably from the same ancestor. EErfurtensis-Berol. Lat. fol. 252 (s. x or xii). DVindobonensis 3115 U 658 (s. xv). Deutsche Staatsbibliotheck, Diez C. oct. 12 (s. xii): Contains Laelius and Cato. Between the two, it has Hec sunt nomina septem sapientium: Thales Milesius . . . Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 76.23 (s. xii): Written in Italy, contains Laelius only. After Laelius, has Hec sunt nomina VII sapientium . . . British Library, Harleianus 4927 (s. xii): contains many of Ciceros philosophical works, including de Am., de Sen., and Paradoxa, as well as some orations. Petrarch later owned this copy, and its works are among his Libri Peculiares (Powell, T&T, p 124). Grflich Schnbornshe Bibliothek 29 (2756)-I (s. xii): Written in Germany and collated in Bernard Wirtgens dissertation, Die Handschriften des Klosters St. Peter und Paul zu Erfurt, (Grfenhainichen 1936). A relatively late and unimportant manuscript, but contains a list of the Seven Sages after de Amicitia.

Textual Tradition

Even the relationship between the earliest manuscripts of Laelius is disputed,4 and

after the twelfth century, little effort is made to cipher the tradition. While a precise

stemma may be difficult to produce, certain manuscripts undoubtedly belong in well-

delineated families. The two major branches are PAKOM (x) and BSVH (y). Powell

also discusses Florence, L-Laur. 50, 45, (s. x) and Q-Paris lat 544-II (s. xi), which

probably belong to the y family, but are disregarded by most editors as not containing

much editorial value. Within the x family, 5 P and A consistently contain similar

readings, and are certainly from a common source; PA and KOM all derive, through an 4 See Powell (1987), 121f for a discussion on the early history of Laelius. Writers who have sought to create a rescension are Orelli, Baiter, Halm (1861), Mueller (1876), Simbeck (1917), Laurand (1928), Combs (1971), and Powell (1987 and 1998).

5 (1998): 510

12

unknown number of copies, from the lost x manuscript. Simbeck reports that E, which

has many readings in common with the UF copy, is a descendant of M. In the y family,

all major manuscripts are very closely related. Though not all of them derive from one

ancestor, there are over fifty errors which each of them share in the de Amicitia alone.6

Contamination between the two families appears early, as A already shows contamination

from the y family.7

Part Ib: The de Amicitia Text of UF 871.C7i.x

The extraordinarily complex web of manuscripts containing one or all the works

Laelius de Amicitia, Cato Maior de Senectute, and Paradoxa Stoicorum forces most

scholars to abandon their detangling efforts after the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. By

the late fourteenth/early fifteenth century, when s was written (see above, p 2), the

amount of contamination becomes impossible to work through. The difficulty in

assigning a family to s lies especially in the fact that it contains a number of readings

from P and E of the x family, and H of the y family. The text of s also follows the

readings of O, but not the readings of O1. It shows the same spelling mistakes as H, but

rarely takes its readings from H.

In the following chart, the positive readings are listed first, while the negative

variant readings of the major manuscripts are noted only when necessary. Due to the

different nature of the traditions, the first two manuscripts will be examined with a

positive and negative analysis, which will show where they agree and disagree with the

same families. For Paradoxa Stoicorum, a mostly positive analysis will show how s is

6 ibid. 508.

7 Powell (1987) 123.

13

very closely related to two specific manuscripts, and that it does depart from both due

only to an occasional inadvertent error.

Unless otherwise noted, the UF copy of de Amicitia is being compared to the P

manuscript, Parisinus Didotianus in editions before 1940, now Berolinensis Lat. qu. 404

(s. IX-X). Most editors base their text on P; Mller even with agreement among all of the

others.

List of Variant Readings in de Amicitia

1 M.T.C. L(iber) DE AMICITIA INCIPIT E augur Scevola ElH2: augur iocunde (etc.) H: iucunde dubitabat: dubitare apatre: a patre asenis: a senis multa ab eo: ab eo multa SBVHD mandabam y: mandavi x commendabam E 2 narraret: dixisset suprascr. H hemiciclio: hemicyclio tum fere omnibus: tum fere multis Cum et ego P HLBSVEp: cum ego GDl o Attice: Attice utebare multum x: multum utebare pL 3 cumiunctissime: coniunctissime Affricani H: Africani genero: om. L 4 Lelii H: Laelii (et c.) 5 ad senem senex de senectute PL: ad senem senex attice E ad te o attice senem senex LG ad te seneum senex BSV and A 9 graecum: Galum A Gaium y nec hi quidem comparentur Marco Catoni maximo et spectato viro: hi in pueris,

Cato in perfecto et spectato viro (this reading first cited by Langius (powell 509) iniveris . . . P hij niversis . . . A hi quidem nec Catoni comparantur BSVH sed cave hos praeponas Catoni maximo et expectato viro Laurentianus 45, 28

11 facillimis H: facillumis 12 cum: quam PAO: quo FE habundant H: abundant 13 his H: iis

8 Save for Laurand, most editors avoid using this manuscript except for its text of in Catilinam. See Laurand 1926 for a collation of the manuscript.

14

14 visum PAO1R: per visum sin autem illa vereor : veriora H: verior aut P1 vereor aut P2, vereor ut yE 21 magnificentia metiamur: magnificentiam etiam PAO1 22 colare: colere PAK 23 cumque: quamque PK quamquam l ex dissensionibus adque ex discordiis: ex dissensionibus atque discordiis y ex

dissensionibus id et excordiis PAO1K 25 o Fanni H: Fanni ortis H: hortis 26 recipiendisque: reciperandisque PA princeps est ad: princeps et ad PA 27 lumen aliquod: lumen aliquid PAO1K 49 animo autem: animante PO1KM and R1 54 miror: minor P1O1M 59 dixero PO1M: edixero 75 quod POKM: eo quod 87: aliquis: aliqui PO1KM abundantiam et copiam: abundantia et copia PO1KM ferre posset: ferre possit PO1KM and RF1 97 ut is: ut si PO1KM 100 accipit: accepit PO1KM 101 pervenire: pervenires PO1M End M.T.C. DE AMICITIA EXPLICIT FELICITER: The level of cross-contamination in this manuscript is instantly obvious. Certain

tendencies, however, help clarify the picture to a moderate extent. The text of s agrees

with H in many spelling tendencies: Lelius, iocundus, facillimis, his, habundo.

Harleianus 2682, among its 21 works contains all twelve of Ciceros philosophical

treatises canonized in Petrarchs Libri Peculiares. This canon was later reduced to the

three works found in the UF copy.9 While the manuscript does show occasional readings

from the x family (PAKOM), it is certainly more closely related to the y family

(BSVHZG and LQ10). One of the most important issues in the relationship is 9. The

reading graecum for Galum (which Powell assumes to be correct, although it appears

9 Ronnick (1991) 67.

10 See Powell, 1998 511-13 for discussion of where LQ belongs in the tradition.

15

only onceperhaps accidentallyin the tradition11 or Gaium (the most commonly

attested reading), is obviously wrong. Graecum does not appear in any of the collated

manuscripts, and could be a local interpolation. Nec hi quidem was probably the answer

of the x family for a difficult to read archetype. The reading inivervis of P is closer to the

probable reading: in pueris. In this reading more than any other, is the relationship

between BSVH and s shown. The corruption which began with the archetype is

differently attested in all branches of the manuscript, and further interpolations draw the

manuscripts apart rather than pollute them. P, which reads: hij niversis, is evidence of

this separation, being a further corruption of the x family.

Though no one has yet attempted to untangle the web of manuscripts from the

three centuries preceding this copy, it is fairly safe to say that s most closely identifies

with Powells y3 family, and, though corrupted, can conceivably be called a descendant

of H, with strong influence from B and S.

A peculiar passage is inserted between de Amicitia and de Senectute, which lists

names of Seven Wise Men in Greek history. This practice is quite rare, and of the 739

listings of Cicero manuscripts in Olsen, only manuscripts containing Laelius have the

same insert. The manuscripts that contain the list are Deutsche Staatsbibliotheck, Diez C.

oct. 12; Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 76.23; and Grflich Schnbornshe Bibliothek 29

(2756) Iall twelfth century manuscripts from Northern Italy and France. A search of

the Ciceronian manuscripts in the Vatican catalogues does not show any additional

mention of the list.12 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19473-I, which also includes the

11 Powell (1998) 509.

12 Les Manuscrits Classiques (1975).

16

text of de Amicitia, has the names of the nine muses. In an unpublished Cicero

manuscript at the Bryn Mawr Library (Gordan MS 3, s. xv), a second scribe has added

the list in the margin of a page of de Amicitia. Although the names of the Sages vary even

in the Greek tradition, the names in s remain quite peculiar.

The list of Sages is: Pitacus Miletemis (Pittacus of Mytilene), Solon Atheniensis,

Plimon Stixpacus, Cleodolus (Cleobolus) lectio, Tales Milesius (Thales of Miletus),

Penarder (Periander), Corinthius, and Hiaspieneus. The names in this list differ greatly

from the names usually given to the Seven Sagesthough, as mentioned above, there is

variance even among the ancient sources. Pittacus, Solon, Cleobolus, Thales and

Pariander are the only names commonly mentioned by the ancient authors.13

Part IIa: History of Cato Maior de Senectute

The tradition of de Senectute presents its own difficulties. Like de Amicitia, there is no

shortage of manuscripts in this tradition.14 By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the

two dialogues were usually combined and were exceedingly popular. The two works

originally come through history quite separate of each other, however. Not until the tenth

century Harleianus 2682 manuscript do they appear together.

List of manuscripts:

PParisinus 6332 (s. ix): considered the primary text for Cato by most editors, but does carry errors which the archetype contained, main member of family. VVossianus O. 79 (s. ix): primary witness of family, but corrected by member of family.

13 cf. Diogenes Laertius, 1.13, 1.40ff; Plato Protagoras 343a; Pausanias 10.24; Plutarch, Moralia 146; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.14.59.

14 Les Manuscrits Classiques (1975).

17

bBruxellensis 9591 (s. ix): also contains Seneca the Elder, Augustine, Alcuin, and Cassiodorus. LVossianus fol. 12 (s. ix): closely related to several manuscripts within the family (D and A). DVaticanus Reg. lat. 1587 (s. ix): the Daniel codex, discovered by Barriera (de Senectute Liber, Turin, 1921), is considered by this editor to be the best witness, and free of the corruption of the rest of the tradition. Others, including Vogel (1936) Powell (1987) and Wuilleumier (1969), believe that Barriera was too enamored with his discovery of the codex, and overvalued its place in the tradition. AParisinus Lat. 454, formerly Ashburnhamensis, both A and D were corrected using a source of L. KVaticanus Reg. Suec. 1762 (s. ix): copied from A after being corrected; disregarded by most editors (T&T, 118). OOxford, Bodleianus DOrville 77 (s. x): also comes from the same family as A HHarleianus 2682 (s. xi): see above. EBerolinensis 252 (s. xii): before the discovery of P, E was considered the primary witness to the tradition of de Senectute. Recentiores: the following manuscripts are not important to the tradition, but have many readings which appear in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Most come from Italy and are probably related to s. Palatinus Parmensis 2144 (s. xiv) Chisianus 106 (s. xiv) Neapolitanus bibl. na. IV G 7 (s. xiv) Vaticanus 4516 (s. xiv) Casanatensis 1090 (s. xiii) Laurentinus 50, 45 (s. xiv) Neapolitanus bibl. nat. IV B 16 (s. xiv) Catos tradition, like that of Laelius is typically divided into two major families,

known as and . According to Simbecks 1912 Teubner edition, the family contains

P, H and V. E is a later descendant of this family, but less relevant to the establishment

of the text. The other side of the tradition () contained bLA, which all came from a

18

descendant of the archetype.15 All of the manuscripts, regardless of family, have major

corruptions. Considering that most proper names have multiple variants and that major

textual issues have no obvious sources, both families must derive from a moderately

corrupt archetype.

Part IIb: The de Senectute Text of UF 871.C7i.x

True to form, s contains many readings from both sides of the tradition. As in de

Amicitia, spelling is quite similar to that found in H: prepositions are assimilated in

suffixes (assequitur, etc.), adulescens is spelled adolescens in all of its forms, the first

vowel of a diphthong is omitted and many proper names often agree between the two

manuscripts (1 Attice for Tite, 3 thithono for Tithono, 14 Olimpia for Olympia, but

not 10 Tuditano, Annibalem, 13 Isocratisall these and similar readings were

corrected in most MSS by the time s was written).

List of Variant Readings in de Senectute

1 M.T.CI. Liber de senectute feliciter incipit levasso PV: levabo H levavero bL levasero AD quae deprimeris en (ecce ss.) quid erit pretii mihi?: ec quid erit pretii V1 ec quid

erit premii V2 om. P1 corr en H2P2 hec (ecce ss.)A2 quid erit premii bALP2 (Barriera talks about this extensively, p 43f)

hisdem etc. DALH: isdem bVP o Attice: Attice Flaminium (the reading of E and most later manuscripts): flamininum D ex

flaminimum AL Attice (erased) H: Tite

15 As noted above, Barriera published a new edition in 1921 and proposed a new stemma. Barriera marks his recently found D codex as the first and direct descendant of the family, he then states that AL descended from a sibling of D, b from a sibling of AL, V from a sibling of b, and P a further generation down (see Barrieras Praefatio for his explanations) He further considered V and a few recentiores to belong to his a family, but found all of them unimportant. Vogel (1936) disagrees with Barriera, and places D in the family with bLA. She acknowledges Ds importance in the tradition, but believes it has many errors which Barriera accepts (p5). Wuilleumier (1969) and Powell (1988) use the same basic structure as Vogel in their editions.

19

non cognomen: cognomen non HE intelligo: intellego tamen suspicor eisdem rebus te quibus: tamen te suspicor eisdem rebus quibus Qui et: other MSS om. honere LP: onere AbVHD urgentis bVP: surgentis ALD 2 etiam deest VP: in D expunctum est ferre: fere iocunda DH: iucunda, etc. pareat VPHD: paret b parat AL satis laurdari digne: digne satis laudari su(a)e: other manuscripts om. 3 Thithono HD: Tithono Aristo Chius DALbE: Aristoteles V aristo P aut aristo H Aristo Cius recentiores. admirantis: admirantes in suis libris H: in libris suis PE attribuito VP: id tribuito DL id tribuiter A id tribulato b attribuiter E 4 Lelio DALbVH: Laelio P ethna HD: Aetna potest malum P: malum potest 7 Salinator PHV: salintor b intor LAD essem ignobilis PL2H: essem VbL1A 10 cumque ego (eo ss. VL) PLA Unus homo L2: homo qui PH 11 dicere ausus est: ausus est dicere H magisque atque magis: postque magisque 13 quorsum b: cursum DAL quorsus VPD2 Isocratis: Socratis Panatheinaicus: panathenaicus V panatheniacus DAb

panathenicus L 14 Olimpia D Flamininus D2P: Flaminus DALV 18 inferatur: not in most MSS, but appears in Palatinus Parmensis 2144 (s. XIV),

Chisianus 106 (s. XIV) Neapolitanus bibl. na. IV G 7 (s. XIV) 27 decet uti et: D2VP: decet uti es b docet tutius D decet tutius A 30 Xenophontem V 32 Thermopilas V quin Palatinus Parmensis 2144 (s. XIV) Vaticanus 4516 (s. XIV): cui R cum

DALbE 37 vigebat in illa domo mos patrius et disciplina Palatinus Parmensis 2144,

Vaticanus 4516: See Throop16 42 dampnati bE 48 magis delectatur qui in prima cavea aspectat delectatur tamen etiam qui in ultima;

qui in . . . delectatur omit. added in margin by same hand: reading preserved by 16 (1911) 484.

20

R, Casanatensis 1090, Laurentinus 50, 45 qui . . . etiam omtn. DALP; qui . . . tamen omt. V

52 effici ut exfici tantulo: effici tantulo DAVPE ex fici tantulo b 55 et studio rerum rusticarum E At haec ut vobis preciosum malarum cogitationumque munus refertem et

memintote acie me vinci ac pecuniam corrumpi non posse: not found in any major mss, but cf. Vaticanus 1720 (s. XV), Neapolitanus bibl. nat. IV B 16 (s. XIV), margins of Vaticanus 4516 (s. XIV)atque haec ut vobis pretiosum malarum cogitationum munus referte et mementote acie me vinci posse at pecunia corrumpi non posse.

59 Xenofontis DAL 61 virium D2VP: virum DALb 65 contempni A: contemni 74 recordor: recorder PVL2A2 recordarer bL1A1 The effects of the clearly corrupt archetype have made the placement of this

manuscript even more difficult. The manuscript certainly derives most of its readings

from the bLAD family. When the text does agree with PHV, it consistently agrees with

AD as well, not with bL. (11 collega for colliga (L) and colliega (b); 13 preclarum for

pleclarum; 31 vera for vere and quin for qui in; 40 censebat for sensebat). Vogel17

explains this phenomenon in the tradition by showing that the bL variants probably came

from an early archetype, and the tradition was later corrected before A and D were

produced.

One of the most interesting readings of this manuscript appears in 55. The rather

large insertion is attested only in late manuscripts, being the product of marginalia by a

thirteenth or fourteenth century scribe. Vaticanus 4516, which contains the sentence in

its margins, is the earliest known attestation. This reading, plus the quin in 32 show a

close relationship between Vaticanus 4516 and s. Vaticanus 4516 is probably not a

source of the UF copy, as they still have several important variations (1 fixa forma, 3

aristoceus). In addition, every time the two manuscripts agree, at least one other 17 (1936) 26

21

manuscript is also in agreement (5 frugibus Rhenaugiensis 127, Chisianus 106; 8 ne

sapienti P, Mediolanensis E 15). Another manuscript in the family of s is Palatinus

Parmensis 2144. Though it does not have the large interpolation at the end of section 55,

it contains the corrected reading of domo mos in section 37, and also has inferatur in

section eighteen, the only other collated manuscript to have this reading aside from s.

Part IIIa: History of Paradoxa Stoicorum

List of manuscripts:

BLeiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 86 (s. ix): considered by Rouse18 to be the best witness of a family of manuscripts containing some of Ciceros philosophical treatises: de natura deorum, de divinatione, Timaeus, de fato, Topica, Paradoxa, Lucullus, and de legibus.19 ALeiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 84 (s. ix or x): written at Montecassino, A is the head of the secondary family of the Leiden corpus. The AVH tradition appears independently of B, but was later corrected by an emended B.20 Badali notes in his Teubner21 edition that a hand quite similar and possibly identical (eorum manus a librarii correctionibus vix discernere possimus), corrected the manuscript. No further corrections appear until the fifteenth century. VVindobonensis Palatina codex Lat. 189 (s. ix or x): This is the first manuscript to omit Topica, and later de legibus was removed; these actions show the move towards a smaller canon than the original octet. Leiden B.P.L 118 (s. xi):22 The final member of the Leiden corpus does not actually contain Paradoxa, only incomplete texts of de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, and de Legibus, but is mentioned here as evidence of the breakdown of the Leiden corpus. ELeiden Periz 25 (s. xi): The dialogues de Senectute and de Amictia were added to this manuscript after its composition, and the manuscript omits Timaeus, Topica, or De

18 (1987) 125

19 Schwenke (1890) 347

20 Rouse (1987) 125.

21 (1968) 9.

22 Badali does not mention this manuscript, Rouse (p 127) names it H, and Schwenke (p 348) names it C. Rather than adopt a siglum to avoid confusion with Harleianus 2682which is usually named H and appears in the tradition of Paradoxa (Badali names it E, and Rouse mentions it, but does not give it a name)I will always refer to Harleianus 2682 as H, and give the complete name of Leiden B.P.L. 118.

22

Fato. Like Leiden B.P.L. 118, E shows the continued break-up of the Leiden corpus by the eleventh century. HHarleianus 2682 (s. xi): the first text to combine the octet with a number of other Ciceronian philosophical works, including de Amicitia and de Senectute. The manuscript itself probably descends from the Leiden corpus, and the additional works were added from another tradition. FFlorentinus, Bibiothecae Laurentianae Marcianus 257 (s. x): Descendant of A, and contains the entire octet of the Leiden corpus. F was the source for K, and a source for M. MMnchen, Universittsbibliothek, cod. Lat. 528 (s. xi): Contains all of the books of the octet except Topica. Corrected in the twelfth century.23 KVaticanus Reg. Lat. 1762 (s. x): Contains a number of different authors, from Cicero it contains only excerpts of Paradoxa. The tradition of the Leiden corpus, like that of de Amicitia and de Senectute,

contains two families emerging in the ninth century from a common archetype. The first

family, attested chiefly by B, comes from the area around Ferrires. The second family,

further removed from the archetype, contains manuscripts mostly written at

Montecassino. Richard Mollweide (1911), in trying to reconcile the fluctuating order of

manuscripts containing Paradoxa and other works, proposed that two major sources for

the Leiden corpus existed in the fifth century, one with the usual octet, and a larger

source with twelve works which Mollweide dubbed K,, the Corpus Tullianum,

descended from L,the source of the Leiden Corpus and Z, which had the readings

of K that were not in L. Beeson,24 rejects the notion of such a massive manuscript,

noting that of all these corpora, the only one which had any existence outside

Mollweides imagination is the Le[i]den group. Such a work, Beeson continues, would

23 Schwenke (1890) 349.

24 Beeson (The collectaneum of Hadoard, CP 40 1945, 201-222) 203-210 notes that Timaeus and de Fato are often interpolated into one another, and parts of de Officiis are moved around.

23

be unparalleled in size. The single source, then, produced the two families: B directly

and AV through one or two additional unknown sources. Common errors in A and V25

show that they definitely come from a common ancestor. From A, descends the

manuscript labelled F. F is of great importance to the tradition of Paradoxa, though less

so to s. K was a direct descendant of F, and M comes from F through a series of

intermediate manuscripts.26 In the fifteenth century, Poggio took F to Florence, where it

became the primary text in northern Italy. UF 871.C7i.x is not a descendant of F, but

contains several readings in common with other recentiores.

Part IIIb: The Paradoxa Stoicorum text of UF 871.C7i.x

The difficulties surrounding the source of de Amicitia and de Senectute do not

despoil the reading of Paradoxa Stoicorum in the UF manuscript, but provide the clearest

picture of the manuscripts date and place of composition. The primary sources for this

copy are M and V, both archetypes of many recentiores. The manuscript retains all of

the emendations of V3 and V4 when the two correcting hands agree, and V4 when they do

not. Certain readings found in other late manuscripts appear in s, which do not appear in

V4 so s cannot be a direct copy of V. Furthermore, readings from V5 do not appear in s

(see below, 11 delicitas, 36 actu par and inquiunt) so its archetype must have been

copied before the fifth and final scribal changes to the V manuscript. Schwenke27 reads

the correcting hands differently, identifying only three correcting hands. Schwenke and

Badali agree that the first correcting hand (V2) was approximately from the same date as

25 For a complete listing of the errors, see Badali (1968) 10-12

26 ibid. 30

27 (1890) 349

24

that of the original composition (ninth to tenth century). Where Badali reads a second

and third hand of around the same date (ca. twelfth century), Schwenke reads only one

hand. The final hand comes from the fifteenth century; Badali names this hand V5, but

Schwenke, reading only one twelfth century hand, names it V4. In the readings below, I

have adopted Badalis system, but for dating this manuscript the number of editors

matters much less than their dates. Since no readings from the final editor of V appear in

s, either a source or s itself was copied from V between the thirteenth and fifteenth

centuries. Since V does not contain the two dialogues, it is probably not the primary

source of UF 871.C7i.x, but it must be very closely related. Readings not in V also come

from the second hand of M, but not consistently (M2 has libero in 40, a reading not

shared by s). Harleianus 2682 continues to influence the spelling and a limited number of

readings of this manuscript, but to a much lesser extent than the previous two works. The

six Greek Paradoxa have all been translated into Latin. To the second and sixth titles has

been added poorly written Greek titles: ) and

.

List of Variant Readings in Paradoxa

Title: Mar. Tu. Ci. Paradoxa feliciter incipit: INCIPIT FELICITER V PARADOXA STOICORUM FELICTER B 2 sed minutis interrogatiunculis: sed minutis interrogati unculis A1VB 3 loquor BV1: loquimur V locor A nullis oratoriis : oratoriis ego vero : vero 4 paradoxa AVB: B2 and many paradoxa appellantur: paradoxa AVB2 appelantur (deest in most MSS) 5 hoc genus: genus hoc quiddam mearum V1 V in possessiva quiddam arce A1FV3B1: arca V arte B ut ex eadem officina exisse appareat V

25

6 Quod honestum sit id solum bonum esse ABV1: other MSS have the Greek title ex Stoycorum: ex Stoicorum V1 exoticorum AVB ex atticorum B2 dicam quod sentio tamen: dicam tamen quod sentio 7 circumfluentes : circumfluentibus AVB 11 regum A1FVB: rerum A Vultis a Romulo incipere: Vultis incipere a romulo F2M2 Vultis a romulo AVB Quibus tandem gradibus Romulus escendit in caelum delicitas: F1: felicitas AVB1, changed in the margin of V2 to delicitas, changed

back to felicitas by V5 Saliorum certain : aliorum AVB 15 In quo virtus sit ei nihil deesse ad bene vivendum: Latin subtitle (ad beate

vivendum) added by B2 17 nactus A1FV1B1: nanctis B 19 debet 20 eventu: V3M2 nascuntur V4H: nascantur: ACB 21 temperato temperatiorem AV4B1 22 quoniam a virtutibus . . . debent: quoniam V3, text written in margin by original

hand, but probably individual error of this scribe, not omitted in any other MSS 25 is, qui alliud, is qui nutruit: is qui aluit, the reading of s is not mentioned in any

apparatus, but quite probably aluit became alliud, and nutruit was later added to correct the meaning

26 Omnis stultos insanire AV2B1 27 sed dementem et insanum rebus addicam necessariis M2 and in intercolumnio V 29 animi mei consciantiam meas curas, vigilias, consilia in re publica 31 appellatur M2: appeletur V4 32 Omnis Sapientes esse liberos stultos vero servos AV2B 36 actu pari M2: actuparii V1 acto pari V5 inquiunt HM2: e summis inquiunt sumus princibus civitatis V5 38 barbatulos V4 39 numeratur V4M2 41 debilitas V : s1 Quod solus sapiens sit dives ABV2 44 Danay: Danaum AVB; no major manuscript has Danay (a corruption of Danai),

but the word is erased or changed in all major manuscripts: ut aiunt danai M 46 intercisas V2 51 in vi (not in V)

26

UF 871.C7i.x agrees with V3 and V4 more often than any other hand. The

manuscript also consistently agrees with F, which was the parent of most of the fifteenth

century Italian recentiores.28

28 Badali (26): Qua re, ubi codicis F in apparatu nulla fit mentio, codicum A1 et F easdem esse lectiones intellegatur.

27

CHAPTER 3 TEXT OF UF 871.C7I

Below is the transcription of the text of s. The section divisions are those of

Orelli, Baiter, Halms.1 The page divisions of s are marked in parentheses. Textual

variants are listed after the texts. Common spelling differences between P and s need not

be noted every time. For the following terms, s consistently uses different spellings than

the major manuscript (spellings of s in parentheses): iis (his), ii (hi), -ae-, or oe (e),

abundo (habundo), iucunda (iocunda), adolescens (adulescens), eis (iis), volgus (vulgus)

and aestimo (existimo). The writer of s also invariably assimilates prefixes into

compound words (appellari for adpellari, etc). In addition, the archaic u for superlatives

and lubido are never employed and s consistently uses an i. Unless otherwise noted, the

texts are being compared to the major manuscripts of their tradition: for de Amicitia:

Krakw, Berol. lat 4 404 (P), for de Senectute: Parisinus 6332 (P), and for Paradoxa:

Leiden Vossianus Lat. Fol. 86 (B).

Laelius de Amicitia

M. T. C. L DE AMICITIA INCIPIT

1(1) Quintus Mucius augur Scevola multa narrare de C. Lelio socero suo memoriter et iocunde solebat nec dubitabat illum in omni sermone appellare sapientem; ego autem apatre ita eram ad Scevolam deductus sumpta virili toga, ut, quoad possem et liceret, asenis latere numquam discederem; itaque multa ab eo prudenter disputata, multa etiam breviter et commode dicta memorie mandabam fierique studebam eius prudentia doctior. Quo mortuo me ad pontificem Scevolam contuli, quem unum nostre civitatis et ingenio et industria prestantissimum audeo dicere. Sed de hoc alias; nunc redeo ad augurem.

1 Orelli, 1861

28

2 Cum sepe multa narraret, tum memini in hemiciclo domi sedentem, ut solebat, cum et ego essem una et pauci ad modum familiares, in eum ipsum sermonem incidere, qui tum fere omnibus erat in ore. Meministi enim profecto, o Attice, et eo magis, quod P. Sulpicio utebare multum, cum is tribunus plebis capitali odio a Q. Pompeio, qui tum erat consul, discideret, qui cum cumiunctissime et amantissime vixerat, quanta esset hominum vel admiratio vel querella.

3 Itaque tum Scevola cum in eam ipsam mentionem incidisset, exposuit nobis sermonem Lelii de amicitia habitum ab illo secum et cum altero genero, C. Fannio Marci filio, paucis diebus (2) post mortem Affricani. Eius disputationis sententias memorie mandavi, quas hoc libro exposui arbitratu meo; quasi enim introduxi eos loquentes, ne 'inquam' et 'inquit' sepius interponeretur, atque ideo feci ut tamquam apresentibus coram haberi sermo videretur.

4 Cum enim sepe mecum ageres, de amicitia ut scriberem tibi aliquid, digna mihi res visa est cum omnium cognitione, tum nostra familiaritate. Itaque feci non invitus, ut multis prodessem rogatu tuo. Sed ut in Catone Maiore, feci qui est scriptus ad te de senectute, Catonem introduxi senem disputantem de Senectute, quia nulla videbatur aptior persona, que de ea etate loqueretur, quam eius, qui et diutissime senex fuisset et ipsa in etate preter ceteros floruisset, sic, cum accepissemus apatribus maxime memorabilem C. Lelii et P. Scipionis familiaritatem fuisse, ydonea mihi persona C visa Lelii, que de amicitia ea ipsa dissereret, que disputata ab eo meminisset Scevola. Genus autem hoc sermonum positum in hominum veterum auctoritate, et eorum illustrium, plus nescio quo pacto videtur habere gravitatis; itaque mea ipse legens scripta sic adficior interdum, ut Catonem, non me loqui existimem.

5 Sed ut tum ad senem senex de senectute, sic in hoc libro ad amicum amicissimus scripsit de amicitia. Tum est Cato locutus, quo erat (3) nemo fere senior temporibus illis, nemo prudentior; nunc Lelius et sapiens (sic enim habitus est) et amicitie gloria excellens de amicitia loquetur. Tu velim paulisper ad me animum advertas. Lelium ipsum loqui putes C. Fannius et Q. Mucius ad socerum post mortem Africani veniunt; ab his sermo oritur, respondet Lelius, cuius tota disputatio est de amicitia, quam tu legens ipse cognosces.

6 Fannius. Sunt ista vera, o Leli; nec enim melior vir fuit Africano quisquam nec clarior. Sed existimare debes oculos omnium in te esse coniectos unum; te sapientem et appellant et existimant. Tribuebatur hoc modo Marco Catoni, scimus L. Acilium apud patres nostros appellatum esse sapientem, sed uterque alio quodam modo, Acilius, quia pudens in civili iure putabatur, Cato, quia multarum rerum usum habebat; multa eius et in senatu et in foro vel provisa prudenter vel acta constanter vel responsa acute ferebantur; propterea quasi cognomen iam habebat in senectute sapientis. Te autem alio quodam modo non solum natura et moribus, verum etiam studio et doctrina esse sapientem, nec sicut vulgus, sed ut eruditi solent appellare sapientem, qualem neminem reliqua in Grecia

29

7 (nam qui septem appellantur, eos, qui ista subtilius in querunt, in numero sapientium non habent), Athenis unum accepimus, et eum quidem etiam Apollinis oraculo sapientissimum iudicatum; hanc (4) esse sapientiam existimant in te, ut omnia tua in te posita esse ducas humanosque casus virtute inferiores putes. Itaque ex me querunt, credo ex hoc item Scevola, quonam pacto mortem Africani feras, eoque magis, quod in his proximis Nonis cum in ortos D Bruti auguris commentandi, ut assolet, causa venissemus, tu non affuisti, qui diligentissime semper illum diem illudque munus solitus esses obire.

8 Scevola. Querunt quidem, C. Leli, multi, ut a Fanio dictum est, sed ego id respondeo, quod animadverti, te dolorem, quem acceperis cum summi viri, tum amicissimi morte, ferre moderate nec potuisse non comoveri nec fuisse id humanitatis tue; quod autem his proximis Nonis in colegio nostro non adfuisses, valitudinem respondeo causam, non mestitiam fuisse.

Lelius. Recte tu quidem, Scevola, et vere; nec enim ab isto officio, quod semper usurpavi, cum valerem, abduci incommodo meo debui, nec ullo casu arbitror hoc constanti homini posse contingere, ut ulla intermissio fiat officii.

9 Tu autem, Fani, quod mihi tantum atribui dicis, quantum ego nec agnosco nec postulo, facis amice; sed, ut mihi videris, non recte iudicas de Catone; aut enim nemo, quod quidem magis credo, aut, si quisquam, sapiens ille fuit. Quo modo, ut alia omittam, (5) mortem filii tulit! memineram Paulum, videram grecum, sed nec hi quidem comparentur.

10 Marco Catoni maximo et spectato viro. Quam ob rem cave Catoni anteponas ne istum quidem ipsum, quem Apollo, ut ais, sapientissimum iudicavit; huius enim facta, illius dicta laudantur. De me autem, ut iam cum utroque loquar, sic habetote: Ego si Scipionis desiderio me moveri negem, quam id recte faciam, viderint sapientes; sed certe mentiar. Moveor enim tali amico orbatus, qualis, ut arbitror, nemo umquam erit, ut confirmare possum, nemo unquam erit; sed non egeo medicina, me ipse consolor, et maxime illo solacio, quod eo errore careo, quo amicorum decessu plerique angi solent. Nihil enim mali accidisse puto Scipioni, mihi accidit, si quid accidit; suis autem incommodis graviter angi non amicum, sed se ipsum amantis est.

11 Cum illo vero quis neget actum esse preclare? Nisi enim, quod ille minime putabat, inmortalitatem optare vellet, quid non adeptus est, quod homini fas esset optare? qui summam spem civium, quam de eo iam puero habuerant, continuo adulescens incredibili virtute superavit, qui consulatum petivit numquam, factus consul est bis, primum ante tempus, iterum sibi suo tempore, rei publice pene sero, qui duabus urbibus eversis inimicissimis nostro imperio non modo presentia, (6) verum etiam et futura bella delevit. Quid dicam de moribus facillimis, de pietate in matrem, liberalitatem in sorores, bonitate in suos, iustitia in omnes? nota sunt vobis. Quam autem civitati carus fuerit, merore funerias indicatum est. Quid igitur hunc paucorum annorum accessio iuvare potuisset? Senectus enim quamvis non sit

30

gravis, ut memini Catonem uno anno antequam esset mortuus, mecum et cum Scipione disserere. Aufert tamen eam viriditatem, in qua etiam nunc erat Scipio.

12 Quam ob rem vita quidem homines talis fuit vel fortuna vel gloria, ut nihil posset accedere, moriendi autem sensum celeritas abstulit; quo de genere mortis difficile dictu est, quid homines suspicentur, videtis; hoc vere tamen licet dicere, P. Scipioni ex multis diebus, quos in vita sua celeberrimos letissimosque viderit, illum diem fuisse clarissimum, cum senatu dimisso domum reductus est ad vesperum a patribus conscriptis, populo Romano, sociis et Latinis, pridie quam excessit e vita, ut ex tam alto dignitatis gradu ad superos videatur deos potius quam ad inferos pervenisse.

13 Neque enim adsentior his, qui hoc nuper disserere coeperunt, cum corporibus animos simul interire atque omnia morte deleri; plus apud me valet auctoritas antiquorum, vel nostrorum maiorum, qui mortuis tam religiosa iura tribuerunt, quod non profecto fecissent, si nihil ad eos pertinere arbitrarentur, (7) vel eorum, qui in hac terra fuerunt magnamque Greciam, que nunc quidem deleta est, tum florebat, institutis et preceptis suis erudierunt, vel eius, qui Apollinis oraculo sapientissimus iudicatus est, qui non tum hoc, tum illud, ut in plerisque, sed idem semper, animos hominum esse divinos, hisque, cum ex corpore excessissent, reditum in celum patere, optimoque et iustissimo cuique expeditissimum.

14 Quod idem Scipioni videbatur, qui quidem, quasi presagiret, perpaucis ante mortem diebus, cum et Philus et Manilius adessent et alii plures, tuque etiam, Scevola, etiam mecum fuisses, triduum disseruit de re publica; cuius disputationis fere extremum de inmortalitate animorum, que se in quiete per visum ex Africano audisse dicebat. Id si ita est, ut optumi cuiusque animus in morte evolet facillime tamquam ex custodia vinclisque corporis, cui censemus cursum ad deos faciliorem quam fuisse Scipioni? Quocirca merere hoc eius eventu vereor ne invidi magis quam amici sit. Sin autem illa vereor ut idem interitus sit animorum et corporum nec ullus sensus maneat, ut nihil boni est in morte, sic certe nihil mali; sensu enim amisso fit idem, quasi natus non esset omnino, quem tamen esse natum et nos gaudemus et hec civitas, dum erit, letabitur.

15 Quam ob rem, ut pre dixi, cum illo quidem actum est preclare mecum incommodius, quem fuerat equius, (8) ut prius introieram, sic pruis exire de vita. Sed tamen recordatione nostre amicitie sic fruor, ut beate vixisse videar, quia cum Scipione vixerim, quocum mihi coniuncta cura fuit de re p. et privata, quocum et domus fuit et militia communis et, id in quo omnis est amicitie vis, voluntatum, studiorum, sententiarumque summa consentio. Itaque non tam ista me sapientie, quam modo Fannius commemoravit, fama delectat, presertim falsa, quam quod amicitie nostre spero memoriam fore sempiternam, idque eo magis mihi est cordi, quod ex omnibus seculis vix tria aut quattuor paria nominantur amicorum; quo in genere sperare Scipionis et Leli videor amicitiam posteritati notam fore.

16 Fannius. Istud quidem, Leli, ita necesse est. Sed quoniam amicitie mentionem fecisti et sumus otiosi, pergratum mihi feceris, spero item Scevole, si, quem ad

31

modum soles de ceteris rebus, cum ex te queruntur, sic de amicitia disputaveris quid sentias, qualem existumes, que precepta des. Scevola. Mihi vero erit gratum; atque id ipsum cum tecum agere conarer, Fannius antevortit. Quam ob rem utrique nostrum gratum admodum feceris.

17 Lelius. Ego vero non gravarer, si ipse confiderem mihi; nam et preclara res visa est et sumus, ut dixit Fannius, occiosi. Sed quis sum ego? aut que est in me facultas? doctorum est ista consuetudo, eaque Grecorum, ut his ponatur, de quo (9) disputent quamvis subito; magnum opus est egetque exercitatione non parva. Quam ob rem, que disputari de amicitia possunt, ab eis censeo petatis, qui ista profitentur; ego vos hortari tantum possum, ut amicitiam anteponatur omnibus humanis rebus; nihil est enim tam nature aptum, tam conveniens ad secundas res vel adversas.

18 Sed hoc primum sentio, nisi in bonis amicitiam esse non posse; neque id ad vivum reseco, ut illi, qui hoc suptilius disserunt, fortasse vere, sed ad communem utilitatem parum; negant enim quemquam esse virum bonum nisi sapientem. Sit ita sane; sed eam sapientiam interpretantur, quam adhuc mortalis nemo est consecutus, nos autem ea, que sunt in usu vitaque communi, non ea, que finguntur aut optantur, spectare debemus. Numquam ego dicam C. Fabricium, M'. Curium, Ti. Coruncanum, quos nostri maiores sapientes iudicabant, ad istorum normam sapientes fuisse. Quare sibi habeant sapientie nomen et invidiosum et obscurum, concedant, ut hi viri boni fuerint. Ne id quidem facient, negabunt id nisi sapienti posse concedi.

19 Agamus ergo, ut aiunt, pingui Minerva. Qui ita gerunt se, ita vivunt, ut eorum probetur fides, integritas, equalitas, liberalitas, nec sit in eis nulla cupiditas, vel libido, vel audacia, sitque magna constantia, ut hi fuerunt, quos modo nominavi, hos viros bonos, ut habiti sunt, sic etiam (10) appellandos putemus etiam, quia sequantur, quantum homines consequi possunt, naturam optimam bene vivendi ducem. Sic enim perspicere videor mihi, ita esse nos natos, ut inter omnes esset societas quedam, maior autem, ut quisque proxime accederet. Itaque potiores cives quam peregrini, propinqui quam alieni; cum his enim natura ipsa peperit amicitiam; sed ea non satis habet firmitatis. Namque hoc prestat amicitia propinquitati, quod ex propinquitate benivolentia tolli potest, ex amicitia non potest; sublata enim benivolentia amicitie nomen tollitur, propinquitatis manet.

20 Quanta et vis amicitie sit, ex hoc maxime potest intellegi, quod ex infinita humani generis societate, quam conciliavit ipsa natura, ita contracta est res et adducta in angustum, ut omnis caritas aut inter duos aut inter paucos iungeretur. Est enim amicitia nihil aliud nisi omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum cum benivolentia et caritate consensio; qua quidem haud scio an excepta sapientia nihil melius homini sit a diis inmortalibus datum. Divitias alii preponunt, alii bonam valitudinem, alii potentiam, alii honores, multi etiam voluptates. Beluarum est hoc quidem extremum, illa autem sunt superiora et caduca et incerta, non tam in consiliis nostris posita quam in temeritate fortune. Qui autem in virtute summum bonum ponunt, preclare illi quidem, sed hec ipsa virtus amicitiam et gignit et continet, nec sine (11) virtute amicitia esse ullo pacto potest.

32

21 Iam virtutem ex vite consuetudine sermonisque nostri interpretemur nec eam, ut quidam docti, verborum magnificentia metiamur virosque bonos eos, qui habentur, numeremus, Paulos, Catones, Galos, Scipiones, Philos; his communis vita contenta est; eos autem omittamus, qui omnino nusquam reperiuntur.

22 Talis igitur inter viros amicitia tantas oportunitates habet, quantas vix queo dicere. Principio qui potest esse vita 'vitalis', ut ait Ennius, que non in amico mutua benivolentia conquiescat? Quid dulcius quam habere, quicum omnia audeas sic loqui ut tecum? Qui fructus etiam in rebus esset prosperis tantus, nisi haberes, qui illis eque ac tu ipse gauderet? adversas vero ferre difficile est sine eo, qui illas gravius etiam quam tu feret. Denique cetere res, que expetuntur, oportune sunt singule singule singulis fere, divitie, ut utare, opes, ut colare, honores, ut laudere, voluptates, ut gaudeas, valitudo, ut dolore careas et muneribus fungare corporis; amicitia res plurimas continet; quoquo verteris te, presto est, nullo loco excluditur, numquam est intempestiva, numquam molesta est; itaque non aqua, non igne, ut aiunt, locis pluribus utimur quam amicitia. Neque ego nunc de vulgari aut de mediocri, que tamen ipsa et delectat et prodest, sed de vera et perfecta loquor amici tua. qualis eorum, qui pauci nominantur, fuit. (12) Nam et secundas res splendidiores facit amicitia et adversas partiens communicansque leviores.

23 Cumque plurimas et maximas commoditates amicitia contineat, tum illa nimirum prestat omnibus, quodque bona spe prelucet in posterum nec debilitari animos aut cadere patitur. Verum etiam amicum qui intuetur, tamquam exemplar aliquod sui intuetur. Quocirca et absentes adsunt et egentes habundant et inbecilles valent et, quod difficilius dictu est, mortui vivunt; tantus eos honos, memoria, desiderium amicorum prosequitur. Ex quo illorum mors beata videtur, horum vita laudabilis. Quodsi exemeris ex rerum natura benivolentiem mentionem, nec domus ulla nec urbs stare poterit, ne agri quidem cultus permanebit. Id si minus intellegitur, quanta vis concordie amicitieque sit, ex dissensionibus adque ex discordiis perspici potest. Que enim tam stabilis domus, que tam firma civitas est, que non odiis et discidiis funditus possit averti? Ex quo, quantum boni sit in amicitia, potest iudicari.

24 Agrigentinum quidem doctum quendam virum carminibus Grecis vaticinatum ferunt, que in rerum natura totoque mundo constarent, queque moverentur, ea contrahere amicitiam, dissipare discordiam. Atque hoc quidem omnes mortales et intellegunt et re probant. Itaque, si quando aliquod officium extitit in amici periculis aut adeundis aut communicandis, quis est, qui id maximis non efferat laudibus? Qui clamores tota cavea nuper in hospitis et amici mei Marci. (13) Pacuvi nova fabula! cum ignorante rege, quis esset horestes pilades se horestem dicent ut pro eo necaretur, Horestes autem, ita ut erat, Horestem se esse perseveraret. Stantes autem plaudebant in re ficta; quid arbitramur in re vera facturos fuisse? Facile indicabat ipsa natura vim suam, cum homines, quod ipsi facere non possent, id recte fieri in altero iudicarent. Hactenus mihi videor de amicitia quid sentirem potuisse dicere; si que preterea sunt (credo autem esse multa), ab his, si videbitur, qui ista disputant, queritote.

33

25 Fannius. Nos autem a te querimus potius; quamquam etiam ab istis sepe quesivi et audivi non equidem invitus; sed aliud quoddam filum orationis tue expectamus.

Scevola. Tu magis id diceres, o Fanni, si nuper in ortis Scipionis, cum est de re publica disputatum, adfuisses. Qualis tum patronus iustitie fuit contra accuratam orationem Phili!

Fannius. Facile id quidem fuit, iustitiam iustissimo viro defendere.

Scevola. Quid? amicitiam nonne facile ei est, qui ob eam summa fide, constantia iustitiaque servatam maximam gloriam ceperit?

26 Lelius. Vim hoc quidem est adferre. Quid enim refert, qua me ratione cogatis? cogitis certe. Studiis autem generorum, presertim in re bona, cum difficile est, tum nec equum quidem obsistere. Sepissime igitur mihi de amicitia cogitanti maxime illud congitandum videri solet, utrum propter inbecillitatem atque inopiam desiderada sit amicitia, ut dandis recipiendisque (14) meritis quod quisque minus per se ipse posse, id acciperet ab alio vicissimque redderet, an esset hoc quidem proprium amicitie, sed antiquior et pulchrior et magis a natura ipsa profecta est alia causa. Amor enim, ex quo amicitia nominata est, princeps est ad benivolentiam coniungendam. Nam utilitates quidem etiam ab his percipiuntur sepe, qui simulatione amicitie coluntur et observantur temporis causa, in amicitia autem nihil fictum est, nihil simulatum et, quidquid est, id est verum et voluntarium.

27 Quapropter a natura mihi videtur potius quam ab indigentia orta amicitia, adplicatione magis animi cum quodam sensu amandi quam cogitatione, quantum illa res utilitatis esset habitura. Quod quidem quale sit, etiam in bestiis quibusdam animadverti potest, que ex se natos ita amant ad quoddam tempus et ab eis ita amantur, ut facile earum sensus appareat. Quod in homine multo est evidenius, primum ex ea caritate, que est inter natos et parentes, que dirimi nisi detestabili scelere non potest; deinde cum similis sensus amoris extitit, si aliquem nacti sumus, cuius cum moribus et nature congruamus, quod in eo quasi lumen aliquod probitatis et virtutis perspicere videamur.

28 Nihil est enim virtute amabilius, nihil, quod magis ad diligendum alliciat, quippe cum propter virtutem et probitatem et eos, quos numquam vidimus, quodam modo dilligamus. Quis enim est, qui C. Fabrici, (15) M'. Curii non cum caritate aliqua benivolentiaque memoriam usurpet, quos numquam viderit? quis autem est, qui Tarquinium Superbum, qui Publius Cassium, Sp. Melium non oderit? Cum duobus ducibus de imperio in Ithalia est decertatum, Pirro et Anibale; ab altero propter probitatem eius nominis non nimis alienos animos habemus, alterum propter crudelitatem semper hec civitas oderit.

29 Quodsi tanta vis probitatis est, in hoste etiam dilligamus, quid mirum est, ut eam vel in eis, quos numquam vidimus, vel, quod maius est, in hoste etiam diligmus, quid mirum est, si animi hominum moveantur, cum eorum, quibuscum

34

usu coniuncti esse possunt, virtutem et probitatem perspicere videantur? Quamquam confirmatur amor et beneficio accepto et studio perspecto et consuetudine adiuncta, quibus rebus ad illum primum motum animi et amoris adhibitis admirabilis quedam exardescit benivolentie magnitudo. Quam si qui putant ab imbecilitate proficisci, ut sit, per quam assequatur, quod quisque desideret, humilem sane relinquunt et minime generosum, ut ita dicam, ortum amicitie, quam ex inopia et indigentia natam volunt. Quod si ita esset, ut quisque minimum esse in se arbitraretur, ita ad amicitiam esset aptissimus; quod longe secus est.

30 Ut enim quisque sibi plurimum (16) confidit, et ut quisque maxime virtute et sapientia sic munitus est, ut nullo egeat suaque omnia in se ipso posita iudicet, ita in amicitiis expetendis colendisque maxime excellit. Quid enim? Affricanus erat indigens mei? Minime hercule! ac ne ego quidem illius; sed ego admiratione quadam virtutis eius, ille vicissim opinione non nulla, quam de meis moribus habebat fortasse me dilexit; auxit benivolentiam consuetudo. Sed quamquam utilitates magne et multe consecute sunt, non sunt tamen ab earum spe cause dilligendi profecte.

31 Ut enim benefici liberalesque sumus, non ut exigamus gratiam (neque enim beneficium feneramur, sed natura propensi ad liberalitatem sumus), sic amicitiam non spe mercedis adducti, sed quod eius omnis fructus in ipso amore inest, expetendam putamus.

32 Ab his, qui pecudum ritu ad voluptatem omnia referunt, longe dissentimus, nec mirum; nihil enim altum, nihil magnificum nihil divinum suspicere possunt, qui suas omnes cogitationes abiecerunt in rem tuam humilem tamque contemptam. Quam ob rem hos quidem ab hoc sermone removeamus, ipsi autem intellegamus a natura gigni sensum diligendi et benivolentie caritatem facta significatione probitatis. Quam qui appetiverunt, applicant se et propius admovent, ut et usu eius, quem dilligere c[o]eperunt, fruantur et moribus sintque pares in amore et equales (17) propensioresque ad bene merendum quam ad reposcendum, atque hec inter eos sit honesta certatio. Sic et utilitates ex amicitia maxime capientur, et erit eius ortus a natura quam ab imbecilitate et gravior et verior. Nam si utilitas amicitias conglutinaret, eadem commutata dissolveret; sed quia natura mutari non potest, idcirco vere amicitie sempiterne sunt. Ortum quidem amicitie videtis, nisi quid ad hec forte vultis. Fannius. Tu vero perge, Leli; pro hoc enim, qui minor est natu, meo iure respondeo.

33 Scevola. Recte tu quidem. Quam ob rem audiamus. Lelius. Audite vero, optumi viri, ea, que sepissime inter me et Scipionem de amicitia disserebantur. Quamquam ille quidem nihil difficilius esse dicebat, quam amicitiam usque ad extremum vite diem permanere. Nam, vel ut non idem expediret, incidere sepe, vel ut de re publica non idem sentiretur; mutari etiam mores hominum sepe dicebat, alios adversis rebus, alios etate ingravescente. Atque earum rerum exemplum ex similitudine capiebat ineuntis etatis, quod summi puerorum amores sepe una cum pretexta toga deponerentur;

35

34 sin autem ad adulescentiam perduxissent, dirimi tamen interdum contentione vel luxurie vel condicionis vel commodi alicuius, quod idem adipisci uterque non posset. Quodsi qui longius in amicitia provecti essent, tamen labefactari sepe, si in honoris contentionem incidissent; pestem enim maiorem in amicitiis nulla quam in plerisque pecunie cupiditatem, in optimis quibusque honoris certamen et glorie; (18) ex quo immicitias maximas sepe inter amicissimos exstitisse.

35 Etiam magna discidia et plerumque iusta nasci, cum aliquid ab amicis, quod rectum non esset, postularetur, ut aut libidinis ministri aut adiutores essent ad iniuriam; quod qui recusarent, quamvis honeste id facerent, ius tamen amicitie deserere arguerentur ab his, quibus obsequi nollent. Illos autem, qui quidvis ab amico auderent postulare, postulatione ipsa profiteri omnia se se amici causa esse facturos. Eorum querela inveterata non modo familiaritates exstingui solere, sed etiam odia gigni sempiterna. Hec ita multa quasi fata inpendere amicitiis, ut omnia subterfugere non modo sapientie, sed etiam felicitatis diceret sibi videri.

36 Quam ob rem id primum videamus, si vobis placet, quatenus amor in amicitia progredi debeat. Num, si Coriolanus habuit amicos, ferre contra patriam arma illi cum Coriolano debuerunt? num becilinum amici regnum appetentem, num Melium debuerunt iuvare?

37 Tib. quidem Gracchum rem publicam vexantem a Q. Tiberione equalibusque amicis derelictum videbamus. At C. Blosius Cumanus, hospes vestre familie, Scevola, cum ad me, quod aderam Lenate et Ruptilio consulibus in consilio, deprecatum venisset, hanc, ut sibi ignoscerem, rem tamen efferebat qui tanti sibi Gracum fecisset ut quidquid ille vellet, sibi faciundum putaret. Tum ego: 'Etiamne, si te in Capitolium ferre faces vellet?' (19) 'Numquam', inquit, 'voluisset id quidem; sed si voluisset, paruissem.' Videtis, quam nefaria vox! Et hercule ita fecit vel plus etiam, quam dixit; non enim paruit ille Ti. Gracchi temeritati, sed prefuit, nec se comitem illius furoris, sed ducem prebuit. Itaque hac amentia et questione nova perterritus in Asiam profugit, ad hostes se contulit, poenas rei publice graves iustasque persolvit. Nulla est igitur excusatio peccati, si amici causa peccaveris; nam cum conciliatrix amicitie virtutis opinio fuerit, difficile est amicitiam remanere, si a virtute defeceris.

38 Quodsi rectum statuerimus vel concedere amicis, quidquid velint, vel inpetrare ab his, quidquid velimus, perfecta quidem sapientia simus, si nihil habeat res vitii; sed loquimur de his amicis, qui ante oculos sunt, quos vidimus aut de quibus memoria accepimus, quos novit vita communis. Ex hoc numero nobis exempla sumenda sunt, et eorum quidem maxime, qui ad sapientiam proxume accedunt.

39 Videmus Pau. emilium Luscinio familiarem fuisse (sic a patribus accepimus), bis una consules et collegas in censura; tum et cum his et inter se coniunctissimos fuisse viros M'. Curium, Ti. Coruncanum memorie traditum est. Igitur ne suspicari quidem possumus quemquam horum ab amico quippiam contendisse, quod contra fidem, contra ius iurandum, contra rem publicam esset. Nam hoc quidem in talibus viris quid attinet dicere, si enim contendisset, scio impetraturum (20) non fuisse?

36

cum illi sanctissimi viri fuerint, eque autem nefas sit tale aliquid et facere rogatum et rogare. At vero Tib. Gracchum sequebantur C. Carbo, C. Cato, et minime tunc quidem C. frater nunc idem hostis acerrimus.

40 Hec igitur lex in amicitia sanciatur, ut neque rogemus res turpes nec faciamus rogati. Turpis enim excusatio est et minime accipienda cum in ceteris peccatis, tum si quis contra rem publicam se amici causa fecisse fateatur. Etenim eo loco, Fani et Scevola, locati sumus, ut nos longe prospicere oporteat futuros casus rei publice. Deflexit enim iam aliquantulum de spatio curriculoque consuetudo maiorum.

41 Tib. Gracchus regnum occupare conatus est, vel regnavit is quidem paucos menses. Num quid populus simile Romanus audierat aut viderat? Hunc etiam post mortem secuti amici et propinqui quid in P. Scipione et fecerint, sine lacrimis nequeo dicere. Nam Carbonem, quoque quem modo potuimus, propter recentem poenam Tib. Gracchi sustinuimus; de C. Gracchi autem tribunatu quid expectem, non iuvat augurari. Serpit deinde res, que proclivis cum semel ad perniciem, coepit, labitur. Videtis, in tabella iam ante quanta sit facta labes, primo Gabinia lege, biennio autem post Cassia. Videre iam videor populum a senatu disiunctum, multitudinisque arbitrio res maximas agi. Plures enim quem ad modum hec fiant, discent, quam quem ad modum his resistatur. 42 (21) Quorsum hec? Quia sine sociis nemo quicquam tale conatur. Precipiendum est igitur bonis, ut, si in huius modi amicitias ignari casu aliquo inciderint, ne existiment ita se aligatos, ut ab amicis in magna aliqua rem p[ublicam] peccantibus non discedant; inprobis autem p[o]ena statuenda est, nec vero minor his, qui secuti erunt alterum, quam his, qui ipsius fuerint impietatis duces. Quis clarior in Grecia est Themistocle, quis potentior? qui cum imperator bello Perscico servitute Greciam liberavisset propterque invidiam in exilium expulsus esset, ingrate patrie iniuriam non tulit, quam ferre debuit, fecit idem, quod xx annos ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus. His adiutor contra patriam inventus est nemo; itaque uterque sibi mortem accivit.

43 Quare talis inproborum consensio non modo excusatione amicitie est regenda non, sed potius supplicio omni vindicanda est, ut ne quis concessum putet amicum vel bellum patrie inferentem sequi; quod quidem, ut res ire coepit, haud scio an aliquando futurum sit. Mihi autem non minori cure est, qualis res publica post mortem meam futura sit, quam qualis hodie sit.

44 Hec igitur prima lex amicitie sanciatur, ut ab amicis honesta petamus, amicorum causa honesta faciamus, nec quidem expectemus, dum rogemur; studium semper adsit, cunctatio absit; consilium verum gaudeamus libere dare. Plurimum in amicitia amicorum bene suadentium valeat auctoritas, eaque et adhibeatur ad monendum non modo aperte, sed etiam (22) acriter, si res postulabit, et adhibite pareatur.

45 Nam quibusdam, quos audio sapientes habitos in Grecia, placuisse opinor mirabilia quedam (sed nihil est, quod illi non persequantur argumtiis): partim fugiendas esse amicitias nimias, ne necesse sit unum solicitum esse pro pluribus;

37

satis superque esse sibi suarum cuique rerum, alienis rebus nimis implicari molestum esse; commodissimum esse quam laxissimas habenas habere amicitie, quas vel adducas, cum velis, vel remittas; caput enim esse ad beate vivendum securitatem, qua frui non possit animus, si tamquam parturiat unus pro pluribus.

46 Alios autem dicere aiunt etiam multo inhumanius (quem locum breviter perstrinsxi paulo ante) presidii adiumentique causa, non benivolentie neque caritatis amicitias esse expetendas; itaque, ut quisque minimum firmitatis haberet minimumque virium, ita amicitias appeteret maxime; et ex eo fieri, puto ut muliercule magis amicitiarum presidia querant quam viri et inopes quam opulenti et calamitosi quam hi, qui putantur beati.

47 O preclaram sapientiam! Solem enim e mundo tollere videntur, qui amicitiam e vita tollunt, quem a diis immortalibus nihil melius habemus, nihil iocundius. Que est ii ista securitas? Specie quidem blanda, sed re ipsa multis locis e