Commentariolum Petitionis

Last updated

Commentariolum Petitionis ("little handbook on electioneering"), also known as De petitione consulatus ("on running for the Consulship"), is an essay supposedly written by Quintus Tullius Cicero, c. 65-64 BC as a guide for his brother Marcus Tullius Cicero in his campaign in 64 to be elected consul of the Roman Republic. The essay does not provide any information that a man of politics such as Cicero would not already know, and is written in a highly rhetorical fashion. As such, its authenticity has been questioned.

Contents

Many scholars believe that it was not in fact written by Quintus for the purposes proposed, but in fact by a Roman in the Early Roman Empire, between the periods of Augustus and Trajan, as a rhetorical exercise. Such exercises were not uncommon in that time period. Others claim that it was in fact written by Quintus, but with the view to be published, perhaps as a piece of carefully distributed propaganda.

The degree to which it can be used as evidence for the electoral process and the politics of the Late Roman Republic is therefore contested.

Manuscript tradition

The text of the Commentariolum Petitionis is not found in the Codex Mediceus, the best source for M. Cicero's Epistulae ad Familiares (Letters to his Friends). It does appear at the end of the Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem (Letters to Quintus) in the codices Berolinensis and Harleianus, although Harleianus only includes sections 1-8 of the 58 sections given in the other manuscripts. [1]

Linguistic arguments

Three key points can be identified, particularly from the works of Eussner [2] and Hendrickson, [3] which summarise the linguistic arguments: [4]

  1. The vocabulary of the Commentariolum is not what was generally being used at the time Cicero was running for the office of consul. The use of suffragatorius in the Commentariolum is a hapax legomenon. There is some strange phrasing such as 'cur ut' and 'fac ut'.
  2. The style of the Commentariolum does not match the style of Quintus. (Hendrickson also claims that the dry style shows that it is a school exercise. [5] )
  3. In the Commentariolum there are a number of linguistic structures, metaphors, and phrases corresponding to the later works of Cicero: In Toga Candida (64 BC), Pro Murena (62 BC), and Oratio de Haruspicum Responsis (56 BC).

The first two arguments have been largely refuted. Tyrell-Purser [6] show that at least one other hapax occurs in Quintus, and that some phrases questioned by Eussner have been found in the works of Cicero and Plautus. They further argue that, with only four of Quintus' letters extant, and those fragmentary, it is difficult to gauge his style. The laudations of M. Cicero for his younger brother's style may also have been a matter of brotherly hyperbole.

The third argument cannot be refuted. Though some similarities in the Pro Murena could be due to similar subject matter, the correlations between the extant fragments of In Toga Candida and the Commentariolum are too strong to be ignored. These correlations can be (and are) argued in the opposite direction as well, however; the similarities between the Commentariolum and M. Cicero's later works may be the result of M. Cicero being influenced by the letter from his brother.

Arguments of content

Henderson [7] presents many arguments to say that the content of the Commentariolum is anachronistic or faulty:

  1. The faults attributed to Catilina in Commentariolum 10 are actually those given to Clodius in De Haruspicum Responsis 42.
  2. The proscription of C. Antonius Hybrida is backdated, and actually occurred in 59.
  3. The trial of Q. Gallius, referenced in the Commentariolum, did not occur until 64, but after the Commentariolum
  4. The author of the Commentariolum was unaware of the dual meaning of sodalitas, equally 'group of friends' and an illegal electoral group.
  5. The humanitas of Cicero is backdated; it cannot be attributed to him until after his philosophical works (55-44 BC)
  6. There is no mention of the Catilinarian Conspiracy, which disappears from the historical record after Livy.

Balsdon [8] argues against many of Henderson's claims in favour of authenticity, stating that the similarities between the Commentariolum and De Haruspicum Responsis could be a matter of rhetorical similarities only. He suggests that Q. Gallius may have been tried twice, or may have entered into counsel with Cicero as early as 66 BC, though the trial did not take place for a couple years. He also suggests that the meaning of sodalitas was not changed to mean an illegal electoral group until 59. He is joined by Nisbet [9] (who argues against authenticity) in suggesting that the proscription of Antonius may have had a far more quotidian meaning, such as the selling of property after bankruptcy, than Henderson seems to be reading into it. Richardson [10] finally notes that the First Catilinarian Conspiracy is not mentioned until In Toga Candida, and as such takes its omission as proof of authenticity.

Nisbet adds to the arguments of context the fact that the Commentariolum identifies Cicero as worthy (dignus) of defending consulars, though at the time of his electoral campaign, Cicero had not defended anyone in court who had held the consulship. (This section of the Commentariolum also corresponds to a section of In Toga Candida.) Nisbet rejects that this could simply be an allusion to potentialities on the basis that this would be bad rhetorical form. McDermott [11] counters that Cicero may have already agreed to defend Piso, and this would be the sort of thing known by his brother Quintus.

Related Research Articles

Year 63 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. At the time it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Cicero and Hybrida. The denomination 63 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Catilinarian orations</span> Set of speeches to the Roman Senate given by Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Catilinarian Orations are a set of speeches to the Roman Senate given in 63 BC by Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the year's consuls, accusing a senator, Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline), of leading a plot to overthrow the Roman Senate. Most accounts of the events come from Cicero himself. Some modern historians, and ancient sources such as Sallust, suggest that Catiline was a more complex character than Cicero's writings declare, and that Cicero was heavily influenced by a desire to establish a lasting reputation as a great Roman patriot and statesman. This is one of the best-documented events surviving from the ancient world, and has set the stage for classic political struggles pitting state security against civil liberties.

The gens Sulpicia was one of the most ancient patrician families at ancient Rome, and produced a succession of distinguished men, from the foundation of the Republic to the imperial period. The first member of the gens who obtained the consulship was Servius Sulpicius Camerinus Cornutus, in 500 BC, only nine years after the expulsion of the Tarquins, and the last of the name who appears on the consular list was Sextus Sulpicius Tertullus in AD 158. Although originally patrician, the family also possessed plebeian members, some of whom may have been descended from freedmen of the gens.

Quintus Tullius Cicero was a Roman statesman and military leader, as well as the younger brother of Cicero. He was born into a family of the equestrian order, as the son of a wealthy landowner in Arpinum, some 100 kilometres (62 mi) south-east of Rome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Licinia gens</span> Ancient Roman family

The gens Licinia was a celebrated plebeian family at ancient Rome, which appears from the earliest days of the Republic until imperial times, and which eventually obtained the imperial dignity. The first of the gens to obtain the consulship was Gaius Licinius Calvus Stolo, who, as tribune of the plebs from 376 to 367 BC, prevented the election of any of the annual magistrates, until the patricians acquiesced to the passage of the lex Licinia Sextia, or Licinian Rogations. This law, named for Licinius and his colleague, Lucius Sextius, opened the consulship for the first time to the plebeians. Licinius himself was subsequently elected consul in 364 and 361 BC, and from this time, the Licinii became one of the most illustrious gentes in the Republic.

<i>Pro Archia Poeta</i>

Cicero's oration Pro Archia Poeta is the published literary form of his defense of Aulus Licinius Archias, a poet accused of not being a Roman citizen. The accusation is believed to have been a political move against Lucullus through Archias. The poet was originally Greek but had been living in Rome for an extended period of time. A letter from Cicero to Titus Pomponius Atticus in the year following the trial makes mention of Archias, but there is no conclusive evidence about the outcome of the trial. The oration was rediscovered in Liège by Petrarch in 1333.

The gens Terentia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Dionysius mentions a Gaius Terentius Arsa, tribune of the plebs in 462 BC, but Livy calls him Terentilius, and from inscriptions this would seem to be a separate gens. No other Terentii appear in history until the time of the Second Punic War. Gaius Terentius Varro, one of the Roman commanders at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, was the first to hold the consulship. Members of this family are found as late as the third century AD.

The gens Aelia, occasionally written Ailia, was a plebeian family in Rome, which flourished from the fifth century BC until at least the third century AD, a period of nearly eight hundred years. The archaic spelling Ailia is found on coins, but must not be confused with Allia, which is a distinct gens. The first member of the family to obtain the consulship was Publius Aelius Paetus in 337 BC.

Marcus Marius Gratidianus was a Roman praetor and supporter of Gaius Marius during the civil war between the followers of Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla. As praetor, Gratidianus is known for his policy of currency reform during the economic crisis of the 80s BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writings of Cicero</span> Historical Roman statesman, theorist, and philosopher

The writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero constitute one of the most renowned collections of historical and philosophical work in all of classical antiquity. Cicero was a Roman politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, philosopher, and constitutionalist who lived during the years of 106–43 BC. He held the positions of Roman senator and Roman consul (chief-magistrate) and played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. He was extant during the rule of prominent Roman politicians, such as those of Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Marc Antony. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.

Lucius Licinius Murena was a Roman politician and soldier. He was an officer (legate) in the Third Mithridatic War, a governor (propraetor) of Gallia Transalpina from 64 to 63 BC and a consul in 62 BC. He stood trial because of charges of electoral bribery. Cicero, who defended him, immortalized him in one of his published speeches.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caecilia gens</span> Ancient Roman family

The gens Caecilia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Members of this gens are mentioned in history as early as the fifth century BC, but the first of the Caecilii who obtained the consulship was Lucius Caecilius Metellus Denter, in 284 BC. The Caecilii Metelli were one of the most powerful families of the late Republic, from the decades before the First Punic War down to the time of Augustus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sergia gens</span> Ancient Roman noble family

The gens Sergia was a patrician family at ancient Rome, which held the highest offices of the Roman state from the first century of the Republic until imperial times. The first of the Sergii to obtain the consulship was Lucius Sergius Fidenas in 437 BC. Despite long and distinguished service, toward the end of the Republic the reputation of this gens suffered as a result of the conspiracy of Catiline.

The gens Cornificia was a plebeian family at Rome. No persons of this name occur until the last century of the Republic; and the first who obtained any of the higher honours of the state was Quintus Cornificius, praetor in 66 BC.

The gens Curia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Members of this gens are first mentioned at the beginning of the third century BC, when the family was rendered illustrious by Manius Curius Dentatus.

In Toga Candida is a speech given by Cicero during his election campaign in 64 BC for the consulship of 63 BC. The speech was directed at his competitors, Catilina and Antonius, who were also running for consulship for the same year. The speech no longer survives, though a commentary on it written by Asconius does survive.

Orator was written by Marcus Tullius Cicero in the latter part of the year 46 BC. It is his last work on rhetoric, three years before his death. Describing rhetoric, Cicero addresses previous comments on the five canons of rhetoric: Inventio, Dispositio, Elocutio, Memoria, and Pronuntiatio. In this text, Cicero attempts to describe the perfect orator, in response to Marcus Junius Brutus’ request. Orator is the continuation of a debate between Brutus and Cicero, which originated in his text Brutus, written earlier in the same year.

The gens Gallia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Several members of this gens are mentioned during the first century BC.

The gens Gratidia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Originally coming from Arpinum, members of this gens are known from the final century of the Republic.

The gens Luscia was a minor family at ancient Rome. Members of this gens are first mentioned in the early part of the second century BC. They were of senatorial rank, but few of them achieved the higher offices of the Roman state. The only known consul of this gens was Lucius Luscius Ocrea, during the Flavian dynasty.

References

  1. ↑ J. M. David et al., "Le 'Commentariolum Petitionis' de Quintus Cicéron" in ANRW 1.3 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), 243-245.
  2. ↑ A. Eussner, Commentariolum petitionis examinatum et emendatum (Würzburg, 1872)
  3. ↑ John L. Hendrickson, "On the Authenticity of the Commentariolum Petitionis of Quintus Cicero," The American Journal of Philology 13.2 13.2 (1892): 200-212
  4. ↑ David et al., 250.
  5. ↑ Hendrickson, 208.
  6. ↑ R. Tyrell and L.C. Purser, The Correspondence of Cicero, I, (London: 1904, reprinted 1960)
  7. ↑ M. I. Henderson, "De commentariolo petitionis," The Journal of Roman Studies 40.1-2 (1950):8-21
  8. ↑ J. P. V. D. Balsdon, "The Commentariolum Petitions," The Classics Quarterly 13.2 (November 1963): 242-250.
  9. ↑ R. G. M. Nisbet, "The Commentariolum Petitionis: Some Arguments Against Authenticity," The Journal of Roman Studies 19.3 (July 1970): 384-385.
  10. ↑ John S. Richardson, "The 'Commentariolum Petitionis'," Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 20.4 (3rd Qtr., 1971): 436-442.
  11. ↑ William C. McDermott, "Commentariolum Petitionis 2," Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 19.3 (July 1970): 384-385.

Bibliography

Quintus Tullius Cicero: Tipps für einen erfolgreichen Wahlkampf, bilingual ed. by Kai Brodersen, Stuttgart 2013, ISBN   3-15-010924-8

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.