defendi, cujusque ignem illum sempiternum non sum passus aut sanguine civium restingui, aut cum totius urbis incendio commisceri; ut, si in illo paene fato rei publicae objeci meum caput pro vestris caerimoniis atque templis perditissimorum civium furori atque ferro, et si iterum, quum ex mea contentione interitus bonorum omnium quaereretur, vos sum testatus, vobis me ac meos commendavi, meque atque meum caput ea conditione devovi, ut, si et eo ipso tempore et ante in consulatu meo, commodis meis omnibus, emolumentis, praemiis praetermissis, cura, cogitatione, vigiliis omnibus nihil nisi de salute meorum civium laborassem, tum mihi re publica aliquando restituta liceret frui; sin autem mea consilia patriae non profuissent, ut perpetuum dolorem avulsus a meis sustinerem; hanc ego devotionem capitis mei, quum ero in meas sedes restitutus, tum denique convictam esse et commissam putabo. Nam nunc quidem, pontifices, non solum domo, de qua cognoscitis, sed tota urbe careo, in quam videor esse restitutus. Urbis enim celeberrimae et maximae partes adversum illud non monumentum, sed vulnus patriae contuentur. Quem quum mihi conspectum morte magis vitandum fugiendumque esse videatis, nolite, quaeso, eum

Nam nunc quidem ... esse privatum.] Markland could not digest this; and he pointed out the absurdity of the opposition of the urbs tota' and the 'urbis partes.' Such a passage cannot easily be found elsewhere. The Declamator says: "I am deprived not only of my house, but of the whole city to which I am supposed to be restored. For the most frequented and greatest parts (in what sense he does not say) look right in the face, not of that edifice, but of the Patria's wound."-We must here suppose that though he only appeared to be restored, he was in body in the most frequented and greatest parts, and that he was looking from those parts right in the face of the Patria's wound.-For he continues, "and since you see that this is a sight that I ought to shun and fly from worse than death, do not, I pray, allow me to be deprived not only of the honours due to my rank, but also of parts of the citythe most frequented and greatest parts."

Markland, who saw the absurdity of the passage, and said that the man was either stupid or drunk when he wrote it, did not however see the meaning; and Gesner did. The Englishman saw there was nothing in the sentence but absurdity; and he had not patience to get at the meaning of the man. The German found out what the simpleton meant to say; and he admired it.

That is the difference between the two. I
have promised to give no more of Gesner's
notes, but I cannot omit this. It is fair to
show that he understood his writer: "Locus
mihi videtur inter vehementiae oratoriae
specimina referendus. Verba, nam nunc—
restitutus, non ad verbum, sed figura qua-
dam dicta esse, res ipsa clamat: loquitur
enim in Urbe Tullius. Sed nempe caret re
aliqua, qui illa non fruitur; caret urbe, qui
ea non fruitur, qui discedere malit, quam
adesse etc. Satis hoe declarant quae se-
quuntur: Urbis enim celeberrimae et maxi-
mae partes (quibus qui caret, h. e. abstinet,
ne adspectus dolorem moveat) tota Urbe
videtur carere) adversum illud — esse videa-
tis etc. Sermo est de summo cive, qui in
luce, in foro versari vult, si in Urbe sit, qui
se non putet in Urbe esse, Urbem videre,
si in foro esse sine summo dolore et igno-
minia non liceat." Wolf prints the Eng-
lishman's and the German's note.
He says
nothing.

Mommsen thinks that 'partibus' is a glossema. What would the sentence gain by its omission? There is every objection to omitting it, both objections founded on the form of the sentence and our knowledge of the writer's style.

cognoscitis,] M. V., cognostis' P. G.,

Baiter.

cujus reditu restitutam rem publicam fore putastis, non solum dignitatis ornamentis, sed etiam urbis partibus velle esse privatum. LVIII. Non me bonorum direptio, non tectorum excisio, non depopulatio praediorum, non praeda consulum ex meis fortunis crudelissime capta permovet: caduca semper et mobilia haec esse duxi, non virtutis atque ingenii, sed fortunae et temporum munera ; quorum ego non tam facultatem umquam et copiam expetendam putavi quam et in utendo rationem et in carendo patientiam. Etenim ad nostrum usum propemodum jam est definita moderatio rei familiaris; liberis autem nostris satis amplum patrimonium paterni nominis ac memoriae nostrae relinquemus: domo per scelus erepta, per latrocinium occupata, per religionis vim sceleratius etiam aedificata quam eversa, carere sine maxima ignominia rei publicae, meo dedecore ac dolore non possum. Quapropter, si diis immortalibus, si senatui, si populo Romano, si cunctae Italiae, si provinciis, si exteris nationibus, si vobismetipsis, qui in mea salute principem semper locum auctoritatemque tenuistis, gratum et jucundum meum reditum intelligitis esse, quaeso obtestorque vos, ponti

58. Non me ... tectorum excisio permovet... ... non possum.] Markland observes that there is contradiction in this sentence between the beginning and the end; but he concludes that the man meant to say this: "non ceterorum tectorum excisio me permovet: urbana autem domo etc." On which Gesner says: "Vidit sententiam Censor, neque tamen non accusat magnam Scriptoris inadvertentiam, quem docet aliter scribere debuisse. Sed, ut sunt diversa hominum judicia et veluti gustus, puto, si inter Pontifices assiderem, magis motum me fuisse brevitate illa vehementi, quam additis exceptionibus, veris illis qui dem, sed non necessariis et languorem orationi conciliantibus."-"Quid vir doctus Göttingensis sensurus fuisset, si Romae inter Pontifices assedisset, dubitem an ipse divinando assequi potuerit: at certum est (neque de talibus rebus diversa hominum judicia sunt) ei Pontifici non excidere potuisse barbarum vocabulum inadvertentiae quo ne Anglice quidem scribens Marklandus usus erat" (Wolf).

meo, si erit ulla res publica, satis amplum patrimonium relinquam memoriam nominis mei.' The comparison is instructive. We see how Cicero writes, and we see how this man writes: "patrimonium paterni nominis ac memoriae nostrae."

per religionis vim] Markland observes that in c. 42 nomine religionis' is well said; and that vim' and 'speciem' are often opposed, as in Livy (28. c. 24). His conclusion is that the writer said one thing, and meant another. Here we have the answer to Markland. "Quod vim relig. male hic positam ait pro specie et obtentu religionis, in eo vim et divórηra orationis non videtur mihi assecutus. Ut in prima ad Lentulum epistola calumniae religionis posset aliquis forte substituere speciem et obtentum religionis; sed non illud diceret, quod significat simul Cicero, illam speciem niti perversa interpretatione et applicatione carminis Sibyllini: ita hic possis pro vi religionis ponere speciem s. simulationem. At non hoc tantum vult auctor, sed vim hic grassatam esse, quam religionis armaret simulatio" (Gesner). "Polypus Hagnae (Wolf).

expetendam] Some MSS. have 'extendendam' or extendam.' I do not know what authority there is for expetendam,' but it seems to be the word that is wanted, and probably it is the word that was writ-in Senatu dictis.' Accordingly all the

ten.

liberis... patrimonium] Manutius quotes from a letter of Cicero to Coelius: "Filio

vos, pontifices... sententiis restituistis,] Manutius observes that sententiis' means

Pontifices, forvos Pontifices' means 'all Pontifices' were Senators; which we know to be false (De Domo, c. 1, note). It is

fices, ut me, quem auctoritate, studio, sententiis restituistis, nunc, quoniam senatus ita vult, manibus quoque vestris in sedibus meis collocetis.

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

ORATIO DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS.

THE following is from Wolf:

A certain noise had been heard in the parts near Rome, which were called the Ager Latiniensis or Latinensis, the Senate consulted the Haruspices, who answered somewhat as follows:

"Postulationes (postiliones) esse Jovi, Saturno, Neptuno, Telluri, diis caelestibus; expianda autem delicta esse hujusmodi :

"I. Ludos minus diligenter factos pollutosque "II. Loca sacra et religiosa profana haberi, "III. Oratores contra jus fasque interfectos "IV. Fidem et jusjurandum neglectum,

"V. Sacrificia vetusta occultaque minus diligenter facta pollutaque. Monere igitur deos: Ne per optimatium discordiam dissensionemque Patribus principibusque caedes periculaque creentur, auxilioque deminuti deficiantur; qua re ad unum imperium provinciae redeant, exercitusque pulsus deminutioque accedat: ne occultis consiliis respublica laedatur: ne deterioribus repulsisque honos augeatur: ne reipublicae status commutetur" (see c. 19, and the varieties there).

P. Clodius Pulcher, aedilis in B.C. 56, took occasion, when these Responsa were delivered by the Haruspices, to apply to Cicero's house what they had said about sacred places being polluted, this house having been consecrated by Clodius and afterwards restored to Cicero. The orator replied either at that time or at some time to this attack, and he again defended the case of his house, in such way that while he repelled the charges of Clodius, he made the answers of the Haruspices apply to him. As to the Ludi which had been polluted, he said, these could only be the Megalenses, which had lately been celebrated to the great danger of the citizens, owing to a number of slaves having been allowed to enter the Cavea, though free men only were accustomed to have admission to the exhibition. With respect to the Loci Sacri, he

answered that they had nothing to do with his house, which was released from all religious character, but that they related to Seius' house which Clodius was in possession of after having murdered the owner; for there were in that house a sacellum' and altars, which were now treated as common things; and that Clodius' friends too were in the same case, L. Piso who had got possession of the 'sacellum Dianae,' and Sex. Serranus, who had got possession of several 'sacella.'

By the third answer about the Oratores he says, we must understand that the ambassadors Theodosius and Plator were pointed at, of whom Theodosius had been killed by Clodius, and Plator by the treachery of Piso. In the fourth place he observes that the Fides jurisjurandi was meant, which had been broken by the Judices, who acquitted Clodius when he was manifestly guilty of incestus.' And fifthly the wickedness of Clodius was readily recognized in the fact that he had by an abominable crime polluted the Sacrificia of the Bona Dea, the most ancient and mysterious of all the sacrifices.

In like manner the orator explains the warnings from the gods to apply chiefly to Clodius and those like him; and he says that any misfortunes which threaten the city are owing to Clodius' wickedness and rage. In conclusion he apologizes for such a serious and solemn address, and he exhorts the Senate to the careful performance of religious duties.

The strange things which are the chief matter of this speech seem to have happened the year before in the consulship of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus and L. Marcius Philippus (cc. 6, 7). Dion speaking of the events under this year says (39. c. 20): “In the meantime certain wondrous things happened; for on the Alban mountain a small shrine of Juno, which was standing on a table towards the east, turned to the north; and a torch issuing from the south shot to the north; and a wolf came into the city, and there was an earthquake ; and some citizens were killed by lightning, and a noise under ground was heard in the Ager Latinus. The Haruspices wishing to expiate all this said that some deity was angry with them because certain consecrated places were built upon. Clodius on this attacked Cicero violently in a speech, on the ground that he had built upon the area of his house which was dedicated to Libertas; and he once came to the spot with the intention of again destroying it from the foundation, but he did not do it, for Milo prevented him."

Dion says nothing about Cicero having made a speech on this occasion; and it has also been observed that our orator only mentions one of the wonderful things which Dion has recorded, and that is the terrible noise which was heard in the Ager Latiniensis (c. 10).