manded a part of Pompeius' fleet in B.c. 48 (B. C. iii. 5), but he is not mentioned afterwards. Caius the cousin did not leave Italy during the civil war, and Caesar pardoned him as well as Cicero. When Cicero was again settled at Rome, he wrote to Marcellus (Ad Div. iv. 7, 8, 9) several letters, in which he urged him to return and ask for pardon, but Marcellus refused. Cicero tells how the affair was managed in a letter which he addressed to Servius Sulpicius, then governor of Achaea (B.C. 46). L. Piso, Caesar's father-in-law, spoke of M. Marcellus' case in the senate, C. Marcellus threw himself at Caesar's feet, and all the senate rose and approached Caesar in a suppliant manner. Caesar, after blaming the peevish temper of Marcellus, and speaking highly of Servius Sulpicius, who had been Marcellus' colleague in the consulship, all at once, and contrary to expectation, said that he could not refuse the request of the senate, even though it was Marcellus for whom he was solicited. Cicero adds that this day was so glorious that he imagined that he saw something like the image of the republic restored to life: "Itaque quum omnes ante me rogati gratias Caesari egissent praeter Volcatium-is enim si eo loco esset negavit se facturum fuisse-ego rogatus mutavi meum consilium. Nam statueram non mehercule inertia, sed desiderio pristinae dignitatis in perpetuum tacere. Fregit hoc meum consilium et Caesaris magnitudo animi et senatus officium. Itaque pluribus verbis egi Caesari gratias, meque metuo ne etiam in ceteris rebus honesto otio privarim, quod erat unum solatium in malis. Sed tamen quoniam effugi ejus offensionem, qui fortasse arbitraretur me hanc rem publicam non putare, si perpetuo tacerem, modice hoc faciam aut etiam intra modum ut et illius voluntati et meis studiis serviam" (to Sulpicius). Marcellus wrote a short letter to Cicero (Ad Div. iv. 11) in reply to a letter from C. Marcellus and from Cicero. Drumann describes it as "short and heartless." It is certainly short; but I think that it is a dignified letter, and shows Marcellus to have been a man of firm character. He was in no hurry to come to Rome, and Cicero urged him in another letter (Ad Div. iv. 10), which seems to have been written in B.C. 45. Servius, the proconsul of Achaea, returning on the 23rd of May from Epidaurus to the Piraeus, found Marcellus there on his way to Rome, and he spent the day with Marcellus. On the day but one after this day, Servius, who was going into Boeotia to hold his courts, received information early in the morning that Marcellus had been assassinated in the Piraeus by his friend and companion P. Magius Cilo, that Magius had killed himself, and that there was some hope of Marcellus recovering. Servius set out to the Piraeus, but he found Marcellus dead. The body was burnt in the Academia, and the Proconsul ordered the Athe nians to erect a marble monument to the memory of Marcellus. Servius tells all this to Cicero in a letter (Ad Div. iv. 12). The terms in which this excellent and accomplished man speaks of Marcellus, show that he was esteemed by the best and wisest Roman of the age. Cicero (Brutus, c. 71) says that Marcellus possessed every merit of an orator; on which passage Drumann has this absurd remark: "The letter in which Marcellus informs Cicero of his return to Rome, cannot be taken as evidence of his belonging to the first class of orators." What would some of Cicero's short letters prove, or a single letter, and one of the worst? Why, that he wrote very carelessly, as many men do in their short letters, even those who can write well. F. A. Wolf declared this oration Pro Marcello to be spurious. Since his time the critics have had different opinions about it, but most of them think that it is genuine. Mai published (1817) some fragments of old Scholia on this oration, which fragments may be from the commentary of Asconius; whence some conclude that it is certain that this speech is the genuine work of Cicero, but those who conclude so have got a conclusion ready in their head, and do not derive it from any premises. The conclusion is that the oration which we have was known to this Scholiast, and that is all that we can conclude. The speech Pro Ligario was delivered after the speech Pro Marcello (Pro Ligario, c. 12). Plutarch has a story (Cicero, c. 39) about Caesar and Ligarius, which is this: "It is said also that when Quintus Ligarius was under prosecution, because he had been one of Caesar's enemies, and Cicero was his advocate, Caesar said to his friends, 'What hinders us listening after so long an interval to Cicero's speech, since the man has long been adjudged a villain and an enemy?'" Drumann says there is no sense in this, if Cicero had spoken for Marcellus a few months before, as he really had done; and some critics would translate dià xpórov after some time,' instead of 'after so long an interval,' and if such a translation will help them, there is no objection to it. I do not see the want of sense in Plutarch's remark about the long interval. The speech for Marcellus was a speech of thanks; that for Ligarius was in the nature of a defence. But however people may judge of this matter, we cannot use Plutarch's anecdote as any evidence against the genuineness of the speech for Marcellus. I have not Wolf's remarks on this speech, but Drumann quotes some of them in a long note (Geschichte Roms, Vol. vi. 267), from which we see that they are in the same style as his remarks on the four spurious speeches. "This extant speech," says Drumann, "which was admired by the old critics, is declared by Wolf to be a Declamation of the time of Tiberius. He fights against it with still weaker weapons than against the Four." Real criticism has made little progress in Germany since Wolf's time, and in many respects has gone back. If this great scholar thought that Cicero would not make such a speech as this, it is a conclusion which many men of good judgment and taste will accept. That he either spoke it or wrote it just as it is, I do not believe. That it contains a good deal from Cicero's hand, I also believe; for example, the whole of the last chapter may be his. The conclusion is that Cicero's work was patched by some declamator. Wolf's remark, "Quod saepe hic videmus, non tam singula verba nobis reprehendenda quam universa sententia et compositio," is the judgment of a man of taste. It is the whole which makes the impression. Wolf has found fault with some of the singula verba,' and not always judiciously. Another critic says: "From a misunderstanding of some passages in the ancient writers which refer to this speech, and also from deficient skill in the critical handling of the text, many persons since F. A. Wolf have declared this speech to be spurious; yet after the removal of the corruptions in the text by the aid of criticism, with a right explanation of the extant authorities, and a proper comprehension of the circumstances of the time, no doubt will remain that this speech was written by Cicero exactly as we have it; that it is the best production of Cicero's genius, we would not ourselves maintain" (Klotz). One might suppose from these remarks that Klotz thought Wolf no better than a fool. The faults of the speech, whether it is Cicero's or not, are of the same kind as those in the four spurious orations, though this speech probably contains a much larger proportion of Cicero's genuine language. There are no absolute rules by which the genuineness of any work of art can be determined; but when the eye, the ear, the taste have been trained by the best examples, they may form a correct judgment. In the arts, commonly called the fine arts, there are generally some persons whose judgment in doubtful cases may be accepted. In literature this is not so. On some few works there is a unanimous opinion; but on all others there may be difference of opinion, and every man will have his own. So it must be with this speech. Those who can read and admire it must be content with the pleasure which they get, without complaining that others cannot share it. This speech is edited by Baiter (Orelli's Cicero). The following are the abbreviations of the MSS. G = cod. Gemblacensis, nunc Bruxellensis n. 5345. Ecod. Erfurtensis, nunc Berolinensis. F= cod. Fuldensis, n. 181. 4. C. 20, olim monasterii Weingartensis. cod. Mediceus XLV. Plut. L. saeculi XI. ut fertur. M S = Scholiasta Gronovianus (M. Tullii Ciceronis Schol. P. ii. p. 418). M. TULLII CICERONIS ORATIO PRO M. MARCELLO IN SENATU AD C. CAESAREM. I. DIUTURNI silentii, patres conscripti, quo eram his temporibus usus, non timore aliquo, sed partim dolore, partim verecundia, finem hodiernus dies attulit, idemque initium quae vellem quaeque sentirem meo pristino more dicendi. Tantam enim mansuetudinem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clementiam, tantum in summa potestate rerum omnium modum, tam denique incredibilem sapientiam ac paene divinam tacitus praeterire nullo modo possum. M. enim Marcello vobis, patres conscripti, reique publicae reddito, non illius solum, sed etiam meam vocem et auctoritatem et vobis et rei publicae conservatam ac restitutam puto. Dolebam enim, patres conscripti, et vehementer angebar virum talem, quum in eadem caussa in qua ego fuisset, non in eadem esse fortuna; nec mihi persuadere poteram nec fas esse ducebam versari me in nostro vetere curriculo, illo aemulo atque imitatore studiorum ac laborum meorum quasi quodam socio a me et comite distracto. Ergo et mihi meae pristinae vitae consuetudinem, C. Caesar, interclusam aperuisti, et his omnibus ad bene de omni re publica spe 1. his temporibus] 'not at this time,' but under recent circumstances,' since the battle of Pharsalus.-' verecundia :' from shame.' Patricius says, "qui consilium meum videbam esse eventu ipso refutatum." The Scholiast says: "Quia non audebam apud te loqui, contra quem arma sumpseram;" which is also Manutius' explanation, and the better explanation. angebar fuisset] I have followed ... Baiter. There are various readings, as one might expect in a sentence the form of which might easily be varied. curriculo] A common metaphor. There is an example in the Brutus, c. 6: "ecquod nam curriculum aliquando sit habitura tua et natura admirabilis et exquisita doctrina et singularis industria." He calls Marcellus his rival and imitator in oratory. (See the Introd.) randum quasi signum aliquod sustulisti. Intellectum est enim mihi quidem in multis et maxime in me ipso, sed paullo ante [in] omnibus, quum M. Marcellum senatui populoque Romano concessisti, commemoratis praesertim offensionibus, te auctoritatem hujus ordinis dignitatemque rei publicae tuis vel doloribus vel suspicionibus anteferre. Ille quidem fructum omnis ante actae vitae hodierno die maximum cepit, quum summo consensu senatus, tum [praeterea] judicio tuo gravissimo et maximo: ex quo profecto intelligis quanta in dato beneficio sit laus, quum in accepto tanta sit gloria. Est vero fortunatus ille, cujus ex salute non minor paene ad omnes quam ad ipsum ventura sit laetitia pervenerit: quod quidem ei merito atque optimo jure contigit. Quis enim est illo aut nobilitate aut probitate aut optimarum artium studio aut innocentia aut ullo laudis genere praestantior? II. Nullius tantum flumen est ingenii, nulla dicendi aut scribendi tanta vis, tanta copia, quae non dicam exornare, sed enarrare, C. Caesar, res tuas gestas possit. Tamen affirmo, et hoc pace dicam tua, nullam in his esse laudem ampliorem quam eam quam hodierno die consecutus es. Soleo saepe ante oculos ponere, idque libenter crebris usurpare sermonibus, omnes nostrorum imperatorum, omnes exterarum gentium potentissimorumque populorum, -'nulla:' there is an inferior reading 'nulli.' Most of this chapter is in very bad taste, and most forcibly feeble, like the talk of those whose eloquence is in sounding words only. usurpare] See Index, Vol. iii.—' omnes ... imperatorum:' this was the kind of language Cicero used to employ in his laudations of Cn. Pompeius; but Pompeius was now dead. What he says here is no more than the truth. I do not see why he may not have said it. But the silly sentence Quae quidem ego ... amens sim' he could hardly have written. It is not (Ad |