Jump to content

Commentariolum Petitionis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commentariolum Petitionis( "little handbook on electioneering" ), also known asDe petitione consulatus( "on running for the Consulship" ), is an essay supposedly written byQuintus Tullius Cicero,c. 65-64 BC as a guide for his brotherMarcus Tullius Ciceroin his campaign in 64 to be electedconsulof theRoman 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.

Many scholars believe that it was not in fact written by Quintus for the purposes proposed, but in fact by a Roman in the EarlyRoman Empire,between the periods ofAugustusandTrajan,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

[edit]

The text of theCommentariolum Petitionisis not found in theCodex Mediceus,the best source for M. Cicero'sEpistulae ad Familiares(Letters to his Friends). It does appear at the end of theEpistulae ad Quintum Fratrem(Letters to Quintus) in thecodices BerolinensisandHarleianus,althoughHarleianusonly includes sections 1-8 of the 58 sections given in the other manuscripts.[1]

Linguistic arguments

[edit]

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 theCommentariolumis not what was generally being used at the timeCicerowas running for the office ofconsul.The use ofsuffragatoriusin theCommentariolumis ahapax legomenon.There is some strange phrasing such as 'cur ut' and 'fac ut'.
  2. The style of theCommentariolumdoes not match the style ofQuintus.(Hendrickson also claims that the dry style shows that it is a school exercise.[5])
  3. In theCommentariolumthere 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), andOratio 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 thePro Murenacould be due to similar subject matter, the correlations between the extant fragments ofIn Toga Candidaand theCommentariolumare too strong to be ignored. These correlations can be (and are) argued in the opposite direction as well, however; the similarities between theCommentariolumand M. Cicero's later works may be the result of M. Cicero being influenced by the letter from his brother.

Arguments of content

[edit]

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

  1. The faults attributed to Catilina inCommentariolum10 are actually those given to Clodius inDe Haruspicum Responsis42.
  2. The proscription ofC. Antonius Hybridais backdated, and actually occurred in 59.
  3. The trial of Q. Gallius, referenced in theCommentariolum,did not occur until 64, but after theCommentariolum
  4. The author of theCommentariolumwas unaware of the dual meaning ofsodalitas,equally 'group of friends' and an illegal electoral group.
  5. Thehumanitasof Cicero is backdated; it cannot be attributed to him until after his philosophical works (55-44 BC)
  6. There is no mention of theCatilinarian 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 theCommentariolumandDe Haruspicum Responsiscould 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 ofsodalitaswas 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 untilIn Toga Candida,and as such takes its omission as proof of authenticity.

Nisbet adds to the arguments of context the fact that theCommentariolumidentifies 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 theCommentariolumalso corresponds to a section ofIn 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.

References

[edit]
  1. ^J. M. David et al., "Le 'Commentariolum Petitionis' de Quintus Cicéron" inANRW1.3 (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 13.213.2 (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 Studies40.1-2 (1950):8-21
  8. ^J. P. V. D. Balsdon, "The Commentariolum Petitions,"The Classics Quarterly13.2 (November 1963): 242-250.
  9. ^R. G. M. Nisbet, "The Commentariolum Petitionis: Some Arguments Against Authenticity,"The Journal of Roman Studies19.3 (July 1970): 384-385.
  10. ^John S. Richardson, "The 'Commentariolum Petitionis',"Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte20.4 (3rd Qtr., 1971): 436-442.
  11. ^William C. McDermott, "Commentariolum Petitionis 2,"Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte19.3 (July 1970): 384-385.

Bibliography

[edit]

Quintus Tullius Cicero:Tipps für einen erfolgreichen Wahlkampf,bilingual ed. by Kai Brodersen, Stuttgart 2013,ISBN3-15-010924-8

[edit]
Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commentariolum_Petitionis&oldid=1178708591"