rusticationesque communes. 104. Nam quid ego de studiis dicam cognoscendi semper aliquid atque discendi, in quibus remoti ab oculis populi, omne otiosum tempus contrivimus? Quarum rerum recordatio et memoria si una cum illo occidisset, desiderium conjunctissimi atque amantissimi viri ferre nullo modo possem. Sed nec illa exstincta sunt alunturque potius et augentur cogitatione et memoria; et si illis plane orbatus essem, magnum tamen afferret mihi aetas ipsa solatium, diutius enim jam in hoc desiderio esse non possum : omnia autem brevia tolerabilia esse debent etiam si magna sunt. Haec habui de amicitia quae dicerem. Vos autem hortor ut ita virtutem locetis,

me clear that it spoils the sense. Seyffert says that he does not understand Klotz's explanation of ⚫ enim ;' nor do I understand Seyffert's note, as I think. This is one of many examples in which a commentator is obscurer than his author.

There was perfect agreement between Scipio and Laelius. Laelius never offended Scipio; at least, he adds, I never discovered that I did; and he never heard a word from Scipio that he would not wish to have heard; not even a word. This seems plain. Seyffert concludes his note with saying that "at any rate the 'enim' is evidence of a very fine psychological tact in Cicero." Probably so; and still finer must be the tact of the man who can discover it.

Nam quid] 'Nam' has not simply the sense of 'for,' in such passages as this. If we choose to render it For why should I speak?' the word 'for' will require explanation as much as 'nam.' The purpose of 'nam' in this passage is to introduce the mention of a thing on which the speaker does

not intend to dwell; and its relation to what precedes is this: after what has been said, the matter introduced by 'nam' requires no particular remark. Comp. De Am. 13, "nam quibusdam,' Seyffert refers to Cic. De Off. (iii. 6) nam illud quidem absurdum" &c. See also Cic. Verr. ii. 1, c. 34,

66

66

&c.

nam quid Milesiis," &c.; ii. 2, c. 66,"nam quid ego de Syracusanis loquar?"

Sed nec illa, &c.] The corresponding clause is "et si illis," &c.

'Nec... et' often stand in this relation (De Am. 20): "nec enim ... et saepe." The ' 'que' after 'aluntur' is properly retained, as Seyffert shows; for, if it were omitted, the correspondence of the two parts of the sentence would be impaired or weakened. Memoria ;] Seyffert.

'Memoria mea :'

sine qua amicitia esse non potest, ut ea excepta nihil amicitia praestabilius putetis.

Putetis.] Many good MSS. have' esse putetis,' a dactylic ending, which Seyffert finds suitable to the circumstances; but about.

this there may be a difference of opinion, especially as 'esse non potest' occurs in this sentence.

AD Q. FRATREM I. 1.

Q. CICERO, the only brother of the orator, M. Tullius Cicero, was probably born B.c. 102, and consequently was four years younger than Marcus. He was taken to Rome with his elder brother by their father, and received a good education after the fashion of the times. In B.C. 79 both the brothers were at Athens. Quintus appears to have accompanied Marcus to Asia and Rhodes, and to have returned to Rome with him B.C. 77. He had not the same aptitude for oratorical and philosophical pursuits as his brother, though he had some taste for literature, and some pretensions to be a poet and a writer of annals. He married Pomponia, the sister of T. Pomponius Atticus, his brother's intimate friend; but Quintus was of a hasty temper and so was his wife; and the union was not happy (Cic. Ad Attic. v. 1; and elsewhere). Marcus. Cicero was praetor B.C. 66, and consul B.C. 63, and in this year Quintus was elected praetor. His year of office was B.C. 62. He was afterwards propraetor of the Roman province of Asia (B.c. 61—59) for three years; and he left his province in B.C. 58, the year in which Marcus went into exile. When he reached Athens on his way home (15th of May), his brother Marcus had crossed the sea and was in Macedonia. Marcus was recalled to Rome in B.C. 57. In B.C. 54 Quintus became a legatus of C. Julius Caesar in Gallia, and he accompanied his commander in his second British

expedition (B.c. 54), and landed with him at Deal on the coast of Kent.

Quintus wrote several letters to Marcus from Britain (Ad Q. Fr. iii. 1 and 3). In the winter of this year (B.C. 54) Quintus was with his legion in the country of the Nervii, and he bravely defended his camp against an unexpected attack of the Gauls, until Caesar came to his help (Caesar, De Bell. Gall. v. 39, &c.). The extant correspondence of Cicero with his brother does not extend beyond the time when he was quartered in the country of the Nervii (Ad Q. Fr. iii. 8) but where the country of the Nervii was, Marcus says that he does not know. The subsequent history of Quintus is not material for the present purpose. He perished in the proscription with his brother B.c. 43.

There are extant three books of the letters of Marcus to Quintus. This, the first of the first book, is less of a etter than an admonitory address. It has more of the character of Cicero's oratorical writings than of his epistolary correspondence, which is easily explained when we see the nature of the subject. Quintus was governor of Asia, the richest of the Roman provinces. We may collect from the letter that he expected to stay only a year in Asia; but Marcus, as the letter shows, had contrived that his brother should have two years, and it happened that he stayed three. He gives some intimation of his motives for this; he seems, as Süpfle says, to have wished that his brother should make amends by a second year's probation for certain hasty proceedings and want of tem

per in his first year. The object of the elder brother was to maintain and strengthen his family in the high rank to which he had raised it, and accordingly to make this governorship of Asia honourable to Quintus and to himself. The Roman province of Asia, which Quintus administered,

comprehended Mysia with the Hellespontus and Troas, Aeolis, Ionia, Doris, Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia (Cicero, Pro Flacco, c. 27); a tract full of rich towns and a cultivated population. The usual residence of the governor was Ephesus. This letter was written B.C. 60, in the consulship of L. Afranius and Caccilius Metellus Celer.

When any part of a Roman writer is read, the main object of the teacher is to explain the language; but for this purpose, it is necessary sometimes to study the matter also. From this letter some notion may be got of the Roman provincial administration. There is little use in boys' reading Roman history in the usual way in a short sketch or outline: they generally get as many false notions as true. If the teacher will take the pains to master well each part of an author that he explains to his pupils, his oral instruction on a subject of limited extent will make more impression on the pupils, and produce better results than the loose reading of the common histories. With the view of helping a teacher or diligent student, I have added a few notes to the text of this letter. I have used the notes in the Variorum edition, and the commentary of P. Manutius; but there is little in them. For this second edition I have also used the notes in K. F. Süpfle's 'M. Tullii Ciceronis Epistolae Selectae,' Karlsruhe, 1849; and I have sometimes found them useful.