IULIUS VICTOR ON CICERO'S DEFENSES "DE REPETUNDIS"

Author(s): Andrew M. Riggsby

Source: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge, 142. Bd., H. 3/4 (1999), pp. 427-429
Published by: J.D. Sauerländers Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41234394
Accessed: 03-12-2015 08:51 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

J.D. Sauerländers Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rheinisches Museum für
Philologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.201.208.22 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:51:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Miszellen 427

geumhierzweimalvorkommt23, je einmalfürdie beidenvonSavagnerundHey

schonerfaßten Wortfunktionen.
grammatischen Weitentferntdavon,einenBeweis
dasZeugnisvonPaulusdazubei,ihreAuffassung24
trägtdennoch
darzustellen, zu
stützen.

Hamburg Paolo Pieroni

23) Daß Paulusauchanderswo, (121,9-10L.) undorba

z.B. bei matertera
(195,8-9L.), die gegliederten festinischenStichwörterspaltet,umdie Teileabzu-
sondernundhervorzuheben, die er fürden Leserfürbesondersbemerkenswert
hält,ist schonbeobachtet worden:vgl.R. Cervani,L'epitomedi Paolo del ,De
verborum di PompeoFesto.Struttura
significatu' e metodo,Roma1978,138-139.
DiesmalwirdaberauchderbeiFestusvorhandene Gegenbeleg angeführt, alsob die
Gründlichkeit derUmdeutung es indenAugendesPaulusnotwendig machte, auch
dieStelledesVorkommens zu zitieren.
24) Welcheübrigens von Dacenus - und vor ihmvon Scaliger- schon
vertreten wurde,derin seiner1699in Amsterdam erschienenen kommentierten
Ausgabedes festinischen Auszugszur Stelleschrieb:„Mirumquamgraviter hic
errarunt et Festuset alii qui cumeo noegeumcandidum interpretantur. Nam in
versuLiviivox noegeononreferetur ad oresed ad detersit
(. . .) Ñeque aliudest
noegeum quamamiculum praetextum purpura".

IULIUS VICTOR ON CICERO'S DEFENSES

DE REPETUNDIS

Thisnotehastwoobjectives: to clarifytheoriginal provenanceofa Cicero-

nianfragment preserved bytherhetoricianIuliusVictorandto establish thestatus
ofa particularpoliticalargumentin Cicero'sdefenses de repetundis.
InproFonteioCiceroarguesthatan acquittal is demanded on national secu-
ritygrounds.If provincial governors haveto worrytoo muchabouta potential
prosecution de repetundis theirtermin office,
after thentheirauthorityin dealing
withsupposedly subjectpeopleswillbe fatally weakened(Font.16-17,cf.33-6,
thedefensecouldhavemadethisclaimin virtually
49). In principle anycase de
repetundis,andithasbeensuggested thatinpractice itmayhavebeena common-
it has beenclaimedthat,in additionto itsuse inproFonteio,
place.In particular
Ciceroalsoemployed itinproFiaccoas well.1Ifso itwouldhavefallensomewhere
inthelacunabetween sections5 and6 ofthelatterspeech.Theevidence is a passage
oftherhetorician IuliusVictorin thesectiondeprincipiis ofhisArsRhetorical
Licet etiamprincipalesquaestionesin principiopraecerpere,sed prae-
cursusolo atque tactu,ut de hisquaeri videatur,quomodopro Fiacco et
{pro)2 FonteioMarcus Tullius,(nihilagi ilio iudicio,nisiut magistratus

1) AlexanderKurke,Themeand Adversarial Presentationin Cicero'spro

Fiacco,diss.University
ofMichigan,AnnArbor1989,160-1.
2) OrdinaryLatinusagewouldseemto demandMai'ssupplement of (pro),
and thetextualtradition as here,on a singleMS) leavesout
(largelydependent,

This content downloaded from 146.201.208.22 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:51:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
428 Miszellen

inprovindisnon audeant imperaresociis,quod ex usu reipublicaesit.'

(p.70.12-15G-C = 423.10-12H)
The questionis whether to takenihil. . . sitwithjust(pro) Fonteioor withboth
speeches.Nowhereelse does Victorgive two citationsfollowedby a single
example, so thereareno directparallelsto consider. His usualpracticeis to givea
rule,then(optionally)a citation,thenoneormoreexamples. In thetwoothercases
wheretherearemultiple citations(24.26-8,93.13-4G-C), thereareno examples.
In cases wherethereare multipleexamplesfollowinga singlecitation(e.g.:
35.13-19,75.7-13G-C), theexamples arenotnecessarily allfromthecitedsource.
Thusthereneednotbe a tight connection between citationsandquotations. While
the segment thatthe mostrecenteditors,Giominiand Celentano,put within
quotation marksis nota directquotation ofanysurviving passageofCicero,Victor
commonly paraphraseswholesectionsof a Ciceronian orationintoone or two
sentences ofindirectdiscourse.3In sucha paraphrase, thesingularilioindiciopoints
to a singlespeech,notboth.
Thusonemight beinclined toacceptMüller'ssuggestion thatthispassageis a
paraphrase ofproFonteio17 andonlyofthatpassage:
Dubitabitisetiamdiutius,indices,quin illud quod initiovobisproposui
verissimumsit, aliud per hoc indiciumnihil agi nisi ut M. Fonteio
oppressotestimoniiseorumquibus multareipublicae causa invitissimis
imperatasunt,segnioresposthacad imperandumceterisint,cumvidea-
tiseos oppugnarequibus victoribuspopuli Romani imperiumincolume
essenonpossiti
Morelikely, however,istheviewofSchneider thatthefragment
is a paraphraseofa
passagefrom thebeginning ofthespeech(nowlost),andthatthatpassageis thelost
segment to which§ 17 claimsto refer
{quodinitiovobisproposui).5
SinceVictoris
discussingprincipianot onlyin thisspecificpassagebut in the entiresection
(pp.67-71G-C),andsince§ 17itself refers
backtothebeginningofthespeech,this

individual
wordsquitefrequently. It mightbe arguedthatin theonlypotential
passageinIuliusVictor(105.22G-C) thesecondpreposition
parallel is ellipsed:in
epistolisTullianisad Atticumet Axium. However, it could also be claimedthatad
Atticum and ad Axiumare not truetitlesand thusnot trueparallels.Neither
reading seemsto beardirectly
on theargument here.
3) Examplesinclude12.6-8G-C (»Mil. 87, 92), 34.18-19(» Caec. 24),
35.21-2(«Verr. 2.2.18),36.7-9(«Marc. 6), and69.22-3(«Caecil. 1).
4) C.Müller,Zu CicerosFragmenten, Philologus20 (1863)519 makesthe
claimwithout argument, andT. B. L. Webster'seditionofproFiacco(Oxford1931)
ad 4.3 acceptsMüller'sclaim,againwithoutcomment. Giominiand Celentano's
editionof Victor(Leipzig1980)p. 70 assertsthatit is unbelievable thatCicero
shouldhaveusedthesamewordsin twodifferent speeches.Butif,as seemsclear,
thisis a paraphrase,
thenthatargument is lesspowerful:Cicerodoesuse highly
similarversions ofthesametopos(e.g.Mur.35-6 « Plane.12; Plane.68 « Red.
Pop.23 ~ de Off.2.69).The singular iudicioperhapsprovides a better
argument.
Halm suggests thatthepassagereflects lostportionsof theproFonteioandpro
Fiacco.
5) A. bchneider, inCiceronis
C^uaestionum proM. ronteioorationemcapita
quattuor, diss. Leipzig1876,42-3. Schneider
is followedby Fr.Schoellin his
editionoí proFonteio(Leipzig1923)p.23b. Giominiand Celentanoincorrectly
Müller'sviewto Schoell.
attribute

This content downloaded from 146.201.208.22 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:51:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Miszellen 429

solutionmustbe correct.6In thiscase§17 andtheearlier passagewouldpresum-

ablysharesimilarwording.In eithercase Victor'sparaphrase wouldbe ofpro
Fonteioonly;proFiaccowouldonlyfitunderthegeneral ofspeeches
rubric whose
hintedat theirlaterthemes.
principia Furthermore, theargument neverappearsin
theextantportionsofpro Fiacco,notevenin theconclusion. Thus thereis no
reasonto suspectthatitwas usedat all in thatspeech.
internal
Takinga broader viewoftheargument, we maytakebriefnoticeofthefew
otherpassageswhichmightalso makefeara policyissue.AmongCicero'sother
-
repetundaedefenses-pro Scauro,proRabirioPostumo,orpro Fiacco 1 havefound
pointthanFont.16-17.InproScarnoCicero
andallmakea fardifferent
onlythree,
says (§17): Agmen tu mihi inducas Sardorumet catervaset me non criminibus
urgere,sed Ajrorumfremituterrere conere?His immediateobject, of course,is a
sweeping attackon thecredibility Cicerogoeson to suggest
of theSardinians; a
conspiracyin section20. It is justpossiblethatAfrorum fremituterrereconere
couldalsolookto an argument abouttheauthorityofprovincial
governors.How-
ever,theintendedtargetoffearis Cicerohimself is con-
{me).Thisinterpretation
si erunt. . . positaet
firmedlaterin thespeech(§21): quae {fundamentadefensionis]
constituía,nullamaccusationispartempertimescam.That is, the alleged fearis (in
bothcases)Cicero'sanxiety overbeingdefeated bytheprosecution. Thisis nota
question ofpublicpolicy.Earlierinthesamespeech,Cicerorefers tofearproduced
bytheconviction ofP. Rutilius Rufus,butthereitis theequestrian jurythatis at
issue(§ 2). Thisis a policyquestion,butithasnothing todo withresrepetundae or
provincial government. Thustheargument ofproFonteiothatanacquittal is neces-
saryto maintain Romanauthority appearsto be an isolatedinstance.
Therelative rarity ofthisargumentis particularly
strikingsince,as we have
noted,itis inprinciple universally Theproblem
applicable. maybe thatitsuniver-
sal applicabilityis too obvious,andthisreducesitspersuasive force.The Romans
tendto avoidthe"reverse argument fromprobability," apparently forthesame
reason.7 Thatis,anytimetheopposition makesan argument fromprobability (e.g.
"You musthavestarted thefightforyouarethestronger") a counter-argument like
"As thestronger party, I wouldnothavestarted thefight, forI wouldhaveknown
thatI wouldbe thelogicalsuspect"is automatically available.
Nonetheless Cicero
doesnotusereversals ofthissort.This,we maysuspect, wasbecausetheaudience
knewas wellas hedidthatsuchan argument wouldalwaysbe available. Similarly,
Ciceroalso deniesthevalidity of universalracialarguments inproScauro(§39):
neque ego Sardorumquerellisdicomoverinos numquamoportere.In thisspeechhe
of theSardias a group(§§42, 44-5), buthe
does in factattackthecredibility
undercuts his own argument by makingqualificationslikethisone. Againthe
explanation universal
mustbe thata transparently argument hence
is unpersuasive;
Ciceromustclaim(falsely)thathecouldnotemploytheracialargument injustany
caseinvolving theSardi.Neitherabsoluteracialargumentsnorreversearguments
from probabilitynorthegovernor's-authority
argumentarepersuasivesinceallcan
clearlybe employed anycase.
invirtually
Texas
Austin, Andrew M. Riggsby

6) We haveonlyfragments (albeitsomelargeones)fromvarioussourcesfor
thebeginning ofthespeech(up to § 11).Cicerois alreadyarguing thecaseinsome
detailat thebeginning of thefirstlongfragment (§ 1), so we seemto havelost
virtuallyall oftheprincipium.
7) beeA. M. Kiggsby,Appropriation andReversalas a Basistoruratoncai
Proof,CPh 90 (1995)253.

This content downloaded from 146.201.208.22 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:51:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions