Ad Atticum 4.16
Ad Atticum 4.16
Headnote
Cicero to Atticus, written from Rome in late June or early July 54 BC — the Perseus dateline gives “end of June or in Quintilis 700 (54).” Atticus, having left Rome later than planned (as 4.14 already complained), has now sailed across the Adriatic and through Epirus, sent a flurry of short notes back from Buthrotum, and is on his way further east into Asia. Cicero opens by signaling his own pressure of business — the letter is dictated to a secretary — and works methodically through the substantive letter Paccius brought him: the introduction of Paccius into Cicero’s intimate circle on Atticus’s word, and then the long question Atticus has been pressing about De Re Publica.
Sections 2 and 3 are the rarest thing in the correspondence: Cicero on his own compositional method, mid-draft. He explains why Varro cannot simply be inserted as a speaker into a dialogue whose dramatic date is fixed in the previous century (the cast is Africanus, Philus, Laelius, Manilius, with the younger Tubero, Rutilius, Scaevola, and Fannius), and floats the alternative of a dedicatory proem in the manner of Aristotle’s exoteric works. He then defends, against Atticus’s objection, the disappearance of the elder Scaevola after Book 1 by direct appeal to Plato’s handling of Cephalus in the Republic — “our divine Plato.” From section 4 the letter turns to the familiar Roman bulletin: legal news about C. Cato’s serial acquittals, the bringing of Drusus and Scaurus to trial, the shaky senatus consultum on provinces, and the deadlocked consular field — Messalla, Scaurus, Domitius, Memmius — in which Caesar’s soldiers, Pompey’s Gaul, and the threat of pushing the elections into Caesar’s return all already figure as ordinary political currency. The letter closes with a gentle but real scolding for Atticus’s decision to extend the journey to Asia rather than sending agents in his place.
Even the fact that this letter is in my secretary’s hand will be a sign of how busy I am. I do not reproach you about the frequency of your letters; but most of them only told me where you were, or at most indicated that you were well, by the very fact that they came from you. Of that kind, the two that delighted me most were written from Buthrotum at almost the same time, since I wanted to know that you had had a smooth voyage. So this run of letters delighted me not so much by its fullness as by its frequency. The one substantial letter, full of matter, was the one that your guest-friend M. Paccius delivered to me. To that I shall reply, then; and this first of all. To Paccius, in calculation and in words and in deed, I have made plain what weight your commendation carries. Accordingly he is now among my close intimates, though previously he had not even been an acquaintance.
occupationum mearum vel hoc signum erit quod epistula librari manu est. de epistularum frequentia te nihil accuso, sed pleraeque tantum modo mihi nuntiabant ubi esses, vel etiam significabant recte esse, quod erant abs te. quo in genere maxime delectarunt duae fere eodem tempore abs te Buthroto datae. scire enim volebam te commode navigasse. sed haec epistularum frequentia non tam ubertate sua quam crebritate delectavit. illa fuit gravis et plena rerum quam mihi M. Paccius, hospes tuus, reddidit. ad eam rescribam igitur et hoc quidem primum. Paccio ratione et verbis et re ostendi quid tua commendatio ponderis haberet. itaque in intimis est meis, cum antea notus non fuisset.
Now I will go on to the rest. Varro, about whom you write to me, shall be worked in at some place, if only there is a place for him. But you know the way my dialogues go. Just as in the books on the orator, which you praise to the skies, no one could be mentioned by the speakers except a man known to them or heard by them, so this discussion on the commonwealth which I have set on foot I have assigned to the persons of Africanus and Philus and Laelius and Manilius. I have added some younger men, Q. Tubero, P. Rutilius, the two sons-in-law of Laelius, Scaevola and Fannius. So I have been thinking, since in the separate books I am using proems in the way Aristotle does in the works he calls exoteric exōterikous, to contrive some way of bringing him in not without reason — which I gather is what you want. If only I can carry out what I have undertaken! For, as you are well aware, I have taken on a subject great and weighty and demanding the fullest leisure, and leisure is exactly what I am most in want of.
nunc pergam ad cetera. Varro, de quo ad me scribis, includetur in aliquem locum, si modo erit locus. sed nosti genus dialogorum meorum. ut in oratoriis, quos tu in caelum fers, non potuit mentio fieri cuiusquam ab iis qui disputant, nisi eius qui illis notus aut auditus esset, ita hanc ego de re publica quam institui disputationem in Africani personam et Phili et Laeli et Manili contuli. adiunxi adulescentis Q. Tuberonem, P. Rutilium, duo Laeli generos, Scaevolam et Fannium. itaque cogitabam, quoniam in singulis libris utor prohoemiis ut Aristoteles in iis quos ἐξωτερικοὺσ vocat, aliquid efficere ut non sine causa istum appellarem; id quod intellego tibi placere. utinam modo conata efficere possim! rem enim, quod te non fugit, magnam complexus sum et gravem et plurimi oti, quo ego maxime egeo.
As for the fact that in those books you praise you miss the character of Scaevola, I did not move him out of the way casually — I did what our divine Plato did in his Republic Politeia(i). When Socrates had come down to Cephalus, the wealthy and genial old man, in the Piraeus, the old gentleman is present in the conversation only while that first exchange is being held; then, after he too has spoken very gracefully, he says he wants to leave to attend to a sacred rite, and never afterward returns. I suppose Plato thought it would scarcely be in keeping if he had kept a man of that age in so long a conversation any further. Much more, I judged, was the same caution called for in Scaevola, who was of the age and the state of health you remember him to have been, and held offices such that it would hardly have seemed proper for him to be at Crassus’s Tusculan villa for many days running. And the conversation of the first book was not foreign to Scaevola’s pursuits; the remaining books carry technical exposition technologian, as you know. For these I really did not want that jocular old gentleman, as you knew him, to sit in.
quod in iis libris quos laudas personam desideras Scaevolae, non eam temere dimovi sed feci idem quod in πολιτείᾳ deus ille noster Plato. cum in Piraeum Socrates venisset ad Cephalum, locupletem et festivum senem, quoad primus ille sermo habetur, adest in disputando senex, deinde cum ipse quoque commodissime locutus esset, ad rem divinam dicit se velle discedere neque postea revertitur. credo Platonem vix putasse satis consonum fore si hominem id aetatis in tam longo sermone diutius retinuisset. multo ego magis hoc mihi cavendum putavi in Scaevola, qui et aetate et valetudine erat ea qua eum esse meministi et iis honoribus ut vix satis decorum videretur eum pluris dies esse in Crassi Tusculano. et erat primi libri sermo non alienus a Scaevolae studiis, reliqui libri τεχνολογίαν habent, ut scis. huic ioculatorem senem illum, ut noras, interesse sane nolui.
As for the matter of Pilia which you write about, I will see to it. The case is in fact a splendid one, on Aurelianus’s evidence, as you write. And in handling it I shall recommend myself to my dear Tullia as well. Vestorius I am not failing. For I see that this is welcome to you, and I take care that he sees it too. But you know how he is? When he has two easy options, nothing is more difficult.
Now for what you ask about C. Cato. Under the Lex Junia and Licinia (a law on legislative procedure) he has been acquitted, as you know; under the Lex Fufia I forecast to you he will be acquitted, and not with his counsel any more willing than his prosecutors. He has, however, made up with me and with Milo. Drusus has been brought to trial by Lucretius. The day for striking the panel of jurors has been set for the fifth day before the Nones of Quintilis. About Procilius the rumor is bad; but you know what verdicts are like. Hirrus is now in favor with Domitius. The senatorial decree which these consuls have passed about the provinces — “whosoever hereafter\,” — does not seem to me likely to hold.
nunc ad ea quae quaeris de C. Catone. lege Iunia et Licinia scis absolutum; Fufia ego tibi nuntio absolutum iri neque patronis suis tam libentibus quam accusatoribus. is tamen et mecum et cum Milone in gratiam rediit. Drusus reus est factus a Lucretio. iudicibus reiciendis dies est dictus a. d. v Non. Quint. de Procilio rumores non boni, sed iudicia nosti. Hirrus cum Domitio in gratia est. senatus consultum quod hi consules de provinciis fecerunt quicumque posthac — non mihi videtur esse valiturum.
As for what you ask about Messalla — I do not know what to write. Never have I seen candidates so evenly matched. Messalla’s resources you know. Scaurus has been brought to trial by Triarius. If you ask me, no great fellow-feeling sympatheia has been stirred up; still, his aedileship is remembered not unfavorably, and his father’s memory carries weight with the country voters. The remaining two plebeian candidates are so evenly balanced that Domitius is strong in friends but helped not a little by his thoroughly popular gift to the people, while Memmius is recommended by Caesar’s soldiers and relies on Pompey’s Gaul. If these supports fail him, they think there will be some man to push the elections off into Caesar’s return — especially with Cato acquitted.
de Messalla quod quaeris, quid scribam nescio. numquam ego vidi tam paris candidatos. Messallae copias nosti. Scaurum Triarius reum fecit. si quaeris, nulla est magno opere commota συμπάθεια, sed tamen habet aedilitas eius memoriam non ingratam et est pondus apud rusticos in patris memoria. reliqui duo plebeii sic exaequantur ut Domitius valeat amicis adiuvetur tamen non nihil gratissimo munere, Memmius Caesaris commendetur militibus, Pompei Gallia nitatur. quibus si non valuerit, putant fore aliquem qui comitia in adventum Caesaris detrudat, Catone praesertim absoluto.
I have answered the Paccian letter. Now suffer yourself to be scolded, if I am within my rights. For in the letter which C. Decimius brought me, written from Buthrotum, you write that you think you must go on into Asia. By Hercules, it seemed to me that there was nothing in it of such small consequence as whether you handled the business through agents or in person, that you should be away from your own people so often and so far. But I would have preferred to plead this with you while the matter was still open, for then I should certainly have got something done. Now I will hold back the scolding I had taken up. May it prove of use, at least, in hastening your return! I write to you the less often for this reason — that I do not know for certain where you are or where you will be; this letter, however, I thought I had to entrust to the bearer, whoever he is, since it looked as though he might see you. Since you now think you must go on to Asia, please let me know at what time we may expect you, and what you have done about Eutychides.
Paccianae epistulae respondi. nunc te obiurgari patere, si iure. scribis enim in ea epistula quam C. Decimius mihi reddidit Buthroto datam in Asiam tibi eundum esse te arbitrari. mihi me hercule nihil videbatur esse in quo tantulum interesset utrum per procuratores ageres an per te ipsum, ut a tuis totiens et tam longe abesses. sed haec mallem integra re tecum egissem, profecto enim aliquid egissem. nunc reprimam susceptam obiurgationem. utinam valeat ad celeritatem reditus tui! ego ad te propterea minus saepe scribo quod certum non habeo ubi sis aut ubi futurus sis; huic tamen nescio cui, quod videbatur isti te visurus esse, putavi dandas esse litteras. tu quoniam iturum te in Asiam esse putas, ad quae tempora te exspectemus facias me certiorem velim et de Eutychide quid egeris.