Letter · November 46 BC · ut

Ad Familiares 9.21

Ad Familiares 9.21

Headnote

Cicero to L. Papirius Paetus, written at Rome around the prior intercalary month of 46 BC — Perseus: ut videtur, circ.~m.~intercal.~pr.~a.~708 (46). In Caesar’s calendar reform year, 46 had two intercalary months inserted between November and December to bring the civil year back into line with the seasons; “intercalaris prior” refers to the earlier of those, so the letter falls in late 46. Metadata note: the meta/works.yaml entry carries a year-precision placeholder of -0046-10-26; the true Perseus dating is the prior intercalary month of 46 BC, which falls after the ordinary calendar year’s end. The entry should be revised to year-or-month precision when the metadata is consolidated.

Three short sections, two registers braided together. The first is a small theory of letter-writing, dropped in answer to Paetus’s confession that he goes mad trying to imitate the “thunderbolts” (fulmina) of Cicero’s words — Cicero swats it back with self-deprecation: you would only be mad if you could not pull it off, and as it is you outdo me; you need not Trabea’s tag but only an apoteugma of mine, a “misfire.” He then articulates the principle plainly: a letter has nothing in common with a court-speech or a public address; even private suits are spun finer than capital cases. Letters, he says, cotidianis verbis texere solemus — we weave from everyday words. The second and third sections are an antiquarian set-piece: Paetus has claimed somewhere that no Papirius was ever anything but plebeian, and Cicero deluges him with patrician Papirii — Mugillanus the censor (in 312 a.u.c., when, he notes, “you used to be called Papisii”), the line down to L. Papirius Crassus and the dictator with Papirius Cursor as master of the horse, the Massones — and then with a parade of Carbones, each more disreputable than the last (prosecuted, exiled, suspected of poisoning Africanus, killed by Pompey at Lilybaeum, and a father acquitted only “by shoemaker’s blacking,” sutorio atramento absolutus, an idiom whose exact bite has been variously taken — either by suicide before verdict or by literal black ink), capped with the dry motion: ad patres censeo revertare — go back to the patricians; you see how the plebeians have been a graceless lot.

Do you really mean it? You think yourself out of your mind because you imitate, as you write, the “thunderbolts” of my words? You would be out of your mind if you could not do it; but as it is, since you actually outdo me, you should be laughing at me sooner than at yourself. So you have no need of that tag from Trabea — rather, of a misfire apoteugma of my own. But for all that, what do I look like to you in letters? Am I not talking with you in plebeian speech? After all, I do not always do it in the same style. For what has a letter in common with a court-speech or a public address? Why, even our court-cases we do not handle in any one way. Private suits, and those of slight stake, we conduct in a finer-spun style; cases of life or reputation more ornately, of course. Letters, on the other hand, we usually weave from everyday words.
ain tandem? insanire tibi videris, quod imitere verborum meorum, ut scribis, ’fulmina’? tum insanires, si consequi non posses; cum vero etiam vincas; me prius inrideas quam te oportet. qua re nihil tibi opus est illud a Trabea, sed potius a)po/teugma meum. verum tamen quid tibi ego videor in epistulis? nonne plebeio sermone agere tecum? nec enim semper eodem modo. quid enim simile habet epistula aut iudicio aut contioni? quin ipsa iudicia non solemus omnia tractare uno modo. privatas causas et eas tenuis agimus subtilius, capitis aut famae scilicet ornatius; epistulas vero cotidianis verbis texere solemus.
But for all that, my dear Paetus, what came into your head to deny that any Papirius was ever anything but plebeian? For there were patricians of the lesser clans, of whom the chief was L. Papirius Mugillanus, who was censor with L. Sempronius Atratinus, having earlier been consul with the same colleague, in the three hundred and twelfth year after the founding of Rome; though in those days you used to be called Papisii. After him there were thirteen who held the curule chair before L. Papirius Crassus, who was the first to leave off being called Papisius. This man was made dictator, with L. Papirius Cursor as his master of the horse, in the four-hundred-and-fifteenth year after the founding of Rome, and four years afterwards he was consul with K. Duilius. After him followed Cursor himself, a very much honoured man; then L. Masso, holder of the aedileship; from him came many Massones. Of all of these — patricians, every one — I should like you to have the ancestor-masks. After them the Carbones and the Turdi come into the line.
sed tamen, mi Paete, qui tibi venit in mentem negare Papirium quemquam umquam nisi plebeium fuisse? fuerunt enim patricii minorum gentium, quorum princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus, qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit, cum ante consui cum eodem fuisset, annis post R. c. cccxii; sed tum Papisii dicebamini. post hunc xiii fuerunt sella curuli ante L. Papirium Crassum, qui primum Papisius est vocari desitus. is dictator cum L. Papirio Cursore magistro equitum factus est annis post Romam conditam ccccxv et quadriennio post consui cum K. Duilio. hunc secutus est Cursor, homo valde honoratus; deinde L. Masso aedilicius; inde multi Massones. quorum quidem tu omnium patriciorum imagines habeas volo. deinde Carbones et Turdi insequuntur.
These were plebeians; whom I move that you despise; for, apart from this Gaius Carbo whom Damasippus killed, there was no Carbo who was a citizen of any use to the commonwealth. We knew Gnaeus Carbo, and his brother the buffoon; what was more worthless than they? About this present friend of mine, Rubria’s son, I say nothing. There were three brothers in that line — Gaius, Gnaeus, and Marcus Carbo. Marcus, prosecuted by P. Flaccus, was condemned, a great thief, out of Sicily; Gaius, with L. Crassus prosecuting, is said to have taken cantharides; he was both a seditious tribune of the plebs and was thought to have laid violent hands on Publius Africanus. As for the one who was put to death at Lilybaeum by our Pompey, no one in my judgement was more worthless. His father, indeed, prosecuted by M. Antonius, is reputed to have been acquitted by means of shoemaker’s blacking. Wherefore I move you go back to the patricians; you see how the plebeians have been a graceless lot.
hi plebeii fuerunt; quos contemnas censeo; nam praeter hunc C. Carbonem, quem Damasippus occidit, civis e re p. Carbonum nemo fuit. cognovimus Cn. Carbonem et eius fratrem scurram; quid iis improbius? de hoc amico meo, Rubriae filio, nihil dico. tres illi fratres fuerunt, C., Cn., M. Carbones. Marcus P. Flacco accusante condemnatus, fur magnus, ex Sicilia; Gaius accusante L. Crasso cantharidas sumpsisse dicitur. is et tr. pl. seditiosus et P. Africano vim attulisse existimatus est. hoc vero, qui Lilybaei a Pompeio nostro est interfectus, improbior nemo meo iudicio fuit. iam pater eius accusatus a M. Antonio sutorio atramento absolutus putatur. qua re ad patres censeo revertare; plebeii quam fuerint importum vides.

Cite this passage

Ad Familiares 9.21

Pick a format and click Copy. The permalink jumps any reader to this exact section.

Support this project

Free to read here. Buy the ebook to support the work.

Kindle