Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T05:55:45.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comment Ariolum Petitionis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. P. V. D. Balsdon
J. P. V. D. Balsdon
Affiliation:
Exeter College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The Commentariolum Petitionis is not in the Codex Mediceus of Cicero's correspondence with his brother Quintus, but it appears at the end of the letters to Quintus in the other manuscripts. It starts in the normal manner of a letter (QVINTVS MARCO FRATRIS. D.) and is, or purports to be, a collection of tips on canvassing set in the particular context of M. Cicero's consular candidature in 64: a composition of his brother Quintus. It is printed as no. 12 in Tyrrell and Purser's collection of Cicero's Letters.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , December 1963 , pp. 242 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 243 note 1 Ad Fam. 16. 16 (to Marcus); 16. 8, 26, and 27 (to Tiro).Google Scholar

page 248 note 1 R.-E. vii. 672, nos. 5 and 7.Google Scholar

page 248 note 2 Ad Fam. 8. 4. 1; Brutus 277.Google Scholar

page 248 note 3 Asc. In Cornelian. 62 C.

page 248 note 4 Val. Max. 8. 10. 3Google Scholar; Quint. 11. 3. 155.Google Scholar

page 249 note 1 Popilius, Like P., whom the censors evicted from the Senate in 70, Cic. Pro Cluent. 98. And A. Thermus was twice defended successfully by Cicero in 59, a fact known to us only by the purest chance (Pro Flacco 98).Google Scholar

page 249 note 2 Asc. In Cornelian. 62 C.

page 249 note 3 Cass. Dio 36. 44. if.; Plut. Cic. 9. 4–7.Google Scholar

page 249 note 4 The argument of Buecheler, F., Quinti Ciceronis Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1869), p. 39Google Scholar (note on Comm. 19), that Asconius was wrong in thinking that the In toga Candida reference was to Q. Gallius, is singularly unconvincing, and is reasonably disregarded by Mühll, Von der, R.-E. vii. 672, no. 6 (Q. Gallius).Google Scholar