We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
It was in January or February of 54 B.C., to judge by his brother's extant letters, that Quintus Cicero left for Gaul to serve as a legatus in Caesar's army. By June he was already wondering whether or not to return. Cicero urbanely replied to him late in July (QF II, 15. 2–3):
‘Verum attende nunc, mi optime et suavissime frater, ad ea dum rescribo quae tu in hac eadem brevi epistula πραγματικѽς valde scripsisti. De quo petis ut ad te nihil occultans, nihil dissimulans, nihil tibi indulgens ingenue fraterneque rescribam, id est, utrum <ad>voles, ut dixeramus, <an> ad expediendum te, si causa sit, commorere. Si, mi Quinte, parva aliqua res esset in qua sciscitarere quid vellem, tamen, cum tibi permissurus essem ut faceres quod velles, ego ipse quid vellem ostenderem; in hac vero re hoc profecto quaeris, cuius modi illum annum qui sequitur exspectem. Plane aut tranquillum nobis aut certe munitissimum … [he goes on to refer to his own popularity, the gratia of Caesar and Pompey, and Clodius' powerlessness] … Haec ita sentio, iudico, ad te explorate scribo; dubitare te non adsentatorie sed fraterne veto. Qua re suavitatem equidem nostrae fruendae causa cuperem te ad id tempus venire quod dixeras, sed illud malo tamen quod putas magis e 〈re〉 tua; illa enim magni aestimo, ἀμφιλαφίαν illam tuam et explicationem debitorum tuorum …’
1 References to Cicero's letters ad Quintum fratrem are according to the numeration of Watt's Oxford text (1958), which is also followed in quotations except where otherwise stated. Dates are according to the pre-Julian calendar, which in 54 B.C. was about four weeks ahead of the sun.
The final version of this article owes much to constructive criticisms passed on an earlier draft by Mr. Meiggs, Mr. Frederiksen and Professor Badian.
2 Fam. VII, 5, 2; 16, 3, etc.; 13, 1 ‘puto te malle a Caesare consuli quam inaurari’.
3 QF III, 1, 17.
4 Emendation by Bailey, Shackleton, JRS XLV (1955), 38.Google Scholar Watt reads ‘quam petimus: reliqua’, etc.
5 He wrote in similar terms to Atticus about the same time—Att. IV, 17, 1.
6 QF II, 16, 1; III, 1, 1; Asc. 29 C; Plut., Cato min. 44, 1 (Cato dispensed judgment as praetor without tunic or shoes !). QF III, 3, 1 for Cicero defending cases every day during October.
7 e.g. comm.pet. 38, 54 (‘vitare offensionem’), etc.
8 QF III, 1, 12; cf. 5, 3 on Caesar's offer of honores to Cicero: ‘vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore, quasi id quod non postulo exspectem.’
9 Cicéron, Correspondance, tome III (Budé: Paris, 1950), 257: ‘on a l'impression que Cicéron attend de l'amitié de César quelque chose comme le consulat pour Quintus ou un second consulat pour lui-même.’ Cicero's language seems to rule out the second alternative; although he did have his own hopes of Caesar's bounty (QF III, 5, 3, previous note), they will not have been as definite as Quintus’. Fam. VII, 1, 4, on the obsolescence of Cicero's own ambitio, may, however, be disingenuous.
10 QF III, 3, 2; 6, 3; 7, 3; Att. IV, 17, 3; cf. QF III, 1, 16; Att. IV, 16, 6 for Cicero's support of Messalla. Compare Att. I, 1, 2 on the consuls of 64.
11 The postponement was foreseen in June (Att. IV, 16, 6; cf. QF II, 14, 3) and considered probable in July (Att. IV, 15, 7).
12 Att. IV, 17, 2 and 5; 18, 3; QF III, 2, 3; 3, 2.
13 QF III, 3, 2 (‘causae sunt difficiles’); Att. IV, 17, 5(‘quid poteris, inquies, pro iis dicere?’).
14 QF III, 1, 20.
15 QF III, 4, 6; Att. IV, 18, 4 (‘negant enim latum de imperio, et est latum hercule insulse’); Dio XXXIX, 65. Note also Taylor, , Athenaeum XLII (1964), 12–29Google Scholar, esp. 22 ff., on Cicero's defence of Plancius in August or September: Plancius was a protégé of Crassus, and Cicero had to tread carefully to avoid offending the boni (ibid., pp. 25–7).
16 QF III, 1, 11; II, 15, 3.
17 Att. IV, 17, 3: ‘dices: tamen tu non quiescis ? Ignosce, vix possum.’
18 QF II, 16, 1.
19 QF III, 2, 2: ‘o di! nihil umquam honorificentius nobis accidit.’
20 QF III, 2, 2; 3, 3; 4, 2–3; 7, 1; Att. IV, 18, 1 (Cicero contented himself with testifying—gravissime—against Gabinius).
21 Rab. Post. 34, Dio XXXIX, 63, 4–5; Val. Max. IV, 2, 4; see below on the reason for Cicero's volteface—to regain Pompey's support of Milo.
22 QF III, 5, 1, also for Quintus' interest in the work.
23 De or. III, 13; cf. 1, 4; II, 10 for a flattering picture of Q.—but written at a time when Cicero hoped for an end of ambitionis occupatio (1, 1: de or. finished November, 55—Att. IV, 13, 2).
24 QF III, 5, 1–2; cf. Att. IV, 6, 2.
25 This may in part explain Cicero's avoidance of Posidonius' advanced ideas on the ethics of imperialism: cf. Strasburger, JRS LV (1965), 52–3, who appositely contrasts QF I, 1, 27 f.
26 De rep. I, 13 for Quintus (though not named).
27 I, 1; 6–7; 10. Scipio is given an unhistorical enthusiasm and respect for Cato (II, 1; cf. 111, 40).
28 Dio XXXIX, 10, 3 (cf. Att. II, 6; XIV, 17, 6); Fam. 1, 9, 23. Note also Fam. I, 9, 26 for Cicero's careful hedging on the legality of Ap. Claudius' succession of Spinther in Cilicia.
29 QF II, 16, 4; III, 4, 4; 5, 4; 6, 3 (Caesar's interest); 7, 6. See Allen, , TAPA LXXXVI (1955), 143–159.Google Scholar
30 QF III, 1, 6 and 14.
31 Att. IV, 19, 2; cf. QF III, 1, 15 and 18; 11, 12, 1, etc.
32 References in Gelzer, PW VII A, 955–6; cf. Brunt, , PCPS XI (1965), 10.Google ScholarQF III, 1, 9 on the cultivation of Caesar; cf. 1, 11 on Cicero's anxiety at hearing that Clodius had been writing to him.
33 Münzer, PW VII A, 1286: Quintus was ‘prope aequalis’ with Marcus (QF I, 3, 3, though in contrast with a father or son), but his cursus was consistently four years behind.
34 QF I, 1, 41–44; largely about the preservation of Cicero's own dignitas, but note §43 ‘si mea pars nemini cedit, fac ut tua ceteros vincat’, and §44 ‘etiam illud debes cogitare, non te tibi soli gloriam quaerere’.
35 De or. II, 3.
36 Broughton, ESAR IV (1938), 516–9. The unpopularity Quintus earned from his activities in Asia (QF I, 1, 38, 2 passim) would not have helped him in any projected consular candidature.
37 The last on record was L. Valerius Flaccus, procos. Asia in 90 and cos. 86.
38 Proconsuls of Asia in 80, 76 and 68.
39 Att. I, 16, 12.
40 Sull. 21 (Torquatus, 62); Att. I, 16, 10 (Clodius, 61).
41 Sest. 68.
42 Att. II, 4, 2; III, 8, 4; 9, 1 and 3; 13, 2; 17, 1; QF 1, 3, 5; 4, 2 and 5; domo 59, 96.
43 Att. IV, 3, 2 (Q.'s house burnt, November, 57) and 6.
44 Att. IV, 1, 7; 2, 6.
45 QF II, 3, 7 (February, 56): ‘cetera sunt in rebus nostris cuius modi tu mihi fere diffidenti praedicebas, plena dignitatis et gratiae.’
46 QF II, 2, 4; 3, 7; 5, 1 and 5; 6, 4; 7 passim.
47 Fam. I, 9, 9; cf. Pis. 80; App., BC II, 16.
48 Milo's thugs now more than a match for Clodius': QF II, 3, 4; cf. 5, 2; Fam. I, 7, 7 (‘quod mihi de nostro statu, de Milonis familiaritate, de levitate et imbecillitate Clodii gratularis …’); QF 11, 1, 3 for a success by Clodius' gang in December, but Milo's won the brawl at his trial on 7th February (11, 3, 2).
Boni powerful, attacking Pompey: QF II, 3, 2; 5, 3. Consul Marcellinus influential and reliable: Dio XXXIX, 27, 3; QF II, 5, 2 (‘sic bonus ut meliorem non viderim’). Cicero's popularity in attacking Vatinius, Sestius unanimously acquitted: QF II, 4, 1, cf. 3, 5–7; 5, 4 (‘in iudiciis ii sumus qui fuerimus, domus celebratur ut cum maxime’).
49 QF II, 3, 4; 5, 3.
50 Att. II, 5, 2: ‘quo quidem uno ego ab istis capi possum: vide levitatem meam !’.
51 See additional note for a suggested reconstruction.
52 Att. IV, 8a, 2: ‘si vero id est, quod nescio an sit …’
53 Fam. V, 8; see Brunt, loc. cit. (n. 32), 9, on Cicero's relations with Crassus.
54 Plut., Crass. 15, 3 for the opposition's case: 
55 Fam. I, 8, 1; QF II, 8, 3 (February, 55).
56 QF II, 8, 3; Plut., Pomp. 52, 3; Cato mitt. 42; Dio XXXIX, 32, 1; etc. Cf. Taylor, loc. cit. (n. 15 above), for the dynasts' agents Cn. Plancius and M. Nonius Sufenas (?) being hastily elected as aediles at about the same time.
57 QF II, 5, 3 (Pompey's support of Milo offends the faex populi); Mil. 68; App., BC II, 16; QF II, 3, 2; Dio XXXIX, 18, 2.
58 Har. resp. 50–52; Dio XXXIX, 20, 1; Schol. Bob. 170 St.; note Att. IV. 8a, 2 on Ahenobarbus' failure to be elected consul in the autumn of 56, brought about by the same people who ruined Cicero—a clear reference to Clodius, acting in Pompey's (and Caesar's) interest. Schol. Bob. 174 St. on Pompey's suspicion of Clodius' friendship in 53.
59 QF II, 5, 4; Plut., Caes. 21, 2; Lazenby, , Latomus XVIII (1959), 72.Google Scholar Compare Ahenobarbus' joke in the Senate in 54, pretending that Appius had gone to Caesar to arrange a military tribunate (QF II, 14. 3).
60 BC II, 16; cf. 20, on Milo's expectation of Pompey's support in 53–52. Appian calls Milo Clodius' colleague as tribune—here, as elsewhere, his chronology is inaccurate (cf. 11, 18 and 23).
61 Att. IV, 13, 1.
62 Asc. 19–20 and 28 C, and Courtney, Philologus cv (1961), 151–6 on their solidarity at the trial of Scaurus.
63 Att. IV, 11, 1; 12, 1.
64 Stevens, , Antiquity XXI (1947), 3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 5–6, and Latomus XI (1952), 13–16 on the propaganda value of Caesar's British expedition.
65 Catullus 11, 11–2; 45, 22 for the reaction at Rome; Suet., DJ 73 (cf. Frank, Tenney, AJP XL [1919], 409–11Google Scholar) on Memmius', Calvus' and Catullus' reconciliations with Caesar—winter, 55/4?
66 Caes., BG IV, 38. Cf. prov. cons. 26–7 on the fifteen-day supplicatio voted in 56: only ten days' thanksgiving had been voted to Pompey in 63.
67 Fam. V, 8.
68 After 14th November (Att. IV, 13, 1 ‘comitiorum nonnulla opinio’).
69 Att. IV, 8a, 2; cf. Bailey, Shackleton, Philologus cv (1961), 73–4Google Scholar on the unnamed inimicus of Fam. I, 9, 2.
70 Fam. VII, 5, 3, ‘vetere verbo’.
71 QF III, 2, 2; 4, 2.
72 Hoffa's conjecture (i.e. M. Aurelius Cotta, PW no. 109) is perhaps supported by the blatantly corrupt ‘Cato’ of QF III, 4, 1, the man who brought Pompey the news of Gabinius' acquittal; cf. Bailey, Shackleton, PCPS VII (1961), 3Google Scholar, who suggests ‘Cotta’ or ‘Otho’.
73 QF III, 6, 6; 7, 2.
74 QF III, 6, 6; Fam. II, 6, 3; Mil. 95 for his munera; Pliny, NH XXXVI, 104 for his debts (70 m. HS !), and Schol. Bob. 169–174 St. on Cicero's speech in the Senate in 53 against Clodius' attack de aere alieno Milonis.
75 Dio XL, 46, 2; 48, 1; cf. 45, 4 for a tribunician proposal in 53 that consular tribunes should be elected, to increase the number of ἄρχοντες.
76 QF III, 7, 3: ‘si per interregem, sine iudicio, si per dictatorem, sine periculo’.
77 Att. IV, 17, 5; QF III, 2, 3. Asc. 50–51 C (cf. Syme, , Sallust [1964], 32Google Scholar) for Rufus' friendship with Clodius; he was also the brother of the woman Clodius had been pursuing at the Bona Dea celebrations in 62 !
78 Dio XL, 45, 6.
79 Observe the ἀριστεία of P. Crassus in BG III, 7–8; 11; 20–27 on the campaigns of 56—he was elected to an augurate in 55. Similarly VII, 56–62 on Labienus' siege of Paris, written not in the winter of 52–1, when Caesar was fully occupied (VIII, 4), but presumably in Belgium during the winter of 51–50; by September, 50, at least, Labienus had hopes of standing for the consulship (VIII, 52). This seems to me to be valuable neglected evidence for the composition and publication of the commentaries.
80 Caes., BG V, 38–52.
81 VI, 42, 1 (contrast V, 40, 7; 52, 2); letter ap. Charisius GLK 1, 126. cf. Adami, , Hermes LXXVIII (1943), 281–5Google Scholar, for the unconvincing hypothesis, based on Caesar's friendship with Cicero, that the fragment refers not to Quintus but to (e.g.) Q. Titurius Sabinus.
82 Fam. II, 6 (to Curio, asking for his support). Cicero went to Ravenna to see Caesar late in 53: Caesar wanted Caelius Rufus' support as tribune for the following year (Att. VII, 1, 4), and was surely asked to support Milo in return.
83 cf. n. 75 above. Cato realized the problem: when defeated for the consulship of 51, he refused to stand again—it was the duty of the good man not to pursue his candidature ὐπὲρ τὸ προσῆκον (Dio XL, 58, 9).
84 cf. Ser. Sulpicius Galba (Hirt., BG VIII, 50, 3), and T. Labienus (ibid., 52, 2 and Syme, , JRS XXVIII [1938], 121–3Google Scholar).
85 Att. XI, 12, 1–2: ‘Q. fratrem lituum meae profectionis fuisse (ita enim scripsit)’. It was Atticus who reconciled Q. and his son to Caesar (Nep., Att. 7, 3).
