Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:26:00.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invectiva in Ciceronem and Epistula Secunda of Pseudo-Sallust1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. G. M. Nisbet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two passages have often been compared, but with no agreed result. For instance, H. Last, CQ XVII, 1923, 153 f., and K. Btichner, Lateinische Literatur und Sprache, Bern, 1951, 81 f., give the priority to the invectiva; A. Klotz, Berl. philologische Wochenschrift, XLIII, 1923, 261 f., and O. Seel, Klio, Beiheft XLVII, 1943, 73 ff., to the epistula; R. v. Pöhlmann, Sitzungsb. der K. Bayer. Akad., 1904, 27, and G. Carlsson, Eine Denkschrift an Cäsar über den Staat, Lund, 1936, 57, think that the passages may have a common source; B. Edmar, Studien zu den Epistulae ad Caesarem senem, Lund, 1931, 105 f. leaves the solution open. Progress can hardly be made without fresh evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 1-2 , November 1958 , pp. 30 - 32
Copyright
Copyright ©R. G. M. Nisbet 1958. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Mr. Gordon Williams who has discussed the whole question with me and made some most helpful suggestions.

References

2 Münscher, P-W VII, 1604 ff., Schanz-Hosius, , Römische Literaturgeschichte II 4, 741 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 cf. auct. de schem., 1. 86 (Halm, Rhet. Lat. Min., p. 66) ‘huic furta in manibus, fuga plantis, ventre sagina.’ This author often imitates Rutilius.

4 In spite of arguments to the contrary, the author of the invectiva may well be writing in the character of Sallust. Some parallels quoted by commentators are striking; the style may be different because the author realized that too much ‘Sallustian’ Latin did not suit a speech.

5 Last, H., CQ XVII, 1923, 87 ff.Google Scholar, 151 ff.; Latte, K., JRS XXVII, 1937, 300 f.Google Scholar; Fraenkel, E., JRS XLI, 1951, 192 ff.Google Scholar; Dihle, A., Mus. Helv. XI, 1954, 126 f.Google Scholar; Syme, R., Mus. Helv. xv, 1958, 46 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 O. Seel, o.c., G. Jachmann, Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia, 1950, 23s ff.; Oertel, F., Rh. Mus. XCIV, 1951, 46 ffGoogle Scholar.