The following observations were prompted by study of A. Corbeill’s stimulating new text and commentary on the speech. In general, Maslowski’s text is quoted (apart from orthographical divergences).Footnote ¹

Cicero passes from the games of Mater Magna at Rome to Clodius’ arrangements for the appointment of the priest of her original shrine at Pessinus, a prerogative he removed from Deiotarus and assigned to the latter’s son-in-law Brogitarus. He then goes on to each man’s claim to the title ‘king’. The problem in this passage (with lacuna posited by Baiter) is not solved by any of the conjectures cited in Maslowski’s apparatus criticus. There is a contrast between Deiotarus, who has been recognized as king by the Senate, and Brogitarus, who has been so recognized by a plebiscite sponsored by Clodius.Footnote ² To make the contrast effective, it is necessary to sort out the contents of the alter … alter structure. As Corbeill notes ([n. 1], 189), for clarity Cicero places each instance of alter in a corresponding position in its clause and generally at its beginning. The first alter is therefore in its expected place; it is the second clause that requires a remedy. I suggest:

This will restore the necessary parallelism. Garatoni already saw the need to bracket Brogitarus, evidently a gloss that crept into the text: rather than name them in the contrasting clauses, Cicero generally relies on context to clarify the entities referred to with alter … alter. The second alter was evidently omitted in copying and written either interlinearly or in the margin, then falsely inserted after appellatus, ousting the original reading, and adjusted to an accusative with putabo. If that is right, alterum will be no guide to the shape of the missing word; the connecting relative is the obvious choice (though hunc would also be possible).

Cicero alludes to loss of vision as the expected punishment for viewing forbidden sights (as Clodius did by intruding on the rites of the Bona Dea). Corbeill renders opinio illius religionis as ‘the general belief regarding that cult’ or ‘of that cult’ ([n. 1], 27 and 221, respectively), but there is room for doubt. In pagan antiquity religio was first a feeling of awe before supernatural powers, then a feeling of inhibition, and later a set of ritual practices.Footnote ³ In our passage religio can more plausibly be taken in the sense of ‘sacrilege’; so most famously at Cic. Att. 1.14.2 Clodiana religio (‘the Clodius sacrilege case’, transl. Shackleton Bailey); other examples are found in TLL 11.2.908.8. Therefore, one might render ‘as is the belief about that sacrilege’.Footnote ⁴

Cicero is describing the condition of the state in the immediate aftermath of his departure into exile. The transmitted text (printed above) was thought to be ‘nonsense’ by Shackleton Bailey, who proposed to replace in with inter;Footnote ⁵ Berry opined that this ‘seems a near certain correction’;Footnote ⁶ and Corbeill now adopts it ([n. 1] 32 and 263). Corbeill alone explains the rationale, saying that the altered text ‘fits better the context of discord among the elite that Cicero stresses throughout this section’ (263).Footnote ⁷ The first point to be established is the referent of eos. Cicero is surely referring obliquely to Pompey, whose confinement to his house in the latter half of 58 b.c.e. in the face of Clodius’ threats is repeatedly emphasized by Cicero.Footnote ⁸ For rhetorical emphasis Cicero prefers to leave this reference vague and specify Pompey only in the following sentence, where his successful action is highlighted (ecce isdem auctoribus, Pompeio principe …).Footnote ⁹ Shackleton Bailey, on the other hand, thinks that eos refers to ‘Pompey and the optimates’.Footnote ¹⁰ But at least in Cicero’s accounts, these two entities appear united in their desire to see the orator restored from exile, fissures between them only emerging (again) subsequently.Footnote ¹¹ If that is right, the transmitted in eos can be plausibly explained, and the conjecture inter eos is redundant. Finally, the emergence of hatred against Cicero’s defenders provides another example of discordia. The point is thus in line with the overall argument of the passage.

Cicero complains of the support Clodius has received even after the completion of his plebeian tribunate from critics and opponents of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. For in senatu marked as corrupt above, Angelius proposed in sinu, which has since been printed by editors in general, including Maslowski and Corbeill, though the latter voices the strong suspicion that in senatu of the codices is correct and that a lacuna should be posited prior to atque in deliciis ([n. 1], 280). Indeed, it seems right that the parallel construction with etiam ne continues here. I suggest the following:

This would add the crowning indignity to the optimates’ shielding of Clodius. It will also clarify the structure by allowing etiam ne to function the same way as in the two previous clauses. Angelius’s in sinu can be retained as a reference to the proverbial tale of the frozen snake which a man revived by warming it at his breast but he was rewarded with a fatal bite.Footnote ¹² A saltation error from –u to –u will account for the omission. The clausula –tu uituperaretur is the equivalent of a double cretic (with resolution of the second long).Footnote ¹³

In discussing the warning of the haruspices against a change in the constitution, Cicero comments on the current state of the Republic. Corbeill translates the words in bold type as ‘But for us to be in a worse position’ ([n. 1], 43) and says that this ‘seemingly constitutes a dramatic anacoluthon’, though it ‘does not fit the typical categories for anacoluthon, which … rarely occurs in Ciceronian oratory’ ([n. 1], 322). He argues that ut meliore simus loco ne optandum quidem est causes the reader to anticipate that ‘a parallel construction’ will follow. But in the new sentence, though meliore … loco and deteriore … statu are opposed categories, we have a different construction altogether, so that there is no presumption of further parallelism. The straightforward interpretation of the sentence is with ut taken as concessive (OLD s.v. 35). The whole passage may be rendered thus: