[12]. Terence, _Andria_, i, 1, 41. Petrarch’s words, “ut ipse
soles dicere, quod ait familiaris tuus in Andria” (Vol. III, p.
264), are proof that he was not quoting Terence directly, but the
_De amicitia_. In chap. 89 of the latter we read, “Quod in Andria
familiaris meus dicit,” and then follows the verse in question.
The speaker is of course Laelius, of whom Terence was in fact a
friend. Petrarch, therefore, has either momentarily lost sight
of the speaker, or, realizing full well that Laelius is Cicero’s
mouth-piece, has consciously identified the two. This would, of
course, make Terence a friend of Cicero; the “familiaris meus” of the
_De amicitia_ and the “familiaris tuus” of Petrarch both, therefore,
become equivalent to “familiaris Ciceronis.”
[13]. There is a passage in the _De finibus_ in which Cicero
especially contrasts the teachings of Epicurus with his life. It is
ii, 80 and 81:
That philosophy which you defend, and those tenets which you
have learned, and approve of, destroy friendship to the very
roots, even though Epicurus does extol friendship to the
skies--as we must confess. “But Epicurus himself cultivated
friendships,” you will say. And who, pray, is denying that
he was a good and kindly man, full of sympathy for his
fellow-beings? We are here discussing his intellect, not his
life. We shall leave such fickleness and perversity to the
Greeks, who attack with animosity all who may differ from them
in their beliefs concerning truth. I must say, however, that,
although he was affable in maintaining his friendships (if this
be true, for I affirm nothing), yet he did not possess a keen
mind. To which you will rejoin, “But he convinced many people.”
... To me, indeed, the fact that Epicurus himself was a good
man, and that there have been and are today many Epicureans,
loyal in their friendships, consistent in their actions
throughout life, serious of disposition and shaping their
plans without regard to pleasure but rather through a sense of
duty--to me these facts prove that the power of integrity is
superior, and that of pleasure inferior. In truth, some persons
live in such a way that their life confutes their words. And
therefore, just as others are considered to speak better than
they act, so these Epicureans (it seems) must be said to act
better than they speak.
Cicero mentions the inconsistency of Epicurus in ii, 96: “Listen now
... to the dying words of Epicurus, and observe how widely his deeds
and his words disagree;” and again in ii, 99: “But you will find
nothing in this splendid letter of Epicurus in accord and consistent
with his maxims. He refutes himself, while his theories are set at
naught by his upright life.”
As Petrarch says, Books I and II of the _De finibus_ are crowded with
favorable and adverse comments on Epicurus and his philosophy. Of the
latter it will suffice to refer to i, 22, in which Cicero accuses
Epicurus of being utterly wanting in logic; and to i, 26, where he
denies that Epicurus can be admitted to the number of the learned.
[14]. Perhaps a reminiscence of Pliny, _N. H._, vii, 30 _extr._:
“salve ... facundiae Latiarumque litterarum parens.”
[15]. Seneca, _Contr._, iii, _praef._ 8.
[16]. Seneca, _Contr._, i, _praef._ 11.
[17]. _Aen._, xii, 168. Donatus, _Vita Verg._, XI, 41 (p. 60 R,
through _pronuntiarentur_ only):
The publication of the Bucolics was attended by such great
success that they were frequently recited, even by actors
on the stage. Cicero once heard some of the verses, and his
keen judgment at once perceived that they were written in no
common vein. So he ordered the eclogue to be recited from the
beginning; and after listening attentively to the very end, he
exclaimed, “Rome’s other hope and stay;” as if he himself had
been the first hope of the Latin tongue, and Maro were to be
the second. These words Maro afterward inserted in the _Aeneid_.
This version does not mention Cicero’s inquiry as to the author of
the verses he admired (“quaesivisses auctorem”), nor their meeting
(“eumque ... vidisses”) nor the fact that his exclamation was
flattering both to himself and to Vergil (“cum propria quidem laude
permixtum”). Servius’ version, however, does include these three
elements, and hence he is to be considered Petrarch’s source. He
writes (_ad Ecl._, vi, 11):
It is said that Vergil’s reading of this eclogue (vi) was
received with great favor; so much so, indeed, that when later
Cytheris the courtesan (whom Vergil calls Lycoris in the last
eclogue) sang it in the theater, Cicero in amazement inquired
who the author of it was (“cuius esset requireret”). And when
at last Cicero had seen him (“eum ... vidisset”), he is said to
have exclaimed, in praise of both himself and that other (“et
ad suam et ad illius laudem”), “Rome’s other hope and stay”--a
phrase which Vergil afterward applied to Ascanius, as the
commentators relate.
This version was one which would especially appeal to Petrarch; for,
as P. de Nolhac justly observes (I, p. 125), it represents Petrarch’s
two literary idols as having been personally acquainted with each
other.
And, finally, in favor of the Servian origin is the fact that in
Donatus the entire story appears in the interpolated version of the
_Vita_, and it is doubtful whether Petrarch was acquainted with this
longer version (Sabbadini, _Rend. del R. Ist. Lomb._, [1906], p.
198). The interpolated text of the _Vita_ has, in fact, been traced
only as far back as the beginning of the fifteenth century; the date
temporarily assigned to it is 1400-20 (Sabbadini, “La ‘Vergilii Vita’
di Donato,” _Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica_, Vol. V, 1897, pp.
384-88).
[18]. Cicero, however, is much more guarded in his statement than we
would infer from the words of Petrarch; _Tusc._, i, 3, 5: “Then came
the Lepidi, Carbo, and the Gracchi, and so many great orators after
them down to our own times, that we were very little, if at all,
inferior to the Greeks.”
[19]. Translation, by Ch. R. Moore (p. 73), of Propertius, ii, 34_b_,
65, 66 (_rec._ Aem. Baehrens, Teubner, 1880) or ii, 34, 65, 66 (H. E.
Butler, 1905).
There is abundant proof that Petrarch was acquainted with Propertius
(P. de Nolhac, I, pp. 170-72). Still, from the few indirect
references to this author, one is inclined to believe that Petrarch
here (as elsewhere) is drawing upon the _Life_ by Donatus for
biographical information on Vergil. And in fact the Propertian
couplet seems to derive from Donatus, _Vita Verg._, XII, 45 (p. 61R),
the “operis fundamenta” and “asseverare non timuit” of Petrarch
(Vol. III, p. 266), corresponding, respectively, to the “Aeneidos
vixdum coeptae” and “non dubitaverit sic praedicare” of Donatus. In
commenting upon this famous distich, H. Nettleship says (“Vergil,”
in _Classical Writers_ [New York, 1880], p. 86): “Propertius and
Ovid saw at once what was in Vergil. Of the _Aeneid_ Propertius
said ‘something greater than the _Iliad_ is coming to the birth.’”
(Cf. _Ancient Lives of Vergil_ [Oxford, 1879], p. 67.) Comparetti,
however, has chosen a different course in his _Vergil in the Middle
Ages_ (tr. by Benecke, 1895). On p. 3, after stating that the Romans
confessed Vergil’s inferiority to Homer, he continues in a footnote:
The exaggerations of a few enthusiasts must not be reckoned at
more than their real value. How great a part of the “Nescio
quid maius nascitur Iliade” of Propertius was due to his
friendship with Vergil becomes clear when we compare with it
the praises he lavishes on the _Thebaid_ of another friend,
Ponticus.
[20]. In a large tome containing Cicero’s writings, and supposed
to have belonged to Petrarch, there occurred the rubric “de laude
ac defensione philosophiae, introducens Lucullum loquentem ad
Hortensium, liber primus incipit.” Petrarch, misled by this heading,
had been of the opinion that the work following was the _Hortensius_.
As a matter of fact, it was book ii of the _Academica Priora_, which
has the separate subtitle “Lucullus” (P. de Nolhac, I, pp. 228,
244 ff.). He labored under this delusion for some time, until in
reading St. Augustine he met citations from the real _Hortensius_,
which of course he could not verify in his supposed _Hortensius_.
Finally he received from Marco Barbato da Sulmona, whom he had
met in 1341 at Naples, a manuscript containing a work inscribed
_Academica_. Investigation quickly showed him that this work and his
supposed _Hortensius_ were one and the same. But he was unwilling to
relinquish the idol he had worshiped so long. Doubts still remained.
On his visit to Naples in 1343, however, he identified once and for
all the work in his own manuscript; and on his return he entered the
following note abreast of the heading: “This title, though common, is
nevertheless a false one. This is not the _De laude philosophiae_,
but the last two of the four books of the _Academica_.” The
present letter to Cicero was written in 1345, two years after the
correction of his error; hence Petrarch rightly places the _De laude
philosophiae_ (_sive Hortensius_) in the catalogue of lost books.
The closing statement of Petrarch’s postilla needs a few words of
explanation. The fragment which he possessed constituted book ii
of the _Ac. priora_. Petrarch supposed that he had not one, but
two books. The deception was due to an arbitrary division in his
manuscript at the words “Hortensius autem vehementer” (_Ac. pr._, ii,
63). Still another error existed. Petrarch thought that his fragment
was part of the second edition of the _Academica_ in four books--the
_Posteriora_ dedicated to Varro, of whose existence he had learned
from the letters to Atticus (cf. xiii, 13) which he had discovered
earlier in the same year.
[21]. Every biography relates how Petrarch gave in loan to his
teacher, Convennole (or Convenevole) da Prato, a manuscript
containing the _De gloria_ of Cicero; and how the schoolmaster, in an
hour of extreme need, pawned the volume, which could never again be
found in spite of Petrarch’s constant search for it. The story as we
have it is told by Petrarch himself, in a letter written in 1374,
the very last year of his life (_Sen._, xvi, 1).
Modern scholarship has cast doubts upon the tale. P. de Nolhac
discusses the question thoroughly in Vol. I, pp. 260-68. His
explanation of the evolution of the idea which possessed Petrarch is
the following.
In his youth Petrarch must have read in the lost volume some
beautiful passages on glory--passages which remained more or less
firmly fixed in his mind. In later years, when his scholarship
broadened, he learned of a separate work by Cicero on the subject of
glory; and, questioning his memory, the remembrance of those passages
became so clear and distinct that he began to imagine he had really
possessed the _De gloria_ in the volume unfortunately loaned to his
schoolmaster. The hope arose that he might some day find the volume
again. It was while in this stage that he wrote the present letter
(1345), saying that he entertained a more or less doubtful hope of
its recovery and that his despair was not unqualified. His regret
increased with the years. By dreaming of his hoped-for recovery of
the manuscript, by discussing it with his friends year after year,
Petrarch finally, as so often results from the frequent repetition
of a story, persuaded himself that he had at one time been the actual
possessor of the _De gloria_. Hence it was that, writing thirty years
later, in 1374, when his mind was losing its firm grip on facts, and
when he was tottering on the brink of the grave, the unfulfilled hope
for a thing long desired turned into a regret for a thing actually
lost (_op. cit._, p. 266).
[22]. Petrarch was mistaken in placing the _De oratore_ among the
fragmentary works. In the large tome already referred to, there
followed hard upon the heels of the _De oratore_ what is now known
as the _Orator_. The latter did not, however, bear a separate title,
and consequently Petrarch considered it as a fourth book to the _De
oratore_. Moreover, this pseudo-fourth book had a large lacuna, for
it began only with the words “(aliquan) toque robustius” (sec. 91);
and the lacuna being clearly indicated, Petrarch unavoidably thought
the _De oratore_ incomplete (P. de Nolhac, I, pp. 228-30, 242). To be
correct he should have written _Orator_ instead of _De oratore_. But
even this would scarcely have mended matters; for, not being aware of
the separate existence of these two works, Petrarch was wont to cite
passages from one and the other, employing the indiscriminate title
_Orator_ (_ibid._, pp. 253, 254).
After this enumeration of the lost and fragmentary works, it will
be interesting to know with how many writings of Cicero Petrarch
was really acquainted at this time. Fortunately for our purpose,
he writes to Lapo da Castiglionchio in 1352, describing to him the
beauty and quiet of his retreat at Vaucluse, and the reading with
which he occupied all his time. The letter in full--_Fam._, xii, 8:
According to my custom, I fled recently from the turmoil of the
city that is so odious to me, and betook myself to my Helicon
across the Alps. I brought with me your Cicero, who was greatly
astonished at the beauty of these new regions and who confessed
that never--not even when in his own retreat at Arpinum--had
he (to use his own phrase) been surrounded by cooler streams
than when with me at the Fountain of the Sorgue. I suppose that
when, long ago, he visited Narbonne, he did not observe this
country. And yet, if we are to believe Pliny, this district
formed part of the province of Narbonne; and, according to
the present division, it is part of the province of Arles.
Whatever be the truth concerning the geographical division of
the provinces, one thing is certain, that the Fountain of the
Sorgue is most renowned, second neither to the Campanian Nymph
nor to the Sicilian Arethusa. This soothing, quiet, peaceful
country, and this delightsome retreat are situated to one
side of the public highway, to the right of one seeking it,
to the left of him returning therefrom. I have thus minutely
described its site lest you might wonder that Cicero, while
traveling in these parts so long ago, failed to notice this
sequestered spot, delightful as it is. No mere passer-by has
ever discovered it. No one has ever reached it except purposing
to do so through certain knowledge of its existence, drawn
to the spot by the beauty of the Fountain, or by his desire
for repose and study. And how unusual this is you will soon
realize if you consider on the one hand the great scarcity of
poets, and on the other the multitude of those who have not
even a smattering of the liberal arts. Cicero therefore seems
to rejoice and to be eager to remain in my company. We have now
passed ten quiet and restful days together here. Here only,
and in no other place outside of Italy, do I breathe freely.
In truth, study has this great virtue, that it appeases our
desires for a life of solitude, mitigates our aversion for the
vulgar herd, tenders us sought-for repose even in the midst of
the thickest crowds, instils in us many noble thoughts, and
provides us with the fellowship of most illustrious men even in
the most solitary forests.
My companion was attended by a numerous and distinguished
gathering. Not to mention those of Greek birth, the Romans
present were Brutus, Atticus, and Herennius, all of them
rendered still more honorable by their presence in the works
of Cicero [_Epistolae ad Brutum_, _Atticum_, _Auctor ad
Herennium_]. Marcus Varro, also, was present, that most learned
of all men, with whom Cicero strolled in the villa of the
Academics [_Academica_; cf. n. [20].]; and Cotta, and Velleius,
and Lucilius Balbus, with whom he so keenly discussed the
nature of the gods [_De natura deorum_]; and Nigidius and
Cratippus, with whom he investigated the secrets of nature,
the origin of the universe and its composition [_Timaeus,
sive de universo_]. We had with us, moreover, Quintus Cicero,
with whom he treated of the subject of divination and laws
[_De divinatione_, _De legibus_]; and his own son, Marcus
Cicero, to whom (when not as yet degenerated) he addressed his
_De officiis_, pointing out to him what was honorable, and
what expedient, and the conflict between the two. Sulpicius,
Crassus, and Antonius--all very eloquent orators--formed part
of our company, together with whom he explored the most hidden
secrets of the art of oratory [_De oratore_]. Cato the Elder,
too, was with us, whom Cicero made the spokesman in his praise
of Old Age [_De senectute_]. Of our band were also Lucius
Torquatus, Marcus Cato Uticensis and Marcus Piso, with whom,
after a most painstaking discussion, he set down his theory
of the “summum bonum” [_De finibus_]. Furthermore, we had
the orator Hortensius, and Epicurus, the former represented
in Cicero’s praise of philosophy [cf. n. [20].], the latter in
his attack on a life of pleasure. With Laelius he outlined
the course of true friendship [_De amicitia_], with Scipio
the government of the “ideal State.” I shall not prolong my
enumeration _in infinitum_; I shall merely add that among the
Roman citizens there mingled many foreign rulers whom Cicero
defended with his divine powers of oratory. However, not to
omit those whose presence was due to your little volume,
my friend, I shall mention Milo whom Cicero defended, and
Laterensis whom he so fearlessly attacked [_Pro Plancio_],
and Sulla, for whom he pleaded [_Pro Corn. Sulla_], and
Pompey, whom he so highly praised [_De imperio Pompei_]. With
such men and others as my companions, my stay in the country
has been a quiet, peaceful, and happy one. Would that it had
continued longer. But alas, they have once again laid their
claws upon me, and have once again dragged me to the Hades
whence I am writing you this letter. I have been so busily
engaged since then that my young attendant has found no time
whatever for transcribing your volume, nor have I had any
opportunity of returning it to you. I trust that this will not
be necessary until I can return it to you in Italy personally.
I am promising myself an early return, provided I can induce
our friend Forese to visit the above-mentioned Helicon the
moment he is not so overwhelmingly occupied by his affairs.
And I shall insist upon his visit in order that if at any time
hereafter fate, or the love of change, or the desire to escape
ennui will compel me to return--not to this city (whither, if
I can help it, I shall never return), but to my Transalpine
retreat--I shall be more readily pardoned by my friends in
Italy by calling upon the testimony of so important a witness.
Farewell.
[23]. _Aeneid_ i, 287, and vi, 794, 795, tr. by Conington (ed. 1900),
pp. 13 and 210.