A Character in Search of Authors: Three Unwritten Works about Cicero’s Consulship
Bugaeva Natalia V.
The article deals with Cicero’s failure to become the hero of a historical work and two poems. It is noteworthy that in each case the great orator appealed to the Greeks. He expected a panegyrical epic poem in accordance with the official version of Catilina’s plot from his former client Archias and (possibly) from a certain Thyillus, a man of low social status. Cicero also mentioned casually in his correspondence a rejection from Posidonius. The author draws parallels between the appeal to the author of Histories and Cicero’s letter to Lucceius. The polite refusal of Posidonius was conditioned by his reluctance to become part of a propaganda campaign and to be bound by strictly predetermined interpretation of the events. All three works requested by Cicero should have been written in Greek and intended for broad dissemination. Cicero’s requests were sent ahead of the publication of his autobiographical works. Both the chronology and the choice of language refute the supposition that Cicero’s self-laudation was concerned primarily with the practical aim of suppressing the attacks of his enemies. He was above all trying to perpetuate his glory.
References:
Allen, W. Jr., Delacy, Ph.H. 1939: The patrons of Philodemus. Classical Philology 34, 59–65.
Bellemore, J. 2002: The date of the Pro Archia. Antichton 36, 41–53.
Bertonati, G. 1992: Note. In: E. Narducci (ed.), Cicerone Marco Tullio. Il poeta Archia. Milano, 68–109.
Blom van der, H. 2010: Cicero’s Role Models. The Political Strategy of a Newcomer. New York.
Bodson, L. 1975: Archias et la cigale (A. P., VII, 213). L’Antiquité Classique 44, 632–637.
Bugaeva, N.V. 2008: [“De temporibus suis”: the lost poem of Cicero]. In: Antiquitas iuventae. Sbornik nauchnykh statey studentov i aspirantov [Antiquitas iuventae. Collected Articles of Students and Postgraduate Students]. Saratov, 98–112.
Бугаева, Н.В. 2008: «De temporibus suis»: утраченная поэма Цицерона. В сб.: Antiquitas iuventae. Сборник научных трудов студентов и аспирантов. Саратов, 98–112.
Bugaeva, N.V. 2017: [Political aspect of Cicero’s Pro Archia]. In: Istoricheskiy zhurnal: nauchnye issledovania [Historical Journal: Scientific Researches] 4, 56–66.
Бугаева, Н.В. 2017: Политический аспект речи Цицерона «За Архия». Исторический журнал: научные исследования 4, 56–66.
Clarke, M.L. 1968: Cicero at school. Greece & Rome 15, 18–22.
Clarke, M.L. 1978: Poets and patrons at Rome. Greece & Rome 25, 46–54.
Cole, Sp. 2013: Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome. Cambridge.
Dugan, J. 2001: How to make (and break) a Cicero: epideixis, textuality, and self-fashioning in the Pro Archia and In Pisonem. Classical Antiquity 20, 35–77.
Dugan, J. 2005: Making a New Man: Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works. Oxford.
Egan, R.B. 1998: Archias, Meleager, Tymnes: dead birds in context. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 141, 24–30.
Eisenberger, H. 1979: Die Funktion des zweiten Hauptteils von Ciceros Rede für den Dichter Archias. Wiener Studien 92, 88–98.
Geffcken, J. 1936: Thyillos. In: RE. II. R. Hlbd 11, 692.
Giangrande, G. 1975: Fifteen Hellenistic epigrams. Journal of Hellenic Studies 95, 31–44.
Gold, B.K. 1985: Pompey and Theophanes of Mytilene. American Journal of Philology 106, 312–327.
Grabar-Passek, M.E. 1959: [Cicero] In: S.I. Sobolevskiy (ed.), Istoria rimskoy literatury [History of the Roman Literature]. Vol. 2. Moscow, 178–233.
Грабарь-Пасек, М.Е. 1959: Цицерон. В кн.: С.И. Соболевский (ред.), История римской литературы. Т. 2. М., 178–233.
Gruen, E.S. 1973: The trial of C. Antonius. Latomus 32, 301–310.
Gruen, E.S. 1974: The Last Generation of Roman Republic. Berkeley.
Hanchey, D. 2013: Typically unique: shared strategies in Cicero’s Pro Archia and Pro Balbo. Classical Journal 108, 159–186.
Harrer, G.A. 1928: Some verses of Cicero. Studies in Philology 25, 70–91.
Haupt, M. 1869: Analecta. Hermes 3, 205–229.
Hose, M. 1995: Cicero als Hellenistischer Epiker. Hermes 123, 455–469.
Husband, R.W. 1914: The prosecution of Archias. Classical Journal 9, 165–171.
Khrustalev, V.K. 2012: [On the issue of the trial on C. Antonius Hybrida, proconsul of Macedonia in 59 B.C.]. Problemy istorii, filologii i cultury [Problems of History, Philology and Culture] 1, 49–61.
Хрусталев, В.К. 2012: К вопросу о суде над проконсулом Македонии Гаем Антонием Гибридой в 59 г. до н. э. ПИФК 1, 49–61.
Kidd, I.G. 1999: Introduction. In: I.G. Kidd (ed.), Posidonius. Vol. III. The Translation of the Fragments, 1–28.
Knox, P.E. 2011: Cicero as a Hellenistic poet. Classical Quaterly 61, 192–204.
Laqueur, R. 1934: Theophanes. In: RE. II. R. Hlbd 10, 2090–2127.
Law, H.H. 1936: The poems of Archias in the Greek Anthology. Classical Philology 31, 225–243.
Lawton, W.C. 1900: Coward and patriot. Sewanee Review 8, 257–278.
Leen, A. 1990: Teaching two speeches of Cicero. Classical Journal 85, 350–356.
Mitchell, Th.N. 1979: Cicero. The Ascending Years. New Haven–London.
Modestov, V.I. 1888: Lektsii po istorii rimskoy literatury [Lectures on History of the Roman Literature]. Saint Petersburg.
Модестов, В.И. 1888: Лекции по истории римской литературы. СПб.
Münzer, F. 1920: Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien. Stuttgart.
Münzer, F. 1923: Servilia. In: RE. II. R. Hlbd 4, 1821.
Münzer, F. 1927a: Lutatia. In: RE. Hlbd 26, 2096.
Münzer, F. 1927b: Q. Lutatius Catulus. In: RE. Hlbd 26, 2072–2082.
Murphy, P.R. 1958: Cicero’s Pro Archia and the Periclean epitaphios. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 89, 99–111.
Naguevskiy, D. 1911: Istoriya rimskoy literatury [History of the Roman Literature]. Vol. 1. Kazan.
Нагуевский, Д. 1911: История римской литературы. Т. 1. Казань.
Narducci, E. 1999a: Lettura della “Pro Archia” In: E. Narducci (ed.), Cicerone Marco Tullio. Il poeta Archia. Milano, 33–65.
Narducci, E. 1999b: Pratica oratoria e pensiero retorico di Cicerone. In: E. Narducci (ed.), Cicerone Marco Tullio. Il poeta Archia. Milano, 5–31.
Nesholm, E.J. 2010: Language and artistry in Cicero’s “Pro Archia”. Classical World 103, 477–490.
Netushil, I.V. 1912: [Introduction]. In: I.V. Netushil (ed.), M. Tulliy Tsitseron. Rech’ za poeta Archiya. Chast’ II. Kommentariy [M. Tullius Cicero. Pro Archia Poeta. Part II. Commentaries]. Saint Petersburg.
Нетушил, И.В. 1912: Введение. В кн.: И.В. Нетушил (ред.), М. Туллий Цицерон. Речь за поэта Архия. Часть II. Комментарий. СПб.
Nock, A.D. 1959: Posidonius. Journal of Roman Studies 49, 1–15.
Pausch, D. 2004: Formen literarischer Selbstdarstellung in der Kaiserzeit. Die von römischen Herrschern verfaßten autobiographischen Schriften und ihr literarisches Umfeld. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 147, 303–336.
Pelling, Chr. 2007: The Greek historians of Rome. In: J. Marincola (ed.), Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Vol. I. Oxford. 244–258.
Petrovskiy, F.A. 1958: [Literary-aesthetic views of Cicero]. In: F.A. Petrovskiy (ed.), Tsitseron. Sbornik statei [Cicero. Collected Articles]. Moscow, 42–56.
Петровский, Ф.А. 1958: Литературно-эстетические воззрения Цицерона. В сб.: Ф.А. Петровский (ред.), Цицерон. Сборник статей. М., 42–56.
Phillips, J.J. 1986: Atticus and the publication of Cicero’s works. Classical World 79, 227–237.
Porter, W.M. 1990: Cicero’s Pro Archia and the responsibilities of reading. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 8, 137–152.
Potter, D.S. 2011: Greek historians of imperial Rome. In: A. Feldherr, H. Grant, I. Hesketh (eds.), Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. I. Oxford. 316–345.
Puelma, M. 2000: ēlogium: Probleme einer Wortgeschichte. Museum Helveticum 57, 36–58.
Rawson, E. 1977: More on the “clientelae” of the patrician Claudii. Historia 26, 340–357.
Reinach, Th. 1890: De Archia poeta. Paris.
Reitzenstein, R. 1895: A. Licinius Archias. In: RE. Hlbd 3, 463–464.
Sichler, E.G. 1915: Caesar, Cicero and Ferrero: II. American Journal of Philology 36, 19–43.
Steel, C.E.W. 2001: Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire. Oxford.
Strasburger, H. 1965: Poseidonios on probems of the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Studies 55, 40–53.
Susemihl, F. 1891–1892: Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit. Bd 1–2. Leipzig.
Taylor, J.H. 1952: Political motives in Cicero’s defense of Archias. American Journal of Philology 73, 62–70.
Ullman, B.L. 1942: History and tragedy. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73, 25–53.
Usher, St. 1985: Historians of Greece and Rome. Bristol.
Vanhaegendoren, K. 2004: La lecture vue par Cicéron, Pro Archia 12–16: croyances personnelles et contraintes rhétoriques. Latomus 63, 23–30.
Vardi, A.D. 2000: An anthology of early Latin epigrams? A ghost reconsidered. Classical Quarterly 50, 147–158.
Vishnia, R. F. 1996: Cicero “De senectute” 11, and the date of C. Flaminius’ tribunate. Phoenix 50, 138–145.
Vitelli, Cl. 1976: La ‘pro Archia’ e l’ ‘Hortensius’: analogie e loro significato. Hermes 104, 59–72.
Vretska, H., Vretska, K. 1979a: Einleitung. In: Cicero Marcus Tullius. Pro Archia poeta. Darmstadt, 1–22.
Vretska, H., Vretska, K. 1979b: Kommentar. In: Cicero Marcus Tullius. Pro Archia poeta. Darmstadt, 66–188.
Wallach, B.P. 1989: Cicero’s “Pro Archia” and the topics. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132, 313–331.
Wiseman, T.P. 1974: The Go-between. In: T.P. Wiseman, Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leichester, 138–146.
Yarrow, L.M. 2006: Historiography at the End of the Republic. Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule. Oxford.