indulgence is due to him, since, how-much-soever he may be on his guard, it is natural to expect that there should be occasional hypercriticism, where the nicest precision of scrutiny is openly professed. We shall now satisfy ourselves with selecting a few of the annotations of M. WOLF, as specimens from which some judgment may be formed of their general merit; and, if we do not in all cases agree in opinion with him, such dif. ference might naturally be expected in a work of so much length and nicety. He objects, on several accounts, to the first sentence of the first of these Orations :-we shall give his note in his own words: 1. (Si-tribuendam putetis) Cumulate gratias agere lequutio est, quam alibi frustra quæras apud Ciceronem, quamvis sæpe et plurimis loquendi modis gratias agentem. Dicit ille quidem cumulate referre Gratim: sed aliud est referre, aliud agere. Nam etsi in oratione quoque et in verbis cumulus intelligi potest; tamen antiqua consuetudo illud non magis videtur tulisse, quam CUMULATE laudare aliquem aut reprehender, et similia. Hoc quale sit, demonstrare potest notum Ciceronis judicium Epp. ad Fam. xvi. 17. de formula FIDELITER inservire valetudini, quam ita probarunt quidam recentiorum, ut cam etiam contra illum defendere ex doctrina morum auderent. Atque huic generi existimatorum, sicut alia nostra permulta, sic et hoc, quod statim addidero, minus probabitur. Nam si quid calico sensum Romani Oratoris, non videtur is in ipso principio ua de fraire et communibus liberis mentionem facturus fuisse, talisque pietus convenire potius Declamatori, qui si aliquot post sæ• culis vixisset, forsitan ne bonæ conjugis quidem oblitus esset; quæ et ipsa peti poterat ex Orat. pro Sext. c. 22. Denique mirandum est, in nullo codice legi quæso obtestorque vos, quod vocabulum non temere in boc scribendi genere omitti solet. Mamertinus Grat. Act. ad Julian. c. 31. in manifesta nostrorum verborum usurpatione: "Nunc si tibi, Imperator, parum ampla nec respondente meritis tuis Oratione usus videbor, quæso obrestorque TE, ne mea id naturæ potius quam magnitudine beneficiorum tuorum putes esse tribuendum." Quamquam ibi pronominis ellipsin tueri conal atur Arnizenius.”, This is a specimen of criticism which may be regarded as a sort of standard of that determined rigour which pervades this whole Commentary; and it is worthy of examination. Gratia, in its primary meaning, signifies favour; referre Gratiam or *N. B. The sections in this edition are marked with a double series of numerals, of which the larger, we find, correspond to the sections of the Olivet edition, &c. and the smaller to those of Alexander Scot, used in the edition of Verburg and others; the latter series is adopted by M. W. in his annotations.-We do not, however, observe that he has any where given this explanation of his no. tation; possibly he may have overlooked it. Gratias may Gratias is to return a favour or favours received; that this sion. At p. 59. § 30. M.WOLF objects to the expression 'gratias.... satis ornatè agere; quis umquam, præter hunc studiosum stili cultoris, dixit Gratias agere ORNATE? Dicitur quidem sententiam de aliquo dicere ORNATE, vel causam agere ORNATE et similia, in quibus vox non eo pertinet ut aliquis ornetur, i. e. honoretur, sed ad ornatum verborum ' &c.-This objection does not appear very strong; gratias ORNATE AGERE seems perfectly analogous to beneficium ORNATE LOQUI, about which few persons would feel any doubt, see Cic. ad Att. I. 14. &c. Prescription, therefore, alone seems wanting, if indeed it be wanting, to authorize the phrase; a polite Frenchman would say, "Si l'expression n'est pas Latine, elle merite bien de l'être." With respect to the omission of the pronoun after " oro obtestorque," it is possible that the following passage might not occur to our editor; "Quamobrem a te peto, vel potius omnibus precibus oro, et obtestor, ut .... impertias," Cic. ad Cæs. inclosed in his Ep. ad Att. 9. 11. Here, however, in consequence of the a te preceding peto, the ellipsis is particularly easy. P. 10. § 1. he objects to the expression promerita, and for a reason which certainly bears very strongly against the argument from analogy in general:- Substantivum hoc nusquam legitur in libris Ciceronis, nisi h. 1. et ad Quir. c. 4. ubique meritum, locis innumeris: quæ res magni semper momenti habenda est, nec putandum classicos scriptores in talibus semel iterumque à constantiâ sui usus recedere?' P. 14. § 4. Quem ego mihi malueram esse fatalem." Markland and Gesner have expended much learning on this word fatalem. M. WOLF supposes that Gesner would have equally defended the following absurdities, "Febrim hanc mihi meisque NOLUI ESSE FATALEM, quapropter medicum adhibui; vel si dux exercitus dixerit, NOLLE se quoddam præsidium aut prælium sibi FATALE esse; etsi haud male dicimus fatum quærere in prælio:"-but why not suppose fatalem to have been inserted by some heedless transcriber for letalem? This correction would naturally suggest itself in an oration supposed to be authentic; vid. Burm. ad Rutil. I. 357 P. 29. § 12." Non solum civium Lacrimas, verum etiam patria preces repudiavit.” Quo loco memorabile est, sæpius accidisse huic scriptori, ut, ubi particulas istas poneret, non solum, verum etiam, in altero membro aut minus quiddam adjiceret, aut omnino nihil, quem aliquid magnum adjecisse videri vellet. Conf. supra § 4. et pro Domo § 6. Is then the expression Patria preces indeed of less force than Lacrime civium, "the tears of individual citizens ?" The remark, however, is applicable to various other instances in these Orations. P. 34. §15." Hanc prudentissimam civitatem." An amusing note, full of ridicule,-but concluding with these words, which totally destroy its force; Non dissimulanda tamen est lectio quatuor Oxon. etsi parum verisimilis, prudentissimam, qua dicta omnia conciderent. Why is a reading, so well supported, parum verisimilis? the context evidently requires it; he has so despised this most discerning city, as to suppose that his vices would escape notice, if only in the forum he assumed a countenance of austerity." We meet with a similar use of the word in Quintil. Inst. 5. 11. "Civitas Atheniensium prudentissima." P. 35. 16. The observations adduced in support of Markland's objection are ingenious, and conclusive; it is indeed surprising that Gesner should have defended such unmeaning bombast; Illum decepit (says our editor) forma sententiæ satis Ciceroniana, in qua nihil desideramus nisi bonum sensum, convenientibus rei verbis expressum,' &c. The same commendation is due to the note on haberet in consilio, &c. p. 50. § 25. P. 67. § 34." Mecum leges-frugum ubertas." Few passages in the work have puzzled the commentators more than this. Markland charges the author of the speech with palpably contradicting what is asserted by him in the Orat. pro Domo et Orat. ad Quir. Gesner repels the charge, and is ably supported by WOLF; who, at the same time, andertakes to protect the critical reputation of Markland, and to account, in a creditable manner, for the erroneous opinion given by him. The fact is simply this; in this passage, it is not asserted that an abundance of corn had actually returned with Cicero to Rome, but only that it had ceased on his quitting Rome; and in Orat. post Red. ad Quir. p. 117. § 18. where a sudden and unexpected abundance is mentioned as a mark of the divine approbation 5 approbation of his return, we are to understand a plentiful supply of the market, which took place, either by accident, or, more probably, through the contrivance of the friends of Cicero, just at the time when the question was moved for his being recalled; this abundance lasted only two days, and was suc ceeded by a continuance of dearth: but it was hailed by Cicero and his friends as a good omen,—an omen, the fulfilment of which he boldly (and truly, as the event proved) prognosticates in consequence of the law, proposed by him, which intrusted the supply of the market to the care and authority of Pompey the Great.-Thus, the two passages relate to different, reconcileable facts. We now come to the ORATIO AD QUIRITES POST REDITUM, to which, we agree with Ferratius, the words HABUI CONCIONEM, p. 81. most probably refer; the contrary arguments advanced by M. WOLF amounting to no more than negative evidence, and even that being very slight. P. 83. 1. The beginning of this speech is certainly very much involved; and therefore, though not absolutely avaxiZoulov, very unlike the exordium that might be expected from Cicero, particularly on such an occasion, in an address to the people. This is well argued by M. WOLF; who, at the same time, with great clearness and sound learning, analyzes and explains it. Sunt quidem,' he observes, apud illum (Ciceronem) longiores perioai, et, quæ Rhetores vocant, meμara et Taos; sed longitudo in talibus conjuncta est cum proportione partium, cum perspicuitate verborum, etiam in dvaxonoulos, que ipsa fere perspicuitatis causa admitti solent. Hinc contra,' &c. He thus concludes, Denique cedo nobis unde aliud exemplum ubi auditores bis in eadem periodo nominatim appellentur, uti hic Quirites. Numerosius haud dubie sic clausula cadit; sed numerose ineptiæ tamen sunt ineptiæ.' ་་ P. 88. §3." Reliqua mea fortuna." The triple commentary, nearly two pages in length, on these words, might have been spared; since the meaning of the passage is very clear, viz. some of Cicero's property, his farms, &c. remained nearly in statu quo; and they were restored to him, accompanied with the assurance that his other losses should be estimated and compensation made for them. Thus too, inasmuch as he knew that he might, safely rely on this assurance, he might very naturally say, speaking by anticipation, that his entire fortunes were restored to him; which is perfectly consistent with the other passage, quoted by M. WOLF as contradictory to this, "Qui ordinem, qui fortunas... reddidistis," Orat. Post reditum in Sen. P. 10. 1. This compensation, by estimate, actually took place in the October October following; that is, within about a month from the date of his speech, P. 91. §5. "Parvus consularis." The puerile declamation of this passage is very deservedly and very ably exposed. P. 103. 11. " At pro me.... efflagitati sunt." The whole of this ingenious dispute respecting the propriety of the word flagitati might have been superseded, by substituting in the text the word flagitati, which is the reading of 5 Oxon. 2 Barbb. and other authorities. The editor confesses this ;then why encumber his work with the argument? P. 112. §15. "An ego.... exploratissimum," &c. There is no doubt that Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, frequently wrote despondingly with respect to the probability of his return. to Rome: but, after he had succeeded, it was by no means unnatural for him to speak exultingly, as if he had foreseen his being recalled;-nay, it might be good policy to boast, as in this passage, that he had never seriously doubted the affection of his countrymen. The objection, therefore, on the ground of his epistolary correspondence, appears trivial. P. 117. 18. Numenque vestrum aque mihi grave et sanc tum, ac Deorum immortalium, in omni vita futurum." In reply to Gesner's assertion that similar passages occur in other Orations of Cicero, M. WOLF with nice and just discrimination. observes: Similes loquendi formas in eximiis hominibus prædicandis non raro adhibentur a Latinis vel ante Cesarum tempora, (Conf. eundem Marklandum in Statii Silv. v. 2. 170.) sed similes, non ejusdem superlationis. Nam tenuibus momentis talia variantur. Sic v. c. Cicero de populo suæ ætatis non eadem potuisset dicere, que dixit de majoribus, quasi in Heroum numerum jam pridem relatis: potuitque adeo in altera Orat. 30. leviore culpa Senatus deorum numero coli. Sed de hoc genere rerum verissimum est quod alio loco Gesnerus monuit: verbis non opus esse apud intelligentes. Ipse notus Declamator, antequam iret in exilium, c.11. moderatius egit, utpote qui satis habuit ipsa verba ex Or. pro Murena exscribere.' Having said enough of this Oration, we shall now proceed to make a few short extracts from and very cursory remarks on the two remaining Orations. P. 141. § 3. Or. pro Dom. "Vituperasset-omittam— munivit." Scribere debuerat vituperaret, si modo, quod consentaneum est, ipsa vituperandi actione aditum ad aures habiturum se putabat Granting the hypothesis si modo, &c. to be founded, this grammatical criticism would be just: but, why is it necessary to suppose that he meant to gain a favourable hearing • ipsa |