VOLUME VI SLICE III Chitral to Cincinnati (continued 10)

Churchyard was employed to devise a pageant for the queen’s reception at Bristol in 1574, and again at Norwich in 1578. He had published in 1575 The firste parte of Churchyarde’s Chippes, the modest title which he gives to his works. No second part appeared, but there was a much enlarged edition in 1578. A passage in Churchyarde’s Choise (1579) gave offence to Elizabeth, and the author fled to Scotland, where he remained for three years. He was only restored to favour about 1584, and in 1593 he received a small pension from the queen. The affectionate esteem with which he was regarded by the younger Elizabethan writers is expressed by Thomas Nashe, who says (Foure Letters Confuted) that Churchyard’s aged muse might well be “grandmother to our grandiloquentest poets at this present.” Francis Meres (Palladis Tamia, 1598) mentions him in conjunction with many great names among “the most passionate, among us, to bewail and bemoan the perplexities of love.” Spenser, in “Colin Clout’s come home again,” calls him with a spice of raillery “old Palaemon” who “sung so long until quite hoarse he grew.” His writings, with the exception of his contributions to the Mirror for Magistrates, are chiefly autobiographical in character or deal with the wars in which he had a share. They are very rare, and have never been completely reprinted. Churchyard lived right through Elizabeth’s reign, and was buried in St Margaret’s church, Westminster, on the 4th of April 1604.

The extant works of Churchyard, exclusive of commendatory and occasional verses, include:—A lamentable and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders (1578); A general rehearsall of warres, called Churchyard’s Choise (1579), really a completion of the Chippes, and containing, like it, a number of detached pieces; A light Bondel of livelie Discourses, called Churchyardes Charge (1580); The Worthines of Wales (1587), a valuable antiquarian work in prose and verse, anticipating Michael Drayton; Churchyard’s Challenge (1593); A Musicall Consort of Heavenly harmonie ... called Churchyards Charitie (1595); A True Discourse Historicall, of the succeeding Governors in the Netherlands (1602).

The chief authority for Churchyard’s biography is his own “Tragicall Discourse of the unhappy man’s life” (Churchyardes Chippes). George Chalmers published (1817) a selection from his works relating to Scotland, for which he wrote a useful life. See also an edition of the Chippes (ed. J.P. Collier, 1870), of the Worthines of Wales (Spenser Soc. 1876), and a notice of Churchyard by H.W. Adnitt (Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Nat. Hist. Soc., reprinted separately 1884).

CHURCHYARD, a piece of consecrated ground attached to a parochial church, and used as a burial place. It is distinguished from a cemetery (q.v.), which is also a place of burial, but is separate and apart from any parochial church. A cemetery in England is either the property of a private company, incorporated by special act of parliament, or of a local authority, and is subject to the Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847, incorporated in the Public Health Acts. The practice of burying in churches or churchyards is said to have been connected with the custom of praying for the dead, and it would appear that the earlier practice was burying in the church itself. In England, about the year 750, spaces of ground adjoining the churches were enclosed and appropriated to the burial of those who had been entitled to attend divine service in those churches.

The right to burial in the parish churchyard is a common law right, controlled in many points by the provisions of the law ecclesiastical. This double character is sufficient to explain the controversy which has so long raged round the subject of burials in England. Every man, according to the common law, has a right to be buried in his own churchyard, or, as it is sometimes put, in the churchyard of the parish where he dies. But the churchyard, as well as the church itself, is the freehold of the parson, who can in many respects deal with it as if it were a private estate. A statute of Edward I. (35, st. 2) speaks of the churchyard as the soil of the church, and the trees growing in the churchyard “as amongst the goods of the church, the which laymen have no authority to dispose,” and prohibits “the parsons from cutting down such trees unless required for repairs.” Notwithstanding the consecration of the church and churchyard and the fact that they are the parson’s freehold, a right of way may be claimed through them by prescription. The right to burial may be subject to the payment of a fee to the incumbent, if such has been the immemorial custom of the parish, but not otherwise. The spirit of the ancient canons regarded such burial fees as of a simoniacal complexion, inasmuch as the consecrated grounds were among the res sacrae—a feeling which Lord Stowell says disappeared after the Reformation. No person can be buried in a church without the consent of the incumbent, except when the owner of a manor-house prescribes for a burying-place within the church as belonging to the manor-house. In the case of Rex v. Taylor it was held that an information was grantable against a person for opposing the burial of a parishioner; but the court would not interpose as to the person’s refusal to read the burial service because he never was baptized—that being matter for the ecclesiastical court. Strangers (or persons not dying in the parish) should not be buried, it appears, without the consent of the parishioners or churchwardens, “whose parochial right of burial is invaded thereby.”

In Scotland the obligation of providing and maintaining the churchyard rests on the heritors of the parish. The guardianship of the churchyard belongs to the heritors and also to the kirk-session, either by delegation from the heritors, or in right of its ecclesiastical character. The right of burial appears to be strictly limited to parishioners, although an opinion has been expressed that any person dying in the parish has a right to be buried in the churchyard. The parishioners have no power of management. The presbytery may interfere to compel the heritors to provide due accommodation, but has no further jurisdiction. It is the duty of the heritors to allocate the churchyard. The Scottish law hesitates to attach the ordinary incidents of real property to the churchyard, while English law treats the ground as the parson’s freehold. It would be difficult to say who in Scotland is the legal owner of the soil. Various opinions appear to prevail, e.g. as to grass growing on the surface and minerals found beneath. The difficulty as to religious services does not exist. On the other hand, the religious character of the ground is hostile to many of the legal rights recognized by the English law.

See also Burial and Burial Acts; Cemetery.

CHURL (A.S. ceorl, cognate with the Ger. Kerl and with similar words in other Teutonic languages), one of the two main classes, eorl and ceorl, into which in early Anglo-Saxon society the freemen appear to have been divided. In the course of time the status of the ceorl was probably reduced; but although his political power was never large, and in some directions his freedom was restricted, it hardly seems possible previous to the Norman Conquest to class him among the unfree. Some authorities, however, accept this view. At all events it is certain that the ceorl was frequently a holder of land, and a person of some position, and that he could attain the rank of a thegn. Except in Kent his wergild was fixed at two hundred shillings, or one-sixth of that of a thegn, and he is undoubtedly the twyhynde man of Anglo-Saxon law. In Kent his wergild was considerably higher, and his status probably also, but his position in this kingdom is a matter of controversy. After the Norman Conquest the ceorls were reduced to a condition of servitude, and the word translates the villanus of Domesday Book, although it also covers classes other than the villani. The form ceorl soon became cherl, as in Havelok the Dane (ante 1300) and several times in Chaucer. and subsequently churl. Taking a less technical sense than the ceorl of Anglo-Saxon law, churl, or cherl was used in general to mean a “man,” and more particularly a “husband.” In this sense it was employed about 1000 in a translation of the New Testament to render the word ἀνήρ (John iv. 16, 18). It was then employed to describe a “peasant,” and gradually began to denote undesirable qualities. Hence comes the modern use of the word for a low-born or vulgar person, particularly one with an unpleasant, surly or miserly character.

See H.M. Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905); F. Seebohm, Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law (London, 1902).

CHURN (O. Eng. cyrin; found in various forms in most Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch karn; according to the New English Dictionary not connected with “quern,” a mill), a vessel in which butter is made, by shaking or beating the cream so as to separate the fatty particles which form the butter from the serous parts or buttermilk. Early churns were upright, and in shape resembled the cans now used in the transport of milk, to which the name “churn” is also given. The upright churn was worked by hand by a wooden “plunger”; later came a box-shaped churn with a “splasher” revolving inside and turned by a handle. The modern type of churn, in large dairies worked by mechanical means, either revolves or swings itself, thus reverting to the most primitive method of butter-making, the shaking or swinging of the cream in a skin-bag or a gourd. (See Dairy.)

CHUSAN, the principal island of a group situated off the eastern coast of China, in 30° N. 122° E., belonging to the province of Cheh-kiang. It lies N.W. and S.E., and has a circumference of 51 m., the extreme length being 20, the extreme breadth 10, and the minimum breadth 6 m. The island is beautifully diversified with hill and dale, and well watered with numerous small streams, of which the most considerable is the Tungkiang, falling into the harbour of Tinghai. Most of the surface is capable of cultivation, and nineteen-twentieths of the inhabitants are engaged in agriculture. Wherever it is possible to rear rice every other product is neglected; yet the quantity produced is not sufficient for the wants of the inhabitants. Millet, wheat, sweet potatoes, yams and tares are also grown. The tea plant is found almost everywhere, and the cotton plant is largely cultivated near the sea. The capital, Tinghai, stands about half a mile from the southern shore, and is surrounded by a wall nearly 3 m. in circuit. The ditch outside the wall is interrupted on the N.W. side by a spur from a neighbouring hill, which projects into the town, and forms an easy access to an attacking force. The town is traversed by canals, and the harbour, which has from 4 to 8 fathoms water, is landlocked by several islands. Temple (or Joss-house) Hill, which commands the town and harbour close to the beach, is 122 ft. high. The population of the entire island is estimated at 250,000, of which the capital contains about 40,000. Chusan has but few manufactures; the chief are coarse cotton stuffs and agricultural implements. There are salt works on the coast; and the fisheries employ a number of the inhabitants. In Tinghai a considerable business is carried on in carving and varnishing, and its silver wares are in high repute. The principal exports are fish, coarse black tea, cotton, vegetable tallow, sweet potatoes, and some wheat. Chusan was occupied by the Japanese during the Ming dynasty, and served as an important commercial entrepot. It was taken by the British forces in 1840 and 1841, and retained till 1846 as a guarantee for the fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaty. It was also occupied by the British in 1860.

CHUTE (Fr. for “fall,” of water or the like; pronounced as “shoot,” with which in meaning it is identical), a channel or trough, artificial or natural, down which objects such as timber, coal or grain may slide from a higher to a lower level. The word is also used of a channel cut in a dam or a river for the passage of floating timber, and in Louisiana and on the Mississippi of a channel at the side of a river, or narrow way between an island and the shore. The “Water-Chute” or water tobogganing, is a Canadian pastime, which has been popular in London and elsewhere. A steep wooden slope terminates in a shallow lake; down this run flat-bottomed boats which rapidly increase their velocity until at the end of the “chute” they dash into the water.

CHUTNEY, or Chutnee (Hindustani chatni), a relish or seasoning of Indian origin, used as a condiment. It is prepared from sweet fruits such as mangoes, raisins, &c., with acid flavouring from tamarinds, lemons, limes and sour herbs, and with a hot seasoning of chillies, cayenne pepper and spices.

CHUVASHES, or Tchuvashes, a tribe found in eastern Russia. They form about one-fourth of the population of the government of Kazan, and live in scattered communities throughout the governments of Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov, Orenburg and Perm. They have been identified with the Burtasses of the Arab geographers, and many authorities think they are the descendants of the ancient Bolgars. In general they physically resemble the Finns, being round-headed, flat-featured and light-eyed, but they have been affected by long association with the Tatar element. In dress they are thoroughly Russianized, and they are nominally Christians, though they cling to many of the Old Shamanistic practices. They number some half a million. Their language belongs to the Tatar or Turkish group, but has been strongly influenced by the Finno-Ugrian idioms spoken round it.

See Schott, De Lingua Tschuwaschorum (Berlin, 1841).

CIALDINI, ENRICO (1811-1892), Italian soldier, politician and diplomatist, was born at Castelvetro, in Modena, on the 10th of August 1811. In 1831 he took part in the insurrection at Modena, fleeing afterwards to Paris, whence he proceeded to Spain to fight against the Carlists. Returning to Italy in 1848, he commanded a regiment at the battle of Novara. In 1859 he organized the Alpine Brigade, fought at Palestro at the head of the 4th Division, and in the following year invaded the Marches, won the battle of Castelfidardo, took Ancona, and subsequently directed the siege of Gaeta. For these services he was created duke of Gaeta by the king, and was assigned a pension of 10,000 lire by parliament. In 1861 his intervention envenomed the Cavour-Garibaldi dispute, royal mediation alone preventing a duel between him and Garibaldi. Placed in command of the troops sent to oppose the Garibaldian expedition of 1862, he defeated Garibaldi at Aspromonte. Between 1862 and 1866 he held the position of lieutenant-royal at Naples, and in 1864 was created senator. On the outbreak of the war of 1866 he resumed command of an army corps, but dissensions between him and La Marmora prejudiced the issue of the campaign and contributed to the defeat of Custozza. After the war he refused the command of the General Staff, which he wished to render independent of the war office. In 1867 he attempted unsuccessfully to form a cabinet sufficiently strong to prevent the threatened Garibaldian incursion into the papal states, and two years later failed in a similar attempt, through disagreement with Lanza concerning the army estimates. On the 3rd of August 1870 he pleaded in favour of Italian intervention in aid of France, a circumstance which enhanced his influence when in July 1876 he replaced Nigra as ambassador to the French Republic. This position he held until 1882, when he resigned on account of the publication by Mancini of a despatch in which he had complained of arrogant treatment by M. Waddington. He died at Leghorn, on the 8th of September 1892.

(H. W. S.)

CIBBER (or Cibert), CAIUS GABRIEL (1630-1700), Danish sculptor, was born at Flensburg. He was the son of the king’s cabinetmaker, and was sent to Rome at the royal charge while yet a youth. He came to England during the Protectorate, or during the first years of the Restoration. Besides the famous statues of Melancholy and Raving Madness (“great Cibber’s brazen brainless brothers”), now at South Kensington, Cibber produced the bas-reliefs round the monument on Fish Street Hill. The several kings of England and the Sir Thomas Gresham executed by him for the Royal Exchange were destroyed with the building itself in 1838. Cibber was long employed by the fourth earl of Devonshire, and many fine specimens of his work are to be seen at Chatsworth. Under that nobleman he took up arms in 1688 for William of Orange, and was appointed in return carver to the king’s closet. He died rich, and, according to Horace Walpole, built the Danish church in London, where he lies buried beside his second wife, to whom he erected a monument. She was a Miss Colley of Glaiston, grand-daughter of Sir Anthony Colley, and the mother of his son Colley Cibber.

CIBBER, COLLEY (1671-1757), English actor and dramatist, was born in London on the 6th of November 1671, the eldest son of Caius Gabriel Cibber, the sculptor. Sent in 1682 to the free school at Grantham, Lincolnshire, the boy distinguished himself by an aptitude for writing verse. He produced an “Oration” on the death of Charles II.—whom he had seen feeding his ducks in St James’s Park,—and an “Ode” on the accession of James II. He was removed from school in 1687 on the chance of election to Winchester College. His father, however, had not then presented that institution with his statue of William of Wykeham, and the son was rejected, although through his mother he claimed to be of “founder’s kin.” The boy went to London, and indulged his passion for the theatre. He was invited to Chatsworth, the seat of William Cavendish, earl (afterwards duke) of Devonshire, for whom his father was then executing commissions, and he was on his way when the news of the landing of William of Orange was received; father and son met at Nottingham, and Colley Cibber was taken into Devonshire’s company of volunteers. He served in the bloodless campaign that resulted in the coronation of the Prince of Orange, and on its conclusion presented a Latin petition to the earl imploring his interest. The earl did nothing for him, however, and he enrolled himself (1690) as an actor in Betterton’s company at Drury Lane.

After playing “full three-quarters of a year” without salary, as was then the custom of all apprentice actors, he was paid ten shillings a week. His rendering of the little part of the chaplain in Otway’s Orphan procured him a rise of five shillings; and a subsequent impersonation (1694) on an emergency, and at the author’s request, of Lord Touchwood in The Double Dealer, advanced him, on Congreve’s recommendation, to a pound a week. On this, supplemented by an allowance of £20 a year from his father, he contrived to live with his wife and family—he had married in 1693—and to produce a play, Love’s Last Shift, or the Fool in Fashion (1696). Of this comedy Congreve said that it had “a great many things that were like wit in it”; and Vanbrugh honoured it by writing his Relapse as a sequel. Cibber played the part of Sir Novelty Fashion, and his performance as Lord Foppington, the same character renamed, in Vanbrugh’s piece, established his reputation as an actor. In 1698 he was assailed, with other dramatists, by Jeremy Collier in the Short View. In November 1702 he produced, at Drury Lane, She Wou’d and She Wou’d Not; or the Kind Impostor, one of his best comedies; and in 1704, for himself and Mrs Oldfield, The Careless Husband, which Horace Walpole classed, with Cibber’s Apology, as “worthy of immortality.” In 1706 Cibber left Drury Lane for the Haymarket, but when the two companies united two years later he rejoined his old theatre through the influence of his friend Colonel Brett, a shareholder. Brett made over his share to Wilks, Estcourt and Cibber. Complaints against the management of Christopher Rich led, in 1709, to the closing of the theatre by order of the crown, and William Collier obtained the patent. After a series of intrigues Collier was bought out by Wilks, Doggett and Cibber, under whose management Drury Lane became more prosperous than it ever had been. In 1715 a new patent was granted to Sir Richard Steele, and Barton Booth was also added to the management. In 1717 Cibber produced the Nonjuror, an adaptation from Molière’s Tartuffe; the play, for which Nicholas Rowe wrote an abusive prologue, ran eighteen nights, and the author received from George I., to whom it was dedicated, a present of two hundred guineas. Tartuffe became an English Catholic priest who incited rebellion, and there is little doubt that the Whig principles expressed in the Nonjuror led to Cibber’s appointment as poet laureate (1730). It also provoked the animosity of the Jacobite and Catholic factions, and was possibly one of the causes of Pope’s hostility to Cibber. Numerous “keys” to the Nonjuror appeared in 1718. In 1720 Drury Lane was closed for three days by order of the duke of Newcastle, ostensibly on account of the refusal of the patentees to submit to the authority of the lord chamberlain, but really (it is asserted) because of a quarrel between Newcastle and Steele, in which the former demanded Cibber’s resignation. In 1726 Cibber pleaded the cause of the patentees against the estate of Sir Richard Steele before Sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, and won his case. In 1730 Mrs Oldfield died, and her loss was followed in 1732 by that of Wilks; Cibber now sold his share in the theatre, appearing rarely on the stage thereafter. In 1740 he published An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber, Comedian ... with an Historical View of the Stage during his Own Time. “There are few,” wrote Goldsmith, “who do not prefer a page of Montaigne or Colley Cibber, who candidly tell us what they thought of the world, and the world thought of them, to the more stately memoirs and transactions of Europe.” But beside the personal interest, this book contains criticisms on acting of enduring value, and gives the best account there is of Cibber’s contemporaries on the London stage. Samuel Johnson, who was no friend of Cibber, gave it grudging praise (see Boswell’s Life of Johnson, ed. Birkbeck Hill, vol. iii. p. 72).

In 1742 Cibber was substituted for Theobald as the hero of Pope’s Dunciad. Cibber had introduced some gag into the Rehearsal, in which he played the part of Bayes, referring to the ill-starred farce of Three Hours after Marriage (1717). This play was nominally by Gay, but Pope and Arbuthnot were known to have had a hand in it. Cibber refused to discontinue the offensive passage, and Pope revenged himself in sarcastic allusions in his printed correspondence, in the Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot and in the Dunciad. To these, Cibber replied with A Letter from Mr Cibber to Mr Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him in his satirical works to be so frequently fond of Mr Cibber’s name (1742). Cibber scored with an “idle story of Pope’s behaviour in a tavern” inserted in this letter, and gives an account of the original dispute over the Rehearsal. By the substitution of Cibber for Theobald as hero of the Dunciad, much of the satire lost its point. Cibber’s faults certainly did not include dullness. A new edition contained a prefatory discourse, probably the work of Warburton, entitled “Ricardus Aristarchus, or the Hero of the Poem,” in which Cibber is made to look ridiculous from his own Apology. Cibber replied in 1744 with Another Occasional Letter ..., and altogether he had the best of the argument. When he was seventy-four years old he made his last appearance on the stage as Pandulph in his own Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John (Covent Garden, 15th of February 1745), a miserable paraphrase of Shakespeare’s play. He died on the 11th of December 1757.

Cibber’s reputation has suffered unduly from the depreciation of Pope and Johnson. “I could not bear such nonsense,” said Johnson of one of Cibber’s odes, “and I would not let him read it to the end.” Fielding attacked Cibber’s style and language more than once in Joseph Andrews and elsewhere. Nevertheless, Cibber possessed wit, unusual good sense and tact; and in the Apology he showed himself the most delicate and subtle critic of acting of his time. He was frequently accused of plagiarism, and did not scruple to make use of old plays, but he is said to have been ashamed of his Shakespearian adaptations, one of which, however, Richard III. (Drury Lane, 1700), kept its place as the acting version until 1821. Cibber is rebuked for his mutilation of Shakespeare by Fielding in the Historical Register for 1736, where he figures as Ground Ivy.

If Cibber had not as much wit as his predecessors, he displayed in his best plays abundant animation and spirit, free from the extreme coarseness of many of his contemporaries, and a thorough knowledge of the requirements of the stage. His most successful comedies kept their place in the acting repertory for a long time. He was an excellent actor, especially in the rôle of the fashionable coxcomb. Horace Walpole said that as Bayes in The Rehearsal he made the part what it was intended to be, the burlesque of a great poet, whereas David Garrick degraded him to a “garretteer.”

The Apology was edited in 1822 by E. Bellchambers and in 1889 by R.W. Lowe, who printed with it other valuable theatrical books and pamphlets. It is also included in Hunt and Clarke’s Autobiographies (1826, &c). Cibber’s Dramatic Works were published in 1760, with an account of the life and writings of the author, and again in 1777. Besides the plays already mentioned, he wrote Woman’s Wit, or the Lady in Fashion (1697), which was altered later (1707) into The Schoolboy, or the Comical Rivals; Xerxes (1699), a tragedy acted only once; The Provoked Husband (acted 1728), completed from Vanbrugh’s unfinished Journey to London; The Rival Queens, with the Humours of Alexander the Great (acted 1710), a comical tragedy; Damon and Phyllida (acted 1729), a ballad opera; and adaptations from Beaumont and Fletcher, Dryden, Molière and Corneille. A bibliography of the numerous skits on Cibber is to be found in Lowe’s Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature.

Colley Cibber’s son, Theophilus Cibber (1703-1758), also an actor and playwright, was born on the 26th of November 1703. In 1734 he was acting-manager at the Haymarket, and he subsequently played at Drury Lane, Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Covent Garden. His best impersonation was as Pistol, but he also distinguished himself in some of the fine-gentleman parts affected by his father. He was one of the ringleaders in the intrigues against John Highmore, who had bought a share in the patent of Drury Lane from Colley Cibber. Theophilus Cibber, with a number of other actors, seceded from Drury Lane, and in thus depreciating the value of the patent, for which his father had received a considerable sum, acted with doubtful honesty. He contemplated the publication of an autobiography, but was effectually dissuaded by the appearance (1740) of a scathing account of his career by an unknown author, entitled An Apology for the Life of Mr T.... C.... supposed to be written by himself. In 1753 he began The Lives and Characters of the most Eminent Actors and Actresses of Great Britain and Ireland, but he went no further than the life of Barton Booth. He wrote some plays of no great merit. In 1753 appeared An Account of the Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland, with the name of “Mr Cibber” on the title page. The five volumes of Lives are chiefly based on the earlier works of Gerard Langbaine and Giles Jacob, and the MS. collections of Thomas Coxeter (1689-1747). The book is said to have been largely written by Robert Shiels, Dr Johnson’s amanuensis. Theophilus Cibber perished by shipwreck on his way to Dublin to play at the Theatre Royal.

Susannah Maria Cibber (1714-1766), wife of Theophilus, was an actress of distinction. She was the daughter of a Covent Garden upholsterer, and sister of Dr Arne (1710-1778) the composer. Mrs Cibber had a beautiful voice and began her career in opera. She was the original Galatea in Handel’s Acis and Galatea, and the contralto arias in the Messiah are said to have been written for her. She played Zarah in Aaron Hill’s version of Voltaire’s Zaïre in 1736, and it was as a tragic actress, not as a singer, that her greatest triumphs were won. From Colley Cibber she learned a sing-song method of declamation. Her mannerisms, however, did not obscure her real genius, and she freed herself from them entirely when she began to act with Garrick, with whom she was associated at Drury Lane from 1753. She died on the 30th of January 1766. She married Theopihilus Cibber in 1734, but lived with him but a short time. Appreciations of Mrs Cibber’s fine acting are to be found in many contemporary writers, one of the most discriminating being in the Rosciad of Charles Churchill.

Colley Cibber’s youngest daughter, Charlotte, married Richard Charke, a violinist, from whom she was soon separated. She began as an understudy to actresses in leading parts, but quarrelled with her manager, Charles Fleetwood, on whom she wrote a one-act skit, The Art of Management (1735). She also wrote two comedies and two novels of small merit, and an untrustworthy, but amusing Narrative of Life of ... Charlotte Charke, ... by herself (1755), reprinted in Hunt and Clarke’s Autobiographies (1822).

CIBORIUM, a name in classical Latin for a drinking-vessel. It is the latinized form of the Gr. κιβώριον, the cup-shaped seed-vessel of the Egyptian water-lily, the seeds or nuts of which were known as “Egyptian beans.” In the early Christian Church the ciborium was a canopy over the altar (q.v.), supported on columns, and from it hung the receptacle in which was reserved the consecrated wafer of the Eucharist. The use of the word has probably been much influenced by the early false connexion with cibus, food, cf. Agatio, bishop of Pisa (quoted in Du Cange, Gloss. s.v.), “Ciborium vas esse ad ferendos cibos.” In the Eastern Church the columns rested on the altar itself, in the Western they reached the ground. The name was early transferred from the canopy to the vessel containing the reserved sacrament, and in the Western Church the canopy was known as a “baldaquin,” Ital. baldacchino, from Baldacco, the Italian name of Bagdad, and hence applied to a rich kind of embroidered tapestry made there and much used for canopies, &c. At the present day it is usual in the Roman Church to use the term “pyx” (πύξις, properly a vessel made of boxwood) for the receptacle for the reserved sacrament used in administering the viaticum to the sick or dying. Medieval pyxes and ciboria are often beautiful examples of the goldsmith’s, enameller’s and metal-worker’s craft. They take most usually the shape of a covered chalice or of a cylindrical box with conical or cylindrical cover surmounted by a cross. An exquisite ciborium fetched £6000 at the sale of the Jerdone Braikenridge collection at Christie’s in 1908. It is supposed to have come from Malmesbury Abbey, and is probably of 13th-century English make. It is of copper-gilt and ornamented with champlevé enamels, apple and chrysoprase green, scarlet, mauve and white, turquoise and lapis lazuli, the flesh tints being of a pale jasper. Various subjects from the Old and New Testament, such as the sacrifice of Abel, the brazen serpent, the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection are represented on circular medallions on the outside. It is illustrated in colours in the catalogue of the exhibition of the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1897.

CIBRARIO, LUIGI, Count (1802-1870), Italian statesman and historian, descended from a noble but impoverished Piedmontese family, was born in Usseglia on the 23rd of February 1802. He won a scholarship at the age of sixteen, and was teaching literature at eighteen. His verses to King Charles Albert, then prince of Carignano, on the birth of his son Victor Emmanuel, attracted the prince’s attention and proved the beginning of a long intimacy. He entered the Sardinian civil service, and in 1824 was appointed lecturer on canon and civil law. His chief interest was the study of ancient documents, and he was sent to search the archives of Switzerland, France and Germany for charters relating to the history of Savoy. During the war of 1848, after the expulsion of the Austrians from Venice, Cibrario was sent to that city with Colli to negotiate its union with Piedmont. But the proposal fell through when the news of the armistice between King Charles Albert and Austria arrived, and the two delegates were made the objects of a hostile demonstration. In October 1848 Cibrario was made senator, and after the battle of Novara (March 1849), when Charles Albert abdicated and retired to a monastery near Oporto, Cibrario and Count Giacinto di Collegno were sent as representatives of the senate to express the sympathy of that body with the fallen king. He reached Oporto on the 28th of May, and after staying there for a month returned to Turin, which he reached just before the news of Charles Albert’s death. In May 1852 he became minister of finance in the reconstructed d’Azeglio cabinet, and later minister of education in that of Cavour. In the same year he was appointed secretary to the order of SS. Maurizio and Lazzaro. It was he who in 1853 dictated the vigorous memorandum of protest against the confiscation by Austria of the property of Lombard exiles who had been naturalized in Piedmont. He strongly supported Cavour’s Crimean policy (1855), and when General La Marmora departed in command of the expeditionary force and Cavour took the war office, Cibrario was made minister for foreign affairs. He conducted the business of the department with great skill, and ably seconded Cavour in bringing about the admission of Piedmont to the congress of Paris on an equal footing with the great powers. On retiring from the foreign office Cibrario was created count. In 1860 he acted as mediator between Victor Emmanuel’s government and the republic of San Marino, and arranged a treaty by which the latter’s liberties were guaranteed. After the war of 1866 by which Austria lost Venetia, Cibrario negotiated with that government for the restitution of state papers and art treasures removed by it from Lombardy and Venetia to Vienna. He died in October 1870, near Salò, on the lake of Garda.

His most important work was his Economia politica del medio evo (Turin, 1839), which enjoyed great popularity at the time, but is now of little value. His Schiavitù e servaggio (Milan, 1868-1869) gave an account of the development and abolition of slavery and serfdom. Among his historical writings the following deserve mention:—Delle artiglierie dal 1300 al 1700 (Turin, 1847); Origini ... della monarchia di Savoia (Turin, 1854); Degli ordini cavallereschi (Turin, 1846); Degli ordini religiosi (Turin, 1845); and the Memorie Segrete of Charles Albert, written by order of Victor Emmanuel but afterwards withdrawn. Cibrario was a good example of the loyal, industrious, honest Piedmontese aristocrat of the old school.

His biography has been written by F. Odorici, Il Conte L. Cibrario (Florence, 1872).

(L. V.*)

CICADA (Cicadidae), insects of the homopterous division of the Hemiptera, generally of large size, with the femora of the anterior legs toothed below, two pairs of large clear wings, and prominent compound eyes. Cicadas are chiefly remarkable for the shrill song of the males, which in some cases may be heard in concert at a distance of a quarter of a mile or more. The vocal organs, of which there is a pair in the thorax, protected by an opercular plate, are quite unlike the sounding organs of other insects. Each consists in essence of a tightly stretched membrane or drum which is thrown into a state of rapid vibration by a powerful muscle attached to its inner surface and passing thence downwards to the floor of the thoracic cavity. Although no auditory organs have been found in the females, the song of the males is believed to serve as a sexual call. Cicadas are also noteworthy for their longevity, which so far as is known surpasses that of all other insects. By means of a saw-like ovipositor the female lays her eggs in the branches of trees. Upon hatching, the young, which differ from the adult in possessing long antennae and a pair of powerful fossorial anterior legs, fall to the ground, burrow below the surface, and spend a prolonged subterranean larval existence feeding upon the roots of vegetation. After many years the larva is transformed into the pupa or nymph, which is distinguishable principally by the shortness of its antennae and the presence of wing pads. After a brief existence the pupa emerges from the ground, and, holding on to a plant stem by means of its powerful front legs, sets free the perfect insect through a slit along the median dorsal line of the thorax. In some cases the pupa upon emerging constructs a chimney of soil, the use of which is not known. In one of the best-known species, Cicada septemdecim, from North America, the lifecycle is said to extend over seventeen years. Cicadas are particularly abundant in the tropics, where the largest forms are found. They also occur in temperate countries, and were well known to the ancient Greeks and Romans. One species only is found in England, where it is restricted to the southern counties but is an insect not commonly met with.

CICELY, Myrrhis odorata (natural order Umbelliferae), a perennial herb with a leafy hollow stem, 2 to 3 ft. high, much divided leaves, whitish beneath, a large sheathing base, and terminal umbels of small white flowers, the outer ones only of which are fertile. The fruit is dark brown, long (¾ to 1 in.), narrow and beaked. The plant is a native of central and southern Europe, and is found in parts of England and Scotland in pastures, usually near houses. It has aromatic and stimulant properties and was formerly used as a pot-herb.

CICERO, the name of two families of ancient Rome. It may perhaps be derived from cicer (pulse), in which case it would be analogous to such names as Lentulus, Tubero, Piso. Of one family, of the plebeian Claudian gens, only a single member, Gaius Claudius Cicero, tribune in 454 B.C., is known. The other family was a branch of the Tullii, settled from an ancient period at Arpinum. This family, four of whose members are noticed specially below, did not achieve more than municipal eminence until the time of M. Tullius Cicero, the great orator.

I. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Roman orator and politician, was born at Arpinum on the 3rd of January 106 B.C. His mother, Helvia, is said to have been of good family. His father was by some said to have been descended from Attius Tullius, the Volscian host of Coriolanus, while spiteful persons declared him to have been a fuller; in any case he was a Roman knight with property at Arpinum and a house in Rome. His health was weak, and he generally lived at Arpinum, where he devoted himself to literary pursuits. Cicero spent his boyhood partly in his native town and partly at Rome. The poet Archias, he says, first inspired him with the love of literature. He was much impressed by the teaching of Phaedrus, the Epicurean, at a period before he assumed the toga virilis; he studied dialectic under Diodotus the Stoic, and in 88 B.C. attended the lectures of Philo, the head of the Academic school, whose devoted pupil he became. He studied rhetoric under Molo (Molon) of Rhodes, and law under the guidance of Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur and jurisconsult. After the death of the augur, he transferred himself to the care of Q. Mucius Scaevola, the pontifex maximus, a still more famous jurisconsult, nephew of the augur. His literary education at this period consisted largely of verse-writing and making translations from Greek authors. We hear of an early poem named Pontius Glaucus the subject of which is uncertain, and of translations of Xenophon’s Oeconomica and the Phenomena of Aratus. Considerable fragments of the latter work are still extant. To this period also belongs his de Inventione rhetorica, of which he afterwards spoke lightly (de Orat. i. 5), but which enjoyed a great vogue in the middle ages. Cicero also, according to Roman practice, received military training. At the age of seventeen he served in the social war successively under Pompeius Strabo and Sulla (89 B.C.). In the war between Marius and Sulla his sympathies were with Sulla, but he did not take up arms (Sext. Rosc. 136, 142).

His forensic life begins in 81 B.C., at the age of twenty-five. A speech delivered in this year, pro Quinctio, is still extant; it is concerned with a technical point of law and has little literary merit. In the following year he made his celebrated defence of Sextus Roscius on a charge of parricide. He subsequently defended a woman of Arretium, whose freedom was impugned on the ground that Sulla had confiscated the territory of that town. Cicero then left Rome on account of his health, and travelled for two years in the East. He studied philosophy at Athens under various teachers, notably Antiochus of Ascalon, founder of the Old Academy, a combination of Stoicism, Platonism and Peripateticism. In Asia he attended the courses of Xenocles, Dionysius and Menippus, and in Rhodes those of Posidonius, the famous Stoic. In Rhodes also he studied rhetoric once more under Molo, to whom he ascribes a decisive influence upon the development of his literary style. He had previously affected the florid, or Asiatic, style of oratory then current in Rome. The chief faults of this were excess of ornament, antithesis, alliteration and assonance, monotony of rhythm, and the insertion of words purely for rhythmical effect. Molo, he says, rebuked his youthful extravagance and he came back “a changed man.”1

He returned to Rome in 77 B.C., and appears to have married at this time Terentia, a rich woman with a domineering temper, to whom many of his subsequent embarrassments were due.2 He engaged at once in forensic and political life. He was quaestor in 75, and was sent to Lilybaeum to supervise the corn supply. His connexion with Sicily led him to come forward in 70 B.C., when curule-aedile elect, to prosecute Gaius Verres, who had oppressed the island for three years. Cicero seldom prosecuted, but it was the custom at Rome for a rising politician to win his spurs by attacking a notable offender (pro Caelio, 73). In the following year he defended Marcus (or Manius) Fonteius on a charge of extortion in Gaul, using various arguments which might equally well have been advanced on behalf of Verres himself.

In 68 B.C. his letters begin, from which (and especially those to T. Pomponius Atticus, his “second self”) we obtain wholly unique knowledge of Roman life and history. In 66 B.C. he was praetor, and was called upon to hear cases of extortion. In the same year he spoke on behalf of the proposal of Gaius Manilius to transfer the command against Mithradates from Lucullus to Pompey (de Lege Manilia), and delivered his clever but disingenuous defence of Aulus Cluentius (pro Cluentio). At this time he was a prospective candidate for the consulship, and was obliged by the hostility of the nobles towards “new men” to look for help wherever it was to be found. In 65 B.C. he even thought of defending Catiline on a charge of extortion, and delivered two brilliant speeches on behalf of Gaius Cornelius, tribune in 67 B.C., a leader of the democratic party. In 64 B.C. he lost his father and his son Marcus was born. The optimates finally decided to support him for the consulship in order to keep out Catiline, and he eagerly embraced the “good cause,” his affection for which from this time onward never varied, though his actions were not always consistent.

The public career of Cicero henceforth is largely covered by the general article on Rome: History, II. “The Republic,” ad fin. The year of his consulship (63) was one of amazing activity, both administrative and oratorical. Besides the three speeches against Publius Rullus and the four against Catiline, he delivered a number of others, among which that on behalf of Gaius Rabirius is especially notable. The charge was that Rabirius (q.v.) had killed Saturninus in 100 B.C., and by bringing it the democrats challenged the right of the senate to declare a man a public enemy. Cicero, therefore, was fully aware of the danger which would threaten himself from his execution of the Catilinarian conspirators. He trusted, however, to receive the support of the nobles. In this he was disappointed. They never forgot that he was a “new man,” and were jealous of the great house upon the Palatine which he acquired at this time. Caesar had made every possible effort to conciliate Cicero,3 but, when all overtures failed, allowed Publius Clodius to attack him. Cicero found himself deserted, and on the advice of Cato went into exile to avoid bloodshed. He left Rome at the end of March 58, and arrived on the 23rd of May at Thessalonica, where he remained in the deepest dejection until the end of November, when he went to Dyrrhachium (Durazzo) awaiting his recall. He left for Italy on the 4th of August 57, and on arriving at Brundisium (Brindisi) found that he had been recalled by a law passed by the comitia on the very day of his departure. On his arrival at Rome he was received with enthusiasm by all classes, but did not find the nobles at all eager to give him compensation for the loss of his house and villas, which had been destroyed by Clodius. He was soon encouraged by the growing coolness between Pompey and Caesar to attack the acts of Caesar during his consulship, and after his successful defence of Publius Sestius on the 10th of March he proposed on the 5th of April that the senate should on the 15th of May discuss Caesar’s distribution of the Campanian land. This brought about the conference of Luca (Lucca). Cicero was again deserted by his supporters and threatened with fresh exile. He was forced to publish a “recantation,” probably the speech de Provinciis Consularibus, and in a private letter says frankly, “I know that I have been a regular ass.” His conduct for the next three years teems with inconsistencies which we may deplore but cannot pass over. He was obliged to defend in 54 Publius Vatinius, whom he had fiercely attacked during the trial of Sestius; also Aulus Gabinius, one of the consuls to whom his exile was due; and Rabirius Postumus, an agent of Gabinius. On the other hand, he made a violent speech in the senate in 55 against Lucius Piso, the colleague of Gabinius in 58. We know from his letters that he accepted financial aid from Caesar, but that he repaid the loan before the outbreak of the civil war.4 There is no doubt that he was easily deceived. He was always an optimist, and thought that he was bringing good influence to bear upon Caesar as afterwards upon Octavian. His actions, however, when Caesar’s projects became manifest, sufficiently vindicated his honesty. During these unhappy years he took refuge in literature. The de Oratore was written in 55 B.C., the de Republica in 54, and the de Legibus at any rate begun in 52. The latter year is famous for the murder of Clodius by T. Annius Milo on the Appian Way (on the 18th of January), which brought about the appointment of Pompey as sole consul and the passing of the special laws dealing with rioting and bribery. Cicero took an active part in the trials which followed, both as a defender of Milo and his adherents and as a prosecutor of the opposite faction. At the close of the year, greatly to his annoyance, he was sent to govern Cilicia under the provisions of Pompey’s law (see Pompey and Rome: History). His reluctance to leave Rome, already shown by his refusal to take a province, after his praetorship and consulship, was increased by the inclination of his daughter Tullia, then a widow, to marry again.5 During his absence she married the profligate spendthrift, P. Cornelius Dolabella.

The province of Cilicia was a large one. It included, in addition to Cilicia proper, Isauria, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Pamphylia and Cyprus, as well as a protectorate over the client kingdoms of Cappadocia and Galatia. There was also danger of a Parthian inroad. Cicero’s legate was his brother Quintius Cicero (below), an experienced soldier who had gained great distinction under Caesar in Gaul. The fears of Parthian invasion were not realized, but Cicero, after suppressing a revolt in Cappadocia, undertook military operations against the hill-tribes of the Amanus and captured the town of Pindenissus after a siege of forty-six days. A supplicatio in his honour was voted by the senate. The early months of 50 were occupied by the administration of justice, chiefly at Laodicea, and by various attempts to alleviate the distress in the province caused by the exactions of his predecessor, Appius Claudius. He had to withstand pressure from influential persons (e.g. M. Brutus, who had business interests in his province), and refused to provide his friends with wild beasts for their games in Rome. Leaving his province on the earliest opportunity, he reached Brundisium on the 24th of November, and found civil war inevitable. He went to Rome on the 4th of January, but did not enter the city, since he aspired to a triumph for his successes.6 After the outbreak of war he was placed by Pompey in charge of the Campanian coast. After much irresolution he refused Caesar’s invitations and resolved to join Pompey’s forces in Greece. He was shocked by the ferocious language of his party, and himself gave offence by his bitter jests (Plut. Cic. 38). Through illness he was not present at the battle of Pharsalus, but afterwards was offered the command by Cato the Younger at Corcyra, and was threatened with death by the young Cn. Pompeius when he refused to accept it. Thinking it useless to continue the struggle, he sailed to Brundisium, where he remained until the 12th of August 47, when, after receiving a kind letter from Caesar, he went to Rome. Under Caesar’s dictatorship Cicero abstained from politics. His voice was raised on three occasions only: once in the senate in 46 to praise Caesar’s clemency to M. Claudius Marcellus (pro Marcello), to plead in the same year before Caesar for Quintus Ligarius, and in 45 on behalf of Deiotarus, tetrarch of Galatia, also before Caesar. He suffered greatly from family troubles at this period. In 46, his patience giving way, he divorced Terentia, and married his young and wealthy ward Publilia. Then came the greatest grief of his life, the death of Tullia, his beloved daughter. He shortly afterwards divorced Publilia, who had been jealous of Tullia’s influence and proved unsympathetic. To solace his troubles he devoted himself wholly to literature. To this period belong several famous rhetorical and philosophical works, the Brutus, Orator, Partitiones Oratoriae, Paradoxa, Academica, de Finibus, Tusculan Disputations, together with other works now lost, such as his Laus Catonis, Consolatio and Hortensius.

His repose was broken by Caesar’s murder on the 15th of March 44, to which he was not a party. On the 17th of March he delivered a speech in the senate urging a general amnesty like that declared in Athens after the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants. When it became apparent that the conspirators had only removed the despot and left the despotism, he again devoted himself to philosophy, and in an incredibly short space of time produced the de Nature Deorum, de Divinatione, de Fato, Cato maior (or de Senectute), Laelius (or de Amicitia), and began his treatise de Officiis. To this period also belongs his lost work de Gloria. He then projected a journey to Greece in order to see his son Marcus, then studying at Athens, of whose behaviour he heard unfavourable reports. He reached Syracuse on the 1st of August, having during the voyage written from memory a translation of Aristotle’s Topica. He was driven back by unfavourable winds to Leucopetra, and then, hearing better news, returned to Rome on the 21st of August. He was bitterly attacked by Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) in the senate on the 1st of September for not being present there, and on the next day replied in his First Philippic. He then left Rome and devoted himself to the completion of the de Officiis, and to the composition of his famous Second Philippic, which was never delivered, but was circulated, at first privately, after Antony’s departure from Rome to Cisalpine Gaul on the 28th of November.

Cicero returned to Rome on the 9th of December, and from that time forward led the republican party in the senate. His policy, stated briefly, was to make use of Octavian, whose name was all-powerful with the veterans, until new legions had been raised which would follow the republican commanders (Phil. xi. 39). Cicero pledged his credit for the loyalty of Octavian, who styled him “father” and affected to take his advice on all occasions (Epp. ad Brut. i. 17. 5). Cicero, an incurable optimist in politics, may have convinced himself of Octavian’s sincerity. The breach, however, was bound to come, and the saying, maliciously attributed to Cicero, that Octavian was an “excellent youth who must be praised and—sent to another place,” neatly expresses the popular view of the situation.7 Cicero was sharply criticized by M. Junius Brutus for truckling to Octavian while showing irreconcilable enmity to Antony and Lepidus (ad Brut. i. 16. 4, i. 15. 9); but Brutus was safe in his province, and it is difficult to see what other course was open to a politician in Rome. Whether Cicero was right or wrong, none can question his amazing energy. He delivered his long series of Philippics at Rome, and kept up a correspondence with the various provincial governors and commanders, all short-sighted and selfish, and several of them half-hearted, endeavouring to keep each man in his place and to elaborate a common plan of operations. He was naturally included in the list of the proscribed, though it is said that Octavian fought long on his behalf, and was slain near Formiae on the 7th of December 43. He had a ship near in which he had previously attempted to fly, but being cast back by unfavourable winds he returned to his villa, saying, “Let me die in the country which I have often saved.” His head and hands were sent to Rome and nailed to the rostra, after Fulvia, wife of Antony and widow of Clodius, had thrust a hairpin through the tongue.

Works.—The literary works of Cicero may be classed as (1) rhetorical; (2) oratorical; (3) philosophical and political; (4) epistolary.

(i.) Rhetorical.8—His chief works of this kind are: (a) de Oratore, a treatise in three books dedicated to his brother Quintus. The discussion is conducted in the form of a dialogue which is supposed to have occurred in 91 B.C. chiefly between the two orators L. Crassus and M. Antonius. The first book deals with the studies necessary for an orator; the second with the treatment of the subject matter; the third with the form and delivery of a speech. Cicero says of this work in a letter (Fam. i. 9. 23) that it “does not deal in hackneyed rules and embraces the whole theory of oratory as laid down by Isocrates and Aristotle.” (b) Brutus, or de claris oratoribus, a history of Roman eloquence containing much valuable information about his predecessors, drawn largely from the Chronicle (liber annalis) of Atticus (§§ 14, 15). (c) Orator, dedicated to M. Brutus, sketching a portrait of the perfect and ideal orator, Cicero’s last word on oratory. The sum of his conclusion is that the perfect orator must also be a perfect man. Cicero says of this work that he has “concentrated in it all his taste” (Fam. vi. 18. 4). The three treatises are intended to form a continuous series containing a complete system of rhetorical training.

It will be convenient to mention here a feature of Ciceronian prose on which singular light has been thrown by recent inquiry. In the de Oratore, iii. 173 sqq., he considers the element of rhythm or metre in prose, and in the Orator (174-226) he returns to the subject and discusses it at length. His main point is that prose should be metrical in character, though it should not be entirely metrical, since this would be poetry (Orator, 220). Greek writers relied for metrical effect in prose on those feet which were not much used in poetry. Aristotle recommended the paean ∪∪∪ –. Cicero preferred the cretic – ∪ – which he says is the metrical equivalent of the paean. Demosthenes was especially fond of the cretic. Rhythm pervades the whole sentence but is most important at the end or clausula, where the swell of the period sinks to rest. The ears of the Romans were incredibly sensitive to such points. We are told that an assembly was stirred to wild applause by a double trochee – ∪ – ∪.9 If the order were changed, Cicero says, the effect would be lost. The same rhythm should be found in the membra which compose the sentence. He quotes a passage from one of his own speeches in which any change in the order would destroy the rhythm. Cicero gives various clausulae which his ears told him to be good or bad, but his remarks are desultory, as also are those of Quintilian, whose examples were largely drawn from Cicero’s writings. It was left for modern research to discover rules of harmony which the Romans obeyed unconsciously. Other investigators had shown that Cicero’s clausulae are generally variations of some three or four forms in which the rhythm is trochaic. Dr Thaddaeus Zielinski of St Petersburg, after examining all the clausulae in Cicero’s speeches, finds that they are governed by a law. In every clausula there is a basis followed by a cadence. The basis consists of a cretic or its metrical equivalent.10 This is followed by a cadence trochaic in character, but varying in length. The three favourite forms are (i.) – ∪ – – ∪, (ii.) – ∪ – – ∪∪ , (iii.) – ∪ – – ∪ – ∪. These he styles verae (V). Other frequent clausulae, which he terms licitae (L), are those in which a long syllable is resolved, as in verse, into two shorts, e.g. ēssĕ vĭdĕātŭr. These two classes, V and L, include 86% of the clausulae in the orations. Some rarer clausulae which he terms M (= malae) introduce no new principle. There remain two interesting forms, viz. S (= selectae), in which a spondee is substituted for a trochee in the cadence, e.g. – ∪ – – – –, this being done for special emphasis, and P (= pessimae), where a dactyl is so used, e.g. – ∪ – – ∪∪ – ∪, this being the heroica clausula condemned by Quintilian. Similar rules apply to the membra of the sentence, though in these the S and P forms are more frequent, harmony being restored in the clausula.

These results apply not only to the speeches but also to the philosophical writings and the more elaborate letters, and with modifications to other rhythmical prose, e.g. that of Pliny and Seneca. Rhythm was avoided by Caesar who was an Atticist, and by Sallust who was an archaist. Livy’s practice is exactly opposite to that of Cicero, since he has a marked preference for the S forms, thereby exemplifying Cicero’s saying that long syllables are more appropriate to history than to oratory.11

(ii.) Speeches.—These were generally delivered before the senate or people, if political in character, and before jurors sitting in a quaestio, if judicial. The speech against Vatinius was an attack upon a witness under examination; that de Domo was made before the Pontifices; that pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo in the course of a provocatio to the people; and those pro Ligario and pro rege Deiotaro before Caesar. The five orations composing the Actio Secunda in Verrem were never spoken, but written after Verres had gone into exile. The Second Philippic also was not delivered but issued as a pamphlet. Cicero’s speech for Milo at his trial was not a success, though, as Quintilian (ix. 2. 54) quotes from it, as taken down by shorthand reporters, an example of a rhetorical figure well used, it cannot have been such a failure as is alleged by later writers. The extant speech was written by Cicero at his leisure. None of the other speeches are in the exact form in which they were delivered. Cicero’s method was to construct a commentarius or skeleton of his speech, which he used when speaking. If he was pleased with a speech he then wrote it out for publication. Sometimes he omitted in the written speech a subject on which he had spoken. A record of this is sometimes preserved: e.g. “de Postumi criminibus” (Mur. 51), “de teste Fufio” (Cael. 19). These commentarii were published by his freedman Tiro and are quoted by Asconius (ad Orat. in Toga Candida, p. 87).

Cicero in his speeches must be given all the privileges of an advocate. Sometimes he had a bad client; he naïvely confesses the straits to which he was put when defending Scamander (Clu. 51; cf. Phil. xiii. 26). He thought of defending Catiline, though he says that his guilt is clear as noon-day (Att. i. 1-2 and 2. 1). Sometimes the brief which he held at the moment compelled him to take a view of facts contrary to that which he had previously advocated. Thus in the pro Caecina he alleges judicial corruption against a witness, Falcula, while in the pro Cluentio he contends that the offence was not proved (Caec. 28, Clu. 103). He says quite openly that “it is a great mistake to suppose that statements in his speeches express his real opinions” (Clu. 139). It is therefore idle to reproach him with inconsistencies, though these are sometimes very singular. Thus in the pro Cornelio he speaks with praise of Aulus Gabinius, who, when a colleague vetoed his proposal, proceeded to depose him after the precedent set by Tiberius Gracchus (Asconius in Cornel. p. 71). In the pro Cluentio, 111, he contends that nothing is easier than for a new man to rise at Rome. In the pro Caelio he says that Catiline had in him undeveloped germs of the greatest virtues, and that it was the good in him that made him so dangerous (Cael. 12-14). He sometimes deliberately puts the case upon a wrong issue. In the pro Milone he says that either Milo must have lain in wait for Clodius or Clodius for Milo, leaving out of sight the truth, that the encounter was due to chance. He used to boast that he had cast dust into the eyes of the jury in the case of Cluentius (Quintil. ii. 17-21).

Cicero had a perfect mastery of all weapons wielded by a pleader in Rome. He was specially famous for his pathos, and for this reason, when several counsel were employed, always spoke last (Orat. 130). A splendid specimen of pathos is to be found in his account of the condemnation and execution of the Sicilian captains (Verr. (Act. ii.) v. 106-122). Much exaggeration was permitted to a Roman orator. Thus Cicero frequently speaks as if his client were to be put to death, though a criminal could always evade capital consequences by going into exile. His enemies scoffed at his “tear-drops.” He indulged in the more violent invective, which, though shocking to a modern reader, e.g. in his speeches against Vatinius and Piso, was not offensive to Roman taste (de Orat. ii. 216-290). He was much criticized for his jokes, and even Quintilian (ii. 17-21) regrets that he made so many in his speeches. He could never resist the temptation to make a pun. It must be remembered, however, that he was the great wit of the period. Caesar used to have a collection of Cicero’s bon-mots brought to him. Cicero complains that all the jokes of the day were attributed to himself, including those made by very sorry jesters (Fam. vii. 32. 1). A fine specimen of sustained humour is to be found in his speech pro Murena, where he rallies the jurisconsults and the Stoics. He was also criticized for his vanity and perpetual references to his own achievements. His vanity, however, as has been admirably remarked, is essentially that of “the peacock, not of the gander,” and is redeemed by his willingness to raise a laugh at his own expense (Strachan-Davidson, p. 192). Some critics have impugned his legal knowledge, but probably without justice. It is true that he does not claim to be a great expert, though a pupil of the Scaevolas, and when in doubt would consult a jurisconsult; also, that he frequently passes lightly over important points of law, but this was probably because he was conscious of a flaw in his case.

(iii.) Political and Philosophical Treatises.—These are generally written in the form of dialogues, in which the speakers sometimes belong to bygone times and sometimes to the present. The first method was known as that of Heraclides, the second as that of Aristotle (Att. xiii. 19. 4). There is no reason to suppose that the speakers held the views with which Cicero credits them, or had such literary powers as would make them able to express such views (ib. xiii. 12. 3). The political works are de Republica and de Legibus. The first was a dialogue in six books concerning the best form of constitution, in which the speakers are Scipio Africanus Minor and members of his circle. He tells us that he drew largely from Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus and writings of the Peripatetics. The famous “Dream of Scipio” recalls the “Vision of Er” in Plato’s Republic (Book x. ad fin.). The de Legibus, a sequel to this work in imitation of Plato’s Laws, is drawn largely from Chrysippus.

Cicero as a philosopher belonged to the New Academy. The followers of this school were free to hear all arguments for and against, and to accept the conclusion which for the moment appeared most probable (Acad. ii. 131). Thus in the Tusculan Disputations v. he expresses views which conflict with de Finibus iv., and defends himself on the ground that as an Academic he is free to change his mind. He was much fascinated by the Stoic morality, and it has been noticed that the Tusculan Disputations and de Officiis are largely Stoic in tone. He has nothing but contempt for the Epicureans, and cannot forgive their neglect of literary style. As Cicero’s philosophical writings have been severely attacked for want of originality, it is only fair to recollect that he resorted to philosophy as an anodyne when suffering from mental anguish, and that he wrote incredibly fast. He issued two editions of his Academics. The first consisted of two books, in which Catulus and Lucullus were the chief speakers. He then rewrote his treatise in four books, making himself, Varro and Atticus the speakers. The Romans at this time had no manuals of philosophy or any philosophical writings in Latin apart from the poem of Lucretius and some unskilful productions by obscure Epicureans. Cicero set himself to supply this want. His works are confessedly in the main translations and compilations (Att. xii. 52. 3); all that he does is to turn the discussion into the form of a dialogue, to adapt it to Roman readers by illustrations from Roman history, and to invent equivalents for Greek technical terms. This is equally true of the political treatises. Thus, when Atticus criticized a strange statement in de Republ. ii. 8, that all the cities of the Peloponnese had access to the sea, he excuses himself by saying that he found it in Dicaearchus and copied it word for word (Att. vi. 2. 3). In the same passage he used an incorrect adjective, Phliuntii for Phliasii; he says that he had already corrected his own copy, but the mistake survives in the single palimpsest in which this work has been preserved. The only merits, therefore, which can be claimed for Cicero are that he invented a philosophical terminology for the Romans, and that he produced a series of manuals which from their beauty of style have had enduring influence upon mankind.

The most famous of these treatises are the following:—

De Finibus, on the Supreme Good. In Book i. L. Manlius Torquatus explains the Epicurean doctrine, which is refuted in ii. by Cicero. In iii. and iv. M. Porcius Cato sets forth the doctrine of the Stoics which is shown by Cicero to agree with that of Antiochus of Ascalon; in v. M. Pupius Piso explains the views of the Academics and Peripatetics.

Tusculanae Disputationes, so called from Cicero’s villa at Tusculum in which the discussion is supposed to have taken place. The subjects treated are:—in Book i., the nature of death and the reasons for despising it; Book ii., the endurance of pain: Pain is not an evil; Book iii., wisdom makes a man insensible to sorrow; Book iv., wisdom banishes all mental disquietude; Book v., virtue is sufficient to secure happiness. The materials are drawn largely from works of Dicaearchus.

De Deorum Natura.—The dialogue is placed in 77 B.C. In Book i. Velleius attacks other philosophies and explains the system of Epicurus. He is then refuted by Cotta. In Book ii. Balbus, speaking as a Stoic, discusses the existence of the gods, nature, the government of the world and providence. In Book iii. Cotta criticizes the views of Balbus. The statement of the Epicurean doctrine is drawn from the work of Phaedrus Περὶ θεῶν, the criticism of this from Posidonius. The Stoic teaching is derived from Cleanthes, Chrysippus and Zeno, and is criticized from the writings of Carneades and Clitomachus.

De Officiis, addressed to his son Marcus. In this the form of dialogue was not employed. The material is chiefly drawn from Stoic sources, e.g. works of Panaetius in Books i. and ii., of Posidonius and Hecato in Book iii.

The Academica, as they have come down to us, are a conflation from the two editions of this work. They consist of the second book from the first edition, and a portion of the first book from the second edition.

Cato maior, or de Senectute, a dialogue placed in 150 B.C. in which Cato, addressing Scipio and Laelius, set forth the praises of old age. The idea is drawn from Aristo of Chios, and the materials largely derived from Xenophon and Plato.

Laelius, or de Amicitia, a dialogue between Laelius and his sons-in-law, in which he sets forth the theory of friendship, speaking with special reference to the recent death of Scipio. Cicero here draws from a work of Theophrastus on the same subject and from Aristotle.

(iv.) Letters.—Those preserved are (1) ad Familiares, i.-xvi.; (2) ad Atticum, i.-xvi.; (3) ad Quintum, i.-iii., ad Brutum, i.-ii. Some thirty-five other books of letters were known to antiquity, e.g. to Caesar, to Pompey, to Octavian and to his son Marcus.

The collection includes nearly one hundred letters written by other persons. Thus, the eighth Book ad Fam. consists entirely of letters from Caelius to Cicero when in Cilicia. When writing to Atticus Cicero frequently sent copies of letters which he had received. There is a great variety in the style not only of Cicero’s correspondents, but also of Cicero himself. Caelius writes in a breezy, school-boy style; the Latinity of Plancus is Ciceronian in character; the letter of Sulpicius to Cicero on the death of Tullia is a masterpiece of style; Matius writes a most dignified letter justifying his affectionate regard for Caesar’s memory. There is an amazingly indiscreet letter of Quintus to his brother’s freedman, Tiro, in which he says of the consuls-elect, Hirtius and Pansa, that he would hesitate to put one of them in charge of a village on the frontier, and the other in that of the basement of a tavern (Fam. xvi. 27. 2). Several of his correspondents are indifferent stylists. Cato labours to express himself in an awkward and laconic epistle, apologizing for its length. Metellus Celer is very rude, but gives himself away in every word. Antony writes bad Latin, while Cicero himself writes in various styles. We have such a cri de cœur as his few words to one of the conspirators after Caesar’s murder, “I congratulate you. I rejoice for myself. I love you. I watch your interests; I wish for your love and to be informed what you are doing and what is being done” (Fam. vi. 15). When writing to Atticus he eschews all ornamentation, uses short sentences, colloquial idioms, rare diminutives and continually quotes Greek. This use of Greek tags and quotations is also found in letters to other intimate friends, e.g. Paetus and Caelius; also in letters written by other persons, e.g. Cassius to Cicero; Quintus to Tiro, and subsequently in those of Augustus to Tiberius. It is a feature of the colloquial style and often corresponds to the modern use of “slang.” Other letters of Cicero, especially those written to persons with whom he was not quite at his ease or those meant for circulation, are composed in his elaborate style with long periods, parentheses and other devices for obscuring thought. These are throughout rhythmical in character, like his speeches and philosophical works.

We know from Cicero’s own statement (Att. xvi. 5. 5) that he thought of publishing some of his letters during his lifetime. On another occasion he jestingly charges Tiro with wishing to have his own letters included in the “volumes” (Fam. xvi. 17. 1). It is obvious that Cicero could not have meant to publish his private letters to Atticus in which he makes confessions about himself, or those to Quintus in which he sometimes outsteps the limits of brotherly criticism, but was thinking of polished productions such as the letters to Lentulus Spinther or that to Lucceius which he describes as “very pretty” (Att. iv. 6. 4).

It is universally agreed that the letters ad Familiares were published by Tiro, whose hand is revealed by the fact that he suppresses all letters written by himself, and modestly puts at the end those written to him. That Cicero kept copies of his letters, or of many of them, we know from a passage in which, when addressing a friend who had inadvertently torn up a letter from him, he says that there is nothing to grieve about; he has himself a copy at home and can replace the loss (Fam. vii. 25. 1). Tiro may have obtained from Terentia copies of letters written to her. It has been suggested that he may also have edited the letters to Quintus, as he could obtain them from members of the family. The letters ad Familiares were generally quoted in antiquity by books, the title being taken from the first letter, e.g. Cicero ad Varronem epistula Paeti.

While the letters ad Familiares were circulated at once, those to Atticus appear to have been suppressed for a considerable time. Cornelius Nepos (Att. 16) knew of their existence but distinguishes them from the published letters. Asconius (p. 87), writing under Claudius, never quotes them, though, when discussing Cicero’s projected defence of Catiline, he could hardly have failed to do so, if he had known them. The first author who quotes them is Seneca. It is, therefore, probable that they were not published by Atticus himself, who died 32 B.C., though his hand may be seen in the suppression of all letters written by himself, but that they remained in the possession of his family and were not published until about A.D. 60. At that date they could be published without expurgation of any kind, whereas in the letters ad Familiares the editor’s hand is on one occasion (iii. 10. 11) manifest. Cicero is telling Appius, his predecessor in Cilicia, of the measures which he is taking on his behalf. There then follows a lacuna. It is obvious that Tiro thought the passage compromising and struck it out. In the letters to Atticus, on the other hand, we have Cicero’s private journal, his confessions to the director of his conscience, the record of his moods from day to day, without alterations of any kind.

Cicero’s letters are the chief and most reliable source of information for the period. It is due to them that the Romans of the day are living figures to us, and that Cicero, in spite of, or rather in virtue of his frailties, is intensely human and sympathetic. The letters to Atticus abound in the frankest self-revelation, though even in the presence of his confessor his instinct as a pleader makes him try to justify himself. The historical value of the letters, therefore, completely transcends that of Cicero’s other works. It is true that these are full of information. Thus we learn much from the de Legibus regarding the constitutional history of Rome, and much from the Brutus concerning the earlier orators. The speeches abound in details which may be accepted as authentic, either because there is no reason for misrepresentation or on account of their circumstantiality. Thus the Verrines are our chief source of information for the government of the provinces, the system of taxation, the powers of the governor. We hear from them of such interesting details as that the senate annul a judicial decision improperly arrived at by the governor, or that the college of tribunes could consider the status at Rome of a man affected by this decision (Verr. II. ii. 95-100). We have unfolded to us the monstrous system by which the governor could fix upon a remote place for the delivery of corn, and so compel the farmer to compound by a payment in money which the orator does not blame, on the ground that it is only proper to allow magistrates to receive corn wherever they wish (ib. iii. 190). From the speech pro Cluentio (145-154) we gain unique information concerning the condition of society in a country town, the extraordinary exemption of equites from prosecution for judicial corruption, the administration of domestic justice in the case of slaves examined by their owner (ib. 176-187). But we have always to be on our guard against misrepresentation, exaggeration and falsehood. The value of the letters lies in the fact that in them we get behind Cicero and are face to face with the other dramatis personae; also that we are admitted behind the scenes and read the secret history of the times. One of the most interesting documents in the correspondence is a despatch of Caesar to his agent Oppius, written in great haste and in disjointed sentences. It runs as follows: “On the 9th I came to Brundisium. Pompey is at Brundisium. He sent Magius to me to treat of peace. I gave him a suitable answer” (Att. ix. 13, Ai.). In the de Bello civili, on the other hand, Caesar, who wishes to show that he did his best to make peace, after stating that he sent his captive Magius to negotiate, expresses mild surprise at the fact that Pompey did not send him back (Bell. Civ. i. 26). We hear of the extraordinary agreement made by two candidates for the consulship in Caesar’s interest with the sitting consuls of 54 B.C., which Cicero says he hardly ventures to put on paper. Under the terms of this the consuls, who were optimates, bound themselves to betray their party by securing, apparently fraudulently, the election of the candidates while they in turn bound themselves to procure two ex-consuls who would swear that they were present in the senate when supplies were voted for the consular provinces, though no meeting of the senate had been held, and three augurs who would swear that a lex curiata had been passed, though the comitia curiata had not been convened (Att. iv. 18. 2). But perhaps the most singular scene is the council of three great ladies presided over by Servilia at Antium, which decides the movements of Brutus and Cassius in June 44 B.C., when Cassius “looking very fierce—you would say that he was breathing fire and sword”—blustered concerning what he considered an insult, viz. a commission to supply corn which had been laid upon him. Servilia calmly remarks she will have the commission removed from the decree of the senate (Att. xv. 11. 2).

(v.) Miscellaneous.—It is not necessary to dwell upon the other forms of literary composition attempted by Cicero. He was a fluent versifier, and would write 500 verses in one night. Considerable fragments from a juvenile translation of Aratus have been preserved. His later poems upon his own consulship and his exile were soon forgotten except for certain lines which provoked criticism, such as the unfortunate verse:

“O fortunatam natam me consule Romam.”

He wrote a memoir of his consulship in Greek and at one time thought of writing a history of Rome. Nepos thought that he would have been an ideal historian, but as Cicero ranks history with declamation and on one occasion with great naïveté asks Lucius Lucceius (q.v.), who was embarking on this task, to embroider the facts to his own credit, we cannot accept this criticism (Fam. vi. 2. 3).

(vi.) Authenticity.—The genuineness of certain works of Cicero has been attacked. It was for a long time usual to doubt the authenticity of the speeches post reditum and pro Marcello.12 Recent scholars consider them genuine. As their rhythmical structure corresponds more or less exactly with the canon of authenticity formed by Zielinski from the other speeches, the question may now be considered closed.13 Absurd suspicion has been cast upon the later speeches in Catilinam and that pro Archia. An oration pridie quam in exsilium iret is certainly a forgery, as also a letter to Octavian. There is a “controversy” between Cicero and Sallust which is palpably a forgery, though a quotation from it occurs in Quintilian.14 Suspicion has been attached to the letters to Brutus, which in the case of two letters (i. 16 and 17) is not unreasonable since they somewhat resemble the style of suasoriae, or rhetorical exercises, but the latest editors, Tyrrell and Purser, regard these also as genuine.

Criticism. (i.) Ancient.—After Cicero’s death his character was attacked by various detractors, such as the author of the spurious Controversia put into the mouth of Sallust, and the calumniator from Whom Dio Cassius (xlvi. 1—28) draws the libellous statements which he inserts into the speech of Q. Fufius Calenus in the senate. Of such critics, Asconius (in Tog. Cand. p. 95) well says that it is best to ignore them. His prose style was attacked by Pollio as Asiatic, also by his son, Asinius Gallus, who was answered by the emperor Claudius (Suet. 41). The writers of the silver age found fault with his prolixity, want of sparkle and epigram, and monotony of his clausulae.15 A certain Largius Licinius gained notoriety by attacking his Latinity in a work styled Ciceromastix. His most devoted admirers were the younger Pliny, who reproduced his oratorical style with considerable success, and Quintilian (x. 1. 112), who regarded him as the perfect orator, and draws most of his illustrations from his works. At a later period his style fascinated Christian writers, notably Lactantius, the “Christian Cicero,” Jerome and S. Augustine, who drew freely from his rhetorical writings.

The first commentator upon Cicero was Asconius, a Roman senator living in the reign of Claudius; who wrote a commentary upon the speeches, in which he explains obscure historical points for the instruction of his sons (see Asconius). Passing over a number of grammatical and rhetorical writers who drew illustrations from Cicero, we may mention the Commentary of Victorinus, written in the 4th century, upon the treatise de Inventione, and that of Boethius (A.D. 480-524) upon the Topica. Among scholiasts may be mentioned the Scholiasta Bobiensis who is assigned to the 5th century, and a pseudo-Asconius, who wrote notes upon the Verrines dealing with points of grammar and rhetoric.

(ii.) Medieval Scholars.—In the middle ages Cicero was chiefly known as a writer on rhetoric and morals. The works which were most read were the de Inventione and Topica—though neither of these was quite so popular as the treatise ad Herennium, then supposed to be by Cicero—and among the moral works, the de Officiis, and the Cato Maior. John of Salisbury (1110-1180) continually quotes from rhetorical and philosophical writings, but only once from the speeches. The value set upon the work de Inventione is shown by a passage in which Notker (d. 1022) writing to his bishop says that he has lent a MS. containing, the Philippics and a commentary upon the Topics, but has received as a pledge something far more valuable, viz. the de Inventione, and the “famous commentary of Victorinus.”16 We have an interesting series of excerpts made by a priest named Hadoard, in the 9th century, taken from all the philosophical writings, now preserved, also from the de Oratore.17

The other works of Cicero are seldom mentioned. The most popular speeches were those against Catiline, the Verrines, Caesarianae and Philippics, to which may be added the spurious Controversia. A larger knowledge of the speeches is shown by Wibald, abbot of Corvey, who in 1146 procured from Hildesheim a MS. containing with the Philippics the speeches against Rullus, wishing to form a corpus of Ciceronian works.18 Gerbert (afterwards Pope Silvester II., 940-1003) was especially interested in the speeches, and in a letter to a friend (Epist. 86) advises him to take them with him when journeying. The letters are rarely mentioned. The abbey of Lorsch possessed in the 9th century five MSS. containing “Letters of Cicero,” but those to Atticus are only mentioned once, in the catalogue of Cluny written in the 12th century.19 Letters of Cicero were known to Wibald of Corvey, also to Servatus Lupus, abbot of Ferrières (805-832), who prosecuted in the 9th century a search for MSS. which reminds us of the Italian humanists in the 15th century. A good deal of textual criticism must have been devoted to Cicero’s works during this period. The earliest critic was Tiro, who, as we know from Aulus Gellius (i. 7. 1), corrected MSS. which were greatly valued as containing his recension. We have a very interesting colophon to the speeches against Rullus, in which Statilius Maximus states that he had corrected the text by the help of a MS. giving the recension of Tiro, which he had collated with five other ancient copies.20

It is interesting to notice that Servatus Lupus did similar work in the 9th century. Thus, writing to Ansbald of Prüm, he says, “I will collate the letters of Cicero which you sent with the copy which I have so as to elicit the true reading, if possible, by comparing the two.”21 He asks another correspondent to supply him with a copy of the Verrines or any other works for a similar purpose.

Brunetto Latini (d. ca. 1294), the master of Dante, translated the Caesarianae into Italian. Dante himself appears to be acquainted only with the Laelius, Cato Maior, de Officiis, de Finibus, de Inventione and Paradoxa. Petrarch says that among his countrymen Cicero was a great name, but was studied by few. Petrarch himself sought for MSS. of Cicero with peculiar ardour. He found the speech pro Archia at Liége in 1333, and in 1345 at Verona made his famous discovery of the letters to Atticus, which revealed to the world Cicero as a man in place of the “god of eloquence” whom they had worshipped. Petrarch was under the impression in his old age that he had once possessed Cicero’s lost work de Gloria, but it is probable that he was misled by one of the numerous passages in the extant writings dealing with this subject.22 The letters ad Familiares were discovered towards the close of the 14th century at Vercelli. The largest addition to the sum of Ciceronian writings was made by Poggio (Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini) in the course of his celebrated mission to the Council of Constance (1414-1417). He brought back no less than ten speeches of Cicero previously unknown to the Italians, viz. pro Sexto Roscio, pro Murena, pro Cacina, de lege agraria i.-iii., pro Rabirio perduellionis reo, pro Rabirio Postumo, pro Roscio Comoedo, and in Pisonem. An important discovery was made at Lodi in 1422 of a MS. which, in addition to complete copies of the de Oratore and Orator, hitherto known from mutilated MSS., contained an entirely new work, the Brutus. The second book of Cicero’s letters to Brutus was first printed by Cratander of Basel in 1528 from a MS. obtained for him by Sichardus from the abbey of Lorsch.23

All these MSS. are now lost, except that containing the Epistolae ad Familiares, a MS. written in the 9th century and now at Florence (Laur. xlix. 9). A similar fate overtook three other MSS. containing the letters to Atticus, independent of the Veronensis, viz. a mutilated MS. of Books i.-vii. discovered by Cardinal Capra in 1409, a Lorsch MS. used by Cratander (C), and a French MS. (Z), generally termed Tornaesianus from its owner, Jean de Tournes, a printer of Lyons, probably identical with No. 492 in the old Cluny catalogue, used by Turnebus, Lambinus and Bosius. A strange mystification was practised by the last named, a scholar of singular brilliancy, who claimed to have a mutilated MS. which he called his Decurtatus, bought from a common soldier who had obtained it from a sacked monastery; also to have been furnished by a friend, Pierre de Crouzeil, a doctor of Limoges, with variants taken from an old MS. found at Noyon, and entered in the margin of a copy of the Lyons edition. The rough draft of his notes, however, upon Books x.-xvi., which afterwards came into the hands of Baluze, is preserved in the Paris library (Lat. 8538 A), in which he continually ascribes different readings to these MSS., the alteration corresponding with a change in his own conjecture. It is, therefore, obvious that he invented the readings in order to strengthen his own corrections. The book, which he termed his Crusellinus, may well be his copy of the Lyons edition of 1545 (number 8665 in the sale-catalogue of Baluze), which is described as cum notis et emendationibus MSS. manu ejusdem Bosii.24

The oldest evidence now existing for any works of Cicero is to be found in palimpsests written in the 4th or 5th century. The most interesting of these, now in the Vatican (Lat. 5757), discovered by Angelo Mai in 1822, contains the treatise de Republica, only known from this source. Fragments of the lost speeches pro Tullio and pro Scauro were discovered in two Milan and Turin palimpsests. The Vatican also possesses an important palimpsest of the Verrines (Reg. 2077). A palimpsest containing fragments of various orations was recently destroyed by the fire at the Turin library. The works de Oratore and Orator are well represented by ancient MSS., the two best known being one at Avranches (Abrincensis 238) and a Harleian MS. (2736), both written in the 9th century. The Brutus is only known from 15th-century transcripts of the lost cod. Lodensis.

The oldest MS. of any speeches, or indeed of any work of Cicero’s, apart from the palimpsests, belongs to the Chapter-house of St Peter’s in Rome (H. 25). It contains the speeches in Pisonem, pro Fonteio, pro Flacco and the Philippics. The earlier part of the MS. was written in the 8th century. The Paris library has two 9th-century MSS., viz. 7774 A. containing in Verrem (Act. ii.), iv. and v., and 7794, containing the post reditum speeches, together with those pro Sestio, in Vatinium, de provinciis consularibus, pro Balbo, pro Caelio. The only other 9th-century MS. of the speeches is now in Lord Leicester’s library at Holkham, No. 387.25 It originally belonged to Cluny, being No. 498 in the old catalogue. It contains in a mutilated form the speeches in Catilinam, pro Ligario, pro rege Deiotaro and in Verrem (Act. ii.) ii.

The speeches pro Sex. Roscio and pro Murena are only known from an ancient and illegible MS. discovered by Poggio at Cluny, No. 496 in the old catalogue, and now lost. The most faithful transcript was made in France (Paris, Lat. 14,749) before the MS. passed into Poggio’s hand by a writer who carefully reproduced the corruptions, sometimes in facsimile.26 The speeches pro Roscio Comoedo, pro Rabirio perduellionis reo and pro Rabirio Postumo are only known from Italian copies of the transcript (now lost) made by Poggio from lost MSS. The de Officiis, Tusculan Disputations and Cato Maior are found in a number of 9th-century MSS. A collection, consisting of de Natura deorum, de Divinatione, Timaeus, de Fato, Paradoxa, Lucullus (= Acad. Prior.) and de Legibus, is found in several MSS. of the same date. Only one MS. of the Laelius is as old as the 10th century.

The Academica Posteriora are said by editors to be found only in 15th-century MSS. A MS. in the Paris library (Lat. 6331) is, however, assigned by Chatelain to the 12th century.

For the letters ad Familiares our chief source of information is Laur. xlix. 9 (9th century), which contains all the sixteen books. There are independent MSS. written in France and Germany in the 11th and 12th centuries, containing i.-viii. and ix.-xvi. respectively. There is no extant MS. of the letters to Atticus older than the 14th century, apart from a few leaves from a 12th-century MS. discovered at or near Würzburg in the last century. Very great importance has been attached to a Florentine MS. (Laur. xlix. 18) M., which until recently was supposed to have been copied by Petrarch himself from the lost Veronensis. It is now known not to be in the hand of Petrarch, but it was still supposed to be the archetype of all Italian MSS., and possibly of all MSS., including the lost C and Z. It has, however, been shown by Lehmann that there is an independent group of Italian MSS., termed by him Σ, containing Books i.-vii. in a mutilated form, and probably connected with the MS. of Capra. These often agree with CZ against M, and the readings of CZΣ are generally superior.

Bibliography.—It is impossible to mention more than a few works as the literature is so vast. (1) Historical.—J.L. Strachan-Davidson, Life of Cicero (Heroes of the Nations); G. Boissier, Cicéron et ses amis; Suringar, Cicero de vita sua (Leiden, 1854); W. Warde Fowler, Social Life at Rome (1908); introductions to Tyrrell and Purser’s edition of the letters. (2) Palaeographical.—Facsimiles of the best-known MSS. are given by E. Chatelain in Paléographie des classiques latins, parts 2, 3 and 7. Information regarding various MSS. will be found in Halm, Zur Handschriftenkunde der ciceronischen Schriften (Munich, 1850); Deschamps, Essai bibliographique sur Cicéron (Paris, 1863) (an unscientific work); Lehmann, De Ciceronis ad Atticum epistulis recensendis (Berlin, 1892); Anecdota Oxoniensia, classical series, parts vii., ix., x. (3) Literary.—M. Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur, i, 194-274 (München, 1890). (4) Linguistic.—Merguet, Lexicon to Oratorical and Philosophical Works; Le Breton, Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron (Paris, 1901); Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898); Th. Zielinski, Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden (Leipzig, 1904). Much information on points of Ciceronian idiom and language will be found in J.S. Reid’s Academica (London, 1885) and Landgraf’s Pro Sext. Roscio (Erlangen, 1884). (5) Legal.—A.H.J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (Oxford, 1901). (6) Philosophical.—An excellent account of Cicero as a philosopher is given in the preface to Reid’s edition of the Academica. (7) Editions (critical) of the complete texts.—Baiter-Halm (1845-1861); C.F.W. Müller (1880-1896); Oxford Classical Texts.