well fitted: 22: "tua et natura admirabilis et exquisita doctrina et singularis industria." In 118 Cicero represents Brutus as saying: "Quam hoc idem in nostris contingere intellego quod in Graecis, ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissumi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti paene verborum, idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur." Cicero replies: 120: “Quo magis tuum, Brute, iudicium probo, qui eorum philosophorum sectam secutus es quorum in doctrina atque praeceptis disserendi ratio coniungitur cum suavitate dicendi et copia." In 125, after Cicero has said, "Sed ecce in manibus vir et praestantissimo ingenio et flagranti studio et doctus a puero C. Gracchus; noli enim putare quemquam, Brute, pleniorem aut uberiorem ad dicendum fuisse," Brutus replies "Sic prorsus existumo atque istum de superioribus paene solum lego." In 204, Cicero has said that Cotta lacked fire, and Sulpicius humor. "O magnam inquit artem! Brutus: si quidem istis, cum summi essent oratores, duae res maximae altera alteri defuit." In 249 Brutus says that Marcellus' oratory is very like that of Cicero; further, that he, Brutus, is exceedingly pleased with Marcellus. In enumerating the latter's excellences as an orator Brutus declares that in consequence of Marcellus' careful selection of words, his brilliancy of speech and dignity of gesture, all that he says seems beautiful and splendid; that in fact he lacks none of the qualities necessary to an orator: 250: ". . . . fit speciosum et inlustre quod dicit, omniaque sic suppetunt ut ei nullam deesse virtutem oratoris putem." Again, Cicero represents Brutus as enthusiastic over the praise given Cicero by Caesar, and as placing a high estimate upon what Cicero has accomplished in making the Latin language rich and fertile: 254: "Amice hercule, inquit, et magnifice te laudatum puto, quem . . . principem atque inventorem copiae dixerit. . . . . Quo enim uno vincebamur a victa Graecia, id aut ereptum illis est aut certe nobis cum illis communicatum. Hanc . . . . gloriam testimoniumque Caesaris . . . triumphis multorum antepono." When Cicero tells how he used the calm. delivery of Calidius as an argument against the latter and suggests that there is a question as to whether such calmness is wise or unwise, Brutus is supposed to say: 279: "Atque dubitamus . . . . utrum ista sanitas fuerit an vitium? Quis enim non fateatur, cum ex

omnibus oratoris laudibus longe ista sit maxuma, inflammare animos audientium et quocumque res postulet modo flectere, qui hac virtute caruerit, id ei quod maxumum fuerit defuisse?" After Cicero has said that when Brutus heard Hortensius speak the latter was no longer in his prime, and was lacking in the ornaments that had characterized his oratory, he adds: 327: "Hoc tibi ille, Brute, minus fortasse placuit quam placuisset si illum flagrantem studio et florentem facultate audire potuisses." At the close of the treatise, in an appeal to Brutus, Cicero says: 332: "Tu.. ... Brute . . . . effice id quod iam propemodum vel plane potius effeceras, ut te eripias ex ea quam ego congessi in hunc sermonem turba patronorum. Nec enim decet te ornatum uberrumis artibus . . . . numerari in vulgo patronorum. Nam quid te exercuit Pammenes . . . . si quidem similes maioris partis oratorum futuri sumus?"

§ 6. Somewhat opposed to the general tenor of these passages is a statement of Cicero contained in 309: "dialectica . . . . sine qua etiam tu, Brute, iudicavisti te illam iustam eloquentiam, quam dialecticam esse dilatatam putant, consequi non posse." It may be noticed also that in 2501 Brutus names as one of the excellences of Marcellus the latter's use of carefully chosen words. His dignity of gesture is likewise emphasized.

§ 7. Summary of the characterization of Brutus' opinions and style, in the treatise, and conclusion:

Cicero says that Brutus' speech for Deiotarus was ornate and rich;2 that Brutus had been taught sweetness and richness of speech;3 that Brutus would have been pleased with Hortensius could he have heard the latter when his ornateness and vigor were undiminished;" that Brutus is already the foremost orator at Rome, and possessed of all the ornaments the richest arts can offer.5

Brutus is represented as saying that the Stoics while good at debate prove dry and meager in a speech; that of the early orators he reads Gracchus most, whose style he considers the fullest and richest; that fire and humor are two of the chief requirements of an orator; that he considers Marcellus-and therefore Cicero

1Cf. $5, supra.

2 $ 21.

8 § 120.

4 § 327.
§ 332.

6 $118.

7 § 125.
8 § 204.

a model orator, and thinks it desirable that one's oratory seem beautiful and splendid; that it is a high honor to be the originator of a fulness of style, and that with this richness the eloquence of Rome rivals that of Athens; that a calm delivery is a serious defect, for the chief function of an orator is to inflame his auditors.3

On the other hand, Cicero says that Brutus has judged logic to be the foundation of true eloquence. And Brutus lays emphasis

upon a careful selection of words and a dignified delivery.5

7

Cicero's statements that Brutus' speech for Deiotarus was ornate and rich was quite certainly no more than a compliment, in spite of the apparent support found in the letter to Atticus already quoted. But the other statements both of Cicero and of Brutus considered in 5 cannot be reconciled with the external evidence bearing upon Brutus' style and views. If it be accepted from external sources that the oratorical style and the ideals of Brutus were distinctly opposed to those of Cicero; that Brutus was, as an orator, "grave, dull, spiritless, brief, blunt, plain, and monotonous"-the conclusion reached in § 4-it is impossible to believe that he had been taught sweetness and richness of speech, that he would have been pleased with Hortensius' ornateness, or that he was possessed of all the ornaments offered by the richest arts. Nor is it credible that he would declare that the Stoics, whose style was so like his own, failed in a public speech; that Gracchus with his full and rich style was his favorite early orator; that humor was essential to the orator; that the listeners ought to be impressed with the beauty of an oration; that Cicero was for him the model orator; that the greatness of Roman eloquence was attributable to the originating by Cicero of a fulness of style; that a calm delivery was a serious defect; or that the chief function of an orator was to inflame his auditors.

On the other hand, the statement of Cicero that Brutus has judged logic to be the foundation of true eloquence; and Brutus' emphasis upon a careful selection of words and upon dignity in delivery, are each in accord with his gravity, dulness, want of spirit, brevity,

7 Cf. also Tyrrell and Purser Correspondence of Cicero VI, note, p. c: "Terms which it is impossible to regard as anything more than expressions of effusive politeness."

Cic. Att. 14. 1. 2; supra, § 3.

distaste for ornament, and monotony. It is quite credible that Brutus would have expressed just this opinion.

How much of what Cicero says is to be attributed to politeness and considered but as complimentary to Brutus, cannot be determined. One conspicuous instance of such urbanity has already been noted.' It is possible that some of the other apparent inconsistencies are to be accounted for in the same way. However, Cicero took considerable liberty in the handling of the characters in his dialogues,2 and it is probable that he felt that to give the necessary weight to the expression of the views which he held regarding oratory and which he was endeavoring to emphasize in the treatise, he must represent Brutus' views as in accord with his own, rather than-more truthfully-as at variance with them.

A comparison of the evidence, external and internal, bearing upon the question under consideration seems to point quite definitely to the conclusion that, except in two instances, Cicero's representation in this treatise of Brutus' oratorical style and views does not coincide with the testimony from other sources; and that he does not, therefore, represent correctly the point of view of Brutus.

UNIVERSITY OF NASHVILLE

PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS

1Cf. de 21, supra.

2 Cf. article on "The Literary Sources in Cicero's Brutus," by G. L. Hendrickson, AJP XXVII, 184.

THE PROVENANCE OF JEROME'S CATALOGUE OF

VARRO'S WORKS

BY G. L. HENDRICKSON

The existence of Jerome's catalogue of the writings of Varro was known before the discovery of the document itself from two sources: from mention by Jerome in his life of Origen (de viris ill. ch. 54) and by excerpts preserved by Tyrannius Rufinus (Apologiae in Hieron. ii. 20) from the letter which contained the catalogue. In the lively inquiry into Varro's literary work which marked the second quarter of the last century, the loss of this list was frequently lamented, and all hope of its recovery had apparently been abandoned. But in the summer of 1847, L. Urlichs was drawn to the seat of Sir Thomas Phillipps, Middlehill, by the report of his notable manuscript collections, and here, among other things, he was shown and received a copy of a privately printed extract from a MS of Arras entitled, "Preface to Origen on Genesis." It contained Jerome's letter from which the excerpts of Rufinus were drawn, with the complete catalogues of Varro and Origen.

Through his Plautine studies Ritschl had already been drawn to a closer study of Varro, and his famous monographs on the Libri disciplinarum and on the Logistorici had but recently appeared (1845). To Ritschl, accordingly, Urlichs referred his discovery, and upon the basis of the recovered catalogue Ritschl produced his great essay, "Die Schriftstellerei des Marcus Terentius Varro," Bonn, 1847 (incorporated into Rheinisches Museum for 1848 and now accessible with supplementary and related studies in Opuscula, Vol. III). The list as edited in the private publication of Sir Thomas Phillipps contains 522 books. It does not contain all of the known works of Varro, and indeed its omissions are very considerable. Ritschl, of course, saw at once the necessity of verifying the printed list by comparison with the MS of Arras, and a few years later this was done for him by August Schleicher (the well-known Sanskritist and comparative philologist), who made an exact transcript