Gallic War Songs (II): Marcus Cicero, Quintus Cicero, and Caesar’s Invasion of Britain

Peter Kruschwitz

Gallic War Songs (II): Marcus Cicero, QuintusCicero, and Caesar’s Invasion of Britain

Abstract: This article assembles and examines the evidence for the poetic outputsof Marcus and Quintus Cicero related to Caesar’s invasion of Britain. Followingthe establishment of a relative chronology of the evidence for their work, it isargued that Quintus Cicero most likely produced a fabula praetexta (not an epicpoem, as commonly assumed). His brother, in turn, wrote an epic, based onQuintus’ eye-witness reports. Careful analysis of the ancient discourse about thispiece reveals insights in Cicero’s poetic workshop and the creation of ‘archivaltruth’ through narrativising historical events in epic poetry. Finally, a case ismade for greater attention to financial affairs between Caesar and the Ciceros thathappen to coincide with the drafting process of their respective literary works.

Keywords: Caesar, Cicero, Roman Britain, Roman Epic, Roman Drama

DOI 10.1515/phil-2014-0018

1 Introduction

In his correspondence with his brother Quintus, Marcus Cicero refers severaltimes to a poetic work in progress whose subject appears to have been related toCaesar and his campaigns in Britain1. The poem is commonly referred to as Deexpeditione Britannica; however, no actual title is attested in the ancient sources.The evidence, in chronological order of Cicero’s letters, is the following2:

Peter Kruschwitz: University of Reading, Department of Classics, Reading RG6 6AA, UnitedKingdom, E

˗ Mail: [email protected]

1 This is an oft-forgotten footnote to Roman literary history; note, for example, that Hardie (2005)85 mentions Furius Bibaculus and Varro Atacinus in the context of “historical epic, often with astrong panegyrical thrust, including epics on the campaigns of Julius Caesar” and “Cicero’sexercises in self-laudation”, but does not bring these two aspects together.2 For the text of Cicero’s correspondence with Quintus I have used the edition and commentary ofShackleton Bailey (1980). – Blänsdorf (2011) 156 suggests that Cic. Att. 82 (= 4, 8a), 3 SB also refersto an expeditio Britannica; however, the letter dates to November 56 BC and therefore cannot berelated to this matter. – For earlier scholarship on the matter of the present article cf. in particular

Philologus 2014; 158(2): 275–305

Brought to you by | Freie Universität BerlinAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/1/14 3:44 PM

[1] Qua re facis tu quidem fraterne quod me hortaris, sed mehercule currentem nunc quidem,ut omnia mea studia in istum unum conferam. ego uero ardenti quidem studio, ac fortasseefficiam quod saepe uiatoribus cum properant euenit, ut, si serius quam uoluerint fortesurrexerint, properando etiam citius quam si de nocte uigilassent perueniant quo uelint;sic ego, quoniam in isto homine colendo tam indomiui diu te mehercule excitante, cursucorrigam tarditatem cum equis tum uero, quoniam tu scribis poema ab eo nostrumprobari, quadrigis poeticis. modi mihi date Britanniam quam pingam coloribus tuis,penicillo meo. sed quid ago? quod mihi tempus, Romae praesertim, ut iste me rogat,manenti, uacuum ostenditur? sed uidero. fortasse enim, ut fit, uincet unus amor omnisdifficultatis. (Cic. ad Q. fr. 18 (= 2, 14 [13]), 2 SB: June 54)

[2] De Britannicis rebus cognoui ex tuis litteris nihil esse nec quod metuamus nec quodgaudeamus. de publicis negotiis, quae uis ad te Tironem scribere, neglegentius ad te antescribebam quod omnia minima maxima ad Caesarem mitti sciebam. rescripsi epistulaemaximae, audi nunc de minuscula. in qua primum est de Clodi ad Caesarem litteris; inquo Caesaris consilium probo, quod tibi amantissime petenti ueniam non dedit uti ullumad illam furiam uerbum rescriberet. alterum est de Caluenti Mari oratione: quod scribistibi placere me ad eam rescribere, miror, praesertim cum illam nemo lecturus sit si egonihil rescripsero, meam in illum pueri omnes tamquam dictata perdiscant. libros meosquos expectas incohaui, sed conficere non possum his diebus. orationes efflagitatas proScauro et pro Plancio absolui. poema ad Caesarem quod institueram incidi. tibi quodrogas, quoniam ipsi fontes iam sitiunt, si quid habebo spati, scribam. (Cic. ad Q. fr. 21 (=3, 1), 10–11 SB: September 54)

[3] De uirtute et grauitate Caesaris, quam in summo dolore adhibuisset, magnam ex epistulatua cepi uoluptatem. quod me institutum ad illum poema iubes perficere, etsi distentuscum opera tum animo sum multo magis, tamen quoniam ex epistula quam ad te miseramcognouit Caesar me aliquid esse exorsum, reuertar ad institutum idque perficiam hissupplicationum otiosis diebus, quibus Messallam iam nostrum reliquosque molestialeuatos uehementer gaudeo; eumque quod certum consulem cumDomitio numeratus nihila nostra opinione disentitis. ego Messallam Caesari praestabo. (Cic. ad Q. fr. 26 (= 3, 6[8]), 3 SB: November 54)

[4] Quod me hortaris ut absoluam, habeo absolutum suaue, mihi quidem uti uidetur, ἔπος adCaesarem; sed quaero locupletem tabellarium ne accidat quod Erigonae tuae, cui soliCaesare imperatore iter ex Gallia tutum non fuit. quid si canem tam bonum non haberet?(Cic. ad Q. fr. 27 (= 3, 7 [9]), 6 SB: December 54)

At the same time, as emerges from item [2], mention seems to be made of QuintusCicero’s own attempts to write something on a similar subject matter3. The follow-ing additional passages have been discussed in this context:

276 Peter Kruschwitz

Grollmus (1887) 42–46; Ciaceri (1895–1896); Koch (1922) esp. 56–59; Ewbank (1933) 19–22; Allen(1955); Brush (1971) 65–68; Byrne (1998); Marciniak (2008).3 But cf. below, section 3.1.



[5] Venio nunc ad id quod nescio an primum esse debuerit. o iucundas mihi tuas de Britannialitteras! timebam Oceanum, timebam litus insulae; reliqua non equidem contemno, sedplus habent tamen spei quam timoris magisque sum sollicitatus exspectatione ea quammetu. te uero ὑπόθεσιν scribendi egregiam habere uideo. quos tu situs, quas naturasrerum et locorum, quos mores, quas gentis, quas pugnas, quem uero ipsum imperatoremhabes! ego te libenter, ut rogas, quibus rebus uis, adiuuabo et tibi uersus quos rogas, hocest Athenas noctuam, mittam. sed heus tu! celari uideor a te. quo modo nam, mi frater, denostris uersibus Caesar? nam primum librum se legisse scripsit ad me ante, et prima sic utneget se ne Graeca quidem meliora legisse; reliqua ad quendam locum ῥᾳθυμότερα (hocenim utitur uerbo). dic mihi uerum: num aut res eum aut χαρακτὴρ non delectat? nihil estquod uereare. ego enim ne pilo quidem minus me amabo. (Cic. ad Q. fr. 20 (= 2, 16 [15]),4–5 SB: August 54)

[6] De uersibus quos tibi a me scribi uis, deest mihi quidem opera sed abest etiam ἐνθουσιασ-μός, qui non modo tempus sed etiam animum uacuum ab omni cura desiderat. non enimsumus omnino sine cura uenientis anni, etsi sumus sine timore. simul et illud (sine ullamehercule ironia loquor): tibi istius generis in scribendo priores partis tribuo quam mihi.(Cic. ad Q. fr. 24 (= 3, 4), 4 SB: October 54)

[7] Quod me de uersibus faciendis rogas, incredibile est, mi frater, quam egeam tempore, necsane satis commoueor animo ad ea quae uis canenda. ἀμπώτεις uero et ea quae ipseego ne cogitando quidem consequor tu, qui omnis isto eloquendi et exprimendi generesuperasti, a me petis? facerem tamen ut possem, sed, quod te minime fugit, opus est adpoema quadam animi alacritate, quam plane mihi tempora eripiunt. abduco equidem meab omni rei publicae cura dedoque litteris, sed tamen indicabo tibi quod mehercule inprimis te celatum uolebam. angor, mi suauissime, angor … […]4 quattuor tragoediassedecim diebus absoluisse cum scribas, tu quicquam ab alio mutuaris? et † πλεος †quaeris, cum Electram et Troades scripseris? cessator esse noli et illud ‘γνῶθι σεαυτόν’noli putare ad adrogantiam minuendam solum esse dictum uerum etiam ut bona nostranorimus. sed et istas et Erigonammihi uelim mittas. habes <ad> duas epistulas proximas.(Cic. ad Q. fr. 25 (= 3, 5 [5–7]), 4; 7 SB: October/November 54)

Not a single fragment of either Cicero’s poetic effort, with regard to Caesar’sexploits in Britain or Gaul, is explicitly identified as such by the Classical tradi-tion. Hence the general assumption is that no textual evidence for these poemshas survived5.

Gallic War Songs (II) 277

4 On the outburst that has been omitted here see e.g. Rawson (1975) 135.5 But see below, section 5.



2 Considering the Evidence: Of Facts, Causality,and Imagination

As often when dealing with ancient epistolary evidence, the attempt to establish aplausible scenario from a string of isolated pieces of evidence proves to be acomplex problem. This is not at all different in the present case: what exactly werethe two Ciceros writing? how many works were there? what were these worksabout, in terms of both form and content? Before one can go any further into anappreciation of the Ciceros’ writing as related to Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul andBritain, it is necessary to disentangle and establish, as far as possible, the factualinformation that is contained in the above passages6.

A good starting point for this task is provided by the text of item [5], thesecond earliest items of the above collection, as it bridges the gap betweenCicero’s own and his brother Quintus’ poetic efforts. The text, following a longerdiscourse about affairs of day-to-day politics and Cicero’s increasingly closeconnection to Caesar in mid-54 BC, implicitly acknowledges the receipt of a lettersent by Quintus. This letter, as can be inferred from Cicero’s own words, outlinedthe Romans’ (sc. second) invasion of the British isles of 54 BC, i.e. the verycampaign that is also reported in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum, book 57. ApparentlyQuintus revealed details of the invasion, from the approach across the channel, tothe landing, to the actual invasion, paired with descriptions of the landscape, thepeoples, and the actual events8. It also appears to emerge that –

(i) Quintus had written a letter to Cicero in which he described the invasion of Britain byCaesar’s troups in 54 BC. According to Cicero’s appreciation, one may also surmise thatthe account was of an impressive literary quality – in fact to such an extent that Cicerohimself thought that Quintus had an ὑπόθεσιν scribendi egregiam.

(ii) Cicero promises Quintus support in several matters, but in particular with some versesthat Quintus requested. The purpose and destination of these lines remain unknown9.However, Cicero’s phraseAthenas noctuam – owls to Athens, coals to Newcastle –mustimply that Quintus would not really need those lines, as he had an abundance himself.


6 Ewbank (1933) 19–22 has attempted a similar discussion, but did notmanage tomaintain a clearline in his presentation.7 On the hitherto neglectedmatter of the relative chronology see below, section 6.8 Shackleton Bailey (1980) 218 (on item [7]), in conjunction with Shackleton Bailey (2002) 182n. 3, claims that Cicero had produced poetic descriptions of the ocean tides for Quintus. This viewis not covered by any evidence, and in fact the expressions chosen by Cicero in the presentpassage do not suggest such a view, either.9 See below, section 3.1.



(iii) Cicero himself had sent a substantial chunk of his own poetry to Caesar, to whichCaesar had responded in a less than entirely positive fashion10. Cicero thereforerequests to know from his brother if he had any additional information. The nature andtopic of this poetic work are not mentioned.

How does this scenario sit within the framework provided by the remaining piecesof evidence, starting with the equally early item [1]?

In item [1] Cicero, somewhat longwindedly, explains how he is prepared toembrace an emerging alliance between him and Caesar – better late than never,so to speak. In that context, Cicero mentions –

(a) that Quintus had encouraged Cicero’s ‘cultivation’ of his relationship with Caesar (inisto homine colendo tam indomiui diu te mehercule excitante),

(b) that Caesar had approved of a poem of Cicero’s (poema ab eo nostrum probari), and(c) that he, Cicero, intended to write a poem about Britain, using Quintus’ poetic ‘colours’

at great pace (quadrigis poeticis).

Several potential new questions arise:‒ Can one assume that Quintus, in his efforts labeled as (a), also suggested the

authorship of a poem (c)?‒ Does aspect (b) have any connection with item (iii) of the previous list?‒ What does ‘approve’ (probari) mean – did Caesar give his approval for a

poem to be written, or did he acknowledge the quality of something thatalready existed (at least in parts)?

‒ Is Quintus’ depiction of the invasion of Britain, as referred to in item [5], aresponse to Cicero’s request of modi mihi date Britanniam quam pingamcoloribus tuis in item [1]?

The next letter, chronologically, appears to be item [2], from September 54, thuspostdating items [1] and [5]. In this letter, Cicero comments on an update on theaffairs in Britain that was sent to him by Quintus before he explains why some ofthe letters he wrote to Quintus recently were less exhaustive in detail than others:Cicero feared that his letters might be intercepted and their content be brought tothe attention of Caesar11. Moving on to his recent activity at the publishing front,Cicero eventually comes to his poetic exploits:


10 On the potential impact of this see below, n. 15.11 Ciaceri (1895–1896) 88 raises the interesting question whether some of the things Cicero saysin the above items would be potentially offensive to Caesar as well, if they were intercepted andleaked.



(a) a poema ad Caesarem that he had begun (institueram), he reports as discontinued(incidi), and

(b) what Quintus requested for himself (tibi quod rogas), as his own sources were runningdry (quoniam ipsi fontes iam sitiunt), he will eventually compose (scribam).

The latter aspect, (b), can most plausibly be related to point (ii) of the initial list,above: unlike in the initial item [5], however, where an abundance on Quintus’side is implied, Cicero now acknowledges that Quintus’ sources may have rundry, and there is occasional talk about Cicero’s intentions to send Quintus somebooks12. (So is one to assume that this refers to reference material at hand forliterary activities during his military campaigns?)

The former aspect, (a), however, is slightly more complicated to assess. Theterm poema had been used by Cicero before, in item [1], when Cicero stated thatCaesar had approved of a poema by him. If Cicero sought Caesar’s endorsement(rather than receiving his acknowledgement of quality), then he would be per-fectly justified to call this text a poema ad Caesarem without any need for themodern interpreter to assume that Cicero was in fact writing two poems, oneloosely in praise of Caesar, and one on the invasion of Britain. But could thisalternatively be understood as related to the material that Cicero claims to havesent to Caesar for his assessment in item [5] (cf. item [iii] of the initial list, above)?The former solution to this problem is certainly the more plausible one, but theanswer cannot be straightforward13. At any rate, Cicero had decided to discon-tinue this work, and the context of the letter, implying substantial commitmentsat the time on Cicero’s side, suggests that he felt there was not enough time hecould devote to this job (although he does not explicitly say so at this point).

One month later, in item [6] of October 54 BC, Cicero responds again toQuintus, who, as can be gauged from Cicero’s words, seems to have repeated hisrequest that Cicero send him some lines. This clearly relates to the strand con-stituted by item (ii) of the initial list related to item [5] and aspect (b), as discussedfor the preceding item [2]. As several months had gone by between the letter inwhich – at least we as modern recipients – learnt first about Quintus’ request andthe present item [6], one must wonder two things: first, why did Cicero take solong in responding to this request, and secondly, just how much did Quintus askfor? The first question appears to be partly touched upon in item [6], where Cicero


12 See e.g. Cic. ad Q. fr. 24 (= 3, 4), 5 SB.13 The assumption of two epics represent an approach largely abandoned in the first half of thetwentieth century, but see voices as late as e.g. Townend (1965) 120. For a fuller discussion of thismatter see Marciniak (2008) 214 with n. 9 (including a brief discussion of earlier voices). Marciniakis right to consider this matter solved in favour of the postulate of a single epic.



blames lack of opera, energy, and ἐνθουσιασμός, i.e. inspiration rather than‘enthusiasm’, for his failure to oblige (so far). This sounds like inertia rather thanwriter’s block14, and Cicero’s inertia may well, as Shannon Byrne suggested, havebeen triggered by Caesar’s critique of his work De temporibus suis15. In addition tothat there is a revealing bit at the end of the quoted passage: Cicero’s own mindclearly was not free, given the prospects of the forthcoming year. More impor-tantly still, perhaps, Cicero felt that Quintus was rather superior16 in ‘that’ genre(tibi istius generis in scribendo priores partes tribuo)17. As Cicero introduced thisaspect with simul et illud, ‘and there is that, too’, one cannot help but feel thatCicero had partly lost his passion to contribute to whatever Quintus was doing, ashe felt he could not live up to a certain standard that he aspired to, and thereforehad indeed, too, lost some of his enthusiasm (in the modern sense). It is temptingto combine this story with Cicero’s own discontinued poem that was mentioned initem [2] and to claim that Cicero had hit the proverbial brick wall: however, hedoes not say so himself, and there is another factor that makes this somewhatproblematic: why does Cicero emphasise the absence of ironia from his words – acomment on the (often derogative) demonstrative istius, most likely?

The next items, chronologically, are [7] and [3]. Both items may date toNovember 54, item [7] potentially even to October 54.

In item [7] Cicero appears to be responding once more to Quintus’ ongoingnagging as regards the whereabouts of his promised contributions to his poeticwork (ea quae uis canenda)18. Cicero’s response remains essentially the same:even though he feels capable to write (i.e. speeches and philosophica, cf. thephrase abduco equidem me ab omni rei publicae cura dedoque litteris), he stilllacks time (egeam tempore) and inclination (nec sane satis commoueor animo adea): most importantly, however (or so it would seem from the way how Cicero


14 Why exactly Goldberg (1995) 165–166 (with n. 15) believes that it was the quasi-unsurmoun-table difficulty to insert an epic/divine apparatus into contemporary epic that made the Ciceros’attempts an almost impossible endeavour, is not clear: certainly the evidence, as adduced above,does not suggest any of this.15 Much, perhaps too much, emphasis has been put on this aspect by Byrne (1998), claiming thatCaesar’s response had a significant impact on Cicero’s motivation to write any more poetry aboutCaesar.16 Allen (1955) 147 refers to lists items [2] and [7] as further evidence for this view of Cicero’s. Onlythe latter of the two appears to be relevant in that respect, though, and even here Cicero does notreally compare their mutual writing skills.17 Allen (1955) 147 claims that ‘we can tell what type of ep ic poetry Quintus had in mind’ (myspacing), subtly supplying the qualifyer ‘epic’, which is of course altogether arbitrary, see below,section 3.1.18 The subsequent term ἀμπώτεις, ‘tides’, is anything but certain, cf. Shackleton Bailey (1961) 4.



construes this passage in structure and balance), why does Quintus ask him,Cicero, to contribute something that he, Quintus, is so good at: isto eloquendi etexprimendi genere – does that mean some form of a descriptive genre? At anyrate, Cicero claims that he currently is lacking the quick wit (animi alacritas), andthe time, that would be required for such a poema (a word that had been used forQuintus’ composition before).

Cicero then goes on to share some of his current frustration about RomanRealpolitik and the paralysing effects it continues to have on him, before hereturns to literary matters once more. Cicero answers Quintus’ query about theshipment of books, and then comments on Quintus’ recent output of tragedies: noless than four plays in just sixteen days. In this context Cicero asks his brother:this being the case, tu quicquam ab alio mutuaris? Does this again refer to Quintus’repeated request of material from Cicero for his poema?

Item [3] is the penultimate remaining piece of the puzzle. It is a response ofCicero’s to a letter of Quintus’, in which the latter had once again suggested thatCicero continue and finish (perficere) his ad illum poema that he had begun(institutum). Cicero expresses his willingness to comply, even though he was stilllacking time and focus. Caesar, according to this piece of evidence, had got windof the project ex epistula quam ad te miseram. Just how one has to understand thispassage is unclear: either Quintus had shown this to Caesar, or the content of theletter had accidentally or intentionally been leaked to Caesar without Quintus’permission. At any rate, Cicero proposes to finish his effort over the next holiday(perficiam his supplicationum otiosis diebus).

The final passage that can be related to this whole matter is item [4] ofDecember 54, incidentally the last letter of the collection ad Quintum fratrem.Here Cicero notifies Quintus that he has finished (absolutum, following an earlierquod me hortaris ut absoluam) his ἔπος ad Caesarem after all. In his own view, atleast, Cicero regards his effort as suaue, ‘pleasant’ or ‘nice’19. He does not enclosehis work, however, but suggests to wait until a trustworthy messenger can befound, following the loss of a work that Quintus had shipped home from Gaul.

After the (predominantly) chronological overview of the evidence, in thewake of which it was possible to identify several themes and issues, one can nowmove on and raise some rather more specific questions about the various literaryand poetic activities that are mentioned in Cicero’s letters of 54 BC, as collected initems [1]–[7], above. It seems reasonable to divide this between the two (main)


19 Marciniak (2008) 214 highlights the ‘unusual’ nature of this epithet for a war epic. However,the praise contained in suauis (‘agreeable’) is so general and unspecific that this does not appearto be an actual problem.



authors, Marcus Cicero and Quintus Cicero, in order to see with greater claritywhat, according to the sources, had been going on.

3 The Nature of Quintus Cicero’s Poema

It has been argued that Quintus Cicero was the driving force behind the idea toversify Caesar’s deeds in the British expedition of 54 BC20. It is also clear thatQuintus played a major part in persuading Cicero to embark on a renewed attemptto align himself to Caesar around that time21. Because of that, and as Quintus –unlike his brother – is the first-hand witness of the events in question22, it makes acertain amount of sense to start the following discussions with him rather thanwith Marcus Cicero. One must note the oddity, however, that Quintus’ own voicein this case only speaks through the words of his brother’s few surviving re-sponses. Moreover, it is also important to emphasise that there is no evidenceprior to August 54 (in item [5]) for Quintus’ desire to write something, and thatthere is no evidence whatsoever that would allow any conclusions as to whetherhe finished or in fact even published his work23.

3.1 What Exactly Did Quintus Cicero (Intend to) Write?

The first thing that can be noted with certainty is that, in the above passages,Quintus is presented as trying to compose (at least) one literary work in collabora-tion with his brother, Marcus. It can also be noted with certainty that this work, atleast to some extent, was supposed to be written in verse. Furthermore, it is safeto say that the work in question was only one of several poetic pieces that Quintus


20 See below, section 4.3.21 For a full-scale discussion of the relationship between Cicero and Caesar at that time see, e.g.,Klass (1939); Rintelen (1955); Lossmann (1962); or, more recently e.g. Carcopino (1990) 287–288(and passim) and Riemer (2001) 45–57 (to name but a few); also important, more generally,Spielvogel (1993) (on Cicero’s general mindset of the Gallic war period).22 On the flow of information about the invasion of Britain to Cicero see extensively and sensiblyNice (2003) 85–88.23 The actual completion of this work has frequently been questioned by scholars (withoutsupporting evidence), cf. e.g. the remarkable comment made by Stinchcomb (1932) 7: “His ownepic poem,which the gods of themarket place never allowed to come to fulfilment, could not havebeen so valuable [sc. as Lucretius’ De rerum natura], although it would have been informative andtechnically correct.” – Why Lacey (1978) 86 suggests that Quintus “got stuck” at some pointremains unclear, as the sources report none of that.



was writing in 54 BC. The focus of his production at the time, at least according toitem [7], was on the genre of tragedy24.

The relevant passages that explicitly mention a poetic nature of Quintus’efforts are these:

– ego te libenter, ut rogas, quibus rebus uis, adiuuabo e t t ib i ue rsus quos rogas , hoces t A thenas noc tuam, mi t tam. [5]

– De uer s ibus quos t ib i a me sc r ib i u i s (…). [6]– Quod me de uer s ibus fac i end i s rogas, (…). [7]– facerem tamen ut possem, sed, quod te minime fugit, opus es t ad poema quadam

animi a lac r i ta te , (…). [7]

A closer look, however, reveals that the above items are far less straight-forwardthan commonly implied; for where, precisely, do these texts state that Quintushimself was composing anything at all? If anything, it might be the text of item[6], using the dative tibi, that points into this direction. Everything else on that listthus far could be read as if Quintus merely asked for samples of Cicero’s ownwriting – and in fact even the dative tibi, if taken as datiuus ethicus, couldtheoretically be interpreted along those lines. The strongest hint towards a poeticeffort of Quintus’ comes from another passage, namely Cicero’s comment onQuintus’ productivity at the tragic front:

– quattuor tragoedias sedecim diebus absoluisse cum scribas, tu qu icquam ab al iomutuar i s ? [7]

This passage appears to imply that Cicero wonders why a person as productive asQuintus could possibly be in need of any co-authorship, and it is only then –chronologically in hindsight – that also another passage can be utilised to re-inforce the view of an intended co-authorship:

– t i b i quod rogas , quon iam ips i fon tes iam s i t iun t , si quid habebo spati,s c r ibam. [2]

This latter item, of course, is even more telling, as Cicero only just indicated in thepreceding sentence that he himself had decided to discontinue his own efforts forthe time being.

If one can take it for granted then that Quintus, in collaboration with hisbrother, was trying to work towards a work of poetic nature (or a work at least


24 OnQuintusCicero asapoet and,moregenerally, as amanof letters cf. e.g.Wiemer (1930) 6–16.



partly written in verse), then an obvious question arises: what kind of poetic workwas this? The comments discussed so far merely use uersus and poema to describethe matter in question, neither of which is particularly specific. Traditionally,scholars have been inclined to believe that this should refer to an epic poem25.Although not frequently stated explicitly, this appears to have been based on acomment transmitted in the Scholia Bobbiensia on Cicero’s speech Pro Archia:

[8] fuit enim Q. Tullius non solum epici uerum etiam tragici carminis scriptor.(Schol. Bob. Cic. Arch. p. 354, 27)

As only a small fragment of a didactic poem of astrological matter survives26, andQuintus as a poet is otherwise best known for his production of tragedy, it is ofcourse tempting to assume that item [8] makes reference to the lost poem men-tioned in sources [5] to [7], and to imply that said poem was in fact an epic one27.This conclusion, however, while utilising the logic of Occam’s razor, is neithernecessary, nor is it cogent, nor is it in fact even particularly obvious from theevidence itself. Conversely, D. R. Shackleton Bailey had suggested that “I wouldsooner believe that they were to be ascribed to their real author and recited onsome appropriate occasion, or inserted in a prose account by Quintus of theBritish expedition, after the fashion of a Menippean satire”28. Given that Quintusappears to have asked for his brother’s contribution for several months and bylong-distance communication, one may rule out the idea of the ‘appropriateoccasion’: Cicero would have missed any deadline by a significant margin29. Butwhat about the general idea of something like a prosimetrum, or in fact any othernon-epic genre, as the destination for Marcus Cicero’s lines?

In order to come to a more refined understanding of what Quintus wasattempting to write, with his brother’s input or contribution, one must carefully


25 Cf. e.g. Teuffel (1920) 435 (“Also sollte es ein Epos werden.”); Wiemer (1930) 12–13; Soubiran(1972) 51–54. Allen (1955) 148 is particularly blunt about this when he states that “[i]n this passagepoema is used for composing poetry, but it also means the final product as well. Wemay thereforenote that here Cicero calls Quintus’ epic a poema, which helps us to realize that, when he spoke ofhis own poema ad Caesarem in ad Q. fr. 3, 1, 11, he had in mind the same sort of work as Quintuswas contemplating.” This is of course entirely speculative and by no means the only way tounderstand Cicero’s words (or in fact even themost plausible one, as will be shown later on).26 For a thorough discussion cf. Kruschwitz/Schumacher (2005) 109–116.27 A detail of this passage that has largely been overlooked so far is that the Scholiast presentsQuintusmainly as a writer of epic (non solum), with a secondary interest (uerum etiam) in tragedy.28 Shackleton Bailey (1980) 202.29 The notion of ‘borrowing’, for which see above itmes [2] and [7], is another point that needs tobe held against Shackleton Bailey’s view.



examine the evidence once more. As a starting point, it is important to remindoneself that both uersus and poema do not determine any specific literary genre.In that respect, those in favour of an argument for an epic poem are required toproduce evidence in support of their claim. So what else is known about thepoem? The following aspects appear to be of some relevance:

– o iucundas mihi tuas de Britannia litteras! timebam Oceanum, timebam litus insulae;reliqua non equidem contemno, sed plus habent tamen spei quam timoris magisque sumsollicitatus exspectatione ea quam metu. te uero ὑπόθεσιν scribendi egregiam habereuideo. quos tu situs, quas naturas rerum et locorum, quos mores, quas gentis, quaspugnas, quem uero ipsum imperatorem habes! [5]

– tibi istius generis in scribendo priores partis tribuo quammihi. [6]– ea quae ipse ego ne cogitando quidem consequor tu, qui omnis isto eloquendi et expri-

mendi genere superasti, a me petis? [7]– quattuor tragoedias sedecim diebus absoluisse cum scribas, tu quicquam ab alio mu-

tuaris? [7]

The first comment, from item [5], at first glance does little more than summarisefeatures of a narrative as provided by Quintus at some point prior to this letter: thesea, the shores of the island, places, nature, comments on the nature of theinhabitants, the very peoples of Britain, battles, and, above all, a great general ashero. However, it must catch the interpreter’s eye that Cicero states two morethings: (i) he comments on the timor or, subsequently,metus that certain elementsof Quintus’ narrative managed to inspire, whereas other parts caused (sollicitatus)spes and exspectatio; (ii) this leads on to the comment that he, Cicero, has toacknowledge that Quintus indeed has an ὑπόθεσιν scribendi egregiam. Whilesome of the content-related features that Cicero mentions are perfectly appropri-ate for an epic poem (as commonly suggested), the mention of emotions such asfear and hope, in conjunction with the (potentially) technical term ὑπόθεσις,suggests something else, such as the outline plot of a tragedy30. Can this suspicionbe corroborated further?

First of all, one must notice that the previously discussed descriptors, uersusand poema, are perfectly appropriate to cover dramatic genres – they are certainlynot more specific for epic poetry than they are for dramatic forms31. But whatabout the other remarks that were adduced above? The comment from item [6],acknowledging Quintus’ superiority in ‘that’ genre, istius generis in scribendo


30 A ὑπόθεσις scribendi may of course denote a mere starting point or the raw material. Note,however, the specialist useof the termasdiscussed inLiddell/Scott/Jones s.v.ὑπόθεσις, § II 3 and5.31 In that respect one cannot turn the absence of the technical term fabula from Cicero’s letters inthis context into a counter-argument, as a specific term for epic poetry is equally lacking here.



priores partis, certainly does not contradict the impression that Quintus was infact working towards a dramatic work. In fact, it is the strongest item to supportthe claim of a dramatic form: whereas Quintus and Marcus Cicero both producedepic and didactic poems, Marcus Cicero – in stark contrast to his brother Quin-tus – is hardly known as a tragic poet at all32. If Marcus assigns Quintus thesuperiority in ‘that’ genre, drama fits the bill better than anything else by asignificant margin.

Moving on to the two sections from item [7] then, it is noteworthy that the latterputs the notion of ‘borrowing’ from someone (mutuari) precisely in the context ofQuintus’ otherwise highly prolific output. The former of the two sections oncemoreasserts Quintus’ poetic superiority in a specific field: qui omnis isto eloquendi etexprimendi genere superasti. The question thatmust be asked, of course, iswhethertragedy can really be described as a certain eloquendi et exprimendi genus, as – atleast at first glance – this may seem to have a narrative ring to it33. However, botheloqui and exprimere are used in a technicalmanner for performative texts – in thatrespect the expressionsdonot, in fact, contradict the claim34.

Item [7] is also interesting in another respect, despite its apparent textualcorruption. The two plays that Cicero mentions with sufficient certainty are anElectraandaTroades. The latter is unambiguously related to theTrojanmyth.Whatabout the former? The name Electra is ambiguous: it may refer to either Orestes’sister or the mother of Dardanus. If the latter were the case35, then this play, too,pointed into the direction of the Trojan myth. Assuming that this is the case, thenone would have to acknowledge that Quintus was in fact busy writing dramaclosely related to Rome’s Trojan foundation myth – a myth that was particularlyuseful to the gens Iulia. Could Quintus have tried to supplement his ‘Eastern’dramas with a contemporary ‘Western’ play – all of which were supportive ofCaesar’s own ideologyand thepromotionof bothhis roots andhisdestiny36?


32 Cicero of course produced translations of a range of tragic passages, cf. Büchner (1939)1256–1257; however, there is no evidence for a translation of an entire play (pace Boyle 2006, 145).33 The answer to this question is a positive one; see inmore detail below, section 3.2.34 On eloqui as a term related to the performance of rhetorical passages cf. ThLL s.v. eloquor,esp. 420. 53 ff. (where the above passage is mentioned 420. 79–81). – On exprimere as a term forperformance-related texts cf. ThLL s.v. exprimo, esp. 1790. 60 ff.35 If one wanted to argue the former, one would have to emphasise that Electra, as well asErigone, mentioned subsequently, were offspring of Clytaemnestra, and argue that Quintus wasworking on plays loosely relating to an Oresteia. The Dardanus connection seems stronger,though.36 It is possible to push this thought even further. The tentative – and admittedly highlyspeculative – claim could be made that Caesar’s ongoing comparison with Alexander the Greatwas a potential starting point. It is reported by Athenaeus that Alexander organised Dionysia with



In conclusion, it would appear that there are very good reasons indeed tobelieve that Quintus Cicero was in the process of writing a tragic poem (ratherthan an epic one or in fact something else entirely)37, i.e. something like a fabulapraetexta38, for which he then repeatedly asked his brother for instalments.

3.2 What Did Quintus Cicero’s Work Look Like?

Whether or not one is inclined to accept the re-assessment of the genre of Quintus’work, as outlined in the previous section, one must now ask what can be saidabout its likely nature and content. The above passages do not seem to contain agreat deal of information in that respect. In fact, it has even be disputed whetherQuintus wrote about the British expedition altogether39. The following pieces ofinformation, however, can be seen as potential descriptors of Quintus’ poem:

– timebam Oceanum, timebam litus insulae; reliqua non equidem contemno, sed plushabent tamen spei quam timoris magisque sum sollicitatus exspectatione ea quam metu.[5]

– te uero ὑπόθεσιν scribendi egregiam habere uideo. quos tu situs, quas naturas rerum etlocorum, quos mores, quas gentis, quas pugnas, quem uero ipsum imperatorem habes! [5]

– ἀμπώτεις [?] uero et ea quae ipse ego ne cogitando quidem consequor tu, qui omnis istoeloquendi et exprimendi genere superasti, a me petis? [7]


dramatic performances during his campaigns in India. On at least one occasion a political satyrplay(-let), a σατυρικὸν δραμάτιον, was performed: the play called Agen (‘The Leader’), lampoon-ing Alexander’s treasurer Harpalos, was either written by one Python or, as Athenaeus suggests,even by Alexander himself; see Athen. 13, 586d and 13, 595f–596b for the evidence and cf. Sutton(1980) 75–81 and, more recently, T. Günther in: Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker (1999) 593–601. Dramatic performances are also mentioned in Plut. Alex. 29, 1–5. Moreover, Alexander’sgeneral interest in drama (as well as the design of his own persona as an Achilles reborn) is welldocumented, see e.g. Plut.Alex. 4, 11 and 8, 3 and cf. Mossman (1988).37 That such quick responses on stage to contemporary events and developments were possiblebecomes clear from another comment of Cicero’s, when he, in a letter to Trebatius, expresses hisfear of the introduction of a Britannicus iurisconsultus as a comedic character by Laberius and thelike; see Cic. fam. 34 (= 7, 11), 3 SB (January 53?), and cf. Panayotakis (2010) 41–42 (with n. 73).38 There is reasonable evidence for the existence and relevance of this genre in the mid-firstcentury BC; see Manuwald (2001) 54–62 with reference to Cic. fam. 415 (= 10, 32), 3 SB and, moresubstantially, Kragelund (2002). Cf. also Boyle (2006) 144–145.39 Cf. Courtney (2003) 181, who subsequently proves to be sceptical of his own dismissive view inthe addenda to the second edition of the Fragmentary Latin Poets (p. 512). However, Courtney’sscepticism is not altogether out of place: ultimately it all hangs on the reading of passage [5],which allows tomake the connection between Caesar’s exploits in Britain and Quintus’writing.



The first two of these statements contain but hints to descriptive elements as partof Quintus’ work40

– the issue of the meaning of eloqui and exprimere was alreadybriefly touched upon in the previous section. There is an emphasis on the depic-tion of the scene, its nature, its peoples and their customs, battles, and a supremecommander. The third passage, if remedied correctly by D. R. Shackleton Bailey,allegedly refers to ‘tides’ whose depiction Cicero was supposed to send to hisbrother41.

The cues provided by the above passages are anything but specific. Descrip-tions of nature, peoples, battles, and a military general suit nicely the idea of anepic poem, as has been observed by several scholars42. But how would it suit theproposed alternative of a fabula praetexta? Given that only one praetexta survivesto an extent that one can meaningfully study its overall design, viz. the Octavia(ascribed to Seneca), and given that said play does have a very different subject,any interpreter is confronted with an almost insoluble conundrum.

There are a number of hints, however, that seem to suggest that the attestedfeatures would not at all be out of place in a praetexta. Battle narratives have theirplace in the Roman praetexta from the earliest time, including Naevius’ Clasti-dium, Ennius’ Ambracia, and Pacuvius’ Paulus43. Due to the paucity of the surviv-ing material, it is more difficult to find useful parallels for the representation ofthe forces of nature, foreign peoples, and related matters that Quintus appears tohave used. One must note, however, that there is scattered evidence e.g. for theartistic representation of the forces of nature (such as the windswept sea, etaequora salsa ueges ingentibus uentis, in Ennius)44, and – at a late stage of thegenre – evidence for lengthy, “over-detailed description of the narrative back-ground in the words of the characters” in the Octavia45.

4 The Nature of Marcus Cicero’s Poema(ta)

Having unpicked the question of what exactly Quintus Cicero was writing inrelation to Caesar’s campaigns, one can now focus on his brother Marcus’ poeticattempts. The following issues need to be considered: (i) what exactly did Marcus


40 It is not entirely clear whether the first passage can truly be related to Quintus’ poeticproduction, as the uero of the subsequent item seems to imply aminor shift in focus.41 Shackleton Bailey above, n. 8.42 See above, n. 25.43 Cf. Manuwald (2001) 134 ff.; 162 ff.; 180 ff.44 Enn. praet. 4 R., cf. Manuwald (2001) 162; 170.45 See Ferri (2003) 59.



Cicero write? (ii) what was the nature of his writings? (iii) for what reasons wouldCicero engage in such an effort?

4.1 What Exactly Did Marcus Cicero Write?

The evidence presented above is not entirely clear when it comes to the questionof what exactly Cicero wrote in terms of Caesar-related poetry during the year 54BC The situation is not helped by the fragmentary survival of Cicero’s poetry ingeneral and the (allegedly)46 complete loss of any Britain-related lines. In order totackle this complex matter, it seems appropriate to establish, tentatively, securegrounds on the following questions: how many poems did Cicero write47? whatcan be said about their subject and their content? what can be said about theirgeneral quality?

A sensible starting point can be found in item [4], in which Cicero reports thecompletion of an ἔπος ad Caesarem. While he is reluctant to have it shipped toQuintus (due to an earlier mail mishap), Marcus Cicero does point out thatQuintus had urged him to finalise it (me hortaris ut absoluam) – a task nowcompleted (habeo absolutum), and with a decent outcome (suaue). From thisstarting (or rather: end) point, it is possible to trace back the evidence thatbelongs to the same text. This undisputably covers item [3], which is also testi-mony to Quintus’ urging Cicero to finalise his work (me institutum ad illum poemaiubes perficere), combined with a promise to do so over imminent holidays. At thesame time Cicero indicates that he had suspended his writing (reuertar ad institu-tum) – and that he had done so because of other pressing concerns (distentus cumopera tum animo sum multo magis). Finally, Cicero points out that Caesar’s know-ledge of the project (quoniam ex epistula quam ad te miseram cognouit Caesar mealiquid esse exorsum) had contributed to this reconsideration.

It has been argued that it was Caesar who had insisted on Cicero’s finishingof the ἔπος or poema48. A careful reading reveals, however, that Cicero does notactually say so. Moreover, the text of item [3] also suggests that Caesar did notknow about any progress of the ἔπος ad Caesarem project. In fact, the wording


46 But see below, section 5.47 It is not worth revisiting the old and unfounded question as to whether Cicero actuallycompleted his epic; see Ciaceri (1895–1896) on that matter (and cf. below, n. 49).48 See e.g. Carcopino (1951) II 283 n. 2 (who even imagines a repeated nagging on Caesar’s side),Wiseman (1966) 110 (with n. 29) and Brush (1971) 67–68, a viewmore recently upheld byMarciniak(2008) 215 (without supporting evidence).



suggests that Caesar did not have any knowledge (or recollection?) of this projectuntil just prior to the very date of item [3].

So far Cicero has been seen to use the terms ἔπος ad Caesarem or poemawhenreferring to the project that he had finalised by December 54. At an earlier stage,namely in item [2], Cicero shows a hybrid of the two terms when he refers to apoema ad Caesarem. As he states in this context that he had begun (institueram)to work on this project, but decided to discontinue it (incidi), it seems relativelysafe to conclude that item [2] talks about the same project that was reported as ‘tobe resumed’ in item [3] and ‘finalised’ in item [4].

This takes the attention to item [1], and here matters become slightly morecomplicated. Cicero relates two issues in a way that presents them as inter-twined –

– Caesar approved (probauit) of a poema of Cicero’s– Cicero is ready to get his ‘poetic chariot’ up to full speed

– and just after that Cicero asks his brother to give him his version of Britain forartistic use (modo mihi date Britanniam quam pingam coloribus tuis, but to berepresented in Cicero’s own words (penicillo meo)49.

The poema Cicero talks about – unless Cicero’s syntax is to be regarded ashopelessly opaque (and there is no reason to believe that), must be seen inconjunction with Cicero’s request for information about Britain. This, in turn,could mean that Caesar had knowledge of Cicero’s intention to write about himand his exploits in Britain – a plan that in fact met with Caesar’s approval. Buthow can this be reconciled with item [3], which suggested that Caesar had noknowledge of Cicero’s (lack of) progress and possibly even of the entire project?

Matters become more complicated still upon consideration of item [5]. Here,Cicero says that Caesar had read a ‘first book’ (primum librum) of something, andhe does so in the immediate vicinity of his discussion of Quintus’ project. Doesthat mean that Cicero had already written a whole book of an epic glorifyingCaesar’s Britannic expedition50? As this seems hardly likely, scholars have – quite


49 Dilke (1964) 300–301 claims that Cicero “did not necessarily write a poem De expeditioneBritannica; he promised to turn Quintus’ prose descriptions of Britain into verse” (my under-lining). This is absurd, even within the context of item [1] alone, as Cicero clearly indicates hisoverarching intention to turn to poetry and only after that asks Quintus to send him material asappropriate. –On the underlying painting imagery see below, section 4.2.50 This view, e.g. aired by Tyrrell/Purser (1906) 144 (“Probably a poem addressed to Caesar, inwhich doubtless Cicero intended to treat of the expedition into Britain”), was more recentlyupheld by Rawson (1975) 134: “This [sc. item [1], above] seems to refer to an epic poem on Caesar’s



rightly – assumed that Cicero’s comment must refer to another epic poem, namelythe De temporibus suis51, which at this point – at least to some extent – was stillwork in progress. Moreover, the wording in, as well as the content of, item [5]dovetails with a slightly more extensive comment in another letter to Quintus, inwhich Cicero then speaks about a potential (addition to the ‘second book of OurTimes’ (itaque mirificum embolium cogito in secundum librum meorum temporumincludere)52: with a gap of about three months between this and item [5], one cansee how Cicero would have progressed logically and consistently from receivingCaesar’s feedback on book one to finalising book two53.

In conclusion, it seems fair to say that Cicero, among his other projects at thetime, was working on several poetic works to do with contemporary history. Twoof them are discernible in the sources accumulated in section 1, above, namely (i)the relatively well-attested De temporibus suis, and (ii) the otherwise unknownepic poem on Caesar’s expedition to Britain.

4.2 The Quality of Cicero’s Work and Its Publication

It has been strangely fashionable among scholars who have studied the presentmatter before, to come up with strong views on the poetic quality of Cicero’spoem, obviously all based on mere prejudice, as no text has been reclaimed forthese epics as of yet54. The most blunt, and certainly the most damning, statementappears to be that Christian Habicht’s: “fortunately, it is lost”55. This view reso-nates with some of the ancient views on the quality of Cicero’s poetry, mostnotably an opinion that is to be found in Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus:

[9] Concedamus sane C. Caesari, ut propter magnitudinem cogitationum et occupationesrerumminus in eloquentia effecerit, quam diuinum eius ingenium postulabat, tam herculequam Brutum philosophiae suae relinquamus; nam in orationibus minorem esse fama


victories and the invasion of Britain; Cicero wrote anxiously to find out what its hero thought of it.In return Caesar dedicated to him a work on the fashionable subject of grammar, with a preface ofelegant compliment.” In a similar vain cf. Mitchell (1991) 190.51 See e.g. Lossmann (1962) 61–62 (with n. 61).52 Cic. ad Q. fr. 21 (= 3, 1), 24 SB (September 54).53 I do not wish to suggest that Caesar’s feedback has informed the idea of Cicero’s insertion inthis particular case.54 See, however, below, section 4.4.55 Habicht (1990) 58. In a similar vein Benario (1955) 24: “In light of the fact that, when he was inthemood, he could write as many as five hundred verses a night, this must really have been a rushjob. Undoubtedly we have suffered no great loss in the failure of the poem to be preserved”.



sua etiam admiratores eius fatentur: nisi forte quisquam aut Caesaris pro Decio Samniteaut Bruti pro Deiotaro rege ceterosque eiusdem lentitudinis ac teporis libros legit, nisi quiet carmina eorundemmiratur. fecerunt enim et carmina et in bibliothecas rettulerunt, nonmelius quam Cicero, sed felicius, quia illos fecisse pauciores sciunt. (Tac. dial. 21, 10–11)

Due to the absence of any surviving lines unambiguously attributed to thiswork56, in conjunction with the lack of subsequent mentions of it by Cicerohimself and with the lack of reference to it by later authors, several scholars feltalso justified in their claims that Cicero in fact never published the poem after itscompletion57.

Shannon Byrne goes even further and suggests that the name of the poemwas tellingly omitted from a list of publications of the year 54 BC that Cicero sentto Lentulus Spinther58: this list features the De oratore, a few speeches, and finallythree books of De temporibus suis (which Cicero regards as long overdue in thiscontext). This is disingenous, however, for two reasons: first, this letter waswritten the same month as Cicero had finished the epic poem dedicated toCaesar – so it may well not have been entirely finished at the time. Secondly, andmore importantly, Lentulus Spinther was in the process of shifting his allegianceaway from Caesar to Pompey, and the letter in question already gives a fairly vivididea of the tensions that existed at the time. In that respect, an inclusion of theBritish epic in that list would have been rather problematic, to put it mildly.

While Cicero-bashing has been fashionable for a long time even in moreserious scholarship (and for obvious reasons so), it might be worth to approachthe quest for the nature of Cicero’s lost poem somewhat more appropriately andsomewhat less conveniently. At least one person – Cicero himself – thought ofthe poem as a suaue, mihi quidem uti uidetur, ἔπος59, and his brother is kindenough to push Cicero towards completion of his works. Would he have done soif he had a sense that the poem could turn out to be an utter disgrace? Hard to tell,no doubt; one must note, of course, that Cicero repeatedly has to deal withlukewarm criticism or worse, as proven by the above mention of Caesar’s re-


56 But cf. below, section 5.57 Cf. Häfner (1928) 64 adn.; Ewbank (1933) 22 and Goldberg (1995) 166, to name but a few voicesin this debate; somewhat more sceptical Shackleton Bailey (1971) 91, who suggests that the poemmay eventually have been published. Büchner (1939) 1256 has a point when he argues that itwould have been an offence of Caesar’s if Cicero had not sent him the poem just as much as itwould have been an offence of Cicero’s if Caesar had not seen for it to be publicised one way oranother. – For a related debate cf. above, n. 47.58 Cic. fam. 20 (= 1, 9), 23 SB (December 54). Cf. Byrne (1998) 132–133.59 See item [4].



sponse to Cicero’s De temporibus suis60. But does this have any bearing on thislost work?

Based on the evidence, the nature of the epic itself can be described only to avery superficial extent. Yet, it is not altogether impossible to define some of itsco-ordinates. It is clear that the epic – either in total, or at least to some extent –dealt with Caesar’s exploits in Britain61. Cicero mentions aspects of what is knownto him about this campaign as well as about the British isles in contemporaryletters, and as he did not go to Britain himself, this must represent possiblematter for the epic. (The overall rather disappointing results may well havecontributed to his inertia at times.) Karl Büchner and others are undoubtedlyright in their assumption that the poem must have comprised numerous ekphra-seis62, based on eye-witness reports as supplied by Cicero’s interlocutors in theletters, but potentially also on official reports from the front lines as supplied byCaesar himself.

In this context it is worth discussing in more detail Cicero’s idea of the writingprocess as revealed in item [1]. The imagery – ut pictura poesis – is a commonone63. Nevertheless, this passage provides an interesting spin on it. Cicero asksQuintus to ‘give’ a Britain (date Britanniam) for him to paint (quam pingam) withQuintus’ colours (coloribus tuis) and his own brush (penicillo meo). If one is readyto explore the imagery somewhat further, it yields some interesting notions: whatCicero asks for is this: Quintus should provide him with the defined topic of hiswork (Britannia), and also the very matter which will ultimately form the artworkand define its overall appearance (colores). What Cicero thus proposes to do, is toarrange these colores as a designing artist (pingam), using his own paintingimplement (penicillum). Use of the penicillum, however, hints towards the idea oftempera painting (as opposed to the encaustic painting technique)64 – a refinedand precious form of artwork, that Pliny the Elder, for example, describes as thepractice of some of Greece’s greatest artists65.

If this view is correct, then this also has implications for Quintus’ colores:tempera painting requires dissolving pigments in an oily liquid before their


60 See item [5].61 See item [1].62 Büchner (1939) 1256; cf. also Grollmus (1887) 42 ff.; Koch (1922) 56 ff., and, more recently, e.g.Allen (1955) 157–159.63 Most famously expressed in Hor. ars 361, only a few decades after Cicero’s letter.64 The latter was occasionally executed with a penicillum, but Pliny seems to suggest that thiswould have been appropriate in particular for large-scale projects such as painting battle ships;cf. Plin. nat. 35, 149.65 Cf. Plin. nat. 35, 60; 35, 61; 35, 81; 35, 123; 35, 147.



application to the predestined surface66. Quintus, in this scenario, is the providerof the very pigments – the matter that defines the look of a specific spot on thepoetic canvas, the notion of what ought to be said. Marcus Cicero, however, is theperson to turn these notions into words and sentences, to design the overallarrangement of these within the larger picture, to define light and shade, and toapply the pigments altogether according to his liking, to turn the ingredients intoan artwork.

A further item of interest is the fact that, in military terms, Caesar’s campaignswere somewhat of a failure: Caesar managed to win a few battles, and he evenagreed the handing-over of obsides with the Britons, but then left the islandswithout installing any means to enforce the agreed terms and conditions. Pre-viously, scholars have contented themselves with pointing out that the disap-pointing results of these campaigns may have resulted in the Ciceros’ lack ofmotivation to complete and to publish their poetry. This is not much of an insight.It would be rather more challenging to answer the question as to how to presentsuch an outcome in a non-embarrassing way that allows both the authors and thegeneral to preserve their faces – and ideally even adds to their prestige? After all,the general outcome was known to Cicero by the time he had completed his epicpoem.

Ironically, it is Tacitus – the very author who put the boot into Cicero’s poeticskills in item [9] – who could potentially provide an answer to this. In hisbiographical work Agricola he comments on Caesar’s achievements in Britain:

[10] Igitur primus omnium Romanorum diuus Iulius cum exercitu Britanniam ingressus,quamquam prospera pugna terruerit incolas ac litore potitus sit, potest uideri ostendisseposteris, non tradidisse. (Tac. Agr. 13)

Caesar, Tacitus claims, may not have handed Britain over to posterity as a Romanprovince. Nevertheless, it was Caesar who put it on the Roman map and showedthat it was within Roman reach. Tacitus is even reasonably optimistic aboutCaesar’s achievements (mentioning successful battles, threatening the inhabi-tants, and conquering coastal areas). Is it conceivable that this view was the linethe Ciceros took as well in their poetic versions of the campaigns? Certainly theὑπόθεσις scribendi egregia of item [5] could be seen as pointing in that direction.Moreover, such a use of epic poetry in particular, as a tool of creating archival


66 The most extensive Roman discussion of the history of painting, including the use of pig-ments, is to be found in Plin. nat. 35, on which see Bradley (2009) 94–101. Of similar importanceas regards the technical aspects of painting is Vitruvius’ book 7 of theDe architectura.



truth, combined with the desire to generate a favourable memoria, is perfectly inline with Cicero’s approach to this literary genre in other cases67.

4.3 What Was Cicero’s Motivation to Write an Epic Poem aboutCaesar?

This is a question that at least in part has received a certain amount of academicattention surrounding Cicero’s endeavour of writing poetry about Caesar’s ex-ploits in Britain. The main points covered in previous scholarship surroundingthis matter are the following: (i) who can be seen as the instigator to Cicero’swriting, and (ii) what can be said, in broader terms, about Cicero’s poetic commu-nication with Caesar? An aspect that has not received sufficient attention yet isthe question of (iii) why Cicero thought an epic poem would be in order: whatexactly is the role of epic poetry here? Question (ii) exceeds the aims and limita-tions of the present paper68. It is worth, however, looking into aspects (i) and (iii)in a bit more detail.

As far as aspect (i), the quest for the instigator toMarcus Cicero’s poetic versionof Caesar’s expedition to Britain, is concerned, it has been argued on numerousoccasions that Cicero wrote his as an ἀντίδοσις for Caesar’s grammatical work Deanalogia which was dedicated to him (Cicero)69. According to Suetonius, Caesarwrote the De analogia while crossing the Alps on his return from Cisalpine Gaul –an event that recurred in the years 55, 54, and 52 BC (discounting earlier yearsduring which Caesar would have had little reason to dedicate anything to Cicero).As the trip of 52 BC was overshadowed by the revolt of Vercingetorix, and as theDeanalogia canbe seenas a response toCicero’sworkDeoratoreof 55BC, the springof54BC remains as themost likely candidate70. As the first traces that hint towards theproduction of poetic works in the passages assembled above can be dated to mid-54 BC, this would not be impossible – yet there is one major problem: there issimply no supporting evidence for the notion that Cicero felt he should reciprocateCaesar’s favour with the production of an epic poem. As the onus of proof is with


67 See Kurczyk (2006) 85–120.68 For a recent, if somewhat problematic, discussion see Marciniak (2008) (with copious biblio-graphy).69 This has been argued by Malcovati (1943) 265; Shackleton Bailey (1971) 91; Spielvogel (1993)157, to name but a few prominent voices. At least a slight hint of scepticism is revealed inBringmann (2010) 151 (“wohl als Dank”). – For Cicero as the dedicatee of the De analogia see Cic.Brut. 252–253 and Gell. 19, 8, 3. Cf. also Garcea (2012) 24–26.70 For amore extensive rationale and further reading cf. Willi (2010) 230–231.



those who wish to make this claim, one may for now dismiss this argument ashaphazard and unsupported by any evidence71. This is equally true for a variant ofthe same unsubstantiated thought, proposed by Shannon Byrne, namely thatCicerowas so flattered by Caesar’s comments – reported in [1] – that he, Cicero, feltinspired todedicate apoem toCaesar in response72.

A competing view is that Cicero’s poetic activities were triggered by hisbrother Quintus’ request73. While it is clear from the passages, above, that Quintuswas ultimately a driving force behind the completion of the work, it is not possibleto deduce that he instigated it as well. If anything, it was the other way round.Item [1] predates any (evidence for) reports by Quintus about his time in Britain74,and here Cicero presents the initiative as his own. There may, however, be an(admittedly speculative) way of developing this scenario somewhat further – andat the same time practically ruling out the idea of a ἀντίδοσις to the De analogia.In a letter that dates back to the beginning of the year 54 BC, Cicero writes to hisbrother as follows:

[11] nam, ut scis, iam pridem istum canto Caesarem. mihi crede, in sinu est neque egodiscingor. (Cic. ad Q. fr. 16 (= 2, 12 [11]), 1 SB: February 54)

This letter predates Quintus’ departure to join Caesar’s forces (in order to escapethe dangerous mixture of boredom and debt)75, but at the same time can be linkedto a time during which this plan had already been made. Would it be wildlyabsurd to argue that the notion of iam pridem istum canto Caesarem, with itscolourful term canto, resonated with the two Ciceros in their deliberations to alignthemselves with Caesar? It may not be possible to give a definitive answer to thisquestion; the thought, however, has a certain appeal to it.

Finally, it has been argued that Caesar himself may have “urged” Cicero tothe poem “even though he may have come to feel that its composition was not sodesirable as when he had first heard of it”76.


71 Moreover, why would Cicero reciprocate the dedication of a grammatical treatise with theproduction of an epic poem?72 See Byrne (1998).73 Cf. e.g. Ciaceri (1895–1896) 86; Ewbank (1933) 19–20; Lossmann (1962) 123–124.74 Cic. Att. 90 (= 4, 15), 10 SB of late July 54 suggests that Cicero did not even know for certainwhether his brother had arrived in Britain and that he was eager to receive some first actualinformation: Ex Quinti fratris litteris susp i co r iam eum esse in Britannia. suspenso animo ex-pec to quid agat.75 Especially on the latter aspect cf. Wiseman (1966) 108 (with a discussion of the evidence).76 Allen (1955) 156. Similarly Spaeth (1937) 555, who claimed that the poem must have beenwritten “if not at the sollicitation of Caesar, at least with definite expectation of his approval”. This



All of the aforementioned scenarios share that they come without any sig-nificant supporting evidence. As the motivation for Cicero’s brother’s poem isequally dubious, it is worth pursuing this matter in a more general fashion. In asomewhat careless remark, G. B. Townend suggested that Cicero may have beenaiming “to become a sort of poet laureate to the triumvirs”with his panegyric epicdedicated to Caesar77. This, at first, seems like a rather outlandish thought, asCicero certainly was not aiming to become a poet. However, Townend’s commenttouches upon a couple of very serious issues. First, Caesar, in spite of the ratherunsuccessful first campaign to the British isles in 55 BC, had gained significantacclaim in Rome. In the fourth book of the De bello Gallico, he mentions that atwenty-day supplicatio was decreed in his honour78. In fact, it has been arguedthat this allowed him to raise his standing and to become almost comparable tohis rival Pompey in military acclaim79. In that respect, an alignment – of whatevernature – to Caesar must have been an appealing thought. Secondly, however, andperhaps more importantly, both Marcus and Quintus Cicero had already de factoaligned themselves to Caesar in a rather substantial way that is not frequentlymentioned: both of them were in significant debt and had received substantialmonies from Caesar, thus practically became one of his clients80. Given thefinancial dependence of the Ciceros on Caesar, in conjunction with the appeal ofthe thought of Caesar as a supporter of his own cause to Marcus, it seems mostlikely that the Ciceros were compelled by the inherent necessities of quasi-clietelato glorify their patron rather than anything else, whether Caesar actively re-quested such efforts or not.

Whoever gave the impulse for Cicero to work on a poetic Expeditio Britannica,it is also important to consider aspect (iii): why an epic poem, apart from itsobvious function in flattery81, in order to commemorate Caesar’s efforts? In hisspeech Pro Marcello of 46 BC, Cicero urges Caesar (who presided over the case) toensure that his (Caesar’s) lasting legacy will not be obliterated by the failure toprovide a sense of direction for the future destiny of the Roman republic. In


view has recently been supported and developed into a mere fiction by Marciniak (2008) 215 (withn. 20, mentioning related older views), who claimed that “Caesars Wunsch, der Redner möge ihmDe expeditione Britannica schicken, ist für uns ein Beweis für die positive Wertschätzung, dieCiceros Dichtung bei den Zeitgenossen erfuhr. Denn es ist kaum denkbar, dass der ErobererGalliens daran interessiert war, seine Verdienste in unbeholfenen Versen gelobt zu sehen”.77 Townend (1965) 120.78 Caes.Gall. 4, 38, 5.79 See Canfora (2007) 107.80 For a full discussion of this complex cf. Rollinger (2007) esp. 147–149 for the time period inquestion.81 This aspect has received some treatment in Byrne (1998).



particular, Cicero states that future generations would be in awe while hearingand reading of Caesar’s unbelievable exploits:

[12] obstupescent posteri certe imperia, prouincias, Rhenum, Oceanum, Nilum, pugnas innu-merabilis, incredibilis uictorias, monimenta, munera, triumphos audientes et legentestuos. (Cic.Marcell. 28)

It has been argued that this, in conjunction with a few other passages of the samespeech, could be read as evidence not only for an appraisal of Caesar’s inhistoriography, but in fact for a glorification of (literally) epic proportions in whatone might be tempted to call a Caesaris82.

The speech Pro Marcello dates from a time when Caesar’s powers in Romewhere already quasi-universal, which adds a certain dimension to Cicero’s repre-sentation of Caesar’s achievements in this passage. Taking it down a notch andconsidering Cicero’s less general, but nevertheless substantial personal (finan-cial) obligations to Caesar in 54 BC, it still seems possible to see how Cicero mighthave thought of epic poetry as a legitimate form of a client’s support for hispatron: after all, this function of poetry had been established in Rome a long time,not least through Cicero’s own favourite poet, Quintus Ennius.

5 A Potential Frustulum?

It is commonly believed that the Ciceros’ poemata for Caesar are altogether lost,as there are no quotations of, or references to, this text in extant Latin literature.Nevertheless, it seems possible to discuss a potential piece of textual evidence forthe poem. The following claim builds on two related assumptions: (i) Ciceroshows a high level of self-referentiality in his texts, and (ii) Cicero particularlyenjoys insertions of his own poetic phrases and lines into his own writing. If thatmatter is largely uncontentious, then one can consider the following passagefrom a Ciceronian letter to Atticus:

[13] cognosce cetera. ex fratris litteris incredibilia quaedam de Caesaris in me amore cognoui,eaque sunt ipsius Caesaris uberrimis litteris confirmata. Britannici belli exitus exspecta-tur; constat enim aditus insulae esse

muratos mi r i f i c i s mo l ibus .


82 Klodt (2003) 39–40 (with n.12), who also adduces Cic. Marcell. 4; 6; 7; 9; 17; 27 (the lattersuggesting drama rather than epic) as well as Rab. Post. 42–43.



etiam illud iam cognitum est, neque argenti scrupulum esse ullum in illa insula nequeullam spem praedae nisi ex mancipiis; ex quibus nullos puto te litteris aut musiciseruditos exspectare. (Cic. Att. 89 [= 4, 16], 7: July 54)

What is peculiar about those three words muratos mirificis molibus – incidentallya description of the British coastline83 – is the extended alliteration in addition tothe poeticising, figurative use of muratos. D. R. Shackleton Bailey suggested thatthis could come from a tragic poem and be seen as a rendering of a “tragicsenarius such as aditus murati mirificis sunt molibus”, which is entirely possible84.If one were to accept that Quintus Cicero’s poema was, as argued above, apraetexta, then the metrical design could certainly fit the requirements. However,Quintus appears to have asked for contributions for the first time in the letter towhich item [5] of August 54 forms the response. If Cicero was not even entirelyclear about his brothers’ whereabouts on Caesar’s campaigns as late as the end ofJuly 5485, then it is highly unlikely that this letter of July (in a letter that predatesboth the one that expresses Cicero’s uncertainty about his brother’s movementsand item [5])86 should preserve evidence for said praetexta.

However, one could equally be minded to detect a dactylic run over muratosmirificis (– | – – | – È È | –), if with an unfortunate spread of homodyne/hetero-dyne elements. In Republican poetry, dactylic measurement would also be possi-ble for molibu(s) (– È È), if the subsequent word started with a consonant: asimple inversion of the type muratos molibus mirificis, for example, would restoresome four metra’s worth of a dactylic run (possibly even spreadable across twolines, if one were to assume a spondiac ending of the former) – | – – | – È È | – ÈÈ | –, as would e.g.molibus mirificis muratos, –È È | – ÈÈ | – – | – – |. There areeven further solutions, depending on how curtailed one would wish to imagineCicero’s representation of the line was in this case. If Cicero’s comment about theBritish coastline was of a dactylic origin, then it would make a good amount ofsense to attribute this to Cicero’s epic poema.How could Cicero have known aboutthe shoreline, if he had no intelligence from his brother yet and presumably onlyvery few alternative sources87? The most sensible answer appears to be a reference


83 It is of course serendipitous that the British coastline is also an aspect that Cicero discusseswith Quintus, see items [5] and, potentially, [7] (but cf. n. 8).84 Shackleton Bailey (1965) 204 ad loc.85 See above, n. 74.86 Thus the established order e.g. in Tyrrell/Purser (1906).87 The wording of item [13] makes it clear that he must have had at least some intelligence,however.



to Caesar’s own reports of the first approach to Britain of the previous years, aspreserved in book four of Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum88.

Either way, one may prefer to remain sceptical about this matter, and perhapsrightly so. The wording of this passage in Cicero’s letter to Atticus is peculiar,nonetheless, and one must wonder about the reasons for that. In that respect,the proposed origin of the wording in the epic seems to rank among the moreplausible options.

6 Some Concluding Remarks

Caesar’s activities in Gaul were the subject of several contemporary poemata.Furius Bibaculus, as discussed in more detail elsewhere89, chose to write an epicpoem, and it would seem that he had some form of access to second-hand reportsof the action. The case of the Ciceros is rather more complex and intriguing still,and this is not only due to the fact that only testimonial evidence of their poeticexploits survived (with the possible exception of item [13]). Unlike Furius, theCiceros had direct access to evidence and insight into the subject matter of theirrespective poetic concerns. Quintus Cicero was able to act as an eye-witness, bothfor his ownpoetry and indelivering information fromhis ownexperience (coloribustuis) to his brother through letter reports. Unfortunately no such direct reports arepreserved in the existing letter corpora of Cicero’s; however, items [5] and [13](whether the latter relates to the poems directly or not) allow at least a very minorglimpse intowhatmust havebeen lost owed to the fate of incomplete transmission.

The testimonia allow for insight into Marcus Cicero’s poetic workshop, whenhe outlines the style of his versification in item [1]90. Moreover, it is thus obviousthat Cicero did not object to versification based on a narrative, prosaic account,adding a specific narrative perspective as well as focus on a certain amount ofprotagonists to his epic. At the same time, one cannot help but note Cicero’sfrequent moaning about the lack of time and inclination to continue the writing,to such an extent that he in fact discontinued the writing altogether at some point.He only resumed it due to Quintus’ insistance, in conjunction with the danger oflosing face in the eye of Caesar, as he (Caesar) had learnt of the existence of theepic – the very man who had just helped both Marcus and Quintus Cicero bysubstantial personal loans.


88 Caes.Gall. 4, 23, 3 is themost likely candidate.89 Cf. Kruschwitz (2010).90 Cf. above, section 4.2 on the imagery of painting.



What is more interesting still, is the story around the drafting process ofQuintus’ project – arguably a praetexta. This is one of the very few cases in whichone hears about a joint literary project in the ancient world, involving two authorsworking (or attempting to work) towards a co-authored output91. The main hin-drance for the project to reach the stage of completion appears to have beenCicero’s own lack of engagement with the writing process – an aspect that herepeatedly blames on his lack of inspiration, his lack of skill in a specific literarygenre, and his lack of a free mind that would enable him to work up to thestandard that he felt desirable.

A final aspect that must be mentioned here and that has not been touchedupon at all in previous scholarship is the matter of the timing of these literaryprojects: both Ciceros appear to embark on their respective poetic routes in mid-54 BC at the very latest. Quintus keeps urging his brother both to complete his(Marcus’) own project as well as to contribute to the project Quintus himself wasworking on. Marcus Cicero takes his time to complete his project close to the endof the year and reports the completion of his suaue ἔπος ad Caesarem. Why therush, especially at a time at which it had become clear that the campaign toBritain was less than successful? As far as his other historicising epics wereconcerned, Cicero did not really seem to be particularly bothered about meetingany specific deadline for the poem to be finalised. If one revisits D. R. ShackletonBailey’s original idea that at least Quintus was working towards a specific occa-sion for his poem to be delivered92, then one possible solution could be this: whatif Cicero aimed to complete his epic poem to coincide, or in fact to pre-empt, thearrival of Caesar’s own annual commentarius (if this is how one has to envisionthe initial publication of the De bello Gallico)? If that were the ulterior motive93,then one could make a strong case for both Ciceros’ sound and timely judgementabout the normative nature of Caesar’s own accounts: the only way to pre-empt,or to lessen, the normative impact of Caesar’s own work in favour of one’s ownwork, was to anticipate the publication of the commentarii (regardless of the


91 Other examples include largely projects in which there was a mere rumour around a dubiousauthorship of a work, such as Terence’s comedies, for which it had been argued that Terencerelied on the help of noble friends (a rumour that Terence does mention himself without rebuttal)or the poetry of Emperor Nero, which allegedly featured significant contributions of otherauthors.92 See above, n. 28.93 That being said, it is crucial to remind oneself of the danger of circular arguments in thiscontext: if one wishes to support the view that the De bello Gallico was published in annualinstalments, then the way the Ciceros worked their own schedule around that, certainly makessense. In turn one must then, however, refrain from utilising M. and Q. Cicero’s behaviour ascorroborating evidence for a publication of theDe bello Gallico in annual instalments.



positive or critical spin to one’s own depiction). Cicero’s notorious statement thatCaesar ineptis gratum fortasse fecit, qui illa uolent calamistris inurere94 certainlyresonates with such an attitude.

Acknowledgement: I presented an earlier version of this paper at the UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona, and I wish to express my gratitude to my audience fortheir most helpful suggestions. The reader will appreciate the irony that parts ofthis paper were subsequently (re-)written while crossing the British Channel,Britain-bound.

Bibliography

Editions and Commentaries

J. Blänsdorf, Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum, Berlin/New York 42011, esp. 153–184.E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets, Cambridge 22003, esp. 149. 181. 311.W. W. Ewbank, The Poems of Cicero, London 1933 (repr. Bristol 1997).D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Emendations of Cicero, Ad Quintum Fratrem and Ad Brutum, PCPhS 7,

1961, 1–7.D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. II. 58–54 BC 46–93 (Books III and IV), Cam-

bridge 1965.D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. To Octavian. Invectives. Handbook

of Electioneering (LCL 462), Cambridge, MA/London 2002.J. Soubiran, Cicéron. Aratea. Fragments poétiques, Paris 1972, esp. 51–54.A. Traglia, Marco Tullio Cicerone: I frammenti poetici, Milan 1962, esp. 42–47.

Secondary Bibliography

W. Allen Jr., The British Epics of Quintus and Marcus Cicero, TAPhA 86, 1955, 143–159.H. W. Benario, Caesar, Propaganda, and the Poets, CW 50, 1956, 22–24.A. J. Boyle, An Introduction to Roman Tragedy, London/New York 2006.M. Bradley, Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 2009.K. Bringmann, Cicero, Darmstadt 2010.P. C. Brush, Cicero’s Poetry, Diss. Yale/Ann Arbor 1971.K. Büchner, M. Tullius Cicero (Fragmente), RE VII A 1, 1939, 1236–1274.S. Byrne, Flattery and Inspiration: Cicero’s Epic for Caesar, in: C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin

Literature and Roman History IX, Brussels 1998, 129–137.L. Canfora, Julius Caesar. The People’s Dictator, Edinburgh 2007.


94 Cic. Brut. 262.



J. Carcopino, Cicero: The Secrets of His Correspondence, I–II, London 1951.–, Jules César, Paris 61990.E. Ciaceri, De Ciceroniano Poemate Ad Caesarem Quaestiuncula, Rivista di storia antica e scienze

affini 1. 4, 1895–1896, 86–89.O. A. W. Dilke, rec. I. Lana, Letteratura latina, CR n. s. 14, 1964, 299–301.P. B. Ellis, Caesar’s Invasion of Britain, New York 1980.R. Ferri, Octavia. A Play Attributed to Seneca, Cambridge 2003.A. Garcea, Caesar’s De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford 2012.S. M. Goldberg, Epic in Republican Rome, Oxford/New York 1995.M. Grollmus, De M. Tullio Cicerone Poeta. Particula Prior: De Inscriptionibus, De Argumentis, De

Temporibus Singulorum Carminum, Diss. Königsberg 1887.C. Habicht, Cicero the Politician, Baltimore/London 1990.S. Häfner, Die literarischen Pläne Ciceros, Diss. Munich 1928.P. Hardie, Narrative Epic, in: S. Harrison (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature, Malden, MA

2005, 83–100.J. Klass, Cicero und Caesar. Ein Beitrag zur Aufhellung ihrer gegenseitigen Beziehungen, Berlin

1939 (repr. Vaduz 1965).C. Klodt, Prozessparteien und politische Gegner als “dramatis personae”: Charakterstilisierung

in Ciceros Reden, in: B.-J. Schröder/J.-P. Schröder (edd.), Studium declamatorium: Untersu-chungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit (FS J. Dingel),Munich 2003, 35–106.

E. Koch, Ciceronis carmina historica restituta atque enarrata, Diss. Greifswald 1922.P. Kragelund, Historical Drama in Ancient Rome: Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?,

SO 77, 2002, 5–51.R. Krumeich/N. Pechstein/B. Seidensticker (edd.), Das griechische Satyrspiel (= TzF 72), Darm-

stadt 1999.P. Kruschwitz, Gallic War Songs: Furius Bibaculus’ Annales Belli Gallici, Philologus 154, 2010,

285–305.–/M. Schumacher, Das vorklassische Lehrgedicht der Römer (= Kalliope 4), Heidelberg 2005.S. Kurczyk, Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit. Autobiographisches Schrei-

ben in der späten Römischen Republik, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 2006.W. K. Lacey, Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic, London/Sydney/Auckland/Toronto 1978.F. Lossmann, Cicero und Caesar im Jahre 54 (= Hermes E. 17), Wiesbaden 1962.E. Malcovati, Cicerone e la poesia, Pavia 1943.G. Manuwald, Fabulae Praetextae. Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Römer (= Zetemata

108), Munich 2001.K. Marciniak, Cicero und Caesar. Ein Dialog der Dichter, Philologus 152, 2008, 212–222.T. N. Mitchell, Cicero the Senior Statesman, New Haven/London 1991.J. M. Mossman, Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch’s Alexander, JHS 108, 1988, 83–93.A. Nice, C. Trebatius Testa and the British Charioteers: the Relationship of Cic. Ad Fam. 7. 10. 2 to

Caes. BG 4. 25 and 33, ACl 46, 2003, 71–96.C. Panayotakis, Decimus Laberius. The Fragments, Cambridge 2010.E. Rawson, Cicero. A Portrait, London 1975.U. Riemer, Das Caesarbild Ciceros (= Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 8), Ham-

burg 2001.K. L. Rintelen, Cicero und Caesar. Kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte ihrer wechselseiti-

gen Beziehungen, Marburg 1955.




C. Rollinger, Solvendi sunt nummi. Die Schuldenkultur der späten römischen Republik im Spie-gel der Schriften Ciceros, Trier 2009.

D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero, London 1971.–, Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum, Cambridge 1980.J. W. Spaeth Jr., Caesar’s Friends and Enemies among the Poets, CJ 32, 1937, 541–556.J. Spielvogel, Amicitia und res publica. Ciceros Maxime während der innenpolitischen Auseinan-

dersetzungen der Jahre 59–50 v. Chr., Stuttgart 1993.J. Stinchcomb, Literary Interests of a RomanMagnate. Quintus Tullius Cicero, CW 26.1, 1932,

1–7.D. F. Sutton, The Greek Satyr Play, Meisenheim a. G. 1980.W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur (ed. W. Kroll/F. Skutsch), vol. I, Leipzig/Berlin

61920.G. B. Townend, The Poems, in: T. A. Dorey (ed.), Cicero, London 1965.R. Y. Tyrrell/L. C. Purser, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero, Arranged According to Its

Chronological Order, II, London 21906.W. S. Wiemer, Quintus Tullius Cicero, Diss. Jena/Halle 1930.A. Willi, Campaigning for Utilitas: Style, Grammar and Philosophy in C. Iulius Caesar, in: E. Dick-

ey/A. Chahoud, Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge 2010, 229–242.T. P. Wiseman, The Ambitions of Quintus Cicero, JRS 56, 1966, 108–115.




Gallic War Songs (II): Marcus Cicero, Quintus Cicero, and Caesar’s Invasion of Britain

Documents

Transcript of Gallic War Songs (II): Marcus Cicero, Quintus Cicero, and Caesar’s Invasion of Britain