صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

That this comment is incorrect has been shown, I hope, in the discussion above of Cicero Cat. 1.2-3. For Cicero's purposes, at the moment, An statuas. reliquerunt is not an admitted fact. He cannot, or rather will not, for the moment, think of that fact by itself. He will think of it only in connection with the latter part of his sentence. The two parts of the sentence must stand or fall together; they must be simultaneously true or simultaneously false (compare Meissner's note on Cicero Tusc. 1.31 Ergo.


seret, discussed at the end of this paper). It is a pity that Latin had nothing comparable to μèv and ôè, but it is a greater pity, by wrong punctuation and wrong interpretation, to make Latin seem weaker, in any given connection, than it in fact is.

Professor Reid remarks further that the form in the sentence in the Pro Archia "is a little irregular, since non, not nonne (after the preceding an), ought to stand in the second branch, as in Tusc. v 42 and 104". In Tusc. 5.42 we have:

An Lacedaemonii Philippo minitante per litteras se omnia quae conarentur prohibiturum quaesiverunt num1 se esset etiam mori prohibiturus, vir is quem quaerimus non multo facilius tali animo reperietur quam civitas universa?

Did the Lacedaemonians, in answer to Philip's threat that he would thwart their every effort, ask him if he would prevent them from dying too, (and) shall the man who is the object of our quest not be found to have the same temper as a whole nation?

Now, in the examples of this idiom, where the second member is negative, the negative seems regularly to be non, not nonne. But I can think of no reason why, either here or in Pro Archia, the negative ought to be non in the second member of the sentence. I can see, readily enough, why Cicero does in fact write non, not nonne, when I recall that non is common enough in questions in passages in which there is real or simulated emotion. Every one will at once recall Cat. 1.1 Patere tua consilia non sentis? constrictam omnium horum scientia teneri tuam non vides?

On Tusc. 5.42 Klotz, giving no heed whatever to whether the second member of such an-questions as we are discussing is affirmative or negative, cited various examples of the construction, besides the passages considered above. One example (referred to also by Reid: see above) is Cicero Tusc. 5.104:

An tibicines iique qui fidibus utuntur suo, non multitudinis arbitrio, cantus numerosque moderantur, vir sapiens, multo arte maiore praeditus, non quid verissimum sit, sed quid velit vulgus exquiret?

Do flute-players and masters of stringed instruments manage their strains and rhythms at their own discretion, not at that of the mob, (and) shall the wise man, master of a far nobler art, ask not what is right but what the rabble wants?

Now, as we saw above, Reid cites this passage as proof that, in the second member of the sort of question

This is one of the many examples which make me question the oft-made statement that num in a dependent question conveys no hint that a negative answer is expected. This I hope to discuss later.


we are considering, the negative should be non, not nonne. This example, however, does not contain a negative at all-at least, in the sense in which Reid thought there was a negative here! In both members we have the familiar non. sed. But non. sed, non modo. . . sed etiam are affirmative, on the whole, not negative at all. It is this fact which vitiates so many comments on the familiar passages, Cicero Cat. 1.23 infer patriae bellum, exsulta impio latrocinio, ut a me non eiectus ad alienos, sed invitatus ad tuos esse videaris, and 1.27 Tune eum exire patiere, ut abs te non emissus ex urbe, sed immissus in urbem esse videatur? Here the movement in the subjunctive clause is affirmative, not negative at all, and hence neither of these clauses may rightly be cited, as the first is in more than one good Latin Grammar, as an example of non for ne in a purpose clause (see my discussion of this point in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 2.185, 3.49).

In Pro Balbo 54 we have an interesting passage: An lingua et ingenio patefieri aditus ad civitatem potuit, manu et virtute non potuit? Anne de nobis trahere spolia foederatis licebat, de hostibus non licebat? an quod adipisci poterant dicendo, id eis pugnando adsequi non licebat? an accusatori maiores nostri maiora praemia quam bellatori esse voluerunt?

Here, we may note, Professor Reid points as I have above-not as he did in the Pro Archia passage: yet his only comment on the form of the sentence here is a reference to his note on the Archias passage. But that note will hardly apply, at least so far as the negative is concerned, for in this passage the negatives belong very closely indeed with their respective verbs. With this in mind, I should venture this rendering: Could an avenue to citizenship be fashioned by powers of speech and thought, (and. but) not by deeds of prowess and courage? (or, better, was it possible to fashion an avenue [and, but] impossible. to fashion one by Was it permissible for men of allied states to take spoils from us, (and, but) forbidden to take them from the foe? Were they forbidden to win by fighting, what they had the power to win by speech? Did our forebears wish a prosecutor to have larger rewards than a warrior (might win)?2


In Cicero De Finibus 1.72 we have perhaps the most interesting passage of all. It runs as follows: An ille tempus aut in poetis evolvendis, ut ego et Triarius te hortatore facimus, consumeret, in quibus nulla solida utilitas omnisque puerilis est delectatio, aut se, ut Plato, in musicis, geometria, numeris, astris contereret, quae et a falsis initiis profecta vera esse non possunt et, si possent vera, nihil afferrent, quo iucundius, id est melius, viveremus, eas ergo artes persequeretur, vivendi artem tantam tamque operosam et perinde fructuosam relinqueret?

After copying the passage, as above, I looked at Reid's translation, which I quote in full:

Was he the man to spend his time in conning poets as I and Triarius do on your advice, when they afford no substantial benefit, and ail the enjoyment they give see Reid's

2Another point worth noting in this passage is anne:


is childish in kind, or was he the man to waste himself, like Plato, upon music, geometry, mathematics and astronomy, which not only start from false assumptions and so cannot be true, but if they were true would not aid us one whit towards living a more agreeable, that is a better life; was he, I ask, the man to pursue those arts and thrust behind him the art of living, an art of such moment, so laborious too, and correspondingly rich in fruit?

How could the man who translated so well in 1883 write such an unsatisfactory commentary and punctuate so badly in his edition of the Pro Archia in 1891? A study of the passages quoted in this paper will show how thoroughly the Romans-Cicero at leastwere masters of this highly effective bit of rhetoric. As evidences of that mastery we may recapitulate here the use of non or nonne in the second member, in varying ways, the setting of at least three sentences of this type side by side in Pro Balbo 54 (with the separation of two of them by anne), the use of non. sed in both members, in Tusc. 5. 104, the varying tenses in different examples, and, finally, the use of even the conditional subjunctive in De Finibus 1.72 (with the resumption there of the whole first member through ergo).

The passage cited above from the De Finibus, ending as it does with a resumptive ergo-clause, which gathers up and repeats the contents of the an-clause, makes one think of such a passage as Cicero Tusc. 1.31: Ergo arbores seret diligens agricola, quarum adspiciet bacam ipse numquam, vir magnus leges, instituta, rem publicam non seret?

Is, then, the thrifty husbandman to plant trees whose fruit he will never himself see, (and) the great man not to plant laws, institutions, the commonwealth?

Here for ergo we might substitute an. It is worth while to note that Meissner, who has a fine note on this idiom, puts a colon after numquam. C. K.

[blocks in formation]

unions, composed of the workmen in the different trades, were recognized in the time of the monarchy, and no effort was ever made to dissolve them, until they began to exert a political influence. Such unions were called collegia, and we hear of seven of them before the establishment of the Republic, which were under the protection of the State, if indeed the State did not take the initiative, as Plutarch intimates, in creating them. They included in their membership the workers in all the principal occupations in the city2. Persons holding the same office, as the pontiffs, the augurs, and the tribunes, formed collegia, and these also existed without criticism3. But in the last century of the Republic many of the collegia began to use their influence in a political way, and in the year 64 B. C. those that were thought to be inimical to the public welfare were all abolished. They were restored, however, by a measure proposed by Clodius, during his tribuneship in the year 58 B. C.4, with disastrous results to the regular working of the government.

Unions of a second kind, composed of the worshippers of some divinity, were called sodalitates. We hear, for example, that a sodalitas of Mercuriales was created in 387 B. C., and that in 204, at the inauguration of the worship of the Mater Magna, a special sodalitas of those who superintended her worship was formed. Gaius asserts that sodalitates existed at the time of the XII Tables, and some Roman scholars carried their foundation back as far as the

age of Romulus7. With the introduction of new divinities their number constantly increased, and they were found in every part of the Empire. Ostensibly their chief function was to make offerings to a divinity at a particular temple, but perhaps the activity which created the most far-reaching consequences consisted in their holding banquets which fostered a close friendship among the members. Since their duties centered in a special shrine rather than in the worship of a divinity generally, they were sometimes called collegia templorum, but never collegia deorum. All of these created a much stronger bond among their members than the ordinary collegia did. In many respects they are comparable to the lodges of the present day. They had a kind of insurance, extending to the education of the children of deceased sodales. In a public way they were of service to their members, for a sodalis would not take legal action against a member of his sodalitas, but would aid him in his legal difficulties. This close relationship was guarded against in certain prohibitory clauses in the legislation of C. Gracchus. In one of the laws passed during his tribunate it was

[blocks in formation]

ordered that in cases of extortion no man could act as counsel or juryman provided the defendant in the case were a member of his sodalitas or collegium'. In the last century of the Republic they used their influence as organizations in giving assistance to members in their candidacy for office1o. This became so pronounced that many of them were abolished in 64, and others in 56 B. C.

But the Romans drew no sharp distinction between collegia and sodalitates. Thus Gaius says that sodales are those who belong to the same collegium", and even unions of those engaged in a particular occupation were sometimes called sodalitates12. Probably the nearest distinction to which the Romans adhered, and they were not consistent even in this, was that the sodalitates had for their object the cultivation of the worship of a particular divinity, while the word collegium was a broader word, indicating no one object as against all others, but a union lasting for the period of the life of its members13. A sodalitas might be of short duration, but in general it was self-perpetuating, and lasted as long as the worship of a divinity lasted. A third form of union, and this is the one which became especially pernicious, was the temporary club formed for the express purpose of accomplishing some political end, or ends. Livy mentions one of these that was created in the year 314 B. C. to exert an influence on the elections of that year1. They were usually only temporary organizations, having one definite object, and they probably disbanded as soon as that object was attained. They were a special kind of collegium, whose activity was almost, if not quite, confined to politics. Toward the end of the Republican period they became extremely numerous, formed as they were to meet some assumed emergency, such as a particularly close election, or some threatened legislation. Quintus Cicero says that his brother belonged to several15, and Marcus Cicero himself speaks of groups, which he calls factiones, each created for one object alone1. Dio Cassius calls the first triumvirate, composed of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, a union of this kind. The more influential and somewhat permanent of such political unions or clubs were put out of existence by the severity of Sulla's constitution. But that condition did not last long, for very shortly thereafter we hear of corruption, caused by these organizations, more open and thorough-going than before. The collegia of the more eminent men, such as the priestly organizations, and the sodalitates,

The Lex Acilia, v. 10, declared that one could not be a patronus or iudex quei eiei (i. e. reo) sobrinus siet propiusve eum cognatione attigat queive eiei sodalis siet queive in eodem collegio siet. 10Cicero, Verr. 2.1.94; Mur. 56; De Orat. 2.200.

11Digest 47.22.4: Sodales sunt, qui eiusdem collegii sunt, quam Graeci ἑταιρείαν vocant.

12C. I. L. 6.9136 sodales aerarii; 9.5450 sodalicium fullonum. Compare Orelli, 4098, 4103.

13 Marquardt, 3.137; Mommsen, Coll. 5; Cicero, Brut. 166; Pro Sull. 7; Lex Acil. C. I. L. 1.198, vv. 9-10.

149.26. 15 De Pet. Cons. 5.19. 18Ad Quintum Fratrem 3.1.15. 1737.57: συμφρονησάντων δὲ ἐκείνων καὶ τὰ ἑταιρικά σφων (compare 38.13) ὡμολόγησαν καὶ ἐποίουν καὶ οὗτοι μετὰ ἀδείας ὅσα ἤθελον, ἡγεμόσιν αὐτοῖς χρώμενοι.

gave systematic assistance to their members in winning elections. But even more corrupting than that was the readiness of the unions of artisans to sell their votes as organizations, and to cause violence in the conduct of elections. At the same time numerous organizations were created solely for the purpose of influencing public affairs, whether in elections or in legislation. These frequently took the name of collegia in order to conceal their real intentions18. These, Asconius says, received no public authorization, and were contrary to the welfare of the state1. It is doubtful whether there was any power in the Republic that could have checked their activity, or controlled their formation, for it is exceedingly probable that the majority of candidates for office endeavored regularly to increase their political influence, or win elections, by forming organizations, or illegally approaching those already formed. So long as officials were ready to form clubs, and the voters were ready to sell their votes to them, legislation against the clubs must of necessity be useless.

The recognized and long established collegia and sodalitates were placed in the category of juristic persons, at least to the extent that they could hold property and make contracts, provided they kept within the law as it applied to private citizens20. But the political clubs neither possessed, nor desired to possess, such privileges, for their wish was to conceal their influence, and even their existence. They commonly avoided the name of collegia, but were sometimes called sodalitates, or factiones, or still more frequently sodalicia". It is a difficult question whether the names thus used applied to the common people, implying that they joined organizations, or was restricted to those men in higher positions who banded together to create organizations. The words are often used to denote only the men in higher positions, and apparently only the officers could be prosecuted for illegal acts, after there was legislation on the subject; so it seems that they alone were felt by the Romans to compose the temporary organizations, and there is no indication that the people who allowed themselves to be used in this way were regarded as guilty in any respect.

Another question which has been much debated is whether the various unions, collegia and sodalitates, required authorization or permission by the State in order that their existence might be legal. If the State

18Suetonius, Aug. 32: plurimae factiones titulo collegii novi ad nullius non facinoris societatem coibant. Compare Cicero, In Cornel. 66; Asconius in Orat. in Cornel. 67; Waltzing, 1.48.

19 Asconius in Cornel. p. 75 (speaking of conditions in the year 65): frequentes tum etiam coetus factiosorum hominum sine publica auctoritate malo publico fiebant.

20Gaius, Digest 47.22.4: Sodalibus potestatem facit lex (XII tabulae) pactionem quam velint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant; Digest 38.2.14: ius publicum pactis privatorum mutari non posse.


21 De Pet. Cons. 19; Cicero, Ad Q. Fr. 2.3.5; Planc. 36, 47; Frag. in Vat.: audacissimus de factione (factio first triumvirate); Marcian, Digest 47.22.1 pr.: collegia sodalicia. From this expression of Marcian it is clear that the word sodalicia was an adjective, and signifies something that encouraged the close relationship of the sodalitates. But the combination used by Marcian does not occur in classical Latin.

demanded such authorization, then all organizations that did not seek and obtain it would be illegal from the outset. Or, if that was the case, it might be truer to say that the unrecognized organizations could not expect support from the State in the event of their wishing to enforce contracts, or legally take possession of property. It is thought, on the authority of Plutarch, that Numa was responsible for the creation of the first organizations of artisans. They seem to have been under the protection of the State during the whole period of the kings. It is said that Tarquinius Superbus forbade religious associations both in the city and in the country districts, on account of their attempted interference in politics, but there is nothing to show that he in any way endeavored to restrict either the formation or the continued existence of the collegia of artisans. Nor is there proof of the enactment of any law during the Republican period restricting the existence or activity of associations, until the last years before the civil wars. Two laws were cited by Porcius Latro as bearing on the subject, but they cannot be considered relevant to it. He cites the XII Tables, to the effect that meetings by night were forbidden, and the Gabinian Law, that no secret gatherings should be held in the city. Nor does the law cited by Gaius from the XII Tables indicate that there was any necessity for authorization. The view that there was no such necessity has found almost universal acceptance23, but it should be pointed out that there is some slight indication of necessity in the speech of Postumius, consul in 186 B. C., on the occasion of the suppression of the Bacchanals24. But that evidence is not sufficient to warrant such an assumption, for Postumius was not speaking of the meetings of such organizations as these. It seems clear, therefore, that any club could be formed without seeking State recognition, nor was its existence illegal, until made so by positive enactment on the subject.

The first restrictive enactment was a senatus consultum passed in 64 B. C. This bill is mentioned explicitly twice by Asconius. In one passage he speaks of the rise of factiones about the time when Cicero delivered his speech for Cornelius, in the year 65, saying that afterward the unions were abolished, except a few collegia, such as those of artisans, which were felt to be useful to the State25. In the other passage he adds that the Ludi Compitalicii were abolished at the same time. This took place in the consulship of L. Iulius Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus. But the collegia were

Decl. in Cat. 19: primum XII tab. cautum esse cognoscimus, ne qui in urbe coetus nocturnos agitaret, deinde lege Gabinia promulgatum, qui coitiones ullas clandestinas in urbe conflaverit, more maiorum capitali supplicio multetur.


23E. g. by Mommsen, Coll. 36; Liebenam, 17; Waltzing, 1.79;

24Livy 39.15: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitus eductus esset. forte temere coire voluerunt; et ubicunque multitudo esset, ibi et legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant debere esse. Cohn, 35. accepts this as sufficient evidence.

25 Asconius in Cornel. p. 75: postea collegia senatus consulto et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset quasi ut fabrorum fictorumque (Stangl reads lictorumque).

restored by a law of Clodius at the end of 59 B. C,26. Here a difficulty arises, for Asconius says that the collegia were restored by Clodius nine years after their abolition by the Senate. If this is true, the enactment of the Senate must be dated in 68 B. C., and the names of the consuls must be changed to L. Caecilius Metellus and Q. Marcius Rex in the note of Asconius27, as well as in the text of Cicero28. But that would conflict with the statement of Asconius that the collegia were springing into great prominence in the year 65, which would be only three years after the enactment for their suppression, so that it would be much better to change novem to quinque in the text of Asconius than to make the greater change in the names of the consuls, and at the same time to convict Asconius of a serious contradiction in his two statements.

It is not easy to decide upon the extent to which the Senate wished its measure to apply to the various organizations. Asconius says that the Ludi Compitalicii were abolished. This was clearly no part of an enactment directed against collegia explicitly and by name, but it implies that these games had been used by ambitious politicians as an occasion for canvassing for votes, or seeking to extend their influence. They may also have given an opportunity for violence in the streets. For these reasons the Senate would feel it necessary to abolish them29. But the language of Asconius indicates rather definitely that all collegia, with a very few exceptions, were abolished. In order to understand this it is necessary to endeavor to find an acceptable definition for the word collegium, and that is difficult, for the word does not seem to have been very clearly defined by the Romans themselves at this time. Asconius says that many organizations had arisen 'without public authorization', but evidently he is using an expression applicable to his own day rather than to the Republican period, for in the Imperial times it was necessary to secure authorization in order to render the existence of the organizations legal. Upon the basis of this statement, Dirksen claims that collegia in the statement of Asconius means collegia illicita, but that cannot possibly be correct unless we should assume that authorization was necessary during the Republic. Zumpt is of the opinion that the word was intended to include only political clubs, but that is much too narrow, for it implies that it must be proved that a club, established ostensibly for other purposes, had participated unduly

Asconius in Pison. 6-7:

L. Iulio C. Marcio consulibus, quos et ipse Cicero supra memoravit, senatus consulto collegia sublata sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse . Solebant autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum faciebant, Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis discussi sunt. Post novem deinde annos quam sublata erant P. Clodius tribunus plebis lege lata restituit collegia. Compare Dio Cassius, 38.13.

27This is done by Cohn, 40, 51-55; Pernice, 301; and Gaudenzi, Sui collegi degli artigiani in Roma (Archivio Giuridico, 1884, 37.38). 28 In Pis. 8.

29Waltzing. 1.93; Mommsen, Staatsr., 3.1181, Anm. 1; Willems, Sénat, 2.115, nn. 1, 4, 116, 326.

30Ulpian in Digest 47.22.2: Quisquis illicitum collegium usurpaverit, ea poena tenetur, qua tenentur, qui hominibus armatis loca publica vel templa occupasse iudicati sunt.

in political affairs, before its abolition could legally be effected. But it is impossible to believe that the Senate undertook such a stupendous task as the investigation of the conditions existing in each organization. Had it done so, we should have much information in ancient writers on a matter of so great importance. A third explanation, offered by Cohn, is that the word collegium means a legal club, formed for religious purposes, and that the collegia abolished at this time were those that had previously received authorization. But this also becomes impossible in view of the fact that no authorization was required for any of them. On the whole, it seems best to adopt the broadest definition of the word, and to hold with Waltzing that the associations suppressed by the Senate all bore the name of collegia, that many of them were old, that all were animated by factional tendencies, that they had many different forms, but that it was not intended to include the collegia of the priests or of the Capitolini, or certain associations of artisans. This definition of the word covers sodalitates and the political clubs, which masqueraded under the more dignified title of collegia, although the Romans would not normally expect to give that name to these temporary organizations. This is the conclusion reached also by Liebenam.

The senatorial decree was probably obeyed for four or five years; at any rate nothing is said about the associations, either favorable or unfavorable, until the year 59. In this year Piso was elected consul for 58, and granted permission for the celebration of the Ludi Compitalicii on January 1, 5831. He was clearly under the influence of Clodius and other demagogues in giving his consent to this violation of the law. One of the first things done by Clodius after his assumption of the tribuneship on December 10, 58, was to legalize the existence of clubs, by carrying a measure recognizing those already formed, and permitting the formation of many new ones. Indeed he seems to have participated actively in creating them, and especially the collegia compitalicia, or neighborhood clubs3. Asconius tells us that immediately there arose much greater political activity among the lowest classes33. The sodalicia became more numerous than ever before, and were a serious menace to the orderly conduct of public business34. It is a curious fact that nothing further is said of the sodalicia during the next two years. It is scarcely possible that they were inactive, but they may have been particularly on guard against the crisis which everybody foresaw must soon come. The later references to them all relate to their activity during the year of the tribuneship of Clodius. Nevertheless they were probably active as usual in these years, but by accident we do not happen to hear of them. This alone will explain the fact that the

[blocks in formation]

Senate found it necessary in 56 to pass a resolution restrictive in its nature. Clodius had permitted the existence of all collegia; the Senate prohibited those whose members were enrolled into decuries, that is to say, the Senate took the point of view that these unions were a menace in proportion to their degree of organization. Cicero complains that Clodius enrolled slaves into sodalitates35; that was probably forbidden by the decree of the Senate, or at least unions must have been prohibited which were composed of a mixture of slaves and freemen.

[blocks in formation]

Introduction to Latin. By John Copeland Kirtland and George Benjamin Rogers. New York: The Macmillan Company (1914). Pp. xvi+ 261. $.85. This book, like nearly all contemporaneous beginners' books, is a modification of the old 'grammatical method', first, in that the amount of grammatical material to be learned is greatly reduced, and, secondly, in the way in which this material is administered, namely, in small 'doses' and with graded exercises in reading and writing Latin as an accompaniment of each dose. The authors are more radical in their treatment of syntax, which is taught not by rules, but only in the form of explanations following the Latin-English exercises, because the authors believe that "syntax can be firmly grasped only through reading". However, Rules of Syntax are given in the back of the book for those who wish them.

One might expect that the same order would be followed in presenting the facts of grammar, and for the same reason. On the contrary paradigms are given for the most part only in the Conspectus of Inflections at the back of the book, because the authors believe that a presentation in detached groups "separates forms that properly go together, and make less effective use of the principle of association". Their practice, therefore, is to refer the pupil to this Conspectus for any set of forms which are to be learned and used in a given lesson. Some slight modification of this plan, however, evidently seemed necessary, for in the first lesson there is given the present indicative active of amo with English meaning, which, with eight verbs of the same conjugation given in the lesson vocabulary, the pupils are asked to learn to inflect, before they come to the Latin exercises consisting of isolated verb forms and a few unconnected sentences. In this and the next lesson no declensions are given and only the nominatives (singular and plural) of several first declension nouns are used. The first declension model sagitta, with meanings, is given in complete form in Lesson III. The use of the genitive is first found in Lesson VI, that of the dative in VII. Again, the

35 Post Red. in Sen. 33: servos simulatione collegiorum nominatim esse conscriptos.

« السابقةمتابعة »