and southern Italy only feature when they are involved in the affairs of the main actors
such as Rome or Athens: Dench 2003, 295.
- Irad Malkin, oral remark reported by Griffiths 1998, n. 12.
- Rawson 1985, 231.
- Rambaud 1953, esp. 58 – 106; Fantham 1981, 13 – 17; Rawson 1991, chap. 4, esp.
62 – 66 on De Re Publica. - Rambaud 1953, 57 – 58; Rawson 1991, 74. Note that Cicero has Atticus say that
he was fired to write the Liber Annalisafter reading his friend ’s De Re Publica(Brut.
19), with the implication that it was Cicero’s historical vision that inspired him. - Douglas 1966b, 291: “When he wrote Brutus,Cicero was as excited by Atticus’
Liber Annalisand the chronological researches of Varro and possibly Nepos as any
modern scholar by Adelsparteien or Magistrates of the Roman Republicor by Badian’s
own contributions in this field. His interest in chronology is almost obsessive.” I doubt
that Nepos’s Chronicawas part of this excitement for Cicero in 46. He had been living
with the book for some years, having used it in De Re Publica(Zetzel 1995, 175); some-
thing new had happened to quicken his interest. See Horsfall 1989b, xvi, for discussion
of the possibility that Cicero’s attitude to Nepos may well not have been warm or
admiring. As for Varro, his main chronological work, De Gente Populi Romani,is too
late for Cicero to use, dating to late 43 b.c.e.at the earliest: Horsfall 1972, 124 – 25. - Münzer 1905, then, still seems to me to have been on the right track: see esp.
51 – 55, 78 – 80; cf. Douglas 1966a, lii – iii; Habinek 1998, 95 – 96. - Cf. Fantham 1981, 15 – 16, for Cicero’s attempts in De Oratore3.27 – 28 and 56
“to create cultural parallels”; 2.51 – 53 is a similar passage. My thanks to Stephen Hinds
for getting me to rethink my first thoughts on Cicero’s approach in the earlier
dialogues. - Zetzel 1995, 174. Cf. Cornell 2001, 55, on Cicero’s representation of early
Rome as already developed to a level “comparable to that of Sparta”: his stress on the
specificity of Cicero’s targets and tactics in this work is salutary.
99.Brut.39; cf. Tusc.1.3, 4.1. Contrast De Or.1.6 – 16, where Cicero talks at length
of the paucity of the names in Roman oratorical history, without deploying any of the
language of “late” or “recent” that we might expect to see with the hindsight of the
passages from Brutusand Tusculans.In De Oratorehis apprehension of temporal “un-
likeness” is not at all as developed. - Note in particular Brut.26 – 51, where his survey of Greek oratory is basically
taken over from his earlier survey in De Or.2.93 – 95 but has been “amended, elabo-
rated, and in places... confused” (Douglas 1966a, xlv). A principal source of the diffi-
culty is that Cicero is gripped by his new understanding of the chronological issues of
earliness and lateness, so that he keeps deliberately backtracking in order to set up the
comparative points he will need when he comes to the Roman section.
notes to pages 25 – 27. 227