The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero's Ad Familiares and Seneca's Moral Epistles

Notes

b 175 note s Introduction 1.For Roman epistolography before Cicero, see Cugusi 1983,146–157 . Earlier studies include Peter 1965(originally 1901).On ancient Greek epistolography, see Rosenmeyer 2001,19–35. 2. Dugan 2005 explores Cicero’s textual self-fashioning in two speeches and the rhetorical works. On the evolving social role of written texts in late republican Rome, see Butler 2002,and on dedicated texts specifically, Stroup 2010. 3.Cicero’s letters provide a better starting point for understanding ancient epistolary rhetoric and practice than the slender body of ancient epistolary theory, much of which appears to have been inferred from the letters of master practitioners, Cicero among them. For useful discussion and commentary on a judicious sample of theor etical passages , see Trapp 2003,42–46, 316 –326.A fuller collection is available in Malher be 1988. For ancient epistolary theory in the history of rhetoric, from the perspective of scholars of rhetoric, see also Sullivan 2007;Poster 2007. 4. Malherbe 1988,66–67, reproduces the complete list. Pseudo-Demetrius (not the same as the author of On Style quoted above) lists twenty-one kinds in the Hellenistic Tupoi epistolikoi (text and translation in Malherbe 1988,30–41). 5.The phrase “allegedly separable” is taken from Trapp 2003,41. 6.This understanding of correspondence is indebted to the preoccupations and occasionally to the terminology of linguistic pragmatics. Fitzmaurice 2002 on making and reading epistolary meaning has been particularly helpful to me. Other recent studies of Ciceronian correspondence with a pragmatic or ientation include Hall 2009 and, to a somewhat lesser degree, White 2010. 7. For the history of the text of Ad familares, see Shackleton Bailey 197 7, 3–26.For Ad Atticum, see Shackleton Bailey 1965,74–101.The manuscript traditions for Ad Quintum and Ad Brutum are the same as for the letters to Atticus. 176 n o t e s t o p a g e s 5 – 9 b 8.For examples, see Beard 2002,124– 143.See also Leach 1999,which shows that Fam. 9 is constructed as a diptych in which each half reflects a distinct aspect of Cicero’s carefully cultivated persona.Gunderson 2007, 2–7, critiques the way in which scholarship on the letters has dealt with (or more often ignored) the literary dimension of Cicero’s letters , before turning to a specific instance of the richness of these texts: that is, the thematics of health in letters to Terentia (Fam. 14) and Tiro (Fam. 16). 9. Fam. 4.7–10[230,229, 231,233] b y Cicero, 4.1 1[232] b y Marcellus. 10.As noted also by White (2010,54). 11.Shackleton Bailey (1965,73) puts the publication of Ad Atticum in the middle of Nero’s reign; Ad familiares within Tiro’s lifetime. Nicholson 1998 sur veys the scholarship; see also Setaioli 197 6; Beard 2002;White 2010,31– 61. 12 . For the dates of composition and public ation, see Griffin 1992,305,348–350, 400, 418. 13.On the place of the Moral Epistles in Seneca’s oeuvre and his plans for an additional , comprehensive moralis philosophia, see Leeman 1953; Russell 197 4. 14.Too 1994. 15.See Mazzoli 198 9, as well as Graver 199 6, 13– 24,for discussion of the histor y of scholarly opinion on the letters’ “authenticity.”Their essentially literary, and thus artificial or fictional nature is no longer controversial; see Griffin 1992,416–419. 16.Habinek (1990,184) remarks that the “technologies of the self”that Foucault and others have seen arising in the generations following Cicero “develop[ed] largely within the context of friendships.” 17. For the Stoic’s obligation to engage in public life , and Seneca’s response, see De otio 3.2–5;Griffin 1992,31 5–366. 18.Griffin 1992,91. 19.Ibid., 349–350,418 n. 4.On the medieval division of the collection into two parts, Letters 1–88and 89–124,see Reynolds 1965b. 20. So Hutchinson 1998,19 n. 30. Nicholson’s assertion (1998,82–83) of a “taboo” against reading private letters is overstated. 21.Letters to others enclosed within letters to Atticus include Att. 4.1 7[91],8.1 [1 51], 8.6[154],8.1 1[161], 9.6 [1 72].Moreover, Atticus sent to Cicero copies of letters addressed to others: e.g., at Att. 13.1.1 [29 6] Cicero expresses approval of letters to Marcus filius and the Tullii. Oppius and Balbus sent Cicero...