Introduction to the Laelius
1. Date of composition
Enough has been said in the introduction to the
Cato Maior to show the amazing fecundity of Cicero's
genius in the years 45 and 44 B.C., during which time
this treatise was written. The date of its composition belongs within the year 44, but the month cannot
be fixed with absolute certainty. It was written
after the
Cato Maior and after the completion of
Divination, in which (
Div. ii. 3) Cicero gives the
names of his philosophic books so far written and
does not mention this work. It is referred to in the
second volume of
De officiis (ii. 9. 31), which was
written in November. In a letter to Atticus (
Ad
Att. xvi. 13 c) Cicero, on November 5, 44, asks
when “Fannius, son of Marcus” (one of the interlocutors), was tribune. This inquiry suggests that
he was then writing or revising the
Laelius and tends
to fix the date of composition in the autumn of
44 B.C.
2. Occasion of writing the
Laelius
It was in the year 90 B.C. that Cicero, then just
sixteen, was introduced by his father to Quintus
[p. 104]
Mucius Scaevola the augur, to receive instruction
in Roman law. While he was in constant attendance
on the lectures of this learned man occurred the war
of the Samnites and other Italian tribes against
Rome for a larger share of Roman suffrage and in
the government of the Empire. This revolution
was still smouldering when in 88 B.C. Publius
Sulpicius, the most powerful orator of his day,
became tribune of the plebs, and proposed certain
reforms which resulted in the civil war between
Marius and Sulla and his own break with Pompeius
Strabo. It was at this exciting time that Cicero,
sitting at the feet of the aged Roman lawyer
Scaevola, heard him repeat, as he tells us, the
discourse of Laelius on friendship. This discourse
Laelius in turn had heard from his bosom friend,
Scipio Africanus the Younger.
3. Time of the dialogue and its interlocutors
The time of the present dialogue is 129 B.C.,
just a few days after the mysterious death of Scipio
Minor. The interlocutors are Laelius (who was
also one of the interlocutors in the
Cato Maior),
and his two sons-in-law, Quintus Mucius Scaevola
and Gaius Fannius.
GAIUS LAELIUS, born in 186 B.C., was the son of
a distinguished father of the same name who was
the friend and companion of the elder Scipio
Africanus. The younger Laelius became praetor
in 145 B.C., and consul in 140, after his defeat in
the previous year by Quintus Pompeius. He gained
great credit as commander in the war against the
Spanish chieftain, Viriathus. Next to Scipio, he
[p. 105]
was regarded as the foremost orator of his day in
eloquence and purity of style. But it was as a
student and man of letters that he was chiefly
distinguished. His title of “the Wise” was due
to his great learning and to his knowledge of
philosophy. He was a pupil of Diogenes the Stoic
and later, in company with Scipio, studied under
Panaetius, who made his home with Scipio. Laelius
was such a master of elegant diction that the plays
of his poet-friend Terence, which were so much
admired for the purity of their Latinity, were by
many attributed in whole or in part to him. In
his culture, wisdom, evenness of temper, integrity
of life, keen sense of justice, and nobility of thought
and speech we find ample justification for the
unstinted praise accorded him by all the writers of
antiquity.
To the younger group of the Scipionic circle belong
the other interlocutors of this essay, QUINTUS MUCIUS
SCAEVOLA the augur, and GAIUS FANNIUS, son of
Marcus, both sons-in-law of Laelius. Scaevola,
himself a distinguished lawyer, belonged to a
family of lawyers, of whom the most illustrious was
his namesake and junior, the pontifex maximus.
The augur was born about 157 B.C., became praetor
in 121 B.C., later governor of Asia Minor, and was
elected consul in 117. He lived until 88, after the
overthrow of Sulpicius by Sulla. When called
upon at that time to join in the decree of proscription against Marius he declared that for the sake
of the few poor drops of blood in his old frame
he would not consent to outlaw the man who had
saved Rome and all Italy from the Gauls. He was
celebrated for his wit, learning, and amiability.
[p. 106]
GAIUS FANNIUS STRABO, who was somewhat older
than his brother-in-law, Scaevola, married the
younger daughter of Laelius. He was, it is thought
by Cicero (
Ad Att. xvi. 13 c), tribune of the plebs.
142 B.C.,while Publius Africanus and Lucius Mummius
were censors and Lucius Caecilius Metellus and
Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus were consuls.
He was a writer of a Roman history, highly praised
by Sallust for its accuracy, but criticized by Cicero
in his
Brutus as rough in style.
4. Greek sources of the
Laelius
The earliest known treatise in Greek on the
subject of friendship is found in the
Lysis of Plato,
whose influence is strongly reflected in the eighth
and ninth books of the
Nicomachean Ethics of
Aristotle. Many of the thoughts of this work are
observed in Cicero's essay, but are not necessarily
borrowed from Aristotle. In section 62 of the
Laelius he draws upon Xenophon's
Memorabilia, by
taking the words there attributed to Socrates and
placing them in the mouth of Scipio. According
to Diogenes Laertius and Aulus Gellius, the chief
Greek source of the present essay is a lost treatise
on friendship in three volumes by Theophrastus.
But in the main Cicero probably was not greatly
indebted to Greek writers in the composition of
this book. The arrangement, plan, style and illustrations are his own. Certainly no other author of
ancient or modern times has discussed the subject of
friendship with so much completeness and charm
as Cicero discusses it in his
Laelius.
[p. 107]
5. Manuscripts and editions
There are nine MSS. on which the printed texts
of the
Laelius are chiefly based: G (Gudianus),
at Wolfenbüttel, 10th century; E (Erfurtensis),
once at Erfurt, now in Berlin, 12th century; B
(Benedictoburanus), in Munich, 12th century; S
(Salsiburgensis), in Munich, 11th century; M
(Monacensis), in Munich; and P (Parisinus),
formerly in Paris, now in Berlin, 9th or 10th century;
two MSS., DV (Vindobonensis), in Vienna; and
H (Harleianus), in the British Museum, London.
Of these Halm regards G as best and C. F. W.
Müller prefers P.
The text of the present edition, like that of
Cato
Maior, is eclectic, following most closely, perhaps,
the edition of J. S. Reid, but with readings adopted
from Müller, Bennett and others. For a good.
bibliography of the
Laelius reference is made to
E. W. Bowen's
Laelius.
The translator is indebted to Prof. Henry Strauss
and Dr. J. L. Hancock, of the University of
Arkansas, for a careful reading of the manuscript
and for many valuable suggestions in interpretation
and phrasing.