1825.) 
For the Monthhy Magazine. 
Recovery of the FracMents of. 
Cicero. 
Be age works of Cicero are insensibly 
perfected under our eyes, without, 
in general, attracting much attention: 
in many of the cities of Europe, the 
ancient mutilated editions are reprinted 
with astonishing indifference, as if, in 
the course of the last ten years, many 
chappy chances had not made impor- 
tant additions to the treasures of an- 
-tiquity. 
‘Without, on the present. occasion, 
Noticing other writers, whose works 
have been published and republished in 
our days, Cicero, it will perhaps ap- 
pear, has gained most by recent acqui- 
sitions. The restorations, &c. which 
-MM.. Angelo Mai and Niebuhr ef- 
fected, both in the republic and the 
orations of this great ornament of the 
_ Roman bar, have been long before the 
-public; and we now solicit the atten- 
tion of our readers to the discovery of 
further fragments, which, after long 
promise, were published at the end of 
‘the year 1824, by M. Amédée Peyron, 
friend of M, Mai’s, after a palimpseste 
‘manuscript, in the library of the uni- 
“versity of Turin (brary mark D.1V.22), 
‘and which belonged, like many rare 
monuments of antiquity, to the mo- 
‘nastery of St. Colomban de Bobbio. 
' The text of Cicero is here new- 
“modelled from that of a treatise of St. 
‘Auvustin, comprized in the 8th volume 
‘of his works—Collatio cum Mazimino, 
‘Arianorum Episcopo. In these writ- 
‘ings, which appear to be of the twelfth 
century, M. Peyron has discovered the 
traces of the ancient text, divided into 
two columns, and going baek to the 
third or fourth centuries. . He has given 
several passages which relate to the 
fragments, to which additions have al- 
ady been made by M. Mai; of the 
‘orations for Tullius, and for Scaurus, 
‘and an oration pronounced in the 
senate against Clodius. 
‘We now have the exordium of the 
oration for Tullius almost entire. Upon 
‘the disputed Unde ci, and the meaning 
of dolo malo in the Pretorian formula, 
there are some observations and dis- 
‘tinctions, which cannot fail to interest 
‘those who wish to dissipate the ob- 
ty of Roman jurisprudence. The 
new parts of the oration against Clo- 
dius, though much less full of interest, 
have, nevertheless, the advantage of 
vs Moyrury Maa. No. 413. 
Fragments of Cicere. ) 
. completing and explaining the seattered 
be Lilane 9 
remains in the Ambrosian Scholiase ; 
our regrets are increased coneernitig © 
the lost details of that political. alter- 
cation of which we have only wn 
abridged aceount in the Letters to Atti- 
cus (I. 16), where indignant hatred, and 
the gravity of senatorial discussion, 
often give place to gaiety and raillery, 
and pointed irony, with which ‘the 
vengeance of Cicero was satisfied. 
The portions added to the oration 
for Scaurus (already known by the com- 
mentaries of Asconius, and by the frag- 
ments which we owe to M. Mai) well 
merit the attention of the learned. The 
Turin manuscript fully confirms the con- 
jectures of M. Niebuhr, as to the manner 
of placing the pages of that of Milan; it 
also makes us acquainted with a very fine 
Peroration, of which the grammarians 
have only preserved a few words, and 
which, although mutilated, is yet dis- 
tinguished by a great deal of philosophy 
and eloquence. Let us not be toe 
much grieved at finding four gaps, occa- 
sioned by the loss of seven lines, con- 
taining twelve or fifteen letters éach, 
which do not make more than two 
ordinary pases. In order to. change 
the size of the book, the sheet of parch- 
ment has been cut down, and thus the 
Peroration has been shortened by four 
columns. By 
' The curiosity of all those who havé 
studied the ancients, will be particularly ° 
excited by the two fragments which M. 
Peyron has added to the twelfth and 
thirteenth’ chapters of the. celebrated 
oration for Milo, 
B. Weiske, in an edition of some 
chosen orations (leipsic, 1807), had 
already thought he perceived an hiatus 
in this beautiful work; but he con- 
sidered it to be in the tenth chapter, 
Editors, however, differ as to the divi- 
sion of chapters. - 
The position of the second fragment, 
extracted by M. Peyron from the Tu- 
rin manuscript, is - clearly indicated, 
since in the same line, though ver 
short, are several letters of the text 
‘with which we are acquainted, and also 
of the new text; and I confess that it 
appears difficult not to admit the au- 
thenticity of them: but I. shall not 
here examine either this question or 
those that. follow. Whence comes it 
that, up to the present time, this pas- 
sage has not been found ih any manu- 
‘seript, even in those of the most an- 
cient date? Could the author have 
€ given 
