03 - Dialogue across Fragments? Quotations of Republican Tragedy in Varro and Cicero

Quotation occupies a curious position in the eyes of Classicists: it is a vital means of preserving fragments of otherwise lost literature, but it seemingly lacks the literary creativity of allusive intertexts. Recent efforts to study quotes have moved away from Quellenforschung and begun to explore specific authors' quotation habits (Olson, Mitchell, Tischer 2017, 2019); work on Cicero has examined his engagement with earlier authors within his oeuvre, with increasing attention paid to his use of quotation in particular (Behrendt, Bishop, Čulík-Baird 2021, 2022). Similarly, Varro's works have increasingly been read with an eye towards understanding their engagement with the literary tradition (Piras 1998, 2015, Spencer). However, while there has been limited investigation of whether Cicero utilizes citation in response to that of others in his letters, the broader dynamics of shared quotation between the Varro and Cicero has rarely been approached and quotation as a Republican discursive practice remains broadly underappreciated.

This paper attempts to illuminate one possibility of such practice by examining a small set of quotations in the works of Cicero and Varro; I argue for an apparent dialogue between the two as each quotes from the same set of Republican tragedies. Rather than reflecting a shared intermediary source, these quotations reflect a learned engagement with their source texts, and with the other's uses of these texts. Each responds to the other by quoting from the same plays, gently correcting the other's interpretation of the text and demonstrating how their shared reading informed their understanding of their projects more broadly.

At Tusc. 2.23, amidst several other translations from the Greek Cicero mistakenly attributes several Latin verses to Aeschylus that are properly from Accius (fr. 208-11 Dangel). His concern in citing these passages centers on chiding the poets for setting out physical pain as a great evil; accordingly, he is principally concerned with its content as part of his narrative on the punishment of Prometheus. Varro, by contrast, both attributes the text correctly and cites more of its context (Ling. 7.11). His linguistic interests require more extensive reading of the passage that reflects upon Roman conceptions of nature and civilization, and the citation in the De lingua Latina, which was dedicated to the orator, may gently correct Cicero's earlier superficial reading. Similarly, at Tusc. 1.48 Cicero anonymously quotes two lines on the underworld to suggest that philosophers are unafraid of such stories. Varro (Ling. 7.6) quotes nearly identical text and attributes its to Ennius' Andromacha (fr. 34 Jocelyn). For Varro the lines illustrate an etymology (here, of templum), and correct Cicero's reading: if for Cicero the verses reveal an unbelievable superstition, for Varro the quotation demonstrates how language can generate meaning for the Romans and reflect their experience of the world. Rather than suggesting a shared intermediate source, their differing uses of the same texts reflect not only their approaches to citation but also their active engagement in negotiating how to use earlier literature to understand the Roman present.

---

Presenters

Scott Di Giulio, Mississippi State University

  SCS-86