On p. V of the volume under review, Anthony Corbeill recounts that the decision to start an edition of De haruspicum responsis arose from a conversation he had with Andrew Riggsby in a café in Austin, Texas. This shows how, many times, in classical philology and beyond, good ideas arise from seemingly marginal situations and produce high quality results, as is the case with this book. Corbeill’s edition, which is not critical but critically revised and the fruit of a long and meditated study, explains and justifies every single choice, whether it concerns philological, rhetorical, or other kinds of issues. The book is consists of an extensive introduction, which touches soberly but precisely on the main problems of the text and its contextualisation, a text with an English translation, and an extensive commentary, which is probably the most important part of this work.
The introduction includes a paragraph on the historical background of the speech with a short history of the relationship between Cicero and Clodius and a summary of the main events of Cicero’s exile, a part on Cicero’s oratorical strategies in the post reditum speeches (here intended as the whole group of speeches until 46–45 BC) and on Clodius’ lost speech de haruspicum responsis,[1] followed by a section on style, with attention to the prose rhythm, rhetorical figures, and sonic effects of expression. Only in the following sections does Corbeill deal with the question of the Ciceronian authorship of the speeches Post reditum (where he inserts a short account of the reception of the texts), the title (definitively responsis, according to Quintilian and not responso, as Asconius preferred: the arguments put forward on pages xxvii–xxviii are clear), the date (after 8th May 56 BC)[2] and the religious and linguistic characteristics of the responsa. From this short list, it is clear that Corbeill’s main interest is in style and language, in rhetorical performance and in the literary aspects of the speech. This orientation also drives the commentary, where the author shows his deep knowledge of the stylistic features of Cicero’s work. The research questions of how Cicero wrote and why become more important than the historical context.
Another very interesting section of the introduction and one that clearly confirms the author’s literary interests is the section on the texts of the laws related to haruspicy, quoted by Cicero. They are commented upon above all linguistically with great care and precision, in a way that is extremely clear to the reader even if s/he is not necessarily an expert on the subject.
The introduction ends with some notes on the Latin text that declare its dependence on Maslowski’s Teubner edition of 1981 but also that it is different in places. Corbeill lists 29 differences whose relevance is variable: many of them are changes in word order, but some modify the meaning of the text in a significant way. I provide only some examples: paragraph 1, where he reads—correctly, in my opinion—Tullius Nisyro instead of Tullioni Syro, because Tullius is surely better than Tullio (the reference to Syrus can also be explained as a trivial reference to a normal slur referred to Piso, as happens, for instance, in Pis. 1, also quoted by Corbeill); mobilis instead of nobilis in § 4, where the mistake is easy to understand from a palaeographical point of view and the exegetical reasons given by Corbeill to justify the substitution are absolutely convincing (p. 71); a genial idea is in par. 7, where Corbeill proposes to read tacenti stans instead of stanti tacens, which makes the situation clearer; the choice of replacing scaenam with caveam in § 25 (pp. 172-174), where Corbeill deals with the different suggestions for reading the passage. Lastly, in paragraph 40, Corbeill prints inter cruces a section of a warning of the haruspices, even though in the commentary he suggests printing—cautiously—exactly what he does: in this case, caution seems to be excessive. Nonetheless, Corbeill’s choices are overall convincing and effectively improve the understanding of the Ciceronian text.
As I anticipated, the most interesting part is in my opinion the commentary. Corbeill’s exegesis is decidedly large and deep and offers scholars a first-rate tool in terms of literary analysis of the text and of its content. The analysis of the rhetorical figures, the rhythm of the clauses, and the argumentative system used by Cicero are combined with a precise examination of the lexicographic peculiarities of the text and the role of the passage commented upon within the general context of the section. Corbeill has thoroughly examined the previous editions and perfectly masters the observations, especially of 19th-century German scholars, which he repeatedly retrieves and uses in his investigation, once again showing how the paradigm of the classical disciplines is profoundly historical and additive and how nothing that has been written can be thrown away.
The bibliography is accurate and complete, and I find very useful both the general index of names and concepts and the Latin Index verborum, which allow the reader a brief first inquiry through the rich material of the edition.
Are there any drawbacks in Corbeill’s book? In my opinion, two. The first is a practical one, namely the absence of marginal line numbering that would have made it easier to find the exact point of the commentary. The same applies to the indications concerning the readings diverging from Maslowski, which are indicated only by paragraph number and appear in the text with double asterisks: a reference system with page numbers would have helped the reader. The second is of a conceptual order, namely the absence of a chapter devoted to the study and reception of the work in later centuries.
However, these minor flaws do not detract in the slightest from the value of this edition, which will undoubtedly constitute the reference text for Cicero’s oration and which represents, if I may say so, a true monumentum aere perennius for the de haruspicum responsis.
Notes
[1]This summarizes the results of his paper about the Clodian contio, published in C. Gray, A. Balbo, R.W. Marshall and C. Steel, Reading Roman Oratory. Recontructions, Contexts, Receptions, Oxford 2018, 171–190 (registered in bibliography only with reference to Gray and Steel).
[2] But it would have been interesting to refer to the wider discussion taken by the Cronologia Ciceroniana of Marinone-Malaspina and hosted on the website Tulliana at https://tulliana.eu/ephemerides/frames.htm