some account of the literary labours in which he was from time to time engaged, nor in any of those passages where a reference might very naturally have been expected (e. g. Tusc. iv. 1, Brut. v. 19), while the expressions which have been adduced as containing indirect allusions, will be found upon examination to be so indistinct, or to have been so unfairly interpreted, that they throw no light whatever on the question. (e. g. de Orat. i. 42, ad Att. xiv. 17.) On the other hand, " M. Tullius . . . in libro de legibus primo," and "Cicero in quinto de legibus," are the words with which Lactantius (De Opif. Dei, i.) and Macrobius (vi. 4) introduce quotations, and all the best scholars agree in pronouncing that not only is there no internal evidence against the authenticity of the treatise, but that the diction, style, and matter, are in every respect worthy of Cicero, presenting no trace of a late or interior hand, of interpolation, or of forgery. Even if we do not feel quite certain that the sentence in Quintilian (xii. 3), " M. Tullius non modo inter agendum numquam est destitutus scientia juris, sed etiam componere aliquat de eo coeperat," was intended to indicate the work before us, yet the word coeperat may be allowed at least to suggest a solution of the difficulty. Taking into account the actual state of these dialogues as they have descended to us, remarking tile circumstance, which becomes palpable upon close examination, that some portions are complete, full, and highly polished, while others are imperfect, meagre, and rough, we are led to the conclusion, that the plan was traced out and partially executed; that, while the undertaking was advancing, some serious interruption occurred, possibly the journey to Cilicia ; that being thus thrown aside for a time, the natural disinclination always felt by Cicero to resume a train of thought once broken off Comp. de Leg. i. 3) combined with a conviction that the disorders of his country were now beyond the aid of philosophic remedies, prevented him from ever following out his original project, and giving the last touches to the unfinished sketch. This supposition will account in a satisfactory manner for the silence observed regarding it in the De Divinatione, the Brutus, and elsewhere; and if it was in progress, as we shall see is very probable, towards the close of в. с. 52, we can be at no loss to explain why it makes no figure in the epistles to Atticus, for no letters between the friends are extant for that year, in consequence, perhaps, of both being together at Rome. Chapman, in his Chronological Dissertation, avoids the objection altogether by supposing, that the de Legibus was not written until after the de Divinatione, but from what is said below, it will appear that this hypothesis is probably erroneous, and, according to the view we have given, it is certainly unnecessary.
2. Since we find in the work allusions to the elevation of Cicero to the augurate (ii. 12, iii. 19), an event which did not take place until the vacancy caused by the death of Crassus (в. с. 53) was known at Rome, and also to the death of Clodius (ii. 17, в. с. 52), and since Cato and Pompey are both named as alive (iii. 18, i. 3, iii. 9), it is manifest that the action of the drama belongs to some epoch between the beginning of the year, в. с. 52, and the battle of Pharsalia, в. с. 48; but on the other hand this evidence will only enable us to decide that the drama was composed after the 18th of January, в. с. 52, the day when Clodius perished, without defining any second limit before which it must have been composed. When, however, we remark the evident bitterness of spirit displayed towards Clodius and his friends, together with the suppressed, but not concealed, dissatisfaction, with the conduct of Pompey (ii. 16, 41, iii. 9, 21), we are led to suppose that these paragraphs were penned under the influence of feelings recently excited, such as might have been roused by the proceedings which distinguished the trial of Milo. We are inclined, therefore, to think that the date of the action of the drama, and the date of composition, are nearly identical, and that both may be assigned to the middle or end of в. с. 52.
3. With regard to the number of books at one time in existence, we are certain that there were more than three, for Macrobius (l. c.) quotes the but how many there may have been is purely a matter of conjecture. Fabricius, Hülsemann, and Wagner, decide that there were just five; Goerenz argues very ingeniously that there must have been six; Davis fixes that there were eight.
4. The title De Legibus rests on the authority of nearly all the MSS. One alone exhibits De Jure Civili et Legibus, which doubtless arose from a desire to include the supposed contents of the later books. (See de Leg. iii. 5 fin.; Gell. i. 22.)
5. If we are correct in our position, that Cicero never finished his work, it follows that it was not published during his life, and, therefore, remained unknown to his contemporaries.
6. As to the existence of a prologue, we should naturally have imagined that this was a question of fact, affording no scope for reasoning. Nevertheless the point also has been keenly debated. Turnebus, in one commentary, considers that the first few chapters constitute a regular introduction, but he afterwards changed his mind, and, startled by the abruptness with which the conversation opens, maintained that the exordium had been lost. Goerenz and Moser, the most judicious editors, adopt the first conclusion of Turnebus.
7. In all that relates to external form and decoration Plato is evidently the model, and the imitation throughout is most close and accurate. But the resemblance extends no farther than the surface: the definitions, the propositions, the arguments, and the whole substance, except what is immediately connected with Roman law, can be traced to the labours of the Stoics, especially to the φυσίκαι θέσεις, the πὲρι καλοῦ, the πὲρι δικαίοσυνης, and above all the πὲρι νόμου of Chrysippus; for the few fragments which have been preserved of these tracts are still sufficient to shew that not only did Cicero draw his materials from their stores, but in some instances did little more than translate their words. Even in the passages on magistrates the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus are presented with the modifications introduced by Dion (Diogenes?) and Panaetius. (De Leg. iii. 6.)
8. The general plan of the work is distinctly traced in one of the opening chapters (i. 5, 17). It was intended to comprehend an exposition of the nature of justice and its connexion with the nature of man, an examination of the laws by which states ought to be governed, and a review of the different systems of legislation which had been adopted by different nations.
Accordingly, in the first book we have an investigation into the sources of justice and virtue. It is laid down (1), That the Gods are the ultimate
