^{page 373 note 2} Beltrami, A., ‘Emendamenti a Seneca Ep. II 2 (14)’, Riv. di fil. xlvi (1918), 86;Google ScholarWirszubski, Ch., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome (Cambridge, 1950), 128;Google ScholarSyme, R., Tacitus, 557, n. 5;Google ScholarPecchiura, P., La figura di Catone Uticense nella letteratura latina (Turin, 1965), 69; 71.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 3} Ep. 104. 33.

^{page 373 note 4} Cons, . Marc. 20. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 5} Ben. 2. 20, 2; Ep. 104. 30–1.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 6} Ep. 95. 70: aliis Caesareanas opes, aliis Pompeianas foventibus utrumque provocavit ostenditque aliquas esse et rei publicae partes. Cf. Prov. 3. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 7} Const. Sap. 2. 3;Google ScholarTranq. An. 16. 1; Ep. 24. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 8} In his exhaustive study of Seneca's references to Cato, Pecchiura, , op. cit. 59–71,Google Scholar finds only one other critical one, in Ep. 11. 10: Elige itaque Catonem; si hic tibi videtur nimis rigidus. Even if this is the younger Cato (doubted by L. Reynolds in his index to the Oxford text), the criticism is only a hypothetical one by Lucilius.

^{page 374 note 1} With sine ulla potentioris offensa we have returned to the main theme: abstineamus offensis. (7).

^{page 374 note 2} De Otio 3. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 3} The manuscript tradition is corrupt. See the discussion by Beltrami, op. cit. Madvig's suggestion is still the best and is generally accepted. In any case, it is clear that a general question about the sapiens, following from the previous discussion, belongs here.

^{page 374 note 4} Seneca is thinking of the founders of the Stoic school, Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus who had neither the fortune nor the rank quae admitti ad publicarum rerum tractationem solet (De Otio 6. 5),Google Scholar and of others like them. He goes on to insist, as in Ep. 5. 1–6, that even in private life the philosopher should avoid giving offence through ostentation.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 5} ‘Nevertheless, one may well question whether, in those days, a wise man ought to have taken any part in public affairs and ask …’. The translation by F. Préchac in the Budé edition is much better: ‘Quelqu'un pourrait demander, dans une dispute en forme, si la présence du sage au gouvernement était, en ce temps-là, bien désirable: Que prétends–tu …’

^{page 374 note 6} Probably both the philosophical and the rhetorical schools. Seneca gives examples of Stoic disputationes in Epp. 16. 6Google Scholar and 113. 1. Students of oratory were encouraged to follow Cicero in writing versions of the philosophical theses (Quint. 10. 5, 11) which included sitne sapientis ad rem publicam accedere (Cic, . Top. 82;Google Scholar cf. De Or. 3. 113;Google Scholar Quint. 3. 5,6). The application of these to particular persons and circumstances supplied many suasoriae of which Seneca gives us one example in this letter and another in Beneficiis 2. 20, 1: disputari de M. Brulo solet, an debuerit accipere ab divo Julio vitam, cum occidendum eum iudicaret. For others about Cato, see Quint. 3. 8, 37; 3. 5, 13. If the interpretation I advance here is correct, the entry of Ep. 14. 13Google Scholar in the TLL (D col. 1443) under actio reputandi should be changed to one under actio dicendi where Benef. 2. 20, 1 is classified—presumably under B. 1. e (col. 1446).Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 1} Cic, . De Or. 3. 113.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 2} Ep. 104. 29–34.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 3} Ep. 71. 8ff.;Google ScholarProu. 3. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 4} Const. Sap. 1. 3 ff.; 7. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 5} In the refutation of the view of Athenodorus, and particularly at 4. 8–5.

^{page 375 note 6} De Otio 8.