Abstract

In his essay the author draws attention to two 16th century humanists who engaged in the debate on Cicero the Man. In 1534, Ortensio Lando, a man of letters, published Cicero relegatus & Cicero revocatus, which was a collection of objections to Cicero’s character and habits brought forward in an imaginary conversation, as well as of arguments in his defence proposed in an equally fictitious public hearing, thus producing an apparent equilibrium. Lando, however, did not leave us guessing about his meaning, but gave us hints about his own attitude to Cicero. In 1537, Sebastiano Corrado, an editor and commentator of various Ciceronian writings, published In M. T. Ciceronem Quaestura, a collection of textual emendations to his œuvres. In order to make it more attractive reading, he wrote it in dialogue form and called the readings he approved of, ‘gold coins’, those he rejected, ‘false coins’, thus building a stock of allegedly reliable readings. The coin metaphor recurred in Corrado’s Egnatius, sive Quaestura which was an attempt to lay, in form of dialogue, the foundations of a reliable biography of Cicero. Here three scholars discuss all the information provided by Cicero himself, his contemporaries and later sources on his life and work. Information they approve of is treasured as gold coin, the rest is rejected as false coin. It turns out, however, that Corrado was strongly prejudiced against Greek sources shedding an unfavourable light on Cicero. The result was an apology rather than a biography of Cicero