In 49 BCE, amid the opening crisis of the civil war, Cicero wrote from Formiae to his closest confidant, Titus Pomponius Atticus. This paragraph is (informal) by elite Roman standards: there is no polished public case to prove. Cicero has no news, cannot sleep, and writes because the act resembles conversation with the one friend in whom he can rest.
The authentic text is Epistulae ad Atticum 9.10.1, following Louis Claude Purser's 1903 edition reproduced by Perseus. It retains the edition's spelling, including accusative plural omnis, and adds no macrons. Macronized forms in the notes are pedagogical.
The complete passage
nihil habebam quod scriberem. neque enim novi quicquam audieram et ad tuas omnis rescripseram pridie. sed cum me aegritudo non solum somno privaret verum ne vigilare quidem sine summo dolore pateretur, tecum ut quasi loquerer, in quo uno acquiesco, hoc nescio quid nullo argumento proposito scribere institui.
The paragraph sounds spontaneous, but it has a clear emotional structure: no subject matter, no new information, then the real cause of writing—distress—and finally the substitute for physical company. Read the finite verbs first: habebam, scriberem, audieram, rescripseram, privaret, pateretur, loquerer, acquiesco, institui.
“Nothing that I might write”
Nihil habēbam quod scrīberem.
I had nothing to write.
nihil is the accusative object of habēbam. Relative quod is also accusative, the object of scrīberem, and its antecedent is nihil. The subjunctive presents the kind of thing that could serve as writing material: “nothing such as I might write.” English compresses the whole structure into an infinitive, “nothing to write.”
This is productive Classical prose, not a poetic exception:
Habeō quod ad tē scrībam.
I have something to write to you about.
Nihil erat quod timerēmus.
There was nothing for us to fear.
The tense normally follows the surrounding time frame. Cicero's past habēbam is paired with imperfect subjunctive scrīberem; a present frame readily takes present scrībam.
Old news and letters already answered
Neque enim novī quicquam audieram.
For I had heard nothing new.
quicquam is neuter accusative, object of audieram. novī is partitive genitive, literally “anything of new.” It is not first-person perfect nōvī, “I know,” despite the identical unmacronized spelling. Syntax decides: “I had heard I know anything” is impossible, whereas quid novī? regularly means “what news?”
Quid novī audīvistī?
What news have you heard?
The paired pluperfects audieram and rescripseram establish that the normal reasons for a letter had already been exhausted. ad tuas omnis means “in reply to all of yours,” with feminine tuās [epistulās] understood. The source's omnis represents the Classical accusative plural ending often written -īs; it is not nominative singular.
Ad tuās omnēs epistulās prīdiē rescrīpseram.
I had replied to all your letters the day before.
prīdiē is an adverb, “on the previous day.” Pluperfect rescrīpseram places that replying before the present act of letter-writing.
Distress as the real cause
Cum mē aegritūdō somnō prīvāret, scrībere īnstituī.
Since distress was depriving me of sleep, I began to write.
The cum clause uses imperfect subjunctives prīvāret and paterētur. It gives the circumstances with a strong causal coloring: Cicero writes because his distress leaves him unable either to sleep or to remain awake without pain. aegritūdō is nominative subject; mē is accusative object of both verbs.
With prīvō, the thing removed uses the ablative of separation: somnō prīvāret, “deprived me of sleep.” English reverses the surface relation by using “of”; Latin treats sleep as what has been separated from Cicero.
Cūra eum somnō prīvābat.
Anxiety was depriving him of sleep.
The balanced negative expression non solum ... verum ne ... quidem escalates sharply: “not only ... but not even.” paterētur is deponent and active in meaning, “was permitting/allowing.” Its complementary infinitive is vigilāre. The subject remains aegritūdō.
Aegritūdō mē nē vigilāre quidem sine dolōre patiēbātur.
Distress did not allow me even to stay awake without pain.
This is emotional precision, not decorative complexity. Sleeping is impossible; waking is painful. The paired structure closes every refuge and explains why an apparently pointless letter becomes necessary.
Writing as imagined conversation
Tēcum, ut quasi loquerer, scrībere īnstituī.
I began to write so that I might, as it were, talk with you.
Purpose ut ... loquerer depends on scribere institui. Imperfect subjunctive loquerer is required by the past main verb instituī under ordinary historic sequence. loquor is deponent; its form is passive-looking, but its meaning is active, “speak.” quasi softens the equation: writing is “as if” conversation.
The parenthesis in quo uno acquiesco refers to Atticus: “in whom alone I find rest.” quō is ablative after in because the phrase expresses the person in whom repose is found, not movement toward him. Present acquiēscō breaks through the past narrative because Cicero's reliance on Atticus remains true at the moment of writing.
“This something-or-other”
Hoc nesciō quid scrībere īnstituī.
I began to write this something-or-other.
nesciō quid is a conversational indefinite, literally “I don't know what,” functioning like “something or other.” Demonstrative hoc points to the letter taking shape. nullo argumento proposito is an ablative absolute: “with no topic set out.” Perfect passive participle prōpositō agrees with argumentō.
Nūllō argumentō prōpositō, tamen ad amīcum scrīpsit.
Although no topic had been set, he nevertheless wrote to his friend.
The self-deprecation performs intimacy. A courtroom speech announces a proposition; this private note admits nūllum argūmentum. Its true subject is the relationship itself. That is why parsing matters for interpretation: ut loquerer states the letter's purpose, while the ablative absolute dismisses formal content.
A practical reading strategy
Begin with the three accusatives that English can blur:
- nihil: object of habēbam;
- quicquam: object of audieram;
- mē: object of prīvāret and paterētur.
Then attach the exceptional-looking forms: novī to quicquam as a genitive, somnō to prīvāret as ablative of separation, and quod to scrīberem as its object. Only after those dependencies are secure should you turn the single Latin period into several natural English sentences.
Literal and idiomatic translations
Literal: “I had nothing which I might write. For I had heard nothing of new, and I had replied the day before to all of your [letters]. But since distress was not only depriving me of sleep but was not allowing me even to remain awake without the greatest pain, I began to write this something-or-other, with no topic proposed, so that I might as it were speak with you, in whom alone I find rest.”
Idiomatic: “I had nothing to write about: I had heard no news, and yesterday I answered all your letters. But anxiety was keeping me from sleep and making even wakefulness agony. So I started writing this aimless note simply to feel that I was talking with you—the one person in whom I find peace.”
Common Mistakes
1. Reading novi as the verb “I know.”
❌ Novī quicquam audieram = ‘I know I had heard something.’
Incorrect: novī is a partitive genitive dependent on quicquam.
✅ Nihil novī audieram.
I had heard nothing new.
2. Making Cicero the subject of pateretur.
❌ Ego vigilāre sine dolōre nōn patiēbar.
Incorrect analysis of the source: aegritūdō, not Cicero, is the subject of paterētur.
✅ Aegritūdō mē vigilāre nōn patiēbātur.
Distress did not allow me to stay awake.
3. Translating quod as causal “because.”
❌ Nihil habēbam, quod scrīberem = ‘I had nothing because I was writing.’
Incorrect: quod is the object inside a relative clause.
✅ Mihi nihil erat quod scrīberem.
There was nothing for me to write.
4. Producing polished English while ignoring the ablative absolute.
❌ Hoc nesciō quid scrībere īnstituī = ‘I began this random letter.’
Too smooth by itself: it omits the explicit circumstance nullo argumento proposito.
✅ Nūllō argumentō prōpositō, hoc nesciō quid scrībere īnstituī.
With no topic set out, I began to write this something-or-other.
Key Takeaways
The letter's grammar reveals its intimacy. A subjunctive relative defines the absent topic, pluperfects close off ordinary news, circumstantial cum exposes the cause, and purpose ut names the real aim: imagined conversation. Cicero's “something-or-other” is therefore not empty. Its syntactic center is Atticus.
Now practice Latin
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Latin →Related Topics
- Nepos: A Biographical PortraitB1 — Read Nepos's opening portrait of Hannibal and trace how comparison, counterfactual history, and moral vocabulary construct a great enemy.
- Cicero: A Courtroom ArgumentB1 — Read Cicero's defense of armed self-protection and see how questions, antithesis, and balanced clauses make a legal principle feel self-evident.
- Relative Clauses of CharacteristicB2 — Recognize relative clauses that define a class or describe the kind of person, thing, place, or time under discussion.
- Indicative or Subjunctive after Cum?B2 — Choose the mood after conjunction cum by separating plain temporal location from circumstance, cause, and concession.
- Ablative of SeparationA2 — Learn how the ablative marks the person, thing, state, or place from which something is removed, freed, or absent.