III. JUVENAL

III. JUVENAL

Perplexities of biography—Medieval uitae—Contradictory and incredible elements—Tradition of Juvenal’s exile—Was he in Egypt?—Was he in Britain?—The lost inscription from Aquinum—Martial and Juvenal—Publication of the Satires in books—A few dates obtainable—Survey of the Satires—Motives for writing—Pretence of satirizing a previous generation—Men of evil life—A gallery of detestable women—An honest Roman’s farewell to Rome—Dramatic elements—Hosts and clients—Prospects of literature—Vanity of human wishes—Plain living and extravagance—Legacy-hunters—Revenge a weakness—Parental example—Egyptian villages at feud—A soldier’s advantages—Change of spirit in later Satires—Lucilius, Horace, Juvenal—Power of vivid delineation—Dark colours—Grimness of humour—Control of rhetorical artifice—Familiar quotations—Debt to predecessors—Juvenal’s hexameter—Words from the common speech—Influence on later writers.

The life of D. Junius Juvenalis[1746] is full of perplexities which investigation has not disentangled. Outside the scanty data obtainable from his works and certain scholia, there is little on which to rely with absolute security: yet there is a considerable amount of apparent evidence consisting of some thirteen biographies, mostly medieval, attached to many of the interpolated MSS., an inscription of possible relevance from Aquinum, three poems addressed by Martial to a Juvenal whom we can hardly suppose to have been other than the satirist, mention by a few later authors,[1747] and an allusion in a hendecasyllabic poem by Sidonius Apollinaris[1748] to one who had the misfortune, like Ovid, to be banished and who was the “exiled victim of an actor’s wrath” (irati fuit histrionis exul). Since the banishment of Juvenal is a tradition among the uitae, though its alleged time and place vary, this last allusion is not unnaturally taken to apply to him. Juvenal was too much of a contemporary to figure in Suetonius’s book De Viris Illustribus,[1749] so that even the best written of the Lives—namely, that added to the Codex Montepessulanus or Pithoeanus in a later hand—cannot be surmised to rest on so good a foundation as Suetonius, or indeed to be of earlier date than the fourth century. Twelve uitae seem to be variations of the earliest one, independent variations being almost certainly attempts to add conjectures based upon passages in the satires. Thus, the prevailing tradition of a banishment to Egypt is varied in two uitae to “contra Scotos”—a change presumably suggested by Juvenal’s references to Britain. How little intelligence might underlie a uita can be gauged from the absurd explanation, given by one in a Harleian MS., that Juvenal’s last satire, an attack on the unfair advantages of soldiers, was meant to encourage recruiting. This looks as if the innocent fabricator had confined himself to the opening sentence—Quis numerare queat felicis praemia, Galli, militiae?

The chief statements in the most highly commended uita are that Juvenal was either a son or foster-son of a rich freedman (a closely allied uita adds Aquinum as his birthplace); that he practised declamation until middle life more for the sake of amusement (animi magis causa) than for academic or forensic use; that he composed lines directed against Domitian’s pantomime-actor Paris; that later, when he had become famous, he inserted those lines into what we know as the seventh satire;[1750] that there happened then to be at court a favourite actor who took the lines as directed against himself; that Juvenal’s supposed allusion was resented in the highest quarters; and that, under pretext of giving him a military command but in reality by way of punishment, the authorities gazetted him at the age of eighty to the prefecture of a cohort in a distant part of Egypt, where he very soon (intra breuissimum tempus) died of grief and weariness.

Difficulties arise at once. If Juvenal was either son or foster-son of a rich libertinus, how comes it that he is so obviously acquainted with poverty at first hand, and why does he assail the class of freedmen, if he owed it either birth or up-bringing? His tone convinces us that, for at least one part of his life, far from being wealthy, he had experienced the indignities put upon clients, hated the pampered lackeys of arrogant patrons, and felt deep sympathy with the poor.[1751] Horace could attack an individual freedman, as he did in the fourth epode, but Juvenal detests the whole category: not only does he despise the purse-proud upstart who had once been his barber, but he writes in general with so Roman a prejudice against the foreigner that one cannot but distrust the allegation of an alien strain in him.[1752] The more one examines the uitae, the more do they appear to be manufactured: here the suspicion arises that Juvenal, being a satirist, has been by some wrong-headed parallel-hunter credited with a libertinus for a father simply because Horace had one before him. If it is just conceivable that the lines cited as offensive enough to get him banished might have been twisted against the author in the way alleged, at any rate the appointment of an octogenarian to a military post in an important province appears too incredible a prank for the Roman Empire: and, in any case, this statement in three Lives is contradicted by that in another group, which indicates it was Domitian, not Trajan, who punished Juvenal. According to that, the exile would have occurred earlier in Juvenal’s career.

Confusion increases as we look through the uitae. One declares Juvenal to have come back to Rome from his command, and to have died of melancholy because he did not see his friend Martial (who had left the city for Spain in A.D. 98): another declares he died worn out with old age as late as the reign of Antoninus Pius, having been exiled by Domitian but not recalled by his immediate successors. In this latter uita he is said to have “amplified his satires in exile and made many changes in them,” a statement which bore fruit in part of Ribbeck’s theory about two Juvenals. An additional uita found by Dürr in a MS. in the Palazzo Barberini at Rome agrees with twelve of the uitae that Juvenal belonged to Aquinum: it also provides him with a mother and sister named alike Septumuleia, which betrays medieval ignorance of the classic usage whereby any daughter of Junius Juvenalis would have been called Junia. The inconsistencies in these biographies cannot but throw doubt even on any consistent residuum, unless it be independently supported. Though a majority of the uitae mention a military command in Egypt, one has the uncomfortable suspicion that this may have come from an impression that Juvenal’s treatment of an Egyptian subject in Satire XV necessarily implied residence near its scene:[1753] and, again, though in a majority of the uitae he is said to have practised declamation till middle life, this may have been an invention from the rhetorical manner characteristically persisting in satires which were manifestly composed long after he had been an academic pupil.[1754]

The all but unanimous record of a banishment appears to receive some confirmation in the allusion already cited from Sidonius Apollinaris; but one realizes that there is no certainty about the emperor who pronounced the sentence, nor any means of deciding whether the command in Egypt is or is not a confusion with previous military service in Britain. The almost complete consensus about Aquinum as Juvenal’s birthplace agrees with, and indeed may be ultimately due to, the passage in the third satire where Umbricius, who is supposed to be saying good-bye to the poet, employs the phrase “tuo Aquino.”[1755] That there was a Juvenal at Aquinum is clear from the inscription discovered there and long since lost.[1756] It recorded a dedication to Ceres (the very goddess mentioned towards the close of the third satire) by Junius Juvenalis (the praenomen had disappeared), who was an officer in a cohort of Dalmatians, and who, in respect of being a duumuir quinquennalis and flamen of the deified Vespasian, was evidently the holder of two local offices of importance. The reference to Vespasian-worship places the inscription late in the first century, and, as more than one Dalmatian cohort served, we know, in Britain about this period, it is tempting to think that here we have an explanation of the satirist’s repeated references to so far-off an island—his mention of the captured Orkneys and the short night of the North, the chariot-fighting of Britons, the oysters of Rutupiae (Richborough in Kent), the British whale, the forts of the Brigantes in Yorkshire, the spread of Latin eloquence to Thule (a designed exaggeration), and his use of the rather official form Brittones.[1757] But here again questions arise. If Juvenal had seen war-service, did it leave him inimical to a military life, as he appears to be in his last satire? And, in addition to his undoubtedly close acquaintance with Roman city life, was he long enough resident at Aquinum to hold important magistracies there?

If Martial’s Juvenal is, as seems most likely, our Juvenal, then we have the evidence of two epigrams in the seventh book belonging to A.D. 92, and one in the twelfth book issued in 101 or 102, after Martial had returned to Spain.[1758] By 92 Juvenal is regarded by his friend as facundus, which may refer either to style in writing or to eloquence in speech. The eloquence has in this case generally been associated with rhetorical powers, but it may have a forensic reference. Juvenal is possibly speaking of his own practice at the bar when, after stigmatising the high fee paid to a nobleman as advocate, he adds “and yet we pleaded better.”[1759] Besides, it is worth noting that Martial applies the epithet facundus to his lawyer friend Pliny, and that Juvenal too uses it of lawyers.[1760] Granted that banishment ever befell Juvenal, there was time for it to have occurred between 92 and 101 or 102, when Martial again addressed Juvenal; and whether Juvenal was an advocate or not, he was then pictured as a struggling citizen wearing his sweaty gown (sudatrix toga) at receptions in the mansions of the great. Between the two poets a great sympathy of outlook is discernible[1761]. They not only touch often upon the same subjects and persons, but adopt a very similar attitude towards literature and patronage; they unveil alike the vices of their day; and they exhibit considerable resemblance in words and expressions.

Fortunately a few unquestioned dates can be extracted from his works. The sixteen satires were issued in five sets or books at different times.[1762] Internal evidence as to date discoverable from any one satire has therefore significance for the whole volume to which it belongs. The first book contained satires I-V, and the bitter tone regarding Domitian in the second and fourth satires would alone prove that their composition was later than his assassination in 96.[1763] But we do not need to rely on inference; for a definite reference is made in the fourth satire to his murder.[1764] The opening satire, which, being prefatory, may have been written last, alludes to the sentence on Marius Priscus for misgovernment in Africa;[1765] and, as we can date this trial, in which Pliny held a prosecuting brief, at A.D. 100, we see that Juvenal’s earliest published work belongs to the beginning of the second century. It seems natural to think that Domitian’s reign was not yet far in the past, and that Juvenal writes with a fierce, because recent, recollection of the repression which had been removed to the equal relief of writers like Pliny and Tacitus. This spirit makes it difficult to believe that Friedländer is right in dating the first book so late as the years between 112 and 116 in order to bring it nearer in time to the succeeding book.

The long sixth satire formed the second book. The comet and the earthquake[1766] there mentioned have been convincingly assigned to the year 115, so that the volume can be dated about A.D. 116.

The third book consisted of satires VII, VIII and IX. The first of these three opens with the declaration that the future of literature depends on the emperor entirely—et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum. Which Caesar? Some have said Trajan; Nettleship argued for Domitian,[1767] without winning much support for a theory which would badly break the chronological sequence of the volumes. A more fitting emperor and period can be found in Hadrian, soon after his accession. He had poetic tastes, and Juvenal’s words were a not unbecoming compliment to the new ruler who reached Rome from the East in 118. Satire VIII was probably written earlier: its allusion to Marius Priscus suggests a date not long after A.D. 100.[1768]

The date of the fourth book, containing X, XI and XII, is undiscoverable. The remaining four satires constituted the fifth book. Two passages in it give clues to a date, and fix the thirteenth satire to 127 and the fifteenth to 128 A.D.[1769]

This brief summary indicates a literary activity of some thirty years. If, as we may infer, Juvenal had reached middle life when the first volume was published, a date about A.D. 60 might be conjectured for his birth. By the time of the eleventh satire he writes as an old man.[1770] Unlike Lucilius and Horace, his acknowledged masters in satire, Juvenal reveals little about himself. His rhetorical education was the one customary for Romans of standing.[1771] For the philosophy professed by exalted minds he felt a respect proportionate to his contempt for philosophical hypocrites; but the philosophy which appealed to him was not so much that of the Greek schools[1772] as that of life:

Great is Philosophy, whose holy writ Ordains commandments and who conquers Chance. We deem those happy too whom life hath taught To bear life’s ills nor fret against the yoke.[1773]

He himself had been schooled by hardship, though later in his career we know he owned a small farm at Tibur, and was able to offer hospitality to friends in his own house at Rome.[1774]

The sixteen Satires consist of nearly 3900 hexameters, and range in length from the 661 lines (or, including the Bodleian[1775] fragment, 695 lines) of the devastatingly horrible sixth satire to the 60 lines of the incomplete sixteenth. In particular, the first, third and tenth—each making a different appeal—can be read again and again without losing their freshness: they stand the true test of the classical. It is impossible to miss either the nobility of spirit pervading the thirteenth or the terrific, if overdriven, power of the indictment against women in the sixth.

The first satire is a characteristic prelude—the poet’s apologia, to explain why he should write satire, and what his manner and matter should be. A careful examination of it, therefore, reveals the underlying aim. Deafened with recitations from authors, and, like Martial, sick of hackneyed mythology, must not Juvenal too have his say?

Shall I just listen always? ne’er repay Hoarse Cordus bawling his heroic lay? Shall one recite his comedies at me, Another elegiacs, and go free?... I too learned rhetoric beneath the cane: My essays counselled Sulla sleep to gain In private life. ’Tis clemency misplaced, When everywhere with swarms of bards you’re faced, To spare the paper someone sure will waste.

So much to justify writing. But why satire? Why should Juvenal follow the career of Lucilius? The answer comes pat: the difficulty is not to write satire (difficile est saturam non scribere). The prominence of offensive and vicious persons goads one into invective. One loathes the spectacle of the impotent who dares to marry, or the masculine woman aping a man, or the fabulously wealthy ex-slave and ex-barber flaunting his riches. Annoying beyond endurance are the over-smart lawyers, the treacherous informer and the unabashed will-hunter. How one’s anger blazes to think of an innocent ward driven to evil courses by the knavery of an unscrupulous guardian, or of a guilty proconsul receiving so light a sentence that he can enjoy exile on his ill-gotten gains! Such abuses need the Venusian lamp of Horace, and, somewhat in Martial’s spirit, Juvenal claims that he has no taste for legendary themes, when, from lust of filthy lucre, a cuckold encourages his wife’s lover, or when horse-racing spendthrifts expect commissions in the army. In fact, the temptation is rather to compose a whole volume in the open street, when an imposing lectica brings along a forger lolling at ease, or a wealthy widow who poisoned her husband. If you would cut a figure, dare some black deed that ought to earn transportation or jail: honesty gets praise but is left in the cold (probitas laudatur et alget):

To crime men owe their table, park, estate, Goblets in high relief or antique plate. Say, who could find the calm repose they need When a son’s wife is bribed to sin for greed, When brides prove frail and boys turn paramours? Though nature jibs, yet wrath my verse ensures. (si natura negat, facit indignatio uersum).

So, like Martial again, but in an angrier tone, Juvenal proclaims his subject to be human life—a gallimaufry of everything from the days of the Flood:

Whate’er men do, their vows, fears, pleasure, rage, Joys, hustle, make the hotchpotch of my page.[1776]

And when was there ever a heavier crop of villainy and avarice? Picture the gamester attended by his steward, armed squire-like with a money-chest for the battle of the gaming-table, ready to stake a fortune but refusing raiment to a shivering slave. Think of the many country-seats one rich individual may possess; think of his dining off seven courses in solitary state; think of the miserable dole of the sportula given at his door to poor dependents, and the care taken to confer this charity upon as few as possible. The scramble for the dole, and the degrading tricks by which it is sought, are inimitably narrated with all Juvenal’s power of realistic detail. “Wealth,” he remarks bitingly, “is our most revered divinity: how singular that we Romans have raised no temple to Money—no altars to the coinage to match our worship of Pax, Fides, Victoria, Virtus and Concordia!” The gluttony of the rich, however, brings its penalty in sudden death: and no one feels sorry. Nowadays vice has reached its zenith—“so then, my satire, hoist sail, crowd on full canvas!” (utere uelis, totos pande sinus). Yet one caution must be observed. If, following Lucilius, you attack those in high station, you may be sentenced to a cruel death. Therefore count the cost before the trumpet sounds. It is safer to satirise a past generation—those who lie buried beside the Great North Road (the Flaminia), or the South-Eastern Road (the Latina). Dead men do not retaliate.

Juvenal’s claim here to occupy himself with the past is noteworthy. The profession is less an attempted blind for his own safety, than simply another way of disavowing, as Martial explicitly did, the intention of attacking individuals of his own times. Some critics have emphasised the unreality of Juvenal’s working himself into a fury against dead men and bygone abuses; but it may be urged that conceivably part of his material was secretly written up (it was certainly noted in the mind) under Domitian, and that anyhow, as society does not radically change within a few years, there obviously remained, even under the better rule of Trajan, abundance of human types inviting satiric attack. Contemporary observation would then reinforce memory. The theory that represents Juvenal’s eye as mainly upon the past fails to account for his vigour of style, which is not adequately explained as artificial rhetoric.

Satires II, VI and IX may be considered together. Their plainspokenness on sexual excess or perversion has excluded them from many editions. Satire II denounces the atrocious profligacy of hypocritical philosophers “who pose as Puritans, but live in vice” (qui Curios simulant at Bacchanalia uiuunt). After a Zolaesque glance at diseases caused by evil living, it is conceded that an open offender is less obnoxious than a counterfeit moralist: “who’d stand a Gracchus railing at revolt?” (quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?). In contrast with the sixth satire, a woman is here introduced as a critic of the unnatural depravity of some of the male sex. She protests that not women, but men deserve the rigours of the law. Yet “censure acquits the crow but damns the dove” (dat ueniam coruis uexat censura columbas). Men begin with effeminate luxury and end as such monstrosities that the other world would have to be disinfected after receiving them! One great lesson is driven home—the steps in degradation must be jealously watched; “No man becomes a blackguard in a trice” (nemo repente fuit turpissimus).

Satire VI is a long gallery of women to be avoided. Some are incurably bad and deserve all they get: others, whom we might call merely objectionable, like the loud-voiced virago or ostentatious she-pedant, incur equal castigation from the angry author. About his brilliant vehemence there can be no doubt. One must, however, not expect a strictly logical summary; for careful planning is not Juvenal’s forte. He will not limit his energy to a fixed programme. Thus in VI he harks back to its opening jeremiad on the disappearance of primitive chastity from a degenerate world; and more than once he introduces the capricious cruelty of mistresses to slaves, or the passion for public spectacles. It is inevitable, then, that, in satires like the first, critics should note signs of imperfect construction. What, however, is lost in methodical arrangement is often gained in free vigour.

His immediate keynote is the insanity of a man’s contemplating marriage so long as ropes are available to hang himself with! With characteristic exaggeration he declares there are few pure women left in Rome—few that do not behave as dangerous temptresses. Can one imagine a woman content with one husband? Scarcely could one discover an honest girl in the country. Roman ladies are spectators of indecent pantomimes, they fall in love with players or gladiators—they will desert home and children for a pet “Sergy”—and they prove exacting in the costliest fancies.

Should you chance on that astounding rarity (rara auis in terris nigroque simillima cygno)—a good woman—she is likely to exhibit intolerable pride (grande supercilium): and the boastfulness that ruined Niobe spoils all other feminine merits. Then there is the annoying affectation of using Greek words (like the wanton ζωή and ψυχή) which turned an Italian girl into “a maid of Athens” with Hellenic blandishments. Even true love for your bride constitutes a danger; you become her thrall and Madame rules the house, prescribing your affections, settling your will, sentencing a slave to death, and in the end leaving you if it suits her. Figure to yourself the wife of eight husbands in five autumns—an elegant epitaph! (here again Martial might be speaking). Besides, there is your mother-in-law, schooling the young mistress in rapacity and duplicity. If there is a law-suit, cherchez la femme (nulla fere causa est in qua non femina litem mouerit). Another bugbear is the unsexed woman who takes up fencing, or the guilty consort whose hypocritical tears conceal her offence, who brazens out the charge if detected in an amour, and is eloquent where a trained rhetorician would be hard put to it for an excuse. Riches, drunkenness, foreign ways, strange rituals have all contributed to Rome’s deterioration. The advice may be offered to set a guard on one’s wife—“but who shall guard the guards themselves?” (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

The unpleasant series of portraits continues:—the housewife whose ruinous extravagance knows no bounds and takes no lesson; she who dotes on eunuchs or musicians; the gossip who retails the latest news with additions; the bad-tempered woman, imperious in demands on her slaves and coolly keeping guests waiting for dinner if she chooses to have a bath. There is also the victim of disgusting intemperance; but Juvenal’s grim humour represents as worse still[1777] the lady who will talk literature at table—Madam Oracle, beside whom not even another woman (to say nothing of an attorney or town-crier) could get a word in:[1778] and, with a suggestive alliteration, he adds:

The wave of words, you’d swear, that from her wells Sounds like so many basins banged with bells.[1779]

Therefore do not let the Roman matron go in too much for logic, history, grammar, or rhetoric, for she will then quote verses you don’t know, and pedantically correct her friend’s slip in grammar. He returns to the maltreatment of slaves—a displaced curl may cost a lashing: he then pillories the devotees of Eastern superstition, and those who avoid motherhood, smuggle supposititious children into a home to delude a husband, and resort to magic charms or philtres or even to poisons. But—and here Juvenal anticipates the criticism that he paints too dark a picture—you will say, this is all tragic rant.[1780] No, it is too true: Roman women are guilty of the enormities described. Alcestis died for her husband; the modern woman would have a husband die for a pet dog. There are Clytemnestras everywhere.

It is a lurid ending, all the more effective after the clever protest that he has only been telling the truth. In this satire we seem far away from the respectable society of the satirist’s contemporary, Pliny the younger. Yet if the picture is too much overdrawn to be sound history, the genius of the author makes it great literature.

The ninth satire need not occupy us fully. In treating the unpleasant theme of a reprobate’s sorrows, Juvenal introduces just enough of the element of dialogue to remind one of the manner of Persius. Answering the interlocutor’s request that he should withhold his revelation of depravity in high circles, the poet asks in turn whether rich offenders can ever successfully hide their infamy—the very talk of one’s slaves should set a check on evil living. The other, mourning over years misused, replies in one of the most notable passages in Juvenal:

What cure for my lost time and hopes deceived? The little span of our poor narrow life Hastes like a fading blossom to a close. We drink; we call for garlands, perfumes, girls; But Age creeps on us ere we understand.[1781]

Satire III, paraphrased by Johnson under the title of “London,” as he paraphrased Satire X under the title of “The Vanity of Human Wishes,” is deservedly among the most admired of Juvenal’s poems. The picture of Rome as a good place to be out of lends itself to so much realistic and even dramatic treatment that it forms an unforgettable social document. The attack is put in the mouth of one of the poet’s friends, Umbricius, who unburdens his mind just outside the Porta Capena, as he and a cartful of household belongings are about to quit the city and take the road for Cumae on the Bay of Naples. The capital is no place, he asserts, for honourable men or honest work; he cannot be a useful accomplice in crime; he cannot lie and flatter like smooth-tongued versatile jacks-of-all-work from Greece or yet further East. Bitter invective is directed against the Graeculus esuriens who belongs to a nation of consummate actors, cringing sycophants, and dangerous spies; but there is also much stinging criticism upon the Rome and Romans of the day. Where money, not worth, is the test of character, poverty meets with the unkindest cut of all—it is jeered at.[1782] How hard it is to rise in straitened circumstances! Rural simplicity is in sharp contrast to the showiness of the town, where everything has its price, where one must bribe a pampered valet for an interview with his master, where life is threatened by tumble-down tenements or conflagrations or street accidents.

The sudden collapse of a waggon loaded with marble is made the subject of a miniature drama worthy of the ancient traditions of satura. Within fourteen lines[1783] we have three vivid scenes:

I. A street in Rome; heavy traffic; cart upset; fatal accident to a passer-by.

II. (The scene is changed, domus interea). The victim’s home; busy slaves, in unconscious dramatic irony, preparing the bath for their master who will never return alive.

III. (Another change of scene). Hades, whither master has already gone (at ille iam sedet in ripa), a shuddering novice waiting for the dread ferryman across the gloomy stream.

Nor are the perils less by night. Make your will before you venture to sup from home! A strikingly picturesque sketch is given of the dark streets where the drunken swashbuckler bullies those he can waylay. Here again Juvenal shows mastery of his effective semi-dramatic method in a series of brief scenes:

I. Night: restless apache of ancient Rome tossing sleepless on his couch; he has killed nobody that day; hence his insomnia!—murdering is an indispensable soporific.

II. Dark street; apache eluding the patrol.

III. Moonlight; lonely wayfarer returning from a supper-party; enter apache (stat contra):

He calls a halt: and you must needs obey: What else? he’s wild, and brawn can force its way.

Swift angry dialogue follows, if dialogue it can be called, where the surprised citizen scarcely gets time to reply. “And where may you come from?” he bawls: “whose sour wine and beans have blown you out? Who’s the cobbler you’ve been with gorging chopped leeks or boiled sheep’s head? Eh? no answer? Speak or take a sound kicking! Out with it! Where do you hold forth? In what praying-shanty am I to look for you?” It is the poor man’s privilege to get mauled and implore leave to go home with just a few teeth left! After a final complaint about shopbreakers, footpads and highwaymen, Umbricius, in Juvenal’s hyperbolical manner, affects to fear a shortage of iron owing to the quantity of chains needed for the criminal population.

Satire IV is a half-playful account of an enormous turbot which a fisherman decided must be presented to Domitian, who summons his privy council to deliberate on the proper treatment of the fish. We are made vividly to realize the perilous friendship of an imperial tyrant, his distrust of his counsellors, and their pallid nervousness in his proximity. The brief strokes of portraiture which recreate the figures at court show great power.

The fifth satire is a scathing exposure of the shabby entertainment of clients by mean hosts. “If,” says the poet to the client, “you can tamely suffer the indignities put upon you at a rich patron’s table, you must be absolutely worthless. Better be a beggar out and out. The height of your aspiration (uotorum summa) is to get even the worst place at the great man’s board, where one is not allowed to drink the same wine, or eat the same bread or fish as he. A blackamoor rascal attends to you whom you wouldn’t like to meet on a dark night (cui per mediam nolis occurrere noctem) on the Latin Way, while a handsome slave stands by your patron, who regales himself upon foie gras, capon and boar with truffles in season. The best dainties you are permitted to watch without tasting. Don’t suppose all this is entirely mean economy on your host’s part: he does it maliciously to wound: it is such fun to watch a client’s angry disappointment. To endure such insults proves you deserve them (omnia ferre si potes, et debes).”

Satire VII anticipates the dawn of better days for literature and learning under the patronage of a new ruler (et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum). In contrast with these brighter prospects, the poem is a growl of discontent over the present condition of literature, which does not pay. Patrons are mean and poverty chills authorship. Only the pantomime actor thrives and wields influence (quod non dant proceres dabit histrio): so the most promising thing poets can do is to sell a libretto for a fabula saltica on the stage: otherwise a Statius might starve in spite of popular readings from his Thebaid. Take the literary professions: they are all miserably rewarded. The historian gets no adequate return for his exacting toil: the advocate is not recompensed in proportion to real skill—a jockey of the red colour can eclipse in fortune a hundred lawyers. Nowadays a Cicero would not be prized unless he wore a fine ring: a poor man has no chance, however eloquent (rara in tenui facundia panno), and would do well to retire to Gaul or Africa—a sagacious testimony by Juvenal to the intellectual force of these provinces. The teachers of declamation are no better off: they are killed by the deadly monotony of repeated exercises (occidit miseros crambe repetita magistros). They are expected to post students up in useful points without receiving proper fees (scire uolunt omnes, mercedem soluere nemo), and they are blamed for a pupil’s want of proficiency. Compute the fees earned by a teacher of singing and music, and you will tear up your manual of rhetoric. If a great professor like Quintilian made a good income, that was an exceptional freak of fortune. And, with a touch of poetry, Juvenal calls for heaven’s blessing on former generations who knew how to respect the instructor of the mind:

Grant that the earth, ye gods, above the shades Of our forefathers may lie soft and light: Sweet-breathing crocus, spring that never fades, Grant to the tombs of those who held it right To honour teachers as one would a sire.[1784]

In the eighth satire the uselessness of pedigrees is exposed (stemmata quid faciunt?) as Juvenal laughs at the claims of long descent on the part of those who live unworthy lives:

Though decked with olden busts great halls may be, Virtue remains the sole nobility.[1785]

Good character is the true patent of high rank:[1786] there should be a rapturous welcome for real goodness to match that of votaries greeting Osiris. In breeds of dumb animals we expect the old qualities to be maintained: otherwise, the degenerate is rejected: so a man must be capable of winning distinction by his own conduct instead of relying on his ancestors’ renown (miserum est aliorum incumbere famae). Juvenal nowhere strikes a loftier ethical note than in his admonitions here that the truth must be spoken were it even at the risk of torture, that a governor of a province must rule his own desires, that the triumphs of peace outnumber those of war (plures de pace triumphos), and—in two of his most memorable lines—that death is preferable to disgrace.

Hold it black sin ’fore honour breath to choose— For living’s sake the grounds of life to lose.[1787]

With the famous tenth satire we encounter Juvenal’s later and more reflective manner. In length it comes next to the sixth, though about 300 lines shorter. The main thesis is that a survey of mankind over the globe from the Pillars of Hercules to the Ganges, or, as Johnson has it, “from China to Peru,” shows the blind foolishness of human desires. Ignorant of what is really beneficial, man everywhere craves for what may prove his ruin. Such a world of idiocy may move equally well a Democritus to laughter or a Heraclitus to tears. The theme is vigorously illustrated by instances exhibiting the perils of political ambition (Sejanus, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar); eloquence (Demosthenes and Cicero); military glory (Hannibal, Alexander the Great); long life (Nestor, Priam, Croesus, Marius, and others who outlived their best days); beauty (Lucretia, Virginia, Hippolytus, and Messalina’s ill-starred favourite Silius). More abstract in subject, the satire retains much of Juvenal’s old vivid and dramatic manner. In one compact line an admirably complete picture can be conveyed: a traveller, nervous over the risk of robbery on a lonely road (like the Appian), passes through a marshy district (such as the Pomptine), and in the moonlight fancies each stirring of the bulrushes may mean a lurking highwayman.[1788] Nothing could exceed the vigour shown in describing the outburst of popular fury against the statues of the fallen idol, Sejanus, and in the dramatic comments by those whom we might introduce as “first citizen” and “second citizen.”[1789] Much else remains familiar in the satire—the gibe at Cicero’s poetry, the nauseous realism in recounting drawbacks of old age, and the sketch of Hannibal’s career leading up to the contemptuous dismissal:

Go, madman, o’er the cruel Alps make speed To please young spouters of a college screed![1790]

Juvenal’s cynicism is not entirely negative. After denouncing all ordinary human aims, he still leaves something to pray for. The concluding passage owes much of its nobility to the Stoicism which inspires it; and though there is no need to question the author’s sincerity, he comes in one flippant line very near spoiling the whole effect. Half ashamed of his own seriousness, he seems unable to resist the temptation to have his jest at one of the religious rituals of the day (exta et candiduli diuina tomacula porci):

Shall men then pray for naught? If ’tis advice You crave, then let the deities themselves Apportion us our due and helpful lot. The gods will grant not joys but all that’s meet. They love man more than man loves self. Impelled By yearning heart, by might of blind desire, We seek a bride and offspring; but the gods Alone know what the child or wife will be. Still, that you may ask something, paying vows At shrines with victims’ entrails, offering Prophetic mincemeat of a piglet white, Pray for a sound mind in a body sound. Ask for the valiant soul that fears not death, But counts the final lap of life a gift From nature, and can suffer any toil, Stranger to wrath and lust, preferring all The cruel toils and woes of Hercules To banquets, love, or cushions from the East. Behold—I show what you may give yourself— Through goodness lies the only path of peace. O Chance, thy power is foiled if men be wise: We men make thee a goddess in the skies.[1791]

The interest of the eleventh satire, which contrasts plain living with sumptuous junketing, is in part autobiographic; for after its prelude of 55 lines on the folly of extravagant gourmands who neglect the heaven-sent and ever-valuable maxim “Know thyself,” it consists of an invitation from the poet to a simple meal which shall draw produce from his own Tiburtine farm. Only Homer and Virgil are to be read at table, while the roar of the holiday-makers in the circus can be heard afar off. The author’s old age is suggested in his declaration that it is for the young to attend the games and shout and bet with a smart damsel seated by their side: “but let my shrivelled skin bask in the spring sunshine free from the formal gown.”[1792]

Though the twelfth is the shortest of the satires except the fragmentary sixteenth, it hardly makes an artistic unity. The safe arrival of Juvenal’s friend Catullus at Ostia after imminent danger of shipwreck gives occasion for a pious sacrifice in token of thanksgiving by the poet. His motives however must not be misconstrued. He is no legacy-hunter seeking to curry favour. An awkward transition leads to a gibe at such legacy-hunters as would purchase a place in a will by offering the costliest victims, an elephant (and here the satire becomes doubly elephantine), or a slave, or a child devoted like Iphigeneia. The closing note is the forcible imprecation on a fortune-seeker:

Long may Pacuvius live, as Nestor old, Possess as much, as Nero snatched, pile gold In mountains, loving none, by none beloved.[1793]

The elevated moral teaching of Satire XIII must win our admiration. Calvinus has been cheated of 10,000 sesterces by a fraudulent friend. The solace which the poet has to offer is that genuine punishment is inflicted by a guilty conscience: no wrong-doer can elude that court. After all, we live no longer in the Golden Age, but in corrupt times, when money exerts its lure and perjury is rampant. “The wrath of gods is great, yet worketh slow” (ut sit magna tamen certe lenta ira deorum est). The offender, then, must be left in the hands of heaven; and Juvenal feels for vindictive passions only a biting, and, at the same time, misogynistic contempt:

Vengeance is the delight of petty minds, Paltry and weak. Infer this truth, because None like a woman dotes upon revenge.[1794]

The influence of parental example is the theme of Satire XIV—the third longest of the collection. There are many faults which children learn from their parents, such as gambling, gluttony, cruelty, intrigue. Therefore all that is unseemly to hear or see must be excluded from the home: the utmost respect is due to the child (maxima debetur puero reuerentia). You take pains to make your house clean to receive a guest: should you not, for your son’s sake, keep it free from evil? The later part of the poem deals with avarice, a fault which the young practise reluctantly and which wears a spurious resemblance to virtue. Hence too often a father inculcates the passion for gain upon a son by precept and example; and hence the modern quest for wealth at the cost of crime and risk of death. The final counsel is to get enough for the support of life; and, with a glance at the Stoic ideal of living secundum naturam, he declares:

Nature ne’er contradicts Philosophy.[1795]

If you need more, adopt the equestrian income as a standard, or even twice that amount; beyond that, the treasures of Croesus are little likely to satisfy your desires.

The fifteenth satire tells of a feud between two Egyptian townships, Ombi and Tentyra. The Tentyrites having attacked their neighbours in the midst of a festival were put to flight. In the retreat one fugitive who slipped was hacked to pieces by the victors and devoured. This revolting cannibalism gives Juvenal occasion for the reflection that tenderness of heart as shown by tears is the noblest attribute of man.[1796]

Only partially finished, the last satire complains of unfair advantages possessed by a soldier over a civilian. When it is cited as evidence throwing doubt upon the records of Juvenal’s military service, one ought in fairness to remember that not every soldier leaves the army as its panegyrist.

In spirit there are signal differences between the earlier and the later satires. If Satires X and XII-XV be compared with the rest, an increase in prolix bookishness will be noted alongside of a decrease in concrete force. Ribbeck’s theory of two Juvenals, a genuine satirist and a spurious declaimer, is long since dead; but it possessed the merit of resting upon a close examination into points of difference in the satires. The hypothesis viewed the traditional Juvenal as a Janus-head (Janus-kopf) looking on one side at the full fresh life of Rome and the present, but on the other side at the dead past and the dusk of academic tradition. The contrast was likened to passing from one of Schiller’s dramas to a drowsy afternoon sermon (eine sanft einschläfernde Nachmittagspredigt). Unfortunately the theory overestimated the differences, failed to see that there was no fundamental incompatibility in style, and interpreted the actual differences with a perverse misconception of the true explanation. Above all its other absurdities, the theory would ask us to believe that the tenth satire was the work of some unknown forger and was merely one of the alleged “drowsy afternoon sermons.” The solution lies not in positing a duality of authorship, but in recognizing that the real Juvenal had grown older, and in his later manner let his satire down from the old level of full-blooded vitality and devil-may-care invective. The figment of the true and the false Juvenal could be maintained only in cheerful oblivion of the evolution, and sometimes deterioration, in style characteristic of many other authors. There is no greater unlikeness between the early and the late Juvenal than between the Horace of the earliest Satires and the Horace of the Epistles; or, to cite a prose-writer, between the first and last works of Tacitus. In modern English, Carlyle and Browning are apt parallels.

Juvenal, we have seen, proclaims his literary ancestry in his first satire, legitimately affiliating his genre to that of both Lucilius and Horace. His insistence on indignation as the mainspring of his censorious utterances definitely connects him with the fierce invective of the former. Though the influence of Horace is manifest in his language, one finds no imitation of Horatian geniality. To turn from Juvenal to the fourth satire in Horace’s first book is to breathe an entirely different atmosphere. We are there in the company of an apologist for the satiric attitude who does not wish to be feared or hated or to write dangerously, who guarantees that ill-natured rancour shall be absent from his sketches, and who pleads for an indulgent attitude towards any outspoken jest.[1797] Aware of his own faults, Horace can take himself, as well as others, gently to task, with a sort of Chaucerian smile for pardonable human weaknesses. His very habit of jotting things down on paper (inludo chartis) is one of those venial peccadilloes (mediocribus illis ex uitiis unum). This is the reason why his sportive verses win the reader’s heart, as Persius felt—circum praecordia ludit. Juvenal’s strength lies elsewhere: the genial smile has gone: he cannot laugh at himself as Horace does. There is no self-revelation; for Juvenal takes himself as seriously as he takes the world. If there is humour, it is grim; since the times are out of joint, the lash must be plied to put them right again. Some elements of Persius’s earnest spirit, especially some Stoic traits, enter into him, though his method of censure is not so much homily as fiery attack. Both alike, however, are fighters, waging a warfare to improve the diseased society against which they find themselves in reaction.

For Juvenal’s purpose he had at his command the gift of extraordinarily vivid and succinct presentation of men and things. This gift renders him the most powerful delineator of Roman society at the beginning of the second century, so that he recreates for his readers the life that was led then and the human figures who moved in the street, house, or palace. This constitutes what, for want of a better term, we call his realism. The secret of it he had learned, not in any rhetorical academy, but in the severe school of life:[1798] he had undergone the privations of poverty, and almost certainly of war and exile: he possessed the observant eye, the retentive memory, the faculty of direct expression needed to make an experience live again in literature. A few essential and picturesque details, recorded with the utmost parsimony, place a whole scene before us. Thus, we cannot fail to see the scramble for the dole, with such subterfuges as the curtained, though empty, lectica supposed to contain a lady caller.[1799] Again, we seem to be uncomfortably present among Domitian’s counsellors—one, an unwieldy mountain of flesh (uenter adest abdomine tardus); another, an informer whose gentle whisper could slit a victim’s throat (tenui iugulos aperire susurro); yet another, a repulsive blind flatterer, pouring out words of admiration for the emperor’s great turbot, and at the same time “turning to the left, though in fact the fish was lying on his right!” In the same passage[1800] the allusion to “the beggar at the carriage wheels, who throws wheedling kisses as it drives down hill” is as true to Italy to-day as it ever was. Certain dramatic aspects of this realism have been illustrated in the survey of the Satires. Not unnaturally it is a realism concentrated mainly on what will favour satiric treatment. A satirist never achieves, or even aims at, a universal or impartial view of life. Juvenal’s professed subject may be the farrago of all mankind’s doings during postdiluvian ages; but actually a great proportion of human affairs can offer no challenge to a mordant critic. Goodness, for instance, even at its most humdrum, is little likely to stir the indignatio which is Juvenal’s driving force. That he should be darkly pessimistic is involved in the nature of the case and in his temperament. He tends to look only at the gloomy side, and therefore to obscure the fact that not everything around him was a cesspool of vice, but that on the contrary much in contemporary Roman and Italian life was sound, healthy, and beautiful. Undeniably, we could have spared some of the coarseness with which he made wickedness revolting.

What humour exists in Juvenal is of a kind to match his serious disposition. It tends to be grim and ironical: and the want of kindly sunshine in it has led some to doubt its existence.[1801] His roundabout allusive manner sometimes produces quaintly humorous effects through its smack of flippancy: thus he substitutes “Ceres’ son-in-law” for Pluto; and “the youth preferred to jealous Iarbas” for Aeneas. But his grim irony is best seen in passages like those in which he treats the unexpected fate of the citizen killed in the street accident of the third satire, or when he sums up the aim of all ambition as nothing but the laudatory inscription on a sepulchre which is itself so far from immortal that even a tree may burst it asunder—“the very tombs have their allotted span” (data sunt ipsis quoque fata sepulcris, X, 146). Here he has taken one impressive step beyond the idea in Gray’s line, “The paths of glory lead but to the grave.”

Occasionally there is a feeling for beauty, doubly welcome because not much may be expected in a satirist. A transient gleam of romance illumines the grotto of the inspired Egeria when he prefers nature’s loveliness to artificial improvements:

Down to Egeria’s vale we fared, to caves From Nature’s work transformed. How much more near Would be the fountain nymph, if simple grass Enclosed the waters with its margent green, Nor marble kerb profaned the native stone.[1802]

Allusion has already been made to the beauty of idea and language in his prayer that the last resting-place of those who revered the teachers of the young shall be brightened by “fragrant crocus and unfailing spring” (spirantisque crocus et in urna perpetuum uer, VII, 208).

It is not however in the realm of pure poetry but in his free mastery of rhetoric and his skill in adapting it to his literary aims, that Juvenal’s true eminence lies. This is not to suggest that he could ever be dismissed as a rhetorician. He is not controlled by, but controls, his instrument. It is very easy to accumulate copious examples of his recourse to rhetorical artifices—interrogation, apostrophe, antithesis and the rest. Scores of sententiae could be reckoned up, like

Travellers with naught sing in the robber’s face.[1803]

or

“There’s many a thing which they Whose coats are tattered never dare to say.”[1804]

Attention could also be called to his fondness for hyperbole, like “men at sea outnumber those ashore!” or “pillars split by the everlasting reciter,” or the jest that, if asked to enumerate the legion ailments of old age, one could more readily tell “how many patients Dr. Themison killed off in one autumn season.”[1805]

Akin to this penchant for overstatement is his diverting use of an anticlimax where a series of objectionable things or persons ends intentionally in a surprise. Thus, nothing worse, he says, could be conceived than to stay in Rome dreading conflagrations, the constant fall of houses, the thousand dangers of a cruel town, and—to cap all—poets giving readings from their works in the hot August days![1806] But the truth is that, tricks notwithstanding, his style in its complexity and individuality is much more than merely rhetorical. The statement of the uitae that he practised declamation till middle life has produced a misleading effect on some critics who have impeached his sincerity. His place, however, in literary history is secure: he is one of the great satirists—to some the greatest—and one refuses to believe that greatness of style can be based on rhetorical knack alone. Admittedly declamatory, he yet drew his real strength from a passion for serious morality, which, without, perhaps, very deep religious feeling[1807] or convinced attachment to philosophy,[1808] still gave him the right to cherish his saeua indignatio against abuses constituting social dangers.

Genuine feeling, then, forced him to raise an original voice in utterances which the world has not allowed to die. Lines or phrases that readily recur to the memory (some of them already quoted) are so many reminders of his permanent contribution to literature: e.g. probitas laudatur et alget; quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? nemo repente fuit turpissimus; omnia nouit Graeculus esuriens; haud facile emergunt, quorum uirtutibus obstat res angusta domi; nemo malus felix; rara auis in terris; hoc uolo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione uoluntas; sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? soloecismum liceat fecisse marito; facies dicetur an ulcus? occidit miseros crambe repetita magistros; stemmata quid faciunt? propter uitam uiuendi perdere causas; panem et circenses; mens sana in corpore sano; pictores quis nescit ab Iside pasci? prima est haec ultio, quod se iudice nemo nocens absoluitur?; maxima debetur puero reverentia; lucri bonus est odor ex re qualibet.

Allusions and verbal reminiscences prove Juvenal’s memory for previous literature. His reader is expected to understand an ordinary reference to Greek poetry or history and to recognize now a Horatian, now a Virgilian tag, as, for example, we find rusticus expectas and parcendum est teneris in the same satire.[1809] As regards his versification, he makes a noticeable departure from his fellow-satirists, Horace and Persius, in favour of Virgil. His control, and it is masterly, over the hexameter is in the main Virgilian rather than Ovidian, though it has some Lucretian quality. One finds, then, in him an epic ring, which appears to suggest that at least in his longer passages Juvenal may be represented in English by the traditional blank verse of narrative poetry more appropriately than by what too easily becomes the ding-dong of the rhymed heroic couplet.

In those satires which Dryden selected for rendering, his neat distich is at its best among the terse sententious parts; and the experiment whereby the great English satirist set himself to translate his Roman prototype must always remain of extraordinary interest, although one may feel that Gifford’s heroic couplets achieve in some respects a more successful version. Briefly, however, Juvenal’s variety of line-structure, his freedom in pause and enjambement, cannot be conveyed within the rigid limits of the couplet. This ease of movement accounts for his range—occasional beauty, occasional harshness, but prevailing rapidity. Cleverly interwined alliterations may be made not merely emphatic and decorative as in dat ueniam coruis, uexat censura columbas, but realistic in their unmistakable echo of the sense, as in the likening of a woman’s torrential talk to the banging of tin basins and tinkling bells—tot pariter pelues et tintinnabula dicas pulsari. Or, again, the excited bustle of a house on fire is suggested by the final and initial dentals which recur, like the rat-tat of a kettle-drum in

“iam poscit aquam, iam friuola transfert Ucalegon, tabulata tibi iam tertia fumant.”

Totally different effects are produced by the slow melancholy movement at the close of a line to express the fate of a poor wretch who has found favour with the dangerous Messalina:

“rapitur miser extinguendus Messalinae oculis.”

Like all the satirists, Juvenal draws a modicum of words from the common speech of town and country—caballus, olla, scrofa, potestas (like the Italian podestà, a magistrate). He delights in such diminutives as the sermo cotidianus preserved all through the history of Latin and handed down to modern Italian. One may specify as examples, candidulus, cuticula, flammeolum, foculus, fraterculus, Graeculus, hortulus, igniculus, improbulus, liuidulus, nutricula, ofella, pallidulus, palliolum, paruulus, pellicula, rancidulus, sarcinula, seruulus, sordidulus, virguncula.

The influence of the Satires is not traceable before the fourth century, when Ammianus Marcellinus proves they had admirers. Both pagans and Christians felt their spell: they were imitated by Ausonius, Claudian, and Prudentius, and quoted by Lactantius and Servius. Medieval interest in Juvenal’s ethical value was well marked—Chaucer apostrophizes him; and from Elizabethan times onwards the satirists of England and France have studied his poems. Readers of Boileau, Dryden, Pope, Johnson and Byron know that they all in varying degrees were indebted to the works of the Roman satirist.

LITERATURE IN THE REIGN OF HADRIAN

A.D. 117–A.D. 138

SUETONIUS AND FLORUS

Hadrian’s reign a literary diminuendo—The emperor himself—His tastes—Archaism and Greek—Suetonius—An imperial secretary in disgrace—Encyclopaedic fruits of his leisure—Works extant and lost—Date of De Viris Illustribus and De Vita Caesarum—Sources—De Grammaticis—De Rhetoribus—De Poetis—The doubtful Life of Virgil—Characteristics of Lives of the Caesars—Suetonius and Tacitus—Suetonius and Pepys—Portraits of emperors—Entertaining realism—Style—Influence.

Three Flori in one—Florus the rhetor—Florus the poet—Doubtful ascription of Peruigilium Veneris to him—Florus the historian—The Roman people his hero—Eulogy and rhetoric.

THE REIGN OF HADRIAN

Tempting though it is to make a study of the Silver Age culminate crescendo-wise in the unique artistry of Tacitean prose, there are difficulties in leaving out the diminuendo of Hadrian’s reign[1810] (A.D. 117-138). One must acknowledge that literary history has but a faint interest in the jurists of the period like Salvius Julianus and Pomponius; or in the rhetoricians and philosophers, who mostly wrote in Greek; or again in versifiers, skilful rather than inspired, like Annianus, Septimius Serenus, Alfius Avitus, and the restless emperor himself, although his dying farewell to his soul is at least a perpetual bait for translators.[1811] One notes, too, little of significance among the grammarians, except perhaps the commentaries, now in fragments, written by Terentius Scaurus on Plautus, Virgil and Horace, and his linguistically important De Orthographia, of which we possess two abstracts. It is also true that the greatness of Tacitus eclipses the work of Suetonius and Florus, the only two Hadrianic historians who are noteworthy, if, as is most likely, the abridgement of Trogus’s Macedonian history by Justinus is rather Antonine than contemporary.[1812] But chronologically there is no natural break just before Suetonius, who was one of Pliny’s junior friends; nor should the fall-off from Tacitean brilliance blind one either to Suetonius’s merits in a different kind of biography from the Agricola or to the debt which literary history owes him for preserving, with an almost Varronian interest in the past, much that could not otherwise have been known about the poets and the teachers of Rome.

Before studying Suetonius and Florus, a glance at the reign seems appropriate. Its total literary achievement makes a somewhat ironic comment on Juvenal’s hope et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum, and shows that patronage does not of necessity beget literature. Patronage, indeed, while clearly it never can create genius, is not always even good for such genius as may emerge. The prince himself was a lover of learning and architecture. He established a library at his spacious villa whose ruins still impress us under the slopes of Tivoli: he had another at Antium, and a third was attached to his famous academy at Rome, the Athenaeum. “The little Greek” (Graeculus), as some dared to call him, was a student of eloquence and drama. He published some of his speeches: he patronized but also quizzed scholars and philosophers. Pieces of mediocre verse by his Majesty have survived, and we know the ugly title of his lost miscellany, Catachannae. Only once did inspiration visit him: as he lay under the shadow of death, there came to him a few simple lines immortal in their suggestion of the mysterious parting between body and soul:

Animula, uagula, blandula, Hospes comesque corporis, Quae nunc abibis in loca, Pallidula, rigida, nudula, Nec ut soles dabis iocos?

The tender diminutives add to the difficulty of translation, but one more attempt may be made:

Ah! little fondling soul and fleeting, My body’s guest and travel-friend, To what far land art thou retreating, Poor little wan, stark, naked sweeting— Thy wonted frolic at an end?[1813]

In several ways the example set by imperial taste contributed to give to literature the particular turn which it now took. Hadrian had a preference for the archaic—a feature of Roman criticism accentuated later in the century. That he was a pronounced phil-Hellene and a great traveller were both facts which influenced others. Suetonius, we shall find, furnishes a good instance of the extent to which authors were now composing in Greek as well as in Latin; and no long time elapses before a Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, chooses Greek as the proper language for his Meditations. Apollodorus composed his treatise on siege-operations expressly for Hadrian, and military writing was continued by Aelian in his work on Greek tactics. Many Greek volumes of the time on history have perished; for example those of Crito, a Macedonian who accompanied Hadrian on his journeys, and treated Syracuse, Macedonia, Persia in addition to Trajan’s Dacian war. The best work of Arrian, from Bithynia, belongs to Hadrian’s time. If he is chiefly remembered as a second Xenophon who produced a new set of Memorabilia in handling the Stoic philosophy of his master Epictetus, and a new Anabasis in narrating the Asiatic expedition of Alexander, it should likewise be borne in mind that he became a Roman citizen and a consul. Though he was still alive in the days of Marcus Aurelius, it was for Hadrian that Arrian wrote the Periplus of the Black Sea. Geography, one feels, ought to have flourished under so indefatigable a traveller: certainly mathematical geography was, thanks to the genius of Ptolemaeus, to make a notable advance under the Antonines.

SUETONIUS

No one in antiquity appears to have thought of writing the biography of one of its most famous biographers, C. Suetonius Tranquillus.[1814] For information about him, we are in consequence dependent upon a few allusions of his own,[1815] sundry letters of the younger Pliny, and a statement in the Life of Hadrian which Spartianus wrote in or after Diocletian’s reign. His father, Suetonius Laetus, fought at Betriacum as a tribunus angusticlauius of the thirteenth legion in A.D. 69, and about that year Suetonius Tranquillus must have been born.[1816] This conclusion hangs largely on the meaning attached to the term adulescentia; for he looked back on himself as having been adulescens in A.D. 88 (when a pretended Nero appeared twenty years after the real Nero’s death), and as still adulescens late in Domitian’s reign.[1817] He may have been born in Rome; but this is no more certain of him than it is of Lucretius or Julius Caesar.

The external evidence about his life consists of references in Pliny’s letters within the period from 96 to 112.[1818] These references show that he practised in the law-courts; that he was allowed to transfer to a kinsman a military tribunate for which he had himself been nominated; that he was appreciated as a writer, but slow to issue works; and that Pliny valued his advice on such a question as reading verse in public. Pliny’s request submitted on Suetonius’s behalf to Trajan for the concession of the ius trium liberorum proves that, though he was married, he had either no children or fewer than the statutory requirement. The letter is a warm testimony to the integrity and learning of a man who had been for a time an inmate of Pliny’s house, and for whom, he assures the emperor, he felt a stronger affection the closer his acquaintance became.[1819] In the next reign Suetonius held an imperial secretaryship,[1820] when access to the archives gave him presumably the first impulse, and certainly considerable material, towards his Lives of the Caesars. Hadrian, however, in A.D. 121 dismissed him along with others, including Septicius Clarus, prefect of the Praetorian guard, for some offence against court-etiquette in relation to the empress Sabina.[1821] Never a public man, Suetonius thenceforward devoted his leisure to what most attracted him—historical, academic and antiquarian studies. The list of his works proves that his productivity was great; but we know from Pliny that he produced slowly.[1822] It may, therefore, easily be credited that Suetonius lived till he was an old man under the emperor Antoninus Pius.

Time has spared only the Lives of the Caesars, and from the De Viris Illustribus, on men eminent in literature, the greater part of the sections De Grammaticis and De Rhetoribus, as well as the Life of the elder Pliny among the historians, that of Passienus Crispus among the orators, and the Lives of Terence, Horace and Lucan.[1823] These last three are all (except such morsels as Jerome preserved in his amplification of Eusebius’s chronicle) that can safely be counted genuine portions of the De Poetis, the loss of which has left lamentable blanks in our knowledge.

A catalogue given in Greek by Suidas under the heading Τράγκυλλος includes the De Vita Caesarum and De Viris Illustribus and adds nine titles: On Games among the Greeks (in Greek); On Spectacles and Games among the Romans; On the Roman Year; On (critical) Signs in Writings; On Cicero’s Republic (a book in answer to six books by the grammarian Didymus against Cicero); On Proper Names, Dress and Shoes (probably a history rather than a philosophy of clothes); On Abusive Terms and their Origin (in Greek, and grouped by their application to the vicious, to busybodies, fools, slaves, etc.); On the Manners and Customs of Rome (two books which we can imagine to have been full of interest); and the enigmatic Συγγενικόν.[1824] Some of these are also vouched for by Latin writers like Aulus Gellius, Tertullian, Censorinus, and Servius; while some may be not independent works but sections of a larger treatise. Traces of yet other books are found in Orosius, Servius, Lydus, Priscian and Isidore: namely, an account of Julius Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul;[1825] On Physical Blemishes (De Vitiis Corporalibus, conceivably treated in connexion with his work on dress); On Eminent Courtesans; On Organization of Public Duties (De Institutione Officiorum); On Kings (De Regibus); On Various Matters (De Rebus Variis), possibly identical with the miscellaneous Pratum or Prata, which, as can be inferred from later references, was divided into books on different subjects, antiquarian and scientific (e.g. Rome and Roman customs, the Roman year, the universe, nature of animals, etc.), probably including some of those in Suidas’s list.[1826] When it is remembered that Suetonius wrote both in Greek and in Latin, and handled a vast range of themes, one can realize his long years of laborious industry and understand his influence upon historians, grammarians, antiquaries and encyclopaedists for several centuries.

If the work whose appearance in whole or part Pliny in one of his letters expected from Suetonius was the De Viris Illustribus, then its publication may be put about A.D. 113.[1827] One is on fairly sure ground in dating the De Vita Caesarum about 121, i.e. before the disgrace of Septicius Clarus to whom the imperial biographies were dedicated. There is, however, hardly justification for attempting to give, even with reserve, as Macé does, an approximate date for the De Institutione Officiorum and the De Rebus Variis.

Much of his antiquarian lore Suetonius drew from Varro; for facts about illustrious men he could lay under contribution Fenestella, Santra, Nepos, Hyginus, Seneca the elder, and Asconius; and for poets the commentators upon them. The citations and references to authorities in the Life of Terence indicate that he was well read. His main reliance upon books and documents may be one reason (apart from an instinctively historical interest in Julius and Augustus) why the Lives grow shorter as they approach his own period, when oral evidence was more abundant than written histories. But he did not ignore verbal witnesses: on the contrary, much in him was due to popular opinion and gossip. Thus, stories about Claudius on the bench are recorded from the recollections of elderly persons (a maioribus natu audiebam, Cl. xv.). The painstaking inquiries (quamuis satis curiose inquirerem, Vesp. i.) about Vespasian’s ancestors were presumably conducted in districts likely to know the family. Quite definitely he made use of matters which he heard mentioned by his grandfather (auum meum narrantem puer audiebam, Cal. xix.), by his father (Oth. x.), or by others (ex nonnullis comperi, Ner. xxix.). Similarly, he had several informants (e pluribus comperi, Tit. iii.) to vouch for Titus’s expertness in shorthand and that adroitness in imitating signatures which might in other circumstances have turned the prince into an arch-forger. Yet the bulk of Suetonius’s material came from his reading, which could be more exactly estimated, had it been part of his method to name his sources regularly instead of frequently contenting himself with a colourless quidam ... nonnulli tradunt (Vesp. i.). Though he may characterize authorities as trustworthy (nec incertis, Ner. xxxiv.), this only leaves one curious as to their identity. When Suetonius was in Hadrian’s service ab epistulis, the archives under charge of the associated department a studiis were easily accessible to him; while his intimacy with Pliny’s circle had not only given a patrician colour to his outlook, but probably directed him by preference to writers of a corresponding hue. At court he had opportunities for examining collections of imperial letters and speeches, state-papers, edicts and ceremonial eulogies, and, among public documents, the acta diurna, senatus consulta and senatus acta.[1828] It is interesting to remember that Suetonius mentions his possession of verses by Nero in the emperor’s own handwriting;[1829] nor is his reading without literary acumen when he remarks of Claudius’s autobiography in eight books that it was lacking not so much in style as in common sense (composuit ... magis inepte quam ineleganter).[1830] Among historians whom he does name are well-known figures like Nepos, Hirtius, Asinius Pollio, Cremutius Cordus and a few others unfamiliar to us.[1831] Diligent though he was, he cannot be called critical of his material: he was too well satisfied with amassing it. A conflict of evidence he prefers to leave undecided (quod discrepat sit in medio, Vitell. ii.). It is the more surprising that upon occasion he can weigh his authorities. The most memorable instance is the chapter discussing the birthplace of Caligula,[1832] where a brief investigation into his sources decides him to follow the official acta or publici instrumenti auctoritas in preference to the authors Lentulus Gaetulicus and the elder Pliny. In another passage he reasons critically about the variation between complimentary and uncomplimentary accounts of Vitellius’s ancestry: it was not, he observes, simply due to prejudice for or against the emperor himself, since older accounts presented the same conflict of evidence; and, in this connexion, he cites as one of his first-hand authorities a memoir by Q. Elogius in the Augustan period.[1833]

The De Grammaticis contains in brief space much of interest in the chronicle of literary teachers at Rome, throwing incidental light on such points as the demarcation of grammar from rhetoric, the effect of literary teaching on poetry, the fees earned, and the taste for old-fashioned writers which lingered in the provinces after it had vanished in Rome. Here and there we find amusing touches, like the request made by a pleader for adjournment of a case to enable a litigant to take lessons in grammar, or Asinius Gallus’s epigram on the ex-boxer who had turned to teaching:

The Don who gives us glosses in a list Once learned to dodge his head: His mouth’s no good—but he has got a fist! Why doesn’t he box instead?[1834]

In the still shorter De Rhetoribus we are told incidentally about enactments against professors of rhetoric, dangerous innovations in the educational system, instances of long-continued practice of declamation by famous men, varying methods and standard exercises. The work unfortunately ends in an interrupted list of prominent teachers.

Among the Lives of the Poets we face the double misfortune that few have survived, and that the Life of Virgil cannot with confidence be pronounced Suetonian. It strikes in its very first chapter a note different from the other literary biographies. There is something appropriately mysterious in the record of Virgil’s lowly birth by the wayside, the mild-eyed tearless babe, his mother’s symbolic dream, and the poplar branch which was planted where he was born and which grew with miraculous speed into a tree hallowed by prayers and veneration. All this is indicative of a reverential attitude towards the personality of Virgil already enshrined in educational tradition and honoured by worshipping poets like Statius, in preparation, as it were, for the medieval belief in his wizardry. The tone has led many critics to ascribe it to Donatus; but it is only right to quote Nettleship’s defence of the Suetonian authorship.[1835] “The style,” he says, “is in the main the peculiar style of Suetonius; the Latin is the quiet, sober, terse and yet distinguished Latin which characterizes him among other writers of his period, and separates him from the later writers of the Historia Augusta.” Of the accepted Lives the Terence has among its verse quotations interesting criticisms by Cicero and Caesar (o dimidiate Menander!) while the Horace gives illuminating glimpses into Horace’s affectionate intimacy with Maecenas and Augustus.

On the Lives of the Caesars the reputation of Suetonius rests. Yet it is easy to pick faults in the work. A great deal of it partakes of the nature of a chronique scandaleuse based upon tittle-tattle about the emperors and compiled by a literary man with the muck-rake, too keen upon petty and prurient detail to produce a scientific account of his subjects. The author is neglectful of dates and over-rigid in his scheme of biography. A measure of monotony is inevitable in his typical arrangement of ancestry, birth, years before accession to power, then public life and private life grouped under different aspects, portents presaging death, personal appearance and so on.[1836] The stiffness of plan is, however, considerably softened by a wealth of illustrative anecdote. But there is no grasp like that of a Tacitus, no deep penetration of motive, no appreciation of historical movements. One reads the biographies of Galba, Otho and Vitellius without getting any connected view of their struggle for sovereignty as presented in the Histories of Tacitus. On the other hand, the truth remains that Suetonius is readable and continues to be read. In strong contrast to Tacitus he hardly ever indulges in a general reflection; but he succeeds in drawing attention to significant facts and outward characteristics. The names of Suetonius and of Pepys have been mentioned together;[1837] and some analogy indeed exists between their matter-of-fact, concrete, gossiping styles, and their official relationship to the most elevated personages of their day. There, however, the likeness, such as it is, ends; for the English diarist is pre-eminent for naïve honesty in setting down his own personality with his pen. The self-revelation made with his intimacy of detail belongs to a different world from the record of the Caesars which Suetonius compiled from documents and hearsay. Pepys is internal, subjective and autobiographic: Suetonius is external, objective and biographic.

If, again, one thinks of Tacitus’s vividness, Suetonius is vivid in a different way. Compared with Tacitus, he is as a photograph to a picture or a finished engraving. He is plain-spoken, and it may at least be urged that, after the lunacy of certain high-flown writers, Suetonius comes like a whiff of plebeian common sense. To him nothing is common or unclean. He descends, if need be, into the coarse without qualms or condemnation. He is a recorder, not a moralist: so, in regard to Tiberius, as Heredia has it,

Égratignant la cire impitoyable, il a Décrit les noirs loisirs du veillard de Caprée.[1838]

The great thing is that his personages live. His method is brevity of fact, story and description. Attracted by details such as Tacitus would have considered beneath the dignity of history, many may wish to know what the early emperors looked like. Here are some vignettes with which Suetonius can oblige them—Julius Caesar, a tall, clear-complexioned, well-formed man with keen black eyes, close-shaven and rather sensitive about his baldness; Augustus, handsome though not tall, with striking eyes, curly yellowish locks, a nose prominent at the top, and complexion between dark and fair; Tiberius, of robust build and stature above the average, left-handed, wearing his hair pretty long at the back, with particularly large eyes capable of seeing even in the dark, a stern person with hardly anything to say; Caligula, pale-complexioned, hollow-eyed and ugly; Claudius, not without dignity while he sat or stood, but shaky on his legs when he walked, and ridiculous by reason of his unseemly guffaw, his stammering utterance, and his perpetually nodding head; Nero, of about medium height, with features handsome rather than winning, light hair arranged in tiers of curls, weak bluish-grey eyes, thick-set neck, projecting paunch and slender legs; Galba, bald in front, blue-eyed, hook-nosed, his hands and feet twisted with arthritis.[1839] We need not go through the whole realistic gallery, which suggests the Dutch School of portraiture.

Similar vividness marks the facts and incidents with which Suetonius entertains us. So full is he of his facts that as a rule he gives them in the briefest possible compass. Just occasionally does he allow himself to expand into longer passages which impress the memory. Among such memorable ones is the narrative of Caesar’s arrival at the Rubicon after missing his way in the darkness, the pause to weigh the question whether to cross or not to cross, and the strangely gracious figure that appeared to him piping by the river-side.[1840] Here a slight gleam of romance has lit up a prevailingly matter-of-fact style. Other passages somewhat more sustained than his customary terse strokes are the engrossing description of Caesar’s murder, the account of Tiberius at Rhodes, the graphic chapter on Caligula’s mad cruelty, where one almost seems to hear the eerie laugh of the insane tyrant tickled at the thought that on a nod from him his two unsuspecting consular guests could have their throats cut; and the complete tale of the closing days in Nero’s life when he was at bay, a series of ten chapters forming a unity unusually elaborate for Suetonius and thrilling in its culminating three chapters.[1841]

Much, however, is on a smaller and less connected scale. As with a diarist like Pepys, one can dip anywhere into Suetonius at haphazard and chance upon incidents that may be isolated but are certainly entertaining. It holds one to read about Caligula’s megalomaniac jealousy of great writers like Homer, Virgil and Livy, whose works he wished to destroy; his lunatic pranks in treating Castor and Pollux as his concierges so that from their temple Romans might enter the imperial palace; his flirtations with the Moon-goddess and confidential talks with brother Jove; his scathing disrespect for relatives in characterizing his grandmother Livia as “a Ulysses in petticoats” and in regarding his uncle Claudius as merely a butt. In the next Life, the ridiculous side in Claudius is illustrated repeatedly from the emperor’s feeble jokes, his silly remarks, and an absentmindedness so supreme as to sanction the despatch of invitations to the dead. The reader is not expected to honour an emperor who, while he could declaim marvellously, talked, as Goldsmith did, like poor Poll.[1842] The Life of Nero has many good things. It tells of the way in which his ancestors the Aenobarbi got their red beards; and of the young ruler’s exclamation over signing his first death-warrant, “How I wish I did not know letters!” (quam uellem litteras nescire!) It reveals the system of claqueurs whom Nero had trained in different sorts of applause (“bombi,” “rain-patter,” “dish-clash”), and acquaints us with his touchy conceit, his hooliganism in the streets at night, his ominous interest in fires, and his childish conduct in exhibiting water-organs after the news of the revolt of Vindex had reached him.

The sketches of the three Flavians contain metal just as attractive. The Life of Vespasian is masterly in its own way, from the entertainingly superstitious portents heralding the great future of the destined prince from the East (e.g. the sign of the three oak branches, the sign of the street-mud, and the sign of the dog that brought in a man’s hand one day when Vespasian was at lunch) up to the dying emperor’s grim jest “Alack! I’m growing into a god, I suppose” (Vae, puto, deus fio). The short Life of Titus gives a mere glance at his notorious passion (insignem amorem) for Queen Berenice; and a little later what might have been handled as a romance closes in the curt statement about the parted sweethearts; Berenicem statim ab urbe dimisit inuitus inuitam. Like Gibbon, Titus presumably sighed as a lover but obeyed as a son. To Suetonius we owe the record of the prince’s deservedly commended utterance that a day in which he had done good to nobody was a lost day—“perdidi diem,” memorabilem illam meritoque laudatam uocem. In the Life of his brother we are doubtless intended to catch the sinister bearing of Domitian’s morbid pleasure in fly-catching at the beginning of his reign, and his incessant reading of little beyond the memoirs written at Capri by Tiberius—son digne émule, remarks Cucheval.[1843]

The free-and-easy style of Suetonius makes a sort of businesslike match for his systematic marshalling of material. He is too much absorbed in what he has drawn from his documents to trouble about rhetorical display. His facts are left to speak for themselves, and sometimes they speak badly. Inelegantly used participles or ablatives, jerky and unpolished clauses, and an inartistic structure of sentence are frequent results of this carelessness. One feels as if something has gone wrong with sentences like sed ea quoque paulatim repleta assidua equi uectatione post cibum (Cal. iii.); or, again, one finds an important remark tacked loosely on to a sentence, e.g. in telling how the doubtful reputation of Titus as a possible second Nero “changed into rapturous praise when no fault was discovered in him, but the noblest virtues instead”—at illi ea fama pro bono cessit conuersaque est in maximas laudes neque uitio ullo reperto et contra uirtutibus summis (Tit. vii.). There is something modern in this escape from the conventional order of words and this absence of decoration. Hence it comes that the Elizabethan pomp and quaintness of Philemon Holland’s version are too opulently distracting to convey the simple matter-of-fact tone of the greater part of Suetonius, so that there is critical point in the old epigram:

Philemon with’s Translations doeth so fille us, He will not let Suetonius be Tranquillus.

Yet it has been noted that Suetonius is not without a rhythm in his prose. De Groot’s statistics for the sentence-endings examined by him suggest that the frequency of the double trochee in Suetonius is much the same as in Quintilian, of cretic followed by trochee less than in Quintilian, and of double cretic much the same as in Quintilian, though less than in the younger Seneca.[1844] Macé has considered, on M. Havet’s method, the rhythm of Suetonius’s clausulae in relation to both quantity and accent.[1845]

Preferring a neat simplicity[1846] in the statement of facts, Suetonius has yet an individuality of style which, in spite of Silver Age constructions and vocabulary, marks him off from writers like Velleius and Florus as much as from Caesar and Cicero. We owe it to his dislike of affectation that he often quotes documents verbatim without any attempt at rewriting in his own manner. To the same dislike of affectation we owe the comparative infrequency of archaisms and neologisms in his works. It is noticeable that while Suetonius, as a scholar, had literary and antiquarian interests in common with Hadrian, his critical tastes were different. Unlike the emperor, he did not prefer Ennius to Virgil, Cato to Cicero and Caelius to Sallust:[1847] on the contrary, he was an admirer of Cicero, and,[1848] if he found blemishes in Sallust, must have seen more in Caelius. In his vocabulary, as might be expected, there are many words, or meanings of words, not to be found in Caesar or Cicero; but, as in most other Silver Age writers, these are, to a large extent, words taken over in first-century prose from the poetry of Virgil and Horace, or words already occurring in the prose of Livy and post-Augustan authors. Thus the Virgilian austrinus (“southern”) had been used by Columella and the elder Pliny before Suetonius; and adapertus (“open”) descended to him from Livy and Ovid through both prose and poetry of the first century. Occasionally Suetonius harked back to the old-fashioned: cerritus (“crazed”) is a Plautine word transmitted through Horace, and aquilus (“swarthy”) is a rare adjective borrowed from Plautus. Sometimes there are comparative novelties. Extemporalis (“on the spur of the moment”) represents the sort of term which Suetonius naturally shares with writers like Quintilian, Tacitus, the younger Pliny and Martial, who have occasion to mention rhetorical fluency. Much the same holds of the non-Ciceronian, but ultimately most useful, words prosa (sc. oratio) for “prose,” and breuiarium for “an abstract.”

* * * * *

The Suetonian tradition is traceable in the biographical character of histories for generations. It ousted the Tacitean type until Ammianus Marcellinus (330-400) modelled his work on Tacitus. Suetonius’s formal arrangement was imitated in the lost writings of Marius Maximus (165-230), and it is evidently followed in the Augustan History, once ascribed in part to Diocletian’s reign.[1849] Christian authors also copied his structure, as did Paulinus in his biography of Ambrosius, and after the same pattern Einhard, or Eginhard, composed his life of Charlemagne. As regards language, writers like Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, and Orosius show traces of having read Suetonius. The influence of his Lives of literary celebrities upon Jerome is a familiar fact. His Greek writings appealed to some of the Byzantines, while his miscellaneous range secured him notice from many different writers in Latin. Thus, Tertullian used his work on games for the De Spectaculis; Censorinus, Solinus and Macrobius found antiquarian lore in him; and other borrowers were the Virgilian commentator Servius, the scholiasts on Horace, on Germanicus, on Lucan and on Juvenal; as well as the encyclopaedist Isidorus of Seville.

FLORUS

Great probability attaches to the arguments that Florus[1850] the historian, Florus the rhetor, and Florus the poet, who all lived at this period, were one and the same person. Accepting this identification, we must take the correct name to have been P. Annius Florus, as the rhetor was called, and explain as confusions the “Julius Florus” and “L. Annaeus Florus” in MSS. of the historian. The academic dialogue by the rhetor on the question whether Virgil was more of an orator or a poet (Vergilius Orator an Poeta) is lost, but from a Brussels MS., containing an introduction[1851] to this lost theme, important details about the author’s life have been recovered. He was African. While at Rome in his youth under Domitian, he took part in the Capitoline competition, but was unfairly denied the prize and in chagrin took to wanderings which eventually brought him to Tarraco. Settled in Spain, he was one day in Trajan’s reign taxed by a friend with his long absence from the capital, where his verses, the friend reminded him, found appreciative readers. By Hadrian’s time he was in Rome again, and intimate enough with the emperor to banter him in miserable trochaics upon his travelling propensities:

To be Caesar I’ve no notion, Or to roam the British Ocean Or in Scythian fog be frozen.

The imperial retort was:

To be Florus I’d be sorry, Round the city inns to hurry, Or thro’ every cookshop scurry, Where the plump mosquitoes worry.[1852]

Better verses by Florus[1853] have come down in five hexameters on spring-roses and twenty-six, on the whole pleasing, trochaic tetrameters De Qualitate Vitae, which include reflections on womankind, bad companionship, and foreign morality. In one quatrain a lover, who has cut his sweetheart’s name on the bark of a tree, declares with an agreeable assonance:

As the tree grows, so my zeal glows: passion fills the graven words. (Crescit arbor, gliscit ardor: animus implet literas.)

Another quatrain plays with a fancy concerning the Sun-god and the Wine-god:

As Apollo, so is Bacchus, bearer of a fiery load: Both the gods were flame-created: both the gods were born in fire: Both have heat to give as guerdon in the sunlight or the vine: One dispels the dark of night-time, one the darkness of the mind.

(Sic Apollo deinde Liber sic uidetur ignifer: Ambo sunt flammis creati prosatique ex ignibus: Ambo de donis calorem, uite et radio, conferunt: Noctis hic rumpit tenebras, hic tenebras pectoris.)

His work in trochaics gives colour to the guess that Florus composed the Peruigilium Veneris,[1854] nearly one hundred trochaic tetrameters celebrating the eve of a joyous festival devoted to the Lady of the Springtime and of Love. Though now sadly disarranged, the poem was originally perhaps in twenty-two quatrains,[1855] marked off by the chanted refrain:

Let the lover love to-morrow; let the loveless learn to love. (Cras amet qui nunquam amauit, quique amauit cras amet.)

If one could be confident in the ascription to Florus, the reign of Hadrian would be credited with one of the sweetest and most romantic poems in all Latin literature, a hymn of ecstasy over the coming of a new season of brightness and fertility upon the earth:

’Tis the fresh and tuneful Springtide—Spring first brought the world to light, In the Spring fond hearts draw closer: in the Springtime birds unite: (Ver nouum, uer iam canorum; uere natus orbis est; Vere concordant amores; uere nubunt alites.)

In contrast to the prevailing glee comes the personal note of melancholy at the end:

She is singing: we are silent: when doth Spring for me awake? When shall I grow like the swallow? When may I my silence break? I have lost the Muse by silence, and Apollo heeds me not. (Illa cantat, nos tacemus; quando uer uenit meum? Quando fiam uti chelidon, ut tacere desinam? Perdidi musam tacendo, nec me Apollo respicit.)

On the whole one must doubt whether the poem is not too good to be by Florus. In style it might be called Apuleian, and if it is not Hadrianic there is little to prevent one from believing that it at least belongs to some part of the second century, unless its almost entire avoidance of quadrisyllabic endings is considered too suggestive of the manner of Tiberianus in the fourth century.[1856]

With Florus as historian, or rather epitomizer, we are on surer ground. The best MS., the Bambergensis, gives the title of his work as Epitoma ... de T. Liuio bellorum omnium annorum DCC and the correct number of books as two. The Nazarianus follows a division into four books. In the title Florus’s dependence on Livy is recognized; but, besides this main source, he used Sallust, Caesar, and possibly the elder Seneca’s Histories. He is no geographer, but he alludes in his preface to geographical charts, and may have consulted Mela and Pliny. The Natural History would give him authority for his reference to the richness of Spain in gold, chrysocolla and minium.[1857] Perhaps Lucan also was a source.[1858] The work was probably written early in Hadrian’s reign.[1859]

His preface shows his attitude. It is an attitude of praise rather than of studied narration.[1860] The seven hundred years which he counts from Romulus to Augustus had been, he feels, so full of the greatness of the Roman people that one might suppose the history had been longer. To study it is to study the destiny not of one people but of the human race. Valour and Fortune had combined to establish a world-wide dominion. On the analogy of geographers, Florus submits at the outset a kind of plan (breui quasi tabella) to illustrate the evolution of the Roman people. For him it was an organism, and had passed through four ages: infancy, 250 years of regal government; youth, 250 years of warfare in Italy; robust maturity, 200 years of world-conquest up to Augustus; old age and decline, 200 years from Augustus until the writer’s own day—with, however, he is careful to add, a renewal of youth under Trajan. His figures, it should be noted, need correction; for chronology is not his strong point. A recapitulation (anacephalaeosis) is given with each of the first three ages; but the decadence is not treated. There is at the end of Book I an anticipatory review of growing luxury in the third age suggestive of the cause of the decline: the attack, as so often in the Silver Era, is couched in rhetorical terms.[1861]

Genuine historical thought is impossible in an author whose criterion of value was the extent to which events redounded to the glory of Rome, and whose criterion of credibility was an entry in the annals (quae nisi in annalibus forent, hodie fabulae uiderentur). His mode of treatment scarcely admits a touch of romance. Egeria’s mysterious prompting of Numa’s policy is merely a useful state-figment (quo magis barbari acciperent). Occasionally we find a story, but it is in general told with almost grudging curtness, like that of Navius and the whetstone. Occasionally, too, a great exploit rouses Florus to something approaching enthusiasm, like the recovery of Spain by Scipio; though it is a blemish that the enthusiasm is not always worked into the narrative but confined to parenthetic outbursts. Inevitably, however, much of the fascination of Roman history vanishes in the dry condensation of a summary. Its very neatness becomes tiresome, for the brevity tends to pass into abruptness. But in fairness it must be judged with regard to the author’s intention of writing a eulogistic sketch, where the Populus Romanus shall be the single hero throughout.

Because the aim was eulogistic instead of unimpassioned history, there is too frequent indulgence in exclamatory asides—“quae superbia!” “mira res dictu!” “quis credat?” “immane dictu!” “mirum et incredibile dictu!” “fidem numinum!” “o nefas!” Some of his comments have a naïve banality in their search for antithetic point. Of Julius Caesar’s assassination he says, “so he who had drenched the world with citizens’ blood at last drenched the senate-house with his own” (sic ille qui terrarum orbem ciuili sanguine impleuerat tandem ipse sanguine suo curiam impleuit); and, when the murdered Cicero’s head was fixed on the rostra, he states, “there was as great a rush to see him as there usually was to hear” (nec aliter ad uidendum eum quam solebat ad audiendum concurreretur). It is not surprising that the poetic element in him overloads his expression with metaphor, while the rhetorical element tempts him to exaggerate, as when Antony’s high turreted ships, “forts and cities in appearance, sailed not without the groaning of the sea and the toil of the winds” (castellorum et urbium specie, non sine gemitu maris, et labore uentorum ferebantur). It is unsafe for a prose-writer to expand the idea of Virgil’s urbis opus. On the other hand, he is happy in certain of his comparisons: there is force in likening the final resistance of Carthage to the dangerous bite of a dying beast; or the diminution in the Gauls’ resistance, after a first effort, to the melting of the snow upon their mountains. It may not be entirely fanciful to impute to African Latinity the more bizarre and brusque turns in him.[1862] In any case, though some of his rhetoric is absurd, it redeems his work from being a totally dry abstract. His sentences are, as a rule, well written, and not unpleasing in their clausulae. His language is characteristic in the use of post-Augustan words like captiuitas and diuersitas, and in the position of igitur at the start of a sentence.[1863] Receptator seems to be a word of his own, outside legal phraseology. The way in which he overworks quasi and quippe is ludicrous.[1864]

The popularity of Florus was assured in the third and fourth centuries, when the demand for epitomes rose to its height. It is no longer a current belief, as it once was, that the Livian periochae (which should not be mistaken for epitomes) were the work of Florus. But Lucius Ampelius borrowed from him for his short manual of general knowledge, the Liber Memorialis, compiled perhaps early in the third century.[1865] Ammianus, Orosius, Festus and Jordanes used him, as did the Byzantine historian Malalas; and the multiplication of manuscripts of his text testifies to the favour in which he stood with the Middle Ages.

CONCLUSION

AN EPILOGUE—THE SECOND CENTURY AND AFTER

The passing of the Silver Age—Factors hampering literary creation—Elocutio nouella—Fronto, Gellius, Apuleius—Anarchy of third century—Energy diverted towards law, scholarship, epitomes—Vigour of Christian apologists—Prose of Minucius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius—Poetry of Commodianus, Ambrose, Prudentius—A Greek renascence—Echoes of Silver Age in Gallic Panegyrici, in Historia Augusta, and in Ammianus—Poetic revival in fourth century—Nemesianus, Ausonius, Claudian—End of national Roman literature—The European Latin of the Middle Ages—Vitality of literary influence of Rome at Renaissance and later periods.

Beyond the time of Suetonius the Silver Age does not extend.[1866] We are not, therefore, strictly concerned with the Roman literature which followed, or with its phases of decadence, barrenness and revival. Yet it is instructive to consider what took the place of Silver Latin, and why changes set in. Obviously, Latin continued to be written, though for a time not in the same quantity; but such Latin as continued was written with a difference in quality. Several factors, indeed, during the immediately succeeding period militated against the production of what had been the prevalent type of literature. In the first place, there arose that natural desire for change which ensures periodic reaction in all literary history. What one might call the Silver spirit had spent itself. Pointed epigram palled: neither interest nor dexterity in it any longer existed. The chief sign of the altered tendency was the appearance of the archaizing school of Cornelius Fronto, which, by turning back to Ennius, Cato and the Gracchi as models of style, implicitly undervalued the Silver Age and revolted against its conventions. Born in Numidia about the beginning of the second century, Fronto had studied at Alexandria, had been a successful pleader at Rome in Hadrian’s time, and was, under Antoninus Pius, made tutor to the future emperor Marcus Aurelius, his correspondence with whom has in part survived. Fronto never was in any deep sense a thinker. His primary concern being eloquence, he manifestly did not sympathize with his imperial pupil’s devotion to philosophy. Touching canons of style, no less than the supremacy of wisdom, he was poles asunder from Seneca. A zealous champion of archaism in composition, Fronto maintained that old-fashioned Latin writers were preferable to the Greeks and to the later Romans, and that a virile elocutio nouella (the phrase is his own) would spring from a union between the ancient and the spoken Latin. The direct plainness of the older writers and speakers he felt, with some justice, to be more in touch with life; but his fundamental misconception lay in failing to realize that to copy them, as if Roman literature had not run a distinguished course during some centuries since their day, was to fly in the face of evolution, and that to reintroduce obsolete words, however natural they had been at one time, was merely to displace one system of artificiality in favour of another. Yet for a space the movement was novel enough to live. Fronto’s unbounded enthusiasm for the antiquated won the admiration of Aulus Gellius, who about the middle of the century began his miscellany of the Noctes Atticae during a winter spent at Athens. He used to buy old volumes in order to dig in them for contributions towards those brief essay-like studies of his which constitute an ancient museum of curiosities in literature, learning, language, philosophy and custom. As Gellius occupied himself particularly with the correct use of Latin words and idioms, his illustrations are often of great value. Not only did he transcribe passages from old authors like Ennius, Plautus, Caecilius or Afranius, and discuss points of Virgilian or Ciceronian expression and text, but he recorded critical views held by contemporary rhetoricians like Fronto, Herodes Atticus and Favorinus. In the Attic Nights one never knows on what odd piece of information one may chance. When, for instance, he writes about the perversity of Laberius in inventing bits of doubtful Latinity or in borrowing words from the common speech, Gellius tells us that botulus, a rare name for a sausage which we associate with the modern medical term botulism for certain sorts of food-poisoning, was a vulgar word used instead of the more proper farcimen in one of Laberius’s mimes. All such philological preoccupation was symptomatic of a period of literary decadence, when critics could not see what a miserable substitute for good Latin style was offered by the obscure, ill-sounding and strained language which they were now manufacturing.

The culmination of the elocutio nouella which marked the collapse of the Silver Latin is to be found in the work of the African Platonist and rhetorician Lucius Apuleius, and especially in his Metamorphoses, the fantastic tale relating, not without some prurience, the adventures of his namesake Lucius in Thessaly, the home of witchcraft and the supernatural. The main account of the consequences following the hero’s magical transformation into an ass came from a Greek source; and so did the incidental tales, such as the charming fairy-story of Cupid and Psyche, which the author dovetailed into his narrative. Based thus as its matter was on Greek, the romance is not unaffected by Hellenisms, but its prevailing exuberance follows the new Latin fashion. The short runs of words in a clause seem partly to recall a primitive, partly to anticipate a modern type of prose. The phrasing is unusual, often bizarre: it is a fantastic blend of elaborate archaism and bold innovation—now poetic, now colloquial. The diminutives of the vulgar tongue jostle far-fetched artifices. Such is the general effect that the reader accustomed to normal Latin feels as if he had adventured into a strange land with a strange speech.

There were other contemporary factors which tended to reduce the output of Latin literature. Tranquillity under the good government of the Antonines appeared to be as unpropitious for letters as was the anarchy of the third century. It is significant that there were no fewer than twenty-five Roman emperors between Commodus (180-192) and Diocletian (284-305). Besides, intellect was being diverted into other than purely literary channels. In law, the reigns of Septimius and Alexander Severus are famous for the eminent jurists Papinian and Ulpian. Attention was also devoted to scholarship and criticism. Authorities on metre like Terentianus Maurus, and grammarians or commentators of the third century, had in the fourth many renowned successors like Donatus, Charisius, Diomedes, Servius and Macrobius. Very symptomatic too was the demand in these centuries for epitomes of the more voluminous writers of the past. There is evidence of a definite distaste—from which emperors were not free—for the trouble of reading older and fuller authors; so that epitomators, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, could at least claim to be ministering to culture by their condensed products. How much the epitomes contributed to the disappearance of their originals is a question easier to raise than to settle. Sometimes both original and epitome have come down together, as holds good of Vitruvius. Two abridgements did not kill Valerius Maximus, nor did epitomators and excerptors cause Pliny’s Natural History to be lost. Half of the elder Seneca’s Controuersiae and nearly three and a half decades of Livy survived in spite of being summarized, although sometimes, on the other hand, the abridgement alone has descended to posterity. Justinus, for example, remains, while his foundation Trogus has perished. Here, however, we may be content to conclude that the period was not only as a whole uncreative but that it felt itself unequal to the task of digesting the creations of more fertile times.

The truth is that the most virile thought which now found expression in Latin for some generations was the thought connected with the new faith in Christ, so that henceforth a history of Latin literature must take into account theological and patristic authors. Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer, about the end of the second century, composed in his dialogue Octauius, which opens prettily on the sands at Ostia, a defence of certain aspects, though not the most significant aspects, of the Christian religion. This work was based on older models; but a new manner is coupled unmistakably with new matter in the works which the African Tertullian wrote after his conversion to Christianity. His previous training had been that of an advocate in the law-courts of Carthage; and he now consecrated a fiery eloquence to a fresh cause. The fervid indictment of paganism, in his Apologeticum especially, sounds like a break with classical tradition, because he unsparingly denounces the poetry and philosophy of the Greeks and Romans as a perversion of Holy Writ. His uncompromising Puritanism could spare no admiration for ancient culture. Yet, in spite of this, the break is not absolute. Even among Christian writers two lines of literary influence are discernible. On the one hand Tertullian’s Latin is akin to the African Latinity of Apuleius, and may, with some qualifications, be classed beside the better style of Cyprian, who was bishop of Carthage in the middle of the third century. On the other hand, a more classic tradition is seen not only in the above-mentioned Octauius by Minucius who continued the literary preference of Quintilian for Ciceronian standards, but also in The Institutes of Divinity (Diuinae Institutiones) by Lactantius, who, though a pupil of Arnobius, the author of Aduersus Nationes, departed from his master’s unpolished style in favour of that elegant diction which he cultivated as a professor of rhetoric at Nicomedia late in the third century, and which won him the title of “the Christian Cicero.” His Ciceronianism was merely one of many links between him and the past: he was in reality widely read in classical verse as well as prose, and a poem on the Phoenix in finished elegiacs may well be his. The poetry which Commodianus wrote after his conversion is a deviation from the classical manner, and in its mixture of quantitative with accentual principles marks a step towards medieval versification; but in general the attempts at Christian verse-writing bore little fruit until, about the end of the fourth century, St. Ambrose and Prudentius composed their hymns.

The contemporary prominence of Greek was another indication and contributory cause of the decadence of Latin. The fashion among Romans of composing in Greek and the genius of the actual Greek writers at this epoch, like Plutarch, Arrian and Lucian, helped to throw Latin into the shade as something outworn. Once more history tended to pass into Hellenic hands. Appian, in the time of Antoninus Pius, set himself to compose a Roman history, of which we possess a considerable portion; and later Dion Cassius, a grandson of the rhetorician Dion Chrysostom esteemed by Trajan, conceived the scheme of relating in eighty books the development of Rome from Aeneas’s time to A.D. 229, the year of the author’s return to his native Nicaea. The extant parts form an important, though not infallible, historical document. Greek writers in contact with Rome were never more admired than they were from Flavian to Antonine days. Hadrian’s reign, we have seen, inaugurated what may be fairly called a Hellenic revival; for little of the highest importance had appeared in secular Greek literature from Strabo and Diodorus in Augustan times to Dion Chrysostom and Plutarch. There was now, however, a sort of sophistic renascence of Greek prose, brilliant enough to dazzle contemporaries, which is transmitted from Dion Chrysostom, Lucian and Aristides, the rhetorician who studied under Herodes Atticus, down to Libanius who was Julian’s teacher in the fourth century. It is a movement which had points of contact with Latin writers such as Apuleius; but it laid no firm hold upon the world.

Latin, however, never so lost its vitality as to be wholly supplanted by Greek in the late Silver Age of Hellenism.[1867] Though it may be argued that classical Latin in a sense ended with Suetonius, and though the literary ages which followed the Silver might be named after inferior metal, there were various resuscitations, if only spasmodic, of the classical manner. Mention has already been made of Ciceronian elements in Minucius and Lactantius. Although inferior in execution, some writers at least looked to the old exemplars. The rhetorical panegyrists of the Gallic school in the third century had Pliny’s Panegyricus in their eye; the six authors who composed, professedly under Diocletian and Constantine, the Historia Augusta[1868] were, however feebly, continuing Suetonius’s studies of the Caesars; and the Asiatic Ammianus Marcellinus, though he never attained to mastery over Latin, intended his history of nearly three centuries from the beginning of Nerva’s reign until the death of Valens (96-378) to be a sequel to Tacitus. The last eighteen of his thirty-one books survive to enable us to judge of his obscurity and inflation in manner. Among poets under Diocletian and his successors, the revival of style became more evident; for the lethargy which had fallen on the third century was being thrown off. Even then the Virgilian tradition was plainly at work in the Cynegetica, a didactic poem on hunting by the Carthaginian Nemesianus, and in his bucolic pieces it combined pleasantly with the influence of Calpurnius Siculus. Still more varied classical influences unite in the works of Ausonius of Bordeaux. Whether one looks at his miscellaneous light verse, often amusingly egotistic, or at his renowned description of the river Mosella, written about 370, one finds a great deal that marks him as standing between the two worlds of classicism and romance. Towards the turn of the same century Claudian had come from Alexandria to the imperial court at Milan. In contrast to Ammianus, his use of Greek in early life did not prevent him from gaining wonderful control over the Latin manner. His historical epics revive the Virgilian tradition dear to the poets of the Silver Age; his Rape of Proserpine is reminiscent of Ovid; and his laudatory pieces are under obligations to Statius. Claudian’s patriotism, no less than his style, is only one among many recurrent illustrations of Rome’s power of attracting and remaking the alien. The beneficence of the Roman Empire is the idea underlying his lines:

Rome only takes the vanquished to her breast, Fostering mankind beneath one common name, Like mother, not like mistress: citizens She calls them, bound by ties no distance breaks.[1869]

With him or with the Gaul Rutilius Namatianus the national poetry might be said to close. Namatianus wrote in half-classical diction and half-classical metre at the time when the Empire was splitting up into new kingdoms; and there is a fitting note in his farewell apostrophe to Rome:

Thou mad’st a city what was erst a world. (Urbem fecisti quod prius orbis erat.)

Yet, in another sense, Latin literature does not end either with Claudian or with Namatian: nor does it make much difference whether, with some authorities,[1870] we take Boethius for the last of the ancients, or, with others,[1871] take him for the first medieval Latin writer. Both positions are defensible and instructive. Two events, in particular, may serve to illustrate the continuity of influence, apart from questions of classic quality in style. First, Jerome’s translation into Latin of the Scriptures from Genesis to Acts, which came to be known as The Vulgate, was published in 405. Its Latinity, very different from the Ciceronian, must be recognized as one of the great formative influences on expression during medieval times. Secondly, the sack of Rome in 410 by a host of Goths and Huns under Alaric stimulated Augustine to undertake his work De Ciuitate Dei. No better link between antiquity and the Middle Ages could be discovered. The ideal claim to citizenship in a more abiding state than an earthly one had received a telling confirmation in the barbarians’ triumphant challenge to the power of Rome; and Rome herself was now to become “the Eternal City” rather through the greatness of the universal Church than through that of the Roman Empire.

Latin literature, then, did not close in the fourth or the fifth century; but thenceforward it was no longer national, no longer Roman. Latin became in the Middle Ages European, whether employed by the Venerable Bede, by Isidore of Seville, or by Carolingian scholars like Alcuin and Einhard. Even the birth of modern languages from their parent did not supplant Latin as an international medium for conveying ecclesiastical, legal, historical and philosophical learning: so, following Dante, it came that Petrarca and Boccaccio made use of Latin and Italian indifferently; and not till after the end of the seventeenth century was Latin really shaken in its supremacy as the general language for philosophy and science. That century had seen issued Bacon’s Nouum Organum and De Augmentis Scientiarum in its first quarter and Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in its last quarter.

There can be no more interesting pendant to a literary history of Rome than a glance at later periods when the influence of the best writers acted strongly enough to inspire an artistic use of the Latin language. It must never be forgotten how much the humanism of the Renaissance, vitalized as it was by the rediscovery of Greek culture, included also a revival of Latin studies and of the power to write good Latin. In prose many names rise easily to the mind—among them, Valla and Ficino in Italy, Budaeus and Langolius in France, Erasmus and Grotius in the Low Countries, Sir Thomas More in England and George Buchanan in Scotland. In verse, the various collections of Deliciae drawn from the poets of Italy, France, Holland, Germany, England and Scotland, contain excellent examples of supreme ability to recapture, in fresh circumstances, the manner of the greatest authors of Rome. Other countries may not have had a galaxy of modern Latin poets to compare with the Italians Baptista Mantuan, Poliziano, Bembo, Pontano, Sannazaro, Vida, Fracastoro, Navagero and Flaminio, but there is no mistaking the literary merit of such Latin poems as were written by the Dutch scholars Grotius and Daniel Heinsius or by the Scottish scholars Buchanan and Arthur Johnston. Of England it may be said that, even if Latin poems like those of Milton and Cowley be taken into account, her finest work in Latin verse was yet to come from scholars of the nineteenth century, when in this field she had no equals abroad. While it is true that much of this modern skill consisted in translation or light jeux d’esprit, the elegance and taste shown in composition has borne eloquent testimony to the living literary influence of the best poets of the Gold and Silver Ages of Rome.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Heitland’s contentions in The Roman Fate and Iterum seem, however, unduly to emphasize the want of power in the central government to remedy weaknesses throughout the empire. His views regarding the stagnation resultant upon “the inability of the passive parts to vitalize the whole” are not wholly applicable to the first two centuries from Augustus: see H. M. Last, J.R.S., XV., 1925, Pt. I.

[2] Frank, “Race Mixture in Rom. Emp.,” Amer. Hist. Rev., July, 1916, pp. 689-708. Prof. Frank thinks “perhaps 90 per cent had Oriental blood in their veins.”

[3] E.g. Merivale, Hist. of Romans under the Emp.; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, and Röm. Gesch., vol. v. (The Provinces, Eng. ed.); Schiller, Gesch. der röm. Kaiserzeit; Peter, Geschichtliche Litteratur üb. d. röm. Kaiserzeit (ch. ii. treats influence of rhetoric on history); Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome (from vol. v.); Frank, Rom. Imperialism; Nilsson, Imperial Rome (tr. Richards), 1926; Dessau, Gesch. d. röm. Kaiserzeit, II. i., 1926 (Tiberius to Vitellius); Rostovzeff, Social and Econ. Hist. of Rom. Emp., 1926; Friedländer, Sittengesch. Roms (Eng. tr., Magnus); Dill, Rom. Society, Nero to M. Aurelius, 1905; Tucker, Life in Rom. World of Nero and St. Paul, 1910; Toutain, Les cultes païens dans l’empire romain; Wickhoff, Rom. Art; Mrs. Strong, Rom. Sculpture; Apotheosis and After Life.

[4] For fuller treatment see Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, 1909, pp. 1-6, 166-170.

[5] Suet., Cal., liii.

[6] This is more fully discussed in a separate chapter.

[7] IV. ii. 29: “declamatio forensium actionum meditatio” (μελετή). F. H. Colson, C.R., 1922, pp. 116-117, suggests that declamatio, “loud shouting,” may have originally been a translation of κατήχησις, “dinning into the ears.”

[8] Diog. Laert., VII. 121: εἶναι γὰρ τὸν κυνισμὸν σύντομον ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν ὁδόν.

[9] Epictet., Diss., III. x. 6: τὸ δὲ φιλοσοφῆσαι τί ἔστιν; οὐχὶ παρασκευάσασθαι πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα.

[10] Sen., Epist. Mor., xli. 2.

[11] Tac., Ann., IV. xxxiv.; Juv., V. 36-37:

“Quale coronati Thrasea Heluidiusque bibebant Brutorum et Cassi natalibus.”

[12] Dion Cass., lxvi. 12, says of Helvidius: βασιλείας τε ἀεὶ κατηγόρει καὶ δημοκρατίαν ἐπῄνει.

[13] For prominent figures in opposition throughout the first century, see E. V. Arnold’s Roman Stoicism.

[14] The Stoic test of a man’s worth was character: “we all have the same source: no man is nobler than another, save he who has a more upright character,” Sen., De Ben., iii. 28.

[15] E.g. notare in sense of animaduertere; subinde, “repeatedly” (Fr. souvent); frequenter, “repeatedly”; numerosus, “numerous.”

[16] E.g. Cicero declared the superlative of pius to be un-Latin when used by Mark Antony, Phil. xiii. 43; but Sen. ad Polyb., vii. 4, has piissimis: cf. xv. 4, piissime. Itaque in Cic. is regularly at the beginning of a clause, in Sen. often after one or two words. Proinde, once associated with imperative or subjunctive, comes to be used more and more, without any idea of command or exhortation, as an ordinary inferential word meaning “therefore.” Among noticeable grammatical usages are the new Silver senses given to the fut. part. in -urus.

[17] For useful summaries of representative Silver features, see Furneaux’s Introd. to ed. of Tac., Ann., and Summers’s Introductions to Select Letters of Seneca, 1910, and to Tac. Hist., Bk. III., 1904. Cf. Dräger, Ueb. Syntax u. Stil des Tacitus. For typical features of vocabulary, Paucker, Vorarbeiten zur latein. Sprachgesch., Berl., 1884, zweite Abt.: “Uebersicht des der sogenannten silbernen Latinität eigenthümichen Wörterschatzes.”

[18] E.g. frequent omission of parts of esse; omission of eo, tanto, potius in comparisons, and of utrum or -ne before an.

[19] E.g. ingenia, “men of talent,” “geniuses” (Sen., Ad Helv., xix. 5; Tac., Agric., ii.). The post-Augustan sense of custodiae as “persons under guard,” “prisoners,” in Plin., Ep., X. xix., and Suet., Tib., lxi., Ner., xxxi., Sen., Ep., v. 7, shows a complete change round from a previous extension of its meaning found in Cic., viz. “persons serving as guards,” “sentinels.” Cf. inquisitio, “investigators,” Plin., Ep., X. xxx.; matrimonia, “wives,” Tac., Ann., II. xiii.; amicitia, “friends,” II. xxvii.; consilia, “advisers,” IV. xl.; affinitatibus et amicitiis, “kindred and friends,” Agr., 44; lectiones, “works to be read,” Quint., I.O., X. i. 45.

[20] E.g. “umido paludum,” Tac., Ann., I. lxi.; “lubrico paludum,” ib., lxv: cf. “occulta saltuum,” ib., lxi.; “subiecta uallium,” ib., lxv.

[21] Ad Helv., ii. 4: “nulli tamen non magno constitit etiam bona nouerca.”

[22] Bibliography: Cramer, Gesch. d. Erziehung u. d. Unterrichts im Altertum, 2 vols., Elberf., 1832-1838; Egger, Étude sur l’education ... chez les Romains, Par., 1833; Grasberger, Erziehung u. Unterricht im klass. Altert., 3 vols., Würzb., 1864-1881; Ussing, Darstellung d. Erziehungs- u. Unterrichtswesens bei d. Griechen u. Römern (Germ. tr. from Dan.), Altona, 1870; G. Boissier, art. “Declamatio” in Daremberg-Saglio; L’Instruction publique dans l’emp. rom., in Rev. d. deux Mondes, 1884; Les écoles de déclamation à Rome, ib., Oct., 1902; Monroe, Source-Bk. of Hist. of Educ. for Grk. and Rom. Period, Lond., 1902; Wilkins, Rom. Educ., Camb., 1905; Gwynn, Rom. Educ. (Cic. to Quintilian), Oxf. 1926; Fuller bibliog. in Wight Duff’s art. “Rom. Educ.” in Encyclop. of Religion and Ethics, vol. v., Edinb., 1912.

[23] Plut., Cat. Maj., xx.: αὐτὸς μὲν ἦν γραμματιστής, αὐτὸς δὲ νομοδιδάκτης, αὐτὸς δὲ γυμναστής.

[24] De Ben., III. 11.

[25] Ep., VIII. xiv. 6: “suus cuique parens pro magistro.”

[26] Some of its details are considered in “The Invasion of Hellenism” in Wight Duff’s Lit. Hist. of Rome to Close of Golden Age, pp. 92-117.

[27] Apul., Flor., IV. xx.: “prima cratera litteratoris ruditatem eximit, secunda grammatici doctrina instruit, tertia rhetoris eloquentia armat.”

[28] For instruction in reading, see L. Grasberger, _Erziehung u. Unterricht im klass. Altert._, II., pp. 256-300; writing op. cit., II. 300 sqq.

[29] Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, ed. 2, pp. 97-104; or Fr. tr., La vie privée des Romains, 1892, I. 115-123.

[30] Early in the De Educatione Liberorum, perhaps rightly ascribed to Plutarch, it is laid down δεῖ δὲ (ὡς ἐγὼ ἂν φαίην) αὐτὰς τὰς μητέρας τὰ τέκνα τρέφειν καὶ τούτοις ὑπέχειν τοὺς μαστούς.

[31] Cic., Brut., lviii.: “magni interest quos quisque audiat cotidie domi, quibuscum loquatur a puero, quemadmodum patres, paedagogi, matres etiam loquantur. Legimus epistulas Corneliae, matris Gracchorum; apparet filios non tam in gremio educatos, quam in sermone, matris”; cf. Tac., Agric., iv.: “in huius (i.e. matris) sinu indulgentiaque educatus per omnem honestarum artium cultum pueritiam adulescentiamque transegit.”

[32] Consult “monumenta columbariorum” in C.I.L., VI. 4352, 4457, 6323, 6324, 8941-8943; and the occurrences of “nutrix” and similar words in the Indices to volumes ix. and x. of C.I.L. under “parentelae et necessitudines.”

[33] Inst. Or., I. i. 12.

[34] Suet., De Gram., xv., xvi., xix., xx.

[35] Op. cit., ii.

[36] Op. cit., ix.; xviii.; xxii.

[37] Op. cit., iii.

[38] Op. cit., x.

[39] Op. cit., vii.

[40] E.g. “Grammaticus Graecus,” C.I.L., II. 2236 (Corduba); VI. 9453, 9454; X. 3961 (Capua); “Grammaticus Latinus,” II. 2892 (Tricio in Spain); III. 406 (Thyatira in Asia Minor, ΡΩΜΑΙΚΩ); V. 3433 (Verona), 5278 (Comum); VI. 9455 (Rome); IX. 5545.

[41] Quint., Inst. Or., I. iv.-ix.

[42] Inst. Or., I. iv. 4; I. x.

[43] Cic., De Leg., I. ii.

[44] Inst. Or., I. ix. 6.

[45] Inst. Or., I. viii. 2; VIII. i. 3; XI. iii. 30.

[46] Inst. Or., II. i.

[47] Suet., De Gram., iv.: “ueteres grammatici et rhetoricam docebant.”

[48] Suet., De Gram., iv.: “ne scilicet sicci omnino atque aridi pueri rhetoribus traderentur.”

[49] Declamations were introduced at Rome perhaps by Molon of Rhodes about 84 B.C., as Bornecque thinks (Les Déclamations et Déclamateurs, etc., p. 42).

[50] Juv., X. 114-117; Quint., Inst. Or., II. vii. i.

[51] Inst. Or., II. iv.

[52] Inst. Or., II. iv. 26; cf. Propert., II. xii. (III. iii.).

[53] Inst. Or., II. vii. 1; Juv., vii. 154.

[54] The Roman term given to Greek rhetorical methods is marked by the change of terminology, which indicates a change in practice. The main exercises at first had been called theses, the Greek term (θέσεις) applied to general questions for debate, such as “Ought a man to marry or remain single?” “Is it better to take a share in public life or to mind one’s own affairs?” Then came a business-like development or Roman condescension from general to particular whereby an approach to facts and reality was made in treating “cases” such as those tried before a court; and, appropriately, these exercises were called by a Latin name, causae. Both terms were in use during Cicero’s days, but early in his career there emerged the fashion of declamatio, the scholastic exercise in rhetoric based on but not identical with Greek models; and in course of time we read no longer of theses and causae, but of controuersiae and suasoriae—both, it will be noted, Latin, not Greek terms.

[55] Sen., Suas., i., iii. and vii.; cf. Quint., Inst. Or., III. viii. 16-19, e.g. “Deliberat C. Caesar an perseueret in Germaniam ire,” etc.

[56] Sen., Suas., ii.; Inst. Or., loc. cit.

[57] Juv., I., 15-17.

[58] Juv., VII. 158-164; cf. X. 166-167:

“I demens et saeuas curre per Alpes, Vt pueris placeas et declamatio fias.”

[59] Contr., II. ii. 8-12.

[60] Op. cit.: “libentius dicebat suasorias: molesta illi erat omnis argumentatio.”

[61] De Rhet., i.

[62] This case is similar to CCCXL. in the Quintilianean Declamationes, ed. Ritter, 1884.

[63] Contr., I. i.

[64] Juv., VII. 154.

[65] E.g.: τῶν δὲ πανηγυρικῶν λήρων ὡς ποῤῥωτάτω τοὺς υἱεῖς ἀπάγειν, and later οἱ δ’ αὐτοσχέδιοι τῶν λόγων πολλῆς εὐχερείας καὶ ῥᾳδιουργίας εἰσὶ πλήρεις, and again, σοφὸν γὰρ εὔκαιρος σιγὴ καὶ παντός λόγου κρείττων.

[66] Inst. Or., XII. i. 1. Quintilian insists on the moral excellence essential to great oratory in I. prooem. 9-10; II. ii. (whole section); II. xv. 1.

[67] Inst. Or., II. xxi. 14.

[68] Op. cit., I. prooem. 16; XII. ii. 10; iii.; iv.

[69] Dill, Rom. Soc. from Nero, etc., 1905, p. 372; Mommsen, Provinces of Rom. Emp., Eng. tr., 1886, I., pp. 362-367; cf. Philostr., Apoll. Tyan., i. 7; Vit. Soph., i. 220.

[70] Tac., Agric., iv. 4.; xxi. 2.

[71] Juv., XV. 111-112.

[72] Capitol., M. Ant. Phil., ii.-iii.

[73] Lamprid., Alex. Sev., iii.

[74] Dill, Rom. Soc. in last Cent. of W. Empire, pp. 385-451.

[75] Confess., I. xiii.-xiv.; VII. ix.; VIII. ii.

[76] Suet., Iul., xlii.

[77] Suet., Aug., xlii.; De Gram., xvii.

[78] Euseb., Chron. ad ann. 2104: “Quintilianus ex Hispania Calagurritanus primus Romae publicam scholam et salarium e fisco accepit et claruit.”

[79] Plin., Paneg., xxvi.-xxviii.

[80] Spart., Hadr., xvi.

[81] Capitol., Ant. Pius, xi.: “rhetoribus et philosophis per omnes prouincias et honores et salaria detulit.”

[82] Digest., XXVII. i. 6.

[83] Dio Cass., lxxi. 31, 3 (ed. Bekker); Lucian, Eun., iii.

[84] For a fuller account see Boissier: L’instruction publique dans l’empire romain in Rev. d. deux Mondes, 1884.

[85] Lamprid., Alex. Sev., xliv.

[86] Bibliography: Early editions of elder Seneca were combined with his son’s works: sep. edns., by Faber, Par., 1587; Gronov., Leid., 1649; Bursian, Leipz., 1857; Kiessling, Leipz., 1872 and 1913; H. J. Müller, Vienna, 1887; Bornecque (text with Fr. tr.), 2 vols., Par., 1902.

On Seneca and rhetoric (cf. bibliogr. note on Roman educ.): Chassang, De compta post Ciceronem a declamatoribus eloquentia, diss., Par., 1852; Koerber, Ueber d. Rhetor Sen. u. d. röm. Rhetorik seiner Zeit, diss., Marb., 1864; Tivier, De arte declamandi et de Romanis declamatoribus ... diss., Par., 1868; Sander, Der Sprachgebrauch d. Rhet. Ann. Sen., Berl., 1877; Karsten, De elocutione rhetorica qualis invenitur in Ann. Senecae suas. et contr., Rotterd., 1881; Jullien, Les professeurs d. litter. dans l’anc. Rome ... Par., 1885; Cucheval, L’éloquence rom. depuis la mort de Cicéron ... 2 vols., Par., 1893; Simonds, Themes treated by elder Seneca, diss., Baltim., 1896; Boissier, Les écoles de déclamation à Rome in Rev. d. deux Mondes, Oct., 1902, pp. 481-508 (“Schools of Declam. at Rome” in Tacitus and other Studies, 1906); Bornecque, Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le père, Lille, 1902.

[87] The MSS. give L., which may account for the confusion of his works with those of his more famous son. The argument for M. is not convincing.

[88] Mart., I. lxi. 7-8; Cic., pro Arch., x. 26. In Suas., vi. 27, Seneca calls the Spaniard Sextilius Ena from Corduba “municipem nostrum.”

[89] Tac., Ann., XIV. liii.

[90] Contr., I. praef. 11.

[91] Contr., I. praef. 22.

[92] Acts, xviii.; cf. imaginary portrait of Gallio in Anatole France’s Sur la Pierre Blanche.

[93] Contr., II. ii. 8.

[94] II. iv. 12-13.

[95] IV. praef. 3: “audiui illum et uiridem et postea iam senem.”

[96] Suet., Tib., lxxiii.

[97] Sen., Consol. ad Helv., ii. 4.

[98] Sen., Consol. ad Helv., xvii. 3: “patris mei antiquus rigor.”

[99] Contr., II. iv.; cf. iv. praef. 5: “illi clementissimo uiro” (referring to Augustus).

[100] Contrast X. praef. 5-7 with II. iv. 13: “horum non possum misereri qui tanti putant caput potius quam dictum perdere.”

[101] I. praef. 6: “insolenti Graeciae.”

[102] I. vi. 12: “Glyconis ualde leuis e Graecis (v.l. ‘et Graeca’ uel ‘ut Graeca’) sententia est.” There are commendations of Greeks in I. iv. 11-12, but then Albucius is said to surpass them.

[103] E.g. X. iv. 18 and 23. For Seneca’s Roman preferences cf. praise of a Greek speaker of Roman type, Agroitas from Marseilles (Contr., II. vi. 12); glances at Greek unsavoury realism (I. ii. 22-23); record of Arellius Fuscus’s views about Roman borrowers who improved on Greek originals (IX. i. 13); and Cestius’s views on Cicero’s surpassing “arrogant Greece,” Suas., vii. 10, repeating Seneca’s phrase in Contr., I. praef. 6.

[104] Galdi, L’Epitome nella letteratura latina, 1922, p. 148.

[105] I do not think Schanz has proved his conclusion, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., II. i. § 334: “Die Abfassungszeit der Schrift fällt daher in die ersten Regierungsjahre des Caligula.”

[106] Contr., II. iv. 8: “cum ad suasorias uenero.”

[107] I. praef. 10: “populo dedicabo.”

[108] I. praef. 1: “exigitis rem magis iucundam mihi quam facilem.”

[109] Contr., III. praef. 12-14.

[110] VII. praef. 7: “schema dixi.”

[111] IX. praef. 3.

[112] E.g. Contr., II. i. 34; III. praef. 16; IV. praef. 10 and 11; VII. praef. 4 and 5; VII. iv. 10; IX. v. 15; X. praef. 8.

[113] Contr., III. praef. 16-17.

[114] Satyr., ad init.; Dial. de Or., 35.

[115] Contr., I. vii.

[116] For parallels between subjects in Seneca, the pseudo-Quintilian and Calpurnius Flaccus, see Simonds, Themes Treated by Elder Seneca, pp. 71-81.

[117] Contr., VII. ii. 14, iii. 8; IX. iv. 22.

[118] VII. v. 10.

[119] Suas., ii. 14: ποῖ φεύξεσθε, ὁπλῖται, τείχη;

[120] Contr., X. iv. 2.

[121] Suas., i. 9.

[122] Contr., VI. vii. 2; VII. i. 9, i. 10; Suas., ii. 2.

[123] Suas., i. 2; Contr., VII. i. 26 (in Greek); Suas., ii. 8 (Thermopylae).

[124] Contr., VIII. vi. 3.

[125] Suas., ii. 4.

[126] Contr., X. praef. 13.

[127] Suet., Tib., lxvii.; lxx. (“artes liberales utriusque generis studiosissime coluit”); ib., lxxi.; Dom. xx.; Sen., Suas., iii. 7.

[128] Ann., IV. xxxi.; XIII. iii.

[129] Suet., Cal., xxxiv. and liii.

[130] Suet., Claud., xli.; Tac., Ann., XI. xiv.; Quint., I. Or., I. vii. 26.

[131] Plin., N.H., VII. 8 (46); Tac., Ann., IV. liii.

[132] Sen., Contr., X. praef. 12.

[133] Sen., Contr., I. iii. 11; II. i. 33.

[134] Tac., Ann., IV. lxi.; Sen., Contr., IV. praef. 7: “sufflaminandus est.”

[135] I. Or., X. i. 24: “nobis pueris insignes Pro Voluseno Catulo Domitii Afri, Crispi Passieni, D. Laelii orationes ferebantur.”

[136] Suet., Cal., xvi.: “Titi Labieni, Cordi Cremuti, Cassi Seueri scripta SCsultis abolita requiri et esse in manibus lectitarique permisit.”

[137] Sen., Contr., X. praef. 4-5 and 7.

[138] Tac., Ann., I. lxxii.; IV. xxi.; Sen., Contr., III. praef.

[139] Tac., Dial., xiii.; Ann., IV. lii. and lxvi.; Plin., Ep., II. xiv. 10; Quint., I. Or., V. vii. 7; VIII. v. 16; IX. ii. 20, iii. 66, iv. 31; X. i. 24 and 118.

[140] Text: Aldus Manutius, Ven., 1534; Pighius, Antw., 1567; Thysius, Leyd., 1655; Torrenius, c. nott. variorum (good index), Leyd., 1726; Kempf, Berl., 1854, Lpz., 1888 (Nouae Quaest. Val., Berl., 1866). The 2-vol. ed. published Argent., 1806, gives list of edns. and of trans. (several in French and German; one in English, by Speed, 1678) up to beginning of 19th cent.

[141] De Historicis Latinis, prefixed to many editions of Valerius.

[142] Gell., N.A., XII. vii.; “Scripta haec historia est in libro Valerii Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium octauo” (i.e. Val. Max., VIII. i., sub fin.).

[143] Val. Max., II. vi. 8: “Asiam cum Sex. Pompeio petens Iulida oppidum intraui.” Cf. IV. vii. ext. 2: “Pompeium meum ... a quo omnium incrementa commodorum ultro oblata cepi ... qui studia nostra ductu et auspiciis suis lucidiora et alacriora reddidit.”

[144] Ex Ponto, IV. i. and v. For Pompeius as speaker, cf. Ex Pont., IV. iv. 37 (“facundo ore”); Val. Max., II. vi. 8 (“facundissimo sermone”); Tac., Ann., III. xi.

[145] I. v. 7, viii. 8; VI. iv. 5; cf. proceedings taken by creatures of Sejanus in A.D. 25 against Cremutius Cordus for having praised Brutus and Cassius, Tac., Ann., IV. xxxiv.

[146] VI. i. praef.; IX. xi. ext. 4.

[147] I. praef.: “Te igitur huic coepto, penes quem hominum deorumque consensus maris ac terrae regimen esse uoluit, certissima salus patriae, Caesar, inuoco: cuius caelesti prouidentia uirtutes, de quibus dicturus sum, benignissime fouentur, uitia seuerissime uindicantur.” H. Peter, Die Geschichtliche Lit. über d. röm. Kaiserzeit, 1897, I. p. 15, gives the date “zwischen den Jahren 29 und 32 n. Chr.”

[148] I. praef. “... ab illustribus electa auctoribus digerere constitui, ut documenta sumere uolentibus longae inquisitionis labor absit.”

[149] Some subjects are especially Roman, e.g. II. i., De Matrimoniorum Ritu, or VII. v., De Repulsis. It is inaccurate to say that “each chapter” has the section on externa, as is alleged in Teuffel, Gesch. Röm. Lit., § 279, 2.

[150] IV. i. 12; cf. VI. iv., ad init.: “ex abundanti copia nec parca nimis nec rursus auida manu.”

[151] III. viii. ext. 1.

[152] III. vii. 11: “ut ab eo decentius ad externa transeamus, producatur in medium”; cf. transition from “bona fiducia” to “constantia,” III. viii., ad init.; and from praises of poverty to “uerecundia,” IV. v. ad init.

[153] IV. i. 15.

[154] II. ii. 2.

[155] II. ii. 3.

[156] II. ii. 1: “Fidum erat et altum reipublicae pectus Curia, silentiique salubritate munitum et uallatum undique: cuius limen intrantes, abiecta priuata caritate, publicam induebant.”

[157] II. vii., ad init.

[158] II. vii. 6.

[159] II. viii., ad init.

[160] IV. viii. 4.

[161] V. i. 1.

[162] VI. v., ad init.

[163] I. viii. ext. 19. For sources see Krieger, Quibus fontibus Val. Max. usus sit ... Berl., 1888; Traube in Sitzungsberichte d. kais. bayerisch. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Münch., 1891. Klotz., Herm., XLIV. 2, gives 41 anecdotes as common to Val. Max. and Seneca, which he believes came from a book of “Exempla” derived (possibly by Hyginus) from Livy, Antipater, Cato, etc.

[164] In Teuffel, op. cit., § 279, 3, it is erroneously said that Cicero is “likewise mentioned only once” (i.e. VIII. xiii. ext. 1); but see VIII. x. 3 and other passages.

[165] III. ii. 24: “Nisi ea certi auctores, inter quos M. Varro, monimentis suis testata esse uoluissent”; cf. II. ii. 6, which may be based on Varro’s information “de senaculis” in his De Vita Populi Romani; cf. Varro, Ling. Lat., V. § 156 (Müll.).

[166] For Trogus as utilized by Val. Max., see R. B. Steele, Amer. Jrnl. Philol., xxxviii. 1, 1917.

[167] II. iv. 4.; III. vii. 11; I. vii. 6; IV. iv., ad init.; IV. iv. 11.

[168] VIII. i. 2.

[169] III. iv. 6.

[170] Galdi, L’Epitome nella lett. lat., 1922, pp. 128-140.

[171] Teuffel, op. cit., § 279, 10; cf. Galdi, op. cit., pp. 141-144.

[172] Niebuhr, Lects. on Hist. of Rome, ed. Schmitz, 1849, vol. ii., p. 93.

[173] Teuffel, op. cit., § 279, 5.

[174] Val. Max., I. vi. 12.

[175] I. viii. 7: “nostrum sit inclutis literarum monimentis consecrata perinde ac uana non refugisse.”

[176] III. viii. 3: “furialis fax tribunicia.”

[177] IV. i. 8; IV. vii. 1.

[178] VIII. x. 1.

[179] II. ix. 6.

[180] E.g. II. i., ad init.; cf. V. v. 3.

[181] II. i. 10.

[182] I. vi. 13.

[183] VI. ix. 15: “C. Caesar cuius uirtutes aditum sibi in caelum struxerunt.... Parua igitur summa clarissimum mundi sidus in piratico myoparone rependi Fortuna uoluit”; and, on Julius’s care to fall with decency before his assassins, IV. v. 6: “in hunc modum non homines exspirant, sed dii immortales sedes suas repetunt”; cf. VIII. ix. 3; IX. xv. 2.

[184] E.g. IX. xv. 6: “a Sullana uiolentia Caesariana aequitas reduxit gubernacula Romani imperii.”

[185] I. vii. 2.

[186] I. vii. 1: “diui Augusti sacratissima memoria”; IV. vii. 7; IX. xv. 3.

[187] VIII. xv., ad init. In II. viii. 7: “qua postes Augustae domus sempiterna gloria triumphant,” the allusion is to the old oak near Julius’s house which furnished the wreath conferred for saving a citizen’s life.

[188] VI. i., ad init.: “Tu (sc. Pudicitia) palatii columen, augustos penates sanctissimumque Iuliae genialem torum assidua statione celebras”: the reading “Iuliae gentis” does not greatly mend matters.

[189] H. Peter, op. cit., I. pp. 15-16: “indem er die effektvollere Überlieferung auswählt, selbst dann, wenn sein Gewährsmann (Livius) schon Zweifel an ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit angedeutet hatte, ferner selbstständig die Pointe möglichst zuspitzt und dabei sich nicht scheut, wissentlich von der Wahrheit abzuweichen, die obendrein noch durch seine Oberflächlichkeit, seinen Leichtsinn und seine Gewissenlosigkeit schwer geschädigt wird; zahllose Anachronismen und Fehler hat er in die Erzählung hineingetragen.” Cf. Kempf, Prolegg., pp. 26-34; Köhler, Qua ratione Liuii annal. usi sint historici, pp. 13, 21, sqq.

[190] II. ix., ad init.

[191] II. ix. 4.

[192] IV. iv. 7.

[193] IX. i. 3.

[194] IX. i. 5.

[195] IV, iv., ad init.; IX. i. 2.

[196] II. vii. 10 and 15.

[197] III. ii. ext. 6.

[198] IX. iii., ad init.

[199] III. iii. 1; the “militia” is illustrated by examples of “patientia” which follow, III. iii, 2-4.

[200] V. vi., ad init.

[201] VI. ix. ext. 7: “Caduca nimium et fragilia, puerilibusque consentanea crepundiis sunt ista quae uires atque opes humanae uocantur. Affluunt subito, repente dilabuntur: nullo in loco, nulla in persona stabilibus nixa radicibus consistunt; sed incertissimo flatu fortunae huc atque illuc acta, quos sublime extulerunt, improuiso recursu destitutos, profundo cladium miserabiliter immergunt. Itaque neque existimari neque dici debent bona, quae inflictorum malorum amaritudinem desiderio sui duplicant.”

[202] II. vii. 5: “non digna exempla quae tam breuiter, nisi maioribus urgerer, referrentur.”

[203] Cf. Val. Max., VII. iii. 1, with Livy, I. xlv.

[204] I. vi. ext. 2.

[205] II. vii. 6; ib., 8.

[206] II. x. 3: “Bis enim te, Paulle, Macedonia urbi nostrae illustrem ostendit: incolumem, spoliis suis; fato functum, humeris!”

[207] IV. iv. 11.

[208] III. vii. ext. 1; cf. II. vii., ad init.: “militaris disciplinae tenacissimum uinculum in cuius sinu ac tutela serenus tranquillusque beatae pacis status acquiescat.”

[209] III. v. 1. Other typical metaphors are: IV. vii. ext. 2, “infulis misericordiae permulseris”; VIII. v. 4, “quae decora civitatis umbone iudiciali repulsa sunt”; IX. ii. 1, “Sulla ... omnes Italiae partes sanguinis fluminibus inundauit”; IX. iii., ad init., “Ira quoque et odium in pectoribus humanis magnos fluctus excitant.”

[210] VI. ix. ext. 5.

[211] III. ii. ext. 6 and 9.

[212] III. vii. 11; VI. i. 2.

[213] Cf. VIII. i. 7: “uictoriam in ipsa uictoria perdidit”; IX. i. 6: “eodem tempore et in iisdem penatibus diuersa saecula habitarunt, frugalissimum alterum, alterum nequissimum.”

[214] II. vii. 9.

[215] III. ii. 14; cf. V. iii. 2, VII. vii. 1 (“togatam militiam”).

[216] Prolog. to Bk. I.

[217] II. iii. 1.

[218] VI. vi. 1.

[219] IX. i. 3: “uiros in hoc priscae continentiae ignotum deuerticulum prolapsos.” Cf. IV. iii. 14: “quae quidem tam misericors continentia plebis tacitum crudelium conuitium fuit”; IV. vii. 6: “fideli mendacio obscuritate ipsa suffragante, Brutum se esse simulauit.”

[220] Sugillare (“beat black and blue,” hence “insult”), III. ii. ext. 1; VII. v. 5 and viii. 9; Liv., IV. xxxv.; Sugillatio, II. iii. 1; VI. ix. 12; IX. ii., ad init.; Liv., XLIII. xiv.

[221] Wight Duff, A Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age, 1909, pp. 659-662.

[222] III. ii. 24: “numerosa donorum pompa”; II. ix. 1: “posteritati numerosae.”

[223] III. viii. 1: “persuasam”; V. ix. 4: “persuasus.”

[224] E.g. V. x. 3: “orationi meae uagari permittam”; VII. i., ad init.: “malignitatis obliuisci sibi imperauit”; IX. i. 3: “uehi permittebat.” Cf. IX. i. 4, “quas imbecillitas ... studium ad cultum hortatur conferre.” Usages like Quintilian’s familiar “fere solus legi dignus” (Inst. Or., X. i. 96) are already in vogue: e.g. II. ix. 1: “puniri dignos.”

[225] Tac., Ann., IV. xxxiv.-v.; see also chapter on “Elder Seneca,” p. 63.

[226] Sen., Suas., vi. 18 and 23; Younger Sen., Ep., XXX. 1; Quint., I. Or., X. i. 103; Plin., N.H., praef. 20; VI. (10) 27.

[227] Teuffel, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., § 291, 1.

[228] The praenomen “Gaius” of the editio princeps is supported (in preference to P. or M.) by the identification of the historian with the individual named on a milestone in North Africa, “C. Velleio Paterculo leg(ato) Aug(usti) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae),” C.I.L., VIII. 10311. See Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit., § 278, n. 1.

[229] Text: ed. princeps, Bâle, 1520; Orelli, 1835; Kritz (rec., annot. et indd. instruxit), 1840; Halm (app. crit. adiecto), 1876; Ellis (ex Amerbachii praecipue apographo ed. et emend.), 1898 (rev. by Warde Fowler, C.R., XIII. pp. 316 sqq.). Rockwood, ed. Bk. II. xli.-cxxxi., 1900 (Civil War and reigns of Augustus and Tiberius w. introd.; noticed C.R., X. 58). On style: Oestling, De elocutione Vell., 1874; Fritsch, Über d. Sprachgebr. des Vell., 1876; Georges, De elocutione Vell., 1877; Lange, Zum Sprachgebr. des Vell., 1878. On historical value: Morgenstern, De fide historica V.P., imprimis de adulatione ei obiecta, 1798; Speckert, De la sincérité de V.P., 1848; Pernice, De V. fide historica, 1862; Stanger, De V. fide, 1863; Windheuser, De V. fide ad Tiberii mores, 1867; De Oppen, De M. Vell., 1875; Goeke, De Vell. Tiberii imagine, 1876.

[230] Vell., II. cxi. 3.

[231] II. cxxiv. 4.

[232] Vell., II. xvi. 2; Liv., XXIII. vii.-x.

[233] II. lxxvi.: “Quod alieno testimonium redderem, eo non fraudabo auum meum.”

[234] II. civ. 3.

[235] II. lxix. 5.

[236] II. cxv. 1; cxxi. 3; cxxiv. 4.

[237] I. v., vii.; II. ix., xxxvi., lxvi.

[238] II. ci. 3.

[239] II. ci. 2: “quod spectaculum stantis ex diuerso, hinc Romani, illinc Parthorum exercitus, cum duo inter se eminentissima imperiorum et hominum coirent capita, perquam clarum et memorabile sub initia stipendiorum meorum tribuno militum mihi uisere contigit.”

[240] II. ci. 3: “... haud iniucunda tot rerum, locorum, gentium, urbium recordatione perfruor.”

[241] II. lxxxii. 4, sub fin.

[242] II. lxxxiii. 2: “caeruleatus et nudus caputque redimitus arundine et caudam trahens, genibus innixus.”

[243] II. civ. 3: “Hoc tempus (i.e. A.D. 4) me, functum ante tribunatu, castrorum Ti. Caesaris militem fecit; quippe protinus ab adoptione missus cum eo praefectus equitum in Germaniam, successor officii patris mei, caelestissimorum eius operum per annos continuos †VIII praefectus aut legatus spectator, tum pro captu mediocritatis meae adiutor fui.”

[244] II. civ. 3; II. cxi. 3.

[245] II. cxi. 4: “Quas non primo anno acies hostium uidimus!” It was Burman who inserted “non” for nos. Heinsius’s conjecture of “fudimus” is rejected by Kritz, who thinks it was approved “sine iusta caussa” by Krause, Orelli and others.

[246] II. cxiv.-cxv.

[247] II. cxx. 5: “perpetuus patronus Romani imperi adsuetam sibi causam suscipit.”

[248] II. cxxx. 5: “cuius temporis aegritudinem auxit amissa mater, eminentissima et per omnia deis quam hominibus similior femina.”

[249] II. cxxvii.-cxxviii.

[250] I. xiv.

[251] I. xvi. 1: “intellego mihi in hac tam praecipiti festinatione, quae me rotae proniue gurgitis (ac uerticis) modo nusquam patitur consistere, paene magis necessaria praetereunda quam superuacua amplectenda.”

[252] II. xxix. 2.

[253] II. xli. 1.

[254] II. xlviii. 5.

[255] II. lv.; “admonet promissae breuitatis fides quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint.”

[256] II. lxxxvi.: “in hoc transcursu tam artati operis.”

[257] II. lxxxix.: “ne in operis quidem iusti materia, nedum huius tam recisi digne exprimi potest.”

[258] II. xcvi.: “alio loco explicabimus, hoc opus seruet formam suam.”

[259] II. xcix. ... “iusto seruemus operi ... in hoc transcursu dicendum est.”

[260] II. ciii. 4, cf. cxiv., cxix. 1.

[261] II. cxxiv.: “neque mihi tam festinanti exprimere uacat neque cui uacat potest.”

[262] E.g. fondness for the epithet caelestis, II. lx.: “spreuit itaque caelestis animus humana consilia”; II. lxiv.: “fulgentissimo et caelesti ore” (of Cicero); lxvi.: “caelestissimi oris” (of Cicero again); civ.: “caelestissimorum eius operum” (of Tiberius); cxxiii.: “animam caelestem deo reddidit” (of Augustus); or such recurrences as “mihi contigit” in II. ci. 2, cxxi. 2, cxxiv. 4.

[263] Teuffel, op. cit., § 278, n. 1.

[264] I. vii.: “pace diligentiae Catonis dixerim.”

[265] II. xvi. 3, xxv. 4, xlviii. 5, lix. 1 (reading praeuenit).

[266] Wight Duff, op. cit., pp. 86, 423-426, 636-637.

[267] I. xiv.-xv., xvii.; II. ix., xxxvi., xxxviii., lxxxix.

[268] Gracchi, II. iii., vi.-vii.; Marius, II. xi.; Manilius, II. xxxiii.

[269] Cato, II. xxxv.; Octavius’s birth, II. xxxvi.; Julius Caesar, II. xxxix.; Tiberius as soldier, II. xciv.-xcvii., civ.-cxv., cxx.-cxxii. (for his praises, esp. xciv., xcix., cxi., cxiii.-cxv., cxx., cxxii., cxxiv., cxxix.-cxxx.); Sejanus, II. cxxvii.

[270] Wight Duff, Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age, pp. 661-662.

[271] II. xli. 1-2; cf. the clumsiness of structure in I. xii. 4-5, “bellum ... clementiae” with a characteristically awkward parenthesis; II. ii. 1-3, “quippe ... iuuenem”; and elsewhere passim.

[272] II. lxvi. 3: “nihil tamen egisti, M. Antoni (cogit enim excedere propositi formam operis erumpens animo ac pectore indignatio), nihil, inquam, egisti mercedem caelestissimi oris et clarissimi capitis abscisi numerando auctoramentoque funebri ad conseruatoris quondam rei publicae tantique consulis inritando necem. rapuisti tum Ciceroni lucem sollicitam et aetatem senilem et uitam miseriorem te principe quam sub te triumuiro mortem, famam uero gloriamque factorum atque dictorum adeo non abstulisti ut auxeris. uiuit uiuetque per omnem saeculorum memoriam dumque hoc uel forte uel prouidentia uel utcumque constitutum rerum naturae corpus, quod ille paene solus Romanorum animo uidit, ingenio complexus est, eloquentia inluminauit, manebit incolume, comitem aeui sui laudem Ciceronis trahet omnisque posteritas illius in te scripta mirabitur, tuum in eum factum exsecrabitur.” For rhetorical interrogations, see II. liii. 2.

[273] E.g. II. xxiii. 1 (of Marius): “uir in bello hostibus, in otio ciuibus infestissimus quietisque impatientissimus.” The usual plethora of superlatives is well exemplified in II. xxix (character of Pompey).

[274] For the palpable “desire of Velleius Paterculus to write for the sake of fine writing and to improve upon the diction of the Ciceronian era,” see art. by Sihler, Transactions Amer. Philol. Assoc., 1894, vol. xxv.

[275] II. iv.

[276] II. xxvi.

[277] II. xlix.

[278] Luc., Phars., I. 129-157.

[279] II. lxxii., lxxxv.

[280] II. xix., ad fin.

[281] II. xxii.

[282] II. xxxv., ad fin.

[283] II. lxxiii., lxxxviii.

[284] Wight Duff, op. cit., pp. 413-414.

[285] I. xvii. 5; ib., 6; ib., 7; II. iii. 4, xxx. 3, lxxii. 5, lxxviii. 2, cxxvii. 2.

[286] II. lvii.: “Sed profecto ineluctabilis fatorum uis, cuiuscumque fortunam mutare constituit, consilia corrumpit”; cf. II. cxviii.: “ita se res habet, ut plerumque cui fortunam mutaturus est deus, consilia corrumpat.” It is the spirit of the later proverb, quem Iuppiter uult perdere prius dementat.

[287] I. xi., Metellus, who built the first marble temple at Rome, “uel magnificentiae uel luxuriae princeps fuit.” In I. xv. Velleius sympathizes with the opposition of “Puritans” like the consul Scipio to the completion of a theatre by Cassius, the censor, at Rome.

[288] II. xxx., xliv.

[289] Teuffel, op. cit., § 278: “Für den inneren Zusammenhang der Dinge hat er kein Verstandnis, seine Teilnahme gilt den Personen.”

[290] I. xiv. 1: “cum facilius cuiusque rei in unum contracta species quam diuisa temporibus oculis animisque inhaereat....”

[291] II. cxvi. 3: “utinam non maioribus experimentis testatum esset, quantum in omni re fortuna posset!”

[292] II. cxvi. 5: “neque enim iustus sine mendacio candor apud bonos crimini est.”

[293] See remarks on Drusus, II. xcvii., and rapturous exclamations on Tiberius, II. cxi.

[294] I. xi., xiii.

[295] I. xiii. 4 ... “iuberet praedici conducentibus, si eas perdidissent, nouas eos reddituros.”

[296] II. xxviii., xciv., sub fin.: “semper magnae fortunae comes adest adulatio.”

[297] II. xxxix.

[298] II. lxxv.

[299] II. xciv.: “Ti. Claudius Nero ... innutritus caelestium praeceptorum disciplinis, iuuenis genere, forma, celsitudine corporis, optimis studiis maximoque ingenio instructissimus, qui protinus, quantus est, sperari potuerat uisuque praetulerat principem.”

[300] II. xciv.-xcviii., civ.-cxv., cxx.-cxxii.

[301] II. civ. 4: “At uero militum conspectu eius elicitae gaudio lacrimae alacritasque et salutationis noua quaedam exultatio et contingendi manum cupiditas non continentium protinus quin adicerent, ‘uidemus te, imperator? Saluum recipimus?’ ac deinde ‘ego tecum, imperator, in Armenia, ego in Raetia fui, ego a te in Vindelicis, ego in Pannonia, ego in Germania donatus sum,’ neque uerbis exprimi et fortasse uix mereri fidem potest.”

[302] II. cvii.

[303] II. cxiv., cxv.

[304] II. xcix., c., ciii., cxxiv.

[305] II. cxxvi. The passage has genuine interest for the claims made on behalf of imperial government.

[306] II. cxxix. 2–cxxx. 2.

[307] II. xxxvi. (on Augustus), lxxxix. (on Augustan régime).

[308] II. cxxxi.

[309] Bibliography. Edns.: Erasmus, 1518; Freinsheim, Strasb., 1648; c. not. varior. (Elzev.) Amst., 1664; Mützell (mit krit. u. exeget. Anm.), Berl., 1841; Zumpt (recens. et comment. instr.), Brunsv., 1849; Hedicke, Berl., 1867; Vogel (Teub.), Leipz., 1904.

First Eng. trans, by Brende, Lond., 1553, followed by those of Codrington, 1652; Digby, 1714; Pratt, 1809 and 1821. French trans, by Vaugelas in Firmin Didot edn. (Nisard, 1847), with Du Ryer’s Fr. version of Freinsheim’s supplements for the missing bks., I. and II. Cf. Dosson, Étude sur Quinte Curce, 1887.

[310] Furneaux, on Tac., Ann., xi. 20, thinks it probable Curtius Rufus was father of the historian.

[311] Tac., Ann., XI. 21; Plin., Ep., VII. xxvii. 2-3.

[312] Curt. VIII. v. 6: “adulatio, perpetuum malum regum, quorum opes saepius adsentatio quam hostis euertit.”

[313] IV. iv. 21: “longa pace cuncta refouente ...”; X. ix. 3-4: “nouum sidus inluxit: huius, hercule, non solis ortus lucem caliganti reddidit mundo.”

[314] Hosius, Rh. Mus. xlviii. p. 303 sqq., on Lucan u. seine Quellen endeavours to suggest, on ground of analogies in description and resemblances in expression, that Lucan used Curtius. If proved, this would clearly bear on his date. But Hosius’s theory is examined and rejected, I think convincingly, by R. Pichon in Les Sources de Lucain, 1912, pp. 254-261.

[315] Liv., IX. xvii.-xix.

[316] Sen., Suas., i.

[317] IX. v. 21: “Ptolemaeum qui postea regnauit, huic pugnae adfuisse auctor est Clitarchus et Timegenes: sed ipse ... afuisse se ... memoriae tradidit.” IX. viii. 15, on number of Indians slain: “Clitarchus est auctor.”

[318] Diod. Sic., II. vii. (96): ὡς δὲ Κλείταρχος, καὶ τῶν ὕστερον μετ’ Ἀλεξάνδρου διαβάντων εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν τινὲς ἀνέγραψαν: cf. Strab., XI. v. 4, where Clitarchus’s statement regarding the Amazon queen who visited Alexander and his record of a geographical distance in stades from the Caspian do not prove his participation in the expedition.

[319] Cic., de Leg., I. ii. 7: “quem (Clitarchum) si assequi posset aliquantum tamen ab optimo abesset.” Cf. Quint., I. Or., X. i. 75: “Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur.”

[320] F. Reuss, in Rh. Mus., xxvii. 4 (1902), maintains that Clitarchus lived about 260 B.C. and must have used Aristobulus; objects to the hypothesis of a history of Alexander by Timagenes; and ascribes the agreement in the account of the campaigns by Strabo, Plutarch and Arrian to a common source in the writings of Eratosthenes.

[321] IX. i. 34: “equidem plura transcribo quam credo: nam nec adfirmare sustineo de quibus dubito, nec subducere quae accepi.”

[322] VII. viii.

[323] X. ix. 3.

[324] III. vi. 17-20: “Namque haud facile dictu est, praeter ingenitam illi genti erga reges suos venerationem, quantum huius utique regis uel admirationi dediti fuerint uel caritate flagrauerint. Iam primum nihil sine diuina ope aggredi uidebatur: nam cum praesto esset ubique fortuna, temeritas in gloriam cesserat. Aetas quoque uix tantis matura rebus, sed abunde sufficiens, omnia eius opera honestabat et, quae leuiora haberi solent, plerumque militari gratiora uolgo sunt: exercitatio corporis inter ipsos, cultus habitusque paulum a priuato abhorrens, militaris uigor: quibus ille uel ingeni dotibus uel animi artibus ut pariter carus ac uenerandus esset effecerat.”

[325] The conception deserves comparison with Florus’s view of the Roman Empire as the outcome of a struggle between fortune and virtue.

[326] V. xi. 10: “eludant me licet quibus forte temere humana negotia uolui agique persuasum est: equidem fato crediderim nexuque causarum latentium et multo ante destinatarum suum quemque ordinem immutabili lege percurrere.”

[327] For these four types of clausulae De Groot, Der Antike Prosarhythmus, 1921, gives, over a number of observed instances, the following percentages—31, 15, 12 and 8.

[328] Text: Almeloveen (not. varr.), 1687; Targa (Patav.), 1769, (Veron.) 1810; Milligan (index), ed. 2, 1831; Daremberg, Lpz., 1859 (ed. 2, 1891). Translations: Lee (Lat. and Eng.), 2 vols., 1831-1836; Nisard (Lat. and French), 1877. See also Ilberg, A. Corn. Celsus u. die Medizin in Rom (aus dem XIX. Bande der Neuen Jahrbücher für d. Klass. Altert.), Lpz., 1907.

[329] E.g. Col., I. i. 14.; III. xvii. 4; Plin., N.H., XIV. ii. (v.), xxxiii.: “Graecinus qui alioqui Cornelium Celsum transcripsit.” The praenomen has the authority of MS. headings of the De Medicina.

[330] Col., III. xvii. 4: “Iulius Atticus et Cornelius Celsus, aetatis nostrae celeberrimi auctores, patrem atque filium Sasernam secuti.”

[331] Teuffel, op. cit., § 280, 4; 283, 4. Cichorius, Röm. Studien, 1922, pp. 411-417, examines Pliny’s citations and argues that the agricultural portion of Celsus was written A.D. 25-26, and the medical portion soon after.

[332] IV. iv. 1: “quamuis in monumentis medicorum non legerim”; cf. Teuffel, op. cit., § 294, 2.

[333] Wight Duff, A Literary Hist. of Rome, ed. 2, 1910, pp. 262 sqq. and 332 sqq.

[334] There were five books on agriculture, Col., I. i. 14; and, if he is the Celsus mentioned by the scholiast to Juv., vi. 245, there were seven books on rhetoric (“Celso: oratori illius temporis qui septem libros Institutionum scriptos reliquit”). His work on philosophy was in six books, Augustin., De haeresibus (Migne, Patrolog., tom. xlii., 1861, p. 23), “opiniones omnium philosophorum ... sex non paruis uoluminibus quidam Celsus absoluit.”

[335] Veget., De re mil., i. 8; Lyd., De mag., i. 47; iii. 33: καὶ συγγραφὴν περὶ τούτου μονήρη Κέλσος, ὁ Ῥωμαῖος τακτικὸς, ἀπολέλοιπε, and 34.

[336] Aug., loc. cit. “nec redarguit aliquem, sed tantum quid sentirent (v.l., sentiret) aperuit”; contrast Quint., Inst. Or., X. i. 124: “scripsit non parum multa Cornelius Celsus, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore.”

[337] I. Or., XII. xi. 24: “Cum etiam Cornelius Celsus, mediocri uir ingenio, non solum de his omnibus conscripserit artibus sed amplius rei militaris et rusticae et medicinae praecepta reliquerit”; cf. II. xv. 22 and 32; VIII. iii. 35: “neque enim accedo Celso qui ab oratore uerba fingi uetat.”

[338] In Cels., V. xxviii. 16, the mention of a prescription, “as already recommended in case of cattle,” proves the agricultural portion preceded. The opening of the preface to what is now Bk. I. suggests that “Agriculture” immediately preceded, “ut alimenta sanis corporibus agricultura, sic sanitatem aegris medicina promittit.” This is confirmed by headings in many MSS., “Celsi artium liber VI., idem medicinae I.”; cf. Col., I. i., xiv.

[339] II. praef., ad init.: “non dubitabo auctoritate antiquorum uirorum uti, maximeque Hippocratis”; cf. II. xiv., VIII. iv. Rhodius, in a rambling Vita prefixed to Almeloveen’s ed., records the nickname “Hippocratis simiam.”

[340] IV. iv.: “Asclepiades ... auctor bonus”; ibid. infra for Asclepiades and Erasistratus on hemorrhage; I. iii.: “in eo uolumine quod de tuenda sanitate composuit”; II. xiv., ad init.: “in eo uolumine quod communium auxiliorum inscripsit”; Cf. III. xiv. and V. praef.

[341] E.g. III. iv.: “Commodeque Erasistratus dixit ....”; IV. xxiv., sub fin.; V. praef., etc.

[342] V. xviii. is a good example.

[343] E.g. II. i. (consumption): “labes quam Graeci φθίσιν nominant” ib. (paralysis): “resolutio neruorum, παράλυσιν Graeci nominant.”

[344] I. Or., IX. i. 18: “Cornelius tamen Celsus adicit ... figuras colorum, nimia profecto nouitatis cupiditate ductus.”

[345] E.g. I. praef.: “Themison nuper ipse quoque quaedam in senectute deflexit”; III. iv. (on food in fevers): “At Themison nuper, non quando coepisset febris, sed quando desisset ... considerabat”; ib.: “Neque tamen uerum est quod Themisoni uidebatur”; cf. IV. xv. (cure for dysentery).

[346] I. praef.: “ingeniosissimus saeculi nostri medicus, quem nuper uidimus, Cassius”; IV. xiv.: “Est etiam medicamentum eius rei causa comparatum, quod κωλικὸν nominatur: id se repperisse Cassius gloriabatur.”

[347] E.g. II. xii., decreased use of injections; II. x., ad init., increased use of blood-letting.

[348] II. xvii.: “quarumdam naturalium sudationum ubi terra profusus calidus uapor aedificio includitur sicut super Baias in myrtetis habemus.”

[349] III. xi., sub fin.: “Ego tum hoc puto tentandum”; III. xxiv.: “Ego utique,” after citing Asclepiades and others on jaundice; III. xxi., a treatment of dropsy introduced by Tharrias is “still observed by many, I see” (“seruatum esse a pluribus, uideo”). In VII. xii. 4 he cites a case known to him of an ineffective operation upon a tongue-tied patient (“Ego autem cognoui qui, succisa lingua,” etc.), and in VII. vii. 6 he says of a certain eye-operation that he remembers no successful case (“ego sic restitutum esse neminem memini”).

[350] II. x.: “quod si uehemens febris urget, in ipso impetu eius sanguinem mittere, hominem iugulare est.”

[351] I. praef.: “siquidem haec duo (desidia et luxuria) corpora, prius in Graecia, deinde apud nos afflixerunt.”

[352] II. i. (autumn); I. x. (“meridianus somnus”); VII. v. 2 (surgical treatment of arrow-wounds); I. ii., iv., vii., viii. (“clara lectio,” “clare legere,” “uoce contendere”).

[353] I. praef.: “Verique simile est ... non ideo quidem medicos fuisse, uerum ideo quoque maiores medicos exstitisse.”

[354] His language (loc. cit.) pointedly suggests the parallel between the “ruffian” vivisectionist and the “ruffian” robber with violence: “ita mortui demum praecordia et uiscus omne in conspectum latrocinantis medici dari,” and “interdum enim gladiatorem in arena uel militem in acie uel uiatorem a latronibus exceptum sic uolnerari ut eius interior aliqua pars aperiatur, et in alio alia.”

[355] I. praef.: “Incidere autem uiuorum corpora et crudele et superuacuum est: mortuorum, discentibus necessarium.”

[356] I. ii. and iii.

[357] I. ii.: “Sin lucubrandum est, non post cibum id facere, sed post concoctionem.”

[358] II. i.: “Pessimum aegro caelum est quod aegrum fecit”; IV. iv. 4: “Utilis etiam in omni tussi est peregrinatio, nauigatio longa, loca maritima, natationes.”

[359] II. vi.: “Non itaque, si quid uix in millesimo corpore aliquando decipit, fidem non habet.”

[360] II. viii.: “Scire licet, inter ea quoque quae ars adhibet, naturam plurimum posse.”

[361] III. iv.: “Optimum uero medicamentum est opportune cibus datus.”

[362] III. vi. (pulse); x. sub fin. (a quack’s temerity); iv. (critical days).

[363] III. iv., ad init.

[364] IV. i.

[365] VII. praef.: “Non ut clamore eius motus uel magis quam res desiderat properet, uel minus quam necesse est secet.”

[366] VII. vii. 14.

[367] IV. iv.

[368] I. iv., ad init.

[369] II. xviii.

[370] IV. iv. 1.

[371] Ibid.

[372] V. v.; viii.; cf. V. xxii. 4.

[373] As a rule, he has too keen a feeling for exactitude to indulge often in a pleonasm like “causa quae ante praecesserat” (I. praef.).

[374] III. xviii.: “Quidam imaginibus non mente falluntur; quales insanientem Aiacem uel Orestem percepisse poetae ferunt.”

[375] IV. xxi.: “uitare autem oportet cruditates,” in sense of “indigestible fare.”

[376] I. praef., ad init., quoted supra; cf. later in praef.: “Nec post rationem medicinam esse inuentam sed post inuentam medicinam rationem esse quaesitam,” where the antithetic order aims at clear emphasis, not rhetorical effect.

[377] Cic., Ad Fam., IX. xxii. (discussion by E. W. Fay in Cl. Q., I. i., April, 1907); Cic., Or., XLV., 154; Quint., I. Or., VIII. iii. 44-47 (on κακέμφατον), IX. iv. 33; cf. Rh. Mus., Vol. III. p. 576 (1835); Ritter, Uebertriebene Scheu der Römer vor gewissen Ausdrücken und Wortverbindungen.

[378] VI. xviii. 1: “Proxima sunt ea quae ad partes obscaenas pertinent: quarum apud Graecos uocabula et tolerabilius se habent et accepta iam usu sunt, cum in omni fere medicorum uolumine atque sermone iactentur.”

[379] Loc. cit.: “ut difficilis haec explanatio sit simul et pudorem et artis praecepta seruantibus.”

[380] V. xxvi. 1: “In his autem ante omnia scire medicus debet, quae insanabilia sint, quae difficilem curationem habeant, quae promptiorem. Est enim prudentis hominis, primum eum qui seruari non potest, non attingere, nec subire speciem eius, ut occisi, quem sors ipsius interemit: deinde, ubi grauis metus, sine tamen desperatione, est, indicare necessariis periclitantis, in difficili rem esse; ne, si uicta ars malo fuerit, uel ignorasse uel fefellisse uideatur. Sed ut haec prudenti uiro conueniunt, sic rursus histrionis est paruam rem attollere quo plus praestitisse uideatur.”

[381] Ed. Gronov., Leyd., 1696; cum not. var., ib., 1722; Parthey, Berl., 1867; Frick, Leipz., 1880. Nisard (with Macrobius and Varro and Fr. trans.), Firmin-Didot, Par., 1883.

Cf. Tozer, Hist. of Anct. Geog., 1897; Klotz, Quaest. Plin. Geogr., Berl., 1906.

[382] Strabo, III. iv. 19: οἱ δὲ τῶν Ῥωμαίων συγγραφεῖς μιμοῦνται μὲν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπὶ πολύ· καὶ γὰρ ἃ λέγουσι παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων μεταφέρουσι, ἐξ ἑαυτῶν δ’ οὐ πολὺ μὲν προσφέρονται τὸ φιλείδημον, κ.τ.λ.

[383] Plin., N.H., V. i. 12.

[384] Mela, II. vi. (96): “unde nos sumus, Tingentera.”

[385] Teuffel, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., § 296 n. 1.

[386] Norden, Kunstprosa, 305, imagines that in the Latin text, III. vi. (49), “tamdiu clausam (sc. Britanniam) aperit ecce principum maximus,” there is a play on the name of Claudius.

[387] Current literary histories (Teuffel, 296, 1; Schanz, 443) combine this passage (III. 49) with Mela’s alleged mention of Thia (II. 111), an island which first appeared in A.D. 46, to prove a later date. But Wissowa, Herm., li. (1916), p. 89 sqq., distrusts the reading in II. 111, and argues that the future in triumpho declaraturus makes it imperative to take the triumph as a terminus ante quem. He rejects 46 and believes the beginning of 44 to be the date of composition.

[388] Bunbury, Hist. of Anct. Geog., I. p. 404; Tozer, Hist. of Anct. Geog., p. 119.

[389] III. v. (45) and III. ix. (90).

[390] Handb. d. klass. Altertumswissenschaft, vol. iii. (Geographie u. politische Geschichte), p. 514: “Von römischer Seite ist zuerst Varro (116-127 v. Chr.) als geographischer Schriftsteller über Hispanien aufgetreten, das er als Legat des Pompejus persönlich kennen gelernt hat.”

[391] Notes on Juv. II. 159-160; Virg., Aen., IX. 31.

[392] I., prooem.: “quod si non ope ingenii orantis at ipsa sui contemplatione pretium operae attendentium absoluat.”

[393] I. xiii. (72).

[394] Eg. Egypt, I. ix.; Pontus, I. xix.; Scythians, II. i.; Druids, III. ii.

[395] III. i., ad init.

[396] I. vii., ad fin.

[397] See tables of statistics in De Groot’s Der Antike Prosarhythmus, Haag, 1921, pp. 108-109.

[398] Ed. pr., Ruellius, Par., 1528; Rhodius, Patav., 1655; Bernhold, Strasb., 1786; Helmreich, Leipz., 1887. Language, etc.: Lattritz, De Scrib. Largi genere dicendi, Bonn, 1913; Jourdan, Notes de critique verbale sur Scrib. Larg. (introd., bibliog.), Par., 1919.

[399] Teuffel, op. cit., 281, 1 and 2.

[400] Suet., Gr., 22: “sermonis latini exactor molestissimus.”

[401] Sen., Ad Helv., X. 8; Schol. Juv., IV. 23.

[402] Ed. pr., Mil., 1498; Lister, Lond., 1705; Schuch, Heidelb., 1867, 2nd ed., 1874; Giarratano and Vollmer, Leipz., 1922. Vollmer has argued that the “Caelius,” sometimes added to Apicius’s name, should be dropped as an erroneous expansion by Renaissance scholars of what they found on the title-page of the archetype MS.

[403] Sen., De Tranq. An., xiv. 4; cf. 9.

[404] Text: Ed. pr., Pithoeus, 1596; Burman, 1698 (varior. not., 1718); Bentley (w. Terence), 1726; Orelli, 1831; emend., adnot., suppl. L. Müller, 1877; Robert (w. facsim. of Cod. Pithoeanus), 1894; Havet, Phaedri Aug. lib. fab. Aesop., 1895 (noticed by Ellis, C.R., X. 159-163), and Phèdre (texte, notes), 1896, ed. 14, 1923; Gow, _Corp. Poet. Lat._, II., 1905; Ramorino, ed. 5, Turin, 1915; Postgate, _Fabulae Aesopiae_ (cum Perotti prologo et X. nouis fabulis), 1920; Brenot, Phèdre (Budé), texte et trad., 1924.

Other works: Nisard, Études ... sur les poètes latins de la décadence, ed. 3, 1867, I. pp. 3-57; L. Müller, De Phaedri et Aviani fabulis, 1875; J. J. Hartman, De Ph. fabulis commentatio, 1890, an able work, noticed C.R., V. 29-32; Hervieux, Les fabulistes latins, vols. i.-v. ed. 2, 1893-1894; Ellis, The Fables of Ph. (Inaug. Lect.), 1894; Jacobs, The Fables of Aesop, 2 vols., 1889 (for history of Aesopic fable, see vol. i.); Vandaele, Qua mente Phaeder fabellas scripserit, 1897; Zander, Phaedrus solutus uel Phaedri fab. nouae, XXX., Lund, 1921 (noticed J. R. S. by Wight Duff, 1923).

[405] III. prol. 17 sqq.; Schwabe, Rh. Mus., xxxix. p. 476, proves against Wölfflin that the lines are meant literally.

[406] III. epil. 33-34: “Palam muttire plebeio piaculumst” is from the Telephus of Ennius.

[407] III. prol. 27-28; IV. vii. 6 sqq.; IV. xxii. (xxiii.) and xxv. (xxvi.).

[408] Epist. ad. Theodos.: “Phaedrus etiam partem aliquam quinque in libellos resoluit.”

[409] Plessis, La poésie lat., p. 484. Ellis (Fables of Ph., p. 3) thinks the rare by-form “Phaeder” less likely.

[410] The emperor seems to be referred to as alive in II. v. 7, where he is “Caesar Tiberius”; contrast “a diuo Augusto” of Augustus, III. x. 39.

[411] Ellis, op. cit., p. 2. Bk. I. is more strictly “Aesopian” or Hellenic; Bk. II. obviously introduces Roman matter.

[412] III. epil. 15-19; III. i. 7.

[413] Havet favours later dates for his birth and for chronology of the works. According to his arguments—which present difficulties—Book III. was written under Claudius, IV. under Nero, and V. as late as Vespasian’s time. Havet’s hypothesis depends primarily upon his transposition from Book III. of the second part of the prologue (ll. 33-63) to the epilogue of Book II.

[414] III. epil. 1; IV. prol. 1-10.

[415] V. x. 9-10. That Phaedrus here alluded to his own advanced years was the view of Ribbeck, Gesch. der röm. Dichtung, iii. p. 27.

[416] E.g. II. prol. 11. Havet claims that prol. and epil. of Bk. III. were addressed to an unknown Illius at a date not earlier than A.D. 43.

[417] Bücheler, Rh. Mus., xxxvii. pp. 333 sqq.

[418] IV. epil. 4: “uir sanctissime”; prol. 17-19:

“Mihi parta laus est, quod tu, quod similes tui Vestras in chartas uerba transfertis mea Dignumque longa iudicatis memoria.”

[419] V. x. 9-10:

“Quod fuimus, lauda, si iam damnas quod sumus: Hoc cur, Philete, scripserim, pulchre vides,”

where the reading of P is fili te, and of R filiᵉ de.

[420] L. Müller’s ed. 1877, Introd., pp. xiii.-xxxvii.; Plessis, op. cit., pp. 488-491.

[421] Ellis (op. cit.) gives a useful account of MSS. and early history of the text. Janelli, the editor of the “Perottine” fables in 1811, has been supported by Cardinal Mai, Orelli, Lachmann, L. Müller, Hervieux and Ribbeck in accepting their descent from Phaedrus. Ellis (op. cit., pp. 25-28) gives reasons against crediting this, and compares the impression left by these fables to that left by various imitations of Ovid, the Nux or the Epicedion Drusi or the spurious poems among the Heroides.

[422] For Müller’s opinion of Dressler’s iambic composition see his ed. of 1877, pp. xxxviii.-xxxix.

[423] I. prol. 6.

[424] The account of trees favoured by different deities in III. xvii. is not an example; but in Fab. Nouae (Müller’s ed., No. xiii.), the oak admits to the ash that they were justly cut down because they had ordered the wild olive to supply a man with an axe-handle.

[425] Otto Crusius, Rh. Mus., xxxix. p. 603; Ellis, op. cit., p. 4; cf. Rutherford, Babrius, Introd., p. xi.

[426] Aul. Gell., II. xxix.; Hor. Epist. I. i. 73 sqq. (the sick lion, previously in Lucilius, vid. Non. 303); I. vii. 29 (the uolpecula that raided the bin); I. x. 34 (horse securing man’s help against stag); Sat., II. vi. 79 (town mouse and country mouse).

[427] I. prol. 1-7:

“Aesopus auctor quam materiam repperit, Hanc ego poliui uersibus senariis. Duplex libelli dos est: quod risum mouet Et quod prudenti uitam consilio monet. Calumniari siquis autem uoluerit, Quod arbores loquantur, non tantum ferae, Fictis iocari nos meminerit fabulis.”

[428] II. epil. 1-2:

“Aesopi ingentem (v.l. ingenio) statuam posuere Attici Seruomque aeterna collocarunt in basi.”

Ingenio is most likely. This is one of a few cases in which N and V preserve by their reading (“Aesopi ingenio”) the right tradition against the older manuscript P and the record of R. P gives “Aesopo ingentem (m. pr. Aesopi ingento)....”

[429] II. epil. 8-9:

“Quod si labori fauerit Latium meo, Plures habebit quos opponat Graeciae.”

[430] III. prol. 52-55.

[431] IV. vii. 5: “Et in cothurnis prodit Aesopus nouis.”

[432] IV. xxi. (xxii.)

[433] IV. prol. 11: “Quas Aesopias non Aesopi nomino.”

[434] Ed. 1877, p. 98.

[435] IV. prol. 7-8:

“Sua cuique cum sit animi cogitatio Colorque proprius.”

[436] II. prol. 8-11:

“Equidem omni cura morem seruabo senis; Sed si libuerit aliquid interponere, Dictorum sensus ut delectet uarietas, Bonas in partes, lector, accipias uelim.”

[437] Bücheler, Rh. Mus., xxxvii. p. 332.

[438] For these instances, see III. x.; V. vii.; V. v.

[439] IV. vi. 2: “Historia quorum et in tabernis pingitur.”

[440] Ardalio, ardelio, ardulio are spellings found in glossaries. Nettleship inclined to favour ardalio, _Contribns. to Lat. Lexicography_, p. 267.

[441] II. v.

[442] III. prol. 33-37:

“Nunc fabularum cur sit inuentum genus Breui docebo. Seruitus obnoxia, Quia quae uolebat non audebat dicere, Adfectus proprios in fabellas transtulit Calumniamque fictis elusit iocis.”

[443] I. xv. 1-2:

“In principatu commutando ciuium Nil praeter domini nomen mutant pauperes.”

[444] I. i. 14-15:

“Haec propter illos scriptast homines fabula, Qui fictis causis innocentes opprimunt.”

[445] I. xvii.

[446] I. ii.

[447] I. vi. 9: “Quidnam futurumst si crearit liberos?”

[448] III. prol. 38-43:

“Ego porro illius (sc. Aesopi) semita[m?] feci uiam, Et cogitaui plura quam reliquerat, In calamitatem deligens quaedam meam. Quodsi accusator alius Seiano foret, Si testis alius, iudex alius denique, Dignum faterer esse me tantis malis.”

[449] III. epil. 29-35.

[450] IV. ii. 1-4:

“Ioculare tibi uidetur, et sane leui, Dum nil habemus maius, calamo ludimus. Sed diligenter intuere has nenias: Quantam sub illis utilitatem reperies!”

[451] I. xv. 2.

[452] I. xxx.

[453] I. ii. 31: “Hoc sustinete, maius ne ueniat, malum.”

[454] III. prol. 49-51:

“Neque enim notare singulos mens est mihi, Verum ipsam uitam et mores hominum ostendere. Rem me professum dicet forsan quis grauem.”

[455] IV. x.:

“Peras imposuit Iuppiter nobis duas: Propriis repletam uitiis post tergum dedit, Alienis ante pectus suspendit grauem. Hac re uidere nostra mala non possumus; Alii simul delinquunt, censores sumus.”

Cf. Catull., xxii. 21: “Sed non uidemus manticae quod in tergo est.”

[456] IV. xxi. 16-26.

[457] IV. xviii. 9-10:

“Parce gaudere oportet et sensim queri: Totam aeque uitam miscet dolor et gaudium.”

[458] III. ix.: “Vulgare amici nomen, sed rarast fides....”

[459] I. xi., xiv., xxv.; III. i.

[460] I. vii.

[461] IV. xxiv.: “Mons parturibat, gemitus immanes ciens,” etc. Cf. Hor., A.P. 139.

[462] I. x. 9-10.

[463] S. Reinach, Orpheus, Eng. ed., 1909, p. 16.

[464] III. vii. Havet’s theory (Rev. des études anciennes, 1921) that this fable represents an actual dialogue in A.D. 16 between Arminius, the Cheruscan warrior, and his Romanized brother Flavus cannot be either proved or disproved.

[465] The most famous line in Phaedrus is probably V. iii. 5:

“Iniuriae qui addideris contumeliam.”

[466] I. iv.; II. iv. Lessing in the one case and Ellis in the other criticized adversely Phaedrus’s accuracy. For similar mistakes, see J. J. Hartman, op. cit.

[467] I. xix., xxi., xxiii., xxix.

[468] E.g. II. epil. 10-14; III. ix. 4; IV. prol. 15; IV. vii.; IV. xxii.

[469] E.g. II. prol. 12; IV. epil. 7. III. x. closes with explanation that the story has been fully told because his brevity has offended some.

[470] II. epil. 1-9.

[471] III. prol. 32; IV. epil. 5-6:

“Particulo, chartis nomen uicturum meis, Latinis dum manebit pretium litteris.”

[472] IV. xxiii. and xxvi.

[473] III. prol. 17: “Ego, quem Pierio mater enixast iugo,” etc.

[474] III. xii.

[475] Sen., Cons. ad Polyb., viii. 3 ... “fabellas quoque et Aesopeos logos, intemtatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” Most scholars take this to imply either an ignorance or an ignoring of Phaedrus on Seneca’s part. But Seneca was writing to a Greek freedman, and remembering that Phaedrus was Greek too, he compliments his correspondent by remarking that fable-writing was a sort of literary work which Romans had not tried. I have argued in C.R., XXIX. (1915), pp. 252-253, that there is no need to implicate Seneca in a wilful falsehood.

[476] Inst. Or., I. ix. 2.

[477] Mart., III. xx. 5. This is Friedländer’s suggestion ad loc. Teuffel, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., § 284, 3, dismisses it summarily as against probability (“ohne Wahrscheinlichkeit”). But Plessis, La poés. lat., p. 487, agrees with Friedländer. Ellis (op. cit., p. 8) takes Martial to mean the fabulist, and improbi to allude to fables such as I. xxix.; III. i.; III. iii.; IV. xv. (xvi.); IV. xviii. (xix.). Thiele, in Philologus, LXX., 1911, pp. 539-548, proposes to read in Martial “an aemulatur improbi logos Phaedri,” taking logos = apologos (cf. Sen., Cons. ad. Polyb., viii. 3) and improbi = “audacious” applied to political allusions in the fables.

[478] The process of abridgement, mutilation and transformation of Phaedrus took place between the time when Avianus must have read the fables in verse-form (i.e. with intervals marked between lines), and the ninth or tenth century, when the Pithoeanus has them without any mark to distinguish them from prose. Ellis (op. cit., pp. 9-10) argues that the abridgement “may have been executed in the 5th or 6th cent., and that the gradually declining knowledge of ancient language and metre, which the unsettled state of Europe produced, caused the iambics of Phaedrus to be written in prose. As prose they were probably read by the Carlovingian scholars.”

[479] “Ex libris bonae memoriae Ademari grammatici” is part of a note in the MS., which was written in the Abbey of St. Martial de Limoges.

[480] The influence of Phaedrus, and especially the strong influence of the Romulus collection, upon the MS. of Ademar, are discussed in Der illustrierte lateinische Aesop, Thiele, 1905; cf. Zander, De generibus et libris paraphrasium Phaedrianarum, 1897; _Phaedrus Solutus_, 1921.

[481] IV. vii.

[482] IV. vii. 21-22. Cato is, of course, the type of the austere literary judge, e.g. in the Petronian epigram, 132:

“Quid me constricta spectatis fronte, Catones?”

[483] E.g. I. xiii. 12: “Tum demum ingemuit corui deceptus stupor”;

II. v. 23: “Tum sic iocata est tanti maiestas ducis”;

III. v. 9: “Sed spes fefellit inpudentem audaciam”;

cf. the personification in I. xxvii. 6:

“Poenas ut sanctae Religioni penderet”;

and in IV. xi. 4:

“Repente uocem sancta misit Religio.”

[484] E.g. I. xxiv. 8: “quis maior esset,” where “uter” would be correct (cf. Lucan, I. 126, “quis iustius induit arma” of Caesar and Pompey); III. v. 8: “persuasus” (cf. I. viii. 7). Ellis (op. cit., 21) quotes in defence of the latter Ad Herenn., I. vi. 9, and Ovid, A.A., iii. 679.

[485] I. xi. 6; IV. ii. 16; I. xii. 5; I. xxi. 5. The epithet fulmineus is shared with Ovid and Statius.

[486] III. xviii. 6-8:

“Sed forma uincis, uincis magnitudine; Nitor smaragdi collo praefulget tuo Pictisque plumis gemmeam caudam explicas.”

[487] IV. ii. 4. A case in point is the threefold lesson, each, as it were, numbered and labelled, from the story of the thief who stole an altar-lamp, IV. xi. 16-21.

[488] I. xxxi. 13: “merito plectimur.”

[489] Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, 1909, pp. 70-71.

[490] His usage with regard to various feet is discussed in Müller’s ed., 1877, pp. ix.-xiii. Consult also the careful essay on metre and prosody in Havet, Phaedri ... Fabulae Aesopiae, 1895.

[491] Lat. Lit., 1899, p. 160.

[492] Suet., Tib., lxx.

[493] Wight Duff, A Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age, 1909, pp. 619-623.

[494] Text: In Astron. Veterum Scripta Isagogica Gr. et Lat. (w. Proclus, etc.) Ciceronis, Festi Avieni, Germanici Aratea, in off. Sanctandreana, 1589; Caesaris Germanici Aratea (with Phaedrus, etc.), Orelli, Zur., 1831; with Aratus, Koechly (Firmin-Didot), Par., 1851; Breysig, ed. 1, Berl., 1867; ed. 2, Lpz., 1899; Baehrens, P.L.M., i. pp. 148-200. Cf. Frey, Epist. Crit. de Germanico Arati Interprete, Culm, 1861; Sieg, De Cicerone, Germanico Avieno Arati interpretibus, Halle, 1886.

[495] Suet., Cal., iii.; Tac., Ann., II. 83; Plin., N.H., VIII. 155: “fecit et diuus Augustus equo tumulum, de quo Germanici Caesaris carmen est.”

[496] Lact., Div. Inst., V. v. 4: “ut Germanicus Caesar in Arateo loquitur carmine:

‘Nec consanguineis fuerat discordia nota.’”

[497] 205-206:

“Sed poenae facies remanet districtaque pandit Bracchia ceu duri teneantur robore saxi.”

[498] De Germanico Arati Interprete, 1861.

[499] Ll. 31, 165, 264: “ueterist si gratia famae,” “si uere Iuppiter infans ...” etc.

[500] Suas., i. 15.

[501] Elegiae III. et frag. (cum interpret. et notis Jos. Scaligeri, etc.), Amst., 1715; Latin w. Eng. version, Kidderminster and London, 1807. The name Albinovanus Pedo suggests a possible relationship with Albinovanus Celsus mentioned by Horace, Epist., I. viii. 1. He accompanied Tiberius to Armenia in 20 B.C.

[502] Ll. 20-22:

“Di reuocant rerumque uetant cognoscere finem Mortales oculos: aliena quid aequora remis Et sacras uiolamus aquas?”

[503] The chief authors of comedy traceable during the Silver Age are the Pomponius Bassulus recorded in an inscription at Aeclanum (C.I.L., IX., 1165) as a translator of Menander as well as a writer of original plays, and the Vergilius Romanus of Pliny’s letters who composed comic dramas after the old fashion. These, it may be guessed, were not intended to be acted.

[504] Sen., Ep., viii. 8.

[505] Suet., Aug., xcix.

[506] Juv., VIII. 185-187; Suet., Cal., lvii.; Joseph., Ant., XIX. i. 13: μῖμος εἰσάγεται καθ’ ὃν σταυροῦται λῃστῶν ἡγεμών.

[507] Suet., Tib., xlv.; Galb., xiii. See later part of chap. on “Senecan Poetry.”

[508] Lucian, De Saltatione; Friedländer, Sittengesch., II. iii. 3; Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, pp. 26-28.

[509] Dio, lviii. 24: ἑάλω διὰ τραγῳδίαν.... Ἀτρεὺς μὲν τὸ ποίημα ἦν, κ.τ.λ.

[510] Suet., Cal., xxvii.

[511] Tac., Ann., V. viii., XI. xiii.; Dial., 13;, Plin., N.H., VII. 80, XIII. 83, XIV. 56; Plin., Ep., VII. xvii. 11; Quint., X. i. 98. Interesting light is thrown on his life and qualities by Cichorius, Röm. Studien, 1922, pp. 423-432, where it is shown that Pomponius lived till late in Nero’s reign.

[512] Attraction to the Troy-saga may explain the tragic songs which Paetus Thrasea rendered at the cetaria, or festival, in honour of the Trojan Antenor at Padua, where Thrasea came from; cf. Charisius, p. 125 K. (based on Pliny, i.e. presumably the lost Dubius Sermo); Tac., Ann., XVI. 21.

[513] Text: In Scriptores Rei Rusticae Veteres Latini, ed. Gesner, Lpz., 1735; Bipont. ed., 1787; sep. ed., Ress, Flensburg, 1795. Book X., Lundström, Ups., 1902 (fasc. vi. of edn., of which fasc. i., 1897, was De Arboribus); ed. Postgate, Corp. Poet. Lat., 1905.

Transln., Columella: Of Husbandry in Twelve Bks. and His Bk. concerning Trees, Lond., 1745; Le Poème des Jardins de L. J. M. Columella, trad. en vers français avec le texte, Bonafous, Par., 1859; Barberet, De C. vita et scriptis, Nancy, 1887; cf. Agricola, Heitland, Camb., 1921 (esp. pp. 250-269).

[514] VIII. xvi. 9: “in nostro Gadium municipio”; X. 185: “et mea (sc. lactuca) quam generant Tartesi litore Gades.”

[515] II. xvi. 4; V. v. 15: “uir illustribus disciplinis eruditus ac diligentissimus agricola Baeticae prouinciae”; VII. ii. 4; XII. xxi. 4: “patruus meus, illustris agricola.”

[516] III. ix. 2.

[517] C.I.L., IX. 235 (= Dessau 2923): “L. Iunio L. f. Gal. Moderato Columellae, trib. mil. leg. VI. ferratae.”

[518] II. x. 18: “hoc quidem semen Ciliciae Syriaeque regionibus ipse uidi mense Iunio Iulioque conseri et per auctumnum ... tolli.”

[519] II. xxii. 5-6.

[520] III. iii. 3: “Nomentana regio ... quam possidet Seneca uir excellentis ingenii atque doctrinae.” See discussion hereon in relation to Plin., N.H., XIV. (5), 49-51, by Barberet, De Columellae Vita et Scriptis, 1887, pp. 23-25. Cichorius, Röm. Studien, 1922, pp. 417-422, makes it probable that Columella served on the expedition to Cilicia Trachea in A.D. 36 (II. x. 18), and was at Rome in 41 (III. viii. 2).

[521] I. i. 12-14.

[522] XII. lvii. 6: “Clausulam peracti operis mei, P. Siluine, non alienum puto indicem lecturis (si modo fuerint qui dignentur ista cognoscere), nihil dubitasse me paene infinita esse, quae potuerint huic inseri materiae: uerum ea quae maxime uidebantur necessaria, memoriae tradenda censuisse. Nec tamen canis natura dedit cunctarum rerum prudentiam. Nam etiam quicunque sunt habiti mortalium sapientissimi, multa scisse dicuntur, non omnia.”

[523] See Wight Duff’s Lit. Hist. of Rome to Close of Golden Age, for Cato, pp. 262-264; for Varro, pp. 342-343.

[524] III. xvii. 4.

[525] IX. ii. 1.

[526] Other examples are given by Prof. Summers, Silver Age of Latin Lit., p. 286.

[527] III. xxi. 3-4.

[528] X. 96-102:

“Pingite tunc uarios, terrestria sidera, flores, Candida leucoia et flauentia lumina caltae Narcissique comas et hiantis saeua leonis Ora feri calathisque uirentia lilia canis, Nec non uel niueos uel caeruleos hyacinthos. Tum quae pallet humi, quae frondens purpurat auro, Ponatur uiola et nimium rosa plena pudoris.”

[529] Nubigenae, uersicoloribus, pestifer are Virgilian: frugifero and nubifugo are not, though the former was used by Ennius.

[530] X. 80: “Veris et aduentum nidis cantabit hirundo.”

[531] X. 159-160:

“Inuigilate, uiri: tacito nam tempora gressu Diffugiunt nulloque sono conuertitur annus.”

[532] X. 209-214.

[533] X. 227-229:

“Et secum gracili conectere carmina filo Quae canat inter opus Musa modulante putator Pendulus arbustis, holitor uiridantibus hortis.”

[534] X. 255-262.

[535] X. 436 (the closing line): “Ascraeum cecinit Romana per oppida carmen,” echoing Virg., Georg. II. 176: “Ascraeumque cano Romana per oppida carmen.”

[536] Text: ed. pr. (before recovery of Cena Trimalchionis), Petronii arbitri satyrici fragmenta, w. Scriptores Panegyrici Lat., etc., Milan, circ. 1482; Fragmentum Traguriense (= Cena Trim.), Frambotti, Padua, 1664; Burman, Petr. Satyr. Quae Supersunt (copiously annotated), Utr., 1709, and Amster., 1743; Bücheler, ed. maior, Berl., 1862; ed. min., 4th ed., 1904, 6th revised by Heraeus, Berl., 1922; Latin w. earliest Eng. trans. of 1694; Gaselee (illustns.), Lond., 1910; Latin w. Eng. tr., Heseltine (Loeb), Lond., 1913; Mitchell, Lond., 1922; w. French tr., Ernout, Par., 1922; Cena Trim. (Germ. tr. and notes), Friedländer, Leipzig, 1891; w. Eng. tr. and notes, Lowe, Camb., 1905; Ryan, Lond., 1905; w. Seneca’s Apocol. and Pompeian inscrns., Sedgwick, Oxf., 1925; Bellum Ciuile (from Satyr.) w. Eng. tr. and notes, Baldwin, New York, 1911. For Poems ascribed to Petronius, see Bährens’s P.L.M., vol. iv., and Bücheler’s ed. minor. The 1708 Eng. trans. was privately reprinted, Lond., 1899.

Other wks.: Beck, The Age of Petronius, Camb., U.S.A., 1856; and The MSS. of the Satyricon ... described and collated, Camb., U.S.A., 1863; Pétrequin, Nouvelles Recherches hist. et crit. sur Pétrone, Paris and Lyon, 1869; Boissier, Un roman de moeurs sous Néron in “L’opposition sous les Césars,” Par., 1875; Émile Thomas, L’Envers de la société romaine d’après Pétrone, Par., 1892; Collignon, Étude sur Pétrone, Par., 1892; and Pétrone au moyen âge, etc., 1893; Paul Thomas, L’âge et l’auteur du Satyricon, Gand, 1905; F. F. Abbott, Origin of Realistic Romance among Romans in “The Common People of Anct. Rome” (orig. in Class. Phil.), Lond., 1912, and Petronius: A Study in Ancient Realism in “Society and Politics in Anct. Rome,” Lond., 1914; Mendell, P. and the Greek Romance in Class. Phil., XII. 2, 1917.

On Language: Ludwig, De Petronii sermone plebeio, Marb., 1869; Guericke, De linguae vulgaris reliquiis apud Petron. et in inscript. parietariis Pompeianis, Gumbinn., 1875; Cesareo, De Petronii sermone, Rome, 1887 (esp. on Neapolitan elements); Heraeus, Die Sprache des Petron. u. die Glossen, Leipz., 1899; and Cena Trim. nebst ausgewählt. Pompeian. Wandinschriften (“Sammlung vulgärlateinischer Texte”), Heidelb., 1909; cf. Schuchardt, Der Vocalismus des Vulgärlateins, 1866-1868; Cooper, Word-Formation in Roman Sermo Plebeius, 1895.

[537] See Studer, “Ueber das Zeitalter des Petr. Arb.,” Rh. Mus., ii., 1843, p. 50, p. 202, and others.

[538] He founded on Plin., N.H., XXXVII. 20; Plut., De discr. am. et adul., 19, p. 60 e.

[539] Tac., Ann., XVI. 18-19.

[540] J. Wight Duff, Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age, pp. 334-337.

[541] §§ 61-62, 63 and 111-112.

[542] This was Mommsen’s view, Herm., XIII. 114 (cf. “Trimalchios Heimat u. Grabschrift” in his Ges. Schr., 7, 1909, Berl.), which some think incompatible with Trimalchio’s reference to seeing the Sibyl in a cage at Cumae (Satyr., 48). For other views see Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., 1913, p. 126. After the sea-voyage, from § 116 to the end, the scene is definitely at Crotona. Some missing incidents may have occurred at Massilia; for Servius (ad Verg., Aen., III. 57) ascribes to Petronius the story of a human scapegoat there in time of plague (cf. Sid. Apoll., XXIII. 155-156: “te Massiliensium per hortos sacri stipitis Arbiter colonum....” But it is too impetuous to infer therefrom, as some have done, a Gallic origin for Petronius, or to regard his Satyricon as the beginning of the French novel!)

[543] Sat., 34:

“Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est! Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus. Ergo uiuamus, dum licet esse bene.”

[544] § 59.

[545] § 68.

[546] § 48.

[547] § 50.

[548] § 52: “et pueri mortui iacent sic ut uiuere putes.” Squire Western is equally confused in his recollections of the metamorphosis of Actaeon into a stag: “I’d rather be run by one of my own dogs as one Acton was that the story-book says was turned into a hare and his own dogs killed un and eat un.” Fielding, Tom Jones, XVII. ch. 3.

[549] § 53.

[550] § 71.

[551] § 37.

[552] § 41.

[553] § 42.

[554] § 45.

[555] § 46: “Videris mihi, Agamemnon, dicere ‘Quid iste argutat molestus.’ Quia tu, qui potes loquere, non loquis. Non es nostrae fasciae, et ideo pauperorum uerba derides. Scimus te prae litteras fatuum esse.”

[556] § 88.

[557] § 118.

[558] § 119-124.

[559] § 126.

[560] E.g. Giton concealed under the bed is compared to Ulysses under the ram; one of Encolpius’s enchantresses is Circe, etc.

[561] Klebs: “Zur Composition von Petr. Satirae,” Philol., 47 (1889), p. 623, considers this wrath as the Leitmotiv of the whole romance.

[562] § 139:

“Me quoque per terras per cani Nereos aequor Hellespontiaci sequitur grauis ira Priapi.”

[563] The type is seen in the Widow of Ephesus (Satyr., § 111-112). On Milesian tales see Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, II., 602, 604 n.; Rohde, Der Griech. Roman (1900), 586; Kl. Schr. (1901), II. 25 sqq.; Lucas, “Zu den Milesiaca des Aristides,” Philologus, 61 (1907), 16 sqq.

[564] Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Lit. (1913), p. 125; Abbott, Common People of Anct. Rome, pp. 128-133.

[565] Chauvin, Les romanciers grecs et latins, 1864.

[566] For traditional features from banquets in Greek lit. see Geffcken, Studien zur griech. Satire in Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Alt., XXVII. (1911), 395 and 484; and, in general, Ullrich, _Entstehung u. Entwickelung d. Litteraturgattung des Symposion_, Würzb., 1908.

[567] Collignon, Étude sur Pétrone, pp. 254 sqq.; Revay, “Horaz u. Petron,” Class. Phil., XVII. (1922), pp. 202 sqq.; Shero, “The Cena in Roman satire,” Class. Phil., XVIII. (1923), esp. pp. 134-139.

[568] Hor., Sat. II. viii. 77-78:

“Et soleas poscit: tum in lecto quoque uideres Stridere secreta diuisos aure susurros,”

Petr., Sat., 41, 9: “ab hoc ferculo Trimalchio ad lasanum surrexit. Nos libertatem sine tyranno nacti coepimus inuitare conuiuarum sermones.”

[569] Among the manuscript titles is Petronii arbitri affranii Satirici lib. incip., where the at first puzzling appearance of the name of Afranius indicates Petronius’ resemblance to that writer of togata-comedies in puerorum foedis amoribus (Teuffel, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., § 305, 1).

[570] Satyr., § 132: “damnatisque nouae simplicitatis opus.”

[571] Apul., Met., iv. 28–vi. 24.

[572] Even the grammar is intentionally varied; e.g. the correct accusative, Nicerotem 61, contrasted with Trimalchio’s Niceronem, 63.

[573] Sat., 117, 12; 134, 2.

[574] E.g. athlum, 57; phantasia, 38; philologia, 39; polymitus, 40; synoccio, 93); apoculare, 62 and 67 (= ἀποκυλίω), and hybrids like bilychnis, 30 (= bis + λύχνος; percolopare, 44 (= per + κόλαφος); lupatria, 37; excatarissasti, 67.

[575] E.g. amasiunculus, 45; amasiuncula, 75; lamellula, 57; cor(i)cillum, 75; manuciolum, 63. The loss of force in popular diminutives is plain from “hominem ... ualde audaculum,” 63 = “a mighty bold fellow.”

[576] § 71: “amici,” inquit, “et serui homines sunt et aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos malus fatus oppressit.”

[577] Guericke, op. cit., p. 34.

[578] The neuter form, instead of the usual margarita, was used by Varro, Tacitus (Agr., 12) and Tertullian.

[579] It is an easy development from the physical sense of notare, “to note” or “mark down,” and the transition is found in Cicero.

[580] Sat., 123, ll. 209-232: tantum fugit (221) is echoed by the corresponding metrical position of tantum trahit (231); maerentia tecta relinquunt (225) by maerentia pectora iungant (229); relinquunt ends 225 and relinquit 227.

[581] Sat., 127:

“Emicuere rosae uiolaeque et molle cyperon, Albaque de uiridi riserunt lilia prato: Talis humus Venerem molles clamauit in herbas, Candidiorque dies secreto fauit amori.”

[582] P.L.M., iv. 74-108, 120-121.

[583] Ib., 74:

“Inueniat (? inuenias) quod quisque uelit: non omnibus unum est Quod placet: hic spinas colligit, ille rosas.”

[584] Ib., 75, l. 5: “Ante oculos stabat quidquid promiserat annus.”

[585] Ib., 81:

“Paruula securo tegitur mihi culmine sedes Vuaque plena mero fecunda pendet ab ulmo,” etc.

[586] Ib., 84:

O litus uita mihi dulcius, a mare! felix Cui licet ad terras ire subinde tuas, etc.

[587] Ib., 99: The English verse is from J. Wight Duff’s “Sonnets from the Antique” in Quatercentenary number of Alma Mater, Aberdeen Univ. Mag., 1906.

The elegiacs show Petronius’s departure from the rigorous Ovidian disyllabic ending in the pentameter:

“Lecto compositus uix prima silentia noctis Carpebam et somno lumina uicta dabam: Cum me saeuus Amor prensat sursumque capillis Excitat et lacerum peruigilare iubet. ‘Tu famulus meus,’ inquit, ‘ames cum mille puellas, Solus io solus, dure, iacere potes?’ Exsilio et pedibus nudis tunicaque soluta Omne iter incipio, nullum iter expedio. Nunc propero, nunc ire piget, rursumque redire Poenitet et pudor est stare uia media. Ecce tacent uoces hominum strepitusque uiarum Et uolucrum cantus turbaque fida canum. Solus ego ex cunctis paueo somnumque torumque Et sequor imperium, magne Cupido, tuum.”

[588] Text: Prose wks., ed. pr., Nap., 1475; Erasmus, Bas., 1515, 1529; Lipsius, Antw., 1605, 1615; Ruhkopf, Lpz., 1797-1811; Haase, Lpz., 1852 sq.; later Teubner ed., Vol. I. 1, Dialog., Hermes, 1905; I. 2, De Ben., De Clem., Hosius, 1900; II., Nat. Quaest., Gercke, 1907; III., Epist., Hense, 1898, 1914; IV., Frag., Bickel. Sep. edns., De Ben., Gertz., Berl., 1876; Dial., Gertz, Copenh., 1886; Dial., X., XI., XII., J. D. Duff, Camb., 1915; De Otio, Waltz, Par., 1909; Ad Helu., Favez, Laus., 1918; Select Letters, Summers, Lond., 1910; Ep. Mor., Beltrami, Brescia, 1916; Loeb. ed. (w. trans.), Gummere, Lond. and New Yk., 1917-1920; De Clem., Préchac, Par., 1921.

Tragedies and satire: see next chapter.

Transns.: Prose Wks., Lodge, Lond., 1614. On Benefits; also Minor Dial. and Clem., Stewart, Lond., 1889; Quaest. Nat. (Physical Science in Time of Nero), Clarke and Geikie, Lond., 1910.

Chronology of Wks.: Jonas, De Ordine librorum Sen., Berl., 1870; Schanz, op. cit.; Gercke, Seneca-Studien, Lpz., 1895.

Life: Waltz, La Vie politique de S., Par., 1909.

Philosophy: (General) Zeller, Die Philos. d. Griechen; Martha, Les moralistes sous l’empire romain; Boissier, La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins; Schiller, op. cit.; Arnold, Roman Stoicism, Camb., 1911; (Special) Corsi, Lo stoicismo romano ... particolarmente in Sen., Prato, 1884; Levy-Bruhl, Quid de deo Sen. senserit, Par., 1884; Weissenfels, De Sen. Epicureo, Berl., 1886; Rubin, Die Ethik Sen. in ihr Verhält. z. älter. u. mittler. Stoa, Berl., 1892; Burnier, La Morale de S. et le Néo-stoïcisme, Laus., 1908; Gummere, S. the Philosr. and his modern Message, Bost., Mass., 1922.

Literary Qualities: Hoppe, Ueber d. Sprache des Philos. Sen. (syntactical), Lauban, 1873; Weber, De Sen. philos. dicendi genere Bioneo, Marb., 1895; Kunz, Sentenzen in S.’s Tragoedien zusammengestellt, Wienerneust., 1897; Nottola, La prosa di S., Bergamo, 1904; Merchant, S., his theory of style, Amer. Jrnl. Philol., 26 (1905); Norden, Kunstprosa, etc., p. 311; Bourgery, Sénèque Prosateur, Par., 1922; Albertini, La Composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de S., Par., 1923.

For recent lit. on Seneca, Münscher in Bursian’s Jahresb., Lpz., 1923, pp. 109-214.

[589] The conjectural date is based on De Tranq., xvii. 7; Ep., cviii. 17 and 22; Nat. Q., I. i. 3. Lehmann, Claudius u. Nero, I. 152, prefers 8 B.C. Favez, in ed. of Ad Helu., supports the earlier date because of Seneca’s recollection of Asinius Pollio recorded De Tranq., xvii. 7; Pollio died in A.D. 5.

[590] He gives his full name, De Ben., IV. viii. 3. For his b.p. see Mart., I. lxi. 7-8.

[591] Acts xviii. 11-17. M. Anatole France gives a lively account of Gallio in Sur la Pierre Blanche, as already mentioned, p. 44 n.

[592] Contr., II. praef. 4.

[593] Ad Helu., xix. 2.

[594] Ep., lviii. 5, lxxxviii. 3 sqq. and 37, cviii. 24; De Br. Vit., xiii. 2.

[595] Contr., X. praef. 2, 8, 9, 12.

[596] Ep., xx. 2: “facere docet philosophia, non dicere”; cxv. 1-2: “quaere quid scribas non quemadmodum.”

[597] Contr., I. praef. 22; IV. praef. 1; VII. praef. 9.

[598] Ep., xvi. 3.

[599] Ep., xix. 1, xxii. 1 sqq., xcviii. 13.

[600] Ep., iv. 10-11, xvii. 3-4, xxxi. 10.

[601] De Ira, III. xxxvi.

[602] Ep., VI. 1 (sign of grace to see one’s faults); VIII. 3.

[603] Ep., vi. 4 (“gaudeo discere ut doceam”), viii. 3 (“rectum iter ... lassus errando aliis monstro”), xxxiii. 1 (“adsero te mihi: meum opus es”), xlviii. 7-8.

[604] Ep., xviii. 5-9, cviii. 13 sqq.

[605] Ep., xxxi. 11, xli. 2, xcv. 50.

[606] Ep., liv. 1, lxxvii. 9, lxxviii. 1, civ. 1.

[607] Ad Helu., xix. 2 and 4-6.

[608] Suet., Cal., liii.: “commissiones meras ... harenam esse sine calce.”

[609] Dio, LIX. xix. 7 ... πιστεύσας ὅτι φθόης τε ἔχοι κακῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐς μακρὰν τελευτήσοι.

[610] Ep., xlix. 2.

[611] De Ira, I. xx. 8-9; II. xxxiii. 3 sqq.; III. xviii. 3-4 and xix.

[612] De Tranq., xvii. 3: “miscenda tamen ista et alternanda sunt, solitudo et frequentia: illa nobis faciet hominum desiderium, haec nostri; et erit altera alterius remedium; odium turbae sanabit solitudo, taedium solitudinis turba.”

[613] Dio, LX. viii. 5-6; schol. ad Juv., V. 109.

[614] Tac., Ann., XII. viii.

[615] Suet., Ner., lii.

[616] The quinquennium is here used in its customary sense, and not the less likely one in which Mr. J. G. C. Anderson applied it to the last five years of Nero’s reign on the ground that the Golden House scheme and rebuilding after the Great Fire were the achievements which aroused Trajan’s admiration. (Jrnl. Rom. Stud., I. pt. 3 (1912), pp. 173 sqq.)

[617] Tac., Ann., XIII. ii., vi., xi.

[618] Tac., Ann., XIII. v. and xiii.

[619] Ib., XIII. xiv.

[620] Dio, LXI. iv. 1.

[621] Tac., Ann., XIII. xvii.; XIV. vii. and xi.

[622] Ib., XIV. lii.: “exueret magistrum.”

[623] Ib., XIV. liii.-liv.

[624] Seneca had been attacked by Suillius in A.D. 58, Ann., XIII. xlii.; for attacks in 62 see ib., XIV. lii. and lxv.

[625] Ib., XIV. lv.-lvi.

[626] Ib., XV. xlv.; Dio, LXII. xxv. 3.

[627] Tac., Ann., XV. lxv.

[628] Ib., XV. lx.-lxiv.

[629] I. vi.

[630] De Vit. Beat., xvii. 3: “Non sum sapiens”; 4: “ego in alto uitiorum omnium sum”; xviii. 1: “cum uitiis conuicium facio, in primis meis facio”; Ep., lvii. 3: “multum ab homine tolerabili, nedum a perfecto absum.”

[631] Ep., lxi. 2.

[632] Ep., xxvi. 5-6: “non timide itaque conponor....”

[633] Journal des Savants, Par., 1912: “Les travaux récents sur la chronol. des œuvres de Sén.,” p. 213.

[634] See Mr. J. D. Duff’s notice of M. Albertini’s La Composn. dans les ouvrages philos. de Sén., C. R., May-June, 1924.

[635] Albertini states with admirable clearness the difficulties of the problem and indicates the variety of answers given. His conclusions are often in agreement with Gercke’s.

[636] Aduersaria Critica, Vol. II. 344, Copenhagen, 1873.

[637] The logical sequence and arrangement of topics in the treatises (other than N.Q.) and letters are examined by Albertini, op. cit., pp. 51-146.

[638] Only one, the De Tranq., has a form suggestive of “dialogue” in the true sense.

[639] Favez, Ad Helu., pp. xxxviii. sqq.

[640] Ad Pol., xiii. 3, xviii. 9.

[641] Müller, De Sen. librorum de ira compositione, Lpz., 1912; Rabbow, Antik Schriften üb. Seelenheilung u. Seelenleitung, Lpz., 1914.

[642] Albertini, op. cit., pp. 61-63.

[643] De Ira, III. ii.

[644] Ib., III. ix. 1-2.

[645] Ib., I. i. 3-4.

[646] Ib., II. xxv. 2: “questus est quod foliis rosae duplicatis incubuisset.” A longer anecdote, admirably told, is that of Augustus twitting Asinius Pollio with keeping in his house “the wild beast” Timagenes, ib., III. xxxiii.

[647] De Vit. Beat., iii. 2: “quod inter omnis Stoicos conuenit, rerum naturae adsentior”; viii. 2: “idem est ergo beate uiuere et secundum naturam.”

[648] Ib., iii. 4.

[649] Ib., xvii. 1: “Quare ergo tu fortius loqueris quam uiuis?” xviii. 1: “aliter (inquis) loqueris, aliter uiuis”; xx. 1: “non praestant philosophi quae loquuntur.”

[650] Ed. De Otio. According to Marchesi, Seneca, 1920, all three were written about 62. Dessau’s view, Herm., liii., 1918, pp. 192 sqq., is that they were composed after Serenus’s death, late in Seneca’s career, as a memorial recreating three stages in a dead friend’s advance towards and in Stoicism. Waltz stands not alone, as Dessau said, but has Münscher’s support, for dating the De Const. early in Claudius’s reign, about 42. Most concur in putting all three somewhere in Nero’s reign; e.g. De Const., 54-56; De Tranq., 59; De Otio, 62.

[651] De Const., ii. 1: “Nuper cum incidisset mentio M. Catonis....”

[652] Dessau, op. cit., finds difficulties in the usually accepted date, and considers the De Breu. was composed about A.D. 62. This view is criticized by Albertini.

[653] N.Q., IV. praef. 1 and 12. Seneca quotes from a poem of his, N.Q., III. 1; a hexameter, Ep. Mor., xxiv. 21; iambics, viii. 10.

[654] Schanz, op. cit., p. 381, does not think so. On the other hand, Albertini, op. cit., p. 102, says; “Je suis de ceux qui croient que la fin du De Prouid. est mutilée.”

[655] De Clem., II. i.: “Vellem nescire literas!”

[656] De Ben., I. xv. 6.

[657] Ib., V. i. 1.

[658] M. Bourgery concludes that Bks. VI. and VII., as exhibiting an increase of regular clausulae, were written after the other books. M. Pichon asks why, if that metrical criterion holds for VI. and VII., one should not apply it to Bk. V. Bk. V. is credited with only 41% of regular clausulae, and so by M. Bourgery’s test should be earlier than I. and II., which have about 50%.

[659] M. Paul Thomas, Morceaux choisis de Sénèque, ed. 8, 1918, p. 145, says: “il serait aussi difficile que peu utile d’en donner une analyse.”

[660] E.g. De Ben., I. vii. 2: “ut dixi.”

[661] Ib., I. xiv. 1: “ad propositum nunc reuertamur”; I. x. 1: “sed longius nos impetus euehit prouocante materia.”

[662] Cf. argumentum to Bk. I. in the Strasbourg ed. of 1809: “libri boni sunt sed mehercule in ordine et tractatu confusi, quem uix est uel adnitentem expedire.”

[663] Ad Helu., xx.

[664] A table of varying rearrangements is given by Schanz, op. cit., p. 400. The last book (VII.) is put first by Gundermann, and the first last by Schultess and Gercke. Diels, Müller and Gercke begin with III., which Bourgery would put at the end according to his metrical tests.

[665] E.g. Ep. Mor., xlviii. 1, lxxi. 1, lxxv. 1.

[666] E.g. Hilgenfeld, Gercke, Schanz, Bourgery. Albertini thinks the letters real, and discusses the problem, op. cit., pp. 132-146. I accept his views.

[667] Various attempts have been made: e.g. Bourgery, Rev. de Philol., xxxv., 1911, pp. 40-55; Albertini, op. cit.

[668] Ib., cxviii. 1-2.

[669] Ib., xxi. 5.

[670] Ib., cxviii. 1-3.

[671] Inst. Or., X. i. 125-131.

[672] Tac., Ann., XIII. iii.: “ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus accommodatum.”

[673] Ep., lxxv. 1: “qualis sermo meus esset si una sederemus aut ambularemus, inlaboratus et facilis, talis esse epistulas meas uolo quae nihil habent accersitum nec fictum.”

[674] Ep., lxxvii. 4, 6 and 20, xxxvi. 1 and 4, cviii. 29.

[675] Ep., xxiii. 11, ii. 3, xiii. 10, xviii. 6.

[676] Summers, Select Letters of S., pp. xlii. sqq., gives a careful study; cf. Bourgery, Sénèque Prosateur, pp. 206-305.

[677] E.g. Lact., Div. Inst., I. v.: “Annaeus quoque Seneca, qui ex Romanis uel acerrimus Stoicus fuit, quam saepe summum Deum merita laude prosequitur!”

[678] Ep., xxxvii. 1.

[679] Ep., lxxxix. 8: “ad uirtutem uenitur per ipsam.”

[680] Ep., cviii., lvi., lxxviii. 23 and 25.

[681] Ep., cxvi. 5.

[682] xlviii., cvi.

[683] cxiii.

[684] liii.

[685] lxxxvii.

[686] Ed. pr. Ven., 1477; Baiter in Orelli’s Cicero; Kiessling and Schöll, Berl., 1875; Clark, Oxf., 1907.

[687] Teuffel, op. cit., §§ 300-301. For Probus’s notes on Virgil, see Keil, Halle, 1848.

[688] Mart., III. ii. 12; cf. Gell., I. xv. 18. He is to be distinguished from the grammarian Probus of the 4th cent.

[689] Suet., Gr., 24.

[690] X. i. 118.

[691] Tac., Hist., I. xc.

[692] Tac., Ann., XV. lxxi.: “Verginius studia iuuenum eloquentia fouebat.” He is mentioned or cited by Quintilian as “Verginius,” I. Or., III. i. 21; III. vi. 45; IV. i. 23; VII. iv. 24; as “Flavus,” VII. iv. 40; as “Flavus Verginius,” XI. iii. 126.

[693] Text: ed. pr. (In morte Claudii Ludus), Rome, 1513; Schusler, Utr., 1844; Bücheler, Symb. philol. Bonn., Leipz., 1864-1867 (Einl. u. Comment.); ed. min. (w. Petronius), 1871; 6th ed. (Heraeus), Berl., 1922; Ball, (tr. and comm.), New Yk., 1902; Rouse (Loeb ed. w. Petron.), Lond. and New Yk., 1913; Weinreich, Berl., 1923.

[694] Birt, De Sen. Apoc. et Apoth. lucubratio, Marb., 1888, thinks Sen. wrote not only the existing political satire, but a lost philosophical Apocolocyntosis. Stahr, Agrippina, append., Berl., 1867, also refuses to identify the Apotheosis with the Apocolocyntosis, but further denies S.’s authorship of the extant skit. Hartman, Mnemos., N.S., xliv. (1916) holds that the pumpkinification was contained “in aliquo colloquio” distinct from the extant “Ludus.”

[695] The Greek title ἀποκολοκύντωσις is from κολοκύντη = Lat. cucurbita. For the satiric use of cucurbita cf. Petron., 39; Juv., XIV. 58; Apul., Met., I. xv. The title Ludus de morte Claudii Caesaris is in inferior MSS., and involves an un-Latin use of ludus.

[696] lx. 35: συνέθηκε μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὁ Σενέκας σύγγραμμα ἀποκολοκύντωσιν αὐτὸ ὥσπερ τινὰ ἀπαθανάτισιν ὀνομάσας.

[697] Bickel in “Der Schluss d. Apoc.,” Philol., lxxvii. (1921) defends the ending as it stands.

[698] Apoc., 7: “putares omnes illius esse libertos: adeo illum nemo curabat.”

[699] E.g. Apoc., 7: “ante templum, ius dicebam”; 10: “antequam audires, damnasti”; 12: “discere causas una tantum parte audita, saepe ne utra”; 14: “illum altera tantum parte audita condemnat.”

[700] Diderot argued that either Seneca’s adulation was sarcastic or that the Consol. ad Polyb. was written by some one to damage Seneca’s character.

[701] Tac., Ann., XIII. iii.

[702] Tac., Ann., XIII. iii.: “postquam ad prouidentiam sapientiamque flexit, nemo risui temperare.”

[703] Dio, lx. 35: τοὺς γὰρ μύκητας θεῶν βρῶμα ἔλεγεν εἶναι: Suet., Ner., xxxiii.

[704] Tac., Ann., XII. viii.: “infensus Claudio dolore iniuriae credebatur.”

[705] Bücheler dates the Apoc. immediately after Claudius’s death. Hirschfeld (Kl. Schriften, 1913) connects the composition with Nero’s annulment of Claudius’s consecration (Suet., Claud., xlv). Bickel (op. cit.) accepts Hirschfeld’s date.

[706] For examination of Seneca’s relationship to Menippean Satire, see Weinreich, Senecas Apocol. ... Einführung, Analyse, Untersuchung, Berl., 1923.

[707] Helm, Lukian u. Menipp, 1906.

[708] E.g. (proverbs) 1: aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere; 7: manus manum lauat; (colloquialisms) 1: dicam quod mihi in buccam uenerit; 3: in semen relinqui; (slang) 4: animam ebulliit; 9: mapalia (Punic = “shanties”); (parataxis) 2: si dixero, mensis erat October; 10: dic mihi ... quare damnasti. The diminutives nummulariolus, ciuitatulas, auriculam, and a few more, occur.

[709] Weinreich, op. cit., pp. 65-66, considers that he travesties his own Herc. Fur.

[710] Five out of fourteen lines have an anapaest in the fifth foot.

[711] Baehrens, P.L.M., iv. (1882) pp. 55-73; Riese, Anth. Lat., Leipz., I. (1894); II. (1906).

[712] Plin., Ep., V. iii. 5.

[713] li. 4-5:

“Sic dulci Marcus qui nunc sermone fritinnit, facundo patruos prouocet ore duos.”

[714] ii. 5:

“Corsica terribilis cum primum incanduit aestas.”

[715] xxxvi. 5-6:

“qua frigida semper praefulget stellis Arctos inocciduis.”

[716] Tragedies: ed. pr., Ferrara, c. 1481; Lipsius, Leid., 1588; Gruter, Heidelb., 1604; Gronov, Leid., 1661; Pierrot, Par., 1829-1832; Peiper and Richter, Leipz., 1867 (influenced by erroneous belief in strophic arrangement); improved ed., Richter, Leipz., 1902; Leo, Berl., 1878-1879 (vol. i., Obseruationes criticae, pp. 232, vol. ii., Tragoediae); Miller (Loeb ed. w. prose trans.), 2 vols., 1916-1917.

Trans.: Heywood and others, Lond., 1581; Harris (verse), Lond., 1904; Miller (blank verse and lyric metres), Chicago, 1907.

Dramatic influence: Cunliffe, Influence of S. on Elizab. Tragedy, Manch., 1893; Vaughan, Types of Tragic Drama, Lond., 1908; Spearing, Eliz. Transns. of S.’s Tragedies, Camb., 1912; Godley, Senecan Tragedy in Eng. Lit. and Classics, Oxf., 1912; Kastner and Charlton, Growth of Senecan Tradition in Renaiss. Trag., introd. to Poet. Works of Sir W. Alexander, Lond., 1921; Lucas, S. and Eliz. Tragedy, Camb., 1922; Jourdain, Drama in Europe, Lond., 1924.

[717] Quintil., X. i. 128: “tractauit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam: nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et dialogi feruntur”; cf. VIII. iii. 31; Tac., Ann., XIV. lii.; Plin., Ep., V. iii. 5.

[718] Examples may be found in Schäfer’s De Philosophiae Anneanae in Senecae tragoediis vestigiis, Jena, 1909.

[719] Birt (Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altert., 1911). Jonas, De ordine librorum Sen., 1870, aimed at a closer determination of dates, e.g. Med. and Tro. soon after Seneca’s return from exile in 49, Herc. Fur. after 57, Oed. after the Parthian war of 58, Thyest. after Seneca’s retirement in 62. Weinreich (Apoc., Einführung, etc., 1923, p. 65), founding on Münscher’s metrical analyses, remarks with airy confidence, “Daran denkt man heute nicht mehr dass die Tragödien, ganz oder zum Teil, in der Jugendheit oder während des Exils entstanden seien.” Weinreich maintains that Seneca wrote Thyest., Herc. Fur. and Tro. before he composed the anapaests of the Apoc. in 54. He gives Münscher’s dates for the remaining plays: Phaed. and Med., 54 or 55; Agam., a year or two later; Oed., 57; Herc. Oet. and Phoen., 64 or 65.

[720] Cichorius, Röm. Studien, 1922, pp. 426-429; Quintil., VIII. iii. 31.

[721] Tac., Ann., XI. xiii.

[722] Differences in plot or structure between the Latin and corresponding Greek plays are exhibited in the comparative analyses appended to Miller’s edition (Loeb). The chief differences are summarized by Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Lit.

[723] Strauss, De ratione inter Sen. et antiquas fabulas Romanas intercedente, Rost., 1887 (combats Ribbeck’s views on ancient Roman tragedy); Liedloff, Die Nachbildung griech. u. röm. Muster in Senecas Troades u. Agamemnon, Grimma, 1902; Schreiner, Sen. als Tragödiendichter in seinen Beziehungen zu den griech. Originalen (contains bibliography), Münch., 1909; Tachau, Die Arbeiten üb. d. Tragödien des Sen. in d. letzten Jahrzehnten, Philol., 48 (1889) p. 340.

[724] Sen., Ep., lxxxiv. 5 “... in unum saporem uaria illa libamenta confundere, ut etiam si apparuerit unde sumptum sit, aliud tamen esse quam unde sumptum est, appareat.”

[725] Phoen., 383-386.

[726] Phoen., 654.

[727] Schanz, op. cit., II. 2 pp. 56-57.

[728] Med. 549-550:

“Sic natos amat? Bene est—tenetur. Vulneri patuit locus.”

[729] So too Ovid in Her., iv. (Phaedra’s epistle to Hippolytus) seems to follow the earlier rather than either the later Euripidean version or Sophocles’s lost Phaedra.

[730] Leo, De Sen. tragoediis obseruationes criticae, 1878, p. 133.

[731] Strauss, op. cit., esp. pp. 44-57.

[732] Inst. Or., X. i. 98.

[733] Leo considers it in part spurious, Obseruationes, vol. i. of his edn., p. 74; cf. Summers, C.R., XIX. (1905), p. 40. Ackermann maintains the genuineness of the whole, De Senecae Hercule Oetaeo, Marb., 1905; cf. his Der leidende Hercules des S., Rh. Mus., lxvii. (1912), pp. 425-471.

[734] Herc. Oet., 237-253.

[735] Schreiner, op. cit., p. 9.

[736] Med., 408-410.

[737] Med., 82 sqq.

[738] Med., 607-669.

[739] Med., 744-747; H.F., 750-756; Phaed., 1230-1237; Agam., 15-21; Thyest. 1-12; Oct., 619-623.

[740] Phaed., 1256 sqq.

[741] Agam., 26-27.

[742] Phaed., 350-351:

“amat insani Belua ponti Lucaeque boues.”

[743] H.F., 1259-1261.

[744] E.g. Phoen., 313-319.

[745] E.g. Phaed., 132-135. There are many sententiae in her speech of remonstrance 129-177.

[746]

Phaed., 211: “cur sancta paruis habitat in tectis Venus?”

215: “quod non potest uult posse qui nimium potest.”

[747] E.g. conception of a tranquil sea, expressed three times over in Tro., 199-203; or notion of the abasement of the proud repeated again and again, Agam., 79-107.

[748] Tro., 255 sqq.:

“Quid caede dira nobiles clari ducis Aspergis umbras? noscere hoc primum decet, Quid facere uictor debeat, uictus pati. Violenta nemo imperia continuit diu, Moderata durant; quoque Fortuna altius Euexit ac leuauit humanas opes, Hoc se magis supprimere felicem decet Variosque casus tremere metuentem deos Nimium fauentes. magna momento obrui Vincendo didici. Troia nos tumidos facit Nimium ac feroces? stamus hoc Danai loco Vnde illa cecidit. fateor, aliquando impotens Regno ac superbus altius memet tuli; Sed fregit illos spiritus haec quae dare Potuisset aliis causa, Fortunae fauor. Tu me superbum, Priame, tu timidum facis!... Equidem fatebor (pace dixisse hoc tua, Argiua tellus, liceat) affligi Phrygas Vincique uolui: ruere et aequari solo Vtinam arcuissem ... exactum satis Poenarum et ultra est. regia ut uirgo occidat Tumuloque donum detur et cineres riget Et facinus atrox caedis ut thalamos uocent Non patiar. in me culpa cunctorum redit: Qui non uetat peccare, cum possit, iubet.”

[749] Tro., 510-512:

“Fata si miseros iuuant, Habes salutem; fata si uitam negant, Habes sepulchrum.”

[750] Tro., 869: “Optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori.”

[751] Tro., 917-922.

[752] Tro., 792.

[753] Tro., 489:

“Haec causa multos una ab interitu arcuit, Credi perisse.”

[754] Med., 159 sqq.

[755]

Agam., 115: “Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter.” 130: “Quod ratio non quit saepe sanauit mora.” 144: “Vbi animus errat, optimum est casum sequi.” 259: “Nec regna socium ferre nec taedae sciunt.”

Thy., 487: “Serum est cauendi tempus in mediis malis.”

Phaed., 249: “Pars sanitatis uelle sanari fuit.” 598: “Honesta quaedam scelera successus facit.” 607: “Curae leues locuntur, ingentes stupent.”

[756]

Med., 55: “Quae scelere parta est, scelere linquenda est domus” 503: “Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens.”

[757] H.F., 135-138:

“Aspersa die dumeta rubent Phoebique fugit reditura soror. Labor exoritur durus et omnes Agitat curas aperitque domos.”

[758] Med., 375-379:

“Venient annis saecula seris Quibus Oceanus uincula rerum Laxet et ingens pateat tellus Tethysque nouos detegat orbes Nec sit terris ultima Thule.”

[759] Tro., 378-381, 397-398, 402-408:

“... Post mortem nihil est ipsaque mors nihil Velocis spatii meta nouissima.... Rumores uacui uerbaque inania Et par sollicito fabula somnio.... Quaeris quo iaceas post obitum loco? Quo non nata iacent.”

[760] Thy., 344 sqq.

[761] Agam., 605-611:

“Perrumpet omne seruitium Contemptor leuium deorum, Qui uoltus Acherontis atri, Qui Styga tristem non tristis uidet Audetque uitae ponere finem. Par ille regi, par superis erit. O quam miserum est nescire mori!”

[762] E.g. Phoen., 89-103, 146, 151-153.

[763] Phaed., 878: “mori uolenti desse mors numquam potest.”

[764] E.g. Epist. Mor., xii. 10, where “patent undique ad libertatem uiae multae, breues, faciles” significantly resembles Phoen., 153, “mille ad hanc (sc. mortem) aditus patent”; xiii. 14, lviii. 36. Seneca disapproved of a merely capricious suicide, Epist. Mor., xxiv. 25, xxx. 15.

[765] Phaed., 972-988.

[766] Thy., 396-400 (“Quiritibus ... plebeius”); H.F., 164, 839; Phoen., 103 (“ius uitae ac necis”).

[767]

Med., 109: “rara est in dominos iusta licentia,” and 113: “festa dicax fundat conuicia fescenninus.”

[768] H.F., 650-829.

[769] Tro., 442-491.

[770] They are all cases of words of four syllables, like nepotibus, Med., 512. Hardie, Res Metrica, 1920, p. 83, adds from H.F., 20, nuribus impiis, if that is the right reading.

[771] Med., 740-751; Oed., 223-232; Phaed., 1201-1212.

[772] Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, pp. 41-42, 71.

[773] Ellis, Catullus in XIVth. Cent., Oxf., 1905, pp. 10-11.

[774] E.g. Seneca: His Tenne Tragedies, Lond., 1581. (The Octauia is included, wrongly).

[775] E.g. 152, Nero is called “iuuenis infandi ingeni.”

[776] Hardie, Res Metr., p. 67; cf. p. 84 n.

[777] Nordmeyer, De Oct. Fab., Leipz., 1892. For views on this over-discussed question, see Schanz, op. cit., pp. 75-76.

[778] Since I wrote this I have noted with satisfaction P. J. Enk’s recent conclusions, in Mnem. liv., “De Octauia Praetexta,” that the play was written not long after Nero’s death and by an author well acquainted with Seneca’s tragedies.

[779] Oct., 310-375.

[780] Oct., 174 sqq.

[781] Oct., 915-916, and she uses the Greek word ἀηδών.

[782] Plin., Ep., VI. xxi. 2.

[783] Sen., Ep. Mor., viii. 8.

[784] Suet., Nero, xi.

[785] Suet., Nero, xxxix.

[786] Ib., x.: “declamauit saepius publice; recitauit et carmina non modo domi sed et in theatro.”

[787] Ib., xxi.

[788] Ib., xlvi.

[789] Tac., Ann., XI. xiii.

[790] Tac., Dial., 2, 3 and 11.

[791] Juv., VII. 12 and 72-73; Mart., XI. ix. and x., with vet. schol. ad Juv., I. 20; Ribbeck, Trag. Rom. Fr., p. 269. It has been previously indicated that Martial connects Ligurinus and Bassus with a Thyestes, p. 257 supra.

[792] MSS. give the Etrurian form Aules.

[793] Text: P. Pithoeus, Par., 1585; Casaubon, Par., 1605, etc.; cum schol., Jahn, Leipz., 1843; ed. ii., Bücheler, 1886; ed. iv., Leo, 1910; w. tr. and comm., Conington, ed. Nettleship, Oxf., 1872, 1874 and 1893; Gildersleeve, N.Y., 1875; étude et trad. fr., Rousse, Par., 1884; w. Juvenal, Owen, Oxf., 1902; Némethy, Budapest, 1903; in Corp. P.L., II., Summers, Lond., 1905; Santi Consoli, Rome, 1911; w. Juvenal, Eng. tr. G. G. Ramsay (Loeb), Lond., 1918; Cartault, tr. fr., Par., 1920.

To consult: Nisard, Études sur les poètes lat. de la décadence, Par., 1834, 1849, 1867, etc.; Martha, “Un Poète Stoïcien” in Les Moralistes sous l’emp. rom., 1865, etc.; Wilcke, Quid elocutio Juvenalis a Persiana differat, Stendal, 1869; Werther, De Persio Horatii imitatore, Halle, 1883; Sorn, Die Sprache d. Satirikers P., Laibach, 1890; Morgan, A Bibliography of P., Camb., U.S.A., 1893; Gérard, Le latin vulgaire et le langage familier dans les satires de P. in Le Musée belge, 1897; Burnier, Le rôle des satires de P. dans le développement du neo-Stoïcisme, Chaux-de-fonds, 1909 (bibliog.); Schönbach, De Persii in saturis sermone et arte, Leipz., 1910; Villeneuve, Essai sur Perse, Par., 1918 (bibliog.).

Transns.: Batten Holyday, ed. 3, 1635; Dryden, 1693; Thos. Sheridan (prose), 1728; Wm. Drummond, 1797; and in Conington’s and G. G. Ramsay’s edns.

[794] Lehmann, “Zur erklär. d. Sat. des P.,” Philol., vi. (1851) p. 432.

[795] Sat., III. 44-51.

[796] Plin., Ep., I. xiii. 3: Tac., Ann., XIV. 19; Dial. Or., 23.

[797] Suet., Ner., xxxvii.

[798] Vita Persii: “Cognouit et Senecam sed non ut caperetur eius ingenio.”

[799] Cornutus: Theol. Graecae Compendium, Lang, Lpz., 1881; Rappe, De L. Annaeo Cornuto, Lpz., 1906; Villeneuve, Essai sur Perse, pp. 47-102.

[800] V. 22 sqq., reading in 34-35:

“Cumque iter ambiguum est et uitae nescius error Diducit trepidas ramosa in compita mentes.”

[801] V. 41-46:

“Tecum etenim longos memini consumere soles, Et tecum primas epulis decerpere noctes....”

[802] These may have been sketches of the nature of Lucilius’s Journey to the Sicilian Straits or Horace’s Journey to Brundisium.

[803] Inst. Or., X. i. 94: “Multum et uerae gloriae, quamuis uno libro, Persius meruit.”

[804] Pretor, C.R., xxi. (1907) pp. 72 sqq., argues that the choliambics are a prologue, and, being intended as a blind to safeguard the author against Nero’s vengeance for alleged allusions to the emperor, contain deliberate untruths, e.g. that the writer has no capacity for authorship and is only half-educated or at least provincial (semi-paganus).

[805] I. 76-78.

[806] I. 99-102: “Torua Mimalloneis inplerunt cornua bombis,” etc. The lines have been ascribed to Nero, but more probably are Persius’s own parodies on the Catullian and pre-Augustan type of poetry favoured by many contemporaries who were court-favourites.

[807] I. 114-118.

[808] II. 61 sqq.

[809] III. 33-34:

“caret culpa, nescit quid perdat, et alto Demersus summa rursum non bullit in unda.”

[810] III. 38: “Virtutem uideant intabescantque relicta.”

[811] III. 66-67:

“Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum; Quid sumus et quidnam uicturi gignimur.”

[812] IV. 23-24.

[813] IV. 52: “Tecum habita: noris quam sit tibi curta supellex.”

[814] V. 52: “Mille hominum species, et rerum discolor usus.”

[815] V. 93-95.

[816] V. 119 sqq.

[817] Macleane’s is a plausible theory that “uende animam lucro” (l. 75) begins a new branch of the subject which is left unfinished. Pretor (introd. xix.-xxii.) argues that the gap comes earlier in Sat. vi. Jahn, who considered Sat. vi. to be among the first composed and our Sat. i. to have been among the last, believes that the sixth is complete as we have it and that the incompleteness is in Sat. i.

[818] Fiske regards Lucilius as a source for Persius second in importance only to Horace. Transns. Amer. Philol. Assoc., vol. 40, pp. 121-150.

[819] Hor., A.P., 102:

“Si uis me flere, dolendum est Primum ipsi tibi”;

Pers. I. 91:

“Verum nec nocte paratum Plorabit qui me uolet incuruasse querela.”

Other phrases in Persius’s first satire which may be instructively compared with their Horatian bases are l. 43: “scombros metuentia carmina”; l. 64: “ut per leue seueros effundat iunctura ungues”; l. 106: “pluteum caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues.”

[820] Villeneuve, op. cit., p. 179 sqq.

[821] Villeneuve, op. cit., p. 165.

[822] Hor., Sat. II. ii. 60: “Bioneis sermonibus et sale nigro.” The varied linguistic elements and polemic artifices of the lost moral disquisitions of Bion are partially discernible in the remains of Teles, an obscure Cynic of the 3rd cent. B.C. For Bion, see Villeneuve, op. cit., pp. 130-135.

[823] Pers., I. 44: “Quisquis es, o, modo quem ex aduerso dicere feci”; cf. 1 Corinthians xv. 35-37.

[824] Lyd., De Mag., I. 41: Πέρσιος δὲ τὸν ποιητὴν Σώφρονα μιμήσασθαι θέλων τὸ Λυκόφρονος παρῆλθεν ἀμαυρόν.

[825] “Obuoluisti ipse te caeca nocte.... Nolebas intellegi, forte et tu non intellegebas!... Latebas intra te, ne te curiosa et erudita inueniret sagacitas. Eras ipse inuolucrum tibi.”

[826] V. 92: “Dum ueteres auias tibi de pulmone reuello.”

[827] I. 58:

“O Jane, a tergo quem nulla ciconia pinsit, Nec manus auriculas imitari mobilis albas, Nec linguae quantum sitiat canis Apula tantae.”

[828] E.g. I. 9: “istud uiuere triste”; I. 27: “scire tuum”; I. 122: “hoc ridere meum”; cf. Hor., Epist. I. vii. 27: “reddes dulce loqui: reddes ridere decorum.”

[829] I. 15-21.

[830] III. 1-6.

[831] III. 10-14.

[832] III. 43-51.

[833] III. 78-85.

[834] VI. 43-49.

[835] VI. 29-31.

[836] III. 105-106.

[837] I. 108-109.

[838] II. 50-51.

[839] V. 5-18.

[840] V. 13: “nec scloppo (? stloppo) tumidas intendis rumpere buccas.” The loan-words from vulgar Latin in Persius (e.g. diminutives and obscenities) are such as occur in comedy and satirists like Lucilius and Horace. He also shares colloquialisms (ebullire, etc.) with contemporaries like Petronius in the Satyricon and Seneca in the Apocolocyntosis.

[841] Specified in the Latin of the Vita as Neronem principem illius temporis.

[842] Pichon, Hist. d. l. litt. lat., p. 553: “Sans nommer Néron en toutes lettres (la chose eût été impossible) Perse le met en scène sous le nom d’Alcibiade.” Waltz, Vie de Sénèque, “L’Alcibiade est Néron, comme l’a pensé Casaubon.” Kukula’s Persius und Nero (Graz, 1923) treats the first satire as containing a definite attack on Nero.

[843] Vita: “Editum librum continuo mirari homines et diripere coeperunt”; cf. Quint., I. Or., X. i. 94; Mart., IV. xxix. 7.

[844] Rousse, Perse, p. 135.

[845] Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Litt., II. 2, p. 85.

[846] Sorn, Die Sprache des Persius, p. 31: “es ist ein Meer von Dunkelheit.”

[847] G. G. Ramsay, Juv. and Pers., Loeb, 1918, Introd., pp. xxx.-xxxii.

[848] Vacca, Vit. Luc., mentions his “studium uitae quietioris.”

[849] Hieron., Chron. Euseb., ad. ann. Abr. 2079: “M. Annaeus Lucanus Cordubensis poeta in Pisoniana coniuratione deprehensus brachium ad secandas uenas medico praebuit”; cf. Suet., Vit. Luc.: “brachia ad secandas uenas praebuit medico.”

[850] Stat., Sil., II. vii.; Mart., I. lxi.; VII. xxi., xxii., xxiii.; X. lxiv.; XIV. cxciv.

[851] Tac., Ann., XV. xlix., lvi., lvii., lxx.; Dial. xx.

[852] Text: Ed. pr., Rome, 1469; Grotius, Antw., 1614, 1625, 1639; Farnaby, Eng. ed., 1618; Amst., 1715; Korrte (= Cortius), 1726; Oudendorp (index), Leyd., 1728; Burman, Leyd., 1740; c. notis Grotii et Bentleii, Strawb. Hill, 1760; Glasg., 1816; Weber, 3 vols., Lpz., 1821-1831 (scholia and Korrte’s comment.); Lemaire, 2 vols., 1830-1832; Weise, 1835; Haskins (introd. by Heitland), Lond., 1887; Hosius, Lpz., 1892 and 1905; ed. 3, 1913; Francken, 2 vols., Leyd., 1896-1897 (bibliog.); Heitland in Postgate’s C.P.L., 1905; Housman, Oxf., 1926. Bk. I., Lejay, Par., 1894 (important introd.); VII., Postgate, Camb., 1896; VIII., do., 1917. Fragments: Bährens’s Frag. P. Rom., 1886, pp. 365-368. Transns. into verse: Gorges, 1614 [rare]; May, 1627, ed. 2, 1631 (heroic couplets); Rowe, 1719 (heroic couplets); Ridley, 1896 (blank). Studies, etc.: Weber, Vitae Lucani collectae, progr., Marb., 1856-1858. Genthe, De Luc. uita et scriptis, diss., Berl., 1859; Scholia uet. e codice Montepessulano, 1868; Usener, Commenta Bernensia, 1869; Nisard, Études ... sur les poètes latins de la décadence, ed. 3, 1867, ii. pp. 85-454, ed. 4, 1878. On hist. sources: Baier, De Liuio Lucani ... auctore, diss., Bresl., 1874; Singels, De L. fontibus et fide, diss., Leyd., 1884; Westerburg, Luc. Florus und Pseudo-Victor, Rh. Mus., xxxviii. pp. 34-39; Giani, La Farsaglia, etc., Turin, 1888; Ziehen, Luc., als Historiker in Berichte d. freien Hochstiftes, Frankft.-a-M., 1890; Vitelli, Sulla composizione e publicazione della Fars. in Studi italiani di fil. class., VIII. pp. 33-72, 1900; Studi sulle storiche fonti della Fars., op. cit. X. pp. 359-429; Ussani, Sul valore storico del poema Lucaneo in Atti del congresso internaz. di scienze storiche, II. iv., Rome, 1903; Jullian, Lucain historien in Rev. des Études anciennes, Bord., I. 4, 1900. On philos. sources: Souriau, De deorum ministeriis in Phars., thèse, Par., 1885; Oettl, Lucans philosophische Weltanschauung, prog., Brixen, 1888; Millard, Lucani sententia de deis et fato, diss., Utr., 1891. On lit. sources: Diels, Seneca und L., Abhandl. der Berl. Akad., 1886; Hosius, L. u. seine Quellen, Rh. Mus., XLVIII. pp. 380-397, 1893; Heitland’s introd., Haskins’s ed., pp. cviii.-cxxxi. On the whole question of sources: Pichon, Les Sources de L., Par., 1912; on Stoicism in general: E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism, Camb., 1911.

[853] Ad Helu., xviii. 4, 5.

[854] Bährens, P.L. Min., 1879-1883, IV. p. 77: cf. p. 247 supra.

[855] Probus took Persius and Lucan to be of the same time of life; but Persius was Lucan’s senior by about five years. Prob., Vit. Persii: “Cognouit per Cornutum etiam Annaeum Lucanum, aequauum auditorem Cornuti. Lucanus adeo mirabatur scripta (Persii) Flacci ut uix retineret se recitante eo cum clamore quin illa esse uera poemata diceret, sua ipse ludos faceret.” (v.l. “recitante eo de more.”)

[856] Suet., Vit. Luc.: “ut praefatione quadam aetatem, et initia sua cum Vergilio comparans ausus sit dicere ‘et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem?’”

[857] Vacca, Vit. Luc.: “puerili mutato in senatorium cultum et in notitiam Caesaris Neronis facile peruenit.”

[858] Suet., Vit. Luc.: “ad extremum signifer Pisonianae coniurationis exstitit.”

[859] Ib., “matrem quoque innoxiam inter socios nominauit”; cf. Tac., Ann., XV. lvi. Vacca mentions no such incident.

[860] Ann., XV. lxx.: “recordatus carmen a se compositum, quo uolneratum militem per eiusmodi mortis imaginem obisse tradiderat, uersus ipsos rettulit, eaque illi suprema uox fuit.”

[861] Phars., III. 638-641; VII. 608-615; IX. 811-814.

[862] E.g. by May in the Life prefixed to his translation.

[863] Stat., Sil., II. vii. 92: “Cur saeua uice magna non senescunt?”

[864] Sil., II. vii. 54-63.

[865] Vit. Luc., ad fin.: “non fastidiendi quidem omnes, tales tamen ut Belli Ciuilis uideatur accessio.”

[866] Genthe, De L. uita et scriptis, p. 61, plausibly refers to the Saturnalia the coarse line quoted by Martial, X. lxiv. 6.

[867] What Schanz (Gesch. d. röm. Lit.) calls “Tanzstücke,” citing Jahn’s description “in usum pantomimorum scriptae,” Proleg. in Pers., p. xxxiv.

[868] That is a possible correction of appāmata in the best MSS.

[869] Tac., Ann., XIII. xliv. Sagitta in presence of a freedman killed a woman who would not marry him: the freedman sought to take the guilt on himself, but a maid revealed the truth, and Sagitta was brought to trial.

[870] Pichon, Les Sources de Lucain, p. 53, footnote: “ces deux poèmes n’en forment peut-être qu’un seul.” In noticing Pichon’s valuable work (C.R., xxvii. 1, 1913, pp. 25-28), I mentioned what appeared to me the incredibility of this hypothesis.

[871] Bährens, F.P.R., pp. 365-368.

[872] “Pharsalia” is borrowed from IX. 985; the title in MSS. is De Bello Ciuili.

[873] I. 125-126:

“Nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem Pompeiusue parem.”

[874] I. 129-130.

[875] I. 135: “stat magni nominis umbra.”

[876] I. 144 sqq.; “sed nescia uirtus stare loco ... gaudensque uiam fecisse ruina.”

[877] I. 185 sqq.

[878] II. 1415:

“Sit subitum quodcumque paras: sit caeca futuri Mens hominum fati: liceat sperare timenti.”

[879] II. 52-63.

[880] II. 258-259.

[881] II. 381 sqq.

[882] III. 1-7.

[883] III. 399-421. Possibly the miraculous fire in the forest was suggested to Lucan by Sen., Thyest., 674: “excelsae trabes ardent sine igne.”

[884] IV. 373 sqq.

[885] IV. 575-581.

[886] IV. 702-710.

[887] V. 476: “Caesaris adtonitam miscenda ad proelia mentem.”

[888] V. 731 sqq.

[889] VI. 67-68.

[890] VI. 191-192, 198-199, 205, 208, 219.

[891] VII. 207 sqq.

[892] VII. 24 sqq.

[893] VII. 61.

[894] VII. 129-130.

[895] VII. 252: “Nil opus est uotis: iam fatum accersite ferro.”

[896] VII. 278: “Et primo ferri motu prosternite mundum.”

[897] VII. 349: “Causa iubet melior superos sperare secundos.”

[898] VII. 440-445.

[899] VII. 457-459.

[900] VII. 695.

[901] VIII. 5-6.

[902] VIII. 76-78.

[903] VIII. 491 sqq.

[904] VIII. 673.

[905] VIII. 798-799.

[906] Cato, as hero of the desert, receives an epithet found nowhere else—hareniuagus, IX. 941.

[907] IX. 556 sqq.

[908] IX. 566 sqq.

[909] IX. 980 sqq.

[910] X. 444-446.

[911] X. 528-529.

[912] VI. 813-814.

[913] Op. cit., p. 270. The late Canon Cruickshank, Professor of Greek in Durham, saw a possible limit in the reference to Munda (45 B.C.) as the last battle of the civil wars, I. 40. But some take ultima there as “most distant,” and Lucan, in spite of ultima, goes on to refer to Mutina (43) and Perusia (41 B.C.).

[914] Cf. the language regarding portentous constellations in Phars., I. 527-529, with Sen., N.Q., VI. iii. 3 and VII. xx. 3.

[915] For summary of evidence, see Schanz, op. cit., pp. 104-105.

[916] Satyr., 118.

[917] Livy’s books from outbreak of the civil war till Caesar’s death were cix.-cxvi.

[918] Baier, De Liuio ... Lucani auctore, 1874; Pichon, op. cit., 1912.

[919] Sen., Contr., X. praef. 2; Suas., vi. 22.

[920] Sen., Ep., c. 9.

[921] See Heitland’s Introd.

[922] Pichon’s explanation of the picta arma of the Lingones as “une allusion aux boucliers ornés d’émail que l’on fabriquait à Bibracte” must interest anyone who has seen the Aeduan antiquities from Mont Beuvray at Autun.

[923] Pichon believes this “sans doute,” op. cit., p. 145.

[924] Lucan’s influence on Appian, Dio Cassius and Orosius, asserted by Ussani, is denied on good grounds by Pichon (op. cit., pp. 81 sqq.). Westerburg (Rh. M., xxxviii. pp. 34 sqq.) maintains that Florus drew from Lucan, and so did not simply summarize Livy. Against this theory powerful arguments are arrayed by Pichon (op. cit., pp. 69-81). Postgate (ed. Bk. VIII., postscript to introd.) remarks that much of the difficulty would be removed by the assumption that the epitomator of Livy used Lucan as well as Livy and that Florus used the epitome.

[925] Pichon, op. cit., p. 226; Heitland’s Introd., p. cviii. sqq.

[926] Fronto, 157 n.: “is initio carminis sui septem primis uersibus nihil aliud quam bella plus quam ciuilia interpretatus est.”

[927] Heitland, Introd., p. cxxviii.

[928] Rh. Mus., XLVIII. p. 393 sqq.; Pichon, op. cit., p. 235 sqq.

[929] References are given in Heitland’s Introd.

[930] VIII. 161-184; X. 172 sqq.

[931] VII. 144 sqq.; ib., 777 sqq.

[932] II. 93; III. 306. So it involves a little mythological lore to understand why, among omens of trouble, the flame announcing the close of the Latin festival is said to be parted into two, “copying the Theban pyres” (I. 550-552).

[933] VIII. 458 sqq.

[934] IV. 589 sqq.; IX. 359 sqq.

[935] II. 173 sqq.; IV. 566 sqq.; VI. 529-569; VIII. 667-691; VIII. 777-778; IX. 766-781.

[936] II. 201 sqq.

[937] II. 172.

[938] III. 567 sqq.

[939] III. 723-751.

[940] VIII. 851 sqq.

[941] V. 593 sqq.

[942] VI. 45-46.

[943] VII. 851-852.

[944] He carries condensation too far, e.g. II. 35, diuisere deos=“they divided the gods,” i.e. Roman ladies took their prayers to different temples; or he uses an over-fanciful conceit, e.g. II. 72, depositum applied to Marius, the exile, as “the deposit” entrusted by Fortune to the marshes. But such phrases have at least the intended quality of being striking.

[945] V. 455.

[946] Quint., X. i. 90: “ardens et concitatus.”

[947] Text: Wernsdorf, Poet. Lat. Min., 1780, vol. ii.; Gläser, Gött., 1842; Bährens’s Poet. Lat. Min., vol. iii.; Calp. et Nemesian., Schenkl, Prag., 1885, and by same editor in Postgate’s C.P.L., ii.; Keene, Lond., 1887. In Eng. verse (octosyll.), E. J. L. Scott, Lond., 1890.

Other wks.: Haupt, De carm. bucol. Calp. et Nemes., Leipz., 1854; Append. On Later Bucolic Poets of Rome in Conington’s Virgil, vol. i., with summary of Haupt’s arguments.

[948] iv. 84:

“At mihi qui nostras praesenti numine terras Perpetuamque regit iuuenili robore pacem, Laetus et Augusto felix arrideat ore....”

vii. 6: “Quae patula iuuenis deus edit harena.”

[949] vii. 83-84:

“... Ac nisi me uisus decepit, in uno Et Martis uultus et Apollinis esse putaui.”

[950] i. 42:

“Aurea secura cum pace renascitur aetas, Et redit ad terras tandem squalore situque Alma Themis posito, iuuenemque beata secuntur Saecula, maternis causam qui uicit Iulis” (v.l. in ulnis!).

[951] Ecl. i. 77-83; Pliny, N.H., II. 25, 92; Suet., Claud., xlvi.; Dio., lx. 35.

[952] Ecl. vii. 23-24:

“Vidimus in caelum trabibus spectacula textis Surgere, Tarpeium prope despectantia culmen”;

Tac., Ann., XIII. xxxi. (A.D. 57): “nisi cui libeat laudandis fundamentis et trabibus quis molem amphitheatri apud campum Martis Caesar extruxerat”; Suet., Nero, xii.: “munere quod in amphitheatro ligneo regione Martii campi intra anni spatium fabricato dedit....” The games instituted by Nero are mentioned in Suet., Nero, xi.

[953] iv. 36-42.

[954] Sarpe, Quaest. philol., Rostock, 1819. Keene, in introd. to his edn., agrees, p. 12. Summers, Silver Age of Latin Lit., p. 91, thinks that to identify the patron with Seneca or Calpurnius Piso is sheer caprice.

[955] iv. 53 sqq.

[956] iv. 158-159.

[957] iv. 64-66:

“Magna petis, Corydon, si Tityrus esse laboras: Ille fuit uates sacer et qui posset auena Praesonuisse chelyn.”

[958] i. 11-12:

“Bullantes ubi fagus aquas radice sub ipsa Protegit et ramis errantibus implicat umbras.”

[959] ii. 68-75.

[960] iv. 152-159.

[961] vii. 83-84.

[962] The influence of Calpurnius is illustrated in Prof. Mustard’s notes to his edns. of The Eclogues of Baptista Mantuanus, 1911; The Piscatory Eclogues of Sannazaro, 1914; The Eclogues of Andrelinus and Arnolletus, 1918.

[963] Text: ed. pr. in Sichard’s ed. of Ovid, Bas., 1527; (with Lucan) Corte, Leipz., 1726; Held, Bresl., 1831; Weber, cum proleg., Marb., 1859; Bährens’s P.L.M., 1879, vol. i.

[964] Haupt, Opusc., I. p. 391; cf. Lachmann’s comment on Lucretius, ed. 3, 1866, p. 326, “laudator Pisonis Calpurnius.”

[965] There are three instances, two in the first foot (atque illos, 24; quare age, 81) and one in the third (et te credibile est, 168), among the 261 lines; there are eight elisions, all in the first foot (eleven, if three doubtful cases be admitted) among the 759 lines of Calp. Siculus.

[966] De Laude Pis., 248: “Tu mihi Maecenas tereti cantabere uersu.” Calp. Sic., iv. 152: “tereti decurrent carmine uersus.”

[967] For such resemblances, see Laus Pisonis by Gladys Martin, Cornell Univ. diss., 1917.

[968] Ann., XV. xlviii.

[969] l. 29: “Mitia legitimo sub iudice bella mouere.”

[970] l. 47: “Flet si flere iubes, gaudet gaudere coactus.”

[971] l. 132: “Obsequiumque doces et amorem quaeris amando.”

[972] De Laude Pis., 166, 171, 242. Chelys is, except for Ovid’s use, post-Augustan; e.g. Calp. Sic., iv. 66, and in Statius often.

[973] Bährens, P.L.M., iii. 60-64.

[974] Schanz, op. cit., VIII. ii. 2, p. 98.

[975] Groag, art., “Calpurnius Piso” in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl., III. 1379; Bücheler, Rh. Mus., xxvi., p. 235.

[976] Text: (first published with Virgil), Scaliger, Lyon, 1572; Gorallus (i.e. Leclerc), Amst., 1703, 1715 (“P. Cornelii Seueri Aetna et fragm....”); Wernsdorf’s P.L.M., iv., 1785; Munro, Camb., 1867; Bährens’s P.L.M., ii. 88, 1880 (in App. Verg.); Sudhaus, Leipz., 1898; Ellis, 1901, and by same editor in Postgate’s C.P.L., vol. ii., 1905; Lenchantin de Gubernatis, Turin, 1911; L’Etna (texte et trad.), Vessereau, Par., 1923 (defends Virgilian authorship).

[977] Wight Duff, A Lit. Hist. of Rome to Close of Golden Age, 1909, pp. 492-495, for previous discussion of Aetna.

[978] Poema de Aetna monte Vergilio auctori praecipue tribuendum, diss., Krak., 1882. Brakman, Mnem., li. 2 (1923), holding that the treatment is based on Posidonius and that style and metre are Lucretian, marshals internal evidence to support a date about 30 B.C.

[979] Studia in Aetn. collata, Erlang., 1896.

[980] Rh. Mus., liv. 7.

[981] Gross, De metonymiis lat. a deorum nominibus petitis (diss., Hal., 19 (1911), p. 296), seeks on ground of resemblances between Octauia and Aetna to suggest that the poet of the Aetna was the borrower, and wrote between A.D. 69 and 79.

[982] Sen., Ep. Mor., lxxix. 4-7.

[983] Gesch. d. röm. Lit., 1910, § 307: “ein inhaltlich sehr anziehendes kleines Lehrgedicht.”

[984] 616-617:

“Defectum raptis illum sua carmina tardant: Hic uelox minimo properat sub pondere pauper.”

I should like to give the poet the credit of sarcastically regarding poems as heavy enough to be a hindrance; but the carmina are possibly charms or spells to which recourse might be had in terror.

[985] 628-629:

“Parcite, auara manus, dulces attollere praedas: Illis diuitiae solae materque paterque.”

[986] Text: Bährens, P.L.M., iii., pp. 7-59: Italici Ilias Lat. (praef., app. crit.), Plessis, Paris, 1885; cf. Tolkiehn, Homer u. die röm. Poesie, 1900, pp. 96-119.

[987] Wight Duff, Lit. Hist. of Rome, 119 sqq.; Bährens, Fragm. P.L., p. 37 sqq.

[988] Bährens, Fragm. P.L., p. 281 and p. 283; Wight Duff, op. cit., p. 123 and p. 245.

[989] Pers., i. 50; cf. i. 4 and Schol. The surviving line—

crudum manduces Priamum Priamique pisinnos,

was intended to translate Il., iv. 35—

ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον Πριάμοιό τε παῖδας.

[990] Sen., ad Polyb., viii. 2, xi. 5.

[991] ll. 899-902:

“Quem nisi seruasset magnarum rector aquarum, Vt profugus laetis Troiam repararet in aruis Augustumque genus claris submitteret astris, Non carae gentis nobis mansisset origo.”

[992] La Poésie latine, Par., 1909, pp. 528 sqq.

[993] For a record of the discussions on the acrostics see Schanz, op. cit., pp. 121-122.

[994] Tolkiehn, op. cit., p. 101, quotes treatises by Paul Verres (1881) and by Altenburg (1890) to suggest that the metre of Ilias Lat. is better than that of Silius’s Punica. The contention is that Silius would not have written his magnum opus in less careful style than an epitome of the Iliad. Galdi, L’epitome nella letteratura latina, 1922, p. 244, takes the view of Schanz that Il. Lat. is a free and brief rehandling of the Homeric Iliad by a dilettante fond of Virgil and Ovid (“innamorato di Virgilio e di Ovidio”). A real epitome would have had more Homeric colour.

[995] Rh. Mus., xxiv. (1870), 492 sqq.

[996] Hor., Od., IV. ix. 5-6; cf. Petron., Sat., ii.

[997] For reminiscences of Virgil and Ovid, see Plessis, op. cit., p. 532.

[998] Teuffel, op. cit., § 286, 7-11; Schanz, II. ii. § 360; fragments, Bährens, F.P. Rom., 1886, p. 368.

[999] Suet., Ner., lii.

[1000] Tac., Ann., XIII. iii.

[1001] N.Q., I. v. 6.

[1002] Mart., IX. xxvi. 9; Suet., Dom., i.; Ner., xxi., xxiv., xxxviii.; Tac., Ann., XV. xxxix.

[1003] Vit. Pers.; schol. ad Pers., vi. 1.; Quint., X. i. 96.

[1004] Teuffel. op. cit., 304, 1.

[1005] Sen., N.Q., VI. ii. 7.

[1006] Ann., XIV. xlviii. (A.D. 62), XVI. xxviii. (A.D. 66).

[1007] Quint., X. i. 89; Juv., VII. 79-81.

[1008] Plin., Ep., III. v., account of his uncle’s works; V. viii., history compared with oratory; VI. xvi., his uncle’s death; VI. xx., continued account of eruption of Vesuvius.

[1009] Text: Barbarus, Rome, 1492; Dalecampius, Lyons, 1587; Gronov, c. not. varior., Leyd., 1669; Harduinus, Par., 1685 (1723); Franz, c. not. Harduini et varior., 10 vols., Leipz., 1778-1791; Sillig, 8 vols., Gotha, 1851-1858; Jan, Lpz., 1854-1865; ed. 3, Mayhoff, 1906 sqq.; Detlefsen, Berl., 1866-1882, and crit. ed. of geog. bks. (II. 242–VI.), Berl., 1905; Morceaux extraits de Pline, trad. en fr., Guéroult, ed. augm., Par., 1845; Chrestomathia Pliniana, Urlichs, Berl., 1857; Chapters on Hist. of Art (from XXXIV.-XXXVI.), text and tr., Jex-Blake, introd. and comm., Sellers, Lond., 1896.

Trans.: Philemon Holland, Lond., 1601; ed. 2, 1634; Bostock and Riley, Lond., 6 vols., 1898, etc.

On his science: Plinius u. seine Naturgesch. in ihrer Bedeutung für d. Gegenwart, Dannemann, Jena, 1921.

On sources see bibliogr. in Teuffel, op. cit., Schanz, op. cit., and footnotes in this chapter.

On style: Der Stil des ält. Plin., Joh. Müller, Innsbr., 1883.

[1010] Ep., III. v. 7, states that he died in his fifty-sixth year; this was in August, A.D. 79.

[1011] N.H., praef. 1, i.e. like Catullus, a native of Gallia Cisalpina, though not, as some have argued, a fellow-townsman from Verona.

[1012] N.H., XXXVII. 81.

[1013] N.H., VII. 80; XIII. 83. Pliny calls Pomponius “consularis poeta” and “uatis ciuisque clarissimus.”

[1014] N.H., praef. 3.

[1015] N.H., XXXIII. 143.

[1016] XII. 98 (“... qua Rhenus adluit uidi”); XVI. 2; XXII. 8.

[1017] IX. 14-15; XXXIII. 63; XXXVI. 111.

[1018] C.I.G., III. 4536; Herm., XIX. (1884), p. 644. Since Hirschfeld, in 1887 (Röm. Mitt. d. deutsch. archäol. Inst., 2, p. 152), opposed Mommsen, several scholars, including Münzer, have also attacked the identification. Fabia and Detlefsen support it.

[1019] N.H., II. 150: “ego uidi in Vocontiorum agro”; VII. 36: “ipse in Africa uidi”; XVIII. 183: “in Treuerico agro ...”; Plin., Ep., III. v. 17: “cum procuraret in Hispania.”

[1020] Ep., III. v. 9.

[1021] Ep., VI. xvi.

[1022] Ep., III. v. 10.

[1023] Ib., 12.

[1024] Ib., 16.

[1025] Ib., 17.

[1026] Ib., 19.

[1027] Ib., 1-6.

[1028] N.H., VIII. 162.

[1029] Ib., XIV. 56.

[1030] Plin., Ep., III. v. 4.

[1031] Ann., I. lxix.; Symm., Epist., IV. 18, 16. Lehnerdt, Herm., xlviii., 1913, pp. 274-282, discusses the possible survival of a copy in Germany in the fifteenth century.

[1032] Gell., N.A., IX. xvi. 1.

[1033] I. Or., III. i. 21; XI. iii. 143, 148.

[1034] N.H., praef. 28.

[1035] For Pliny’s influence on Nonius Marcellus, Nettleship, Jrl. of Philol., XV. 189, “Study of Lat. Gram. in 1st Cent., A.D.”; on Gellius and others, Beck, Studia Gelliana et Pliniana, Lpz., 1892.

[1036] Ann., XIII. xx. (early in Nero’s reign, A.D. 55); XV. liii. (Piso’s conspiracy, A.D. 65); Hist., III. xxviii. (sack of Cremona, A.D. 69).

[1037] For the theories see Schanz, op. cit., pp. 495-496.

[1038] Peter, Hist. Rom. Frag., p. 310.

[1039] N.H., II. 199: “anno Neronis principis supremo, sicut in rebus eius exposuimus”; praef. 20 (of Vespasian and his sons): “Vos omnes, patrem te fratremque, diximus opere iusto, temporum nostrorum orsi a fine Aufidi Bassi.”

[1040] Ep., V. viii. 5: “historias et quidem religiosissime scripsit.”

[1041] Ep., III. v. 6.

[1042] Praef. 2 addresses Titus as “sexies consul.” His poem on the comet belonged to his fifth consulate, N.H., II. 89.

[1043] This is Urlichs’s view (Chrestom., Einl., p. xiv.): “Vermutlich gab er deshalb vor der Reise (von Rom) nur die erste Dekade vollständig heraus.” Bks. XI. and XII. in Riccard. MS. and the last six bks. in the Bamberg. MS. bear the words “editus post mortem.” Cf. Detlefsen, Untersuch. üb. d. Zusammensetzung der Naturgesch., 1899, p. 18; Klotz, Herm., xlii., 1907, pp. 324-325.

[1044] Praef. 33.

[1045] E.g. XXXIII. 22, he makes a reference forward to his book on precious stones (viz. XXXVII.): “sicut dicemus in gemmarum uolumine.”

[1046] Praef. 17: “ex exquisitis auctoribus C.”

[1047] Praef. 21: “est enim benignum, ut arbitror, et plenum ingenui pudoris fateri per quos profeceris.”

[1048] Montigny, Quaestiones in Plin. nat. historiae de animalibus libros, Bonn, 1848, p. 7: “uana eruditionis ostentatio.” Rabenhorst, Die Indices auctorum u. die wirklichen Quellen der N.H., in Philol., 65 (1906), sees in Pliny’s desire to acknowledge literary obligations merely a rhetorical trick.

[1049] VIII. 43-44: “Aristoteles ... uir quem in his magna secuturus ex parte praefandum reor,” i.e. Aristotle is for zoology his great authority, and Pliny proceeds to mention his summary of 50 volumes of Aristotle (“collecta in artum”). Klotz points out that the words in VI. 49, “Demodamas ... quem maxime sequimur,” only mean that Pliny’s material at this point goes back in the last resort to Demodamas (“in letzter Linie zum grössten Teil auf D. zurückgehen,” Herm., xlii., p. 327).

[1050] Brunn, De auctorum indicibus Plinianis disputatio isagogica, Bonn, 1856.

[1051] On the relation between the order of authors’ names in the special indices and the order followed in a general index common to Pliny’s books on closely allied subjects, see Klotz, Herm., xlii., p. 323 (1907), and his Quaestiones Plinianae Geographicae, 1906, p. 4 sqq.

[1052] Numbers often constituted a difficulty in the MSS., and uncertainty led to gaps. Klotz, loc. cit., p. 325, cites Dicuil, De mens. orb. terr., as aware of imperfections in Pliny MSS. On the figures, cf. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berl., 1882, p. 333.

[1053] Montigny, op. cit., showed that Pliny often named in his indices authors whom he had not directly consulted.

[1054] Teuffel, op. cit., 313, 3: “Im übrigen hat die Phantasie des modernen Quellenforschers hier, bei dem Verlust der meisten Quellen, weiten (auch reichlich benutzten) Spielraum.”

[1055] Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, Lpz., 1863 (“ipsius nunquam Aristotelis Graecos libros adhibuit”); Birt, De Halieuticis Ouidio falso adscriptis, Bonn, 1878 (criticized by Aly, Zur Quellenkritik, 1885, pp. 17-18); Koebert, Das Kunstverständnis des Plinius, pp. 134-146, in Abhandlungen ... W. v. Christ dargebracht, 1891; Rabenhorst, Der ältere Plinius als Epitomator des Verrius Flaccus, Berl., 1903, and Die indices auctorum u. die wirklichen Quellen der N.H., Philol., 65, 1906 (examined by Klotz, Herm., xlii., p. 324 sqq., who declines to regard Pliny as a miserable humbug, “elender Windbeutel” and swaggerer, “Aufschneider.”) For brief account of Verrius Flaccus, see Wight Duff, Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age, pp. 629-631; Trogus, ib., pp. 631, 636-637; Figulus, ib., p. 346; Juba, ib., p. 667.

[1056] Aly, Zur Quellenkritik des älteren Pl., Marb., 1885; Münzer, Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgesch., Berl., 1897.

[1057] Jahn, Ueber die Kunsturteile des P. (in Berichte d. Sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, 1850, pp. 105-142.)

[1058] Brieger, De Fontibus Librorum XXXIII.-XXXVI. Nat. Hist. Plin. quatenus ad artem plasticam pertinent, diss., Greifsw., 1856.

[1059] This is well summarized in E. Sellers’s introd. to The Elder Pliny’s Chaps. on Hist. of Art, 1896, where attention is directed to relevant works by Schreiber, Furtwängler, Oehmichen, Robert, L. Urlichs, his son H. L. Urlichs, and others. Münzer, Zur Kunstgesch. des Pl., examined the Greek bases for Pliny’s history of art in Herm., xxx. (1895), pp. 499-547. To this list may be added Kalkmann’s Die Quellen der Kunstgesch. des Pl., Berl., 1898. He denies Pliny’s indebtedness to Pasiteles of Naples included in the indices, and maintains that Pliny here relied instead on a chronological compilation by Apollodorus as well as a current catalogue of artists.

[1060] Aly makes this probable, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

[1061] N.H., XIV. 44-47. Münzer, Beitr. zur Quellenkrit., pp. 12-13.

[1062] N.H., XI. 273-276.

[1063] E.g. on Pliny’s “Arbeitsweise,” Aly, op. cit., pp. 19-21; Münzer, op. cit., pp. 3-133; Klotz, Herm., xlii. 323-329.

[1064] Plin., Ep., III. v. 10: “adnotabat excerpebatque.”

[1065] Furtwängler, Pl. u. seine Quellen üb. die bildenden Künste, in Jahrb. für klass. Phil., Supplbd. ix., Lpz., 1877, p. 4 sqq., regards Pliny’s mode of compilation as having been “nach einer unter Rubriken geordneten Excerptensammlung.”

[1066] Cf. his nephew’s description, Ep., III. v. 17: “electorum commentarios ... opisthographos quidem et minutissimis scriptos.”

[1067] Op. cit., pp. 20-21.

[1068] Since Aly wrote in 1885, the claims of Juba as a source have been pitched higher: Münzer, op. cit., 411-422.

[1069] II. 167-170.

[1070] N.H., II. 54: “macti ingenio este, caeli interpretes, rerumque naturae capaces ...”; 95: “Hipparchus nunquam satis laudatus”; 117: “ista plures sine praemio alio quam posteros iuuandi eruerunt.”

[1071] See list of works on the subject by Oehmichen, Gruppe, Detlefsen, Cuntz, Klotz and others in Schanz, op. cit., § 492.

[1072] N.H., XXV. 9: “cui summa auctoritas erat in ea arte nostro acuo.” Wellmann, “Beiträge zur Quellenanalyse des älteren Plinius,” Herm., lix. (1924), p. 129 sqq., has endeavoured to awake fresh interest in Castor as a Latin source and in Solon of Smyrna as a Greek source for Pliny’s medical botany.

[1073] This Xenocrates, the statuary who wrote de toreutice, is to be distinguished from Xenocrates, a physician of Aphrodisias in Cilicia, whose name appears in many previous author-lists, and from whose recent compilation Pliny borrowed remedies of a superstitious character.

[1074] N.H., III. 2: “locorum nuda nomina et quanta dabitur breuitate ponentur”; III. 39: “nec ignoro ingrati ac segnis animi existimari posse merito, si obiter atque in transcursu ad hunc modum dicatur terra.”

[1075] III. 138.

[1076] III. 39-42.

[1077] West, “Multiplication of Cities in Anct. Geog.,” Class. Philol. XVIII. 1, Jan., 1923.

[1078] XXVI. 18: “magicae uanitates.”

[1079] N.H., praef. 33: “Tu per hoc et aliis praestabis ne perlegant, sed ut quisque desiderabit aliquid id tantum quaerat”; Gell., N.A., V. xvi.: “degustandum ex philosophia censet, non in eam ingurgitandum.”

[1080] N.H., X. 81-82: “tanta uox tam paruo in corpusculo ... in una perfecta musica scientia modulatus editur sonus.” The lavish measure of Holland’s paraphrase is apparent here: three Latin words, infuscatur ex inopinato, become “anon all of a sudden, before a man would think it, she drowneth her words that one can scarce hear her.” His “descant between the plain song” and “crotchets, quavers, semiquavers and double semiquavers” add to the general effect of rich freedom in his tribute to the bird.

[1081] The chapters on papyrus are specially treated by Dziatzko, Untersuch. üb. ausgew. Kapitel d. antiken Buchwesens, mit Text übers. u. erkl. von N.H., XIII. 68-69, 1900.

[1082] XIV. 142: “ex ore halitus cadi, ac fere rerum omnium obliuio, morsque memoriae.”

[1083] XXXVI. 101-125.

[1084] I think it not unlikely that “mola tantum salsa litant qui non habent tura,” praef. 11, is an echo of Persius, II. 75, “farre litabo.”

[1085] N.H., II. 13: “hunc esse mundi totius animum....”

[1086] Ib., 14.

[1087] Ib., 15-16: “maior caelitum populus etiam quam hominum intellegi potest.”

[1088] II. 18: “Deus est mortali iuuare mortalem, est haec ad aeternam gloriam uia.”

[1089] Praef. 16: “qui ... utilitatem iuuandi praetulerunt gratiae placendi, idque iam et in aliis operibus ipse feci.”

[1090] VII. 2: “hominem tantum nudum et in nuda humo natali die abicit ad uagitus statim et ploratum.” Cf. Lucret., V. 222-227.

[1091] VII. 3: “Heu, dementiam ab his initiis existimantium ad superbiam se genitos!” 5: “At, hercules, homini plurima ex homine sunt mala”; XVIII. 2-3: “ferro ipsi nocentius aliquid damus, nos et flumina inficimus, et rerum naturae elementa ipsumque quo uiuitur aerem in perniciem uertimus.”

[1092] XXII. 117-118: “parens illa ac diuina rerum artifex.... Naturae quidem opera absoluta atque perfecta gignuntur.... Scrupulatim quidem colligere ac miscere uires, non coniecturae humanae opus, sed impudentiae est.”

[1093] XXII. 1 ... “nihil ab rerum natura sine aliqua occultiore causa gigni”; XVIII. 1: “si quis aestimet uarietatem, numerum, flores, odores coloresque et sucos ac uires earum (herbarum) quas salutis aut uoluptatis hominum gratia gignit.”

[1094] XXIV. 1: “sacra illa parente rerum omnium nusquam non remedia disponente homini”; 4: “Naturae placuerat esse remedia parata uolgo,” etc.

[1095] XXI. 1-2 ... “inenarrabili florum maxime subtilitate, quando nulli potest facilius esse loqui quam rerum naturae pingere lasciuienti praesertim et in magno gaudio fertilitatis tam uariae ludenti ... ne pictura quidem sufficiente imagini colorum reddendae.”

[1096] The imprecation would be “sit tibi terra grauis.”

[1097] II. 154-155.

[1098] XVIII. 1: “Patrocinari terrae et adesse cunctorum parenti iuuat, quamquam inter initia operis defensae.”

[1099] II. 157-158.

[1100] II. 174-175 ... “cum ad mensuram auaritiae suae propagauerit, quam tandem portionem eius defunctus obtineat.”

[1101] XVIII. 19-21.

[1102] XXXIII. 148: “Asia primum deuicta luxuriam misit in Italiam”; XXXIV. 34: “usque ad deuictam Asiam, unde luxuria.”

[1103] IX. 104-105, 114.

[1104] XII. 82-4.

[1105] XIII. 20.

[1106] XIX. 52-55.

[1107] XXII. 4: “Non est nunc propositum ista consectari.”

[1108] XVI. 14: “O mores aeternos qui tanta opera honore solo donauerint....”

[1109] XIV. 2-6.

[1110] II. 117-118.

[1111] XXV. 22-23: “fortassis aliquibus curam nostram friuolam existimaturis: adeo deliciis sordent quae ad salutem pertinent ... misereri sortis humanae subit.”

[1112] XXXIII. 3: “Quam innocens, quam beata, immo uero et delicata esset uita, si nihil aliunde quam supra terras concupisceret.”

[1113] Antig., 332 sqq.: πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ, κοὐδὲν ἀνθρώπου δεινότερον πέλει, κ.τ.λ.

[1114] N.H., XXXIV. 138 (= Chap. xiv.).

[1115] Homer, VII. 108: “pretiosissimum humani animi opus”; XVII. 37: “fons ingeniorum Homerus”; eulogy on Cicero, VII. 116-117, XVII. 38: “Cicero, lux doctrinarum altera”; Virgil, VII. 114.

[1116] XXIX. 14.

[1117] Praef. 6: “uolgo scripta sunt”; 12-13: “(hi libelli) nec ingenii sunt capaces, ... neque admittunt excessus aut orationes sermonesue ... sterilis materia rerum natura, hoc est uita narratur....”

[1118] X. 9: “tendente ... abigente ... cadente ... ostendente ... emergente.”

[1119] III. 39 sqq.

[1120] XXXVII. 201.

[1121] Galdi, L’Epitome nella letteratura lat., 1922, pp. 157-174.

[1122] The dispute concerning the relation of Solinus to Pliny as a source is discussed by Galdi, op. cit., pp. 159-166.

[1123] Welzhofer, Bedas Citate aus der N.H., in Abhandln. W. v. Christ dargebracht, pp. 25-41, Münch., 1891.

[1124] Rück, Auszüge aus d. Naturg. des P. in einem astronomisch-komputist. Sammelwerke des 8-ten Jahrhts., Münch., 1888.

[1125] Rück, Das Excerpt der N.H. des P. von Robt. v. Cricklade, Münch., 1902; Die Geographie u. Ethnographie der N.H. des P. im Auszüge des R. v. Cricklade, Münch., 1903 (with conspectus of Pliny’s “Fortleben” prefixed).

[1126] Singer, Greek Biology and Gk. Medicine, Oxf., 1922, p. 63.

[1127] Tac., H., I. viii., IV. xliii.; Ann., XIII. xx., XIV. ii.; Suet., Ner., xxi.; Dio, lxiii. 14.

[1128] Tac., Agr., x.; Ann., XIII. xx., XIV. ii., XV. lxi.

[1129] Tac., Dial., xv. 1, xxviii. 1-6, xxxii.; H., III. ix, xxv, xxviii; IV. xlii.

[1130] Stat., Sil., IV. vii. 53 sqq.

[1131] Tac., Agr., ii.; Suet., Dom., x.; Dio, lxvii. 13.

[1132] Suet., Dom., x.

[1133] Ed. pr., Campanus, Rome, 1470; Badius, Par., 1516; Gronov, Leyd., 1665; Burman (with declamns.), Leyd., 1720; Caperonnier, Par., 1725; Gesner, Gött., 1738 (Eng. ed., Oxf., 1806); Spalding, rec. et annot., 4 vols., Lpz., 1798-1816; vol. 5, indices, Zumpt, 1829; vol. 6, lexicon, Bonnell, 1834; Bonnell (Teubn.), Lpz., 1854 sqq.; Halm, Lpz., 1868 sqq.; Meister, krit. Anm., Prag, 1886-1887; Radermacher, I.-VI., Lpz., 1907.

Sep. bks.: I., Fierville, Par., 1890; Colson, Camb., 1924; X., J. E. B. Mayor, Camb., 1872; Hild, Par., 1885; Bonnell, Berl., ed. 6, 1912; Peterson, Oxf., 1891 (Introd. treats Q.’s life, lit. criticism, style, MSS.); Dosson, Par., 1904.

Trans.: Guthrie, Lond., 1805; Watson (Bohn), Lond., 1856; Butler (Loeb), Lond., 1920 sqq.

Saintsbury, Hist. of Criticism, I., 1900, pp. 289-321, gives a readable conspectus of the Institutio; cf. extracts in his Loci Critici, 1903. For comprehensive reports of modern studies on Q., Bursian’s Jahresberichte üb. d. Fortschritte d. class. Altertumswissenschaft, 1887, 1901 and 1922.

[1134] Martial, II. xc. 1-2:

“Quintiliane, uagae moderator summe iuuentae, Gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae.”

[1135] Hieron., ann. Abr., 2104 = A.D. 88, “Quintilianus ex Hispania Calagurritanus”; Auson., Prof. Burdig., I. 7.

[1136] I. Or., IX. iii. 73. It is doubtful whether this is the Quintilianus of Seneca’s Contr., X. praef. 2; ib., iv. 19.

[1137] I. Or., VI. i. 14 (cf. Tac., Ann., XIII. xxxiii.), V. vii. 7, XII. xi. 3.

[1138] Juv., VI. 452. Colson, Quint., I., Introd., p. x., suspects the scholiast.

[1139] X. i. 24 and 118, VI. iii. 27 and 42, V. vii. 7, XII. x. 11.

[1140] Plin., Ep., VII. vi. 11.

[1141] I. Or., X. i. 102.

[1142] X. i. 119-120.

[1143] X. i. 119, XII. v. 5 and x. 11.

[1144] I. Or., X. i. 119, XII. x. 11; Tac., Ann., XIV. xxviii., Hist., II. x., IV. xli. and xliii.; Dial., viii. and xiii.

[1145] I. Or., X. i. 120, iii. 12.

[1146] Hieron., ann. Abr., 2084 = A.D. 68.

[1147] Hieron., ann. Abr., 2014 = A.D. 88: “Quintilianus ... primus Romae publicam scholam et salarium e fisco accepit et claruit.” Jerome’s date is too late; for Suet. Vesp., 18, shows that Vespasian, who died A.D. 79, first gave the annual grant to rhetores.

[1148] Auson., Grat. Act., 7. Possibly Juvenal is thinking of the same thing in VII. 197: “fies de rhetore consul.”

[1149] VI., pr. 16.

[1150] XI., ii. 39.

[1151] IV. i. 19 (“pro regina Berenice”), IV. ii. 86, VII. ii. 5 and 24, IX. ii. 74 (where a ticklish case is cited from his own experience).

[1152] Ep., II. xiv. 9: “ita certe ex Quintiliano praeceptore meo audisse memini.”

[1153] Cf. I. Or., I. ii. 4 sqq. with Sat., XIV. 31 sqq. In X. 122 Juvenal cites as his example of Cicero’s bad verse one of the well-known lines quoted in I. Or., XI. i. 24. When, however, Juvenal was caned at school (I. 15), his master was presumably not Quintilian, who did not believe in corporal punishment (I. Or., I. iii. 13).

[1154] Reuter, De Qi. libro qui fuit de causis corrupt. eloq., Bresl. 1887.

[1155] I. Or., VI. pro. 3, VIII. iii. 76, II. iv. 42 (“alio quoque libro”), II. x. 3-5, V. xii. 17-23, VIII. iii. 57-58 (“corrupta oratio”).

[1156] VII. ii. 24.

[1157] IV. i. 19, IX. ii. 73-74.

[1158] I. pro. 7.

[1159] See introd. epistle to Trypho, 1-3, I. pr. 1.

[1160] Colson, op. cit., p. xvi., suggests an earlier date, A.D. 86, as a possibility, on the ground that twenty years of teaching might include an unknown period in Spain.

[1161] I. pr. 21-22.

[1162] J. Overbeck, in an art., “Die Entdeckung d. Kindes im I. Jahrht. n. Chr.” (Neue Jahrbr. für d. klass. Altertum, liii.-liv., 1924), establishes, from literary and medical sources, the intelligent interest taken at this period in children and their upbringing. Stoicism contributed to it.

[1163] See chap. on “Roman Education under the Empire,” esp. pp. 27-29.

[1164] II. xii. 4-7: “maledicit ... laudari disertum.”

[1165] II. xii. 12.

[1166] II. xiii. 2.

[1167] II. xiii. 15-17.

[1168] II. xvi. 12-19: “deus ille, parens rerum fabricatorque mundi nullo magis hominem separauit ... quam dicendi facultate.”

[1169] I. pr. 9-10, II. ii. (whole section), II. xv. 1, XII. i. 1.

[1170] II. xxi. 14.

[1171] I. pr. 16, XII. ii. 10, XII. iii. and iv.

[1172] III. i. 8-21.

[1173] III. viii. 49.

[1174] V. xii. 17-23.

[1175] VI. iii. 6.

[1176] VII. i. 42-62.

[1177] VIII. pr. 3.

[1178] VIII. pr. 27.

[1179] Ib., 28 and 31.

[1180] VIII. iii. 1.

[1181] From another standpoint oratorical prose may be “simple” or “grand” or “intermediate,” X. i. 44: Cf. XII. x. 58-61 and 63.

[1182] X. i. 73, 32 (cf. 101 for Livy); 32 and 102 (for Sallust).

[1183] Claussen, Quaest. Quintilianeae (Fleckeisen, Jahrb. Suppl., 6), Lpz., 1873; Dionys. Halic., lib. de imitatione rel., ed. Usener, Bonn, 1889. Usener denies Q.’s dependence on Dionys., but see Peterson, ed. Bk. X., Intr., pp. xxx. sqq.; Heydenreich, _De Quintiliani Inst. Or. libro X., de Dionysii de imitatione libro_, II., etc., Erl., 1900.

[1184] Nettleship, Lity. Criticism in Lat. Antiquity in _Jrnl. Philol._, XVIII., pp. 225 sqq.; Cole, Q.’s Quotatns. fr. Lat. poets, C.R., XX. (1906), p. 47.

[1185] X. i. 105-112. The test of real progress, he says, lies in the student’s enjoyment of Cicero: “ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero ualde placebit.”

[1186] X. i. 125-131. Rocheblave, De Q. Senecae iudice, Par., 1890, defends Seneca against Q.’s antagonism.

[1187] X. i. 98-99.

[1188] XI. iii. 30: “in quo nulla neque rusticitas neque peregrinitas resonat.”

[1189] XI. iii. 126: “quot milia passuum declamasset.”

[1190] Eurip. Hec., ll. 254 sqq.

[1191] E.g. II. xvii. 19 (false argument comparable to a military ruse); ib., 36 (strict veracity may be postponed to public utility).

[1192] XII. x. 35-36.

[1193] Ib., 40.

[1194] Ib., 48.

[1195] Ib., 51.

[1196] Ib., 58-61.

[1197] Ib., 73.

[1198] Ib., 79.

[1199] Ib., 80.

[1200] XII. xi. 8: “id uiro bono satis est docuisse quod sciret.”

[1201] XII. xi. 10.

[1202] XII. xi. 17.

[1203] XII. xi. 30.

[1204] His prooemium de scriptoribus artis rhetoricae (III. i.), as indicated, is a kind of ancient bibliography for rhetoric. For modern works on his sources, see Schanz, op. cit.

[1205] I. i. 4 and 16, etc.

[1206] It has been calculated that he refers to over 450 passages of Cicero and nearly a third as many Virgilian passages.

[1207] XII. vi. 4: “plusque, si separes, usus sine doctrina quam citra usum doctrina ualet.”

[1208] X. ii. 24: “non qui maxime imitandus et solus imitandus est.”

[1209] XII. x. 45.

[1210] X. iii. 13-14.

[1211] E.g., XXX.: φῶς γὰρ τῷ ὄντι ἴδιον τοῦ νοῦ τὰ καλὰ ὀνόματα.

[1212] See Laurie, Hist. Survey of Pre-Christian Educn., Lond., 1895. Colson, op. cit., Introd., gives an account of Q.’s relation to the education of his times, his own educational principles, his scheme for teaching the mother-tongue and a brief comparison with (pseudo-)Plutarch’s De Liberorum Educatione and Tacitus’s Dial.

[1213] Froment, Quid e Qi. orat. institutione ad liberos ingenue nunc educandos excerpi possit, thes., Par., 1874; H. A. Strong, Q. the Roman Schoolmaster (Some of his probable views on mod. educn.), Univ. Press, Liverp., 1908.

[1214] II. v. 21-22.

[1215] On Q.’s style, Peterson, Bk. X., Intr., pp. xxxix. sqq.; Bonnell’s Lexicon (Proleg.); Dosson, Bk. X. (Remarques sur la langue de Q.); Marty, De Quintilianeo usu et copia verborum cum Cic. comparatis, 1886.

[1216] Fuller lists are given by Peterson, op. cit., xli. sqq.

[1217] Hirt, Ueber d. Substantivierung des Adject. bei Q., Berl., 1890.

[1218] “Pas un seul augmentatif en per-,” Laurand, Manuel des études gr. et lat., Par., 1918, p. 606.

[1219] Q.’s clausulae have been examined by Gladisch, De Clausulis Quintilianeis, Bresl., 1909, and De Groot, Der antike Prosarhythmus, Gron., 1921. Their statistics are arrived at by different methods, but both indicate considerable contrast (though apparently not the same amount of contrast) between Cic. and Q.

[1220] E.g. IV. ii. 122.

[1221] IV. ii. 127: “perire artem putamus nisi apparet, cum desinat ars esse si apparet.”

[1222] Colson, Bk. I., Intr., traces through the centuries the evidence for knowledge of either the Institutio or its author.

[1223] To this century belongs the “Liber Glossarum,” that portentous medieval collection of glosses, which was perhaps compiled by Adelhard, abbot of Corbie. Three scraps from Q.’s ninth book are quoted in the medieval glossaries to exemplify the use of pugnaciter, caesim and austera, but there is no proof whether these come direct from the text or through some intermediary. See Mountford, Quotations fr. class. authors in medieval glossaries (Cornell publn.), New Yk. and Lond., 1925, pp. 85-86.

[1224] Colson, op. cit., li.

[1225] It survives as Parasinus, 7720.

[1226] C.R. xxi. (1907), pp. 33 sqq.

[1227] For Q.’s influence on humanism, see Colson, op. cit., pp. lxiv. sqq., and Messer, Q. als Didaktiker u. sein Einfluss auf die didaktisch-pädagogische Theorie des Humanismus in Neue Jahrb., 1897.

[1228] Essay on Criticism, ll. 669-694; cf. Pope’s own notes.

[1229] The longer declns., Merula, Ven., 1481; with Tac., Dial., Oxf., 1675, 1692; Inst. Or. et Declam. XIX. et Calpurn. Flacci Declam., c. not.... Burm., 3 vols., Leyd., 1720; Lehnert, Lpz., 1905 (to some extent based on Dessauer’s Handschriftliche Grundlage, 1898). Cf. Reitzenstein, Studien zu Q.’s grösser. Declam., Strassb., 1909. Trans.: Warr, “from the Oxford Ed.,” Lond., 1686. The Tenth Declam., Robinson Ellis, Lond. and Oxf., 1911.

The shorter: ed. pr. Ugoletus, Parma, 1494; Aerodius, Par., 1563 (136 pieces), Pithoeus, Par., 1580 (all the 145 extant); Ritter, Lpz., 1884 (cf. Ritter’s Die Quintilianische Decl., Untersuchung üb. Art u. Herkunft, Freib. u. Tüb., 1881.) Against Ritter’s belief in their authenticity may be put Trabandt, De minoribus ... declam., Greifsw., 1883; Fleiber, De minoribus, etc., Münst., 1890.

[1230] Ritter, Quintilianische Declam., 1881; groups (1) I.; (2) X.; (3) II., IV., V., VII., VIII., XI., XIV.-XIX.; (4), a group which may show the influence of Quintilian or a pupil, III., VI., IX., XII., XIII.

[1231] Reitzenstein, op. cit.; Golz, Der rhythmische Satzschluss in d. gröss. pseudo-Quintilianischen Decl., Bresl., 1913; esp. pp. 61 sqq.

[1232] Hammer, Beitr. zu den 19 gröss ... Münch., 1893, p. 44. Ellis, Notes on the 19 Larger Decl., in Hermathena, 1909, pp. 328 sqq., alludes to these almost forgotten exercises as “dating perhaps from the second, perhaps from the fourth century A.D.” The latter alternative seems too late.

[1233] Trebell. Poll., Trig. Tyr., iv. 2; Auson., Prof. Burdig., i. 15-16.

[1234] I. Or., I. pro. 7.

[1235] E.g. The charge of attempted parricide brought against a son found mixing poison in No. ccclxxvii. may be compared with Sen., Cont., VII. iii., and No. xvii. of the longer declamations.

[1236] cccxl.; cf. Suet., De Rhet., i. The case is stated in the chapter on Roman education, p. 34 supra.

[1237] Ossa eruta parricidae, ccxcix.; Ritter, p. 180.

[1238] Cf. Liban., Decl., xlix., with the first of the xix. longer declamations.

[1239] I. Or., III. i. 21.

[1240] Mart., V. lvi. 6: “famae Tutilium suae relinquat.”

[1241] I. Or., III. i. 21: “parco nominibus uiuentium.”

[1242] Hieron., Ann. Abr., 2092 = A.D. 76; cf. Tac., Dial., xxvi. II.

[1243] Text: Strategem., ed. pr. (with Aelian, Vegetius, Modestus), Rome, 1487; Modius, Leid., 1607; Oudendorp, Leid., 1731, 1779; Gundermann, Lpz., 1888; Eng. trans., Scott, Lond., 1816. De Aquis, ed. pr. (with Vitruvius), Pompon. Laetus, 1484-1492; Polenus (Proleg. vita, etc.), Pad., 1722; Dederich (with Germ. tr.), Wesel, 1841; Nisard (with Fr. tr.), Par., 1846; Bücheler, Lpz., 1858; Herschel (with facsim. of MS., and Eng. tr.), Bost., 1899; Krohn, Lpz., 1922. Complete Wks.: Keuchen, Amst., 1661; Bipont ed., 1788; Dederich, Lpz., 1855; McElwain (Eng. tr.), Loeb ed., Lond. and N. Yk., 1925. To consult: Lanciani, Topografia di Roma antica, i commentarii di Frontino intorno le acque (Memorie ... della Accad. dei Lincei, bol. 4), Rome, 1881; Ashby, Die antiken Wasserleitungen d. Stadt Rom (Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altert., 1909) (with his maps in Builder, Jan. 11, 1908, in Papers of Brit. School at Rome, and, in part, in “Livellazione degli antichi acquedotti romani,” Memorie della società italiana delle scienze, etc. ser. 3, vol. XX., 1917, by Reina, Corbellini and Ducci).

[1244] Epig. X. lviii. 5-6: “Doctas tecum celebrare uacabat Pieridas.”

[1245] Tac., H., IV. xxxix.

[1246] Tac., Agr., xvii: “sustinuit molem Iulius Frontinus.”

[1247] Strat., I. i. 8, I. iii. 10, II. iii. 23, II. xi. 7.

[1248] Domitian’s cognomen “Germanicus” is mentioned, Strat., II. xi. 7; he got it in A.D. 84.

[1249] Strat., I., ad init.: “cum ad instruendam rei militaris scientiam unus ex numero studiosorum eius accesserim....”

[1250] De Aq., praef. 1: “nosse quod suscepi”; 2: “indecorum ... delegatum officium ex adiutorum agere praeceptis.”

[1251] Ep., IV. viii.

[1252] See Lachmann’s Gromatici Veteres, 1848.

[1253] Strat., I. praef.: “cum hoc opus, sicut cetera, usus potius aliorum quam meae commendationis causa aggressus sim.”

[1254] Fritze, De F. Strat. libro IV., diss., Halle, 1888; Esternaux, Die Komposition von Frontins Strat., progr., Berl., 1889; Kortz, Quaest. grammat. de F. operibus institutae, diss., Münst., 1893.

[1255] Wölfflin, Frontins Kriegslisten, in Herm., IX. (1875), points out resemblances in thought despite the difference of subject; and the occurrence of significant similarities like conuolnerare, Strat., II. v. 31, Aq. 27 and 115; depressus = humilis, Str., I. v. 24, Aq. 65; adiutorium = auxilium, Str. II. v. 11, Aq. 14 and 67.

[1256] Wölfflin, Herm., IX., instances ad with geographical names used differently from F.’s usage; traditur used impersonally; total absence in Bk. IV. of certain phrases recurrent in F. like ob hoc, ob id, et ideo, ideoque, eoque; and unnecessary use of suus with frater, filius, etc. There seems very little in the last point. In IV. i. 32 suum is properly added to fratrem for emphasis; but filium in 40 and fratrem in 41 have no suum.

[1257] This was Wachsmuth’s view, Rh. Mus., XV. (1860), pp. 574-583. Wölfflin agreed, Herm., IX. (1875), p. 91: “wir haben aber keinen Grund Wachsmuth zu widersprechen, wenn er die Entstehung des Buches (= Strat., IV.) in das vierte, oder auch fünfte, Jahrh. setzt.”

[1258] Quaest. de ... strat. libris in Fleckeis. Jahr. Suppl., 1888.

[1259] Schanz, Philol., xlviii. (1889), p. 647; Gesch. d. röm. Lit., II. ii., p. 512. See Str. IV. iii. 14: “Lingonum opulentissima ciuitas ... septuaginta milia armatorum tradidit mihi.”

[1260] Praef., par. 4, reads like an addition designed to account for the existence of a fourth book on a commander’s strategics as a pendant to the special stratagems of I.-III.

[1261] Str., IV. v. 8, is the same as I. v. 12 except for perrupit changed to erupit; IV. v. 9 shows a few slight changes on I. v. 14; and IV. v. 10 and 11 = I. v. 15 and I. xi. 3.

[1262] II. iv. 15 and 16 come from IV. vii. 4. and 41.

[1263] I. i. 11 is repeated as I. v. 13.

[1264] Cf. Livy, II. x., with Strat., II. xiii. 5.

[1265] Strat., III. praef.: “machinamentis quorum expleta iampridem inuentione nullam uideo ultra artium materiam.”

[1266] Perhaps one of his closest copies is Str., I. v. 16, based on Liv., XXXV. xi. Here, Livy’s “Caudinae cladis memoria ... obuersabatur” becomes “obuersaretur Caudinae cladis exemplum”; “per ludibrium spectaculo esse” is repeated word for word; and “subditis calcaribus inter medias stationes hostium erupere” becomes “additis calcaribus per intermissas hostium stationes eruperunt.”

[1267] E.g. Liv., I. xxvii.; Val. Max., VII. iv. 1; Str., II. vii. 1. Here Frontinus seems independent of Val. Max., though, like him, he happens to introduce the word fiducia.

[1268] In Str., IV. i. 31 a dozen consecutive words (but for a change of an adjective to a noun) are identical with Val. Max., II. vii. 4.

[1269] De Aq., praef. 1: “Nerua Augusto”; 93: “Traianum Augustum”; 118: “diuus Nerua.” Krohn (Teubner ed., 1922) defends in his preface the title De Aquaeductu Vrbis Romae.

[1270] Praef. 2.

[1271] De Aq., 88: “Sentit hanc curam imperatoris piissimi Neruae principis sui regina et domina orbis in dies, et magis sentiet salubritas eiusdem aucto castellorum, operum, munerum et lacuum numero. Nec minus ad priuatos commodum ex incremento beneficiorum eius diffunditur; illi quoque qui timidi inlicitam aquam ducebant, securi nunc ex beneficiis fruuntur. Ne pereuntes quidem aquae otiosae sunt: alia munditiarum facies, purior spiritus, et causae grauioris caeli quibus apud ueteres urbis infamis aer fuit, sunt remotae.”

[1272] De Aq., 16: “Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus pyramidas uidelicet otiosas compares aut cetera inertia sed fama celebrata opera Graecorum.”

[1273] Plin., Ep., IX. xix. 6.

[1274] De Aq., 100-101, 104, 106, 108.

[1275] De Aq., 7, 76, 97. Vitruvius, the architect, is mentioned twice in 25.

[1276] Eg. “Citra uexationem,” Str., I. viii. 9; “circa praedam occupatos,” I. vi. 3; “circa gratulationem morantis,” II. ix. 8; “quamquam dissimularent,” I. ii. 9; “instructuris,” II. praef. 1; “traditurus,” III. praef.

[1277] Philipp., XIII. xix. 43: “uerbum omnino nullum in lingua Latina.”

[1278] “adiutorium,” IV. vii. 31; cf. II. v. 11; “foret,” IV. vi. 3, vii. 9; cf. “forent,” III. xvi. 3; “notabilis,” IV. iii. 13 (“notabiliter,” IV. i. 1); cf. III. viii. 2; “subinde,” IV. i. 1, vii. 13; and often in the earlier books.

[1279] Text: ed. pr., Ruger, et Bertoch., Bolog., 1474; Badius, Par., 1517; Ald., Ven., 1523; Carrio, Antw., 1565; Heinsius, Amst., 1680; Burman, c. not. varior., Utr., 1702, Leyd., 1724; Harles, Altenb., 1781; Wagner, c. comm. perpet., Gött., 1805; Lemaire, Par., 1825; Thilo (proleg.), Halle, 1863; Schenkl, Berl., 1871; E. Bährens, Lpz., 1875; Langen, Berl., 1897; Giarratano, Mil., 1904; Bury in Corp. P. Lat., Lond., 1905; Kramer, Lpz., 1913.

Trans.: Book I. (Eng. verse), T. Noble, 1808; (text w. Fr. verse) Dureau de Lamalle, 3 vols., Par., 1811; Fr. prose w. Lemaire text in Didot ed., 1864.

Studies: Greiff, De ... Argonauticis cum ... Aeneide comparatis, Trient, 1869; Schenkl, Studien zu d. Argon. des V. Fl. in Sitzungsber. d. Wien Akad., p. 271, 1871; Gebbing, De V. Fl. tropis et figuris, Marb., 1878; De V. Fl. dicendi genere, Cobl., 1888; Peters, De V. Fl. vita et carmine, Königsb., 1890; Moltzer, De Ap. Rhodii et V. Flacci Argon., Utr., 1891; Summers, A Study of the Arg. of V. Fl., Camb., 1894; Harmand, De V. Flacco Ap. Rhodii imitatore (bibliog.), Nancy, 1898; Heeren, De Chorographia a V. Fl. adhibita, Gött., 1899; Renkema, Observ. crit. et exeget. ad Argon., Utr., 1906.

[1280] Arg., I. 5 sqq.; cf. III. 417 sqq., VIII. 239 sqq.

[1281] I. 7 sqq.

[1282] III. 207, IV. 507.

[1283] Valerius is not consistent about the Argo as first of ships. However strange its building may be considered in the Thessaly of Bk. I., the Lemnians of Bk. II. are supposed to have sailed back in ships from Thrace (II. 108-111), and Hypsipyle sent her father off secretly in an old ship (II. 285-287).

[1284] Odys., xii. 70: Ἀργώ πᾶσι μέλουσα.

[1285] Prob. ad Georg., II. 126: “Media ... a Medo, filio Medeae et Aegei, ut existimat Varro qui iv. libros de Argonautis edidit.”

[1286] Summers, A Study of the Argonautica, pp. 15 sqq.

[1287] I. 275:

“... Sparguntur litore curuo Lumina nondum ullis terras monstrantia nautis.”

[1288] I. 311: “Alma nouo crispans pelagus Tithonia Phoebo.”

[1289] I. 558-560.

[1290] I. 723-724:

“Sunt hic etiam tua uulnera, praedo, Sunt lacrimae carusque parens.”

[1291] Cf. Arg., I. 833-851 with Aen., VI. 638-641 and 660-664. Many words are intentional echoes, amoena, deueniant, campos, sol.

[1292] II. 38-47:

“Auxerat hora metus, iam se uertentis Olympi Vt faciem raptosque simul montesque locosque Ex oculis circumque graues uidere tenebras. Ipsa quies rerum mundique silentia terrent Astraque et effusis stellatus crinibus aether. Ac uelut ignota captus regione uiarum Noctiuagum qui carpit iter non aure quiescit, Non oculis, noctisque metus niger auget utrimque Campus et occurrens umbris maioribus arbor, Haud aliter trepidare uiri.”

[1293] III. 596-597:

“Rursus Hylan et rursus Hylan per longa reclamat Auia: responsant siluae et uaga certat imago.”

[1294] III. 724-725.

[1295] IV. 744: “Certa fides animis idem quibus incidit hostis.”

[1296] V. 343-347.

[1297] VI. 493-495.

[1298] VII. ll. 89 sqq.

[1299] VII. 415-416.

[1300] VII. 429-430.

[1301] VII. 477, a highly alliterative line:

“Sis memor, oro, mei, contra memor ipsa manebo.”

[1302] Aen., IV. 323-324.

[1303] VIII. 419 sqq.

[1304] VIII. 439 sqq.

[1305] VIII. 458 sqq.

[1306] Summers, A Study, etc., pp. 18-26; Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, pp. 182-188.

[1307] Schenkl, Studien, pp. 279 sqq.; Summers, op. cit., pp. 2-3; cf. p. 6.

[1308] Summers, op. cit., p. 7.

[1309] I. 5-6, 7-17, 20-21.

[1310] I. 559; II. 245, 304, 574.

[1311] VI. 53-56, 402 sqq.; 410, 420.

[1312] VII. 83-86, 232-234.

[1313] Summers, op. cit., pp. 8-12.

[1314] Juv., I. 10-11.

[1315] See Gebbing’s pamphlets in bibliog.; and Summers, op. cit., esp. pp. 42-49.

[1316] III. 208-209:

“ut mugitor anhelat Vesuius, attonitas acer cum suscitat urbes.”

[1317] IV., 462, 501, 542, 549.

[1318] Summers, op. cit., p. 54, gives a list of alliterations from the first four books.

[1319] Summers, op. cit., p. 62, gives references to ten; e.g. IV. 158: “melior uulgi nam saepe uoluntas” (“a people’s heart is often better than their king’s”).

[1320] Eg. Similes become especially frequent in the description of the fighting in Bk. III., and in Hercules’s alarm over the absence of Hylas (III. 577, 581, 587). Among natural and pathetic similes is that on children praying that their father seriously ill may be spared (V. 22-24).

[1321] VII. 124 sqq.; IV. 507.

[1322] V. 43: “ubi monstriferae par ille nouercae?”

[1323] Ed. pr., Sweynheym et Pannartz, Rome, 1471; Parm., 1481; Mil., 1481; c. Marsi schol., Ven., 1483, 1492, 1493, and Par., 1512; Benessa, Lugd., 1514; Nicander (wilful interpolations), Flor., 1515; F. Asulanus, (Aldine) Ven., 1523; D. Heinsius, Leyd., 1600; Drakenborch, Utr., 1717; Ernesti, Lpz., 1791; Ruperti, Gött., 1795-1798; Nisard, ed. Didot (Fr. prose tr.), Par., 1878; Bauer, Lpz., 1890-1892; Summers, C.P.L., Lond., 1905.

Eng. trans.: Thos. Ross, Second Punick War (w. continuation to Death of Hannibal) Lond., 1661.

On Sources, etc.: Wezel, De Sil. Ital. cum fontibus tum exemplis, diss., Lpz., 1873; Heynacher, Die Quellen des Sil., Ilfeld, 1874; Die Stellung des Sil. unter d. Quellen des 2ᵗᵉⁿ pun. Kriegs, Ilf., 1877 (attempt to displace Livy as Silius’s source in favour of some early annalist like Fabius Pictor); Kerer, Ueber d. Abhängigkeit des S.I. von Livius, Bozen, 1881; Schlichteisen, De fide historica Silii, Königeb., 1881; Bauer, Das Verhältn. der Pun. des S.I. zur 3. Dekade des Livius, Erlang., 1884.

On Date of Composn., etc.: Schinkel, Quaest. Silianae, diss., Halle, 1883; Buchwald, Quaest. Sil., diss., Bresl., 1886.

On Language: Zingerle, Zu späteren lat. Dichtern, Heft II., pp. 12 sqq.; “Zu Lucan, Silius, Martial,” Innsb., 1879; Brandstäter, De Pun. ... argumento, stilo, ornatu poetico, Witten, 1877; Occioni, L’arte in S. Ital., etc., in Scritti di lett. latina, Rome, 1891; Lindblom, In S. Ital. Punica Quaestiones, Upsal., 1906.

[1324] Tac., Hist., III. lxv.; Mart. VII. lxiii., VIII. lxvi., IX. lxxxvi., XI. xlviii. and l., XII. lxvii. 5.

[1325] From the fasti sodalium Augustalium Claudialium (C.I.L., VI., 1984; Dessau, 5025).

[1326] Mart., VII. lxiii. 5-8; cf. IX. lxxxvi. 2: “Ausonio non semel ore potens.”

[1327] Epict., Diss., III. 8, 7.

[1328] Mart., IV. xiv. 1-5.

[1329] Mart., VII. lxiii. 1-2:

“Perpetui numquam moritura uolumina Sili Qui legis.”

Martial’s seventh book belongs to the end of 92.

[1330] Bickels, Rh. M., 66 (1911), p. 505.

[1331] Pun., II. 215:

“Sicut agit leuibus per sera crepuscula pennis E pastu uolucres ad nota cubilia Vesper; Aut, ubi Cecropius formidine nubis aquosae Sparsa super flores examina tollit Hymettos, Ad dulces ceras et odori corticis antra Mellis apes grauidae properant, densoque uolatu, Raucum connexae glomerant ad limina murmur.”

[1332] III. 145: “Quantum etenim distant a morte silentia uitae!”

[1333] IV. 603-604.

[1334] IV. 791-795.

[1335] V. 673-676:

“Fronte minae durant, et stant in uultibus irae. Et uereor no quae tanta creat indole tellus Magnanimos fecunda uiros, huic fata dicarint Imperium, atque ipsis deuincat cladibus orbem.”

[1336] VI. 118 sqq.

[1337] VI. 373 sqq.

[1338] VIII. 144-223 belong to this digression, and first appeared in the Aldine ed., 1523, supplying a lacuna in earlier edns. Their genuineness is effectively defended by Heitland, Jrl. Phil., XXIV., 1896.

[1339] VIII. 327-348.

[1340] VIII. 408-411.

[1341] VIII. 593 sqq.

[1342] IX. 250-251.

[1343] IX. 346-353.

[1344] X. 521 sqq.

[1345] X. 572 sqq.

[1346] X. 629.

[1347] XIV. 341 sqq.

[1348] XV. 26-27:

“lasciuaque crebras Ancipiti motu iaciebant lumina flammas.”

[1349] Eg. esp. XV. 53-67.

[1350] XVII. 213-217, an imitation of Lucan’s description of Pompey’s farewell to Italy, Phars., III. 3-5.

[1351] XVII. 608-612.

[1352] On the oratorical side also Silius departs from Livy’s themes without any intention of making his speeches historical in effect. See R. B. Steele, “The Method of Silius Italicus,” Class. Philol., XVII., 1922.

[1353] The conventionality of the similes is emphasized by their frequency, and their effectiveness proportionally lessened. At least 15 occur in Bk. VII., 13 in Bk. X., 11 in Bk. XVII. They are sometimes elaborated to 6 or 7 lines, sometimes restricted to a few words, e.g. “ut torrens,” XV. 712, the first of 5 similes in 3 lines.

[1354] It was unfortunate for Silius that his employment of proper names and the position assigned to them in his metrical structure followed Lucan’s manner rather than Virgil’s.

[1355] IV. 173-174, V. 455-456, XIII. 246-248, XV. 470 (“absciso durabant murmura collo”).

[1356] XIV. 550.

[1357] XV. 767-768.

[1358] Phars., II. 203; Pun., IV. 553, IX. 321.

[1359] V. 210 sqq., VI. 300 (“praesumta piacula”).

[1360] IV. 82-87.

[1361] IV. 481, XI. 513-515, XV. 676-677.

[1362] III. 285-286:

“qui sacratas in littore siluas Atque inter frondes reuirescere uiderat aurum.”

[1363] I. 179; XI. 186-188; XV. 20-120, 819-820.

[1364] XIII. 772-734.

[1365] Cf. VIII. 290-291: “nigro adlatrauerat ore uictorem inuidia.”

[1366] Pun., I. 231-233:

“Astur auarus Visceribus lacerae telluris mergitur imis, Et redit infelix effosso concolor auro”;

Silu., IV. vii. 14-16:

“Dalmatae montes, ubi Dite uiso Pallidus fossor redit erutoque Concolor auro.”

[1367] Cf. Ennius’s “At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit,” and Virgil, Aen., IX. 503:

“At tuba terribilem sonitum procul aere canoro Increpuit.”

[1368] Cf. Iliad, XVI. 215: ἀσπὶς ἄρ’ ἀσπίδ’ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ’ ἀνήρ: Ennius, “premitur pede pes atque armis arma teruntur”; Furius Antias (c. 100 B.C.) ap. Macrob., Sat., VI. iii. 5: “pressatur pede pes, mucro mucrone, uiro uir”; Virg., Aen., X. 361: “haeret pede pes densusque uiro uir”; and Statius, perhaps reminded by Silius, takes over this conventional line, Theb., VIII. 399: “ense minax ensis, pede pes, et cuspide cuspis.” The half-dozen lines in Silius (IX. 321 sqq.) make a good example of a mosaic of archaisms; Lucan is imitated in “nec ... artatis cecidisse licet”; the rare flictu is Pacuvian and Virgilian; fatiscit echoes Virgil; and the alliteration introduced is designedly quaint.

[1369] Text: ed. pr., Rome,(?) 1475; c. comm., Ven., 1483, 1494; Aldus, Ven., 1502 and 1519; Tiliobroga (= Lindenbrog), Par., 1600; Gronov., Amst., 1653; Veenhusen (varior. not.), Leyd., 1671; Theb., i.-vi., O. Müller, Lpz., 1870; Opera, 3 vols., Lpz., 1884-1902 (Silv., Achill., Klotz.; Theb., Kohlmann; commentarios rec. Jahnke); Theb., Achill., Wilkins in C.P.L., Lond., 1905; Garrod, Oxf., 1906; Siluae: Markland, Lond., 1728; Vollmer (Germ. comment.), Lpz., 1898; Davies in C.P.L., Lond., 1905; Phillimore, Oxf., 1905; ed. 2, 1917; Sänger, Petrogr., 1909; Klotz, ed. 2, Lpz., 1911.

Comment.: Gronovii, In Silv. ... Diatribe, Hag., 1637 (also in Veenhusen’s ed., 1671); Nohl, Quaest. Stat., Berl., 1871; Lehanneur, De P. P. Statii Vita et Operibus Quaest., thèse, La Rochelle, 1878; Vollmer, Introd. to ed. of Silv., 1898; Legras, Les légendes Théb. dans l’epopée et la tragéd. grecq., Par., 1905; Étude sur la Théb. de Stace, Par., 1905; Les Puniques et la Thébaïde (Rev. d. étud. anciennes), 1906; Giri, in Riv. di filol. ... classica, vol. 35, 3, 1907 (biogr. points).

Eng. Trans.: Theb., 5 Bks. (verse), Stephens, 1648; Achill. (verse), Howard, 1660; Theb., Bk. I., Pope (heroic couplets), transd. 1703, pubd. 1712 (also in Chalmers’s Wks. of Eng. Poets, Vol. XX., 1810); Theb., Lewis (couplets), ed. 2, 1773; Silv., II. vii. (“Lucan’s Birthday,” octosyll.); C.R., XXI. (1907), p. 92; Silv., Slater (prose), Oxf., 1908.

[1370] Silv., V. iii. 72-73: “mihi limine primo ... ceu raptus,” etc., implies that Statius regarded his father, although a man of 65, as having been snatched away from vigorous manhood by an untimely death.

[1371] Silv., IV. iv. 69-70: “nos facta aliena canendo vergimur in senium.”

[1372] Juv., VII. 86. This must have been before Paris’s loss of Domitian’s favour in 83.

[1373] Juv., VII. 82.

[1374] Silv., I. praef.: “adhuc pro Thebaide mea, quamuis me reliquerit, timeo.” The words in Silv., IV. iv. 89, “Thebais optato collegit carbasa portu” (published in A.D. 95), apparently refer to the attainment of fame by the Thebaid some time after publication.

[1375] Silv., I. v. 8, III. ii. 40 and 142, III. v. 35-36.

[1376] Theb., XII. 810 sqq.:

“Durabisne procul dominoque legere superstes, O mihi bissenos multum uigilata per annos, Thebaï....”

Cf. Silv., IV. vii. 26: “Thebais multa cruciata lima.”

[1377] Silv., IV. iv. 94-96.

[1378] Ib., IV. vii. 23-24: “primis ecce metis haeret Achilles”; V. v. 36-37: “pudeat Thebasque nouumque Aeaciden.”

[1379] V. ii. 162-163.

[1380] Postgate’s C.P.L., p. 430.

[1381] As a Livian epitomator he is discussed by Galdi, L’Epitome nella letteratura latina, 1922, pp. 40-43.

[1382] Silv., IV. iv. 48-55:

“sed uiget ingenium et magnos accinctus in usus fert animus quascumque uices....”

[1383] Silv., IV. ii.

[1384] Silv., IV. vi.

[1385] Silv., IV. vi. 12-14:

“nobis uerus amor medioque Helicone petitus sermo hilaresque ioci brumalem absumere noctem suaserunt.”

[1386] The exact total is 9741 hexameters.

[1387] Theb., I. 536 sqq.:

“Noua deinde pudori Visa uirum facies: pariter pallorque ruborque Purpureas hausere genas oculique uerentis Ad sanctum rediere patrem.”

[1388] II. 319 sqq.:

“Exedere animum dolor iraque demens Et qua non grauior mortalibus addita curis, Spes ubi longa uenit.”

[1389] II. 547 sqq.

[1390] II. 611-612.

[1391] III. 255 sqq.

[1392] IV. 438 sqq.

[1393] IV. 680 sqq.

[1394] VII. 478.

[1395] VII. 779 sqq.

[1396] VII. 816 sqq.

[1397] VIII. 614 sqq.

[1398] VIII. 643.

[1399] Th., XII. 481 sqq.:

Vrbe fuit media nulli concessa potentum, Ara deum: mitis posuit Clementia sedem, Et miseri fecere sacram; sine supplice numquam Illa nouo, nulla damnauit uota repulsa. Auditi quicumque rogant, noctesque diesque Ire datum et solis numen placare querellis. Parca superstitio: non turea flamma, nec altus Accipitur sanguis: lacrimis altaria sudant.

[1400] His use of Euripides has been recently considered by Reussner, diss., Halle, 1921.

[1401] One finds chains of phraseology like Ovid, Met., XV. 529: “unumque erat omnia uolnus,” Luc., Phars., IX. 814: “totum est pro uolnere corpus,” Stat., Theb., V. 598: “totumque in uolnere corpus.”

[1402] E.g. “Scire nefas,” Theb., III. 563.

[1403] Ach., 7: “tota iuuenem deducere Troia.”

[1404] Ach., 8-13.

[1405] Purgat., xxi. 89: “Tolosano.”

[1406] See Graf, Roma nella memoria e nelle immagionazioni del medio evo, cap. xvii., Tur., 1882.

[1407] A. C. Clark, “The Literary Discoveries of Poggio,” C.R., xiii. (1899), pp. 119-130; Phillimore, Siluae, ed. 2, 1921, praef.

[1408] I. vi.; II. vii.; IV. iii. and ix.

[1409] IV. v. and vii.

[1410] Silv., I., praef. Statius says none of these pieces occupied over a couple of days, “nullum enim ex illis biduo longius tractum”; cf. his references to “gratiam celeritatis” and in II., praef.: “stili facilitatem”; III., praef.: “libellorum istorum temeritatem” and “audaciam stili nostri.”

[1411] Inst. Or., X. iii. 17: “primo decurrere per materiam stilo quam uelocissimo et sequentes calorem atque impetum ex tempore scribunt: hanc siluam uocant.”

[1412] Silv., I. praef.

[1413] Silv., I. iii. 13-23.

[1414] Ib., I. iv. 43-49.

[1415] Silv., I. iv. 52:

“Non illud culpa senectae (Quippe ea bisenis uixdum orsa excedere lustris), Sed labor intendens animique in membra uigentis Imperium uigilesque suo pro Caesare curae, Dulce opus. Hinc fessos penitus subrepsit in artus Insidiosa quies et pigra obliuio uitae.”

[1416] Ib., v. 60-62.

[1417] II. i. 87-88.

[1418] Ib., 218-225: “ibimus omnes,” etc.

[1419] II. ii. 44 sqq.

[1420] Ib. 48-49:

“Cum iam fessa dies et in aequora montis opaci Vmbra cadit uitreoque natat praetoria ponto.”

[1421] Ib., 100-106: “Saepe per autumnum iam pubescente Lyaeo,” etc.

[1422] Ib., II. vii. 89 sqq.:

“O saeuae nimium grauesque Parcae! O numquam data longa fata summis! Cur plus, ardua, casibus patetis? Cur saeua uice magna non senescunt?”

[1423] III. i. 12-14.

[1424] Ib., ii. 78-80:

“Fugit ecce uagas ratis acta per undas Paulatim minor et longe seruantia uincit Lumina tot gracili ligno complexa timores.”

[1425] Ib., iii. 39-40.

[1426] IV. iv. 33-34:

“Vires instigat alitque Tempestiua quies, maior post otia uirtus.”

[1427] Ib., vii. 13-16.

[1428] V. i. 117-119.

[1429] Ib., 122-126:

“Velut Apula coniunx Agricolae parci uel sole infecta Sabino, Quae uidet emeriti iam prospectantibus astris Tempus adesse uiri, propere mensasque torosque Instruit expectatque sonum redeuntis aratri.”

[1430] Latin Lit., p. 189.

[1431] From “Sonnets from the Antique,” by J. Wight Duff in Quatercentenary number of Alma Mater (Aberdeen Univ. Mag.), Sept., 1906.

[1432] V. v. 62-64:

“Potius fugientia ripas Flumina detineas rapidis aut ignibus obstes Quam miseros lugere uetes.”

[1433] See J. S. Duncan, Influence of Art on Description in Poetry of S., diss., Baltim., 1914.

[1434] Silv., I. ii. 250: “qui nobile gressu extremo fraudatis opus”; cf. Ov., Am. I. i. 3-4: “risisse Cupido dicitur atque unum surripuisse pedem.”

[1435] Th., III. 198: “Bina per ingentes stipabant funera portas.”

[1436] Th., I. 27: “ignipedum frenator equorum.”

[1437] Silv., III. i. 41: “multo fratre madentem.”

[1438] Silv., II. i. 124.

[1439] Silv., I. iii. 8: “Pisaeumque domus non aestuat annum.”

[1440] Th., III. 382: “obliquatque preces”; Th., V. 722: “alternaque pectora mutant”; Th., IV. 248 sqq.: “saltus ... pacabat cornu”; Th., IV. 706: “Eoae liquentia pabula brumae.”

[1441] He has an eye for colour in marble, woods, a parrot, a peacock, etc., and an evident liking for uiridis in its literal and metaphorical sense.

[1442] Silv., II. v. 17-19:

“Virtusque cadenti A media iam morte redit nec protinus omnes Terga dedere minae.”

[1443] Butler, Post-Aug. Poetry, p. 123, cites statistics from Drobisch, Versuch üb. die Formen des lat. Hex., 140.

[1444] Ed. pr. (without Spectacula), Spira, Ven., 1470; Ferrara, 1471; Aldus, Ven., 1501; Gruter, Frankf., 1602; Rader, Ingolst., 1602; Scriverius (not. var.), Leid., 1619, 1621; Schrevelius (c. not. Gronov.), Amst., 1661, 1670; Collesso (Delphin., index verb.), Par., 1660; Pomba press, 2 vols., Turin, 1833 (based on Rader, Farnaby, etc.); Schneidewin (krit. apparat.), Grimma, 1842, Leipz., 1853; Gilbert, Leipz., 1886, 1912; Friedländer (Introd., Germ. comment.), 2 vols., Leipz., 1886 (cf. for background his Sittengesch. Roms); Lindsay, Oxf., 1902; J. D. Duff in Postgate’s C.P.L., Lond., 1905; Heraeus, Leipz., 1925.

Selectns.: Paley and Stone, Lond., 1868, 1881; Sellar and Ramsay, Edinb., 1884; Stephenson, Lond., ed. 4, 1899; Bridge and Lake, Oxf., 1908.

Trans.: Vol. in Bohn’s Class. Lib. contains specimens of verse translators of 17th and 18th cents.; Eng. prose (w. Lat.), Ker, Loeb ed., 2 vols., Lond. and New York, 1919-1920.

Translns. and Imitations (select): Francis and Tatum, Camb., 1924.

Other Wks.: Nisard, in Les poètes lat. de la décadence, ed. 3, 1867, I., pp. 381-471; Boissier, “Le poète Martial” in Tacite, ed. 4, Par., 1908, pp. 281-335; Eng. tr., Hutchison, Lond., 1906; Pisani, Marziale, Mil., 1904; Butler, Post-Aug. Poetry, Oxf., 1909, pp. 251-286; Plessis, La poés. lat., Par., 1909, p. 578; Giarratano, De M. re metrica, Naples, 1908; K. Flower Smith, M. the Epigrammatist and other Essays, Balt., U.S.A., 1920.

On Martial’s models: Paukstadt, De M. Catulli imitatore, diss., Halle, 1876; Zingerle, Mart. Ovidstudien, Innsbr., 1877; and “Zu Lucan Silius Martial” in Zu Spät. lat. Dichtern, Hft. 2, Innsbr., 1879; Schulze, Mart. Catullstudien, Fleck. Jahrb., 137, 1887; Wagner, De Martiale poet. Augusteae aet. imitatore, diss., Königsb. 1880 (by the same, resemblances w. earlier and later authors in Friedl.’s ed.).

[1445] X. xxiv.

[1446] IV. lii. 3. Why the surname Coquus was added in the Middle Ages remains a mystery.

[1447] X. lxv. 3-4.

[1448] V. xxxiv.

[1449] IX. lxxiii. 7-8:

“At me litterulas stulti docuere parentes: Quid cum grammaticis rhetoribusque mihi?”

[1450] In Helv., vi.

[1451] X. lxv. 4-7: “Tagique ciuis.... Hispanis ego contumax capillis.”

[1452] III. xxxviii. 12.

[1453] I. cxiii.

[1454] Tribune, III. xcv. 9; eques, V. xiii. 1-2.

[1455] II. xci., xcii.; III. xcv. 5, where “Caesar uterque” may imply conferment of the ius by Titus on the recommendation of his brother Domitian, or Domitian’s confirmation of a concession promised by Titus. Schanz mentions Lieben’s view that the “two emperors” were Vespasian and Titus.

[1456] “Valebis uxor,” II. xcii. 3, means “farewell to you, the wife of my imagination” or “farewell to the idea of a wife.” The wife addressed in an indecent manner in another epigram could not conceivably have been his own.

[1457] For Nomentum, II. xxxviii.; XII. lvii.; XIII. xlii., cxix.; “scalis habito tribus sed altis,” I. cxvii. 7.

[1458] IX. xviii. 2, xcvii. 7-8.

[1459] II. xxx. 5; II. xc.

[1460] V. lvi.

[1461] The “liber prior” of III. i. 3 was either a previous edition of III. or a combined edition of epigrams afterwards separated into Books I. and II., as Friedländer thought.

[1462] IV. xxv.

[1463] X. ciii. 7-10.

[1464] XII. xviii. 1-2, 7-9, 13-16.

[1465] Plin., Ep., III. xxi.: “erat homo ingeniosus acutus acer, et qui plurimum in scribendo et salis haberet et fellis nec candoris minus.”

[1466] II. xciii. refers to Books I. and II. The author in V. ii. calls the book his fifth, and refers to the preceding four. The arrangement in seven books is mentioned VII. xvii. 6.

[1467] Friedländer’s chronology is generally accepted with slight modifications. It is not seriously upset by Dau, De Mart. libellorum ratione temporibusque, Rost., 1887. Cf. Schanz, op. cit., pp. 181, 184.

[1468] IV. xlix. 1-2:

“Nescit, crede mihi, quid sint epigrammata, Flacce, Qui tantum lusus illa iocosque uocat.”

[1469] V. xvi. 1.

[1470] V. xvi. 13-14.

[1471] V. xv. 5-6.

[1472] V. xxxvi.:

“Laudatus nostro quidam, Faustine, libello, Dissimulat quasi nil debeat: inposuit.”

[1473] VIII. iii. 19-20:

“At tu Romanos lepido sale tingue libellos: Adgnoscat mores uita legatque suos.”

[1474] X. iv. 7-10:

“Quid te uana iuuant miserae ludibria chartae? Hoc lege, quod possit dicere uita ‘meum est.’ Non hic Centauros, non Gorgonas Harpyiasque Inuenies: hominem pagina nostra sapit.”

[1475] VIII. xiv. 5-6.

[1476] III. lviii.

[1477] I. xlix. 27-28: “focum infante cinctum sordido”; cf. II. xc. 7-8; XII. xviii. 19-21.

[1478] VIII. xx.

[1479] IX. lix. 22: “asse duos calices emit et ipse tulit.”

[1480] VIII. lxxix.

[1481] V. ix.

[1482] IX. xiv., xxvii., xxxvii.

[1483] VII. xxi., xxii., xxiii., xliv., xlv.; I. lxi. 7-8.

[1484] X. xix.

[1485] IV. xiv.

[1486] VII. lxiii.; IX. lxxxvi.; XI. xlviii.

[1487] VII. xxiv., xci.; XII. xviii.; cf. Juv., I. 7-14 with Mart., X. iv. 7-10.

[1488] VII. xii. 9; X. xxxiii. 10.

[1489] X. iii., v.

[1490] V. xxviii. 9: “ego esse miserum credo cui placet nemo.”

[1491] Keil, i., p. 485.

[1492] Pref. to Epigr., Bk. I.

[1493] Cf. C. W. Mendell, “M. and the Satiric Epigram,” Cl. Philol., Jan., 1922.

[1494] Cf. Friedrich, “Zu Seneca und M.,” Herm., xlv. 583-594.

[1495]

“Admiror, paries, te non cecidisse ruinis, Qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas.”

[1496] While Statius is never mentioned, it is likely that there are indirect glances at him; e.g. IV. xlix.; VIII. iii.; IX. l.; X. iv.; XIV. i. 11.

[1497] IV. xlix. 7-8.

[1498] I. xvi.

[1499] VII. lxxxv., xc.

[1500] X. xxx. 11-15:

“Hic summa leni stringitur Thetis uento; Nec languet aequor: uiua sed quies ponti Pictam phaselon adiuuante fert aura; Sicut puellae non amantis aestatem, Mota salubre purpura uenit frigus.”

[1501] IX. xii. 1-9:

“Nomen cum uiolis rosisque natum, Quo pars optima nuncupatur anni ... Respondent Veneres Cupidinesque.”

[1502] VII. lxxxix.:

“I felix rosa, mollibusque sertis Nostri cinge comas Apollinaris: Quas tu nectere candidas, sed olim, Sic te semper amet Venus, memento.”

[1503] XI. lxxxix.

[1504] Cf. with I. x. 4 such endings as II. xi. 10: “domi cenat”; II. xxix. 10: “splenia tolle, leges.”

[1505] II. xxxviii.

[1506] II. x.

[1507] II. xiii.:

“Et iudex petit, et petit patronus: Soluas, censeo, Sexte, creditori.”

[1508] VIII. xliii.

[1509] VII. lxxxiii.:

“Eutrapelus tonsor dum circuit ora Luperci Expingitque genas, altera barba subit.”

[1510] V. xlvii.

[1511] I. xxviii.

[1512] I. xvi.; VII. lxxxi.

[1513] IX. praef., ad fin.: “Ille ego sum....”

[1514] XI. xxiv.

[1515] I. xv. 5-12:

“Non bene distuleris, uideas quae posse negari, Et solum hoc ducas, quod fuit, esse tuum. Exspectant curaeque catenatique labores; Gaudia non remanent, sed fugitiua uolant, Haec utraque manu complexuque adsere toto: Saepe fluunt imo sic quoque lapsa sinu. Non est, crede mihi, sapientis dicere ‘Viuam’; Sera nimis uita est crastina: uiue hodie.”

[1516] V. xx.

“Si tecum mihi, care Martialis, Securis liceat frui diebus, Si disponere tempus otiosum Et uerae pariter uacare uitae, Nec nos atria nec domos potentum Nec litis tetricas forumque triste Nossemus nec imagines superbas; Sed gustatio, fabulae, libelli, Campus, porticus, umbra, Virgo, thermae, Haec essent loca semper, hi labores. Nunc uiuit necuter sibi, bonosque Soles effugere atque abire sentit, Qui nobis pereunt et imputantur. Quisquam, uiuere cum sciat, moratur?”

[1517] VII. v.

[1518] VIII. xxi. 11-12.

[1519] VIII. xxiv. 5-6.

[1520] III. lxviii. 4, “exuimur”; cf. 11-12.

[1521] V. ii.; VIII. i.

[1522] I. praef.; III. lxix.

[1523] XI. ii.

[1524] I. iv. 8: “lasciua est nobis pagina, uita proba.”

[1525] Cat. xvi. 5; Ovid, Tr., ii. 354; Plin., Ep., VII. ix.; Apul., Apol., 11; Auson., Eidyll., 360.

[1526] E.g. VII. xiv.

[1527] VII. xii. 7. Cf. his desire to have it known that poems steeped in black poison are not his, VII. lxxii. 13-16.

[1528] V. xxiv. 9-10:

“Mollia non rigidus caespes tegat ossa nec illi, Terra, grauis fueris: non fuit illa tibi.”

[1529] IX. xxix. 11-12:

“Sit tibi terra leuis mollique tegaris harena Ne tua non possint eruere ossa canes.”

[1530] I. lxxxviii.

[1531] VI. lxxxv.

[1532] IX. lii.

[1533] I. xxxix.

[1534] XII. xxxiv.

[1535] Dr. Warde Fowler, Presidential Address to Class. Assoc., Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1920, pointed out that, while volcanic soil influenced drainage schemes, it also set the Romans adventuring on the search for portents.

[1536] IV. xliv.:

“Licuisse” in the closing couplet,

“Cuncta iacent flammis et tristi mersa fauilla: Nec superi uellent hoc licuisse sibi”

is surprisingly taken to refer to auction-bidding by Prof. Courthope, Selectns. fr. Martial Translated, 1914:

“Now for the place ’neath these sad ashes hid, If up for sale, what single god would bid?”

[1537] IX. lxi. 11-14.

[1538] III. lxv. 3-5.

[1539] X. xxiii. 7-8:

“Ampliat aetatis spatium sibi uir bonus: hoc est Viuere bis, uita posse priore frui.”

[1540] Cf. Mart., I. xx. 4; Juv., V. 147.

[1541] Poemata, Utr., 1784., p. 563.

[1542] Plin., Ep., II. vii. 1; III. 1. Four mutilated choriambic odes, ascribed by some to Spurinna, are convincingly rejected as forgeries: for text, Wernsdorf, P.L.M.; Held, Ueber d. Werth d. Briefsammlung des jüng. Plinius in Bezug auf Gesch. d. röm. Lit., 1833.

[1543] Sulpiciae Fabella, ed. Unger, Hal. Sax., 1887.

[1544] Valla’s schol. on Juv., I. 20; Mart., XI. x.

[1545] Text: Paneg. in Panegyrici Lat., Cuspinianus, 1513; Rhenanus, Bas., 1520; Livineius, Antv., 1599; E. Bährens, Lpz., 1874; 2nd ed. W. A. Bährens, 1911; Sep. edns., Ed. pr. (?) 1476; Lipsius, Antv., 1600; Utr., 1652, etc.; Arntzen (not. var.), Amst., 1738; Gierig, Lpz., 1796; Dübner, Par., 1843. Trans.: Stapylton, Oxf., 1644; [White Kennet], Lond., 1686; G. Smith, Lond., 1702; in French, De Sacy, Par., 1722. Epist.: Ed. pr., Ven., 1471 (8 bks., I.-VII. and IX.); 1st compl. ed. Aldus, Ven., 1508; Gruter, 1611; Veenhusen (not. var.), Leid., 1669; Cortius and Longolius (indices), Amst., 1734; E. T. Merrill, Lpz., 1922.

Sep. edns.: I., II., Cowan, Lond., 1889; III., J. E. B. Mayor, Lond., 1880, 1889; VI., J. D. Duff, Camb., 1906; X., E. G. Hardy, Lond., 1889.

Selectns.: Church and Brodribb, Lond., 1870, 1872; Prichard and Bernard, Oxf., 3rd ed., 1896; Merrill, Lond., 1903; Allen, Oxf., 1915.

Trans.: Epistles (w. Paneg.), Henley, Lond., 1724; Letters, Melmoth, Lond., 1746-47-48-57-70-86-1810; Earl of Orrery, Lond., 1751; Lewis, Lond., 1879; Melmoth’s revised, Bosanquet, Lond., 1878, 1892; and Hutchinson (Loeb ed.), Lond. and N. Yk., 1915.

Collected edns.: Boxhorn, Leid., 1653; Gierig, Leipz., 1806; Keil (ed. maior, rerum enarr. Mommseni, etc.), Lpz., 1870; C. F. W. Müller, ib., 1903; Kukula, ib., 1908, 1912.

Life and character: Tanzmann, De C. Pl. Secundi uita ingenio moribus quaestio, Bresl., 1865; Mommsen, Zur Lebensgesch. d. jüng. Pl., Herm., III. 31, 1869 (= Gesam. Schr., IV. 366, 1906); in French, trans. Morel, w. Mommsen’s addns., Par., 1873; Bender, Der jüngere Pl. nach seinen Briefe, Tüb., 1873; Moy, Qualem apud aetatis suae studiosos personam egerit C. Pl. Sec., Par., 1876.

Literary Significance: Held, Ueb. d. Werth d. Briefsammlung d. jüng. Pl. in Bezug auf Geschichte d. röm. Lit., Bresl., 1833; De la Berge, Essai sur le regne de Trajan, esp. ch. xvi., Par., 1877; Allain, Pline le jeune et ses héritiers, 4 vols., Par., 1901-1902. Style: Lagergren, De uita et elocutione C. Pl. Sec., Ups., 1872; Morillot, De Pl. minoris eloquentia, Gren., 1888; Consoli, Il neologismo negli scritti di Pl., Palermo, 1900; Kukula, Briefe d. jüng. Pl. (Intr. includes “Entwickelung d. Epistolographie,” “Sprache u. Stil des Briefes,” etc.), Lpz., 1904; Smiley, Latinitas and Ἑλληνισμός (Influence of Stoic theory on writings of Quintilian, Pliny the Yr., Tacitus, etc.), Wisconsin, 1906.

[1546] “patria mea,” Ep., IV. xxx. 1.

[1547] VI. xx. 5.

[1548] VI. vi. 3; II. xiv. 9-10.

[1549] III. v. 16; VI. xvi. 7, xx. 5.

[1550] V. viii. 8.

[1551] VI. xii. 2: “in harena mea, hoc est apud centumuiros.”

[1552] C.I.L., V. 5262, 5263, 5264, 5667. V. 5279 records appointment of three trustees (one of them the younger Pliny) to administer a fund left by his father Cilo to provide oil at the Neptunalia for athletes and bathers at Como.

[1553] Merrill’s complete ed. of the Epistulae, 1922, gives a list of the principal Abhandlungen on the subject by Stobbe, Gemoll, C. Peter, Asbach, Schultz and H. Peter. Schanz, op. cit., p. 360, gives a useful summary of their conclusions; and the reports on Plinian literature in Bursian’s Jahresbericht reveal still more extensive activity. Cf. Merrill, Sel. Lett., 1903, pp. xxxvii. sqq.

[1554] Prof. E. T. Merrill, whose authority on Plinian matters is deservedly great, undermines Mommsen’s position here: “On Date of Pliny’s Prefecture of Treasury of Saturn,” Am. Jrl. Phil., xxiii. 4.

[1555] W. A. Bährens, “Prätur des jüng. Pl.,” Herm., lviii. (1923), p. 109 sqq., agrees that Otto’s instructive paper on Pliny’s Lebengeschichte in Sitzungsber. d. Bayer. Ak. d. Wiss., 1919, corrected several of Mommsen’s results, but rejects Otto’s date of A.D. 95: “Plinius war, wie schon Mommsen meinte, in Jahre 93 Praetor.” Otto replied in Bayer. Sitz., 1923. Allain, Pline le jeune, gives 94.

[1556] Kukula, ed. 1912, noticed J. Wight Duff, C.R., XXVIII. (1914), pp. 134-137; E. T. Merrill, 1922, noticed J. P. Postgate, C.R., XXXVII. (1923), pp. 35-36.

[1557] Prof. E. K. Rand, who with E. A. Lowe published the facsimile of the uncial remains of the Letters now in the Pierpont Morgan Library, N. Yk. (Washington, 1922), has indicated a new method of approach through the Aldine edition, in the belief that these fragments form part of the lost Codex Parisinus which Aldus used for his ed. of 1508 (Harv. Stud. in Cl. Phil., XXXIV., 1923). Prof. Merrill has not accepted this identification or the 6th cent. date suggested for the uncials (Class. Philol., Chicago, April, 1923).

[1558] III. xi.; VII. xxvii. 14.

[1559] VI. xxxi.

[1560] E. G. Hardy, ed. of Epist. ad Traian., Introd., p. xxiv. sqq., and footnote to Lett., xv., pp. 105-106.

[1561] Such is Wilcken’s view, Herm., xlix. (1914), in opposition to Mommsen, who placed Pliny’s visit to the eastern parts of the province in the latter half of his first year. Wilcken thinks that in late autumn of 112 Pliny took ship to Sinope, and that after this he wrote from Amisus the famous letter touching the trial of Christians.

[1562] X. cxx. and cxxi.

[1563] IV. xix.; VI. iv., vii.; VII. v.

[1564] C.I.L., V. 5262 = Dessau, Inscr. Lat. Sel., I. 2927.

[1565] VII. iv. 2-3.

[1566] Ib., 4-6.

[1567] VII. ix. 10-14.

[1568] VII. iv. 10: “unum precor ut posteri quoque aut errent similiter aut iudicent.” His “libelli,” which were on sale at Lyon, may have contained poetry, IX. xi.

[1569] VII. xvii. 7.

[1570] Ib., 15. For Pliny’s public speaking see Cucheval, Hist. de l’éloquence romaine, etc., II., chaps. xxiii. and xxiv.

[1571] II. xix. 2: “neque me praeterit actiones quae recitantur impetum omnem ... perdere”; VII. xvii. 2.

[1572] IV. xxi. 3; IX. xiii.

[1573] VII. xxx. 5.

[1574] III. xiii.

[1575] III. xviii.

[1576] Ib., 10.

[1577] Allain, Pline le jeune, says Pliny is cited 293 times by De la Berge, and is “le véritable historien de Trajan.”

[1578] Pan., lxxxviii. 2: “Scis enim praecipuum esse indicium non magni principis magnos libertos.”

[1579] Pan., vii. 4: “dignus alter eligi, alter eligere”; x. 6: “(Nerua) tibi terras, te terris reliquit”; xvii. 4: “non ideo uicisse uidearis ut triumphares, sed triumphare quia uiceris.”

[1580] Pan., vii. 6: “imperaturus omnibus eligi debet ex omnibus”; lxvi. 5: “neque umquam deceptus est princeps nisi qui prius ipse decepit”; and paradoxes, xlix. 3: “hoc inexpugnabile munimentum munimento non egere.”

[1581] Pan., xxiv. 5: “te ad sidera tollit humus ista communis et confusa principis uestigia.” (i.e. the use of his feet on common earth exalts the emperor to the sky!)

[1582] H. Peter, Der Brief in d. röm. Lit., Lpz., 1901, p. 107 sqq., divides as follows: I.-III., published A.D. 104; IV.-VI., A.D. 108; VII.-IX., a supplement, containing at least some letters of a date earlier than 108.

[1583] I. i. 1: “Collegi non seruato temporis ordine, neque enim historiam componebam.” E.g. II. xx. is perhaps earliest of all. II. xi., on Priscus’s trial, belongs to A.D. 100, but III. iv. to 98. IX. xxxiv. mentions Pliny’s idea of employing a reader; in VIII. i. the idea has been acted on.

[1584] I. xi., xv.; V. ii.; VII. xxi; IX. xvi.

[1585] II. xx. 1: “assem para et accipe auream fabulam, fabulas immo.”

[1586] IX. ii. 2-3.

[1587] Schanz, op. cit., p. 364.

[1588] Mart., Epig., X. xx. 14-17, cited by Pliny, III. xxi. 5.

[1589] I. iii. 3: “Hoc sit negotium tuum, hoc otium....”

[1590] II. viii. 2: “Numquamne hos artissimos laqueos ... abrumpam?...”

[1591] VII. xv. 1: “Requiris quid agam. Quae nosti. Distringor officio, amicis deseruio, studeo interdum, quod non interdum sed solum semperque facere, non audeo dicere rectius, certe beatius erat.”

[1592] I. vi. 1: “Ridebis et licet rideas”; cf. IX. x.

[1593] IX. xxvii.; V. viii.

[1594] I. xiii. 5: “equidem prope nemini defui.”

[1595] II. iii. 9.

[1596] V. iii. 8; VII. xvii.

[1597] I. iii. 4: “effinge aliquid et excude quod sit perpetuo tuum”; V. x. (to Suetonius); VIII. iv.

[1598] IV. xx., xxvii.; V. v., xvii.; VII. xxviii.; IX. xxii.

[1599] IV. xxvii. 2.

[1600] V. v. 4: “immortale aliquid.”

[1601] VII. xxviii.

[1602] Moy, op. cit. (in bibliog.), p. 107: “illi prosunt saeculo suo qui, sicut Bolaeus noster, publicam quasi censuram agentes, parce laudant, uehementer reprehendunt.”

[1603] E.g. I. xii.; II. i. 10; III. xxi.; V. v. (“nuntius me graui dolore confudit”); V. xvi. (“tristissimus haec tibi scribo”); and, for slaves, VIII. xvi., xix.

[1604] II. xvii. 24.

[1605] V. xix. 7: “aera salubrem et lac eiusmodi curationibus accommodatissimum.”

[1606] VIII. xxii. 2-3: “ego optimum et emendatissimum existimo qui ceteris ita ignoscet, tamquam ipse cotidie peccet....”; IX. xvii. 4: “demus igitur alienis oblectationibus ueniam ut nostris impetremus.”

[1607] IV. xiv.; V. iii.; VII. iv.

[1608] VII. xxxiii.

[1609] VII. xx. 5-7.

[1610] IX. xxiii. 2-3.

[1611] VI. xxxiii. 1: “accipe orationem meam, ut illa arma, diuinam (num superbius potui?), reuera ut inter meas pulchram.” According to Sid. Apoll., viii. 10, it eclipsed the Panegyric.

[1612] IX. xxiii. 1-2: “... omnes repente quasi uicti coactique consurgerent laudarentque.”

[1613] VI. xi.

[1614] IX. viii. 1: “omnia scripta tua pulcherrima existimo, maxime tamen quae de nobis”; cf. IX. xxxi.

[1615] I. x. 3; IV. viii. 4-5; VIII. vii. 2: “ne discipulus quidem debeam dici.”

[1616] I. viii. 14.

[1617] IV. i. 4-6; IX. xxxix.; X. xlix. and lxviii.

[1618] X. xcvi. 7-8.

[1619] Pan., i. 1 and 3; Ep., X. i., ii., xiii., xiv., xxxv., lii.

[1620] VII. xxvi. 2: “tunc deos, tunc hominem esse se meminit.”

[1621] Pan., iii. 5; Pers., ii. 73-75.

[1622] III. xx. 12.

[1623] Pan., lxvi. 4.

[1624] IV. xxv. 5: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τῷ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς μελήσει.

[1625] Hofacker, De Clausulis C. Caec. Pl. Sec., Bonn, 1903; Spatzek, De Claus. Plinianis, in praef. to Kukula’s ed., 1912.

[1626] I. v. 12.

[1627] I. v. 13.

[1628] II. i. 12: “Verginium cogito, Verginium uideo, Verginium iam uanis imaginibus ... audio, adloquor, teneo.”

[1629] VIII. xxiv. 2-6.

[1630] II. iii. 5: “nos qui in foro uerisque litibus terimur, multum malitiae, quamuis nolimus, addiscimus.”

[1631] I. xx.

[1632] VIII. xxi. 1: “pulcherrimum et humanissimum existimo seueritatem comitatemque miscere.”

[1633] Lagergren, De uita et elocutione C. Pl., Ups., 1872, enters more exhaustively into Pliny’s style than Oestling or Holstein did in their opuscula.

[1634] For collected examples, Remy, De Subjunct. et Infinitiuo ap. Pl. minorem, Louv., 1884.

[1635] Apol., ii.

[1636] Saturn., V. i.

[1637] Sid. Ap., iv. 22: “ego Plinio ut discipulus adsurgo”; cf. i. 1, iv. 3, viii. 10.

[1638] Merrill, ed. 1922, praef., half allows the possibility (“nisi fortasse”) that Einhart’s “mortalitatem magis quam uitam uidebam esse finitam” is based on Plin., II. i. 10, as Manitius thinks, Gesch. d. lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, 1911, p. 644.

[1639] IV. iii. 3-4.

[1640] I. vii., esp. § 5; II. x.

[1641] I. iii.; II. viii.; III. vii.; VI. xxi.; VIII. iv.

[1642] V. xvii.

[1643] I. viii.; I. xvi.

[1644] I. xvi. 6: “Plautum uel Terentium metro solutum legi credidi.”

[1645] II. xiii. 7: “epistulas quidem scribit ut Musas ipsas Latine loqui credas.”

[1646] IV. xxvii.: “unus Plinius est mihi priores.” Kukula had no right to alter the traditional reading to “his mihi prior sit” in his edition.

[1647] VI. xv.; IX. xxii.

[1648] VI. xv. 2.

[1649] VI. xxi.

[1650] III. xv.

[1651] V. v.

[1652] VIII. xii. 4; I. xvii. 3: “clarissimi cuiusque uitam egregiis carminibus exornat.”

[1653] VIII. xii. 1.

[1654] IX. i.

[1655] IX. xxxi.

[1656] IX. xxxv.

[1657] V. xxi. 3-6.

[1658] Teuffel, op. cit., § 341, 4.

[1659] Text: ed. pr. (without Ann., I.-VI. and Agric.), de Spira, Ven., 1470; do. w. Agric., Puteolanus, Mil., 1476; Op. omn., Beroaldus, Rom., 1515; Beatus Rhenanus, Bas., 1533; Lipsius, Antw., 1574, etc.; J. F. Gronov, Amst., 1672, 1685; Jac. Gronov, Utr. (not. varior.), 1721; Ernesti, Leipz., 1752; Brotier, ed. 2, Par., 1776, Lond., 1812; Ritter, Bonn, 1834, Camb., 1848; Orelli, Zür., 1846, 1848 (re-ed. Ann., Baiter, Zür., 1859; Germ., Schweizer-Sidler, Berl., 1877; Dial., Agr., Andresen, Berl., 1877, 1880; Hist., Meiser, Berl., 1895); Haase, Leipz., 1855; Halm, Lpz., ed. 4, 1884-1889; Nipperdey, Berl., 1871-1876; ed. 10, 1904-1908; Fisher, Oxf., 1906-1911.

Selected sep. edns.: I., Dial., Benzelius, Ups., 1706; Michaelis, Leipz., 1868; Peter, Jena, 1877; Valmaggi, Torino, 1890; Peterson (introd., etc.), Oxf., 1893; Bennett, Boston, 1894; Gudeman, Bost. (proleg., Eng. notes), 1894; Germ. ed., Leipz., 1914; John, Berl., 1899; Wick, Torino, 1917.

II., Agric., Bosius, Jena, 1664; Wex, Brunsw., 1852; Kritz, Berl., ed. 3, 1874; Urlichs, Würzb., 1875; Gantrelle, Par., 1875; Peter, Jena, 1876; Church and Brodribb, Lond., 1869; ed. 2, 1881 (w. Germ.); Cornelissen, Leid., 1881; Davis, Lond., 1892; Stephenson, 1894, 1899, Camb. (w. Germ.); Furneaux, Oxf., 1898; revised, J. G. C. Anderson, Oxf., 1922; Annibaldi, Torino, 1917.

III., Germ., Fabricius, Augsb., 1580; Kritz, ed. 4 by Hirschfelder, Berl., 1878; Prammer, Vienna, 1878, 1889; Baumstark (comm.), Lpz., 1875-1880; Allen, Bost., 1885; Zernial, Berl., 1890, 1897; Furneaux, Oxf., 1894; Annibaldi, Torino, 1916; Schweizer-Sidler, ed. 8, Halle, 1923; Schmaus, Bamberg, 1924.

IV., Hist., Kiessling, Lpz., 1840; Heraeus, Lpz., ed. 4, 1885; Simcox, Lond., I., II., 1875; III.-V., 1876; Godley, Lond., I, II., 1887; III.-V., 1890; Spooner, Lond., 1891; Fisher, Oxf., 1910.

V., Ann., Ruperti, Gött., 1805; Kiessling, Lpz., 1829; Nipperdey (vide supra); Holbrooke, Lond., 1882; Furneaux, Oxf., 1891-1896; Fisher, Oxf., 1906; Goelzer (Budé), Par., 1923 sqq. (Facsimile: Codex Laurent. 68, I. and II., Rostagno, Leyd., 1902.)

Trans.: Wks. (w. Discourses): Gordon, 2 vols., fol., Lond., 1728-1731 (pedantic); (w. Essays), Murphy, Lond., 1793; 1830 (diffuse). Church and Brodribb, Lond., Agric., Germ., Dial., 1877; Hist., new ed., 1882; Ann., 1882; Townsend, Agric., Germ., Lond., 1894; G. G. Ramsay, Lond., Ann., 1904-1909; Hist., 1915; Hist., Fyfe, Oxf., 1912; Agric., Germ., Hutton, w. Dial., Peterson (Loeb), Lond., 1914; Hist., Moore (Loeb), 1925.

General Wks.: Bötticher, Proleg. to Lexicon Taciteum, Berl., 1830, and De uita scriptis ac stilo Taciti, Berl., 1834; Dubois-Guchan, Tacite et son siècle ou la société romaine impériale, etc., 2 vols., Par., 1861; Urlichs, De uita et honoribus Taciti, Würzb., 1879; Schiller, Gesch. d. röm. Kaiserz., Gotha, 1883; Asbach, Röm. Kaisert. u. Verfass. bis auf Traian (a hist. introd. to Tacitus); Peter, Die geschichtl. Litt. üb. d. röm. Kaiserzeit; Boissier, Tacite, Par., 1903; ed. 3, 1908; Eng. tr., Lond., 1906; Schwabe, Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencycl., IV., 1566.

Special Wks.: in notes infra.

[1660] Other writers call him “Tacitus” or “Cornelius Tacitus”; e.g. Plin., Epist., IX. xxiii. 2. Codex Med., I, gives his praenomen as “Publius”: Sidonius Apollinaris twice calls him “Gaius” (Epist., IV. xiv. 1, xxii. 2), with which the later MSS. agree.

[1661] Novák once more claimed it for Quintilian in his ed. of opera minora, Prag., 1889.

[1662] Plin., Ep., VII. xx. 3.

[1663] N.H., VII. 76.

[1664] Hist., I. i.: “dignitatem nostram a Vespasiano incohatam, a Tito auctam, a Domitiano longius prouectam non abnuerim.”

[1665] Ann., XI. xi.

[1666] Agr., ix.: “consul egregiae tum spei filiam iuueni mihi despondit....”

[1667] Dial., ii.

[1668] This date for his consulship is now usually accepted instead of A.D. 98.

[1669] Plin., Ep., II. i. 6: “laudator eloquentissimus”; II. xi. 17: “respondit Cornelius Tacitus eloquentissime et, quod eximium orationi eius inest, σεμνῶς.”

[1670] Agr., xlv.: “nobis tam longae absentiae condicione ante quadriennium amissus est.”

[1671] Agr., xlv.: “mox nostrae duxere Heluidium in carcerem manus ... nos innocenti sanguine Senecio perfudit.”

[1672] Agr., iii.: “nunc demum redit animus; et quamquam primo statim beatissimi saeculi ortu Nerua Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum Nerua Traianus....”

[1673] Agr., ii. 3: “dedimus profecto grande patientiae documentum ... memoriam quoque ipsam cum uoce perdidissemus, si tam in nostra potestate esset obliuisci quam tacere”; iii. 3: “quid? si per quindecim annos, grande mortalis aeui spatium ... pauci ... nostri superstites ... iuuenes ad senectutem, senes prope ad ipsos exactae aetatis terminos per silentium uenimus.”

[1674] Hist., I. i.: “quod si uita suppeditet, principatum diui Neruae et imperium Traiani ... senectuti seposui”; Ann., III. xxiv.: “cetera illius aetatis (sc. Augusti) memorabo, si, effectis in quae tetendi, plures ad curas uitam produxero.”

[1675] Sabbadini in 1901 intimated Decembrio’s note to that effect. Romance seemed to have entered into palaeography when the announcement was made in 1903 of the discovery at Iesi, near Ancona, of a 15th-century MS. in which is incorporated, it is claimed, one quaternion of the Agricola from the veritable parent codex.

[1676] Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Litt., II., p. 293: “wir gewinnen den Eindruck, als wollte der Verfasser des Dialogs einem Gegenstand alter Liebe das letzte Lebenwohl zurufen,” u.s.w.

[1677] Agr., iii. 4: “hic interim liber, honori Agricolae soceri mei destinatus, professione pietatis aut laudatus erit aut excusatus.”

[1678] It is not impossible that in Pliny, Ep., IX. x. 2, addressed to Tacitus (though some think written by Tacitus), there is a direct reference to this.

[1679] Dial., xxxviii. 4: “principis disciplina ipsam quoque eloquentiam sicut omnia depacauerat.”

[1680] They are adequately and convincingly treated by Gudeman in 138 pages of prolegomena (ed. 1914). From his exhaustive bibliography may be selected: Weinkauff, De Tac. dialogi ... auctore, Köln, 1859, and Untersuchungen u.s.w., 1881; Steiner, Ueber den Dial. de Or., Progr., Kreuznach, 1863; Jansen, De Tac. dial. auctore, Gron., 1878; Resl, Utrum dial. ... Tacito adscribi possit, etc., Czernowitz, 1881; Nolte, De ... dial. de or., Gleiwitz, 1903.

[1681] Dial., xvii. 3. The figures given there of succeeding reigns as amounting to the sum of 120 years from Cicero’s death in 43 B.C. to the time of the dialogue need slight adjustment, because that total would bring out the date at A.D. 77.

[1682] Schanz, op. cit., II., pp. 293-296. Gudeman (op. cit., proleg.) successfully controverts Leo’s hypothesis of a date after Agric. and Germ., and refutes the support lent to that hypothesis in the theory of style propounded by Norden and Wilamowitz. Vogt’s pamphlet, Tac. als Politiker, Stuttg., 1924, ends with a brief defence of the early date.

[1683] Ed., 1914, pp. 92-96.

[1684] A comparison of the references to the emperors in chaps. iii. and xliv. indicates that the Agricola was published soon after Trajan’s accession in A.D. 98. He is called princeps in xliv. From the introduction it is plain that the Agricola preceded the Germania.

[1685] Agr., iii., ad fin.

[1686] xlv. 3–xlvi.

[1687] Most editions handle the questions involved; e.g. Furneaux, 1898; Gudeman, 1902; Anderson, 1922. Cf. Hirzel, Ueb. d. Tendenz des Agr., Tüb., 1871; Andresen, “Entstehung u. Tendenz des Tac. Agr.” in Festschr. d. Gymn. z. grau. Kloster, Berl., 1874; Leo., Die griech. röm. Biographie, Lpz., 1901.

[1688] Germ. ed., Berl., 1902; similarly, Hendrickson, “Proconsulate of Agric. in relation to hist. and encomium” in Univ. publns., Chicago, 1902.

[1689] Among those who see a political aim in the Agric. are Hoffmann, Zeitschr. f. d. österr. Gymn., 1870; Gantrelle, Rev. de l’instr. belg., xxi., p. 217; Furneaux, Agr., Intr., pp. 7-15; Boissier, Tacite, 1903, pp. 161-166; cf. L’Opposition sous les Césars, pp. 317 sqq. On the other side, Hirzel, op. cit.; Anderson, Agr., Introd., and others.

[1690] Agr., xlv.: “nostrae duxere Heluidium in carcerem manus,” etc.

[1691] Pliny, addressing Trajan, Pan., xliv. 1, said, “Vixisti nobiscum, periclitatus es, timuisti, quae tum erat innocentium uita.”

[1692] Germ., xxxvii.

[1693] Ib., xxiii.: “potui humor ex hordeo ...”; xxii.: “crebrae ut inter uinolentos rixae,” etc.

[1694] Weinberger, Die Frage nach Entstehung u. Tendenz der tacit. Ger., progr., Olmütz, 1890 (convenient summary); Müllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, IV.

[1695] For historical background, see Henderson, Civil War and Rebellion in Rom. Emp., Lond., 1908; for literary aspects, Courbaud, Les procédés d’art de T. dans les Hist., Par., 1918.

[1696] Plin., Ep., VII. xxxiii.: “auguror ... historias tuas immortales futuras”; Tert., Apol., 16: “Cornelius Tacitus ... in quinta historiarum suarum.”

[1697] Hieron., comm. Zach., III. 14.

[1698] Ritter, ed. Camb., I, p. xxii.; cf. Goelzer, ed., Par., 1923.

[1699] Ann., XI. xi.

[1700] Schanz, op. cit., II. 311. Pliny, Ep., VI. xvi. 1, shows that shortly before 106 Tacitus had not completed his collection of material for the year 79.

[1701] Decline and Fall, etc., ed. Bury, 1896, ch. ix., p. 232 n.

[1702] Morr, “Die Landeskunde von Palästina bei Strabon u. Josephos,” Philol., lxxxi. 3 (1926), considers Posidonius a source for Strabo and Josephus as well as for Tacitus’s Hist. and Justinus.

[1703] Ann., III. lxv.; IV. xxxii.; XIII. xxxi.

[1704] Ann., IV. lxxi.: “ni mihi destinatum foret suum quaeque in annum referre, auebat animus antire....” On the annalistic principle he defers treating certain events: “in tempore memorabo,” I. lviii.; “in loco reddemus,” II. iv.

[1705] VI. xxxviii.: “duabus aestatibus gesta coniunxi”; XII. xl.: “plures per annos gesta.”

[1706] Ann., II. lxi ... “Romani imperii quod nunc ad mare rubrum patescit”; Spart., Hadr., v. 1-4.

[1707] Ann., VI. xxvii. He applies the term libri to his previous Histories in Ann., XI, xi.

[1708] Cf. Ann., XV. lxiv.; XVI. xxxv.

[1709] Hist., III. xxv., xxviii., li.

[1710] Schur has recently in Klio, xix. (“Untersuchungen zur Gesch. d. Kriege Corbulos”) argued that Tacitus used Corbulos’s military reports, while Cluvius was the main authority for A.D. 60-63.

[1711] Ann., I. lxix., lxxxi.; III. iii.; IV. liii.; VI. vi.; XIII. xx.; XIV. ii.; XV. xvi., liii., lxi., lxxiv. (cf. II. lxxxviii.).

[1712] Hist., II. xxxvii.; III. li.; Ann., I. xxix.

[1713] Ann., V. iv. 4.

[1714] E.g. Hist., IV. xxxix. sqq., where decretae, censuit, etc., are official echoes.

[1715] Ann., XIII. xxxi. 1.

[1716] For a sketch of the problem, Schanz, op. cit.; cf. R. Weidemann, Die Quellen d. ersten sechs Bücher v. Tac. Ann., Cleve, 1868 (emphasising Senatus acta), H. Nissen, Rh. M., xxvi. (1871), pp. 497 sqq. (“Einquellenprinzip”); Fabia, Les sources de T. dans les hist. et les ann., Par., 1893; Groag, Zur Kritik von T. Quellen in d. Hist. (Fleck. Jahrb. Suppl., 23 (1897), p. 711). The discussion is endless; see Marx in Herm., lx. 74 sqq.

[1717] The resemblances are arrayed by E. G. Hardy, Plut., Galba and Otho (Introd.), Lond., 1890.

[1718] The view that Plutarch used Tac. is supported by Clason, Plut. u. Tac., Berl., 1870; Nipperdey, ed. Ann., 1874; Lange, De Tacito Plutarchi auctore, Halle, 1880, and others. Most, however, guess at a common source, either the (inadequate) acta diurna (Hirzel), or Cluvius (H. Peter and Mommsen), or the elder Pliny (Nissen, Hardy, Fabia). Th. Wiedemann, in a Latin diss. of 1857, conjectured that Tac. used Pliny, and Plutarch both Pliny and Cluvius. Borenius (diss. Helsings., 1902) argued that Plutarch used both Tacitus and the common source. For other variations, see Schanz, op. cit.

[1719] Hist., I. x.: “occulta fati”; xviii.: “quae fato manent”; Ann., V. iv.: “fatali quodam motu ... seu praua sollertia”; Ann., I. lv.: “Varus fato et ui Arminii cecidit.” Contrast Ann., III. xviii.: “ludibria rerum mortalium”; IV. xx.: “dubitare cogor fato et sorte nascendi ... an sit aliquid in nostris consiliis.”

[1720] Pöhlmann, Die Weltanschauung des T., ed. 2, Münch., 1913, calls his views “ein Chaos von unabgeklärten u. unausgereiften Meinungen.” Fabia’s notice of Pöhlmann appeared in Jrnl. des Savants, 1914, pp. 250 sqq., in art. entitled “L’irréligion de Tacite.”

[1721] Hist., IV. xxvi.: “quod in pace fors seu natura, tunc fatum et ira diuom uocabatur”; Ann., IV. i.: “non tam sollertia ... quam, deum ira....”; XVI. xvi.: “ira illa numinum in res Romanas”; Hist., I. iii.: “adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem.”

[1722] Ann., XIV. v. i.

[1723] Hist., I. iv. ... “non modo casus euentusque rerum ... sed ratio etiam causaeque.”

[1724] Ann., XIII. xxxi.: “cum ex dignitate populi Romani repertum sit res inlustres annalibus, talia diurnis urbis actis mandare.”

[1725] Hist., I. i.: “omnem potentiam ad unum conferri pacis interfuit.”

[1726] Ann., VI. xiii.: “populi imperium iuxta libertatem....”

[1727] Hist., II. xxxvii.-xxxviii.

[1728] Hist., IV. viii.

[1729] Ann., IV. xxxiii.

[1730] Ib., “plures aliorum euentis docentur: ceterum ut profutura, ita minimum oblectationis adferunt.”

[1731] Ann., I. i. ... “sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.”

[1732] The question of Tiberius’s character is older than the histories of Ihne and Duruy, and goes back to the 17th cent., when a justification of Tiberius was attempted by De la Houssaye, Tibère, Amst., 1686. For some modern views, see Stahr, Tiberius, Berl., 1863; Freytag, Tib. und Tac., Berl., 1870 (indicates inconsistencies in Tac.); Beesly, Catiline, Clodius and Tib., Lond., 1878 (a rehabilitation); Furneaux, ed. Ann., I.-VI., 1884, on “Char. and Govt. of Tib.” (moderate view); Gentile, Il imp. Tiberio secondo la moderna critica storica, Mil., 1887 (summarizes points at issue); Faust, De Vellei Pat. fide, Giessen, 1891; Tarver, Tib. the Tyrant, Westm., 1902 (a defence of Tib.); Jerome, Roman Memories, Lond., 1914, pp. 220-248 (refutation of “Orgy in Capri”); J. S. Reid, “Tac. as a Historian,” J.R.S., XI. 2, 1921 (protest against too high an estimate). Bacha, Le génie de T., la création des annales, Par., 1906, takes the extreme line that the work is a mendacious and poetic romance.

[1733] Voltaire’s article, “Pyrrhonisme” in his Dictionnaire Historique, stated doubts regarding Suetonius’s account of the foulnesses alleged to have disgraced the old age of Tiberius.

[1734] Language and style: Bötticher, Lexicon Taciteum, Berl., 1830; Dräger, Üb. Syntax u. Stil des T., Lpg., ed. 2, 1874; ed. 3, 1882; Wölfflin, Philol., xxiv.-xxvii. (on evolution of T.’s style); Furneaux, Ann., Intr., ch. v.; Clemm, De Breuiloq. T., Lpg., 1881; Valmaggi, L’arcaismo in T., Tur., 1891; Vianey, Quomodo dici possit T. fuisse summum pingendi artificem, Par., 1896; G. G. Ramsay, Ann., trans., Intr., Lond., 1904; Lundström, Tacitus’s poetiska källor, Göteborg, 1923.

[1735] E.g. of the type met with in later bks. of Annals, such as XV. v.: “Vologesi uetus et penitus infixum erat arma Romana uitandi.”

[1736] See Dräger, op. cit.

[1737] Germ., xlvi.: “uictui herba, uestitui pelles, cubile humus”; Hist., I. liii.: “corpore ingens, animi immodicus”; Ann., III. lxv.: “insignes per honestum aut notabili dedecore”; XII. xxix.: “subsidio uictis et terrorem aduersus uictores.”

[1738] Cicero never uses claritudo; Sallust uses claritudo, not claritas; in Tacitus claritudo is frequent, claritas rare.

[1739] Brugmann, Indogerm. Forsch., V., p. 100; Schmalz, Latein. Gramm., ed. 3 p. 474.

[1740] Cf. Agr., xxii.: “intrepida hiems”; Germ., xxvii.: “sepulcrum caespes erigit”; Ann., I. lxxiv.: “uestigia morientis libertatis.”

[1741] Dial., xx. 6.

[1742] In reviewing De Groot’s Antike Prosarbythmus, J.R.S., XI. (1921), pp. 116-117, I pointed out that the identity of the possibly un-Tacitean title Annales with that of Ennius’s poem makes a shaky foundation for the guess that Tacitus is citing Ennius, and a shakier one for the dogmatic statement (op. cit., p. 27), “die Annalen fängt er aber so gar mit einem ganzen Hexameter des Ennius an.”

[1743] Ramorino, Cornelio Tacito nella storia della coltura, Mil., 1898; “T. during late Roman period,” J.R.S., VI. (1916), pp. 196 sqq.

[1744] Vopisc., Tac., x.

[1745] Cassiod., Var., v. 2: “quodam (quondam, Müllenhoff) Cornelio scribente.”

[1746] Text: Ed. pr. (Ven.), 1470; Calderinus, Ven., 1475; G. Valla, Ven., 1486; comment. Mancinelli, Lyon, 1498; Britannicus, Bresc., 1501; Pulmannus, Antw., 1565; in usum Delphini, Par., 1684; Pithoeus, Par., 1585; Rigaltius, Par., 1613; Henninius, Utr., 1685, and Glasg., 1750; c. comm. eruditorum (with the Casaubons’ Persius), Leid., 1695; Ruperti, Lpz., 1801, 1819; Heinrich, Bonn, 1839; Stocker (w. Pers.), ed. 3, Lond., 1845; Jahn, Berl., 1851 (w. Pers. and Sulpicia, 1858; ed. 2 and 3 by Bücheler, 1886 and 1893; ed. 4, Leo, 1910); Hermann, Lpz., 1854, 1873, 1897 (w. Sulp.); Ribbeck, Lpz., 1859; Simcox (XIII. Sats.), ed. 2, Lond., 1873; Lewis (w. Eng. tr.), ed. 2, Lond., 1882; J. E. B. Mayor (XIII. Sats.), Lond., 1853, 1869, 1880-1881; E. G. Hardy (XIII. Sats.), Lond., 1883; ed. 2, 1891; Pearson and Strong, Oxf., 1887; Friedländer, 2 vols., Lpz., 1895; J. D. Duff (without II. and IX.), Camb., 1898, 1900, 1914; Housman, Lond., 1905, and in C. P. Lat., Lond., 1905; Owen (w. Pers.), ed. 2, Oxf., 1907.

Winstedt, Ad Sat. VI. in cod. Bodl. additi versus xxxvi. (facs.), Oxf., 1899; Ellis, The new fragments of J., Lond. and Oxf., 1901; Cope, On a recently discovered fragmt. of J., Oxf., 1905.

Trans.: In verse, Stapylton, Lond., 1647; Dryden and others (w. Pers.), Lond., 1693; Gifford, Lond., 1802, 1805; In prose, Strong and Leeper (XIII. Sats.), Lond., 1882; Owen, Lond., 1903; G. G. Ramsay (w. Pers., Loeb ed.), Lond., 1918.

Life: See various edns. and Friedländer, De Juv. uitae temporibus, Köningsb., 1875, and Sittensgesch. Roms; Strack, De Juv. exilio, Laub., 1880; Naguiewski, De Juv. uita observ., Riga, 1883; Hild, Juvénal, notes biog., Par., 1884; Dürr, Das Leben Juv., Ulm, 1888; Dompierre de Chaufepié, De titulo I.R.N. 4312 ad Juv. poetam perperam relato, Hag., 1889; Nettleship, “Life and Poems of J.,” in Lects. and Essays, ser. 2, Oxf., 1895; Merchant, “The parentage of Juv.,” A.J.P., 22 (1901).

On Satires: Ribbeck, Der echte u. d. unechte Juv., Berl., 1865; Martha, Les moralistes sous l’emp. rom., Par., 1866; ed. 8, 1907; Widal, Juv. et ses satires, Par., 1869; Tyrrell, Lat. Poetry, N. Yk., 1895; Plessis, La poésie lat., Par., 1909.

Style: Wilcke, Disp. quid elocutio Juvenalis a Persiana differat, Stendal, 1869; Schwartz, De J. Horatii imitatore, Halle, 1882; Gehlen, De J. Vergili imitatore, Gött., 1886; Eskuche, Juvenals Versbau, offprint fr. Friedländer’s ed., Lpz., 1895 (contention that J. is designedly careless in metre was opposed by L. Müller, Berl. phil. Wochenschr., 1896); Wilson, Lity. influence of Martial upon J., in A.J.P., 19 (1898).

[1747] Ioannes Malalas, Chron., X., p. 341, Chilm., says Juvenal was banished to Pentapolis in Libya for attacking Domitian’s favourite Paris. Suidas has an entry regarding Ἰουβενάλιος to like effect. Juvenal is coupled with Marius Maximus in Amm. Marcell., XXVIII. iv. 14, and with Turnus in Rut. Namat., Itin., I. 604, and in Ioannes Lydus, De Mag., l. 41.

[1748] IX. 269.

[1749] Published probably before A.D. 114. Juvenal was alive after A.D. 127.

[1750] VII. 90-92.

[1751] E.g. on the dole, I. 95 sqq.; lackeys, III. 188-189; poverty, III. 152-153, 163-165.

[1752] I. 24-30; III. 58-125; X. 226.

[1753] “Quantum ipse notaui,” XV. 45, is not absolutely convincing proof of his having been in Egypt. His topographical mistake about the two villages Ombi and Tentyra does not add to one’s confidence.

[1754] E.g. cf. I. 15-17 with 25.

[1755] III. 318-321.

[1756] C.I.L., X. 5382 = Dessau, Inscr. Lat. Sel., I. 2926.

[1757] II. 159-161; IV. 126, 141; X. 14; XIV. 196; XV. 111-112, 124.

[1758] Mart., VII. xxiv. and xci.; XII. xviii.

[1759] Juv., VII. 124-125, “et melius nos egimus.” See Merchant, A.J.P., 22 (1901), PP. 51 sqq.

[1760] Mart., X. xx. 3; Juv., VIII. 48; cf. VII. 145.

[1761] Nettleship, Lects. and Essays, II., pp. 124-131; Pearson and Strong’s ed., pp. 41-43.

[1762] Leo, “Doppelfassungen bei Juv.,” Herm., xliv. 4, argued for two complete editions, one published by the poet himself, the second (containing alterations) after his death; and attempted to reconstruct double versions in Juvenal (cf. the Bodleian fragment). If copies of both editions were known to commentators for centuries, then the posthumous text might in places be interpolated from the earlier.

[1763] II. 29-33; IV. 37, 73, 84-88.

[1764] IV. 153.

[1765] I. 49-50.

[1766] VI. 407, 411.

[1767] Jrnl. of Phil., XVI., pp. 55 sqq.

[1768] VIII. 120: “nuper Marius discinxerit Afros.”

[1769] XIII. 17; XV. 27: “nuper consule Iunco.”

[1770] XI. 203.

[1771] I. 15-17.

[1772] XIII. 121-123.

[1773] XIII. 19-22:

“Magna quidem, sacris quae dat praecepta libellis, Victrix Fortunae Sapientia: ducimus autem Hos quoque felices, qui ferre incommoda uitae, Nec iactare iugum, uita didicere magistra.”

[1774] XI. 65, 190.

[1775] This piece, 34 lines long, was discovered in 1899 by Mr. Winstedt. The sceptical attacks of a few Continental critics have only served to establish its authenticity; but Dralle, in a Marburg dissertation, 1922, renews the ineffectual attempt.

[1776] I. 85-86:

“Quidquid agunt homines, uotum, timor, ira, uoluptas, Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli.”

[1777] VI. 433:

“Illa tamen grauior, quae cum discumbere coepit, Laudat Vergilium, periturae ignoscit Elissae.”

[1778] VI. 438-440.

[1779] VI. 440-442:

“Verborum tanta cadit uis, Tot pariter pelues et tintinnabula dicas Pulsari.”

[1780] VI. 634 sqq.: “Fingimus haec....”

[1781] IX. 125-129:

“Nunc mihi quid suades post damnum temporis et spes Deceptas? festinat enim decurrere, uelox Flosculus, angustae miseraeque breuissima uitae Portio; dum bibimus, dum serta unguenta puellas Poscimus, obrepit non intellecta senectus.”

[1782] III. 152-153.

[1783] III. 254-267.

[1784] VII. 207-210:

“Di, maiorum umbris tenuem et sine pondere terram Spirantisque crocos et in urna perpetuum uer, Qui praeceptorem sancti uoluere parentis Esse loco.”

[1785] VIII. 19-20.

[1786] VIII. 24-28: “... Agnosco procerem....”

[1787] VIII. 83-84:

“Summum crede nefas animam praeferre pudori Et propter uitam uiuendi perdere causas.”

[1788] X. 21: “et motae ad lunam trepidabis arundinis umbram.”

[1789] X. 56-89.

[1790] X. 166-167.

[1791] X. 346-366.

[1792] XI. 203:

“Nostra bibat uernum contracta cuticula solem Effugiatque togam.”

[1793] XII. 128-130.

[1794] XIII. 189-192:

“quippe minuti Semper et infirmi est animi exiguique uoluptas Vitio. Continuo sic collige, quod uindicta Nemo magis gaudet quam femina.”

[1795] XIV. 321: “Nunquam aliud Natura, aliud Sapientia dicit.”

[1796] XV. 131-133: “Mollissima corda”; cf. 142 sqq.: “Separat hoc nos a grege mutorum.”

[1797] Hor., Sat., I. iv. 33-38, 78-85, 100-106, 129-139.

[1798] XIII. 20-22.

[1799] I. 120-126: “... ‘Profer, Galla, caput!’—‘noli uexare: quiescet.’”

[1800] IV. 117-118.

[1801] The laughable at any rate is present. Some of its aspects were made the subject of a “program” by Neissner, Ueber das komische Element in d. Sat. des J., Dresd., 1876.

[1802] III. 17-20:

“In uallem Egeriae descendimus et speluncas Dissimiles ueris. Quanto praesentius esset Numen aquis, uiridi si margine clauderet undas Herba, nec ingenuum uiolarent marmora tofum.”

[1803] X. 22: “cantabit uacuus coram latrone uiator.”

[1804] V. 130-131:

“plurima sunt quae non audent homines pertusa dicere laena.”

[1805] XIV. 276; I. 13; X. 221.

[1806] III. 6-9.

[1807] Nisard was too sweeping when he wrote: “Quant à la religion, ce qu’il en a dit en se moquant ôte toute autorité aux endroits où il parle sur le ton sérieux,” Études, etc., ed. 3, 1867, II., p. 59.

[1808] XIII. 121-122.

[1809] XIV. 25 and 215; cf. Hor., Epist., I. ii. 42; Virg., G., II. 363.

[1810] For historical background, Gregorovius, Der Kaiser Hadrian, ed. 2, Stuttg., 1884; Eng. tr., Robinson, Lond., 1898; Henderson, Life and Principate of H., Lond., 1923 (“H.’s Literary Activities,” pp. 240 sqq.).

[1811] Translations ... of Dying Hadrian’s Address to his Soul, collected by D. Johnston, Bath, 1876 (in several languages).

[1812] This was my view in Lit. Hist. of Rome, 1909, p. 636. Galdi’s examination of the style and clausulae of Justinus tends to show “che è assai verosimile ch’egli visse sotto gli Antonini, e propriamente tra il 130-180,” L’epitome nella lett. lat., 1922, p. 108.

[1813] Or, Scoticé:

Wee flutterin’ dawtit saul an’ bonnie, Ma body’s verra guest an’ crony, For whatna land maun ye awa’, Sae pale, sae cauldrife, stripp’d o’ a’, Wi’ fient a joke tae play on ony?

[1814] Ed. pr. (pref. by Campanus), Rome, 1470; (pref. by Bishop of Aleria) also Rome, 1470; (printed by Jenson) Ven., 1471; Beroaldus, Bologna, 1493, 1506; Erasmus, Bâle, 1518; Casaubon, Geneva, 1595, Par., 1610; Pitiscus (comm. varior.), Utr., 1690, Louvain, 1714; P. Burman, Amst., 1736; Baumgarten-Crusius (comm., ind.), Lpz., 1816; Roth, Lpz., 1858, 1890, 1904; Preud’homme, Gron., 1906; Ihm, Lpz., 1907. Suet. praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae, Reifferscheid, Lpz., 1860. Sep. Vitae: Jul., Aug., Peck, N. Yk., ed. 2, 1893; Aug., Shuckburgh, Camb., 1896; Claud., Smilda, Gron., 1896; Galb., Oth., Vit., Hofstee, Gron., 1898; Tib., Cal., Claud., Nero, Pike, Bost., 1903. Trans.: (1) Caesars., Philemon Holland, Lond., 1606 (and reissues); “By several hands,” Lond., 1688; (2) extant wks., Bohn Lib., Lond., 1893 and other yrs. (Forester’s revision of Thomson’s trans., Lond., 1796); Loeb Lib., Rolfe, Lond. and N. Yk., 1914.

On style, etc.: Thimm, De usu atque elocutione C. Suet., Königsb., 1867; Bagge, De eloc. C. Suet., Ups., 1875; Macé, Essai sur Suét., Par., 1900; Leo, Die griech-röm. Biographie, Lpz., 1901; Freund, De Suet. usu ... dicendi, Bresl., 1901; Howard and Jackson, Index Verborum C. Suet. Tranq. stilique eius proprietatum nonnullarum, Camb., Mass., 1922.

[1815] There are seven: Aug., vii.; Cal., xix.; Ner., lvii.; Oth., x.; Dom., xii.; De Gramm., iv. (recollection of hearing instances of students going straight from grammatici to the bar); Vit. Luc. (recollection of Lucan being lectured on).

[1816] This is Macé’s view, Essai sur Suét., pp. 35 sqq. Mommsen’s date, a.d. 77 (Herm., III. p. 43), seems too late. Shuckburgh, Aug., p. xxviii., prefers 75, which Teuffel thinks the latest possible year.

[1817] Ner., lvii.; Dom., xii. 2.

[1818] Ep., I. xviii.; III. viii.; V. x.; IX. xxxiv.; X. xciv.

[1819] Ep., X. xciv. ... “in contubernium adsumpsi tantoque magis diligere coepi quanto hunc (? nunc, ? tunc) propius inspexi.”

[1820] “Ab epistulis”; or, acc. to the later title used by Spartian, Vit. Hadr., xi. “epistularum magister.”

[1821] Spart., Hadr., xi.

[1822] Ep., V. x. 2: “Sum et ipse in edendo haesitator: tu tamen meam quoque cunctationem tarditatemque uicisti.”

[1823] The Lives of Virgil and Persius have had defenders, but are not usually accepted as by Suetonius.

[1824] Possibly it should be connected with Καισάρων ιβʹ, “The Twelve Caesars,” which it immediately precedes in Suidas.

[1825] This would make up for their dismissal with scarcely more than a chapter in Vit. Iul., xxv.-vi.

[1826] The theories of Reifferscheid and Schanz are summarized by Schanz, op. cit., VIII. iii. (1922), pp. 63-64.

[1827] Plin., Ep., V. x.; Macé, op. cit. Roth gives A.D. 106-113.

[1828] Macé, op. cit., has discussed the imperial documents available for consultation by Suetonius.

[1829] Ner., lii.

[1830] Cl., xli.

[1831] Prof. Monroe Deutsch has contended that the author who recorded the story of Caesar’s extravagant gifts to his reputed mistress Queen Eunoe of Mauretania was not (M. Actorius) Naso, but (P. Attius) Varus, one of Pompey’s officers, and therefore hostile to Caesar. The argument is that in Suet., Iul., lii., the true reading is “ut Varus scripsit,” Class. Jrnl., Dec., 1921.

[1832] Cal., viii.

[1833] Vit., i.

[1834] De Gramm., xxii.

[1835] Anct. Lives of Virgil, pp. 28 sqq.

[1836] Cf. Iul., xliv., his mapping out of forma, habitus, cultus, mores, ciuilia studia, bellica studia, as themes to precede the omens of death.

[1837] Philarète Chasles, Études sur le seizième siècle, Par., 1876: “Brantôme, Pepys et Suétone,” pp. 339-352.

[1838] Les Trophées, sonnet on “Tranquillus.”

[1839] Iul., xlv.; Aug., lxxix.; Tib., lxviii.; Cal., l.; Cl., xxx.; Ner., li.; Galb., xxi.

[1840] Iul., xxxi.-xxxii. (where the well-known “iacta alea est” occurs). Cf. Lucan’s account, translated p. 303 supra.

[1841] Iul., lxxxii.; Tib., xi.; Cal., xxxii.; Ner., xl.-xlix.

[1842] Extract from Augustus’s letter, Claud., iv.: “Nam qui tam ἀσαφῶς loquatur, qui possit cum declamat σαφῶς dicere ... non uideo.”

[1843] Hist. de l’éloq. rom., I. 311.

[1844] De Groot, Prosarhythmus, pp. 108-109.

[1845] Macé, op. cit., pp. 379-398. Shuckburgh, Aug., pref. ix., declares “For rhythmical prose he has either no ear or no patience.”

[1846] Vopisc., Firm., i.: “Suetonius Tranquillus, emendatissimus et candidissimus scriptor ... cui familiare fuit amare breuitatem.”

[1847] Spart., Hadr., xvi.

[1848] De Gram., x.

[1849] See footnote on Historia Augusta, p. 655 infra.

[1850] Ed. pr., Par., c. 1470; Camers, Vienn., 1518; Gruter, Heidel., 1597; Salmasius, Heidel., 1609; Tanaquil Faber, Saumur, 1672 (illustr. Anna, T. Fabri filia, in usum Delph., Lond., 1692); Graevius, Utr., 1680; Duker, Leyd., 1722; Fischer, Lpz., 1760; Titze, Prag., 1819; Jahn, Lpz., 1852; Halm, Lpz., 1854, 1872; Rossbach, Lpz., 1896.

Trans.: M. Casaubon, Lond., 1658; Watson (w. Sall. and Paterc.), Lond., 1876, 1889.

Other Wks.: Monceaux, Les Africains, Par., 1894 (pp. 193-209); Sabbadini, “Del numerus in Floro,” Riv. fil. cl., xxv. 1897; Galdi, L’epitome nella lett. rom., Nap., 1922 (pp. 44-62).

[1851] Printed in Halm’s ed., pp. 106-109.

[1852] Spart. Hadr., xvi.; Bährens, Frag. P.R., p. 373.

Florus: “Ego nolo Caesar esse, Ambulare per Britannos, Scythicas pati pruinas.”

Hadr.: “Ego nolo Florus esse, Ambulare per tabernas, Latitare per popinas, Culices pati rotundos.”

One of Florus’s lines may have dropped out.

[1853] Bährens, P.L.M., iv., p. 279 and 346.

[1854] Ed. pr., Pithoeus, Par., 1577; (w. Catull., Tib., Prop.) Utr., 1680 (notes by Lipsius and Dousa); (w. Catull.) Owen, Lond., 1893; Peruig. Ven., Mackail, Lond., 1910; Clementi, Oxf., 1911 (w. trans.); Fort (in quatrains), Oxf., 1922; Postgate (Lat. and Eng.), Lond., 1924.

[1855] Mackail pointed out the quaternary arrangement and printed a reconstruction in Jrl. Philol., vol. xvii., 1888.

[1856] See Appendix to Fort’s ed. of Peruig. Ven.

[1857] Flor., II. xxxiii.; Plin., N.H., XXXIII. 4 (21); 5 (26, 27); 6 (40).

[1858] His “plus quam bellum,” II. xi., in reference to civil strife, seems an echo of Lucan’s opening line. But see footnote on p. 321 supra.

[1859] Prooem., 8: “A Caesare Augusto in saeculum nostrum haud multo minus anni ducenti ... sub Traiano principe mouit (mouet, Naz.) lacertos et praeter spem omnium senectus imperii ... reuiruit (reuirescit, Naz.).” I. v. 5, “hactenus pro libertate ... Euphrates,” could not have been written before A.D. 115.

[1860] Augustine must have had Florus in his eye when he wrote the words “non tam narrare bella Romana quam Romanum imperium laudare,” Ciu. Dei, iii. 19.

[1861] E.g. the anaphora “unde ... nisi ...” three times, I. xlvii.

[1862] Monceaux, Les Africains, p. 209, thinks that Florus, “prépare les voies aux grands rhéteurs d’Afrique ... et s’il tombe fréquemment dans la déclamation, l’afféterie et le mauvais goût, ce seront là justement des défauts familiers à la prose africaine.”

[1863] Not, however, invariably: e.g. “reuersus igitur” (III. x. = I. xlv.).

[1864] Teuffel records 125 occurrences of quasi and 75 of quippe in the 81 chapters. The single chapter cited in the previous note illustrates several inartistic repetitions of both words.

[1865] Ed. by Wölfflin, Lpz., 1873; cf. Galdi, op. cit., pp. 80-89.

[1866] Professor Summers in his Silver Age of Lat. Lit. omits even Suetonius.

[1867] Certain aspects of this later Hellenic literature are sketched in Mahaffy’s Silver Age of the Gk. World, Chicago, 1906.

[1868] Dessau, Herm. XXIV. (1889), assigned it to the days of Theodosius the Great, i.e. late in 4th cent. But N. Baynes, Hist. Aug., Its Date and Purpose, Oxf., 1926, argues for A.D. 362-363, under Julian.

[1869] De Consulatu Stilichonis, III. 150:

“Haec est in gremium uictos quae sola recepit, Humanumque genus communi nomine fouit, Matris non dominae ritu: ciuesque uocauit, Quos domuit, nexuque pio longinqua reuinxit.”

[1870] E.g. Simcox, A Hist. of Lat. Lit. from Ennius to Boethius, 1883. Teuffel extends his Geschichte beyond Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours so as to include some writers of the seventh and eighth cents.

[1871] Manitius begins his Gesch. der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, 1911-1923, with Boethius. Pichon, Hist. de la litt. lat., regards Sidonius, Boethius and Cassiodorus as “tout à fait confins du moyen âge.”

INDEX

The letter n. after a number means a footnote on the page indicated. For the main subjects treated under leading authors, consultants are referred to the summary prefixed to each chapter, and for other points to the bibliographies given in the footnotes. The index includes the names of modern scholars cited in the notes, where their views illustrate literary history or criticism.

A

Ab: for titles so beginning see under leading word

=Abbott=, Prof. F. F., 170 n., 185 n.

Abusive Terms and their Origin (in Greek by Suetonius, lost), 633

=Academic Thought=, 36, 370

=Accius=, 30, 68, 70, 79, 153, 252, 254, 256, 257, 269, 273, 283, 558, 596

Achilleid, 470, 482-483

Achilles in Scyros, 483

=Ackermann=, 257 n.

=Acrostic=, 343-344

Acta diurna, 584, 585, 586 n., 635

Acta senatus, 584, 585, 586 n., 635

Ad: for titles so beginning see under leading word

=Addison=, 33

=Ademar=, 150, 151 n.

Adlocutio ad Pollam (Lucan, lost), 300

Aduersus Astrologos (lost), 161

Aduersus Nationes (Arnobius), 654

Aegisthus (Andronicus, lost), 256

Aeglogues (in Shepheards Calender), 335

=Aelian= (on Greek tactics), 630

Aeneas (drama by Pomponius Secundus, lost), 159, 273

Aeneid, 166, 178, 182, 268, 316, 437, 441, 447, 458, 460, 466, 477, 481, 482

=Aerodius=, 414

=Aeschylean depth=, 251, 255

=Aeschylus=, 250, 253; (in relation to Seneca), 255-256; 270, 480

=Aeserninus= (speaker), 62

=Aesop=, 29, 135-139, 146, 150, 153

Aethiopica, 189

Aetna, 217, 323, 338-341

=Afer=; see “Domitius”

=Afranius=, 30, 186 n., 277, 651

=Africa, schools in=, 37, 38, 615

=African Latin=; see “Latin”

Agamemnon (Aeschylus), 251, 256

Agamemnon (Seneca), 248, 255-256, 267, 270, 272, 274

=Agathurnus=, Claudius, 281

Agaue (Statius, lost), 158, 468, 470, 530

Agesilaos (Xenophon), 569

=Agricola= (governor in Britain), 423, 560, 561, 562, 563, 567-572, 597

=Agricola= (humanist), 413

Agricola (by Tacitus), 560, 563, 566, 567-573, 629

Agricultura, De (Celsus, lost), 115

=Agriculture=, 18, 36, 114, 115, 160-168, 231, 334, 354, 374, 378, 383

=Agrippina the elder=, 583

=Agrippina the younger=, 201, 202, 204, 213, 244, 274, 277, 345, 349, 583, 592

=Agrippina’s= Memoirs, 62, 234, 584, 592

=Aietius Pastor= (rhetor), 61

=Alban poetic contests=, 6, 468, 529

=Albertini=, 196 n., 207, 208, 209 n., 211, 216 n., 217 n., 223 n.

=Albinovanus Pedo=, 57, 156, 157, 512

=Albucius Silus= (rhetor), 48, 50, 60

Alcithoe (lost drama), 278

=Alcuin=, 385, 657

=Alexander=, William, Earl of Stirling (dramatist), 273

=Alexander Severus= (emperor), 38, 40, 150, 653

=Alexander the Great=: (Curtius’s hero), 101-113; 125, 214, 315, 374, 461, 465, 617

Alexandri Magni Historiae, 101-113, 323

=Alexandria=, 125, 137, 150, 225, 363, 364, 367, 380, 651, 656

=Alexandrian literary canons=, 400, 401, 480

=Alexandrinism=, 287, 480, 493

=Alfieri=, 598

=Alfius Avitus= (Hadrianic poet), 628

=Alfius Flavus= (rhetor), 62

Alice in Wonderland, 239

=Allain=, 532 n., 533 n., 538 n.

=Alliteration=, 263, 311, 328, 450, 466, 611, 626-627

Aloisia (Chorier), 289

=Aly=, 358 n., 359, 360 n., 361

=Alzinger=, 338

Ambracia (Ennius, lost), 273

=Ambrosius=, 643, 654

=Ammianus Marcellinus=, 597, 627, 643, 649, 655, 656

=Ampelius=, 649

Anabasis (Arrian), 631

Anabasis (Xenophon), 631

=Analogy and Anomaly= (linguistic), 352

=Anatole France=, 44 n., 188, 197 n.

=Anderson=, J. G. C., 202 n., 559 n., 569 n., 571 n.

=Andrelinus=, 335

=Andresen=, 569 n.

=Andronicus=, Livius, 27, 29, 70, 256, 342

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 581

=Annaeus Mela=, 44, 198, 296, 298

=Annaeus Novatus=, “Gallio,” 44, 197, 211, 212, 296

=Annaeus Seneca=, L.: see “Seneca the elder”

=Annaeus Seneca=, L.: see “Seneca the younger”

=Annaeus Serenus=, 213, 214

Annales (Hortensius, lost), 89

Annals of Tacitus, or Ab Excessu Diui Augusti, 97, 156, 562, 563, 576, 577, 581-596, 597

=Annianus= (poet), 628

=Ante-Augustan poetry=, 30: see also “Archaizing”

Anthologia Latina, 246

=Anthropology= (barely touched in Pliny), 354, 363, 365, 368, 573-574

=Anti-Caesarian spirit=, 1, 7, 84; (in drama), 277; (alleged in Persius), 293-294; 297; (in Lucan), 311, 316-318; see also “Stoic Opposition”

=Antigonus of Carystus=, 364

=Antimachus=, 480

Antiquae Lectiones or Stromateus (lost dictionary), 558

=Antistius Sosianus= (satirist), 346

=Antistius Vetus=, L., 234

=Antoninus Pius= (emperor), 39, 602, 632, 651, 654

=Antonius Castor= (botanist), 131, 363

=Antonius Julianus= (historian), 585

=Antonius Liberalis= (rhetor), 236

=Aper=, Marcus (in Tacitus’s Dialogus), 257, 389, 561, 564

=Apicius=, 131

Apicius De Re Coquinaria, 132

Apocolocyntosis, 173, 227, 237-246, 292 n.

=Apollinaris= (critic), 431

=Apollinaris Sidonius=; see “Sidonius”

=Apollodoreans=, 61, 397, 398

=Apollodorus= (on siege-craft), 630

=Apollodorus of Pergamum=, 61, 397

=Apollonius of Rhodes=, 435, 436, 445, 446, 448

Apologeticum (Tertullian), 231, 654

Apophoreta (Martial), 501, 503, 512

=Apotheosis=, 3, 242, 313: see also “Deification” and satiric treatment in Apocolocyntosis

Appendix Vergiliana, 338

=Appian=, 321 n., 654

Apuleius, 38, 189, 415, 430, 523, 596, 646, 652, 654, 655

=Aqueducts=, 18, 368, 423, 427-430, 486; (Marcia), 508; (Virgo), 521 n.; 583

Aquis, De, 423, 424, 427-431

Aratea (Cicero), 156

Aratea (Germanicus), 156, 344

=Aratus=, 155

Arboribus, De (Columella), 161

=Archaisms=, 191, 231, 236, 283, 410, 466 n., 558, 593 n., 595-596, 630, 642, 651, 652

=Archaizing=, 2, 30, 61, 228, 412, 596, 597, 650-652

=Archilochus= (iambic satirist), 512

=Archimedes=, 363, 461

=Architecture=, 36, 364, 629

Ardaliones, 16, 140, 216

=Arellius Fuscus= (rhetor), 44, 45 n., 48, 51, 52, 57, 60

=Argentarius= (rhetor), 61

Argonautica (Apollonius), 435

Argonautica (Valerius Flaccus), 433-451, 475

Argumentatio, 61

=Aristarchus= (literary critic), 401

=Aristarchus= (scientific source for Pliny), 362

=Aristides= (rhetorician), 655

=Aristobulus=, 105

=Aristocrates=, Petronius, 281

=Aristophanes=, comic dramatist, 244, 284

=Aristophanes of Byzantium=, 401

=Aristotelianism=, 13, 407

=Aristotle=, 222, 356 n., 357, 359, 360, 361, 363, 366, 367, 385, 404

=Arithmetic=, 24, 26, 36

=Arnault=, 598

=Arnobius=, 654

=Arnolletus=, 335

=Arrian=, 102, 105, 231, 630, 631, 654

=Arrius Antoninus= (writer of Greek mimes), 555

=Arruntius= (orator), 62

Ars (Palaemon’s rhetoric), 131

Ars Poetica (Ad Pisones, Horace), 542

=Art= (painting, sculpture, etc.), 4, 95-96, 176, 179, 181, 348 n., 354, 355, 359, 364, 368, 403, 471, 487, 493, 508, 569

=Artificiality=; see “Rhetorical Style”

=Arulenus Rusticus= (Stoic), 386

=Asbach=, 560 n.

=Ascham=, 413

=Asclepiades=, 116, 120

=Asconius Pedianus=, 235, 634

=Ashby=, Dr. Thomas, 422 n.

=Asian style=, 403

=Asinius Gallus=, 62, 636

=Asinius Pollio=, 28, 44, 48, 50, 58, 62, 70, 319, 635

=Asper=, Aemilius (grammarian), 432

=Asprenas=, (rhetor), 62

Astronomica (Manilius), 154, 323

=Astronomy=, 28, 36, 125, 155-156, 163, 177, 221, 312, 324, 363, 384, 394, 397

Astyanax (Accius, lost), 252

=Ateius Philologus=, 28

=Atellan farce=, 157-158, 178, 276, 277

=Athenaeum= (Hadrian’s), 39, 629

=Athenian drama=; see “Greek drama”

Atreus (Accius, lost), 257

Atreus (Mamercus Scaurus, lost), 62, 158

Atreus (Rubrenus Lappa, lost), 278

=Atrius=, 557

=Attalus= (philosopher), 199

Attia Viriola, Pro (lost speech by Pliny), 537, 550

=Attic style=, 403-404

=Atticus=, Julius, 131, 164

=Atticus=, Pomponius (Cicero’s friend), 30, 89, 226, 542

Aufidi Bassi, A Fine (lost history), 352

=Aufidius Bassus=, 82, 352, 585, 587

=Aufidius Chius= (jurist), 431

=Augurinus= (author of poematia), 548, 556

=Augustan Age=, 1, 10, 21, 84, 89, 100, 252, 418, 590, 636, 655

Augustan History: see “Historia Augusta”

=Augustans=, 60, 287, 332, 410: see also “Horace,” “Livy,” “Virgil,” etc.

=Augustine=, St., 38, 115, 597, 647 n., 657

=Augustus=, Octavian Caesar, 2, 3, 39, 44, 45, 63, 65, 73, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 96, 98, 134, 150, 154, 155, 156, 170, 176, 183, 240, 244, 296, 363, 369, 370, 380, 397, 407, 563, 577, 581, 590, 592, 593, 634, 637, 639, 647

=Aurelius=, Marcus, 37, 38, 40, 150, 231, 630, 631, 651

=Aurelius Victor=, 643

=Ausonius=, 38, 40, 523, 627, 656

=Autobiographies=, 570, 585: see “Memoirs”

=Avianus= (fabulist), 134, 149, 150

=Avienus= (descriptive poet), 156

B

=Babrius=, 150

=Bacha=, 591 n.

=Bacon=, 166, 203, 204, 230, 364, 658

=Baebius Massa= (delator), 421

=Bährens, E.=, 193, 246 n., 301 n., 342 n.

=Bährens, W. A.=, 533 n.

=Bagge=, 631 n.

=Baier=, 297 n., 319

=Bailey’s= Festus quoted, 120

=Balbus= (geometrician), 558

=Barberet=, 161 n.

=Barclay=, Alex., 335

=Barea Soranus=, 235

=Basil the Great=, 420

=Bassus= (dramatist), 257, 278 n.

=Bassus=, Aufidius: see “Aufidius”

=Bassus=, Caesius (metrist and lyric poet), 235, 280, 282, 287, 346

=Bassus=, Julius (rhetor), 48, 198

=Bassus=, Saleius (epic poet), 336, 346, 529

=Baynes=, 655 n.

=Bebel=, 413

=Beck=, 169 n., 170, 352 n.

=Bede=, 384, 657

=Beesly=, 590 n.

Bellum Ciuile (poem in Satyricon), 182, 192

=Bembo=, 658

=Bender=, 532 n.

Beneficiis, De, 206, 218-221, 234

=Berge=, De la, 532 n., 538 n.

=Bernhardy=, 331

=Bibaculus=, 153, 512

=Bickel=, 243 n., 245 n.

=Binet=, 193

=Biography=, 158, 200, 206, 279, 364, 421, 557, 567-573, 597; (medieval Vitae), 599-604; 629; (in Suetonius), 631-643; see “Memoirs”

=Bion=, 289

=Bionaean satire=, 227, 289

=Birt=, 242 n., 249 n., 357, 358 n.

=Blair= (rhetorician), 413

=Boccaccio=, 597, 658

=Bocchus=, 83

=Boethius=, 657

=Bötticher=, 560 n., 593

=Boileau=, 294, 548, 627

=Boissier=, 40 n., 42 n., 498 n., 560 n., 571 n., 586

=Bonnefons= (author of Basia), 529

=Book production and sales=, 282, 391, 392, 499, 519, 536 n., 537, 555, 644

=Borenius=, 586 n.

=Bornecque=, 31 n., 42 n.

=Borrow=, 190

=Boswellian qualities=, 55

=Botany=, 131; (in Columella), 165-168; (in Pliny), 354, 363, 366; see also “Agriculture”

=Botticelli=, 325

=Bourgery=, 196 n., 207, 218 n., 221 n., 223 n., 230 n.

=Brakman=, 338 n.

=Brassicanus=, 334

Breuitate Vitae, De (Ad Paulinum), 207, 208, 215-217

=Bridges=, Robert, 483

=Brieger=, 359

=Britain=, schools in, 37, 603

=Britannicus=, 202, 204, 274, 583

Britannicus (Racine), 598

=Browning=, 292, 621

=Brugmann=, 595 n.

=Brunn=, 356, 358

=Bruttedius= (rhetor), 62

Brutus (Accius, lost), 273

=Buchanan=, George, 271, 658

=Budaeus=, 658

=Bücheler=, 135 n., 169 n., 245 n., 338

=Buffon=, 366

=Bunbury=, 126 n.

=Burman=, 86 n., 133 n., 169 n., 433 n.

=Burns=, Robert, 144, 543

=Burrus=, 202

=Bursian’s= Jahresber., 387 n., 533 n.

=Butler=, Prof. H. E., 270 n., 446 n., 496 n., 498 n.

=Byron=, 296, 516, 518, 544, 627

=Byzantines=, 643, 649

C

=Caecilius= (dramatist), 30, 651

=Caecilius Calactinus=, 407

=Caecilius Epirota=, 30

=Caelius Antipater=, 70, 362, 642

=Caelius Rufus=, 430

=Caepio= (botanist), 131

=Caesar=: see “Julius”

=Caesar=, continuators of, 93

=Caesars=, flattery of, 69, 72-73, 78, 81, 85-90, 96-100, 201, 210-211, 218, 243, 244, 302, 331, 333, 335, 343, 389, 469, 470, 472, 485, 486-487, 521-522, 529, 538-540, 623

=Caesars=, opposition to, 14, 63, 89, 235, 293, 299, 311, 316-318: see “Anti-Caesarian,” “Stoic opposition”

Caesars, Lives of the (Suetonius), 2, 632, 634-636, 637-643

=Caesar-worship=, 3, 14, 73, 98, 99, 102; (Augustal priesthood), 175, 179; (jested at), 240; 302, 334, 521-522, 539, 551, 603; see “Deification”

=Caesellius Vindex= (scholar), 558

=Caesius Bassus=; see “Bassus”

=Calderon=, 272

=Caligula=, Gaius Caesar, 5, 6, 13, 46, 61, 63, 82, 83, 102, 114, 126, 132, 134, 135, 157, 158, 200, 211, 243, 263, 353, 385, 489, 571, 577, 581, 582, 590, 591, 636, 639; (Life), 640

=Callimachus=, 555

=Calpurnius Flaccus=, 32, 56

=Calpurnius Piso= (elegiac writer in younger Pliny’s time), 556

=Calpurnius Piso=, C. (Neronian conspirator), 203, 299, 332, 335-336, 338

=Calpurnius Piso=, L. (Tiberian orator), 63

=Calpurnius Siculus=, 17, 194, 293, 330-338, 339, 656

=Calvus= (orator and poet), 552, 556

=Cammelli=, 270

=Campbell= (rhetorician), 413

=Caninius Rufus= (epic writer), 556

=Canius Rufus= (tragic writer), 530

=Capito=, Ateius (rhetor), 48, 62, 131, 430

=Capitoline poetic contests=, 6, 470, 529, 644

Captive Women (lost play by Sophocles), 252

=Carlyle=, 205, 621

=Carthaginian writers=, 160, 364, 654; see also “Apuleius,” “Augustine,” “Hanno,” “Mago”

=Carus= (emperor), 331

=Casaubon=, 293, 294

=Cassiodor(i)us=, 412, 542, 554, 597, 657 n.

=Cassius= (physician), 117

=Cassius Longinus= (jurist), 235

=Cassius Severus= (orator), 48, 49, 63

Catachannae (Hadrian’s, lost), 629

Catachthonion (Lucan’s, lost), 300, 301

Catilina (Sallust), 570

Catiline (Ben Jonson), 273

=Cato the elder=, “Censor,” 24, 35, 36, 45, 71, 89, 115, 151, 163, 164, 165, 334, 356, 357, 359, 360, 363, 378, 396, 642, 650

=Cato Uticensis=, 79, 90, 92, 96, 214, 235, 246; (as Lucan’s hero), 305, 314-315, 318, 328, 329

Cato, Life of (by Thrasea), 235, 280

Cato (praetexta by Curiatius Maternus, lost), 273, 278, 529

=Catullian influence=; (on Statius), 493; (on Martial), 512, 513, 515, 523; (at Renaissance), 529; (in Pliny’s time), 556

=Catullus=, 1, 144, 153, 348, 402, 408, 497, 510, 511, 512, 513, 523, 524, 556

=Catullus= (mime-writer), 157

=Catulus= (Republican autobiography), 570

Catus De Liberis Educandis (Varro), 566

Causae (Ciceronian), 32 n., 47

=Cavalier poets=, 518

=Celsus=, Cornelius, 16, 18, 36, 114-124, 130, 131, 132, 161, 164, 235, 357, 363, 407, 420, 554

Cena Trimalchionis, 174-185

=Censorinus=, 633, 643

=Cestius Pius= (rhetor), 45 n., 49, 50, 58, 61

=Character-drawing=, 94-97, 107-110, 179, 187, 259, 302, 444-446; (weak in Silius), 463; (in Tacitus), 564, 572, 577-578, 580, 590-592, 594; (in Juvenal), 610-612, 614

=Charisius=, 352, 558, 653

=Charlemagne=, 385, 643

=Chasles=, 638 n.

=Chaucer=, 104, 175, 484, 622, 627

=Chauvin=, 185 n.

=Chénier=, 598

=Chorier=, 289

Chorographia or De Situ Orbis, 126-131

Chriae, 29

=Christian affinities=; (in Seneca), 231; (in Persius), 294; (in Statius), 479, 484

=Christian apologetics=, 2, 653-654

=Christian literary studies=, 38, 528, 627, 643, 654: see “Fathers of the Church”

=Christianity and Christians=, 3, 545, 546, 550, 551, 554, 597, 653-654

=Chrysippus=, 282, 407, 566

=Cicero=, 1, 18, 19, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 58, 61, 62, 70, 81, 84, 91, 105, 123, 155, 156, 165, 190, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 235, 252, 269, 310, 320, 352, 378, 383, 395, 396, 398, 401, 402, 407, 409, 410, 421, 431, 453, 458, 465, 533, 536, 542, 544, 550, 552, 553, 554, 566, 570, 615, 617, 633, 637, 642, 648

Ciceromastix, 432

=Ciceronian age=, 84, 92 n.

=Ciceronian influence=, 47, 58, 400, 410, 566, 570

=Ciceronian style=, contrasts with, 78, 90, 383, 401, 431, 593, 657

=Ciceronianism=, 18, 19, 20, 228, 390, 401, 411; (in younger Pliny), 551-554; 561, 566, 598, 633, 651, 654, 655

=Cicero’s= Letters, 542, 544

Cicero’s Republic, On (Suetonius, lost), 633

=Cichorius=, 158 n., 161 n., 249 n.

Ciuitate Dei, De, 657

=Claranus=, 432

=Clark=, Prof. A. C., 235 n., 484 n.

=Clason=, 586 n.

=Classic=, 22, 606-607

Clastidium (Naevius, lost), 273

=Claudian=, 627, 656, 657

=Claudius= (emperor), 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 29, 39, 61-62, 63, 64, 82, 83, 102, 114, 126, 131, 183, 201, 204, 211, 215, 218; (satirized), 237-246; 247, 274, 277, 280, 331, 342, 349, 353, 489, 539, 577, 581, 582, 583, 585, 590, 634, 635, 639; (Life), 640

=Claudius Balbillus=, 234

=Claussen=, 401 n.

Clausulae (sentence-endings), 113, 124, 130-131, 165, 207, 218 n., 400, 411 n., 414, 551, 629 n., 642, 649

Clementia, De, 202, 206, 208, 217-218

=Clemm=, 593 n.

=Cleopatra=, 315, 379, 384

=Cleophantus=, 116

=Clitarchus=, 105

=Clodius Quirinalis= (rhetorician), 236

Clutemestra (Accius, lost), 256

=Cluvius Rufus=, 385, 453, 584, 585, 586 n., 587

=Coarseness=, 123-124, 149, 172, 184, 186-188, 189, 247, 292 n., 504, 505, 514, 518, 521-524, 536, 609-612, 623, 637-638

=Codrus= or =Cordus= (epic writer), 530

=Cole=, 401 n.

=Coleridge=, 156

Collecta (Pomponius Rufus, lost), 70

Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium (Solinus), 384

=Colloquialisms=: see “Latin, spoken”

Colores (manual), 62

Colores (rhetorical), 34, 51-53, 57, 62, 540

=Colson=, F. H., 9, 388 n., 392 n., 409 n., 412 n., 413 n.

=Columella=, 16, 18, 114, 131, 160-168, 231, 334, 357, 361, 364, 554, 595, 643

=Comedy=, Latin, 157, 184, 190, 276-277, 292 n., 402, 506, 547, 556, 557

Commentarii Agrippinae: see “Agrippina’s Memoirs”

Commentarii Principales, 585

=Commodianus=, 654

=Commodus= (emperor), 652

Communes loci (“common places”), 31, 59, 209, 280, 288, 327

Confessiones, 38

Coniecturales causae, 31

=Conrad=, 190

Consolatio ad Heluiam, 197, 201, 207, 208, 210, 298

Consolatio ad Marciam, 200, 207, 208, 209-210

Consolatio ad Polybium, 201, 207, 208, 210-211, 243, 342

“=Consolations=” (in prose or verse), 156, 209-211, 487, 489, 491, 492

=Consoli=, 532 n.

Constantia Sapientis, De, 207, 208, 213, 234

=Constantine=, 655

=Constantius Chlorus=, 40

Controuersia (as exercise), 9, 11, 32-35, 326, 419

Controuersiae (elder Seneca), 44, 45-57, 60, 63, 653

Controuersiae et Suasoriae (elder Seneca), 23, 32, 33, 43

=Copernicus=, 365, 366

=Corbulo=: see “Domitius”

=Corduba=, 43, 197, 298, 318

=Corneille=, 271, 598

=Cornelius Balbus= (dramatist), 273

=Cornelius Nepos= (biographer), 89, 128, 356, 362, 364, 634, 635

=Cornelius Severus= (poet), 58, 339

=Cornificius=, 407

=Cornutus=, 235, 281, 282, 286, 288, 292, 298

Corruptae Eloquentiae, De Causis (Quintilian, lost), 391, 566

=Cosmology and Cosmography= (in younger Seneca), 221-222; (in elder Pliny), 354

=Cosmopolitanism=, 4, 13, 60, 202, 232

=Courbaud=, 576 n.

Courtesans, Eminent (Suetonius, lost), 633

=Courthope=, 527 n.

=Cowley=, 658

=Cowper=, 545

=Crates=, 27

=Cratinus=, 284

=Cremutius Cordus=, 63, 82, 209, 319, 635

=Criticism on speakers=, 5, 47-52, 55, 199-200, 388, 395, 403-405, 408, 536-538, 561-562, 564-566; see also “Literary Criticism,” “Oratory,” “Rhetoric”

=Crito= (Hadrianic Greek historian, lost), 630

=Cruickshank=, Prof., 316 n.

=Crusius=, 137 n.

=Cucheval=, 42 n., 537 n., 641

Culex, 485

=Cunaeus=, 245

Cupid and Psyche, 189, 408

=Curiatius Maternus=, 254, 257, 273, 274, 277-278, 529, 564-565

=Curtius Montanus= (satirist, lost), 346

=Curtius Rufus=, Q., 18, 82, 101-113, 130, 323, 431

=Cuvier=, 366

Cynegetica, 330, 656

=Cynicism=, 12, 14, 173, 245, 288, 289, 418

=Cynico-Stoical thought=, 288, 289

=Cyprian=, 654

D

=Dante=, 484, 658

=Darwin=, 365

De: for titles see under leading word

=Decadence in oratory=, 11, 46-47, 49, 51, 59, 229, 391, 394, 552, 563, 564-567

=Decadence in style=, 227, 652

=Decadent literature=, 22, 283, 557, 650

Decius (Accius, lost), 273

=Declamation=, 9-12, 30-36, 38, 39, 42 n., 43, 44, 47-48, 49, 50, 56, 60, 61, 75-79, 81, 118, 198, 209, 298, 324, 352, 390, 391, 394-395, 398, 414-420, 601, 603, 615, 617, 625, 636, 640

Declamationes (pseudo-Quintilianean), 391, 411, 412, 414-420

Defloratio (excerpted from elder Pliny), 385

=Deification=, 13, 17, 98, 239; (of Hercules), 258; (of Nero), 302; 575, 603: see also “Apotheosis” and for satiric treatment “Apocolocyntosis”

Delatores, 10, 63-64, 142, 236

Deliciae Poetarum, 658

=Demetrius= (Cynic), 288

=Demetrius of Phaleron=, 137, 150

=Democritus=, 617

=Demosthenes=, 174, 404, 537, 552, 617

=Dessau=, Prof., 4 n., 161 n., 213 n., 216 n., 536 n., 603 n., 655 n.

=Detlefsen=, 349 n., 354 n., 358

=Deutsch=, Prof. Monroe, 635 n.

=Dialectic= (Logic), 36, 397, 611

Dialogi (Seneca), 206-217

Dialogus de Oratoribus, 23, 257, 278, 297, 389, 391, 409 n., 529, 560, 561, 563, 564-567, 596

=Dickens=, 188

=Dicuil=, 385

=Didactic=, 45-47, 66-68, 87-88, 115, 125, 137, 143, 155, 163, 192, 246; (in Seneca’s dramas), 266; (in Persius), 283 sqq.; (in Lucan), 324; (in Silius), 461; (prominent in Juvenal’s later manner), 618, 620-621; 656

=Diderot=, 211, 243 n.

=Didymus= (grammarian), 633

=Dill=, 4 n., 37 n., 38 n.

=Diminutives=, 152, 191, 231, 292 n., 627, 630, 652

=Diocletian=, 631, 643, 652, 655, 656

=Diodorus Siculus=, 105, 655

=Diomedes= (grammarian), 170, 512, 653

=Dio(n) Cassius=, 202, 204, 242, 321 n., 331, 598, 655

=Dion Chrysostom=, 6, 655

=Dionysius of Halicarnassus=, 401, 407

=Dioscorides=, 363

Διοσημεῖα (Aratus), 155

Diuinae Institutiones (Lactantius), 654

=Divination=, 222, 303-304, 309-310, 314: see “Superstition”

=Domitian=, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 39, 155, 236, 274, 278, 386, 389, 421, 422, 423, 426, 427, 431, 433, 454, 468, 469, 470, 472, 485, 487, 490, 493, 507, 521, 522, 529, 530, 532, 534, 539, 540, 561, 562, 563, 565, 566, 567, 570, 571, 574, 576, 577, 591, 601, 602, 605, 609, 614, 632; (Life), 641; 644

=Domitius Afer=, 63, 236, 388

=Domitius Corbulo=, 234, 348, 426, 584

=Domitius Marsus=, 512

Domitius (praetexta by Curiatius Maternus, lost), 273, 278, 529

=Donatus= (grammarian), 637, 653

=Dräger=, 19 n., 593 n., 594 n.

=Dralle=, 606 n.

=Drama=, 6, 17, 137, 151, 157-159, 234, 245; (Seneca), 247-270; (Seneca’s influence on later drama), 270-273; 273-278, 289, 296, 400, 506, 529; (element of, in Juvenal), 613-614, 617; 629

=Dramatic metre=, 153-154, 269-270, 274

=Dressler=, 136

=Drobisch=, 496 n.

=Dryden=, 79, 599 n., 626, 627

Dubius Sermo (lost), 159 n., 352

=Dubois-Guchan=, 560 n.

Duchess of Malfi, 272

=Dürr=, 600 n., 602

=Duff=, J. D., 196 n., 207 n., 599 n.

=Duff=, Prof. J. Wight, 24 n., 80 n., 89 n., 93 n., 115 n., 133 n., 149 n., 154 n., 164 n., 173 n., 195 n., 301 n., 338 n., 341 n., 342 n., 358 n., 370 n., 492 n., 534 n., 596 n., 629 n.

=Dumas=, 187, 188

=Duncan=, J. S., 493 n.

=Duris of Samos=, 364

=Duruy=, 590 n.

=Dziatzko=, 369 n.

E

Ecerinis (Mussato), 270

=Eclogues=, 17, 293, 330-338: see “Aeglogues,” “Egloges”

Eclogues (Virgil), 166, 334

=Education=, 8-12, 23-41, 43, 45-60, 91, 115, 118, 134, 173, 189, 191, 201, 236, 287, 295, 296, 298, 324, 342, 345, 348, 352, 364; (of an orator), 387-421; 468, 499, 501, 532, 536, 561, 564, 589, 606, 611, 616, 636

=Education=, bibliography, 23-24 n.

Educatione Liberorum, De (Περὶ Παίδων Ἀγωγῆς, perhaps Plutarch’s), 26 n., 27, 35, 409 n., 412-413, 566

Egloges (Barclay), 335

=Einhard= or =Einhart=, 555 n., 643, 657

=Einsiedeln eclogues=, 293, 337-338

=Elegiac epigram=, 155, 246, 511-513

=Elegiac poetry=, 402, 494, 529, 536, 555, 556

=Elegy=, 137, 156, 485, 525

=Ellis=, Prof. Robinson, 83 n., 98, 133 n., 134, 135 n., 149 n., 150 n., 270 n., 415 n.

Elocutio nouella, 651-652

=Elogius= (author of Memoirs), 636

=Elyot’s= Governour, 413

Emendatio, 29

Enarratio, 29

=Emperors=, attitude to education and rhetoric, 38-41, 61-62, 389, 615, 629

=Emperors=, in relation to literature, 5-6, 45, 61-62, 63, 82, 299, 345-346, 348, 605, 629-630: see also “Imperial repression” and under individual emperors’ names

=Encyclopaedic learning=, 16, 18, 36, 115, 122, 189, 324; (in Pliny), 350-385; (in Suetonius), 633-634, 643; 649, 651

=Enk=, P. J., 274 n.

=Ennian words=, 448, 481

=Ennius=, 28, 30, 134, 137, 153, 185, 228, 254, 257, 269, 273, 323, 368, 402, 460, 465, 466 n., 558, 596, 642, 650, 651

=Epic=, 7, 12, 17, 137, 157, 182, 184, 192-193, 245; (Lucan), 296-329; 342, 345; (Val. Flacc.), 433-451; (Silius), 452-466; (Statius), 467-497; 506, 529, 530, 536, 555-556, 656

Epicedion (lament), 468, 492

=Epictetus=, 105, 231, 453

=Epicureanism=, 13, 36, 192, 213, 215, 222, 223, 239, 267, 295, 304, 370, 461, 587

=Epicurus=, 223

=Epigram= (feature of style), 10, 11, 18, 20, 57, 59, 76, 79, 92, 194, 230, 261, 264-265, 324, 381-382, 390, 395, 495, 511, 567, 576, 594, 596, 650

=Epigram= (Greek form), 511

=Epigram= (poem), 7, 8, 17, 155, 193-194, 246, 298; (Martial), 501-529; 536, 555, 556, 636

Epigrammata, (Lucan, lost), 301

Epistles (Horace), 621

Epistulae (Lucan, lost), 301

Epistulae (Pliny), 233, 533, 541-555

Epistulae (Symmachus), 554

Epistulae Ad Familiares (Cicero), 542

Epistulae Morales, Ad Lucilium (Seneca), 203, 206, 208, 212, 217, 223-234, 243

=Epitaph=, 179, 524-525

=Epithalamium=, 485

=Epitomes=, 45, 46, 71, 321 n., 384-385, 454, 470, 629, 646, 649, 653

=Eprius Marcellus= (delator), 236

=Erasistratus=, 116

=Erasmus=, 413, 555, 658

=Eratosthenes=, 369, 435

=Erotic verse=, 29, 246-247, 345, 523, 529, 530

=Essay-like writing=, 229-230, 542-545, 651-652

=Esternaux=, 424 n.

=Ethics=, 5, 13, 36, 60, 67, 206, 222; (Epist. Mor.), 223-234; 305, 396, 397, 403, 406, 524; (in Juvenal), 608-623: see also “Stoicism”

=Ethnology=, 125, 129, 354, 573-574; see “Anthropology”

Ethologiae, 29

=Euclid=, 558

=Eugenius Vulgarius=, 170

=Eulogy= (formal): see “Panegyric”

=Eumenius of Autun=, 40

=Euphorion=, 61

=Eupolis=, 284

=Euripides=, 78, 107, 134, 244; (in relation to Seneca), 250-255; 257, 258, 259, 270, 480

=Eusebius=, 633

=Eutropius=, 643

Evagoras (Isocrates), 569

Excessu Diui Augusti, Ab: see “Annals”

Exitus Inlustrium Virorum (lost), 557

F

=Fabia=, 349 n., 353, 586, 587 n.

=Fabianus=, Papirius (philosopher), 48, 52, 60, 132, 199, 227, 235

=Fabius Rusticus= (historian), 386, 576, 584

=Fables=, 17, 123, 133-154

Fabula, in sense of “fable,” 123: see “Phaedrus”

Fabula, in sense of “play”: see “(Fabulae) Palliatae,” “Praetextae,” “Togatae”

Fabula saltica, 158, 276, 301, 615

=Fannius= (historian), 548, 557

=Faraday=, 365

=Fathers of the Church=, 294, 528, 555, 597, 654

=Faust=, 591 n.

=Faustus= (dramatist), 278

=Favez=, 197 n., 209 n.

=Favorinus=, 651

=Fenestella=, 356, 364, 429, 634

=Fenizio=, Di, 428

=Ferrero=, 4 n.

=Fescennine spirit=, 268

=Festus= (lexicographer), 649

Festus, Bailey’s, quoted, 120

=Ficino=, 658

=Fielding=, 187

=Figulus=; see “Nigidius”

=Filelfo=, 411

Filostrato e Panfila (Cammelli), 271

=Fiske=, 287 n.

=Flaminio=, 658

=Flavian dynasty in relation to literature=, 378: see also “Vespasian,” “Titus,” “Domitian”

=Flavius Caper= (Virgilian scholar), 558

=Florus=, 7, 18, 89, 110 n., 321 n., 431, 554, 629, 642, 644-649

=Flower Smith=, Prof. K., 498 n.

Forma Mundi, De (lost), 207

=Fracastoro=, 658

=Frank=, Prof., 4 n.

=Freedmen=, 6, 27, 28, 30, 131, 134, 174-180, 190, 210, 227, 241, 242, 243, 245, 286, 342, 363, 380, 418, 489, 536, 539-540, 549, 576, 579, 583, 601, 602, 607

=Freinsheim=, 101 n., 102

=Freund=, 631 n.

=Frey=, 156

=Freytag=, 590 n.

=Friedländer=, 4 n., 149 n., 183, 498 n., 605

=Fritze=, 424 n.

=Froment=, 409 n.

=Frontinus=, 18, 423-431, 535, 554, 555, 570

=Fronto=, 37, 228, 323, 554, 651-652

Frontoniani, 412: see “Archaizing”

=Fulgentius=, 170, 193

=Furius Antias=, 466 n., 481

=Furtwängler=, 359 n., 360 n.

=Furneaux=, 19 n., 101 n., 559 n., 560 n., 569 n., 571 n., 590 n., 593 n.

G

=Gaetulicus, Lentulus=, 83, 512, 636

=Galba= (emperor), 3, 235, 389, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 586; (Life), 637-638; 639

=Galdi=, 71 n., 344 n., 384 n., 470 n., 629 n., 644 n., 649 n.

=Galerius Trachalus= (orator), 236, 388

=Galileo=, 365, 366

=Gallic rhetoric=, 16, 37, 236, 421, 564, 655

=Gallio, Junius= (rhetor), 58, 60, 198

“=Gallio=”: see “Annaeus Novatus”

Games among the Greeks (in Greek by Suetonius, lost), 633

=Gantrelle=, 571

=Gaul=, schools in, 31, 37, 38; (Autun), 40; (Arles), 236; 421, 555, 615

=Gavius Silo= (rhetor), 48

=Gellius=, Aulus, 65, 228, 236, 342, 352, 415, 558, 596, 633, 651-652

Genethliacon Lucani, 297, 488

=Genthe=, 301 n.

=Gentile=, 590 n.

=Geography=, 18, 105, 125-131, 206, 221, 260, 309, 314, 319, 324, 354, 362-363, 365-366, 382, 384, 435, 463, 474, 568, 570, 573, 631, 646, 647

=Geometry=, 28, 36, 394, 397, 558

Georgics (Virgil), 21, 164, 166, 167

=Gercke=, 196 n., 207, 208, 218, 221 n.

Germania (Tacitus), 560, 563, 566, 573-576, 597

Germaniae Bellorum XX Libri (lost), 352, 575, 584

=Germanicus=, 57, 66, 99, 100, 155-156, 200, 344, 583, 643

Germanicus (Arnault), 598

=Giarratano=, 498 n.

=Gibbon=, 2, 331, 420, 581, 641

=Gifford=, 600 n., 626

Gil Blas, 187

=Gladiators=, 101, 181, 205, 232, 610

=Gladisch=, 411 n.

=Gnipho=, 28

=Goethe=, 529

=Golden Age= (of Latin Literature), 1, 2, 7, 19, 47, 81, 410, 420, 554, 658

Golden Ass or Metamorphoses (Apuleius), 189, 652

=Goldsmith=, 640

=Golz=, 414

Gorboduc, 271

=Gorgias= (on figures of speech), 62

=Gracchan age=, 84, 89

=Gracchi=, 90, 276, 348, 609, 626, 650

=Gracchus=, Gaius, 72

=Gracchus=, Tiberius, 72, 87

=Graecinus=, Julius, 114, 131, 161, 164

=Graecisms=: see “Hellenisms”

=Graf=, 484 n.

=Grammar=, 26-31, 36, 37, 131, 235, 298, 352, 393-394, 558, 593, 611, 636

=Grammarians=, 131, 235-236, 248, 421, 432, 528, 597, 629, 633, 634, 636, 653: see also “Grammaticus”

Grammaticis, De (Suetonius), 23, 563, 633, 636

Grammaticus, 25, 27-30, 39, 40, 198

=Grasberger=, 26 n.

=Gratian=, 40

=Gray=, 493, 544, 545, 624

=Greece and Greeks=, varying Roman attitude to, 17, 27, 31, 36, 38; (Gallio in Achaea), 44; 45, 50, 58, 61, 116, 125, 138, 231-232, 250, 378-379, 382, 401, 429, 536, 552, 606, 613, 630, 651

=Greek=, 5, 14, 27, 37, 38, 50, 58, 61, 105, 124, 157, 178, 190, 191, 231, 235, 239, 277, 342, 343, 345, 363, 390, 393, 400, 401, 402, 403; (Quintilian’s contrast with Latin), 404; 407, 420, 541, 542, 555, 556, 595, 606, 610, 628, 629, 630-631, 633, 634, 643, 654-655, 656

=Greek culture=, 104, 125, 468, 552, 630, 654, 658

=Greek drama=, 6, 17, 29, 55, 155, 249; (re-handled by Seneca), 250-270; 284, 400, 402, 415, 480, 557

=Greek history=, 55, 68-69, 75, 84, 86, 89, 102-113, 424, 426, 626

=Greek influence=, 16, 17, 25, 55, 61, 62, 135, 154, 155, 160, 184-185, 209, 250, 254, 264, 289; (stigmatized by elder Pliny), 378-379; (in epigram), 511, 524; 536, 557, 626, 630-631; see also “Hellenism,” “Rhetoric”

=Greek sources=, 16-17, 25, 55, 71, 116-117, 137-139, 160, 163, 164, 218, 250-263, 271; (Pliny’s), 355-364; 397, 407, 424, 435, 445-446, 513, 552, 586, 652

=Gregorovius=, 628 n.

=Gregory Nazianzenus=, 420

=Gregory of Tours=, 136, 657 n.

=Groag=, 338 n., 586 n.

=Gromatics=, 424, 558

=Groot=, De, 113 n., 131 n., 411 n., 596 n., 642

=Gross=, 339 n.

=Grotius=, 658

=Gruppe=, 358

=Guarino=, 412, 413

=Gudeman=, 559 n., 565, 567, 569

=Guicciardini=, 598

=Gundermann=, 425

H

=Hadrian=, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 39, 480, 555, 582, 605, 628-631, 632, 635, 642, 644, 645, 646, 647, 651, 655

Hadrian, Life of (Spartianus), 631

=Hallam=, 317

Hamlet, 272

=Hammer=, 415 n.

=Hannibal= (Silius’s hero), 454-463; (in Juvenal), 617

=Hanno=, 128, 363

=Hardie=, W. R., 269 n.

=Hardy=, E. G., 535 n., 586 n.

=Hardy=, Thomas (novelist), 188

=Hartman=, 133 n., 147 n., 242 n.

=Haterius= (orator), 48, 50, 62

=Haupt=, 332, 335 n.

=Havet=, 134 n., 135 n., 136, 147 n., 154 n., 642

=Hecaton= (Stoic), 218

Hecuba (Euripides), 251

Hecuba or Troades (lost play by Scaeva Memor), 278

=Heinsius=, Daniel (Latin poems), 658

=Heinsius=, Niklaas (editor of Paterculus), 86 n.

=Heitland=, 3 n., 297 n., 305, 322, 323 n., 328

=Held=, 530 n., 532 n.

=Heliodorus= (romance-writer), 189

=Heliodorus= (source for Pliny), 364

=Hellenism=, 6, 7, 17, 25 n., 270, 610, 629-631: see “Greek Influence”

=Hellenisms= or =Graecisms=, 231, 595, 652

Heluiam, Ad: see “Consolatio”

=Helvia= (younger Seneca’s mother), 44, 45, 197, 210

=Helvidius Priscus=, 14, 235, 236, 386, 570

=Henderson=, 576 n., 628 n.

=Hendrickson=, 569 n.

=Hense=, 196 n., 213

=Heraclitus=, 617

Hercules (lost play by Scaeva Memor), 278

Hercules Furens (Seneca), 248, 250, 251, 268, 272

Hercules Oetaeus (Seneca), 248, 250, 257-258, 274

=Heredia=, 434, 638

Herennium, Ad, 55, 407

=Herennius Senecio= (Stoic), 386, 421

=Hermogenes of Tarsus= (historian), 386

=Hero(n)das= (mime-writer), 555

=Herodes Atticus=, 37, 651, 655

=Herodotus=, 401, 435

Heroides, 33, 254, 258

=Herrick=, 516

=Hervieux=, 133 n., 135 n.

=Hesiod=, 29, 84, 168

=Heydenreich=, 401 n.

=Heynacher=, 452 n.

=Heywood=, 271

=Hipparchus= (source for Pliny), 362

=Hippocrates=, 116, 385

Hippolytus (Euripides), 254

Hippolytus (variant title for Seneca’s Phaedra), 248

=Hipponax= (iambic satirist), 512

=Hirschfeld=, 245 n., 349 n.

=Hirtius=, 635

=Hirzel=, 569 n., 571 n., 586 n.

Histoire Comique, 188

Historia Augusta, 637, 655

=Historical criteria=, 72, 94-96, 106, 238, 353, 360-362, 585-587, 591-593, 634-636, 647

=Historical play= (praetexta), 17, 159, 273-276, 278, 282, 529

=Historical poetry=, 182, 192-193; (Lucan), 296-329; (Silius), 452-466; 556, 656

Histories (elder Seneca, lost), 44, 646

Histories (Tacitus), 353, 560, 562, 574, 576-581, 584, 585, 586, 588, 589, 597, 638

=History=, 6, 7, 18, 29, 31, 36, 56, 61, 63, 72, 82-113, 125, 137, 158, 179; (quizzed by Seneca), 237-238; (in Lucan’s epic), 296-329; 352-353; (Flavian), 385-386; 397, 400; (in Silius’s epic), 462; 547, 557; (Tacitus), 559-598; 611, 615; (Suetonius), 632-643; (Florus), 646-649; 654-656

Hodoeporicon (lost), 282

=Hofacker=, 551 n.

=Hoffmann=, 571 n.

=Holland=, Philemon, 348 n., 368-369, 377, 641-642

=Homer=, 29, 61, 84, 178, 239; (in Latin), 341-345; 378, 394, 435, 446, 461, 463, 480, 481, 484, 488, 553, 618, 640

=Homeric burlesque=, 184

=Homeric imitation=, 438, 456, 458, 462, 463, 466 n., 471, 482

=Homeric question=, 137

=Homeric quotations=, 54, 239

=Homeric reciters=, 178

Homerus Latinus: see “Ilias Latina”

=Horace=, 1, 5, 17, 21, 29, 30, 36, 137, 153, 182, 185, 190, 236, 241, 257, 276, 280, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 323, 344, 400, 401, 408, 411, 457, 489, 512, 513, 542, 557, 595, 596, 601, 602, 606, 607, 621, 622, 626, 629, 637, 642, 643

Horace, Life of (Suetonius), 633, 637

=Horatian influence=, 17, 21, 241, 287-288, 294, 295, 323, 489, 497, 513, 557, 595, 606, 621, 626, 642

=Hortensius=, 89

Hortensius (Cicero), 566

=Hosius=, 102 n.

Hous of Fame (Chaucer), 484

=Houssaye=, De La, 590 n.

=Howard=, Prof. Albert A., 631 n.

=Humboldt, Von=, 366

=Humour=, 49-50, 57, 139-146, 173-183, 186, 188, 233-234, 237-245; (unconscious), 260-261; 398-399, 409; (in Martial), 505-510; 539, 547; (caustic), 575; (in Juvenal), 614, 618, 622-624; (in Suetonius), 640

=Huxley=, 365

=Hyginus=, 131, 164, 361, 363, 634

=Hyginus= (gromatic writer), 558

I

Iaculatione Equestri, De (lost), 351-352

=Ihne=, 590 n.

Iliacon (Lucan, lost), 300

Iliad (Homer), 342, 458, 482

Iliad in Latin, 178

Ilias Latina or Homerus Latinus, 341-345, 454

Immatura Morte, De (lost), 207

=Imperial attitude to education=; see under “Emperors”

=Imperial repression=, 6-7, 13-14, 44, 45, 51, 56, 63, 64, 82, 132, 143, 158, 235, 386, 534, 562, 565, 567, 571, 572, 589, 590, 601, 602

In: for titles so beginning see under leading word

Incendio Vrbis, De (Lucan, lost), 301

Incendium (togata play, lost), 277

=Indecency=; see “Coarseness”

=Individual note=; see “Originality,” “Subjectivity”

=Innovation=; see “Originality”

Institutio Oratoria, 23, 391, 392-413, 421, 566

Inuentione, De, 55

=Invective= (formal and informal), 31, 55-56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 91; (Ciceromastix), 432; (against Planta), 557; (political), 565; (in Juvenal’s earlier satires), 607-616, 621-622

Ἱππόλυτος καλυπτόμενος, 254

Ἱππόλυτος στεφανηφόρος, 254

Ira, De, 197, 200, 207, 208, 211-212, 234

=Isaeus= (rhetor), 553

=Isidorus of Seville=, 384, 412, 415, 633, 643, 657

=Isocrates=, 569

Iter (Cornelius Balbus), 273

Iudicium, 29: see “Literary Criticism”

J

=Jacobs=, 133 n.

=Jahn=, 287 n., 288, 293, 301 n., 359

=Janelii=, 135 n.

=Jansen=, 565 n.

=Januarius Nepotianus= (epitomator), 71

=Javolenus Priscus= (jurist), 557, 558

=Jerome=, St., 39, 63, 231, 279, 297, 412, 415, 577, 633, 643, 657

=Jerome=, Thos. S., 591 n.

Jew of Malta, 272

=John of Salisbury=, 170, 412

=Johnson=, Samuel, 543, 612, 617, 627

=Johnston=, Arthur, 658

=Jonas=, 196 n., 207, 208, 249 n.

=Jonson=, Ben, 273, 294, 413, 598

=Jordanes=, 649

=Josephus=, 581, 592

Journal des Goncourt, 543

=Juba=, King (source for Pliny), 357, 358 n., 359, 361 n., 363

Jugurtha (Sallust), 570

=Julian the Apostate=, 40, 420, 542, 655

=Julius Africanus= (rhetor), 236, 388

=Julius Asiaticus=, Life (by Julius Secundus), 570

=Julius Atticus=; see “Atticus”

=Julius Avitus=, 557

=Julius Bassus=; see “Bassus”

=Julius Caesar=, 7, 15, 29, 36, 38, 66, 72, 73, 79, 84, 87, 90, 92, 94, 96, 111, 125, 151, 193, 226, 278; (in Lucan), 301-329; 352, 370, 402, 461, 575, 617, 632, 633, 634, 637, 638, 639, 642, 646, 648

=Julius Cerealis= (epic writer), 530

=Julius Gabinianus= (rhetor), 421

=Julius Graecinus=; see “Graecinus”

=Julius Modestus= (grammarian), 131

=Julius Paris= (epitomator), 66, 71

=Julius Secundus= (orator), 389, 408, 561, 564, 570

=Julius Tiro= (rhetor), 421

=Junius Nipsus= (gromatic writer), 558

=Junius Otho= (speaker and author), 62

=Jurisprudence=, 115, 131, 234-235, 431, 558, 628, 653: see also “Law”

=Justinian=, 41

=Justinus=, 104, 581 n., 629, 653

=Juvenal=, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 34, 37, 128, 131, 190, 231, 278, 283, 284, 336, 374, 388, 390, 412, 448, 449, 502, 504, 507, 510, 512, 528, 530, 599-627, 643

=Juventius Celsus the elder= (jurist), 431

=Juventius Celsus the younger= (jurist), 431, 558

K

=Kalkmann=, 359 n.

=Kanus=, or =Canus=, Julius, 13, 132

Καταστερισμοί (lost), 556

=Keats=, 369

=Keene=, 330 n., 332 n.

=Keil=, 29

=Kelvin=, 365

=Kipling=, 190

=Klebs=, 184 n.

=Klotz=, 70 n., 125 n., 354 n., 356 n., 357 n., 358 n., 360 n.

Knightes Tale, The, 484

=Koebert=, 357, 358 n.

=Kortz=, 424 n.

=Krause=, 86 n.

=Kriloff=, 153

=Kritz=, 83 n., 86 n., 98

=Krohn=, 427 n.

=Kruczkiewicz=, 338

=Kukula=, 293 n., 532 n., 534 n., 551 n., 556 n.

=Kybises=, 150

=Kyd= (dramatist), 272

L

=La Fontaine=, 153

=Labeo= (Augustan), 131

=Labeo=, Attius (translator of Homer), 342

=Laberius=, 651, 652

=Labienus= (speaker, “Rabienus”), 48, 51, 60, 63

=Lachmann=, 135 n., 335 n., 424 n.

=Lactantius=, 155, 231, 412, 415, 627, 654, 655

=Lagergren=, 532 n., 554 n.

=Lamarck=, 365

=Lamb=, Charles, 178

=Lanciani=, 422 n.

=Lange=, 586 n.

=Langolius=, 658

Laocoon, 403

=Laplace=, 365

=Larcius Licinus= (critic), 432

=Last=, H. M., 3 n.

=Latin=, African, 16, 189, 648, 649 n., 650-652, 654

=Latin=, Augustan, 21

=Latin=, Ciceronian: see “Ciceronianism”

=Latin in Schools=, 27-35, 342, 392-411

=Latin literary criticism=; see “Literary Criticism”

=Latin medieval curriculum=, 36, 38

=Latin, Silver=; see “Silver Latinity”

=Latin, Spanish=, 16, 411, 514

=Latin, spoken=, 17, 50, 179-181, 190-192, 229, 230-231, 246, 292, 405, 513-514, 542, 627, 651, 652

=Latin, technical=; see “Learning, technical”

=Latro=, see “Porcius”

Laudationes funebres, 561, 569

Laudes Neronis (Lucan, lost), 299, 300

Laureolus (mime, lost), 157

=Laurie=, 409 n.

Laus (or Laudatio or De Laude) Pisonis, 293, 332, 335-337, 338

=Law=, in education, 31, 33-34, 36, 38; (jurisprudence), 115; 397, 398

=Law=, in rhetoric, 55, 60, 398, 416-420

=Law=, Roman, 15, 50, 55, 63, 131, 532, 535, 545, 558, 564, 604, 615, 652-653: see “Jurisprudence”

=Learning=, encyclopaedic: see “Encyclopaedic”

=Learning=, scientific: see “Science,” “Pliny the elder”

=Learning=, technical, 18, 124, 131-132; (Columella), 160-168; 235, 351, 363, 383, 397; (Frontinus), 423-431

Lectio, 29: see “Reading,” “Recitationes”

=Lehmann=, 197 n., 208, 280, 293

=Lehnerdt=, 352 n.

=Lejay=, 297 n., 322