Chapter LVIII: 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