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.