¹ I am grateful to Mr R. J. Baker, Professor H. D. Jocelyn, Mr K. H. Lee and Professor R. D. Milns for criticism of an earlier draft of this paper. Responsibility for the final form of the paper is mine alone.

² For example, Bauer, L.Das Verhältnis der Punka des C. Silius Italkus zur dritten Dekade des T. Livius (Erlangen, 1883), p. 16;Google ScholarConington, J. and Nettleship, H.The Works of Virgil⁴, Vol. ii (London, 1884), p. 538;Google ScholarButler, H.E.The Sixth Book of the Aeneid (Oxford, 1920), p. 259;Google ScholarNewman, J.K.G & R x (1963), 133;Google ScholarHelm, R.Properz: Gedichte (Berlin, 1965), p. 262;Google ScholarShackleton Bailey, D.R.Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 389.Google Scholar

³ For example, Scullard, H.H.Roman Politics 220–150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), pp. 31, 56;Google ScholarBloch, G. and Carcopino, J.Histoire Romaine 2. 1³ (Paris, 1952), p. 120;Google ScholarGrimal, P.Le stècle des Scipions: Rome et I’Hellénisme au temps des Guerres Puniques (Paris, 1953), p. 66;Google ScholarBéranger, J.Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat [Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 6] (Basel, 1953), p. 174;Google ScholarCombet-Famoux, B.Les Guerres Puniques (Paris, 1960), p. 88 (cf. p. 85).Google Scholar

⁴ Kajanto, I.The Latin Cognomina [Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 36.2] (Helsinki, 1965), pp.96, 246, 271.Google Scholar For Kajanto’s distinction between cognomina and agnomina, see his Supernomina: a Study in Latin Epigraphy [Soc. Scient. Fenn.: Comm. Human. Litt., 40.1] (Helsinki, 1966), pp. 6–7. Examples of earlier work are Schulze, W.Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen [Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Phil.-Hist. Klasse, n.f. 5.2] (Berlin, 1904)Google Scholar and Doer, B.Die römische Namengebung: ein historischer Versuch (Stuttgart, 1937), pp. 46–52,Google Scholar 68–73. For Plutarch’s interest in cognomina, see Cor. 11, Mar. 1 and his lost work (No. ioo in the Lamprias catalogue; see Sandbach’s, F.H. edition of the fragments [London, 1969], pp. 16–17).Google Scholar

⁵ For example, Pelham, H.F.Outlines of Roman History⁴ (New York, 1893), p. 129;Google ScholarFrank, T.A History of Rome (New York, 1923), p. 120;Google ScholarScullard, H.H.A History of the Roman World from 753 to 146 B.C.² (London, 1951), p. 384;Google ScholarDudley, D.R.The Civilization of Rome (New York, 1960), p. 53;Google ScholarHeichelheim, F.M. and Yeo, C.A.A History of the Roman People (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962), pp. 137 and 202.Google Scholar

⁶ RE vi (Stuttgart, 1909), s.v. Fabius (Nr 116), 1815; cf. Degrassi, A.Inscriptiones Italia 8, fasc. 3 (Rome, 1937), p. 62 and fasc. 1–2 (Rome, 1947), p. 117.Google ScholarBroughton, T.R.S.The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Vol. 1 (New York, 1951)Google Scholar gives Q,. Fabius Q.f. Q,.n. Maximus Verrucosus in his lists.

⁷ So Kajanto, I.The Latin Cognomina, p. 15.Google Scholar The study of context undertaken here, in order to reach a decision on this question, is parallel with Kajanto’s demonstration (loc. cit.) that innocens cannot be a cognomen in CIL viii 23710: VITALIS PIA ET ITA INNOCENS VIXIT.

⁸ It might be argued that Magnus, Maximus, Scipio and Crassus are cognomina of a different order from Cunctator, Verrucosus, Africanus and Diues. However, the oscillation between Q. Fabius and Q. Maximus and between Q. Fabius Maximus and Q. Maximus by such authors as Cicero and Valerius Maximus (see notes 13–15 below) suggests that Roman writers even mixed nomina and cognomina freely, let alone cognomina of different origins. For another example of the mixing of nomina and cognomina, see the references to Titurius Sabinus, Q. and L., Aurunculeius Cotta in Caes. Gal. 5 24–37.Google Scholar

⁹ Lucan, however, uses Magnus before Pompeius in every book except the tenth (i 123, ii 246, iii 5, iv 17, v 14, vi 15, vii 7, viii 4, ix 21; cf. x 1).

¹⁰ Reuiuescentis imperii spes Fabius fuit, qui nouam de Hannibale uictoriam commentus est, non pugnare. hinc illi cognomen nouum et rei publicae salutare cunctator; hinc illud ex populo, ut imperii scutum uocaretu.

¹¹ Especially by Ampelius, Liber memorialis 18.6, 46.6 and the Auctor De uiris illustribus 43.1. But at 14.6 cunctator ab obtrectatoribus dictus does not necessarily indicate a cognomen.

¹² For example, by Teuffel, W.S. and Schwabe, L.History of Roman Literature, Vol. 2 (London, 1900), p. 283Google Scholar and Ross, W.D.Oxford Classical Dictionary² (Oxford, 1970), p. 979, s.v. Serenus (2).Google Scholar

¹³ Verr. II v 10.25; Manil. xvi 47; Leg. Agr. ii 33.90; Planc. 25.60; Rep. i 1.1; N.D. ii 23.61; Tusc. i 46.110, iii 28.70; Fam. iv 6.1.; Sen. 4.10; Off. i 24.84.

¹⁴ N.D. ii 66.165, iii 32.80; Sen. 5.13, 6.15, 12.39, 17.61; Off. i 30.108.

¹⁵ Q. Fabius Maximus: Nep. Hann. 5.1; Val. Max. ii 2.4, iii 8.2, v 2.3; Gell. v 6.10. Fabius Maximus: Val. Max. i 1.5, iv 8.1, vii 3.7; Sen. Ep. 86.10; Frontin. Strat. i 3.3, i 5.28, i 8.3. Q,. Maximus: Sall. Jug. 4.5; Val. Max. viii 1.9; Frontin. Strat. iv 7.36; Hier. Ep. 77.2. Q. Fabius: Nep. Cat. 1.2; Frontin. Strat. i 11.4, iv 6.1; Gell. x 27.3. Fabius: Nep. Hann. 5.2; Val. Max. v 2.4; Sen. Ben. iv 27.2, Ir. i 11.5; Frontin. Strat. i 8.2, ii 5.22; Quint, ii 17.19, iii 8.37. Maximus is the sixth most common cognomen, its usefulness as a ‘wish-name’ accounting for its popularity. It had a number of derivatives, was important for and popular among the senatorial nobility, and later was common among the plebs ingenua but not among the slaves/freedmen class (Kajanto, I.The Latin Cognomina, pp. 29–30, 71–2, 101, 104, 133, 275–6).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Brut. 14.57: Q.etiam Maximus Verrucosus.

¹⁷ Inscriptions Italiae xiii, fasc. 3 (1937), 80 (p. 61); xiii, fasc. 1–2 (1947), 438–49.

¹⁸ Sen, . Ben. ii 7.1;Google Scholar cf. iv 30.2; Plin, . Nat. 34 18.40;Google Scholar Plu. Fab. 1.4; Fest. p. 480 L = p. 352 M; Auct. De uir. ill. 43.1; Tzetz, . in Lycophr. Alex. 603.Google Scholar Verrucos(s)us is one of eight or nine cognomina which refer to moles or tumours (Kajanto, I.The Latin Cognomina, p. 246).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Enn. Ann. viii, fr. 8, w. 286–8 L. Müller (1888) = viii, fr. 154, w . 263–5 Valmaggi (1900) = xii, fr. 2, w . 370–2 Vahlen2 (1903) = xii, fr. I Steuart (1925) = xii, vv. 360–2 Warmington² (1956). Lachmann (on Lucr. iii 198) emends non enim in v. 371 to noenum, but the reading of the codices of Cicero may be kept with iambic shortening. Cf. Vahlen, J.RhM 16 (1861), 584;Google ScholarLeo, F.Plautinische Forschungen² (Berlin, 1912), p. 330, n.2.Google Scholar

²⁰ Mentioned by Vahlen, J. on Ann. 370Google Scholar V² and by Skutsch, F.RE 5 (Stuttgart, 1905),Google Scholar s.v. Ennius, 2608, but ignored by F. Eyssenhardt and J . Willis in their Teubner editions of 1868 and 1963 respectively.

²¹ See Willis’ praefatio on N and P.

²² Compare the arguments of Vahlen, J.Ennianae poesis reliquiae² (Leipzig, 1903), cxcvi–cxcviiGoogle Scholar and Skutsch, F.RE 5 2608.Google Scholar

²³ Livy xxxiii 44.4–45.5; cf. xxxiv 22.4–24.7.

²⁴ Malcovati, H.Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae² (Torino, 1955), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

²⁵ Livy xxxiv 43.1–9. Another possibility, if book xii extends this far, is the debate in 193 on Roman relations with Greece, Asia and Antiochus and Philip (Livy xxxiv 57.1–5; cf. xxxvii 1.1 on Quinctius’ role in 190).

²⁶ See his praefatio, pp. cxliii-cxliv, and his comments on Scen. (Fab. Inc.) 404 V².

²⁷ Att. ii 19.2.

²⁸ Livy xxx 26.9: sic nihil certius est quam unum hominem nobis cunctando rem restituisse, sicut Ennius ait.

²⁹ I make this statement on the authority of Morgan, M.H.HSPh 9 (1898), 61Google Scholar and Anderson, W.B.Livy: Book IX³ (Cambridge, 1928), p. 162.Google Scholar Both Morgan (op. cit. 61–6) and Anderson (op. cit., pp. 143, 150, 153, 161, 190, 198–9, 220, 223–4) seek to detect allusions to poetry in Livy’s history. Kalinka, E.WS 1 (1932), 192–4Google Scholar, thinks that Livy xxii 49.3 incorporates an (anonymously cited) fragment of Ennius.

³⁰ Livy xliv 22.10: Q.Fabius … quisuum imperium minuiper uanitatempopuli maluit quam secunda fama male rem publicam gerere. Cf. Annates 371–2 V².

³¹ Augustus to Tiberius (with reference to the latter–s campaigns)in Suetonius Tib. 21.5: ii quoque qui tecum fuerunt omnes confitentur, uersum ilium in te posse dici: Vnus homo nobis uigilando restituit rem. The question (quo usque cunctando rem publicam intutam patiemini?) which Sallust (Hist, i 77.17) puts in the mouth of Philippus may also be an allusion to Ennius.

³² Sen. Ben. iv 27.2; Servius ad Aen. vi 845; Macrobius Sat. vi 1.23 (Aen. vi 846). These frequent quotations give some plausibility to the supplements of G. Vitucci (RFIC xxxi [1953], 43–61) to an inscription of the first century A.D. which he believes is an elogium of Fabius: solus e uiris] militaribus praecipuam glor[iam cunctando sibi parauit.

³³ The variant reading restitues represents about the same amount of change on Virgil’s part. On the metrical features of verses 845–6, which highlight the imitation of Ennius, see Norden, E.P. Vergilius Man: Aeneis Buch VI³ (Leipzig, 1926), pp. 334 and 438–41;Google ScholarFletcher, F.Virgil: Aeneid VI (Oxford, 1941), p. 96;Google ScholarCordier, A.Les débuts de I’hexamètre latin: Ennius (Paris, 1947), p. 32;Google ScholarHellegouarc’h, J.Le monosyllable dans I’hexamètre latin (Paris, 1964), pp. 64–5;Google ScholarRaven, D.S.Latin Metre (London, 1965), pp. 99–101.Google Scholar On Virgil’s use of Ennius, see especially Norden, E.Ennius und Vergilius: Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 119 n.1, 157 and n.1.Google Scholar

³⁴ As Jocelyn, H.D. points out (CQ 15 [1965], 140, n.4 and 141).Google Scholar The parallelism between Enn. Ann. 370 V² and Virg. Aen. vi 846 adduced by both Servius and Macrobius may indicate a common source; cf. the lists of parallelisms common to Macrobius Sat. vi 1–5 and the Virgilian scholia compiled by Jocelyn, H.D.CQ 14 (1964), 281 and nn. 8–10.Google Scholar Jocelyn argues for the existence of two first-century monographs on Virgil’s borrowings of uersus, loci and uerba from earlier poets (ibid. 280–9, CQ xv [1965], 135–9).

³⁵ Hagendahl, H.Latin Fathers and the Classics: a Study on the Apologists, Jerome and other Christian Writers [Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 6] (Göteborg, 1958), pp. 94 n.3, 203, 274.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. pp. 180, 307; cf. p. 205.

³⁷ Servius ad Aen. vi 219. I owe this reference to Jocelyn, H.D.CQ 15 (1965), 141 and n.2.Google Scholar

³⁸ Rothstein, M.Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius, Vol. 2 (Berlin, 1898), p. 17,Google Scholar says that Propertius’ phrase ‘recalls’ (erinnert) the well-known saying of Ennius. Butler, H.E.Sexti Properti opera omnia (London, 1905), p. 264,Google Scholar and Butler, H.E. and Barber, E.A.The Elegies of Propertius (Oxford, 1933), pp. 267–8,Google Scholar also compare Ann. 370 V² without commenting on the close parallel. Perhaps, however, their discussion of the reading cecini/cecinit in v.7 is intended to imply direct allusion to Ennius, if not imitation, in this elegy. Kambylis, A.Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik: Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius (Heidelberg, 1965), p. 135,Google Scholar similarly uses the Ennian verse to explain iii 3.9–10. R.J. Baker has kindly offered me several suggestions about the literature on Propertius.

³⁹ Skutsch, O.JRS 43 (1953), 78 and nn. 8–9Google Scholar = Studia Enniana (London, 1968), pp. 139, 141 nn. 9–10.

⁴⁰ This interpretation is not affected by the verse transposition discussed by H.E. Butler and E.A. Barber, op. cit. (n.38), p. 267 and Camps, W.A.Propertius: Elegies Book III (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Astron. i 790 Housman² (1937).

⁴² Elegies 4 and 12 of book iii refer to an impending expedition against the Parthians and best fit the years preceding 20 B.C., when Augustus recovered the standards of Crassus by diplomatic means. Compare H. E. Butler, op. cit. (n. 38), pp. 5–6, H. E. Butler and E. A. Barber, op. cit. (n. 38), pp. xxvi–xxvii and W. A. Camps, op. cit. (n. 40), p. 1.

⁴³ Astron. i 898–900 Housman² mention the defeat of P. Quinctilius Varus in A.D. 9, on which see Tacitus, Ann. 1 60–62.Google Scholar On the dating of Manilius’ work, see Steele, R.B.AJPh 52 (1931), 157–67,Google ScholarHousman, A.E.M. Manilii Astronomicon liber primus² (Cambridge, 1937), 69–72, 93–5,Google ScholarHelm, R.Lustrum 1 (1956), 153–7Google Scholar and Gebhardt, E.RhM 104 (1960), 278–86.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The Schuster-Dornseiff edition of Propertius (Leipzig, 1958), however, refers to Manil. i 790 on iii 3.9. On the question of priority where there is imitation of one Augustan poet by another see Fraenkel, E.JRS 42 (1952), 1–9Google Scholar and Axelson, B.Eranos 58 (1960), 92–111.Google Scholar On the Augustan poets’ attitude to Ennius, see Elder, J.P.TAPhA 96 (1965), 102–4. Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Sil. xvi 672–4. On the exaltation of Fabius by Silius, see Nicol, J.The Historical and Geographical Sources used by Silius Italicus (Oxford, 1936), pp. 70–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Klotz, RE iiiA (Stuttgart, 1929), 82–3Google Scholar and Wallace, M.V.T.HSPh 52 (1957), 160–1.Google Scholarvon Albrecht, M.Silius Italicus: Freiheit und Gebundenheit römischer Epik (Amsterdam, 1964), p. 161 and n.45Google Scholar compares the praise of Fabius in Sil. xvi 672ff., vi 613ff. and vii 26gff. with Enn. Ann. 370ff. and not with Virgil. On p. 70 he mentions Enn. Ann. 370 V² and Virg. Aen. vi 846 in connection with Sil. vi 639 and vii 126 but not xvi 672–4.

⁴⁷ Liber medicinalis 1092–4 (Baehrens, A.PLM iii, p. 158).Google Scholar On the remedies proposed, compare Plm. Nat. xxvi 89.150, xxx 23.81; Plin. med. iii 29 p. 101.6, 10 and Ps.-Apuleius Platonicus, Herbarium 31.20–21, 109.5–7.

⁴⁸ See Kind, , RE iiA (Stuttgart, 1923), 1675–6.Google Scholar