^{page 281 note 1} On the cultural life of this period in general see Klingner, F., Vom Geistesleben Roms des ausgehenden Altertums (Halle, 1941;Google Scholar reprinted in Römische Geisteswelt, ed. 3 [Munich, 1956], pp. 475 ff.)Google Scholar; Marrou, H.-I., Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, ed. 4 (Paris, 1958), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 2} On the process of decomposition and recomposition to which some of the scholia were subjected in the following centuries see Funaioli, G., Esegesi virgiliana antica (Milan, 1930), pp. 37ff.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 3} For the connexion between the extant Virgilian scholia and those on the Greek poets see Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von, Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie (Berlin, 1905) P. 167Google Scholar n. 94; Funaioli, , Esegesi, p. 234;Google ScholarFraenkel, E., reviewing Rand, E. K. et al. , Seruianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editionis Haruardianae Volumen II (Lancaster, U.S.A., 1946)Google Scholar, in J.R.S. xxxix (1949). 153 f.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 4} It now seems agreed that the scholia of Pierre Daniel's manuscripts are a conflation of the extant commentary of Servius and another commentary of the same general period closely related to that of Servius. Controversy centres on whether or not this was the famous commentary of Aelius Donatus. See Lindsay, W. M. and Thomson, H.J., Ancient Lore in Medieval Latin Glossaries (Oxford, 1921), pp. 57ff.;Google ScholarThomson, H. J., ‘Servius Auctus and Donatus’, C.Q. xxi (1927), 205–6;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSavage, J. J., ‘More on Donatus' Commentary on Virgil’, C.Q. xxi (1929). 56–59.Google Scholar

Timpanaro, S., ‘Note serviane’, Studi Urbinati Serie B, xxxi (1957), 165,Google Scholar argues that some of the material contained in the scholia of Bernensis lat. 165, Parisinus lat. 7930, Montepessulanus 253, and many others may come from the same source as the additions to the vulgate Servius in the Danieline scholia.

^{page 281 note 5} I take most of my figures from Lloyd, R. B., ‘Republican Authors in Servius and the Scholia Danielis’, H.S.C.Ph. lxv (1961), 292–341.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 6} The ‘Valerii Probi in Bucolica et Georgica Vergilii commentariolum’ may contain a nucleus of matter composed by the Famous M. Valerius Probus of Beirut but much in it is undoubtedly of a later date. See Marx, F., C. Lucilii carminum reliquiae, i (Leipzig, 1904), pp. lxxii ff.;Google ScholarAistermann, J., De M. Valeria Probo Berytio (Bonn, 1910), pp. 72ff.;Google ScholarHanslik, R., R.-E. VIIIA (1955), s.v.Google ScholarValerius Probus, 202 f.

^{page 282 note 1} On the relation to this scholar's commentary of the Berne scholia, the ‘Explanatio Filargirii I', the ‘Explanatio Filargirii II’, and the ‘Breuis expositio’ see G. Funaioli, op. cit.

^{page 282 note 2} Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores, part iv (Oxford, 1947), p. 27,Google Scholar dates both the text and the scholia of cod. Veronensis 38 to the fifth century. These sometimes coincide in content with the Danielina and frequently give the authors of comments and interpretations; they name Cornutus, Probus, Scaurus, Asper, Velius Longus, and Haterianus, but never Donatus.

^{page 282 note 3} In the lexicon of Festus Terence is quoted 20 times, Plautus 200, Ennius 125, Lucretius 20. In that of Nonius Marcellus Terence is quoted 220 times, Plautus 635, Ennius 180, Lucretius 120. The tendency of Servius Danielis, more pronounced in the vulgate Servius (Terence 120 times, Plautus 45, Ennius 53, Lucretius 22), reaches its extreme point in the works of the early sixth-century grammarian Priscian, who quotes Terence 500 times, Plautus 270, Ennius 60, Lucretius 30. My figures for the three grammarians come from the indexes of Lindsay and Hertz and are only approximate.

^{page 282 note 4} Cf. Servius ad A. 1. 410: sciendum tamen est Terentium propter solam proprietatem omnibus comicis esse praepositum, quibus est quantum ad cetera spectat inferior.

^{page 282 note 5} On the person of Macrobius see Wessner, P., R.-E. xiv (1928),Google Scholar s.v. Macrobius, i7of.

^{page 282 note 6} On the person of Servius see Wessner, P., R.-E. II A (1923),Google Scholar s.v. Servius, 1834 ff.

^{page 282 note 7} These figures depend largely on the somewhat defective indexes of Eyssenhardt and Willis.

^{page 282 note 8} 6. 1. 15 Ennius / Servius D. ad A. 9. 420; 6. 1. 17 Ennius / Servius ad A. 12. 552; 6. 1. 18 Ennius / Servius D. ad A. g. 526; 6. 1. 23 Ennius / Servius ad A. 6. 845; 6. 1. 25 Lucretius / Servius ad A. g. 457.

^{page 282 note 9} 6. 2. 2 Lucretius / Servius ad G. 3. 293; 6. 2. 7 Lucretius / Servius ad G. 3. 478; 6. 2. 31 Naevius / Servius D. ad A. 1. 198.

^{page 282 note 10} 6. 4. 2 Lucilius / Servius ad A. 6. 90; 6. 4. 6 Ennius / Servius ad A. 11. 601; 6. 4. 8 Cicero / Servius D. ad B. 9. 42; 6. 5. 4 Lucretius / Servius D. ad B. 6. 33 56.5.5 Ennius / Servius D. ad G. 1. 75; 6. 5. 10 Ennius / Servius ad A. 1. 224.

^{page 283 note 1} For Ennius and Virgil see Norden, E., Ennius und Vergilius: Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit (Leipzig, 1915), passim;Google ScholarMaro, P. Vergilius: Aeneis Buch VI, ed. 2 (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 365–72Google Scholar (Anhang I: ‘Ennianische Reminiscenzen bei Vergil’).

As unnoticed parallels between Lucretius and Regel, Virgil G., De Vergilio poetarum imitatore testimonia (Diss. Göttingen, 1907), p. 43 n. 43Google Scholar, lists Lucretius 5. 30 / G. 2. 140, A. 7. 280; Lucretius 2. 639 / A. 1. 36; Lucretius 5. 751 I G. 2. 478; Lucretius 2. 30 / B. 8. 87 and A. 7. 108.

^{page 283 note 2} Donatus, Vita Vergilii 44–46Google Scholar: Herennius tantum uitia eius, Perellius Faustus furta contraxit. sed et Q. Octauii Auiti homoeon elenchon octo uolumina quos et unde versus transtulerit continent. Asconius Pedianus libro, quern contra obtrectatores Vergilii scripsit, pauca admodum obiecta ei proponit eaque circa historiam fere et quod pleraque ab Homero sumpsisset.

On the relationship between Donatus and Suetonius see Reifferscheid, A., Suetoni Tranquilli reliquiae (Leipzig, 1860), p. 401;Google ScholarNorden, E., ‘De uitis uergilianis’, Rh. M. lxi (1906), 166 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} These questions have been approached in various ways by Ribbeck, O., Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis opera maiora (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 99, 112 f.;Google ScholarThilo, G., Quaestiones Servianae (Halle, 1867), pp. 49, 52;Google ScholarThomas, E., Essai sur Servius et son commentaire sur Virgile (Paris, 1880), p. 237 n. 1;Google ScholarLinke, H., Quaestiones de Macrobii Satumaliorum fontibus (Diss. Breslau, 1880), p. 44;Google ScholarNettleship, H., ‘On some of the early criticisms of Virgil's poetry’ (1881), in Conington-Nettleship, The Works of Virgil, i. 5 (London, 1898), pp. xxix ff.;Google ScholarRegel, G., De Vergilio, pp. 5, 38;Google ScholarNorden, E., Ennius und Vergilius, pp. 161–3, 171 n. 2;Google ScholarWessner, P., Macrobius, p. 189;Google ScholarStrzelecki, L., Cn. Naeuii Belli Punici Carminis quae supersunt (Wroclaw, 1959), PP. 39 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 4} On the literature concerning ‘thefts’ see Norden, E., P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI, p. 365 n. 2;Google ScholarKrcill, W., Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart, 1924), p. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 5} This view seems to be taken by Vahlen, J., Ennianae poesis reliquiae, ed. 2 (Leip zig, 1903), pp. cii-cxviii;Google ScholarWhittaker, T., Macrobius, or Philosophy, Science and Letters in the year 400 (Cambridge, 1923), pp. 48 ff.;Google ScholarRowell, H. T., ‘Aelius Donatus and the D Scholia on the Bellum Punicum of Naevius’, Tale Class. St. xv (1957), 113 flf.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 6} Except for that cited by Servius ad G. 2. 95.

^{page 283 note 7} Except for Addictus, Astraba, Colax, and other plays cited without their titles.

^{page 284 note 1} The ‘quadriga’ of Arusianus Messius (see Cassiodorus, De inst. diu. 2. 25Google Scholar). St. Jerome, (Apologia adu. lib. Rufini 1. 471–2Google Scholar), when dis cussing the character of commentarii, lists certain works on Virgil, Cicero, Sallust, and Terence as the principal commentarii of his day.

^{page 284 note 2} See Norden, , Ennius u. Vergilius, pp. 78–86.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 3} Sidonius, , Carm. 9. 265 f.Google Scholar, names Lucilius and Ennius among the literary classics. Claudianus, Mamertus, Ep. ad Sapaudum, p. 205. 26 C.S.E.L., puts Naevius and Plautus alongside a number of orators worthy of study.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 4} See Barwick, K., ‘Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars Grammatica’, Philologus Suppl. xv. 2 (1922), passimGoogle Scholar and in par ticular pp. 203 ff.

^{page 284 note 5} See Hagendahl, H., Latin Fathers and the Classics (Göteborg, 1958), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 6} St. Jerome's one possible first-hand quotation of Ennius, that from the Iphigenia at Epist. 60. 14. 4, is demonstrated by Kunst, C., De S. Hieronymi studiis Ciceronianis (Diss. Vienna, 1918), p. 142,Google Scholar to come from Cicero's Consolatio.

^{page 284 note 7} Technopaegnion 13 (p. 139 Schenkl) contains the only clear reference to Ennius in Ausonius' work and must be based on some grammatical source. St. Augustine's knowledge of Ennius is small and plainly comes from his reading of the works of Varro and Cicero.

^{page 284 note 8} De Vergilio, p. 36.

^{page 284 note 9} Ennius u. Vergilius, p. 4.

^{page 285 note 1} Hosius, C., in Schanz-Hosius, , Gesch. d. röm. Lit., iv. 2, p. 312 n. 11Google Scholar, makes an apt comment on Saturnalia 6. 1. 5: ‘im Munde des Freundes der Vergangenheit ist die Bemerkung doppelt bemerkenswert’.

^{page 285 note 2} Gellius' personage, Iulianus, merely laments the ignorance of his questioners: uellem uos, optimi iuuenes, tarn accurate Q. Ennium legisse, quam P. Vergilius legerat. It is interesting to compare the degree to which the sharp criticisms of Virgil reported at N.A. 2. 6 from Annaeus Cornutus and contemporary writers of commentaria are watered down in the mouth of Avienus at Saturnalia 6. 7. 4–6. Reprehendunt quasi incuriose et abiecte uerbum positum in his uersibus becomes dicas nolo… quid sit quod cum Vergilius anxie semper diligens fuerit in uerbis pro causae merito uel atrocitate ponendis, incuriose et abiecte in his uersibus uerbum posuit. Gellius' item aliud huiuscemodi reprehendunt becomes sed et aliud huiuscemodi deprehendi. Finally item aliud uerbum culpauerunt becomes sed nee hoc uerbum ex diligentia Vergitiana uenire mihi uidetur. Plagiarist though Macrobius was, he nevertheless took some care to make the literary attitudes of his source material like those of his own and his contemporaries if they were not already so.

^{page 286 note 1} Wessner, P., Macrobius, p. 170,Google Scholar suggests that these and other statements in the praefatio are implied criticism of the shapeless arrangement of Aulus Gellius' Nodes Atticae, a work which Macrobius pillages but never names.

^{page 286 note 2} The two phalaecian verses attributed to Naevius at 1. 18. 16 by all our manuscripts are puzzling in every respect, not least in the point of their quotation. Many scholars have followed Scaliger in giving them to Laevius.

^{page 286 note 3} See Linke, H., Quaestiones, pp. 46ff.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 4} The commentary on the Somnium Scipionis quotes liberally from Virgil, but from no other Roman poet. The remnants of the grammatical work, De differentiis et societatibus Graeci Latinique uerbi, quote Virgil, Terence, Sallust, and Cicero frequently enough, but Ennius appears only three times and Accius and Lucilius but once each.

^{page 286 note 5} But cognoscas and reperias might possibly be explained as generalizing second persons.

^{page 286 note 6} In Parisinus lat. 11308 (published by Wölfflin in Philologus xxiv [1866], 153 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} The commentaries of Hyginus (see Gellius I. 21 and 7. 6) and Annaeus Cornutus (see Gellius 2. 6) criticized Virgil's nouitas uerborum. Horace (see A.P. 48 ff.) knew of the charge and tried to counter it. Doubtless Herennius included it among his uitia. Macrobius makes Euangelus, the villain of the Saturnalia, bring the same charge in his attack on Virgil at 1. 24. 7: (Vergilius) erubuit quippe de se futura indicia, … uel si mille alia multum pudenda seu in uerbis modo Graecis modo barbaris seu in ipsa dispositione operis deprehenderentur.

^{page 287 note 2} A.P. 48 ff.

^{page 287 note 3} For the propriety of resurrecting old words see Horace Ep. 2. 2. 115 ff.

^{page 288 note 1} 1. 21. 7.

^{page 288 note 2} De gramm. et rhet. 24.

^{page 288 note 3} For recent expressions of scepticism as to the part played by Probus in the transmission of texts cf. Scivoletto, N., ‘La “filologia” di Valerio Probo di Berito’, Giorn. it. di Fil. xii (1959), 97–124;Google ScholarBüchner, K., in Gesch. d. Textüberlieferung, i (1961), pp. 335–9. The tendency to employ Probus as a dens ex machina should be resisted.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 4} Nat. hist, praef. 22. Cf. Sen. Contr. 7. 1. 27.

^{page 288 note 5} Epist. 108. 33–34.

^{page 288 note 6} Epist. 58. 3.

^{page 288 note 7} 1. 21. 5, 2. 6 passim, 7. 6. 5.

^{page 289 note 1} (i) 5. 13. 10–33, where a series of passages running from A. 2. 222 to A. n. 751 afe discussed briefly and A. 4. 176 at some length; in the parallelisms on either side of this group the Homeric piece precedes the Virgilian and the criticism of Virgil is fairly mild.

(ii) 5. 16. 8–14, where a number of Virgilian departures from Homer are noted with great contempt.

(iii) 5. 17. 1–14, where the structure of Aeneid 7 and an imitation of Pindar at A. 3. 570 ff. are attacked in scathing terms.

^{page 289 note 2} In three places (5. 11. 14–19, 5. 17. 8–14, 5. 17. 18) Macrobius’ words coincide almost exactly with those of Aulus Gellius (12. 1. 20, and 13–16, 17. 10. 8–15 and 17–18, 13. 27. 1–2). Linke, H., Quaestiones, pp. 42–43,Google Scholar and Wessner, P., Macrobius, p. 189,Google Scholar consider that Macrobius transferred all this matter from the Nodes Atticae into that of his principal source. Yet it is most unlikely that the discussion of Virgil, A. 4. 365–7, at Saturnalia 5. 11. 14–19 should not come from the same source as the rest of chapter 11, for it occupies its proper place in a series of discussions of passages of the Aeneid taken in sequence— 1. 430, 1. 198, 2. 626, 3. 513, 4. 365, 5. 144, 7. 462, 9. 675, 10. 745—and is of the same character as the other discussions. H. Nettle-ship, ‘On Some of the Early Criticisms of Virgil's Poetry’, p. xlii, comes to this conclusion, though without observing the sequence. The violently hostile criticism of Pindar at 5. 17. 8–14 is of a similar character to that of the structure of Aeneid 7 at 5. 17. 1–4 and, in any case, it is hardly likely that a lover of Virgil like Macrobius would have included such matter in his work unless it had already stood in his principal source. About 5. 17. 18 nothing definite can be said. One should therefore reject the view of Linke and Wessner and conclude that, in the first two cases at least, Gellius and Macrobius are both copying a common source word for word.

^{page 289 note 3} Ribbeck, O., Prolegomena, pp. 112 f.,Google Scholar and Linke, H., Quaestiones, p. 43,Google Scholar compared Saturnalia 5. 3. 16—quid enim suauius quam duos praecipuos uates audire idem loquentes? quia cum tria haec ex aequo inpossibilia iudicentur, uel loui fulmen uel Herculi clauam uel uersum Homero subtrahere, quod, etsi fieri possent, alium tamen nullum deceret uel fulmen praeter Iouem iacere, uel certare praeter Herculem robore, uel canere quod cecinit Homerus: hie opportune in opus suum, quae prior uates dixerat, transferendo fecit, ut sua esse credantur—with Donatus, , Vita Vergilii 46Google Scholar—Asconius Pedianus libra, quern contra obtrectatores Vergilii scripsit, pauca admodum obiecta ei proponit eaque circa historiam fere et quod pleraque ab Homero sumpsisset: sed hoc ipsum crimen sic defendere adsuelum ait; ‘cur non illi quoque eadem furta temptarent? uerum intellecturos facilius esse Herculi clauam quam Homero uersum subripere’.

Linke appears to have thought that all the parallelisms we now read in Saturnalia 5.2–17 were contained in Asconius' book. A polemical work in favour of Virgil, such as Asconius', could hardly have included such material as that of 5. 17. 1–14. I should suppose that some scholar, perhaps Q. Octavius Avitus, concerned in a relatively disinterested way with Virgil's borrowings from Homer, combined the two monographs. Linke postulated unnecessarily a late third-century compilation as Macrobius' immediate source. Saturnalia 5. 17. 5—quod ita elegantius auctore digessit, ut fabula lasciuientis Didonis, quam falsam nouit uniuersitas, per tot tamen saecula speciem ueritatis obtineat—could easily have been written by Macrobius himself with the fourth century in mind.

^{page 290 note 1} 5. 7. 16 clashes with 6.3.6; 5.9. 11 with 6. 1. 25; 5. II. 26–29 with 6. 2. 32; 5. 13. 14 with 6. 2. 28; 5. 13. 27 with 6. 3. 5; 5. 13. 37–38 with 6. 2. 26; 5. 16. 7 with 6. 1. 35.

^{page 290 note 2} See Festus 226. 4 ff. (Lindsay). Strzelecki, L., Quaestiones Verrianae (Warsaw, 1932), pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar, demonstrates that the passages in this article come from Verrius' own excerptions rather than from an older lexicon.

^{page 290 note 3} 6. 1. 21: A. 11. 745 tollitur in caelum clamor cunctique Latini; 6. 1. 32: A. 1. 539 quod genus hoc hominum quaeue hunc tarn Barbara morem; 6. 1. 34: A. 11. 731 nomine quemque uocans reficitque adproelia pulsos; 6. 1. 36: A. 9. 416 diuersi circumspiciunt hoc acrior idem; 6. 1. 37: A. 8. 90 ergo iter inceptum peragunt rumore secundo.

^{page 291 note 1} 6. 1. 23 has restituit as against restituis / restitues; 6. 1. 26 inuoluere as against albescere; 6. 1. 28 ciebant as against ciebat; 6. 1. 34 ad proelia as against in proelia; 6. 1. 37 peragunt as against celerant; 6. 1. 46 et geminos as against aut geminos; 6. 1. 54 eqaes as against equis; 6. 1. 65 carpit as against carpsit.

^{page 291 note 2} Except at 6. 1. 60, where the explanatory remark cum de Pergamis loqueretur is made, Macrobius adds nothing but the title of the roll from which the archaic piece comes.

^{page 291 note 3} Regel, G., De Vergilio, p. 38,Google Scholar observed that in 44–54 the similarity between Virgil and the archaic poet is less than in the pi ceding section, while in 55–59 it is still lc Regel, however, failed to spot the connexion between this threefold division and Macrobius’ words in 6. 2. 1.

^{page 291 note 4} Quaestiones, p. 44 n. 1: ‘in primo tantum et secundo capite ordinis secundum autores instituti uestigia deprehendimus’.

^{page 291 note 5} De Vergilio, p. 37 n. 36. Regel describ the sequences, though not quite accurate and made an important deduction concerning the ordering of the fragments of the fi book of Ennius' Annates.

^{page 292 note 1} This fact in itself is not particularly significant, since Virgil's predecessors tended to a very large degree to make sense and metrical units coincide. However at least six of the archaic pieces (17, 20, 22, 27, 28, 31) are metrical units whose sense is incomplete.

^{page 292 note 2} Of Macrobius’ editors Jan notes this, but not Eyssenhardt or Willis.

^{page 292 note 3} e.g. A. 7. 636 and G. 1. 508 as stolen or borrowed from Lucretius 5. 1293.

^{page 292 note 4} The sequence becomes quite unclear after Lucilius.

^{page 292 note 5} At A. 4. 584–5 and A. 9. 459–60 occur the same two formulaic verses: et iam prima nouo spargebat famine terras / Tithoni croceum linquens Aurora cubile. In Saturnalia 5. 4. 1–5. 10. 12, where the Aeneid is traversed from beginning to end, they are quoted both times they occur, at 5. 6. 15 and at 5. 9. 11, the same passage of Homer appearing both times as the source.

^{page 292 note 6} Cf. the reverse sequences of books 26–30 of Lucilius' Satires in the lexicon of Nonius Marcellus. F. Marx treated the fragments of each of these books as being also quoted in reverse order (see C. Lucilii carminum reliquiae, i [Leipzig, 1904], pp. lxxviii ff.;Google Scholar ii [Leipzig, 1905], pp. viff.). Marx's critics, Lindsay, W. M. (Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1904, 3088–92; Philologus lxiv [1905], 461–4Google Scholar; C.R. xix [1905], 271–2Google Scholar), Leo, F. (Gött. gel. Anz. clxviii [1906], 838–41Google Scholar [= Ausgewählte kleine Schriften i (Rome, 1960), pp. 223–5]Google Scholar), and Knapp, C. (A.J.Ph. xxix [1908], 478–82Google Scholar), all demanded parallels for such a happening. Saturnalia 6. 1. 45–49 seems to provide one. One cannot read the text of a poet backwards; but one can read a collection of excerpts backwards.

^{page 292 note 1} Regel confused things by failing to distinguish ‘Begleitzitate’ from ‘Stammzitate’. Norden, E., Ennius und Vergilius, p. 161 n. iGoogle Scholar, pointed out that in sections 17–18 the citation of Ennius Annales 16 does not really interrupt the sequence Annales 4—Annales 6.

^{page 293 note 2} See Lindsay, W. M., Nonius Marcellus' Dictionary of Republican Latin (Oxford, 1901), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 3} Saturnalia 6. 1. 8, 10, 21, 22, 53.

^{page 293 note 4} Steuart, E. M., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Cambridge, 1925), p. 149,Google Scholar and Warmington, E. H., Remains of Old Latin, i, revised edition (London, 1956), p. 76,Google Scholar try to keep the verse in book 6 by suggesting that Ennius described Pyrrhus' skirmishing with the Carthaginians in Sicily in 277 and 276 B.C. It is an error to assume that Ennius' poem dealt with every event of Roman history, important and unimportant (see the pertinent remarks of Timpanaro, S., ‘Per una nuova edizione di Ennio’, S.I.F.C. xxiii [1948], 16 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 5} Strzelecki, L., ‘Miscellanea latina’, Eos xxxviii (1937), 444 ff.Google Scholar, altered the attribution of tamen induuolans secum abstulit hasta insigne from book 16 to book 6 in order to correct the sequence.

^{page 293 note 6} Kuypers and Vahlen took no account of the sequence and gave the piece to book 7. It could, of course, be placed, as far as its content goes, in a number of contexts in books 7, 8, and 9 (cf. Norden, , Ennius und Vergilius, p. 128).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 1} So I should, explain the fact that at De comp. doct. 6. 15 inlicere is illustrated by a portion of Naevius' Lycurgus rather than by Plautus' Bacchides 1151; that at 9. 18 mutus is illustrated by portions of Naevius' Lycurgus and of Accius' Epinausimache rather than by Plautus Miles 664.2 The Paris and the Naples manuscripts omit one of the ‘extra’ quotations in section 9; the Naples one of the ‘extra’ quotations in 22.

^{page 294 note 3} Cf. supra p. 292, where it is pointed out that the ‘extra’ quotations to the reverse sequence are themselves in reverse sequence.

^{page 294 note 4} De Vergilio, p. 37 n. 36.

^{page 294 note 5} Macrobius writes deinde infra between the two citations.

^{page 294 note 6} Ennius und Vergilius, pp. 161–2.

^{page 294 note 7} Vahlen, Ennianae poesis reliquiae, ed. 2, p. clix, had made Ilia speak the words, when, on the orders of Amulius, she and her twin children were about to be cast into the Tiber.

^{page 295 note 1} Vahlen, ibid. p. clii, also, comparing Dionysius i. 58. 5, admitted the possibility of the king having spoken the words. Columna had made Romulus speak the words to the leader of the Sabines.

^{page 295 note 2} The Annals of Quintus Ennius, pp. vii f.

^{page 295 note 3} Remains of Old Latin, i. 28 n.

^{page 295 note 4} L.L. 5. 65.

^{page 295 note 5} N.D. 2. 4, 2. 64.

^{page 295 note 6} L.L. 7. 5.

^{page 295 note 7} Met. 14. 805 ff., Fast. 2. 475 ff.

^{page 295 note 8} Quintus Ennius (St. Petersburg, 1884), P. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 9} Ennianae poesis reliquiae, ed. 2, p. clix, recanting his earlier agreement with Columna and Merula.

^{page 295 note 10} R.-E. v (1905)Google Scholar, s.v. Ennius, 2605.

^{page 295 note 11} ‘Per una nuova edizione di Ennio’, S.I.F.C. xxiii (1948), 39 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 12} Servius ad Verg. A. 6. 777.

^{page 295 note 13} Porphyrio ad Hor. carm. I. 2. 18 and Servius ad Verg. A. 1. 273.

^{page 296 note 1} Servius ad Verg. A. 1. 281.

^{page 296 note 2} Two fragments attributed by our sources (Priscian Inst. gram. 2. 232 and Macrobius Sat. 6. 5. 8) to the second of Lampadio's seven divisions of Naevius’ Carmen Belli Poenici are placed by Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Berlin, 1913), p. 82 n. 1,Google Scholar in a council of the Gods. Strzelecki, L., De Naeuiano Belli Punici Carmine quaestiones selectae (Kraków, 1935), p. 38 n. 2Google Scholar, and Cn. Naeuii Belli Punici Carminis quae supersunt, p. 69, accepts Leo's idea and places the council very early in Naevius' account of Rome's prehistory.

^{page 296 note 3} Very soon after his allusion to the Ennian council Ovid, Fast. 2. 491, seems to imitate this verse with est locus antiqui, Capreae dixere paludem.

^{page 296 note 4} Cf. Ennius Sc. 345 aspice hoc sublime candens quern uocant omnes Iouem and the testimonia collected by Vahlen ad loc.

^{page 296 note 5} For both conceptions, the Stoic and the Platonic, see Cicero, , N.D. 1. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 6} The Greek epic poet Peisandros began his work with the marriage of Zeus and Hera and carried it through to the events of his own day (Macrobius Sat. 5. 2. 5).