^{page 130 note 2} Two important studies of the subject in recent years are S. I. Oost, ‘Cato Uticensis and the Annexation of Cyprus’, CP l (1955), 98 ff., and E. Badian, ‘Porcius, M.Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus’, JRS lv (1965), 110 ff.Google Scholar: throughout this paper their argument is taken for granted. Grimal, P., Etudes de chronologie cicéronienne (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar, 93 ff. offers little and is apparently unaware of the two above-mentioned papers (cf. the review by Briscoe, J., Gnomon xli (1969), 758).Google Scholar For the background see Badian, E., Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (Pretoria, 1967, Communications of the University of South AfricaGoogle Scholar, B26), esp. ch. 6.

^{page 130 note 3} For his filiation see AE 1928. 43; cf. also IG iv. 1410.

^{page 130 note 4} This identification was already rejected by Münzer, as well as the one with the CRAS(SUS), who at some time struck coins in Cyprus, as it was then believed (Babelon, Monnaies de la Rép. Rom. i. 308 ff.; cf. Grueber, BMCRR 53a); but it seems now lxittle much more probable that these coins were struck by M. Licinius Crassus in Crete in the mid thirties (Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, 55 ff., followed by Sydenham, Imperialism Rom. Rep. Coinage, 200 n.).

^{page 131 note 1} See Badian, , RhM cx (1967), 178Google Scholar with further literature.

^{page 131 note 2} Cf. Oost, loc. cit. i n . 37; on the other hand Ptolemy Auletes left Alexandria certainly after 11 Aug. 58, and very probably after 7 Sept. (Samuel, A.E., Ptolemaic Chronology [Munich, 1962]Google Scholar, 155 f.), thus leaving ample time for their meeting even if a wide margin of error is taken into consideration.

^{page 131 note 3} The standard works on the period grant, as a rule, ample and satisfactory treatment to the Egyptian question. On the other hand Bloedow, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ptolemaios XII. (Diss. Wiirzburg, 1963)Google Scholar1, 58 ff. and Olshausen, E., Ro und Aegypten von 116 bis 51 v. Chr. (Diss. Erlangen, Nürnberg, 1963)Google Scholar, 49 ff. should be consulted with caution: for example Bloedow calls the thus tribune C. Cato consistently M. Cato, while Olshausen is careless in his handling of dates.

^{page 131 note 4} For C. Cato's agitation from the very beginning of his tribunate see Fenestella, frg. 21.

^{page 132 note 1} Cic.fam. 1. 2. 1. For a valuable analysis of the various proposals and the debate in the senate see Sternkopf, W., Hermes xxxviii 1903), 28 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} Thus correctly Sternkopf, op. cit. 37.

^{page 132 note 3} Cic.fam. 1. 2. 4.

^{page 132 note 4} Ibid. 4. 1.

^{page 132 note 5} Id. Q-fr. 2. 2. 3.

^{page 132 note 6} Ibid.: suspicor per vim rogationem Caninium perlaturum.

^{page 132 note 7} Ibid. 3. 1–2.

^{page 132 note 8} Essentially the same is told by Dio 39. 16. 1–2, though without the tribune’ s name and setting the proposal in the senate, which seems less probable than the version of Plutarch: cf. Meyer, Caesars Monarchic³, 131; Gelzer, Pompejus, 159.

^{page 132 note 9} Cic.fam. 1. 7. 4; cf. Dio 39. 55. 1.

^{page 132 note 10} Fam. 1. 7. 3; cf. also Q.fr. 2. 4. 5.

^{page 132 note 11} e.g. by Mommsen, RG iii.⁸ 317; Meyer, op. cit. 128 ff.; Gelzer, op. cit. 158 is more cautious.

^{page 132 note 12} Cic.fam. 1. 5b. 2: Nunc id speramus, idque molimur, ut rex, cum intellegat sese, quod cogitabat, ut a Pompeio reducatur, adsequi non posse etc.

^{page 133 note 1} Dio 39. 16. 2.

^{page 133 note 2} Plut. Pomp. 49. 13.

^{page 133 note 3} Cic.fam. 7. 1. 4.

^{page 133 note 4} Val. Max. 4. 2. 6. If this identification is to be accepted he was married to a daughter of C. Antonius whom he had previously prosecuted.

^{page 133 note 5} dc. fam. 2. 8. 3.

^{page 133 note 6} Ibid. 9. 2. 1, 3. 1, 6. 1.

^{page 133 note 7} Att. 15. 13. 3.

^{page 133 note 8} Ibid. 16. 14. 4.

^{page 133 note 9} Veil. 2. 45. 4; Badian, , JRS lv (1965) 111Google Scholar