^{page 376 note 1} Teubner, , 1931, p. xxxviii.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 2} Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), p. 87;Google Scholar likewise Clausen in his Oxford text, p. xii. Two references (10. 95, 11. 50) to ‘Diocletianae’ (sc. thermae) support a general fourth-century date; and other evidence is collected by Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. vii. 509–11.Google ScholarGercke, A., Seneca-Studien (1895), p. 191, is prepared to consider an earlier stratum of information. His claim that the reference to Cerealis indicates the actual date of compilation goes well beyond the evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 3} pp. xxxix–xl.

^{page 377 note 1} Thus he alone preserves the explanation of cadurco in 6. 537 (where the main tradition has nothing at all, being entirely at sea on 7. 221), with the citation of the one extant fragment of Martial's contemporary Sulpicia (Morel, , Frag. Poet. Lat., p. 134). There is no trace of her works in the grammarians or elsewhere, and this note must probably be taken with the group of historical references to be considered below.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} pp. xxviii–xxix.

^{page 377 note 3} Pliny was certainly accessible to Carolingian scholars, being quoted by Einhard a clear generation before Heiric (Manitius, , Gesch. der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, i. 644).Google Scholar Likewise Martial was known to Theodulf and Lupus (Ibid. 488), as Catullus himself (who might better have been quoted) was not. Other references to Martial in the common tradition (on 11. 162 and perhaps on 8. 86) look more like examples drawn from grammarians.

^{page 378 note 1} Friedländer, , Martial, ii. 217,Google Scholar points out that the couplet underlies Ausonius' tetrastich on Domitian (Caes. 12). In the preceding list of Caesars (2. 12), Ausonius quotes the same lines of Juvenal (4. 37–8) to which the scholium is attached. Writing in some year about A.D. 380, Ausonius evidently found the couplet already in position as a comment on this passage. Unfortunately, this provides no evidence as to whether the major collection of scholia had been compiled by this time.

^{page 378 note 2} Where only a garbled recollection survives, linking the two as freedmen of Claudius. Valla's last sentence, comparing Licinus with Crassus and quoting Persius (2. 36), is probably his own addition; though Persius was well enough known in the fourth century for the quotation to be inserted then and subsequently lost in most copies.

^{page 378 note 3} Wilkes, , Epig. Stud. iv (1967), 119–21.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 4} The main tradition places her father's death under Nero, which is likely enough if he is C. Petronius Pontius Nigrinus (cos. 37), as P.I.R.^t iii. P. 218, and perhaps a relative of T. Petronius Niger ( = Arbiter?). Her own suicide must fall well into the Flavian period, perhaps under Domitian, since Martial mentions the incident three times (2. 34. 6, 4. 43. 5, 6. 75).

^{page 379 note 1} p. 253. Nevertheless, the original note which Valla quotes for Seneca's early career can hardly have broken off quite so abruptly with the prophecy of Nero's future savagery, when Juvenal's line is concerned only with Seneca's generosity to dependants. The attached note on Piso relevantly refers to his habit of subsidizing poor friends, and the note on Seneca might have been expected to do the same. It should be noticed that there is no note at all on Cotta (Messalinus ?) in the same line. He would not have been dealt with in the same work of reference as the other two.

^{page 379 note 2} This is presumably the Lenaeus mentioned in Suet, . Gram. 15Google Scholar as a freedman of, and author of an acerbissima satura against, Sallust. The fact that Valla credits this reference to ‘Probus’ does not prove that it is not his own embellishment; on the other hand, Suetonius could have been exploited at almost any period. Silius, on the other hand, remains unexplained, unless he is Pliny's correspondent Silius Proculus (Epp. 3. 15, with a misleading note by SherwinWhite), who wrote libelli. The general confusion about Aurunca may be due to the fact that Juvenal's periphrasis is the only extant evidence for Lucilius’ birth–place, unless Ausonius’ evidence (Epist. 15. 9) can be held to be independent.

^{page 379 note 3} Sidonius, with his reference to Juvenal's exile in the same poem (272–4), appears to be familiar with a copy complete with Vita and scholia. His knowledge of this pair of brothers is more likely to be derived from the latter than from Martial or elsewhere, and his reference will show that this section of the note at least (presumably including the name Scaev(i)us) was already present.

^{page 380 note 1} Ammianus, p. 86. The confusion need not be that of the scholiast, who does not seem to be in the habit of collating material from different sources.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 1} Likewise that on Sarmentus in 5. 3, with details (not in Valla) which are not found elsewhere (the scholiasts on Hor. Sat. 1. 5. 52 know nothing about him). Licinus attracts notes whenever the satirists mention him: viz. Hor. A.P. 301 (ps. Aero) and Pers. 2. 35, though neither is as full as this or based on the same material.

^{page 381 note 2} Hermes lxxxviii (1960), 984 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 3} Ibid. lxxxix (1961), 227 ff., xcii (1964), 467 ff., A.J.Ph. lxxxv (1964), 337 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 1} Syme, , Tacitus, pp. 118–20. It is probably referred to in Juv. 2. 102–3 in connection with Otho's conduct in the field, with details which Tacitus does not relate.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 2} The main tradition says ‘scripsit Cornelius, scripsit et Pompeius Planta’. Valla typically improves on this with ‘post Cornelium vero (ut Probus ait) Pompeius Planta’. In fact, Planta was dead by about A.D. 109 (Plin. Epp. 9. 1. 1–4) and probably wrote considerably nearer the event. The drift of the original note appears to have been ‘In addition to Tacitus’ Histories, Planta described the campaign and reported …’

^{page 382 note 3} J.R.S. lii (1962), 234–5.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 4} Hermes lxxxviii (1960), 110.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 5} N.H. 22. 92, with Mart. 1. 20. 4, both attributing the murder to Agrippina without mention of Lucusta. Juvenal (5. 147, 6. 620) follows the same tradition; although where he mentions Lucusta, it is in connection with the poisoning of husbands (1. 72 nigros efferre maritos), rather than of stepsons.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 1} Cf. p. 379 n. 1 above.

^{page 383 note 2} Nor does Juvenal notice the allegation of attempted incest with Agrippina, first made by Fabius Rusticus (Tac, . Ann. 14. 2–3) and taken up by Suetonius (Nero 28. 2), Dio (61. 11. 3) and the epitomators (Vict. Caes. 5. 8, Epit. 5. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 3} Tacitus, pp. 776–7.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 4} p. 687.

^{page 384 note 1} Tacitus (1957), pp. 225–34.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 2} Yet the Silvae1, often equally topical and equally defaced by flattery, were to survive much longer (e.g. Sidonius, Carm. 22, ep. 6).

^{page 384 note 3} Tacitus, pp. 498, 771.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 1} Syme, in J.R.S. lx (1970), 39,Google ScholarTacitus, p. 780.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 2} So Highet, , Juvenal the satirist, pp. 187, 300 n. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 3} Syme, , Ammianus, p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 4} Alan Cameron, reviewing Syme's Ammianus and the Historia Augusta in JRS lxi (1971), 266,Google Scholar suggests that the statement in SHA Marcus 11. 4Google Scholar that the emperor fixed the earnings of scaenici at five aurei is derived, like the similar note on Juv. 7. 243, from Marius Maximus. Schwartz, J., in Historia xv (1966), 458 had argued that the SHA passage came from the Scholiast: but it is fuller and is firmly bedded in a continuous section on reforms.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 5} The note on Caesonia (6. 615) may be derived directly from Cal. 25. 3 and 50. 2 or from one of the lost epitomators.

^{page 386 note 1} Syme, , Ammianus, pp. 86–7, 185Google Scholar (and independently Schwartz, J. in Ant. Class. xxxiii [1964], 423)Google Scholar points out the curious coincidence of an apparently fictitious governor of Africa, Vibius Passienus in Tyr. trig. 29.1, and attributes the conflation of the two Crispi to ‘confused erudition’, based on the appearance of both names in the more or less contemporary Juvenalian scholia. In the present state of the scholia, no version contains either name, until Valla adds the correct ‘Vibius’. Presumably the Suetonian Vita contained ‘Passienus’, as shown by the fragments in Jerome, but this has fallen out. An earlier and more accurate annotation may simply have inserted ‘Vibius’ against either 4. 81 or the passage of Statius quoted on 4. 94. Such a bare key to identity, adequate for a reader in Hadrian's reign, would be empty enough in the fourth century to encourage the scholiast to welcome further information, however irrelevant, which would in due course squeeze out the original name.

^{page 386 note 2} It is noticeable that the only scholium on Persius containing plausible historical information (apart from that on Licinus mentioned in p. 381 n. 1 above, and notes of dubious validity on Cotta Messalinus in 2. 72 and Glyco in 5. 9) describes the death of Caesius Bassus (6. 1) during the eruption of Vesuvius, as if from Suetonius' life of that poet. This would be the only item from a post-Neronian poet to survive from that work, since Jerome mentions no poet later than Lucan; but cannot be taken as evidence that Suetonius carried his de Poetis down as far as this. The Juvenalian scholia have nothing at 7. 80 on the other Flavian poets, Serranus and Saleius, who do not occur in Jerome.

^{page 386 note 3} His other known pupil, Persius, is mentioned only in the biography of the satirist attributed to Probus.

^{page 386 note 4} Roth, p. 272. In the same way, Jerome's note on M. Antonius Liberalis (A.D. 50) states ‘magnas inimicitias cum Palaemone exercet’, although there is no mention of this, nor of any sort of disputes, in Palaemon's own biography. Suetonius clearly intended the de Grammaticis to be read as a whole, without continuous cross-references from one life to another.

^{page 386 note 5} The passages he quotes continually fail to throw any real light on the passage to which they are attached. Valla's note on Pallas (i. 109) breaks off his career with the intrigue with Agrippina and says nothing of his great wealth, though that of Licinus is duly recorded. The reference in 5. 36 to Thrasea and Helvidius drinking toasts to the tyrannicides is not amplified at all in the notes as Valla gives them. Likewise, it would have been helpful on 1. 155 to be told something of Tigellinus' career after his first acquisition of influence over Nero. It is always possible that certain of the longer extracts (like that from Statius on 4. 94, which begins in the middle of a sentence) were simply curtailed early in the tradition for reasons of space.