It is the almost unanimous opinion of modern scholars' that this man is M. Licinius Crassus. Manutius's explanation, that ex Nanneianis is a reference to Crassus' profiteering in the proscriptions and in particular to the property of one Nanneius, to be identified with the Nannius named as a proscription victim in Comm. Pet. 9, is accepted without hesitation.

At the end of the last section we anticipated the concluding page of the argument, where Plato makes the soul imperishable, as well as not-dead, and where he describes finally the soul's withdrawal at the approach of death. For the conclusion that the soul never admits death, and is in that sense was probably in Plato's eyes the heart of the argument. The final page, we shall argue, will have seemed to Plato in some ways less important, and even something of an embarrassment.

Since Klingner's dissertation it has generally been accepted by Ciceronian scholars that Molon's influence upon Cicero's prose style consisted in his imparting to his pupil no new stylistic ideal but rather moderation in both language and style. According to Cicero (Brutus 325), Molon's style had developed under the teaching of Menecles of Alabanda who, though himself an Asianist, aimed rather at crebrae venustaeque sententiae, a more elegant and concise form of antithesis, parallelism, and stylistic balance.

Of these lines Markland wrote in 1728 (on Statius, S. 5. 3. 8) ‘patet ignari cuiusdam et barbari interpolatoris esse’; Dr. Trapp in 1735 found them ‘in themselves flat, and improper, and altogether unworthy of Virgil’; ‘in his ipsis miror qui factum sit ut Viri Doctissimi non agnouerint orationis uim et elegantiam’ (Wagner, 1832); ‘finding in them … all Virgil's usual ease and suavity … [we] hail those verses with joy, and reinstate them in their rightful … position as the commencing verses of the great Roman epic’ (Henry, 1873); ‘uersus praeclarissimos iniuria poeta abiudicauerunt editores plerique’ (Hirtzel, OGT, 1901);

As we read these lines we are inevitably reminded of the old adage ab love principium, . Horace here conforms to the ancient precept, as many other poets, at least since Pindar, had done before him. But in his works as a whole, and in the first collection of Odes as a whole, he begins not with Jupiter but with his patron Maecenas.3 Perhaps, therefore, Horace's own practice may help to justify the division of this Horatian article into two separate but interdependent parts of which the first takes Maecenas as its starting-point while the second is concerned with Jupiter and with Augustus, his vicegerent on earth.

It seems to be becoming a fable convenue that Propertius opened his most elaborate book with a poem of hopeless illogicality. Shackleton Bailey complains on 3. 1. 25, ‘nam quis perhaps = quisnam as in Virg. Georg. 4. 445; see on 3. 11. 27. Even so, the absence of logical sequence from the theme of 21–4 (pascitur in uiuis liuor, post fata quiescit) to that of 25–32 (uixere fortes ante Agamemnona) is noteworthy and characteristic… In 33 the poet becomes conscious of having lost his way and uses Homer as a bridge back to the earlier motif.’

It has been the fate of Corippus' Iohannis to survive in one manuscript, the fourteenth-century Trivultianus, and to find one competent editor. The first edition of the Iohannis was published in 1820 by P. Mazzucchelli. It contained a few notes, in content mainly geographical and ethnographical and useless for the interpretation of the text; it remains the only commentary in existence.

As is well known, the Amores of Ovid appeared in two different editions, of which only the second survives. Hence, scholars being what they are, it is hardly surprising that almost as much has been written about the first as the second. If I have ventured to add yet another contribution to the already over-long bibliography of the subject

In each example an adjective is separated from its noun by a verb and an unqualified noun. The separation by the verb may be regarded as conditioned by the metre, but not the further separation by the unqualified noun, as the qualified and unqualified nouns are metrically interchangeable. Horace would appear to prefer the wider separation to the less wide.

In the course of a wider study of stylistic development in Cicero's speeches1 an examination was conducted into the clausal and phrasal structure of a chronological cross-section of the speeches. The examination revealed some clearly distinguishable developments in the orator's maturing style.

This paper is restricted to an examination of one aspect of his stylistic development, namely his use of abundantia of phrases. The term abundantia has a long history, but in Cicero's rhetorical treatises it is almost synonymous with amplitudo and copia.

The groundwork for a reliable edition of Seneca's tragedies was done fifty years ago by three men who died in the First World War: C. E. Stuart, T. Düring and W. Hoffa. Yet no complete edition since has taken full account of their work. It is even now not widely enough known that the papers of all three are readily available; Stuart's papers (dissertation, handwritten notes, and collations) are now in Trinity College Library, Cambridge,2 and those of Hoffa and Düring (including a draft apparatus to all the tragedies except Oedipus and most of Phaedra) are in Göttingen University Library.3 Stuart's work has lain in particular obscurity, and for my work on the tradition I have given especial attention to it.

The manuscript tradition of Seneca's Dialogues consists of one eleventhcentury manuscript, Ambrosianus C 90 inf. (= A), which is the main source for the text, and a ruck of later manuscripts of lesser and disputed worth. There are over a hundred of these, far more than has been supposed.

(1) laudationem ferculum est insecutum plane non pro expectatione magnum: novitas tamen omnium convertit oculos. (2) rotundum enim repositoriurr duodecim habebat signa in orbe disposita, super quae proprium convenien. temque materiae structor imposuerat cibum: (3) super arietem cicer arietinum, super taurum bubulae frustum, super geminos testiculos ac rienes, supei cancrum coronam, super leonem ficum Africanam, super virginem steriliculam (4) super libram stateram in cuius altera parte scriblita erat, in altera placenta super scorpionem † pisciculum marinum, super sagittarium oclopetam, supei capricornum locustam marinam,† super pisces duos mullos. (5) in medio autem caespes cum herbis excisus favum sustinebat.

In the fourteenth letter to Lucilius, Seneca explains how to avoid physical danger and discomfort: the worst threats to the body come not from nature but from men in power; therefore safety lies in not giving offence. Ad philosophiam confugiendum est (11): the study of philosophy incurs neither envy nor contempt, provided that the philosopher pursues it peacefully and without ostentation.

The appearance of a new and modern Teubner text of Valerius Flaccus, eliminating much consecrated chaff, is greatly to be welcomed. Its editor, E. Courtney of King's College, University of London, kindly lent me his text in typescript several years ago, so that my metrical statistics might be published at about the same time.

By the end of the Republic the Bay of Naples had become a preferred setting for the pleasure villas of wealthy Romans, a centre of fashion and of cultivated ease. The villa of C. Marius at Misenum, though not the first of which we hear, is the earliest coastal Campanian estate whose appointments are explicitly described as having been luxurious. In an epistle of Seneca (Ep. 51. 11) Marius is said to have built the villa, and on a height; of the location Seneca says, vaguely, in regione Baiana, for the subject of the epistle is the depravity of Baiae, and the author took pleasure in contrasting the character of the early villas in the area with the moral decadence of the imperial resort; the elder Pliny locates the site of Marius' villa more precisely: in Misenensi. From Plutarch's somewhat fuller account come a first indication of date, a different impression of architectural character, and the names of two subsequent owners of the property. He states that after the Social War, when Sulpicius proposed Marius, others Sulla, for command in the Mithridatic War, the detractors of Marius urged him to look after his failing health and to go to the warm baths at Baiae:

In a previous article (C.Q. N.S. xv [1965], 281 ff.) I argued that the promulgatio trinundinum, regularly necessary before a vote in a legislative assembly, an election, or a iudicium populi during the late Roman Republic, was not the declaration of an interval of time (either seventeen or twenty-four days) but a publication of the proposed business which had to be made over three market-days or nundinae. These market-days occurred continuously at eight-day intervals, and no fresh start was made at the beginning of a year or other period. So the identification of nundinae near the time when a law or other piece of public business was being transacted should provide evidence for or against my view, and further, if this view is sound, suggest more precisely the dates on which certain events occurred.

Vollmer, modifying the transposition by Fr. Jacobs of 61–74 after 24, placed these lines after 23; this finally put paid to the reading exordiar astus, which the authority of the Aldine edition had imposed on the early editors, and consequently v. 24 could no longer be taken as concluding the sense of the preceding lines.

It is usual to read nomina (Puteolanus), with which three interpretations are possible.

(1) The stronger arrogates to himself the titles of moderation and justice. So in the excellent Rumanian translation of 1871 by Gavrilu J. Munteanu: ‘Cându are sâ decida pumnulu, celu mai tare si atribue titlu de moderatu şi de onestu.’