Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2009
page 101 note 1 v. Balsdon, P.B.S.R. xiv, 1938, pp. 98 f. For the new date suggested for Glaucia's law, v. Piganiol, C.R.A.I., 1951, pp. 58 f.
page 101 note 2 Hill, , Roman Middle Class, p. 122Google Scholar, tries to revive their doubts on this point.
page 101 note 3 Cf. De Or. ii. 223, Brut. 161, Pro Cluent. 140.
page 101 note 4 Cic. De Inv. i. 92; Brut. 164; etc.
page 101 note 5 v. Cicero passim and especially De Or. i. 225.
page 101 note 6 e.g. De Leg. iii. 42; De Off. iii. 47; Pro Com., ap. Asc., p. 67C—the last two with Scaevola Pontifex, with whom he is coupled also at the end of our passage.
page 101 note 7 v. especially Cic. Brut. 224.
page 101 note 8 Balsdon, op. cit., pp. 106 f. The date 122 seems preferable. Cf. an article in A.J.P. 1954 (forthcoming).
page 101 note 9 F.L.R.A. 7, 76 (= 83) f.
page 102 note 1 C.A.H. ix, p. 169—not shaken by more recent research.
page 102 note 2 Cic.De Off. and Pro Corn. (v. p. 101, n. 6 above) cf. Pro Balbo 48.