Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2009
page 9 note 1 I wish to thank Mr. A. N. Sherwin-White for help in the preparation of this note.
page 9 note 2 Cf. Iul. 4. 2; Aug. 17. 5; Claud. 26. 2; Galb. 12. 1; Vitell. 10. 1.
page 9 note 3 T.L.L. s.v. ‘affligo’.
page 9 note 4 Cf. Schanz–Hosius: Gesch. der röm. Litt. v. 2 (1920), pp. 486 f.
page 9 note 5 Cf. also Oros. vi. 21. 25, Suet. Tib. 16. 1 (though some confusion here); Oros. vii. 3. 5, Suet. Aug. 93. The two other occasions on which Orosius appeals to the authority of Suetonius, vi. 7. 2, vii. 9. 7, cannot be so verified in Suetonius' writings and are doubtless instances of carelessness on Orosius' part.
page 10 note 1 Cf. also Oros. vii. 7. 4, Nero 38. 2; Oros. vii. 7. 5, Nero 38. 2; Oros. vii. 7. 7, Nero 38. 3; Oros. vii. 7. 12, Nero 39. 1; Oros. vii. 7. 13, Nero 42. 1.
page 10 note 2 The fact that verbal echoes of such writers as Eutropius and Jerome appear in Orosius does not undermine this influence. The similarities are fewer and can at any rate sometimes be traced back to Suetonius. See (i) Suet. Cal. 37. 1; Nero 30. 3; Eutrop. vii. 14. 1; Hier. Chron. 2080; Oros. vii. 7. 3, (ii) Suet. Nero 48. 1; 49. 2; Hier. Chron. 2084; Eutrop. vii. 15. 1; Oros. vii. 7. 13.
page 10 note 3 Cf., e.g., Tertull. Apol. 5. 3; Lactant. De mart. pers. ii. 5–6; Sulp. Sev. Chron. ii. 28–9.
page 10 note 4 Cf. adhibitus, interdiction, vetiti, repertum, cautum.