^{page 24 note 1} ad Fam. viii, I, 4; ad Att. vi, I, 8; 2, 3.

^{page 24 note 2} ad Att. viii, II, 1.

^{page 24 note 3} In ii, 42, there is a clear reference to the death and funeral of Clodius (January 20, 52 B.C).

^{page 24 note 4} ad Fam. ix, 2, 5.

^{page 24 note 5} Macrobius (vi, 4, 8) quotes Cicero ‘in quinto de legibus.’

^{page 25 note 1} Diels, Doxographi Graeci pp. 121–32, and 529–50; Mayor, J. B., Cic., de nat. deor. i, p. xlii,Google Scholar f.

^{page 25 note 2} ad Att. xvi, 11, 4; de Off. iii, 7, f.

^{page 25 note 3} de Off. i, 6; ii, 60.

^{page 25 note 4} e. g. of a definition of ‘officium’ (i, 7), or of comparisons of ‘honesta’ (i, 152, 161) or of utilities (ii, 86–88).

^{page 25 note 5} de Off. i, 25–6; 37–40; 76–8; ii, 26–9; 45–51; 57–60; 72–6.

^{page 25 note 6} ad Att. xvi, II, 4; 14, 4.

^{page 25 note 7} de Off. iii, 8.

^{page 25 note 8} Ib. iii, 63, 89.

^{page 25 note 9} Ib. iii, 34.

^{page 25 note 10} Ib. iii, 58–89 and 99–115.

^{page 25 note 11} de Rep. i, 13, de Leg. iii, 14.

^{page 25 note 12} de Leg. ii, 66, iii, 14.

^{page 25 note 13} ad Q. F. ii, 12, 1; ad Att. iv, 14.

^{page 25 note 14} ad Att. iv, 16, 2; ad Q.F. iii, 5, 1.

^{page 25 note 15} ad. Q.F. ii, 12, 1, ‘spissum sane opus et operosum.’

^{page 26 note 1} de Leg. iii, i; cf. ii, 14.

^{page 26 note 2} de Rep. iii, 8, f.

^{page 26 note 3} de Rep. iii, 27, cf. Plat. Rep., 361–2.

^{page 26 note 4} de Rep. iv, 3, f.; de Leg. iii, 29.

^{page 26 note 5} de Rep. iv, 12; de Leg. iii, 32; ii, 38; cf. Plat. Rep. 424 c.

^{page 26 note 6} de Rep. i, 66–8 from Plato Rep. 562, as also

^{page 26 note 7} de Leg. ii, 45, from Plato, Laws, 955 E.

^{page 26 note 8} de Leg. ii, 17; cf. Laws, 718 F.

^{page 26 note 9} de Rep. iv, fr. 4 and 5.

^{page 26 note 10} de Rep. ii, 3, 22, 51.

^{page 26 note 11} de Leg. i, 20; ii, 23; iii, 4 and 12.

^{page 27 note 1} Cf. de Leg. iii, 14; de Div. ii, 3; de Fin., iv. 5, 61

^{page 27 note 2} So above, and cf. de Off. i, 2; iii, 20.

^{page 27 note 3} de Nat. Deor. i, 33; ii, 42, f. Bywater, in J.P. vii, 65–87.

^{page 27 note 4} de Nat. Deor. ii, 95; cf. de Off. ii, 56.

^{page 27 note 5} Cf. Bywater, , in J.P. ii, 55–63;Google Scholar Jäger, Aristotele 60 f.

^{page 27 note 6} de Rep. iii, 12.

^{page 27 note 7} de Leg. i, 38, iii, 14; de Div. ii, 3.

^{page 27 note 8} de Leg. ii, 15.

^{page 27 note 9} de Leg. iii, 13.

^{page 27 note 10} de Lig. iii, 14.

^{page 27 note 11} ad Att. ii, 2, 2; 16, 3.

^{page 27 note 12} ad Att. xiii, 31–3.

^{page 27 note 13} de Rep. i, 3; iii, 4–6; ad Att. ii, 16, 3.

^{page 27 note 14} de Rep. i, 19 and 56.

^{page 27 note 15} de Rep. iii, 33; de Leg. i, 18–19; ii, 8.

^{page 27 note 16} de Rep. i, 34.

^{page 27 note 17} de Nat. Deor. ii, 118; cf. ad Att. xiii, 18.

^{page 27 note 18} With Schmekel, Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa, p. 67 f., cf. Loercher, in Jabrb. der klass. Altert. 162 (1913), p. 129Google Scholar f.

^{page 28 note 1} de Rep. iv, 5.

^{page 28 note 2} ib. iv, 3.

^{page 28 note 3} ib. iv, 4.

^{page 28 note 4} ib. iv, 11–12.

^{page 28 note 5} i, 37–9.

^{page 28 note 6} de Rep. ii, 35; cf. Pol. vi, 11a.

^{page 28 note 7} Cic. de Rep. i, 42Google Scholar f; ii, 65; cf. Pol. vi, 3, 4.

^{page 28 note 8} Etb. viii, 10; Polit., p. 1279.

^{page 28 note 9} polit. 302 f.

^{page 28 note 10} Cic. de Rep. ii, 3, 21, 51;Google Scholar cf. Pol. vi, 47.

^{page 28 note 11} de Rep. i, 45; ii, 41, 65; cf. Pol. vi, 3.

^{page 28 note 12} de Rep. i, 69; cf. Pol. vi, 10.

^{page 28 note 13} de Rep. ii, 66; cf. Pol. vi, 11.

^{page 28 note 14} de Rep. ii, 42–3; cf. Pol. vi, 48

^{page 28 note 15} de Rep. i, 65, 68.

^{page 28 note 16} ib. iv, 3.

^{page 29 note 1} Unfortunately, when I was writing this paper I was unable to consult Reitzenstein's articles on ‘Die Idee des Principats bei Cicero und Augustus’ in the Nachrichten der Gesellschaft dtr Wissenschaften zu Göttingen for 1917, pp. 399 f., 481 f. I now find that he there emphasizes, as I have done Cicero's debt to Polybius (pp. 404 f.), but accounts for his divergencies from the Greek historian by the supposition that he is following Panaetius (pp. 407 f.), who had criticised Polybius. This theory he rests partly on the mention of Panaetius, (de Rep. i, 34)Google Scholar and on the favourable account of the Rhodian democracy (p. 408; cf. de Rep. i, 47, iii, 48), but more on the serious differences between Cicero and Polybius. Cicero, unlike Polybius, does not regard human weakness as the main cause of the origin of society (de Rep. i, 39) repeatedly declares monarchy to be the best of the simple forms of government (de Rep. i, 54; 69; ii, 43; iii, 47), and ascribes tyranny to a different, cause (de Rep. ii, 51; cf. i, 68). This theory is to my mind, attractive rather than convincing, as I incline to ascribe the chief differences to Cicero's own political reflection. Further, I agree in the main with Heinze's criticisms of the general position of Reitzenstein (Hermes 59, pp. 73–94); indeed, Reitzenstein himself modified his views in deference to Heinze's criticisms (Hermes 59, pp. 356 f.).

^{page 29 note 2} de Leg. iii, 13–4.

^{page 29 note 3} de Leg. ii, 59; 64; cf. de Rep. ii, 59.

^{page 29 note 4} Cicero cited the xii Tables in de Rep. iv, 12, and the books of the augurs and pontiffs as well as the Tables in de Rep. ii, 54.

^{page 29 note 5} de Leg. ii, 58–64; iii, 44.

^{page 29 note 6} lb. ii, 47 f.

^{page 29 note 7} Cf. Keyes, C. W. in American Journ. Phil. xiii, 309–23Google Scholar.

^{page 29 note 8} i, 54; 64; 69; ii, 43; iii, 47.

^{page 29 note 9} i, 43; 47; ii, 43; 50, cf. Heinze in Hermes, 59, p. 88.

^{page 29 note 10} i, 44; ii, 47; iii, 43.

^{page 29 note 11} i, 45; 69; ii, 41; 65.

^{page 30 note 1} The book, at least in its present state, ends with the decemvirate.

^{page 30 note 2} ii, 64–6; cf. ii, 3; 22; 51.

^{page 30 note 3} Cf. Ar. Atb. Pol., 41.

^{page 30 note 4} de Rep. ii, 2–3; cf. ii, 37.

^{page 30 note 5} Cf. Thuc. i, 7.

^{page 30 note 6} de, Rep. ii, 50.

^{page 30 note 7} Ib. 51.

^{page 30 note 8} Ib. 55 ad fin.

^{page 31 note 1} Cf. ‘sed tamen omnia summa cum auctoritate a principibus cedentc populo tenebantur’ and de Rep. ii, 55; 61.

^{page 31 note 2} Ib. 56.

^{page 31 note 3} Ib. 58.

^{page 31 note 4} de Leg. iii, 10–11.

^{page 31 note 5} Ib. iii, 9–10.

^{page 31 note 6} de Leg. iii, 10.

^{page 31 note 7} Ib. iii, 46–7.

^{page 31 note 8} de Leg. ii, 31 f.; de Rep. ii, 26.

^{page 31 note 9} de Rep. iii, 45–7.

^{page 31 note 10} de Rep. i, 43–4; ii, 39.

^{page 31 note 11} de Leg. iii, 20 f.

^{page 31 note 12} Ib. 26.

^{page 31 note 13} Ib. iii, 33–9.

^{page 31 note 14} pro Sest. 109 f.

^{page 32 note 1} de Leg. iii, 6.

^{page 32 note 2} de Rep. ii, 56.

^{page 32 note 3} de Leg. iii, 8.

^{page 32 note 4} Pol. vi, 12.

^{page 32 note 5} de Leg. iii, 7.

^{page 32 note 6} de Leg. iii, 46–7.

^{page 32 note 7} pro Sest. 137.

^{page 32 note 8} de Leg. iii, 27.

^{page 33 note 1} de Leg. iii, 11.

^{page 33 note 2} de Leg. iii, 29–32.

^{page 33 note 3} pro Sest. 137.

^{page 33 note 4} de Rep. ii, 56.

^{page 33 note 5} de Leg. iii, 10 and 28.

^{page 33 note 6} de Leg. iii, 46–7.

^{page 33 note 7} de Leg. iii, 10.

^{page 33 note 8} de Leg. ii, 23; iii, 12.

^{page 34 note 1} ad Att. i, 14, 4; 16, 6.

^{page 34 note 2} ad Att. i, 18, 3.

^{page 34 note 3} ad Q.F. i, 2, 16; pro Sest. 36.

^{page 34 note 4} ad Att. iv, 1, 4; ad Fam. i, 9, 16.

^{page 34 note 5} ad Fam. x, 12, 4; xii, 4, 1 and 5, 3; Phil. vii, 23.

^{page 34 note 6} de Leg. iii, 29.

^{page 34 note 7} pro Sest. 109.

^{page 34 note 8} Cf. Suet. Aug. 46.

^{page 34 note 9} de Rep. ii, 56.

^{page 35 note 1} de Leg. ii, 5.

^{page 35 note 2} pro Planc. 19–24.

^{page 35 note 3} ad Att. viii, 13, 2; 16, 1.

^{page 35 note 4} de Leg. iii, 18.

^{page 35 note 5} pro Planc. 64 f.

^{page 35 note 6} ad Att. v, 11, 1; ad Fam. ii, 12, 2.

^{page 35 note 7} ad Att. v, 21, 3.

^{page 35 note 8} ad Att. v, 11, 5; 21, 5; vi, 2, 8.

^{page 35 note 9} ad Att. vi, 1, 8.

^{page 36 note 1} de Rep. v, I.

^{page 36 note 2} de Rep. vi, 1.

^{page 36 note 3} Grandezza, etc.,…(Eng. Trans.), iv, 132.

^{page 36 note 4} Caesars Monarchie und das Principal des Pompejus pp. 5 and 176.

^{page 36 note 5} op. cit. p. 189.

^{page 36 note 6} ad Att. iv, 1, 7.

^{page 37 note 1} ad Att. iv, 18, 3; ad Q.F. iii, 8, 4.

^{page 37 note 2} Tac. Ann. iii, 28Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 3} Meyer op. cit. pp. 109 f., 132.

^{page 37 note 4} ad Att. iv, 1, 7; ad Fam. i, 1, 3; 2, 3.

^{page 37 note 5} ad Att. i, 13, 4; ad Fam. viii, 1, 3.

^{page 37 note 6} op. cit. pp. 3, 45 f., 52 f., 82.

^{page 37 note 7} op. cit. 240.

^{page 37 note 8} de Civ. Dei v, 13.

^{page 37 note 9} ad Att. viii, 11, 1, 2. Meyer, op. cit. 182 f.

^{page 38 note 1} post Red. in Sen. 4; de Dom. 66; pro. Sest. 84; de Prov. Cons. 41; cf. Meyer op. cit. 189.

^{page 38 note 2} ad Fam. i, 9, 11.

^{page 38 note 3} pro Planc. 93; ad Fam. iii, 11, 3.

^{page 38 note 4} ad Att. viii, 9, 4.

^{page 38 note 5} Phil. xiv, 17 f.; ad Fam. xii, 24, 2; but cf. Heinze, in Hermes 59, p. 79Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 6} ad Fam. vi, 6, 5.

^{page 38 note 7} ad Fam. i, 9, 21.

^{page 38 note 8} in Vat. 10; Phil. xiv, 17; ad Fam. i, 7, 8.

^{page 38 note 9} de Rep. i, 43–4, and 65; ii, 55 f.

^{page 38 note 10} ad Att. iv, 1, 7.

^{page 38 note 11} ad Fam. i, 1 and 2.

^{page 38 note 12} Cf. sup. and ad Att. i, 13, 4; viii, 16, 1.

^{page 38 note 13} ad Att. vii, 11, 3; 13, 1; viii, 3, 3–4; 16; 1. ad Fam. vii, 3, 2.

^{page 39 note 1} ad Att. viii, 11, 2; ix, 7, 3; 10, 2 and 6; x, 7, 1.

^{page 39 note 2} ad Att. viii, 11, 2.

^{page 39 note 3} de Rep. vi, 12.

^{page 39 note 4} ad Fam. v, 7, 3.

^{page 39 note 5} ad Att. i, 16, 11; 19, 7; 20, 2.

^{page 39 note 6} cf. de Rep. i, 18.

^{page 40 note 1} ad Fam. ix, 2, 5.

^{page 40 note 2} cf. de Rep. v, 9.

^{page 41 note 1} cf. Reitzenstein, in Hermes. 59, p. 359Google Scholar f.

^{page 41 note 2} ad Q.F. iii, 5, 1; cf. de Rep. v, 1; de Off. ii, 83.

^{page 41 note 3} de Rep. ii, 51; cf. also i, 45; ii, 67, 69.

^{page 41 note 4} de Rep. v, 8.

^{page 41 note 5} de Rep. v, 5, 6, 8; vi, 1, 13.

^{page 41 note 6} cf. Heinze, in Hermes 59, p. 77Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 7} de Rep. i, 65.

^{page 41 note 8} de Rep. i, 43–4.

^{page 41 note 9} de Rep. ii, 55–7.

^{page 41 note 10} de Rep. i, 51.

^{page 41 note 11} de Rep. i, 44; iii, 44.

^{page 41 note 12} de Rep. ii, 62 f.; iii, 44.

^{page 41 note 13} de Rep. i, 68–9.

^{page 41 note 14} de Rep. vi, 2.

^{page 41 note 15} cf. Heinze, in Hermes 59, p. 75Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 16} ad Att. viii, 11, 2.

^{page 41 note 17} de Rep. vi, 12, etc.

^{page 42 note 1} cf. Heinze in Hermes u. s. p. 91 f.

^{page 42 note 2} de Rep. i, 68; cf. de Leg. iii, 21.

^{page 42 note 3} ad Att. iv, 18, 2; ad Q. F. iii, 5, 4.

^{page 42 note 4} de Off. i, 13.

^{page 42 note 5} de Off. i, 64.

^{page 42 note 6} de Off. i, 26; iii, 82.

^{page 42 note 7} de Off. ii, 23; cf. i, 112; iii, 19.

^{page 42 note 8} cf. Phil. xiv, 17, 18.

^{page 42 note 9} de Rep. v, 1.

^{page 42 note 10} de Rep. ii, 69.

^{page 42 note 11} I have not seen Sprey, de M. Tullii Ciceronis politica doctrina (1929), but gather from Pohlenz's, review (in Gnomon 6, pp. 292–7)Google Scholar that he emphasises, as I have done, the connexion between the de Legibus and the de Republica, and holds also that Cicero wished to restore and reinvigorate the old Roman constitution—the ideal Republic of the speech for Sestius—in which there would be no room for the Principate of an individual. Nor have I seen Cicero on the Commonwealth, translated with notes and introduction by Sabine, G. H. and Smith, S. B. (Ohio University Press, 1929)Google Scholar, but have found the translation and notes of C. W. Keyes in the Loeb series (1928) very useful.