¹ J. Wolski, Hist, 5 (1956), 44 f., denies the existence of such a version, but he regrettably misinterprets the evidence which he adduces: Pliny, NH 3. 9. 57 does not report Theopompus (FGH 115. 317) as saying that the town only was taken; he reports him as saying nothing about Rome other than that she was taken.

² On Tertullian as an antiquarian see Barnes, T. D. in Studia Patristica xiv (1976), 3Google Scholar ff., and on this passage in particular 12 f.; also his Tertullian (1971), 204 f. Barnes thinks Tertullian may have known Ennius; compare Vahlen's edition of Ennius, p. lxxxvi.

³ I am grateful to E. Wistrand for directing my attention to this passage. He must not, however, be held responsible for the use I am making of it here.

⁴ The virgula above se is probably that which in the Mediceus is often put above an e, especially in monosyllables; but it might derive from the majuscle abbreviation of final nt. Whichever it is, se(nt) and sat look like two different shots, wrongly inserted between per and is, at an original sent which had become difficult to read. Some modern editors, adopting perissent, retain satis, which makes no sense, or, following Renaissance suggestions, turn it into prostrati, an addition wholly superfluous and therefore un-Tacitean. It could hardly be tolerated before perissent, let alone at the end of the sentence.

⁵ The assonance capto Capitolio may be no more than accidental; but cf. Livy 3. 22. 1 and 23. 2: Capitolium captum: 34. 5. 8: Capitolio … capto; Silius 4. 151: Capitolia capta (ThLL Onom. II 162. 12 ff.).