Part 39

[85] Cicero does not seem to say this quite so explicitly in Brutus 62, 224. Longe autem post natos homines improbissimus C. Servilius Glaucia, sed peracutus et callidus imprimisque ridiculus--homo simillimus Atheniensis Hyperboli, cujus improbitatem veteres Atticorum comœdiæ notaverunt. Conf. de Orat. II, 61, 249; 65, 263.--Germ. Edit.

[86] Cic. ad Att. III. 23. pro Cæcina 33. Walter’s History of the Roman law (_Geschichte des Römischen Rechts_), 2d edit., vol. II., p. 12, notes 45 & 46.--Germ. Ed.

[87] Valer. Maxim. III, 4, 5. Whether M. Peperna, who was consul in the year 622 is the same person as the consul of the year 660, who was censor in 666, is no more to be made out; yet it is possible, as according to Plin. _H. N._ vii, 49, he reached the age of eighty-nine years. But in that case the censorship would be later than the _lex Licinia et Mucia_, and the proposition would be untenable. If they be two different persons, the words “and the censorship” in the text are to be cast out. But the matter is not quite certain, as in Valerius Maximus it is said, _lege Papia_, which altogether clashes with the account as given above.--Germ. Edit.

[88] Vol. I., p. 167.

[89] De Orat. I, 7, 24.

[90] Diod. Exc. Vatic., p. 128., Dind.--Germ. Ed.

[91] In the year 1827, Niebuhr had remarked, “Now we shall probably know soon some further details about it, thanks to the fragments of Diodorus discovered by Maï, if they be really new ones.”--Germ. Ed.

[92] See above, p. 130.

[93] The prænomen is not to be made out with certainty. See _Orellii Onomast. Tull._ _s. v._ p. 256.--Germ. Edit.

[94] In Terence, in the Eunuchus and the Adelphi, the name indeed occurs, but not in the character which it had afterwards.--Germ. Edit.

[95] Mistake instead of Diodorus Siculus (Fragm. l. xxxvii).--Germ. Ed.

[96] Vol. I, p. 450.

[97] Appian 1, 49. In the year 1827, Niebuhr made the emendation δεκατρεῖς, explaining the number VIII from XIII.--Germ. Edit.

[98] Dio Cass. fragm. I. 27. CLXVI. App. I. 68.--Germ. Ed.

[99] This passage, which is of the year 1827, and is given with the same conciseness in all the MSS. which are at my disposition, is only to be interpreted by conjecture. Probably it is _Epist. Cœl. ad Cic._ (Fam. viii.) 14, 3. _In hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum, quique res judicant, secum habiturum: ad Cæsarem omnes_, QUI CUM TIMORE AUT MALA SPE VIVANT, _accessuros: exercitum conferendum non esse omnino_.--Germ. Ed.

[100] Appian I. 84.--Germ. Edit.

[101] Two thousand six hundred according to App. I, 103, in which number, however, all the knights who perished in this war are included.--Germ. Ed.

[102] Cic. Cat. III. 6. § 14. On the other hand, Frontin. de colon. p. 112. Goes. Colonia Florentina deducta a III viris assignata lege Julia.--Germ. Ed.

[103] H. N. XIV. 8. 2?--Germ. Ed.

[104] This is evidently a slip of the memory, the passage of Asconius (in Pisonianam, p. 3, Orellii) running thus, _Magno opere me hæsitare confiteor, quid sit quare Cicero Placentiam municipium esse dicit. Video enim in annalibus eorum qui Punicum bellum scripserunt tradi, Placentiam deductam pridie Kal. Jun., primo anno eius belli, P. Cornelio Scipione, patre Africani prioris, Ti. Sempronio Longo Coss._ &c.--Germ. Ed.

[105] Conf. vol. I, p. 523.

[106] The _Pontifex Maximus_ was included among these.

[107] Dr. Schmitz has already remarked in vol. I, p. 416, of his version (published under the title of History of Rome from the first Punic War to the death of Constantine, by B. G. Niebuhr, in a series of lectures Lond. 1844), that this number does not rest upon any direct authority. Cic. _ad Att._ I, 14, 5, states the number of voters in the senate in a certain affair to have been about 415, fifteen having voted on one side, and on the other, _facile_ 400; from which we may safely conclude that the sum total must have been larger. In the I. Maccab. 8, 15, at the end, therefore, of the sixth century, the number is mentioned to have been 320; yet when we consider the other statements which are made in that passage, we must not lay too much stress upon it.--Germ. Edit.

[108] In 1827 Niebuhr expressed himself on this point in the following manner:--

“That the result of his legislation could not have satisfied him, was in the very nature of things, and therefore he who had shed so much blood to get the government into his own hands, resigned the dictatorship two years after he had been appointed to it, as he saw the uselessness of his institutions, which he had established at the cost of so many atrocities. This is the most natural way of accounting for his resignation, which has been so much talked of: it was a mistake of very judicious people, to hunt out reasons for it which were too far-fetched.”--Germ. Edit.

[109] The contradiction of this passage with that in vol. I. p. 469, in which Clitarchus is termed an _elegant_ writer, seems to be accounted for by supposing that the expression “elegant” is in that place one of disparagement, referring to Longin. c. 3 who calls him φλοιώδης καὶ φυσῶν. Of Sisenna, Cicero says in _Brutus_ 64, _Hujus omnis facultas ex historia ipsius perspici potest, quæ, cum facile vincat omnes superiores, tum indicat tamen, quantum absit a summo, quamque hoc genus scriptionis nondum sit satis Latinis literis illustratum_; and _de Legg._ 1, 2.--_in historia puerile quoddam consectatur, ut unum Clitarchum, neque præterea quemquam de Græcis legisse videatur_; so that Niebuhr calls this _puerile_, this affected mannerism, the _horridum_, inasmuch as it so greatly _a summo abest_.--Germ. Ed.

[110] See note in p. 292.

[111] See Biographical Notices of (_Lebensnachrichten über_) B. G. Niebuhr II, p. 402.--Germ. Edit.

[112] A direct mention of the place is hardly to be found in Cicero; but in a general way he commends the Sabines as _severissimi homines_, _in Vatin._ 15, _ad Famil._ XV, 20.--Germ. Ed.

[113] Perhaps more correctly, Julius Salinator. Plutarch Sertor. c. 7.--Germ. Edit.

[114] _Histor._ III. in _Servius ad Virg._ Æn. I. 698.--Germ. Ed.

[115] It has been said that all the Roman gentile names, ended in _-ius_; but in names like Cæcina, Vibena, Porsena, and others, the termination _-na_ remained, even after the clan had become Roman citizens. Ernesti, who had not perceived this, mistook Cæcina for a _cognomen_, and sought for the name of the clan; but the inscriptions confirm the fact of its being a gentile name.

[116] With the death of Sertorius, the lectures of 1826-7 are brought to a conclusion.--Germ. Ed.

[117] More correctly, _five_.--Germ. Ed.

J. OGDEN AND CO., PRINTERS, 172, ST. JOHN STREET, E.C.

Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

Italics are represented thus _italic_.