Our information about Pliny ends with the close of his correspondence with Trajan. It is certain that he held no further office, and it is probable that he died beforeA.D.114 in his province or shortly after his return to Rome.
As regards municipal relations, Pliny held the post offlamen divi Augusti, according to the inscription which the corporation of Vercellae erected to him at his own town (C.I.L.v. 5667).
‘C. Plini[o L. f. O]uf. Caec[ilio] Secundo [c]os. augur. cur. alv. Tib. [et ripa]r. et cloac. urb. [praef. a]er. Sat. praef. aer. mil. [pr. tr. pl.] imp. sevir. eq. R. tr. m[i]l. leg. iii. Gall. x. viro stl. iud. fl. divi T. Aug.’
For bequests to his native town see the chief inscription (below). Besides these are mentioned gifts in his life-time. Under Domitian Pliny presented his townspeople with a library (Ep.i, 8), apparently worth 1,000,000 sesterces (v. 7), and endowed it with 100,000 sesterces. He also gave 500,000 sesterces for the support of freeborn boys and girls (Ep.i, 8); and promised to pay one-third of the salary of the professor of rhetoric at Comum (Ep.iv. 13, 5).
The following is the chief inscription of Pliny (as restored by Mommsen), which was erected at theThermaewhich he presented to Comum (C.I.L.v. 5262):
‘C. Plinius L. f. Ouf. CaeciliusSecundus cos.augur legat. pro pr. provinciae Ponti et Bithyniaeconsulari potestat.in eam provinciam ex. s. c. missus abImp. Caesar. Nerva Traiano Aug. Germanico Dacico p.p.curator alvei Tiberis et riparum et cloacar. urb.praef. aerari Saturni praef. aerari milit. pr. trib. pl.quaestor imp. sevir equitumRomanorumtrib. milit. leg.iii.Gallicaex.vir stlitib. iudicand. thermas ex HS... adiectis in ornatum HS ccc ...et eo amplius in tutelamHS CC t. f. i.item in alimentalibertor. suorum homin. C. HS XVIII LXVI DCLXVI reip. legavit, quorum increment. postea ad epulumpleb. urban. voluit pertinere ... item vivusdedit in aliment. pueror. et puellar. pleb. urban. HS Ditem bybliothecam etin tutelam bybliothecae HS C.’
Pliny was also patron of Tifernum Tiberinum and of the Baetici.
Ep.iv. 1, 4, ‘Oppidum est praediis nostris vicinum, nomen Tiferni Tiberini, quod me paene adhuc puerum patronum cooptavit ... In hoc ego ... templum pecunia mea exstruxi, cuius dedicationem ... differre longius inreligiosum est.’
Ep.iii. 4, 4, ‘Legati ... inplorantes fidem meam, quam essent contra Massam Baebium experti, adlegantes patrocini foedus.’
Pliny married three times, twice under Domitian. Cf.ad Trai.2, ‘Liberos ... habere etiam tristissimo illo saeculo volui, sicut potes duobus matrimoniis meis credere.’ For his third wife, Calpurnia, who diedA.D.97, seeEp.iv. 19. Pliny had no children, but Trajan conferred on him theius trium liberoruminA.D.98. Cf.ad Trai.2, ‘Me dignum putasti iure trium liberorum.’
Pliny as orator and writer.—Most of Pliny’s cases were before thecentumviri, who dealt with inheritances: cf.Ep.vi. 12, 2, ‘in harena mea, hoc est apud centumviros.’ So Mart. x. 19, 14 (writtenA.D.96),
‘Totos dat tetricae dies Minervaedum centum studet auribus virorumhoc quod saecula posterique possintArpinis quoque comparare chartis.’
‘Totos dat tetricae dies Minervaedum centum studet auribus virorumhoc quod saecula posterique possintArpinis quoque comparare chartis.’
For Pliny’s five speeches in criminal trials before the Senate see above. Cf.Ep.vi. 29, 7sqq., ‘Egi quasdam a senatu iussus ... Adfui Baeticis contra Baebium Massam ... Adfui rursus isdem querentibus de Caecilio Classico ... Accusavi Marium Priscum ... Tuitus sum Iulium Bassum ... Dixi proxime pro Vareno.’
Pliny recited his speeches before delivering them, and subsequently published them, sometimes with additions.
Ep.vii. 17, 2, ‘Miror quod scribis fuisse quosdam qui reprehenderent quod orationes omnino recitarem.’
Ep.iii. 18, 1 (of thePanegyricus), ‘Quod ego in senatu cum ad rationem et loci et temporis ex more fecissem, bono civi convenientissimum credidi eadem illa spatiosius et uberius volumine amplecti.’
Pliny speaks of his early attempts at poetry:
Ep.vii. 4, 2-3, ‘Numquam a poetice (altius enim repetam) alienus fui; quin etiam quattuordecim natus annos Graecam tragoediam scripsi. Qualem? inquis: nescio: tragoedia vocabatur.’
In Books i.-iii. he appears only as a lover of poetry and a patron of poets (cf. i. 16; iii. 15). From Book iv. (publishedA.D.105) onwards he appears as a poet. InEp.vii. 4, 6 are thirteen poor hexameter lines on Cicero;ibid.§§ 7-8, ‘Transii ad elegos: hos quoque non minus celeriter explicui: addidi iambos, facilitate corruptus ... Postremo placuit exemplo multorum unum separatim hendecasyllaborum volumen absolvere, nec paenitet. Legitur, describitur, cantatur etiam.’ Pliny defends himself for writing light verses inEp.v. 3, etc. In the later books he refers to another proposed collection of verses.
Ep.viii. 21, 3, ‘Liber fuit et opusculis varius et metris.’
Pliny says he did not observe chronological order in publishing his letters.
Ep.i. 1, 1, ‘Collegi non servato temporis ordine (neque enim historiam componebam), sed ut quaeque in manus venerat.’
This, however, is not convincing, as it falls in with Pliny’s wish to give an appearance of negligence to the work, and besides it may apply only to Book i. Successive publication of the different Books is shown by many references; soEp.ix. 19, ‘Significas legisse te in quadam epistula,’ whereEp.vi. 10 is referred to. So also contemporaneous events are always described in the same Book or in two Books close together; and when a subject is continued in another letter, the order of the two letters fits in with chronology. So iii. 4 and iv. 1 deal with the building of a temple at Tifernum; iii. 20 and iv. 25 with ballot at elections.
The following are the probable dates of publication: Book i. inA.D.97; Book ii. inA.D.100; Book iii. inA.D.101 or 102; Book iv. inA.D.105; Book v. inA.D.106; Book vi. possibly inA.D.106; Book vii. inA.D.107; Book viii. not beforeA.D.109; Book ix. probably about the same time.
The correspondence with Trajan is independent of the nine Books of letters. The epistles are roughly in chronological order.Epp.1-14 range from 98 to 106A.D.Epp.15 to the end were probably all written in Bithynia during Pliny’s governorship there. Trajan’s reply is subjoined to most of the letters. The correspondence extant stretches from SeptemberA.D.111 over JanuaryA.D.113.
Pliny had intimate relations with other writers, the principal being Tacitus; Martial (cf.Ep.iii. 21); Silius Italicus (cf.Ep.iii. 7). Seepp. 340,298,289. For his literary reputation seeEp.ix. 23, 2, quotedp. 338and cf.Ep.i. 2, 6, ‘Libelli quos emisimus dicuntur in manibus esse, quamvis iam gratiam novitatis exuerint; nisi tamen auribus nostris bibliopolae blandiuntur.’
Pliny’s character.—Pliny, without being a great man, is a more favourable specimen of character, feeling, and gentlemanly tone, than almost any other Roman author. He avoided censorious writing, and most of the people he mentions are praised. The chief exception is Regulus (Ep.i. 5, etc.), and possibly also Iavolenus Priscus (vi. 15). When anybody is blamed, his name is omitted unless he is dead or has been banished.
Ep.vii. 28, i, ‘Ais quosdam apud te reprehendisse, tamquam amicos meos ex omni occasione ultra modum laudem. Agnosco crimen, amplector etiam. Quid enim honestius culpa benignitatis?’
For his desire of praise cf.Ep.ix. 23, 5, ‘An ... ego celebritate nominis mei gaudere non debeo? Ego vero et gaudeo et gaudere me dico.’
For his kindness to slaves cf.Ep.viii. 16, 1, ‘Permitto servis quoque quasi testamenta facere eaque ut legitima custodio’ (and the rest of the letter).
For his grief at the loss of friends cf.Ep.v. 21, 6, ‘Sed quid ego indulgeo dolori? cui si frenos remittas, nulla materia non maxima est. Finem epistulae faciam, ut facere possim etiam lacrimis quas epistula expressit.’
For his love of nature cf. Ep. i. 9, 6, ‘O mare, o litus, verum secretumqueμουσεῖον, quam multa invenitis, quam multa dictatis!’
Cf. also descriptions of natural scenery, as inEpp.ii. 17, 3; v. 6, 13; vi. 31, 15; viii. 8.
The historian’s full name is uncertain. Other writers,e.g.Pliny the younger, call him Cornelius Tacitus, or simply Tacitus. His praenomen is given as P. in the best TaciteanMS.(Mediceus I.), and as C. in laterMSS.and by Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep.iv. 14; 22).[109]His birthplace is unknown. The tradition that he was born at Interamna in Umbria arose from the fact that the emperor Tacitus (A.D.275-6), who claimed descent from the historian (Vopisc.Tac.10, 3), was born there.[110]The probable date of his birth is got from a comparison of two passages:
Dial.1, ‘Disertissimorum ... hominum ... quos eamdem hanc quaestionem pertractantes iuvenis admodum audivi.’
Pliny,Ep.vii. 20, 3, ‘Erit rarum et insigne duos homines aetate dignitate propemodum aequales ... alterum alterius studia fovisse. Equidem adulescentulus, cum iam tu fama gloriaque floreres, te sequi, tibi longo sed proximus intervallo et esse et haberi concupiscebam.’
The dramatic date of the Dialogue isA.D.75 (Dial.17), and at that time Tacitus, asiuvenis admodum, must have been between seventeen and twenty. From a consideration of the words of Pliny, who was bornA.D.61 or 62, the later age seems nearer the mark, and we may conclude that Tacitus was bornA.D.55 or 56.
We have no positive information about Tacitus’ family, but his education, political career, and marriage into a distinguished house, prove that he belonged to a family of station. The first person of the name we know of is mentioned by Pliny the elder as aneques, and may have been Tacitus’ father.
Pliny,N.H.vii. 76, ‘Corneli Taciti, equitis Romani, Belgicae Galliae rationes procurantis.’
Tacitus received the regular rhetorical training under the best masters.
Dial.2, ‘M. Aper et Iulius Secundus, celeberrima tum ingenia fori nostri, quos ego in iudiciis non modo studiose audiebam, sed domi quoque et in publico adsectabar, mira studiorum cupiditate et quodam ardore iuvenili, ut fabulas quoque eorum et disputationes et arcana semotae dictionis penitus exciperem.’
That Tacitus had a very great reputation as a speaker is seen from Pliny,Ep.ix. 23, 2, ‘Numquam maiorem cepi voluptatem, quam nuper ex sermone Corneli Taciti. Narrabat sedisse se cum quodam Circensibus proximis: hunc post varios eruditosque sermones requisisse “Italicus es an provincialis?” se respondisse “nosti me, et quidem ex studiis.” Ad hoc illum “Tacitus es an Plinius?”’
InA.D.98 (according to others, 97) Tacitus delivered the funeral oration over Verginius Rufus, and inA.D.100 he and Pliny prosecuted Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa, for extortion.
Pliny,Ep.ii. 1, 6, ‘Laudatus est [Verginius Rufus] a consule Cornelio Tacito: nam hic supremus felicitati eius cumulus accessit, laudator eloquentissimus.’
Ibid.ii. 11, 2, ‘Ego et Cornelius Tacitus, adesse provincialibus iussi.’ § 17, ‘Respondit Cornelius Tacitus eloquentissime, et quod eximium orationi eius inest,σεμνῶς.’
InA.D.77 Tacitus was betrothed to the daughter of Agricola, then consul, and inA.D.78 he married her.
Agr.9, ‘Consul egregiae tum spei filiam iuveni mihi despondit ac post consulatum collocavit, et statim Britanniae praepositus est.’
Tacitus gives us a clue to his political career inHist.i. 1.
‘Dignitatem nostram a Vespasiano incohatam, a Tito auctam, a Domitiano longius provectam non abnuerim.’
This probably means that Vespasian granted him thelatus clavus,i.e.a place in theordo senatorius, which was followed by thevigintiviratusgiven by the Senate, and a commission in the army astribunus militum laticlavius; that Titus appointed him quaestorA.D.80-1; and that Domitian made him tribune or aedile (about 84), and inA.D.88 praetor. For the last office cf.Ann.xi. 11,
‘Is [Domitianus] edidit ludos saeculares, eisque intentius adfui sacerdotio quindecimvirali praeditus ac tunc praetor.’
That Tacitus was absent from RomeA.D.90-93 we may infer from what he says of Agricola’s death (A.D.93).
Agr.45, ‘Nobis tam longae absentiae condicione ante quadriennium amissus est.’
He must have returned to Rome soon afterwards, for he says in the same chapter: ‘Mox nostrae duxere Helvidium in carcerem manus; nos Maurici Rusticique visus, nos innocenti sanguine Senecio perfudit.’
Tacitus was appointed consul suffectus under TrajanA.D.98 (see Pliny,Ep.ii. 1, 6, above quoted).
An inscription found at Mylasa in Caria shows that Tacitus was proconsul of Asia about 112-116A.D.[111]
Tacitus probably died soon after the publication of theAnnals(A.D.115-7), as he did not live to write his contemplated works on the Augustan age and the reigns of Nerva and Trajan.
Hist.i. 1, ‘Quod si vita suppeditet, principatum divi Nervae et imperium Traiani ... senectuti seposui.’
Ann.iii. 24, ‘Cetera illius aetatis [Augusti] memorabo, si effectis in quae tetendi, plures ad curas vitam produxero.’
Tacitus was on intimate terms with Pliny, eleven of whose letters are addressed to him. From vii. 20 and viii. 7 we see that they were in the habit of “exchanging proof-sheets.” To the same circle belonged Fabius Iustus, to whom theDialogusis dedicated, and Asinius Rufus.
Pliny,Ep.iv. 15, 1, ‘Asinium Rufum singulariter amo. ... Idem Cornelium Tacitum arta familiaritate complexus est.’
1.Dialogus de Oratoribus, an inquiry into the causes of the decay of eloquence—‘cur nostra potissimum aetas deserta et laude eloquentiae orbata vix nomen ipsum oratoris retineat’ (Dial.1). Some critics have supposed that Tacitus meant this work to be anapologia pro vita sua, a justification of his preference for a literary to a rhetorical career, but this cannot be proved. That Tacitus is the author is clear from Pliny,Ep.ix. 10, 2, ‘Itaque poemata quiescunt, quae tu inter nemora et lucos commodissime perfici putas’—a reference toDial.9, ‘poetis ... in nemora et lucos, id est in solitudinem, secedendum est.’ The dramatic date is given inDial.17 asA.D.75; the statement there and inDial.24 that one hundred and twenty years have passed since Cicero’s death (which would giveA.D.77) is made in round numbers. The date of composition is uncertain. It was not under Domitian, as Tacitus remained silent during his reign (Agr.2). We can hardly suppose it to have been written under Nerva, as its style is so different from that of theAgricola; but it may have been written under Domitian, and published after his death. Some authorities put it as early asA.D.81.[112]
2.De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae liber, an account of the life of Cn. Iulius Agricola, Tacitus’ father-in-law, and particularly of his career in Britain. It was written early in the reign of Trajan, and therefore after 27th Jan., 98A.D., and probably in that year.
Agr.3, ‘quamquam primo statim beatissimi saeculi ortu Nerva Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, augeatque cottidie felicitatem temporum Nerva Traianus.’
3.Germania.—The VaticanMSS.give the title asde origine et situ(anotherMS.addsmoribus ac populis) Germanorum. The date of publication, as seen fromGerm.37, wasA.D.98. The book is not mentioned inAgr.3 among the proposed works of Tacitus; and it has therefore been supposed that the materials were collected for theHistories, and that the work was published separately on account of its length, and also the interest felt in Germany at the time. There is nothing in the theory that the book is a political pamphlet, or that it contains a moral purpose. Tacitus is by no means blind to the faults of the Germans (c. 17sqq., etc.), though he compares them favourably in many respects with the Romans.
4.Historiae.—The title is guaranteed by Tertull.apol.16, ‘Cornelius Tacitus in quinta historiarum suarum.’ The work embraced the time from Galba to Domitian,i.e.69-96A.D.The first four Books and part of the fifth are extant, and give the history of 69 and most of 70A.D.InMS.Mediceus II., the only ancientMS.that containsAnn.xi.-xvi. and theHistories, there is no title, but the Books are numbered continuously as belonging to the same work. Cf. Jerome,Comm. on Zacharias, iii. 14, ‘Cornelius Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit.’ If, therefore, theAnnalscontained sixteen Books, theHistoriesmust have contained fourteen, supposing Jerome’s statement to be correct. Some authorities think the numbers were eighteen and twelve respectively. The work was written under Trajan (cf.Hist.i. 1, ‘principatum divi Nervae et imperium Traiani’), and was probably brought out in instalments. Pliny’s letters (vi. 16; 20; vii. 33), written aboutA.D.106-9, contain contributions to it.
5.Annales, or ratherAb excessu divi Augusti, the title given byMS.Med. I. Tacitus often calls his workannales(as inAnn.iv. 32), but uses the word to signify his plan of recording events by their years. Cf.Ann.iv. 71, ‘Ni mihi destinatum foret suum quaeque in annum referre, avebat animus antire,’ etc.
He occasionally apologises (as in xii. 40) for departing from this order for the sake of clearness. The Books, the division into which was made by Tacitus himself (cf. vi. 27, ‘in prioribus libris’), usually, however, end with some important event.
TheAnnalsdeal with the time from the death of Augustus to that of Nero,i.e.from 14 to 68A.D.There are extant Books i.-iv. and a part of v. and vi., and Books xi.-xvi., except the beginning of xi. and the end of xvi. We have thus lost the whole of the reign of Caligula and the reign of Claudius from 41-47 (part), and Nero’s reign from the close of 66 to 68. The work was published betweenA.D.115 and 117. This is settled byAnn.ii. 61, ‘Exin ventum Elephantinen ac Syenen, claustra olim Romani imperii, quod nunc rubrum ad mare patescit.’
The conquest here spoken of was made by TrajanA.D.115, and his successor Hadrian, soon after coming to the throne (August,A.D.117), gave up the regions beyond the Euphrates and Tigris (Spartianus,Hadri.5).[113]
Tacitus’ views on politics, philosophy, and religion.—
(1) The ideal mixed form of government Tacitus considers to be impracticable.
Ann.iv. 33, ‘Cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut primores aut singuli regunt: delecta ex eis et consociata rei publicae forma laudari facilius quam evenire, vel si evenit, haud diuturna esse potest.’
Tacitus is essentially a conservative. Thus he always usesantiquusandpriscusin a good sense (H.ii. 5; 64;Ann.vi. 32).
InAnn.iii. 60 he speaks with pride of the republic: ‘Magna eius diei species fuit, quo senatus maiorum beneficia, sociorum pacta, regum etiam, qui ante vim Romanam valuerant, decreta ipsorumque numinum religiones introspexit, libero, ut quondam, quid firmaret mutaretve.’
See also the speech of C. Cassius inAnn.xiv. 43. As an aristocrat Tacitus is sometimes unjust to men of low birth, as inAnn.iv. 3, where he sneers at Seianus as ‘municipali adultero,’ and attaches great value to high birth (cf. vi. 27). He is prejudiced against slaves and barbarians.
Tacitus theoretically prefers a republic (cf.Ann.vi. 42, ‘Populi imperium iuxta libertatem, paucorum dominatio regiae libidini propior est’), but admits the impossibility of a restitution of the free state (H.ii. 37-8) and the necessity of empire.H.i. 1 (of Augustus), ‘omnem potentiam ad unum conferri pacis interfuit.’
Cf. also Galba’s speech inH.i. 16. The problem is to reconcile the empire with freedom (seeAgr.3 quotedp. 341). One’s duty is to steer one’s courseinter abruptam contumaciam et deforme obsequium(Ann.iv. 20). Tacitus gives only modified approval to patriots like Paetus Thrasea (Ann.xiv. 12; 49) and Helvidius Priscus (H.iv. 6), and on the other hand gives praise for moderation to men like Agricola (Agr.42), M. Lepidus (Ann.iv. 20), L. Piso (Ann.vi. 10).
Ann.xiv. 12, ‘Thrasea Paetus ... sibi causam periculi fecit, ceteris libertatis initium non praebuit.’
Agr.42, ‘Non contumacia neque inani iactatione libertatis famam fatumque provocabat.’
Tacitus blames those who despair of their own times.Ann.ii. 88, ‘dum vetera extollimus recentium incuriosi.’ He thinks that the emperors, from their irresponsible position, were often gradually led into wickedness, their downward career being helped by flatterers and satellites, and draws a moral lesson from the servile Senate and thedelatores, who, like the emperors themselves, received punishment for their conduct (Ann.i. 74; iii. 65sqq.).
Ann.vi. 48, ‘Cum Tiberius post tantam rerum experientiam vi dominationis convulsus et mutatus sit.’
Ann.iv. 33, ‘Pauci prudentia honesta ab deterioribus utilia ab noxiis discernunt, plures aliorum eventis docentur.’
Ann.vi. 6, ‘Adeo facinora atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant ... Quippe Tiberium non fortuna, non solitudines protegebant, quin tormenta pectoris suasque ipse poenas fateretur.’
(2) Tacitus attaches himself to no particular school of philosophy, and deprecates too close an attention to the subject.
Agr.4, ‘Memoria teneo solitum ipsum [Agricolam] narrare se prima in iuventa studium philosophiae acrius, ultra quam concessum Romano ac senatori, hausisse, ni prudentia matris incensum ac flagrantem animum coercuisset.’
He cannot make up his mind as to freewill and predestination, but in spite of this doubt expressly states his desire to find out the causes of events.
Ann.vi. 22, ‘Sed mihi haec ac talia audienti in incerto iudicium est, fatone res mortalium et necessitate immutabili an forte volvantur’ (and the rest of the chapter, where the Stoic and Epicurean views are mentioned). On the other hand,H.i. 4, ‘Ut non modo casus eventusque rerum, qui plerumque fortuiti sunt, sed ratio etiam causaeque noscantur.’
He expresses his belief in divine agency, particularly in theAnnals, but sometimes adopts the pessimistic view that the gods take little interest in mankind.
Ann.xiv. 5, ‘Noctem sideribus inlustrem et placido mari quietam, quasi convincendum ad scelus, di praebuere.’
H.v. 5, ‘Pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis.’
H.i. 3, ‘Nec enim umquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem.’
Ann.xvi. 33, ‘Aequitate deum erga bona malaque documenta.’
He believes in the science of divination (see especiallyAnn.iv. 58), but speaks contemptuously of the impostors found among soothsayers and astrologers.
H.i. 22, ‘Mathematicis ... genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur.’
Prodigies are recognized, but mentioned only in theHistoriesand the last books of theAnnals(fromA.D.51 onwards). See especiallyH.ii. 50.
Tacitus as a historian.—As regards his sources, Tacitus makes more use of his predecessors than he does of original documents. Among the latter he mentionsacta diurna(Ann.iii. 3) andcommentariioracta senatus(Ann.xv. 74); but these he did not make much use of, as they were apt to be falsified. He also refers topublica acta, probably inscriptions (Ann.xii. 24); Tiberius’ speeches (Ann.i. 81); memoirs of Agrippina, Nero’s mother (Ann.iv. 53); and of Domitius Corbulo on his campaigns in Parthia (Ann.xv. 16). He also refers by name to several historians, especially in dealing with the times after Nero, as C. Plinius (Ann.i. 69, quotedp. 284), Vipstanus Messalla (H.iii. 25), Fabius Rusticus,[114]and Cluvius Rufus[115](Ann.xiii. 20).
Other writers are sparingly mentioned, as Sisenna (H.iii. 51), Caesar (Germ.28). It is certain that Tacitus made use of other historians, but he generally refers to his sources without mentioning names (asAnn.i. 29, ‘tradunt plerique’). He sometimes weighs the value of two conflicting accounts, or mentions a story only to reject it.
Ann.iv. 11, ‘Haec vulgo iactata, super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur, prompte refutaveris.’
Tacitus’ credibility has been attacked, particularly as regards his representation of the characters of Tiberius and Nero, but not very successfully. He has, however, made mistakes, the most striking of which are his view of the Christians (Ann.xv. 44) and his account of the Jews (H.v. 2sqq.). The explanation is that he held the view current in the upper classes, and did not take the trouble to investigate these matters, as the Jews and Christians belonged mostly to the lower orders.
Tacitus is not free from superstition (Ann.xi. 21;H.ii. 50, etc.), but one must not suppose he believes the fables he relates (asAnn.vi. 28;H.iv. 83) simply because he expresses no opinion of them.
Tacitus is free from party spirit (Ann.i. 1, ‘sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo’; cf.H.i. 1) and just in his judgment, except in a few passages in theHistories, where he is rather unfair (i. 42, ii. 95). He is milder in theAnnalsthrough advancing years, and from the better times he lived in. Generally he takes a lenient view of things, except (1) in offences against the state (cf. the character of Tiberius); (2) when the religious element comes in; cf. what he says of Claudius’ marriage with his brother’s daughter Agrippina:Ann.xiv. 2, ‘Agrippina ... exercita ad omne flagitium patrui nuptiis.’
He shows a somewhat lax morality occasionally, as inAnn.xiii. 17sqq., when speaking of Nero’s murder of his brother Britannicus. InAnn.xi. 19 he approves of compassing a barbarian’s death by treachery.
For Tacitus’ conception of history as dealing with great events cf.Ann.xiii. 31, ‘pauca memoria digna evenere, nisi cui libeat laudandis fundamentis et trabibus, quis molem amphitheatri apud campum Martis Caesar extruxerat, volumina implere, cum ex dignitate populi Romani repertum sit res inlustres annalibus, talia diurnis urbis actis mandare.’
His complaints as to his subject-matter inAnn.iv. 32, ‘Nobis in arto et inglorius labor,’ must not be taken too seriously.
C. Suetonius Tranquillus was the son of Suetonius Laetus, a tribune of the thirteenth legion, who took part in the battle of Bedriacum,A.D.69 (Sueton.Otho, 10). His birth seems to have taken place soon after that year,[116]for he was ‘adulescens’ twenty years after Nero’s death;Nero57, ‘cum post viginti annos, adulescente me, exstitisset condicionis incertae qui se Neronem esse iactaret.’
Suetonius was a friend of the younger Pliny, to whom he was indebted for a military tribuneship, which he afterwards passed on to a relative (Plin.Ep.iii. 8), and for assistance in the purchase of a small estate (ibid. i. 24). Pliny encouraged him to publish some of his writings (v. 10), and obtained for him from Trajan theius trium liberorum(ad Trai.94).
Under Hadrian he wasmagister epistularum, but was dismissed from office inA.D.121. Spartianus,Hadr.11, 3, ‘Septicio Claro praefecto praetorio et Suetonio Tranquillo epistularum magistro multisque aliis, quod apud Sabinam uxorem in usu eius familiarius se tunc egerant quam reverentia domus aulicae postulabat, successores dedit.’ The remainder of his life appears to have been devoted to literature.
1.De Vita Caesarum, in eight Books (Books i.-vi. Iulius-Nero; vii. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius; viii. Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian). It was publishedA.D.119-21, as it was dedicated (according to Joannes Lydus) to C. Septicius Clarus, praetorian prefect, who held office during those years. The preface and the beginning of the life of Iulius are wanting. Suetonius is a conscientious and accurate writer (cf. his discussion of Caligula’s birthplace,Calig.8), and he makes use of good sources, e.g. theMonumentum Ancyranum,Acta populi,Acta senatus, autograph documents of the emperors (Aug.87,Nero52); but there is in his work an almost entire absence of dates, and the personal element is, from the point of view of history, unduly prominent.
2.De Viris Illustribus, including poets, orators (beginning with Cicero), historians (from Sallust onwards), philosophers, grammarians, and rhetoricians. The greater part of the sectionDe grammaticis et rhetoribusis extant, as well as lives of Terence, Horace, and Lucan from the sectionde poetis, and of Pliny the elder from the sectionde historicis. Extracts from the rest of the work are preserved by Jerome. In each section there was (1) a list of the authors discussed, (2) a general survey of their branch of literature, (3) brief notices of the authors in chronological order. The publication took place, according to Roth, 106-113A.D.
3. Minor works, now lost (mentioned by Suidas), on Greek games, Roman games, the Roman year, on critical marks, on Cicero’sRepublic, on dress, on imprecations (περὶ δυσφήμων λέξεων ἤτοι βλασφημιῶν καὶ πόθεν ἑκάστη), on Roman laws and customs. Some of these were probably only sections of thePrata, a miscellany in ten Books, which also treated of natural science and philology. The books on Greek games and on imprecations were almost certainly composed in Greek.
1.Jerome[117](Hieronymus) was born aboutA.D.335 at Stridon, on the frontiers of Dalmatia and Pannonia, and diedA.D.420 at the monastery of Bethlehem. His contributions to the history of Roman literature are to be found in his translation of the Chronicle (χρονικοὶ κανόνες) of Eusebius, in which the dates are reckoned from the first year of Abraham (=B.C.2016 according to his chronology), the point at which Eusebius commenced. On the period between the Trojan War andA.D.325 Jerome not merely translated the remarks of Eusebius, as he had done in the earlier period, but also added numerous extracts from authorities on Roman history and literature. The source from which he derived nearly all his information on literature is universally admitted to have been the work of SuetoniusDe Viris Illustribus. With the statements in the surviving sections of that treatise the observations of Jerome agree, and there can be no reasonable doubt that he made a similar use of the parts no longer extant. It is a significant fact that the important authors on whom Jerome is silent,e.g.Tacitus, Juvenal, and the younger Pliny, are precisely those whom Suetonius, as a contemporary, naturally could not discuss.
The statements of Jerome, based as they are on the high authority of Suetonius, may be regarded as in the main trustworthy. Some of them, however, are doubtful, and others manifestly wrong.
(a) Jerome’s plan obliged him to fix every event to a definite year; and this, in many cases, can only be guess-work, for Suetonius, as may be seen from his extant writings, was often vague in his chronology.
(b) Comparison with the remains of Suetonius shows that Jerome’s claim to have made his extracts with care was not always well grounded;e.g.his statement that Ennius was a native of Tarentum (seep. 27).
(c) In reckoning, according to his system of dates, events dated by one of the many confusing systems of chronology current in ancient times, many openings for error presented themselves;e.g.he sometimes erred through confusing consuls of the same or similar names, as in the case of Lucilius (p. 59); or through confusing similar events, as in the case of Livius Andronicus, although the mistake about the latter was of long standing (p. 2). Once at least he seems to have confused the date of an author’sfloruitand that of his death, making Plautus die inB.C.200 instead ofB.C.184 (p. 8).
2.Aulus Gellius[118]was born probably aboutA.D.123, and studied under the most eminent teachers both at Rome and at Athens. Of his subsequent life nothing is known except that he held some judicial post at Rome. His work, theNoctes Atticaein twenty Books (of Book viii. only the headings of chapters are preserved), is a miscellany of information on philology, philosophy, rhetoric, history, biography, literary criticism, natural science, and antiquities. The title is due to the fact that the book was commenced in the winter evenings during the author’s residence at Athens. The arrangement of the contents simply follows the haphazard order of the notes which Gellius made in the course of his reading of Greek and Roman authors. Those authors, and the conversation of contemporaries, are Gellius’ professed sources, but in some cases the author he names is evidently quoted at second-hand, and many of the conversations are doubtless quite imaginary. Our obligations to Gellius are twofold.
(a) Innumerable extracts from ancient authors are preserved by him alone. (No quotations are given from post-Augustan writers—a fact which accords with the affected archaism of his style.)
(b) His remarks on incidents in the lives of the Roman poets are in the main derived from Varro, whose workDe Poetisis quoted for the epitaph of Plautus (seep. 9); elsewhere his source is indicated either vaguely or not at all, e.g. iii. 3, 15, ‘accepimus’; xii. 4, 5, ‘ferunt.’ For literary criticism Varro is quoted: iii. 3, 9,sqq.; vi. 14, 6 (seepp. 10,51).
3.Nonius Marcellus,[119]a Peripatetic, of Thubursicum in Numidia, is identified by Mommsen with the Nonius Marcellus Herculius ofC.I.L.viii. 4878 (dateA.D.323); but nothing is known of his life. His work,De Compendiosa Doctrina ad Filiumin twenty Books (of Book xvi. the title only is known; Book xx. is fragmentary), though modelled on that of Gellius, is immeasurably inferior in execution. According to the theory usually received Nonius borrowed largely from Gellius; but it is possible that both compilers made independent use of the same authorities, viz., scholars such as Verrius Flaccus, Valerius Probus, and Suetonius, whose works they knew either directly or through abridgments. The subjects with which Nonius deals are grammar, lexicography, and antiquities; and he is often our sole authority for the titles of works as well as for brief extracts.
4.Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, doubtless identical with the Macrobius who held, among other high offices, the proconsulship of AfricaA.D.410, was probably, like Nonius, of African origin. Besides his commentary on theSomnium Scipionisof Cicero, Macrobius wrote a work in seven Books on Roman literature and antiquities with the title ofSaturnalia. The imaginary conversations of which it consists are supposed to take place during the festival of the Saturnalia at Rome (hence the title); and the chief subject of discussion is the poetry of Virgil. A remarkable feature of the book is its wealth of quotation from Greek and Latin authors. Macrobius, like Gellius, bases his work on extracts from older authorities; but, unlike him, arranges his matter systematically.
5.Aelius Donatus, a grammarian who flourished at Rome aboutA.D.350, and was one of Jerome’s teachers, extracted from the lost work of Suetonius the Lives of Terence and Virgil, and prefixed them to his own commentaries on Terence and on theGeorgicsandAeneid. The latter is lost, and the commentary on Terence contains much that is not from the hand of Donatus.
6.Servius.—There are two versions of the Servian commentary on Virgil. The shorter is the work of Maurus Servius Honoratus, who was born about 350A.D., and lived at Rome (Macrob.Saturn.i. 2, 15); his topographical references show that he composed his commentary there. Servius, whose notes are chiefly on the language of the poems, gives illustrative quotations from Roman authors, in some cases from memory and inaccurately. Donatus is the authority whom he mentions oftenest, but he undoubtedly made extensive use of Suetonius.
The longer version contains learned additions to the work of Servius by an anonymous Christian writer, who deals mainly with the subject-matter of Virgil.
7.AcroandPorphyrio.—Helenius Acro (probably about 200A.D.) was the author of commentaries on Horace and Terence, now lost. The scholia on Horace extant under Acro’s name are, with few exceptions, taken from the commentary of Pomponius Porphyrio, which we possess in a mutilated form. Porphyrio, who probably belonged to the 4th cent.A.D., names among his sources Acro and Suetonius.
ForAsconiusseep. 77; forValerius Probus,p. 147.
Note.—All editions mentioned have explanatory notes, except those marked “text” (which are merely texts), and those marked “crit.” (which have an apparatus criticus).
Editions published in England and Germany have English and German notes respectively, unless otherwise stated.
F.P.R. = Fragmenta Poetarum Romanorum, ed. E. Bährens.
Livius Andronicus.Plays--In Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, ed.O. Ribbeck (vol. i.Trag., ii.Com.) (crit.), Leip. ’71-73Do. (with Naevius’ plays), L. Müller, Berl. ’85Odisia, in E. Bährens’ Frag. Poet. Rom. (crit.), Leip. ’86Naevius.Bellum Punicum, J. Vahlen, Leip. ’54" F.P.R.Plays (see above).Plautus.J. L. Ussing (Latin commentary), Copenh. ’75-87F. Ritschl, revised by G. Loewe, G. Goetz, and F.Schöll (crit.), Leip. ’94Amphitruo, A. Palmer, Lond. ’90Asinaria, J. H. Gray, Camb. ’94Aulularia, W. Wagner, Camb. ’92Captivi, J. Brix, Leip. ’84" W. M. Lindsay, Oxf. ’95" E. A. Sonnenschein, Lond. ’80" A. R. S. Hallidie, Lond. ’95Epidicus, J. H. Gray, Camb. ’93Mostellaria, A. O. F. Lorenz, Berl. ’83" E. A. Sonnenschein, Camb. ’84Menaechmi, J. Brix and M. Niemeyer, Leip. ’91" W. Wagner, Camb. ’92Miles, J. Brix, Leip. ’82" A. O. F. Lorenz, Berl. ’86" R. Y. Tyrrell, Lond. ’94Pseudolus, A. O. F. Lorenz, Berl. ’76Rudens, E. A. Sonnenschein, Oxf. ’91Stichus, C. A. M. Fennell, Camb. ’93Trinummus, J. Brix and M. Niemeyer, Leip. ’88" W. Wagner, Camb. ’90" C. E. Freeman and A. Sloman, Oxf. ’96Ennius.F.P.R.J. Vahlen Leip. ’54Do. (with Naevius’Bell. Pun.), L. Müller, St. Petersb. ’85PacuviusandCaecilius Statius.Ribbeck,Trag.andCom.Terence.K. Dziatzko (text), Leip. ’84W. Wagner, Lond. ’92Andria, A. Spengel, Berl. ’88" C. E. Freeman and A. Sloman, Oxf. ’93" and Eunuchus, T. L. Papillon, Lond. ’70Heaut. Tim., E. S. Shuckburgh, Lond. ’94" J. H. Gray, Camb. ’95Phormio, K. Dziatzko, Leip. ’85" A. Sloman, Oxf. ’94" J. Bond and A. S. Walpole, Lond. ’95Adelphoe, K. Dziatzko, Leip. ’81" A. Spengel, Berl. ’79" A. Sloman, Oxf. ’92" S. G. Ashmore, Lond. ’93Cato the Elder.De Agricultura (andVarro, Res Rusticae), H. Keil (crit.), Leip. ’82-91Other fragments, H. Jordan (crit.), Leip. ’60Accius.Ribbeck, and F.P.R.Lucilius.L. Müller, Leip. ’72C. Lachmann (crit.), Berl. ’76F.P.R.Atta, Afranius, Laberius.Ribbeck.Matius, Laevius, Bibaculus, Calvus, Cinna, Varro Atacinus.F.P.R.Auctor ad Herennium.C. L. Kayser, Leip. ’54F. Marx (crit.), Leip. ’94Varro.Sat. Menipp., Logistorici,Sententiae Varronis, A. Riese (crit.), Leip. ’65Sat. Menipp. (text in F. Bücheler’s Petronius), Berl. ’95Antiquitates (text in R. Merkel’s Ovid, Fasti), Berl. ’41De vita pop. Rom., H. Kettner (crit.), Halle, ’63De gente pop. Rom., H. Peter (Frag. Hist. Rom.), Leip. ’83De Lingua Latina, A. Spengel (crit.), Berl. ’85Res Rusticae, H. Keil (see ‘Cato’).Grammatical Works(exceptDe L.L.), A. Wilmanns (crit.), Berl. ’64Cicero.1.Speeches--Pro Sex. Rosc. Amer., E. H. Donkin, Lond. ’95Pro Sex. Rosc. Amer., G. Landgraf, Erlangen, ’84Pro Q. Rosc. Com., C. A. Schmidt, Leip. ’39Verrines, C. G. Zumpt, Berl. ’31Div. in Caec. and inVerr., Act. i., W. E. Heitland and H. Cowie, Camb. ’95Verr., Act. i., J. R. King, Lond. ’87Div. in Caec. and in Verr.Act ii., 4 and 5, E. Thomas, Paris, ’95Pro Caecina, C. A. Jordan, Leip. ’47De Imp. Cn. Pompei, A. S. Wilkins, Lond. ’94Pro Cluentio, W. and G. G. Ramsay, Oxf. ’89Pro Cluentio, W. Y. Fausset, Lond. ’88De Lege Agraria, A. W. Zumpt, Berl. ’61Pro Rab. perd. reo, W. E. Heitland, Camb. ’82In Catilinam, A. S. Wilkins, Lond. ’95Pro Murena, W. E. Heitland, Camb. ’93Pro Murena, J. H. Freese, Lond. ’94Pro Sulla, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’91Pro Archia, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’95Pro Flacco, A. du Mesnil, Leip. ’83Pro Sestio, H. A. Holden, Lond. ’95In Vatinium, C. Halm, Leip. ’46De Prov. Cons., G. Tischer, Berl. ’61Pro Balbo, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’90Pro Plancio, H. A. Holden, Camb. ’93Pro Milone, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’95Pro Milone, A. C. Clark, Oxf. ’95Pro Marcello, Ligario,Deiotaro, W. Y. Fausset, Oxf. ’93Philippics, J. R. King. Oxf. ’78II. Phil., J. E. B. Mayor, Lond. ’93II. Phil., A. G. Peskett, Camb. ’912.Rhetorical Works--De Oratore, A. S. Wilkins, Oxf. ’92De Oratore, G. Sorof, Berl. ’82De Oratore, K. W. Pideritand O. Harnecker, Leip. ’86-90De Inventione, A. Weidner, Berl. ’78Brutus, K. W. Pideritand W. Friedrich, Leip. ’89Brutus, O. Jahn and A. Eberhard, Berl. ’77Orator, J. E. Sandys, Camb. ’85Orator, K. W. Piderit, Leip. ’76Orator, (with De Opt.Gen. Orat.), O. Jahn, Berl. ’69Partit. Orat., K. W. Piderit, Leip. ’673.Philosophical Works--De Re Publica, F. Osann, Gött. ’47De Legibus, A. du Mesnil, Leip. ’79Paradoxa, G. H. Moser, Gött. ’46De Finibus, J. N. Madvig (Lat. comm.), Copenh. ’78" H. Holstein, Leip. ’73Academica, J. S. Reid, Lond. ’85Tusc. Disp.,. R. Kühner (Lat.), Hanover, ’74" O. Heine, Leip. ’92-96" G. Tischer and G. Sorof, Berl. ’84-87De Nat. Deor., J. B. Mayor, Camb. ’83-91" G. F. Schömann, Berl. ’76De Senectute, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’94" Amicitia, J. S. Reid, Camb. ’93" Officiis, H. A. Holden, Camb. ’93" Divinatione, DeFato, G. H. Moser, Frankf. ’284.Letters--Correspondence of C. R. Y. Tyrrell andL. C. Purser, Dubl. ’85-94Selections, A. Watson, Oxf. ’91" (C. in hisLetters), R. Y. Tyrrell, Lond. ’96Epp. ad Att., J. G. C. Boot (Lat.) Amst. ’86Epp. ad Fam., L. Mendelssohn (crit.), Leip. ’93C. F. W. Müller (crit.), Leip. ’965.Poems--F.P.R.Complete texts--J. C. Orelli, J. G. Baiter, and C. Halm,. Zür. ’45-61C. F. A. Nobbe, Leip. ’50C. F. W. Müller, etc., Leip. ’90-96J. G. Baiter and C. L. Kayser, Leip. ’60-69Caesar.B. Dinter (text), Leip. ’96B. Kübler (text), Leip. ’93-94Bell. Gall., J. Bond and A. S. Walpole, Lond. ’87" A. G. Peskett, Camb. ’78Bell. Gall., C. E. Moberly, Oxf. ’90Bell. Gall., F. Kraner and W. Dittenberger, Berl. ’90Bell. Gall., A. Doberenz and B. Dinter, Leip. ’92Bell. Civ., C. E. Moberly, Oxf. ’92Bell. Civ., F. Kraner and F. Hofmann, Berl. ’90Bell. Civ., A. Doberenz and B. Dinter, Leip. ’84Bell. Civ., (Bk. i.), A. G. Peskett, Camb. ’90Bell. Alex., R. Schneider, Berl. ’89Bell. Afr., E. Wölfflin and A. Miodonski, Leip. ’89Nepos.C. Nipperdey and B. Lupus, Berl. ’95J. Siebelis and M. Jancovius, Leip. ’96O. Browning and W. R. Inge, Oxf. ’88E. S. Shuckburgh, Camb. ’95Lucretius.H. A. J. Munro, Camb. ’91-93C. Lachmann, Berl. ’82Books i.-iii., J. H. W. Lee, Lond. ’93Book v., J. D. Duff, Camb. ’96Sallust.Cat. and Iug., W. W. Capes, Oxf. ’89Cat. and Iug., C. Merivale, Lond. ’84Cat. and Iug., (andfrags. of Hist.), R. Jacobs and H. Wirz, Berl. ’94Cat., A. M. Cook, Lond. ’88Hist. (text), H. Jordan, Leip. ’87Historiarum Reliquiae, B. Maurenbrecher, Leip. ’91-93Publilius Syrus.Sententiae, W. Meyer (crit.), Leip. ’80Sententiae, R. A. H. Bickford Smith, Camb. ’95Catullus.A. Palmer (crit.), Lond. ’96R. Ellis (crit.), Oxf. ’78R. Ellis (commentary), Oxf. ’89B. Schmidt (introd. and text), Leip. ’87F. P. Simpson (selections), Lond. ’94(With Tibullus andPropertius), L. Müller (text), Leip. ’92Horace.E. C. Wickham, Oxf. ’90-96A. Kiessling, Berl. ’89-95J. C. Orelli, W. Hirschfelder, and W. Mewes, Berl. ’86-92Satires, A. Palmer, Lond. ’96Odes and Epodes, T. E. Page, Lond. ’95" J. Gow, Camb. ’96Epistles and A.P., A. S. Wilkins, Lond. ’92Virgil.O. Ribbeck (crit.), Leip. ’94-95" (text only), Leip. ’95T. E. Papillon and A. E. Haigh (text only), Oxf. ’92[The above include the minor poems.]J. Conington and H. Nettleship, Lond. ’83-84T. E. Papillon and A. E. Haigh, Oxf. ’92A. Sidgwick, Camb. ’90-94B. H. Kennedy, Lond. ’79T. Ladewig, C. Schaper, and P. Deuticke, Berl. ’91K. Kappes, Leip. ’93-95Aeneid (i.-vi.), T. E. Page, Lond. ’94Tibullus.E. Hiller (text), Leip. ’85E. Bährens (text), Leip. ’78L. Dissen, Gött. ’35Propertius.W. A. Hertzberg, Halle, ’43-45F. A. Paley, Lond. ’72A. Palmer (text), Lond. ’80J. P. Postgate (selections), Lond. ’94" (text), Lond. ’94Ovid.A. Riese (introd.), Leip. ’71-89Heroides, A. Palmer, Lond. ’74" E. S. Shuckburgh, Lond. ’96Metam., J. Sibelis and F. Polle, Leip. ’92-96" M. Haupt, O. Korn, andH. J. Müller, Berl. ’85Fasti, G. H. Hallam, Lond. ’93Fasti, R. Merkel, Berl. ’41" H. Peter, Leip. ’89Tristia, S. G. Owen (crit.), Oxf. ’89" (Bks. i., iii.), S. G. Owen, Oxf. ’90-93" and Ibis, R. Merkel, Berl. ’37Ibis, R. Ellis (Lat.), Oxf. ’82Manilius.F. Jacob, Berl. ’46[See also R. Ellis,Noctes Manilianae, Oxf. ’91.]Livy.W. Weissenborn and H. J. Müller, Berl. ’73-96M. Hertz (introd. and text), Leip. ’57-63Book i., J. R. Seeley, Oxf. ’81Books iv., vi., ix., xxvii., H. M. Stephenson, Camb. ’90-94Book v., L. Whibley, Camb. ’94Books xxi., xxii., M. S. Dimsdale, Camb. ’94-95" W. W. Capes, Lond. ’95Trogus.A. Bielowski, Lemberg, ’53Verrius Flaccus.(Festus and Paulus), C. O. Müller, Leip. ’80Vitruvius.V. Rose and H. Müller-Strübing (crit.), Leip. ’67Seneca the Elder.H. J. Müller (text), Prague, ’87A. Kiessling (text), Leip. ’72Velleius.C. Halm (crit.), Leip. ’76D. Ruhnken, ed. C. H. Frotscher, Leip. ’39Valerius Maximus.C. Kempf (text), Leip. ’88Celsus.C. Daremberg (text), Leip. ’59Phaedrus.J. Siebelis and F. A. Eckstein, Leip. ’89Seneca the Younger.Prose Works, F. Haase (text), Leip. ’93-95Apocolocyntosis, in F. Bücheler’s Petronius (text).Tragedies, R. Peiper and G. Richter (text), Leip. ’67Curtius Rufus.T. Vogel, Leip. ’93Columella.InScriptores Rei Rusticae,ed. I. G. Schneider (Lat.), Leip. 1794-7Asconius.A. Kiessling and R. Schöll, Berl. ’75Mela.C. Frick (text), Leip. ’80Persius.O. Jahn and F. Bücheler (text), Berl. ’93J. Conington, ed. H. Nettleship, Oxf. ’93Probus.H. Keil, Halle, ’48Lucan.C. Hosius (text), Leip. ’92C. E. Haskins (introd. by W. E. Heitland), Lond. ’87Book i., W. E. Heitland and C. E. Haskins, Camb. ’95" Lejay, Paris, ’94Books i.-v., C. M. Francken (Lat.), Leiden, ’96Petronius.F. Bücheler (text), Berl. ’95Cena Trimalchionis, L. Friedländer (text, Germantrans., and notes), Leip. ’91Calpurnius Siculus.H. Schenkl (text), Prague, ’85C. H. Keene, Lond. ’87Aetna.H. A. J. Munro, ’Camb. 67Pliny the Elder.L. van Jan and Mayhoff (text), Leip. ’75-92J. Sillig, Hamburg, ’51-58J. Hardouin, Paris, 1723D. Detlefsen (crit.), Berl, ’66-82(Selections) ChrestomathiaPliniana, L. Urlichs, Berl. ’57Valerius Flaccus.J. A. Wagner, Gött. 1805N. E. Lemaire, Paris, ’24G. Thilo (text), Halle, ’63Silius Italicus.A. Drakenborch (Lat.), Utrecht, 1717G. A. Ruperti, ed. Lemaire, Paris, ’23L. Bauer (text), Leip. ’90Statius.Silvae, E. Bährens (text), Leip. ’76Achilleis, P. Kohlmann (text), Leip. ’79Thebais, Leip. ’84Martial.L. Friedländer, Leip. ’86(Selections,) H. M. Stephenson, Lond. ’95F. A Paley and W. H. Stone, Lond. ’82Quintilian.G. L. Spalding and C. G. Zumpt, Leip. 1798-1834F. Meister (text), Prague, ’86-87C. Halm (crit.), Leip. ’69Book X., J.E.B. Mayor, Lond. ’72" W. Peterson, Oxf. ’91" G.T.A. Krüger, Leip. ’88" E. Bonnell and F. Meister, Berl. ’82Frontinus.A. Dederich (text), Leip. ’55Strategemata, G. Gundermann (text), Leip. ’88De Aquis, F. Bücheler (text), Leip. ’58Juvenal.L. Friedländer, Leip. ’95A. Weidner, Leip. ’89XIII. Satires, J. E. B. Mayor, Lond. ’93" C. H. Pearson and H. A. Strong, Oxf. ’92" E. G. Hardy, Lond. ’95Tacitus.C. Halm (text), Leip. ’89-93Dialogus, W. Peterson, Oxf. ’93Germania, H. Furneaux, Oxf. ’94" and Agricola, A. J. Church andW. J Brodribb, Lond. ’91-94" " H. M. Stephenson, Camb. ’94Histories, E. Wolff, Berl. ’86-88" W. A. Spooner, Lond. ’91" (Books i., ii.), A. D. Godley, Lond. ’94Annals, K. Nipperdey and G. Andresen, Berl. ’84-92" A. Dräger and F. Becher, Leip. ’82-95" H. Furneaux, Oxf. ’83-91" H. Furneaux (Books i.-iv.), Oxf. ’92Pliny the Younger.H. Keil (text), Leip. ’53H. Keil and Th. Mommsen (crit.), Leip. ’70G. H. Schaefer, Leip. 1805Epistles, G. Cortius and P. D. Longolius, Amsterd. 1734" (Book iii.), J. E. B. Mayor, Lond. ’89" (to Trajan), E. G. Hardy, Lond. ’89Suetonius.C. L. Roth (text), Leip. ’75C. G. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leip. ’16Julius and Augustus, H. T. Peck, New York, ’93Augustus, E. S. Shuckburgh, Camb. ’96Praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae, A. Reifferscheid, Leip. ’60Miscellaneous.Aulus Gellius, M. Hertz (text), Leip. ’86Macrobius, F. Eyssenhardt (text), Leip. ’93Nonius Marcellus, L. Müller (crit.), Leip. ’88Servius, G. Thilo and H. Hagen (crit.), Leip. ’78-94Grammatici Latini, H. Keil (crit.), Leip. ’56-80Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, ed. J. P. Postgate (crit.), Lond. ’94[Including Ennius, Lucretius, Catullus, Horace, Virgil,Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid; other parts to follow.]Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, H. Meyer (text), Zürich, ’42Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, H. Peter (text), Leip. ’83Selected Fragments of Roman Poetry, W. W. Merry, Oxf. ’91Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin, J. Wordsworth, Oxf. ’74