6451 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 $B b5 S-^fi 
 
THE 
 
 NNALIST LICINIANUS 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED IN THE HALL 
 
 OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 MAY 29, 1908 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX OF EMENDATIONS OF THE TEXT 
 
 ROJ3INSON ELLIS, M.A., Hon. LL.D. 
 
 CORPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIX 
 
 LONDON 
 HENRY FROWDE 
 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE 
 
 AMEN CORNER 
 
 OXFORD : 116 High Street 
 
 Piice One Shilling net 
 
THE 
 
 ANNALIST LICINIANUS 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED IN THE HALL 
 
 OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 MAY 29, 1908 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX OF EMENDATIONS OF THE TEXT 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBINSON ELLIS, M.A., Hon. LL.D. 
 
 COKPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN 
 
 LOxNDON 
 HENRY FROWDE 
 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE 
 AMEN CORNER 
 
 OXFORD : 116 High Street 
 

 OXFORD : HORACE HART 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
LICINIANUS 
 
 The discovery of the fragments of the annalist Licinianus 
 dates from half a century ago. In the autumn of 1853 the 
 distinguished palaeographer, G. H. Pertz, and his son Karl, 
 both of them employed in examining documents in the 
 British Museum bearing on German history, were apprized 
 by Dr. Paul Botticher {alias de la Garde), who was examin- 
 ing the Syrian MSS., of an eleventh century codex palim- 
 psestus or rescriptus which, under a Syriac text of some 
 homilies of St. Chrysostom, exhibited traces of a Latin text. 
 Of these the words SULLANI, CAPITOLIUM, SACER- 
 DOTIO 10 VIS were distinctly legible. The MS. had been 
 secured for the Museum in 1847, and formed one of a col- 
 lection of five hundred. It came from the monastery of S. 
 Maria in the Nitrian desert, about seventy miles north-west 
 of Cairo, and is now numbered Add. 17, 213. On examina- 
 tion it was found to contain traces of three distinct hands, 
 the Syriac text uppermost, beneath it a grammatical treatise, 
 in which Mr. E. Bond could distinguish the names luuenalis 
 and Martialis — lastly the historical fragments of Licinianus. 
 
 The task of reading the MS., suspended by the necessary 
 return of G. H. Pertz to Berlin in 1853, he resumed in 
 October 1855. From October 16 to the end of the month, 
 by the help of chemical reagents, he was able to decipher two 
 pages, fol. viii'*, i^, and some words of fol. iv^. The remain- 
 ing leaves, making up a total of thirteen, were deciphered 
 by his son in the earlier part of 1856 (March i-June 1 1), and 
 the result of their combined labours was published in 1857. 
 In the following year seven scholars of the University of 
 Bonn produced a revised edition, generally described as the 
 edition of the Bonn Heptas, and, from its more convenient 
 octavo form, better known than the editio princeps of the 
 Pertz. 334^01 
 
The thirteen leaves containing the Licinianus fragments 
 are or, to be more exact, were written in capitals with an 
 admixture of uncials. Each page had two columns, each 
 column twenty-four lines. The number of letters in a line 
 varied from about nineteen to twenty-six. This variation 
 must be taken into account in emending the numerous 
 imperfect lines. 
 
 Karl Pertz describes the chemical (sulphuretted ammonia) 
 which he used to revive the writing of this codex ter 
 rescripius as not equably efficacious throughout. 
 
 In one half of the parchment leaves most of the letters 
 could be made out : in the other, that which was nearest to 
 the animal's flesh, they resisted the most determined efforts 
 of the eye and remained illegible. He was not allowed to 
 try the tincture of Gioberti, which is stronger but more 
 deleterious. Hence it is that so much of the restitution is 
 doubtful. Hence, too, the comparative obscurity into which 
 this real discovery of fifty years ago not unnaturally fell. 
 No new editor of the fragments appeared after 1858 till 
 1 900, when an Italian, Guido Gamozzi, revived the interest 
 of the subject by publishing a new text with large illus- 
 trative historical matter. This has been followed by the 
 Teubner edition of 1904, by Michael Flemisch, in which 
 much, but hardly enough, of what had been done by 
 criticism for the text of Licinianus since 1858 is recorded. 
 
 It must not be imagined that the name of the writer of 
 these fragments rests on conjecture. Karl Pertz states 
 that the genitive, LICINIANI, occurs in this isolated form 
 four times, in the fuller form [GAI] GRANI LICINIANI 
 once ; the number of the book to which the excerpt belongs 
 is recorded in six cases. 
 
 It is unfortunate that the additional Grani, which the 
 elder Pertz believed he could read in the above super- 
 scription, was, when re-examined by his son, no longer 
 decipherable. We could wish that the stronger vision of 
 the younger reader had confirmed the asseveration of the 
 older. Here, however, the extra name GAI, about which 
 the elder savant confessed himself uncertain, seems to in- 
 
a 
 
 crease the credibility of the other GRANI, about which he 
 spoke with more of positive assurance. 
 
 To what period are we to assign this Licinianus or 
 Granius Licinianus ? 
 
 Servius, the commentator on Vergil, and Macrobius both 
 mention a Granius Licinianus as authoritative on points of 
 archaeology. 
 
 On Aen. I. ']'>,1, Servius cites a work of his called Oena, 
 in support of a legend about the primitive habits of the 
 early Roman women, femina quae sub Romulo uinum 
 bibit occisa est a niarito. Macrobius appeals to him as 
 explaining the difference of opinion on the Roman nun- 
 dinae, S. i. 16. 28. This reference is to the second book, 
 but we are not told the title of the work. Both these 
 writers belong to the same period, the end of century iv, 
 or beginning of century v. 
 
 A still earlier reference to a Licinianus occurs in Solinus 
 (middle of cent, iii), p. 34, ed. Mommsen, Liciniano placet 
 a Messapo Graeco Messapiae datam originem; another to 
 Granius, p. 41 M. Cicadae apud Rheginos mutae^ nee 
 usquam alibi, quod silentium miraculo est, nee immerito, 
 cum uicinae quae sunt Locrenses ultra ceteras sonent 
 causas Granius tradit. But the attribution of these two 
 statements to a single Granius Licinianus is hazardous. 
 
 It is observable that all these references are to points 
 of archaeology, not to matters of history. This does not 
 prevent their being drawn from the historical compendium 
 contained in the thirteen leaves of Licinianus (or Granius 
 Licinianus) which we are examining ; for though the sub- 
 stratum of these is historical or rather annalistic, they 
 include archaeological and antiquarian disquisitions, and in 
 the survival of so small a part of the entire work we 
 cannot tell what proportion archaeology held as compared 
 with pure history. One of the fragments belonged to book 
 xxxvi, and this is enough to prove that the complete work 
 must have been of considerable extent. In a work of 
 such compass it is more than possible that antiquarian 
 discussions may have played a large part, just as Dionysiua 
 
 A 2, 
 
4 
 
 in his Roman Antiquities has given us a mixture of history 
 and archaeology in which the latter decidedly predominates, 
 and as Pliny in his Natural History deviates again and 
 again from his description of the world and its inmates 
 to anecdotes of an illustrative or amusing kind. 
 
 Thus in the earliest section of our Licinianus leaves^ 
 (fol. xi^ col. A and B), belonging to the xxvith book, a digres- 
 sion on the Roman equites is introduced by way of sup- 
 plement to what Licinianus had said in the former books 
 about the general constitution of the army. This passage 
 occupies three lines of col. A and the whole of col. B, but is 
 unfortunately too badly preserved to be quoted here either 
 as an illustration of the author's style or as a sample of 
 his antiquarian knowledge. It seems, however, worth while 
 to notice that the references to Greek, especially Spartan, 
 names of horse soldiers (dvLiriTOL (? d/xLinroL), KaWLTTiroi) are 
 of a remote, not to say recondite type, and give us cause 
 to regret that we have not more of the same kind. 
 
 In the absence of positive evidence of the identity of 
 our annalist with any known Licinianus, and the uncertainty 
 which attaches to the name Granius as by no means 
 uncommon, we may ask what internal grounds there are 
 for fixing his date. 
 
 A passage in which he speaks of the historian Sallust 
 (a passage unhappily to a large degree conjectural) bears 
 distinctly on this point ^. Nam Sallustium non ut histori- 
 cum aiunt sed ut oratorem (ARATOREM the MS.) legen- 
 dum. Nam et tempora reprehendit sua et delida carpit et 
 contiones inserit^ (INGERIT the MS.). Licinianus here 
 speaks of Sallust as censuring his own time : therefore, it is 
 argued, Sallust lived in a different epoch from his critic. 
 This, however, does not amount to much ; if the two were 
 removed by a short interval of years from each other, 
 
 * Throughout I follow the numeration of leaves as given by the Bonn 
 Heptas. 
 
 ' Fol. iv*", 1. 1 8 Sallusti o;pus nobis occurrit: sed nos^ id instituimus, moras 
 et' non urgentia omittemus. 
 
 ^ For so we must supply the missing letters after CONT- in accordance 
 with the words of Justin xxxviii. 3. 11, quoted below, p. 14 n. 
 
it would adequately correspond to the Latin words. 
 Licinianus must in any case be after Sallust. 
 
 A more definite note of time has been found in the 
 passage where Licinianus, speaking of the new columns 
 with which Antiochus Epiphanes beautified and enlarged 
 the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens, adds the following 
 words : (a)edes nobilissima Olympii louis Atheniensis diu 
 inperfeda perinanse. (Fol. x'', B 22,.) The line (and column) 
 end with this last word PERMANSE, and we cannot be 
 sure how the next leaf began. If, as seems likely from the 
 adjoining pluperfects, one of which at least, circum dederat^ 
 is indubitable, permanserat is to be read, we seem to have 
 a hint of the ultimate completion of the temple by the 
 emperor Hadrian. Yet here, again, anything like certainty 
 is wanting ; for, as was long ago suggested by the Bonn 
 editors, the passage has some look of an accretion, even if we 
 do not accept their view that Licinianus' original Annates 
 were abridged with additions by an unskilful epitomator 
 of the era of the Antonines, and that nothing can be inferred 
 from this questionable supplement as to the age of the 
 complete work of the author. 
 
 At the present time it is usual to assign the fragments 
 of Licinianus to the age of the Antonines. It seems worth 
 while to examine this hypothesis with more care than it 
 has yet received ; I doubt whether it can stand the test of 
 criticism. To begin with the style of the work. I will 
 take a passage where the MS. is sufficiently well preserved 
 to require no conjectural emendation. It has been assigned 
 to the xxxiiird book (p. 16 Hept.). 
 
 Et M. Aurelium Scaurum consularem uirum ceperunt 
 equo deiectum. Nam is uocatus in concilium ab is 
 nihil indignum uiro Romano, qui tantis honoribus fun- 
 ctus erat, aut fecit aut dixit. Itaque interfectus est 
 cum posset efiugere. Et nee ipsis petentibus ducem se 
 tradere sustinuit uerecundia ut amisso exercitu incolumis 
 esset. Qua uictoria Cimbrorum territus Mallius (so 
 Camozzi, Manlius MS.) consul litteris supplicibus cum 
 Caepionem orasset ut copiis iunctis simul et exercitu 
 
6 
 
 ampliato Gallis resisterent, impetrare non potuit. Et cum 
 Rhodanum traiecisset et apud milites gloriatus esset 
 timenti consul! se auxilium laturum, ne communicare 
 quidem cum eo consilium belli gerendi uoluit, nee legatis 
 quos senatus miserat, ut Concordes essent simulque rem 
 publicam iuuarent auscultare dignatus est. 
 
 Here we have an ordinary piece of narrative, much in 
 the usual style of epitomes, and not greatly differing 
 from the style of the periochae of Livy, though, of course, 
 less condensed. It would be very untrue to say that it 
 had anything in common with either the letters of Fronto 
 or the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, each of which presents 
 the most marked idiosyncrasies, e.g. a studious affectation 
 of uncommon or archaizing types of expression, and an 
 equally careful avoidance of the pointed and epigrammatic 
 sententiae which Seneca and the younger Pliny had made 
 fashionable. 
 
 Such peculiarities as the above excerpt contains are 
 mainly of a negative kind. The writer was obviously not 
 much under Ciceronian influence : the use of nee for ne . . . 
 quidem, the awkward construction uereeundia ut amisso 
 exercitu incolumis esset, where we should have expected 
 uereeundia ut amisso exercitu incolumis [ne'] esset, and 
 are constrained to try Thucydidean modes of syntax ; again 
 ampliare = to enlarge, auscultare with a dative of the 
 person listened to; all these are clear indications of a 
 non- Ciceronian period. This, however, proves nothing 
 whatever for the particular epoch of the Antonines, nor 
 could any valid argument possibly be drawn from remains 
 so largely conjectural as these palimpsest leaves were even 
 when they could be examined at their best. 
 
 I will take another passage of a more emotional kind, 
 the episode of the soldier who, during the conflict between 
 Pompeius and Sertorius, in the civil war after Marius* 
 return from Africa, killed by mistake his own brother, and 
 finding what he had done, stabbed himself by the pyre he 
 had constructed for his brother's funeral. The story has 
 been told by many writers, Livy, Val. Maximus, Tacitus, 
 
Orosius, to which list may be added two epigrams of the 
 Latin Anthology (Riese A. L. 462, 463), where, however, the 
 story is referred to the war at Actium. 
 
 Fol. vii", col. B, 1. 14, p. 24 of the Bonn Heptas. Bello 
 quod inter Pompeium et Sertorium fuit, miles Pompei 
 dum spoliat hostem, ignobilis quidam fratrem agnoscit. 
 exstructo rogo dum iusta persoluit, multa praecatus et 
 inpraecatus gladio se traiecit. Maximumque omnibus 
 praeludium {the word is not certain) belli civilis casus hie 
 attulit, mentesque mutauit, nee quisquam omnium a 
 lacrimis potuit temperare. 
 
 This is a very instructive excerpt; we can compare it 
 with the similar narratives of Livy (Perioch. 79), Val. 
 Maximus, v. 4, Tac. Hist. iii. 51. 
 
 Next to Tacitus^, the epitomator of Livy has told his 
 story most shortly ; it takes up 4^ lines of a page in the 
 Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Even in this abridgement the 
 mournfulness of the episode is emphasized by the words 
 ingenti lamentatione edita . . . ipse supra rogum se trans- 
 fodit, Val. Maximus, as his custom is, enlarges rhetorically 
 on this occurrence, adding that the unfortunate fratricide 
 reproached the Gods much and long for the impious victory 
 they had granted him. The passage of Licinianus holds 
 an intermediate place between the brevity of Tacitus and 
 the prolixity of Valerius. The most characteristic point in 
 it, in which it differs from most of the accounts, are the 
 words multa praecatus et inpraecatus; curses are mixed 
 with prayers. This is a detail which, unimportant in 
 itself, must notwithstanding have come from a particular 
 source, perhaps Sisenna^. Such an inference quite coin- 
 cides with what we know of Licinianus' statements else- 
 
 * Hist. iii. 51 proelio quo apud laniculum aduersus Cinnam pugnatum 
 est, Pompeianus miles fratrem suum, dein cognito facinore se ipsum 
 interfecit, ut Sisenna memorat. 
 
 2 It is strange that the Bonn edition should have been followed by 
 both Camozzi and Flemisch in omitting the words praecatus et. If any- 
 thing in Licinianus bears a stamp of genuineness, it is this combination 
 of prayers and curses, made, as it is, more significant by the spelling, so 
 familiar to students of early MSS., of the ae forms praecatus and inpraecatus. 
 
8 
 
 where ; they are often of a kind which must have come 
 from some lost original which we should be very glad to 
 recover.- 
 
 One other noticeable combination of words in Licinianus* 
 version of the story is nee quisqua7)i omnium : Sallust has 
 this. Cat. 36 fin. neque ex castris Catilinae quisquawj 
 omnium discesserat: Hist. B. I. fr. ^^. 18 Maurenbrecher, 
 non me neque quemquam omnium satis tutum fuisse 
 si rede fdceremus : but it is not frequent, and in Velleius, 
 where neque or nee quisquam recurs again and again, there 
 is no trace of omnium. 
 
 What then is the inference to be drawn from the two 
 specimens of style I have quoted? Not, certainly, that 
 they belong to the age of the Antonines, for the most marked 
 features of that age are not to be found in them. There is, 
 indeed, little of a special colour about them, if we except 
 the words m^ulta praecatus et inpraecatus in the second 
 extract; a rare survival of a really characteristic detail 
 which since 1858 has been put out of court. Surely it is 
 time to raise some protest against excisions so arbitrary, 
 not to say unjustifiable. 
 
 Again, what argument can possibly be drawn from so 
 colourless a word as derepente'i It is found in Plautus, 
 Terence, Cicero, Tacitus, and cannot be said to belong to any 
 age in particular. 
 
 Of a similarly hazardous kind is the introduction into 
 the text of Licinianus of so very startling a combination as 
 nostro corde noscere. He has been telling the story of the 
 brothers Corfidii, for which we have also the attestation of 
 Pliny (H. iV. vii. 177). The passage is unfortunately full 
 of. lacunae, and none of the conjectural restorations are 
 satisfactory. So much, however, of the immediately follow- 
 ing words is distinct as to show the meaning. ' Though 
 I must not,* he says, * fill my pages with inquiries of this 
 supernatural kind, I feel bound to record the legend of 
 the brothers Corfidii' (p, 10, col. B, 1. 3 Hept.). 
 
3 TANTUDE 
 
 4 opusfuitnostrocor 
 
 5 enoscere quantum 
 
 6 memoriae traders 
 
 K. Pertz records no variant, but states that the first letter 
 of 1. 5 was not distinguishable. We have, therefore, only- 
 three letters to rely upon, opus fuit nostroCOR (lacuna of one 
 letter) noscere. Francken has emended this most excellently 
 opus fuit nos recognoscere, where recognoscere is opposed to 
 memoriae tradere as reviewing and verifying to simply 
 recording. Yet in a recent volume of the Archiv fur 
 Lateinische Lexicograiohie (xi. 266), as well as in his com- 
 plete edition, we find Flemisch rejecting this conjecture and 
 returning to the suggestion of the Heptas opus fuit nostra 
 corde noscere. This gives but a poor sense. A writer of 
 annals, apologizing for mentioning at some length a 
 spiritualistic story, would surely have used words which 
 were more intelligible to an ordinary reader, words in 
 which the antithesis to Tinemoriae tradere would have 
 been easily and immediately grasped. But, it is argued, 
 such a use of cor, to express the mental or inward faculty, 
 is archaic, and might naturally be found in a writer belong- 
 ing to an archaizing epoch. As if the words were not 
 a mere conjecture at best! For we must not shut our eyes 
 to the fact that in discussing the age of Licinianus one set 
 of critics start from an imperfectly conserved text and then 
 read into it presumptive archaisms ; another, assuming such 
 conjectural archaisms as proven, swell in this way the 
 catalogue of Licinianean peculiarities and construct a fragile 
 and very assailable edifice thereupon. 
 
 I suppose few will lay much stress on the occasional 
 occurrence of forms like Archelauus, Archelauo side by 
 side with Archelaus, Archelao. The Heptas cite several 
 similarly enlarged forms from inscriptions, Menelauus 
 Menelauos Nicolauus, and the new Thesaurus Linguae 
 Latinae quotes (also from inscriptions) five instances in 
 which a v precedes i in this actual name, one in which it 
 precedes 0. The same digammated forms occur in early 
 
 A3 
 
10 
 
 MSS., and I think it would be rash to conclude anj'thing 
 from such a fluctuation of spelling as to the precise date of 
 our author. The same may be said of Ar lobar dianes^ 
 of which, however, neither the Heptas nor the new 
 Thesaurus Linguae Latinae quote any parallel instance. 
 But if Medientius for Mezentius is found in very early MSS. 
 of the Aeneid, an isolated form like Ariohardianes (see 
 p. 34, 1. 19) cannot by itself be thought very significant. 
 
 The Historical Events contained in the Fragments. 
 
 The period of history contained in the fragments extends 
 from 591-676 A. u.c.= 163-78 B.C. Livy's last extant book, 
 xlv, reaches to 167 B.C. The Licinianus leaves therefore 
 begin very nearly where our books of Livy end. It is 
 interesting to compare this with the new epitome of Livy 
 discovered by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt, the remains of 
 which cover a period of fifty-three years, from 190 to 137, 
 corresponding to Livy's books xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, 
 and again to books xlviii to Iv, where we have no longer 
 complete books, but merely Periochae. 
 
 The first of the Licinianus fragments (which is miserably 
 mutilated) includes, where it is coherent, an archaeological 
 discussion on cavalry, with illustrations from Greek, 
 especially Spartan records. The chief point gained from 
 it is a confirmation of the rare word fiexuntes as registered 
 hy Flacidus fiexuntes equitis quoddarti genus ah ornamenta 
 equi quod fiexum uocant 
 
 The second fragment is more purely historical. It 
 begins with a description of the character of Antiochus IV, 
 Epiphanes, his eccentricities, sacrilegious acts, and death. 
 It is to be regretted that the text is again very imperfect, 
 and though the details are helped out by Poly bins, Dio- 
 dorus, and the 41st book of Livy, much still baffles the 
 ingenuity of critics. It is at the end of the section about 
 Antiochus that the words occur to which I have referred 
 above, as alluding to the completion of the temple of Zeus 
 
 * Dieckmann de Granii Liciniani fontibus et auctoribus, p. 9. 
 
11 
 
 Olympius at Athens aedes nobilissiTna Olymipii louis 
 Atheniensis diu imperfecta permanse\ydii\ leaving us un- 
 certain whether Hadrian's work, by which it was finally 
 completed, was intended by our annalist or not. Two 
 prodigies, or rather spiritualistic stories, follow, for the 
 insertion of which Licinianus thinks he must apologize; 
 his words are memorable, and show an enlightenment 
 of spirit hardly to be expected : nee opplendae sunt huius- 
 modi cognitionihus chartulae. 
 
 After mentioning a fault in taking the auspices, by which 
 the appointment of the consuls was vitiated — here we 
 can check the narrative by the further statements of 
 Cicero and Val. Maximus — Licinianus proceeds to praise 
 P. Lentulus, consul sufFectus of 59a, for his adroitness 
 in buying up the ager publicus occupied by individuals. 
 
 The excerpt ends with the senate's appointment of 
 Antiochus V to succeed his father Epiphanes, and his 
 premature decease. 
 
 Fragment iii introduces the Cimbrian war, and the 
 mismanagement of it by Mallius and Caepio. Most of 
 this part is well preserved, and adds particulars not to be 
 found elsewhere. A series of portents follows, in the last 
 of which we are told of a hymn composed by a woman 
 named Amata, perhaps a vestal virgin (Gell. 1. 12), and sung 
 by boys of noble birth. 
 
 The excerpt ends with the banishment of Mallius, which 
 follows the similar banishment of Caepio. Measures of 
 Rutilius to secure Italy against the invasion of the Cimbri. 
 
 Fragment iv (from B. xxxv) contains episodes of the 
 civil war between Marius and Sulla. It opens with an 
 examination of the llbri fatales, which pointed to Cinna, 
 and declared that peace and safety could only return if six 
 tribunes were ejected. 
 
 Marius, encouraged by a supernatural presage, collects 
 an army of 1,000 men, meets Cinna at the promontory of 
 Telamon, and is joined by many exiles. He levies a legion 
 of volunteers and makes Cinna commander-in-chief. 
 
 At this point the lacunae are so perplexing as to make 
 
12 
 
 tlie sequence of events a chiaroscuro. Marius' capture of 
 Ostia and attack on the Janiculum, including a temporary 
 repulse, seem to be tolerably made out. 
 
 Inserted in this confused narrative, but more intelligibly 
 preserved, is the episode of the involuntary fratricide 
 quoted above. 
 
 Pestilence breaks out, and 17,000 men die in the camp 
 of Octavius. Pompeius Strabo succumbs to the effects of 
 a lightning stroke, his body is taken from the coffin and 
 dragged through mud. His army is transferred to Octa- 
 vius. Metellus having led his forces against Cinna, they 
 salute and are resaluted by Cinna's troops ; Metellus then 
 makes overtures of peace to Cinna. 
 
 Here the narrative shifts to Sulla's operations in Greece 
 against Mithridates' officers, Dorilaus and Archelaus. 
 Archelaus' son is killed, and his army defeated with the 
 loss of 25,000 men. Archelaus escapes in a skiff to Chalcis. 
 
 Conference of Sulla and Archelaus at Aulis. Conditions 
 of peace. Archelaus to deliver his fleet to Sulla ; Mithri- 
 dates to retire from all the islands, Asia, Bithynia, 
 Paphlagonia, and Galatia ; C. Oppius and M'. Aquilius to be 
 set free, and all the captives restored. 
 
 Francken has called attention to the omission of Cap- 
 padocia from this list of territories to be ceded by 
 Mithridates, and to the fact that Licinianus has described 
 Sulla as demanding the cession of Aquilius, when he must 
 have known that he had been put to death by torture, as 
 recorded by Cicero, the elder Pliny, and Appian (del. Manil. 
 V, Plin. xxxiii. 18, App. Mithr. xxi). Another weak point 
 is the doubt which attaches to the place where these con- 
 ditions were arranged ; in one passage Licinianus appears 
 to name Aulis, later on Dardanus in Asia Minor. 
 
 Sulla executes the leaders of revolt at Ephesus and 
 restores to Nicomedes Euergetes the sovereignty of Bithynia. 
 Some details are added of the family and wives of 
 Nicomedes. This part of the MS. has been ill preserved ; 
 M. Reinach has shed light on some of its obscurities by an 
 appeal to numismatology and Greek inscriptions, and I believe 
 
13 
 
 myself to have restored Aristoanassa to a position which 
 hitherto has been claimed unreservedly for Aristonica. 
 
 From these dimly lighted fragments we are grateful to 
 escape into the clearer light and comparatively ascertained 
 text of Fragm. v, which belonged to book xxxvi of the 
 complete work. 
 
 It begins with the African triumph of Cn. Pompeius, 
 then only 25 years of age, celebrated on March 12/ and 
 distinguished from other triumphs by an attempt twice 
 made to enter the walls of Rome with a team of Leptitan 
 elephants. Probably in connexion with this is the mention 
 of a fight of bulls and elephants, which had first been 
 exhibited by Claudius Pulcer, curule aedile, in 655/99, 
 and was now repeated by the two brothers Luculli. 
 
 The town of Volaterrae surrenders to Rome, after the 
 people had stoned to death the praefect appointed by 
 Sulla, C. Papirius Carbo, brother of the more famous consul 
 Cn. Carbo. Following his irregular method, Licinianus 
 takes the occasion to speak of the similar surrender of 
 Nola the year before, adding the story of Papius Mutilus, 
 a proscribed leader of the Itali, who finding his wife 
 Bassia (the Bastia of Liv. perioch. 89) refused him admit- 
 tance to her house at Teanum, stabbed himself with a 
 dagger. 
 
 Of Sulla's death we have no account, but his cremation 
 in the Campus Martins, which was attended by a large 
 concourse, is specially dwelt upon. Licinianus adds some 
 new details, which, as Camozzi observes, are not found 
 elsewhere, (j) Cicero (Legg. ii. 22) and Pliny {H. iV. vii. 55) 
 state that Sulla himself had wished to be burnt : our 
 annalist says his own wish was to be buried, but that L. 
 Marcius Philippus the orator, fearing the body might be 
 dragged from its resting-place, as had been done with the 
 body of Marius, prevailed to have it cremated. (2) A 
 iustitium was declared, and the Roman matrons mourned 
 Sulla for a year. The circumstance of a heavy rain falling 
 
 1 Mentioned by Licinianus only (Camozzi). 
 
14 
 
 when the pyre was set fire to is also recorded by Plutarch 
 (SuU. 38). 
 
 Here Licinianus contrasts his plan of writing with 
 Sallust's: nos, ut indituimus, nnoras et non urgentia 
 omittemus. Sallust should be read as an orator, not as a 
 historian. He is a censurer of his own time, carps at 
 delinquencies, introduces set speeches {contiones, cf. lustin. 
 xxxviii. 3. II ^) of his own composition, digresses into 
 descriptions of sites and scenery. The concluding words 
 of this much quoted appreciation of Sallust are unfortu- 
 nately irrecoverable ; but the passage as a whole conveys 
 a fair impression of what Licinianus aimed to effect, i. e. a 
 rSsumd of Roman history in a plain style, with few digres- 
 sions, and avoiding points which could not be thought to 
 bear on the subject materially. It follows that to Licinia- 
 nus the frequent prodigies which interrupt the narrative 
 were not thought unimportant, as indeed their frequency 
 in Livy seems to show that he also considered them an 
 integral part of the history of Rome, 
 
 After this the speech of M. Aemilius Lepidus against 
 restoring the tribunician power to its pre-Sullan supremacy 
 is recorded, and the words extat oratio are added. This 
 can, I believe, only refer to the actual speech of Lepidus 
 which was given after delivery to copyists and published • 
 similarly in the 59th periocha of Livy, the formula extat 
 oratio is used of an oration spoken by the censor Q. 
 Metellus urging marriage as a necessity. This oration of 
 Metellus, the periocha adds, was quoted by Augustus cur)i 
 de maritandis ordinihus ageret, as if written expressly to 
 suit his own time when it was necessary to enforce 
 marriage by penalties. I mention this because the words 
 of Licinianus have been thought to refer to a speech which 
 
 ^ ' Quam orationem (a contio of Mithridates to his soldiers) dignam duxi 
 cuius exemplum breuifcati huius operis insererem ; quam obliquam 
 Pompeius Trogus exposuit, quoniam in Liuio et in Sallustio reprehendit 
 quod contiones directas pro sua oratione (ratione Wdlfflin) operi suo 
 inserendo historiao modum excesserlnt.' This passage of Justin makes 
 it probable that the imperfect word cont .... iiujerit should be emended 
 contioms, rather than conuicia. (lordan.) 
 
15 
 
 Sallust (Hist.i. fr. ^^ Maurenbrecher) has placed in the 
 mouth of Lepidus at a period some time before the death 
 of Sulla. The passage of the periocha seems conclusive 
 against this ; a speech composed in the style of those in 
 Thucydides and Livy, to give liveliness and colour to a 
 formal history, might no doubt be referred to as confirming 
 a statement but could never have been described as an 
 extant oration. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 1 SUGGESTIONS ON THE TEXT OF LICINIANUS. 
 
 In printing the text I follow the reproduction given by the Bonn 
 Heptas (H.), also their paging ; capitals only where the letters leave 
 a doubt. 
 
 p. 4, col. a, 1. 2o — 
 
 flexuntes a genere PnIIDILIUMQUODREGUM uocabant. 
 
 Placidus (p. 46 Deuerling) Flexuntes equitis quoddam genus ab ornamento 
 equi quodjlexum uocant. pensilium H. Can there have been a form in u, 
 pendulium? QUODREGUM, I think, is for quo regunt. For regunt - 
 flectunt, and quo regunt = ornamentum quo equos flectu^nt, i. e. flexum. 
 
 The preceding sentence I would write thus: — scio quos Spartiatae . . ., 
 et quidam avi-nnovs hoc die, at ali(i) KaWinnovs appella(n)t. hoc die = 
 hodie, at the present time. 
 
 p. 8, col. A, 1. 8 — 
 
 Incertae naturae i]s LEVITATISQUAE SUL .... 'R(douUful)V LIS- 
 COMISABAR .... ENIRE 
 
 leuiiatisque summae Mommsen, but not convincingly. I think it possible 
 that the letters after Icuitatisque point rather to ADULESCENTULIS. 
 Both Polybius (xxvi. i) 6t€ twi/ veuripojv aiadoiTo rivas avvivojxovjxivovs . . . 
 iraprjv kniKOind^ouv and Diodorus (xxix. 32) et rivas rwv vioiv aiadoiTO . . . 
 (nl KWfxov irapeyeveTo mention revelling parties of young men as the 
 occasion of Antiochus' eccentricities. For comisabar it seems probable 
 we should prefer comisator to comisans or comisabundus. The Bonn editors 
 supply [mferw]enire very plausibly. 
 
 ' ib., 1. 16 — 
 
 asturcone pom(i3am) . ETEBAT 
 Probably the lost letter was R, as Bernays thought — REGEBAT. In 
 support of asturcone may be quoted from Gotz's Thesaurus Glossarum 
 Asturco equus ambulator. Such an ambling horse would suit any one 
 marshalling a procession. 
 
 p. 8, col. B, 1. II — 
 
 has ille mETAPIoTANTISACRITErGLISCENTISEXTENDIT 
 A syllable has fallen out here, ME[RI]TAS. The rest follows easily : 
 IN for 10, then tantis sacrilegiis poenas expendit. This is very near Bursian's 
 has ille poenas tanti sacrilegi expendit ; but poenas seems to be disguised 
 rather in CENTIS than in METAPIO. The palimpsest seems to have 
 given either EXTENDIT or EXPENDIT : the meaning, however, leaves 
 no doubt that the latter is the right word. 
 
 1 Reprinted with omissions from Hermathena for 1907, pp. 414-32. 
 
17 
 
 ib., 1. 17— 
 
 01ympio[n] ETMURESLAPIDEMtAs . oneINSULUERAT. 
 
 Probably ex (mar)moris lapide octa (? meta)s[tyl]on ei instituerat. 
 The last two words were suggested by Keil, but are doubtful. 
 
 Bursian conj. e lapide marmore ; but ET is rather EX than E. For 
 octastylon cf. Vitruv. iii. i fin. huius exemplar Eomae non est, sed Athenis 
 octasiylon templo Olympio. 
 
 If, however, the M before tAs is reliable, perhaps fxeraffrvKov * colon- 
 naded' might seem to express the same idea less pai-ticularly, since 
 Lieinianus goes on to say nam columnas aliquot numero circumdederat. 
 
 p. 10, col. A, 1. I — 
 
 The first words of this passage are, I believe, et qu{a)e alia ; then 
 perhaps multi inueniuntur followed by a participle (Jingentes, commenti, 
 credentes ?) : as Pliny says of Corn. Nepos quaeque alia Cornelius Nepos 
 auidissime credidit. 
 
 In 1. 5 RICRO for which Mommsen conj. ROGO may be [FE]RETRO. 
 
 In the story of the two brothers Corfidii, I think it possible that the 
 letters following maior frater heredem (p. 10, col. a, 1. 9) represent 
 milieus fratrem minorem instituerat legtoque (= lectoque) testament© 
 reuixit maior : but if this is so, not only is miliens a somewhat unusual 
 breviloquy, but the words minorem fratrem are rather an inference from 
 Pliny's account of the same event than obtainable from the letters of the 
 codex as reported by Pertz. 
 
 The sentence after this (1. 13) may have been as follows : [a] fratre 
 s[u]o ait se dimissum ; eum petisse funeri s[uo] erogaretur et 
 
 locum (then a line lost, e. g. Flemisch's in quo defodisset aurum) edocuisse. 
 
 In this attempted restitution edocuisse is Mommsen's, but indicasse of 
 H. is also possible. What the word was between petisse and funeri, 
 represented by T in the codex, is very doubtful ; it would seem to be 
 some numerical abbreviation. 
 
 p. 10, col. B, 1, 3 — 
 
 tantumde(m) opus fuit NOSTROCORENOSCERE quantum memoriae 
 tradere. 
 
 Francken's nos recognoscere seems to me right ; the corruption probably 
 arose from the tendency to introduce a g after con, recongnoscere. At any 
 rate the suggestion of the Heptas nostro corde noscere is very hazardous ; its 
 strangeness and its not being the MS. reading combine to make it 
 improbable. This would not matter so much if an argument had not 
 been drawn from it in favour of an Antoninian era as the date at which 
 Lieinianus wrote. Between Fronto or A. Gellius and Lieinianus it is 
 diflficult to trace anything like real similarity ; archasisms are rare in the 
 few passages of L. where the reading is ascertained. 
 
 p. 14, col. A, 1. 6 — 
 
 Senatus permisit agrum Campanum quern omnem priuati possidebant 
 coemeret et jiublicus fiei'et. 
 
 I see no great reason for altering et to ui ; the nominative changes 
 
18 
 
 from Lentulus to the land : * allowed him to buy up the land, and the 
 land to become in this way state domain.' 
 
 ib., 21 — 
 
 INUlSOSDIUIStJ. ... 
 
 This is for in(di)uisos diuisum [iret]. 
 
 ib., col. B, 1. lo — 
 
 Antiochi Epiphanis regnum senatus filio Antiochi Antiocho puero 
 adtribuit qui paulo POSTE . . ITATUIPIAPRELIATUSEST. 
 
 Here Mommsen has most excellently recovered the Greek name 
 Eupator, possibly corrupted from a Greek-written original, and appellatus 
 est for APRELIATUS EST. But POST seems to have been followed by 
 E[A], which would be a little in the manner of Livy. 
 
 L i6— 
 
 petenti lUNGEBAT seems to be for TUNC NEGABAT or TUNC 
 ABNUEBAT * when he asked, at the time of the request, refused.' 
 
 1. 24 — 
 
 Et cum habuit MIS. 
 
 After MIS, which are the last letters of the line, the page comes 
 to an end. Hirschfeld has suggested -ERICORDIAM SENATUS as a 
 probable supplement. Following in his track I would offer -ERATIO 
 SENATUM. 
 
 p, 16, col. B, 1. 17 — 
 
 Legates — ita contumeliose submouit ut desperata pace ADO . . . 
 CAPTA postero die CASTR(A) eius non longe a Manli castris constituta. 
 
 ADO[rerentur] postero die H, omitting CAPTA. It seems possible 
 that the missing letters were ADO[rta ac] CAPTA ; the participle 
 adortus was sometimes passive. Then sint might follow after CASTRA. 
 Pertz, however, reports the letter following ADO as the left-hand half 
 of U. 
 
 p. 18, col. B, 1. 9 — 
 
 militum UieciUMQ. 
 
 May this have been uelitumqu^^ It is nearer to the reported letters 
 than calonumque. 
 
 p. 20, col. I, 1. I — 
 
 Matrona quaedam qua[si] mente commota sedit in consilio louis. 
 
 solio Keil and so H. This seems improbable. I think consilio means 
 the gods seated (in effigy) as assessors of Jupiter. Horace uses the same 
 words, Carm. iii. 25. 6 Caesaris audiar Aeternum meditans decus Stellis inserere 
 et consilio louts * Jove's council of assessors '. In the passage of Horace it 
 is more than probable that the twelve signs of the zodiac, who were in a 
 special sense called 0ov\atoi eeoi, are alluded to (Schol. Ap. R. iv. 262) ; 
 in the passage of Licinianus, the assessors of Jupiter would naturally be 
 the other eleven primary gods (Apoll. R., ii. 532 and schol.). 
 
 1.8— 
 
 Et die quodam AN . . LUDOSQUI futuri erant. 
 
 Karl Pertz's supplement an[te] ludos qui futuri erant is generally 
 
19 
 
 accepted as right ; but it is not certain. May it not have been die 
 quodam ante quam ludi Osci futuri erant — a more particular specification ? 
 Cic. Fam. vii. i non enim te puto Graecos aut Oscos ludos desiderasse, 
 praesertim cum Oscos uel in senatu uestro spectare possis. LUD . 
 OSQUI =-LUDI OSCI. 
 
 p. 20, col. A, 1. 20 
 
 Aliquod matronae [e]odem somn[i]o monitae [u]na eademque noctc 
 de . . IB . SACRIS praestite[runt] hocque SACRIFICATU aliquotiens. 
 
 Perhaps dei Liberi sacris : such a simultaneous warning would naturally 
 involve a religious rite of some expiatory kind. In SACRIFICATU is 
 perhaps disguised, not sacrificatum, but sacri factum, or factitatum. 
 
 ib., col. B, 1. 9 — 
 
 This sentence seems to me to have been as follows : 
 
 ,Rutilius consul collega Manlii, (hoc anno Cn. Pompeius natus est, solus 
 super rep. [b]onit[ate] aeque adque Cicero <laudandus>) cum metus 
 aduentantium Cimbrorum totam quateret ciuitatem ius iurandum a 
 iunioribus exegit. 
 
 The words hoc anno to aeque adque Cicero seem, as the Heptas suggested, 
 parenthetical : a deviation from the usual style of Licinianus justified by 
 the importance of the event, the birth of Pompeius Magnus, super rep. 
 bonitate = propter bonitatem in remp. The letters . ONITAEQ . are 
 a quite explicable corruption of BONITATEAEQ. 
 
 It is very noticeable that the description of Rutilius as consul collega 
 Manlii agrees exactly with Val. Max. ii. 3. 3 a P. Rutilio consule Cn. Manlii 
 collega. 
 
 p. 22, col. A, 1. 2 — 
 
 placuit quid in libris fatalibus SERIEPOSSET palam recitari. 
 
 This is surely [quid] i. 1. f. reperiri posset, not scriptum esset, as the first 
 editors supposed. 
 
 1. 6- 
 
 Constabat notari EAGmINECINNASEACTRIB'PATRIAPULSIS tran- 
 quillum otium et securitatem futuram. 
 
 Read notari eo carmine (so Pertz) Cinna[m] ac sex tribunis patria 
 pulsis. Mommsen, whom Camozzi and Flemisch follow, conj. carmine 
 (without eo) Cinna sexque tribunis : but notari seems more likely to mean 
 ' was marked out ' than ' it was indicated '. The inversion sex ac for 
 ac sex is supported by similar dislocations in the MS. 
 
 In the letters which immediately follow futuram, PETERAT auspicium 
 et superiore casu Mario oblatum, for which Bernays conj. REPETAM, 
 the Bonn Heptas REFERAM, I offer SET ERAT, to which et appears to 
 me to point, * However, this was not the only instance of the divine favour 
 towards Marius ; an omen had befallen him before,' as Licinianus goes 
 on to record. 
 
 1.15- 
 
 uidet asellum forte ABIECTIS et . . BARTIS. 
 obiectis ei Pertz, cf. Val. Max. i. 5 cum ei pabulum obiceretur ; cibariis H : 
 
20 
 
 whence Flemisch restores, in my opinion rightly, obiectis ei [ci]hariis. In 
 the next clause, praecini perhaps accords better with a presage such as this 
 than praecipi, and TDE is perhaps INDE rather than IDEM. 
 
 1. 23— 
 
 Naui peruenit Ials CHeOnPKOFECTUSETHISPANIA. 
 
 Here EX has palpably been corrupted into ET. IalsCHrOn probably 
 disguises in the form of abbreviation TALS ACRON, i.e. Telamonis 
 promontorium (Ptol. iii. i. 4). Telamonis is due to the younger Pertz ; the 
 name is sometimes spelt with an a, Talamon {Diet, of Geography a. v.). 
 My own part of this conjecture anpov I consider all but certain (Ptol. iii. 
 I. 4 TeKa/xibv aKpov). 
 
 col. B, 1. 21 lUTUMUELLETIREREA is quite straightforward, except 
 KEA, for which I suggest [intey-ea, anticipating [do] nee of 1. 23, like Liv. 
 ix. 9. 13 interea in indutiis res fuisset, donee ab Roma legati aut uictoriam illis 
 certam aut pacem adferrent. 
 
 1. 23 subrepserat of the codex seems to be an error for subrepserit as 
 included in the clause [adiiutum uellet ire interea . . . donee. 
 
 1. 24 NARBO looks like a mistake for Carbo, NESOSPORTUM has a 
 strange semblance of a semi-Greek compound nesoportum * island harbour'. 
 Is it possible that Licinianus called by this name the harbour of Ostia ? 
 I have not been able to find the word elsewhere ; but such a translation 
 of a Greek noun vijaoXifxrjv would have well suited the later post-republican 
 descriptions of Ostia, as Dion Cassius says of Claudius' reconstruction of 
 it: Ix. II. 4 TovTO 5^ ky avr^ r^ vtXdyei xwfjiaTa (HarfpojOev avrov /xcyaka 
 XcOaay OdXaaaav kvravda iroWijv -nepiifiaKi Kal vijaov ev avTy irvpyov tc eir' 
 ^Keivg (ppvKTOJpiav ex^''''** KaTiarrjaaTO. 
 
 p. 24, col. A — For an attempted restitution of this column see Herma- 
 thena for 1907, pp. 424-5. 
 
 p. 24, col. B, 1. 14 — 
 
 The story of the two combatants, one of whom after killing the other 
 recognized him as his brother while stripping his body, and then stabbed 
 himself on the funeral pile constructed for his brother's corpse, must have 
 been famous, as it is mentioned by Livy, Epit. 79 ; Val. Maximus v. 5. 4, 
 Tacitus, Hist. iii. 51, and Orosius v. 19. 12 (Flemisch). To these may be 
 added the writer of two epigrams, Anth. Lat. 462, 463 Riese, in which, 
 however, the event is placed at the time of the civil war at Actium. The 
 story is given on p. 24, col. B, of Licinianus, and happens to be unusually 
 well preserved. I demui', therefore, to the omission by the Heptas in 
 the words (1. 20) multa praecatus et inpraecatus gladio se traiecit of praecatus et, 
 though the excision is accepted by Camozzi and Flemisch. The unhappy 
 slayer of his brother might well be described as offering, before he killed 
 himself, many prayers and invoking many curses : prayers to the gods to 
 forgive his rash act of murder, curses on the authors of the civil war, 
 who had caused two brothers to fight as enemies. 
 
21 
 
 p. 26, col. A, 1. 18 — 
 
 dignitatem ANTIREMPRiESENTIB • PATRIB • 
 
 d. antiquam prae se ferentibus patribus H. d. antiquam P. R. tuen- 
 tibus patribus Francken. The words are very doubtful. Can rem praesentu 
 bus be for repraesentantibus ? or should we write d. ant\erio\rem praestantibua 
 * the senators asserting their former dignity ' ? 
 
 col. B, 1. 8— 
 
 cum Cinna consilia sociabat et Octauio FECER. 
 
 tegebat Mommsen, detegebat H : the antithesis seems to point to 
 SECER[NEBAT]. 
 
 p. 28, col. A, top — 
 
 The loss of letters here allows nothing beyond a hazy view of the 
 meaning. The general Pompeius Strabo is lying in his tent disabled by 
 a lightning stroke ; and C. Cassius is sent to act for him whilst he 
 recovers. Then follow, 1. 6, the words ADQUEMPOMPEI .... 
 MREPENTESEERIGIT. The Heptas filled up the gap by reading 
 Pompei[us nuntiu]m, which, if the codex is reported with anything like 
 truth, can hardly be right. I suggest ad quern Pompei[us tum] repente 
 se erigit, ' on whose arrival Pompeius roused himself for the moment/ 
 like Catullus' ut mihi turn repente uisum est, x. 3. 
 
 Pompeius, instead of recovering, died. A description of his funeral 
 follows, in which, however, the loss of letters again causes perplexity. 
 The following is an attempt differing in some points from those hitherto 
 published : — 
 
 p. 28, col. A, 1. 14 — 
 
 Eius funus populus .... PADANUS dir(r)uit MOR . . . DUMQ. 
 sIkNODesCusSU . . aRCAENUM trahere non destitit omnibus con- 
 sentientibus dignam caelo poenam et perfidiae et Asav . . uITIAE 
 FESStSIDUM HOS . . DEM expendisse. 
 
 1. 15 Perhaps mor[bi] dumque decussu[m ex] area caeno trahere 
 
 non destitit. ARCA, a common word for * coffin ', would account for the 
 loss of CA before -ENUM. Then, perhaps, et perfidiae et aua[ritiae 
 et sae]uitiae : cf. Veil. ii. 22 : saeuitiae causam auaritia praebuit. Plutarch 
 expressly states that the one cause of Pompeius Strabo's unpopularity was 
 his XPVH-^''''^^ airX-qoTos kniOvfxia (Pomp. i). The two following words are 
 probably pessimum (Keil), perhaps, but more doubtfully, hominem (H.). 
 
 1. 23 seq. I read thus — 
 
 Sed ora[to]res et tribuni repressa [m]ultitudine cadauer stiperin[iecta 
 ueste non sinunt] in busta trahi ; [alii dicunt] in lecticulam uulgariter 
 eum elatum sepulturae datum. 
 
 There is some ground for retaining oratores. The funeral of Pompeius 
 seems to have taken place at Rome (Plut. Pomp, i, Veil. ii. 21), and was 
 a proper occasion for the numerous orators of that time to protest, so far 
 as they could, against an act of popular barbarity. 
 
22 
 
 col. B, 1. 9 — 
 
 milites repente oiei'LEISTOTIS clamore exercitum Ciniiae salutant ac 
 resalutantur. 
 
 Possibly centurieis totis. 
 
 1- 15— 
 
 ipse inter primes ad Cinnam de pace legatum tiCIssEnsDEeA. 
 
 Perhaps mittit paciscens de ea. 
 
 p. 32, col. A, 1. 12 — 
 
 quadrigas . . . eSSuAS septuaginta. 
 essedas K. Pertz, falcatas H. I suggest EIUS ET SUAS, sent by 
 Dorilaus and Mithridates. 
 
 1. 20 — 
 
 SENECTU . . . DERIDI continebant. 
 
 Traube has restored se noctu, and noctu, I think, points to the antithesis 
 ad meridiem or usque ad meridiem. 
 
 p. 34, col. B, 1. 1— 
 
 Hortensius RE ... . fugauerat. 
 retro Pertg : perhaps repuisos. 
 
 1.13- 
 
 oppida INpAcasru . redigit in suam potestatem 
 inpacata K. Pertz. I suggest rursus for the gap before redigit. 
 
 1.15- 
 
 Nicomedi regnum Bithiniae restituit RUC . . ESToPRELIATI 
 PAPHLA . ON . . 
 
 The < ' in ESTo is doubtful. 
 
 Camozzi is indubitably right in restoring the name Paphlagonia to this 
 sentence ; but the rest of his conjecture cui est pars addita is too remote 
 from the letters, though I have nothing better to suggest of my own. 
 
 p. 36, col. A, 1. 4— 
 
 The spelling here of the name Nicomedes Euergetes as [NI]CONEMES 
 EUERSEIES is comical, but is expressly vouched for by Pertz. 
 
 In I. 5 I would write merito ita dictus for . ERITADIcTUS. In 1. 7 
 alligabat, not alliciebat, seems demanded by beneficiis suis : the codex gave 
 ALLI . EBAT. 
 
 1. 10 The letters ARISTONAS point to Aristo[a']nas[sa'], a. form like 
 Plistoanax. Such varieties of name are common enough. It is even not 
 impossible that Halie, as the codex is reported to have given, is a real 
 name ; at any rate, the adjective SICHEANA, by which she appears to 
 be described as belonging to Sycae, or Syce, a town of Cilicia (Steph. Byz. 
 s. v., Athen. iii, 78. b), should be retained. The two words were cor- 
 rected by Keil into Hagne Cyzicena ; and this is sometimes printed as right. 
 But though Cyzicus seems to be spelt in the codex CELIEUS, this does not 
 justify so remote a corruption as Sicheana for Cyzicena. Reinach (JRevue de 
 
23 ^^^/ - .^: - ''\> -:^' 
 
 Numismatique for 1897, pp. 241 sqq.) has suggested Nicaeena, de Ripci 
 Sigeana. 
 
 In the gap, 1. 10, quem . . . RARISTONAC, I suggest [UXO]R : for 
 procreare is at times used of the mother : cf. Cic. de Orat. i. 3 procreatricem 
 quandam et quasi parentem, and cf. Aen. x. 705, where Vergil seems to have 
 written Cisseis regina creat : Paris urhe paterna Occubat. 
 
 col. B, 1. 8 — 
 
 Chrestus etiam quasi meliore nomine ab eodem REUOCuai. 
 It is difficult to explain reuocari of the new name given to Socrates. 
 I believe we should write ab eodem re[ge] uocan. 
 
 In the fragment of book xxxvi (p. 38 H.) Licinianus, recording the African 
 triumph of Cn. Pompeius, mentions the story of his trying to enter Rome 
 with a team of elephants, and finding the entrance too narrow to admit 
 of it 
 
 p. 38, col. A, 1. 7— 
 
 QUI . . AdMEMORANTeiOTU TEMAELEPHA 
 
 EpcinITINES Ro . . MaUEREMINGRE RoIT . . . cNrECUISSE 
 
 ELE RADCURRUM TUNC^ AIS . QUAMQus RIS 
 
 EXPERIRENTUR. 
 
 I supplement this as follows : — 
 
 Quidam admemorant Pompeium (?) cu[m sex uel sepjtem elepha[ntis 
 Africis LJeptitania Romam auen^em ingre[di int]roit[um facere ne]quisse 
 elephantis ad currum iunctis [ne]xisque quamuis bis experiretur. 
 
 Admemorare, though the new Latin Thesaurus quotes no instance of it, 
 must have existed before admemoratio could have been used by Augustine. 
 It seems probable th&t Leptis (Plin. H. N.viii. 32 elephantos fert Africa ultra 
 Syrticas solitudines) in an adjectival form, whether Leptitanis or Leptinis 
 or Lepticinis,^ is disguised in the letters which follow. Pliny {H. N. viii. 4), 
 while mentioning the fact that Pompeius Magnus, in his African triumph, 
 was the first who yoked elephants before the eyes of the Romans, adds that 
 Procilius denied the possibility of such an elephant team passing beyond 
 the city gates. 
 
 col. B, 1. 14 — 
 
 et Samnites Q. QUI Nol(a)e erant. 
 This must be, I think, quiquiy plural of quisquia. 
 
 p. 42, col. A, 1. 22 — 
 
 The characterization of Sallust here given by Licinianus is an almost 
 unique literary remark in the scanty remains the palimpsest has pre- 
 served. Sallustium non ut historicum aiunt sed ut oratorem legendum. 
 nam et tempera reprehendit sua et delicta carpit et con[tiones] ingerit et 
 DATINCE .... loca montes flumina et hoc genus AMO . . . Mommsen 
 
 ^ The three letters UNC form one composite letter in the codex. 
 
 ' In Tac. Ann, iii. 74 the Medicean MS. has lepcinos ; the occurrence 
 of c there and in Licin. is remarkable. Can there have been a form 
 Lepticinus ? 
 
^ t^ ^ ^ • 
 
 24 
 
 conj. dat in censum, Flemisch dat invkem : perhaps dat in scaenam. For 
 AMO . . . Koil's amoena seems a plausible suggestion. 
 
 p. 44, col. A, 1. I — 
 
 In quorum AcRI . . cIsS deduxerat SA . . . FUERE. 
 
 ACRI or AGRI looks like the remains of agris — a variation of construc- 
 tion for in agros deducere. The word which followed is very doubtful ; milites 
 was suggested by the younger Pertz ; nothing more plausible has been 
 offered. But SA may well be the remains of saluos or saluas, with which the 
 Heptas' supplement [resti'\tuei-e for FUERE would well agree ; since the 
 outer margin of col. a had been torn away, and it is uncertain how 
 many letters should be supplied — a remark which holds good also in 1. 6, 
 where I would supply [mulier'jibus rather than [complur]ibus of the Bonn 
 Heptas. Similarly, in 1. 7 agros \_cap]to9 reddiderunt. 
 
Gay lord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 PAT. JAN. 21,1908 
 
 3'^^^o f 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY