^{page 79 note 1} Plautus uses the adverb musice of living ‘in style’ (Most. 729): ‘musice hercle agitis aetatem atque ut vos decet: vino et victu probo, piscatuelectili vitulam colitis.’ But the borrowing of the adjective allows no inference as to the name.

^{page 79 note 2} Symmachus' list of ingrati, apart from Alexander's being given pride of place, is arranged in the manner of the exempla collections: interna (Fulvius, Africanus, Rutilius) followed by externa (Pyrrhus, Mithridates). This Points to his having taken his list from one of these collections, which may or may not have been detailed enough to mention the story of the temple. But some doubt remains. If it is correctly deduced that he has here drawn on an exempla collection, the same deduction would seem to be justified with regard to Laud. Grat. 7, where he gives a briefer list of generals who have taken their teachers to the battle-field: Fulvius, Africanus, and Alexander (note the order!). Here, however, his source is different, since he mentions as Fulvius' companion not Ennius but Accius. This clearly is an error, but not Symmachus' own error. The same mistake is made by his contemporary St. Jerome, Euseb. Chron. 139, where he states that Accius ‘Pisaurum…inter colonos fuerat deductus’. Not Accius but Ennius took part in that deductio in 184 B.C. Apparently some earlier historian of Roman literature, on Whom both St. Jerome (F. Marx, RE i, 142) and Symmachus, Laud. Gral. 7, ultimately depend, has confused Accius and Ennius, and both passages should be included among the Ennius testimonia.

^{page 80 note 1} Book I:8 quotations. II: 10. III: 3. IV: 0. V: 1. VI: 2. VII: 5. VIII: 3. IX: 0. X: 2. XI: 4. XII: 0. XIV: 1. XV: 0. XVI: 11. XVII: 0. XVIII: 0.

^{page 80 note 2} Grammarians in general quote XVI more frequently than most of the other books, but the difference is nowhere as striking as in Festus. The separate edition of XVI-XVIII has affected Festus directly, the others indirectly. Th. Bergk, who observed the popularity of XVI, explained it as due to its literary excellence (Kleine Schriften, i. 257). This theory was rejected buy Vahlen (Ges. Phil. Schriften, ii. 248, n. 13), who pointed out that it is incompatible with what we know of the methods of ancient grammarians; Vahlen himself, however, made no attempt to account for the difference. A rival explanation to that given above would be that Verrius Flaccus used a separate edition of XVI, a family copy, perhaps, belonging to the Caecilii. But it is difficult to imagine a grammarian using a separate copy of one single book, and Pliny's adiecit, showing that the original edition ended with Book XV, supports the assumption of a separate edition of the last three. We understand now why Festus for once deviates from his normal habit of quoting the books of the Annals in their proper order where he quotes several passages under one lemma. Vahlen (Ennius, p. lxvi) was unable to explain why once BK. XVI is quoted before Bk. VIII. The reason apparently is that Verrius here consulted his edition of XVI-XVIII first.

^{page 82 note 1} ponīt is conjectured in 492 on the supposed aualogy of nictīt in 342. But the verb is nictire, not nictere (cf. Ernout-Meillet, s.v.), and the shortening of a long vowel before final t, though found, is by no means the rule in Ennius. nictīt, therefore, is correct, and ponīt wrong.

^{page 83 note 1} MissSteuart, , The Annals of Ennius, 96Google Scholar, objects to ‘latos | Per populos terrasque poematanostra cluebunt’, on the ground that a line with third trochee, without hepthemimeral caesura, and with third, fourth, and fifth foot dactyls is not in accordance with Ennius' metrical practice. As I agree with her in rejecting this line I want to state that I consider the metrical argument not valid, but need not go into the matter in detail. In view of the rarity of this caesural arrangement (one instance each with fourth foot spondee, 59, with fifth foot spondee, 201, and with fourth and fifth foot spondee, 304), the absence of an uncontested example with third, fourth, and fifth foot dactyls would appear to be purely accidental, particularly since, with fourth foot dactyl, fourth trochee caesura is likely to supervene (40, 89, 187, etc.).

^{page 83 note 2} My attention was drawn to this passage by Professor Fraenkel, who should not, however, be held responsible for the use I have made of it.

page 84 note 1 Marx, F., Rhein. Mus. lxxviii (1929), 299 ff.Google Scholar, and Runes, M., Festschrift Kretschmer, 202 ff.Google Scholar, have endeavoured to show that the Augustan poets first use vates in the sense of poet. Both disregard Varro's explicit testimony. Correct A. Ernout (Ernout-Meillet, s.v. vates): ‘Quand poeta s'est généralisé, vates a pris un sens péjoratif; puis la poésie impériale l'a repris, alors que poeta était devenu banal.’ In Ennius' time the reception of poeta, fitting as it did into a Latin declension scheme and therefore more successful than Ennius' introduction of poema was destined to be, is already an accomplished fact. Plautus uses it freely, and even Naevius is called poeta in the epitaph quoted above. Miss S, (p.158) suggests that Ennius, putting vates in the same category with carmen, Camena, and the Saturnian line, administered the knock-out blow to it by his scathing reference to the Saturnian poet who joined the company of the fauni and vates. Ennius addresses himself emphatically as poeta (Sat. 6), calls Homer poeta (Ann. 6), and speaks of sancti poetae (Incert. 19); he even coins the verb poetari (Sat. 64). For vates he has nothing but scorn. Even where he uses it in the sense of prophet (Ann. 380; Scen. 319) it is as contemptuous a term as hariolus.

^{page 84 note 2} P. Canal's suggestion that in corpore is Varro's addition (id est corpora), and that felo should be retained as velo, has little to recommend it, and is ruled out by the fact that velo would interrupt the continuous alliteration of the line.

^{page 85 note 1} 1. 112 ff.

ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai,

nata sit an contra nascentibus insinuetur,

et simul intereat nobiscum morte dirempta

an tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas

an pecudes alias divinitus insinuet se,

Ennius ut noster cecinit…

etsi praeterea tamen esse Acherusia templa Ennius aeternis exponit versibus edens,

quo neque permanent animae neque corpora nostra,

sed quaedam simulacra modis pallentia miris; unde sibi exortam semper florentis Homeri commemorat speciem lacrimas effundere salsas coepisse et rerum naturam expandere dictis.

^{page 86 note 1} The corroborative evidence of this circumstance, which had escaped me, was pointed out to me by Professor Fraenkel, to whose constant advice and generous assistance I am deeply indebted.