^{page 403 note 1} BC iv. 2. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 2} The question of the form of the is not relevant to the present discussion, but I hope to consider it at some future date.

^{page 403 note 3} A basic discussion by Cichorius, C., Röm. Stud. (Leipzig, 1922), pp. 193–4, 196CrossRefGoogle Scholar, produces the following details of Varro's career: 86–71 B.C. Legate of Pompey in Spain; ? 70 B.C. Tribune during Pompey's consulship; 67 B.C. Legate in Pompey's Pirate War; 59 B.C. Served on the Land Commission appointed by the Lex Iulia Agraria; 50–49 B.C. Legate of Pompey in Further Spain. Cf. also Dahlmann, H., R.–E. Supplbd. 6, 1175–7Google Scholar; Broughton, T. R. S., MRRP (New York, 1952), vol. iiGoogle Scholar, under the relevant years; Corte, F. Della, Varrone, it terzo gran lume romano (Genoa, 1954), passim, esp. pp. 52–126Google Scholar. We may also note that in 76 B.C. Varro wrote the Ephemeris (Auct. Itin. Alex. 6) and in 71 B.C. the (Gell., NA. 14. 7), both for Pompey.

^{page 403 note 4} Henriksson, K. E., Griechische Büchertitel in der römischen Literatur (Helsinki, 1956), pp. 164–6Google Scholar reviews recent work on this subject but offers nothing new.

^{page 403 note 5} Strasburger, H., Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte (Munich, 1938), p. 37, n. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 6} Reviewing Della Corte (op. cit.), JRS xlv (1955), 224–6.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 7} Dahlmann, H., reviewing Della Corte (op. cit.), Gnomon xxvii (1955), 179.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} Anderson, W. S., Pompey, His Friends and the Literature of the First Century B.C., Univ. of California Publications in Classical Philology xix. i (1963), 45.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} Pausanias, 6. 18. 3. He does not give the title of the work; we learn this from Lucian, Pseudolog. 29, Euseb. Praep. Evang. 10. 10. 22, both of whom ascribe the work to Theopompus without comment, Joseph. Ap. 1. 221, who denies that Theopompus was the author (he calls the work, perhaps confusing it with the of Dicaearchus), and Suidas, s.v. .

^{page 404 note 4} The three-headed mythic figure which comes immediately to mind is Cerberus, and it seems unlikely that any of the Triumvirate would be enamoured of the parallel. The majority of multi-headed creatures in myth were obnoxious, e.g. Scylla, Hydra, Geryon, Hecate. We may compare too Plato's description of the in Rep. 588 c, and Ariston, Gnom. Vat. (ed. Sternbach), no. 121, who describes it as . Hubbard (loc. cit.) tells us: ‘In fact, was a notorious term of political abuse.’ This seems somewhat exaggerated; it hardly occurs often enough to be described as notorious. The only instances I have found show it used to describe monsters (Hdt. 9.81 and [Lucian] Philopatris I) and natural phenomena (Pind. ap. Strab. 9. 632 c, of the three peaks of Mt. Ptoum).

^{page 404 note 5} Della Corte (loc. cit.) argues that in this work Anaximenes attacked the view that the best form of government was a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, while he agrees that in the work Athens, Thebes, and Sparta were attacked. He thinks that as Anaximenes' work was a satire on Greek democracy and antiMacedonism, so Varro's similarly titled work was a satire on Roman democracy. But we know very little about the contents of Anaximenes' work; whether or not he did indulge in discussion of the best form of government, the point surely is that he attacked the three chief states of Greece, thus giving a title for Varro to use for his attack on the three chief men of Rome.

^{page 405 note 1} Schmidt, O. E., ‘Flugschriften aus der Zeit des ersten Triumvirats’, Neue Fahrb. vii (1901), 620–33Google Scholar, in the course of an interesting discussion of the pamphlet war which developed at this time, suggests that Varro put into effect an idea mentioned to him by Cicero, who, early in 59, was writing … Theopompio genere (Att. 2. 6. 2). If Cicero is in fact referring here to the ascribed to Theopompus it is equally possible that he got the idea from Varro's already published.

^{page 405 note 2} Vell. Pat. 2. 45. 2; Cicero, Att. 9.2a. I.

^{page 406 note 1} Kumaniecki, K., ‘Cicerone e Varrone. Storia di una conoscenza’, Athenaeum xl (1962) 221–43, esp. 224–8.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} Cicero, Att. 2. 20. 1 ( July 59 B.c.); 2. 21. 6 (after 25 July 59 B.C.). Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1965), 1. 392Google Scholar, states that ‘his [i.e. Varro's] was certainly not an attack on the “Triumvirs”’, but does not discuss the matter.

^{page 406 note 3} Cicero, Att. 2. 22. 4 (after 25 July 59 B.c.).

^{page 406 note 4} Ibid. 25. 1 (c. October 59 B.C.).

^{page 406 note 5} Euripides, Andr. 448Google Scholar and Phoen. 393 respectively.

^{page 406 note 6} Equally Cicero should have realized that Varro could in no way have helped him had he not changed his mind. But his failure to admit this is easily understood in this despairing outburst.

^{page 407 note 1} Cicero, , Att. 3. 8. 3Google Scholar (29 May 58 B.C.).

^{page 407 note 2} Ibid. 15. 1 (17 August 58 B.C.).

^{page 407 note 3} Ibid. 15. 3 (17 August 58 B.C.).

^{page 407 note 4} Ibid. 18. 1 (mid-September 58 B.C.).

^{page 407 note 5} I am grateful to Dr. J. A. Richmond and Dr. E. W. Marsden for making a number of helpful suggestions on the above.