Some of the manuscripts of Aelius Anstides include a short oration in the form of an encomium to an unnamed king. The oration is entitled in three manuscripts and in another. It has been pointed out that in the former group of manuscripts the title is not preceded by the words thus casting doubt on Aristidean authorship.

The literary sources for the Flavian and Antonine periods of Roman history, it is a notorious and unhappy fact, where they exist at all, are infuriatingly fragmentary, frequently obscure, too frequently inaccurate or mendacious. Significant gaps still linger even in chronology; hence it can hardly occasion surprise that we are rarely permitted a glimpse of the political activity which preoccupied the emperors and Senate.

In her Greek and Roman Sundials (New Haven and London, 1976), Sharon Gibbs discusses (pp.105–17) with success the identification of the archaeological finds of ancient sundials with the description of the types given briefly by Vitruvius (De Arcbitectura, IX.8.1). There is, however, an important piece of evidence from another ancient literary source which, though it does not alter her conclusions, ought to be added and clarified.

In Thucydides' account of Melesander's expedition with six ships to Caria and Lycia (2.69.1) there appears to me to be a difficulty which is universally ignored by commentators and fudged by translators. Thucydides describes the purpose of the expedition

With these words the ‘first slave’’ of the Knights (usually identified as Demosthenes), encourages the Sausage-seller to take up the cudgels against the Paphlagonian, confident that the actor playing this role will not be masked. The exception proves the rule and it is generally concluded from these lines that portrait masks were customary in Aristophanic comedy.

The form (Ap. Rhod. 1.685) has lately caused controversy. It is traditionally interpreted as poetic for but O. Skutsch has denied that iota could be lost in this way, pointing out that instead it could be a correctly formed future cf. with a root ending in the laryngeal (my addition). M. Campbell rejects this, and rightly claims that ApoUonius borrowed the line from the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 528:

In the latest edition of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon appears the entry, —, fantastic, Gloss.’’ No more information is given. Gloss, refers to the Corpus Glossariorum Latirtorum edited by G. Loewe, G. Goetz, and F. Schoell. (Leipzig, 1888–1923). If one consults that work, however, one finds that does not appear in it. Nor does it appear in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon before the new, revised edition of 1925.

Haec quae est a nobis prolata laudatio obsignata erat creta ilia Asiatica quae fere est omnibus nota nobis, qua utuntur omnes non modo in publicis sed etiam in privatis litteris quas cotidie videmus mitti a publicanis, saepe uni cuique nostrum.

If any words are unmistakably Ciceronian, these are. Every schoolboy knew them. Generations of Latin prose composers have trotted them out with unassailable confidence. It seems almost indelicate to suggest that they are not Ciceronian at all; but it would solve the problem presented by Sallust Cat. 20.9 if this were the case. Sallust's placing of the hallowed words in the mouth of Catiline has always been something of a scandal, to be laughed off (if you can find a joke in it), or played down (Syme, Sallust, p.106, ‘If that is malice, it is not very noxious’’),

It seems clear that Virgil, Horace, and Tibullus knew, if not the third Sibylline Oracle itself, prophecies like it. An unnoticed parallel between that work and Horace may confirm this conclusion and afford a small insight into the Latin poet's art.

Mors Hamilcaris peropportuna et pueritia Hannibalis distulerunt bellum. Medius Hasdrubal inter patrem ac filium octo ferme annos imperium obtinuit, flore aetatis, uti ferunt, primo Hamilcari conciliatus, gener inde ob aliam indolem profecto animi adscitus et, quia gener erat, factionis Barcinae opibus, quae apud milites plebemque plus quam modicae erant, haud sane uoluntate principum, in imperio positus. (Livy 21.2.3–4)

In his account of the Northern Sporades, Pliny names the islands of Iresia, Solymnia, Eudemia, and Nea as lying off the Gulf of Salonica, but gives no clue as to the individual identity of each island.

‘Tiberium Neronem et Claudium Drusum priuignos imperatoriis nominibus auxit [sc. Augustus]’’, i.e. honoured them with salutations as ‘imperatores’’. So I took it in my commentary (Cambridge, 1972), supposing argument needless. I must now defend my view against R. Syme, Historia antiqua, Commentationes Louanienses in honorem W. Peremans (Louvain, 1977), p.239. Syme asserts ‘Avoiding a technical term, he [Tacitus] describes the stepsons of the Princeps as invested with imperatoriis nominibus (3.1). That is, a grant of imperium proconsular (after the campaigns of 11 B.C.).’’ He adds in a footnote ‘As emerges clearly from Dio 54.33.5 (Drusus), cf. 34.4 (Tiberius). The matter must be stated firmly, since both Koestermann and Goodyear are totally inadequate.’’ Let me make amends.

Mr. Reed has performed a distinct service by reminding us (CQ 26 (1976),309 ff.) of the odd statement by Guglielmo da Pastrengo that Tacitus was once the director of Titus' private library: if authentic, the information is too precious to be neglected. We cannot deny that Guglielmo may have had ancient sources now lost. When we know that a short epic, probably by Rabirius, one of the most admired poets of the Augustan age, disappeared after 1466, although it was protected by a false ascription to Virgil, it would be foolhardy to claim that any loss after 1350 was impossible. On the other hand, we all know that instant erudition was a speciality of many Medieval sciolists whom admirers of the Middle Ages now call ‘Humanists’’ and ‘scholars’’, e.g. Arnulf of Orleans, whose recondite learning enabled him to inform us that Lucan was called Annaeus because bees settled on the infant's lips, and that he was brought to Rome as a captive after Nero stormed Cordova.

Q. Veranius, the governor of Britain who died in office, assured Nero in his will that he would have subjugated Britain ‘si biennio proximo vixisset’’. Proximo is suspect; if he had lived two years longer they were bound to be the next two. Read si biennio provixisset. For the verb provivere, to live longer, see Ann. 6.25; for the confusion of proximo and pro, see Capelli, p.299; and cf. Iul. Cap., M. Aur. 27 ‘si anno uno superfuisset, provincias ex his fecisset’’.

These lines, which I cite according to Hill's forthcoming edition, have caused scholars some difficulty of interpretation. Trabibus has generally been taken to refer to battering-rams and thus, for instance, we find in the Delphin edition as an interpretation of trabibusque … loco the words ‘et strepenti ariete loco extrudunt lapides firme constrictos’’. Certainly, if they drive stones from their place with a ram, it is the ram that is the best candidate for the epithet sonorus – a candidature every ω manuscript rejects, except two alleged by Barth. P, however, has et ariete, replacing the rather uninformative adjective artata and providing an explicit noun for sonoro to agree with; and P was followed by the early editors Lindenbrogius and Cruceus. ‘Infeliciter’’, says Barth. Infelicitously indeed: et is deleted by P in the first hand and would not scan; without et the sentence does not construct and the line still does not scan – for the word is ariěte (see Hill ad 2.492).

The manuscript B of Aulus Gellius, containing N.A. 9-12 and 13.5, and now split at potuit/admonendi 12.10.3 between Cod. Bern. 404 and Cod. Lugd.- Bat. B. P. L. 1925, is dated by Hosius (Teubner edn., I.xii) and Marshall (O.C.T. I.xvii) to 1173 on the strength of the subscript to an astronomical work immediately preceding Gellius in Cod. Bern. 404. This work is the ‘Liber Atphargan'i [sic] in scientia astrorum et radicibus motuum caelestium’’ translated by Johannes Hispalensis; the subscriptio, quoted in full by Hertz (.ed. max., Il.lxi), indicates the date as follows (I expand contractions): Expletus est die uicesimo quarto. V. mensis lunaris anni Arabum quingentesimi. XXVIIII. existente,. . die mensis Martii era. M.C.LXXIII.

This passage is discussed in AJPb 97 (1976), 252, by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, who rightly draws attention to the ‘absurdity’’ of exilii specie sepositos and observes that ‘Ausonius must be saying that the brothers were banished in fact, though not in name’’. Shackleton Bailey's solution is to replace exilii with bospitii, which gives excellent sense, but, even on the assumption of psychological error by a scribe, which is how Shackleton Bailey explains the corruption, may seem rather hard to credit. An easier solution might be to write auxilii for exilii: in appearance Constantine's brothers were being helped and protected, in reality confined in exile.