the latter also in his analecta catull. (Jena 1874) 22. EAREL, die Catullrecension des Guarinus, ZföG. 34, 161; Viertelj.-Schr. f. d. Kult. d. Renaiss. 1, 521 and also RSABBADINI, riv. di filol. 13, 266; codd. latini posseduti da Guarino Veronese p. 10.-AGEHRMANN, de rat. crit. inde a Lachmanno in emend. Cat. adhibita, Braunsb. 1879.

11. Editions: on the oldest see ELLIS, introd. to his ed. p. LIX. Ed. Ald. (by HAVANCIUS) Ven. 1502. 1515. Cum comm. AMURETI, Ven. 1554. ACHILLIS STATII, Ven. 1566. Cum castigationibus IISCALIGERI, Par. 1577 and subsequently. (The cod. Cuiacianus of a. 1467, which was used by Scaliger and has been greatly over-estimated, has recently reappeared in England: RELLIS, Hermathena 3, 124 and in his ed. of Catullus p. LIV). Cum comm. Is Voss11, Lond. 1684, JAVULPII (Patav. 1710. 1737), FWDÖRING, Lps. 1788-1792 II, smaller edition, Altona 1834. Recogn. ISILLIG, Gott. 1823. Epoch-making: Ex rec. CLACHMANNI, Berol. 1829. * 1874. Recogn. LSCHWABE, Gissae 1866; ad optimos codd. denuo collatos recogn. LSCHWABE, Berl. 1886. Recogn., app. criticum, prolegomena, appendices addidit RELLIS, Oxon. 1878. Also RELLIS, a commentary on Cat., Oxf. 1876 (LSCHWABE, JJ. 117, 257, gives addenda). Recens. et interpretatus est EBÄHRENS, Lps. 1876–85 II (Revision of the Bährens collation of the MSS; of the G by MBonnet, rev. critique 1877, 57, of the O by KPSCHULZE, Herm. 13, 50). Traduit en vers par E ROSTAND, texte revu av. un commentaire (only down to poem 63) par EBENOIST, Par. 1880-82. Edited and explained by ARIESE, Lpz. 1884.—The text by MHAUPT (Cat. Tib. Prop., Lps 1885. JVAHLEN cur.), RELLIS (Lond. 1866), LMÜLLER (Cat. Tib. Prop., Lps. 1870). ВSCHMIDT, Lpz. 1887 (besides this an ed. maior with prolegg.). Select poems, with introductions etc. by JPSIMPSON, Lond. 1886. AHWRATISLAW and FNSUTTON (with Tib. and Prop.), Lond. 1869.

12. Translated e.g. by THHEYSE (with Lat. text, Berl. 1855), WHERTZBERG and WTEUFFEL (a selection in the Class. d. Alt., Stuttg. 1855; in a more complete form in the röm. Dichter, ib. 1862, with introd. and notes), RWESTPHAL (C.'s Gedichte in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange übersetzt und erläutert, Bresl. 1867; Catulls Buch der Lieder, Bresl. 1884. FPRESSEL, Berl. 1884. CRANSTOUN (with notes), Lond. 1867. RELLIS, Lond. 1871. THMARTIN (with notes), Lond.? 1875.

13. Essays on Cat. in general and concerning the subject-matter. CGHELBIG, deutsche Jahrbb. 1842, 1213 (zur Charakteristik des C.). WTHJungClaussen, zur Chronologie der Gedichte des C., Itzehoe 1857. LSCHWABE, quaestt. Catullianarum liber I, Gissae 1862 (Vol. 1, 1 of his first ed.). EBRUNER, de ordine et temporibus carminum C., Acta soc. sc. Fennicae 7 (Helsingf. 1863), 599. ORIBBECK, C. Val. Cat., eine literarhistorische Skizze, Kiel 1863; Gesch. d. röm. Dicht. 1, 312. BRICHTER, de Catulli vita et carminibus P. I, Freiberg 1865. MOMMSEN RG. 36, 332. 600. MHAUPT, in his Biogr. v. Belger, Berl. 1879, 238. TEUFFEL, preface to the translation (1862) p. 6. ACOUAT, étude sur Catulle, Par. 1875. HNETTLESHIP, characteristics of Cat., in his lectures and essays, Lond. 1885 p. 84. JDavies, Catull. Tib. and Prop., Lond. 1870. VVACCARO, Cat. e la poesia, Palermo 1885. HHHESKAMP (n. 3).

14. Contributions to criticism and elucidation: J. MARKLAND'S unedited conjectures, Hermath. 7, 153. MHAUPT, op. 1, 1. 73. 2, 67. 121. JVGFRÖHLICH, Abh. d. Münch. Ak. 3, 3, 691. 5, 3, 235. 6, 2, 259. RITSCHL, op. 8, 593. RKLOTZ, emendd. C., Lps. 1859; de Cat. c. IV, Lps. 1868. ZEHME, de Cat. c. LXIII, Lauban 1859. JPоHL, lectt. Cat. I Münster 1860, II Sigmaringen 1866. PBOEHME, quaestt. C., Bonn 1862. EFRITZE, C. LXIV rec. et ill., Halberst. 1863. AWEISE, zur Kritik

von C. c. 68. 65. 101, Naumb. 1863; krit. u. erkl. Bemerk. zu c. 68, Zeitz 1869. THBERGK in Rossbach's ed., Leipz. 1860; RhM. 15, 507; emendatt. C., Halle 1864. LSCHWABE, coniecturae C., Dorpat 1864. HAKосн, in the symb. philol. Bonn 315. GFRETTIG, Catulliana, 1868–71 III. JMÄHLY, JJ. 103, 341. JANDRE, de C. c. LXIV, Rostock (Gotha 1873). RPEIPER, Catullus, Beitr. zur Kritik, Bresl. 1875. K PLEITNER, des C. Hochzeitsgesänge krit. behandelt, Dillingen 1858; Studien zu C., Dillingen 1876 (cf. also n. 5 ad fin.). HAJMUNRO, criticisms and elucidations of Catullus, Cambridge 1878; journ. of philol. 8, 333. 9, 185. 11, 124. 141. AKIESSLING, analecta Cat., Greifsw. 1877. EBÄHRENS, JJ. 115, 409 and analecta Cat., Jen. 1874. EEICHLER, quo iure Cat. c. 68 in duo carmina dirimatur, Oberhollabrunn 1872. HMAGNUS, JJ. 111, 849 (the unity of c. 68). 113, 402. 115, 415; JB. 1887 2, 145 sqq. KROSSBERG, JJ. 115, 127. 841. OHARNECKER, ZfGW. 33, 72; Beitr. z. Erkl. des Cat., Friedeberg Nm. 1879; Cat.s 68stes Ged., ib. 1881; qua necessitudine coniunctus fuerit cum Cic. Catullus, ib. 1882; Phil. 41, 465; JJ. 133, 273; BlfbayrGW. 21, 556. KPSCHULZE, ZfGW. 34, 369; researches on Catullus in the Festschr. of the Friedr.-Werder Gymn., Berl. 1881, 195; JJ. 125, 205. APALMER, Hermath. 3 (1878), no. 6. 7, 134. RRICHTER, Catulliana, Lpz. 1881. FSCHÖLL, JJ. 121, 471. MSCHMIDT, JJ. 121, 777. JVAHLEN, ind. lect. Berol. 1882. ATARTARA, animadvv. in Cat. et Liv., Rome 1881. AARLT, Cat. Ged. 36, Wohlau 1883. HMONSE, zu Cat., Waldenb. i. Schl. 1884. CJACOBY, Phil. 44, 178 (c. 49). ABONIN, d. 62ste Ged. des Cat., Bromb. 1884. HBLÜMNER (c. 30), JJ. 131, 879. JPPOSTGATE, Mnemos. 14, 433. FHERMES, Frankf. a/O. 1888. ABDRACHMANN (c. 67), WschrfklPh. 1888, 538.

215. This turbulent and factious age employed the power of the pen and valued its influence. Not only were the political speeches more and more frequently published, in order to reach a wider circle of hearers, but the hostile factions attacked each other also in separate pamphlets. M. Varro, C. Scribonius Curio, and A. Caecina wrote such pamphlets against Caesar. Others again used the events of the day for ventilating their party views. Funeral speeches especially (laudationes) were used for these purposes. Cato's death at Utica gave rise to quite a literature of its own: Cicero, M. Brutus, M. Fadius Gallus, and Munatius wrote in praise of him, and against him were A. Hirtius, Caesar himself, Metellus Scipio, and at a later time Augustus. In the same way Cato's daughter, Porcia, became on the occasion of her death the subject of laudations by M. Varro, Lollius, and Cicero. Some employed a metrical form (epigrams and lampoons).

1. On Varro's Tpɩñápavos in 694/60 see § 166, 3 ad fin. On Curio's pamphlet in a. 695/59 see § 153, 6. A. Caecina see § 199, 5. On the poetical attacks against Caesar see § 158, 3 1. 6 from the end. 192, 4. 213, 7. 214, 5.

2. On the pamphlets called forth by the death of Cato (a. 708/46) see WARTMANN, Leben des Cato von Utica (Zür. 1858) 145. On Cicero's Cato see § 180, 5. As a supplement M. Brutus wrote his pamphlet, see § 210, 2. For Hirtius' Anticato see § 197, 2; on Caesar's Anticatones § 195, 7. The panegyric of M. Fadius Gallus was probably published in July or August 709/45; see Cic. fam. 7,

24, 2; cf. 25, 1. Cato's friend Munatius Rufus ovypaμua Tepi Káтwvos ¿ÉôWKE, μáλioтa Opaσéas (§ 299, 7) ¿πnkoλоúðŋσεv. PLUT. Cat. min. 37 cf. 25. VALER. MAX. 4, 3, 2 id Munatius Rufus, Cypriacae expeditionis (Cato's 696/58) fidus comes, scriptis suis significat. On the other hand Metellus Scipio had in Cato's lifetime published βιβλίον βλασφημίας κατέχον τοῦ Κάτωνος, ib. 57. On Augustus work see SUETONIUS Aug. 85 multa varii generis prosa oratione composuit, ex quibus nonnulla in coetu familiarium velut in auditorio recitavit, sicut rescripta Bruto de Catone, quae volumina cum iam senior ex magna parte legisset, fatigatus Tiberio tradidit perlegenda.

3. Porcia, the daughter (not the sister, as MOMMSEN, Herm. 15, 99 argued ; see FRÜHL, JJ. 121, 147) of Cato Uticensis and wife first of M. Bibulus (see § 255, 2), and then of M. Brutus. Her illness is mentioned by BRUTUS ep. ad Cic. 1, 17, 7; and when she had resolved in her husband's absence dià vóσov KATAXIπEîV TÒV Biov (PLUT. Brut. 53), Brutus quarrelled with his friends at Rome for not having prevented her (ws åμe\nßelons vπ' aŮтŵv, PLUT. 1.1.). A letter of condolence of Cicero to Brutus, ep. ad Brut. 1, 9. The story that after the death of her husband she swallowed burning coals is an invention of later rhetoricians. Cic. Att. 13, 48, 2 (a. 709/45) laudationem Porciae tibi misi correctam. . . . et velim M. Varronis et Lollii mittas laudationem. Lollii utique; nam illam legi; volo tamen regustare.

216. The daily news was after a. 695/59 regularly published in the acta, the minutes of the Senate in the acta senatus, and/ the public and private events in the acta populi or acta diurna. 2. The latter were a kind of official journal, with a specially appointed editor; they were daily exhibited in public, copied by entrepreneurs and sold by them. We do not possess any genuine fragments of the latter kind of acta.

1. SUETON. Iul. 20 inito honore (of the consulship, a. 695/59) primus omnium instituit ut tam senatus quam populi diurna acta confierent et publicarentur. Acta of itself denotes the transactions themselves, especially those of magistrates, and as an abbreviation (instead of commentarii actorum) it means a written account of them. Before Caesar, only the decrees of the Senate used to be written down and, in special cases, published; but Caesar published also the transactions of the Senate. To take minutes of them was the constant practice of the whole Imperial period (even A.D. 438 we hear of gesta in senatu urbis Romae de recipiendo codice Theodosiano), but the publication was prohibited by Augustus (SUET. Aug. 36 auctor et aliarum rerum fuit, in quis, ne acta senatus publicarentur). These minutes contained also the motions made in the Senate, the reports and despatches as they arrived, in the Imperial period also the speeches of the Emperors read by the quaestor, and the acclamations of the senators. The minutes were written down at first by senators specially commissioned by the consul and subsequently the Emperor, afterwards by the curator actorum senatus, after Hadrian by the official ab actis senatus. These acta senatus were kept in the Imperial archives (tabularium), where they seem to have been accessible only to senators (and for definite purposes), or in separate parts of the public libraries, which were accessible only by special permission of the praefectus urbi. Some transactions of the Senate were admitted into the acta populi and thereby became generally accessible. EHÜBNER, JJ. Suppl. Bd. 3, 564, and a brief account in WREIN, PRE. 1o, 132. 147. Also e.g. VLECLERC, des journaux chez les Romains, Par. 1838. WA SCHMIDT, in his Zeitschr. für Geschichtswiss. 1 (1844), 303. GEFLIEBERKÜHN, de

diurnis Rom. actis (Weim. 1840) and epist. crit. ad LeClercium (Lps. 1844). JWA RENSSEN, de diurnis aliisque Rom. actis, Gröningen 1857. CZELL, Ferienschriften N. F. 1 (Heidelb. 1857), 1. MoмMSEN, röm. Staatsrecht 3, 1017.

2. The Roman public advertiser, the acta diurna populi, is also called acta diurna or acta populi rom. or acta populi or acta publica, acta urbana, rerum urbanarum acta, acta urbis, diurna populi rom., or diurna (e.g. Iuv. 6. 483) or acta (e. g. Iuv. 2, 136) briefly; the Greek writers merely call them тà кowà ¿ÃOμνήματα or simply ὑπομνήματα. The communication of the news of the day to those who were absent had been a private affair before Caesar, and even afterwards this was carried on privately: but Caesar made it regular and official. This was so much suited to the requirements of travellers and such as lived abroad, nay even of the very inhabitants of the huge capital, that the publication was continued uninterruptedly and did not cease until the seat of the Empire was transferred to Constantinople. The contents of these acta were partly official (such as events concerning the reigning family, decrees of the Emperors and of the magistrates, decrees or discussions of the Senate, and other facts interesting to the general public, e. g. perhaps news as to the winners in the chariot contests? FRIEDLÄNDER, SG. 15, 290), partly private, containing family news of all kinds, advertisements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths etc. communicated to the editor, frequently in a very subjective tone (e.g. of a widower saucius pectus QUINT. 9, 3, 17). The official compilation was published in albo, and just as people used to copy the annals (above § 76), these acta were multiplied by scribes and communicated to their subscribers. After some time had elapsed, the original was transferred to the archives, where it could be used for literary purposes. The acta Muciani (§ 314, 1) and Acholii (§ 387, 1), were extracts from the originals. On account of their voluminous extent, the acta can scarcely have existed in a complete form in private libraries, and even at the very first they may have been read only in extracts. See EHÜBNER 1.1. 594, and in REIN 1.1. 134.

3. The eleven fragments of acta populi first published by PIGHIUS (1615) in his Annales 2, 378 and commonly called fragmenta Dodwelliana from their principal defender, DoDWELL (praelect. Camden., Oxon. 1692, p. 665), are a forgery of the 15th century. Against their genuineness see especially PWESSELING, Probabilia (Franeker 1731) p. 354 and JAERNESTI, in his edition of Suetonius (Lps. 1748). HHEINZE, de spuriis actorum diurnorum fragmentis I, Greifsw. 1860. Cf. CZELL, Ferienschrr. NF. 1, 109. But Lieberkühn (especially in his Vindiciae librorum iniuria suspectorum, Lps. 1844, p. 1=Epistola . . ad Le-Clercium) attempted to defend their genuineness; see n. 1 ad fin.

217. A peculiar position midway between critical and merely narrative daily literature is held by letters, of which we possess a considerable number in this period in the collections forming part of Cicero's works, most of them by Cicero himself, but many also by other contemporaries.

1. On the letters see § 46; on those of Caesar see § 195, 8; on those of M. Brutus see § 210, 4.

2. On the Ciceronian collections see § 187 and 188. Besides Cicero's own letters they contain letters by his brother Quintus (§ 190, 3), by his son (fam. 16, 21. 25), M. Brutus (§ 188, 4. cf. § 210, 4), Ser. Sulpicius (§ 174, 2: JHSCHMALZ, ZfGW. 35, 90), M. Marcellus (fam. 4, 11; SCHMALZ 1.1. 128), Q. Metellus Celer (§

214, 3), Q. Metellus Nepos (fam. 5, 3), Vatinius (ib. 5, 9. 10; JHSCHMALZ, d. Latinität des Vatinius, Mannheim 1880), L. Lucceius (§ 172, 5), A. Caecina (§ 199, 5), Pompeius Bithynicus (fam. 6, 16), M'. Curius (fam. 7, 29; JHSCHMALZ, ZfGW. 35, 137), M. Caelius Rufus (§ 209, 6), Dolabella (fam. 9, 9; SCHMALZ ZfGW. 35, 131), Munatius Plancus (§ 209, 8), Ser. Sulpicius Galba (fam. 10, 30), C. Asinius Pollio (§ 221, 5), Lepidus (fam. 10, 34. 35), D. Brutus (§ 210, 5), C. Matius (§ 208, 5), C. Cassius (§ 210, 6), Cassius Parmensis (§ 210, 7), P. Lentulus (fam. 12, 14. 15), C. Trebonius (§ 210, 9), M. Cato (§ 210, 2). HHELLMUTH, die Sprache der Epistolographen Ser. Sulp. Galba u. L. Corn. Balbus, Würzb. 1888. Also enclosed in letters to Atticus, we have letters of Cn. Pompeius (§ 171, 8), Caesar (§ 195, 8), Balbus (§ 197, 4), M. Antonius (§ 209, 3).

218. Not one of the Latin inscriptions of a. 670/84-710/44 is in saturnian metre. Among the prose-inscriptions the most important are the lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus of a. 673/81, the Senatus-consultum de Asclepiade, Polystrato, Menisco in amicorum formulam referendis of a. 676/78, the lex Antonia de Termessibus of a. 683/71, the lex Rubria de civitate Galliae cisalpinae c. 705/49, and the lex Iulia municipalis of a. 709/45, besides the inscription of a. 710/44 relating to the colony of Urso (Osuna).

1. For the undated metrical inscriptions of the 7th century u.c. see § 163, 7-9.

2. The lex Cornelia of Sulla the dictator (CIL. 1, 202. PM. 29. BRUNS font. 5 88. DIE. 307), of about a. 673/81 (cf. Tac. ann. 11, 22), is partly preserved on a brass tablet, which was dug up under the ruins of the temple of Saturn at Rome.

3. The SC. by which Asclepiades and his associates are declared viri boni et amici is written in Latin (very incompletely preserved) and Greek: CIL. 1, 203. PM. 30. BRUNS font. 158. DIE. 308. The SS CC de Oropiis of a. 681/73 (MoммSEN, Herm. 20, 268. BRUNS 5 162) and de Aphrodisiensibus a. 712/42 are extant in Greek only. CIG. 2, 2737. BRUNS 5 167.

4. The lex Antonia confirms the independence of the town of Termessus maior in Pisidia: CIL. 1, 204. PM. 31. BRUNS 5 91. DIE. 309.

5. The lex Rubria: CIL. 1, 205. PM. 32. RITSCHL, Op. 4, 34. BRUNS 95. DIE. 311.-A new fragment, perhaps of this same law, has been found at Ateste: MOMMSEN, Herm. 16, 24. BRUNS 100.

5

6. The lex Iulia municipalis of Caesar intended to regulate the legal state of municipal towns: CIL. 1, 206. PM. 33, 34. BRUNS 101. DIE. 312. HNISSEN, RhM. 45, 100. The most important treatise on it is by SAVIGNY, verm. Schrr. 3, 279.-A lex municipalis is also contained in the lamina Tudertina, which belongs to the Augustan period, and the lamina Florentina; see CIL. 1, p. 263. BRUNS 5 148. 149.

7. Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae s. Ursonensis of a. 710/44, but in its actual form dating probably only from the end of the first Christian century; it was discovered a. 1871 sqq. in very considerable fragments at Osuna. HNISSEN, 1.1.

R.L.

D D