¹ I quote from the 1986 Leipzig Teubner Text of P. G. Walsh.

² The solution of this textual problem does not affect the argument.

³ Luchs, A., Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri A Vicesimo Sexto Ad Tricesimum (1879), pp. lxvii–viiiGoogle Scholar. However, in his editio minor of 1889 he suppressed his conjecture entirely.

⁴ In their note ad loc. in the apparatus to their Oxford Classical Text (1935).

⁵ Respectively (1884) in his revision of Weissenborn's Teubner Text, (1910) in his revision of Weissenborn's commentary, and in the Loeb edition (1949).

⁶ The most recent and clearest treatments are by Reeve, M. D. in RFIC 115 (1987), 405–40Google Scholar and in Diggle, J., Hall, J. B. and Jocelyn, H. D. (edd.), Studies in Latin Literature and its Tradition in Honour of Charles Brink (1989), pp. 97–112Google Scholar; Reeve discusses our passage at RFIC, p. 418 n. 2 in conjunction with the fragmentary MS. from Nancy (cited henceforth as Y).

⁷ Θ in Reeve's articles; two representatives are cited regularly as θ by Conway and Johnson.

⁸ Conversely, however, it has to be admitted that there is no parallel for such an insertion in the Puteanean tradition.

⁹ A parallel for this kind of intrusion is provided by Vell. 1.6.6, a fifty-eight word passage which begins ‘Aemilius Sura de annis populi Romani’, and which must in origin have been a marginal note taken from the otherwise unknown writer Aemilius Sura (cited in this context by Münzer, F., Hermes 47 [1912], 163 n. 1Google Scholar; discussion of Sura may be found at Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, ii [1906], pp. 161 and ccx)Google Scholar. The deletion is made by most editors of Velleius Paterculus; but Alonso-Núñez, J. M., Latomus 48 (1989), 111Google Scholar, has persuaded himself that Velleius cited Sura as a source.

¹⁰ For the chronological argument, see e.g. H. Peter, op. cit. (n. 9), cvii, and Cichorius, C., RE, iv.78.Google Scholar

¹¹ (Ol. 180.2) ‘Messalla Coruinus orator nascitur, et Titus Liuius Patauinus scriptor historicus’.

¹² Hirst, G. M., CW 19 (1926), 138–9Google Scholar = Collected Papers (1938), pp. 12–14Google Scholar and Syme, R., HSCPh 64 (1959), 40–1Google Scholar = Roman Papers, i (1979), pp. 414–15.Google Scholar

¹³ The case is simply and forcefully put by Jeffries, R., CQ 35 (1985), 144.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thus, rightly, Barnes, T. D., AJPh 102 (1981), 464.Google Scholar

¹⁵ One might wish to argue that he took longer than forty years over his work; but then we must allow also for periods in which he may have written little.

¹⁶ See e.g. Syme, loc. cit. (n. 12), 41 = pp. 415–16.

¹⁷ See e.g. Luce, T. J., ‘Dating Livy's First Decade’, TAPhA 96 (1965), 209–40Google Scholar and Woodman, A. J., Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (1988), pp. 128–40.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In general on Clodius Licinus see Peter, op. cit. (n. 9), cvii–viii, Holzapfel, L., ‘L'Opera Storica di Clodio Licino’, Rivista di Storia Antica 1.2 (1985), 61–7Google Scholar, Cichorius, C., ‘Clodius (35)’, RE, iv.77–9Google Scholar, and Syme, R.History in Ovid (1978), pp. 111–13.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For inscriptions bearing the name of Clodius Licinus, see CIL vi.1263 and 1264.

²⁰ For the statesman as historian, see e.g. Syme, R., GR 4 (1957), 160–1Google Scholar = Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), pp. 11–13Google Scholar and Badian, E. in Dorey, T. A. (ed.), Latin Historians (1966), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

²¹ Syme, op. cit. (n. 18), pp. 112–13.

²² Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), pp. 653–6.Google Scholar

²³ For other possible late consulates see Syme, R., The Augustan Aristocracy (1986), pp. 100, 363.Google Scholar

²⁴ In his Roman Antiquities Dionysius of Halicarnassus cites almost all known Latin annalists except his contemporary Livy. On this matter see further Sullivan, J. P., Martial (1991), pp. 125–6.Google Scholar

²⁵ Syme op. cit. (n. 18), p. 112 and Münzer, op. cit. (n. 9), 162–6.

²⁶ See especially Bayet, J., Tite-Live Livre I (1940), pp. xvi–xxiiGoogle Scholar, Luce, art. cit. (n. 17), passim, and Woodman, op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 134–5; also Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 ² (1970), p. 784.Google Scholar

²⁷ And we have seen that the publication of the work of Clodius Licinus was hardly likely to occasion a new edition.

²⁸ The MS. reading delegatum is also difficult and unparalleled; but both relegatum (Conway, accepted by Walsh) and deiectum (Madvig, J. N., Emendationes Livianae ² [1877], pp. 420–1)Google Scholar would remove the anomaly without undue violence.

²⁹ Livy only rarely uses this participle in the oblique cases, and conatum itself nowhere else; 36.19.1 is the only remotely similar passage.

³⁰ This point was noted first by Wodrig, A., Jahrb.für Phil. 27 (1881), 197Google Scholar; see also Holzapfel, op. cit. (n. 18), 62 and Cichorius, op. cit. (n. 18), 78.

³¹ Cf. e.g. Hdt. 1.34.2, Cic. har. 29, Sen. suas. 1.7, Tac. hist. 1.53.1, ann. 4.20.2, and orig. gent. Rom. 4.6 ‘hunc Faunum plerique eundem Siluanum a siluis, Inuum deum, quidam etiam Pana uel Pan esse dixerunt’.

³² Also e.g. Asc. pp. 26.21, 58.27, 61.20, 70.28–9, 72.14, Porph. ad Hor. serm. i.6.30, and schol. Berne ad Luc. 2.173.

³³ See e.g. Walsh, P. G., Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (1961), pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

³⁴ Briscoe ad loc. takes a different view: ‘L. here follows the version of Clodius Licinus’; but he himself had thought it likely that the preceding passage (34.44.5) came from Antias. Wiseman, T. P., Phoenix 27 (1973), 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar, optimistically held that Clodius Licinus was the source not just of 34.44.6–8 but also of Asc. Corn. pp. 55–6. We may suspect that Clodius Licinus and Livy both took their information from the annalistic tradition.

³⁵ Two further arguments of lesser force may be presented in a footnote. Luchs (loc. cit. [n. 3]; cf. also Teuffel, W. S., A History of Roman Literature [trans. Wagner, W., 1873], i.510Google Scholar, Holzapfel, op. cit. [n. 18], 62, and Cichorius, op. cit. [n. 18], 78) observed that the precision of the reference to Clodius Licinus is very uncharacteristic of Livy; but this cannot be used as a powerful argument for deletion in view of a parallel which he overlooked at 45.25.3: ‘ipsius (sc. Catonis) oratio scripta exstat, Originum quinto libro inclusa’. Nevertheless, the case of Cato is perhaps somewhat different, since he is an author who features in Livy primarily as an historical character. Likewise the isolated reference to Clodius Licinus, though surprising, is not in itself a strong enough reason to justify excision, since there are unique references to Silenus (26.49.3) and Rutilius (39.52.1). Both these, however, were more considerable figures than Clodius Licinus.