¹ Cf. e.g. the commentaries of Peterson, W. (1893), xxxvii and A. Gudeman (19142), 67 (a drama; under Nero); likewise G. Wissowa, REiv2 (1901), 1833 and H. Gundel, REvm A1 (1955), 520; J. Wight Duff, Silver Age(1927), 278 and, most recently, J. P. Sullivan, Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero(Ithaca and London, 1985), 47; 155.Google Scholar

² Stroux, J., Philologus86 (1931), 342f. (a speech; under Nero). Stroux′s date and argument is endorsed by e.g. Schanz-Hosius n4 (1935), 5245; A. Klotz, Scaen. Rom. Frag.,368; R. Syme, Tacitus(Oxford, 1958), 110; E. Koestermann (1968) ad Tac. Ann.15.34.2 and T. D. Barnes, Hermes109 (1981), 382 n.5. Stroux′s punctuation is adopted by M. Winterbottom and H. Heubner in the recent OCT (1975) and Teubner (1983) editions; in the text the former poses a cruxwhile the latter brackets in Nerone,but both adduce L. Muller′s conjecture in the apparatus.Google Scholar

³ The conjecture is accepted in Loeb(1970; M. Winterbottom), supplanting the not dissimilar principe Neronein the previous edition (1920; W. Peterson). Contra,Bude (19473; H. Bornecque), Tusculum (1967; H. Volkmer) and Classici Latini (19832; A. Arid).

⁴ Gungerich, R. (1980), ad loc.Google Scholar

⁵ In vol. II, 525 of Orelli's 1848ed.;K. Barwick, Ber. Sachs. Akad.101.4(1954), 40f. Likewise Biichner, K. (ed.), Tacitus.Die historischen Versuche(Stuttgart,1955), 323 n.57.Google Scholar

⁶ Note for instance the activities of Aponius (Plut. Galba8), Helius (Dio 62.18.2), Vibius Crispus and Eprius Marcellus (note 30).

⁷ Tac. Agr.6.3, with the comments of Richmond-Ogilvie ad loc.Pliny the Elder wrote eight books on grammar sub Nerone novissimis annis, cum omne studiorum genus paulo liberius et erectius periculosum servitusfecisset:Pliny, Ep.3.5.5.

⁸ Thus R. Syme, op. cit. (n.2), 110. But note Thrasea′s warning to Arulenus Rusticus ne vana et reo non profutura, inlercessori exitiosa inciperet:Tac. Ann.16.26.5.

⁹ Tac. Ann.15.34(presentation); Dio 62.15(apparently during the Greek sojourn).

¹⁰ Tac. Hist.1.37.5; for the victims cf. G. E. F. Chilver ad loc.

¹¹ Plut. Galba17; Dio 63.3.4 (after Galba's arrival at Rome, late summer or autumn A.D. 68).

¹² K. Barwick, op. cit., 42: ‘Vatinius [war] bereits, jedenfalls politisch, ein toter Mann’; it is not clear how Bardon, H., Les Empereurs et les letlres latines(Paris,1940)Google Scholar, 299 and Mattingly, H. B.,CR9 (1959), 105 could assign his death to the first years of Vespasian.Google Scholar

¹³ primo in contumelias adsumptus (sc.Vatinius), dehinc optimi cuiusque criminatione eo usque valuit, ut gratiapecunia vi nocendi eliam malospraemineret:Tac. Ann.15.34.2.

¹⁴ On Helius see PIR2H 55; on Spiculus Suet. Nero30.2 and Plut. Galba8.

¹⁵ G. E. F. Chilver ad loc.; Kragelund, P., Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the‘ Octavia’(Copenhagen,1982),87 n.232.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The cases of Halotus and Tigellinus became notorious (Suet. Galba15.2), but the subsequent fate of Nero′s a libellis,Epaphroditus, is no less remarkable (PIR2E69; see further Eck, W.,Historia25 [1976], 381f.).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Icelus had opposed Galba′s adoption of Otho. He was duly crucified later that day (Tac. Hist.1.13.2; 46.5).

¹⁸ Thus (but under Nero) the scholars mentioned in note 1.

¹⁹ Cf. note 2.

²⁰ Cf. e.g. Cic. Sen.10 Quaestor deinde.factus sum, quern magistratum gessi consulibus Tuditano et Cethego, cum quidem ille admodum senex suasor legis Cinciae de donis et muneribus fuit;similarly, Cic. Sen.41; Oral.26; Brut.80 NatD.1.72; Div.1.72; Leg.2.14; see further Solodow, J., ‘The Latin Particle Quidem’, American Classical Studies4 (1978), 136f. I owe this point to discussions with M. D. Reeve.Google Scholar

²¹ As argued by K. Barwick and K. Biichner (note 5).

²² Gudeman, A. (1962) and D. Bo (1974) ad he.favour in Neronem;for the translation see C. E. Bennett (1894) adloc;similarly, T. Frank, AJPh58 (1937), 228.Google Scholar

²³ Helm, R., for instance, simply dismissed the idea as undenkbar: RE22.2 (1954), 1575.Google Scholar

²⁴ Thus e.g. Peter, H.,Die geschichtliche Literatur iiber die romische KaiserzeitI (Leipzig,1897),182Google Scholar;Bardon, H.,La Litterature latine inconnue (Paris,1956), 215Google Scholar; Griffin, M. T.,Nero. The End of a Dynasty(London,1984), 277 n.75; K. Barwick and K. Biichner (note 5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Cato, Medeaand Thyestes: Dial. 2;3.4; Aper′s reference to Agamemnon (9.2) is hardly to a persona in the Thyestes,which was still in a preparatory state: 3.3.

²⁶ novum...negotium: Dial.3.4. For the generic implications, see Scholl, R.,Commentationes Woelfflinianae(Leipzig,1891), 395; such assertions would often be more flattering than accurate: cf. e.g. Sen. Dial.11.8.3 (Polybius' fables in the style of Aesop an intemptatum Romanis ingeniis opus).Google Scholar

²⁷ On Domitiusand the Republican Domitii, see e.g. R. Helm, op. cit. (n. 23), 1575; on Domitius= Nero, Welcker, F. G.,Die griechischen Tragodien...III (Bonn,1841), 1464. In spite of Nero′s personal pride in his paternal ancestry (M. T. Griffin, op. cit. (n. 24), 22), it was brought up against him, prior to his accession (Tac. Ann.12.41) and during the revolt: Suet. Nero41 (Vindex′s abusive edicts); Nero50(the burial in the tomb of the Domitii as compared with Galba′s burial of Nero′s victims in the Mausoleum [Dio 64.3.4c]). To judge from the Oclavia249 (Nero insitivus, Domitio genitus patre)and from Pliny the Elder′s hybrid, Domitius Nero (HN.repeatedly), the name stuck during the following decade.Google Scholar

²⁸ For the evidence see Fluss, M., REwA1 (1931). 772f. and The ‘Octavia’ and the Damnatio of Nero(forthcoming).Google Scholar

²⁹ The arguments for an early, probably Galban, date are discussed by Barnes, T. D., MH39 (1982), 215f. and P. Kragelund, op. cit. (n. 15, with previous literature). Now also J. P. Sullivan, op. cit. (n. 1), 59f.Google Scholar

³⁰ For their wealth see the instructive table in R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire(Cambridge, 19822), 343; both reached their second consulates in A.D. 74: Bosworth, A. B., Athenaeum51 (1973), 72 and PIR2E 84.Google Scholar

³¹ Dial.13.4 (even Aper disapproved: 8.3).

³² Cf. Williams, G.,Change and Decline(Berkeley,1978)Google Scholar, 34f. (Maternus and the delatores)and Winterbottom, M., JRS54 (1964)Google Scholar, 96, comparing the attitudes of Maternus and Quintilian.

³³ On Catoand the Thyestes,see Dial.2; 3.2–3; in view of Maternus' attitude to Eprius Marcellus, it might be relevant that Thrasea Paetus had been demonstrative in his enthusiasm for the great Stoic martyr: C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate(Cambridge, 1950), 138f. (biography; celebration of birthday; suicide imitating Cato′s). As for Maternus' subsequent fate, it is not clear whether his defiant attitude to those in power had consequences as serious as that of Helvidius: thus Cameron, A., CR17 (1967)Google Scholar, 258f. and Hass-von, U., Beitrdge zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Interpretation des Dialogus“de oratoribus”(Koln,1970)Google Scholar, 37, with strong arguments from text and literary convention; against, R. Syme, AncSoc13–14 (1982–3), 256 (a tranquil end at Tivoli). The evidence for his identity and the date of his death is in any case inconclusive: PIR2M 361.

³⁴ Tac. Hist.4.42.6 (delalores el ministri);2.10 (influence of the accused). Helvidius Priscus was for instance persuaded to drop the suit against Eprius: 4.6.2.

³⁵ Tac. Hist. 4A2.6(under Galba). In spite of his past, Vibius Crispus even managed to be appointed curator aquarumby Galba, G.(R. Syme, Historia31 [1982], 480), and under Otho he launched an attack on a fellow delator (Hist.2.10). Eprius came under heavy fire, in Galba′s time and later. The debate pro et contrahis condemnation (egregiis utriusque orationibus testatum: Hist.4.6.2) was renowned (Dial.5.7).Google Scholar

³⁶ Vatinius was a shoemaker′s son. At a similar juncture, after Domitian's fall, the first to be victimized were those of low status (minores):Pliny, Ep.9.13.4. For comparable instances of punishment reflecting status cf. P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire(Cambridge, 1970), 263f.

³⁷ Dial.2; 10.7.

³⁸ Contra:J. Stroux, op. cit. (n. 2), 343.

³⁹ This might be what studiorum quoque sacra profanantem.potentiamfregi (Dial.11.2) refers to. For the ambience of a jester′s activity see Friedlander, L.,Sittengeschichte1(Leipzig,1922), 89 and the exploits of Domitian′s favourite, Latinus (PIR2L 129): mockery, derision, jokes, entertainment at dinner, acting, and delationes.Google Scholar