¹ The idea is, of course, a tenet of New Historicism (though it can hardly be said to be completely foreign to all ‘old’ historicism);cf.Veeser, H. A. (ed.), The New Historicism (London, 1989), where extensive bibliography can conveniently be found.Google Scholar

² Mommsen, T., Römische Geschichte, vol. 3 (Berlin,⁹ 1904), pp. 332–334.Google Scholar

³ von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U., Hellenistische Dichtung, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1924), pp. 305–310.Google Scholar

⁴ Kroll, W., C. Valerius Catullus, (Stuttgart,³ 1959), e.g. p. 53;Google ScholarFordyce, C. J., Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford, 1961), e.g. p. 160;Google ScholarKnoche, U., Gymnasium 65 (1958), 146–158;Google ScholarWilliams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), p. 557;Google ScholarDeroux, C., Latomus 29 (1970), 608–631;Google ScholarMiller, P. A., Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness: The Birth of a Genre from Archaic Greece to Augustan Rome (London and New York, 1994), esp. pp. 120–140. Augustan elegists anti-political:Google ScholarVeyne, P., Roman Erotic Elegy: Love, Poetry, and the West, trans. D. Pellauer (Chicago, 1988), pp. 101–115.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘Catull und die Politik’, Gymnasium 93 (1986), 34–47.Google Scholar

⁶ Skinner, M., Helios 20 (1993), 117;Google Scholarcf. alsoSkinner, SyllClass 3 (1991), Iff.; Helios 16 (1989), 7ff. A more comprehensive consideration of ‘the political’ in Latin poetry can be found inGoogle ScholarKennedy, D. F., The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 34–39. Mere theoretical awareness will not suffice to broaden one's concept of politics, however, as a reading either of Miller, Lyric Texts, or C. L. Platter, CPh 90 (1995), 211–224 reveals.Google Scholar

⁷ Earl, D. C., The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (Ithaca, 1967), p. 21Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 16.

⁹ Meier, C., Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 162–200;Google ScholarEarl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, pp. 11–43;Google ScholarBrunt, , Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988), pp. 351–502.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Taylor, L. R., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1948), pp. 1–24; Meier, Res Publica Amissa, pp. xxxii–xliii, 163–190.Google Scholar

¹¹ Balsdon, Historia 15 (1966), 65ff.;Google ScholarTatum, CPh 85 (1990), 204ff.Google Scholar

¹² Cic. Att. 1.14.1–5; cf. Att. 1.18.2Google Scholar

¹³ Catullus and Caesar: Suet. Iul. 73; Bibulus' edicts: Cic. Att. 2.19.2, 2.20.4, 2.21.3–5; Suet. Iul. 9.2,49.2; Plut. Pomp. 48.4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cat. 29 and 57; cf. Suet. Iul. 73; Plin. N.H. 36.48.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Mamurra: Plin. N.H. 36.48; Hor. Sat. 1.7.37; Cic. Att. 7.1.6.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See R. K. Gibson, PCPhSAX (1995), 62ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It is necessary for me to make clear at this point that I now incline to the view (rejected at TAPhA 118 [1988], 179) that the present arrangement of poems in the Catullan collection reflects the poet's own design;cf. Most, G. W., Philologus 125 (1981), 109ff. and literature cited there. The matter can hardly be regarded as settled, however, nor is this premise vital for every aspect of what follows. It is, however, important to my argument that Poem 1 be regarded as programmatic to the collection as a whole (or at least to poems outside the polymetra). On the likely structural significance of Poems 65 and 116, see J. King, CW81 (1987/88), 383ff. andCrossRefGoogle ScholarMacleod, C., Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), pp. 181ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), pp. 167ff., esp. p. 171, with further bibliography.Google ScholarZetzel, J. E. G., ‘The Poetics of Patronage in the Late First Century B.C.’, in Gold, B. K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin, 1982), pp. 100f., by contrast, detects in Poem 1 a rejection of Nepos' literary values (wrongly, in my view).Google ScholarJanan, M., When the Lamp is Shattered- Desire and Narrative in Catullus (Carbondale, 1994), pp. 39f. posits without justification a gap between Nepos' literary values and their execution in his Chronica as an issue in the proper understanding of Poem 1. A stronger (but still, to my mind, unconvincing) case for an ironic reading of Poem 1 is made by B. J. Gibson, CQ 45 (1995), 569ff. The best discussion of Nepos' situation in the intellectual and literary world of the first century remains Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics, pp. 154–66;Google Scholarsee alsoMillar, F., G&R 35 (1988), 40–55 andGoogle ScholarDionisotti, A. C., JRS 78 (1988), 35–49.Google ScholarA different estimation of Nepos can be found in Horsfall, N., Cornelius Nepos: A Selection, including the Lives of Cato and Atticus (Oxford, 1989), pp. xv–xxi.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Wiseman, T. P., Roman Studies: Literary and Historical (Liverpool, 1987), pp. 248ffGoogle Scholar

²⁰ On the significance of the connection, see Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics, p. 331.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., pp. 335ff

²² Ibid., pp. 343ff.

²³ Gentili, B., Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece from Homer to the Fifth Century, trans. A. T. Cole (Baltimore, 1988), p. 107.Google Scholar

²⁴ Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), p. 41;Google ScholarWiseman, Clio's Cosmetics, pp. 172–174;Google ScholarMayer, R., LCM 7 (1982), 73–74.Google Scholar

²⁵ Goold, G. P., ‘O Patrona Virgo’, in Evans, J. A. S. (ed.), Polis and Imperium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (Toronto, 1974), pp. 253–264;Google ScholarSkutsch, O., LCM 1 (1982), 90;Google ScholarRadke, A. E., Hermes 123 (1995), 253Google Scholar

²⁶ Cic. Fam. 6.7.4 (hardly ‘the most groveling and desperate among Cicero's correspondents’, as maintained byWhite, P., Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome [Cambridge, MA, 1993], p. 282); cf. Fam. 6.5.4,6.6.2, 6.9.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Cic. Fam. 7.29.2; cf. Fam. 18.17.1; his urbanitas: Cic. Att. 7.2.3.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pubiilius Syrus 61 (Loeb edition): ‘beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere’Google Scholar

²⁹ For other examples from the late republic of what might be called the polite use of patronus,see Sailer, R., ‘Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction’, in Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London, 1989), pp. 49–62 at p. 53; the courteous use of patronus amongst equals can be found in imperial inscriptions, cf. pp. 54f.Google Scholar

³⁰ Sailer, R., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge, 1982), 11ff. and ‘Patronage and Friendship’, 57ff.; White, Promised Verse, p. 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Konstan, D., CPh 90 (1995), 328–322.Google Scholar

³² ILS 7413; 8219. Cf. Bradley, K. R., Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (Oxford, 1987), p. 78Google Scholar

³³ Brunt, Fall of the Roman Republic, p. 394. The language of friendship used in poetry to ‘cover over’ discrepancies in status: recent discussions include Konstan, CPh 90 (1995), 340f.; White, Promised Verse, p. 14Google Scholar

³⁴ Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), p. 12. Cf. e.g. Taylor, Party Politics, pp. 7flf.Google ScholarSpielvogel, J., Amicitia und res publica (Stuttgart, 1993) perpetuates this line of thought.Google Scholar

³⁵ Brunt, P., PCPhS 191 (1965), 1–20, revised in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988), pp. 351–381. See also White, Promised Verse, pp. 13fF.;Google ScholarPowell, J., ‘Friendship and its Problems in Greek and Roman Thought’, in D. Innes, Hine, H. and Pelling, C. (edd.), Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford, 1995), pp. 31–45;Google ScholarKonstan, CPh 90 (1995).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Mitchell, T. N., Cicero: The Senior Statesman (New Haven, 1991), pp. 220–222 for the circumstances.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Cf. the explicit appeal to the demands of dignitas by Catiline (Sail. Cat. 35.3) or Caesar (B. C. 1.7.7) or Cicero's frank explanation to Atticus of his defence in the senate of equestrian interests (/4M. 2.1.8).Google Scholar

³⁸ Powell, ‘Friendship and its Problems’, 43–44.Google Scholar

³⁹ This is obviously not to deny the personal nature of Roman political associations; see the discussion above.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Reitzenstein, R., Sitzunber der Heidelb Ak der Wiss. 12 (1912), 9–36;Google ScholarRoss, D. O., Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, MA, 1969), pp. 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Lyne, R. O. A. M., The Latin Love Poets(Oxford, 1980), pp. 24ff;Google ScholarTatum, PLLS 7 (1993), 36f. See alsoGoogle ScholarNewman, J. K., Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian Sensibility (Hildesheim, 1990), pp. 318ff.;Google ScholarGibson, PCPhS 41 (1995), 61ffGoogle Scholar

⁴² See, for example, Skinner, M. B., Helios 20 (1993), 118f.; Miller, Lyric Texts, pp. 128ff.; Janan, When the Lamp is Shattered, pp. 80, 92ff. (though it must be observed that, in Janan's view, even Catullus' so-called political vocabulary ‘never intrinsically meant anything at all’ [p. 80]); Platter, CPA90(1995),216f.Google Scholar

⁴³ White, Promised Verse, pp. 72ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. 68A. 9–10, 31–32, 39–40. Neither the philological problems attending the name of this poem's recipient nor the question of 68A's relationship with 68B need detain us here: cf. (with further references)Syndikus, H. P., Catull: Eine Interpretation, vol. 2 (Darmstadt, 1990), pp. 239ffGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ The final simile has been felt to be ‘Hellenistic’ (and therefore preparatory for Poem 66), a further signal of the poem's ‘artificiality’; cf. (recently)Hutchinson, G. O., Hellenistic Poetry (Oxford, 1989), pp. 299ff.; Syndikus, Catull, pp. 197fGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Hortensius Hortalus (cos. 69): F. Vonder Mühll, RE 8, 2.2470ff. Whether Hortensius was actually nobilis remains uncertain;cf. Badian, E., Chiron 20 (1990), 393. The other, though less likely, possibility is the orator's son: so Syme, Roman Revolution, p. 63 (without argument);Google ScholarShackleton Bailey, D. R., Onomasticon to Cicero's Speeches (Norman, 1988), pp. 55f; Broughton, MRR 3.103; on the son, see F. Münzer, RE 8, 2.2468f. Despite Shackleton Bailey's asseverations, it is hardly the ‘common sense’ conclusion. The catalogue of poets and poetasters in Ov. Trist. 2.441 f. is not all that relevant; nevertheless, the Hortensius there mentioned is probably the orator (‘nee minus Hortensi, nee sunt minus improba Servi/ carmina. quis dubitet nomina tanta sequfV). Hortensius and Sulpicius Servius are also linked as poets by Pliny (Ep. 5.3.5), where, paceGoogle ScholarWiseman, Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays (Leicester, 1974), p. 190, there is no reason to think that Pliny is referring to the younger Hortensius but yet the older Sulpicius (Hortensius the poet also makes an appearance at Gell. 19.9). However, it is as a reader and not a fellow poet that Hortalus is configured here; consequently, these lists are not really germane to Catullus' selection of an addressee. More to the point is the orator's well-known fondness for Greek culture (charmingly illustrated by Gell. 1.5.2–3) and the fact that, apart from the poem sub iudice, the younger Hortensius is nowhere referred to as Hortalus (admittedly, the father is called Hortalus by Cicero only twice; cf. Shackleton Bailey, p. 55). Certainty eludes, but probability favours the consul of 69. In any case, the social dynamics which are the focus of our critical concern here obtain whichever Hortensius it is whom our poet addresses.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ White, Promised Verse, p. 20.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Plin. Ep. 6.15. Priscus was an eminent jurist; cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), p. 370.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ White, Promised Verse, p. 14. A cynical reading of Horace's self-representation is offered in Lyne, R. O. A. M., Horace: Behind the Public Poetry (New Haven, 1995), pp. 14ff. On the conflict between disinterested and self-interested gift-giving in Rome,Google Scholarsee Dixon, S., EMC 37 (1993), 451–464.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Solodow, J. P, CPh 82 (1987), 141ff.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Sullivan, J. P., Martial: The Unexpected Classic (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 12ff., 82f. provides a recent treatment of the apophoreton. On the epigrammatic qualities of Poem 65,CrossRefGoogle Scholarsee King, J., CW 81 (1987/1988), 384f.Google Scholar

⁵² Newman, Roman Catullus, p. 226.Google Scholar

⁵³ The nature and effect of the particular changes in Callimachus' poem introduced by Catullus are not my particular concern here, though they remain important. Cf. Syndikus, Catull, pp. 202f.; Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry, pp. 232f.; A. S. Hollis, ZPE9X (1992), 21–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For what follows,see Koenen, L., ‘The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure’, in A. W. Bulloch et al. (edd.), Images and Ideology: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1993), pp. 25–115, but esp. pp. 89ff. (with abundant references).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., pp. 112f.

⁵⁶ On this see Ibid., p. 89.Cameron, A., Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton, 1995), pp. 3–23, convincingly refutes the belief, persistent in some quarters, that Callimachus was a jumped-up school teacher (and therefore Ptolemy's toady). However, Cameron's insistence that Callimachus' status was that of ‘a friend rather than a client’ (p. 23) simply raises in another context the issue under investigation here. Nor need one accept without major qualification Cameron's argument that Hellenistic kings ‘were remarkably tolerant of frankness’ (p. 16), an assertion the best evidence for which (though still uneven) consists of anecdotes illustrating the occasional bonhomie of the Antigonids. That poets could and did sometimes engage in humanizing banter to the amusement of their divine monarchs hardly seems remarkable. Romans, in any case, were unlikely to imagine the Egyptian court as a centre for anything like open deliberation, poetical or otherwise;Google Scholarcf. Sonnabend, H., Fremdenbild und Politik: Vorstellungen der Römer von Ägypten und dem Panherreich in der späten Republik undfruhen Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt, 1986). On the complex matter of the establishment and development of the Antigonid (and Hellenistic regal) court,Google Scholarsee Weber, G., Historia 44 (1995), 283–316 (with further bibliography).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Parsons, P. J., ZPE 25 (1977), 1–50;Google Scholarsee most recently Cameron, Callimachus, pp. 105ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics, p. 155.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Treggiari, S. M., EMC 21 (1977), 24ff.;Google ScholarLauresen, S., ‘Greek Intellectuals in Rome–Some Examples’, in Bilde, P. G., Nielsen, I., AND Nielsen, M. (edd.), Aspects of Hellenism in Italy: Towards a Cultural Unity? Acta Hyperborea 5 (1993), pp. 191–212.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Wiseman, T. P, ‘Pete nobiles amicos: Poets and Patrons in Late Republican Rome’, in Gold, B. K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin, 1982), pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 34.

⁶² As Lyne, Horace, p. 12, rightly points out, White's treatment of the social status of Latin poets (White, Promised Verse, pp. 5ff., 211ff.) is skewed by its restriction to poets whose work survives.Google Scholar

⁶³ Festus, pp. 446–8 (Lindsay). The collegium poetarum:Google ScholarCrowther, N. B., Latomus 32 (1973), 575–580;Google ScholarHorsfall, N., BICS 23 (1976), 79–95;Google ScholarPanciera, S., BCAR 91 (1986), 35–44, esp. 39ffGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ Val. Max. 3.7.11. The proper sense of numquam in this passage: Badian, E., ‘Ennius and his Friends’, in Skutsch, O. (ed.), Ennius. Hardt Entretiens 17 (Geneva, 1972), pp. 149–199 at p. 190. Accius (who derived from a freedman father):Google ScholarConte, G. B., Latin Literature: A History (Baltimore, 1994), pp. 105ff. Strabo's tragedies: E. Diehl, RE 10, 1.431.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Purcell, N., PBSR 51 (1983), 129ff.;Google ScholarBadian, E., Klio 71 (1989), 582ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Cic. Frat. 2.5.3. Cf. C. Nicolet, L'Ordre équestre a I'époque republicaine (312–43 av. J.-C), vol. 2 (Paris, 1974), pp. 891f.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Horace's status: Suet. Vita Hor.; cf. D. Armstrong, TAPhA 116 (1986), 255ff. Opportunistic poets: Hor. Sat. 1.9; pesky patrons: Epist. 1.7.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ SeeGoogle ScholarPanciera, BCAR 91(1986), 35–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L., The Greek Anthology: Garland of Philip, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 212.Google Scholar

This does not justify the conclusion that from the Roman perspective ‘he must have been recognized more or less as par inter primos’ (Ibid.). Sullivan, Martial, p. 85, more accurately describes him as ‘a court poet who might well be taken as a model’ by the aspiring Martial

⁷⁰ Thomas, R. F., AJPh 103 (1982), 144ff.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Vitr. 6. Praef. 4ff.;cf.Wallace-Hadrill, A., Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton, 1994), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁷² E.g. Hor. Carm. 1.1.2; Ovid Pont. 1.6.13f; Laus Pisonis 244E; Juv. 7.22f. Cf. discussion in White, Promised Verse, pp. 17f.Google Scholar

⁷³ It is unnecessary to dilate on the theoretical prepossessions of the expression: cf. Iser, W., The Act of Reading (Baltimore, 1978), pp. 165ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ One may contrast the more explicit style in which Horace delineates the good and the bad potens amicus in Epist. 1.7; cf. Lyne, Horace, pp. 150ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The significance of the domus to one's social identity: Wallace-Hadrill, A., PBSR 56 (1988), 43ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ AJPh 112 (1991), 247–50.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ MRR 2. 620.

⁷⁸ D'Arms, J. H., Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, MA, 1981), pp. 55ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁹ F. Münzer, REZA. 1885.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cic. An. 7.17.2; Fam. 7.32.1.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Further illustrated in the case of Catullus by Poem 10 (especially) and also by Poem 47.

⁸² Overestimation of influence: Brunt, Fall of the Roman Republic, pp. 180ff. Ciceronian consideration: e.g. Att. 2.1.8.

⁸³ For the controversies, ancient and modern, see Wiseman, Roman Studies, pp. 57ff.; Brunt, Fall of the Roman Republic, pp. 144ff

⁸⁴ Astin, A. E., Historia 34 (1985), 175–190.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Lex Aurelia: MRR 2.126. Caesar:Google Scholarsee Henderson, M. I., JRS 53 (1963), 61–72.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ And subject to rhetorical exploitation, cf. Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 150f.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, pp. 20–71.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Cic. Alt. 1.17.9; Plane. 34–5; Schol. Bob. 157–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Cf. Hinard, F., Les proscriptions de la Rome republicaine (Paris and Rome, 1985), pp. 116ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Brunt, Fall of the Roman Republic, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Tatum, CPh 85 (1990), 40f.Google Scholar

⁹² During the first century, domi nobiles did not represent the principal constituency of popularis politicians: cf. Syme, Roman Revolution, p. 285; C. Meier, RE Suppl. 10.580ffGoogle Scholar

⁹³ For example Cic. Alt. 1.16.10; Sull. 21, 25; Dom. 75, 94; Sest. 109; Plut. Cic. 23.3; [Sail.] In Cic. 5.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Latomus 54 (1995), 62–78.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Sources cited and discussion in Stewart, Ibid., 74f. andFrier, B. W., The Rise of the Roman Jurists (Princeton, 1985), pp. 52ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Asc. 59C; Dio 36.40.1–2; cf. Frier, Rise of the Roman Jurists, p. 75.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Frier, Rise of the Roman Jurists, p. 73.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid., pp. 261f

⁹⁹ Ibid., pp. 256–65.

¹⁰⁰ There is no reason to take seriously the proposal of R. Rieks, Poetica 18 (1986), 249ff., that throughout these poems Gellius is a corruption of Caelius.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ King, CW 81 (1987/88), 383ff.; Syndikus, Catull: eine Interpretation, vol. 3 (Darmstadt, 1987), pp.41f.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Macleod, Collected Essays, pp. 18Iff. (the expression ‘inverted dedication’ occurs on p. 185).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ A different approach is taken by P. Y Forsyth, C/68 (1972/73), 175ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Prop. 2. 8. 15f. On the text of Poem 116, see Syndikus, Catull, vol. 3, pp. 142f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ It is of course possible to avoid the idea of a sequence altogether: one may simply regard the Gellius poems as a demonstration of a range of possible iambic attacks;Google Scholarcf. Syndikus, Catull, vol. 3, p. ¹⁴⁷.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Macleod, Collected Essays, p. 185Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Epstein, D. F., Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 218–243 B.C. (London and New York, 1987), pp. 37f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Wiseman, Cinna the Poet, pp. 119ff;Google Scholarcf. Syndikus, Catull, vol. 3, p. 16Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Wiseman, Cinna the Poet, pp. 125f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Tatum, PLLS 7 (1993), pp. 31ffGoogle Scholar

¹¹¹ Macleod, Collected Essays, p. 186Google Scholar

¹¹² Enn. Ann. 1.95 (Skutsch). That the death of Remus constituted ‘an embarrassment for the patriotic’ susceptible of various responses and interpretations is a theme of Wiseman, T. P., Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Syme, Roman Revolution, p. 8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Tension existed between Romans and Italians even down to Actium: Ibid., pp. 286ff

¹¹⁵ An earlier version of this paper was read to the Leeds Latin Seminar; I am grateful to the audience on that occasion and especially to Roy Gibson for patience and advice. Thanks are also due to Hans-Friedrich Mueller and to S. J. HeyworthGoogle Scholar