It is the almost unanimous opinion of modern scholars' that this man is M. Licinius Crassus. Manutius's explanation, thatex Nanneianis is a reference to Crassus' profiteering in the proscriptions and in particular to the property of one Nanneius, to be identified with the Nannius named as a proscription victim inComm. Pet. 9, is accepted without hesitation.

^{page 297 note 1} See, for instance, the commentaries of Watson, Tyrrell/Purser, How, Constans, and Shackleton Bailey, ad loc.; also Gelzer and Münzer inR.E.xiii.313.Google Scholar 60 and xvi. 1682. 18. The only dissidents, so far as I know, are Tenney Frank inA.J.P.xl (1919),397–8,Google Scholar andHathorn,R. Y. inC.J.i (1954),33–4.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 2}Cic,.Parad.46,Google ScholarPlut,.Crassus2.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 3}Trencsényi-Waldapfel,I., inAthenaeumxlii (1964),49–51,Google Scholar is an exception: he takes ‘Nanneianus’ as referring to Nannion, a common name forhelaerae in Greek comedy, and makes Crassus ‘il personaggio calvo della commedia di Nannion’ (p. 50). This is better than Manutius, but still very tenuous, despite the superficial relevance of Eubulus fr. 67 E to Clodius' nocturnal adventure.

^{page 297 note 4}C.I.L.vi. 37484–5, 38700a, x.493 for Nan(n)eii; vi. 13550 might be a Cn. Anneius.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 5} Cf.Trencsényi-Waldapfel,, loc. cit.48.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 6}Cic,.Cael.9;Google Scholar cf.Fam.5.8.Google Scholar 2,Suet,.D.J.50.1,Google ScholarPlut,.Cic.25.5 (varying estimates of the respectability of Crassus' wife).Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 7}Plut,.Crassus7.6,Google ScholarCaesar 11, AppianB.C.2.26,Google ScholarSuet,.D.J.18.1.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1}Suet,.D.J.51Google Scholar (soldier'songs),I.L.L.R.P.1111–12Google Scholar (Perusiaglandes), Lucilius 972 M, 1211 M,Plaut,.Amph.462;Google Scholar otherwise in republican literature onlyCato,,agr.8.2,33.Google Scholar 3 (metaphorical), VarroR.R.i.37.Google Scholar 2. Cf.Smith,H. R. W.,U.C.P.C.A.ii (1951),157, n. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 2} Cf., from this year,Att. 1. 12. 3, 13. 2 and 4, 16. 1, 4–5 and 10–11, 17. 10.

^{page 298 note 3}Pliny,N.H.7.165Google Scholar for the date of his birth. Trencsényi–Waldapfel (loc. cit. 43– 5) thinks he was too young to have any influence, and too insignificant for Cicero to be glad of his praise.

^{page 298 note 4}Suet,.D.A.72.i,Google Scholar cf.Plut,.Cic.9.2.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 5}Ovid,,Trist.2.431–2Google Scholar on his disreputable love-life, characteristic of thepoetae novi.

^{page 298 note 6}Att. I. 14. 5, 16. 1 and 11, 18. 2–3 (referring to thisconstupratum iudicium in the context oflibido iuventutis).

^{page 298 note 7}Att. 1. 14. 5, 16. 1; the lost letter on Pompey's firstcontio referred to at 1. 14. I may have given details of other speeches besides that of Pompey himself. It cannot, of course, be inferred from Quint. 12. 6. 1 andTac,.Dial.34Google Scholar that the prosecution of Vatinius was Calvus' first public oration; it was his firstgravissimum iudicium, and a famous speech, but his oratorical technique must have been learnt by experience before then.

^{page 298 note 8}Att. i. 16. 1, cf.Balsdon,J. P. V. D.,Historiaxv (1966),71.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 9}Att. 1. 9. 2 and Shackleton Bailey, ad loc.;Frank,Tenney, loc. cit.398–400.Google Scholar It is misleading to say, as Trencsényi-Waldapfel does (loc. cit. 45), that Cicero had ‘condemned’ Macer.

^{page 299 note 1}Comm. Pet.3,33;Google ScholarCic,.Cael.9–10 for Caelius.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2}Varro,L.L.5.119,Google ScholarFrank,, loc. cit. (p.297, n. 1 above).Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 3} Loc. cit. (p. 297, n. 1 above). Nanno is irrelevant to the Bona Dea sacrilege (cf. Hathorn, p. 34): she was an (Athen. 597 a), while Clodius was dressed as a (Cic.ap. Nonius 745 L,Har. Resp.44,Google Scholarsest. 116: Juv. 6.336–40; Plut.Cic. 28. 1,Caes. 10. 1).

^{page 299 note 4} Suggested and rejected byTrencsényi-Waldapfel,, loc. cit.47.Google Scholar See p. 297, n. 3 above for his own suggestion—but about Crassus.

^{page 299 note 5}Att. 4. 16. 3, 5. 21. 14, 6. 6. 2, 7. 7. i, 10. 8a. 1, 12. 3. i, 13. 21. 3, 16. 5. 3, 16. 12.

^{page 299 note 6} e.g.Plato,,Gorg.482Google Scholar c,Rep. 390 a; Isocr. 20. 17; Dem. 21. 18; Arist.Pol. 1296^a4;Plut,.Marius29.4.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 7} e.g. Hor.Ep. 1. 7. 6;Sen,.Ben.6.38.Google Scholar 4; ps.-Quint. 6. 8;Tert,.Spect.10.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 1} e.g.Plaut,.Poen.19,Google Scholar Ulp. Dig. 3. 2. 4. 1;C.I.L.vi.1074. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 2} Cf. 4. 8. 2 ‘Tyrannio mihi libros disposuit’.

^{page 300 note 3}Nat,.Deor.i.20,26,3. 85,Timaeus 46.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 4}Cic,.Cael.78 (Cloelius),Sest. 110,Vat. 4 (Gellius), etc.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 5} HenceLaelius,D.,tr. pl.54,Google Scholar is a formal possibility.

^{page 300 note 6}Att. 15. 10, 11. 2, 29. 1. SeeT.L.L. Onomasticon iii. 74.55 ff.: if we except the two passages under discussion, no other Decimus is ever referred to without his nomen.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 7}Münzer,,R.E. Suppl.v.370.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 8} Münzer (loc. cit.) suggests that he may have fought with Caesar in Spain in 61.

^{page 300 note 9}Pl,.Ant.2.4,Google ScholarCic,.Phil.2.48Google Scholar (Antony),Sest. 82, 94;I.L.L.R.P.389 (Q. Numerius Rufus).Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 10}Att. 1. 14. 5 for the phrase; cf. 1. 13. 3, 14. 4–6, 16. 6–7 and 9, 18. 2, 19. 8, 2. 1. 5, Asc. 50 c.

^{page 300 note 11} Or stepmother:Syme,,Sallust (1965),134.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 12}Münzer,,R.A. (1920),273Google Scholar—the daughter of C. Gracchus? Not impossible: cf.Latomusxxiv (1965),56 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 13}Cic,.Fam.15.7–8,Google Scholar cf.Att. 12. 22. 2;Münzer,, op. cit.404 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 14}Cic,.Sull.19–20 (the Marcelli were also related to P. Autronius Paetus), 53–5,Att. 4. 3. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1}Cic,.Sest.9,Google ScholarCat.i.19;Google Scholar MünzerR.E. Claudius 215.

^{page 301 note 2} Orosius 6. 6. 7, who implies that they were killed. If that were mistaken, they could be M. Marcellus (aed. 91) and his son C. (cos. 49), though the elder son M. (cos. 49) opposed Catiline—and Clodius—consistently (Cic,.Cat.i.21,Google ScholarPlut,.Cic.15.1,Google Scholar Asc. 34 c, 39–40 c,Cic,.Q.F.2.3.1).Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 3}Crawford,M. H.,Num. Chron.iv (1964)144.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 4} Gellius' nephew( ?),cos. 36, was closely connected with the Valerii Messallae (Dio 47. 24. 5), and may have been adopted by Q. Pedius, the husband of a Valeria (Hor.Sat. i. 10. 28 with ps.-Acro, cf.Pliny,N.H.35.21).Google Scholar Note that M. Messalla (cos. 61) supported P. Sulla in 62 (Cic,.Sull.20, p.300, n. 14 above).Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 5}Fam.ii.7.1.Google Scholar He was considered as a husband for Tullia (Att. 5. 21. 14), but eventually married the sister of Messalla Corvinus (Sen.de matr. fr. 28)—cf. previous note.

^{page 301 note 6}Att. 5. 21. 9;Bailey,Shackleton,Phil.cviii (1964),107–9.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 7}Att. 4. 18. 4;Fam. 3. 13. i, cf. 8.6. 1,3.5.

^{page 301 note 8}Att. 10. 10. 4,Fam. 4. 2. 1 and 4 (May 49).

^{page 301 note 9} SoMünzer,,R.E. Postumia69.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 10}Hor,.Sat.i.10.Google Scholar 86,Ovid,,Trist.2.441,Google ScholarPliny,,ep.5.3.5Google Scholar (her son); [Tib.] 4. 10, etc. (her grand-daughter).

^{page 302 note 1}Ellis,R.,Commentary on Catullus² (1889),440–4:Google Scholar Clodius' henchman was probably thepatruus of Cat. 74, 88. 3, 89. 3–and a literary man himself (Cic,.Sest.110).Google Scholar