^{page 82 note 1} Tac. Ann. 14. 20; Suet. Nero 12. 3.

^{page 82 note 2} Ibid. 23. 1; ps.-Lucian, Nero 2.

^{page 82 note 3} Strabo, v. 246. For the religious nature of the Neronia cf. Tac. Ann. 14. 21: ‘pantomimi certaminibus sacris prohibebantur.’

^{page 82 note 4} Ann. 16. 4–5.

^{page 82 note 5} De Or. 3. 127.

^{page 82 note 6} Censor. 18. 4 and 15.

^{page 82 note 7} Dom. 4. 4.

^{page 82 note 8} Aug. 98. 5.

^{page 82 note 9} c. 246.

^{page 82 note 10} Cf. Paul.ex. Fest. s.v. ‘lustra’.

^{page 82 note 11} Pont. 4. 6. 5–6.

^{page 83 note 1} He was born in 43 B.C. (Trist. 4. 10. 5–6) certainly did not arrive in Tomi before A.D. 9 (Pont. 4. 6. 16 refers to the death of Augustus, and he says in 11. 5–6 quoted above that he had just completed (at most) five years’ exile).

^{page 83 note 2} Silv. 2. 2. 6.

^{page 83 note 3} Ibid. 3. 5. 92; and cf. 5. 3.113.

^{page 83 note 4} Ann. 14. 21: ‘laetitiae magis quam lasciviae dari paucas totius quinquennii noctes.’.

^{page 83 note 5} Ibid. 16. 2: ‘forte quinquennale ludicrum secundo lustro celebrabatur.’ I cannot help thinking that this quinquennium between the two Neronia is the much-debated quinquennium Neronis which Trajan, as reported by Aurelius Victor (Caes. 5. 2; cf.Epit. 5. 2–5), praised so highly; and I am gratified to find that ProfessorHaverfield, F. has suggested this possibility in J.R.S., vol. i, p. 178Google Scholar, as an alternative to the interpretation ‘any five years of Nero’. I do not see how this last can possibly be right, as it would be foisting a most monstrous untruth on Trajan: no one could soberly claim that the reigns of all other emperors fell far behind any five years of Nero (‘procul differre cunctos principes Neronis quinquennio’). See also Anderson, J. G. C. in the above-named J.R.S., pp. 173 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 83 note 6} 18. 2–3.

^{page 83 note 7} C.I.G. 2741. The same festival is called πεντετηρικΌσ in C.I.G. 2759.

^{page 83 note 8} Or. 4.155 B.

^{page 84 note 1} Nero 21.1–2.

^{page 84 note 2} Ibid. 20.1–2.

^{page 84 note 3} Cf. ibid. 25.1.

^{page 84 note 4} Ann. 15. 33.

^{page 84 note 5} Nero 21.1.

^{page 84 note 6} Ibid. 23.1.

^{page 84 note 7} Ann. 16.4.

^{page 84 note 8} Ibid. 16.2.

^{page 84 note 9} Ibid. 16.4.

^{page 85 note 1} Ann. 16. 5: ‘alios, dum diem noctemque sedilibus continuant, morbo exitiabili correptos.’

^{page 85 note 2} Ibid. 15. 34–8.

^{page 85 note 3} Suet.Nero 21. 2.

^{page 85 note 4} Ann. 15. 35–6.

^{page 85 note 5} Cf. Suet.Nero 22. 3: ‘instituerant civitates [sc. Achaicae], apud quas musici agones edi solent, omnes citharoedorum coronas ad ipsum mittere. eas adeo grate accipiebat, ut legates, qui pertulissent, non modo primos admitteret, sed etiam familiaribus epulis interponeret. a quibusdam ex his rogatus ut cantaret super cenam, exceptusque effusius, solos scire audire Graecos solosque se et studiis suis dignos ait.’

^{page 85 note 6} Ann. 15. 33: ‘non tamen Romae incipere ausus Neapolim quasi Graecam urbem delegit: inde initium fore ut transgressus in Achaiam insignesque et antiquitus sacras coronas adeptus maiore fama studia civium eliceret.’

^{page 86 note 1} Nero 21. 2.

^{page 87 note 1} Nero, 19.1: ‘ipso profectionis die destitit.’

^{page 87 note 2} Tac. Ann. 15. 39.

^{page 87 note 3} Ibid. 15. 42 ff.

^{page 87 note 4} Suet. Nero 12.3; Tac.Ann. 14. 21; 61. 21. 2 in conjunction with Tac. Ann. 15. 33 (cf. 14. 15); Suet.Nero 20. 2. I take it that the different expressions used by Suetonius of the award of the prizes for prose and verse composition on the one hand and the cithara on the other {Nero 12. 3: ‘in orchestram senatumque descendit et orationis quidem carminisque Latini coronam, de qua honestissimus quisque contenderat, ipsorum consensu sibi recepit, citharae’ autem a iudicibus ad se delatam adoravit ferrique ad Augusti statuam iussit’) mean that the judges awarded the prizes for prose and verse to certain of the competitors, but that the winners themselves by a touching gesture handed them over to Nero; whereas the judges decided that none of the competitors in the section for citharoedi were up to the emperor's standard, and themselves awarded the prize to him, although he had not competed, on the strength of his previous performances at the Iuvenalia and other semition private exhibitions—cf. Dio's words on this: τῸν μντοι στπαανον τῸν τν κιӨαρωδν νικì ἔλαβε, πντων ὡσ καì ναξῚων τσ κβληӨντων The distinction does not mean that Nero himself competed among the citharoedi.

^{page 87 note 5} See Mattingly, and Sydenham, , The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. i, pp. 171–4Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 6} Ibid., p. 171, n. 3.

^{page 87 note 7} Ibid., p. 138.

^{page 88 note 1} Ibid., p. 141.

^{page 88 note 2} Suet. Nero 13. 2.

^{page 88 note 3} Ada Fratrum Arvalium, pp. lxxxiii-lxxxiv, Henzen.

^{page 88 note 4} The Imperial Roman Coinage, vol. ii, pp. 167, 199, 201–2.

^{page 88 note 5} Ibid., vol. i, p. 138.

^{page 89 note 1} Caes. 27. 6–7.

^{page 89 note 2} Capitol. Gord. 26. 3.

^{page 90 note 1} 8. 8. 3: πιτελουμνου γνοσ τοȗ τν Kαπετωλíων.