Editors are divided on the interpretation of nuda. According to Butler and Barber ad loc. it denotes the absence of defensive armour. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 217 understands it primarily with reference to offensive weapons. ‘Battles fought with sharpened sticks were nuda by comparison with swords and pila.’ Camps compromises: ‘nuda presumably = inermia, which may be used to indicate absence either of offensive or of defensive arms, so that probably both ideas are present here.’

It was a generally accepted tenet of ancient literary criticism that an excess of sibilants was cacophonous. To discover if and to what extent this antipathy is discernible in the actual practice of the main Latin poets, random samples of 50 lines from each were analysed. The results of this analysis are set out in Table I.

Details of poetical expression have received only incidental mention in my earlier articles on Valerius Flaccus. The purpose now is to fill this gap by outlining what has struck me most forcibly about Valerius' use of language and metre. This is offered not as a final assessment, were such a thing ever possible, but rather as a supplement or epilogue to what has already been published, with the emphasis on aspects unnoticed or not elaborated by others.

The uneasiness caused by deberent loqui is reflected in the variant readings and the emendations put forward. Is there in fact a personal subject? To understand iuvenes is possible but clumsy, but if the tragic poets themselves are intended, then these great writers are strangely selfish. Petronius surely is talking about the proper language for good oratory (cf. 2. 7), which depends on a healthy literary language in general. This rules outWilamowitz's too particular and Fuchs's uglier supplements: easier than deceret would be deberet, paralleled almost exactly in Petronius’ contemporary, Seneca (de Ira 3. 3. 1). Deberent and deberemus were doubtless due to a desire to provide a personal subject for the misunderstood impersonal verb.

Shortly before the death of Augustus, Tiberius dedicated the celebrated ara numinis Augusti, thus formally enshrining the numen of Augustus within the Imperial Cult. The step was a radical one, fundamental to the whole development of the emperor's ‘divinity’. Whereas the official cult of the emperor's genius had continued a traditional Republican practice, if with significant differences, to ascribe numen to the princeps was to establish Augustus as a through whom divinity could function as an intermediary. For to pay cult to the numen Augusti was to ascribe to the human emperor the quintessential property of a god.

In 1883 Alexander Enmann demonstrated the existence of ‘eine verlorene Geschichte der romischen Kaiser’. Not all of his arguments or conclusions were valid, but one fundamental postulate is undeniable: Aurelius Victor in 359/60 and Eutropius a decade later independently used a common source, a lost Kaiser geschichte of relatively brief compass. This lost work (it ought now to be clear) went down to the death of Constantine in 337, and traces of it can also be discovered in other writings of the late fourth century: in Festus’ Breviarium, in Jerome's revision of Eusebius’ Chronicle, in the Epitome de Caesaribus—and in the HA. If the HA used the Kaisergeschichte, its composition postdates 337— as Otto Seeck stated plainly in 1890.