The origo of C. Iulius P. f. Hor…………‥ Cornutus Tertullus, friend and colleague of the younger Pliny, has always been a matter of speculation. B. Stech thought he might have come from Africa; Professor Syme, observing the name of the dedicator of the stone which records Cornutus' career, C. Iulius Pla[n]cius Varus Cornutus, suggests Perge in Pamphylia. Professor Syme further remarks on the existence of a C. Iulius Cornutus at Perge, who set up a bilingual dedication to Nero. These names are also borne by C. Iulius Cornutus Bryonianus, ἀγωνοθέτης at the Varian games at Perge.

Groag remarked that one would not normally expect to find the praenomen of Cornutus Tertullus' father, Publius, coupled with the nomen Iulius. Cornutus Tertullus might, then, have been adopted, possibly by the C. Iulius Cornutus who set up the dedication to Nero: the gap in his nomenclature, as it appears in the inscription set up by C. Iulius Pla[n]cius Varus Cornutus, could have contained his original nomen.

When Dr. Rice Holmes' Roman Republic came to hand and I began to turn over at random the pages of vol. i, the first passage which caught my eye was the discussion of Pompey's short campaign against Mithradates. It occurs in one of those numerous and lengthy appendices, attached to each of the three volumes, which the author calls ‘Part II,’ and in which, with regal disregard of the prices and prejudices of publishers, he seeks to probe to the bottom every difficulty that arises in the course of his investigations. This Second Part, which the author hopes some may not find tedious, is, I think, the section to which most scholars will turn first. The discussion of the campaign (p. 428 ff.) revived memories of old studies of my own in which I seemed to have reached somewhat more definite conclusions, at any rate on some points, than Dr. Holmes offers to his readers. In the description of the campaign which he gives in the narrative portion of his work (p. 206 f.) he takes, in my opinion, the correct view about its general course, but the discussion of details does not seem to me to be quite satisfying nor to dispose of the main difficulty which arises out of Strabo's localization of one of the places concerned.

The city of Lanuvium, now called Civita Lavinia, stands on a beautiful site looking out westwards over its vine-clad slopes across the plain to the sea, and eastwards to the mountains beyond Velletri. The oldest city stood on the crest of the hill; on the central of the three summits was the arx and near were remains which have been connected with a temple. Moreover, excavation has disclosed something of the ancient plan of the city, a theatre, an underground aqueduct and other structures.

Caecina and Aebutius both laid claim to the same piece of land. When Caecina attempted to enter on it, he was driven away by the threats of Aebutius and his followers, all armed. Cicero, counsel for Caecina, obtained from the praetor an injunction, such as had often been given in similar cases, ordering Aebutius to restore Caecina to the land in dispute, ‘if indeed it was true that he had ejected him by force, with the help of armed men.’ It was, however, not true, according to Piso who pleaded the cause of Aebutius. Piso admitted most of the facts alleged by Cicero. But he maintained that, strictly speaking, his client had not ejected Caecina ‘by force’ nor, for that matter, ‘ejected’ him at all. No ‘force’ had been used, said Piso: Caecina had taken to his heels long before he was hurt.