on Paris gave offence. Domitian was quite capable of resenting the imputation of conferring military commands at the suggestion of an actor, especially when the actor's influence had been removed; nor would his resentment be lessened if Juvenal had deliberately republished, with an application to his own reign, what had been originally directed against the earlier Paris, the favourite of Nero. A wider question suggests itself here. Did Juvenal begin to write under Nero, and to publish under Domitian, while the revised edition of his works was interrupted by death, perhaps in Trajan's reign?

That some such revised edition was attempted is probable, from the statement of one old biographer, that a considerable interval elapsed between the original composition of the lines on Paris, and their reappearance in the Seventh Satire; from the remark of another, that he enlarged (ampliavit) his satires in exile, and from the curious circumstance that there are MSS. in which the Sixteenth Satire, a mere fragment, is placed before the Fifteenth. Obviously, copyists must have changed the order which Juvenal intended, in order that all the satires might appear to be finished, except the last; perhaps also those who doubted the genuineness of the fragment, may have wished to propagate their suspicions by relegating it to a sort of appendix. If Juvenal was in the habit of retouching his compositions, it is obviously unsafe to infer the date of a satire from single lines; for in such a laboured style innumerable additions and insertions would be possible, which would improve the brilliancy of the general effect, without impairing its unity. Hence we cannot build much upon the following list of passages.

In i. 47; viii. 120, Juvenal mentions the exile and rapacity of Marius Priscus, who was condemned for oppression in proconsular Africa, A.D. 100, which is the latest date that we can fix with certainty.

In vi. 502, there is an allusion to the successive layers of curls, which cannot be traced on the imperial busts, our only authority, higher than the reign of Trajan; but (ib. 385) a musician

is mentioned, who was already famous when Martial published his Fourth Book, comparatively early under Domitian.

In xii. 80, there is an allusion to the inner basin of the Portus Augusti, which was not completed, according to the Scholia, till Trajan, though the general construction of the harbour was due to Claudius; and the Scholiast may have confused the harbour at Centum Cellae, now Civita Vecchia, with that at Portus.

Moreover, as the information about Trajan is introduced to give an erroneous sense to rursum, we are scarcely bound to believe that the interiora―tuti stagna sinus had been enclosed as a separate basin when Juvenal wrote.

In viii. 51, there is an ambiguous passage, that would suit the latter part of Trajan's reign, or the early part of Vespasian's, almost equally well or ill. The reference to the eagles, which control the conquered Batavian, would be most in place immediately after the revolt of Civilis. On the other hand, Vespasian never sent an expedition to the Euphrates; and it would be an unpleasant inaccuracy to couple the achievements of Cerealis and Corbulo: unless, indeed, Juvenal may mean to refer to the danger of the eastern frontier, in the troubles after Nero's death. On the whole, the earlier date seems best; as to mention nothing further than the Euphrates would have been a very poor compliment to Trajan, if his reign was intended.

In xiii. 27, there is a yet more ambiguous appeal to the age of a friend, who was sixty years old when Juvenal wrote, and was born when Fonteius was consul. This excites our hopes of being able to fix the date of at least one whole satire; but unfortunately one Fonteius was consul, A.D. 12, another A.D. 59, yet another A.D. 67. Lipsius and Professor Ramsey prefer the earliest date; most other authorities adopt the second.

In xv. 27, we have to choose in the same way between one Junius, who was consul A.D. 84; another, who was consul A.D. 119; and an hypothetical Juncus, who may not impossibly have been consul suffect A.D. 127.

The first date is objected to, because Paris was dead, and because a Juvenal was resident in Rome, and intimate with Martial, when the latter published his Seventh Book (circa A.D. 93). The first objection is answered above. In reply to the second, it is sufficient to say that there is no reason for supposing that the exile lasted longer than six months, the usual period for which such commands were conferred.

About the date of the Fourth Satire, there can be little doubt. It must have been written after the death of Domitian, and while Crispinus was still alive, to insult respectable opinion.

The only indication of the date of the Fifth Satire is to be found in vv. 107-110, which must belong to the generation after Nero; but too much weight must not be given to them, as 106-113 might be removed without injury, perhaps with advantage, as an unnecessary after-thought of the poet, who was afraid that he had not brought out his real opinion of Virro.

The date of the Seventh Satire must be determined by our selection of the Caesar, who is hailed at the beginning as the solitary patron of the Muses. It is scarcely necessary to exclude Hadrian, on the ground that Trajan had done nothing to afflict the Nine; for the contrast is not between the liberality of one emperor and the illiberality of another, but between imperial patronage and public indifference. On the other hand, there is nothing in the satire that can be construed into a reference to what had passed under Trajan, or was passing under Hadrian, whereas the allusions to Domitian's reign are frequent.

We have references to the poverty of Saleius satirized by Martial (iv. 3. 6), to the recitations of Statius, which probably began with the First Book of the Thebaid (which is said to have been completed A.D. 94, after twelve years' labour); and the mention of his Agave proves that the Paris of the completed satire must be Domitian's favourite. In spite of this, however, most editors waver between Trajan and Hadrian,

inclining to the former, though it would be much more reasonable to treat Trajan's reign than Domitian's as a period of literary decline. The Scholiast, who did not share their zeal for the purity and independence of Juvenal's literary conscience, says, with naïve absurdity, "Neronem palpat.”

It is chiefly in the First and Eighth Satires that we find plausible grounds for suspecting allusions to the reign of Nero, which have furnished such a plentiful harvest of conjectures to annotators from the Scholiast downwards. Madvig (in his Opuscula Academica, i. 29-63; ii. 167—205) has effectually refuted the excesses of this tradition; but he has not condescended to examine whether it is wholly destitute of foundation.

Of course, every one would admit that a note like this on i. 59, "Qui bona. prae.: propter equos hoc dicit et Neronem tangit," is a mere conjecture, neither very acute, nor very probable; but notes like those on i. 33. 35, seem to embody in a blundering way a real ancient tradition. The reader shall judge :-" Delator amici. Heliodorum significat delatorem

Heliodorum dicit Stoicum philosophum, qui L. Junium Silanum, discipulum suum, cum argueretur conjurationis, inficiatum domesticam delationem etiam testimonio oppressit. Alii filosophum Trajani dicunt, qui Baream senatorem detulit et damnavit. Nonnulli Demetrium causidicum dicunt, qui multos Neroni detulit. Soranum Baream Celer filosophus, magister ipsius, scelere delationis occidit, et ipse postea sub Vespasiano ob hoc ipsum, Musonio Rufo accusante, damnatus est. ... Massa morio fuisse dicitur et Carus nanus, Latinus vero actor mimicus. Hi omnes Neronis fuerunt liberti et deliciae Augusti. Latinus autem mimus quasi conscius adulterii Messalinae uxori Neronis, ab ipso occisus est. Massa autem et Carus Heliodoro deferente occisi sunt: cujus futuram delationem ita timebant ut ei munera darent." Here the sentence about Trajan's philosopher, who denounced and condemned the noble Barea, is an obvious confusion due to the fact that, while Barea suffered under Nero, the annotator supposed for the moment that Juvenal

was satirizing the reign of Trajan. Again, when we are told that Messalina was the wife of Nero, it is more than doubtful whether we are to give the deponent credit for remembering that Nero was one of the surnames of Claudius; nor is it certain that the statement that Massa and Carus fell under the accusation of Heliodorus is more than an inference from the description in the text of their trembling homage to the great unknown of Juvenal.

When we turn to Valla's excerpts from Probus, we find at once a confirmation of our belief that most of the statements quoted above represent the tradition of a period when many authorities now lost were accessible, and an explanation of the blunder about Trajan's philosopher, which Valla himself repeats. According to Probus, Heliodorus was the delator, and the error, corrected above, on the authority of Lipsius, which substituted Licinium Syllanum for L. Junium Silanum, must be at least as old as his time. He adds that Massa, the fool, and Carus, the dwarf, both belonged to Trajan, while he implies quite correctly that Messalina was the wife of Claudius, though he does not ask himself how the same. favourite could be an object of terror to members of Trajan's household, and to a victim of Claudius, or even Nero, who certainly may have taken a fancy to avenge his stepfather's dishonour.

It is probable that Probus was perplexed by what is certainly difficult to explain, the mention of a favourite of Nero, and a corrupt governor under Trajan, in the same satire. Probus dilutes the difficulty by multiplying allusions to Trajan, as well as to Nero, without inquiring whether Trajan was a contemporary of Tigellinus. The moderns, at any rate, since Madvig, have generally cut the knot by supposing that the mention of Marius definitely fixes the date of the whole satire, and that Juvenal was indulging in a rather flat mystification, when he introduced an imaginary Mentor to warn him of the danger of denouncing Tigellinus, and propitiates his phantom monitor by a promise only to attack the