[82] In vol. I, p. 258, and R. H. II, 195, the Cassii are considered as plebeians: our passage dates from 1826-7; the former one from 1828-9.—Germ. Edit.
[83] Conf. vol. I, p. 367.
[84] Bonn is here spoken of.—Transl.
[85] Cicero does not seem to say this quite so explicitly in Brutus 62, 224. Longe autem post natos homines improbissimus C. Servilius Glaucia, sed peracutus et callidus imprimisque ridiculus—homo simillimus Atheniensis Hyperboli, cujus improbitatem veteres Atticorum comœdiæ notaverunt. Conf. de Orat. II, 61, 249; 65, 263.—Germ. Edit.
[86] Cic. ad Att. III. 23. pro Cæcina 33. Walter’s History of the Roman law (Geschichte des Römischen Rechts), 2d edit., vol. II., p. 12, notes 45 & 46.—Germ. Ed.
[87] Valer. Maxim. III, 4, 5. Whether M. Peperna, who was consul in the year 622 is the same person as the consul of the year 660, who was censor in 666, is no more to be made out; yet it is possible, as according to Plin. H. N. vii, 49, he reached the age of eighty-nine years. But in that case the censorship would be later than the lex Licinia et Mucia, and the proposition would be untenable. If they be two different persons, the words “and the censorship” in the text are to be cast out. But the matter is not quite certain, as in Valerius Maximus it is said, lege Papia, which altogether clashes with the account as given above.—Germ. Edit.
[88] Vol. I., p. 167.
[89] De Orat. I, 7, 24.
[90] Diod. Exc. Vatic., p. 128., Dind.—Germ. Ed.
[91] In the year 1827, Niebuhr had remarked, “Now we shall probably know soon some further details about it, thanks to the fragments of Diodorus discovered by Maï, if they be really new ones.”—Germ. Ed.