gally.]

[Footnote 228: Gellius i. 6; cp. Livy, Epit. 59.]

[Footnote 229: e.g. _ad Fam._ xiv. 2.]

[Footnote 230: The story of the relations of Cicero, Terentia,
Clodius, and Clodia, in Pint. _Cic._ 29 is too full of inaccuracies to
be depended on. In the 41st chapter what he says of the divorce and
its causes must be received with caution; it seems to come from some
record left by Tiro, Cicero's freedman and devoted friend, and as
Cicero obviously loved this man much more than his wife, we can
understand why the two should dislike each other.]

[Footnote 231: Plutarch, _Ti. Gracch._ 1; _Gaius Gracch._ 19. The
letters of Cornelia which are extant are quite possibly genuine.]

[Footnote 232: The recent edition of the _Ars amatoria_ by Paul Brandt
has an introduction in which these points are well expressed.]

[Footnote 233: Catullus 72. 75.]

[Footnote 234: _Ciceron et ses amis_, p. 175.]

[Footnote 235: Decimus Brutus, one of the tyrannicides of March 15,
44.]

[Footnote 236: Sall. _Cat_. 25.]

[Footnote 237: Plut. _Lucullus_ 6.]

[Footnote 238: Cic. _ad Fam._ viii. 7: a letter of Caelius, in which
he tells of a lady who divorced her husband without pretext on the
very day he returned from his province.]

[Footnote 239: Plut. _Cato min._ 25 and 52. Plutarch seems to be
using here the Anti-Cato of Caesar, but the facts must have been well
known.]

[Footnote 240: e.g. _ad Att._ xv. 29.]

[Footnote 241: _ad Fam._ ix. 26.]

[Footnote 242: The so-called Laudatio Turiae is well known to all
students of Roman law, as raising a complicated question of Roman
legal inheritance; but it may also be reckoned as a real fragment of
Roman literature, valuable, too, for some points in the history of
the time it covers. It was first made accessible and intelligible by
Mommsen in 1863, and the paper he then wrote about it has lately been
reprinted in his _Gesammelte Schriften_, vol. i., together with a
new fragment discovered on the same site as the others in 1898. This
fragment, and a discussion of its relation to the whole, will he found
in the _Classical Review_ for June 1905, p. 261; the laudatio without
the new fragment in _C.I.L._ vi. 1527.]

[Footnote 243: App. _B.C._ iv. 44. The identification has been
impugned of late, but, as I think, without due reason. See my article
in _Classical Rev._, 1905, p. 265.]

[Footnote 244: This is how I interpret the new fragment. See
_Classical Rev. l.c._ p. 263 foll.]

[