EK PETRONIUS ARBITER 
23. Populus. The two manuscripts agree. The definition of the word, as of the 
preceding, is genuine Roman. See the following note. 
24. Plebs. There is a trifling difference only between the two manuscripts. As to 
the definition, cf. A. Gell. N. A. 10, 20: * Plebem autem Capito in eadem definitione 
seorsum a populo divisit, quoniam in populo omnis pars civitatis omnesque eius ordines 
contineantur; plebes vero ea dicatur, in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt. Ple- 
bisscitum igitur est, secundum eum Capitonem, lex, quam plebes non populus accipit." 
25. Plebiscitum. Agreement of the two manuscripts. Capito, according to Gellius, 
has accipit for scivit. What may be inferred from this difference, the definition being 
essentially that of Capito? The difference may be owing to the circumstance that 
Gellius, in copying Capito, substituted accipit for scivit. If the change was made by 
Petronius, it would prove his accurate knowledge of the language, since scivit is quite 
as good as accipit. 
26. Priva. There are several, although not very important, differences between the 
two manuscripts. In connection with * singulares specialesque cuiusque dignitatis," 
a substansive, perhaps leges, is to be supplied. Cf. A. Gell. (who draws from Capito), 
N. A. 10, 20: * quocirca privilegia potius vocari debent, quia veteres priva dixerunt, 
quae nos singula dicimus. . . .. Nam et plebisscita et privilegia translaticio nomine 
legis appellaverunt, eademque omnia confuso et indistincto vocabulo rogationes dixe- 
t" The clause, * Inde etiam translative singulares specialesque cuiusque dignitatis 
eius privilegia appellamus,” is not comprehended among the various explanations of 
Capito, as given by Gellius, and may have been taken directly from Capito. This 
circumstance goes far to prove that, although Petronius has in several instances defi- 
nitions which are also given by Gellius, he drew directly from the sources which were 
also used by Gellius. 
27. Italia. Some slight differences between the two manuscripts. Festus gives the — 
general substance of this definition, but adds also another: “ Italia dicta, quod magnos 
italos, hoc est boves, habeat. Vituli etenim ab Italis itali sunt dicti. Italia ab Italo 
rege." Gg dci mm. 
28. Elegantia. With the exception of habebatur (Cod. Rice. habeatur) and modera- 
tissima (Cod. Ricc. modestissima) the two manuscripts agree. I am inclined to think that 
the clause, “nec in laude nec in vitio ponebatur," is not in its proper place, the unde a 
evidently referring to the nitidiore cultu ac victu, and not to the clause nec in laude, Suc. S 
This clause may be placed after moderatissima, repeating in other words the same i l 2 
As to the definition, it is interesting to compare A. Gell. N. A. 11, 2: “ Elegans I omo : 
non dicebatur cum laude, sed id fere verbum ad aetatem M. Catonis vitii non audis. fuit. 
