The desperate straits to which commentators are driven in attempting to explain inter impotentis et ualidos falso quiescas: ubi manu agitur, modestia ac probitas nomina superioris sunt are illustrated by a recent contributor to this journal . In the decent obscurity of a review of Büchner's fourth volume of Studien zur römischen Literatur I hazarded a suggestion that has escaped notice. The crux may be removed by reading non superioris and supposing a confusion between N ═ non and Ñ ═ (...) nomine . In war legality is dumb, and amid the squabbles of competing tribes restraint and honesty are not the marks of the winner. The Chatti were proved wiser than the children of light, for they had fought and flourished: Chattis uictoribus fortuna in sapientiam cessit. (shrink)

The present paper proposes to discuss three passages in Tacitus, Histories 3 where current interpretations have led to difficulties which can be shown to be baseless so soon as it is realized that Tacitus is willing on occasion to sacrifice truth and clarity to stylistic effect. In each of these passages the same literary device lies at the root of the matter, a device which may be labelled ‘die grouping of participles’: the juxtaposition of participles in a sentence to die (...) detriment of strict chronological order. (shrink)