A brief reply to Paul Murgatroyd’s response to my review of the anthology edited by him and Garrett Fagan. About insecutus on p. 87, he is entirely right, and I am so entirely in the wrong as to deserve a dunce cap. About res plural meaning “state” (p. 106), however, I agree that it is possible, though I don’t believe it is necessarily right in this passage, and for support I call upon the judgment of one who knows Tacitus far better than I, A. J. Woodman, who in his translation takes the word as I do. About eo on p. 154, I stoutly maintain that there is a difference between the adverb, which means “(to) there,” and the ablative, whether it be of cause (“because of that”) or degree of difference (“to that extent”); the comparatives in the two clauses strongly incline me towards the latter. Finally, for all that students will learn from the vocabulary, omittent might be the present: because quantities are not marked, the verb could be mistaken for second conjugation. About the rest, I stand by my views, while happily noting that Prof. Murgatroyd did not seem displeased with the great bulk of the review, which found much to praise in his work.
[For a further response by Paul Murgatroyd to this response, please BMCR 2007.05.02.]