In several recent studies we have developed precise statistical methodologies which have demonstrated that the cursus mixtus was the dominant rhythmical system for final clausulae in Latin prose from the third century a.d. to the fifth. The cursus mixtus consisted of four standard metrical forms derived from the richer variety of Cicero's Asiatic tradition – cretic-spondee, dicretic, cretic-tribrach and ditrochee –, which were structured according to three accentual patterns – planus, tardus and velox. The latter are differentiated by the number of unstressed syllables intervening between and following two accented syllables. The planus has two unaccented syllables between two word accents and one after the last accent. The tardus has two between two accents and two after the last accent. The velox has four between two accents and one after the last accent. The four metrical forms are contained within the parameters of the accentual cadences. The planus contains either the cretic-spondee (epistulae nostrae) or the ditrochee (manu ferire); the tardus either the dicretic (carcer includeret) or the cretic-tribrach (estis indigenae); the velox either the ditrochee (experientiam singulorum) or the cretic-spondee (nimium videbatur. Authors who used the cursus mixtus, however, preferred to effect an exact coincidence between the accent and ictus, and as a result evinced primarily the following standard rhythmical forms: planus/cretic-spondee; tardus/dicretic or cretic-tribrach; and velox/ditrochee.

So far now we have examined only the rhythmical properties of final clausulae, but it is appropriate also to investigate for rhythm at internal positions within the sentence.

In his article ‘A Nonce-word in the Iliad’ (CQ 35 [1985], 1–8) Maurice Pope argues against the usual modern interpretation of παναώριος, a Homeric ἃπαξ λεγόμενον applied by Achilles to himself at Il. 24.540, sc. ‘of all-untimely fate’, ‘doomed to die young’, and the like. The same is also the interpretation of the scholium παντελ⋯ς ἄωρον ⋯ποθανούμενον, whilst Herodian and Eustathius, respectively with κατ⋯ πάντα ἄωρον and πάντῃ ἄωρον, do no more than paraphrase the force of παν- in the compound. Pope tries to establish instead the suitability of the meaning ‘out of season’, i.e. in what Achilles does or fails to do in general. His case rests on the ground of what is appropriate to or required by the context, since, as he himself shows, the word in itself can, on the analogy of closely related forms, notably the adjective ἄωρος, bear the meaning usually attributed to it, provided the context contains sufficient indication of a reference to death. Accordingly, the validity of his argument depends on his assessment of this context.

Pope recognises that throughout the last part of the Iliad, at least starting from the conversation between Achilles and his mother at 18.70ff., Achilles is fully aware of the nearness and unavoidability of his own death, and that ‘from this point on Homer exploits the atmosphere of impending doom’. But after citing several passages in which the approach of Achilles' death is mentioned, Pope continues as follows.

A. C. Cassio has recently pointed out that Μαρικ⋯ς, the name which Eupolis applied to the demagogue Hyperbolus, is a transliteration of the Old Persian word . In fact, a Persian origin μαρικ⋯ς was suspected long ago. The seventeenth-century English scholar Edward Bernard, whose notes were used by J. Alberti in his edition of Hesychius, connected μαρικ⋯ς with the Modern Persian mardekeh, which literally means ‘a little man’ and has the connotation ‘a vile person’, ‘a scoundrel’. A. Meineke followed Bernard's derivation of μαρικ⋯ς from Persian, as did K. Latte in his recent edition of Hesychius. These references should be added to Cassio's citation of E. Maass' quotation of K. F. Geldner's opinion.

In the Vita Aristotelis of Diogenes Laertius and elsewhere we come across an epigram of Theocritus of Chios directed against Aristotle. I cite the poem in the form in which it has most recently been published by D. L. Page:

A well-known epigram by Callimachus on the philosopher Diodorus Cronus (fr. 393 Pfeiffer) reads as follows:

The question of the third line, while perhaps recondite from a contemporary perspective, was clear in antiquity. The crows are asking ‘What follows (from what)?’, in allusion to the Hellenistic disputes concerning the truth conditions of conditional propositions (συνημμ⋯να), disputes in which the views of Diodorus figured prominently.

I agree with Sedley that the question of the last line is ‘much more problematic’. The common interpretation has been to read the αὖθι as a form of αὖθις and to interpret it temporally. The result, in Pfeiffer's estimation, is ‘quomodo posthac erimus?’.

This interpretation derives from Sextus Empiricus' discussion at M. 1.309–12 of the last two lines of the epigram. After crediting the grammarian with the ability to understand the allusion in the crows' first question (M. 1.310: κα⋯ μ⋯χρι τούτου συνήσει τ⋯ κα⋯ παιδίοις γνώριμον), he proceeds to argue that the philosopher has a better chance than the grammarian of understanding the second question. But, to quote Sedley, Sextus ‘makes a ghastly mess of it’ when he attempts his own elucidation. According to an argument of Diodorus, a living thing does not die in the time in which it lives nor in a time in which it does not live. Hence, Sextus concludes, it must be the case that it never dies and, ‘if this is the case, we are always living and, according to him, we shall come to be hereafter (αὖθις γενησόμεθα)’ (M. 1.312).

While restating the correct interpretation of the prologue to the Hecyra of Terence in CQ 32 (1982), 134 F. H. Sandbach has this to say: ‘Possibly the widespread view which the translators and I reject has been encouraged by disbelief that the theatre could be used for gladiatorial combat. It is true that there is no reliable evidence for such use at Rome, for Donatus' statement “hoc abhorret a nostra consuetudine uerumtamen apud antiquos gladiatores in theatro spectabantur” may be no more than inference from Terence's text.’ There is, in fact, a certain amount of evidence for gladiatorial combats in the theatres at Rome, that is at venues where ludi scaenici were performed, which it is difficult to regard as unreliable and which is consistent with what we know of the relationship between the theatre and gladiatorial games.

Constans, who defends the unanimous reading of the manuscripts, explains ‘tertium’ as a reference to two previous senatus consulta which Fufius did not veto (ad Att. 1.13.3). The problem with this interpretation is that Fufius is not even mentioned in the passage Constans cites; in fact, this letter marks Fufius' first appearance in the correspondence. On the basis of what is preserved it is difficult to see how Atticus could have divined such a meaning in Cicero's ‘tertium’. Scholars have preferred to emend. The proposals of Graevius and Manutius have been criticized by Shackleton Bailey on the grounds that ‘concessit’ cannot mean ‘non intercessit’ in the absence of any mention of previous intercessory action on Fufius' part. However, in view of Cicero's description of the tribune in ad Att. 1.14.1, Atticus would have been no less puzzled if Fufius' failure to veto went unexplained. No earlier allusion to Fufius is necessary. Both ‘territus’ and ‘tum’ provide an explanatory context for Fufius' behaviour which makes the word play in ‘concessit’ understandable and perfectly acceptable.

Shackleton Bailey's own suggestion does not suit the context of the letter, as Ph. Moreau demonstrates in some detail. In addition to the arguments (chiefly historical) adduced by Moreau, it is important to notice that Shackleton Bailey's reading fails to conform to the confident and victorious mood of the letter or to the plot of the relevant paragraph (1.14.5): once Cato's intrusion has focused the resentment of the Senate against Clodius' supporters and his tactics, Cicero depicts Clodhis 'position as increasingly abject.

Neptunus et Apollo dicuntur Troiam muro cinxisse; his rex Laomedon uouit quod regno suo pecoris eo anno natum esset immolaturum. id uotum auaritia fefellit. alii dicunt †parum eum promisisse.

The story that Neptune and Apollo together built the walls of Troy for Laomedon is well known from Homer. At the end of their year's service the perfidious king refused to pay the agreed wages. Ovid tells the familiar story in one of his transitional sections in the Metamorphoses. Hyginus' account poses the textual problem indicated above. H. I. Rose comments on ‘parum’ as follows: ‘procul dubio corruptum hoc neque arridet Schmidtii coniectura promsisse. fuitne partum equarum? hoc enim plerumque narratur, equos quos a Ioue accepisset promisisse Laomedontem mercedis nomine…sed Herculi; quod facile ad deos mercennarios transferri potuit; atque non equos sed equas fuisse tradit Apollod. II, 104’. Rose rightly rejects Schmidt's emendation ‘promsisse’. ‘Promisisse’ has every sign of soundness and the difficulty lies, as Rose sees, with ‘parum’. Rose's own conjecture ‘partum equarum’, however, will not do. Apart from the oddity of the expression, one would need a good deal more persuasion than Rose offers to accept that the well-known promise of Zeus' horses which Laomedon made to Hercules (Hom. Il. 5.648–51, Ov. Met. 11.213–15) was transferred from Hercules to Neptune and Apollo. There is no suggestion anywhere in the sources that Laomedon promised to give Neptune and Apollo the famous horses as payment for building the walls.

Of recent editors only Ehwald, I think, prints formosast rather than formosa est. This orthography is supported by that of the capital MSS of Virgil (O. Ribbeck, Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis Opera Maiora [1867], 419); the inscriptions offer no consistent guidance. Here, however, the intentions of the writer himself are evident: Ovid must have written formosast to give three words to each season. He can be seen, as so often, improving on his model, here the Virgilian ‘mini-catalogues’ (A. A. R. Henderson, ad loc.) of the Eclogues, exploiting the couplet form to produce a completely symmetrical effect. In his magisterial note on the orthography of prodelision at D.R.N. 1.993 Lachmann confined his remarks on the elegists to the last word of the pentameter, and his conclusion is asserted rather than argued. Here we have contemporary evidence that by Ovid at least the syncopated form was written as well as spoken.

This note is not concerned with the reliability of this information, but with the lexical singularity παλλ⋯ς, which has won widespread acceptance as an ancient sacral term, though our lexica display an uncommon, and indeed misleading, prudishness as to its meaning: ‘maiden-priestess’ (LSJ s.v. Παλλ⋯ς ii); ‘bei den Griechen in ägypt. Theben noch als sakraler Ausdruck = παρθ⋯νος' (Frisk, GEW s.v. παλλακ⋯); ‘A Thèbes d'Égypte pour désigner une prêtresse = παρθ⋯νος' (Chantraine, Dictionnaire s.v. παλλακ⋯).

Pubescent temple-prostitutes had no place in Hellenic religious life, and it might be thought surprising that there was a Greek word for them; yet Strabo offers the term without explanation or speculation as to derivation or dialectal provenance, apparently confident that it is indeed Greek and not a foreign loan-word. The Greeks who frequented Upper Egypt were not a group of largely homogeneous origin, who might have preserved in quasi-colonial isolation an archaism obsolete elsewhere in the Hellenic world. No such usage is mentioned in ancient discussions of the derivation of Pallas, wide though the etymological net is cast in the attempt to explain Athene's title: see, e.g., sch. Il. 1.199–200 (with Erbse's note), sch. Od. 1.252, P. Oxy. 2260 (early second century a.d.).

The recent revival of scholarly interest in Suetonius provides a good occasion to emend a long-standing crux in Joannes Lydus' description (De Mag. 2.6) of Suetonius' dedication of his Vitae Caesarum to his friend the praetorian prefect Septicius Clarus. The codex unicus Caseolinus (Parisinus suppl. gr. 257, s. X/XI) has Τράγκυλλος τοίνυν τοὺς τ⋯ν Καισάων βίους ⋯ν γράμμασιν † ⋯ποτίνων † Σεπτικίῳ, ὃς ἦν ὓπαρχος τ⋯ν πραιτωριαν⋯ν σπειρ⋯ν ⋯πì αὐτο⋯. The conjectures ⋯ποτείνων by J. D. Fuss and ὑποτείνων by I. Bekker do little to improve the sense, and although W. Kroll's προτείνων gives the meaning required by the context (cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 1019), προ- would not easily have been misread as ⋯πο-.

For ⋯ποτίνων read ⋯νατείνων. For parallels compare BGU ii (1898), 613.3–4 'Ανέτινα ( = 'Ανέτεινα) βιβλ[ίδι]α τῷ λαμπροτάτῳ [⋯γεμόνι] in a papyrus from the reign of Antoninus Pius cited by LSJ, and several other passages, most of which I owe to the supplement to Preisigke and Kiessling's Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden and to Dr Francisco R. Adrados of the Diccionario Griego-Español: Sammelbuch x (1971), 10527.5–7 ['Ανέτε]ινά σοι, κ[ύριε,]…⋯ναφόρ[ιον… of a.d. 152–3, P. Fouad iii (1939), 26.5–10 (cf. Sammelbuch v (1934), 8252.5–10) Οὗ ⋯νέτινάσυ ( = ⋯νέτεινά σοι)τῷ κυρίῳ βιβλιδίου…⋯ντίγραφον ὑπέταξα of a.d. 157–9, P. Oslo. iii (1936), 80.21 οὗ ⋯νέτιναν (read ⋯νέτειναν) βιβλιδί[ου…written sometime after March 7, a.d. 161, Sammelbuch iv (1931) 7472.3 'Ανέτεινά [σοι, κύριε ⋯πίτροπε, βιβλείδιον of a.d. 164, Sammelbuch vi.3 (1961) 9339.24–7 (cf. a second copy in P. Fouad iii (1939) 13.5–7) οὗ ⋯νετείναμεν τῷ [κρατίσῳ ⋯τρχιερεῖ Oὐ]λπίῳ Σερηνιανῷ βιβλιδίου…[…⋯] ντίγραφον ὑπετάξαμεν from a.d. 178 or a little later, P. Mich. xii (1971) 616.13–14 τ⋯ δίκαιά μου βιβλειδίῳ ⋯νγράψασ ⋯νέτεινα Νεμεσιανῷ ὅπωσ τα[⋯]τα διαπέμψηται[τῷ ⋯]πιτρόπῳ from ca. a.d. 182, P. Cornell 14.2–4 οὗ ⋯νέτει[να τῷ κρατίστῳ ⋯πιστρ]ατηγῷ Κλαυδίῳ [Ξενοφ⋯ντι βιβλδίο]υ from a.d. 180–92, Wilcken, Chrestomathie (1912) 461.3–5 О[ὗ ⋯νέ]τεινα τῷ λαμπροτάτῳ [⋯γεμόνΚ]υίντω[ι] Μαικίωι λαιτίωι βιβλιδίου…⋯ντίγραφον ὑ[ποτάξασ] from the beginning of the third century, and Sammelbuch v (1934), 8246.3–4 αἱ συνηγερούμεναι λιβέλλον ⋯νέτιναν (= ⋯νέτιναν) ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν ἔπαρχον (the author should have written ⋯παρχικ⋯ν) ⋯ξουσίαν from a.d. 340.

Thus begins a letter of an anonymous Pelagian, printed in Patrologia Latino, Suppl. 1.1687–94 from the edition of C. P. Caspari in Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten (Oslo, 1890), 3–13. habitationibus is Caspari's emendation for the MSS' laboribus; it gives the right sense, but clashes with habitatione in the next sentence, and is palaeographically unconvincing. J. Baer, De operibus Fastidii, Britannorum episcopi (diss. Nürnberg, 1902), 31–2 for these reasons suggested litoribus. laboribus itself is not quite impossible, in the sense ‘fields’, ‘estates’ (see T.L.L. s.v. 2 labor 795, 49–59; E. Löfstedt, Late Latin (Oslo, 1959), 147–8, following on Eranos 44 (1946), 347–50). But this usage is late and unrespectable, unless we count the fifth-century Cyprianus Gallus, Gen. 1323 ‘patrios seruare labores'. And we should consider the possibility that our Pelagian wrote laribus.

One parallel is Valerius Maximus 7.7.3 ‘in proprio lare’, where lare is Madvig's emendation for iure. More intriguing is a series of passages in Jordane's Getica.