In the opening passage of the Breviarium of Festus (1. I) (written probably c. A.D. 369/70) we read the following: ‘… ac morem secutus calculonum, qui ingentes summas aeris breuioribus exprimunt, res gestas signabo, non eloquar. Accipe ergo quod breuiter dictis breuis conputetur …’ The problem that I should like briefly to discuss in the following study is: Who were the calculones, ‘qui ingentes surnmas aeris breuioribus exprimunt’? This term calculo, and indeed the whole problematic clause can, I suggest, only be fully understood and appreciated in the light of monetary developments of the later fourth century.

The truth about line 70 was public property as far back as Plathner, who is quoted by Ruperti (ad loc. in his edition of 1818), but modern editors shy away from it and, with a perverse unanimity, print the accusative rubetam. Not only must viro then be taken with sitiente as an ablative absolute, in spite of the proximity of porrectura, but there is no internal coherence in the relative clause. R. Beer (Spicilegium luvenalis, 1885, pp. 59-60) put his finger on the nerve of the matter: ‘possumus quidem miscere vinum, miscere venenum, sed si mulier vinum porrigit interea venenum miscet, non vino immiscet, nihil inest periculi viro.’ All is resolved once the proper force of sitiente is recognized: it qualifies rubeta and means sitim faciente, ‘parching’.

Mr. E. Courtney (Phoenix xxi [1967], 49) adopts Ellis's defence of repetitque, argues convincingly as a consequence that sed must be replaced by a verb, and claims: ‘That verb can hardly have been any other than stat.’ He continues : ‘This will mean that Charon's boat, having ferried across the young, does not remain tied up at the quay forgetful of the old, but goes back for them.’ The difficulty of que in the sense of sed in the line as reconstituted is defended by a reference to Housman's note on Manilius, 1. 877. Still, the proposed line, non oblita tamen stat, repetitque senes, does not seem to be clear without a pause after stat, so that the reader will construe non with stat but not with repetit. This gives a very awkward rhythm indeed.