In the following pages I shall emend or explain certain passages of the Epyllion. For the sake of brevity I shall refer the reader, wherever possible, to the material collected by Breitenstein, whose monograph I have recently reviewed. The conoscenti will hardly need to be reminded, for the purposes of my discussion, that the author of Megara was, to appropriate Geffcken's words, '‘ein doctus poeta, wie alle Alexandriner’ (Leon., p. 140), steeped in the knowledge of Homer, Apollonius, and Theocritus (especially Idyll 25). First of all, an emendation.

In a recent article Mr. D. A. West investigated the meaning of haurire, haustus, showing how the primary sense ‘to take by scooping, to draw’ is present in a number of passages which have been incorrectly interpreted in the light of extensions made only later of this usage. He noted in passing that ‘this sense may well survive in , the cognate of haurire’. In this article I hope to show that the recognition of this as the basic sense of and its cognates and compounds helps to clear away a number of errors arising from the misunderstanding of the fact that the action of scooping, or drawing, is at the root of Gk. , as of Lat. haurire.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the source of Plutarch's inspiration for the impressive discourse which he presents from the lips of Ammonius in the De E apud Delphos, and in particular for the following much-quoted passage

THE closing lines of Act I, Scene n of Terence's Eunuchus (189–206) pose certain difficulties; in particular it is far from clear when Phaedria and Parmeno leave the stage-if indeed they do so at all. Taking this small difficulty as a starting-point, I wish to examine the text of Eunuchus at this place in order to see what information can be gained about the structure of the play and about any alterations Terence may have made in adapting his Greek original. In this I shall mainly be confining myself to Terence's adaptation of Menander's Eunuchus at this one point, and shall not re-examine the welltrodden ground concerning the introduction of the parasite and the boastful Captain from Menander's Colax.

Seneca ‘Rhetor’ was last critically edited by H. J. Müller in 1887; the editions of H. Bornecque (1902) and W. A. Edward (Suasoriae only, 1928) lack an apparatus criticus, though the latter's notes give some attention to textual points. Whoever next addresses himself to the task can take heart from Eduard Norden (Röm. Lit., p. 180): ‘der Text ist schwer korrupt, für Konjekturalkritik noch viel zu tun.’ It may be added that he will do a service by jettisoning a large proportion of what Konjekturalkritik has already produced-too much of this nature in Müller's text and apparatus, to say nothing of later contributions, is merely depressing.

My purpose is to compare the different explanations that have been offered of the expression propius periclo it timor. This is its context. Evander, king of Pallanteum, has decided to send cavalry under the command of his son Pallas to assist the Trojans and Etruscans in the war against Turnus. When a report spreads that the cavalry are about to set out, the mothers of the soldiers are alarmed.

uota metu duplicant matres, propiusque periclo

it timor et maior Martis iam apparet imago.

‘The mothers redouble their vows in fear, fear goes closer to (or in) the danger, and the image of Mars appears greater.’ James Henry writes: ‘The women, who had previously … made vows, felt fear, and seen the image of war before them (viz. in their minds), now, when the war has thus come to their very door, … double their vows, feel a sharper fear, and see their picture, image, or idea of war larger than it was before. ‘But propius periclo it has been explained in other ways. Some think periclo dative, other (like James Henry) ablative. Conington increases the confusion by citing the explanations of Heyne and Wagner as if they were compatible with his own translation.

IN a discussion of the reading in Lucan i. 231, Richard Bentley dismissed Grotius's suggestion Ariminon: ignes on the correct grounds that, like Virgil, Lucan avoids starting a new sentence or clause at the beginning of the sixth foot of the hexameter, except with a pair of monosyllables (as in 6. 700, per quam) or with a word emphasized either by repetition (as in 7. 350, ipsi … ipsi) or by a strong contrast (as in Cicero, Arat. 266, hic totus medius circo disiungitur: ille… —the only example of this sort of break in Cicero's poetical fragments).

What is the point of isdem ? Editors of Juvenal pass over the word without comment and most translators are content with an unexplained ‘the same’. But if it means ‘the same as the ships that made the bridge’, it is odd that it should be put with the first clause. On the other hand, if Juvenal means the same ships as those that passed through the Athos canal, the reference must be to the fleet that sailed to Greece and not to the boats that formed the bridge. The awkwardness of the passage is shown up by the obscurity of the Budé translation: ‘la mer tellement couverte de ces mêmes navires que, solidifiée, elle aurait supporté les roues des chars.’

Atque illo die certe Aricia rediens devertit Clodius ad se in Albanum: quod ut sciret Milo ilium Ariciae fuisse, suspicari tamen debuit eum, etiam si Romam illo die reverti vellet, ad villam suam, quae viam tangeret, deversurum (Pro Milone 51).

THIS passage is interesting in that its argument runs counter to the main picture which Cicero had earlier presented of the movements of Milo and Clodius before they met on the Appian Way in January 52 B.C. In an earlier passage (27) Cicero says: ‘Interim cum sciret Clodius–neque enim difficile erat id scire–xiter sollemne, legitimum, necessarium ante diem XIII Kalendas Februarias Miloni esse Lanuvium ad flaminem prodendum, quod erat dictator Lanuvii Milo, Roma subito ipse profectus pridie est, ut ante suum fundum, quod re intellectum est, Miloni insidias conlocaret.’ Cicero remains true to this latter version in all the relevant arguments concerning the motives and movements of Clodius and Milo. Milo had legitimate business at Lanuvium, and hence a legitimate reason for being on the road at the time of the affray; Clodius′ presence is explained by Cicero as due solely to the desire to place an ambush for his enemy at a convenient spot, i.e. in front of his farm, and for this reason he had set out from Rome a day before Milo, when his presence was really required in Rome

M. Duronius, tribune of the plebs in 97 or perhaps 96 B.C., was expelled from the Senate by the censors of those years, M. Antonius and L. Crassus, for having abrogated a lex sumptuaria. No doubt Antonius was chiefly responsible, for it was him that Duronius chose to prosecute for ambitus while he was still censor. Nothing else is known about Duronius, who quite obviously played no major part in Roman politics or at the Roman bar.

Valerius Maximus tells the story of his expulsion, with the reason for it. The passage must be quoted in full (2. 9. 5):

In view of the overwhelming weight of the manuscript evidence, including most recently the testimony of Y, it is perhaps about time to stop the attempts at emendation that began in the sixteenth century with sed non blanda puto. The weaknesses, too, of the argument in favour of lengthening metri gratia the final vowel of blanda have been clearly pointed out by Housman,1 who just as clearly pointed out that blanda must therefore be an ablative.

When Moschion orders Daos up to him for punishment, Daos points to the spot by Moschion's had indicated (‘There?’), but then darts fearfully away. I wish I could name the originator of this attractive part-division, which makes the use of more precise; but in seminars the correct assignment of ideas is often very difficult.

Recently Mr. E. Courtney has reopened discussion on the authenticity of the last six Heroides, a subject which had almost universally been accepted as settled by scholars.2 He also briefly discussed the ninth epistle and examined certain grounds for doubting whether it is rightly included in the Ovidian canon. In this he is following Karl Lachmann, who was disposed to doubt the authenticity not only of the last six but also of those of the remainder which are not mentioned in Ovid's catalogue of the epistles given at Amores 2. 18 f.3 This despoliation of the canon has not generally found favour since Lachmann, and in the case of Heroides 9 (Deianira Herculi) the editors (e.g. Palmer) and other scholars working on the poems (e.g. Housman and recently Dörrie)4 have without exception regarded the poem as a genuine specimen of Ovid's work.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate through representative examples the principal ways in which Valerius Flaccus borrowed from Homer. Earlier articles1 examined Valerius' attitude towards Apollonius and his debt to Virgil. While not nearly as numerous as the Virgilian echoes, those from Homer are unmistakable, deliberate, sometimes erudite, or with a subtle twist. A convenient classification of them may be into (a) verbal usages, (b) situations, (c) similes. Although the last merges with the previous category, it deserves separate treatment, being greatest in size as well as complexity.

It has frequently been remarked by critics of Petronius (though usually merely in passing) that the entry of the monumental mason, Habinnas, in the Cena Trimalchionis is modelled on that of Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium. Yet surprisingly enough the parallel has not found its way into the commentaries, nor has it ever been analysed in detail. In fact it can stand as an interesting illustration of the use of literary allusion in the Satyricon.

Tacitus writes that, by insisting that legionary legates who had not so far held the praetorship should immediately proceed to that office, Asinius Gallus ‘altius penetrare et arcana imperii temptari’. In C.Q. N.S. xvi (1966), 327, I suggested that this demand of Gallus’ was probably probing dangerously deeply into and perhaps threatening to wreck the carefully worked-out imperial promotions system, the working of which has been examined by Birley.

It is the purpose of this note to look at a number of examples of such irregularity, which, though not as early as the debate during the course of which Gallus made his suggestion, do at least illustrate the process later in the Julio-Claudian era.

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.