In 267 the number of quaestors was increased from the established total of four (two consular and two urbani). But how many were added, and what were their functions? The standard works agree that the new quaestors numbered four, and that they were stationed in four Italian towns, where they are usually supposed tohave performed administrative functions necessary to the Roman navy, and, in the case of the quaestor stationed at Ostia, functions necessary to Rome's grainsupply. These were the quaestores classici, or according to others the quaestores Italici. A few historians have very reasonably gone on to interpret this event as an important stage in the tightening of Roman control in Italy, or as a deliberate step towards a large-scale navy and war against Carthage.

In a recent article JRS (1973), 68 f. Nicholas Horsfall sought to demonstrate that Corythus, which Virgil makes the original home of Dardanus (Aen. iii, 167 f.), should be identified with Tarquinii, some 50 miles north-west of Rome, on the coast of Etruria, rather than with Cortona, roughly twice as far away, to the north, and inland. In doing so he expressed surprise that the Virgilian evidence should have been completely ignored by previous writers on the subject (p. 68): and, using the Aeneid as the main source on which his own argument was based, he supported his conclusion with a careful examination of several other aspects of the problem.

Professor Cairns has suggested (CQ 68, 1974, 95—7) that the use of modo in Propertius 1.1.11, which has long been seen as problematic, can be understood in terms of some instances of the Greek modo, he says, here means not but , and the modo clause is prior in time to the clause that follows it just as, in his view, a Greek imperfect with can have the force of a pluperfect and refer to a time prior to that of the verb of a following clause.

Mr. Harrison's critique of my article in JRS 63 (1973) is conducted with characteristic learning and subtlety. He has pointed out much that I ought to have observed. But I remain altogether unconvinced:

(i) Harrison objects to my preferring a close local sense for his (vii.206), hinc (vii.240), repetit (vii.241) and revehis (viii.37) because in comparison with the distance from Troy, even the 100-odd miles from Cortona to the scene of action—let alone the 50-odd miles from Tarquinii—count as ‘loca’

When Augustus inherited the kingdom of Amyntas in or about 25 B.C. and created the Roman province of Galatia, he also inherited a substantial military problem. Despite Amynatas' efforts in a decade of warfare the tribes of the Isaurian and Pisidian Taurus, above all the Homonadenses, were still not finally conquered and posed a serious threat both to lacal security and to the routes of communication across southern Asia Minor.

The explanation of the vexed phrase ‘auditor et ultor’ (39) given by Professor E. Fraenkel on p. 349 of his Horace marks a great improvement on previous interpretations. Auditor he translates as ‘pupil’ and ultor he explains as ‘rescuer’ (i.e. from oblivion). However I very much doubt whether ultor can in fact bear this meaning. Whatever may be the case with vindex and vindico, I have found no instance of ultor meaning anything but ‘avenger’ or ‘punisher’. Fraenkel takes ‘nobilium scriptorum’ as the Greek poets ‘whose form and spirit he attempted to renew in a different tongue’ 2.

The first passage quoted above is the only certain evidence we have about Tacitus' early career, until we come to his tenure of the praetorship in A.D. 88. His career before that date has been the subject of much speculation, so it is surprising that no notice has been taken of the second passage. Syme does not even mention it, and C.W. Mendell merely describes it as ‘curious’. The reason for its dismissal is presumably that the post of a bibliothecis was equestrian, while Tacitus was a senator. Yet in view of our lack of other evidence about his early career, it seems at least worth considering how Pastrengo came to make his statement, even if we conclude he was wrong.

There has been much discussion of the phrase ‘perpetuum… carmen’ and of its relation to Callimachus' rejection of the (Aetia fr. 1. 3 Pfeiffer). Much less has been written about deducite in line 4. However it is, I believe, equally important for the ‘programme’ of Ovid's poem.

Deducere is a metaphor frequently applied to poetry in general with the sense of ‘to write, compose something.’ In certain contexts the reference is much more specific and indicates subtle and polished writing of the kind associated with Callimachus.

Odysseus describes Polyphemus preparing his meal. One expects an indication of the terrifying size of the (cf. 385, 388, 390 f.); and so , lonely though it is in L, should not be abandoned: compare Ar. Pax.73 . must mean bowls for blood. But the blood of the Greeks flows into the cauldron (see below). It seems probable therefore that is a (probably corrupt) comic periphrasis for the cauldron. Hermann read 395 after 399 as .

In his recent second supplement to his invaluable catalogue of manuscripts of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Munari reports two manuscripts from the Bibliotheca Vallicelliana in Rome. The second of these, number 405 in his cumulative list, is Bibl. Vallicelliana F 25. According to the description supplied to Munari and so quoted, the manuscript is a miscellany, 23Ox 142 mm., membr. fourteenth century, and the Ovidian material is the last or number 7 of the miscellaneous pieces, fols. 117–34. So far, the information is correct. However, on a crucial point, namely the exact contents of the Ovidian poem preserved, the data are in error.

Newman ad. loc. regarded it as ‘on the whole … most probable that both and ’ on whose generic differences Aristotle insists so strongly earlier in the chapter; Susemihl and Hicks ad. loc. merely asserted Newman's tentative view dogmatically, and it now seems to have become almost canonical. I think it needs to be challenged.

Tacitus is writing about Ireland. In 1967 Ogilvie commented, ‘In melius cannot be taken either with differunt, since it contradicts haud multum, nor with cogniti, since it cannot be imagined that Tacitus was so ignorant of the truth as to suppose that Ireland was better known than England.’ He therefore followed earlier editors in deleting in melius as a possible interpolation by ‘patriotic Irish monks’.

We must return to the transmitted reading, which is beyond objection. The persons referred to in want to establish that passivity, the experiencing of desire, grief, and the like, is a thing of the body and not of the soul, which, they maintain, is The climactic structure makes it plain enough that what is in dispute and has to be proved is that the soul is , and that what is assumed for the proof is that it is . It is, therefore, wrong to change the text so as to make those engaging in the proof try to argue from instead of the other way round.

Attenderes Physicis; quaereres, utrumne ignis esset initium rerum, an vero. minutis editus et mirabilibus ementis perpetuus hie mundus, an mortalis esset.

Arrian is regarded as the most authoritative of the extant sources for the reign of Alexander the Great. It is his work that is usually chosen to provide the narrative core of modern histories, and very often a mere reference to ‘the reliable Arrian’ is considered sufficient to guarantee the veracity of the information derived from him. What gives Arrian his prestige is his reliance on contemporary sources, Ptolemy and Aristobulus. It is recognized that Arrian's narrative is based primarily upon Ptolemy, and, as long as Ptolemy is regarded as an impeccable mine of facts for Alexander's reign and Arrian's work is accepted as a faithful reproduction of Ptolemy, the Anabasis Alexandri stands out as a uniquely authoritative record of Alexander's reign.

The purpose of this note is to banish for ever from our histories of Roman literature the term elocutio nouella as a description of the style preached and practised by Cornelius Fronto.

Commenting on a speech recently delivered by the Emperor Marcus, Fronto declares (De eloquentia 5. 1 = p. 146. 13 van den Hout):

Pleraque in oratione recenti tua, quod ad sententias attinet, animaduerto egregia esse; pauca admodum uno tenus uerbo corrigenda; non nihil interdum elocutione nouella parum signatum.

The standard interpretation of the last clause is that given by Haines (ii. 81): ‘some parts here and there were not sufficiently marked with novelty of expression’. It is my contention that it means: ‘some parts here and there were insufficiently clear through new-fangled diction’.

… super scorpionem + pisciculum marinum +, super sagittarium oclopetam, super capricornum locustam marinam, super aquarium anserem, super pisces duos mullos.

The unsoundness of the area following scorpionem is brought out by its extreme vagueness (Heinsius) coupled with the stylistically inelegant repetition of marinum/ -am, - objectionable in Petronius. I should like to submit what I believe to be a plausible way of restoring the text.

Nonnus, as well as being soaked in Homer and, no doubt, earlier epics on his particular theme (enough survives of Dionysius, Bassarica, to show the debt), had a great affection for the Hellenistic master—above all Callimachus, Apollonius, Theocritus, and Euphorion. For this reason he can provide valuable help towards the study of fragments and new papyri. Pfeiffer, in his edition of the Callimachus fragments, is of course fully alive to this point, and regularly quotes Nonnus. From the other side there is a useful collection of parallels in Keydell's Dtonysiaca (1959) and the new Nonnus lexicon (ed. Werner Peek) will be invaluable, though not a complete substitute for actually reading the poem because imitation need not involve more than a small amount of verbal reminiscence.