The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between dog and cat ownership and gastroenteritis in young children. A diary study of 965 children aged 4–6 years living in rural or semi-rural South Australia was undertaken. Data were collected on pet ownership, drinking water and other risk factors for gastroenteritis. Overall 89% of households had pets and dog ownership was more common than cat ownership. The multivariable models for gastroenteritis and pet ownership indicated that living in a household with a dog or cat was associated with a reduced risk of gastroenteritis (adj. OR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55–0·92; OR 0·70, % CI 0·51–0·97 respectively). This paper adds to the evidence that pets are not a major source of gastroenteritis in the home and lends support to the health benefits of pet ownership. However, this must be weighed against the potential negative consequences, such as dog bites, particularly for this age group.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of gastroenteritis among children aged 4 years in South Australia. A cross-sectional survey of 9543 South Australian children aged 4 years was undertaken. Parents completed a questionnaire on behalf of their child who had attended a pre-school health check in 1998. The questionnaire covered gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms experienced by the child in the previous 2 weeks and other risk factors for gastroenteritis. The 2-week prevalence of gastroenteritis among 4-year-old children was 14·2%. The major risk factors for gastroenteritis were presence of persons who had gastroenteritis inside the home, contact with persons who had gastroenteritis outside the home, antibiotic use and sore throat. Medical attention was sought for 20% of children who had gastroenteritis. Gastroenteritis is a significant cause of morbidity among young children and presents a considerable burden on the community. A substantial proportion of these occurrences of highly credible gastrointestinal symptoms may be manifestations of respiratory infections.

2 Passer, deliciae meae puellae,

quicum ludere, quem in sinu tenere,

cui primum digitum dare appetenti

et acris solet incitare morsus,

cum desiderio meo nitenti 5

carum nescio quid lubet iocari,

et solaciolum sui doloris,

credo ut tum grauis acquiescat ardor;

tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem,

et tristis animi leuare curas! 10

***

2b tam gratum est mihi quam ferunt puellae

pernici aureolum fuisse malum,

quod zonam soluit diu ligatam.

Robin Nisbet, whose masterly article on the text of Catullus it is a particular pleasure to be able to salute in a piece appearing in the same journal twenty years later, adduced an important parallel for verse 5, πόθωι στίλβων (Anacreon, PMG 444), and thus demonstrated that the probable sense is ‘the woman shining with longing for me’.

Professor J. B. Hall has been kind enough to include some conjectures of mine in the apparatus of his forthcoming Teubner edition of Ovid's Tristia. The notes that follow (bar one – the discussion of 4.2) give some explanation and defence of these proposals.

Tristia 1.6.19–26

nec probitate tua prior est aut Hectoris uxor,
aut comes extincto Laodamia uiro.    20
tu si Maeonium uatem sortita fuisses,
Penelopes esset fama secunda tuae;    22
prima locum sanctas heroidas inter haberes,   33
prima bonis animi conspicerere tui.    34
siue tibi hoc debes, nullo pia facta magistro,   23
cumque noua mores sunt tibi luce dati,
femina seu princeps omnes tibi culta per annos   25
te docet exemplum coniugis esse bonae …
33–4 post 22 ed. Ven. 1486

Early in Aeneid 3 Aeneas visits Delos and approaches the temple of Apollo with a request for advice on the destination for which the refugees should head. There is an immediate response to his questions (Verg. Aen. 3.90–2):

uix ea fatus eram: tremere omnia uisa repente,

liminaque laurusque dei, totusque moueri

mons circum et mugire adytis cortina reclusis.

I offer further notes on the text of Propertius. In the apparatus Ω is employed to indicate the archetype, i.e. the consensus of N and two separate groups of humanistic manuscripts that I denote by the letters Π and Λ. The Π MSS (FLP) derive from a lost manuscript of Petrarch, itself copied from the manuscript A (which is not extant after 2.1.63). The Λ MSS are largely a group isolated by J. L. Butrica (The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius, Phoenix suppl. vol. 17, Toronto, 1984, 62–95), which derive from a third medieval source discovered by Poggio and brought to Italy, apparently in 1423. The oldest Λ manuscript is Vat. lat. 3273, copied by Panormita in Florence in 1427, here called T. Another independent descendant is S (Monacensis Univ. Cim. 22), written in Florence c. 1460 by Poggio's son Jacopo. Three other Florentine copies of the 1460s descend from a single source later than Λ: M (Paris. B. N. lat. 8233, formerly μ); U (Vat. Urb. lat. 641, formerly υ); and R (Bodmer. 141, once Abbey 5989). Butrica would cite also C (Romanus Casanatensis 15), written by Pomponio Leto c. 1470; but its witness is vitiated by the frequency both of error and of interpolation and its presence would confuse rather than clarify our picture of Λ. On the other hand I include the pair J (Parmensis Palat. Parm. 140, Florence, c. 1440) and K (Vratislauiensis Univ. Akc. 1948 KN 197, Padua 1469).