This discussion concentrates on the meaning of Nausicaa's words in lines 286–8, in particular on the force of the phrase κα⋯ δ' ἄλλῃ κτλ. and the sense of the verb μ⋯σγηται. On the latter Hainsworth comments, ‘In later usage the simple verb in such a context is used as a euphemism for the sexual act. The line must have sounded most odd to the classical age.’ Thus he translates ‘associate with’, citing Odyssey 7.247 as an exact parallel; since, in that place, the verb refers to nothing more than ordinary human intercourse (neither gods nor men ‘have anything to do with’ Calypso), with no further connotations, one must conclude that Hainsworth sees no innuendo whatever in 6.288.

First in the aether Parmenides places the morning star, which he believes to be the same as the evening star…

[the moon] always looking towards the sunshine

I shall not be concerned with the truth or falsity of these ascriptions, only with the fact that they are just the sort of thing that Parmenides could have said. Nor is an interest in Parmenidean reference new in the literature: Furth calls him a ‘hyperdenotationist’, and the word is apt on almost any interpretation.

‘I can make nothing’, declared Paul Cartledge in this journal some years ago, ‘of the “Lakonian key” first attested in Aristophanes (Thesm. 423)’. (For other attestations see Aristophon, Peirithous, fr. 7 Kassel-Austin; Menander, Misoumenos, fr. 8 Sandbach (10 Koerte); Plautus, Mostellaria 404–5, cf. 419–26.)

The picture of L. Appuleius Saturninus' last days is usually derived from the straightforward narrative account found in Appian's Civil Wars, an account which modern analysis has shown to be flawed. That narrative may be glossed as follows. At the consular elections for the year 99, Saturninus (a tribune who had that year been elected to a third tribunate) and Glaucia (a praetor and candidate for the consulship) instigated the death of a more hopeful contender. Chaos followed. On the following day, when the People (demos) had made its intention to do away with the ‘malefactors’ absolutely plain, Saturninus, Glaucia and the quaestor Saufeius seized the Capitol with followers from the country. The Senate voted for their suppression and Marius invested the hill. With hopes of a safe conduct, the beseiged surrendered and Marius detained them in the curia. Those who feared that the seditiosi might escape rough justice broke in and killed, amongst others, ‘a quaestor, a tribune and a praetor, still decorated with the insignia of office. Many others also perished in the stasis, including another tribune, thought to be the son of Gracchus and being a tribune for the first time on that very day’: ταμίαν τε κα⋯ δήμαρχον κα⋯ στρατηγόν, ἔτι περικειμ⋯νους τ⋯ σ⋯μβολα τ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς. πολὺς δ⋯ κα⋯ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ⋯ν τῇ στάσει δι⋯φθαρτο κα⋯ δήμαρχος ἕτερος, ⋯ το⋯ Γράκχου παῖς εἶναι νομιζ⋯μενος, πρώτην δημαρχ⋯ν ⋯κε⋯νην ⋯μ⋯ραν.

It used to be thought that, just as word-initialfl… and fr… behaved likepl…, pr…, tr…, etc., in not producing a long syllable when following a word-final short vowel, just so word-internal …fl… and …fr… allowed both the short and, except for the pre-classical scenic poets, the long scansion. It was implied that these clusters oscillated with the same degree of freedom which is the well-known characteristic of the stop-and-liquid clusters. The difficulty is, of course, that evidence can be no more than minimal since in truly Latin (i.e. neither dialectal nor foreign) material f occurs only at the beginning of words or after a compounding seam. In fact, the argument, explicit or implicit, has turned on Horace, Sat. 1.2.98: custodes lectica ceniflones parasitae; Horace, Sat. 2.2.131: ilium aut nequities aut uafri inscitia iuris; Ov. Ars 3.332: cuiue pater uafri luditur arte Getae; Martial 6.64.26: stigmata nec uafra delebit Cinnamus arte; 12.66.3: arte sed emptorem uafra corrumpis Amoene; Phaedrus 2.6.14: inducta uafris (cj. Festa) aquila monitis paruit; Silius 8.566: et quos aut Rufrae (cj. Heinse) quos aut Aesernia quosue, and Martial 4.71.1: quaero diu totam Safroni Rufe per urbem

As Aeneas begins his story of Troy's fall he wonders if in relating it even her enemies, such as the Myrmidons or Dolopes or the soldiers of Ulysses, could refrain from tears (Aen. 2.6–8). The reference to a weeping soldier of Ulysses is a subtle allusion to Vergil's Homeric model, but why are the Myrmidons and Dolopes mentioned? The usual explanation that these were the soldiers of Neoptolemus, who plays a central role in Aeneas' account of Troy's fall, is not entirely satisfactory.

In Homer the Myrmidons inhabit Phthia (cf. Il. 2.683–4) and are thus naturally linked with Achilles and Patroclus, but the Dolopes seem to play no role at all in the fighting. Their name occurs only once in the Iliad (as the people ruled by Phoenix) and not at all in the Odyssey.

‘One of Horace's fables remembered or invented. It is not found elsewhere’ (E. C. Wickham). Not elsewhere in classical literature, certainly. But a story illustrating precisely this absurd ignorance of the natural world is attested later, in circumstances which make it highly unlikely that it derives from Horace's brief reference, and I think we may safely assume that he did not invent the tale.

At Epistles 2.2.87–9 Horace introduces an argument against writing poetry based on the unpleasant mutual admiration required in poetic society with an anecdote about an orator and a jurisconsult:

†frater erat Romae† consulti rhetor, ut alter

alterius sermone meros audiret honores,

Gracchus ut hic illi, foret huic ut Mucius ille.

In lines 35–8 Ovid compliments the poem's recipient Brutus on his skill as a forensic orator. The transmitted text is as follows:

hostibus eueniat quam sis uiolentus in armis

sentire et linguae tela subire tuae,

quae tibi tam tenui cura limantur ut omnes

istius ingenium corporis esse negent.

When Claudius came to power in January 41 he did not hesitate to distance himself from his predecessor's behaviour and policies, and among other measures, Suetonius reports, he abolished all Gaius' acta. The precise implications of this move are not made clear. Certainly, the extremely unpopular taxes introduced in Rome near the end of Gaius' reign were annulled, several people convicted of maiestas were set free, and the monies previously confiscated from negligent, and possibly corrupt, road commissioners were returned. But if the abolition of the acta was as sweeping as Suetonius seems to imply, a number of popular and useful measures must inevitably have been abrogated at the same time, and as a matter of routine they would need to be reintroduced by Claudius. The arrangements with the client kings may well have belonged to this general category, and if we assume that this was indeed the case we shall have an explanation for a number of apparent inconsistencies in the literary sources. It should be observed that in the early part of his principate Gaius went out of his way to be a ‘constitutional’ ruler. The appointment of the client kings would have been handled so as not to seem like the arbitrary exercise of power. Certainly, when the three sons of the murdered king of Thrace, Polemo, Cotys and Rhoemetalces received new kingdoms in 38, Dio stresses that the act was legitimised by a formal senatorial decree. If client kings had generally been established by a formal and legal process their appointments could quite well have come to an end with the abolition of the acta in January 41.

The paradoxographer Apollonius (Mirab. 40, p. 53 Keller) preserves the memory of a singular occurrence which Aristoxenus (fr. 117 Wehrli) had recorded as having happened in southern Italy in his own time. A strange insanity afflicted women. They would suddenly leap up in the middle of dinner, hearing the call of a voice, and rush out into the country.μαντενομένοις δ⋯ τοῖς Λοκροῖς κα⋯ ‘Ρηγίνοις περ⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯παλλαγ⋯ς το⋯ πάθους εἰπεῖν τ⋯ν θεόν, παι⋯νας ἄιδειν ⋯αρινοὺς †δωδεκατης† ⋯μέρας’