In the authoritative new collection of the Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), a five-trimeter passage appears as No. 624 in the second volume which contains the ‘Fragmenta adespota’. Whereas Nauck placed the lines among the ‘Fragmenta dubia et spuria’ of Euripides (Eur. fr. 1131), Kannicht and Snell separate them totally from the Euripidean fragments and associate them with various pseudepigraphical pieces of tragic poetry which are commonly thought to have originated in the ‘workshop of a Jewish forger’. The purpose of my article is to challenge this decision and to show that TrGF 2.624 may well be genuine poetry by Euripides if we restore the lines to their probable original form. An attempt to reconstruct the original context of the fragment will also be added.

The adjective ἱερός is a central term in Greek religion and is used in various contexts. Generally translated ‘sacred’, it indicates that an object has been conceded to the gods and is now in relation with them (relation of belonging, protection, etc.). It appears frequently in Greek inscriptions in the expression τὰ ἱερά, to designate sacred objects or, in a more abstract meaning, sacred matters.

The term filiaster (fem. filiastra), though quite unknown in classical Latin literature, occurs with reasonable frequency in epitaphs from the 2nd century A.D. onwards. It is generally defined as the every-day equivalent of privignus/-a (= stepson, stepdaughter), and it is this Vulgar word which comes down into the Romance languages (e.g. Italian figliastro).

Murray's edition of Medea (1902) made use of five manuscripts: BAVLP. Page (1938) added a sixth, the Jerusalem palimpsest, H. But Medea is preserved in six more manuscripts (I do not count apographs), which Murray and Page cite rarely or never. I investigate here the value and affiliations of these six and of a fragmentary seventh (F), which they do cite. The seven manuscripts are:

O (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, 31. 10), late twelfth century2

C (Vatican, Vaticano greco 910), fourteenth century; lacks 880–4, 1050 to the end3

D (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, 31. 15), fourteenth century4

E (Athos, Μον⋯ 'Ιβ⋯ρων 209, formerly 161), early fourteenth century; lacks 731–825, 1029–1133, 1339 to the end5

F (Venice, Bibl. Nazionale Marciana, gr. 468), c. 1300? Only the hypothesis and lines 1–426

‘It is not likely that anything absolutely new can be added to the interpretation of this familiar poem.’ So G. L. Hendrickson forty five years ago. It need scarcely be noted that in spite of these cautionary words much has been written on this ode in the intervening years. With hesitation I add here a few words on what seems to me an overlooked yet central aspect of this poem.

The relevance of the 1st and 9th Vergilian Eclogues to land settlement in Italy after Philippi has been discussed by many scholars. Questions such as the identity of Tityrus, Menalcas, and the youthful deus of Eclogue 1, and the eventual fate of the paternal farm, are the very stuff of Vergilian scholarship. It is possible to add an archaeological and epigraphic commentary on these events which may perhaps provide a more balanced framework for the continuing literary investigation of the poems.

That Cremona was among the 18 prosperous cities selected before Philippi to be a reward for the time-served soldiery among the Triumviral legions is a clear and safe deduction from the Eclogues themselves. The decision to establish colonies was taken at Bononia in October 43, and colony commissioners were appointed at the same time (Dio 47. 14. 4). It is unlikely that they began work in earnest until the necessary victory had been won. These commissioners, sometimes and perhaps always with the title praefectus, acted as substitutes for the formal deductores, the Triumvirs themselves. The praefectus for Cremona is not directly attested.

From the poems themselves and the scholiasts it might be thought that the arrival of the veterans to take possession was sudden and unannounced, adding to the shock felt by the owners (Ecl. 9. 3–4; Serv. Proem.). In fact, the process of establishing a colony was carefully defined, and took considerable time. Firstly the commissioner, with a staff of surveyors and assistants, visited the town and set in motion the measurement of its territorium, the land on which the veterans would in due course be settled. Frequently the veterans expressed their dissatisfaction at the resulting time-lag (App. 3. 87; Plut. Ant. 73; App. 5. 13 ff.).

Spranger's Preliminary Skeleton List of the Manuscripts of Euripides (C.Q. xxxiii [1939], 98–107) mentions four gnomological manuscripts:

The first and the third of these manuscripts contain miscellaneous excerpts of many classical and scriptural authors, arranged under various subject headings; though some of the excerpts are Euripidean, these manuscripts have no more right to be classified as Euripidean than have the manuscripts of Orion or Stobaeus. They are, therefore, wrongly included in Spranger's list.

According to the Ars Amatoria the notorious rape took place on the occasion of a primitive dramatic entertainment staged in a theatre, in which the seats and furnishings were also primitive. There is no time for a description of the arts of the performers—a tibicen and a ludius—before the Romans, impatient for action, receive their signal from Romulus. Nor is there any mention of a god in whose honour the entertainment had been provided.

The sting to Aristophanes’ ‘little tale’ in Wasps (λογίδιον, Vesp. 64) materializes from the comedy's interplay with the Oresteia. This article argues that Aristophanes alludes to both Agamemnon and Eumenides in the scenes running up to (and including) the trial scene, and that he exploits this intertext in the cloak scene (Vesp. 1122–264). While isolated allusions to the Oresteia have been identified in Wasps, a systematic consideration of these references has not been undertaken: a surprising absence in discussions of the ongoing competition between the comic and the tragic genres permeating Wasps’ dramatic action. Moreover, Aristophanes’ engagement with the Oresteia offers a special type of tragic intertext, in which the first and the last plays of a connected trilogy are referenced simultaneously, provocatively destabilizing the original. Furthermore, this allusion has implications for our understanding of a scene which recent scholarship has established as pivotal within the comedy, namely the cloak scene. The first part of this article, therefore, establishes the extent of Wasps’ engagement with the Oresteia and considers the significance of the ‘pastiche’ formed through the combined intertextual references to Agamemnon and to Eumenides. The second part explores the impact of this intertext on the interpretation of the cloak scene, revealing that its use of costume can be understood as a criticism of Aeschylus’ dramaturgy, inviting a negative reading of Bdelycleon's ideological stance and reinforcing the play's pessimistic view of the Athenian law courts.

In the most recent edition of this play (Bristol Classical Press, 1987) M. M. Willcock places an obelus before montes with the comment ‘monies and acerui get in each other's way’. But in view of its metaphorical use elsewhere in Plautus (e.g. Aul. 701, Mil. 1065, Mos. 352), prima facie suspicion does not fall on montes.

(Proposed text) Atque etiam in ipsis uocalibus grammatici est uidere an ahquas pro consonantibus usus acceperit, quia ‘iam’ sicut ‘tarn’ scribitur et ‘uos’ ut ‘cos’, at quae ut uocales iunguntur aut unam longam faciunt, ut ueteres scri-pserunt, qui geminatione earum uelut apice utebantur, aut duas,—nisi quis putat etiam ex tribus uocalibus syllabam fieri, si non aliquae officio consonantium fungantur. quaeret hoc etiam, quo modo duabus demum uocalibus in se coeundi natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat. atqui littera i sibi insidit— ‘conicit’ enim est ab illo ‘iacit’—et u, quo modo nunc scribitur ‘uulgus’ et ‘seruus’. sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse ‘aiio Maiiamque’ geminata ‘i’ scribere: quod si est, etiam ‘i’ iungetur ut consonans.

It seems to be becoming a fable convenue that Propertius opened his most elaborate book with a poem of hopeless illogicality. Shackleton Bailey complains on 3. 1. 25, ‘nam quis perhaps = quisnam as in Virg. Georg. 4. 445; see on 3. 11. 27. Even so, the absence of logical sequence from the theme of 21–4 (pascitur in uiuis liuor, post fata quiescit) to that of 25–32 (uixere fortes ante Agamemnona) is noteworthy and characteristic… In 33 the poet becomes conscious of having lost his way and uses Homer as a bridge back to the earlier motif.’

While Statius' decision to treat events in landlocked Thebes offered limited opportunity to integrate into his poem a maritime episode, which had become a staple epic ingredient by the first century a.d., the Thebaid is dotted with references to the Argonauts' quest for the Golden Fleece, including a narrative flashback of the crew's time at Lemnos (Theb. 5.335–498). Following in a long tradition of cross-contamination between Argonautic and Theban literary texts (as shown by, for example, the Apollonian Argonautica's use of Antimachus' Thebaid), Statius' poem also evokes works of literature which narrate the legend, notably the Argonauticas of Apollonius Rhodius and Valerius Flaccus. A lack of scholarly focus on this latter area has generally led to a piecemeal scrutiny of individual allusive passages rather than a systematic treatment. However, Stover's recent paper paves the way for a more productive approach through its contention that the Thebaid makes widespread use of the mythic subject matter: ‘It … appears that Statius frequently appropriates the Argonautic tradition and that he does so largely to present the Argives as quasi Argonauts. This suggests that their adventure to conquer Thebes is analogous to the Argonauts’ voyage to Colchis.'

Quei apice insigne Dial(is fl)aminis gesistei | mors perfec(it) tua ut essent omnia | brevia, honos, fama, virtusque | gloria atque ingenium. Quibus sei | in longa licuiset tibe utier vita, | facile facteis superases gloriam | maiorum. Qua relubens te in gremiu, | Scipio, recipit terra, Publi, | prognatum Publio, Corneli. ILLRP 311

For you who wore the distinctive cap of a Flamen Dialis, Death cut everything short — honour, fame and virtue, glory and intellectual ability. If you had been granted a long life in which to use these advantages, you would have far surpassed the glory of your ancestors by your achievements. Therefore Earth gladly takes you in her arms, Scipio — Publius Cornelius, son of Publius.

In Ars Amatoria 3.267–72, part of a longer sequence which begins in 261, Ovid advises his female readers on how to conceal various physical shortcomings. Text and apparatus are quoted from Kenney's revised OCT:

quae nimium gracilis, pleno uelamina filo

sumat, et ex umeris laxus amictus eat;

pallida purpureis tangat sua corpora uirgis,

nigrior ad Pharii confuge piscis opem;

pes malus in niuea semper celetur aluta,

arida nee uinclis crura resolue suis;…

Normally, if A knows B, B knows A, and ‘Lake Garda knows me’ is a poetic way of saying ‘I know Lake Garda’. The exchange of subject and object elevates diction and sentiment, but it can also help with the metre, especially where nouns such as gloria. and femina are concerned. Thus in 1.8. 46 the poet says ista meam norit gloria canitiem when in strict logic he should have said istam mea norit gloriam canities. Similarly here what he really wants to says is qua dum iter faciam feminam nullam norim. He must have been aware that the relationship is reciprocal, and something like oblitusque mearum, obliuiscendus et illis may well have been in his mind. But his main desire was to forget and not to know anything of women any more.