The purpose of this paper is twofold: to comment on certain remarks of E. Koestermann, and to examine briefly some passages adduced by K. Wellesley as evidence for the alleged independence of the Leidensis (hereafter L).

In a paper in CQ N.S. XV (1965), 299–322, I attempted to demonstrate by various arguments that the readings of L are not such as to support the claim that this manuscript has authority independent of M. Those arguments may be summarized as follows: that the majority of L's readings fall into a pattern of systematic normalization, that they give virtually no help in solving really deep corruptions, that L is particularly unreliable in transmitting proper names, that many readings of L show clear signs of being derived from M, that few (if any) of the good readings in L could not have been extracted from the corrupt text of M, and that other fifteenth-century manuscripts of Tacitus contain good corrections, not inferior to corrections found in L. No defender of L has yet, as far as I know, answered the arguments I put forward, and E. Koestermann has not even understood them, for he writes as follows (vol. iii of his commentary on the Annals [Heidelberg, 1967], p. 21): ‘[Goodyear] legt den Finger darauf, daß die abweichenden Lesarten in L in ihrer Diktion stärker ciceronischen Charakter tragen, demnach eher als Konjekturen zu verstehen seien. Aber dies Argument ist nicht durchschlagend, da die späteren Annalenbücher … eine gemässigtere Tendenz aufweisen und damit näher an Cicero heranrücken.’

It is well known that mitto comes to mean ‘put’ in late Latin and that it shows reflexes with this sense in the Romance languages (e.g. It. mettere, Fr. mettre, Sp. meter). But the nature of this semantic change has not been fully explained, nor has the relationship of the word with other placing-terms in Latin. E. Löfstedt has stated simply that it ‘takes over the meaning ot ponere’.2 But as pono itself remains common in all types of Latin, the question arises whether the two words did really come into conflict. It is the purpose of the first two sections of this article to show that for a considerable period pono and mitto occupied complementary places in a lexical system. This system exhibits a definite structure which remains unaltered from early Latin to at least the sixth century A.D., though its component terms undergo some changes. In section I pono and the words which in earlier Latin performed the functions later assumed by mitto will be discussed. In section I I we shall move on to mitto itself. It will be necessary to consider the nature and motivation of the transition ‘throwput’ as it appears in Latin.

THE first Epode provides no clear indication of date. We learn only that Maecenas is about to join Octavian on a dangerous expedition and has suggested that Horace should not accompany him, while Horace retorts that he will be unable to enjoy himself in the absence of his patron and would be ready to follow him to the ends of the earth, whatever the danger, in the hope of earning his gratitude.

The Epodes were published about 30 B.C. and, perhaps for that reason, the scholiast Pseudo-Acron confidently assigns the poem to the period immediately before the battle of Actium with the comment: ‘Maecenatem prosequitur euntem ad bellum navale cum Augusto adversum Antonium et Cleopatram.’ It is curious that in referring to the activities of Octavian in 31 the author uses the title Augustus, which was not conferred on him before 27,: but the substance of his comment accords with the known facts. In the spring of 31 Octavian asked all Romans of influence to meet him at Brundisium, thereby to demonstrate their willingness to take part in the war against Antony and Cleopatra, and more than seven hundred senators are known to have offered their services.

It was natural and inevitable that his two Aethiopias, in the eastern and western extremities of the world, should be identified with the countries of the two dark-skinned peoples in the Far East and the Far West of the Ancient World: India and Mauretania.

There was the difficulty that the real Aethiopia was in Africa, neither in the Far East nor in the Far West. Serious writers on geography tried to reconcile Homer and the geographical facts.

I wish to excerpt from Strabo three theories concerning Aethiopia and the Aethiopians which will then be used to elucidate passages in Latin literature.

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’.

I. Eth. Nic. III. c. I, § 16.

In spite of what Bernays and others have done to clear up this chapter, many perplexities remain. To some of these I propose later to return, but here I confine myself to one. Among the possible circumstances of an act, ignorance of which is excusable and may excuse, is enumerated τò οὑ ἔνεκα. Nothing but desperation could have led the commentators to suggest that here τò οὑ ἔνεκα means the actual effect or result of the act (Stewart, Burnet). It may be sufficient to quote the notes ad loc. of these two scholars:

1. Stewart: ‘The oὑ ἔνεκα here is not, as usual, the intention of the doer, for he cannot be ignorant of what he intends to do; but the outcome or result of what he actually does, which is the opposite of the intention.’

Among the many textual difficulties that beset Ovid's Ibis are two passages that allude, in an oblique fashion typical of the whole poem, to the iambographer Hipponax:

(1) et quae Pytheides fecit de fratre Medusae,

eveniant capiti vota sinistra tuo,

(447–8 La Penna)

(2) utque parum stabili qui carmine laesit Athenin,

invisus pereas deficiente cibo.

(523–4 La Penna)

In Satire 3, Umbricius states his intention to leave Rome and delivers a long explanation of his decision, an explanation which develops into an invective against life in Rome. In the lines quoted above, Umbricius lists the ‘skills’ which (he implies) are essential for success at Rome, ‘skills’ which he does not possess. The list comprises various mendacious, nefarious and criminal activities; Umbricius' stated inability to undertake such activities reinforces his claim to be a simple, honourable man (e.g. lines 21–2). In this list is his claim ‘I have never examined frogs’ entrails'. TLL glosses this passage ‘(sc. ueneni indagandi gratia)’ (TLL inspicio 1951.70), the view taken by Friedländer too (‘zur Bereitung von Gift’). Courtney takes a different view: ‘Presumably not for poisoning, which inspicere would hardly suit, but of divination … of an oriental type.’

The five chapters which Quintilian has devoted to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable discussion of the subject which we possess. They are older than any other surviving account, except the remains of Varro De lingua Latino, and the grammar of Dionysius Thrax, and this last, though far more complete than Quintilian in its examination of the parts of speech, has nothing that compares with the other chapters on analogy, etymology, etc., nor does it give so clear a view of ‘grammatica’ as a whole. These chapters do not appear to have been treated by any scholar since Nettleship published his article on ‘Latin Grammar in the First Century’ in the Journal of Philology, vol. xv. If, in the course of this paper, I traverse on certain points the opinions of so distinguished a scholar, let it be understood that I do so with much diffidence, and only after much consideration of the facts as they appear to me.

Suetonius quotes a number of extracts from Augustus' letters, with the intention of showing that Augustus did not dislike Tiberius as much as some had held, and that he had a high opinion of Tiberius' military qualities. The first of these contains a somewhat vexed textual problem. It reads as follows (in Ihm's Teubner edition):

Vale, iucundissime Tiberi, et feliciter rem gere, ⋯μο⋯ κα⋯ ταῖς †μουιcαcαιcτ στρατηγ⋯ν. iucundissime et ita sim felix, vir fortissime et dux νομιμώτατε, vale.

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).

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.'

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;…

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

When Caesar sailed to Britain in 55 b.c. he was obliged to leave behind eighteen transports which had his cavalry on board and had been prevented by adverse winds from joining the rest of the fleet. These vessels, like those which carried the infantry, were of native Gallic build, and were doubtless sailed by Gallic seamen, who were familiar with the conditions of navigation in the Channel. On the fourth day after Caesar landed in Britain they set sail with a light breeze. All went well until they were approaching the British coast and were descried from the Roman camp when, as Caesar says,

‘such a violent storm suddenly arose that none of them could keep their course, but some were carried back to the point from which they had started, while the others were swept down in great peril to the lower and more westerly part of the island. They anchored notwithstanding, but as they were becoming waterlogged, were forced to stand out to sea in the face of night, and make for the continent.’

The last few words involve a difficulty which only Wilamowitz has perceived. The adjective could do either of two jobs: it could mean ‘without a feast’ or it could be part of an expression like meaning ‘a feast that is no feast’ and made on the model , etc. If it is being used in the former way, follows oddly upon .