P.Bon. 5 preserves the only known collection of ancient Latin model letters, accompanied by a Greek translation. This article argues that the Latin is the primary version and dates the composition to before the early third century. Comparisons with other model letter collections, principally ps.-Demetrius’ Epistolary Types and ps.-Libanius’ Epistolary Styles, locate the text within a wider literary genre. A new reconstructed text is provided in the Appendix at the end of this article.

The necessity of emending immundas… dapes in 78 to immundos… pedes has long been recognized, but I argue here that the text is unsatisfactory in three further respects: (1) the difficulties of style, sense, and punctuation in 73–75; (2) diuitiis in 76, wrongly retained by most editors and, when emended, wrongly emended to deliciis; and (3) raros in 77, of which no satisfactory explanation has been offered.

The compact formed between Antonius, Lepidus and Octavian near Bononia in November 43 b.c. (Dio Cass. 46.55.1–3), commonly named the second triumvirate, was characterized by civil conflict. The major battles at Philippi, Perusia and Naulochus led to the presence of many legions in Italy. In addition, a large number of time-served soldiers were settled throughout the peninsula. The requirement of land for the veterans meant conflicting interests arose with landowners who were dispossessed to make way for them. The impact of the army on Rome itself and on the population of the Italian countryside was great during the late first century b.c.

The far west in Hesiod's world is confused, and probably reflects a dim knowledge drawn from the Phoenicians in Sicily, where the Greeks bought Tartessian silver. Beneath myths and traditions we may discern a few historical facts: the dynasty of the Tartessian kings, the Phoenician wars with King Geron of Tartessos (about the turn of the ninth to eighth centuries), followed by the ‘Phoenician Thalassocracy’ and a Tartessian attempt to establish direct commercial relations with Sardinia.

In their recent article on this subject, Rose and Sullivan suggest that we read: super scorpionem locustam, super sagittarium oculatam, super capricornum caprum et cornutam, etc. This is attractive and can, I suggest, be supported by a further argument.

I propose that locustam be regarded as a pun on the celebrated lady poisoner of the period, Locusta. According to Tacitus, she was already infamous by the year 54, and continued to be a valuable tool of Nero throughout his reign. Petronius is fond of puns, and the passage under discussion contains more than one. And the suggested play on locusta may be confirmed by Trimalchio himself, a little later on, in his lecturette on astrology: in scorpione venenarii et percussores.

The Platonic MS. Vat. gr. 225 (Δ) (saec. XII–catalogue: non ante saec. XIII–Post: saec. XV–Schanz) contains tetr. I, VI. 3, 4, II–IV, while its companion volume in the same hand Vat. gr. 226 (Θ) contains V–VI. 2, VIII. 3, VII, Spp., VIII. 1, 2. Posts states that for tetr. I and VI. 3 A is close to Vind. suppl. gr. 7 (W) (A.D. 950–1050–Maas: saec. XI–Diels, Post, catalogue: saec. XII?–Alline, Robin, Diès) and thereafter derives from the Clarkianus (B) (A.D. 895). I am here concerned only with the testimony of Δ in. 2 (ApoL).

This manuscript has been largely ignored by commentators and editors. Schanz does not quote it, nor does Bekker (at any rate for ApoL.). Alline is scornful about it. Neither Burnet nor Croiset quotes it—and indeed Burnet claims that it is merely an interpolated apograph of W. Stallbaum seems to be the only editor who quotes it for Apol. This appears to be an unwarranted neglect since A has, in fact, a good claim to be considered as a primary witness in this dialogue.

In De alimentorum facultatibus, Book I, Ch. 1, Galen begins his discussion of the powers of foodstuffs by a rough sketch of the opinions of earlier physicians on this subject. He says that according to some of them these powers are only known (γνσθαι) on the basis of experience (πεῖρα), according to others on the basis of a combination of experience and reasoning (λογισμς), whereas a third group gave priority of importance to reasoning (202.4–6 Helmreich). Galen proceeds to say that there is considerable disagreement between these physicians on the topic in question and that, consequently, an unbiased testing of their opinions is necessary; this testing should operate by means of argumentation (πδειξις). Now there are two different starting-points for argumentation, i.e. perception and ‘distinct thinking’ (ἢ γρ ξ αἰσθσεως ἢ κ νοσεως ναργος). Then the text printed by Helmreich runs as follows: κα μς ναγκαῖν στιν ἢ θατρῳ τοτων ἢ μφοτροις χρσασθαι πρς τν το προκειμνου σκμματος εὕρεσιν: ‘It is necessary for us, too, to use either one of these (i.e. either perception or thinking) or both of them in order to find the question under discussion.’

The editors of the new fragment of Gallus draw attention to line 6, ‘fecerunt carmina Musae’. They say ‘“fecerunt” is unusual in such a context, and to a Roman reader would inevitably suggest (not used of poets in early Greek); the Muses of Gallus provided craftsmanship as well as inspiration’. It is possible to be more precise: cf. Euphorion fr. 118 Powell

The manuscript tradition of the Theogony is not as good as that of the Erga, a poem which has always been more popular. The earliest complete manuscripts of the Theogony date only from the end of the thirteenth century, while those upon which the recensio must chiefly be based are of the fourteenth and fifteenth. The number of extant manuscripts, however, especially of the fifteenth century, is not inconsiderable, and knowledge of them has hitherto been far from complete. What is known is known largely in consequence of the labours of Alois Rzach. Rzach collated many of the manuscripts, and tried, with some success, to establish the relationships between them. He published his conclusions in Wiener Studien xix (1897), 15–70, and used them as the basis for his great edition of 1902.

Of the unusual grammatical constructions which Statius employs for the sake of variety and novel effect, among the most remarkable is his use of the ablative case. There are striking instances at Th. 8. 157, Th. 10. 309, Ach. 1. 219, Ach. 2. 129; and W. C. Summers was led to say: ‘We see some traces in Valerius of the lax use of this case which became almost a disease with Statius, who employs it for almost any kind of idea.’ There are three passages in Statius which have been misinterpreted or emended through the failure to recognize a use of the ablative to which he was especially prone—the local ablative where the poetic dative of ‘motion towards’ would seem more normal. I shall first list examples of this use in Statius where there is little or no doubt about interpretation or reading, and in the light of this accumulated evidence consider the three passages which are disputed.

In their mangled versions of this poem Baehrens and Housman have both anticipated the first of these changes whilst lines 19–20 are placed as I suggest by Housman and Postgate and lines 21–4 are placed before line 39 by Scaliger, Housman, Butler, and others. Nevertheless I recall these transpositions here, primarily because my third change is intelligible only through them, but also because their correctness has been generally neglected amid the confusing assortment of wholly unnecessary transpositions that this poem has suffered. My reasons for recommending the above changes are these.

In dealing with excerpts from Terence in the Servian Commentary on Virgil I deferred consideration of the material found only in the enlarged Commentary, on the ground that, if any difference of quality or character should appear in this material, it must be kept distinct from the work of Servius.