Trimalchio is such an established figure of fun in the Satyricon that commentators have been content to note the myths that he jumbles together in his description of his tableware here, without going much further. Clearly his scyphoi portray Medea and her dead children, not Cassandra, and we assume that he can recognize gladiatorial fights when he sees them. Heretofore lacking is any discussion of what scene was actually represented on the capis he acquired from his patron and whether the reader of the Satyricon is meant to be able to decode the scene which Trimalchio so flagrantly misinterprets.

Six palimpsest folios – or, to be accurate, three bifolios – of the Verona manuscript, Biblioteca Capitolare XL (38), contain fragments of a Latin translation of Euclid's Elements: fols. 331v–r and 326v–r, 341r–v and 338r–v, 336r–v and 343r–v. The folios are dated to around a.d. 500, and the text is written in capital script in two columns. Unfortunately the folios have suffered severe damage from various chemical substances, which were used by nineteenth-century scholars in attempts to retrieve the underlying text. Nevertheless, an edition of the fragments finally appeared in 1964 by M. Geymonat.

In a paper in an earlier issue of this journal I endeavoured to show that Nonius Marcellus’ three glossarial sources known as ‘Gloss. iii’, ‘Alph. Verb’ and ‘Alph. Adverb’ (lists 26, 27 and 28 in W.M. Lindsay's analysis of Nonius’ sources) were compiled by a lexicographer who paid attention to both metre and sense when excerpting works of Republican poetry. That compiler always excerpted quotations of poetry such that they consisted of, or began or ended with, a metrically complete verse. That method has produced quotations of high quality that are, on several counts, considerably more transparent and more reliable than those preserved by less diligent sources.

A Manuscript belonging to the Municipal Library at Tours (No. 843, formerly 416, fols. 75a-101a) of the beginning of the thirteenth century contains a portion of a Commentary on Donatus, compiled in the middle of the ninth century by Sedulius of Liège. This copy was left unfinished by the scribe, and the Commentary comprises only about two-thirds of the Ars Minor. A brief note on the manuscript was contributed by Charles Thurot to the Comptes rendus de l' Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres in 1870.

In mid-February 45 b.c.e., in a tragedy that was to plunge the orator into seemingly irreparable despair, Cicero's beloved daughter Tullia died. She had given birth nearly a month before and at first seemed to be doing well. Soon, however, her health gave out and Cicero took her to his Tusculan villa to recover. In the end, there was little that could be done. After her funeral, Cicero stayed for about three weeks with Atticus in Rome, but the constant stream of visitors offering condolences became too much to bear, and on the sixth of March the heartbroken father retired to a villa he owned on the coast at Astura, some 45 miles south of Rome. Three days later he dispatched the following anguished epistle (Att. 12.15):

It has usually been assumed that the Actian Games at Nicopolis were founded in 28 B.C. (cf. Reisch, P.-W. 1. i, s.v. ‘Aktia’). In Mélanges d'Arch. et d'Hist., 1936, pp. 94 ff., J. Gagé argues also for 28 B.C., his principal grounds being as follows: ‘Comme Auguste leur conféra en même temps le rang isolympique et que le calcul du temps par Actiades fut admis çá et lá á remplacer celui des Olympiades, il est logique de penser que ces deux computs coïncidaient. Or, la première célébration olympique après Actium est celle de l'an 28 av. J-C.; c'est done presque sûrement en 28 que commence en fait la première Actiade.’

Dissatisfied with current views upon the exordium of Tibullus II. i. (vv. 1–24), I proposed in Selections from Tibullus (1903) to make the occasion of the poem the Sementiuae Feriae instead of the Ambarualia. This proposal, criticised, amongst others, by Mr. Warde Fowler in an interesting article in the Classical Review (xxii. 1908, pp. 36 sqq.), I have now abandoned (ib. p. 40 b). But the difficulties which led me to break away from previous exegesis still remain, and to them I address myself in the present article.

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 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.

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.

Among the departures from the direct tradition in Thucydidesü quotation of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo at 3.104, perhaps the most interesting is line 171. The MSS of the Hymns give ET-iotacism). The majority of Thucydidesü MSS give , but is corrected by a second hand in FJ and by the first hand in H to . Each tradition exists in blissful ignorance of the other. In Aristidesü quotation of lines 169–72 ( 559D, p. 245 Keil), the MSS in general agree with the direct tradition of the Hymns: ( A) (. DU). But the reading in R is a correction. The original reading, which has been erased, was . Aristides, who as his introductory remark shows ( in Aristides clearly comes from Thucydidesü ) is quoting from Thucydides, appears to have read in his text of Thucydides, but this has been replaced at some stage in the tradition by ; the MSS tradition of Aristides has been ’corrected’ from the direct tradition of the Hymns. If Aristides had in his text of Thucydides, the corrected reading of FJH is not the

Whether Meletus, the accuser of Socrates, is to be identified with Meletus, the accuser of Andocides and participant in the arrest of Leon of Salamis (And. 1.94), has recently been discussed, with inconclusive results, by H. Blumenthal. The strongest argument against the identification, it may be thought, is that Socrates mentions the arrest (32 c 4-e 1) without implicating Meletus. I propose to argue that the Meleti are one, that there is a veiled allusion to Meletus in this passage and that Socrates effects this allusion in two ways.

οὐδ γρ εδεης νδρ νον οὐδ γυναι

πρν πειρηθεης ὥσπερ ποζγου,

οὐδ κεν εκσσαις ὥσπερ ποτ’ ς ὥριον λθών.

πολλκι γνώμην ξαπατσ’ δαι.

ς ὥριον A (Par. suppl.gr. 388), σώριον the rest.