In the first of his three magisterial articles on the Agamemnon H. L. Ahrens showed that all the evidence then available best fitted the conclusion that ⋯τ⋯ται derived from τ⋯νω and not from τ⋯ω. Subsequently Ed. Fraenkel in his own note on the word reviewed and supplemented the evidence gathered by Ahrens, and expressed the view that Ahrens' ‘discussion, details apart, is final’; and there seems to be widespread agreement that on the linguistic side at least Ahrens' argument cannot be refuted. If this means anything, it means that the sense of the word cannot be ‘unhonoured’ or ‘dishonoured’. Yet Denniston–Page in their commentary say that ‘”unhonoured” seems the only possible sense here’, and R. Fagles' recent translation, which generally rests on sound scholarship as well as poetic gifts, has ‘dishonored’. The principal reason for this persistent disagreement seems to be that the sense proposed by Ahrens for ⋯τ⋯ται has been thought to have rather less plausibility than the linguistic considerations that appear to lead to it.

Our more distinct knowledge of the career of Eunapius of Sardis is confined to its first stage, when he resided in Athens and studied under Proaeresius, the Christian from Armenia. Common agreement (with some slight variation) holds that Eunapius reached Athens c. 362, when he was sixteen, and that he remained there for five years, returning to Lydia c. 367 when he was twenty. These conclusions derive from two passages in the V. Soph. in which Eunapius first described the unusual circumstances attendant on his arrival in Athens (10.1.2–2.3) and then alluded to his departure therefrom (10.8.2). But though the first passage is unproblematical enough, the second is less so; as will appear, the very context which includes within it the datum of the five-year-long residence in Athens carries implications which are inimical to it. Reexamination, therefore, may be profitable.

In his exposition of MS Vat. gr. 2226 (V) in 1888, Leopold Cohn brought to light two consecutive grammatical treatises, both attributed to Aelius Herodian: the Περ⋯ ⋯μαρτημ⋯νων λ⋯ξεων(here loc. prav.), containing seventy paragraphs, and the Φιλ⋯ταιρος (here Philet.) with 312 glosses. Both had been published in part: fifty-four paragraphs of loc. prav. by G. Hermann in 1801 from MS Mon. gr. 529 (M) and a version of fifty-nine paragraphs by J. Cramer under the title of Περ⋯ τ⋯ν ζητουμ⋯νων κατ⋯ κλ⋯σιν παντ⋯ς λ⋯γου μερ⋯ν;. Glosses 1–78 of Philet. were published by J. Pierson (1759) from a copy of MS Par. gr. 2552 (P).

In PCPhS 213 (NS 33, 1987), 92–104 at 93–6, Oliver Taplin suggests that the Getty vase published by J. R. Green in 1985 represents not Aristophanes' Birds but the first version of Clouds. The purpose of this note is to offer some support for this, while perhaps raising further problems.

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).

Aristophanes' description of the stages of promotion in the Athenian navy recently received renewed attention, when Mastromarco and Halliwell enlisted it in their battle against the traditional opinion that Aristophanes' early career fell into two stages, a secret one of writing plays but not producing them, and a public one in which he undertook both activities. Mastromarco argues for a tripartite career, and Halliwell, who is against a too strict correlation, for a gradual development, a sort of a complex apprenticeship, which eventually he divides also into three stages similar to those discerned by Mastromarco. In summing up their position, MacDowell paraphrases the above passage according to its prevalent interpretation: ‘The nautical metaphor (541–4), with its progression from oarsman to prow-officer to helmsman, indicates that Aristophanes did not take over his task all at once, but by stages. But what were the stages?’

In his article on the early career of Aristophanes, in particular on the relevance of the thiasotai on IG ii2.2343 and the importance of Herakles in the plays of Aristophanes, David Welsh has supported the thesis of Dow, that several of the thiasotai are mentioned by Aristophanes in his plays (e.g. Simon, Amphitheus, Antitheos). He suggests that another of these thiasotai, Lysanias, may be alluded to at Clouds 1162. Here the unusual word λυσαν⋯ας in the text means ostensibly ‘deliverer’, but Welsh argues that in view of the rarity of the word ‘the spectators would have been put in mind of a contemporary individual…a Lysanias who was known for his filial piety or forensic ability (or lack of the same).’

In his account of the great naval battle in 201 B.C. off Chios between the fleet of Philip II and the combined fleets of Pergamum and Rhodes, Polybius notes a curious exchange of ram blows that took place at one point:

Δεινοκρ⋯της μ⋯ν πρ⋯ς ⋯κτ⋯ρη συμπεσὼν αὐτ⋯ς μ⋯ν ἒζαλον ἒλαβε τ⋯ν, πληγ⋯ν, ⋯ναστε⋯ρου τ⋯σ νεὼσ οὔσησ, δ⋯ τ⋯ν πολεμ⋯ων τρώσας να⋯ν ὑπ⋯ τ⋯ *β⋯αϰα τ⋯ μ⋯ν πρ⋯τον οὐκ ⋯δ⋯νατο ϰωρισθ⋯ναι, κα⋯περ πολλ⋯κς ⋯πιβαλ⋯μενος πρ⋯μναν κρο⋯ειν κτλ.

Dinocrates, who was one of the commanders on the Pergamene side, attacked a Macedonian οκtêrês and, it would appear, struck it with his ram below the waterline; τ⋯β⋯αϰα is unattested elsewhere and its precise meaning is obscure, but the phase ὑπ⋯ τ⋯β⋯αϰα in this context clearly refers to a part of the oktêrêŝ hull that was immersed in water. In the process his own ship was hit; the blow that it took landed above the waterline because the oktêrês that delivered it was a ‘vessel that was anasteiros’ a word also unattested elsewhere. For well over a century there has been universal agreement that it means ‘with a high prow’.

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.

There is a problem in §23 of Against Andokides, the sixth speech of the Corpus Lysiacum. The passage in question runs: ⋯κ δ᾽ οὖν το⋯του το⋯ τιμ⋯ματος ⋯δ⋯δετο ⋯γγὺς ⋯νιαυτ⋯ν … ‘And as a result of the proposed penalty he was imprisoned for nearly a year …’. The speaker's context is as follows: he is castigating Andokides in connection with his trial in 400/399 for impiety and describing his lawless life since his (alleged) part in the great scandals of 415, the mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries. The problem in the text concerns the words ⋯νιαυτ⋯ν ‘for nearly a year’, as the statement contradicts what we learn about Andokides' imprisonment in 415 from his own defence speech (On the Mysteries) and above all from Thucydides.

At 3.9.37–8, Propertius says that he will not bewail (sc. in epic verse) the destruction of Thebes by the Epigonoi or the earlier assault on the city by the Seven:

non flebo in cineres arcem sedisse paternos

Cadmi, nee septem proelia clade pari.

That nec…pari in 38 refers to the Seven, with Lipsius' septem for the manuscripts' semper, J. D. Morgan demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in his discussion of the couplet in CQ 36 (1986), 186–8. But Morgan's chief concern in that discussion was with paternos at the end of 37, and it is his treatment of that adjective which prompts this note.

Cicero's Cato, in a passage nicely illustrating that enthusiasm for Greek literature which is said to have come upon him in old age, offers some valuable observations about manure (Sen. 54): ‘quid de utilitate loquar stercorandi? dixi in eo libro quern de rebus rusticis scripsi; de qua doctus Hesiodus ne verbum quidem fecit, cum de cultura agri scriberet; at Homerus, qui multis ut mihi videtur ante saeclis fuit, Laertam lenientem desiderium quod capiebat e filio, colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit.’

Night falls on war-weary Troy after a day of celebration, setting the stage for the final agony of the city:

uertitur interea caelum et ruit Oceano nox

inuoluens umbra magna terramque polumque

Myrmidonumque dolos

(Virg. Aen. 2.250–2)

One of the most surprising features of the final part of the fourth book of the De rerum natura is the peculiar way Lucretius introduces the topic he intends to examine at length. We approach the extensive treatment of love from merely physiological phenomena. The terms libido and amor are mentioned for the first time at 1045 and 1046 respectively; I would like to focus on the interpretation of those lines and on the meaning of the clausula dira libido in the context of the final section of Book Four. Lucretius is talking of semen:

quod simul atque suis eiectum sedibus exit,

per membra atque artus decedit corpore toto,

in loca conveniens nervorum certa cietque

continuo partis genitalis corporis ipsas.

irritata tument loca semine fitque voluntas 1045

eicere id quo se contendit dira libido,

idque petit corpus mens unde est saucia amore.

On Virgil's lines excudent alii…(Aen. 6.847–53) there have been two recent studies, 1 and further items of bibliography from the last five years or so may be added. Nevertheless, there remains a good deal of uncertainty, even controversy, over Virgil's choice of Greek and Roman cultural achievements and over the literary antecedents of that choice.

In a famous passage of the third book of the Georgics (3.209–41) Vergil describes two bulls fighting over a formosa iuuenca; the bull which is at first beaten goes off to recover and prepare, returning to attack again its arrogant opponent. The description of the bull's training blends the toughness of early man, the playfulness of a young animal, the suffering of the exclusus amator and the preparations of a human athlete:

ergo omni cura uiris exercet et inter

dura iacet pernox instrato saxa cubili

frondibus hirsutis et carice pastus acuta, 230

et temptat sese atque irasci in cornua discit

arboris obnixus trunco, uentosque lacessit

ictibus, et sparsa ad pugnam proludit harena.

(Georg. 3.229–34)

In CQ 34 (1984), 167–74, Janet Fairweather makes the interesting suggestion that the elegiacs by Gallus on the Qasr Ibrim papyrus should be understood as ‘a fragment of an amoebaean song-contest’. This hypothesis, as she notes, might explain why the papyrus' quatrains are set apart by spaces and by an odd type of symbol, and treat ‘separate, indeed discrepant, topics’, yet show ‘unmistakable verbal and thematic connections’. Fairweather's discussion is thorough, but overlooks one small piece of evidence for Gallan amoebaean verse.

At the end of the catalogue of Italian troops comes Camilla, the warrior-maid, leading her columns of Volscian cavalry. In a passage reminiscent of ll. 20.226ff. (the powers of the horses of Erichthonios) Vergil illustrates her seemingly superhuman speed and lightness of foot, before passing on to the impression she made upon the watching population who have swarmed out of their homes and fields to mark the finery of her appearance and equipment:

illam omnis tectis agrisque effusa iuventus

turbaque miratur matrum et prospectat euntem,

attonitis inhians animis ut regius ostro

velet honos levis umeros, ut fibula crinem

auro internectat, Lyciam ut gerat ipsa pharetram

et pastoralem praefixa cuspide myrtum.

Epode 10: the Mystery of Mevius' Crime

Horace's tenth Epode, an inverse propempticon, calls down dire curses on the head of a man named Mevius as he leaves on a sea-voyage.1 Scholars have naturally been interested in what Mevius had done to merit such treatment, but answers have been difficult to find, for nothing explicit is said on this topic in the poem; as Leo noted, ‘[Horatius] ne verbo quidem tarn gravis odii causam indicat’. This is in direct contrast with the Strasbourg epode usually attributed to Hipponax (fr. 115 West), which served as Horace's model in this poem; there it is clear that the similar curses on a departing sailor are caused by his breaking of oaths to the poet and betrayal of their previous friendship (15–16 ⋯ς μ' ἢδίκησε, λ⋯ξ δ' ⋯π' ⋯ρκίοις ἔβη, τò πρίν ⋯ταῖρος ⋯ώμ ). One might expect Horace to give some kind of indirect suggestion of the nature of Mevius’ offence, but even this is despaired of by Fraenkel: ‘There is no hint at the sort of crime which Mevius is said to have committed, nor is anything said about the man himself; he remains an entirely shadowy figure’. The best that scholars have been able to do is to follow the ancient commentary of Porphyrio in suggesting that Horace's Mevius is to be identified with the poetaster attacked by Vergil in Ecl. 3.90 ‘qui Bavium non odit, amet tua carmina, Mevi’. Though it is pleasant to think of Vergil and Horace, perhaps by now friends in the circle of Maecenas, ganging up on a luckless hack, there is, as Fraenkel points out, no mention in the tenth Epode that Mevius is a poet, and his literary incompetence, assuming he is Vergil's poet, does not seem to underlie or indeed warrant the bitter imprecations of the poem: Catullus might wish a dire fate on the works of a bad poet (e.g. Volusius – 36.18–20, 95.7–8), but to long for their author's shipwreck and consumption by gulls might indeed seem excessive.

In these lines Ovid introduces Althaea's debate whether or not to kill her son Meleager by burning the brand which was his life, because he had killed her two brothers during the Calydonian boar hunt. A. S. Hollis (Oxford, 1970) says of line 476 that it contains ‘a forced and almost pointless word-play’. If sanguis is taken in its primary meaning, ‘blood’, this condemnation is quite justified. However, if one takes into account a secondary sense, the word-play acquires more strength. This sense is that of ‘offspring’ or ‘descendant’. Examples of this usage (see Lewis and Short s.v. Bib and Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v. 10) include Virgil, Aeneid 6.835 ‘sanguis meus’ (Julius Caesar), Horace, Carmen Saeculare 50 ‘clarus Anchisae Venerisque sanguis’ (Aeneas), Odes 3.27.65 ‘regius sanguis’ (Europa), and, in the Metamorphoses itself (5.514–15) ‘pro…meo veni supplex tibi, Iuppiter, …sanguine’. It may well be that Ovid was intending implications of both meanings in his choice of the word.