The curious phrase ‘vis abdita quaedam’ has traditionally divided commentators into two camps. One group cautiously ensures that 5.1233–5 is kept consistent with the poem's overall scientific perspective and pre-empts any reference on the poet's part to a supernatural force. Munro, for instance, glosses the phrase as ‘the secret power and working of nature’. He supports this interpretation by finding in Book 6 a passage that he believes refers to the same disruptive and destructive physical force (6.29–31). Along the same lines Minadeo proposes that we regard ‘vis abdita quaedam’ as ‘the principle of destruction in the universe’. He understands the phrase to refer to a force which balances the creative or generative force in nature, just as Strife counters Love in the Empedoclean cosmology. It can be said in favour of this interpretation that the words ‘vis abdita quaedam’ must refer most immediately to lines 1226–32. Certainly, vis recalls the phrase ‘vis violenti… venti’ (1226), the violent force of the wind which destroys a naval effort, by sweeping a general, his fleet, his legions and his elephants into the sea.

In his magisterial new commentary on the Amores J. C. McKeown alleges an ‘inconsistency’ or ‘flaw in the dramatic continuity’ between Amores 1.1 and 1.2: ‘whereas Ovid is fully aware in 1.1 that he is under Cupid's domination, he shows no such awareness in the opening lines of 1.2.’ Previously A. Cameron had used this ‘inconsistency’, together with the evident programmatic character of 1.2, as an indication that the second poem must in fact have been the first poem of one of the original five books of Amores; then when Ovid decided to reduce the number of books from five to three, he wanted to keep Esse quid hoc dicam and had no choice but to put it as near as possible the front of the first book, immediately after that book's own introductory poem. This reconstruction McKeown rightly rejects on the ground that 1.2's emphasis on Ovid's newness to love makes it out of place in any book other than the first.

In Ovid, Heroides 10.79ff. Ariadne starts to consider various dangers which to her mind threaten her life as that of any deserted woman (80). She lists some of these dangers in the following catalogue (83–8):

This comes near to satisfying; but even with ipsa the change of subject from tecta to plaustra is awkward, and exsultant is inappropriate to a lumbering plaustrum (cf. Virgil, G. 1.163 tardaque Eleusinae matris uoluentia plaustra). I suggest reading cisia instead of ipsa. The cisium was a fast light two-wheeled vehicle which might well jump up on a rough road; and the first three letters cis could have become the -es of the MS exsultantes. Two further points: lapis uiai is not ‘a stone on the road’ (Bailey and Rouse/Smith [Loeb, 1982]), but rather the stone of the road, i.e. the paving; and utrimque is not ‘on one side or the other’ (Bailey in notes) but ‘on both sides’. There remains Ernout's objection that the suppression of the final s of lapis (which stands for lapids*) is unlikely. One can only say that no one would have ventured to introduce by conjecture pendentibu' structas or manantibu' stillent, but both are found in Lucretius' text (6.195, 943).

To the host of suggestions I would add the sense of the passage is, ‘I have never annoyed you with petulant language, with the things the mob in the heated forum is accustomed to say, that you suffer me to… But I have often…’ His was, as line 41 explains, the language of poetry. The contrast between the language of the forum and poetry is an obvious one, and is made elsewhere by Propertius ‘turn tibi pauca suo de carmine dictat Apollo et vetat insano verba tonare foro. at tu finge elegos’ (4.1.133f.). In the present passage the contrast is between the common language typical of the angry mob and the original (‘novo’, line 41) verses of the exclusus amator. It is particularly bitter that he should be condemned to the ‘trivio’ (line 40) which, like the forum, is the very milieu of the type of language he has eschewed.

Poetic incompetence is often blamed for infelicities or incongruities which appear in the poems collected in the Appendix Vergiliana, and in many cases such censure is justified. However, in the passage which is the subject of this note, Ciris 297–300, it is possible to reinterpret the incongruity which critics have remarked: when the pertinent evidence from antiquity is adduced, the lines are revealed as a display of scientific and etymological doctrina.

Since Rose collected Petronius' ‘adaptions of Lucan’ found in the Bellum Civile, there has been renewed contention as to whether these adaptations are real or imagined, with George, Sullivan, and now Slater leading the debate.

All editors and translators of Propertius seem convinced that the Roman poet has endowed the horse Arion with the power of speech. I present a few sample translations of the two lines:

In Book 6.88–94 of the Aeneid reference is made by the Cumaean Sibyl to the fact that there will be terrible wars on the Trojans' arrival at Lavinium. The details given by the Sibyl evoke the war at Troy; there will be a Simois, a Xanthus, and a Greek camp. Moreover, there will be another Achilles in Latium and the war will again be fought over a woman. Aeneas, when he hears this, has just arrived in Italy after the war at Troy and a gruelling seven-year journey. The prophecy is therefore the last thing that he wants to hear, but he responds very stoically and then proceeds to ask the Sibyl's permission to enter the Underworld (6.103ff.). Aeneas' filial pietas is therefore stressed by his determination to meet with his father's shade in the face of forthcoming adversity.

There can be few Greek prose authors who outdo Plutarch in fondness for elaborate similes, and a determination to sustain at length vocabulary appropriate to both objects of comparison within the simile, once it is embarked upon. In the essay Quomodo adulescens (Mor. 32e) he uses a favourite image, in which a young man aspiring to be educated in quality literature is recommended to follow the example of the bee, which extracts material for its honey from the most pungent plants: μν οὖν μλιττα ϕυσικς ν τοῖς δριμνττοις ἄνθεσι κα ταῖς τραχντταις κνθαις ξανενρσκει τ λειτατον μλι κα χρησιμώτατον, οἱ δ παῖδες, ἂν ρθς ντρϕωνται τοῖς ποιμασιν, κα π τν ϕαλονς κα τπους ὑποψας χντων ἕλκειν τι χρσιμον μωσγπως μαθησναι κα ὠϕλιμον. In another such essay (De recta, Mor. 41e–42b) he elaborates this theme at greater length as follows:

Sic effata et osculis hiantibus filium diu ac pressule saviata proximas oras reflui litoris petit, plantisque roseis vibrantium fluctuum summo rore calcato ecce iam profundi mans sudo resedit vertice, et ipsum quod incipit velle, set statim, quasi pridem praeceperit, non moratur marinum obsequium: adsunt Nerei filiae chorum canentes et Portunus caerulis barbis hispidus et gravis piscoso sinu Salacia et auriga parvulus delphini Palaemon… (Met. 4.31.4ff.)

The aim of these lines seems to be to demonstrate that everyone has his price. Even Jupiter can be bribed. According to the text as printed above (= O.C.T.), the sequence would then continue: ‘What can a wise man do (sc. but submit to bribery) when even foolish ones willingly contract to keep quiet?’

Ajax is the subject of intonat, but little else is certain. Various punctuations are on offer, and even the authenticity of lines 545 and 546 is questioned; the difficulties are set out in Professor Tarrant's commentary (Cambridge, 1976). My concern is focused solely on 545 and the word nunc, printed in the text of the recent Oxford Classical Text and obelized by Professor Zwierlein. I suggest that the original word in this part of the line was saeuum, a standing epithet of the sea. Written seuum, its initial syllable might have disappeared through haplography; that would have left uum to be transformed into something else. E came up with a word close to the ductus, nunc; the A-tradition added se either to mend the metre or perhaps to indicate (by superscription?) the omitted syllable. If saeuum is a plausible emendation, we might at least keep 545 as a piece of direct speech introduced by intonat, exactly as at Phaed. 1065 magnum intonat.

Damis is a character in, and his memoirs the putative source of, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Many scholars have doubted the existence of these memoirs, some the very existence of the man. Against the latter party Graham Anderson has advanced an ingenious argument, which attempts to prove that the Damis whose existence has been doubted is identical with a bearer of the same name to whom existence has hardly ever been ascribed. His evidence comprises: (1) Lucian's dialogue Zeus the Tragedian, in which a certain Damis appears as the Epicurean tormentor of the popular divinities; (2) a tale now extant in mediaeval Persian, in which a philosopher named Dini performs a similar function; (3) the testimony of Origen that Moiragenes numbered among the men seduced by Apollonius ‘the illustrious Euphrates and a certain Epicurean’ (Contra Celsum 6.41). Between these reports he detects the following parallels:

All surviving manuscripts of the Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre descend from the oldest, Parisinus Graecus 1962 (given the siglum R in Hobein's Teubner text of 1910). Where they diverge, they do so as a result either of error or of attempts at correction. The history of the conjectural emendation of the Dialexeis thus begins with the second oldest manuscript, Vaticanus Graecus 1390 (Hobein's U), which dates from the third quarter of the thirteenth century. Since that time, the most significant contributions have come from two scholars, one of the fifteenth century and one of the eighteenth: Zanobi Acciaiuoli, librarian at the monastery of San Marco in Florence, many of whose corrections found their way anonymously into the editio princeps of 1557 via the manuscript used by Stephanus; and Jeremiah Markland, whose ideas are recorded as an appendix to the second, posthumous edition of John Davies's Maximus, published in 1740. J. J. Reiske's edition of 1774–5 and Friedrich Duebner's of 1840 (rev. 1877) also contain valuable material. But the field is by no means yet picked clean: witness most recently the useful articles of Professors Koniaris and Renehan. I offer the following gleanings of my own.

This is the only undisputed fragment of Nero's poetry which is longer than a single line. It is preserved for us by the scholiast on Lucan 3.261, who gives us the additional piece of information that it belongs to Nero's ‘first book’. It is overwhelmingly likely that this refers to the first book of Nero‘s epic Troica, his most famous work and the only one, as far as we know, to have been comprised of several books.1 Since the fragment is the most significant surviving, but this attribution to the Troica cannot be quite certain, Morel and Büchner list it as fragment 1 with the simple heading ‘E libro primo’ and scrupulously keep it entirely separate from Servius’ two testimonia (frr. 9 and 10) on the content of the poem. This entirely sensible procedure, however, may trap the unwary reader into assuming that not a word of Nero's epic actually survives.

‘Phoceus’is ambiguous. It could mean ‘Phocian, of Phocis’, and thus ‘Massilian’. Massilia was founded by refugees from Phocaea; but Latin writers sometimes put instead Phocis, a name which Lucan also used for Massilia. Alternatively it could be a proper name appropriate to a Massilian. It is difficult to decide between the two readings: while no other participant is mentioned simply as a Roman or a Greek, some do appear unnamed. I prefer to see ‘Phoceus’as the swimmer's name. It seems attractive to divide off the four lines describing his life in peacetime (697–700) from ‘pugna fuit unus in ilia’ in 696; and this cannot be done if we must take ‘unus’ with ‘Phoceus’. Secondly, it seems strange of Lucan to give the swimmer four lines of description and Homeric pathos, and then not give him a name.

Claudian's carm. min. 50 which is addressed ‘In Jacobum Magistrum Equitum’ has recently been the subject of a detailed study by J. Vanderspoel. In it he reviews what little we know about the career of Jacobus using as his second source in this matter the letter of Vigilius, bishop of Tridentum, to John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, the heading of which reports that the relics of the martyrs Sisinnius, Alexander and Martyrius reached Constantinople ‘per Jacobum virum illustrem’. Whilst I am willing to accept the argument that the relics must have been delivered by about A.D. 400, if not earlier, and that Jacobus received the office of magister equitum subsequent to this, I have some misgivings about the treatment afforded the earlier career of Jacobus, and it is to this matter which I wish to draw attention here.

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the time appointed for the arrival of Lucian's leviathan was intended to bring to the reader's mind Nearchus' account of an alarming encounter with a school of whales in the course of his famous voyage from the Indus to the Persian Gulf (Arrian, Ind. 30.1−3 = FGrHist 133 F 1 (c. 30)):