^{page 438 note 1} I do not propose to enumerate all the scholars who have expressed view on the problems over the centuries. Useful summaries can be found in Henninius, H., D. Junii juvenalis satyrae (Utercht, 1685)Google Scholar(especially valuable for scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and for scholiasts); Friedländer, L., D.Junii juvenalis saturarum libri v (Leipzig, 1895);Google ScholarDuff, J., D. Junii juvenalis saturae xiv (cambridge, 1914).Google Scholar

^{page 438 note 2} Scholiast: ‘quem si laeseris, vivus ardebis, quemadmodum in munere Neronis vivi arserunt’.

^{page 438 note 3} For the curious notion that sulcum refers to light see Owen, S.G, CR 11 (1897) 400–1.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 1} I mosaici di Zliten (Rome, milan, 1926), pp.180–4. The mosaics are also depicted in gr´co-romaine (Paris, 1963), p.155, fig.19, which also contains a disussion of their date (pp.147–54)Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 2} I am not aware of any literary references to the ‘carelli’. Tertullian, Apol. 50.3, says: ‘tali curru triuphmus’, but his intention is almost certainly figurative.

^{page 439 note 3} In line 155 the manuscripts are divided between lucebis and lucebit; while the different readings affect the over interpretation of the passage, it make no difference to my argument about taeda/raeda, which ever is adopted.